[0:00] wax or something, but I bought the
cleaning kit. Nothing works. So,
[0:38] Nice to meet you.
>> Hello.
[0:45] I don't
I don't
[1:13] know.
[1:26] talked
You should actually
[2:10] How are you?
[2:17] » Did you get an answer?
>> No.
[2:20] » I can't hardly hear this.
>> Didn't I get a acceptable answer that
[2:27] The question is why did they suddenly
change all this R1 zone
[2:32] to R2?
[2:36] » No, the orange area is R4.
[2:41] Well, there's two shades of yellow. And
that's probably
[2:45] part of this confusion here because
there's two shades of yellow. So, if you
[2:49] look at it quickly, it all looks yellow,
but there's two shades of yellow. So why
[2:54] why did they change some homes when that
all goes
[3:00] and do these homeowners
care that this is being discussed?
[3:06] » Well, I know R1 is just single family.
R2 is
[3:13] » but these are R1 right now and they
didn't change their density. So, so you
[3:18] effectively you can have a subdivision,
let's say Kingsbridge, and somebody
[3:23] finds out they they're now zoned R2.
>> All right. Good evening everybody. We'll
[3:28] go ahead and get started with our
special meeting, special planning
[3:32] commission meeting for September 8th. We
will get started with the pledge of the
[3:37] uh pledge of allegiance.
[clears throat]
[3:42] I pledge algiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
[3:47] republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[3:53] justice for all.
[3:57] » All right, Katie, could you please call
the role?
[4:00] » Sure.
>> Baker
[4:02] » here.
>> Bill
[4:03] » here.
>> Cox
[4:04] » here.
>> Fzone here.
[4:05] » Hutchinson
>> here.
[4:07] » McCarthy
>> here.
[4:08] » Payatt here. Upholder. Dicks
>> here.
[4:11] » And I just want to make two reminders to
turn your microphones on and that to
[4:15] pull your phones away from those
microphones so we don't get that static.
[4:22] » Okay. Do we have to motion to excuse
absent members?
[4:26] » Motion to excuse the absent members.
>> Second.
[4:29] » Moved and supported. All in favor say I.
>> I.
[4:32] » Any opposed?
Okie dokie. Uh, one quick. So, we'd like
[4:38] to thank everyone for coming out
tonight. It's always so fun for us to
[4:42] see our community engaged in what we're
doing here at the city. As a reminder,
[4:47] what we'll be doing tonight is reviewing
the city of Gibralar zoning ordinance
[4:52] amendments, chapter 44, zoning that the
city has been working diligently on over
[4:58] the past year and a half or so. Um, we
will not be having any discussion on
[5:03] data center tonight. And if you ask the
commission any questions, they will not
[5:07] be able to respond. We are working on
the data center ordinance as a separate
[5:13] ordinance amendment at the moment. Thank
you.
[5:15] » And it's currently held with legal,
right?
[5:18] » Yep. It's currently being reviewed by
legal and going back and forth between
[5:23] legal and our planning team.
>> Got it. Um,
[5:28] okie dokie.
Do we have any public comment for this
[5:33] evening?
Uh please uh go ahead and step up to the
[5:36] podium. Please state your name and
address. Uh just as a reminder too uh
[5:41] when we get into the hearing, it's three
minutes per person that comes up to the
[5:44] podium and
>> and be professional.
[5:46] » And be professional.
>> So I live on 2887
[5:50] L Street. Um
this is the most donkey brains decision
[5:56] that this small community could do.
Bringing in big government when you guys
[6:01] have all basically failed on even
managing small businesses is the worst.
[6:09] One way for this is for example their
legal teams are outfunded. So guess
[6:14] what? Yeah. Endicon sued. Okay which is
fine. I like that you guys got sued
[6:19] because that's what they do. Every time
you give them an inch they'll take a
[6:23] mile. Do not bring this into here. We
have two wildlife refugees over here.
[6:30] Refugees.
Okay. I'm just Yeah, I don't know what
[6:33] the plural on that is, right? It's a
It's a hard word. Okay, but I'm just
[6:38] saying this is the donkey brains dumb
disgusting idea. This is a small town,
[6:44] sleepy river, Lake Eerie town. We do not
need jet freaking kerosenefueled
[6:51] turbine engines
firing computers over here for you know
[6:59] what they do with it. Okay, but
this is not appropriate.
[7:04] We don't want air pollution. We don't
want them using our water. What they'll
[7:07] do is they'll come in and say, "Oh,
we're going to do a closed cooling
[7:11] system." And then what they're going to
do is they're going to overbudget. And
[7:15] by that point, you gave them zero taxes.
No tax back to us. No money back into
[7:20] our coffers.
And guess what? We end up with the
[7:25] storm. Sorry. Apologize for my French.
Uh where we have no tax base. We have
[7:31] all the pollution. We have all the
problems. We They suck our water. They
[7:34] do it that we got kerosene fumes because
the freaking DTE. Obviously, if you know
[7:39] Gibralar, we have zero reliability with
uh energy here, which is why I installed
[7:46] a generator myself.
They will destroy this community and
[7:52] it's not worth the money. We have enough
millage based off of tax base alone.
[7:59] Please do not do this. This is the
dumbest donkey brains idea that you
[8:04] could ever think of is bringing big
business into a city
[8:10] that cannot even control small business
like JPs or something. Okay. And Captain
[8:16] Gyms.
So why would you think that this would
[8:20] be appropriate to bring in freaking
multinational
[8:24] multinational corporation basically? And
by the way, that's how they do it. They
[8:28] LLC and then they LLC and they LLC. So,
you don't even know who you're dealing
[8:33] with. And then they come in, you guys
screw up. Guess what they do? They sue
[8:38] the city of Jiala again. And do you
think you have the money? Do any of you
[8:43] have the money to defend that lawsuit?
None of you do. And the city of Jiala
[8:49] does not have it.
Keep this a peaceful, tranquil
[8:55] riverside lake eerie town like everyone
wants.
[9:00] Kick the data center out. Put it in the
middle of the desert where it deserves
[9:04] to be.
I hope you understand this. I will not
[9:08] stop fighting for this. Get this. Get it
out. Oh, by the way, the closed loop
[9:13] thing they always say closed loop like
like I I know. I got this. By the way,
[9:17] this wasn't me.
This was this was not me. This was
[9:22] another concerned citizen. Beautifully
written. Everything's put down. But I
[9:26] love the Actually, sorry, wrong piece of
paper. I made my mistake.
[9:30] » Just as a reminder, you're at the 3
minutes, but I'll let you finish here.
[9:32] » I think you should give me 30 more
seconds. But they say reporting a closed
[9:36] loop system. That's what they always do.
We're going to do a closed loop cooling
[9:41] system. Hm. like Fermy.
This is a bubble that's gonna burst just
[9:47] like the.com bubble. And and by the way,
why we live in Jibralter, Michigan. Why
[9:52] are we uh why are we praying to Palo
Alto, California?
[9:58] » Thank you for your comments, sir. Thank
you. [applause]
[10:11] » Lenor Bolthouse, 30567 Young. I'd just
like to go over some dates and different
[10:16] things. I understand you're not going to
talk about the data center, but
[10:20] everything starts here with the planning
commission, so I have to come here. On
[10:24] March 9th, council set for set forth a
morator moratorum to place access uh to
[10:30] place the access of the potential data
center coming into Gibralar. On March
[10:34] 23rd, council agreed to have McKenna do
to start a data center ordinance with
[10:40] the planning committee. In that letter,
McKenna stated that they would have
[10:44] their first draft in April at the cost
of them doing this would not exceed
[10:48] $6,000.
How much of that has been paid so far?
[10:52] Planning committee meeting in April
cancelled was on the agenda but the
[10:57] meeting was cancelled. May meeting first
time seeing the draft of the data center
[11:02] ordinance. Okay, that's great. It you
have to see the first draft. June
[11:07] meeting, no discussion whatsoever
regarding the data center and it's no
[11:11] longer appearing on your agenda as
unfinished business. It's always been on
[11:17] there as new business, but it should be
under under that as unfinished business
[11:21] because it is unfinished. You did talk
about it in May. July meetings
[11:27] cancelled. August the data center still
not on the unfinished business agenda
[11:33] and we're only going and in August we're
only going to discuss the MHDA housing
[11:38] readiness incentive grant which is what
we're talking about today. And that's
[11:43] because what the grant money I know we
got grant money for it and apparently we
[11:48] are running up against a deadline that
we have to have it done. It was just
[11:52] said that we've been working on this uh
ordinance since about a year and a half.
[11:58] Okay, I'm sorry. I need to ask this
question. Does it really take a year and
[12:03] a half to do rewrite our ordinances? How
much longer are we going to have to wait
[12:08] for the data center ordinance? And
please do not tell me that it's because
[12:13] of the moratorum that no one's working
on this data center. Where do I need to
[12:18] go? Who do whose buttons do I need to
push? I have to start with you guys
[12:22] because I know the ordinances all come
here first. So I'm not specifically
[12:28] anger with you. I'm frustrated that I
don't know where to go. Somebody tell me
[12:33] where to go because I want to know where
it is. I'm not waiting a year and a half
[12:37] as a resident for a data center
ordinance.
[12:42] [applause]
[12:57] My name is Jeffy Taylor. I live at 30669
Young.
[13:03] I'm very upset with the proposal of the
data center.
[13:08] Um I haven't attended many civic
meetings here, city meetings,
[13:16] which is my fault. I don't know how long
this has been in progress.
[13:22] Um
[13:26] I really feel that this is not a good
thing for our city.
[13:32] It's going to destroy our nature center
that's just 500 ft away.
[13:42] And if you don't think that's important
there, people move here because of the
[13:48] tranquility. They move here for
recreation, water recreation. They move
[13:55] here for the wildlife.
They move here to get more in touch with
[14:00] nature.
I have never heard any data center
[14:06] community that feels they're not
affected by this.
[14:11] I feel that we need more information.
I feel that I don't know why this
[14:22] wasn't allowed to be put on an election,
a public election,
[14:29] because we hire you.
You don't hire us.
[14:36] [applause]
[14:41] We hire you to do a job to represent us.
I can only see in the future along with
[14:50] the noise and the compromise of the
water which you may not think that's
[14:57] important. We're in a we're in a global
crisis and I'm sure you all know that
[15:03] and this is not going to
positively affect our water which
[15:10] Michigan is known for. We have a lot of
boat recreationists fishing uh people
[15:16] that like to fish.
[15:20] I have heard
that this is just for financial gain for
[15:25] the city. Whether or not that's true, I
don't know. I would propose that perhaps
[15:33] we work better on our budgets. I don't
know how much the board is making. I
[15:41] don't know how much the governor, the
mayor of the city is making,
[15:47] but in a family when you have problems
with the budget,
[15:52] you work on your budget. You don't go
out and buy something that's going to
[15:57] destroy the community.
In the future,
[16:04] I don't know if this is going to affect
me. I am an older person, but in the
[16:09] future, I can only see that should we
bring these big data centers and
[16:14] everything that destroys our community
and our our our public waterways and
[16:20] everything that we treasure about
Gibralar.
[16:24] Um,
it's going to lower our property rates,
[16:29] our property
uh values. And with the decrease in
[16:35] property values,
[16:39] [sighs]
[16:41] it's not going to be the same Gibralar.
Um, it's going to be like
[16:48] a mini Detroit or Ham Tramik.
Property values are going to go down and
[16:54] people won't care about our community.
Um, it's it's just the way it's going to
[17:01] be.
Uh I have a lot of concern about all
[17:04] this.
I feel that
[17:09] the public, the community hasn't given
its due justice. We pay our taxes and
[17:14] everything and we haven't been given our
due justice
[17:20] to investigate along with you. It's just
this is how it's going to be and that's
[17:26] that.
So I really
[17:32] I really hope that you
would pay attention to this moratorum
[17:39] because it's not an attack on the
community and it's not attack on on the
[17:44] board members. It is to say we need to
have more information. We need to know
[17:49] where we're going with this because we
love our community and I'm sure you all
[17:54] love your community too. Otherwise, you
wouldn't work so hard to try to get
[17:58] things done.
So, my question is, why are we bringing
[18:04] this here in the first place?
Why do we need AI in the first place?
[18:10] 50 years ago, we didn't need AI. And
just because your neighbor has something
[18:15] doesn't mean you have to have it. Do you
know what I mean? Uh,
[18:22] [applause]
thank you.
[18:26] » [applause]
[18:40] » Hello. Um, my name is Laura Shunk. I'm a
resident in Island Estates. Um, pro
[18:46] probably about a half a mile from the
data center. So, um I don't know if
[18:51] you're aware of it or not, but there's
currently [clears throat]
[18:53] a lawsuit uh that's that's been filed in
Dwajak against the data center there.
[19:00] And the reason for that is because of
the noise. The noise is constant. I I
[19:05] just pulled an article up and the
facility runs around the clock and so
[19:11] does the noise. It says a constant noise
that registers between 50 and 62 dB all
[19:18] hours.
A lawsuit has been filed with the US
[19:22] District Court for the Western District
of Michigan against the data center
[19:27] company that created unlawful noise
nuisance that has damaged the health,
[19:33] property values, and the quality of life
of residents near Dwajak. We all, and
[19:39] what I've read, the little bit that I
know, and I haven't researched it at
[19:43] length, anyone within a mile to two and
a half miles of these data centers is
[19:48] affected by this noise. Constant noise.
So, we have this beautiful, quiet
[19:54] community that we all love, and we're
going to throw it away for what, a
[20:00] little extra tax dollars. I remember
years ago they were looking at the same
[20:04] thing with that dump and that that was
all because they wanted more revenue and
[20:09] more tax dollars. They were going to
expand it and people smart people
[20:14] stepped in and stopped it. And I don't
want to see the same thing happen here.
[20:19] This is this is not going to benefit the
community in the short term or the long
[20:24] term as a nation. Maybe. But we don't
need it in our backyard. there are other
[20:30] places that they can build these data
centers. It doesn't have to be right
[20:33] here within a mile, less than a mile.
And then the the um refuge too is
[20:41] another thing. You know, that's 500 feet
from this place. So, it just it makes no
[20:46] sense to me at all. [snorts]
And maybe you all can help us understand
[20:51] how this is going to work, but it
doesn't seem feasible to me. Thank you
[20:55] FOR YOUR TIME. [applause]
[21:01] » [applause]
[21:04] » ANTHONY Arminiac 30003 3033 MAR. Uh
first question I have is on the downtown
[21:11] waterfront overlay district. I there's
nothing to address in the ordinances
[21:15] that we need an environmental impact
statement. This is adjacent to the
[21:20] Detroit River as well as adjacent to the
Detroit International Wildlife Refuge. I
[21:25] think it needs any development on that
space will need an impact statement
[21:29] environmental. We also need some proof
of environmental compliance on certain
[21:34] uh things such as part 31 of the water
resource protection of the natural
[21:38] resources and environmental protection,
part 91 of soil erosion and settlement
[21:43] control, part 301 inland lakes and
streams, part 303 wetlands, and part 365
[21:51] endangered species protection and any
other laws that apply to that because
[21:56] anything that you do on that space is
going to have a direct impact on both
[21:59] the wildlife life refuge and the Detroit
River and the canals. The other question
[22:04] I have is on the Riverwalk. It does not
clearly state who's responsible for the
[22:10] project. Will this end up in the DDA
responsibility or is the
[22:16] uh the individual um property owner
responsible for the riverw walk? Who's
[22:21] going to maintain it? Who's going to be
liable for it? And make sure all the
[22:25] safety precautions are put into that
riverwalk.
