Aug 05, 2025 Planning Commission

[CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

[00:00:03]

RIGHT, EVERYONE. TURN YOUR MICS ON. GOOD EVENING. IT IS TUESDAY, AUGUST 5TH, 2025 AT 6:36 P.M.

I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER. MAY I HAVE ROLL CALL, PLEASE? MISS LAUB IS EXCUSED FOR THE EVENING. MR. ENGEL HERE. MATTHEW FISHER HERE. MICHAEL NICKERSON HERE. LESLIE, HERE. CHAD. WOLLOWITZ HERE. ROB SCILLIAN HERE. ALL RIGHT. HAS

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

[SWEARING OF CITIZENS & APPLICANTS ]

[1. Vote on Rules and Procedures Amendment]

I WAS LOOKING AT MY ROLL CALL SHEET. YEAH IT'S DIFFERENT. IT'S DIFFERENT FROM THIS NEW BUSINESS. SO ALL RIGHT SO VOTE ON RULES AND PROCEDURES AMENDMENT. I ASSUME SOMEONE FROM THE CITY IS GOING TO PRESENT THE. YEAH CHANGES. SO THE AMENDMENT FOR THE RULES AND PROCEDURE WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH CONDITIONAL USES FOR A MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL USE TO PASS. CURRENTLY IT'S JUST MAJORITY VOTES. WHAT WAS PROPOSED TO US WAS TO CHANGE THIS TO A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE FOR APPROVAL TO PASS A CONDITIONAL USE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE FIVE MEMBERS TO VOTE AND APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE. AND THEN. SO WE'D HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST FIVE MEMBERS PRESENT TO BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THAT, AND THEN YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE FIVE VOTES OF ALL MEMBERS THAT ARE THAT ARE ON THE BOARD. SO IT'S FIVE. SO IT WOULD REQUIRE FIVE YES VOTES NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE PRESENT. IT TECHNICALLY YES. BUT THEN IF A BOARD MEMBER RECUSES THEMSELVES, THAT LOWERS THE NUMBER OF BOARD MEMBERS. SO THEN IT WOULD CHANGE. OR IF WE WERE DOWN A SUPERMAJORITY, WHATEVER REASON WE HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST. YEAH. LET ME ASK, WAS THERE A PARTICULAR ISSUE OR REASONING BEHIND THE SUGGESTED CHANGE? SUGGESTED CHANGE CAME FROM COUNCIL MEMBER. CORRECT? CORRECT. THERE WAS THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF HAVING CONDITIONAL USES GO STRAIGHT TO COUNCIL AND NOT GOING TO EITHER BCA OR PLANNING COMMISSION. AND THAT COUNCIL WOULD HEAR ALL CONDITIONAL USES TALKING TO THE LAW DIRECTOR THAT HE HAD ADVISED TO KEEP IT AT PLANNING COMMISSION. AND THIS WAS KIND OF A GIVE AND TAKE TO CHANGE IT TO THE SUPERMAJORITY, SIMILAR TO BCA CASES THAT ARE SUPERMAJORITY VOTES. AND COUNCIL WAS OKAY WITH PROPOSING THIS. I THINK THIS ENSURES THAT THE BOARD IS MORE CONSISTENTLY ON BOARD FOR THAT CONDITIONAL USE AS WELL. WE HAVE THOSE THOSE USES AS CONDITIONAL AND NOT PERMITTED SO THAT THEY CAN GO THROUGH THAT ADDITIONAL REVIEW PROCESS AND DISCUSSION TO. MR. CHAIR, I'VE GOT A QUESTION, PLEASE. ANY CHANCE YOU GUYS DID THE ANALYSIS OF HOW MANY WOULD HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED IN THE LAST YEAR, TWO YEARS HAD WE BEEN DOING THIS? YOU KNOW, I DID NOT LOOK THAT UP. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. LET ME SEE IF I CAN. IF I CAN PULL ANY OF THAT UP, I CAN THINK OF A COUPLE.

RIGHT. TWO. YEAH. MAYBE TWO OFF THE TOP. I MEAN, WE'VE, WE'VE ONLY HAD A FEW CONDITIONAL USES TO BEGIN WITH. LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIND THAT. WE HAVE DENIED AT LEAST 1 OR 2 CONDITIONAL USES.

IT'S BEEN AT LEAST TWO THAT HAVE BEEN DENIED. AND SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE APPROVE THEM ALL.

[00:05:06]

