Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Has everybody had an opportunity to review the March 17th, 2020? Oh, we have a motion to adopt the agenda. I'll make a motion. I'll second. All in favor say I. I. Any post? Hearing? None. The motion carries. All right. Next, we have review and approval of the March 17th, 2026 meeting minutes. Body had an opportunity to review the minutes. Yes. I'll make the motion. Second.

All right. Approval of the March 17th minutes. All in favor say I.

Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion carries. Next, we have a public hearing for a zoning map amendment request by Roser Avenue Development LLC to reszone a threeacre portion of tax map number 41-3-112 located at zero Ludowit Boulevard from RG5 general residential to HB highway business and a conditional use permit to request for conditional use permit request to allow for multif family residential in the highway business HB district at 0 Boulevard tax number 41-3-12 portion by Rosser Avenue development LLC owner and at 720 Luduit Boulevard, tax map number 41-3-115 by Thomas Builders of Virginia, agent for Dit Place LLC owner. With that, I will turn it over to staff.

Yes. So, diving right in. This project area is located off of Ludowit Boulevard, right at the intersection of um Bryant Drive and Ludowit, and then it stretches back towards the new Ridgeline Drive that comes in right here. uh sort of landmarks surrounding the project area. You have Lowe's and the Pratt Run subdivision off to the west. Um Secure Store Creekwood Village to the north and and east. Walmart to the east and then the commercial development off of Lucy Lane to the south along with that future location of Tiger Wash which is under construction currently. And then here's a quick look uh from Google Street View of um the project area from Ludowit Boulevard. The top photo there is uh from the intersection of Bryant Drive and Ludawit. So the project area would be behind these trees or around these trees right here and that new Tiger Wash adjacent. And then the bottom photo is a view of the project area from Ludowit and Ridgeline Drive where Ridgeline will connect in. So project area will be back in here. So, this is a two-part application. Um, the first part of it would be a reszoning request to reszone a 3acre portion of tax mount number 41-3-112 from RG5, which is our general residential to HB, which is our highway business zoning. And this actually would revert this portion of the parcel back to its initial zoning highway business which it was prior to the reszoning of the Creekwood Village property back in 2020. Um so take give you an idea of what this area would look like. This is a zoning map of the area. This is Creekwood right here. It's RG5 surrounded by the HB with the RG5 Przun RS12 uh to the west. Um, so this is the overall project area

and this would be it's an approximately three acre portion that would be reszoned to highway business once combined with the tax map number 41-3-115 would um make a total project area about 11.6 acres. And then the second part of this request is for a conditional use permit for multif family residential in the HB district. Uh this request is for tax number 41-3-115 and then also that 3acre portion of 112. Uh the applicants have proposed 232 apartments across four buildings along with the clubhouse on this property and multif family residential is permitted in the HB district by CUP. So this is the concept plan uh that was submitted by the applicant and undergone staff review. You can see uh this is the intersection of Bryant Drive and Ludowit Ridgeline up here. The project has two access points, one off of Ridgeline and then the other through an extension of Bryant Drive. Um there are four apartment buildings, 364 unit and then 140 unit per the concept. Uh then also that clubhouse and then this is a conceptual rendering of a 42 unit building uh that the applicants provided that they intend to site on the property. And this is a look at that 64 unit building conceptual rendering. And then moving on to the comprehensive plan. This pro this um project area is designated commercial retail um per the comprehensive plan and our comp plan um does note that it encourages denser residential development in areas um where there's um

intense activity such as the I64 and Roser Avenue corridor. And then moving on to the zoning section 98-2.6.4 guides the residential area and dimensional standards in non-residential districts which this which this would be and it has two criteria for um multif family developments within uh non-residential districts. The first is that the parcel is larger than 20,000 square feet and then the second is that any other area in dimensional standards be set through the cup process. So the project area is approximately 11.6 6 acres which meets the uh definitely meets the 20,000 ft threshold. And then as far as area and dimensional standards, staff is recommending three conditions in this regard. The first is that the project be developed in general conformance with that conceptual layout that I just showed you and we'll flip to again here in a moment. The second is that the project density be capped at that 232 units total. And if you do the calculations against 11.6 6 acres. That does equal out to about 20 units per acre, which is what is permitted under the RMF, our residential multif family zoning. And then finally, that the buildings be limited to a height of 60 ft. Um, this is what I think the height was approximately 57 feet shown on the conceptual rendering of the tallest building. And so this would cap that at 60 feet. And then here again is that concept. You have the 464 unit buildings and then here's that 40-unit building right there. Moving into um some analysis here because uh this is a request to do residential on a on a commercial parcel. Staff did consult with the city's economic development department. Um and they did say that there are some limitations from a conver commercial

development standpoint for this particular parcel. Um one of those is its distance from I64. The other is its limited frontage on Ludowit and then also limited access points. Um this would all may not make it as marketable for commercial development as some other uses. Um they noted that it could possibly be marketed as a hotel site. um but then said that there are two other hotel sites closer to 64 that would be better fits for such a project and then also could be used for um potentially daycare storage units or other outdoor entertainment type uses. Um and because of this this particular parcel being a little bit more difficult perhaps to attract commercial uses to they they would consider residential not out of place here. um especially considering the proximity of Creekwood Village and then also Pratz Run. As far as impacts to adjacent properties, this particular project is mostly surrounded by commercial uses. Uh the exception that is the Creekwood Village subdivision to its north and uh west. Um and staff doesn't anticipate there being much adverse impact on these neighboring uses. Um however the neighboring uses could have an inverse impact on this particular project that being because most it's mostly surrounded by those commercial uses and nuisances from those. Um, and because of that, staff is recommending a condition requiring a class C landscaping buffer around all of the project area boundaries on all four sides. Um, with an emphasis on keeping as much existing mature vegetation as possible. And where that existing vegetation is removed or is not there to begin with, then a class C buffer be provided. Um, a class C buffer per the zoning ordinance is a minimum width of 20 feet. And it requires an evergreen tree, one canopy tree, an understory tree, and then 12 shrubs per 100 every 100 linear feet. The ordinance also calls for a wall

