Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

That was the weather was good. Billy was like that. We never had any rain. It was warm. They still haven't decided. How you doing, Greg?

the order of the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for Monday, August 10th at 7 p.m. Roll call, please, Gina.

Rocco Gonzalez.

Here.

Mark Pantek. Here. Mary Higgeborn.

Here.

John Boardman. Here. Ken Shear. Here. Chuck Watson. Here. Chad Briggs. Here. Matt Coleman. Here. Mike Wood. Here. Bailey Kitchell. Here. Aaron Beckham.

Here.

of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Before we approve the minutes, I'd like to welcome Bailey to our first commissioner meeting this evening, so welcome. Thank you. Channels yeah, I was just cool. I'm sorry. I'm rushing Sorry, okay, welcome our new city administrator also is here with Thank you so the first item on the agenda is the approval of the July 13th meeting and entertain a motion.

Motion to approve. Second.

Motion made and seconded to approve minutes. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed?

Ayes have it.

Next item, file number 26-0803, special use permit 1459 West Fifth Street for an RV park, Paul Henderson with Washington Elks Lodge number 1559.

Yes, good evening, Commission. This is a request for a special use permit at the Elks Lodge for an RV park slash campground. You can see the RV spaces on the screen right here. So this case requires a bit of background information. um so rv parks require a special use permit their special use permit they are a special use in all of all zoning districts so just a bit of context here staff received an inquiry from the public regarding if the elks lodge was allowed to operate an rv park on site that you see there or the i guess you can see the rv spaces per se so They were granted a special use permit in February of 2021 for an RV park. However, special use permits must be utilized within a year of approval and the Elks Lodge did not ask for an extension of the original permit. Permits were not pulled for the installation of the utility hookups and the Elks was not able to provide adequate proof of construction beginning within that time. So That means that their original special use permit is null and void. And so this is a special use permit to get them in compliance with our zoning here. So some staff comments here. The RV spaces were installed April of 2024 or installed by April 2024. I should say, as verified by Google Earth imagery. The RV park has been operating with no complaints for several years. Yeah, as I said, the permit is to get the RV park compliant with our code. We see no issues with allowing a previously approved use to continue operating. The RV park meets all applicable criteria and we recommend approval. Any questions?

Are they going to be inspected for the hookups and everything if they didn't get that initially?

Yeah, they yeah probably I would assume I would assume that that probably be a good Good thing to do.

Yeah Sure, yeah, yeah sure I have a question.

Yeah, and this is just general Maybe I don't know the Elks very well. I mean, is this a common thing for the Elks to have an RV park?

That might be a question for the applicants if they want to answer that

And just one other real quick comment in your description is on the western edge. It's the east.

Oh Thank You Chuck Paul Henderson, I'm the board president for the Washington Elks Lodge appreciate you Taking this under consideration again. We apologize for being Volunteers and sometimes things like this get overlooked as as the our boards turn over to the answer your question yet and These are all just used by Elks. It's the only ones that are be eligible to use these four pads that we have in place. That's all that's been used since 2021. It's just we have Elks organization members that travel across the country that we're out on the website. They have an opportunity to come to us and reserve a spot. This last week's probably a good example of the longest time with the fair. We had one of our spots used for four full nights So that's basically it. We all hookups It's electrical and water only they have to use the the dump station over on the North Drive or Take it with them Interesting I didn't know any other commissioners have any questions for the applicant.

I

As part of that, it's listed as only one week is allowed to

no that's that's something that the the applicant chose to it's just how you operate correct the the week timeline yeah there's no conditions on the or there was no condition there were no conditions on the original special use permit we've got conditions placed on it where we're we're limiting that it's and we've had no requests really longer than than a five day period and i think that's you know family member keeping the town situations like that yeah And staff, we aren't recommending any conditions.

Oh, that's what you got in your comments was guests may only stay a week.

I'm sorry?

That's what you have in part of your comments, that guests may only stay a week.

Yeah, yeah. That's something that the Elks. So it's not part of the conditions? No, no. That was just something I was just describing their business practice.

OK. Any other questions from commissioners? Thank you. Thank you. Any other discussion on this item from commissioners? If not, I would entertain a motion.

And a motion to approve.

Second motion made in second to approve of the special use permit for 1459 West 5th Street Park. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Next item, file number 26-0804, special use permit 2132 Highway A, Temporary Shelter, Life's River.