[22:29] Regarding the M1 district, I think we
need to probably consider some adding
[22:34] some other things in there. Um, such as
maybe commercial green houses uh need to
[22:39] be uh looked at as a possibility for
that because that's a new coming thing
[22:43] that we kind of need. In the M2 zone, I
would look at again some of the ones
[22:48] that we had in the previous zone, large
scale utility, solar farms, uh public
[22:53] owned buildings and public uh uh
buildings and telephone exchanges,
[22:58] things like that. Um there was also the
shipyards at one time for manufacturing,
[23:02] repair and loss since for boats. Uh
sanitatory uh sewage systems, water
[23:08] plants and electric power generation and
again adding in commercial green uh
[23:12] green houses. Uh add in the new
technology of battery energy storage
[23:17] systems and the advanced automation
green tech assemblies. Thank you.
[23:23] [applause]
[23:30] Hi everybody. I'm Carrie Valadz, 29925
South Jib. So what I'm hearing from a
[23:37] lot of like the constituents here is
that there's lack of transparency even
[23:41] with this meeting here tonight. You have
to go digging and lurking around to be
[23:47] able to find what you're looking for.
And what I I don't really understand all
[23:52] of this how this works, but we're
reviewing our overall ordinances,
[23:56] not just the data center ordinances. So
why aren't we making modifications
[24:00] within these current ordinances now that
would control some things that we are
[24:06] fearful about with the data center such
as noise? I think our decel rate I mean
[24:11] we only had a very short amount of time
and it took me getting it from Mr.
[24:15] upholdser who isn't even here tonight.
To be able to review 181 pages in two
[24:20] days is a lot to ask citizens to pull a
thoughtful discussion and decisionmaking
[24:25] into how our communities running. This
is a huge lack of transparency. You guys
[24:29] won't answer questions. You meet in the
dark. We understand that you guys can
[24:34] have your off-site meetings, but we
should understand what's going to happen
[24:37] with our lives moving forward. We should
understand what's going to be in our
[24:41] backyards. I mean, it's some of you
won't even look at us as we're talking
[24:45] up here. It's very rude actually for us
to take the time out of our evening to
[24:50] come and speak to you about the
community that we care and love and we
[24:53] don't even have some of your attention.
That's all we're asking for is
[24:58] transparency. And I that's what I don't
understand is why aren't we given time
[25:03] to address the needs of the proposed
data center in our current ordinances
[25:08] that M1 and all that district overlay
now. And I mean right now you guys are
[25:13] looking to sell out the marinas
basically with adding living space.
[25:17] Well, you have you just like all of
these other companies that we're dealing
[25:20] with. You give one an inch and they're
going to take them out. What the hell's
[25:23] going to be over here? I mean, we're not
even going to want to live here anymore.
[25:27] Neither is anybody else.
>> [applause]
[25:34] [cheering]
[25:42] » Okay. Any other public comment?
>> All right.
[25:47] » I do.
[25:54] My name is Paul Lavin and I live at
13442 Grand View Drive. Been here for
[25:59] about 45 years. We open this up just
now. I mean, I've never come to a I've
[26:05] come to one council meeting about water
about 50 30 years ago. Um the meeting
[26:11] started out with we didn't want to talk
about the data center, but yet I'm
[26:16] sitting here and that's all anybody
wants to talk about. And I I just can't
[26:22] help but to think I've been a union rep
where I work for over 20 years. And it's
[26:27] my job to support the people that I was
responsible for that I represented. And
[26:36] all that I'm hearing and all that I ever
see when I read the social media and
[26:42] when I talk to my neighbors, when I talk
to people around here is how much we
[26:46] don't want it. It's bad. you I read I've
read so little positive about it that
[26:53] it's kind of scary and like all of you
guys were voted in to protect our
[26:58] interest and to help us when some big
entity like this comes to try to take
[27:04] over and that's all I'm hearing is
people are trying to appeal to you to
[27:12] please don't let this come here nobody
seems to really want it and even though
[27:17] it might generate some more tax revenue.
I think what I'm hearing is please, even
[27:24] if we don't have all the fancy newest
technology that every other that that
[27:30] that that Bloomfield Hills has, I think
that we'd rather have a simple life and
[27:36] be clean and safe than to have something
like a data center that we really don't
[27:42] know what it's going to do to us and our
wildlife and our community. And that's
[27:48] just all I'm hearing. So, thank you.
[applause]
[27:56] [applause]
[28:01] » Okay. Next, we have uh approval of the
agenda.
[28:06] » One more statement.
[28:13] » One more.
>> Do we have a hand
[28:16] » for public comment?
Don't like as in like did any of you
[28:20] guys like do you really want
>> We can you can we can only do one
[28:24] comment per person per public comment
>> just to be fair to the
[28:30] » I'm just saying
no one here is in support of the data
[28:37] center.
You are also elected officials that are
[28:42] subject to repeal. We're not elected,
but let us carry on with the meeting.
[28:47] We're going to follow so that we're
consistent in our meeting.
[28:49] » I will sit down, but
>> thank you.
[28:50] » No one here is in support of the data
center.
[28:57] [clears throat]
>> Okay.
[29:02] » How did you get your job?
>> You're appointed.
[29:04] » We're appointed.
>> You were appointed by who?
[29:07] » We're appointed.
>> The mayor appointed you.
[29:12] Uh it's depending on the timing.
Many mayors.
[29:17] Um next we have approval of the agenda.
>> Motion to approve the agenda.
[29:23] » Second.
>> Moved and supported. All in favor say I.
[29:26] » I.
>> Any opposed?
[29:29] Uh next item five, we have discussion
and review of the city Gibralar zoning
[29:32] ordinance amendments chapter 44 zoning.
Uh
[29:37] do you have updates from previous? I can
go over some notes that
[29:42] um I put down really quickly.
>> Yeah, if you if you make the through to
[29:48] the chair I can just kind of give a
recap where we left a recap where we
[29:51] Yeah. And then we can jump in.
>> Sure.
[29:53] » Okay. Uh good evening commission. Good
evening public Donovan Smith. Um so at
[29:57] the last
>> your phone
[29:59] » Oh, sorry. [clears throat]
>> At the last planet commission meeting,
[30:03] we reviewed the last two changes.
>> Do you want to present your presentation
[30:07] » after the discussion? I think Oh, yeah.
after we start this work. Um we left off
[30:12] with two changes uh as it relates to
storage of vehicles you during the
[30:18] winter hours if I'm correct and also for
the changes to the waterfront overlay
[30:24] district and that reszoning process kind
of overall. So, within the current draft
[30:30] that I sent you first, I just want to
kind of go over what that process is u
[30:34] for the waterfront overlay district and
let me just pull it up here.
[30:45] Um, so this would be section 3.21,
the downtown waterfront overlay
[30:50] district. So, currently that district
sits as an overlay. So there is a
[30:56] underlining district and then the if you
want to allow what this uh overlay does
[31:02] is when you want to have public access
improvements. If you want to allow a
[31:06] resoning in exchange for public access
improvements to allow residential units
[31:12] above the first floor, which was the
core of of the objective of that
[31:16] ordinance, a couple things need to
happen. The reasoning is one process and
[31:22] your site plan approval is a different
process.
[31:25] The way this describes that process,
they would come to you for a preliminary
[31:29] site plan. You would get all the details
about what the project is supposed to
[31:34] be, how the public access is supposed to
work, what the unit mix, what the layout
[31:40] of the site and development will be, and
you can discuss that at a preliminary
[31:44] site plan level. That process is already
currently in your current ordinance. So,
[31:49] we're just saying you can apply it to
this situation
[31:52] at that time. Once you make all your
initial determinations, you can make a
[31:57] preliminary site plan approval with
conditions. One of those conditions are
[32:02] that they do a development agreement
ultimately throughout uh with city
[32:06] council and they do a public access
agreement. And then you can add other
[32:11] conditions to the site plan at that
time. And then the last condition is
[32:15] they have to go through the resoning and
actually require the downtown waterfront
[32:20] overlay district. So it's site
preliminary site plan conditions one of
[32:26] those conditions get your reasonzoning
and then you kind of close that phase of
[32:30] the work then you start the reasoning
process to do your standard resoning
[32:37] that goes through here public hearing
recommendation city council approval
[32:41] that preliminary site plan still stands
and if they are approved for the
[32:46] reasonzoning then everything you
discussed prior to would be standing as
[32:50] they go forward. So everything in that
initial site plan, the development
[32:55] agreement, the public access plan, all
of that would go forward through uh from
[32:59] you, I'm sorry, from you to city council
at the end of that process. And and
[33:04] that's essentially the whole process.
Whereas where it kind of reads before
[33:09] and the kind of challenge with
administrating it, it said do the
[33:14] resoning. You'd get the resoning, but
nothing guarantee guarantees that you
[33:18] kind of get the product that you asked
for. Um, so what this does is it gives
[33:22] you that preliminary site plan process.
You can flush out all the hairs and
[33:27] needles and then say that's what we're
approving and then go get your resoning
[33:31] and then you can address the
reasonzoning individually and not
[33:34] conflate it with the site plan process
and then I guess I'll pause there for
[33:39] questions.
I'll just comment like I mentioned the
[33:44] last meeting and I think there was some
discussion amongst the commissioners the
[33:52] the thought or plan has existed in the
city plan for a while as Jeff had
[33:58] mentioned. However,
allowing that has never existed in the
[34:02] ordinance. So by approving that change
in the marine district, we would be
[34:10] adding the capability for that to exist
there, which currently does not exist as
[34:14] an ordinance only in the city plan. The
ordinance is the last line of defense
[34:19] for expanding that. That's my thought on
it. So I just I wanted to make that
[34:23] clear because that was like that's a
discrepancy
[34:26] from what we said last month. It's not
it's not ever been in the ordinance.
[34:30] It's been in the site or in the city
plan like the future plan.
[34:34] » It actually is. Correct me if I'm wrong,
Donovan, but section 44895 of the city
[34:40] ordinance is the downtown waterfront
overlay district
[34:45] which was brought into the city
ordinance in I believe
[34:50] 2013.
>> Yep. [clears throat]
[34:53] » And what was the discussion that we had
the last time we brought it? So I
[34:57] believe a lot of the discussion at our
last meeting was some of the changes
[35:03] [clears throat]
>> that were
[35:04] » it's the bill. Oh, it's the
>> it was the residential
[35:06] » above the residential above change.
>> Y
[35:08] » yes
>> cuz currently um see if I can double
[35:12] check it here.
>> That's the change that's really
[35:14] » Yes. And
>> the only concern anyways in my opinion
[35:17] but that's what we're here to discuss.
>> Yep. So, as currently constituted in our
[35:24] zoning ordinance, um, if you look at
K, it says that,
[35:34] uh, oh, wait, I just lost it. Sorry.
>> Yep. I have it here if you want.
[35:37] » Thank you. Go ahead.
>> So, under K, building height
[35:40] requirements and bonus to get the
building height bonus, the exchange was
[35:45] to allow residential units above.
Currently in your current draft for the
[35:50] waterfront overlay district, it does
allow residential units on the upper
[35:54] floors. So the question during the last
meeting was do we want to keep that or
[35:59] there was question should we take it out
and not allow residential units above it
[36:03] at all. It's currently within your
ordinance. The improvement you get in
[36:07] this draft is the process that kind of
gives you a bit more teeth into getting
[36:12] that final product that you want. But
the current doesn't
[36:16] » we give me one second.
>> It's actually under M permitted uses.
[36:20] Keep going down.
>> Yeah, it's under that second table.
[36:25] » You
[36:29] say residential uses.
[36:35] » What page is that?
>> Page.
[36:39] » Oh, it's not in there. We're in the
ordinance.
[36:41] » Oh, yeah.
If you pull up the zoning ordinance,
[36:45] just type in water overlay district.
>> Okay.
[36:48] » Click on that section and scroll to the
very bottom.
[36:52] » Yep. Section 44-895
subm
[36:57] is permitted uses in the waterfront
overlay district. Currently, those are
[37:02] all the uses permitted in the C1
district. boat, libraries, marinas,
[37:06] retail sales, uh buildings and uses
customarily accessory to other uses,
[37:12] publicly owned buildings, residential
units on upper floors of buildings,
[37:17] professional offices, restaurants, bars,
canoe and kayak facilities.
[37:21] » What was our who else was on here? What
was our previous discussion that we had
[37:26] like a year ago then when they came that
was the discussion was allowing business
[37:31] commercial on the first floor and
residential
[37:35] on the second floor. We deferred the
discussion and then it came up at the
[37:39] last meeting
10 months later.
[37:44] So, I wasn't here.
>> I I don't I can't remember the
[37:48] » I wasn't here for that discussion, but I
do I believe I recall what building
[37:53] you're talking about. And I think part
of the problem was with the water
[37:57] overlay district, this commission has to
approve that
[38:03] applying to any building. So it it's not
necessarily okay. It's automatically
[38:11] zoned to have residential in the second
floor. It has to go through the process.
[38:16] And the changes that McKenna is
recommending to us is to tighten up that
[38:20] process to make sure that no one can
skip steps and the planning commission
[38:26] has more control throughout that process
>> than current.
[38:30] » Yes. And if I recall correctly, again, I
wasn't here, but learning about it after
[38:36] the fact, it wasn't something that was
initially coming through during like the
[38:43] building stage. It was an after the
fact, hey, there's residential units
[38:48] there. How do you want to handle it kind
of deal?
[38:51] » Yeah, pretty much.
Um, [sighs]
[38:56] okay. And then if I may add through the
chair, this is also in exchange for the
[39:00] two additional stories. So if you want
the two additional stories, the exchange
[39:05] was the public access and the
residential or the uses that come with
[39:11] the overlay
>> which requires the
[39:15] riverfront walk and all the other stuff.
>> Yes.
[39:18] And and that's why this at least this
over overlay is a little unique because
[39:22] it the intent of it is to provide uh
public access. whereas other overlays
[39:28] kind of strictly just permit additional
uses. This one and that's why you have
[39:32] to have the development agreement and
the public access components. So as you
[39:36] go through that process, you're you're
hitting all those boxes.
[39:39] » So it still allows public access access
so folks can see the river and
[39:43] » yes,
>> etc.
[39:45] » Have to a couple concerns about the
public access and the riverwalk.
[39:49] If someone was going to come in and
develop that all at once, then the
[39:53] Riverwalk would probably look nice. But
if we have um developers that come in
[39:59] sporadically and develop the Riverwalk's
going to kind of be a mismatch and who's
[40:05] responsible for that riverwalk. I don't
think we've really discussed that in
[40:09] detail. I mean, are the the owners of
the building going to be responsible for
[40:14] the riverwalk? Does the city What about
snow shoveling? you know who's gonna get
[40:19] are they gonna
>> that's some of that stuff that I
[40:23] » I have some do you want to keep going or
do you want me to cover some of the
[40:25] stuff that I
>> I can answer that one and then we'll go
[40:27] to yours. Okay.
>> So through the chair so currently
[40:31] » in that initial step the ordinance in in
most cases won't address all of those.
[40:36] You will have to go through the
development agreement to identify
[40:39] because that's going to have to be a a
give and go with staff the
[40:43] administration and the property owner or
the developer. So that will get
[40:48] addressed in your preliminary site plan
phase. So before you get into the
[40:52] resoning, before you get into your final
site plan, you can have those initial
[40:56] conversations publicly with the the
developer or property owner about
[41:02] access, uh, maintenance, you know, what
this property, how is it going to
[41:07] function adjacent to this property? That
does give you the opportunity to have
[41:11] all those conversations.
>> I thought that's what we were trying to
[41:13] get away from. I thought that part of
the reason we wanted to get this in
[41:16] writing was so we could say yes your
sidewalk will be like this you'll the
[41:23] maintenance will be done by this person
you know versus let's negotiate this I
[41:29] thought that's what we were trying to
get away from so we had guidance in
[41:33] place
>> in your current ordinance you didn't
[41:38] really have the the process to to do any
of those things so now you have the
[41:43] process to ask those questions and get
them included within the plan itself.
[41:47] » Ask those questions versus
>> standards.