fence or burm, but staff is not recommending this requirement unless it's determined to be necessary in certain locations due to site uh specific uh issues. Moving on to transportation, the project is proposing two access points, that intersection of Bryant Drive and Ludowit, which is a light control intersection, and then also Ridgeline Drive near Ludowit. Um, this meets the fire code requirements for multif family developments. If you have more than 200 units, you're required to have two points of access. staff did ask that a traffic analysis be completed and that would it we asked that that examine the storage length of the existing turn lanes. Uh they're all in place currently and so we wanted the analysis done to make sure that they would um meet the criteria for the expected traffic flow from the development and in this case the study did determine that to be the case. The existing storage lanes at the on the term lanes is adequate. The next thing we asked them to take a look at is what signal timing updates need to be done for the traffic light at Bryant Drive and Ludowit uh to account for the extra traffic once that was in. And there are some signal modifications that will need to be made um to that light to account for that traffic. And then finally, the evaluation of pedestrian crossings at that Ludowit and Bryant Drive intersection. A crosswalk was warranted across Bryant Drive at that location, but not across Ludowit. The primary reason for that being there is no sidewalk or other receiving infrastructure on the low side of Ludowit. Um, and therefore pedestrian crossing was not recommended. Um, and staff and VOTE concurred with those recommendations. And here's a quick look of that concept plan overlaid with an aerial. You can see the access points off a Ridg Ridgeline Drive right here and then the

light intersection right here with the access off. And you can see there's no receiving infrastructure. The applicants would be required to install sidewalk along the frontage of Ludowit. However, um and then also there's interior sidewalks that would connect out to those exterior sidewalks off Bryant Drive. Ridgeline will have a multi-use path running down it and the sidewalk will connect into that multi-use path. As far as infrastructure goes, public water is available at the at the property's location. However, public sewer um is not as easily accessible. Uh to deal with this problem, the applicants have proposed a private pump station to serve this development specifically that would then hook into the public sewer system. However, staff believes that the project would be more reliably served by gravity sewer and that is because this is a project for dense multif family development rather than a commercial use of some kind which would have less sewer demand than a multif family use. Um staff has discussed the possibility of extending gravity sewer across Ludowit from where it terminates near the Prattz Run subdivision and they are looking into that feasibility um of doing that. However, staff has proposed a condition that gravity sewer be required unless staff determines during site plan review that it's not feasible for maintenance or other uh reasons. And then finally, as far as schools are concerned, this project is located within the Westwood Hills District. Um, and after correspondence with the superintendent of the Waysboro Public Schools, Dr. Castle, they have no concerns regarding school capacity at this time. Um, these numbers are from the enrollment numbers at the end of last September. Uh, new numbers will be coming out at the end of this month, but they weren't available yet, but Dr. Castle said he doesn't anticipate much change between what's shown here and what will become out at the end of the month. Um, but as you can see, the

Westwood Hills Elementary has 400 students as of September 30th, which is below the preferred class size of 504. Uh there's also uh room at Kate Collins Middle School and Waysboro High School with 614 students enrolled at Kate Collins and then 899 enrolled at the Wesboro High School as of September 30th last year. To sum up, um this multif family residential is permitted in the HP district by ICU. Uh reszoning the 3acre portion of tax number 41-3-112 from that RG52HP would allow it to be included in the CUP application. Uh staff notes that the rental market in the city does remain tight. Um and add new adding new units will help with this uh to a certain degree. Uh the regional housing study that was done a couple years ago said that Wesboro's vacancy rate was at 1.7% or 1.8% excuse me. Um and a healthy market is usually between 2 and 7%. And so the study uh said that basically we were keeping up with demand, but adding more units would would help uh give renters more options. Um the project area uh could be difficult to market exclusively for commercial use uh due to its sight specific um issues, but then a mixed use or residential development are reasonable alternative uses for this particular property. Uh and then extending gravity sewer would open opportunities for future development along Luduit. It would serve this property, this project, but then also make it available for other uh potential development to connect in. And then finally, the recommended conditions addressing the zoning ordinance requirements, staff concerns, specifically that gravity sewer. Um and then also compatibility with the area, that landscape buffer, excuse me. And so finally, staff is recommending approval of the resoning request. Um, it does comply with the comprehensive plans land use map and it

would revert this portion of the parcel back to its initial zoning pre-quickwood village. Staff is also recommending approval of the conditional use permit for multif family residential in the HB district along with those five proposed conditions and these are them in their full text. Um but the first one is that the development be developed in conformance with that concept plan that I have shown. The second is that the number of residential units be capped at that 232 unit number. The third is that that class C buffer be provided per the city code along all the project's boundaries with an emphasis on keeping existing mature vegetation. And then the gravity sewer be required to serve the development. However, if it's determined not to be feasible or prevents presents service, maintenance or other issues, then other options can be looked into regarding the sewer provisions. And then finally, the building's not exceeding that height limit of 60 ft. And with that, that is all I have for you this evening. The applicants are here to answer any questions you have, and I can answer any questions you have as well. when it relates to the sewer. Uh how closely has public works been involved in and that

they have been uh having most of the conversations with the applicants regarding it. So they've been very involved.

So So public works has expressed that you know at this stage there obviously isn't like the detailed engineering work of exactly how that um gravity sewer would be extended. Um so it is my understanding that public works obviously for reliability of the system would like gravity sewer to serve it but if for some reason during that engineering um it was determined that it was not in the best interest of the public system to have it that that other options could be looked into but public works has not identified at any point during their review they have not brought up any kind of capacity issue

and at that point once sewer is laid and then connected to public sewer the city would then be responsible for the sewage system. Yes. On that property. So my concern is that if it is gravity fed or even if they determine that it's not able to be gravity fed, if there's going to be a sufficient amount of resources there to properly pump through public sewer and not cause backups there and then have spillage on Ludowette.

Yeah. So I mean the condition is written in such a way that it's up to the city to determine. So we are saying it shall be served by gravity sewer, right? Um and then if during the engineering there's some reason why those that um are in public works and determine that they there's reasons why the city does not want that public system, then that would be solely within the city to determine. which but the way the condition is structured now they would be required to um have gravity sewer and then at that point if there are upgrades that are needed we would then still be responsible for the maintenance of that.

So no it's you know all any upgrades necessary are on the responsibility of the developer. No I mean like the maintenance of it once it becomes our s part of our sewer system. Yes. It's part of the public system right at that point like all all other developments right where are the points of connection currently for that sewer

I know it's across the road um I don't know of the exact um locations and so um you know just to kind of remind um everyone at this stage um this is kind of looking at the resoning and the conditional use permit if approved the developer has to submit a site plan that gets reviewed. Also, that goes into all of those engineering details of where that sewer is, how it would be extended, if any upgrades are necessary. So, there's a lot more detailed engineering work still to come. And that happens kind of once you get past a resoning or a conditional use permit, then it gives the developer that ability to submit those additional plans to the city for significant back and forth and review.