BUT I THINK PREVIOUSLY CONDITIONAL USES WENT TO BCA. THEY DID. SO BCA IS SUPERMAJORITY FOR ALL VARIANCES. AND THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY AT BCA. SO CURRENTLY THAT'S WHAT BCA DOES IS THE SUPERMAJORITY VOTE FOR THOSE. SO THIS WOULD KIND OF FALL IN LINE WITH WHERE THIS HAD COME FROM PREVIOUSLY BEING AT BCA. SO OKAY. WELL ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD. I GUESS A CLARIFICATION ON SUPERMAJORITY. SO IF IT GOES FROM 7 TO 6 FOUR WOULD STILL BE THE MAJORITY. SO THEN WOULD FIVE BE THE SUPERMAJORITY. NO SIX WOULD BE SUPERMAJORITY FOUR. IF IT GOES TO FIVE OR SORRY IT GOES TO SIX MEMBERS, THEN YEAH, WE'D HAVE TO GET THE FIVE BECAUSE FOUR WOULD BE MAJORITY. SO YOU'RE ASKING. YEAH. SO MAJORITY SUPERMAJORITY. SO WHETHER THEY'RE 6 OR 7 THE SUPERMAJORITY IS IF IT GOES TO AN EVEN NUMBER IT HAS TO GO UP ONE, OR IT ALWAYS HAS TO GO UP MORE THAN WHAT ONE MORE THAN MAJORITY IS NO MATTER HOW MANY. OKAY. AND THAT REALLY I MEAN, WHEN WE HAVE SIX, IT'S WELL, I GUESS IF SOMEONE RECUSES THEMSELVES THEN THAT WOULD COUNT AS A SIX. OR IF WE'RE A MEMBER HAS LEFT AND WE HAVEN'T FILLED THAT SEAT YET. SO THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO TIMES THE NUMBER OF VOTING MEMBERS GOES DOWN. YEAH. AN ABSENCE DOES NOT COUNT. CORRECT. AN ABSENCE DOES. NOT ONLY IF THEY RECUSE THEMSELVES. IF YOU RECUSE YOURSELF, IT IS LIKE YOU'RE NOT HAVING A BOARD MEMBER IN THAT POSITION FROM WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD FROM LEGAL COUNSEL. SO HOW BUSY IS BUSY RIGHT NOW? DO YOU ANTICIPATE THIS BOGGING DOWN? WELL, THIS DOESN'T GO TO BZA. SO IF IT USED TO BE IT WAS JUST A LINE. IT SIMILAR TO YEAH, IT'S A LINE IN IT. SO NO I UNDERSTAND. BUT IF WE VOTE IT DOWN AND THEY GO TO BZA, HOW MANY MORE ARE WE SENDING TO? HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE WILL BE PASSED SENDING THE BCA? WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT GOES TO.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN FOR THE APPEAL? OH, IF THEY WERE TO IF AN APPLICANT WERE TO APPEAL IT. I MEAN, THEY WOULD HAVE TO HEAR ANY APPEALS. SURE. SO SHE AND SHE'S LOOKING UP HOW MANY WOULD HAVE BEEN SENT TO BCA OR SO FAR, WE'VE ONLY HAD ONE APPEAL OUT OF ANY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE. HOW MANY MORE WOULD WE HAVE FAILED IF THIS WAS IN PLACE FOR THE LAST YEAR? I HEAR YOU OKAY, HOW MANY MORE COULD HAVE GONE TO BCA? I MEAN, THERE ARE SOME MONTHS THAT BCA DOESN'T MEET. THEY DON'T HAVE CASES THIS MONTH. I BELIEVE THEY HAVE TWO CASES, MAYBE TWO APPLICATIONS. I DON'T I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEY ARE. I HAVEN'T SEEN THE PACKAGE YET. WE DO HAVE A BCA MEMBER IN ATTENDANCE TONIGHT. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT, SO IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS, THIS WOULD GO INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY. IS THAT CORRECT? WHY IS THERE AN URGENCY TO GO IMMEDIATELY AND NOT POSTPONE THIS TILL THE NEXT SESSION OF NEXT YEAR TO CHANGE, YOU KNOW, SO THE OTHER. SO. WE ARE ALSO JEFF MAYBE YOU I DON'T THINK YOU SAID THIS, BUT WE WERE TALKING TO OUR LAW DIRECTOR. IT IS POTENTIALLY GOING TO GO IN THE ZONING CODE, AS WELL AS PROBABLY THE BCA PROCESS TOO, JUST TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT CLEARER AND NOT JUST HAVE THAT IN THEIR RULES AND PROCEDURES. SO IN THE MEANTIME, WE JUST SAID, WELL, WE'LL JUST MODIFY

[00:10:02]

THERE'S BEEN NUMEROUS TIMES WHERE THEY'VE ONLY HAD FIVE MEMBERS, AND THE APPLICANTS HAVE ASKED TO PUSH IT BACK TO NEXT MONTH TO HAVE MORE MEMBERS PRESENT. SO WE DO WE WILL TRY TO GIVE THEM THAT HEADS UP AND LET THE APPLICANT DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO BE HEARD OR OR NOT, AND THEN IT'D BE THEIR CHOICE IF THEY TABLED IT AT THE MEETING OR NOT. IF THEY DID COME TO TRY TO GET A VOTE. YEAH, WELL, WE'RE MULLING IT OVER. I'M GOING TO OPEN UP THE CITIZENS. IF OTHER CITIZENS WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. ALL RIGHT, WELL, THEN TAKE UP TOO MUCH TIME. I DO HAVE LET ME PULL THIS LAST CONDITIONAL USE HERE, BUT WE HAD IN 2024. WE HAD THREE CONDITIONAL USES. SEVEN, ZERO, FOUR ZERO AND EIGHT ZERO OR SIX ZERO. SORRY, I VOTED TWICE.

BONUS VOTE. GOT AN EXTRA MEMBER. KATHY WAS VOTING THAT. I GUESS WE DON'T REALLY VOTE ON CONDITIONAL USES. EVER. NOT EVER. WELL, THREE TIMES, THREE TIMES WELL WELL. BUT WE YOU KNOW, WE JUST WE'RE PASSING THROUGH A LOT OF THESE PUDS THAT HAVE A LOT OF CONDITIONAL USES THAT ARE COMING UP OF ONE. YEAH. AND WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO SEE THE DATA CENTERS AND THE CAR WASHES AND THE AND THE THINGS THAT WE PUSHED TO CONDITIONAL USE FOR THIS PURPOSE. THAT'S TRUE. SO SORRY. WE HAD ACTUALLY FOUR. SO WE HAD 1 IN 2024 THAT WAS DENIED. AND THEN THREE THAT WERE APPROVED WAS THE DENY VOTE ONE ONE NO FOR ONE. YES FOUR NOS. AND THAT WAS FOR THE VEHICLE SERVICE AND REPAIR FACILITY OVER ON THAT. YEAH, YEAH. I REMEMBER THAT TOO. YEAH.

THE MINOR QUICK LUBE OR MANICURE OR WHATEVER. WELL, I MEAN, IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, WE CAN HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND PUT IT TO A VOTE. MOTION TO APPROVE. THANK YOU, MR. STOYAN. SORRY. I, I KNOW THIS WAS THE ONLY SENTENCE YOU HIGHLIGHTED AND READ, AND I KNOW WE WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO DO THIS AGAIN AT THE END OF THE YEAR. SO IF WE WANT TO PUSH OFF MY NEXT COMMENT TO THE END OF THE YEAR FOR NEXT YEAR'S RULES AND PROCEDURES, I GET IT. BUT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT LOWERING THE SPEAKING TIME FOR CITIZENS IS NOW. WE COULD ADDRESS THAT NOW WHILE WE'RE MAKING EDITS. AND I ALSO DIDN'T SEE IN HERE WHERE WE HAD ADDED THE SPEAKING TIME FOR APPLICANTS. SO WE DID THAT A COUPLE MONTHS AGO. WE THOUGHT WE DID. I DIDN'T SEE IT IN THIS DOC. MAYBE I JUST I MIGHT HAVE GRABBED AN OLD DOCUMENT. SORRY, I THOUGHT THIS WAS THE MOST UPDATED ONE, BUT MAYBE NOT. SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS. DO WE WANT TO ADDRESS THOSE NOW WHILE WE'RE MAKING EDITS, OR DO WE WANT TO SAVE THAT FOR DECEMBER OR JANUARY WHEN I WON'T BE HERE? WELL, I MEAN, I THINK IT IS A SEPARATE VOTE, OKAY? BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO VOTE ON THOSE TWO THINGS. IT'S THE SAME. OKAY. BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CHANGES TO THE RULES. SO YOU'RE CORRECT. DO WE HAVE THE TIME? THE CITIZENS TIME IS DOCUMENTED IN THE AGENDA PORTION AT THE VERY AT THE TOP.

