1
00:00:43,150 --> 00:00:51,490
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.

2
00:00:54,550 --> 00:01:15,330
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.

3
00:01:15,330 --> 00:01:15,590
Mr. Rao?

4
00:01:16,130 --> 00:01:16,790
Mr. Rao?

5
00:01:16,970 --> 00:01:18,090
President, Mr. Uikai?

6
00:01:18,270 --> 00:01:18,550
I'm here.

7
00:01:18,890 --> 00:01:20,210
I'm President, and Mr. Yusuf?

8
00:01:20,430 --> 00:01:20,630
President.

9
00:01:21,490 --> 00:01:21,870
All right.

10
00:01:21,990 --> 00:01:22,430
We have a quorum.

11
00:01:22,590 --> 00:01:24,050
If we can have a motion to approve the agenda.

12
00:01:24,450 --> 00:01:24,870
The adjournment.

13
00:01:25,370 --> 00:01:26,190
Mr. Rao.

14
00:01:26,330 --> 00:01:29,030
I move that we approve the agenda is presented.

15
00:01:29,370 --> 00:01:29,670
Support.

16
00:01:30,090 --> 00:01:31,810
Who, by Mr. Rao, is supported by Ms. Wright?

17
00:01:31,950 --> 00:01:33,230
Motion is to approve the agenda.

18
00:01:33,390 --> 00:01:33,870
Is there any discussion?

19
00:01:34,790 --> 00:01:35,590
Hearing none, all in favor?

20
00:01:35,750 --> 00:01:36,690
Signify by saying aye.

21
00:01:37,050 --> 00:01:37,230
Aye.

22
00:01:37,590 --> 00:01:38,030
All opposed.

23
00:01:38,910 --> 00:01:39,630
Motion passes.

24
00:01:40,990 --> 00:01:43,950
For, do we have any correspondence for tonight?

25
00:01:43,950 --> 00:01:44,210
Right.

26
00:01:44,430 --> 00:01:45,110
We did not.

27
00:01:45,550 --> 00:01:45,650
Okay.

28
00:01:46,230 --> 00:01:48,230
So that brings us to new business.

29
00:01:48,630 --> 00:01:50,870
First up, we have the zoning ordinance rewrite.

30
00:01:51,170 --> 00:01:56,870
Follow-up from non-residential uses and then we will transition into the residential district summary

31
00:01:56,870 --> 00:01:57,230
review.

32
00:01:57,370 --> 00:02:02,570
So with that, I will hand it over to the Gipel's Webtoon team of Ms. Bame and Mr. Amat.

33
00:02:03,230 --> 00:02:03,350
Great.

34
00:02:03,790 --> 00:02:04,530
Thank you very much.

35
00:02:05,830 --> 00:02:11,910
We're going to get started here with the, with just a quick overview, we'll go through the

36
00:02:11,910 --> 00:02:16,710
non-residential matrix follow up and then we'll go into the residential districts after.

37
00:02:17,870 --> 00:02:22,170
So first things first, the non-residential use comparison matrix feedback.

38
00:02:22,710 --> 00:02:28,570
This is that feedback you provided on the posters at the end of last meeting.

39
00:02:30,510 --> 00:02:34,970
For the most part and we're not trying to show this in the visual, that's way too small.

40
00:02:34,970 --> 00:02:41,350
but the office received a few comments, received essentially three comments, the industrial

41
00:02:41,350 --> 00:02:51,790
one comment, and then the commercial was grant was given the most feedback, that was nine

42
00:02:51,790 --> 00:02:53,630
stars, nine different comments.

43
00:02:54,010 --> 00:02:57,410
Some of them were pertaining to the same uses as well.

44
00:02:58,230 --> 00:03:04,150
So we did provide these points in the memo that was provided to you before the meeting in

45
00:03:04,150 --> 00:03:13,310
the packet, but we want to zero in on about six or seven points here of land uses. So the

46
00:03:13,310 --> 00:03:21,290
first thing is first was the assisted living facilities. Is there a sentiment from

47
00:03:21,290 --> 00:03:25,930
planning mission that these can be on their own parcel in the one district? That was the

48
00:03:25,930 --> 00:03:38,070
comment was, do these need to be, can these be, you know, attached to another use such

49
00:03:38,070 --> 00:03:45,950
as like a medical facility or another kind of living facility or do these need to be

50
00:03:45,950 --> 00:03:52,890
on a standalone parcel? The comment in the chart, I believe, was kind of hinting at why

51
00:03:52,890 --> 00:03:54,750
Why does this need to be on its own parcel?

52
00:03:54,990 --> 00:03:59,570
Why can't this be shared if we share other type of uses at times?

53
00:04:02,610 --> 00:04:08,490
All right, so why don't we just open it up to the planning commission for discussion bullet point by bullet point?

54
00:04:10,410 --> 00:04:17,950
So who would like to go first and I guess preferably the person who wanted the change can go and explain your reasoning?

55
00:04:17,950 --> 00:04:20,210
And I hope it wasn't me because if it wasn't on the number.

56
00:04:21,390 --> 00:04:26,510
I think all of these are valid, but I do think this one's valid, of course.

57
00:04:28,590 --> 00:04:33,030
Through the chair, I think it was, I was the one who brought up that is a still living facility one.

58
00:04:33,890 --> 00:04:37,630
I don't know who else, maybe someone else discussed it as well.

59
00:04:38,170 --> 00:04:43,890
I just don't know why, why we need to have it its own parcel, like is there any reasoning behind it.

60
00:04:44,530 --> 00:04:48,370
And that day when we were talking about it, I don't know why there's a network.

61
00:04:48,990 --> 00:05:02,370
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.

62
00:05:07,960 --> 00:05:14,960
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.

63
00:05:14,960 --> 00:05:24,480
So I think that's kind of where it started, but I think very happy to hear if other commissioners agree with Mr. Rahul.

64
00:05:25,580 --> 00:05:40,980
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.

65
00:05:41,780 --> 00:05:43,980
Otherwise, if we're not thinking that at

66
00:05:46,630 --> 00:05:47,730
Mr. Kenan.

67
00:05:51,590 --> 00:05:59,090
I think it was mostly related to memory care type of facilities, which they have a certain,

68
00:05:59,290 --> 00:06:07,230
a lot of them have certain restrictions and safety protocol, so that was, that was just the reason why it was up for discussion.

69
00:06:09,760 --> 00:06:11,800
Mr. Rowan.

70
00:06:23,380 --> 00:06:24,080
I

71
00:06:30,160 --> 00:06:47,860
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.

72
00:06:47,860 --> 00:06:49,840
but I guess it should be required.

73
00:06:50,080 --> 00:06:50,780
Is this required?

74
00:06:51,020 --> 00:06:52,880
Is this something the community wants to regulate?

75
00:06:54,100 --> 00:06:59,960
Yeah, I think that I know that there are assisted livid facilities where there's an

76
00:06:59,960 --> 00:07:09,600
attached memory care, as Mr. Ashram has indicated that maybe perhaps that should be the reason

77
00:07:09,600 --> 00:07:10,540
for it to stand alone.

78
00:07:11,480 --> 00:07:16,180
I'm not sure what the requirements are for memory care, but I'd like to pass on to you

79
00:07:16,180 --> 00:07:21,200
I don't think all assistive living facilities are memory care.

80
00:07:21,720 --> 00:07:23,460
No, I don't believe so.

81
00:07:24,580 --> 00:07:28,000
This is actually interesting because I had a meeting about something like this today.

82
00:07:28,820 --> 00:07:37,180
In a node, there is a single structure proposal for something that is a combination of assisted,

83
00:07:38,020 --> 00:07:44,460
fully assisted living with medical office and like a rehab area available for residents,

84
00:07:44,460 --> 00:07:52,880
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.

85
00:07:53,380 --> 00:07:59,040
And that instance is a small scale where it's not intended to be memory care.

86
00:07:59,160 --> 00:08:05,760
It's intended to be those for people who are aging or have physical disability or unable to live on their own.

87
00:08:07,560 --> 00:08:12,140
Given there's certain ones, I think the best option for looking at memory care, we maybe

88
00:08:12,140 --> 00:08:16,600
look into state licensing and see if there's any requirement on what they have in terms

89
00:08:16,600 --> 00:08:23,420
of security or how they use utilized facilities that way, and then we can review it, but because

90
00:08:23,420 --> 00:08:28,460
I do think the use is proposed that we have explored combining it with medical offices

91
00:08:29,000 --> 00:08:32,960
potentially a very good use of space, so I'd like to explore that.

92
00:08:32,960 --> 00:08:38,560
But I do think in some instances it may be useful to have it on some parcel, but we can look into state licensing.

93
00:08:39,180 --> 00:08:47,100
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.

94
00:08:48,660 --> 00:08:51,220
Personal with other uses make that especially use.

95
00:08:57,280 --> 00:09:04,260
My two cents, I don't know if it is a state requirement, then that's up to the developer and

96
00:09:04,260 --> 00:09:06,160
or operator to know that.

97
00:09:06,420 --> 00:09:10,540
I don't know that there's a governmental interest

98
00:09:10,540 --> 00:09:13,940
in regulating that one use to be on its own parcel.

99
00:09:15,000 --> 00:09:19,260
So I think having the availability

100
00:09:19,260 --> 00:09:22,360
of the other medical-related uses right there

101
00:09:22,950 --> 00:09:25,100
on site is also really beneficial.

102
00:09:25,480 --> 00:09:28,700
And potentially other small goods and services too,

103
00:09:28,800 --> 00:09:29,280
potentially.

104
00:09:33,150 --> 00:09:35,360
Yeah, I mean any kind of medical or non-medical

105
00:09:35,360 --> 00:09:42,520
service type business will be helpful, but I know for a sister living facilities, there are not any state requirements.

106
00:09:42,680 --> 00:09:49,300
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.

107
00:09:52,820 --> 00:10:00,160
Sounds like staff's recommendation has changed a little bit and would be to remove that requirement.

108
00:10:00,400 --> 00:10:02,740
Do I have that correct?

109
00:10:02,740 --> 00:10:03,140
All right,

110
00:10:07,120 --> 00:10:11,820
so is there any objection to that from the Planning Commission if not, that's how we'll proceed.

111
00:10:15,350 --> 00:10:17,330
Seeing no objection, I think you have your direction.

112
00:10:17,670 --> 00:10:20,410
So next one was the automotive supply stores.

113
00:10:21,230 --> 00:10:25,710
We do, we are proposing to permit them in the new C2 and the new C3.

114
00:10:26,370 --> 00:10:37,490
So the question was, should we also permit these in the M1 district being a higher intensity district with maybe larger store buildings?

115
00:10:37,490 --> 00:10:38,410
Any

116
00:10:41,540 --> 00:10:42,280
commissioners?

117
00:10:44,200 --> 00:10:45,360
I mean, that was,

118
00:10:47,850 --> 00:10:49,810
I put that star there.

119
00:10:50,850 --> 00:11:05,930
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,

120
00:11:08,540 --> 00:11:13,480
so I figured we can build them there, we should be able to warehouse them there, just tell them out of there.

121
00:11:13,480 --> 00:11:14,720
I think that's a good point.

122
00:11:18,200 --> 00:11:21,420
Planning commissioners, any objection to making that change in allowing that?

123
00:11:21,580 --> 00:11:28,240
So would that then be, I think we would think that we would want to allow automotive supply

124
00:11:28,240 --> 00:11:31,640
stores as a permitted use or by special land use and the M1?

125
00:11:32,240 --> 00:11:33,280
Probably just permitted.

126
00:11:33,680 --> 00:11:38,500
I mean, I would think that they're able to be pretty fitting in the M1 district without

127
00:11:38,500 --> 00:11:39,380
special review.

128
00:11:40,760 --> 00:11:44,000
Is there any objection from planning commissioners to making that change?

129
00:11:44,000 --> 00:11:48,330
Seeing none, I think you have your guidance there.

130
00:11:51,020 --> 00:11:53,580
Great. Next one was bars and lounges.

131
00:11:53,740 --> 00:12:03,820
I believe we had two stars on the poster that sought that perhaps these should be permitted

132
00:12:03,820 --> 00:12:09,840
in the C1 district as well. They're really permitted in this new C2 district.

133
00:12:09,840 --> 00:12:10,560
And

134
00:12:12,840 --> 00:12:22,840
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.

135
00:12:23,080 --> 00:12:30,560
Correct. When they're joining existing C1, they should probably be down, essentially down zone to C1.

136
00:12:31,300 --> 00:12:45,740
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.

137
00:12:46,880 --> 00:12:58,540
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.

138
00:12:58,540 --> 00:13:10,700
I think that would provide sufficient protection while still allowing a use that could ultimately serve nearby residents.

139
00:13:12,940 --> 00:13:21,080
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.

140
00:13:23,900 --> 00:13:28,500
So there was a second star on this one, did any other planning commissioners want to comment on this one?

141
00:13:28,500 --> 00:13:30,960
Mr. Robert.

142
00:13:31,120 --> 00:13:31,460
Mr. Robert.

143
00:13:31,460 --> 00:13:32,360
Mr. Robert, why are bars and lounges?

144
00:13:32,540 --> 00:13:32,660
Yes.

145
00:13:32,820 --> 00:13:39,940
When I first looked at the question was raised, I'm thinking, let's see, one, that's convenience

146
00:13:41,520 --> 00:13:47,260
zoning district, and to serve the neighborhood where bars and lounges have a tendency to draw

147
00:13:47,260 --> 00:13:48,340
from a larger area.

148
00:13:49,100 --> 00:13:55,560
And so I was on the fence with regard to, and its impact on the adjacent residential areas.

149
00:13:55,560 --> 00:14:01,660
But if it's a special approval, perhaps that's the way I'm getting around that, that you

150
00:14:01,660 --> 00:14:10,320
could determine whether a bar or a lounge should be in a C1 district based on that kind

151
00:14:10,320 --> 00:14:18,160
of criteria impact on the residential area because we've had those, we've had those residents

152
00:14:18,160 --> 00:14:26,320
is from objecting to because of noise because of the late night business hours.

153
00:14:27,280 --> 00:14:31,560
So yeah, my tendency is I would not allow bars and

154
00:14:31,560 --> 00:14:34,120
I'll just see one district.

155
00:14:35,520 --> 00:14:38,040
I did think that while larger bars and

156
00:14:38,040 --> 00:14:43,880
lounges made draw a more regional crowd, certainly a smaller bar concern as a neighborhood bar.

157
00:14:43,880 --> 00:14:51,580
And if you look at a lot of older communities, you do have kind of the neighborhood bar that has

158
00:14:51,580 --> 00:14:59,420
developed either on the corner or sometimes in the middle of a neighborhood where it, you know,

159
00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:12,300
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.

160
00:15:13,420 --> 00:15:19,840
So, I think the scales in your talk are as important, yeah. Thank you. I agree.

161
00:15:20,320 --> 00:15:26,100
So is there any objection to making bars and lounges allowed by special land use in the C1 district?

162
00:15:26,100 --> 00:15:26,900
In

163
00:15:29,270 --> 00:15:31,110
an objection, I think we have our direction.

164
00:15:31,550 --> 00:15:31,970
Mr. Chair.

165
00:15:32,330 --> 00:15:32,770
Mr. Wica.

166
00:15:34,330 --> 00:15:37,990
This is why we are on this topic of bars and lounges.

167
00:15:38,810 --> 00:15:47,050
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.

168
00:15:47,550 --> 00:15:51,730
And then we're bringing up the cabaret licenses that are partially going with the bars.

169
00:15:54,550 --> 00:16:01,390
I would separate them, then I want to see what other people, what other commissioners feel like.

170
00:16:01,970 --> 00:16:10,050
I would separate the cavalry licenses to go non-NC1 and NEC.

171
00:16:10,710 --> 00:16:18,370
I would prefer them to go in industrial district, if we were to permit them, it would be industrial

172
00:16:18,370 --> 00:16:18,830
district.

173
00:16:18,830 --> 00:16:19,750
And

174
00:16:22,850 --> 00:16:31,510
for Claire, I can clarify, so yeah, for adult businesses currently, our draft has them as special land uses in C2 only.

175
00:16:32,350 --> 00:16:41,010
The proposal by Mr. Weekai would be to put them in industrial only instead of C2.

176
00:16:41,010 --> 00:16:50,390
I would be comfortable, I mean, listen, for those that may be not know, those were talking about strip clubs, that's capillary licenses.

177
00:16:51,290 --> 00:17:00,890
So if I wouldn't be comfortable having them in a neighborhood or basically in a general district business district,

178
00:17:00,890 --> 00:17:13,490
If we're going to regulate them, I would be comfortable, or I would put them in industrial where they're not in neighborhood.

179
00:17:14,030 --> 00:17:18,270
But I'm open to see what other commissioners feel about it.

180
00:17:19,780 --> 00:17:33,980
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?

181
00:17:40,650 --> 00:17:44,690
Oh, they are defining the current ordinance. I can't quickly answer that out.

182
00:17:45,810 --> 00:17:50,030
Does anybody on the office of planning have that knowledge?

183
00:17:51,190 --> 00:17:53,710
Or Mr. Patruzac, anybody?

184
00:17:54,530 --> 00:17:55,670
I can quickly look.

185
00:18:00,090 --> 00:18:00,990
Adult businesses.

186
00:18:03,490 --> 00:18:25,510
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.

187
00:18:25,510 --> 00:18:33,990
business under one umbrella and just naming it at all business uses there is a

188
00:18:33,990 --> 00:18:38,030
definition of cabaret as well in the right zoning ordinance but I don't know

189
00:18:38,030 --> 00:18:49,770
if it's so I can get listed though anywhere the use is so so cabaret is defined in

190
00:18:49,770 --> 00:18:55,790
and the zoning ordinance, and then adult entertainment

191
00:18:57,940 --> 00:19:10,760
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.

192
00:19:10,760 --> 00:19:20,560
So our provisions, though, cabbages and discotacks are currently allowed in the C2 district.

193
00:19:21,040 --> 00:19:24,220
Which is what kind of cabbages.

194
00:19:24,220 --> 00:19:29,720
But that's where adults, so they're allowed in C2 because that's where adult entertainment

195
00:19:29,720 --> 00:19:31,000
uses are currently allowed.

196
00:19:31,120 --> 00:19:37,180
It's just listed and it's grouped in with specifically eating and drinking establishments.

197
00:19:37,560 --> 00:19:37,980
Oh, I'm sorry.

198
00:19:38,220 --> 00:19:39,180
It's including those.

199
00:19:39,700 --> 00:19:39,800
Yeah.

200
00:19:41,640 --> 00:19:48,660
So yes, I guess I kind of want to get some clarification for Mr. Week, I then.