Yeah, I was just curious why they're wanting to bore underneath the Ludit to connect to sewer when you got Walmart, Goodwill, the bank, the other development there, why they're going away from them. And those are likely some questions you could ask the developer.

All right. Do we have any other questions for staff there? So if if you do reszone this if we do reszone this to highway business to meet the conformity of the other lot it still needs at that point then the cup in order to have it residential. Correct.

Yes. Okay. Correct me if I'm wrong, Alisand, but so this is the conditional use permit is needed to do an exclusively residential project. If the developer was to come in and do ground floor business and apartments above, that can be done by right in our ordinance and not require public hearing and and additional approvals. So that just to keep that in mind that there is the ability to have a groundf flooror business development and apartments above in highway business zoning which would be more like mixed use. Yes. Okay.

All right. Other questions for staff. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Um I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing and then we'll hear from the applicant. So, I'm going to open the public hearing for a zoning map amendment request and CUP as set forth in the agenda. The public hearing is now open. Um, is the applicant present and would they like to speak? Uh, good evening, planning commission members. Uh, my name is Bill Moore. I'm with Westwood Professional Services, formerly Ballser. Uh, we provide the engineering consultation for our client. Um, with me is uh Garrett, representative of the developer. Um, just want to thank staff for everything that we've worked through over those past several months. I think they did a really outstanding job on this uh packet that's before you. Um, so I'm just here have here to answer any technical questions you might have.

My only question is why you why are they boring under LWIT to connect the sewer when Sure. you got a abundance of sewer on the other side. Yeah. So with the topography on our on our site, everything drains towards the uh plan plan north. Okay. And there's a low uh where you see the storm water management. Yeah. The nearest sewer is right at the end of where Brian Drive exists today. Okay. But it's a good bit elevated from our site. So there's a topographic challenge there. Our first,

you know, idea was let's put in a private pump station that we maintain. um and pump up to that public ser that's actually doesn't have any services on now was put in and never used. Um and it just connects right down through between the two commercial lots here. Um whenever we talked to Tony and and staff, they said, you know, hey, it'd be a real shame if we didn't at least explore other ideas to try to provide gravity for the region. Yeah, there is sewer back up on uh in this in the at the end of the Price Run subdivision, but it's going to be pretty circuitous and have to get probably a bunch of private easements that we might have to work on. But we didn't want to we didn't want to just, you know, globally say we're going to pump it if there might be an option once we get into the details.

As Leslie mentioned, we had a lot more work to do, but this is step one. There's no point going and doing all that work until we know that we actually have rights to do it. So it'll be the next big step. Yeah. Because I wondering either going north to the right or north to the left down Ludit would be a simpler and more coste effective route for that sewer. We're in a bit of a bowl right there in Ludwit. Yeah, there's a low. It's in a low right there. Yeah.

Any other questions? I'm I'm happy to answer. Is there any were there any thoughts originally of making it like a mixeduse development? No, I'll let uh I'll let Garrett speak to his his project and what what his intents are, but uh wasn't on our radar for for this project. So, I should save my questions about the units for him. Is that what you're saying?

Absolutely. Yes, sir. He'll be he'll be happy to answer anything about the about the unit. Thank you. I'll introduce Garrett, please. Thank you guys. My name is Garrett Zechman with uh Thomas Builders and I appreciate the opportunity to present this project. Appreciate staff and their work. We gone back and forth a bunch. Um really have actually grown this project. We originally started out with a smaller parcel and made a little bigger after uh conversation with Creekwood and I think it was all all really come together well. I won't bore you too much in details project. I think staff did a great job presenting it and going through that. I just want to tell you a little bit about us to give you some unit information. Like she said, this is 232 uh apartment unit complex with mix of one, twos, and threes. Um I don't know if you guys know too much about us. We are we did do the project down in Town Center. Uh the apartments right there. We're uh a long-term stakeholder in this project. So we don't just come in and reszone it and turn around and sell it. We reszone it, we develop it, and then we hold on to it and lease it. And we don't all we don't turn around and sell it even five years, 10 years later. We keep it. Um and so we take a lot of pride in these projects and what they look like and really the final thing on them. Uh we don't use any cheap material. We use a lot of stone hardy. Uh you won't ever see vinyl products on any of our buildings. Um and I just it's a thing that sets us apart. Um like I said, the town center project's very similar. The buildings are a little bit different. The unit unit layout's very similar to this. We are looking for a few more ones and twos and less threes. We're seeing a market shift really towards that, especially after COVID. People don't want to live with somebody else. They really want to be on their own. Um, I really believe this project is a natural extension of the town center. We have seen leasing just go like through the roof before we even open a building. It's usually pre-leased at uh it's a little over 50%. Actually, I just pulled the numbers before I came up here today. the we have three

buildings open. Out of all five buildings, it's over 60% leased as a project, which is actually impressively well when all the buildings aren't even open yet. We've been very blessed by that and that's one of the reasons we came forward with this project. We see the need. As staff mentioned, there is an extremely tight vacancy rate below 2%. We think this is something that will really help uh loosen the market up a little bit and you know I think a lot of people will be excited about it. Um thanks again. That's really all I had. If you have any questions for me, happy to answer. What's the square footage that you're shooting for with I know you said one, two, and three.

So uh the actually I have a unit count here. So one of the 64 unit buildings is around 60,000 square feet. The 64s are made up of only ones and twos. The 40unit building has a few has eight three bedrooms in it. So total counts 111 ones, 113 twos, and eight three bedrooms. And the how many square feet are the individual units? Sorry. Individual unit. They um I don't think we have one lower than it's like 970 square feet for one bed. There's a few different um and then the three beds go up to I think 12,200 square feet. So I don't have that exact info. That's roughly what they are. Thank you. Anybody else have questions? What's the price point?

Price point, it would be market rate apartment. It's very similar to what the town center is. Um, and again, it's just market rate class A housing. So, you're marketing these as a apartments, not condominiums for a sale. Yes, sir. Okay. Yep. What is market rate? uh market rate is going two uh three bedrooms going around $2,000 a month and that's usually and it fluctuates down there for uh two and one just a little bit below it. Will there be any elevators in the

Yes, sir. these are elevator served um conditioned corridors. Then they have a uh we usually put a fob system in so security to get into the building kind of very similar to like a hotel way we describe on building on hotels I'm assuming assigned parking or we usually do so we do a parking decal we don't necessarily do parking yeah and in one of the renderings I thought I saw a swimming pool but I ain't seeing one on here.

