Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the transcript, here is the formatted version with speaker names identified. *Note: While the provided list focuses on City Council and Department Directors, the transcript identifies the lead staff member as **Jared Johnson (Planning Coordinator)** and makes reference to a **Commissioner Chris**. The presiding officer is identified as the **Planning Commission Chair**.* *** [0:00] [Music] [0:46] **Planning Commission Chair:** Right, we call the meeting to order. On behalf of the Planning Commission, I'd like to welcome our residents and viewers to this regular meeting of November 14th, 2023. On tonight's agenda, which is fairly short, we just have one discussion item. Uh, before we get into that discussion item, though, we have a housekeeping item: that would be the minutes of our September 12th meeting. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? If not, is there a motion? [1:15] **Commissioner Chris:** Motion. [1:16] **Planning Commission Chair:** Have a motion for approval. Is there a second? [1:18] **Planning Commissioner:** I'll second. [1:19] **Planning Commission Chair:** Motion and second. I'll—everybody say all in favor say aye. [1:22] **Commissioners:** Aye. [1:23] **Planning Commission Chair:** Anybody opposed, no? Okay. All right, we'll get into our discussion item. Uh, this is on potential code amendments. Again, this is a discussion only. Uh, several minor amendments. Jared—Jared Johnson, our planning coordinator, will take this, correct? [1:32] **Jared Johnson:** Thank you, Chair, uh, members of the Planning Commission. So over the past couple of years, staff um has been updating a list of potential code amendments. Um, these minor amendments include correcting spelling errors, adding definitions, clarifying language, and updating uses and performance standards. Uh, so attached in your packet there's this table, and uh, the Planning Commission has asked to give staff feedback uh on these potential code amendments. And then once feedback is received, staff will make final edits and bring formal draft amendments to a future meeting. So we'll go over this table page by page, and then at the end of the page, I'll just ask you guys if you guys have any questions or comments on them. All right, so starting with this first page, um, all—all these amendments um deal with the Highway 3 overlay district and the Spruce Street overlay district. And for some reason, um, back when this code got entered, um, the words "required" and "requirement" got misspelled, so it's spelled R-E-E-G, not R-E-Q. So staff just suggests going in there and replacing it with Q. So that's the whole page, the first page. [2:46] **Planning Commission Chair:** That's interesting. I wondered how that happened, Jared. Thank you. [2:56] **Jared Johnson:** And so if you move on to the second page, uh, the first three uh rows there deal with the same thing, besides the first—the top row; instead of the Spruce Street Q overlay district, it's the Spruce Street um—or the Spruce Street overlay district, it should be SSO, not SSQ. And then the next two after that is the same um with the word "required." And so we move on to 10-4-5, height regulations for airspace safety. Uh, the two governmental agencies in there, um, staff is suggesting capitalizing those since they are governmental agencies. Moving to the next two, 4-5-2 and 4-5-4, architectural design and material: uh, this staff is suggesting removing the C-1 zoning district as this district doesn't exist anymore. Um, so just cleaning up language um there. And then the last row here, 10-2-1: uh, this deals with definitions for auto—auto repair minor. Uh, staff would like to add window tinting and service into the definition. This was due to a zoning inquiry if this uh um sort of use would fall within this definition, and staff would like to include this. Are there any comments, questions on the second page? [4:16] **Planning Commissioner:** No, none for me. No. [4:18] **Jared Johnson:** So the third page is all dealing with zoning definitions. Uh, the first—the first row here um deals with uh church—churches, but our use—the church use um in our zoning districts is actually called "places of worship." So staff would like to strike out "church" and replace it with "places of worship" under that definition um because church is not listed as a use; it's places of worship. And then the rest of the rows here on this third page deal with adding in um use definitions that are missing. So we currently have these various uses um listed as permitted or conditional in several zoning districts, but we don't have a definition for them. Uh, so adding these definitions would be pretty crucial and um is a pretty common standard. So um, is there any questions or comments on this page? All right, moving on. Uh, one last definition uh topic here on the first row: nursing homes. Staff is suggesting removing this definition um as we don't have an existing use for this in code. Nursing homes are currently covered under senior care facility. And then moving to the second row are conditional uses in the R-2, R-3, and R-4 zoning districts. Uh, the use "group homes commercial" are listed as conditional uses in these districts, but we do not have a definition for them, and staff finds this use irrelevant as we already have two other group home uses. Um, and