[0:43] Supplemental planning commission meeting for August 26, 2026 to order at 7 o'clock, the M, if everyone could stand for the pledge of allegiance.

[0:54] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, individual with liberty and justice for all. Madam Secretary, if you could call the roll, please. Mr. Inks. Mr. Copp. Mr. Lacy. Mr. McGill. Mr. Row.

[1:15] Mr. Rao?

[1:16] Mr. Rao?

[1:16] President, Mr. Uikai?

[1:18] I'm here.

[1:18] I'm President, and Mr. Yusuf?

[1:20] President.

[1:21] All right.

[1:21] We have a quorum.

[1:22] If we can have a motion to approve the agenda.

[1:24] The adjournment.

[1:25] Mr. Rao.

[1:26] I move that we approve the agenda is presented.

[1:29] Support.

[1:30] Who, by Mr. Rao, is supported by Ms. Wright?

[1:31] Motion is to approve the agenda.

[1:33] Is there any discussion?

[1:34] Hearing none, all in favor?

[1:35] Signify by saying aye.

[1:37] Aye.

[1:37] All opposed.

[1:38] Motion passes.

[1:40] For, do we have any correspondence for tonight?

[1:43] Right.

[1:44] We did not.

[1:45] Okay.

[1:46] So that brings us to new business.

[1:48] First up, we have the zoning ordinance rewrite.

[1:51] Follow-up from non-residential uses and then we will transition into the residential district summary

[1:56] review.

[1:57] So with that, I will hand it over to the Gipel's Webtoon team of Ms. Bame and Mr. Amat.

[2:03] Great.

[2:03] Thank you very much.

[2:05] We're going to get started here with the, with just a quick overview, we'll go through the

[2:11] non-residential matrix follow up and then we'll go into the residential districts after.

[2:17] So first things first, the non-residential use comparison matrix feedback.

[2:22] This is that feedback you provided on the posters at the end of last meeting.

[2:30] For the most part and we're not trying to show this in the visual, that's way too small.

[2:34] but the office received a few comments, received essentially three comments, the industrial

[2:41] one comment, and then the commercial was grant was given the most feedback, that was nine

[2:51] stars, nine different comments.

[2:54] Some of them were pertaining to the same uses as well.

[2:58] So we did provide these points in the memo that was provided to you before the meeting in

[3:04] the packet, but we want to zero in on about six or seven points here of land uses. So the

[3:13] first thing is first was the assisted living facilities. Is there a sentiment from

[3:21] planning mission that these can be on their own parcel in the one district? That was the

[3:25] comment was, do these need to be, can these be, you know, attached to another use such

[3:38] as like a medical facility or another kind of living facility or do these need to be

[3:45] on a standalone parcel? The comment in the chart, I believe, was kind of hinting at why

[3:52] Why does this need to be on its own parcel?

[3:54] Why can't this be shared if we share other type of uses at times?

[4:02] All right, so why don't we just open it up to the planning commission for discussion bullet point by bullet point?

[4:10] So who would like to go first and I guess preferably the person who wanted the change can go and explain your reasoning?

[4:17] And I hope it wasn't me because if it wasn't on the number.

[4:21] I think all of these are valid, but I do think this one's valid, of course.

[4:28] Through the chair, I think it was, I was the one who brought up that is a still living facility one.

[4:33] I don't know who else, maybe someone else discussed it as well.

[4:38] I just don't know why, why we need to have it its own parcel, like is there any reasoning behind it.

[4:44] And that day when we were talking about it, I don't know why there's a network.

[4:48] That day when we were talking about it, I couldn't really get an answer, so I figured let's just have a discussion and see, you know, if there's a valid point to keep it this way, or if we can make a less restrictive.

[5:07] I would open up to planning commission. I believe the original comment came from the Office of Planning and why it should be on its own parcel.

[5:14] So I think that's kind of where it started, but I think very happy to hear if other commissioners agree with Mr. Rahul.

[5:25] Before we go to other commissioners, I guess if it came from office of planning, maybe it would be helpful to have Dr. Parcell or somebody from staff give or whoever it was from staff, give some guidance on what the rationale was.

[5:41] Otherwise, if we're not thinking that at

[5:46] Mr. Kenan.

[5:51] I think it was mostly related to memory care type of facilities, which they have a certain,

[5:59] a lot of them have certain restrictions and safety protocol, so that was, that was just the reason why it was up for discussion.

[6:09] Mr. Rowan.

[6:23] I

[6:30] think typically these are usually stand alone to begin with, I think per Mr. Kenan's comment is I think they kind of like having a kind of a secure premise in in a way that it's not going to happen.

[6:47] but I guess it should be required.

[6:50] Is this required?

[6:51] Is this something the community wants to regulate?

[6:54] Yeah, I think that I know that there are assisted livid facilities where there's an

[6:59] attached memory care, as Mr. Ashram has indicated that maybe perhaps that should be the reason

[7:09] for it to stand alone.

[7:11] I'm not sure what the requirements are for memory care, but I'd like to pass on to you

[7:16] I don't think all assistive living facilities are memory care.

[7:21] No, I don't believe so.

[7:24] This is actually interesting because I had a meeting about something like this today.

[7:28] In a node, there is a single structure proposal for something that is a combination of assisted,

[7:38] fully assisted living with medical office and like a rehab area available for residents,

[7:44] But at the same time, open to members of the public to come in and see the doctor so that the doctor would maintain office space there.

[7:53] And that instance is a small scale where it's not intended to be memory care.

[7:59] It's intended to be those for people who are aging or have physical disability or unable to live on their own.

[8:07] Given there's certain ones, I think the best option for looking at memory care, we maybe

[8:12] look into state licensing and see if there's any requirement on what they have in terms

[8:16] of security or how they use utilized facilities that way, and then we can review it, but because

[8:23] I do think the use is proposed that we have explored combining it with medical offices

[8:29] potentially a very good use of space, so I'd like to explore that.

[8:32] But I do think in some instances it may be useful to have it on some parcel, but we can look into state licensing.

[8:39] I don't think there's one other option could be making if it has a memory care facility as part of it and it's going to be on a.

[8:48] Personal with other uses make that especially use.

[8:57] My two cents, I don't know if it is a state requirement, then that's up to the developer and

[9:04] or operator to know that.

[9:06] I don't know that there's a governmental interest

[9:10] in regulating that one use to be on its own parcel.

[9:15] So I think having the availability

[9:19] of the other medical-related uses right there

[9:22] on site is also really beneficial.

[9:25] And potentially other small goods and services too,

[9:28] potentially.

[9:33] Yeah, I mean any kind of medical or non-medical

[9:35] service type business will be helpful, but I know for a sister living facilities, there are not any state requirements.

[9:42] Even for memory care facilities, I don't know if there's anything specific, but as you said, that would be up to the developers, you know.

[9:52] Sounds like staff's recommendation has changed a little bit and would be to remove that requirement.

[10:00] Do I have that correct?

[10:02] All right,

[10:07] so is there any objection to that from the Planning Commission if not, that's how we'll proceed.

[10:15] Seeing no objection, I think you have your direction.

[10:17] So next one was the automotive supply stores.

[10:21] We do, we are proposing to permit them in the new C2 and the new C3.

[10:26] So the question was, should we also permit these in the M1 district being a higher intensity district with maybe larger store buildings?

[10:37] Any

[10:41] commissioners?

[10:44] I mean, that was,

[10:47] I put that star there.

[10:50] There's some auto parts that, you know, warehouses that are, you know, carry the front-ends, the doors, the fenders, they need way larger space than anything that's in C1, or, like, industrial buildings, 30,000, 40,000 square feet,

[11:08] so I figured we can build them there, we should be able to warehouse them there, just tell them out of there.

[11:13] I think that's a good point.

[11:18] Planning commissioners, any objection to making that change in allowing that?

[11:21] So would that then be, I think we would think that we would want to allow automotive supply

[11:28] stores as a permitted use or by special land use and the M1?

[11:32] Probably just permitted.

[11:33] I mean, I would think that they're able to be pretty fitting in the M1 district without

[11:38] special review.

[11:40] Is there any objection from planning commissioners to making that change?

[11:44] Seeing none, I think you have your guidance there.

[11:51] Great. Next one was bars and lounges.

[11:53] I believe we had two stars on the poster that sought that perhaps these should be permitted

[12:03] in the C1 district as well. They're really permitted in this new C2 district.

[12:09] And

[12:12] just for a refresher, the new C2 is going to be the old C3 and part of C2, but some of the existing C2 districts may be going down to C1.

[12:23] Correct. When they're joining existing C1, they should probably be down, essentially down zone to C1.

[12:31] So, I think the thought I was one of the people who put the stars on this one thought here being there are already a number of locations where in what will become C1 bars would hit bars and lodges would have been allowed.

[12:46] There aren't that many true C1 districts in the city right now and if we were to allow these as special land uses in C1.

[12:58] I think that would provide sufficient protection while still allowing a use that could ultimately serve nearby residents.

[13:12] It's a good point, it makes the kind of a down zoning, so to say, to see one more fluid and I think an easier transition.

[13:23] So there was a second star on this one, did any other planning commissioners want to comment on this one?

[13:28] Mr. Robert.

[13:31] Mr. Robert.

[13:31] Mr. Robert, why are bars and lounges?

[13:32] Yes.

[13:32] When I first looked at the question was raised, I'm thinking, let's see, one, that's convenience

[13:41] zoning district, and to serve the neighborhood where bars and lounges have a tendency to draw

[13:47] from a larger area.

[13:49] And so I was on the fence with regard to, and its impact on the adjacent residential areas.

[13:55] But if it's a special approval, perhaps that's the way I'm getting around that, that you

[14:01] could determine whether a bar or a lounge should be in a C1 district based on that kind

[14:10] of criteria impact on the residential area because we've had those, we've had those residents

[14:18] is from objecting to because of noise because of the late night business hours.

[14:27] So yeah, my tendency is I would not allow bars and

[14:31] I'll just see one district.

[14:35] I did think that while larger bars and

[14:38] lounges made draw a more regional crowd, certainly a smaller bar concern as a neighborhood bar.

[14:43] And if you look at a lot of older communities, you do have kind of the neighborhood bar that has

[14:51] developed either on the corner or sometimes in the middle of a neighborhood where it, you know,

[15:00] You're not talking about something like a Buffalo Wild Wings, where you're bringing people from all over, but a small little building that serves the truly, primarily the neighborhood at that point.

[15:13] So, I think the scales in your talk are as important, yeah. Thank you. I agree.

[15:20] So is there any objection to making bars and lounges allowed by special land use in the C1 district?

[15:26] In

[15:29] an objection, I think we have our direction.

[15:31] Mr. Chair.

[15:32] Mr. Wica.

[15:34] This is why we are on this topic of bars and lounges.

[15:38] I know maybe a lot of people feel a little uncomfortable talking about it, but if they're legit business in the state, I think it's our time now to regulate them.

[15:47] And then we're bringing up the cabaret licenses that are partially going with the bars.

[15:54] I would separate them, then I want to see what other people, what other commissioners feel like.

[16:01] I would separate the cavalry licenses to go non-NC1 and NEC.

[16:10] I would prefer them to go in industrial district, if we were to permit them, it would be industrial

[16:18] district.

[16:18] And

[16:22] for Claire, I can clarify, so yeah, for adult businesses currently, our draft has them as special land uses in C2 only.

[16:32] The proposal by Mr. Weekai would be to put them in industrial only instead of C2.

[16:41] I would be comfortable, I mean, listen, for those that may be not know, those were talking about strip clubs, that's capillary licenses.

[16:51] So if I wouldn't be comfortable having them in a neighborhood or basically in a general district business district,

[17:00] If we're going to regulate them, I would be comfortable, or I would put them in industrial where they're not in neighborhood.

[17:14] But I'm open to see what other commissioners feel about it.

[17:19] What has been our, what is the difference in the definition between in the ordinance between cabaret and adult entertainment uses and are we maintaining that distinction?

[17:40] Oh, they are defining the current ordinance. I can't quickly answer that out.

[17:45] Does anybody on the office of planning have that knowledge?

[17:51] Or Mr. Patruzac, anybody?

[17:54] I can quickly look.

[18:00] Adult businesses.

[18:03] I believe the whole point of proposing it in the chart as just simply adult businesses would be to group a lot of those kind of subcategories of adult bookstore, adult entertainment use, adult motion picture theater, adult motion picture theater, adult novelty business and adult personal service.

[18:25] business under one umbrella and just naming it at all business uses there is a

[18:33] definition of cabaret as well in the right zoning ordinance but I don't know

[18:38] if it's so I can get listed though anywhere the use is so so cabaret is defined in

[18:49] and the zoning ordinance, and then adult entertainment

[18:57] use is defined to include adult book store, video store, adult money, picture theater, adult motion, picture theater, cabaret, massage, parlor, adult personal service business, adult reality business or any combination of such uses.

[19:10] So our provisions, though, cabbages and discotacks are currently allowed in the C2 district.

[19:21] Which is what kind of cabbages.

[19:24] But that's where adults, so they're allowed in C2 because that's where adult entertainment

[19:29] uses are currently allowed.

[19:31] It's just listed and it's grouped in with specifically eating and drinking establishments.

[19:37] Oh, I'm sorry.

