Written by the reviewer from the ASR + docket; [verbatim-ASR] = quoted machine transcript; [paraphrase] = reviewer's wording, not a quote.
0:00 A break was slightly less than I thought it would be,
0:03 but let's go ahead and get started.
0:04 Cause well, I guess it's dark out.
0:08 So there's not much we can do outside,
0:09 but we I'm sure we have better things at home.
0:12 So I'll go ahead at 720 and call the housing planning
0:15 development committee to order.
0:17 The first agenda item is the review and approval
0:20 of the September 8th, 2025 housing planning
0:24 development committee meeting minutes.
0:26 I will go ahead and move to approve those.
0:30 Second, any discussion?
0:33 No, all those in favor say aye.
0:35 Aye, then it's passed.
0:37 And now we will move on to a docket item.
0:42 The next one, which is a communication from assistant
0:45 planning director boss regarding the zoning
0:50 And I believe there's a presentation that I am excited
0:52 to see for a second time,
0:53 but some of my colleagues will see for the first time.
0:56 All right, Mr. Chair, I appreciate the time.
1:03 This obviously we could do,
1:04 we could spend two, three hours on this,
1:07 which they don't really have the time.
1:09 I'm sure my colleagues here would not like that,
1:13 but I'm gonna try to move through this quickly
1:18 so that we can just get to the questions
1:20 and discussion on things and I'll try to answer
1:22 to the best of my ability.
1:24 So this is a lot, this is kind of this step of the process
1:30 and I'll forward it to that kind of the overview here
1:35 of where we are in this seven step project.
1:45 The district and new standards,
1:48 there's a lot of meat and a lot of detail in these
1:52 and I will tell you that we're probably about 50% done
1:55 in terms of the drafts, they're very draft
1:59 and we're still figuring out a lot of things in here
2:02 and I think that was pretty evident
2:03 on the last zoning policy advisory committee
2:06 that we had in August.
2:09 I got a couple responses from the ZPAC members
2:13 that provided kind of additional questions,
2:15 additional comments.
2:16 We sent those back to House Hill Levine
2:19 and then based on this communication,
2:21 I'm anticipating comments, questions,
2:24 potentially from any of the council members
2:26 that care to submit those
2:28 and we'll integrate those as well as we work through
2:32 just some issues and kind of the pertinent topics
2:37 We'll highlight kind of the three things
2:39 that I'll move through their slides.
2:42 These are House Hill Levine slides
2:44 that we used for the ZPAC meeting back in August.
2:47 The three kind of three main things
2:50 that we're still kind of rustling with at a macro level
2:54 is the multi-dwelling districts
2:57 and how you handle kind of what density where in the city.
3:01 Was kind of one of the objectives of the process
3:04 was to try to find kind of room to squeeze more density
3:08 and I hesitate to say more density in Lakewood
3:11 but it's really kind of the 100 year character
3:13 of Lakewood and how to reflect
3:15 the existing fabric of the community in our zoning code
3:18 which in the 96 and subsequent revisions
3:22 kind of went towards that time,
3:26 what was kind of the general direction,
3:27 that time frame which was very heavy single family zoning
3:31 and try to bring it back, our zoning code back
3:34 to reflect kind of that 100 year old fabric
3:37 of the community and we'll talk a little bit about that
3:39 in terms of the multi-dwelling structures and districts.
3:44 The second piece is the municipal district.
3:47 It's a new district, really kind of born of the C4
3:51 schools district that's in our zoning code
3:53 but trying to reflect schools, parks,
3:57 potentially libraries, some of those other
3:59 municipal based structures and uses
4:03 that you could treat as its own district.
4:06 And then the last one that we're currently rustling with
4:09 is the plan development process
4:11 and trying to see if there is some efficiency
4:14 that can be squeezed out of that
4:16 in terms of potentially delineating
4:18 between major and minor projects,
4:20 how do you treat it as an overlay
4:21 or as a total rezoning, are there some efficiencies
4:24 that we can get for the plan development process
4:27 out of that and so I will.
4:34 So this just does a couple of slides
4:36 that kind of provide a summary
4:37 of a lot of the districts.
4:39 You can see on this one, on the left
4:42 is kind of our current districts,
4:45 on the right is our proposed districts right now
4:49 as it was back in August.
4:51 We went through this and so as I talk about
4:55 the multi-dwelling districts there,
4:59 a lot of it is kind of districts sliding
5:02 into a new designation as we've gone through
5:07 that's the RS1, it's really the single dwelling
5:10 residential one, two and three
5:12 that reflect the old low, medium
5:14 and high density districts, the lagoon is the lagoon.
5:19 RM1 is kind of that would be the first stage
5:22 of this mixed or multi-dwelling level
5:26 that really is pulled from the R2
5:29 but looking to insert some additional density in there
5:32 and then I'll talk about the RM2 district here
5:35 in a little bit because we're moving
5:37 in a different direction,
5:38 at least after the ZPAC meeting.
5:41 The multi-family district to the old traditional
5:45 kind of medium and high density multi-family
5:48 talking about bigger apartment buildings,
5:50 trying to blend that into one
5:53 because there really isn't a whole lot of difference
5:55 in our current code between medium and high density
5:58 multi-family dwellings and it does not reflect
6:01 the actual kind of fabric and the structures
6:04 that are out there in those districts.
6:06 And you can see the commercials
6:09 are generally staying the same
6:10 but we are doing a lot of work
6:12 in terms of permitted and conditional uses
6:14 and updating definitions to go for things like hotels
6:17 that we don't have a definition for
6:19 in our current zoning code
6:22 and then pulling C4 into a new municipal district
6:25 and addressing a lot of questions there.
6:31 The overlays, I will say these are a work in progress.
6:36 You can see are the two overlays that we have
6:39 are currently historic and in the mixed use
6:42 and then shifting over into retaining a historic.
6:47 But really the mixed use has been kind of
6:50 worked through and adapted into a couple
6:53 different potential outcomes.
6:56 One is the adaptive reuse overlay
6:59 which is specifically, I would say,
7:02 targeted towards reusing structures
7:05 and allowing a little bit more flexibility
7:07 to incentivize reusing structures
7:09 rather than a demo and new construction
7:13 and then looking at potentially having
7:15 that minor PD designation or delineation there
7:19 into an overlay vice at total rezoning
7:22 which could offer some efficiencies in the process
7:25 for those smaller projects.
7:27 So that mixed use overlay which for us
7:31 probably in the last like 10 years
7:33 has really equated to if you look at the call
7:36 at the top, these are kind of my notes
7:38 from the ZPAC meeting that the majority
7:40 of those mixed use overlay applications
7:42 have all been for projects that just wanted
7:44 ground floor residential which our code
7:47 doesn't allow for ground floor residential
7:49 and in the commercial districts
7:51 which is where most of these happen.
7:53 And so we've worked to try to replace that
7:57 with either updated use regulations
7:59 and actually having a use that is ground floor
8:02 residential in a commercial district
8:05 or a minor PD process or an adaptive reuse overlay.
8:08 So that's why these things are kind of getting flushed out
8:11 but we are still working in that direction.
8:16 The zoning map and I will note
8:19 the zoning map has a couple issues
8:21 just don't get hung up on the colors and stuff.
8:23 They're still working through that.
8:25 Like I understand the main branch
8:27 of the library is not a PD that was pointed out
8:30 by almost every ZPAC member and their notes.
8:33 But some of the simple changes that we've made
8:35 I've called out the top.
8:38 We're proposing like the existing C1 zone
8:41 that's on Madison West that was put there
8:45 at some point in time and has been
8:48 I will say a hurdle for a lot of business
8:52 just typical retail business zoning.
