Good evening and welcome to the May 19, 2026 meeting of the Chapel Hill Planning Commission.

We're a volunteer citizen advisory board.

And we have a few items on the agenda tonight.

Besides approving a couple previous minutes, one is a conditional rezoning application for 1651 old.

Is it Lystra?

Is that how you say?

Yeah.

Lystra Road.

Just a guess.

And also uh we're going to receive a LUMO update, uh, presumably from Taz or somebody else on staff.

And we're going to consider uh making some recommendations on a packet of applications to the planning commission.

But first let's start with roll call.

Jeff Green.

Chuck Mills.

Here.

Louie Thomas.

Here.

Mike Zibai.

I'm not even gonna get your name right, but you've got it.

Okay.

Yes.

Close enough.

You don't care.

Uh and I see Liz is here.

Liz, are you here?

I am here, and my computer just decided to update.

So I'm gonna I'm on my phone, but I'm transferring over.

So we'll see you see you back in a minute.

Yeah.

And I'm John Mitchell, the chair.

We're all here.

Six for six.

Uh are there any um suggested uh amendments to the agenda or anything folks want to add to the agenda?

If not, maybe just a thumbs up minus Liz if you're okay with the agenda.

Okay.

Looks like it's okay for folks.

Any announcements or petitions?

No petitions received by staff for planning commission.

Okay.

Now we have two uh previous minutes to approve.

One's from December 2nd, which was uh Liz's last meeting as chair, I believe, and then uh also one from April 21st.

Uh I took a look and it looked correct.

Does anybody have any uh corrections from the minutes?

And if not, um I'd be looking for a motion to approve those two minutes.

December 2nd and April 21st.

John I can only vote on one of them since I wasn't at the second, so could we just do that separately?

Yeah, let's do let's break them apart.

So I um the December 2nd I um uh uh motion that we approve those.

Okay.

Is there a second?

I second that Mike, second.

Um thumbs up if you're in favor of approving those minutes.

Yeah, that's everybody and me too.

Okay, April 21st.

So Liz is gonna abstain on this one.

Does somebody want to make a motion about April 21st minutes?

I'll move adoption of the April 21st minutes.

I second that.

Okay, thumbs up, except Liz.

I abstain.

Okay.

So five thumbs up and one abstain on those minutes.

Good.

So now we're gonna move right along to new business, and our first item is a conditional zoning application for 1651 Old Lystra Road.

And I'll turn it over to staff and or the development team.

Thank you.

Sure.

We'll uh have the development team present first uh on behalf of the applicant and staff will follow up with a short presentation after.

Hey Josh, you've got you got Jeremy Anderson here with Thomas Nutton uh kind of subbing in for Wendy.

Wendy Ramston's the project manager you've been working with on this.

She's uh out of the country right now.

And we have Nick Robinson with the church.

He's gonna walk through the presentation.

I will share the screen here and we'll walk through this and uh go from there.

So uh that sounds great.

Thanks so much, Jeremy.

Um good evening, Mr.

Chairman, planning board members, uh, planning commission members.

My name is Nick uh Robinson, and uh I'm on the vestry at uh Holy Trinity Anglican Church here in Chapel Hill.

Um course Jeremy is here with us helping uh with Thomas and Hutton helping us uh through the zoning process.

Um and I'm also joined on the on the uh meeting tonight by our rector, um David Hyman and another member of our vestry, uh Diane Martin.

We're so uh grateful to Josh and the uh Chapel Hill planning team for their help uh walking us through this zoning process because as you might imagine uh zoning is not the core business of our of our church, but we own about 12 acres um just south of town off of 15501 and old uh Lister Road.

Uh and our our goal, of course, is to get the proper zoning so that we can build our first permanent church building.

Um we uh I want to just briefly uh talk about our church um to you for just a second and then jump right into the PowerPoint presentation and so you don't have to worry, it's a six-slide presentation.

It won't take very long at all to do it.

Um we uh we began to be formed as a church based basically in late 2010 and with a handful of families then, and we've we've grown steadily over those 15 years to about 200 people that uh are in regular attendance.

And we are I want it to be known for sure that we are not and we'll never be a mega church.

We have um intentionally and purposefully designed the church sanctuary that we want to build on this site um so that it'll seat a maximum of 300 people.

Um it's kind of a founding principle of our church and our diocese that that churches typically grow to 300 and then send folks out to plant another church somewhere else in a local community uh rather than just continuing to grow forever.

Um and over those years um since we um have been in Chapel Hill, we've grown more and more integrated into the Chapel Hill community in terms of um what we do um in the in the way of service and whatnot.

So I just want to let Diane speak for a minute um about that to give you the flavor of our um history and role in in uh Chapel Hill.

Yes, uh thank you, Nick.

So I am Diane Martin, member of the Vestry, and I just wanted to mention our church's impact in the community.

Our current location, rented since 2021 with 247 dedicated space, finally has enabled the church to connect with and serve the local community in three important areas lives in crisis, food scarcity, housing.

We provided support teams to assist three refugee families.

We are a stop off the highway for many people in crisis.

We run an open food pantry on 15501 that is restocked weekly.

We volunteer at the Pregnancy Support Center and provide Christmas gifts each year through a focus on fathers program.

We volunteer with Pee-Wee Homes, a local nonprofit that provides homes for unhoused elderly, and we hope to eventually build some tiny homes on this property.

In addition, we worked with the leaders of the black community to be awarded a North Carolina civil rights trail marker to honor 1964 sit-ins at the Watts Grill at our current location.

And we're now working with generational black leaders and community historians to establish a policy for preserving and honoring slave cemeteries that are being discovered as development occur.

And finally, we have a strong town gown connection through our members who are doctors, nurses, faculty, graduate, undergraduate students at UNC.

We are embedded in this community and committed to serving it even more when we have our own building.

And I think that's all I'll say, Nick.

Yeah, that's awful.

Thanks, Diane.

Um, and so over that same time frame that Diane mentioned while we've been growing and serving.

We've also been in six different temporary locations.

This most recent one just across from the entrance to Southern Village.

You might be remember that as the Stratus Solar Building.

We've been there for four years.

Um, and um we were delighted to find this tract of land that is about a mile further south down 15501 from where we're currently are because it allows us to keep all those town connections and have a permanent facility.

Um so uh we bought that land, um, which I'll show you in just a second, and um now we're just seeking to get it zoned so that we can um put our church on it.

So um you see that uh first slide there, if you can see it.

Um it's a rather oddly shaped uh tract of land, like the letter C.

Um, it has access on Old Lister Road there on the south, and then also access to Wave Road there in the northwest, which is a public street that runs out to uh 15501 there to the to the west.

Um and so that's that's where it's uh situated.

You can go to the next slide, um Jeremy.

Um we are um outside the town limits, not in a focus area.

Um we're outside but adjacent to the Owasa expansion area.

And um what we're asking for is to just rezone from RLD1 to R4 conditional zoning district, and I'll show you why um in just a second, if you can go to the next slide.

If you can go to the next slide.

Uh yeah, this gives you the flavor of what what we're seeking to do.

So basically, we have a three-phase plan for the property.

Um we we want to build um the the church there right there, yeah, and sort of the central section uh be accessed from Wave Road and from Old Lister Road.

Um, and then in the uh northeastern sort of uh belt up there is the place where we'll show you on a conceptual plan in a second, where we we hope in phase the third phase to um to partner with a local um affordable housing entity to put some small or tiny homes there for uh unhoused people to live there on land that we own, but um they would they would live in.

And then in the uh um southeastern corner, um uh the uh the bottom of the sea um is our second phase, which is really just um we're gonna try to carve off two residential lots there to be sold.

Uh the purpose of that really is just to raise money to help construct our church building.

Um, because we have about 12 acres um and we don't need that much for what we're going to do uh on the land.

Um so that is the sort of long-term concept of it.

Um, in order to be able to uh do the residential lots and the church and the tiny homes, um we're we're told that we needed to rezone this um to this zoning district, um, which is what we're asking for.

Um, Jeremy, if you can go to that next slide.

So this shows you um the the setup basically in the center there in yellow or orange is um our first phase of construction, which would be um about 11,200 square feet.

It's an upstairs, downstairs um facility, 300 seat sanctuary, and um we've worked really hard with the architects and the construction company to situate the church so that it's built into a hill um and the hill slopes down from the front of the church towards that storm pond.

And the beauty of that design is that we enter on the first floor into the sanctuary, and then from the back down by the pond, we enter on the ground floor there, um, uh, which is where we'll have um our space for children um uh uh for Christian formation and for offices um for now.

That's the first phase.

And if things go okay over time, um we dream of building phase two, which are the two purple wings um on the sides there.

Um, and the point of those would be to move um the children and uh the children's classrooms and the offices into the purple phase two, and then this the space below the sanctuary where that was vacated would be uh a sort of multi-purpose fellowship hall where we could host dinners and gatherings and things of the like.

Um the um yeah, so I guess the uh you can see where the future tiny homes would be if um we can pull that together.

We're already in conversation with tiny homes uh advocates and folks that are doing it on the ground in Chapel Hill.

We really hope that we can um get that done.

Um yeah, I think you can go to the next slide.

Um these are just some renderings of the the concept of it.

Um you can see uh that uh slide on the right shows you how it's built into the hill.

In the front of it is a plaza area there that um is important to us because a lot of times we have services that start outside on the grounds and then process on into the sanctuary.

Um and so it's been purposefully designed to meet uh the function, the form and the function of of what we do uh as a church.

Um and I think that might be uh the last slide.

There's one more.

Oh, yes, it's just a uh um elevation from the front.

Um pretty basic and simple.

Um yeah, and that's it.

So um I know that uh the staff is is is probably going to report at this point.

We appreciate their help um walking us through this and their their recommendation of approval of the rezoning.

Um and we're we're available, of course, with any questions y'all might have um about it.