[19:38] It's including those.

[19:39] Yeah.

[19:41] So yes, I guess I kind of want to get some clarification for Mr. Week, I then.

[19:49] Are you looking at regulating cabarets as their own use?

[19:57] Or are you looking at regulating them within the broader adult entertainment use?

[20:03] I would be comfortable just regulating them at their own use in industrial district.

[20:10] And that take them off the C2, like the general, like they're allowed now.

[20:14] And put them in industrial only.

[20:18] So I guess I'm

[20:22] seeing you would allow the adult book stores, adult video stores,

[20:27] adult motion picture theaters,

[20:29] There's massage parlors and adult personal service businesses and adult novelty businesses in the C2, but then you would restrict cab rays to industrial.

[20:41] Right, that was my, I just wasn't comfortable having them in C2, so I really don't have no objection to the others one way or another.

[20:51] I can listen to the direction that other commissioners have, but

[20:56] That was, that was just my only proposal that what I would be feeling,

[21:03] what I would suggest that we only allow them in industrial,

[21:07] take them away from the, from the general business district.

[21:10] I would probably be inclined to move them all together.

[21:13] And again, I have no objection to that.

[21:15] That was just my, that was one of them while we had this topic.

[21:18] I think it's the time now that we shift them one way or the other.

[21:25] So if you want to add that, if you want to amend mine and add yours,

[21:28] I'll be I'm okay with it might be best just to move them all together under the adult business umbrella as a whole and just move that away from C-2 and

[21:38] into the industrial so then then these other these other then that opens up these others

[21:46] Whatever you want to call them but all stores that we have in the city with that will they become non-non-conforming?

[21:52] Yeah, yeah, so that's a good that's a good question. Does the city have some currently operating at all?

[21:58] All bookstores, or other type of adult entertainment uses in the commercial districts?

[22:04] I think we do, but I now give the chair to office of planning if you would make those non-conforming.

[22:12] If you just take them away from a commercial district.

[22:16] As well as you may believe they're in seat three or seat two right now.

[22:21] Okay, now I'm not sure if I want to make them not, if I want to make them non-conforming as well.

[22:26] Well, so that's why I was just specifically targeting this one, one use, but again, see how others feel, but I hate to make a legit business that's been part of this community for a long time and all of a sudden we're going to make it non-conforming, I don't think we're doing service to them, but something that we don't have.

[22:54] No, I think that's why I was looking more to regulate it than something that we already have, if it makes sense.

[23:02] I think that makes sense, so by separating out Cabaret, you're saying you don't currently have much Cabaret.

[23:09] And the Cabaret would be new, and that would be separately regulated just in industrial.

[23:17] That's the direction I was going.

[23:20] I see your direction.

[23:21] I don't know if it's-

[23:22] I'd like to maybe talk.

[23:24] Yeah.

[23:24] It's from the legal side, first amendment and all that.

[23:28] The adult use is our rather sensitive just because of those issues and concerns.

[23:32] So if we move them, we want to just make sure that we're doing it correctly.

[23:36] Yeah, is it appropriate for a community to kind of regulate one type of an adult business

[23:41] in one area in one district, those are the other type elsewhere?

[23:45] The uses that we have right now are none of them are capillary licenses.

[23:49] So, that's the only one I was really pointing out is something that we don't have that license less regulated now because the way it seemed to me that you're, you're a day could fall under C2.

[24:03] And I just want to pull them out of there with no objection, put them in industrial and if possible.

[24:12] But again, I don't want to hurt the already existing business that we do have in our city.

[24:17] So I think that the policy question that my fellow planning commissioners should think through is

[24:26] do we feel that the uses that are currently all lumped together in the adult entertainment use

[24:33] should they be treated similarly or are they dissimilar?

[24:37] Personally, I don't see much of a difference between a cabaret and an adult motion picture theater

[24:45] from a policy standpoint I could arguably see a difference between perhaps adult novelty

[24:55] businesses and those types of uses but I mean I guess what I don't think is

[25:01] relevant is whether or not we want to hurt existing businesses or not I mean

[25:05] that just isn't relevant to whether something should be non-conforming or not the

[25:09] question is do we think this use should exist in this district if we don't

[25:15] I don't think it should, then we should remove it.

[25:18] And constitutionally, those businesses have a right to continue as long as they do so under the lawful, non-conforming standards.

[25:28] Now, if on the other hand, the thought is, well, we don't want to remove those businesses because they've existed.

[25:34] Because from a policy perspective, we don't think we should make that change.

[25:39] change then we should divide out the uses that are in adult entertainment use.

[25:46] So I guess the initial question to planning commissioners is are all the uses in the current

[25:52] term of adult entertainment use similar enough that we should regulate them the same or do

[25:58] we want to split some of those out and until we answer that question can't really figure

[26:03] out what we want to put in which district.

[26:05] So I'll read again the definition is, any adult bookstore or video store, adult, many motion picture theater, adult motion picture theater, cabaret, massage parlour, adult personal service businesses, adult, novelty businesses or any combination of such uses.

[26:28] I want to add, I just searched it, and I guess it also, there's food and drinks included.

[26:36] So if we're going to go industrial, is the health department going to allow this?

[26:40] Are you talking about for cabaret?

[26:42] Yeah.

[26:43] Yeah.

[26:43] So our definition of cabaret is an establishment that features topless and or

[26:48] bottomless dancers, go-go-to-answers, exotic dancers, strippers, male and female impersonators

[26:53] or similar entertainers.

[26:54] So, at least under our definition, you wouldn't have to provide food.

[27:02] Key characteristics says the venue performances typically happen in restaurants, pubs, clubs, or nightclubs.

[27:09] Where the audience sits at tables and dines and drinks.

[27:12] So if we're going to go industrial, there's going to be a food consumed, no issue.

[27:22] Which that could be permitted, the health department is going to, they're not going to not permit something because it's in like an industrial zone, so they'll still be able to permit it as long as it follows their policies.

[27:40] Yeah, so really the question is, are we separating any of those that Chairman Inc's stated, it sounds like Mr. Weekai says, yes, separate out cabaret from that list.

[27:52] I would be in favor of yes.

[27:54] I'm also in favor of separating them.

[27:56] Just cabaret or other uses.

[27:59] Separating the two between the books and the entertainment.

[28:03] Because it would be similar to separating Barnes and Noble and a restaurant or a nightclub.

[28:11] Those are two different things.

[28:12] One you're going shopping and the other one you're going there for entertainment.

[28:16] So you would regulate cap arrays differently from how you regulate adult motion picture theaters.

[28:26] I agree.

[28:29] Dr. Parcell, you look like you have something to say.

[28:31] Yeah, I agree also.

[28:32] but I think maybe we should take time to parse this out a little more. I don't think it's a guarantee that all of the definitions that fall currently under adult entertainment use make it through to the next ordinance because, quite frankly, I find some of the definitions maybe a little dated and just not really existing uses anymore.

[28:54] And the issue comes in with some of these is something like a cabaret or a nightclub

[29:02] of a sort, maybe it's more appropriate for a standalone structure, whereas other things

[29:07] that would fall into here exist in the city already in line and strip plasas.

[29:13] So it's kind of difficult to grasp when there's such a wide variety of them.

[29:17] So I would say I would let us take an evaluation of it, see what definitions in here actually

[29:22] carry through, and then propose regulation based on what the definitions will be, rather

[29:27] than what they currently are given this discussion, because now we have a little more insight

[29:31] on the difficulties we may have if we were to just leave it.

[29:35] I think it would be helpful to get staff's perspective of if we are going to split these out,

[29:40] what uses should be regulated together, because to me it doesn't make sense to regulate a cabaret

[29:46] and restricted to industrial yet we would allow erotic rubs and nude or

[29:54] partially nude massage parlors in C2. Like I would put those two I guess I'm not

[30:00] I'm really understanding why there's a thought that they are dissimilar, but we can agree to disagree, but I think maybe the planning commission would be served with some guidance from how staff thinks those uses should be lumped together. Yeah, and we're happy to. I also, I don't think video stewards of any kind exist anymore, so we'll take a look at that.

[30:20] Okay, update the definition wholly, and then we'll make a recommendation to you at your next meeting update if that is okay with the commission.

[30:30] So I think staff has guidance on what research.

[30:35] All right, that brings us back to battery energy storage systems for onsite accessory only.

[30:43] You have anything?

[30:44] Yep, you summarized it there, I think right now we are proposing to permit these accessory

[30:55] onslaid only battery energy storage in the O2 and ISD, as well as M1 and M2, but not

[31:03] permitting it anywhere in commercial or O1.

[31:11] So this was mine.

[31:12] I guess I'm not understanding why we would restrict them from being in any district.

[31:17] I mean, I would allow them in residential if they're accessory, what's the harm?

[31:23] I mean, I guess depending on how we define them definitionally, but if we use a broad definition

[31:30] for battery energy storage systems, we're now making Tesla power walls that people have

[31:36] in their garage is non-conforming.

[31:38] So I guess I

[31:43] mean I think the only one of the only concerns or one of the immediate ones is noise and then also maybe fire risk

[31:50] But I think that that can be mitigated. I think from others by other standards as well.

[31:56] So I think it's I think you raise a good point that

[32:00] Especially as the technology continues to change and be made safer than we just kind of tune ourself in the foot by not permitting it in more districts.

[32:10] Well, we can, I mean, we can have, you know, regulations on what size battery energy storage

[32:18] system you have.

[32:19] I'm not talking about having some huge massive BESS system and residential neighborhoods.

[32:26] But to me, it functions similarly to, if you allow a generac generator, this is just the

[32:32] battery version of that.

[32:33] So, no, on the other hand, if you have a commercial or industrial use, yeah, your battery energy

[32:39] storage systems are going to be larger, but I think there's a way to allow them, I would

[32:45] just permit them by right and all districts, but if we want to have regulations on, you

[32:50] know, noise, certainly within the residential districts or megawatt, I don't know exactly

[32:56] how they're rated, but I think there are ways that we can limit what would be allowed within

[33:01] the districts, but I would just permit pretty much any accessory use like that, I would just

[33:05] I would tend to agree with that and then say that for noise standards, we might just be looking at noise standards for everything, so it doesn't really matter what it is, we don't want it to be noisy.

[33:19] So as we look to that.

[33:21] Mr. Chairman, the definition of that is that include someone having a battery charger for

[33:29] the car in their garage?

[33:30] No.

[33:31] Include?

[33:32] No.

[33:33] That's something different.

[33:34] It's not regulated in the zoning ordinance.

[33:40] The better energy storage system would be taking power generated by something usually solar

[33:49] panels and storing it so that you can use it.

[33:52] right later when you're not generating but so it's to use for something not not to not to charge a

[34:01] battery. I mean it is charging a battery because you have to connect something to it but so someone

[34:06] in the residential area does have a solar panels be allowed and they can generate

[34:22] I'm sure we have them in the city right now, I'm sure out of 135,000 in the city we have

[34:27] one Tesla power wall.

[34:28] Yeah, there are those that you and you just use it all on site.

[34:32] What we don't have in the state, which means we're not allowed to, yet, but they are starting

[34:37] to allow in other states is the battery power or the battery capacity then to sell back to

[34:43] the utility.

[34:43] So we can't do that here yet, but it's hopefully coming.

[34:52] All right, so we will allow better energy storage systems for on-site accessory permitted in all uses.

[35:00] Any objection to that?

[35:04] Hearing none, I think we're good to move on.

[35:06] All right, our next slide here.

[35:11] Yeah, so a couple more points, canals and daycares, canals and pet daycares, should these be allowed in the C2 district?

[35:20] Currently, we are permitting these in the poll

[35:28] to it,

[35:36] sorry, I can't find it right now, but I'll get back to you.

[35:39] Any thoughts on the C2?

[35:41] or

[35:45] to clarify are they allowed in C2 or are they allowed in C2 under the proposal?

[35:50] It's highlighted in yellow with somebody saying that we should remove those.

[35:53] I think we've just added that since the last meeting.

[35:58] Now that in the new use comparison matrix dated August 21st because people said that we should

[36:09] add that to C2.

[36:11] So the yellow cell with the P there is new since last meeting.

[36:24] I want to add that if you are concerned of noise, I am next to one.

[36:29] They are loud, they are not, they should, I don't think they should be in C2.

[36:34] They are noisy.

[36:36] Is it over night dogs?

[36:38] Yeah, yeah, the pet sweets and we're used to machinery, we're in industrial zoning, but

[36:45] But they're louder than the compressors, chisels, and all that stuff.

[36:51] And I think that's industrial.

[36:55] Yep.

[36:56] It's industrial.

[36:58] So yeah, that's the question is do you want to permit the pet daycares and the kennels

[37:05] in C2?

[37:09] Should be special approval, so I'm looking now.

[37:12] So they were the last month, they were listed as permitted in C2.

[37:18] They were not added, so if it was added, it should be in bold and underlined, I think, right?

[37:27] Okay, so we just highlighted it just for discussion.

[37:30] Okay.

[37:31] So the discussion now is do we want to remove candles and pet daycare as a permitted use from C2 to put this in context.

[37:41] They are currently allowed in-

[37:51] And

[37:54] then the

[38:00] I guess another distinguishing question would be if like if it was at day doggie daycare and the facilities were inside.

