Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. you Thank you.

I call the September City of Claremont Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order at 6.30 p.m. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Commissioner Tidona?

Present.

Commissioner May? Here. Commissioner Insua? Present. Commissioner Nemec? Present. Commissioner Colby? Here. Commissioner Kramer? Here. And Commissioner Hoisington? Here.

Please stand as you are able for the Pledge of Allegiance.

of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

You may be seated.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you, everyone, for being here tonight. I'd like to make everyone aware, please turn on your microphones when you speak from the dais. If you come up from the audience to speak, the mic at the lectern should already be on. Please speak clearly into the mic so people present and those watching online can hear you as well. As a reminder, this meeting is being recorded and broadcast on the city's YouTube channel, which is at City of Claremont. Commissioners, you should have received a copy of the minutes from the previous month. If there are no additions, corrections, or questions, I'll entertain a motion.

I do have one correction, page eight, just on the top. It's just missing commissioner. It just says May asked if this would be. So it just needs a commissioner in front of May. That's it.

Cool.

Any other corrections? Can I have a motion to approve with the maid correction?

I'll set a motion with the adjustment to adding commissioner to page eight on the top before commissioners maze name. Second.

All in favor. That is unanimous. Uh, we are now at the portion of the meeting, um, four reports and I will start at the end with commissioner to donor.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What I just wanted to bring to everyone's attention is, so the church that I go to, the gentleman who does the security, his name is Norman Reen. He is a retired NY, New York State police officer. And he has taken upon himself to do a 9-11 remembrance tribute and exhibit throughout Florida. So this year, from September 9th to the 12th, it's at Winter Garden City Hall, if anyone is interested. It is taking up three and a half days. He's got somewhere along the lines of like 30 tables of memorabilia. He always invites first responders, military, Gold Star families, and the local politicians as well. So again, if it's just something you think you can come by and attend, I am honored to be one of his guides this year for the 25th anniversary. So there it is up in top. Again, if anybody is in the area, would like to stop in, it would be just an awesome event. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Commissioner May.

Thank you. And thank you for that invitation. Excuse me. something that I probably will be going and attending with my son. I appreciate that. Just in reports, I wanted just to let everybody know the things that I've done through the month. Just attended and watched the Citizen-Led Parking Committee meetings. If anybody doesn't know, the Citizen-Led Parking Committee is being shown on YouTube every Thursday, and it's also open to the public. And they're meeting in regards to the two possible sites, uh, for, for garages. So if anybody's interested in that, um, you know, it is open. Um, I attended the Panthers rent open house, something all commissioners, councils and public should attend, uh, just to keep a watch on. Um, I believe today they, they voted for the development to go forward. That's going to add more, um, development, uh, in the County. So us in the city should basically just Keep a watch on it because you just never know. It could be a future annexation to our city. So that's still TBD. I participated, just want to let everybody know, I participated in the second Greenways and Trails Bike Audit. I've been attending those just to kind of help out. This time we looked at the Northeast Quadrant over by Emil Jahan. Johanna Road and also Hook Street, just to look at possibilities on future connections, as well as Ray Goodman Parkway. So goal is to help map better trail connections for the future. So I thank Valerie Schuett, who is the lead on that for the invitation. Anyone who is interested can join the Claremont Greenways and Trails group. Just reach out to the admin, which is Valerie Schuett. She has a Facebook page. You can just easily DM her. So other than that, that is my reports. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Insua.

Thank you, Chair. Only two quick notes, and this is more so for down the line. Commissioner Tedona actually reminded me of it, but the city of Claremont is doing their 9-11 memorial service on the Friday the 11th, and I believe it's at 10 o'clock at the Arts and Rec Center. And then also they have Sips and Salsa on the 19th as well. So definitely two important events in our city and would love to see folks out there. That is all of my report.

Thank you. Commissioner Nemec.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hello, everybody. I'd like to bring to your attention why your vote counts. Your vote is the voice. Soldiers have sacrificed their lives defending their freedoms that include your right to vote. Honor their sacrifice, making your voice heard. Your votes help choose leaders and shape decisions that affect your community and your future. Every vote matters. Everyone. So don't think that you're the only person. One vote's not going to matter. It does. Our votes can make a difference. Join us on September 14th from 6 to 8 right across the street at the Claremont City Center. All right. It's called the Connects Meet the Candidates Forum. This community event is an opportunity to hear directly from the candidates running for seat three, which is the mayor's seat, and also seat number five. Come hear what the candidates stand for, learn about their visions, their ideas, and how they would benefit Claremont, and become an informed voter. Your vote is your voice. Be informed, be engaged, and make it count. And that's it for my reports. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Commissioner Kramer.

I have nothing to report tonight. Thank you.

Commissioner Hoisington.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just briefly, I am also a member of the Green Waste Committee, although I missed the bike rides. But the work that we're doing and the recommendations that will be brought back to the city, I think are going to be extremely important for safety for those who like to ride bikes and how to connect the city. So as my colleague said, you're welcome to attend those meetings. Thank you for mentioning the right to vote and how everyone should exercise your voice, whether you're doing it in person or mail in, your vote matters. Please, please, asking everyone to take the time to make their voice known. I attended the Leadership um at the chamber breakfast that was very informative thank you for that that was very informative and then today i attended lunch with the mayor um and that was very informative there's a good crowd there some good questions and dialogue and i would encourage everyone that has the time when each one of our council members has a day an hour a location where you can actually sit down and talk to them and listen to see what's going on in the city and participate and just get to know who your elected officials are that you take the time to go to, whether it's breakfast, I think Councilman Peter says a bagel for breakfast or something, but whatever it is, check the website. I think it's critical that as a citizen of Claremont, as a taxpayer, that you find out what your elected officials are talking about. Let them educate you on what's going on with the city. And that's all I have.

All right, thank you very much. And I also attended the Panther Run event. I thought it was great that there was a reception for that. There were maps and people were able to ask questions. So it was great to get that information from a developer. Okay, before we move into unfinished and new business, just a couple quick things. Reminding commissioners to report any disclosures. To be transparent to the public, we should disclose any ex parte communication, written or verbal, or commissioner investigations, site visits, expert opinions as we address the items this evening. So thank you for that. Just our proceedings tonight. We will hear from staff. We will then hear from the applicant. We will then take any public comments, and then we will have discussion and action by the commission. So we will start with item number one.