8:55 We're proposing for that to be re-designated
8:58 just and to join the rest of the C2 district
9:02 We had a question, do we need to change the name
9:05 of the central business district
9:06 towards something more contemporary?
9:08 So we're looking through that.
9:10 And then the extent of a new M district
9:12 that municipal district and I'll talk through that here
9:15 in a couple slides when we get to the M slide.
9:20 And so, but you can see on the left
9:21 that there's really no major changes proposed
9:24 to kind of the single family RS1, two and three
9:28 that low, medium and density, the lagoon.
9:32 The RM1, there is a little bit
9:33 and we'll talk through that in a second
9:35 but that generally reflects the R2 zoning
9:37 that's out there that will transfer over to that.
9:40 The commercial, the industrial and the PD stuff
9:44 and then the major changes is really the RM2
9:49 which is a new zoning classification
9:51 that we're looking at.
9:53 The multifamily kind of consolidation
9:55 of both the medium and high density
9:57 old multifamily districts
9:59 into a single multifamily district
10:01 and then the municipal district.
10:07 So the RM2 district kind of grew out of consideration
10:12 for trying to get, trying to find a way
10:14 to allow higher levels of density
10:18 where they're appropriate and specific
10:20 as you're talking about transit lines
10:22 and you're talking about our commercial corridors.
10:25 And so this really had its beginning
10:28 in kind of that what is a contemporary push
10:30 for transit oriented development
10:32 and trying to find a way as you go down Detroit
10:36 and you go down Madison,
10:37 there are often larger apartment buildings
10:40 that are either just off the corridor
10:42 or the old kind of row houses and something like that.
10:47 I think it's on Lakeland or Westwood
10:49 that are close to Detroit.
10:51 Some of that type of higher density development
10:54 that was oriented on transit lines 100 years ago
10:58 and could still be oriented on transit lines today.
11:01 Mr. Chair, can I interject real fast?
11:03 Mr. Boss, can you go back one slide or two and one more?
11:08 So the RM2 new proposal
11:11 is just where the black lines are, which is?
11:13 No, that is RM2 doesn't exist on this map.
11:18 Yeah, those are smaller dark lines.
11:20 Those are the historic districts.
11:21 I know that's what the,
11:23 don't get hung up on the map, Councilman.
11:25 It's kind of a mess right now.
11:26 So just to get my head wrapped around
11:29 what you're proposing, we have it
11:32 or that's a future slide or?
11:34 Yeah, I'll get to it here right now.
11:36 I'll watch the movie, thanks.
11:38 Sorry, so we originally approached this Councilman
11:41 on RM2, this new district as,
11:44 is this something that we actually wanna
11:46 designate parcels and call it instead of,
11:50 it's R2 today or commercial or whatever.
11:53 So we wanna actually hand pick the parcels
11:55 that are out there and say,
11:57 you now live in an RM2 district
11:59 that's eligible for higher density consideration.
12:03 So the consultants work through a couple of examples
12:06 of kind of, you can see this as just an example,
12:10 kind of it's centralized in the community.
12:12 It would be, you would wanna do this along
12:15 the whole length of the Madison and Detroit corridor.
12:19 They were just trying to give width,
12:20 kind of north south with context here
12:25 for is it a half mile?
12:31 And that is a difficult kind of thing
12:34 to drill down into when you're trying to designate
12:38 and then on a parcel by parcel level
12:40 is how do you wanna rezone this?
12:44 And ultimately I think the direction
12:46 that we're gonna go, that we're recommending to go
12:48 is a much more flexible and it is an overlay.
12:51 It is a TOD overlay that someone could apply
12:54 for to get the flexibility for higher density.
12:59 I would have to go through an overlay review process
13:01 with planning commission.
13:03 So we feel like that's a lot more appropriate
13:05 than changing the map, which is much more permanent
13:10 and much more difficult.
13:12 So hopefully I don't know if that answers your question,
13:14 Councilman on that, but okay.
13:17 Where would that overlay be eligible?
13:21 Anywhere in the city?
13:23 That is something that we would have to go back
13:25 to kind of these limits.
13:27 You would wanna limit it based on the transit corridors.
13:32 That's a little easier to do.
13:34 When the liquid circulator comes back
13:36 and the scooters come back.
13:37 Quarter mile from the, yeah, or something, but yeah.
13:43 And maybe not now, but at some point in the conversation.
13:46 So what does the conversation look like
13:49 between the city and the property owners
13:50 who are neighbors of a spot that tomorrow
13:54 might include this new zoning,
13:58 but when they bought it, it didn't.
14:00 So, and I realize I'm about to invite
14:04 a deep, eternally deep legal rabbit hole
14:07 where the attorneys are gonna say,
14:08 well, back of the origins of zoning law,
14:12 this is what this means.
14:14 But some understanding of,
14:19 I mean, the whole exercise is we wanna update and modernize
14:22 and that means we're changing in some ways
14:25 the foundational DNA of property investment and rules.
14:31 And that does entail shifting what neighbor A
14:38 thought he or she bought into years ago
14:41 and now neighbor B is doing something different.
14:44 So we don't have to stop the conversation right now,
14:46 but that's kind of on my mind.
14:48 It's a very challenging part of the process.
14:50 I mean, it's having this as an overlay
14:53 kind of backs it off a little bit
14:56 in terms of that like immediacy
14:58 and the permanency of that decision.
15:01 But you're right in so far as this does have to be,
15:05 this is one of the major changes
15:06 that does have to be communicated
15:09 in terms of the things that are being considered.
15:11 And while I'm at it and this is also gonna sting,
15:15 it's a lay person's feedback that our boards
15:18 and commissions are pro development, whatever that means.
15:21 And I may have even used that language sometimes.
15:24 I remember going in to try to stop McDonald's
15:26 back in the day and that was not successful
15:29 nor should it have been because that was used by right
15:32 and we did negotiate with the business owner
15:34 to get a traffic light and other quality measures.
15:38 But if we contemplate adding new options to new parcels
15:45 and we put that on our boards and commissions,
15:47 typically our boards and commissions are,
15:52 I mean, isn't this an accurate statement?
15:54 They're telling the property owner or the applicant,
15:56 okay, we're gonna advise your application
16:00 and shape your application based on the rules
16:02 and what the underlying loss is.
16:03 But they're usually not trying to tell the applicant,
16:06 no, you shouldn't do this.
16:08 And that then gives the neighbors some frustration
16:11 because the neighbors are saying, well,
16:13 this is out of context.
16:14 The neighbors want the planning commission
16:17 and the architecture board review to go further
16:19 than they typically have done.
16:21 And so there's this mismatch of expectations.
16:25 And I don't actually, I'm not coming here saying
16:27 I know the answer to this,
16:29 but I am mindful of what the process is.
16:31 In some ways, maybe the whatever we're proposing
16:35 change should just be explicit in the law
16:39 so that that eliminates, or at least narrows,
16:41 the guesswork and the judgment calls
16:43 we're asking our volunteer boards
16:44 and commission members to make.
16:47 So, and I'd like to respond to that
16:50 because it's a tension.
16:51 And I think this is, Judge Ross has explained it well.
16:55 You can either, so I think the analysis,
16:59 at least from the ZPAC,
17:00 was that these are existing issues.
17:02 If you go from Detroit and you walk down any street,
17:06 north or south, you will see a light density
17:09 and then it worked down,
17:11 whether it's an apartment building that kind of Ls off,
17:13 that's further out the street or down the street,
17:15 or some of those townhomes
17:16 that this is Judge Ross was talking about.
17:19 So it's already exists in our lived,
17:23 and you could rezone them, which is an aggressive move,
17:26 which would rezone all these parcels
17:27 that are near Detroit or Madison or Clifton.
