City of Ferndale Planning Commission 05-14-2025

Oh, okay.

But you probably could register your license plate too in the senior planning commission.

It's 630. I'm gonna it's 632. I'm going to call the the planning commission meeting for Wednesday, 05/14/2025 to order. Let's start with the roll call. Commissioner Moscili?

Yes. Commissioner Newman?

Yes. Commissioner Azar? Here. Commissioner Brazen? Here.

Commissioner Hall?

Here.

Commissioner Subhashitani? Here. Commissioner Pawlika? Here. Vice chair Shon Walter?

Here.

Motion to excuse chair Foster until she arrives.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion stands. Next, I'd like to, we're going to approve the agenda. Do we have a motion to approve the

agenda? Motion. Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? A final next, we have the approval of the minutes from 03/19/2025.

Motion to approve the minutes with one edit, that I arrived late, which doesn't show in the minutes.

It just shows that I was absent from the entire meeting.

You know what time you arrived?

We did make a note of it.

Yeah. As I walked in, commissioner I'm sorry, chair Foster mentioned.

Yeah. I have it written on my notes to you.

Okay.

Like, I don't know, 08:30. Maybe not even that late, 08:00. But I'd listen to it on the way in.

So was it first, was it second, I'm sorry.

Support or second.

We have a motion from

I did. I'll get a

motion from Councilman Polica in support from, Commissioner Brazen to accept the meeting minutes as amended. All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. Now it's time for the call to audience. So during the call to audience, this is for anyone to come up to the podium to discuss anything that is not on the agenda. Anything that is on the agenda, which is the public hearing on the zoning ordinance amendment, you'll you will there will be time to for public hearing during that.

But anyone who has some something besides the immediate agenda topic can have a few minutes.

Good evening. I'm Jenny Beaker. I'm a Ferndale resident and also the executive director of the DDA, and this has been on my to do list for months.

Real quick, can you, state your address?

Do I have to give my address? Yeah. 300. Yep. 300 East 9 Mile.

Okay.

So yeah. Yeah. This has just been on my to do list for many months now. It's just to come and introduce myself. There I know several of your faces, but not all of your faces.

I was a resident member on the planning the zoning steering committee. What was that called for Zone Ferndale? So, yeah, that's, I'm a graduate of fun and learn, which is what got me interested in being on the steering committee and then kind of segued into a role for which I am very passionate about Downtown Ferndale, so it makes sense. And like I said, just wanted to introduce myself. My office is right across the hall.

I have a staff person, Summer Realy. We, have our DDA board meetings the second Thursday in the morning of each month. So we'll actually be meeting this Thursday instead of last Thursday. But anything we can do from the downtown, please let me know. I appreciate the attention y'all gave to the zoning ordinances, the accommodations, and clarifying a lot of things that affect our downtown businesses and people's experience in the downtown.

So thank you all for the work that you do.

Thank you. And not seeing anyone else approaching the podium. I'm gonna close the call to audience at 06:36. Now we have a public hearing which was is for, zoning ordinance amendment. So, I'm gonna let, Roger from city explain.

I have to load this up. Alright. Thank you, vice chair Showalter. So as you recall, the planning commission spent a lot of time adopting the new zoning code, which was adopted by city council on 12/16/2024. I said through that process many times that we would come forward with code amendments in due time because as we apply the code, we'll find things that don't work well.

We're gonna find additional grammatical errors, formatting errors, or things that should just be simplified. So in the packet, I have uploaded a Word document PDF, one titled red line, so you'll see the red line comments, and one titled clean. Of course, I can't stop reviewing it. So post that, I reviewed it again, but pages one through 71. So I sat down today, read every word again through pages one through 71 of the clean version and had some additional changes.

But I really feel confident when reviewing that off the clean version that we'll be in a really good spot. So what I'd like to do is actually jump towards a version you don't have. It's called clean two. There's not that many changes. Run through them.

If nobody has really concerns, then we can go back to the other one, and I'll combine them. So I'm gonna start with this new version. It's on the screen.

And And so so sorry to interrupt, but so we're so I know that we've had time to review the claim one version, but not we none of us have seen the claim two version. I'm not sure if I feel comfortable to vote on something that I haven't had time to review.

I think if you let me run through them, you'll find that most of them are probably not issues. If there's any the commission doesn't feel comfortable with, and these are just my recommendations. So any of them that you don't like, you guys can say remove that. We don't like that. But scrolling down, you can see I have no red.

Oh,

no. Also through the chair, we're going to after presented or after we're presented with the changes, do the public

Mhmm.

Audience for this item. Okay.

I I'd also ask if you could increase the percentage of the document so it So

you can read it? The screen. Yeah. Problem is I don't think this is right. My old

yeah. Down at the bottom right, there's a bar that says % you can go up to.

I will. Give me one second because I don't

Do you see what I'm talking about?

Yeah. But I'm looking for this isn't the version. I don't know why I don't see any changes in this one.

You need to view it as or review? You need to click on the review to show the

On a totally different computer. Oh. But I went through and made my changes today, and I'm wondering if I didn't save them. Okay. At which point,

not gonna be there. So some someone also who is well, we're looking for that. So so just discussion amongst is this something that we can can we vote on the version two since it hasn't been publicly

Well, sure. Because you guys this is staff's proposed changes. But this but it

hasn't been publicly posted on the website. So I don't know.

Yeah. It it it wouldn't matter because as we're reviewing it, if if, council commissioner Azar suggest that maybe we change this and we say, oh, okay. That makes sense. So that would be a change that wasn't on the original document. So we can we can, during this meeting, we can accept additional changes that might not be on the document that was posted.

This isn't a public hearing.

Okay.

So it's it's just our changes. So

Okay. I just wanna make sure it's on the up and up.

Nope. Yep. It's

But if I didn't save my changes, we might not be reviewing my changes.

But it is a public hearing?

This is not a public hearing?

Yes. It is. It is identified as an agenda.

But the same thing applies. If you wanted to change anything, reject any of my changes, add new changes, you could do it here. The public is invited to give comments.

But they're invited to give comments on the changes that have been posted. And if they don't know if there's any additional changes that have been posted, I don't I'm not sure if that's giving them enough time to make

If I was showing these, I think you'd see some of our mostly grammatical spacing, minor stuff. So I don't know the public care, but you can still make changes.

Pardon me. Are we, approving this, with So with finality, or are we just sending it to city council for the final people?

So as part of the process for a zoning ordinance

Actually, before you say that, chair Foster just, entered the meeting at 06:43PM, and I will pass the chair on to to chair chair Foster.

Thank you, vice chair Sherwalter, and I apologize for my tardiness, but great job, and thank you for taking it over. I was able to listen on the way in here. So I just wanna say, for zoning on its amendment, we do, we'll have the two public hearings. This will be our first with the public planning commission where we do have the ability to make non substantive changes to what was posted in, and previous to the meeting, per our discussion and per our, recommended changes. The plan the city council will hear on the second reading.

We'll have a, I do believe we have a planning commission or a public hearing at that meeting as well where, similarly, the city council then also has the ability to make edits, to the recommendations that we, sent to them. If they're non substantive, if they are substantive, then they would potentially have to send it back.

Yeah.

And substantive being, obviously, all things in a legal document could potentially be substantive, but, with some, you know, grace in terms of what was already posted and, what we may edit.

Okay. Found the version. Now I just gotta give it to the lectern.

Well, thanks, Roger, for stalling for me to get here. Thanks.

Didn't do it on purpose, but it worked out. Problem is it's on OneDrive. Can we just take a break and have IT we motion for just a couple minute break.

Make a motion to have a five minute recess or break or whatever. Second.

I'm assuming we're back up.

Wait till 06:50.

Did he leave or just stepped out?

He's not awake. Okay. Greg, you want a little bigger? Please.

Go on. Okay.

It fills the screen. It's easier for people to read off. Well, not Too much? A little. Yeah.

Perfect. Try there.

Alright. Well well, it's 06:50 and we're ready to return.

So I apologize for that technical difficulty. Before I continue, I do want to introduce Melissa, who's our new planner.

Oh, hello. Welcome.

So Melissa will come up at the end and introduce herself and talk about where she came from and a little bit of history. But if you see someone sitting there, just wanna explain that. So going through the second clean version, there are no changes until, I think, page six. We're gonna have to correct the numbers because they adjusted, but that's okay. And then no changes through here.

Changes right here. So just to be consistent, residential district to encourage a wider mix of dwellings versus the r one. One unit, two unit, three unit, four unit, and ADs. I call them ADs to be consistent. We can change it to ADUs if people want.

As well as denser residential topologies of multiple dwellings, including loft, residential terrace, neighborhood row row house, and corridor row house. Because in our form based, we have those specific names. Live work dwellings are allowed by special land use approval, and all other uses permitted in the R 1 District. So very basic change. I'm gonna go through these.

If anybody has any questions, tell me to go back.

And

no changes in the used chart. This might be because we're zooming in or something. We'll fix pulling that down. We'll fix having a title at the top of each of these so you can see, the uses. Just grammatical.

And we are I'm sorry to, to interject, but we are using PDF currently, but this will be eventually put into municode. Correct?

Correct. This is a Word document. Right. Well, yes. Yeah.

But then it'll be a PDF on the website and then it'll be a mini muni code.

When you're mentioning, the accessory dwelling unit being called ADs instead, can you make sure that you, adjust the definition on page one seventy six to also say accessory dwelling union AD. It still says ADU on that.

On this version though? Actually, I didn't do a word search, so it might in the version you're looking at. Are you looking at the previous one?

Okay. Yeah. Just just make sure that the definition and the acronyms are consistent.

Yeah. I'll do one last family search single because single was it it was single unit, two unit. So I'll do one last search. The, Woodward Heights overlay, if you look at your current version, it said same as underlying, same as underlying. There were a couple dashes.

It said 50 feet height. I just changed it all to the same as underlying, which, I think is all I won. Right? Alongward Heights South Side and Hilton West Side. It just created more columns, so it's just simpler to say same as underlying.

I

don't know

why this says Through the chair. Roger, I had a question about, we removed three feet away from

That well, that'll be in the other version.

Okay.

We're just gonna go through these simple Okay.

We

have one, see if anybody has any issues. This one, there was a item c here, which is in the other one. I crossed it out here. If you're good with it in the other version, then I'll renumber these or reletter these and correct up here. So this, you know, these would go to c's, and I'll readjust that.

Or use reserved like you I think you did in other instances. I did in

the first version, and then I'm like, if I'm gonna clean it up, I might as well just clean it up. Good point.