[41:51] » What you're getting at is what I
brought. So, I I sent uh some notes. I
[41:56] broke it into five categories of things
that I think should be included in the
[41:59] ordinance. Um the first one's fis a
fiscal impact review. So, before final
[42:05] approval, this would be included in the
ordinance in my opinion. Uh before the
[42:11] final approval of the zoning map
amendment, require the applicant funded
[42:14] information, projected taxable value,
property tax revenue, the impact to
[42:19] police, fire, DPW, water, sewer,
required public improvements, any
[42:26] requested tax abatement type stuff um or
city obligations. So that would be like
[42:32] one line item that you would add in
there. Another one would be like require
[42:36] the planning commission and city council
to consider whether requested overlay
[42:39] benefits are supported by the identif
benefits such as increased taxable
[42:44] value, public waterfront access,
infrastructure improvements. Um we would
[42:49] add in a development agreement. So
require city council approved agreement
[42:52] when a project uses the overlay
incentives or creates a public access
[42:57] infrastructure phasing maintenance or
financial obligations. The agreement
[43:01] should identify the timing,
the easements, and the continuing
[43:05] responsibilities.
The next one would be cost and
[43:08] maintenance. So state that overlay
approval does not obligate the city to
[43:12] construct, finance, operate or maintain
the project related improvements unless
[43:17] city council agrees
uh expressly agrees in writing and then
[43:23] a traffic review. So like traffic impact
study which is part of site plan kind of
[43:28] but to your point
and it's probably a
[43:34] an overstep but with all the things I
put here but in my opinion like I
[43:38] mentioned last month for me to make a
decision on an ordinance that could
[43:41] potentially impact the city and either
be a taxable gain to offset tax gaps we
[43:48] have it's tough for me to make a
decision on an ordinance if I don't know
[43:51] if we're going to actually like if it's
going to be posit positive or negative
[43:54] for the city. Um
so
[43:59] recommend adding a fiscal financial
review before the overlay resoning
[44:03] approval. Require development agreement.
Clarify riverwalk ownership so that we
[44:08] know who has to take care of it after
it's built. And then confirm the project
[44:11] related infrastructure costs are not
shifted to general taxpayers.
[44:17] Those are the things that I wanted added
to it. And I agree with you. Now, after
[44:23] talking, it does add another layer, but
to Maryanne's point, it's not explicitly
[44:28] documented. So, let's say tomorrow
Garrett's like, "You suck at planning
[44:32] commission. You're not here anymore."
Uh, I'm joking kind of. Um, then someone
[44:38] else will be here, right? Or if anybody
shifts, if we don't remember that down
[44:42] the road, no one will ask the question
in the site plan review or going to city
[44:46] council. So if it's not explicitly
documented as a process, it doesn't
[44:50] exist in my opinion. That's that's just
the way that I think about stuff. So I
[44:54] would have it defined so that we can
make sure we're doing it.
[44:59] » Okay.
>> What happened? I mean, we know we've had
[45:03] a hard time in JIB to bring small
businesses and then keep them alive and
[45:07] sustainable, right? We got a bunch of
empty buildings. Businesses now they
[45:11] come in. So, we get businesses, we build
the residential, then the businesses go
[45:15] under and you got a bunch of empty
commercials. Is there nothing in the
[45:19] ordinance that controls that or I think
the first thing they do is come back and
[45:23] say, "Well, we can't get businesses, so
I want to put more housing on the first
[45:26] floor and get away from commercial."
That's probably be the first thing after
[45:31] a short amount of time. It's tricky
because you got to build it in a way
[45:34] where the business can evolve to make
money but at the same time doesn't
[45:37] change the
>> culture of the city and the impact
[45:40] impacts like
all the resources we have. It's a
[45:44] challenge.
>> Yes.
[45:46] » At the same time, if they close, you
still get they still have to pay
[45:50] property taxes, right? Technically, it
just looks bad.
[45:56] » Yeah.
[46:01] Go ahead. Do you want to share your
presentation or is there more
[46:04] discussion?
>> I can respond to your five points. Um,
[46:08] so for the fiscal impact, you could fit
it in your uh site plan approval
[46:15] standards for the overlay as a
recommendation going for in the process.
[46:21] And the reason why it would have to be a
recommendation
[46:24] is because for for within what you're
permitted to review within a site plan,
[46:29] the fiscal impact starts to creep on
just outside of that. And and that's
[46:35] that's the challenge in trying to
require traffic impact studies are a
[46:39] little different because that is
directly included within the site plan
[46:43] elements. the fiscal impact. I would say
you can include it as a recommendation
[46:47] for consideration in the development
agreement. And I can fit that language
[46:51] in here pretty explicit.
>> You can put it in there.
[46:53] » I can put that in there because that
says when you go through your
[46:56] preliminary agreement and you require a
development agreement, which it does say
[47:00] is required in that you can request city
council include a fiscal impact study.
[47:07] That is doable. and through the chair. I
thought we were going to see that
[47:11] » on this copy.
>> I thought that was already a given that
[47:16] that was going to be updated.
>> That sentence is the only thing that's
[47:19] not in there. All the other aspects are
in the current draft because we're we're
[47:23] just discussing it now. So, that
specific sentence that I can require uh
[47:27] the fiscal impact to be included in that
development agreement as a
[47:31] recommendation from planning commission,
city council, I can put that in. They
[47:34] couldn't put it in with me sending it
without discussion of
[47:38] » the broader group, which is good.
>> Um,
[47:44] and then what about the cost and
maintenance? So that like
[47:47] » cost and maintenance is spelled out in
your development agreement
[47:49] » that they're required.
>> Yes.
[47:51] » To handle all of it.
>> It's to be sorted out in the development
[47:55] agreement because it right now you don't
know exactly what that is. So if you say
[48:00] yes, they have to do all of it. you I
just don't know what that exact case may
[48:04] be when it comes about.
>> Well, I think this is where it's like,
[48:08] you know,
>> it's tricky. I mean, and so the public
[48:11] knows like we're not uh we're not
elected
[48:15] people in this board, city council is um
not everyone went to school for being a
[48:22] planning commissioner and things like
that. So over time, you gain knowledge
[48:25] of doing it. My concern is if it's not
clearly documented what folks should do
[48:31] for the betterment of the city, then if
you have the wrong folks there, nothing
[48:36] against them, they may not know. So then
you could skip something and then you're
[48:40] stuck with what you have, right? So I
like to have it listed.
[48:43] » And I get that that's probably not
standard across cities, but in my
[48:48] opinion, that's the way that you set a
standard and it sticks for many years.
[48:52] other otherwise it'll be like you know
eventually we'll change right
[48:58] » and I I can uh respond to that and then
I'll read just this this subsection
[49:04] » um it says the develop this is under
development agreements within the
[49:07] waterfront overlay the development
agreement it shall incorporate the
[49:10] applicable conditions of the site plan
approval which is that preliminary we
[49:13] discussed address the design
construction timing phasing completion
[49:18] maintenance and inspection uh of the
required public access impro access
[49:22] access improvements, uh, responsibility
for construction and maintenance such as
[49:27] improvements and dedication of granting
and required easements or other public
[49:31] interest. All that would be required in
your development agreement
[49:35] » to discuss, but it doesn't explicitly
say that the builder or investor is
[49:39] responsible for those. That means that
if at some point planning commission or
[49:44] city council could say the taxpayers
could be responsible for a portion of
[49:50] the investment in a property that
someone bought
[49:54] » if council chose to agree to that in
that development agreement.
[49:58] » So this is our opportunity to
>> not allow that. If you were to say it
[50:03] has to be 100% provided by the paid for
by the private side,
[50:10] » would we ever would I don't know
>> like would we ever
[50:15] » you don't know just yet.
>> And the reason if you put it in, you
[50:20] can't have the other situation because
you've outlawed it. If you say it has to
[50:24] be 100% private, everyone has to be
private. And if there is a situation
[50:29] where there's a tradeoff or a benefit,
you really can't explore it because
[50:33] you've locked yourself out of the
option. If you leave it open, it still
[50:38] has to go through public discussion and
legal review and here and that either
[50:42] way.
>> That's fair.
[50:43] » I mean, if it's 100% private when they
have the decision what it looks like,
[50:48] could you have the city council say it
looks like this and we want gold handles
[50:52] and that's going to be on the developer
or would the developer take full? That
[50:57] would be a part of the negotiation. Once
you get into that development agreement
[51:01] phase, it is a negotiation.
[51:06] » And and this ordinance doesn't
necessarily create a full blown out
[51:10] development agreement ordinance. It just
says in this case when you want to do an
[51:14] overlay, you have to do a development.
So ultimately without opening
[51:19] » forcing the development discussion, what
we include in the development discussion
[51:22] are recommendations.
Ult I'm sorry because ultimately it has
[51:27] to go to city council and they make the
final decision. You'll make a
[51:30] recommendation
>> of all the things that should be in it
[51:33] but ultimately is city councils cuz
they're going into an agreement with the
[51:36] developer for public access.
>> Okay.
[51:43] » Um another piece we also discussed were
changes. So if there is a change to a
[51:48] site plan uh after you've approved it
within the overlay that comes back to
[51:51] you as well.
[51:55] Um, and those are all the changes. The
last piece, uh, let me go here to our
[52:00] table.
[52:03] Um, in your table of permitted uses, so
this is page 31. If you're looking at
[52:08] the draft itself, there are a few uses
that we missed. Um, marinas, we caught
[52:15] we caught that at the last meeting. I
think one of the commissioners brought
[52:17] that up to me. Um, accessory buildings
and structures and uses. I highlighted
[52:23] these in yellow. Um, so if we could kind
of populate that one. Hotels and lodging
[52:29] facilities and laundry and dry clean
establishments. Those are the last three
[52:34] that we missed.
[52:38] » Bless you.
>> Do we want to
[52:44] » down on page
>> and it starts at 32 actually.
[52:48] » Down on 54 though. I think you'll have
to add marinas in that section also
[52:53] » to the big table.
>> C3 marina commercial where it says
[52:56] permitted uses special accessories.
>> I gota
[53:00] » just
it's more detail over the
[53:06] » I guess I guess we didn't I mean that's
up for discussion also, right? Do we
[53:11] want to include hotels and lodging as a
permitted use? Is that that's what we're
[53:17] saying, right?
>> Yes.
[53:19] I'm a pretty heavy no on that one
personally
[53:23] » and and you if you don't want it at all,
I would just remove that line all
[53:27] together.
>> I mean, it's a discussion with us,
[53:29] right? I But I
>> I would agree with you.
[53:33] » I'm a pretty I'm a I'm a big no on that
one personally. Um
[53:38] » that might be why it's not highlighted.
It was probably a discussion item we
[53:41] never got to.
[53:50] Oh, I see.
[53:58] » I added Marina to that C3 table.
[54:07] » Do we Do we want that in there? Should
Do we have to
[54:13] You you can do a motion to remove hotels
and lodging facilities
[54:19] as a permitted use in its entirety.
>> You got to talk a little bit louder,
[54:25] please.
>> Oh, I ap I apolog.
[54:30] I'll make a motion to remove hotels and
lodging from the proposed
[54:34] » permitted uses of the C3 overlay
district
[54:38] » or in in its entirety cuz right now the
way
[54:42] » it entirety
>> I'll second that.
[54:47] » Moved [snorts] and supported. All in
favor say I.
[54:51] » I.
>> I.
[54:51] » Any opposed?
>> Okay.
[54:55] » Okay. I feel better now. Do you want to
do the same for laundry and dry clean
[55:00] establishments?
[55:04] » I don't.
>> They might need that as a business
[55:06] underneath the [laughter]
>> Yeah, they might need that at the bottom
[55:10] of the
>> residential
[55:12] » thing if we do that. Yeah.
>> Yeah, we should. I would think we'd
[55:16] remove it. I mean, it's close to the
water. You don't know what'll happen
[55:21] with any toxic
>> runoff
[55:24] » chem runoff or chemicals they use there.
>> So that would have to be a motion
[55:28] specific. Someone would have to make a
motion specific to the C3 Marine Overlay
[55:33] District to remove
>> No, this is just in general. So this is
[55:37] just
>> Oh, this is the full general one.
[55:39] » Yeah. Okay.
>> So you can either add it to C1, C2, C3.
[55:44] You can add it.
>> We have to make motion it because this
[55:46] isn't approved yet. So why do we have to
make a motion to remove
[55:50] » just to get agreement
>> collective agreement
[55:53] » through the chair? I apologize.
>> Yeah, I'll make a motion to remove
[55:56] laundromats from the C3 Marina Overlay
district.
[56:00] » From the entire ordinance, not just the
C3.
[56:03] » Yeah, it's from the entire ordinance.
Sure.
[56:05] » Well, that that means they can't do it
anywhere else. That's what
[56:08] » correct. Do you want it removed where
like someone couldn't buy
[56:12] a bank and turn it into a laundromat or
do you want it where it just can't be
[56:18] underneath the C3 overlay or in Humbug?
>> Well, I know there's they use a lot of
[56:25] chemicals in mats. Um,
I mean, I would make the motion so we
[56:30] don't have a laundromat
throughout our ordinance
[56:35] if that's if everyone is in agreement
with that. If not, then I would go for
[56:40] just the C3 overlay
Marina district.
[56:47] » For the entire city. Okay. So your
motion is to laundromats as permitted
[56:54] use
>> throughout the city. Correct.
[56:58] » Dry cleaners.
>> Dry cleaners. Yes.
[57:03] » Any other discussion?
>> I
[57:08] I'm just thinking of like the other
parts of the city like over by the
[57:12] um Dollar General there's the vacant
building that used to be like the
[57:17] veterinary clinic like 20 years ago.
Dennis,
[57:20] » I don't know if you could separate dry
cleaning from laundromats. Laund mats,
[57:24] someone's washing machine breaks down or
they don't have one and they go wash
[57:26] their clothes like all of our houses do
on a daily basis.
[57:30] » I don't think it's any difference
whether your business now dry cleaning,
[57:32] yes, there might be chemicals, but to
say it to remove laundry mats,
[57:37] » it's just not feasible to support.
[57:43] » That's up to the business owner, though.
>> If I could open it, I could come in and
[57:47] open it. If I go broke, I go broke.
>> Yeah, that one doesn't really
[57:50] » Doesn't the marina already have washers
and dryers
[57:54] where the men's and ladies room are in
that building there?
[57:56] » I don't know.
>> It's probably a good point. I'm not
[57:58] sure, but possibly. But I'm not against
washers and dryers, everybody. It's not.
[58:05] » Yeah, [laughter] that one doesn't bother
that one doesn't bother me too much. We
[58:08] have to
>> Yeah.
[58:10] » I mean, we all put in the same gray
water sewers and and everything like
[58:13] that. I can see if they're dumping it on
the ground, but
[58:17] Yeah, I remember
>> and uh yeah,
[58:21] » it what I could recommend if you wanted
to allow them in in some limited
[58:25] capacity
uh to allow them in the C1 district,
[58:29] which is your least used commercial
district, you really only have it at the
[58:33] intersection of uh Jefferson and
Jialter, I believe, and there's one on
[58:39] Gibralar. Um, I would not recommend it
in your C3, which is your marine
[58:43] district, and then you have a lot more
C2 general commercial, um, which may add
[58:49] more of it or allow more of it than you
may initially want. So, if you did want
[58:53] to allow it, you could leave it as a
permitted or special land use in the C1
[58:59] district that allows it if somebody
wants to make it work.
[59:03] » That's a fair compromise. That's fair.
>> But not for a dry cleaner. effort dry
[59:09] cleaner.
>> Laundry mates don't bother me as much as
[59:13] a dry cleaner does.
>> Understood. Is Is that the agreement to
[59:17] allow
>> someone would have to make a motion?
[59:21] » Already on the table
unless you'd like to amend your motion.
[59:26] » Well, we didn't vote on it. So, um you
want to vote on it and then if it
[59:30] doesn't pass, I'll amend it.
>> Moved in. So just for clarity, Maryann's
[59:37] original amendment was to remove
laundry and dry cleaning from all
[59:43] districts
>> as a permitted use.
