Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

are you ready all right it is 6 30 it is may 2nd this is a meeting of The Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission. I'm sorry, June 2nd. What happened in May? It is June 2nd. Thank you. And I'm calling this meeting to order. Can we have a roll call, please?

Mr. Haggerty is absent. Ms. Austin? Here. Mr. Montiel?

Present.

Mr. Adams?

Present.

Ms. Hubka? Here. Mr. Renson?

Here.

Mr. Kaplan is absent. Ms. Cesario? Here.

Mr. Ruttle? Here.

And Chair Montanez?

Chair Martinez is here. Sorry. Thank you.

We were just talking about the chief building official. Sorry. No problem. Chair Montanez. I'm going to do it again. Martinez.

Yes, present. Thank you. All right, first item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from our May 19th meeting. Anybody have any comments, additions, corrections to the May 19th meeting minutes?

If not, I'll hear a motion to approve. So moved. Second. All right. We have a vote.

Ms. Austin? Yes. Mr. Montiel?

Aye.

Mr. Adams?

Aye.

Ms. Hubka? Aye. Mr. Renson?

Yes.

Ms. Cesario?

Yes. Mr. Ruttle?

Aye.

And Chair Martinez?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Thank you very much. Item number three is approval of the findings of fact from case ZON 2025-003. This is the Walgreens PUD at 3080 South Broadway, PUD amendment. Any comments, questions, additions, corrections to the findings of fact?

This item on the agenda is to approve the findings of fact as they're included. I'll take a motion to approve that then.

So moved.

Second.

Ms. Austin? Yes.

Mr. Montiel?

Aye.

Mr. Adams?

Aye.

Ms. Hubka? Aye. Mr. Renson?

Yes.

Ms. Cesario? Yes. Mr. Ruttle?

Aye.

And Chair Martinez.

Aye.

Motion passes.

All right. Thank you, everybody. We're moving right along here. Does it look like there's anybody present in the room? Anybody online for the public forum?

Mark, are you seeing anyone online?

No.

Nope. All right. And we're moving on to the public hearing, case 2025-07, non-residential, non-conforming uses. And I think we're handing this over to Will.

Sorry, could I have a motion to open the public hearing?

Oh, sorry, I always forget that.

Can I get a motion to open the public hearing? Make a motion. Second.

Ms. Austin? Yes. Mr. Montillo?

Aye.

Mr. Adams?

Yes.

Ms. Hupka? Aye. Mr. Renson?

Yes.

Ms. Cesario? Yes. Mr. Ruttle? yes and chair martinez yes motion passes and just for the record uh planner will charles will be presenting virtually yes thank you i will so will i still need you to be sworn in my hand up and ready okay i can't see you is why uh do you do you swear affirm under the penalties of perjury that you will tell the truth in this proceeding before the planning and zoning commission Please state your name.

Will Charles, Senior Planner with the Community Development Department. Yeah, so tonight we're going to be talking about non-residential, non-conforming uses located in residential districts. As before, that's the only time I'll say the whole name. Otherwise, we'll just call them non-conforming uses. But we've talked about this a couple of times since then. So as you might remember, this started back in the summer of last year. Since then, we've done a number of study sessions here, as well as one with the Historic Preservation Commission, and then a couple with City Council. So now we're going through the actual adoption process. So tonight we're going to go over the actual standards. So getting into them, the first changes are to Chapter 2. These are where all of the procedures, like the special exceptions we did for home occupations, the plan needed development standards, all of those kind of things live, basically the how-tos. So this will be where the... The things that can't be approved administratively, where they come to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval, this is where the requirements for that process will live. So this is a special exception for existing commercial structures and residential zones. And then this slide is the criteria that'll be used to grant a special exception. So the first couple are basically just kind of parameters saying you're not gonna ask for something beyond what is allowable by the changes we're gonna make in chapter four. And then the bottom three are kind of the catchalls for, you know, if someone from the public has a concern that they bring up during the neighborhood meeting, that'll have, you know, an ability here, as well as anything from staff and anything that comes from the commission to allow for, you know, conditions added to it or approval or denial based on those comments. Getting into Chapter 4, the first one is the lighting performance standards. So this is where, you know, the amount of lumens that your lights can put off and things like that. There's basically these for all of the commercial districts, so everything starting on the MURs, but there's not anything for the R1s or R2 districts. So this just adds... Basically, these existing commercial structures will follow the same lighting standards that any of the MUR districts currently follow. So anything allowed by those businesses would be for these ones. And then getting into 1646, this is kind of the beef of the regulations for these existing commercial structures. And we'll kind of go through all of them. But just so you know, as far as the format, the first couple of slides we'll go through is basically anything that can be allowed through either that commission approval or the administrative approval. And then at the end, it'll kind of carve out which process you have to follow based on what kind of improvement you want to make to the property. So first off is uses. So this is one that we had some discussions on and then ultimately took it as well to council for input. But what they landed on, as well as what we heard from this commission, is to go with basically taking the MUB1 district as kind of the as kind of the starter district for what uses will be allowed and then prohibit out the things that are not ideal for a residential neighborhood or as these commercial structures. So basically anything that's allowed in the MBB-1 is allowed except for things that deal with vehicles and auto sales, retail and sale other, which are things like pawn shops and that kind of stuff. Anything to do with marijuana or mushroom related uses, anything to do with guns or weapons, hazardous materials, lodging uses, animal care uses. And then the last two. The last few, the public institutional, these things are allowed. They just have their own portion of the code that already allows for them. So this is just saying you don't follow the standards, you follow those instead. So it doesn't change anything about the way those are regulated. And then the last one is the residential units quantity allowed by the base zone district. So if you're in an R1 district, you can allow for the number of residential units up to that, but no more.

