Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Let's sing a few.

I'm going to delay it for a few minutes. See if these two Are you here? Evening everyone like to call the uh planning commission meeting of Tuesday, April 7th, 2026 to order. Our secretary, may we have the roll call?

Chairman Coutuli here. Commissioner Bellamy. Commissioner Gchesky present. Commissioner Horton. Commissioner Oler here. Commissioner Prince here. Commissioner Weise present. Chairman, you have a quorum. Thank you. Do we have any communications? Not. Not today. Okay. I will need a motion to approve minutes of February 17 and March 3. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve the meeting minutes of February 17, 2026 and March 3, 2026.

Second. First and second. Any discussion on the All those in favor? I approve. Okay. Okay. We have a consent item. Yes, sir. Item 5A, final subdivision plot SGB 2555, a major final bonded plot of subdivision creating 48 residential lots, open space, and public right ofway in phase three of Case Point. Um, you guys saw this at a meeting in November. There was an issue with business licensing, but so it's back to you, but we talked about it this morning at workshop.

No change. No change. Any discussion by the commission? I'll entertain a motion to approve. I move that the planning commission approved the major bonded final plat subdivision sub-25-55 prepared for phase 3 of Cchase Point. Second that. Any further discussion? Any discussion from the public? None. Okay. Call for a vote. All those in favor? I opposed. Eyes have it.

Okay.

Item 6A is sketch plan SGB 2556. This is a sketch plan creating 19 residential lots, common area, and private rightway located along the east side of Main Street between Cedar Avenue and First Avenue North. Um this is related to item 6B which we will go over next but um we talked about it this morning at workshop and you have an updated plat that shows um the areas of uh the tree protection zone accurately as well as there are two trees existing trees in that rightway um that are slated to be removed. You do you feel comfortable with the uh areas that we we discussed this morning, but they weren't identified? Do you did they meet the standards? I think that um showing all the trees to be removed because they have that common area in the back that protects many of the trees and then the other common area near the male kiosk protects many of the trees. Um the only trees that I guess I have concern about are the trees. There's one inside that building setback um on lot eight and then this uh 20inch tree here adjacent to the sidewalk. Now I think there's a way to do that like we did at the Bahama Island and like that bank on the corner where they use a just a gravel in that spot so it doesn't it

provides less compaction and protects the tree. Um, I think that would be a way to save that tree. And if if you felt comfortable moving it forward, this one in the preliminary, we can make sure that detail was in the construction set. Um, there's really no other way to connect First Avenue North to Cedar without getting those two trees there. So, is that a pine tree? There's a few pines in that. Those don't look like I don't

is a pine tree. So, I went out there and looked and if we're talking about the the two that are in lot eight, there's there's one in the build. There's well, there's two in the building footprint on lot eight. One is 18 inches and one is 10 inches. There's a 14 in or two 14inch trees. It looks like one is a pine there as well outside of this building setback area.

You know, everything over here drains to that pond. But now if we develop this, it won't drain like that. I didn't see

right now there's more of a goalie area where the male kiosk is or a natural slope so that things will drain and it follows a I mean it doesn't follow the property line um it goes pretty much straight across where your your mouse is. I think those are contour lines there. You can kind of see them.

I guess my question kind of is is once you develop those overlooking the pond area, you cut off the natural drainage of the property. Then is it maintained? Is the front row lots maintained on the street or is it pushed to main street for drainage? Is there is there a drainage plan? Based off of what I saw, if you put a um a pipe under the extension of Cedar or First Avenue South, it would you could still drain it, but I'm no expert.

We we had engineering review the drainage plans and they concurred with our design. We have exfiltration pipe in the ground with rock around it and we also have it behind the bulkhead to take the storm drainage. Okay. So, we're not taking any water to Main Street. We're we're helping Main Street. You have a pipe that's stubbed out a 24 in and engineering asked us to connect that pipe and take it into the lake through the bulkhead and that's what we're doing. So, we've gone over all these comments with engineering on the detail plans.