Yes, good evening. This is a special use permit down off Highway A there for a temporary shelter. So just a bit of context here. Temporary shelters are defined as follows. They are a special use in only our industrial districts. Short-term emergency shelter for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or child abuse. Temporary residential shelter for homeless individuals or families, runaway youth, and patients and families caught in medical crises. These establishments may operate their own shelters or may subsidize housing using existing homes, apartments, hotels, or motels. So the applicant in question, Life's River, was granted a special use permit for this use at the aforementioned location in November of 2022. The permit was approved with 12 conditions of approval, and the applicant has met all of the conditions following the opening of the facility in April of 2024. And so here's a list of those conditions. There's a lot, but what we're discussing here today is condition number one, which limits the occupancy of Life's River to 25 occupants. And then there's a surge occupancy for, let's see here, 30 occupants for 30 days. And so the applicants are requesting to revise the occupancy condition of their special use permit to be able to house 40 residents and any staff they may have. Given the demand for services, the facility's record, and room to accommodate increased occupants, the applicants believe this is a reasonable request. There are no proposed changes to the exterior of the building, lives, rivers, operating procedures, or any other conditions of the special use permit. And I think that it's worth mentioning that that 25 occupant limit, that was an arbitrary number set at the time that the special use permit was approved. The actual occupancy, according to the International Building Code, Is is much higher and there's a there's some details here outlining that they have more than enough Facilities and square footage to accommodate these these residents and our building official has taken a look at that and approved prove that and They also have enough parking for the increased demand. They estimate, and this is something that our staff worked with the applicant on, is coming up with the required number of parking spaces or the parking calculation for temporary shelters. There is no specifically defined parking calculation for temporary shelters, but we use the parking calculation for hotels and motels since they have a very similar demand. to determine that. So with that parking calculation, they meet that as well. So just some staff comments about the request. The facility has been operated with few complaints over the two years it has been in operation. The International Building Code outlines the facility as more than enough room to accommodate the requested number of occupants. Proposed use meets all applicable special use criteria and staff see no issues with allowing a previously approved use to continue operating. So we recommend approval. Any questions?

You said the 25 number was arbitrary? Yeah. Who came up with that? Us?

I believe it was the commission. It was the commission. OK. Gotcha.

And where did that come from? It was just a guidance just to start. That's based on, I think, what the staff had said at the time they expected to have, if I remember right from our discussions. And we agreed to that and give them a chance. Because originally there was quite a bit of discussion about this. Good word for it, discussion.

Hours and hours of discussion.

It was a good discussion.

So sorry, I have one other question on that because I wasn't a part of the commission when that first went down, but what about the local residents? Were they Little excited about it.

And are they going to be more excited now that there was quite a bit of discussion with residents and some that lived out there and others concerned about what the Facility was going to be bringing to the community, but I think their track record is proven and it speaks for that tonight The rooms not packed

Their facility is in my ward. I have not had one complaint, ever.

There you go. So I think they've had an excellent track record, and I think that speaks well for them coming back for this.

And Matt just a little clarification. I mean, it's like that was part of the reason it moved out to the industrial area and stuff like that too was because of the prior and the residential type things don't you know, so.

Any other comments or questions.

applicant is here if The only thing I guess just you know, it's just plain 40 is the max.

There's no surge Into it and stuff is all yeah, just just plain plain 40 was the request and that's what we're recommending upset

There's definitely.

Anybody have any questions for the applicant? Does he think, do you think you're going to get to 40? I mean, is there that, I mean, I know there's a homeless problem that you're trying to help with, but do you see you maxing out at 40 pretty quickly?

My understanding from the architects, oh, excuse me. My name is Greg Holbrock, 500 Braeburn Court, Washington, Missouri. I've been told and I refer to the architect on the maximum capacity that building is 49 Internally, we don't believe we can house more than 40 at 40 we think Logistics just get it gets too crowded. I Yes, we could put them in there, but no we don't want to I would tell you that we will probably go to 30 and We will see how we operate at 30. We'll see how things operate. We'll see what the need is. And we'll see how it goes from there. The ask for 40 tonight is so I don't have to come back.

You don't like being here with us? That's where the 40 comes from.

We don't have to come back. I don't think, I cannot see a case in that building that I would ever try to ask you to let me put more than 40 in there, even though I think the design criteria would allow it. I can't believe me asking for it. I just, I can't see me doing that.

Do you think you'll get 40 occupants in there? I mean, do you think there's enough demand to get that many people right now?

It varies. We've been full. We're not full right now. We've been full, and at one point when we were full, we were full at 25. We had a waiting list of about four or five. That would have taken us up to maybe 35. I'm going to tell you 35 to 40 is probably the max. That seems to be the...

that you're working with?

