Written by the reviewer from the ASR + docket; [verbatim-ASR] = quoted machine transcript; [paraphrase] = reviewer's wording, not a quote.
0:00 Without further ado, given the time,
0:01 we're gonna roll right into March 30th,
0:06 2026 meeting of the Housing Planning
0:08 and Development Committee.
0:09 First order of business is approval
0:10 of the minutes of the March 9th, 2026 meeting
0:13 of the Housing Planning and Belly Committee.
0:16 I'll make a motion to approve.
0:18 Aye. Motion carries.
0:22 First order of business and order of business today.
0:26 Communication from Assistant Planning Director Boss
0:28 regarding the Zoning Refresh Standard update,
0:31 development standards.
0:34 Whenever you're ready, Assistant Director Boss.
0:41 Thank you, Mr. Chair.
0:42 I was just pulling it up, so.
0:49 All right, Mr. Chair, members of council.
0:50 So this is a, these are the slides
0:53 from our Zoning Policy Advisory Committee meeting
0:57 number four that we held,
0:59 that was held back in January, mid-January.
1:03 So as you're all aware, just in terms of a quick recap,
1:08 so as we've been working through
1:09 the Zoning Refresh effort,
1:11 which is supported by House L. Levine
1:13 as the primary consultant on that,
1:16 it is a long-term project.
1:18 I think everyone recognizes that.
1:20 We have been working on it for a long time,
1:22 but we are working towards finishing it up
1:26 by the end of this year.
1:28 That was kind of the general intention.
1:30 Going into this, we knew that it was
1:32 an 18-plus month project.
1:37 It's an awful lot of work.
1:39 So this is the, this is the fourth meeting
1:41 of this committee that includes both council members,
1:48 Baker and Keppel as kind of
1:50 our two primary council advisors.
1:52 There's two members of the Planning Commission,
1:54 and then there's kind of a variety of stakeholders
1:58 across the resident, developer,
2:01 real estate, chamber of commerce.
2:03 Like you kind of, we get a smattering
2:05 of a lot of different folks
2:06 from different walks of life
2:08 that are generally familiar with zoning,
2:12 design review, the different kind of functions
2:16 And so because it is so process-heavy
2:20 in terms of the Advisory Committee.
2:22 There has been, it's been a while,
2:24 but there has been community engagement involvement
2:28 up front to kind of identify the issues
2:30 and the recommendations that we move forward on.
2:33 So, but now for this, we are well in the weeds
2:38 and doing the work of actually revising,
2:42 of drafting and revising the new chapters of code.
2:45 And so this one, this meeting
2:48 and these four chapters that I'll advance here
2:53 So it's chapter four, five, and six, and seven.
2:58 basically what the Architectural Board of Review,
3:01 as well as the Planning Commission
3:03 on a little bit kind of delve into
3:05 in terms of, that's fine,
3:10 that your development standards.
3:12 Not something that I will say right now
3:14 is a strong point of our current code.
3:17 The pieces of this are very smattered
3:20 across a million different places
3:23 and have been developed over the last 15 to 20 years
3:27 through different commercial design guidelines,
3:31 front porch guidelines,
3:33 a portion of our local building code in 132508
3:37 that talks about parking lot design.
3:39 And then like the individual lines of code
3:42 that are in supplemental regulations,
3:44 district regulations,
3:45 and everything that talk about parking,
3:49 screening, landscaping, like all of these things,
3:53 sign standards, another section under local building code.
3:58 Pulling these all into the zoning chapter
4:00 and organizing them in a much more user-friendly,
4:05 and when I say user-friendly,
4:06 it's not only businesses and developers,
4:08 but also our own department
4:10 of knowing where to find everything
4:12 and it's logically organized.
4:16 This is probably one of the hardest efforts
4:18 in this larger effort of this refresh effort.
4:23 Looking at use requirements in commercial districts
4:26 and stuff like that,
4:27 we have that chapter now,
4:29 it's just revised in that chapter,
4:32 but this was pulling a million puzzle pieces
4:35 from different rooms of your house
4:36 and trying to put it into some form.
4:39 And then those puzzle pieces often
4:42 are the most difficult to nail down
4:44 when you're talking about building design
4:48 and design guidelines.
4:50 It's hard to get 12 people to agree
4:53 on the right approach and what is,
4:55 because largely this drives
4:58 what will basically be allowed by right
5:02 in terms of building development and design
5:04 versus what has to go to a board for review.
5:07 That is one of the overarching kind of intentions
5:10 of this effort is clarifying
5:13 and streamlining design development review processes
5:18 that right now pretty much everything,
5:21 if you read the code on face value
5:24 would have to go to architectural border review
5:28 It is a frustrating point for lots
5:30 of residents, architects and everything
5:32 that everything from a garage
5:34 to the downtown development goes through the same process.
5:37 And yet there are just not very objective standards
5:41 in terms of what they're asked to meet
5:42 versus the subjective review of five architects
5:45 that are like, I don't like that, I like that.
5:48 And then you go to the next guy
5:49 and he's got three other things
5:50 that he doesn't like or likes.
5:51 And so it's very hard.
5:53 We did work over the last two years
5:55 to come up with new residential design guidelines.
