Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

for this the regular meeting Tuesday, November 18th, 2025 of the city of Wayne Planning Commission. Vice Chair, would you listen the pledge of allegiance? Absolutely. I pledge allegiance 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 a opportunity to review the agenda? Yes. Motion. I'll make a motion to accept. I'll second it. All right. All in favor of adopting the agenda say I.

I. Any opposed? Motion. Hearing none. Motion carries. Review and approval of the September 16th and October 21st, 2025 meeting minutes. I'll make a motion to approve. Second. All right. All in favor say I.

I. Any opposed? Hearing none. The motion carries. Next, we have a public hearing. Excuse me. A public hearing for an amendment. the city code chapter 98 zoning ordinance article 4.6.7 6.7 car washes changed the orientation requirements for service bay doors opening. I'm now going to open the public hearing and we'll turn the matter over to staff for presentation. Yes. Good evening. So this is a text zoning text amendment for section 98-4.6.7. The applicant has requested an amendment to this section addressing the orientation of car wash bay doors within the city's entrance corridors. The applicant is working with a potential car wash client for one of the remaining parcels of the ways marketplace site, which is is the reason this amendment came up. Um the current zoning ordinance requirements and the site limitations will not allow for the sighting of the car wash at the site presently um due to its uh it being right next to a residentially zoned parcel and then also within the Roser Avenue entrance corridor. So the current language in section 98-4.6.7 6.7 states that car washes shall be located in design so that vehicular circulation shall not conflict with traffic movements in adjacent streets, service drives, driveways, and/or parking areas. And the amendment focuses on the second sentence. All service bay doors openings shall face away from adjacent residential uses and from corridors designated in section 98-3.3.2.b. And this is the corridor overlay section of the ordinance that designates which corridors are in that overlay. The proposed language again only affects that second sentence states that all service bay doors openings shall face away from adjacent residential uses and away from corridors designated in

section 98-3.3.2B unless buffered from the corridor by another existing commercial development. So to give a little bit more background about this particular zoning text amendment, um the purpose of the original uh ordinance was to mitigate those visual impacts of bay doors on both the entrance corridors and then also those residential areas. Um, you might remember this came up earlier this year when the applicant amended um an application to amend the same section of the ordinance and that amendment was ultimately denied by city council due to its uh uh being determined to be too subjective. Um, I'll note that section 98-7.3.9 doesn't permit for substantially the same application within a year of the decision date. However, the city's legal council did determine that this application could move forward because it was not um similar uh to the prior submitt and therefore could proceed. Um, so again, here is that proposed language. And the idea behind this proposed language is that that existing commercial development would help block the views of the bay doors from those traveling the um entrance corridor to help mitigate the visual impacts. And to pro an example, I'm going to use the subject parcel at the Wayneboro Marketplace. Um, Roser Avenue is within the entrance corridor. the entrance or entrance corridor is stretched for 500 ft from that road center line out the subject parcel. The front half of it is located within in that entrance corridor and it's surrounded by the Texas Roadhouse and then also the sheets out in front of it between it and Roser Avenue.

So, this proposed ordinance would allow that bay door to face Roser Avenue if that if an existing commercial development is between it and the street within that entrance quarter. In this case, that would be the sheets. And to get an idea of what that might look like, this is some a couple images taken from Google Maps that haven't been updated to show that current Texas roadhouse, but approximately that car wash would be located right here where that entrance door would be. Um, so this is sort of at the entrance of Lucy Lane. This would be as you're passing directly in front of it. And this is as you're approaching that intersection with Lucy Lane. So, while the bay door would still be visible from the entrance corridor, depending on where you are, that that existing commercial development, in this case, the sheets would present um would help mitigate the impacts of that bay door due to its location in front of that car wash. So, this proposed amendment does rely solely on existing commercial developments to mitigate the visual impacts of car wash bay doors. Um, there are not any additional provisions for any enhanced screening that might further mitigate those impacts on the entrance corridors or the uh adjacent residential areas. However, it's also likely that there's a limited number of commercial parcels where this proposed amendment would apply and staff does recognize that commercial developments in front of a car wash with bay doors facing the corridor would lessen the visual impacts because of that building being in front of them as you can see in those prior photos. And so in conclusion, if the planning commission feels that the proposed language is in keeping with good zoning practice and meets the original intent of the ordinance, which is to mitigate those negative visual impacts of car wash bay doors, then staff does recommend a recommendation of approval