17:31 Or you could do an overlay,
17:32 which does allow for citizen input
17:35 and does allow for neighbor input
17:37 and would put whatever parameters we saw fit on it.
17:41 Screening, certain setbacks,
17:44 that's where the interplay between the building code
17:45 and the zoning code works.
17:48 But it's you either do nothing
17:49 and kind of have a mismatch where different streets,
17:53 and it may, I've seen quadplexes
17:56 in the middle of blocks in some places
17:58 and I don't understand fully why.
18:00 So the analysis, at least at the ZPAC,
18:02 was let's try to keep that density
18:04 closer to the transit hub.
18:08 So that, because every single street in Lakewood,
18:10 you are next to a higher use when you hit,
18:13 I lived in that when I was a kid.
18:15 I lived next to Detroit, to the higher use.
18:18 So there's always one,
18:20 there's always two parcels in our street that do that.
18:22 And I do think that having the middle ground
18:24 allows at least there to be some recourse
18:28 in a public meeting for that resident
18:29 to have a comment about it.
18:34 No, and I think that's a,
18:36 this, and the difficult kind of,
18:39 I guess part of the process, Councilman,
18:41 is where we're at right now is
18:43 you are starting to blend,
18:45 and these standards do really,
18:47 it's that overlap of the use
18:50 and then like those district standards,
18:52 as the Chair mentioned it.
18:54 So it's, if you have a three family home in this area,
19:00 now the district standards of the setbacks
19:02 in the front yards that associate with that structure
19:05 so that it doesn't,
19:06 so that it conforms with the rest of the community.
19:09 So when we get into some of the subsequent slides here,
19:12 you can see that they do adjust lot size.
19:16 So if you want a single family home in the RM1,
19:21 or I think as an example,
19:22 you have to have a certain size lot.
19:24 If you wanna go to a two family home
19:26 or a two unit home in that same district,
19:29 now you have to have a slightly larger lot.
19:31 Like there are all those types of standards
19:34 that you can incrementally change based on the density
19:37 so that you're not saying that
19:40 it's a 4,000 square,
19:42 there's five 4,000 square foot lots
19:44 and you could put a four unit apartment building
19:47 right next to a single family home
19:49 on the same size lot with the same setbacks.
19:51 And it's like the setbacks may,
19:55 all of those things are meant to kind of adjust the density
19:59 so that the impact is generally the same
20:01 across the community,
20:02 but allowing for it because like the chair said,
20:05 you drive down any street in Lakewood
20:07 and you'll see like four bedroom apartment.
20:10 Is that a three or a two family home?
20:12 I don't know, the object of a lot of these changes
20:15 are to bring a lot of things into conformity
20:18 that are not in conformity right now.
20:20 And we have the difficult job of then,
20:23 responding to realtors and homeowners and stuff
20:25 and saying that, no, you can't put another unit
20:29 on your third floor because you live in an R2 zone.
20:32 And even though someone told you
20:34 that it was a three family home when it was built,
20:37 you live in an R2 home
20:38 and you can't have three dwelling units
20:39 or if your home, God forbid, burned to the ground,
20:42 you'd have to replace it with a single family home
20:44 instead of the current three family home that you live in.
20:47 It's like we work through a lot of these things
20:50 over the last couple of years
20:51 because it's hard but you wanna bring things
20:54 into conformity so that people can do things
20:58 by the right way without having to go
21:00 to planning commission and BZA
21:03 and you put all that weight
21:04 on those boards and commissions.
21:07 So it's, yeah, it's a balance but.
21:16 I'll try to, MD district,
21:18 that's the consolidation of the two together.
21:22 So the standards weren't too far apart
21:24 so we're working through those
21:25 but it's the same areas that they are now.
21:31 I will say this is one area I think we are looking
21:36 to kind of go back a little bit further in history
21:39 in terms of the density in a multi-family unit
21:41 so that you don't necessarily only allow
21:44 our multi-family, especially the,
21:47 I think it's the medium or the high density,
21:49 oriented towards the towers.
21:51 Like and it's towers with a lot of green space
21:54 around them which is a very 70s, 60s, 70s
21:57 kind of architectural concept
21:59 that frankly wastes a lot of space.
22:03 And so, I mean there's good things about it,
22:05 there's bad things about it
22:06 but we're looking to get multi-family more so
22:09 on the like south side of Lake Clifton Road,
22:11 east side Clifton Road,
22:13 you get some higher density multi-family buildings
22:15 or at least allow that if that's what people
22:20 Implicit in your statement is not a tower
22:23 but four or five story or something?
22:26 If you wanna build a tower, you can build a tower
22:28 but if you don't wanna build a tower,
22:29 if you wanna actually allowing like smaller setbacks
22:34 rather than our current multi-family,
22:37 all the setbacks are a function of building height
22:39 and so if it's a tall building,
22:42 you have to have a really large setback.
22:44 And it's just, it's meant to,
22:46 it's a proportional kind of setback design
22:48 to try to get that open space
22:51 generally for parking and other things
22:53 so that you can, so that,
22:55 it's just not something that you see
22:56 and then the buildings from the 20s and the 30s,
22:59 they're very transit oriented and kind of that.
23:03 Yeah, it's more Lakewood character than,
23:07 argued in the Gold Coast is kind of a more of a.
23:10 It's a different, yeah.
23:13 It's Lakewood but from a different timeframe
23:15 when Lakewood was really built out.
23:21 So this is the municipal district,
23:23 kind of an initial cut.
23:25 If you included schools, libraries, parks in there,
23:30 this is a big work in progress
23:32 and it is really what is the scope,
23:36 the regulations for each of those uses
23:38 and then one of the biggest things to consider in this
23:41 based on the lessons learned
23:42 from the C4 schools district is,
23:45 how does a property become a municipal district property
23:49 and how does a property leave the municipal district?
23:54 It's a rezoning so it has to,
23:56 it typically would involve council review and approval
24:00 but it's just, it's something that we need
24:03 to have a process in the code for
24:07 in the event that someone would wanna divest
24:10 or the city would wanna divest,
24:11 not that we would actively look to divest a park
24:14 but if you wanted to bring a park into the district
24:18 or it's just, it's one of those things
24:21 that we need to be prepared
24:22 and have the process in place for as well as regulations.
24:30 So this is kind of getting towards that.
24:33 This is all the single family
24:36 towards what we were kind of talking about
24:38 earlier, councilman,
24:39 that you get into, single family is very close
24:43 to kind of what we have on the books now.
24:47 The adjustments that have been made,
24:49 you can look at the kind of current standards on the left
24:51 and the proposed standards on the right.
24:54 The biggest changes are in the frontages
24:57 and in the lot sizes.
25:01 So you can see like the R1L, the R low density,
25:06 the minimum lot size right now is 14,000 square feet.
25:10 And so we would look to reduce that
25:12 down to 9,000 square feet.
25:14 And then as you go from through medium and low,
25:17 you can kind of see the reductions.
25:18 There's those reductions and then the frontages.
25:22 Just as an example, like low density,
25:24 you have to have a 70 foot frontage as a minimum
25:26 now to have a buildable lot.
25:29 We would take that down to 50 feet.
25:31 Now all of these were based on these standards.
25:35 Then the setbacks, as you kind of work your way
25:36 down that table, the height, the setbacks,
25:38 those really haven't changed a whole lot.
25:42 Total impervious lot coverage, those things.
25:44 A lot of those we changed in the last couple years
25:48 to kind of bring them up to a standard
25:50 we're just incorporating them in here.
25:51 But the changes of the lot size and frontage
25:54 specifically, just real if they had this nice animation
25:59 in these slides, but this was something
26:02 that I think I actually covered.
