Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, the next item on our agenda is the approval of tonight's agenda. Are there any corrections, additions, or amendments? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to approve. I so move. Second. Motion by Oscar.

Do I have to say?

All in favor, yes. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Motion carries three to zero. Do I have to vote? You'll have to vote. You'll have to vote. Thank you, everyone.

4-0.

All right, the motion has been moved by Oscar and seconded by Frank. We approve tonight's agenda as presented. Any comments or corrections? Hearing none, those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All right, we'll move on to item number four, approval of minutes. The minutes of our regular meeting held on June 9th, 2026 have been distributed in your packet. Are there any corrections or additions to those minutes? None that stand out for me. Then I'd entertain a motion. So moved. Second. Motion by Frank and second by Cheryl. Approve the minutes of the June 9, 2026 regular meeting. Any comments or corrections from the commission? Hearing none, those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries 4-0. This is the time set aside for public forum. If there's anyone present who wishes to address the commission on an issue, please step forward. Anyone? All right.

Need a pen? Yeah, I didn't bring one.

Died.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'm through it.

All right, we don't have anyone for public forum or communications. Moving on to item six, is there any new business to bring forward to the Planning Commission at this time? New business? Item seven, eight, and nine, we have no new public hearings. Plats are final, final plats scheduled for the agenda. So we'll proceed with unfinished business. All right, item 10A is a discussion regarding our ongoing review of the Keechai 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Keechai Zoning Regulations, and Keechai Subdivision Regulations. I will now hand the floor to Zoning Administrator Dustin Belton to introduce the proposed revisions for administrative adjustments, highway corridor signage, and the plan development overlay district.

Yes, thank you. I had PEC look over the comprehensive plan recently. They feel like everything in that is good to go, so we should just keep on keeping on with that one. For the zoning regulations, the first one here is the administrative adjustments. As discussed earlier this year, Hayesville, Derby, and Bel Air all have administrative adjustments. I know their size isn't comparable to ours, but it seems to be an industry standard that we can look at for adoption on our own. And before I forget, tonight is just supposed to be a vote on whether to have a public hearing. When we want to have that public hearing, if we want to say September or Even try for august. I don't think we can get august just because of the dates. We need the twenty at least twenty days notice in the arc valley news before we can actually have that public hearing. So it the earliest we can have it is september if you guys want to push it back to october or even november. we're i'm good with that either way as well um but looking at for the proposed amendment to the key chai zoning regulations um administ added into fourteen six e administrative adjustments we're looking at um just signing having myself in the city administrator be able to look at an application if somebody wants to increase the size of a lot by uh Reducing the minimum size of a lot width or depth or any setback by 20% Increasing maximum block coverage by up to 20% adjusting height requirements by 20% reducing off street parking and loading requirements by 25 Increasing maximum side sign regulations by up to 10% increasing the permitted height of the fence located within a setback to a maximum of eight feet in height Increasing the size of an accessory structure by up to 10%. Conditions for approval, there are time, may require conditions for approval of an administrative adjustment, including but not limited to time limits, access, screens, landscaping, drainage, all the other requirements that you would find in another conditional use or request. Does anyone have any changes or additions to it or anything?

So my question is, if we give you all of this, then why do you need us?

Because there's things that are going to be beyond what these minimum requirements are like.

So why not just leave it the way it is and we'll keep going?

For example, a fence that goes up to eight feet, high winds come over, knock your fence down, you've got a dog or two that needs to go out, you need to get a fence now. You don't want to wait for 60 to 90 days for permission to put up an eight-foot fence, because if you had a six-foot and you now want an eight-foot, you have to do a conditional use. People don't want to wait for that. They want to get that fence and get it up.

If they want an eight-foot, then they need it. to do diligence to get the 8-foot. Yes, but... If you have an 8-foot and it blows over, you can put an 8-foot back up.

Yes. Yeah. There aren't too many 8-foots in the city, though.

Exactly. Yeah, I... I'm just asking. I mean, I...

Right. I may not be following along with what you're... what you're asking.

I think he's drawing a distinction between a new installation and... And a repair.

