Sep 02, 2025 Planning Commission

I WAS READY. GOOD EVENING.

[CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

[00:00:04]

I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING OF THE MARYSVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER.

COULD WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? PAGE LORB HERE.

BRETT ENGEL HERE. MATTHEW FISHER HERE.

MICHAEL NICKERSON HERE.

LESLIE, HERE. CHAD WOLOWITZ.

HERE. ROB. STILL HERE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE GO TO APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES ]

DOES ANYONE HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW? ARE THERE ANY CHANGES? I DID SEE THERE WAS A TYPO, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT CHANGED THE MEANING.

TWO. OH, IT SAYS TO HAVE TWO POLITICAL AGENDA OR NO POLITICAL AGENDA.

YEAH, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MATTERS TO YOU OR NOT.

YOUR WORDS. I DON'T THINK IT I DON'T THINK IT MATTERS TO THE INTENT.

SO ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? EDITS? SEEING NONE.

MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.

MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL OPPOSED THE SAME.

THANK YOU. OKAY. AT THIS POINT SWEARING IN OF CITIZENS AND APPLICANTS.

[SWEARING OF CITIZENS & APPLICANTS]

SO. OKAY. DO YOU DECLARE THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH UNDER PAINS AND PENALTIES OF PERJURY AND FALSIFICATION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY.

WHICH TAKES US THEN TO CITIZEN COMMENTS.

ANY CITIZENS HERE WISHING TO SPEAK? I WON'T DO THE WHOLE EXPLANATION IF YOU.

OKAY. REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATION.

[REPORT OF ADMINISTRATION]

IF WE CAN HAVE THAT AS THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

SURE. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.

I MEAN, BECAUSE IT WAS PASSED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS OUT, WHY DOESN'T IT JUST GET MOVED TO OCTOBER? BECAUSE IT'S WE'RE ALLOWED TO ASK IF IT GETS ADDED. IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS TO, I GUESS, TECHNICALLY APPROVE THAT TO VOTE ON THAT, BUT OKAY. I MEAN DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, THOUGH? DOES EVERYONE KNOW WHAT IT IS? I GUESS I SAY WHICH SECTION? IT'S 1141 .27. IT'S ACTION BY PLANNING COMMISSION.

IT IS FOR CONDITIONAL USES.

IS SIMILAR, IF NOT THE SAME AS WHAT WE VOTED ON LAST WEEK LAST MONTH.

BUT THIS TIME IT WAS BROUGHT ABOUT FROM COUNCIL AND IT'S IN ZONING CODE AS OPPOSED TO CORRECT. IT'LL BE IN THE ZONING CODE INSTEAD OF THE RULES AND PROCEDURES.

SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO MOVE THAT TO THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM? YES. MOTION TO APPROVE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

OPPOSE THE SAME. THANK YOU.

OKAY. NEW BUSINESS. SO, WHAT IS NOW?

[1. To hear an application for a Zoning Code Amendment to Part Eleven – Zoning Code, Section 1123.29 Open Space Regulations.]

SO THE FIRST ITEM IS, IS THE AMENDMENT FOR SECTION 1141 27 ACTION BY PLANNING COMMISSION. IS THE SECTION JUST A BACKGROUND? THIS WAS HEARD SIMILAR LAST MONTH.

PLANNING COMMISSION IT WAS ACTED ON FOR THE RULES AND PROCEDURES, WHICH WAS SIMILAR TO WHAT THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS HAS CURRENTLY.

THE VOTE WAS 3 TO 3, WHICH ENDS UP IN A DENIAL WITH A TIED VOTE.

THEN CITY COUNCIL AT THE AUGUST 25TH MEETING, PASSED A RESOLUTION TO INITIATE ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1141.

THIS PERTAINS TO THE CONDITIONAL USE VOTING AT PLANNING COMMISSION.

THE INTENT IS CONDITIONAL USE IS REQUIRE ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE ADJACENT USES.

PREVIOUSLY, CONDITIONAL USES WERE REVIEWED BY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, WHICH HAS A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE REQUIREMENT.

AND THEN THIS AMENDMENT ENCOURAGES MORE AGREEMENTS AMONGST THE BOARD MEMBERS TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE.

THIS IS WHAT THE PROPOSED SECTION WOULD BE.

THE LANGUAGE IN RED IS JUST BEING ADDED.

[00:05:03]

WITH THAT. SO THE QUANTITY OF TOTAL MEMBERS ONLY CHANGES AS IF A MEMBER RECUSES THEMSELVES DUE TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

I GUESS THERE HAVE BEEN CASES IN THE PAST THAT PEOPLE HAVE RECUSED THEMSELVES JUST TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM AN ITEM, NOT NECESSARILY AS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

WELL, NOT THEY DIDN'T HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

SO IF YOU HAVE TO HAVE IF YOU HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THEN IT WOULD TAKE YOUR NUMBERS DOWN.

SO IF ONE PERSON RECUSED THEMSELVES IT. IT GOES FROM SEVEN MEMBERS TO SIX MEMBERS, AND FOUR VOTES WOULD BE NECESSARY.

IF TWO PEOPLE RECUSE THEMSELVES, IT WOULD GO DOWN TO FIVE MEMBERS, AND FOUR VOTES WOULD ALSO BE NECESSARY FOR THAT APPROVAL.

BUT APPARENTLY THERE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES IN THE PAST THAT PEOPLE HAVE RECUSED THEMSELVES WITHOUT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THAT CASE.

THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE NUMBER OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MEMBERS.

AND IT ALSO DOES NOT CHANGE THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS IF THERE'S A VACANT SEAT.

SO IF SOMEONE RESIGNS EARLY AND IT'S NOT FILLED OR IF SOMEONE IS JUST ABSENT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE NUMBER.

TOTAL NUMBER OF MEMBERS.

I'M SORRY. YOU SAID VACANT SEATS.

SO IF WE HAVE SIX MEMBERS CURRENTLY BECAUSE WE HAVE AN OPEN SEAT, NOT BECAUSE SOMEONE'S ABSENT, IT WOULD STILL REQUIRE FIVE, CORRECT? IT'D STILL BE SEVEN MEMBERS.

THIS IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN ADVISED.

I MEAN, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, HOW DID WHAT WAS THE PASSING IN CITY COUNCIL FOR THIS? I BELIEVE IT WAS SEVEN OF 7 OR 6.

I THINK ONE MEMBER WAS ABSENT.

SO. I KNOW LAST MONTH I WAS NOT CLEAR ON THE CONDITION WHAT IT MEANT.

SO IT'S JUST CONDITIONAL USES? CORRECT. THIS WOULD ONLY BE FOR CONDITIONAL USES. NOT ALL ITEMS THAT ARE GOING TO PLANNING COMMISSION JUST A CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATIONS. LAST MONTH I THOUGHT IT WAS ALL ITEMS, NOT JUST CONDITIONAL USE ITEM.

OH, SURE. I MEAN I REMEMBER AT TIMES ADDING THINGS TO CONDITIONAL USES IN A ZONING I COULD SEE THAT REQUIRING A SUPERMAJORITY, WHICH IT PROBABLY DOESN'T, BUT THAT THEN NEEDS APPROVAL BY COUNCIL.

CORRECT? LET'S SAY PICK A ZONING.

YOU KNOW SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL.

THAT'S A COMMERCIAL ZONING AREA.

WE ADDED PLACES OF WORSHIP TO THE CONDITIONAL USE.

THAT WOULD THEN HAVE TO BE. AND WE VOTED A MAJORITY.

IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.

RIGHT? CORRECT. TO BE ADDED TO CHANGE.

BUT IN MY MIND, THE CONDITIONAL USES HAVE BEEN APPROVED AT ONE TIME OR THE OTHER.

I DON'T SEE WHY IT REQUIRES A SUPERMAJORITY.

WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING OUTSIDE THE ZONING CODE.

I'M STILL OPPOSED TO TO IT, BUT THAT'S MY VIEW.

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK OR SAY THOUGHTS? NO. I'M ON THIS. I'M STILL ON THE SAME PAGE THERE.

THIS JUST FEELS LIKE A WAY TO TRY TO CONTROL WHAT COMES OUT OF THIS COMMISSION.

WELL, WHATEVER COMES OUT OF THIS COMMISSION IS VOTED ON AT COUNCIL ANYWAY.

NOT IF IT'S IF IT'S A33 TIE IN A DENIAL.

IT STILL WENT TO CITY COUNCIL. NO, THEY THAT ONE WAS SINCE THAT WAS RULES AND PROCEDURE THAT DID NOT GO DOES NOT GO TO COUNCIL BECAUSE WE DENIED IT.

THEY TRIED TO GO AT ANOTHER DIRECTION.

SO LET'S SAY WE DENY A CONDITIONAL USE.

CAN IT GO TO BZA? YES, THEY WOULD APPEAL IT.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPEAL THE DECISION. I THINK WE SHOULD STICK WITH THAT PROCEDURE THOUGH. I AGREE A SIMPLE MAJORITY.

I MEAN WE WOULD STILL IT WOULD STILL GO.

SO IF THEY DON'T GET THE FIVE VOTES OUT OF SEVEN, THEN THEY WOULD THEY WOULD STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPEAL THAT TO BZA.

WHAT'S THE BENEFIT? I MEAN, I'M GOING TO SPEAK FROM THE OTHER SIDE.

I THINK THE IDEA IS IF WE VOTE FOR FOUR ZERO FOR ONE FOR, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER MANY PEOPLE WE HAVE TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE THAT DOESN'T GO IN FRONT OF COUNCIL TO THEN ALSO APPROVE.

AND I THINK THAT'S THE CONCERN OF HOW MANY CONDITIONAL USES HAVE YOU AND I ADDED PROBABLY TWO APPROVED.

NOT NOT VERY MANY. AND WE TURNED DOWN A LOT.

[00:10:02]

AND, AND USUALLY WHEN WE APPROVE IT, IT'S ALSO NOT A, I MEAN, SO MAYBE IT'S KIND OF MOOT BECAUSE IT'S USUALLY NOT FOR THREE, BUT I JUST WAIT.

SO IT'S NOT CONDITIONAL USES AND ZONING TEXT.

IT'S AN ACTUAL CONDITIONAL USE.

CORRECT. NOT ADDING AN ITEM TO THE CONDITIONAL USE LIST.

ACTUALLY APPROVING THAT AS AN EXAMPLE WHERE I THINK THAT COULD BE OKAY A HIGHER BAR.

SO IT'S AN ACTUAL APPLICANT CONDITIONAL USE.

YES. YES. IT'S PART OF OUR ZONING CODE.

WHY DOES IT MATTER TO YOU? TO ME? YEAH. I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO DEFEND YOURSELF, BUT IF IT'S IN OUR ZONING TEXT AS A CONDITIONAL USE OTHER THAN, LIKE, SUPER RARE OCCASIONS LIKE THE VALVOLINE.

I MEAN, THAT GOT VOTED DOWN UNANIMOUSLY.

UNANIMOUSLY. EXACTLY. YES.

SO I DON'T, I DON'T I DON'T SEE A NEED TO CHANGE IT.

YEAH. I DON'T NEED TO CHANGE IT. THAT'S WHERE I STAND.

I THINK IT'S FINE. AND THEN IT GOES TO BZA.

THEY'VE GOT A SUPERMAJORITY.

WELL IT ONLY GOES TO BZA IF WE TURN IT DOWN.

CORRECT? CORRECT. YEAH.

THIS IS MORE TRYING TO SAY THAT IT TAKES MORE OF US TO PASS IT.

IT'S A HIGHER BAR TO ALLOW A CONDITIONAL USE THAT IS ALREADY LISTED AS A CONDITIONAL USE.

I YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CONVINCE ME.

I'M NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU.

PERHAPS I'M ARGUING POORLY.

IF PEOPLE THINK I'M TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU. I THINK A SIMPLE FOUR THREE MAJORITY TO ACCEPT SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY IN OUR CODE AS A CONDITIONAL USE IS SUFFICIENT.

YEAH. AND JUST FOR CONVERSATIONAL PURPOSES, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT IF IF NOT THAT ANYONE'S ASKING US TO IF IT WAS, CAN WE HAVE A SUPERMAJORITY TO ADD AN ITEM TO THE LIST OF CONDITIONAL USES? THAT'S A ZONING CODE CHANGE.

I DO THINK THAT SHOULD HAVE A LITTLE MORE WEIGHT, BECAUSE ALREADY IN OUR ZONING CODE, A SIMPLE MAJORITY IS WHERE IT SHOULD BE.

I AGREE. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS. BECAUSE I WASN'T HERE LAST MONTH.

WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF LIKE ALL WHY ARE WE TRYING TO CHANGE THIS? WHAT'S THE WHO WHO BROUGHT IT? THIS WAS INITIATED BY COUNCIL.

WHY? I THINK THEY ORIGINALLY WANTED CONDITIONAL USES TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL.

BUT THAT WAS KIND OF. WHAT'S OUR PURPOSE? WELL, THAT WAS KIND OF THE I GUESS THE AGREEMENT WAS TO TRY TO MAKE IT A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE TO INCREASE THE THRESHOLD, INSTEAD OF COUNCIL TRYING TO GET IT TO GO TO COUNCIL.

NOTED. OKAY. OPEN UP FOR CITIZEN COMMENT OR.

I'M SORRY, CITIZEN COMMENTS.

YOU'RE HERE LAST MONTH. YOU CAN SAY IT AGAIN, PLEASE. KATHY YOUNG, 425 WEST EIGHTH.

I ALREADY TOLD CITY COUNCIL THEY STEAMROLLED.

YOU GUYS TRIED TO. I TRIED TO TELL THEM NO, NO, NO, NO, I MEANT THEY TRIED TO. THEY TRIED TO.

I'M NOT PUTTING WORDS IN HER MOUTH.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT. ANYWAYS.

OKAY. SO WE DO NEED TO VOTE ON THIS.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT? I WILL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

THANK YOU. CHAD. CAN WE HAVE ROLL CALL, PLEASE? MISS BERGUS? NO. MR. WOLOWITZ.

NO. MR. ENGEL. NO. MR. FISHER. NO. MISS LAUB.

NO. MR. STILLMAN. NO. MR. NICKERSON. NO. IT'S THE FIRST UNANIMOUS NO I'VE EVER BEEN A PART OF.

NO. I THINK THE FORKLIFT PLACE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A UNANIMOUS VOTE. THE HAPPENSTANCE.

CONDITIONAL USE, I THINK.

YEAH. ANYWAYS, OKAY, MOVING ON TO THE ORIGINAL FIRST ITEM OF NEW BUSINESS.

IT IS TO HEAR AN APPLICATION FOR A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO PART 11 ZONING CODE SECTION 1123.29 OPEN SPACE REGULATIONS.

MR. BEARD, CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH THE CHANGES? SO THE FIRST 111 23.29 IS GENERALLY APPLICABLE. DESIGN STANDARDS IS THE SECTION.

