[0:23] All right. Good afternoon. Call to order
the September 3rd
[0:30] commission meeting to order
attendance to
[0:37] Smith. Smith, Pam Porter, Eric Herbert,
Mr. Plita,
[0:44] Sean,
um, Aaron,
[0:51] Becky Rice, and Kathy Berszag, and
Anthony Yard here. So,
[0:57] first item on our agenda is to approve
the minutes from August 6th. Are there
[1:04] any additions or corrections?
Mr. Chair, a couple typos noted by staff
[1:12] within the minutes.
>> Uh on packet page three, uh the third
[1:17] paragraph from the bottom beginning with
Megan Yor, uh the second instance of
[1:22] Miss Yor's last name, uh is missing an
E. Uh so we'll have that corrected. Uh,
[1:28] additionally on packet page 8,
um,
[1:37] apologies.
The third paragraph down, uh, beginning
[1:42] with Vice Chair Berszac, uh, it says,
Vice Chair Bersac, if the language the
[1:47] word asked was omitted.
[1:53] I have one more
day. Last
[1:57] um paragraph right about the eight. The
last two words zone in district.
[2:08] » Okay.
[2:12] Does anyone else have any changes or
corrections to the minutes?
[2:20] Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to
approve the minutes as presented or as
[2:26] modified and corrected.
>> Okay.
[2:32] » All right.
[2:36] » Who was the second?
>> Eric Herbert. Yeah. No,
[2:39] » I mean, Mr.
[laughter]
[2:42] » I'll get it together.
>> Turn these around. [laughter]
[2:51] » All right.
Um,
[2:54] so any discussion?
All those in favor say I. I. I. Those
[3:01] » against.
Any opposed?
[3:05] Motion carries.
[3:10] All right, following the agenda,
we have no
[3:18] new business. So, let's uh focus on the
old business. This is new language for
[3:25] accessory dwelling units. Um Dalton,
would you like to introduce the item for
[3:31] us, please?
>> Uh absolutely. Okay. So, at the previous
[3:33] planning commission meeting, uh the
commission advised staff to draft some
[3:37] sample language to better contextualize
our discussion on possible accessory
[3:41] dwelling unit text amendments. Uh you'll
find that language on packet pages 11
[3:46] and 12. Uh this is based uh largely on
the commission's discussion, the survey
[3:51] results uh as well as the echo unit
housing language which exists currently
[3:55] in the ordinance just to try and keep
that consistent. Um
[4:01] we have several items within the
language that we have recommended the
[4:04] commission discuss uh particularly
dimensional requirements in terms of
[4:09] height setbacks uh just to advise if we
feel those numbers are accurate and
[4:13] within the bounds of what we feel
appropriate to make sure we're
[4:16] maintaining the character of the city.
Um
[4:20] additionally staff has provided an uh
analysis. So we in the staff report
[4:26] packet pages 13 through
uh 18 we have provided some accessory
[4:33] dwelling unit language from three other
communities uh these being Sue St.
[4:37] Marie, Traverse City, and Paskki uh who
have accessory dwelling unit language in
[4:42] their ordinance. Uh just to give you a
reference point for what this looks like
[4:45] in other communities, we've provided a
table which compares some of the
[4:49] dimensional requirements uh in their
ordinance to those proposed in the
[4:52] sample language. Um we have received
commentary from uh Commissioner Eert who
[4:57] unfortunately could not be here tonight.
Uh in addition to the topics that staff
[5:02] has recommended discussion a point that
he has uh risen is discussing whether or
[5:07] not ADUs should be a conditional or
special use. Um for reference I'm sure
[5:13] you're all aware but just so everyone in
the audience knows as well. Uh
[5:16] conditional use would be a staff review.
Uh where a use is not outright permitted
[5:20] by right. uh it would require review of
an additional conditional use permit
[5:25] which staff would review and make sure
certain conditions are met along with
[5:29] the use. That is how we've laid it out
in the language uh presented to you
[5:32] tonight. However, the other option uh
would be a special use permit. This
[5:37] would be a similar process with similar
st this would be a process with similar
[5:40] standards but a different process in
that it would go before the planning
[5:43] commission for recommendation before
being approved or denied and acted upon
[5:47] by the city commission.
[5:51] Thank you commissioners. Before we start
with the discussion, do we have any
[5:56] further questions for staff?
[6:01] » Just one thing that that I kind of came
across a few times just so I'm clear. If
[6:06] I had an attached garage on my home, the
height limit would be 35.
[6:14] » Uh, correct? So if the garage is
attached to the home, it would be
[6:17] considered a part of the principal
building. And then the bulk standard
[6:20] requirements of article 5 would apply.
In this case, the 35 ft. If it were
[6:25] detached from the home, then you would
look at uh article 3 section 3.9, which
[6:29] lists the hypher detached structure at
14 ft.
[6:34] And I guess before we get into rest of
the disc discussion here when you were
[6:37] mentioning that conditional versus
special use, is there also an option for
[6:42] it to be a just permitted by right use
or is that not allowed for some reason?
[6:48] » You could have it permitted by right? So
we've included uh at the back of your
[6:52] packet uh appendix BC of the Michigan
building code. Uh Trudy can provide
[6:58] additional commentary on that. She's
more familiar than I am, but essentially
[7:02] those would be the minimum requirements
if the city commission were to adopt
[7:06] that into our building code. That
instead of requiring any additional uh
[7:10] zoning review, it would be permitted by
right at those minimum requirements
[7:16] would be the alternative.
[7:24] There's no further questions with staff.
Let's open it up for discussion.
[7:28] Um
staff has asked us to give some feedback
[7:33] as to some of the specific items that
are um highlighted in this new draft
[7:39] language. Um so let's let's take them
one at a time. The first one being
[7:44] height. Um right now it's uh it's first
proposed as 24 ft is the maximum height
[7:52] for the p uh of the height of the
primary dwelling which or or the height
[7:57] of the primary dwelling unit whichever
is lower. thoughts on this uh proposed
[8:03] height limit from anyone
>> comments.
[8:06] The 24 feet is it taking under the same
dimensionality as in the definitions
[8:12] from mid-grade and mid roof line or is
24 feet to the top of the is that the
[8:19] maximum height overall or is that the
taking off the same definition as the
[8:24] way you define height in the ordinance?
it would maintain the same measuring
[8:28] requirements used elsewhere in the
ordinance. So if you had a flat roof, it
[8:32] would be just to the maximum height, but
if it's a pitched roof, you would go
[8:35] from the medium point of that for the
maximum height. So it could go a little
[8:40] bit over at the
>> and and the same would come into play if
[8:43] you were on a sloping lot where you use
mid-grade then
[8:47] » correct. Yeah, you take the average
grade. So based on that, I think the 24
[8:52] um my concern I understand when it's
attached to the main structure. Um
[8:57] however, if it's out in the backyard and
it's a foot or so from the street and it
[9:05] was 35 foot high to the mid roof or to
the mids slope of the grade, um then in
[9:13] all essence, the resident dwelling unit
would then be overlooking
[9:19] the neighbors yards and everything else.
And so, um, I think the lower height is,
[9:26] um, is a good option. Realizing though
that, you know, they're probably with a
[9:33] garage that's already existing, you're
going to have to do a fire roof layer
[9:37] between the garage and the upper
dwelling unit. So you probably need that
[9:42] extra height in order because I was
trying to do it in my math and you know
[9:46] in my head like 10 feet per floor maybe
and then if it's already a established
[9:51] garage that you pull the roof off of I
believe you have to add fire between a
[9:56] garage and a upper level dwelling unit.
So then the 24 seem like a reasonable
[10:01] amount um and about the minimum amount
that might make all of that work for
[10:06] getting you know that extra fireproofing
and things in. So, um I I feel like that
[10:13] based on the, you know, the way it's
defined and how it would um work in
[10:17] relation to the rest of the ordinance is
um is u a an acceptable alternative
[10:28] » on that. I would ask Trudy, do you do
you feel that uh if a a detached garage
[10:36] as an accessory dwelling or as a sorry
as a
[10:40] uh do you think 24 ft provides enough
room to add
[10:47] a dwelling unit above a garage? Do you
think there's as far as construction
[10:51] ability? Of course, it depends on the
pitch of the roof a lot because you
[10:55] have, you know, the barn load roof,
Gabriel roofs, roofs and
[11:01] » and all that. But an average height for
a dwelling is 8 feet and then a garage,
[11:08] it's usually a little more than 8 feet
because the doors are seven, you know,
[11:12] have to pull up. So, you got to figure
at least eight and a half down here. So,
[11:18] that would be,
you know, 16.
[11:22] right right there.
I as you notice in the work that go that
[11:29] some are 18
[11:34] » instead of 24 but right now we're at 14
the 14 would not give any
[11:42] » thank you
>> and I think also since it's based that's
[11:44] why I wanted clarification if that was
the overall height or if it's the
[11:48] definition per height requirements in
the ordinance that to the midpoint of
[11:53] the roof
Yes. What's in the ordinance?
[11:56] » It would be a nightmare to to say we're
going to do ADUs under this stand and
[12:02] then regular, you know, primary
structures standard.
[12:07] » I agree. I'm I just wanted to make sure
that that was what it was based on. So,
[12:17] » so it sounds like unless does anybody
else have any other comments on height
[12:22] with regards to this new language?
You know, I guess for me the height is
[12:28] one of the
bigger concerns for me to try to to kind
[12:32] of get my head around
uh and allowing it to work. You know, we
[12:36] have detached garages. I can see the
attractive nature of having an accessory
[12:44] dwelling unit above that detached garage
because it does provide you know more of
[12:49] an independent dwelling unit.
Uh but on the other hand
[12:55] it does not give I guess a a similar non
ADU property owner the same height
[13:04] allowance
for their garage. You know, if I had,
[13:08] you know, if I had a detached garage on
my residence, I would still be
[13:13] restricted to 14 feet if I didn't have
an accessory dwelling unit. So, that's
[13:19] » Are you Are you looking to make a garage
that's 24 ft tall? No, I'm just just uh
[13:25] trying to look at it from a view of of
do I feel that that's fair to allow a
[13:32] property owner that puts in an accessory
dwelling unit to be have an allowance
[13:37] more than a property owner that does not
have an accessory dwelling unit. I'm not
[13:43] strongly opposed either way. I'm just
trying to, you know,
[13:47] » get a flavor for if do I feel that that
is fair to all property owners.
[13:53] » My comment on that would be that it's a
higher use of the land to provide
[13:57] additional housing instead of just a
garage to store more stuff. So, yeah,
[14:03] maybe someone might have an issue with,
oh well, their structure can be taller.
[14:07] Why can't mine be taller? But you're not
if you're not trying to do anything more
[14:12] useful with it then
I don't know.
[14:17] » Okay.
>> True. more I think about
[14:20] » it's good good to think about the other
>> you know I guess you know I think about
[14:23] it when you know the home can be up to
35 ft tall
[14:28] I don't think it's that big of an ask to
allow for an accessory dwelling unit to
[14:33] go up to 24 feet
with regards to the garage building an
[14:40] ADU above a garage would 18 ft be
sufficient
[14:46] » well it depends on the size of the
garage do in the design of the roof,
[14:51] excuse me.
>> Um because a lot of garages are, you
[14:55] know, 20 by 20
and um
[15:00] you know, that would be 400 square ft.
>> I'm talking about height.
[15:05] » Oh, height.
>> Height.
[15:06] » Yeah, I think 18
>> 18 feet would be sufficient.
[15:09] » 18 could be 24 certainly.
>> Okay.
[15:14] » And 18 could be limiting. I mean you
look at Trevor City and Sus Murray both
[15:19] are 25 comparing relative things right
Paskki has lower amount but
[15:25] » I think 18 ft would lead to some awkward
designs.
[15:28] » Okay that might not be as attractive. I
think a little more height might allow
[15:33] it to blend in more naturally with the
existing home.
[15:37] » Okay.
Thank you.
[15:43] Does anybody else have any comments?
on height only.
[15:46] » On height only. Yes.
So it sounds like we have a consensus
[15:51] that 24 feet would be okay. I'm
>> seems reasonable.
[15:56] » Okay.
All right.
[16:01] Let's uh move to size.
draft proposes between 400 and a,000
[16:08] square feet not exceeding the size of
the primary dwelling unit
[16:13] » which sorry which
>> we're on packet page 17
[16:17] » list are you going off of here there's
>> make sure we're going in order so we
[16:21] don't skip stuff
>> I think we're on packet page 17
[16:24] » so do you want to do setbacks first then
>> um
[16:29] » oh um clarification I think a source of
confusion so on on packet page 17
[16:34] there's A there's a chart which shows
comparisons between the different
[16:38] communities but this does not
necessarily line up with the order they
[16:41] are presented in the uh considerations
section which is just below that.
[16:44] » I see.
>> Um
[16:47] » just a point of clarifies.
[16:52] » So we like to consider the size of this.
Let's do size first.
[16:56] » Let's do that first. Yeah. [laughter]
>> So 400 to a,000 not to exceed the
[17:01] current dwelling unit. What's what are
the thoughts on that?
[17:07] » Where is the 400 minimum coming from?
What is that based on?
[17:12] » Uh so that's just kind of similar to
like what I've seen in some research of
[17:17] what sizes look like in other
communities. Um
[17:20] you don't necessarily want one that's
kind of too small and not serviceable.
[17:25] If you look at the the back, you will
see that the uh in appendix BC, it does
[17:30] permit age not less than 190 square ft.
So, it could theoretically go smaller.
[17:35] That's certainly something to be
considered here as well. Um 400 just
[17:39] seemed like a good baseline considering
the numbers that I saw in other
[17:42] communities.
>> I guess I guess the question would be
[17:45] what it's what is the in general my my
kind of thought philosophy on this is is
[17:50] only restrict things where it's
necessary. And so in the sense of
[17:57] if someone wants to build something
smaller but then they can't fill it with
[18:01] someone like I don't I guess what is the
point of of having a minimum size um
[18:07] when we can
whoever's building it can decide if
[18:11] that's going to be too small or not.
>> Okay.
[18:15] » Um to the building code for a space to
be a habitable dwelling area you have to
[18:21] be able to cook food store food. Okay.
>> And um clean food. You have to have a
[18:28] bathroom. You have to have certain
things for it to dwell in area.
[18:33] » Yep. Makes sense.
>> So, um
[18:37] I can see your point is you're saying
that like a studio apartment type thing.
[18:42] Okay. And the um the codes pretty clear
of what you need to have for it to be
[18:50] and 400 would be about the size of the
garage. It's like 20 by 20.
[18:55] » So, I think that's probably where they
come up.
[19:00] » That sounds pretty accurate. Yeah, you
do have to fit a lot in there to qualify
[19:04] as a dwelling unit.
>> I don't necessarily think it's too big.
[19:09] I'm just trying to make sure we're not
>> there's an argument to be had that the
[19:12] minimum requirements that Trudy's
talking about like being able to fit a
[19:15] uh
>> kitchen and a bathroom in there that
[19:18] might
>> in essence force you up to a similar
[19:22] size 400 ft. So why are we requiring
that? That's a fair point to make and
[19:25] definitely why we're having this
discussion right now. So something to
[19:29] consider if we want to even have a
minimum size requirement or just go what
[19:32] with uh
>> the appendix uh suggests of 190.
[19:36] » Yeah. and the habitility be habitility
be requirements.
[19:42] » [clears throat]
>> I think that the 400 minimum makes sense
[19:46] if it's supposed to meet certain
requirements and um I feel the thousand
[19:52] is too much because if two people are
the maximum that can be in there and a
[19:58] studio apartment can fit in of 400 I
feel doubling that should be adequate
[20:05] that we don't need to oversize these um
>> well the the thousand square feet
[20:10] » the number of people is a separate thing
Eric, go ahead. Finish, please.
[20:14] » So, um, so, you know, I think I agree
with the 400, but I feel that if there's
[20:19] two people allowed to be in the unit
that you don't need more than double for
[20:24] two people. So, um, you know, assuming
they might have separate bedrooms, um,
[20:31] you know, it seems to me like the, um,
the other ones were comparing it to, um,
[20:38] ours, the thousand would be the largest.
And um I don't feel that we need the
[20:44] additional 200 square ft added. I would
like to see us more similar to what the
[20:50] other um municipalities that are similar
to us um from a tourist standpoint or
[20:56] anything else or looking for middle
housing might have. So,
[21:01] » okay.
>> I think I, you know, I I wouldn't want
[21:04] to go smaller than 400 ft, especially if
some of the criteria we saw towards the
[21:08] end of having, you know, a separate
heating system, separate electrical
[21:12] controls that are accessible, right? I
want to have rental units or accessory
[21:18] dwelling units that are available that
provide
[21:23] these requirements. I wanted to be able
to have, like Trudy said, cooking
[21:28] facilities, bathroom facilities, uh,
that are appropriate. As far as the
[21:33] upper size, uh, I'm not opposed to a a
thousand square feet. I think our it it
[21:42] wouldn't apply in a lot of areas or be
available in a lot of areas in the city,
[21:46] but our city has a lot of different
sized homes and lots. And I can envision
[21:53] the possibility that some homes
could have a 1,000 ft accessory dwelling
[22:01] unit and it and it work just fine. Uh,
would it work really close to the city
[22:07] and close to city hall with really small
lots? No. Could it work in the parts of
[22:12] the city that have bigger homes and much
bigger lots? I believe it could.
[22:19] So, I have a question. So, if you allow
a thousand, what stops a smaller home
[22:24] from putting it a thousand and having
that upper level can lever? That's what
[22:29] I'm trying to figure out is how then um
because it seems to me that the majority
[22:35] of people needing this because if you
have a lot of property, you don't really
[22:41] you you could build onto your home at
the 35 foot height and still have a
[22:46] separate entrance and call it an ADU.
You don't need a separate standalone
[22:52] building. However, it seems to me the
most benefit for these are in tighter
[22:57] spaces where you want to build up above
a garage. And so, how do we control
[23:03] is it based will it will it be based on
if you are going above a garage that you
[23:10] base it on the footprint below
and it has to match those dimension or
[23:16] will it be allowed to be canolvering and
that's what I don't understand. Yeah, I
[23:21] guess some possible considerations. So,
I don't believe the language as it's
[23:25] currently presented separates out um
detached and attached for the purposes
[23:31] of the maximum floor area. So, it's
possible you we may want to separate
[23:36] those if you feel it more appropriate if
you're adding on to the home itself to
[23:40] allow for a larger ADU. Uh that could be
a consideration. I have seen in some
[23:44] other communities, not the ones we're
looking at today, but some communities
[23:48] do based on a percentage. So, you would
essentially create, it can be a little
[23:54] bit convoluted and hard to understand,
but they create an equation based on a
[23:58] percentage of the size of your lot to
determine what the maximum square
[24:01] footage. So, if you want to maybe allow
um lots of a certain size, it wouldn't
[24:06] necessarily have to be so complicated.