Yeah that's something we'll work more into. It's It's kind of rough on the grade there, but we uh we'd like to eventually maybe work towards something like that or we'll just open a storm water pond up. Yeah. Now, this isn't going to be gated, is it? No, sir. Okay. Cuz usually when people start talking about club houses and all that, it's usually locked down to that specific. So, the clubhouse is locked down to a specific community. Oh, and that's through the FOB system. Okay. Yeah. fob or a code or call box, anything like that. Other questions? No.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Do we have folks signed up to speak? We do. Um the first person signed up is Edie Ecman. How many folks do we have signed up to speak? Four. Okay. We are going to use the little light system. So when the light get turns yellow, you have 30 seconds. 30 seconds. Okay. And we'll give you How long are we? It's four minutes. Four minutes. Yeah. Okay. Be that long. Hi. Can you just give us your address, please?

Yes. I'm Edie Aman. I live at 229 Morgan Court in the Prattz Run subdivision. And in general, I think this is a great idea. I'm actually kind of excited about it, but I do have some concerns around traffic, excuse me, and pedestrian safety. Um, it's already difficult, if not impossible, to cross Ludowit as a pedestrian going in e either direction. People do it anyway, but I can't walk safely to Walmart from my house because I can't cross at that intersection that we're talking about. In the past six months, traffic through there has increased. We've seen a lot of people running red lights. And I've also seen people using the left turn lane that's on Bryant that's supposed to allow you to turn onto Ludowit from Bryant. People have been using it trying to turn into Lowe's. So they're actually crossing the double yellow lines and waiting to turn into Lowe's. So there's some real traffic problems already. When you add 232 units and what 400 people, that's a lot more traffic. And I want to make sure that we are addressing those needs and hopefully understand the problem with not having a sidewalk or receiving sidewalk in terms of a crosswalk across Ludawit. But I think if we want Wesburg to be a pedestrianfriendly city, we need to think about these and try to address them as they come up and not, you know, down the road, oh gosh, we should have really addressed this sooner. So, I understand the problem with VOTE and saying that's not a good idea to put a crosswalk there, but I would like us to think about how we can make this more pedestrian friendly. Thank you.

Thank you. Who's next? The next person we have signed up is Todd Patrick.

Good evening.

Todd Patrick, 109 Jasper. I'm going to follow up with Edy real quickly on the pedestrian crossing. I do believe that that's an important aspect of it as well. I know in the report it said that it was not required because there's not a receiving sidewalk on the west side. However, I'm pretty sure there's some existing rightway that's undeveloped over there. So, I do believe that there could be some type of receiving corner put in either on either side or on both sides. uh that would have to be a cost I think of the city uh since the developer doesn't have you know any rights to put anything in over there but that's up to you uh but I do think that it would be feasible uh I do think there is undeveloped right away over on that side the other issues that I would bring up first I want to thank the uh planning staff for the revision I thought it was done very well and the reason I say that is because when we get the revision sent out I was afraid I was going to have to read through the whole thing and there was red as far as showing what the changes were. That's wonderful. I really appreciate that. I already read through the whole thing the first time. I didn't have to do it a second time. So, thank you very much for doing that. The couple things that I have to concern um there's a 20 foot buffer that's being asked to be retained um or improved if there's the existing vegetation has to be removed. I don't believe that the developer has been asked to look at what in the construction process would have to be removed. Uh there is a rather um not severe but a decline on the lands on the land area on the uh right up next to Luda Wit. Uh there's going to have to be some fill probably put in there. Uh I think uh if the developer would be asked to what in reality is going to be able to be left there as a result of construction activities that would be helpful also and I know this wasn't asked of the developer but if uh some type of rendering as far as what those

buildings would look like from Ludowit I think that would be helpful. We see what the buildings themselves are. They look fine. I've seen what they have out at the town center. Uh, and I agree with Edie that I think the project as a whole is probably a good idea. Okay. Um, but that rendering would be kind of nice and I don't think they were ever asked to provide that. One thing also is the transportation issue. Um, there wasn't anything that I was told that was being asked. What type of traffic flow would there be on Ridgeline? Uh, that is going to obviously be, you know, some type of traffic uh concern. Uh I think the primary is going to be coming out Bryant as far as for communion and things like that. Uh but how much is going to be over on that ridge line? Uh is it going to be going to the west on the Ludawit or is it going to be going up through the Creekwood subdivision towards Martins and that type of stuff along with that concern as well as schools? Now I know the school system said there's not going to be any capacity problems. Where's the school bus going to go? I would hope it wouldn't be stopping on Ludawit with all the traffic there. Would it be going on Ridgeline? but that hasn't been really addressed and the study didn't have any analysis done at all as far as traffic count or anything like that for Ridgeline. So, I think that's kind of an omission that should have been included as well. Uh let's see what else. Probably the biggest concern that we have I think has been raised by the commission here as well is the sewer connection. Uh the gravity system personally makes sense. Uh, I think, you know, a pump system is something that fails. You know, gravity is a lot better in that regard, but where's it going to hook up? We don't have a good rendering of that and we don't know what the capacity is going to be because that never was put into the package. I know my time's, you know, expiring at this point, so I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, the next person we have signed up is Jeff McDonald.

Good evening. Um, thank you very much for uh giving me some time and um, thank you to the staff um, for their great presentation and um, thank you to the applicant. Um, I really appreciate the steps they're taking to um, you know, assist in improving the rental market in Wesboro. I'm a resident um, of the Creekwood Development. I live at 212 Sunbird Drive or Sunbird Lane rather. Um, and this is my first foray into Waysboro City Government, so please cut me some slack if I'm in the wrong place with these uh, questions. Um, but in noting the the staff's presentation, um, and picking up on some of the prior public comments, um, the traffic study, the traffic study didn't seem to review the impact of the proposal on Ridgeline Drive traffic and the impact on through traffic through there. Um, that's already a pretty narrow road and um, currently it's it's kind of parked in. Um, and I know the city isn't maintaining that road yet, but during the winter it got snowed in and locked in. Um it would have been real challenging for a trash truck, let alone a fire truck, um to have gotten up that road uh during the winter. And I'm sure once the city takes possession of that, that'll all get cleared up. Um but something about the the parking situation on Ridgeline is going to have to be addressed, I think, in the Creekwood development um in order for this to work because it's going to be carrying a large flow of traffic even without this proposal. um and putting an additional 232 units in could um really seriously impact the through traffic on Ridgeline. And there's very little egress out. Um the egress out from um going to the east on Ridgeline is really out Tiffany and out to um the traffic light at the uh Martins. Um and that's the only egress going east. There's no other egress that's going to be out. So it could end up being a stacked up road. Um, and I was I was hoping the staff would have evaluated that in the traffic study. I was a little disappointed to see um that it wasn't. Um, obviously this is also a long-term development. So, I'm sure that we're all hoping that Ridgeline Drive will be handed over to the city um long before this project is

completed. Um, but I was surprised to see that that was not also a condition of um staff's approval of the proposal. Um, right now that road is not handed over and you know there's still some significant work that needs to be done in the Creekwood development. Um, I understand before that can happen. Um, but thank you for uh your time and I appreciate you listening to my concerns. Thank you. Um, the next person we have signed up is Matt Johnson.

