Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Thank you everyone. Uh we are going to begin tonight with a work session of the Beosen Planning Commission. Today is Monday, March 16th. Um it's and Wally, you have the floor.

All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. There we go. Madam chair, members of the planning commission, uh staff, public here in person or watching at home. Welcome. Uh this is a work session. Uh planning commission, I'm sure, remembers. Uh let me turn this on. Might help. Yeah, I'm sure the plan commission remembers our work session with the uh city council back in February. Uh I've included this first map just to sort of reset the conversation, if you will. Um this is the north side of victory. Uh you can see what we sort of call the shark fin, but you can see uh it's basically wooded and uh it's R1 and then you got R&D and general commercial zoning. Okay. Um as I just said, the city council did remand this back to the plan commission for consideration. Uh we had the work session back on December 8th. They uh included several elements that we talked about back in December and I want to talk a little bit about those tonight and maybe look at possibly refining a few of them. Um number one, the planning commission elaborated on Big Woods North distinctions by recommending references to the Big Woods North residential and Big Woods North commercial. I think that is pretty self-explanatory that way. Uh this one here I think we may need to tweak a little bit but the development

style should be cohesively planned more so like a master plan community than peace mill development. This may require a joint effort by all the stakeholders being the city, the economic development authority and of course the numerous private property owners. Despite everything we say there, there is a perception out there that we are bringing back legacy. We're not bringing back legacy. There is no planning development provision in the ordinance for bringing back legacy. But I think using a term like master plan can can get people worked up. This is what I would suggest. Planning commission will think about this. you guys uh not you guys but the planning commission makes the decision. But my two cents worth would be maybe we need to put this off till after the comprehensive plan rewrites are done and it needs to be initiated by the private property owners. And if it is, the city council and of course the planning commission would be happy to work with them and help us to formulate this, but but maybe not be so uh so outfront with it right now. Just uh idea for the planning commission to consider. Um any traffic in R1 zone properties Bigwoods North residential for by right development in accord with all zoning district regulations should be off of existing public streets and should be focused on areas where existing frontage is available or can be acquired for new street and in any case should require a traffic impact analysis for review in order to ensure efficient

traffic flow. There were comments made at the last meeting um however brief they might have been that uh maybe we ought to look at maybe we ought to be a little bit more um directorial I guess in and exactly where we would expect a road to go like if you put a road off of with off of Victory Boulevard where would we anticipate it to end up? Uh the concern being that that uh you know when we first went through this we talked about Yorktown Road and Oakwood Drive and that elicited a good amount of concern uh particularly in reference to Openware Drive. So um you know that may need some refinement as well.

Wouldn't we um but wouldn't we kind of need know what the overall scope of what we're trying to do there? Well, the overall scope, if I can go back a few slides, is really this entire area here. But no, I mean, as far as like trying to plan an entrance that area, well, I I think the short answer to that is that the uh the hands of the marketplace is sort of going to dictate where that road goes.

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm Um what we have said and I'll get to this slide in a little bit but what we have said that there would be three possible avenues. Uh one would be the other side of Big Woods Drive, the other side the north side of Legacy Boulevard and north side of City Hall Avenue. The the idea being that eventually these roads would go back in here and they would in turn provide access to uh two other properties. But again, you know, the city council recommended we not even talk about, you know, what roads it might hook up with, but we could go a step further. Uh I think Miss Shot might have brought it up last meeting. We could go a little bit further and say explicitly, you know, between there and Yorktown Road. Okay, which leads me to number four. In cases where R1 properties are landlocked or where no access exists or can be created, access to a new development from a new public street off of Victory Boulevard should be in the ownership of the developer at the time of application be limited to the new public street. be focused towards existing intersections like I said city hall, legacy boulevard and bigwoods drive and require a traffic impact analysis for for review in order to ensure efficient traffic flow. So I'll leave you with that one and then of course I'm sure there'll be some discussion after this but uh and this one's pretty straightforward. The research and development district in

the Big Woods commercial area should be redesated in favor of general commercial and the 2018 2038 comprehensive plan future land use map. And I'm going to go back one more time. Sorry about that. Uh basically we're talking about that R&D area going into that general commercial area. That's what we're talking about. Um the reason being as we've discussed several times in meetings up to here and and in the work session last summer with the city council when we started this process is that uh research and development for whatever reasons uh simply has not worked. It has not taken off. I think at that point I'm going to leave off and listen to the planning commission.

I'll take any questions you have in the meantime. Okay, Mr. Harsh, do you have any questions? No questions. Mr. Jagger, not right this second. Maybe in a minute.

I don't really have any questions. I think this is pretty much same thing we've been looking at for the most part is it is what I'm suggesting is there might be some room for refinement in in in certain u elements well I think you know number two you touched on a little bit we know I recall through the all the discussions I don't think we ever had land owner from that area come speak or or attend any so we we've got nothing but silence from the property owners out there to mine,

right? And and I I sort of take that to mean that there's not really a big appetite for doing this approach right now. So if there's not really an appetite for doing it, it was never our intention to superimpose this from above. But you know, it the private property owners are of course the ground swell from from which this needs to come. Um, I think that uh that being the case, you know, maybe we don't even need to mess with this one right now. But that's just a suggestion. The planning commission can look at alternatives and, you know, we'll certainly carry them forth. Well, if we insert item number two into the comprehensive plan, is that going to limit would that potentially limit someone doing an individual development potentially in the future?

No, it will not. Remember that the comprehensive plan is merely a guide. It's not it's not regulation. So would your recommendation be to even touch research and development? Because what I'm hearing you state is leave it alone. I'm talking about the master plan community. Okay. So So I mean I I still think we need to do something with with R&D going to general commercial.