Right. Okay. A repair, it can go back up. Yes. A new installation, somebody wants a fence. I know, for example, Karen Anderson behind Old School Tap House, she wanted to put up an eight-foot fence. I told her she'd have to do a conditional use and it would take some time. She said, no, I'm putting it up now. And she went with just a six-foot, even though she wanted an eight-foot.

Yes Okay

Now, who's to say that you wouldn't, you know, we would go ahead with this and then next year, well, then we want another 10% and another 20% and another. I'm with, you know, I'm with Oscar, right? I don't understand why we're doing this.

Okay, the idea of something increasing in adjustments the following year, kind of like a slippery slope.

Yeah.

Okay, that is a logical fallacy. There's no evidence to support that fact that we would increase more next year or even make that request next year. So there's no correlation that supports that, oh, since we did it this year, we got to do it next year.

So why do it at all? Why? I don't get it, besides the fact that Bel Air and Hayesville and, you know, so it's the same thing, right? If they fall, if they go off a cliff, are we going to go off the cliff too? No, we're not, right? So, you know, it's just like they put up apartments, they do all this kind of stuff and all of that, but we're not going to do that. So... Why, I don't understand, why do this? There's no reasoning behind it for me. I can't see it.

To speed things up for the residents that need these adjustments or want these adjustments.

I think they need to be, I think these adjustments need to be looked at.

But if they're so minor and they would be approved anyways.

I don't see that 25% reducing off-street parking and loading requirements by up to 25% is a minimum. Okay, I think that that's definitely something that that especially for a small town that yeah, we need to look at it.

Okay, would you be comfortable with a lower threshold in any of these as outlined here? Like, is there a compromise? And back to the question of going year after year and trying to increase and increase, that still has to come. That would have to be in the form of another amendment, correct? Oh, absolutely. That we would have to vote on. Yeah. And that we would have to agree. And then council would have to approve that too, right? Yes.

And they would know, oh, last year we already made this adjustment for the zoning regulations. We shouldn't be doing it again.

Oh, maybe not. Every year, but, you know, like every three or four years, five years or something like that, we need to go for another 10%, another 20%. I mean, you know, why?

Again, there's no evidence to support that that would happen.

I'm kind of curious, does it generate a paper trail so they, you know, sometime you're gone years later and whatever the structure is, And they want to say repair it. And they said that violates the ordinance. But when they went in, it came in under this. Was there a paper trail they can go back to? Do I lose you?

Say that again. I think I'm almost picking up what you're putting down, but I'm not sure.

Yeah, let's just say stick with your fence example. Somebody puts up a fence that exceeds our standard height. And years go by. Something happens to the fence. They want to put up another fence. And now there's another person sitting here. And he comes in and says, no, you can't do that. Do they have a document that says, yeah, I can? Because it would be grandfathered in by then.

Right.

Documentation, it would be a part of history that could be researched and looked back on.

Right. So when these would be created for these administrative adjustments, they would be created as a case, just like anything else, and documented. on our server, I have every year broken up into a different file, and then within that file, I have every case type that we've had, BZAs, which would be variances. We would have the conditional uses, zoning, subdivisions, things of that nature. And an administrative adjustment like that for a fence, I would file that under a conditional use, because that's what it used to be. So it would probably be renamed as something like CU-AA for a conditional use administrative adjustment when it comes to example defense. So we could go back and look.

I can go back, 2006?

I can go back pretty far and find cases. They're not pretty to look at, but I can find them. Building permits, yes.

OK. This so happens had a pretty closely related discussion with a friend of mine last Saturday. He used to be head of an HOA. And he had previously been run pretty loose. And he kind of tightened up regulations on it. But he was getting into trouble where John over here did something different from their HOA rules, and now Fred down the street said, well, I want to do that too. He got by with it. Why can't I? And how do we handle something like that?

Case by case, but a lot of the times HOAs manage their own issues.

No, I just use that as how things can add on. I mean, just an example. It just so happened we had that conversation just a few days ago.

Fair enough.

Also on 2C, it says adjusting height requirements by 20%, the height of what?

Buildings.