So So a quick question on that one. Is it was the idea of keeping the c as reserved was because the d and e comments are the same across the tables. Right?

It was just because I didn't wanna go through the the table and redo all the d's to c's and e's to d's.

Okay. So it's not like by removing the c, we are making this table, Like, do you see what I'm saying? Like, if the comments a, b, d, and e are the same across all the tables, then maybe you see they're not the same. It's just okay.

No. C was something different. So I said I'll just reserve it so I don't have to play around with it. And then I'm thinking if we're gonna delete it, let's move in the next one. Right.

But what I'm saying is, like so if there's table one has a through e, table two has the same comments, a, b, d, and e, but just not c. Doesn't it make it more confusing to change the the lettering in the tables for someone reading it if the e is the same as the d in the previous table?

We'll go look. I don't think there's anything like that. I think I just c was the one I recommended we remove. So I just reserved it so I didn't have to mess around the table and change. I don't think it's related to anything else to be consistent.

This is probably one of the bigger changes and it's very weird. We currently have a definition for double frontage lots. Double frontage lots are very small. They're like Troy Street, West Of Woodward. Right?

Rosie's, SoHo, all those businesses. And really, I think mostly East Troy Credit Union City Hall Library. So in this, we were originally saying both our street front front streeted frontages, which then requires the front street setback. Right? So it complicates it.

Like, say you have a front setback of 10 feet. Right? You're it's 10 feet. It has to be 10 feet setback from both north and south side, and people need some relief for dumpsters or patio area on their backside. So I my recommendation is just get rid of the double frontage lot, which means lots.

A lot has one front yard, which is customarily designated with the street address. This is also known as the principal furniture for building design purposes. A lot also has one rear, which is deck directly opposite, and the two remaining yards are side yards. It just keeps it simpler for 99% of properties in the city, but it's up to the commission.

Yeah. I actually disagree with this. I think we've used that quite a bit. I the corner lots and the double frontage lots. I think we come across corner lots quite often.

I think it's it has been sometimes confusing because there are differences. I can think of, like, maybe Livernois or something like that as an example where on Livernois you have a large Livernois or pine crust or, you know, like, where you have a large I think I'm thinking more of, like, pine crust. We have a really large front setback and then on some of those side setbacks. So I guess I know we have had comp it is complicated, but I think there are instances where it's also it should be in play where this is a frontage to the street and when we should treat it as such. So generally, I think it's we found that it was kind of important to have it in previous years.

But I would like to hear I don't know. What about everyone else? I don't know if we've really had to deal with that, especially, at the commission level. I think this, you know, takes place on, residential quite often. Well, especially the corner lots, double frontage.

We also don't have a lot of development on those properties, so we haven't had to deal with that too much, not in recent years.

So the corner lots, I don't think really have a difference in the code. So the setback, I think it used to be five feet for your side, and if you're a corner lot, it's six feet. We went to five feet for both sides. So when you have a corner lot, I don't think there's any difference now on it being a corner lot versus a side. Does that make sense?

Like, they're not they're not treated at the corner. So take Rosie's for example. The Allen Street, I don't think there's anything in the code that treats that differently, Allen Street versus their east side. Setback, height.

Right. But the front setback would be different than the side setback.

Correct. The front setback

Mhmm.

Would apply now here's the weird part. I think in the building design, it says your principal one gets the design. So the design of the building, the important piece in the front versus percentage of materials, whatever, use Rosie's, would be nine mile. We would not apply it to the Troy side. So that only applies to one of them.

But the weird part is when you have buildings, if you look at Troy Street, there's usually a gap to the back of the building, 20 feet. If one of those buildings tore down, you would make them build to the average of the front and the average of the back. And if they don't get any area for patio, there's no flexibility to it. So, it's hard when you're applying this to, like, each property and trying to think through. Where if it's a double frontage, I need to treat both sides Well as a street frontage.

Through the chair. In in those instances, I mean, if if a building, you know, between Allen and Woodward, you know, were to be replaced, you could also just do it specially, you know, we could say, well, you know, in this circumstances, if you didn't wanna build all the way out to the to the corner or up to the zero lot line in the back, you wouldn't have to. My concern is is that they'd be allowed to. And then you have this one building that sticks out all the way to the sidewalk, which kind of interrupts what the view is today, you know, or where you have that open space.

Well, then you can only allow them to do that if they get a PUD or a variance.

Well, I think if we want to maintain that setback specifically on Troy. I guess what I'm also concerned about is if we treat it as your rear yard rather than a front yard. We just put in a lot of investment on Troy Street through the city in hopes that that is treated as more of a main street frontage versus an alleyway. And so if I think if we just want that setback, we can write in, that Troy Street has a different setback on that north side. Like, there's a way that we can treat it for that specific instance, but that doesn't mean that we're treating it as a rear yard because I think that it's not.

Sure. I would ask what's the difference. So if we call it a double frontage, we're saying both are street front streets.

Mhmm.

Then you have to meet the setbacks. If we're saying, no. We wanna keep the language of double frontage, but on Troy Street, you get a different setback. It is like removing the double frontage. Because then

we double We have different

I mean, setback's not the only standard that we are reviewing when it's a front versus a rear. Like you just said, we have different design standards for a front yard.

Through through the chair, I'm wondering if we should just note this to be pulled out of this first packet

Yeah.

So for discussion in the second so that Roger can get through this

We can. In the end, if you don't if the dealing is we don't wanna do it, it's okay.

Yeah.

I think this is a bigger deal that we were not necessarily prepared for to discuss tonight. So I agree, Michelle.

To the chair, the only other issue that I would have would be the lots in which we do allow some, leeway in what can be allowed on the side of the house, like air conditioners on corner lots are allowed in certain circumstances on the side of the house as opposed to the back of the house.

I don't think so. I think you make a good point. I think it says you cannot install them on your side yard. Right. And then I guess what you're saying is you consider the other side of corner and that's not a side, but we probably would consider I'm thinking of the building probably would consider both the sides.

They wouldn't probably differentiate, but it's an interesting I think, how that's how Scott would do it. You say we get rid of corner, then both are just the sides. You can't put it in the side, and now it affects those people.

I mean, I believe you can do side yard as long as they're screening. Yeah.

At the CE director's determination that it's not an impact to the neighbor next door and you're gonna screen it, then, yes, you can. These really look like changes. They're really not. I just clarified because we just said for two unit, three unit, four unit, the rear yard is 20 feet. But in the R 2 district, you can actually have a multiple unit too.

Right? So I just like to clarify that for this district, because it's it's different. These numbers were wrong. So in the use chart, it said 30, and I think maybe you mentioned it, Michelle. Mhmm.

And

then here it said 25. So I just went with the use of the dimensional standard. So it was 30 here and, again, clarified and multiple units in the R 2 residential district.

I'm sorry. Could you go back? Did it was it trying to say that for one unit, two unit, three unit, it's 25, and then for multi units, 35?

Correct. For two unit, three unit, and four unit, and multiple units in the R 2, it's actually 35. So what we wanted to do in building is instead of putting the higher number over here, right, and then we see 35, and we approve a single family home in the R 1 at 35 and really show them 30. We put the more restrictive in there. So 30 is the more restrictive, but then we spell out, here's why.

And so let me go up here so you can

Thank you.

No.

That's Well, no. More it's the one unit that's differentiated.

Maximum height. So 30 feet if it's a one unit on the r one, and two to four is 35.

Thank you.

So both if you're a one unit, you get 30, asterisk if you're a two or four or two four multiple units. I'm sorry. That could probably clarify a little bit more too because

No. That was helpful to see. And it's basically a density bonus. So if you wanna put, multiple units on a lot, you get a a high incentive.

So there's two different ideas. For two unit, three unit, and four unit, in the r one and two, you can be 35 and multiple units in the r two. So it's multiple units is tied just to the r two too because you can't do multiple units in r one.

Okay. Mhmm.

Fix this. And then I hope I get this.

Can you

go back for a second? Yeah. Did it say minimum 30 feet? I thought it was maximum. More?

That's rear yard, says that.

Oh, I'm sorry. Never mind. I thought we were looking at height.

Two different ones. So the for the rear yard, it's a minimum, and for the height, it's a maximum. Yeah.

Okay. Yep. Then here, I think we had 20 feet before, and I think that was the higher number maximum in the MXD one is zero feet. 20 feet for multiple units slash commercial in the MXD one. So zero is the maximum front yard setback.

Minimum mean.

Let me scroll down more. Here we go.

When adjacent to an r one or r two residential of

five feet is recorded.

And I have to think about all this stuff. Maximum?

The opposite that the minimum is zero.

Zero? Let's go up. That was MXD one?

Mhmm.

15 d 15 d 15 d. And then side yard setback? Zero e. Front yard minimum maximum. Oh, there we go.

It's 15 d, which does an average. Maximum is 20. So then, yes, that should be

In our previous ordinance, didn't we have a shorter minimum?

Maybe. Let me zoom through these. These are just gonna take from the used chart, but there's other stuff in the used chart that I don't think we agreed with. So it might alleviate all these. Okay.

So just

so are we looking right now at the version two red marks? Version two.

These are ones that you don't see.

It's We have

Do we want

to table this until we have time to actually look at it?

But he said yeah. He said we were gonna table these and then just keep scrolling to further through the easy ones.

Probably in the next one.

Yeah.

These pages I didn't do. I didn't have time today, but it matched the same exact thing. We would go to the lower number so we don't make a mistake, and we clarify it because we made the dimensional chart.

So you're just clarifying on what was already approved in the dimensional chart for the most part.

Unless you change something on the version you have, then that'll change. So this was all just I will quadruple check it. I didn't review any of these pages because after the second or third one, I was getting confused. Vacant and abandoned businesses clarifying no outdoor storage, including materials, equipment, recreational vehicles, vehicles, boats, or similar is allowed. So a vacant abandoned building or business, when you close after ninety days, vehicle parking and outdoor storage are prohibited.

I guess I probably could combine that with c. Within thirty days, all nonconforming signage removed, and this clarifies a little bit more and stuff.

It's a bit confusing as there's no outdoor storage, but at the end, it says is allowed.

No outdoor storage is allowed.

Yeah. But if we think outdoor storage

is not allowed would be a better

No outdoor storage is not allowed?

Outdoor storage is not allowed.

It's Nothing is allowed. All you're if you don't see the nothing, it's just is allowed.

Yeah. I would just get rid of is allowed or or similar yeah.