26:05 It might have been the last update.
26:06 They did a conformity study of all of our districts,
26:09 so the residential districts.
26:12 And so the table on the left kind of shows you
26:15 like the percentage of parcels,
26:17 the number of parcels that kind of fall
26:20 within that band of conformity.
26:24 And so what you're trying to do here
26:26 with the sizes is you're trying to get it down.
26:30 You're trying to get that buildable lot size
26:32 down to an acceptable level.
26:34 You're minimizing the number of parcels
26:36 that would still be nonconforming
26:39 on both the frontages and the lot sizes
26:43 without being overly onerous
26:46 and shrinking it down so much
26:48 that someone in the R1L,
26:51 like a bunch of people in the R1L
26:52 could be like, oh, well, I'm splitting my lot
26:54 in half now and I'm selling the other half
26:58 And so we're recommending that 9,000 square foot
27:03 because it brings you down to a good level of conformity
27:09 where there's only, I think it's only 35 parcels
27:11 would be nonconforming still.
27:14 And then that the frontage is 50 feet,
27:17 so that would bring you down to,
27:18 it's like 25 of those parcels would be nonconforming.
27:22 So you're reducing your number of nonconformities
27:26 from the top of the chart, which is 149.
27:28 So there's 149 R1L lots out there right now
27:31 that don't meet our minimum buildable standards.
27:34 So if God forbid their house burned down
27:36 or something happened to it,
27:38 they would actually have to come to BZA
27:40 to get a variance to rebuild their home.
27:44 And so you wanna reduce that as much as you can.
27:47 But again, without like going so low
27:50 that somebody that you're increasing the opportunities
27:53 for people to start splitting their lots
27:55 and kind of changing the character.
27:58 So as we move through all these single family districts,
28:02 this is all part of that past conformity analysis
28:05 that we settled kind of on these numbers
28:07 as the recommended numbers.
28:09 And it was all based on reviewing the tables
28:12 and kind of where those things played out
28:16 in terms of trying to reduce the overall nonconformities
28:20 without changing the character of the district.
28:27 So now, so this kind of brings me
28:33 to the next topic about density.
28:36 This is the, so now we get it back
28:38 into the multi-dwelling.
28:41 So what was R2, which is the majority
28:45 of our zoning district in the city right now.
28:47 I think it's almost like 80% of the parcels
28:49 in the city are R2.
28:51 So those would become what is now in this chart, RM1.
28:56 And so we did do the conformity analysis on these.
29:01 And so that's where you get like the minimum lot size
29:04 of 4,000 square foot was what was recommended
29:06 with a 40 foot frontage for a single family home.
29:12 So currently in R2 or what would become RM1,
29:15 you're allowed to have a one
29:16 and a two unit home or dwelling.
29:20 What we kind of introduced to the ZPAC
29:23 was that what if we allowed up to a four unit dwelling?
29:29 There are two parcels out there right now
29:31 that have those little four apartment building.
29:35 And so we looked at that.
29:37 That was actually something that now,
29:38 so this is an example of what I was talking about,
29:40 kind of that incremental increase.
29:42 If you look at the proposed standards
29:45 under that are right under RM1
29:47 for the like lot size as an example.
29:50 So if you wanted to build a one or a two unit home,
29:54 the lot size is 4,000 square foot.
29:56 Now, if you wanted to go up to three units,
29:58 now you're adding it,
29:59 it's gotta be 6,000 square foot for size.
30:02 If you wanted to go to four,
30:03 it would be 8,000 square foot.
30:06 So that just provides kind of the size and the depth
30:09 to start accommodating that additional density
30:11 without unduly impacting the neighborhood.
30:15 Mr. Chair, can I interject another question, please?
30:20 The yellow comment at the top says,
30:23 maybe too much for this district.
30:26 How do we know that's,
30:30 what standard are we aiming for
30:33 when we make that statement?
30:34 So this is kind of that it is a subjective standard
30:38 based on the discussion and where the ZPAC
30:41 and ultimately where city council wants to go
30:43 with this recommendation.
30:45 It's a policy choice.
30:47 But look, I'm a student here
30:50 and I appreciate and I'm absorbing a lot.
30:54 And what I thought you were gonna say is Parmelee knows
30:58 and he lays down the marker.
31:07 I think we're challenging ourselves
31:08 to ask and answer exactly the right kinds of questions.
31:12 But I think what we said at the beginning
31:14 of this process is we're,
31:16 well, first of all,
31:17 it sounds like we're doing multiple things.
31:19 Some of what we're doing is a clean up,
31:21 a tidy up to address a lot of non-conforming.
31:26 I think it was Alcindor Banach who used to talk about
31:30 or who still does talk about,
31:31 you look at your own house
31:33 and you try to figure out who did this to the plumbing
31:36 and the answer is Uncle Frank.
31:38 Some guy in the 50s who knew somebody
31:41 who did something and nobody wrote it down
31:43 and now you're supposed to make head and tail out of it
31:46 and then get a building permit that's valid.
31:48 So a lot of that's happened not just in homes
31:51 but I guess in neighborhoods
31:52 and actually in the public sewer
31:54 according to the public works directors.
31:57 So part of what we're doing is tidying things up
32:01 so that we're not in all cases here seeking change.
32:06 We're just seeking to maintain the status quo
32:09 in a more effective manner.
32:11 But we're also in this whole exercise
32:14 trying to make the city more,
32:15 our community more successful
32:17 in its various goals for housing policy.
32:20 And maybe you could just recap that thought here
32:25 because I think what we're probably gonna say is
32:30 needs are changing, family sizes have changed.
32:33 I recall like we said a couple of meetings back
32:35 that nothing much has changed physically since the 70s
32:38 in terms of our built environment
32:39 at the school age population and the total population
32:42 that's really reduced
32:44 and you still don't have many homes for sale
32:48 in Lakewood, the inventory is small.
32:49 So it's not vacant homes, it's smaller family sizes.
32:53 So how do we be successful
32:55 for all of our different goals inducing
32:59 or inviting new kinds of developments?
33:01 So this is great questions we're asking here.
33:04 So we wanna maintain and clean up on one hand
33:08 but also improve on another hand.
33:10 So we might want four Sweeters in parts of town, right?
33:16 I think that's kind of the policy divide question.
33:19 Like where is that divide?
33:22 But we're saying probably not in which-
33:25 And this is, I guess this is the crux
33:27 of what the direction that we're looking at,
33:29 Councilman, right now is that if you drive up
33:32 and down an R2 street now,
33:36 where would you see those four unit buildings?
33:39 They're typically closer to Detroit
33:41 and Madison in general.
33:43 You're not gonna see them typically
33:44 in the middle of a block.
33:47 So, but what you may see in the middle of a block
33:49 is a three unit house that you don't even know
33:52 was a three unit house right now
33:53 because of the way that it's typically,
33:55 two units up front,
33:56 there may be the entry to a third unit in the back.
33:59 So by limiting the RM1 or the new RM1 district
34:05 to three unit dwellings,
34:07 that's really kind of bringing our code back
34:10 to where it was 100 years ago.
34:13 But the other benefit is,
34:16 for the single family and the two family homes
34:19 that are the majority in those districts,
34:21 it also allows people to do an ADU if they wanted to
34:24 within that kind of,
34:25 without having to make it a massive effort,
34:29 which I'll talk about ADUs if we have time,
34:32 but generally you wanna make those easier
34:36 like a lot of these things.
34:37 We're trying to make a lot of this stuff
34:38 just where they're conforming vice like an exception.
34:43 So our markers so far I've heard is
34:46 would likely add density
34:48 or give permission to add density,
34:50 successfully conforming to code all that
34:53 and not shoe hoard too much into the wrong spots.
