>> WE ARE READY WHENEVER YOU ARE. [00:00:01] >> I'M GOING TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER [NOISE] [I. Call to Order.] WITH THE GAVEL. [LAUGHTER] >> I LOVE THAT. >> SO WELCOME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IT IS A SEVEN-MEMBER BOARD THAT IS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COMMISSION, WE DO NOT GIVE FINAL DECISIONS. NOW, I'M GOING TO LET PEOPLE INTRODUCE THEMSELVES STARTING TO MY LEFT. >> JENNY STONE. >> JASON FRIEDLANDER. >> JOHN MCFARLAND. >> I'M RACHEL COGBURN. >> GREG CHILIK. >> MARK BRAMBROOT. >> WE DO HAVE TWO NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TODAY. WE HAVE JENNY AND MARK. DO YOU ALL WANT TO SAY ANYTHING? WELCOME? >> WELCOME TO THE COMMISSION. [APPLAUSE] [LAUGHTER]. >> THANK YOU. >> THEN MOVING ON IN THE AGENDA TO UNFINISHED BUSINESS. [III.a. Approval of Minutes from December 12, 2023 regularly scheduled meeting.] WE HAVE APPROVAL FROM THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING, AND HAS EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES? ARE THERE ANY CHANGES? >> A MOTION TO APPROVE IS WRITTEN? >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY, "AYE," OR RAISE YOUR HAND. >> AYE. >> I'M ABSTAINING AS I WASN'T AT THE LAST MEETING. >> OKAY. MOTION PASSES. AND THEN NEW BUSINESS, [III.a. Flippo Civil Design applicant, St. Thomas More Catholic Church property owner, have requested an amendment to a previously approved comprehensive site development plan to construct new classroom and worship buildings for the existing church and private school located at 618 West Ponce de Leon Avenue] WE HAVE FLIPPO CIVIL DESIGN APPLICANT FOR ST. THOMAS MORE CATHOLIC CHURCH, WHO IS THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND THEY HAVE REQUESTED AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COMPREHENSIVE SITE-DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT NEW CLASSROOM AND WORSHIP BUILDINGS FOR THE EXISTING CHURCH AND THE PRIVATE SCHOOL LOCATED AT 618 WEST PONCE DE LEON AVENUE. I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOMEONE TO GIVE A PRESENTATION. >> YES. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M PAUL FLIPPO WITH FLIPPO CIVIL DESIGN. I WAS THE APPLICANT ON THE PROJECT. I CAN DISCUSS STORM WATER AND TREES. I THINK WE PROBABLY MIGHT WANT TO HEAR FROM OUR ARCHITECTURE TEAM. WE HAVE HANK HOUSER, HOUSER WALKER ARCHITECTS, AND WE HAVE MEMBERS FOR OUR CLIENT WITH ST. THOMAS MORE. THE PROPOSED IS THE ADDITION OF A NEW 19,000 SQUARE FEET SCHOOL BUILDING, RENOVATION TO AN EXISTING WORSHIP BUILDING, IMPROVEMENTS TO ATHLETIC FIELDS, AND CONSTRUCTION OF STORM WATER DETENTION IN THE ATHLETIC FIELD AREA. AND THEN THAT'S THE NEAR TERM WORK. NEXT 1-2 YEARS TIME FRAME, AND THEN BECAUSE THIS IS A LONG-TERM MASTER PLAN. WE'RE ALSO SHOWING THE NEW WORSHIP BUILDING AND PARISH COMMONS AND ADMINISTRATION BUILDING RENOVATION, AND THOSE ARE 10-PLUS YEARS OUT. IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, YOU'LL SEE THE ATHLETIC FIELD ON THE RIGHT OF THE PLAN, AND THEN NEXT TO THAT, THE SCHOOL AUDITION. AND THEN CLOSER TO THE INTERSECTION OF TRINITY AND WEST PONCE IS WHERE THE FUTURE 10-YEAR OUT NEW WORSHIP BUILDING, THAT'S WHERE THAT WILL GO. SHOULD WE WALK THROUGH ANY PARTICULAR PLAN OR NOT SURE WHAT WE NEED? >> PAUL, I SEE THE EXISTING DETENTION THAT RUNS ALONG THE FRONT DRIVEWAY OF THE CHURCH ENTRANCE IS GOING TO REMAIN. IS THE OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE THEN GOING TO OUTPUT TO THE NEW PROPOSED DETENTION? >> CORRECT. YEAH, WHEN THE NEW DETENTION SYSTEM WILL REPLACE THE STORAGE THAT'S IN THAT EXISTING PIPE, THEY'RE IN THE SAME BASIN. ONCE THE NEW DETENTION IS IN PLACE, WE BASICALLY REMOVE THE OUTLET STRUCTURE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THAT EXISTING PIPE TO JUST CONVEY THE WATER INTO THE NEW DETENTION. SO THE DETENTION PIPE BECOMES A CONVEYANCE PIPE. >> I UNDERSTAND. SO THE OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE WON'T BE PART OF THE NEW SYSTEM? >> CORRECT. YEAH. THAT WAS AN EFFORT TO CONSOLIDATE THE DETENTION IN ONE LOCATION AND TO RIGHT SIZE IT TO MEET YOUR CURRENT STANDARDS. ALSO WE'RE LOOKING AT USING PART OF THAT DETENTION TO STORE A PERMANENT VOLUME OF WATER TO USE FOR IRRIGATION IN THE FIELD AREA. THE APPLICATION PACKAGE INCLUDES ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN, THE CIVIL SITE PLAN, AND THEN ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS. WE HAVE A TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT PLAN. THAT INCLUDES TREES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED RECENTLY BY THE CITY OF DECATUR ARBORIST THAT NEED TO BE REMOVED, DEAD, DYING, AND HAZARDOUS TREES, AND THEN ANY TREES THAT WILL BE IMPACTED BY THE TWO NEW BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, AND THEN REPLACEMENT TREES THAT WE'RE ANTICIPATING. WE INCLUDED, IN THE APPLICATION PACKAGE, [00:05:01] AN EXHIBIT THAT SHOWS THE ROUTING OF THE SCHOOL DROP OFF FOR THE KIDS. THERE'S NO INCREASE IN ENROLLMENT. THE CLASSROOM BUILDING IS INTENDED TO RIGHT SIZE THE CLASSROOMS, BUT THERE'S NO INCREASE IN ENROLLMENT. THE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS WILL BE AS THEY ARE TODAY FOR THE EXISTING OPERATION. >> THE PROPOSED TREE PLAN, IS ALL OF THIS INTENDED TO GO IN WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW SCHOOL BUILDING OR IS THIS JUST A FORWARD-LOOKING, ANTICIPATING THE CONSTRUCTION BEYOND OF THE NEW WORSHIP CENTER? >> IT SHOWS BOTH. THE TREES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED AS DEAD, DYING, AND HAZARDOUS WILL BE REMOVED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW CLASSROOM BUILDING, AND THEN THERE ARE A FEW TREES THAT ARE IMPACTED BY THE CLASSROOM BUILDING ADDITION. THOSE WILL OBVIOUSLY BE REMOVED. THERE WILL BE REPLACEMENT TREES IN THE WORK AREA OF THE CLASSROOM ADDITION. THERE'S TWO WORK AREAS SHOWN IN BLUE ON THE SITE PLAN. THE TREES THAT ARE IN THAT AREA WILL BE INSTALLED AS PART OF THE SCHOOL ADDITION, BUT THERE WILL BE TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE WORSHIP BUILDING ADDITION IN THE FUTURE. >> WHAT GREG IS ASKING IS, IS THE REPLACEMENT THAT YOU SHOW FOR THE TREE CANOPY, IS THAT INCLUDING THE FUTURE WORK, OR IS IT GOING TO BE PLANTED, I'LL CALL IT DAY 1, WITH THIS PROJECT FOR THE CLASSROOM? >> YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO PUT IT. >> BASICALLY, YOU'RE GOING TO PLANT ALL THE TREES THAT YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE GOING TO PLANT WHEN THE CLASSROOM IS DONE, OR IS IT SOME? >> ALL THE ONES THAT ARE SHOWN ON THE PLAN, YES. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE SHOWED NEW TREES AROUND THE WORSHIP BUILDING ADDITION BECAUSE THERE ARE EXISTING TREES NEAR THE CORNER OF TRINITY AND PONCE, SO THERE'S NOT A LOT OF ROOM THERE FOR REPLANTING. BUT WHEN WE REMOVE THE VEHICULAR DROP-OFF AREA WHERE THEY HAVE THE FOUR SQUARE PAINTED OUT, WHEN THAT IS REMOVED, THERE ARE TREES IMPACTED, AND THAT ALSO CREATES GREEN SPACE AROUND THE BUILDING WHERE WE'LL PLANT NEW TREES. I DON'T THINK WE SHOWED A LOT OF REPLACEMENT TREES NEAR THE WORSHIP BUILDING ADDITION. >> THERE ARE A FEW SHOWN HERE. I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHETHER THEY WOULD BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO STARTING EXCAVATION FOR THE NEW WORSHIP BUILDING, AND IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WOULD BE A CONFLICT, LIKE YOU WOULD WANT TO IMPLEMENT THE NEW PLANTINGS AFTER THAT CONSTRUCTION. I DIDN'T NOTICE. >> THEY LOOK LIKE NINE. ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, NINE THAT ARE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THAT NEW WORSHIP BUILDING. >> I THINK WE'RE OPEN TO IT. ON ONE HAND, THEY WOULD POTENTIALLY BE IMPACTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORSHIP BUILDING, SO I COULD SEE A REASON TO WAIT. BUT IF IT WAS YOUR PREFERENCE, IF WE NEED TO INCLUDE THEM NOW. [OVERLAPPING] >> WE'RE JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE WE ADDRESSING WITH THIS SESSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION VERSUS WHICH ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN ARE FOR ANOTHER PHASE IN THE FUTURE. >> THERE'S UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PLANS THAT WE PROVIDED ARE SHOWING THE FULL LONG-TERM PLAN AMENDMENT, SO WE INCLUDED THE WORSHIP BUILDING, BUT THE AREA IN THAT BLUE AROUND THE CLASSROOM ADDITION IS WHAT WOULD BE PERMITTED, LAND DISTURBANCE PERMITS AND BUILDING PERMITS IN THE NEXT YEAR. >> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE CITY ARBORIST WILL REQUIRE THE REPLANTING PLAN TO CONFORM WITH THE CITY'S CURRENT TREE ORDINANCE, EVEN WITH JUST THIS ONE EDITION OF THE SCHOOL BUILDING, SO THE WORSHIP BUILDING WILL BE PERMITTED SEPARATELY AND IT WILL BE LOOKED AT SEPARATELY. IF WE'RE DOING PHASE 1, WHICH IS THE SCHOOL BUILDING, THE PERMITTING PROCESS WILL STILL REQUIRE THEM TO MEET THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. THE OTHER CLARIFICATION I WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU ALL IS THAT NO NET LOSS IN THE CANOPY, OR 45% CANOPY COVERAGE OF THE SITE AREA, WHICHEVER IS GREATER, IS THE REQUIREMENT OF OUR CURRENT AND NEWER TREE ORDINANCE. RIGHT NOW, I WILL SAY THAT STAFF IN OUR CITY ARBORIST HAVE NOTED THAT THE EXISTING CANOPY CALCULATIONS THAT ARE LISTED IN THAT TABLE, IT'S ON YOUR SCREEN RIGHT NOW, THAT THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS THAT SOME THINGS MAY HAVE BEEN MISCALCULATED. A PRECURSORY LOOK AT WHAT THE EXISTING CANOPY COVERAGE IS, [00:10:01] IS NOTED AS 22% ON THIS TABLE. WHEN WE'RE DOING A QUICK REVIEW USING OUR TOOLS, IT'S OVER 40%, QUITE POSSIBLY 45% WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE UNDER-STORY OF THE TREES. I DON'T WANT TO HANG OUR HAT OR ANY APPROVALS ON THE INFORMATION THAT IS LISTED IN THE TABLE ON THIS PARTICULAR ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN. THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE TREE ORDINANCE, AND THEY'LL HAVE TO SUBMIT INFORMATION FROM A CERTIFIED ARBORIST FOR THE TREE REMOVAL PLAN AND THE REPLANTING PLAN. WHAT WAS SUBMITTED FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM OUR CITY ARBORIST, IS THAT HRH TREES, AND I THINK THAT'S IN YOUR APPLICATION PACKAGE, THEY WERE FOCUSED MORE ON THE EXISTING DDH TREES, THE DEAD, DYING, AND HAZARDOUS TREES, AND THE REPLANTING PLAN FOR THAT. KAY, OUR CITY ARBORIST, SHE HAS NOT SEEN THIS PLAN, BUT THAT'S ALL PART OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND THE TECHNICAL REVIEW ASPECTS OF THE PERMIT. >> JUST CLARIFICATION, ARE THE DDH TREES INCLUDED IN THE CANOPY COVERAGE THAT THE CITY LOOKS AT? >> THEY SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE CANOPY COVERAGE. >> OKAY. >> YEAH, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE MAY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH HOW WE CALCULATE IT, BUT IT WAS NOT OUR INTENT TO INCLUDE THE DDH TREES IN THERE. WE'RE JUST GOING TO DELETE THAT. >> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE CIRCULATION PLAN. IT LOOKS LIKE IN THE CURRENT CIRCULATION THAT YOU HAVE A PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE FROM WEST TRINITY, BUT IN THE NEW CIRCULATION, THE ONLY ENTRANCE FOR THE SCHOOL IS FROM THE PARKING LOT. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S INTENDED TO CHANGE OR? >> I MIGHT NEED HELP WITH THIS ONE. [LAUGHTER] >> THE INTENT IS FOR THE SCHOOL TO ALWAYS BE FROM THE PARKING, AND A PEDESTRIAN, THE ORIENTATION WOULD BE FROM TRINITY THROUGH THE PARKING LOT INTO THE SCHOOL BUILDING. >> THAT'S A PRETTY STEEP SLOPE FOR ADA ACCESS. >> FOR ADA, YEAH. THERE'S AN ACCESSIBLE DROP OFF FROM THE PARKING. FROM AN ARRIVAL, DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, THERE COULD BE AN ACCESSIBLE ARRIVAL FROM PORTS OR FROM TRINITY OR FROM THE PARKING AREA. >> I BELIEVE THE PRIOR APPROVAL REQUIRED ALL THE STUDENTS TO ENTER FROM TRINITY. [OVERLAPPING] I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE UDO DOES REQUIRE A DOOR FACING DIRECTLY TO A EXTERNAL STREET, NOT TO AN INTERNAL PARKING LOT FOR ALL INSTITUTIONAL ZONING. >> WE AREN'T SUGGESTING A CHANGE FROM ANY OF THE CURRENT ARRIVAL POINTS FOR THE SCHOOL. >> SO THE ENTRANCE FROM WESTERN WOULD STILL BE ACCESSIBLE? >> WOULD STILL BE THE ACCESSIBLE POINT OF ARRIVAL UNLESS YOU'RE GETTING DROPPED OFF IN A CAR. THE ADDITION OF THE BUILDING BEYOND [OVERLAPPING] >> SIR, IF YOU DON'T MIND, IF YOU CAN SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE BECAUSE WE ARE RECORDING AND WE HAVE LIVE STREAM AND PEOPLE ON ZOOM, THEY NEED TO HEAR YOU. THANK YOU. >> THE BUILDING BEYOND WILL NOT BE THE POINT OF ARRIVAL. IT WILL BE IN BOARD INTO THE CAMPUS. >> SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME. >> THE CURRENT FRONT DOOR TO THE SCHOOL WHERE KIDS COME IN TODAY, WHICH IS IN AN EXISTING BUILDING, WILL REMAIN THE FRONT DOOR, THE FRONT ARRIVAL POINT. THE NEW BUILDING WILL BE AFTER ARRIVAL. IT'LL BE PART OF THE CAMPUS, BUT IT WON'T BE THE ENTRY INTO THE SCHOOL. >> I WAS LOOKING AT WHAT'S THE SEALED OF, YOU CALLED IT. IT'S ISOLATED WITH A BLACK LINE, WHERE PEOPLE CAN AND CAN'T ACCESS. >> PART OF THE INTENT OF THE STUDY AND THE ANALYSIS WAS DRAWING A PERIMETER AROUND WHERE THE SECURE BOUNDARY DURING THE SCHOOL DAY WOULD STOP AND START. THERE ARE SOME INTERNAL GYRATIONS OF WHERE THAT BOUNDARY WOULD BE MORE SECURE AND LESS POROUS DURING THE SCHOOL DAY. >> FOR THE RECORD, HANK AND HAUSER WALKER WORKED WITH ST. THOMAS MOORE ON THE MASTER PLANNING EXERCISE. [00:15:07] OBVIOUSLY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, BUT THE REQUIREMENTS BUILDING AND DEVELOPING THE PROGRAM