It's it's so it's technically grammatically correct, but it is confusing because of the distance with the, the listing of the the things that you cannot have. So If

you're good with so just get

rid of is allowed and and just have it boats or similar. Yeah.

Just outdoor storage is prohibited. Or no yeah. Outdoor storage prohibited or no outdoor storage is allowed including yada yada.

Why don't I combine a and c and say something like vehicle parking and storage and outdoor storage including materials, equipment, boats, or similar, except as necessary for construction, connection with the building permit, or for maintenance of the site is allowed or change language? Because of it. Well, we do get a lot, I'm noticing, as I drive around boats and other things. So the first piece, such as vehicle parking and outdoor storage

So yes. So just combine them and to to to emphasize.

I think just as as cover, maybe we could include a couple in there, but I can combine a and c if everyone wants

to.

It should be combined.

Be like vehicle parking and outdoor storage, materials, equipment, recreational vehicles, etcetera, That's necessary.

I have a quick clarification. What what qualifies as a vacant or

a man Right.

There's

a there's a there's a definition, I believe.

Is it registered with the city as a business closes?

No. So we actually just created a vacant structure program, which complements this. But that's just a general catch all that if you're a vacant and abandoned building that you haven't been there more than ninety days, you can't have outdoor storage.

I was wondering if it's building or property where there was a business.

Any well,

I'm just thinking, going back to our food truck conversation.

If it's an after storage

If it's a vacant lot that there was a business on.

No. That's an outdoor store.

I don't wanna money it. I just

I think that's covered in outdoor storage, which is

that That's what was going through my head.

Mhmm. Alright. Architectural features, I think in your version, it may project 23 feet from the building. Don't want 23 feet. I accidentally had the three.

I meant to scratch it out, so it's two feet. There's a spacing here. This, I just skipped over. Building grades, newly constructed parking lots, buildings, and projects undergoing sufficient alteration as engineer must provide stormwater detention. That's in a separate section.

All that's already covered. So we can scroll down and see that.

So should you reference that section?

No. Because this is just related to grades. There's a whole stormwater section.

Right? Scroll up. I want I wanna read what's

The three zero five? The building grades?

Yeah. Building grade itself.

Essential services I don't want this here. Essential services are permitted as authorized under the franchise in effect of the city, subject to the regulations. How are buildings associated with an essential service are subject to special land use? All that is covered in the use chart. So I don't know why we've broken it out.

It says essential services, no building, essential services, building. All the buildings require special land use. These end up getting renumbered if we remove one of the items above. Fencing, we don't allow any fencing in the rear yard in the CBD. We've had issues where people do wanna demarcate the space a little bit.

We don't want six foot fencing. So I propose that it'd be four foot fencing. There is this also decorative fencing in there that automatically allows all fencing 36 inches. So Now if you

look on Troy Street you look on Troy Street, all of that fencing, it was actually installed by the city.

Also technically a front yard Yeah. Currently.

Yes. This would apply in that particular case if we get rid of the front. If we don't, then it becomes comes a little bit mute because it's a front yard. We have this problem. I the parking lots, I guess, are not regulated by the International Property Maintenance Code.

So I have language in here. All parking lots shall be in good condition, characterized by a smooth, durable, and well maintained surface. No more than 20% of the parking lot area shall have potholes or surface integrity issues. No more than 20% of the underlying base and or subbase should be structurally unsound. Parking lot shall have visible striping and parking stall, pedestrian crosswalks, and similar.

So I guess that is not regulated by the International Property Maintenance Code, which I was did not know.

Well, if that gets passed, someone needs to have a conversation with seven eleven dot Hilton and Dan Hile.

Yes. We do.

We're not specifically picketing on any businesses, but there are lots of businesses that I've told code enforcement, like, this is just a pothole nightmare. And I've been told, well, that's not in the property maintenance code. You can't do anything.

What's what's

I would make it say structurally unsound instead of structural unsound. Structurally unsound.

Also, how do we propose to assess the underlying base and subbase from a

Well, I think another if the top base is is broken, right, the base on the bottom potentially is bad.

Right. I mean, I understand how asphalt works, but, like, if we're basing that on Just visually, I mean, 20% of the area having potholes or surface integrity, like, the wearing course of the asphalt, like, the top inch or two is gone. And then, like, the base course also is gone. Like, that still is covered by the potholes. So I would have a hard time being, like, how So you don't need both?

Like, you'd have to do, like, density testing to see like, there's already a pothole there. Like, you can't have a you can't have a known base or subbase issue without seeing

seeing a

or a crack.

I don't disagree. What I did is went to Google and typed what is the definition of a and that came up as a measurement. I agree. It's kind of the surface is what you care about.

Just if the surface is intact but the sub base is not, the only way you'd know that is by doing, like,

density testing. Do we only need the the first sentence?

I'm fine with that. I as I typed it out, I thought I'm probably gonna see it on the surface already. Yeah. So I'll delete that.

Which section is this? What's,

309. General maintenance.

General maintenance.

Lighting

We need to, do we allow for just in terms of, like, sustainability and, do we have, like, different surfaces that are allowed for parking lots that potentially don't meet that definition? That's my only question. And I don't know what we've talked about in terms of, like, using

Like, a permeable, yeah. Permeable surfaces. Private property. I Yeah.

Would that technically be characterized as smooth, durable, and well maintained it shouldn't be?

By Savvy, that's a dirt lot there. So

Probably not. So there's a technicality in that. It could say all parking lots shall be in good condition of the lot unless otherwise approved by the city or something.

And it doesn't necessarily indicate that it's talking about pavements. It's just

if it's smooth and durable.

Intact and it's smooth and it's durable.

Yeah. I just don't know if a permeable would necessarily always be smooth. Oh, so And that's why I'm asking. I don't know.

I mean, if you if it if you're driving over a permeable parking lot and it feels like you're driving on the surface of the moon, I'd still kinda want that to be fixed.

Menace can say all hard surface parking lot shall be kept in good condition. Doesn't address that.

Well, I think we want, like, if it is permeable, we want it to be in well good condition as well. I just don't want us to prevent, a case where somebody is trying to create a more, you know, environmentally friendly surface and that it doesn't meet this. So, I I just wanted to bring that up, so we're not painting somebody in a corner if they have to have asphalt

or not. I think staff would be you know, we would know when we see it. And so it's a permeable driveway.

It's not

gonna be a hard surface. Mhmm. So you just need something to point at when you're citing someone.

Well and there would probably be more requirements for a permeable parking lot because on like, on the east side, you have clay. I mean, the whole idea is that the parking lot the rainwater is draining through the parking lot. You can't put a permeable

Well, if you'd parking

yeah. On you know, on the well, if it wasn't

If it doesn't drain, it would just be like a regular parking lot. Right?

Can we just add, can we just add something like this may include permeable surfaces or something like that?

Three zero nine. This may include

permeable? Allowed permeable surfaces or something. I I don't even know what we do allow or not allow in the in the rest of the ordinance. I just wanna make sure, especially if people are looking this at this, that they don't feel like they're backed into a corner. Beyond pavement.

Yeah.

So I

think just as it's saying as just for parking lots and it doesn't specify that it's a paved parking lot, then it does

I think it's by debaters and whatever's

No. Permeable.

I'll take a look. I'll run it by the city attorney. We'll get something. I put in here that the city encourages, I don't know how everybody feels, warm lighting tones. Lately, everybody's going to these, you know, 8,000 k LED lights that are blinding me.

Mhmm.

So it doesn't require it, but it says we encourage the warmer tones. I don't know how people feel about that.

So if you encourage warm lighting tones not to exceed 3,000, you're no longer just encouraging them?

Yeah. Oh, not to exceed.

It's Oh, because it's warm. The ACID encourages warm lighting tones 3,000 k or less?

That

you can say oh, yeah. Something like that.

The the lower the Kelvins, the the warmer it gets. But, I mean

Just the language of not two.

Yeah.

Three three thousand or less would work.

3,000 or less.

Is 3,000 or less the right It's just

it's just an encourage mandate.

I'm just wondering because 3,000 is pretty darn warm.

I wonder if there's lighting design guidelines.

Can you look into that number, the 3,000, it might be 3,500 might be Would that be sensor based too? It's it doesn't warmth doesn't really isn't sensor really doesn't affect warmth. It just when you look at a lot, it's like it doesn't look like red light or like blue light.

Yeah. So 6,000 is kind of the differentiator.

And is this for for interior or exterior?

Yeah. Because the first I item one says interior, but item three says

exterior. So

are are we encouraging it for both or just the exterior? Like,

We don't, really have jurisdiction of internal unless it is exceeding the building.

There's something in the lighting or there was that said something about, like

But something that you can see through the windows.

Yeah. That you're blind people. So here is the best one. And this is 3,000. Right?

Still got this tone. It's measurement can be anywhere. Which one's 3003 right here. How many from the left?

Third.

Third one.

One to 10.

Oh, we can't see your cursor on these, but if you look behind you, you can see

his cursor.

There is 3,000. Four I mean, I'm still okay with 4,000. It's when you start getting to these that just becomes

Oh, yeah. Obnoxious. Yeah.

Like, 4,500 or something or or, like

I like 3,000.

Yeah. I don't mind it.

Really encouraging.

Yeah. Right? We're encouraging.

Which is

when I do staff reports, I can point to it and say the city encourages this. I already had it happen once on Hilton with the development, and they already changed it. So some will say no and I don't know that we should.

What about the accounting place on, Saratoga and Woodward where you can perform surgery at 3AM?

It's a separate lighting issue. That's legal So I would legal number.

3500 would be the number I was looking for.

There's there's studies also about, like, safety and of the ability to see faces in certain types of light. And one of the reasons why we have lighting in parking lots is for safety. So if there's any if anyone knows of any, you know, correlation between the color and the safety, I think that'd be helpful. But I think what you were pointing to is that kind of, like, daylight white, and so Mhmm. I think that would be well within, the measure of what we're looking for in terms of safety.

We have a couple issues. The, liquor beer store next to the 711 On 9 Mile, you know, they have their lights just out a little bit, and they have a bunch of them. The Get n Go, the Shell gas station, these businesses believe, like, the brighter I make it, the better it's gonna be. But, you know, you're blinded under there and someone approaches you from some feet away. You cannot

really It's actually less safe. Yes. Yeah.

Yeah. Especially in that alleyway going towards S 711. You don't know who's in between there.

Do we have a temperature? Would you wanna pick a number?

We like the, encouragement. Everyone okay with 3,000 or what? If you say less than

We gotta give them a range.

35. It's

candle. Isn't that candle power?

