Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hey.

[clears throat] Okay, let's call this meeting the Hazel Planning Commission to order. First item of is a roll call. Williams here. True here. Coleman Asia here. Sprayberry rinky here. Blood here. Next item is the approval of the minutes of January 22nd, 2026. I move that we uh approve the minutes as presented. Second. A motion and second to approve as presented. Question. Williams. I. [snorts] True. I Ricky. Hi. Hi. Uh, public forum.

No old business.

Under new business, we have a review of a zone change from rural residential to SF20 single family residential for property generally located at the northwest corner of East 84 Street South and South Hydraulic. [cough] Good evening. I'm Samuel Deetsz, a presenting planner from Witchah Sud County. Uh, this is a zone change 2025-000069 is a request uh to go from RRidential District to SF20 Single Family Residential District. Property in question is located at the northwest corner of East 84th Street South and South Hydraulic Avenue and is currently developed with a single family dwelling. The applicant is requesting a zone change in order to split the lot and build a home on the new lot. Current development standards in our unified zoning code require a minimum of 2 acres in the Euro residential zoning district to build a single family dwelling. The current lot is 2.06 06 acres and therefore a lot split would not be possible without reszoning to SF20. SF20 requires a minimum of 20,000 ft or 46 acres to build a single family dwelling. Uh as you can see in the staff report, some of the development standards would change regarding setbacks um lot width and minimum lot area which is the principle one we're concerned with here. The character of the neighborhood is lowdensity residential. Properties to the north, south, and west are zoned RR residential and developed with single family dwellings. Property to the east is zoned SF20 and also developed with single family dwellings. Site is currently accessed by East 84th

Street South, a gravel local roadway with open ditches on each side. There is no access to municipal or rural water district water. The property currently uses an on-site septic system. As far as [clears throat] conformance with existing plans, the requested zone change is in conformance with the community investments plan for Witchaw and Centric County. Uh the map included in that plan identifies the area uh in which the site is located to be appropriate for small city urban growth area. This is defined as areas generally located adjacent to existing municipal boundaries. These areas indicate the likely direction and magnitude of growth these communities can expect to experience out to the year 2035. Growth direction and amount is based upon municipal political considerations. anticipated population growth, efficient patterns of growth, current infrastructure limitations, cost-effective delivery of future municipal services, and environmental factories. The site is also located within the Hazesville urban growth area, and staff did review the Hazesville comprehensive plan. Hazeville land use plan map from uh from that plan identifies the site as appropriate for residential developments. based upon the information available to uh staff uh does recommend approval. I will note that we have had um I believe four phone calls or emails regarding this um this request. However, none have been opposed to the request. They have been umformational umformational interests only. With that, um, we go to the second

question. With that, I'll stand for questions. I have no questions. You'll maintain access off of 84 Street for the new parcel. Correct. Uh I'll defer to the applicant but the plat uh when the property was platted there is complete access control along hydraulic and therefore um in order to have access to hydraulic vacation request would be required. Sorry, there's not a copy of Platin here. So, [clears throat] appreciate that. Are there any access conflicts created along 84th or hydraulic?

Um, as mentioned, the their complete access controls would prevent any um any conflicts along hydraulic. Um and given that this would still be a a single family residential zone similar to properties to the east um staff does does not foresee any conflicts. I'm going to help you with your question if that's all right. If you look at the map the aerial you're going to have one more driveway closer to the intersection but it's going to be probably across the street from the one that's already existing there. So no closer to the intersection. So, shouldn't be any more detrimental than what's already out there.

It's right around the corner for me. Uh, yeah, if you'd like to speak on behalf, right on that. I have spoken with public works and I think you got to state your name and everything.

Okay. My name is Brian Hall. I'm the property owner and the applicant. Um, I did contact public works and they said as long as I build a home on the other split lot, north be the north park. They would grant me access exactly straight west of 84th that runs east from hydraulic as long as I line that drive up straight with that road. They would give me permission through vacation request, which I will have to put in through Hazville also. Yeah, you'd have to vacate the access control on the face of the plat and that's a Yeah. So that'll be turned in at the same time I turn in the for the lot split. Okay.

And so I have verbal confirmations of that. So um you would have to coordinate with I I think public works can say yeah that's fine but I think it's this body that actually decides correct. Yeah. Does that so that does so the bot split is east to west or north to south? I believe if this map is correct, you're splitting your lot north to south, correct? Okay. Does that answer all of your questions? That answers my question. Yeah. So, um, are there any concerns with uh, well or septic spacing?

No. I had a septic company come out. They contacted Sedu County. Seduit County did not come out, but the contractor came out and said that there was plenty of room there based on where I was planning on putting the new home to have safety. And with the sandy soil there, we can have normal just some drain lines. You know, I talked with gas and KG both and they're both okay with putting in service at that location. Not KG Ever, I'm [clears throat] sorry. MG did say they would have to set a new pole along hydraulic and put a [cough] transformer [clears throat] there for that, but they didn't have a problem with that. Hopefully not right in front of your new drive.

No, it would be north of that actually. There's two poles there now. One on each side of one to the north side of where 84th goes east and one to the south. Both of those are pretty heavily utilized with cable and power running over to the addition that's on the east side of hydraulic. So they said they would need to set a new pole. Okay. Any other questions?

Thank you. [cough] [clears throat] Uh anything else for that item? Any other discussion? motion. I will uh move to recommend the approval of the zone change from for residential to SF20 for 1620 East 84th Street as presented. Second motion is second for approval. Question. Williams. I True. Hi Asia. Hi Rinky. Hi Glenn. Hi.

Uh now is the point in the meeting where we need to recess planning and convene the board of zoning bills and that requires a motion in a second and a vote. Correct. Yes, we do need a motion. So moved to recess the planning commission meeting and convene the board of zoning appeals to recess the planning commission meeting and convene convene the board of appeals. Second. I have a motion and second to recess the planning commission meeting and convene the board of zoning appeals. Question. Williams. Hi. Drew. Hi. Aser. Hi. Rinky. Hi. L. Hi. [clears throat]

Under the BZA under new business review and classification of online auction houses as a use.

Yes. So, this youth classification is before you all because of a new business license application we received for a business called Monumental Auctions at 549 East Grand Avenue. Um, silent auctions um and online auctions and auctions in general aren't something the use charts in the zoning regulations actually touches, so it's not permitted or prohibited. Um, but typical auctions usually involve buildings with arenas to stage items and hold large crowds of people. They require large amounts of parking and everything is on a scheduled auction days. So all transactions are done in person and large areas may be required to store the items for sale as well either indoors or outdoors. But according to our applicant, the auction sales associated with their business will be transacted electronically over the internet only and there will be no normal operating hours and the business will only be open to the public during scheduled pickup hours. So, these pickup hours, they're not going to occur daily, and they're likely to only occur a couple weekends a month. And during these pickup hours, some in-person retail activity may occur. Um, there is an email on your guys' desks from the business owner giving another description of the business if you would like to read that as well. Um, but the site that this business is located at or hoping to locate at um is a strip center and it houses four different businesses. um some personal improvement ones um an office and there's about 14 parking spaces currently delineated but it can accommodate more if they were to rearrange. When I was researching different types of online auctions, I did struggle to find some specific businesses that actually do that. Um but I did find that there's been a trend towards e-commerce and general commercial businesses. Um, and that's been since the pandemic that retail stores are going that way. They've been converting parts of their stores into mini warehouses to meet the growing demand of online orders. And in some