Thank thanks for uh letting me run through that.

Thank you, Nick.

I will share shortly.

Uh we see the gist of the information on the project, but we'll just run through it real quickly.

Um this is for 1641 Old Leicester Road.

Uh this applicant is proposing to move is proposing for this piece of property um located at the end of Wave Road along Old Leicester Road and in the town's uh transition area, which is subject to the joint planning agreement, uh which we will talk about uh a bit.

Um this project is proposing to go from residential low density one to residential four conditional zoning district.

Um the place of worship building is allowed in residential low density one, uh, but the up to 10 homes, particularly with the tow tiny homes on one parcel, um requires at least residential four to proceed.

Uh conditional zoning, as y'all know, allows for changes to some of the site-specific standards and modifications to LUMO standards.

Um staff have reviewed those and believe they are reasonable for this location in this applicant.

Um this application is in the joint planning area, so this application will need to go before a joint hearing of the town council and the Orange County Board of Commissioners and must receive approval from both bodies.

Uh it will ultimately be judged against Chapel Hill's zoning standards, uh, but will not be part of the town's uh municipal boundaries.

Um reminder of the complete community goals that we're looking to judge projects against uh planning for the future strategically expanding greenways being green and sustainable and excellence in the public realm.

Um you have the staff report there where we do recommend uh approval of this project for tonight.

We ask that you consider recommending the resolution of reasonableness and consistency with the comprehensive plan and consider recommending the ordinance approving the conditional zoning uh application.

Thanks, Josh.

I see we have no public attendees, so we're gonna go to Planning Commission um questions and comments all combined.

Uh Jeff.

Thank you.

Um, and um thanks for bringing this application before us.

This is exciting.

Um congratulations on getting to the point where you're um moving forward with your with your own purpose-built sanctuary, which is um really neat.

Um and that is a very awkward uh piece of property that you all have.

Um I had a couple questions, and I'm not sure uh if they should be answered by staff or not.

Um looking at the draft ordinance A that we were provided.

Um there are uh four modifications to regulations listed.

Number four relates to vehicle and bicycle parking, and it says modify the standard to reduce the blank.

So I don't know if that's an error or if there was intended to be a revision to the um vehicle and bicycle parking standards.

Apologies.

That is an error.

There is intended to be a revision to the bicycle parking requirements.

The applicant has asked to have a required maximum uh or required minimum of eight bicycle parking spaces uh rather than what would normally come with the place of worship use.

Okay.

Um is that reflected in the um uh um so the so it currently in the ordinance it says minimum bicycle parking per lumbo that will be adjusted down to eight.

Yes, that uh is one that I think did not make its way into the formal request, but has been highlighted in the site plan in its staff review.

Um comment I had is that there's uh discussion of possible tiny homes.

Um I don't there it's mentioned on the the district specific plan, uh, but I don't um I don't see that term being defined anywhere.

Um I didn't know if that needed to be defined.

That's not really a question.

Um the um staff report states that the um uh let me sorry that I'm just trying to find uh exactly what I'm looking for so that I can make a uh reasonably intelligent comment.

Um the project overview states that the proposed building heights are up to 50 feet for the place of worship.

Um the maximum height um in the R4 district is 60 feet, um, and I don't see anything in the I believe it's 60 feet.

Um I don't see anything in the um ordinance that limits the maximum height.

Um and I would also want to ask if there's any concern um given the recent modification to a conditional zoning district approval that we recommended a couple meetings ago, whether or not that slope will cause any issues with respect to the calculation of height, such that um you know the building won't be able to be constructed as planned.

Sure.

I think the for the height uh specifically, we did not call out a height maximum.

We would expect it to follow the underlying rules of the R4 zoning district.

Um I think in these cases, we were often looking to uh adjust any regulations.

Um if the applicant would uh the applicant did not ask to adjust to a lower height than the R4 district would allow.

So we did not place a lower height uh restriction on them.

Um in terms of the measurement, uh I will say I think we've hopefully clarified that.

Uh I will say Wendy's been working on this, and given how many projects he's worked on in Chapel Hill, I have some face there.

Um regarding height, um those two lots um in the front of the property are intended to be sold off and constructed with single family housing.

Uh is they could be as much as 60 feet tall, which doesn't seem to sort of match the um community context.

So I would recommend that there be some sort of height limit.

Um it could be a height limit on any development that's within you know a hundred feet of old Leicester road, just something that would limit the height of those single family structures that are near the road, because you would not want to someone to put up a four-story structure.

And you know, somebody would.

Um one more question about the ordinance.

Um just looking at the um modifications to the regulations and looking at the land use intensity.

Um I wasn't sure if there were some of the um items in the land use intensity table state per LUMO.

Um others give a value, but there's no indication that there was an adjustment from the LUMO standards.

So is there an adjustment um from the maximum land disturbance um requirements in the LUMO?

Are they allowed additional land disturbance?

Um are they allowed additional RCD land disturbance?

Um and is there any difference in the amount of steep slopes uh that is allowed to be disturbed versus what the LUMO allows?

Uh apologies.

I think we have some uh ones that typically go there uh if it's causing any confusion or lack of clarity.

Um for the ones listed per LUMO, uh there's no request for any exemptions.

They should follow um the outlined rules of any by project.

Uh the one that you did highlight was the steep slopes lit maximum land disturbance.

That one is a request for modification to regulations.

So should that be idea?

I mean, I think it would just be helpful if that were listed in the introductory text identifying the modifications to regulations.

Um I don't have any issues with any of the specific um of uh changes, um, but just wanted to better understand the application.

Um that's the end of my questions.

Um supportive of this application, clever use of very oddly piece shape of land, and I'm hopeful that you can get to the point where you construct those timing homes.

So thank you.

Great.

Um Josh, before we go to Liz, um, do you want to respond at all to Jeff's points about um whether the term tiny home should be defined, number one, and number two, whether um there should be a height limit for the the single family uh parcels that may break off.

Um I think we'll we'll take those under consideration.

Uh I think we can talk about the applicant prior to uh council and see what feedback from planning commission we can incorporate.

Definitely think those are reasonable asks.

Okay, thanks.

Yeah.

Liz's cat.

Would Liz's cat like to comment?

My cat has lots of questions.

He thinks that the tiny home is just the right size for him.

Um so a few questions.

I noticed in the applicant material, we had some comments uh from the urban design sheet from the urban uh designer.

Brian.

And I'm I know those were from August.

It was a little unclear to me whether, well, at least one of them I know you have them.

I wonder if you could just respond directly to why whether you're taking took some of his recommendations, and if not, why?

I wonder if you could just respond directly to why whether you're taking took some of his recommendations, and if not, why we want to address that now, Josh?

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

Um yeah, and and again, I I mentioned I'm kind of pinch hitting a little bit for Wendy.

I think it was the understanding that we just received these.

So I don't believe we had them in our possession.

Um for whatever reason.

I know I see the dates from 2025, but uh regardless, we we did look at the comments, uh, and maybe I was wrong there, but we do have some responses.

So there was a question about why the plaza or could we reduce the parking adjacent to building?

I think that was the first one adjacent to the property line.

Um I think as as Jeff pointed out, the site's kind of constrained with with the size of it, the shape of it, with the slopes of it.

Um, so we've kind of tried to be as thoughtful and creative as we can with the parking lot.

We are 20 feet off the property line, so not a lot of room to move the parking.

Um we may be able to tighten a few things up, but um we're trying to preserve at least a 20-foot buffer along that edge.

So it's kind of the response to you know, wire parking is maybe as close to wave road as it is.

Number two, considered flipping the plaza and the church so that maybe the plaza was had more of a an orientation to wave road.

Um as Nick outlined, the topography we're kind of working with it so that the church from the front or that plaza celebration space is an important part of the church, both from you know, from a function standpoint, a celebration standpoint, an entry standpoint.

So that wanted to be relocated located right off the uh sanctuary, and then we let the topography fall down where we can get that basement condition for the additional you know, space of the church.

So rotating the building so that the plaza was kind of facing wave wouldn't allow us to do that.

It would then put the building on the side of the hill and not uh not allow us to do kind of the way that it's oriented now with with falling away and opening up the basement.

So um it kind of needs to be located that way to take advantage of the plaza at sanctuary level.

And then walking trails, Nick, I don't know if that's been discussed.

I'm sure that's gonna be something you guys will consider.

Um I think it's a great idea for multiple reasons.

So uh maybe a next level of detail, but if you want to speak to that, but I'm sure that's something the church would absolutely consider.

Yeah, yeah, I appreciate the question.

Um, and uh one one of the things that um before you uh jumped in, Jeremy, um, is uh the the question about the parking near Wave Road has come up before.

Um, and we've been working on that.

And I I know that we've agreed to remove a few spaces that were over there by Wave Road in order to preserve some larger trees.

Um and so we feel like on that uh if his comments were back in 2025, um I didn't know it, but uh since that we've made progress on that subject um in any event um from another source.

Um and then with regard to the walking trails, yes, we definitely want to um have walking trails, and we agree with that recommendation.

We haven't really cited them yet, uh, but once we get going on this, we will definitely do that um for the benefit of um our parishioners, of course, but then also uh when if we get the tiny homes for them as well.

It's a beautiful piece of land, even though it's a weird shape.

Um, and we'll work within whatever the restrictions and confines are in the RCD and nearby to to definitely uh put some trails in there.

People are pretty excited about that.

Um thank you.

Um on the parking, I realize that it looks like a lot of parking for that space.

And so I realize for a church, you sort of have one time of the week when you need a lot of parking and a lot of the week when you don't need much at all.

Have you thought of how many parking spots does that include?

I didn't see that.

Maybe I missed that in the materials.

Yeah, I think it is in 125.

155.

125.

And there are some of them that don't get built until phase two.

Um, and so we were trying to phase that along with the construction.