That's different. That is required by code. It's intensity.

And, yeah, maybe it

the color of the light that's cast.

And it maybe we should do a range so it's not too low because if you say less than, then we get some red light districts going on.

I mean, but some of this is probably due based off the fact that old light seems to be old sodium halide lights. And those sodium halide lights had a really low color rendering index, and they you just they you didn't it would like, you couldn't tell if if something was a red car or black car.

Yellow or pink.

So there's a lot more to public lighting than just color temperature.

There's a safety issue.

Yeah. And

note, like, all of you

have mentioned to check the safety So hands before making

And I think we should do it a little bit more rigorously than what I just did, but, Google says be between 11,500 k, a cool white light for outdoor safety lighting. That is the generally recommended scope. So, I think, yeah, just maybe having some sort of range, especially, this is an encouragement. This is a requirement. But to to I think it's important to note that we do want that a little bit warmer, as long as it's safe.

We don't have to put a measure.

We can just say we encourage warmer light tones.

We could say, like, 3,000 to 6,000.

I I just put a question into the person who wrote the IEC standard. Yes. I'll get back with you.

Thank you. Yeah. If you could do that, I also don't mind taking a a better look. I've written, you know, lighting, one of those would be the best.

Application because if you're gonna do this on a wall that faces out, you know, anyone that is facing the opposite direction of the light is gonna be completely in darkness. You're never gonna see that person's face with all that light behind you. But if you're in a parking lot where it's an open space, it's gonna be a different situation.

Well, I think elsewhere, we we talk about the intensity of the light, separately. So

And when you do light colors, I mean, there's a lot of things are you used to decide on what color your lights want to be, what material we're casting it on, what color you're casting it on. And I think I don't know.

But the city also is promoting the

the The ambiance.

The the dark skies.

You know? Oh, that's right.

Yeah. Shielding of light. You know?

Is that

what I'm saying?

And some of these are just giving off such immense brightness. Mhmm.

So this is gonna come up in the other one. We don't spend too much time. This is the, like, form based code, building materials, general architectural standards, and building type standards. I know I think chair Foster had part of this. We'll talk.

If we decide to do that, this is really hard when you go into 04/2005 and it talks about these building designs. Right? Because we really didn't do that many. Retail, theater, financial institution, hotel, there's like seven of them, eight of them. But there's a million uses that are unique like gas stations, but we don't have a form based code for that.

And,

We didn't want something because we wanted it to be

isn't that only in the CBD District?

I think the point of the form based code too is that we're not regulating by use. Is that what by the form that we want? And so therefore, you know, this is the forming massing that we were are looking for. But so what was your point in terms of,

So

I I exempted people from the building design if they were it'll be in the next section. We can bring this forward. Is the reuse of an existing building? Because in the current one, I think it says if you add an addition, it needs to meet the code. It's gonna be very hard to do an addition and make it be a different form based, or is a use which a building type standard does not exist.

So if it's a gas station, I don't know how I'm gonna apply the theater or the retail kind of applies when you have the canopy.

So what was the intention when McKenna created this to for those specific uses that were called out that didn't have a form associated with them?

I don't know. Like, I I don't know where all the form base. I know we wanted to go that direction, but the use chart allows all these uses. Mhmm. So the use chart says you can do it, and then I gotta put them in a

You don't know how to apply the code based on those uses that don't have a correlated form, necrotic.

Yeah. I mean, they they only did, like, seven or eight

of them.

So and I don't think we wanna do a hundred of them. So, but let's when we go to the other one, you'll see those changes, and I think chair Foster will have comments. I changed this all new construction and work that involves the expansion of the building must also meet the requirements of the building types. You'll see it in the other one when we talk about it, but I just said all new construction. All new construction is really easy to apply one of these design standards to.

Oh, it's when I look at I don't know. When I see new construction and when I hear new construction, I think of a new building. And when I hear addition, I think of an addition to an existing building just based off of the way that other codes read. The other codes break it off. New constructions read one way, additions are read another way.

And so by reading all new construction, it also could mean and so are we saying that we don't write that we don't want additions to be follow the these guidelines or do we want additions to follow them?

That'll that'll be up to you. For me, if it's new construction, meaning a new building, then it's easy to put them into a design standard. If somebody wants to do a little bit of an addition, you know, to a retail building, and it's old school, it's gonna gonna be hard, like, through 07:11 if they wanna add to it or something. Hard because in addition to make it match this new building form. But I think it's in the we can pull that to the where the other comments were coming from because you may decide, like, no, we wanna keep it all this way.

I don't think there's much other changes. Scroll it's page 71 that I stopped at. I have the word it's this one's really a terrace. So that changes. I don't think there's anything.

I stopped at five. So what I have here is clarifying ADs in the document, combining a and c in three point o one, which is the part k outdoor storage, structurally versus structural in the word, removing the underbase of the parking lot requirement, just the surface, Including language for the parking lots, permeable approved surfaces does not apply. And then we're waiting on any lighting direction.

Thank you.

We generally go with that. Any

Yeah. And then we're we're tabling a couple of things. Yep. All the rest of

it. Okay. Alright. So now if I go into would you like you wanna review the red line? And you could probably do a PDF, might be easier.

That good? Alright. Numbers might get, have adjusted based on where it's gonna go, but we'll clean all that up. Alright. Any use not expressly permitted within the it said this code.

I mean, it's specifically within the schedule of permitted uses. That's a technical term. It's prohibited, and then when in determining an accessory use, we added intensity of use or other similar metrics. I don't know why I've said years of operation, but that has anything to do with anything on accessory use. So this is someone who has a main use.

They have a smaller accessory use.

Oh, maybe because if you have, say, a restaurant, one year they wanna do retail, but it's just one year, and that's our accessory. But maybe they it was COVID, and so they couldn't do the restaurant. And so then they opened up this big retail store, but then the next year, then it went back to a restaurant. It seems weird. I don't know.

But, like, that's I I don't know if that's a good example, but is that what would may potentially be an accessory use with a year of operation?

Nothing's more permanent than temporary. Like, they would do it, then stopping them would be hard down the line because it works so well, and they wanna continue to do it. Yeah.

I agree. I don't like that. I do have a question about the first sentence that I would like you to ask, our city attorney, because I know that it is illegal to prohibit uses, outright from an ordinance. So I just wanna make sure that we're not I think that if we've already had this in, that's okay. But just to reiterate, since we are making some changes, I just wanted to, make sure that that language isn't gonna give us some trouble.

Yeah. Dan did a great job actually reviewing every single page of this.

Okay.

Because Kyle and I spent hours going

And we haven't really changed, like No. The meaning of that. Okay.

No. You're putting

it in the fine then.

The technical term of schedule of permitted uses and then

gives an exception in the same sentence. There's an exception in the same sentence. So it says program did unless.

That's right. Okay. That's why I didn't make a comment the first time around. Alright. Thank you.

Point point of information, I got an update from the IEC. 2,700 to 3,000 Kelvin is what the dark sky recommendation levels are.

To the 3,000, I said?

Yep. So maybe just leave things to be dark sky?

Maybe just leave the 3,000.

So three three thousand.

Chair, is there a a lower limit that, police require for security cameras?

Alright. Well, we're we're gonna do more research on that. And I think that's a good, question, commissioner Brazen.

Alright. This one was just out of order. So 02/2010 then '2 then '8. Right? I don't know why.

Then '6. '2 thousand '2, '10 thousand '8, thousand '10, '8, '2, and '6. So

I'd

like to renumber these so they go in order from newest to oldest. This is just cleaning up language. We had in, as a definition or the the in most places, it's called a detached single unit. I don't know why a single unit is detached. It's just a single unit.

I'm not really sure. So we just use the terms consistently to encourage a mix of dwellings, single units, two units, three units, four units, and accessory dwelling units will do a word search, in the next one.

Alright. For the clarification also, should that be a one unit instead of a single unit?

Oh, you're right. You know, you're

You gotcha right.

Single. I'll do a word search for single.

I was just about to say I also checked it after Roger, so clearly not well enough.

So just just little stuff, didn't have the word and to promote development. Well, correct correct this. Mixed use. I guess it maybe didn't cross off mix. Specialized industrial operations requiring access by street or railroad.

None of the railroad people can access. It's a terminal. So the railroad does not allow any access to it, so I just removed the railroad. Change all these one unit, two unit dwelling, three unit dwelling, four unit dwelling, multiple dwelling, mixed use dwelling, live work dwelling, accessory dwelling.

Thank you for that cleanup. It was confusing how it was written.

I'm pretty excited. Yeah. I didn't like the term family. I think we talked about that before.

Talk now.

So it's adult foster care. We define it as small, medium, or large. And then the definition changed to

I think we use the state definitions for those, but I don't think it's any issue for us to change it locally. That's just probably where that came from.

Well, good. You think?

I I don't see why it's I mean, it's we're still gonna be able to reallate it. It's mostly based on person, and so I think it's fine.

Mobile vendor, we left in there. It was permitted with an asterisk, but then do we have no section on that yet? So I just removed that line. And okay. Here

we And because we'll add it back in once we have those, we

If we decide to move forward, then we'll just add it back in. So the left column is correcting the language. This column right here where it says, front yard minimum, if you're an r one in a one unit, your setback minimum is 15 feet, except d is the averaging. You're gonna average five people each side, get rid of the highest and lowest, and you're that. So if you're a one unit, we want you to be an average.

If you're two to four units, we want you to be an average. If you're in the r two, you're a one unit average. And then over here, it's not an average. It's a flat 15. So I don't know why if you're five or more are multiple, we want you to be 15 when we allow everyone else to be a little bit closer.

I think it's just a deeded in

Especially when there's not a height difference from the two to four. It doesn't really make sense. I think the only reason it would potentially make sense that you wanna make sure to have that is that you wouldn't want to feel like the a building is looming over you potentially, but it's the same height limit as the two to four, so I don't think that is the case. And, also, it's a 35 foot height limit. It's not that tall.

I didn't think about the height. In the next one, I have the same thing, but that is a taller building.

So that might be the case there, and so we can discuss that. But I think there are certainly instances in the city where we have a a narrower front yard setback for buildings, of a similar height, but I think there's really maybe not that many places.

So do we wanna talk about that? These are, m x d one, your multiple units, five or more commercial. You can be forty five feet in height. Should it match the average of your neighbors, or should it just be a straight 15?

An MXD one.

MXD one. Higher density.

And MXD one is what? Like, Hilton,

Livinoy Livinoy, Hilton, Marshall, maybe?