So.

Development standards, so these will be what these businesses use. So 70% lot coverage, 30-foot max height, and then 5-foot setback all around. Additionally, they won't be allowed to subdivide the property, so no adding additional land to the property or removing land from the property. So the property will still need to remain the same size as what it currently is. And then some just kind of carve-outs for additions to the property. So nothing over 5,000 square feet. They'll allow for non-conforming setbacks and allowances. So these are kind of similar to what It's allowed for residential ones where you can expand basically keeping the same non-conforming setback, just extending the structure along that setback. So it'll allow for those types of additions. And then just another clarification about that residential no more than what is allowed by the base district. Getting into new commercial structures and tenant spaces, basically this will not allow for an entirely new commercial structure, but it will allow for the splitting up of the structure into multiple different spaces, and then also allowing for a rebuilt clause if for some reason the structure was to burn down or be destroyed. Additionally, for residential structures, as kind of mentioned a couple times, they will be permitted to have new residential structures. And then as far as signage, basically this allows for signage that's already allowed by the code in residential districts, but then there won't be any sort of illuminated signs that could cause a nuisance onto neighboring properties. Then getting into outdoor seating and dining areas. So these were kind of designed where either you would put these on the sides of the building where you're as far away from residential property as you are, or you'd be at least 10 feet away with some sort of buffer. So these allow for things to the side of the building or between the building and the street, and then things 10 feet away from the residential property lines. As far as fencing and screening, they'll follow the same regulations that are allowed by the residential code. And then parking, you were allowed to do new parking, but it would need to be screened from nearby residential properties.

Service windows.

So these are the walk-up windows we were talking about that are kind of beneficial for some more of the restaurant-type uses. So this allows for those types of ones. Again, kind of directing them, you know, into areas where they're the least likely to cause nuisances. And then drive-throughs would just be a prohibited use. And then additionally, landscaping.

improvements are now allowed by this code.

So that was kind of the overarching, these are the things either you could do either through administrative process or through the commission one. The end of this kind of explains where the line in the sand is where you need to start asking for that administrative approval. So as far as what's allowed by the direct approval, this would be for changes of use where the proposed use is in a structure that's 3,000 square feet or less. And then for restaurant or group hub uses, it'd be 2,000 square feet or less. Anything to do with signage could be approved administratively. Outdoor seating areas that are less than 500 square feet can be approved administratively. Limited site improvements, so those decks, patios, fences, passenger windows, all those things meeting those standards. And also for lighting that's six feet or lower. Anything to do with new bicycle parking can be approved administratively. additions less than 500 square feet, and increases in height of the structure by up to 10%. We kind of mentioned these two before, but we kind of put these two in there at these points for, basically it's kind of the minimum of what you would need to do like a bathroom, or if, you know, for some reason you have to expand the roof height. These kind of allow those things administratively, but not necessarily large expansions to the structure. So if anything is beyond that, then they would have to go for a commission approval and apply for that special exception. So for those, it'd be whenever you're dividing the structure into multiple tenant spaces, reconstruction or restoration of damaged structures, additions over 500 square feet, new residential structures that exceed 500 square feet, increases the height of the structure by more than 10%, outdoor seating and dining areas that can't be approved administratively. And then those larger site improvements and then any lighting that's between that six and I think it was 10 feet in height.

And then also any sort of new off-street parking that you're looking to add.

And then lastly, for any of these properties, they'll basically have a time limit of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., and then for outdoor areas, 8 to 7. And then any sort of outdoor storage will be prohibited on the properties, and then any sort of noise generation through different audio devices, things like that, will be prohibited in the outdoor areas.

