Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

take Elijah's out of the review area. Yeah. Yeah. Did they Did they agree to that? Yeah. A few stipulations, but yeah. I didn't realize that was what they were going to do, but that's coming that's in here, too. We're ready, John. Okay. Call to order the meeting of the uh planning and zoning commission on Monday, May 11th at 2026 at 7 p.m., please rise and join me. I guess we do roll call first. Roll call. I'm sorry. It doesn't matter. Roco Gonzalez, Mark Pantek, here. Mayor Haggedan, John Bortman

here, Chuck Watson here, Ken Shear here, Chad Briggs, Matt Coleman, Mike Wood here, Aaron Beckman here, Jeff Py here. Rise and join the allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Next item on the agenda is the approval of minutes from the April 13th meeting. If anybody has any additions or corrections, if not, I'd entertain a motion. Motion to approve. Second.

Motion made and seconded to approve the April 13th minutes. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed? Eyes have it. File number 260401, special use permit for 1950 and 1960 Highway A, agricultural use.

Yes. Good evening, commission. Um, your first case that you have before you is a special use permit for the two affformentioned addresses, 1950 and 1960 Highway A. Um, the applicant is requesting an agricultural use. Um, and these I should mention uh these these properties are are both zoned uh C2, but they are the applicant's uh primary uh residence. Um, so that it is they're they're two single family homes. Uh, there's a barn in the back and um, even though they're zoned commercially because they're along Highway A, they are a residence. So, the applicant is specifically requesting uh, permission to keep a one mule on premises on the property part-time. Um, our zoning defines agriculture, this as an agricultural use. Um, specifically, I've highlighted it here. Um, grazing, breeding, and raising of livestock. Um, and that is a special use. So, they're here before you today. Um, the mule will reside behind 1960 highway A. That's the southernmost property. Um, the applicant eventually wishes to operate a bed and breakfast business um, out of his home and wishes to offer meal rides as part of the guest experience. Um, and before that happens, just kind of to have the mule on property to to train it. Um, and yeah, have the mule on property once a week. Um, so that being said, um, given that this is the applicant's, uh, primary home, um, during the past couple months, we've kind of been talking about homebased businesses regulations and, you know, having having such a thing uh, out of your home and, you know, the the requirements that the city imposes um, on homebased businesses and uh, that you know, a lot of them are are don't have to be require any special sort of permission. And just to kind of put that to rest here about why this is uh in front of you. Um, one of the uh clear uh uh uh uh qualifiers um for no impact homebased businesses that don't require that extra permission is are not visible from the street. And uh the I guess let

me let me backtrack a little bit. This red square here is where the the mule pin um will be behind um 1960 Highway A. And uh this where this red circle is um on the screen here is uh you can this is street view and you can see from the street you know the the the pen. So the activity will be visible for the street and it still is required to go through our our permitting um process. So that being said some staff comments on this specific application. Uh it's a low impact not no impact. So a special use permit is required for approval. Um and staff recommends conditional approval of the special use. Um agricultural uses is a broad category that has a lot of things. So um kind of conditioning that approval to uh you know the applicant's request which is fairly reason uh fairly reasonable at you know one uh farm animal part-time um on a on a fairly big lot I think is I think is a reasonable a reasonable ask. Um, and so that being said, you know, uh, conditioned approval to only allow for one meal on the property at any given time. And then, um, we got some photos here of the the the pin specifically. Um, and that's all I've got. The the applicant, do you want to come up and tell them a little bit about your your project?

Yeah. So, please state your name and address, please.

Sure. I'm Randy Paley and I live at 1950 Highway A. And uh I've kind of had mules my whole life. My parents been in bad health and I drifted away from it for like seven years and I didn't have anymore. And then basically my my little niece's got a little girl three years old and my brother's got two boys and it's just a nice little bonding down the road and Hannah has all kinds of horses and stuff but it just basically be my mule. The only thing by having it there, you know, if I got it through the day and then over the night and work with it a little bit, it's like any animal that you have, if you're around it and be with it and spend time with it's just going to be a better quality animal. So, and I would clean up after it all the time. And it was rainy or something, I wouldn't even bring it in because I have 15 acres out of Crocco with other animals out there. But I'm not going to mess with them. I'm just got this one mule that I'm going to work with. So, I only Yeah. And Hannah's, like you said, that's kind of her stock running out there. So, I got plenty of room to keep it. And then up at the farm, my dad has his farm, so who knows? I probably let it up there once in a while. But it's just nice to have it if you can pet it and be around it. I mean, I also have It's like anything you put time into. I have a trick kitty cat. He rides skateboard, jump through a hoop, rings a bell, does everything. They said I couldn't do it, but I did. But it's just time. It's what you put into anything what you're going to get out of it. So, and I would kind of keep him in the back. I'm not going to flash him around up front and try to create a problem. But I'll keep it all cleaned up. And I said back where we're going to put him. I got plenty of room back there. And we got a little building picked out. And uh I don't even have the animal yet. He's

still over at the amisher training him yet. So, but uh once we get the pen set up, I would keep it all cut nice and looking good. So, which residence were you going to use as the bed and breakfast? That 1960? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And that's where I would that's where I'm going to keep him back behind there. There's some trees back there and stuff. So I said it would just be nice to walk by him through the day and fed him and my wife we could live walk him around back there a little bit and eat grass or whatever. So any commission commissioners have any questions for the applicant.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you guys. Any discussion? Then I would entertain a motion. I'll move that we approve a conditional special use permit for one meal on the property. I'll second that. Motion made and seconded that we approve the special use permit with conditions as explained by staff. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed. Eyes have it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you guys very much. And I'll make sure that I keep everything looking real nice and up after. No, I'll make sure you do.

No doubt in my mind you will. I appreciate everybody. So, this goes before council next, correct? Next next uh next Monday. So, good deal. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is file number 26-0501 comprehensive plan update future land use recommendation city of Washington.

Yes. Good evening. So, um before you uh we've got uh uh the uh an amendment to our comprehensive plan and um it uh relates to an effort that um e this has more so been an economic development um effort to uh pursue this, but it is related to uh planning as it this is this has been a goal in our comprehensive plan. Um and specifically, we're going to be talking about Fifth Street and the Fifth Street corridor redevelopment area. Um this was uh came about after um economic or the city um uh contracted with a with a consultant to uh uh put together a tiff redevelopment plan um for uh the fifth street corridor and that is to further a comprehensive goal of uh enhancing the fifth street corridor to uh quote unquote be the pedestrian friendly multi-use corridor that serves as the new entrance into downtown Washington. And so the TIFF district will be a new funding mechanism uh for infrastructure and private public partnerships um redevelopment efforts, street projects, things of that nature. Um something that we have ran into though in in developing this uh this redevelopment um plan is there's a state statute that says um no redevelopment plan shall be adopted without findings that quote the redevelopment plan conforms to the comprehensive plan for the development of the municipality as a whole. and the consultant that we uh have contracted with to um uh create this redevelopment plan has found that there are uh some proposed projects within this district that do not conform to our future land use map. And so we'll we'll get into that specifically. Um so here is the uh future land use map and the red sort of it doesn't really show up too good. I hope I can you can make that out. It's uh well just kind of this pink area, a little bit of this red, and then a little bit of the blue right here. Um so that's Fifth Street. Um and much of the much of the Fifth