Okay. All right. Wally sound listening to you uh describe number two and explain that uh I would agree maybe the the wording could be a little bit better there if it's causing some angst uh some comm with some community members. Um and I agree with Commissioner Armen Trout. It sounds like you may have referred to maybe, you know, encouraging more communication from from those that own the land in in this particular area. Yes. The land owners. Sounds like for them to have a say

possibly uh to encourage feedback. Well, they're going to have a big say. Yeah, definitely. And I just wanted to make that clear. Yeah. Okay. So, I mean, I agree that um a tweaking of of maybe the wording and number two. Okay. Definitely. And then also encouraging their input without a doubt. I think we've done that, but have give them another opportunity if you if you may. Okay. I think that uh certainly any way that we can kind of soften it. I think you know for me personally um just any kind of talk about development after

right have been here go and don't I'm not really yeah perhaps it was an unfortunate use of the words master plan but uh I mean again it's not our intention to impose this from below but uh from above rather yeah I just think that no matter kind of what the language we use right now. It's going to be kind of a shock, you know, I mean, if people Yeah. cuz they take it as we're looking to develop I mean, we could totally rework this. That's that's what I'm here that's what the staff is here to do is is to listen to the planning commission and follow through on what the planning commission wants us to do.

I have a procedural question. Uh this was adopted by city council and it was simply remanded uh as as points for further discussion. Okay. So making tweaks to this is not an issue procedurally then. That's what I'm asking. Okay. No, it's not. I've asked that question.

Molly, how would the language be if we struck more so like master plan community? I said that the development style should be uh cohesive a cohesively planned community rather development. We just take the master plan thing out of it accomplishes similar. Okay. Um that worth talking about or Well, I think that's part of what we're talking about. The other thing we're talking about is possibly defining what the trigger timewise would be when we would uh look at this in detail.

I think too that that still is good on the property owners. You know, a lot of them, of course, it is initiating and I mean, you know, the property owners may initiate this in 2027 or 2029. We don't know if they ever initiated at all.

Mhm. I mean, it was just an idea is to to use some softer language here and maybe uh uh put it down the road in in priority. you know, and the planning commission can do whatever they want to with that. I'm here to listen. And if the planning commission wants to think about it and come back next month, I'm fine with that, too. I think that if there's a way that we can certainly kind of look at how we want things to develop community but not imply that we're start something like tomorrow you know I mean any way that we can you know because we're really just trying to look out for the future and how because it's developed.

Yeah. And that's where that idea for you know at such time at such time whenever it may be that the property owners want to get together and and look at this cohesively as as an entire area the city would be happy to help in facilitating those talks.

Personally I don't personally I like having the language in there. I'm I'm perfectly okay with softening it like removing the master plan. Okay. Reference. Um nothing in this states that we're initiating anything. We're not going to initiate anything. We don't own the land. So we're just talking about what the overall plan is in the comprehensive plan, which is just a plan. I think it should be in there now. And I sort of agree with that because right now this this property, should a property owner choose to sell it and develop it, they can absolutely. So I think what's important for people to understand is and certainly with Oakmore, I understand their

100%.

Sure. However, I think what's important is what we were trying to do and what city council tasked us with doing was looking at this and when we say master plan that we look at the whole area in one section, not this parcel and this parcel and this parcel. show that this remaining land mass is developed in a way that makes sense. Not that there's anything on the books right now. It's just, hey, we don't want five houses here and we'd like to have some walkable trails or we'd like to have a community center or whatever. I think that's what this whole

Yeah. thing has been about.

Well, I think it has too, but I just want to make sure that we are properly properly addressing this uh you know in advance for the private property owner that will have some concerns about whether this is going to be another plan unit development or anything like that. That's all I'm trying to say. I just This is a an basically the amendment wording for the comprehensive plan. Correct. The

Yeah, these are these are elements that'll be co coordinated or cooperated uh co-opted. I think that's the word I'm looking for into the uh to the language of the comp plan rewrites. Yes, that's as you mentioned it's it's a general guide if you will advisory guide. It is a general guide land use if you will,

right? And as you said before, this is not, you know, an ordinance. This is not a a rule fast. It's just a plan. It's like a playbook. Yeah, it's a it's a playbook. Yeah. I mean, you know, we may like to see this, but you know, private property owners may not want to see that. And if they don't want to see that, we're not going to see that. Exactly. Right. I do like the part of the wording about requiring this may it's not must but this may require a joint effort by all stakeholders. I think that's important

and you've listed there's three of them there city econom EDA of course the private property owners so so that's to me that's you know inclusive of everybody uh which which I think is important to keep Okay. Well, I, you know, changing it. I I think taking master plan out may be the easiest. I think um Mr. Armen Trout mentioned that a few months ago and and Hers I think that does soften it. Mhm.

Um not sure if you could take out development, the second word. Um and use something different like future development or future land use or future land use cohesively plan something that if development and master plan make people angst go up. Yeah.

Maybe maybe soften that. And this is a question for the entire quest um planning commission. I I hear I hear your comments, Mr. Fger. Um would you put any sort of time limit on this like like and or just leave it the way it is? Constant message that we've said since the there's no time frame. It could be 30 years. It could be five years. We don't know that. No, we don't know. We don't know. So to put a time if it ever happens, right? If it ever happens to put a time frame on it is unrealist. Yeah.

The word future and that's not there's not really a Yeah. into that. I mean it's it's kind of open-ended. That's true. Future land use. That's true. Should be cohesively planned. Soften it even more to say it it desirable for future plan use to be cohesively planned. We're not dictating how those people are going to have to use can soften it a lot and still get the message across. Yeah. All right. Well, you want me to try my hand at it and bring it back to the planning commission and see what you think?

I think we can do the same. I mean, think about how Okay. Yeah. I mean, if there are ideas that y'all have individually, please feel free to express them to me. Um, I'll be happy to take them into account. Uh, where were we on all this uh this talk about the uh the traffic flood? I mean we talked about the three uh main areas and we al also talked about existing frontage invailable came do we want to say anything specifically about roads where it starts and where it terminates

personally think it's going to be difficult to do anything like that without understanding what the future development's going to be I might I might recommend generalizing the language more and just emphasize izing the fact that whatever is done is going to require a traffic impact analysis. Well, yes, absolutely.

