A point of discussion was the approval of a conditional use request for a beauty school proposed by Lisa Phelps. The application involved converting an existing salon into a beauty school, and the commission was tasked with evaluating the compatibility of this new use with the surrounding area. Phelps, drawing on her 26 years of experience in the salon industry, expressed a desire to establish a small and private educational setting. Her proposal outlined plans to accommodate six cosmetology and four esthetician students. This initiative aims to fill a gap in local educational offerings, as Phelps noted the absence of similar institutions in the area.

The commission’s analysis focused on the potential impact of the beauty school on parking and its overall fit within the C1 zoning district. Staff assured that the current parking facilities would suffice, given the existing shopping center’s specific requirements based on square footage and usage type. The commission delved into the practicalities of the proposed school, including the anticipated number of students and how it would align with the existing mix of uses and available parking in the vicinity. An emphasis was placed on ensuring that the new use would not adversely affect property values or the neighborhood’s character.

The commission members inquired about Phelps’s operational plans and her insights into the area’s current functionality. Phelps confirmed that the mix of commercial uses and parking arrangements are currently effective. Following the discussion, the commission voted unanimously to approve the application, allowing Phelps to proceed with her plans.

In addition to the beauty school application, the commission evaluated its meeting schedule, especially concerning the holiday season. The planning department highlighted that the last two meetings of the year often coincide with holidays, which could lead to attendance issues. Discussions included potentially canceling the December 28 meeting due to expected absences and considering a reduction in the number of meetings to one per month, particularly during periods of reduced workload.

The commission mulled over the possibility of moving the November 23 meeting to an earlier date to avoid conflicts with Thanksgiving travel. It was noted that the board of adjustment had experienced a drop in workload following recent changes in the land development code, and the planning department considered whether this trend applied to the planning commission as well.

Another point of interest was the potential for commissioners to propose amendments to the land development code. The planning department clarified that the commission has the authority to suggest changes to the council. Any proposed amendments would require drafting, circulation among the board, and documentation in a board meeting for a vote before potentially forwarding the recommendation to the council.

The meeting concluded with the acknowledgment that there would be no meeting at the end of the month due to a lack of action items. However, anticipation remains for the first meeting in December, contingent upon new applications being submitted for consideration.