Marshall is actually what I was thinking when I said Hilton, but thank you. Is Hilton one or two?

It's cool. I hope you can.

Yeah. My product. Alright, Roger. Hilton is we're look looking at light pink. So we got Marshall, Livernois.

South Hilton.

Just as

Hilton as M X T was.

South Hilton.

East West Marshall, you said.

Woodward Heights and

Yep. A little bit up here.

Iron Ridge. Yeah.

So it's the more of the neighborhood feel where you do have those existing buildings, I think it makes sense to be flexible on the front yard setback with the average within five feet. Anyone opposed to the change? And then for MXD 2, we had previously had a minimum of zero foot and a maximum of 10, and then we're proposing the same 15.

Yeah. So MXD 2, if you're two to four units, you can average. But if you're five or more or commercial, you have to be zero. So I didn't I I didn't know what why would you now be the opposite? We want you to be there so I had it match.

Here's my general take on it. We've made this complicated by the type of density it is and all these things. The more we have in here, the more there's a mistake.

Or just variability as well. And so I would think that we would want a consistent street wall, particularly on MXD 2 when it's more of a commercial wall where you would want that consistency, in area I mean, it's similar in any of these areas. Right? We're trying to provide for the ability to have housing and commercial. It's a mixed use area.

Typically, in a commercial area, you want some of that consistency, and, but as well as in our residential area. So it makes sense, I think, to have that consistency. I think in MXD 2, which, we just saw is more so, like, North Hilton. Is there other areas? Woodward?

Oh, along Woodward outside of the CBD. So particularly on Woodward, I think that's probably why we have that zero foot because it's consistent with the CBD, but having a little bit of a flexibility so that you can have a setback. So I think that does make sense. We're but, again, where we're differentiating, if you have a two or four unit, again, I think it's it's probably better to have consistency. I don't see why you would necessarily have, up to a 20 foot setback along Woodward if you have four unit residential mixed use building.

I guess, did we based on the second column in MXD 2, did we add that five plus unit slash five plus units, multiple unit? Like, was it previously just commercial?

No. It was, it said five plus the language we used before was five plus units slash commercial.

So

that was cost out, and I just put multiple units because that's our definition.

Would it make sense to do zero with the d then to allow it up to zero? I think is that similar to

Well, it does. So it's 15 feet is your setback. D, you average. And so if we look down at d

So I'm confused because it's

a two to four two

to four. Can it also be made where you have a commercial unit? Like, it almost seems like we're cutting it out where you couldn't have a four unit mixed use development, which I think you should be able to. So some of that nomenclature is a little bit confusing, because it should all be mixed in this.

It should all be mixed?

Well, it's a mixed use. So I would think that we're allowing even if it's a a four unit building. So, like, I'm thinking of on South Hilton, where we have those townhomes, if those were, like, a four unit townhome with a front, commercial unit, like, that would be allowable. If you have two to four units, I don't think that negates the possibility of having commercial per our design of the the mixed use.

Is is just slash commercial

a only commercial? Right.

Like, if it's only commercial and not also including residential, then you have to follow

Is there a need to differentiate these at all? Shouldn't it just be

I don't know. I got really started getting confused

with people. I don't know why we have it separate.

Should be, like, MXD two with residential without what residential, and does that matter?

Or, like, yeah. I just think it should all be the same. I mean I don't know.

Personally, on a, application, if it was r one, r two, MXD, would make it so much easier.

Like so here's another example, I guess. So if I'm thinking of, like, Pleasant Ridge North on Woodward, they have those townhomes that are set further back than the commercial units to either side. I guess maybe that's kind of what this is kind of, like, designing for, having a little bit further setback if it is just a residential unit.

Yeah. That

Should we

So, for example, when the 9 the West 9 Mile came in Yep. And and we wanted them to set back a little bit. We didn't want them to go right up. And it wasn't a matter of an average, but we were encouraging them not be on the front. Am I am I mixing things up right now?

Because they had some flexibility. It was like the a zero to 10. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Because they had zero and they built up to the sidewalk and it was just like a four story rebuilding, like, right on the sidewalk.

Now this does have, somewhat to somewhat 15 feet is a setback above the third story on nine mile between Planabout and Bermuda. So if you're a higher building, we want you to set back the higher levels of it.

So, like, because I I'm trying to, like, relate it to the rest of our or not because we have this form based in the MXD two. We do allow for, I believe, like a duplex or a a two unit, a three unit Mhmm. Or four unit. So is that referencing the building type, the two to four unit, and then a multiple unit dwelling, and then what's the commercial? So this is where it's a little bit confusing as these don't necessarily relate.

Right? Is this something that we

Well, the I think this is supposed to complement the form base. So one unit is a definition.

Like, we have a mixed use dwelling. Mhmm.

So But that's only allowed in what zone districts?

Does graphic help? Which one? The MXD 1 and MXD 2. Is there a spot? Is it The MXD 1 and MXD two.

Is there a spot?

Is it just when in the different building forms that say which districts it's permitted in? It just went in the different building forms that say which districts it's permitted in? Mhmm. Okay. So the mixed use dwell like, we basically need a matrix of the different districts and then the building types that are allowed in each of them.

Do we have that?

We have that. Okay.

So we

have two things with we have these sheets that say the r one and where it's allowed, and then if we come way down to four three. Maybe that's 443404405. We have this. Okay.

This is what we need. Yeah.

So I'm looking at this. I'm a little bit confused by some of this. So, like, let's say that you so let's let's say that you're you're a developer and you want and you would like to develop and, you wanna build a single family household in r one.

Mhmm. That's good.

Look looking at this okay. It looks like I can't do a single fat unit following.

You're spot on. But within the r one, r two, MXD, MXD two, it's two d d, all new construction work that involves the expansion. It says somewhere

else It's confusing. Mhmm.

It doesn't

Hold on. It says somewhere else. I'm never gonna find it.

That you don't need to follow these particular

That you don't follow one one and two family are not

You need to add that, I think, to that section, ma'am.

It it's somewhere. I'm never gonna find it right now. But you already higher. You're absolutely right. Can't find it.

Yeah.

They can't find it. Yeah. Right.

You're absolutely right. I found it. You're absolutely right, vice versa, because then I looked at this, it was like, so you can't even build a a single family home in the R 1, and then it's somewhere else says one and two family.

Well, I I was under the impression when we were going through the the the study sessions that the building type standards were not applicable in r one, r two, and were only applicable in a certain few districts.

That's what this is saying.

And but that's what that's saying within the r one, r two, MXD one. I it's it's it added r one and r two in those form based districts.

No. I I that's thing is I think we said single family and two family, you know, that's buy right you can do it. Where we care about your design is if you're putting a three plex or a four plex in a neighborhood, then we care what your design looks like.

Or multi unit. Yeah.

Or multi unit. We care what that looks like.

Etcetera. Yeah. But so, yeah, we should just have something in those in the single unit, two unit. Also, he's suggesting that because there's, a stacked and a side by side, and those are differentiated in the different building types, so he kinda narrowed them to one. But yeah.

Instead of the white box, we should have some, like, asterisk or something that talk like, references the exception.

Or Because, like, looking at, like, neighborhood you're right when you said that these way too few of these and like the more time I spend with this, the more I look at this, I'm like, I think of this as like, like you're right, there is no gas station and what but we like and while that usually wasn't applicable when we had C1, C2, but now we switched everything to the MX Mixed Use.

Typically, what you would have would be a drive through. And then any kind of drive through, a bank, restaurant, etcetera, would have those design features in here. And then it would identify in the use I mean, if you're doing a strict form based code, you actually don't even have a use, matrix or whatever. But you should have in the use matrix, this would then be aligned with this building type. And so since we don't have a drive through, which is very interesting, how do we know what is and how are you supposed to, without that matrix, know the the variety that we have put in the use matrix and what they apply to as a building sign.

I don't know. I this is the same thing we went through that. There's a development proposed North Of The 711 On East, and he wants to do, like, the town homes, like, around the South Field, which I think are completely fine. Mhmm. And then I found a way that you could do it, but as I've applied one, I'm looking at the use chart, and then I'm looking at this form based, and then I'm looking at all these very good setbacks.

And I'm like, oh, this is a little harder than I thought.

Well, some of it will take getting used to. Some of it needs to be cleaned up and actually corrected. So let's stick to what we can do this evening and if there's anything in particular that we need to get done, to move forward at this moment. And then I think we might maybe we can have a a committee that would test some of this to kind of, like, walk through. I don't know if we've actually done that with, and I know that we have plenty of architects on our commission that could potentially say, okay.

Well, if I'm going to do this, like, how is that going to be then executed on?

Yeah. Would that be helpful? Even when you do that, you're looking through your lens of something very narrow, and then I get an application for a car wash. It's like, oh, I didn't think about that. So some of these and one some of these changes are necessitated by a development on West Marshall Street where I'm like, okay.

This doesn't work here. I think some of it's just gonna be the next application comes in and you're like

Case by case.

Oh, it doesn't work. I don't want to start admitting the code every time someone applies for something

and then start admitting Certainly not. Them. But in the like, very generally, it seems like we have some some structural issues in terms of if this use comes in that is specified in our use chart, but is not specified in the like, we need to be able to connect those two so that you know exactly which code and restrictions you're using on the the specific

That's why I wrote the exception is that if you're not one of these building types, then you're exempted. Your materials might still apply. And I think you've said it before. I think I'm realizing it. Like, if we go all fund based and get rid of the use charge and everything, that would be great.

Not love it, but it would be great. If we get rid of all the form based and keep very dimensional stuff, that would be great. We're trying to do a hybrid

Mhmm.

And that's where it's throwing it off.

They don't seem to be connected well enough that you can easily but I I mean, I've seen ordinances where you it does work well, and so we just have to, I think, get there. And so that's why I guess I was suggesting a working group where we can kind of, like, identify how that works. Because, really, these the the the specific standards in each of the forms aren't so specific that you can't use them to apply to different like, it's it's really just I mean, there's some, you know, fenestration and whatnot, but, typically, like, it shouldn't be too confining that with the exception of not having a drive through, form, all the other things should be able to fit into a form that we've already identified. That should be the case of the quote.

It should be. I think if we went through the use chart, we would find probably a lot more. You know, like, drive through is just one. Car wash is a very particular design.

Mhmm.

I could probably go through that and find, I would think, twelve, thirteen, 14, 15.