Any more questions on drainage? That was it. the one tree that Suzanne was talking about on um lot number nine. What kind of tree is that? There's a tree chart to the right and I'd have to look at that tree chart. Yeah. How to work your screen. It's so small. An oak tree. Is that the one that split? There's an oak oak tree on lot nine on the front. But whenever you you receive house plans during the building process, they would have to ask to cut that tree. We're not cutting that tree for your boat. We're putting tree protection around.

Only way they could cut it would be to come before the zone administrator and ask her, right, Suzanne? That's the way it works. Not anymore. Okay. Well, so is that the split tree or is that a There is one oak tree out there that veers off into a a Y shape, but one of the um trunks is split, but it's still alive. I don't know how healthy the tree would be. So, I'm not sure if we're asking to protect this tree when it's really not.

A 20inch tree is Okay. It's on It's on the setback. That's the tree you're talking about. Yeah. I'm just wondering if we even need to ask for protection because whenever we went out there today and looked at it, it looked like it was split in the down the middle. It's still alive right now, but I don't know if it's going to be an issue later on. So, I don't want to protect something or make you guys protect something that really you don't need to protect because it's already

Okay. I see your point. Would Ben make the call on this later as its own administrator? And you can put it into motion that if he feels like we need to take this tree down, we will. Okay. Whatever he requests. I just don't want to ask for something above and beyond when it's it may or may not be needed. I have not been out there in several weeks, so I don't I don't know what it looks like today. I don't remember seeing it split. That's been a long time and I did not survey the surveyor. Then we have two small trees on the property line between eight and nine.

Any more questions? On lot number seven and where the mail kiosk is, there are three large oaks and two large pines. What are we protecting? We're protecting those three trees. Okay, that's just a male kiosk area. Okay, there in that area there are three large oaks and two large pines.

Pines. Four trees there I see on here. When we were out there this afternoon or this morning after the workshop, I can tell you what we counted. I couldn't hear you. I can tell you what we counted. We physically what? Four of us were out there. How many looking at this site? There's three large oaks and two large pines. Are all of those five trees going to be saved? Yes.

Well, I I think one is outside of the area that it looks like they're looking to remove a 16 inch based off of I didn't see because so small on the right one oak that's a little bit outside and it's in within lot seven. If you're if that's what you're counting is five. Male male male kiosk in seven is there's five large trees. You have three circles there. We're removing one tree on lot seven. Okay. And that would be the the pine. A pine. No, that one is that is a oak.

That's a little the 16 inch. Um can you pan back over? Okay. That's in the house footprint. These lots are small. I understand that. And the trees are large. The houses are being customd designed and we're trying to save trees.

So you can see where our question is. Understand? Would would this I know we had talked before. Would this be an opportunity to use one of the rules where you could slide the house over slightly and do less of a um property line on one side to save that one tree because I mean it's not very far at all when you look at the picture compared to this. makes it seem like that 16inch tree is really far away from the others, but it's it's not.

Would is that something that to accommodate the tree?

Not sure about the board of zoning appeals and how that enters into this exam. But you remember how we were talking about in certain communities you move it over slightly to and change the set back to make it I don't know if that's an opportunity here because these lots are are so tight 3600 square feet. Um, you know, showing the tree as just this little tiny symbol on the page makes it seem like if you just save that, but the whole area around it is compacted. The roots are going to be pretty um disturbed. The our ordinance requires the tree the tree fencing you see around the others. So, in those places, the trees would be protected per our ordinance as much as we can require them to be protected. You can see there's very little overlap there. There like this tree here, the 16inch tree. I mean, it's growing well under the existing building. So, I mean, they can kind of survive that way and if they grow that way to begin with,

but um this tree with this just the you know 28 feet wide in the front of that h of a house, I mean, I don't think there's probably a lot of room to save it. Gotcha. Um, it's not a BZA tree. It's not, it doesn't meet the threshold for BCA removal. This is, I guess, the developer asking to remove this three trees to move forward with this plan. Yeah. And it seems like all three trees are within the footprint of or the roadway.

