City Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We'll call this meeting of the market city planning commission to order is Tuesday March 3rd 2026 is 6 o'clock. Begin with roll call down the far end. Commissioner here. Commissioner Rainer here. Jake here. Alex Wilson here. Jin here.

Nico Vermont here. Steve here. And Kevin is here. Um, we do we have any additions or changes to our agenda or are we good to approve it by consensus? Consensus vote on agenda consensus on minutes. Yeah. So, we need a motion to approve approve the agenda. I will make a motion to approve the agenda. All right. Second by Commissioner Fitkin. All those in favor say I.

All oppose same sign. Motion passes eight to zero. All right. That's right. Yeah. All right. Um minutes from last meeting. I was not here. [clears throat] Anybody see any corrections, errors?

I do have something to add. Okay. There's highlighted material in there from um the public hearing where Dallas mentioned um something that was I I could really make sense of it. So I emailed her and she provided me well I I emailed her a summary of what we discussed it and came up with a summary of what this is. And anytime a minute say somebody said something, that can be a kind of a paraphrase version of what they stated versus when this says you stated something is verbatim. So anyway, so I have a correction to that.

Okay. And this is the correction. This is not the correct, but I have a correction to it that Commissioner Feder approved. need to see it. Um, trust me, we can accept that. I think Are there any other additions or changes? All right, I'll move to approve that with that correction. All right. And a second. [clears throat] I'll second it. Um, let's see. Dallas, I heard her voice, too. The correction refers to her. That's speech. All right. All those in favor say I.

I. All oppose. Same sign. Motion passes. 8 Z. Do we have any conflicts of interest this evening? Probably not. All right. No public hearings. Um, and are there any citizens wishing to address the commission on agenda items? Our agenda includes our work session. So, if you have things you'd like to speak on, please come to the microphone, state your name and address, and you have three minutes to speak.

Hello. I have a comment. I think you're expecting me. Um, my name is Maline Smar and my address is 1209 Grey Street. And tonight, I'd like to share my experience trying to grow native plants and food responsibly in the city and some confusion that I encountered trying to interpret and apply the temporary fence codes to protect my garden from here. So, for context, my property, like many others around the city, is challenging for gardening. My backyard is deeply shaded in the summer, sloped, and unsuitable for gardening. So, as a result, I garden in my front and sideyards. Um but they largely fall within the rights of way especially my front yard which is 18 and a half ft deep um of right away. So very limiting clear vision requirements also limit usable space on the corner and I also experience very severe deer pressure in my area of town. Deer strongly prefer to eat native plants and of course many food crops. So when pressure is severe no form of deterrent works. So, in order for me to succeed with gardening, I need to be able to exclude deer. An effective deer exclusion needs to be at least 6 feet tall and ideally in place April through November. So, last summer, after diligently studying the fencing and minor food production sections of code, I hung six foot chicken wire on removable fence posts around the perimeter of my garden, which I plan to remove at the end of the season. So based on removable construction and the seasonal nature of my fence, I interpreted it as temporary and requiring no permit. Despite acting in good faith to adhere to the code, I encountered the following issues. What I interpreted as temporary fencing was cited for meeting a fence permit. Um I learned that even a temporary fence was not allowed to be placed in the right of way. And this is actually how I learned that most of my art is right of way. Um, and I learned that even a temporary

fence acting as garden protection must be four feet or less in a front or sideyard. So when I shortened it to comply, it no longer excluded the deer. So I believe it would benefit many residents who garden to clarify the temporary fencing code language and perhaps add a clearly defined category of wildlife exclusion fencing that is allowed to be six feet tall and placed where needed in conjunction with any compliant activity. So I'm offering my experience as a case study for that and I really appreciate you listening. Thank you very much. Are there any other citizens wishing to address the commission?