THIS IS FOR OPEN SPACE RETENTION AND DETENTION BASINS.

THIS WAS SOME BACKGROUND WAS HEARD AT COUNCIL WORK SESSION.

[00:15:04]

RESEARCHERS PRESENTED ABOUT OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, MARYSVILLE AND OTHER COMMUNITIES.

AT THAT TIME, WE FOCUSED ON THE PERCENTAGE OF OPEN SPACE REQUIRED.

THEN SINCE THEN, THEY'VE BEEN DISCUSSING IT AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING WORKING GROUP THAT HAS COUNCIL MEMBERS, A FEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS AND CITY STAFF THAT ARE TAKING PART IN THE ZONING AND WORKING GROUP.

SOME OF THE PRIORITIES THAT CAME OUT OF THERE WAS TO INCREASE IT TO 20%. OPEN SPACE, TO DEVELOP NATURAL VARIATIONS IN THE RETENTION DETENTION BASINS AND REMOVE RETENTION DETENTION BASINS FROM GREEN SPACE.

SO WHAT THESE AMENDMENTS OVERVIEW IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE DETENTION POND FROM CALCULATION. WE WILL ALLOW RETENTION PONDS WITH ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND THEN RETENTION AND DETENTION BASIN AND MAN MADE POND DESIGN STANDARDS WILL BE ADDED.

SO THE EXISTING CODE FOR OPEN SPACE DESIGNATED FOR RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

IT'S DEVOTED TO RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

WHAT WE'RE ADDING IS AFTER THAT, WE'RE ADDING INCLUDING RECREATIONAL PONDS.

LATER ON WE'LL WE'LL SEE A DEFINITION FOR RECREATIONAL PONDS.

BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WANTED TO BE ADDED BECAUSE ORIGINALLY THERE WAS DISCUSSION ON RETENTION PONDS COUNTING AND NOT COUNTING AND, BUT IF IT'S A RECREATIONAL POND, THEN WE FELT THAT IT SHOULD BE COUNTED TOWARDS OPEN SPACE. AND THEN THAT DEFINITION WILL HELP WITH THAT LATER ON.

THEN SECTION C OF THIS IS THE EXISTING CODE IS THE CALCULATION.

SO RIGHT NOW RETENTION DETENTION MAY BE CALCULATED IF IT PROVIDES LANDSCAPE AREAS NOT INCLUDING GRASS OR AND USABLE AMENITIES SUCH AS WALKING PATHS AROUND THE RETENTION BASIN OR SEATING AREAS OR OTHER AMENITIES IF IT'S APPROVED BY THE BOARD OR COMMISSION.

AND THAT'S FOR RESIDENTIAL FOR COMMERCIAL RETENTION AND DETENTION BASINS MAY BE CALCULATED IF A MINIMUM OF 30% OF THE BASIN INCLUDES LANDSCAPE AREAS OUTSIDE OF GRASS.

SO THE NEW PROPOSED CODE FOR RESIDENTIAL WE ARE REMOVING DETENTION AREAS BUT WE WILL STILL ALLOW RETENTION AREAS MAY BE CALCULATED, BUT IT SHALL NOT ACCOUNT FOR MORE THAN 30% OF THE TOTAL OPEN SPACE THAT'S REQUIRED.

IF IT PROVIDES LANDSCAPE AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE NATURAL TURF.

CAN I ASK, WHERE DID YOU COME UP WITH THE FIGURE? 30%. WE LOOKED AT SOME OTHER COMMUNITIES.

THERE WERE A FEW OR A COUPLE HANDFUL THAT USED A PERCENTAGE AT THAT WORK SESSION THAT WAS ALSO MENTIONED BY ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT THEY KIND OF LIKED THE PERCENTAGE, SO THEY CAN'T COUNT THE WHOLE THING AS OPEN SPACE.

I BELIEVE THE COMMUNITY WAS LIKE 20% OR WAS IT? OKAY. SO IT COULD COUNT FOR HIGHER AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE AT THE OTHER COMMUNITY WAS 40%, AND WE'RE ACTUALLY DECREASING IT TO 30% OF OURS.

SO THEN WE'LL GET RID OF THE USABLE AMENITIES.

WE'RE STRIKING OUT SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE AND ADDING THAT IF ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ARE PROVIDED AROUND THE BASIN.

SO BELOW THERE'S FIVE ITEMS THAT SHALL BE REQUIRED.

IF IT WANTS TO BE COUNTED TOWARDS OPEN SPACE FOR RETENTION BASIN, THEY SHALL INCLUDE A WALKING PATH, A SEATING AREAS, WILDLIFE HABITAT, FOUNTAINS AND THEN ENHANCED LANDSCAPING ALONG THE WALKING PATHS RETENTION BASINS, WHICH SHALL BE 5% GREATER THAN THE STANDARD WHICH WE'LL DISCUSS THAT HERE TOO.

MY CONCERN WITH THIS AND THE RETENTION IS THAT IF IT'S DEVELOPED AND YOU'VE, YOU'VE GOT STEEP SLOPES, FOR EXAMPLE, AND A CHILD FALLS INTO THE POND, HOW DO THEY GET OUT? YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE OUGHT TO BE SOMETHING IN THERE THAT REFERS TO FENCING IN SOME WAY OR MANNER, I AGREE. BECAUSE. YEAH.

NOT BECAUSE I THINK FENCING TAKES AWAY FROM THE INTENT OF NATURAL PONDS.

I AGREE. I AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT.

BUT I ALSO AM AFRAID THAT IF YOU'VE GOT A I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, POND. I MEAN, THERE'S SAFETY MEASURES YOU CAN TAKE, YOU KNOW, BUOYS, CALL CENTERS OR CALL STATIONS.

I OKAY, WELL THAT I AGREE.

BUT IF THERE WE THERE'S THERE'S BEEN AN UPTICK IN CHILDREN DROWNING.

I'VE JUST PERSONALLY HAVE SEEN THAT AND I DON'T I AGREE WITH YOU.

[00:20:04]

I DON'T AGREE WITH JUST HAVING IT BE JUST.

I GET IT THE WHOLE WANTING IT TO BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE COMMUNITY.

BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IT BE A RETENTION POND AND NOT SOME SORT OF POND OR THE WHAT? WHAT WAS OUR TEXT LANGUAGE NOW? RECREATIONAL RECREATIONAL POND.

IF THIS IS STRICTLY FOR RETENTION PURPOSES.

WELL, IF THAT'S THE THE INTENT FOR RETENTION PURPOSES, AND WE'RE ONLY ALLOWING THAT 30% THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE, THEY CAN'T GO WIDER. THEY'VE GOT TO GO DEEPER.

SO I MEAN I MEAN THEY CAN GO WIDER.

THAT WHOLE AREA JUST CAN'T COUNT FOR MORE THAN 30%.

THEY CAN ONLY USE PART OF THAT TO COUNT TOWARDS THE OPEN SPACE. I MEAN, THEY CAN STILL HAVE THE RETENTION AREA, BUT THEY'LL JUST HAVE TO HAVE THE OPEN SPACE.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE IS YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF DEVELOPERS THAT WANT TO PUT ALL OF THESE HOUSES ON THIS PLOT OF LAND, AND YOU'VE ONLY REQUIRING THEM 30%, AND THEY'RE GOING TO THEY'RE GOING TO COME IN WITH THEIR ESTIMATE FOR THIS RETENTION POND.

AND YOU'RE SAYING, OH, IT CAN ONLY BE 30% OF THIS LAND.

THEY'RE GOING TO GO DEEPER.

WELL, IT'S NOT 30% OF THE LAND.

IT'S 30% OF THE TOTAL OPEN SPACE.

THAT CAN ONLY COUNT TOWARDS THAT.

BUT, BUT BUT WHAT SHE'S SAYING IS THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A CALCULATION THAT'S MADE THAT WE NEED TO ACCOMMODATE THIS VOLUME OF WATER, BUT WE'VE ONLY GOT THIS AMOUNT OF LAND.

AND IN ORDER TO GET I'M ONLY ALLOWED TO GET 30%.

WELL, WE'RE JUST GOING TO DIG THE POND DEEPER AND MAKE THE SLOPE STEEPER.

THERE IS. THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, JEFF.

THIS IS I'M JUST I'M JUST CONCERNED.

I'M JUST BRINGING IT TO EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION. I'M NOT SAYING THAT I'M AGAINST THIS. I, I AM CONCERNED, THOUGH, THAT WE REQUIRE IN THE PAST, WE'VE REQUIRED CERTAIN PONDS TO BE FENCED IN, AND NOW WE'RE ENCOURAGING OPEN PONDS.

WELL, THERE IS A RISK FOR DROWNINGS FROM CHILDREN THAT ARE UNATTENDED.

SPECIFICALLY, IF YOU'RE IN A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND THEY'RE NOT BEING WATCHED CLOSELY. IF WE MADE A STIPULATION THAT SO MANY FEET FROM THE BORDER OF THE POND HAS TO BE A CERTAIN DEPTH, WOULD THAT HELP ANY DEPTH PASS? YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW.

I'M NOT A CIVIL ENGINEER, BUT I'M SURE THAT THERE ARE CALCULATIONS WHERE I KNOW THERE ARE THAT.

I'VE SEEN CIVIL ENGINEERS KEEP IT AT A CERTAIN DEPTH OUT A CERTAIN WAYS, SO THAT IF SOMEONE YOU KNOW, THEY CAN CLIMB OUT.

I KNOW IT SEEMS SILLY, BUT IT'S.

A BIG DEAL IN CERTAIN TYPES OF COMMUNITIES.

AND IN THOSE DEVELOPMENTS TO I MEAN, EVERY INCH MATTERS, RIGHT? SO IF THEY'RE NOT GETTING CREDIT FOR IT, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT. WELL, I MEAN, ORIGINALLY THE WHOLE THING WAS RETENTION. RETENTION PONDS WON'T COUNT AT ALL. SO WE'RE AT LEAST ALLOWING THEM TO COUNT IT TOWARDS A PORTION OF THE OPEN SPACE.

IF WE REMOVES IT ALL, I MEAN, THEN WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO WITH IT? I MEAN, THE WAY THAT READS IT WAS COUNTED, RIGHT? YOU MEAN BEFORE THAT? EVEN BEFORE.

BECAUSE THIS IS SAYING THEY CAN BE COUNTED, RIGHT? IF IT ORIGINALLY IT COULD COUNT.

COUNT IF THEY HAD USABLE AMENITIES THAT THE BOARD AGREED THAT THE BOARD AGREED UPON.

LIKE. THEN WE WOULD REMOVE IT FROM THE COMMERCIAL.

SO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO COUNT RETENTION OR RETENTION BASINS. AND NOT THAT THE RISK GOES AWAY, BUT OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A LOWER RISK OF CHILD DROWNING IN A COMMERCIAL DETENTION POND.

SO WHAT A POTENTIAL SOLUTION BE FOUND IN THE IN THE DEFINITION OF A RETENTION POND, NOT NECESSARILY IN THIS LOCATION BECAUSE THIS IS PARTICULAR TO OPEN SPACES.

CORRECT. SO IF WE WERE TO ADD ANY SAFETY MEASURES WOULD IT HAVE TO BE IN THE DEFINITION. I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE WERE GOING TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE'RE LIKE OVER EXPLAINING HOW TO DO IT. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, BUT THAT'S GOING TO GET NOT THAT IT'S NOT.

IT'S COMPLICATED. TOO BAD.

LIKE FOLLOW THE RULES IF YOU WANT TO DO IT LIKE OR SOMETHING.

[00:25:04]

I KNOW YOU ALREADY HAVE YOUR LIST OF THINGS DOWN HERE, BUT YOUR NEXT ONE COULD BE LIKE HOWEVER YOU PUT IT, BUT YOU COULD PUT, YOU KNOW, SLOPE CANNOT BE SUCH AS THIS CANNOT EXCEED THIS. I MEAN, WE DON'T REALLY DO WE NEED TO EXPLAIN TO PREVENT DROWNING? I MEAN, I DON'T THINK YOU DO, BUT WE COULD JUST SAY, HAVE A NUMBER, YOU KNOW? YEAH. I MEAN, TO TO THIS POINT, IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO JUST PUT A PUT A SLOPE REQUIREMENT, A GRADE REQUIREMENT ON THE EDGE OF THE POND OR IF YOU WANT TO EXCEED THAT SLOPE. SO THEN FENCING THEN FENCING MUST BE REQUIRED.

3 TO 1 RATIO IS WIDELY RECOMMENDED FOR SLOPE FOR POND BANKS.

AND WHEN THEY DID THE RESEARCH CATHERINE SAID THEY DID.

THERE WERE COMMUNITIES THAT HAD A SLOPE RATIO WITH SOME OF THE LANGUAGE WAS IT IN THE POND DEFINITION OR IN THIS, DO YOU REMEMBER? IS I MOSTLY WITHIN THE OPEN SPACE AREAS? I WASN'T LOOKING AT DEFINITIONS AS MUCH, BUT THERE WERE I WAS SEEING SLOPES INCORPORATED. SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S OUT THERE.

DO I REMEMBER THE EXACT NUMBERS I WAS LOOKING AT IN THIS MOMENT? NO, I DON'T, BUT I'VE SEEN IT. IT LOOKS LIKE 3 TO 1 RATIO.

THAT'S THE APPROACH TO THE POND, RIGHT.

OR IS THAT IN THE POND.

SO THAT'S LIKE THE DEEPEST SLOPE THAT THAT'S RECOMMENDED FOR SAFETY CONCERNS OKAY.

SO CAN WE FOR EASILY GETTING OUT.

YEAH. YEAH. SO IF WE WERE TO PUT THAT SO WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS POTENTIALLY ADDING A RATIO. AND THEN IF THEY GO OVER IT THE POND HAS TO BE ENCLOSED WITH A FENCE.

I MEAN, IF IT'S STEEPER THAN THAT, MAYBE, YOU KNOW, THEY COME BACK AND THEY'RE LIKE, WELL, WE'VE GOT THIS.

IT'S USABLE AROUND THERE, BUT THIS PORTION IS STEEP.

SO WE FENCED OFF HALF OF THE POND.

IS IT 3 TO 1 FOR REAL? BECAUSE THAT 33% IS. THAT'S STEEP.

I JUST GOOGLED IT. I DON'T KNOW, GOOGLE AI SAYS IT'S TRUE.

SO I SAID, I'M NOT A CIVIL ENGINEER, I DON'T KNOW.

I'M ALSO NOT AN EXPERT IN POND SAFETY, BUT ARE THERE OTHER SAFETY FEATURES THAT CAN BE MADE? WHEN WE SAY, IF YOU'RE NOT DOING THIS SLOPE, THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE A FENCE.

IS THERE OTHER SAFETY THINGS OTHER THAN HAVE TO HAVE A FENCE? IS THERE A NETTING OPTION OR SO THAT WE CAN SAY IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO THE SLOPE, THESE OTHER SAFETY FEATURES.