Good evening, planning and zoning commissioners and guests. John Cruz, Development Services. Again, this is agenda item number one, Gates Funeral Parlor Conditional Use Permit. The applicant, Everett Yates, is requesting a conditional use permit to establish a funeral home in the C2 General Commercial Zoning District. Under Section 125-337A11 of the Land Development Code, funeral homes are a conditional use within the C2 General Commercial Zoning District. The property is located at 2205 Cluster Oak Drive and currently has one single building, approximately 4,900 square feet with 25 parking spaces and existing landscaping. And outlined on the display in yellow is the property in question. Here's US 27, Cluster Oak Drive. And again, here is a zoomed in area of the property. The building consists of four suites, an existing beauty salon, tangled salon and spa, which occupies two suites, which fronts US 27. And this is the outline of the building, and these are the two suites here, and then here's US 27. And there is an existing office for Gates Funeral Home, which is the office use only, and that is actually here in the building. which is in the rear of the building, where funeral arrangements are made with services conducted across the street at 1 and Christ Ministries Church, 2220 Cluster Oak Drive. Now on the display is the floor plan. The adjoining vacant suite was previously used for a physical therapy office and that's what this shows, just a wide open room. The applicant is requesting to expand into the vacant suite to offer funeral parlor services for non-Christians that do not desire a church setting. The proposed floor plan for the funeral service area and the expansion area depicts 70 seats. And again, this is the existing Gates Funeral Office, and they're expanding into this suite, and this is the 70 chairs that were mentioned. Based upon the capacity of the existing office area and the expansion of the funeral service area, the maximum number of people occupying both suites will be 90 people. The minimum required parking based upon the square footage of the building is 25 spaces. The funeral parlor suite will be parked at a ratio of one space for every four seats. This would require 18 spaces for the 70 seats in the parlor area along with seven spaces for the office area, which is a one to 200 ratio. The total spaces required is 25 spaces. With this expansion, parking was an initial concern since the existing beauty salon would also require parking which is not accounted for. And this was conveyed to the applicant in the beginning of the discussion. The applicant has provided a parking plan which was in your packet to address the parking shortage. A parking lot use authorization letter from the property owner across the street at 2220 Cluster Oak Drive will allow the parking lot to be used for overflow parking associated with the funeral services. In addition, the owner, which also is the owner of the 2205 Cluster Oak Drive property, which we're discussing tonight, has agreed to address any matters related to this to be directly rectified by himself, Mr. Gates, and the respected tenants. In addition, letters of support have also been supplied by the Beauty Salon tenant and a tenant at 2220 Cluster Oak Drive.

And that is the letter

by the owner of the Tangled Salon and Spa. And this one is for Musco Lighting over at 2220 Cluster Drive. A condition has been added to require a staff member to assist with parking at the facility and on the adjoining lot. If parking does become an issue, the applicant understands and agrees that the city may require additional parking or rescind the CUP. The applicant has indicated that business hours will be from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The facility will be used for viewing purposes, consultation, notary, and any other funeral-related business with no embalming, dressing of descendant, or cremation at the site. In addition, no storage of human remains will be on site. And inside your packet, there was backup showing places of storage and cremation that provides those services. These will all be done at another licensed facility. A state of Florida licensed funeral director will be in charge of this establishment and is also a condition of the conditional use permit. Staff has reviewed the application as evidence that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity and the proposed use will comply with the regulations and conditions specified. The parking lot use authorization on the adjacent site is critical to stay in place in order for the funeral parlor to operate. If this is revoked or modified, then the use may be detrimental to the adjoining businesses. However, conditions have been placed in the conditional use permit to address this issue. Staff recommends approval of the request of a funeral parlor in the C2 General Commercial Zoning District with the conditions contained in Resolution 2026-029R. That concludes staff's presentation.

All right. Thank you very much. At this time, we would like to hear from the applicant.

Good evening.

My name is Everett Gates, and I was here to just answer any questions that you may have in reference to the proposed for my funeral parlor.

All right. Thank you very much. We may have some questions for you after.

Okay, sure.

Okay, thank you so much. And now is the portion of the meeting for public hearing on item agenda three. Number one, so if there's anybody from the audience who would like to come up and speak, now is the time to do it. Is there anyone who would like to come up and speak on this matter? Anyone? All right. Final call for speakers. Okay, seeing no one wanting to speak on this, we will close the public hearing portion of the meeting and we will bring it back to our commission. We will start with Commissioner Nemec.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gates, if you don't mind, sir, I have a few questions. Yes, sir. Okay, so you're leasing the property. How long is your lease for?

How long is the lease for? Five years.

Okay, and this will not violate your lease at all, correct? Say that again. This move of the CUP would not be violating the lease at all, correct?

No, sir. Excellent.

Excellent. Okay. Since there's no embalming on site. Correct. Okay. It's going to be coming according to the packet. For the record, it's going to be coming, the deceased is going to be coming from Orlando.

Correct.

Now, I noticed in the packet when planning and zoning, read it back to me, I noticed it says no dressing of the deceased. Okay, now you know it's going to sound like I have no sympathy for the dead, but I want to be honest with you. When you transport a deceased body, it's going to move. It's going to rock. It's going to roll, especially if you come from Orlando. So it's going to be hard. This is really hard. Will you be touching up like any portions of the body? Because that's considered dressing. That's why I don't know if you want to take that out.

No, sir. We won't be doing anything to the body. When the body comes to the funeral home or the church, they will already be dressed, casketed, already made up and everything. Just ready for the viewing.

All right. As is. Take care of that. There'll be no overnight. It's only going to be one day, one day only, or is it going to be like a two day? You're not going to have a two day event.

If they have a Friday night viewing, we would go back to Orlando and then back for Saturday service. If they decide to have two services, is that what you're asking?

Okay. Yes, that's exactly what I'm asking. Thank you for that. Okay. And, uh, cause you have no refrigeration on site, correct?

My refrigeration is in winter guard.

Cause you know, this is Florida.

Okay.

Yes. Uh, Okay, so far, you're sounding good except for one simple part.

Okay.

Okay, I've been to your property. I'm allowed to go to your property. I'm allowed to see physically your property. I've been to your property two days in a row because I couldn't believe what I saw. I took some pictures and I handed it to our planning and zoning department. And if they could show them one at a time, so this way the audience and my fellow commissioners can see. Okay. Okay. First picture is the spa and the nail salon. I count three cars. Next picture, please, sir. Next picture is a different angle on it. From the spa all the way down to where that white SUV in the other car, that's a total of 10 cars. Then if you can, sir, to the next picture. From the street itself, I count five more additional cars. The white one on the left, the silver one next to it, the white SUV, a limousine, and the Hurst. If you could take to the next one. Now the Hurst and the limousine were parked in that same spot two days in a row. I noticed that the limousine is parked in a handicap. Does it have handicap registration plates that it could park in a handicap area?

The only reason that limousine is there because it's been raining for a few days. So it's under that tree. And so I moved it from under the tree just for that purpose.

Sorry, it's hard to hear you for some reason. I can't hear that. I think I heard what you said. I'm sorry. So you're parked in a handicapped spot right now and it's not supposed to be there. Okay. Because on your location, I believe you only have two, one in front of the nail salon and one in front of your establishment. See, the problem I have with this, okay, I count 15 and that was random days. 15 minus 25 is 10. Okay. I had a lot of applicants in the six years that I set up here come to me and ask me, could you approve this? And I said, I cannot because you don't have sufficient amount of parking. And I understand, oh, they could go across the street for that. This is your location. I do have to disclose that I did meet with Planning and Zoning yesterday. Planning and Zoning told me they told you it was going to get denied because you didn't have sufficient parking. And then you said, well, we could use the church's property. That's two separate parcels. Even though it's the same owner, it's two separate parcels. Okay. You have a business running in the front.

Correct.

You saw those cars there by the business. You have a viewing. It might hurt their business. That's why it is. To me, it's important for the parking. So my question to you, not a statement. is do you think it's right that you take up the whole parking lot from your so-called tenants for their business?

Well, I'm not taking up all of their parking. We share the parking spaces and I'm the pastor across the street. So if there is overflow parking, they can park there. We have two locations for them to park. The hair salon, when she has overflow, they use the parking. We share the parking. They use the parking across the street as well. Her employees use the parking lot across the street every day. Every single day they use the parking lot across the street at the church to provide parking for her clients. And I don't have a problem with that.