All right, and that is it for the presentation.

Are there any questions for me?

David. I've got one about the, can you go back a couple slides to the piece that talked about reconstruction?

Yeah. On this one?

This is the one. Yep. I'm just curious if it seems kind of pointless to have somebody come for a P&Z commission approval for reconstruction of a damaged structure. That seems like it's slowing down the process of somebody fixing something, much like anywhere else. You generally don't need a permit for sort of like for like. Fixes and this would seem similar. I just don't see the point of having it come through through us for fixing something that's damaged Yeah

Well, I have a little list. I'll let you go first.

Okay. I just have one on the also rebuild if it was destroyed and then not being able to rebuild it back to what it was. But if there was a mortgage and had insurance on it, I think that the mortgage would require that it was built back to what it was and potentially that the insurance would require that. But I don't know that for sure, but that's just my gut instinct.

You're saying that there's a restriction on rebuilding it if it was destroyed? I thought it was saying that you couldn't

I thought, okay, so maybe could you clarify if it was destroyed?

Yeah, the way it's written right now is you basically from the time it was destroyed to pulling a building permit, you would have three years to do so. So if you don't pull a building permit within three years, then you would have to build basically a conforming use onto the property. That was basically kind of taken from what we have for the nonconformities currently, where there's like a time limit from whenever something is destroyed to when you can rebuild. So that was just kind of bringing that into these regulations as well.

And it's still permissible not until completion of the restoration.

Yeah, I can double-check on what exactly it was, but it's one of those two.

I think three years makes sense for pulling permits. I think it would be really tight if you're requiring it to be completed within three years. But the slide looks like it's a full permit. I have a couple of questions about just – I don't remember – The word commercial structures, before we have commercial uses or non-conforming uses, but commercial structures might imply some or might bring some confusion, I would think, because, I mean, some non-conforming uses exist in what looks like a residential structure. I just want to understand what's behind the use of commercial structures versus just calling them commercial uses or non-residential or non-conforming uses.

Yeah, I think there are, you know, I think all of those would probably work fine. I think existing commercial structures is just because a lot of these were built with a commercial intent behind them. And that's just kind of, I think, what, you know, from when we did research of these things with other communities, that was kind of similar name to what, you know, we see around. But as far as the intent section, it kind of clarifies, like, what properties these things have. would be allowed under um so it says um so it says those existing structures and properties where it can be documented that they contained a non-conforming commercial or manufacturing slash industrial use as listed in table 4-2 at the time of adoption of the section or six months prior so it would cover any properties where that that applies.

OK, great. Thank you. And then the other question I have, or I have a couple more, but 5,000 square feet seems to be a limit for building size. I'm wondering, I just think about it's dramatically different, a 5,000 square foot one story building versus a 5,000 square feet across two stories. And the footprint versus the total square footage, I think the footprint is what's more impactful to a neighborhood than the overall square footage. This was up a couple of slides.

It was maybe your second or third slide. Yeah.

Yeah, so the allow expansions, but limit overall building size to no more than... Yeah, so the way it's written in the code, it says, shall not exceed 5,000 feet in gross floor area. So are you thinking more... limit on a footprint rather than floor area?

Well, I'm just thinking that 5,000 square feet across two stories is much less impactful to a neighborhood than 5,000 square feet on the ground floor. So I'm not sure if, you know, I don't have any input on what the number 5,000, but whether it's total or gross floor area versus footprint, I'm just thinking about you know, if that restriction on total square footage is right, if we're really trying to protect sort of neighborhood character and, you know, fit the neighborhood, I think what really matters is the footprint. As long as the height is within...

Yeah, I don't think that's valid. I think the only pushback I would say on that is if you limit it based on footprint, you could be encouraging people to add pop-top additions rather than floor area additions. And I don't know if one of those would be considered more impactful necessarily since there is a height limit in the district.

There's already a height limit, so that's why, yeah.

Yeah. Is this including like all habitable square footage including basements?

So for a lot of times, like if it was basements where you could utilize them for the building space, that would count generally. If it's not, yeah, like you said, like a habitable space, then no, it wouldn't count that towards your gross floor area.

Will, wouldn't the footprint be... determined by the lot coverage i mean a typical inglewood neighbor or inglewood lot is 50 by 125 or 6 250 square feet if you can have cover 70 percent of that in my head it's about 4 400 square feet of coverage wouldn't that be the the determining factor of footprint

I mean, that makes sense. Yeah, I mean, it probably would be pretty close to this if you maxed out the size on a one-story. But if you went, yeah, to a two-story structure fully at setbacks, then, you know, it could easily get over that.