Good evening, Chair Flory, members of the planning commission. Uh, I just want to start off by echoing a lot of the comments that have been made regarding staff's um approach to things. I've been extremely impressed by staff's repon responsiveness through all that. So, I wanted to just make sure to thank them personally. Uh, my name is Matt Johnson. I reside at 240 Ridgeline Drive in Creekwood Village, which is just to the east and up the hill from the proposed Bryant Drive Apartments development. Um, I would agree that some form of medium density residential development is probably the highest and best use for this site. Uh, however, I do have concerns with aspects of this particular proposal, namely the appropriateness of its vertical massing and the traffic generated by the project. While the exterior appearance of the buildings will be different, uh the vertical massing of the four-story buildings in Bryant Drive Apartments appears to be almost identical to the four-story buildings currently constructed at Elevate Town Center. In terms of both serving as a gateway parcel to Creekwood Village and in comparison to many of the other buildings along this portion of Ludwit Boulevard, these buildings will appear more dominant and stand out rather than blending into the existing visual aesthetic of the corridor. To some extent, this appears to have been recognized as the 42 unit building is now being proposed as a three-story building versus the original four-story building that was shown on the concept plan. I would argue that extending the same three-story building design across the whole of the development would allow the vertical massing of the development to be more aligned with the Ludowit Boulevard commercial corridor and more closely match some of the three-story buildings currently located in Creekwood Village. With respect to traffic, the traffic study for Bryant Drive apartments performed by Westwood dated February 5th of this year appears to only examine the impact of traffics on the Bryant Drive signalized intersection without taking into consideration the project's impact on the entire surrounding traffic network including

the intersection of Ridgeline Drive and Lou Dwit Boulevard as well as the eastbound stretch of Ridgeline Drive to Tiffany Drive. This despite the fact that the graphic in appendix C1 of the study estimates that the majority 60% of the estimated,427 weekday trips would ingress and egress via Ridgeline Drive. Meaning approximately 856 vehicle trips would utilize Ridgeline Drive in some way. Within that 60% 40% of the total traffic from the site or about 570 vehicle trips per day would then travel onto Ludowit Boulevard while the other 20% approximately 285 vehicle trips would travel eastbound on Ridgeline Drive toward Tiffany Drive. This is particularly concerning as Ridgeline Drive was designed as a residential street, not a collector road. Yet, it has the very real potential to turn into just that, a collector a collector road. The June 1st, 2020 traffic impact analysis performed by Ramsey Kemp Associates for Carflow Farm, which is now the Creekwood Village development, already identified um a modeled level of service F for the intersection of Ridgeline Drive and Ludwip Boulevard during the PM Peak at full development of Creekwood Village. It estimated 58.2 2 seconds of delay per vehicle simply based upon the residential traffic and a 170.5 second delay taking into account additional commercial traffic in the same area you were reviewing this evening only uh in the Ramsey Kimp analysis the assumed use was a lower impact general office space generating only 611 weekday trips I realize there's a bunch of numbers to throw out um but in summary there's more likely to be a traffic um impact to the surrounding transportation network that has not been fully studied. Um, are there other improvements that need to be made? Um,

with a multifamily residential, while it makes sense for these parcels, I feel there's still too many questions, at least with respect to vertical massing and traffic impacts, for this body to make a fully informed decision this evening. I would respectfully ask that you consider tableabling this decision, allowing the developer an opportunity to provide more information upon which a fully informed decision can be made. Thank you. Thank you. That's um all we have signed up to speak. Okay. Do we have anybody who's not signed up who wishes to speak on this application?

All right. Uh with that, I'm going to close the public hearing as set forth in the agenda. The public hearing is now closed. I had additional questions for staff. When it comes to the the pedestrian and the the entrance and turning lanes, is the reason that a pedestrian lane or crosswalk isn't going in is because there's no receiving sidewalk?

Yeah. So um typically VOTE does not encourage um us to identify a crossing when there is no receiving infrastructure because essentially you're saying this is the the public crossing. This is the safe place to cross and then there is no receiving infrastructure. So that was the recommendation of the traffic analysis. VOTE reviewed it and that is their recommendation that because there is not the receiving infrastructure it not be constructed at this time. So go ahead. There's a chicken and an egg thing here that we've seen I think before

where you know historically we haven't required a lot of these parcels to build a lot of these developers like the commercial developer that built Lowe's for example for whatever reason it wasn't required at the time. Wasn't required at the time. Now, we do require every new development to do sidewalk along their frontage.

Yeah. And and so, and I don't mean to steal your thunder, Nigel, but I mean, I I understand that that because there's no receiving infrastructure, we're not going to recommend that the crosswalk be put there. But if the at some point the city or somebody says, "Okay, we're going to put receiving infrastructure." Then you're going to have a crosswalk there and we're not going to have any infrastructure to support. We're gonna have people that want across there because there will be receiving infrastructure and there will be a sidewalk on either side.

So at right at the time that sidewalk went in um you know the city city staff is always looking for grant opportunities for pedestrian crossings. So VOTE has a program called highway safety improvement program. It's lowerc cost projects that you can apply for. So, we have applied for that in the last three rounds that have been open and we have specifically gone around and found those areas where hey, we have infrastructure on either side and we we need a pedestrian crossing um and have been successful in getting several of those funded. So, yes, it would be something like at the time that that infrastructure goes in that we would be looking to to make a grant application and include that. So, but I guess my question is as a condition of the CUP, could we recommend that there be a crosswalk installed there even though there would be no receiving infrastructure at this point in the hopes that the receiving infrastructure might get built on a grant built on a grant basis?

So, my you know, I would have to ask VOTE more specifically. I mean certainly anything can be a condition but I'm not a traffic professional and so we often look to the traffic professionals to say this is the safe way to handle this and this is not um and so you know before I recommended including that as some type of condition I would want to specifically be clear with VOTE is this us going against your design manual and and then you know that's typically not something the city does.