Yeah, the number can go up and down. The average stay in the house is 121 days, which is shorter than I thought it would be. Since we've opened, we've had 3,698 nights, resident nights. So communal living is difficult. And people think they can deal with it, but after a while they start struggling with it. And I can see it. You know, privacy is an issue, you know, space, lots of things. So it's encouragement for them to get out. So there's going to be a constant turnover, which is fine for us. We feel that the people that come through the place, 85% of them are better off than when they left. Now we've had some walk in. Walked right back out into the same environment. They got nothing out of it. That's fine. We're here to help. But 85% of the people we feel are better off when they leave. And we've had about 30 that I would tell you are success stories. They came in. They had nothing. They had no jobs. They couldn't balance a checkbook. Left and are in apartments with jobs. That's a complete success story. That's what you hope everybody got to, but really it's not going to happen.

Thanks, Greg. Any other questions for Greg? Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners? I will say that I have to abstain from the vote because I'm on the advisory board for Life's River, for the record.

I have to abstain. I'm on the executive board for Life's River.

And I get to abstain because I'm the architect for Life's River. So that's why.

I'm not going to abstain, but I'm going to make a motion that we approve this. And I'll second it. Very good.

Motion made and seconded that we approve the special use permit for Life's River up to a capacity of 40 residents. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Thank you. Thank you guys. Thank you guys. Thank you. Next item, 26-0801, code changes, home occupations, discussion, recommendations.

Yes, good evening. So I brought this before the commission in April or May. I don't remember which month. But any whom, this came about because we had a special use permit request. For those who were not on the commission at that time, we had a special use permit request for someone to operate a home out of, or to operate a school out of their home. And in doing that, the commission tabled their request for staff to research kind of more, precedent about how our home occupation rules were treating that use. And what we found out pretty quickly was that in 2022, the state of Missouri passed several bills governing what municipalities can regulate concerning home-based work and home-based businesses. So the statute that we're going to be talking about, several statutes we're going to be talking about, defines home-based work as any lawful occupation performed by a resident within a residential home or accessory structure, which is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling unit for residential purposes and does not change residential character of the residential building or adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood. This is from the state statute that was passed preempting home occupations. Any zoning ordinance may not be passed regulating home-based work as follows. Prohibit mail order or telephone sales, prohibit service by appointment, prohibit or require structural modifications to a home or accessory structure, restrict hours or operation for home-based work, restricts storage or the use of equipment that does not produce effects outside of the home or accessory structure. This is kind of the most important one here. A zoning ordinance or regulation adopted pursuant to this chapter that regulates home-based work shall not contain provisions that explicitly restrict or prohibit a particular operation. And our current ordinance does just that. It says that you can't have a dance school and a number of other occupations just kind of the first one that came to my mind here but there's there's a number of occupations that it says you cannot have these in in your home and the state law says that that is not a legal So another section regulating this defines home-based business as any business operating inside a residential dwelling. And cities do not have the authority to prohibit any quote unquote no impact home-based business or require any permit, license, variance, or prior approval to operate a no impact home-based business. And so what that means is a business qualifies as a no impact based business if the total number of employees and clients on site at one time does not exceed the occupancy limit, all operations are legal, they do not cause a substantial increase in traffic, they do not violate any parking regulations, incurs inside of a dwelling unit or associated yard, and the occupation is not visible from the street. What we are allowed to regulate is building fire code, health, transportation, waste, pollution, and noise control. So essentially, if a home-based business becomes a nuisance, then we have the authority to regulate. But if they're just operating in their home and no one can tell, we don't have any authority to say, you need to get this specific license. So because we can enforce building code, you know, when... Something that is a key thing here is occupancy limits. So these are in the property maintenance code, part of the international building code suite of codes. And this is just talking about occupancy limits. So it's based on the square footage of your living room, dining room, and bedrooms. So I'm not going to go through all this here. This is just a diagram of specific Occupancy limits and structures if we want to get into that Later, so a recommendation tonight is pretty narrowly tailored. We kind of have our our hands tied here by the state and so mark beyond tech myself and Mike Grissom kind of wrote wrote the following code to Comply with the state and still give the city some authority to regulate home-based businesses so Replace the current home occupation definition. This is our recommendation to replace the current definition with the following. An occupation carried on within a dwelling or accessory building by occupants of the dwelling and not exceeding the occupancy limits of said dwelling provided the residential character of the building is maintained and the occupation is conducted in such a matter as not to give an outward appearance nor manifest any characteristic of a business in the ordinary meaning of the term nor infringe upon the right of the neighboring residents to enjoy the peaceful occupancy of their homes. And then this section 400-155A here, that is the section that outlines the specific uses that cannot be home-based businesses. So replace that section with the following provisions. Any business not a no impact home-based business must register with the city. Each structure within a home-based business is operated, shall have a valid occupancy permit. Businesses are permitted to operate in the structure, rear yard or side yard. No visible evidence of the business. There should be no visible evidence of the business from the street. Should not create a nuisance. There should be sufficient off-street parking. The businesses shall stagger third parties to minimize traffic impacts. They shall only be operated by the occupants of the dwelling. The total number of residents, employees, and customers shall not exceed the maximum occupancy limit. Home-based businesses shall comply with state law, and no home-based business shall involve the use of any hazardous or explosive material. So that's our recommendation. There's unfortunately not a whole lot of wiggle room with our recommendation just because of how narrowly tailored state law here is. So I'm happy to take any questions. It's not really the best case scenario, quite frankly, but it's better to have something than nothing. Because we ran into a situation, I'm going to say about a month and a half ago, where an individual had, and this is where Grissom got involved in this, our code enforcement officer, where an individual had some complaints about one of his neighbors operating a business out of his garage that he didn't have any, you know, occupancy or business license or anything like that. But because our code was kind of in this weird limbo state where the state authority said, well, your code doesn't have any power because you're regulating specific uses and you don't have this no impact status that we are adopting. Couldn't really do a whole lot about it. You know Grissom our code enforcement officer worked with The individual and got that situation resolved outside of the code, but you know, it's it's good to have Code in place that's actually enforceable. So with that questions comments thoughts. I