I guess that's my question. Is it overly restrictive to say 5,000 total square feet?

Yeah, I mean, I think that when we wrote it, the intent was kind of, you know, with really kind of one property in mind currently where it is kind of already at this maxed out point where it is pretty large. But if, you know, you had a 5,000 square foot structure and then you added another floor on top of it, suddenly you have 10,000 square feet of commercial space in a residential district and it kind of gets intense at that point. So I was really trying to figure out a number that works for that. You know, I don't know if that number could be tweaked to be higher or lower than that, but that was the intent behind that 5,000. Got it.

Thank you. And the outdoor patio space somewhere, I think, would seem to be indicating that that would also count towards this 5,000 max. Is that correct?

Let me double check.

I don't believe we had it included. There was in the outdoor seating, it says these areas shall be no larger than 25% of the total floor area of the commercial use or 500 square feet, whichever is greater. I don't know if maybe that's what you were seeing in the...

the regulations um but it may have been i i thought there was somewhere that said something about yeah it may have been that 25 so perhaps not an issue let's confirm that that it's not inclusive of the patio or you know whatever outdoor areas that you know it doesn't count against yeah if it's in there we'll be sure to also bring it up at um

at council as well. But yeah, I'm pretty sure it doesn't but I'll keep reading through on the side and double check.

Sorry, I think maybe that actually rung a bell for me. Can you go to that piece that shows that is essentially what that seems to be indicating is, if you've got 25% of your total 5000. That's the cap or 500. So it sounds like it is sort of part of that 5000.

See if it's on here.

Or 25% of whichever. Yeah, so if you've got a 3,000 square foot building and a 1,000 square foot patio, then presumably you're up.

Why not? Well, it says it's up to 500.

Or 25% of total floor area, whichever is greater. And so I guess that's the question. Is it 25% of the building floor area? So if you have a 4,000 square foot building, you could have a 1,000 square foot patio, a total of 5,000.

It would be two separate numbers. So the floor area of the structure is a number, and then the total allowable patio size you have is a different number.

Got it. So you could have a 5,000 square foot habitable building and a 1,250 square foot patio.

Correct. Yeah. And then any patio space over 500 square feet would have to go for commission approval.

Eric? Will, did you say that the residential properties with non-conforming uses cannot be subdivided?

So this is just for these commercial ones. So for commercial non-conforming uses, the property size and lot configuration will need to stay the same. So you can't add property to these lots or remove property from these lots.

let's take uh quincy barbers uh on the on the corner of quincy and pennsylvania as an example if that's a corner property so you're able to do a one-third two-thirds split there would the owner of that property be able to subdivide the barber shop off and sell that business to somebody else and then maintain the house that they live in?

No. So as far as the way this is written, the property would have to, there would be no new lot lines.

They would have to keep it all on loan property.

For a business like that that's been around as long as it has, it seems that could be detrimental.

Yeah, I mean, the intent behind keeping it that way is, I mean, more so to do with additions, where if you allow for the allowance of adding on the You know, if a property, if a business does really well, which I hope for, they could want to expand onto neighboring properties. And that can be dangerous just as far as creating nuisances. And then as far as subdividing, it was more to do with, you know, there's sometimes potentially areas where they're like, it's their current parking or something. things like that, that, you know, they could remove from these properties that could be detrimental. But if, you know, if that's something you want us to allow where they can do front and rear corner subdivisions, we could add that in.

I would only consider that like on those end grain lots, like my corner lot.

Yeah, corner lots where they're currently allowed to be subdivided one-third, two-third. Anybody else have thoughts on that?

energy.

I kind of think that this is step one, and we can talk about subdividing maybe later. This is about neighborhood character, and we do want to retain that. Keep in mind that these are very small properties, as they are. They're fine. The ice cream shop is about 1,500 square feet, and this cap allows them to expand three times their size almost, that it's not as limited as you think. And at the same time, I think having planning and zoning make sure that when things need to be reconstructed, that we do review it to make sure that it retains some neighborhood character. So I like that it has this oversight, personally. I don't want to see anything in this changed. I'd like to see this move on to council. We've had it a long time.

Okay. The other question I have, Will, is, is it my understanding that somebody would be able to change the current use to a different use? Let's say Quincy Barber says, you know what, we're going to lease this spot on Broadway, and we want to open an ice cream shop. Is that something that would be allowed? Or does the current use have to remain the use for the life of that property?