34:56 And the other marker then
34:58 or the other ruler metric we're using is
35:01 what traditionally worked
35:03 way back when we first built the town
35:05 and that is three sweeters,
35:07 which if I recall, those are all grandfathered in.
35:10 We don't permit any new ones today,
35:12 but you're contemplating maybe tomorrow.
35:15 That's the problem is those grandfathered ones
35:17 in there are non-conformities
35:18 that it makes it very hard to do
35:20 just about anything with those homes.
35:24 So they can maintain them kind of as is over time.
35:28 Okay, so even if we didn't wanna add three sweeters,
35:31 we at least wanna be able to update,
35:33 maintain the existing ones.
35:35 Yeah, and I think this interplays
35:37 with the transit overlay potentially,
35:40 which is if you don't allow four units in RM1,
35:44 you can allow three units in RM1,
35:47 but then allow four units within the overlay
35:49 closer to Detroit or Madison.
35:50 So you kind of like,
35:52 this is the conversation with ZPEC
35:54 is you mimic what we have today
35:56 when you allow those people with three unit buildings
35:59 to invest in them substantially,
36:02 because if you make too much of an investment,
36:04 then it may change the use categorization
36:06 and they can't do it anymore, right?
36:07 Is that Mr. Parley, what you're seeing
36:15 I mean, the amount of existing non-conformities
36:18 we have in this city are insane.
36:20 I mean, if we took, I mean, Rosewood, right, Tom?
36:25 To be able to take a three family
36:29 that's already a three family,
36:31 but we can't consider it a three family
36:33 because it's an in-law suite,
36:35 because you can't have more than a two unit
36:37 in an R2 zoning district.
36:40 I mean, it would be,
36:41 it'd make moving mom and dad in easier.
36:45 I mean, it'd lighten the load on your aunt,
36:47 your uncle, or whatever that is,
36:50 but we just, I mean, to Dave's point,
36:52 what he's really preaching,
36:54 and I can appreciate is just taking
36:57 that 60% of the city,
36:59 that's an existing non-conformity,
37:01 and we get the developments that come in
37:04 or the permit applications
37:06 or the plans that come in for these folks,
37:08 and we have to tell them no,
37:10 and we have to turn them away.
37:12 Well, we have a ton of non-conformities.
37:15 I mean, we have probably somewhere
37:17 around 3,200 three family homes
37:22 that we have as three families
37:25 just because somebody wrote three family
37:28 on a housing file back in the 60s.
37:32 So that was the only thing
37:33 that's given it the legal right to be a three family
37:36 and that they maintain that housing license
37:42 To be able to take a lot of the giant three families
37:46 and a lot of the properties we have on Clifton
37:48 and wherever the zoning district's gonna be,
37:51 I just talked to somebody that bought a property
37:53 over on Bell and Clifton about a week ago
37:57 that they bought the property,
37:59 the realtor told them it was a three family,
38:01 they purchased the property,
38:02 it's not a three family,
38:05 with a non-conforming in-law suite above the garage.
38:08 And these are the properties
38:09 that you drive past them a thousand times
38:12 and you really don't know they're there
38:14 until you get to be extremely intimate
38:16 with the neighborhood
38:17 and the people that are making the investment.
38:20 And I could ramble on all night about that.
38:22 Okay, that's fascinating.
38:24 I did not know that it was that expensive.
38:26 And to open the door for the ADU
38:27 that right now your average Joe to do,
38:31 I'm in the middle of it right now,
38:33 it's extremely expensive.
38:37 And if you're not the homeowner
38:39 that has the wherewithal to do all the work yourself,
38:41 I don't know how anybody can afford to do it.
38:47 So just to close this out,
38:48 so the column that's under RM2,
38:52 that was kind of going back to that original discussion
38:54 is where do you throw that on the map?
38:57 We decided that the best direction
38:58 to go with that would be an overlay.
39:01 Someone could apply for that kind of a TOD
39:03 or we may name it something else,
39:05 that that would allow you within the RM1 district
39:10 or potentially the other districts
39:12 along Detroit and Madison,
39:14 which there's not a whole lot of other
39:16 single-family homes along Detroit and Madison.
39:19 Most of them currently are two.
39:22 That would allow you then to apply and get approval
39:26 for potentially a four-unit, potentially townhomes,
39:31 But again, as you go down that column,
39:33 if you took away the one, two, and three unit
39:36 that would be allowed by right in there,
39:39 the standard's kind of 4,000, 4,000 townhomes
39:43 or 2,000 per townhome, depending on the size.
39:47 And you go through a lot of those things.
39:48 That's where those standards come in then
39:50 that in order to get that increase in density,
39:55 you have to abide by, in many cases,
39:58 different setbacks or different frontage requirements
40:02 to make sure that it all kind of fits.
40:04 So that you're not trying to jam six townhomes
40:07 in a 4,000 square foot lot
40:08 because your designer says that they can make it work.
40:12 There's height transition standards.
40:15 There's things that have to be met
40:16 or that would have to be met as part of this
40:19 to try to keep the neighborhood
40:22 generally the way that it's looked for 100 years.
40:25 But you're allowing through the by right,
40:30 the underlying zoning with RM1
40:32 and going up to potentially three units
40:35 and then allowing an overlay that would allow you
40:37 to go higher than that based on the lot size
40:40 through planning commission approval as an overlay.
40:43 That's how you get the increase in density on the margins
40:46 kind of in the neighborhoods as they are now
40:50 kind of a modern interpretation of that,
40:54 the zoning from 100,
40:55 it wasn't zoning 100 years ago,
40:57 but the code applications before Euclid, so.
41:01 So that's what we're wrestling with in terms of that,
41:03 that multi, the multi-dwelling districts
41:06 and trying to figure out how we can have the tools
41:10 in there to allow people to introduce density
41:14 on the margins in the neighborhoods
41:17 as in many cases it's already there.
41:23 But there's still a lot of work to be done.
41:34 This is an example of the different height transition
41:36 standards that you can apply to try to
41:38 right size those things in the neighborhood.
41:41 It's an example of like a graphic.
41:44 This is not a draft graphic or something,
41:47 but these are the types of graphics
41:49 that we also want to try to integrate into this.
41:51 We don't have graphics now,
41:52 but graphics are super helpful for people
41:55 in trying to consider kind of what their home looks like
41:58 or what it could look like based on standards
42:01 and trying to illustrate those standards.
42:04 The C, the C standard is not a lot of changes,
42:10 but I will go into, so we talked through a lot of this.
42:13 I'm sorry, this is kind of, this is the summary,
42:15 kind of summary of the uses in here.
42:19 We talked about the discussion over supporting
42:21 up to three units in RM1.
42:25 We'll see how the short term rental regulations
42:27 that are currently being considered kind of play out
42:29 and if those need to be integrated in.
42:33 The ZPAC did talk and wanted to talk about allowing
42:38 in the multi, the MD district,
42:40 what our current multifamily district,
42:42 or potentially allowing one and two unit dwellings
42:47 There are one and two unit dwellings
42:49 in our multifamily districts right now
42:51 that are non-conformities.
42:52 And so is it a bad thing to allow those?
42:58 So we're still kind of working through
43:01 a lot of these things and these slides are a little,
43:04 I mean these are dated from August and pre-discussion, so.
43:08 If I go to the, yeah, this is the commercial district.
43:11 So some of the things that we've discussed here,
43:16 the ground floor dwelling units in C.
43:18 So they actually broke out and recommended
43:21 having kind of its own use category
43:23 of a dwelling multi-unit rear ground floor.
43:27 As we start to consider more accessibility things
43:31 and requirements, having a rear ground floor dwelling unit
43:34 is not a bad thing.
