This requirement goes back to 1978. It was viewed as a way to distribute the available parking in the public ramps in a way that was fair to all the property owners.

We think this is a significant change. This is also enough of a change that it would have negated the need for the variance for Americana which was kind of what triggered this in the first place.

I'm still advocating for using a couple of parking spaces for bicycle parking. I think we could use a few more bicycle.

I guess my only concern about it is that we might not be going far enough, but I think it's definitely a step in the right direction.

The site is guided in our comprehensive plan for medium density residential. So we have a conflict between the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance.

We are a joint venture that was started between eight of the largest auto manufacturers in the world. With a singular vision to come together and create a nationwide charging network that focuses on putting the driver first.

We pride ourselves on what we like to call ion speed, which is getting things done quickly. So this would be, you know, no different. We'd come out and, you know, if approved, aim to build this site quickly and efficiently with minimal impact to the surrounding environment.

The EV station doesn't provide a need for nearby residents. This location is primarily surrounded by single family homes and I expect the primary customer base won't be residents in the neighborhood due to programs that support slash encourage residential charging.

I too would like to see the stations or the pumps limited to seven. And also, if I see no reason to put a sidewalk on the north side of Vernon, it's kind of starting nowhere and going nowhere.

I think we need to be careful about that. And I think in that same vein of the food truck issue, that to me is another commercial. That's like a restaurant except it's on wheels, which is a commercial use and not a charging use.

For us, this seems like one of the best options. We feel it's low impact for our neighborhood and doesn't change the zoning, which means that if it doesn't work, somebody else would have to come back to you, the planning commission to change things if they wanted to reszone.

I support your vision as a company and as a business. I guess just for me it's just not here and not now.

If this was a beautiful multifamily residential that just knocked out of the park, I'd probably support that. But it being a commercial use in a neighborhood node type of designation, I have a much higher standard of what should be there and this is just not hitting it.

While this is something nice like we we can't forget what has been proposed here that we know could work like a restaurant like a very small scale where you are bringing in people and there's energy and vitality and livability associated with that.

I'm leaning more on the side of voting in favor of this development because I think it's a low impact similar use to what was in the past and given the dimensions of the site and the location I think this would potentially work here.

I'm not saying it shouldn't feel complicated for anybody else, but it doesn't feel complicated for me anymore. And I think the reason I've made myself comfortable with it is as much as I think it's a better place or MDR is a better solution for that area, the property is just too small and weird to have any effective application of the way we've guided it in the comprehensive plan.

I think it's a good use of a very odd shaped lot in a in that location.

If we're going to keep it like that, it needs to just be more than what I'm seeing. Which is again, there's some like they're hitting good points like creative reuse. I really like that. But it's a place for vehicles to gather. It's a place for commuters, like non-locals to to kind of add traffic to the roads.