We could say lots uh up to x amount of
[24:12] square feet, 6,000 square f feet are
permitted to a maximum of 800 ft². Lots
[24:16] over are permitted uh up to a thousand,
something like that maybe uh appropriate
[24:22] to kind of address those concerns.
>> I I think I'd like to try to I'd like to
[24:28] try to keep as many of our other
requirements the same if we can, like
[24:34] setbacks, lot coverage. I try to look at
it as from a perspective if I had a home
[24:41] and outside of an ADU I just wanted to
put on an addition to my home. I wanted
[24:45] my home to be bigger, taller,
bump out, whatever. And I think if we
[24:51] could achieve if someone could achieve
an ADU and be still inside those
[24:57] requirements, I think I'd still be
comfortable, right? I wouldn't want to
[25:00] exceed lot coverage. I wouldn't want to
encroach on setbacks. Yes. So that's
[25:05] what I think you and I are saying the
same thing. And I'm worried if we go up
[25:08] to a thousand, but we don't somehow
define where that is allowed. Can
[25:13] someone on the second level then can
lever five feet each direction? Get that
[25:18] extra square footage.
>> I could lever my home right now, right?
[25:22] » No. Anything over six inches off the
ground goes against percent of coverage,
[25:29] » right?
>> You would still have to meet the setup.
[25:32] » Yes. So the language uh 11.12.27D
[25:38] an ADU which is located within or
attached to a principal structure shall
[25:43] comply with the dimensional requirements
of article 5 or principal structure
[25:46] » page one.
>> Oh sorry this is packet page 11 um as
[25:50] the sample language is presented. So
they they would still be beholdened to,
[25:55] as Commissioner Miller was saying, they
would still be beholdened to the same
[25:58] height requirements, lack coverage,
setbacks, um regardless of if it was an
[26:03] ADU or a uh
single family home. So, if someone were
[26:08] to build on to the upper level of their
garage
[26:12] and the second floor is above 6 in off
the ground, then all of that upper level
[26:18] would be figured into percent of
coverage, which then might limit the
[26:22] size overall.
>> Correct.
[26:25] » That's my perception.
>> Correct. Yes. They'd still be beholden
[26:28] to lot coverage requirements and
setbacks for cash accessory structure.
[26:32] Um the the only exception that is
presented uh for those requirements in
[26:38] here would be the increased height uh in
the case of an ADU which the intention
[26:42] of that is to more comfortably be able
to design an ADU above a garage. Uh,
[26:48] » okay.
[26:53] » I have no issues with the with the
thousand feet and I mean if anything we
[26:57] just say potentially even scratch that
and just say less than the primary
[27:01] dwelling like Susie Murray has but I
don't think we again I'm trying trying
[27:08] to limit how much we're we're
restricting where where it's not
[27:10] necessary
>> but in the survey everyone said they
[27:13] wanted maximum sizes. So
what does that mean exactly? I guess you
[27:19] know
>> it was pretty pretty much all the
[27:22] questions were split and again it was a
1% response rate. So
[27:25] » yeah I I guess I have a question maybe
Trudy can answer it. So let's say I have
[27:30] my existing home and let's say it's
2,000 square feet and I want to turn the
[27:37] basement into an accessory dwelling
unit. By measuring, would it now if if
[27:44] both levels were 1,000 square ft, would
my 2,000 square foot home now just be
[27:49] 1,000 and each one would be,000?
>> Are you talking in terms of living area
[27:56] or
>> whatever, however we define square feet.
[28:01] » Okay. So when we get a plant into the
building department, we're looking at
[28:08] step back and how big the basement if
it's not finished isn't included in the
[28:16] square.
>> Okay. Let's say it was finished and I
[28:19] just wanted to close it off, provide a
second entrance, whatever would be
[28:22] required to make it an accessory
dwelling unit. Would that
[28:24] » Yeah, like an egress window, a separate
entrance.
[28:28] » Yeah.
>> Well, it would be a separate
[28:31] mechanical system.
>> Yep. If if I was able to do that, that
[28:36] would
>> then that would be included in square
[28:39] footage for living space.
>> Okay.
[28:43] » Right. Rel
[28:55] » So I have a question of staff. What is
so if the similar cities to us don't
[29:03] have a thousand don't go that high what
what are we trying to achieve by going
[29:07] to a th00and square feet?
>> Uh thousand square feet was kind of
[29:12] meant to sort of start on the high end
of what I've seen uh and then we can
[29:18] maybe work down from there. Again the
intention of this is to give us a
[29:21] baseline for discussion. So, this is
presenting it on kind of a high end uh
[29:26] compared to the other communities that
we're looking at. Um, but if we want to
[29:30] reduce that, uh, we certainly could. Uh,
as, uh, Commissioner Herbert said, Sue
[29:35] St. Marie, they only require that it be
smaller than the primary dwelling. So,
[29:38] that could theoretically be much larger
than a thousand square feet. Um, so it's
[29:44] really meant to serve as a baseline for
something that could be reasonably
[29:48] allowed. Um, and again, setbacks, lot
coverage are going to be limiting
[29:52] factors here, um, as well. So, thousand
square feet might be possible for a home
[29:58] on Ridgeway, but it might not be so much
possible for something on State Street.
[30:04] And I think a thousand square feet if if
possible, and I think there's a lot of
[30:07] the areas of the city where it wouldn't
be possible, but I think where possible,
[30:12] it could provide an opportunity for
there to be a small family home. You
[30:17] know, a thousand feet for a small family
isn't enormous, but it's it may provide
[30:24] enough room for extra bedrooms for, you
know, small kids. Uh, so I I think I
[30:31] like that thousand square feet. I don't
expect a lot of examples of it. I
[30:36] wouldn't be that uncomfortable going a
little bigger,
[30:40] but I think it's easier to relax
standards. If we started at a th00and
[30:44] and in a year we kind of got some
feedback that hey maybe 1,200 would work
[30:50] better. I would it's easier to relax a
standard than to try to tighten it back
[30:55] up. But I I have no no concerns about a
th00and square feet. I would not want to
[31:02] go more smaller than 400 though.
>> Can I ask clarification? So if it was a
[31:07] thousand square feet and the mention of
small children, then would there need to
[31:12] be a break in where the square footage
accommodates more than two people?
[31:17] » Yeah. I I think I I want to talk about
that more when the when the number of
[31:21] people comes up.
>> Yeah. So the next talking point that I
[31:25] had listed here would be the occupancy.
Currently it lists two. Um, we could
[31:30] increase consider increasing that to
three or four, which would possibly make
[31:33] sense. As you've discussed, if you have
a couple that has one or two small
[31:38] children, at two, that would not be able
to rent the accessory dwelling unit, but
[31:44] at three or four, they could that could
be an option for them.
[31:50] » Any other comments on on this one size?
Do we have a consensus as to where we
[32:00] at? We comfortable with how the language
is now or do we want to change it? What
[32:05] is
what's the general consensus here?
[32:09] » I'm good as written. I know Kathy's a
little concerned about the the bigger
[32:13] size,
[32:16] » Miss Rice. My final thought,
[32:21] » I'm good with it, Dan.
>> I would actually like to come back to
[32:25] that question after we talk about
maximum people. That that seems
[32:30] reasonable to me. I'm on the fence
between 800 and a thousand, but we'd
[32:35] like to
talk about two to four people.
[32:39] » So, do we want to table that until we
>> Yeah.
[32:43] » get some clarification on occupancy? So,
why aren't we we okay with that? Let's
[32:47] let's let's uh let's table that for now
and let's Mr. Plick, you want to give
[32:52] some input? Where are you at with00?
>> Okay. So, let's let's move let's go to
[32:58] occupancy then. Let's uh let's let's
determine what we think about that. So,
[33:04] um what are the thoughts on occupancy? I
I personally don't see a reason for a
[33:09] limit. Again, I kind of go back to if I
had my home and I wanted to expand it
[33:17] within
the zoning requirements of the city. I
[33:20] wanted to put on addition, I wanted to
finish some space in the basement or the
[33:25] attic or or whatever and it was fit
within all of our zoning requirements
[33:29] and all I needed was a building permit.
Um, I think there could be an accessory
[33:36] dwelling unit that would allow more
people.
[33:40] If if we're going to rent, we need
we handle the rentals in the building.
[33:47] When we're under there's a property code
when we do rental inspection, we give
[33:53] out rental.
Okay. So, um that is very specific as to
[34:00] the size a bedroom to be. Has to be 70
square feet for one person. You can have
[34:06] another person at 50 square feet. So, a
bedroom has to be
[34:12] Now for studios,
um it's not as clear in the property
[34:18] maintenance code, but we really don't
have many studio apartments. All we
[34:22] really have are the ones that are at
Lake Press in the middle of the forest,
[34:25] okay? Where it's one big open room
>> and they have a separate bathroom and
[34:31] then a kind of gather kitchen, okay? and
that we measure the whole size of that
[34:39] room. Then so then we determine
occupants on 70 and 15.
[34:47] » So for our studio apartment there for an
example to have three heartbeats and we
[34:53] go by heartbeats. Okay. So you had
170 square feet could have three
[35:02] heartbeats.
would have what?
[35:05] » Three heartbeats.
>> And when someone submits an application
[35:09] for a rental permit, um are they on that
permit saying how many people they're
[35:15] looking to rent it to and then it's
approved? Okay.
[35:18] » And that's how many they're allowed,
right?
[35:19] » Okay. Because um at one point I had 10
rental units in the city. I was here for
[35:25] 23 years in the city and I rented to a
gal, single gal. It wasn't that big of
[35:32] an apartment. twin bed and all and
sister
[35:37] and her three kids moved in. Okay. So,
but that space couldn't accommodate five
[35:43] people. So, she had the power and this
is what I tell people. You have the
[35:46] power of the city behind you that you're
not a legal rental for five people. What
[35:51] you, you know, a legal rental is two
people. So, that way she could say, "You
[35:58] can't move in with me because I'm not,
>> you know, I'm not allowed to have it.
[36:04] I have a question.
>> If it's not a rental and it's maybe a
[36:08] family member moving in,
>> where would the size limitations be on
[36:12] the occupancy there? I mean, how does
that
[36:15] » Well, the ADU would be new to us. We
>> But are there still minimum size? Yeah.
[36:23] If it's a two unit,
[36:30] » there would still be occupancy limits.
>> Oh, yeah.
[36:33] » Even if it wasn't a rental, if I built a
brand new
[36:37] » Oh, if it's your own house and you're
not renting it, go for it.
[36:42] » But if if you're renting your house, I
mean, uh the court looks at it that um
[36:49] your renters are entitled to 30 things.
fresh air, you know, hot water, you
[36:54] know, certain things and certain socks.
Now, I just because um I find it
[37:03] interesting as I talk to other building
officials, you know, that problems, they
[37:08] look at people literally moving into a
whole family like moving into the
[37:13] garage.
Okay. Now, you know, remember we're
[37:16] talking about rental areas above a
front, but some of these could be where
[37:22] people want to move like into the front,
you know. So, and put parking outside of
[37:30] the out. So, so remember it's not that
we're just talking about.
[37:38] » I have a question. So currently anytime
you look at a rental unit when you
[37:43] evaluate it, so
um what minimum square footage you're
[37:50] saying 170 square ft of a building of a
unit could have three people living in
[37:56] it currently.
>> Okay. So if you look at a weekly rental,
[38:02] let's say, and you look at the square
footage, then you determine how many
[38:06] » rentals. So, let's say weekly to 30, the
30-day or whatever. If you look at a
[38:11] 30-day rental and you go in and you
evaluate the square footage, do you put
[38:16] three people per every 170 ft or is that
only based on a certain portion of it
[38:21] being 170 ft like bedroom occupancy?
>> Yes, that's
[38:24] » So, you base it on bedroom occupancy for
170.
[38:28] » Okay.
>> Except where we're going to have a
[38:30] studio.
>> Yes.
[38:34] Okay. Thanks,
[38:39] Um,
>> any of this detached or attached trigger
[38:43] any sort of fire suppression system?
[38:48] » Well, that's a very good question. So,
the Michigan residential code is for one
[38:54] and two family homes. Okay. And a
townhouse.
[38:59] Townhouse only.
[39:04] So, Technically, when a building gets
more than two boiling units, it goes
[39:11] into the building code and the building
code would require sprinkler systems for
[39:17] three.
>> That's per building, not per lot.
[39:22] » That's per building,
>> right?
[39:25] » So, if you had if you had a duplex, if
you had a duplex and a detached ADU,
[39:29] that's still fine. That doesn't trick
you.
[39:36] Um, I echo Commissioner Miller's comment
that I don't I'm not sure that we really
[39:42] need to have a any kind of restriction
if if we're renting it out, right? We're
[39:47] going to have restrictions when they
apply for permits anyways. Um, and then
[39:53] if you've got family and stuff, I don't
like again if you're if you live in your
[39:57] own house, you can do whatever. So if
you got family and they're not renting
[40:02] it out, why is that different? So if we
>> Yeah, we don't require rental
[40:08] certificates.
>> So if we if we've already got other
[40:11] mechanisms that are going to enforce
something,
[40:16] I feel like there's no reason to to add
another restriction here when it's
[40:19] already going to be restricted
>> under the rent.
[40:22] » Other Yeah.
Okay. So based on that, if you end up
[40:27] with five people living there in that
small unit, um, and they all are
[40:36] adults and they all have jobs that
require them to drive to work and we
[40:41] only require one additional parking
space, that I just feel like that not
[40:48] limiting anything is going to open up a
big can of worms that's going to cause
[40:52] all kinds of um issues that you know we
want this to be successful. We want it
[41:00] to be a good neighbor. We want it to
benefit the housing shortage that we
[41:06] have. And I feel that if we don't put
any restrictions or consider all of
[41:12] that, then we're not really
um we're setting ourselves up in my
[41:17] opinion for it not to be successful
because again, one parking space and you
[41:24] know, well, we're not going to limit the
number of people. So then where are they
[41:29] all going to park their cars? Are they
going to be blocking the neighbor's
[41:32] garage? Are they going to be parking in
alleyways overnight and everything else?
[41:36] because Ellie's evidently you can park
in. So I think it's like we need to
[41:42] really think this through for what we're
trying to achieve and what the purpose
[41:47] of it is and it's to help provide the
housing for the middle in you know the
[41:54] middle housing that's missing and um
I don't know that you know having
[42:03] unlimited numbers of square footages and
people will accommodate that in a
[42:08] neighborly fashion that's It's just my
opinion.
[42:12] » We already have restrictions on the
people based on the rental stuff.
[42:15] » But she's saying we wouldn't if it
becomes a if it's a non- rental family
[42:21] situation. So
you and you allow a bunch of family
[42:27] members to move in and they all have
vehicles, but you only require one
[42:31] parking space. Oh,
>> I mean, you have the same issue with if
[42:36] I've got a big house and I've got um
eight kids and a bunch of them live
[42:42] there. Like, it's just it's no
different. It's the same exact issue and
[42:46] we're fine with that, right?
We're not saying people are limited to
[42:51] four people in a primary house. show,
but the ADU is a different in my
[42:56] opinion, it's something we're
introducing to try to add more housing
[43:00] options and um you know, many people
that mentioned some said they wanted it
[43:04] for relatives, but there were a fair
amount that wanted it for rental income.
[43:08] And so, I think we have to think of all
the aspects of what these might be used
[43:12] for.
[43:17] I think the, you know, I like we've
discussed, I could take my current home
[43:23] and
expand on it, modify it in whatever way
[43:28] is allowed within the ordinance and put
I won't say as many people, but put a
[43:34] lot of people in it.
I'm I'm hesitant to restrict the number
[43:40] of people
in a unit.
[43:46] I could I don't have a problem with
maybe coming up with the number, but it
[43:50] would be more than three or four.
>> I think it should be based on the square
[43:53] footage. So, if you're able to build a
certain square footage based on your lot
[43:58] size, then you get X number of
occupants. If you're able to build a
[44:02] larger square footage based on your
house sites, then that hopefully means
[44:06] that you have a lot more property where
you could accommodate more vehicles and
[44:10] things. I think it should be go hand in
hand. Square footage and occupancy
[44:16] should go hand in hand and they should
be a certain amount for a certain square
[44:20] footage and a certain amount for a
larger square footage which means your
[44:23] property's larger.
Kathy, do you feel like the
[44:28] square footage regulations through the
IPMC help at all with that? Like you
[44:33] need 70 square foot for one occupant, 50
for each additional occupant. So, you
[44:39] know, when they submit plans to us for
the ADUs and stuff, we would limit them
[44:44] on occupants based on square footage of
the bedrooms.
[44:47] » Well, that's what I was wondering.
That's why I was asking the question
[44:50] about how you and I know it's a poor
example to use short-term rental, but
[44:54] that's what I was trying to decipher how
you determine those numbers. Now,
[44:58] » you do that with homes, too. When they
give us plans, we calculate square
[45:02] footage of the bedrooms and put the
occupants in.
[45:04] » I mean, that to me seems reasonable
because if that's how you already figure
[45:09] it, um I just don't feel that it should
be that you know, if you do 400 square
[45:14] feet, you should have an endless number
of occupants. Um,
[45:18] » but that's not what I'm hearing though
from the city of
[45:21] » That's why I'm saying I think we need to
use some restriction and I like the idea
[45:24] of that.
>> But I think it may be self regulated,
[45:28] right? If someone had whatever size unit
and they the city came and inspected and
[45:32] it's like, okay, your bedrooms, you have
this many bedrooms or this size, you can
[45:36] have this many people.
>> Would you regulate that with ADU? If
[45:39] this is enacted, it would be the same
code enforcement
[45:42] » if it's a rental.
>> If it's a rental, okay. And if it wasn't
[45:46] a rental, I think people would be
>> wouldn't wouldn't make the choice to
[45:51] make an ADU for family,
>> right? You're I I personally think you'd
[45:55] be better off just improving your home
if you wanted your in-laws or your adult
[46:00] children living there. I personally
think you'd be better off just
[46:03] remodeling your home, putting on an
addition. Oh, you're not able. Let's say
[46:07] you have limited space and your only
space available is above the garage,
[46:12] then maybe we
>> I think I think we're all on the same
[46:16] page. The rental part is the part we
need to govern and and be concerned with
[46:21] and regulate. And if you're going to
build above your garage
[46:25] » to the city's a family member and it's
not a rental, then
[46:29] » well, it has to then it is right. then
then they're in the position where the
[46:34] city is going to inspect it and go
there's this many bedrooms of this size
[46:38] you're allowed this many people.
>> Yeah, I think that's a good point. Thank
[46:41] you.
>> So what what are those limits? If if we
[46:45] if the bottom level is 400 square feet,
would that accommodate two people? Is
[46:50] that enough square footage to
accommodate?
[46:54] » You know, would 800 accommodate four?
>> Yeah. depends how big the bath the
[47:01] bathroom and kitchen is. In terms of
>> living's perhaps space, yes, you do have
[47:05] to have somewhere to store and cook
food. So, they have to have a kitchen.