[38:09] Does that make a difference?

[38:12] Yes, it does.

[38:16] Are we going to be able to create standards so that you let them go into the bathroom?

[38:26] I think most of these are both indoor outdoor carpet and areas or

[38:36] If they go to the bathroom, they let one or two dogs out. Okay, but when they give them playtime

[38:42] That's when yeah, exactly. There's a party

[38:46] So we don't, we don't currently allow them in any of the commercial districts.

[38:52] I don't see a reason to restrict them from C3, the currency 4.

[38:57] So I would, I mean, we don't have it now, so I don't see an issue with removing it.

[39:08] All right, so proposal would be remove, canals and pet day care from the C2.

[39:15] is there any objection?

[39:18] Any objection?

[39:20] You have no objection?

[39:20] It would be together either.

[39:21] You could allow one and not the other.

[39:24] I mean, is your bigger concern

[39:28] the pet day cares in the amount of noise

[39:31] that those make

[39:32] being the single day

[39:36] day care sessions,

[39:37] whereas kennels are usually

[39:38] more for boarding

[39:41] and rap's breeding. I guess throw a whole other question in, but we should we

[39:50] talk about the cat cafes too. We've had this come up in a couple of communities

[39:54] actually one just last week a cat cafe which is a place that people can go

[40:03] and see cats and hang out. The one that we were presented with we determined

[40:10] German was a kennel because the cats were spending the night and so they weren't ultimately allowed in that district.

[40:16] But a place like, what is the dog one?

[40:20] There's like a bark side.

[40:21] It's a dog, it's not a dog bar, it's a people bar, but dogs go along the bar, dogs.

[40:29] So it's kind of a combination, but again, the dogs are spending the night there.

[40:34] They're just going there with their people to have some social ability.

[40:37] Do you allow, I mean, is that something that is allowed?

[40:41] Because it's just not either one of those.

[40:43] It's not a canola or a daycare.

[40:45] We do get a lot of pet daycare requests,

[40:48] I think, in our communities.

[40:53] Yeah, most of them do offer overnight.

[40:55] So there's kind of a blurred line there.

[40:57] Are you do you get questions about them?

[40:59] Pet daycare?

[41:00] Just daytime?

[41:02] Like a dogtopia or whatever?

[41:05] A dogtopia, I can even.

[41:08] Yeah, often.

[41:09] So, for basis on regulation, a couple of points, we call pet daycares regardless of overnight

[41:19] stays and storage of animals right now, kennels, which have been probably rightfully called

[41:26] by a lot of these dog daycares, the incorrect term for what they are called, given the connotation

[41:31] of what a kennel is associated with, and a lot of them are more luxury upscale and very

[41:37] nice places where people drop their dogs off. They go to work and they come back and get them.

[41:41] They do all pretty much do overnight housing. The noise isn't a concern for me at night.

[41:47] It's probably when people are out working and, you know, going to commercial places where

[41:52] the noise would then become something during the day, during daytime hours,

[41:57] because most commercial, unless you're looking at C1, is pretty far away from residential.

[42:06] It's on a

[42:07] industrial is a fine and appropriate location for both the kind of and the pet day care given pet sweets

[42:14] It's a new facility a new site. It's a very nice looking site and it functions well on its own

[42:20] But it's a way from residents and commercial

[42:23] Entity it's next to industrial and I think I've fakenstreet or a private street

[42:28] So it's something like that works

[42:30] You mentioned C4 C3 which is C4 currently which is for them at gateways

[42:35] I don't, that's more in my opinion of what it's becoming, given the recent approval, a walkable pedestrian shopping plaza and center, so I don't know if putting it there is appropriate either.

[42:47] I don't think that maybe commercial is the appropriate use for this use in particular.

[42:53] We've seen success with it in industrial.

[42:56] We've seen very few requests in commercial.

[43:00] I

[43:06] have one question before we go to either have we do recall however in recent time have

[43:14] we had a variance request yes it was approved they have not moved forward so far since

[43:19] their approval and that was approved in what district C2 on all road the old B.D.'s Mongolian

[43:27] grill okay interesting not

[43:35] a pretty good distance doesn't I don't think it'll affect but if

[43:42] That one's probably 50 to 60 feet away from a commercial strip plaza.

[43:49] Mr. Rowan and Mr. Weekai.

[43:52] Yeah, I just want, you know, a distinction between Kennelson and Pet Daycare.

[43:56] I mean, Pet Daycare to me, so I think you bet, a little too, that someone is going to work,

[44:03] so they don't, they're, they're, they pick the bad up at the end of their work schedule.

[44:08] assuming they were dates, that's the overnight test, another case too, but that's different

[44:14] than a kennel.

[44:15] A kennel is going to be multi more than one day, kind of stay.

[44:21] And so when you get into looking at it in a really fine tooth comb like that, it kind of

[44:26] makes looking at the business difficult for us in planning or for you as planning commission

[44:30] if it's a salo, because a lot of the larger ones do do overnight things or people who work

[44:36] third shifts would constitute overnight for the typical nature of a business or a weekend,

[44:40] and it's just offered at a rate to the company, you know, the people going in there to use the

[44:45] service. For then, getting into, oh, well, you can only be open from eight to five or something

[44:51] like that, then we're looking at restricting hours for the permitted use. It becomes difficult.

[44:56] That's my concern realistically. We can come up with a name

[45:00] So, I think it's a good convention that works better, but it's hard to, what if they want to expand it or they have a, we come in, you know, six months later and say, oh, a lot of people want to stay overnight, and we're on hall road, why can't we do that? It becomes more problematic.

[45:30] I was in favor of the one-on-all road, but the question is, are we, by regulating all

[45:37] these, are this going to be an effect for the vet facilities?

[45:41] No, I think we have vet facilities as a separate use in the chart, so those would be, let

[45:49] me just confirm that for you.

[45:52] Additionally, kenneling is probably an accessory use as I would consider it at a vet, so if

[45:58] If I were to take my dog in to have surgery, and it needed to stay overnight for observation, one or two nights, it's not like I'm taking them to the vet to stay there for the purpose of staying there and then going out of town.

[46:11] Yeah, they're staying there for the medical purpose, which is the sole primary use of that site.

[46:16] So the vet will be regulated separately if it's correct, that will be regularly separately

[46:21] and they'll be permitted a little bit in a little bit more districts just because they're

[46:26] not a commercial purpose.

[46:33] Okay, so let's

[46:38] do any more information from staff, are we ready to make a decision?

[46:42] I think one of the questions is, do you want to keep these as one umbrella, kind of kennels

[46:50] and daycares and overnight boarding, or do you want to maybe separate some of them out

[46:55] whereas maybe overnight boarding only is one use, and daycare only is one use, was that

[47:03] what you're-

[47:04] I don't think we should separate them out.

[47:06] Okay.

[47:07] Yeah, as somebody that's used the dog daycares, every single one of them does overnight

[47:12] So that's like integral as a part of the business model.

[47:17] Thank you, Ms. Weinberg, Mr. Max.

[47:20] Sorry we're having all team step up.

[47:21] One potential option would be to just lump them under a new use called like animal overnight boarding.

[47:27] And in theory, just make it a salue.

[47:29] So that way it's always governed.

[47:30] So that way you're not necessarily can cat cafes illegal.

[47:33] But then you could go forward with preventing kennels from being right next to residential homes, for example.

[47:38] So that's one potential path forward.

[47:45] I think I

[47:50] would regulate if we're going to allow a regular cat cafes I would do that differently than kennels and pet daycare and I think we would want to have staff look into that and I don't want to do that on the fly tonight.

[48:01] So, sorry.

[48:02] don't we if there's no objection why don't we have that's okay it's a good

[48:07] my my sister would love that she's loves cats and when she went to Hawaii she

[48:12] found like this island where there's a bunch of cats all over the whole island

[48:15] and unlike the whole day there so I think there's no objection to having staff

[48:20] look into cat and dog cafes allowing things like bark side cat cafes is

[48:29] Is there objection to that?

[48:31] No, it's okay.

[48:33] We've got that.

[48:35] Now, what do we want to do with kennels and pet daycare, which is kind of the traditional

[48:42] thing there?

[48:46] Is there some desire to remove them from C to,

[48:53] is there any objection to that?

[48:55] That again, the current ones that we have, are they in current?

[49:04] What would they be considered on the C1?

[49:10] It would be in C2.

[49:11] And the Australian?

[49:15] We're talking about,

[49:21] so we're about the groomers and that, where are we placing them?

[49:30] Dr. Purcell.

[49:31] So the only boarding facility, which is how I'll say to lump those two together, is industrial, it's a standalone building.

[49:42] Groomers, veterinarians, again, the boarding I view is the accessory of it.

[49:46] Those two would be fine in a commercial zone, because it's a commercial use primarily.

[49:53] The dog or cat staying there for an extended period of time is because that animal is there for the service.

[50:00] rather than just the sole purpose of being staying there.

[50:04] So a veterinarian could go in an office use a grooming facility could go into a commercial

[50:11] use because the nature of those is commercial in office.

[50:16] The boarding overnight of animals, whether it's called a luxury pet hotel or a kennel or

[50:22] whatever it depends on, whatever our ultimate birbidges could just stay industrial, removed

[50:28] from C1, C2, and the new C1, C2, and C3.

[50:32] That would be my suggestion.

[50:34] Okay, I think I can live with that.

[50:38] So the only one that we have, that we have an overnight state, that we,

[50:41] apparently approved is the one on Hall Road, which is not on industrial district.

[50:48] No, that's the only one that I can think of.

[50:51] Again, there's still under plan review, and I don't know if they're moving forward.

[50:55] but the only one that I have seen open operate and be constructed since I've been here is pet suites on 15.

[51:02] Okay, so I'll be inclined, I'll be inclined to have them in industrial to regulate them on industrial,

[51:10] take them off, see to separate, obviously they are separated the grooming, the service part from overnight state part.

[51:20] Okay, so the suggestion from staff now is removed from both C2 and C3.

[51:26] Is there any objection to that?

[51:30] Seeing none, we have our direction.

[51:32] All right, all right, so just read them out.

[51:35] The last point is just the office retail store, accessory office retail stores.

[51:40] These are primarily used that are permitted in the O districts because O doesn't really permit retail.

[51:47] But a lot of the O districts might have large office complex is business parks.

[51:52] where perhaps a UPS store, a shipping store, stationery store might be helpful.

[52:00] So, do we want to permit these as accessory office retail stores in the C1 district as well,

[52:09] because we are doing so in the old districts?

[52:15] Who was this?

[52:22] My thought would be, I mean, when would it ever be likely that we would have a way office retail store?

[52:30] Is it permitted?

[52:31] We would probably just call this for the most part just a retail store.

[52:36] I mean, isn't this essentially, isn't this already allowed?

[52:40] Like, when would this ever not be allowed in commercial anyway?

[52:42] When would we have, starting out retail businesses,

[52:46] when are you ever going to have a retail business that's accessory to another business?

[52:52] Yeah, I think maybe there was some confusion on this point in the chart.

[52:56] really the whole purpose we spell this out in the chart is to give that caveat and

[53:01] the ability for this to locate in the O districts because a retail store is

[53:06] already going to be permitted in the C districts.

[53:09] Do we even really need to spell this out in the C districts?

[53:15] I wouldn't think so as a zoning administrator.

[53:22] Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rowell.

[53:23] When you talk about office retail service, are we talking like office supplies store?

[53:30] That's a good question. I was thinking more like shipping and shipping and station here. I mean it's but I think I think the point is we want to permit something of this nature in the office districts but not open the door for all retail in the office districts.

[53:52] So that was why it was there to begin with for the old districts.

[53:59] Are you making a good point?

[54:01] Does a stable or office max constitute one of these?

[54:05] We could put a size limitation on it, and that would prohibit one of those big boxes

[54:11] from being interpreted as such.

[54:14] Well, this type of establishment, though, I think you need to think of what it's serving.

[54:20] It's not serving a neighborhood necessarily, it's serving a broader area, like the office

[54:26] next.

[54:28] So it would not be appropriate to be in a C1 district.

[54:35] I think that would be, that's going to just be a regular retail use, but I think that

[54:41] maybe when we refer to it in the office district as the office retail accessory, it doesn't,

[54:50] we don't need to have the term office, it's just accessory retail that's permitted in the

[54:54] office and then we don't have to worry about what it is or it can be anything that's accessory

[54:58] to the office. It could put a size limitation on it if you do, if you are concerned about

[55:04] big box popping up in office districts. But I think it's, it should be clear that it's accessory

[55:11] to things that- Probably within a building and not entrance, you know, you don't enter

[55:18] from the outside from a big parking lot with a big office max sign so I

[55:27] think the point

[55:28] is is that these are are are ready essentially allowed in the C1 district as full retail

[55:35] stores.

[55:37] I guess a follow-up question that is are we thinking are we thinking that a retail store

[55:44] that sells office type things should be allowed in the O1 or O2 district?

[55:51] And

[55:54] that may be why the question came up on the chart because it was listed as that and

[55:59] permitted an office and someone may have thought, well, why would I'm admitting this in the

[56:03] C1, but we are, I think it's just, we don't need that term.

[56:09] I think to be in the use matrix, and that makes sense, I think it would just be retail.