All right, moving on then. Um, we have no old business or new business. Are there citizens wishing to address the commission on non-aggenda items? Yeah, just really quickly, it's just just to cover really fast. My name is Chris Anderson. I go 121 Dosson Place. Um, I just recently started a fellowship with LCP. So, I'm more or less just introducing myself to the board. Um, I work through SED, but I am working with the fellowship for the next 15 months. Um, just wanted to say hi and that I would just be sitting in just to say hi and you know, listen and know what's going on on the city so that I could potentially help in any way possible. So, thank you very much for this. Thank you very much. Any [clears throat] other citizens wishing to address the commission on non-aggenda items? All right, seeing none, um we have no correspondence reports, minutes of other boards or committees, uh we move on to our training. We [clears throat] had an article we read, redesigning the rules, Michigan planner. Um, everybody get a chance to read that one comments on that? Okay. So I did look at the article or the reference they cited for the city that they recommended for this part of the um universal design that's apparently somehow incorporated into their zoning ordinance. I didn't actually find any of that. So I'm a little confused about if they or if I just didn't spend enough time looking for but in the definitions there wasn't anything but um very good intentions I mean the

article deals with you know an issue we we were u kind of dealing with the former David Boyd's um Marquette accessibility group. Um, but um, this just at this point food for thought because this is something we can try to incorporate into the LBC. I'm just not sure how yet. I haven't had the time to really wrap my head around that since I started thinking, yeah, I know we could do better with this particular issue. Um, I did work a little bit with the senior center to start. I think they're on their way towards getting an age friendly community designation, which kind of dovetales a lot with universal design principles. They're designed so that, you know, homes and buildings are accessible to people all ages. Um, not just the elderly, but you know, if you design things for the elderly and children, they'll be better off for everybody kind of a concept. Um so anyway um we can come back to this issue sometime especially if any of you have any particular thoughts on how to make those some of those items tangible in that code.

Sure. I appreciated it. Um I know wanted to state that it wouldn't be Marquette's first in believe the kids co park was designed at that time and it's very well attended when I go there. So I appreciate it. Any other comments on the article?

Um, as an architect and facility manager for many many years, uh, universal design, something that's been sort of a movement or trend in the design of buildings for probably the last two decades at this point. Not that it's uh been you know incorporated into every building but the concept is is really good. Obviously it takes more space but the idea is that um as you know if you make things accessible to you know the sort of I don't know if you say the but um the most uh people that need more then it's accessible to everybody. Um, and it's an excellent concept. I'm not quite sure how it would apply to a a zoning ordinance or a city, but I think it's something worth striving for. Um, I'm not it's it's not really the so much purview of the planning commission, but I think I would advocate that the city perhaps look at some of its other guidance, particular the streets specs for the streets. um in that we've got very challenging topography to begin with in markets, but as streets are rebuilt or upgraded a little bit, wouldn't hurt to put landings on third street, front streets, things like that. um that would allow them to come more into compliance with federal codes. And um there's another issue I guess that I have. It just kind of hurts me every time I see it. It's the uh the

fiberglass textile pads. They're used on the heavy cap rails and they don't last very long. They have to go back and replacing them. um which gets that'll be quite expensive but that's too access for day or two while we're doing that. When I was uh homework director in the county, we used cast iron text pads. Um they don't show anywhere. They don't show damage. We put a lot of them in up there. They had uh cost less than $100 to get one made that actually said Iron Town USA, Michigan. um get that mold made at least to our land works. And so they can be more than just a means of providing guidance for those programs, but I would really like to see the city incorporate that into their specifications as well. I talked with a few workers while we were out there replacing the glass ones and they frustrated those before. Um so I think it's another recent they want to help everybody by using different specs changes in the specs one time years ago to grow those specs even after I retired from the city and realized that they need to be updated on a regular basis too. There are some of the cast iron ones in Marquette, but they're on the news campus hold.

Perfect. Any other thoughts? All right. Uh part of Thank you. Uh moving on to our work session. Um, we have land development code amendments through Q and uh, Andrea, you want to

we're talking about maybe you should start with the uh, item that Maddie brought up. Okay. Um what I did copy um her message to you and um have an image of her uh from the aerial photo of the property and the photos of the site there from Google Street images. So you have a pretty good idea of what the site looks like. Um the slope area behind the house is is pretty much the uh area where by the code because this is this house has two front yards.