I like the fact that it says see be focused towards existing intersections. Um they exist currently. We have the traffic signals for the most part with the exception of city hall Avenue in place. Um right, but Leg Boulevard being you know that um I I think that's important. Maybe we could add one in here. And I'm just throwing this out again. Uh maybe we could add one that uh and be designed sufficiently for uh access streets off of it. In other words, if you have a uh well, I don't have my map up anymore, but uh let me see. If you had a road coming up this way, you know, at, you know, you may want room to put in adequate access to kind of reach across there, you know, to to get into other areas rather than just have to build a whole new road off of Victory Boulevard. An interconnected sort of traffic plan. Okay. It's not bad though the way it is. I mean,

find it good as is. And again, if we want to uh I don't know if this language needs softening at all or not, but I think it's okay as I don't think we can provide any more guidance than that without knowing what the future development is going to be. I agree. There's there's so many small parcels that no one developer or to well the road into that area and it's going to Yeah. a lot more happening than just one person parcel to make that happen. I and without knowing what wetlands exist on the parcels back there, it's hard to determine that.

Yeah, we we know there's a lot. We just don't know the limits of it. But yeah, right it's uh flood flooding and wetlands and yeah all kinds of impediments that uh at least the technology today cannot overcome. So that's right. Yeah. All right. Well, that's that's what I got. So, are we in agreement to let Wally uh back and take a look at this and see how he can soften the language based off of what other commissioners have stated?

I'm in agreement. I think we're only talking about item number two that I think we're item number two. I think we're okay with pretty much the other stuff. Uh Ollie, can you put up number two? Yeah. as well. Just for my

How about number three? I'm sorry. Number three. Oh, I'm sorry. I made a mistake there. Now, keep in mind when we talk about Bite Development, that's allowed in the zoning ordinance right now. And we're not talking about changing the zoning ordinance.

We we with number three, we basically removed the reference to um the subdivision. No, I'm forgetting that. Uh yeah, the uh city council removed reference to Yorktown and Oakore in the language, but that's still on the table if

Well, it could be, you know, um unless we uh I mean, right now, somebody could do a bar right development off of vote board, but I'm here to tell you that's probably not going to happen because we've had three other people already try and the environmental impediments were such they they couldn't be overcome. So unless you want to say something specific about, you know, Yorktown Road, um, you know, we're just going to leave it the way it is or for that matter roads, you know, going back there and and and not really going anywhere after they access TR&D or GC property. Isn't there a residential property on Yorktown Road that vacant now the old white house that isn't that owned by developer and that also an owner of one of the larger parcels?

Yeah, I don't know which one you're talking about. If you're talking about that one there is that right there where your pointer is, I think. But isn't that a resident property or or separate? Yeah, that's all one property. Yes. Haven't realy bought it. I don't know if they So that's an opportunity for access into that parcel from your account.

All things, you know, I don't know how much of it's in wetlands. I I have no idea. But but yes, Wally, I'm I'm personally fine if you want to refine the master section two, but the other other parameters, personally, I think we should leave them as is. Okay. Okay. I agree. Okay.

All right. Well, good enough. I'll do that. And thank you for listening. And uh I don't have anything else. Okay. So, we're going to stand in adjournment until 7:00 for our regular meeting. Yes. Correct. Okay. Yes. We're adjourned.

Good evening. I now call to order the March 16th meeting of the Picosum Planning Commission. May I have a roll call, please? Commissioner Armen Trout, present. Commissioner Hirsch, present. Commissioner Joerger, present. Vice Chairman Gisinger, present.

Chairwoman Shot, present. A quorum is present. Thank you. We are going to stand tonight if you're able and do our pledge of allegiance um and the prayer. Um let's do our prayer first and then we'll do the pledge. Please bow with me. As we begin this meeting, let us pause for a moment of reflection. May we approach our responsibilities with humility, patience, and a spirit of cooperation. Help us listen to one another with respect and consider carefully the decisions before us. May our work contribute to the well-being, safety, and general goodness of our community. Amen. First to the flag 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. And I'd like to welcome those joining in person as well as from home this evening to our planning commission. We're going to jump right into our agenda and we are going to uh begin with uh item number C, our approval of minutes. And those minutes are from the regular session on February the 19th, 2026. Do I have any changes? I have a motion to approve.

I move that we approve the minutes from February 19th, 2026. Do I have That was very good. Do I have a second? Second. Can I have a roll call, please? Commissioner Armen Trout, I. Commissioner Hirsch, I. Commissioner Joerger, I. Vice Chairman Gisinger, absent.

Vice Chairman or sorry, excuse me, Chairwoman Shot. I the motion passes. We're going to move into item number D on our agenda tonight. That's the audience for visitors. This is a time for the our community members who are present this evening to come up and speak to us. And this would be related to items other than what we have on our public hearing this evening. Would anybody like to speak? Seeing none, I'm going to close the audience for visitors and we're going to move into item number E of our agenda this evening, which is our public hearings. Mr. Horton, um, this would be an application for a conditional use permit.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, let me see here. Need to get this uh h screen adjusted. Oh, okay. Very good. This is a uh conditional use permit for uh Lynn Howard and Matt Booth uh of Overflow LLC. You may remember that uh they got a uh conditional use permit for operating a uh well back then it was called a tourist home, but they're called short-term rentals now. Uh next door at 4 uh 430 with Creek Road. Uh this is the property right here. Uh it is in B2. That's the property that I just got finished talking about. Um and that of course is a Metro Mart. That's the old empty now. Uh, write a building and McDonald's. Uh, zone B2. As I said, the application was advertised for public hearing in the daily press on March 4th, 2026. And on March 11th, 2026, adjoining property owners were notified of this request, excuse me, by letters mailed on March 4th, 2026. Advocates proposal. The advocate desires uh to operate what will be a fully furnished short-term rental, a whole home short-term rental. He will not be living there. uh to be ridden by transient occupancies for lodging for stays between one and 30 consecutive nights, which is the state state code definition of a short-term rental. Uh

some elements that uh he included on his uh application included uh noise and emergency notices, trash recepticles on the left side of the garage, trash pickup goes in public service. Uh the permit form states that eight parking spaces are available. Staff counted six. Uh check-in and checkout processes are to be executed remotely. There will be local maintenance, cleaning, and enforcement staff available. Uh the lodging will be, as I've said before, fully furnished and outfitted. Um some of this I've already said, but I'll say some of it again. The site is a single family home located at 428 with Creek Road. Uh, it is adjacent to the tourist home as I pointed out earlier at 4:30 with Creek Road, also owned by Matt Booth and Led Howard of Overflow LLC. Uh, the intent of the zoning district is to provide sufficient state space for a wide variety of businesses, commercial, industrial, and miscellaneous service activities. A short-term rentals fits into that category. Um, but they're not permitted by right, which is why we're here for a conditional use permit hearing tonight. In fact, whole home short-term rentals are allowed in the business commercial, but only with a CUP. Uh, partial home rentals like a B&B uh can be pro uh approved administratively. uh property is located in the central uh city's central business district certainly neighbored by uh businesses