But um, I know there was a lot of discussion about the number of spaces, and um I think we've gotten it to the point where it's the it's the minimum that we would need to meet uh the load uh for 300 people, basically.

Uh one thing interesting thing is we've been counting we've been counting cars and parishioners for five years, and basically um it comes out to about two people per car.

So if you're at 300, you need at least 125.

That's a little light, but it you know, it varies, and so I'm I'm sure it'll work out.

Um, but we appreciate the question.

We want as little parking on there as we can have because uh of the reason that you stated, and because we want to leave the land um, you know, as beautiful as we can.

Yeah.

Um so that I totally get that.

I'm wondering if you've just it looks like with the slope of that, if you've thought of maybe having a permeable parking lot, or at least for some of it, since so much of that is going to be going downhill towards the pond, et cetera, and past that.

Have you thought about that to reduce the water flowing down from that large area?

It does cost more money.

It depends where we are on a shoestream budget.

Um, but yes, there is I know there's been conversation about that, and I can't really say much more except for that there and and maybe Josh could, I'm not sure.

I know there are portions of the parking lot that we can't do that, right?

For fire safety and every other thing.

Um, but there are um there might be portions of it where we could.

Um and so we would we would certainly consider it.

Um, but it's I want to be very honest and say that this is a pretty big nut for us uh financially.

Um and uh so if we can work it in, I see the benefit and the value of it just like you.

Um we'd like to do that.

So I know there have been some conversations about it, but I to be honest, between the engineer and the architect, I don't and the construction company, I don't know exactly where those landed, but it's worth worthy of bringing back up.

Yeah, and it it it could end up reducing some of the storm water other payments that you're gonna have to be making along the road.

So it could help manage your water.

And what about it it looks in the schematic?

It's just such a large parking lot.

I would think you'd want a lot of shade trees, little islands, so that it feels not so harsh.

And it looks like you're planning, obviously, this is still early, but I would just encourage to really try and uh incorporate as many trees as you can into the parking lot.

It'll just make it an a nicer nicer place to be able and also the not so dramatically different than the beautiful surroundings.

Um my last question is um, so why did you reduce the bicycle bicycle numbers?

You don't think uh many people will bike there?

Is that the thought?

Do you have connectivity to any greenways?

We don't know, yeah.

And old Lister Road is a curvy old rural road.

Um you'd be taking your life in your hands to get on on a bike on there.

You might be able to come down 15501 and up and down wave road.

Um but it just it seems highly unlikely.

We're we're happy if we can get some people there.

We don't we don't think reasonably be more than eight, though.

Okay.

All right, those are my questions.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

And uh I will just uh this applicant uh has agreed to the parking landscape standards that we have in our rules.

I think in these district specific plans, we're trying to avoid details of where those islands will be, but ultimately each tree will need to be no further than uh 70 feet from a shaped tree.

I'm sorry, say that again.

Exactly.

Each parking spot you mean yeah, yeah, each tree would know also, but thank you.

Um yeah, so I've visited the site today, and it is a beautiful dry oak woodland, uh mixed mixed hardwoods forest um with some mature trees, some large trees on the site.

Um and I do see why it's rank rated high in the natural areas inventory as staff pointed out.

Um I'm just wondering how much could be done without the rezoning.

Could you still get the not the tiny homes, or maybe this is a question for Josh, or could you could you do the subdivide and get the two lots without the reason?

Sure.

Uh I will say uh especially at the beginning of this applicant's uh timeline, which was back in October prior to some of the omnibus changes.

Um it the opportunities to do a subdivision and the opportunities to do multifamily housing, which is what we would uh consider the tiny homes would be very limited in the RLD one district.

Um I think the RLD1 district would ultimately not allow for multifamily and prior to omnibus, we did not allow for subdivisions that did not have all lots fronting on a public road uh with the appropriate frontage and appropriate uh street standards.

Um that was infeasible in this case.

Uh so it the best way to get to the tiny homes as a multifamily option is to go to R4, which is the lowest intensity zoning district that allows them.

Okay.

So but conceivably without the tiny homes factor, they could do they could sub do a subdivide and ask for an exception for the lower frontage street frontage or something like that.

But yes, I think the RLD1 district allows the uh place of worship, and it would allow for a single family subdivision with omnibus in place.

There may be a configuration that gets there.

Um, but it's the the tiny homes that need the R4.

So I have kind of another question about that, but I guess that will be I don't recall if the ordinance specify the tiny homes or if that could some would be written into the permitting um process.

But uh my other question was since this is outside the um Owasa sewer and water boundaries, and that means a lot of trees are going to be cut down for a drain field, presumably.

Have you already done a perk test for the site?

And yes, yeah, we've done it.

And on one of the plans, I don't know if it's reflected in the uh PowerPoint, but um we've um had all the soils uh tested, and that was of course partially what went into sighting the building and the tiny homes where they are.

Tiny homes that have soils up there that will work for that.

The residential lots have soils that will work, and the um uh church uh has soils nearby that um that will suffice for the for the church building.

Um the extent of the clearing um of the trees for the septic is something I'm not really an expert in, but it um I know it varies depending on the type of system that gets approved.

Um we want as few trees taken down as possible.

Um, and so we'll be we'll be uh watching that like a hawk.

Um and do you know if you'll be required to have a backup drain field?

Yeah, we definitely will.

That'll be part of the permitting, whether it's local permitting or state permitting.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Um those might be all my questions for now.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Other comments or questions from members of the PC.

I'll give a brief comment.

It looks like a um great project to me.

The renderings are really uh I thought pretty attractive um and interesting.

Um I don't see you know, issues of potential conflict with the town's land use vision, particularly given that the project is outside of the um town boundaries uh where we normally are seeking to umage land use a little more closely.

Um for long-term, you know, density and livability reasons.

Um this project seems to me sort of um refined and unobjectionable.

Um I was uh interested in some of Jeff's comments about sort of technical comments about um making sure that um the ordinance has you know all the elements that it needs to to get the outcome that we want here.

So I'd be open.

Somebody wants to suggest some conditions to you know whatever recommendation we make here.

Um but um if if nobody has uh additional comments or questions, maybe we can move here toward some sort of uh formulated recommendation having a vote.

I see uh Jeff is about to say something, and then we'll go to Libby.

No, you clearly you go first.

So yeah, an audio.

Sorry, I forgot to mute.

Um I was just wondering about the requesting for the exception on the house size maximum.

I mean, that doesn't really seem compatible with the town's goals and um, sorry, Libby, that could you be more specific?

Sorry, Libby, that could you be more specific?

What what house size?

Okay, they asked for an exception, did they not to have to increase the maximum house size?

So those the floor area ratio, I believe.

And that yeah, and Libby, I noted that too, but that's not in the there's I'm not I read through the code and there's no maximum floor area ratio for resident for single family dwellings in the Lima.

So that was an error.

And that did not make it into the um proposed ordinance.

That's not in the R4 ordinance or that's not requested conditional use ordinance.

They did not need to request it because there is no FAR limitation uh for single family dwellings.

Oh okay.

Why no anyway, I'm just commenting on that because on the Orange County side, all the houses are like 15 to 1800 square feet, and then you cross over into Chatham County and suddenly they blossom.

Oh God, I think right.

Okay, so that was one question.

The other question will will the two driveways, the access points be considered equal in there.

Um be considered equal for what purpose?

Just access.

Yes.

Yes, yeah.

Um we we uh that's it's a great question.

We um had a lot of conversations uh initially before we ever even drew up the plan with the with the folks that live on Wave Road, and we've had conversations with the folks that live nearby on Old Listra Road, and um the sort of happy medium that we came up with is that um the old Lister Road uh is a good access point for two reasons.

One, we're gonna use that for to be the construction um entrance because Wave Road, I don't know if you went up and down that Libby, but it's it's pretty steep.

And uh there were anecdotal uh stories about cement mixers coming up there with cement coming out of the back because of the the the steepness of the hill.

So we're gonna um we're gonna use that as the construction entrance, and then it also opens up the ability for folks that live out on Mount Carmel Church Road or down in Chatham County to enter that way.

Um and then um the wave road um entrance will be um accessible too to folks that are coming north or south on 15501.

And we had a a traffic engineer look at that, and um uh his um trip generation letter indicated that he thought that the um distribution would be about 60 percent coming in off of Lister Road and 40 percent off of Wave Road, um, which was good, we thought because um that that that meant that for the folks living on Wave Road, even though you know there's there's more houses on Wave Road nearby than there are on old Easter Road.

Um, and so that that would be the nature of the concern that they have, even though the traffic is mostly coming in on Sunday morning.

Um the what the traffic engineer said was that um through that distribution of of trips, um it was about the same amount of traffic or less than you would expect if you developed all of these 12 acres for single family residential without a rezoning.

So it it felt like it was not changing um much in terms of what would ultimately happen with the property overall in terms of traffic trips.

We are focused on the old dice for access.

We during the review recommended removing the wave road access, but uh the applicant has asked to keep it in.

Yeah, it does seem like it it might be a disturbance to neighbors, unless I was thinking you could add a bike path from Wave Road only, encourage people to take the bus and cycle to church or on that nice hill or use a scooter.

Yeah, you would have to be an accomplished bicyclist to get up that hill.

But so just one final question.

The site where you're currently renting, yeah.

Um is that that's not an option for redevelopment as a church site for you.

No, we would um we we we have thought about that, you know, because we really looked at all the options that were out there um instead of building a brand new edifice, because as I said, that's not really our business.

Um and we did look at that for the uh stratus solar building that we're in now, and the owner is not interested in in allowing that to happen.

And you know that that South Creek development is going in all around it right now.

I mean, I don't know for sure, but my guess is that someday it will be enveloped or swallowed in some way into that.

Uh I I don't know, I'm just guessing, but she uh the owner didn't have any real interest in um in doing that with us, um, which is why we found ourselves looking around for a place to put our own building.