Street corridor is under this neighborhood mixeduse district and uh that is uh labeled as um roughly a co-terminus with the existing C1 limited commercial uh zoning district. It's described as small-scale day-to-day commercial, retail, and service businesses located along secondary corridors, which makes sense. You know, that's that's essentially what Fifth Street is. The only problem is that that does not uh uh the comprehensive plan ignores what what the actual underlying zoning is. Um, so the underlying zoning is our C2 overlay, which is um, you know, it it allows for um, residential and commercial uses, reduce setbacks, reduce parking requirements, things of this nature to kind of, you know, deal with the unique uh, nature of Fifth Street and it's its historic significance. Um, but the the comprehensive plan says that this area um is is best intended for the C1 zoning district. And so we have some of these projects that um are are are looking to maybe utilize um some of this TIFF funding um that are that could be uh established in um the existing C2 district that exists along Fifth Street. The issue is is that our comprehensive plan says that this whole area, the highest and best use is limited commercial. So there's kind of a mismatch between the existing legal zoning and our long range plan. And so that's what this amendment really is to do is to kind of center those two things and make sure they're one and the same. Um and just just kind of an additional benefit that this would have is um we use the future land use plan. um whenever uh an applicant applies to reszone a property, take a look at the comprehensive plan and uh they you know

say, "Oh, you know, here's the here's the highest and best use C1 limited commercial." So, for example, here's a block um along Fifth Street and uh there's there's one property along Fifth Street here that's uh zoned R1B, single family. Um if this property owner for some reason wanted to come in and say, "Hey, well, I want to, you know, use this property as commercial." the logical choice would be hey let's let's reszone this to um C2 overlay um but our long range plan is saying no the highest and best use is actually C1 which is not found anywhere near this property so it would also help planning staff as you know resonings come along uh in in this corridor so kind of highle overview about why we're um uh recommending this change um there are several desirable potential users within the tiff district whose projects are not allowed in the C1 one limited commercial district. The existing zoning allows for these projects, but the future land use map uh does not support these projects. Um this can be remedied with a comprehensive plan amendment stating that the recommended zoning classification for the neighborhood mixeduse uh land use category are C1 and C2 overlay pictured below. And then it would not only allow the redevelopment plan to be ratified but allow staff to make uh more coherent resoning recommendations um in the future. I guess the only other thing I I want to mention is, you know, this is this is the special planning and zoning commission meeting that we're having March 22nd um at at Thank you. May May 22nd at 10 a.m. Um I I will not be there. I I had a vacation scheduled uh months months in advance. So Erin Aaron Greimer will be here to answer uh any questions and I'll be available by by phone to um answer any questions if you have any. So, um, at this time, questions, comments? Um, any thoughts?

So, what this wasn't looked at when we did the comp plan? I guess not. I don't know. I thought that's what we wanted down there was limited commercial. Yeah. But I guess my question is, and I mean I know this isn't approving a TIF, but it's laying the groundwork absolutely future meeting to have a TIF district. Is the idea behind the TIF district for the money to go to the city in order to improve infrastructure along there? Or is the money from the tiff going to go to a developer to make it more desirable to develop that area or both? I mean both.

Yeah. That's that was my both answer. Both. And what is the the are we going from Franklin Street to Cedar Street? Um Stafford goes all the way down just a little bit past Stafford. Yeah. A little bit past Stafford and then That's right. It does go down. Yeah. The first street. Yeah. So,

but when we we when we've talked about, you know, the mixed commercial and residential, I mean, were we just saying that's what it is, so we're just going to keep that or were we actually saying this is what we really wanted to have so that I don't remember. I guess I'm not I'm not following your your question. What do you Could you Could you elaborate on that a little bit? Trying to just define the area based on what the current use was or were we trying to define what the future use was? You're you're asking like when we when we established the comprehensive plan, what our what the thought was, right? I mean, you you weren't here. I know. Sure.

Future future uh development. So, we were still thinking of strictly having residential along that area as future development. Yeah, it' be a mixed use is what I mixed. All right. Mixed use

and the the comprehensive plan as well, I guess I should I should elaborate a little bit here. Um there there is talk in our comprehensive plan about you know consolidate it doesn't say this directly but it it you know heavily hints at this to consolidate our C2 overlay and our C1 district to kind of make those one. And so my this is doing a bit of guess work, but I'm guessing the planners just thought, oh, you know, they'll they'll change that, you know, right after we we submit the plan and we we haven't it's frankly a low priority items, you know, to consolidate zoning districts um for the city. We have issues that we need to resolve. So um you know, the their heart is in the right place. It's just, you know, the the plan and the zoning h you know, there's some there's some difference there. So,

one of the problems is uh with one of the parcels on Fifth Street, and it's probably no secret that there's at least rumors about a potential hotel on Fifth Street. A hotel is not permitted in that zoning district. It's zon. It's currently zoned now. C1. It's not in the overlay district. I think it's in the C1 if I'm not mistaken. Uh, that's that's not that's not correct. No, it's not. It's in the C2. Yeah. It's zone C1 currently. No, no, it's zone. Zone C2 right now. Yes. But it needs to be C1 to accommodate the hotel.

This is not This is not a reszoning. This is the reason why we're we're recommending this change is this is a change to our comprehensive plan. So, it's a change to the long range plan because there's a state law that says the TIFF plan and the long range plan cannot uh they they can't be opposed to each other. And what the long-range plan says is it says this entire the fifth all of Fifth Street should be zoned C1. that's that's that's the best use for this land when in reality it's all zoned C2 overlay. So there's a mismatch between what our long range plan is saying and what is actually happening on the ground.

So if the property were reszoned, this particular property were reszoned to C1 as the comprehensive plan says it should be, it would not be a permitted use at that location. Correct. Yeah, it's this this whole thing is kind of silly. I can't lie. But it's good to you know um you know resolve resolve it and change it so we don't run into this. So this is really discussion about changing the comp plan. Correct. What you're really talking about the

whole end of things. Okay. And we don't and that that requires a public hearing and that's why we're having a separate meeting um for this matter um to uh get that get that done. So to change the zoning or to change the comprehensive plan, not the zoning. Okay. Because is all of it currently right now in the overlay district? I didn't think the overlay district went that far. Everything that's in that dark blue is in the overlay district. You fooled me.

I just didn't think we went down fifth street with that overlay district this far. I thought it stopped somewhere short of that. So there's no there's no action for this just you know accept in the minutes whenever we need to move on. So So what is the course of action then? Have a public hearing for planning and zoning on May 22nd. Correct. 10 a.m. Correct. And if recommended by this board, it goes to Well, no, this this board has sole approval of the comp plan. Okay. So, council has nothing to nothing to do. Well, I mean, you know, your city council, but you know, of of actual actually mattered at the last meeting or it didn't matter. So, I I can understand that.

Sure. Sure. Um that the count council typically passes a an ordinance or resolution supporting the current plan. So basically what I'm still a little confused. Yeah. No, that's fair. That's fair. So the comp plan says it has it as C1. Correct. Says it should be should be C1. Correct. And we want to leave it currently at C2 overlay and that's what we want to leave it as. So, we're amending the comp plan to the C2 overlay, correct?

For future use. For future use. Okay. And then that will everything with the TIFF will work out with that is what you're saying. The two will the two will be able to coexist and the TIFF and the overlay and stuff. Correct. That is what you're saying. Correct. And you have to assume that the the position of this board was never to handcuff that no situation. So you're not changing something in in one. I I think that's a good project. The size and scope of this fifth district might have me a little

concerned, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about whether or not we should amend our comprehensive plan. And I think it fits in C2 overlay. I don't have any problem doing that. Yeah. I mean, outside of, you know, the the TIFF thing, I think it's just good practice to, you know, have your have your zoning and your future land use plan in in sync with each other to to a degree, you know, where it makes sense. So, okay. So, we don't need to vote on anything. No, just just accept presentation. Correct. Yep. Okay. Any questions from commissioners or No, that that helped.

Great. Well, I'm I'm I'm getting I'm getting the feeling I might have to call in. So, you know, and that's that's fine. And uh I had actually had to look up a word to understand what it meant. Oh, okay. It's like you thought you were reading French. Was it wasn't that coterminus or Yeah, you pronounced it, but it was Yeah. Well, I I looked that up earlier. I didn't I didn't know what that meant. I I had to look I like looked up how do I pronounce coterminus and listen to the Google thing. So, so Terminus. Yeah. Yeah. What's the ne Yeah. Go ahead. Does that mean it's continuous? Contiguous. It just means it's like the same. Yeah, pretty much. Why can't you say it's

There's nothing worse than reading minutes on a weekend and then you don't know what one word means and it sticks with your Yeah. Okay. Moving on. File number 26502. Code changes, downtown parking regulations, discussion, recommendations, city of Washington.