I've already pointed out and by the tourist home is also pointed out as well. The property has direct access. In fact, let me instead of saying all this, let me go to the parking display. Uh there is access off of W Creek Road. Uh this is going to be a new access that uh that they're going to put in and the parking space. And I looked at this a number of times. I couldn't quite make out the scale. It was kind of one of those in between scales, but uh uh there is room for six cars. I think what Mr. Howard may be going for and and he can answer this more uh if for questions about this maybe going more towards a a round sort of a roundabout um circular drive. Uh but at any rate um we counted six six parking spaces. uh comprehensive plan does not specifically address short-term rentals, but it is the opinion of staff uh that there's the established market and demand for these uses and the like. Um in the city of Picosi, uh it is staff felt like this was an appropriate location because it is zoned B2 commercial. Uh uh so therefore staff recommends that the planning commission recommend approval of the application to city council with the following conditions. And I will read these out if you'll suffer me the time. Um the business will be subject to all applicable taxes as determined by the commissioner of revenue to include a transient occupancy tax at time of implementation. All signage shall be subject to

architectural review. Remember this is in a B2 district. So it's subject to architectural review. The use must comply with all aspects of this application with the exception of parking spaces which shall be in compliance with condition number six. I'll skip ahead number six and say that that is six parking spaces not the eight that is re that is uh stated in the application. The use must comply with all local, state, and federal permits, licenses, and regulations. If at any time this use is operating in violation of any of the regulations set forth by the affformentioned agencies, the city council may revoke the permit. If at any time the specified permitted use on the property is discontinued for a period of two or more years, this permit shall become null and void. At no time shall more than two persons per bedroom occupy the dwelling. Parking for the use shall be accommodated for in for in onsite in a paved driveway andor parking area as approved by community development staff. This will be done at the time of site plan. Parking spaces shall be provided at a rate of one per unit and one per bedroom. Uh there are five bedrooms that he's proposing. So there's five spaces for that and one per unit. The house being a unit. Uh so that's how we come up with six. Number eight, no parking of major recreational equipment including but not limited to travel trailers, utility trailers, pickup campers or coaches, motorized dwellings, tent trailers, boats and boat trailers, houseboats or similar equipment normally used. normally used for recreational

purposes shall be conducted in front of the building line. Um well this was carried forth from northern regulation meant to kill this except one such major recreational equipment may be parked or stored in the front yard for a period not to exceed 48 hours for the sole purpose of loading or unloading. City Council reserves the right to review and amend the conditions of this permit as they see fit. And that is pretty much my presentation. I'll take any questions and Mr. Howard is here. Uh the applicant is here. Okay.

I might have some questions for Mr. Howard when he comes up. I guess I have concerns that the six six uh parking spaces shown on in the packet that I'm not sure those can be achieved if they go through site site plan process in the city. Yes, we're treating this as a it's commercial site but it originally was designed as a residential single family dwelling. So it was designed in that fashion. So um now we're you making a commercial use. So I think it's subject to uh site plan review like any other commercial

right um entity that would come in. If a dentist was coming in and going set up practice there, we would require them to submit a site plan adequate parking or the space available to meet site plan requirements. And I'm questioning what I'm seeing package that it will actually meet that.

Well, you showed 37 ft uh from in the parking area from the house to the rightway of W Creek. Uh if you divide that by six, you come up with right at about 6 something. And uh nine is is how wide a parking space usually is. Now, of course, one of those will probably need to be handicapped as well. So, but I believe the ordinance requires, you know, the proper islands and and that are required for radiuses and handicap parking and just that. So, it's there there's not a lot of room in that front yard. There's not

it to any other uh commercial site city and you know six it takes a lot of room to spaces in legally. So, um my biggest concern when Mr. hour comes up. Um, I want to see that that you can put six spaces there legally. Well, the applicants here and I'm sure he he can speak to that as well. Fellow commissioners have anything?

No questions right now. Yeah, I have a bit of a concern about the language about the recreational vehicles. One section it basically just says no parking shall occur of all rec recreational vehicles and then another another place where it says recommendation shall not exceed 48 hours for the sole purpose of loading or unloading. 48 hours is a long time to unload something that was meant to be dropped. And I also think that um that should generally be prohibited within reason, but I don't know if we can what the language would have to be to enforce that. Okay.

Um we and this is more of a a question for uh the applicant. Um I would certainly say that the parking is a concern especially when say you have a truck and you have six trucks. I mean, how that would look and how that would function on a very narrow uh front yard. Um, another concern I have as we talk about enforcement. He talks about uh postings of sign and enforcement. Who's going to enforce it? Is that going to fall on the police to enforcement? Is he going to be Well, anything on site, we would enforce. I'm sorry, what was that?

We would enforce anything that's on site. But say you have people there that are not complying. Um they're having parties or whatever that looks like. That would fall on the city or on the applicant. Well, if they're operating beyond the parameters of their permit, uh and nothing in there says that it's going to be used for parties. No. But if they're if they are acting beyond their permit, that permit can be revoked. Right. Um, how long has the other short-term rental do you know how long that's been used to the adjacent? I think it's been about four years now.

