* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:05] I HAD LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING [1. CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE, ROLL CALL] TO ORDER THE CITY OF SEDONA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. IT'S TUESDAY, JULY 16TH, 2024, AND IT'S 4:30 PM IF YOU WILL. ALL RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. MY PLEDGE OF ALL ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO REPUBLIC FOR WHERE IT STANDS FOR NATION UNDER GOD IN MUNICIPAL WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU. OH, AND JUST A WARNING, EVERYONE IN THE ROOM TO TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONES AND ROLL CALL PLEASE. CHAIR LEVIN HERE. VICE CHAIR HOSNI. HERE. COMMISSIONER MARTIN? HERE. COMMISSIONER WHEEL HERE. COMMISSIONER HURST? HERE. COMMISSIONER BRAND? HERE. COMMISSIONER GSKI HERE. THANK YOU. WE'LL [2. ANNOUNCEMENTS & SUMMARY OF CURRENT EVENTS BY COMMISSIONERS & STAFF] GO ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND SUMMARY OF CURRENT EVENTS BY COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF. I, I HAVE SOMETHING I WANTED TO SHARE THAT, UH, A FEW MONTHS AGO I WAS ABLE TO ATTEND THE FAIR HOUSING SEMINAR THAT THE CITY OF SEDONA, UM, HOSTED. AND IT WAS, UH, UH, WE, THEY HAD GUESTS FROM DOWN IN THE VALLEY THAT CAME AND JUST TALKED ABOUT THE FAIR HOUSING LAW AND HOW IT APPLIES TO OUR CITIZENS. SO I THOUGHT IT WAS A GREAT PRESENTATION, SO THAT'S GOOD. THANK YOU. I WANTED TO, UH, ANNOUNCE THAT, UH, WE HAVE TWO, UH, COMMISSIONERS WHOSE TERMS ARE GONNA BE UP IN OCTOBER, 2024. THAT'S CHARLOTTE AND GEORGE. AND, UM, I'D LIKE TO CONVINCE THEM BOTH TO STAY, BUT IF THEY ARE IN ANY WAY THINKING THAT THEY, UM, ARE GONNA GO OFF THE COMMISSION, PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND STAFF KNOW AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO WE CAN TWIST YOUR ARMS AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU DO STAY. SO LET ME KNOW. MADAM CHAIR. YES, I BELIEVE MINE IS UP AS WELL. NO, I THINK YOU'RE 25. WE CAN CHECK, UM, IF I CONFIRM, CONFIRMED THAT WITH DONNA BECAUSE I YEAH, YOU FILLED IN FOR PETE TWO YEAR, RIGHT? RIGHT. HE ONLY HAD TWO YEARS LEFT. I THINK WE'VE GOT 25 ON THE ROSTER. WE'LL CHECK THAT. OKAY, WE'LL CHECK FINE WITH ME. AND THEN THE ONES WHOSE TERMS ARE UP, IF YOU WANT TO REAPPLY, YOU CAN JUST CONTACT THE CLERK'S OFFICE WHEN THAT IS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO FILL OUT THE APPLICATION AGAIN. YOU WOULD JUST NEED TO LET THEM KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, UNLESS SOMETHING HAS DRASTICALLY CHANGED ON YOUR APPLICATION MATERIAL. IF YOU WANNA BE IN THE NEXT COUPLE, IF YOU WANNA BE CONSIDERED AGAIN, YOU WOULD JUST LET THEM KNOW THAT YOU INTEND TO REAPPLY. OKAY. EITHER WAY, LET ME KNOW AND WE'LL, WE'LL, I, I'VE GOT THE, UH, ROSTER HERE SO WE CAN CHECK AFTER THE MEETING. WILL, THAT'S FINE. I THINK IT SAID 26 ACTUALLY. . ANYONE ELSE? UM, I HAVE A COUPLE THINGS. I JUST, SOME UPDATES. UM, AS YOU KNOW, THE OAK CREEK HERITAGE LODGE WAS APPEALED AND CITY COUNCIL UPHELD THE APPEALS AND THUS DENYING THE PROJECT. UM, SO DON'T, AS OF RIGHT NOW, THAT PROJECT HAS BEEN DENIED. UM, COULD YOU TELL US WHAT HAPPENS? UM, IF THEY WANT TO, IT WOULD BE UP TO THE APPLICANT IF THEY WANT TO PURSUE IT FURTHER BEYOND THAT. AND WE HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING. SO, YEAH, SO WE ARE AT THE END OF OUR PROCESS. IT'S NOW IN THE, IN THE APPLICANT'S COURT , UM, TO USE A WORD, BUT THE APPEALS PROCESS WOULD BE THROUGH THE SUPERIOR COURT. YEAH. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. RIGHT. AND THAT WOULDN'T BRING THEM BACK TO US. NO, NO. UM, SO THERE'S THAT UPDATE. UM, THE CITY'S VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION BRUNCH IS HAPPENING IN ABOUT A MONTH. I THINK I SENT YOU THE INVITATION. PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU RSVP TO KEEGAN. SO SHE HAS AN ACCURATE HEAD COUNT. WE HOPE YOU ARE ALL ABLE TO MAKE IT. UM, IF YOU NEED THAT INVITATION SENT AGAIN, LET ME KNOW AND I WILL SEND IT AGAIN. HER, UM, CONTACT INFORMATION WAS IN THERE. JUST EMAIL OR CALL HER TO HOPEFULLY LET HER KNOW THAT YOU'LL ALL BE THERE. I THINK IT'S AT THE SAME PLACE IT WAS LAST YEAR. THE, THE CABIN IN UPTOWN. SO I KNOW I ARE AS VPD, BUT I GOT A, A MESSAGE BACK THAT SHE WAS OUT OF TOWN. SO WILL SHE GET BACK? SHE'LL GET IT WHEN SHE GETS BACK. YES, SHE IS. SHE'S OUT OF TOWN. SHE'S COMING BACK. IT WASN'T A, I QUIT THE CITY AWAY MESSAGE. UM, . UM, AND THEN FINALLY YOU SEE A NEW FACE OVER THERE NEXT TO MEGAN. THIS IS LAURA. SHE IS OUR NEW DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ASSISTANT. SHE WILL JUST BE HELPING OUT WHEREVER SHE CAN. SO [00:05:01] YOU'LL SEE HER HERE AND MIGHT BE GETTING SOME EMAILS FROM HER, UM, AS WELL. UM, LAURA STEWART. I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S HER. AND THEN MONIQUE, WHO I THINK KURT INTRODUCED, UM, A FEW MONTHS AGO HAS BEEN PART-TIME. AND AS OF THIS FISCAL YEAR, SHE IS FULL-TIME. UM, SO YOU MIGHT BE SEEING HER AROUND MORE AS WELL. HELPING KURT OUT. I THINK THAT'S ALL THE ANNOUNCEMENTS I HAD. THANK YOU. CLOSE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO. [3. APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING MINUTES] GO ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE, APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING MINUTES FOR THE MAY 21ST, 2024 REGULAR MEETING. IF THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE MINUTES, UH, ASSUME THAT THEY'RE APPROVED. CLOSE THAT ITEM. GO ON TO UH, ITEM NUMBER FOUR, PUBLIC FORUM. THIS IS THE TIME FOR THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA. THE