cities, entirely new businesses have been created founded on this premise. Um, and the city of Hazville actually has at least two home occupation businesses that do solely online sales and e-commerce and many others that do a combination of inerson and online. Um, when I was doing my research, I found that many people call these stores dark stores because they're not open to um, customers and they can be unlit. Um, they've also been referred to as micro fulfillment and quick service fulfillment centers. Um, in a research case study, dark stores were described as retail stores that sell goods but operate on a completely different basis than traditional brick-andmortar retail stores because consumers do not walk around the store to browse and purchase goods. Um, they rely on fast delivery most of the time as a key to their business model and so they're they want to be located in urban areas to keep that quick business and quick delivery. Um because of the dramatic shift that happened with e-commerce after the pandemic, a lot of cities don't have a way to classify this. Hence why we're here today. Um and the city's definition of general retail really implies inerson sales. So we can't just classify it as general retail. But the use itself also falls somewhere in between retail and warehousing. If we were to classify it as a warehouse use though, it could be detrimental to business model, not just our current case study, but then others who want to come in and do microfulfillment dark store type of business. Um, if they are relying on that quick delivery, if we stick them out in the industrial district, they're far away from the residential people who are their consumers. So, not allowing e-commerce in our commercial areas may cause an increase in vacant buildings as well as more retail businesses. as more retail businesses shift into dark store territory. So, if this shift is not

allowed, retailers may struggle to compete with other businesses participating in e-commerce and may be forced to close, resulting in a loss of commercial tax revenue for the city. These businesses do provide jobs and they fill vacant storefronts and provide services to the community. Um, but on the other hand, they are called dark stores. Um, and they do have the same effect on neighborhoods most of the time as vacant buildings because they have desolate street fronts and are sometimes boarded windows and consumers are not activating them like a regular retail store. They also tend to come with an increase in delivery vehicles that pose hazards to existing vehicle and pedestrian traffic and some but some research does show that can be insignificant but proper loading and unloading areas do need to be provided. [clears throat] Based on all of this research, I have staff thinks that online auction houses should be defined as retail fulfillment centers. So that definition would be added to our definition section in the zoning regulations. They'd be classified as commercial businesses and they be permitted in the light commercial, heavy hotel, motel, commercial, heavy commercial, light industrial, and heavy industrial. What are we excluding from that list?

Mixed use MFA, which is the mixeduse residential district. Okay. And then all the other residential districts. To be clear, what we're considering is creation of this new district, not a specific property or location, just creating the new district as something we'd like to have in Hazville. Creating the new use as something we'd like to have in Hazville.

Okay. So even though we have specific business that is asking for this at a specific location, that's not what we're considering. We're creating the opportunity to change the zoning for a future property into this new use that we're creating. [clears throat] Is that new use, does it allow for any type of outdoor storage? It would depend on the zoning district it's located in.

Okay. This use in the light commercial zoning district would not be allowed to have any types of outdoor storage unless it related to semi-public purposes like outdoor seating, outdoor dining. Um, but in the HMC, I think there's some outdoor storage that's allowed and then HCLI and HI would all allow for outdoor storage. Screened, unscreened, any regulations for that? screened from the view of adjacent lower density zoning districts and from public right away.

Okay. delivery times. If they don't have hours of operation, they're going to be there at any time and perceived could have delivery at any time, which could be if you're adjacent to a residential area, perceived as detrimental to if you've got trucks backing up at 2 o'clock in the morning for per se. any limitation that we can add to that or is there any mechanism to be able to control that in the future? We could put it in the special use conditions specific operating hours that they couldn't operate during. Um,

well, it I don't I don't want to be overly critical because if you're inside the building processing orders at 2 o'clock in the morning, I don't care. It's activity outside the building that's going to affect adjacent property owners and that's what we need to try to keep a handle on. Georgie, would the noise ordinance cover this at all?

Only as far if it's a nuisance, if there's um odor um excessive noise, something like that would be the only reason it would be covered under nuisance violation. And let's assume that's not the case. It's just a truck backing up and beeping at 2 o'clock in the morning to drop off a delivery, which at 2 o'clock in the afternoon isn't a problem because nobody cares. Mhm. So, is there a mechanism to help control that? Instead of operating hours, we could restrict delivery hours. Okay. I think that would work.

Do you think a specific time frame? I I think normal hours of operation for a retail business would be reasonable and I don't think we should limit the hours of operation inside the business but anything happening outside deliveries uh let's call it skid steers working around the outdoor storage if there is some stuff like that outdoor activities should be limited to standard retail hours of operation. What would be standard retail? Well, because if we're talking like a there are 24-hour retail stores.

Yeah. But in our in our retail strip centers, do we have that broken down? I think of like Walmart and Dillons and stuff like that. They get deliveries in the wee hours of the morning because they have people stock. And if you live next to a Walmart or a Dillons, you knew that when you bought the house and it's probably something you're expecting. This is something that could go into a strip center that didn't have this before. Gotcha. And I just want to make sure that if we get an opportunity in the future and we don't want to use it, we can wave it. But if we don't have this in place, it's harder to implement at the time,

right? I just want to make sure that before we create this new use and everything that comes with it that it's something that one we're comfortable with and two something we've thought through enough to know that this is something that could go almost anywhere that we're proposing without real impact to adjacent property owners. So So what are the delivery [cough] um restrictions on strip center type businesses? I don't believe there's any delivery restrictions. So, would you only want to put that in place when it's adjacent to residential or in any instance? That's my biggest concern. What's it What's in your brain that's making you think otherwise?

That That's what I mean. The biggest concern is going to be if it's adjacent to residential. I mean we we have industrial that's adjacent to residential where the noise issue has been well and I if it's in an industrial area light industrial I think that use it alone comes with deliveries and expectations that are always going to be associated with light industrial this can go into any retail setting right

and I think that's really the only use that I'm thinking about that would be need to be restricted. We're already not allowing it in multif family adjacent to residential. That edge case, let's call it that is one step further towards away from residential but maybe not far enough. Is there something we need to do there to make sure that it's covered and industrial, light industrial and everything on the other side are probably fine where they sit. If I'm in an industrial park, one, there's usually not need residential anyway, and two, [clears throat] that is expected in that district.

I don't know that most retail stores that I'm thinking of get truckloads of deliveries. I guess my only thought is is I don't think we have any delivery hours um set for any other type of businesses. Um I I I know where you're going with it. I just don't know if we have delivery hours on anything. Yeah. And the only thing that bothers me is if they don't have retail hours, they don't have employees clocking in and out at standard times and there's more chance of truck showing up off hours because they could be there at any time.

Yeah. If if we can restrict that some way and and if I'm the only one that's concerned about this and everybody else thinks it's fine, then I can move on and be done with it. But this is the thing. This is the thing that I think is The one thing that would give me pause if this was going in next to a residential area it's not allowed next to resial area or adjacent. We have lots of conditions on different uses when it comes to like adding a buffer. Um when it's next to residential we usually just do adjacent and not within a certain radius. Okay. I don't think it would be out of the ordinary to add this for

Well, in your opinion, is it overly burdensome? What about this? Uh, the next thing is the uh mixed use. One of these places could go in [cough] there, couldn't [clears throat] they? That's what she's saying. It's not allowed in mixed use. That's We're not proposing it in mixed use, only in commercial. We're not allowing it in MFA, which is going to be mixed use residential, but LC is also proposed to be mixed use, but mainly commercial. Okay. Okay. So, this could be next to a residential unit in the LC district. Okay.