And do we know if we've had any concerns at that property or any enforcement issues there? Not that we've heard of. No. Okay. Okay. Oh, I would also add that uh this does seem like a reasonable use of the property. There are only commercial neighbors other than their adjacent property. Uh in general, I have no objections other than some of the language in the recommended conditions. Bless you. Bless you. Sorry. I I agree. I mean, again, it's it is adjacent to a short-term rental.

I just would like to flesh out some of those details going forward. and the applicant should be able to do that. So, so with that, thank you Mr. Horton. Um, we are going to move into our public hearing under um our public hearing portion of the meeting. I'm going to open the public hearing. Uh I if you'd like to come up and speak as the applicant, feel free to do so.

Okay. Um, sounds like we start with the parking. Can we go back to that picture? Um, I'll give you an idea. Uh, I helped to design the ordinance for Hampton. And Hampton's parking is, uh, one space per two bedrooms. One per one bedrooms pretty steep. Uh, I don't mind it. We've got plenty, but it's still just as a reference point. That would be a lot. Uh, the reason I drew it this way wasn't this is the optimum way to park. What's critical to me is that people can pull in and pull out, never back out on W Creek Road for obvious reasons. Um, in terms of space for parking, you can see back where the arrow is close to the house on both sides. You could easily put another car there. You got a full distance from I can't see it now, but it's it's about it's 50 feetish uh from one side between the two driveways. So, you've got more than you've got about um let me see 12 or 13 feet, which is wider than a driveway per space going across. And you've got room for two vehicles going across. Uh, I've never had six cars. Unless you were throwing a party or something, that's not going to happen. We don't throw We We limit And one thing we did with Hampton, uh, at my proposal, I do about 19,000 nights a year of short-term rentals. So, it's um I can work from a lot of experience with that is that you limit the number of people that can be in the dwelling as uh guests and then double that for the maximum number on the property at any time. If you do that, if you're if you have a place that's 10,

you never have more than 20. And the only time you really enforce that is if somebody's throwing a party, you show up and say, "This math doesn't work." and you evict them. In terms of enforcement, we are very very strong on our own enforcement um of uh standards. Airbnb has standards. We have standards as well that will exceed the standards that that you all would impose. U the one thing we've said to uh all of our neighbors who make it a point of meeting our neighbors is that we're going to be neighbors longer than they're going to be guests. So, we're going to take care of our neighbors. And uh so even in places like with places where they were more sensitive uh we've made great friends because we've proven that is if there's a disturbance we tell them we they all have a phone number. We say call anytime night or day we deal with it immediately.

So with that being said your adjacent properties one is a short-term rental that you own. One is Metroom Mart which it does not operate 24 hours a day. Correct. So speak to your enforcement techniques that you you speak you spoke to them briefly, but give just go into that a little bit further if you don't mind. This evening,

a couple of examples that have been fun because with with this many stage, we have really fun stories. Uh so um uh one, we have Ring cameras uh on the outside. They know that we're going to surveil the outside for their security and ours. Uh, and as I mentioned, we make sure our neighbors have our number. So, so I got a call one night, this was one of the Buckro properties from one of my neighbors. So, when I called a guest and and say, "We're concerned about the number of people you have. We're concerned about where you're parking and parking in the yard." Oh, we're not, okay, the white car that is parked on the right side in the yard. Let's start with that. and uh kind of ended the conversation, but it's um so we are able to know very quickly and respond very quickly and Airbnb is as well. So, but and and Verbbo less so, but but uh but we're able to get enforcement. One of the things I love about short-term rental as opposed to unfernished, you have, I'm sure, unfernished rentals that have been a headache for you for years and you can't do anything about it. uh with a short-term rental, it takes maybe an hour to deal with somebody uh and the police remove them, it there's nothing they can appeal to. It's under 28 days. You violated the rules, you're gone. And we don't need to do that very often. The ability to do that is what keeps them keeps it straight. Uh so anyway, back to the parking. Uh, I don't recall when we've had recreate, you know, most of the stuff on your list, but um, I want to be sure you understand what matters to us is pull in, pull out. So whether they are like in this illustration backing out, pulling out, you know, backing toward the house, pulling out, or they're just

doing driving through, that ingress egress that doesn't have us backing on with creek is the big deal for their safety and for the city. Uh I'm I am concerned with the restrictions though because I'm next to a gas station where you don't have any restrictions like that and this is a business property. So I I don't quite see why that would matter. We aren't in terms of handicap. We are not required. This is not ADA compliant. So um but we could put in a handicap space, no problem. But I would expect to have the same rights as a business if that were the case. So So I would like to appeal to you to remove the language about what can be parked in the front um because you don't have that restriction at the gas station. But this was for a residential property at one time and a gas station was for a business.

But this is a business. I I understand that. So So this is a change of use uh from a residential property to a business. That is not the place you would want a residential property. It doesn't make sense in in in light of the development with Creek Road. your other property were the conditions also the same. You own the adjacent property next to that, correct? Uh we have the parking in back for that one. There is not a good way to get parking in the back for this one. Okay. Just just wanted to clarify that.

Yeah. Yeah. And it's and it's not a it's it's it's it's not a likely problem because I've never run into it, but I'm always averse to having restrictions that um that don't make sense to me uh in light of of uh the zoning. Okay, I'm going to try out.

Um well, first off, I I have no issue with what you're doing here. You know, I think the, you know, the Metro Mart and and own the property next door and it's a commercial property and somebody's upset over there. You you have to deal with them and and 7-Eleven down the street. So, it it's in place that it's not going to really cause any angst to anyone. But my sole uh issue here is um you're putting six cars in there and it's a commercial property and it needs Picosen's site plan ordinances. You're and and I don't think that does and you can't really use the old metro mark because it's been here for how long?

Well, what are the what are the requirements for business parking? Well, just because you you put six draw six spaces on a picture and it doesn't mean it meets the site plan ordinance. So, well, I don't I don't want remember the issue for me isn't that I need six cars there. I think six is excessive for residential.

