Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Oh, it says that five. All right. I'd like to call the planning commission. Wednesday, November 19th, 2025. Uh, regular meeting is Sydney Hall Community Room. Rolloff present. Radiant here. Moss here. Newman here. Robson present. Smith here. Yes.

All right. Uh, approval of the minutes for October 15th, 2021. I have a question. Duties say as vice chairperson is to leave the minutes and I had a question on page two under loss of number square and Christine who who formalizes these even went back and relisted to the the tape. Um and this is how it came out. It's paragraph two under loss of lumbers clear asking for clarification regarding the screening on the south side of the building with a ring barrier. I wasn't sure what the reference to the term ring barrier was and when she went back and listened to the tape she said well that seems like what it is actually saying. So I don't know I don't remember who might have raised that question and if you remember what what you might be thinking about that of that term what that applies to moved due to whiting.

Um I suggest we just delete it. Well, I I do recall there was a section they had to enlarge the area around the dumpster enclosure and they may have shifted things because of that and that back in that area but nothing the ring of lighting maybe the you know the doesn't makeense the way the light would invade it or whatever. Yeah, I just couldn't make any sense of it and I couldn't any comment that anybody had made. Well, they're asking about screening on the south side. Is that because of um due to lighting? They were concerned about lighting.

South. Let's just leave it on the south side of the building period and get rid of everything else. Is that all right? It's fine with unless somebody other ones. Was there some kind of conflict with the elder piper there? Is that where it's located? No, I believe. I think whatever it was, it's not helpful in the in the notes like that. Agree with that. Other than that, I'll move that including Well, with that clarification.

All right. Rick made the motion a second. All in favor? I. Everyone's approved. Uh now time for public comment. of something that's not on the agenda tonight. Is there anybody here who would like to speak at this time? Anyone online?

Okay. Well, let's move on. Let's move on to the public hearing for the proposed outdoor lighting ordinance pend. You were provided on your desk a new um ordinance. It's actually version eight. Version seven was that accidentally sent in our packets. It should have been version eight. There's some minor changes. Um, so the one in the packet is is null and void version eight includes the comments, the suggestions that were made at last month's meeting, right?

And they're minor correct answer, but just, you know, grab that one for special purposes. All right. Uh I open the public hearing for the proposed outdoor lighting ordinance appendix D and um I think everybody here knows the rules for public comment. So we'll just move on to opening it up. Does anybody have any comment? Hey K. Hi. Um you need name and address. Yes. Yep. I thought

Marshall 10:15 East Mitchell. I don't know if you've changed this, but I did notice when I saw the packet that the seasonal lighting started November 1st and went till January 15th. Actually, that was one of the important changes that were made and it included Halloween.

It's it's October 1st through February 28th. Yeah. And we we extended the you know what would be expected Christmas holidays because I know that the downtown keeps those longer than the new year. So we figured that was enough time for back up in fall. And then residential when when do you many of us leave our lights on all night. Is that allowed still or not? If it's in the historic if it's in the historic district. Is it allowed all night? Okay. Then it will be allowed all night. if you're in the historic district. So, how do you determine that it need to be shrouded though?

Well, that Christmas. Okay, let me read it. Were you talking about the Christmas holiday? We're talking about holiday.

So, uh exceptions or exemptions. One of the exemption is seasonal seasonal lighting used from October 1 through February 28. And then if you look in the definitions, it's seasonal lighting and it's outdoor sight lighting that is portable, temporary, decorative, and used in connection with holidays and traditions. This includes but is not limited to string lighting, icicle lighting, and lighted inflatables. None of which are intended for general illumination. actually

is that is that true it's only in historic district because I know that section of neighborhood section 3.2 to write C as these would state that luminaries replicating the time period historical character and lighting effect that are protected by historical registration or otherwise permitted by the city of Paskky's historic district commission or other authority having jurisdiction. Other lights would have to be turned off at 11 o'clock or by motion detector or sensor. I'm sorry. I is doesn't E explain that for the seasonal though that is the exception for any district.

I would think it would be any district. The historic is talking about mounted lights that you know aren't properly shaded or shielded. Sure. So I think that's what historic refers to. Seasonal is for the whole city. That's citywide. Yeah. Seasonal is citywide. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I didn't see clear.

Just a point of clarification. Uh it seemed like the question was about a residence where they leave their lights on all night. And the answer is if you're in the historic district, you can leave your lights on all night. That doesn't seem fair. No. And we establish district because sometimes the historical lighting in historic districts are unshielded like the oldfashioned gas lights. Well, I understand that. That's the exemption for it. But that isn't necessarily the light that's on all night.

No, may not be, but they if you have a historic like like a chandelier and your some of the old porches have chandeliers, those can't be shielded. So, there is an exemption for those. But it still doesn't seem right that you could have a light on all night if your house is historic, but if you're not, you can't. You can still have it on all night, I believe, is what it says, but it has to be shaded. So, it has to be found. Only it can't overcast on a neighboring property. Correct. Yes. All right. But there are some s some situations on historic properties where you can't shield and that's the exemption, right? But when when it comes to seasonal

seasonal lights, you can have those on all the time, right? But we have a rule that if you have lights, they have to be turned off. So does the seasonal lights, they're also exempt from the curfew. Yeah. It's the way it's that's the way it's right. And that's how I understood it. Yeah. Do we need to make that clear in here? I think it's fine. Okay. Says seasonal lights. Reg seasonal lights are exempt from But he was talking about a front porch. Yeah, I'm just talking about for for a backyard light. Right. Right. Well, and and the reason I say that is because there were a couple of comments in our character uh survey that complained about lights shining into neighbors,

right, areas. And that if it goes over the property line, then you are subject to a fine or you're subject to vote enforcement. Yes. Okay. But if if you leave it on all night and it's your front porch light and it's not going over other people's property, nobody's going to touch it, right? I I guess I still sense a level of ambiguity here, but yeah, I can move on. Yeah. I want to talk quick because I you know we've had issues with people behind us keeping lights on on the back side of their house all night and it's very annoying then that comes

then that that would be a vi you can report that as a violation and the code of the porcher would pay them a visit. Okay has about the it has to end at the property. It can only be one foot candle at the property line. One tenth of a foot candle. I understand why they want to leave it on all night, but it's not shielded, right? Well, if it's historical, then I don't That might be a problem. But I don't think it is. I don't think I I don't think you're going to find a historical going over into somebody else's property. Not Not typically. Okay. It's usually a little bit gasoline, right? All right. No, I didn't.