I DON'T KNOW. AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, I WAS JUST SAYING I'M NOT AN EXPERT, BUT I FEEL LIKE A NET THAT'S LIKE SIX INCHES BELOW THE WATER LINE KIND OF ACCOMPLISHES IT TOO.

I DON'T KNOW, PERHAPS.

WELL, I MEAN, YOU COULD GET CAUGHT UP.

I DON'T KNOW. NEVER DESIGNED A POND.

I MEAN, WE COULD. I MEAN, IF THEY ARE TRYING TO USE THIS RETENTION POND AS AT LEAST 30% OF THEIR OPEN SPACE, THAT THE MAXIMUM SLOPE IN THE POND IS A 3 TO 1 RATIO. LIKE, THEN, IF THEY AREN'T TRYING TO USE IT AS OPEN SPACE, MAYBE THEY DO GO STEEPER AND THEY'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO PUT A WALKING PATH, SEATING AREAS AND FOUNTAINS IN IT.

AND PUTTING A FENCE AROUND IT, IT'S NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL BECAUSE THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO TRY TO HIDE IT. YOU KNOW, THE BACK OF THE LOT.

SO YEAH, THAT'S MY THOUGHTS.

SO ADDING A MAXIMUM 3 TO 1 RATIO IN THE POND IN THIS PART.

WE WERE USING 3 TO 1. I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU GO BACK AND TALK WITH KYLE.

YEAH WHATEVER. WHATEVER IS APPROPRIATE.

WHATEVER I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH 3 TO 1 JUST BASED ON GOOGLE.

YEAH. YEAH. THEY'RE TRYING TO KILL US SO WE CAN LOOK AT THE OTHER COMMUNITIES AND KIND OF SEE WHAT THEY HAVE WITH IT TO COUNT TOWARDS THE OPEN SPACE.

AND THEN WE CAN TALK WITH ENGINEERING TO FIGURE OUT.

I KNOW THEY HAVE SOME STORMWATER MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES AND DIFFERENT THINGS TOO.

SO, I MEAN, IT WOULD HAVE TO MEET ALL THOSE STANDARDS ANYWAYS FOR ANY RETENTION OR DETENTION AREAS ANYWAYS ADDRESSED.

SO THEY COULD POTENTIALLY.

YEAH. SO I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT ALL THOSE DATA IS WE'RE TRYING NOT TO MESS WITH WITH THAT. WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO CHANGE ANY OF THEIR STUFF IF WE DON'T HAVE TO. BUT WE CAN

[00:30:05]

THE INTENT I THINK WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT.

IT'S JUST I HAD A SAFETY CONCERN.

THAT'S ALL. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WITH THIS ITEM THAT WE SHOULD DISCUSS? SUSAN ECOMMENTS, I THINK.

ALL RIGHT. SOUNDS LIKE A MOTION TO TABLE.

A MOTION TO TABLE. CHAD.

ROLL CALL, PLEASE. JEFF, WHAT DO I DO ABOUT THIS? YEAH. OKAY, COOL. SORRY.

MR. ENGEL. YES. RIGHT.

IS THAT YES TO TABLE? YEAH.

TABLE. YEAH. MR. FISHER? YES. MISS. LAUB. YES. MR. NICKERSON? YES, MISS? NERVOUS? YES. MR. WOLOWITZ? YES.

AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, MR. STILLMAN WAS EXCUSED TO LEAVE AT SEVEN.

HE HAD PRIOR ENGAGEMENTS.

CAN I KEEP THE ORIGINAL AGENDA? AGENDA NUMBERS DO NOT CONFUSE THINGS.

OR MAYBE IT WILL. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO.

[2. To hear an application for a Zoning Code Amendment to Part Eleven – Zoning Code, Sections 1107.16 - Public Sites, Open Space and Natural Features and Section 1135.06 Common Open Space]

COUNCIL WORK SESSION LAST YEAR.

THERE WAS DISCUSSION ON IT.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING WORKING GROUP WAS TO INCREASE 20%.

DESIRES TO INCREASE THE PERCENTAGE OF OPEN SPACE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS, REGARDLESS OF SIZE. AND THEY WANTED TO ALIGN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. THIS IS REMOVAL SPECIFICATION FOR THE SIZE OF THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT REQUIRE COMMON OPEN SPACE AND INCREASE THE COMMON OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT.

SO THE EXISTING CODE WAS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS OF 30 ACRES OR MORE AND A MINIMUM OF 10% FOR THE COMMON OPEN SPACE.

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO GET RID OF THE 30 ACRES OR MORE REQUIREMENT AND THEN TO ALSO INCREASE THE MINIMUM OPEN SPACE TO 20% FROM 10%.

SO THIS WOULD BE FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS OF ANY SIZE OR MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 20% OF COMMON OPEN SPACE FOR FOR THE STRAIGHT ZONING AND FOR PUDS.

REMOVAL OF RETENTION DETENTION BASINS FROM THE CALCULATION OF OPEN SPACE.

REMOVE THE SIZE OF THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND INCREASE THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT SO THE EXISTING CODE CURRENTLY THAT SECOND PARAGRAPH AS UNLESS SUCH LAND OR RIGHT OF WAY IS USABLE AS A TRAIL OR OTHER SIMILAR PURPOSE THAT SAYS EASEMENTS RIGHT OF WAYS WATERCOURSES DETENTION OR RETENTION PONDS.

IF THEY HAD A USABLE SPACE OR TRAIL, THEY COULD BE COUNTED.

AND THEN RIGHT NOW IT'S TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IS 40 ACRES OR MORE.

IT'S MINIMUM OF 10%. IF IT'S LESS THAN 40 ACRES, IT COULD BE LESS THAN 10%.

IF THE BOARD APPROVES FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS, IT'S A MINIMUM OF 5% FOR OPEN SPACE.

OUR PROPOSED CODE IS TO REMOVE THE DETENTION RETENTION EASEMENTS RIGHT OF WAYS FROM COUNTING AS OPEN SPACE AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS.

AND THEN FOR THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, WE WOULD GET RID OF THE 40 ACRES OR MORE, INCREASE IT TO 20% OPEN SPACE.

AND THEN NUMBER TWO WOULD BE REMOVED COMPLETELY, SINCE THE ONE IS 40 ACRES OR MORE OR LESS THAN 40 ACRES, AND WE'RE JUST GETTING RID OF THE SIZE.

SO WE'LL GET RID OF TWO FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL.

WE'LL INCREASE IT TO 10% OPEN SPACE ABOVE THE 5% THAT WAS ORIGINALLY REQUIRED.

ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? I WILL SAY I MEAN, THIS IS ALSO PART OF THE WORKING GROUP THAT MR. STERLING AND MR. FISHER MYSELF WERE ON.

WE'VE TALKED THROUGH THE PLUSES AND MINUSES.

YOU'RE TRYING TO RAISE THE STANDARD BUT ALSO NOT, YOU KNOW, MAKE IT UNACHIEVABLE.

[00:35:04]

SEEING NO COMMENT. QUICK QUESTION.

SO ON THE CHANGES FOR THE UTILITIES AND EASEMENTS WITH THAT LANGUAGE NOT BEING THERE ANYMORE, IT'S IS IT WRITTEN SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE CODE THAT IT STILL DOESN'T COUNT TOWARDS IT? IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT SAYS IT DOESN'T UNLESS BUT IT'S NOT MENTIONED AT ALL.

SO IT'LL BE CONFUSION THAT IT COULD SOMEONE COULD ASSUME THAT IT IS MENTIONED OR IT IS INCLUDED BECAUSE IT'S NOT CLEAR THAT IT'S NOT CORRECT.

WE ALSO WE WERE ACTUALLY GOING TO ASK IF WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT PREVIOUSLY WITH THE BEING RETENTION AREAS COULD COUNT WITH THOSE SAME REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY.

IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WANT TO ADD HERE AS WELL, TO ALLOW RETENTION PONDS TO COUNT FOR A PERCENTAGE OF IT, OR IF WE. YEAH. IF WHAT THAT IS.

RIGHT. IF WE WANTED TO ADD THAT HERE AS WELL, OR IF WE JUST WANTED TO GET RID OF RETENTION DETENTION PONDS FOR ACCOUNTING AND A PUD.

ANY THOUGHTS? I KIND OF LIKE THE IDEA OF REMOVING IT FROM PUD.

REASON BEING, I THINK THEY'RE GOING THAT WAY BECAUSE THEY WANT TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, DO THEIR OWN THING.

WELL, IF WE REMOVE IT, IT.

AT LEAST IT FORCES THEM TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE GREEN SPACE.

ESPECIALLY THE ONE THAT WE SAW TWO MONTHS AGO.

I AGREE. I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING DYNAMIC BECAUSE WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME WE HAD SOMETHING COME THROUGH? JUST STRAIGHT ZONING? IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYTHING'S BEEN PULLED.

SOMETHING GIVES US SOME INCENTIVE.

WE'VE ACTUALLY EVEN QUESTIONED IT A COUPLE OF TIMES, AND WE'VE COME THROUGH WITH PUD AND WE'RE LIKE, WHY? YOU WERE IN THESE WORK SESSIONS.

WHAT IS THE CHAIR THINK? I MEAN, I AGREE WITH THESE CHANGES.

I THINK IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT.

YEAH. OKAY. IF EVERYONE WANTS TO RAISE THE BAR A LITTLE BIT, SO DO WE. BECAUSE I DIDN'T QUITE GET YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE PUBLIC UTILITY.

YEAH, I GUESS I WAS JUST SAYING, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT SAYS IT DOESN'T COUNT UNLESS. SO NOW IT'S NOT GOING TO MENTION IT AT ALL.

SO COULD THE ASSUMPTION BE THAT IT COULD COUNT? YEAH, RIGHT. SO DO WE KEEP THE PUBLIC UTILITY AND SIMILAR EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY FOR WATER COURSES AND OTHER SIMILAR CHANNELS, AND DETENTION AND RETENTION PONDS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR COMMON OPEN SPACE.

PERIOD. PERIOD. PERIOD.

YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE. YEAH, THAT SOUNDS GOOD.

ALL RIGHT. SUSAN. COMMENTS.

OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT WITH THE CHANGE OF KEEPING THAT FIRST HALF OF THAT SENTENCE? FIRST CLAUSE OF THE FIRST SENTENCE.

THE FIRST CLAUSE OF THE FIRST SENTENCE? YES, THE FIRST CLAUSE OF THE FIRST SENTENCE.

MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CLAUSE OF THE FIRST SENTENCE.

THANK YOU, MISS LAUB. CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? MR. FISHER? YES, MISS LAUB.

YES, MR. NICKERSON? YES, MISS.

YES. MR. WOLOWITZ? YES.

MR. ENGEL? YES. IT'S THE FIRST THING WE AGREED ON ALL DAY.

WE'RE THE FIRST THING WE SAID YES TO.

AND JUST SO WE'RE. I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT MY OWN NOTES THAT I HAVE.

SURE. WE'RE WE'RE WORKING.

WE WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THIS RELATES TO A SINGLE PARCEL, SIMILAR TO, LIKE, TIMBER BROOK.

THAT'S A CONDO. UNITS.

THAT'S TWO UNITS, AND IT'S ONE PARCEL.

THEY'RE NOT SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED OR THEY'RE NOT FEE SIMPLE LOTS.

SO IT'S NOT REALLY SUBDIVIDED.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT BECAUSE RIGHT.

CURRENTLY THAT LANGUAGE IS FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND THEN ALSO FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. SO WE'RE WORKING ON HOW TO RELAY THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T NECESSARILY WANT IT TO YOU KNOW FOR SAY IF SOMEBODY COMES IN AS A SINGLE HOUSE.

WE DON'T WANT 20% OF OPEN SPACE AT THAT HOUSE.

WE WANT IT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO WE'LL JUST ENSURE THAT WE HAVE LANGUAGE IN THE TYPOLOGY CHARTS TO REFERENCE BACK TO THESE. JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE, WE'RE ON TO ITEM THREE.

[3. To hear an application for multiple Zoning Code Amendments to Part Eleven – Appendix Glossary of Terms - Pond and Recreational Pond Definitions.]

[00:40:05]

GLOSSARY OF TERMS POND AND RECREATIONAL POND DEFINITIONS.

AND THESE ARE JUST TO ADD WE WANT TO ADD UPON DEFINITION.

AND THEN SINCE WE ADDED LANGUAGE ABOUT RECREATIONAL POND, WE WANTED TO HAVE A DEFINITION FOR THAT AS WELL.

BECAUSE CURRENTLY WE DO NOT HAVE A DEFINITION.

AND SINCE THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS CALCULATIONS ARE BEING UPDATED AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE DEFINITIONS, WE WANTED TO TRY TO ADD THESE.

SO THESE ARE THE PROPOSED DEFINITIONS FOR POND AND ALSO RECREATIONAL POND.

SO THE POND IS AN INLAND BODY OF STANDING WATER, EITHER NATURAL OR MAN MADE RECREATIONAL POND IS NATURALLY OCCURRING OR MAN MADE THAT'S DESIGNED TO RETAIN WATER ON AN ON GOING BASIS.

AND ALSO THEY'RE DESIGNED FOR YEAR ROUND ENJOYMENT AND TO FURTHER SUCH ACTIVITIES SUCH AS SWIMMING, FISHING, ICE SKATING OR SIMILAR ACTIVITIES AND THEN MAN MADE PONDS SHALL NOT EXCEED 10% OF THE OVERALL PARCEL ACREAGE.

AND THEN SUCH PONDS SHALL NOT ENGAGE IN COMMERCIAL USES, NOR IN ANY COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? MY QUESTION IS SHALL NOT ENGAGE IN ANY COMMERCIAL USES NOR IN ANY COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES LIKE RENTING KAYAKS TO USE ON SAID POND? YEAH, I THINK THAT'S KIND OF THE INTENT.

NOT HAVING, LIKE, PEOPLE OUT THERE WITH THEIR JET SKIS AND USING IT FOR RECREATIONAL.

IF SOMEBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BROUGHT A KAYAK OUT THERE, IS THAT BANNED? I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED COMMERCIAL, I GUESS. THERE'S NOBODY THERE.

YOU'RE NOT RENTING KAYAKS.

THEY'RE RENTING OR WOULD BE MY INTERPRETATION.

LIKE, I MEAN, I GUESS COMMERCIAL USES IT.

YOU KNOW, MR. NICKERSON'S NOT OUT THERE RUNNING A CHARTER BUSINESS ON HIS POND TO CATCH BASS AND PERCH. OKAY, YOU PROBABLY HAVEN'T SEEN THE POND BEHIND MY HOUSE. IT'S. WE DID HAVE A QUESTION ON THE YEAR ROUND ENJOYMENT AND SUCH ACTIVITIES.

SUCH AS SWIMMING, FISHING, ICE SKATING, OR SIMILAR ACTIVITIES.