Okay. Well, I must have missed it because when I was there two days in a row, your parking lot at the church was empty. So the staff must have parked in the parking lot for that last picture you saw. My final question is, You're basically having a viewing, okay? And I understand that. So from the viewing, it's going to either cremation, cemetery, or back to Orlando. So let's say it's going to the cemetery for burial, okay? Will you have like a recessional burial?

of vehicles with you? If the family chooses that, yes.

Okay, and since Highway 27, State Road 27, no Highway 27, I was right the first time, and State Road 50, if up to my beliefs, PD cannot escort you on major highways. So who would be out there directing traffic? On 27th.

We don't take 27th. We usually take to Lakeshore. We take Brogdon to Lakeshore and then come out.

Great answer. Great answer. Thank you. That was my concern with the traffic. But unfortunately, I cannot approve this due to the fact because you have limits in amount of parking. I'm sorry, sir. I think it might be a great idea, but... It's too small of an area to have 70. I count 90 altogether. I just found out 90, that it's 90 people altogether, and you only got 25 parking spots. You got 55 across the street. 25 plus 55 comes out to be 80. Okay, so I'm just trying to get into my head to find a medium where, you know, we could work with each other, but... That's a lot of people. That's a lot of seats. That's all the questions I have for now.

All right. Thank you very much. Commissioner Ansua. Thank you, Chair.

I think I can work with this. I think Vinny brings up some very, very good concerns. But the fact that you have support from neighbors around you. If I can ask, I guess one of my questions is in terms of the parking for the church, obviously on Sundays, that's the fullest. But if you could estimate during the week how full, in comparison to the open and closing hours of the funeral home, how full does your parking lot get, I guess, in comparison to the adjacentness of the funeral home?

The church parking lot? Yes. During the week?

Yeah.

We don't. Okay. So you don't have Wednesday services, right? Wednesday night services, but it's usually like 10 to 15 cars max. Okay. Yes.

Gotcha. Okay. No, I was just curious on that in terms of, you know, what it looks like during the week. Yeah. I completely understand the heartburn in terms of those parking spaces, but the fact that you have that quote unquote overflow parking space, gives me a little bit of a better feeling on that. Um, and that's the only question that that's the only real question I had in terms of that, that overflow parking. So that's all.

Thank you.

Commissioner May.

I appreciate, uh, Commissioner Nemex bringing up the parking. Cause that was one of the issues that I had. He brought up some interesting points though, that I didn't, um, think about, which were interesting. And so I'm adding that to some of the questions that I'll be asking you. So I know the parking is based on, and it's probably for staff. So this is going to be a staff question because this is more based on code. So the existing building is 4,950 square feet. There is no additional square footage that he's adding to the existing building. So the existing building is 4,950 square feet. So based on code and what I see here on the package, and by the way, thank you very much for the package. Well done. I mean, a lot of good information in here that was used. Based on the code, it says one space per four seats.

Correct. That is correct when we look at seating arrangements for funeral homes, churches, stuff like that.

Okay, so based on that, we're looking at 70 seats, which actually is more like 89 because I counted all the seats, which included the chapel and the offices and the conference room. We have 89 seats. So that includes, I guess, for the visitors and the existing staff. So based on 89, if you divide that by the 25% parking spaces. Well, if you divide that by the four, it comes out to 22.25. So if you round that up to 23 parking spaces, that leaves only two and we're sharing space. So the question that was not answered or wasn't provided, and I know there was a letter from the salon and the salon did state We have never, I think that, no, this is Moscow lighting. It's the first one here. I hear, uh, there's a page there. Thank you. Thank you. They wanted to, yeah, there was a, the parking attendants help direct and organize vehicles ensures that adequate parking remains available for my staff and clients. However, what I don't know is how many, um, staff and seats that the salon has for me to determine if the parking is adequate. And I understand that you're going to be using overflow parking, but I need to know exactly how many based on the salon's usage and the gate's usage. Because we're saying right now that there's 22, they're going to be using 22 and a half. So that means that the salon will only be using two.

whatever is left over, right?

So we don't know what the salon needs on that. So that's questionable on that because I didn't pick that up until Commissioner Nemec had brought up the pictures about the salon, and it seemed like it was a pretty full place. I understand there's going to be overflow parking. I understand that he's going to be using that. And how much overflow parking is available across the street? That's the question I have.

How many spots across the street?

Correct.

I believe 41. 40. I think 41.

All right. So we have 25. Yeah. We have 25 at the existing. Yes.

I'm sorry. I'm not interrupting you.

I'm sorry.

I would like to just, it's in the packet. I believe you have 55 spots.

Okay.

Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. So 25 for the salon slash funeral home and then 55 for church. Okay. So we are in need of, For you all, so that helps with the overflow. There's enough there for that. Now, going back to your services at the church, you're saying on Wednesdays you have 15 cars.

In the evening. In the evening. For Bible study.

And what about for the regular service? Are you a Saturday or a Sunday service?

A Sunday service.

Okay, and is that a full house there on Sundays? Yes. Okay, so then those 55 cars, 55, sorry, parking spaces are used up.

But their hours of operations don't include.

We're not using it on Sundays.

I understand that. I was going to go back to that. But thank you. Because I wanted to make sure I put that on record. Yes. So your hours of operations are... There's a lot of information here.

So this is... I have to find it.

Oh, yes. Right here. So Monday through Saturday from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. So Sunday, it's free. 55. Okay. So we got 55 plus the 25 for $89.

seats now in regards to your services do you usually get a full house or do you have more than the 89 or more than 90 you know so far we have not nothing okay can i can i interrupt for one second can i ask just for the record um i guess the average from your own information your own thoughts what is the average number of folks that you would have for service reviewing like at the funeral home you said how many people normally have like an average like an average for service or just the viewing, uh, whatever services, the funeral home.

Okay. For service usually average about 30 so far about 30 to 45 people somewhere around in there. Yeah.

No, it's okay. And I appreciate the commissioners jumping in because it helps. It's helped speeds up and it helps. Um, cause I know, I think they know where I'm going with on some of these questions. So I appreciate it. That's not an issue for me. Um, I see that there is a condition that we added on there for the location of the overflow parking. The question is, and I think was added, you will have a staff person that will manage the flow. Are you all going to be putting cones down just for safety issues because of the, since it is a street that people use?

I have cones and I have signs that have the arrows pointing towards the street.

Okay, perfect. And then... The question that I have, which we don't see a support letter from, is the mortgage company. I believe that's to the south. Is there entrance and exit on the south side onto Cluster? Do we know? Is there anybody here from... It says Southern Insurance on our aerial here. So the only letters that we received were from... The salon from the church and from Musco Lighting. Correct. So where is Musco Lighting on that map?

Musco is on Unit H on the very end.

So can you show me on that?

Sorry, on the map.

Just point here. You've got to point down here. Oh, okay.

Down here.

Musco is here. Okay. Right here. You've got to point on the paper.

