Planning Commissioners spent a Valentine’s Day workshop exploring sections of the labyrinth known as City Code as it relates to possible conditions for Conditional Use Permit applications on weddings, tourist lodgings and temporary open air entertainment. In spite of earnest attempts, complications sometimes begat more complications.
Commissioners found antiquated references, such as a restriction in Quiet Use Commercial zone that deliveries could be made only in vehicles no larger than a pickup truck except when allowed by state law. Other references, such as limiting the number of guests in a Quiet Use zone and marshaling parking, prompted a more vigorous debate.
Chair Melissa Greene began by pointing out the definition in City Code of a wedding establishment does not provide for a reception on the same property. She said there are occasions where receptions follow weddings and the events are not invasive to the neighborhood, although they might be illegal.
Commissioner Ann Sallee said she was not in favor of receptions being held at wedding establishments. Commissioner James Morris said he did not want to be too restrictive because visitors might choose not to come here to get married. Nevertheless, there are Quiet Use restrictions in residential zones, so commissioners were not satisfied that entertainment was allowed for receptions in those zones.
The issue of delivery trucks and what gets delivered also got attention. Sallee mentioned they should consider how the situation affects neighbors. “People don’t move here to live in chaos,” she said, but commissioner Woodie Acord stated the overall problem would be enforcement regardless of how they reword City Code. Commissioner Tom Buford added enforcement is more difficult if Planning places extra conditions on certain CUPs.
Greene stated they should develop a definition for a reception establishment and require a CUP. Then came ancillary issues of how to control the number of guests and does Code already provide enough regulation for parking, to which Sallee remarked, “It would be a nightmare to enforce.”
The discussion then took a side road to whether they should spend so much time on a situation for which there has been only one complainant, which redirected them to a conversation on a revamped complaint process. Morris strongly restated his opinion that there should be a more informal check-and-see investigation of a situation that he claimed would not be considered a complaint but could be followed by a formal complaint.
Commissioner Susan Harman answered she was just trying to make their jobs easier going forward by clarifying a few things. “Everything we clear up now makes things easier down the road,” she said.
Every part of the Code revision process revealed either additional layers to define or forks worthy of consideration, but not actually helping, to solve the original problem.
In the end, Morris complained, “We have been bogged down in Code for years, and we don’t plan anything.”
In the regular meeting, commissioners took particular topics needing new definitions as homework in preparation for the next Code discussion.
Next meeting will be Tuesday, Feb. 28, at 6 p.m.
Again, most things never seem to change!