43:35 It wouldn't change the character
43:37 of most of the storefronts
43:38 of those kind of those old streetcar apartment buildings
43:42 with the retail on the first floor
43:44 of having a dwelling unit in the back.
43:47 Would allow accessible living
43:49 without changing the necessary character
43:50 of a lot of buildings on our commercial corridors.
43:55 Breaking out hotel versus motel
43:58 in terms of definitions and where you allow those.
44:01 I think the general direction we're looking to push
44:04 and I actually, frankly, I may look at submitting
44:09 a code amendment sooner than this project
44:13 to get hotels as permitted in all of our C districts
44:17 because it's a need that we have.
44:20 But retaining motel, but restricting that
44:24 potentially just to the C3 district
44:26 based on the design and impact
44:28 of those structures versus a hotel.
44:32 Talked about pet boarding,
44:33 expanding that into the industrial area
44:36 to give more space for that.
44:38 And then there's always a discussion on parking
44:42 and parking as a principal use.
44:44 Right now it's allowed.
44:46 I think there were some folks
44:47 that wanted to kind of push that
44:49 towards making that a conditional use
44:52 that has to be reviewed every time.
44:54 If you wanna knock something down
44:55 to make it into a parking lot,
44:58 that that should be something that's reviewed
45:00 and not just allowed by right.
45:04 Yeah, the discussion revolved a lot
45:05 around screening as well.
45:07 So it gives you an ability to require certain screening
45:10 if you have a parking lot on Detroit, for example.
45:14 Trying to be conscious of time, Mr. Chair.
45:16 So the next couple slides just go into these overlays.
45:20 The PD district is the biggest one right now.
45:23 Currently our plan development process
45:25 is it's one size fits all.
45:28 Whether you're the minimum
45:30 of a 10,000 square foot development
45:32 or you're a, I don't know, five and a half acre
45:35 development with 300 some apartments.
45:39 We treat them all the same.
45:41 And so that is, it can be frustrating
45:44 for a developer or a small scale developer
45:47 trying to get a 10 unit town home unit through
45:51 and they have to go through multiple,
45:55 two stages of multiple planning commission,
45:57 architectural border reviews before finally
45:59 getting to council for the rezoning.
46:01 So is it something that we could look at
46:03 breaking or delineating a major and a minor?
46:06 A lot of communities have this.
46:09 One's an overlay, one's a base district actually.
46:12 You change the zoning of the base district
46:14 for the larger projects that need that
46:17 and to reflect it for the long term
46:19 kind of health of the community.
46:22 But a smaller project,
46:26 10,000 square feet and under
46:28 or something could be an overlay
46:29 where you retain the base zoning
46:32 but it provides a process for modifications
46:35 and some variances to be allowed.
46:39 And so this is something that we're still wrestling with
46:42 and will continue to develop.
46:49 And so council's role in both of these
46:55 is something that we're flushing out as well.
46:58 Typically an overlay goes to planning commission
47:00 and then a rezoning goes to council.
47:03 But those are things that we're talking about.
47:05 One of the, I think the positives
47:08 that came out of the downtown development last year
47:10 is that a lot of the folks
47:11 really liked the joint PCABR meetings.
47:16 And so that is something that we may look at
47:18 building into our code.
47:19 That's required as part of a PD.
47:21 It avoids redundancy.
47:23 It is an efficiency that can be built in
47:29 And so that's something that we got positive feedback on.
47:35 This adaptive reuse is pretty straightforward.
47:37 There's communities that have these.
47:39 We're just looking to bring it in.
47:42 And so it should incentivize saving older structures
47:46 and really trying to get more flexible
47:51 with their residential or commercial uses
47:53 out of old structures.
47:57 So what would those uses be that you would look at
48:03 in the different districts potentially allowing
48:06 is the things that we're looking at.
48:09 Hotels is another one that's in there.
48:14 Accessory uses, these are things
48:16 that are kind of buried in the code right now,
48:18 but it talks about like ADUs, solar panels,
48:23 lots of different things.
48:24 Are they like solar panels?
48:25 Not in our code right now.
48:28 And so should those things be permitted in all districts?
48:33 Should there be standards with them?
48:35 Yes, I think that's something that we're working through.
48:37 Drive-throughs is another huge thing in this.
48:42 You should kind of work through.
48:43 ADUs is one of those.
48:45 And that is the fight is,
48:47 should you allow ADUs, especially detached ADUs,
48:51 more versus more regulations?
48:53 That's a balance that you have to kind of hit that
48:58 and then drive-throughs.
48:59 I think the general direction,
49:01 at least that we pulled from the ZPAC,
49:03 and hopefully I got this right,
49:04 is that the high stacking uses,
49:08 predominantly your fast food restaurants,
49:10 we may want to look at trying to limit those
49:13 to just the C3, that general commercial districts
49:17 that generally has larger lot sizes
49:20 and is kind of out of the central area of the city.
49:26 But still permitting those low stacking uses like banks.
49:31 There's a couple others in there that are kind of that.
49:34 Yeah, pharmacies, like things that might be
49:36 more appropriate for C2 and the areas that are closer
49:40 to the residential areas of the city.
49:44 But this is another topic that we're still working through.
49:52 They gave a lot of different examples,
49:54 but I think the thing that we talked about,
49:58 I think most people don't want those in the front yards.
50:00 It's still an aesthetic piece,
50:03 an aesthetic piece that has to be worked through.
50:06 And I think we got to comment back
50:07 because they use like a carport example.
50:09 It's not something that we would allow
50:11 in the residential, I don't think,
50:12 but it might be something to consider
50:14 in the commercial district of the solar car
50:18 like parking covers.
50:21 I think that's generally it.
50:27 We are talking through,
50:28 we have started the development and sign standards.
50:31 So now we're talking and really pulling in
50:34 kind of updates on residential and commercial guidelines,
50:38 kind of our design review process for AVR,
50:41 the fence standards, landscaping standards,
50:44 like all of those, the subdivision standards
50:47 of lot splits and consolidations.
50:50 And so while we're still kind of working on
50:52 district and use standards,
50:54 the House Hill Levine is starting to move on to task five.
50:58 So that will probably be the next topic
51:01 that I'll come back to talk about.
51:04 Thank you, and this is a little off subject,
51:06 but I know the moratorium on smoke shops
51:07 is set to expire at the end of the year,
51:09 and it was kind of in line with this process.
51:11 So are we expecting an extension of that moratorium?
51:15 I think that we would like to extend that
51:16 because we are building that consideration
51:18 for those into the commercial use table.
51:22 And so we're looking at,
51:25 I think it was Akron that just passed.
51:28 There's a couple other municipal examples that we have
51:30 that they treat them very similar.
51:33 The code that Akron just passed
51:35 treats it very similar to our like tattoo shops
51:38 where there's distance regulations
51:40 from certain VR municipal zoning of schools, parks,
51:44 those types of things.
51:45 And so that might be the direction
51:47 that we look at mirroring.
51:51 Great, well happy to work with you
51:52 on the moratorium extension
51:55 to get the time we need to properly
51:58 figure these things out.
52:00 Any other questions from, thank you, Tom.
52:07 I noticed how bright and cartoon-like and Vegas-like
52:11 most of the vape shops are,
52:12 many of the vape shops are.
52:14 I mean, it looks like a slot machine for heaven's sakes.
52:17 And I just had a dad tell me that modern vape shops are,
52:22 Joe the Camel revisited where targeting kids,
52:25 clouds of cotton candy smoke
52:28 and it's more addictive than conventional tobacco.
52:30 So if we've got a health code
52:32 to go after some of those shops,
52:34 I don't even see an employee in half of them.