I think we just keep it in mind and if it is an area where we're concerned about, we can add that restriction to it when it comes through. Any other concerns with the land use itself? I don't have a concern with the land use. I have the same concern that you do. Um, I mean, if we're talking semi trucks and trailers pulling in at 2 a.m., I think that's more of a concern than a small van with a delivery at 2 am. I just trying to set times for delivery for a business, I think, is that that gets difficult. I think I I I think it's got to be it's got to be something. It's got to be associated with the land use itself because an individual owner can come in here and say, "Oh, yeah. We're only going to get vans, right?"

And then get their approval and then then you have semi truck then nothing but semi-st. We have no mechanism for taking care of that. So I agree. I I think it would be easier to add it in now. Yeah, it's easier to add a sixth condition. Um I've right now I've written down so where this business is next to residential district or residential use. No delivery or shipping or other outdoor operations outside of the standard retail operating hours would be allowed. And do we need to re refine standard retail down to a specific time? Is 9:00 a.m. to 900 pm too broad? I I don't think it's too broad. I I think it's too constrictive. conrictive.

Yes. Because if most businesses open at 9:00 a.m. or earlier, and if they can't take a delivery before they're open, they can't open. Yeah. Well, they're not. This use won't open. Yeah. But but you have people show up to pick stuff up and if that happens at 9:00 a.m., but it will. Yeah.

Well, my understanding is that's also scheduled. So, it's not like a a retail setting where you're open from a set time to a set time. You're scheduling times for people to come in. And if you have a delivery showing up, you can move that. If we're if we're limiting from start to finish when deliveries can happen, I think being as broad as we can within reason is where we should be. The question is what is as broad as we can be? And if you think 99 is too restrictive, then I I I think that's too restrictive. I mean, I would fall back. What would you propose? 5 a.m. to 1000 p.m. would be more where I would land. I concur. Okay.

I was thinking 6:00 to 11. I mean, that's same hours. I mean, yeah. Hours in the day, I guess. 5:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. Yeah. If everyone agrees, I'm good. Going the other direction, too, though. An hour. I think earlier the better. I think earlier the better. Yeah. I mean that's my thought because I know deliveries do happen early in the morning from overnight just from what I see for okay shipping. Are you guys okay with the other conditions I've proposed? Yes. Do you want me to read those? Yes, please.

Um so retail fulfillment centers will be subject to the following special use standards. Existing window transparency shall be made up to 15 50% and no interior items including solid shelving units may be used to block visibility into the interior space. However, window film and posters may be utilized. Permanent signage advertising the establishment shall be required. Such signage is required to avoid the appearance of building vacancy where delivery vehicles are utilized. Proper loading and unloading areas shall be provided on site [music] and no loading or unloading may occur offsite and such loading and unloading area shall not impede pedestrian or vehicle traffic. where some retail activities will be conducted in person. The estab the establishment shall comply with the off- streetet parking requirements for business and retail establishments. Where no in-person retail activities will be conducted, the establishment shall be required to provide one off- streetet parking space per employee. And then that sixth, um where this use is adjacent to a residential use or district. No delivery or shipping or other outdoor operations outside of standard retail operating hours between 5:00 am and 10 p.m. may be allowed.

For retail parking, how do you dictate number of stalls if you're not a standard retail [clears throat] with shelves throughout? [cough] You almost need to do it like a warehouse, right? For this specific use. Yeah. Um I chose the where no inperson retail activities. they have to go by um employee, right? But when they do have in-person retail, it's not the whole store that's retail, right? Yeah, that could be a possibility. 50% of it could be retail and the rest of it could be used for work. So, we have an allowance for that for

our parking regulations aren't very forgiving. Um, we could change number four to be where some retail activities will be conducted in person. The retail floor area shall comply with the off streetet parking. So just the space that off streetet parking shall comply with the retail floor area. But yeah. Yeah, that would be I think that works. That'd make it more forgiving. Yeah, that was all of the special use conditions. Can Can you explain what you mean by offsite? And I think I understand it, but offsite [clears throat] would be loading

the loading and unloading off site would be on an adjacent lot. That wouldn't be allowed in the street. Wouldn't be allowed. Okay. How do I enforce that? PD police department. Okay. Zoning violation. Would also be a zoning violation. So you said retail fulfillment center and then the the email. Not to not to harp on what they're going to do, but anybody else could do the same thing is we would like to have a retail place as well. So what if this retail fulfillment place wants to turn into a full-blown retail?

That would be allowed. They would have to, depending on how much of the space they're using for the in-person retail, they'd probably have to provide additional parking to turn the current site into a regular retail site, but that would be allowed to change. Any more questions or discussion at all?

Is there a motion? I'll move to classify online auction house as a retail fulfillment center as defined by the staff report and permitted um in right um in LC, HMC, HC, LII and HI districts subject to the proposed special conditions. Can I can I pause before we have a motion? We can discuss as much as you'd like. Um on the permanent signage, do we do have requirements for the permanent signage? Yeah, that was one of I think we do. That was one of the restrictions. Okay. I know. But do do we know what exactly they are? Those are established, right?

No, this was this would be new. If a business comes into the city, we don't require them to put up a sign. So, this is the only business that would be required to have a sign. This would be the only use that is required to have a sign. Okay. With the thinking being that everyone else is doing it voluntarily because they're trying to get people to go to their business, but this one is not. Yeah. And and so that's what I'm asking. What requirements? Like is it supposed to be how big is the sign? Does it have to be a street? Is it is it just something that they have to put on the window? A lot of what are the requirements this big of a window? Yeah. [clears throat]

A window sign would not be considered permanent because we don't require sign permits for them. Um a permanent sign would have to be something made of a non- rigid material. Um, but this is really forgiving. So, it could really be anything. Um, it could be a wall sign. It could be a freestanding sign. Um, if this was going into I guess when I wrote this, I pictured it going into an existing commercial establishment that usually already has a sign base. And so, instead of leaving that sign base vacant, they would have to fill it.

Yeah. I think what you're getting at is one, we don't know what is required because we don't have requirements for anybody else. We have a signed permit that limits the size of things but doesn't necessarily say it can't be 11 8 and 12 by 11.

Also, [clears throat] if it's not an existing commercial business with a sign base, if I don't have a business and you require me to put in a sign, I don't have a business that's looking for people to stop by. I don't want to put spend money on a sign that I don't want in the first place. So, I am going to make that as cheap and easy as possible, which I don't think serves your purpose. I I think your point is is well made that we need to require minimum sign size and visibility and materials and all of that.

Could we say requires a sign that meets the minimum permitting requirements for a sign? I don't think that would change how this one plays out because there's not really minimum. Yeah, it's all based on maximum height and maximum size and there's no minimums. Yeah. Can this be added with the update for you?

The other thing is we could make that on a case- by case basis as these come through and each individual use with a structure can be thought through. But we can also put in wording that says something like a permanently a permanent sign a fixed to the building which would eliminate window signs banners stuff like that. Well, but if there's a monument out at the street that has a blank space [cough] [clears throat] to your point, that's where they would want it to be filled in. And so that's going to be different depending on what location you're at. I think the point there is that's where we would want it to be filled in. Agreed. But they're going to put it wherever they feel is most convenient and cheapest. I agree.