Yeah. And I think I mean they are putting common area in there to save like the 34 inch tree that you see there and those other trees and then they have the mail kiosk located. So four out of five of those trees are are saved. There's not a lot of other trees on the site. So yeah. Okay. Can we ask for additional trees to be planted to make up for that tree?

They have Yes. you have street trees. Um, you can ask for additional trees to be planted. It would be required with the removal. Um, I think they'd have to plant back 8 in with a 16inch tree removal. So, yeah. So, that's already required. That would be dealt with at the building permit time when they did remove that tree. Okay.

Thank you. Just a reminder. So the sketch plan process is it doesn't give them any vested rights. The preliminary plot does and then the building permits do. But this is kind of we initially held these on the same um agenda because um uh we were told there were no trees on the site. So, we thought it would be best just to move them forward simultaneously, but there are some trees here. So, for the most part, there's not there's not for the most part just in that one spot.

Yeah. Any further discussions? All right. entertain a motion on this. I'm sorry. Right, I'm jumping ahead. Any comments from the public? Chairman, real quick before um for the record, I would just want to um put on that u Mr. Horton came in at 507 for this discussion and for the vote for this item. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

In that case, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I move the planning commission approve the sketch plan subdivision 25-56 as submitted. Second. Further discussion. I call for the vote. All those in favor? I

I have it. Okay. So, we're going to be looking at the preliminary plat for the cottages on Main Street. So, this is item 6B, uh, SCB 2557. This plat will be creating 19 residential lots, a common area, and a private rightway. This is located along the east side of Main Street between Cedar Avenue and 1st Avenue North. This will be a accessed by First Avenue North and Cedar Avenue. The total area of the subdivision is 2.80 acres. Subject property is one lot of record, zoned business commercial, and is currently unused and vacant. Um, on top of the 19 residential lots, this plat will be creating three common area lots and a private rideway. The smallest lot is 3,258 square ft. The largest lot is 4,178 ft. The sub subdivision density is 6.79 dwelling units per acre. All setbacks conform to the standards of the business commercial district. And this plat will be continuing 1 Avenue North, which is an existing 50 foot wide public rideway. Um, and this will be transitioning to a 25 foot wide private rideway. Um, and this roadway will be designed to city standards, including uh sidewalks and

street trees. As for staff review, uh, public works is still reviewing the construction drawings. Um, but otherwise, there's no other staff comments.

Have any discussion from the uh commissioners? Commissioner, I only have one thing to add. I just noticed it now. The largest lot is actually 4572. I think you said 4178. This way we just get the record right. That's lot number 10. Okay.

4572. That's lot number 10 where lot number 19 was the 4178. This way the record's just right. We have any further discussion, corrections, comments? Anyone from the public have anything to say about this submission? I'll entertain a motion. Go ahead.

Oh, sorry. I move that the planning commission approve the major preliminary plat of subdivision sub-25-57 prepare prepare for cottages on main as submitted. Second and second. Any further discussion? Anyone from the public? One last chance. Okay, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor? Hi.

First eyes have it. Item 6C is a major PDD amendment to the um towers on the grove. Let's get to my paper. We discussed it this morning in workshop. This is basically taking um the area that was previously identified as South Tower 1B Future on um North Ocean Boulevard and revising that to be allowed it to be used as a temporary park paid parking lot. There's no vertical construction associated with this. Um, and any other additional changes would come back to planning commission and city council as a major amendment. This would go to city council on May 4th with your recommendation.

Will be paved. It will not be paved. There will be a paved uh asphalt apron entering the driveway, but the rest will be um of dust-free surface. Any discussion by the commissioners on this? We need more parking. Mr. Chairman, I move planning public comment about Yeah, you can have that's true. U do we have any comments from the public on this submission?