FOR THE EXPANSION. >> I KNOW YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU'RE NOT INCREASING ENROLLMENT TODAY WITH THE NEW BUILDING. IS THERE A CAPACITY FOR INCREASED ENROLLMENT IN THE FUTURE? >> THERE'S NOT THE INTENT TO INCREASE ENROLLMENT. CURRENTLY THE CLASSROOMS THAT RAN, THEY ARE 500 SQUARE FOOT CLASSROOMS. THE INTENT WAS TO REPLACE THOSE SAME CLASSROOMS AT 750-900 SQUARE FEET PER CLASSROOM. IT'S THE SAME SIZE, SAME ENROLLMENT, SAME NUMBER OF KIDS, JUST IN LARGER CLASSROOMS. THEN THE ROOMS WHERE THE KIDS ARE CURRENTLY MEETING WOULD BECOME ADDITIONAL MEETING SPACE FOR THE SCHOOL. IT'S NOT THE INTENT TO INCREASE ENROLLMENT AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT. I'D SAY IF THE SCHOOL DOES WANT TO EVER INCREASE ENROLLMENT, IT WOULD BE A FULL CLASS ALL THE WAY FROM PRE K THROUGH THIRD. IT'D BE ANOTHER BIG ADDITION. >> WOULD THERE BE AN INCREASE IN INTENSITY IN THE USE IN THE PARISH AS THOSE OFFICES ARE MADE AVAILABLE? >> [LAUGHTER] I THINK IT'S PROBABLY A SIMILAR ANSWER TO THAT, IS THAT THE CURRENT MEETING ROOMS ARE OVER SUBSCRIBED. THERE'S TOO MUCH OF A DEMAND FOR THE CURRENT MEETING ROOMS AND THEY AREN'T BIG ENOUGH, SO IT WOULD BE MORE OF AN ALLEVIATION OF A NEED THAT'S ALREADY THERE. PEOPLE ARE ALREADY THERE. THEY'RE JUST CRAMPED. BUT NOT FROM A DENSITY STANDPOINT. >> FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ULTIMATELY THE CITY COMMISSION, WHAT IS THE CURRENT ENROLLMENT OF THE SCHOOL? >> IT'S 463 TODAY. OUR CAPACITY IS 516. WE GOT EVERY ROOM FILLED TO THE TOP. >> ACCORDING TO SOMEONE WHO'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE SCHOOL, THE CURRENT ENROLLMENT IS 463 AND THE CAPACITY THAT IS GRANTED TO THE SCHOOL IS 516. >> WOULD THAT CAPACITY INCREASE WITH THE NEW ENHANCEMENTS? THAT WOULD NOT OCCUR? >> I HAD A QUICK QUESTION. IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO REDUCE THE ONSITE PARKING FROM 140 SPACES TO 120 SPACES, AND YOU'RE GOING TO USE THE 20 SPACES ON THE SIDEWALK. THE STAFF REPORT SAYS ARE DEDICATED PARALLEL PARKING SPACES. IS THE INTENT FOR THOSE TO BE DEDICATED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE CHURCH, OR ARE THEY GOING TO BE PUBLIC AS THEY ARE NOW? >> [LAUGHTER] GO AHEAD. >> IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WOULD BE PUBLIC, BUT THEY COULD COUNT TOWARD THE CALCULATION. THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION ON OUR SIDE THAT THEY'D BE RESERVED IN ANY WAY. >> CLARIFYING THEY'RE DEDICATED. >> THE APPROVAL IS THAT THOSE 20 PARKING SPACES ARE CREDITED TOWARDS THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENTS. IT'S GOOD TO HEAR THAT THOSE WILL BE MAINTAINED AS PUBLIC PARKING SPACES ON A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE BASIS. THANK YOU. >> I THINK RELATIVE TO PARKING, THE CHURCH'S PRIMARY DEMAND IS OBVIOUSLY ON SUNDAY, SO THEY ARE A NICE COMPLIMENTARY USE TO DOWNTOWN AND THE SURROUNDING FUNCTIONS AND USERS. >> I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION ABOUT THE PROPOSED NEW TRANSFORMER LOCATION, SENSITIVE TO THE ENGINEERING CONSTRAINTS AND THE COSTS. BUT I GUESS I JUST WANTED TO ASK IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO TUCK THAT MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OFF BROADWAY INSTEAD OF ON PORTS. WE CHECK THE SCREENING ELEMENT TOO. BUT IT'S BIG. >> WE'VE LOOKED AND WE'D LOVE TO SEE IT TUCKED AWAY EVEN MORE. BUT IT REALLY CAN'T GO INTO THE FIELD BECAUSE OF THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FIELD USE. DID YOU HAVE A SPOT IN MIND WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE US TO SCREEN IT? >> BETWEEN THE FIELD AND THIS EXISTING BUILDING. I MEAN, WHAT IS IT LIKE? 10 BY 10 OR SOMETHING? >> THE SERVICE IS DEFINITELY COMING OFF OF PORTS. OUR PRIMARY HAS TO COME FROM PORTS TO A LOCATION AND THEN INTO THE BUILDING. WE DID LOOK AT A NUMBER OF LOCATIONS, [00:20:06] AND WE'VE TRIED TO SCREEN IT AS BEST AS WE CAN. >> WE'RE TRYING TO USE THE SLOPE. THERE'S A GRAY CHANGE, THAT SLOPE THAT COMES OFF OF THE PARKING LOT DOWN TO THE ATHLETIC FIELD, AND TUCK IT INTO THAT SLOPE TO HELP SCREEN IT. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT SHOWS ON THE SITE PLAN, BUT THE GRADING PLAN WOULD SHOW THAT. >> QUICK QUESTION ON YOUR DETENTION SYSTEM. YOU'VE GOT THE ONE PIPE THAT YOU INTEND TO STORE WATER FOR LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION. IS THAT PART OF THE OVERALL STORM WATER DETENTION CALCULATIONS OR IS THAT JUST FREE WATER THAT WE'RE GOING TO COLLECT AND SAVE? IN OTHER WORDS, IF IT GOT V EAT OUT, BECAUSE OF COST. DOES THE REST OF THE DETENTION SYSTEM MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, OR IS IT INHERENT TO THE MEETING OF THE STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS? >> YEAH, THE INTENT OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A LOT OF DESIGN STILL AND DOING THE FULL HYDROLOGY, BUT THE INTENT IS THAT THE OTHER PIPES ARE FOR THE DETENTION, AND THAT'S FOR THE RUNOFF REDUCTION AND WE'RE USING IT FOR IRRIGATION. IF WE WERE TO ELIMINATE IT, WE WOULD HAVE TO FIND AN ALTERNATIVE WAY TO PROVIDE THE RUNOFF REDUCTION. WE THINK THAT A BETTER WAY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT IS CAPTURE AND TRY TO USE IT ON THE FIELD. >> DEFINITELY APPLAUD YOU FOR DOING THAT BECAUSE THAT GETS IT BACK INTO THE SOIL AS OPPOSED TO JUST HOLDING IT FOR LATER. >> YOU GUYS ARE TOUGH ON STORM WATER. WELL, WE GOT TO GET THROUGH THE PROCESS. [LAUGHTER]. >> GOOD. I'M GLAD WE'RE TOUGH ON STORM. >> FOLLOWING UP ON THE QUESTION ABOUT PARKING, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE ADDING ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING. WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS, NO PERSON SHALL STOP, STAND, OR PARK A VEHICLE IN THE FOLLOWING PLACES. ONE THING THAT'S PARTICULARLY CALLED OUT IS ALONG A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY LEADING TO AND FROM A STREET. I'M A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU'RE ADDING PARKING BASICALLY LIKE YOU'RE SAYING ON BROADWAY, ON THAT FRONT STRETCH RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED TRYING TO MOVE THAT TO THE BACK OF THE BUILDING? >> THOSE SPOTS ARE REPLACING EXISTING SPOTS THAT ARE IN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE CURRENT SCHOOL BUILDING. CURRENTLY, THERE'S A PAVED AREA WHERE [OVERLAPPING] >> YOU'RE HAVING TO WIDEN [OVERLAPPING] >> WHAT'S THAT? >> YOU'RE HAVING TO WIDEN THAT U IN ORDER TO DO THAT CORRECT. >> THAT'S RIGHT. THERE'S CURRENTLY PARKING RIGHT OFF OF THE LITTLE U FOR PORTS. IT'S IN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE SCHOOL BUILDING. I THINK THERE'S SIX OR SEVEN SPOTS THAT ARE IN THAT FOOTPRINT. WE'RE ADDING THOSE SIX OR SEVEN SPOTS ALONG THAT U TO REPLACE, AND THOSE SEVEN SPOTS SERVE THE RECTORY CURRENTLY. THOSE WILL BE MOVED TO THAT U. THAT'S THE INTENT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? >> NO. >> OKAY. >> SORRY. >> SORRY. >> YOU'RE YOU'RE GOOD. >> ARE YOU DONE WITH YOUR PRESENTATION? IS THERE ANYTHING? >> I THINK YES, WE ARE DONE. >> OKAY. >> OKAY. >> THEN WE WOULD NOW OPEN THE FLOOR TO PUBLIC COMMENT. I'M GOING TO START WITH PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE ROOM, SO IN PERSON COMMENT, AND WE'LL START WITH FOR THE PROJECT FIRST, AND WHEN YOU COME TO THE MICROPHONE, STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND PLEASE TRY TO KEEP YOUR COMMENTS BRIEF. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT HERE FOR THE PROJECT? WE GO NEXT JUST TO THE ONLINE, AND FOR PUBLIC? IS THERE ANYBODY ONLINE? I CAN'T SEE THE PEOPLE. >> YEAH. LET'S GO AHEAD AND MAXIMIZE THAT. WE DO HAVE FOUR PARTICIPANTS OR THREE. >> OKAY. IF WE HAVE ANYBODY PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR THE PROJECT, CAN YOU RAISE YOUR HAND? OKAY. >> WE HAVE ONE. >> ONE. OKAY. AGAIN, [00:25:02] IF YOU WOULD JUST PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. >> WE'LL HAVE TO ASK TO UNMUTE. >>YEAH. OKAY. >> MY NAME IS MEGHAN SHAN. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ONLINE, MYSELF, MICHAEL MCGRATH, AND ANASTASIA, WE'RE ALL WITH HAUSER WALKER. SO JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW [LAUGHTER] WHO WAS ONLINE. >> THANK YOU. >> [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] >> DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE TODAY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE PROJECT? AGAIN, IF YOU WOULD COME TO THE MICROPHONE, JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. ANYBODY WANT TO BE FIRST? >> I'M WOBBLING BECAUSE I'M GETTING OVER AN INJURY. MY NAME IS SHIRLEY OSTERNECK. I LIVE IN NUMBER 3, CHARTER SQUARE, WHICH IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE CHURCH ON EAST TRINITY. I HAVE BEEN LIVING THERE FOR OVER 20 YEARS, AND I APPRECIATE THE CHURCH AND YOUR QUESTIONS CONCERN ABOUT THE TREES AND THE IMPACT OF THE TREES, BUT THERE WAS NO OUTRAGE ANY OF THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN CHARTER SQUARE. WE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THIS UNTIL WE SAW THE SIGNS COME UP. I WILL SAY THE TRAFFIC, PARTICULARLY IN THE AFTERNOONS, FOR THE CHURCH, FOR THE STUDENTS TO BE PICKED UP IS HORRENDOUS. AS FAR AS THE PARKING LOT BEING SUFFICIENT FOR THE CHURCH, I CANNOT GO OUT ON MY LITTLE STREET AND TAKE A LEFT-HAND TURN, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. I ALWAYS HAVE TO TAKE A RIGHT, GO AROUND, THEN IF I WANT TO GO TO [INAUDIBLE], I HAVE TO GO BY THE POST OFFICE, AND ALL OF THAT. BUT MORE OF MY CONCERN IS THAT THE OVERFLOW OF THE PARENTS PICKING UP THE STUDENTS EVERY AFTERNOON, THEY ARE USING THE STREET THAT TURNS INTO CHARTER SQUARE, AND THEY BLOCK, WE CAN'T GET IN, WE CAN'T GET OUT. TODAY, A CAR WENT OUT TO CHECK ON MY TRASH PICK UP WHEN SCHOOL WAS LETTING OUT, AND THERE WAS A CAR PARKED ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME, BUT COMPLETELY BLOCKING THE GARAGE OF MY NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET. AND I WENT UP TO THE FATHER AND I SAID, YOU KNOW YOU'RE BLOCKING MY NEIGHBOR'S GARAGE. HE WAS POLITE. I SPOKE TO TWO OR THREE OTHER WOMEN, I TRIED TO SPEAK TO, BUT THEY USE OUR STREET CONSTANTLY. WE'VE APPROACHED THE CHURCH AND THEY SAID THAT THEY HAD ASKED THEIR PARISHIONERS NOT TO PARK ON THE STREET. BUT THAT IS A PROBLEM, AND IT'S GOING TO BE MORE OF A PROBLEM FOR US WITH ALL THIS CONSTRUCTION. AS FAR AS I KNOW, THE CHURCH NEVER REACHED OUT TO OUR COMMUNITY. WE'RE NOT HAPPY ABOUT THIS AT ALL. I THINK MY NEIGHBORS ARE GOING TO SPEAK ALSO. [LAUGHTER] >> WELL, I'M SUSAN [INAUDIBLE] AT TWO CHARTER SQUARE AND SAME THING. IT'S USUALLY NOT A PROBLEM, BUT IT CAN BE A PROBLEM WHEN THEY BLOCK THE LITTLE ALLEY THAT GOES AROUND OUR BACK. TO ME, IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE. THERE ARE SIGNS UP THAT SAY RESIDENT PARKING ONLY AND IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO DO ANY GOOD. [00:30:04] ANYWAY, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT PARKING, THAT'S MY MAIN CONCERN. >> HI. I'M DOMINIC WILLIS. I LIVE AT NINE CHARTER SQUARE. LIKE MY NEIGHBORS, ALSO VERY CONCERNED ABOUT PARKING. I'VE GONE TO THE SCHOOL. I EMAILED THE PRINCIPAL AND SHE BASICALLY TOLD ME, WE TRIED, THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO. CALL THE POLICE. I DON'T THINK WE WANT THE POLICE COMING OUT TO PATROL PARKING EVERY DAY. I DON'T EVEN HAVE THAT MUCH FREE TIME TO BE CALLING THE POLICE EVERY SINGLE TIME SOMEONE'S BLOCKING ME. PEOPLE DOUBLE PARK TO WHERE I CAN'T EVEN TURN ON MY ROAD. THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE RESIDENT ONLY. THEN ALSO THE PARKING ALONG TRINITY IS SUPPOSED TO BE RESIDENT ONLY. THEY ALSO DON'T LIS10 TO THAT. MY TRUST IN THEM HAS BEEN BROKEN. I DON'T TRUST ABOUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO INCREASE STUDENTS THERE BECAUSE BASICALLY IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO DO WHATEVER THEY CHOOSE AND THE PEOPLE WHO OWN PROPERTY, IT'S JUST TOO BAD. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST? >> HI. MY NAME'S COLIN. I'M IN EIGHT CHARTER SQUARE. BASICALLY, JUST EVERYTHING. THERE'S DEFINITELY A PARKING ISSUE. I'M CONCERNED THAT THERE WASN'T COMMUNITY OUTREACH. PERHAPS WE COULD GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT A REDUCTION OF 40 PARKING SPACES IN THE BACK. >> SIR, IF YOU CAN DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS TO PLANNING COMMISSION. >> I'M SORRY. >> THANK YOU. >> IS THERE A REDUCTION OF PARKING IN THE BACK? >> WE WILL GET THOSE ANSWERS FOR YOU IF YOU WANT TO COME GET YOUR COMMENTS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. THAT'S IT. I'M JUST OPPOSED TO USE PARKING. >> IS THERE ANYONE HERE TONIGHT THAT WISHES TO SPEAK AGAINST THE PROJECT? >> MAY I JUST ASK? >> IF YOU CAN COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE. WE ARE RECORDING THE MEETING. >> MAY WE GET COPIES OF THESE PLANS? TONIGHT'S THE FIRST NIGHT WE HAVE EVEN HEARD WHAT'S GOING TO BE OR WHAT THE CHURCH HOPES TO BUILD. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN GOOD NEIGHBORS IN SHARING THIS INFORMATION WITH US. >> MA'AM, THE PLANS THAT WE WERE PROVIDED FOR THIS MEETING ARE POSTED ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION WEBSITE ON THE CITY DECATUR. >> THANK YOU. >> WOULDN'T BE ANYBODY ONLINE. IS THERE ANY OTHERS ONLINE? THERE ARE NO MORE COMMENTS. NOW WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION AMONGST THE PLANNING. [OVERLAPPING] >> SHOULD WE BRING BACK THE APPLICANT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT THE REDUCTION PARKING? >> YES WE SHOULD. >> THERE'S NOT A PHYSICAL REDUCTION OF PARKING. THE NUMBER OF SPACES STAYS THE SAME WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE SIX OR SEVEN THAT ARE CURRENTLY SERVING THE RECTORY COMING FORWARD. THERE MAY BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 140 AND 120 OR SOMEWHERE THEREABOUT. THERE'S AN AGREEMENT THAT THE CHURCH HAS WITH THE POST OFFICE FOR 24 SPACES. I THINK ON OUR PLANS, IT'S NOT SHOWING THOSE THAT ARE APART OF THAT AGREEMENT, SO I SUSPECT THAT'S WHERE THOSE 20 THAT AREN'T SHOWN. >> I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THERE'S NO CHANGE IN THE PARKING BEHIND THE BUILDING. FROM THE ENTRANCE OF TRINITY, THERE'S NO CHANGE THERE. ALL OF THE CHANGE IN PARKING IS BETWEEN THE PROPOSED CLASSROOM ADDITION AND WEST POTS. >> NO CHANGE IN THE WHOLE LOT. THAT ALSO INCLUDES CARPOOL. >> AS FAR AS THE TREE REMOVAL, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU GUYS CAN ADDRESS THIS, BUT IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT ANY POSTING THAT THE CITY REQUIRES IS PART OF OUR LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT, AND THAT THE APPLICATION FOR THIS SITE PLAN AMENDMENT WAS NOT THE TIME TO POST FOR TREE REMOVAL. IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING AND OUR INTENT THAT THE POSTING WILL HAPPEN AS PART OF THAT WHICH WOULD, I BELIEVE, HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT COMPONENT TO THE POSTING. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. AS FAR AS THE CONSTRUCTION ACCESS, [00:35:01] THE CONSTRUCTION ACCESS WOULD NOT BE FROM THE TRINITY ENTRANCE. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE BECAUSE THERE ARE BUILDINGS THERE THAT WOULD BE BLOCKING ACCESS FROM THE PARKING LOT TO WHERE THE ADDITION IS PROPOSED. IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT THAT ADDITION, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE FROM THE POND SIDE OF THE ADDITION. >> TAKING A LOOK AT THE STAFF COMMENTS AND UNDER POINT NUMBER 7, IT SAYS THAT A MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE CONDUCTED A TRANSPORTATION STUDY. IT'S ALREADY [INAUDIBLE]. >> WE HAVE NOT PERFORMED THE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY. >> WE DO NOT ANTICIPATE ANY FURTHER VEHICULAR TRIPS. IF PARKING WAS TO INCREASE OR ENROLLMENT WAS TO INCREASE, IT MAY BE A DIFFERENT STORY, BUT BECAUSE ENROLLMENT IS NOT INCREASING AND THERE IS NO INCREASE IN PARKING, WE DO NOT ANTICIPATE FURTHER VEHICULAR TRIPS. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE WOULD NOT REQUIRE A MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION STUDY FOR THE PROJECT. >> I GUESS I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. ARE WE PO10TIALLY APPROVING THE 10 YEAR PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY? >> YOU ARE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COMMISSION WHETHER TO APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THEIR COMPREHENSIVE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THEM OTHERWISE TO ADD THESE TWO ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS OVER THE COURSE OF 10 OR SO YEARS, WHATEVER THEIR BUILD OUT PLAN IS. >> WE WILL BE APPROVING AN ADDITIONAL BUILDING AS WELL? >> AS THE WORSHIP BUILDING, YES. [BACKGROUND] THIS IS LIKE FUTURE BUILD OUT PLANS. THIS IS VERY COMMON FOR INSTITUTIONAL USES BECAUSE THEY ARE UNIQUE AND THEY REQUIRE A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY AND MANY OF THEM INCREMENTALLY GROW. THEY ARE PROPOSING INITIALLY THAT PHASE 1 WITH THE SCHOOL BUILDING, AND THEN FUTURE PLANS WOULD BE THAT WORSHIP BUILDING. WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS THAT COMPREHENSIVE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH IS BOTH PHASES OF THE BUILD OUT. >> THEN OUR PARKING IS NORMALLY BASED ON NUMBER OF CLASSROOMS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. ARE YOU ABLE TO PROVIDE FLOOR PLANS FOR HOW MANY CLASSROOMS THERE WILL BE TO BE ABLE TO ENSURE THAT IT'S MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS? I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING THEIR CONCERNS. >> YES. THE MATH STAYS THE SAME BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF CLASSROOMS ISN'T CHANGING AT LEAST IN THE FIRST PHASE FOR OUR FIRST LDB AND THE PARKING COUNT WON'T CHANGE. IT'LL BE THE SAME AS IT WAS BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF CLASSROOMS DON'T CHANGE ONLY THE ASSEMBLY SPACE WILL. IT WILL CHANGE IN THE FUTURE SO IN THE FUTURE LDB, WE HAVE TO DO THAT MATH. IF THE CHURCH GROWS, WE HAVE TO [INAUDIBLE] CALCULATION. >> WITH THE CAPACITY OF 516 STUDENTS, IT WOULD STILL FIT IN THE CURRENT CLASSROOMS AS CONFIGURED? >> CAN YOU COME BACK TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE? [LAUGHTER] >> THAT'S RIGHT. I DON'T WANT TO MISSPEAK, BUT I BELIEVE THERE'S 20 CLASSROOMS CURRENTLY AND IN THE NEW PROJECT THEY'LL STILL BE 20 CLASSROOMS. THEY'LL JUST BE LARGER CLASSROOMS. THE NUMBER OF CLASSROOMS, I BELIEVE IT'S TWO PARKING SPACES PER CLASSROOM, SO THE MATH FOR THE PARKING WOULDN'T CHANGE. >> IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THE FUTURE PROPOSED WORSHIP BUILDING WOULD ADD CAPACITY THOUGH, OR ADD DEMAND? >> I THINK SO. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY SETTLED IN TERMS OF HOW BIG IT IS. I THINK THE IMPETUS BEHIND THE CHURCH'S DESIRE TO HAVE A NEW SPACE ISN'T CAPACITY DRIVEN, IT'S QUALITY OF SPACE DRIVEN. I THINK WE ARE CURRENTLY SHOWING A LARGER CHURCH THAN THEY HAVE CURRENTLY 450-600, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SO IT WOULD GROW IN THE FUTURE. >> [INAUDIBLE] AT THAT TIME, IF THAT NEW WORKSHOP BUILDING WERE TO BE BUILT, THEN THE CITY WOULD THEN EVALUATE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AT THAT POINT? IF THEY NEEDED MORE PARKING, THEY WOULD EITHER HAVE TO CORRECT? >> CORRECT. AS HE MENTIONED, IT IS TWO SPACES PER CLASSROOM, SO THAT'S 40 PARKING SPACES. THEY'RE APPROVED FOR THOSE 140 SPACES AND THEN THEY ALSO HAVE A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT WHICH IS ALLOWED IN THE C2 ZONING DISTRICT AND FOR INSTITUTIONAL USES. [00:40:05] THEY WOULD HAVE CREDIT FOR THAT. WE WOULD MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT PARKING. IF THERE NEEDED TO BE A REDUCTION IN PARKING REQUIREMENTS, THAT WOULD COME BACK TO YOU AND THE CITY COMMISSION FOR A FUTURE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. >> HOW DO YOU MANAGE THE PARKING FOR THE FUTURE WORSHIP BUILDING THOUGH LIKE 10 YEARS FROM NOW? ARE THEY ASKING FOR APPROVAL FOR THE SITE PLAN? >> FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, YES. AT THE TIME OF THE LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT, WE WOULD BE REVIEWING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. THEY MAY CHANGE IN 10 YEARS. [LAUGHTER] >> OFFER CRAFTS? >> YEAH. >> FLYING CARS. >> DO WE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? NOW, WE WILL OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION AMONG THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS. ANGELA, I DID HAVE A QUESTION ON THE DRAFT ORDINANCE ON CONDITION 7 WHERE IT SAYS ON STREET PARKING DESCRIBED IN ITEM 5. SHOULD THAT BE ITEM 6? >> I'M LOOKING AT THE DRAFT ORDINANCE. YES, THAT'S CORRECT. ITEM 6 YES. WE'LL GET THAT CORRECTED BEFORE IT'S FORWARDED TO THE CITY COMMISSION, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU VOTE TONIGHT. >> OKAY. >> THEN I WANTED TO SAY IT WAS BY CLAREMONT ELEMENTARY, AN APPLICATION FOR REDESIGNING THE SCHOOL THAT'S THERE. AND WHEN WE DID THE ORDINANCE FOR THAT, WE DID PUT IN A CONDITION THAT ENROLLMENT WOULD NOT INCREASE BEYOND THE CURRENT CAPACITY, WHICH IN THIS CASE WAS 516. IS THAT SOMETHING? >> USE THE [OVERLAPPING] PARTIES THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO GO ABOVE LAST YEAR. WE DISCUSSED THAT. WE RECOMMEND. >> I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO ADD IT [OVERLAPPING] >> WE CAN ADD IT HERE. >> OKAY. >> THAT WOULD START TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE HEARD. >> CAN WE ASK THE APPLICANT WOULD THAT BE AN ISSUE FOR [LAUGHTER]. >> YOU WANT TO GO ABOVE IT? THAT'S 516 IS THE NUMBER? FIVE SIXTEEN. >> THEN I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, ANGELA. I CAN'T THINK OF ANY TIME THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS SEEN A REMOVAL OF PARKING SPACES AND THEN CREDITED THOSE BACK IN A WAY THAT WASN'T CONSISTENT WITH OUR ORDINANCES. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT HAS PRECEDENT OR? >> WELL, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, YES, IT DOES HAVE PRECEDENCE BECAUSE IN THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF THEIR FORMER CONFERENCE OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THEY WERE GIVEN APPROVAL TO REDUCE THEIR ONSITE PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO 120 SPACES. >> I'M REFERRING SPECIFICALLY TO THE PARKING IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING. LIKE I KNOW WE HAD SOMETHING A FEW MONTHS AGO FOR A DOCTOR'S OFFICE WHERE THEY WERE GOING TO REMOVE PARKING AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADD IT BACK IN THAT SAME LOCATION AFTER. >> I MEAN, THAT WAS AN OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT. THIS IS AN INSTITUTIONAL ZONING DISTRICT WHERE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY GIVEN THE SPECIALTY OF THE USES THAT ARE ON THE SITE AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COMMISSION HAVE TO WEIGH. YES, THERE ARE THE SAME NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. IT'S JUST GETTING RELOCATED AND ALMOST CONSOLIDATED INTO ONE AREA. THE QUESTION THAT YOU ALL NEED TO ANSWER IS, IS THAT STILL APPROPRIATE? ARE YOU OKAY WITH THE RELOCATION OF SPACES? IT'S NOT INCREASING THE NUMBER, IT'S JUST RELOCATING AND CONSOLIDATING. ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? DO YOU WANT TO RECOMMEND SOMETHING DIFFERENT? >> I THINK JUST LOOKING AT THE FROM NOT TO SPEAK FOR EVERYBODY ON THE COMMISSION, BUT LOOKING AT THE OTHER PROPERTIES ALONG THAT STRETCH, WE'RE DIRECTLY NEXT TO THE PARKING ZONE FOR DOWNTOWN. THE OTHER CHURCH THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET DOESN'T HAVE ANY PARKING IN FRONT OF IT, DOESN'T SEEM CONSISTENT WITH THE NATURE OF THAT STREET TO HAVE EFFECTIVELY A PARKING LOT IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING. >> WELL, I WOULD HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT THERE'S THE POST OFFICE NEXT DOOR THAT HAS [OVERLAPPING]. >> WHAT IF THAT IT WERE TO BE REDEVELOPED, IT WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO HAVE [OVERLAPPING] >> UNLESS THERE'S A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED APPROVED THIS ARRANGEMENT. WHAT THEY'RE ASKING IS FOR THE RELOCATION OF THAT PARKING. [00:45:04] THERE'S NOT AN INCREASE IN PARKING, IT'S JUST A RELOCATION. DO YOU WANT THEM TO ELIMINATE THAT PARKING? >> I MEAN, I WOULDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT NECESSARILY BEING MOVED TO THE BACK OF THE BUILDING WHERE IT'S NOT BEING SEEN FROM PONCE. >> I THINK THAT'S A DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD. >> MY THOUGHT. >> [INAUDIBLE] IN THE BACK? >> IT LOOKS PRETTY WELL. PAVED OUT. >> DO SPACES TO THAT DRIVE. >> THEN BEYOND THE EDGES OF THE PARKING, THERE'S THAT STEEP HILL. >> THERE'S THE TREE BUFFER. I'M SORRY. WE'RE NOT TAKING COMMENTS FROM THE APPLICANT RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU. THEN, OF COURSE, THERE'S THE TREE BUFFER ALONG THE EDGES. I WOULD BE CONCERNED OF RELOCATING PARKING TO THE REAR JUST GIVEN THE TOPOGRAPHY, THE TREE BUFFER AND AS SOMEONE JUST MENTIONED, IT'S QUITE PAVED OUT AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. >> I MEAN, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I'M NOT ASK CONCERNED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY A DRIVE. >> WELL, LIKE I SAID, IT'S JUST EXPLICITLY CALLED OUT AND OUR ORDINANCE IS THAT YOU CAN'T PARK ALONG A CIRCULAR DRIVE LIKE THAT. >> YOU CAN'T DO THIS PARALLEL PARKING SCENARIO THAT THEY'RE AT. THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT THEY'RE ADDING AS A PARALLEL PARKING SCENARIO. >> YEAH, THE EXACT WORDING IS CIRCULAR DRIVE. NO PERSON SHALL STOP, STAND, OR PARK A VEHICLE IN THE FOLLOWING PLACES AND THE NUMBER 2 IS CIRCULAR DRIVEWAYS LEADING TO AND FROM THE STREET ARE PERMITTED BUT MAY NOT BE USED TO PROVIDE PARKING IN CONFLICT WITH. THEN BASICALLY NUMBER 1 IS IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING. >> I'M JUST GOING TO POINT OUT THAT WHAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY IS A CONCERN WITH PARKING. WE HEARD THAT MULTIPLE TIMES AND TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. >> WELL, THESE AREN'T BEING USED FOR THE SCHOOL IN THE FIRST PLACE, AT LEAST ACCORDING TO THEIR CYCLING, BECAUSE THERE'S NO ENTRANCE TO THE SCHOOL ON THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING. >> RIGHT. I'M JUST POINTING THAT OUT THAT IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE REDUCTION OF PARKING IN THE FRONT, HOW DOES THAT BALANCE WITH THE COMMENTS THAT YOU HEARD TONIGHT? >> I THINK I HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBORS THAT SOME OF THE CONCERNS ARE THAT PARENTS WHO ARE ESSENTIALLY QUEUING OR GETTING THERE EARLY AND WAITING TO ENTER THE MAIN PARKING AREA FOR PICK UP CHOOSE TO USE CHARTER SQUARE, WHICH THEY SHOULD BE DOING. IF THESE PARKING SPOTS ALONG THE CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY WERE AVAILABLE. PERHAPS THAT WOULD ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEM TO SOME DEGREE. >> WELL, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THERE'S NO ENTRANCE TO THE SCHOOL OR EXIT SCHOOL OUTSIDE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THE U ON PONCE, WHICH CURRENTLY