IS THAT LANGUAGE OKAY? DO YOU GUYS HAVE THOUGHTS ON.

WE WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE SIMILAR ACTIVITIES SOME OF THE, THE OTHER COMMUNITIES WE LOOKED AT JUST SAID, ETC., AND WE DIDN'T REALLY LIKE THAT.

SO WE USE SIMILAR ACTIVITIES.

BUT IS THIS LANGUAGE INTENDED TO BE ALL INCLUSIVE? SO LIKE THE POND MAY BE SAFE FOR FISHING AND ICE SKATING, BUT IT'S NOT SAFE FOR SWIMMING LIKE WOULD, WOULD STUFF STILL HAVE TO BE POSTED AS TO WHAT IS WHAT RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES ARE ALLOWED ON SAID PERMITTED? YEAH, I MEAN IT WOULD BE KIND OF IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERED IF AN HOA OR SOMETHING HAS A RECREATIONAL POND, I THINK THEY WOULD HAVE IT LISTED OF THE USES THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED.

BUT IF IT'S LIKE ON A IN A DEVELOPMENT, THEY CAN HAVE RECREATIONAL POND AND THEY CAN HAVE A LITTLE BEACH AS PART OF THE BOND THAT PEOPLE GO SWIMMING IN FOR THAT ENJOYMENT.

YES. WHAT WHAT IS THE TERM YEAR ROUND DOING TO THIS? DO WE REALLY REQUIRE YEAR ROUND ACTIVITY? I MEAN, AND IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO HAVE AN ACTIVITY YEAR ROUND.

IT'S THAT THEY CAN ENJOY IT YEAR ROUND.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING CAN BE DONE THERE YEAR ROUND.

I MEAN REALLY YOU COULD FISH YEAR ROUND.

I KNOW, BUT BUT IF A POND DOESN'T ALLOW ICE SKATING BECAUSE OF INSURANCE REASONS OR WHATEVER. I MEAN, NOW YEAH, NOW, I DON'T THINK ANYONE'S GOING TO SAY YOUR POND DOESN'T COUNT BECAUSE WE CAN'T DO SOMETHING IN THE WINTERTIME.

BUT THIS SEEMS LIKE IT.

YOU HAVE TO FIND SOMETHING TO DO WHEN IT'S NOT WARM OUT.

ICE FISHING. AND I DON'T KNOW IF YEAR ROUND IS REALLY DOING ANYTHING TO. YEAH. I MEAN, IT'S MORE TO, TO KIND OF MAKE IT MORE USABLE AND HAVE THOSE ACTIVITIES.

YOU CAN HAVE ICE SKATING.

YOU COULD I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE IN THE WINTER, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE EITHER. AND THAT'S WHY, I MEAN, YEAH, I MEAN, YOU HAVE ICE FISHING CURLING. CURLING.

THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU.

ALL I'M SAYING IS, IF WE SAY TAKE OUT THOSE WORDS AND SAY SUCH PAWNS ARE TO BE DESIGNED

[00:45:02]

YEAH. I MEAN, THIS IS THE LANGUAGE WE SAW IN MAJORITY OF THE COMMUNITIES THAT WE LOOKED AT. I'M NOT GOING TO DOWN THE DEFINITION.

SO I JUST YEAH, I THINK IT'S ADDING A REQUIREMENT THAT'S NOT ACHIEVABLE.

YEAH. IF WE'RE EDITING WORDS, CAN WE TAKE ONE OF THE SKETCHES OUT EITHER FURTHER ACTIVITIES SUCH AS OR FURTHER SUCH ACTIVITIES AS.

OH YEAH. IT'S NOT TOO SUCH AS.

IS THAT IN THE VERBIAGE THAT YOU'VE SEEN IN OTHER COMMUNITIES? PROBABLY.

I'M PICTURING LIKE THAT MISS AMERICA THAT WAS LIKE. SUCH AS? SUCH AS. WELL, THE VERY LEAST.

YES. I THINK WE SHOULD REMOVE THE YEAR ROUND.

WHICH WHICH SUCH? I DON'T GO INTO SUCH EDITOR'S CHOICE ACTIVITIES SUCH AS SWIMMING, FISHING, ICE SKATING OR SIMILAR ACTIVITIES.

IT'S PLAIN LANGUAGE. OKAY, SO WE ARE REMOVING THAT SUCH.

I DON'T AGAIN, NOT A STRONG OPINION ALL YEAR ROUND.

I JUST SOMEONE ACTUALLY TRIES TO HOLD THEM TO IT.

IT'S. I THOUGHT IT WAS WEIRD AS HE READ IT.

IT JUST IT'S WEIRD. OKAY.

IT'S JUST WEIRD. ALL RIGHT.

SO I'M GOING TO PROPOSE REMOVING YEAR ROUND AND THE FIRST SUCH.

CAN WE ALSO REMOVE THE PERIOD THAT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE? I'M SORRY. WHAT? APPROVAL AFTER.

OH, YEAH. I MEAN, YES, THE PERIOD AFTER APPROVAL AND THE IN THE LAST SENTENCE THERE. MIGHT NOT BE.

IT MIGHT NOT BE IN OUR ACTUAL TEXT HOW IT GOT CONVEYED.

SO I PROBABLY DID IT ON ACCIDENT EARLIER WHEN I WAS EDITING THE THING.

SORRY TO GO BACK TO YOUR YOUR QUESTION, JEFF.

ARE YOU ASKING FOR SOME INPUT ON THE PHRASE SIMILAR ACTIVITIES? YEAH, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE'S IF THAT COVERS IT.

IF IF THERE'S SOME OTHER LANGUAGE.

WE'LL FIND OUT IF IT DOESN'T.

DO WE NEED TO STATE EXCLUDING MOTORIZED VEHICLE ACTIVITIES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

SO NO. BUT DO WE ARE WE GOING TO BE AUTHORIZING BOATS ON THESE RECREATIONAL PONDS? ARE WE GOING TO BE AUTHORIZING SNOWMOBILES ON THESE RECREATIONAL BONDS? ARE PEOPLE I MEAN, I WOULD GUESS I MEAN, SO THIS IS FOR RESIDENTIAL OR I MEAN, YEAH, I MEAN, IT'S. NO, I GUESS IT'S THE DEFINITION.

IT'S JUST THE DEFINITION. SO I THINK THE OWNER OF IT NEEDS TO REGULATE.

YEAH. WHAT IT IS. BECAUSE THERE COULD BE A POND IN ARD OR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW. SO THEY'LL TAKE THE LIABILITY.

YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. THAT'S FINE.

OKAY. OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO INCLUDE ANY BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'VE GOT SWIMMING, FISHING, ICE SKATING, BUT WE DIDN'T INCLUDE ANY, WHETHER MOTORIZED OR NON-MOTORIZED ACTIVITY IN THERE JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF ROUNDING OUT WHAT OTHER SIMILAR ACTIVITIES MAY BE LIKE.

IF THERE'S A PADDLE BOAT, THEN A SIMILAR ACTIVITY WOULD ALSO BE A KAYAK OR THIS OR THIS. I MEAN, FISHING.

I MEAN, SOMETIMES YOU USE A BOAT FOR FISHING, SO I'M OKAY WITH LEAVING SIMILAR ACTIVITY.

I AGREE, I'M OKAY WITH IT BECAUSE WHO KNOWS, MAYBE REMOTE CONTROL BOAT RACING OR SOMETHING OUT THERE? WHO KNOWS? NO, I LOVE THAT.

YEAH, I'M JUST SAYING, IF YOU DON'T INCLUDE ANY VEHICLE, THEN THERE'S. WE HAVEN'T LISTED ANY SIMILAR ACTIVITIES TO ANY OTHER VEHICLE.

I SEE WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM. YOU COULD JUST SAY. OR ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT? WE SAY SWIMMING, FISHING, ICE SKATING, BOATING OR SIMILAR ACTIVITIES? KIND OF. I WOULDN'T I WOULDN'T SAY I WOULDN'T VOTE THAT DOWN.

WE COULD SAY WITHOUT A BOAT THAT'S NOT MOTORIZED OR MOTORIZED OR NOT, YOU COULD SAY KAYAKING, AND THEN PEOPLE COULD USE THEIR MINDS FOR SIMILAR ACTIVITIES. WE GOT PADDLE BOATS, KAYAKS OR BOATING.

YEAH, YEAH. BECAUSE KAYAKING.

BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T BE A QUESTION THAT A CANOE OR PADDLE BOARD IS SIMILAR TO A KAYAK.

YES. OKAY. GOOD. CITIZEN COMMENTS OR JERRY ASK ON THIS ONE.

ALL RIGHT. SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION WITH THE REVISION TO REMOVE THE WORDS YEAR ROUND? THE FIRST SUCH ADD KAYAKING BETWEEN ICE SKATING OR SIMILAR ACTIVITIES AND MAKE SURE THAT PERIOD THAT SHOULDN'T BE THERE TOWARDS THE END ISN'T THERE? AND ARE YOU OKAY WITH THE 10% OF THE PARCEL ACREAGE? WHY LIMIT IT IF IT'S RECREATIONAL? YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING TOO. IF IT'S.

[00:50:02]

YEAH, I'M ASKING FOR A MOTION NOW. JUST THROW A BOMB THERE.

ALL RIGHT. SORRY, BUT, YEAH, I MEAN, THOSE OTHER PARTS ARE ALREADY PART OF YOUR MOTION. YOU JUST HAVE TO ADD THE.

WHAT'S THE PERCENTAGE, I GUESS.

WHAT? WHY WOULD WHY WOULD YOU CAP IT? YEAH. I MEAN, IF THEY WANT TO MAKE 90% OF THEIR, THEY WANT TO BUY A PLOT OF LAND? THAT'S ALL THIS WOULD SAY IS IT'S NOT A RECREATIONAL POND.

IF IT'S MORE THAN 10% OF A PLOT OF LAND.

WHICH IS RIGHT. YEAH. WELL, THAT'S A GREAT POINT.

IF IT'S IF IT'S A SINGLE PLOT IN YOU KNOW, SINGLE RESIDENTIAL, AND IT'S A THREE ACRE PLOT AND THEY WANT A TWO ACRE POND AND THEIR HOUSE, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP THEM.

ALL THIS WOULD DO IS NOT CLASSIFY IT AS A RECREATIONAL POND, WHICH I MEAN, WHICH THEN TRIGGERS.

THEN IT WOULD JUST BE A RETENTION POND.

YEAH. WELL, NO POND VERSUS RECREATIONAL POND.

YEAH. SO IS IT IS THE INTENT FOR SOMEONE THAT WANTS TO USE IT FOR THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT? I THINK I THINK THAT YOU'RE LIMITED TO 35%.

YEAH, BUT IF THEY MADE THE POND SO BIG THAT 35% OF IT COVERED ALL THE OPEN SPACE, AND NOW YOU HAVE NO GREEN SPACE. THAT'S JUST ALL POND. OH, NO. OF YOUR OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT.

IT DOESN'T SAY THAT. IT SAYS 35% OVERALL PARTIAL OF IT, ONLY 35% OF YOUR REQUIREMENT CAN BE YOUR POND.

YOUR YOUR POND CAN BE SO NOT THE PERCENTAGE OF THE POND COUNTS AS IT'S CORRECT.

JUST A YES. OKAY, I READ THAT BACK.

YEAH OKAY. SO YEAH WHAT IS THE DOWNSIDE TO REMOVING 10% OR IS THERE THAT YOU SEE.

OR DO WE WANT TO JUST CRANK IT UP? I MEAN I THINK I THINK I MEAN REMOVE IT.

I MEAN, SINCE WE STILL HAVE THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT'S NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL USES OR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES, IT WILL LIMIT WHAT PEOPLE DO.

IT LIMITS SOME OF THAT.

I GUESS WHAT IS THE WHAT IS THE GIVE US AN IDEA, JEFF, OF WHAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER IT BEING A BAD SITUATION IF WE DID MORE THAN 10%.

I PUT YOU ON THE SPOT. I'M SORRY, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK OF SO THAT WE CAN KIND OF UNDERSTAND YOUR GUYS'S.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT I MEAN.

I DON'T LIKE SOMETHING WITH NATURAL HABITATS.

BIRD POPULATIONS, I DON'T KNOW.

YOU LIKE THROWING HIM A BONE, I LOVE THAT. YEAH. I THINK BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE THE 30% RULE OF IT.

YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T CLAIM GREEN SPACE OR OPEN SPACE OR WHATEVER WE'RE CALLING IT AT MORE THAN 30. THAT'S GOING TO NATURALLY CAP IT WHEN THEY GO TO USE IT FOR THAT PURPOSE.

YEAH. SO I SAY WE REMOVE THE 10%, I WOULD AGREE.

OKAY. I MEAN, IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT WE SAW IN SOME OF THE OTHER COMMUNITIES AND AND WELL, YEAH, I THINK THERE WASN'T THE LIMIT ON OPEN SPACE THEN.

MAKES MORE SENSE. BUT YEAH.

OKAY. SO GO AHEAD AND READ THE WHOLE THING WORD FOR WORD.

READ IT AGAIN. SERIOUS OR NOT? BUT DON'T TELL ME. OKAY.

SO, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? AND WITH THE STIPULATIONS OF REMOVING YEAR ROUND, REMOVING THE FIRST SUCH AND THE TWO FURTHER ACTIVITIES AND INTO FURTHER ACTIVITIES ADD KAYAKING BETWEEN ICE SKATING AND SIMILAR ACTIVITIES.

REMOVE THE MANMADE RECREATION.

MAY NOT REMOVE THE WHOLE SENTENCE.

MAN MADE RECREATIONAL PONDS MAY NOT EXCEED 10% OF THE OVERALL PARCEL ACREAGE AND THEN CLEAN UP THE PERIOD. AND THAT LAST SENTENCE.

WELL DONE, MR. CHAIR. SURE.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I MOTION TO APPROVE.

THANK YOU, MISS LAUB. MAY WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? MISS LAUB. YES.

MR. NICKERSON? YES, MISS.

YES. MR. WOLOWITZ. YES.

MR. INGLE. YES. MR. FISHER.

YES. OKAY. THAT MOVES US TO ITEM FOUR ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

[4. To hear an application for a Zoning Code Amendment to Part Eleven – Zoning Code, Sections 1107.18 and Section 1107.19 - Reserved changing to Flood Areas and Flood Areas changing to Residential Architecture in SRD, VRD, HMD, UT, USF.]

CHANGING TO FLOOD AREAS AND FLOOD AREAS, CHANGING TO RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE AND SR VRD M OR H D UT AND US.

ALL RIGHT. SO THIS PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT BACKGROUND THE PLANNING, ZONING, WORKING GROUP DISCUSSION REGARDING GARAGES AND THE DESIGN OF GARAGES,

[00:55:05]

PUDS TYPICALLY FOLLOW STRAIGHT ZONING.

