Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

ation. We move to comments and opposition. All speakers receive three minutes, but if you're here representing a specific interest group, such as a homeowners association, please let us know so we may allocate the appropriate amount of time. When addressing the commission, please provide your name, address, and nature of your interest in the project. After public comment, the applicant or the representative may request a two-minute response. Please note the timer. It will display a yellow light when you have 30 seconds left and a red light when your time has expired. Once we have heard from members of the public, the planning commission will discuss the item. We will not receive additional public comments unless there is a specific question to be addressed. Exhibits may be displayed by the applicants or public at the podium. Written correspondence yesterday has been forwarded to the commission and is part of the public record. Any additional written materials to be placed into the record must be read during the public comment period. Please direct your comments to the planning commission and not the applicants. And please refrain from applauding or jeering any of the speakers. And finally, please note that the meeting is being broadcast live and our microphones are very sensitive. Please silence cell phones. So with that, would anybody like to introduce staff reports with the motion?

Let's make a motion. I'll second that. All right. All in favor say I. I. Anybody like to discuss the meeting minutes from September meeting or move to approve? That's been approved. All right.

Um, all those in favor say I. I. All right. Um, May courts, anything from Mayports? Sorry. Uh, no. I I don't think we have anything to report. No.

All right. Are anybody here to comment on Mayports? Okay. Um, so with that, let's move to item number one under old business, 480 South Village Avenue, SUP 2025-07-1361. All righty. Good evening. Uh, the following is the staff report for 480 South Village special use permit 2025071361. The request is for a special use in CO Village Mill Avenue corridor overlay for a sorority use. Uh the proposal is to demolish the existing front building and construct the new building uh for assembly space. Uh in addition, there is some work being done to reconfigure and add parking spaces um as well as some other renovations on site. There have been seven variances requested uh as part of the special use permit request. These variances are slightly different from the original request that you all saw uh previously. Some have been subtracted, some have been modified, and some have been added. So, there's kind of been changes all across the board on those. Uh here is an aerial view of the existing site. This is the current future land use, which is mixed use residential, and that will be unchanged. This is the uh current zoning on the left which is commercial office with the millillage avenue corridor overlay and then uh on the right is the proposed adding the special use permit indicated by the triangle. Here's a photograph of the front of the existing building. On the left there is the neighboring property to the south and the neighboring property to the north. On

the right, here's some other photos of the site. Uh the current entrance, uh sort of the the route around the property. Here's some existing parking along the south side of the existing building. All right. Uh the requested variances are as follows. As I said, there are seven of them. uh the first letter A variance from section 9103 to increase the maximum lot coverage from 65% to 85.1% which is an increase from the original request uh variance B uh from section 9103 to decrease the minimum landscaped area from 35% to 14.9% this represents a decrease from the original request uh variant C from section 9127 to increase the maximum floor area ratio within in the Mill Avenue special district overlay from 0.5 to 65. That is unchanged from the last time you saw this. Uh variance D uh from section 932 A3 to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 154 to 35 onsite plus an additional 45 offsite which has been adjusted from the original request. uh variance E from section 939E6B to allow uh no additional screening of the rear parking area to Clark Central High School uh which is the same unchanged from the last time you saw it. uh variance F from section 8715C to reduce the minimum amount of conserved tree canp from 25% to 7.3 that's a new request and variance G from section 8715C to reduce the minimum amount of total tree canopy from 50% to 32.5%. Here's the proposed site plan. I realize it's kind of hard to see from here but you all have copies in your packets. Um you can sort of see the proposed new

structures here. Uh the existing building to be demolished in the front and the renovations to take place in the rear as well as the parking to be readjusted. From the some of the changes from the last time you've seen this is addition of a uh parking island tree there as well as some other minor changes from the last time you saw it. In terms of the staff recommendation, uh staff has gone through the variance requirements and found that uh we can support variances C, E, and F. Variant C being for the floor area ratio um which staff has found to be nearly compliant if the basement is not concluded included in the calculation and given that it's below grade staff um had reason to support that. Uh variance E for the elimination of the screening requirement um would support the retention of existing uh development on the property and variance F uh in terms of the conserve canopy. The trees are already there and you can't conserve canopy trees that don't exist. Uh in terms of the other variances, uh the other four do not meet the five criteria for staff to be able to justify variance approval. We'll run through those quickly. um variance a in terms of lot coverage. Uh it's a large increase to an already non-conforming site. Uh if the new chapter house was reduced in size, this would not be as large of an increase to the nonconformity. Uh variance B in terms of minimum landscape area, similar to the to variance A. It's a large increase to existing nonconformity. Uh variance D uh in terms of required amount of parking spaces. Um this is pime this variance request is primarily due to the large amount of assembly space. Um and the parking proposed is less than 23% of what would normally be required for that amount of assembly space plus the residential. And then finally variance G um in terms of the minimum amount of total tree canopy

um if the new chapter house are smaller there is potential for more trees to be added to the parcel. So finally uh overall staff is recommending denial. In general staff is uh finds that the sority use in and of itself is compatible um both with the comprehensive plan partially uh and with the future land use map zoning map and the ordinances. Uh however staff main concerns have to do with the four variances that cannot be supported and that is the reason for the denial recommendation. However, if uh this body were to approve uh this project, staff recommends the following conditions uh in that instance. Number one, uh a direct sidewalk connection will be constructed from the front of the easternmost structure to the public sidewalk along Milage Avenue. And number two, the proposed parking agreement uh with the Clark County School District uh in terms of the shared parking um would be recorded with the clerk of courts and be submitted to planning as part of the plans review process. and that that recorded agreement should be in place prior to receiving the certificate of occupancy. That concludes the staff report from the applicant get myself all ready here. Okay, I'm Brett Thurman. I represent the owners of the parcel who are Hobnail Boot LLC and Alpha Z Delta LLC. Um, if we were here last couple months ago address,

excuse me, do I have an address? I may be homeless right now.

Oh, no. No. 330 Research Drive happens to Um, so we were here a couple months ago, you tabled it rightly and so we went back to the drawing board mainly to um negotiate with the fire marshall and what he needed and we were successful in that. Uh we we went back to we're adding or making the drives there minimum 12 foot wide drive aisles. So we're creating 12 foot drive aisles. We created enough space in the parking lot between the the angle parking you see there and the parallel parking below that allows fire trucks to come up in there and put down their their feet they bring out to give them st the outriggers so they're so they are adequately stable while they're fighting fire. And then we also added an additional thing that they didn't ask for, but they really liked it, is that we're providing three FDC's, fire department connections at the vault, the fire vault in the front. And so therefore, each of those three lines, one goes to the front building, one will go to the middle building, and one will go to the rear building. So they could their pumper truck does not have to get on the property. And they thought this was a really good thing. So we're happy to have made them happy over that. um the wider drives and pushing the we had to push the sidewalk and drives on the south side there to squeeze it all in. That essentially drove the total impervious to above 5,000 square feet threshold. Uh so we created a pvious pavement area with an under drain. That's that entire parking lot right there that you see. Um, this is sized to provide the rainfall recharge requirement and control the two and 25-year rain events per the Athens Clark County ordinance. Uh, I size the pvious pavement so that

the total impervious is lower than existing if we count the pvious pavement as pvious area. And we'll throw some numbers at you here. The total impervious on the site today is a little over 31,500 square feet. It's 75.8% impervious. Now, our plan increased the impervious to 35,600 ft or the 86.1% impervious. Now if we consider that the impervious payment area I put on there which totals 8,410 square ft then my total reduced impervious that we will have then if we make that consideration that the pvious payment is the same as pvious area we have 27,49 square ft of impervious which is just it's 64.99% so we're just under 65% impervious which is required by the site. So I'll point out that this total pvious area is much more than the amount required to do the required rainfall recharge and the detention capacity. As a result, we're going to be overdetaining even the 100red-year event. And on top of that, we're directing it down the alley. So it's a shorter distance down to the down to the curb curve inlet which is at Clark Central High School and therefore taking a lot of rain water off of the front of the property. It's going to go to the back and not in millillage and not down Baxter except for right at the curb in it. Um, overall in my opinion, and I may be wrong, I usually am, I could have obtained staff concurrence on all these variances if I could have been able to. I mean, if I've been able to get all the variances in the way, packaged in a way