Good question, though.

It's just one more comment I can't resist.

It's just too bad to cut down a nice forest to do that.

Are there no sites that are already disturbed?

We we've looked everywhere.

I uh I would put you in touch with our realtor if you if you if you wanted to talk more about that, it's been a real challenge.

We've been looking for six years or something.

Um land is expensive.

Yeah, it's so expensive.

No, you're right.

And when you look at the size and shape of it, there's a reason why it's still sitting there, right?

And um, so we decided to take the flyer on that because it was the most reasonably priced thing in a location that still functioned for us and that would allow us to do what we need to do, but not more, uh, wouldn't require us to do more.

All of the things that you're bringing up though, maybe are things that we we thought about and talked about in the process for sure.

Does uh anyone from the commission want to um put forward a motion?

Yeah, I'd like to, and I'm happy to take any um those friendly amendments, but I would like to recommend approval of ordinance a with the following statements or conditions.

Um first establish a maximum height that would apply to the two single family lots near Old Leicester Road.

Uh I suppose presumably 35 feet for consistency with the surrounding R L D1 district.

Um second, to find tiny homes, which is the term listed on the district specific plan, but not defined in ordinance A or in the Chapel Hill LUMO to establish clear expectations regarding the type of housing that might be built on the site, and third, update the modification to regulations section to clarify all modifications to the regulations in the LUMO that are included in the ordinance.

Thanks, Jeff.

Is there a second?

Liz, you're on mute.

I'd just like to add that they uh consider minimizing the um both the the tree canopy loss, particularly large trees and um storm water impacts risks through the essentially the the parking lot, how they where and how they uh build the parking lot.

I think it sounds like they're thinking about it, but I would bring in some real experts.

Uh I think it could in the end save you a lot of headaches and money down the road if you don't think carefully, given the um the steep slope that you're you're building on.

Getting rid of all those trees and putting in that impermeable.

So I didn't say that very well.

Jeff, you are much better if you want to revise that.

Uh I wrote it down.

I actually I wrote it down as you were writing it um and revising it, but I wrote down consider minimizing both the tree canopy loss, particularly large trees, and address stormwater impacts and risks to the location and construction of the parking lot.

Work.

Yep.

I'll kept that as a friendly amendment.

Okay.

And Liz, were you also seconding with that?

Yeah, she's okay.

So we have four conditions.

Uh Jeff had three uh related to maximum specifying a maximum height, maybe of the sort of base single family district uh for the two houses uh on Olestra that may break off from the main property.

And oh, it looks like Jeff may be uh put them in the chat.

Getting me my lines here.

That's good.

I like that.

Uh okay, so establish a maximum height that would apply to the two single family lots of old leicer road, presumably 35 feet for consistency with the surrounding R L D1 district.

Define number two, define tiny homes, which is a term listed in the district specific.

Hold on, I need to scroll here.

Uh plans, but not to find in the ordinance or in the Chapel Hill LUMO to establish clear expectations regarding type of housing that might be provided on the site.

Third condition, update the modifications to regulations section of ordinance A to clarify all modifications of the regulations in the LUMO that are including the ordinance.

And then fourth considered minimizing, and you just heard Josh Jeff say that one so I won't repeat it.

But those are the four conditions that we would append to our recommendation that the council and by implication Orange County commissioners um approve this.

Well, if they do consider developing paths or trails on the site at this point, given the extent of disturb existing disturbance or planned disturbance already, I would encourage them not to pick to pave trails and not to put them through the remaining wooded landscape, but maybe to rehabilitate areas once they've finished construction or you know, use the stormwater area or the maybe that could be um um a bit of an enhancement to Liz's modifications as we're talking about stormwater impacts of uh the parking lot.

Maybe we could expand that point to include um anybody trails that are built.

Yes, use natural surface trails, not impermeable trails.

Location construction of parking lot and uh um location and construction of um or we could just say of the parking lot and uh any any trails.

How about that?

Jeff, are you and Liz?

Are you okay with with that?

Um okay, good.

So um is there any further discussion on this motion before we go to a vote?

All right, so let's let's have a vote.

Um Jeff.

Yes.

Liz?

Yes, Chuck.

Yes.

Libby.

I've been really struggling with this.

I'm gonna vote no because it doesn't seem it fits with the town's goals, but I'd I understand why you're proposing it.

Um just want to go on record.

Okay.

Um Mike.

Yes.

Okay, and I'm a yes.

So that's um five yeses uh and one to recommend one no to recommend um this project for council approval, subject to the uh conditions described, uh, which were put up on the screen by Jeff, right?

And Jeff, you'll send those to Josh.

I've got them.

Or Josh had them on the screen.

I couldn't tell who was screened.

Josh is yeah, no quick typist.

Um thank you very much.

Uh Nick and David and um Jeremy and I'm missing one person.

Diane, there you are.

Um thank you for uh bringing this to us and uh good luck with your project.

Yeah, thank you.

Y'all have been great.

So I appreciate it.

Thank you all for your comments.

Appreciate it.

Have a great evening.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Our next agenda item is uh discussion of upcoming meetings and PC review related to the LUMO.

So I assume I'm turning this over to Taz.

Hi, Taz.

Welcome.

Hey John, um everybody.

Um Taz with the planning department.

It's good to see y'all.

Um it's been a while.

Um, so really happy to be able to come back to y'all and kind of talk about what the uh the year ahead is gonna look like with uh with LUMO.

Uh depending on on your definition of a fun time, it might be a very fun rest of the year.

Um it's definitely gonna be busy and and y'all are gonna play a big role in that.

So um really wanted to take this opportunity to kind of restart the conversation with you all and um uh again, just uh think about what what the next several months are gonna look like.

Um just a second here, and I'll get my screen share going.

All right, are you all seeing my shared screen?

Great.

Um, so you know, as I mentioned, um what I really want to focus on this evening is um giving you all kind of a forecast of what the the major next steps are gonna look like in the LUMO process and then discuss um how y'all are gonna fit into that process.

Um as y'all probably know, you know, staff have been working with uh a consultant team for the last year, it seems like at this point, um, working on a on a draft of the new LUMO.

Um, we're getting really close to being able to wrap up that kind of major initial phase of drafting.

Um, and since the last time that I presented to the planning commission, we've had a couple of check-ins with the uh town council, but those have mostly been relatively high level.

Um, we haven't had um detailed discussions with with them or you guys in a while.

Um, and it's because we've been kind of heads down wrapping up the draft.

Um and so looking ahead, um, some of the the next kind of major milestones that y'all will will see kind of coming down the pipe.

Um, we're gonna be going uh back to town council on June 17th.

Um we'll probably actually come to you all.

I should have put this on the slide, we'll probably come to you all uh the night before, I believe June 16th is a meeting.

Um check that out the jobs before I commit to it.

Um we we hope to meet with y'all before this council meeting.

Um the opportunity at the this council meeting in in June is gonna be to kind of officially kick off the more public facing part of the LUMO project.

Um we're going to kind of preview the council, uh, what they can find in the draft LUMO, and what engagement is going to look like over the summer, and what in kind of a high level of specificity, what the fall is going to look like.

Um, I'm just gonna talk through some of those elements at a at a very high level today, uh, but we'll get into more detail about specific timelines and things of that sort um when we come back to you guys uh in just a little bit.

So we'll talk to council in uh in June shortly after that.

Um I don't want to promise you know specific days or dates, but um hopefully by the end of June, maybe into early July, uh, we're planning to share that first kind of major public draft of the LUMO.

Um and that's gonna be that's gonna kind of kick off opportunity for for council members, for planning commission members, and for members of the public to really start digging in to the LUMO.

Um because that's going to be coming over the summer, and because we really want to as staff, we really want to set you guys up.

We want to set up planning commission to be as knowledgeable as familiar with the draft as possible.

Um, one of the things that we're gonna be doing over the summer is offering essentially like staff office hours for council members and for planning commission members.

Um, we really want to be a resource to all of you as you're digging into the draft.

Um, we want to be there kind of alongside you.

So reach out over the summer once you have the document in hand and we'll be happy to kind of talk through it with you, help you understand the structure, the content, any of that sort of thing.

Um, I do want to be kind of transparent that those office hours are primarily gonna be an opportunity to help help you all and help council members understand what's in the draft, but it's not gonna be you know workshop time.

Um, it's not really intended to be an opportunity for for individual members of either council or planning commission to kind of roll up their sleeves and and offer edits or or again kind of workshop the ordinance um on a substantive level.

It's really intended to make sure that y'all are going into the next phase of of this process, just very familiar with what's in the ordinance.

Um, so that's kind of the the summer months.

Um once y'all are back from uh summer break.

Uh we're hoping to have uh a handful of opportunities for for y'all to again meet as a group uh to discuss the the draft lum.

Um you'll have the opportunity to have a couple of work sessions and so will council.

And those are really intended again to be the first opportunity once the draft has been kind of out in the public for a while, once uh you all have had an opportunity to really learn and familiarize yourself with the draft.

We wanted to make sure that y'all had an opportunity to uh talk amongst yourselves in a public forum about your your impressions of the draft um and where you'd like it to where you'd like to see it go uh before we get into uh the final phase of this process, which is kind of the the official hearings.

Um that really kicks off uh uh a period where the ball is really in council support.

Um as much as we can try to put uh kind of timelines on on any of this work, the the one period where the timelines truly kind of are fully out of staff hands, or once we turn it over to the official legislative process.

Um you all have have some kind of timelines based on state law.

Um technically, council can't move forward with their own hearings within 30 days of of your first hearing on um on the LUMO.

We really want to set you all up for success and make sure that you're able to um engage with the process and provide council a meaningful recommendation um within that period of time.

Um ultimately it'll be their prerogative as to whether they they want to kind of keep the trains moving on time or um or take a more kind of deliberative approach.