201
00:19:49,220 --> 00:19:57,260
Are you looking at regulating cabarets as their own use?

202
00:19:57,600 --> 00:20:03,060
Or are you looking at regulating them within the broader adult entertainment use?

203
00:20:03,060 --> 00:20:09,820
I would be comfortable just regulating them at their own use in industrial district.

204
00:20:10,020 --> 00:20:13,580
And that take them off the C2, like the general, like they're allowed now.

205
00:20:14,200 --> 00:20:16,780
And put them in industrial only.

206
00:20:18,040 --> 00:20:19,700
So I guess I'm

207
00:20:22,450 --> 00:20:27,210
seeing you would allow the adult book stores, adult video stores,

208
00:20:27,370 --> 00:20:29,990
adult motion picture theaters,

209
00:20:29,990 --> 00:20:40,110
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.

210
00:20:41,350 --> 00:20:50,130
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.

211
00:20:51,310 --> 00:20:56,950
I can listen to the direction that other commissioners have, but

212
00:20:56,950 --> 00:21:03,350
That was, that was just my only proposal that what I would be feeling,

213
00:21:03,650 --> 00:21:07,190
what I would suggest that we only allow them in industrial,

214
00:21:07,190 --> 00:21:10,030
take them away from the, from the general business district.

215
00:21:10,970 --> 00:21:13,170
I would probably be inclined to move them all together.

216
00:21:13,770 --> 00:21:15,790
And again, I have no objection to that.

217
00:21:15,970 --> 00:21:18,610
That was just my, that was one of them while we had this topic.

218
00:21:18,610 --> 00:21:22,390
I think it's the time now that we shift them one way or the other.

219
00:21:25,060 --> 00:21:28,560
So if you want to add that, if you want to amend mine and add yours,

220
00:21:28,560 --> 00:21:38,820
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

221
00:21:38,820 --> 00:21:46,020
into the industrial so then then these other these other then that opens up these others

222
00:21:46,900 --> 00:21:52,520
Whatever you want to call them but all stores that we have in the city with that will they become non-non-conforming?

223
00:21:52,520 --> 00:21:58,540
Yeah, yeah, so that's a good that's a good question. Does the city have some currently operating at all?

224
00:21:58,560 --> 00:22:03,600
All bookstores, or other type of adult entertainment uses in the commercial districts?

225
00:22:04,800 --> 00:22:11,960
I think we do, but I now give the chair to office of planning if you would make those non-conforming.

226
00:22:12,120 --> 00:22:15,120
If you just take them away from a commercial district.

227
00:22:16,080 --> 00:22:19,640
As well as you may believe they're in seat three or seat two right now.

228
00:22:21,060 --> 00:22:26,400
Okay, now I'm not sure if I want to make them not, if I want to make them non-conforming as well.

229
00:22:26,400 --> 00:22:54,540
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.

230
00:22:54,540 --> 00:23:02,300
No, I think that's why I was looking more to regulate it than something that we already have, if it makes sense.

231
00:23:02,320 --> 00:23:08,900
I think that makes sense, so by separating out Cabaret, you're saying you don't currently have much Cabaret.

232
00:23:09,160 --> 00:23:14,780
And the Cabaret would be new, and that would be separately regulated just in industrial.

233
00:23:17,060 --> 00:23:19,820
That's the direction I was going.

234
00:23:20,320 --> 00:23:21,560
I see your direction.

235
00:23:21,560 --> 00:23:22,820
I don't know if it's-

236
00:23:22,820 --> 00:23:24,480
I'd like to maybe talk.

237
00:23:24,580 --> 00:23:24,700
Yeah.

238
00:23:24,980 --> 00:23:27,880
It's from the legal side, first amendment and all that.

239
00:23:28,180 --> 00:23:32,380
The adult use is our rather sensitive just because of those issues and concerns.

240
00:23:32,840 --> 00:23:36,080
So if we move them, we want to just make sure that we're doing it correctly.

241
00:23:36,320 --> 00:23:41,080
Yeah, is it appropriate for a community to kind of regulate one type of an adult business

242
00:23:41,080 --> 00:23:44,860
in one area in one district, those are the other type elsewhere?

243
00:23:45,100 --> 00:23:48,880
The uses that we have right now are none of them are capillary licenses.

244
00:23:49,420 --> 00:24:03,260
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.

245
00:24:03,800 --> 00:24:11,760
And I just want to pull them out of there with no objection, put them in industrial and if possible.

246
00:24:12,020 --> 00:24:17,300
But again, I don't want to hurt the already existing business that we do have in our city.

247
00:24:17,300 --> 00:24:26,160
So I think that the policy question that my fellow planning commissioners should think through is

248
00:24:26,160 --> 00:24:33,600
do we feel that the uses that are currently all lumped together in the adult entertainment use

249
00:24:33,600 --> 00:24:37,360
should they be treated similarly or are they dissimilar?

250
00:24:37,980 --> 00:24:45,980
Personally, I don't see much of a difference between a cabaret and an adult motion picture theater

251
00:24:45,980 --> 00:24:55,140
from a policy standpoint I could arguably see a difference between perhaps adult novelty

252
00:24:55,140 --> 00:25:01,680
businesses and those types of uses but I mean I guess what I don't think is

253
00:25:01,680 --> 00:25:05,860
relevant is whether or not we want to hurt existing businesses or not I mean

254
00:25:05,860 --> 00:25:09,940
that just isn't relevant to whether something should be non-conforming or not the

255
00:25:09,940 --> 00:25:15,300
question is do we think this use should exist in this district if we don't

256
00:25:15,300 --> 00:25:17,940
I don't think it should, then we should remove it.

257
00:25:18,440 --> 00:25:27,480
And constitutionally, those businesses have a right to continue as long as they do so under the lawful, non-conforming standards.

258
00:25:28,260 --> 00:25:34,040
Now, if on the other hand, the thought is, well, we don't want to remove those businesses because they've existed.

259
00:25:34,840 --> 00:25:39,160
Because from a policy perspective, we don't think we should make that change.

260
00:25:39,160 --> 00:25:44,260
change then we should divide out the uses that are in adult entertainment use.

261
00:25:46,340 --> 00:25:52,880
So I guess the initial question to planning commissioners is are all the uses in the current

262
00:25:52,880 --> 00:25:58,540
term of adult entertainment use similar enough that we should regulate them the same or do

263
00:25:58,540 --> 00:26:03,780
we want to split some of those out and until we answer that question can't really figure

264
00:26:03,780 --> 00:26:05,700
out what we want to put in which district.

265
00:26:05,700 --> 00:26:25,500
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.

266
00:26:28,790 --> 00:26:35,970
I want to add, I just searched it, and I guess it also, there's food and drinks included.

267
00:26:36,370 --> 00:26:39,510
So if we're going to go industrial, is the health department going to allow this?

268
00:26:40,510 --> 00:26:42,290
Are you talking about for cabaret?

269
00:26:42,690 --> 00:26:42,870
Yeah.

270
00:26:43,230 --> 00:26:43,330
Yeah.

271
00:26:43,930 --> 00:26:48,850
So our definition of cabaret is an establishment that features topless and or

272
00:26:48,850 --> 00:26:53,570
bottomless dancers, go-go-to-answers, exotic dancers, strippers, male and female impersonators

273
00:26:53,570 --> 00:26:54,870
or similar entertainers.

274
00:26:54,870 --> 00:27:00,150
So, at least under our definition, you wouldn't have to provide food.

275
00:27:02,750 --> 00:27:08,590
Key characteristics says the venue performances typically happen in restaurants, pubs, clubs, or nightclubs.

276
00:27:09,150 --> 00:27:11,610
Where the audience sits at tables and dines and drinks.

277
00:27:12,750 --> 00:27:20,610
So if we're going to go industrial, there's going to be a food consumed, no issue.

278
00:27:22,820 --> 00:27:38,160
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.

279
00:27:40,640 --> 00:27:52,140
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.

280
00:27:52,620 --> 00:27:53,800
I would be in favor of yes.

281
00:27:54,380 --> 00:27:56,360
I'm also in favor of separating them.

282
00:27:56,820 --> 00:27:58,940
Just cabaret or other uses.

283
00:27:59,720 --> 00:28:03,640
Separating the two between the books and the entertainment.

284
00:28:03,640 --> 00:28:11,120
Because it would be similar to separating Barnes and Noble and a restaurant or a nightclub.

285
00:28:11,300 --> 00:28:12,440
Those are two different things.

286
00:28:12,640 --> 00:28:15,980
One you're going shopping and the other one you're going there for entertainment.

287
00:28:16,500 --> 00:28:23,420
So you would regulate cap arrays differently from how you regulate adult motion picture theaters.

288
00:28:26,520 --> 00:28:27,040
I agree.

289
00:28:29,370 --> 00:28:31,650
Dr. Parcell, you look like you have something to say.

290
00:28:31,730 --> 00:28:32,550
Yeah, I agree also.

291
00:28:32,550 --> 00:28:54,270
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.

292
00:28:54,270 --> 00:29:02,590
And the issue comes in with some of these is something like a cabaret or a nightclub

293
00:29:02,590 --> 00:29:07,870
of a sort, maybe it's more appropriate for a standalone structure, whereas other things

294
00:29:07,870 --> 00:29:13,230
that would fall into here exist in the city already in line and strip plasas.

295
00:29:13,570 --> 00:29:17,250
So it's kind of difficult to grasp when there's such a wide variety of them.

296
00:29:17,350 --> 00:29:22,430
So I would say I would let us take an evaluation of it, see what definitions in here actually

297
00:29:22,430 --> 00:29:27,410
carry through, and then propose regulation based on what the definitions will be, rather

298
00:29:27,410 --> 00:29:31,310
than what they currently are given this discussion, because now we have a little more insight

299
00:29:31,310 --> 00:29:35,570
on the difficulties we may have if we were to just leave it.

300
00:29:35,810 --> 00:29:40,590
I think it would be helpful to get staff's perspective of if we are going to split these out,

301
00:29:40,730 --> 00:29:46,990
what uses should be regulated together, because to me it doesn't make sense to regulate a cabaret

302
00:29:46,990 --> 00:29:54,510
and restricted to industrial yet we would allow erotic rubs and nude or

303
00:29:54,510 --> 00:29:59,850
partially nude massage parlors in C2. Like I would put those two I guess I'm not

304
00:30:00,000 --> 00:30:20,380
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.

305
00:30:20,380 --> 00:30:29,220
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.

306
00:30:30,020 --> 00:30:33,820
So I think staff has guidance on what research.

307
00:30:35,280 --> 00:30:42,240
All right, that brings us back to battery energy storage systems for onsite accessory only.

308
00:30:43,120 --> 00:30:44,220
You have anything?

309
00:30:44,220 --> 00:30:55,160
Yep, you summarized it there, I think right now we are proposing to permit these accessory

310
00:30:55,160 --> 00:31:03,720
onslaid only battery energy storage in the O2 and ISD, as well as M1 and M2, but not

311
00:31:03,720 --> 00:31:07,280
permitting it anywhere in commercial or O1.

312
00:31:11,030 --> 00:31:12,350
So this was mine.

313
00:31:12,350 --> 00:31:17,810
I guess I'm not understanding why we would restrict them from being in any district.

314
00:31:17,970 --> 00:31:23,070
I mean, I would allow them in residential if they're accessory, what's the harm?

315
00:31:23,550 --> 00:31:30,710
I mean, I guess depending on how we define them definitionally, but if we use a broad definition

316
00:31:30,710 --> 00:31:36,690
for battery energy storage systems, we're now making Tesla power walls that people have

317
00:31:36,690 --> 00:31:38,310
in their garage is non-conforming.

318
00:31:38,310 --> 00:31:40,050
So I guess I

319
00:31:43,280 --> 00:31:50,640
mean I think the only one of the only concerns or one of the immediate ones is noise and then also maybe fire risk

320
00:31:50,640 --> 00:31:54,960
But I think that that can be mitigated. I think from others by other standards as well.

321
00:31:56,180 --> 00:31:59,840
So I think it's I think you raise a good point that

322
00:32:00,660 --> 00:32:09,840
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.

323
00:32:10,580 --> 00:32:18,320
Well, we can, I mean, we can have, you know, regulations on what size battery energy storage

324
00:32:18,320 --> 00:32:19,040
system you have.

325
00:32:19,040 --> 00:32:26,220
I'm not talking about having some huge massive BESS system and residential neighborhoods.

326
00:32:26,320 --> 00:32:32,240
But to me, it functions similarly to, if you allow a generac generator, this is just the

327
00:32:32,240 --> 00:32:33,440
battery version of that.

328
00:32:33,980 --> 00:32:39,660
So, no, on the other hand, if you have a commercial or industrial use, yeah, your battery energy

329
00:32:39,660 --> 00:32:45,220
storage systems are going to be larger, but I think there's a way to allow them, I would

330
00:32:45,220 --> 00:32:50,660
just permit them by right and all districts, but if we want to have regulations on, you

331
00:32:50,660 --> 00:32:56,900
know, noise, certainly within the residential districts or megawatt, I don't know exactly

332
00:32:56,900 --> 00:33:01,780
how they're rated, but I think there are ways that we can limit what would be allowed within

333
00:33:01,780 --> 00:33:05,820
the districts, but I would just permit pretty much any accessory use like that, I would just

334
00:33:05,820 --> 00:33:18,100
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.

335
00:33:19,260 --> 00:33:21,020
So as we look to that.

336
00:33:21,020 --> 00:33:29,180
Mr. Chairman, the definition of that is that include someone having a battery charger for

337
00:33:29,180 --> 00:33:30,080
the car in their garage?

338
00:33:30,640 --> 00:33:30,680
No.

339
00:33:31,380 --> 00:33:31,720
Include?

340
00:33:32,400 --> 00:33:32,500
No.

341
00:33:33,220 --> 00:33:34,420
That's something different.

342
00:33:34,660 --> 00:33:37,200
It's not regulated in the zoning ordinance.

343
00:33:40,560 --> 00:33:49,420
The better energy storage system would be taking power generated by something usually solar

344
00:33:49,420 --> 00:33:52,660
panels and storing it so that you can use it.

345
00:33:52,660 --> 00:34:01,360
right later when you're not generating but so it's to use for something not not to not to charge a

346
00:34:01,360 --> 00:34:06,800
battery. I mean it is charging a battery because you have to connect something to it but so someone

347
00:34:06,800 --> 00:34:18,300
in the residential area does have a solar panels be allowed and they can generate

348
00:34:22,420 --> 00:34:27,400
I'm sure we have them in the city right now, I'm sure out of 135,000 in the city we have

349
00:34:27,400 --> 00:34:28,620
one Tesla power wall.

350
00:34:28,780 --> 00:34:32,240
Yeah, there are those that you and you just use it all on site.

351
00:34:32,580 --> 00:34:37,460
What we don't have in the state, which means we're not allowed to, yet, but they are starting

352
00:34:37,460 --> 00:34:43,320
to allow in other states is the battery power or the battery capacity then to sell back to

353
00:34:43,320 --> 00:34:43,840
the utility.

354
00:34:43,840 --> 00:34:49,480
So we can't do that here yet, but it's hopefully coming.

355
00:34:52,560 --> 00:34:59,400
All right, so we will allow better energy storage systems for on-site accessory permitted in all uses.

356
00:35:00,560 --> 00:35:02,000
Any objection to that?

357
00:35:04,250 --> 00:35:06,250
Hearing none, I think we're good to move on.

358
00:35:06,910 --> 00:35:09,690
All right, our next slide here.

359
00:35:11,850 --> 00:35:19,230
Yeah, so a couple more points, canals and daycares, canals and pet daycares, should these be allowed in the C2 district?

360
00:35:20,950 --> 00:35:24,850
Currently, we are permitting these in the poll

361
00:35:28,180 --> 00:35:28,600
to it,

362
00:35:36,360 --> 00:35:39,380
sorry, I can't find it right now, but I'll get back to you.

363
00:35:39,920 --> 00:35:41,600
Any thoughts on the C2?

364
00:35:41,600 --> 00:35:42,420
or

365
00:35:45,170 --> 00:35:49,910
to clarify are they allowed in C2 or are they allowed in C2 under the proposal?

366
00:35:50,190 --> 00:35:52,890
It's highlighted in yellow with somebody saying that we should remove those.

367
00:35:53,370 --> 00:35:58,210
I think we've just added that since the last meeting.

368
00:35:58,670 --> 00:36:09,510
Now that in the new use comparison matrix dated August 21st because people said that we should

369
00:36:09,510 --> 00:36:10,990
add that to C2.

370
00:36:11,690 --> 00:36:17,250
So the yellow cell with the P there is new since last meeting.

371
00:36:24,330 --> 00:36:28,510
I want to add that if you are concerned of noise, I am next to one.

372
00:36:29,270 --> 00:36:32,950
They are loud, they are not, they should, I don't think they should be in C2.

373
00:36:34,230 --> 00:36:35,210
They are noisy.

374
00:36:36,330 --> 00:36:38,390
Is it over night dogs?

375
00:36:38,650 --> 00:36:45,090
Yeah, yeah, the pet sweets and we're used to machinery, we're in industrial zoning, but

376
00:36:45,090 --> 00:36:50,090
But they're louder than the compressors, chisels, and all that stuff.

377
00:36:51,920 --> 00:36:53,440
And I think that's industrial.

378
00:36:55,160 --> 00:36:55,280
Yep.

379
00:36:56,480 --> 00:36:57,320
It's industrial.

380
00:36:58,580 --> 00:37:05,040
So yeah, that's the question is do you want to permit the pet daycares and the kennels

381
00:37:05,040 --> 00:37:06,680
in C2?

382
00:37:09,190 --> 00:37:12,650
Should be special approval, so I'm looking now.

383
00:37:12,850 --> 00:37:18,760
So they were the last month, they were listed as permitted in C2.

384
00:37:18,760 --> 00:37:27,660
They were not added, so if it was added, it should be in bold and underlined, I think, right?

385
00:37:27,700 --> 00:37:30,640
Okay, so we just highlighted it just for discussion.

386
00:37:30,940 --> 00:37:31,020
Okay.

387
00:37:31,240 --> 00:37:40,860
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.

388
00:37:41,220 --> 00:37:46,280
They are currently allowed in-

389
00:37:51,180 --> 00:37:52,060
And

390
00:37:54,560 --> 00:37:56,780
then the

391
00:38:00,200 --> 00:38:08,320
I guess another distinguishing question would be if like if it was at day doggie daycare and the facilities were inside.

392
00:38:09,460 --> 00:38:11,580
Does that make a difference?

393
00:38:12,120 --> 00:38:13,560
Yes, it does.