All right. So you're – I see the church. That's the church? That's the church. That's the church. Yes, ma'am. So then did we get a letter or did they want to participate, the people from the Southern Insurance or Mortgage? I'm asking staff. Did they provide a support letter? Because they would, I believe, be affected with the traffic or the parking –

Our standard mail out went out 500 feet from the property owners. We didn't hear any feedback from them. And again, the parking plan is what was produced by Mr. Gates and offered to us to look at. And we were mainly concerned with the tenants within the property boundaries, which would be this piece and this piece. They have their own separate parking lot and entrance. So we didn't. take that in account. But again, they were part of the notification record that was mailed out.

Yes. John, and I'm not, I don't go down the streets very well and I don't know if anybody else can jump in in regards to cluster Oak. Um, if the mortgage company would say, for instance, it was packed and there was people crossing and there was, you know, a lot of people there, would they be able to leave their property and go, I guess, down to Brogdon Drive and then get off on US 27? They wouldn't be obstructed.

Yes, they would be, but they're not in that office. Oh, okay. They're not there.

They're never there.

They're never there.

They just have an office.

They just have an office. It's always locked. They're not there. So they have a sound at door. Please call this number. They're not in the office. Okay. Yes, ma'am.

Perfect. But I see that there's, Even if they were there, it seems like they can go the opposite way and go to Brogdon Drive into US 27. Okay. I think that's all for me. And I appreciate, again, the commissioners for jumping in. Thank you.

Bye-bye. Commissioners to Dona.

Mr. Chair, honestly, all my questions have been answered so far. So if you could keep going.

All right. We'll come back and have a second chance if anybody else develops any more questions. Commissioner Hoisington?

Mr. Chair, all of my questions have been asked as well.

Mr. Kramer. Thank you, Chair.

I'm pretty good, except I actually found something. Christian, you're on the line, right?

I am.

Excellent, because this one's for you. So... And actually it's weird because it kind of ties into the second thing we're going to talk about tonight as the commission. So I want to clarify something because when I was going through this, you guys are citing, or let me go back to the page. Staff's report that on page 12, staff report, it says, I want to clarify this resolution 2026. section 86-144D as the source for the CUP criteria. But the ordinance that we're discussing tonight identifies those criteria under section 101-212C. And the reason I ask this is back in April, the Emanuel Temple Resolution 2026-007R We cited 101-212 for those same cut findings, but in this one, we're citing 86-144. And I'm sorry, it's on page 14. It's under the resolution itself. Whereas from evidence presented to the public hearing and after consideration of the factors set forth in section 86-144, but we've used 101-212C in the past, and we're also discussing that later tonight. So can you clarify that? Why we're using these?

I don't know if I can. I mean, I can tell you that certainly when we deal with a CUP, it's 101-212. Right. I don't think we have, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think we have a chapter...

anything in the 80s in our code okay so we need to make a correction to this resolution then before we move forward because we're citing on page 14 section 86-144 and then later tonight we're also discussing discussing 101-212 for the same four cup findings so is that something we need to correct before it goes to council

I see, I see it. I see it. I believe this is probably just a Scrivener's error from some old, from some old version of the code. If you are so inclined to pass the resolution, then I would just add that the motion include a change of that to section one Oh one dash two 12.

Okay. Um, Thank you, Christian. I appreciate you answering that. It caught my eye because we've talked about it in the past. No other questions, Chair.

Okay. And all my questions have been answered. And that was a good find, Mr. Kramer. I'd like to open it back up. Does anybody else have any follow-up questions?

I got if you commissioner may would you want me to go first or. Yes, the one I did forget to disclose that it is speak to a local funeral parlor. to pretty much find out the way of the land this is brand new for me so i just want to know the procedures of transporting a body and so on i was going to say you were very knowledgeable about it i didn't know if you had done some work or anything new york we went attended a lot of funerals Unfortunately. And, you know, I'm sorry. Maybe you might not have a big showing, but all the funerals that I've attended, they were standing room only and lines were around the block. All right. So that's I'm sorry. That's what I was envisioning it. And that's why I wanted to find out what their viewings are. Great question that Commissioner May asked. What is your average view? And according to the funeral home, they said it varies a lot from 10 all the way to a packed room. So it all depends on the individual. So that's out the door. All right. We won't know. Do we have an amount of staff in the electrical, in that electric part of the building? No. that's attached to the church. I did forget to ask that question. I should have called you for that.

Can you repeat the question?

I'm trying to understand. On the south side of the church building, okay, there's the electrical, I believe it's called, the lighting building, the lighting company.

The office for Musco?

Yeah, Musco. Do we have an amount of staff members that are there?

No. I do not know the staff numbers there, but when these buildings were built, they were built one parking space to 200 square feet of office use.

Okay. That helps. That answers my question. Back to... Mr. Drake, I'm trying to find a medium point, Mr. Gates, between us, okay? And I do apologize for that. For some reason, time for a new phone. Okay. Is there any way, because the parking is a big thing with me. Is there any way you could have smaller amount of audience for the viewing? Because right now you got 70. Okay. Is there any way we can we negotiate? Can we work out that you have a smaller viewing? So this way it'd be less cars and traffic on the road. That's the way I'm looking at it. I'm sorry. I'm trying to work with you.

Yes, I appreciate that, sir. That based on like you said earlier, based off case by case. I always mention to families about the parking. So the families, when they come to the funeral home, they are aware of the parking when they chose to get a funeral home. But the parking across the street is always giving them permission to use it.

right so my initial question was are you going right now you have 70 seats in the viewing area are you willing to you go to you tell me well what's it's your business i don't want to interfere with your business but you know that it seems like the parking that i currently have is adequate for the 90. it's because i have 55 plus the across the street

So why wouldn't that be?

I'm just asking out of curiosity. Well, no, you're entitled to ask me a question, and you're the applicant, and I'll be more than happy freely to let you know. I've denied a lot of projects that came across my desk because one parcel. Now, I understand, for example, you have your church. That's two separate parcels, two. Okay. For example, there was one with food trucks. The reason why it was denied was because there was no place to park. The land was 10 spots. And they said, oh, we could park in this shopping center. And that wasn't satisfactory with me. It's because, yes, you will have an attendant, but crossing the road, and I just, I'm still just, if you could bring it down a little bit.

May I ask a question? Yes, please do. I attend several city council meetings where they are packed and people park across the street and walk across this street to get to this building.

Right, I agree, but that's not a business. It's not a business. This is a business. You're asking us to change the resolution, and you're putting a very large... To me, 70 seats in there, plus an additional 20. So that's a lot of seats. I've been voting like this for the past six years. I really wish you could find something so I could change my vote for you. I really do. You seem very sincere, and it's a good project. It's just... Rules are rules, and I hate saying it like that. It really does.

I'm pleased to understand it. I don't know about the parking part in terms of is 50 will accommodate this 50 something spaces? Is that one person? I'm trying to understand.

Yeah, you know what? I would like to ask my fellow commissioners if they're okay with that. I am.

So just as an example, when my mom passed, at the time we went to Claremont Funeral Home off of Mohawk. Yes. And it was view only, but with all due respect, that gentleman was very specific that his room only held 30 people. So, I mean, mom didn't know that many people down here, so it wasn't a problem. But he was, again, he was very, very specific that that's all he could hold. That was the maximum that he could hold in there, if that helps.

Yes, sir. Thank you. That does help me. Ms. May, Commissioner May, I'm sorry.

