The meeting began with updates and discussions on several zoning and variance items, followed by departmental reports and announcements. The council also reviewed the fiscal year 2026 budget, which includes no tax or fee increases. The meeting will reconvene at 7:00 PM for the regular session.
No, we don't do that, please. Yeah, just let T do it. Yeah. Me? Yeah, it's all you. Dunaway's son-in-law pass. Barely. Oh man. We have four people signed up for the schedule appearance. The regular meeting minutes from May 13th on consent. Is that still all right? 544 burning. Any update on that? We need to hear now. Thank you, Mayor. We actually do have a number of updates since the work session discussion that took place. Firstly, I wanted to mention Councilwoman Richardson raised the question about whether the property met other bulk and area regulations for R4. Should that be uh council's determination? Um we did confirm that it does, um, but we also in that process um recognize that the variance as listed was listed incorrectly. Um the current width of the property is not 45 feet, it is actually 64 feet. So that variance would be 75 feet down to 64 feet, which is uh may explain why all the other bulk and area regulations are um not applicable. Um secondly, uh there was a question about a nearby property that was rezoned several years ago, 308 uh North Fairground Street, which is at the northeast quadrant of Fairground and North Marietta Parkway. And I did want to confirm that that property was rezoned to uh CRC with an additionally allowable use of residential. Um and would just like to point out that that type of approval essentially allows a f fluid use of the property, and so as you're considering that if if you do between um uh a motion along those lines or between establishing or maintaining the um existing non-conforming use, um just wanted to bring that for information purposes. Uh and then lastly, Councilman. Can I ask a question? Uh Doug, and maybe I don't know if this is better for now or at seven. Doug, what fundamentally is the difference between CRC with an additional use or just reaffirming the grandfathering? Yeah, defer to Mr. Cummings on that depth. Okay. Yep. So fundamentally would be if it is back in the non-conforming status, then it could be revisited in the case of redevelopment um in order to meet all of the standards. Whereas if you established a permanent residential use, that would follow the property forever. And so you're essentially allowing the residential use uh forever in if you were to go that route. Even if we called it CRC with special use? That's right. Okay. All right, thank you. So my my question is if I may if we do that and we um there's a 50% uh improvement that triggers uh having to uh I guess not be conforming. So could we I guess approve it with an uh additional uh uh use uh after the renovations that they're uh currently doing are done uh and have it from that point on, if any uh so if I if if I might clarify is what you're saying you would like to revert to the allowable non-conforming status once the renovations are complete? Yeah. Yes, sir. That's okay yeah, because if we did it ahead of time, and then he did the renovations, he would lose the status. So it would be and I'm comfortable staff will know the intent of council and that we'll administer that properly. Okay. To where you don't see it again in six months. Yeah. And lastly, Councilman Goldstein asked about the impact, potential impact of rezoning this to residential on nearby commercial properties from near-term impact standpoint and thinking about I guess limiting potential near-term future uses of properties. There are a number of uses that we have that are not allowable if they're within a certain distance of residentially zoned properties.