TYPICALLY THEY STATE IF IT'S NOT IN THEIR TEXT, THEY FOLLOW ONE OF OUR BASE ZONING CODES.

SO CURRENTLY WE'RE JUST ADDING THIS INTO THE ZONING SECTION.

THE INITIAL AMENDMENTS WOULD BE FOR GARAGES PORCHES.

MY GUESS IS WE'LL CONTINUE TO PREPARE ARCHITECTURAL FOCUSED AMENDMENTS AS TIME CONTINUES. SO RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST THERE.

SO 1107 .18 IS TECHNICALLY LISTED AS RESERVED.

SO THERE'S NOTHING THERE.

WE WERE TRYING TO FIND A LOCATION TO ADD THIS SECTION.

SO INSTEAD OF ADDING IT THERE WE WANTED TO MOVE IT UP.

SO THEN THIS IS GOING TO BE THE LAST ITEM IN 1107.

SO 1107 .18 WILL NOW BE THE FLOOD AREA SECTION.

SO THAT LANGUAGE WILL JUST MOVE UP TO THAT.

SO THE THOUGHT IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE CONTINUING ARCHITECTURAL. SO WHAT YOU SAID SO WE ARE DOING 19 TONIGHT.

PERHAPS THE NEXT ONE WILL BE 20 AND, WELL, IT'LL STILL BE UNDER.

IT'LL STILL BE UNDER 19.

IT'LL JUST BE LIKE A, B, C, BUT WELL, THEN I HAVE NO IDEA.

WHY DON'T WE JUST MAKE IT 18 AND NOT SO.

SO 18 WAS THERE. WE REALLY DIDN'T FEEL THAT IT FIT BETWEEN THE OTHER AREAS.

I MEAN, AGAIN, I DON'T FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT IT.

IT JUST SEEMS ODD TO MOVE A SECTION JUST FOR THE SAKE OF MOVING.

SECTION 1107 HAS A LOT OF DIFFERENT ITEMS. SO THERE WAS A RESERVED AT OH THREE, BUT IT'S LIKE THAT'S CONSTRUCTION UTILITY PLAN REQUIREMENT, THE STREET DESIGN.

WE JUST DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT REALLY FELL IN THERE.

SAME WITH SOME OF THE OTHER ONES WHERE A LOT OF IT TALKED ABOUT STREET INTERSECTIONS.

THEN WE HAVE RESERVED HERE.

BUT THEN IT GOES TO BLOCKS, WHICH IS STILL STREETS.

THEN WE TALK ABOUT LOTS EASEMENTS, DIFFERENT ITEMS. YOU JUST HAVE RESERVES, LIKE JUST AS PLACEHOLDERS, LIKE WE HAVE SOME. SOME OF THEM WERE EITHER THEY WERE THERE AND THEN THEY WERE JUST THE TEXT WAS EITHER REMOVED OR PLACED SOMEWHERE ELSE, AND THEN THEY JUST KEPT IT AS RESERVED IN CASE.

SO. SO THE NUMBERING DOESN'T ALL CHANGE.

SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO MOVE THAT FLOOD AREAS UP TO 18 AND THEN PUT THIS AS 19.

WE THOUGHT MIGHT BE THE EASIEST. SO WE DON'T HAVE TO I THINK THE EASIEST NUMBERS MAKE THIS 20. SO LEAVE THE RESERVED OPEN AGAIN.

I DON'T CARE. I'M NOT YOU KNOW, I GET CONCERNED, YOU KNOW ON WORK I'M DOING IS OKAY.

WHERE DO I REFERENCE? 11 07.

19 ELSEWHERE. I KNOW THERE'S, YOU KNOW, FIND AND REPLACE WHATEVER, BUT YEAH, I'M I'M WITH YOU.

I'M JUST UNLESS YOU HAVE TO REPLACE.

YEAH. THE BETTER. YEAH.

I'M JUST COMMENTING THAT I.

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, BUT I DON'T PUT, PUT WHATEVER NUMBERS YOU WANT TO PUT IN MY MY VIEW.

SO THIS WILL BE A NEW SECTION THAT'S GOING TO GUIDE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS.

SUBSECTIONS WILL FOCUS ON DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS.

SO FOR OUR NEW PROPOSED CODE FOR 107.19 IS RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE AND PSD, VRD, HMD, UDT AND USF.

SO WE CREATED A PURPOSE STATEMENT.

THIS IS THE PURPOSE IS TO APPLY STANDARDS THAT ENHANCE THE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY AND EXTERIOR APPEARANCE OF DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY, AND TO PROMOTE AND PRESERVE THE ESTHETIC, CHARACTER AND ECONOMIC VITALITY OF THE COMMUNITY. THEN OUR FIRST SECTION IS GOING TO BE A IT'S GOING TO BE GARAGES, AND IT'S GOING TO BE FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED.

THIS WOULD BE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS.

AND THEN WE CREATED A PURPOSE FOR THIS, FOR GARAGES JUST TO ENSURE RESIDENTIAL GARAGES ARE INTEGRATED AND WELL DESIGNED AND EXTENSIONS OF THE HOME NOT INTENDED TO FURTHER GARAGES TO BE THE MOST DOMINANT FEATURE.

THE MIXTURE OF FRONT LOADED, SIDE LOADED AND REAR LOADED GARAGES THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT IS ENCOURAGED.

IF WE WANT TO DISCUSS THAT FIRST LANGUAGE OR, OR GO THROUGH ALL OF IT AND THEN DISCUSS IT.

I MEAN, I GUESS IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, IT'S YOUR RECOLLECTION.

BECAUSE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS WITH ROB EARLIER, SINCE WE KNEW WHO WAS GOING TO BE GONE. DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THE FINAL DECISION WAS? WAS IT THAT THE GARAGE COULD BE EVEN WITH THE PORCH? OR IT HAS TO BE EVEN WITH THE FACADE EXCLUDING THE PORCH? YOU SAID IT COULD NOT BE THE FURTHEST MOST ELEMENT TO THE STREET,

[01:00:04]

YES, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE WERE THINKING ALSO.

I COULDN'T RECALL IF IT COULD BE EVEN, BUT I GUESS IT COULD BE EVEN.

WE WERE SKIPPING AHEAD.

YEAH. SKIPPING AHEAD TO ADD DEPTH TO THE ELEVATIONS, ADD SOME VISUAL INTEREST. NOT JUST THESE PLAIN FLAT, YOU KNOW, ALMOST TILT UP LIKE HOUSE STRUCTURES.

YEAH. SO YOU'RE SKIPPING AHEAD.

I HAVEN'T GOT TO THAT YET. WELL, NO, I MEAN, I ONLY I ONLY READ I ONLY READ NUMBER ONE.

I ONLY READ NUMBER ONE OKAY.

SO JUST MAKING SURE THAT LANGUAGE WAS GOOD.

THAT'S HOW MUCH I'M PAYING. YOU'RE GOOD. WELL, SOME OF US DON'T REALLY KNOW WHERE THIS IS LEADING, SO MAYBE WE OUGHT TO GO THROUGH EVERYTHING. OKAY. AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK.

OKAY. THAT WORKS. OKAY.

SO THEN. THEN NUMBER TWO FOR THAT SECTION WOULD BE GARAGE LOCATION.

FRONT LOADING GARAGES.

IT'S A GARAGE WAS VEHICULAR ACCESS DOORS ORIENTED THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE FRONT FACADE OF THE STRUCTURE.

CURRENTLY WE HAVE IT AS THE GARAGE SHALL BE FLUSH WITH OR BEHIND THE FRONT FACADE, EXCLUDING THE FRONT PORCH, UNLESS ARCHITECTURALLY APPROPRIATE.

DETERMINED BY THE BOARD.

AND THEN WE'LL HAVE IMAGES HERE AS WELL.

SIDE LOADING GARAGES, VEHICULAR ACCESS DOORS PRIMARILY ORIENTED PERPENDICULAR TO THE FRONT FACADE OF THE STRUCTURE.

SHALL BE FLUSH WITH OR BEHIND THE FRONT FACADE, EXCLUDING THE FRONT PORCH AS WELL.

THESE ARE SOME IMAGES AT THE TOP.

WOULD BE PERMITTED GARAGE LOCATIONS.

ON THE BOTTOM ARE ITEMS CURRENTLY THAT WE SAY WOULD BE PROHIBITED FOR GARAGE LOCATIONS.

CAN WE GO I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO THROW ALL OF IT.

I KNOW I LIED. I JUST WANT TO SAY ONE OVERALL THING.

I MEAN, I THINK REALLY THE INTENT OF THIS WHOLE SECTION IS, YOU KNOW, I KNOW MY NEIGHBORHOOD, LIKE MOST HOUSES, THE FIRST THING THAT'S CLOSEST TO THE STREET IS THE GARAGE. IT'S JUST TRYING TO ACCENTUATE, IF THAT'S A WORD.

YOU KNOW, THE GARAGE IS PART OF THE HOUSE TRYING TO BRING THE HOUSE FACADE CLOSER.

SO ALL OF THIS IS WITH THAT IN MIND? SORRY. IT'S FINE. I WILL WAIT UNTIL WE ARE DONE.

OKAY. I MADE JEFF SIGH.

I'M SORRY. QUIT DOING THAT, JEFF.

NUMBER THREE IS THE GARAGE BAY.

QUANTITY. EACH HOUSE DESIGNED TO EMPHASIZE THE HOUSE MASS AND ENTRY GARAGE SHALL BE SECONDARY AND CHARACTER. SO NO MORE THAN THREE BAYS PERMITTED TO FACE ANY STREET EXCEPT REAR LOADED GARAGES.

THIS INCLUDES ATTACHED OR DETACHED GARAGES, GARAGE DOOR DESIGN, FRONT LOADED AND SIDE LOADED GARAGES SHALL HAVE RAISED PANEL DOORS OR SOME TYPE OF RELIEF FEATURE IN THEIR CONSTRUCTION.

SO IT'S NOT TO APPEAR AS A COMPLETELY FLAT SURFACE IN ADDITION TO THE PANEL GARAGE DOORS. FRONT LOADED AND SIDE LOADED GARAGES SHALL HAVE TWO DESIGN FEATURES WHICH ARE LISTED BELOW. AND THE REAR LOADED GARAGE DOOR SHALL HAVE AT LEAST ONE DESIGN FEATURE.

THE DESIGN FEATURES ARE PERMANENT HARDWARE A PAINT COLOR OTHER THAN WHITE.

ONE OR MORE PANEL ROWS OF WINDOWS IF DESIRED.

VERTICAL WINDOW DESIGNS WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE DRB.

ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT ARCHITECTURAL COMPONENTS AS DETERMINED BY THE BOARD OR COMMISSION, EXCLUDING BUILDING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING MATERIALS.

NOT ALLOWING WHITE AT ALL.

YOU GOTTA HAVE WHITE, BUT YOU HAVE OTHER FEATURE.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE OTHER FEATURES ON IT PERMITTED GARAGE QUANTITY.

SO THE TOP ONES ARE PERMITTED.

THE BOTTOM ONES ARE NOT PERMITTED.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE FOUR CAR GARAGES WOULD BE NOT PERMITTED IF IT'S FACING THE STREET, BUT THERE IS ONE THAT FACES A DRIVEWAY AND DOES NOT FACE THE STREET, AND THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED.

I GOT TO ASK A QUESTION.

LAST, LAST, LAST ONE GOING ON THIS ONE SO I CAN WAIT TILL THE END.

WE'RE GOOD. SO WHAT DETERMINES A THREE VERSUS A FOUR CAR GARAGE? WHAT IF THEY'VE GOT A FOUR CAR GARAGE BUT IT ONLY HAS 3 OR 2 DOORS, TWO OVERHEAD DOORS OR THREE OVERHEAD DOORS.

BUT TECHNICALLY, IT'S A FOUR CAR GARAGE.

HOW ARE WE DETERMINING THAT SLOT? I MEAN, BASED ON HERE, IT'S SLOT, IT'S A SLOT, AND WE CAN'T EAT IN THE MAXIMUM OF A DOUBLE.

LIKE YOU CAN'T HAVE A, YOU KNOW, AIRPLANE HANGAR TYPE DOOR ONE.

[01:05:01]

A DOUBLE DOOR. SO I THINK WHAT WE DETERMINED.

SO WE HAVE IT AS BAYS.

WE HAVE IT LISTED AS BAYS NOT DOORS NOT GARAGE DOORS.

SO YOU THINK THAT IF YOU HAD JUST A LARGE OVERHEAD DOOR, HAVE TWO BAYS, A SINGLE DOOR, YOU DON'T THINK THAT THEY COULD SNEAK A FOURTH? YEAH, BUT THAT'S TRUE, I AGREED.

I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE SO MUCH CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT'S GOING IN AS IT IS THE SIZE OF THE BAY. BUT IF WE'RE SAYING YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUR CAR GARAGE, THEN YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOUR BAY GARAGE.

OKAY, YOU CAN FIT FOUR CARS IN A THREE BAY INTO A THREE BAY GARAGE.

A LOT OF SMART CARS. I MEAN, THERE'S SOME WELL DESIGNED HOMES THAT HAVE THREE CAR GARAGES AND A FOURTH BAY THAT THEY'VE GOT A GOLF CART OR WHATEVER ELSE.

RIGHT. STORAGE CLUBS. SO WE'RE.

WELL, WHAT ABOUT A THREE CAR GARAGE AND A BUMP OUT? CUZ THERE'S. YEAH, I MEAN I HAVE THAT IT'S STILL CONSIDERED A TWO CAR OVERSIZE GARAGE.

OKAY. TONIGHT FOUR BAY.

THEY JUST CAN'T FACE THE STREET.

YEAH, A LOT OF THOSE MULTI ONES.

YOU END UP WITH THAT L-SHAPED.

YEAH. WE'RE JUST SAYING IT JUST CAN'T BE ALL.

SO THE FRONT FACING FACADE IS JUST NOT ALL GARAGES AND THEIR FRONT DOOR.

I THINK TECHNICALLY YOU COULD LOOK AT THE MEASUREMENTS. I MEAN TYPICAL GARAGE DOORS EIGHT FEET WIDE. I KNOW THERE ARE SOME SINGLE CAR GARAGES THAT ARE NINE FEET WIDE.

SO THAT'S TYPICAL. BAY WOULD BE PROBABLY NINE FEET.

YOU'D PROBABLY MAX. SO 18FT, THEN 27FT OF OVERHEAD DOORS OR VEHICULAR ACCESS DOORS. I GUESS.

JUST ASKING. I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF PUSHBACK.

YOU KNOW, I TRY TO FIND FOUR CAR GARAGES WHEN I WAS TRYING TO GO THROUGH LOOKING AT HOUSES WHEN I WAS DRIVING BY, BUT I REALLY DIDN'T SEE A TON. I SAW A LOT OF THREE CAR GARAGES OR APPEAR TO BE THREE CAR GARAGES.

I WOULD SAY THEY WERE THREE BAYS.