I mean you can have a garden in the front. You can't have a six foot fence and this has two front yards which take up almost looks like about 80 [clears throat] to 90% of the block. It's up there in the left. That's the area.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah. Place it on this little diagram of the fencing standards. We have the code here, you know, to look at if we want to talk about the fencing standards. Um, it's a it's a little bit more clear here. So, the lot that they have is um akin to in this image, the plot on the lower right side, which is a corner lot, two front yards. So you can see the six foot fence can be along the side of the home next to the street but you know has to be set back um and they can come up to the rear of the house and that's the limit. You know can't come farther than the rear of the house in that location from that point forward. In that example, it can go all the way up to the front of the house to where it says front of the sideard. This this is part of what we went through changes last year.

It just can't go into the front yard.

Okay. Is there um additional language that we're not seeing about temporary kind of thing? No. So that's um pull that up here in article 176. [snorts] Basically, temporary fencing has to comply with the this height standards for the district. And there is no specific carve out here for um gardens for deer or this dog. Um so we have a cargo for that. But um yeah, the main issues there is it has to comply with the code and we don't you know temporary is hard to define in some respects. Um it's not stated clearly that temporary fencing means it can't be anchored to the ground permanently. Of course, as long as it's not permanently anchored.

It does say that. Yeah. [clears throat]

So, that's that is pretty clear. So, there there could be other options to allow for fencing that's not anchored in the ground, but that's that's up to you guys. Um, you know, planning commission talked about six foot fencing in front yards for just about, you know, every other year or so. I'll get back to that issue to see if there if there's any appetite to change that in the code for permanent fencing. And that's always been no. Um what we see on that chart was a pretty major change in the fencing regulations that was just approved last year. That whole chart that we were just looking at was new last year, including a lot of changes to allow for more uh liberal use of sixoot fencing in rear yard areas,

especially the corner lots. Um, so that's actually allowing a lot more than we used to allow. Um, so but as I think Maddie pointed out in her particular situation, there's a lot of deer in that part of the city, which makes gardening super difficult. And there is almost no uh area on or lot that that's not shaded in the rear yard. There's almost no ideal garden areas. Um, so yeah,

yeah. Um, so I I like that we're looking into this because I'm really excited about people doing their own gardening. Um, my question here though is just clarification. Are we talking about the discussion of a six foot temporary fence in the front yard or are we talking about that within the right way?

Not in the right way. Um you have no the planning commission no discretion allow anything in the right way. Um that would have to be a change to city commission or a new policy by the city commission. Um and that yeah so that's a whole another issue. Um and on the topic of like plan natural landscapes um clear vision areas in the rideway etc. gardening in the right away. Um, a new draft of the ordinance that regulates that is going to the city commission shortly. Um, our office has worked on it. There is a a draft Mattie seen it. Um, and that so that's a whole separate issue. You guys don't have any authority over that. What you have authority over is the fence part of it. So, we're talking about um fences in front yards for gardening that may exceed temporary fencing that may exceed the 4ft height limit that's imposed by the zoning district standards. Um, one thing for what it's worth, one thing I've thought about with this is, you know, not being permanently anchored and being um burly enough to withstand deer jumping against the fence or or trying to get around or over the fence. um is going to require probably something still using heavy material like 4 foot at least 4 inch posts. Um the deer fencing that they have in the cemetery community garden is at

least 4x4. I think there might be 6x6. Um and it's very tall and very burly. And um you could do something maybe that with six foot high temporary fencing. Um if those post, you know, we allow people to use those kind of posts in the ground without being or in possibly like you put it into a five gallon bucket of cement so it's not at all in the ground. Um so there's there's some options. That's I I think where this is heading maybe for your discussion.