Yeah, so this would allow for changes of use. So it allows, basically, if a use is allowed in the MUP1 zone district that doesn't fall under one of these prohibited use categories, then... it would be allowed as a change of use. And then there was the carve out basically where for the larger structures where maybe they needed a closer look at. So that would be ones that are over 3,000 square feet. It would come to the commission for review. And then additionally for any like restaurant. So like what you mentioned, like an ice cream shop, if they were over 2,000 square feet, they would come to the commission for review.

So then that brings another question to mind. Will, keeping Quincy Barbers as our example, they have a couple, maybe three garages that they just use for storage. Would they be able to add a use to that where the storage area is? Would they be able to open an ice cream shop alongside the barbershop?

As far as if they wanted to add on to the commercial structure, I believe this would allow that. As far as those outdoor storage spaces, I think right now we wouldn't really consider those part of that business. So that would be adding a new commercial structure. We've had that kind of conversation with previous tenants or owners in the God Save the Cream bit property before it was them, where, you know, they couldn't store commercial product in those garages that are on that property. So I think it'd be kind of the same thing on these ones.

Thank you.

Will, under the items that can be approved by the director of the administrative approval, why additional restrictions for restaurants and brewpubs?

Yeah, I think, you mean as far as that size and square footage?

I mean, why is that use called out as having a... Yeah, so the reason why we put it there...

And it's mainly because I think there's just more customers that usually come to those businesses and especially at, you know, different times of the day. So that was kind of the reasoning is that those ones are the ones that have the highest potential for, you know, intensity and nuisances um so those ones maybe just need an extra look um you know it could be something where you know if you if you all feel comfortable we can we can just make it 3 000 square feet across the board on those but that was the that was the thought yeah i don't know if that's presumptive or not i i don't know if there's data behind you know a restaurant brew pub would have more traffic than you know another use i don't i don't know so i mean

It seems just called out, singled out specifically there. I'm not sure if we need a lower threshold for that. Oh, outdoor spaces, 8 AM to 7 PM. That makes sense in the wintertime. Is there anything else in code that references dawn to dusk rather than hard times?

As far as I'm aware, the only other one that we have in the code is to do with home occupations. I don't know...

I can take a look real quick and see what it says.

Um... I think there's a noise ordinance that's until a time.

It's not tied to 7 p.m.

So for the home occupations, it says there's like the outdoor sales portion, which says no outdoor sales between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. And then in the delivery section, it says 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. for deliveries and customers.

What was that? I'm sorry. The outdoor sales piece, what were the hours on that?

It basically just says no outdoor sales between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.

So where is this 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. for outdoor areas coming in?

Again, I was just trying to put a number for these for the outdoor seating area. You know, generally just, you know, kind of cap when people could be using those spaces just so it's not going for all hours of the night or, you know, very early in the morning.

I was thinking about an ice cream shop would certainly want to be open in the summertime with outdoor seating until, you know, 8 or 9 p.m. Mm-hmm.

Yeah, we were just trying to strike a balance between, you know, the ones of these commercial owners and then also the residents that are neighboring them. But if that's the number you want to add to, you know... Yeah, I would push for at least 9 p.m.

I think that lines up with other kind of standards. I mean, getting dark at the longest day of the summer around then, like 7 p.m. is just early.

Do you think maybe...

you know, if y'all wanted to revise this just to have, you know, basically this whole section just say 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. rather than have that carve out.

I could agree with that, too. Or the dawn to dusk idea is actually pretty good.

Yeah, personally, I would say I feel like a time, it's just a little easier to...

to regulate than kind of, you know, adjusting throughout the season.

I think some of those will be naturally, you know, in wintertime, those businesses are going to not be open.

People won't be comfortable outside. Yeah.

Yeah, I think that's a good solution, 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. across the board. Michelle.

I have a question on the notice you put in there, 200 feet, that people... residents within 200 feet or owners within 200 feet will and if there's one thing I think we've heard a couple of times when listening to the public is that they say I didn't hear about it so is there a reason for the 200 feet is that also in code already or

Yeah, so for all other mailings, which is what that is, they're 1,000 feet. The reason why we adjusted it down to 200 was with kind of the idea that for properties, basically 200 feet should cover two or three properties directly adjacent to it, and then also the ones on each side of the corner that these are likely to be on. So it kind of covers those ones without necessarily going to the same intensity level that, like, a planning and development would need to mail to. And then also they would have a sign in the front yard so anyone else that, you know, would want to hear about it would likely hear about it through that. But that was kind of the intent was to make it a little less intense than what we require on bigger projects.

No, I would agree with you on making it less than that, but I don't know what the other commissioners think about 200 feet. That seems like, like you said, just two or three properties. Is that enough?

It's probably four doors down each way.