[47:09] You have to be able to go to the
bathrooms. They'd have to have a
[47:11] bathroom. If you got 400 square feet,
kitchen taken out of that, you got
[47:16] bathroom taken out of that. Probably a
living area, but maybe not.
[47:20] » Studio than the bedrooms.
>> And the bedrooms is where we calculate
[47:24] the square footage. So if you've got 120
square foot like a 10 by 12 bedroom
[47:28] that's two people.
>> Okay.
[47:30] » Um yep. So we've only looked at the
bedrooms themselves and square footage
[47:34] in there to calculate how many people
can be in the residence.
[47:39] » D your comparison with Travers did you
were there any limits on on their side
[47:46] of homes?
>> Uh so in terms of occupancy that's I
[47:50] believe we've got the language in here.
I can double check it as I recall.
[47:55] uh it's largely unressed uh to their
ordinances. Um so they may have been
[48:00] leaning uh on building code regulations
to uh handle their occupancy.
[48:09] » I think I just like the essentially the
self-regulating part of the city will
[48:14] come in and they will they'll measure
and count and they'll go okay this this
[48:20] unit can hold this many people. Um,
right. That's how it is with any
[48:25] apartment in the city. It could be a big
apartment, could be a
[48:28] » any anything that's being added uh goes
through that process. Yep.
[48:34] » And, you know, with with this accessory
dwelling unit consideration, you know, I
[48:40] want
I want this to be a an affordable option
[48:46] that might be created for for young
families.
[48:50] And if a young family has mom and dad
and three kids, I want and the the unit
[48:56] is big enough, I want mom and dad and
three kids to have that available.
[49:00] » Trudy, what were you going to clarify
for us?
[49:03] » He wanted to know what was uh
>> um so 400 square feet, you know, the
[49:11] minimum. How many is that? Two people,
is that three people?
[49:16] » Okay. So, uh, you're assuming one big
room
[49:20] or bedrooms or what are
>> what were the
[49:24] » I guess both. Um, you know.
>> Okay. So,
[49:29] according to the property maintenance
code,
[49:34] bedrooms are what as we mentioned. Okay.
50
[49:42] and
overcrowding dwelling units shall not be
[49:47] occupied by more occupants and committed
by the minimum area requirements table
[49:52] 44.
So it has a living room
[50:00] space for one to two occupants should be
120 square ft
[50:06] 3 to 5
should be 126 or more
[50:12] dining room. There's no requirement. I
guess you could eat on the couch.
[50:18] And um 3 to five,
80, six or more per 100. So if you're
[50:26] saying that uh efficiency unit
okay nothing would prohibit an
[50:33] efficiency
a unit occupied by not more than one
[50:39] occupant so have a minimum clear for
area of 120 square ft. If you want two
[50:48] occasions, the minimum has to be 220
square ft. Okay. A
[50:56] unit occupied by three shall have a
minimum clear area of 320 square.
[51:04] So for four or 400, it seems to be going
up into increments of 100.
[51:10] » So I would say that they would have at
least three and 400.
[51:16] that help.
That's what we would go on when we were
[51:21] rent certificate.
[51:27] And it's always good to think about all
the extremes, right, of of ways that it
[51:31] could potentially be negative or or
otherwise. Um, but at the same time, you
[51:36] know, we need to make sure we're not
thinking that, oh, every ADU is going to
[51:40] end up having five individual adults
living in it and all of a sudden we're
[51:45] going to be inundated with all of these
extreme versions, right? Like, yeah, it
[51:49] might happen and that's something that
then as we continue along, we figure out
[51:55] what the pain points are and we can
adjust things um
[51:59] as well. So,
>> so this this says the maximum number of
[52:04] occupants shall be three for an
efficiency unit at 220.
[52:12] I I will say from a legal perspective,
what Mr. Miller had said earlier is
[52:16] correct in that it's always hard
sometimes to know where to with the
[52:21] limits, but it's easier to kind of
lessen them and reduce the restrictions
[52:27] than it is to try and tighten them up
later as you know kind of putting it
[52:31] back in the gate after things have
already been in place. So I I'm not
[52:36] taking a position on that but I just
want make to make sure you kind of keep
[52:40] that in mind as you're looking at these.
Um, I think again you want to have a
[52:44] reasonable basis for putting
restrictions in on on anything you're
[52:49] looking at, but you know, keep that in
mind too because I think looking at best
[52:54] case, worst case scenarios are really
important. Sort of see where the
[52:57] extremes are. I always end up dealing
with the extremes.
[53:02] So, you know, just I guess keep that in
mind and and you try to do your best. It
[53:07] may need adjustment in the future, but
when you have to make those adjustments,
[53:11] it's easier to to pull back and loosen
them up a little bit than it is to
[53:15] train.
And also, right now, how we we've got
[53:19] the suggestions, right, is that the um
the owner has to live on site. So, if
[53:26] there are issues, right, it's that owner
is also dealing dealing with it.
[53:30] Neighbors can talk to the owner and
stuff. It's not like it's some corporate
[53:33] entity that's owning this and and
faceless, right? So, I think that helps
[53:38] out if there's any friction as well.
>> Is is that in the clarification that
[53:46] that Okay. It has to be a person. Okay.
>> Correct. That is one of the
[53:50] requirements.
[53:53] Uh, I guess
can maybe Trudy or any uh of our real
[54:00] estate folks do does anyone know about
the size of a of our smaller homes in
[54:10] the city like our 1940s era smaller
homes. Do we know about how big those
[54:17] are? How many square foot we would call?
[clears throat] It was 810 square ft.
[54:22] It's two bedroom
810.
[54:26] » Was it one floor? Thank you. That I
think that's good information, right? I
[54:31] can kind of picture a lot of those
houses and kind of picture. Okay. You
[54:35] know
what could be considered?
[54:39] » That could easily be Yeah. two adults
and two or three kids in the other
[54:43] bedroom, you know.
>> Yeah. Is is it is it a twobedroom or is
[54:46] it Uhhuh. Okay. So,
>> that's 800 ft. What do you think of a
[54:52] 400 garage trying to stick three, four,
five people doesn't work? I mean, you
[54:58] you just told me that, you know, two
bedrooms nice little home, but now you
[55:03] just cut that in half.
>> Mhm.
[55:05] » And you now you have 400 foot garage
backup lots.
[55:15] » All right, let's uh we appreciate your
input. It's valuable. We just let's uh
[55:20] can
>> No, it's valuable input.
[55:24] » Yeah. So,
let's take this full circle. We So,
[55:29] we're either going to do
self-regulating. It's that the rules are
[55:34] already in place to regulate this and
maybe there's some personal um practical
[55:39] reasons that it gets regulated so you
don't have to stipulate the actual
[55:43] number of occupants. That's one
approach. Or the other approach is we do
[55:50] put some restrictions on it because we
can later relax them because if we start
[55:56] out being completely open, it's going to
be more difficult to put restrictions on
[56:00] it. That's kind of how I'm seeing this.
So does anybody have any comments on on
[56:06] that with respect to occupancy? And I
guess it also flows into the size as
[56:11] well, but you so
>> but so I guess I want to understand if
[56:17] you start with a th00and square feet,
it's going to be harder to reduce it to
[56:21] 800 in my opinion, right? Because you
can go.
[56:24] » So so the concern would be that
theoretically someone could develop an
[56:27] ADU under the regulations and then when
we go to change them, they will be then
[56:32] legally non-conforming. So they could
maintain their increased size that if we
[56:37] decide that that size is not appropriate
then we have allowed for a
[56:42] non-conformity to be created. Whereas as
Lori was saying if we uh tighten the
[56:47] regulations now and then we want to
relax them later
[56:51] properties would maintain within
conformance with the ordinance at that
[56:55] point. So, if somebody had a,000 and you
changed it to 800 and they sell the
[57:00] property,
>> does the non-conforming, let's say now
[57:03] all of a sudden that ADU needs to be uh
uh renovated,
[57:08] » but it's non-conforming and it's a
thousand square feet.
[57:11] » What happens then?
>> So, if you have a non-conforming
[57:14] structure, that non-conformity can be
repaired and maintained. Um, it would
[57:18] have to be uh in order for it to to be
required to comply with the current
[57:24] ordinance, it would need to be destroyed
uh up to 50% over 50% of its replacement
[57:31] value. So it would have to be
essentially burned to the ground, a car
[57:35] hit it um
>> realistically for it to
[57:39] » even if the owner changes
>> the change of ownership uh in itself
[57:42] would not uh
infringe on any non-conforming rights.
[57:48] » Okay.
>> So similar to where we have duplexes,
[57:50] triplexes in our R1 zoning districts and
stuff because that
[57:53] » correct. Yeah. A duplex in a single
family zone uh would not lose its
[57:58] non-conforming use as a duplex if you
were to sell it. It would be just like
[58:01] that. Yes.
>> All right. Let's try to tighten this up
[58:05] so we can give some direction to staff.
So, who is in favor of no restrictions
[58:12] on occupancy?
So, we have
[58:16] » it's the self-limiting option.
>> Self-limiting. Yeah.
[58:18] » Or the property.
>> Right. Right. Yeah. That that is the
[58:21] limiting factor. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[58:24] » Okay. Right. So,
>> so using the existing regulations as
[58:29] they are, we would not stipulate any
further in these ADU regulations as to
[58:34] what occupancy is. We would use the
existing regulations as they are. Who's
[58:40] in favor of that?
>> I I would Yeah,
[58:43] » I think I guess what how is that
different from the first thing you
[58:46] asked? Sorry,
>> it's the same. I was restating it to
[58:49] make it more clear, but I haven't. That
was my intention.
[58:52] » I'm still in favor of Okay.
>> All right. So, it sounds like we have a
[58:54] consensus that we would not regulate the
number of occupants specifically in the
[59:01] ADU
uh language.
[59:05] » It would be based on already,
>> right?
[59:08] » But this language we would not further
clarify it. Okay. So, I think there's
[59:13] consensus with that. That is
strong. I think it's almost unanimous
[59:19] here.
>> Just for clarification for me, the ADU
[59:23] is not a rental.
It's for mom and dad
[59:29] company coming or whatever.
Okay. So, that would not be restricted,
[59:37] » right? Similar to your own house.
>> I don't know that we've determined
[59:41] whether or not it couldn't be a rental
yet.
[59:43] » If it's a rental, then it needs to have
the same restrictions that every rental
[59:47] has. So if I see mom and dad, you know,
if mom and dad need to move in with
[59:52] their family, you know, and they build
an ADU for them to live in, they're
[59:58] family. They're not paying rent. But as
soon as you start getting income, then
[1:00:03] it falls under the occupancy per
whatever you said 7 whatever that.
[1:00:09] » So we're still consistent with we don't
need to add further clarification in the
[1:00:13] ADU language.
>> It's self-regulating. Does it need to
[1:00:18] say something that if it's a rental, it
will follow that requirement? I think
[1:00:22] » why would family not follow that? If you
don't have an ADU now and you come to me
[1:00:27] with building permits to build an ADU,
whether it's for your mom or for rental,
[1:00:33] you're going to give me building plans
and I'm still going to calculate how
[1:00:36] many occupants can go in there based on
square footage.
[1:00:39] » Okay, perfect.
>> New home.
[1:00:40] » That's fine. Yeah, that's
>> see because what I hear is that
[1:00:44] » um
>> like we would get a set of plans and
[1:00:48] let's say it's 400 square feet
>> and my sister who just left her husband
[1:00:54] and four kids want to move in there. We
would not be able to stop that. There
[1:00:59] would be five people in that 400 square
feet
[1:01:03] » because it's family.
>> Because it's family
[1:01:05] » unless you stay in ADU as specific.
Correct.
[1:01:10] » Yeah. There's no enforcement. I mean, I
don't go door to door and knock and say,
[1:01:13] "Kathy, I put eight occupants. How many
people do you have in your house?"
[1:01:16] » Yeah.
>> But if they have a rental certificate
[1:01:18] and it's an ADU, then they then it would
be enforced.
[1:01:24] » But I just want you to understand how
we're looking at that.
[1:01:28] » So, do you feel that it [clears throat]
should be regulated when it's an ADU for
[1:01:34] any occupant regardless of whether it's
rental or family? I would want you to
[1:01:41] consider that if it's a garage size
being converted, which is about 400
[1:01:47] square ft.
>> Yeah.
[1:01:48] » Okay. Would you be comfortable with your
neighbor having a family of five people
[1:01:54] living in that garage?
>> I think that's up to them. Under the
[1:02:00] current regulations, they would be able
to without further restrictions.
[1:02:04] » Yes.
>> Okay.
[1:02:05] » If it's not a rental, if you're
Now we it's an ADU. We don't have them.
[1:02:11] » But
and no, Kathy, I don't see enforcement
[1:02:14] happening for ADUs that are just for
family. I I that would be very hard for
[1:02:20] us to do
>> to keep track of how many people are
[1:02:23] living in every single ADU.
>> Unless it's stated like no more than
[1:02:28] four or something.
>> Otherwise, we would not. Okay.
[1:02:38] All right. So, we're still in the same
position. No further language, correct?
[1:02:43] With respect to occupancy in the ADU
language, no further specification for
[1:02:49] the number of occupants.
>> Agreed.
[1:02:56] We have Okay, let's go back to size and
get that lined up as well. We're still
[1:03:02] toying with 400 to a thousand or up to a
thousand. What's our thoughts on that?
[1:03:09] It's
>> no greater than a thousand or the floor
[1:03:12] floor area of the primary dwelling unit.
I think that will restrict it adequately
[1:03:19] from my perspective.
I'm not going to have a small home and
[1:03:23] add
a 1,000 square foot. We're not going to
[1:03:27] have an 810 foot square foot home and
add a 1,00.
[1:03:32] I think it's going to kind of
self-regulate, especially if we have the
[1:03:35] other regulations to to come into play,
setbacks, yet lock coverage. Um,
[1:03:43] I'm still comfortable with 400 to 1,000.
If uh if I think the planning commission
[1:03:50] was more comfortable with 400 and 800
with us to reconsider that in the
[1:03:55] future, I could support that as well.
>> What's the thinking behind a minimum at
[1:04:01] 400?
>> I think 400, right? We want to provide
[1:04:07] a a unit, an accessory dwelling unit
that has
[1:04:14] all the things that all the requirements
that we're going to have. It's going to
[1:04:17] have bedrooms. It's going to have
cooking and food storage facilities.
[1:04:20] It's going to have a bathroom. Uh, you
know, we're seeing language that it's
[1:04:24] going to have its own standalone HVAC
unit and electrical panel access. And
[1:04:31] I think that's to me that's a more
appropriate size
[1:04:35] to support that.
[1:04:39] And I I brought that up before in the
sense that all those requirements
[1:04:44] are it's kind of similar to the the the
maximum people requirement where where
[1:04:50] things that might self- select it
anyways. Um, and there seemed to be
[1:04:54] consensus that it'll it'll be roughly
400 ft probably as a minimum anyways.
[1:04:59] So, I don't I don't think we need to put
a minimum, but I think 400 is not too
[1:05:04] large
of a of a minimum. So, I I'm fine with
[1:05:08] it
>> and I could be comfortable with a
[1:05:12] slightly smaller number.
>> To me, I was just wondering does it have
[1:05:15] do you need a number at all? Again, we
have in our codes minimum size living
[1:05:20] room for people, minimum size bedrooms,
you know, so we already have minimum
[1:05:26] square footages in here for you to
occupy it anyway. Um, so to just throw
[1:05:31] an arbitrary number out there like 400.
There's nothing wrong with that. Um, I
[1:05:36] just it's probably not necessary at all
if we already have minimums for you to
[1:05:42] even build and live inside of it. I
think the one thing is that um it does
[1:05:51] maybe help a person that doesn't have
that knowledge
[1:05:55] » sure
>> understand that you have to have a space
[1:05:58] that's occupiable that you can't move
into um you know a 6 by8 shed in your
[1:06:06] backyard and say it's a house um unless
you're on you know one of those shows
[1:06:13] [laughter]
they do that but Um,
[1:06:16] » so I think I think it helps people that
may not have the background to at least
[1:06:20] get a basis of what they're getting into
if they want to develop an ADU that it
[1:06:25] needs this square footage. And if they
look at it like, okay, an 80, you know,
[1:06:29] anytime you do construction now, is it
$300 a square foot? Okay, if I need a
[1:06:34] 400 square foot, this is what I'm going
to be investing. Is this worth my time
[1:06:38] and effort? I think it gives someone a
basis that might not have that knowledge
[1:06:42] without having something
very,
[1:06:45] » you know, and that might be beneficial
to a lot of people to decide if this is
[1:06:49] even in the realm of something they
would want to consider.
[1:06:53] » Not to mention that other cities have
have put in put in a
[1:06:57] » Yeah,
>> I'm not opposed to the idea of making it
[1:07:02] a little bit smaller and then increasing
it later if that makes sense.
[1:07:06] » Yeah, I'm still having heart over
>> making it bigger. Increasing it later
[1:07:10] would make it more restrictive.
>> Okay. The other way. So we like we're if
[1:07:13] we start with 400 now and
>> right
[1:07:16] » right we're hearing back from the city
officials like oh man we're getting
[1:07:19] these applications and gez the these old
garages over here in this part of town
[1:07:23] are ah they're only 360 square feet. Oh
okay well let's talk about it then it's
[1:07:30] as we said ah it's real easy to to to go
from 360 or to from 400 to 360.
[1:07:36] » Yeah. Yeah I agree with that. So that's
why I feel I still am having heartburn
[1:07:41] over the thousand because if we went to
800 and found that we were just finding
[1:07:46] that too many people weren't being able
to bill within that square footage you
[1:07:51] can raise lowering later when we if we
determined the thousand was um you know
[1:07:58] too much would be harder.
>> So then we created non-conformancies.
[1:08:02] » Yeah. the the thousand um maximum of a
thousand is still what is that 200 more
[1:08:08] than either of the three cities.
>> Yeah,
[1:08:11] » that's my issue with
>> Well, Sus Marie is doesn't have a
[1:08:16] » the other two. So, so Paskki is 600.
Traverse City is a maximum of 800.
[1:08:21] » Yeah.
>> And then to St. Marie, no.
[1:08:26] » Yeah.
>> So, in other words, going to 800, I I
[1:08:30] think that would be fine. And if we had
to increase it,
[1:08:35] » I could support 800 with uh future
considerations for
[1:08:41] » No. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
[laughter] Right. Sorry. Getting my math
[1:08:46] going the wrong way. So if Yeah. If it
was Yeah. Yeah. We're allowing it to be
[1:08:50] that big. Yeah. I could support 800 in
the future if we said we're seeing
[1:08:55] applications like gosh this house here
and that house there. Boy, a thousand
[1:08:59] would have worked a lot better.
>> Sounds like we're hearing I'm hearing
[1:09:04] that we need to put a reduction from
a,000 to 800 as the maximum and that
[1:09:12] we're okay with a minimum of 400.
>> Okay. Yes. All right.
[1:09:19] Let's check those off.