that we could get approval. Uh, but I can't. There's four that aren't. Uh, we have the three that they're recommending approval on, which is the F, the rear screening, and the conserved canopy. Um so that's a step in the right direction. I feel those they couldn't support are parking increase in impervious coverage reduction in pvious coverage and reduction in total canopy. All right. So I want these in turn say so on parking there's a type five special use pro project report that's in the in the permanent record in Athens Clark County. Okay. And I I didn't find this out until just a little while ago. I mean 30 days ago, but there but the guys at Ki put together an anal an analysis to show what's been what's existing and in effect what has continued to be approved as sororities and fraternities populate uh on the south millage or move to a new place and have to go through this. But in essence, they showed that on average, all the Greek organizations between Lumpin Street and somewhere south of Bloomfield, but not to Baxter, um, uh, have parking spaces that have enough parking most of the time, but just enough. For instance, Sigma Kappa has 54 beds and they have 63 spaces on site. That's nine. Zeta has 60 spaces. is they have 64 spaces on site. So they're over by four. Um there's a number that are less. Lambda Kalpa is 16 below the number of spaces number of beds for parking spaces. And high beta 5 is the same way. They're eight under what's required um for just to get cover the beds. On average, that's total of beds on average in those turns and swords,

it's 55 beds and they've got 57 parking spaces on site, which is two. So, all that to say then is to get down to the punchlines. Our plan is 34 beds and 35 parking spaces. So, I feel like we're in in the range of what's been previously approved through the mayor and commission process. Um, so impervious coverage increase and pvious decrease. I'm just going to talk these together because they're they're they're joined at the hip. So, we need the increase in impervious for our programming and also for the fact that the fire marshall wanted needed 12oot fire lanes and wanted more access south of the south of the apartments there in the area where they might want to be in when they're fighting a fire. So, so that drove us up higher and but to mitigate this I came up with the proposed pvious area. So, we're doing pviousness on site that will get us down to the impervious total of 65%. Now, granted staff can't say oh pvious pavement is equal to pvious area but in effect uh that's what we're doing. Um then also I don't have really a good any option to mitigate the pvious area decrease beyond putting in purgous pavement. I can't open up an area somewhere that I can put in trees and put in grass. But I will say that the that the extent of the chamber areas below the previous pavement is such that the um the water retained and infiltrating in the in the soil is as much or greater than that what you're getting off of the existing condition right now which is mainly the front yard. Um so I feel like that's that's an

improvement. Then the reduction in total canopy with our site design and applying all the codes for trees. We just can't make the required conserved canopy unless I create a forest in the front yard. Um we we did meet the total conserved canopy on the previous plan but by the the places where we had to put in more impervious for the fire marshall reduced. We had a number of trees up against the buildings, a planting area there, and we had to we had to forego that and that drove down the down the knee. And with the utilities in the front on Millage Avenue plus a power pole that runs across the entrance drive there at the Capacama House for their power, we just can't do any I can't get any large trees there. Just can't get them. So, we've put as many big trees that will meet the requirement. And so, we've we've added medium trees to the front yard and push them back away from the power line so that they'll so that they can grow. And they're in a big open expansed area there. They should have no problems. And then we have a a small smattering of small and mainly small trees in the back because the islands are so small. We couldn't fill them with a large tree. I think we got a couple large trees on the left side there and that one set next to the rear parking that has the where the angle parking is. There's two trees there. One of those is large. So, we and I work hard to do that to get the tree canopy up. I'll be more than happy to work with planning and the forestry uh community forester to maximize total canopy within the areas, you know, we have for the trees where they can be planted on site. In conclusion, our client has agreed to change to our original plan which create opportunity to comply with the spirit of the MUN code. We ask therefore for a

vote on a motion to approve the plan with all the variances submitted. We also agree with staff recommendations for conditions to the plan connecting to South Mills with the sidewalk. And that's actually on our plan. You can't it's hard to see but it's up there right by the drive uh coming off the on the north side running right there parallel to the drive. It's on the plan and also our we must have our parking agreement signed, recorded and in the planning department file prior to certificate occupation. Thank you. Thank you.

Um anybody speaking? Oh, sorry. Are we ring in favor? Right. Yes. Sorry. It's been a long time. Anybody here to speak in favor of the application?

I'm David Matheni. I live at 200 Mount Vernon Place. I'm Brett Thurmy's partner at architectural end of things. Um, first I want to thank you for the extra 30 days because I thought it would prove to be very valuable to us internally. And hopefully you'll find that we've taken that time and used it wisely to help you all step over the threshold of a of a recommendation for approval. One of the things that I wanted to talk about with regards to parking is that when you do use the assembly space in our proposed buildings, it's it's not logical that we would have a full chapter room area and a full dining room area and a full study hall area because these are all the same girls at one time. It's much like a church when we do a fellowship hall. We don't count a full sanctuary and a full fellowship hall when we when we're dealing with parking. So, I think that we've, you know, worked hard to um add as much parking as we can. And I'm very happy that we had a very successful meeting with the fire marshall and he's extremely happy now and supportive of this project. And um so I feel like that we have done what we need to do to try to get this site ready and available for a sarity who much wants to be on campus. And by the way, I had a meeting with President Morehead and he thought this was a very good place for a sorority. Just happened to talk about that with him. Not that that would have any influence on y'all, but just wanted you

to know that. And um obviously so far, I hope I'm not wrong tonight, that um we've not had any controversy about this location for a sarity. And I feel like that goes a long way with the idea that this could be a great location. Of course, we are very happy to accept the petitions that staff placed on this if y'all decide to approve and move this forward to mayor and commission with with that approval. And we are happy to answer any further questions that you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody here to speak in opposition to the proposal? Is there anyone else to speak in favor? Is there anybody here to speak in?

I don't need to give my name, address, anything. I'm Katie Baker. I live at 200 East Cloverhurst Avenue. I'm a founding member of Alphacy Delta. So, I'd like to thank y'all for the work that you've put in on this property. It means a lot to see our house finally um some motion happening on it. It's great. I wish I could have been in the room when we found out that we secured a property. Um, that was amazing. I'd like to address the parking issue. Most of the women that are using this space live on campus, and this space is on a campus bus line. I believe it's on a city bus line as well. Um, so I'm not sure why parking would be an issue in this scenario. I know I live about half a mile away from the house. Um, most sority women do live around millillage. So, and as long as it's on par with other Greek life facilities that um like you addressed earlier, I'm not sure why that would be an issue with parking, but hopefully that's something that could get hammered out. And I'd like to thank you all again just as representative of Al Delta. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else to speak in favor of um anybody speaking opposition?

All right. Hearing none, we'll take it behind the wrap. Um so I um have a few thoughts on the variances. Um and I appreciate the staff report helpful in thinking about things and I mean you know the sort of bigger picture is obviously a as good a location in Athens for a sorority as as I can imagine. you know, uh, we had an application for the red and black building a few years ago for fraternity, which is, you know, block away down Baxter, but all the Henderson Street neighbors u were up in arms about that and and because of the location of this with a clar county parking lot behind it and being right on millillage and being next to a sorority, it, you know, it seems far lower in potential impact on neighbors. Um, and so that's great. I think the um and I appreciate the staff recommendations on variances C, D, and F that they thought that the standards were to me though for the rest of them. Um it seemed to me that the big issue is the existing built conditions already don't conform with a lot of the requirements that we're saying that they don't conform with here. Um, and to the extent that they're going further, you know, by increasing lot coverage even beyond what's already there, um, I understand from the staff report and the applicants presentation that a lot of that is because Clark County is asking for more pavement. The fire marshall likes wide driveways and um, we want a sidewalks. um it sounds like they're willing to do that, but it feels a little bit unfair to hold the increase in coverage against the applicant when they're they'd be, you know, asked to do that by Clark County officials and fire marshall policies and so on. So, um I didn't really have a problem with the increase in the lot coverage u particularly with

the um the Mr. Thurman's um point about the imperous I'm sorry the pvious pavement. Uh so that some of the you know lot coverage is going to absorb water just as much as a grassy meadow would absorb water. So that that sounds u like a pretty good way to adapt the existing built conditions to their needs without dumping a bunch of storm water and doing other things that um impervious surface often can do. Um, so that seemed all perfectly reasonable. Um, I guess I I I did have a couple of question. Well, actually, no, one more thing on the parking thing. I I 154 parking spots is totally insane for this site. That's the entire site, right? I don't I'm not even sure you could get 154 parking spots on a 1acre site. Um, so if the code says to do the thing you want to do here, you need to make the 100% of the site parking, then obviously the code's broken. There's something wrong with the code. So, I'm I'm not that concerned about the parking reduction, particularly with the statistics about what we seem to have allowed all the other um organizations to do. and and you know uh the the um member who spoke you know uh who said she lived half a mile away that's a 12minute walk or something like that I imagine that's probably the case that a lot of them would be walking to chapter meetings and not driving and so I'm just not bothered by the parking at all um so much so that I I'm not sure I even support the second um staff condition about the required agreement being reported um at least that I'd want to know, you know, I I I don't think that they need to get a parking agreement for