Well, you said, yeah, well, two each way. Yeah, on a 50-foot lot. Will says two each way, right?

Yeah, if there are 50-foot lots, then yeah, it would get at least close to four, but probably three. And then if they're 75-foot lots, you know.

It could potentially be three, but also, you know, just two, depending on how deep that is.

So I would say probably around three properties that are directly adjacent. And then, you know, one property in each of the long block directions.

Seems like a little squeaky to me. It might be a little bit bigger, but...

I mean, if it makes it better, we could, you know, there's a lot of distance between 200 and 1,000. Oh, no, we want to go with that. We could, yeah. So if it's something where we want to increase that to like 400 or something, just to kind of give a little bit bigger of a range.

I think I'd be a little more comfortable with 400, because if there are larger lots, then, and if it's in a residential area, then it you know, there could be larger lots for the residential properties as well. So that would, it could potentially just be only a few properties, so.

Yeah, to be fair, the block is affected. You know, so I think everyone on, we don't need to go clear out for several blocks, but I think everybody on the block, so is that four, is that 500 feet?

If you're going to get the whole block, I think a block is 600 feet.

The long side of the block is usually 600 on most of these blocks.

Well, what do you guys think? Do you think?

Well, I mean, that would only be appropriate if the business was in the middle of that block. Is it affecting the next block south, the south end of the block? I don't know. I think 400 is easy.

Well, and there will be a sign out front, too.

Because, yeah. So the other kind of thing to keep in mind is, you know, whenever we have these thousand foot mailings, it can be hundreds of addresses, which can get, you know, pretty expensive for some of these, and especially if it's like a small addition to some of these projects. But yeah, I think, you know, I think 400, you know, if I think that would, you know, capture probably three times as many people as what the 200 is. So if that

I think that would probably, you know, achieve the goal of getting more people involved.

Yeah, because these properties, I mean, down the road, we're thinking that they're going to not be, have a commercial use down the road anyways, correct?

So with this, I think the goal of this is to allow these to have commercial uses in perpetuity from here on out. So that was kind of the goal of pulling them out of the non-conforming use section is to give them a little more agency.

Other questions for Will? Or discussion?

Nancy, what do you need from us to put together the finding of facts?

If you're done asking staff questions, I'll need a motion for the public hearing to close. Motion to close public hearing.

Last call for questions of Will. If we're done with questions, we'll get a motion.

Oh, I'm sorry. Let me check in with Steven. Let me just make sure Steven's had an opportunity. Steven, you have anything for us? Anything for Will?

No, I'm good. Thank you. I've been here listening and learning.

Thanks, Steven. Who's Mark Hessling?

I could, just before we all go on. I think there's four areas that I kind of heard that, you know, maybe to add a condition for this. So that was the reconstruction moving to administrative construction. the restaurant and brew pub square footage size, the time limit for activity, and then also the distancing requirement. I think those were the four I heard, unless there were other ones.

Yeah, just, and I think, Brenda, you might not have agreed with that, of reconstruction of like-for-like uses and like-for-like structure going back to, or just being an administrative approval rather than going to P&Z.

Yeah, my concern is for that warehouse structure. You know, because we have a lot of our discussion is centered about the ice cream store. We don't see that changing much. Little storefronts, I don't see changing much. But we have about three or four one-offs stuck in the middle of residential areas that I don't want to see get bypassed. past P&Z and past some community engagement on. So that's all. I don't think that we're going to overburden them.

Brenna, I have a question for you. I'm thinking if, let's say the warehouse burns down and they want to rebuild, on what basis do you think we could deny them that wouldn't already be in the code?

Let's say they want to have a medical building right there.

Is that allowed in the code?

Yes.

I will say the one thing, you know, on that, that in addition to that, is we do have that carve out for like changes of use for the, you know, we talked about the 3,000 square feet as kind of the administrative line. So that could capture that property, you know, because it's larger than 3,000 square feet where it would still come to planning and zoning commission. But some of the smaller ones, if they were to be destroyed, wouldn't necessarily have to. So this, you know, change of the views except when proposed is greater than 3,000 square feet.

Right. We're not going to see every little change that they make. We're just going to see the major stuff.

Yeah. So, like, if they came back to the storage area, though, that would be allowed. You know, if you wanted to allow reconstruction administratively, This would allow them to come back as a storage area, but if they wanted to rebuild and then convert to a different use, it would still get captured as going to PNC.

I would be happier if we left it just because we can't predict every single thing that's going to happen out there. And we need to think past just the barbershop and the ice cream store. There's what, so almost, how many properties did we end up with? 21, 22?

I think 12.