394
00:38:16,740 --> 00:38:21,760
Are we going to be able to create standards so that you let them go into the bathroom?

395
00:38:26,380 --> 00:38:33,980
I think most of these are both indoor outdoor carpet and areas or

396
00:38:36,080 --> 00:38:42,120
If they go to the bathroom, they let one or two dogs out. Okay, but when they give them playtime

397
00:38:42,640 --> 00:38:44,840
That's when yeah, exactly. There's a party

398
00:38:46,840 --> 00:38:51,600
So we don't, we don't currently allow them in any of the commercial districts.

399
00:38:52,140 --> 00:38:57,100
I don't see a reason to restrict them from C3, the currency 4.

400
00:38:57,580 --> 00:39:03,920
So I would, I mean, we don't have it now, so I don't see an issue with removing it.

401
00:39:08,850 --> 00:39:15,010
All right, so proposal would be remove, canals and pet day care from the C2.

402
00:39:15,010 --> 00:39:16,890
is there any objection?

403
00:39:18,810 --> 00:39:19,570
Any objection?

404
00:39:20,030 --> 00:39:20,690
You have no objection?

405
00:39:20,790 --> 00:39:21,430
It would be together either.

406
00:39:21,910 --> 00:39:23,570
You could allow one and not the other.

407
00:39:24,750 --> 00:39:27,310
I mean, is your bigger concern

408
00:39:28,290 --> 00:39:31,290
the pet day cares in the amount of noise

409
00:39:31,290 --> 00:39:31,990
that those make

410
00:39:32,730 --> 00:39:34,470
being the single day

411
00:39:36,110 --> 00:39:37,410
day care sessions,

412
00:39:37,410 --> 00:39:38,910
whereas kennels are usually

413
00:39:38,910 --> 00:39:41,050
more for boarding

414
00:39:41,050 --> 00:39:50,210
and rap's breeding. I guess throw a whole other question in, but we should we

415
00:39:50,210 --> 00:39:54,890
talk about the cat cafes too. We've had this come up in a couple of communities

416
00:39:54,890 --> 00:40:03,670
actually one just last week a cat cafe which is a place that people can go

417
00:40:03,670 --> 00:40:10,770
and see cats and hang out. The one that we were presented with we determined

418
00:40:10,770 --> 00:40:14,990
German was a kennel because the cats were spending the night and so they weren't ultimately allowed in that district.

419
00:40:16,650 --> 00:40:19,510
But a place like, what is the dog one?

420
00:40:20,030 --> 00:40:21,590
There's like a bark side.

421
00:40:21,910 --> 00:40:28,810
It's a dog, it's not a dog bar, it's a people bar, but dogs go along the bar, dogs.

422
00:40:29,710 --> 00:40:34,050
So it's kind of a combination, but again, the dogs are spending the night there.

423
00:40:34,150 --> 00:40:37,950
They're just going there with their people to have some social ability.

424
00:40:37,950 --> 00:40:41,290
Do you allow, I mean, is that something that is allowed?

425
00:40:41,550 --> 00:40:43,570
Because it's just not either one of those.

426
00:40:43,910 --> 00:40:44,930
It's not a canola or a daycare.

427
00:40:45,970 --> 00:40:48,210
We do get a lot of pet daycare requests,

428
00:40:48,550 --> 00:40:49,730
I think, in our communities.

429
00:40:53,640 --> 00:40:55,440
Yeah, most of them do offer overnight.

430
00:40:55,840 --> 00:40:57,540
So there's kind of a blurred line there.

431
00:40:57,640 --> 00:40:59,320
Are you do you get questions about them?

432
00:40:59,800 --> 00:41:00,200
Pet daycare?

433
00:41:00,460 --> 00:41:00,980
Just daytime?

434
00:41:02,240 --> 00:41:04,260
Like a dogtopia or whatever?

435
00:41:05,780 --> 00:41:06,660
A dogtopia, I can even.

436
00:41:08,140 --> 00:41:09,020
Yeah, often.

437
00:41:09,740 --> 00:41:19,020
So, for basis on regulation, a couple of points, we call pet daycares regardless of overnight

438
00:41:19,020 --> 00:41:26,460
stays and storage of animals right now, kennels, which have been probably rightfully called

439
00:41:26,460 --> 00:41:31,200
by a lot of these dog daycares, the incorrect term for what they are called, given the connotation

440
00:41:31,200 --> 00:41:37,200
of what a kennel is associated with, and a lot of them are more luxury upscale and very

441
00:41:37,200 --> 00:41:40,560
nice places where people drop their dogs off. They go to work and they come back and get them.

442
00:41:41,000 --> 00:41:47,400
They do all pretty much do overnight housing. The noise isn't a concern for me at night.

443
00:41:47,940 --> 00:41:52,940
It's probably when people are out working and, you know, going to commercial places where

444
00:41:52,940 --> 00:41:56,660
the noise would then become something during the day, during daytime hours,

445
00:41:57,300 --> 00:42:01,400
because most commercial, unless you're looking at C1, is pretty far away from residential.

446
00:42:06,440 --> 00:42:07,180
It's on a

447
00:42:07,180 --> 00:42:14,960
industrial is a fine and appropriate location for both the kind of and the pet day care given pet sweets

448
00:42:14,960 --> 00:42:19,860
It's a new facility a new site. It's a very nice looking site and it functions well on its own

449
00:42:20,380 --> 00:42:22,820
But it's a way from residents and commercial

450
00:42:23,420 --> 00:42:27,360
Entity it's next to industrial and I think I've fakenstreet or a private street

451
00:42:28,100 --> 00:42:29,920
So it's something like that works

452
00:42:30,720 --> 00:42:35,480
You mentioned C4 C3 which is C4 currently which is for them at gateways

453
00:42:35,480 --> 00:42:46,740
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.

454
00:42:47,180 --> 00:42:52,880
I don't think that maybe commercial is the appropriate use for this use in particular.

455
00:42:53,200 --> 00:42:55,660
We've seen success with it in industrial.

456
00:42:56,080 --> 00:43:00,060
We've seen very few requests in commercial.

457
00:43:00,060 --> 00:43:00,980
I

458
00:43:06,160 --> 00:43:14,400
have one question before we go to either have we do recall however in recent time have

459
00:43:14,400 --> 00:43:19,920
we had a variance request yes it was approved they have not moved forward so far since

460
00:43:19,920 --> 00:43:27,080
their approval and that was approved in what district C2 on all road the old B.D.'s Mongolian

461
00:43:27,080 --> 00:43:29,440
grill okay interesting not

462
00:43:35,520 --> 00:43:41,300
a pretty good distance doesn't I don't think it'll affect but if

463
00:43:42,200 --> 00:43:46,780
That one's probably 50 to 60 feet away from a commercial strip plaza.

464
00:43:49,710 --> 00:43:51,270
Mr. Rowan and Mr. Weekai.

465
00:43:52,130 --> 00:43:56,570
Yeah, I just want, you know, a distinction between Kennelson and Pet Daycare.

466
00:43:56,890 --> 00:44:03,070
I mean, Pet Daycare to me, so I think you bet, a little too, that someone is going to work,

467
00:44:03,270 --> 00:44:07,590
so they don't, they're, they're, they pick the bad up at the end of their work schedule.

468
00:44:08,390 --> 00:44:14,150
assuming they were dates, that's the overnight test, another case too, but that's different

469
00:44:14,150 --> 00:44:14,990
than a kennel.

470
00:44:15,330 --> 00:44:19,830
A kennel is going to be multi more than one day, kind of stay.

471
00:44:21,050 --> 00:44:26,210
And so when you get into looking at it in a really fine tooth comb like that, it kind of

472
00:44:26,210 --> 00:44:30,790
makes looking at the business difficult for us in planning or for you as planning commission

473
00:44:30,790 --> 00:44:36,230
if it's a salo, because a lot of the larger ones do do overnight things or people who work

474
00:44:36,230 --> 00:44:40,950
third shifts would constitute overnight for the typical nature of a business or a weekend,

475
00:44:40,950 --> 00:44:45,930
and it's just offered at a rate to the company, you know, the people going in there to use the

476
00:44:45,930 --> 00:44:51,430
service. For then, getting into, oh, well, you can only be open from eight to five or something

477
00:44:51,430 --> 00:44:55,730
like that, then we're looking at restricting hours for the permitted use. It becomes difficult.

478
00:44:56,430 --> 00:44:59,890
That's my concern realistically. We can come up with a name

479
00:45:00,180 --> 00:45:12,680
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.

480
00:45:30,180 --> 00:45:37,320
I was in favor of the one-on-all road, but the question is, are we, by regulating all

481
00:45:37,320 --> 00:45:40,380
these, are this going to be an effect for the vet facilities?

482
00:45:41,960 --> 00:45:49,640
No, I think we have vet facilities as a separate use in the chart, so those would be, let

483
00:45:49,640 --> 00:45:51,040
me just confirm that for you.

484
00:45:52,520 --> 00:45:58,260
Additionally, kenneling is probably an accessory use as I would consider it at a vet, so if

485
00:45:58,260 --> 00:46:11,100
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.

486
00:46:11,480 --> 00:46:16,720
Yeah, they're staying there for the medical purpose, which is the sole primary use of that site.

487
00:46:16,720 --> 00:46:21,760
So the vet will be regulated separately if it's correct, that will be regularly separately

488
00:46:21,760 --> 00:46:26,360
and they'll be permitted a little bit in a little bit more districts just because they're

489
00:46:26,360 --> 00:46:28,780
not a commercial purpose.

490
00:46:33,780 --> 00:46:36,220
Okay, so let's

491
00:46:38,420 --> 00:46:42,700
do any more information from staff, are we ready to make a decision?

492
00:46:42,700 --> 00:46:50,860
I think one of the questions is, do you want to keep these as one umbrella, kind of kennels

493
00:46:50,860 --> 00:46:55,460
and daycares and overnight boarding, or do you want to maybe separate some of them out

494
00:46:55,460 --> 00:47:03,500
whereas maybe overnight boarding only is one use, and daycare only is one use, was that

495
00:47:03,500 --> 00:47:04,580
what you're-

496
00:47:04,580 --> 00:47:06,200
I don't think we should separate them out.

497
00:47:06,440 --> 00:47:06,660
Okay.

498
00:47:07,700 --> 00:47:11,660
Yeah, as somebody that's used the dog daycares, every single one of them does overnight

499
00:47:12,320 --> 00:47:15,160
So that's like integral as a part of the business model.

500
00:47:17,860 --> 00:47:19,680
Thank you, Ms. Weinberg, Mr. Max.

501
00:47:20,220 --> 00:47:21,360
Sorry we're having all team step up.

502
00:47:21,940 --> 00:47:26,500
One potential option would be to just lump them under a new use called like animal overnight boarding.

503
00:47:27,420 --> 00:47:29,120
And in theory, just make it a salue.

504
00:47:29,280 --> 00:47:30,180
So that way it's always governed.

505
00:47:30,380 --> 00:47:32,400
So that way you're not necessarily can cat cafes illegal.

506
00:47:33,260 --> 00:47:38,280
But then you could go forward with preventing kennels from being right next to residential homes, for example.

507
00:47:38,900 --> 00:47:40,000
So that's one potential path forward.

508
00:47:45,690 --> 00:47:47,090
I think I

509
00:47:50,160 --> 00:48:00,820
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.

510
00:48:01,780 --> 00:48:02,580
So, sorry.

511
00:48:02,580 --> 00:48:07,100
don't we if there's no objection why don't we have that's okay it's a good

512
00:48:07,100 --> 00:48:12,520
my my sister would love that she's loves cats and when she went to Hawaii she

513
00:48:12,520 --> 00:48:15,600
found like this island where there's a bunch of cats all over the whole island

514
00:48:15,600 --> 00:48:20,520
and unlike the whole day there so I think there's no objection to having staff

515
00:48:20,520 --> 00:48:29,820
look into cat and dog cafes allowing things like bark side cat cafes is

516
00:48:29,820 --> 00:48:30,740
Is there objection to that?

517
00:48:31,340 --> 00:48:31,920
No, it's okay.

518
00:48:33,640 --> 00:48:34,840
We've got that.

519
00:48:35,000 --> 00:48:40,620
Now, what do we want to do with kennels and pet daycare, which is kind of the traditional

520
00:48:42,560 --> 00:48:43,520
thing there?

521
00:48:46,920 --> 00:48:51,320
Is there some desire to remove them from C to,

522
00:48:53,370 --> 00:48:55,390
is there any objection to that?

523
00:48:55,390 --> 00:49:04,400
That again, the current ones that we have, are they in current?

524
00:49:04,600 --> 00:49:08,240
What would they be considered on the C1?

525
00:49:10,060 --> 00:49:11,140
It would be in C2.

526
00:49:11,660 --> 00:49:12,220
And the Australian?

527
00:49:15,320 --> 00:49:17,460
We're talking about,

528
00:49:21,940 --> 00:49:28,180
so we're about the groomers and that, where are we placing them?

529
00:49:30,090 --> 00:49:31,090
Dr. Purcell.

530
00:49:31,090 --> 00:49:40,780
So the only boarding facility, which is how I'll say to lump those two together, is industrial, it's a standalone building.

531
00:49:42,000 --> 00:49:46,240
Groomers, veterinarians, again, the boarding I view is the accessory of it.

532
00:49:46,440 --> 00:49:52,740
Those two would be fine in a commercial zone, because it's a commercial use primarily.

533
00:49:53,140 --> 00:50:00,260
The dog or cat staying there for an extended period of time is because that animal is there for the service.

534
00:50:00,260 --> 00:50:03,980
rather than just the sole purpose of being staying there.

535
00:50:04,640 --> 00:50:11,760
So a veterinarian could go in an office use a grooming facility could go into a commercial

536
00:50:11,760 --> 00:50:15,640
use because the nature of those is commercial in office.

537
00:50:16,240 --> 00:50:22,680
The boarding overnight of animals, whether it's called a luxury pet hotel or a kennel or

538
00:50:22,680 --> 00:50:28,960
whatever it depends on, whatever our ultimate birbidges could just stay industrial, removed

539
00:50:28,960 --> 00:50:32,000
from C1, C2, and the new C1, C2, and C3.

540
00:50:32,620 --> 00:50:33,760
That would be my suggestion.

541
00:50:34,640 --> 00:50:38,240
Okay, I think I can live with that.

542
00:50:38,320 --> 00:50:41,360
So the only one that we have, that we have an overnight state, that we,

543
00:50:41,880 --> 00:50:48,720
apparently approved is the one on Hall Road, which is not on industrial district.

544
00:50:48,980 --> 00:50:51,000
No, that's the only one that I can think of.

545
00:50:51,520 --> 00:50:55,600
Again, there's still under plan review, and I don't know if they're moving forward.

546
00:50:55,600 --> 00:51:02,080
but the only one that I have seen open operate and be constructed since I've been here is pet suites on 15.

547
00:51:02,660 --> 00:51:09,740
Okay, so I'll be inclined, I'll be inclined to have them in industrial to regulate them on industrial,

548
00:51:10,440 --> 00:51:20,720
take them off, see to separate, obviously they are separated the grooming, the service part from overnight state part.

549
00:51:20,720 --> 00:51:26,260
Okay, so the suggestion from staff now is removed from both C2 and C3.

550
00:51:26,600 --> 00:51:27,800
Is there any objection to that?

551
00:51:30,590 --> 00:51:32,210
Seeing none, we have our direction.

552
00:51:32,650 --> 00:51:34,770
All right, all right, so just read them out.

553
00:51:35,270 --> 00:51:40,130
The last point is just the office retail store, accessory office retail stores.

554
00:51:40,750 --> 00:51:47,010
These are primarily used that are permitted in the O districts because O doesn't really permit retail.

555
00:51:47,330 --> 00:51:52,630
But a lot of the O districts might have large office complex is business parks.

556
00:51:52,630 --> 00:51:59,630
where perhaps a UPS store, a shipping store, stationery store might be helpful.

557
00:52:00,330 --> 00:52:08,990
So, do we want to permit these as accessory office retail stores in the C1 district as well,

558
00:52:09,270 --> 00:52:11,030
because we are doing so in the old districts?

559
00:52:15,310 --> 00:52:15,910
Who was this?

560
00:52:22,980 --> 00:52:29,680
My thought would be, I mean, when would it ever be likely that we would have a way office retail store?

561
00:52:30,040 --> 00:52:31,060
Is it permitted?

562
00:52:31,620 --> 00:52:35,780
We would probably just call this for the most part just a retail store.

563
00:52:36,660 --> 00:52:39,540
I mean, isn't this essentially, isn't this already allowed?

564
00:52:40,140 --> 00:52:42,660
Like, when would this ever not be allowed in commercial anyway?

565
00:52:42,840 --> 00:52:45,680
When would we have, starting out retail businesses,

566
00:52:46,720 --> 00:52:51,280
when are you ever going to have a retail business that's accessory to another business?

567
00:52:52,000 --> 00:52:56,600
Yeah, I think maybe there was some confusion on this point in the chart.

568
00:52:56,600 --> 00:53:01,900
really the whole purpose we spell this out in the chart is to give that caveat and

569
00:53:01,900 --> 00:53:06,900
the ability for this to locate in the O districts because a retail store is

570
00:53:06,900 --> 00:53:09,160
already going to be permitted in the C districts.

571
00:53:09,760 --> 00:53:13,560
Do we even really need to spell this out in the C districts?

572
00:53:15,560 --> 00:53:17,800
I wouldn't think so as a zoning administrator.

573
00:53:22,270 --> 00:53:23,750
Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rowell.

574
00:53:23,910 --> 00:53:28,550
When you talk about office retail service, are we talking like office supplies store?

575
00:53:30,130 --> 00:53:52,640
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.

576
00:53:52,640 --> 00:53:58,620
So that was why it was there to begin with for the old districts.

577
00:53:59,560 --> 00:54:00,900
Are you making a good point?

578
00:54:01,160 --> 00:54:05,480
Does a stable or office max constitute one of these?

579
00:54:05,700 --> 00:54:11,560
We could put a size limitation on it, and that would prohibit one of those big boxes

580
00:54:11,560 --> 00:54:14,080
from being interpreted as such.

581
00:54:14,580 --> 00:54:20,360
Well, this type of establishment, though, I think you need to think of what it's serving.

582
00:54:20,920 --> 00:54:26,460
It's not serving a neighborhood necessarily, it's serving a broader area, like the office

583
00:54:26,460 --> 00:54:26,760
next.

584
00:54:28,180 --> 00:54:30,640
So it would not be appropriate to be in a C1 district.