[1:09:23] Let's uh
let's talk about renting. short-term
[1:09:29] rentals
30 days versus three months
[1:09:35] thoughts. So I again when I read that
[1:09:41] I guess I I don't know why we right
we're talking about ADU is a use we're
[1:09:46] talking about in the R1 district. Is
that correct? Don't
[1:09:50] » R1 R2
>> correct. be looking at the R1 and R2
[1:09:54] districts where short-term rentals are
already uh not permitted.
[1:09:58] » Um so the kind of point here would just
be an additional clarification since it
[1:10:03] was such a large concern short-term
rentals just putting that directly in
[1:10:06] the ordinance uh possibly as a future
proofing and then specifically with the
[1:10:11] three-month minimum lease. Um that
possible suggestion uh was raised after
[1:10:18] doing the research uh and seeing that
these other three communities just so
[1:10:21] happen to have that same requirement. Um
so that's certainly an option we can
[1:10:25] pursue if we want to. Uh
>> what about the water recreation district
[1:10:31] where short-term rentals are
>> they're already low. But but I mean as
[1:10:35] far as an accessory dwelling unit, if I
had a a home in the water recreation
[1:10:40] district and I wanted to add an
accessory dwelling unit.
[1:10:44] » So the language as presented currently
uh only allows them in the R1 and R2
[1:10:48] districts. Okay. We could expand that to
include the water recreation district.
[1:10:53] That could be its own separate
discussion. Um certainly. But
[1:10:56] » are water recreation districts usually
considered PUDS? uh pretty much every
[1:11:02] use is a PUB in the water recreation
>> district. So I think it's not really
[1:11:06] applicable there,
>> but I would just like to say, and I know
[1:11:10] I sound like a broken record, um having
lived where I lived for over 30 years,
[1:11:14] um I've witnessed a lot of the 30-day
rentals. Um you know, they're 30 days.
[1:11:21] Um, and my concern is the whole purpose
of this housing is to provide rental
[1:11:30] housing. It's not to provide three
to$4,000 a week for people that build
[1:11:35] these and then rent them during the
summer months and then look for workers
[1:11:40] that come into the area from
September through April and then you
[1:11:45] kick them out. So, I feel very concerned
that if we do the 30-day
[1:11:51] um and staff knows very well that it's
very hard to monitor the 30 days. you
[1:11:57] don't have adequate staff to take that
on and um and frankly um I feel that the
[1:12:07] three month could elim eliminate any of
those concerns because you would have to
[1:12:12] have a rental agreement signed and um
possibly like many of the communities
[1:12:18] did and it would eliminate any of those
problems associated with the 30-day
[1:12:23] because I've seen firsthand where I live
people go and live in a campground and
[1:12:29] rent out their homes. They're not
helping the housing market. They're
[1:12:33] providing um you know um a place for
someone to temporarily lodge that wants
[1:12:40] to be here during you know the most um
you know nicest part of the year. And um
[1:12:47] so that's my concern that if we're truly
trying to solve a problem and we want to
[1:12:53] provide more housing opportunities
um then we really need to think about
[1:12:59] that the 30-day opens it up to an income
generating temporary housing on a 30-day
[1:13:06] basis or providing a place for people
that want to be by the beach to house on
[1:13:12] a 30-day basis or less.
All right. So,
[1:13:17] » but let's get a consensus on short-term
rentals. Which are the thoughts
[1:13:22] is let's just get that off.
>> Well, sure. As presented, I agree. Okay.
[1:13:26] I'm sorry. Yeah. 30-day rentals.
>> I I support restricting short-term
[1:13:31] rentals
in for
[1:13:34] » 30-day rentals are off the table. We'd
like to get that
[1:13:36] » under less than 30 days.
>> Less than
[1:13:38] » under 30.
>> But okay.
[1:13:41] » 30 opens it up to everything.
>> Yeah. But but at least initially it
[1:13:44] sounds like
>> well right now 30 or more is one.
[1:13:49] » Yes. So the language presents it as a
minimum 30-day rental. Do we feel it
[1:13:53] appropriate to increase that to possibly
the three month minimum uh lease that
[1:13:59] other communities have or some other uh
>> measurement [clears throat] of time?
[1:14:04] » I think three maybe even six months.
>> Yeah. Agree. because we we like to be
[1:14:08] long-term rentals, I think, largely.
Whereas there's plenty of seasonal
[1:14:12] rentals already. Um I don't know how
easy if that's legal or um run into
[1:14:18] issues with with yeah month-to-month
rentals obviously just like
[1:14:22] [clears throat]
for normal non- vacationers, but
[1:14:25] » once again, if you start high, you can
go you can ease it down some point in
[1:14:30] the future.
>> There's always a reference to 30 days.
[1:14:34] It's actually well it's a month but the
short-term rentals are defined as
[1:14:38] periods of less than a month. Okay.
>> So um I do need to double check on the
[1:14:44] legal aspects of it. I know when they
adopt the short-term rental ordinance
[1:14:48] before I started representing the city
there was a reason it was and I think it
[1:14:53] tied into month rentals and how rental
laws work. Um,
[1:15:00] I I'll have to look into that more just
to make sure that we'd be okay with
[1:15:04] having something beyond that. I So, if
other communities are able to do three
[1:15:11] months, why would St. Joseph not be able
to require a three-month minimum?
[1:15:16] » Um, I don't rely on other people's
research.
[1:15:19] » Okay. [laughter]
>> But, but is it I was thinking statewide
[1:15:22] that it's a state.
>> It may be perfectly fine. I just I I
[1:15:26] would feel better to independently look
at that, verify it, and tell you, "Yes,
[1:15:30] I think you're you're good with that."
So
[1:15:32] » So I guess we have to pause on that
until that's
[1:15:35] » Well, I think we can discuss
consideration and attorney Schmidt could
[1:15:39] get back to us to go, "Yeah, what you
talked about
[1:15:41] » that quickly." So
>> it probably is fine. They just want to
[1:15:45] verify.
[1:15:48] » Uh well, what do we think would be an
appropriate duration for this concern?
[1:15:53] So, the three-month, the one thing about
a three-month I thought of is let's say
[1:15:57] there's a student that's in college
somewhere and they take an internship at
[1:16:01] Whirlpool or somewhere
>> for the summer months. The three-month
[1:16:05] accommodates them. Students don't have
money to pay six months of rent when
[1:16:10] they stay somewhere three months. That's
the only thing about the three-month. I
[1:16:13] like the three-month personally because
of that because I thought it might um
[1:16:18] you know open the area to accommodating
summer interns that are from a different
[1:16:25] area. That's
>> traveling nurses.
[1:16:27] » Traveling nurses. Yeah. All of that type
of thing. That was the three-month
[1:16:31] because typically, you know, um you
know, we had several interns at our
[1:16:35] office for the summer and some were
fortunate to be from the area and could
[1:16:39] live at home, but it would be nice to
not burden them with paying three months
[1:16:43] of additional rent and or making them
sublet, but if you do all the legal
[1:16:48] things where you want the things signed
and all that, it might make it more
[1:16:51] difficult for them. So, I I I like the
idea of three month versus 30-day plus
[1:16:57] because of the concerns about the, you
know, the turning it over all the time
[1:17:02] in the summer. Um,
>> all right. So, it's sounds like we have
[1:17:05] a consensus that three months, if Lori
finds that it is
[1:17:10] » acceptable,
>> legal to do that, let's put that
[1:17:12] restriction in. Okay, let's All right,
let's move on to parking.
[1:17:20] » [laughter]
>> Uh
[1:17:23] » we're proposing one additional space. Uh
is that enough? Where's that space? And
[1:17:31] we've got a lot of park a lot of streets
that you can't even park overnight. So
[1:17:37] how do we how do we accommodate this? Is
it driveway?
[1:17:42] I there's all kinds of discussions as to
however currently managed. Correct. If I
[1:17:48] have a home and it's required to have
two parking spaces, right, the city has
[1:17:53] to go, where are your parking spaces?
>> And each dwelling is required to have
[1:18:00] two.
>> Yeah.
[1:18:02] » So, having them have one would be lesser
than that. Um,
[1:18:08] but on the smaller square footage, the
minimum 400, it could go by square
[1:18:14] footage. If you build 400, you'll get
one. If you build beyond that,
[1:18:20] depending, you know, if
like you do with the rest of the
[1:18:23] ordinance, the square footage is what's
the basis for the number of spaces um
[1:18:28] » for commercial like restaurants
>> for commut. Yeah. So, you know, like
[1:18:33] apartments are 1.25.
>> Yeah. So, a single family home requires
[1:18:38] just a flat two spaces. We could
theoretically expand the amendments uh
[1:18:42] to add a brief uh addition to the table
in article 18 which has parking
[1:18:48] requirements to include accessory
dwelling units on some sort of basis of
[1:18:52] square footage. So it could be one space
per 400 square feet. So then if you're
[1:18:56] at that threshold uh you only need one
space but if you go over uh
[1:19:01] » ups it to two spaces in that case. I
feel that follows what you're already
[1:19:06] doing and that it then provides um you
know a larger unit may have more people
[1:19:12] in it.
[1:19:16] » So from my clarification, does a
driveway count as a parking space?
[1:19:22] » Yeah, long
>> Yep. A driveway would count as a parking
[1:19:26] space. It would have to be some sort of
hard surface. Uh whether that's paved
[1:19:30] with asphalt or concrete. Uh gravel
could qualify. It could also be covered
[1:19:34] in a garage or carport.
>> So it has to be off streetet
[1:19:38] » off streetet parking spaces. Yes,
>> you cannot park on the grass on your
[1:19:43] front yard.
>> Ask me how I know.
[1:19:46] » Is this one additional over what's
already there or one additional over the
[1:19:51] the two requirement from the single
family? So if you if you if you already
[1:19:56] have three or four parking spaces,
>> are you good? Uh theoretically, if your
[1:20:01] lot is already accommodating four
parking spaces and you have a single
[1:20:05] family home, you would not need to add
an additional to what's already there.
[1:20:09] you would be you would have more than
the requirement. I just want to make
[1:20:11] sure that's clear in here because this
says I want additional space whereas I
[1:20:15] know like Paskki specifically said like
you can you know count it stacked in
[1:20:19] driveways and that kind of stuff and so
make sure it's going to be clear that
[1:20:22] that's not like oh you build an ADU so
you have to add a space
[1:20:25] » if you've already got the space
>> one additional from the two requirement
[1:20:30] that yeah that's perfect the way to
>> so I think that's good clarification
[1:20:35] » that's a good clarification I think in
general I mean in general I'm against
[1:20:39] parking minimums as it is. I mean,
looking I mean, when I'm walking around
[1:20:43] neighborhoods and stuff, there's we have
a lot of unutilized parking as it is,
[1:20:47] driveways, garages, and that kind of
stuff. And I feel like it might be kind
[1:20:50] of self- selecting. So, we can't park on
the street by now anyways. So, if you
[1:20:55] build a unit, say it's going to be for,
you know, your elderly parent, are they
[1:21:00] going to have a car? Are you going to
share a car? Or if it's going to be,
[1:21:02] yeah, your your adult kid who lives in
there or an intern, maybe they're there
[1:21:06] for the summer. like there's plenty of
people who don't need a car, so why do
[1:21:10] we need to force a parking spot? Now, if
it's going to be you're building an ADU
[1:21:15] and um you don't provide a parking
space, well then if someone's renting it
[1:21:20] and they need a parking space, they're
not going to rent it from you, right?
[1:21:24] So, I I feel like it might be kind of
self- selecting. Like, if I were to go
[1:21:28] move out of my place and live in ADU, I
have a bike. I just bike around. I'm
[1:21:32] fortunate to have family in town, too.
If I need a car, I can borrow a car. but
[1:21:35] I don't need a parking space. So,
>> I think uh having seen um what happened
[1:21:42] early on when there were weekly rentals
that didn't require any spaces and the
[1:21:46] burden it caused for the neighbors, I
think people would be up in arms if we
[1:21:51] approved an ADU with not requiring the
adequate number of spaces because of
[1:21:56] what's already happened in this
community and you know in the past um
[1:22:00] » just on the on the weekends. No, there
are there are several grandfathered in
[1:22:06] um weekly rentals that were there before
the parking space minimum was enforced
[1:22:13] or required. I shouldn't use the word
enforced. And um so they're
[1:22:17] grandfathered in and they have no
parking and it's very burdensome to the
[1:22:21] neighbors and um
>> I guess my clarification
[1:22:24] » to keep the the you have you know one
required beyond the two or the dwelling
[1:22:30] unit. My clarification on that would be
where where you're indicating that we've
[1:22:35] had issues in the past. Is that because
they're parking in the neighbor's spots
[1:22:40] or parking on the street when when it's
illegal to park on the street or when
[1:22:44] when is it the issue?
>> It was a combination of things. Probably
[1:22:47] council can address it more, but we we
you know, we've had numerous problems
[1:22:52] with um no, you know, that these units
are rented out and there's no parking
[1:22:57] associated with them and so it's caused
burdens for people.
[1:23:01] Oh, so
I guess I'm still not clear what the
[1:23:04] burden is when like during the week you
can't park on the street. So if they're
[1:23:09] renting it during the week, where where
are they park? Are they parking the
[1:23:11] neighbor spots or what?
>> It's already limited right now as it is
[1:23:17] » parking on on the street, you know,
during the day
[1:23:20] » illegally. Oh, and that overnight. Okay.
like um uh that had an alley, they would
[1:23:27] park in the alley or on neighbors, you
know, property a little more.
[1:23:33] You know, they're being Yeah.
encroached. Parking
[1:23:37] » is an issue sometimes.
>> Some sometimes it is.
[1:23:40] » It is, but that's it. It was a lot of um
on street parking and and kind of the
[1:23:46] traffic associated with that, but
it added to what was on the street
[1:23:52] already. And so that was where a lot of
complaints were. Sometimes it was
[1:23:56] encroachment on the neighbors property
or you know
[1:24:01] parking over driveways, sidewalks that
it kind of runs the gamut, but um
[1:24:06] » but then they would just be you could
call enforcement and get them ticketed
[1:24:10] or whatever.
um
[1:24:13] » do not have enforcement.
>> Well, [laughter] things like that.
[1:24:18] » I know.
>> Um but you know, even if there is that
[1:24:22] enforcement angle of it, it creates a
burden for the city.
[1:24:25] » Yeah.
>> I I support at least one additional
[1:24:29] required space.
Um
[1:24:33] again I think it it relieves a lot of
burden on residents and I think city
[1:24:39] resources in some situations. Some parts
of the city some areas it's not a
[1:24:44] problem in others it it does create a
problem and I don't want to create more
[1:24:51] tension and I guess this could be
another example of maybe there's an
[1:24:55] opportunity to relax a requirement in
the future if we felt it was
[1:24:59] unnecessary. So if we required a certain
amount of additional parking and we
[1:25:05] found that that wasn't necessary in the
future, we could possibly remove that
[1:25:09] requirement.
>> I guess I my other thought on that too
[1:25:11] is you know yes if if everyone on your
block all built an ADU and there was
[1:25:18] they didn't provide any additional
parking like that could obviously be an
[1:25:21] issue. You got one house per block.
[1:25:27] You know how much is that actually
impacting parking?
[1:25:31] » [cough]
>> And again, especially depending on who's
[1:25:33] living there, right? They may not need a
car though when um
[1:25:37] [cough and clears throat] all of a
sudden then they're they don't have
[1:25:39] anywhere to park and they have to move
their car at night and so then they're
[1:25:44] kind of blocking your, you know, part of
your garage in the alley because that's
[1:25:49] the only spot they've got. Um, so I
would just say that um I would only
[1:25:55] support having parking included and that
after it exceeds a certain square
[1:26:00] footage, I would like to follow the
ordinance requiresments for square
[1:26:05] footage based parking numbers that but I
would only support one minimum space per
[1:26:13] per ADU beyond the two required. So, if
someone has four already, they don't
[1:26:18] need anymore, but that um one beyond the
two required, I I I would feel
[1:26:24] comfortable with that. I don't feel
comfortable with eliminating parking
[1:26:29] » in multif family. What's the parking
requirement?
[1:26:32] » Um I believe it's two per dwelling unit.
I would have to
[1:26:36] » So, for R3
>> Oh, that's right. We should
[1:26:40] » in 1.2 in R3 specifically. Sorry. I was
thinking like
[1:26:44] » I just know cuz I use it all the time.
>> I was We just discussed this too. Okay.
[1:26:49] » So, what's the issue with you using that
as the requirement?
[1:26:54] » What was the requirement again?
>> Well, that's an R3 multif family.
[1:26:59] » That's an apartment.
>> Understood.
[1:27:02] » Right. So, the single family home is
required two spaces. Ordinance as
[1:27:05] presented. We require one additional
space if you build it on your single
[1:27:09] family home lot. So, three spaces total.
Um it sounds like the other option
[1:27:13] that's being considered uh it seems like
we're not interested in completely
[1:27:18] eliminating parking spaces at least to
start. Um the other options on the table
[1:27:23] would be to base it off of the square
footage in article 18 uh so that it's
[1:27:28] possibly one space for 400 square feet
maybe a fair number. So that way if
[1:27:33] you're on the high end it would require
two spaces.
[1:27:36] um
>> maybe it's 400 to X number and then over
[1:27:40] that amount then it brings it into the
higher number and you guys could figure
[1:27:44] that out based on what you feel
occupancy rise those square footages
[1:27:48] might house I know we don't want to say
an ADU is multifamily but
[1:27:54] » it is
>> it is
[1:27:56] » you know we're we're allowing someone
else to live
[1:27:59] » on our property we have those
requirements already
[1:28:05] do we need to recreate.
[1:28:09] » But there's not the size requirements
that the size restrictions we're talking
[1:28:14] about here, right? We talked about right
now we're talking about a maximum of 800
[1:28:18] square ft.
I think with that maximum size
[1:28:22] requirement, I'm still comfortable with
just requiring one additional
[1:28:27] parking space.
Thoughts on this parking space? Let's
[1:28:33] let's uh try to condense this. So, we're
we're good with a maximum size of 800
[1:28:41] square ft and we have two um so do we
want one space at that maximum or two
[1:28:49] spaces
>> for the maximum or do we want no
[1:28:53] restrictions on parking? Those are those
are some of the discussions that we've
[1:28:58] had. I hear that we want some
restrictions on for the most part a
[1:29:03] parking space.
>> I want no restrictions, but I'm good
[1:29:05] with just one.
>> Okay. So, [laughter]
[1:29:08] » I'm good with one.
>> Up to 800 square feet. What is the
[1:29:13] consensus for the number of parking
spaces required?
[1:29:16] » I'm still one.
>> I would say one to 600 or 400 to 600
[1:29:21] square feet would be one space and after
that would be 1.5.
[1:29:26] How about
>> what's.5 of a space?
[1:29:29] » Oh no, no fractions. What do you do with
that space? [laughter]
[1:29:34] » How about one to 800 and over 800 it's
one? It's two.