[56:14] And then it's in there, and the use matrix is permitted in the office, and then you go

[56:19] into the office district and you find out more information that this is intended to be

[56:23] accessory or maybe it's an A in the matrix for accessory then rather than P.

[56:29] Yeah, I mean, I think for most truly accessory uses that would work for something like an office max or office depot, although that's not going to be accessory that would not what?

[56:41] I don't think that would be permitted in the office district.

[56:43] No, it wouldn't, it wouldn't now because retail stores are only permitted as special

[56:51] venues in the O3, but if we, historically, what does the, I'll pull up the July,

[57:03] historically, are you saying what's the name convention for?

[57:07] Well, so, so right now we are allowing retail businesses normally associated with

[57:13] In complementary to office districts, I.e. stationary shops, office supplies and office equipment, we're allowing those permitted by right in the O2 and the O3.

[57:24] I think the thought here is we want to allow that to continue in the O1, the O2 and the O3, but we shouldn't call those office retail store comma accessory.

[57:40] So I think the note there would just be, we need to have some provision that would allow,

[57:46] that would not allow retail businesses in the O1 and O2 districts generally.

[57:54] But we would allow them, if they are normally associated with and

[57:57] complimentary to the office district as a whole, such as stationery shops, office supplies and office equipment.

[58:05] And that would preserve the status quo.

[58:07] Yeah, I

[58:16] think I understand we're

[58:24] phrasing and redefining.

[58:27] So does staff have guidance on what the proposal is, or

[58:38] does the consultant, I guess, okay.

[58:41] So with that being said, is there any objection to the proposal from planning commissioners?

[58:48] So I think we're going on that one.

[58:50] Okay.

[58:52] Great.

[58:52] So let's talk about residential now.

[58:55] So in terms of the residential use, yeah, before we go on, I guess Mr. Roe has one question

[59:01] about on our, there's the other point of arts, fine arts, designs, studios that we resolve that.

[59:08] That was on our list.

[59:10] Double check.

[59:12] Anything that was not on the list that we didn't address, they have already, staff has already implemented those.

[59:19] But it's on the list.

[59:21] Yes, so anything that's on the list on page 1 and 2 that we didn't just go over, staff has already implemented.

[59:29] So, unless anybody has an objection to the ones that we did discuss, staff thought that those were just

[59:35] straightforward enough that we didn't need to discuss them.

[59:38] Well, so-

[59:38] What it says, one commissioner noted that this should-

[59:41] You should be allowed in the C2 district.

[59:44] Yes, so under the proposal that is now allowed in the C2 district.

[59:47] So-

[59:47] So that one-

[59:48] And then-

[59:49] And then the other two are we have the business service.

[59:53] Yes.

[1:00:00] I should note that this should be allowed in the C3 that has been implemented as well. Thank you. So does anybody before we move on? Does anybody have an objection to numbers 1, 4, or 5? No.

[1:00:14] No, Mr. Raymond, if you want to go over the zone, thank you for catching that, or is the zoning ordinance rewrite for the residential district summary review?

[1:00:23] So

[1:00:26] this is kind of somewhat similar to last meeting, we are going to offer some consolidation

[1:00:33] of districts in chart format and then talk about some dimensional standards as well as

[1:00:40] the use matrix for residential.

[1:00:43] So I just wanted to, we just wanted to set the stage on why we are doing this and that's

[1:00:47] because of your future land use plan and map of your master plan.

[1:00:50] So starting with what the master plan designated is the large lot residential, future land use designation.

[1:00:58] This was the lowest density or single-family residential designation.

[1:01:02] This is really going to be a lot sizes, typically of 8,400 square feet or larger.

[1:01:11] a lot of just single-family neighborhoods with larger lots, the plan said an

[1:01:20] envisioned single-family as well as ADUs and Duplexes in these areas and then

[1:01:28] the generally the zoning plan said that these would match the R70 to R100 zoning

[1:01:37] So this is where a lot of these areas would be.

[1:01:41] These are those R60 through R100 properties throughout the city, a lot on the north side

[1:01:51] of the city.

[1:01:54] And this is the consolidation chart, how it would look.

[1:02:00] So these would be consolidated and renamed to a new R1 district.

[1:02:04] I don't know about you all, but I just don't think the R70s through 100 really, I get it,

[1:02:13] it was meant to match the lot width, but it was quite exhaustive in terms of a lot

[1:02:19] of districts that kind of look the same and regulate the same way, just with different

[1:02:25] lot widths.

[1:02:26] So we're really just trying to simplify it by consolidating to R1.

[1:02:34] I can stop there in terms of the R70 to R100 consolidation to the new R1, if you have any questions.

[1:02:44] Yes.

[1:02:45] Mr. Brown.

[1:02:47] Oh, yeah, I did have an opportunity to, what I did is I went through the zoning ordinance map, which was, I kind of looked at where the pattern of the R60s,

[1:02:56] 70s or 80s, I couldn't find any of our 90s anywhere but maybe they do exist.

[1:03:04] But anyway, I really thought as a result of that just looking at the pattern of these

[1:03:11] zoning districts, I think that the R70 ought to be put with the R60 and they are 80s because

[1:03:20] Because we were getting over the years, the larger lot, we were getting a lot of R80s.

[1:03:27] And then of course we get to the other 100s in the Northwest Quadrant of the city,

[1:03:32] where that R80s and 100s are up in that area.

[1:03:36] And I think that the R70s are mainly part of our older, established subdivisions.

[1:03:44] So I would advocate that we keep, I'll take the R-70 out of that consolidation and put it with R-60.

[1:03:59] Yeah, so here's the map in front of you.

[1:04:02] And to your point, there's very few 90s, but the 80s and 100s really kind of go together in a way, especially on the northwest side.

[1:04:16] Do we have a map of it?

[1:04:19] we have the 60s in the next group. Do you want to do you want us to jump to the R-60s map?

[1:04:25] Sure. I think that would be helpful. So we're going to just jump forward a few slides on this

[1:04:31] kind of. We're going over here too. Oh, we

[1:04:40] have it somewhere, do we?

[1:04:47] Was that where there are 60s on the

[1:04:52] what would they be the R-2s since you're renaming them R-2? No, yeah those maps are existing zoning.

[1:05:01] So that's, oh, here it is.

[1:05:02] We saw a skip over it, you know.

[1:05:05] I was going to say Ava.

[1:05:07] So those are the R60s.

[1:05:10] So most of the residential, I mean,

[1:05:12] a majority of the residential is R60.

[1:05:16] So remember this, and we'll go back to the other one.

[1:05:19] So Mr. Rose question is, does it more sensible

[1:05:21] to combine the R60 and R70 into the new R2?

[1:05:27] Yes, correct.

[1:05:28] That's correct.

[1:05:29] Planning commissioners, any thoughts?

[1:05:41] The R70 to be combined with R60 instead of R80 to R100.

[1:05:48] Is there any objection?

[1:05:51] Okay, I guess we have our direction, so it'll be R80 to R100 and R1 and R60 to R2.

[1:06:00] Thank you.

[1:06:01] Yeah, that's good comments that we like to hear when we do this kind of thing.

[1:06:06] Next is the suburban residential of future land use from the master plan, so this is that next level, so if we say that the large lot residential is the least dense, this is the next in terms of density scale, so this is a little bit more dense than the large lot residential.

[1:06:27] These, the master plan and vision, single family homes, 80 use and duplex on these properties as well.

[1:06:34] So as Mr. Rowe kind of started or kind of foreshadowed, this is the R60 zoning district for the most part, but we'll add R70 to it.

[1:06:46] And we'll go over the uses at the end here, I just wanted to go over the kind of the broad vision.

[1:06:51] And this would be the medium density single family residential.

[1:06:58] And this is, I went backwards.

[1:07:03] OK, so here's the map.

[1:07:04] Like we said, this is the R60.

[1:07:06] A lot of it is really, it's for the most part, three

[1:07:12] of the four quadrants.

[1:07:15] And this is what it looks like in the consolidation.

[1:07:18] So it'll be the R70 and R60 being renamed to R2.

[1:07:24] and we'll get to the uses in a moment.

[1:07:28] So yeah, here's some of the use considerations

[1:07:31] in the R1 and R2 use matrix.

[1:07:34] So we provide the use matrix in the packet,

[1:07:37] so you can refer to that.

[1:07:40] There's some pretty important considerations here.

[1:07:45] One of them is that we are proposing to permit

[1:07:47] 80 use and duplexes by right in these districts.

[1:07:52] We're looking to reform the category names and the definitions for child care, family and group homes, and then the adult foster care homes as well, and then also permitting one family attached dwellings, I think, in both R1 and R2, let me double check that.

[1:08:14] But one family attached is those are town homes by definition.

[1:08:22] Yep, those would be permitted in both the new R1 and R2 as well.

[1:08:30] Currently, it looks like there's a provision that is regarding nursing home.

[1:08:38] Well, it seems like it's referring to nursing homes and the current R70 through R100 districts that I believe these type of homes are permitted, but I don't know if these are really, if it makes a lot of sense to permit these and kind of your traditional lower density districts and maybe save those for the RM districts.

[1:09:00] So this would be the time to look at the use matrix.

[1:09:05] I think we want to have discussion on this.

[1:09:08] We didn't do kind of posters like we did last time.

[1:09:12] So if you have any comments on uses, this would be the time.

[1:09:17] And for uses, we are sticking to R1 and R2.

[1:09:22] Yep, R1 and R2, and then we'll jump to R3 next.

[1:09:28] Well, I guess does it maybe make sense to do R1, R2

[1:09:32] in our three all together since they're all single family.

[1:09:36] I can see about skipping over two,

[1:09:42] or just doing a little bit of skipping, but I think

[1:09:44] that that's fine.

[1:09:45] Let me show the R3 real quick today.

[1:09:59] It's the one, the map is showing R2 because R3 is becoming R2.

[1:10:04] But

[1:10:08] I didn't pass the uses of R3, do

[1:10:16] we want to discuss the uses of R3, is that, was that the government?

[1:10:20] I mean, I think it, because they're all single family, I think it makes sense to address them all together.

[1:10:24] Okay, so I'm going to just scroll through to the uses of R3 real quick.

[1:10:37] So here's a summary of some of the new R3 uses.

[1:10:40] So on that third bullet point, this is where we are proposing to permit ADU's single family detached,

[1:10:48] Or it attached, so single-family detached or town homes, duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes.

[1:11:02] Okay, so why don't we talk about uses, and then are we at some point going back, and we're going to talk about setbacks and all that after.

[1:11:10] Okay, so do planning commissioners have any thoughts on the proposed uses for R1, R2, and R3?

[1:11:20] I

[1:11:24] guess I had two questions, what was the rationale for not allowing model homes in R3?

[1:11:32] Just the size of the area is a lot more compact and it's so much closer to a node for the

[1:11:40] most part or a higher intensity commercial or office district that I think we just kind

[1:11:47] I don't want it to say that we wanted it to be a kind of a land efficiency limitation where perhaps you're going to have larger subdivisions in the R1 and R2 that might want a model home to showcase, but perhaps you don't want your limited land for R3 used for a model home instead of a to live in dwelling.

[1:12:22] Yeah, so a model home is kind of something that sits at the front of a subdivision.

[1:12:26] It's kind of the first house and it's the showcase to buyers.

[1:12:31] And I think our thought was, because no one's actually living in it, perhaps those are a

[1:12:38] little bit better suited for the more large lot subdivisions in R1 and R2 than the limited

[1:12:46] space that you have in our three.

[1:12:48] No

[1:12:53] problem with that.

[1:12:56] Let me just say an example.

[1:12:57] I live in a condo complex.

[1:12:59] And what it was built in the early 90s, they were a model.

[1:13:02] They were model, you know, homes, you know, units that were on display for people to come in to look at.

[1:13:11] In fact, it was two different, it was two different, you know, types of models.

[1:13:17] It was at the end of the interior of the building, so I think anybody who's coming into

[1:13:28] look at buying into a complex like that would like to see a model, it looks like.

[1:13:38] Yeah, I mean,

[1:13:41] I don't have an issue with that.

[1:13:43] I would just call it a dwelling unit, especially if it's a part of just a building.

[1:13:47] It's just an unoccupied dwelling unit.

[1:13:52] Yeah, maybe it's just a fact, the fact of the matter is, do we even want to note it

[1:13:59] as a zoning use, because it's the same exact structure as one that's already going to

[1:14:06] be there.

[1:14:07] It's a house.

[1:14:07] It's a dwelling unit.

[1:14:10] And let the property figure out if they want to reserve one to show, or if they want to sell

[1:14:15] it to a tenant or a new buyer.

[1:14:18] Yeah, I mean, I think maybe the difficulty becomes did you consider that a commercial use in a residence zone, but there I think there are ways that you can get around that. I would be inclined to just delete the use and address any concerns about allowing

[1:14:32] I don't know, definitionally state that it's not a commercial use. There you go.

[1:14:38] I think that makes sense and let the developer and owner do what they want with that.

[1:14:42] Yeah.

[1:14:45] All right.

[1:14:45] Second one.

[1:14:46] So the proposal would be to just eliminate the model home's use and address it through calling

[1:14:55] them single family dwellings.

[1:14:56] Is there any objection to that?