COMMISSION MAY NOT DISCUSS ITEMS THAT ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED ON THE AGENDA PURSUANT TO A RS SECTION 38 DASH 4 31 0 1 H. ACTION TAKEN AS A RESULT OF PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE LIMITED TO DIRECTING STAFF TO STUDY THE MATTER, RESPONDING TO CRITICISM OR SCHEDULING THE MATTER FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION AND DECISION AT A LATER DATE. I HAVE NO CARDS. WE HAVE NO ONE IN OUR AUDIENCE AND I'LL CLOSE THAT ITEM. [5.a. Public Hearing/discussion/possible action regarding revisions to the Land Development Code. The proposed revisions include revisions to the Urban Agriculture Section (LDC Section 3.4.D(2)) to comply with recently adopted state legislation and a change to purpose statements of the M1 and M2 districts (LDC Sections 2.11.A & 2.12.A) to accurately reflect the permitted uses.] WE'LL MOVE ON NOW TO NUMBER FIVE. CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS THROUGH PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES, A PUBLIC HEARING DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING REVISIONS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE PROPOSED REVISIONS INCLUDE REVISIONS TO THE URBAN AGRICULTURAL SECTION LDC SECTION 3.4 D TWO TO COMPLY WITH RECENTLY ADOPTED STATE LEGISLATION AND A CHANGE TO PURPOSE STATEMENTS OF THE M1 AND M TWO DISTRICTS. LDC SECTIONS 2.11 A AND 2.12 A TO ACCURATELY REFLECT THE PERMITTED USES WE'LL OPEN WITH A STAFF PRESENTATION. AN OVERVIEW, WELL, I DON'T HAVE ANY KIND OF FORMAL PRESENTATION, BUT YES. UH, THE CHANGES REGARDING THE URBAN AGRICULTURE SECTION. THE STATE ADOPTED SOME CHANGES TO BACKYARD FOUL, AKA CHICKENS. UM, THEY GO INTO EFFECT IN SEPTEMBER. SO WE NEED TO UPDATE OUR CODE TO MATCH THOSE, UM, RULES SO THAT WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW. AND THEN, UM, LAST YEAR, UM, THE USE OF LODGING WAS REMOVED FROM A COUPLE OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS. AND IN REVIEWING THE CODE OVER THE LAST YEAR, WE DID NOTICE THAT THE PURPOSE STATEMENTS WERE NOT UPDATED. UM, WITH THE, WITH LODGING NO LONGER BEING ALLOWED IN A COUPLE DISTRICTS, WE DID NOT FEEL IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO KEEP LODGING AS A PURPOSE FOR THOSE DISTRICTS. SO THAT WAS JUST THAT SMALL CHANGE. UM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE DID MENTION IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OTHER CHANGES THAT HAPPENED AT THE STATE LEVEL. UM, BUT A LOT OF A NUMBER OF THE OTHER CHANGES THAT MAY BE MORE SIGNIFICANT SUCH AS MAYBE SOME OF THE A DU STUFF THAT YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN HAS AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF JANUARY. UM, THAT'S BASICALLY, IT'S GONNA TAKE US A LITTLE MORE TIME TO WORK THROUGH WHAT WE NEED TO DO FOR THOSE ITEMS, BUT THIS ONE HAS AN EFFECTIVE, THE CHICKEN ONE HAS AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF SEPTEMBER, SO WE'RE BRINGING THAT ONE NOW. WE WILL BE COMING BACK IN THE NEXT COUPLE MONTHS WITH THE, UM, CHANGES TO BRING US INTO COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE OTHER STATE LAWS THAT GO INTO EFFECT IN JANUARY. AND CAN YOU SHARE THOSE OTHER TOPICS WITH US BESIDES ADU? SO I THINK THE BIGGEST ONES ARE ADUS AND THEN TIMELINES FOR PROCESSING ZONE CHANGE APPLICATIONS. THE STATE HAS PUT SOME LIMITATIONS ON, UM, US NEEDING TO, UM, HAVE AN ACTION ON ZONE CHANGE, ZONE CHANGE APPLICATIONS WITHIN A CERTAIN TIMEFRAME FROM WHEN THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED. UNFORTUNATELY, UM, THAT LIKELY MEANS THAT WE WILL BE, WE'LL JUST KIND OF LIMIT IN SOME OF THE ABILITIES TO WORK WITH, UM, THE APPLICANTS. BUT WE CAN, THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT. MM-HMM. . BUT THAT WOULD BE SOME TIMEFRAMES THAT THE STATE HAS IMPOSED WOULD BE THE OTHER BIG ONE. AND THEY LOOK UNWORKABLE TO YOU. UM, THEY ARE WORKABLE. WE WILL MAKE THEM WORK. UM, BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE APPLICATIONS THAT YOU'VE SEEN MAY HAVE BEEN BEING WORKED ON WITH STAFF FOR A CO YOU KNOW, A COUPLE ITERATIONS BACK AND FORTH. RIGHT, RIGHT. WE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO DO THAT ANYMORE. YEAH. BUT THAT WILL BE COMING EFFICIENT, BUT NOT THOROUGH WILL BE OUR NEW APPROACH. YEAH. THANK YOU CARRIE. YEAH, THE ONES TONIGHT ARE JUST THE, THE CHICKENS [00:10:01] AND THE PURPOSE STATEMENTS. . ALRIGHT. I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS OF STAFF. I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY CHICKEN QUESTIONS EXCEPT TO, I GUESS ASK. SO THERE'S A PERMIT THAT'S REQUIRED. YEAH. DO WE KNOW HOW MANY CHICKEN COOPS WE HAVE? I CAN FIND OUT FOR YOU. HOW BIG A PROBLEM ARE WE DEALING WITH HERE, IN THE LAST, SO SINCE THE CODE WENT INTO EFFECT IN 2019, WE'VE DONE 16. UM, IT LOOKS LIKE TWO OF THEM MIGHT HAVE BEEN FOR BEES. SO WE PUT BEES AND CHICKENS UNDER OUR URBAN AGRICULTURE PERMIT. SO TWO OF TWO OF THE 16 ARE BEES. YES. SO I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE CHICKEN QUESTIONS. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAD THOSE. 'CAUSE I, I DID HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OTHER PART, BUT LET'S STAY WITH CHICKENS FOR THE MOMENT ON THE CHICKENS. I NOW, I NOW UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, ROOSTERS ARE CONTINUE TO BE PROHIBITED. CORRECT. OKAY. 