Did I close the public meeting? No, you did not. Did Do you have any comments? Okay. So, I'm going to close the public meeting and get carried away. Should we better the public hearing regarding

Oh, I can do that. So this is from Mark Tarquili got 10:45 on the screen and he writes, "I am unable to attend the planning commission meeting tonight, but I wanted to share my thoughts on the proposed lighting ordinance. I prefer that section F spectrum use 2700K as the maximum allowable CCT for outdoor luminires instead of 3,000 F. You want to give the explanation for that? Well, I can I I sent out a a web link for people to educate themselves before the meeting. The difference between 2700 and 3,000 is 2700 starts getting into the yellow hues. 3,000 is neutral and then anything above 3,000 starts getting into the brighter white. So 3,000 is kind of the sweet spot. And the other uh reason for the 3000 uh and it's dark sky recognizes it is that when you start getting into the yellow lights, especially retail areas, color renditioning is a problem. And then also security and safety, it's a perceived issue. So that's why 3000 is usually the the middle point because it's it's a neutral light. It's not yellow and it's not highly highly highly white. So it's that's that's the difference. Now if you think 300 is different, you take a look at the color scale. You can see the 2700 starts moving into the the yellow band of lighting. So uh that's that's the difference. I would recommend that we stay with 30,000 which is right in the middle and it's a neutral light.

That's kind of where the dark sky that's dark sky. the D standby as it stands. All right, question by do we know what the or what I would like to close the public hearing and then I'm bringing it back for the table for land commission discussion. Okay, Rich.

Um so the example residential street lighting what what is what? You know, I don't know what the city is currently using for street lighting, but in the future, they'll have to the city will have to follow this as well. I know that the the proposed lighting for the Jimmy Jennings is is 3,000 luminire lumens because we gave them the proposed ordinance and said, "Use this as your targets." Um, so we'll see when that that'll probably be our first first example of what a 3000 lumen light looks like in a commercial parking lot. Uh, we'd have to take a a meter we'd have to take a lighting meter underneath some of the streets to find out exactly what the lumens are. I But I can't answer that question.

What city manager? Pretty bright. Yeah, I didn't catch your question, Rich. I was wondering what the lumens were for street lighting. The newer newer style LED. Yeah, that's a good question. I don't I don't know that either, but I can I can try to get that for you, Albert.

At the last meeting, I brought up um the LZ2 versus LZ3. I was told that because it's the entry to the city that B3 the B3 zones were um at the higher level and that is true for B3 U B and B3 B3A which is it's not on this map but I can sort of describe it to you is that corner of Sheridan and um 131 America's best hotel was and then it's a property from Southwoods restaurant down to the days in very small area that area um has in it um it it basically has um it has a restaurant. It has two hotels. It has the rest is basically office buildings. There's a little bit of B3A that runs down Lawrence Street that has some home office kind of it when we look at what LZT2 is in the other areas. So if you look at LZ2 it's U B1 B2 uh B2B office um hospital parking areas. I forgot what C was. Um um but those are all very sim the property that you you have as um LZ2 is very similar use property. I know it's zoned differently but it's very the use of the properties in LZ2 is is very similar to what we're seeing in B3A. You were talking about lag trespass that's been a huge issue issue in the neighborhood. Um, and I am talking about my neighborhood, so I don't know. I um but um I'd kind of I'd like to make a a motion if I could that

and and you guys can decide to support it with so we can at least discuss it that um what's in that zoning district, current zoning district B3A be moved um to the LZ2 area. So if somebody second that if somebody feels second that and we could discuss it. Well, I'll second it for the purpose of discussion. Correct. Do you have any Well, I guess my question is, you know, it is it is the 131 corridor, the Spring Street, Florida,

which is a main drag into town like 31 coming from the west. But but look how much has green on on the end. There's two PUDs there which that that's a question further down the line, but there's two three two PUDs there that are um I don't know what they're going to be for areas. So if the you still get the entry to the city right past days in you get the brighter lights. That's where the gas stations was was one of the concerns that was voiced last week. Um but up until there um you're you're kind of in a mixed area and and the um um of the 18 properties in that district, the full 18, it's very small district. There's 18 properties in there. Of those 18, all of them share at least one and some share two property lines with a residents. Um so just because of the transition I think it's my personal opinion that uh it's more appropriate for that part of town and if if a hospital's okay with the with level two and um you know there's there's several other properties in there in the green zone um that are are um at the lower level off there's offices in that area that would be the office uh office area. They're all very similar use products as in these not being used, you know, we're not talking gas stations. We're not talking um those types of things. Well, what's what's the I mean the the high ambient lighting levels that are in LZ3 LZ3s is you know visibility right

at higher speeds I presume and just because of higher volume of traffic on the busy streets. Um right if you look though from the Bay View interest to tell other than right at um right even kills is not in that area. I agree with you that ideally that you know the LZ2 zone would sort of come between right one and three right that as a buffer kind of treatment that would be ideal

and again if if the one more idea is if if the whole idea is to keep dims especially from the bay and from when you're looking at pasky from the bay or the waterfront you're looking right at 131 you know I I spend at least two days a you get in Harper Springs seeing my mom at Babson when you look to Paskki you see 131 so if we're trying to keep the light down if that's the goal take that at least the hilly part you know by the time you get down to the day's end you're off the hill you know by the time you get to to where um you know again this would end at spring and quarter um and the other side would still be there be three the whole shopping ball would be I'm just talking basically from that that first part of the interest keeping it green just like everything else is. We'd only be taking basically we taking it down we'll cross from just across from Bay Mall everything from Baywalk this way bay mall south on on 131 would would be in our lower zone and then suddenly we get to Bay Mall you would be at the higher zone. So I just wanted you know that's again what's going on. Yeah,

I I I tend to agree with Albert on this. Um, but every the lighting levels as is would be grandfathered in. Correct. And so this would only be in effect for new new or revised or replaced or replaced or complaint driven. Correct. For what you said. Yeah. Well, that's a question for the planner. Or complaint driven or complaint driven. So if there is light trespass as there is currently in that neighborhood, will this new ordinance then force those owners to address that issue? You talked about it at last month's meeting. Yes. If it's complaint driven, they don't

Well, we can be assured that there will be complaints. you know, my my concern about the the LZ3 and LZ2. If it were not for 131, I would say I don't have a problem with it. But Sheridan and 131 is a is a five lane intersection. I mean, it's busy. You're not talking about changing the street lights there. You're just talking about changing the the lighting ordinance for the for the uh Yeah, but even the properties that are there, the restaurants,

uh the uh I don't know what the lighting levels are for the condo complex over on the other side of the street, but the the lighting levels for the retail along 131 need to be appropriately lit for safety and for turning movements. I again though retail really doesn't start until you get to Bay Mall. No, you have South Worth at the corner and you have that's not retail. That's a restaurant. It's restaurant. I mean that's commercial. That's my concern. Yeah. But if if if it's okay for example Kins, right? Killwins is in the B3 is in Yeah.

Yeah. What what is the area that's um across from Arlington Avenue between Boone? That is the park. Okay. It's way downhill.

I mean, the the the the lighting zones are not based on anything arbitrary. They're based on the zoning districts. It would seem to me that along the highway needs to be consistent. Great. Yeah, I agree. Um I think that is Kwoods, is it not? Kwood is here. Yeah. And then this is the the correct. Okay, I see this little

well and it all is not only 31, but there are a lot of businesses along 31 that actually should belong in the LC 3 moderately high ambient lighting. And I think the um the conflict there can be addressed with the shielding of lights on the property on the uh business property that they can't trespass. I agree. And I think the curfew for commercial is important as well. That curfew is 11:00.