DOES HAVE PARKING, SO THERE IS CURRENTLY PARKING THERE. WE'RE PROPOSING TO EXPAND THE PARKING BY SIX OR SEVEN SPOTS, BUT THAT IS NOT USED BY THE SCHOOL AS A PART OF THE CARPOOL? >> BUT I MEAN, THE CARS THAT ENTER CHARTER SQUARE ARE NOT READY FOR PICK UP EITHER. THEY SEEM TO BE LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO-. >> IT IS USED BY OTHER VISITORS TO THE CHURCH AT THE SAME TIME AS CARPOOL PICK UP. SO IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE THERE TO BE USED DURING PICK UP, AND CERTAINLY ON SUNDAYS, WHEN THERE'S ALSO THAT-. >> SERVICE. >> GREG, I HAVEN'T BEEN THERE IN OUR CHARTER SQUARE DURING THE DROP OFF OR PICK UP TIMES, BUT I DO GO PAST IT ON PONCE, AND I'M GUESSING THAT WHAT THE PARENTS ARE DOING IS ACTUALLY THEY'RE PARKING IN CHARTER SQUARE AND THEN WALKING OVER TO WHAT THEY-. >> THEY EXIT THEIR CARS. >> THEY'RE USING IT AS TO AVOID BEING IN THE CARPOOL LINE. I THINK IT CERTAINLY HERE IN THE NEARBY RESIDENTS ISSUES, AND I HOPE THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE SCHOOL ARE HEARING THAT THERE'S CONFLICT THERE. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN ADDRESS THAT CONFLICT IN OUR ROLE HERE. BUT THERE'S DEFINITELY CONFLICT. I MEAN, SAYING CALL THE POLICE AND CONFRONTING PEOPLE IN THIS DAY AND AGE, BAD THINGS CAN REALLY HAPPEN QUICKLY. I WILL JUST SAY TO THE ADMINISTRATORS, YOU NEED TO ADDRESS THAT WITH YOUR PARENTS, BECAUSE IT'S THE PARENTS THAT ARE CAUSING THE PROBLEMS. MAYBE THEY DON'T REALIZE THAT THEY CAN PARK AT THE POST OFFICE AND WALK UP THE HILL. [00:50:04] THEY NEED TO BE TOLD DON'T PARK IN OTHER PEOPLE'S DRIVEWAYS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I DO THINK THOUGH, THAT POTENTIALLY WE COULD ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONSTRUCTION PARKING ISSUES BECAUSE WE COULD PUT A CAVEAT THAT ALL CONSTRUCTION PARKING SHALL BE EITHER ON SITE WITHIN THE CHURCH PROPERTY OR IN SOME OTHER CONTROLLED PARKING LOT AND BASICALLY NOT ALLOW CONSTRUCTION WORKERS TO PARK ON NEARBY STREETS THAT WE CAN CONTROL. BECAUSE THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT AND IT WILL BE A POINT IN TIME THAT, YEAH, THERE'S GOING TO BE 50,100 PEOPLE SHOWING UP TO DO WORK THAT WILL PROBABLY NEED TO PARK SOMEWHERE. I THINK THAT WE CAN ADDRESS AND PUT IN AS A REQUIREMENT THAT CONSTRUCTION PARKING BE, AS I SAID, RESTRICTED TO EITHER ON SITE OR IN AN OFFSITE LOCATION. >> DESIGNATED. >> MANAGED BY THE CHURCH. >> ANGELA, I HAD ONE QUESTION ON CONDITION NUMBER 6 AND I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE FOR THIS QUESTION. BUT IT SAYS APPROXIMATELY 20 SPACES AND I KNOW THERE'S A REASON IT SAYS APPROXIMATELY. >> THAT IS FROM THE PREVIOUS COMPREHENSIVE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ORDINANCE. WE'RE CITING THE ONE THAT WAS DONE IN 2000. IT'S JUST BASED ON THE FRONTAGE THAT THEY HAVE. >> OKAY. >> YEAH. >> BUT COULD APPROXIMATELY MEAN 15. >> WELL, THE STANDARD PARKING SPACES ARE FOR ON STREET PARALLEL ARE NINE FEET BY 20 FEET. HOW MANY EVER LENGTH THAT THEY CAN FIT BETWEEN THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES? THAT'S HOW MANY THEY SHALL HAVE. I CAN TELL YOU DON'T LIKE THE WORD APPROXIMATELY. [LAUGHTER] FOR OUR CLARIFICATION, IF WE CAN BRING BACK UP THE EXISTING SITE SURVEY AND CONFIRM HOW MANY ON STREET PARKING SPACES THERE ARE. >> THERE IS 20 DRAWN, IF YOU COUNT ON THE SIDE. I THINK THERE IS EITHER 14 OR 16 ON PONDS AND THEN THERE'S EITHER FOUR OR FIVE ON THE SIDE AROUND THE CORNER. >> PERHAPS THE APPLICANT CAN CONFIRM 'THE EXACT NUMBER OF ON-STREET PARKING SPACES ALONG PONDS. MARK IS COUNTING. >> NOT CONFIDENT THAT ALL THESE LINES OR SPACES. ' GOOD FOR THEM TO DO IT. >> WE NEED THE APPLICANT TO CONFIRM THE NUMBER OF ON-STREET PARKING SPACES. >> WOULD YOU CONFIRM THE NUMBER OF ON-STREET PARKING SPACES PLEASE? >> GET TO THE PARKING. THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS I'VE ASKED ABOUT THE MULTIMODAL STUDY WAS I'M CURIOUS HOW MANY STUDENTS ARE ARRIVING BY CAR VERSUS OTHER MEANS AND WHAT THE SCHOOL AND THE CHURCH ARE DONE TO FACILITATE PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO RIDE A BIKE OR WALK TO THE FACILITY? BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT GOOGLE MAPS RIGHT NOW, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A BIKE CHAINED UP TO A HANDICAPPED PARKING DESIGN. I'M CURIOUS IF THERE ARE ANY PLANS TO ADD BIKE RACKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT TO TRY TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THIS PARKING STRAIN. >> WE CAN ENCOURAGE THAT BUT THE ORDINANCE IS VERY CLEAR AS TO WHEN A MULTIMODAL MOBILITY STUDY LIKE THAT, WHEN IT'S REQUIRED. BUT YOU CAN CERTAINLY ENCOURAGE IT. I THINK IT JUST MIGHT BE AN OVER STEP TO. >> CONSIDER. >> COULD BE WRONG BUT I THINK THERE ARE BIKE RACKS IN FRONT OF THE CHURCH. >> I'M JUST LOOKING AT. >> WHILE THE APPLICANTS LOOKING UP THE ON-STREET PARKING, CAN WE WORK ON SOME OF THE WORDING FOR THE ADAMS? >> WHAT I HAVE HEARD, THERE'S A SMALL CORRECTION TO [00:55:01] ITEM NUMBER 7 WHERE THE ON-STREET PARKING DESCRIBED IN ITEM NUMBER 6. SO WE'LL GET THAT CORRECTED. THEN THERE WAS MENTION OF SCHOOL ENROLLMENT. WE WOULD ADD ITEM 8 THAT SAYS SCHOOL ENROLLMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED 516 STUDENTS AND THE NUMBER 9. BECAUSE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT CONSTRUCTION PARKING, IS THAT CONSTRUCTION PARKING SHALL BE RESTRICTED ON SITE OR THROUGH AN AGREEMENT WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS? >> I READ OUT CONSTRUCTION ORDER, SHALL EITHER BE ON SITE OR IN AN OFFSITE LOCATION MANAGED BY THE CHURCH. I DON'T KNOW IF CHURCH IS THE RIGHT TERM, IF IT'S A PROPERTY OWNER. FEEL LIKE THAT MANAGED MEANS THEY CAN'T JUST SAY, WE'LL JUST GO PARK ON THE STREET SOMEWHERE. THAT COULD BE ACROSS WEST POND. THERE'S A NEIGHBORHOOD ACROSS WEST POND. WE DON'T WANT THEM TO BE IMPACTED AS WELL. >> THAT PARTICULAR STREET IS ACTUALLY A RESTRICTED STREET, ACROSS WEST POND. >> CHART CHARTER IS RESTRICTED AS WELL, BUT LET'S AVOID HAVING PEOPLE CALL THE POLICE. THE POLICE HAVE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO. >> WERE THERE ANY OTHERS? WE HAVE THE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT AND THEN THE CONSTRUCTION PARKING. ANY OTHERS? >> THERE WAS NONE THAT WAS MENTIONED BUT I DID WANT TO ASK WHAT EVERYBODY THOUGHT. THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION OF THE TREES AND THE REPLANTING AND WHAT HAS TO GO DOWN, AND I'VE SEEN IT DONE IN OTHER ORDINANCES, AND I KNOW THEY HAVE TO DO IT ANYWAY, THAT WE CAN SAY ANY TREE REPLANTING PLAN MUST CONFORM WITH THE CURRENT TREE ORDINANCE. >> I FEEL [OVERLAPPING] THAT OUR ORDINANCE IS STRONG IN THAT SENSE AND THAT IT'S 45% OR EXISTING COVERAGE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. THEN FOR AN INSTITUTIONAL, IF THEY CAN'T FIT