OK, we'll need to put that in there. OK. 2C. 2C. And I'm looking, and it looks like we've kind of, except for the sign regulations, but the rest of them, it looks like we're taking the highest number. So like, reducing the minimum lot size with setbacks by up to 20%. Well, Hayesville was doing like 10%. Increasing the maximum lot size lot coverage By up to 20% Here again, there was another one that was 20% was the maximum on each one of those so we're taking the maximum of All the all the towns Yeah, reducing the off street parking yeah, I think that's really high I And because that's a quarter, I don't have any problem at all with an eight-foot fence. But maybe it might depend on where it's at. So if we say this is height to the fence located within a setback to a maximum of eight feet in height, Maybe there's some of them that shouldn't be eight feet. And if we do this, then it doesn't give us an opportunity to even look at it. So I don't know.

A couple of thoughts that I have for discussion is I'm all for streamlining the efficiency in the example that you mentioned of not having to wait 30, 60, 90 days to go in front of us for an adjustment. I also just worry we lose a sense of transparency. A couple of thoughts could be that if someone is trying to get a variance through an administrative adjustment that they need to seek approval from their neighbors or surrounding properties. Once they have approval, then I think the administrative adjustment could go forward. That's just one thought. And if it doesn't, if the neighbors don't sign off on it, then it would come to the commission to be reviewed and approved. And then the other thought, too, is if we are doing these administrative adjustments and they're approved, all administrative adjustments should still be reported back to the commission here for review. Because at any point, we feel as though those are not applicable or that's not being handled properly. We can always put an amendment back in that says, once you give it to them, you'll never get it.

It is. As a matter of fact, it can only go up.

No, I'm saying we can propose an amendment back here and say, no, we're no longer doing administrative adjustments. Are you saying that that wouldn't be approved by the council? Because we would have approved it, right?

Once you give it to them, you've lost total control. They're going to run with it, and they They can do whatever they want. I'm not saying these guys. But what I'm saying is we've had a large turnover ever since I've been on the place. And each person comes on there that's head of the city. They want a little bit more, a little bit more, a little bit more. Because they don't want to have to come in here and ask for permission. There's been several things that's happened. And they've swept it under the rug, and they've done all that. I mean, if you guys want to turn it over to them, go right ahead.

I'm not saying either way, but could you help me understand how we can't take it back?

They're not going to buy you. Who is not going to buy you?

It's going to be an uphill battle. If you ever give it away, to take anything back,

it's going to be a fight wouldn't we just put this on our agenda and say that we're voting and we're removing this amendment from the zoning rules we we it's our zoning rules that we are approving but and then it five five years from now we might all be gone sure

And I understand what they're trying to do. They're trying to speed it up because it's a pain in the butt. But if somebody really wants to get it done, no different than the guy up here that built all that stuff down. He kept coming, trying to get it all done the way he wanted it done. Now it's done really nice. Everything is put to a T. That's what we want. Do you want to be like Park City or any of them other little towns? It's just going up everywhere and everybody's like, what's going on? I mean, that's up to you guys.

And I appreciate that.

But once you give them that authority, you're not going to get it back. If that's the case, we need to go back in the zoning book and make everything bigger.

Well, that's what I'm saying here. And I understand what you're saying, Dustin. But the counter to that is, well, hey, you did it three years ago. We raised it 10% three years ago. That's a big deal. Let's raise it another 10%.

I hear what you're saying. I do. For as long as I've been here, I've never had someone ask for a building to be bigger, that had to have a, excuse me, we have had a few, like oversized garages or workshops, things of that nature, but those have been way over the 20% that people are asking for. There have been a few where they've been really close, And I think that 20% would have sped things up for them, but they're not in every month, two or three times a month type of thing where we would look at, oh, well, we did it 10% last time, let's do another 10%. So I don't see it being a problem. These things, I've never had someone ask for reducing the minimum lot size Now, during the platting process of someone, that could become a thing, but if they're gonna reduce half of them, I think that needs to go through Planning Commission and City Council as well. Now, if it's for one to make a particular lot fit within a certain zoning district on a plat, I don't see the harm in that myself. It's one lot. Now, like I said, if it's half of them, then we have an issue.