[00:15:07]

NO. ALL RIGHT, SO, THREE THREE VOTE. LET'S FIGHT FOR IT. BE A DENIAL. IT'S A DENIAL AT A TIME.

YEAH. OKAY, OKAY. ALL RIGHT, MOVE ON TO THE FIRST. IT DEPENDS ON WHAT AGENDA YOU'RE LOOKING A.

TO HEAR AN APPLICATION FOR THE RULES AND PROCEDURES DON'T HAVE TO BE POSTED IN THE LEGAL NOTICE. SO THAT WAS THE DIFFERENCE WITH THE NEW BUSINESS ON THE LEGAL NOTICE COMPARED TO

[2. To hear an application for a Zoning Code Amendment to Part Eleven – Zoning Code, Appendix – Glossary of Terms.]

SO OUR FIRST ONE IS THE THESE ARE THESE ARE IN ORDER. YEAH. SO THESE ARE THE FOUR ITEMS WE'LL JUST GO THROUGH THE FIRST ONE. SO THE FIRST ONE IS THE RESTAURANT DEFINITION. JUST A LITTLE BIT A REASON WHY WHY WE PROPOSED THIS AMENDMENT. THE CURRENT DEFINITION STATES THAT THE PAYMENT SHALL BE MADE AFTER CONSUMPTION OF THE FOOD, WHICH IS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE AS MOST RESTAURANTS PROVIDE CARRYOUT SERVICE OR TAKEOUT. AND THEN SOME MISINTERPRETATION OF THE DEFINITION, LIKE WITH SCOOTERS, WE YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST A DRIVE THROUGH WINDOW AND A PICKUP WINDOW. IS THAT REALLY A RESTAURANT WHICH WE DEEM THAT IT WAS, BUT IT DIDN'T NECESSARILY MEET OUR DEFINITION. SO IT'S NOT CLEAR ON IF DRIVE THROUGH OR PICKUP WINDOW ONLY BUSINESSES OR RESTAURANTS. SO WE JUST KIND OF WANTED TO IS THAT THE INTENT? THE INTENT WOULD BE THAT THEY'RE RESTAURANTS UNDER THE COMMERCIAL SECTION. NOW, IF WE WANTED TO BREAK IT DOWN MORE, WE COULD BREAK IT DOWN MORE. SOME OTHER JURISDICTIONS HAD, BUT MOST OF THEM JUST HAD A GENERAL DEFINITION DRIVE THROUGH AND PICKUP WASN'T ADDRESSED IN THIS AMENDED DEFINITION OF RESTAURANT. SO I MEAN, BASED ON HOW IT'S TWO PATRONS. IT'S TYPICALLY TAKEOUT SERVICE WOULD BE I HAVE ONE REQUESTED MODIFICATION TO THE PROPOSAL. I WOULD SAY AND OR. FOOD AND OR BEVERAGE. WELL I MUST BE LOOKING AT THE WRONG ONE. NO NO NO NO I MADE THE SAME SUGGESTIONS. OKAY.

SAME PAGE. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO AND FOOD AND OR BEVERAGES IN CASE THEY ONLY DO ONE OR. SORRY FOOD AND OR BEVERAGE. SORRY I THOUGHT. I MEAN IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY COFFEE PLACE SERVES SOME FOOD AND I DOUBT THERE'S FOOD PLACES THAT DON'T SERVE BEVERAGES. BUT IN CASE AND THEN THAT THAT'S MY ONLY SUGGESTION YOU'RE GOING TO YOU'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT ON SITE. OH NO I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE WORD TYPICALLY BECAUSE TYPICALLY MEANS MOST OF THE TIME AND SCOOTERS WOULD NOT. RIGHT. YEAH. SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF MAYBE WE CHANGE IT TO PATRONS IN EXCHANGE FOR PAYMENTS POSSIBLY CONSUMED ON SITE OR TYPICALLY WHICH MAY BE AVAILABLE, WHICH MAY BE AVAILABLE FOR CONSUMPTION ON SITE OR AVAILABLE TO BE CONSUMED ON SITE. WHAT'S THAT? NO, I THINK, I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WERE SAYING ORIGINALLY WAS YOU HAVE INSTANCES LIKE SCOOTERS WHERE YOU CAN DRIVE UP AND YOU CAN GET THAT FOOD, BUT THERE'S OPTIONS TO CONSUME ON SITE IF YOU SIT ON THEIR PATIO OR YOU DON'T HAVE TO. IF YOU JUST GO UP TO THAT WALK UP WINDOW. YEAH. I MEAN, IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT AT ALL, THEN LIKE A SMALL GROCERY STORE OR A

[00:20:05]

YEAH. WE CAN REMOVE THAT IF YOU. I'M JUST LIKE, WOULD WE CALL WINE IN A RESTAURANT. YES. WHEN THIS IS A LITTLE ANECDOTAL, BUT WHEN MY WIFE OPENED HER BAKERY, WE HAD TO PUT TABLES IN TO BE CONSIDERED A RESTAURANT BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE WERE BAKERY, WHICH COULDN'T, WASN'T PART OF THAT ZONING CODE. SO THE CHAIRS IS WHAT MADE IT A RESTAURANT FIT THE DEFINITION. YEAH. SO YOU'RE SKIRTING OR ZONING. AND WE ALSO HAVE SPECIALTY FOOD AND BEVERAGE, WHICH IS ANOTHER

[00:25:05]

YES. I THINK MAYBE IT'S JUST A AND TYPICALLY CONSUMED ON SITE OR FOR TAKEOUT. I MEAN YOU HAVE TO HAVE TABLES AND CHAIRS. SO WE'RE TRYING TO ELIMINATE THAT. IT'S EITHER THERE OR YOU TAKE IT OR INSTEAD OF SAYING THE AVAILABLE TO BE CONSUMED ON SITE TO SAY WHICH MAY BE CONSUMED ON SITE OR OR OR TAKEN OUT OR TAKEN OUT. WE CAN KIND OF SORT THROUGH THAT. OKAY. I THINK WE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU GUYS ARE GETTING AT. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE COVERING THOSE ADDITIONAL BUSINESSES AVAILABLE TO NOT HAVE THAT DINE IN OPTION AVAILABLE FOR TAKEOUT. OKAY. SO OKAY, CHAD ACTUALLY SAID UNDER HIS BREATH, FIRST MOTION TO APPROVE. COULD I GET A ROLL CALL, PLEASE, MR. DILLON? YES, MR. NICKERSON? YES, MISS VERBIS. YES, MR. WOLOWITZ. YES, MR. ENGEL. YES, MR. FISHER.

