►
From YouTube: Plan Commission Meeting 5-13-2020
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
C
Text
amendments
developments
as
well
as
to
make
recommendations
regarding
the
city's
long
term
plans.
The
Commission
will
make
a
recommendation
which
will
be
sent
to
the
City
Council.
The
first
order
of
business
is
spent
suspension
of
the
rules.
The
rule
requires
us
to
meet
in
in-person
at
City,
Hall
and
so
I
will
need
a
motion
from
one
of
the
commissioners
to
conduct
this
meeting.
A
C
F
G
A
B
F
B
B
B
I
C
C
C
J
You,
chair
Isaac
I'm,
the
attorney
for
the
applicant
horizon
Realty
Group
I
made
the
request
for
a
continuance
because
of
the
conditions
that
are
exist
in
these
virtual
public
meetings,
which,
in
this
particular
case,
are
legally
protected,
constitutionally
protected
public
hearings
and
there
is
considerable
concern
amongst
other
zoning
practitioners.
Other
municipal
attorneys
about
some
of
the
challenges,
pitfalls
and
legal
liabilities
that
attach
to
conducting
public
hearings
by
teleconference,
especially
contested
public
hearings.
J
Part
of
the
issue,
of
course,
is
technological,
as
it
relates
to
our
due
process
interest
in
being
able
to
both
make
our
presentation
but
also
engage
in
examination
and
cross-examination,
which
are
rights
that
we
possess
as
the
applicant
and
as
well.
The
public
possesses
to
challenge
what
we're
presenting
frankly
and
one
of
my
other
considerations
in
addition
to
the
due
process,
issues
which
I
laid
out
in
my
memo,
which
I
hope
all
those
just
delivered
today.
J
I
hope
it
was
circulated
to
all
the
commissioners
is
that,
as
an
attorney
I'm
compromised
in
my
ability
to
consult
with
my
client
in
the
same
kind,
offline
communication
that
would
exist
if
I
was
in
a
public
meeting
where
we
were
on
the
other
side
of
the
Dyess,
and
we
could
converse
amongst
ourselves
in
responding
to
particular
questions
and
formulating
strategy,
etc.
This
platform
and
our
physical
separation
don't
allow
us
to
have
that
kind
of
immediate
dialogue
in
private
for
discussion
purposes
to
be
able
to
respond.
J
So
I
think
there
are
fairness,
issues,
legal
issues,
legal
liability
issues,
professional
responsibilities,
issues
for
me
and
I.
Don't
think
that
my
applicant
is
is
harmed
by
the
request
and
I.
Don't
think
the
public
is
harmed
by
the
request.
The
applicant
owns
the
property
they're,
not
under
pressure
under
any
purchase
agreement
to
complete
this
process
under
any
particular
time
frame,
and
the
request
is
a
reasonable
one
to
continue
to
next
available
in
person
meeting
which
may
be
it
may
be
Jelani.
J
Meeting
and
I
would
say
that
I
should
have
also
cited
our
dosuk
article
16,
which
allows
that
the
rules
may
be
temporarily
waived,
suspended
or
adjusted
by
affirmative
vote
of
two-thirds
of
commission
when
conditions
are
present
to
meet
the
needs
of
a
public
hearing
process.
That's
exactly
what
we
have
here.
So
that's
my
lengthy
nutshell,
description
of
my
request.
Okay,.
C
Now,
I'm,
not
not
hearing
any
of
the
commissioners
jumping
in
I
will
say
that.
C
I
say
that
you
know
that
alone
is
it's
probably
a
good
reason
to
to
push
this
until
the
next
in
person
meeting
to
give
you
know
all
of
our
citizens.
The
the
opportunity
to
to
you
know
face
the
applicants,
ask
questions,
make
their
comments
directly
to
us,
and
you
know
III
think
this
is
something
that
we
should.
We
should
consider.
C
The
the
applicants
are
mr.
meek
was
was
accurate
in
that
the
our
article
13
n
requires
us
to
make
a
decision
with
in
a
sum
total
of
a
hundred
and
fifty
days.
But
again
we
can
suspend
those
rules
to
extend
that
I.
Think
given
the
given
the
circumstances
we
find
ourselves
in
with
respect
to
this
kovat
19
I
think
that
flexibility
is
is
just
what
this
situation
is.
What
that
flexibility
is,
is
meant.
For
so
is
there
a?
Is
there
a
motion
with
respect
to
the
applicants
request.
D
H
C
D
H
C
D
C
C
K
C
You
that
consideration
yeah!
Thank
you!
Thank
you,
alright,
so
that
takes
care
of
items
4a
and
4b.
The
next
matter
before
us
is
new
business.
It's
a
text.
Amendment
case
number:
twenty
plmd
dash
zero,
zero.
Two
four:
the
city
initiated
text
amendments
the
zoning
ordinance
with
respect
to
the
classification
administration
of
minor
and
mary
beige
minor
and
major
variations
at
the
chapter
four
regarding
residential
care
homes,
transitional
treatment
facilities
in
the
are
for
a
general
residential
zoning
district.
I
I
think
I've
got
everything
up
if
you
can
see
this
text
here
so
a
little
bit
background,
February
24th
the
planning
Development
Committee,
who
got
some
feedback.
The
staff
had
suggestions
about
possible
text,
amendments
to
existing
zoning
regulations
to
reduce
process
time
for
variation
cases.