CAN I ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS? YEAH.

WE'RE GOOD. CAN YOU GO? NO. OKAY. BACK ONE. SO IT SAYS.

GARAGE SHALL BE FLUSH WITH OR BEHIND THE FRONT FACADE, EXCLUDING THE FRONT PORCH.

MEANING THAT IF THERE WAS A FRONT PORCH, THE GARAGE SHOULD EXTEND TO BE EVEN OR IN FRONT OF THE FRONT PORCH.

EXCLUDING NOT COUNT, THE PORCH WILL NOT COUNT IN THIS VERBIAGE IS DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. NOW I. OKAY.

MATT AND I MEMORY OF WHAT WE DISCUSSED.

OKAY. THE FRONT PORCH COMES INTO PLAY. BUT WE'LL WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT WHEN WE'RE ALL OKAY. I WAS JUST MAKING SURE THAT WAS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE EXAMPLE PICTURES IN THE NEXT, BUT I THINK I'M ON THE SAME PAGE NOW.

SO THIS LIKE SO THIS WOULD BE, THIS WOULD BE A PORCH AND IT CAN BE FLUSH WITH THE HOUSE OR BEHIND.

IT CAN'T BE FLUSH WITH THE FLUSH WITH THE PORCH.

SO RIGHT HERE IT'S FLUSH WITH HOW WE HAVE IT WRITTEN NOW.

SO THAT WAS FLUSH WITH THE PORCH SO IT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.

OKAY. THANK YOU. KIND OF CLOSE TO THAT FROM AN ISSUE WITH THE.

THE NEXT QUESTION I HAD WHEN WE GO TO THE DESIGN FEATURE LIST.

SO ONE MORE I THINK. YEAH.

USUALLY THIS IS THESE ARE STIPULATIONS WE PUT ON THE BUILDER.

RIGHT. MY CONCERN IS. THOSE ARE ALL EASILY AFFECTED BY THE HOMEOWNER AFTER THE HOUSE IS BUILT. I MEAN I MEAN, THE COLOR. I MEAN, WE WE'RE SPECIFIC TO, SAY, PERMANENT HARDWARE BECAUSE MY GARAGE HAS THE MAGNETS, YOU KNOW, LITTLE DOOR HINGE EASILY PULL OFF.

YEAH. SO PERMANENT HARDWARE WOULD BE HARD TO TAKE OFF.

I MEAN, YOU'D HAVE TO CHANGE OUT THE GARAGE DOOR RIGHT HERE.

PAINT? YES. OBVIOUSLY, YOU CAN COLOR IT WHITE.

YOU COULD PAINT IT WHITE.

I MEAN, YOU COULD PUT A WHOLE NEW DOOR IN WITHOUT WINDOWS.

LIKE, I MEAN, I GUESS TECHNICALLY YOU COULD ALWAYS ADD EASEMENTS AND SPIRES AND ALL SORTS OF THINGS TO YOUR HOUSE BEFORE OR AFTER IT WAS WAS BUILT.

[01:10:01]

IT IS EASY TO REPLACE A BRIDGE IF THEY CHANGED IT.

IT WOULD TECHNICALLY BE A ZONING VIOLATION, AND WE WOULD SEND THEM A LETTER AND THEY'D HAVE TO CHANGE IT. SO I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT TOO.

YEAH, I JUST THAT'D BE A CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE AT THAT POINT IN TIME.

OR AN HOA COULD ENFORCE IT AS WELL IF THEY PUT IT IN THERE.

YEAH. I DON'T I DON'T HAVE A SUGGESTION.

I WAS MERELY POINTING IT OUT.

ARE THERE MORE TO THIS? OR IS THIS THE LAST? THAT WAS IT FOR THE GARAGES.

SO OPEN IT UP COMPLETELY.

QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? THOUGHTS? I MEAN, AS I SAID EARLIER, I THERE'S LOTS OF CONVERSATIONS ON THIS OVER MULTIPLE MONTHS AND, YOU KNOW, ONE DAY A MONTH, BUT ROB MYSELF, IT SOUNDS LIKE MATT AS WELL THOUGHT THAT THE GARAGE COULD BE TWO FEET IN FRONT. I THINK I THOUGHT IT WAS EVEN OR WITH THE WHICH ONES IN FRONT.

I THINK THE GARAGE IS DEFINITELY NOT IN FRONT. SO OBVIOUSLY NO ONE REMEMBERS.

I THOUGHT IT WAS. MY RECOLLECTION WAS THAT THE PORCH COULD BE IN FRONT AND THE GARAGE COULD NOT BE FLUSH WITH THE PORCH, BUT IT COULD BE PAST THE MAIN BODY OF THE HOUSE. YES. YEAH. AND THAT'S WHERE I COULDN'T RECALL IF THE GARAGE COULD BE FLUSH WITH THE PORCH. NO, I THINK IT HAD TO BE RECESSED ABOUT.

TWO FEET. OKAY. BEHIND THE FRONT OF THE PORCH.

COVERED PORCH. I REMEMBER THAT WAS DEFINITELY BROUGHT UP. SO.

IS THAT IN THIS TEXT OR DOES THAT NOT HOW THAT'S CURRENTLY NOT HOW WE HAVE IT WRITTEN CURRENTLY. WHAT THEY'RE DISCUSSING. SO BUT OUR RECOLLECTION WAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FROM THAT MEETING. APPARENTLY SO DOES THIS GRANDFATHER IN EXISTING.

YES. OR IS THIS OKAY BECAUSE LIKE, I'M FOR FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, I WAS LIKE, I'M THINKING ABOUT MY HOUSE AND I WOULD FAIL. NO, I HAVE A PLAIN WHITE GARAGE DOOR AND THAT'S IT.

WE'VE ALREADY GOT THE LETTER DRAFTED. I THINK IT'S COMING TO YOUR HOUSE.

YOU'RE GOING TO GET SERVED IT AFTER THIS MEETING.

SO, YEAH, I MEAN, I WOULD WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE WORDING CHANGE BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE INTENT FROM THE GROUP WAS THAT THE PORCH COULD GO PAST THE MAIN BODY OF THE HOUSE, BUT NOT PAST THE FRONT PORCH.

THE GARAGE COULDN'T GO.

YOU SAID THE PORCH. IT CANNOT BE.

YEAH, YEAH. THE WHOLE INTENT IS TO ADD DEPTH TO THE FACADE.

SO THEY'RE NOT JUST THESE BOXES THAT HAVE RANDOM, YOU KNOW, IT ADDS VISUAL INTEREST IS THE INTENT.

YEAH. COULD YOU GO? IT WAS ONE OF THE EXAMPLES.

THE ONE THAT YEAH. SO IN WHAT I BELIEVE MATT AND I ARE SAYING IN THE BOTTOM, ALL THOSE WOULD ACTUALLY BE OKAY, AS LONG AS THE GARAGE IS TWO FEET BEHIND THE EDGE OF THE PORCH. CORRECT.

THAT WAS THAT WAS MY RECOLLECTION ON ALL THOSE X'S ON THE BOTTOM.

YEAH, YEAH, BECAUSE IT GIVES IT DEPTH AND DEPTH.

SO THE MIDDLE ONE I THINK IS PROBABLY EVEN SO THAT WELL, I MEAN UPCOMING WE HAVE A DEFINITION FOR PORCH NOW, WHICH IS GOING TO BE A MINIMUM SIX FOOT DEPTH.

STEPS UP MY PORCH FEELS TOO.

YEAH, EXACTLY. YEAH. I MEAN, MY PORCH IS NARROW AND HARDLY USABLE, AND THAT'S THE POINT OF IT IS, YOU KNOW, HAVE USABLE PORCHES.

SO, YEAH, IF YOU IMAGINE THAT BOX BEING SIX FOOT, THEN THE GARAGE COULD STICK OUT FOUR FEET FROM THE MAIN BODY OF THE HOUSE, BUT STILL TWO FEET BEHIND THE PORCH.

YEAH, I THINK THAT ACCOMPLISHES DEPTH, BECAUSE NOW YOU'VE GOT EVEN MORE DEPTH BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT GARAGE HOUSE PORCH.

EXACTLY. AND IF THERE'S NO PORCH, IT CAN GO TWO FEET PAST THE FACADE.

RIGHT. OR DOES THAT NOT APPLY WHEN THERE'S NO. THAT DOESN'T APPLY IF THERE'S NO PORCH YOU HAVEN'T GOT THERE YET.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE YEAH. IF YOU DON'T HAVE A PORCH, YOU PROBABLY HAVE. YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT SET BACK FROM THE FACADE. OR IS IT CAN IT BE FLUSH WITH THE FACADE? NO, WE DID HAVE LANGUAGE EITHER HAD TO HAVE A PORCH OR THE GARAGE COULD NOT BE THE CLOSEST THING TO THE STREET. YEAH, THE INTENT WAS TO PROMOTE MORE PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THIS WOULD NEED TO BE TABLED SINCE IT NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED SO MUCH.

YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK SO, PERHAPS, I MEAN, ESPECIALLY WITH THE VISUAL

[01:15:02]

YEAH. I MEAN I'M FINE WITH TABLING BECAUSE ALSO I MEAN MAYBE IT'S PULLING THAT GROUP AGAIN, I MEAN, JUST THROUGH AN EMAIL TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE, RIGHT? YEAH. IT CAME UP MULTIPLE TIMES AND WE HAD DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS.

AND BUT I THOUGHT WE SETTLED ON WHAT MATT WAS SAYING.

BUT HOW DOES THIS GROUP FEEL ABOUT THAT LANGUAGE? I LIKE THAT. I MEAN LANGUAGE.

THANK YOU. SORRY, CHAD.

DO YOU HAVE OTHER FEELINGS? YOU. I DO THINK THAT YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THE GARAGE BE BEYOND THE FACADE OF THE HOUSE. I THINK WITH A WELL DESIGNED HOME, IT'LL BE ATTRACTIVE.

IF YOU INCORPORATE A PORCH.

SO BE IT. WELL, THERE'S.

I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE MIDDLE ONE ON THE BOTTOM, FOR EXAMPLE.

YEAH. I'M NOT. I THINK THAT THAT OUGHT TO BE ALLOWED IF IT'S SILOED OR OR.

I'M SORRY. THE THEY WENT TO THE LEFT.

SORRY THE FRONT LOADED.

I THINK THAT SHOULD BE ALLOWED. YEAH I SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. NO, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD. WE AGREE.

YOU'RE OKAY WITH THE PORCH? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

YEAH. OKAY. NOW, THE MIDDLE ONE IS INTERESTING BECAUSE IT'S SIDE LOADED.

WE NEVER REALLY HAD THAT DISCUSSION. YEAH, BECAUSE FROM THE STREET VIEW, YOU CAN'T TELL. IT'S. YEAH.

I DON'T CARE WHAT THE SIDE OF THE GARAGE LOOKS LIKE. RIGHT. YEAH. THAT'S A KIND OF ROB. AND I WAS SAYING THERE'S USUALLY NO WINDOWS HERE. YOU'RE JUST GONNA HAVE A WALL OF SIDING. WELL, THAT OR IT'S GOING TO HAVE.

THERE'S A LOT THERE'S A LOT THAT ARE LIKE A PART OF THE HOUSE.

BUT I MEAN, I THINK USING OUR LANGUAGE, IT'S STILL, YOU KNOW, ACCOMPLISHES THAT.

I CAN'T IMAGINE A I'M TRYING TO THINK OF A HOUSE WOULD EVER GET BUILT, YOU KNOW, WITH A SIDE LOAD GARAGE BEING SO FAR EXTENDED.

YEAH. OKAY. BUT THEY USUALLY HAVE WINDOWS.

YEAH. YEAH. SO THERE'S SOME ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES.

IT'S NOT JUST A BLANK FACADE.

YEAH. IT IS PROVIDING DEPTH.

RIGHT. SO. OKAY. SO LET'S, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

LET'S TABLE IT JUST SO WE CAN GET THE REVISE THE LANGUAGE AND VERIFY MAYBE WITH THE REST OF THE GROUP. WELL, I GUESS IF NOTHING ELSE, WE CAN APPROVE, APPROVE THIS LANGUAGE. AND IF COUNCIL DOESN'T AGREE, THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN DISCUSS AND KICK IT BACK TO US. SO.

THIS IS WHAT THIS IS KIND OF WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE THE SIDE LOADED.

IT'S IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE.

YEAH. AND THEN THE SUB WINDOWS ON THE FRONT. SO THERE'S STILL THE THE DESIGN.

SO IT'S STILL A VISUAL INTEREST.

AND WE AND WE HAD FOUND SOME LANGUAGE THAT TALKED ABOUT THEY CALLED THEM COURTYARD GARAGES. BUT I KNOW THAT I THINK THE ZONING WORKING GROUP HADN'T REALLY DISCUSSED TOO MUCH ABOUT THAT. SO THIS IS MORE LOOKING AT THE FRONT, FRONT LOADED ONES. SO, I MEAN, THIS IS AN OPTION.

I MEAN, IF IF IT'S IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE, YOU KNOW, DO WE HAVE LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT IT CAN'T THE DOORS CAN'T FACE THE STREET OR SOMETHING? I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, THAT'S SOMETHING IF YOU WANT US TO KIND OF LOOK AT THAT OR INCLUDE THESE.

I KNOW THERE ARE SOME AROUND.

I MEAN, THAT'S. THERE'S ANOTHER ONE THAT'S COURTYARD OR. WE HAVE THAT ONE RIGHT NEXT TO IT.

THAT MAKES COMPLETE SENSE TO ALLOW THAT ONE TO THE RIGHT THERE.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE THE FRONT DOOR IS ON THAT HOUSE. IT'S TO THE LEFT THERE. OVER HERE, I BELIEVE. BUT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID.

PREVENT. I MEAN, I WOULDN'T.

YEAH, THAT'S PART OF THE HOUSE.

YEAH. NOT THAT WE THINK THE HOUSE IS CRAZY.

IT'S JUST. I MEAN, THAT WOULDN'T BE MY PREFERENCE, BUT I WOULDN'T STOP THAT HOUSE FROM BEING BUILT BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST THE GARAGE.

SO IT IS PRETTY PROMINENT.

YEAH. I MEAN, LIKE THIS ONE. YEAH.

THE. YEAH, THAT'S WAY IN FRONT OF THE.

YEAH. WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, THAT'S ALL YOU SEE.

YEAH. RIGHT. SO THAT'S THE.

I THINK WE KNOW WHAT WE LIKE, BUT LET'S TABLE IT SO WE CAN GET THE LANGUAGE CORRECT. ALRIGHT. THAT MOTION TO TO TABLE.

MOTION TO TABLE. DO YOU WANT.

SORRY. DO YOU WANT. IS THERE OTHER.

YEAH. WELL THAT. BUT DO YOU WANT.

IS THERE OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE THE BAY QUANTITY OR THE GARAGE DOOR DESIGN.