[3. To hear an application for a Zoning Code Amendment to Part Eleven – Zoning Code, Section 1141.38 – Zoning Amendment – Action by Council.]

THE RECOMMENDATION MUST RECEIVE A THREE FOURTHS AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF ALL MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. THE PROPOSAL WOULD CHANGE THAT TO A MAJORITY VOTE OF ALL MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. SO CURRENTLY, IF

[00:30:01]

THEY CAN ADD SOMETHING. THEY ALSO CAN JUST IGNORE SOMETHING TOO. SO IF YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS A APPROVAL WITH MODIFICATIONS AT THIS LEVEL, WE MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS INCORPORATED INTO THE DOCUMENT THAT GOES TO COUNCIL FOR THE FIRST READING, THEN IT THEN IT WOULD BE REQUIRED BY COUNCIL TO ASK FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE, CHANGE THAT. SO THEY CAN'T JUST KEEP IT IN EVEN THOUGH YOU GUYS WANTED IT OUT. I MEAN THEY WOULD HAVE TO AMEND THAT. AND THIS ISN'T PRESENT THE COUNCIL THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SWITCH IT. RIGHT. THAT'S IT WOULD BE VOLUNTARY AND NOT. PART OF THEIR VOTE IF THEY DIDN'T GET THE SIX ONE RIGHT. NO, NO, HE'S SAYING AFTER IT GETS SENT TO COUNCIL FOR THE FIRST READING, THE APPLICANT CAN TRY TO ADD THINGS AT THAT READING. OKAY, MAYBE THINGS THAT WE DISAGREED WITH HERE. YES. OKAY. IF AN AMENDMENT IN OUR VOTE OR A CONDITION AND THEY DIDN'T LIKE THAT CONDITION AND WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL SAY, HEY, PLANNING COMMISSION HAD THIS, BUT I DON'T LIKE IT. CAN YOU TAKE IT AWAY. YEAH. SO YEAH, PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO VOTE TO SAY, WELL YES WE WILL REMOVE THAT. SO THAT'S WHERE THAT THAT VOTE WOULD COME IN INSTEAD OF THE THREE FOURTHS AFFIRMATIVE. IT WOULD BE MAJORITY THEN. SO INSTEAD OF SIX VOTES THEY WOULD GET FOUR TO REMOVE SOMETHING THAT PLANNING COMMISSION HAD ADDED IN. SO LET'S SAY TREE PRESERVATION PLANNING COMMISSION HAD THE APPLICANT ADD IN TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS. THEY WENT TO CITY COUNCIL AND THEY REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL TO REMOVE THAT IN ORDER TO AMEND THAT ZONING CODE TEXT, CITY COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO GET SIX VOTES CURRENTLY. AND THEN IF THAT WAS APPROVED, THEN CITY COUNCIL WOULD VOTE ON THAT NEW DOCUMENT THAT HAD THAT REMOVED. BUT THEY'RE REQUESTING THAT INSTEAD OF THE SIX VOTES, IT GOES TO FOUR VOTES. A RECENT TIME THAT I REMEMBER IT OCCURRING WAS MARYSVILLE NORTH AFTER IT WENT THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION, A COUPLE MEMBERS MET WITH BART AND MADE IMPROVEMENTS. IN THAT CASE, IT WAS MAKING IMPROVEMENTS, AND NOT THAT I THINK COUNCIL WOULD GO TO A LOWER STANDARD THAN US, BUT YOU KNOW, BUT MAYBE IT'S NOT A STANDARD. MAYBE IT'S A POINT OF VIEW. WELL, I'M NOT THE STANDARD. I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT CHECKS AND BALANCES. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IT. COULD IT COULD CHANGE THINGS THAT GO UNCHECKED. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M IN THE MINORITY. I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING THAT WE VOTE ON IS A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL. SO I MEAN, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, A VOTE TO AMEND THE RECOMMENDATION, IT FEELS LIKE EVERYTHING WE VOTE ON. THAT, THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I FEEL LIKE IS BEING ADDRESSED HERE,

[00:35:06]

SURE. YES. SORRY TO GO BACK TO WHAT LESLIE WAS ASKING ABOUT, BUT I THINK YOUR CONCERN IS RELATED MORE TO THAT LAST SENTENCE, A VOTE TO ADOPT, THE RECOMMENDATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION, WHETHER TO A MEND OR NOT, MUST RECEIVE MAJORITY VOTE. SO IF YOU GUYS VOTE YES AND IT GOES TO COUNCIL, AND COUNCIL DOES THEIR VOTE, THAT'S WHEN MAJORITY OF YES WE ARE GOING TO APPROVE THEIR RECOMMENDATION OR WE ARE GOING TO DENY THEIR RECOMMENDATION. NO. WHAT I'M THE HIGHLIGHTED YELLOW IS WHAT STICKS OUT TO ME. A VOTE TO AMEND THE RECOMMENDATION. YES.

AND THAT THAT'S WHAT'S REFERRING. I THINK IT IS A LITTLE CONFUSING IN THAT HOW THAT'S WRITTEN, BUT THAT IS REFERRING TO THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS OF THAT APPLICATION.

NOT NOT YOUR APPROVAL OR DENIAL VOTE. SO IT'S THE SIX VOTES. THE THREE FOURTHS VOTE IS FOR WHEN THERE ARE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE TEXT. AND THEN WHEN THEY GO TO ACTUALLY VOTE ON THE APPLICATION, THAT'S WHEN IT'S JUST A MAJORITY VOTE OF COUNCIL. SO AT FOR MARYSVILLE NORTH, CAN YOU HELP ME OUT? BECAUSE THERE WAS LIKE 6 OR 7 THINGS THEY VOTED ON. I THINK IT WAS MARYSVILLE EAST. WAS IT EAST? IT WAS THE OH, YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU'RE RIGHT. IT WAS EAST SECTION THREE. YEAH. IT'S NORTH OF YEAH, IT'S MARYSVILLE NORTH TO THE RESIDENTIAL PART OF MARYSVILLE EAST. ANY AMENDMENTS? I BELIEVE ONE WAS THE REMOVE ASPHALT DRIVEWAY. SO ALL DRIVEWAYS WERE CONCRETE. MIGHT HAVE BEEN ONE OF THOSE AMENDMENTS. I KNOW THAT'S AT LEAST FOR ONE OF THE APPLICATION THAT HAD GONE THROUGH. YEAH. SO THERE'S ALSO LIKE VINYL SOMETIMES VINYL GETS APPROVED AS A SECONDARY MATERIAL AND COUNCIL WANTS THAT REMOVED. SO THAT WAS I THINK ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT WAS AN AMENDMENT. YEAH. THEY ADDED ADDITIONAL TREES TO THAT ONE AS

[00:40:04]

BUT IT ALSO THEY COULD ELIMINATE THINGS AS WELL. I'M NOT SAYING THEY WILL. I'M NOT SAYING THEY WILL. I'M JUST SAYING YEAH, IT'S NOT ALL SUNSHINE AND ROSES. NO NO NO NO I MEAN I GUESS TO COUNTER I MEAN I TRYING TO THINK IF IT WOULD APPLY HERE BACK WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT. LOT COVERAGE. WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON LOT COVERAGE. AND I THINK EVERYONE ON THE BOARD UNDERSTOOD IT. WATCHING THE COUNCIL MEETING OF THE MEMBERS THAT WAS THERE WAS OTHER GROUP OF MEMBERS, YOU KNOW, THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT, YOU KNOW, AND SO THEY COULD HAVE TRIED TO VOTE TO CHANGE IT.