585
00:54:35,610 --> 00:54:41,890
I think that would be, that's going to just be a regular retail use, but I think that

586
00:54:41,890 --> 00:54:49,970
maybe when we refer to it in the office district as the office retail accessory, it doesn't,

587
00:54:50,050 --> 00:54:54,390
we don't need to have the term office, it's just accessory retail that's permitted in the

588
00:54:54,390 --> 00:54:58,830
office and then we don't have to worry about what it is or it can be anything that's accessory

589
00:54:58,830 --> 00:55:04,990
to the office. It could put a size limitation on it if you do, if you are concerned about

590
00:55:04,990 --> 00:55:11,550
big box popping up in office districts. But I think it's, it should be clear that it's accessory

591
00:55:11,550 --> 00:55:18,850
to things that- Probably within a building and not entrance, you know, you don't enter

592
00:55:18,850 --> 00:55:24,150
from the outside from a big parking lot with a big office max sign so I

593
00:55:27,960 --> 00:55:28,560
think the point

594
00:55:28,560 --> 00:55:35,320
is is that these are are are ready essentially allowed in the C1 district as full retail

595
00:55:35,320 --> 00:55:35,840
stores.

596
00:55:37,800 --> 00:55:44,940
I guess a follow-up question that is are we thinking are we thinking that a retail store

597
00:55:44,940 --> 00:55:51,000
that sells office type things should be allowed in the O1 or O2 district?

598
00:55:51,000 --> 00:55:51,740
And

599
00:55:54,460 --> 00:55:59,240
that may be why the question came up on the chart because it was listed as that and

600
00:55:59,240 --> 00:56:03,040
permitted an office and someone may have thought, well, why would I'm admitting this in the

601
00:56:03,040 --> 00:56:08,540
C1, but we are, I think it's just, we don't need that term.

602
00:56:09,240 --> 00:56:13,460
I think to be in the use matrix, and that makes sense, I think it would just be retail.

603
00:56:14,240 --> 00:56:19,180
And then it's in there, and the use matrix is permitted in the office, and then you go

604
00:56:19,180 --> 00:56:23,020
into the office district and you find out more information that this is intended to be

605
00:56:23,020 --> 00:56:28,340
accessory or maybe it's an A in the matrix for accessory then rather than P.

606
00:56:29,060 --> 00:56:41,040
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?

607
00:56:41,420 --> 00:56:43,560
I don't think that would be permitted in the office district.

608
00:56:43,560 --> 00:56:51,600
No, it wouldn't, it wouldn't now because retail stores are only permitted as special

609
00:56:51,600 --> 00:56:59,600
venues in the O3, but if we, historically, what does the, I'll pull up the July,

610
00:57:03,090 --> 00:57:07,470
historically, are you saying what's the name convention for?

611
00:57:07,470 --> 00:57:13,010
Well, so, so right now we are allowing retail businesses normally associated with

612
00:57:13,010 --> 00:57:23,670
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.

613
00:57:24,910 --> 00:57:40,610
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.

614
00:57:40,610 --> 00:57:45,830
So I think the note there would just be, we need to have some provision that would allow,

615
00:57:46,630 --> 00:57:53,590
that would not allow retail businesses in the O1 and O2 districts generally.

616
00:57:54,190 --> 00:57:57,890
But we would allow them, if they are normally associated with and

617
00:57:57,890 --> 00:58:04,950
complimentary to the office district as a whole, such as stationery shops, office supplies and office equipment.

618
00:58:05,950 --> 00:58:07,990
And that would preserve the status quo.

619
00:58:07,990 --> 00:58:11,430
Yeah, I

620
00:58:16,960 --> 00:58:19,120
think I understand we're

621
00:58:24,400 --> 00:58:25,700
phrasing and redefining.

622
00:58:27,600 --> 00:58:32,240
So does staff have guidance on what the proposal is, or

623
00:58:38,580 --> 00:58:40,620
does the consultant, I guess, okay.

624
00:58:41,040 --> 00:58:46,560
So with that being said, is there any objection to the proposal from planning commissioners?

625
00:58:48,490 --> 00:58:49,670
So I think we're going on that one.

626
00:58:50,350 --> 00:58:50,570
Okay.

627
00:58:52,470 --> 00:58:52,730
Great.

628
00:58:52,930 --> 00:58:54,790
So let's talk about residential now.

629
00:58:55,430 --> 00:59:01,070
So in terms of the residential use, yeah, before we go on, I guess Mr. Roe has one question

630
00:59:01,070 --> 00:59:07,490
about on our, there's the other point of arts, fine arts, designs, studios that we resolve that.

631
00:59:08,710 --> 00:59:09,730
That was on our list.

632
00:59:10,070 --> 00:59:10,670
Double check.

633
00:59:12,770 --> 00:59:19,370
Anything that was not on the list that we didn't address, they have already, staff has already implemented those.

634
00:59:19,490 --> 00:59:20,710
But it's on the list.

635
00:59:21,450 --> 00:59:29,810
Yes, so anything that's on the list on page 1 and 2 that we didn't just go over, staff has already implemented.

636
00:59:29,810 --> 00:59:34,870
So, unless anybody has an objection to the ones that we did discuss, staff thought that those were just

637
00:59:35,750 --> 00:59:37,890
straightforward enough that we didn't need to discuss them.

638
00:59:38,210 --> 00:59:38,630
Well, so-

639
00:59:38,630 --> 00:59:41,250
What it says, one commissioner noted that this should-

640
00:59:41,250 --> 00:59:43,670
You should be allowed in the C2 district.

641
00:59:44,350 --> 00:59:47,270
Yes, so under the proposal that is now allowed in the C2 district.

642
00:59:47,510 --> 00:59:47,990
So-

643
00:59:47,990 --> 00:59:48,970
So that one-

644
00:59:48,970 --> 00:59:49,230
And then-

645
00:59:49,910 --> 00:59:52,690
And then the other two are we have the business service.

646
00:59:53,330 --> 00:59:53,490
Yes.

647
01:00:00,000 --> 01:00:11,920
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.

648
01:00:14,260 --> 01:00:22,700
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?

649
01:00:23,840 --> 01:00:24,360
So

650
01:00:26,500 --> 01:00:32,820
this is kind of somewhat similar to last meeting, we are going to offer some consolidation

651
01:00:33,560 --> 01:00:40,300
of districts in chart format and then talk about some dimensional standards as well as

652
01:00:40,300 --> 01:00:41,960
the use matrix for residential.

653
01:00:43,380 --> 01:00:47,380
So I just wanted to, we just wanted to set the stage on why we are doing this and that's

654
01:00:47,380 --> 01:00:50,760
because of your future land use plan and map of your master plan.

655
01:00:50,760 --> 01:00:58,140
So starting with what the master plan designated is the large lot residential, future land use designation.

656
01:00:58,640 --> 01:01:02,380
This was the lowest density or single-family residential designation.

657
01:01:02,960 --> 01:01:11,120
This is really going to be a lot sizes, typically of 8,400 square feet or larger.

658
01:01:11,120 --> 01:01:20,100
a lot of just single-family neighborhoods with larger lots, the plan said an

659
01:01:20,820 --> 01:01:28,140
envisioned single-family as well as ADUs and Duplexes in these areas and then

660
01:01:28,140 --> 01:01:34,440
the generally the zoning plan said that these would match the R70 to R100 zoning

661
01:01:37,670 --> 01:01:40,850
So this is where a lot of these areas would be.

662
01:01:41,980 --> 01:01:51,130
These are those R60 through R100 properties throughout the city, a lot on the north side

663
01:01:51,130 --> 01:01:51,830
of the city.

664
01:01:54,190 --> 01:01:59,870
And this is the consolidation chart, how it would look.

665
01:02:00,330 --> 01:02:04,270
So these would be consolidated and renamed to a new R1 district.

666
01:02:04,270 --> 01:02:13,170
I don't know about you all, but I just don't think the R70s through 100 really, I get it,

667
01:02:13,250 --> 01:02:19,430
it was meant to match the lot width, but it was quite exhaustive in terms of a lot

668
01:02:19,430 --> 01:02:25,910
of districts that kind of look the same and regulate the same way, just with different

669
01:02:25,910 --> 01:02:26,730
lot widths.

670
01:02:26,730 --> 01:02:31,530
So we're really just trying to simplify it by consolidating to R1.

671
01:02:34,410 --> 01:02:43,950
I can stop there in terms of the R70 to R100 consolidation to the new R1, if you have any questions.

672
01:02:44,830 --> 01:02:44,950
Yes.

673
01:02:45,890 --> 01:02:46,590
Mr. Brown.

674
01:02:47,230 --> 01:02:56,370
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,

675
01:02:56,370 --> 01:03:03,290
70s or 80s, I couldn't find any of our 90s anywhere but maybe they do exist.

676
01:03:04,530 --> 01:03:11,950
But anyway, I really thought as a result of that just looking at the pattern of these

677
01:03:11,950 --> 01:03:20,390
zoning districts, I think that the R70 ought to be put with the R60 and they are 80s because

678
01:03:20,390 --> 01:03:26,250
Because we were getting over the years, the larger lot, we were getting a lot of R80s.

679
01:03:27,070 --> 01:03:31,390
And then of course we get to the other 100s in the Northwest Quadrant of the city,

680
01:03:32,630 --> 01:03:35,530
where that R80s and 100s are up in that area.

681
01:03:36,710 --> 01:03:44,190
And I think that the R70s are mainly part of our older, established subdivisions.

682
01:03:44,190 --> 01:03:53,010
So I would advocate that we keep, I'll take the R-70 out of that consolidation and put it with R-60.

683
01:03:59,760 --> 01:04:01,680
Yeah, so here's the map in front of you.

684
01:04:02,080 --> 01:04:14,420
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.

685
01:04:16,700 --> 01:04:18,460
Do we have a map of it?

686
01:04:19,780 --> 01:04:25,120
we have the 60s in the next group. Do you want to do you want us to jump to the R-60s map?

687
01:04:25,380 --> 01:04:31,580
Sure. I think that would be helpful. So we're going to just jump forward a few slides on this

688
01:04:31,580 --> 01:04:33,560
kind of. We're going over here too. Oh, we

689
01:04:40,500 --> 01:04:42,080
have it somewhere, do we?

690
01:04:47,360 --> 01:04:50,220
Was that where there are 60s on the

691
01:04:52,760 --> 01:05:00,480
what would they be the R-2s since you're renaming them R-2? No, yeah those maps are existing zoning.

692
01:05:01,080 --> 01:05:02,460
So that's, oh, here it is.

693
01:05:02,740 --> 01:05:05,820
We saw a skip over it, you know.

694
01:05:05,820 --> 01:05:06,900
I was going to say Ava.

695
01:05:07,520 --> 01:05:09,180
So those are the R60s.

696
01:05:10,360 --> 01:05:12,540
So most of the residential, I mean,

697
01:05:12,540 --> 01:05:14,680
a majority of the residential is R60.

698
01:05:16,260 --> 01:05:19,300
So remember this, and we'll go back to the other one.

699
01:05:19,660 --> 01:05:21,940
So Mr. Rose question is, does it more sensible

700
01:05:21,940 --> 01:05:26,800
to combine the R60 and R70 into the new R2?

701
01:05:27,640 --> 01:05:28,220
Yes, correct.

702
01:05:28,660 --> 01:05:29,060
That's correct.

703
01:05:29,060 --> 01:05:32,710
Planning commissioners, any thoughts?

704
01:05:41,870 --> 01:05:48,490
The R70 to be combined with R60 instead of R80 to R100.

705
01:05:48,970 --> 01:05:49,830
Is there any objection?

706
01:05:51,930 --> 01:05:58,750
Okay, I guess we have our direction, so it'll be R80 to R100 and R1 and R60 to R2.

707
01:06:00,670 --> 01:06:01,170
Thank you.

708
01:06:01,510 --> 01:06:06,030
Yeah, that's good comments that we like to hear when we do this kind of thing.

709
01:06:06,570 --> 01:06:24,670
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.

710
01:06:27,330 --> 01:06:32,950
These, the master plan and vision, single family homes, 80 use and duplex on these properties as well.

711
01:06:34,030 --> 01:06:45,610
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.

712
01:06:46,850 --> 01:06:51,730
And we'll go over the uses at the end here, I just wanted to go over the kind of the broad vision.

713
01:06:51,730 --> 01:06:55,210
And this would be the medium density single family residential.

714
01:06:58,500 --> 01:07:02,860
And this is, I went backwards.

715
01:07:03,200 --> 01:07:04,500
OK, so here's the map.

716
01:07:04,920 --> 01:07:06,300
Like we said, this is the R60.

717
01:07:06,440 --> 01:07:12,100
A lot of it is really, it's for the most part, three

718
01:07:12,100 --> 01:07:13,240
of the four quadrants.

719
01:07:15,810 --> 01:07:18,110
And this is what it looks like in the consolidation.

720
01:07:18,410 --> 01:07:22,950
So it'll be the R70 and R60 being renamed to R2.

721
01:07:24,330 --> 01:07:26,810
and we'll get to the uses in a moment.

722
01:07:28,670 --> 01:07:31,290
So yeah, here's some of the use considerations

723
01:07:31,290 --> 01:07:34,230
in the R1 and R2 use matrix.

724
01:07:34,890 --> 01:07:37,650
So we provide the use matrix in the packet,

725
01:07:37,650 --> 01:07:38,950
so you can refer to that.

726
01:07:40,450 --> 01:07:43,530
There's some pretty important considerations here.

727
01:07:45,030 --> 01:07:47,930
One of them is that we are proposing to permit

728
01:07:47,930 --> 01:07:51,270
80 use and duplexes by right in these districts.

729
01:07:52,030 --> 01:08:14,290
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.

730
01:08:14,290 --> 01:08:22,110
But one family attached is those are town homes by definition.

731
01:08:22,270 --> 01:08:27,970
Yep, those would be permitted in both the new R1 and R2 as well.

732
01:08:30,290 --> 01:08:38,810
Currently, it looks like there's a provision that is regarding nursing home.

733
01:08:38,810 --> 01:09:00,550
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.

734
01:09:00,550 --> 01:09:04,870
So this would be the time to look at the use matrix.

735
01:09:05,790 --> 01:09:08,910
I think we want to have discussion on this.

736
01:09:08,990 --> 01:09:11,630
We didn't do kind of posters like we did last time.

737
01:09:12,370 --> 01:09:15,990
So if you have any comments on uses, this would be the time.

738
01:09:17,810 --> 01:09:21,690
And for uses, we are sticking to R1 and R2.

739
01:09:22,030 --> 01:09:24,510
Yep, R1 and R2, and then we'll jump to R3 next.

740
01:09:28,180 --> 01:09:32,000
Well, I guess does it maybe make sense to do R1, R2

741
01:09:32,000 --> 01:09:35,300
in our three all together since they're all single family.

742
01:09:36,200 --> 01:09:39,940
I can see about skipping over two,

743
01:09:42,160 --> 01:09:44,140
or just doing a little bit of skipping, but I think

744
01:09:44,140 --> 01:09:44,880
that that's fine.

745
01:09:45,620 --> 01:09:51,380
Let me show the R3 real quick today.

746
01:09:59,150 --> 01:10:04,350
It's the one, the map is showing R2 because R3 is becoming R2.

747
01:10:04,350 --> 01:10:04,990
But

748
01:10:08,700 --> 01:10:11,800
I didn't pass the uses of R3, do

749
01:10:16,120 --> 01:10:19,340
we want to discuss the uses of R3, is that, was that the government?

750
01:10:20,300 --> 01:10:24,500
I mean, I think it, because they're all single family, I think it makes sense to address them all together.

751
01:10:24,720 --> 01:10:28,860
Okay, so I'm going to just scroll through to the uses of R3 real quick.

752
01:10:37,100 --> 01:10:39,780
So here's a summary of some of the new R3 uses.

753
01:10:40,700 --> 01:10:48,920
So on that third bullet point, this is where we are proposing to permit ADU's single family detached,

754
01:10:48,920 --> 01:10:55,540
Or it attached, so single-family detached or town homes, duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes.

755
01:11:02,800 --> 01:11:09,960
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.

756
01:11:10,280 --> 01:11:20,200
Okay, so do planning commissioners have any thoughts on the proposed uses for R1, R2, and R3?

757
01:11:20,200 --> 01:11:21,100
I

758
01:11:24,970 --> 01:11:32,190
guess I had two questions, what was the rationale for not allowing model homes in R3?

759
01:11:32,570 --> 01:11:40,690
Just the size of the area is a lot more compact and it's so much closer to a node for the

760
01:11:40,690 --> 01:11:47,150
most part or a higher intensity commercial or office district that I think we just kind

761
01:11:47,150 --> 01:12:14,990
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.

762
01:12:22,200 --> 01:12:26,420
Yeah, so a model home is kind of something that sits at the front of a subdivision.

763
01:12:26,540 --> 01:12:30,700
It's kind of the first house and it's the showcase to buyers.

764
01:12:31,480 --> 01:12:38,420
And I think our thought was, because no one's actually living in it, perhaps those are a

765
01:12:38,420 --> 01:12:46,140
little bit better suited for the more large lot subdivisions in R1 and R2 than the limited

766
01:12:46,140 --> 01:12:47,980
space that you have in our three.

767
01:12:48,480 --> 01:12:48,580
No

768
01:12:53,150 --> 01:12:53,690
problem with that.

769
01:12:56,630 --> 01:12:57,550
Let me just say an example.

770
01:12:57,630 --> 01:12:58,830
I live in a condo complex.

771
01:12:59,650 --> 01:13:01,970
And what it was built in the early 90s, they were a model.

772
01:13:02,390 --> 01:13:09,890
They were model, you know, homes, you know, units that were on display for people to come in to look at.

773
01:13:11,230 --> 01:13:17,280
In fact, it was two different, it was two different, you know, types of models.

774
01:13:17,280 --> 01:13:28,480
It was at the end of the interior of the building, so I think anybody who's coming into

775
01:13:28,480 --> 01:13:36,780
look at buying into a complex like that would like to see a model, it looks like.

776
01:13:38,020 --> 01:13:39,120
Yeah, I mean,

777
01:13:41,640 --> 01:13:43,320
I don't have an issue with that.

778
01:13:43,780 --> 01:13:47,900
I would just call it a dwelling unit, especially if it's a part of just a building.

779
01:13:47,900 --> 01:13:50,020
It's just an unoccupied dwelling unit.

780
01:13:52,200 --> 01:13:59,740
Yeah, maybe it's just a fact, the fact of the matter is, do we even want to note it

781
01:13:59,740 --> 01:14:06,780
as a zoning use, because it's the same exact structure as one that's already going to

782
01:14:06,780 --> 01:14:07,220
be there.

783
01:14:07,460 --> 01:14:07,960
It's a house.