SINCE IT'S ALL UNDER ONE AMENDMENT.

SO WE'D MAKE A MOTION FOR THIS WHOLE THING, NOT JUST THE LOCATION.

[01:20:01]

DID ANYONE HAVE ANY? WE TALKED ABOUT THE BAYS, BUT I THINK WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE. AND THE DESIGN FEATURES? I MEAN, YES, COLOR COULD CHANGE.

GARAGE DOOR COULD BE CHANGED OUT, BUT THAT'S FOR THE CITY TO POLICE.

HAVE FUN WITH THAT. YEAH.

PARTNERING WITH VAN HEUSEN.

EVERY TIME SOMEONE ORDERS A NEW GARAGE, LET US KNOW WE'RE GOING TO GO CHECK ON IT.

WELL, YES. THEN A DAY AFTER THEY INSTALL IT.

OH, SORRY. WE GOT TO PUT ANOTHER ONE IN. I DON'T KNOW THEM.

I'M NOT MAKING A COMMENT ON THEM. OKAY.

GREAT SALES TACTIC. YEAH.

I GUESS THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT A FLAT SURFACE, IT'S ALMOST LIKE YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT'S A BAD THING.

AND I DON'T THINK IT NECESSARILY IS.

IF YOU'VE GOT, LIKE, A FLAT WOOD GRAIN, YOU KNOW, I KNOW, I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE THINKING IS LIKE JUST A FLAT SECTIONAL DOOR, BUT THERE ARE FLAT DOORS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, VERY ATTRACTIVE AS WELL.

THEY'RE HIGHER END. AND I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY IN MARYSVILLE, BUT THEY'RE OUT THERE.

BUT DIDN'T YOU HAVE LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAID, EXCEPT FOR IF THEY CAME AND GOT A APPROVAL.

IT WASN'T ON THE WELL.

COULD WE ADD THAT? WE'LL JUST SAY, WELL, NO, THAT'S SORRY. OH, WAIT, WHERE DOES IT SAY FLATS? NO, IT DOESN'T SAY THAT.

THERE. I THOUGHT COMPLETELY FLAT SURFACE PANELS.

OKAY. DIDN'T SEE YOUR ERROR FOR A SECOND.

I MEAN, I'D SAY UNLESS APPROVED BY.

WOULD THAT BE DRB? DRB, COULD YOU KIND OF WINDOW AS A RELIEF FEATURE? YEAH, IT COULD BE FLAT AS LONG AS IT HAS A WINDOW.

WELL. WELL, I MEAN, I THINK THE INTENT IS TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE CHEAP ONES.

I UNDERSTAND THAT. I UNDERSTAND.

I JUST THINK, I THINK WHEN YOU.

YOU KNOW. YEAH, THERE ARE ELEMENTS OF HIGHER END GARAGE DOORS THAT WE WOULD BE RESTRICTING HERE. THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO SAY. YEAH, BUT WITH THE INTENT OF TRYING TO ELIMINATE THE LOWER END ONES. WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH, YOU KNOW, APPROVAL OF A HIGHER GRADE FLAT GARAGE DOOR, ALBEIT.

YEAH. OR DRB OR. YEAH.

OKAY. BUT I MEAN, DO YOU WANT TO SAY FLAT IS ALL I'M SAYING.

IF IT'S A FLAT FIBERGLASS DOOR, THAT'S I, I DON'T THINK THAT THEY OUGHT TO HAVE TO COME TO DRB FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY.

YOU JUST TOOK OFF THE SO AS TO NOT APPEAR COMPLETELY FLAT.

I MEAN, JUST SAY SOME RELIEF FEATURE THEN HAVING A HIGH QUALITY OH, DO I LIKE, YELLED INTO THE MICROPHONE THERE. HAVING A HIGH QUALITY DOOR IS A RELIEF FEATURE RELIEF FEATURE AND THEN END IT THERE.

BUT WHAT'S HIGH QUALITY? I MEAN, SO MUCH SO IT'S FLAT.

I MEAN, THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING TO GO WITH CHAD.

I MEAN, IS THERE A SALIENT FEATURE THAT WE CAN SAY TO CHANGE THAT LANGUAGE? CHAD, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE? IS IT A MATERIAL FEATURE OR MATERIAL? HOW ABOUT RELIEF FEATURE OR MATERIAL? YEAH. OR. WELL, WE HAVE TWO DESIGN FEATURES.

SO CAN WE MATERIAL. CAN WE.

DO YOU WANT TO ADD MATERIAL TO ONE OF THE DESIGN FEATURES? YEAH. IF WE HAD THE MATERIAL THAT WOULD, YOU'D STILL HAVE YOUR TWO IF YOU HAD A WINDOW IN A, IN A DIFFERENT MATERIAL OR EVEN IF IT'S FO THE APPEARANCE OF A WOOD IN YOUR EXAMPLE, CHAD WOULD MEET AND IT COULD BE FLAT IF WE TOOK OUT.

YEAH I GO. YEAH. JUST ADD I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU SAY IT IN PROVED MATERIAL OR A UPGRADED, UPGRADED MATERIAL, BUT NOW, ARE WE UPGRADING? FROM WHAT? JUST ALUMINUM.

YEAH. I MEAN, I GUESS.

WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO.

I'M TRYING TO THINK OF CHRIS WINKLE COMING IN HERE, AND TECHNICALLY. YEAH.

SORRY, CHRIS. I'M NOT SORRY.

SOME TYPE OF RELEASE RELIEF FEATURE OR UPGRADE IN THEIR CONSTRUCTION PERIOD.

[01:25:04]

I THINK, YOU KNOW WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET AT TABLE AND BRING IT ON BACK.

WE'LL WE'LL TRY TO WORDSMITH THAT FOR YOU.

OKAY. APPRECIATE IT. I DIDN'T ASK FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS BEFORE.

CITIZEN COMMENTS. YOU'RE BORING.

KATHY TODAY. IT'S FINE. OKAY.

SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS SO THAT WE CAN MOTION TO TABLE SO JEFF CAN REWORD STUFF? THANK YOU, MISS LAUB.

ROLL CALL, PLEASE. MR. NICKERSON? YES, MISS FORBIS.

YES, MR. WOLOWITZ. YES, MR. ENGEL. YES, MR. FISHER.

YES, MISS. LAUB. YES. ALL RIGHT.

TAKES US TO THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA, JEFF, SO WE CAN HEAR YOU MUMBLING UNDER YOUR BREATH OVER THERE.

DON'T MAKE ME USE THE GAVEL.

NO, CITIZEN. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

TO HEAR AN APPLICATION FOR A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO PART 11,

[5. To hear an application for a Zoning Code Amendment to Part Eleven – Zoning Code, Section Section 1107.19 Flood Areas changing to Residential Architecture in SRD, VRD, HMD, UT, USF.]

SO IT SAYS 1107.19 FLOOD AREAS CHANGING TO RESIDENTIAL, ARCHITECTURAL AND S R D H D U T AND USF.

SO THIS IS JUST A KIND OF EXTENSION FROM WHAT WE JUST DID.

SO WE DID THE GARAGES.

SO NOW THIS IS GOING TO BE PART OF THE RECORD RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE.

THIS WILL BE FOR THE FRONT PORCH DESIGN GUIDELINES.

SO IT'LL BE LETTER B OF THE 1107 .19.

IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I JUST READ.

WAS IT. I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE BECAUSE.

YEAH, I THINK I MAY HAVE JUST BEEN COPIED FROM FOR.

YEAH, IT'S FROM THE FLOOD AREAS GOES TO 18.

THIS IS 19. THIS IS JUST AN EXTENSION OF THAT CHANGE.

I THINK IT SAID THERE WAS A B IN THERE.

OKAY. NOT THAT YOU. RIGHT.

BUT UP HERE THERE WAS. SO IT'S GARAGE AND PORCH.

RIGHT. GARAGE IS A A O B IS THIS IS B AND THEN WE'LL PROBABLY.

AND RIGHT NOW THIS IS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED.

SO THERE'S A POSSIBILITY IT COULD COME BACK AS SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED. AND THAT COULD BE C OR, OR SOMETHING. SO IT COULD BE MULTIPLE DRIVEWAYS OR OTHER ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FEATURES.

I LAID ON A CHEF. LET'S GO.

SO THE FRONT PORCH, THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IS THE LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING FOR THE DESIGN MUST BE SIX FEET IN DEPTH AND SIX FEET IN LENGTH MEASURED FROM THE EDGES OF THE FLOOR MATERIAL.

UNLESS ANOTHER ARCHITECTURALLY APPROPRIATE STRUCTURE IS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OR COMMISSIONED. THE FORWARD MOST EDGE OF THE PORCH SHALL BE EXTENDED IN FRONT OR FLUSH WITH FRONT. PORCHES SHALL BE COVERED AND OPEN, AND GLASS AND SCREENS ARE PROHIBITED.

AND AS A DESIGN FEATURE, FRONT PORCHES ARE UNIQUELY DIFFERENT FROM LIKE, STOOPS. STOOPS WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO BE COVERED, AND THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO BE SIX BY SIX EITHER.

YEAH. OKAY. BUT IT STILL COULD BE PERMITTED IF THE BORDER COMMISSION WOULD APPROVE IT WHEN IT CAME THROUGH. IF IT IF THEY THOUGHT THAT WAS ARCHITECTURALLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE HOUSE AND IT FIT THE HOUSE DESIGN OR STRUCTURE.

THERE'S THAT POSSIBILITY, BUT THE, THE INTENT BEHIND THIS IS TO TRY TO GET MORE ENGAGEMENT WITH THE STREETSCAPE AND PROVIDE THAT ABILITY, THIS REQUIREMENT THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PORCH OR IF YOU HAVE A PORCH, IT JUST HAS TO LOOK LIKE THIS.

AS I SAID, THEN IT'S A STOOP.

IF I THINK THE INTENT WAS TO REQUIRE PORCHES, UNLESS THEY PROVIDED SOMETHING ELSE THAT THE BOARD WAS OKAY WITH.

YEAH. AND THEN JUST ON SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING TRYING TO BREAK THIS DOWN, SIMILAR TO HOW GARAGES WAS, WHERE IT HAD THE PURPOSE THAN THE GARAGE LOCATION, GARAGE SITE, OR THE BAY QUANTITIES.

SO WE WOULD BREAK THIS DOWN, WE'D HAVE A PURPOSE.

STATEMENT AS NUMBER ONE, THEN WE'D HAVE TWO IS LIKE THE LOCATION OR THE SIZE AND THE LOCATION BEING FLUSH WITH OR IN FRONT OF THE, THE FACADE. AND THEN ALSO THE DESIGN AT THE SHALL BE COVERED IN OPEN GLASS AND THE SCREENS ARE PROHIBITED. I TRY TO WORDSMITH THE PURPOSE STATEMENT THERE.

BUT I DON'T NECESSARILY LIKE IT, BUT IT WAS SOMETHING TO GET SOME DISCUSSION,

[01:30:07]

IF WE IF SOMEBODY HAS A PORCH AND SAY IT'S OUR I'M THINKING OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS WHERE IT'S COVERED, IT LOOKS LIKE A FOUR SEASONS ROOM, BUT IT'S NOT SCREENED IN OR HAS GLASS THAT'S ALLOWED.

THAT'S A COVERED PORCH.

YEP. SO. BUT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED.

NO ONE'S ALLOWED TO DO LIKE A, A PORCH THAT THEY PARTIALLY SCREEN IN.

NOT IN THE FRONT. NOT IN THE FRONT.

IN THE REAR. YOU COULD YOU COULD LIKE IF YOUR BACK PORCH OR PATIO YOU COULD.

BUT THE FRONT THIS IS TO HELP WITH THAT ENGAGEMENT WITH THE STREETSCAPE.

SO CONVINCE ME I KNOW THAT WE'VE GOT A LINE IN HERE THAT SAYS UNLESS ANOTHER ARCHITECTURALLY APPROPRIATE STRUCTURE IS PROVIDED, BUT I FEEL LIKE IT'S PRETTY HEAVY HANDED TO SAY, A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOUSE HAS TO HAVE A FRONT PORCH.

THAT'S THE INTENT. AND IT COULD BE.

YEAH. AND IT COULD BE THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME HOUSES, DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE. IF IT'S A SMALLER HOUSE, MAYBE YOU DON'T WANT A SIX BY SIX PORCH, AND THE BOARD'S OKAY WITH A THREE BY FOUR OR A STOOP OR, YOU KNOW, SMALLER KIND OF SET UP THERE ON THE FRONT BUT STILL PUSHES OUT.

I THOUGHT WE WERE DEFINING A PORCH.

BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE ARE PUSHING FOR ALL HOUSES TO HAVE A FRONT PORCH WITHOUT A STOOP? I MEAN, IF YOU'RE IF THERE'S A HOME BEING BUILT THAT DOESN'T LEND ITSELF TO A FRONT PORCH, BUT JUST A STOOP.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO OTHER ARCHITECTURALLY APPROPRIATE STRUCTURE.

OKAY. I MEAN. I GUESS I'M CONFUSED A LITTLE BIT HERE BECAUSE WE ALL LOVE PORCHES, RIGHT? BUT THERE'S GOING TO BE INCIDENCES WHERE THERE'S HOUSES THAT THAT'S NOT AN APPROPRIATE RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE THE LANGUAGE THAT IT SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE BORDER COMMISSION. IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE.

AND I DON'T KNOW, IT MIGHT BE EASIER IF WE BREAK IT DOWN SIMILAR TO THE GARAGES.

SO IT KIND OF SPELLS IT OUT A LITTLE.

MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO TO READ INSTEAD OF THIS BIG PARAGRAPH.

SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOUSES WITHOUT FRONT PORCHES ARE PRETTY COMMON IN RANCH STYLE ARCHITECTURE. LIKE IT'S.

IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO NOT HAVE A FRONT PORCH AND STILL BE A LOVELY HOUSE.

I DON'T REALLY LIKE THE PUSH FOR.

I MEAN, I GET IT YOU WANT.

BUT IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE IT SO THAT PEOPLE CAN'T.

I MEAN, IF YOU WANT THE PUSH FOR A FRONT PORCH, BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO DO ANY TYPE OF GLASS OR SCREENED IN.

I'M SORRY IF I WANT TO BE ON A FRONT PORCH IN THE SUMMERTIME, I'D LIKE A SCREENED IN FRONT PORCH.

I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE DO.

I GET IT, I UNDERSTAND.

I GET THE, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ABOUT PEOPLE BEING OUT AND LIKE ON THEIR PORCH.

I DON'T KNOW, THAT'S JUST ME. MAYBE I'M CHAD.

YOU CAN ALWAYS DO IT. NO, NO, YOU CAN ALWAYS DO IT IN THE BACK.

YEAH, BUT I UNDERSTAND.