But I mean, but looking at, like, for example, car washes, car washes are in the oh, that's it was switched from C 2 to MXD 1. So back when it was C 2, it was down the street, and it didn't have to comply to foreign based zone. And so but and we only we're focused on foreign based in a smaller section of the city. But now it sound now that mixed use kind of exploded all throughout the the city, it's

The form based? Like, I thought the form based was applying to all commercial. We added residential at the end, but I always thought it was applying to CBD, MXD, eye,

all of

them. Mhmm.

Let's try to get through this. You're absolutely right. Alright. So going back up here, I think we're good with this. MXD two

Well, we're a bit confused by this, I think, still. But, yes, I think, generally, we agreed on m x d one, and then we got a little bit too in the details of, like, what does this actually mean? Does this does the two to four units, is that applying to the use or the building type? Because it it could be either. And so, if we just want to do MXD two generally and get rid of, we could also even have an asterisk of if you have, like, if we wanted to like, we were talking about on the Pleasant Ridge, like, having that bigger setback for a pure residential, are we even allowing just generally, like, only residential in this, or does it have to be?

I think if it's in well, MSD would include Marshall and whatnot. But

If we got rid of the the rows and it was just more consistent dynamics, the various zone districts, it'd make our lives easier. You know, I 1 and I 2 is very simple.

That what's the change in I 2 or I 1? I bought it.

That before said 15 c, and that was for sites undergoing expansion. I was confused. The maximum front yard setback may be set to match the existing buildings on-site. So you had to be 15 feet, but you could match your buildings

Yeah. I think that applies to, like, that, the place on was it Wanda? That industrial facility that wanted to expand, and we they had to go through, I think, BZA and then us of Mhmm. Because they were like, well, if we expand, we have to go to 15 feet off this street, and that makes it impossible for us to do what we need to do on the site. So we had to give them a variance to do For the front yard setback.

Yeah.

And so what I did is I changed I get the 15 feet, like, form based and match, and then I appreciate the flexibility. That's why we wrote it in there. I just, like, kinda crossed it off to say, you know, you can be whatever you want in the I one and I two. I I mean, do we care about the form based in the I one or I two? Like, do we care

not form based. I mean, that's just a general setback regulation.

Form based doesn't form based is, and does not apply to I one and I two.

I didn't mean the form based. Yeah. Do we care in the I one and I two if people are not matching their neighbors?

I think, yes. If we don't want a new building to go in, I one like, in our, like, if someone takes down a building and I'm kind of thinking of the area by, like, Woodward Heights or whatnot. We don't want someone to just, like, have this large setback and, like A little bit of parking lot. Most of those sites probably would prohibit that, but, you know, I don't think for a new building, we will want, like, unlimited setback.

With the goal of being, like, eliminating a a front yard parking lot. Right? Like, for the aesthetic of keeping it in So

why don't I remove that? Neighborhood? If we remove the I 2 I 1 and I 2, I don't have a problem keeping it. And then

I mean, you can make it larger if you want, like, 20 foot or something. It's a maximum. Right? Not a minimum. So

To aim correct.

I would be comfortable with, like, 20 feet. And then if it's an expansion that it's

You get it. Can go back

to, like, we had the issue on Wanda.

Alright. Change that to 20. That could provide a little flexibility. Anything on the MXDs?

I think to the, commissioner Sabaccatani's comments separately, I believe it's discussed whether or not you can have a parking lot in the front. That's true. Yeah. So that would be like, it could be

a separate issue. Right? I don't

know if this one ends well enough. It's still in there, but I would hope so.

I have that as a footnote in commercial, but I don't know where it landed here. Yeah.

We don't have to change this today. There's only one change I really think we need to do. But do we wanna create a committee and just table this to a future on this?

On that. I don't feel comfortable voting on it because I don't really understand all the ramifications of it.

Of this front setback for, industrial or for MXD or for any of it?

Just on the front setback. I mean, it's Oh. I don't know.

It kind of then plays into the front yard, double frontage, corner lot thing too. Right? If in terms of if we're for adjusting the setbacks and then adjusting what frontages count as setbacks, how that plays together?

Yeah. I just feel I feel yeah. It's

Are you thinking of MX, mixed or industrial or specifically or both?

Still figuring that out.

Oh, okay. I didn't know if you were come responding to something specific. So currently so if we don't make any changes, the MXD

current

MXD one. Can you just go back to so we can see what's existing?

On these.

So there was a minimum 15 that was inflexible for a multi unit. Mhmm. And then so that was the change there. We would just make that more flexible. And then, currently, there's a zero foot minimum and a 10 foot maximum for a multiunit in the MXD two.

And that's one that we think that we might want to to potentially consolidate that, have a little bit more discussion on what that means to make an a change to the MXD two. Do we wanna make the m are we comfortable with the MXD one where we're saying that that's flexible? I am. Yes. You're right.

So, r two, the 15 d is okay. Yep. R two fifteen d. Okay. The MXD one, fifteen to 15 d is okay.

Mhmm.

Right? The MXD two, we wanna talk about combining at a future time. And then I one and I two give a little more flexibility to be zero to 20.

You would be 20 with that

oh, sorry.

Would it be 20 with the the c for the exception? If it's just an expansion, you can Yeah. Add shear existing.

I was removing it altogether to say, b, whatever you want. But if we want it to be averaging of the neighborhood so it's consistent, we would leave 15 c or maybe Mhmm. Give a little flexibility and be 20.

Is this something that we're we're being responsive to an existing so this is something that we could also table that we can look at if

You can table. The

the the ramifications of what does the existing industrial district look like? How how could it be different between

these two different in front of me that needs the extra couple feet or

Okay.

Let's table that let's just table that into Australia.

Alright. So then we're gonna leave c, so we're not gonna reserve it. We don't have anything to worry about. We added this the last minute staff did and it's makes it too difficult. When adjacent, it's a side setbacks.

So it is MXD one commercial, I one and two commercial. We were saying zero feet when adjacent to an r one or r two residential use or district. And I'm proposing we change to when adjacent to an r one or two residential district. And I'll give

I would agree with that because we don't know if it's a residential use that could change in the future. And we're talking about building form and what we want the form to look like. So something as temporary as a use should not determine what we want that new building to look like. And so I would agree with that change. And, of course, it's going to be also determined by the building code of whether or not you can have that set back.

Correct? Yeah. I mean,

you have to firewall it and do all the things you need to do for it.

Anyone disagree with that? Alright.

C will get added back in, so that's declined. E, when adjacent to a residential, again, use or district, it'll be to an r one or two residential district.

It goes a little bit counter to what I just said. A minimum yard setback is required. So why did you remove it in a and then added in an e? It's

yeah. It's kind of hard to tell what's added and what's not because they they're not all stored.

So a would read when adjacent to an r one or r two residential district, a minimum yard setback of 20 feet is required. And then e would read and this isn't correct right here. When adjacent to an r one or r two residential district, a minimum yard setback of five feet is required.

The a and the e is just a whether it's a front yard or side yard or something.

A is minimum rear yard, and e is minimum side yard.

Just say that. That makes sense to me.

And the reason I went with six is because nowhere else do we have the number six. I'm sorry. The reason I went

with five. Five. Yeah.

It's because nowhere else do we have the number six.

Six doesn't make sense. Okay. So again oh, it's crossed out. Okay. Thank you.

I could not see

that. Part detail.

I'm sorry.

No. That's okay.

I'll just

I'll look behind me that no. It's easier to read. But I

need to change this too when adjacent to when adjacent to in the r one or r two, so it's consistent with a. I'm sorry if you can't see. E. Okay. Change like a.

Oh, we're gonna be done soon. This is exciting. We're on page two. This is just nomenclature stuff, so for two unit, three unit, four unit. The technicality here, if a detached garage is provided, the side yard setback of the primary residential structure must be a minimum of nine feet.

So this is a typical infill lot, and we're saying you need to provide enough room on the side of your house for a driveway. Right? That's what nine feet is. I'm clarifying it's either side the person wants.

Mhmm.

The side yard setback of either side, not both.

But it has

to be the side of the garage.

The side of the house.

The side of the house with this garage on that side. Right? Or it's like

I just think depends if they

do a court, a side load garage.

Okay. Yeah.

Well, that

that's what I think that's I

mean, you might have not even have a garage.

But it says if a detached garage is provided, the side yard setback of the residential structure must be a minimum of nine feet with it. So you're basically you have to allow for the driveway width.

So you can get the vehicle back there. You can't put a garage a full garage behind

Yeah.

Your house and leave, like, three feet. Alley loaded would be exempt because if you're alley loading, then you don't have to try that. You can make your house as big as you want. And I would actually add in here, and I think maybe it's another one, alley loaded door corner lots. So, again, if you're seeing the garage from the corner Mhmm.

Then you you don't have to provide a side yard setback to your house.

Does that also include shared driveways?

We don't really allow for shared driveways.

We actually don't allow Yeah. Because I have a shared driveway Okay. Of my house. There's some in on East Ferndale.

Yeah. I've had one in East Ferndale. They're like Yeah.

Yeah. Sure. Yeah.

Or behind you. On East Ferndale.

Yeah. East. Troy has a bunch of

Good point. We should probably shit on our phone. We're not gonna talk about that right now. We'll put that on the

that's just on the table there.

Yeah. I guess at least one side, either side.

That's good for either. Right? That's how the rule is right now.

So we will table a conversation, but I think that's a good point that, potentially, we should allow for a shared driveway. But in this instance, it would not be we you would need the nine feet. You couldn't do, like, four and a half or whatnot. Right. Yeah.

So we're okay with it. And do you have a question on, like, either side, one of the two sides or something? Is

that Yeah. I'm, like, on one side, the setback of one side. Because it my first reading was like, I don't need to have nine feet on, like, either side, like, both Yeah. Sides Yeah. Of the structure.

Like, I get that it's, like, either or, but it sounds like I write a yard setback of either needs to be nine feet. And I was

like, I don't even think

I have nine feet on one side of my house.

I'll clarify.

Yeah. Just so that it's clear that it's one side.

One side. Yeah.

Or say one, yeah, one side yard setback. Or at least one side. At least one side. Yeah. Something like that.

Yeah. I agreed. I thought that was confusing as well. I was like, I

I know.

Couldn't redo anything to my garage then. I said there's only one Is there

a minimum?

On one side of my house because the lots are just

Set back for a side loaded garage, or can you, like, put it right up to where the build because there's a couple in my neighborhood where there's not enough room for somebody to park their car in the driveway, but they still try to. Mhmm.

I don't

know if I don't think that's interesting. I don't think it's a really big problem either. Like I said, it's really niche.