It's it may not serve the purpose that we're trying to serve, which is it doesn't look like a vacant building. We should probably add that if an existing sign cabinet is there, it has to be filled. Um, there's Yeah, that won't work either. But outside of that, I don't know off the top of my head how to require that they put in adequate. The only way to do it would be to require a sign cabinet. [sighs] Now, but we're worried about the minimum size of it. And I don't I don't like the look of a banner strapped to the outside of the building. But you can say a rigid sign permanently

by saying permanent sign. A banner wouldn't be allowed. That's banners are only considered temporary. Okay. Where is that definition? Uh in the sign regulations. Okay. So it's easily findable. Let's just decide on a minimum size and I think everything else is going to have to be left up to case by case, but we're not going to be able to think through every No, maybe some of these type businesses don't want to sign. Like if you've got you're selling Rolexes online and you don't want to advertise, hey, there's the Rolex warehouse. You know, I mean, and that's not

point of order. We have a motion on the floor in a second. We do. We're still discussing.

We could table this um and I could look into the size of our existing commercial signs. That might help us decide what a minimum should be. You guys feel like we need to table it or are we close enough we can get there? I think we're close enough we can get there. Is is there so if we're look if we end up looking at this on a case by case basis for signage

I I really I that would be a last resort because I think we're going to get into the weeds on signs on every one of these that come through and and really the only reason we're requiring it is so it doesn't look like it's a vacant building and and I think that's a good point. I don't want it to be look I don't want it to look like a vacant building, especially on Main Street or Grand or somewhere that's prominent, but I also don't want to get into the weeds every time we have a sign and argue with fonts and whether it's lit and whether you put it in the sign base that's out front or you put it on the building. I think we're just

worrying about things we shouldn't be worrying about if we're trying to check a small box by trying to check a big box. I think we just pick a a sign, a minimum sign, and leave ourselves. Maybe that's the way to do it. Leave it there and then they can No, I'm saying leave it into the hands of the planning coordinator, which is staff,

and say signs that meet the the requirements or the that are approved by the planning coordinator. If you want to specify a size, um, a lot of places say the overall sign width has to be 60 80% of the the width of the tenant. So that way it allows it to become variable based on how wide their their store is. And I think 60 is a minimum would be fine. 60% of the width of the tenant.

So if your storefront is, you know, 40 ft wide and your sign is 60% of that in width. Would this just be for wall signs? Yeah, that's for your store mounted sign. You know, when whatever goes up above your store, we're thinking in a strip mall. They all have signs above the above the So, mount it wherever you want. If you want to mount it on the wall, if you want to mount it up above in a a sign cabinet, I think that's too big.

But make it 50 40%. It makes it easy to say percentage as as a variable so that you're not putting a tiny sign on a super big building and vice versa. And and it makes it proportional to the size of the building because we don't want it to look vacant. So, if we say, "Okay, well, it's got to be five feet wide and the storefront is a size of a Walmart, that's going to be a dinky little sign in comparison." This way, it becomes proportional to the size of the

storefront. If if if we don't if we don't [clears throat] require signs for other businesses, maybe the way out of this is just to not require signs here. If if I have a an accounting firm and all I have is a a plaque out front next to the door because all my business is coming in to pick up their taxes and they know where they're going. It looks like a vacant business if you don't know what you're looking at. Maybe that's not as maybe that's not as bad and let the the rest of the code cover the rest of it.

How about this? Instead of requiring a sign, why don't we say that there should not be any unfilled sign cabinets? That way, you just don't have a big empty sign cabinet on a working business. Take it down or or fill it. That would be a a decent solution because there's a lot of businesses that don't have signs and they're, you know, make an appointment and stop in, see some guy in office. They don't need a sign, but they also don't have a vacant sign cabinet. So it just looks like a, you know, white collar business.

My my only worry with that is you have a store and you close it. You keep the building and to keep the building, you're going to lease it to a company that's going to do this, but they're probably only going to be there for a year because they're going to get big enough that they're going to need a bigger building. Let's say now he's going to take out your sign base because he has to and you got to put a new one in. Well, no. He either has to or he has to put up a sign. So, in my leasing contract with him, I'm going to say, "You have to fill the sign cabinet. You can't remove it."

The realtor would have to be knowledgeable of our zoning code to know that that's a possibility. Well, when they ask me, can I take down the sign cabinet, which will probably require an electrician because there's usually live electric [cough] [clears throat] I see if you don't require it on anything else that don't require it on this.

I think we have signs cabinets now that are empty that I don't know if that's a great solution. I know where you're going with it, but there is the option of just requiring some type of signage on the door. So, I know it's not the complete sign on the building like you're talking about, but [snorts] at least you have some acknowledge of what that business is. It's not taken away from a vacant look. I'm not going to say that it's not, but I don't think we're going to come to a very easily solution at this point right now for this. You could at least require signage for the door and then Kaitlin, this comes back with the zoning review, correct? What do you mean

was the um the uh zoning regulations? Oh, yes. Um what we whatever we decide on tonight will be put into the zoning regulations for our next meeting. Okay. Okay. So, so I think that's probably a good compromise. With that, at least this business would be required to have signage on the door. Correct. If we require signage on the door, if we require some type of signage on the door, this business would require signage on the door. Then we could look at what are the possible solutions we could come up with for anything going future. Correct. For our next meeting for the the public hearing when we do the zoning regulations. That'll be our next meeting. Yeah. Correct. Mhm.

But for this one, they would only be required door signage for this specific business. Yes. Uh what we're deciding on tonight is for every single business that's classified as this, though. Okay. But for tonight, for this one, for approval, it would require door signage, right? And then if that's what we want to require, then yes. Yeah. Doors for every single type of business that is classified as this. I would I would probably put it as minimum requirement of door signage advertising the establishment as something that

I would I would put in their minimum because we don't want to say that that's all that they have to provide. They can provide whatever they want minimally. My only thing is is we don't require empty cabinets to come down now. Yeah. Yeah. And and I think we've moved on from that, but I think where we're landing is sounds like [cough] and I assume that was proposed as an amendment to his motion. Yes. And as an amendment. Are you okay with that? I am. Is that also a second?

That's a second. So, I have a motion in a second to approve with all of that condition, including the updated door signage. Question. Williams. I True. I Asier, I rinky. I I need another motion to adjourn the board of zoning appeals and reconvene the planning commission. I move that we adjourn the board of zoning appeals and reconvene the planning commission. Second motion and second to adjourn the board of zoning appeals and reconvene the planning commission. Question Williams

I Tr. Asia. Hi, Ricky. Hi. Hi.

Item C. Under new business, we have a review of text amendment to the zoning regulation changes to article 4 zoning districts. Um so the changes for article 4 are for sections 407 through 412 um MFA through HC zoning districts. Um for a summary of the major changes um we're going to be changing or creating a new article with those sections for commercial and mixeduse districts. Um we're going to be removing the office commercial district because it is underutilized. there's no lots in Hazville that are currently zoned OC. Um, we'll be establishing purposes for all of the districts and identifying how each of them relates to the designations on the future land use map. Um, we'll be creating new mixeduse zoning districts from MFA and LC. MFA will be a mixeduse residential district and LC will be mixeduse commercial. We'll be establishing dimensional standards for MFA and LC based on the use. We'll be requiring that all vehicles stored overnight be stored inside enclosed buildings in the MF MFA and LC district. We'll be explicitly allowing outdoor dining and other similar public semi-public uses that require incidental outdoor storage in all districts, all of these commercial districts. Um we'll be establishing limits on driveway widths for all of these districts and establishing design standards that prioritize walkability for all of these [music] districts. These changes were made to align with the South Broadway and South Meridian corridor recommendations. Um you'll see at the end of your staff report that there are some examples of existing commercial buildings um and

their window transparency. This is to relate to one of the design standards that we are recommending. Um we can address those later. Do you have any questions off the bat? Are the radi for driveways in addition to the width restrictions or it was just covering square footage in the front yard setback, not radi. Just Well, you said width.