Yeah. So I just given the choice between I mean no offense to the applicant but given the choice between making the applicant pay for it or having VOTE fund it through a grant given the timing of the grant potential timing of the grant process and I mean it's it's our tax dollars or they can pay I mean even VOTE it's our tax dollars um it's not our local tax dollars at that point but that's my that's the reason so maybe the if it could maybe the potentially it could be done in the conditional, right? In the event that VOTE thinks it's the right thing to do, there'd be a sharper way to say it than that, of course, but in the event that VOTE thinks it's the right thing to do, the applicant shall provide the infrastructure.

Yeah, you all could tonight if you wanted to make a determination this evening. You could always recommend approval of the application with kind of the separate recommendation that staff continues to work with VOTE and make sure council is aware of kind of yeah what VOTE's thoughts are on it and why they would or would not recommend it. My question would be even if you put a receiving thing on the other side of Bryant, I'm in a wheelchair. I cross the street there. Where am I going after I get there? So that is am I going back towards Zeus or am I going towards Lowe's and who's going to build a sidewalk from point A to point B?

Well, but this is the this is the problem with this analysis though is because we've been through this before is we have peacemeal sidewalks that are getting built all over the city as as we make as the developers come back through. So, you know, Roser, I think in particular, just cuz I drive it every day, I think right now we're going to have peace mill sidewalk on the one side. When that development is complete, that's not going to connect across that parcel. No. But having peace meal, in my opinion, having the peace meal, if you start with the peace meal, eventually somebody's going to connect it all. But if we don't start requiring these things on a rolling basis

and we keep saying, "Well, the next guy will do it, the next guy will do it, the next guy will do it." What's going to have to happen eventually is the city's going to have to come out of pocket to put on put in all this infrastructure that we could have required to have done. And so that's that's what I'm sort of driving at here because yes, you're absolutely right, but the reality is if you got cross that that even regardless of where you're going, if you got across the intersection, even if you're going onto the grass after you cross it, it's a much safer intersection to cross when it's signalized as opposed to not. How far will the sidewalk extend from this development down to like uh Los Ponchos?

Because I know that they're going to have to put the sidewalk in front of the Tiger Car Wash. I don't remember if there's sidewalk down there or not. I think it's being dug, but I do have my Google map open. Yeah. I mean, Tiger Car Wash is putting in a missing section. Correct. would be all along this frontage. So, I think you'd have a full you'd have a full walk from Lost Ponchos all the way down to the storage area,

but that's on this side of the road. Well, the the point that I was trying to get at with that is that if there's another additional possible landing further down um if it were if it happened to stretch to the restaurant, you could possibly have a crosswalk there to then cuz that's at that location too is where you have all your food services. It might even be a more convenient place to cross. I'd have to check, but I do think the location you're talking about is one of the ones that we have already applied for grant funding for, right,

the Lucil Ludowit. I can confirm that, but I do think that was one that we applied for already because then that way you don't have to immediately cross at Brian and Ludit. go down and you still have access to at that point um Panera Waffle House Five Guys Jersey Mike and we did and city staff um did put in a smart scale application two years ago to put sidewalk on the opposite side so on the Pratt's run side of Lou Dit kind of all the way to 250

um it was not successful it did not get funed Um, so that would have created the receiving infrastructure on the other side. It it was not successful in that competitive statewide process. That process is open again. It's an every two-year process. And so VOTE encouraged us if we were hoping that it might be competitive to kind of scale that project back. And so our thought was to do at the recommendation of VOTE, US 250 to Shephard Court to kind of create a smaller section um because it is a cost to construction ratio and then certainly we could come back in with future applications um either through the transportation alternatives VOTE program which is an 80% grant 20% match or smart scale which is 100% grant funded. So, um, we had applied for sidewalk along that whole, um, opposite side of the road for Ludowit and were not successful in getting it grant funded. It just didn't score well within the metrics of Smart Scale. So could you do it to where like at K Collins where you have Evershshire and because there's only partial receiving infrastructure there cuz then you have the private um land where the farmer is. So there's no sidewalk there and then there's no sidewalk all the way up Holman. It just connects to the school's walking trail. Is there a way to create some type of at least landing infrastructure to where people can then safely at least cross and then disperse from there?

Uh I mean I could certainly ask the question if there's if if VOTE said you know the only way we would recommend it is if X was put in. So we can certainly pursue that in more detail to see what VOTE um you know if there was a way they would recommend the crossing because at least then it can initiate connection to be forced at that existing infrastructure if it is able to then go and I think then it's just you know kind of identifying what that infrastructure on the opposite side of the road is right of way and then kind of working through how that and when that could be accomplished. Right. But we could certainly pursue that question with VOTE.

Yeah. I like the recommendation Leslie made about being able to pass it with the additional recommendations about continuing to do some of the traffic studies. I think about my joyful personal experience coming out of Windy Grove and getting on to Lud Dit and Roser and to Ed's point when that light goes yellow you get three more people going through it and trying to avoid you know is there more studies to look at reducing the cluster that that seems to be uh where Wendy's and Exxon and all that hits at the same time we are applying for smart scale projects for that whole intersection but sure we don't have a similar cluster over there.

So I my then concern becomes if we're going to rely on V do which some of us have already agreed to how we there might not be full confidence there with what their assessment is as far as safe pedestrian safety being that we drive it every day. I I would then be hesitant to to pass it with that condition if they don't come back with the language that would suggest that some type of pedestrian safety could go in there.

Well, I Yeah. So, I think what staff is saying is is suggesting is that we add a condition directing staff can correct me when I screw this up because I'm sure I will. directing staff to seek further clarification with respect to why that crosswalk's not required and whether or not there might be a basis to construct a crosswalk and we would take all of that information to councils and your planning commission recommended approval but they wanted you all to really look into all this information and we could have a VOTE professional say you know this is why exactly why we don't recommend it

is there liability on the city who you know say this is the safe crossing for a wheelchair or otherwise and then there's a ramp or no ramp on the other end. So some of those things are things we could certainly get more clarification on prior to council.

Yeah. I I just I as I commented earlier I just struggle with the you know it's not there yet so we're not going to do this and then we build it and then now the city's on the either it doesn't get either the crossing doesn't get built or the city's on the hook for it. And I, you know, I'm not a traffic professional certainly. Um, but that's, you know, that's the frustration that I think we hear all the time about pedestrian stuff. Certainly, we hear feedback all the time about pedestrian accessibility. This is a great area for pedest to potentially enhance that. And so, I don't want to I guess what I'm saying is I don't want to miss an opportunity to potentially enhance pedestrian accessibility. I mean, I think it serves the it'll serve your tenants as as well as um everybody else. I I um the other comment I had I um about traffic the traffic on Ridgeline. So do you have any clarity about the traffic study and the I mean I is it correct that the analysis they did of the intersection of Ludowit and Ridgeline would have included the carrying capacity on RGLE line.