to city council. And then here again, here is that proposed language. Happy to answer any questions you might have. And the applicant is also here tonight. Uh I have a question when it talks about unless but okay. Okay. at that part. Now I understand. So my next question would then be is there a traffic impact with the facing of the bay doors especially with like Texas Roadhouse and that main entrance corridor that peels off to the sheets and then the Popey section. So the intention of this ordinance is purely visual aesthetics.

Correct. There is another section of code and reviewed in our site plan that we are obviously looking at where doors face and how they um interact with travelways within a commercial development. Um so that still stands. Nothing would change with that. This section of code purely is focused on the visual. Okay. I was just curious because that was just something that came up while I was thinking about the direction to the bay door space. Was it was there a site plan in the I didn't see it in our materials. For some reason, I feel like there was a site plan in the last

there was a concept um submitted as part of that original application and it was not in the materials I provided you this evening. Is it and maybe the outcome speak on this. Are we talking about is the I know we're not talking about the specific application but zoning text amendment. Um but as I recall this is the there's one bay door that faces the sheets and it's one of those long narrow and you go in the other end. I think that's right. Is that correct? As far as I'm aware that is correct.

Similar to like the tiger wall. Can you pull up the um the plat that had the uh entry corridor on it with the red square? All right. So, the front of the car wash going to be directly behind the sheets. Where is the exit bay door at? Because it looks like to me that is going to be facing residential. So yes, it will likely face residential generally, but it's not the adjacent parcel. So Oh. So there you'll see there's a storm water detention basin there. Yeah. Um and so if there's a parcel in between um staff does not consider that facing um and so in that case that existing parcel there behind it would be if there was residential on that parcel then that would be the consideration but

Okay. So you would enter behind sheets and run through the car wash and then exit through the parking lot of the roadhouse. Yeah. And I can't remember the exact layout, but yes, it would run um in that rectangular box there. It would run kind of the long way of that to have an a a opening on either side.

Did Did we talk last time about I should have looked at the note the um minutes from that meeting. Did we talk last time about buffers? Is that part of the last discussion? So, the last ordinance that was proposed um did allow for staff to during the site plan review process determine which way the door faced. Um kind of recognizing that all sites are different. The number of bay doors could be different depending on the use. Um and yes, included in that was staff could require additional landscaping to help mitigate those impacts. that ordinance was ultimately denied by city council. Um, and I think one of the reasons was the comment was that it was too subjective. Um, and so this is kind of another iteration of that. But yes, previously we had talked about some additional landscaping requirements, not anything required, but staff could require additional landscaping.

Yeah. So, and would but this proposed zoning tax amount would not allow you and we could always ask for it, but yes, it wouldn't be kind of codified that

um you know, if that's something that we potentially want to look at, we would maybe want to look at kind of as we're going through this comp plan rewrite, look at our entrance corridors in general and kind of, hey, is are bay doors the only thing we want to focus on or what are some additional um requirements we'd like to see within our entrance corridors? Um and and potentially address it then. Um but yes, currently in the iteration of this ordinance, it doesn't discuss additional landscaping than what would be required generally by our ordinance. Um which in this case would be just when it's adjacent to residential uses.

So if there was to be a friendly amendment added to this text amendment, that would be for buffers since it is still talking about the visual aesthetic. Would the fear then be that it would be disapproved by council for the same thing prior?