5:57 So there has been some work recently
5:59 that's really informed a lot of these things
6:01 and we'll continue to inform this process.
6:04 But so I'm gonna try to, in interest of time,
6:07 I'm gonna try to step through these things
6:08 pretty quickly, kinda highlight the main points
6:11 of each of them just so we can get to some questions.
6:17 This is where we are.
6:18 Seven, in terms of the broader refresh effort,
6:21 step five, and so this is where we were with the ZPAC.
6:26 Now I'm talking to you about five.
6:28 We are working right now concurrently step six
6:31 and we'll hopefully come back and see you on that
6:33 like in the June timeframe.
6:36 And then we will very quickly in July
6:39 before the projected recess of council,
6:42 we will provide you an introduction into seven
6:45 and then work on seven once you come back
6:47 in kinda September, October, November
6:49 and hopefully get through.
6:51 Because that is gonna be the review
6:52 of all those other chapters.
6:55 The intention is to do that, if we can,
6:58 concurrently with Committee of the Whole
6:59 and Planning Commission at the same time
7:02 so that everybody's kinda in the same room
7:03 working through the same stuff.
7:06 So general development standards on this.
7:11 This is kind of the junk drawer,
7:14 if you will, of development stuff.
7:16 So right now we have a section and a chapter on fences.
7:19 We have a chapter on landscaping and screening.
7:22 So this kinda brings it all into one chapter
7:24 of all those miscellaneous and broad development things.
7:29 So you can see fence wall standard screening,
7:32 vision triangle standards trying to get back
7:34 to if someone is going to, if there is a vacant lot,
7:37 which doesn't happen a whole lot,
7:38 but if someone's gonna scrape a lot,
7:40 especially on a commercial street,
7:43 how are we gonna want them to design that
7:45 so that we do it smartly
7:47 with proper intersection triangles
7:50 for visibility of pedestrians and vehicles
7:52 and all those things that are pretty bad
7:54 about a built up city like Lake Hood.
7:57 Outdoor lighting, buffer and landscape standards.
8:00 So fencing, some of you are aware
8:04 we updated the fence code not too long ago.
8:07 From what I understand, it's working pretty well,
8:09 but this is everything from defining
8:11 what is a front yard, what is a side yard,
8:13 what is a rear yard,
8:14 and then looking at something that we don't have
8:17 in our current fence code right now
8:18 is general terms like opacity.
8:21 How much visibility or visible light moves through a fence?
8:26 So is it, and then where is that most appropriate?
8:33 So taking a stab at something like this chart
8:36 in front of you that defines the type of fencing
8:40 or the opacity, really not getting
8:42 into the design of the fence,
8:43 but the opacity of how much light and visibility
8:46 moves through a fence,
8:48 and where do you want less visibility
8:51 versus more visibility?
8:53 And so you can kind of see on there
8:57 as you get towards like 50%, 20% at the top,
9:02 20% would be like the most visibility
9:05 on this chart of opacity, 100% would be the least.
9:09 And so in rear yards, in most districts,
9:13 we really don't care about opacity.
9:15 And most of the times you want the most,
9:16 the maximum amount of screening
9:18 like in the rear yard between uses.
9:21 But like in the front yard of,
9:24 if for fencing that is allowed,
9:26 in the front yard of the residential areas,
9:29 that's like 20% is like the lowest opacity
9:33 or the most visibility.
9:34 You would want that on front yards,
9:37 some of the side streets so that you can,
9:39 you may get some visibility through those fences
9:43 as you're at corners and intersections.
9:44 And so this was something that we will obviously revisit.
9:49 They got comments back from the ZPAC
9:51 because this was a relatively new kind of concept
9:54 for us to define in our code.
9:56 But it does help when it gets into like the,
10:00 administering it and you know,
10:01 when you get to what's in the front yard,
10:03 what's the side yard?
10:05 What are all those things mean?
10:06 And then if someone proposes a fence,
10:08 does it meet the opacity requirements
10:10 that support our broader goals?
10:13 We talked with them about screening standards.
10:19 There's another area that I believe
10:22 you have to go to our sanitary code
10:25 to get the screening requirements for dumpsters.
10:29 So that is like chapter 17 in our current code.
10:32 It's way buried in there.
10:33 And it's something that you really got to pull forward
10:36 on a development or something that a lot of folks miss.
10:40 And so this was a general discussion
10:43 in terms of what needs to be covered by the code
10:46 in terms of screening requirements.
10:48 All of these cases were informed
10:51 by prior planning commission and ABR comments and cases
10:55 where ABR had seen something
10:57 or planning commission seen something
10:58 and said in the past,
11:00 we would like you to include screening in that.
11:03 And so these were just, again,
11:04 a lot of these are kind of brain teasers
11:06 for the ZPAC for that committee to say,
11:08 is this something worth putting into permanent code?
11:13 And so I think what came out of this one
11:15 is that most of them, yes,
11:16 they want some form of screening to be defined
11:20 in terms of that general development.
11:23 Outdoor lighting was something we have a current section.
11:26 Again, it is buried in our local building standards.
11:30 It's not a bad chapter.