No, it doesn't. Okay. And if you're not getting the request to do this, then let's just leave it.

We can do that. I would still like to vote on it and go about the whole process that way. That's fine, too. This part here can be denied by you guys. That's totally fine.

I think I agree with you. I think percentages are pretty high. 25% is a pretty good-sized chunk.

Yeah, that's a quarter.

Yeah.

Maybe if you had a bigger city with a real need, but no. And Especially the especially the off-site off-street parking part because we've had that's kind of a sore spot with People teach I it is. Yeah because of the you know the quarter the The parking issue that we were talking about when we were talking about the drive-through next to there at 61st and Oliver whole parking issue and we don't want to encourage this so before we

TODD BANDUCCI- discuss and put this up for a vote in either. TODD BANDUCCI- September October November do, are you wanting us to review this and. for us to discuss a version of this, if there is a version of this to go forward, or are you looking for us to go through each one of these conditions or points and to provide you with a draft on what we would approve?

These are the drafts that- These are your recommendations. Yes, they were put together by PECR engineering consultants, and they look good. Cheryl pointed out that it needs to be stated on 2C that it heighten requirements of buildings by 20%. That's fantastic. I can add that in there and we can, when that goes to the paper, that'll be adjusted. So it's more of looking at all of these as a whole, saying are there any other word adjustments that need to be done, and then we have the vote whenever we have the vote for each proposed amendment. so the administrative amendment deny okay um the next one the signs or the highway corridor signage approve or deny that one and then the other one the the pdo and the pdo is a new one we haven't discussed before and i'll go over that one when we get there i just have a feeling from up here that this probably would not

move forward in its current status so either we need to provide recommendations probably to counter what has been suggested or recommended here and maybe go through each one i don't know if that's what you would like us to do this evening or if that's something that we still have more discussion on we we can have more discussion on it at another time um

You guys have had each of these, these first two ones, for a couple months now. So I don't know if you have any suggestions right now to add to it. That would be great. But if we need to hold off for another meeting, we can do that as well.

Well, I think what we would, if there was i'm trying to say if if i think that we would have to like you put it if there was a chance for us to pass this this one that we would have to talk about these percentages and we would have to talk about like the possibility of taking item d off the table and scratching through that one

Are we prepared to go through each one of these today? Or do we need to do some more homework on that and come back with some either crossing them out or making a different threshold or well, another option is we move forward with what how things are written.

And again, each vote will be for that amendment there. You can put those conditions on during that vote of we want to remove D, or we want to add the word buildings to C. The problem is they don't want to give you the 20, 25%.

Right.

Is what they're trying to get at.

OK.

They're thinking about giving you like five, maybe seven percent. Yeah, and I think it's not that big of a percentage is what they're saying.

OK.

It's to make it work. Do you have a problem with that?

I think.

That's what they're asking.

I'm not picking up the question, but.

Okay, so it's like A. Let's just take as an example. Okay. So reduce the minimum lot size, width, depth, or any setback up to, it says 20%. Well, 20% is the maximum that you have on this. And like I would be, if that was to happen, I possibly, I'm not really comfortable with 20%, but I'd be more comfortable with 10%. So change that to 10%.

So what I'm hearing Dustin saying is when this goes up for vote, we would have it in this current format. And someone would make a motion that says, OK, I make a motion to approve this with this condition. And we would go through each one of those. And then someone would second. And then we would vote for that. So even though in its current status right now, yes. So do we need to have any more discussion on this particular item here on the bench? Or can we now move this to?

So would you rather us vote it off? Most of it's going to get voted down. Or would you be better off to go back with a different percentage?

I think I would prefer a vote on each item, even though it's going to get shut down. I'm OK with that.

So you don't want to try to negotiate? That's what you're asking.

In its finality, I'm not the one making the decision. It's you guys.

Well, there's no vote tonight. This is just discussion. The only motion that we have is to put this in front of public forum.

Yeah, yeah. In its existing form.

So do you want us to make that motion for each one of these, or as we go through each paper here?

We can just do a vote for all of them at the end. Yeah, say, hey, we want to have a public hearing on the September or October meetings, whatever.