Okay, obtain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move the planning commission recommend approval of the major plan development district amendment to Towers on the Grove PGD Z26-4 as submitted. Second. Any final discussion?

Okay. All those in favor? I I

opposed. How item 6D is a major PDD amendment to the Hope Point PD to replace um a previously approved town homes along Sanctuary Way shown in this area here with a detached cottage style home. you have the um elevations and and floor plan in your packet. Uh we discussed this this morning. The driveways meet the previously approved driveway. Um the but the previous uh town homes had garages and now we require a 24 foot driveway but and these are 22 I believe or 21 ft long but they do have a 24 foot area to pull up. So that does give them a little bit more um uh accessible area around the parking. At this morning's workshop, y'all discussed the plans and the developer has uh provided you with an additional landscaping to show the proposal and then a a rendering of the landscaping kind of at installation. I imagine there's a typical unit that's a more interior unit and on the other side there's a typical high visibility unit that's on the ends.

So just to be clear, the roadside where the driveway is, is that actually the back of the house? I do understand that now that that is the back of the house. This morning I thought that was the front of the house, but I was corrected. That is the back of the house. So that picture that you see is from the parking area side of the home. And then as Suzanne said, the two different plans, the interior ones, you know, have units on each side. So there's not much on the side but long. And then what they're calling high visibility are the ones you see the entire length of the unit from the roadway. So that's got the additional landscape treatment on it.

Sanctuary way is a private right of way. It is it is not a right of way. It is a private driveway. So this is all an in common development and cannot be uh deed fe simple. Understood. Okay.

Anyone have any comments, questions about this and the maintenance of the landscaping will be taken care of. The maintenance of the landscaping. Yeah. Um, the way these are typically laid out, as an example, the parking areas would be a limited common for each unit and then everything outside the box of the home would be maintained in common.

I'm assuming that would restrict someone from doing private planning. It would only be Yeah. The idea is that it's all maintained with a common theme and a common quality. So you don't have a hodge podge as we would say. So one wouldn't do have mulch and then river rock and bricks or whatever. Exactly. Well, it's awful close if you no pine straw, right? No pine straw though. That's right.

Jeff, one more question. So on the map that's in front of us, we see the whole bottom row is the Reese. You see the whole top row is Henry. Yet in our packet we have a tape, we have an Ellis, the Reese, the Henry. Are they gonna or is that just as an example?

I think the this plan is not a final plan. Those elevations they submitted would all be available. So assuming that you have the um buyer that chooses one of those other plans. The only qualification, as we talked about this morning, is there are no detached garages that go with these units and those are shown on some of the elevations, but that's not part of the request. And these are the final elevations. They are. If they added any additional elevations, it would have to come back to you for approval.

Gotcha. Have any further discussion or questions? Anyone from the public have anything to say about this request? Call for a motion. I move that the planning commission recommend approval of the major plan development district amendment to Hope Point PDZ-26-6 as submitted. Second.

Best chance for final comments. Anyone from the public? Okay. Call for a vote. All those in favor? I I

posed. I have it. Item 6E is a minor PD amendment to the Parkway Group PDD at the Wateride Neighborhood um to expand the previously approved monument sign package. Um this was a previously approved entrance sign and they're looking for some additional signage at the water access as well as um a clubhouse sign as shown on this rendering. Um, all of the architectural elements are very similar to the previously approved sign with similar materials and the detailing, the Craftsman bungalow aesthetic for the the look. And staff has no comments. And uh, this one ends with you. So, if you approve it, it doesn't go to city council. Any questions or discussions? Anyone from the public have anything to say about this request?

Okay, I'll call for a motion. I move that the planning commission approve the minor planned development district amendment to the Parkway Group PDZ-26-7 as submitted. Second. Last chance for comments. Last chance for public comments. Call for the vote. All those in favor? Opposed? Eyes out.