My concern is is not we need six paces or we put them there. My concern is that we flow in, we flow out, we don't back out into W Creek. That's I I don't care if if if six spaces is what you're allowed to have and you can make it work and within the site plan, that's great. I you know, that's wonderful. I without this going through a site plan for us to get feedback from the city or whoever is going to review it. Who who reviews that stuff?

Uh city engineer. In fact, when Mr. Howard came in, we talked to city about usability of building at second drive. So, you know, we've got site plans and established for drainage. I think that's a requirement. We're adding an additional entrance off of W Creek Road, which can that particular area can back up pretty heavily at certain times of the day. So, um that that entrance that's there now was for residents. It's Anyway, I'm I would like to know that that that parking is being done the way it's supposed to.

Yeah. Put that much asphalt there, that water's going to go somewhere. Where's it going to go? I see two yard drains there that it might go to, but uh I think they're yard drain, but you know, there's no drainage plan there to How do I know? Is all that asphalt going to dump on? Anyway, those are the questions I have. Uh other than that, I don't have any problem with what you're doing. So, thank you. Yeah, maybe you could tell tell them what the city engineer said.

Well, I mean the city engineer commented on the feasibility of putting that second roadway entrance in that you'reating. We did not actually get into a long discussion about at that particular time that I recall. Um but that would be properly reviewed during site plan review and the city would of course absolutely enforce that as well. Absolutely. I would be the recipient of the drainage, right? So, because it runs from street to the back, not the other way around. So, that's something we we will want to pay attention to as well.

Pass that you can only get a site plan approved for four cars. Now, there's five rooms and then you got to have an extra one. So, what happens after that? This is a lot more impervious cover than it takes for six cars. You've got that driveway holds two cars. I'm not I'm not disputing that. You know, so what I'm saying is you you've even if you cut the impervious cover in half, you still could do six cars.

Okay. I would I'm just questioning is if this doesn't pass are we going to hold this gentleman to the same site plan standard we hold everybody to the same standard um I drive by here in in six months front yard's been paved by Tom's paving and there's no indicate any site. Yeah.

Well, sure, but no, we'll we'll go through the site plan ordinance and in accord with what it said like we would with anybody else. And number four in the in the cup staff recommendation basically touches points to that direction. Correct. The staff recommendation the use must comply with all local, state, federal permits. So on so for this to become a reality. Yeah. It's it's those all the plans and approve or make recommendations or what have you. That's correct. That's correct. Could I walk back to one thing? Can I do that? I

do whatever you'd like. Well, without your permission.

You go right ahead. But but uh uh Mr. Howard, I know he made this point. If you look at your approval resolution, that actually has condition number eight the way it was intended, except for that except stop. I'll read it for you. No parking of major recreational vehicle including but not limited to travel trailers, utility trailers, pickup campers or coaches, motorized dwellings, tent trailers, boats and boat trailers, house boats or similar equipment normally used for recreational purposes shall be conducted in front of the building line. The reason we added this condition in here is number one, it's a conditional use permit. So, so that's why we had that condition regardless of because when you look at a conditional use permit, you're looking at use in a certain place at a certain time and accord with certain, you know, provisions. So, that's why we put that in there. Um, I understand Mr. Howard wants that removed, but I just wanted to read that provision to you as it appears in the approval. And and Wally, I I like what you have put in there with that stipulation. I mean, certainly um you know, for cars, that's one thing, but for you know, RVs, trailers, even what Mr. H said about a 48 hour window, a turnaround,

we're not I mean, and I can understand that. So, I don't have any problem with that condition. I and I just don't I think that's just, you know, proper for what a conditional use permit is. And so I I don't have any concerns with that. Certainly my other commissioners may I don't either. No, I agree with it.

So if the gas station were applying today to be next door, would you have the same prohibition for them? Not grandfathered, but today? Sir, that would be clear speculation and it would be missed for the C for the planning commission to comment to that. So I I would certainly ask you to work with staff on that, but it would it would be negligent on our behalf to speak to another situation. So um certainly did you have anything else that you would like to add regarding your application this evening that would help us better that because we do need to ask others if they would like to speak regarding this. Sure. No, that was that was pretty much it. And again, I don't think this is an issue that's going to affect me because it hasn't yet. I don't recall that happening. Uh but at the same time, as I said, I'm concerned with restrictions that don't seem to be analogist to what's around it. And so the hypothetical, I think, is is helpful to say if you were approving a gas station, would you say you can't do that? If it is, I'd say, well, then it makes sense that you wouldn't do that here. If it doesn't, um, because those could be a fishing boat. This is Picosen. U, a trailer or something like that could make sense for somebody to bring. Uh, it would seem like that would fit with this kind of guest housing. So, that would be the case. Okay. That's But I wonder.

We appreciate it and we appreciate you coming out tonight. Thank you. Thank you. I have anyone else that would like to speak regarding this application this evening? Yes, ma'am. If you could come up and state to the microphone so all of those at home can hear you. State your name, please. Okay. What name is Barbara Trip Crroo? And my property um is adjacent to the back of Mr. Howard's property. What was that address, ma'am? It's one Alpha Street. Okay. And so it it they they merge okay

back there. And we would request um we've never had any problems with the the earlier um short-term rental. There's that's been seamless. But for this particular piece, it would help us a lot if you could build some sort of a fence because right now the the yards blend. There's no demarcation. Okay. And if you could just put some sort of a fence in the back to delineate your short-term rental from our property. If if you could ma'am, could you speak into the mic and speak to planning commission? It's your time to speak to us this evening. Okay. I'm talking to him. Okay.

It would help us a lot. That would that would make the two properties identifiable. Okay. And so that's what we would request certainly. Okay. Okay. And that's that's about all I have. Okay. Wonderful. Thank you for coming out on this nasty evening. Thank you for hearing me. Do I have anybody else that wish to speak regarding this? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing. Wall-E, can we add that as a condition? Yes. I already see along the rear parking line. Yeah, I think

sir, if you could come up because the public at home can't hear you speak. Uh, yeah, I think I'll bring it across her back and then bend it. So, because just one thing sticking up falls like a domino. U, but I don't see any problem with that. That's a good idea. Okay. Do we need to stipulate what type of con uh fencing should go up or um is that this you know your recommendation? Privacy. Yeah. Could I recommend six month six foot privacy is what we typically do? All right.