Well, okay. We got that down to 12. Still. Yeah. So that's only 12 properties. The chances of burdening somebody, overly burdening some, I think are slim.

Any other opinions on that particular point of reconstruction needing to come back to planning and zoning?

Is it worth putting in an exception that says if they're simply rebuilding like for like, that it doesn't have to come through us? Because I guess to your point earlier, if let's say a car jumps a curb and drives through their wall, now to fix their wall, they have to come to us. They're going to lose their mind going through that process if all they're saying is, hey, we just want to get it back and functional as quickly as possible. Anything that delays that for somebody is potentially putting a small business out of business.

It doesn't cost them money to come in and talk to us.

It costs time, and you can lose money that way.

I think, like I said, it's a really small chance of that happening. There's a better, bigger chance of it happening that they make a change that the neighborhood is upset about.

Well, but changes would have to come back. A change of use would have to come back.

Yeah, it's not a change of use, a reconstruction, a repair. You can redo a building, and you want to make sure that it still fits in with the design and the scope of the neighborhood. You don't want to have a car crash into a building, they go and fix it, and the neighbors are upset because it looks nothing like it used to.

I'll point out, I tried to keep it narrow for the presentation, but what that's for is reconstruction where the building is considered a loss. So 60% of it, of the value of the property has been destroyed. So something where like, yeah, like a hole in the wall, they could likely fix that. There'll be less than 60%. This would be like if the whole roof caved in or a fire or things like that, where the whole property was lost.

well I want to hear from other folks okay I'll weigh in I agree with Brenda but I also felt like that restaurant on Broadway that had a hard time getting it reconstructed and I don't know what the hold up there was but I knew that they had a hold up to get it reconstructed and get the business back going again was a big problem. And it had something to do either with permit. Do you guys remember this? It was like two or three years ago. Yeah. And so I understand. They just wanted to reconstruct back to what it was supposed to be. So I understand that. I guess I'm, I feel like Brenda does too. So where is the threshold? Can we be clear like where the threshold is again?

60%? If we're talking about 60% evaluation.

That's a lot. That's more than just. That's more than half. And that's more than like what that was. They should have been just able to go ahead. And I agree with that because I felt like that, it felt bad for them.

But that wasn't a non-conforming use in a residential district.

True. No, she's just using it as an example. I just was using, is it held up a business?

Got it. I wasn't really, yeah.

What if it was 40% instead of 60%?

That they would have to come back? That's making it more restrictive.

Totally.

I'm just asking Brenda. I just meant for Brenda, how she felt on it. Okay.

Brenda wants it to stay the same. If it's 60% damage or more, it needs to come back here, regardless of the change of use or not, it should come back here.

Right side of the table, any thoughts?

Maybe the discussion needs to be on the percentages.

I mean, I agree that if it's over 50%, it should be reviewed again, but I don't know what the threshold should be.

I think that's pretty standard for requiring 60% loss is standard for, you know, triggering a lot of building code, you know, meetings, current building code and things like that. I think that makes sense. I think also,

If a business has a 60% loss, they're out of operations for a period of I think I'm fine with leaving it You got to kind of consider the insurance to what what's insurance going to cover What are they gonna have to put the bill for?

whatever

I mean, arguably the insurance reaction might be part of this, right? Because if you're, let's say you do have a 60% loss and you're covered for rebuilding, usually you're covered for rebuilding what you have. And so are we saying that they can rebuild exactly what they had if they choose to? Or are we saying that now you have to come up with a new design, even though it's, you know, the ice cream store is going to still be there, but now it has to look more like a house?

No, we don't have to say any of those things. They're coming to us just to get approval for whatever idea they have. And then it's just up to us in the community to say yes or no. They don't have to go with any standard. Maybe they want to completely change it up, and we're OK with that.

I'll clarify also, the way it's written right now, and I apologize for not having all this in there, again, for just trying to keep it simple for the PowerPoint, but basically it says you have three years if you're damaged more than 60%, and then it would be for restoration of the building that maintains the same footprint as the existing structure, or a new commercial structure may be constructed provided it meets all other standards of the section and is not larger than the existing structure was prior to be damaged. So that's what it says right now as far as the ordinance.

So if they don't get permitted within three years, they have to go back to a residential use?

Or a conforming use. So whatever a conforming use would be. So either residential for most of them. I don't think there's anything they can have to do like a public or institutional use.

But it couldn't remain as a... I know non-conforming is not the term we're using now, but it could not. So ice cream store gets run over. They, for whatever reason, don't have enough money to rebuild right away, so it takes four years. Now they can't be an ice cream store anymore?

Correct.

Yeah.