And so that's something gonna be something that we will kind of offer up a potential timeline that we think will meet those interests of giving everybody involved um a really solid footing and an ability to discuss and deliberate, but also balancing that interest of of moving things forward in a timely manner.

Um, but ultimately that's just a starting point.

Um the timelines can really start to shift um based on y'all's discretion and council's discretion once it again, once the ball is kind of more squarely in your report.

Um, and then one thing I haven't mentioned yet is really when kind of public engagement comes into play.

Uh that public education period is really going to overlap with when you all are learning about the ordinance, right?

Over the summer, um, at the same time that we're doing um office hours with you all and council.

We're also going to be having um opportunities for the public to learn about what's in the draft.

Um, we're anticipating um some number, we haven't nailed down the specifics yet, but some number of open houses over the summer.

Um, obviously posting the draft online, making it available for people to really dig into and comment on and really make sure that they understand um and are fully aware of what what sort of opportunities they're gonna have to speak directly to uh kind of the ultimate decision makers in this process, which are gonna be you all during your public hearings and and council during their public hearings.

Um the last bit on here is this notion of user testing.

Um we know that kind of going into the home stretch of of drafting the ordinance at a staff level, we have been kind of so deep into it, it it can be hard to kind of see it from a different perspective.

Um, and so one of the things we're gonna do over the summer is engage in a in a more concerted way with kind of a select group of stakeholders um for whom LUMO is part of their everyday work, right?

So these are gonna be people like the Affordable Housing Coalition, um, like the Home Builders Association, again, folks that that know LUMO work with Lumo and understand really how to pick it apart and um help kind of stress test the ordinance from a technical perspective.

Um, so that's some of the the additional engagement that we're gonna be doing over the summer.

And so in all of this, right, in this whole process, um, planning commission has a defined role, and we really want to make sure that at a staff level we're setting you up as as well as possible to meet that that responsibility.

Um, and really what that responsibility is is to be that like trusted voice that makes a recommendation to council.

Um, and so what I wanted to do next is kind of talk through some of the recent discussions we've had with council and how that's gonna frame um kind of really all of our discussions about the LUMO going forward.

Um, before I do that though, if there are questions on on kind of timeline and process, I'm happy to take them now or at y'all's discretion, we can wait until later, but just wanted to pause in case there were questions on timeline first.

Has um you've made it clear you can't expedite this faster than state ordinances, state regulations allow, but do you have is there any endpoint that it has to be done by I mean you said it can be flexible.

It's gone on a long time like is it possible go into 2027 or is it absolutely have to be done this year or is it going to be move into 2028.

I I don't have a sense of when you think it's gonna be done and when it has to be done.

Yeah.

Um I'd really like to take a vacation at some point um but and I know I know there's been so many staff that have been working on this really hard for a long time um but there is no mandatory end date um there's no deadline other than just kind of our our own sense of urgency right I think we all feel this sense that the sooner we can get this yeah yeah um the sooner we can get this passed the sooner it can start to make a difference um but beyond that there's there's no deadline um I say this very cautiously but the what I have heard and I I haven't verified this directly but when today's LUMA was adopted back in 2003 that was at the culmination of about 18 months of public hearings not just not drafting but once it went to the public hearing process it took 18 months.

We would obviously love to avoid that situation.

And that's why we've had all the the work sessions and the the lead up to this point.

We hope that a lot of the conversations have have already been had um in a way that they didn't happen back in the early 2000s.

That being said right like once this ordinance is out that's gonna become the focus of the conversation and um there is a sense of urgency but there's also an understanding that this needs to be a um a well thought out and and deliberative process.

Thanks.

Jeff um just a couple of questions so just to clarify at that June 17th council meeting you don't anticipate having the code ready to show them no we're not expecting it at the 17th meeting um we're we're planning to actually get it back from our consultants for kind of like the final gloss just shortly before the 17th um and obviously before we publish it we need to do kind of our own QAPC um and it just doesn't give us enough time to have it ready on the 17th um but we are hoping you know end of June early July at the very latest uh to get it out for everybody um and I assume you're envisioning um the purpose of those work sessions in the fall are to get feedback from council and the planning commission and so you'll make appropriate changes before it goes into the public hearing process based on that feedback.

Yeah and I think we have to be very um we have to be we have to calibrate kind of expectations about how much change we can make um between the work sessions and the public process um I think it'll really depend on how um the intensity of the ask right if if we're hearing a very clear message from uh from council during those work sessions or from planning commission that um this thing should not move forward that that council for example like would not be willing to start the public hearing until they see certain changes um then yeah we'll we'll definitely make sure to to incorporate that um so yeah we'll we'll just have to kind of calibrate and play right year depending on what's asked for um and the um the relative importance that that it's given like by the people that asked for it yeah okay and that makes sense um I mean I you know it's it's hopefully this won't be 18 months but um one you know one thing of note for the the long gestating lumo process is that nobody's actually seen a word of it and so I think I would just sort of encourage you all to anticipate um feedback from both from us and also from council that may um you know I know you've had lots of meetings with council gotten lots of policy direction from them um but you know that policy direction's been over three different councils um and so it's I wouldn't be surprised if there's a request for a new district or to make changes to some district or some other significant changes so just something to think about.

Um, and so it's I wouldn't be surprised if there's a request for a new district or to make changes to some district or some other significant changes.

So just something to think about.

Um and finally, just um, you know, I know this was brought before council, and I know um council and the manager talked about it, but I would like to emphasize the importance that when the planning commission is holding public hearings on the updated LUMO, it needs to be uh a meaningful opportunity for members of the public to participate in the public hearing.

So it needs to be something other than a small room in the library.

I think I'm gonna add a question of my own here, and uh Taz, it may anticipate where you are going to go next.

So if that's so, just uh just carry on.

So uh my question is the the meeting with the council on the 16th, uh and I guess sorry, the 17th and the day before with us.

What is Taz your um thinking about the LUMO agenda item there?

What what do you think uh you would be hoping to accomplish, or do you think the council's hoping to to accomplish you know before summer break?

Yeah, uh perfect question and great segue into the next item I wanted to talk about.

Um I'm happy to go there, or if there are any other questions, I can I can give you a quick preview and then jump into it.

Okay.

Yeah, cool.

Um, so the the goal at the June 17th meeting is to kind of close the loop on a conversation that we started with council um in April.

So uh we had a work session with council in April where there's a really strong interest in making sure that before council and and planning commission got into officially reviewing the draft LUMO, the council was aligned on their top priorities as a body um on what they wanted to see in the new LUMO.

Um I think it's a really helpful exercise that they went through to do that because um you know we have all indications would suggest that um this current iteration of council are the the folks that are going to vote on on this LUMO.

Um and so for them to all kind of agree right here's kind of the common vocabulary, here are the common interests that we're gonna take into our review um was really helpful.

And so uh they they agreed to these kind of three overarching interests and five key goals at the last meeting, and ultimately uh you know what what those interests and goals turned into is gonna be the I don't want to go so far as to say the rubric, but it's gonna be the the primary like organizing function through which we talk about the draft.

And it's gonna be the primary lens through which we we hope that the council and and you all uh will look at the new lumbo.

Um and so our key kind of substantive goal at the June meeting um is to be responsive to those goals, right?

To say, all right, at a high level, we know we haven't put the draft ordinance in front of you yet, but here are the things that you can expect um kind of describe the relatively high level that are gonna meet these goals.

Um here are the ways in which we are gonna meet the goals that you've laid out.

Um and so the as a reminder, if you haven't had a chance to take a look at the council meeting from April, the kind of overarching interests that uh council identified were community, sustainability and equity, and then within that they identified these kind of five larger goals, right?

User friendliness, housing, diversity, and supply, economic development and land use, the built environment and the public realm, and then environment and resilience.

And in your packets this evening, there's a document that lays out these five goals, but then also within each of the five goals uh several kind of subpoints that put kind of a finer point on what council is looking for out of each of these goals.

Um and so again at the June meeting, our conversation is really gonna uh circle around these goals and those those finer points.

Um, and then that those kind of themes are going to carry forward uh throughout how we talk about this with the public over the summer, um, how we come back to to discuss the limo in the fall.

Um we're hoping, for example, that that these goals will will help organize those work session conversations in the fall.

Um they've you know they've created some sort of like thematic organization.

Um so that's gonna be kind of the the main goal in June.

So Taz, when you say that um the staff is gonna uh discuss with the council, or the council's gonna get discuss the ways in which without looking at the draft, but just at a general level, the ways in which the LUMO revision will meet the goals or address the goals.

Are you envisioning just a PowerPoint presentation or some sort of like written report that tick and ties, you know, the various bullets and goals that were attached to tonight's agenda um to um you know paragraphs of narrative explaining like what what approaches taken and you know how they're addressed or what what sort of um format are you're gonna use to make those connections?

Yeah.

Um the primary format is going to be uh basically a memo.

Um calling it our council alignment memo um to to demonstrate kind of how um council's interests are aligned with the new memo.

So um that'll be kind of the the primary tool.

Uh we'll probably get into some specifics, but um we won't you know bore folks with going through all of the content um in the the meeting itself.

Um I think with with as with any of these work sessions, um they're the primary goal of of the work session itself isn't to convey the information, it's to create an opportunity for some dialogue about the info.

Um so we'll obviously provide it to um to you all and to council ahead of time and um really urge all to come uh with with questions and curiosity.

Okay, so um that alignment memo, it sounds like you're gonna deliver that to the council before their June 17th meeting.

Can you get it to us before our June 16th meeting, maybe with like a few days in between?

Yeah, absolutely.

Like before the weekend would be great.

Yeah, it sounds like it may be not a good one.

Yeah, definitely.

So the the typical practice is that um council agenda items uh or council agendas, excuse me, are published the Thursday before the fine.

