[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

Special Planning Commission Meeting 9/8/2026

Transcript