RIGHT. AND SO NO, I AGREE THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THEY COULD HAVE INADVERTENTLY CHANGED SOMETHING. THAT AND I THINK WE DID HAVE SOME AMENDMENTS DURING THAT LOT COVERAGE. YEAH, I THINK THEY WERE ALL APPROVED BECAUSE I THINK THAT THEY INCREASED THE PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENT. BUT IF YOU'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE MAJORITY, YOU HAVE THE OPTION OBVIOUSLY, TO VOTE ON THAT. BUT YOU ALSO CAN CHANGE THAT. YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S FIVE VOTES, A SUPERMAJORITY OR SO IT IS. IT IS CLUNKY LANGUAGE. AND SO BY ALL MEANS, SOMEONE POLISHES FOR ME. BUT THEN I FEEL LIKE WHAT IS BEING ASKED IS A VOTE TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATION. SURE. NOT A VOTE TO AMEND OUR RECOMMENDATION, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S AS IT READS. IT'S A VOTE TO CHANGE OUR RECOMMENDATION.

WHAT WE'RE PASSING THROUGH. BUT IF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET AT IS NO, YOU'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE THINGS WE HAVE CHANGED, THEN IT'S A VOTE TO AMEND THE AMENDMENTS IN OUR RECOMMENDATION. SO IF WE SAID NO, MAKE IT 10% INSTEAD OF THE FIVE THAT WAS IN THERE. AND COUNCIL SAYS NOW WE'RE CHANGING YOUR AMENDED RECOMMENDATION. I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT. RIGHT.

I MEAN, LIKE IF THEY WANT TO CHANGE ANYTHING AND LIKE IF WE APPROVED A PUD WITH NO AMENDMENTS, THEN THERE WOULD BE NOTHING FOR THEM TO CHANGE CONDITIONS. WELL, NO, THEY CAN STILL CHANGE THE PUD. YES. THEY DON'T. SO WHEN THEY GET SOMETHING, IT'S LIKE A FRESH APPLICATION. WE'LL SAY. SO ANYTHING, WHATEVER GETS DISCUSSED HERE COMES. IT'S ALREADY INCLUDED WHEN IT GOES TO CITY COUNCIL. AND THAT'S LIKE THEIR THAT'S THEIR APPLICATION TO REVIEW. WE'LL INFORM THEM OF WHAT MAYBE SOME OF THOSE AMENDMENTS WERE AND WHAT THOSE DISCUSSION ITEMS WERE HERE. BUT THAT WHOLE DOCUMENT IS FINALIZED AS ONE THING. THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S PULLED OUT TO SAY THIS. THIS WAS AN AMENDMENT. THIS WAS AN AMENDMENT. THIS WAS AMENDMENT. THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING ELSE THAT COMES UP THAT THEY WANT TO CHANGE IN THAT DOCUMENT THAT WASN'T DISCUSSED AT PLANNING COMMISSION. I SEE THAT POINT, TOO. I AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ANY NEFARIOUS THINGS GOING ON. I WE JUST DON'T WANT OUR RECOMMENDATION TAKEN LIGHTLY. RIGHT? YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT. SO, LIKE THIS IS YOUR AMENDMENT.

WHAT WE SEND TO COUNCIL AS A RESOLUTION, WHICH IS AN AMENDMENT THAT YOU GUYS MAKE, MADE THE RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND SECTION 1121 .13 IN THE APPENDIX. AND THEN WE HAVE IT AS APPENDIX A, WHICH IS WHAT WE SHOW. SO THIS IS THE BIOMEDICAL WASTE FACILITY. SO WHAT FOR THEM FOR THEM TO AMEND THAT. SO IF THEY DIDN'T LIKE THAT DEFINITION, EVEN THOUGH YOU GUYS APPROVED IT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SIX VOTES TO CHANGE THE WORDING IN THAT DEFINITION. EVEN IF EVEN IF WHAT THEY SAID STAFF AGREED WITH LIKE, YEAH, THAT MAKES THAT DEFINITION BETTER, THEY STILL HAD TO GET SIX OUT OF THE SEVEN VOTES FOR THAT. SO SOMETIMES IT COULD HURT HAVING THAT SIX VOTES. IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, STAFF AGREES WITH OR IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE OVERLOOKED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL THAT'S EXISTING. HOW THE CODE IS WRITTEN CURRENTLY SIX VOTES, SIX VOTES IS CURRENTLY HOW IT IS. AND THIS WOULD TAKE IT DOWN TO

[00:45:01]

WHAT DO YOU THINK? YOU'RE AWFULLY QUIET DOWN THERE. I'M NOT THINKING. I, I, I DON'T I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION YET ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. RIGHT. MR. ANGLE, KIND OF SAME BOAT AS CHAD. JERRY, ARE YOU ALLOWED OVER HERE? YEAH. WE'LL BE RIGHT WITH YOU. YEAH. I'M ANXIOUS TO SEE WHAT STEVE HAS TO SAY. ALL RIGHT, WELL, WE WILL OPEN IT UP TO CITIZEN COMMENTS. ANY CITIZENS WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC? YOU DO NEED TO GO TO THE PODIUM. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND YOU HAVE UP TO FIVE MINUTES. GOOD EVENING, STEVE STOLL. DAY 634 WEST EIGHTH STREET. I GUESS I'M A PROPONENT FOR A SUPERMAJORITY. WHENEVER COUNCIL WANTS TO CHANGE A PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, YOU ALL YOU KNOW, COUNCIL HAS ESTABLISHED A PREFERRED TYPE OF INDIVIDUALS THAT THEY WANT ON PLANNING COMMISSION THEY'RE LOOKING FOR.