Well, I'm not sure there's anything that will work. Actually, I've watched deer after deer after deer sail over the foot top property. [snorts] There's quite a herd that lives in there and they have no problem jumping it. think that the only way you keep them from jumping the fence is to narrow the landing space they have on the inside. That seems to discourage if it's not a clear area inside. But I do have a question for staff. People can plant on the right way, correct? Garden plants. Yeah, they can put edging landscaping out there. Um there is one gardener in the neighborhood over there on Kimbury Avenue that seems to have success in keeping the deer out of his garden right away. He has netting on a very long crank that fits over the top of it. It off work this produce out of there. And I admired it because I had I spent over 30 years in that neighborhood trying to grow things that the deer wouldn't eat and they got everything. I finally gave up when I had nylon bedding stretched over the whole garden uh stapled down with six inch staples around the perimeter of it and the deer came and pulled the staples and went under the netting and wiped out the entire garden in one night. [snorts] Uh so I I still have two deer that sleep almost every night six feet outside my bedroom window. I have had deer born on

my lot numerous times while I've watched um and including while I was mowing the grass 15 ft away from the dog and she still had twins. So um they're you can't get rid of them and they will eat whatever is there. If you don't plant something for them, they'll eat whatever is there anyway. Um I you know I have sympathy with people trying to keep them all but I I finally conceited and just said they want to get my produce at the grocery store. They they sail over my six foot fence all the time. They come to visit on a regular basis

up until they're about oh three months old. They are standing by the fence. The dough will go over the ponds stuck on the other side crying waiting. They'll finally the dough will come back and lead them around the end of the vents or whatever. But um doesn't take long before they can sail right over. Um, I think that I hear you and I think that regardless of the anecdotal effectiveness of deer fencing, I do think that it is something that people should be allowed to try. Um, you know, I think that people in the city should have equal opportunity to garden and, you know, I'm lucky to live on the east side. We don't have deer over there. Um, but the squirrels still topple my corn. Um, which is in my front yard, um, too. So, um, I hear you and I would like to like for it to be possible for you guys to garden, um, on your property because I recognize the value of that. And I think that there probably is a way for us to allow Yeah. like wildlife exclusion fencing to exceed a 4 foot barrier for temporary fencing. I've used like the metal teaosts um that you can sink that you can sink like at least a foot deep into the ground and are pretty sturdy, but I take them out at the end of the season. Um so, you know, I don't think that we should take away the opportunity for city residents to try things like that. Could we have a temporary like for two front yards, could the sideyard be

temporarily designated a a garden space for the season instead of saying both are front yards? Okay. So, let's go back to the drawing here. So, you see so see the sideard you are allowed the six foot. It's the front yards that you're not. Right. But that means all the way to the back of her house, right? Yeah. So the side you're looking at here, you see that yellow front. Do you have the hand out in front of you? Yeah. I I I know what you're talking about. Yeah. So that yellow portion is the sideyard up to the front of the house.

So the other part is all front yard, right? But I'm talking about the two front yards. Okay? You got front yard here and she's got front yard here, right? Could we designate this extra front yard that isn't really a front yard a temporary spot for gardening? For the code, it's a front yard. We can't change

change the language of it. So, you'd probably be looking at allowing what you're looking at is if you're allowing the six foot high fence in your front yard. Um, in this photograph is the blue outline the allowable front yard space with a substitute for like [clears throat] excluding the right of way. How much how much front yard would they potentially have to garden in this building to the blue line? See from here to here and then from here to here that's the front yard. The rest of this is right.

Okay. I mean, and you can do some gardening in the rightway, but putting fencing in there is not. Another question for you. Yes. If we if she went to the screen like you were talking about over this that's shorter, that's less than four feet, right? Can she do that in a front yard? If you put a top over like what you're that can be 4 foot fencing with and not it's not it's like a you'd like like a net

like a net over what she's that would sit level with the ground and it wouldn't be tied down. It would just be sat there like a lid. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. structural amenity. That would work or it wouldn't.