'CAUSE IT WASN'T IN THE LANGUAGE HERE, SO YEAH. WE DIDN'T MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THAT. THE STATE SAID YOU CAN CONTINUE TO PROHIBIT ROOSTERS. SO KIND OF A GENERAL, I GUESS, BIG PICTURE LEGAL QUESTION. SO WHENEVER THE STATE MAKES A CHANGE, THE CITIES ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE, UH, CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES TO COMPLY, UH, MADAM CHAIR, UH, COMMISSION MEMBERS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, YES. IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, THE, THE STATE CLEARLY, UM, MADE SURE THAT THEY WERE PREEMPTING THE, UM, THE LEGAL FIELD OF CHICKEN REGULATION IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA. SO BY PREEMPTING WHENEVER THE STATE WOULD MAKE A CHANGE, IF OUR CITY CODE, UH, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, UH, IS CONTRARY TO THOSE CHANGES, WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MAKE A CHANGE. SO THIS APPLIES ALL CITIES, ALL SIZES, ALL DENSITIES, YES. ALL AND ALL COUNTIES AS WELL. THIS, THE STATE DID NOT WANNA MISS OUT ON ANY, UM, FOUL THAT WAS REGULATED BY COUNTIES, WHICH IS DOES THE STATE GET A FEE? EXCUSE ME? DOES THE STATE GET A FEE? NO. UH, I, OKAY. I REALLY, I DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY BEHIND THIS BILL. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO, TO SEE OBVIOUSLY A CHICKEN LOVER. A CHICKEN LOVER WHO, WHO WOULD LIKE, UH, SIX CHICKENS. YEAH. OKAY. WILL WELL, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THIS, I BELIEVE THAT HOAS, JUST LIKE WITH SHORT-TERM RENTALS, UH, ARE EXCLUDED IF THEY HAVE, IF THEY HAVE LANGUAGE IN THEIR CCNRS MM-HMM. , THAT'S A CORRECT UNDERSTANDING. THE HOAS CAN STILL, UH, LIMIT OR PROHIBIT, UM, CHICKENS. MM-HMM, WELL, I JUST HAVE A COMMENT THAT, I MEAN, THIS, THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO, TO COMPLY, UH, ASSUMES THAT LOT SIZES ARE IRRELEVANT, BASICALLY. AND SO IT'S A, IT'S A BROAD SWEEPING AMENDMENT TO CITIES AND COUNTIES THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. YOU'RE CORRECT. MADAM CHAIR. IT IS A, IT'S JUST A, IT'S A ONE SIZE FITS ALL. RIGHT. WHEREAS, UM, YOU KNOW, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ARE, ARE NOT A ONE SIZE FITS ALL. BUT THAT, THAT IS WHAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS, HAS MANDATED IN THIS CASE. SO WE COULD, WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, RS 10, A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT OR AN ACRE, OR A FOUR ACRE LOT, THE REGULATIONS ARE APPLIED EQUALLY. THAT IS CORRECT. AND LIKE WE'VE SEEN IN MANY OF THE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE REGULATIONS THAT THE STATE HAS, THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT IN FUTURE LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS THAT THERE, THERE MIGHT BE SOME CHANGES. I MEAN, THERE MIGHT BE SOME LOBBYING EFFORTS OUT THERE. SO, MM-HMM. , THAT'S ONE THING ABOUT, UH, LEGISLATION. IT, IT'S, UM, IT OFTEN CHANGES, BUT FOR NOW THAT IS THE, THE REGULATIONS THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO ADOPT. SO AS PROPOSED, WE'RE INCREASING THE NUMBER OF CHICKENS, WE'RE INCREASING THE COOP SIZE. UM, WE'RE IN INCREASING THE HEIGHT, WE'RE MAKING THIS A LARGER, UH, FOOTPRINT ON ANY LOT. AND THE, THE SETBACK HAS TO BE FIVE FEET FURTHER AWAY FROM THE, THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY AS WELL. YEAH. THANK YOU. I'M NOT AGAINST CHICKENS. I THINK IT'S GREAT TO LIVE SUSTAINABILITY, SUSTAINABLE, AND HAVE EGGS. I'M JUST A LITTLE PERTURBED THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE CAN APPLY A, UM, NEW LAW WITHOUT ANY, UM, RECOGNITION OF LOCAL, UM, VALUES, I GUESS WOULD BE THE BEST TERM. ANYBODY DOWN HERE? YEAH. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ON THE PROPOSED CHANGE. WE SAY THE COOP SHALL NOT EXCEED EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT ON LOTS LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE. THE COOP [00:15:01] SHALL BE SHORTER THAN THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE ON THE NEAREST PROPERTY LINE. I GUESS THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD WAS, WHAT IF THERE'S A HISTORICAL FENCE THAT'S REALLY TALL? IF IT IS A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING FENCE, THEN WE WOULD COULD USE THAT ONE. UHHUH . MM-HMM. . SO, OKAY. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WHAT, UP TO EIGHT FEET? YEAH. YEAH. SO IF IT WAS 12 FEET TALL, I THINK, UM, THE EIGHT FEET WOULD APPLY TO THAT. OKAY. 'CAUSE THE LANGUAGE DOESN'T SAY LIKE THE LESSER OF RIGHT. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THIS OR THE EXISTING FENCE. SO I WAS JUST TRYING TO CAP THE HEIGHT OF A COOP , IF IT'S LIKE COOP HEIGHT, A 15 FOOT, YOU KNOW, FENCE THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR 40 YEARS. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE ANY OF THOSE. BUT , ANY MORE COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? I HAVE ONE ABOUT THE OTHER PORTION. ARE WE DONE WITH CHICKENS? YES. IF WE'RE FINISHED WITH CHICKENS, WE'RE DONE WITH CHICKENS. GO AHEAD, CHARLOTTE. OKAY. UM, OKAY. THIS IS A LITTLE AWKWARD FOR ME BECAUSE THESE TWO THINGS ARE LUMPED TOGETHER AND, UM, I WISH THEY WERE SEPARATED WITH, WITH SEPARATE VOTES. AND MAYBE WE CAN GET TO THAT POINT IF I'M, MAYBE, MAYBE WE CAN GET TO THAT POINT. UM, I'M, I'M CONFUSED ABOUT THE MIXED USE DISTRICTS AND EVER HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT REMOVING LODGING FROM THEM. I JUST DON'T REMEMBER THAT. I REMEMBER CFAS TALKING ABOUT TAKING LODGING OUT OF THOSE DURING THE COMMUNITY PLAN, THE LAND USE, FUTURE LAND USE MAP. WE MO MOVED FROM PLAN DEVELOPMENT TO MIXED USE IN MANY AREAS. MM-HMM. . AND THERE WAS NOT ANY DISCUSSION AT THAT POINT THAT, OH, AND BY THE WAY, LODGING IS COMING OUT. SO, UH, WOULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THIS, SO IN APRIL OF LAST, SO I GUESS LEADING UP TO APRIL OF LAST YEAR, I THINK IT WAS APRIL, UM, I COULD BE OFF BY A MONTH IN