[1:15:00] Second item I had was, what was the rationale of not allowing nursing homes in R3? And I get that it's going to be limited space, but to the extent that they can make it work.

[1:15:15] Yeah, I mean if it's exactly that, a lot of those, a lot of the R3 currently are platted like residential or souls. There's not a lot of opportunity for something large or scale. But I mean to your point is if somebody aggregated a couple parts

[1:15:32] parcels together, perhaps they'd have a chance to build one.

[1:15:36] A lot of these are also not on main roads too, so I think parking is another concern.

[1:15:41] And emergency vehicle access,

[1:15:47] where in a neighborhood that may be very disruptive.

[1:15:52] So if they are permitted in that district, having them be on a major thoroughfare would probably

[1:15:58] be desirable.

[1:15:59] Yeah, you could put a use standard and require it to be a major thoroughfare.

[1:16:05] Do we have the map of where the R3 districts are?

[1:16:11] Well, we don't really have a map of that because those are existing R60s and R70s,

[1:16:19] because those are based off the future land use.

[1:16:21] We can, our 60s and our 70s are becoming R2, and R3 is coming out of no existing district.

[1:16:32] So R3 is coming out from no existing zoning district.

[1:16:35] R3 is coming out of R2, the current, the current, yeah, yeah, you're right.

[1:16:41] Dr. Parcel.

[1:16:43] I think it's fair to assume also that more parcels may be added to some of these districts that's

[1:16:50] That's just what we have right now.

[1:16:51] But if you remember the future land use map, our three follows compact residential, which

[1:16:57] is intended to be built around the node areas.

[1:17:01] So those two parcels will probably not be the extent of it.

[1:17:05] Otherwise, we probably would have just removed those from existing and not recreated another

[1:17:09] zoning district for it.

[1:17:11] So I would say, and this is kind of the discussion we had earlier when looking at the adult

[1:17:15] uses.

[1:17:15] Because you're looking at what we have right now is defined and where we have it existing.

[1:17:19] It's like a thought exercise.

[1:17:21] There will be more uses added here.

[1:17:23] It's deeming what is appropriate and where they are appropriate at.

[1:17:25] So it's likely then that the R3 will be on major thoroughfares and most likely, yeah.

[1:17:32] So I would not just there.

[1:17:34] So I would be inclined to add nursing homes then if they can't develop them, they can't

[1:17:38] develop them.

[1:17:39] But I don't, I would just allow it and all that.

[1:17:42] That sounds good.

[1:17:42] Do you want the use standard that they be on a major thoroughfare or do you not care that?

[1:17:47] That's what we currently have for fully assisted, or fully assisted adult living.

[1:17:53] I would defer to staff recommendation on that.

[1:17:57] Probably.

[1:17:58] I think it's a well-suited use directly adjacent to a node where there's a walkable amenity for people or caregivers.

[1:18:07] All right, so proposal is to allow nursing homes to R3.

[1:18:12] Is there any objection from planning commissioners?

[1:18:16] I'm not a doctor, so thank you, though, I appreciate that.

[1:18:25] Well, we're at it, is there any talk about perhaps assisted living as well?

[1:18:30] So, nursing home is one use, but assisted living is another that doesn't involve nursing

[1:18:36] care.

[1:18:37] Do you think the same way about perhaps providing assisted living in the R3 as well on major

[1:18:43] I have

[1:18:55] any objections on that?

[1:18:56] No.

[1:18:57] I'm fine with that.

[1:19:02] Good.

[1:19:03] All right.

[1:19:04] So I think we have our consensus.

[1:19:06] Nursing homes and assisted living facilities permitted.

[1:19:10] And the.

[1:19:13] Special.

[1:19:14] I

[1:19:19] mean, they're there.

[1:19:21] Oh, no, I'm sorry, special.

[1:19:22] I thought that they were permitted and.

[1:19:24] Yeah.

[1:19:24] Currently there's.

[1:19:26] So by.

[1:19:27] By special land use in our three.

[1:19:29] How will you emergency services can.

[1:19:31] Okay, any other comments from anybody on the matrix table for or the used matrix for R1 through R3?

[1:20:03] It was part of the master plan one, I'm looking for it now but I can't seem to find it.

[1:20:08] There was triplexes and quadplexes wherever that is on here.

[1:20:15] Yeah, triplexes and dwellings, comma, triplexes and oddplexes.

[1:20:21] What pages that?

[1:20:22] I'm really can't find it.

[1:20:24] Page two of the use matrix, right in the center, right in the middle of the rules.

[1:20:33] New use.

[1:20:33] Oh, okay.

[1:20:34] I'm looking at the old uses, okay.

[1:20:38] Wanted thoughts on use standards for this from the Planning Commission because we don't

[1:20:43] I have this allowed in our current ordinance, and any thoughts if anyone had any when reviewing this one because our proposal is that it's a permitted use, assuming it meets a lot requirements in the new R3 district, which would meet your compact residential future land use designation, because this doesn't exist.

[1:21:02] I wanted to see if anyone had anything to weigh in on before we go in and craft further any use standards or setbacks or anything.

[1:21:08] So it may not be a setback, yet, and I know you may have comments about that, but I wanted that one to be specifically brought up just because it's a pretty substantial entirely new one.

[1:21:18] Any questions? Any comments?

[1:21:32] Do we want to do the dimensional?

[1:21:33] Do

[1:21:39] we want to do the dimensional for R1 through R3 real quick?

[1:21:42] I think that makes sense, and then jump over to all the discussion on that multifamily.

[1:21:47] Yep, that'll work.

[1:21:48] So, let me, yep. So, pages three to five on your memo. We provided a chart that kind

[1:21:59] of marks everything up. And I do just want to be clear, this is no way near what your

[1:22:04] eventual ordinance is going to look like. This is just us on how we show you this policy

[1:22:10] direction in an abstract form. It's difficult to do sometimes. And so I just, I wanted to

[1:22:18] be clear about that. You'll see this in a full ordinance form eventually. That chart symbolizes

[1:22:25] has columns for R70 through R100, which becomes the new R1, but as Mr. Row has suggested

[1:22:34] that'll be R70 will actually join R60 to become the new R2. So yeah, 3 through 5 contain

[1:22:42] I mean, these dimensional standards.

[1:22:49] Any questions, any thoughts, comments, questions?

[1:22:54] Mr. Chairman, I'm looking for pages three, three, three, three, five.

[1:22:58] It's page 14 of the PDF.

[1:23:01] Page three of the whole of this memo.

[1:23:04] Gotcha.

[1:23:05] Thank you.

[1:23:05] I'm looking at the road.

[1:23:09] Well, you're getting there.

[1:23:10] I guess one thing to think through is, so we've moved our 70 from R1 to R2.

[1:23:16] So the proposed minimum interior lot dimension would

[1:23:24] have been 70 feet,

[1:23:28] which had aligned with the minimum lot dimension for the smallest district that's being merged in, we could move that up to 80.

[1:23:41] I'm inclined to keep it at 70 and allow, I mean, we probably aren't going to have any just because you would have to be a non-conforming lot, unless somebody's just going to combine or do a boundary adjustment, but I would, so I point being even though we've moved our 70 from our 1 to our 2, are we comfortable with the minimum interior lot dimensions as proposed.

[1:24:12] What

[1:24:19] would that be? 70 for the R1 and 50 for the R2.

[1:24:30] I think we're good. I did have a question on

[1:24:33] that, and what was the rationale for not having a minimum width for corner lots?

[1:24:43] The minimum width for corner lots, let me read myself there.

[1:24:49] Yes, so your current earnings requires lots of scale up in size and width when they're

[1:24:55] on a corner? Is there a need to continue to do that? I mean, you would have your front

[1:25:02] lot line. It would probably be the one that your address is facing and your front door

[1:25:07] and then the other lot line would be another side. I think there would be another front lot

[1:25:17] line, but that would be a side yard.

[1:25:23] So is there a need to continue to make them bigger?

[1:25:25] I don't think there's a need to make them bigger, but I think there's a need to have a minimum lot

[1:25:30] Dimension overall. So are we are we changing minimum interior lot dimensions and just making it? Oh, yeah

[1:25:36] You're right and right. We need to rename that that header. It would just say minimum lot

[1:25:41] Yeah, okay as long as we're doing that I'm fine with it, but I mean we'll need something. Yeah

[1:25:47] Exactly. That's that's a good point. I have I have no objection that if we're so if we're just treating

[1:25:53] interior and corner lots of same I find with that.

[1:26:04] Comments or questions on the dimensional standards for R1, R2, and R3?

[1:26:15] One of the questions regarding rear setbacks is we're proposing a rear setback of 35 feet,

[1:26:29] R1, and R2,

[1:26:34] 35 for R3.

[1:26:35] Okay, concern being, is that going to likely be prohibitive of developing ADUs?

[1:26:43] I don't, I think this is principle structures only, so ADUs will follow the accessory structures standard, which actually I apologize, but we just, we haven't really touched on that in terms of these major policies.

[1:26:59] You'll see those standards when you see the full ordinance, but they'll have much more relaxed

[1:27:04] Perhaps like a five or ten foot. Okay, so as long as as long as we're only dealing with principle structure

[1:27:14] Planning commissioners any other comments or questions on dimensional standards

[1:27:22] Just in general when you look at this

[1:27:25] We're combining the residential districts

[1:27:28] And then we would be playing that, obviously, to the ordnance text, but also in the map.

[1:27:36] Are we running into any non-conformities?

[1:27:40] Probably not.

[1:27:42] For the most part, what we're doing is we're adding more flexibility by creating smaller

[1:27:48] minimums.

[1:27:49] So you're opening the door for more compliance all across the board.

[1:27:53] or you might not be creating a lot of non-conformity would be if you're going the other way.

[1:28:01] The other way?

[1:28:01] Yeah, that's correct.

[1:28:04] We haven't done, I mean, we did this during the master plan.

[1:28:08] We looked at a lot of these lots on a parcel-wide parcel sampling basis.

[1:28:13] I think for the most part, your depth of a lot of your lots is pretty static because you're developed.

[1:28:18] But we're more opportunities come in as a city in neighborhoods age because you'll have more ability to split lots, but they'd still retain that same depth.

[1:28:29] That's why reducing the minimum front or the minimum width is so important.

[1:28:35] And I know that, well, we all know that our city is pretty much developed.

[1:28:42] Exactly, yeah.

[1:28:42] Yeah, so this is this is good. Yeah, we're getting to a redevelopment mode some of the older neighborhoods when there's changes, whatever that will be.

[1:28:51] Exactly. So we'll be ready for that.

[1:28:55] Yeah, but it might not be the most suited thing for tomorrow, but maybe in a few years or a few decades, yes.

[1:29:07] One of one another thing that just occurred to me, so there's a change in maximum height

[1:29:12] from two stories or 30 feet to two and a half stories or 30 feet, whichever's last two

[1:29:17] part question.

[1:29:18] How are we defining a half story, and why do we even need to deal with stories at all?

[1:29:21] Why not just regulate by height context for that question being I recently had a very complicated

[1:29:30] question about what constitutes a story, and from an impact on the neighborhood, what

[1:29:41] constitutes a story is typically going to be determined by what's inside the building.

[1:29:46] And feeling height.

[1:29:48] Yeah.

[1:29:49] So why not just do by height?

[1:29:53] I mean, you could, you could just do by height and just have the firm 30 and I think most

[1:29:58] people would be all.

[1:30:09] I think

[1:30:13] building code already requires a certain floor to ceiling level as well. I mean, you could, you could just do by blanket height. I don't know what the best practices for that. I would be inclined to do that across the board. I guess I don't know what we do on the board. I don't know what we do on the board. I don't know what we do on the board.

[1:30:32] the commercial districts, I would just go to height for everything personally.

[1:30:37] And the whole reason that existed, the two and a half is found in a lot of ordinances.

[1:30:42] And a lot of communities have found that like the attic, dormer, window type of living space as the two and a half story is more aesthetically pleasing than like a box that just has a box built to 30 feet with perhaps three stories.

[1:31:00] So I think that that's really the key consideration.

[1:31:03] Would you be okay with a more larger looking structure

[1:31:07] that goes to a third story?

[1:31:10] Or do you want that to be that like more of a traditional look

[1:31:16] with perhaps an attic space converted with dormer windows?

[1:31:20] I would be fine with the height because when does a dormer just become an attic?

[1:31:24] You know, I mean you can have a dormer that takes up pretty much the entire attic.

[1:31:27] Attic, when does that become a separate company story or a half story I would

[1:31:37] just do by fee.

[1:31:38] I'm fine with 30 feet regardless of how they build the structure.

[1:31:42] Because people otherwise will just find a way around it anyway.

[1:31:50] Is there any objection to that?

[1:31:56] No.

[1:31:57] Covered by planning staff?

[1:31:59] Mr. Chairman.

[1:32:00] I

[1:32:04] mean, I kind of do, we use this in different ways and different, different, we use stories

[1:32:11] in like office zoning and stuff as well.

[1:32:15] A lot of it comes down, I feel like how we measure the roof line on it because we measure

[1:32:21] flat roofs differently than peak roofs in the ordinance.

[1:32:23] So you have different heights that allow for different architectural styles and then the

[1:32:29] stories then regulates the way that different housing types are built more uniformly.