784
01:14:07,960 --> 01:14:09,000
It's a dwelling unit.

785
01:14:10,120 --> 01:14:15,540
And let the property figure out if they want to reserve one to show, or if they want to sell

786
01:14:15,540 --> 01:14:18,080
it to a tenant or a new buyer.

787
01:14:18,080 --> 01:14:31,140
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

788
01:14:32,300 --> 01:14:38,200
I don't know, definitionally state that it's not a commercial use. There you go.

789
01:14:38,460 --> 01:14:42,760
I think that makes sense and let the developer and owner do what they want with that.

790
01:14:42,760 --> 01:14:42,820
Yeah.

791
01:14:45,280 --> 01:14:45,660
All right.

792
01:14:45,860 --> 01:14:46,220
Second one.

793
01:14:46,520 --> 01:14:55,080
So the proposal would be to just eliminate the model home's use and address it through calling

794
01:14:55,080 --> 01:14:56,440
them single family dwellings.

795
01:14:56,740 --> 01:14:58,400
Is there any objection to that?

796
01:15:00,920 --> 01:15:12,160
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.

797
01:15:15,440 --> 01:15:32,280
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

798
01:15:32,280 --> 01:15:35,100
parcels together, perhaps they'd have a chance to build one.

799
01:15:36,320 --> 01:15:41,200
A lot of these are also not on main roads too, so I think parking is another concern.

800
01:15:41,600 --> 01:15:43,920
And emergency vehicle access,

801
01:15:47,560 --> 01:15:50,580
where in a neighborhood that may be very disruptive.

802
01:15:52,800 --> 01:15:58,320
So if they are permitted in that district, having them be on a major thoroughfare would probably

803
01:15:58,320 --> 01:15:59,060
be desirable.

804
01:15:59,880 --> 01:16:05,600
Yeah, you could put a use standard and require it to be a major thoroughfare.

805
01:16:05,700 --> 01:16:09,100
Do we have the map of where the R3 districts are?

806
01:16:11,460 --> 01:16:19,600
Well, we don't really have a map of that because those are existing R60s and R70s,

807
01:16:19,680 --> 01:16:21,820
because those are based off the future land use.

808
01:16:21,820 --> 01:16:31,680
We can, our 60s and our 70s are becoming R2, and R3 is coming out of no existing district.

809
01:16:32,100 --> 01:16:35,700
So R3 is coming out from no existing zoning district.

810
01:16:35,740 --> 01:16:40,300
R3 is coming out of R2, the current, the current, yeah, yeah, you're right.

811
01:16:41,440 --> 01:16:42,080
Dr. Parcel.

812
01:16:43,200 --> 01:16:50,040
I think it's fair to assume also that more parcels may be added to some of these districts that's

813
01:16:50,040 --> 01:16:51,240
That's just what we have right now.

814
01:16:51,760 --> 01:16:57,940
But if you remember the future land use map, our three follows compact residential, which

815
01:16:57,940 --> 01:17:00,500
is intended to be built around the node areas.

816
01:17:01,100 --> 01:17:05,740
So those two parcels will probably not be the extent of it.

817
01:17:05,800 --> 01:17:09,960
Otherwise, we probably would have just removed those from existing and not recreated another

818
01:17:09,960 --> 01:17:11,040
zoning district for it.

819
01:17:11,660 --> 01:17:15,480
So I would say, and this is kind of the discussion we had earlier when looking at the adult

820
01:17:15,480 --> 01:17:15,740
uses.

821
01:17:15,740 --> 01:17:19,540
Because you're looking at what we have right now is defined and where we have it existing.

822
01:17:19,940 --> 01:17:21,260
It's like a thought exercise.

823
01:17:21,440 --> 01:17:23,120
There will be more uses added here.

824
01:17:23,300 --> 01:17:25,740
It's deeming what is appropriate and where they are appropriate at.

825
01:17:25,980 --> 01:17:31,660
So it's likely then that the R3 will be on major thoroughfares and most likely, yeah.

826
01:17:32,420 --> 01:17:34,600
So I would not just there.

827
01:17:34,960 --> 01:17:38,880
So I would be inclined to add nursing homes then if they can't develop them, they can't

828
01:17:38,880 --> 01:17:39,440
develop them.

829
01:17:39,540 --> 01:17:41,920
But I don't, I would just allow it and all that.

830
01:17:42,160 --> 01:17:42,740
That sounds good.

831
01:17:42,740 --> 01:17:47,440
Do you want the use standard that they be on a major thoroughfare or do you not care that?

832
01:17:47,780 --> 01:17:52,880
That's what we currently have for fully assisted, or fully assisted adult living.

833
01:17:53,760 --> 01:17:56,680
I would defer to staff recommendation on that.

834
01:17:57,080 --> 01:17:57,460
Probably.

835
01:17:58,680 --> 01:18:04,320
I think it's a well-suited use directly adjacent to a node where there's a walkable amenity for people or caregivers.

836
01:18:07,680 --> 01:18:11,680
All right, so proposal is to allow nursing homes to R3.

837
01:18:12,000 --> 01:18:13,980
Is there any objection from planning commissioners?

838
01:18:16,580 --> 01:18:24,040
I'm not a doctor, so thank you, though, I appreciate that.

839
01:18:25,680 --> 01:18:29,580
Well, we're at it, is there any talk about perhaps assisted living as well?

840
01:18:30,160 --> 01:18:36,060
So, nursing home is one use, but assisted living is another that doesn't involve nursing

841
01:18:36,060 --> 01:18:36,480
care.

842
01:18:37,060 --> 01:18:43,940
Do you think the same way about perhaps providing assisted living in the R3 as well on major

843
01:18:43,940 --> 01:18:45,240
I have

844
01:18:55,480 --> 01:18:56,360
any objections on that?

845
01:18:56,620 --> 01:18:56,760
No.

846
01:18:57,500 --> 01:18:58,700
I'm fine with that.

847
01:19:02,020 --> 01:19:02,260
Good.

848
01:19:03,540 --> 01:19:03,900
All right.

849
01:19:04,080 --> 01:19:05,800
So I think we have our consensus.

850
01:19:06,060 --> 01:19:09,080
Nursing homes and assisted living facilities permitted.

851
01:19:10,800 --> 01:19:11,400
And the.

852
01:19:13,200 --> 01:19:13,720
Special.

853
01:19:14,460 --> 01:19:14,460
I

854
01:19:19,960 --> 01:19:20,800
mean, they're there.

855
01:19:21,260 --> 01:19:22,460
Oh, no, I'm sorry, special.

856
01:19:22,920 --> 01:19:24,500
I thought that they were permitted and.

857
01:19:24,540 --> 01:19:24,740
Yeah.

858
01:19:24,980 --> 01:19:26,040
Currently there's.

859
01:19:26,180 --> 01:19:27,000
So by.

860
01:19:27,260 --> 01:19:29,120
By special land use in our three.

861
01:19:29,360 --> 01:19:31,000
How will you emergency services can.

862
01:19:31,960 --> 01:19:42,140
Okay, any other comments from anybody on the matrix table for or the used matrix for R1 through R3?

863
01:20:03,360 --> 01:20:07,800
It was part of the master plan one, I'm looking for it now but I can't seem to find it.

864
01:20:08,520 --> 01:20:15,660
There was triplexes and quadplexes wherever that is on here.

865
01:20:15,660 --> 01:20:21,700
Yeah, triplexes and dwellings, comma, triplexes and oddplexes.

866
01:20:21,860 --> 01:20:22,840
What pages that?

867
01:20:22,960 --> 01:20:23,920
I'm really can't find it.

868
01:20:24,240 --> 01:20:29,800
Page two of the use matrix, right in the center, right in the middle of the rules.

869
01:20:33,240 --> 01:20:33,840
New use.

870
01:20:33,860 --> 01:20:34,320
Oh, okay.

871
01:20:34,560 --> 01:20:36,000
I'm looking at the old uses, okay.

872
01:20:38,980 --> 01:20:43,300
Wanted thoughts on use standards for this from the Planning Commission because we don't

873
01:20:43,300 --> 01:21:01,820
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.

874
01:21:02,040 --> 01:21:08,860
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.

875
01:21:08,860 --> 01:21:17,380
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.

876
01:21:18,960 --> 01:21:20,860
Any questions? Any comments?

877
01:21:32,380 --> 01:21:33,480
Do we want to do the dimensional?

878
01:21:33,840 --> 01:21:34,240
Do

879
01:21:39,650 --> 01:21:42,850
we want to do the dimensional for R1 through R3 real quick?

880
01:21:42,850 --> 01:21:47,130
I think that makes sense, and then jump over to all the discussion on that multifamily.

881
01:21:47,290 --> 01:21:48,570
Yep, that'll work.

882
01:21:48,570 --> 01:21:59,330
So, let me, yep. So, pages three to five on your memo. We provided a chart that kind

883
01:21:59,330 --> 01:22:04,210
of marks everything up. And I do just want to be clear, this is no way near what your

884
01:22:04,730 --> 01:22:10,310
eventual ordinance is going to look like. This is just us on how we show you this policy

885
01:22:10,310 --> 01:22:18,190
direction in an abstract form. It's difficult to do sometimes. And so I just, I wanted to

886
01:22:18,190 --> 01:22:24,810
be clear about that. You'll see this in a full ordinance form eventually. That chart symbolizes

887
01:22:25,310 --> 01:22:34,410
has columns for R70 through R100, which becomes the new R1, but as Mr. Row has suggested

888
01:22:34,410 --> 01:22:42,050
that'll be R70 will actually join R60 to become the new R2. So yeah, 3 through 5 contain

889
01:22:42,050 --> 01:22:44,170
I mean, these dimensional standards.

890
01:22:49,820 --> 01:22:52,680
Any questions, any thoughts, comments, questions?

891
01:22:54,040 --> 01:22:57,400
Mr. Chairman, I'm looking for pages three, three, three, three, five.

892
01:22:58,000 --> 01:22:59,500
It's page 14 of the PDF.

893
01:23:01,140 --> 01:23:03,980
Page three of the whole of this memo.

894
01:23:04,400 --> 01:23:04,600
Gotcha.

895
01:23:05,360 --> 01:23:05,600
Thank you.

896
01:23:05,800 --> 01:23:06,520
I'm looking at the road.

897
01:23:09,140 --> 01:23:10,620
Well, you're getting there.

898
01:23:10,720 --> 01:23:16,360
I guess one thing to think through is, so we've moved our 70 from R1 to R2.

899
01:23:16,360 --> 01:23:21,480
So the proposed minimum interior lot dimension would

900
01:23:24,230 --> 01:23:26,210
have been 70 feet,

901
01:23:28,730 --> 01:23:41,170
which had aligned with the minimum lot dimension for the smallest district that's being merged in, we could move that up to 80.

902
01:23:41,170 --> 01:24:12,770
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.

903
01:24:12,770 --> 01:24:13,770
What

904
01:24:19,080 --> 01:24:23,680
would that be? 70 for the R1 and 50 for the R2.

905
01:24:30,430 --> 01:24:33,490
I think we're good. I did have a question on

906
01:24:33,490 --> 01:24:41,650
that, and what was the rationale for not having a minimum width for corner lots?

907
01:24:43,700 --> 01:24:47,420
The minimum width for corner lots, let me read myself there.

908
01:24:49,500 --> 01:24:55,740
Yes, so your current earnings requires lots of scale up in size and width when they're

909
01:24:55,740 --> 01:25:02,900
on a corner? Is there a need to continue to do that? I mean, you would have your front

910
01:25:02,900 --> 01:25:07,800
lot line. It would probably be the one that your address is facing and your front door

911
01:25:07,800 --> 01:25:17,660
and then the other lot line would be another side. I think there would be another front lot

912
01:25:17,660 --> 01:25:19,140
line, but that would be a side yard.

913
01:25:23,570 --> 01:25:25,970
So is there a need to continue to make them bigger?

914
01:25:25,970 --> 01:25:29,930
I don't think there's a need to make them bigger, but I think there's a need to have a minimum lot

915
01:25:30,770 --> 01:25:36,590
Dimension overall. So are we are we changing minimum interior lot dimensions and just making it? Oh, yeah

916
01:25:36,590 --> 01:25:41,810
You're right and right. We need to rename that that header. It would just say minimum lot

917
01:25:41,810 --> 01:25:47,850
Yeah, okay as long as we're doing that I'm fine with it, but I mean we'll need something. Yeah

918
01:25:47,850 --> 01:25:53,490
Exactly. That's that's a good point. I have I have no objection that if we're so if we're just treating

919
01:25:53,490 --> 01:25:56,270
interior and corner lots of same I find with that.

920
01:26:04,490 --> 01:26:12,030
Comments or questions on the dimensional standards for R1, R2, and R3?

921
01:26:15,350 --> 01:26:26,250
One of the questions regarding rear setbacks is we're proposing a rear setback of 35 feet,

922
01:26:29,710 --> 01:26:31,090
R1, and R2,

923
01:26:34,040 --> 01:26:35,480
35 for R3.

924
01:26:35,480 --> 01:26:42,580
Okay, concern being, is that going to likely be prohibitive of developing ADUs?

925
01:26:43,770 --> 01:26:59,120
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.

926
01:26:59,120 --> 01:27:04,060
You'll see those standards when you see the full ordinance, but they'll have much more relaxed

927
01:27:04,840 --> 01:27:11,600
Perhaps like a five or ten foot. Okay, so as long as as long as we're only dealing with principle structure

928
01:27:14,760 --> 01:27:18,860
Planning commissioners any other comments or questions on dimensional standards

929
01:27:22,040 --> 01:27:24,320
Just in general when you look at this

930
01:27:25,760 --> 01:27:27,920
We're combining the residential districts

931
01:27:28,860 --> 01:27:35,620
And then we would be playing that, obviously, to the ordnance text, but also in the map.

932
01:27:36,680 --> 01:27:40,200
Are we running into any non-conformities?

933
01:27:40,940 --> 01:27:41,740
Probably not.

934
01:27:42,040 --> 01:27:47,800
For the most part, what we're doing is we're adding more flexibility by creating smaller

935
01:27:48,420 --> 01:27:49,020
minimums.

936
01:27:49,100 --> 01:27:53,360
So you're opening the door for more compliance all across the board.

937
01:27:53,360 --> 01:28:01,120
or you might not be creating a lot of non-conformity would be if you're going the other way.

938
01:28:01,240 --> 01:28:01,680
The other way?

939
01:28:01,920 --> 01:28:02,920
Yeah, that's correct.

940
01:28:04,440 --> 01:28:08,020
We haven't done, I mean, we did this during the master plan.

941
01:28:08,020 --> 01:28:12,140
We looked at a lot of these lots on a parcel-wide parcel sampling basis.

942
01:28:13,740 --> 01:28:18,780
I think for the most part, your depth of a lot of your lots is pretty static because you're developed.

943
01:28:18,780 --> 01:28:28,440
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.

944
01:28:29,140 --> 01:28:33,680
That's why reducing the minimum front or the minimum width is so important.

945
01:28:35,920 --> 01:28:41,820
And I know that, well, we all know that our city is pretty much developed.

946
01:28:42,240 --> 01:28:42,980
Exactly, yeah.

947
01:28:42,980 --> 01:28:51,700
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.

948
01:28:51,900 --> 01:28:55,360
Exactly. So we'll be ready for that.

949
01:28:55,620 --> 01:29:03,000
Yeah, but it might not be the most suited thing for tomorrow, but maybe in a few years or a few decades, yes.

950
01:29:07,200 --> 01:29:12,100
One of one another thing that just occurred to me, so there's a change in maximum height

951
01:29:12,100 --> 01:29:17,340
from two stories or 30 feet to two and a half stories or 30 feet, whichever's last two

952
01:29:17,340 --> 01:29:17,920
part question.

953
01:29:18,020 --> 01:29:21,720
How are we defining a half story, and why do we even need to deal with stories at all?

954
01:29:21,840 --> 01:29:30,420
Why not just regulate by height context for that question being I recently had a very complicated

955
01:29:30,420 --> 01:29:41,540
question about what constitutes a story, and from an impact on the neighborhood, what

956
01:29:41,540 --> 01:29:46,160
constitutes a story is typically going to be determined by what's inside the building.

957
01:29:46,720 --> 01:29:47,900
And feeling height.

958
01:29:48,940 --> 01:29:49,100
Yeah.

959
01:29:49,580 --> 01:29:52,600
So why not just do by height?

960
01:29:53,780 --> 01:29:58,980
I mean, you could, you could just do by height and just have the firm 30 and I think most

961
01:29:58,980 --> 01:29:59,980
people would be all.

962
01:30:09,160 --> 01:30:10,200
I think

963
01:30:13,080 --> 01:30:32,860
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.

964
01:30:32,860 --> 01:30:37,140
the commercial districts, I would just go to height for everything personally.

965
01:30:37,860 --> 01:30:42,100
And the whole reason that existed, the two and a half is found in a lot of ordinances.

966
01:30:42,380 --> 01:30:59,280
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.

967
01:31:00,000 --> 01:31:03,340
So I think that that's really the key consideration.

968
01:31:03,560 --> 01:31:07,940
Would you be okay with a more larger looking structure

969
01:31:07,940 --> 01:31:09,580
that goes to a third story?

970
01:31:10,480 --> 01:31:15,520
Or do you want that to be that like more of a traditional look

971
01:31:16,140 --> 01:31:19,720
with perhaps an attic space converted with dormer windows?

972
01:31:20,400 --> 01:31:23,700
I would be fine with the height because when does a dormer just become an attic?

973
01:31:24,220 --> 01:31:27,340
You know, I mean you can have a dormer that takes up pretty much the entire attic.

974
01:31:27,340 --> 01:31:34,860
Attic, when does that become a separate company story or a half story I would

975
01:31:37,130 --> 01:31:37,870
just do by fee.

976
01:31:38,230 --> 01:31:41,610
I'm fine with 30 feet regardless of how they build the structure.

977
01:31:42,410 --> 01:31:46,650
Because people otherwise will just find a way around it anyway.

978
01:31:50,960 --> 01:31:55,620
Is there any objection to that?

979
01:31:56,560 --> 01:31:57,240
No.

980
01:31:57,560 --> 01:31:58,840
Covered by planning staff?

981
01:31:59,480 --> 01:31:59,820
Mr. Chairman.

982
01:32:00,820 --> 01:32:01,400
I

983
01:32:04,210 --> 01:32:11,530
mean, I kind of do, we use this in different ways and different, different, we use stories

984
01:32:11,530 --> 01:32:13,650
in like office zoning and stuff as well.

985
01:32:15,240 --> 01:32:21,030
A lot of it comes down, I feel like how we measure the roof line on it because we measure

986
01:32:21,030 --> 01:32:23,710
flat roofs differently than peak roofs in the ordinance.