THERE. UM, ONE, THERE WAS A GROUP OF CHANGES THAT CAME AND ONE OF THEM WAS THAT SOME THAT THE M1, WHICH WE ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE ANY PROPERTIES IN THE CITY THAT ARE ZONED M1, IT WAS A DISTRICT THAT WAS CREATED IN HOPES THAT WE WOULD GET SOMETHING KIND OF IN THAT CATEGORY. SO THERE'S NOTHING ZONED M1 RIGHT NOW. UM, AND THEN M TWO, WHICH IS OUR OLD OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT, BECAME A MIXED USE. WHEN WE REDID THE CODE A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO, UM, THOSE DISTRICTS WERE PERMITTED TO HAVE UP TO SIX LODGING UNITS ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE DIRECTION THAT WE HAD GOTTEN, I THINK FROM COUNCIL, AND THEN AS PART OF THE, THE CHANGES THAT CAME THROUGH LAST SPRING WAS THAT, UM, THAT WAS, THAT THEY WANTED TO TREAT, TREAT ALL LODGING USES THE SAME, THEY DIDN'T WANNA HAVE THE SEPARATE CATEGORY OF LODGING OF THE UP TO SIX ON SOME, AND THEN OVER SIX GOES THROUGH A DIFFERENT PROCESS. UM, SO WE, ONE OF THE CHANGES WAS TO REMOVE THAT AS A PERMITTED USE FROM, UH, THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS. AND SO, AND, AND WHEN WAS THAT DONE? IT WAS LAST, LAST SPRING. SO COUNCIL APPROVED, REMOVING THOSE, REMOVING IT UP TO, I THINK IT WAS, I THINK THE LANGUAGE WAS FEWER THAN SEVEN, WHICH BASICALLY MEANT UP TO SIX LODGING UNITS ON A PROPERTY FOR THE M1, THE M TWO AND THE COMMERCIAL ZONES. SO WAS THAT AN LDC RED VISION? MM-HMM. . BUT WE DIDN'T SEE IT. NO. IT WAS PART OF THE CHANGES. I THINK IT WAS PART GROUPED WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE OHVS, UM, THAT ALSO TRASH CAN DISCUSSION TRASH CANS. YEAH. I REMEMBER THE TRASH CANS. I DON'T REMEMBER THIS. HOW DO I REMEMBER THE TRASH CANS OFFICE? I DON'T EITHER. YEAH. I REALLY DON'T REMEMBER IT. SO DOES THAT PRECLUDE IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO PROVIDE EMPLOYEE HOUSING? NO. OKAY. HOUSING IS A SEPARATE USE. OKAY. MM-HMM. . SO IT'S THE NIGHTLY RENTALS OKAY. WAS REMOVED. SO I'M LOOKING AT THE TABLE OF THE, THE USE TABLE. MM-HMM. . SO M THREE STILL ALLOWS MEDIUM DENSITY LODGING. RIGHT. WHICH IS, WHICH IS EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE. AND WHICH M THREE CAME FROM WHERE M THREE WAS, IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE M1, WHICH WAS A NEWS ZONING DISTRICT THAT WAS CREATED. SO THERE'S ACTUALLY, I DON'T KNOW. WELL, THE PARKING GARAGE WAS ZONED M THREE. UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE PLANNING ON BUILDING ANY LODGING UNITS THERE, BUT IT WOULD BE MORE OF A, IF SOMEONE WANTED TO REZONE TO A MIXED USE, UM, WHERE THEY WERE DOING A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS, NOT [00:20:01] GOING TO THE FULL LODGING. IT PUTS SOME LIMITS ON THE AMOUNT OF LODGING. BUT PRETTY MUCH ALL, ANY M THREE WOULD BE A REZONING. THERE'S YEAH, THERE'S NO PROPERTIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY ZONED. M THREE, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF M TWO ZONINGS. MM-HMM. . BUT NOTHING M1 AND NOTHING M THREE. RIGHT. BUT M THREE DOES ALLOW THE MEDIUM DENSITY LODGING, WHICH IS AGAIN, UP TO EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE. SO, SO THE, FOR THE PH FLU . MM-HMM. , WHAT DID WE CHANGE? UM, SO YOU DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING ON A MAP? IT WAS JUST THE ALLOWED USES IN A ZONING DISTRICT. SO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS THE COM IS IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN. RIGHT. AND THAT WAS, THAT WAS DONE AS PART OF THE COMMUNITY PLAN. UM, WAS IT DURING THE COMMUNITY PLAN? NO, THESE THINGS ARE BLENDING IN MY MIND. UM, WAS IT DURING THE COMMUNITY PLAN DISCUSSION THEN THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT GOING FROM PLAN DEVELOPMENT OR NO LONGER HAVING THAT AND GOING TO MIXED USE? YES. OKAY. AND WHICH MIXED USE CATEGORY WAS IT? WAS IT A SPECIFIC ONE? SO THE, THE COMMUNITY PLAN IS MORE GENERAL THAN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. RIGHT. AND SO WHEN WE WENT TO MIXED USES, THE MIXED USE DESIGNATION IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN COULD POTENTIALLY SUPPORT EITHER AN M1, M TWO, OR M THREE DESIGNATION. SO IF SOMEONE CAME IN WANTING TO REZONE THEIR PROPERTY, UM, DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY WERE PROPOSING, ONE OF THOSE MIXED USE DESIGNATIONS MAY BE APPROPRIATE THERE. BUT IF THEY WERE WANTING TO DO A MIXED USE THAT INCLUDED LODGING, THEY WOULD HAVE, THEY WOULD BE ASKING FOR THE M THREE DESIGNATION, NOT THE M1 OR THE M TWO. OKAY. BUT IF M THREE STILL WILL ALLOW FOR LODGING, WE'RE ONLY ASKING FOR M1 AND M TWO HERE. YEAH. UM, IT'S JUST, YEAH, THE, THE PURPOSE STATEMENT, THAT'S KIND OF THE BEGINNING OF EACH SECTION OF THOSE, BECAUSE LODGING WAS REMOVED AS THE PERMITTED USE. WE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE LODGING AS A PURPOSE OF THAT ZONE IF WE DON'T ALLOW LODGING IN THE ZONE. SO IF WE APP APPROVE THIS TODAY, THIS DOES NOT GO TO COUNCIL. NO. ALL OF THIS WOULD GO TO COUNCIL. OKAY. YEAH. BUT IT WOULD NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES TO WHAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO IN ONE OF THE ZONES. IT JUST CLARIFIES THE OVERARCHING PURPOSE OF THE ZONES. THEY CAN'T UNDO WHAT THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE. THEY CAN UN THEY CAN IF THEY WANTED TO, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE, THAT'S NOT WHAT IS BEING CONSIDERED. CAN I ASK A CLARIFICATION ON TOP OF THAT QUESTION? IF WE WHO HAVE COLLECTIVE AMNESIA UP HERE WANTED TO UNDO WHAT MAYBE WE DID UN REMEMBERING WE, IS THAT A THING WE COULD DISCUSS? SORRY, THAT WAS UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATED OF A SENTENCE. UM, SO THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT CHANGE THAT WE IS NOT AGENDIZED AS PART OF THIS. RIGHT. I GUESS. BUT IF THAT WAS SOMETHING PROCESS QUESTION THAT IF YOU THOUGHT THAT LODGING WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THOSE ZONES, THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY BRING IT BACK AGAIN. SURE. OKAY. AND ULTIMATELY COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE. RIGHT. OKAY. LET ME, LET ME ASK A FOLLOW UP TO THAT. SO IF, WHEN WE COME TO MOTIONS, IF I WANTED TO AMEND THE MO THE MOTION AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, AND SAY I MOVE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CASE NUMBER, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH RELATED TO URBAN AGRICULTURE. 