YOU KNOW, AN ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, CONTRACTOR, PEOPLE WITH THAT WITH THAT KIND OF EXPERIENCE. COUNCIL, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT, NO SIMILAR REQUIREMENT FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. YOU KNOW, ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS GET GET ON THE BALLOT AND GET ELECTED. SO.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL HAS PROVIDED THEY'VE APPROVED A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND YOU ALL ARE OBLIGED TO FOLLOW THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THEY'VE APPROVED ZONING REGULATIONS AND YOU ARE OBLIGED TO REVIEW, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE ZONING REGULATIONS.

THEY'VE APPROVED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. YOU ARE OBLIGED TO APPROVE. MAKE A. MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. SO YOUR APPROVAL IS IMPORTANT. AND I JUST THINK THAT. IF YOU OPEN THE DOOR, IF YOU ALLOW JUST A SIMPLE MAJORITY, YOU'RE JUST POTENTIALLY OPENING THE DOOR TO. TOO MUCH POLITICS, GETTING INVOLVED IN A DECISION THAT IS OF TECHNICAL IN NATURE. AND I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT YOU'RE FACED WITH WITH PUDS AND THESE MINOR CHANGES THAT MAY NEED TO BE MADE. AND I HOPE YOU CAN WORK OUT SOME DETAIL THERE THAT YOU CAN MANAGE THAT WITHOUT GIVING UP A SUPERMAJORITY. SO MY THOUGHTS. THANK YOU SIR. ANY OTHER CITIZENS WISHING TO SPEAK OKAY. I'M SORRY. I DO LIKE HIS POINT THAT WE ALL ARE APPOINTED HERE BY CITY COUNCIL TO REPRESENT, YOU KNOW, VARIOUS DISCIPLINES. CORRECT. AND OUR YOU KNOW, WE ARE NOT UP FOR ELECTION. SO WE, YOU KNOW, OUR DECISIONS ARE NOT AFFECTED BY POLITICAL PRESSURES, RIGHT? SO YEAH. SO, SO SUPERMAJORITY IT'S MAJORITY PLUS ONE IS THAT THE DEFINITION OF IT. AND IS IT OF ALL MEMBERS OR ALL PRESENT MEMBERS OR DO WE DECIDE THAT. SO YOU GUYS CAN DECIDE THAT. BUT CURRENTLY IT WOULD BE OF ALL MEMBERS IS KIND OF HOW IT'S ORIGINALLY WAS STATED WAS FOR ALL MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. I WOULD PROBABLY STICK WITH THAT. YEP. FOR ALL MEMBERS. OKAY. I MEAN, THEY'RE USUALLY PRETTY WELL ATTENDED. YEAH, A SUPERMAJORITY OF ALL MEMBERS WILL ALWAYS BE FIVE UNLESS SOMEONE RECUSES THEMSELVES. YES. THEN WE'LL GO DOWN TO 4 OR 6. SO HOW DO FOLKS FEEL? IT WOULD STILL BE FIVE.

THREE WOULD BE A MAJORITY OR WOULD BE MAJORITY HAVE THREE. HALF. HALF IS A PUSH. SO

[00:50:03]

THAT MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE. PRESENTED BEFORE CITY COUNCIL MUST RECEIVE. SUPERMAJORITY OF VOTES, SOME SOMETHING INSTEAD OF AMEND THE RECOMMENDATION. I LIKE THAT AMEND THE APPLICATION.

AMENDING THE RECOMMENDATION JUST FEELS LIKE IT'S OVERRIDING US. OKAY, WELL, THAT'S WHERE WE ALL KIND OF OUR MINDS WENT IMMEDIATELY. YEAH. WE'LL SEE IF HE, YOU KNOW, HAS IF THAT LANGUAGE WORKS TO AMEND THE APPLICATION INSTEAD OF THE RECOMMENDATION. WHAT HIS THOUGHTS ARE ON THAT. OKAY. SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CHANGE OF CHANGING THREE FOURTHS TO A SUPERMAJORITY AND CHANGE THE WORD RECOMMENDATION TO APPLICATION? WELL, WE'RE TO IF AGREED UPON OR YEAH, WE'LL CLEAN IT UP. THEY WILL LOOK INTO IT. WE WILL LOOK INTO THAT I MEAN BECAUSE TECHNICALLY WHAT WE DO GIVE COUNCIL IS A RECOMMENDATION NOT NOT TO NOT TO GET RECOMMENDATION, NOT TO GET COMPLETELY CIRCULAR. BUT THIS WON'T GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL COUNCIL APPROVES IT. SO ARE THEY JUST GOING TO NOT AGREE WITH US? NO. DO THEY VOTE ON THEY WOULD VOTE ON THIS. WELL, BUT BUT IF THEY DENY IT THEN IT GOES TO SIX VOTES. THEN IT STAYS ON THREE FOURTHS. OKAY, ALRIGHT. FAIR. YEAH. SO KEEP COMING BACK. BUT THEN ON 6 TO 1 VOTE THEY COULD OVERRIDE IT. I GET TRICKY SO OKAY WELL IT IS WHAT IT IS LIKE.

THAT'S WHAT THE RULES ARE. IF THEY CAN'T, IF THEY CAN'T AGREE TO PASS WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING IT'S GOING TO GET STUCK. STUCK WITH THREE FOURTHS. YEAH. WHICH WOULD BE HAPPIER WITH ANYWAY.

SURE. SO IS THERE A MOTION TO PASS WITH THOSE REVISIONS. MOTION TO APPROVE. THANK YOU.

MR. FISHER. MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? MR. NICKERSON? YES, MISS. BERGUS? YES. MR. WOLOWITZ. YES, MR. ENGEL. YES, MR. FISHER. YES. MR. STILIAN. YES. ALL RIGHT, NEXT MOVE ON TO

[4. To hear an application for multiple Zoning Code Amendments to Part Eleven – Zoning Code addressing public notifications.]

[00:55:01]

OKAY. I ASSUME LEGALLY, YOU KNOW, REMOVING CERTIFIED MAIL IS THERE'S NO ISSUE. YEAH. THERE'S NO ISSUE. WE ACTUALLY PREVIOUSLY ON OUR PRIOR ZONING CODE, WE ONLY HAD FIRST CLASS. AND WE THOUGHT, WELL, LET'S GIVE CERTIFIED A TRY. BUT WE'VE BEEN GETTING SO MANY OF THEM BACK.

THE COSTUMES. YEAH. NOT GOING DOWN. NOW WE HAVE SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE NOW. LIKE FOR DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. IT JUST SAYS IT HAS TO BE SENT OUT. IT DOESN'T STATE CERTIFIED OR FIRST CLASS.