Yeah. And then also the 3000 max lumens is a big one. Yeah. So how much different is that? What's that? We don't have those examples, do we? The gas station 116, they're huge. So yeah, 30,000 is going to be a a lot different in terms of what the lighting levels are going to be in the future. Like in the article that I don't know if you had a chance to read it, but um the article that John sent out said 3000 is like lighting your kitchen to work in or like in a bathroom when you're standing in front of a mirror. But that was that was that was the heat. That's part of the colors. That's the color.

Yeah. But that's our max even for exterior for the lumens for this. So it's more like the brightness that you see is the light. Yeah. It's unfortunate we don't have any examples of measurements of existing lighting so that we could well if Ted were here if Ted were here he'd be saying that well he was going to be recommending that the city buy a NIT gun so you can point it shoot and it would tell you what the lumens are which if we do this we probably need that yeah that that tech that that instrument

um my concern concern is that um we don't have or or or we maybe would be desirable to have some balance with this

because we've had the dark sky people weigh in on this. It it worries me a bit to be first. Why Why is nobody else first? I I I guess I I don't know if we want to be first on this, but you know, is there a consultant that can tell us, you know, if you adopt this, your street lights are out of, you know, are not going to work? Northman Stadium is out of compliance. um you know this area and and I guess it's it's there's just enough in here that I don't know uh you know are we are we creating something that we are putting the city in a difficult position. I'd like to know that half our lighting across the city is is is okay, you know, because if it's not, then then we're really, you know, putting a burden on onto the city, not only commercially, but but our, you know, our city to have to change a lot.

Yeah. The stadium lighting like at the football, that's that comes under a different code. sports lighting, stadium lighting, stuff like that. I know it's a different code, but do we meet that code? Well, I'm Well, we don't know. Well, this the sports lighting comes under a an exemption an exemption under that's already recognized by the Electrical Illumination Society, the EIS, which they use on construction. That's one of the the codes that are used. It's it's RP6 outdoor sports and recreation areas. that's already been that's already used by the electrical and lighting industry today. So,

I understand that, but that's not really what I'm I'm saying is that we're creating uh an ordinance where we're going to be complaint responsive. And so if the folks on Hoffman Street or Lindell feel like there's a it's it's a nuisance um and and the stadium lighting doesn't fall within this uh this code uh then then what do we expect the school to to do? You know I I guess I would just I just feel like we're missing some practical analysis of you know here's a lighting a section of town that works. here's a a section of town that doesn't work. It it does bother me a little bit that the gas lights downtown are not, you know, and I know that's historic and and so we're going to keep that, but um it, you know, it it just um I just wish there were some more practical uh input rather than than this sort of scientific input on on the ordinance. uh you know a a consultant or a commercial uh lighting expert could could give us some some opinions rather than just the dark sky which you know just by their name uh you know they want less lighting everywhere you know

just Albert point of order the discussion right now is on right the motion on the floor is oh right whether to um Well, I mean, I really appreciate your comments and and and support some of them. Um, but the motion on the floor at this point is whether to move B3A to the category LZ2 from LZ3,

right? And comment is related to that, related to both conversations. Every new legislation has the potential of unintended consequences. In this case, I'm very comfortable that this is an excellent opportunity for us to try something new that could be highly beneficial to the city overall and we will have some issues as a result of it. And some of them will we will find are unintended consequences we need to address, but that's for them. I'm I think uh the neighborhood that you represent will have the opportunity under this for redress for light trespass that they haven't had before. And I think that's a significant step forward. And um I support uh I'm I'm not in favor of the motion, but I do support overall the uh the new language. Yeah, I think that um just because dark sky sky is introducing this so that we would might be the first city to address it. There are many cities who've gone to dark sky policies. Bellingham, Washington, where my son lives is an example and it's very functional

and it's nice to see the stars. So, and then you're concerned about it costing the city. Things will don't they won't suddenly have to change them all out today. That would be expensive. But as bulbs fail or street lights have to be replaced, then they would they would uh comply with the new code. So, it's not something that happens all at once. So, I think the financial concern is um It's the city can handle making the change over time. Don, do you have anything to add?

No, I think that Carolyn, I think it would be in the planning commission's best interest and the city as a whole is to have some points of reference when it goes to the council so they can understand like, okay, our street lights are this, you know, Kwin's parking lot is is this. And I think Kins gave us their specs for their lighting. So maybe that's an easy thing to look up in their site plan review package, but but just so they have something to compare it to. I would imagine they're going to have the same questions that we all have. Rob, they do.

Again, it's if this is adopted, we're not forcing changes on anyone for current. It's for remodeling, for renew that. So the step forward I think is good. There's some control and it definitely will address some of the concerns in the community comments too. Yeah. Um give them some opportunity to redress their concerns. So I'm fine. That's

uh the street lighting I don't think will conform, but the efficacy will continue to go down over the years. I think the life cycle for a bulb like that is like 20 years. So they're out there for a while. That's kind of safe. Yeah. But any new street repairs that happen, they get new lights and that will it's like any ordinance. things are going to get grandfathered in and then over a period of time then they start getting converted based on the new regulations. So it's not like everybody's got to comply at one time. It's going to be a slow process.

Uh have have we finished the discussion that Albert was requesting? There's a motion on the table. I know. So um I guess we vote on it. Let's do roll call to be clear. Yeah. Can you restate the motion? Motion is to move um the properties within the current B3A move the LZ 2 uh table. Okay. Newman. No. Sorry. Moss. Yes.

Robson. No. Smith, no. Wilmont, no. Demer, no. Freed, no. Frankurt, no. Moran, no. Great. Motion does not pass. Thanks for the discussion. Um, one other along that line. How do PUD send ball? What happens to the white areas on the map? That's part of the the UD. Um it's part on their own. Okay. So at the plant so current PUDs they have their own lighting right right

and by use would they have to in other words um we have a PUD that that is the Kmart plaza that would seem like that was under what we're doing now would stay yes very similar to B3 and then the um uh condo development would more be whatever would require for an RM2 because it's very similar use, right? I mean, yeah. Is that I'm just saying that lower right now. It looks to me like they're not any enforcement.

No, they're they're PUDs which they they overlaid. So, they have their own requirements associated like Maple Block. they had their own lighting plan and the old ones if they if they if the condo development or if um the plaza the old Kmart plaza um was going to redo something then they would have to submit a lighting plan. That's correct. that was would within the would but would comply with which

would be whatever their underlying zone was at the time that they had the PD. So we we'd research that and if it was a B3 then they would fall on the LZ3 and if it was a different one LC2 but we' research it and the good news like a lot of you said that we're going to have a whole lot less light period. Yeah. And I just wanted to it just didn't seem we're going from green anyway with the residentials at the edge of town. I just thought we could solve this together. Appreciate all your

Thank you. But I think I'll take Caroline's advice in hand before we get this this gets over to council in January. We'll take a look at some existing projects and determine what the lighting levels are so we can tell them what the looming but also they have a way of visualizing what the I don't think very help sooner than later that would be a gun doesn't does not measure but measures wiring now with a sidearm knit gun one has one last

it's a typo and I think you guys made a attempt to fix the typo under 3.3. I think you kind of fixed it, but it says Alen, then it says light at night. Oh, no. I learned the new thing. I thought it was parenthesis, right? You do. You don't have all four words in parenthesis. You only have three. You have light at night. It should be artificial light at night. Oh, I see. I mean, I just, you know, that's just a type of L correction. Yeah,

there's under lighting controls, which is uh letter E and uh number two, item C. So, what section are you in? I'm in Uh so it it'll be like 3.0 article three second page. Yeah. Uh lighting requirements 2.0 general lighting controls E

lighting controls E C says residential properties with fewer than five dwelling units are are some sort of exception. I guess I'm not sure what that means because it would seem like I don't know. I guess I'll I'll just ask the question. Uh I don't think that quite makes sense the way it is. But so all exterior lighting shall be automatically turned off between dawn and dusk daily with the following exceptions. The So that's where it says residential properties are exempt are exempt which enables there's no question that of course true street lights could be on Yeah. all night.