We can just find it there.

Okay.

Yeah.

And are you looking at that June 17th meeting with the council as a work session, or do you have a different label for that?

Yeah, we're thinking about it as kind of a a work session format.

Okay, so would it be broadly similar to the ones in the fall, with the exception that they're not gonna be looking at the draft yet if they ever do?

Yeah, yeah.

Really wanting it to be um an opportunity for questions for for discussion.

Um it's it's escaping me at the moment whether it's gonna be at the library or town hall.

Um obviously if it's in town hall, the the physical space doesn't lend itself to as good of a discussion, but um we've had plenty of of really dynamic discussions in in town hall chambers or in council chambers before.

So um it's not not much of a barrier either way.

Okay, let last sort of interruption I'm gonna make before I let you talk and other people talk.

So I'm envisioning this this memo alignment memo you're putting together is collecting a lot of the stuff that's been in memo form uh for a couple years now, you know, you've been coming to the council coming to us with um topical areas for discussion.

You've received feedback and a lot of that feedback you've sort of compiled into longer documents once or twice.

Um so that's I imagine the fodder for for this alignment memo is just um maybe the uh organizing principle, you know, the the priorities that the council has articulated in April and the way that they're articulating it.

I doubt any of that's truly new, but it's a bit reprocessed from the way it may have been processed before, but the um the things that are you're aligning to it that you're matching up to it are things that have probably been in writing actually uh before in in agendas to us or to the council.

Is it am I thinking about this right?

Yeah, absolutely.

And I think that's a really good way of reminding everybody that um that we are this is part of a long but interconnected process um that the discussions we're having now are building off of discussions from last year and the year before.

Um there, I don't I don't want to say that there will be no surprises, right?

There might be some new information in those memos, but the goal is really to ensure that um even if even if some of this the particulars are new to folks, it's very easy to draw a thread to all right.

This really aligns with an interest that we we discussed, um an interest that was articulated by council, um, or in many cases it's gonna be very specific things that we've we've explicitly talked about with council uh and with planning commission, and you're just seeing that again uh in this new organization.

Did you have more that you wanted to say, Taz, before we open it up to uh others ask questions?

Um no, the the one thing I wanted to say is um I think there's been some question about um how canning commission kind of best meet its obligation to council, right?

How can you all best situate yourselves to be um that like strong source of advice to council?

And you know, it is it's certainly at your discretion as to kind of how best meet that that call.

Um my suggestion would be that given that this is the the framework in which staff are planning to to talk to counsel about the new LUMO, and you know, staff or council is signaled that um that this is the framework that they want to use to talk about the the new LUMO.

Um my one request to y'all would be that that y'all adopt this framework as well and and talk through the ordinance in the same way.

Um but again that's that's entirely up to your discretion.

Um but I do think it would be a good opportunity to to ensure that there is that like good continuity um across kind of the the different decision making bodies here okay uh questions for Taz or comments Libby yeah I was just wondering sorry about I don't know why there's feedback can you understand it's okay you're good you can keep going is there a ranking or priority order to those goals, Taz?

Because it seems to me in all of our reviews, one of the goals is tends to be weighted more heavily and reviews by staff as well.

One of those goals always seems to rank higher than all the other goals.

So I'm just wondering how we can understand that.

Um they're council's goals, not Taz's, right?

No, right, right, but maybe TAS has some information about council's thinking and yeah, I mean, the the information I can provide is that when we when we had this conversation with them, um there was not an attempt to to rank them.

Um I think they're they're really provided um as far as the conversation went in April, they're they're provided in in no particular order.

Okay, Liz.

So Taz, when you look at those five topic areas, it if I understand them correctly, the first one seems to be a process issue, and the other four are topical.

So the first one seems to be an overarching the way a user interfaces with the lumo, if I'm understanding that right, and the others are sort of goals that the town would like the LUMO to address.

Do is that correct?

They don't seem equal, those five uh the user-friendliness goal.

I think once you look once you look into the uh the more detailed interests that are associated with it, it is it's some kind of organizational, you know, make sure that the lumo is well formatted, make sure that it is um like a helpful document.

There, there's some of that.

Um it does also get into process to a certain extent, right?

Make sure that our development review processes are are streamlined and efficient.

Um, so it is it is substantive to a certain extent, um, but nothing as you pointed out, Liz, it's not the same, right?

Um, but not I think as you pointed out, Liz, it's not it's not the same, right?

It is it is definitely distinct from the other four goals.

You're muted.

I think your cat muted you.

Indeed.

No, that's fine.

Thank you.

Sounds like uh we're out of questions, Tez.

I appreciate the um presentation.

Thank you very much.

We look forward to seeing you.

Actually, I have one more question for Taz.

Go ahead.

I just wonder if that June's, I know there's a break in the summer, but it seems like that meeting would make more sense after everybody has the actual instead of before, you know, moving it back two or three weeks and having a summer meeting.

Is that not doesn't it seem like that would be a more productive meeting?

It's always tough.

Um we um we've got the you know the council schedule we do, um it's kind of put out well in advance and adding meetings always difficult.

Um so we're we're going to them kind of when when we can.

I agree it's not not the ideal time, but there's just it didn't sync up well between when we could kind of reasonably expect to get the draft now.

It's just not possible.

So all right, got it.

And that you know, no, no, no.

I mean, I think it's a good thing to bring up because um it is like um we may see that come up from time to time that the the schedule, there's certain constraints in the schedule, and then there are certain constraints in um how kind of the other work proceeds.

Um and we're just trying to kind of like sync them up, sync them up the best we can.

Got it.

Thank you, Taz, and we look forward to seeing you on the 16th.

Sounds good.

Thanks, John.

Thanks all okay.

So our last uh agenda item is uh applications.

And as I understand it, we have um six folks um who have both submitted applications and affirmatively confirmed recently, you know, that they're still interested.

And those are Meredith, Eric, Anthony, Mark, Amanda, and Dylan.

I think those are the six that not everybody who I'm excluding in that list has confirmed that they're not interested, but they as I understand were given a chance and didn't respond or responded that they're not you know interested anymore.

So really there's the six.

Um is that the right way to think about it, Josh?

Do you think Jeff?

Uh I can pull up the email I sent.

I think the way I worded it when emailing applicants is that we ask that they um if you are still interested in being appointed to planning commission, please let me know by May 18th.

Okay.

Um what I would say is everyone who did not respond still has a ballot application and will be on council's ballot.

The folks who asked to not be on, we'll we'll take them off.

But yeah, so I I'm gonna suggest to my fellow commissioners that we focus our discussion on the six who responded to Josh's request to confirm that that they're still interested because otherwise I I would say there's a presumption that they're not.

How many other people is that?

Uh that would be the count here.

Uh I believe that would be out of our 14 applicants.

Um six did respond.

Uh I will note we do have one applicant who was not sent this email because they uh their application came in rather late.

Um then we also have uh Jeff who is eligible to be reappointed in that 18.

So that get that to eight.

And then two people definitely said no.

So they're four people you haven't heard back from.

Uh I think six people have taken the two people who said no out of my count of 14.

Got it.

Okay.

Jeff.

Yeah, I would just suggest that probably many of the people who Josh had to email to had never received an email from Josh before.

uh Jeff who is eligible to be reappointed in that 18 so that get that to eight and then two people definitely said no so there are four people you haven't heard back from uh I think six people I've taken the two people who said no out of my count of 14 got it okay Jeff yeah I I would just suggest that probably many of the people who Josh said the email to had never received an email from Josh before um not to mention that it's a new domain name so day mayo at Chapel Hill nc.gov and got caught in spam filters people might get just overwhelmed by the quantity of email and not focus on that so I uh I uh I'm pretty sure one of the people who did not respond is still interested oh really um in planning commission um I haven't contacted them but I just would not assume that people who did not respond um are either either continue to be interested or are no longer interested in serving on the planning commission well look if they're um appointed or or need to do an interview with the council they're gonna need to respond to an email from Josh at some point um so what what's likely to change yeah but this was one email yeah but it's one email from Josh that you know I I can't remember what the subject line was but it's not clear you know I'm just I'm I'm trying to be generous to the folks who receive this email who may not have even seen it I don't know about anybody else but my personal email I get 200 emails a day okay Mike yeah John I mean we I think was in maybe it was in April and I I understand that there's a one one additional applicant now Dylan but what we had before regardless of the ones that no longer want to be part of this we recommended four individuals to be interviewed by the December right so assuming you know there's there's only one delta to that four people now and that's Dylan you know regardless of who didn't want to be but those four are still in the running meaning are part of the one that want to be in the planning commission.

So did we go did we get uh the council at least to talk to them um already based on our previous recommendation no it wasn't actioned okay it was a recommendation wasn't it it was in the in the minutes yes okay so what is exactly then our role in here in in doing this no just kind of we have to have some clarification I mean I I went you know painfully read every one of those it was 20 you know 21 pages thanks for you know Jeff for what you did afterward but I had already spent three four hours reading these uh applicants so I I reached out uh three times in the last month to the council to try to get some direction as to what role if any they wanted us to play and I was unsuccessful in getting a response yeah and I'll say the effort uh in the December recommendation not leading to a new member is um on us I think we had miscommunications between myself and the clerk's office um so I think the council's procedure does ask that you make a recommendation um I will note we don't expect a an interview committee this time but uh so one path forward that Jeff and I had discussed on the phone earlier today was to more or less follow the same process we did in December we can incorporate whatever discussion we had and outcomes of that discussion at the time in this one but we'd put um the applicants into you know a few groups and we wouldn't rank them we would just put them into groups of you know these are the ones we feel maybe that you should interview or that you know we we wouldn't interview or whatever however we want to define the groups and then we could include if we want um you know short sentence or so uh explaining uh what caught our attention is salient you know aspects of the application at least for those where we're recommending further consideration that's just one um way that we could go about this I think it would probably take us about half an hour everybody's disappearing from camera no no I'm I'm I'm also listening to John is is a good an additional clarification on you know which one had a purpose which one wanted to do what but it is still not clear of what the council is looking for or if they're interested that's why I attempted to clarify that yeah we don't have to do anything we haven't been affirmatively asked through official channels to do anything um so we could spend a couple minutes discussing whether to even have this discussion I'm fine with that

We don't have to do anything.