52:37 Maybe there's somebody lurking at the back,
52:38 but it's basically an overblown kiosk
52:41 for selling addictive stuff.
52:43 I'm glad we have a moratorium,
52:45 but maybe we should have more than a moratorium.
52:49 But at any rate, question on the,
52:53 first of all, this is great.
52:54 Appreciate the regular check-ins and unless you're,
52:58 actually Councilman Evans was an ABR member,
53:01 Councilman Baker was a Planning Commission member,
53:04 so we have an uncommonly informed City Council right now.
53:08 But unless you're in the profession,
53:10 it's hard for some of us to learn it.
53:13 So I appreciate the opportunity to do that.
53:16 So enhancing density in a manner that is consistent
53:24 more or less with a community's 100-year history
53:26 is I think a good marker or a goal,
53:31 a goal and a parameter to guide that goal.
53:34 Now, will density accomplish housing price relief?
53:39 And when I say that statement,
53:40 I also ask, am I a prisoner of the moment?
53:43 Because to be direct on it,
53:47 we're knocking a lot of doors these days
53:49 and a lot of steps and porches
53:51 and not all the porches in Lakewood are fixed up.
53:54 I'll shock Chris partly.
53:55 And not all of the clutter is cleaned up.
53:58 And there's still a lot of deferred maintenance
54:00 to be addressed even though our paper valuation says,
54:05 your property is now worth 50 or 67
54:08 or 100% more than it used to be.
54:11 So I always think that property value increase
54:15 at least gives you a fighting chance to go to your bank
54:17 and have equity that then could be used
54:19 to reinvest in your property
54:20 and update it and all that kind of stuff.
54:23 And it is true that people
54:26 are really feeling the squeeze.
54:27 So I'm not talking about affordable housing,
54:30 which is a term of art.
54:31 I'm talking about just the high price of housing
54:33 is having all kinds of ripple effect on people,
54:36 their ability to move in or move back
54:38 or have their college student who's now in the workforce
54:42 find a home here, all that stuff.
54:45 So I am interested in trying to get more density
54:48 and bring some price relief
54:50 to the current housing market as difficult as that is.
54:56 Although this tool is supposed to be a decades long tool.
55:00 So I actually welcome the feedback is that comment
55:05 my part might be too short term in my thinking.
55:10 Part one and part two, will that even accomplish it?
55:13 Because accessory dwelling units,
55:15 as Chris Parley was just saying is they're not cheap.
55:19 So what they add is valuable to our properties,
55:23 but it may not add low rent housing units.
55:28 It adds something else, right?
55:31 Well, it depends on the structure, I would say,
55:34 I think the most expensive thing to ask somebody to do
55:38 for an ADU is to ask them to build a detached one
55:42 outside their home.
55:43 I think the lowest cost and most feasible option
55:48 for probably most Lakewood homeowners would be
55:51 that they have a home that has that third floor in it,
55:54 but they're currently not allowed to convert that
55:57 or recognize it as a dwelling unit, even though it is.
56:02 And so it's kind of a hidden asset
56:04 that they have to keep hidden until they are given relief
56:09 through zoning law change to say that
56:11 it is a three family home and they can have a bathroom,
56:16 cooking unit and a separate entrance.
56:19 So that might be the source of less expensive.
56:22 It's already there.
56:23 Yeah, I think I would say that in the short time
56:26 that we've had ADU code out there councilman,
56:29 the majority, if not all of the people who have called
56:33 and asked about applying for an ADU have been people
56:38 in R2 with a two family home that have a third floor
56:42 unit that they thought was a third floor unit,
56:45 And the way that our, yeah,
56:49 but unfortunately the way that our code
56:50 and even that ADU amendment was written
56:53 is that the only people eligible for an ADU
56:55 would be a single family home in R2
56:58 because you would still be,
56:59 by adding that dwelling unit,
57:01 you would still be within that two dwelling unit cap.
57:04 So my feedback to my colleagues would be,
57:06 I think we were cautious and for good reasons
57:09 in that initial proposal
57:13 of allowed access to dwelling units.
57:15 And I think it's fair to say that our experience shows
57:17 that we should broaden the parameters
57:19 and make it more permissive so that we can see
57:21 if we can get some more people applying and making use.
57:24 But then, okay, last question is,
57:27 seems, am I thinking about this correctly,
57:29 is most of our strategic growth potential
57:31 on the residential side?
57:33 You did have some commercial,
57:35 I don't know if we're gonna get to industrial,
57:37 but because Lakewood's built out,
57:41 can we think of our growth strategy for our community,
57:46 however we define that,
57:47 begging some questions,
57:49 to also incorporate the commercial properties
57:54 I guess that's already happening in the Berry Buick site
57:57 and the Spitzer site and the former Lincoln Hospital,
58:01 but those are the very large commercial scale.
58:04 But do you see the question I'm driving at?
58:06 And I mean, there could just be an employer,
58:09 like do we attract an employer here, you know?
58:11 And if we did, how realistic is that thinking?
58:15 And I think the traditional economic development,
58:21 attraction thinking of the last 40 years is not Lakewood,
58:25 you gotta have a bunch of greenfield,
58:28 undeveloped land, or at least less density than we do.
58:32 So I don't know if we can challenge ourselves
58:35 to find new opportunities in the next 20, 25 years
58:39 in that regard, I'd be.
58:41 Unless you're gonna come up with a zoning proposal
58:44 that creates more land in the Lake Erie,
58:46 I don't like, I think it's just, it's hard.
58:49 I think the flexibility,
58:51 and it's the nature of the community,
58:53 and what seems to happen is we seem to be an incubator
58:55 for companies and then they need more space
58:58 and they leave and we could,
59:00 but I don't know how you could keep the character
59:02 of Lakewood but create opportunities for 500 employer,
59:07 you know, employee operation to exist here,
59:11 short of them buying one of the existing towers
59:14 and getting all the tenants out, you know?
59:17 Or one of the industrial areas.
59:19 Industrial, and that's where the adaptive reuse overlay
59:23 would work in the industrial areas
59:25 and it would allow, especially for the hotel use
59:28 and some really interesting commercial uses.
59:30 So I think that's a big, and I was kind of at the end
59:33 because we used trying to get a lot in there,
59:34 but there are a lot of creative things we can do
59:37 in the industrial use area with the overlay.
59:41 I think one of the things I really,
59:44 having seen enough of these,
59:47 in my life is that this really does,
59:49 it's proactive and giving us ways to be creative
59:52 about how we use all of our spaces.
59:54 I mean, it's upfront, it's getting us into, you know,
59:57 conformity with a lot of things,
59:58 but it's also giving us the means to do,
1:00:03 to change with the times as we go along here.
1:00:05 And so we're not gonna be prohibitive
1:00:09 So we're kind of the community
1:00:10 of small business innovation and that includes
1:00:14 small cottage industry landlords.
1:00:18 Yeah, I think part of that,
1:00:20 I think the adapter for use is probably the biggest tool
1:00:22 that we're putting into that.
1:00:23 And then to the chair's point,
1:00:24 I think our most underused district
1:00:29 is probably our industrial district.
1:00:32 It is a antiquated old area
1:00:35 that the most modern facility that's there
1:00:37 is our recycling center and then the new animal shelter.
1:00:40 But it's right next to a lot of transit.
1:00:46 So there are opportunities, I think, there.
1:00:49 And I think, no offense to self storage,
1:00:52 but I prefer that stay in Lorain County
1:00:57 and likely we have more productive uses on our lands.
1:01:00 Group actor is a good example of that,
1:01:02 like an adaptive reuse of a building
1:01:04 that we had to jump through a couple hoops,
1:01:07 but you got something like the climbing gym,
1:01:10 got, I was able to find a new home
1:01:12 and they got moved out of the Baptist Church.