I described it as width earlier. It's a a simpler way to think of it. Um, but we're only requiring specific square footage maximums. Um, I think they end up being either a 20ft driveway or two 10ft driveways. Okay. For residential property for the mixed use and light commercial and um they're a little bit wider for HMC and HC. And those are maximum or minimum? Maximum.

Okay. I think we need to refine those a little bit. Where are you getting those from? Was it Broadway or Meridian? Those are so Broadway and Meridian were definitely talking about walkable environments and encouraging those. Um, and in my research for how to work on those, I came upon Strong Towns, which used Battlebor, Vermont as their strongest town in 2023. Um, and that city did have maximums on square footage of driveway width or driveways in the front yard setback. Okay. The 10 foot doesn't really work and creates a lot of different problems. Can we refine those a little bit? Of course we can.

All respect to Strong Towns, but [clears throat] I don't know how many uh vehicles they're using in Vermont, but we typically wouldn't go less than call it 12t per lane. So, 24 or 36 depending on what the configuration of the driveway is. And if you've got a business that has one in and two out, one left, one right, you need that third lane. And you can't get that with 20 ft. So, I would propose 12 foot minimum per lane and 36 max, which would also align with I think it would be more in line with what other communities have. I think city Witchto's 36 or 40 max, but I'm fine with 36.

Okay. And then the radius for a commercial property should be 30 not 20 definitely not 15. So I would make that revision wherever it is needed. So a maximum of 36t wide for any property that needs multi-lane exit.

Okay. Otherwise it's 24 one in one out and then 12 for one in. Yes. For one way. Yes. But maintain 30ft radius for all commercial and mix use.

Yes. Okay. Any other discussion? I'll go through the specific changes in each district. Then so obviously we're making MFA mixed use residential. So this is a mixeduse district that allows residential and commercial all on the same property. Um, but commercial is only allowed if residential is also on the lot. Um, that's how we're keeping it primarily residential. Um, this is to align with the South Broadway and South Meridian corridor plans. 57% of the people who responded to the surveys in South Meridian did support mixeduse zoning. With these changes, um, we'll be changing the dimensional standards to be use based. Previously, um, all uses had to have a 6,000 square foot lot that was 50 feet wide and 90 feet deep to a minimum. Um, but it'll be based on use and these dimensional standards match up with the residential district ones we proposed last time under the special MFA district regulations. Um again to keep this primarily residential we'll be limiting um how big a commercial property or business can be um and that minimum or the maximum will be 5,000 ft of floor area for each individual business. This was taken from the OC district regulations. And then for the MFA district design standards, these are the same for the LC district as well. We're recommending that the primary entrance to the

principal structure face the street. Um we're requiring that pedestrian access be provided from a public sidewalk or the street and if the sidewalk is not there that they build one to the minimum width of 5t. Um, we're requiring that entrance be protected by either being recessed into the face of the building or having an architectural projection like a um, forgetting the word right now. Awning. Awning or canopy. Um, we're recommending that they build the buildings to the front setback minimum and not set them back farther. Recommending or requiring? Recommending.

Thank you. And then we are requiring that um ground floor non-residential spaces um complement this pedestrian oriented environment that we're trying to develop by requiring that retail spaces have at least 50% of the front ground level facade be public entrances in windows. Um and then for all other non-residential spaces, they just have to provide windows on all sides of the building that's visible from the street. And then we're recommending that buildings be constructed with 25% masonry on the outside. And that is from the Broadway plan. New construction. New construction.

Is that 25% visible and facing the street or is that 25% mult of the building is how this one is worded. So all sides. There might be another one that says just the front facade. And that's all uses. I should probably say facade. So just 25% of the front facade would be masonry. Um and that's a recommendation just based on public engagement that came out of the South Broadway plan for all uses in all buildings. All uses. Yep. Even residential.

Yes. But it's just a recommendation. We're not requiring it.

Okay. I I know this predates you by quite a bit, but one of the problems with the Broadway plan when it was presented was it required architectural control over everything, including existing structures. So, if you owned a house along that corridor, you had to come here and get the paint color approved before you could do anything. And if you require 25%, now you've got to put brick on your house when you didn't have it before. So my concern, and it sounds like everyone else is picking up on it also. I don't want to overly burden some people that have lived there for 50 years because we're trying to keep it pedestrian friendly or whatever the goal is. It should be for new construction and not necessarily for all construction or all remodels, things of that nature. So keep that in mind as you go through. If you see something that could be a problem for that, let's stop and talk about it.

Okay. Um I do want to go back to the facade requirement. Um the 50% is up for debate. Um that's what the pictures in the staff report are for. Um and we'll talk about that when we're all done. um and decide how much facade, if any, we want to require to be windows and doors and be transparent. Yeah.

Um but on to the light commercial district, these changes are pretty similar to that what we see in MFA except um commercial uses can be located on any lot. They don't have to be in conjun in conjunction with residential. Um, see, previously lots had to be 6,000 square ft with a minimum width of 50 ft and a minimum depth of 90 ft. Um, but again, use space dimensional standards. The purpose of that smaller lot size is for non-residential for for any of them [cough] [clears throat]

anything that you're referring to. These are recommendations especially for um the residential units like triplex, forplex, multiplex. Those came from the dimensional standard recommendations for missing middle. They're really good at um prioritizing the missing middle housing, something between single family and high-rise apartments. And these are the lot sizes that they recommend. And to be clear, we're creating a new option, not necessarily taking everything down to that size. No, this is just the minimum. You can build this small or you can go bigger.

Okay. under special LC district regulations. Um we did add since part of our comprehensive plan is con serving our commercial land. We did add that no existing non-residential units can be demolished or converted to be reused as a residential unit except as approved by the planning commission through the conditional use process. Sorry, cover that one more time. So if there is a existing commercial building, if you want to renovate it into a residential building, you have to get approved as a conditional use. Okay. This way we'll conserve our

Yeah, I miss her. I just It sounded like you said if you have a house, you can't rebuild it. You have to rebuild a commercial building, which is not Okay. Nope. So the design standards are the same for this district as they were for MFA. Nothing new there. Um, we are actually bumping the light commercial district lower in the zoning district hierarchy. So, it'll be below HMC. It'll be a less intense district. And this is because it has smaller lot sizes than HMC.

Okay. So, the hotel motel commercial had a different um maximum square footage than the other two districts. As it is currently written, it would allow for 40 foot driveway. Would this work with what we already changed? I would change that to 36. To 36.

Yeah. and maintain the 30 foot commercial radian for that. The design standards for this one are the same as well. Then we get to office commercial. This is the district we removed from commercial because it's just not used in the city. With the changes we've made to LC since OC was adopted, there are negligible differences in the districts and there's not really a benefit to doing OC over LC.

So, chiropractor's office, it could be an OC district, but what is it zone now? LC. Okay. Is is that generally where we're at with most of those uses? Okay. There was one property zoned OC district um the corner by Casey's on Meridian. Those were originally OC and they've now been turned into LC districts. Okay. Thank you.

For heavy commercial district, um this has the same square footage minimum for HMC that we'll be changing to 36 feet wide driveway. There are different outdoor storage or outdoor operation regulations for the HD HC district um that are different from HMC. So, you're allowed to have that street furniture for the public and semi-public uses. Um if you have any retail goods, this is the same for all the other districts. Um they can be placed immediately adjacent to the structure and be stored outside. Um, and then this one requires that a hard surface be provided for any outdoor vehicle storage in the front yard setback, which we've talked about in our special use regulations for vehicle in equipment sales outdoor, too. And then the design standards for the HD district are actually lower than the other ones. Um, we're just recommending that they face the street, that we require that pedestrian access be provided, and that they require that they install a sidewalk if there's not one already. We're recommending that they build to the minimum setback. Um, and then the minimum mason coverage is there, too.