We haven't been affirmatively asked through official channels to do anything.

Um so we could spend a couple of minutes discussing whether to even have this discussion.

I'm fine with that.

We affects our own teaming, right?

It's good to kind of look at the people that may be, you know, in line with the future um goal of of this commission and the council.

And so I think we can be helpful by reducing the number of people they that they need to interview, or they can just take our you know, recommendation, but we just need to know what is it that what what is that ask that they have so we can put our time you know wisely into this um this may be the last meeting before June 16th.

Uh I saw in the agenda, Josh, that and maybe we decided this last time that there's not a conditional rezoning for us to consider the earlier in June, right?

So we're uh uh but to June 16th, we do not expect to bring any items to y'all uh for the first meeting of June.

Right.

So this may be unless we want to reconvene our last opportunity before the 16th when we may have bigger fish to fry to um to talk about these.

So I I don't think we want to you know seek further clarification from the council at this point and kick the can.

I think we either want to, you know, form some kind of recommendations now or or just pass on it.

Good call.

I'm in.

I mean a recommendation is helpful.

Oh I'll hope it's helpful to them.

Okay.

I mean Is this on a council agenda for their last two meetings?

Uh we'll look to get on.

Sure.

I'll I'll say from staff's perspective, uh the advisory board policies suggests that we get an advisory board recommendation on naming new members before bringing it to council.

So council has that information.

Uh understand there's not been an affirmative ask or response to John's emails.

Um we would ideally put this on the calendar after understanding where planning commission is uh is with the recommendation, or if we have a recommendation in hand.

Okay, so it sounds like Mike's willing to have the discussion.

We don't need to make it a lengthy discussion.

We could go through these uh candidates one by one and see if we can uh bucket them and use some of the discussion we had in December and write any other notes we want to, and you know, I I do think we could do all that in half an hour.

Does that sound okay?

All right.

So in December, we uh recommended that the council interview four people.

I remember one of them was Eric.

I have the four if you want me to go through them.

Yeah, who what were the other names?

Do we have we have a copy of what we said in that we could just sort of package up with what we're doing now?

I think it's in the minutes we just appreciated.

No, it's in the minutes.

One or two minutes that we got.

Okay, let me pull it up.

December, I think December 2nd, whatever that last.

There's December, December uh second.

That's right.

Okay, let's see.

Julia Chamberlain, Peter.

Here you go.

Yes, I think y'all recommended Strather, Eric, Julia Chamberlain.

Those are right, right.

But there were I thought we had Liz, do you recall you ran that meeting?

Did we have didn't we have some actual comments aside from just four names?

Uh well, we had a long discussion.

I guess we did not necessarily put those in the um recommendation, I guess.

Okay.

Cool.

Does that sound right, Josh?

Uh I can pull up the full recommendation.

I think we were gonna package it in a recommendation to council document.

Um for the December minutes, we keep it a little bit shorter.

Yeah, it's probably worth looking at that document to see if there's any other language in it.

Yeah, yes.

Cool.

Because I thought that there was yes.

Uh okay.

Actually, I apologize.

I think that is the language that I do have for this motion.

Here's what I have in my notes from December 2nd.

Okay, so I guess we decided not to um say anything else.

So of these Julia, Peter, Strother, Eric.

Eric has said that he's still interested recently.

The three others have not said to staff that they're still interested.

That email sort of didn't didn't get responded to.

Except maybe did any of them take their names off?

Josh.

I do not believe any took their names any of these folks.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

So those are we could still consider those live recommendations.

I doubt we're gonna reverse ourselves.

I thought we could.

Right.

So maybe that seeds our category of folks that we recommend that they think about in interview, right?

And then we can supplement that with the I would say we consider supplementing that with names that we did not consider in December.

Um who are those?

So uh would be anyone that can.

I don't think Mark was in our pool back then.

Mark Mark Hamlin was one.

Anthony Disser, Amanda Fraser.

Hold on, Mark was one of what?

One of the ones that we did not recommend.

Oh, but we considered.

Yeah, no, we considered, but we didn't?

Okay.

Okay.

Well, you know, I have to be honest.

This is for my list that these are the ones that I went through personally.

Okay, so uh now that you're asking the question is at group level, at group level, I think we kind of had those four and be all it was we didn't exactly.

So Josh, I'm trying to figure out the delta between who we considered one way or the other in December and and who we have before us now.

Dylan is the only one I know for sure that's new.

Right.

Yes.

Um I think the answer would be uh at this time just seat was not up.

Uh it was gonna be up in June, so we did not consider that seat or Jess's application.

Um we also did not consider an application.

Are you talking about Jeff Green?

Yeah.

Oh, right.

Yeah, but we um my seat wasn't up in December.

This was uh filled a vacant seat.

So so of the applications in front of you, uh Jeff's application, Mark Hainline's application, uh Amanda Fryzard's application, uh Mark's double application in the packet.

Um are all the ones that are dated 2026.

Um so they may have had previous applications that phased out from the 12 month time period, but they actively reapplied this uh spring.

Okay.

Yeah.

The other Mark inline application from our April agenda was submitted in March 2024.

Okay, but Mike, you have in your notes that we did talk about Mark.

No, I mean December.

I was retracting that is what I have in my notes of what I in all the ones I looked at.

So I don't know if that was come conversation in at that meeting or you've known about them.

If we didn't when you looked at these, are you saying you what you looked at in December or what you looked at in anticipation of this meeting?

No, that was in December.

I went through all those is like 20 almost 20 applicants in in documents that Josh sent, you know, and one being there twice, I don't remember each one, but um, you know, I went through each one individually.

So looking at their objectives, their backgrounds, their experience, you know, all different factors.

Okay.

But so all I'm saying is I looked at those, but I don't know if that was discussed in the meeting.

Like Mark.

If you looked at him, we would have discussed them.

Oh, I'm looking, I I pulled down the um materials from the December 2nd um uh meeting.

Um, and I just searched for Mark and it did not come up.

You know, I I didn't remember him from December.

I didn't remember.

I don't remember that name either.

Um Jeff, do you have the list of people?

Um I have the um 61 page PDF that I could go through.

Yeah, could you just run through and read off the names and we'll just see who's on and who isn't?

Julia Chamberlain.

All right, who we recommended?

Um Anthony Disser.

Yep.

Okay.

Robin Langdon, who she pulled out.

I think Peter Maniloff.

Who we recommended?

Judy Miller, who was pulled out.

Um we recommended.

Um Michael Redman.

Or Mitchell Redman, sorry.

Yeah, that's correct.

He was there.

And he's still in, he's still in the package.

Um Meredith.

Rudemire.

Meredith Rodemeyer.

All right.

Okay.

And Eric.

Yeah, but Mark was there two times.

I believe that apologies.

I believe that was the April packet where Mark was mistakenly in there two times.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

So you must have prepared in April as well.

That's why you said April originally.

We never took it up in April.

We sort of postponed that discussion until now, Mike, but I think that's what you're thinking about.

Yeah, you're that's okay.

So I want to take care of the low-hanging fruit, which is I I think we should add Jeff to the list to avoid a negative implication.

I mean, obviously, we support and it doesn't really matter what we say, like he's gonna get it reappointed.

Um, so let's put him on our list.

And by the way, I think he should be on the list.

I second that.

Okay.

So now we have a list of um of five.

Now who next next low hanging fruit, we need to consider Dylan, who is a new application, and we need to consider Mark, who is a new application, as far as I know.

And Amanda as well, Josh.

She's it men is a new application.

Uh yes, I have Amanda Frasard uh as an applicant who applied uh 2026.

Yes, 2026.

Yeah, so we have at least those three that are that are new we need to talk about.

So let's do those and then we'll figure out if we're missing somebody.

Um does anybody want to speak about, let's start with Dylan.

Did was Trevor Leatherwood?

He wasn't on that Trevor applied in December 2025 after your meeting, so he is also um someone who you did not consider prior to December 2025.

So that's four four for us to consider now.

Anyone else?

Hold on.

Jeff, are you aware of others?

Mark Trevor, Mark, Amanda, Dylan behind those four that we didn't consider in uh December that have, you know, applied subsequently.

Um days after our meeting in December.

Okay, searching through this document by 2026 was not the right idea.

Yeah, that looks that looks correct.

Okay, fine.

So let's I'm just gonna take down those five and we'll talk about them and we'll see who we want to add to our list.

And given how many people, so there are gonna be two openings.

No, sorry, three openings.

There's currently an opening, there's gonna be two more because Liz and I are rolling off.

So um let's put Jeff aside.

There's gonna be two openings besides Jeff, and you know, for those of us who are not coming back.

Um also we recommended four, but only one of those people is even confirmed that they're so it's possible those other three we've already put on our list may not still be interested.

All right, we can consider like if we want to create more buckets.

Uh so let's start with uh Mike, you have your hand up.

Is that from before?

Yes, it is and I have one clarification point.

I apologize.

Uh Wes's seat is still open, so we can name someone to that.

Yeah, so that's three four seats minus Jeff is three seats.

We're a seven-member board, and we have six people right now.

So one um one introductory thing.

Um Trevor Leatherwood.

Um he lists it's his application's confusing, but for C category for the planning commission, he lists Orange County ETJ resident.

Um and that seat is occupied by Libby.

So I don't know that we can recommend you could be an ETJ and just take a you don't have to take the ETJ seat, right?

I think you need to be a resident.