I'M ALSO THINKING IF WE'RE THINKING MORE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED AND I'M THINKING OF OLDER COMMUNITIES THAT WERE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED, A LOT OF THOSE HOMES HAD FRONT SCREEN PORCHES THAT YOU WOULD WALK INTO.

YOU KNOW, I'M THINKING OLDER CITIES.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S NECESSARILY A BAD THING.

MY HOUSE IS A FRONT SCREENED PORCH, BUT WE ACTUALLY JUST REALIZED THAT THERE WERE OTHER THE LETTERS IN THE MAIL, TOO. YEAH, WELL, THEY'RE REMOVABLE ACTUALLY. OR HISTORICALLY, THEY THE PREVIOUS OWNER REPLACED THEM, MADE A PERMANENT, BUT HISTORICALLY THEY WERE REMOVABLE SCREEN PANELS.

I JUST THINK IF WE'RE TRYING TO PUSH LIKE WHAT'S THE IS THE PUSH BECAUSE WE WANT IT TO BE VISUALLY APPEALING OR IS THE PUSH BECAUSE WE WANT OUR COMMUNITY TO BE FRONT PORCH PEOPLE, AND WE WANT PEOPLE TO BE OUT IN THE FRONT.

AND WHEN THEY WALK BY, WE'RE LIKE, HEY, HOW YOU DOING? LIKE, IS THAT THE PUSH HERE OR IS IT JUST VISUAL? I THINK IT ORIGINALLY ORIGINATED FROM I WILL TAKE MY HOUSE.

IT HAS A THREE FOOT WIDE PORCH.

YEAH, I HAVE TWO SMALL CHAIRS AND A SMALL TABLE, AND THAT'S WHAT MINE LOOKS LIKE.

IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME TO GET TO THE FRONT.

SURE. SO WE WANT TO. TO HAVE USABLE PORCHES.

YEAH. THAT'S WHY WE HAD THE SIX FOOT MINIMUM DEPTH.

[01:35:02]

WE WANTED AN UPGRADE FROM THAT.

RIGHT. SO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE.

I WAS JUST TRYING TO THINK. I MEAN, DOES THIS ACTUALLY REQUIRE FRONT PORCHES? IT'S JUST SAYING THAT IF YOU HAVE A FRONT PORCH, THIS IS THE REQUIREMENT.

YEAH, YEAH. I DON'T KNOW MAYBE HOW IT'S WORDED.

IT IS REQUIRING IT. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE ABSOLUTE INTENT.

JUST SAYING THAT'S THE INTENT. I KNOW THAT'S THE INTENT.

MAYBE WE EVALUATE INTENT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE FRONT PORCHES UNLESS YOU GOT APPROVAL FOR A DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURE.

AND THAT'S WHERE THAT'S WHERE THIS GOES WITH THE MOST PUDS REFERENCE OUR GENERAL ZONING CODE AS PSD OR VRD OR SCD.

AND THIS WOULD, WOULD GO TOWARDS THOSE DISTRICTS PSD DISTRICT.

SO WHEN THEY REFERENCE THAT THAT IT GOES BACK TO OUR CODE, WE WOULD HAVE IT IN OUR TYPOLOGY CHART THAT THEY'D HAVE TO FOLLOW THESE STANDARDS.

IN OUR ZONING. IS THERE SOME CROSSOVER IN THE DENSITY BONUS AS WELL WITH FRONT PORCHES? I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER IF THAT HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT AS WELL. WELL, THAT'S ONE OF THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES I BELIEVE THAT COULD COUNT TOWARDS WITH IT.

THAT'S ALSO SOMETHING WE'RE LOOKING AT. IF YOU'RE USING A FRONT PORCH AS AN ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE TO HIT A REQUIREMENT, THEN IT NEEDS TO FOLLOW THIS DEFINITION.

BUT I DON'T THINK WE ARE SAYING THAT YOUR HOUSE.

I WOULD LIKE US TO NOT BE SAYING THAT YOUR HOUSE HAS TO HAVE A PORCH.

YEAH, I DON'T SEE WHERE IT SAYS YOU HAVE TO.

I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE SECTION. I SEE IT AS IF YOU HAVE A FRONT PORCH.

THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE. I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE SECTION, THOUGH, ISN'T IT? I MEAN, I DO KNOW IT SAYS WHAT IS UNLESS APPROVED.

I GUESS WE NEED TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF THE GARAGE DOOR.

PROPOSALS ARE A MUST WHEN YOU KNOW AND NOT JUST A SUGGESTION OR, YOU KNOW, BUT WE'RE NOT SAYING YOU HAVE TO HAVE GARAGES.

WELL, I MEANT, LIKE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A GARAGE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A GARAGE, THIS IS THE STANDARD.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A FRONT PORCH. THIS IS THIS IS GOOD.

YES. YEAH. SO THEN IT DOES ANSWER ITS OWN QUESTION WHERE IF YOU'RE USING THE FRONT PORCH AS A, AS A FEATURE TO SATISFY A REQUIREMENT, IT THIS WOULD BE DEFINING THE FRONT PORCH.

YEAH. WE DON'T WANT JUST A STOOP STOOP WITH A COVER OR OR JUST STAIRS.

YEAH, EXACTLY. I DO ALSO WANT TO GO BACK TO THE WHOLE GLASS AND COVERED.

THAT'S JUST I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD LIMIT OURSELVES.

I GUESS WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF LIMITING PEOPLE THERE? I HONESTLY CAN'T REMEMBER THAT CONVERSATION. I DON'T REMEMBER THAT EITHER. I MEAN, IN IN A HISTORIC HOUSE, I SEE THAT BEING APPROPRIATE.

BUT LIKE, I DON'T SEE HOUSES THAT ARE BEING BUILT THESE DAYS REALLY HAVE THAT.

YEAH. I JUST THINK IT'S SUBDIVISION, THOUGH.

WHAT ABOUT AN OUTLYING BUILDING THAT'S GOT A LITTLE BIT OF PROPERTY? IT'S A LITTLE MORE UPSCALE.

I COULD CERTAINLY SEE THEM DOING A DESIGN.

WOULD THAT BE LIKE PARODY, THOUGH? WOULD THAT WOULD THAT FALL UNDER OTHER ARCHITECTURALLY APPROPRIATE STRUCTURE? THAT'S UP TO DRB. AND NOT BE A PORCH, POSSIBLY A SCREENED PORCH.

IS THAT BECAUSE THEN THAT WOULD BE WHAT WE'RE SAYING.

YOU CAN'T HAVE SCREENS. SO YEAH.

DOES THAT MOVE IN NOW YOU'RE SAYING NO UNLESS IT'S APPROPRIATE.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE TRUTH.

SURE. I MEAN, IT IS. YEAH.

YEAH. SO DOES THAT WOULD THAT FALL UNDER DRB APPROVES IT AS AS WORDED.

I MEAN SO YOU'RE SAYING PERHAPS FROM PURCHASE SHALL BE COVERED AND OPEN GLASS AND SCREENS ARE PROHIBITED UNLESS APPROVED BY YES, BOARD OR COMMISSION.

YEAH. BECAUSE THEN THAT WAY IF IT'S NOT COMPLETELY SHUT THE DOOR,

[01:40:03]

CORRECT. AND WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT.

THAT WAS ONE OF OUR QUESTIONS WAS TO DISCUSS THAT LANGUAGE IF GLASS AND SCREEN SHOULD BE PROHIBITED. SO OUR MINDS JEFF.

SO YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE I WOULDN'T EVEN I KNOW YOU MENTIONED JUST ADDING AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE UNLESS APPROVED, BUT YOU COULD TAKE OFF THE PROHIBITED AND JUST SAY FRONT PORCHES SHALL BE COVERED AND OPEN UNLESS APPROVED.

LIKE DON'T SPECIFICALLY CALL OUT GLASS AND SCREENS AS BEING PROHIBITED UNLESS APPROVED.

JUST IT HAS TO BE COVERED AND OPEN UNLESS APPROVED.

I THINK THAT'S GOOD. IT'S FLEXIBILITY.

FLEXIBILITY. OKAY, SO WHAT IF THEY JUST WANT TO PUT SARAN WRAP? SORRY. OKAY.

SO ARE WE FINE WITH ALL THIS LANGUAGE, WITH THE REMOVING OF GLASS SCREENS AND PROHIBITED ARE PROHIBITED.

AND JUST ADDING. UNLESS APPROVED.

UNLESS APPROVED BY JUST USING THE SAME LANGUAGE.

BOARD OR COMMISSION. WHETHER THAT'S DRB OR PLANNING COMMISSION.

ALL THE WAY TO KEEP KICKING.

LOTS OF THINGS TO DO. I'LL MAKE MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

OH, SORRY. REAL QUICK. SO THERE'S THE COMMENTS.

OKAY. QUESTIONS? APPROVAL.

THANK YOU. CHAD. COULD I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? MR. NICKERSON? YES, MISS.

YES, MR. WOLLOWITZ. YES, MR. INGLE. YES, MR. FISHER? YES. MISS LAUB. YES. SO HERE'S HERE'S MY NEXT POINT.

A WAS TABLED. THIS IS B.

THIS IS JUST A DEFINITION.

CORRECT? THERE'S NO NOT REALLY A DEFINITION.

I MEAN THIS IS THESE ARE THE STANDARDS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE MET IN THAT SECTION B.

SO THAT'S WHERE I WAS KIND OF ASKING WHAT.

WELL WHAT HOW TOP OF THIS SECTION SAYING TOP OF THE SECTION IS THE GARAGES THAT WE TALKED ABOUT. NO, NOT JUST A, I MEANT LIKE WHY, WHY ISN'T IT 120 OR 0.20 AS OPPOSED TO 119 B BECAUSE WE WERE KEEPING ALL THE RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE UNDER THE SAME.

SO IF WE IF WE ADD LIKE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED STANDARDS, WE CAN HAVE IT UNDER THERE.

OR IF WE ADD OTHER ITEMS SUCH AS LIKE DRIVEWAYS BEING CERTAIN MATERIAL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THAT WE COULD JUST AMEND THIS SECTION AND ADD IT TO.

SO ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT WE HAVE TO TABLE THIS PART? I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE TO TABLE IT.

WE COULD PROBABLY JUST HOLD ON TO IT UNTIL TO TAKE IT TO COUNCIL.

I PROBABLY WOULD TAKE IT TO COUNCIL TILL EVERYTHING'S DONE.

SO. YEAH. DO YOU WANT THIS LAID OUT MORE IN THAT GARAGE LAYOUT WITH THE PURPOSE? KIND OF. BREAK IT DOWN.

OH, ARE YOU SAYING, LIKE, WITH THE, LIKE, ITS OWN SEPARATE PURPOSE? YEAH. WHICH IS WHAT WE HAD IN THE GARAGE. ARE YOU OKAY WITH IT? JUST LIKE THAT? WHATEVER TIM SAYS, I DON'T KNOW.

WHATEVER MAKES IT LEGAL.

YEAH. YEAH. IF IT'S APPLICABLE TO BOTH A AND B, THEN IT WOULD. THE PURPOSE WOULD BE COMBINED INTO BOTH.

BECAUSE REMEMBER WE WENT BACK AND WE SAID THAT IT WASN'T THAT THEY HAD TO HAVE A GARAGE IS THAT IF THEY HAD A GARAGE.

AND IT'S NOT THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE A PORCH, IT'S IF THEY HAVE A PORCH.

THE 1107 .19 SECTION HEADER JUST SAYS, THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION IS TO APPLY STANDARDS THAT ENHANCE THE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY AND EXTERIOR APPEARANCE OF DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE.

AND BY DOING SO, PROMOTE AND PRESERVE THE ESTHETIC, CHARACTER AND ECONOMIC VITALITY OF THE COMMUNITY.

SORRY, NONE OF THAT SAYS AND EVERYTHING FOLLOWS IS A HAVE TO HAVE.

WHICH KIND OF THEN SAYS, THEN WHY? WHY LIST IT LIKE THAT? I DON'T KNOW WHY NOT JUST MAKE THESE DEFINITIONS THEN.

SO. I MEAN, IT'S NOT REALLY A DEFINITION.

I MEAN, IT WOULD I MEAN, THESE ARE THE STANDARDS THAT A PORCH HAS TO MEET. YOU'RE RIGHT. YES.

MY APOLOGIES.

[01:45:02]

GOOD TO MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION ITEMS? YEP. OKAY. GOTTA GET BACK TO MY AGENDA NOW.

BUT, YES DISCUSSION ITEMS. DO WE HAVE ANY FOR THIS EVENING?

[DISCUSSION ITEMS]

[DESIGN REVIEW BOARD LIAISON REPORT]

YEAH. TRYING TO THINK WHAT ALL WE HAD FOR DRB.

LAST WE APPROVED THE LIGGETT BUILDING.

UPDATED PAINT COLORS, WINDOWS.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS LAST WE HAD DONE THE PAINT COLORS, AND THEN THEY HAD TO COME BACK. THEY CAME BACK WITH UPDATED MATERIALS FOR THE WINDOWS.

THEY MADE AN AMENDMENT TO THEIR PAINT COLORS.

WE HAD SOME HOME IMPROVEMENT GRANTS.

WE HAD MAPLE MEADOWS GET TABLED.

WE NO, I GUESS WE DIDN'T ALLOW LIGHT THE LIGHT PROJECT, DID WE ALLOW THEM TO TALK? LAST MEETING? YEAH. YEAH, WE HAD A DISCUSSION WITH THEM, BUT IT WAS NOT A TECHNICALLY NO VOTE OR ANYTHING.

WE'LL HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING FOR DRB ON THURSDAY TO DISCUSS THE WATER AND LIGHT PROJECT. WE'LL BE THURSDAY.

AND THEN WE'LL HAVE THE REGULAR MEETING NEXT WEEK. OKAY.

ANYTHING ELSE? COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS.

START FROM THAT END. MISS LAUB.

[COMMENTS OF INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS]

NOT. IT'S NOT JUSTIFIED. BUT I AM SURPRISED BY HOW MUCH I GET EXCITED ABOUT.

I REALLY ENJOY IT. RECORD NUMBER OF VENDORS THIS YEAR. RECORD NUMBER OF VENDORS 305 335.

YEAH. AND IT WAS OVER 300.

SO JUST A HAIR OVER 300.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE A FOOD COURT THIS YEAR.

WE HAVE A LARGER FOOTPRINT.

LOTS OF EXCITING THINGS.

WE WERE GRANTED AN OHIO ARTS GRANT TO PROVIDE LIVE PERFORMING ARTS ENTERTAINMENT.

SIMILAR TO LAST YEAR. WE JUST EXTENDED IT A LITTLE BIT.

SO STILT WALKERS AND MAGICIANS.

AND IT WILL BE A LOVELY, LOVELY DAY.

AND I'VE ORDERED THE GOOD WEATHER.

GOOD, GOOD, GOOD. ALL RIGHT.

MOTION TO ADJOURN. MOTION.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WILL BE THERE AT 430 IN THE MORNING.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.