[59:46] » As a permitted use. That's what we're
voting on right now.
[59:49] » Both laundry and dry cleaning.
>> Yes.
[59:51] » That's for everywhere.
Moved and supported. All in favor say I.
[59:57] » I.
>> Any opposed?
[1:00:01] » Okay. Let me call.
>> I'm I'm Okay. Okay. Baker,
[1:00:05] » no.
>> Bil,
[1:00:07] » no.
>> Cox,
[1:00:08] » no.
>> Hutchinson,
[1:00:11] » no.
>> McCarthy,
[1:00:12] » yes.
>> Hyatt,
[1:00:14] » yes.
>> Dicks,
[1:00:15] » nope.
>> Thank you. Amen. The motion for just the
[1:00:19] dry cleaning to eliminate a dry cleaners
from being able to establish business in
[1:00:27] districts
[1:00:31] in all districts. Yes.
[1:00:37] I don't know what's going on.
[1:00:46] » Can you say that one more time? I'm
sorry. We
[1:00:48] » making a motion to eliminate the use of
establishing a dry cleaner in any of the
[1:00:53] zoning districts that would allow for
that.
[1:00:58] » I could second no dry cleaners.
>> Moved and supported. All in favor say I.
[1:01:03] » I.
>> I.
[1:01:05] » Okay.
>> But that's
[1:01:07] » Any opposed?
>> No.
[1:01:09] » Opposed.
>> I'll call the vote. Baker.
[1:01:12] » No.
>> Bill.
[1:01:13] » Oh.
>> Yes.
[1:01:15] » Pax.
>> No.
[1:01:16] » Hutchinson.
[clears throat]
[1:01:20] » Um,
no.
[1:01:22] » McCarthy.
>> Yes.
[1:01:24] » Hi.
>> Yes.
[1:01:27] » Yes.
[1:01:33] I'mma get us there
>> because it doesn't include the
[1:01:37] » I'm I'm following.
>> Y
[1:01:38] » it's not specific to the marine.
>> It's not specific to anything right now.
[1:01:42] Right.
>> I'mma get us there.
[1:01:47] [snorts]
>> Passed.
[1:01:50] » It passed. Okay. So, if I may just to
clarify, so what that established is
[1:01:56] that we don't want dry clean
establishment. So, that's clear. Now we
[1:02:00] have to address where we want uh laundry
facilities. The recommendation was to
[1:02:06] allow them as a permitted use
>> by right in the C1. That's my
[1:02:11] recommendation.
>> Make a motion to allow laundry mats in
[1:02:14] the C1 district.
[1:02:22] » Moved and supported.
>> All in favor say I.
[1:02:25] » I.
>> Any opposed?
[1:02:28] All
[1:02:30] right, we got through this.
>> Okay, I I was going to get us through
[1:02:33] it.
>> Take that as a win.
[1:02:35] » All right, and the last one uh is
accessory buildings and structures and
[1:02:40] uses. Uh that one is currently and
that's the first one. So, I just want to
[1:02:46] jump down um just kind of save
conversation. Starting at section 309,
[1:02:52] it currently outlines the districts that
allow accessory uses. So 309, 310, 311,
[1:03:01] those individuals tables currently do
that. So I don't think it's necessary to
[1:03:06] either have it as a line item in the
table of uses because the individual
[1:03:11] descriptions of what's permitted for
accessories is in that table. I can
[1:03:15] either remove one from the remove the
table item or I can make the these uh
[1:03:21] individual sheets match that table. They
both will eventually say the same thing.
[1:03:26] This is because it's listed in the
actual zoning in specific areas.
[1:03:31] » Yes.
>> Yeah. It's in
[1:03:33] » and it's already described there. So
instead of us going through that motion,
[1:03:37] I could just take it as it's described
and just make it match that row
[1:03:41] » and that kind of makes this a little
easier.
[1:03:44] » So it would be gone out of the table is
what you're saying.
[1:03:47] » I could leave it in the table and make
it match.
[1:03:49] » Oh, you're saying make it match with
where it's allowed.
[1:03:52] » Yes.
>> Oh,
[1:03:53] » I don't have any issue with that. It's
the same ones that have been there for
[1:03:57] » correct. It's the same ones.
>> I also think that would make it more
[1:04:01] clear to our residents if they could
just reference it at the table.
[1:04:05] » Yeah.
>> Instead of having to
[1:04:08] » and and currently accessory buildings,
structures, and uses are permitted in
[1:04:13] all the districts where where
appropriate.
[1:04:15] » Yep. And then there's more specific
writing around setbacks and all the
[1:04:18] other stuff.
>> So it would just be a P going all the
[1:04:21] way across. So maybe just to clarify,
the motion would be to permit accessory
[1:04:26] buildings, structures, and uses across
all districts as described.
[1:04:31] » Yeah, I'll make a motion to allow
accessory buildings and structure
[1:04:35] structures and uses in all districts as
described in the following ordinances.
[1:04:40] » Correct.
[1:04:44] » Motion to approve accessory buildings,
structures, and uses in all districts as
[1:04:48] described in the following ordinances.
[1:04:54] We need support.
>> I'll support
[1:05:00] » moved.
>> Um, you said in the following district
[1:05:05] » in all in all districts listed in the
following ordinances
[1:05:11] because in the specific ordinances it
gives you the setbacks and all the Yeah.
[1:05:14] » So, we could probably word it somehow.
Instead of the word following, do you
[1:05:17] want to change it to um just listed in
the amended ordinances or
[1:05:24] » the allowed?
>> Yeah, the allowed ordinances.
[1:05:26] » In the allowable ordinances. Yeah,
that's fine.
[1:05:29] » That way Katie doesn't have to write out
the ordinances as following.
[1:05:33] » Yeah, that's extra. Don't do that.
>> Okay. Moved and supported. All in favor
[1:05:39] say I.
>> I.
[1:05:40] » Any opposed?
>> Okay.
[1:05:43] » Okay. Thank you, commission. That
handles all the remaining edits to the
[1:05:48] ordinance. Um,
>> um, I found a concern I have on the
[1:05:52] draft zoning map. Do you want me to
bring that up now or after your
[1:05:56] presentation?
>> That was that was the one we talked
[1:05:59] about earlier. The schools are one's a
C2 and one's a
[1:06:03] » Let's do Let's do it now. I can catch it
now.
[1:06:06] » Okay. So So what I saw when I looked at
this map, okay, R1 is light yellow and
[1:06:11] R2 is medium yellow. So they kind of
blend. So unless you really look at
[1:06:16] this, you might not notice
>> that they took a lot a chunk of houses
[1:06:22] in Kingsbridge and converted and want to
convert them to R2 zone property. They
[1:06:30] convert according to this draft zoning
map. There's several houses on Navar
[1:06:36] that have been changed into R2 that are
currently R1. There's several houses on
[1:06:42] Jefferson that are currently R1 that
they changed to R2. And then the
[1:06:48] mismatch with the schools where Carlson
is zoned R2, Parsons is zoned C2.
[1:06:56] So I mean that's a concern because I
don't think [snorts] the people whose
[1:07:01] property is potentially going to be
reszoned
[1:07:05] know this for one. And why would only
certain homes be reszoned R2 where
[1:07:15] others say they R1.
There's no
[1:07:19] um reason that I'm aware of that they
need to be zoned R2.
[1:07:28] » I hear you, Commissioner. I'm checking
the answer for you.
[1:07:32] » Okay. So, I I don't think that we would
should move forward till this is
[1:07:38] reviewed and corrected. You know, I
don't think we should just arbitrarily
[1:07:44] change zoning on people without
notifying them. They might say, "Well,
[1:07:49] this meeting was on social media."
But if someone is living in an R1 zoned
[1:07:57] area, I don't think we should just
arbitrarily change their zoning. It used
[1:08:01] to be where if someone's zoning was
going to change like this, they would
[1:08:05] get a letter in the mail. So even if
they weren't paying attention to social
[1:08:09] media, they would know their house was
being targeted because this looks
[1:08:15] targeted. This is a targeted resoning.
But what is the justification behind it?
[1:08:22] I think the after thinking about it just
now and I looked it up that the
[1:08:27] Kingsbridge is next to the apartments
that are there
[1:08:33] already. I forgot what they're called
now, some new name, but uh R2 allows for
[1:08:39] multif family homes and those types of
uses. So if it's adjacent,
[1:08:45] the question is if it's adjacent, does
it have to be R2 because it's next to
[1:08:49] the apartment? It doesn't. But but
shouldn't the people be notified?
[1:08:53] » You're asking should they be notified
that their their property is going to be
[1:08:56] changed because then the rules might
change for their property and they might
[1:09:01] not even know it.
>> Correct. So a couple things. One, I want
[1:09:05] to note that the elementary school is
currently your zoning map C2. So in the
[1:09:12] new map and current map, it's zone C2.
So that didn't change. um in your
[1:09:17] current table, schools are permitted in
that district via special annuals. So
[1:09:22] from a uh conformity standpoint, it
[snorts]
[1:09:26] still confirms historically and
currently in the draft. The high school
[1:09:32] site is in your current ordinance zoned
R1. Let me get the name right. R1 one
[1:09:39] family residential. What your new
ordinance does and this comes out in the
[1:09:44] presentation is that it splits the uh
single family and two family. So you
[1:09:51] have a R1 single family and then you
have a two family district. So it does
[1:09:57] go from R1 to R2 which is low density
residential which allows the single
[1:10:04] families in the twos which is I think
what you were describing.
[1:10:06] » Yeah.
>> So it doesn't change it. when we did the
[1:10:10] reorganization of the ordinance, we
properly allocated what districts should
[1:10:15] have which uses and then the map just
reflects that. So,
[1:10:19] » but if you have houses that are R1,
okay, they're zoned R1, they've been
[1:10:23] zoned R1,
they've always been R1, we're suddenly
[1:10:27] changing them to R2. I mean, you can
say, yeah, the I mean, I'm talking about
[1:10:31] houses by the school, too. There's a few
houses there. They're all zoned R2, but
[1:10:37] they weren't zoned R2 previously.
>> Their standards remain the same.
[1:10:43] » The standards did remain the same. Only
the name changed. So that that's why I
[1:10:48] didn't go to any other kind of
outrageous
[1:10:51] » district. But but why did only certain
houses get targeted? That's what my
[1:10:55] question is. Like the standards are the
same for R1 and R2. Then why aren't all
[1:11:00] the houses zoned R2? This is definitely
targeted. the the maps are essentially
[1:11:08] the same. I I don't see I'm looking at
I'm going back and forth now. I don't
[1:11:11] see any specific parcels that would
change that would not be consistent with
[1:11:15] the other parcels.
>> Okay. But let me reexain this.
[1:11:18] » These ones right here that are across
from Carlson, that's the high school.
[1:11:22] All of these, there's actually houses
there that were R1 before.
[1:11:26] » Yep. So these that were R1,
>> these were R1. These across right here.
[1:11:30] » Yep. So the question is there's a couple
that were R2, but the question is which
[1:11:34] is that
>> why would you change those all to R2? So
[1:11:37] now they could become multif family.
>> Yeah.
[1:11:40] » Right. So if you're going to change some
of the houses to R2, just to be fair to
[1:11:44] the city, all the houses need to be
changed to R2.
[1:11:47] » That doesn't it should just say R1.
There's no reason. It's no one is coming
[1:11:52] in here saying I want my lot reszone to
R2. So why are we just arbitrarily doing
[1:11:58] it to them? We're not arbitrarily.
Currently, your ordinance has R1.
[1:12:03] » All of the residential, that means those
uh on the canals and the land, the
[1:12:09] residential land on land, they all share
the same R1 zoning, but your canal
[1:12:15] properties are smaller than your
residential properties everywhere else.
[1:12:20] » Not 100%. [snorts] No, some houses on
>> are very big.
[1:12:26] » I'm not saying individually. I'm just
saying collectively all of your canal
[1:12:30] properties are different than your
mainland properties. Your current zoning
[1:12:36] map classifies all of them to be the
same. So what you're seeing going from
[1:12:42] R1 to R2, R2 in this sense is the same
as your R1. The only distinction now is
[1:12:49] that your mar your canal properties are
R1 small lot residential which matches
[1:12:56] their standards and all the other
property is R2 the same as it was before
[1:13:03] the name
>> Frier White Mar Lis those aren't water
[1:13:08] properties
um and there's several other you know
[1:13:12] like most of these rose right Gerald
they're all these they're not water
[1:13:17] properties. So why are they staying with
the R1 zoning but Kingsbridge Navar
[1:13:23] Jefferson are being resone to R2?
>> They'll only change in name the
[1:13:31] » and I don't agree with that different
guidance for R1 and R2. If they're only
[1:13:37] changed in name, why are we changing
them?
[1:13:40] » Currently all, like you said before, all
of your residential properties are under
[1:13:45] one zoning district. R1,
your canal properties have standards for
[1:13:52] those properties and then everything
else has standards for non canal
[1:13:57] properties.
>> Can I ask you a question? Have you gone
[1:13:59] around and checked each of these houses
that you're speaking to?
[1:14:03] » We check we did check the lot.
>> What you're saying is not true. There's
[1:14:07] several house there's several streets on
here that are zoned R1 that are not
[1:14:12] canal properties.
several of them yet they're being
[1:14:17] grouped in with the are they're
remaining our one which they should be.
[1:14:20] So my point is why are the others not
>> remaining the way they're zoned?
[1:14:27] » Are you referring to
>> Yes.
[1:14:28] » So you could those properties between
the water and King Street are we you we
[1:14:35] could make them R1. I mean if you want
to do that you could.
[1:14:38] » My I see what you're saying. If you want
to you could change them.
[1:14:42] Why are they changing to R2? If they
were remained R1 like they are right
[1:14:46] now, I wouldn't be discussing this.
[1:14:52] » They're being
>> Are you talking about the ones across
[1:14:54] from Carlson, too?
>> The ones across from Carlson, too? Yes.
[1:14:58] Yes.
>> Kingsbridge, Navar, Jefferson, all the
[1:15:01] way down to Woodri.
>> Those and those because there's an
[1:15:05] apartment complex here. This is a vacant
lot. That's a vacant lot. That's fine.
[1:15:09] But these ones,
>> right,
[1:15:12] » these ones and these ones. So if you
left the school, changed all these right
[1:15:17] here, these are vacant, too. Changed
these to R1's, then it would suffice
[1:15:22] » the ask and it wouldn't really impact
any.
[1:15:26] » If you would like to, we can change
those to R1.
[1:15:28] » Okay. Like them to remain what they are
now unless someone comes and asks for
[1:15:34] them to be reszoned. You know, if they
live in a home and it's zoned R1, it
[1:15:39] should just remain R1 unless they're
requesting it to be R2.
[1:15:43] » Why is mine bright yellow and yours is
dull yellow?
[1:15:49] » Are you looking at the old one?
>> The old map.
[1:15:51] » Old one was bright yellow. The new map,
it's the dull yellow.
[1:15:53] » Oh, this is in the our packet.
>> The new Your packet has the new map and
[1:15:58] the old map.
>> Displays the colors differently.
[1:16:00] » If you're looking sticks out more on
here, you can really see where they're
[1:16:03] zoning. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The old map
looks like one color, that dull yellow.
[1:16:08] The new map, it's two yellows, a bright
one and then a kind of dull one.
[1:16:14] » Let me new colors.
So if if you like fuchsia
[1:16:20] » the properties north of Gibralar between
Jialter and Jefferson and the water in
[1:16:26] Jefferson if you want those to go back
to R1
[1:16:30] » and there is like one R2 and one R3 in
there I believe but everything else is
[1:16:35] R1 already.
>> Yeah. Everything that went from R1 to R2
[1:16:39] if you wanted to go back to R1
>> north of the vet
[1:16:43] » the floor south of South Gibrala road
too by the
[1:16:47] » Yeah, there's some south road should
change those
[1:16:51] » these two
>> those should be R1. Yeah.
