[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.

Planning Commission Meeting, August 3, 2026, 4:30 PM

Transcript