100 spots or, you know, um you know, anything near 154 spots. That's crazy. And and I think Mr. Matheni's comment was was a good one that, you know, they're not going to be we're counting all the square footage and generating the parking recommendation, but um they're not going to be, you know, if they're using the dining hall, they're not going to be using the assembly space. and so on. These are these are spaces that are used alternately, not all at once. And so again, I just think that's the calculation in our code is broken and and shouldn't be applied here. Um I did wonder if the and then maybe this is a question for Mr. Thurman. Uh if that's okay, is is that that increasing the lot coverage to 85%. Um you know, that is getting pretty high. Um, I guess it doesn't the site conditions when you drive by it on village it's uphill and you just see the front building and so it's not like it's going to seem like an enormous thing. So I probably okay with that but um but I did wonder if there's you know if there's any way to to um bring that down and and um and also you mentioned uh if you plant you can't meet the uh tree canopy requirement without planting a forest in the front. And so my response is why not plant whatever you can plant in front and and how much how close does that get you?

Well, I I'm not sure I can I can plant large trees in the front and probably get really close to it, but I'm breaking the requirement for it's going to be too close to the field. I think it's 30 30 feet 35 feet. How far from utility line, Stephen? Do you remember? From a utility line. From a utility line. Um, I mean it varies on the utility power. This is power. Okay. So, yeah, I think it is I think it is 30 clear. Yeah. And then you've got distance off the building.

That's correct. And so we're we're we're we're boxing ourselves in there. And I could fit medium trees there, but I didn't think I could fit maybe one large tree, but I can't fit three large trees up in there. And at some point, the large trees become too close together, and the community forest don't like that either. So, I mean I mean I could take away the sidewalk that goes to the building and add back some add back true green impervious area. Um but the the the drives are essentially they are right there between the buildings and the property lines on both sides and so no way I can go in there and we can add any pvious back in those places because then I just that's the what what we're required to do by the fire department.

Thank you. Anyway, I guess that's all I have to say um now. And and um so it sounds like that not only are the additional driveways and sidewalks um increasing the impervious area, but that's the county's request, but also it's eliminating some tree planting sites. And so I'm I'm inclined to think that they've met the standard on reducing the total tree canopy as well. I have a question for staff. Um, why is it that the the pvious pavement doesn't count uh as why why does the pvious pavement count towards the impervious ser surface coverage?

So, it's lot coverage. So, lot coverage is the term that we use. So even pvious paving is paving and if it's being so here's this was the rationale that was given from at the time the commission that was in place that put that reading of that definition into the code is if it's being paved it's being paid for some purpose to put something there particularly if it's a vehicle but it could be other things that is lock coverage and so um pvious paving in and of itself even if it has a coefficient that allows for percolation at the same rate as as turf or as uh you know some other organic material. It that's the only similarity. You know the other things the heat of it the um the fact that it's being used for something to be put on top of it the inability for it to grow things and have the other benefits of that kind of growth that puts it in a different category. So it's um the the pvious is not the same as a landscaped area and that's what the way the code is is written is for landscaped area versus lot coverage if that helps.

That does. Thank you. Um and uh just another question these these problems these were these were issues in the in the first application we saw right like these didn't come come about because of the changes due to the fire marshall like these were already problems the variance request you yeah yeah these were the same requests before the changes for the fire marshall were made right there right so there was a discussion with the fire marshal after the first submitt and there were some As the applicant noted, there were some adjustments made, but yes, these issues existed prior. So, it's not because they changed it for the fire marshall that there is a problem with the maximum lock coverage.

I think and and I'm I may be putting words in the applicant's file. You may want them to come up and explain, but there was a change in the width that did cause um some of the vegetation, for example, the the conserved canopy had to change because of that adjustment. That is one cause and effect.

Okay. Thank you. I think like my general thoughts on this is if you came and asked me where in town should we put a sorority house, I would say Millig, you know, and there's not a whole lot of places on Millig Avenue to put a new sorority house. And so I think this is a real good location for it. You know, I would like to try to make this happen. Um I'm supportive of all the variances. I think too the parking issue doesn't really bother me for the same reason that Matt said. I think that that number is really large when you take like, you know, the maximum amount of people that are going to be there. And that might only happen a couple times a month, you know. So, I'm okay with going with just kind of making sure there's enough parking spots for the people that live there. And that seems to be what they have because that's what's going to be happen on a daily basis. You know, I saw when I was on the hearings board, I saw variances for parking in five points in millillage all the time. there's just never going to be enough parking in Five Points or Village for kind of our modern standards of like how many parking spots you need. So, I think, you know, whenever we're dealing with new developments in those areas, it's it's never parking is never going to be up to standards. And I'm okay with that, too, because, you know, if we're going to try to make town walkable in places, um, you know, and using public transport, then don't give everybody the option to park, you know, because people have a parking spot, they're going to drive. So sometimes I think that not having enough parking for everybody can actually be a good thing and encouraging people to use alternate modes of transportation and I think that that's a great location for that type of encouragement because you know most of the students aren't going to be you know driving. They might be on the bus anyway. So, uh, yeah, and then going to, you know, went out there and looked at it, there's hard, I think the report said there's only like two trees there now, so they can't really do anything a whole lot about, um, with the canopy. And I think they're making a real effort with using the previous pavers and really working with the county as best they can. So, the applicant seems to be very willing to, you know, to do really everything they can as long as they

still get to, you know, have the use that they want for the property. And I think that the use they're asking for is a good one. So ultimately I would I would be in favor of supporting this and maybe even as Matt said doing away with the condition uh for the parking requirement but I I want the other condition. So I do want to be clear before we have more discussion I want to pull apart the use of the sorority on the lot versus the issues with the variances the lot coverage and parking. So, um, but keeping everything that's been said in mind, we want to have more discussion about the use in general. How many votes will this one have? One. Just one. Okay.

How many what votes like? Yeah. Gotcha. I don't need to have more discussion on the use. I personally I agree with what Madame Mike said about being okay with the store use. There couldn't be a better spot not going to be used. So I don't I don't know if anyone else wants to talk about the use part. Okay. A little more in the var. Yeah. Yeah. I just wanted to kind of if if we could if that's a portion that we could sort of settle just maybe focus on the variant that use is perfectly appropriate for agree that

it's a good reuse too kind of of a existing property an older existing property in a way. Yeah. I like that aspect of it. I think what I would add is that you know staff's got staff doesn't have the staff is really constrained by a set of criteria that they need to use to evaluate these variances and whereas if I understand it correctly we can make a recommendation we are allowed to make a recommendation that is not bound by those. Is that right?