so staff suggests just removing this use together—all together—from code. Moving down to the third row: uh, retail uses in the B-1, B-2, B-3, Spruce Street mixed use, uh, mixed use commercial industrial, and mixed use commercial residential zoning districts. Um, currently we have no definition for retail facilities um, but it's listed as a use in several of these zoning districts. Uh, this use is very similar to retail sales and services, which has a definition and is listed as a use in several zoning districts. So staff is suggesting to consolidate the two uses into "retail sales and services" and consolidate um where they're permitted—where they're permitted, where they're conditional use um—together as well. Um, because both these uses are very similar and it'd just be clear and be easier for um potential users to—to consolidate this into one use. And move down—move down to the next row: uh, we have the mixed use commercial industrial district under uses. Currently it says permitted "hotels" and then under conditional "hotels and motels." This is contradicting language, so staff suggests removing hotels from the conditional portion and just leaving motels. Uh, moving on to the next two, these deal with um the Spruce Street mixed—or the Spruce Street mixed use district and the mixed use commercial residential district. Uh, currently under conditional uses there's "dwellings multiple family," but back in 2021, dwellings multiple family was replaced with "dwelling apartment." Uh, so this got missed, so staff suggests um replacing that with dwelling apartment. And then the last row here, B-1: in the B-1 highway business district, under lot coverage, currently is 25%. Staff is suggesting increasing this to 40%, as this was a miscode change recommendation from the Highway 3 overlay plan in 2019. [7:45] **Planning Commission Chair:** Surprised it's even down that low. All right, are there any questions, comments on that? [7:48] **Planning Commissioner:** Under the motels, that one is—is hotels then going to fall in line with motels? Is that— [7:52] **Jared Johnson:** No, so they'll still be separated. Um, the differential between those two is um the long-term permanent stays um at uh motels differentiating between hotels. So we keep them conditional. Moving on, we have another B-1 um update. So staff is suggesting adding mixed use buildings as a permitted use in the B-1 district. Uh, they currently aren't listed as a permitted use. Um, this is a popular redevelopment use uh that could help enhance the Highway 3 corridor. So staff is strongly pushing uh to add mixed use buildings as a permitted use in this corridor. Moving—moving on to 10-6-4, off street parking, uh, recreational vehicles. This section mostly deals with recreational vehicles needing to be parked on—or being parked—excuse me, being parked on a hard surface and not being allowed to be parked in grass. Um, there has been confusion um especially on the code enforcement side if utility trailers count as recreational vehicles when it comes to parking them in grass. Uh, staff suggests adding a section at the very end saying that this section applies to utility trailer parking as well, as this will help clarify this code enforcement issue. And then right below that, too, adding a definition for utility trailer um just due to the above added change to make it clear. [9:26] **Planning Commissioner:** How has that been enforced? Is it—has it been enforced that they need to be on hard surface also? [9:31] **Jared Johnson:** Correct. Okay. Yep, so it's being enforced that we now—yes, correct. And then the last row here, uh, 10-6-1-2 F, deals with site plans for fences. Um, currently a site plan or legal survey um needs to be submitted to the building inspection for approval of fences over four feet in height. Currently, we really don't have a formal approval process for this. Um, right now it's usually a resident just gives us a phone call, we give them our email, and we basically give them an email back saying yes, meets code requirements. Um, staff is suggesting making a simple fence verification form for making it easier for residents to go on and submit that just so we have a clear process to give—to give approval back to them. [10:06] **Planning Commissioner:** So the resident will understand what's required of them. [10:08] **Jared Johnson:** Correct. Yeah. Yep. Any questions or comments on that page? All right, moving to the last page here. Uh, we have 10-6-1-2 G, which is fences uh relating to materials. Uh, staff is suggesting adding electric fences as a prohibited material in residential lots. Uh, this was a recent code enforcement issue, um, and then electric fences in residential areas can be considered public nuisances. So this is a common sense um material to put into the um restricted material section for fences. And then the last two deal with uh 4-5, which is building regulations are architectural design and materials. Uh, this whole section, which I attached in the packet um for your reference, um relates to general property maintenance and appearance, um including number of accessory buildings and exterior building material um and is enforced by the building official. Staff is suggesting removing this section altogether and putting this in the zoning code as these regulations are typically enforced um by the zoning administrator rather than