By lower, you mean less restrictive. Yes, there's less design standards for the AC district. And that looks like that's all I have. Do you guys have any questions on that? So on that heavy HC district pedestrian access, what if there's not a sidewalk? They'll have to install a sidewalk. So the what if there isn't a sidewalk anywhere? It' just be a sidewalk across the front of the property. It'd be an island sidewalk. Hopefully eventually sidewalks would be installed along the rest of the street. But and then there'd have to be a 5ft sidewalk from that sidewalk to the front door. Yes. On heavy commercial.

Yes. or access through a parking lot.

You could put your sidewalk through the parking lot, but you'd have to delineate it as the sidewalk with either like paint markings. Pedestrian access must be provided from the public sidewalk or street to the primary [music] entrance. Minimum of 5 foot sidewalk must be provided. So you'd have to put a five foot sidewalk across the whole front of your property if there isn't one there and then run a five foot sidewalk from that sidewalk to your front door. Correct. In heavy commercial. What do you think?

Where is that standard on heavy commercial property? From the examples I looked at, yes. Give us examples of heavy commercial uses. Let me look at my use chart. Welding or machine shop, warehousing, media manufacturing, vehicle and equipment sales, outdoor, a rodeo, which begs the question, what is the front door of a rodeo?

Okay, keep going. Um, see, construction sales and service, that's one. Wholesale or business services, [laughter] agricultural research, sales and service, and grain storage. I I think where you're getting hung up is providing a sidewalk from the sidewalk at the street to the front door when every requirement. Mostly ADA would require from the parking lot to the front door with ADA considerations. Where would they get out of their car?

Why are we taking it all the way to the street? And I think your answer is going to be because we're trying to create a pedestrian friendly environment, but is a heavy commercial pedestrian environment. Yeah, it's valid point. That's that's that's my whole thing is pedestrians shouldn't be in heavy commercial property. I wouldn't think most most the time.

Oh, that's just the one that stood out to me. And then the 25% uh masonry commercial. The masonry I put in there because it was in the South Broadway plan. Um but if we've seen issues with it before, we don't have to do it.

Well, one, I think it should be if anywhere facade only. to requiring masonry, I don't know, gets you the level of beautifification that was hoped in that plan. Architectural style alone would dictate it. It doesn't belong everywhere. And if that's what the goal is, is uniformity, then that's a different problem. But I I I think the the purpose of it is to have something something that's a little more attractive from the street, but I think there's a lot of ways to do that that doesn't require brick. So, I think that's open for discussion, but

I agree. Sorry. I I agree with you.

I I'm I'm hesitant to dive too deep into strict architectural control. I get what the other side is, which is [clears throat] we don't want it to be a free-for-all, and we'd like for whatever goes in to be nicel looking, but arbitrarily requiring a percentage of brick on the facade doesn't necessarily mean mean the business is any nicer or or anything else. I think it's just an arbitrary requirement. I I think your point about the sidewalk is a good one, especially for heavy commercial. And if if you think of it like what is proposed in the code, which is we recommend your building be all the way up to the front of the setback line. That's great. But around here, more than likely, most businesses would put a parking lot in front and that would be the front door. And now we're requiring a sidewalk ac across a parking lot, which doesn't make a lot of sense. to have a separate sidewalk if we've got a concrete parking lot or an asphalt parking lot anyway that can be used for pedestrians. [clears throat] I don't know that it's got to be an ADA compliant path from the street all the way to the front door. I think the ADA stalls in the parking lot accomplish that. But I think all of that is up for discussion. And then then I think if if we're even doing striping from the roadside sidewalk to the front door, then we're going to be causing issues with parking lots as well.

Yeah. The rest of the HC district design standards are recommendations. This is the only one that is requirement, the sidewalk. So we could change the sidewalk to just being a recommendation. Now I'm even thinking about the sidewalk. commercial or anything else. Is the goal to just have a hard permanent surface? The goal is to have pedestrians with the same level of priority as cars.

So then could we change sidewalk to hard permanent surface? That means if there's already a parking lot there, it's covered. And if there's, you know, 20 ft from the sidewalk to the parking lot, well, you have a 20ft sidewalk to the parking lot and you walk across the parking lot. Having pedestrians walk through the sidewalk is giving priority to cars and not conducive of a walkable environment because you have to walk through the car infrastructure to get to the pedestrian entrance. So, this would give them a pedestrian entrance into the area into the building. I would allow a sidewalk through a parking lot, but I think it should be delineated. I know lots of places put brick or stamped concrete as a sidewalk and parking lot. And that's nice for a marking, but it doesn't mean that the cars can't drive right over it because No, it doesn't. They will. They would have to.

Yeah. So, really, that's just And more than likely, what it's going to be is a yellow striped hatch pattern through the middle of the parking lot from one end to the other. And what good does that really do pragmatically? Not much. Well, that's not entirely true.

At least it gives you an an area to expect pedestrians if they're walking through a parking lot. So, as a driver, you see that and you think, "Okay, well, that's striping. That's where someday a pedestrian will be." Today was probably not that day. But I I don't I don't disagree with a a marked, striped, delineated walking space for pedestrians through the parking lot. I think that's not a terrible idea. I I I I get where you're going with it. I'm just trying to make sure that we're not creating a system that is going to scare off everybody that's potentially going to build a business here. So,

is is recommending it enough in everybody's mind to No, I I don't think recommendations really have any weight whatsoever. And if they don't want to do it, they're not going to do it. If they do want to do it, they're going to do it. Um, it's a valid point. Laws and rules should be requirements or not at all. So then, [clears throat and cough]

so I think maybe we should say something about, you know, a hard permanent surface um that's either a sidewalk um a brick path or otherwise delineated with appropriate striping. You know, worded that way and that way you will guarantee a path from point A to point. I think ADA is going to dictate that. If you've got a pedestrian path from Well, when you're striking, I don't know if it's covered by ADA. It is. It is.

So then call it an ADA compliant pedestrian path. Well, creates different issues, but because you're gonna So, if you do do that, you're going to get into slope and everything else within a parking lot. Yeah. But I I think my point is whether you say ADA compliant or not, it has to be ADA compliant. Yeah.

So us requiring the sidewalk or pedestrian way or whatever we if we're going to make this decision, we have to know going into it, this is what we're requiring. We're requiring an ADA compliant path from either the sidewalk or the street all the way to the front door. So, and and by me saying ADA compliant path, that means that if you're going across the parking lot, you would have to have a strike whereas if you didn't say that, you would have to just leave them walking across the parking lot, which well,

if if we didn't require anything, say we take the sidewalk requirement out completely, it would be allowed obviously, but not required. So, you wouldn't have to delineate a path. Correct. But there would still be ADA requirements for any parking or any egress. They would be the ones that are already in place now. And that's governed by uniform building code amongst other things. Right. So what we would be doing now is is a requirement above and beyond that. Yeah. And I I think what I'm hearing from you is we would like to make that requirement to encourage a pedestrian friendly environment. Correct.