Yes. Okay. We're going to the public hearing is closed now. So Okay. Great. That's a reasonable accommodation. Any other comments by the planning commission this evening? I think his comment about a boat might be reasonable if it's a small fishing boat, but I'm still thinking about uh you know like an RV or massive coach just doesn't belong there. It just doesn't fit there. So,

I would agree. I was thinking the same thing. We'd almost have I have concerns about that. If we're talking about e ingress and egress, okay, turning a boat in there for, you know, my husband and I have a boat, it would be hard to do that. And you know, certainly where the other parcel, should somebody want to have a short-term rental and he does own that adjacent property, he does have access behind that that a person could in theory turn and put a boat back there. Um, and that would also be an accommodation versus any potential concerns. You know, based off of what staff said this evening, I think it's a reasonable request because where do you draw the line with the bedrooms?

Isn't that a current requirement in the residential areas anyway? Nobody correct adheres to it, but you're not supposed to have your boat sitting in your front in your driveway. In fact, it was copied and pasted directly from from R1, right? So, who's supposed to be enforcing that? So, Oh, we we reinforce that. Yeah, I can probably name 20 boats sitting in somebody's yard right now. Oh, there's lots of boats around. I know that. So, that's a that's a big task to take on. Yeah.

So, if it's okay with the planning commission, I'd like to leave that requirement and we could always revisit it at a future date, but for right now, it just makes sense when we're talking about turning into the property with the other the other cars in that area. I I just think it makes good sense. No, I agree. Especially with that how busy that area and getting in and out of that. Yes. Agreed.

Um I would like to add something. I'm still feel strongly about the site plan and if I would if we could um put another uh condition that subject that the parcel be subject to the approval of site plan approval for six parking spaces. That does not happen then. Make sense? He's got to do a site plan and it's got to have parking spaces and it's got to be approved.

Wally, well, the use must above with all local, state, and federal permits. Uh certainly as a site plan is one of the things that the site plan he could have any site plan approved. He could three parking spaces but right now he's presenting it. Well, that's why I said the use must require must comply with all aspects of this application with which parking spaces was the exception. And then I put in number seven. Uh I guess I don't say six there, do I? U

seven. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, one that's you don't say six, but if you do the math, it's six in the statement. Yeah. I mean, you could add the number six at the total, but as always, I will do whatever recommendation the planning commission makes. Well, the the point I'm trying to make is that's parking for six spaces. That's what's being presented to us. If that does not happen, then

I I think I hear I hear what you're saying. I I absolutely do. But I I have to say that our staff or the city staff with the engineer as well as site plan review if there is a concern. I mean they're going to have to go out there and assess that parcel anyways with measurements and things and you know better than anybody. I know you do. But I would leave that to the staff to decay on a site plan review whether or not that could be done as well as like the drainage we're concerned about. But but isn't that leaving it open-ended though?

Then it comes to pass that the site plan cannot be passed or approved. What what happen? It's a condition it's a conditional use permit. If he doesn't satisfy a condition, there's no permit, right? Isn't that how it works? I don't know. I'm That's what I'm asking is That's correct.

That That's correct. And there is a condition in here about the one um parking spot per unit and one per bedroom, which took six. So, if he can't satisfy the six, then that is violation of one of the conditions of the CU. So, it's been explicitly outlined as part of his application. Um, the site regulations, I he's going to have to comply, which follows under the state, federal, and local regulations. And if he doesn't comply with those, which is the drainage and the zoning um outside of the cup application, then we would either bring the property into compliance through design aspects or then he would have to come back before planning commission um and um you know re and city council ultimately for further discussion. because it's a modification to his application. Does that make sense?

Yeah. An amendment. He tells it differently than I would. I won't be keeping an eye on it. So, okay. Any other comments? Is registring on the parking there? There is the number eight on the second page of the parking of the short-term rental agreement. That's going to be corrected. Well, I counted six on his parking. I mean, counted. He said he's got room for eight. He testified to that tonight. Uh that you could put two parking spaces roughly where the arrows are shown. I don't.

So, so would the city engineer make the limitation based on the site review? Then I mean that number is that determined by the applicant or or in conjunction with Well, I mean our parking is one per unit. He's only got five units in there. One per bed reverse and one per unit. There's only one house. So I mean that's six that that's that's the parking. So as long as you can't have more six he meets the requirement that parking is limited to blank cars in the driveway andor approved parking areas. So, is that a maximum number for the for the I I didn't address the eight because I only sold six on the site. Yeah. Okay.

I didn't know if that needed to be changed. If he can if he can exceed the requirements, uh, generally speaking, we don't hold it against somebody if we're exceeding. No, I agree. I agree. But we have to demonstrate that it works. Okay. just seems a little contradictory. Maybe F6, but but then we use the word or the number eight item. Well, what we ought to do is put minimum at a minimum,

right? I mean, because it was staff's recommendation based off of the the count of rooms and what we currently this ordinance as one. He requested eight. he was the one that filled that application out. So I think that's that might be where the discrepancy may be arising from. Well, what if if under number condition uh seven at a rate of a minimum of one per unit and one per bedroom. All right, that that spells it out. Yeah. Yeah.

And and the fence, you have that. All right. So, uh, do I have a motion to approve the application as amended? I'd like to make a motion to um approve the conditional use permit for the short-term rental property um as amended. Second.

I'll second. Have a roll call, please. Commissioner Armen Trout. Hi. Commissioner Hirs. Hi, Commissioner Joerger. Hi, Vice Chairman Gisinger. I, Chairwoman Shot, I. The motion passes. Thank you. Good luck.

All righty. We're going to move now um forward on our uh public hearings tonight. And this is Mr. Horton again, a zoning text amendment proposal. Hang on just a moment. secondary.