That means res any exterior one family two family. Yes. Any exterior lighting. So if you have more units then you're not exempt and then you have to have lighting controls. Yeah. Because that's that would be like multif family like a multif family. Right. All right. Thank you for that. Yes, we didn't want to require residentially everybody to have to get auto lights. That would be a ridiculous expense. So, we made residential exempt. Thank you.

Any other discussion? I I think just to call on concerns the big issue with this I think the big impact is going to be on commercial property because we really didn't have a lot of standards on how to manage commercial lighting in the current ordinance. So people could have come in with different size of lights, different illumination. Lisa and I would review the lighting and we had some standards about foot candles, but it just we just didn't have enough meat to really, you know, make sure that they were complying with appropriate light standards. Now, this gives us something to give them that they can target. And and as we move forward with the zoning ordinances, some of these zones probably be consolidated changed anyway. No,

but I mean we we don't know where we're at with that, but with the zoning once we get to actually looking at zones. Well, the the zoning Yeah. the zoning Yeah. whatever the new zoning districts are. Then we're going to have to recalibrate the districts in this and and at that time I don't think we want to do it now, but at that time would overlay rather than zone be more appropriate just something to think about for the zoning. What you think about that?

Yeah, because then there's there's some zones that there's such a transitional zone that you could make the overlay specific to where it made most sense and you could maybe have brighter lighting in the hospital zones, for example. Um maybe they needed to get the ambulances in, you know, that's so well ambulance areas are also allowed to be brighter. Yes. Yeah. So that's been that has already done. So Carolyn, it brings up a good point like should we even be listing the zoning districts under each zone because that's how we map out the the LZ's. But couldn't it just be a lighting zone map?

It's arbitrary. At least this way we're saying good zone goes with that zoning district. We're changing the districts at some point you wouldn't have to change this. So just well I mean heard the map lighting zones but in other words a lighting overlay right yeah but that's arbitrary then somebody can say well why did you draw the line here and not over here well this is all based on the zoning district it's and zoning district based you subject to zoning districts will actually have a table that's well that'll be amended

okay any more discussion I'm sorry. Uh so article three and this would be under number eight exceptional uses. And it was talking about uh when businesses close. Hotels don't really close. They're open all night. I just uh wonder if that should be okay. Conceptional uses. What letter or number is that? Number eight.

That's number eight. Okay. All right. So if Bri article three if you count uh article three first page general is one and then two is the distributions through lighting controls and three is the um 678 exceptional uses is what we're talking

all right it says that operations that are open later than 11, they shall shut off their lights within 1 hour of closing. Hotels don't close, so the light stays on, but it has to go down to the night time. Brad, you were talking about number eight, correct? Yes. So number eight is specific to these ones have to go to the planning commission. Yes. So it's it's identifying those are ones that we have to go to the planning commission to get that approval. So are you saying we should include hotels? I think so. But I mean I if it's covered in another area then under seven it would 7A

because you don't close then it could stay on. Okay. as well.

For example, if you're a a tavern and you stay open till 2:00 in the morning, then the ordinance says in 1 hour after you close the lights go, go down to the next level. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? the suggestion on that three 3.3A that alan that you covered in the definitions. Should we just get rid of that quote unquote or Allan is one I've had a hard time adapting to? Lighting at night. No, artificial. Artificial. I was Yeah, it's artificial. Yeah,

at first it wasn't. So, I kind of like The Crutch even as having read this multiple times. Okay. Um I think Alen probably will become a common um thing going forward as as more cities control their lighting. Nobody know what that is. But we call that. So we we haveation this recommendation to send this to city. Uh that that is recommended. Yeah.

So there's no discussion. All right. Uh so you move to recommend those to the SIF council. That's your your motion. Okay. I second that. but with um the inclusion of examples or lighting around town. Agreed. All right. So, we're going to have a a vote on sending this to the city council along with preparation by doing light examples. All right. Roll call vote. Demer, yes. Brownberg, yes. Breeze, yes. Meridian, yes.

Moss, no. Newman, yes. Robson, yes. Smith, yes. Wilma,

yes. Move on to the new business. Maple block major amendment construction of carports and garages. And all we have to do tonight is schedule a public hearing the December 7th. What's the um signs where they're proposing that next month's meeting? So all we're doing is say yeah let's put it in next month's agenda.

Yeah, that's all you're saying the public hearing. You're going to get the full package next. Yeah, it'll be you'll get it before the meeting. So you'll be able to at the same time correctly. Say that again. The packets available. That's exact. Okay. So I'm looking for a motion to schedule a public hearing for the December 17th, 2025 plan commission meeting. So move back. And this is for Maple Block Major Amendment. Yes. So, we had made a motion and Rick seconded.

No, you made the motion. I second. You second it. All right. Can you read back? Can you read back the motion? Federal public hearing for the Maple Block. Yep. Construction of carports and branches at 1420 Standish Avenue for the December meeting. Very good. All right. Actually, let's just do I Everyone voted.

All right. Next on the agenda is our meetings for next year 2026. Any discussion? I think there should be twice this many. Will there be? There probably will be. Are you supposed to do something else in January? Yes, you did. But not really with the amount of meetings we've had this year. Just this week. Yeah. Right. Did you guys have a sign meeting? Yeah.

Fair enough. All right. So, I'll need a motion to approve the regular meeting schedule. Like to move to the schedule as presented. Okay. Albert made the motion. Caroline seconds to approve the meeting times. All in favor? I.

Everyone voted. All right. Now on the zoning ordinance updates discussion results of the community character survey.