987
01:32:23,990 --> 01:32:29,750
So you have different heights that allow for different architectural styles and then the

988
01:32:29,750 --> 01:32:35,650
stories then regulates the way that different housing types are built more uniformly.

989
01:32:35,850 --> 01:32:39,930
So you have trial levels, you have two story homes, you have the houses with the bungalow,

990
01:32:40,110 --> 01:32:45,670
with the dormers and the attic level. So having both guards covers the height of that,

991
01:32:45,750 --> 01:32:49,750
because people do, the issue is if height only people do try and do things that can be different

992
01:32:49,750 --> 01:32:55,810
or squirreling, we have variances come in and that gives us a fallback for that way to review that.

993
01:32:55,810 --> 01:33:02,770
So I kind of like both of them, I think it helps manage our review of it a little

994
01:33:02,770 --> 01:33:08,070
easier, but it's just more of blanket coverage for different housing styles.

995
01:33:09,390 --> 01:33:12,350
To be completely honest, it does help us do that.

996
01:33:12,790 --> 01:33:16,030
We do work with our building office internally in terms of height for building for

997
01:33:16,030 --> 01:33:17,910
people who are doing additions quite frequently.

998
01:33:18,270 --> 01:33:22,310
We've had people want to add on the roof or add a third floor or something like that,

999
01:33:22,310 --> 01:33:33,010
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.

1000
01:33:33,730 --> 01:33:39,550
So it just, it gives us an administrative safeguard in some ways for reviewing different housing styles.

1001
01:33:39,950 --> 01:33:44,850
Very rarely, I think one time ever we had a residential height coming for a variance.

1002
01:33:44,850 --> 01:33:50,250
So it's not common, but I like it. I don't know if the people's website has a different preference

1003
01:33:50,950 --> 01:33:55,550
To look at stories versus a overall. Yeah, it's just it's your preference

1004
01:33:55,550 --> 01:34:03,070
But I think what you'll see is exactly what Dr. Bursel said too is you'd probably get a more full third story

1005
01:34:03,070 --> 01:34:06,090
Then a more limited one that might have kind of

1006
01:34:06,090 --> 01:34:10,530
More architectural force. I think it's more for design than for

1007
01:34:12,730 --> 01:34:15,570
Usage, I mean it doesn't really matter

1008
01:34:16,130 --> 01:34:23,550
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.

1009
01:34:24,270 --> 01:34:38,490
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.

1010
01:34:39,950 --> 01:34:47,630
So if you did, if it was two stories and you were a flat roof and 30 feet, it's probably

1011
01:34:47,630 --> 01:34:55,810
going to be shorter than the same thing, or what am I saying, like a two and a half,

1012
01:34:55,970 --> 01:35:00,790
well it would be if you kept it at like two and a half, your flat roof is going to be

1013
01:35:00,790 --> 01:35:06,430
shorter than your, the peak of your other, but the massing of it will be up here versus

1014
01:35:06,430 --> 01:35:14,050
up here at the top. So I think that's really, we can address it through where you measure,

1015
01:35:14,750 --> 01:35:20,250
but not maybe the story, but that may be a factor.

1016
01:35:21,130 --> 01:35:25,410
To be honest, I don't think that keeping both of them causes us any issues would be kind

1017
01:35:25,410 --> 01:35:25,890
of what I'm saying.

1018
01:35:28,450 --> 01:35:36,800
It doesn't necessarily, I mean, it does cause issues from a development, a redevelopment standpoint

1019
01:35:36,800 --> 01:35:42,800
point if you want to have more space above your second story, but you're still under 30 feet.

1020
01:35:43,120 --> 01:35:48,780
We define half story as an upper most story lying under a sloping roof, the usable floor

1021
01:35:48,780 --> 01:35:53,980
area of which does not exceed 50% of the floor area immediately below.

1022
01:35:55,040 --> 01:35:56,480
So if you have

1023
01:36:01,860 --> 01:36:11,400
a house that's the footprint is 500 square feet, the half story above,

1024
01:36:11,400 --> 01:36:16,940
of can only be on the front portion of the house then, correct?

1025
01:36:18,000 --> 01:36:20,700
Or the left, how would that be?

1026
01:36:20,700 --> 01:36:21,840
The center, I would say.

1027
01:36:22,080 --> 01:36:22,940
So that's the center, yeah.

1028
01:36:23,140 --> 01:36:23,820
A bungalow.

1029
01:36:24,060 --> 01:36:27,600
If this is the bungalow roof and six feet ish tall,

1030
01:36:28,160 --> 01:36:29,160
I can kind of stand here.

1031
01:36:29,600 --> 01:36:32,600
And I can kind of stand here before I'm going like this.

1032
01:36:33,660 --> 01:36:35,900
So that would be my idea of the 50%.

1033
01:36:35,900 --> 01:36:39,420
As it's usable floor space for me standing in the center part

1034
01:36:39,420 --> 01:36:40,960
of the thing where the peak is.

1035
01:36:44,750 --> 01:36:48,230
Okay, so we're so usable floor areas being calculated based on

1036
01:36:48,770 --> 01:36:51,150
kind of where you measure the midline of the roof height,

1037
01:36:51,910 --> 01:36:53,310
which would be the half story.

1038
01:36:54,970 --> 01:36:56,710
How do we define the usable floor area?

1039
01:36:57,910 --> 01:36:59,090
I don't know, they're just thinking practically.

1040
01:37:01,310 --> 01:37:06,610
It has to be about seven feet in a ceiling height.

1041
01:37:07,670 --> 01:37:10,190
So the surrounding of it wouldn't be usable.

1042
01:37:10,190 --> 01:37:11,990
would have to be within that space.

1043
01:37:12,490 --> 01:37:13,770
Yes, where does that come from?

1044
01:37:14,270 --> 01:37:14,710
Building code.

1045
01:37:14,770 --> 01:37:16,150
It's in the building code.

1046
01:37:16,490 --> 01:37:16,870
And

1047
01:37:22,280 --> 01:37:24,540
we use that definition for.

1048
01:37:44,190 --> 01:37:46,770
It's used like if you have an existing roof

1049
01:37:47,450 --> 01:37:49,630
that has sort of a little bit of space in there,

1050
01:37:49,850 --> 01:37:52,050
you'd have to go into the building code and track it.

1051
01:37:52,470 --> 01:37:55,230
That space can be transformed into a living space.

1052
01:37:55,850 --> 01:37:59,210
We define floor area, we don't define usable floor area.

1053
01:37:59,830 --> 01:38:00,350
It's interesting.

1054
01:38:00,350 --> 01:38:06,210
There usually is a standard though in the building code for like a livable area.

1055
01:38:06,810 --> 01:38:10,530
So I guess seven feet it might be seven and a half feet.

1056
01:38:10,970 --> 01:38:16,050
I guess the question is, is the zoning ordinance adopting that definition from the building code?

1057
01:38:16,550 --> 01:38:20,970
I don't know that it, for the purposes that we're talking about it, it matters.

1058
01:38:21,190 --> 01:38:23,810
It doesn't, I mean the usability of it doesn't really matter.

1059
01:38:23,910 --> 01:38:26,050
It's really the height of it that matters.

1060
01:38:27,410 --> 01:38:33,990
seven and a half feet and it's half of the floor below it, that's a half a story.

1061
01:38:34,350 --> 01:38:34,410
Yeah.

1062
01:38:34,950 --> 01:38:35,230
Okay.

1063
01:38:35,650 --> 01:38:37,210
I'm finally leaving an SSM.

1064
01:38:38,670 --> 01:38:44,650
I will note also just to final, the building off, office of building is like that reviewer

1065
01:38:44,650 --> 01:38:46,710
of 99% single family home permits.

1066
01:38:46,910 --> 01:38:49,090
Planning doesn't really look at those often.

1067
01:38:49,270 --> 01:38:54,030
They have the zoning ordinance that they review with it and that's what helps them with

1068
01:38:54,030 --> 01:38:54,850
the review of it.

1069
01:38:56,150 --> 01:38:56,330
Okay.

1070
01:38:56,790 --> 01:39:03,010
Any other comments or questions on dimensional standards for the R1 through RR3?

1071
01:39:03,550 --> 01:39:04,070
I have one.

1072
01:39:04,890 --> 01:39:05,930
Mr. Jesus, thanks.

1073
01:39:06,710 --> 01:39:10,310
Why are we against three story homes, just for knowledge purposes?

1074
01:39:10,730 --> 01:39:11,430
Not that I like them.

1075
01:39:11,950 --> 01:39:13,270
Why are we against three story homes?

1076
01:39:14,750 --> 01:39:23,630
I think if we're thinking about these in the R1 and R2 and R3 districts, they have a less

1077
01:39:23,630 --> 01:39:28,110
They're a little bit less imposing and they can be more like if we're thinking about infill housing and

1078
01:39:28,690 --> 01:39:35,690
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

1079
01:39:35,690 --> 01:39:38,010
I think that's the idea is that maybe this is a more

1080
01:39:38,770 --> 01:39:41,650
gentle way of blending in some of the newer types

1081
01:39:42,190 --> 01:39:48,010
Okay, if there's an area that's you know new development and they would want, you know three-story

1082
01:39:48,010 --> 01:39:53,710
three million-dollar homes, why are we against it?

1083
01:39:55,260 --> 01:39:58,760
I think it's just a matter of considering the context of what's around it.

1084
01:39:58,980 --> 01:40:01,940
You don't have a lot of areas right now, I don't think, with three story.

1085
01:40:02,960 --> 01:40:07,560
I know you're right now, you're only kept it to the current.

1086
01:40:07,600 --> 01:40:11,400
Correct, but say there's a new subdivision being developed.

1087
01:40:12,040 --> 01:40:14,880
Why are we stopping the three stories from being built?

1088
01:40:16,440 --> 01:40:18,800
I'm not going to, but I'm just, I want to know.

1089
01:40:18,800 --> 01:40:23,460
No, it's a very good question, I think every neighboring city allows it.

1090
01:40:23,700 --> 01:40:30,500
Yeah, kind of the historical relation and compatibility with existing homes.

1091
01:40:30,920 --> 01:40:34,440
And that's kind of where the half comes in, which we don't need to revisit again.

1092
01:40:34,940 --> 01:40:38,880
The half in the, and makes it a little bit more architecturally scaled,

1093
01:40:38,880 --> 01:40:43,000
whereas a full makes it more bulky, but it's your choice.

1094
01:40:43,000 --> 01:40:50,460
If you want to say three stories altogether is the limit at 30 feet, then we can do that.

1095
01:40:52,140 --> 01:41:07,520
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.

1096
01:41:07,520 --> 01:41:11,820
My question is, why are we not allowing three stories?

1097
01:41:12,320 --> 01:41:15,320
I'm not saying within the 30, why are we against it?

1098
01:41:15,360 --> 01:41:22,380
So if someone was to build a new subdivision, and they want to sell bigger homes, I think they should have a right to.

1099
01:41:23,280 --> 01:41:28,620
I'm not discussing basically just on this matter, I just wanted to know why we're so against it.

1100
01:41:28,940 --> 01:41:35,400
Shelby allows it, Rochester allows it, Troy allows it, I'm not sure if Warren allows it.

1101
01:41:35,520 --> 01:41:37,980
But I want to say Clinton allows it as well.

1102
01:41:37,980 --> 01:41:40,820
Well, something you could certainly do for single family homes.

1103
01:41:41,300 --> 01:41:45,960
Yeah, Clinton, Clinton Township, I'm sorry.

1104
01:41:46,240 --> 01:41:49,540
I said, I'd be surprised if Troy does allow three.

1105
01:41:49,540 --> 01:41:57,080
Okay, but I know there's neighboring cities I do allow it, I don't know why we don't allow it.

1106
01:41:57,160 --> 01:42:02,920
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.

1107
01:42:03,720 --> 01:42:10,500
Parking on the first floor with some minimal living space on the first floor and then they sometimes jump up to three

1108
01:42:10,500 --> 01:42:18,120
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

1109
01:42:18,120 --> 01:42:22,720
Third floor has like the master bedroom and the secondary bedroom

1110
01:42:23,480 --> 01:42:26,100
So I mean, I think you see that with townhomes

1111
01:42:26,100 --> 01:42:27,580
Maybe that's more often.

1112
01:42:28,080 --> 01:42:29,240
The R3 district maybe.

1113
01:42:30,060 --> 01:42:35,120
So maybe the R3 district can trim it up to 30 feet in three stories.

1114
01:42:35,880 --> 01:42:36,640
Is there any?

1115
01:42:37,140 --> 01:42:39,760
I can see it in dense areas where you'd want to go up.

1116
01:42:39,880 --> 01:42:45,220
I'm not sure if I agree with areas where there's a lot of land while you'd want to go up.

1117
01:42:45,280 --> 01:42:49,700
But it also be cautious of accessibility issues that will happen.

1118
01:42:50,480 --> 01:42:53,180
Because now you're going through stories and with age.

1119
01:42:53,180 --> 01:42:57,840
But I guess that could also be a personal choice.

1120
01:43:00,090 --> 01:43:06,810
We saw a project in another community where it was like 75 town homes.

1121
01:43:06,810 --> 01:43:12,310
And I believe in a couple of the buildings, they were like multiple buildings.

1122
01:43:12,750 --> 01:43:20,290
A couple of them, they were put going to put in elevators to accommodate if people needed that to get to the third floor.

1123
01:43:22,390 --> 01:43:28,050
Mr. Rah, I think on this whole point, if we were a community that had some vacant land,

1124
01:43:28,130 --> 01:43:32,510
do you want to build a subdivision, for example, and there are all three stories, that's

1125
01:43:32,510 --> 01:43:32,970
one thing.

1126
01:43:33,450 --> 01:43:38,850
That would be, I would advocate that that would be a value to allow that.

1127
01:43:39,430 --> 01:43:45,550
But in our situation, if we have it in the order of the three story, that allows an individual

1128
01:43:45,550 --> 01:43:50,990
in a existing subdivision to add a third story to their house.

1129
01:43:51,230 --> 01:43:54,270
And I don't think we want to do that because again, as you pointed out,

1130
01:43:54,830 --> 01:43:58,350
it takes away from the character of the community that's already established.

1131
01:44:01,210 --> 01:44:03,090
Yeah, again, it's your choice.

1132
01:44:03,350 --> 01:44:05,450
I think that's feedback that you're all offering.

1133
01:44:05,650 --> 01:44:06,510
Yeah, I agree.

1134
01:44:06,950 --> 01:44:09,350
It should, you know, everything should be uniform.

1135
01:44:09,730 --> 01:44:10,230
I'm with that.

1136
01:44:10,310 --> 01:44:15,450
But, you know, if we add, you know, six feet

1137
01:44:15,450 --> 01:44:26,250
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.

1138
01:44:26,990 --> 01:44:37,750
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.

1139
01:44:38,530 --> 01:44:47,570
Why stop that from happening, will allow a big apartment, but not a big homes.

1140
01:44:50,310 --> 01:44:52,850
We're in a large city, we're not in a small city.

1141
01:44:53,850 --> 01:44:57,110
It should be, my personal opinion, it should be allowed.

1142
01:44:57,290 --> 01:44:59,190
I think we should be at 35.

1143
01:44:59,190 --> 01:44:59,970
I've had it.

1144
01:45:00,000 --> 01:45:10,220
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.

1145
01:45:12,500 --> 01:45:16,420
We've gotten any requests within the city for three stories? One.

1146
01:45:23,650 --> 01:45:36,750
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.

1147
01:45:36,750 --> 01:45:44,010
I guess, I don't know, but it would be pretty difficult to get a variance for a third.

1148
01:45:44,650 --> 01:45:47,110
It was good, I think it was, we did not, okay.

1149
01:45:47,390 --> 01:45:52,790
We had some challenges, it was a challenge in debate about how do you measure from, I believe, correct?

1150
01:45:53,170 --> 01:46:02,110
They had a weird, slightly raised foundation, and we had to measure the inside of the basement, it was funky.

1151
01:46:03,890 --> 01:46:09,870
from the grade to the first floor joist.

1152
01:46:10,230 --> 01:46:15,710
I remember that case where we had the UVA, and we counted the basement as a story.

1153
01:46:17,190 --> 01:46:18,050
That's from what we did.

1154
01:46:18,070 --> 01:46:21,750
But since I started speaking, I'm just going to add my two cents.

1155
01:46:21,950 --> 01:46:27,950
I think I'm not opposed to the three-story as Mr. Yusuf pointed out, I think we should

1156
01:46:27,950 --> 01:46:37,050
But we should allow that, it should have an, it should exist, or if someone's requesting

1157
01:46:37,050 --> 01:46:40,490
it, I think we should, I won't be opposed to a third story.

1158
01:46:41,550 --> 01:46:46,350
So that's the direction that that's my true sense and I know how the rest feel but I support

1159
01:46:46,350 --> 01:46:47,250
that division.

1160
01:46:48,770 --> 01:46:50,370
Plenty of questioners, other thoughts?

1161
01:46:51,710 --> 01:46:54,790
I'd like to give my two cents if possible as well.

1162
01:46:55,050 --> 01:46:55,730
Go for it.

1163
01:46:56,410 --> 01:46:59,770
So Clinton townships, two stories, 35 feet,

1164
01:47:00,890 --> 01:47:06,150
Troy's two stories, 30 feet, Shelby Township is 35 feet.

1165
01:47:07,270 --> 01:47:13,130
I don't really view the third story as something that should be blanked out.

1166
01:47:13,230 --> 01:47:15,110
I think the half stories generous upgrade from here.

1167
01:47:15,110 --> 01:47:19,330
If it's a new subdivision and a group is coming in and they want to do something like that,

1168
01:47:19,610 --> 01:47:24,310
maybe we can look at ways to allow that for like a new cluster development or subdivision.

1169
01:47:24,590 --> 01:47:30,510
But it does come, I think, to the character of the existing neighborhood of what you have,

1170
01:47:30,850 --> 01:47:34,670
even in NVDA, which is our most recently adopted ordinance.

1171
01:47:34,670 --> 01:47:38,730
We have tight transitions for different things in how they're built.

1172
01:47:39,870 --> 01:47:43,230
Town homes often times we have at 30 feet.

1173
01:47:43,970 --> 01:47:53,530
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.

1174
01:47:54,690 --> 01:48:00,910
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.

1175
01:48:01,230 --> 01:48:13,010
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.

1176
01:48:13,010 --> 01:48:20,210
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.

1177
01:48:21,110 --> 01:48:26,530
So I don't know, I think the two and a half is in line with the character of most of our existing homes.

1178
01:48:27,130 --> 01:48:30,790
I don't know of any three story homes, but up to the planning commission.

