Code and regulation uh committee meeting to order uh for tonight.

Um if we could have uh the clerk please call the roll here here appropriate thank you we have five items on the agenda under committee reports item one is 609 Kilburn Avenue zoning board of appeals recommends denial for a a special use permit for planned use development consisting of a ground of a ground mount solar array within the existing parking lot and b variation to allow a chain link fence within the front yard along Acorn Street and C a variation to increase the fence height from four feet to six feet within the front yard along Acorn Street and in R2 two family residential zoning district at 609 Kilburn Avenue Green Link Solar Solutions for the Boys and Girls Club of Rockford is the applicant and I will make the motion to approve this.

Is there a second second?

Did you second?

Yes.

Okay.

Um I was just gonna note that this is laid over, uh, was laid over for 30 days.

Um and because of the zoning board of appeals recommendation for denial, regardless of uh what the committee does tonight, this will require a 10 vote supermajority to be approved when it reaches city council.

Um Alderman Bell.

Uh this is to our legal director um Hammer.

Would it be appropriate right now?

There's a motion on the floor.

Um I mean, I'd like to make a motion to reverse the denial.

Would we have to go through with thank you, Mr.

Chair?

I I would just like clarification on your motion to approve.

Is it to sustain the ZBA's recommendation of denial or to reverse the ZBA's recommendation of denial?

My well, my motion is to sustain the ZBA recommendation of denial.

Okay.

Follow-up question, Director Hammer.

Um a no vote would make it what?

Can you explain to us?

I know we've been through this a few times now, but just for clarity for this committee.

So a yes vote would be in favor of sustaining the denial, and a no vote would be opposed to the the denial.

Which would move forward saying at council that this committee, colds and riggs, recommends approval.

Correct.

If the the motion to sustain the recommendation of denial fails, then it would come out as a recommendation to reverse.

We would probably require that motion on the floor just so it's clean in the record.

And should Alderman Bonnie or Chairman that our chairman's motion fail to sustain it, where does that leave us?

Then we would need a motion to reverse the ZBA's denial of the item.

Okay.

Just for this committee's I am in totally in favor of this project.

Um for readability sake, I'd I'd ask that we'd uh move forward with reversing the denial and moving forward with that.

So I'll make a second to your motion, sir.

You already had I thought um can could I ask uh the legal director if so, regardless of whether the language is to reverse the Z regardless of whether there's language when it gets to council to final vote of council to reverse the ZBA denial, that does not.

I I believe I asked the question outside of the meeting, that does not remove the requirement that we approve it by a supermajority because of the ZBA denial, correct?

That's correct.

To overturn ZBA's recommendation of denial, it would require a supermajority at council.

If we wanted to remove that requirement, it would need to return to ZBA and ZBA would need to change its vote.

Correct.

It's statutorily required to overturn a denial recommended by ZBA.

So reversing the reversal is just simply to avoid council confusion, such as we had on the McDonald's vote.

Correct.

Okay.

And so that could have if it happens it it if it doesn't I mean if it happens at committee.

I mean it doesn't matter.

If council approves denies the ZBA recommendation, it's going to go to council.

Or no.

I I didn't follow your question.

You look at the if the language if we if we vote against the recommendation to to deny, when it goes to council, it's the uh I think I'm asking the same question all the belt did just to be make sure we all understand that the motion that goes to council from this committee then is to reverse the denial.

Correct.

Yes.

So we don't need to re we don't need a motion to reverse the denial at committee if we're simply gonna vote against it.

That's that's correct.

Okay.

And again, I guess just for Yes, I'm sorry, Alderman.

Your mic is still on.

I I just made a suggestion for readability and so we could take away all of that confusion.

Um so now that I am a bit confused, I'm going to ask for clarity one more time.

Because we have a motion on the floor and a second.

And that motion is to sustain the denial from ZBA.

So if I'm in favor of this project, I would be voting no.

You would be sustain the denial.

No.

No.

If you are in favor of this project, you would be voting no on the recommendation on the motion to sustain the denial.

I am for this project.

I will be voting no.

Thank you.

Alder woman prunk.

I just have a quick question.

Uh Chairman.

Could Alderman print, can you use your microphone for the question?

Um could someone also just um not second it and then what would happen if they were to withdraw their second.

I think not seconding it would prevent it from moving forward to council.

Legal can confirm that.

That's correct.

The a motion would require a second for a vote at committee.

But it's already been seconded.

So there any other questions or any questions or comments on the motion to sustain denial of the ZBA recommendation.

