Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Commission topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission forwards mixed recommendations on open-space, parking and live-work units
Summary
The planning commission told the council it held a public hearing and voted on multiple land-use items, including limiting commercial/public parking in residential/agricultural zones, but flagged missing documentation for a 2021 open‑space ordinance and reported split votes on a Lindbergh ordinance regarding live‑work units.
The town’s planning commission reported to the council May 20 on the results of a public hearing held the previous week and raised documentation issues related to a 2021 ordinance and several land‑use proposals.
Commissioners said four items were on the public hearing agenda, with no written public comments submitted and only one public speaker, identified in the planning record as Mr. Lacoste. The commission voted on three items during that hearing.
One action approved by the planning commission recommended limiting or prohibiting commercial or public parking lots in residential and agricultural zones. Commissioners suggested adding definitions for “commercial parking” and “public parking” to the ordinance text; staff indicated those definitions could be added by ordinance and, if necessary, scheduled for a rehearing to add definitions.
Commissioners identified confusion about an “open space” designation that a town staff member could not find an ordinance record for online. The planning commission’s notes show the open-space language appears to have been removed in 2021, but staff reported no accessible online ordinance amendment (the signed paper copy was reported to be available in the town’s paper file or scanned cloud records). Planning staff committed to locate the signed ordinance (filed as 2021-77) and confirm the authoritative record and minutes from 2021.
On a separate Lindbergh ordinance (removing limits on the number of live-work units allowed for businesses), the planning commission’s record showed a split outcome: discussion earned interest but a motion for a public hearing did not receive a second, and another Lindbergh-related vote in the packet showed differing tallies (the planning packet documented a 2–2 vote on one item, and elsewhere reported a 3–2 recommendation). The planning commission chair asked the council to read the minutes and comments to understand the points raised by several commissioners.
The planning commission forwarded items to the town council with language to clarify that the commission issued “no recommendation” where votes were split and asked the council to refer unresolved items back to the planning commission or city attorney as needed.
Ending: Planning staff will produce the missing ordinance documentation for the 2021 amendment, add proposed definition language for the commercial/public parking restriction, and return updated ordinance language to the council for future public hearings.