1179
01:48:32,070 --> 01:48:36,630
I'd be open to going up to 35 feet or three stories, I would just do 35 feet.

1180
01:48:36,630 --> 01:48:38,590
I think

1181
01:48:40,800 --> 01:48:57,820
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?

1182
01:49:02,180 --> 01:49:07,400
I mean, there are two options would be either two and a half stories and going up to 35 feet

1183
01:49:07,400 --> 01:49:10,220
or three full stories and going up to 35 feet.

1184
01:49:10,460 --> 01:49:19,020
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.

1185
01:49:19,720 --> 01:49:27,360
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

1186
01:49:28,540 --> 01:49:33,660
Anything else? Well, anything else on stories or height anything

1187
01:49:36,060 --> 01:49:38,480
on dimensional standards for R1 through R3

1188
01:49:38,480 --> 01:49:39,160
Here

1189
01:49:47,640 --> 01:49:50,040
ain't nothing. I think we are good to go on to

1190
01:49:50,940 --> 01:49:54,240
RM1 and RM2 starting with the uses

1191
01:49:59,980 --> 01:50:03,480
It is slow. It turns really slow. Okay

1192
01:50:04,140 --> 01:50:14,860
So, existing, talking about the existing ARM 1 and ARM 2, these will be consolidated into a new

1193
01:50:14,860 --> 01:50:23,780
ARM 1. This will just be your multi-unit dwelling district in a broad sense. It follows your

1194
01:50:23,780 --> 01:50:28,020
multi-household residential future land use. So,

1195
01:50:32,280 --> 01:50:34,620
these are just kind of scattered throughout the

1196
01:50:34,620 --> 01:50:41,500
city. There's really no major geographic pattern, other than a lot of them are on major

1197
01:50:41,500 --> 01:50:46,860
thoroughfares to begin with. You won't see many of these isolated from a major thoroughfares.

1198
01:50:49,270 --> 01:50:56,970
So going over to existing RM3, these are your towers. So these are your large residential tower

1199
01:50:56,970 --> 01:51:07,100
buildings, and that being said because RM1 and RM2 are being consolidated to the new RM1. This RM3

1200
01:51:07,100 --> 01:51:12,220
will be renamed to RM2 and it still follows that residential, the multi-household residential

1201
01:51:12,220 --> 01:51:13,120
future land use.

1202
01:51:13,120 --> 01:51:16,640
It's just going to permit higher densities and higher heights.

1203
01:51:19,880 --> 01:51:25,200
So in terms of uses, we already talked about the R3 stuff on that third bullet point.

1204
01:51:26,120 --> 01:51:29,380
We talked a lot about, we already talked about pretty much one through three.

1205
01:51:29,940 --> 01:51:36,620
So really for the RM1 and RM2, we would permit town homes, duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes,

1206
01:51:36,620 --> 01:51:41,960
And then the multi-unit dwellings, which are those buildings with five plus units, live

1207
01:51:41,960 --> 01:51:50,600
work units, nursing homes, and senior independent housing assisted living as well.

1208
01:51:53,180 --> 01:51:57,140
And again, the difference is really more of a height thing and a density thing when you

1209
01:51:57,140 --> 01:52:00,300
vote from the new RM1 to the new RM2.

1210
01:52:07,320 --> 01:52:12,580
There's no question about the uses anything about the dimensional requirements for the RM1

1211
01:52:12,580 --> 01:52:13,220
and RM2.

1212
01:52:13,720 --> 01:52:20,520
All right, planning commissioners anything on, we can probably just take both these all together uses, or

1213
01:52:20,520 --> 01:52:24,740
dimensional requirements for RM1 and RM2.

1214
01:52:31,400 --> 01:52:34,260
Hearing no questions, do

1215
01:52:36,620 --> 01:52:39,520
we have anything else, otherwise we can just turn to general questions, comments?

1216
01:52:40,380 --> 01:52:40,540
Yeah.

1217
01:52:40,800 --> 01:52:41,480
Oh, Mr. Rowe.

1218
01:52:41,740 --> 01:52:42,380
Yeah, I can't back up.

1219
01:52:42,760 --> 01:52:44,880
Okay, I just want to be clear.

1220
01:52:44,880 --> 01:52:45,460
the RM,

1221
01:52:47,970 --> 01:52:54,810
it's going to be RM, we're taking the two RM, RM one and RM two to make it a new

1222
01:52:54,810 --> 01:52:55,790
RM one, right?

1223
01:52:56,110 --> 01:52:56,210
Right.

1224
01:52:57,010 --> 01:52:57,110
Okay.

1225
01:52:58,530 --> 01:53:05,510
And then the, just refresh my memory there, the height dimensions for RM two.

1226
01:53:07,010 --> 01:53:10,310
For the current RM two or the future, current RM two?

1227
01:53:10,310 --> 01:53:22,050
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.

1228
01:53:22,290 --> 01:53:23,550
No, he's talking about the existing.

1229
01:53:23,710 --> 01:53:24,410
Oh, the existing.

1230
01:53:24,770 --> 01:53:28,710
The existing RM1 and RM2 are two stories 30 feet.

1231
01:53:28,910 --> 01:53:36,050
The proposal for the new RM1 which would combine the existing RM1 and RM2 would be two and a half stories or 30 feet.

1232
01:53:36,050 --> 01:53:36,790
But

1233
01:53:40,150 --> 01:53:42,810
then a distinction would be made with an Rm3, right?

1234
01:53:43,210 --> 01:53:44,130
They are coming there.

1235
01:53:46,150 --> 01:53:47,110
Well, yes.

1236
01:53:47,350 --> 01:53:48,690
And there is no...

1237
01:53:50,320 --> 01:53:51,420
There is no harm to.

1238
01:53:51,760 --> 01:53:53,760
There is no maximum

1239
01:53:56,350 --> 01:53:57,350
height for Rm3.

1240
01:53:58,190 --> 01:53:59,330
Currently there is not.

1241
01:53:59,450 --> 01:54:01,630
So we are not proposing one in Rm2.

1242
01:54:01,770 --> 01:54:02,750
The new Rm2.

1243
01:54:04,190 --> 01:54:07,010
There is one I mentioned that because in our past,

1244
01:54:07,550 --> 01:54:10,170
here we have some...

1245
01:54:11,450 --> 01:54:19,530
These apartment buildings, putting in three stories and they're getting black from some of

1246
01:54:19,530 --> 01:54:26,430
the residents, especially if it's adjacent to single-family residents, they're concerned

1247
01:54:26,430 --> 01:54:37,070
about the height of the three-story building versus two-story, and we've got those new apartments,

1248
01:54:37,070 --> 01:54:44,470
a lot of them are three story and the market's really dictating yeah yeah the

1249
01:54:44,470 --> 01:54:47,210
market is dictating that that's a pretty standard

1250
01:54:52,190 --> 01:55:02,110
but it's just you know combining our our multi-family districts which

1251
01:55:02,110 --> 01:55:07,170
to allow them, allow them more flexibility in the height.

1252
01:55:09,040 --> 01:55:14,340
I think most of the apartment complexes that have come in recently have come in as PUDs.

1253
01:55:14,380 --> 01:55:21,800
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.

1254
01:55:22,220 --> 01:55:29,900
And obviously then they were limited to, oh no, they weren't on VD, North Van, they weren't Van Dyck makes use.

1255
01:55:30,100 --> 01:55:30,640
They could go three.

1256
01:55:32,380 --> 01:55:37,460
Either way, point B, we haven't had any apartment complexes in a long time that were developed

1257
01:55:38,160 --> 01:55:40,140
by right, fully by right.

1258
01:55:40,940 --> 01:55:47,600
So you had the mixed-use development at 17 in Ryan, that was two stories from

1259
01:55:49,970 --> 01:55:50,290
the north

1260
01:55:51,310 --> 01:55:52,210
east side,

1261
01:55:54,310 --> 01:55:59,290
that was by right, you reviewed the site plan by, and then the other two that

1262
01:55:59,290 --> 01:56:01,150
were special approval land uses are both two stories.

1263
01:56:01,150 --> 01:56:01,610
Right.

1264
01:56:02,950 --> 01:56:08,650
So most of the ones that we've had other than those three have been PUDs, my thought.

1265
01:56:12,890 --> 01:56:14,830
PUDs a lot was the flexibility, right?

1266
01:56:15,870 --> 01:56:16,710
That's what they went PUD.

1267
01:56:17,770 --> 01:56:18,250
Notification.

1268
01:56:18,430 --> 01:56:18,570
Yeah.

1269
01:56:19,070 --> 01:56:19,910
That's about it.

1270
01:56:20,870 --> 01:56:20,990
Yeah.

1271
01:56:21,450 --> 01:56:21,590
Okay.

1272
01:56:21,830 --> 01:56:21,930
Just.

1273
01:56:25,530 --> 01:56:26,150
No higher rise.

1274
01:56:27,570 --> 01:56:28,050
Yeah.

1275
01:56:28,250 --> 01:56:28,370
No.

1276
01:56:28,770 --> 01:56:32,050
Like, there's so few RM3 parcels those don't come up really ever.

1277
01:56:33,830 --> 01:56:34,750
I can't.

1278
01:56:34,750 --> 01:56:45,470
I can't think of one that we've had approved taller than that other than like the CCF buildings in the North

1279
01:56:45,470 --> 01:56:54,010
Fandite Avenue area. The North Fandite Avenue already allows inherently higher buildings, taller, not higher, but I can't

1280
01:56:55,550 --> 01:57:01,250
Any other comments on RM2?

1281
01:57:03,480 --> 01:57:08,240
Any general comments about residential districts and uses?

1282
01:57:10,960 --> 01:57:26,520
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.

1283
01:57:26,520 --> 01:57:33,930
Are we, is that still in the words or do we have it?

1284
01:57:43,160 --> 01:57:50,220
So, to be honest, I feel like it's a developer preference everywhere in the city,

1285
01:57:50,440 --> 01:57:53,840
where it's currently not mandated as a potential option.

1286
01:57:54,900 --> 01:58:00,700
North Fandike Avenue has a well-described facade articulation and

1287
01:58:00,700 --> 01:58:04,200
facade composition, like component of the ordinance.

1288
01:58:04,200 --> 01:58:09,420
That includes balconies and their size and your facade transparency and things like that.

1289
01:58:09,740 --> 01:58:17,640
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.

1290
01:58:18,420 --> 01:58:24,080
Same thing as the interior circle of lakeside is approved by Council through those design guidelines.

1291
01:58:24,940 --> 01:58:28,540
I know that it's a preference of the planning commission for that.

1292
01:58:28,540 --> 01:58:34,580
But if somebody comes in and they're on a redevelopment corridor or are on a traditional RM2 parcel

1293
01:58:34,580 --> 01:58:37,760
And they just don't want to have balconies and they would prefer to have

1294
01:58:38,600 --> 01:58:43,300
Gazibaud rear porches with larger slab patios in the back for people to use

1295
01:58:43,920 --> 01:58:49,660
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

1296
01:58:49,660 --> 01:58:50,700
I'm not requiring it

1297
01:58:50,700 --> 01:58:55,800
Yeah, but we can so this is a great option actually a good segue to something that I brought up to

1298
01:58:57,100 --> 01:59:05,580
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

1299
01:59:07,040 --> 01:59:12,260
I'm trying to find it cuts off on the page recreation area and facilities.

1300
01:59:13,640 --> 01:59:24,840
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

1301
01:59:24,840 --> 01:59:29,720
a recreational area. And they said that's not the market we don't see people use it and we don't

1302
01:59:29,720 --> 01:59:34,340
want to build what typically would have to be as an activated space. So would we be able, I

1303
01:59:34,340 --> 01:59:39,480
asked Ms. Bain before this meeting, because it was fresh in my mind, what could we include in an

1304
01:59:39,480 --> 01:59:45,640
ordinance that would take the place of that outdoor activated recreation area, reducing that

1305
01:59:46,140 --> 01:59:52,700
in lieu of putting in other development and amenities. So if you were to say, you don't need to

1306
01:59:52,700 --> 01:59:59,500
include, you know, 500 or 300 square foot of outdoor wreck area for an

1307
02:00:00,000 --> 02:00:29,980
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.

1308
02:00:29,980 --> 02:00:32,480
in the ordinance. I'd be fine with that.

1309
02:00:33,180 --> 02:00:36,080
Plenty of commissioners, any thoughts? I'll be fine with it as well.

1310
02:00:36,480 --> 02:00:37,080
Mr. Chairman.

1311
02:00:39,260 --> 02:00:42,300
Just to back up, some of the

1312
02:00:42,300 --> 02:00:46,380
wherever complex that we have come into the city, no bell can be seen.

1313
02:00:47,380 --> 02:00:50,600
But there's no outdoor space either. Yeah.

1314
02:00:51,100 --> 02:00:55,320
And that sticks in my crowd. Yeah. And in fact,

1315
02:00:55,860 --> 02:00:58,680
Mr. Gell mentioned at one of our meetings

1316
02:00:59,320 --> 02:01:03,340
It was the latest proposal, I'm not sure it was the latest one, but he mentioned he

1317
02:01:03,340 --> 02:01:08,360
said he took a survey of his, of tennis and his existing developments and one of the

1318
02:01:08,360 --> 02:01:16,400
things he pointed out, they would like to have balconies, well, really wake up, because

1319
02:01:17,240 --> 02:01:23,180
the ones that we have, if there's no open space, there's no way for a person to get some fresh

1320
02:01:23,180 --> 02:01:25,400
share except the only way to step on the parking lot.

1321
02:01:26,320 --> 02:01:30,320
I'd rather see if it's, I like this flexibility,

1322
02:01:31,100 --> 02:01:36,160
but if it's a space that's really, really limited on outdoor

1323
02:01:37,040 --> 02:01:39,000
recreation space, I'll use that term,

1324
02:01:39,760 --> 02:01:42,100
then I think they require it to have balconies.

1325
02:01:42,680 --> 02:01:45,400
Yeah, I agree with that also, because then if you have a

1326
02:01:45,400 --> 02:01:48,080
requirement, you're not seeing people seek it as a PUD

1327
02:01:48,080 --> 02:01:50,520
modification, although my hope is we have much fewer

1328
02:01:50,520 --> 02:01:55,180
your PUDs after this is adopted, or you're not seeing people seek dimensional

1329
02:01:55,180 --> 02:01:59,960
variances for that, you're seeing people build amenity space for people that they prefer

1330
02:01:59,960 --> 02:02:05,000
rather than, you know, something they are choosing not to maximize their space otherwise.

1331
02:02:05,900 --> 02:02:10,400
The part that came up in the development today was someone said, well, there's a pond and,

1332
02:02:10,580 --> 02:02:14,560
you know, Mr. Patruzac and Keenan, I said, well, the pond's not activated recreation space.

1333
02:02:14,560 --> 02:02:17,820
It's not even space that anyone could ever use, it's a detention pond that holds water.

1334
02:02:18,020 --> 02:02:18,380
It's a wet pond.

1335
02:02:19,040 --> 02:02:24,000
So, you know, it's something that we would look at and we would say, okay, well, you can

1336
02:02:24,000 --> 02:02:28,480
have balconies, therefore you can, and then in addition to a walking path that's landscaped,

1337
02:02:28,700 --> 02:02:33,760
you meet the requirement of this ordinance section and therefore you're approved administratively.

1338
02:02:34,160 --> 02:02:34,380
Yeah.

1339
02:02:34,920 --> 02:02:39,680
I will change my views to the flexibility of use in terms of flexibility rather than requirement.

1340
02:02:40,760 --> 02:02:42,420
Based on what you just described.

1341
02:02:44,140 --> 02:02:44,280
Okay.

1342
02:02:45,160 --> 02:02:45,600
Okay.

1343
02:02:45,760 --> 02:02:46,820
I think we have consensus there.

1344
02:02:46,820 --> 02:02:50,780
Any other comment on anything for the residential districts?

1345
02:02:53,270 --> 02:02:56,570
All right, so what are our next steps?

1346
02:02:57,310 --> 02:03:03,190
Yep, so next steps, the slide,

1347
02:03:06,580 --> 02:03:08,100
there was one in between there.

1348
02:03:08,960 --> 02:03:12,060
So we're planning on October 28th, being our next meeting.

1349
02:03:12,460 --> 02:03:14,460
That meeting will cover the zoning map.

1350
02:03:15,100 --> 02:03:19,420
So you will see a draft zoning map based primarily on your future land use plan

1351
02:03:19,420 --> 02:03:24,260
and some of these consolidations that we have already discussed.

1352
02:03:25,340 --> 02:03:30,460
And then just tying up some loose ends, tying up some kind of miscellaneous items that

1353
02:03:30,460 --> 02:03:36,400
we think definitely raise your, should be raised onto your desk.

1354
02:03:37,800 --> 02:03:44,240
Our goal will be to perhaps have it beginning to look in the clear zoning format as well,

1355
02:03:44,460 --> 02:03:48,060
because then you can start to see a more finished product put together.

1356
02:03:48,060 --> 02:03:51,700
Right now you're just seeing a lot of stuff in the abstract can be difficult.

1357
02:03:52,440 --> 02:03:58,540
So, those are our goals for the October meeting and some definitions to,

1358
02:03:58,700 --> 02:04:05,720
some key definitions that build upon what we've formatted, formulated to this point.

1359
02:04:07,860 --> 02:04:14,300
Mr. Chairman, let me be selfish for a minute, are you wedded to the October 28th?

1360
02:04:16,890 --> 02:04:21,130
I mean, I was speaking for myself, I won't be out of town, and I hate to miss that.

1361
02:04:21,130 --> 02:04:25,110
Get a good date that we all agree on.

1362
02:04:25,910 --> 02:04:29,430
But set the meeting for the majority, just me.

1363
02:04:30,870 --> 02:04:34,270
So we have a couple of meetings before now in October 28th.

1364
02:04:34,270 --> 02:04:41,750
I thought it would be staff can consult with planning commissioners and see.

1365
02:04:44,450 --> 02:04:50,570
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.

1366
02:04:50,570 --> 02:05:01,830
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.

1367
02:05:02,590 --> 02:05:10,190
Thank you. Any other, I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Any other comments or questions from planning commissioners?

1368
02:05:11,290 --> 02:05:13,490
That will move on to citizen participation.

1369
02:05:13,670 --> 02:05:16,870
Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak, Mr. Redke?

1370
02:05:31,810 --> 02:05:34,050
Michael Redke, resident strolling nights.

1371
02:05:35,170 --> 02:05:40,190
My first comment is the fire truck and the fire agency should not dictate building heights.

1372
02:05:41,210 --> 02:05:45,930
That's like the, you know, the car following the horse.