Let him handle it. We don't want to know. You know, going to six to eight, that's like a 35%. I mean, when the city sees this, they're going to have it. You know what?

i'm just telling you right now they're gonna have them you ain't got a big enough building for everybody by a lot of the people that promise you oscar are you just talking about this one no i'm talking about the whole thing yeah i mean there's several of them i mean i'd be like right there you guys have never been here. Well, I think you have, but I've been here when they feel this bad and outside and it is not fun. But I think that that and I agree with some of that stuff, but but like a lot of these other ones, man, the people are gonna go bananas.

Yeah.

I mean, I think you guys need to go back and look and really scratch your head and think about not just throw that stuff out there.

Yeah, you know.

I don't mind giving 5%, you know, some small percentages like that. But when you go to talking about 20% of a pretty good size, that gets really big. It needs to come in here. They want to go. 5% bigger, I'm fine with it. We need to be lenient on 4% or 5%. I'm game for that. 20% gets pretty big. 10% is pretty big. And some of it, you've got 25. And like the signs out on the highway, we've been signing Nazis for so long, which I understand it's coming, we're going to get it, but I think we need to be a little more, hey, you need to come in here and visit about it and make them think about it, how they're going to do it, not just run out there and throw signs up. That's why Keechai stayed small, which I understand you guys want it to grow. We all want it to grow, but we want it to grow at a gradual pace so whoever does come, they really want it to come, not just blow in and blow out.

Well, I just don't want to do stuff just because somebody else is. That to me is, there's just, it's not like people are, you know, in a line every day wanting to get, you know, increase their, you know, one of these items here. They're trying to do that. You see what I'm saying? It's not like we have a problem now. We don't have a problem.

There is no problem.

All we're trying to do is keep up with Park City and Bel Air and be like they are. And there's no need for that.

All right. Let's move on to the highway corridor signage.

Mm-hmm.

Okay. The highway corridor signage for proposed would be an adjustment to 8.11.C.5C. Maximum sign area shall be limited to 200 square feet allowed. in addition to maximum aggregate sign area limits, and a maximum sign height shall be 85 feet instead of the 35. And we can put that within 1,000 feet of that overpass there at Woodlawn, add that on there, so that way we don't have 80 foot 5 signs all the way across the corridor itself.

So the maximum height allowed right now is 35 feet?

Yes. 85 right next to that overpass.

I thought we already did that.

You did. You did for one company. Yes.

Can you remind us what height that one was approved for? 85. That one was 85? Yeah.

For Casey's.

And I think that we should, if somebody else wants to come up and they want to put another sign that's 85 feet somewhere, we need to address it. You don't just blanket that.

It's not blanketed. It would be within 1,000 feet of that overpass.

Right. So we need to talk about it.

I'd also say those are few and far between that would be coming in front of us.

That's right. Yeah. It's not like people are standing out in line, waiting in line to do this.

And someone that's going to put in 85 foot feet is definitely doing due diligence. And there isn't something like the eight and six foot fence. There's not the urgency there.

Right. And I've got a little bit of a question. I'm a radio operator. We get into a lot of... rules and regulations on what we can put up for antennas. And one of them that we have to deal with, particularly if you have a smaller lot in town, if your tower should fall and anything that goes up one day sooner or later will come down.

Yep.

It cannot fall off your property. It can't, you know, say hit a neighbor's house or fence or anything, or in our case, maybe the road. I'd kind of like to see something in here regarding

more on the positioning of it if you do approve it well and I would say that that that we would definitely go through all of that when someone applies for this right then we would go through it and and and talk about it see where it's gonna go you know exactly I mean that's one of those things that you don't just blanketly just write it up and say okay anybody come out here within a thousand feet and put up an 80 foot for 85 foot sign no it's got 200 square feet on top of it that can be quite a wind mode yeah yeah okay any further discussion on that item not for me

All right next item the plan development overlay district.