Yes. So, um, just to, uh, give the, uh, commission a bit of context, these next four items here are a result of, uh, the April 20th uh, board of adjustment hearing. There were a number of issues that were discussed at that hearing. Um, downtown parking, retail parking, um, our our sign code that we will be going over. Normally I would not present this commission the amount of change that you're seeing here but it was a direct or uh you know recommendation from that board. Hey we we need these things resolved ASAP. So that's why we're we're we're diving into it at this at this meeting. So um talking about downtown parking regulations. Um so I'm going to uh got a presentation here and we'll uh we'll we'll go with go with questions uh after the fact. So C3 Central Commercial Zoning District. So this is um contiguous with uh downtown Washington. Um it's the light blue on your screen here. Um much of downtown Washington was developed before the invention of cars. So parking was not a consideration um when when much of downtown was developed. Businesses downtown do not need to provide a large amount of surface parking to get business as most customers in this area park wherever there is availability and walk to their destination. if everywhere if every business were to provide the same amount of parking as other parts of downtown Washington, uh downtown Washington would just be surface parking. I guess let me let me elaborate a little bit on uh where where where uh I'm coming from and the the the board came from. So, at that April 20th um meeting, the board heard a request from uh the Grifeies um to uh develop a uh uh a bowling alley event center um complex at the corner of uh Maine and Jefferson. And the request was to reduce the number of off- streetet parking spaces that they were required to provide. Um, currently we require um

ex we or excuse me, we currently do not require existing buildings um to provide off- streetet parking, but if you're uh building uh uh new construction, then you need to provide uh off- streetet parking. Um and so those are those are the rules and regulations that they were asking uh an exception from and the board asked to to to take a look at that. So that being said, this does not mean that parking is not needed downtown. In fact, the opposite. The city has facilitated this need by providing free uh on street and off- streetet parking across downtown. This gives uh downtown visitors uh with uh this I should have said provides downtown visitors with a place to store their vehicle while they uh walk to patronize various businesses. Providing shared parking uh also prevents the demolition of historic structures for surface parking. These historic buildings are what make downtown Washington unique and keep visitors coming back. Um, kind of to summarize that, downtown is a pleasant place to be as a pedestrian due to the street design, wide sidewalks, and each business not having their own surface parking lot. Once again, if uh all of downtown, you know, if we required existing businesses to provide um off- streetet parking, it downtown Washington would look something, you know, like schnooks probably. Um, so current rules as I as I got into um but it hasn't always been that way. In fact, from uh 1990 to 2016, uh we did not require any parking um in uh the C3 zoning district. Um that was changed in 2017. Um wherein uh during a series of code rewrites um we introduced this provision about uh the uh you know existing buildings are are exempt and if you're building new construction um you know then you have to provide off- streetet parking. Um this is some some some thoughts that I have about this language is uh it's it's

not that well written as you could build um a uh a brand new building for that would have a low um or it does it doesn't it's poorly written in in the way that it doesn't uh achieve its intended effect. So you could build for example a storage use downtown you know that has a low parking calculation and then you could immediately uh you know sell that building to another uh LLC that you own and then ask for re a reoccupancy and reoccupancy is the the key here. Um reoccup reoccupancy of existing buildings. So, it's an existing building. You just built it, but it is, you know, your it's a reoccupancy and you could have a different use such as, I don't know, general retail, you know, that would have much more off- streetet parking. So, the code is not very well well written in that way. Uh, and for what it's trying to um achieve here. Um, something else to note is that this code has not been enforced in the past uh nine years that it has existed. Um, talking to Darren, he didn't even know that this was we required off- streetet parking um downtown. So, this uh uh code change, I guess, that we'll we'll get to here is more about um preserving the status quo, even though it hasn't been the status quo, but it's how staff have uh planners for the past nine years have treated um parking downtown. and that uh it it's it's interesting because all of the infill that has been built downtown since this code was adopted meets our parking requirements, but staff didn't say, "Hey, you have to build x number of parking." The developer just took it upon themselves to uh build uh that that parking. So, one east main here. Um, Annieall parking lot um back here for

the or see parking lot back here. Um, and then there is a garage parking and off streetet parking for the residences who live um up here. So, you know, developer just said, "Hey, you know, my building will probably sell better, so I will provide off- streetet parking." And by happen stance, he uh meets our off- streetet parking requirements. And then for all the other residential um that has been built downtown in that time, they all have garages and they all meet our off- streetet parking requirements. Um yeah. Okay. So the recommendation um from staff is to uh remove the off streetet parking requirement for any use in the C3 uh central commercial district. Um I just have a few thoughts here. requiring infill development downtown to provide the same amount of parking as development around um our highway corridors is irresponsible zoning practice that ignores the existing environment of downtown. Uh it may also limit infill development that may bring more visitors to the area increasing the vibrancy. Um just from a e economics point of view parking lots now pay any sales tax, have low property values as and as a result barely pay property tax. Um, restricting development without off- streetet parking in an area where shared use parking facilities are present is uh, in planning's opinion redundant. Um, before 2016, off- streetet parking was not required downtown. Um, and just a final thought here, developers are not going to invest uh, millions of dollars into a development downtown if they do not believe their patrons can get to their business or residences for that matter. Um, let's see. And I guess with that, I I'll take any take any questions. So, Go ahead.

Sorry. Um I guess Aaron, I I do have a few concerns. I understand I understand um what you're saying and I've worked with the zoning ordinance downtown when it was, you know, when we didn't have a parking requirement. I've worked with it when we've had one. Um one of my big concerns is scale, right? A lot of our lots downtown are are small lots. Okay. And the most parking you're going to be able to if I build a building on there, you're going to be required to come up with a space or two. Yeah.

Right. And if I can't get that on my lot, I can go to the board of adjustments and downtown we can absorb even now there's parking to absorb, you know, a few dozen spare cars. One of my concerns is what we've seen in the past 15 years, 20 years, is more what I consider to be real urban development where a developer comes in, buys multiple parcels of property, combines those into a large piece of property, and now does a larger development or a larger building. And last month when Mr. Griffy was here talking about the bowling alley situation. Uh we never got, you know, we really didn't talk about parking too much in that meeting because that was not our purview in that meeting.

Correct. We were talking about sight distance issues. Uh, one of the things and I did not do sit down with his plan and try to figure out a parking count or anything, but my my gut feeling maybe you have. My gut feeling is is that facility is probably going to require several hundred parking stalls. You're you're correct. If it was to be built anywhere else in Washington, well, I mean, even if it would were to be built right now under Yeah. Well, I'll just I'll tell you it's they would be required to provide 416 parking spaces.

Okay. And my concern a little bit is we change this ordinance now to permit that and if we do or if we don't have a parking problem downtown we automatically create one. And in my opinion I think this is an issue that needs to be discussed on a much bigger level than just planning and zoning commission. And I know the city has had discussions. Um I know the city and and chamber of commerce were working on some parking garage discussions and things like that. Um I know there's other obviously other players in the city that are probably looking at parking. I'm sure the bank at some point would be I'm sure if there is possibly a hotel, I'm sure those folks are looking at stuff. There's a lot of things in my opinion that are influencing this parking discussion and I would hate to make a decision here tonight that would send us down a road to potentially create a problem without having a resolution out in front of it.

Right.

Sure. Yeah. Because if if if there is a resolution out in front of it where the community as a whole needs to be involved where the city's involved and where multiple business leaders are involved, that sort of thing. That's going to take time to come together, right? And I would hate to create a situation where uh let's be honest, when you build that big building, people are going to go and they're going to park wherever they can park the closest. And if that's in Clary's lot next to the building there at Jefferson and Maine that they just built, if that's in the old Droy's lot, if that's all the street lots, there you're going to park where it's closest. And what I fear is that could potentially put some of our smaller businesses that rely on streetside parking in a difficult position to be able to have customers come to them. So, I mean, just just my personal opinion, I would I would really like to see this issue tabled tonight for a for a bigger discussion to happen. And it's not that I am opposed to the idea. I just don't know if we have an answer in front of us right now that that I, you know, I fear we might be creating a problem by approving something tonight. I think to go from 400 and whatever for this project to no requirement,

does that include the property that a potential hotel could go on to? And we're not going to require any parking or we're going to I mean, I know there's requirements for a hotel to put to have certain number of parking based upon the number of rooms. I think it's one and a half, right? I think if I remember correctly. The other thing is the board of variance said no because they didn't want to give a variance to parking. But yet they kicked it to us and said change the rules that could allow this facility to go down there with not getting the current number of parking spots that are required. Well, if you didn't want I mean, I'm not speaking for them, but my interpretation of them is that if you didn't want to give them a

I think it's I think it's just not their Sure. I think it's just not their purview to like, you know, say to, you know, have to have one opinion or the other on a specific code. And that that was kind of their I mean, for for um all the issues that we'll that we'll be discussing tonight, the board of adjustment denied a variance, you know, and so the the recommendation was, hey, let's look at these rules, have staff and um you know, whoever other stakeholders, you know, take take a look at these rules and uh we'll we'll try and get a solution as as fast as possible. So, you know, I just I just don't think it's the board of adjustments. I understand. I mean, and I get it. I'm not saying that. I don't know whether or not they had property owners come and they did. They did. And that's what

business owners came and spoke. They did. I asked Aaron to when I heard this discussion that happened. I asked him to send me the for the video.