Yeah. And so I think generally I while I agree with everything that Matt and Mike just said more or less, I don't agree on the parking. We have an applicant who this um chapter night parking is a real problem. I it's legitimate. I want to live in a world where the college students do not bring a car everywhere. And we're not there yet, but we're getting there. I think that more people are getting used to walking and using transit. But we I think in this case we have an applicant who has offered a parking agreement. It is literally for 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. um during this school year. So it's an hour 5:00 to 7:30 2 and a half hours. So to me it's kind of an insurance policy. I know our parking calculation is a little bit um off on this one, but if I understand the numbers correctly, this site would be par would have just enough parking for the women who live there and the house mother. And so anything beyond that, there's no there's no parking. So, I kind of feel like if the applicant's willing and they feel like Clark County School District is going to be amendable, I don't know why we wouldn't. And also, uh I think you could see some real um uh neighborhood opposition be inspired by to come and speak out against us. removing the parking requirement. So, my vote would be to um would be to recommend approval and go with staff's um recommendations or conditions, I think they call them.

Um I think both I think um I think both staff conditions, the first one is the sidewalk connection and the second one is the parking agreement. And I I guess I just want to maybe invite the applicant. Do you want to speak to the park parking agreement at all or just tell us a little bit more about it or just your general sense about having that requirement? We believe that that the parking agreement is needed uh mainly because of chapter 9. We don't believe the number of parking spaces that were placed in the ordinance is appropriate because that was really done to make sure that there was some things that fraternities and sorities could never meet without coming through the special use process and asking for variances. So we don't mind getting parking agreement. we fully uh intended to and we we will have that agreement prior to the the house being leading the u certificate of occupancy and we know that if we don't get it we can't move in. So we're not asking that to be waved or not not have to apply it. We're just asking for the reduction in the number. And from the first from our first application, we were we had a lot extra more parking spaces there. And it became apparent from your discussion and our thinking that was that was way over the top because if you got 150 girls coming there, you're not going to have every single one of them driving. Okay? You already got 30 that aren't that are there on site. And then you've got others that are nearby and they're going to walk. They're not going to drive over and park in the Clark Central parking lot. So, we feel like that what did I say? 40 I can't 4050 somewhere in that range.

45 is is appropriate. And that helps handle the overflow for the girls. They can they know they got a car pool. They know they can't all park up in there. So, they'll park they'll park at park central. They're right there behind it. They'll walk up the alley to get to the get to the house. And while you're up there, I guess another question I had is um what time are chapter meetings usually? She can answer that. Mondays. Yeah. And so I guess my question would actually be um by because I think staff's condition requires that this parking agreement be in place. Is that right, Bruce? A parking agreement.

Okay. because I just I don't want to um restrict you all like to me having that only be available until 7:30. um why have that like why wouldn't it be nine or you know like I feel like the sority should have the ability to say hey on this you know Monday night in October we actually need to start our meeting at 7 because we've got something else going on and then there's a problem right so I guess what I I just I I want this parking there um this parking agreement to be in place because I what what you're saying is right that the there's enough parking like if all the all the women who go to the chapter meeting live there all parked there so there's actually no on-site parking available theoretically right and so you've got to have something um I just also want to make sure that this particular the wording of this isn'table for you all and so is if there's flexibility I mean it's like you you gota I I want there to be I want the property owner and user to have flexibility

the development community. So that's us and several other groups in the town who have represented fraternities and sororities in their in in their new places where they're building or moving. We're all sort of using the same kind of numbers that have always been done in the past. So that's where that comes from. Okay. I don't mind saying we we'll get with Clark Central and and quite frankly we want to be at five because we're assuming that if there are sority members who are going to come there to eat before chapter, you know. Yeah. So, and so because it they've got a bigger diet because they they're expecting girls to come in and eat with them. That's part of the whole process of being in a sorority, right?

Or a fraternity is having this group living environment. Um and so but for parking for you know if if a beaten goes long yes for sure we could we could widen that out so that that um that that that they're that they're legal, you know. Yeah. It just seems kind of unnecessary or or put a or put something in there that Clark Central agrees with that if they go over they're not going to go tow them

because it's at night and there's nothing going on over there. Well, that actually is another question I had is about lighting and safety. So, if a woman parked in that parking lot, that part because I assume it's just those lot those spaces that you've indicated on the drawing, is that is there would they be walking out to Baxter around or is there a different way through? No, you Well, you can walk all the way you can the code requires us to show it on the on a walkable route. So, we're coming out of the out of the parking lot up the back street sidewalk down south lump down south millillage and then turning up onto the sority property. Okay.

The but in effect there's an alley there that's being used by Capacama and all the people who used to live there at the at the uh in the apartment. It was it's not a it's an active alley. People are they somebody's keeping it clear. Somebody's trimming up the edges where the trees grow in. I don't know whether that's one of the sororities or whether it was it's uh Young Life who own property right up against it. I don't know who's doing that, but they're maintaining that piece that way. Okay. So, they know somebody uses it. And I'm not so sure that the the dumpster truck that used to come in there didn't go out that way too that way based on where I saw the dumpster sitting.

Great. I Yeah, I think I I was just thinking a little bit about sort of safety. Yeah, it's dark in the alley. There's no there's no light in the alley. Yeah, but there is light up Baxter Street and on South Village. Okay. And in the parking lot and Clark Central has lighting. Yeah. Okay. All right. Great. Thanks.

I say my main concern with park with putting the parking I think as a condition is I think maybe we mentioned it before the meeting was about like what if what if the parking what if you know the school district just changes their mind and doesn't want to renew this parking agreement anymore and parking agreements always do have that chance that they're you're kind of putting a third party into the middle of this that can't always be controlled for and we've seen parking agreements in the past go away. you know, like that property that used to be a locos or whatever that doesn't have any parking anymore. So, I guess my main hesitation would just be would be putting a condition on there to where if that parking agreement went away in the future, like I think we should encourage them to have a parking agreement, but I wouldn't want to see them have to like shut down all their operations there just because the school district changes their mind. And I don't know, would that be a possibility if we put that condition on there? That's like 20 years from now if the school district's like we're not going to make parking agreements anymore period then would they have to close down?

I wonder if the answer would be to remove Clark Central from that condition like that they have to come up with an alternative off-site parking agreement if Clark Central falls through for whatever reason. There might not be any other option close by. So that's not true. There's businesses on I mean our office is on village that doesn't use parking. There would be other options. But it's like a walkable distance. You know, they'd have to get a variance if it's too far of a walk.

Let me offer this. The way variances operate, and this board doesn't often see these, so it's worth talking through a little bit. Um, the applicant's role in this is to make a case for meeting the five criteria in what they propose. One of the criteria, as you guys know from reading through it, is that the variance, if granted, represents the minimum variance necessary to address the hardship. The applicant has identified in their response that the minimum they need to address the hardship is a reduction from 154 to a combination of 35 on-site 45 offsite. So they've identified that also as part of their response they've identified the potential partnership with the Park County School District. So that's not coming from staff, that's coming from the applicant in response to the five criteria. Um, the way that condition of approval I think could be interpreted and I would be comfortable doing this is if they need to execute an off-site parking agreement with another entity and they can just achieve the number that was part of whatever an approval might be, then we're fine. If if the provider of the parking changes, I don't think that's the substance of the condition.

So, we would need to reward that. We would not need to word that. And the other thing I want to make clear is the off-site parking agreement is a requirement of code. That really isn't an option to say they don't have to do. Um the only way that that would be something that they don't have to do is if they had asked for the variance to go to zero offsite, but they did not ask for that. So that's the mechanics of the variance. So the question of 45 spaces that are found somewhere, correct? That's right.

It doesn't matter who it's with. Well, it just matters that it had already been claimed by somebody else through an offsite parking agreement. So, there aren't many of those left on Millage. Maybe um I what Sarah said about the parking persuades me, you know, I think it does make sense to to include the second condition. Um and I hear what Bruce is saying too about, you know, um if there were a different one, Bruce would interpret the condition to not really mean Clark Central. Um but, you know, uh one of these days we'll all be dead, including Bruce. and maybe the planning director in 30 years, 50 years um won't remember that was said at this meeting. And so I I um I'm going to make a motion uh and I'm just going to suggest that afterwards Clark Central High School we insert or appropriate substitute as determined by the planning director right in the condition so that it's always known that the planning director has discretion and nobody needs to come back to this body to say like oh we got it with you know somebody else now um can we do that like I I think it ought to be explicit. Um, so, uh, I'm going to make a motion to approve, um, with the the, uh, requested special use permit with the requested variances. Um, and to find that the criteria for the variances are all satisfied. Um and to approve with the staff conditions um inserting the words after Clark Central High School inserting the words or appropriate substitute as determined by the planning director.