Alder Woman Meeks.

I'm sorry if uh if this is wrong timing, but um and thank you for allowing me to speak on your committee.

Um can I just get a clear understanding of where the denial came into play, why it was denied by ZBA?

Like what were the reasons that it was denied?

Can you break that down for me, please?

Sure.

Uh well, the a lot of it was based on this staff recommendation of denial because we felt like they didn't uh putting a solar uh uh freestanding solar panels in a parking lot just didn't seem to make good sense.

And in addition to that, having a six-foot-tall chain link fence in a front yard did not seem like a very reasonable thing to do since we're getting away from uh having uh number one tall fences and front yards, and number two, having chain link in front yards.

So we thought there was other options that could have been pursued.

Um, you know, if they wanted to have uh additional solar, we we encourage them to build a canopy over the parking lot and put solar on top of it.

It would not even have to come to the zoning board then.

But uh also they have green space over to the uh east side of the property that could have been another location in which they could have located this and not taken up some of the parking and then had the chain link and taller fencing away from the front yard.

Um so those were some of the reasons why.

Um just with regards to the parking really quick, is uh how much parking would be taking away?

20 spaces.

Thank you so much.

Sure.

Um following up on that, and I in the packet, I think it's made clear that the uh boys and girls club is indicated they don't need that parking and by our own uh ordinance they don't need it as well, right?

They would still have more than enough uh parking to meet the requirements of our zoning ordinance with the loss of this parking.

That would be correct.

Sometimes from a staff perspective, you can say yes.

So if this building is not going to be the boys and girls' clubs in the future, then I have to look at what's going to happen in the future if this building was repurposed.

Then they don't then they're probably not going to meet parking.

And yet we're going to have a 20 or 25 year solar lease.

And so that's another issue.

So just to be clear, I'm I'm also supporting this proposal, so I'll also be voting no.

But can um Mr.

Capavilla, can you also uh explain the um this the six-foot fence requirement?

My from previous conversation we had.

My understanding is we sort of there's sort of a conflict here where if that six-foot the six-foot fence is not simply desired by the applicant, but it's required by state law for forest uh solar um operate ground level solar operation.

So there's a conflict between what would be required if we approved this by the state and what is not allowed under our zoning ordinance.

Yeah, um I believe that they they do require uh six-foot-tall fence around a certain size of freestanding solar.

Obviously, if it was just a couple of panels in someone's backyard, which could be acceptable, that that wouldn't be required, but in this case, yes, I believe due to the size of it, it would have to have a fence that's at least six feet tall.

Thank you.

And then also the um I just wanted to make the comment that um in my opinion.

If you if we were to require these solar panels to be installed on green space, we'd be and it's a boys and girls club, we'd be taking what I assume would be valuable green space out of play instead of taking out asphalt that the boys and girls club is indicating they don't really need right now.

To me, that's actually preferable.

Um I think the idea that the boys and girls club is you know, of course, I mean anything can happen, but I think the there's been a lot of investment of funds in that particular facility, I believe to the tune of two million dollars by the boys and girls club.

So I don't see the boys and girls club leaving that facility, and I I don't know how long the boys and girls club is operated in Rockford, but for a very long decades, very long time, I don't see the boys and girls club going away either, so I'm not sure that those are um great arguments to to deny it.

But um I believe uh Alderman um Trina and then Alder Woman Wilkins.

Thank you.

I have a couple questions.

Uh my first question is can you explain to me what the process is about engaging with the immediate neighbors when we install a solar panel?

So for example, I know that this property backs up to horsemen, which they're which is residential.

Do we reach out to the neighbors?

Is there a ordinance or anything in place or our procedure for doing that to engage with the surrounding area before we would install a solar panel?

So all of the adjacent neighbors were notified of the zoning board of appeals hearing.

So anybody that's adjacent to the property would have been given a notification that this is the request that would went through, I believe it was back in February, the February meeting.

So when you say adjacent, what does that mean?

Uh so adjacent neighbor would be if you draw straight lines uh from the boys and girls club property uh north, southeast, east, and west.

Anybody who falls within those lines then would be notified.

Uh-huh.

Okay.

And then you said that you um you were talking about the denial and there being like uh maybe some area on the east of their property that you would have suggested they put it there.

Do you remember what the response was as to why they didn't choose that grass area, I guess, versus the parking lot?

Their preference was to leave the green area alone.

Part of it um is used as a playground, and I think they do have a couple of uh community gardens over there.

They did not want they they they were talking about potentially expanding some of those things.