So what are the necessary forms or certification to ensure no impact? Section, all that good stuff. Is that, I guess, what the, is it on like the state website or something aligned with this code? Or, I'm just trying to say, what are the things that they would have to provide us or anyone really to say that In that example, code enforcement comes and they're like, is this a new impact? What's the form or certification that exists?

Yeah, I think they would just have to provide a report showing how they are meeting these criteria here. And that's something staff can develop.

I mean, the state might have it already. I'm not sure. I'm just saying if we're going to put it up there. Sure.

No, that'd be something to look into for sure, for sure. But if not, yeah, we definitely will develop something that lets people, if we have an issue with a specific business, we'll create a form that

you know to these criteria to say hey how are you how are you meeting these so right one of the things that I asked Aaron about today was on this page do not cause a substantial increase in traffic who determines what substantial is to me that's very subjective right

well yeah and to go along with that it says the you know what's defined as a nuisance you know sufficient off-street parking who makes all those definitions yeah we do basically right but do we have that defined or it's already in the it's yeah

And for those who weren't on the commission when we originally brought this up, I did some research about other cities that had implemented code compliant with this state law. And those who were actually enforcing it echoed that exact gripe that this language is quite vague, and it doesn't really give specific parameters that are to be met. So it's in the eye of the beholder.

Do we have those parameters before we adopt anything?

It's it's just about like any nuisance ordinance You know what person is a nuisance to one person may not be to another and as time goes on those definitions change and stuff also so if somebody is complaining about something that's what the court code enforcement officers are going to come in and try to resolve between the parties and So someone came in and said there's seven cars parked on the street and the resident the next-door neighbor says there should only be three then we say that's Well, but it says there, you know they It just defines what you know with off street parking and stuff like that, you know, so it's like They have to have off street parking for all their additional people there so that part type thing is already defined and

A lot of these are already defined in other codes. Like off-street parking, the nuisance. The nuisance is already an ordinance. If you fall outside the nuisance ordinance, you're not going to be compliant. Right.

My question is, each structure with a home-based business shall have a valid occupancy permit even if there are no impact. I'll give you an example. I ran my lobbying business for seven years out of my home. I called and asked. I didn't need a business permit. I didn't need to have a business permit in Washington. It was just me, my computer, and a couple of telephones is all I needed to do that. I mean, if you think about it, my wife has a side business where she does photography on the side. The address is our home. Do we have to have an occupancy permit now in order to have that impact business?

You had an occupancy permit to move in.

Correct.

So you have an occupancy permit.

JUST FOR YOUR HOME AS A RESIDENT.