Okay, so i'm just going to start at the top here i'll read it this floating district is intended to offer flexibility and tailoring land uses site design and aesthetic controls when other zoning districts may not provide adequate means to regulate mixed use developments. develop properties with atypical characteristics, maximize compatibility between adjacent land uses, or preserve the character and integrity of unified developments in special areas. Blow is a recommendation to the Keech IZ zoning, Keech IZ code. The existing code has that a PDO may be used in conjunction with any base zoning district except A1 and RR, which are basically the same. It's agricultural zoning district or rural residential. If you go down to number two, A, this highlighted area, PDO zoning shall not allow any use prohibited within the base district. That line right there in particular kills what the PDO section is all about. It just says you can't overlap zoning districts if something is not allowed in one, it's not allowed in the other. So it basically nullifies the whole section. Going on to the next page back there, the proposed recommendations would be to remove except A1 and RR and remove that first line from 2A, PDO zoning shall not allow any use prohibited within the base district, which would essentially let the PDO zoning district function correctly.

So do we have any examples where that isn't working today like we've run into a we have a.

We have someone looking to move into a house but wants to run a business out of that house and to do so that property needs to be. it's classified as a showroom because they want to sell fireplaces in there well. the person wants to when they when they are done with that house they want to sell it as a house not not a business or anything else so the most intense zoning district has to be the under lane it has to be the base district c c3 does not allow r1 which would be the um the top layer of that. So a PDO will not work in that instance. And with the C1 district, there should be more PDO districts in this area. And PDOs are meant to make certain properties work better with the surrounding properties that they're next to. So that's the only example that I have so far. But that one sentence there has been stopping PDOs from working for a while.

Isn't that what this, I can't remember what the name of that district is. We put right here.

The Arts and Business District.

Yeah, that's the C1. That's where a lot of PDO zoning should be going per the C1. Oh, my gosh. Comprehensive plan.

Right.

Yeah.

And you can do that?

No.

Why?

That line right there says that you cannot use a PDO, basically.

Well, OK, so I'm concerned. OK, PDO. In the Arts and Business District, you have houses that the people live there, and it's also a business. So what is the difference here between this, I don't understand, PDO, what's the difference?

Yeah, for a while.

What's the difference on what, Cheryl?

Between, I mean, that sounds like to me what you were explaining, somebody that's living in a house and then they want to use part of it to display fireplaces. What's the, if you live down here, you can do that? No. In the Arts and Business District?

No.

Not with this line. I think what's happened is, as in review, that line.

Oh, so that's not, we're not going to allow that? Is that what you're saying? We're not going to allow?

By tape, that's the way this, with this line?

Mm-hmm.

That's it.

Now with that effect other areas like Like where I live right so you can't do that. I You can't live in the house and then use my garage for a beauty salon like they used to do back in the day.

That would be under home occupations, and a beauty salon might fit in there as long as it doesn't take 25% of your house.

But I don't live in the arts and business district.

Right, but you can still have a home occupation.

Then what's the difference between how it's zoned?

Let me go back to the current example that I used about the showroom. Nobody's going to live in that house at all. It's not going to be used for a house. It's going to be used for a showroom. Nothing more, nothing less. When he's done with it and he builds another shop, hopefully in Keechai or somewhere else, when he moves out, he wants to sell it as a house.

Well, what is the area zoned for?

The area around it and it itself are zoned as R1.

So you can't do that?

With a PDO, you can.

How could you do that?

By combining two zoning districts together.

I'm just curious, what precipitated, why would he want to do that? He just happened to already own the house and wanted to make use of it?

Yep. Oh, that little white one? No. It's over by me.

Oh.

It's right catty corner from my big one.

So we're saying that if we do this, right, then anybody in Kichai, anybody, could, like I could do, you know, I could say, oh, I don't want to live in my house anymore. I want to have run movies out of it.

OK.

And have like a little movie theater. That's why I'm going to turn my house into a movie theater.

Okay. I could do that? What's your question? This is not my question that I'm hearing.

No, I mean, I could do that?

No.

Well, what's the difference here?

Let me back up so that way you're informed. A PDO still has to be granted, it's like a zoning change. It has to go before planning commission and it has to go before council. So council ultimately would have to prove whether a showroom went into this house or not. You wanting to throw up, you know, Warren Keechai would have to go through here and council. It's not automatic. It's not anybody can do it. You have to get permission, just like a zoning change.