Uh but um you know it was just it was the suggestion from staff that they could incorporate those.

So there isn't like a just as I remembered it, there isn't the area that's an open grassy area, like I saw playground equipment and all that kind of stuff.

There isn't some other open area on this grounds, and I'm no think so okay.

Uh that's all for now.

Thanks.

Thank you.

And Alder Woman Wilkins.

That was my question as well, um, about the movement on there.

Um I just I guess I'll go on record and state that I I won't be supporting this tonight um simply because I do not agree with the freestanding uh solar panels on the ground aesthetically, I just especially at that location right there by Kilburn, it just doesn't make sense to me.

As a couple of you just pointed out, there's a playground, there's a community garden on the other side.

There are kids playing over there all the time, unaccompanied by a parent, by the way.

And so for a chain link fence to be there and to think about what can happen while at this community center is a public safety issue, so I will not be supporting this tonight.

Um but I'd be happy to support this if we did find a resolution to moving the ground solar.

That is the only issue I have with this project, so I wanted to be clear on that.

Everything else was a green light for me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Alderman Bell.

Uh just want to say thank you all for your comments.

Um wanted to exp expand on on some of some of the uh conversation.

Um being that this proposed uh solar um site is far away from both the building door or the building uh in the entrance and from the playground um which sits on a plot of land that is uh basically shared with uh the church right behind the boys and girls club.

And so I think that is one of the reasons in talking with uh the boys and girls club that they did not choose that um site is because one they share with the church, but also um the boys and girls at the club uh play soccer and football and and get to spend time outside on that only um uh piece of land that that they have that's safe um around the around their campus, given the fact that you know Kilburn is a pretty busy street, they're able to play closer into the neighborhood.

Um and so you know, I I frequent uh at the boys and girls club uh almost every day, and and I'd say, you know, going through this process, I've had many conversations.

One thing I I'd like to highlight um is that and and I don't believe that it's in this packet, but uh this is not just a solar installation.

This is also a part of a a workforce development opportunity.

Um Zion West is a part of the CEGA hub here in our region and has done an amazing job at um training up and and getting um individuals certified and giving them an opportunity um at a better career.

And GreenLink has stepped up in partnership with the Boys and Girls Club in a time that it's very hard for individuals who are going through this CEGA hub to um not get not get certified, but then use that certification and get into the workforce and so uh through conversations with with members of this committee through uh talking talking about uh this this project um we wanted to make sure that uh Zion West and and their and their graduates had an opportunity at actually getting hands-on experience um on this project, and so excited to share that Green Link has uh committed to three individuals from the CEA hub to be on this uh on this project on this development um in partnership with Zion West, the Boys and Girls Club in Green Lake.

Thank you.

Alder Woman Wilkins.

Thank you.

Um I do want to give a shout out to um the Alderman.

I don't even know how to address you right now, the Alderman of the 13th ward for um his his commitment to this.

I know he's been working really hard um with the developers and other organizations, especially advocating for the workforce development on this.

Um and that is something that I I I and thank you for mentioning that.

That was something I meant to address.

Um I didn't see that in the packet either, so I know that there may have been communications, but I didn't see anything in writing, and I would like to see that in writing before I would approve this into the contract so we can make sure that that is adhered to with that workforce development piece if this does go through tonight.

Would you like to propose an amendment?

At this time, no.

At this time no Alderman Frost.

Thank you.

Uh with respect to this last issue with the CJ hub I I'd be hopeful and uh and think that no matter where the solar uh panels were installed throughout the city that that those folks with with workforce development could work with them uh at any site not not specific to this site.

My big concern is is also you know just opening up a can of worms with people that have parking lots throughout the city in in a in a dense or urban area um or you know woodman's right woodmans wants to put in solar panels in their parking lot because they have excess spaces not that they do but I'm just anyone could come forward and really expand the the use of solar um you know sometimes just things don't work right I mean my house faces the north when they you know when the solicitors came through my neighborhood a couple years ago and and were convincing people to put up solar they said because of the roof lines on my house and and the grade that you know I'd take a pass right so I just don't know if it just because you want something uh it always is feasible with with with your specific property we just spent some time on land use and uh land use is individual and and uh it does go to your to your specific lot and your in your parcel of land so um I I if there's a playground there and obviously I think that's for the boys and girls club probably a much higher use and priority to use that than solar then y maybe you just can't you can't you can't have both ways but to allow um it to go into a parking lot as I think the ZBA and staff will notice and then and then having a fence line around it I mean it just I mean it's not conducive to to the city uh trying to you know uh put uh dollars in into Kilburn Street in the a way that people take into the into the downtown area and exiting our city um it just doesn't seem like the the highest and best use of of a parking lot thank you alder woman true uh Torina thank you I also just want to go on record um well I mean it's I think there's some things that we know I'm just pretty much consistent on I'm typically not a big proponent for solar panels um due to the fact that there was a ZBA denial staff denial and I'm all for changing precedence but not for solar panels.