11:32 This is an update and a consolidation
11:35 with all the other development standards of that
11:37 and using from what I understand
11:39 to be more contemporary terms
11:40 in terms of actually using like the Kelvin color temperature
11:44 and those things to get the type of light that we want.
11:47 And so this was a big debate.
11:49 Kelvin color temperature tells you,
11:51 is it like bright white or is it more yellow?
11:54 Like what color do we want for like parking lots
11:57 and that type of stuff so that it's not like
12:00 the xenon headlights like blinding everybody
12:02 in a parking lot that's next to a residential area,
12:04 but maybe it's a softer color.
12:07 It's things that we've never contemplated defining that,
12:09 but now you have the ability to define that
12:11 and it's not just lumens and spillover,
12:14 but it's actual color and other more context.
12:21 Landscaping and buffer standards.
12:23 So this was a topic that actually surprised me.
12:26 So looking at like larger commercial
12:28 and multifamily buildings,
12:30 is there a percentage that you would want the code
12:34 to require them to have like planning beds and stuff
12:37 in and around the building?
12:39 The ZPAC actually pushed back on this
12:41 and said that they didn't think it was necessary,
12:44 especially with most of these buildings
12:46 on where the focus from their viewpoint,
12:50 the focus would be like the Detroit
12:53 and Madison streetscapes.
12:54 A lot of times you don't have
12:56 or nor we have room for planning beds
12:58 that you build in there.
12:59 And so they didn't really want to make this
13:01 a hard requirement that people had to make.
13:03 They were satisfied kind of with the most approach
13:06 of the major development approaches that you get
13:08 where this kind of comes about
13:11 sometimes through the design process
13:13 where depending on the design of the building and how.
13:16 And so you all may feel differently on this.
13:18 It'll come back up for discussion,
13:20 but this one thing that I did note with the ZPAC
13:23 kind of pushed back on it.
13:24 They didn't feel like they wanted to define that
13:28 or at least not define it to the minimums
13:33 Like for a requiring that a home in the RM1 or RM2
13:39 that's multifamily or the commercial buildings there
13:42 have an 80% required planting along the facade.
13:47 So that could be a lot, I guess, in terms of 80%.
13:51 So that may be something that they revisit.
13:56 The other buffer standards was actually defining
13:58 different types or densities.
14:00 And this is really, you're getting after a density
14:02 of buffering and transition zones based on the usage,
14:07 the zoning district.
14:08 And so kind of from the top to bottom there,
14:11 less dense versus more dense and defining that.
14:16 A lot of times your buffers are gonna depend
14:19 on the distance that you have to plan with,
14:21 but it can also be however they define the density
14:25 of the landscaping and the planning
14:26 in relation to the usage around areas.
14:28 It's kind of like the same thing
14:29 as opacity on fencing.
14:31 Is it okay to have a less dense buffer?
14:37 And it's just something that right now
14:40 we just don't even have this level of context
14:43 in terms of defined in our code.
14:46 I'll put that out there, maybe not.
14:48 Is it too much specificity?
14:50 But sometimes this level does help
14:53 because right now the following up on the next one
14:56 is do you provide, or you could provide
14:59 kind of those top-down standards.
15:01 Are there different options that we want people
15:04 This is something that has come up more often
15:08 in terms of ABR and planning commission
15:09 of an assumed kind of buffer design
15:13 or transition from a commercial property to a streetscape.
15:16 It's not always intuitive to a developer or designer
15:20 to come in with, oh, you would want a fence
15:23 and then you would want this and you would want this
15:25 and sometimes they have to like walk the dog
15:27 through exactly what they want.
15:29 Whereas if you present them different types of options
15:33 and it's just really elements
15:34 that kind of goes with the densities
15:37 from the previous slide versus kind of elements
15:39 like fencing, then a density B
15:42 before you hit the sidewalk.
15:44 It provides ready options for someone to look at
15:46 and say, well, I can do that, this is permitted.
15:49 And so again, if I meet that,
15:51 I don't have to go through review
15:53 or that piece doesn't have to be delved into.
15:58 Quick interjection.
16:01 Maybe Mr. Boss just hit on something.
16:03 So in some ways we're writing the code
16:05 or the improved standards in planning code
16:08 for the applicant property owner developer
16:12 who needs the support.
16:15 Because there will be, I guess that's a fair point.
16:18 I kind of assume that the experts who roll in
16:21 know what they're doing.
16:23 And maybe that's true for the larger projects,
16:25 but we also wanna support new developers,
16:28 new property owners, the lay person who's doing a project.
16:32 I think that's exactly the case.
16:34 Like the Castos of the world,
16:37 they have landscape architects
16:39 that come in and they do those plans.
16:41 But the third generation property owner
16:45 of a parking lot on Madison
16:48 who just wants to get it done,
16:49 or I just want a parking lot.
16:52 But right now our code does require
16:54 like five foot buffer or something like that.
16:56 And that's what it tells them,
16:57 is you must have a five foot landscaped buffer.
17:02 And then you leave it at that.
17:03 And it's like, okay, well,
17:05 a little bit more guidance
17:07 in the code of different options
17:08 that that developer or that property owner
17:11 might be able to select from
17:12 to meet that requirement
17:13 based on the different uses around them.