I just so happened to run into the owner of Andes and we said bowling alley. She said, "It's dead." I said, 'Well, maybe not because Monday night we're looking at, you know, and and she was obviously unaware of of these code changes that that potentially could take place. The other thing I kind of struggle with is is I don't know if a downtown Washington is the right place to put a bowling alley, you know? I mean, if they wanted to put a restaurant in down there, you could probably get a number of parking spots that they have. You know what I mean? But when you're doing as big a project as they're doing down there goes back to to Ken's position. I mean that big of a project to say we're not going to require any requirement for parking is probably too far for me to go.

I mean if I guess if they wanted to take their current property they have now and convert it to a bowling alley they could do it without any parking requirements. I get it. But they're they're doing that knowing that there's limited parking down there. I think the current situation of reoccupancy of buildings without a parking requirement has created a parking problem in downtown Washington at certain times. I mean, the the other thing that the the owner from and I don't want to speak for the owner of Andy's told me was the first thing that people complain about all the time is lack of parking around that business.

And and I I mean, you just look down that street. I mean, Joe's Deli, you know, I mean, serendipity. I mean, you go down the down the street, are those the same concerns those of those business owners? I don't know. Joe expressed concerns about it that the variance he was there at the appeals. I I guess I agree with everything Ken said.

Yeah. Right. And and I do too. I mean, I I think this is such a big community issue that I think we need to number one, we only have five of us here tonight, and I think there's some people that need to be involved in this discussion that aren't here tonight, and I think we need to involve other uh shareholders, either downtown Washington, chamber, in some discussions. uh get Darren's perspective historically before he leaves u and and just talk about it and see once if we can come up to a good a good solution because what I don't want to see is us approve this where you know we do away with off- streetet parking and now people just park wherever and you have the small town or the small business owner suffering because we have one larger event center.

He brought up the, you know, the property caddy corner. I think that's a that's what we want in downtown Washington. I think I mean I think that's when we envision it. It's some professional retail, you know, if you consider Dennis ret, you know what I mean? But some professional business down there and they have the the condos above it. I think that's a perfect use for that. and the developer put the parking in there because he knew the businesses that were going in there would want it and need it as well as the residents. So, I mean it it can be done, but it's it's a it's a space that that doesn't require 400 parking spots.

Oh, exactly. And that's what I'm not so sure we need to develop. We need any project down in downtown Warson that currently requires 400 parking spots because we don't have 400 parking spots. Yeah, we don't have to John's defense. He called me last week when this was on the agenda knowing there was going to be a limited crew here tonight. But my suggestion to him was leave it on the agenda, have this discussion and in an effort to table it tonight, involve other

entities, etc., and come up with a better plan. Um because I again to Ken's point, I'd hate to sit here and say that well half will be okay or 25% will be okay and vote on that tonight and pass it on is just we're not doing our due diligence that at that aspect. So I agree what Ken's saying. I mean with all of us. I just want to defend John said let's just table it not have this at this meeting but I encourage them to keep it on it have this discussion and now we have the ball rolling on what we need to do with the next phase and it'll come back another and again I think even council can get involved before it comes back you know or whether it's a committee traffic

downtown I am planning on bringing this and another downtown parking issue to traffic committee next next month so They'll have some input as far as that goes. What you know? Mhm. In the long run. Um Jeff, I mean, is the city considered putting up a parking garage say with any of this? Well, so there is study. Go ahead.

Yeah. Yeah, there there has been there has been a study about about that, but specifically in moving moving forward, this is I mean this is you know very early stages of uh you know kind of getting this together. So we have the the downtown tiff district which was established for the to you know get the bank of Washington going and that's expiring in uh 2030 I believe. So the idea is you know to kind of work towards a a community improvement district downtown where property owners um voluntarily buy in and it's a self- taxing entity whether that be sales or property tax you know that's can go either way um or or both. Well, don't some some do property tax, some do sales. I'm not sure if some do both, but anyhow, it's a selftaxing entity. And one of the ideas for for that uh community improvement district is to, you know, help help fund a uh a parking garage downtown with the funds that it generates.

Let me study showed anywhere from 20 to $25,000 a spot. And I I would for three or 400. Frankly, I that that study is is fairly old. That's that's a pretty that's a good that's a good that's a good number for per space for for covered parking. Yeah. And don't we have a C? Isn't the the target area out there? We do. Yes. C already.

This this would be a a different sort of C though because uh you know that development it was one property owner you know and he uh subdivided all the different uh entities you know and brought all the businesses in. This one would require a lot more buyin because you have to have uh not only half of all property owners but um half of uh you have to have half of the assessed property value of the whole district. So not only half of the property uh owners but also you know whatever the county says you know let's say the whole district is worth a hundred million. I don't know if that's right, but you know, then you got to have 50 million worth of building that signs onto it. So, um it it'll be it'll be a that's why we're starting now as opposed to right before 2030 because

that's the biggest property owner down there. I'm thinking there's your half of your assessed valuation. Yeah. Yeah. Get the other half of the property owners doing more work. I think the first half we could but in in the long run it is it it is needed long term. I agree completely. Yeah. No, parking parking is absolutely needed downtown. What this changes just to do is to say, "Hey, you know, you know, maybe it shouldn't be the city's place to correct me if I'm wrong. If you had a fourstory parking garage at the third and Lafayette parking lot right now Mhm. and the front door is at Maine and Jefferson of this building, it's still more than 300 feet away and it wouldn't constitute anyway." Third and Lafayette like the the parking lot

across the bank parking lot, US park. What? Oh. Oh. Oh. If that No, that would that would be that'd be fine. This is still more than 300 feet away. Their front door was going to be on the second street side. Yeah, because of the parking they you were going to enter the sight distance last week. It was going to be a 45 degree angle at Jefferson Main, but that wasn't going to be the end. That's just the corner of the building. Yeah. Yeah. That was that was just you're going to enter off Second Street and you're going to enter on the top floor and the bowling alleys below because Okay. Well, I read that in here, but we were we made Caddyy Corner to Andy's building was going to be the entrance to that building at council. No, that was just for sight distance of vehicles coming to that. Yeah, I believe I believe intersect.

Steve um asked a question about parking and then that's where that that whole thing entered the conversation. But yeah. Yeah, that was just for sight distance at the intersection because of you know the emergency vehicles coming in and being able to see. Oh yeah, I'm with you. Yeah, but that's all it was. If that was the front door, it's more than 300 feet away from the parking garage and it's a mute point. But if it's at on the second street side, then it is that close. Yeah, you're I mean I've I've measured it. You're you're pretty close, but you're you're within 300 feet. So that that would that would be okay. We don't have a four-story parking garage at No, we don't. No, we don't. No, we don't. All right. We probably should get it that way. Motion to table this discussion.

Second. Motion made and seconded that we table the code changes for the downtown parking regulation discussions. All those in favor signify by saying I I opposed. Nice have it. All righty. Thank you. Um and Erin, if we need to get together with that other the other groups or however that needs to be facilitated. Uh I don't know that we have to have it as a commission meeting, but we've done this in the past where several of us have served on with other committee. So Sure. Yeah. We'll we'll we'll invite a couple of you all to more than just if we get if we get together at some point in time, I'll sure to do that. So, okay.