[1:29:38] » Yeah. [laughter]
1.5 is because you have people work
[1:29:43] nights. You have different shifts and
the residents, you know, they they o
[1:29:48] overall you get the average of Okay.
That's not one unit, right? Round.
[1:29:54] » Can you answer how many people you think
successfully occupy if it was per your
[1:29:59] standards an 800 square foot dwelling
unit an ADU how many people do you think
[1:30:05] will be in there
>> well
[1:30:08] » maximum
[laughter]
[1:30:10] » maximum typically 10
>> I mean what would you say would roughly
[1:30:15] if you figured
>> it says that at 320 is the minimum for
[1:30:20] three people
>> that's why I think that after 600 it
[1:30:24] needs to go up to
>> but you're looking at just maximum imum,
[1:30:26] not typical. So, if we're looking at an
800 foot unit, right, that's a
[1:30:30] onebedroom typically or whatever, that's
two adults,
[1:30:35] » three people.
Okay. Yeah. So, two adults and a kid.
[1:30:39] » Um, like right now, my wife and I, two
bed, one bath place, and it's it's one
[1:30:43] we share, one car.
>> It could be three adults.
[1:30:46] » It could be three adults. And so that's
why I think once you get above a certain
[1:30:50] square footage, you need to consider
>> the parking space requirement.
[1:30:56] » Why not?
>> It also could be one person
[1:30:58] » load instead of square footage.
>> Why not occupant load instead of square
[1:31:02] footage? I could build an 800 foot ADU
and use 500 square feet of it for my
[1:31:09] home office, an arcade, a gaming room.
It could still be a one-bedroom ADU even
[1:31:14] with 800 square feet. And then you're
telling me I need two parking spaces.
[1:31:18] » So what if we made it based on bedrooms?
Then that's a really
[1:31:22] » was occupant load. If you've got three,
you get one. If you're over three, you
[1:31:26] need I would probably
>> square footage.
[1:31:29] » Sorry. I would advise against occupant
load because that if they rent it for
[1:31:33] six months and then a new renter comes
in, it's going to
[1:31:37] » it's going to be an how do you track
that
[1:31:40] » load stays the same? The max
>> I guess I guess the maximum
[1:31:44] » would be your permit, right? All right.
>> I'm telling you, you can have four
[1:31:47] people in there. I don't care if you
rent it to one or two or three. I've
[1:31:52] told you you could have four. And that's
what I determine you're parking on is
[1:31:56] the maximum occupant load, not who's
physically in there.
[1:32:00] » Yeah. I think
>> actually when we do rental inspections,
[1:32:04] I do ask the landlord, okay, based on
this, you qualify for eight people.
[1:32:12] Okay. the landlord can say I don't want
more than six.
[1:32:19] » Okay? Because I always did that because
being you know 10 rental units and stuff
[1:32:25] there were it was my property and I
could decide how many people I want to
[1:32:29] rent to. Now even though I could rent to
more we always do and I just want to
[1:32:35] make that clear. We always do ask the
landlord how many do you want to rent?
[1:32:41] » So there is a little that we could say,
"Yeah, you couldn't have 10 people in
[1:32:45] here." And the landlord is like, "Oh my
god, I want 10 people in here. I want to
[1:32:49] only rent to six."
>> So,
[1:32:52] » yeah, I I will say the ordinance as it
is currently, pretty much every use is
[1:32:58] based off of square footage except for
housing in which it's based on the
[1:33:02] number of dwelling units. In the case of
multif family, it's one and a quarter
[1:33:05] per dwelling unit. For single and two
family homes, it's two per dwelling
[1:33:09] unit. Um, I would feel more comfortable
tying it to either square footage
[1:33:15] » or or number of dwelling units um
because it would just be more consistent
[1:33:20] with the ordinance. And then occupant
load that that's a building code thing.
[1:33:24] It's not like within the zoning
ordinance. So, you'd be tying together
[1:33:27] two separate ordinances in order to
calculate your parking requirements. It
[1:33:30] just becomes very muddied. Um, I would
say
[1:33:34] » if we're if we're looking at also in
comparison to the other compared some
[1:33:38] cities here, there's a none and just
one. None of those are tied to square
[1:33:43] footage.
>> I would tie it to dwelling.
[1:33:48] » Yeah, they can just keep it simple. Just
do one and that alleviates some of the
[1:33:52] concern with parking, but we're not
being too restrictive.
[1:33:56] » Okay. Keep it simple.
>> A dwelling unit. An ADU is one dwelling
[1:34:01] unit. Okay, thank you. So, we're down to
we're going to have multiple spaces
[1:34:09] based on square footage or up to 800
square ft, which is the maximum that
[1:34:14] we're um considering here. Only requires
one parking space. What's
[1:34:22] Mr. Smith, where are you at with this?
and more probably more aligned with
[1:34:27] Kathy on this like a four to six is one
six to eight is two you know Kathy
[1:34:32] mentioned earlier about being neighborly
with this whole thing and I think that
[1:34:36] probably
aligns more with that but I could be
[1:34:40] convinced either way on that set on it
>> miss
[1:34:44] » yeah I I can go either way too I think
about parking and being neighborly that
[1:34:49] the one thing that is good about this is
that it has to be owner occupied And
[1:34:55] that's different than, you know, a
weekly rental where someone lives in
[1:35:00] Chicago and is renting it.
>> I I would hope
[1:35:03] » a weekly rental is supposed to have
someone
[1:35:07] » a local agent.
>> Locally agent, but we all know how
[1:35:10] » we know how that goes. Exactly.
>> I I could be convinced either way as
[1:35:14] well.
>> Well, we're going to have to make a
[1:35:15] decision here. So [laughter] So Mr.
Herbert, where where are you at with
[1:35:19] this um one space? Particularly also
since you owner is gonna be on site. So
[1:35:25] be neighborly. You can talk to your
neighbor and figure it out.
[1:35:28] » Okay, Mr.
>> I support one space. Yep. There's always
[1:35:34] those extremes that are possible and can
be out there. I I support one additional
[1:35:38] space.
>> Rice. Okay, Kathy,
[1:35:40] » you already know how I feel.
>> Okay. All right. So, um, we've already
[1:35:44] got a majority of people saying one up
to 800.
[1:35:52] I think that covers everything that has
to
[1:35:56] » that covers all of my points. There is
the comment uh from Commissioner Eert
[1:36:00] who couldn't be here tonight regarding
conditional versus special use permit.
[1:36:04] So currently we have it set up as a
conditional use permit where it would be
[1:36:08] reviewed by staff to make sure all these
standards are met. Uh they pay a $100
[1:36:12] fee for our current fee schedule. a
special use would require them to go
[1:36:16] before you all um for a review. They
would additionally be look you would
[1:36:20] additionally be looking at the special
use standards um which are uh subjective
[1:36:26] in nature. We can kind of get into them
specifically if we want. Um but
[1:36:30] essentially you'd be looking at it
matching the character of the area being
[1:36:33] in line with the goals of the master
plan. Um it would be a public hearing so
[1:36:38] public comment would be taken. Uh we'd
have to do noticing. Uh and then you
[1:36:42] would submit a recommendation to the
city commission who would also be
[1:36:44] looking at those standards and your
recommendation
[1:36:47] » each and every time someone applied
>> each and every time someone applied for
[1:36:51] ADU.
>> So
[1:36:53] » Miss Bers,
>> so um I have mixed feelings. One is that
[1:36:59] we love when we have the general public
attend and hopefully we can hear all
[1:37:05] your thoughts in a few minutes. Um, and
so there may be situations where it's
[1:37:11] just if it is only a conditional use and
the neighbors have no ability to voice
[1:37:17] concerns about certain things, um, you
know, you're not you're not going to
[1:37:22] have that insight. um you know so I
think I like the idea of the special use
[1:37:29] um because it then allows for
um the mindset of you know if the
[1:37:37] current garage is somehow grandfathered
in and it's a couple feet away from this
[1:37:43] other property and you know and they're
concerned about when they try to back
[1:37:48] out they have limited sight lines
already and everything. That's stuff you
[1:37:51] would maybe want to know to consider,
but it doesn't in essence eliminate them
[1:37:56] being allowed to do it. So, I like the
idea of it being a special use to then
[1:38:04] be even more neighborly, but it does add
more um cost to the applicant. They
[1:38:10] would be required to come before the
planning commission. Would they have to
[1:38:14] to come before the planning commission?
They would not have to provide a series
[1:38:18] of drawings and surveys, would they? Or
would they?
[1:38:22] » Uh, they'd likely have to supply some
form of plot plan. Um, it might not
[1:38:26] necessarily have to be assigned and
sealed drawings per se, but it would
[1:38:29] have to be legible to clearly depict
that they're meeting all the ordinance
[1:38:33] requirements. I I would typically
require that
[1:38:35] » just in a staff review, some form of
plan to show that you're meeting all the
[1:38:39] setbacks. And then specifically in
regards to if you have some form of
[1:38:44] legally non-conforming structure,
>> you can't expand on that structure. Um,
[1:38:49] so if you were to build if you have a
non-conforming garage that has
[1:38:52] non-conforming setbacks, I I couldn't
with this language, you wouldn't be
[1:38:56] allowed to expand that into an ADU. That
would be expanding the non-conforming.
[1:39:00] » Yes.
>> Okay. Any thoughts on conditional versus
[1:39:05] special?
>> Definitely conditional. I think for
[1:39:08] special use, right, we would have to
draft criteria.
[1:39:13] » Well, there there are general standards
in the ordinance, but there may be
[1:39:16] additional ones that
>> So, we'd have to consider that, right?
[1:39:20] We may just have some general standards
for a special use, but we may have to
[1:39:26] create other if we went the special use
route, we may have to create other
[1:39:30] criteria to review.
So I will say we I don't think we
[1:39:35] included it in this sample language
based on the feedback we had received
[1:39:39] previous but there's there are
subjective criteria such as whether or
[1:39:44] not you want the ADU to match with the
current aesthetic of the primary
[1:39:49] dwelling um for a special use in it's
the same ordinance section article 11
[1:39:54] has the special use standards and the
conditional use standards use it would
[1:39:58] essentially be the same format here uh
possibly with addition
[1:40:03] We could have those. That's not
necessarily required. But then the big
[1:40:06] difference is you'd be looking at the
special use standards and it would be a
[1:40:09] public hearing.
[1:40:12] » Where are you at with that, Eron?
>> Uh, so I I support conditional use.
[1:40:17] Okay. uh if someone you know you talked
about those those other standards if
[1:40:22] someone disagreed with the city's
decision it was say it was a condition a
[1:40:28] conditional use said no I don't think
that you know it doesn't match this part
[1:40:33] you know it's not close enough to how
everything else looks if if you
[1:40:38] disagreed with them what's their course
of action after that
[1:40:41] » um I you could theoretically appeal um I
I forget the exact appeal process if you
[1:40:46] aren't the applicant
Um, but the applicant after they're
[1:40:50] handed the determination, uh, with the
minutes being approved and everything,
[1:40:55] they then have a certain window. I
believe it's 30 days to appeal the
[1:40:58] decision in a circuit court. Um, if you
are not the applicant, you some sort of
[1:41:05] coalition of neighbors. I I'm not sure
what the process is, but I believe they
[1:41:08] could have some form of route of appeal
if they were against the decision.
[1:41:12] expanding recently changed to expand a
little bit more but yeah
[1:41:17] » it wouldn't be well the the zoning
administrator didn't support this
[1:41:21] conditional use but I want to appeal to
the planning commission for approval
[1:41:26] » yes so the if they wanted to appeal my
administrative decision that would be a
[1:41:30] process through our zoning board of
appeals so if they believe I have
[1:41:33] misinterpreted the ordinance and they
would like to appeal that have the
[1:41:36] zoning board appeals look at it and read
the language and make a determination
[1:41:40] they could certainly do that um the
intention with conditional use standards
[1:41:43] is that they are supposed to be
clear-cut such that I as a staff member
[1:41:47] am not
using my opinion in this I'm looking at
[1:41:51] objective criteria to determine if it
you are meeting this setback you're
[1:41:55] meeting this height requirement um you
are meeting this square footage limit um
[1:41:59] such that there's no uh
>> discretion
[1:42:02] » discretion yeah
>> okay understand
[1:42:06] » all right let's give some guidance here
um as to whether or not we want to
[1:42:10] request ire special use permit or a
conditional use permit. Um
[1:42:16] » do we do you think that the the matching
the character of the existing was that
[1:42:22] the only kind of subjective?
That would be the only thing that I can
[1:42:27] think of off the top of my head that you
may want to add and maybe more better
[1:42:31] applicable through the form of a special
use permit because I as staff may not
[1:42:35] feel comfortable making that
determination unless we laid out very
[1:42:38] clear criteria such as considering the
>> pitch
[1:42:42] removed right if the matching the
character of the existing if that wasn't
[1:42:47] part of the criteria for an ADU
>> which
[1:42:54] that's a special use permit to
>> No, no, no. If that if that wasn't
[1:42:58] required, if that wasn't required and it
was purely setbacks and square footage
[1:43:02] and coverage and parking spaces,
>> uh, it would just have to meet the codes
[1:43:07] as is. It could be constructed. It
wouldn't have to look,
[1:43:10] » but then you would be comfortable as
staff to
[1:43:12] » Yeah, I would be comfortable staff
reviewing that as long as I'm
[1:43:15] » as a conditional.
>> I think right now in the language that
[1:43:19] was presented, I package 12. Um, it's J
does talk about a newly constructed
[1:43:27] detached structure shall be constructed
with the design and material that only
[1:43:32] consistent with the primary dwelling.
>> Yeah. So they would be maintaining a
[1:43:36] material um but it might not be exactly
aesthetically uh similar. But if you had
[1:43:44] um
for example stucco on the exterior
[1:43:48] » so you know this has kind of come up
over different times over the years.
[1:43:52] I'm not particularly a fan of it because
it's for the most part taste. I can take
[1:43:59] my single family home right now and
paint it any which way long as it's good
[1:44:03] paint and good condition. It can be
polka dots and stripes and and right but
[1:44:08] things are go to taste, right? And I
think that'll the market will kind of
[1:44:14] dictate well I have this attractive
accessory dwelling unit. people people
[1:44:19] are attracted to it and they want to
they want to rent it or my family wants
[1:44:22] to live there.
>> I don't know. I can go both ways on that
[1:44:26] because you could go the cheap route and
plan to have a family member live in it
[1:44:31] and then all your neighbors are upset
because aesthetically it doesn't look
[1:44:35] like it belongs. I mean, do you allow
like cinder block and things like that
[1:44:40] for a dwelling? is I mean do you have
limitations on what they'd be able to do
[1:44:45] if there was no standard
>> acceptable building material?
[1:44:49] Absolutely.
>> Yes. So maybe what you build to look
[1:44:53] like, you know, a garage that you put a
car in might not have the same aesthetic
[1:44:57] appeal that something that all of your
neighbors are now 20 foot high up
[1:45:02] looking at. Um so
>> it's your land. Don't look at it.
[1:45:07] » I don't know. It's it's I think it's the
same as just just our general
[1:45:11] construction requirements, right? We
don't require people to have
[1:45:16] » pretty homes and
>> Right. But if there's a certain standard
[1:45:20] that's already established on your
property, what is the harm in saying it
[1:45:23] should have a similar appearance?
>> That also puts the challenge to us to
[1:45:30] review that and go, I think that's close
enough or I don't think that's close
[1:45:34] enough. Um,
>> and I I can't really think of examples
[1:45:40] where in the city we've really been
challenged in changes, either initial
[1:45:46] construction or changes. Yeah, there's
some properties that aren't as
[1:45:48] attractive as others, but
>> So, Daltton, are you saying if it had
[1:45:52] the requirement that it has to have
similar materials to the house that the
[1:45:58] um building department and you alone
would not be capable of?
[1:46:04] » Yes. So I guess the planning commission.
>> Yeah. To clarify that statement, I as
[1:46:08] staff could review the materials, the
pitch of the roof, kind of if we outline
[1:46:14] those like as objective criteria of like
how is this looking similar? I could if
[1:46:18] you if it were to say does this match
the general character of the home, I
[1:46:23] couldn't really make that determination
as staff. So if the wording had
[1:46:27] something
[1:46:30] design and materials generally
consistent, it's just that the materials
[1:46:34] are consistent.
>> You could address you guys could address
[1:46:38] that.
>> I don't want to. As it's written right
[1:46:41] now, are you telling me that I if I have
vinyl sighting on my home that when I
[1:46:45] build a garage, I can't build a metal
pole bar because the materials are
[1:46:48] different?
>> No. What?
[1:46:51] » So So currently what it says is a
material generally consistent. So it
[1:46:54] wouldn't
>> Sure.
[1:46:56] » Yeah. This is how it's written
currently. This isn't a public hearing.
[1:46:59] So it's not like sighting on my house. I
can't build a polebar style ADU with
[1:47:04] metal siding because the materials
aren't consistent with my home. Even if
[1:47:08] the color matches, the trim matches,
>> they're metal and vinyl. I can't do
[1:47:13] that.
>> Is that what we're saying based on how
[1:47:17] it's written? Well, so I guess I'm
wondering, do you want a 24 foot pole
[1:47:22] barn next door to your house?
>> But I could build the 24 Well,
[1:47:27] » not saying this for sure, but I can
probably built a 24 foot pole barn as a
[1:47:32] house.
>> Yes.
[1:47:33] » But we're not seeing that in in the
city. And right, I put some faith into
[1:47:40] our residents and our owners.
Yeah. Does does everyone make the nicest
[1:47:45] thing every time? No. But from what I
see, things are done within reason.
[1:47:52] Yeah, there's always that option. I I
did this addition, this home, this
[1:47:56] change as cheaply and as unattractively
as possible.
[1:48:01] » I'm not really seeing that to a level
that would bring me concern. Let me ask
[1:48:06] a question. If it's if the initial
requirement is conditional use permit
[1:48:11] and I submit a pole barn with aluminum
siding, but the rest of my house is
[1:48:17] stucco, what's the procedure then?
Special use permit.
[1:48:21] » I can look at the material as a
conditional use permit and say this says
[1:48:24] that the material must match and I can
say objectively that that does not
[1:48:28] match. If you were to expand that into
the general character and make that more
[1:48:33] of a subjective criteria, I I can I
cannot make that deter.
[1:48:38] » That's not my question. If I'm the if
I'm the applicant, but I want to do a
[1:48:42] metalsighted polebar,
>> I I can say no. It must be the same
[1:48:45] material as your home.
>> What's what's my next um step?
[1:48:49] » ZBA, right?
>> But you could appeal my determination or
[1:48:53] ask for a variance.
>> Okay.
[1:48:55] » So, I could ask for a variance. That
would be the procedure
[1:48:59] » if I wanted to do this.
>> So then yeah.
[1:49:02] » Okay.
>> So then if J
[1:49:04] » Now I would I would say that getting a
variance on that standing would be a
[1:49:08] very tricky situation because I would be
hardressed to say that there's a unique
[1:49:13] circumstance applying to your property.