[1:16:52] » Yeah. Donovan, it may be helpful for you
to just start by explaining what the
[1:16:58] difference is between the new R
district, specifically small lot
[1:17:02] residential and low density residential
to help give everyone an understanding
[1:17:08] of why this change was made.
>> Yes. So the so as I mentioned currently
[1:17:14] your ordinance, if you look at the old
map where everything is light yellow,
[1:17:18] all the homes are classified the same in
terms of their properties. So, if your
[1:17:23] lot is 40 ft wide and you have a
standard home, it's considered the same
[1:17:28] as the property next to you that may be
60 ft wide with the same house. It
[1:17:33] they're considered the same, but they're
not considered the same because the lot
[1:17:38] themselves are different. Technically,
they're different. You have a 40ft lot,
[1:17:42] you have a 60ft lot. You shouldn't treat
those all the same,
[1:17:47] but your current ordinance does. And
particularly when you have those
[1:17:51] residential properties that are in the
canal, those are all if you look at your
[1:17:55] zoning map, you have some tiny lots, you
have some big lots. There's a lot of
[1:17:59] variation in those lots versus if you
look at um I'll just give an example.
[1:18:05] The property on Sugar Island, those are
kind of traditional that's a traditional
[1:18:11] street grid. Those lots are pretty
consistent the entire way around. So
[1:18:16] because you have areas that have
uh for lack of better words random lot
[1:18:21] widths and you have standard lot widths,
it makes sense to separate those because
[1:18:26] you don't administrate them the same. So
what this draft does is it separates
[1:18:32] those canal lots. It calls them small
lot residentials. all the same
[1:18:36] standards. And then you have the R2
lots, which are your pretty much all
[1:18:42] your other lots that were not the canal
ones before. And then those standards
[1:18:46] just match those lots. So that's why you
have different lots. What it ultimately
[1:18:52] solves is if you have one district that
describes all your lots, I'll look this
[1:18:57] way, too. If you have one district that
describes all of your lots,
[1:19:02] if you have a case where your current
standard says your buildable lot is 40
[1:19:07] uh I'll say 50 ft wide. If you have a 40
that exists, you can't rebuild on it
[1:19:13] because you that 40 is the standard
across the entire city. So by separating
[1:19:20] them, those standards that would be more
specific and unique to canal properties
[1:19:25] are R2 low residential district. Those
residential standards or those property
[1:19:31] standards because this is really about
your lot. Those lot standards that would
[1:19:35] be more attuned to property not in the
canal is zoned R1. But in this case,
[1:19:43] like on Windsor, those houses on the one
side of Windsor are on a canal, but
[1:19:50] they're zoned R2.
>> Windsor is zoned, we're talking about
[1:19:55] south of Jiala, right? Windsor is zoned
uh R3 right here. Right.
[1:20:00] » Windsor Drive is zoned R3.
>> In your current map, it is also zoned
[1:20:06] R3.
>> R3. talking about the condo portion, not
[1:20:11] the house portion.
>> Yeah. So, that didn't that didn't
[1:20:14] change.
>> The house portion.
[1:20:15] » She's talking about the house portion to
the left of it over here. Windsor runs
[1:20:18] through.
>> So, she's talking about these houses.
[1:20:20] This over here, these are Windsor goes
across.
[1:20:25] » These are condos. So, that makes sense.
>> So, I'll just ask this follow-up
[1:20:28] question. The homes you're referring to,
would you describe those properties as
[1:20:33] the same as the canal properties?
>> Yes.
[1:20:37] » Then they should not. You would not.
>> I would not because dimensionally those
[1:20:41] homes on Windsor are a lot larger
lot size.
[1:20:45] » Well, they're deeper than
>> Yeah.
[1:20:47] » Well, they're deeper and wider. I mean,
if you look there, there's no 40 foot
[1:20:51] lots on Windsor. Um, so I think that
would attribute it more to um
[1:20:58] » R2
>> and and that is the key reason why
[1:21:00] » states,
>> right?
[1:21:02] » And that is the key reason why it is
separated, right? if if those lots that
[1:21:06] those properties you were describing
>> were more sim
[1:21:11] » so we probably should fix that.
>> I'm just saying from the lot conformity
[1:21:14] size I think I think what Donovan's
trying to uh relay to us is that um the
[1:21:21] distinction and the differences is
because you have a lot of very unique
[1:21:25] properties within water frontage here
and they can range anywhere from 40 feet
[1:21:30] to 100 feet and anywhere in between. Um
he's trying to we are trying to define
[1:21:38] that more readily within separate
districts.
[1:21:42] » You're basically grandfathering the old
city with
[1:21:45] » those nonconforming lots.
>> You will not be non-conforming now.
[1:21:49] You'll make it.
>> So you're not telling them they have to
[1:21:52] » change for everything or buy the lot or
buy the lot next door.
[1:21:57] » Correct. This this does fix your
nonconformity issue for residential
[1:22:01] lots. And also later in your non in your
nonconformity section, it kind of
[1:22:06] explicitly says that cuz a lot of
communities have that issue. You have a
[1:22:10] old build grid and when you
progressively update your ordinance, it
[1:22:16] happens all the time. you accidentally
reduce the minimum lot size requirement
[1:22:22] and it makes portions of your housing
stock non-buildable which creates a lot
[1:22:27] of issues with rebuilding. If you get
into a fire, you can't rebuild it. What
[1:22:32] this does is it says essentially what
you were saying, your historic fabric
[1:22:36] that was the marina or the canal
properties that is now conforming. And
[1:22:43] technically now if you catch fire, you
can rebuild because you'll be in
[1:22:46] compliance. In your current ordinance,
that may be a challenge. If you have a a
[1:22:51] really small
>> some of the canal houses are some of the
[1:22:53] biggest houses in the city. I mean, I'm
not I'm not convinced of what you're
[1:22:58] saying. those people own four lots, not
just one. Okay? So, if you're one per if
[1:23:04] you have one lot and as Donovan been
saying, if your house burned down
[1:23:08] » and we don't have um the structure in
order, what's going to happen is that
[1:23:14] person can't rebuild their home on the
lot that they had there because it was
[1:23:19] destroyed by, you know,
>> because it if you didn't combine your
[1:23:22] lots as a variance, then you'd be
screwed. In in your current ordinance,
[1:23:27] if that were the case and you were a
canal property, because all of your
[1:23:31] properties are under the same district,
you would be forced to build to the
[1:23:36] standard that non canal homes are, which
may ultimately change the character of
[1:23:42] that area because all the canal
>> the size of the home. It could be a lot
[1:23:46] of things if it's the setbacks aren't
met.
[1:23:49] » Yeah.
>> But but wouldn't this potentially cause
[1:23:52] people to be assessed differently? No.
>> If they're if their zoning is different,
[1:23:59] if they're zoned for a higher potential
on their lot than they currently have,
[1:24:05] they have there's a chance that they
would be assessed differently. And what
[1:24:10] is going to stop someone, let's say
they're they live in an R1 neighborhood,
[1:24:16] but their house burns down, so they
decide to build a duplex in the middle
[1:24:20] of their neighborhood. their neighbors
don't have any real they can't do
[1:24:25] anything because it's zoned for that.
They've allowed it to be zoned and they
[1:24:30] didn't even know they weren't informed
unless they were reading social media
[1:24:35] that this was happening.
>> So
[1:24:37] » just a good example
>> two points changing your zoning does not
[1:24:42] change your taxable value. Your taxable
value is made at the assessing level.
[1:24:46] That's all taxation and assessing and uh
land value not zoning. They have two
[1:24:52] different classification codes. So taxes
are not impacted by zoning.
[1:24:59] » To your second
>> uses do change though. deep.
[1:25:02] » You know, I I think if you know, if even
if I was on a large lot R1, and then my
[1:25:10] lot gets zone R2 and my neighbors gets
zone R2, now all of a sudden they can
[1:25:14] build a private club next door to me. I
don't think I'd be too happy about that
[1:25:19] after I've been in my R1 neighborhood
for 30 years.
[1:25:23] » No, she makes a good Can answer the
second point. So, could could you if
[1:25:26] it's zoned R2, if you tore your house
down, build a duplex in that Now that
[1:25:32] it's changed from R1 to R2, if that's a
permitted use,
[1:25:36] » I'm looking right now
>> because that then could drive
[1:25:40] » changes in not taxable value, but value
of the home
[1:25:44] » in the R2. You could uh two family
dwellings are permitted in the current
[1:25:50] draft.
>> Yeah,
[1:25:54] » that's that's an issue. it you
>> I just don't all I would ask is that we
[1:25:59] just leave that zone the way it is
unless the owner comes in and asks to
[1:26:03] have it reszoned
>> and let me just answer one more question
[1:26:06] » residential area
>> is there is there another way to do what
[1:26:11] » can you just
>> and Donovan said where you buy the lot
[1:26:16] size somehow but don't allow
>> yeah what if you just don't allow two
[1:26:22] family residential and R2
>> that's what I was going to ask
[1:26:26] a standard subdivision. This is where I
live. The lots are not huge and small.
[1:26:32] It's exactly like Island Estate, always
been R1. We have a huge apartment
[1:26:37] complex next to us. It's own properly,
but Marian is spot on. It should stay
[1:26:42] R1. The residents of that subdivision
are not going to be open to the idea of
[1:26:47] changing their zoning, too. I can tell
you that.
[1:26:50] » Thank you for letting me speak.
>> And they don't know about this. They
[1:26:53] don't know about this. So they they if
they don't know about this, how can they
[1:26:56] come in and comment on it? And so how
can we approve? How can we
[1:27:00] » Yeah, I agree.
>> request that this be approved when so
[1:27:03] many people don't even realize their
zoning is going to change.
[1:27:06] » I agree with you. I'm glad you brought
it up because if I was living there and
[1:27:09] then someone built a duplex directly
next door and then you go to resell,
[1:27:15] someone's be like, "That's not going to
go over good." Can I just ask two
[1:27:19] follow-up questions because I'm just
>> all the permitted uses in R2 or not all
[1:27:24] but the difference between R1 and R2
actually went into say for example
[1:27:29] special land use
>> you you could
[1:27:32] » and if somebody wanted to do something
other than a single family home they
[1:27:36] would have to come to planning and get
special use
[1:27:39] » you you could special land use it. Yes.
Are all of the homes on Windsor or that
[1:27:45] neighborhood, are those all single
family homes?
[1:27:47] » Yes.
>> Yes. Yeah.
[1:27:48] » Is that under a your kind of traditional
subdivision or is it
[1:27:54] » it has a um
>> 45 years?
[1:27:58] » Very very uniform lots.
>> Uniform. And does it have a uh the
[1:28:03] agreement the operator's agreement? This
sub it's governed by its own board.
[1:28:08] Correct.
>> No,
[1:28:10] » it doesn't have a board. It is a city.
It there's no association.
[1:28:14] » There's no association. Yeah. So they're
just individual standard lots
[1:28:18] themselves. They're not governed
collectively. One person owns
[1:28:22] » that has that as in here.
>> Got you. So what I would Thank you for
[1:28:26] clarifying. I would just go ahead and
down zone it to R1.
[1:28:30] » Okay.
>> And then there's two other areas.
[1:28:32] There's Navar Street and I guess even a
house on Young, but Navar Street's all
[1:28:38] being reszoned as well.
>> Oh, I take that back. Okay. It's not
[1:28:44] It's not the way I across the street,
right? It's across the street. Right.
[1:28:47] And then Jefferson, there is one R2 and
then R3, but the rest of those are all
[1:28:54] R1 right now.
>> That's she's talking about across. Yeah,
[1:28:58] the ones I showed you earlier
>> and all the way down to Woodroof are all
[1:29:02] R1.
>> What are they currently?
[1:29:03] » Regular R1.
>> There's one in here. There's a We'd have
[1:29:06] to You'd have to show them the specific
lot where that apartment is that
[1:29:09] » there's one R3 and one R2, but all the
rest are
[1:29:14] » I don't know which one of these lots. It
might be that triangle one. There's
[1:29:17] actually like an apartment there, like
small one.
[1:29:20] » If if you want to just put them all back
to our one, that that's totally fine. I
[1:29:25] mean that I would think that's what we
would need to do because we haven't
[1:29:28] notified any people that
>> Well, or you could or you could change
[1:29:32] what's allowed in an R2
>> to remove the other stuff.
[1:29:36] » Yeah.
>> What you're going to what you're going
[1:29:37] to allow is any empty lots that we have
R2 right now. They can build on a 40
[1:29:42] foot lot, which we're saying we don't
want that in the future.
[1:29:45] » Yeah.
>> So, you're opening it up to everybody to
[1:29:47] build like we are in old Gibralar with
40 foot lots, put a house on it. you got
[1:29:52] less square footage, less, you know,
each one comes with your lot size. So,
[1:29:57] it's,
you know, in people want to build in in
[1:30:03] the old part of Jib, they we say their
lot, they come to ZBA because the lot
[1:30:06] size is too small. Well, it's as big as
it is. I'm going to build and we're
[1:30:10] trying to say in the future we want the
R2s. You're going to require this much
[1:30:15] lot size to build in the new lots that
they have. So there's you almost want
[1:30:20] like an R1A which I think we might have
had when we're trying to reduce it to
[1:30:24] say
>> oh
[1:30:25] » you know it's still single family and
you have this size requirement build
[1:30:30] requirement
>> a reduced R1 that makes more sense than
[1:30:33] to change every all of this to R2.
So what you could do and which was a
[1:30:39] good point instead of reducing that area
from R2 to R1,
[1:30:45] you can put back an R1A
which is single family without the
[1:30:51] duplexes and at least that preserves
that area in consideration of the larger
[1:30:57] more uniform lots. we had, wasn't it?
>> Well, I was thinking when when he said
[1:31:01] R1A, what I thought he meant was
>> to go to this the small lots that this
[1:31:06] is being
thought out for and have that be R1A for
[1:31:12] a smaller lot. Leave the R1 lots as R1.
And if they're being targeted because
[1:31:18] they're small, then create an R1A.
[1:31:23] That makes more sense than to change R1
lots to R2.
[1:31:30] » Yes, we can change those specifically
the ones along Windsor, North Windsor
[1:31:36] between the water and Kingswood
if we can make those R1A to accommodate
[1:31:43] those lots.
>> No, I thought you were talking about the
[1:31:45] ones over I thought you were talking
about the the original ones you were
[1:31:50] talking about on Bay View. I thought you
meant Dave you point.
[1:31:55] I thought that's what
>> Oh, you referred to them as canal homes.
[1:31:58] » Canal homes.
>> No, you should leave those as uh you
[1:32:02] should leave those as R1. I would
recommend you leave those the same.
[1:32:07] » Okay. Well, then why can't what? See,
this is my point is that why are you
[1:32:13] changing R1's to R2 for no real reason?
There's no real reason here other than
[1:32:17] the lot size.
>> The lot size. But in but if you want to
[1:32:21] target the smaller lot size, target
them. Don't target the people that have
[1:32:27] been having R1.
>> We're not targeting them. You're
[1:32:30] allowing the people with the smaller
lots to build rebuild their house if
[1:32:34] they need to or put a shed on if they
need to or you know today's the R2s are
[1:32:41] saying you need this much lot size, you
need this much coverage and they you
[1:32:45] know and the they come to ZBA for
variation or deviation in the zoning.