Okay. Good deal. All right. Another board of adjustment uh remnants. So, retail parking changes. So, a bit of background um for you all. Um just read this off real quick. 2017 major code rewrite. Um off- streetet parking regulations were restructured. While the change did streamline off- streetet parking regulations into one table, it did not change the standards themselves um from the 1990s previous code rewrite. So then in December 2024 um this board approved um uh changing our retail off- streetet parking regulations um as city staff determined um they may be excessive given best practices and a changing local economy. Uh more online shopping is what that means. So there's less need to you know go in person to stores. Um, fast forward two years later, um, February 2026, staff receive a complaint, um, Lowe's, uh, down in Washington Crossing may be storing excess spring product on their parking lot. Um, staff investigated and found they were indeed storing excessive material on their parking lot. And as a result, Lowe's was not providing enough off- streetet parking for customers accessing their businesses. Um, in March, uh, staff informed Lowe's, hey, you got to remove this material. Lowe's complied and removed the material from around 40 parking spaces. Um, just something of note here, material storage is not formalized in our zoning yet. It occurs across Washington. Think Bombgars, ACE, um, some of the shed storage places you see around town. Um, that's not formalized and we're looking to kind of uh, formalize that with a code change in the near future. Um, staff then advise Lowe's if they wish to store additional material, they can apply for a variance to reduce the amount of off- streetet parking they're required to provide. Um and at the April meeting, their variance was denied due to the request not being a hardship. Um however, the board of adjustment did recommend that this board um take a look to examine uh our retail parking standards for hardware stores to see if they were too excessive. And so, um, kind of going

into that, we define furniture, appliance stores, hardware stores, wholesale estab establishments, machinery or equipment sales, uh, clothing or shoe repair shops differently than we do general retail. And kind of an interesting example of this is uh we require uh J C Penney to have more parking spaces than Schnooks. Even though J Penney I mean you know it was J C Penney is a larger building but almost uh you know 40 more parking spaces for J Penney you know uh given 5,000 more square feet. So just think about the foot traffic those two businesses have and uh there you have it. So, um, just just kind of reiterating, uh, our comprehensive plan supports this, um, amend chapter 400 to allow for shared or reduced parking requirements for all land uses in all of our, uh, retail or, excuse me, commercial, um, zoning districts. Um, and so, uh, what these code changes are, um, I guess to address some issues that staff have seen, um, with, uh, our retail, not issu, I guess issues isn't the right word, just more so streamlining because we we frankly Sarah, our our previous city planner, spent a lot of time with those previous um, parking changes. And there are since we have these other definitions of things that might be considered general retail, but because there other definitions in our zoning are not. Um what these changes are to do is really just to kind of um strengthen those those changes that we made in 2024 to have one retail um parking definition that we have determined, hey, this is this is great. We're going to we're going to move forward with this. Um, so that being said, um, we're we're we're taking a look at and I guess I guess let me let me elaborate a little

bit. Um, this relates to the the Lowe's request because, uh, then it means Lowe's would have a lower parking calculation and Lowe's provided, uh, me with some parking studies that they had, uh, put together for some of their other locations across the US. Um, frankly, I don't know how relevant that is to Washington, Missouri specifically, but um, you know, this is it's it's kind of a win-win situation in in staff's view because not only are we, you know, streamlining our our zoning, making it easier for staff to say, "Oh, you're a retail business. Okay, this is your parking calculation." Boom. You got it. Um, and it also allows Lowe's to store, I don't know, on material on 20 more parking spots or whatever. So, they're not getting their full ask, but it is, you know, helping them store more spring material, I guess, is uh where why we're why we're saying this this is this is getting done now.

Uh just a brief minute, though. I mean, it was like when we looked at the comp plan and stuff, too. I mean, we were talking about some of the parking based on, you know, some of that stuff like say when the 1990s and those kind of things. It's like now there's a lot more online absolutely

you know things and it's like you know pennies and even Lowe's and all those and you know whoever complained about the Lowe's things I mean I have never been there I I go to Lowe's a lot you can ask my wife but it's like you can sit there and I have never seen their parking lot very full. Now, if you want to just complain because you can't walk two car lengths to get to the garden center because of all their product stored out there, but overall, I have never seen that lot that full. But again, they're building and everything else. And we talked about Walmart and stuff, too. the amount of of space, you know, that you're saving for the parking, you know, for one thing, it's it's creating x amount of runoff that they have to contain and it's also creating um the oil and other param or the other contaminants and stuff like that that we have to try to deal with from getting into the river and and those kind of things also, you know, and that was, you know, part of what our discussion was back with the comp plan of stuff too is is trying to get like you say the shared lots or

you know do we really need X number of based on because it's a hardware store or or whatever and stuff too because it's like you know I do a lot of online shopping just personally

I get stuff from Home Depot I get stuff from Lowe's I get stuff from Bombgars it's just I can get it delivered free or or very cheaply instead of going out and stuff but it's like you know again I'm not using a spot and it's like that's what our discussion was at that point in time and that's what I still feel that you know like I said I've been out there Lowe's many times myself also but it's like I still couldn't when you first talked about I still can't understand why somebody was complaining about parking out at Lowe's because it's never that full even first thing in the morning when the contractors are out where it's not that full, but anyway.

Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. And you know, that's that's the whole goal of these these changes is to strengthen that that discussion that we had previously about, you know, what's the right number? And I think that one parking space for every 350 ft is pretty good. 350 ft or should it be based upon their retail space and not the square footage of the building? Does that make sense to you? So, if I have a storage, you know, I mean, my retail space is smaller than the square footage of my building. Should we base this upon the actual retail space and not the entire square footage of the building? Who was going to be going in out there before um Hobby Lobby? Hobby Lobby.

That was the one we kept, everybody kept projecting. when we were making the change for Hobby Lobby when we did that way back when because they sat there and did their own calculations for actually how much individual aisles and whatever was in the back for specific storage instead of just aisle way and everything else where it's based upon retail space as opposed to square footage of a building. Yeah, absolutely. We can we can if if this board feels we've talked about that. We've talked about whether or not it should be done that way or not and I don't know I would frankly I would be in favor of that. I think that that's that's a good change to make. I think that makes sense.

I do too. Uh Aaron talking I had a discussion about this the other night with one of my neighbors and the one complaint that that they brought up that I I kind of have to agree with with some of these is is there something in our parking ordinance for controlling uh sight lines and like where how stuff is stored in the parking lot because the the issue that was brought up is and Lowe's is kind of guilty of this I'll I'll throw them out. Bomb bars is kind of the same. Some of that stuff is is pushed so far out to the edge of the drive lane and stuff that it be starts to become a visibility issue a little bit.

Yeah. Well, there there isn't we don't even regulate. Uh we we we don't say that you can store material in the parking lot period. Um and so that's something that uh I I want to work because it happens, you know, to to enforce all that would be a nightmare. Um but you know fire lanes. Yes. Where they can't shove stuff up into the fire lanes. Yeah. But you're just talking about visibility period. You know, if you think it like the the issue that the discussion I was having was like at at Lowe's there where they put all their mulch stuff in front of the the garden center.

You know, a lot of that stuff gets right up to the to the drive lane or sometimes into the drive lane. And then on the right on the other side, you've got all the garden, especially this time of year, you got all the flowers and garden stuff. You got a lot of people walking right in that drive lane area. And it just it makes for a tough visibility issue. Now, driving, if you you know, you know that driving your car, you ought to be slowing down, right? I mean, there's there's some responsibility to drive the car, too. Well, even along that line, I mean, you've got now you've got all the product, like you say, all the way to the end of the parking, you've got all their product that is out there to the edge of the the concrete. But then if you have somebody come and make a delivery, then somebody's got to go around them. And that's again too where your sight is is really because there if you remember if you're going south there's that little hook in the in the roadway on there and you can't see somebody coming from the other side.

Yeah, I agree. Those are those are great points and I I I think I briefly mentioned it earlier, but that's something that I want to bring before this board um in the relatively near future. It's it's frankly we got some other things we got to we got to do, but but uh it's it's on the list. it's on the list to kind of formalize our process as to what we allow uh to be stored in parking lots, how that happens, site distance, those sort of things. So, that's that's good to hear that um you know, people are having these conversations and I'll be sure to find best practices for visibility of storage. Question if you don't want to answer it, that's fine because you don't have to go into it.