So John, you want to kick it off? I think we just need to have a general general discussion. We ended up with 292 responses. I thought they were fairly distributed through the city with the exception of ward four where we didn't have as many but one, two, and three had a pretty good distribution. I ran all the data through AI just to do summaries and really when you take a look at the the survey, it's pretty tight. I mean, there's not a lot of variance. People people want walkable, they want less traffic, they want greater code enforcement, primarily want two-story buildings. Uh the interesting thing I found was that people actually are when we asked them to determine lot coverage, their lot coverage was between 50 and 60% of the lot. Currently, I think we have 30 or 35. So people were thinking, you know, if I want to have a garage or an ADU or a house, I'm willing to, you know, increase the lot coverage. Um, and depending on the ward, some wards don't have underground utilities as much as others. So, people were saying, "We'd like to have underground utilities." They obviously prefer the sidewalks. Uh, people are big on architectural compatibility setbacks. They want visual harmony and they want the view shuts protected. So, uh,

they don't want the county department in front of their house. Yeah. And uh I think from a uh uh some of the questions that we asked like parking, people do prefer that we have parking regulations rather than just let businesses parked determine what their parking needs are. Um so I did that summary and then I also prepared another one on the open-ended questions that I gave you last week or whenever and then I think Shane also sent this out to city council. And this is the responses by open-ended question. And you can see that there's just a lot of common themes that run through all of these uh in terms of feedback relative to standards. People would have we're going to if we're going to have a a pallet of design standards, their focus was on having higher standards for obviously industrial commercial properties, not necessarily residential. even though comments were we we really need to have an integrated or piece of design throughout to the community. So, uh I I thought it was I thought I thought the responses were pretty tight. Here's a deal to say, but you know, I didn't think there was a lot of variance at all. The one that was to me the most interesting of the variable was the setbacks. We had setbacks from zero to 100.

Um, and our setbacks currently are 25. And and I did kind of just a little analysis like how many people had setbacks higher than 25, how many was lower than 25 and how many were at 25. And um they were very close to um but people actually had wanted more setback. But all the comments are I want room to move more in my lot. So I like to triangulate when I see survey stuff where I see a 41. The other the other question that that also uh surprised me a little bit was um on the housing character that was question 13 um the ADUs because you we again we look at the comments there either they want ADUs or they don't want ADUs. There was hardly anything in between. you know, I want to do an ADU and I want to do this and this or I don't want ADUs and um and yet the survey was a fairly uh high percentage that like the character of the ADU. My question was on the survey there's pictures and I believe it's the bottom right the last picture was a small house. I don't have the survey because I did electronic looked at it electronically but I don't think you can look at anymore. Was that ever labeled as a ad? So do you do do the respondents say house look like that would be okay? I mean there's a house on Washington Street. Little blue house is cuter than you. Not Washington Howard Street between Washington and Jennings. Little blue house looks a lot like that. It's not ADU. It's a house. So to say that the ninth picture was people saying they want a ADU or would they say they want to they were okay with the character of that house?

You understand? And it was a character that was a visual survey. Right. Exactly. But to label that as a ADU was arbitrary in a way. Well, you know, in the survey underneath it we had ADU mark. Did we? Okay. I remember but uh you know it's a visualization and you know that small that small house rated fairly high 50 was number two on the list neotraditional single family was number one adus were number two right also interested that many people did see it but didn't see didn't not have a problem with cottage courts or cottages

and it's all it's all twotory or less in twotory in our current code is 25B. Yes. Protocol has 25 under section 1600. So they don't want real calls.

I'm sorry to say I I missed this. I don't know whether it was emailed to me or not, but I got it tonight and I've been look was one of the things I was going to ask for was an overview of categorization, if you will, of the open-ended what that is. Uh, and I so I haven't had a chance to go, right?

But, uh, I was looking forward to that. That was it was going to be one of the things that I wanted to ask because one of the things I'd like to do with it is I'd like to compare it with um action items in the living pot to see what may stand out as new and different uh credibly new and different of significance uh between the commentary from this survey and and the living batski which hopefully Well, in in some format, living paskki will need to be addressed next year. So, it would be helpful to know what the relevancy of this commentary is to the living paskki. The second thing I wanted to ask is um I'd like to see uh the data specifically for W 2 and I think that that uh I think each of the council people would be interested in seeing the data for their ward separately from the city and a a commentary like this as well would be helpful to to help digest that data on awardby word basis. We have a population of wards. I mean, so we have residential population of of ward. So our our our you know, w three um was a small portion of that survey. But when we think of W three, how much in Ward 3 is commercial and not residential? There's a huge hospital inside there. There's a hotels, there's businesses, there's um Bay Harbor, which a lot of people in Bay Harbor are not full-time residents at least. And so we had, you know, I was surprised that we we were a small percentage, but then I didn't know what percent of Ward 3 people responded and I don't know if that's anything we could drill down.

So we don't the census tracks don't match up with the ward lines and we're small enough that we don't have block group data. So yeah, it's really tough to get an accurate you have as voter registration, right? And that's good. That's as good a barometer as that. Probably a good Yeah, because we could compare we have less registered voters, right? More registered voters. Yeah. In in W three. My question would be and there's no way of knowing is how many of the respondents were Bay Harbor versus actual war three that we do know Bay Harbor because that was that's true. they if they voluntarily said that they were.

So, hey, I can run the I can run the data by ward for the for the council. That's we can filter that out. Where do you want to go with this stuff? We got to start getting into the nuts and bolts. Ted, I haven't heard from you. You have any comments, do you want to come up here and be part of this? What were you specifically wanted? Well, do you have any comments on the results of the zoning survey? No, I don't think so. I think you've got the results tabulated well. Have much more to say. The only statistic I think it was a great exercise.

I think it was a good exercise process. I make a comment and one point I thought was kind of interesting seem to be a lot of criticism of the Norway maples. Yes. So maybe we should rethink that when we're planting trees. I'm not an arborist once an artist right now Norway maple. They're not they're not native and they're a real dark

burgundy color leaf and they're prone to a fungus that gets makes black spots on the leaves. They're really beautiful if you have one surrounded by green. It's a nice contrast, but they were getting carried away and starting to fill in with all Norway maples. So, I think that's when people started noticing and saying they didn't want that many. Unfortunately, they did a different maple

some years ago. I I know it's called fire maple. I've got a couple and they the Norways are nice because they grow slow. This other one, it's on some of the medium trees on on it sends these I've got some in my property arms that just grow really fast out long and then they break off. The bark is split on them. So, whatever that tree is, it didn't work out on Magn Island. They're trying to cut and remove all the Norway maples. I don't know how extensive they are. You know why? to come up before.

So is that kind of something we can recommend to city managers in the future that they're away from the road, right? Don't we have we have something in the news about having

native native trees. Yeah. Yeah, that's good. So I, you know, I think a really good comment when I read through them was on was on page 59 of the sur of the survey. There's also the fact that it was comment number 95 on page 59. And if you read that, whoever wrote that had a really good summary of kind of what the community should be about. I thought when I read through these all I mean they were all good comments but this one in particular somebody had with what number was number page 59 number 95 mine's on page 60 99

95 comment number 95 oh yeah

you know they talk about general density which is a term that's being used now in terms of the introduction of different housing typologies in a neighborhood that don't overwhelm scale, but it's got some good comments about architectural design and what's good and what's bad. I thought it was pretty interesting comment. That was so the number of people that felt the views of the bay and were important and and he hid a buildings restrictions restrictions that because I've heard, you know, people in different leadership positions in a city say, "Well, our 25 foot height restrictions ridiculous." Well, it it would be for a lot of flat land cities, but we're not a flat land city. We're a city that's up on a hill and if you look at how many people appreciated the view, I thought that was important. Another one that I thought was question a lot I thought was interesting which is

so do you have page 44 on my packet page number 11. Yeah, question number 11.