17:17 It just points them in the right direction
17:19 of where we want them to go
17:21 rather than just saying,
17:22 come up with a design and come to AVR
17:24 and prove why it's the best.
17:26 And then he gets that person
17:28 who's not necessarily set up for success
17:31 of going before a board of five architects,
17:34 feels like he gets his knees shot out from under him
17:37 well, I'm sorry, I'm not a landscape architect.
17:38 I don't really know what I'm doing.
17:40 And so having that, these types of things,
17:43 if we can define it at the appropriate level,
17:47 you don't wanna be too detailed,
17:49 but I think we'll help people rather than cause a burden.
17:53 So it's kinda like,
17:54 we're gonna try to achieve higher quality
17:55 by addressing the middle
17:57 and the trailing edge of the bell curve.
18:02 And the industry best practice folks
18:05 will always kind of bring their own knowledge.
18:08 it'll give them an appropriate level of guidance
18:13 rather than assuming what we want.
18:15 They will be able to read kind of generally the box
18:18 that we want them to design within.
18:24 Getting into parking lot a little bit,
18:26 landscape and buffer designs
18:27 as it relates to parking lots.
18:30 This doesn't happen a whole lot here,
18:31 but it is a matter of discussion
18:34 with certain folks that have been on planning commission
18:37 since I've been involved with planning commission
18:39 as it does come up.
18:40 And so this, when you start talking about like in caps
18:43 and median standards,
18:45 and this is within larger parking lots
18:48 where this stuff comes up.
18:50 So rather than leaving it to the subjectivity
18:53 of a certain expert on planning commission
18:55 or a designer or something like that,
18:57 of having the standards that
18:58 when a parking lot has a certain size,
19:02 certain number of spaces or certain acreage
19:06 or size and square footage,
19:07 which I know is in Lakewood is hard sometimes.
19:10 Once you pass different thresholds,
19:12 you should look to incorporate in caps at this size,
19:15 a median strip at this size
19:16 so that it may take up parking
19:19 and there's a balance between like the part required parking,
19:22 but the end state that we get out of it
19:24 are common things that we have asked people to do
19:28 rather than just having a large square of asphalt
19:31 of actually having the kind of the green infrastructure
19:33 and some of those other things that are incorporated.
19:35 And so when you get to that size of parking lot
19:38 that we would want those things to be incorporated,
19:41 you build them into the code
19:42 so people are pointed in that direction.
19:46 This largely will not happen a whole lot
19:48 just based on the size of development
19:50 that happens in Lakewood.
19:52 And so that's kind of the general standards
19:54 that just kind of touches on a lot of those
19:56 that the desperate pieces of code
19:58 that are kind of spread throughout.
20:01 Building design standards,
20:02 this is probably one of the hardest chapters to get right.
20:07 And so these are your design guidelines.
20:11 And so there will be general provisions
20:13 and so basically these are as you work your way through
20:16 and again, the slides, this is a very broad summary,
20:19 but so these will be for multi-unit, mixed unit
20:24 and non-residential or large commercial buildings.
20:28 So there's two basic steps that we would ask
20:31 kind of developers to look at in terms of that.
20:34 And this is for materials.
20:36 So you would define the different tiers of materials
20:39 that we would like to see in our,
20:41 basically your commercial buildings in Lakewood.
20:45 We have this right now, right,
20:47 with our commercial design guidelines
20:49 that are 16 years old,
20:52 but those things say what we don't want to see
20:56 in Lakewood is that there's discouraged
20:59 or prohibited exterior materials.
21:02 So this is leveraging some of the expertise,
21:04 some of the architects that are on our ZPAC
21:07 and that have served on APR for a long time
21:10 of trying to, and this is an incomplete list
21:12 and this list was hammered pretty hard
21:15 in the ZPAC meeting.
21:17 But to try to nail that in there to say that
21:20 you do have prohibited materials,
21:22 but then what are kind of the premier
21:25 or the tier one materials that we want to see
21:28 when they're able and realizing that it's primary,
21:31 highest quality, highest cost.
21:34 So then what are the tier two materials
21:36 that are secondary, that are also acceptable?
21:40 And then are there tier three materials
21:42 that are also acceptable,
21:44 probably because of their lowest cost?
21:47 And then you'll see how these are then applied.
21:50 The second step in that, reading that process
21:52 is you kind of tell them what materials are defined,
21:56 what materials are allowed, which ones aren't.
21:59 And then this is also new and it takes a little bit
22:03 and we're still working this out.
22:04 But then based on the district,
22:09 what percentage of the facade of that building
22:12 can use those different tiers of materials?
22:16 So the challenge is balancing this
22:19 with kind of our current approach
22:21 to architectural border review
22:22 is that we like to hammer home four-sided design,
22:25 those types of things so you don't end up
22:27 with a building that has brick on the front
22:29 that faces Detroit and then vital siding on the sides.
22:32 So this was the subject of an awful lot of discussion
22:36 in terms of that, like four-sided design.
22:39 But this is a national kind of regional best practice
22:43 that other communities use to help developers
22:47 kind of get in the box of having the right types
22:50 of materials across the board.