Okay, now we get to the fun part. Item 6F is a land development regulations text amendment STX 261 to clarify sight specific development plan requirements and applicability. Um the current site specific development plan regulations in our LDRs outline the process for review and the required elements. However, they don't clearly identify when sight specific development plan review is required. Um, over time, staff has developed a system. It's just not listed anywhere for anyone outside of the community to know. Um especially as as our you know as we have more development here and larger houses being built and all the pressures that we see as a tourist community and residential community. Um we feel like we felt like that the lack of of detail in our ordinance has created some ambiguity to a applicants and the public. Um, so we are looking to have explicit code to refer to to point people to. So, um, I know we talked about it this morning is specifically the sleeping area issue. So, how I I did provide you with some revised text um that talks about how the sleeping areas are defined. Um, and I I did that in this chapter in the LDRs instead of the zoning ordinance because I will talk about that later a little, but this is really where we need to get it in the sight specific development plan like

what needs to go to sites to site plan. So, we're at we're we're kind of striking that section and we're of um 20-6 and we're adding um applicability. The following development activities shall be subject to sight specific development plan review. And again, just to reiterate, this is already our process. It's just not codified. So, number one, new non-residential and institutional development including commercial office, civic, industrial, mixeduse development. Number two, new multif family residential development, including apartments, condominiums, town homes, and other attached residential structures containing more than two dwelling units. Number three, major subdivisions and required sketch plans. Number four, expansions or modifications to non-residential or multif family development that increase building area, required parking, or impervious surface area. Number five, single family or duplex dwellings containing six or more bedrooms or sleeping areas and any additions or modifications that increase a dwelling to that threshold. A sleeping area is any enclosed or semi-encloed space within a dwelling unit that is designed or reasonably capable of functioning as a sleeping space based on its layout and physical characteristics at the time of plan review. A sleeping area includes bedrooms or any room or space that provides privacy and separation from common living areas and could function as a sleeping space. Rooms labeled as offices, dens, bonus rooms, or similar shall be considered sleeping areas where the design includes features consistent with sleeping use, such as enclosure with walls and a door or defined separation or layout and dimensions consistent with habitable space. The following are not considered sleeping areas. Open common living spaces such as living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens, or great rooms that are not enclosed or separated in a manner that would support sleeping. Hallways, foyers, or circulation areas, bathrooms, closets integrated into a bedroom or

utility rooms. An open floor area alone shall not be considered a sleeping area. And then six, zoning map amendments and related actions, including annexations and zoning designations, pre-annexations, reszoning, and PDD amendments to confirm availability of service, access, and infrastructure. Seven, changes in use in an existing structure or site that result in an increase in required parking, a change in access or circulation, or that may otherwise affect compliance with applicable development standards. Then part B talks about the application process. Part C talks about the review process. Part D talks about TRC. Um, and then part E talks about approval. Specifically, when all review comments have been addressed and the proposed development is determined to comply with all applicable regulations, the sight specific development plan may be approved or sight specific development plan approval is required pursuant to the section. Such approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit. Projects reviewed by the TRC that are determined not to require for formal sight specific development plan approval may proceed to permitting upon completion of TRC review and confirmation of compliance with applicable standards.

Take a breath. Sorry, I don't I it's a lot to read. I just want That's a lot. I got my Coke. So, she needs her Coke. All right. I think you did a amazing job from what we went through what we were looking at this morning. Where we left it this morning is fantastic.

Not my concern. My question always is why we separate bedroom and sleeping area if it's the sleeping area that we're trying to do that. Why do we mention the bedrooms and specifically put that by it by itself? Because if we're trying to maintain sleeping areas, then we consider bedroom sleeping areas. Why does that wording need to be next to the sleeping area?