No, there was no interruption whatsoever. Thank you. You're, again, bringing very good points. So my question again is to staff because I'm concerned about the salon. I don't know how many, I've been to that salon before so I'm trying to remember how many seats or how many chairs that place has. So I know that they're okay with it now, but once you have the 70 people, it might become a problem. So I don't know if there is a ratio of how many the salon can have versus a ratio of what the funeral home could have. And just because I've been to places where they have reserved parking spaces, where the salon can have their reserve parking so that the guests from the funeral home won't disturb that parking for them. But they have a lot of chairs in that salon. So, you know, will the funeral home also accommodate the salon guests as well? You know, I'm assuming you probably would, but it's just, it's a lot of parking, you know, that's a lot, it's a lot of people for that little space, even though we have the 50 across this or 55, sorry, across the street.

So to address the question about reserving spots, it's private property and we don't get involved with that.

Okay.

And we get asked that question quite a bit. But when it becomes private, that is one of the reasons why it was critical for us to take a look that it came from the property owner, not a tenant, that they would resolve any issues between the tenants. So that was one of the reasons. And then in terms of. if you look at the parking requirements for the funeral home, it's one per four seats, but then we did the parking for the office separate. So counting all the seats is not really the ideal way to compress it and look at the numbers. In terms of the hair salon, based on the approximate square footage, again, that building was built at one to 200 square feet. for use. I'm estimating based on just portions of the floor plan and the overall building size, it's probably 2,000 square feet. So you're looking at roughly 10 spots for the beauty salon. But again, I don't know if they have what their high hours of service and those types of things. But again, it went down to the letters that were provided, especially from Christie from the Tangled Salon.

That does work.

Yeah, no, thank you very much. And, uh, yeah, I calculated 2,178 square feet for the, um, for the salon. Um, and then we do have enough handicap parking now that we are increasing the number of, um, Because I know we're looking at the handicap parking based on square footage of the building, but now that we're increasing the number of visitors, do we have enough handicap parking now?

So the way that handicap parking, again, is set up by the code, it's one for every 25 spaces. So they're required to have...

Honestly, one.

But they have two.

So they have...

They have two there and then whatever's across the road. Again, that's something that it's private property. They have the minimum. So we can't dictate the change.

Thank you, John, for all the clarity in regards to the code and all that.

i think i don't have any any further questions thank you mr chair i don't know if it's a question or a comment um listening to the discussion from my fellow commissioners um i've had the same concern when i read this about parking the number of parking spaces my question to the owner is even though you've gotten the approval from the other businesses saying that they don't mind Is it possible, knowing that a salon business fluctuates, that she may have days where she has an overflow of customers, you may have a service going on where you have an overflow. We know how funerals go depending on the love of the deceased. You may have 90 to 100 to 200. They rotate in and out. Yes, ma'am. is it possible that you could have an agreement with the salon owner or other businesses that during that time you will guarantee ensure that they would have adequate parking space that it doesn't impede their business yes ma'am and because you're coming in with additional people then they would use the overflow yes ma'am

Yes, excellent. Excellent point. And I have met with Christy, who owns the Tangle Spa. And normally I would try to work around her clients because she tells me what her busiest days are. So for the past, I have worked around the schedule not to try to have a service around what she told me her busiest days are.

Okay, I can go with that because I would hate to say that you would impede her business and then her livelihood is impacted, her customers are discouraged, and they decide, well, we're not coming back to you anymore because we always run into this problem. So as long as something like that could be worked out, then I can support you.

Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.

Thank you. Any other questions? Last call for questions? All right, at this time I will entertain a motion.

I would like to enter a motion of approval with the conditions that the language get changed in the resolution exactly what commissioner Hoynston said about providing adequate parking for your fellow tenant in the nail salons or whoever that tenant might be in the future also I like to add The maximum viewing is 50. I calculated it. It comes out just barely enough. Okay. And the reason why I say that, sir, it's because Commissioner Hoinstein hit the nail on the head. People don't stay for the whole viewing. They come and they go. And that was my main concern with the safety of traffic coming and going. I drove that road two days in a row. I know how tiny it is. And it's very, you can't do a U-turn in a parking lot. You can't even barely do a broken K U-turn in a parking lot. So with cars there, it's going to be like backing up and I don't want any disasters, especially in the grievance of these drivers. So that would be my motion. Did I interrupt it by making a comment in it, Mr. Chairman?

No, I think you're clear.

Is that okay, Paula, to meet your needs? Commissioner Todona, to meet your needs, is that okay as well? We hit a good soft spot.

I think there was also another correction that was pointed out by Commissioner Kramer.

Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Kramer. You need to also add... Approval with the correction changing wording from 86-144D to now state section 101-212. So it's just changing where the language is coming from.

Do we have that? You got that? Do you want me to repeat it? Because, I mean, I wrote it down. 86-144B to eliminate that to 101-212. I'm paying attention. I'm learning with you. I got you. That was a good call, by the way. Very good call. All right. That's my motion. I'm looking for a second.

And I will second that motion. All right. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

All in favor? Aye.

And the chair votes aye. I believe that's unanimous.

Mr. Gates, I want to say I wish all my applicants was easy to work with like you. You made it very hard for me on this decision. Good luck. I'm sorry to speak out of turn.

Thank you. All right. We will move on to item number two. And I believe our attorney, Christian, I believe this is you.

It is. And can you all hear me?

We can.

Yes, sir. I apologize for not being there. I'm in a week-long jury trial in scenic Polk County. So anyways, I didn't want this to fall off the radar. This is something that was brought up by both the city council and you, And I think at our last discussion, basically where we left it is I told you some of the things I was thinking. One of them was in our conditional use permit section, I feel like there's a lot of subjectivity. I'd like to make it more objective if I can. And I gave you some ideas of how we could do that. And you have in your packet a red line, not a red line, but a strikethrough version of some of the things that I had thought about. So, for example, in Section C4, I was saying we should eliminate it because the proposed use may be considered desirable at a particular location is completely ambiguous and subjective. But in your consideration of whether or not it's detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare in subsection C2, I thought you should still be able to consider all the things pretty much in subsection D. And I started trying to clean it up. You know, in subsection D sub one, it basically says that the density intensity character will be in conformity with the comp plan. Well, if we already say it has to be consistent with the comp plan and your land development code, then I don't need to say it again. So you see other changes. Another concern I have is that in your site planning provision, we do look at site planning, but this isn't really giving you guidance on how to gauge whether the site plan is good, bad, or ugly, because all it says is the development shall be planned and designed to consider. And so if it considers the orientation of units, if it considers the effectiveness of plotting or building layout, if it considers environmentally sensitive areas, you don't really have any way to argue about it, right? So I think that needs to be reworded to say something about, to give you discretion, to give you more discretion, if that makes sense. But more than that, I don't want to subject or substitute my judgment for yours. you have been appointed to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a reason. You have the mandate of people who received votes. I have received none. And so where we left it is basically that I think y'all were going to think about it. You know, some of the changes I made, maybe you have your own ideas. And that's where we're at. I would still like to push this forward. We're not under a specific timeline, but I would love your input. And so that's why I asked it to have on your agenda.

All right. We'll open it up for discussion. Maybe we can come down the row if anybody has any comments. Start with you, Commissioner Tadong.

Is it all right if I have a handout?

Yes, please.