22:54 And this is where you can balance these things
22:56 by having banding in a way that our buildings
23:00 with the storefront level and upper floors
23:02 can have different materials.
23:04 And there's lots of ways that you can kind of attack this.
23:07 But basically, as you work your way
23:09 from kind of what we viewed as
23:12 what I would call the premier kind of district
23:14 or building type for this,
23:15 which is your multifamily buildings,
23:18 down through like C1, C2, C3,
23:20 all the way to what would be like the most flexible
23:23 as industrial or municipal at the bottom.
23:27 You can see how kind of the sliding scale
23:30 of tier one to tier two to tier three.
23:33 Again, this is not so that like lower cost,
23:36 lower quality materials are more acceptable
23:39 for industrial uses than they would be for
23:41 like multifamily that you would see on the far end
23:44 of the other end of that spectrum.
23:46 This is by far not a final product,
23:49 but I guess the intent of a lot of these things
23:52 is just to show you kind of the different types
23:54 of tools that Howsail Levine is pulling
23:56 from regional and national best practices
23:59 and trying to expose them here in Lakewood
24:01 and say, you don't have anything like this right now,
24:03 would you like to go down the road with this?
24:06 Because it is a way that other communities
24:09 and municipalities use to provide this design guidance
24:14 to developers and even, you know,
24:16 homeowners that are doing renovations to their house
24:19 because it's a hard thing to get people in the box on.
24:25 You get into glazing?
24:26 Yeah, please go ahead.
24:28 Yeah, going back to that slide
24:29 and I'm sure this will be interwoven
24:33 and we did have a lot of conversation
24:34 with the architects on like the primitive materials
24:37 And I am curious if this overlays
24:40 with like the affordable housing issue
24:43 and like maybe if you're serving
24:46 an affordable housing kind of bucket,
24:48 you get certain like, you know,
24:51 kind of dispensations from certain standards
24:54 and so I would just ask that we think about that
24:56 and try to be creative with it
24:58 because, you know, the tier one material costs the most,
25:02 right, and it is aesthetically pleasing
25:05 but although that is somewhat in the eye of the beholder
25:08 then that drives up, you know,
25:10 per square foot cost to build the building
25:11 which drives up rents.
25:19 That's a great point, Councilman.
25:22 It's actually one of the things
25:23 that we were talking about today
25:25 is as I'm working through the next step,
25:27 the definitions of all these in the processes,
25:30 House Hill Levine had a definition
25:32 that I'm sure we will debate into perpetuity
25:35 for affordable housing.
25:37 So without getting into the details
25:39 of like debating the definition of that,
25:41 my question back to them was that
25:44 by defining affordable housing in your zoning code,
25:49 you would assume that it is then used somewhere
25:52 in that code as in terms of
25:54 which is not typically within zoning,
25:57 like in terms of, so to your point,
25:59 that is a way that you could use that definition
26:01 in terms of building design
26:03 and then lowering this, you know,
26:05 not lowering the standards
26:06 but lowering the allowable or the higher cost things
26:09 to try to incentivize that
26:11 and so that's a point well taken.
26:16 Councilperson Hamilton-Sider.
26:18 Thank you Chair for allowing me to ask this question
26:21 only because it does piggyback off
26:23 what Councilman Baker had said
26:25 and just wondering and just questioning,
26:29 you know, you stated earlier that the goal,
26:31 one of the goals is to, you know,
26:32 clarify the design development review processes
26:36 and along the line what Councilman Baker
26:37 was talking about with affordable housing
26:41 is this also an opportunity to look at the zoning code
26:47 and thinking about how we can address
26:50 some of our community issues
26:51 such as housing affordability
26:53 and also, you know, economic development
26:56 as you said, you know, we're sort of spaced out
26:58 but also keeping Lakewood a livable
27:01 and accessible community.
27:03 So I'm hoping that those things
27:05 are being thoughtfully considered as,
27:08 you know, the codes are,
27:10 as everything's being looked at and examined
27:12 and hoping that everyone in the room
27:15 of course, Councilman Baker's, you know, part of this.
27:18 I'm hoping that that's the mindset
27:19 and that we're connecting it
27:21 and keeping it connected back
27:22 to our vision of our community.
27:27 I think just to address that quickly
27:28 and I know we have another thing
27:30 with affordable housing I think next month
27:32 that we'll talk through but correct.
27:35 Quickly in terms of zoning that there's,
27:36 you know, the two things of my knowledge
27:40 to address that point of trying to
27:42 and this is the first one is not gonna be easy
27:45 and the affordable housing is,
27:48 you wanna address the supply
27:50 and the way you do that through zoning
27:52 is allowing more dwelling units
27:54 on the same land that you have.
27:57 That is something that this code
27:58 going back to the residential
28:00 and creating the new standards of the RS districts
28:04 like allowing more of the three and four family units
28:08 I think when we talked,
28:09 that might have been two times ago
28:11 or when we covered that
28:12 but that is something that we are actively trying
28:16 to find a way to allow more density
28:20 in the existing thing
28:21 and I think that is gonna be a could be
28:24 just kind of looking forward
28:26 that might be a hard hurdle to get over
28:30 that may produce some community reaction
28:34 for a variety of reasons
28:35 and you're all well aware of those.