[1:32:51] So, this would allow them to come under
ordinance and add their shed on their
[1:32:55] small lot and we don't want that going
forward. So, they're trying to control
[1:33:00] the new where you can build new houses
and all the new ones in the larger lots
[1:33:04] and say R2, but I agree it shouldn't
have the duplexes and multifamily. But,
[1:33:10] and if you made an R1A, there'd just be
a small section there that would
[1:33:15] less instead of doing all algebra. Yeah,
the challenge is the middle ground
[1:33:22] between what you have currently and and
where you need to get to. So, currently
[1:33:28] you have R1 the same across the entire
city. And it does need to be split. I
[1:33:35] mean, that's kind of just the fact
because all your residential lots are
[1:33:38] not the same. So, we did the split. I
think where we are now is how do we
[1:33:44] address
those that subdivision between the water
[1:33:50] frontage and Kingswood. I think that's
the part that
[1:33:54] » yeah that and along and in Jefferson and
then the schools are
[1:34:00] zoned differently but
>> if you at least it relates to the Kings
[1:34:07] sorry Kingsbridge the water and
Jefferson if you bring those down to R1
[1:34:14] small lot as it's described in the
current draft
[1:34:19] those lots don't exactly meet those
standards standards. They meet the
[1:34:23] standards as we describe them in the R2.
But the challenge that was brought up in
[1:34:28] discussion is R2 allows duplexes and you
don't want duplexes,
[1:34:31] » right?
>> So you can either remove duplexes
[1:34:34] essentially from the ordinance
altogether because currently it's only
[1:34:38] permitted in the R2 district, which is
why it's the other districts.
[1:34:45] If you don't want duplexes,
then you would just remove them all
[1:34:50] together or you'd have to create a
specific residential district just for
[1:34:54] those that subdivision,
which is okay. There's nothing that says
[1:34:59] you can't do that if it serves and meets
the purpose of your you intend, which is
[1:35:04] to preserve those homes and not conflate
the character of that neighborhood with
[1:35:08] what the character of all the other
neighborhoods should be.
[1:35:11] » I was just thinking this is actually
wrong, too, because aren't those Those
[1:35:14] houses on Adams
are duplexes
[1:35:18] » and and Stolled and uh
>> and the one on the corner of LOL and
[1:35:23] Middle Galter is a duplex. There's a
bunch of duplex.
[1:35:25] » Well, Stolled and Adams is those rental
properties too. I don't know if they're
[1:35:31] duplexes.
>> Yeah, there's still duplexes in here
[1:35:34] like along
>> and those would be legally
[1:35:38] non-conforming.
>> Okay.
[1:35:40] » And
>> the old one are though. They're they're
[1:35:43] marked out in the old map, right?
>> Yeah. They're currently legally
[1:35:46] non-conforming, so that didn't change.
>> Yeah. And essentially what could happen,
[1:35:51] say those duplexes get demolished, for
instance,
[1:35:55] » they have to go away.
>> They either have to go away or they have
[1:35:58] to come before you and ask for a
reasonzoning or for a special variance.
[1:36:04] » And if that's what you want to happen
there, then
[1:36:06] » yeah,
>> that that's what would happen. So
[1:36:09] essentially one of the things you're
doing with this is you're looking into
[1:36:13] the future and you're thinking, okay,
what would our perfect community look
[1:36:17] like? And um if it includes no duplexes
anywhere in your perfect community, not
[1:36:25] saying you get rid of them today because
that wouldn't happen, but you get rid of
[1:36:30] the possibility of them in the future.
>> So try to think of it. I know it's a
[1:36:35] weird way to look at this, but
>> it is because I forgot the apartment
[1:36:39] complex too at the corner of Stofl and
Adams.
[1:36:41] » Yeah.
>> Has like eight.
[1:36:43] » Yeah.
>> Yep.
[1:36:45] » The easy middle The easy middle ground
would be to make it a special annu. And
[1:36:50] at least you see it. You can say no. The
residents of that neighborhood will get
[1:36:54] notified 300 ft. As residents, you
understand what the intent of that area
[1:37:00] is supposed to be. And so you can do a
special annual if somebody Yeah, if
[1:37:05] somebody wants to do something, it at
least comes to you. Um, so you have some
[1:37:10] control there. Alternatively, is to
create a residential district for that
[1:37:15] subdivision.
>> Yeah, I I just don't think we, like I
[1:37:20] said, I like the idea of the special
land use. Uh, of course, you guys all
[1:37:24] know I'm kind of like a progrowth guy
for the city, and I really hate to
[1:37:29] eliminate any form of housing, period.
Uh, but I don't have a problem with
[1:37:34] putting it in, for example, special land
use. It gives us more time to talk about
[1:37:38] it. Gives everybody opportunity for
input to like do all we want this
[1:37:43] another apartment building here. Do we
want a duplex here or a quadlex? To just
[1:37:47] eliminate it, I I think would be a
mistake. uh you know especially if this
[1:37:54] thing gets approved and our waterfront
overlay gets approved and 20 years from
[1:37:59] now it's successful and people want to
come and enjoy the waterfront and want
[1:38:03] to spend money in our restaurants and
somebody says you know what I wouldn't
[1:38:06] mind living here but we don't have any
housing available I just that's just how
[1:38:12] I think anyhow I I just believe if a
community doesn't grow eventually it
[1:38:16] peters out so
>> yeah I think that's a fair middle ground
[1:38:21] special use.
[1:38:27] » Okay. So, are we going to move the are
we going to revert back to the original
[1:38:32] zoning?
>> Based on your current draft, my
[1:38:35] recommendation would not be to revert it
back because it creates nonconformity
[1:38:42] issues. to address the concern that was
raised, which is allowing the duplexes,
[1:38:48] which R2 does, would be to change it
from permitted by writing the R2 because
[1:38:53] everything else about that district is
essentially the same.
[1:38:57] » If duplex is the only difference,
then why don't we just have one zoning
[1:39:04] for homes?
>> The duplex,
[1:39:07] » the usewise, that's the difference. the
lot sizes are still a valid reason for
[1:39:12] the split.
So if the duplexes are the concern, then
[1:39:17] I would recommend special land use to
duplex. That gives you the teeth you
[1:39:21] need to allow them or not allow them,
and it maintains the integrity of having
[1:39:25] the two districts that respect your
canal properties and your non-anal
[1:39:30] properties.
>> Every other community I've known, their
[1:39:34] R2 is duplex.
That's their zoning. there. R2 is duplex
[1:39:40] area.
>> R1 is single family housing.
[1:39:44] [clears throat]
>> It's not a standard, but it's common.
[1:39:47] Yes,
>> it's common, right? And I don't see that
[1:39:50] the lot sizes in Kingsbridge are
that much different than the lot sizes
[1:39:57] on some of these other streets where
they're remaining zoned the way they are
[1:40:03] now.
So [snorts] in that case, when that item
[1:40:06] would come to you as a special land use,
you could deny it for that reason.
[1:40:12] That's the extra teeth. They still have
to come to you. They couldn't just My
[1:40:15] house burnt down on Kingswood today. I'm
going to be with a duplex tomorrow. They
[1:40:19] have to come and ask you if it makes
sense.
[1:40:23] » Okay. But I'm more concerned about the
people not knowing we're doing this.
[1:40:26] That's my main concern. They they if
they looked at social media and they dug
[1:40:32] into this deep enough to look at this
draft zoning map and they said, "My lot
[1:40:39] is changing, then they might be here."
But I really don't believe that many
[1:40:43] people in the community actually do
that. So, we're going to go reszone this
[1:40:49] without their knowledge. I don't agree
with that. So, just to clarify, this is
[1:40:54] a public hearing, which meant we had to
follow the Michigan laws revolving
[1:40:59] around public hearings for planning
commissions, which meant not only did we
[1:41:03] have to publish the agenda 15 days in
advance, but we had to publish it within
[1:41:08] the newspaper to notify everyone. Um, we
also started a new thing earlier this
[1:41:14] year where the entire packet for the
planning commission is online along with
[1:41:20] council. And this same ordinance draft
was discussed at the last planning
[1:41:25] commission meeting as well. So that
packet was publicly available as well.
[1:41:30] So we did follow all laws ensuring that
we um properly notified our public about
[1:41:36] the public hearing and the opportunity
for people to come tonight. So I do just
[1:41:41] want to clarify that we weren't hiding
this and we did follow the proper
[1:41:44] protocol for notification.
>> Yeah. And I'm not saying we didn't. I'm
[1:41:49] just saying I don't believe people
understand this is happening to them.
[1:41:53] That's my point. Um
>> I I don't think anything's happening to
[1:42:00] the people that have uh these
>> but it's not that they would just become
[1:42:05] a nonconforming
use if there's a if there's a difference
[1:42:09] between their lots. It's not
um
[1:42:14] they're not being penalized for changing
this or we're not altering their
[1:42:18] lifestyle based on it. It would be after
the fact.
[1:42:22] » Correct.
If anything, this preserves
[1:42:28] the existing housing that exists. It
allows those lots that were
[1:42:32] non-conforming to be conforming.
Currently, those homes in that
[1:42:36] subdivision are going to continue to be
conforming. the [snorts] single families
[1:42:40] that are currently are permitted.
Nothing about what happens in that
[1:42:45] neighborhood today changes.
>> I think a bigger concern should be the
[1:42:50] fact that we have situations right now
that residents if they were to lose
[1:42:54] their home from something don't have the
opportunity to build again under our our
[1:42:59] structure the way it is right now.
>> Correct.
[1:43:01] » Um we're trying to align that the right
way. So,
[1:43:05] » y
>> I think we should consider that
[1:43:08] » and that is a big challenge in a lot of
communities.
[1:43:19] So, the question uh that was raised is
for the R2 district, do you want to
[1:43:25] uh change the permissibility of two
family dwellings from permitted to
[1:43:29] special land use?
>> Yes.
[1:43:33] Can I just do that or do we need a
motion?
[1:43:38] » Can you make a Have them make a motion
just so
[1:43:40] » I'll make a mot.
>> Um, please repeat what you said,
[1:43:44] Donovan, so I can try to get the wording
[laughter] accurate.
[1:43:47] » It is the recommendation based on uh
planning commission conversation to
[1:43:51] change the permissibility of two family
dwellings in the R2 district from
[1:43:56] permitted by right to special land use.
>> Did you get that?
[1:44:03] Um,
>> first two words
[1:44:05] » make a motion to
change the do I want to say multifamily
[1:44:11] dwelling? Will that work or dual family
dwelling?
[1:44:15] » It's It's in the ordinance. It's called
two family R2 in the R2 district.
[1:44:22] » Correct.
>> Two family.
[1:44:25] » Mhm.
Special land use in the R2. to special
[1:44:31] land use in R
two.
[1:44:36] » Correct.
>> Correct.
[1:44:37] » Does that cover the apartment complex
too? Like on Adams and Stollet where
[1:44:41] it's multiple more than two.
>> No, those are what do you call it? Legal
[1:44:45] » R3.
>> Is there a second?
[1:44:50] » Second.
>> Thank you. I don't know where that area
[1:44:53] » discussion
>> discussions
[1:44:56] » Jim was asking about on Adams the over
here there's an apartment complex there
[1:45:02] there's a
>> apartment complex
[1:45:04] » this action does not impact those though
they would continue to be legally
[1:45:07] non-conforming as they currently are
>> then what if somebody does want to build
[1:45:12] a duplex they used to have a way to do
that by having their lot zoned R2 so now
[1:45:21] what would how would they get to have a
duplex? They would have to get a a
[1:45:25] higher zoned lot and then build down
>> if you're a canal property. Yes.
[1:45:30] » Of getting zoned R3 or R4. R3 because we
just changed our R3 is going to be our
[1:45:38] duplex zoning now. It used to be
apartment buildings. [clears throat]
[1:45:41] » R3 is not duplex. R3 doesn't allow
duplexes.
[1:45:45] » Well, you could still do it in R2. It
just be a special use.
[1:45:47] » Right. Your original question was they
come to you. I think what you're asking
[1:45:51] is for the canal properties currently
duplexes are not permitted in the canal.
[1:45:57] » Yeah. Well, okay. When you say canal
properties, I just don't see that on
[1:46:02] this map. Okay. There's so many streets
on there that were included that
[1:46:08] remained R1 zoning that are not on the
canal.
[1:46:11] » Saying the ones that are in the middle
between View and Adams canal that
[1:46:15] remain. are considering anything that's
on one of the islands that's surrounded
[1:46:20] by a canal but might not be waterfront
property is considered a canal property.
[1:46:25] » Correct.
>> That's what they're calling canal
[1:46:27] properties.
[1:46:31] » That is that is correct. So if it's
touching the water
[1:46:38] » all the residential
>> by adjacent
[1:46:40] » everything south of Navardi I'm sorry
I'm nar
[1:46:46] » Navar
>> I haven't heard that before I like that
[1:46:48] one. Oh, it's a it's a double R from now
on
[1:46:51] » Nvart.
[laughter]
[1:46:53] » Everything south of Navar uh and south
really everything south of Gibralar.
[1:46:59] » But Kingsbridge is south of Gibralar and
so are all these lots on Jefferson.
[1:47:03] That's why I'm saying if you just let if
they just remain what they're zoned now,
[1:47:09] there wouldn't be a problem. I I
understand the the challenge with what
[1:47:13] you're requesting is those lots are not
the same size as your canal property
[1:47:19] lots. If I were to go and make those
lots the same district as what we're
[1:47:24] proposing, it's very difficult to go
back and just say just do R1 because we
[1:47:29] allocated
>> I don't think a lot of lots in
[1:47:31] Kingsbridge would be that different than
the lots you're talking about.
[1:47:36] » I'm looking at them. They are very
standardly different.
[1:47:42] the the best solution at this stage
without creating a new district would be
[1:47:47] to special land use the duplexes that
addresses the concern and it allows
[1:47:54] everything to continue as it is today
without changing the map may change
[1:47:59] nomenclature and titles but functionally
they're remaining the same when you
[1:48:05] special land use duplexes
[1:48:12] I get what you're saying. I think to
Marian's point, like these houses right
[1:48:15] here
have narrow lots. It might not look like
[1:48:19] it on the picture, but they're like the
same size as these.
[1:48:24] » The these are big houses to Rick's
earlier point and wider lots, but these
[1:48:29] aren't. So, it's tough because it only
it would vary by parcel. Eight. They got
[1:48:35] deeper. They're deeper.
>> Yeah. But consistently they're
[1:48:38] » Yeah. Like where Tom lives.
>> Where I used to live. Yeah. Had a deep
[1:48:41] lot.
>> Consistently these lots are more
[1:48:44] standard in size than these lots.
>> 100%. Yeah. That's fair.
[1:48:48] » And that's still why they're different.
>> I get that. That makes sense.
[1:48:53] » But I understand the concern about
duplexes. If you want to avoid those,
[1:48:57] the only way to do that without creating
the district themselves would be the
[1:49:01] special land use.
>> Motion for special land use. That's on
[1:49:04] the table. I'll second it.
>> Oh yes,
[1:49:06] » it's already been second.
>> So that called a vote.
[1:49:09] » So there was discussion.
[snorts]
[1:49:14] » Should that be R2?
[1:49:20] » You could. Yeah,
>> those are much bigger.
[1:49:23] » Yeah.
Yeah, you could do Sugar Island as R2.
[1:49:28] It would make it would make sense.
>> It would fit the intent standard. And
[1:49:34] then if you make special land use duplex
is it consistent?
[1:49:38] » Okay. Special land use in R2 was moved
and supported. All in favor say I.
[1:49:42] » I. Any opposed?
[1:49:47] » Okay.
>> Okay.
[1:49:50] » Do you also I hate to open up a can. You
want to make Sugar Lane now that we've
[1:49:54] made that change.
>> If you're making that change then you
[1:49:55] have to be consistent. So it would if
it's by lot size those are much bigger
[1:50:00] lots.
>> Okay. So I will
[1:50:05] let me review it. If it is consistent,
I'll adjust it if that's amable.
[1:50:12] Okay.
Um that's all my initial zoning
[1:50:17] ordinance updates. It took took an hour
and a half. Um I do have a brief
[1:50:22] presentation if you want to hear it. Um
otherwise I could streamline it or I can
[1:50:28] just kind of go straight to the motion
I'm requesting.
[1:50:32] Uh feel
>> like most of the public got the gist of
[1:50:35] it, but I do have just a few highlights
I can go over.
[1:50:38] » We still have to do the
>> public hearing, right? Yes.