Okay. This uh this uh particular case is uh uh a text amendment to amend the provisions of the uh planned open space development overlay district. Uh you may remember that we uh went over this and made some amendments uh just about a year and three months ago I guess. um in December of 2005 extending into January 2026 or 24 to 25. I'm sorry, I'm accelerating my years. That's not good. Um this was initiated by the uh planning by the uh city council at its February 9th meeting of 2026. uh resolution number was uh let's see it was ah didn't matter. All right. Several things that we're looking at new in here. Number one is building setback and size requirements. Um a minimum boundary buffer 100 ft required from non-residentidential district and right now it's at 40 ft from an existing residential district. This amendment would increase that to 50 feet. Uh a minimum of instead of 50 55% of the gross land area devoted to open space land designated as resource protection area buffer of 100 on either side may be used. 25% of non-title wetlands instead of 50 uh may be used to achieve the required open space area with the remainder being required to remain in a pre-development

state. No portion of title wetland shall be used to achieve the required open space area that's unchanged. Planned open space developments proposed to contain six lots or more will need a public street. Uh just what it says here. Developments in excess of six lots shall be served by standard public streets. So it's four it's four provisions. And uh I know I went through them rather quick, but uh I'll be I'll be glad to take any questions you might have. ask where these changes originated from.

You read my mind. Uh they originated from a uh from uh city council initiated changes. I'm not sure what discussions were held before that time. So these are suggestions from city council. This is actual text recommended by city council. So we didn't change any of it.

Any planning commissioner have a question for Mr. Horton? Was the 40 a arbitrary number or I mean that was or get that from other something?

Well, this ordinance goes back I believe into the early 1990s and um you know I'm not sure what the twists and turns were that it took along the way. Uh, I know that at one time there was not any non-title uh allowed to be counted as open space and now we're at 25%. Um, but I I can't really answer I don't know the answer to your question about where the 40 foot came from. Yeah. While we were with this planned open space conservation overlay district B. I'm I'm sorry. I'm not That's a very good question.

Is that somewhere where would it be applicable? Anywhere in the RS, R1, and R2 zoning districts. So, the majority of our uh of our residential land is uh susceptible uh that might not be the right word, but but open for uh planned open space developments. Overall, these are more restrictive is what it appears to me.

It is more restrictive. Yes, it is. How much more restrictive really depends on how much land you're dealing with though. Yeah. And it depends on the conditions on the land. I mean, you know, not every land is got non-title wetlands. large effect on any developers for residential.

Again, it's kind of hard to quantify because I mean, every every proposal was different. I mean, if you if you have a lot of wetlands on your property, you know, it's it's probably going to affect you more than if you don't. Thank you, Mr. Horton. I'm going to open up our public hearing this evening. Uh, any of the members of our audience like to speak regarding this? Yes, sir. You can come up and state your name and your address, please. Yeah, Rob Carter. I'm at 11 Oakmore. Okay.

Um, I just I was at the meeting when they when this was proposed. And so I just wanted to clarify that this includes the Northwoods area that's open now for for development if so that's it would include any area within RSR1 or Right. Okay. That's mostly R1 is that? That's what I I just clarify that because that obviously affects us more. Okay. Do you have any other questions or Okay, great. Thank you. Comment.

Okay. Seeing no one else like to speak regarding this, I'm going to close the public hearing and ask what is the pleasure of the planning commission? I'm not sure. I uh I see a comment here that they've all been related to issues of poor design that have been identified by the council, but there's just not much information changes. So, um I can't say that I have any objections per se. I just um curious about what's driving the change or the need for the change um and information that's not here.

Yeah, I would agree. I mean, it seems that it's it's kind of vague to us how we got here, but um I don't really see an issue with change effort to reduce density or

Well, yeah, I I guess I guess it could could reduce density and that we might have less planned open space developments. I I don't know. I mean it's yeah again it depends on each unique proposal. I just find earlier today and then looking at it again right now just studying article 8.1 planned open space conservation overlay district. Just that paragraph um about encouraging a more efficient use of land and public services by allowing a more flexible means of development than otherwise possible under typical lot by lot subdivision and so on and so forth. Uh it seems to me that it just enhances possibly the opportunities to develop land in a in an efficient manner uh best suited for the land, if you will, depending on on what that land looks like, what it's comprised of. That helped me a lot just analyzing that definition if you will or that explanation. Remember that we do allow lesser uh lesser

mods on anybody what we should do. Are you do you want to do something? Do you want to think about it till next month? I'm not opposed to it. I think George, you know, do otherwise. Does anybody have any suggestion?

I I would have more of a problem if it was reducing them. Yes. I I think that would be my concern at this point. I mean, it's it's not like it's drastic. It's just a little tweak. A little tweak. So, I make a motion that we pass it as written. Second. Thank you. Can I have a roll call, please? Commissioner Armen Trout. Hi, Commissioner Hirsch. I Commissioner Joerger. Hi, Vice Chairman Gisinger. I

Chairwoman Shot. I The motion passes. All right, that concludes our public hearings for the evening. We're going to move down into new business. Any comments? New business. Okay. Uh communications and correspondence.

Bob Moses is going to the city council uh next Monday. We did a work session back on the 9th and talked with the city council about the describing the proposals anyway, but the uh final rendering uh will be March 23rd if you know unless the city council for some reason doesn't act on it or tables it you know first. Yeah, Mr. Jagger. Oh, no. Nothing for me.

Um, I wanted um to take a moment to let you all know that I met with Mayor Hu last week. He was nice enough to meet with me and take time out of his busy schedule and he did want me to extend um all of council and uh we have Councilman Vi here this evening joining us. um how thankful that council is for the planning commission and the actions that we take continually on a monthly basis. So, I did want to convey that. I told uh the mayor that we had an excellent planning commission and that I was privileged to work with you all that I really enjoyed. So, thank you for all you do and we have fine support. And so with that, um, I think that concludes. I need to have a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Well, we appreciate your lead and all. Well, I appreciate that very much. Y'all make it easy working with you. So, motion to adjourn. Second. Second. Roll call. Commissioner Armen. Hi, Commissioner Hirs. Hi, Commissioner Baker. I vice chair I chairwoman shot I the motion pass we stand adjourned thank you all