That might be our solution since six foot pants don't keep them out over there. I'm personally inclined to agree with uh Commissioner Kitchen that if it's a temporary nature and we can make it exclusively for wildlife exclusions, I don't have a problem with a six foot fence in a front yard under those circumstances. Um, and since it would be always back of the rightway, we wouldn't have any issues with a vision triangle and people are turning the corner on that. Is that correct?

Well, it still need to be clear vision triangle requirements. And the clear vision goes from the line, not that. But if you designated one of these front yards, then you could do what what she's talking about and not have it in the front yard. But in the other front yard, it's really a sideyard, but there's a road out there. Wow. Without irritating anybody or causing problems with a garden being in a front yard.

I think switching the designation of a front yard to a side yard. No, it would still be a front yard, but it would be have dispensation for that as a temporary structure area. Um um what is the where is it written in the code that requires that temporary fences can't be taller than 14?

For the zoning district, it talks about the height of all fences and each zoning district has a height requirement. And then when you're in the front yard, that requirement for this district. So for each zoning district, they have they're locked in together. I can show you on your own. [clears throat]

The zoning districts are locked together like you have LVR, MDR, MFR mixed, then you have some of the commercials together depending on their density. So would we be able to change like to if we amended the temporary fencing section of the code to say that like like added a clause to say for deer exclusion or whatever wording we decide to use can be six feet or 8 feet or whatever. Would that suffice or would that come into conflict then with we'd actually have to change the language in the other part. Okay. to say like certain this type of fencing is okay. Yeah,

I would push for us to do that. Could we see I guess the So tonight is just to discuss it and then if you guys want to move forward then we language back to you like the other parts. So is that where you're going? Well, my question would be that you said that the four foot requirement is just for this district. I was just curious if you switched to a six foot requirement. districts that change the front. Well, you could tailor it to whatever districts you want to make that possible for. So, the first one is LDR, MVR, and what is the street property zed as?

Is it? I think it's Then you have mixed use central business district. It also has a fence in front yard. It may not exceed four feet in height. So it depends on what zoning districts you want to do. All of them have that you can't exceed four feet in height. And then you have more of a commercial. And then you have the formbbased code on third street corner as well. [clears throat] You can write exceptions into those sections for specific specific use. Vermont and standards.

Um, if there's been previous discussion about six feet six foot fencing, I'm just curious why this previously kind of been not taken up by the planning commission.

Well, it was taken up last I mean there were some considerable changes made last year to allow for more around corner lots. Um, it was a lot more restrictive previously, but I don't think the planning commission state wants [clears throat] the city to build, you know, unlimited sixoot fencing on private property, but create a stock situation. Um, I agree with uh Commissioner Thicken and Commissioner Clay uh regarding that this should be a consideration. I'm thinking though uh this seems like a separate thing from regular temporary fencing and this might like get into muddier waters, but is there would there be a way to like temp to designate temporary fencing for this one reason?

Yeah. And then because I don't think like you could it would be easier to like clarify materials that could be used like so people aren't putting dog ears up that section on temporary fencing. That would be the next section onto that section for wildlife whatever. These are the allowances. These are the standards. I personally think that would be a good way to look at it.

And it may be smart to do some of the existing other fencing that we have the same way while we're at it.

Yeah, I know this topic has been discussed in other places. Um I think it was light industrial or whatever it is it resolved what it's categorized as because when I work there we wanted to have a temporary garden um and be able to put up fencing. So we need to do temporary fencing based off the location. Um this of course is a different zone. I don't know um I hadn't looking through the differences between that zoning of the industrial versus um the residential. But I think that maybe that's something we could look at and see if there's some kind of comparison there. And we don't want to just open up the use of having six foot fencing anywhere. Uh we want to for certain kind of uses for temporary uses um to be able to help with this kind of situation that's coming up not just in residential but in other areas too. in term of say on the topic of how to define temporary um because we're talking about allowing an exception for gardening if we could specify specific months of the year instead of a six month period focus on the summer months as a way of trying to nail down the time that would be a lot of expensive exception for you sense I think I'd like to see if we could move forward I think it would be beneficial if you could see some language that you might bring it up and bring to the commission and then we can vote on it from there. [clears throat]