So I'm gonna be uh a yes to sustain the denial um for now I could be persuaded perhaps with something with some new information but for now tonight I am going to be a yes to sustain the denial on this one.

Thank you.

Alder Woman Torina Alderman Bell yeah I'll just say Alderwoman Terina I will perceive persuade you with facts uh over the coming weeks just to clear the air there um just want to make sure that something um a few things uh there have been comments about the chain link fence and totally understand um where you all are coming from with that um I do want to note though that there's a similar project on uh a boys and girls club's uh property that um is right outside of the the black hawk boys and girls club um in the black house black hawk uh housing area as well um and it has basically the this the same similar setup with chain link fence um solar in the inside and the community has done really well with um uh it being there I'd also want to note that I I believe I sent it to this committee e each member of this committee um but there's one thing on the mock that that we're given that I want to highlight and that's also on on the uh chain link fence in the Blackhawk uh area is that there's uh there are educational um billboards or or banners on the on the fence um for the the young people to or the community rather to um be educated on what solar panels are and what they do um when it comes to sustainable energy it was just really cool to see that they had um superheroes on on that on that mock um as they do at the Black Hawk Boys and Girls Club um probably have two more things um we do have a member of uh green link energy the developer here I would ask uh without objection of this body can can we allow them to uh share just a little bit more about this project um I'd make a motion or I guess ask Chairman uh without any objection um I mean we do do that from time to time uh why don't you make a motion make a motion to uh have the developer speak so it's second seeing

Make a motion to uh have the developer speak.

So it's second.

Seeing none.

Are there any other questions or comments?

Alderman Bell.

Yeah, with respect to uh my um colleague on this committee and this in the uh seventh ward, um I want to make a motion to lay this item over for two more weeks and to get that language in the packet uh when it comes to the workforce development um agreement, but also uh to address the chain link fence uh issue and potentially have conversations on and now that we hear it from this body, um if there's another proposed location uh that they they that they may have understanding it still would need to go back to to ZBA and go through that process, but uh before moving this forward to city council, I'd like a moment to just take a step back and go back to uh the allow the developer to go back to the drawing board over the last over the next week or so um to address some of the concerns that that this committee has.

Make a motion to do.

I'm sorry, just second.

So there's a motion and a second to uh lay this over.

There are any questions or comments on the motion to lay over.

So I do have some questions.

So we laid this over, I believe, on your motion, Alderman Bell previously, uh, for 30 days, which is longer than we normally lay over.

And um Mr.

Capavella can correct me if I'm wrong, but nothing has changed in the packet from then to now, correct?

That's correct.

So I don't see the need for a layover.

I mean, if this if um this workforce development piece could have could have, and in my opinion, should have been included during that 30 days, and could still be included if somebody wanted to amend this on the floor to require it, which I suggested to the seventh ward alderman.

So I really see no reason for a layover when this has already been laid over for 30 days.

Alderman Bell.

Yeah, I I'd push back a little bit.

I mean, I I don't think there's a uh necessarily a rush in in getting you know somebody else's project through if they if there are questions from the body that is here to approve their project.

I think allowing them to go back to the drawing board and make the changes that this committee is speaking about um to get an approval.

I mean, I think at the end of the day we're here to uh make their the the right informed decision, and if we know here publicly that there's information that is lacking and the developers here and willing to uh wait another two weeks and go back to the drawing board.

Um I'd also make you know rebuttal to your comment of there's not a reason why we should um uh lay it over for another two weeks.

Well, we didn't give them uh a public suggestion that that's something we wanted in in the packet.

I I'd agree with uh the Alder Woman in the seventh ward that it should be in on paper as we approve this um to ensure that commitment is followed through.

Um and I no have no doubt in my mind that with the awesome stakeholders a part of this project that they'd come to an agreement and put that on on paper.

Um so again, I I'd I'd ask for you guys' support for another two weeks.

Um yes, sir, legal director.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Just to clarify the next meeting of committee is in three weeks, just because of the schedule.

Even better, thank you.

Uh woman Trina.