Um, I'm not sure. I mean, I think council's main concern was that the ordinance allowed staff to determine which way they faced. Um, and so they asked us to go back and come up with a checklist of what would we evaluate. We did that. Um, and I think there were still concerns about the subjectivity. Um, I'm not sure if it was related to the landscaping or mainly just that your discretion

the doors could be oriented differently depending or future staff could evaluate it differently and that was the main concern. So, and without I mean I don't know what any I haven't had no specific discussions, but I can imagine the the least negative impact. It's kind of the relatively subjective. That was my understanding of the way it shut down is how subjective that is. I um and just an observation. I mean, we we recommended that modification to that. Um, right. We have other questions for staff.

Could we see the original amendment text amendment again? So, I don't know if we have a slide with the the original amendment that you all considered, but it was something to the effect of staff could evaluate at that site plan review stage the orientation of the door to have the least negative visual impact and could require um additional landscaping, something to that. So what it said before we proposed the last thing was all service bay doors open parent openings closed parent shall face away from adjacent residential uses and from corridors designated blah blah blah. We proposed upon application bay doors open parent openings closed parent shall not face residential uses on adjoining parcels and shall face the direction having the least negative impact on corridors designated blah blah blah. The site review team shall make the final decision determining orientation. Additional screening deemed necessary by the zoning administrator to protect views from adjacent properties may be required

and also it applied to car washes and service. Y and then this would just apply to car washes. It was it was we proposed it in 98467 which is just the car washes subsection. The original amendment was for both sections just to try and keep them consistent in that case. But this amendment is they are only we're only bringing that it would be for car washes only proposed current is only for car washes

and staff has recognized that older car washes might look very similar to service bay doors like a take five or you know some older car washes have that model and maybe some newer ones do also but I don't know is there a difference between having a block of four or five asosed to one. So those are all some of the things that you know kind of you think about when you're addressing visual impacts. This would apply only to car washes which may have one as in this case but could have multiple.

So the I remember some discussion from the last proposal about multi-bay car washes facing residential uses and noise specifically. Um, is that the I mean I'm asking you to speculate obviously is that the motivating factor here between behind the orientation?

No, I think what I remember from the previous discussion was an attempt to recognize that the doors only go so far in mitigating impacts. And in in our estimation, it is a visual impact because you can have vacuums that are allowed as part of a car wash system and they can be there's nothing about their location unscreened adjacent to a

well they would have to be screened because it would be business adjacent to residential but there is no other mitigating factor concerning orientation. Um, so I think that's what we were trying to point out with the last um, amendment. So the proposed language here would then be aimed to create consistency between service stations and then car washes. No. So this amendment would apply only to car washes, right? But with this language, is there similar language with service bay doors? The service bay door would remain as the current.

Okay. And then the if approved by council, the proposed language would apply only for car washes. Okay. Okay. So, but but really what we ought to be considering this in the context of is visual impact. Yeah, that's the purpose of the

the purpose of the entrance. I mean, entrance corridors are often a zoning tool where you identify areas within your community where people are going to be entering and traveling through and you want it to look nice as people come in. And so often entrance corridors have, you know, they can have even stricter requirements about architectural features, parking features, additional landscaping. So yes, my belief is that when this ordinance got approved, it was about the visual aesthetic of the bay door in relation to the corridor. And staff's thought was if you're driving the corridor and the bay doors are facing the direction you're driving, you're seeing it for a lot longer than if it was oriented the other way. And that was kind of the original proposal. In this instance, it would be behind the sheets. There's no architectural guidelines for what the sheets looks like. Um so and it would be buffered but yes you could see them but they would be set back. Um and so that is this proposal

and this deals specifically with car washes not uh car oil change places or just car. Okay. And it's the all right it's and it's the same thing that we have now except I think right except it says the exact same except that second says unless buffered by another existing commercial development. So

and staff's understanding of buffered by is just kind of second tier you know essentially it's not the frontier development it sets behind an existing commercial business. Okay. So, all we're really doing is creating an exception to these facing requirements if they face another commercial development. Yes. And not directly to the corridor. All right. Well, that's a that's a pretty narrow exception in my view. Um, thank you for clarifying. Sure.