So I am not a traffic engineer or traffic professional. Um I will point out that the majority of this property is zoned business and business development is a higher traffic generator than residential. Um and so today any number of fast food gas station uses could go in there and create and and there would be no review other than during site plan review. Um so we did have the applicant do kind of a limited traffic analysis in consultation with what Tiger Car Wash did to kind of say okay we know Tiger Car Wash had to put some improvements in place. is this 232 unit apartment development going to mess up the you know are there additional things there? So I'm not as aware of exactly other than kind of general percentage splits for Ridgeline. Um that's another thing that obviously we could have um VOTE speak to they often you know we don't we have a city engineer but we don't have a traffic professional on staff. So, it is the practice of the city to have the traffic professionals at VOTE review the studies and say whether or not they support them and it's up to the city to make the determination, but we rely on VOTE for those decisions. Um, so I and they did review this traffic study. Um, and nothing came to to their concern, but certainly um, if it's another component that you would want us to kind of additionally look into, um, and and have VOTE speak to prior to to council, um, we can certainly do that.

And then my last question is, um, since it's currently zoned commercial, they just to address some of the comments about the scale of the buildings. Um, currently by right use would include a fourstory 60 foot max commercial building. I'm not I think our zoning ordinance might limit business development to 50 feet. We're going to check. I have a memory because we did this with Town Center Drive, right? That our a business might be limited to 50 feet and this would be 57 and so there would be a bit of a difference there.

50. Yes. So in highway business zoning the maximum height is 50 feet. So there could be a 50- foot building but not a 57 foot building. Um so that is a point but so we did this similar within town center drive. Um we had to kind of set that condition as part of the conditional use permit that it be no taller than 60.

Right. And one thing I think I would note about that is that at least eventually you're going to have canopy trees on all sides of this development. And so that'll help some with the scale. I mean, obviously not initially, but um anyways, just a few thoughts. We have other thoughts. We ready to have a motion?

U I'd like to make a couple comments. I'm not a big fan of the V dot traffic studies. Uh especially after, you know, I live on Sherwood Avenue and I have to cross Home and Parkway quite a bit. And I've mentioned this before, my head's got to be on a swivel getting out of there at times. and after their study and considering a the 400 plus unit for Smith Farms, they're saying, "I a light's not going to be necessary and everything will be okay." And I know not all 400 units are going to be emptying out in that intersection at Sherwood um and Rockfish Road, but still it's I mean it's bad now without any additional. So then we're talking about traffic issues here on this project and and I have other concerns as far as um you know just utilities and the schools. I somebody mentioned as far as when they do a school load capacity with these new developments that

they don't take into consideration of the developments that are in progress that have not been completed. Those are not included in the numbers. Am I am I wrong there?

I I don't think that there is any very scientific formula that can be developed to kind of figure out you know how many kids are going to exist in an apartment development as opposed to a single family residential development. What we are seeing trendwise is declining birth rates. So that's one factor that is is just happening and so that's affecting school capacity. I think COVID and some of the shifts to private school has affected that. So at this time the best thing we can do is reach out to the superintendent and identify and they work with us you know very closely in knowing where the new developments are and ask them you know do you have a c capacity concern in this area and so far the answer has been that they do not have capacity concerns.

Okay. Um well my thought on the whole thing instead of I mean it seems like there's a lot of questions on this at this point instead of and approving it and saying okay or prove it on the condition that that this happens which is a big if. How about if we just table to give more time just to to do more studying. Just throwing that out. You know me I'm never a fan of tableabling. I know. I know. when we can move something forward and and still do some of the due diligence within the time period. But if that can be done, I it can be done. I understand what you're saying.

And I mean, just to to be clear, um you know, your recommendation obviously helps council make their decision and determination. Um and so you know if they felt like at the time we came to them we didn't have enough clarity or information about the crosswalks um and about you know Ridgeline Drive capacity then you know certainly they have the ability to table it also and not to make your role any less important I'm just communicating that that can also be your recommendation and we want you to make sure you're looking at these items if that makes sense. Yeah, I think that would be the intention of the recommen and we could I would certainly be not that I've not that there is anything on the table yet. Um, but I would say I think our hope would be that if we suggest that staff work on these issues before it makes it to the to city council, then I think that's kind of us doing our job in terms of telling the city telling the city council these are the things we think you need to be paying attention to. I I um I tend to agree particularly given how some of the things that we have tabled have shaken out over the last six months or a year and we haven't seen a tremendous amount of significant change from the applicants which is not an indictment of any applicant but you know I think what we've what I've noticed is it seems like the most of the time those conversations that we want to have happen happen and then the thing goes to city and the issues get addressed before it goes to city council. I just an observation I don't know the net I I share your concerns about traffic and those sorts of things but the net potential I think the potential

net benefit of the additional units and moving faster on that has to be a factor as well. I mean, I just anecdotally, I mean, I I know several young professionals who don't live in work in Wesboro and don't live in Wesboro because the rental market is so tough.

And I think that's kind of a shame because those are people who live in the city, who work in the city, who are a part of our community. Um, anyways, just an anecdotal observation. So, I I tend to be more along the lines of Mr. P and feeling like, you know, let's go ahead and let's let's tell city council what we think they need to be paying attention to with respect to traffic, with respect to pedestrian access, and then uh with those two caveats, which we'll have to defer to staff to help us craft those two additional conditions. Um I would be in favor of going ahead and

Can I ask just one clarification? We we've we've gotten deep in the weeds on this pedestrian access. VOTE says it's not needed. We want to put put a condition on it. Are we putting the onus on the developer to put the crosswalk in in the infrastructure on the other side of the road that he don't even own? No. Yeah. No, I I took it as no.

We have asked the question of VOTE and they've said, you know, we would recommend no crosswalk because there's not receiving infrastructure. I I have taken the conversation so far and correct me if I'm wrong as to, you know, let's get some further clarification from VOTE on that. Is there is that just an absolute no from them or does their design manual allow some wiggle room there? And what does that look like? Um and and then if to Nigel's point, it is some kind of landing space, how do we kind of communicate that to council and decide how that how that happens? So, I didn't take it as any one particular thing, but more just

make sure council is fully aware of VOTE's thought process behind it. Why they discourage it? Is it a liability concern? You know what? Because they are the traffic professionals that we listen to in all other applications. Yeah, I mean I 100% agree that you know VOTE needs to come back and say this is why we did this and that. I also agree with Will that we get the peace meals in, but I'm I don't think we could should put a condition in there that holds this up because there ain't 15 painted white lines across that road.