Okay. But you're not going to require existing businesses to do that. Just new businesses. Not unless they had significant redevelopment. They'd be considered non-conforming for the sidewalk. Um so if they invested a certain amount into their business, um they'd be required to install the sidewalk. It's a pretty big disincentive, but all right. I'm okay with removing it from heavy commercial. Do you want to go down the list and figure out where we draw the line? I mean, how far back do you go? I think that's the question. Yeah.

If if if we're not if we're not going to cut it out completely, I think we have to find the spot where it makes sense and draw the line. Yeah.

But I think that's the discussion we're having. And I don't disagree with trying to create a pedestrian friendly environment. I think we just have to do it in a way that makes sense and isn't, like I said, overly burdensome. So, [clears throat] where do you want to start? I would be okay with removing the sidewalk requirement from HC and making it a recommendation because even though it's not required, it does give staff a basis to ask that they install the sidewalk. But I would hope to leave it in the rest of the commercial districts,

which would be MFA, LC, and HMC. MF LCM,

thoughts. So, I'm going to go back to HC real quick. Are you saying to remove it completely or are you saying to remove the pedestrian access from the public sidewalk or the street side primary to the ent? She's saying make it a recommendation, not a requirement. Okay. that portion or are we talking about if there are inadequate public sidewalks along the street a minimum of five five foot that would still have to be required along the street I would make because I think they're two we're talking two separate things

I would make the whole point too where we require the pedestrian access from the sidewalk and constructing the sidewalk both of them make them recommendations both recommendations and then in the other ones it would still be requirement for both. Yes.

Anybody have a strong feeling one way or the other?

I mean, HC is the one that stood out to me, but LC standing out, too. I mean, what if what if your LC area is undeveloped and you're going to sell a piece of property or somebody's going to sell a piece of property and then they have to put a 5ft sidewalk across the front of it and they're the only ones there or there's they're the ones that are right beside, you know, five lots that have been sold 50 years ago and then they're going to be a five foot sidewalk and no other sidewalk. So, let's shop that scenario. You're walking to nowhere. It'd be an island sidewalk. Yeah, it wouldn't be the only place it has ever happened.

I don't have any specific examples for in the city of Hazeville, but sidewalks do sometimes end in the middle of nowhere. So, I have an example for you. [cough and clears throat] Uh, Ace Hardware, that whole center there, there's sidewalk there now. Right. If if I bought something in there five years ago before that was redone and sidewalk put it on both sides of the street. Would I have to go all the way out to the far end of that parking lot and put in a sidewalk between the frontage of my building or at least my space in that building?

You'd have to install the sidewalk along the ride of way which is all the way out at the street. Yeah. So 200 some foot from my front door. And for that district, it's still required that I have a pedestrian friendly path from there to my front door. What district is that in to each entrance? No, just mine. Everyone and everyone in that everyone will have to have a separate one. Yeah, that's where I was going.

Yeah. So you see where we're getting. If you've got a strip center and you've got separate, maybe we can allow them to tie together. Maybe there's not an opportunity because they're not going to develop one next to each other. I think we're creating a situation that doesn't necessarily fit all uses and we need to have a mechanism to not require it when it seems ridiculous. And what if it's an existing LC building that doesn't have a sidewalk that like your strip center? Yeah. That changes hands. So you go in there and buy it after the fact you have to put sidewalk in front of your portion only, right? Yeah. So there'd be

there's a lot of sidewalks that end in nowhere, but they come from somewhere. You're talking about a complete island that they need to get on from another sidewalk because it's not connected to anything. So I have another step for that example that specific use. There's a Kansas gas easement that runs right behind the rideway line that has specific requirements and they don't want sidewalk on top of their gas line in their easement. That is a private easement. So where does my sidewalk go now? That is a good example.

So my my point in all of this is there has to be a mechanism to do away with the ridiculous and right now the code doesn't have that. Um would it be easy just to add in that um see what does it say right now? The ones that are re that say recommended those can be modified and waved as needed um because they're not required but the ones that are required as they're written right now would require a variant um which is a public hearing. We could do I do not vote for more public hearings. We could do a special exception with the BCA that's not a public hearing.

I think I'm leaning towards just not requiring at all. I I get what you're getting at, but I don't think there's a good way to manage it. I don't think there's a specific location other than uses in the future which have frontloaded commercial right on the street that's a walkable environment which is something like in Lawrence on Mass Street not something we have here and if we want to create it we can create a special district with sub requirements for that district that encourage it or require it there but I don't want to try to do it citywide I think trying to imple implement it, especially with existing businesses, is going to be more problematic than it's worth. I don't think we're ever going to make all these connections happen. I think it should be city's job to require and [clears throat] install sidewalk in the rightway, not private business. I mean, somebody else speak up if I'm on the wrong track, but

No, I I would agree with that. I mean, it it does make sense to me like if there was a special zone where we wanted to put this into place and that you could do it right from the start and then everybody would go in. I think trying to do that throughout the city is going to be very difficult to manage.

So, so why don't we just say if you're looking for a walking path, say that there must be a walking path from the sidewalk to the the business entrance if a sidewalk exists. And that way, um, if the city comes in and puts in a sidewalk, well then a sidewalk exists. But if the city doesn't and there's no sidewalk out there, you don't have to just create a floating chunk of concrete out there just to satisfy some strange. [clears throat] I I still think we're in the same situation with yeah pre-existing buildings that are 200 feet away from the sidewalk and now a new tenant comes in and now they are required to make a right away through the parking lot over by

I wouldn't I wouldn't think a new tenant should trigger that. Um I I would think that if a um you know well that's a question for her. If they sell the building, would a new tenant trigger that? Or if they made substantial changes to the building, they might have to bring out. I guess my question would be if we're not going to require it there to improve the entire totality, then what is the point in in requiring it for somebody else's building?

Because you'd require for new construction and then you'd require some significant changes to the building, especially the parking lot. So then that would be a question for you is what what would be a substantial change?

So I was just looking at our non-conforming. So the existence of a sidewalk would be considered an other nonconformity which um this is always stated that it's this the general policy of the city to eliminate those as quickly as practable and that is triggered by an increase on the premises of more than 30% in floor area or 50% value. any change in use. So, a new tenant. Um, and then not everyone, only if it's a different use. Oh, different use. Yes. Um, and then whether those non-conformities be actually brought into conformance that could that's subject to a variance.

And when you say a change of tenant, does that mean if I sell the building to somebody else or does that mean if I have a different leaser in there? If you're a different leaser and only if that lease is doing something different than the person that was in there before. Yeah. If you go from retail to office, that change would trigger other non-conformities to be changed or be to brought into it have to be allowed within the zoning code district that you're in use that you're in. Otherwise, it's a zone change and it's something different. I think we're kind of getting in the weeds on this. I mean, if if we're going to have the requirement, I think we've been in the weeds for a while.

If we're going to have the requirement, then it should only be if there's an existing sidewalk. Otherwise, we'll still requirement. I think I'm of the opinion that we just strike it and look for opportunities to include this in specific districts and areas in the future. I like that. Do we want to leave it as a recommendation at all or remove it entirely for now? Remove it entirely because we don't have a good solution for this. I would.

Yeah. I I don't see the value in leaving it as a recommendation if we can't get half the examples that we're thinking of to work. I think if someone wants to put a sidewalk, they're going to put a sidewalk in and our recommendation isn't going to carry carry weight. Okay, that change is marked. Any other questions?