1373
02:05:46,690 --> 02:05:52,770
At the end of the day, we will have a fire service here that will be able to accommodate all building sizes and types.

1374
02:05:53,410 --> 02:05:54,970
I used to live in the city of London.

1375
02:05:55,770 --> 02:06:00,110
London has smaller fire trucks because they have narrower streets, they have taller buildings.

1376
02:06:01,090 --> 02:06:05,410
London doesn't have more fires or worse fires than we do here in Sterling Heights.

1377
02:06:06,190 --> 02:06:12,850
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.

1378
02:06:14,610 --> 02:06:18,570
So set your standards and we will work with the fire department to make it work.

1379
02:06:18,570 --> 02:06:27,410
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.

1380
02:06:29,570 --> 02:06:41,530
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.

1381
02:06:41,530 --> 02:06:47,390
And if you look at our 60 and our 70, it's like 75% of the city is that.

1382
02:06:48,030 --> 02:06:56,650
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.

1383
02:06:57,270 --> 02:06:58,710
So I would argue that those two should flip.

1384
02:07:00,350 --> 02:07:06,530
R3 being the smallest might go first, but I don't think that because it has more complicated, it should be R3.

1385
02:07:06,750 --> 02:07:08,990
Because it allows more housing types and designs.

1386
02:07:08,990 --> 02:07:12,130
I think you should go from easiest to hardest.

1387
02:07:13,170 --> 02:07:20,030
I'm concerned about both lot minimum housing sizes and setbacks.

1388
02:07:21,630 --> 02:07:24,730
I haven't seen a good reason why we need to keep 35 foot setback.

1389
02:07:25,030 --> 02:07:29,150
If there is one, I'd like them to bring it here and have them explain it to us why, rather

1390
02:07:29,150 --> 02:07:30,430
than just an arbitrary number.

1391
02:07:31,210 --> 02:07:38,050
But right now, in all but R3, your minimum house size is 1,000 square feet, and I don't understand

1392
02:07:38,050 --> 02:07:38,830
and why that is.

1393
02:07:39,550 --> 02:07:41,610
Essentially, you're locking out everything

1394
02:07:42,270 --> 02:07:45,210
besides our three to a large house.

1395
02:07:45,910 --> 02:07:47,730
Most bungalows, most pre-war bungalows

1396
02:07:47,730 --> 02:07:49,030
are 800 square feet or less.

1397
02:07:50,090 --> 02:07:53,070
Most homes in St. Clair Shores are less than 800 square feet

1398
02:07:53,070 --> 02:07:54,150
or 850 square feet.

1399
02:07:55,150 --> 02:07:57,770
So I understand why if you have a larger lot,

1400
02:07:57,950 --> 02:07:59,210
you have to have a larger house.

1401
02:08:00,150 --> 02:08:02,590
I can see, if you want to buy a larger lot

1402
02:08:02,590 --> 02:08:04,770
and have a smaller house and have more gardens,

1403
02:08:05,010 --> 02:08:06,570
more stuff, that should be your right.

1404
02:08:06,570 --> 02:08:12,190
we live in America. Minimum housing size has also increased the cost of homes.

1405
02:08:12,930 --> 02:08:16,910
You have to build a certain size of home plus the land plus extra automatically when

1406
02:08:16,910 --> 02:08:23,330
we're pushing the prices up. I would just set a minimum house size of 700 or 750 square feet

1407
02:08:23,330 --> 02:08:29,590
and let the market operate like the market. It'll happen. People will decide maybe I can subdivide

1408
02:08:29,590 --> 02:08:34,090
maybe I can do this to that but the idea that we have to have a minimum of 1000 square feet on our 60

1409
02:08:34,590 --> 02:08:42,250
Why? And that also brings me to my next point, which is, you know, tiny homes or, you know,

1410
02:08:43,090 --> 02:08:46,410
they're mobile, but they're not really mobile homes in the traditional sense of homes.

1411
02:08:46,850 --> 02:08:52,050
Right now, this ordinance would essentially outlaw them, except in mobile home communities.

1412
02:08:53,190 --> 02:08:58,090
I don't see any room for them, but if you went down to like 700 square feet or 750 square feet,

1413
02:08:58,090 --> 02:09:03,910
someone could put a tiny home on a regular lot or an R30 lot, sorry, R3, I'm

1414
02:09:03,910 --> 02:09:08,610
confusing my things for now, and R3 compact zoning lot. And under the current

1415
02:09:08,610 --> 02:09:10,810
ordinance of the one you're contemplating right now it looks like that's a

1416
02:09:10,810 --> 02:09:16,330
legal. And I don't know if anyone's really been watching their their reels or

1417
02:09:16,330 --> 02:09:20,530
looked at what people are doing with tiny homes or smaller designs. There's a lot

1418
02:09:20,530 --> 02:09:26,510
of opportunity for simpler housing content concepts that are much cheaper which

1419
02:09:26,510 --> 02:09:31,390
Each could be added in for a lower cost, but if you keep the current standards in the

1420
02:09:31,390 --> 02:09:32,790
zoning ordinance, it will all be illegal.

1421
02:09:34,330 --> 02:09:36,770
So I would think about affordability.

1422
02:09:37,590 --> 02:09:40,370
People who live here should not have an inferior product.

1423
02:09:40,930 --> 02:09:45,330
They should be allowed to live on the land that they own and the way they want to live on it.

1424
02:09:45,870 --> 02:09:49,670
I think that if you lower the minimum size for homes, you would see more of these cottage

1425
02:09:49,670 --> 02:09:52,870
courts and other ability of different concepts that come forward.

1426
02:09:53,330 --> 02:09:58,330
I also think I agree that three stories, 35 feet, that makes sense to me.

1427
02:09:59,070 --> 02:10:02,830
I mean, I lived in Detroit, that's where I grew up, you know, and my house was not a duplex,

1428
02:10:02,950 --> 02:10:07,010
but it was designed to be a duplex, right? But a lot of houses on my block were three stories.

1429
02:10:07,970 --> 02:10:11,250
They were, they were like two and a half, and the third story was a smaller story, right?

1430
02:10:11,610 --> 02:10:16,370
But they were full three story houses, and they were on much smaller lots than we have in Sterling Heights.

1431
02:10:16,970 --> 02:10:21,150
Much smaller lots. And everybody got along fine. It wasn't like a bad thing.

1432
02:10:21,150 --> 02:10:23,050
It was actually a very nice neighborhood.

1433
02:10:23,170 --> 02:10:25,070
A neighborhood people wanted to get into, East English Village.

1434
02:10:25,890 --> 02:10:29,990
If you go across the street to Gross Point, where the highest cost subdivisions in the state,

1435
02:10:30,150 --> 02:10:35,770
or the highest cost communities in the state, a lot of their houses are three stories on smaller

1436
02:10:35,770 --> 02:10:37,110
lots than we have in thrilling heights.

1437
02:10:38,790 --> 02:10:43,810
I think that people get worried about things that I even worry some yet, like, oh, what

1438
02:10:43,810 --> 02:10:45,930
if we're going to do a people comment and get excited about this?

1439
02:10:46,250 --> 02:10:50,310
But you have an idea, you have an opportunity right now to rethink this ordinance.

1440
02:10:50,310 --> 02:10:55,970
And to do it in a smart way, I grew up on a street with restore houses, they weren't insane.

1441
02:10:56,630 --> 02:11:00,350
As long as they fit the standards which are peaked roofs, they look like I have a certain design.

1442
02:11:00,770 --> 02:11:02,690
I don't think that that's a crazy concept.

1443
02:11:03,350 --> 02:11:04,950
And it would give people more livability.

1444
02:11:04,950 --> 02:11:11,510
Again, you could be able to customize your home the way you want to see fit.

1445
02:11:12,010 --> 02:11:17,870
While also saving yourself money, because every two story house requires more space to be built on.

1446
02:11:17,870 --> 02:11:21,430
A three-story house can encompass more, it could be a duplex.

1447
02:11:21,630 --> 02:11:24,590
It could have an 80-year apartment attached to the backside.

1448
02:11:25,310 --> 02:11:27,370
80 doesn't have to be a standalone building, for example.

1449
02:11:27,870 --> 02:11:33,310
There's a lot of different ways to play, but when you make the box so small, you really eliminate options.

1450
02:11:36,010 --> 02:11:42,450
And I think in our three, the compact zoning should go up to four stories.

1451
02:11:42,450 --> 02:11:48,150
I mean, I lived in an arbor for a while, an arbor allows for story in almost every neighborhood.

1452
02:11:48,610 --> 02:11:54,790
They allow for story apartment buildings, small apartment buildings like your old missing middle apartment buildings, and they're being built right now.

1453
02:11:54,910 --> 02:11:58,970
You can drive down South University and look at them, but they allow them in almost every neighborhood.

1454
02:11:59,550 --> 02:12:03,510
I'm not saying we should do that, but I'm saying that I'm also not a place.

1455
02:12:04,390 --> 02:12:08,290
And in the compact zoning district, if it's supposed to be a compact zoning district,

1456
02:12:08,290 --> 02:12:18,850
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.

1457
02:12:19,650 --> 02:12:26,930
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?

1458
02:12:27,290 --> 02:12:31,850
But essentially the RM's, I think those should be allowed to be a little bit bigger.

1459
02:12:31,850 --> 02:12:35,690
because limiting them at 30 feet, that's why no one's doing them now.

1460
02:12:36,190 --> 02:12:41,530
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.

1461
02:12:42,270 --> 02:12:47,770
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.

1462
02:12:48,550 --> 02:12:55,270
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.

1463
02:12:55,990 --> 02:13:01,030
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.

1464
02:13:04,760 --> 02:13:09,340
I think there's some sense to be splitting up adult entertainment uses.

1465
02:13:09,900 --> 02:13:12,540
This is like a third wire to almost talk about adult entertainment.

1466
02:13:13,060 --> 02:13:18,800
We denied an adult entertainment use some years ago that was essentially like a novelty

1467
02:13:18,800 --> 02:13:19,240
store.

1468
02:13:19,980 --> 02:13:23,640
And I always wonder, what's the difference between a novelty store like that and like a Spencer's

1469
02:13:23,640 --> 02:13:27,640
gifts or like the certain aisles in your local buyer?

1470
02:13:28,380 --> 02:13:30,420
There really is none besides community perception.

1471
02:13:30,420 --> 02:13:34,920
And we do have some adult entertainment novelty stores right now.

1472
02:13:35,880 --> 02:13:38,980
I've been in council for 10 years, I've never had a complaint about one of them.

1473
02:13:39,580 --> 02:13:39,880
Literally.

1474
02:13:40,240 --> 02:13:42,580
I mean, they mind their pees and cues because they realize what they have.

1475
02:13:43,360 --> 02:13:47,060
So I think that, if you guys divide this up, I think it makes sense what Mr.

1476
02:13:47,160 --> 02:13:53,120
Weekai said, which is that I would put cabaret, movie theater use, that kind of thing off to

1477
02:13:53,120 --> 02:13:53,740
one side.

1478
02:13:53,740 --> 02:13:59,180
And I'd put, you know, they wouldn't have video stories anymore, go to the video store,

1479
02:14:01,660 --> 02:14:05,180
novelty store, that kind of thing and other thing because the difference I guess between

1480
02:14:05,180 --> 02:14:08,820
the two of them is, one of them is an adult movie theater and we all know what that is, I hope.

1481
02:14:09,500 --> 02:14:13,760
And the other thing is something like a, you know, a sorrelas or a store where you can

1482
02:14:13,760 --> 02:14:17,460
buy lingerie or gifts, that's a very different concept.

1483
02:14:18,160 --> 02:14:23,280
And I think that right now we encompass them as one thing and as you guys kind of delineated

1484
02:14:23,280 --> 02:14:25,720
during your conversation, they are two very different things.

1485
02:14:26,180 --> 02:14:31,620
I'd be more concerned about an adult movie theater with a child than I would a novelty store.

1486
02:14:33,080 --> 02:14:34,880
It's a very good discussion, it was very robust.

1487
02:14:35,620 --> 02:14:36,140
I was surprised.

1488
02:14:36,360 --> 02:14:38,700
It's very good that we're going through these things and thinking about them.

1489
02:14:38,700 --> 02:14:42,160
And I appreciate all your hard work in really getting into the nitty-gritty.

1490
02:14:42,340 --> 02:14:44,580
And I think building a better ordinance from the ground up.

1491
02:14:44,880 --> 02:14:45,160
It's all I have.

1492
02:14:45,780 --> 02:14:46,360
Thank you, Mr. Ed.

1493
02:14:46,360 --> 02:14:54,340
Any final comments from planning commissioners, want to revisit anything in light of citizen participation?

1494
02:14:55,100 --> 02:14:55,920
Mr. Chairman.

1495
02:14:56,380 --> 02:14:56,720
Mr. Raul.

1496
02:14:56,980 --> 02:14:59,660
I kind of have the same reaction that Mr. Raul had.

1497
02:15:00,000 --> 02:15:29,700
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.

1498
02:15:29,700 --> 02:15:34,280
as I was reading this stuff so I don't know if that was possibly anybody else or

1499
02:15:37,060 --> 02:15:42,180
I think it bothers some people and I think we can definitely think about a new name

1500
02:15:42,180 --> 02:15:46,140
you mentioned for the three districts. I'm sure I'll get used to it.

1501
02:15:48,380 --> 02:15:48,980
What's that?

1502
02:15:52,100 --> 02:15:53,540
Swapping them. I mean

1503
02:15:57,860 --> 02:15:59,000
thank you Mr.

1504
02:15:59,900 --> 02:16:03,140
The other thing I would bring up I get I would be open to

1505
02:16:03,140 --> 02:16:04,300
to making

1506
02:16:07,020 --> 02:16:08,240
the home

1507
02:16:13,230 --> 02:16:22,250
floor area consistent across all the R1, R2, and R3 and letting people

1508
02:16:22,250 --> 02:16:28,550
develop at how they want. So I'm going down to, what is it, 600 feet for R3? I would

1509
02:16:28,550 --> 02:16:35,810
be fine with moving to that for all three single-family districts. Is there any objection

1510
02:16:35,810 --> 02:16:46,340
of that, right? I guess the other thing, this is probably a conversation that will require

1511
02:16:46,340 --> 02:16:50,820
a little bit more thinking, but how do we want to address? We've had some discussion

1512
02:16:50,820 --> 02:16:53,280
about developers wanting to do tiny homes in the city.

1513
02:16:55,980 --> 02:16:59,740
I guess what would be the mechanism

1514
02:16:59,740 --> 02:17:00,560
for doing that?

1515
02:17:03,870 --> 02:17:09,470
It depends on what they are and the type of construction and which building

1516
02:17:09,470 --> 02:17:10,430
and code they fall under.

1517
02:17:11,250 --> 02:17:14,890
So it would, it's more than like a two-minute answer.

1518
02:17:14,890 --> 02:17:16,170
It would be a little bit more detailed.

1519
02:17:16,730 --> 02:17:18,790
But we can bring back some information for you.

1520
02:17:18,890 --> 02:17:21,230
Yeah, I think it would be helpful to bring back

1521
02:17:21,230 --> 02:17:24,150
some information about how we might be able to allow that.

1522
02:17:24,790 --> 02:17:24,810
All right.

1523
02:17:25,090 --> 02:17:27,150
Sorry, I hope we had requests for tiny homes

1524
02:17:27,150 --> 02:17:29,850
because the last ones I've seen were for apartments.

1525
02:17:30,770 --> 02:17:32,930
Excuse me, there were always two bedrooms

1526
02:17:32,930 --> 02:17:36,870
and nobody had flexible spaces for a one bedroom or studio

1527
02:17:36,870 --> 02:17:41,930
because they said the market is asking for larger units and sterling.

1528
02:17:42,210 --> 02:17:46,310
Dr. Parcell can address whether or not we've had a formal request for a tiny home.

1529
02:17:47,070 --> 02:17:53,490
But I am aware of one developer who was actively considering at the point that they were inquiring

1530
02:17:53,490 --> 02:17:56,450
about, inquiring some properties to do so.

1531
02:17:57,410 --> 02:18:02,150
We have reviewed conceptual plans, but you have not formally reviewed a tiny home development

1532
02:18:02,150 --> 02:18:02,550
request.

1533
02:18:02,550 --> 02:18:05,910
So, yes, internally.

1534
02:18:08,800 --> 02:18:13,660
Any other questions or comments for Dr. Persil?

1535
02:18:15,540 --> 02:18:18,960
Is that putting it into an existing residential area?

1536
02:18:20,220 --> 02:18:21,480
I mean, built up area?

1537
02:18:22,040 --> 02:18:22,560
Kind of.

1538
02:18:23,240 --> 02:18:27,740
It's not really a good answer for that without getting into the proposal itself.

1539
02:18:28,080 --> 02:18:29,060
It's adjacent to commercial.

1540
02:18:30,080 --> 02:18:31,180
It's adjacent to commercial.

1541
02:18:31,460 --> 02:18:32,280
It's a buffer zone.

1542
02:18:32,280 --> 02:18:39,000
So, it would fall more into what your R3 is going to be for a compact residential.

1543
02:18:39,100 --> 02:18:39,820
It's next to a note.

1544
02:18:40,400 --> 02:18:40,960
That's fine.

1545
02:18:41,260 --> 02:18:41,360
Okay.

1546
02:18:41,820 --> 02:18:46,660
I was just envisioning as someone to come in and say, you know, in a existing sub-division.

1547
02:18:46,920 --> 02:18:47,080
No.

1548
02:18:47,240 --> 02:18:48,060
No, no, it's not.

1549
02:18:48,300 --> 02:18:49,760
It's an intransition zone.

1550
02:18:50,200 --> 02:18:50,700
Thank you.

1551
02:18:52,420 --> 02:18:53,740
Other comments or questions?

1552
02:18:56,010 --> 02:18:57,350
We're ready for motion to adjourn.

1553
02:18:58,470 --> 02:18:59,190
Mr. Chair.

1554
02:18:59,890 --> 02:19:01,450
I'd like to make a motion to adjourn.

1555
02:19:01,450 --> 02:19:02,110
My name's Mike Meaning.

1556
02:19:03,010 --> 02:19:03,450
Support.

1557
02:19:03,830 --> 02:19:07,830
My name is Mr. Weekas, part of my Mr. Road motions to adjourn all in favor signify by saying aye.

1558
02:19:08,170 --> 02:19:08,470
Aye.

1559
02:19:08,930 --> 02:19:09,390
All opposed.

1560
02:19:09,610 --> 02:19:11,330
Motion passes were adjourned at 918.

1561
02:19:11,650 --> 02:19:12,110
Thank you everyone.