'CAUSE I'M TRYING TO SPLIT THE TWO THINGS. MM-HMM. , UM, AND WE VOTE. AND IF WE WERE WILLING TO VOTE ON THAT IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, THAT LEAVES THE OTHER JUST NOT DEALT WITH. IS THAT CORRECT? SO WE WOULD PROBABLY ASK THAT YOU MAKE SOME KIND OF RECOMMENDATION. IF YOU DON'T THINK THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE CHANGE, THEN YOU CAN RECOMMEND WELL, I'M, I'M NOT SURE THAT WE CAN UNDO, WE CAN UNDO WHAT COUNCIL HAS YOU SAY ALREADY DONE. RIGHT. SO BY NOT DEALING WITH IT, AND HOPEFULLY IF THEY WATCH THIS DISCUSSION AND IF THEY HAVE COLLECTIVE AMNESIA, ALSO THEY WOULD LIKE TO RECONSIDER OR HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT IT TO BETTER UNDERSTAND IT. I, I, I'M NOT SURE WE COULD. SO THE DIRECTION THAT WE WERE GIVEN WHEN THAT CHANGE CAME FORWARD WAS THAT COUNSEL NO LONGER WANTED LODGING TO BE A PERMITTED USE IN THOSE ZONES. UM, SO THAT'S WHY WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS AND GOT THE RECOMMENDATION AND, UM, TO REMOVE IT. AND SO THIS IS IN LINE WITH THAT CHANGE THAT AGAIN, WAS DONE LAST YEAR, BUT THERE'S NOT A, ARE YOU ARGUING FOR RETAINING LODGING [00:25:01] IN THE M1 AND M TWO? YES. . OKAY. CAN WE, UM, DO YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN? UM, I CAN BRING IT UP IF WE NEED TO. I SO THAT WE COULD, AND PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE AGAIN, DURING THE COMMUNITY PLAN AND, UM, THE CHANGE AWAY FROM PLANNED USE MM-HMM. TO MIXED USE. THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION AT THAT POINT THAT, OH, BY THE WAY, SOME OF THESE MIXED USE CATEGORIES WILL NOT ALLOW LODGING. MM-HMM. , WE WERE TOLD IT WAS GONNA GIVE MORE FLEXIBILITY. MM-HMM. . AND SO I'D LIKE TO RETAIN THAT FLEXIBILITY, UM, AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN ON 89 A OR OTHER, YOU KNOW, OTHER AREAS. SO AGAIN, THERE IS STILL THIS MICROPHONE ON MM-HMM. TURNING ON. UM, M THREE DOES STILL ALLOW FOR LODGING. SO IF SOMEONE WANTED TO DO A MIXED USE PROJECT THAT INCLUDED LODGING, THEY, THERE IS A MIXED USE ZONE THAT THEY COULD ASK TO BE REZONED TO. SO IF THEY'RE IN A MIXED, IN AN AREA THAT'S BEEN DESIGNATED ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS A MIXED USE AREA, AND THEIR PROJECT INCLUDED A LODGING COMPONENT, THERE IS AN MA MIXED USE ZONE THAT THEY COULD GO TO IS JUST THEY COULDN'T GO, THEY WOULD HAVE TO ASK FOR M THREE ZONING, NOT M TWO OR M1. AND I'M SORRY, WOULD YOU REDESCRIBE FOR ME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN M1, M TWO AND M THREE? SO IT'S GENERALLY AN ESCALATION OF INTENSITY WHERE AN M1 MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE CLOSER TO A NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, UH, AND MAYBE A SMALL OFFICE LIKE, UM, A, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. M TWO IS A MIXED USE OFFICE. SO A LITTLE MORE INTO LIKE HIGHER TRAFFIC GENERATION MAYBE, BUT NOT QUITE A FULL COMMERCIAL WHERE M THREE IS JUST, IS A FULL MIX OF USES THAT YOU WOULD LIKELY SEE ALONG THE 89 A CORRIDOR AND NOT ADJACENT TO A NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THE M1 WOULD BE, SO IN GENERAL YOU GO TO A MIXED USE BECAUSE YOU MAYBE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE COMMER, YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL AND YOU HAVE RESIDENTIAL, AND THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT BLENDS THE TWO THAT A STANDARD COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT WOULD NOT ACCOMMODATE BECAUSE YOU WANT TO TAKE LITTLE, SOME PIECES OF EACH ONE AND CREATE MAYBE A TRANSITION ZONE, A BUFFER AREA. UM, BUT WE HAVE THE THREE DIFFERENT ONES AS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT AS YOU GET CLOSER TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, YOU MIGHT NOT WANT THE HIGHER INTENSITY OF AN M THREE. SO YOU'RE GONNA GO TO AN M1. IT ALLOWS THE LESS INTENSE USES. MM-HMM. . AND SO AS WE'RE RE WOULD BE REVIEWING A ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION WOULD BE LOOKING AT THE SURROUNDING AREAS, WHICH WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE, UH, MIXED USE ZONE FOR A CERTAIN AREA GIVEN THE SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS AND THE SURROUNDING, UM, LIKE WHAT THE SURROUNDING LAND USES. SO WOULD SOMETHING, UM, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE WHEN LODGING BECOMES MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, BUT IF, FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THESE OLDER HOTELS ON 89 A WAS PURCHASED BY THE CITY, WHICH THEY WERE LOOKING AT AT ONE POINT AND REPURPOSED FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING OR SOME KIND OF USE WORKER, WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE IT WAS LODGING PREVIOUSLY OR WOULD IT BE CONSIDERED MULTIFAMILY RESIDENT? WHAT WOULD IT BE? I WOULDN'T WANT TO, UM, PRO I WOULDN'T WANNA DISALLOW THAT POSSIBILITY. OKAY. SO