[1:50:43] » So I
one question I have before we move on.
[1:50:48] all of the things that we proposed that
you said you were going to add like the
[1:50:52] potential island estates to R2 the stuff
that I had mentioned earlier in the C3
[1:50:59] marine district overlay
>> about your five comments. Yes, you're
[1:51:05] gonna add in the fiscal like is that all
documented and then when will we be able
[1:51:09] to see that
>> because before we get to the public
[1:51:12] hearing and then potentially a
recommendation to approve or whatever.
[1:51:18] » Do you have a meeting next week?
>> I don't know anymore.
[1:51:22] » So, okay. [laughter]
So, let me outline the timeline because
[1:51:26] um so essentially what we're hoping to
do tonight if uh the commission is ready
[1:51:32] and able is for the commission to
recommend um with all of their um
[1:51:39] necessary changes uh the draft ordinance
to council so that council on Monday uh
[1:51:47] which would be the 14th can do their
first reading. You guys do have a
[1:51:52] scheduled meeting for Tuesday of next
week.
[1:51:56] » Now,
>> um it it's helpful to have two council
[1:52:01] members and the mayor in the room for
this conversation because if you guys
[1:52:05] are not ready tonight, um which I hope
you are with your proposed changes and
[1:52:11] Donovan can get that over and we can get
um the draft recommendation to council
[1:52:17] as soon as hopefully Thursday, possibly
Friday. We're going to do our best. If
[1:52:23] you're not ready for that and you need
next Tuesday, what we would then do on
[1:52:28] the administration side is go to council
and request a special meeting so we can
[1:52:33] get the first read and the second
reading done at the council level by
[1:52:37] September 30th.
>> Okay.
[1:52:40] » You guys hold the cards right now. So we
don't What?
[1:52:44] » That's how we like it.
>> Yeah.
[1:52:45] » I'm joking.
>> Yeah.
[1:52:47] » No, it's fair. No, it's fair. I mean,
you're you're the planning commission.
[1:52:50] That's your job.
>> 100% joking.
[1:52:52] » Um, but what I will say is while we do
have this timeline,
[1:52:58] we don't want to force you guys into a
decision or rush rush you into a
[1:53:03] decision. You are making very big
decisions for our community. So, if I
[1:53:07] have to go to council and beg them to do
a special meeting, I will. I I want you
[1:53:14] guys to feel comfortable with what you
recommend to council.
[1:53:18] » Got it.
>> I agree. Um,
[1:53:21] what's the team think about seeing the
the the deck that he prepared? Or are we
[1:53:26] good based on the conversations that
we've had? Are we good
[1:53:30] with the discussion portion of section
five?
[1:53:35] I'm comfortable with it.
>> I think we had a deep discussion.
[1:53:39] » I guess let me ask you a different I
>> I'll go with it based on the suggestions
[1:53:42] that you also added to it, you know.
>> Okay.
[1:53:45] » And I can provide I'm sorry. Um, I can
provide at your next meeting if you push
[1:53:50] it forward today. I can just include a
follow-up memo at your next meeting that
[1:53:54] just includes the changes and if there's
anything or discrepancy, you just meet
[1:53:59] meet me at city council.
>> That would be that would be good.
[1:54:02] » That works.
>> And just highlight what you added in.
[1:54:04] » Yeah. Okay.
>> I can do that.
[1:54:06] » Okay. [snorts] All right. Moving on to
um
[1:54:12] section six. We are going to Sorry,
guys. I haven't been home from work yet.
[1:54:16] Uh we're going to move on to public
hearing. Um this is on uh the city of
[1:54:21] Jialter zoning ordinance amendments
chapter 44 zoning. I could I get a
[1:54:25] motion to open the public hearing to
consider this city of Jialter zoning
[1:54:30] ordinance amendments chapter 44.
>> Motion to open the public hearing to
[1:54:33] consider the city of Jialter zoning
ordinance amendments chapter 44.
[1:54:39] » Second.
>> Moved and supported. All in favor say I.
[1:54:41] I.
>> Any opposed?
[1:54:45] Okay.
Public hearing is open.
[1:54:54] » Yeah.
Do we have any Sure. Please state your
[1:54:58] name and your address.
>> Anor both house 30567 Young. So I want
[1:55:03] to understand what you just agreed to. I
heard all your changes that you all
[1:55:09] discussed. I I I get it.
When is the public going to be able to
[1:55:16] see the revised as well? Is that not
going to be until the first reading with
[1:55:22] the council? And I'm not sure if you'll
answer my question or not, but I would
[1:55:27] really like to understand when will the
public be able to see what you're doing,
[1:55:33] especially
for me, especially with making the
[1:55:38] change to the R2 district and not
allowing or special land use for
[1:55:45] duplexes.
So, I would just like to understand
[1:55:48] when's the public going to be able to
see that document in either the planning
[1:55:53] commission's meeting packets or like
whatever. I I want to understand when
[1:55:58] I'm going to see it.
>> Can I answer that?
[1:56:02] » Go ahead.
>> Uh through the chair, the current draft
[1:56:06] with these changes will be at the next
city council meeting if that's the
[1:56:10] action that's taken this evening. the
current draft less the changes discussed
[1:56:15] today are in the planning commission
packet two meetings back
[1:56:20] » as well as this meeting
>> or online
[1:56:23] » online. So if you go this actually
>> I know where to go but I know that the
[1:56:29] meeting packet for this meeting wasn't
published until yesterday.
[1:56:34] » Yes, that was a clerical mistake. our
clerk was out of town and so it was on
[1:56:40] me. So I apologize, but it's the exact
same information that was in the last
[1:56:44] meeting. Um, now it depends on what this
body does tonight. If they recommend it
[1:56:53] to council, it will be in the council
packet. Now again, I want for Monday's
[1:57:00] meeting. Now, I want to caution
everyone. Historically, we've been able
[1:57:04] to get packets out on Wednesday. With
all of these changes, and it still has
[1:57:10] to go after it's after Donovan's done,
then our attorney has to put it into a
[1:57:15] specific format. So, with all of these
changes, it likely won't get out until
[1:57:19] Thursday or Friday. Now, that's if this
body recommends it. If not, it would be
[1:57:26] in the next planning commission's
meeting packet, which is for Tuesday. So
[1:57:32] quick turnaround. Um but we we do
recognize and that's why we are
[1:57:38] publishing packets online now. We
weren't previously doing that. We want
[1:57:41] to be transparent for our community and
we want them to be aware of what we're
[1:57:45] discussing. So we promise we will get
all of this information and these
[1:57:50] changes to the public as soon as
possible.
[1:57:53] » Question through the chair. Um, don't
don't we have to before a and correct,
[1:57:58] please correct me if I'm interpreting
this incorrectly, but don't we have
[1:58:02] » Sorry, we're still in our public hearing
right now.
[1:58:04] » Oh, okay. Thank you.
>> Any other comments?
[1:58:13] » Good afternoon. I'm Kathy Le Point. I
live at 29874
[1:58:17] Kingsbridge Drive. I'm a council person
for this fine city and late appointment
[1:58:23] to the um zoning committee. I went to
one meeting and looked at this. I want
[1:58:29] to commend and thank uh Commissioner Pay
for picking up on that art too. I I
[1:58:34] really didn't catch it. I didn't see the
difference in the color of yellows. I
[1:58:38] didn't know that um our subdivision was
being targeted or not targeted but uh
[1:58:44] considered for changing R2. So this is
all new information. And I'm trying to
[1:58:48] understand I think that what I heard was
if you're R1, you're a small residential
[1:58:54] lot and and so the assumption there is
that the lots in Kingsbridge are bigger
[1:59:01] than R1 normal traditional lots and
that's a problem. I don't know why it's
[1:59:08] a problem. It's been R1 for since I
bought there 45 years ago. However,
[1:59:13] we'll just assume that it is correct. So
would that also mean that our lot sizes
[1:59:20] are
So I'm looking at Island Estates, those
[1:59:24] are bigger homes, bigger tax dollars. So
would the assumption be that Island
[1:59:29] Estates therefore has 40 foot lots and
Kingsbridge has 60 foot lots.
[1:59:35] » I asked them to change that to R2 as
well.
[1:59:38] » Oh, okay. So now, um, Island Estates
will be R2 also. Okay. So, I'm just
[1:59:45] going to encourage this commission to
slow down. I know we're up against a
[1:59:48] deadline because of Grant, but there
have been a lot of conversations. I feel
[1:59:52] like there's a lot of misunderstanding
and our residents right now are at a
[1:59:57] point where a breaking point, not not
your fault, but other things that are
[2:00:01] going in on our community. So, I would
as a council person or and a resident,
[2:00:06] take your time, look at the changes. We
have a new gentleman, Mr. Smith here um
[2:00:12] that wasn't present at all the meetings.
So, make sure your changes are made that
[2:00:17] the residents have one more opportunity
to so that you can explain to the people
[2:00:22] in these two major subdivisions what
this change means to them. Because when
[2:00:25] I'm looking at this um two family
dwellings are allowed in the R2 private
[2:00:30] garages or community garages, private
clubs, fraternities and lodges. Is that
[2:00:35] what I want myself? I already have a
huge complex next door that's
[2:00:39] apartments. We have the condos. We have
a little planned unit development
[2:00:42] anyway, but my neighbors are going to be
a little concerned. So, I think then we
[2:00:46] changed it to, okay, now you have to ask
for special land use, which I don't
[2:00:51] understand, but there are people in our
community that in vacant lots that
[2:00:57] people want to build on. So, it's
possible that somebody could say, "Can I
[2:01:02] get a special land use and put up a
duplex in a residential single family
[2:01:08] neighborhood?" It doesn't make sense. So
anyway, thank you for your time this
[2:01:11] evening. I know this isn't easy and I
thank you all for your work.
[2:01:16] » Thank you.
[2:01:22] » Any other comments?
[2:01:29] » Uh do we have a motion? Any other
comments? I'll do one more quick coming
[2:01:34] up.
[2:01:38] » For years, Wayne Brandon 30490 South
Jialter Road. For years, you had people
[2:01:43] living in Hanbug Marina. You've got
people living, I believe, right now
[2:01:49] above Hanbug.
They told them they couldn't build it.
[2:01:53] They went ahead and built it anyway.
Things have been going on here for years
[2:01:57] and nobody's done anything about it.
stuff built without permits, without
[2:02:01] planning.
Nothing was done. People made millions
[2:02:06] of dollars, walked away.
We've been getting screwed for a while,
[2:02:11] and we don't need these changes. Thank
you.
[2:02:19] Do we have a motion to close the public
hearing?
[2:02:24] » Motion to close the public hearing. I'll
second.
[2:02:27] » Moved and supported. All in favor say I.
>> I.
[2:02:30] » Any opposed?
>> Uh
[2:02:34] » may I make a followup?
>> Sure.
[2:02:36] » Um what a good point that was raised was
the in the R2 district uh public private
[2:02:44] clubs were permitted and that might have
been a carryover. So I would recommend
[2:02:50] removing uh private clubs from the R2
district. So my question will be if we
[2:02:55] remove those from the R2 district, what
is going to be the difference? Why are
[2:03:01] we going through this instead of just
leaving it R1? You know, the leaving the
[2:03:05] homes that are R1
still R1. I think we're making um
[2:03:11] » a lot of this is not um a bad move for
us to do this. There's unless someone is
[2:03:18] coming in asking to be reszoned, why are
we reszoning them? And like one of the
[2:03:25] uh residents was saying, when are when
are the residents going to see the final
[2:03:32] um version of the document before it's
approved?
[2:03:38] » I think that
>> because I really don't think the
[2:03:40] residents realize about this R1 and R2
zoning. Marian's concern I think is one
[2:03:45] the lot size thing makes sense but there
may be other spots in the city where an
[2:03:50] R2 district makes sense where you should
be able to have a club or a
[2:03:56] whatever duplex.
>> However, if you remove it holistically
[2:04:01] from the R2 district, then you can't
have that in those other spots where we
[2:04:04] would potentially benefit from it. So,
in the locations where those houses
[2:04:08] currently exist that have always been
R1, those people are going to be pissed
[2:04:12] if it's R2, if it's inclusive of a club
or a duplex, but there might be another
[2:04:17] spot like over here where that makes
sense or over here where that could make
[2:04:21] sense. So, I think that's the problem.
We're we're we're using R2 specifically
[2:04:27] to decipher between smaller lot sizes
and larger lot sizes, but an R2 district
[2:04:33] may make sense to have the other stuff
that we're going to remove. Or
[2:04:37] » do you push that to an R something else?
I don't know.
[2:04:40] » Currently, private clubs, fraternities,
and lodges are permitted by right in the
[2:04:44] R2, R3, and the C1 district. I would
again my recommendation
[2:04:52] I just wouldn't allow private clubs and
fraternities and lodges in residential
[2:04:56] dis sorry in residential districts
overall.
[2:04:59] Um
so that just probably should just be
[2:05:03] removed. Everything else you say you
stated would be consistent.
[2:05:07] » Just keep the permitted uses the same on
R1 and R2.
[2:05:11] » It's not going to be permitted at all in
R1 and R2 p. These are private clubs,
[2:05:15] fraternities, and lodges. First thing,
keep R1 and R2 permitted uses as exactly
[2:05:19] the same. The only
>> the only difference now is you're
[2:05:22] designating lot sizes.
>> Correct.
[2:05:25] » You could do exactly the same.
The only difference I'm just going to
[2:05:31] highlight the difference is uh boarding
and lodging would be
[2:05:35] » what is that?
>> Uh that's like um
[2:05:38] » Airbnb,
>> not necessarily like a boarding house.
[2:05:42] So you could rent out bedrooms instead
of units. So the bedrooms are units, not
[2:05:49] like a a full dwelling unit.
>> So you could have a four bedroomedroom
[2:05:54] home and you could rent it out to four
individuals.
[2:05:58] » I don't think people want that in their
neighborhood, especially without their
[2:06:01] realizing that this is what the city is
trying to do to them.
[2:06:05] » That's been that was a carryover though,
wasn't
[2:06:07] » that's been there and it wasn't caught
before.
[2:06:09] » Right. So, some of this isn't us adding
things. Some of this stuff is what you
[2:06:13] currently have.
>> That's been there forever. We just
[2:06:15] nobody ever did it or maybe they are
doing it. We don't know about it.
[2:06:19] » Probably some people are doing that.
>> That's [laughter]
[2:06:22] that's the difference. Um, horse stables
are in the R2, so you wouldn't be able
[2:06:28] to do them on the canals.
Uh, private garages or community garages
[2:06:32] are permitted in the R2. Um, which is I
guess that might be a carryover.
[2:06:39] Uh, cemeteries are special land use in
the R2. Child care centers are uh,
[2:06:44] special land use in the R1.
>> Honestly, I don't think this is well
[2:06:48] thought through.
>> They're pretty consistent.
[2:06:50] » We're taking everything out of we're
taking certain things out of R2, leaving
[2:06:54] certain things in. We haven't done a
side by side to see, okay, what is
[2:06:59] permitted in R1, what makes sense in R2?
Why are we doing this? It's not
[2:07:04] necessary that we do this and impact so
many potentially impact so many lots in
[2:07:11] the city of Gibralar.
>> If I could just come full circle, if we
[2:07:16] don't do this, we go back to what your
current ordinance has, your current map
[2:07:21] R1 for all residential lots. You can go
back to that. The challenge and to doing
[2:07:27] that is you are
continuing the nonconformity of your
[2:07:33] existing lots which puts pressure on
residents if their existing lot is
[2:07:38] nonconforming and something happens to
their house. They either have to come to
[2:07:42] you every time to get a variance which
fires don't happen every day. Knock on
[2:07:48] wood. So, it's not like you'll
immediately get overloaded with
[2:07:52] application for variances so people can
put back their homes that currently
[2:07:56] existed. You can go back to that.
>> I mean, I think that's a lesser.