We'll second that. Any other discussion? Okay. All right. Motion to approve all variances and the conditions with the extra wording there. Garing, yes. Police, yes. Harrisford, yes. Paul, yes. Mclofflin, yes. Sams, yes. And Lord,

yes. Right. Motion passes unanimously. on stupidness. Um item two um a text amendment regarding home occupation.

Okay. Uh presentation. I'm sorry. Yes.

Yeah. I'll go ahead and we'll we'll just talk through these. Um slide is a summary of what you receive in your packet. Um if you forward with a recommendation, this is the information that we'll present to the committee. But uh this first text amendment is dealing with home occupations. We had a state statute change that necessitated this to come for you come before you to remove the references to cottage food industries needing to provide Georgia Department of A paperwork. um that paperwork is no longer being issued. So, we don't want to unnecessarily hold somebody up for something they're not going to get. Um so, that is being struck. Um while we had this item in front of you, we thought it would be an opportunity for us to discuss the use of accessory structures as part of home occupations. Right now, the code is worded that would prohibit that. Um the purpose of home occupations is really to serve as an incubator for small based home businesses. Small homebased businesses. There we go. Um, with certain guardrails on them and those guardrails aren't being changed with this text amendment with the one caveat that we're suggesting that right now they can only operate inside the primary residence. 25% of that square footage is max they can have. This proposal is to allow for them to also use any accessory structures on site um for their homebased business. Um, but all the other protections would still remain intact. So, um, no signage, uh, no, uh, you can only have one business related vehicle, you can only have one employee. Um, there are certain uses that aren't allowed. There are very certain ones that are. Those things remain in place. So, happy to answer any questions you may have. Um, but this is one of those things that's in our code that actually sets us apart from some other communities um that allows for an administrative approval for somebody to start a business out of their home,

which is kind of cool. Question um is the 25% total for both structures combined. Or is it just 25% of the primary structure and then also you can use the accessory structure? Correct.

Okay. So scenario, if somebody had a homebased business with online sales and they stored the materials in a shed, up to 25% of the home could be used for the home office or whatever setup they have to run that online business and then the material that they're shipping and receiving could be in a shed that in an accessory structure on site. Right now we couldn't say that that was okay.

Okay. So, I generally agree in principle that sounds like a great idea. Um, I'm not sure if the new wording is clear about that. I guess I want to get other people's opinions on that, but I think that I want this to say what you just said and I feel like the fact that I had the question makes it less clear. Okay. Um, and so yeah, I had it says or I had the impression that it was either entirely or the

or the entirely and the or and I think what's also confusing. Yeah, I just don't think that says what you I think it's the or well and and I agree Sarah too. I think entirely maybe trips us up on that. Entirely within A or B suggests one or the other. That's true. Yeah. So I I'm I'm for what you just said. I don't I just think the text needs to be massaged to say that a little more. Let's figure it out so that we can okay change it. So Matt, this is

what if we change shall to may and deleted entirely. may be carried on only within the Well, yeah. No, that's important. Only because the idea is that these can't be carried on in your in the yard. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um only within either like I think either primary or accessory structure or both because you can have the same time, right? You can Yeah. 25% in the house. Yeah. Is the point of the first sentence just to say it happens has to happen inside these structures? Yes. Okay. Well, we say that in the second sentence.

Yeah. Within that's about the primary if it's within but so with the accessory you could you could use the whole thing. I think we need that first sentence entirely like well the we need the first sentence to stop it from being in the yard, right? like using the yard for outdoor storage of goods they're selling or something about them within a structure curious are there any other kinds of structures I think it does require shall then right because it's not it's may is kind of allowing I see what you're saying yeah shall be carried out only within the primary or accessory structure they're just just deleting the word entirely and or accessory structure right

and or because otherwise it just sounds like it's one or the other and or does it within a structure? Yeah, good point. Shall be carried on entirely within a structure. You could keep entirely and just say like it like what you were just saying Kristen just because that's the point is it's has to be in a building entirely. Yeah, if we're doing andor, you could leave entirely and just change over to and or. That's the smallest change that Yeah. Do you have a comment on the elegance of Andor? Incredibly elegant show. Yes. Yeah. Best of the Star Wars shows by far.

Yeah. I think there are other sections of code that use and Okay. Good. Good. All right. Is that So you're thinking I think it works. Keep it the same. just add do and or instead. And I appreciate the discussion. So that technically a condition. It would be an amendment of the wording.

So maybe it's just that that the second sentence is fine. It needs an additional sentence then that says the part that you said like that that use of the accessory structure for the home occupation can occur in addition to the 25% use in the primary structure something like that. I mean, I think we would if that sentence with that change is made to andor, I think we would we would know that that's fair game to operate out of the accessory structure and not be limited to 25% of the accessory structure.

That's right. Yeah. I mean, the primary structure. That's what I was going to suggest. Say that again. So, of heated floor space within the primary structure. Yeah, that would make it clear. Yeah. To know that we're talking about primary structure. No. So when the occupation is carried on within the primary structure, it shall be restricted to the heated floor space. Shall not occupy in excess of 25% of the heated floor space within the structure. Yeah, I don't think it needs Yeah. I think it's only talking about the primary structure in that sense.

It's not talking about the accessory really. Well, then people ask though, well, you're you're specifying what happens in the primary. What about the accessory? Is there another That's kind of what I was saying. That's what I was going to. Yeah. Well, if people like ask then that you can just tell them like I can tell you with home occupations, we have long conversations about all all aspects of things. So, we we that's that's part of what we do. So yeah, we would I might still I mean if I was a homebased business I'm like well it doesn't specify what happens in the accessory dwelling yeah because we're not we're not putting a limit within the accessory dwelling as far as floor space make that clear like does that

no take away any this is the ordinance like it doesn't need to be the guide book right but it just needs to be enforceable correct interpret because that's a something to be a lawyer to understand and be able to look it up online and understand it. So, but every person who's seeking one has to come in and talk to staff anyway to get a permit. And so, there's a conversation where they say, as you can see here, it restricts your how much of your primary structure you can use, but you can also use your accessory structure if you wish. And there's no limitation in the code on that. Yeah. Because nobody's just reading the code then having their and doing it, right? There's always a discussion. There are forms to fill out.

Oh, yeah. Starts. This goes on the home occupation permit. I have one question about why why do we say it has to be only in the heated floor space? Like what if I want to use my basement um or garage for that matter? The I mean heated could be replaced with habitable. Yeah. I mean that's kind of what finished is getting at is is not that I'm I'm I'm sorry to be clear. I'm just saying why is it restricted to the heating floor space? Not. Why is it 25% of the heated? Yeah, you could just say indoor.

I appreciate the question. Well, but if you have a carport and you're under roof game. So, I mean, if if you were to enclose heated floor space, I think is shorthand that that is a little bit antiquated to be honest with you. Um, I think you're you're raising a fair point. We have other sections of code that refer to habitable because then it's then it's not reliant on having the point of saying heated when building code talks about heated space as the minimum necessary for people for habitation. I think to your point if you had a basement you didn't run duct work down there but you set up your table and you know your computer and that's where you had your home occupation that should be okay. Is that fair? I think that that should be okay. I'm wondering why it says it shall be restricted to the heated floor space because you know that you might be storing goods down there.

Well, that was going to get to my question. How so? So so the overarching purpose of this is not to create many storehouses. Yeah.

To not it management of scale is important. That's that's an underlying sort of metric on this to make sure that neighborhoods remain neighborhoods and that if these things happen, they're kind of happening as a very very subordinate function. Um, so taking a crawl space or your eaves and turning it into warehousing is not the point. So the the point is to keep the scale at what's suggested there. So habitable floor space takes away that heated kind of thing that we have to worry about or or be mindful of. If it's habitable, it wouldn't be your three- foot tall crawl space underneath where you shouldn't really be anyway conducting your business. Thank you. There you go. Well said. But if I've got a home occupancy business and I'm selling something online and I'm allowed to show store all of my goods in my accessory building, wouldn't I be able to do that in my basement?