Do we have other questions for staff? Let's I'll let you sit down before I think of any more. All right. Would the would the applicant like to speak?

Good evening, Seth Roderick, Monte Verde Engineering and Design Studio, representing the applicant. Um, yeah, you guys have kind of hit on it from all angles there. Um, the feedback that I received from council following the pre previous denial of the previous application was that one, it was deemed too subjective when they asked for a checklist. they weren't satisfied that the checklist could be evenly applied to all cases that that was in their in the basis of their decision. Um in addition to that they felt that it was a bit broad and so the feedback that I received was we need to go narrower and this is narrow but it does achieve the primary goal which is that the language as it's written today which is the upper section there takes no account for second tier development and and that seems to be a bit of a miss or at least a little bit overly restrict rictive in the essence that again if a bay door is facing a protected corridor that visual impact if it's up against a street that certainly exists. Our feeling is that if it's a second tier development you're facing the back of a sheets in this case but if it was a Popeye's or any of the other commercial developments that already exist along those corridors it's not creating any of the harm that the original language sought to protect against. Um, so, so this this kind of hits on that to a degree and while it is narrow, I will say that it does create obviously an opening for those second tier developments that makes it a little more easy to orient a in this case car wash, right? In the orientation that the developer prefers. And the easier that we can make that on second tier development makes that more attractive to then place that development on the second tier versus the first tier which

has greater restrictions. So in trying to protect that commercial corridor and the visual impact creating an incentive to put those on the back side

can have some uh benefit of its own in addition to just the opening of the door. So uh with that I'm happy to answer any questions as it relates to or any suggestions you may have as it relates to the assemblage of the language that's proposed in front of you. Uh if while again this this request is for the text amendment I know that there are various questions as it relate to our personal development. Um just for clarity I know there was a question about how the building was to be oriented on that site. It would be in kind of long. I don't know if you were able to go back to the corridor overlay real quick, Alison. So, yeah, it would be running in the long. See that that parcel is a bit of a rectangle. So, the long tunnel. It is a tunnel car wash. I I haven't seen any of the older styles built in a very long time. Um the automation and technology is there and that's where the interest in in drive is pushing. So, the long tunnel would be oriented closest to Texas Roadhouse. You would enter in from the um I guess it' be northwestern side um kind of behind sheets along that corridor and then circle clockwise into the tunnel. So you enter the tunnel from the rear and exit towards the front.

So the tunnel is running perpendicular to Rosser Avenue. Correct.

Correct. Yes. Directly behind sheets. And there's no there's no or I mean as I understood it from the last application this is kind of the only orientation that worked. Well, and and the issue is here is that this this court or this parcel because it has residential to one side, we have no opportunity to turn the building because the building will have a bay door on each side. And so you have no no ability to turn it parallel with Roser. And so then we have, you know, as it stands today, there's no ability to turn it perpendicular with Roser because then that bay door is facing Roser. But as we know and as we've we allocated here is that it's facing the back of an existing commercial development and that language was chosen very specifically to help mitigate the number of opportunities that this clause can allow for right and I think Alexand mentioned there's very few cases where this actually occurs but the corridor is 500 feet deep most of your commercial developments these days are 250 300 feet deep so there's it applies you know in if you were ever building it out or if you're building from scratch it would apply then to second tier development on a pretty regular basis. And that seems, you know, unnecessary from the visual impact that it actually creates if it's facing the back of an existing commercial development because we know what that commercial development then entails. If it's vacant commercial land, there's a little bit of a question mark. And so that that existing language was put in there to help add a little additional protection. I I have a question and this will mainly be for staff, but how many people would this ultimately or hypothetically impact when it comes to bu new buildings?