AND SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET EVERYTHING ALL ON THE SAME LANGUAGE AND THE SAME IDEA. I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD. I JUST HAD A QUESTION AND I KNOW IT'S ALWAYS SAID SELECTED MEDIA OUTLETS. I ROUGHLY KNOW WHERE THEY GET POSTED. BUT DO WE HAVE? GUIDELINES? LIKE WHAT? WHAT IS THE CITY DEFINING AS SELECTED MEDIA OUTLETS? AND I'LL SAY PART TWO TO THAT IS BECAUSE IF WE'RE ONLY USING, LIKE THE TRIBUNE, THAT'S A PAID SUBSCRIPTION AND THAT'S NOT THERE'S A BARRIER TO READ AT THAT POINT. SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF YEAH, THAT IS TYPICALLY WHERE WE POST THAT TO AS THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER. WE ALSO HAVE IT ON OUR WEBSITE. WE, WE NOW PUT THE SIGNS OUT AS WELL FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSION MEETINGS. WHO RUNS THE CITY? SOCIAL MEDIA. ANNA DOES. SO SHE'LL BE ABLE TO POST IT ON THE MARYSVILLE'S FACEBOOK MARYSVILLE'S OFFICIALS. YEAH, LIKE LIKE THAT. WE HAVE A MEETING. SO THAT'S THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION. SOCIAL MEDIA COULD BE ONE OF THOSE MEDIA OUTLETS AS WELL. WE DID IT IN ADDITION TO BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, HAVE EXPECTING PEOPLE TO SEE IT IN A PAID SUBSCRIPTION. YEAH.

THIS IS NOT A BARRIER TO INFORMATION. IF I RECALL WHEN WE DID THE WHOLE ZONING CODE REWRITE, I THINK THAT WAS A DISCUSSION OF DO WE SPECIFICALLY LIST NEWSPAPER SOCIAL MEDIA? BUT I THINK WE JUST WENT WITH A LITTLE MORE GENERAL. SO WE HAD SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THAT. I WOULD AND I REALIZE THE WORD MULTIMEDIA HAS IS NOT THE INTENT HERE, BUT I WOULD SAY MULTIPLE MEDIA OUTLETS. AND THEN IF IT MAKES SENSE TO PUT IT IN THE NEWSPAPER AND ONLINE, OR IF IT MAKES SENSE TO PUT IT IN THE NEWSPAPER AND PUT A SIGN OUT FRONT. BUT IT SHOULD BE MORE THAN ONE. JUST THE NEWSPAPER. YEAH, I WOULD LIKE I WOULD LIKE IT TO SAY MULTIPLE MEDIA

[01:00:01]

THANK YOU. MR. SMOLOWITZ. CAN I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE, MISS BERGUS? YES. MR. WOLLOWITZ. YES, MR. ENGEL. YES, MR. FISHER. YES, MR. STALLION. YES. MR. NICKERSON. YES. LAST ITEM ON THE

[5. To hear an application for a Zoning Code Amendment to Part Eleven – Zoning Code, Section 1123.06 – Density Bonus.]

YEAH. AND WE KNEW. IN ADDITION YOU KNOW WE CAN PROMOTE THE HIGHER DENSITY. BUT WE ALSO STILL WANT TO HAVE A REALLY GOOD SITE DESIGN FOR THOSE THAT ARE LIVING ON THAT PROPERTY AND THE COMMUNITY IN GENERAL. SO. THAT OUR OTHER NEW SUBSECTION THAT WE PROPOSED IS THE DESIGN CRITERIA.

[01:05:03]

WE'RE CHANGING IT TO TWO. AND WE'RE FOR THIS LEVEL ONE. IT WOULD BE PER BUILDING. SO IT'S JUST TWO ADDITIONAL DESIGN FEATURES PER THE BUILDING. FOR LEVEL TWO, WE WOULD KEEP IT AS THE ADDITIONAL TWO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FEATURES, BUT FOR THIS ONE THAT IS FOR THE FRONT AND REAR ELEVATIONS. SO THERE'S TWO ADDITIONAL ON THE FRONT AND THE REAR, AND THEN ONE ADDITIONAL FEATURE FOR EACH SIDE ELEVATION. AND THEN ALSO FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED. FOR LEVEL ONE, YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 5% OF OPEN SPACE IN EXCESS OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. AND THEN ALSO THE FOR LEVEL TWO WOULD BE 10% ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE IN EXCESS OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. FOR A MIXED USE BUILDING TYPE, BE ADDITION OF FOUR DESIGN FEATURES PER BUILDING FOR LEVEL ONE, ALSO 5% OPEN SPACE. AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE FOUR ADDITIONAL FEATURES ON THE FRONT AND REAR ELEVATIONS, AND TWO FOR EACH SIDE ELEVATION, AND THEN ADDITIONAL 10% OPEN SPACE. AND MULTI FAMILY. THERE'S TWO DESIGN FEATURES PER ELEVATION. AND 5% OPEN SPACE AND ACCESS. AND THEN FOR LEVEL TWO, BE FOUR FEATURES FOR THE FRONT AND REAR ELEVATION AND TWO FOR EACH SIDE ELEVATION. AN ADDITIONAL 10% OPEN SPACE. AND THEN JUST SO YOU GUYS, WE'VE WE'VE KEPT THE LEVEL ONE AND THE LEVEL TWO CONSISTENT FROM WHAT THE ORIGINAL ZONING CODE HAD. SO LEVEL ONE DENSITY BONUS WOULD ADD TWO UNITS PER ACRE. AND THEN LEVEL TWO WOULD ADD FOUR UNITS PER. I KNOW WHEN WE HAD PREVIOUS APPLICATION IN HERE, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT IF WE ONLY WANT TO DO THREE LIKE THEY REQUEST A LEVEL TWO, BUT YOU ONLY WANT TO DO THREE UNITS. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE US TO CHANGE IS MAYBE SAY UP TO TWO UNITS OR UP TO FOUR UNITS. I GUESS THAT MAKES SENSE. BUT I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S REQUIRED. OKAY. WE'RE GIVING THEM PERMISSION TO DO DO DO DO THE FOUR. BUT THEY COULD DO LESS. YEAH. SINCE THEY ARE A SITE PLAN WOULD BE PART OF THIS. WE'RE GOING TO SEE WHAT YOU KNOW WHAT THE PLAN IS RIGHT. PULLING THE SITE PLAN INTO DENSITY BONUSES. THIS IS WHAT WE NEED.