1:01:18 It's just allowing that kind of that appropriate mix
1:01:21 of commercial uses that an indoor rec use
1:01:26 like a gym that they got a new coffee shop
1:01:31 or whatever we've had discussions with
1:01:32 that supports the artists in the building.
1:01:39 By the way, while we're at it,
1:01:42 what I call the walking entrance to Madison Park,
1:01:44 which is the basketball court area.
1:01:47 If we could mirror what the screw factory is doing
1:01:50 on the public side and invite them to have
1:01:53 some kind of on their lawn exterior use,
1:01:57 which I know some of the building managers
1:01:59 were trying, they were aspiring
1:02:01 to like a cafe or something.
1:02:02 I think that would be a pretty fantastic evolution
1:02:09 which is all kinds of a microcosm of a lot
1:02:12 happening in that old building.
1:02:14 Love to see that in a lot of other,
1:02:16 those kind of those underused industrial buildings.
1:02:22 Thank you, Assistant Director Voss.
1:02:23 And I wanna be mindful of time.
1:02:25 We're already a little bit over
1:02:26 and we got a couple more agenda items
1:02:29 So without any more questions on that,
1:02:32 I will commit to this committee
1:02:33 and to my colleagues that each time ZPAC
1:02:35 gets an update from the consultant
1:02:40 that I work with Assistant Director Voss to bring it here.
1:02:41 So we see it because the intention is ultimately
1:02:45 a giant batch of ordinances
1:02:48 that will change our zoning code.
1:02:50 And I don't want us to be surprised.
1:02:53 So I want there to be a good record
1:02:55 of all the things we've considered
1:02:56 and have it be an iterative process.
1:02:58 And I thank the planning department
1:02:59 and the consultant for helping us through that.
1:03:02 So this time I'll go ahead and make a motion
1:03:04 to receive and file that communication.
1:03:13 All those in favor say aye.
1:03:16 And then the next thing, I'll keep it on the docket,
1:03:19 but substitute ordinance 1820.5
1:03:21 about amending the high grass and weeds ordinances
1:03:27 to allow for natural managed landscapes.
1:03:31 that the building department wants guidance here.
1:03:35 They would like to start implementing
1:03:38 whatever we come up with for the next growing season,
1:03:40 which means you want to educate the public
1:03:47 So we will seek to obtain insight
1:03:51 from Keep Lakewood Beautiful.
1:03:52 So Councilman Bullock has reached out to them
1:03:57 you know, their formal input to this ordinance
1:04:01 so that we as a committee can review
1:04:03 and work with the building department
1:04:06 to come up with something that works for everyone
1:04:07 with the intention by the end of this year
1:04:11 And then perhaps Keep Lakewood Beautiful
1:04:12 could also be a communications tool
1:04:14 for to assist the planning department
1:04:17 or the housing building department
1:04:18 in some of the education associated with the new regime
1:04:22 and what we're gonna be allowing.
1:04:25 Anything else to add on that?
1:04:27 So I'll just go ahead and keep that on the docket.
1:04:29 The next one is the communication
1:04:31 from planning director Byneton
1:04:32 about property of 1472 Bell.
1:04:37 Familiar with property, but is there anything,
1:04:40 you know, I guess if the planning department
1:04:42 wants to speak on the ordinance,
1:04:44 and I know there's some issue with technically,
1:04:48 so I'd like to understand timing
1:04:49 of the planning department as to whether
1:04:50 this is something they'd like to see passed
1:04:52 at the first meeting of November,
1:04:55 in which case we may have to suspend the rules
1:04:58 simply because it wasn't on the docket the last time,
1:04:59 but I think the public's aware of it.
1:05:02 So we could talk to the council president
1:05:04 if the planning department has urgency with it.
1:05:06 So just curious as to kind of where it's at.
1:05:12 So as far as timeframe, just to start off with,
1:05:15 there isn't truly a real rush to get it passed.
1:05:19 We could go through the normal procedure.
1:05:24 We would like to proceed with putting out an RFP
1:05:26 to get a realtor on board to market it for us,
1:05:31 but we could wait if council determines
1:05:33 they wanna go through the regular process with the readings.
1:05:40 And then just a little background,
1:05:41 you have my communication in front of you,
1:05:44 which I already read into the record at council,
1:05:48 just where we are asking permission
1:05:52 with the licensed real estate broker to market for sale.
1:05:57 and then you also have the project summary,
1:06:00 but for the purpose of anybody for the public,
1:06:05 this project specifically addresses
1:06:09 of Lakewood's affordable housing strategy,
1:06:12 creating home ownership opportunities
1:06:14 for low moderate income households.
1:06:15 And it also aligns with the community vision
1:06:18 housing goals by preserving Lakewood's aging housing stock
1:06:21 and enhancing the quality and character
1:06:23 of the city's residential neighborhoods.
1:06:25 The funding source were home dollars,
1:06:28 total amount being $437,000.
1:06:32 This property has to be sold
1:06:34 to a low moderate income household,
1:06:36 earning less than 80% of the area median income
1:06:39 since home dollars were used.
1:06:43 HUD also sets the limit for the max
1:06:46 that we can sell the property for.
1:06:49 So the maximum that it could be sold for is $209,000.
1:06:58 And a couple of design elements for the public
1:07:01 is that it's a 1,700 square foot,
1:07:03 fully insulated weatherproofed home
1:07:06 with a restored historic facade.
1:07:08 There's three bedrooms, two and a half bathrooms,
1:07:13 brand new high efficiency furnace,
1:07:14 central air conditioning, all new appliances,
1:07:17 including a washer and dryer, and all new windows.
1:07:22 we refinished the hardwood floors throughout,
1:07:25 and I would welcome any council member
1:07:29 that wants to take a tour, we can get you in there.
1:07:31 I went through it, it's very nice.
1:07:33 I think it would be really great for a family
1:07:37 to be able to get into this property as soon as possible.
1:07:42 So I, for this committee's sake, for process,
1:07:49 I'm in favor of reporting this out this evening,
1:07:51 and then the council president can determine
1:07:54 what we want to do on the floor in November.
1:08:05 The one thing I would like,
1:08:07 if I asked the clerk to pull up the last time
1:08:10 we authorize the administration to sell property,
1:08:17 there to be some timeline in there
1:08:18 for the administration to report back on,
1:08:22 it says you'll report back in a timely manner,
1:08:26 or, you know, you'll give us details of the sale.
1:08:31 and interested in administration's visits to restrictive,
1:08:36 or kind of how they feel about within 45 days of sale,
1:08:38 where there'll be some docket communication.
1:08:42 Through you, I believe that's what we did
1:08:43 on the vacant lots just recently.
1:08:45 So yeah, I believe it was after sale.
1:08:47 I think it was 30 or 45 days.
1:08:49 I don't see any issue with that at all.
1:08:51 Okay, then I will make a motion to amend
1:09:13 at the end of section three,
1:09:15 after report to counsel the details of the sale
1:09:18 within 45 days of the closing on the property.
1:09:33 I guess, yeah, you moved, I seconded, okay.
1:09:37 So the next thing then would be,
1:09:43 recommend full counsel approval of the amended ordinance
1:09:52 Is there a second to that motion?
1:09:57 As amended, yeah, as a substitute,
1:09:59 or amended ordinance is what I call it, I think.
1:10:04 That motion passes, so it'll be on the counsel docket
1:10:09 If there's a chance to take a tour of the building,
1:10:20 And I think that is all that we have on the agenda,
1:10:23 so I wanna thank everyone for the extra 15 minutes.
1:10:27 I hope you all have a wonderful evening.
1:10:31 This committee stands adjourned.