But,

There's there's a section that says that the garage, if it's attached, has to be a certain amount of feet back. It's in one of the ducts. Five feet?

Mhmm. The plane of the garage.

Attached though. It could still be an issue potentially, but it yes. So is there a setback? Well, I think also it just says that you're not supposed to

You can't have it in the front yard more than 25%, and we're only allowing nine foot wide single doors.

Yeah.

I think it's covered.

I guess it's, actually the garage that's nine feet, just

the access.

The door there we're only allowing single doors. And if you have a two car garage, you have to have two nine foot doors separated by a two foot space.

Yep.

The real issue is parking on the sidewalk. Right?

Parking on a sidewalk on a side loaded garage.

That's Yeah. But the that's actually that's covered by you're just not supposed to park on a sidewalk.

Yeah. Impeding traffic or pedestrian traffic or something like the police. Yeah. I wanna I too. I changed this to be in compliance, but we will not did we say change the 20?

Wait. How do we where did we skip to?

There was nothing else. We're down in I 1 and I 2.

What about an MXD?

I didn't change anything there.

Through the chair. Did you skip the, r 1? I had the question about the side yard. Is that in a later section? We skipped around a bunch of remember.

There we go.

We changed it. There's a side yard requirement. We had five foot side yard or three foot if fire rated, and we took out the three foot if fire rated.

And I was wondering I

don't think we've got to it yet because I had to say

down. And I I

think I wrote So

we skipped a round and I just wanted

to Yeah. No. Thank you. That's a good point because

We'll hit that.

I have the same comment.

So in I one and I two In I one and I two,

Sorry. In the so in the MXD sorry. Just real quick. There's a, you didn't make a comment, but in section two ten, the MXD two, there's a side yard setback minimum of zero feet. It says it said if there's a two to four unit residential building, then we have a five foot setback required Mhmm.

Which was not in the other chart that we would just talked about this setback. Right?

The table?

I don't know. I know.

But I think that we should just remove that comment because why would we need a setback if there's a two to four unit residential building in a MXD two?

I'm not following what the question is because I'm so I'm see the numbers.

So in MXD two, there's a side yard setback of a minimum of zero feet.

Mhmm.

So you can build side yard to side

yard. Mhmm.

Unless you have a two to four unit residential building.

Then you have a

Then it requires a five foot setback. Do we is that necessary? We can also table this. But

m x t two

We're changing similar

Yeah. So five and then zero e, which is No. It wasn't up

there. Okay.

That. So, yes, if you are you could be zero feet if you're multifamily unless you're adjacent to the residential.

A residential district.

District, then you need to be five feet. So it's zero feet, but it's five feet. Except if you're a two to four unit, you have to be 20 feet.

I think enable it, but I think I'd like

to bring that back up at some point. I don't know why we

I think we I I think there's probably a lot of mistakes if you start going back and forth. I think if we wanna create a committee and look at the dimensional chart along with all those pages and just make sure they're correct. Okay.

Yeah. If we can just, like, superimpose this table where applicable onto the, like, pages that have during the review to make sure that

Could could just take MXD if we had two lines and just get rid of all the other stuff and just put it down. Or, I mean, the other thing is when we have these, do we need all this stuff? Do we need It's it's kind

of, like, duplicative a little bit. Right?

It is. Can we just have the used chart? I guess it's kind

of nice to have the chart as an overview so you can easily compare Yeah. Okay. Them. I was just saying for the point of, like, making sure that the detailed pages match the table just to have so that we're not, like, scrolling back and forth. Like, we could

Well, I think

why we did

like a committee based review, we can just, like, have the table and then compare them directly.

I think why we did all this is because, you know, it's e, f, g, so you can see what is a side yard, what is a rear. I think we've passed planning class. You know, like, I do I need to know what I

think it potentially makes it easier for folks, but it's also obviously complicating for us. So I think having a subcommittee, makes sense to kinda go through some of this. I would just add to the list. I think that the lot width of a hundred feet for MXD 2 is excessive in that most of the lots in our MXD 2 do not meet that lot width, and so I'm not sure how that made it in there. So I'm just gonna add that to list.

We don't have to do

it tonight.

K. Okay.

So Go. Oh, do you need to

have something? It was maybe the little history, maybe I'm mixing it up, but it was a matter of getting the eighty twenty and having enough room for a drive or two drives and then having a building. So I think it was kind of a given dimension that you your drive would take up so so much space, that you'd need and and if drives are 20 feet or 24 or whatever and 80% of your building on top of that, then it you'd almost need a hundred foot wide to do that. If you have a drive.

If you have a drive.

So let's put this back to committee. I'm just Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. That's a good point. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Okay. So we'll make the changes the couple little changes, and then, I think there's still gonna be errors in here, and I think we should Yeah. Bring it back in a couple of months. And I'll deal with anybody that applies in the meantime. Alright.

General provisions. We have a definition now or we have a abandoned structure program. It's called vacant and abandoned structures. So I call this vacant and abandoned businesses. We said during any time that they're closed for thirty consecutive days, they have to do these things.

Thirty is too short. That's just not not reasonable. So I said ninety days. And then within thirty additional days after that, all nonconforming signage has to be removed. If it conforms to the code, we don't really care if it stays.

We're not gonna make them remove it. But all nonconforming signage has to be removed. We had in here, this includes the requirement that ADU must be set back at least five feet. Yeah. So it says, this is about accessory structures, not ADUs.

Then we say accessory ADUs are regulated by this section, and then randomly just wanna tell you that it's a five foot setback. And Mhmm. I don't know that we need to say that here. I think we just say go to that section. Consistent with r one r two residential district versus use, and then I just removed the three feet because it was just a one more layer.

But I think I heard from a couple people they'd rather have the three feet so we can decline if that's what you wanna do. Through the

chair, I I feel that that, impact if especially if you're on a narrow lot with a single drive in, if you have five feet and then you need two feet before you have a garage door, you're you're pushing seven feet over trying to get into a garage and in a nine foot drive. So you really need a lot of room to navigate to get back. And I I think that pinches a lot of people in small lots.

That makes sense. I just went I was like, let's keep this simple. But the building code allows it if you fire rate it and you can have it, then go do it.

Some of the nonconformities as well. So that would create. So, I think especially if we're trying to encourage people to build ADUs above a garage, etcetera, I think it would be helpful to leave it in.

A, down here, in the case of double frontage loft, the c director determines the rear yard. So in one section, we say double frontage, both there is no rear yard. Then here it was said that the CDR director determines the rear yard. So

so is that in terms of for the purposes of an accessory structure? Yep. So it's it's still confusing. It doesn't, like, really tell you how you could put an accessory structure on a front yard.

On a double load.

On a double load. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. It says both are front and then over here I mean, yes, it is part of accessory.

That's right. Basically, it's an exception that you can, in the case of a double frontage lot, put an accessory structure in the front yard. The CED director would determine which of those front yards would be the rear.

I guess. Okay. We want that.

So isn't it determined by street address though?

It customarily. Right. Customarily. So anything on nine mile, you know, name something Tiger Lily. It's nine mile.

Right. I'm thinking, like, Inman, is it? Has, like, through lots. So there's, like, a street side and a garage side. Inman?

Yeah. It's residential.

Yeah.

So, I mean, where an accessory might be. You want one? So

Oh, is is Inman when when you come

up of Woodward Heights, backs up on Paxton. I think there's some

there are garages that exit onto Paxton. It's not

an alley. It's a double frontage? Yeah. Okay. So we might wanna leave that in and just make it a little bit clear in the language of what that actually means.

Where am I?

So in we're gonna delete the three feet. Yeah. So I'm

game four zero two. Right?

Or delete the edit to the three feet.

Yeah. Delete the edit to three feet and clarify in the

what do

you wanna do for a? So I

think if we just yeah. Clarify that language so that it's basically is allowing for an accessory structure in the case of a double frontage lot in that front yard, but the the either the CE director or the address street address determines which yard the accessory structure will be placed in. I think remove rear because that makes it confusing.

Maybe, yeah, determines the front yard,

which yard I go. Yeah.

Allow allowing projections, we had architectural features and cantilevers, and we talk with the building official. We put cantilevers in a. So architectural features are bay windows, cantilevers, chimneys, awnings. What we didn't account for, which he wanna do separately, was building eaves. So we just changed around.

Building eaves may extend the past the vertical face of a building up to two feet so you have an eve if you have a five foot setback.

You're so you were limiting the amount that the overhang can be?

Overhang should only go, like, into the front. They shouldn't be able to go into the side. Does do we say any

why not?

Because if you go two feet if you can't leave it over two feet and then you do a two feet property line.

Well, it's restricted by distance. Yeah. You're restricted from your distance from the property line in that case, not necessarily by the eaver that cantilever.

Right? Building is built Provided the building is set back at least three feet from the lot line. So if you have a side yard that's five, you can have a two foot overhang or a two foot

I I think it should

be either or is what I'm getting.

Yeah. Like, as long as you have that three feet.

Under either, I mean. Not either or, not either end. Yeah.

So the combination of any of these shouldn't be more than three feet into a side yard. Is that what you're saying?

I say two feet, but three feet would be acceptable.

Oh, oh,

two feet. So you have the three feet in between. Gotcha. So can we maybe we just add a footnote to the table of the combination. I want to so for a front yard projection, with the architectural features including awnings, I think that we should allow for more than two feet for an awning, and maybe we wanna separate awning out.

So so hold on. Three point Go ahead. Yeah. Three point o three, we want to get rid of the cantilever of the building altogether and put cantilevers in architectural features in a and just say all of it can extend.

I don't know how you wanna do it, but the only thing that I'm concerned about is having a double projection technically on a side yard, on a five yard setback. So That's the only thing I'm concerned

about. Add a footnote saying the combination of the projections cannot exceed two feet into a side yard.

Why is the concern that that extra space is less permeable? Or

because, technically, you could have both houses going almost four feet in the side yard of five feet only, and then you have just a little two foot gap. And I don't know. It just doesn't seem reasonable to me.

For safety?

For because typically, you're you're requiring it for a fire. Right?

Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. So, only one two foot projection

into a side yard. Into

side yard.

So combination into the side yard shouldn't exceed two feet.

And then you, Chair Foster, you're on

Sorry. Yeah. So that one's done. So the second one is having a awning project. I think an awning should be able to project more than two feet, especially into a front yard or a rear yard.

Where's that at?

So that's included in architectural features, I believe.

Oh, Oh, awnings. Right?

Could the awning be combined into the covered or noncovered porches line, the fourth fifth row?

And so there's where we would allow for a covered porch to go three foot into a side yard. Is that typical?