THE NUMBER OF TREES REQUIRED TO GET TO 45% OR THE EXISTING COVERAGE, THEY CAN GO INTO THE TREE BANK WHICH THEN THE CITY CAN USE TO PLANT ELSEWHERE. HOPEFULLY, THEY CAN GET TO THE 45% ON SITE. IT'S ALWAYS BEST. >> THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO. [OVERLAPPING] >> NO NET LOSS NUMBER, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. IT MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY BE THE 45%. IT COULD BE 47% OR 50% DEPENDING ON THE CERTIFIED ARBORIST REPORT. IN THE STAFF REPORT UNDER ITEM 7, OTHER REQUIREMENTS. IF APPROVED, THE PROJECT REMAINS SUBJECT TO CURRENT LOCAL LIFE SAFETY AND FIRE CODE, SITE DEVELOPMENT, LOCAL SOIL EROSION, DRAINAGE, TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCES. THOSE ARE THE TECHNICAL REVIEWS AND THEY WILL CONTINUE TO BE APPLICABLE. DO WE HAVE AN ACCOUNT FOR ON-STREET PARKINGS OR OFF-STREET? ON-STREET, SORRY. >> TWENTY THAT ARE STRIKE DONOR SURVEY. >> OKAY. WE CAN TAKE OUT THE WORD APPROXIMATELY [LAUGHTER] TO DO THAT. >> THE SPACES ARE NEEDED? >> YES. >> TWO REALLY SMALL CARS COULD FIT IN ONE SPOT. [LAUGHTER] >> THAT'S UP TO THE CAR OWNERS. [LAUGHTER]. >> HOW WELL THEY PARK. >> YES. >> DOTS AND FIANCE. >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> FOR ME, I WOULD ADD, FROM THE PREVIOUS CIRCULATION PLAN, MAKE SURE THERE'S STILL A STREET FACING ADA COMPLIANT ENTRANCE FOR THE SCHOOL. >> I THINK THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED BY THE FIRE CODE. >> IT'S ON HERE AT THE MOMENT, AND I KNOW THAT THEY HAVE IT FOR THE PARISH, AND SO I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THE FIRE CODE OR. >> IT WOULD. THE ADA-COMPLIANT ENTRANCES THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THE STREET FIRE CODE. ARE YOU GOOD WITH THAT WITHOUT THAT REQUIRED CONDITION? >> ANYTHING THAT FALLS UNDER CODES WHICH THE APPLICANT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS, WE DON'T NEED TO WRITE INTO THE-. >> TYPICALLY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS NOT DONE THAT. ON TD 1, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LAUNDRY LIST OF ALL OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT CODES THAT WE HAVE IN ARTICLE 10 AND 9. >> CERTAINLY ALLOWED EXCEPTIONS TO THE CODE. >> RIGHT. ONLY WHEN WE'RE ADDRESSING THOSE EXCEPTIONS. >> HERE, THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY EXCEPTIONS TO THE CODE SO ME CODE ARE BETTER. [01:00:03] >> THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE MINUTES I GUESS. PART OF MY BEING A NOVICE IS IT POTENTIALLY OKAY TO SUGGEST THE ADMINISTRATION MEETS WITH THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION TO DISCUSS THE LOGISTICS OR IS THAT NOT WITHIN OUR PREVIEW? >> I HOPE THEY HEARD SOME STRONG CONCERNS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AND FROM US, YOU MARK YOUR ECHO IN IT THAT WE ALL. >> TYPICALLY, MEETING WITH NEIGHBORHOOD WOULDN'T BE WRITTEN INTO AN ORDINANCE. IF YOU WANT THE APPLICANT TO HIT PAUSE ON THEIR APPLICATION AND GO MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE YOU ALL TAKE ACTION, THEN YOU WOULD NEED TO PROPOSE THAT TO YOUR FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS. >> I THINK THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST. >> SYMPATHETIC TO THE APPLICANT THAT WE'RE NOT INCREASING THIS AND SO I JUST WANT TO SCORE THAT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE FOLKS. >> I THINK IF THEY WERE HERE ASKING TO INCREASE ENROLLMENT, THEN WE'D AGREE. I'D ABSOLUTELY SAY GO BACK AND TALK TO THE COMMUNITY SOME MORE. BUT HERE THEY'RE NOT AND WE'RE GOING TO CAP IT. I THINK THEY CAN WORK IT OUT. JUST NEED TO WORK IT OUT. >> DO WE HAVE A MOTION? >> YES. I'LL I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE-. >> WELL, RECOMMEND. >> RECOMMEND, SORRY. THANK YOU. RECOMMEND THE ORDINANCE AS DRAFTED AND AMENDED IN OUR DISCUSSION IN PARTICULAR, LIMITING ENROLLMENT TO 516 STUDENTS AND DIRECTING THAT CONSTRUCTION PARKING BE LIMITED TO EITHER ON SITE OR IN AN OFFSITE LOCATION MANAGED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER DURING THAT CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. THE CHANGING-. >> ITEM 7. >> ITEM 7 TO STATE DESCRIBED IN ITEM 6 RATHER THAN 5. >> AND STRIKE APPROXIMATELY. >> AND STRIKE APPROXIMATELY. [OVERLAPPING] >> MULTI MODAL STUDY FROM ITEM 7. THAT'S THE STOP. >> I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. >> ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE OR RAISE YOUR HAND. >> AYE. >> MOTION PASSES. >> IS THERE ANY NAYS,? >> ARE THERE ANY NAYS? >> NAY. >> NOW, THE MOTION PASSES. >> GOT IT. THANK YOU. >> THEN WE'RE ON TO OTHER BUSINESS, [IV.a. Election of chair and vice-chair officer positions. ] ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR POSITIONS. >> JUST MISS COBURN HAS BEEN SERVING AS THE VICE CHAIR SINCE WHAT SEPTEMBER. TONIGHT SHE WAS SERVING AS THE ACTING CHAIR BUT NOW THAT WE HAVE A FULLY SEATED BOARD, IT IS TIME TO ELECT THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR THE 2024 YEAR. I THINK AT THIS POINT WE WOULD ENTERTAIN ANY NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR. WE'LL TAKE CARE OF CHAIR FIRST. >> NOMINEE RACHEL. SHE'S SO INCLINED. >> I AM FINE DOING THAT. >> YOU ACCEPT. >> I ACCEPT. [LAUGHTER] >> THEN SHE SAYS SECOND. >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR? I HEARD A NOMINATION, AN ACCEPTANCE AND SO I GUESS WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE TO APPROVE RACHEL COCKBURN AS THE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE 2024. ALL IN SUPPORT IF YOU WOULD RAISE YOUR HAND OR SAY- >> AYE. >> GREAT. THAT'S UNANIMOUS. >> MAYBE YOU WANT ABSTENTION [LAUGHTER]. >> THEN I'LL LET YOU TAKE OVER FOR VICE CHAIR NOMINATIONS. >> DO WE HAVE ANY NOMINATIONS FOR THE VICE CHAIR? >> GREG? >> A SECOND NOMINATION. >> YOU DIDN'T GET ASKED IF YOU'RE INCLINED. [LAUGHTER]. >> I'LL ACCEPT THAT INCLINATION. [LAUGHTER]. >> ALL IN FAVOR? >> ALL IN FAVOR FOR GREG, FOR VICE CHAIR? [01:05:01] >> AYE. >> CONGRATS Y'ALL. THANK YOU FOR STEPPING UP. >> YOU'LL HAVE TO COACH ME THROUGH ALL THE PROCEDURES. THEN, DID I HEAR WE DON'T HAVE A MEETING FEBRUARY 6TH? [IV.b. Next meeting: February 6, 2024.] >> CORRECT. WE HAD OUR DEADLINE FOR THE FEBRUARY 6 MEETING LAST WEEK, AND WE RECEIVED NO NEW APPLICATIONS AND THEREFORE, WE CAN EITHER CANCEL THAT MEETING AND JUST LOOK FORWARD TO MARCH OR IF YOU WANT TO HAVE ANOTHER TOPIC WORK SESSION. IT'S WHATEVER YOUR PLEASURE IS. >> I'M GOOD. >> WE HAD A ROBUST CONVERSATION ABOUT STORMWATER LAST MONTH, SO GOOD. GOOD. >> THEN LOOKING FORWARD FOR OUR NEXT MEETING IN MARCH. LET ME JUST CONFIRM THAT DATE. IT LOOKS LIKE IT WILL BE TUESDAY, MARCH 12TH. >> THEN, DO I NEED TO END THE MEETING? >> YES. >> MEETING DONE. ADJOURNED. >> ADJOURNED. >> ALL RIGHT. GREAT. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.