[2:08:00] » Have we ever denied somebody from going
back to what they wanted? You've been
[2:08:03] the most experienced.
>> Yeah. So, like,
[2:08:05] » but you're going to allow future
building under non-conformms. So,
[2:08:10] someone could buy that section along
middle jib and make 40 foot lots and put
[2:08:14] houses in in R1. back to the small size
that your brother doesn't like
[2:08:19] » or allowing it. We're trying to stop it
from going forward.
[2:08:22] » Yeah.
>> We're not punishing anybody for having
[2:08:25] small lots. We're allowing them to do
more with their lots without having to
[2:08:29] come for the zoning board for pay a
hundred bucks or whatever.
[2:08:32] » But isn't that a lesser problem than
let's say reszoning several houses? I
[2:08:37] don't even know how many are reszoned
here. And then potentially having a club
[2:08:41] be built in the middle of the sub. I I
like Bill's thing is again if you make
[2:08:45] an R1A and make everything exactly the
same except for you know
[2:08:50] » lot sizes.
>> Yeah.
[2:08:54] » And and you could do that. The like I
said currently the only difference is
[2:09:00] boarding and lodging which is a
carryover. So you would just permit that
[2:09:03] everywhere in R1 and R2. Horses and
stables you could permit that in R1 and
[2:09:08] R2. But again, these are things being
permitted into the canal district. So,
[2:09:13] do you want boarding and lodging houses
in the canal district? That would be the
[2:09:18] question. No. So, now we have
>> What they're saying is add a R1A. And
[2:09:21] the R1A is representative of the larger
lots.
[2:09:24] » Oh, you want the R1A?
>> I think that's what they're saying.
[2:09:27] » So, we were just talking
>> for the subdivision lots.
[2:09:30] » Yeah. The bigger lot.
>> Then you're then you're able to separate
[2:09:35] » small lots and big lots. you just have
an extra one, which I know is probably
[2:09:38] annoying, but
>> it solves the problem and then it
[2:09:41] removes the discussion. And then
>> those houses are exactly the same as R1
[2:09:46] except they're 60 foot instead of 40
foot
[2:09:47] » and they need to build a certain way
when they build a new house on it or
[2:09:50] move forward in the future.
>> Okay. So, you want a
[2:09:55] » I'd make a motion to
Sorry, Katie. Any of the residential
[2:10:02] lots
residential. Let me let me think about
[2:10:07] this.
>> Any of the existing lots where homes
[2:10:12] I'm trying to make it where
>> is it just the two subdivisions?
[2:10:16] » It is because it is because this should
stay R2 like the places where people
[2:10:21] could actually develop and put a duplex
makes sense. But these ones right here
[2:10:26] where they were R1 and then [snorts]
island estates
[2:10:30] » those should be R1A.
>> Yeah. You need you need a traditional I
[2:10:34] call them traditional single families.
>> So in in my motion is for the
[2:10:38] traditional single family R1's that were
shifted to R2 make those R1A
[2:10:45] on the zoning map
>> one more time.
[2:10:51] » The traditional sing
>> I can word it if you want or do you have
[2:10:54] to say the physical?
>> You can word it. Go ahead.
[2:10:57] » You word it and he repeats it.
>> Go ahead. Let's hear how good you are.
[2:11:02] » So, this would be the subdivisions on
Windsor Drive and Kingsbridge Drive and
[2:11:08] Sugar Island Court to uh develop a
zoning R1A district suitable for those
[2:11:16] properties.
[2:11:19] » And to there are more.
>> Yeah.
[2:11:21] » And the houses that run along Jefferson
north and south of South Jalter Road
[2:11:26] » all the way to Woodruff.
>> Okay.
[2:11:28] Sugar Island Drive,
South West Jefferson,
[2:11:34] Kingsbridge, and Windsor Drive.
Rick's blood pressure is [laughter]
[2:11:44] » This is why you only do this once every
20 years.
[2:11:48] » And then you repeat. [laughter]
>> Come on.
[2:11:51] » All right.
>> Okay. All of the All Okay. the homes in
[2:11:55] uh Sugar Island Court, New Subdivision,
the homes along Windsor Drive, uh the
[2:12:01] homes north and south of South Jalter
along West Jefferson that were
[2:12:05] previously R1 will now be designated as
R1A on the zoning map.
[2:12:10] » And so my question is if that's what
we're going to do, don't we need to
[2:12:14] bring this to the resident's attention
and let them know what the change was
[2:12:19] will be?
>> Well, it doesn't change anything. It's
[2:12:22] just it's
>> first of all, is there a second?
[2:12:23] » Uh, yeah, that was my motion.
>> I'll second it.
[2:12:25] » Thank you.
>> Um,
[2:12:27] » discussion.
>> So, don't we need to inform the
[2:12:31] residents that their zoning is changing
and at least give them the facts on what
[2:12:38] has changed about their zoning because
R1 and R1A won't be the same.
[2:12:44] » So, the lot, you're saying we should let
the residents know that their lot size
[2:12:47] designation changed their zoning. Well,
I mean, it's really not that crystal
[2:12:52] clear what is the difference between I
mean, do we have a list?
[2:12:55] » They fall under the current one, the
zoning, the square foot lot size. Now,
[2:13:00] it's the old ones that are getting the
change that now they'll be able to do
[2:13:06] something without being out of
ordinance.
[2:13:10] » The the change you requested, the intent
is for it to operate how it currently
[2:13:16] is. So there wouldn't be a change to
their district. They get a name change.
[2:13:21] They'll go from historic R1 to new R1A,
but everything's going to be the same.
[2:13:26] » I guess to Marian's point, is there any
way to communicate that? Like is there a
[2:13:29] forum like a like a forum?
[2:13:36] [sighs]
>> Short answer. Short answer, no.
[2:13:40] » Is so
>> well I mean you can
[2:13:43] » So again, it goes back to this meeting.
We follow the state of Michigan gives
[2:13:49] very specific guidelines in how you
notify people about certain events. So
[2:13:56] for a public hearing for a planning
commission, we follow the state of
[2:14:01] Michigan guidelines, which means you
publish it 15 days in advance.
[2:14:07] We met that burden with this. Um, we So
you publish it online, you publish it in
[2:14:14] the newspaper and any other method of
communication for us to
[2:14:20] » go doortodoor for us to do a largecale
mailing
[2:14:24] » for every one of these residents would
cost thousands of dollars.
[2:14:31] And then the question becomes, okay, if
we're going to mail them something, what
[2:14:35] are we going to say? In reality, if
you're going to send someone a piece of
[2:14:40] mail, you want to provide some sort of
information that's beneficial to them.
[2:14:46] You'd likely be looking at a few pages,
a few pieces of paper. That's going to
[2:14:52] cost even more money. Um, that's why the
state has very, I don't want to say
[2:15:00] broad, but they have standards of
publish in the newspaper. And when it
[2:15:05] says publish in the newspaper, it's
published in the newspaper that is um
[2:15:10] [clears throat]
>> local
[2:15:11] » local the local newspaper that people in
your community are going to read. Now
[2:15:17] again, we have made really great steps
in the last few months of making sure
[2:15:23] our residents have access to information
like the packet information. Residents
[2:15:28] before had to come to city hall and ask
for that information. We now put it all
[2:15:33] online. Um people can still come to us
and ask and we will provide that. But
[2:15:39] to go and notify notify every resident
that hey the city is considering this
[2:15:48] change at this public hearing or at this
meeting this date would be almost cost
[2:15:55] prohibitive.
[2:15:58] I I really struggle with that. if we're
meeting the um
[2:16:04] if we're meeting the state's guidelines,
if we are providing our residents with
[2:16:09] more access than ever before, and it I I
struggle with the idea of spending
[2:16:16] thousands of dollars
to let them know that the title of their
[2:16:22] zoning has changed when substantially
what we've done is provide a benefit to
[2:16:28] them by saying, "Hey,
If you in this area are now designated
[2:16:34] as a small lot size residential, which
means if something happens to your
[2:16:39] house, you don't have to go on a roller
coaster ride,
[2:16:45] you can rebuild as it was. I I'm
ultimately that's uh all of that to say
[2:16:56] if this body feels it is imperative that
we send out a um letter to every single
[2:17:04] resident
regarding this change. We can do it. But
[2:17:09] that is going to cost a significant
amount of money and it's going to take a
[2:17:14] significant amount of time. So just
consider that if that is your direction
[2:17:20] to us. All that to say. Yeah. Sorry.
>> And I just from the beginning of this
[2:17:26] meeting on a different topic, all I
heard is resident after resident, it
[2:17:30] takes you so long to make a decision.
And now we're about to make a decision
[2:17:34] and we have a little push back not to
make a decision and take more time to do
[2:17:37] it.
[2:17:44] » I don't know. IC R1 and R2 if we
eliminated the two family dwelling,
[2:17:49] private garages, private clubs, they're
essentially the same.
[2:17:55] The only difference would be under
special land use where it allows
[2:17:58] boarding and lodging in horse stables.
And you're not going to have a horse
[2:18:01] stable unless you have a minimum of 25
acres. U I I think if we eliminate the
[2:18:06] last three bullets under R2 on permitted
uses,
[2:18:12] R1 and R2 are identical.
Correct.
[2:18:20] » Just a reminder, there's a motion.
>> There's a motion on the table. Yeah. To
[2:18:23] do the R1A.
Any other discussion?
[2:18:28] » I
I mean, why don't we make them identical
[2:18:32] then? I mean, and leave the special uses
>> because then there's other properties
[2:18:38] though, like up here where you'd want an
R2 to be capable to potentially either
[2:18:42] be houses or have a club or down here.
So, you have to decide if
[2:18:48] » do you want those I'm sorry. Do you want
those clubs in the R2? Is that the
[2:18:51] intention?
>> No.
[2:18:53] » Then you don't want them there anyway.
>> So, you wouldn't put those clubs in the
[2:18:57] R2?
>> I guess you're that's true. So, you
[2:18:59] could just say, well, that's what we
said before. just delete everything out
[2:19:03] of
>> No, they're permitted in your other
[2:19:06] districts. So, the private clubs
specifically were permitted
[2:19:11] in the R3
and the C1 district.
[2:19:15] » So,
>> it doesn't make sense that they're in
[2:19:17] the R2 unless you want them there.
>> I mean, I don't want I don't but So,
[2:19:23] then you're saying just make the R1 and
the R2 exactly the same.
[2:19:26] » Yeah. under permitted uses basically
make R1 and R2 the same.
[2:19:31] » Which amend my motion?
[laughter]
[2:19:37] » How does that address the duplexes?
>> Donovan R1 the permitted uses are
[2:19:41] currently what we have now anyhow.
Correct.
[2:19:44] » Correct.
>> Yes.
[2:19:44] » So we're not changing any of the
permitted uses if we make them the same.
[2:19:49] » Okay. So no duplexes at all.
>> And the ones that are there today are
[2:19:56] out of
Correct.
[2:19:58] » There was already a motion about
duplexes, right?
[2:20:02] » Am I forgetting?
>> Is the homes currently or currently um
[2:20:08] designated as R1 will now be R1A?
>> No, we did duplexes from permitted to
[2:20:12] special use.
>> Yeah, we did.
[2:20:14] » Yeah.
>> So, we're covered. That was an earlier
[2:20:16] one earlier in the meeting.
>> Oh, okay.
[2:20:19] » Okay. Okay, I'm going to amend my motion
to align permitted uses in the R1 and
[2:20:25] the R2 district.
>> Align last raise concerned
[2:20:31] » uses
>> we previously we special land use two
[2:20:37] family dwellings in the R2.
If we're making them the same, are we
[2:20:42] allowing special land use duplexes in
the canal properties or are we saying
[2:20:47] the opposite where R1 currently doesn't
have two duplexes? And if we make it
[2:20:53] match, we're going to override our last
decision and not allow duplexes in the
[2:20:58] R2.
>> That's why I made the R1A.
[2:21:02] » Correct. [laughter] Which is why you
made R1A. Alternatively, you could um
[2:21:08] you could amend your motion to match R1
permitted uses with the exception of the
[2:21:16] addition of um duplexes as special land
use,
[2:21:21] » which would be the only difference
between the two.
[2:21:23] » Yes. Or just
>> or just make the R1A like I had it and
[2:21:27] then it covers R1, R1A and R2. I think
it's a better idea for the R1A. I think
[2:21:33] we should leave R2 as is because there
could be a use for that because we've
[2:21:38] just butchered R2.
>> R2 had a purpose.
[2:21:42] » If Yeah. If they start building along
Fort Street or out there, they could
[2:21:48] come and ask for reasonzoning, too.
>> Correct.
[2:21:52] » You know, say, "Hey, I'd like to go to
our
[2:21:55] » keep the
>> No amendment." No amendment.
[2:21:59] » Okay.
>> Do I have support? Do you want to
[2:22:04] » uh Built supported you?
>> Hold on. I crossed out a bunch of
[2:22:09] things.
>> So, what are we doing?
[2:22:11] » R1A,
R1, R1A, and R2. And all those houses.
[2:22:16] Remember I said the long one like
>> the Sugar Island Court new houses, the
[2:22:21] Windsor Drive houses, the houses along
Jefferson north and south of South
[2:22:25] Jibralter that were originally R1 will
now become R1A, which is specific to lot
[2:22:30] size only.
>> The R1A permitted uses will match the
[2:22:35] existing R1. The R2 will remain as as
>> it is.
[2:22:40] » Yes.
[2:22:43] » All right. Moved and supported. All in
favor say I. I
[2:22:46] » I
>> Any opposed?
[2:22:50] » All right. [laughter]
>> All right.
[2:22:53] » So, R2 stays the same.
>> Yes.
[2:22:57] » Just not on the map.
>> What was the last sentence?
[2:23:01] » Just not on the map.
>> You're happy.
[2:23:04] » Okay.
Any There you go. Any
[2:23:12] Did I get that right?
>> Yes, sir. Plus
[2:23:16] » plus plus up there.
>> Gotcha. All right, we're on the same
[2:23:18] page.
>> I love snippet.
[2:23:20] » Uh okay.
[2:23:25] » The next thing would be if folks are
comfortable to make a recommendation
[2:23:30] um
the council for their first review
[2:23:36] » of
>> with changes
[2:23:39] » with Yes.
>> Oh, I'm not saying the motion. I'm just
[2:23:42] saying like the next thing would be
>> because I'm temporarily hopefully
[2:23:46] temporarily hearing impaired. I'm
writing my notes. So the R1A is going to
[2:23:50] have the same permitted uses as
>> R1.
[2:23:52] » R1. Okay.
>> Yes, sir.
[2:23:55] » Thank you. So potentially we could make
a recommendation
[2:23:58] to council
um
[2:24:03] once all of our proposed changes are
added
[2:24:08] uh to have their first review
of our zoning ordinance amendments.
[2:24:15] The motion would be to, if you were to
take action today to forward, it would
[2:24:19] be to make a recommendation to city
council to approve the draft ordinance
[2:24:25] with the changes discussed via motion in
this meeting. That way, it would go
[2:24:31] forward with everything we discussed.
And then I'll also give you a follow-up
[2:24:35] memo next week
>> at our meeting.
[2:24:38] » Yep.
[2:24:42] » I'll make that motion.
[2:24:47] support.
>> Moved and supported. All in favor say I.
[2:24:52] » I.
>> I.
[2:24:53] » Any opposed?
[2:24:56] » Okay.
>> Uh, next would be a motion to adjurnn.
[2:25:00] » Motion to adjurnn.
>> Second.
[2:25:02] » Moved in supported. All in favor say I.
>> Any opposed.
[2:25:06] » Did Garrett leave the meeting?
>> Thank you everybody. I appreciate you.
[2:25:12] » We don't have that tonight. Oh, no.
>> Oh, that's right.
[2:25:19] » Welcome to the club.
[2:25:23] You got a picture of a deer and that's
your kids. I got his ass, too. I don't
[2:25:27] even know where that came. Look, just a