I GUESS I WOULD SAY AS, LIKE I SAID, YOU'RE MOVING UP IN INTENSITY AND SO YOU'RE ALWAYS GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO DO AN EMPLOYEE HOUSING, A LONG-TERM HOUSING. UM, SO IF WE WERE TO PURCHASE SOMETHING AND WANTED TO DO LONG-TERM HOUSING AND GENERALLY THE, THE DISTINCTION IS 30 DAY RENTALS, LESS OR MORE IS GENERALLY WHERE YOU'VE MOVED FROM A LODGING USE TO A HOUSING USE. UM, AND SO HOUSING IS ALLOWED IN THE M1, M TWO, IT'S NOT CONSIDERED LODGING IF IT'S BEING RENTED FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS. AND THAT IS A PERMITTED USE AND THAT IS STILL A PERMITTED USE. WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF REMOVING THAT. AND SO IT WOULD JUST BE IN THE MIXED USE DISTRICTS THAT ARE INTENDED TO BE LESS INTENSE, LESS TRAFFIC GENERATION. [00:30:01] WE DID REMOVE LODGING AS A PERMITTED USE FROM THERE, BUT LONG-TERM HOUSING IS STILL A PERMITTED USE. OKAY. AND MY, YOU KNOW, MY ABILITY TO THINK OF POSSIBILITIES IS LIMITED. YOU KNOW, WHO KNOWS WHAT OTHER KINDS OF THINGS MIGHT COME UP. UM, I UNDERSTAND M THREE IS STILL A POSSIBILITY AND SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE, YOU KNOW, COMPLETELY CLOSING IT OUT, BUT I I JUST HONESTLY DO NOT REMEMBER THIS DISCUSSION WHATSOEVER. OR MOVING IN THIS DIRECTION WHATSOEVER. MM-HMM. . MM-HMM. . UM, NOR DOES MM-HMM. AT LEAST SOME COUNCIL. I DON'T THINK . SO, MM-HMM. . IF, IF YOU'RE CONTEMPLATING A CHANGE, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT MOTIONS. ONE ON THE CHICKENS AND ONE ON THE M DISTRICTS. SO WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT, WE CAN SPLIT 'EM APART. I HAVE A QUESTION. CARRIE. WHEN WOULD THIS BECOME EFFECTIVE? UM, SO THE STATE LAW ABOUT CHICKENS IS, GOES INTO EFFECT SEPTEMBER, MID SEPTEMBER. AND SO OUR GOAL WAS TO GET, UM, THE CHICKEN PORTION. MM-HMM. BECAUSE ORDINANCES BECOME EFFECTIVE 30 DAYS AFTER COUNCIL APPROVES. WE WERE HOPING TO GO TO COUNCIL IN AUGUST SO THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE IS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE STATE LAW IN MID-SEPTEMBER. RIGHT. BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS OTHER ONE? THE ZONING DISTRICT'S ONE? IT WOULD BE THE SAME. THE SAME. YEAH. DOES THIS AFFECT ANY CURRENT PROJECTS THAT ARE IN FOR PLAN CHECK? NO, BECAUSE AGAIN, THE CHANGE TO THE PERMITTED USES WAS MADE LAST YEAR. LAST YEAR. OKAY. THIS IS JUST KIND OF AN OVER WE'RE THOUGHT IT WAS A YES. IF I'M, IF I'M MY MADAM CHAIR, VICE CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, UM, THIS REALLY IS JUST HOUSEKEEPING. IT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS DECIDED A YEAR AGO. THAT REQUIREMENT DOESN'T CHANGE THROUGH THIS PROCESS. UM, IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS VETTED THROUGH, UH, UH, P AND Z HERE VETTED THROUGH COUNCIL. IT. WE ARE NOT DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A GOOD THING TONIGHT. WE'RE DECIDING, WE HAVE CONFLICTING WORDING WITHIN, UH, THE LDC RIGHT NOW, AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR, UH, AN APPROVAL TO CLEAN UP THAT CONFLICT. SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE WHEN THE CHANGE WAS ORIGINALLY MADE A YEAR AGO. UM, SO FIXING AN OOPSIE, FIXING AN OOPSIE IS REALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. AND THROUGH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, UM, IT WAS OVERWHELMINGLY TOLD TO US THAT NO, WE DON'T WANT LODGING IN OR NEAR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. SO AS CARRIE WAS DESCRIBING, THE M1 AND THE M TWO, OUR LITTLE BIT LESS INTENSIVE USES THAT WOULD IN A MIXED USE AREA, BE MORE, UH, APPLICABLE TO BEING UP AGAINST RESIDENTIAL. AND THEREFORE THE ALLOWANCE FOR LODGING ARE NOT IN M1 AND M TWO M THREE WOULD BE MORE OF AN INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL USE. THAT WOULD BE MORE ALONG THE, UH, THE, THE LINES OF THE 89 A CORRIDOR. UM, SO THAT'S WHERE THE, THE THOUGHT PROCESS WAS IN BRINGING THIS FORTH, UH, LAST YEAR, APRIL OR, OR WHENEVER. UM, AND SO NOW AGAIN, ALL WE'RE DOING TONIGHT IS SAYING WE MISSED SOME WORDING IN THERE. UM, BUT THE, UH, THE REQUIREMENTS AND THE ALLOWANCES DON'T CHANGE FROM, FROM THIS. BUT SOMEBODY WOULD NEED A ZONE CHANGE, RIGHT. IF, IF THEY WANTED TO INCLUDE LODGING EXCEPT FOR M THREE SOMETHING, I'M THINKING OF SOMETHING THAT'S BECOMING VERY HIP AND TRENDY NOW IS BOUTIQUE RESTAURANTS THAT HAVE LODGING ABOVE TO HAVE THE FULL CULINARY EXPERIENCE. AND IT'S VERY SMALL. IT'S MORE PETITE. IT'S VERY, YOU KNOW, MINIMAL LIST. MM-HMM. , UM, THAT WOULD BE PRECLUDED EXCEPT IN AN M THREE, RIGHT? CORRECT. MM-HMM. . CORRECT. YEAH. AND THAT THEREFORE TAKES AWAY FLEXIBILITY FOR PROGRESSIVE DESIGN, WHICH I UNDERSTAND WHAT CHARLOTTE IS SAYING. WELL, I THINK WE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT WHERE A RESTAURANT WOULD FALL WITHIN THOSE M1, M TWO, M THREE MM-HMM. DISTRICT. MM-HMM. . OKAY. SO, UH, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT BOTH USES, NOT JUST THE, THE LODGING PORTION. AND WHAT IS WESTERN GATEWAY CLASSIFIED AS CURRENTLY? THE WESTERN GATEWAY PROPERTY OR THE WESTERN GATEWAY? CFA. SO THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW IS A, IS A PLAN DEVELOPMENT MEANING WHICH WE HAVE CHANGED TO MIXED USE. IT IS A STILL A PLAN. SO IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN IT IS DESIGNATED AS CFA BECAUSE THERE IS AN APPROVED CFA FOR THAT AREA. AND SO THAT WOULD THEN REFER BACK TO WHATEVER THE CFA WOULD ENCOURAGE. MM-HMM. , UM, THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT ZONING [00:35:02] IS CURRENTLY TIED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE, OF THE AMPHITHEATER, WHICH IF YOU WANT TO DEVELOP SOMETHING ELSE, IT