That means you can't put stucco instead
[1:49:17] of metal siding.
>> Okay. Um,
[1:49:19] » so the way I mean I don't necessarily
think everything you do on your property
[1:49:25] needs to be exactly the same material.
You know, you might have field stone on
[1:49:30] one thing and siding on another and, you
know, stonework or whatever else. So,
[1:49:36] I'm just trying to understand this
better. The way Jay is worded right now,
[1:49:40] the way Jay is worded right now,
what would need to be changed to make it
[1:49:46] where you would be comfortable
as building officials and zoning to just
[1:49:53] be able to evaluate it?
>> Well, so I guess there are a few options
[1:49:56] before us. So, we could eliminate it if
we don't feel that that's an appropriate
[1:50:01] thing to be restricting. We could just
eliminate that uh item. Uh J.
[1:50:07] One thing
[1:50:11] of rarely do we look at usually
dimensional. Okay. It's usually
[1:50:17] dimensional. It's Yeah, I don't want to
go too far down that rabbit hole because
[1:50:21] we're already kind of within the
discussion of conditional versus special
[1:50:25] use permit as is. Um but so what we
could is we could adjust it. Um, we
[1:50:33] could remove it and then it would work a
bit better. If we don't like the
[1:50:36] material component, we could remove it
and then it could be viewed as a
[1:50:39] conditional use permit. If you want it
to view more as the character of it to
[1:50:43] match, special use permit may be more
appropriate. We could refer to things
[1:50:49] separately as the pitch of the roof. Uh,
for example, if you want to maintain uh
[1:50:55] aesthetic across the two, that might be
more appropriate for staff to look at.
[1:50:59] Um, it just depends if that's something
we really want to hammer down on and
[1:51:03] restrict.
>> I I I don't I I don't want to be that I
[1:51:09] personally don't want to be that
restrictive. I would prefer it to be
[1:51:12] conditional use. I would prefer that it
didn't have the I would like it to to to
[1:51:17] match kind of like it, but I would I
don't want that requirement.
[1:51:22] Uh, I think
processes can be a challenge as it is
[1:51:27] without it. Let's say it didn't have
that and I wanted to put this ADU above
[1:51:32] my garage. The the permitting process
for at least as a general citizen,
[1:51:37] there's a lot of anxiety there and you
know permitting and getting contractors
[1:51:42] or having the skills and getting that
work done. There's a lot there. And to
[1:51:46] add on the special use process,
I don't want to go that route. I would
[1:51:52] prefer to go the condition. I would
prefer to remove that requirement, make
[1:51:55] it conditional use, have faith in my
community and and go that direction.
[1:52:01] » I agree.
>> I agree. I
[1:52:03] » I think we have consensus conditional
use permit
[1:52:07] permit and
>> and eliminating the standard uh J
[1:52:11] » uh which is
>> so are you evaluating anything about the
[1:52:14] aesthetic or nothing?
>> Uh if we eliminate Jay, it would not be
[1:52:18] evaluating the aesthetic. We evaluate
anything pitch of the roof or anything?
[1:52:23] » Uh, nothing. Yes. Or we could change
something else if you prefer, but
[1:52:27] » we don't evaluate aesthetics for new
home builds as long as it meets code
[1:52:32] » or remodel or just
>> materials. Remodel change
[1:52:35] » materials. That might answer the
question I'm looking for. Is there
[1:52:39] certain materials that would not meet
code but still are building materials?
[1:52:43] » Requiring that fire rated wall.
>> Pardon? Would we require the fire rated
[1:52:49] wall?
>> I think it would depend on how close it
[1:52:52] is to other structures, right?
>> Are there materials you're worried about
[1:52:55] being used?
>> No, I'm trying to find out are there
[1:52:58] certain building materials that aren't
allowed for an exterior
[1:53:03] like aesthetic or not an aesthetic, but
related to what you're is there anything
[1:53:07] that you just don't allow within the
city limits to be utilized? No, they can
[1:53:12] utilize any building material that's
exterior grade
[1:53:15] » except if it has to be non-com or you
know because the wall needs to be fire
[1:53:19] rated. Well, then they have to use
certain materials because
[1:53:24] » so right now there's really no standard.
So then to incorporate one on the ADU
[1:53:29] would be really restricting for no
reason when there's already nothing that
[1:53:34] correct. Okay.
>> So eliminate uh J paragraph. Okay. All
[1:53:40] right.
So,
[1:53:44] Dalton, have we answered all of your
>> uh Yeah, those were all my particular
[1:53:48] questions uh that that I was uncertain
of and felt the board uh it would be
[1:53:54] worthy of discussion if there any
additional concerns. Uh
[1:53:58] » I have one clarification.
>> Yeah.
[1:53:59] » Um for a point C where it's the property
owner shall reside in either one. Um, do
[1:54:04] they have to be currently residing to
get the permit to build it or if they're
[1:54:11] currently, you know, they permanent
residence is elsewhere or they're
[1:54:15] renting out whatever and they want to
build an ADU so that they can move in
[1:54:18] and then rent the ADU, like do they have
to live there first?
[1:54:22] » That would likely have to be some form
of condition of approval. I may have to
[1:54:26] do some research on that before
providing a clear answer.
[1:54:28] » Okay. Because I think I saw like there
were various examples of either way. I
[1:54:33] think one of the cities you had there
kind of maybe kind of spelled that out,
[1:54:37] but um I think we should just make sure
we clarify that because
[1:54:41] I I I'm fine with it being that it has
to be a primary dwelling, but it would
[1:54:46] be probably you might be useful if if
someone just doesn't currently live
[1:54:51] there, but is going to move in after the
ADU is built. But
[1:54:56] » I have one more question based on that.
So, if the per prime property owner can
[1:55:02] actually live in the ADO, does that mean
then their house can then be a rental?
[1:55:09] » Uh, correct. Yes.
>> Okay. So, if their house currently isn't
[1:55:14] allowed to be a rental, as soon as you
build an ADU and you decide that you
[1:55:17] need to downsize, you can rent out your
home property, your house, and live in
[1:55:21] the ADU.
>> Why wouldn't their current house not be
[1:55:24] allowed? Do you allow any property to be
a rental if they're not currently zoned
[1:55:28] a rental?
>> Yeah, if they're in R1. Yeah.
[1:55:31] » Okay. So, in R1, do they have to do
anything special?
[1:55:34] » The zoning the zoning ordinance does not
restrict uh rentals outside of
[1:55:39] short-term rentals as its own specific
use. That's outside of the scope of the
[1:55:43] zoning ordinance. Um, any dwelling unit,
single family home could theoretically
[1:55:48] be a rental if they meet those
requirements in chapter eight.
[1:55:52] » Yeah.
>> Okay. All right. I'm going to ask you
[1:55:55] something afterward on a sidebar.
>> Thanks.
[1:55:58] » All right. Commissioners, are we ready
to I wanted to get a few more. I had a
[1:56:04] few other side items related to this
that I go ahead.
[1:56:08] » Sorry. So, the easy one
>> uh in our definitions, accessory
[1:56:11] structure says not for habitation.
>> You might need to look at that if that's
[1:56:16] necessary or not. Um,
so in the example of a detached garage,
[1:56:24] would we want to have words that says
the ADU has to be above the first floor?
[1:56:31] » So you have a detached garage.
Okay. Now, now it can be up to 24 feet.
[1:56:36] Well, can the whole thing be do we do we
want the whole thing to be able to be an
[1:56:40] ADU? Do we want to say, hey, no, we only
want that to be on the second floor.
[1:56:45] Let's say I have
>> So, let me say square footage,
[1:56:48] » right? [clears throat]
>> Uh I guess yeah, the square footage part
[1:56:51] could could pinch that
>> and the parking.
[1:56:54] » So, if they turn their garage into a
twotory ADU is what you're saying.
[1:56:59] » Yeah, I guess the size limit would would
kind of probably prevent.
[1:57:02] » Yeah, because if their garage is 20 by
20, then they could in essence be a
[1:57:06] twotory because then it would be 800.
>> Yeah. So, so yeah,
[1:57:11] » I guess it's something for us to kind of
to to think about. I think it's another
[1:57:14] thing that you know that again how how
is that going to work unless it's a big
[1:57:19] property that can accommodate additional
parking and
[1:57:22] » which exists in the city. I don't want
>> additional lot coverage and all of that
[1:57:25] stuff to still be under the maximum. So
maybe we don't it's going to that's
[1:57:30] going to regulate by other requirements,
right? What what if I have an existing
[1:57:35] detached garage
and we that's 14t tall and it's now made
[1:57:41] 24 feet tall.
>> I mean, if you if you satisfy all the
[1:57:46] other Yeah. setback coverage parking
requirements because you because you're
[1:57:50] taking away parking by doing it. Sure.
>> You can't make a garage 24t tall. It's
[1:57:55] only if it becomes an ADU.
>> That's what I mean. Let's say you have a
[1:57:58] 14 foot garage, existing garage, you
make it 24 feet tall. Do you are you
[1:58:03] comfortable with people being on both
both floors?
[1:58:05] » You can make it 24 feet tall if it's
going to house people.
[1:58:08] » Correct. You you make the an ADU.
>> Yeah.
[1:58:12] » I'm not strong either way, but I you
know, we've talked about that in other
[1:58:16] parts of the city where hey, above the
first floor kind of talk,
[1:58:20] » but would that open up another can of
worms because if you're only allowed to
[1:58:24] have two dwelling units on a single
family lot and now all of a sudden you
[1:58:28] have
>> it's one ADU still. It's one ADU, but
[1:58:32] how does that work with if you do like
you're basically making it an upper and
[1:58:36] lower kind of townhouse where you do a
one unit on the lower level or you say
[1:58:42] only one
>> only one? Yeah, it would just be a
[1:58:45] standalone.
>> But is it multifamily,
[1:58:49] one unit down, one unit up or is it
just one unit?
[1:58:53] » Well, then that's fine because the other
wouldn't be right.
[1:58:56] » Yeah. If you were putting two units, you
couldn't do that. That's not an ADU.
[1:59:00] » No.
>> Yeah.
[1:59:01] » And we're still limited to the height of
the principal dwelling, too. So, you're
[1:59:05] not going to be Yeah.
>> a 24 that's taller than the single
[1:59:09] » one story in the front or something.
>> Okay.
[1:59:12] » So, um
>> I think that's fine.
[1:59:14] » So, then let's maybe have it fully
internalized. So, let's look the route
[1:59:19] where this ex this accessory structure
doesn't exist and it's going to get
[1:59:25] added to create this accessory dwelling
unit.
[1:59:31] people might still want an
accessory structure. Okay. But we will
[1:59:37] still have that in
>> they might want when that becomes
[1:59:42] modified then it becomes an ADU. It's
not accessory structure.
[1:59:48] » But how are we are we going to treat it
as an accessory structure for setbacks?
[1:59:53] And
I think it's still an accessory
[1:59:57] structure that's allowed to be an ADU.
>> Okay. So that's how we're going to look
[2:00:01] at it.
>> Yes. So it's an accessory structure. It
[2:00:04] has to meet all the requirements of an
accessory structure.
[2:00:08] » And then it would also be an accessory
>> for zoning purposes. It can be an
[2:00:12] accessory structure for building code. I
would not call it that. Accessory
[2:00:18] structures have codes that are applied
to them and not to a primary home that
[2:00:24] are much more restrictive.
>> Do you think there's additional words we
[2:00:30] might want to consider for
>> Let me Let's look into that because um
[2:00:36] our building code doesn't allow you to
live an accessory structure unless it's
[2:00:41] used.
>> Okay.
[2:00:43] » Because an accessory structure wouldn't
have it's a utility.
[2:00:48] » So that sounds like something that maybe
staff
[2:00:50] » Yeah. might want to smooth out a little
bit.
[2:00:54] » Um,
[2:00:59] and maybe not for big discussion, but I
I I think we want the public if this
[2:01:08] becomes something for consideration to
try to fully understand what the impact
[2:01:14] of an accessory dwelling unit might be
on their property. I would suspect if I
[2:01:21] had an accessory dwelling unit that was
a rental that my homestead property tax
[2:01:27] exemption might be affected. I don't
know that for a fact, but I think
[2:01:33] there's that possibility that you're
paying your taxes and however taxes
[2:01:38] change for a home that someone's going
to come and look at that and go
[2:01:43] » some amount of your home is no longer
homestead exemption doesn't no longer
[2:01:48] qualifies for the homestead exemption.
>> I I don't know that for sure or not, but
[2:01:52] that's something that people might want
to find out for sure. Yeah, I would say
[2:01:56] that from like the zoning ordinance
standpoint, our here we are making the
[2:02:01] regulations that that would allow it.
It's kind of up to we want to make sure
[2:02:06] people like are we obviously want people
to be informed like that's not a noble
[2:02:10] goal, but in terms of what what we're
doing here is we're creating the
[2:02:15] regulations by which they can pursue
this. And it would the onus would kind
[2:02:19] of be on the property owners to make
sure they've done their research on
[2:02:22] implications in terms of like taxation.
>> I agree. But I I think it would be
[2:02:28] really helpful people to have some way a
brochure something for them to kind of
[2:02:34] hey before you take this step if you
know if if I'm choosing between doing a
[2:02:40] remodel of my home that fits completely
within the zoning to bring in adult
[2:02:45] children or balancing that off of I'm
going to take this accessory dwelling
[2:02:50] unit route there. there might be
important considerations for a family to
[2:02:55] understand. You know, taxes, permits are
kind of hard things [clears throat] to
[2:03:00] get around when you don't work with them
every day. And I I think it would be
[2:03:04] really important for the public to to
kind of know that if they're they're
[2:03:08] going to bring in grandma and grandpa
and well, all I really need to do is get
[2:03:12] a permit to remodel and do these changes
to my home that's perfectly within the
[2:03:16] permitting process. Well, maybe I want
to do that instead of going the [snorts]
[2:03:20] accessory dwelling unit route. I think
that's going to be really important for
[2:03:23] the public if this comes to fruition.
>> It's a good point. Thank you.
[2:03:29] » All right, that's all my additional
stuff.
[2:03:31] » All right, so we do need to give
direction as to whether or not we're
[2:03:34] ready to proceed. So I wonder though,
would it be advantageous because we have
[2:03:39] the public here today to get comments
from them that may help um you know
[2:03:46] maybe there's some things that we didn't
think of and that um I would entertain
[2:03:52] allowing them to speak and maybe give
their comments that might assist us and
[2:03:57] we appreciate you all being here.
>> All right, so let's uh open the floor up
[2:04:03] to public comment. Is there anybody here
that would like to give us some input?
[2:04:09] That is
>> an
[2:04:17] » Thank you for doing this. By the way, I
wanted to jump up about six times.
[2:04:21] » Okay. So, please state,
>> excuse me, please state your name
[2:04:25] » and move the microphone so we can maybe
>> There you go.
[2:04:28] » Am I good?
>> Yeah. There you go.
[2:04:31] » Okay. to answer um the gentleman's
question, there's this wonderful thing
[2:04:35] from Tish Law that tells potential
people that want to build ADUs the
[2:04:42] requirements and taxation issues that
might face them. Um there's also in
[2:04:48] here, and as a former teacher, I'm going
to say y'all haven't done your homework.
[2:04:54] I don't think Grand Rapids,
Detroit, Holland, Lancing, and
[2:05:00] Kalamazoo. as far as their thoughts on
ADUs and I'd like to share a couple of
[2:05:06] those with you if I could because it has
come up in your conversation.
[2:05:11] Grand Rapids um says that ADUs Am I
still good? Grand Rapids says that ADUs
[2:05:17] must measure between 400 and 850 square
ft and cannot exceed 40% of the primary
[2:05:25] structures floor area.
My question during your discussion that
[2:05:29] I got totally lost on is
>> isn't there a requirement about the lot
[2:05:35] itself and how much space the structure
may take up?
[2:05:41] » Yes.
>> Lot coverage. Yes.
[2:05:43] » Okay.
>> Correct. District.
[2:05:45] » So let the typically how this works is
you're going to give us your
[2:05:49] presentation, give us things to think
about and at the end staff can help
[2:05:54] answer some questions. Okay. would help
out better here. Okay.
[2:05:57] » So, but that this is helpful. Thank you.
>> All right. Detroit's regulatory
[2:06:01] environment reflects a more cautious
embrace of ADUs. While attached and
[2:06:06] detached ADUs are permitted,
restrictions exist in residential
[2:06:10] districts like R1 and R2 where only
pre940 carriage houses are allowed as
[2:06:17] for dwelling purposes.
Holland has opted for a narrower ADU
[2:06:22] policy allowing only detached units.
These must be smaller than the principal
[2:06:27] dwelling with maximum sizes ranging from
200 to 800 square ft based on lot size.
[2:06:35] Height limits are set at 16 ft for
ground level units and 22 ft for
[2:06:41] secondstory structures.
Um, and then this had some points from
[2:06:45] Traverse City and Lancing and Kazoo as
well. So, um, I think maybe a broader
[2:06:52] picture might help some of those
decisions. And my my last comment has to
[2:06:58] do with um the thought process behind
this whole thing, which I know you all
[2:07:05] didn't make up, but I bought my home in
R1 in a residential area, and I really
[2:07:14] really do not appreciate that changing.
uh having a 1-month rental 5 ft over my
[2:07:21] property line does not seem to me to
bode well for my enjoyment of my
[2:07:28] property. And when you take away um
gosh, I forgot your verbiage on how this
[2:07:37] is assessed when people come to want to
do an ADU and you've just said no
[2:07:43] neighbors matter. They they're not
notified. They don't get to know
[2:07:48] anything. Just deal with it. So, you've
gone from
[2:07:54] residential where
when I had my son room and I'm sure
[2:07:59] Trudy remembers all the fun we had, um,
everybody was notified and we went
[2:08:07] through the process and then I had to
get a variance because I didn't put it
[2:08:12] quite far enough away from the garage.
And I understand all that and and that's
[2:08:17] a protective measure for neighbors in
neighborhoods, which I think is what we
[2:08:24] as a city want is neighbors in
neighborhoods.
[2:08:29] So, I would appreciate it if you
consider that and consider that you had
[2:08:35] less than a 1% response. Um, to to go
through all this without recommending to
[2:08:42] the city commission that they do some
further research or I don't know, put it
[2:08:46] on the ballot. Let people decide is this
what you want in your residence or not.
[2:08:52] I I would respectfully suggest that you
make that suggestion. Thank you.
[2:08:59] » Thank you.
[2:09:07] » My name is Mark Derry,
171240s Avenue. So I'm just south of the
[2:09:12] park. Okay. And parking. Uh we have a
two two unit across the street.
[2:09:19] Grandfather owns it. We believe. Um cars
park out there. You can park out there
[2:09:24] all night long. They get a ticket. They
don't care. They've taken deliveries in
[2:09:28] the middle of the night for pizza. You
know, we got one the other day. They
[2:09:31] arrived at 11:30. They they left the
middle of the street around 12:30. Um
[2:09:36] that for some reason they seem to park
on our side. I have a garage and Trudy
[2:09:41] can tell you that at 1712
there's a space above it. It was built
[2:09:46] that way that is stubbed in for
electrical, plumbing, the whole thing.