Like from a land owner perspective, um from like a developer standpoint, I mean it it's it would be very difficult to tell. Um, we didn't pull any kind of analysis of second tier kind of undeveloped areas. Um, do you have a map of all the entrance corridors or So, we have how many? There's there's a map of all the entrance corridors in the staff report.

So, it shows kind of the other corridors that are affected by this language. Um, so you know, relatively limited through the city, but then I I haven't done any kind of analysis on undeveloped second tier property through those corridors to anticipate any kind of number or redevelopment potential or anything like that,

but we think generally limited. In thinking down the road, I know Sheets is a pretty significant size commercial development with the gas pumps, the uh covered pumps, the building and all that. Is there any thought moving forward that if the Popeyes was sitting where the sheets is, would the Popeyes be of sufficient size to quote unquote obstruct the view of the service base.

Yeah. So the language doesn't have any consideration of that. I think it's a combination of recognizing that there's a commercial development in front of it and it's set off at that point a certain distance from the corridor that eliminates kind of that upfront in-your-face view of the bay door. And I did consider that type of language or that that that consideration when when pushing together this um language amendment for your consideration is that you know if we start trying to weed into what the minepth is that should be based upon something and I didn't have a good answer as to what that should be based upon

and so generally feeling if there's an existing commercial development along you know any of these major corridors then it's going to be of a sufficient depth to give that buffering effect where it's several 100 feet back. Yeah. Um that way it it's it's not adding an unnecessary level of complication to the language. Trying to keep it again uh the direction I was provided was narrow and and very objective and and so that's where this language really tries to be um narrow and and and just easy to apply.

Yeah. I wasn't too worried about the depth. I was worried about the the width of the developments in the first tier. Um, of course the the car wash would be pretty much hidden by the time the sightes build out, some landscaping is done by the sheets and that, but if the Popeyes was sitting there, it would kind of overpower. The Popeyes isn't big enough to distract you from the car wash behind it. You see what I'm saying? I I in the width of it. No, correct. depth. You're exactly right. You're exactly right on it.

And I think that the depth in in in the language is, you know, that that it's that whole, you know, further away from me and the and the parallax, the doors appear smaller, etc. That the visual impact is very much mitigated just by the distance alone, but not leaving it to just distance, but also applying the development. And the development includes all of those things, right? The trees in the parking lot, the building, etc. and the fact that it's existing has a has has a an implication of more maturity for those elements. Will this language be seen as more restrictive or less? I think from the previous language it would certainly tailor it more less properties. I would I would think

it's about as narrow as you can in my view about as narrow as you can make it and accomplish what you're trying to accomplish here, right? Um, and the only subjective thing about it is what does buffered mean? That's a well- definfined enough term in other places in the the city code. Um, just my All right. Do we have other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Thank you. We have anybody sign up to speak?

Do not have anybody sign up to speak and we did not receive any any public comment. All right. Do we have anybody here who would like to speak? Who's not signed up? Hearing none. I'm going to close the public hearing on this matter. Do we have any further discussion? All right. Hearing none. Do we have a motion? I move that we approve the proposed T text as presented by staff. I'll second. All right. All in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. Thank you. All right, I gotta find my agenda again. All right. Uh 2026 meeting schedule and inclement weather policy. I have taken a look at the 2026 meeting schedule and as proposed. Everybody had a chance to take a look at that.

Um I know Jeff's going to be traveling all year, but does anybody else see any significant problems with the um meeting schedule? I didn't get a chance to to look at that. Yeah. So, so the schedule kind of mimics what we do currently in terms of uh having our meetings on Tuesdays and that similar week.

Um I will point out that the inclement weather policy, it's something we've done in the past and it is something that um is a provision made in state code that planning commissions can set their meetings and their inclement weather policy. We will publish the schedule and the inclement weather policy in the newspaper and that protects us in case we run an ad for a public hearing for a meeting that's supposed to be on a Tuesday. Weather's bad, the chair chooses to say, "Actually, we're going to move that meeting to Wednesday." It allows the community to be on notice that if the public hearing was to have been on Tuesday, now it's moved to Wednesday and we don't have to readvertise for that public hearing. So, that's staff's intention by doing this.