So I think my biggest concern with some of the edits, when I read it, It sounds like, in my opinion, that it's too much that we're trying to comply with House Bill 399. And me personally, I think we're just giving up way too much stuff. community character, neighborhood feel, no longer being sufficient, things like that, having to keep incredible records to have any type of denial. So it's just in my opinion that the wording should stay there if it gives us a leg up to fight, for lack of a better term. We always seem, and again, it's my opinion, that we're placating and complying, but I've been on this committee for over a year and a half. We never talk about sureties, we never talk about how raising impact fees might be able to help our first responders, and it looks like mobility fees have just gone down the toilet. I guess part of my concern additionally is, And we saw this up north happen. Once all the large acreages are developed, eventually these developers, based on community feel and not being able to hold them accountable for anything, community character, are going to start going after the residents that have two or more acres. then that's where you're going to see people either getting bought out or maybe selling two or three acres to a developer, five acres, 10 acres. And then it's at the whim of the developer to put on there whatever they want and we can't stop them. So I am not in favor of taking out any language that could prevent that from happening or give us a leg to stand on. Certainly, I just don't understand why no one in Claremont wants to fight the fight. The other thing is, if this is approved, I guess my other last concern is, how does this impact DPZ and the money that we spent on their comp plan when their comp plan... may or may not even take this into account. So we're going to get a comp plan that now needs to be recomplanned because we're going to change the language on how developers get away with murder. And that's my biggest concern. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right.

Mr.

Chair, can I just speak about that? Yes, please respond.

Yeah, yeah, and it's not – this is a conversation, so I'm not feeling attacked. I just want to clarify because – so, for example, the only language that I've suggested taking out is either completely redundant with words that are already there or not sustainable legally. So, for example, the words about proposed use may be considered desirable at a particular location – I mean, that has no... This is just my opinion. It doesn't have any legal validity because it could mean anything. It could be based on literally anything. And therefore, how can you give guidance to anyone wanting to come to Claremont on what to expect, either here or with the city commission? It just doesn't matter. It has no meaning. And then the strikethrough on subsection 1... talking about density, intensity, character, and type of development, it says it shall be in conformance with the comp plan and basically your land development code. Well, in subsection C, it already says that. So I'm not trying to take tools away. I'm very interested if you have other criteria that you want to add so you will know this is the first time anyone has ever talked about multimodal paths, sidewalks, or trails being added It's the first time ever. So that's something that's under your consideration as well. But I have no dog in the fight. This won't affect anything DPZ does because DPZ is not looking at this code section. What they're looking at is your comprehensive plan. So your comprehensive plan is a step above this. Everything in our code has to be consistent with your comprehensive plan. But nothing in the comp plan is going to take away our ability to deal with conditional use permits, if that makes sense. So but look, I mean, I'm open. Whatever your instructions are, I'll follow.

Yes, go ahead.

Thank you for that. I got to tell you that. I enjoy a little bit more redundancy and the minutiae of the wording that was made quite adequate to me when we met all together to that roundtable meeting and we discussed how there were a subsection to a subsection of another subsection to a third subsection of why we could actually, which actually vindicated this committee into how we actually do our deep dive. So it was due to that, going down to the minutia of the code, that, again, it vindicated to all of you why we do the due diligence that we do. The other thing, and you're not here, my handout is a... I basically did a Google search. Does Florida HB 399 supersede local comprehensive plans? Okay. So... Holland and Knight Law Firm wrote an article in July 29th basically saying that although Florida Bill 399 is not going to completely replace or supersede local comprehensive plans, but it forces local governments to change and follow new state rules inside those plans. So again, whatever comes out through DPZ may need to be reviewed because with 399, we're still going to have to comply.

I think that's right.

What's that?

Yeah, I agree with you.

Okay. So, and now, Holland and Knight also goes on, because I asked the question, again, this is Google, okay? I didn't speak to anybody. How to fight 399. Local governments can fight and manage the impacts of 399 by establishing strict, objective compatibility standards, creating airtight written records for project denials and recalibrating fee structures, which 399 takes away. Additionally, decisions need to be based on use traffic counts, which we don't count on for some reason, even though my fellow commissioner showed a picture of wall-to-wall traffic, environmental limits, which we don't talk about, even though trees get raised to the ground and wildlife is dispersed, and infrastructure capacities. which again, we don't talk about because the roads in Claremont need some sort of help, okay? So according to different law firms of what I'm reading, These things could be denied just based on traffic, environment, and infrastructure, and that's not including what I've brought up continually, the life safety issue that the city of Claremont realizes because our emergency response cannot get through the traffic. So I'll say it again. I don't mean to be a hard but, but... I like the redundancy and the minutiae because if it gives us a leg to stand on to say no, to me, that's a good thing. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right. Commissioner May.

Hey, Christian. So I read through this, and I think you added, I agree that we're trying to make it more objective versus subjective, especially with this HB 399, because it does require every local government to adopt objective, measurable criteria in its comprehensive plan and land development regulations, which is the reason why we're here to try to get these changes done work. when it comes to legalities, at least we'll have facts versus just because we just don't like it. Um, so, you know, I, I'm just going to go through some of the things and I think, um, I put my thoughts down as well. Um, an email cause it's a lot. So, um, You know, I believe that you've left the most important thing, which is, you know, which we can get around subjectively, which is it's detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare. We got to make sure that we can defend that. The question that I have is that you use the word violate. Is there a reason why violate is being used? Is that a word that you feel in legal terms could be strong enough versus complying? You used it twice. You used it in the granting of the conditional use permits will not violate the officially adopted comprehensive plan of the city. And then you used it again in number three, the proposed use will not violate the land development code. So basically, they cannot go against what is written based on that violate word. It's strong, but I think it's strong in Tedona's kind of way.

I appreciate that question. I think, let me take a stab at it. So my thinking on subsection C1 was that the term adversely affect could mean a lot of things. I mean, that like adversely affect an officially adopted comprehensive plan. What does that mean if it's not a violation, right? Like it's something that's close to a violation. Is it something that's like in one person's opinion, not consistent with it? I mean, so what I'm trying to, in my view, The only way that something could adversely affect a comp plan is if it did violate it, if that makes sense. And I'll give you an example. I'm one of the special masters for code enforcement in Citrus County, and there was an application for a sand mine there recently. And so it came to me to decide, is there going to be a sand mine next to a residential community of 600 homes that has horses and all kinds of stuff? I mean, can you imagine? But what the comprehensive plan says is there's four elements for considering it. And one of the elements was you have to be able to restore the property back to the way it was once the extraction is done. And so based on the fact that they testified, I mean, they had an expert testify, it'll never go back to the way it was. I said, easy. It violates the comp plan. I'm not going to allow it. So that's just my attempt to make it clear because I don't understand what adversely affect means if it doesn't mean violate. And then on the second change where I put violate, I don't think you need that. You could probably still keep it and say the proposed use will comply with the land development code. I think there it doesn't matter.