28:37 The second thing is that is the process itself
28:42 of trying to streamline the process
28:44 and the process costs is another thing
28:47 usually for the larger developments
28:48 of trying to get them through
28:49 so that you get those,
28:52 the more housing units that are out there
28:54 because the longer a process takes
28:55 the higher the cost of the project.
28:57 So by having defining these development standards better
29:03 we're hoping and the process
29:06 for the next time we meet in June
29:07 we'll talk about processes
29:09 and trying to streamline like
29:10 the plan development process
29:12 and things to get developers appropriately reviewed
29:14 but through quicker
29:16 so that because time is money for them
29:18 that that all translates to those two things
29:21 I think are the two of the main things
29:22 that we can do to address that through zoning.
29:30 Can you tell me what Dave,
29:31 what RM2MD and M is,
29:34 is that I'm trying to,
29:38 It's once the multifamily RM
29:42 is the multifamily I believe
29:43 and then MD is the municipal district
29:46 is a new district that we're creating
29:48 for like schools, city buildings, those types of things.
29:51 So that currently is C4 commercial public school.
30:00 Just for schools right now is yeah C4.
30:02 I'm gonna go quickly to city hall on this map
30:09 So that's what M is
30:11 and then RM2 is gonna incorporate
30:18 MD would be mixed use overlay becomes MD.
30:23 And then RM2 incorporates
30:28 residential multifamily,
30:30 high density and low density,
30:32 something like that.
30:32 There's the multifamily is this new defined multifamily
30:36 that a mixed use overlay is something separate
30:38 from the district that rides
30:40 with the underlying districts.
30:42 But there's still gonna be a mixed use overlay
30:44 I think in the final form of that chat.
30:46 So I mean, I like where you're going with all of this.
30:48 I just, of course the answer to the question,
30:54 do we like this or not depends on what it applies to.
30:56 And I think I follow the logic.
30:58 It probably does make sense,
30:59 but I just, it would be great also to make sure
31:02 we understand how the current zoning
31:08 districts are being crosswalked
31:10 into whatever we anticipate in the new.
31:13 I think that's the important part.
31:14 When we get to the final review,
31:17 we will walk the dog back through all those chapters again,
31:19 because there was a slide
31:23 that might've been the first time that I came through
31:25 that like when we talk through zoning districts,
31:28 it has been a long time since we reviewed that.
31:31 You and I were in the weeds
31:33 on this very issue about a year ago.
31:36 So, but we're gonna revisit everything again.
31:40 I know as painful as it sounds.
31:41 No, it's good work.
31:43 And you guys are doing very important stuff
31:45 because it sounds like we're finding gaps.
31:48 We're adding quality.
31:49 We're adding clarity.
31:51 So that quality can actually be attained
31:54 That's the general theme.
31:55 And then we're trying to make it
31:58 a little more consistent and rational
32:00 after you've inherited a hundred years
32:06 So anyway, thanks, Mr. Chair.
32:10 Let's just keep going as quickly.
32:11 So we looked at like even glazing,
32:13 like the amount of glazing on the side of the building.
32:17 And so different percentages that these were,
32:20 again, they threw out,
32:21 do you wanna have a minimum percentage of glazing?
32:24 And the ZPAC kind of pushed back on that.
32:26 They felt like even these amounts
32:28 of the example amounts was way too much
32:30 for a Lakewood building.
32:32 How about opaque spandrel glass?
32:33 Something like, yeah.
32:35 And so that's something that they're gonna revisit,
32:37 kind of look at the,
32:40 I'm gonna hate, I'm gonna even say
32:41 the vernacular of Lakewood buildings
32:43 and commercial districts
32:43 in terms of the percentage of glazing
32:45 and maybe revisit this table.
32:47 But this again helps a developer
32:49 looking at larger projects and stuff of,
32:55 it can't just be a blank brick wall.
32:57 Like there's gotta be a creative application to that.
33:01 But also having, potentially having a maximum amount
33:04 of glazing so that someone doesn't come in
33:06 with a building that's totally out of character
33:10 for the area that's all glass.
33:14 Talked about different types of entryways
33:17 and kind of different elements on the fronts of buildings.
33:21 And these are things that you can get
33:23 into more illustrative and pictures
33:25 that tell a thousand words and kind of dimensions
33:28 in relation to the right of way
33:30 and different types of designs.
33:34 Different types of facade articulation.
33:36 This comes up a lot in ABR.
33:39 Again, you may not be surprised
33:42 that architects that walk in with,
33:46 someone considered to be a very bland design
33:48 and the discussion just goes around and around the boy
33:51 on how to break that up with bands and stuff like that.
33:54 And so providing them pictures and examples
33:57 and guidance helps kind of get them into the box
34:00 of what we're looking for in Lakewood.
34:03 And again, these pictures were not designed for Lakewood.
34:05 So I don't wanna, but they were just examples
34:12 And that's like the,
34:15 so now we're getting into kind of restarting back again.
34:18 So if we looked at,
34:19 so those were all like the main commercial buildings
34:21 and multifamily, so.
34:22 Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, real fast.