[1:32:35] So you have trial levels, you have two story homes, you have the houses with the bungalow,

[1:32:40] with the dormers and the attic level. So having both guards covers the height of that,

[1:32:45] because people do, the issue is if height only people do try and do things that can be different

[1:32:49] or squirreling, we have variances come in and that gives us a fallback for that way to review that.

[1:32:55] So I kind of like both of them, I think it helps manage our review of it a little

[1:33:02] easier, but it's just more of blanket coverage for different housing styles.

[1:33:09] To be completely honest, it does help us do that.

[1:33:12] We do work with our building office internally in terms of height for building for

[1:33:16] people who are doing additions quite frequently.

[1:33:18] We've had people want to add on the roof or add a third floor or something like that,

[1:33:22] while still trying to be under 30 feet, and that it's been difficult in ways because then they're how the roof is measured or how people want their roof to be measured or how they'll change the slope of it.

[1:33:33] So it just, it gives us an administrative safeguard in some ways for reviewing different housing styles.

[1:33:39] Very rarely, I think one time ever we had a residential height coming for a variance.

[1:33:44] So it's not common, but I like it. I don't know if the people's website has a different preference

[1:33:50] To look at stories versus a overall. Yeah, it's just it's your preference

[1:33:55] But I think what you'll see is exactly what Dr. Bursel said too is you'd probably get a more full third story

[1:34:03] Then a more limited one that might have kind of

[1:34:06] More architectural force. I think it's more for design than for

[1:34:12] Usage, I mean it doesn't really matter

[1:34:16] If it's two and a half or three, like, functionally, there's still the third flight of stairs to go up or whatever, just second flight of stairs.

[1:34:24] But it is that. But usually, they're calculated the same way. Like you said, it was 30 feet. It's to the top of the flat roof, to the midpoint of the gable.

[1:34:39] So if you did, if it was two stories and you were a flat roof and 30 feet, it's probably

[1:34:47] going to be shorter than the same thing, or what am I saying, like a two and a half,

[1:34:55] well it would be if you kept it at like two and a half, your flat roof is going to be

[1:35:00] shorter than your, the peak of your other, but the massing of it will be up here versus

[1:35:06] up here at the top. So I think that's really, we can address it through where you measure,

[1:35:14] but not maybe the story, but that may be a factor.

[1:35:21] To be honest, I don't think that keeping both of them causes us any issues would be kind

[1:35:25] of what I'm saying.

[1:35:28] It doesn't necessarily, I mean, it does cause issues from a development, a redevelopment standpoint

[1:35:36] point if you want to have more space above your second story, but you're still under 30 feet.

[1:35:43] We define half story as an upper most story lying under a sloping roof, the usable floor

[1:35:48] area of which does not exceed 50% of the floor area immediately below.

[1:35:55] So if you have

[1:36:01] a house that's the footprint is 500 square feet, the half story above,

[1:36:11] of can only be on the front portion of the house then, correct?

[1:36:18] Or the left, how would that be?

[1:36:20] The center, I would say.

[1:36:22] So that's the center, yeah.

[1:36:23] A bungalow.

[1:36:24] If this is the bungalow roof and six feet ish tall,

[1:36:28] I can kind of stand here.

[1:36:29] And I can kind of stand here before I'm going like this.

[1:36:33] So that would be my idea of the 50%.

[1:36:35] As it's usable floor space for me standing in the center part

[1:36:39] of the thing where the peak is.

[1:36:44] Okay, so we're so usable floor areas being calculated based on

[1:36:48] kind of where you measure the midline of the roof height,

[1:36:51] which would be the half story.

[1:36:54] How do we define the usable floor area?

[1:36:57] I don't know, they're just thinking practically.

[1:37:01] It has to be about seven feet in a ceiling height.

[1:37:07] So the surrounding of it wouldn't be usable.

[1:37:10] would have to be within that space.

[1:37:12] Yes, where does that come from?

[1:37:14] Building code.

[1:37:14] It's in the building code.

[1:37:16] And

[1:37:22] we use that definition for.

[1:37:44] It's used like if you have an existing roof

[1:37:47] that has sort of a little bit of space in there,

[1:37:49] you'd have to go into the building code and track it.

[1:37:52] That space can be transformed into a living space.

[1:37:55] We define floor area, we don't define usable floor area.

[1:37:59] It's interesting.

[1:38:00] There usually is a standard though in the building code for like a livable area.

[1:38:06] So I guess seven feet it might be seven and a half feet.

[1:38:10] I guess the question is, is the zoning ordinance adopting that definition from the building code?

[1:38:16] I don't know that it, for the purposes that we're talking about it, it matters.

[1:38:21] It doesn't, I mean the usability of it doesn't really matter.

[1:38:23] It's really the height of it that matters.

[1:38:27] seven and a half feet and it's half of the floor below it, that's a half a story.

[1:38:34] Yeah.

[1:38:34] Okay.

[1:38:35] I'm finally leaving an SSM.

[1:38:38] I will note also just to final, the building off, office of building is like that reviewer

[1:38:44] of 99% single family home permits.

[1:38:46] Planning doesn't really look at those often.

[1:38:49] They have the zoning ordinance that they review with it and that's what helps them with

[1:38:54] the review of it.

[1:38:56] Okay.

[1:38:56] Any other comments or questions on dimensional standards for the R1 through RR3?

[1:39:03] I have one.

[1:39:04] Mr. Jesus, thanks.

[1:39:06] Why are we against three story homes, just for knowledge purposes?

[1:39:10] Not that I like them.

[1:39:11] Why are we against three story homes?

[1:39:14] I think if we're thinking about these in the R1 and R2 and R3 districts, they have a less

[1:39:23] They're a little bit less imposing and they can be more like if we're thinking about infill housing and

[1:39:28] Everything else is pretty much two stories coming in with three might be a little bit more overwhelming than coming in with like a two and a half

[1:39:35] I think that's the idea is that maybe this is a more

[1:39:38] gentle way of blending in some of the newer types

[1:39:42] Okay, if there's an area that's you know new development and they would want, you know three-story

[1:39:48] three million-dollar homes, why are we against it?

[1:39:55] I think it's just a matter of considering the context of what's around it.

[1:39:58] You don't have a lot of areas right now, I don't think, with three story.

[1:40:02] I know you're right now, you're only kept it to the current.

[1:40:07] Correct, but say there's a new subdivision being developed.

[1:40:12] Why are we stopping the three stories from being built?

[1:40:16] I'm not going to, but I'm just, I want to know.

[1:40:18] No, it's a very good question, I think every neighboring city allows it.

[1:40:23] Yeah, kind of the historical relation and compatibility with existing homes.

[1:40:30] And that's kind of where the half comes in, which we don't need to revisit again.

[1:40:34] The half in the, and makes it a little bit more architecturally scaled,

[1:40:38] whereas a full makes it more bulky, but it's your choice.

[1:40:43] If you want to say three stories altogether is the limit at 30 feet, then we can do that.

[1:40:52] Mr. President, I'm not putting three-story home in a 30-foot high, I don't think it's going to work, I don't think anybody's going to apply for it because there's not enough space.

[1:41:07] My question is, why are we not allowing three stories?

[1:41:12] I'm not saying within the 30, why are we against it?

[1:41:15] So if someone was to build a new subdivision, and they want to sell bigger homes, I think they should have a right to.

[1:41:23] I'm not discussing basically just on this matter, I just wanted to know why we're so against it.

[1:41:28] Shelby allows it, Rochester allows it, Troy allows it, I'm not sure if Warren allows it.

[1:41:35] But I want to say Clinton allows it as well.

[1:41:37] Well, something you could certainly do for single family homes.

[1:41:41] Yeah, Clinton, Clinton Township, I'm sorry.

[1:41:46] I said, I'd be surprised if Troy does allow three.

[1:41:49] Okay, but I know there's neighboring cities I do allow it, I don't know why we don't allow it.

[1:41:57] I think, and as I think to, I think your point is especially relevant for town homes, because a lot of town homes might have a parking.

[1:42:03] Parking on the first floor with some minimal living space on the first floor and then they sometimes jump up to three

[1:42:10] Because they have the ground floor. That's a garage with some living space. Yep second floor has the kitchen and kind of the general living area

[1:42:18] Third floor has like the master bedroom and the secondary bedroom

[1:42:23] So I mean, I think you see that with townhomes

[1:42:26] Maybe that's more often.

[1:42:28] The R3 district maybe.

[1:42:30] So maybe the R3 district can trim it up to 30 feet in three stories.

[1:42:35] Is there any?

[1:42:37] I can see it in dense areas where you'd want to go up.

[1:42:39] I'm not sure if I agree with areas where there's a lot of land while you'd want to go up.

[1:42:45] But it also be cautious of accessibility issues that will happen.

[1:42:50] Because now you're going through stories and with age.

[1:42:53] But I guess that could also be a personal choice.

[1:43:00] We saw a project in another community where it was like 75 town homes.

[1:43:06] And I believe in a couple of the buildings, they were like multiple buildings.

[1:43:12] A couple of them, they were put going to put in elevators to accommodate if people needed that to get to the third floor.

[1:43:22] Mr. Rah, I think on this whole point, if we were a community that had some vacant land,

[1:43:28] do you want to build a subdivision, for example, and there are all three stories, that's

[1:43:32] one thing.

[1:43:33] That would be, I would advocate that that would be a value to allow that.

[1:43:39] But in our situation, if we have it in the order of the three story, that allows an individual

[1:43:45] in a existing subdivision to add a third story to their house.

[1:43:51] And I don't think we want to do that because again, as you pointed out,

[1:43:54] it takes away from the character of the community that's already established.

[1:44:01] Yeah, again, it's your choice.

[1:44:03] I think that's feedback that you're all offering.

[1:44:05] Yeah, I agree.

[1:44:06] It should, you know, everything should be uniform.

[1:44:09] I'm with that.

[1:44:10] But, you know, if we add, you know, six feet

[1:44:15] to the 30 foot maximum, and then now we can get a three story at home, and it's almost 4,000 square feet, and there goes more tax money for the city.

[1:44:26] And it's not going to be next to a 1500 square foot home, it's going to be within a subdivision on its own that you're not going to see, and we're planting so many trees, it's really going to be covered anyway.

[1:44:38] Why stop that from happening, will allow a big apartment, but not a big homes.

[1:44:50] We're in a large city, we're not in a small city.

[1:44:53] It should be, my personal opinion, it should be allowed.

[1:44:57] I think we should be at 35.

[1:44:59] I've had it.

[1:45:00] All right. And, you know, allow three stories of a group of people want to build, you know, homes like that are like, you know, the ones on OpDi, you can all that, by stop them.

[1:45:12] We've gotten any requests within the city for three stories? One.

[1:45:23] I think one of the reasons we're probably not getting requests is, I don't know how you would show practical difficulty for not having a third floor. So, yeah, nobody's going to get a hearing. Nobody's going to get a hearing. I hope we didn't grant that variance.

[1:45:36] I guess, I don't know, but it would be pretty difficult to get a variance for a third.

[1:45:44] It was good, I think it was, we did not, okay.

[1:45:47] We had some challenges, it was a challenge in debate about how do you measure from, I believe, correct?

[1:45:53] They had a weird, slightly raised foundation, and we had to measure the inside of the basement, it was funky.

[1:46:03] from the grade to the first floor joist.

[1:46:10] I remember that case where we had the UVA, and we counted the basement as a story.

[1:46:17] That's from what we did.

[1:46:18] But since I started speaking, I'm just going to add my two cents.

[1:46:21] I think I'm not opposed to the three-story as Mr. Yusuf pointed out, I think we should

[1:46:27] But we should allow that, it should have an, it should exist, or if someone's requesting

[1:46:37] it, I think we should, I won't be opposed to a third story.

[1:46:41] So that's the direction that that's my true sense and I know how the rest feel but I support

[1:46:46] that division.

[1:46:48] Plenty of questioners, other thoughts?

[1:46:51] I'd like to give my two cents if possible as well.

[1:46:55] Go for it.

[1:46:56] So Clinton townships, two stories, 35 feet,

[1:47:00] Troy's two stories, 30 feet, Shelby Township is 35 feet.

[1:47:07] I don't really view the third story as something that should be blanked out.

[1:47:13] I think the half stories generous upgrade from here.

[1:47:15] If it's a new subdivision and a group is coming in and they want to do something like that,

[1:47:19] maybe we can look at ways to allow that for like a new cluster development or subdivision.

[1:47:24] But it does come, I think, to the character of the existing neighborhood of what you have,

[1:47:30] even in NVDA, which is our most recently adopted ordinance.

[1:47:34] We have tight transitions for different things in how they're built.

[1:47:39] Town homes often times we have at 30 feet.

[1:47:43] primarily because they don't want to do additional driveway aisle access for emergency vehicles because ladder trucks once you exceed 30 feet need 26 foot drive lanes.

[1:47:54] So I don't know how honestly fire department look at that if it was in line in a house or in a single-family neighborhood, we'd have to ask.

[1:48:01] I don't think that that should be a prohibiting factor, but at the same time most town homes with the garage underneath have a garage taking up half the ground floor, have the other half of the ground floor is livable space, and that would be your half of a story.