Great. I mean, violate's a pretty strong word, so... I mean, if they don't violate the land development code, I'm, I'm pretty good with that. So, uh, I, I understand the, the, the taking out of the proposed use may be considered desirable at the particular location because then that becomes subjective, which can open up, um, questions. Um, so I, I, I do agree that you're trying to put the guardrails, um, into this, into this ordinance now. When it comes to the additions that you added specifically under transportation, utilities, stormwater management, and then I have some additions and Oh, solid waste disposal. On transportation, I agree. I think the multimodal paths are important. I think that's something that our city is trying to strive for, especially, you know, we are the city of amazing trails. And so we're striving for more connection. And I believe that's the reason why I participate in the greenways and trails. for Claremont because I believe in that. So I thank you so much for putting that. My question though was on sufficient size, length, width, and capacity. It says the city's transportation system, including the sidewalks, trails, multimodal paths, and or streets must be sufficient size, length, width, and capacity to serve the demands created by development. So my question is, My question is what or who determines sufficient size, length, width, and capacity specifically for trails and sidewalks? I think we need to be very specific on size, length, width. I know that we have a standard of four feet for sidewalks. I mean, honestly, I've driven down 50th and I've seen less than four feet, probably two feet. And I think your street also has that issue as well. Hardwood Marsh. I don't know if that's four feet or two feet, but 50th for sure.

50th for sure.

And I noticed, you know, when you try to do a multimodal, which is a pedestrian and a biker on that street, especially on 50th, there is no bike trails, it becomes a problem. So I think that we need to be specific on size if possible. I think that our standards should start looking, we should start looking at a minimum at least of eight feet. That should be our minimum. That should be our standard instead of the four to make this a success for the future. In regards to utilities, I talk about it all the time. I don't see anything about trees in here. I think trees has to be part of our infrastructure. Green infrastructure is very important, especially for the health and general welfare because it does provide health benefits. It mitigates urban heat island effects. I think this year, I don't know about the last year, but this year it was one hot summer. It was brutal and it's still brutal. So we, you know, having some language in there, adding as trees, as green infrastructure, because not only does it help with the heat island effect, but it also helps with, you know, our stormwater. It could be a great stormwater retention tool. It's been used in other cities. So that I would like to see some language in there as well. And then the most important thing Mr. Nehme brings it up all the time. But on number seven, we have solid waste disposal. But it only talks about solid waste disposal. It doesn't talk about storage. And that is something that's very important. And the importance of it came up at our last commission meeting, where a gentleman came in talking about the storage and the issues that we're having in downtown. And it wasn't just on the specific property that we talked about, but it's mostly everywhere. But we should add language in there about solid waste and disposable storage. I think that's it for now. And I don't want to keep up the time for anybody else. So I will pause for now.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner Insula.

Thank you, Chair. So I have mainly just two questions and one's a double hit, I guess you could say. And this is kind of just from my own edification for the public as well. In terms of, yeah, I know. In terms of the role of the checklist, I think on the last page, for my own information, is this essentially going to be just an internal tool for development services? Or is this kind of going to be like a checklist for applicants as well to kind of look at or developers? Or is there going to be an essential tool essentially a completed copy included in our packets from staff. And the only reason I'm saying that is because, okay, if this is something that's just internal, is staff going to have to tell this to us in public or tell it to us in a meeting before or after? Or how exactly is that going to play out to kind of look through that checklist and make sure that we're checking all the boxes?

Also, yeah, sorry. Also a great question, and the honest answer is we're not sure. I mean, it could be, I mean, at the very minimum, we wanted to have a checklist for you in terms of what the criteria are. So do you have that in front of you when you're listening to an application, when you're considering the evidence? We've already created kind of a laminated spreadsheet for you all of the actual code section. But I think the idea in our discussion has been to create the checklist primarily for you. I haven't given much thought to staff having something similar, but we are looking for your feedback. So it kind of depends on what you want.

And yeah, and I think just to follow up on that, you know, if it is to be included, I think it may be good to essentially have staff kind of provide a, you know, either a preliminary or an initial, you know, condition met or, you know, condition not met or, you know, something that they may need, you know, if they need something else, maybe they can add that in as well. just so we have a better understanding of why that decision was taken. And the reason I'm saying that is kind of just alludes to the last point is when I was on council, I was obviously on there on a time where we had a number of I'll say legal battles. Um, and it was one of those things where, you know, especially looking in, in, in, in combination with HP, the three 99, which don't get me started on that because Tallahassee loves to take power away from local government. Um, it's one of those things where any applicant could come in and say, Oh, you know, you missed a, you missed a word here. And because of that, you know, you're, you're discriminating against me or something along the lines of that. So just, you know, I think this is a really good start in terms of making sure that the city is bulletproof, especially when it comes to developers and applicants. But I just wanted to make you aware of that and say, you know, this might be something we need to look into if we are going to look at doing, you know, a better review of, you know, CUP, the criteria and the checklist that we have. So just was curious on that and, you know, if it's something that we've thought about.

I think that's really interesting because I could imagine that being really useful in that sometimes when staff presents DUPs to you, they already have the conditions worked out and negotiated. And one of the things that we could do is kind of put by which item in the criteria that addresses. And so that's what that makes me think of. Um, and, um, So good idea. Yeah.

Yeah. And also, you know, it may save time and energy. So. All right.

Thank you. Commissioner Nemec.

First of all, I'd like to thank Commissioner May for taking two of my questions. I swear, I think you're bugging my house, but that's something different. My most concern is I'd like to bring this to staff. Are you comfortable with these changes? Are you, that wasn't, that's not the question, director. Are you comfortable with these changes? I don't mean to put you on the spot. Because you have a lot more experience than I do at this. You've seen rules come and go. That's why I'm asking if you're comfortable with them.

So if I may, I'm just looking at the checklist and thinking about the CUP we just heard. So in my mind, I'm going down it under letter A, approval with conditions. That would have been the checkbox I would have checked. Initially, when they came in, it was denial because of the parking issue. Correct. So that would have been the check. Postponement requirements, I don't think that's so much for us because if we have to continue it, we tell them we're not going to be able to support your project. That might be for something for the commission to say, hey, timeout, we need more information that we may have overlooked. Then we get to C, use does not violate the city's comprehensive plan. I can't see anything in Mr. Gates's proposal where it would violate that. If he did ask for that, like say in a residential zoning or future land use, then hey, yes, it violates that. not detrimental to health, safety, and general welfare. With the letters provided by the tenants in the area and looking at the parking, that took care of that box and staff size. And then use does not violate the land development code. It's an allowable use to be considered under a conditional use permit. So we check that box. Then going down under letter D, Compatibility development with terrain and surroundings. It was already a built, constructed building with a parking lot. Transportation system adequacy. We talked about the parking attendant. There was some discussions about how it would function with the other tenants in the building. Utilities availability, utilities already in place. Stormwater management, it's already in place. Site planning, it's pretty much in place, it's built. And then solid waste disposal capacity, I wouldn't think they're gonna generate any more solid waste other than an office that was existing there. So just going down the checklist as looking at it for Mr. Gates' project, that's how I would do it. And that's just on the fly that I just did. So maybe that helps answer some of that.

Excellent. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cruz. Appreciate that. Question to counsel. I noticed that you have a lot of strikethroughs. That means you're deleting And I noticed that you have a lot of bold underline. Is there anything you might have forgot to put in this that we don't know?

I'm sorry, I didn't... I heard your foundation. I didn't hear your actual question.

Oh, okay. Let me restate it then. Did you leave anything out of this?

Oh, did I leave anything out of this?

Yes. For a recommendation.

Yeah, I think I did. I mean, just... Just what I would anticipate you recommending. I've already heard some ideas that maybe I would incorporate. I haven't left anything out based on what I've done, but basically my process was when I was going through it and making these changes, I got to a point where I realized I felt I was going beyond what your mandate was, and that's why I wanted to find out what you wanted.