WILL BE GOING THROUGH A ZONING PROCESS NO MATTER WHAT I HAVE, I GOTTA THINK ABOUT THAT AND PROCESS, PROCESS IT. . BUT UM, BUT YEAH. OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THIS MAP THAT IS VERY CONVENIENT FOR THIS CONVERSATION. COINCIDENTALLY. UM, THERE'S VERY FEW. SO I'M JUST CLARIFYING. M THREE, WE DON'T REALLY WANT NEAR RESIDENTIAL HYPOTHETICALLY. MAYBE MIGHT BE TOO HEAVY OF A USE. THERE'S LIKE VERY LITTLE MIXED USE ON OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT IS NOT TOUCHING RESIDENTIAL. AND ONLY BECAUSE I KNOW SOME OF THESE PARCELS, THEY ARE TOUCHING RESIDENTIAL IN REALITY, BUT NOT RIGHT. BUT THEY MAY HAVE MIXED USE POTENTIAL BETWEEN THEM. SO TO ME, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FLEXIBILITY, WE'RE SAYING YEAH, YOU CAN HAVE M THREE, BUT WE DON'T REALLY WANT M THREE TOUCHING RESIDENTIAL AND OH LOOK, ALL OF OUR FUTURE LAND MAP MIXED USE TOUCHES RESIDENTIAL. SO THAT FEELS ICKY. MM-HMM. TO BE. ANYWAY, I'M GONNA STOP ASKING QUESTIONS 'CAUSE I KNOW THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TYPOS BASICALLY. BUT, UM, I WOULD ALSO SAY LIKE, TO JUST CONFIRM, I DON'T REMEMBER ANY OF THAT. WE WERE COMATOSE, OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS A LOT OF CONVERSATION AT THAT MEETING ABOUT LDS AND TRASH CANS, RIGHT? YEAH. TRASH CANS. SO NOT, I MEAN, THERE MAY NOT, LIKE WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE IN DEPTH DISCUSSION ABOUT EVERYTHING ON THE LIST. AND I THINK AT THE TIME THE OHB WAS PROBABLY A MORE HOT BUTTON ISSUE. MM-HMM. AND COMMUNITY PLAN WAS IN PROCESS. THERE WAS A LOT GOING ON. WE HAD A LOT OF MEETINGS THAT TIME LAST YEAR. AND ALSO RESTAURANTS ARE PERMITTED USES IN ALL OF THE THINGS, ALL OF THE NON-RESIDENTIAL THINGS. SO SEEING AS NO ONE'S RECALLING THAT APRIL MEETING, IS THERE A WAY FOR YOU TO PULL THE MINUTES UP, UH, AND SEE IF YOU CAN GLANCE AT THEM JUST TO SEE IF THERE'S BEEN SOME NOTE TO HELP FOLKS THAT WERE ON THE COMMISSION AT THAT TIME TO RECALL THE CONVERSATION WASN'T IN THERE. SO I, I'M GOOD. I THINK THE PROBLEM IS IF COUNCIL'S ALREADY VOTED ON IT, IT DOESN'T, IT'S A MOOT POINT. IT'S KIND OF MOOT IF WE DON'T RECALL IT. YEAH. AND, AND I THINK WE'VE ALL VOTED ON IT. MM-HMM. EVEN THOUGH WE CAN'T RECALL IT. AND AGAIN, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO CLEAN UP SOME PAPERWORK. MM-HMM. , WE'RE NOT MAKING A DECISION ON WHETHER LATCHING SHOULD BE IN M1 OR M TWO, RIGHT? YEAH. WE'RE JUST CLARIFYING THE LANGUAGE. RIGHT. AND I THINK IF SOMEONE FEELS STRONGLY ABOUT IT, THEN THAT'S ANOTHER MEETING, ANOTHER HORSE TO RIDE IT. YOU'D HAVE TO DELAY THE VOTE. YEAH. YOU'D HAVE TO CARRY THAT PORTION OF THE AGENDA OVER. SO NOW THAT WE KNOW WHAT WE DIDN'T THINK WE KNOW WELL WE HAVE, I THINK WE HAVE ALL THE FACTS IN FRONT OF US. RIGHT. I I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY, UM, DON'T CARE FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND I CONSIDER LODGING A SHORT-TERM RENTAL . AND SO I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT IT NOT BE THERE. HOWEVER, IF IT IS APPROPRIATE TO BE THERE, I THINK SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE TO MAKE A ZONING REQUEST AND THEN, AND UH, AND IF THEY HAVE A REALLY GOOD IDEA, UH, IT'LL PROBABLY GET PASSED. SO JUST MY 2 CENTS. OKAY. I, I'D JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY IF I MADE A MOTION, IF WE SPLIT THESE MM-HMM. AND, AND I MADE A MOTION TO DENY THE SECOND PORTION PART OF THIS. MM-HMM. . WHAT IS THE WHAT, WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US? IT THEN GOES TO AND IF IT PASSED MM-HMM. IT THEN GOES TO COUNCIL WITH THAT INFORMATION AND THEY COULD WHAT? THEY CAN REVERSE IT. THEY CAN ACCEPT OUR RECOMMENDATION OR YEAH. CHANGE. CHANGE IT. RIGHT. OKAY. WELL SINCE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT DID IT, I LIKE TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO UNDO IT. OKAY. THAT'S JUST ME. ANY MORE DISCUSSION UP HERE? NO. OKAY. I'LL ENTERTAIN, UM, A MOTION REGARDING THE REVISIONS, UM, IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE NUMBER OF CHICKENS, THE COOP SIZE, THE HEIGHT, ET CETERA, TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW AND ONLY THAT PORTION. NOW I SECOND. OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? UH, THE PROPOSED REVISIONS ALL SOLELY THE ONES THAT PERTAIN TO CHICKENS SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? [00:40:01] THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A SECOND MOTION FOR THE REVISIONS ON M1 AND M TWO IF, IF I MIGHT SAY A WORD, UM, BEFORE THE MOTION IS MADE. YES. YOU'LL NOTICE IN THE, UM, AGENDA PACKET, THE, UH, CARRIE PROVIDED THE FIVE CRITERIA. RIGHT? UH, SO YOU MIGHT WANNA LOOK AT THOSE CRITERIA WHEN YOU'RE FORMULATING THE MOTION. OKAY. AND THEY'RE ON THAT FIRST PAGE OF THE STAFF REPORT UNDER DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS. FIRST PARAGRAPH A THROUGH E ON THE SECOND PAGE AS I PRINTED IT ON THE RIGHT. A MOTION PLEASE. OH, DISCUSSION BEFORE THE MOTION. JUST A POINT. IT LOOKS LIKE ALL THIS WAS DONE ON MARCH 21ST, 2023. THEN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WOULD'VE BEEN IN APRIL, WHICH IS THE APRIL. THANK YOU GEORGE MOTION. I THOUGHT YOU MADE A MOTION. UH, JUST TO THE CHICKENS. NOW I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION REGARDING THE M1 AND M TWO REVISIONS. I MOVE TO DISAPPROVE. WELL CAN, YEAH, I'LL MAKE IT IN THE POSITIVE AND THEN WE VOTE IT DOWN OR WE, WE MAKE IT IN THE NEGATIVE. YOU WEREN'T CHANGING THE LANGUAGE, YOU WEREN'T SUGGESTING ANY ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE. YOU'RE JUST GONNA DO AN UP OR DOWN. I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN, I, I MOVE TO