[1:48:13] So it could be three stories in height functionally, but the bottom ground is half of a story and the rest would be the garage counting area.

[1:48:21] So I don't know, I think the two and a half is in line with the character of most of our existing homes.

[1:48:27] I don't know of any three story homes, but up to the planning commission.

[1:48:32] I'd be open to going up to 35 feet or three stories, I would just do 35 feet.

[1:48:36] I think

[1:48:40] it would probably be helpful for planning commission to get maybe a little more information about municipalities either around us or across the state that are allowing third stories, how do they do that?

[1:49:02] I mean, there are two options would be either two and a half stories and going up to 35 feet

[1:49:07] or three full stories and going up to 35 feet.

[1:49:10] So I guess that's maybe what ask us to look into a little more and see who's doing it and how they're doing it.

[1:49:19] Yeah, I find the three stories a typical for what we see in other zoning ordinances what I've ever worked with, but we'll look it up

[1:49:28] Anything else? Well, anything else on stories or height anything

[1:49:36] on dimensional standards for R1 through R3

[1:49:38] Here

[1:49:47] ain't nothing. I think we are good to go on to

[1:49:50] RM1 and RM2 starting with the uses

[1:49:59] It is slow. It turns really slow. Okay

[1:50:04] So, existing, talking about the existing ARM 1 and ARM 2, these will be consolidated into a new

[1:50:14] ARM 1. This will just be your multi-unit dwelling district in a broad sense. It follows your

[1:50:23] multi-household residential future land use. So,

[1:50:32] these are just kind of scattered throughout the

[1:50:34] city. There's really no major geographic pattern, other than a lot of them are on major

[1:50:41] thoroughfares to begin with. You won't see many of these isolated from a major thoroughfares.

[1:50:49] So going over to existing RM3, these are your towers. So these are your large residential tower

[1:50:56] buildings, and that being said because RM1 and RM2 are being consolidated to the new RM1. This RM3

[1:51:07] will be renamed to RM2 and it still follows that residential, the multi-household residential

[1:51:12] future land use.

[1:51:13] It's just going to permit higher densities and higher heights.

[1:51:19] So in terms of uses, we already talked about the R3 stuff on that third bullet point.

[1:51:26] We talked a lot about, we already talked about pretty much one through three.

[1:51:29] So really for the RM1 and RM2, we would permit town homes, duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes,

[1:51:36] And then the multi-unit dwellings, which are those buildings with five plus units, live

[1:51:41] work units, nursing homes, and senior independent housing assisted living as well.

[1:51:53] And again, the difference is really more of a height thing and a density thing when you

[1:51:57] vote from the new RM1 to the new RM2.

[1:52:07] There's no question about the uses anything about the dimensional requirements for the RM1

[1:52:12] and RM2.

[1:52:13] All right, planning commissioners anything on, we can probably just take both these all together uses, or

[1:52:20] dimensional requirements for RM1 and RM2.

[1:52:31] Hearing no questions, do

[1:52:36] we have anything else, otherwise we can just turn to general questions, comments?

[1:52:40] Yeah.

[1:52:40] Oh, Mr. Rowe.

[1:52:41] Yeah, I can't back up.

[1:52:42] Okay, I just want to be clear.

[1:52:44] the RM,

[1:52:47] it's going to be RM, we're taking the two RM, RM one and RM two to make it a new

[1:52:54] RM one, right?

[1:52:56] Right.

[1:52:57] Okay.

[1:52:58] And then the, just refresh my memory there, the height dimensions for RM two.

[1:53:07] For the current RM two or the future, current RM two?

[1:53:10] The current RM2 is two stories 30 feet and the proposal, the RM1 is two stories 30 feet, two and a half stories or 30 feet.

[1:53:22] No, he's talking about the existing.

[1:53:23] Oh, the existing.

[1:53:24] The existing RM1 and RM2 are two stories 30 feet.

[1:53:28] The proposal for the new RM1 which would combine the existing RM1 and RM2 would be two and a half stories or 30 feet.

[1:53:36] But

[1:53:40] then a distinction would be made with an Rm3, right?

[1:53:43] They are coming there.

[1:53:46] Well, yes.

[1:53:47] And there is no...

[1:53:50] There is no harm to.

[1:53:51] There is no maximum

[1:53:56] height for Rm3.

[1:53:58] Currently there is not.

[1:53:59] So we are not proposing one in Rm2.

[1:54:01] The new Rm2.

[1:54:04] There is one I mentioned that because in our past,

[1:54:07] here we have some...

[1:54:11] These apartment buildings, putting in three stories and they're getting black from some of

[1:54:19] the residents, especially if it's adjacent to single-family residents, they're concerned

[1:54:26] about the height of the three-story building versus two-story, and we've got those new apartments,

[1:54:37] a lot of them are three story and the market's really dictating yeah yeah the

[1:54:44] market is dictating that that's a pretty standard

[1:54:52] but it's just you know combining our our multi-family districts which

[1:55:02] to allow them, allow them more flexibility in the height.

[1:55:09] I think most of the apartment complexes that have come in recently have come in as PUDs.

[1:55:14] I don't remember the last apartment complex that came in, we had one that came in as a special land use for units on the ground floor.

[1:55:22] And obviously then they were limited to, oh no, they weren't on VD, North Van, they weren't Van Dyck makes use.

[1:55:30] They could go three.

[1:55:32] Either way, point B, we haven't had any apartment complexes in a long time that were developed

[1:55:38] by right, fully by right.

[1:55:40] So you had the mixed-use development at 17 in Ryan, that was two stories from

[1:55:49] the north

[1:55:51] east side,

[1:55:54] that was by right, you reviewed the site plan by, and then the other two that

[1:55:59] were special approval land uses are both two stories.

[1:56:01] Right.

[1:56:02] So most of the ones that we've had other than those three have been PUDs, my thought.

[1:56:12] PUDs a lot was the flexibility, right?

[1:56:15] That's what they went PUD.

[1:56:17] Notification.

[1:56:18] Yeah.

[1:56:19] That's about it.

[1:56:20] Yeah.

[1:56:21] Okay.

[1:56:21] Just.

[1:56:25] No higher rise.

[1:56:27] Yeah.

[1:56:28] No.

[1:56:28] Like, there's so few RM3 parcels those don't come up really ever.

[1:56:33] I can't.

[1:56:34] I can't think of one that we've had approved taller than that other than like the CCF buildings in the North

[1:56:45] Fandite Avenue area. The North Fandite Avenue already allows inherently higher buildings, taller, not higher, but I can't

[1:56:55] Any other comments on RM2?

[1:57:03] Any general comments about residential districts and uses?

[1:57:10] You see on the other thing that I had and maybe this will be addressed later is good brought up at the last meeting, supplemental meeting, encouraging balconies on apartments.

[1:57:26] Are we, is that still in the words or do we have it?

[1:57:43] So, to be honest, I feel like it's a developer preference everywhere in the city,

[1:57:50] where it's currently not mandated as a potential option.

[1:57:54] North Fandike Avenue has a well-described facade articulation and

[1:58:00] facade composition, like component of the ordinance.

[1:58:04] That includes balconies and their size and your facade transparency and things like that.

[1:58:09] That is intended to be a district that has that density built upon each other in a way that it functions as a walkable area.

[1:58:18] Same thing as the interior circle of lakeside is approved by Council through those design guidelines.

[1:58:24] I know that it's a preference of the planning commission for that.

[1:58:28] But if somebody comes in and they're on a redevelopment corridor or are on a traditional RM2 parcel

[1:58:34] And they just don't want to have balconies and they would prefer to have

[1:58:38] Gazibaud rear porches with larger slab patios in the back for people to use

[1:58:43] Fine with that. I don't think I have a preference in making them do a balcony. No, that's why it would be encouraging

[1:58:49] I'm not requiring it

[1:58:50] Yeah, but we can so this is a great option actually a good segue to something that I brought up to

[1:58:57] The thing that I wanted to mention I don't like in here that would actually be good for planning commission to review on is the requirement for

[1:59:07] I'm trying to find it cuts off on the page recreation area and facilities.

[1:59:13] So for instance, we had a hypothetical today of somebody who wanted to do a town home development of four sale town homes that would have required over 20,000 square foot

[1:59:24] a recreational area. And they said that's not the market we don't see people use it and we don't

[1:59:29] want to build what typically would have to be as an activated space. So would we be able, I

[1:59:34] asked Ms. Bain before this meeting, because it was fresh in my mind, what could we include in an

[1:59:39] ordinance that would take the place of that outdoor activated recreation area, reducing that

[1:59:46] in lieu of putting in other development and amenities. So if you were to say, you don't need to

[1:59:52] include, you know, 500 or 300 square foot of outdoor wreck area for an

[2:00:00] For a multi-family development, if you include balconies, you can reduce it by a percentage or an amount that would be something that I would be favorable for. Because sometimes people want balconies that they can put plants on and sit outside and have privatized outdoor space rather than a public amenity that they may not want to use. And therefore it would balance out to still have outdoor area for people. So that would be my thought. You could encourage it through a bonus or incentive of development option with something else.

[2:00:29] in the ordinance. I'd be fine with that.

[2:00:33] Plenty of commissioners, any thoughts? I'll be fine with it as well.

[2:00:36] Mr. Chairman.

[2:00:39] Just to back up, some of the

[2:00:42] wherever complex that we have come into the city, no bell can be seen.

[2:00:47] But there's no outdoor space either. Yeah.

[2:00:51] And that sticks in my crowd. Yeah. And in fact,

[2:00:55] Mr. Gell mentioned at one of our meetings

[2:00:59] It was the latest proposal, I'm not sure it was the latest one, but he mentioned he

[2:01:03] said he took a survey of his, of tennis and his existing developments and one of the

[2:01:08] things he pointed out, they would like to have balconies, well, really wake up, because

[2:01:17] the ones that we have, if there's no open space, there's no way for a person to get some fresh

[2:01:23] share except the only way to step on the parking lot.

[2:01:26] I'd rather see if it's, I like this flexibility,

[2:01:31] but if it's a space that's really, really limited on outdoor

[2:01:37] recreation space, I'll use that term,

[2:01:39] then I think they require it to have balconies.

[2:01:42] Yeah, I agree with that also, because then if you have a

[2:01:45] requirement, you're not seeing people seek it as a PUD

[2:01:48] modification, although my hope is we have much fewer

[2:01:50] your PUDs after this is adopted, or you're not seeing people seek dimensional

[2:01:55] variances for that, you're seeing people build amenity space for people that they prefer

[2:01:59] rather than, you know, something they are choosing not to maximize their space otherwise.

[2:02:05] The part that came up in the development today was someone said, well, there's a pond and,

[2:02:10] you know, Mr. Patruzac and Keenan, I said, well, the pond's not activated recreation space.

[2:02:14] It's not even space that anyone could ever use, it's a detention pond that holds water.

[2:02:18] It's a wet pond.

[2:02:19] So, you know, it's something that we would look at and we would say, okay, well, you can

[2:02:24] have balconies, therefore you can, and then in addition to a walking path that's landscaped,

[2:02:28] you meet the requirement of this ordinance section and therefore you're approved administratively.

[2:02:34] Yeah.

[2:02:34] I will change my views to the flexibility of use in terms of flexibility rather than requirement.

[2:02:40] Based on what you just described.

[2:02:44] Okay.

[2:02:45] Okay.

[2:02:45] I think we have consensus there.

[2:02:46] Any other comment on anything for the residential districts?

[2:02:53] All right, so what are our next steps?

[2:02:57] Yep, so next steps, the slide,

[2:03:06] there was one in between there.

[2:03:08] So we're planning on October 28th, being our next meeting.

[2:03:12] That meeting will cover the zoning map.

[2:03:15] So you will see a draft zoning map based primarily on your future land use plan

[2:03:19] and some of these consolidations that we have already discussed.

[2:03:25] And then just tying up some loose ends, tying up some kind of miscellaneous items that

[2:03:30] we think definitely raise your, should be raised onto your desk.

[2:03:37] Our goal will be to perhaps have it beginning to look in the clear zoning format as well,

[2:03:44] because then you can start to see a more finished product put together.

[2:03:48] Right now you're just seeing a lot of stuff in the abstract can be difficult.

[2:03:52] So, those are our goals for the October meeting and some definitions to,

[2:03:58] some key definitions that build upon what we've formatted, formulated to this point.

[2:04:07] Mr. Chairman, let me be selfish for a minute, are you wedded to the October 28th?

[2:04:16] I mean, I was speaking for myself, I won't be out of town, and I hate to miss that.

[2:04:21] Get a good date that we all agree on.

[2:04:25] But set the meeting for the majority, just me.

[2:04:30] So we have a couple of meetings before now in October 28th.

[2:04:34] I thought it would be staff can consult with planning commissioners and see.

[2:04:44] I will have Isabella send out a doodle poll or one of the calendar polls to you that you've been using for your attendance.

[2:04:50] giving you multiple date options, we will pick the one that most commissioners can make that does not conflict with another city public meeting, and we will set that meeting at your September 9 meeting.

[2:05:02] Thank you. Any other, I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Any other comments or questions from planning commissioners?

[2:05:11] That will move on to citizen participation.

[2:05:13] Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak, Mr. Redke?

[2:05:31] Michael Redke, resident strolling nights.