Thank you know further questions right now for Council.

Thank you commissioner Kramer.

Thank you. I don't have a lot of questions actually I just want to talk a little bit about the checklist and clarify in section D. It says transportation system adequacy is that where we're covering parking. Because much like solid waste, parking is, as we saw tonight, was a big issue. I'm just suggesting if parking is not under the transportation that we add another bullet point, councilor, that says parking.

Good agreement. I like that. I was assuming, which makes any sense to me.

Yeah, I just didn't know whether it's part of transportation system adequacy. I am not sure.

From staff's perspective, we would take that under consideration, the site planning. Okay. Yeah, the site planning, because that's internal to the site. Yes, there could be some transportation by the question you asked when they leave. Again, it could cross over in some of these categories as well.

And then the only other suggestion I have about the checklist is that – under a where it says i love this idea of postponement denial denial without prejudice approval or approval with conditions um that maybe we add on to the checklist what are those conditions so that as we're making our notes here check they've got the future date essential missing information i'm sorry does not violate the city's comprehensive plan check use is not detrimental to health safety and general welfare check Use does not violate the land development code. Well, maybe there's something in there and it's approval with conditions, but what are we, what is the, I'd just like to see what's that condition on the checklist? Or at least a place to put it there.

If I can address that as well. We normally wouldn't bring you anything without conditions because of conditional use permit. This is more, I would say this is more in your eyes because I know it's been mentioned in the past. Maybe we should postpone this till we get more information. And I'm just throwing this out there. Normally when we bring something forward, it's usually denial or it's approval with conditions. Or we'll say staff recommends approval of resolution 2026-29R with conditions. Denial without prejudice, that's more of a legal issue down the road, and Christian could explain some of that once it goes to council. But really, from staff's position, postponement might be wherever we, for example, we have it advertised, we're ready to come in here tonight, and something happens where the applicant could not make it. And then we would say, would you please consider a postponement? you know, denials, denial, denial without prejudice, and then approval or approval conditions. I would say the conditional use permit, the resolution always has conditions. So really, I think some of this is to help guide you as well.

Exactly.

I think the postponement also is we've tabled. Correct. So it should be postponement is part of the table process as well.

No further questions, Chair. Commissioner Hoisington.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. All of my concerns really have been addressed. I don't have a problem with the words violate. I think we need to have something in there strong, so I'm good with that. I definitely agree with the transportation where we're talking about sufficient size length that would be specific. that were specific in those. I also agree with Commissioner May with the trees and the greenery. Definitely with the checklist, I was wondering about that. Is it something that we're going to maintain? Is it something that's going to be documented so that we will have a reference in case something does not work out and we're entering into a debate or any type of lawsuit with that so i agree that we need to maintain that and then my other question i think commissioner nimick asked it if the staff was okay with the changes and any recommendations i mean we depend on you you're our subject matter experts to make sure that you're guiding us along with our attorney that we are working with the right tool all right thank you any comment to that christian

I'm not sure, I thought I might have heard something for me to address, but I wasn't sure what it was. Could you restate it?

I didn't know if you had any, she gave some information, I didn't know if you had any comment on that.

I guess one thing I would say, since I clearly need to hear the sound of my own voice, is I think one of the issues, and this kind of addresses several people's comments, is that if you have criteria that are too general, then they can be abused. So, for example, in the old days, you know, if, for example, the Soviet Union's criteria for giving you a building permit is, does it serve the proletariat? Does it serve the people? What that really means is it could mean anything. And that's why I mean it's not good enough for the rule of law. It's not good enough. It doesn't have actual meaning to give people assurances they're going to be protected. So I want you to have discretion, but I also want to have the rule of law. And that's kind of what's behind this. To some extent, if you do have a checklist, I mean, the checklist itself is not legal. You know, like we don't follow the checklist is more organizational. at the end of the day, the code is still the thing that's legal and that matters, if that makes sense.

Does that answer your question, Paula? His last part. You got it? Great. Where's the IT guy? Yeah. Because it does what it doesn't to me.

But I think it's a check and balance. Right. I think it's a check and balance. And I think it's important that we have a checklist to ensure that thing. I'm a process person. To make sure the process has been followed. Make sure everyone looked at everything that they're supposed to look at.

And the legal bounds, right.

I can go back and say, well, on this date, on this checklist, you checked off that this said X, Y, Z, and now you're telling me something different.

Correct. That's what I'm saying. Because like you said, you brought up a very good point. Can we legally, let's say we get into a lawsuit, is it going to be documented?

And your last question, Christian, I guess kind of leads into my question. The things that you struck out here, I assume they're either weak or redundant. For example, number four, proposed use may be considered desirable. Is that just, like, too subject? Like, that just has no meat to it. It's just someone's interpretation?

Yeah. I mean, to me, it's not...

susceptible it's not objective enough but that's just my opinion I mean honestly I'm not wedded to anything and whatever you all want I would love to implement yeah I mean I get that I kind of I liked you know most of the strikes striking the density or intensity you know that one kind of hurt to see that one just struck out but I get where you're coming from Do you have an opinion, Christian? You've received a lot of feedback from the commission. What do you think would be a good next step forward with this? Christian?

Commissioner, I mean, one thing we could do is If we don't have necessarily a consensus on code changes, we could still implement the checklist. I mean, what you have here would be good and adaptable regardless of what your code section says. So, I mean, we could get started with that right away.

Everybody good with that? All right. And the other will be a work in progress, I guess, and an opportunity to give you more feedback, Christian, from the individual members of the commission.

I would love that. And if anyone wants to email me their ideas or their suggested red lines, whatever they want, I'd be interested in knowing.

Yeah, go ahead, Commissioner May.

I just want to jump on what Kramer was saying in regards to, you know, we don't see parking, but I think just looking at what Mr. Tunona had given us here, traffic counts and infrastructure capacity is so important because of, you know, lack of water. We need to make sure that development that comes to the city, that we have the infrastructure in everything. roads, traffic, water consumption as well. That's it.

I agree 100%.

So that's it for me.

And I did love some of the clarifications you had, Christian, including the sidewalks, multimodal palace, stuff like that I think is a fantastic add to this. John, go ahead.

Just two things real, real quick. I kind of like the term adversely affect, overviolate. because I think it gives us more latitude to deny something. You can call a gray area what you want, but I could see getting into a pissing contest with an attorney over the word violate. I think adversely affect gives us a lot more room to maneuver that we do not agree with the CUP. I think number four should stay in there. The proposed use may be considered desirable at the particular location because I still think that gives us a minor leg up on community character and neighborhood feel not being sufficient enough to stand as support of the denial.

Commissioner, what I would suggest is why not... Why don't we have words about that? I mean, why don't we add or change it to what you're saying? Because what you're saying is more specific. What you're saying we probably could use, if that makes sense. I mean, if that's what your concern is, let's put it in the code.

I'm with you.

All right. Sounds good. Anybody else? Any other comments for Christian at this time? If not, we can follow up with him. All right. Well, thank you, Christian. We appreciate all your work on this.

Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you.

All right. Do we have any other business before us? If not, I will entertain a motion for adjournment.

I'll set a motion for adjournment.

Second?

I'll second.

All in favor?

Aye.

We are adjourned.