34:25 Dave, have you gotten as far as how many faux windows
34:30 versus actual windows that you can see through
34:33 and see product on?
34:34 That's a future thing?
34:36 That could be discussed in that glazing in terms of.
34:38 Okay, that is, I believe, incented
34:42 under our current design guidelines,
34:43 but I don't know if it's required.
34:45 I know that, for example, the CVS at Arthur in Detroit
34:49 did a nice job with that.
34:51 And there are other earlier drug stores
34:55 that use the windows to be the,
34:58 they have big pictures up, not always maintained,
35:00 to be the stock area or the cash register area, you know.
35:07 They can be, that's an example of,
35:08 yeah, the use of glazing to make it more appropriate
35:12 for the character of the neighborhood,
35:14 but does it, may not necessarily functionally fit in
35:17 with the layout that they wanna design,
35:19 but it keeps it that way.
35:20 Chase Bank was another one,
35:23 albeit not very popular,
35:24 of having almost a false second floor in that building.
35:29 That's how you can make it look like it does fit in
35:32 with the other storefronts on Detroit.
35:34 So it sounds like we're trying to hit the middle point
35:36 between flexibility and not enough detail.
35:42 We're coming from relatively more flexibility
35:46 and less detail, but the proposal here
35:48 is to provide detail but options.
35:52 And what does the ABR and the Planning Commission do?
35:55 They have some discretion.
35:57 So if there's a, you know,
36:00 a drug store that really wants to have spandrel glass
36:03 and not use the windows for actual windows
36:06 that activate the walking street frontage,
36:10 you know, would the end point of this
36:13 have enough ammunition for our boards and commissions
36:16 to actually require or strongly incent?
36:19 Because I would lean towards the quality myself.
36:22 I think the intent of this section of these chapters
36:25 is to provide a stronger, more defined baseline
36:30 for that discussion to then happen
36:34 rather than just leaving it up to the developer,
36:38 you know, to assess the character of the neighborhood
36:40 and come up with a design
36:41 and then throw it in front of ABR with no guidelines
36:45 and ABR has nothing but their own personal experience
36:47 to base their criteria and their comments after,
36:50 which can be frustrating.
36:55 So these are all, this is all,
36:56 just getting into different like very similar topics
36:59 like cladding materials and tiers of materials
37:01 for, you know, smaller residential, townhomes.
37:05 You have to address townhome development.
37:07 It's something that we don't have right now
37:09 in terms of like how you approach townhome development
37:13 in terms of units per cluster,
37:15 the internal layouts, the requirements for layouts,
37:17 those types of things.
37:20 Residential porches is a huge thing here.
37:22 We're gonna make that part of the code
37:24 rather than a flyer of guidelines
37:28 and this is probably one of the biggest areas
37:31 that where we can make guidelines in the code
37:34 that allow people to repair, renovate
37:37 or replace their front porches
37:39 without having to go through ABR.
37:41 But just by following the guidelines,
37:43 it becomes an administrator review process.
37:47 This was kind of one of the big highlighted pilots
37:50 that we wanna make this, an admin approval.
37:54 That's part of the code.
37:57 Parking and access standards,
37:58 this is basically your parking lot design
38:01 from local building code pulled into zoning.
38:06 And it goes through all of the things
38:09 that you would, in terms of how you design
38:12 a parking lot and the elements that are there
38:15 from internal access drives,
38:20 these are some of the changes
38:21 in terms of who approves curb cuts
38:24 of making that more upfront in the code.
38:27 You don't have to dig to find it.
38:29 Setbacks from property lines of access and alleys.
38:34 Where parking lots are allowed,
38:36 this is a huge thing right now.
38:38 It is not easy in our code to find
38:40 a prohibition on parking in a front yard.
38:42 And so you always gotta dig and find it,
38:44 especially for people with residential homes
38:46 that wanna put a parking lot
38:47 or a parking space in our front yard.
38:50 Clear, informative tables to say
38:52 where parking is allowed based on the zoning district.
38:59 And then you get into the parking requirements.
39:02 And so this is something right now
39:05 and we can delve into this deeper into the future.
39:08 They came in with a whole bunch of recommendations
39:11 that were based on regional and national best practices.
39:14 And I went through them in detail
39:16 and I basically told them to replace them
39:20 with our current code.
39:23 The national and best practices
39:25 are so automobile-centric and driven
39:28 that it would make it untenable
39:30 for someone to build anything in Lakewood.
39:33 The parking, the minimum parking requirements
39:39 And I just feel that our current code right now,
39:42 and we obviously can debate and discuss this
39:44 when we get into actual like the final review,
39:47 I feel like our current code generally gets it
39:50 about right 95% of the time.
39:53 And the other times is that those requirements
39:56 for exceptions to the mens and maxes
39:58 that allow when you don't meet this
40:00 or you want more, you want less,
40:02 then it kicks at the Planning Commission review,
40:04 which usually there is a favorable outcome for that.
40:08 Larger developments, the flexibility of going to,
40:13 if it's more appropriate to a space per bedroom
40:15 or whatever the requirement is,
40:17 but to require that as a baseline
40:19 is I felt was a little adverse
40:24 towards streamlining development.