I think you do.

I think you have the ETJ and the other like Mike C are appointed by the county.

I I think you have to live in the in the city limits to be.

Yeah.

To replace any of you.

Okay.

Yeah.

I would uh I hear you.

Trevor lists an address that is within the town's corporate limits.

Okay, yeah, because he he says ETJ, but he also says Chapel Hill resident.

So solidarity with uh actual territorial people.

Yeah, that's uh he's in the maps.

He's in the caraway crossing development.

All right, so let's include him in our consideration.

So I want to throw in another wrench.

I know Josh, you have said my term is up, my two terms, but the actual reading, I don't have I haven't done two full terms, and I might be interested in finishing six years, not another full term, but after listening to to Taz, I think it's important not to bring on three new members to um the planning commission at this point who aren't gonna have any sense now.

Eric would, of course, if he were one of them.

So I put I'm just thinking this now.

I joined in November.

So November would be when I would want to leave.

We're not looking at three more years, but I do remember when I was interviewed.

I said, I'm really interested in this because the town is about to do the Luma revision.

This was five and a half years ago, and this is something that I care a lot about.

The Luma revision, so I wouldn't mind having being able to do that next process.

And John, I don't know about you.

It also given how slow the council is at filling these.

But if that is considered inappropriate, I think you'd have to be reappointed, Liz, because you're okay.

But I would then I would you'd like to say I would be reappointed with the understanding that I also would not do a full term.

I would just do it until essentially the fall.

I I think we have done this on the assumption that because you have served two terms, you are required to roll off per advisory board policy.

No, not at the first is a partial.

I I do see that the first is a partial.

Same is true for me.

I'm actually not term limited.

Okay.

Um I'm not replying, but I'm not term limited.

Okay.

I will say I think we have very much assumed uh I would have definitely included y'all in the conversation if we did not assume that you were term limited.

Um this is just cross my mind while Taz was talking, actually.

I hadn't been, I had been preparing to just step off after this since it's close to two terms, not two full terms.

But this does seem like this fall is an important moment, and bringing in fresh people to look at this is gonna be really hard, I think.

It's just unfortunate that this they didn't move it just a little bit earlier.

It's a lot of institutional knowledge to lose all at once.

Liz, um, do you need more time or would you like to be considered?

Uh well, I haven't actually applied.

Uh so I don't even know if you could consider me now since Josh doesn't have my application.

All right.

Council can do what it wants, I think.

Yeah, I I mean there's no rules about this.

Yeah.

All right.

So the terms.

Yeah.

The terms are defined, have an end date no matter when you start.

Yes.

There's a term.

The term has a start date and an end date.

It's just that you can be appointed in the middle of a term that exists.

Right.

They're staggered uh terms.

I'll say that the council policy says council members may not write in a person's name who has not applied, but it is a very long set of paragraphs about applying it.

So I don't know.

I don't know if you can apply that.

I don't know how that.

Okay.

All right.

Well you should try to apply.

You should send an email and apply.

Right.

If you why don't we don't talk about me and let me think about whether this makes sense.

This is just something that has crossed my mind.

Yeah, yeah.

And I do have I do have one thing when we come back to this conversation.

Go ahead.

Uh I would say.

We can figure out if the uh initial October 2020 was a partial or a full.

I would also note that while we do require members to roll off on a two consecutive terms, we do note that the council may reappoint an individual to a board or commission for an additional one year term by resolution for the purpose of completing ongoing projects.

Oh fascinating.

I've never never seen that language.

Me either.

Pardon?

But then would then someone need it if she's not term limited anyway, but yeah.

Interesting.

All right.

Well, let's talk about the other folks.

As I said, I'm sorry for throwing in another wrench.

I wasn't okay.

So Dylan is a real estate agent and he's an undergrad at uh UNC, Dylan.

Does anybody want to say anything about whether he should be included in our um our list, or maybe another way we could do this is if folks want to of the five, Trevor, Mark, Amanda, Dylan, Leaf, if any another way to do this is um for folks to um suggest um among these people who should be just names that should be on our short list.

That's another way to do it.

It's up to you.

I I suggest Mark.

Okay.

Do you want to say anything about that?

Yeah, I mean, he was uh at least very clear on um his his um purpose and the background looks good from the public for a perspective.

Yeah.

Um lots of good material that he re that he indicated that you know he had his previous reading materials as uh it was kind of in line with the uh the what we do, I think.

Oh yeah, the uh the essay with the the reading.

Yeah, I was impressed with that.

A lot of a lot of stuff on there.

I don't know if he's read all of it, but that would be pretty impressive if he did.

Um I thought he showed uh high subject matter interest.

Yes, put it that way, which which is uh useful.

So I I would uh be supportive of including Mark on the on on our he would then be the sixth on our short list.

Jeff uh Jeff's got his thumbs up.

Um Liz, Chuck, uh would would you object to having Mark on the short list?

No.

No.

Okay.

Okay, so let's put Mark on the list.

So that's that's six people.

Um Josh, would you mind keeping this list?

You just have to add a couple names.

I I'm just not capable, right?

Um about uh well, I'm not gonna say how about.

Does anybody want to sort of pose anybody else to get on that list?

I make a comment, but I was on borderline with Dylan.

Okay, just he just he was a real he is a real estate agent.

Which is he comes with a loss of experience on you know, hands on experience, working with people.

You know, especially you know, people that are looking for affordable housing, this versus that, but I just could not get a purpose out of his material.

What is his purpose?

That was what I had a hard time with, but you know, um, you know, other folks read the material, so um that would be um the only comment I have on that.

The other one was I really couldn't come up with anything, any recommendation on three.

Okay.

One to three years, although he says he worked at the Carolina Inn for how before real estate, I guess that's one to three years.

He might have lived in Durham or muted Scarborough.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I I I'm with I mean, I was I was kind of fascinated that he apparently I mean, I'd like to know what he did at the Carolina Inn, and then he's a real estate agent, plus he's an undergrad, and he's older than 25.

So that's have an interesting life course.

But yeah, like Mike said, I don't know that why he wants to be on the planning commission.

Yeah, it was an interesting and interesting group of different uh characteristics.

It might be good to have someone with someone younger, but with these skill sets.

Who grew up one of them was grew up in Chapel Hill schools, etc.

That wasn't him Julia, I think.

Yeah.

Who is on our list?

So we're we have Julia, Peter, Strauther, Eric, Jeff, and adding Mark so far.

I would uh I would note um and uh you know whatever y'all think, but Leaf, um, who I've met a couple of times, very smart guy.

Um I think we'll bring it different and young student, although doing that disastrous commute to NC State from Chapel Hill.

Um, but I think he would be um uh an interesting addition to the commission.

Yeah.

Um can you remind me what what he's working a lot of PhD in transportation systems engineering at NC State?

Oh yeah, he was one of the ones that I didn't find to kind of indicate what his purpose was.

But the idea of you know experience on transportation to me was interesting for sure.

Okay.

He also said that he you know he's interested in the type of mixed-use neighborhoods that Chapel Hill is trying to develop.

Well, you met him personally too, Jeff, right?

Yes, yeah, yeah.

All right, just lived in Denmark.

I'd be supportive of adding uh leaf to our short list.

We could add him.

Are we okay with that?

Okay, fine.

So it's getting longer, but we don't know if all of them are interested.

But this is just uh sort of the first cart that we're making, you know, and you can disregard it.

They don't like it, but um people for them to reach out to and talk to um I noted that um Amanda didn't list the PC as her first choice, right?

Yeah, downtown partnerships, right?

Um there's um Trevor who was in the Navy.

Uh he looks like he's done interesting things, although I'm not quite sure what is specific to the planning commission.

Yeah, that was my thought as well.

That's exactly what I went with it.

No stayed goal.

Okay, yeah.

Okay, so um feel free to interrupt me, but it sounds like maybe we want to stop there.

Yeah, and what is that's six or seven names, Josh?

How many do you have?

Sure.

I will say I've heard names listed as on a short list, and then I've heard names discussed.

Oh, it's seven.

It's the four that we had, plus leaf, uh Mark.

Actually, and Jeff.

Okay.

I heard Amanda in the conversation, just confirming that.

No, there wasn't a request in September.

So I think that's where we are.

I guess the only thing I would add to that is Liz.

Should she decide to apply?

Or should she succeed in applying at this juncture?

One, two.

Okay.

Yeah.

Julia.

She's one from uh from December.

Yeah.

Okay.

And basically.

Josh, I think you can.

Well, this is something we ought to vote on.

Is is uh let's go around and um thumbs up if if this is a list that you're comfortable with Josh passing along to the council as folks that we have you know looked at their applications and um think that they're worth more you know a look from the council and and maybe interviewing or whatever they want to do.

Those are the ones that sort of popped out at us as being um I don't know how to describe it worth worth looking at more closely.

Thumbs up if that is okay with you.

Uh Jeff, is your thought okay good?

Um yeah, so Josh, how about that?

Okay, that works.

I if folks are comfortable using the same language of Moose recommend these applicants to uh be considered by town council as candidates for planning commission recommended applicants are in alphabetical order.

Yeah, that's great.

Cool.

Okay.

So on we'll next meet on the 16th.

We're gonna talk about LUMO.

We're gonna get a presentation from Taz and some sort of alignment memo to look at in advance.

I'll try to keep an eye out for that on the council agenda and um circulate it as soon as it's up, but life happens.

So if Josh, you happen to notice it, and we we'd love to get it as soon as we can.

Are are we anticipating any other agenda items on the 16th or too soon to tell, Josh?

We are currently not anticipating any other agenda items on the 16th.

All right, so we should have time for good LUMO discussion.

Um the first of many before the break.

Not the first.

Yeah, actually, not the first.

Um thanks everyone.

Good to see you.

Thank you.

Good night, everyone.

Thanks, y'all.

Good night, everyone.