[2:09:49] Cecil was the uh building inspector at
the time. have not done anything with
[2:09:54] it, but it would be something. If I sold
my house, somebody could put a rental
[2:09:59] unit in that garage today. There's a
parking place next to it, plus two right
[2:10:04] below it. I would hate to think that
somebody would do that to me if I had
[2:10:09] either house on either side of that. You
know, I am stunned that this the St. Joe
[2:10:14] City Commission and a group of you have
nothing more to do than try to socially
[2:10:20] engineer and worry about what we're
calling somehow the disadvantaged
[2:10:24] middle. You know, this this is more
about do what's best for this the the
[2:10:29] citizens of St. Joe that that live and
work here. I mean, the we are in one of
[2:10:34] the busiest walking streets in town.
families, dogs, strollers constantly up
[2:10:41] and down, constantly find that that unit
across the street cuz when grandpa's
[2:10:45] gone, it's a party. They they block the
sidewalk. People are forced to walk with
[2:10:51] strollers out into the street to get
down the block. I would think that's
[2:10:57] only going to get worse with what you're
proposing. This isn't going to get
[2:11:00] better. And I again I would hate to
think that somebody if I sold that unit
[2:11:06] tomorrow would turn that unit and it's
would be perfect. It's met it would meet
[2:11:10] everything that you're looking for. You
know the size of it, the siding on it. I
[2:11:16] paid $634 a square for siding if you
know building materials at all. It's the
[2:11:21] same siding that's on the uh the golf
course at Harbor Shores. You know,
[2:11:26] typical vinyl when I did it was about 85
bucks a square. That's how much more I
[2:11:31] paid. So for somebody to do that to me,
to put a unit next to me, that's
[2:11:35] incredible. And if you're telling me
that 1% responded and that's what you're
[2:11:40] working on here, that's even more. You
know, the I I am, as I sat here and
[2:11:45] listened, I need to get more involved.
I can't believe this is the same group
[2:11:49] that that dealt with the parking
downtown. You know, I have I have
[2:11:53] breakfast at Thornton's on Friday
mornings with the old coaches. when you
[2:11:57] go in there and the parking fiasco was
going on. Now I come down here and I'm
[2:12:01] listening to this.
I'm asking you not to to to put an end
[2:12:06] to it quickly. I don't think we need
more parking, more on the street. I
[2:12:10] don't think we need more people living
in garages.
[2:12:14] Okay. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
[2:12:18] » Anyone else?
>> Thank you.
[2:12:25] How you doing? My name is John Pop. I
actually is a neighbor neighbor of
[2:12:29] Marks. I live on Forest Avenue also 1700
Forest Avenue. Um I'm here uh for one
[2:12:36] main main reason is safety. What what
you guys are proposing to allow happen
[2:12:40] to the city is really going to
jeopardize your safety officers both
[2:12:44] police and fire. I did 34 years in the
city of Chicago. The worst fire you can
[2:12:49] go to is on the alley. Can't pull your
rig down there. Too many electric lines,
[2:12:55] too much stiffs. So if one of the great
things the city has is no parking right
[2:13:01] now on the streets, full accessibility
to the front of the building. Most key
[2:13:05] thing in combining a fire, a house fire
is accessibility. I can tell you your
[2:13:10] police officer will tell you the same
thing. When you pull up and there's
[2:13:13] nothing on the street, you have full
visit visibility. You have flexibility
[2:13:17] to put your car where you need to put it
and everything else. But back to the
[2:13:21] fires.
Your guys are going to allow people to
[2:13:24] live in the back of the lot, roughly
about 125 ft from the street. Well, we
[2:13:30] can't get a rig back there. So, we got
to pull the hose back. Okay. Pulling the
[2:13:35] hose back to the back of the building.
It's going to take two people. Okay. And
[2:13:40] right now, the way the city's set up is
uh we we get a manning shortage in
[2:13:46] essence until people start arriving. the
fire uh the police show up on the scene
[2:13:50] and everything else. Uh and time is of
the essence in a fire. A fire doubles
[2:13:55] every minute. Okay. One of the other
things you're doing is you're allowing
[2:14:00] people to live in a structure right next
to the garbage cans. Each one of those
[2:14:06] large 85gallon garbage cans is three and
a half gallons of gasoline when it
[2:14:11] starts to melt. Now I have two. Well, I
actually have three because I have a
[2:14:14] yard waste one too. So, we're starting
to get into some very high levels of uh
[2:14:19] accelerates. Um, like I said, the uh
location of these ADUs or is that the
[2:14:27] right word?
>> Yes,
[2:14:28] » it is.
>> I'm sorry. It is is just it's um
[2:14:32] unfortunate. You're trying to make a
situation better for people that need
[2:14:36] help, but this isn't the way to go. I
mean, because I think you're
[2:14:39] jeopardizing a lot. the lady mentioned,
you know, she she would not like to have
[2:14:46] uh her structure impeding her her
neighbors or in and same the same thing
[2:14:51] with Mark. Mark's garage is I look at
every time that's screaming. And this
[2:14:55] anybody in real estate, anybody, do you
know what his house is worth?
[2:15:00] He can he can rent his his back property
out for $1,200 a month. That's $14,000 a
[2:15:05] year. You could take a 30-year mortgage
out for $1,257 a month for $200,000. I
[2:15:13] mean, you talk about kind of going in
the wrong direction by allowing this. I
[2:15:19] think you're going to have people go out
and capsize capitalize on any house that
[2:15:23] has a garage because I'm going to raise
the price and when I go to sell it,
[2:15:27] there's not that price. That house isn't
going to be worth $300,000. It's going
[2:15:31] to be $300,000 plus
>> a second income. I mean, the initial
[2:15:36] thought is to help people, but then you
go back to the 1% of the response. I
[2:15:41] mean, that's the key. I don't I don't
know if this is an issue for everybody.
[2:15:46] It's a talked about issue for real
politicians, which thank God none of you
[2:15:49] guys are, but I mean, if you were trying
to get elected, you're going to talk
[2:15:52] about these things, but they're really
not relevant. I mean, uh I don't know. I
[2:15:59] just I just think it's a lot of effort
with a little bit of response from
[2:16:02] people. And um again, safety is really
really a key factor here for the the
[2:16:09] firefighters and and the the police
officers and everything else. I mean,
[2:16:12] you couldn't have a tougher fire in the
back of the building. I mean, here the
[2:16:17] 24 foot height, you got to you're going
to have to bring a 35 foot ladder to
[2:16:21] make the roof or to uh to to do a
rescue. That takes two guys. And all all
[2:16:28] the ladders are aluminum. They're still
really heavy. I mean, you you just don't
[2:16:32] have um the the consistent manpower to
facilitate fighting fires in the rear.
[2:16:38] And we're not even talking about a wind
blown fire. There was a fire last
[2:16:41] October on the back side of my street
>> that I walked over and uh the the one
[2:16:47] house to the west is at least 20 feet
away from the the the fire building. The
[2:16:53] whole side of it was burnt, you know? I
mean, it's just evident on that on that,
[2:16:57] you know. I mean, um, just the way it's
all structured, I think you're putting a
[2:17:02] lot of people at great risk because
you're you're you're allowing them to
[2:17:05] live in the alley or on the alley, I
should say, in the So, I just love if
[2:17:09] you guys take that in consideration. So,
>> this is good input. We appreciate it.
[2:17:13] Yeah, very much. Thank you. Anyone else
want to come up and provide comment?
[2:17:20] » All right. So, I want to I'm going to
talk to you guys as a citizen, too. I
[2:17:23] live a block away. I live on Court
Street. I've been there my entire life.
[2:17:27] So have all of my neighbors. We've all
been there for 30 plus years.
[2:17:33] [snorts] I struggle because I I think
people who own their property should be
[2:17:37] able to do whatever they want with their
property. But at the same time, I'd
[2:17:41] encourage you to think of how people are
going to take advantage of this because
[2:17:44] they are big time. I've got my neighbor
next to me and my neighbor behind me who
[2:17:50] have already committed to building ADUs
as soon as it goes through and their
[2:17:54] plan is to live in the ADU and rent out
their home. Now, you're not putting the
[2:18:00] homes only have a 30-day restriction on
them. So, they're going to do exactly
[2:18:03] what Kathy said. They're going to live
in the ADU and they're going to use
[2:18:07] their primary home now for shortterm.
It'll be 30 days
[2:18:12] technically, but they'll rent it out in
May and then June and then July and then
[2:18:16] August and September. So, I'm going to
have, you know, I've got an alley that's
[2:18:21] maybe 20 ft wide at most. We can barely
get in and out of there. When it snows
[2:18:27] in the winter, I'm the last place to get
plowed because it's an alley. Everybody
[2:18:30] knows how that works. Um, so to shove
two more homes 5 feet away from me, um,
[2:18:40] man, that's going to be I'm already
congested when I walk into my backyard.
[2:18:45] We all have six foot tall fences and I'm
looking into five other yards. I can My
[2:18:51] whole block can see me when I'm in my
backyard. So, to add two more homes in
[2:18:55] my backyard,
uh, and then the additional parking that
[2:18:58] goes with it and the additional people
that go with it. overcrowding is not
[2:19:03] something I'm excited about. Um, but I
would just think about how people are
[2:19:07] going to take advantage of it because
because they will, you know, one other
[2:19:11] thing I thought of is all right, I can
only have a 14t garage. I'm going to
[2:19:16] tell you it's an ADU then so that I can
go up to 24 and then when I'm done
[2:19:21] building I've got a 24 foot garage when
I was only allowed to have a 14ft
[2:19:26] garage, you know. Or or maybe I'll I'll
build an ADU. Gosh, I was intending on
[2:19:31] having an ADU, but what what I abandon
the use. What if I don't use it as a ADU
[2:19:38] anymore? I go back to using it as a
garage. Now I'm 24t tall. Um,
[2:19:44] » it's a good point.
>> Yeah, I would just think of how people
[2:19:46] are going to take advantage of it
because there's lots of talk about how
[2:19:49] they can do that already. Um, and it's
going to happen. You know, the the owner
[2:19:54] occupied thing is huge. Uh, I know
people that own 80 plus homes in the
[2:20:00] city of St. Joe and he's got enough
money he'll put an ADU on every single
[2:20:05] one of them and rent them out. Um, he's
looking forward to it. He can't wait.
[2:20:09] So, the owner occupied thing I think is
is a big deal because if you don't do
[2:20:13] that, you are going to run into that.
Um, the missing middle is an interesting
[2:20:18] part for me because the people that are
can afford to build these ADUs are not
[2:20:24] in the middle. If you got another 100
plus grand laying around to throw up
[2:20:29] another structure on your property,
you're not in the middle, my friend. Um,
[2:20:35] you know, you may be supporting the
middle by renting it out to them,
[2:20:40] but you, you know, the 1%'s just getting
richer. They're just putting more money
[2:20:43] in their pockets. Their home value just
went up. I think Todd made a great point
[2:20:48] when he turns around to sell his home. I
mean, how how much more is it worth now
[2:20:52] when now the middle really can't afford
to be there? And I've got, you know,
[2:20:56] there's there's people on my block that
have bought large homes intended for
[2:21:02] multifamilies and they have enough money
they just say, "No, I know this is a
[2:21:06] triplex. I know three people can be
here. I can afford to be here by
[2:21:10] myself." So, I'm, you know, I'm getting
rid of that. So, I I can see a lot of
[2:21:14] that moving forward where it's well
intended and then people just don't, it
[2:21:18] just doesn't pan out that way. The the
people with all the money end up winning
[2:21:23] anyway. Um, so yeah, was that
>> Thanks for your input. Anybody else want
[2:21:30] to come up?
>> Yeah,
[2:21:34] » come on up.
>> If you would,
[2:21:38] we rely on you guys to maintain the
integrity and
[2:21:44] our our our zoning. If you don't, you're
a little reluctant on rules and
[2:21:49] limitations. Listen to me talk. If you
don't set a limitation, they're just
[2:21:54] they're going to do whatever they want.
And I I I I understand what you're
[2:21:58] saying. I trust that my fellow citizens
got to do the right thing. But if it
[2:22:03] comes down to just how what I can build
and how cheap I can build it, there
[2:22:07] people out there do that all the time.
My other hat was in the construction
[2:22:11] world. And it's really it always comes
down to dollars and cents. But the
[2:22:16] gentleman just mentioned
every house has a the ability to be uh
[2:22:22] an ADU built on it. They're going to get
sold fast topped out because I'm going
[2:22:28] to bring in subsidy, you know, a
supplemental income. Like I said, $1,200
[2:22:33] a month for a 400 foot unit, probably be
going right here. So, if you go into the
[2:22:39] 600 square 600 foot units, you're really
going to get up there. I mean, and
[2:22:45] price, you know, talking about 18 maybe
$2,000 a month. Um and so, yeah. So now
[2:22:50] all of a sudden that house value just
went up. But we're not I don't think
[2:22:53] we're solving the problems. The best
thing we could do for the people that
[2:22:57] need more help is take a a dedicated
section of property abandoned factory or
[2:23:02] something else and set some special
building codes so we can bring those
[2:23:05] prices down because every every new code
enforcement just cost more and more. It
[2:23:11] really does. And uh this isn't I don't
think this is going to be a big enough
[2:23:15] answer. I think you're going to end up
with a lot of, you know, weekly rentals
[2:23:20] and and a lot of short-term rental
people, you know. Um, that's all I got
[2:23:24] to say. And plus, too, you know, the guy
said, "Well, my grandma and grandpa
[2:23:28] moved in." We're not going to the second
floor of garage, right?
[2:23:32] » You know what I mean? [laughter]
>> It's a good point. Thank you.
[2:23:36] » Appreciate it.
>> Just where we're standing right now.
[2:23:39] » Yeah.
>> Is 24 ft
[2:23:41] » or my eyes, my eyesight right now, first
floor is 12 feet. This one is tw 10. I
[2:23:47] mean, we're we're I'm not even 24 feet
right here. So, imagine my I'm still
[2:23:51] looking in my neighbor's yard.
>> Wow.
[2:23:54] » Thought that was in.
>> It's a nice perspective. Thank you.
[2:23:58] » Does anybody else like to come up?
[2:24:06] » Hi, Stacy Runner, 1301 Lake Boulevard.
My concern
[2:24:12] is I know right now it's saying no
short-term rentals, no under a month.
[2:24:17] What happens if
I know it's gone to the state a couple
[2:24:21] times about changing that to where
municipalities can't control that? So
[2:24:27] what happens then if we have all these
ADUs and then somehow it goes
[2:24:33] » and now we have
tons of short-term rentals. That's just
[2:24:38] something that worries me.
>> Thank you.
[2:24:41] » Good point.
>> Yeah, good perspective.
[2:24:44] Anyone else?
[2:24:48] Just as a comment here to you that are
in the in the uh public. We're This
[2:24:53] isn't something that we decided to do.
We've been asked to do this and the
[2:25:00] planning commission has pushed back. So,
you need to go to your city
[2:25:03] commissioners.
they're the ones who are making these
[2:25:07] decisions. So that would be more
effective. But our job here is to come
[2:25:12] up with some regulations in the event
that they decide on your behalf to
[2:25:19] implement ADUs. So your input is is
helpful because those are additional
[2:25:24] things we need to consider as well as a
safety net. Um, and so we I would say
[2:25:33] » I want to ask a question before we
decide on anything. I want to ask a
[2:25:37] question.
>> Has the public safety
[2:25:42] been
um notified and been involved in the
[2:25:47] discussions in any way on ADUs and um
how do they feel? I mean because very
[2:25:53] good points brought up um about you know
many alleys are not serviceable at all.
[2:25:59] The street I live on they can't pick up
any kind of leaf or limbs or anything
[2:26:05] because they tell me they can't turn the
corner and make it down the alley.
[2:26:09] » So how do you put out that second floor
ADU fire
[2:26:12] » from um 150 feet away or more than that
because the fire hydrant is somewhere
[2:26:18] else down the street. So, I guess my
concern now is that um
[2:26:25] um I feel like for us to make these
decisions, um they have to really be um
[2:26:32] secondary to public safety and that
public safety needs to be um in the
[2:26:38] forefront of guiding us because we um
need them to say if they don't feel that
[2:26:45] an ADU should be allowed to be over the
alley, then that might change completely
[2:26:49] what we've been discussing.
>> Um, and I feel it's very important that
[2:26:53] they're involved if they haven't been so
far.
[2:26:56] » Do so. I guess my clarifying question,
would you like to see the language
[2:27:01] routed to public safety and receive a
formal communication regarding their
[2:27:06] sentiment on the issue and concerns? I
think it's Yeah, I think it's important
[2:27:10] that if if the way this is moving
forward will allow um an ADU unit to be
[2:27:18] above a garage in an alley, you know,
that has I mean, we're not restricting
[2:27:22] that the alley has to be 26 foot wide or
it can't have a ADU
[2:27:28] or maybe that's something they're going
to say, hey, whoa, whoa, whoa, we can't
[2:27:31] service them from there, so then we need
these other restrictions. So that's the
[2:27:36] thing I think um before we really
finalize this and maybe this takes a
[2:27:40] month or two longer but if that's the
case and I think today's input from the
[2:27:46] public was extremely valuable and that
um we really need to have public safety
[2:27:51] involved in the process and um be at the
forefront of guiding us on what they
[2:27:56] feel is uh reasonable and you know if 24
feet means a ladder truck but they can't
[2:28:02] pick up brush with a little truck on an
alley county because they can't turn the
[2:28:06] corners. How do you service a fire that
might occur in that location? So, I I
[2:28:11] think u I I really appreciate all the
comments today and feel that it's um
[2:28:15] brought a lot of things to light that we
need to consider before we really move
[2:28:20] forward with making a recommendation.
[2:28:24] » May I?
>> Yes.
[2:28:26] » Thank you.
when we if we directed to public safety,
[2:28:31] it would be helpful to give some context
rather than just giving them language
[2:28:35] because this gentleman has brought up
some things that we really hadn't
[2:28:39] considered because that's his expertise.
>> And things like the narrowness of a of
[2:28:44] an alley, that's a good point. Or the if
the dwelling units are in the back of a
[2:28:48] lot, how do you service it with fire
trucks? Those are things that we hadn't
[2:28:53] considered.
>> Yeah. I mean, what we can do is we can
[2:28:56] potentially set up a meeting. I can meet
with them, kind of discuss your
[2:28:59] viewpoint. If you'd like someone to be a
representative of the planning
[2:29:02] commission, be included in that meeting.
I'd be happy to accommodate that as
[2:29:05] well. Um, and we can kind of discuss
that more with them and then they can
[2:29:09] provide feedback from there. I
>> potentially be at an efficient meeting
[2:29:14] as well. So,
>> we can certainly accommodate that. Yeah.