Well, if you're So, the thing about an accessory building is it's they're typically made for you to walk in and walk out. They are habitable in that sense. Your basement, if it's a basement for walking in and walking out, fine. I that's where I agree with changing the word heated. We don't have a requirement for your basement to be heated, right? If heated were were to be swapped with habitable, but an unfinished basement would still be considered habitable. We would Yeah. We're not going to keep you out of your unfinished basement. Okay.

So, you could, let's say you live in a 1,000 foot house. You have 250 ft devoted to a home office to do your thing. You also happen to have an attached garage. You could use your garage, but it doesn't fall inside at 25%. So your attached garage is not an accessory structure, right? Right. So that you've used up your space at home. You've used up your 25% inside the house and then your garage isn't heated. Well, you're already It doesn't matter about heated or anything. You've used your 25% without the garage in your scenario. So you're done. 25% is what you get to do.

You don't get to use that and an attached garage. You're using 25% of the primary structure. I see you're saying that storing goods in my garage I am out of compliance only if you've used already used your 25% elsewhere and it's attached to garage if it's part of the primary structure whole thing you have 25% mix and match it however you want it counts as the space so the spirit of the ordinance that I see is we don't want a business taking over the habitable part of the house and turning it into a business,

right? Okay. So, if I sell Beanie Babies and uh I couldn't wait to say that. I do not I've seen your website.

I sold uh modern age babies um and I stored them in my garage. I'm still living in my house. So, the way I've always looked at this 25% is I can do that all day long. And embarrassingly, it won't look much difference than my garage looks right now with all the junk and boxes. But the um so the house is still 100% unused for business. I'm allowed to use 25% of the heated portion of the house that not just the covered which which is the spirit of this that I've always seen it is we we don't want to turn the house into a a business. I mean a full-own business. So I'm I'm hearing a lot of things that that are now pushing back of now counting the garage which which I don't believe the garage should be counted. Um and again I'm not storing any business stuff in my garage for the record. I have an office. But um but my point is it it sounds like we're pushing back and we're going to start counting the garage. And in real estate, you don't count garage in your square footage anyway. So it's kind of normal a little bit if this is the if this is where I live and I've got a garage here. It's not counted in square footage. So I I don't feel like we need to start counting a garage as or even a basement to some extent. The built out part gets complicated. Are you following what like

Yes. Are it just sounded like we're trying to make that part of the 25% and I don't I don't think that's the correct way to start wording it. Well, that's what it currently says, right? Needed is what it says today. Okay. So, if we change so in the world of the garage, if it stays heated, we we can't use the garage because it is not in the heated floor space. But we can count it just count against the 25%. No, shall be restricted to the heated floor space, right? So, so as it's written, we can't use the attached garage. We can use the unattached one. As it's written, we would be opening the door for an unattached accessory structure to be used. If you're in the house,

yes, it's heated area only. Yes. Currently worded. Yes. Yeah. Okay. And if we changed it to habitable, would that be the same? I think we would argue No, it would not be the same. I think we would argue and I would I would as staff we would be looking at habitable area would now be inclusive of the garage, the carport. those areas where they're they're built for habitation, not for sleeping necessarily, but for being and you know, moving around with. It sounds like it makes sense to me to change heated to habitable. That actually lower the amount of space that you Yeah, but then if you start counting the garages, Yeah. that

No, because right now you cannot use the attached garage or basement or whatever because it is restricted to the heated floor space. I thought this 25% was only the 25% of heated floor space. No. Any occupation within the house is restricted to the heated floor space and shall not occupy in excess of 25%. Yes. So right now you cannot use that attached garage. But if we change it to habitable then you could it would count as your 25% but you would also have more floor space that's counted in total. Is that a correct interpretation of the number that you're applying the 25% to would grow? Yeah. So, you'd get more and Yeah. And the amount of place that you could use.

I was thinking about my read on this is we want to be able to have our beanie babies in our garage whether it's finished or not. If we did some business in our living room like because they're in the garage and that would be okay and it would increase the floor space. So, the 25% could include a little bit of like your kitchen table, right? as long as we can include. Yeah, because I agree like I think we should be able to have it in the garage. Yes. So, changing heated to habitable. And then one question about this. Does code enforcement ever go around and look in people's garages?

So, in all seriousness, when we do get complaints and we we you know, whenever we have a code enforcement issue, the very first thing we do is we look at the address to see what we've issued permits for and what we haven't. What kind of communication have we had about this property? If we've had a home occupation permit issued there and if the complaint is related to something that's potentially connected to that home occupation, we we see if the numbers match up. That's what that's cause. That's probable cause for us to go kind of take a look. We have a home occupation here. If there's a complaint about noise, if there's complaint about stuff in the yard, um you know, we've had an example landscape business. They they got a permit to run the office function of the landscaping business out of the house and they were at 2% of the floor square footage. The complaint was they actually have two bobcats and and mulch piles and gravel piles for their landscaping business outside. Well, that's beyond the scope of what was permitted. So, we we have an enforcable opportunity because we have a home occupation that was issued that had these boundaries. So yes, we do follow up on when storage is being handled in a way that's different than what was permittable.

And if you can see from the street that they're storing equipment and mulch piles in the yard, then of course code enforcement can can ticket them. I'm saying if code enforcement knocks on Alex's door and says, "Can we please inspect your garage to see if there's Beanie Babies in there?" And Alex says, "Come back with a warrant." Um, I would assume that that's the end of that, right? Because they don't have probable cause said Alex makes too much noise or whatever. They don't have probable cause to think that he's using the garage. Code enforcement that is not visible from the right of way, but there's been a complaint received involves a whole different protocol for how you gather evidence. Is that fair, Austin? If you can't see it from the right of way, there are other things you have to do to gain right to enter and and have I

think what I'll say is if a resident denies code of horseman entry, they have the option to pursue like an inspection warrant in municipal court. Otherwise, they have access to the property. That's what I'll say. So, if they can't satisfy a judge that they have probable cause to look in the garage, they're not getting a warrant. If they don't have a warrant, they're probably not gonna get into the garage. But code enforcement is not patrolling after the Clark County looking for Beanie Baby sounds. Yeah. Yeah. And why would anybody complain about your BB's in the garage? You know, they have to really be mad at you. So habitable. Yeah.

Yeah. So habitable maybe is enough because probably it's not going to be an issue if people are using a little bit of their garage. Like it's not going to bother the neighbors and it's just not. So we don't need to

make the code solve that. So, I had thrown this out. Um, there's garage and there's carport and carports that face the road if like like my garage which has no beanie babies for the record. Um, but I do like that as an example. It's better than widgets. Um, but it faces the back and and it closes. So, if I had squeaky toys in there that squeaked when the dog jumped around, it's not going to bother neighbors much. But when you have a forward- facing carport, which does not have a door, that's the difference between garage and carport. Um, you can't shut it off. So now I'm starting to see another maybe this is a whole another day but I guess this is the day I'm I'm throwing that out for us to understand that if that's a little different you're asking can they can somebody use it

can somebody use that is that habitable is that is that an accessory structure is it a is it a structure if it doesn't have four walls I don't think it's habitable if it doesn't open to the air so I don't think it's open accessory we would interpret it as habitable. That's what I'm saying. So, a carport that's attached under the same roof line as the primary structure is part of the primary structure. Is not an accessory structure and it's not habitable. It is habitable in the sense that you humans it's designed for folks to park a car now do your living activities.