And and if it makes sense to you all, I wasn't thinking that we might draft two more conditions. I was potentially thinking if um the planning commission was amanable to this that you could recommend approval with the five conditions, but then you could have a separate kind of recommendation that after review and hearing from the public. Some of the concerns were the pedestrian crossing and you know traffic on Ridgeline Drive and some questions about that and that you would like that kind of further addressed before council. and council can come up with new conditions at the time of their hearing. So if staff comes back and says, "Yeah, we, you know, after talking with VOTE back and forth,

they said, you know, it's not impossible. We could do a crossing there." Then certainly we would present that information to council. And if we got, I mean, we came up with the five conditions. So if that happened in between planning commission and council, we would recommend to council that that be added. So I wasn't thinking we needed to draft any conditions tonight. recommend it with the potentially recommend it with the conditions that we have and then just ask that staff further evaluate those two things prior to council to determine if two new conditions potentially or any other number would need to to be made. I see nodding. Yeah. I don't know how to put that into a motion.

So moved. Um so okay. So I think what we're going to do is we're going to I'm going to make a motion. Um, we're going to move to approve. Do they have to be made separately since they're two actions? We're going to make one motion to do two things.

Watch this, Nigel. We're going to move We're going to move to recommend that council re reszone a three portion acre from of tax map number 41-3-112 located at zero Luduit Boulevard from RG5 to HB and recommend the approval of a conditional use permit request to allow for multif family residential in the highway business district at zerudit boulevard tax map number 41-3-112 as set forth in our agenda. with the conditions set forth by staff here today and with the recommendation first that staff conduct further analysis of the uh feasibility of a pedestrian crosser crossing on Ludowit and further explanation provide further explanation to city council of the traffic impacts on Ridgeline Drive and the intersection of Roser. Uh, that's going to be my motion. Do we have a second?

I'll second. All right. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none. The motion motion carries. I oppose. Oh, okay. So, let's we can do we'll do a roll roll call real quick. Mr. Gibson, I. Mr. Clown. Nigel, you threw a kink into me here. I mean, because I was going to vote no on this, you know. I don't know. I'm Can I abstain? Sure. Mr. Fe. I. Mr. Flory. I Mr. Stewart. Nay. Miss Keller. I. All right. So, the motion carries four to one with one abstension. Excellent.

Yep. Thank you all. Was I talking slow enough? Did you catch I think we've got it and we've got it recorded. We can always go back. Thank you so much to the public for being here. We appreciate your participation in public hearings. We do have a public comment period now for items that are not on today's agenda if anyone would like to speak to that hearing none. Uh next on the agenda we have matters from staff.

Um so I just have two um quick items that I wanted to bring to your attention. Um the city is having um our our next open house for our comprehensive planning process on May 6th. That'll be um at the middle school and it is from 4 to 7 p.m. And it is openhouse style. Um, we are in a two-year process of updating our comprehensive plan, identifying land uses, identifying goals and strategies around transportation, around housing. So, all of these important questions, a lot of which were brought up this evening. So, we ask that the public come out. They're going to be responding to draft goals and then really starting to recommend strategies and actions to achieve those goals. So, that'll be May 6th. It is at the middle school and it is from 4 to 7 open house style. So you can come and just kind of interact with the boards at your leisure and we really encourage the public to come out. Um we have had two open houses already related to this plan. So we have um collected a list of about 400 contacts that have engaged with us um through that process giving their contact information. So, we sent um uh we'll be sending an email out to all of them to let them know about the open house. We have a radio spot uh on WNRN to try and get the word out. We are using all of our social media outlets to get the word out. But certainly, we encourage you all to tell your networks um and your friends and your neighbors that on May 6th they can come out and have their voices heard. Are there any questions about the openhouse events? Okay. And then the one other item that I wanted to bring up is that we are engaging in that comprehensive planning process with our consultant EPRPC. There are several me members of the planning commission that are on our advisory committee. And the advisory

committee which was appointed by city council has started in the very early stages to kind of work on the future land use map. And that's a really important piece for you all as the planning commission because that's what you use when these requests come up is does it meet what the future land use map identified for this area. And so our consultant has identified the need at this time to really get before the entire planning commission and kind of share some parts of that future land use map and get feedback. And it's often hard to do that on one of these nights when we already have kind of a long evening with the hearing. So, we're going to try and schedule a couple work sessions. Traditionally, those have been reserved for the first Tuesday of the month. So, we were thinking the first Tuesday in June would likely be that first one. Um, so we ask you all to kind of keep your calendars clear for that first Tuesday in June. And it would be there wouldn't be any public hearings scheduled. It's certainly open to the public, but that's when we would invite our consultant to come and um start working with you all on the future land use map. and there likely would be some other first Tuesdays we would need to set aside. Um, and we would keep you posted on those. So, those are the two items I have unless you all have any questions about any of those. Just another kind of um update for the public. Um, but also for all of you that haven't been as engaged with the comprehensive plan, we did have a survey that went out. Um, we got over, I think, a thousand responses when you combine the actual questionnaire survey and then the social pinpoint survey that identified different areas. Um, we have 12 stakeholder groups that cover all the different topics and we've had extensive meetings and interviews with all of those groups. Um, we did create a youth stakeholder group, which has been very exciting as part of this process to say, "Hey, we're asking all the adults what we want our community to look like in 20 years, but why don't we ask the

students?" So, we do have a youth stakeholder group. We even put together a specific youth survey that went out and collected 28 responses from students identifying, you know, what kind of land uses they want to see in the community, what they like, what they don't like. Um, so we we've um communicated to the community in a lot of different ways. There's still a lot of time for that as we're getting into more of the specifics of the plan. So, please come out on May 6th um and have your voices heard. That's all I have unless you all have any questions. All right. Do we have commissioner's correspondence on communication?

I just have one. I would like to thank the staff for the thoroughess of the package that they put together and the clarifications that Alisan did on the revisions. They were just like somebody else had stated. I'd read through the thing and was greatly appreciative that the revisions were in red. I second that. Great. Thank you, Alison. As always, our staff is keeping us You guys are terrific. Pointed in the right direction. So, we appreciate that. All right. With that, do we have a motion? I'll make a motion we adjourn. Second.

All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Hearing none. The motion carries. We are adjourned. Thank you so much, everyone. Thank you.