And is there something you would want like to do that you wouldn't be able to do because of the zoning? And what I did is I circled all the questions that were yes or the comment was I had something that I wanted, you know, someone didn't say yes, they just wrote something they want to do. And and that that ended up being um 54 of the um 200 responses or 20 around 22 23% of people had an issue with our current zoning. The rest of them didn't. Now they may not that if you correlate that also with the question on those people that had experience with zoning 27% of the of of us had experience with or 22% had experience with zoning. Um so we're doing a lot of things to change the zoning. I just want to be careful that if there's not an issue, we're not doing issues just because, you know, the people, you look at what some of their concerns are. Um, we we've addressed them. We have ADU ordinance now. Um, maybe they don't like it and that could be modified, but we have an ADU ordinance. Um, they have a lot of things that um, you know, we're looking at setbacks and those types of things, but people setbacks. That's when I would like to see almost a statistical, you know, I I had to crunch numbers all the time for my when I see something with the the standard deviations on on that that question on it makes no sense at all. The the setback question because it tells you that people are informed I think is what that question told you.

Okay. I just one thing comes to mind is people talk about crunching numbers. Don't go too far. Don't pretend you're doing something scientific by getting percentages, right? On a survey like this because it's not statistical. It's not. It's not. You don't know the sample how it you'd have to do far more statistics. That's what I'm saying. So to extend good feedback, but don't Yeah. What the standard deviation to me on that question says is they don't understand setbacks. Exactly. I don't think people understood. Right.

Which which leads me to the my next point. You're asking about next steps. the the next what's coming to the planning commission now is the hard stuff the very specific stuff including collapse of zoning potential collapse or consolidation of zones uh zones uh the setbacks density uh heights uh the the the really hard core stuff some of which is very difficult to understand conceptually. Your your example routinely is density.

People don't understand the concept and if they don't understand the concept they really can't make an educated contribution to the conversation only an emotional contribution to the conversation which is not helpful to them or us. So how do we address that? education is necessary at this point to get everybody on the same page with these hardcore issues. I mean, you know, I I looked at before and I thought was absolutely fine. That's what my friend just but to criticize when you see the results

would have been some of those questions the our current setbacks for residential is you know you're right but question 14 and 15 are the only two that address any of these hardcore issues. There were some responses related to density but they that they didn't know what they were talking about. So yeah, they didn't have a standard to look at. I didn't we didn't want to give them We didn't want to go there. We didn't want to go there. And I was I was This was all about character, right? Not about the hardcore stuff. So the question is, and it's a valid one, John. How do we get our arms around the hardcore stuff now? Yeah. You have to prepare something, they present, they have them react.

Well, and you have to you have to educate them as to the concepts, too, right? I think John like you said it's not just a verbal discussion there's examples discussion

would be feasible possible to include an education session in each planning commission maybe a five or 10 minute this is the topic tends to be this of this meeting this is the topic of this meeting ADUs or education regarding zoning that would answer these questions so they could see what it is. And I like your description, Ted, that it be visual rather than just Well, is that

Yeah. And you could take it a step further, not just to have for presentation purposes here, but perhaps uh the planner could arrange to have like on the easels like you do for the other presentations some some graphic representation that helps people understand the concept of density of setback of and then and because you know if you go straight into the charts that show the different setbacks we have and the different zoning districts and the circumstances, you're just going to baffle everybody. I agree. And it's got to be done from that perspective of public education. Yes, I believe that to be the case.

There's there's there's no understanding, right? And and and build it up from there. And even with love with what John told I' I've been surprised that where where we are and aren't with density. I grew up on Harvey Street. My mom's lot was 48 ft wide. It wasn't even 50 because the neighbors borrowed two feet for the driveway. Somehow it was um and it's not very deep. The lot

the lot. Yeah. Harbor Street. I don't think I don't think that lot is 50 by 75. Her house takes up the whole lot. in the in in the garage and there's only a little bit left. So these were written I think over the years. If we're going to make a new R1, we ought to have it like this. And if we're going to make a new R2, we ought to have it like this. Part of me says, shouldn't we go back and look at what is talk about character? What is the density in that historic district from Bay Street to Michigan Street? I think it's I think the lot coverage is pretty high. you know, I think I think we're we're over 30%. I just my my perception of, you know, Gro Street being, you know, so maybe and that was a lot of complaints in this thing. I've got a house on I I'm imagining by because we didn't know where they were. But if you had a house on Harvey Street or whatever and you wanted to make it a double car garage, you probably couldn't, you know, um and yet those lots have been that way forever. So, you know, should we look at where are we really with density and setbacks in the old neighborhoods at least?

Well, that's kind of what we're going to do in this next phase is determine look at and then

here's where we are. Is there any is there anything wrong with where we are? And so we need to make those deaths those those lot coverages higher fine. And then if you look at a neighborhood like like your neighborhood Charlie or it's in our neighborhood and Spruce Street and in the the newer probably 50s on houses they had they were ranch houses. They were uh bigger lots, open lots and they may only need they if we would what I heard a lot in survey was we really want to keep the character of Paskki the way it is. I mean if I took one question that's almost what that other question 95 that you pointed out. So what where are we not where should we be but where are we and then where should we be? How But how do you quantify that?

Can't we figure out lots? Can't we figure out for an individual lot? You certainly can. But how can you generalize a ward or a a zoning district? Well, kind of block by block. Well, yeah, I was saying block by block, but I mean, you know, there like where I live on Bay Street, um that was it's called it's an R1 district and and over on Rose Street to the next street to the north, those are zone R1. Well, the way the lots are fitted in there, it really should be R2, you know, because of the setback requirements for everything.

I just if I could make a comment, we we'll get in discussions, it seems to me, where we'll discuss what the optimum lot size setback could be and have long discussions and do surveys, which is nice, but it appears to me that most of Pitaski is built out. So, right, that's what I'm saying. So I don't know exactly what we're talking about. Just want to have the zoning district f hit f hit f hit f hit f hit f hit f hit f hit f hit f hit f hit the right as as elves. We talked a lot about that. Yeah.

And so I mean when you do the GIS surveys you can look if you went to GIS it' be a lot of work but if you go to the GIS you can look I could look at my house and see what how big my lot is and what percent is covered. I believe you're talking about coverage not damage right. But coverage also includes the sensitivity, doesn't it? Pardon? The coverage includes an aspect of it. Yeah. An aspect of it. So, Carol, John, what do you how do you recommend we move forward?

Well, I'm kind of picking up the different conversations. I mean, we talked about this at the very beginning when you all went out with your maps and you took a look at the neighborhoods and most of you said there was really no apparent difference between a couple of the residential districts. They all kind of look the same. I agree with Ted. The city is pretty much built out. Um, the code needs to reflect what the historical development pattern is. So that's where I've always come from. Rather than try to take a code, a suburban code, and retrofit it to a community like Paski, it's not going to work. The the zoning districts need to reflect what the development patterns are in in in the community. Now, we can try to figure that out. I mean, we can figure it out, but it's not going to be a lot by lot analysis. No.