RECOMMEND TO COUNSEL. I CAN, I CAN MAKE A REC I CAN MOVE FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE FOR YOU TO DENY IF YOU, IF THAT IS EASIER. WELL, IF, IF, IF YOU'RE NOT CONTEMPLATING NEW LANGUAGE, THEN WE CAN GO WITH, UM, THE MOTION THAT WE USED FOR THE CHICKENS RE UM, REFLECTING THE REVISIONS PROPOSED BY STAFF. AND WE CAN JUST DO THAT ON UP AND DOWN VOTE. I I GOT A QUESTION. YEP. UM, I'M JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED. UM, FOR EXAMPLE, MY FEELINGS ARE, I DON'T LIKE LOSING THE FLEXIBILITY AND I'D PREFER TO KEEP THE TERMS LODGING IN, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. RIGHT. WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT APPROVING A TYPO CHANGE. RIGHT. SO, WELL IT'S IN THE PURPOSE STATEMENT, REMOVING LODGING, WHICH WOULD BE AN ALIGNMENT WITH THE CHANGES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY APPARENTLY US AND CITY COUNCIL. RIGHT. RIGHT. SO IN THE SORT OF, IN THE, THE TABLE OF USES THAT I WAS LOOKING AT WHILE WE WERE DOING THIS, IT'S ALREADY, IT'S NOT ON THE TABLE OF USES. AND THAT'S LIKE TO ME, THE PLACE WE LOOK WHEN WE WANNA SEE IF SOMETHING CAN HAPPEN. RIGHT. THAT'S WHERE YOU START. SO IT, YOU ALREADY CAN'T, THIS IS JUST CLARIFYING LANGUAGE. IT'S MATCHING IT UP. YEAH. THEY MISSED IT THE FIRST TIME. LIKE WE SHOULDN'T EVEN BE BE SEEING THIS HYPOTHETICALLY. 'CAUSE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIXED WHEN WE YEAH. WE SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN IT WHEN WE BROUGHT THE CHANGE TO RIGHT. REMOVE LODGING. THIS WOULD'VE BEEN SOMETHING. SO THE SAYING NO TO THIS DOES NOTHING TO CODE EXCEPT MAYBE INFURIATE SOME PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO READ THE CODE AND THEN BE TOLD, OH, NOPE, THAT'S A TYPO KIND. BUT PERHAPS IT DOES SEND A MESSAGE TO COUNCIL FOR SURE FOR THEM TO CONSENT. BUT I'M JUST SAYING THERE'S NO, THERE WON'T BE A CHANGE TO CODE BECAUSE THE TABLE'S ALREADY CHANGED. RIGHT, RIGHT. OKAY. RIGHT. GOT IT. OKAY. I MAKE MOTION. I SURE. UM, MOVE TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CASE NUMBER PZ 2 4 0 0 0 7 LDC REVISIONS CONSISTENT WITH PROOF CRITERIA AND SECTION 8.6 C FOUR OF THE LDC AS IT RELATES TO THE LODGING LANGUAGE AS APPLIES TO ZONING DISTRICTS M1 AND M TWO. I'LL TAKE A SECOND. I'LL SECOND IT. THANK YOU. ALL THOSE, UH, IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? AYE. MOTION PASSES. SIX ONE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. [6. FUTURE MEETING DATES AND AGENDA ITEMS] OKAY, I'LL GO ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX. FUTURE MEETING DATES AND AGENDA ITEMS. WAIT, BUT DOESN'T CHARLOTTE GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO NOW EXPLAIN WHY HER NAY? SHE DID. OH, OKAY. UNLESS SHE WANTS TO, I WANNA SURE. IT'S ELSE. HER POINT IS VALIDATED IN ARTICULATED, YEAH. OKAY. I THINK THROUGH HER DISCUSSION, THAT'S CLEAR. OKAY. WAS MUD? NO, I DIDN'T SAY . THAT'S OKAY. UH, NUMBER SIX. OKAY. THE AUGUST 6TH MEETING WILL BE CANCELED. UM, AND WE ARE NOT QUITE SURE ON THE AUGUST 20TH MEETING YET. OKAY. WE HAVE TWO POTENTIAL PROJECTS THAT WOULD LIKELY EITHER BE GOING THAT DAY OR THE SEPTEMBER 3RD, WHICH IS THE DAY AFTER LABOR DAY. MM-HMM. . UM, WE'RE WAITING FOR SOME CONFIRMATION ON AVAILABILITY OF THE APPLICANTS FOR SOME OF THOSE, BUT IT WOULD BE A CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CLOTH AND [00:45:01] FLAME, WHICH IS THEY WANT TO DO SOME OF OUTDOOR EVENTS UP AT THE AIRPORT PROPERTY. AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE A CONCEPTUAL REVIEW FOR THE BEST WESTERN AND UPTOWN'S EXPANSION. UM, THOSE ARE BIG, BIG. I, SO AGAIN, THE, YEAH. SO WE HAVEN'T CONFIRMED AVAILABILITY. UM, BUT IF YOU GUYS COULD LET ME KNOW IF YOU ARE NOT GONNA BE IN TOWN. YEAH. WON'T BE HERE. THE, I WON'T BE ABLE TO ATTEND THIS ON THE THIRD. OKAY. SEPTEMBER 3RD. UM, AND FOR BOTH OF THOSE, WE WOULD ANTICIPATE LIKELY DOING SOME KIND OF SITE VISIT FOR 'EM AS WELL IN THE MORNING. SURE. ARE YOU GONNA PUT BOTH OF THOSE ON THE SAME AGENDA? I CANNOT DO THAT. IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD PREFER. THEY, THEY SEEM LIKE THEY WOULD EACH TAKE UP OKAY. UM, A LOT OF TIME JUST BY THE, A SINGULAR OKAY. UH, REVIEW. YEAH. OKAY. IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT? YEP. OKAY. ABSOLUTELY. ON THAT POINT, JUST GET YOUR, UH, DATES OF ABSENCE TO, UH, STAFF SO THEY CAN PLAN AHEAD. YEP. MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT A QUORUM. OKAY. THANK YOU. CARRIE, ANYTHING ELSE? UM, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE. I DON'T KNOW IF STEVE DOES PUT HIM ON THE SPOT. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY, ANYTHING ELSE? NO, THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'LL TURN THIS MEETING THEN WITHOUT, UH, I HAVE, THERE'S NO OBJECTION. I HAVE A COMMENT. CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? DOES IT PERTAIN TO NUMBER SIX? NO, SORRY. IT'S OKAY. . OKAY. DOES IT PERTAIN TO ANY OTHER AGENDA ITEM THAT IT MORE OF A PROCESS? I WISH THAT WHEN WE'RE DOING THESE REVISIONS THAT THEY WERE SEPARATE MOTIONS INSTEAD OF COMBINED MOTIONS. I JUST, I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO WRITE THE RIGHT, RIGHT WAY TO SAY THAT. BUT SEEING AS YOU HAVE ALL THESE LAW CHANGES THAT ARE COMING IN EFFECT MM-HMM. , IT'D BE REALLY USEFUL I THINK, FOR US TO BE ABLE TO NOT HAVE 'EM ALL PUT TOGETHER IN ONE MOTION AND KIND OF BREAK IT UP SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE THIS HAPPENING AGAIN. OKAY. THAT'D BE AWESOME. THANK YOU. YEP. THANK YOU JOE. UM, WE'LL ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT 5:18 PM THANK YOU. THANK YOU. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.