Storage containers on parking lots. Do we have a limit as to how long those storage containers can remain on a parking lot? that will be something that we will discuss with these uh changes. Not these, not these ones, but the ones we're we're going to do in the future. Just to say to reiterate what Chuck's point, you know, it's it's never full, you know. I mean, even even the day before Christmas Eve shnooks, you may have to walk all the way from Applebee's or one way or the other, but it's never completely full in there. So there is wiggle room on what we can do to you know require less I guess or you know and if we can make the you know the parking lot storage further away from the front door or you know a designated area or absolutely like that

we have wiggle room to do that especially even those already established establishment you know I look at it a little different too I know in in your shopping centers you know if Lowe's takes up too much parking it bleeds in it steals parking from all millers and you know You don't want to have that happening. Well, same as downtown, right? Same as downtown, right? You don't want to have that happening. But at the same time, if the retailer is not providing enough parking, they're hurting their own. Exactly. than anybody else. Yep. Very true. Very true.

That was that was my first thought when we talked about repurposing downtown businesses. You put something in there that requires a lot of parking. There's not a parking down there. Your business may not be successful because of it. Right. might learn the hard way, but Right. I hope not. Right. Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. So, Aaron, did you want to go over and change make these changes in the the descriptions tonight? Is that what you're

Well, I got I I have a few more just a couple more things to go over real quick um on on this. So, yeah. So, removing the definitions for convenience stores and furniture, blah, blah, blah. Uh clothing stores, all all that all that jazz. um uh and just making them uh I'll go under the general retail uh definition. I've kind of uh gotten a few things here. So uh got some statistics from the National Association of Convenience Stores. Their average store size is 2500. So under our current parking regulations, they would be required an average convenience store would be required 10 spaces, whereas this change would have them be uh seven spaces. Uh, and there were not great statistics for uh, the average size of furniture or appliance stores or all these other businesses. So, I just averaged um, all of the uh, existing businesses that meet these qualifications and you got around 5200 square ft. And so, uh, a business of that size would be required um, currently under our regulations 174 parking spaces and under our proposed uh, parking regulations 150 um, spaces. So, just kind of a change about the average of of both of those under the new parking definition. Um, just a couple other things. This is not necessarily related to uh the Lowe's situation, but these are just some things that I noticed um in our zoning. And while we're talking about retail parking regulations, we we ought to address them. Um, so there are uses in our off- streetet parking regulations with multiple definitions. This makes the parking calculation variable for staff when determining the amount of parking. Uh a use is required. I shouldn't have put the extra use on the end, but um so we got two different definitions for kind of event centers, banquet centers, bingo halls, and reception halls. And then entertainment assembly or exhibition places. Those could be the same thing. Um and same for restaurants. Um restaurant without drive-in or drive-through facilities, nightclub or cafe. Uh, and then we have a definition that says drive-in

restaurant or establishment serving meals, lunches, or drinks to patrons either in their cars or in the building. That could be a restaurant. So, um, just mixing uh, one of those definitions um, for each the banquet center definition and the restaurant definition. So you have one uh parking calculation for uh event spaces and one parking calculation for um restaurants. So um with that questions, comments on this? I think my only concern with specifically there to the restaurant bar assembly area thing is that's a very that's encompassing a lot of uses and what we see in a lot of communities when I look at other zoning ordinances and stuff is uh places that serve alcohol a lot of times have a lower how do I say this have a lower square footage requirement. they're required to have more parking because if you think about if you if you have that type of establishment mixed in with a a dining with a true restaurant tables and chairs compared to a someplace that's that's more of a nightclub place where I've got people standing. I can have a whole lot more people in the nightclub establishment than I will in the the the restaurant with tables and chairs

and they're there for a long time and they're there for a longer time. So you you run into the situation where their their their uses are similar in how they're used, but the the frequency and the number of people is is vastly different sometimes. Well, maybe what we could do then is instead of removing that definition, we just remove the restaurant portion because that's that's my that's my concern is, you know, we have two different definition we have two different definitions that are restaurants. I'm I'm I'm fine with that to, you know, just NYX the restaurant from that that one and have nightclub or cafe for that parking calculation. That's that's good with me.

But don't you see it necessary to do all of them per square foot rather than oh this one here is one space for every five seats. This one is one space for 100 square foot. Yeah, I I things on the use though. I mean that's why is because I get it but my goodness, it's hard to administer. I I agree. Um, yeah. I guess I just haven't really looked at precedent as to what other zoning codes do for nightclub zoning. So, I I I I have no answer. These are pretty common. I mean, that's that's a pretty common those are pretty common ways to to do it based on square footage in a building as opposed to seats. Both.

Yeah. They It's It is easier, Jeeoff. I hear your point though that it is easier for staff to do the square foot calculation because you got to reach out to the person who's building it. How many seats are you having? You know, like so I don't know. Yeah, I I agree. It is easier. I don't know. I guess well the other the other thing too is is when the building change uses and stuff like that. I mean, if you're still to a square footage, it's much easier to Right. the game room becomes six more tables makes a big difference in a restaurant.

Yep. Yep. Yep. So, um, well, these these these are not going before, um, council until these ch all of these changes are not going to council until at least June 1st. So you can recommend best practices for you know or actually here's maybe maybe I could put it on the agenda for our special our special planning commission meeting when we look at best practices and we have that as an item for the planning commission to review there because then it'll be done by the time uh you know first meeting in June council looks at it. concern that have you heard is pretty much the full commission going to be at that meeting on the 22nd.

I I think so. Right. Are we okay? Then I would be in favor of that because I think some of this we need everybody here we can different views. Y so if if we're going to be there, I would be in favor of doing it tableabling it for now and then tableabling the whole thing. Tabling this item on Okay, good deal. Retail parking. That works. and then bringing that on the 22nd for the full group to digest if that would be favorable to the rest of the commissioners. Are you okay without him being here then?

Yeah, that's the only thing is like I I'll I'll be available to call in but I won't physically be able to present. So I what I I guess I guess my recommendation would be you know approve the rest of it and just have this specific issue because I I you know I technology is kind of funny in this room and I I don't want a situation where you know I'm not able to articulate myself this is there anything that's pushing that we couldn't just table this till next month. Well, we've already put a public hearing. No, I mean this this item to next month, this specific item, the the restaurant the retail parking retail.

Yeah, we we've uh published a a public hearing and we we have it on the well, it's not on the agenda yet, but it the goal was to have it on the agenda for the June 1st. Now, obviously, if this board doesn't feel, you know, comfortable, that's that's okay. We'll we'll we'll eat the, you know, public hearing. That's it's fine. Get a credit on it. Huh? I can get a credit on it. Oh, okay. So, never mind. No harm, no foul. I I would rather do that is is table the uh file 260503 on retail parking regulations till our June meeting where we can have full commission here today. Sure. Absolutely. You good deal. You'll be back by then. I will. Yes. Mhm. So

I would entertain to entertain that as a motion. Motion to table till the June meeting. Second motion made and seconded that we table the retail parking regulations till our gene meeting. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed have it. Just making longer meetings for June. Okay. Hard working group. I'd rather Oh man. Okay. Next item. File number 26 0504. Code changes revised design review area. Robert Holstead.

Yes. So um before you on screen, well I guess bit bit of context first. So uh also on the April 20th um board of adjustment meeting um the uh property owners um over at uh Elijah Mlan's Mabella um requested a variance to uh have a backlit sign in the design review area. And the design review area is um this that you see on screen here. This is the area that our um historic preservation commission reviews all improvements towards and there is um a a number of uh it's it's in our sign code that references this area and says hey um you cannot have certain signage in this area to kind of preserve the historic integrity of um downtown. And uh the uh the variance was denied. Um it was a 3 to2 uh vote and um as a result of of that um Robert Hollstead the owner at Enjabella has requested to be removed um from the design review area completely and so this is the current design review area um see well I guess my mouse is on here you can see Mabella um up here Elijah Mlan's 600 West Front and then the proposed revised design review area without Mabella it's no longer there. So, um that being said, Historic Preservation Commission, they voted on this earlier tonight. Um they it was it was a good discussion about, you know, the potential implications of um removing this property from the design review area. um our our uh commissioner or excuse me, chair um Bridget um brought up that, you know, this that there's been so many renovations over the years, it probably wouldn't even be on the be able to be nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. Um so they feel it's apt to be removed. Um so that being

said, uh this has to go before um this board as as our historic preservation rules are part of our zoning and so um they are looking for a recommendation to go to council. So yeah, I guess one question I do have I I did watch I did watch the uh historic preservation commission meeting tonight. Um, excuse me. Um, and I guess one question I would have and this is just more for my knowledge is why are they not able to provide a compliant sign? What what is the issue with providing a compant sign?