To talk about I I appreciate the Alderman bringing up the Blackhawk Boys and Girls Club.

But the reason why that one is different to me is because you can look it up on Google Maps.

That is not right on the street.

This Tolt solar panel, you're gonna drive through and see this thing.

This is set way far back on the property in a grassy area, not on the parking lot and behind the building.

So it's not even within sight.

Um I actually just visited this particular boys and girls club like last month.

I didn't even see the panel there.

So it's not aesthetically obtrusive as what we're proposing at Kilburn.

So I don't know that that was a great comparison.

But thank you.

Thank you.

Um actually, and I have another question for the legal director.

Um if this committee would prefer to lay this over rather than amend it to require the um workforce development agreement to be in it.

Um that could also be required, that could also be done as an amendment at council, correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

So again, I I just do not see the need for a layover for three weeks of an item that was laid over for 30 days and nothing was done with it for 30 days.

Alderman Bell.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh to the fifth ward Alderwoman.

Um I just want to share that my comments regarding the um solar project in your ward at the Black Hawk um uh community center.

Uh was not necessarily a comparison to the visibility from the street.

It was a comparison um from conversations being had about children playing in the vis in the area.

So just want to clarify, you know, that that was where I was coming from uh from that perspective.

So I also um chairman again, you know, I don't think we need to rush making a decision.

This gives us an opportunity um as an individual who's in favor, and I know you are too, um, that we can go back with the developer and make sure that they have all of their ducks in a row and getting the information that this body has suggested.

Thank you.

I'll call the question.

Okay, we have a motion to lay over item one.

And a second.

Uh can you uh call the role, please, clerk?

No.

Motion passes, item is laid over.

Item two, 1616 South Main Street.

Traffic Commission recommends approval to establish a no parking restriction from 6 a.m.

to four.

I'm sorry, 6 a.m.

to 4 p.m.

Monday through Friday on the north side of Graham Street from 70 feet east of South Main Street to 160 feet east of South Main Street.

Is there a motion to approve?

So move.

Are there any questions or comments on item two?

Alder woman Torina.

Mr.

Carter, can you explain?

It looks like they're obviously both together.

Can you explain the reason why the business is looking for this?

Is it just so they can have that loading zone?

So, yeah, the the business uh came saying that there was parking.

They believe that people are are parking um on gram um and then writing public transportation downtown for um to their jobs, um, and that parking is keeping them from being able to get trucks in and out of their loading facilities.

Like 52-foot trailer type trucks?

Um I I think um I don't know that they're the large like 60 foot semis, but even getting single unit trucks, they were saying they were having difficulty because of of the cars on one side or the other.

Some of them are blocking uh loading docks, some of them are across the street where it's tougher to angle in and and back into loading docks.

And they just want it Monday through Friday.

Well, obviously that's when business business hours.

Okay, thanks.

Are there any other questions or comments on item two?

Alder Woman Prenti.

Thank you.

Um why would somebody want to park there and then take public transportation to work downtown?

Is there a parking issue?

Because our parking passes range from $39 a month to $84 a month, possibly.

And so if if this were to pass, um people would be told not to park here.

Um would you is there can do you ex um see the economic impact?

So how many cars are we talking about?

Um I I don't know that I I can answer that.

When um this is this was a complaint that came from the business.

When I went out to visit it, I did not necessarily see the uh the issue.

They did provide some pictures during the traffic commission, but I mean the picture showed four or five cars.

Um you say ours is $39 a month?

Uh between 39 and 82, depending on where you're parking.

84, excuse me.

Thank you.

Oh boy.

Alderman Thunberg.

Oh, yeah.

For everyone's sake, I'll keep this quick.

I was a runner for a summer back in the day for Miller Engineering, and just to let you know that it is not uncommon for them to be uh bringing trucks or uh it could be pickup trucks, could be uh heavy duty duty trucks of that sort uh with trailers that contain lifts uh and different equipment.

So it may not be semi-trucks all the time by any means, but there are trucks with trailers uh or heavy-duty trucks with trailers trying to get in and out of that place, and I was one of them that was doing it one summer.

Thanks, Miller Engineering.

Alderman Bell.

Yeah.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

Um I guess just for clarity, I'm sorry.

Uh this is 1616 South Main Street.

They're parking, I'm looking at on street view.

They're parking on the street.

The citizens, yes, are parking on the on Graham.

Understood.

Sorry.

I thought they were parking on Main Street.

Appreciate it.

There are any other questions or comments.

Just uh point of clarification.