Well, I think it's because some places do just list they've got 12 bedrooms. And some places will list, oh, we have five bedrooms, an office, a gym, a playroom, a theater, all of which have attached bathrooms and closets kind of thing. I'm good. Or four bedrooms. And four bedrooms, four bath, but sleeps 10. You know,

we don't I mean, this is just for sight plan. This is to ensure that if this house, no matter what your intent when you when you build it, that it has adequate parking. if somebody buys it and converts those smaller spaces into bedrooms.

When I was looking up stuff earlier and I sent you a lot of stuff, but it was um having the code attached to the plumbing and that that's a lot. So, I think the way that you defined it is broad enough but also encompasses what it's supposed to encompass. If it's a an you labeled as an office and it's got a full bathroom in there, they don't have a closet per se yet because that's what defines a bedroom. Um, then you know that it's probably an office, full office with a full bathroom that could be have a Murphy bed in there or something.

Yeah. I mean, we're just trying to protect the community for the the future. Yeah. Just make sure we have enough parking. Yeah, good parking. Parking that storm water's handled that it's all meeting the requirements. Yeah, I think you put enough in it if you need to address it, you can address it. Yeah, but it's not so narrow that what we all anticipated being a reasonable plan is Yeah, it I don't think it's perfect. I don't think we can ever achieve perfection here. I think but I think it's broad enough and narrow enough that we're not going to be sending everything to site plan and we're not going to be losing things that need to go to site plan.

Guess pretty much on this text amendment everything's the exact same that it already was with the city. It's just being defined in very specific terms and the sleeping area is the one thing that has changed from five bed to making sure that we know what the bedrooms are. Yeah. We're just So there was never a section in the site plan that said this is what goes to site plan. Everybody in staff understands what goes to site plan, but it never listed anywhere. So an outside builder coming in and wondering what am I supposed to send? They don't know. So this defines it, makes it easier for people

to understand what is required by the city. Right. This is perfect. Adding step by step what you what's going to be required to go to TRC. That way we won't have to hear later that we're so complicated or hard to do business with because something's always changing. It'll be less surprises for everyone. Yeah, I think that's good. I mean Yeah. And we don't if if it doesn't need to go to site plan, we will send it straight to permit. Yes. Okay. Good job on this. Really good job. Do a great job. I mean, this morning I was thinking this is going to be Oh, it's gonna be a long

tough to have this done by tonight and figure out what to not. So, it's this big. Not this big. Just right here. Goldilocks. Okay. Very good. Have any further discussion? Anyone from the public have anything to say about this submission? We have person state your uh your name and address please.

Hi, my name is Christy Hinton and my address is 710 33rd Avenue South in North Myrtle Beach. and I appreciate the opportunity to come and speak with you all today. And I appreciate your comments that the um items on this and and probably the next two that are coming up or in order to protect the residents of North Brittle Beach. Um I come here saying that I feel like I'm one of the few remaining residents in my neighborhood as my neighborhood hollows out um to short-term rentals. I live in Windy Hill and I want to speak in favor of limits on the number of bedrooms or sleeping spaces here in residential zoned areas. I really like how Charleston attempts to protect neighborhoods by limiting the number of unrelated people in a limited number of short-term rentals. And I realize that short-term rental uh is not within your purview. But because you cannot control once a house is built, what its use is going to be as somebody who is surrounded by short-term rentals, that's my continual fear. If we limit the number of bedrooms, then the number of unrelated people in a North Myrtle Beach unregulated short-term rental might drop and thus the number of party houses might also stop rising. We do not enjoy tour buses dropping off 20 unrelated people in residential zoned areas. That's what happens in my neighborhood. We have school buses that drop off children at the house two doors down from me. Toured buses seem to imply commercial activity and we do not need to encourage that with the number of unlimited bedrooms and residential areas. We have older homes that are being torn down and these huge monstrosities are going up. So, our singlestory houses now are being peered down on by these monstrosities with their lights and their parties. Most of my neighbors have lived here their

entire lives. They're retirees now. They have no ability to move. Um, my neighbor just broke her hip and is learning how to walk again across the street from this party house. So, again, I appreciate your efforts to codify this and protect the residents North Myrtle Beach. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Any any other uh members of the public wish to address this issue? No. Okay. How about the commissioners? Any further discussion by commissioners? Okay. Nothing further. I will call for a vote, please. I'm going make a motion. I move that the planning commission recommend approval of the land development regulations tax amendment ZTX-26-1 as submitted. Second S. I'm sorry. STX. Did I say it? What did I say? Z. Oh, STX. The record. Thank you.