All right. Thank you very much. Our next topic. Okay, as always we keep finding things in the code. This is one of them. Fixing the language to allow for consistency. Our order language creates an unintended consequences by lumping with diminuation which is shrinking or reducing a building into the same category as alterations which [clears throat] triggers manufacturer review for projects that arguably should need it. Meanwhile, complete demolition of the building only requires comp. So we are if you look uh with the attachment everything that is underlined and in yellow is what we're trying to fix this having that exclude ex exclusion so that no longer require planning commission or admin site plan review just for diminuation of the building. Then the next one is putting new next to the commercial and then the activity requires unless the activity requires planning reviews. We're trying to clarify that as well. Then at the very end or exempt from making that very clear that demolition or diminuation of a multif family residential or non-residential building does not require sex. Did you guys have any questions regarding that? My only question is how common is it that people are downsizing the side of the building? Not as common as you would think because we haven't run into this before and I got a phone call about someone wanting to downsize a building and then what they're planning on doing but really

sure but we do get a lot of demolition from the demolition for sure. Um, where is I was looking for where the land development code states that demolition requires compiance permit. I couldn't find it. So, we're adding this to clarify that. Okay. So, city code there, they have specific demolition code and then all that. So, we're just trying to clean it up in our land. So it actually states it clear that you

I guess that I just feel hesitant about allowing major renovations to multifamily residential areas. Um, and that made me look into this chart a little bit more and looking at one of the one of the sections that has a proposed addition. Um the one that is additions, alterations excluding any diminuation of a building, non-residential and multif family accessory structures and renovations that are more than 16,000 square ft in footprint area or 40,000 square ft in gross floor area require site plan review and PC review. Um but it didn't seem like there was an in between um for like other types of review that were needed for other sizes of renovations cuz those

next one down this one would be the next one where do you see the where it says the exclusion is that you're talking about the additions alterations these two if you look at the screen behind right this one right here and this one right here. Is it this the first one that you were talking about? Yeah. So then this is that next level which requires the minor or admin site. Then anything below that level then require is exempt from zing or sorry except from site but requires compliance.

Okay. Yeah. I guess I'm just wondering cuz the that threshold for the other one that I read seems pretty high. I looked up like, you know, cuz I'm not a person who's ever lived in a 40,000 square foot house. Um, and I looked up like how big is that? And it is it allows you to be listed in the largest homes in the United States. Um, so most Yeah. So just you know single family homes and from all the way up to four are exempt from site plan. Okay. We're talking about commercial. Okay. So commercial.

Yeah. So it' be multif family five units plus where you have like commercial industrial those are for that that up here that's what it's referring to. Okay. So, if you go um I don't know how good you can see behind you or if you have it in partium, I don't know, but you can see where it says like these exemptions here. Yeah. So, they would be exact on that. Okay. And then um so I don't know how many years ago they changed these numbers to allow for the footprint of 16,000 in the gross area 40,000.

The idea is for development. What really does the plan need to see? Why you know the idea is not slowing down development but like what bring it to the level planners need to see and then what can staff review and then what should it just basically yeah I guess yeah that makes sense I guess I'm thinking of houses in East Marquette that have that were originally single family homes that have become multif family homes and you probably know the example that I'm thinking of of a house that was multif family that is now being like it's being converted back into a single family home. Not official then. Yeah, but that was like the plan that was Yeah.

Unless you see something for sure, but [laughter] it would be I don't know. I would be interested in potentially so asking the question of if projects like that. But so now that interior, right? Yeah. All interior is exactly like even an old family.