Yeah. So, I was going to ask next if everybody had had a chance to look at the inclement weather policy. Uh, thank you, Leslie. Uh, I don't see any problems with the inclement weather policy, unless anybody has any obser about that. The only only question I have is just out of curiosity and why it's just struck me now, I don't know, but every year I've been on the commission, we review this same thing. Can we not put language in there that carries forward not into perpetuity, but I'd have to revisit the state code on that. I think it

or is the state code say have to look at it every month? Yeah, you can set your yearly schedule and an inclement weather policy and it says it must be published can't remember if it's the month before at least seven days before the first meeting. So I think it's a little prescriptive in that way. Okay. I I was just wondering it it's been on the agenda every year I've been here and I'm like and why it's just struck me now. Why isn't there language in here or is it driven by the state? Yeah, it is a state code provision. All right. So, do we have any other we have any feedback on the I guess that's a resolution, right?

Yep. We need to on our res. Yeah, I think we should have a motion and a We have a motion. I'll make the motion. I'll second it. Second. All in favor?

Any opposed? Hearing? None. Motion carries to adopt the resolution regarding our 2026 regular meeting schedule and inquent weather plan resolution u as prepared by staff and provided for this meeting. All right. Um, and then next we have uh chair and vice chair nomination process, discussion of the nomination process. So, are you thinking we're going to talk about the process and then we'll have nominations at the December meeting? Well, we were thinking we would likely cancel our December meeting.

That was my next question. so likely cancel our December meeting and we revisited our bylaws and our bylaws actually say chair and vice chair will be elected at the first meeting in January. So they would be elected and then you guys could move and take seat that night essentially. But we wanted to, you know, kind of give you guys a heads up that, you know, that would be coming in January. And if you wanted, you know, sometimes you could say, "Hey, let's put together a nominating committee." Or if you wanted any type of discussion around it tonight, you don't have to have a discussion around it tonight, but mainly just to make you all aware that at your meeting in January, we will be needing to elect a chair and vice chair.

Got it. So, if anybody has any feel strong feelings about that process, it would be good to, you know, share those tonight. Um, so that everyone's kind of on the same page moving into January. I don't have any questions related to the process. I have a question about who is rotating off, who are we keeping, what's the process of bringing new commissioners in to fill there, and what's that look like? So, do you have the schedule of I think the only one leaving next year is me and it's in August. Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Yeah. So, so uh

I believe Yes. Mr. Gibson's the only one that has to rotate off and can't be reappointed because he's meet met his maximum time on Yeah. planning commission. Yeah.

Yeah. And Yeah. So, I'm You're stuck with me until 26. You're stuck with Mr. Clone till 2029. Nigel till 27. You're good till 28. Um Mr. Lee, I don't think that really applies for the mayor. Um Kate till 2028. And Mr. Gibson till till a August 31st, 2026. And he is ineligible due to term limit for reappoint. So we will have the current we will we will be our we will be ourselves. you it's the current composition of the commission until September um for this slate of officers

and our bylaws I don't believe say anything about you know you can't serve more than one term as chair or having to change so it's it's very open to all except for Mr. I'm not opposed for wanting to remain as vice chair. That was I guess my next question. If everyone is open to staying in their current roles, I'm a happy place for that. I just don't want to speak for the people that are in current roles. I I agree with that. I I see nothing wrong with that. I mean,

but I don't want to put any undue pressure on you. Um I think traditionally there has been you know the vice chair becomes the chair and I and I I would be happy for that to happen. Um I am perfectly happy to remain the chair. Um but that's only occurred when the chair has left that the vice chair elevates. Well, I believe um Miss Bole Yeah, she she was vice chair before, but did she stay chair multiple years? Yes. I think she remained chair for multiple years. Chair for four or five years. I think this is my second year as chair.