This is the fifth ward, correct?

I believe so, yes.

Okay.

Um, seeing no no other questions or comments.

Um, Clip, can we also have a roll call on this one?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Item three is 1616 South Main Street and Graham Street.

Traffic Commission recommends approval to establish a commercial loading zone.

Restriction on the south side of Graham Street from South Main Street to 70 feet east of South Main Street.

Is there a motion to approve?

I'll second.

Are there any questions or comments on item three?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item four.

First street official car parking.

Traffic commission recommends approval to establish an official car parking only restriction on the west side of First Street from 145 feet south of Walnut Street to 195 feet south of Walnut Street.

Is there a motion to approve?

I'll second by Alder Woman Torina.

Are there any questions or comments on item four?

Saying none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

An item five uh is the traffic commission recommends that no action be taken on the following item.

A request to establish all all way stop control at the intersection of Calvin Park Boulevard and Greenwood Avenue, thus repealing the existing traffic control of Greenwood Avenue stopping for Calvin Park Boulevard.

Is there a motion to approve?

I'll second.

Are there any questions or comments on item five?

Alderman Bell.

Sure.

Was there a traffic study done on this?

Can you kind of just walk us through why this is in front of us?

Um well the the request was made by um a resident on on Calvin Park Boulevard.

Uh the traffic commission recommended no action.

Um based on the traffic counts that were done there and the accident um study that was done.

The the traffic volumes uh for you to have uh have an all way stop.

Normally you want the traffic volumes to be generally close to each other.

The the traffic on Calvin Park is about I think five times more than the uh traffic on Greenwood.

Um and there's not really a history of accidents, so the traffic commission kind of felt that it's not broken, so why fix it?

Thank you.

Mr.

Carter, if you help me understand, like so a resident wants a stop sign.

That seems like that's easy.

Give it to them.

You know, that's it's for safety.

It's a it's two-way, make it four.

Sure.

Sometimes there's a flip side to that, right?

Like some some reasoning that you guys go through to say, well, sometimes it's not always the safest option.

Can you just talk through what like some of that with this particular decision?

Sure.

Um a lot of times citizens are wanting um stop signs put in to control speeds.

Um and um the manual and uniform traffic control devices specifically says stop signs should not be placed to control speeds because they they don't work.

Um while cars may stop and slow down, uh most studies show that the speed 200 feet before stop sign is the same speed 200 feet after it.

Um meaning that people jam on their brakes and then they gun it at the stop sign, and sometimes they go faster because they perceive that you've stolen one Mississippi, two Mississippi of their life, and now they need to get that back by going faster.

Um in addition, they uh drivers know when stop signs need to be there.

Um, and if they they come to it and there's never another car, they start to not pay attention to it and it create can create a false sense of confidence to people who are crossing the road thinking, oh, that person's gonna stop.

Well, that person's gone through that intersection 500 times and is never needed to stop before.

And so um we only recommend normally putting them in when the traffic volumes are relatively similar.

Making making all the cars on Calvin Park, five times as many cars stop on Calvin Park when there may not be any cars on Greenwood, just has the potential to get people to not pay attention to the stop sign.

So thank you for that.

Any other questions or comments on item five?

Just I have a quick question.

Thank you for saying that you did a traffic study.

And what what what was the outcome?

What did you is this the outcome?

So um when uh when someone makes a stop sign request, uh we go out and we will do um uh uh counts for two hours during uh peak morning rush hour and counts uh during evening rush hour to understand what the traffic is doing at the intersection.

In addition, we do a um a study of the accidents at the intersection, how many there have been in the last uh five years.

That information is given to the traffic commission to kind of help them make a decision on whether there's an issue there.

In this case, um, as I said, the the volumes weren't necessarily balanced and there really weren't any accidents at the intersection.

So with when there's low traffic volumes and no accidents, very seldom does the traffic commission recommend adding stop, adding more stop signs.

Thank you.

Holderman Bell.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um Mr.

Carter, when is the next uh ZBA meeting?

I know the previous one was canceled because of the election.

When's the next one?

The next ZBA meeting?

Or traffic.

Oh, it was next same same day, right?

No.

No.

Uh traffic commission is the second Wednesday of the month, which I believe is the ninth in April.

Um, I'm sorry.

Oh, liquor and okay.

Any uh any other questions or comments?

Uh seeing none, um let's I guess have a roll call vote on this one too.

Aye.

All right.

All right.

Motion carries.

Is there uh motion to adjourn?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Meeting is adjourned.