Right. Does that make sense? And that's what he's trying to do.

He still has to go through planning commission and city council. He has to take the regular steps.

Right.

Are you still confused?

No, I got that. I just don't understand what the, you're talking about laying over zonings, and that to me is confusing.

Okay.

So, I mean, so what he's wanting to do is have R1 and, what did you say, C3?

Yes.

So, and that C3 would just be his house, his property? Yes. Or would that, no, just be his property?

Yes, you can only rezone your own property.

And he would still have to come in here.

Right. Can he come in and get a condition?

No. i would like for him to but he can't you can't do a conditional use on a zoning i would trust me i've gone back and forth with it i have dug and i've asked other cities can you do a conditional use for somebody to move in or not move in but take over property zone at something and then when they move out it goes back to what it was that would solve everything and i i'd be happy with that but if we put it in the

Arts and business district, it won't work.

No, showrooms are not allowed in a C1 district. In the business, it falls under a showroom.

And we put a conditional use?

Mm-mm.

Yeah, we should be able to put a conditional use under.

Showrooms are not allowed, like not allowed at all.

I understand that. But we could come in, make a conditional use when he's done with it.

We can't.

Well, if they're not allowed in the Arts and Business District, then they shouldn't be allowed over there. Right? I mean, just to be clear. They're just not allowed, right? That's what you're saying, is they're not allowed.

What is not allowed? What are you talking about?

the showroom that's what he's got that's what he wants to have as a showroom and you just said that they are not allowed he asked you about not allowed where it's not allowed in the arts the arts and business district right it's not zoned arts and business business district it's zoned as r1 but it could be zoned arts and business district

It's outside of the Arts and Business District. I mean, stranger things have happened at this commission, so yeah.

A showroom is not allowed in a C1. No, you can't.

If it's not allowed, it's not allowed. You'd have to.

How did that kitchen showroom get done? That grandfather?

Yes. If you're wanting to change what can go in C1, yes. But making a conditional use or making it a conditional use is changing what can go into a C1, then yes. That could happen. But he would have to apply for a zone change and a conditional use. when all you would have to do right now is just apply for a PDO.

And sorry, Sheriff, we're talking over you earlier. No problem. So 2A, that first sentence.

2A, yes.

Staff believes that that is a clerical error typo situation?

Yes. Okay. Because the way it's reading now is

They're countering each other.

Yes. Yeah. You can't put C3 with R1 on top of it, because C3 does not allow for residential uses. And R1 does not allow for showrooms. So you can't put them up there. You have to find matching zoning districts which they're all different they're not they're not allowed so yes it contradicts the whole section and the whole idea of a of a pdo a planned development overlay why was that put in there no idea don't you think we ought to find out how uh i'm There were a lot of people who got put into this that put work into it The guy that did

That's putting all these numbers and all that stuff. PEC?

Oh, PEC? I just have to ask him.

That would probably be it.

Okay. Yeah, we'll start with that.

The way they could answer their questions.

Dustin, do you think that that is something we can get on the agenda for next month? I don't know how much lead time they need.

I don't know what their schedule is, but I can definitely ask. Yeah, that's no problem at all.

And this was the last one, right, to go over this evening? Yes, sir. OK. So then I would say that we hold off on adding anything to a meeting until we've had that discussion.

I agree.

Don't worry about that.

Yeah.

I prefer cherry coke instead of vanilla coke.

Oh, I like vanilla coke.

I'm just asking the same thing. I like the vanilla coke. That reminds me. It's like, oh, Sonic Run.

Add a little cherry to it.

Let's go. I'm driving.

Down here at the bottom.

Last page.

Yep.

Number two. It must have been taken in order.

I wanted it to be number two with extra pickle, medium fry, and a lot of vanilla.

All right. OK. Anything else on 10A? All right. And our unfinished business is still unfinished, correct? Sorry, B and C, items B and C?

Yes. OK. All right.

Then I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Second. All right. Motion by Oscar, second by Frank. aye oh yes sorry thank you all in favor say aye 4-0