IT WAS IT'S CRITICAL. YEAH. CAN WE GO BACK TO THE OBJECTIVES? THE ONE THAT I'VE GOT IN

[01:10:08]

GEOTHERMAL. YEAH. THEY'RE USING LED LIGHTS. THAT IS. RIGHT. IF YOU THINK THERE WOULD BE A BETTER ENERGY. YEAH, I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THAT SINCE BACK THEN I JUST, I WAS THINKING ALONG THE LINES OF, YOU KNOW, SHINGLES THAT ARE. YEAH, SOLAR PANELS. YES, THAT KIND OF STUFF.

BUT I HAVEN'T FLUSHED IT THROUGH MY BRAIN ALL THE WAY YET. IT'S GOOD AS IT STANDS, I MEAN, BUT WE CAN EXPAND IT, YOU KNOW, LATER ON, I GUESS, IF YOU WANT TO ADD THAT AS A CONDITION, WE COULD, WE COULD LOOK INTO MAYBE A DIFFERENT TERMS INSTEAD OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY. I MEAN, I GUESS LEAVING IT THAT WAY ALLOWS FOR A FUTURE INNOVATION. RIGHT? AND OUR INTERPRETATION, I MEAN, THEIR INTERPRETATION MIGHT BE DIFFERENT, BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S PART OF THE DISCUSSION. I MEAN, IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT. YEAH. SOUND LIKE YOU WERE. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. I MEAN, YOU COULD PUT ADVANCED ENERGY EFFICIENCY. SO IT'S NOT JUST A WELL, I PUT IN AN LED LIGHT BULB. RIGHT.

EXCEEDS BUILDING CODE. YES, YES. MAYBE THAT'S WHAT IT IS. IS IT ABOVE AND BEYOND. WHAT IS CODE REQUIRED PERHAPS. SO. YEAH. BECAUSE THEY COULD DO AN ENERGY EFFICIENT HOME. YEAH. EXCEPT FOR THE RECENT BUILDING CODE CHANGES. THERE WAS HIGHER STANDARDS ON THERMAL INSULATION AND THAT SORT OF THING. SO. SO THEY HAVE TO DO IT ANYWAY. SO WE WANT THEM TO. WELL, IF YOU WANT A TAX CREDIT YOU HAVE TO DO IT. IF YOU DON'T WANT THE TAX CREDIT YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT. THAT'S TRUE. I GUESS IT ONLY APPLIES TO CERTAIN COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, RIGHT? YEAH. THAT'S TRUE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS. SO. YOU KNOW WE TALK ABOUT ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND WHAT THOSE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ARE, ARE DEFINED RIGHT NOW. BUT THEY ALL ALSO THERE ARE PLANS FOR THE STAFF TO REVIEW THOSE AND UPDATE SO THAT THAT WILL COME IN THE FUTURE. AND I THINK THIS WAS NEEDED I APPRECIATE IT. YEAH. YEAH, I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE HAD THIS EARLIER, TWO MONTHS EARLIER. I'M NOT GOING TO BE SPECIFIC. OKAY. ANY CITIZEN COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE REVISIONS MENTIONED OF THE OBJECTIVE SHALL BE MET TO PROMOTE HIGH QUALITY DEVELOPMENT OR AND ALSO WITH THE APPLICATION OF ESTABLISHES ALL

[01:15:02]

YES, MR. STILLMAN. MR. NICKERSON. YES, MISS. BERGUS? YES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THAT MOVES ON TO DISCUSSION ITEMS. ANY ITEMS TO DISCUSS THIS EVENING? WELL.

[DESIGN REVIEW BOARD LIAISON REPORT]

OKAY. AND THEN THE SILO WATER AND LIGHT PROJECT WAS IN FRONT OF US AND IT DIDN'T GO WELL. IT WAS TABLED. THAT'S IT. GO ON TO COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS. START THEN I'M GOING TO

[COMMENTS OF INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS]

BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO STAND ON THE FACT THAT, LIKE THE ONE I'M PARTICULARLY TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, JUST FROM LAST MONTH, IT WASN'T THE RIGHT PLACE FOR IT AND IT WASN'T THE RIGHT SHAPE OR DESIGN. I JUST WANT US TO ALL KEEP IN THE FOREFRONT OF OUR MIND THAT APPROVING HIGHER DENSITY CAN RESULT IN SOME ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN TOWN. SO I GUESS I DID GET TO A POINT. ALL RIGHT, MR. STERLING. NO COMMENT. MR. KUSHNER, LOOKING FORWARD TO COMING UP. NO COMMENT. NO COMMENT BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED THE VISION PLANNING. I'M JUST GOING TO SAY SOMETHING OUT LOUD BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE I SHOULD HAVE SAID IT THEN, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I ENJOYED IT. AND I HOPE THAT THE PUBLIC SESSION THAT'S COMING UP LATER THIS MONTH HOPE EVERYONE ATTENDS, YOU KNOW, SO THEY GAVE US THE ABILITY ON OUR PHONES TO RANK STUFF AND SUBMIT ANSWERS. YOU KNOW, LIKE WHAT'S ONE WORD THAT DESCRIBE WHAT YOU, YOU KNOW, IT WAS ENJOYABLE. IT'S VERY INTERACTIVE. BUT THERE WAS ONE SLIDE WHERE IT WAS RANK WHAT YOU FEEL, THE TYPE OF BUILDING OR HOUSING THAT YOU FEEL MARYSVILLE NEEDS MOST. AND I THINK MARYSVILLE NEEDS ALL A BLEND OF HOUSING. AND I'M AFRAID THAT ONCE WE COME OUT OF THAT VISIONING SESSION AND IT'S PUBLISHED AND IT'S LIKE, WELL, NO ONE WANTS APARTMENTS. WELL, DIDN'T SAY NO ONE WANTS APARTMENTS. IT'S JUST THOSE APARTMENTS WAS RANKED LAST PROBABLY OR SECOND TO LAST, YOU KNOW. SO IT JUST FELT VERY BAD. I DIDN'T FEEL THAT QUESTION WAS WORDED WELL. AND JUST LIKE IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PEOPLE WILL POINT TO, IT WAS A SIMILAR GRAPHIC OF THESE ARE THE TYPE OF HOUSES EVERYONE WANTS. THEY DON'T WANT THIS. WELL, THERE'S PROBABLY JUST RANKED. THEY PREFER THESE. YOU KNOW, MARYSVILLE NEEDS A MIX OF BUILDINGS, HOUSING. EVERYTHING ELSE. ABOUT THAT VISION PLAN I THOUGHT WAS VERY POSITIVE, I ENJOYED IT. I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO PARTICIPATE. THE DATE OF THAT IS AUGUST 2626. AND JUST AS A HEADS UP. SO IT'LL BE A SIMILAR

[01:20:03]