Are we still talking about masonary? We are still in commercial. Okay. Do you have another point after this? We have the special overlay districts. Okay. I

So this is over section 416 and 417, our protective overlay district and our historic district. Um the major changes are creating a new article and calling it special zoning districts. Um, adding legal descriptions for the lots affected by the historic district overlay. Reestablishing the prohibited uses in the historic district overlay, consolidating the dimensional uses and use standards into tables in the HDO district, and reestablishing the landscape regulations for the historic district overlay. Reestablishing them.

Reestablishing them. There was like one sentence that had been removed at some point. Um, see if I can find it. Um, existing characteristic features such as trees, walls, paving materials, fencing, walkways, and other similar structures or site features that site features that reflect the historic district's history and development shall be retained whenever possible. And any added landscaping shall be appropriate to the scale and unique features of the district. That was removed. That was removed.

So, Let's say hypothetically there's a pebble path that we'd like to make into a sidewalk. Does that fit within the requirement that we're getting ready to add? Probably not. Because it's an existing feature that should be maintained, right? Yeah. Should be retained whenever possible. [clears throat] That one we can remove. Has any of this been run by historic committee? Uh, no. We do meet um next Tuesday.

I would very much suggest we get their opinion on some of this also.

Okay. So, when I went in and added the legal descriptions of the plots and lots that are affected by the HCO district, um I also found an old map of the area that was in the original historic district overlay regulations. So, that's back in here now. So, if you're unfamiliar with the area, you can really tell what this actually affects. And then the list of prohibited uses were added back into the regulations because the historic district is an overlay. So it just adds on to the base zoning district. Um and the base zoning district is lake commercial. Um so this way the uses that are allowed in lake commercial that we don't actually want historic district are prohibited.

Okay. That's really the extent of the changes to the overlay districts. So for the statement that we're adding back in, will you reread that as it is written now with the change for the landscaping? Well, for whatever remains left in it.

Um, however, existing characteristic Oh, it says the requirements of of appendix E section 501, so the landscaping regulations shall be waved. However, existing characteristic features such as trees, walls, paving materials, fencing, walkways, and other similar structures or site features that reflect the historic district's history and development shall be retained whenever possible. And any added landscaping shall be appropriate to the scale and unique features of the district. And what part were you going to strike? The however to the end. So the landscaping regulations will be waved and the rest of it wouldn't apply. Okay.

Okay. That's the extent of the changes. Yeah. Good. You need anything from us on that? We actually need to go back to commercial. Um, we didn't talk about the 50% transparency of the facade.

Yep. Um, in your staff reports, there's about three pages of pictures of commercial buildings in Hazville. Um, and I went ahead and calculated the percentage of their facade that is windows and doors. Um, the current regulations recommend or require that 50% of retail establishments, 50% of the facade of retail establishments is windows and doors. So, it be 50% transparent. Um, a good example of what that would look like is Doug's Auto. It's 53% transparent. Then there's also examples of one building that is 72% transparent and some buildings that are 30% and 20% and less. This is a recommendation that I thought could be a point of contention. Um, especially when it came to new development. Um, so I did want to leave this up to your guys's decision on how much would be transparent, if any.

What's the purpose of it? Um, so retail spaces are open and visible to people walking past. So, you don't have Dollar General on here? No, I do not. And you also don't have like the grocery store on here. I would assume those are much less than, you know, 25%. leakers I could see would being much less than 16%.

So I'm just thinking about typical build for some retail establishments. So a Dollar General, um even a Dollar Tree, not just in Hazville, but they typically have a kind of set architectural design. [clears throat] Most of them are not 50%.

Yeah, there's no windows on a Target. There's no windows on a Walmart. I'm not sure that the requirement for transpar transparency with their font from a retail setting is necessarily getting us what we think we're getting. I think there are situations where yeah, natural light or whatever you're trying to establish is beneficial, but [clears throat] I think it's not something that I think we should require. I agree. Any other thoughts? I I agree. What's the

And if we're not going to require it, we shouldn't recommend it. Yeah. Is that Is that the reasoning behind it is just natural light in the front of the building? So, they're designed to encourage and complement pedestrian oriented activity again with pedestrians. Is is that implying that buildings without windows are not pedestrian friendly? They're not visible and accessible from the street. And these buildings are substantially away from the street. So yes,

I think I think we're again trying to apply a walkable downtown situation to a instance that we don't have similar to everything else we've talked about. I I just don't know that it makes a lot of sense. And I I think all of these are requiring things unnecessarily that are in the end going to hurt potential development, not spur it on. So I think I'm of the opinion that we would strike it and I agree. Does that require a vote?

No. Okay. If there's other discussion, especially to the contrary, I think speak up and let's talk about it. But is everyone generally in agreement with that? Yeah. Okay. How do we feel about the requirement that resident non-residential space have windows on all sides of the building not face visible from the street? I don't see the benefit in that either. Non nonresidential. So anything residential, anything above residential?

No, anything that's not residential. So everything from heavy commercial up down. Yeah. Yes. Um, I think this is specific to the district. See where it ends. It was pretty heavy commercial as well. It's not in heavy commercial, but it is in MFA, LC, and HMC. That non-residential space have windows on all sides of the building visible from the street. It doesn't require how much windows, just that one exists.

Okay. Yeah. visible from the street is going to be difficult for a lot of that to start. I also don't see the benefit of it. And if I have a a warehouse or something similar, I don't know why we're requiring them to have windows. If if we don't want it in retail, then I don't think we want it anywhere. What about What about a church? We're not saying you can have windows. Yeah. We're just saying we're not going to require it. Yeah, but some churches don't want windows. Okay. Sorry, I thought you were going the other way with that. Okay,

it's not related to fire code or something, is it? No, I've scratched that from all of the districts. Okay. cover sorry brick facade requirements while we're here yeah I would strike that I think from an articular perspective I understand what you're looking for but I think it can be covered in different ways do you have thoughts yeah I I get it on some districts maybe but not on the heavier districts and then get it to LC. And

to me, that isn't as out of line as some of the other stuff we're talking about. I I obviously the purpose is trying to get uniformity and a nicer level of facade for businesses, commercial, all of that. [clears throat] And 25% of the facade in brick, I don't think is unreasonable. I think it doesn't necessarily go with, you know, the standard building architectural style of an O'Reilly's, for example. Right. [cough]

But I think if we're talking about 25% of the front face of the facade, I I mean, I wouldn't have a concern if that's what we decided to do. I don't know that I would say necessarily need to be at all signs. The guideline recommends that it's 25% of the front facade. Yeah. And it's just a recommendation based on what citizens had said they wanted from South Broadway. Is is written in the code as a recommendation, not a requirement? Yes, it's a recommendation.

Well, then like the other recommendations, I think it's probably is anything else while we're here. Okay,

that was all of it. Okay, that covers just that item C. Yes, I didn't see you. We're done with Okay. Uh correspondence. So, these are the same as um what we had in last time. I think zoning from mixed uses um was in our January agenda packet. Um that's again just some information on mixed uses, their benefits, um reasons for why we're making these changes. And then the introduction to design guidelines was to supplement um those design standards that we talked about for the the commercial districts. And those are going to mirror the discussion we've had here tonight for the most part.

Okay. Any other discussion on those two items? Uh off agenda. Next meeting date I think is March 26th, not February 22nd. No, we've canceled our um February 26th meeting. This replaces that. Okay. Um March 26th will hopefully be a public hearing for the zoning regulations. Hopefully. Hopefully. Fingers crossed. So March 12th or March 26th. Did you 26th?

Okay. Item nine. I move we adjourn. Second. Have a motion second to adjourn. Question. Williams. Hi. Troop. Hi. Asia. Hi. Ricky. Hi Blood. Hi. Thank you everybody.