building inspections. There might be a couple things within this code that the building inspections division might want to keep in the building code uh section of the code, um so we'd work with them on that before bringing uh final edits to you guys. And then the last—the last row here deals with dwelling unit restrictions. Uh, this section states that no garage, tent, accessory building, or motor home can be used as living quarters. Um, but we currently allow manufactured homes and accessory apartments in certain zoning districts. So this is contradicting language saying that you can't live in them, yet we allow them in certain districts. So staff is suggesting removing "motor home" but adding "recreational vehicles" because we don't have that um currently in the code, and then adding an exception of accessory apartments. Any questions or comments on that? [12:21] **Planning Commissioner:** Yeah, can you explain your exception—with the exception of accessory apartments? What—what are you referring to there? That they—they can be in an upstairs of a garage or what do you— [12:29] **Jared Johnson:** So currently we do allow accessory apartments in certain zoning districts, and we don't have a—we don't differentiate between whether it's attached or detached. So technically you could have a detached accessory um residence, per se. That's not outlawed in code, so um we just want to make—make it clear. [12:56] **Planning Commissioner:** Okay, 'cause you talk about accessory building and then—but it's—accessory apartment isn't an accessory building but— [13:06] **Jared Johnson:** Correct. So that's why we get with the exception. No, took me a little while to get that one. Sorry. And if there's no other questions or comments, uh, staff will make final edits and move forward with um more formal draft amendments for you guys at a future meeting. [13:41] **Planning Commission Chair:** That'd be fine. Um, the zoning use table—are you going to any changes on that that you see down there? The permitted, the conditional, any of that? [13:51] **Jared Johnson:** Yep. So the main one um to point out would be the retail—retail facilities. Uh, so that one—so you can see retail facilities, retail facilities greater than 3,000 square feet, retail—retail sales and service, you know, retail sales and service less than 3,000 feet, retail sales and service greater than 3,000 feet—all this will get consolidated into one. So that's the main—the biggest change for the use table. [14:23] **Planning Commission Chair:** So you got almost all of them as permitted except for the last one, greater than 3,000. [14:28] **Jared Johnson:** Correct. So we—we remove the "greater than 3,000." Staff doesn't believe that this—that 3,000 threshold—there's no really reasoning for it. Um, so we remove both those requirements, and so retail sales and services would be permitted in B-1, B-2, B-3, um Spruce Street mixed use and mixed use commercial industrial, but stay conditional in the mixed use commercial residential. Okay. And the reason why it stays conditional in the—or in the mixed use commercial residential is for the residential aspect of that district. [15:19] **Planning Commission Chair:** Okay. And then Chapter 5, the architectural design and uh materials, that is just being moved or— [15:23] **Jared Johnson:** Correct. So staff is proposing moving uh this whole chapter over to the zoning code as these are typically um typical zoning code enforcement issues that um the planning department would deal with and not building inspections. [15:45] **Planning Commission Chair:** Okay. Chris, you got any comments? [15:48] **Commissioner Chris:** No, that's good. [15:50] **Planning Commission Chair:** No, and I don't either. Um, nothing jumps out at me that might stir up any kind of excitement with either residents or—or council at this point. Um, we are missing two Commissioners tonight, so you know they'll get another opportunity when it does come back. [16:08] **Jared Johnson:** Correct. Yep. [16:09] **Planning Commission Chair:** And that may not even be next month, might be two months, is that right? [16:13] **Jared Johnson:** No, no, it doesn't matter. The timeline is still—still undecided, but we have some opportunity and— [16:18] **Planning Commission Chair:** Right. You know, the whole commission can continue to review it. You got nice handouts and it's online also, so we should have some opportunity to do that then. So okay, nothing jumped out at me, so I'm—I'm perfect. You know, again, as you said, they're almost mostly were minor. I mean, they— [16:47] **Jared Johnson:** Right. [16:48] **Planning Commission Chair:** So I'm okay with it. All right, anything else from you, from the commission, Jared? [16:50] **Jared Johnson:** Uh, no. That will be it. [16:51] **Planning Commission Chair:** All right, Commission, you got any more questions, comments? If not, I'll remind our residents and viewers our next regular meeting will be uh December 12th. And with that, I'd look for a motion to adjourn. [17:09] **Commissioner Chris:** I'll make a motion. [17:11] **Planning Commission Chair:** A motion. Is there a second? [17:12] **Planning Commissioner:** Second. [17:13] **Planning Commission Chair:** Motion and second. All in favor say aye. [17:15] **Commissioners:** Aye. [17:16] **Planning Commission Chair:** Now we officially adjourn. Thank you. [17:36] [Music]