The
proposed
amendments
would
not
change
any
regulations
themselves
as
far
as
variations
would
not
change
height
limit
setback
requirements
any
kind
of
bulk
requirements.
However,
it
would
reclassify
some
variations
so
that
the
review
and
decision
making
process
would
be
conducted
by
a
different,
specifically
major.
I
Items
such
as
that
and
all
upper
floor
setback
variations
above
an
existing
lower
floor
for
single
and
two
family
residential
those
minor
variations.
Now
minor
variations
still
require
public
noticing
for
migrations
to
a
250
foot
radius,
and
then
the
decision
of
the
Zoning
Administrator
can
also
be
appealed
to
the
Zoning
Board
of
Appeals.
On
those
items,
the
proposed
amendment
is
to
make
changes
to
section
6
383,
so
we're
changing
both
within
the
variation
section
on
guard
obstruction,
variation
requests
again
for
single-family
and
to
family
residential
asmar
minor
variations,
changing
all
accessory
structure
variations,
including.
I
I
Additionally,
changes
to
section
6,
3,
1,
4,
6,
1,
6,
6,
3,
8,
2
parking
variations
for
single-family
to
parent
link,
to
be
determined
by
zone
for
appeals
instead
of
by
the
City
Council
and
then
finally,
another
code
clean
up
the
are
for
a
zoning
district
is
a
relatively
newer
district.
It
was
introduced
at
the
time
it
was
introduced.
I
It
was
an
oversight
that
it
was
not
included
in
the
distancing
requirements
for
residential
care
homes
and
transitional
treatment
facilities.
So
right
now,
there's
sections
of
the
code
that
require
that
distinction
requirement
900
feet
seperation
between
those
those
types
of
uses
for
all
zoning
districts
where
they
are
either
permitted
use
or
special
use.
So
the
are
for
a
district
currently
does
list
those
as
uses
within
it.
However,
it
was
not
listed
in
the
distancing
requirement,
so
that's
a
clean
up
to
the
code.
There
is
this
is
an
amendment
when
we
get
to
it.
I
The
standards
for
amendments
are
shown
on
the
screen
before
you
includes
step
presentation
unveiled
for
questions,
but
just
generally,
the
intent
was
to
improve
the
process
to
look
at
items
that
we
generally
see
as
being
non-controversial
items
that
are
maybe
taking
out
more
time
before
a
board
or
before
the
City
Council,
and
then
consequently
spending
more
time
and
money
from
the
applicant
or
homeowner,
and
to
try
to
speed
up
those
processes
and
streamline
a
little
bit.
Thank
you.
C
C
L
Think
there
may
have
been
more
of
a
question
regarding
this
particular
text,
amendment
that
was
trying
to
make
to
clarify
if
this
was
related
to
changing
zoning
regulations
for
residential
care
homes
and
mr.
Rango
stays
doing
the
presentation
that
this
is
not
intended
to
change
any
of
those
particular
zoning
requirements.
C
C
Comments
are
there
any
other
any
comments
from
the
from
the
public
with
respect
to
this
item,
okay,
hearing,
none
that
will
that
will
close
the
public
record.
With
respect
to
this
respect
to
this
item,
I
I
have
a
question
about
the
about
this
I
think
in
in
the
application
I'm
sure
in
the
in
the
packet
there
was
a
there
was
a
list
of
how
many,
how
many
times
or
how
many.
C
How
many
times
in
the
last
three
years,
someone
has
requested
each
of
the
types
of
variations
that
were
we're
discussing.
It
doesn't
look
like
there's
there's
that
many
so
that
to
me
this
doesn't
seem
like
a
like
a
workflow
issue.
It
is
this.
Is
this:
it
seems
to
me
that
it's
more
meant
to
help
the
you
know
help
the
homeowners
and
citizens
to
navigate
this
process
a
little
a
little
more
easily.
Is
that
that
accurate
because
doesn't
seem
like
there's?
I
We
found
that
their
combinations
amendments
would
be
roughly
a
handful
of
items
per
year.
That
would
be
changed.
We
had
from
the
City
Council
or
the
Zoning
Board,
so
correct.
It's
it's
a
combination.
I
mean
it
would
help
to
some
degree,
with
the
agendas
where
there's
a
board
and
for
City
Council
and
allowed
those
bodies
to
pay
attention
to
items
that
are
sometimes
more
controversial
or
more
pressing,
but
also
as
a
benefit
to
property
owners
and
again
with
staffs
experience
of
these
items,
not
being
controversial
items
do.
I
Regard
to
the
specific
categories,
what,
if
you're,
looking
at
a
little
bit
more
in
general,
they're
they're,
not
controversial
items?
Some
of
them
may
be
more
so
than
others,
but
in
generally
there
there
are
less
controversial
items.
Okay
and
again
would
have
a
limited
impact
on
on
the
neighborhood
as
a
whole.
Mm-Hmm.
C
C
C
I,
don't
see
how
this
would
not
be
satisfied
given
where
we're
still
going
to
be
reviewing
these
these
issues,
yet
we're
gonna
be
making
it
a
streamlined
process
for
people
requesting
these
these
items
and
again,
commissioners,
if
you
want
to
jump
in
and
and
point
something
out,
disagree
with
me
or
whatever,
please
feel
free,
whether
the
proposed
amendment
is
compatible
with
the
overall
character
of
existing
development
in
the
immediate
vicinity
of
the
subject
property.
This
is
not
applicable
whether
the
proposed
amendment
will
have
an
adverse
effect
on
the
value
of
adjacent
properties.