You're doing activities associated with the home. Yes, it's Yes. So, an attached or detached carport could be used to store my Bobcats and mulch piles for my landscaping business. So, we're starting to trend into that one business vehicle discussion. So, like I say, there guard rails on this, but not to say that a Bobcat's a vehicle, but you know, if we start to get to that level, trailers are they're licensed, so you have to make choice. Do you have a business trailer or a business truck? You don't get to have both. That's how the code's worded right now. Um, if the the carport is a structure, so we're not talking about somebody's tailgate tent or a playscape or something like that. If it's a structure that gets a permit, the way this would work is that could be an accessory structure pursuant to all the other code sections that relate to accessory structures. And this text amendment would allow you to operate your home occupation in that accessory structure. Whether it's a carport, whether it's a shed, whether it's an fully enclosed or partially enclosed, if it's a structure, it would be okay. If the carport's attached to the house, we're now part of the primary structure. And if we change the word from heated to habitable, we would include the carport square footage with the calculation of the 25%. If somebody chooses to put boxes in their carport, whether it's related to their home occupation or it's related just to the fact that they have boxes, that would not be a code enforcement issue. If they're visible from the street, you have cardboard boxes in your carport and they're visible from the street, that is not a code enforcement issue.

That we vote on. I'm sorry. Well, so we've got some amendments to the wording that was proposed. So I right now it sounds like we're doing a little bit of taffy pull on those but if we've reached a point it sounds like we have two changes or becoming andor and heated becoming habitable. Otherwise everything else is the same. I would like to make a motion. I have one more question. Oh no we wanted your question. I was just you know we've talked about home occupancies lately and our our most favorite topic of all time the short-term rentals. And I'm curious how this definition of home occupancy differs from short-term rentals because short-term rentals are allowed to be 100%. Unless otherwise noted below is

Oh, and that's one of the otherwise noted below. Okay. Well, I guess I should read this. I just thought of that. This is why, you know, I spend my whole meeting with my back to that screen. So, yeah. So, I'd like to make a motion uh I would like to make a motion to recommend approval of this of of the of the text amendment with the uh and or and habitable changes that were just mentioned in that.

All right. Um we'll vote unless there's any other discussion. All right. Motion to recommend approval with the text amendments. Gary, yes. Lee, yes. Harrisford, yes. Paul, yes. Laughlin, yes. Sams, yes. And Lord, yes. Motion passes unanimously. Well, thank you all for that discussion. All right. And then our second text amendment. All right. Uh,

wait, we didn't take public comment on it. Oh, we didn't get public comment on the text amendment. Huh? Oh, I'm sorry. They all wanted to talk about it. Everybody wanted to talk about gone. Could we ask if anybody's here to offer comment on it? Is there anybody here to comment on any of our text amendments? All right. All right. Change it. Okay. Just the Bible font underneath text amendment. I keep changing that and it keeps going back to like whatever that is. Two points.

Oh, it's so tiny. Veterary clinics dash various sections. Proud of shrinking text.

Okay. So, uh this is a text amendment related to veterinary clinics and kennels and the way that they are um regulated in the zoning code. Um, right now we have a a couple things. All this is predicated off the fact that vet clinics when our current code was written, not just presumptively, but in fact we we had most vet clinics offer kenneling services and so they were kind of seen as one and the same. Um, and and that slotted them as special uses in many categories because the kenneling aspect was found to be problematic next to neighborhoods and things, the noise, sometimes the smell. Um, and the type of operation was different when you had a count use tables were also amended to allow for kennels, but we didn't revisit the vet clinic function. So, this is a chance to kind of finish that work. We've already got kennels and and vet clinics divided out in the use tables. What we don't have is that sort of comprehensive look and cleanup to show them as distinct things. Um, plus we have a trend over the last 10 to 15 years of veterinary clinics more and more not offering celing services other than overnight accommodation of a pet that's being treated. And so that is exempted in this wording that we're proposing is that if you're if a vet chooses to keep an animal overnight, it's indoors and it's for treatment, which is related. It's not because you're going out of town. Um so series of text amendments here um to the use charts. Um staff is recommending a modification in the AR and with the commercial zones CDCO and CN to allow veter veterinary clinics by right um instead of looking at these presently as we do as special agencies. Um this puts it on par with other medical clinics. um in the AR zone, staff found it to be a reasonable fit for vet vet clinic to

be in our rural areas. Tends to make some sense. A little causality there. So, um what we were looking at was that medical center issue, but then we realized that prohibiting vet clinics in the AR zone wasn't what we wanted to do. So, we pulled it apart. We didn't mash it up with medical and office uses. we let it sit as its own distinct use because of that AR issue. Um, and then we would want to make sure that it's understood that if a vet clinic does have a kennel, then it would be regulated with kennels. The kenneling assumption, if it was a commercial kennel, we would now regulate it as a commercial kennel. The vet clinic would be sort of subordinate when it comes to the tables. And then this is just a quick summary was in your your packet of of where these proposed changes would take place. So happy to have any questions on this one. I thought this made a lot of sense. I did just have one comment on the um amendment to 9-21. Um, can uh the wording?

Yeah. Do we have the one with the wording with the highlighting? That was from the previous. We do not, but it's on your handout. Yeah. Okay. So, so um sorry that's not

the highlighted portion says temporary boarding is intended for animals undergoing treatment and I just wondered if in is intended is the the best way to say I think what we're saying is like a veterinary this is the definition of veterinary clinics a temporary boarding may be provided for animals undergoing treatment non-medical boarding services shall be regulated as kennels u I just thought that that might be clearer because I don't know who is intended like passive voice in ordinance language is never ideal and is intended by whom and are we saying that veterinary clinics have to do that you know just I think it might be clear just to say replace is intended with maybe

I had another thought too the first sentence I kind of wanted to switch around so it read facility for the treatment and temporary boarding of domestic animals. Flip the order. Yeah. So, just flip the order of it to give the treatment the priority. Is that Yes. Because it also I kept reading temporary treatment and it looks you're and really I'd argue that most kennels don't also they also have temporary boarding because they don't want to keep the animals forever. But so you're saying facility for the treatment and temporary boarding of domestic animals. Yes. Yeah, I like that.

Very good. Any other thoughts? I move to approve the proposed tax amendment with the two changes just noted. Second. All right. Any other comments or we'll do both?

Motion to approve with amendments. Yes. Lee, yes. Barisford, yes. All yes. Mclofflin, yes. Sams, yes. Yes, we for three today ending point from last month.

I have no I have no report then come to the meeting with the mayor and commission in a couple weeks. So on that point, yeah, um question was raised earlier about uh how that work session will will sort of proceed and what information do we have at this point. Um no firm agenda has been set. As soon as I have that, I promise you I will send it to you the minute I get it. Um not sure how many items are going to be a part of the work session. Sometimes those work sessions are stacked because they have a lot of business trying through. Um, so I I really don't know. Uh, but I'll let you know as soon as I get it. The original comment that I made months ago about the work session and your attendance there was to come and listen because at that point it was not a joint work session. It was a mayor and commission work session where they were talking about things that you guys have worked on. So we just wanted to make you aware that it was an opportunity to come and kind of watch their discussion. Since that time, the mayor has changed that idea or accepted the idea or proposed the idea or is comfortable with the idea of of a joint work session where you guys are part of the discussion with them and I have a meeting next week um with the manager's office to sort of talk through format and materials and you know by that point there will be an agenda. We will be talking about how much time we have and and how best to make constructive use of that time and the role that planning commission will play in that discussion. So all of that advisement will be in that email when I can send it to you. But if it's a joint work session, the notion is that the discussion is a joint discussion. So that's that's probably the extent of what I can say until I have that meeting with manager's office

and it takes place here, right? Yeah. Right. A huge circle like how does that even work? So they set up a U like this. It's not very much different than this. Um so we'll have to accommodate that. We've got more tables um that we can bring into this and and figure it out. It's a good thing. Yeah. But it'll be on both topics is my understanding. So both short-term rental and future land use. So we'll we'll we'll more details next week. All right. It's Can you um just remind us of the day and time?

October 14th, noon, is when the work session starts. They tend to run until 5. Um but again, I don't know the order. I don't know how many items are on it. So, I don't know if those things are first or last or I'll know more.