Yeah, because if I recall, we kept the same slate last. So, I would look to Nigel if Nigel's happy still being vice or if he wants to do chair, you know. And I'm hearing Will say if Nigel wants the chair, take it. So I'm the two combinations. Sounds like you of two can work it out before the January meeting. The way is green now. Um yeah. So I I mean I'm I don't I enjoy doing this. I appreciate your faith in me and would be happy to serve as chair again beyond that. But but if somebody else feels called to the seat um I'm not going to stand in their way. So So it sounds like we don't need a nominating committee and we can just work towards

elections in January right now. So January they could we could just Well, I think it's just we're just trying to comply with our bylaws that say we will elect at the first meeting of the new year. Yep. Okay. So, lots of things for everyone to think about um between now and January. I was going to ask um I was looking at terms and I've lost my agenda again. It's right in front of me on paper. Um, okay. Do we need to have any other discussion about chair and vice chair? No. Okay. Um, do we want to talk about do you want to talk about December now or before we adjourn?

Um, so we don't have anything right for the December meeting. So, yeah, I think you could go ahead and Oh, I don't you don't have to do it tonight at the meeting, but I think we'll definitely cancel the December meeting. Okay. Is the plan. So, for the public, we're canceling the December meeting and we will place that uh on our website so everyone's aware. Okay. All right. Um, thank you. Uh, we have public comment for period for items not on the agenda. Do we have any folks here to comment on anything that's not on the agenda?

All right. Hearing none, we have matters from staff. Um the only thing that I would want to share is tomorrow night is our second openhouse meeting um for our comprehensive plan process. So it'll be at uh Wesboro High School. It starts at 5

5 to 7:30. Um and it's going to be open format style, so you can come on the beginning end, the late end, stay throughout. Um there'll be close to 30 posters, I believe our consultant said, around the room. Um, and what we're trying to gather at this meeting is general kind of broad goal statements for each kind of CA chapter of the plan. Housing, transportation, parks and recreation, health. So, all those different categories having these broad goal statements. Um, and it's important for everyone to keep in mind that those aren't going to be like recommendations and strategies of how to get somewhere, but just that broad goal statement. And it's going to give um citizens the ability to say, you know, are we moving in the right direction? Do you like the goal statement? Are you neutral about the goal statement? Do you not like the goal statement? Is there a goal we've totally overlooked or missed? And then also, it's going to start hopefully getting citizens thinking about, wow, with that goal, I've got an idea how we can get there. And they can jot that down on a post-it and put it down so we can start building out those recommendations. So that's what tomorrow night looks like. excited to have everyone out. Um we also continue to point people to our survey that we we're planning to close at the end of November. So having this openhouse kickoff meeting or not kickoff but our second openhouse meeting and really doing our last final push for this survey round um is going to be really important. Um so everybody get the word out. Neighbors, friends, tell them to come out tomorrow night. That's all I have unless anything All right. Uh, commissioners correspondence and communication.

Uh, the only thing I had is that I was able to attend the, uh, historical commission meeting tonight and, um, I know that I've spoken with staff about what the partnership possibly look like with the historical commission. I know for us, we've come across some things with like like the Wayne, the house on the tree streets and many other things that are going to come up, especially with downtown being um a prime location for renovations. It's just like what partnership could we have with them and what information could they share with us that could be important when we make our decisions and then um different projects that we can work on with them in partnership. So, um, just what that overall looks like and I think they would likely be reaching out to you all to see how to establish that partnership and moving forward. But, um, that's the only thing that I have.

Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Mhm. Anybody else have anything? Well, if this is going to be our last meeting before the holidays, everybody have happy and wonderful holidays. Happy holidays and safe travels. If like Jeeoff, I'm sure you're traveling for the holidays. Uh I think I'm grounded. Um and with that, do we have a motion to move? I'll second. All in favor say I. Any opposed? Hearing none. The motion carries. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, staff.