John, is is it less of a problem? Let's say you wanted to combine some districts R1's and R2s, but a lot of your um rules and regulations like let's say front yard setback had to do with the prevailing average whatever right on the block. So then there'd be maybe a different residential district than we have now, but a lot of the the the specifics about what could happen on that lot would be governed by the existing buildout of what's there. So and you know maybe that mitigates a lot of the

like that's a good point because in some communities the front yard setback is not a is not a prescriptive number. It's based on the average of the lot. That's what ours is for. So you may have some of this going on, but everybody's not built like if you go down go down to like Berkeley, Michigan, which was a 195060 style community, every single house is built 25 ft from the rightway. Okay? In communities like this, you're going to have variable setbacks. So why not just have the average of the block, right? You know, uh if I I've always mentioned to you guys, I don't know where 35 foot rear yard setback came from. It seems to be prevalent all over the country. I don't know that number

came from from 70s early 70s Arizona. It was just something that you know one of those planning firms came up came up with 35 ft after World War II and it was applied universally. Yeah. Sideyard setbacks today are more of a function of meeting the fire code. You know, you got to have at least a 10-ft separation unless you have a two-hour fire rating. So, some of this stuff is starting to, you know, other codes are starting to impact what the design parameters are.

Uh, couple of communities that want to encourage walkability will allow the front yard will allow the front porch. If it's not enclosed, if it's an open historic front porch, they'll allow it to extend into the front yard set back a few feet in order to encourage that kind of neighborhood context. Um, But I think in terms of educating uh the community would be to come up with a series of graphics and have an open house and ask people like we did for the winter sports park. We didn't ask them what they liked. We asked them what they didn't like, right?

And they told us what they didn't like and that helped form the last final design of the plan. So I mean you could do the same thing on zoning. kind of create some conceptual drawings that show setback, height, density, all that good stuff and ask people what what don't you like about this and then have them tell us. I felt like that webinar you sent us, it was the Michigan housing Yeah. Um the Michigan graphics. Yeah, the graphics that they showed were really helpful. They described like taking a you know a typical four square single family, how you can change it into a duplex. And then they also talked about the gentle density which was also a comment that they referred to like

that was some of those if you guys haven't watched that webinar I highly recommend it but I think some graphics like that for because some of the communities now are going to what what is referred to as a pattern books. Yep. Okay. Pattern books were used they started making their way into urban design back in the 90s with PUDS. Uh even more so after the turn of the century with with the Congress of New urbanism. the new developments. Basically, it wasn't just a PUD. You were given a design or a pattern book and you had to select your house from the pattern book. So, everybody had the same neighborhood context. But the Michigan Municipal League has come up with pattern books based on the old

um housing types based on the Sears catalog webinar. Was that did you participate in the pattern webinar last week? I had I reviewed it. It was an excellent webinar. Yeah. um and the pattern books. That's something I think that the planning commission needs to take a look at for certain selective situations coming forward because uh these are pre-app pre-approved plans with lots of variations so you can customize them and make them look different but it's you can use them by right. You don't you know just they're by right. Yeah. Uh and they're free and so that really reduces the cost of your uh development of that that parcel. even the ADU plans. Yeah. Yeah.

So, it Yeah, I thought that was excellent. I'm glad you brought it up because that's something I think that could could be significant. I would even take I would even take it a step further if you really want to go down that road because we're you're a built community. People have a certain idea of what the character of the community is. I could I could envision in the future Paskki has its own pattern books that's designed by its own local architects.

Absolutely. that that fit in with the character saying here's here's here's here's eight different housing styles or variations and they're all by right they've been they already been pre-approved by EMTT County Construction and pick one and have at it but you can get it refined almost to the community now and that's kind of where but I I'm thinking that's what the current the proposed code should really encourage is amplifying the historical development pattern of the community, not trying to retrofit something else from another community somewhere else. That's why when we started this process, we wanted to reserve article two and three at the end because that's where the heavy heavy lift is in terms of really what deciding this stuff. And I like I I really like the concept that we are built out and for that part of the city that's already built and and people are happy with the character, let's keep the restrictions to that area like it is. So like because I think there are there are houses there are neighborhoods in which we are the the setbacks in the front and back are a lot less than than that's out here. So if you had to rebuild some of these houses, people would would have a hard time rebuilding, you know. So I that's what was my point is that we need to look at that. And at the same time, when we look at the new newer parts of the city, I'm thinking probably from Lindell south on the on the east side of the um city up in that whole neighborhood. Those are all ranches. our neighborhood, the neighborhood that's up u um just between um the nursing home and Greenwood, those are all more modern and

they are houses that are taking up a smaller percentage of their lots and also we keep those characters the same too. So that's what that's what my thought is still is we need to look at keeping what is and that's going to solve a lot of these people's negative. I can't I can't move my porch out two feet. Why? Well, because but you know if if it's allowed then we we we could we could do that. We are built out but it that doesn't reflect the fact that lots of people there's a continuing need for people to want to expand. Right. Right. And and add to and change or you know gain a garage or double the width of the garage. Exactly.

And John that's a question I have. So, like if you take my neighborhood, uh my garage has zero setback. It's probably from 1920. It's not very big. It's a single car garage, but anyway, you know, when you buy in these neighborhoods, what's there is there and you bought your house and you're fine with that. Most people think because they buy the house. But, um so, but if if you said, "Well, there's not every garage, but some garages have zero setbacks." So, let's just say that zero setback's okay for garages, but yet as Rick's pointing out, people are going to do more and more things that might be more objectionable. You know what I mean? Like a lot of people think a building, the neighbor's building shouldn't be right on the lot line. It should be off a little.

So, how do you kind of mesh those two? Like sometimes existing is there, but it's maybe I would have to say maybe not quite ideal, right? So, you have to live with that and it has an impact on the on the neighbors ability to do what they might want. Right. Right. Well, you might have a an old garage, you know, that's on the on the lot line. Maybe you want to make it better. Maybe you want to tear down that garage and and put a second story on it or make it better somehow. And but you can't do that.

Now, now you can. Yeah. Um, and you know, maybe that's an area that you uh that you consider, you know, a change or you should be able, in my opinion, that's part of the history and the and character of the community. And if it's there now, you shouldn't be able if you want to tear it down and replicate the footprint, you should be allowed to do it without maybe Reggie's grandfather took like what if though I took my garage, I don't have quite space. But what if I said, well, I've got zero setback now. Maybe I'll make that a twoall garage. The impact on the neighbor is much greater than my little Why? You went two feet into there. Well, how you going to make

How's the impact? You know, I just the the wall facing my garage with zero setback for one story. If it's two story, it's a much bigger it's a different feel, different character. I think the the setback too, you have to you have to stay within the fire code. So, you may have to keep the when somebody rebuilds. Um, but that's what people don't necessarily understand, you know, they why why can I just make it better, you know?