It's getting so loud. I'm dyslexic. That's cuz you're wearing your glasses. Got your glasses on. We all did. We all did. Okay, last chance for discussion. We'll call for a vote. All those in favor? I opposed. Eyes have it.

Okay. The next item 6G. This is zoning ordinance text amendment ZTX262. This is a text amendment clarifying site specific development plan requirements and applicability. But this kind of goes in the zoning ordinance. It adds section 23146.1 sight specific development plan compliance. that simply states where a sight specific development plan is required pursuant to chapter 20 land development regulations, such plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of any building permit. It's just a kind of an anchor in the zoning that points people back to LDRs. Any discussion by the commissioners, comments, questions for the staff? Okay. Anyone from the public have anything to say about this request? No. Okay. I'll call for motion. I move that the planning commission recommend approval of the zoning ordinance text amendment ZTX-26-2 as submitted.

Second, comments. All those in favor? I opposed eyes. I saw

ZTX somewhere. our LD our land development regulations used to be known as our subdivision regulations. So, they're all STXs and the zoning taxes, ZTXs, but LDRs got changed or the subdivision got changed to LDR somewhere before my time. So, that's where the nomenclature comes from. Okay. Uh ZTX 263. This is a text amendment clarifying the definition of sleeping area. This relates to what we talked about and I honestly think based on the changes in the LDRs, I don't think we need to change the definition of sleeping area and the zoning as it relates to short-term rentals or anything. I think we just I think staff would recommend just withdrawal of this amendment.

Is that what you're doing? If y'all allow it. Yes. This one puts more regulation on a closet or defining a closet. Is there It It's in there already. Yeah. Um as it relates to short-term rentals, I think it's fine to I think we would muddy the waters. Yeah. Of what we just did. Yeah. So, just we believe it eliminate pretend this made the motion. Do you withdraw it? I mean, you've made your Oh, yeah. We have to make it. I I think the idea is after it's been discussed here with anybody else in the public that we make a motion to

Yeah. to uh well to to We're not going to say we got to deny. Yeah. I guess it's deny, approve, or postpone it. It would go to city council even if you recommended denial. But let's just I don't know how I think we Yes. Yeah.

Right. That would come from the board making the recommendation to do it or we we would be making a motion to withdraw to it. We would make

Mr. Chairman, I move we withdraw this from the agenda item 6H. At the request of staff, request of staff. Would you amend your motion to that? I mean my motion. Okay. Public comments on that. You have a motion. We're drawing it. There not be. If you're taking it off the table, there's no discussion. Discuss. But we do need a second. I second. There you go. Second. Okay, we have first and a second. Further discussion on this. All right, call for the vote. All those in favor? I I

opposed. I have it. Same thing with six. I No. No.

This kind of gets to what the public comments we had just a little bit earlier. Um although it it probably our recommendations for changes probably don't match what what what she was talking about. But um so 6 I is a zoning ordinance text amendment ZTX 264 and uh 265 to remove the maximum area for a bedroom or sleeping area and to remove the maximum number of bedrooms or sleeping areas. And we originally put this in as two separate amendments because we thought, well, hey, um, in these in these districts, R1, R1B, R2, R2B, and R3, there is this text in every section that says a dwelling unit shall not contain more than five bedrooms or sleeping areas of not more than 300 square feet each. But then you have that definition of sleeping area that it gets into I mean even a closet over 70 and um there are many bedrooms approved in our city for building that are bigger than 300 square feet that's a pretty small bedroom. Um so we thought hey we can we can have one ordinance that removes the the maximum area and then one ordinance that also addresses the number the maximum number. The more we talked about what should be the maximum number of sleeping areas or bedrooms allowed in a house, it gets kind of iffy on um kind of constitutional issues. You you may be limiting family size at that point. If you say you can only have five if you have a 10 person family, it it and I I think staff we have better places in our ordinance to regulate how this is done in terms of our parking. um the site specific development plan