[2:29:17] Let them know that we you'd like a
representative to speak on that. And I
[2:29:20] will further say um um the one comment
um I think I still am leaning toward I
[2:29:28] want the special use versus the
conditional because of what you obtain
[2:29:33] by having public comment. Um, and you
know, we we got public comment tonight
[2:29:38] and it brought up several other issues
that
[2:29:42] » um, in a vacuum, in a room, in an
office, you don't always get. And I
[2:29:47] still like the idea of having it be a
special use versus student.
[2:29:52] Um, and you know, just to state that
that I still feel like that that is the
[2:29:58] route they should go because every
property is going to be unique and
[2:30:01] different. And what occurs in an area
where the lots are an acre versus 33
[2:30:09] foot wide by 110t long is totally
different. And um I I really think that
[2:30:15] we should consider a little more before
we just think that you know that it's
[2:30:21] not something that the neighbor should
be included in.
[2:30:25] » If I were a neighbor included, I would
be extremely disappointed to find out
[2:30:29] that someone
>> and I feel the same way. Um because the
[2:30:32] area I live in is very congested and we
have parking problems. We have all kinds
[2:30:36] of problems and good point. I would feel
very uncomfortable having all of a
[2:30:41] sudden just outright approval that we
had no ability to even comment on. Um,
[2:30:48] you know, so just I would like that to
go on the record is that I would like to
[2:30:53] have us consider that and because we've
gained so much tonight from what what
[2:30:59] was expressed here by the public.
>> All right. So, can we get a consensus
[2:31:02] here? Special use permit or conditional
use permit? Where are we at with that?
[2:31:07] conditional
>> especially
[2:31:11] » I think with considering that right the
uniqueness of our different lots
[2:31:16] » in the city you know some I think some
lots are are
[2:31:22] pretty easy and I think some other lots
are probably going to require uh some
[2:31:26] more careful thought I
>> I think I would want a special use
[2:31:32] » to to get those considerations
>> I think the consensus is special use
[2:31:39] » and I think that might have been Mr.
Eert's consensus too, by the way, whose
[2:31:43] letter was worded.
>> Um
[2:31:46] » um clarification with the alley stuff.
We do we currently have houses that face
[2:31:51] directly on an alley that are unable to
be serviced by fire trucks or
[2:31:56] » so. So So this is an interesting
question. And so currently in the text
[2:32:00] amendments we have going forward for the
lots and yards, there are certain
[2:32:03] streets that for zoning ordinance
purposes we consider to be alleys and
[2:32:07] there are in some cases homes that front
onto those alleys. Uh gen generally no I
[2:32:14] don't believe I I would have to do some
research to make that determination but
[2:32:19] I would probably have to defer to public
safety in terms of like servicing of
[2:32:22] those. That would be a great question to
add into that. But like the street the
[2:32:26] street you're talking about though.
Yeah.
[2:32:28] » Vine is served from a street that's 15
to 16 foot wide. They're they don't have
[2:32:33] access behind them because of the
railroad. So Vine is a street um and the
[2:32:38] that's where I live in the back of my
house where they told me I can't put
[2:32:42] limbs out there ever or leaves that they
have to be in the front yard because
[2:32:46] they say they can't make the turn.
>> So right
[2:32:50] » you can't make the turn to pick up
leaves in a little thing. What are you
[2:32:52] going to do with a 55 foot rig when you
have an issue?
[2:32:56] » That's my that's my point though is we
already have houses that are fronting on
[2:33:00] alleys we do.
>> And so when we send information over to
[2:33:05] safety or whatever that would be some
additional context of hey what do we do
[2:33:09] now for this stuff?
>> So is this is it inadequate now or is
[2:33:14] there is it going to be fine?
>> Yeah, I think that's a fair point. It's
[2:33:16] also important to consider that not
every backyard has alley access as well.
[2:33:21] So you'd be looking at going through on
the sideyard which possibly could have
[2:33:27] non-conforming side setbacks. These are
certainly things to consider and worth
[2:33:31] discussing with public safety and
possibly amending this language to uh
[2:33:35] include something in regards to having
an adequate uh
[2:33:39] » fire access. I we'd have to
>> include them on that discussion to see
[2:33:43] like what they would be wanting to see
out of that, but certainly worth
[2:33:47] considering. Mhm.
>> Can we
[2:33:50] in terms of the rental stuff because I
know we we've discussed obviously that
[2:33:54] we're not looking to do month like
monthly rentals and things like that.
[2:33:57] Obviously, we're all in agreement on
that. Are we able to um
[2:34:02] adjust the rental ordinance language so
that such that if you have an ADU, your
[2:34:08] house is not allowed like it's going to
be the same stipulations of whatever we
[2:34:12] come back with of a threemonth minimum
or whatever it is. Can we are we allowed
[2:34:17] to do that?
>> Well, the that's in our code of
[2:34:20] ordinance.
That's what you're trying to decide
[2:34:25] tonight.
>> But I No, but I want to allow if the
[2:34:28] owner lives in the ADU, their p the
primary dwelling, can we restrict that
[2:34:32] one too for rentals?
>> You mean you mean three months?
[2:34:35] » Yes.
>> I would think
[2:34:37] » because that would alleviate some of the
concern there.
[2:34:39] » Oh,
>> I think it would have to.
[2:34:42] » I don't know if we're allowed to. I
don't know if there's some legal issue
[2:34:44] with that. I think that may be
difficult. The other kind of easier
[2:34:48] solution possibly would be requiring the
uh property owner to reside in the
[2:34:54] primary dwelling unit.
>> Then that would eliminate all of that
[2:34:58] concern. It would be a bit more
restrictive. Uh I suppose but
[2:35:04] » the only thing I think about that is
let's say you know empty nesters that
[2:35:08] you know so I don't think they should be
penalized. Um, so I think we need to
[2:35:13] come up with a a good idea of, you know,
how we can make it work because as you
[2:35:19] get older and things, um, now most older
people aren't going to live in the
[2:35:25] second floor garage area, you know, so
there might be certain things that'll
[2:35:30] limit that anyway, but um, I think that,
um, we need to come up with a a clear,
[2:35:38] concise way. But, you know, and to her
point, you know, if they do change the
[2:35:43] law and you build all these ADUs, then
all of a sudden, do these all become
[2:35:48] weekly rentals?
>> Yeah.
[2:35:49] » And are they allowed by right and then
the would an ADU be exempt from that
[2:35:54] change in law because it was an
accessory dwelling unit and could that
[2:35:58] language be written in or would it not
stand up? So what I would like to add to
[2:36:02] that is it the state would supersede us
and the state has reviewed uh language.
[2:36:09] I it has not moved forward the bill I'm
not 100% sure where it ended up but they
[2:36:13] did review a bill which would have
allowed ADUs across the board.
[2:36:18] » So ADUs to be weekly
>> no ADUs just to be permitted across the
[2:36:23] board which would have superseded us at
the local level. So
[2:36:27] » I I don't know if the best course of
action is to base it on what the state
[2:36:31] could do because they could make us
allow ADUs which would supersede the
[2:36:35] entire discussion we're having right
now. I see.
[2:36:37] » So I don't know if we should be basing
our decision based off of that.
[2:36:40] » Okay.
To further answer your question, I think
[2:36:44] we could try to build things in the
language that make it clear it can't be
[2:36:48] for short-term rental use, but the state
can supersede things if if legislation
[2:36:53] moves that way on on either ADUs or
short-term rentals. I mean, it's been a
[2:36:58] battle. And,
>> you know, so far it's
[2:37:01] » and there's never any reassurance that
that's not going to happen even your
[2:37:06] your current property
>> with anything. [laughter]
[2:37:09] » Huh.
>> It's like with anything.
[2:37:11] Did I hear someone say earlier that only
1% of residents responded to the survey?
[2:37:16] » Correct.
>> So, I thought the survey was a great
[2:37:19] idea.
>> How did we advertise that to people? How
[2:37:22] did we let the citizens know, hey,
there's a survey available for you?
[2:37:28] » But we're I think we're looking at the
language now is the way to do it is, you
[2:37:32] know, if you if you're against it, this
is put it in out to the public and let
[2:37:37] them see the full context.
>> Let's know it was there. Did you guys
[2:37:40] did any of you do the survey?
[2:37:44] » Okay.
>> I couldn't find it online. I had to
[2:37:48] write to Emily and say, "Emily, where's
that survey?
[2:37:53] I've been on the city's website and I
can't
[2:37:55] » and I missed the last meeting, so I
didn't even know there was a survey
[2:37:59] until today. I don't have Facebook. So,
unless I'm checking the city's website
[2:38:03] on a daily basis, thinking, well, shoot,
maybe they'll come out with something."
[2:38:08] How would I know it was there?
>> That's why I think
[2:38:10] » I had an inspection and Trudy told me
about it. I mentioned it to Mark and
[2:38:14] four other neighbors. They all were
coming. Um, but two two jammed up a
[2:38:20] little bit, but I mean
>> it's definitely a hot
[2:38:25] » Yeah. to not hear from 90% of 99% of the
population. I think it's important
[2:38:31] though that you gave us a lot of good
input and I also think it's very
[2:38:34] important that um you know um we're a
body that makes suggestions but it it's
[2:38:40] also important that you follow through
like was mentioned and um your comments
[2:38:45] today I think have really been very
beneficial and appreciate not getting
[2:38:50] bypassed because a lot of times people
bypass the planning commission and just
[2:38:53] wait till it's
>> um but it helps us in the long run
[2:38:57] because of you all being here today and
making comments. Um, you know, one thing
[2:39:01] we already decided that we really felt
uncomfortable with because of your
[2:39:06] foresight to come today and and explain
to us your rationale and there were a
[2:39:11] lot of things we hadn't thought about.
So, it's it's always beneficial to have
[2:39:15] community input at every level, not just
waiting until it's going for the final
[2:39:19] vote. So, we appreciate you all being
here.
[2:39:22] » That's why I asked about the delivery
method. I mean, I think things look
[2:39:25] different today if there's 130 people in
here that are against it. Do do people
[2:39:30] know that we're having this meeting
right now? I mean, other than Facebook,
[2:39:34] » Yeah.
>> how are we telling the community?
[2:39:36] » This also isn't the public hearing yet.
>> Yeah, we're not the public hearing yet.
[2:39:40] Yeah.
>> But I mean, we're tossing around ideas
[2:39:43] and things
>> as far as what we need to do for the
[2:39:45] next meeting. If you can provide
direction, it's starting to get a little
[2:39:48] bit late and we're getting sidetracked a
little bit here. if we could. So, I
[2:39:52] think the direction is that we would
like to have the fire and safety
[2:39:58] consulted, the public works, excuse me,
or public safety, excuse me, um
[2:40:03] consulted and that they make
recommendations
[2:40:08] um or how they feel about, you know,
certain things that that we're
[2:40:13] considering um height, you know,
location, all of those elements um that
[2:40:18] may be impactful to how they do their
jobs. And then
[2:40:23] » special use permit, not conditional use
permit.
[2:40:26] » And then everything else I think um
>> but we
[2:40:29] » high square footage 4 to 800 um all of
the things that we
[2:40:34] » the height maybe we I mean
>> we might have to think about once public
[2:40:37] safety
>> we may have to think about that.
[2:40:39] » You give me a perspective that I really
hadn't
[2:40:42] » 24 feet is high. So
>> there's a lot to do still here. It is
[2:40:48] definitely not ready. So we got let's
get okay let's keep it on track here so
[2:40:51] we can go home. We've given you input as
to as to the major things. There is
[2:40:57] concern beyond those things with safety.
We need to get some input there. Why
[2:41:02] don't we start with that um next along
with these other things that we've
[2:41:08] discussed so that we can give some
direction and close this down for today.
[2:41:14] Um, so we did close the public section.
We didn't do that formally.
[2:41:20] » We can take other public comment. I
think that was more specific to the
[2:41:24] ADUs, but there may be other public.
>> Is there any other public comment?
[2:41:29] » Thank you. You guys are a very good
board. You're a very good administrator.
[2:41:33] Everybody
exchange ideas.
[2:41:38] Unfortunately, a lot of over 20s. You
[clears throat] guys are very cohesive.
[2:41:43] Well, we appreciate that. We're We try.
>> And just so you know, we get paid a lot
[2:41:47] of money for doing this. [laughter]
>> All right. So, public's comment section
[2:41:53] is now formally closed. Do do
commissioners have any more discussion
[2:41:58] » that they'd like to have with staff?
>> I think [clears throat and cough] I I I
[2:42:04] appreciate the
bringing to light that there's a
[2:42:08] possibility that someone would just
build a 24 foot garage and abandon their
[2:42:11] ADU. So, if if staff could could just
chew on that point and maybe have some
[2:42:19] if possible recommendations on how to
maybe avoid some of those
[2:42:23] considerations.
Uh the same is the with the what I'll
[2:42:28] call is the owner swap. If there's ideas
that we could consider on how to
[2:42:36] restrict the owner swap in and to some
extent to
[2:42:42] maybe require the either require the
owner be in the primary residence or
[2:42:47] that the owner
>> they can't rent out
[2:42:51] » they can't rent their own for for less
than a certain period of time if if that
[2:42:56] makes sense that you know the owner swap
thing you know now that I had to think
[2:42:59] about it does I think that does create
the possibility of some some tension
[2:43:08] all right we anybody else with any more
comments
[2:43:12] So general direction is next time you'll
have updated draft language. You'll have
[2:43:17] touch base with the safety people. We're
not recommending to do the public
[2:43:20] hearing yet next month.
>> No,
[2:43:22] » because we have to sort everything out
still.
[2:43:24] » Correct.
>> Right. Right. I was I was reading it
[2:43:27] shorten things to have that in so that
we can get this solved which will be
[2:43:32] solved
>> from here instead of here.
[2:43:36] » Yes. And kind of wrapping this into the
item I had under staff comment. I had a
[2:43:40] list of items that are to be on the
agenda next month. I will say it is a uh
[2:43:45] pretty significant agenda. We have a few
large ticket items uh to go through.
[2:43:49] Okay.
>> Considering that the length of our
[2:43:51] discussion today, it may be appropriate
to push ADU discussion to November
[2:43:56] because next month we are intending to
talk about the Harbor Shores parcel 5
[2:44:00] planned unit development uh which is a
new PUD in the city. that will likely be
[2:44:05] a lengthy discussion. Uh as well as an
application we received for zoning text
[2:44:09] amendments for the R3 zone, which we
likely spoke about at our last meeting.
[2:44:13] Uh likely be a long discussion. Uh we're
also we're intending to bring forward
[2:44:18] the review of the 2016 master plan. Uh
every five years we need to review the
[2:44:23] master plan to determine if an update is
needed. Uh
[2:44:27] » does that have to be next month?
>> It does not have to be next month. I
[2:44:30] would likely put it towards the end of
the agenda and possibly we could table
[2:44:33] it to November as needed. Um, but I
would like to have it on everyone's
[2:44:38] radar. Uh, if you have some spare time,
I'd recommend reviewing the 2016 master
[2:44:42] plan uh, just so that everyone's up to
date on it.
[2:44:48] » Okay. Any further comments from staff?
>> Yes.
[2:44:54] » So, um, two two things. One is, um, Mr.
Miller asked me where we were the status
[2:45:01] of the special use permit for the
short-term rental for the building on
[2:45:06] State and Market Street.
>> Um
[2:45:10] » there was an application for short-term
rental um which would be a special use
[2:45:15] permit there. Planning Commission had
recommended it be denied. The city
[2:45:19] commission ultimately denied it. There
was an appeal by the property owner with
[2:45:23] filed with the circuit court. So it is
pending in court. Um, we have just
[2:45:29] finished the briefing and I expect to
get a notice from the court on when oral
[2:45:34] argument will be, which probably will be
a few months down the road, but um, just
[2:45:40] want to let you know the status of that.
um part of our discussion, I'm not sure
[2:45:46] how we're going to fit it in with all
we've got going, but was maybe to
[2:45:49] provide a little bit of um
kind of an educational component, I
[2:45:55] guess, on on some of the processing uh
that came up with the special use permit
[2:45:59] in particular. Um you've seen a little
bit of change in how Dalton prepares the
[2:46:05] memos. Um and moving forward when we
have special use permits, he's going to
[2:46:11] be very um diligent and clear in what
the standards are that have to be
[2:46:17] reviewed there. Those are always spelled
out, but in addition, there'll be staff
[2:46:22] recommendations and it may may be
presented in a um in a format that it
[2:46:28] shows suggested, you know, positive or
negative responses and then the planning
[2:46:33] commission would discuss that further
and and come up with their findings on
[2:46:36] that basis. But we're trying to make
sure that we get all the um all the
[2:46:41] details in correctly so that it's very
clear on what basis the decision is
[2:46:45] being made for each of those points. So,
um, if we don't get to that in a couple
[2:46:51] of months, we'll try to fit that in.
But, um, a little bit of change in case
[2:46:55] law that came out in late 2024. So,
we're just trying to make sure we have
[2:46:59] our procedures in line with that.
Um, I think that covered everything we
[2:47:05] talked about. And the last thing I
wanted to let you know is that I have
[2:47:09] turned in my resignation. Um I'll be
retiring retiring um from the city at
[2:47:15] the end of the year. My last day in the
office um will be December 1st and they
[2:47:21] will be discussing process moving
forward at the next planning or next
[2:47:25] city commission meeting. But I did want
to let you know that. So I'll do my best
[2:47:29] to try and you know I I'll be here until
then definitely working with Dalton and
[2:47:34] and everybody else. But um there will be
somebody else that [laughter] will will
[2:47:38] be assisting at some point. We'll miss
your guidance.
[2:47:41] » Oh, thank you.
>> It's been wonderful.
[2:47:43] » Thanks.
>> Yeah.
[2:47:45] » All right. Any questions to staff from
commissioners?
[2:47:49] » Just maybe to mention that three of us
may have to be in the hallway for a
[2:47:54] while next month. So hopefully we can
determine that that we have um enough
[2:48:00] people present to have the meeting.
>> Point.
[2:48:03] » Absolutely.
>> One of the items on the agenda.
[2:48:06] » Yeah. If anyone's aware of them not
being able to attend the October 1st
[2:48:09] meeting, uh please let us know as soon
as possible because we are operating on
[2:48:13] a pretty thin margin to make a quorum
for the uh Harbor Shores parcel 5D.
[2:48:18] » Okay.
>> All right. If no further business, I'll
[2:48:22] entertain a motion.
>> I'll make a motion to
[2:48:25] » Okay. Miss Bersack and
>> Miss Porter.
[2:48:33] » We have to vote. We have to vote on the
motion. motion.
[2:48:36] » What I We have to vote on the motion.
>> Vote on the motion.
[2:48:40] » Those in favor say I. I.
>> Those against.
[2:48:44] » Is it okay that it's a
>> meeting a journ that calls roll?
[2:48:51] » I never know when he has to call roll
and when he doesn't.
[2:48:54] » You don't. I know. That's for sure.