And I'm make a quick mention on that. Um, I keep hearing and I was just in a meeting last week, uh, there there's a lot of misunderstanding about the future land use. There's a lot of misunderstanding about what the future land use map is. There's a misunderstanding of how the report should look. Some people think it should look like this or look like that. Uh, therefore, it doesn't look like what I want it to and not the plan I want. So, it's no good. Um, this is the I would it sounds like this is a great time to make sure the mayor and commission understand because they they get so many different things thrown at them and this is a big one and it is political. It has already become political. I hear about it in political meetings and so I'm going to brush up on it. I'm probably going to reach out to Bruce and and the gang to make sure I'm brought to speed on where this may where the discussion may go. Um, but I see it as a great opportunity to help the mayor and commission understand what we see and what we understand. Part of that's for me as chair um of that committee and then part of it is us having gone through with the vote on this. So, I I I I would urge us to ask Bruce questions, ask me questions, make sure we are able to help them through because I don't think it's a going to be one of these, well, why did y'all vote it through? Uh, that type of thing. I think it's help them understand as they go forward on this. I I can tell you in the conversation that we're going to have, one of the things I'm going to I'm going to organize my discussion for next week really is as clearly as I can and I think we need to answer the questions of who, what, where, who, what, why, and how.

Not where, well, where it's arranged on the map, I guess, but you know, who was involved in creating this map?

Why why is this just a map and it's not the entire comprehensive plan? because there is some confusion about that. Um those words get used interchangeably and and they are very distinct things. Why is this being done offcycle and not part of the comprehensive plan? So we're going to answer that question. Um and it's there's a very clear answer. It's what we were asked to do as part of the last comprehensive plan was the first item of business was to do a new future land use map. There it is. Um so most everything has an answer. It just has for the benefit of our elected leadership, they need it all in one clearly understood session and then let them start to ask the questions once they have heard those facts. Um, and there will be questions and that's good. That's that's a good thing. The goal of this is to have a future land use map that the community endorses that that the folks that represent the community can feel comfortable with and also endorse. And then as we get requests to change it, which is how we're set up our we are set up not to treat it as it's in stone. And Alex has said this many times. We have a process in our code for how to amend the future land use plan. And that's not going away. But if you have a plan that's current and is believed to be largely accurate, you shouldn't have too many amendments to it. And that's the goal is to have something that is we feel is defensible and then go about defending it or appropriately amending it with cause and and we're just so out of line from from having that level of confidence in our future land use map because it's old. Um, that's the point of this is to get back to where we're confident with our future land use policy. So, that's the from a staff standpoint, I think we want the process to be represented for what the steering committee has done, what this group has done, what the community has done, and the work that came out of all of that effort

just to show that it had intention and it had organization and it had some principle behind it. And that should help. That should go a long way towards whatever discussion we're gonna have. Do we have a sense of what the critical are that people are worried about the map? Yeah. Just like how change specific changes or process. I'm hearing why. Yeah. So I probably don't have specifics that I want to say because I can't confirm them. Sure. Um, but it some people are looking at this as an opportunity,

and I'm not saying the mayor commission is, I'm saying people in the community to make it political. And just so happens there's a big vote next May. So, um, if you're not listening to me, you don't have much more time to do it. I mean, and that's normal. I mean, that this is expected. It's just part of part of

I think the point Bruce made about that these can be amended. It, you know, maybe lowers the temperature a little bit or can be used that way, right? Like if somebody thinks that this map is 97% right, they don't have to vote against it because it's not perfect. They can vote for it and then work on amendments, you know, soon thereafter. Uh so that might be something to um underline at this work session. Abs make sure that that's understood.

Bruce, do you have the sense that there's any certain aspects of this that mayor and commission in general are uncomfortable with? Are there any particular pain points that they either aren't clear on or we could help get them over some of those humps? I mean, that's the point of the work session is to hear those things. Um, because we really haven't had an opportunity with them and they haven't had an opportunity with us. So, no, I I I I really wouldn't know how to characterize those things and and it's it would be best if they had that opportunity to say it first. That's that's the advantage of this discussion is is those questions be put on the table. I say that's why we were wanting those meetings. Exactly.

To sit in the room and and actually ask these questions, not want to ask Y citizens allowed to come to work sessions like this? Yeah. Yeah. Residents can come and and sit in and listen. There there's no opportunity for public comment,

but we're going to have those opportunities moving forward with with the future land use map when it's on agendas and that type of thing. and that you know we'll see what kind of outcome if if the discussion heads in that direction about um how is public input received how is it calculated how is it compiled how is it synthesized you know those will those will be part of the how the answer of the how that we're going to give um if there is a desire from the commission to have another opportunity for public input well then we will we'll we'll follow along we'll we'll do we'll take that guidance and we'll work with it. But at a minimum, there would be at least two more public hearings on the future land use map. Um, so we'll see what they say.

And there's been a lot of public input.

The body of work is is pretty impressive, I think. and and and when we have the chance individually to sit and talk about it with folks, it's it's it's interesting to watch them sort of think, oh yeah, I did hear about that two years ago and I I did go to that meeting, you know, a year ago and it did. So it turned into this and like, yeah, that everything that was received there was used to build this and then that was used to build this. And when you can kind of put all the pieces together because it's been over two years, when you put the picture together, it it tends to be a better discussion. To to Matt's point, it builds a little bit of confidence about the process. And the the end result is not something that was cooked up, you know, without people being involved. And secondarily, we still have a piece of ordinance that helps us amend it as as needed with public input. Again, very transparent. miscellaneous.

Miscellaneous. Yes.

So, but it's back to the parking issue with uh the millillage. Um is that something that and I'm not doing it right now. I'm just kind of asking if the number of parking we and and parking came up a lot with the future land use meetings and and some of the developers of course you know they don't they don't want any restrictions often because it makes their job a little harder but um but sometimes it's brought up as why it is in the way and it shouldn't be in the way and I think comment of less parking spaces might promote more bike riding. Uh we got ebikes coming. Uh they're out there now and those are being ridden by people who aren't always the people you see riding uh other bikes up hills. Is that something we could ask if that if this body decided to at any point to go back and look into again and change it or like are we are we in a position as a committee to ask for staff to re-evaluate the number of parking per property per bed etc.

So I will say this the two two things are already in at work to revisit parking. One is the results of the urban three study where they were very clear and pointed out that we are um in certain areas of town that are right for redevelopment. We also happen to be overparked and those two things tend to make for an opportunity. Um and then the future land use discussion as it was coming through a lot of that discussion about where to have more mixed use, horizontal mixed use, verticality, what to do in our corridors. The way to make those things happen is to revisit our parking ratios to open up opportunities there for redevelopment. Um, one, it takes spaces that are presently for parking and it allows for a building to be there. And two, if you're going to build a new building, then you're not creating a need for more parking elsewhere. Um, but I will say this, like that'll be one of those challenging text amendments to put together. The wording that we have in the code today is a reflection of of community values at a point in time. We had a point in time where folks were very upset with certain uses and the ratios that were being applied because they were producing not enough parking and they were left to deal with the overflow effects of an underparked use that generates high times. Um so we got to be prepared for that discussion. Um, the off-site parking agreement when we first put that in the code was a way to begin to dial down on-site requirements and provide an opportunity for flexibility to come up with a a relief valve. And and so that was one of those things that we did to try to edge toward a reduction of parking. So, if it's time for us to revisit it again, I think I think it makes sense, but we're going to be targeted in that discussion. It's probably not going to be a one-sizefits-all kind of answer. Is there any diff is there any differentiation between like um you know

new buildings and old buildings like building in an area like five points as opposed to building in some completely undeveloped area. Are there any like allowances for differences in parking I guess on whether it's already a built environment or not? That's something we'll get into for sure. Yeah, because that would seem like that would be help. Is it you know all you know do is the infrastructure there to provide an alternate mode for folks to get around or is there not? And yeah, it all matters. Yeah, because that yeah, it does matter, especially in places that are like five points in the village. I mean, I'd even argue like the case we saw tonight, if that house were on the other side of the street, parking would have been a huge point of contention and probably would have had neighbors come out and there be a parking. Yeah. So,

I think it goes to show how good a location it was that nobody came out to speak against it. But I just say like how how that idea of the parking exactly on time. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. For sure. Take a motion to No, I got more to motion to adjurnn. Second. I'm