Uh, question. Yeah, I don't know. Staff staff recommended denial of the variance for that very reason. So, so I mean if I'm understanding it correctly, you know, the documents got submitted to your office, correct? You guys reviewed them. Correct. Found it not to be compliant. Correct. It went to board of adjustments. Board of adjustments listened to the arguments. Board of adjustments said no. Yep.

Provide a compliant sign. And now I kind of feel like we're changing the rules to to make to make something work. Now I say that I did watch the meeting. I did see the Historic Preservation Commission say they don't have a concern with it. Um so part of me doesn't says if the Historic Preservation Commission doesn't have a concern with changing their boundaries, why am I terribly worried about it? But I am a little concerned about setting the precedent that you know I don't like the outcome I got. So let's change the rules. That I feel a little bit like that's what I feel that way with a couple of the issues we're discussing tonight. What are all the other I mean when it says taking them out of design review area, what other design reviews would we be opening ourselves up to that we no longer have a say in what they're wanting to do?

I mean, really, it's it's just the the signs. The the design review area is a mandatory review, voluntary compliance sort of deal. So, our our historic preservation commission, they are required to review all this this red area that you see here. Um, whenever someone makes an exterior modification or paints their building or adds onto their house or demolishes a structure, historic preservation is required to look at that and give their opinion. This is just strictly for the historic district is all the the design review for historic, right? Correct. How does and the signage

how does the historic district match up to the C2 overlay district? Because remember claimed to us years ago and wanted to be in it so they could get out of the parking requirement parking. It's pretty a couple years ago. So my question is if if they're in the if they're not and we denied it, but if they're still in the historic district, but they're not not in the C2 overlay. So I can't I can't get them exactly back to back, but I understand. But they're close, right?

Yeah. So you can see the the the blue area, that's C3, our downtown zoning, and then the the design review area is the red here. So they're they're pretty close. There's a there's a large portion of well, let's see. Uh well, along well, Cedar along Cedar Street here, there's a large large number of single family properties, but all the rest of it is basically um well, I guess there's some R3 up here where with where the se with the senior apartments, right? Um but the rest of it is yeah, C3 downtown. And then so so Elijah McLean's would be the only commercial to property, right? So to

Mr. Wood's point, the a few I don't how many years ago that was, but they wanted to be in downtown Washington to get away from the parking requirements and it was denied. And here they're still in the historic preservation district. So they go back to the sign thing. To best of my knowledge, they took down their old sign. It was refurbished with a light inside and they want to put it back up and because it's back lit, it doesn't meet the requirements. So, it's their old sign that they originally had the oval. The oval sign that they had. Yeah. Here I got a I got a photo of

But because it's has a light in it, it becomes non-compliant. And the only other thing I would want to say is that it it wasn't compliant. Okay. And it went to the board of adjustment for a variance, but the variance board voted it down because it didn't meet the ordinance. But in my opinion, that's the job of the board of adjustment is to grant a variance for extraordinary circumstances beyond the ordinance. And instead, their discussion that night was it didn't meet the ordinance, so therefore they couldn't vote in favor of it. So it it kind of contradicted itself that we weren't asking you to enforce the ordinance. We were asking you to give a variance

give a variance to it. Whether you like it forward or against it, whatever. But that was kind of a little contradicting to me. Um but again, I I don't think the intent is ill here. I think the fact that the owner had their old sign redone, again, I brought this up at at uh historic preservation before. We allow this when someone else doesn't comply or they don't come to historic preservation and say, "I want to put a backlit sign up." And it goes up without they try to do the right thing. Take their old sign, refurbish it, put a light behind it, and put it back up. And we're holding them up. So this again, I think to your point, we're changing the rules

to get out of it. I'm I'm to the point where let the people have their sign for God's sakes. They're not that, you know, whatever. But this is the way around it. The letter comes to us and say, "Take us out of the compliance area." And then it allows it that Jeff, the easier way to do it is to give them a variance because they didn't get a variance. Now we're having change the rules in the middle of the game. But that's what the board of variances, right? But to my understanding at the board of adjustment meeting, they didn't they voted down the variance because it didn't they were uncomfortable with voting against the ordinance.

No, I I disagree with you. it the I think the variance was shot down because it didn't meet the requirements of a variance. It's supposed to be because of unusual topography, uh some unusual shape of the property that's not generally found in the area. It cannot be for a hardship that you created yourself and they created this is a self-created hardship and that's not appropriate to grant a variance. The board of adjustments is not supposed to be a super city council that when the city council sets the rules, they decide, well, but we don't think that rule should really shouldn't apply. Okay.

We think we should disregard what the council has set the rules to be. And that's not the job of the board of adjustment. Historically, I think they have operated that way, but that doesn't mean that it's correct. Okay? If there's a problem with the code and I guess they're trying to argue or the argument is you should be allowed to have a backlit sign in this historic preservation district then change the ordinance but don't grant a variance because it doesn't meet the requirements. Okay. So you're saying the variance was warranted or not granting the variance was warranted. Correct.

Okay. All right. But it still leads to the fact that take us out of the district. I mean, a lot of layers here, I guess, is what I'm for a simple sign. And absolutely a minute ago, I I I find myself split,

had I watched that meeting tonight, and had the Historic Preservation Commission stood their ground and said, "It's part of our district. We want to keep it in our district." You know, if they would have said, "This is we feel this is important and we want to keep it." this would be an easy decision for me, right? With them saying essentially the paraphrasing what I watched in the meeting with them essentially saying we're not concerned with that property. Um it makes it a little harder. Well, in reality, the thing has changed internally so many sure, you know, to externally you've got historical features, but that's about it, you know, anymore. But

that's also how buildings age. Oh, I know, too. Yeah. Yeah. So, I make a motion to approve it.

I'll second. Motion made and seconded that we approve the revised design area and remove 600 West 600 West Front

600 West Front Street from the design review area. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this? Any other discussion amongst commissioners? Let's call for a vote. Uh, John Bman, Chuck Watson, Ken Shear, uh, no. Mike Wood, no. Pecky, yes.

This is I didn't Did everybody vote? I only heard three votes. One, two. Well, John voted yes and Chuck voted yes. No, no, you didn't. Not necessarily. I made the Did you start over and take roll call again from John Bman? No. Chuck Watson, yes. Kenshar, no. Mike Wood, no. Jeff Pekky, yes. So, nos. So by our vote we have uh denied the request.

Yeah. So that that recommendation will go to the council. Go to the council. So good deal. Thank you. Okay. Uh next item file number 260505 code changes signed ordinance discussion recommendation.

Yes. So this is directly uh related let's see where are we here? uh directly related to the uh last um agenda item, but kind of it's a it's a broader conversation than just Mabella or Elijah Mlan's. This is um to amend our um sign regulations to allow um backlit cabinet signs um and uh let's see electronic display signs, LED signs um in the the design review area that we just um looked at. So, uh there there was a lot of discussion about um you know, Elijah Mlan's location. You know, hey, we're not downtown Washington. we need this extra visibility and maybe these signs aren't necessarily appropriate in the rest of downtown but there might be situations where they are appropriate. It should be on more of a case case by case basis. So previously and currently um backlit cabinet signs not allowed in uh any city historic district design review area or any other properties on the national register of historic places. Um and same with electronic message display signs. Um and th that is um these areas. So this this has the the design review this map has the design review area, but it also has our uh historic districts. So some some additional areas. Most of them are residential. Um but of of note here, you've got uh the uh the VFW and the Bush Brewery are in this um area as as well. So, um this would be a change to uh go from they're completely prohibited to case by case. Uh they they go before backlit um neon and uh electronic message signs go before this board and

then city council. So, a bit more bureaucracy, but um you know, we've we've been having a lot of discussions about this issue, and I think that uh given council input that I've received and uh input from the historic preservation commission, this is a good happy medium that uh staff is staff is happy with. So I I guess my only concern is I don't like to see us making things a special use permit because that takes away any of the guidelines that we should have in place and just leaves it up to interpretation for this month. Next six months from now it may be somebody different. uh there's no consistency, I guess, is what I'm getting at. And

well, the only I see the only exception to be as technology changes that we get to that point, you know, but it's it's like what you're saying. And it's like until we get to that point where we're starting to see technology change that we make these special use permits and then go back and start looking at the code to to identify corrections. And I and I know that there was been a lot of discussion about signs in this commission over the years. U back when Bank of Washington shot that office building across the street put that one up there and that the number of Darren was involved with the discussions on that on the number of knits that it had and how they had to buy an instrument to go measure that. You know, there was we were spent hours talking about that and trying to figure out what's the parameters and that was a technology thing was coming on the market, you know,

right? U and and I get maybe we need to look at that, but I'm just I just don't have a fuzzy feeling about it. Anyway, just my thoughts. I'm open to whatever discussion the commission would like. So would this also include neon or led neonesesque signs?