Yeah. We have I know a lot less setbacks on our on our side lots than what than we had in Koo. I can't believe how close I can build a storage building. I couldn't I had to have it. It was a lot bigger. It was like 15 feet on every side and 35 in back. So 35 is even. But in our neighborhood that was probably an ordinance that came, you know, from

Is that a bigger lot or supposed to say it was pie shaped? Well, in in my opinion, uh next steps um it would be to ask the planner to develop a list of major concepts for these two sections that uh can be visually uh uh described, educationally described. But uh in addition, there are some unique characteristics that we've just been talking about like the old carriage houses on the alleys and that kind of thing that you may also want to pick out as examples of specific issues that need to be addressed and and so that everybody can get their arms around. and do

John isn't isn't your next kind of this then does it make sense to combine some districts isn't that I yeah we need to we need you know I'm not I don't say combine just for the sake of combining but some of the districts that we have

and where they're located you walk between neighborhoods there's really no differentiation you know the commercial districts you know It's to me you put them into two buckets. One that's vehicular oriented, one that's pedestrian oriented. You know, you don't need to have five or six different commercial districts because in one district you may be allowing a different use than in another one. So, we can start, you know, I can start throwing out ideas to you, but you know, you need to kind of give me like you are tonight. Give me some good feedback. Well, some of the commercials intertwined in a neighborhood and some of it's not quite maybe backs up to a neighborhood, but it's different. I think that's some of the difference in the rules, too. But

the bigger question to me is should some whole zoning districts kind of be reassigned to a different district? You know, you think of the whole the west side on the other side of the river, you know, it's all zoned multifamily, right? But but largely it's all single family houses. I mean maybe there's apartments and duplexes and things like that, but the character of the neighborhood is single family houses. Well, but you want to be careful not to recategorize it as single family because those duplexes are still a key out. Well, no. What you want to do is have a code that says this is a certain type of neighborhood and within that neighborhood

you can have duplexes and you can have an apartment as long as they meet the the uh the uh dimensional standards. Uh so that that you know that becomes kind of like a you know that's a very traditional type of a neighborhood where you have the ability to have multi-generational families living in it and you know you have a duplex here you know and but I think they know but as as illustrated vividly in the uh answers the questionnaire uh duplexes triplexes and quadlexes are a flash point. Well, triplexes and quads, they're a great concern. You're already

to people in single family home. You're already allowed duplexes. I understand. Is that flexes and quadlexes were the ones on the survey, which again is some visual explanation, those pattern books that that that webinar uh it had duplexes and triplexes. You couldn't tell they were duplexes and triplexes. You looked at them, they look just the same as a regular house.

That's perfect for a new for a new build. I agree with you of it. It's perfect. What I also drive past Jackson and Engles and every day and there are houses that were converted years ago to from nice large what were doctor's homes when I was when I was a we little kid. They were that was the first hill was Jackson's tree and those big doctor's homes were converted into quadplexes and arises and I tell you they look terrible and again it goes back to we have really strong standards on what we want in our new apartments and our new we need enforcement or code too I think if we're going to put quadlexes in and we need a rental you. It's nothing that we haven't talked about, but you've seen in the comments where people are really concerned about lacking code enforcement.

Right. Exactly. And people are saying, "We need to have rental code enforcement." Now, it's unfortunate that somebody takes a big large historic home and they they they they put in two units and then over a period of time it it it looks degraded primarily because it's an investment property and the people aren't reinvesting in it, right? But that's not because of zoning. That's because of the lack of enforcement. So,

and I guess my only concern is without a strong rental code, a rental inspection code, then past behavior is is a pretty good predictor of future behavior. And um you know, you can't use zoning to make people uh maintain their property. That that's the that's the enforcement part. I guess my point is both these things have to happen at the same time. They have well they have to have they have the city council. We did come up with a zoning ordinance and the city council doesn't want rental or it's coming back to them.

Yeah. My my concern was how do I um um how do I facilitate that because it's requires a lot more inspections. Uh, and I currently don't have the staff to to facilitate that. Now, we can do some contracting some of that those inspections out, but we have a hard enough time keeping up with short-term rental inspections and then when you add a thousand rentals um to that, that's that's a that's a significant lift. So, I don't want to set us up for failure either. So, I certainly see the value in having that ordinance. I think it's much needed, but I also need to be out of to facilitate that ordinance and making sure we're we're following our own ordinance and how how often we have to inspect. So certainly that's going to come back to city council hopefully early in in 26 once we get re receded. So that's that's on our list for sure. So, I'll start putting some stuff together for you to react to. Okay.

Thank you. And then we'll have a when we get enough material, we'll have a community openhouse like we allow people to come in and tell us what they like or like. All right. Commissioner comments. So, the um proposed walkway between the loft apartments and like Piper, what used to be Parker Road. Yeah, they talked about there anyway. That's a green one.

Yeah. Um I've noticed there's more and more car tracks going down through there off of Piper off that parking lot. People construction related or No, people going out. It's just people are driving instead of going back out onto the street. Something about that. They're just cutting. I don't know if trees Something needs to be added to keep people from cutting through cutting through on on through the what's seated now.

They had just put down the mesh the seat and it wasn't construction cut. It was a It's more than one car came out Elton Parker left. A little too much cider. Yeah, too much cider. I don't know. shortest distance between two points. A series of tax,

right? Any other commissioner comments? One other thing, um, does the city maintain the vertical space above sidewalks, um, hedges that have gr overrown from property that it's like in Grove Street. That's supposed to be the the homeowner's responsibility. Well, it's been that way for years and years. Actually, can be technically unless it's a tree in the in the greenway. It's it's it's hedges and things like that that are homeowner side. No, it's on you're talking sidewalk. Yeah. Okay. 25% of the sidewalk. Now,

you had mentioned that to me previously and I couldn't I tried to pay attention when I when I drove that area. Maybe you can tell me forward and walk. Okay. But that's not the only place. There's also new city trees that have been planted that the branches are at level. No, you don't have that one hand on

under updates. Next month, you're going to have in front of you the major amendment to Naple Block and it won't be a review, but it's going you're going to be getting you're likely will be getting a request uh for a uh amendment to the PUD for view for uh U-Haul. It's still persistence. I don't And uh they're going to submit a formal application for a but they they don't think they have the outdoor at this point. No. Okay. That's close.

So, but that will be just for to schedule a public hearing for January, but that is still coming. and Jimmy D. They're they've submitted their final plans. We have a we have an internal development review on Friday. We'll see where they're at. On Jimmy Johns, when since we said write out only a lot of times when you have a right out, you actually have curvies. Yes,

that will be in there. So, force for people that follow the curve, right? anything going on with the family videos that must expired by now. It has part of the um the hope with Jimmy John's was a response from the clinic to address some landscaping if I remember correctly. Has there been any movement there? We we've talked to Jimmy Johns about pushing some of their landscaping towards that direction. Yeah. I mean, didn't didn't we feel

Yeah, we have to talk Yeah, we have to talk to them about it. They were going to Well, we were supposed to approach the owner of the urgent care to continue the landscaping that they didn't do in the first place. Well, there is landscaping there, though. I'm not sure but not not the highest not the quality that was on table and farm. All right. I call this meeting adjourned at 7:36. Thanks for