RIGHT, AS A RESIDENT. BUT LET'S SAY YOU HAD MOVED BEFORE THE OCCUPANCY PERMIT REQUIREMENT CAME IN. SAY I'VE BEEN IN MY HOME LONG ENOUGH AND I STARTED MY BUSINESS THEN. OR IF YOU'RE IN A HOME ALREADY AND THEN YOU START A BUSINESS. I'M JUST QUESTIONING THE NEED FOR AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR ALL BUSINESSES.

BASICALLY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE IN A HOME, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT. whether you rent or right whether your rental or or I mean the rental ones there they they have to get re we see every time you know, but it's like once you you build a house or whatever and stuff, you know, you've got to get an occupancy permit so. The House is going to be certified to occupy. And that's all are saying.

But you as the main resident already have what you need. Yeah, if you're putting your address on there so they're saying because are you on there. It's like if

Everybody already has an occupancy permit.

Why don't you just can't you just can't have a house somewhere.

is only require an occupancy permit if people other than the residents will be in the premises. So with your lobbying business, you're not having people come over and resume. So we wouldn't require an occupancy permit for that. But if you're having clients show up at your house, then we would require an occupancy permit. That would seem to be a reasonable compromise.

I would agree with that. And those we can write ourselves, right? Right. OK. What does the rest of the commission feel about that particular item?

I see what you're saying.

It's pretty reasonable. Makes sense. Consensus? Yeah. So let's make that change. OK. Aaron, so there is no business license required. Is that correct?

I mean, there are business licenses required for, you know.

Specific businesses. I'm sorry? Like for specific industries and stuff like that.

No, yes. Any business that operates within Washington is required to get a business license. So we would tell them.

Is there a fee involved with that?

Just the normal fee. It wouldn't be anything different than any other sort of business. But we wouldn't make them, if someone called and said, hey, I want to have a lobbying business out of my home, we wouldn't say, oh, well, you have to get this extra permit and pay an extra fee. It would just be whatever's standard. Got it. OK. Yep.

I guess the only other thing that I really and I talked to him about this this morning to his item number 1718. It talks about hazardous materials and potentially lethal items. Any individual, you know, reading that first sentence of number 17 shall notify the city on applicable forms or certifications. And then we see in the next sentence on 18, no business shall involve the use of hazardous materials or explosives. So...

Yeah, I think what happened here is Mark wrote one of these provisions, and I wrote another one, and we just didn't get that. So I guess I'll defer to you, Mark, if we can regulate out hazardous materials or. We're playing with that. Okay, good deal.

Any other commissioners have any concerns?

So we're going to take 18 out of there then.

So what do you guys need from us tonight.

Well ideally a recommendation to put these put these with the changes you've requested to for these to Council so.

So is this you know WITH THESE REGULATIONS, THEN IF SOMEBODY STARTS A HOME BUSINESS AND THEY DON'T APPLY FOR A BUSINESS PERMIT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, IS IT ALL JUST STILL COMPLAINT DRIVEN? ABSOLUTELY. OKAY.

YEAH. AND I THINK THAT. TYPICALLY IS. YEAH. YEAH. RIGHT. YEAH.

SO THE FORMS THAT'S REFERENCED IN HERE, DO YOU HAVE THOSE DEVELOPED ALREADY?

Those those no I do not but I will Yeah, but those I mean that that's that's where I can get those together tomorrow, you know up so That's that's not a tough ask There's a lot of pieces

Yeah, there are there are but at the same time as it's like the hands are tied to quite by the state.

By the state statute. Don't want that.

OK, any other suggestions or things you want to change.

I'll move we approve with the changes as recommended. Second.

Motion made and seconded that we approve the home occupation code changes with recommended changes between you and council. And all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Very good. Good job on this. Anything else, Aaron?

Don't think so.

I know that next month, I think, we're going to have a discussion on lot lines, zero lot lines.

Sight distance triangle, yes. That's the goal.

So that'll be on our discussion. We've talked about that before. We're doing that next month. So be thinking about that, driving around, looking at things.

Yeah, for anyone who wants more information, I'm happy to provide, you know, so you can get your mind taken.

Nice. Yeah.

Regarding John, regarding both signs and buildings and whatnot and stuff, too. As far as the triangle goes.

Yeah, because that's that's yeah, that's probably what.

Yeah, all that's all that's involved.

So everything within the triangle. So, yep.

the site distance triangle.

Well, I know, but that's what... Not just the building, but everything. Yep. Right.

Okay. If nothing else, then I would entertain one last motion.

Motion to adjourn.

Second. Motion made and seconded. Did we adjourn? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. It's pretty good. There you go.