You know, I know, so this kind of came out of, Some of this came out of discussions about residential non-conforming uses as well. You know, I think whenever we were talking with council about some of this, they were kind of in between three and five years for a lot of this information. So if it's something where we're concerned about that timeline, you could also do five years. But

either way it's just a way to kind of put a cap on how long it can sit there vacant before it needs to come into conformity yeah yeah all right uh i think i'm good with it um i at first my my resistance was like well i don't want i don't think we should have this body should have undue you know say over what somebody rebuilt but I think what it does give the opportunities for the I'm in the neighbors so that that's I think so will if we leave that part the same the reconstruction part there were three other there were three other points that we had provided input on that was the The slide you have up now, just using 3,000 square feet regardless of use. The hours for outdoor use. And what was the third one?

The distancing requirement going up to 400 rather than 200. Yep.

Okay. So that's the three. Everybody good with that? Can I get a motion to close the public hearing?

Sorry, my mistake. I forgot. Before you close the public hearing, we should see if there's any public, since it's a public hearing.

Oh, thank you. Yeah. Hi. So on this topic of the public hearing for case 20-2507, non-residential, non-conforming uses, anybody in the room or online from the public that would like to share comments?

Seeing none, I will take a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second.

Ms. Austin? Yes.

Mr. Montiel?

Aye.

Mr. Adams?

Yes.

Ms. Hupka? Yes. Mr. Renson?

Yes.

Ms. Cesario?

Yes. Mr. Ruttle?

All right. And Chair Martinez. Aye.

Motion passes.

All right. Thank you. We'll move on to staff's choice.

Oh, sorry. One more. We need a motion to recommend to city council. And then if you're going to add conditions, what those conditions are as part of your motion.

Thank you. So would anybody like to take a stab at wording what we just talked about?

Okay.

I'll try let's see let me write down what we're doing and I'm gonna trust some wordsmithing by staff on this but I make a motion that we recommend

As presented with the following three conditions that we changed the outdoor hours to be consistent of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., I believe, is what we talked about. The notice area to 400 feet. And the director approval to be 3,000 feet for all uses.

I'm sorry, what was the third one?

The third one is for administrative approval by the director for changes of uses except where the proposed use is greater than 3,000 feet, period.

OK, thanks.

Can I get a second?

I'll second.

Thanks, Amy. Any further discussion? All right, let's have a vote.

Ms. Austin? Yes. Mr. Montiel?

Aye.

Mr. Adams?

Aye.

Ms. Hupka? I just want to take a second to thank staff for the depth of work, and thank you, Will, for listening to my concerns about all this, because I know I gave you a bad time, and you all did a really good job in the final language of this, and I appreciate that you all listened and adjusted. So, yes, thank you.

Okay, Mr. Renson? Yes.

Ms. Cesario? Yes.

Mr. Ruddle?

Yes.

And Chair Martinez?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Thank you, everybody. Now let's move on to staff's choice. Brooke, Will, do you have anything for us?

Let's see. Let's start with Will. Will, do you have anything for staff's choice?

I appreciate us getting this one moving forward. So thanks for all y'all's time as well.

NANCY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO STAFF'S CHOICE?

YES. SO WE, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS HIRED A NEW PLANNING MANAGER. I'M GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME WITH HIS LAST NAME, BUT HIS NAME IS COLIN. NANCY, HIS LAST NAME IS WAY HAB. Wehab, and he comes to us from the city of Thornton, among other job experience, and I believe he'll be starting June 29th. So yes, so we have a new planning manager, and we're looking forward to him coming on board. I don't have anything further to add to you, Nancy.

Just to let you know, our next meeting on June 16th, the only two items we have are approval of the minutes and approval of findings of facts. So if the commission's agreeable, we can do that online.

I am absolutely agreeable to that.

Okay. I will note the agenda and let you know. I'll send you all a link. Thank you. That's all I have.

All right. Thank you. Attorney's choice.

Nothing for me tonight. Thank you, guys.

All right. Thank you. And commissioner's choice. I kind of mixed it up, but let's start with Carl at the end. Carl, commissioner's choice. You have anything for us? Nothing for me.

I just have a question, and maybe none of the anybody in the room can answer it, but the notice boards down on the bottom floor in front of the library are gone. Is there a reason for that? Have the agendas posted?

Those, due to the murals that were put up, it's been moved to just outside Hamden Hall. But the official posting place in Jackson, please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I recall, the city clerk's office telling me the official posting is on the website, city's website.

That's correct. David.

I'm good.

I'm good. As am I. Stephen.

I'm good. Thanks. All right. Thanks, Stephen.

All right. And with that, we adjourn. Thank you, everybody.