Yes. All commercial or family interior remodeling is them. However, once you get into that, that's the zoning compliance permit. And that's where they do have to submit archential drawings to the city for our review and the fire department review. And those are potential drawings also have to be submitted to the county meeting. Okay. So, So that's how that will work. Okay. But I have for the going from open family to residential is just the zoning compliance permit that they can hand. However, we haven't received anything.

I'm thinking of the same one that you Okay. Just question econom.

Yeah, right here. Say condominium development amendment. Yeah, it says it's white. The slide that you just had up there was was right below the planning commission highlighted. Not the Oh, that's condominium development. So that's just interior. on site condo. Site condo is like developing a type of subdivision the ownership has come.

Yeah. But the other condominium projects in the tower [clears throat]

maybe if they're playing well

so development that's this minor site plan review of a condominium could be a building like the apartments J was referencing or the house that became apartments. If they want to turn that into a condo, which means they're going to sell the space to people that are going to be permanent owners of it. They that's where that is the minor site plan review. Basically, they have to just follow the law that's already in place.

And I will say we never had anything for us to review that. We added that to make sure that people because we kept running into finding out that problems were done incorrectly and then they went and reported and then the assessors had all those issues. So that's what we added on the last um go around with the amendments. Okay. So you only review them through we could only have the right to review them process previously. Okay. So basically this is going to apply to the ones that are redevelopment rather than development, right? Or a new development that has chosen to be a condominium.

It's it's not involving exterior. Correct. Yeah. It's all going to be they're showing us the interior. Okay.

Any other comments on this section? Okay. So [clears throat] the next one is uh fixing the language to reflect that where permits are required to unls but it's just to make it clear that adding the exterior alterations. So when they're applying for and a lot of people when applying for interior removment are adding windows adding new doors and things like that. So this is just kind of making it clear this fall under the same thing that you need zoning compliance permit unless it's subject to site review which is the chart we were just looking at. Mhm.

The other thing um is where the

where they're just talking about now because we have the non-residential, we're making it clear of a residential use also requires a zoning compliance permit when you're doing interior remodeling. um when it's in the remodeling involves interior structural alterations then making it clear that the demolition of residential, non-residential, multif family and residential buildings and accessory structures all require a permit which we've been doing since all it's just making just clearing it up just so people know they know what's going on. Um, and this where we had seen the 15 days, we had already approved that change, but because that was at section, I want to make sure you still saw it language that further down.

Oh, man. Yeah. Yeah. Just want to make sure we're not requiring zoning compliance for things like remodeling your bathroom. It's only when you're adding. Yeah. Anything. And we ask when people will call us say, "No, no, no. What are you doing? Are you adding, removing a wall? Are you making any structural changes? Changing the use of a room with structural changes? Those are the those are just and we don't either.

All righty. So, um, we had somebody come in and ask about the third street quarter and parking requirements, and we were looking at it and we see that this figure 28 says there's no minimum for office and retail. Yet, when you go into the figure 29, it talks about these parking occupancy rates, but it has a rate for those. So basically it would be requiring looking at rates for something that has no requirement. So we're proposing to strike that from this figure. Seems to make sense to me.

And that that was it for what I had. Okay. All right. Good one. All right. Um we're through our uh land development code meeting. So now commission and staff comments.

Um that was a great discussion about the fencing. Thank you for bringing us um well said and excited to see what proposals there might be for some of those changes. Also um want just comments on what I saw this past week. Uh city really came out and showed that there's a strong community here for Sergio um Massie that I'm interested in. Um, I was out there with everybody. Uh, and it just was heartwarming to see how how much people cared and how strong the community we have here. No comment. No comment. [clears throat] No comment.

Um, I'm excited to see where the medicine discussion goes and thanks again for bringing that up. No comment. [clears throat] Yep. We have a meeting on March 17th and we have What was that? Yeah. [laughter] So, it's not LBC amendment. It's actually a new business. All right.

Um, thank you for coming. I'm sorry we can't give a definitive answer for you today and um but I do appreciate the input and the opportunity to make our code work better for people in the city. Uh that concludes this meeting at 6:54. Yeah. Hey. Hey.