[2:05:35] My first comment is the fire truck and the fire agency should not dictate building heights.

[2:05:41] That's like the, you know, the car following the horse.

[2:05:46] At the end of the day, we will have a fire service here that will be able to accommodate all building sizes and types.

[2:05:53] I used to live in the city of London.

[2:05:55] London has smaller fire trucks because they have narrower streets, they have taller buildings.

[2:06:01] London doesn't have more fires or worse fires than we do here in Sterling Heights.

[2:06:06] The idea that we need to have 26 foot roadways as a farce put to you by the current fire service because they demand it.

[2:06:14] So set your standards and we will work with the fire department to make it work.

[2:06:18] But the idea that they're the ones dictating housing type and housing kinds here is insane to me, and it's it's just totally wrong. So let's start there.

[2:06:29] Our 60s and our 70s should be combined. I agree with that. I think it should be the R1 district. The way we've numbered most districts here is from the most simple or the most common to the most uncommon.

[2:06:41] And if you look at our 60 and our 70, it's like 75% of the city is that.

[2:06:48] So to make it R2 and to make R1 a less common situation is kind of anti how you've done all the rest of the ordinances.

[2:06:57] So I would argue that those two should flip.

[2:07:00] R3 being the smallest might go first, but I don't think that because it has more complicated, it should be R3.

[2:07:06] Because it allows more housing types and designs.

[2:07:08] I think you should go from easiest to hardest.

[2:07:13] I'm concerned about both lot minimum housing sizes and setbacks.

[2:07:21] I haven't seen a good reason why we need to keep 35 foot setback.

[2:07:25] If there is one, I'd like them to bring it here and have them explain it to us why, rather

[2:07:29] than just an arbitrary number.

[2:07:31] But right now, in all but R3, your minimum house size is 1,000 square feet, and I don't understand

[2:07:38] and why that is.

[2:07:39] Essentially, you're locking out everything

[2:07:42] besides our three to a large house.

[2:07:45] Most bungalows, most pre-war bungalows

[2:07:47] are 800 square feet or less.

[2:07:50] Most homes in St. Clair Shores are less than 800 square feet

[2:07:53] or 850 square feet.

[2:07:55] So I understand why if you have a larger lot,

[2:07:57] you have to have a larger house.

[2:08:00] I can see, if you want to buy a larger lot

[2:08:02] and have a smaller house and have more gardens,

[2:08:05] more stuff, that should be your right.

[2:08:06] we live in America. Minimum housing size has also increased the cost of homes.

[2:08:12] You have to build a certain size of home plus the land plus extra automatically when

[2:08:16] we're pushing the prices up. I would just set a minimum house size of 700 or 750 square feet

[2:08:23] and let the market operate like the market. It'll happen. People will decide maybe I can subdivide

[2:08:29] maybe I can do this to that but the idea that we have to have a minimum of 1000 square feet on our 60

[2:08:34] Why? And that also brings me to my next point, which is, you know, tiny homes or, you know,

[2:08:43] they're mobile, but they're not really mobile homes in the traditional sense of homes.

[2:08:46] Right now, this ordinance would essentially outlaw them, except in mobile home communities.

[2:08:53] I don't see any room for them, but if you went down to like 700 square feet or 750 square feet,

[2:08:58] someone could put a tiny home on a regular lot or an R30 lot, sorry, R3, I'm

[2:09:03] confusing my things for now, and R3 compact zoning lot. And under the current

[2:09:08] ordinance of the one you're contemplating right now it looks like that's a

[2:09:10] legal. And I don't know if anyone's really been watching their their reels or

[2:09:16] looked at what people are doing with tiny homes or smaller designs. There's a lot

[2:09:20] of opportunity for simpler housing content concepts that are much cheaper which

[2:09:26] Each could be added in for a lower cost, but if you keep the current standards in the

[2:09:31] zoning ordinance, it will all be illegal.

[2:09:34] So I would think about affordability.

[2:09:37] People who live here should not have an inferior product.

[2:09:40] They should be allowed to live on the land that they own and the way they want to live on it.

[2:09:45] I think that if you lower the minimum size for homes, you would see more of these cottage

[2:09:49] courts and other ability of different concepts that come forward.

[2:09:53] I also think I agree that three stories, 35 feet, that makes sense to me.

[2:09:59] I mean, I lived in Detroit, that's where I grew up, you know, and my house was not a duplex,

[2:10:02] but it was designed to be a duplex, right? But a lot of houses on my block were three stories.

[2:10:07] They were, they were like two and a half, and the third story was a smaller story, right?

[2:10:11] But they were full three story houses, and they were on much smaller lots than we have in Sterling Heights.

[2:10:16] Much smaller lots. And everybody got along fine. It wasn't like a bad thing.

[2:10:21] It was actually a very nice neighborhood.

[2:10:23] A neighborhood people wanted to get into, East English Village.

[2:10:25] If you go across the street to Gross Point, where the highest cost subdivisions in the state,

[2:10:30] or the highest cost communities in the state, a lot of their houses are three stories on smaller

[2:10:35] lots than we have in thrilling heights.

[2:10:38] I think that people get worried about things that I even worry some yet, like, oh, what

[2:10:43] if we're going to do a people comment and get excited about this?

[2:10:46] But you have an idea, you have an opportunity right now to rethink this ordinance.

[2:10:50] And to do it in a smart way, I grew up on a street with restore houses, they weren't insane.

[2:10:56] As long as they fit the standards which are peaked roofs, they look like I have a certain design.

[2:11:00] I don't think that that's a crazy concept.

[2:11:03] And it would give people more livability.

[2:11:04] Again, you could be able to customize your home the way you want to see fit.

[2:11:12] While also saving yourself money, because every two story house requires more space to be built on.

[2:11:17] A three-story house can encompass more, it could be a duplex.

[2:11:21] It could have an 80-year apartment attached to the backside.

[2:11:25] 80 doesn't have to be a standalone building, for example.

[2:11:27] There's a lot of different ways to play, but when you make the box so small, you really eliminate options.

[2:11:36] And I think in our three, the compact zoning should go up to four stories.

[2:11:42] I mean, I lived in an arbor for a while, an arbor allows for story in almost every neighborhood.

[2:11:48] They allow for story apartment buildings, small apartment buildings like your old missing middle apartment buildings, and they're being built right now.

[2:11:54] You can drive down South University and look at them, but they allow them in almost every neighborhood.

[2:11:59] I'm not saying we should do that, but I'm saying that I'm also not a place.

[2:12:04] And in the compact zoning district, if it's supposed to be a compact zoning district,

[2:12:08] I don't think a small scale, you know, eight-unit building, four-story, two units on the floor, excuse me, is outside the rumble possibility.

[2:12:19] I think you should at least allow it in the R3 and then the RM2, RM3, RM1, RM, I get confused, we've changed all the numbers, right?

[2:12:27] But essentially the RM's, I think those should be allowed to be a little bit bigger.

[2:12:31] because limiting them at 30 feet, that's why no one's doing them now.

[2:12:36] That's why they're all coming as ADUs because they find the centers that you have in your zoning ordinance not to work for developers.

[2:12:42] So if you keep those standards, they're going to continue not to work for developers and we're going to continue to get them all by PUD.

[2:12:48] Because what you have there, the reason that they come PUD now is developers say I can't use these standards, they do not work.

[2:12:55] And you're about to encode them again, the same broken standards that are not working right now, you're going to encode them again.

[2:13:04] I think there's some sense to be splitting up adult entertainment uses.

[2:13:09] This is like a third wire to almost talk about adult entertainment.

[2:13:13] We denied an adult entertainment use some years ago that was essentially like a novelty

[2:13:18] store.

[2:13:19] And I always wonder, what's the difference between a novelty store like that and like a Spencer's

[2:13:23] gifts or like the certain aisles in your local buyer?

[2:13:28] There really is none besides community perception.

[2:13:30] And we do have some adult entertainment novelty stores right now.

[2:13:35] I've been in council for 10 years, I've never had a complaint about one of them.

[2:13:39] Literally.

[2:13:40] I mean, they mind their pees and cues because they realize what they have.

[2:13:43] So I think that, if you guys divide this up, I think it makes sense what Mr.

[2:13:47] Weekai said, which is that I would put cabaret, movie theater use, that kind of thing off to

[2:13:53] one side.

[2:13:53] And I'd put, you know, they wouldn't have video stories anymore, go to the video store,

[2:14:01] novelty store, that kind of thing and other thing because the difference I guess between

[2:14:05] the two of them is, one of them is an adult movie theater and we all know what that is, I hope.

[2:14:09] And the other thing is something like a, you know, a sorrelas or a store where you can

[2:14:13] buy lingerie or gifts, that's a very different concept.

[2:14:18] And I think that right now we encompass them as one thing and as you guys kind of delineated

[2:14:23] during your conversation, they are two very different things.

[2:14:26] I'd be more concerned about an adult movie theater with a child than I would a novelty store.

[2:14:33] It's a very good discussion, it was very robust.

[2:14:35] I was surprised.

[2:14:36] It's very good that we're going through these things and thinking about them.

[2:14:38] And I appreciate all your hard work in really getting into the nitty-gritty.

[2:14:42] And I think building a better ordinance from the ground up.

[2:14:44] It's all I have.

[2:14:45] Thank you, Mr. Ed.

[2:14:46] Any final comments from planning commissioners, want to revisit anything in light of citizen participation?

[2:14:55] Mr. Chairman.

[2:14:56] Mr. Raul.

[2:14:56] I kind of have the same reaction that Mr. Raul had.

[2:15:00] It's regarded to the naming of the R1 and R2. It took me a while to figure out, because it's different than what we were used to. We had the number of the R60, R70, that's easier to deal with. But I would picture the RM1 being the old R60, now 67, rather than the R2 being that. It was just, I just had to get my head around it.

[2:15:29] as I was reading this stuff so I don't know if that was possibly anybody else or

[2:15:37] I think it bothers some people and I think we can definitely think about a new name

[2:15:42] you mentioned for the three districts. I'm sure I'll get used to it.

[2:15:48] What's that?

[2:15:52] Swapping them. I mean

[2:15:57] thank you Mr.

[2:15:59] The other thing I would bring up I get I would be open to

[2:16:03] to making

[2:16:07] the home

[2:16:13] floor area consistent across all the R1, R2, and R3 and letting people

[2:16:22] develop at how they want. So I'm going down to, what is it, 600 feet for R3? I would

[2:16:28] be fine with moving to that for all three single-family districts. Is there any objection

[2:16:35] of that, right? I guess the other thing, this is probably a conversation that will require

[2:16:46] a little bit more thinking, but how do we want to address? We've had some discussion

[2:16:50] about developers wanting to do tiny homes in the city.

[2:16:55] I guess what would be the mechanism

[2:16:59] for doing that?

[2:17:03] It depends on what they are and the type of construction and which building

[2:17:09] and code they fall under.

[2:17:11] So it would, it's more than like a two-minute answer.

[2:17:14] It would be a little bit more detailed.

[2:17:16] But we can bring back some information for you.

[2:17:18] Yeah, I think it would be helpful to bring back

[2:17:21] some information about how we might be able to allow that.

[2:17:24] All right.

[2:17:25] Sorry, I hope we had requests for tiny homes

[2:17:27] because the last ones I've seen were for apartments.

[2:17:30] Excuse me, there were always two bedrooms

[2:17:32] and nobody had flexible spaces for a one bedroom or studio

[2:17:36] because they said the market is asking for larger units and sterling.

[2:17:42] Dr. Parcell can address whether or not we've had a formal request for a tiny home.

[2:17:47] But I am aware of one developer who was actively considering at the point that they were inquiring

[2:17:53] about, inquiring some properties to do so.

[2:17:57] We have reviewed conceptual plans, but you have not formally reviewed a tiny home development

[2:18:02] request.

[2:18:02] So, yes, internally.

[2:18:08] Any other questions or comments for Dr. Persil?

[2:18:15] Is that putting it into an existing residential area?

[2:18:20] I mean, built up area?

[2:18:22] Kind of.

[2:18:23] It's not really a good answer for that without getting into the proposal itself.

[2:18:28] It's adjacent to commercial.

[2:18:30] It's adjacent to commercial.

[2:18:31] It's a buffer zone.

[2:18:32] So, it would fall more into what your R3 is going to be for a compact residential.

[2:18:39] It's next to a note.

[2:18:40] That's fine.

[2:18:41] Okay.

[2:18:41] I was just envisioning as someone to come in and say, you know, in a existing sub-division.

[2:18:46] No.

[2:18:47] No, no, it's not.

[2:18:48] It's an intransition zone.

[2:18:50] Thank you.

[2:18:52] Other comments or questions?

[2:18:56] We're ready for motion to adjourn.

[2:18:58] Mr. Chair.

[2:18:59] I'd like to make a motion to adjourn.

[2:19:01] My name's Mike Meaning.

[2:19:03] Support.

[2:19:03] My name is Mr. Weekas, part of my Mr. Road motions to adjourn all in favor signify by saying aye.

[2:19:08] Aye.

[2:19:08] All opposed.

[2:19:09] Motion passes were adjourned at 918.

[2:19:11] Thank you everyone.

08-26-26 Supplemental Planning Commission Meeting

Transcript