when we can put things that way. Um it it those better address the intensity of use than our zoning ordinance because when somebody's house gets sold and it's used for um and they convert the patio or not the patio, the porch or all of those areas, that's not going to zoning. That's just a building permit. There's nobody who's making sure that it's parked adequately. But um with site with with new construction, we can deal with it on the front end with the sight specific development plan stuff. So we were recommending just to remove that statement. A dwelling unit shall not contain more than five bedrooms or sleeping areas of not more than 300 square feet each from each of the sections. So essentially, let's say I have a home and it has five bedrooms currently that's within the ordinance. Um in-laws have to come and live with us and we convert the sun room into a bedroom for them, then we're in violation.

You've created a non-conforming a non-conforming home. This would eliminate that to where you could still handle those things, have a larger bedroom than 300 square feet throughout the city, but also have regulation if you have six sleep areas that it has to go to TRC so that there is regulation so we can make sure it's parked correctly and that storm water's dealt with. Um, so if you if you have five bedrooms and you convert one room,

you get a building permit for that. Oh, wait, this is six or more. Now you've got to go to TRC. Do you have enough parking? That kind of thing. Yeah. If you have three bedrooms and a kitchen and a living room and an office, you're going to be okay. You wouldn't need to go to TRC, you know, but it's it's tricky, but it's um the 300 foot I I I hate to I don't think anybody's enforcing that maximum for bedroom size. I don't oftentimes when you get a house plan, it doesn't say the square feet of each bedroom. And I don't think anybody's sending back a plan. This bedroom's too big. You can't have a master suite or primary suite that large. Um, you know,

I know mine from 1970 is more than that, right? Same. So really it's non-issue based off the size. It's the number that we're changing so that we could the city would have more ability to make sure there's enough parking drainage and make sure that it's not going to be a party house. As much as we can regulate that. Yeah. Yeah. as long as it's within the zoning regular zoning requirements.

I think we've always kind of wrestled with that cap, five bedrooms. I mean, you can have a a gorgeous R1 house and say, "Oh, you can't have that that theater because you've already got five bedrooms." It's kind of we we just don't like to be in that position as long as it's parked accordingly. So, if that theater ever turns into a bedroom. Yeah. If you're having a, like you said, they're dropping off bus loads of people for a party at a house. Uh, do we have do you have to have some kind of permit to do some kind something like that or

Well, I don't think you got that we we just kind of did the nuisance ordinance. Um there are some new elements of of I think it's in chapter 12 for when streets are blocked, when sidewalks are blocked, when there's nuisance parties going on. Um so that that that comes under public safety's purview at that point. Any further discussion, questions? Anyone from the public have anything to say? I'd like to call for a motion. I move that the planning commission recommend approval of the zoning ordinance text amendment Z TX-26-4 and ZTX 26-5 as submitted. Second.

First and second. Last chance for discussion. Public. Okay. A call for the vote. All those in favor? I opposed. Eyes have it.

Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn. One minute. Oh, do we need a public comment? I'm sorry. Sorry. It's okay. Yeah. Um, do we have anyone from the public like to submit some comments or discussion to the planning commission? No one there. Okay. We're entertain a motion to adjourn. I'm I move that we adjourn. I'm hungry. Any second? Second. All those in favor? I

I posted eyes have it. Are we all invited for dinner? No. No. We found