Yeah, that was that was part of the discussion at historic preservation is we realize we don't have a definition for neon. So that would be something that I would uh add um after this meeting. That was part of their recommend the historic I should also mention historic preservation uh recommended approval of of these changes digital digital display boards as well, right? Yeah. Yep. So currently the library and Emanuel Lutheran are they in the district? Yep. They are. I mean I think those are appropriate, don't get me wrong, but Peter's church wanted to put this electronic display board up, they'd have to come before you all and get a special use.

That's what these changes are saying.

I don't think I mean to to John's point, I made this at historic preservation. It's it's a different historic preservation or it's a different planning and zoning or it's a different council in five years. But I also think that technology supersedes anything we can put in a code that says it should be this today and it's still going to be that way in five or 10 years. So in that case the special use I'm with you. I don't want a special use permit every single time something comes forward. It's got to go to you. You got to discuss it. It's hard feelings. It comes, you know, we want to try to eliminate that. But in this case I I I agreed then meeting before. I think it's at at this time I think it's the right thing to do. So you can it's right for St. Peters.

What what kind of signs going to go up at a potential hotel, right? Well, here's my problem. If we don't if we don't outline it in our code me that would be I mean Right. If we don't outline it in our code, we're going to get a sign you don't want. And in this case, it's a special use permit and you're gonna you're have ability to talk about it with with the hotel because they're going to want tiff assistance that can all be part of a development agreement that says I don't care what the code says. Even if the code allows a backlit, whatever the sign is, we're not going to allow that at that location if you want tiff assistance

or too big or you know size. But am I correct that with with the tiff that in a tiff district historic preservation's recommendations become mandatory as well? If it's anywhere within that that historic preservation district, it's still mandatory review, but not mandatory compliance. No, it's always voluntary compliance. And I I get what you're saying, Jeff, too. You know, it's just it's more cost. It's more work for us, right?

You know, well, for essentially for for everybody because it's It's gonna have to go to start at downtown Washington, right? Yep. Or downtown, not um the historic Historic preservation. Sorry. Historic preservation. I got all my commissions and towns mixed up here. Then it's going to come to us and then it's going to have to go to council. Yeah. And a public hearing for you and for council on each just just council. Oh, no public hearing here. No. No. First special use permit. No. No. Good lucky one. Yeah.

Oh man. Yeah. Okay. Any other comments, questions? Anyone in the audience like to speak?

I guess well I some let me let me mention one more thing. There was one other change I forgot to mention. Um just uh this is not necessarily super related, but I just noticed there were two C3 uh definitions. I mean, they were the same. They were both 75 square feet, but just cleaning that up and uh shrinking our uh maximum total uh the maximum total square feet you can have a freestanding sign. So, like think um just out here the book the bookstore um that that type of sign just shrinking that to be more uh you know so you don't I mean not that 75 square feet is giant by any means but just you know more appropriate for for downtown. So yeah,

any other questions or comments? Yeah, I got a question. I'm just trying to formulate it in my mind, but the new place that's um dispensary that marijuana dispensary there on Madison a is it going to be zone? I guess it's going to be addressed off of Madison Avenue or is Caroline. Caroline.

Caroline. Okay. So, I'm assuming there'll be some big sign out facing Highway 100 147 or whatever and stuff there, too. So, um I know the same thing when that um was that TUAC built and there was a lot of comments about that sign and stuff too. We have enough definitions to cover something from being too gaudy on that one and stuff being it's going to be a

well they in theory could do a 50 foot tall 250 ft freestanding sign and our zoning would allow that in theory. Are they going to do that? Probably not. But if they really wanted to maximize, you know, the total number of square feet, our zoning would currently allow that. So, welcome to Yeah. Yeah. Let's see if we can we can welcome them if you got them. Yeah. So, along along Highway 147, maximum area of or wait, hold on. Did I get that wrong? Maximum uh maximum height's 50 feet and maximum square square foot is 2. Okay, there we go.

Yep. Okay. Any

I'll move approval of the code changes. I'll second. Motion made and seconded that we approve the signed ordinance code changes as presented by staff. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed. Next item, file number 26 0507, preliminary plat manor, lot 3, plat 2 at 416420 Hill Street.

Yes. So, this is just off of uh West Fifth here um on Hill Street, this culde-sac here. Um, and this is a uh zero lot line um subdivision, subdividing a duplex, turning it from a duplex into a single family home. Um, utilizing those code changes we made to R2 um a little bit ago. Everything is compliant. Um, yeah, I don't I don't have any issues with this. So, we've seen it before. Any questions, comments from commissioners? Anybody in the audience? And I would entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second.

Motion made and seconded that we approve the uh preliminary plat for Parkway Manor lot three plat 2. All those in favor signify by saying I.

I opposed. Eyes have it. Uh last item is the other business, Franklin County Subdivision. Yes. So we got uh two uh subdivisions out in the county to discuss real quick. Um first off we got Renaissance Place. Um this is Keith and Judy Radcliffe um out there off South Point Road. Um the city has been heavily involved with this. Um we have worked out a development agreement um for part of the construction of the East West Parkway. Um this little uh where's my this on? It's not on. Um yeah, here we go. This little corner up here is going to be part of the East West Parkway. And then the the aim is to kind of snake it through this property right here and connect it to North Goods Mill Road. Yes, there we go. Um so, you know, we this uh that being said, um Charles has to work out some things uh in in relation to how this plat actually lays out. So, it's still ongoing and has not been uh platted yet at the county, but it's a work in progress and they they have submitted a plat to the county. So, And we don't vote or anything.

No, this is just this is just informing this this board about So and if you have any comments, you know, the only comment is they're going to remove the dam for the lake there or the road going to actually go across the dam. I don't know. I'm not sure. I don't know. Yeah, because that's where it's at. I know. That's a It's like I think that's the hump in I think that's the curvature is the dam. I'm pretty sure, Chuck, this is this is the water. That's the water. That's the lake, I think. Right. That that is the dam. That's the dam right there. That's how I looked at it, but I can't promise you that's what they're going to do, but that's what how I looked at it.

That's how I see it, too. But I wouldn't think you would want to put a road on a It's got to be 50 foot easement in Franklin County. I don't think it has to be. I I think that's something the city said, hey, you you you ought to have this this amount of right away. They're that's kind of what they're showing though, right? Yeah. At the South Point Road, right at the intersection road, they're showing it 50 ft. Yeah. And that was that was city staff who said, "Hey, you ought to make the the road this way." So, for our right away. And another one because we don't

Yes. Yes. Uh the other one uh this is just real quick. Uh Cleamp subdivision. Um, this is on South Beaker Road. Um, after it intersects with South Point, or I guess not South, just it's Beaker Road after it intersects with South Point here. Um, it's off of our kind of periphery zoning map. Um, and the applicant here wants to do two 3acre plus lots and three 20 acre plus tracks, which I learned something new when I I got this uh plat from the county. Apparently, if you uh are subdividing in the county, you do not need a preliminary plat if you are uh altering parcels bigger than 20 acres. Like they just don't have to abide by their subdivision regulations. So, that was something new that I learned um that was kind of interesting. So, you know, if this were in Washington, we would not accept this in a million years, but you know, just thought I'd inform you about what's what's what's happening. So, I don't have any details about why they're splitting this or what the deal is, but just letting you know. So, okay. Anything else? If not, entertain one last motion.

Move to adjurnn. Second. Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 8:38. Those in favor signify by saying I. Hi. Thank you.