So what was your thing about awnings? Because I think Yeah. So I

think we should pro I think awnings should probably be pulled, What's your con

what's your concern?

Is that a two foot awning is worthless.

Yeah. It's like I mean

Well, here's here's the thing. It can it would be bigger than that. So this talks about only because we went through this in staff, what's in your side setback. So let's pretend your house is 12 feet away. Right?

You'd have an awning for seven feet to get to your side yard because you're gonna be in your property, and then you get two feet for that.

This is project from the building facade two feet.

Yeah. This is may project up to this there's nothing that says anything about may project up to two feet into the setback. This just says, hey. You're limited to a two foot awning. Sorry.

Tell me where we're at. Sorry.

So it says may project two feet from the building facade and must be set back at least three foot from all lot lines. It doesn't it doesn't allow you to go two feet more than two feet from the building facade, which I think in all the cases, except the awnings as listed in footnote a, is okay. So we can pull awnings out

Pull awnings out of

of architectural features.

Pull awning out of subscript a,

And then? Should it go with the covered or uncovered porches, stairs, patios, index? It's basically the same thing. Right?

It would

make more sense there.

Yeah.

It's a covered porch.

I don't know.

No. And put in

Covered or uncovered porches, stairs, patios, and decks.

Covered or uncovered porches section. K. And then you had an issue with the five foot maximum under covered and uncovered or no? The covered or uncovered five foot maximum. So if you were averaging let's use an example.

If you were averaging if you're on Pine Crest and your neighbors are 30 feet back, your setback is 30 feet.

If you could be stingy.

If you could be 50% of the minimum front yard. If you could be 50 of the minimum setback, then you could have a 15 foot projection out. So you might have this huge projection out. So that's why I wrote the five

foot maximum in the front yard sounds right.

I thought

you put it out in your comments. No?

I might have confused it with being in the front yard.

So

if you're in your setback, five in the front yard, five feet is more than enough to project into your front setback.

Yeah.

No. In my comment, it actually says, I put maximum for a rear deck, So I was just confusing it.

K. So also architectural features, it talks about there being cantilevers, bay windows, chimneys, and so on whatnot. What about carports? I don't

know if that's an architectural feature. That's a structure.

Okay.

I mean, but it should be defined.

So much stuff

off. I do

I do wanna talk about architectural feature a little bit more. Hello? Taking this through from my residential design days, and let's say you've got a two foot deep fireplace that's a cantilevered, like, direct vent unit, and it's it's not a full chimney. It's just kinda direct vent and you're putting a little slow proof on it. So you would have to have zero awning or zero, overhang on that in order to comply.

Typically, I would put at least a one foot overhang on that. So, like, I'm thinking if you've got a cantilever or something, you can at least have a a foot overhang to cover that.

That was the building official's whole thing was then you're not gonna you're gonna have this sharp cutoff of the wall. And I think he said in Birmingham, they came up with, like, maybe it was, like, six inches for every foot of overhang or two inches for every foot of overhang or something to provide some kind of overhang on the cantilever. About, like, something.

Yeah. I would rather have I would rather have a an overhang than a flush edge on those side protrusions. Otherwise, it look makes it look like a

But it's up to the designer to to fit into the two feet that they've been given.

Is it

is it can there be anything so you're talking about an overhang

Let's let's yeah.

Let's say we got just a two foot chimney coming out

Yeah.

From the building, but it's not going up full height. You know, it's not going over the roof. It's just a direct fence, so it's got a little spark arrestor coming out the side. You're gonna have a little slope roof that comes on that. You want that to come out at least a foot Mhmm.

Past.

But it's could be at the roof line. Is there anything that we should, like, determine, like, at or near the roof line? Like, it can be an exception or, like

No. Let's say you have a two story house. You only have to go up a story with that chair.

Okay. So to commissioner Newman's point, is that just the design

Well, the with the restrictions you have?

Or gotta push your whole house back.

Six inches. You know?

Okay. So or also Birmingham came up with a different solution. Right.

So

we can use something like that.

Yeah. I I mean, I I came across the five yard setback pretty standard across

Mhmm.

Most housing most housing zoning ordinances. So cantilevering into the side yard to two feet is pretty standard. The the awning or the the overhang on it though is the the part that's the variable, I think. You know, let's say you've got, like, a prairie style house and it's got the two foot deep, you know, that's one thing. I agree with that.

You can almost if you have, like, a a three foot awning, you could just take a chimney right up underneath it, bury an awning. That'd be one way to handle it. But if it's just a small little roof and there's it's not bearing under, like, I can't the overhang of the the main roof, then I would wanna see at least a a one foot overhang.

I mean, my house, we have a chimney that doesn't go past or it's, like, it's past our roof line, but our roof line doesn't. It can't leave right now. Terrible. Like, all of the Sears homes in the Southwest Corner.

I just

I didn't design a lot of residential, so I'm back to school. But I from what I remember seeing, the cantilevers go into the front and and rear setbacks. They don't typically go to the sides because the sides are usually pushed out to that five. And then once you get the e

I don't

want I don't think everything has to look the same. I'm not trying to get to that, but that's that's all I was saying earlier.

I I

mean I've seen a million

My house, my my dining room is.

You know? Mhmm. In the

side yard or into the side yard? Into the end of the five foot setback.

Well, mine's into the driveway. Right.

And that I see all the time. That that I've seen too.

So with with the suggested edits by Roger, what are we okay with and and not okay with? So the architectural features, we want to change to two feet or not. That's good. Okay. And then the cantilevering is the building used to make extend past the vertical face of a building up to two feet.

And then we added a footnote for our discussion that you can't combine the two for more than two feet. And then we also talked about taking awning out of the architectural feature and putting it into covered and uncovered.

Through the

chair, so we're looking at it if it's on the shorter of the setback sides. Right? So but, like, to your point, if you're if you're on the side that has the driveway, why couldn't you project two feet and then have like, you're not impeding a so

why are we limiting a cantilever when we're not

when the what we're looking at is we're trying to keep homes Out of the garage. Feet apart. Like so that that at least if it's a building and set back at least three feet from all lot lines seems to be the I didn't realize in looking in this angle, I now see that that's crossed out. So

So well, so for tonight's discussion, are we okay with the edits that we've discussed? And then do we want to further discuss how we can better write these in the future? Does that work?

Yes.

Sounds like

we still make wanna make some changes, but we're okay with what I had just written, spelled out? Yes. Okay.

So it looks like the changes are clarify. So there's only one projection, two feet from the side yard. Right? Whether that's your eaves, your cantilever, you get two feet. Remove the pull out of a, the, awnings and put that in the covered or uncovered porches.

Maximum five foot front setback.

Sorry. You're saying keep the only the two feet only for cantilever and overhang?

Is that what you're saying?

I it's what I said, but I appreciate what Sam is saying because I would hate to see that. That's just waiting for rot and destruction, and that's the worst condition.

Yeah. I concur from my residential days. I I echo So

you get a one commissioner Charlie. You get a one foot you get a two foot cam projection, and you can have a one foot eve.

Or or we should come up with some

Some exception.

So is that why it was three and two before? Yeah. Should we just leave Because then it three in the architectural features.

Because then your your each house has to be at least six feet away from each other, which is

It's good practice.

So the first part may

Especially if it's fire rated.

So the first part may project up to three feet, but then you gotta be three feet, so you can only be two feet.

If we leave it how it's written right now and it says, it must be set back at least three feet from all lot lines, And then under eaves, must be set back three feet from all lot lines. And, you know, just so long as everything says that a combination of these things and it still must be set back three feet, then you get the six foot break. I think that's reasonable.

K. So we would say architectural features a, may project up to

Two feet.

Two feet from the building facade and must be set back at least three feet.

So silly silly question. Maybe this

Oh, wait a minute. No.

Why why do we care how long each of these architectural features are? Just tell them it needs to be three foot away from the lot lines.

Yeah.

Like, let let the architect or the designer do what they do what they want. I don't this is

I think Scott's concern was somebody's gonna push the cantilever issue and they do it in Birmingham and then have no Eve. And so, yes, he's generally the let the architects figure it out, but they're gonna push that. There's gonna

be no I guess we're not saying no to you. It's like we're we're late we're they can put zero. Right?

Because it it could be flushed. Usually, then you have, like, a one inch trim. Like, it could be one inch to Yeah.

I I guess if the intention is that we want at least six feet between every element.

Right. Or whatever. Is it five feet?

Between the house or

Between whatever the furthest element on one house and the furthest element.

Oh, sorry. Six.

Wow. Three and three.

Six.

Is that is that what Five is a two number. We weren't

talking about five. Yeah.

So that is if that is it, then then I agree then. Like, you just work it backwards from there.

So it may project up until well, but there must be setback.

All all protrusions from the building cannot extend any further than three foot from the lot line.

And so I don't think we need to tell them how large their architectural features can be on their buildings.

It's just yeah. They're gonna get,

like, my We'll combine them only you hit only you have to all your projections have to be three feet from your lot line.

Nope. Yeah. No closer than three feet.

All in.

I got it. We're we're gonna do it. Alright. I skipped over this because I don't think, well, this applies really. Clear vision.

Within a clear vision area, there could be no fence structure, and I made a clarified planting or similar between 38 feet. This standard does not apply to buildings, and I wanna be clear that meet the setback of the zoning district. But because we have, like, zero foot setback, and you might have an issue. I added where buildings are located within a clear vision area, the city may require the installation of a convex traffic mirror just in case or some issue. No issue?

I'd like it. The area at the intersection of two streets within a required setback. I don't know just the area with intersection of two streets measured 15 feet each way. The height exceptions, I did add rooftop patios because people are putting those up there. Just to be clear, including any covered area, safety fencing, or similar.

The I didn't like this before. We had a different height standard for lights of 18 feet in r one and r two. I'm sorry. Yeah. 18 feet in r one, r two, MXD one, MXD two.

They're all 18 feet. And then in CBD are the world heights overlay, we had 16 feet. I just changed them all to 18 feet. Just 18 feet. In industrial, you can go higher.

Should that be I 1 And I 2, or do we call them I N D 1?

Nope. It's just I 1 and I 2. C. E Lighting I N D 2 I. District.

I saw that. I'll get that. I was just going back quick and didn't want anyone to see it. Alright. Lighting is actually the environmental standards.

K.

So I just removed it all from here. When we mess with chapter six or seven, maybe we'll include in the zoning code, but these numbers differ from the other ones. We've already had someone call us out and say, well, that section this section is more restrictive.