40:26 And so this is something that we did discuss
40:29 a little bit, I pushed back on it
40:31 and we left them kind of as is right now.
40:35 There were a couple areas that I would just say
40:38 that we do need to define better.
40:40 Right now our code lumps a lot of uses
40:43 under what's called public assembly.
40:46 And that is hard for theaters and things
40:50 often to meet this like one space
40:51 per 80 square feet requirement that public assembly,
40:54 a church has a hell of a time meeting that requirement.
40:57 That is something that they are helping us
40:59 better define some of those public assembly uses
41:02 and breaking them out as their own true defined use.
41:06 And so that is one thing that we are updating.
41:10 Bike parking, contemporary standards
41:12 for bike parking, important.
41:15 And then sign standards.
41:17 Much of this is kind of our existing chapter 1328,
41:22 local building code for signs
41:24 and bringing it into the contemporary
41:26 in terms of sign types and designs.
41:29 And so there's an awful lot in our sign code,
41:32 but again, bringing this into the zoning chapter
41:35 rather than local building chapter.
41:38 Councilperson Striebeck.
41:42 A couple of slides here too.
41:44 The garage requirement or multi, yes, thank you.
41:55 The one space required in a garage
41:59 that's still applicable in our city.
42:03 So that will be a great topic of discussion.
42:06 Because I have heard from both sides
42:12 is in terms of recommended to drop it.
42:15 And I've heard from almost an equal number
42:17 of people to keep it.
42:18 And so I will, I can continue to push
42:22 Halsey Levine to give us more kind of clarification.
42:26 I think the general national trend
42:29 is that it's removed.
42:32 But I get almost an equal amount of people
42:35 to say that for a city like Lakewood,
42:37 you wanna, I don't know if it's property value driven,
42:41 I don't know if it's the notion
42:43 that if you have a garage
42:44 that people are gonna park in it,
42:45 which I know generally doesn't happen.
42:49 So that is gonna be a key debate going forward
42:51 in terms of if we keep that or not.
42:54 Councilperson Baker.
42:55 And Mr. Chair, the Lakewood Alive,
42:58 so from Cleveland Bridge Builders,
43:00 which is a program through Leadership Center,
43:02 everyone has a group of mid-group professionals
43:07 looking into kind of Lakewood's requirement
43:10 that you have to rebuild a garage,
43:12 particularly as it relates to seniors
43:13 and some of the struggles that they have to do that.
43:16 And they interviewed Councilman Evans and I.
43:19 We were on the spectrum,
43:20 where I would say that I'm like,
43:22 I think there's a lot of room in the middle
43:24 on this argument to create kind of a sliding scale.
43:27 It's not like, yes, you need it no matter what,
43:30 and no, you don't need it.
43:33 And so I think there's a lot of wiggle room
43:35 in the middle that I think we'll get to.
43:37 Because I think there are good arguments on both sides.
43:42 And I think an easy way is to say
43:45 you don't have to do it,
43:46 and an easy way to say you have to do it,
43:48 but there's a lot of room there.
43:51 And I have seen, in my own experience,
43:55 neighbors that have never had a garage,
43:59 rental properties that have never had a garage.
44:01 So then do you go back and say,
44:04 hey, you gotta put a garage up?
44:06 I don't think you do.
44:07 And also, I see neighbors keeping garages up
44:11 that definitely should come down.
44:13 And I'm not quite sure what they're harboring
44:15 in some of these garages
44:18 that definitely should be coming down.
44:20 So I'll be very interested in that conversation.
44:29 Sorry to think if there's anything of note with signs.
44:32 There's not a whole lot of major shifts
44:36 in terms of our sign code.
44:40 I think just outside of the incorporation
44:43 of some of the newer things
44:45 that our sign code doesn't talk about,
44:47 one of them being like the big banners
44:51 that are on fences.
44:52 Excuse me, it's just for fun.
44:53 Yeah, the question I have,
44:55 and we didn't get into this in ZPAC,
44:56 but they did say that,
44:59 so the commercial speech, Supreme Court,
45:02 lot of rules about what a city can regulate
45:05 as it relates to content neutral, all those things.
45:10 I really wanna get this right,
45:11 so I would push House of Levine,
45:12 and particularly as it relates
45:13 to some of our commercial storefronts,
45:16 sign pollution that some of these stores have is overwhelming.
45:19 I don't know how many super bright marijuana leaves
45:22 I can stare at at certain places,
45:24 and that's not a content-specific issue.
45:28 It's more so just uniformity,
45:32 so I'm sure we'll get into that.
45:34 I think that is one area that we need to,
45:36 our sign code right now does not really discuss
45:39 in great detail or regulate well,
45:42 like brightness, glare.
45:45 You have to, I think there's one line
45:48 in the sign design that talks about glare
45:52 and traffic visibility,
45:53 but you definitely could get as in the weeds
45:57 as we wanted to in terms of the lumens
46:00 and other things of how much they project out there,
46:04 and at the end of the day,
46:05 that also goes into the enforcement side,
46:07 which I hope we are getting better at
46:09 with our zoning inspector and things
46:10 about window coverage and things like that,
46:17 But that's, Mr. Chair, I think that's outside
46:20 of next steps, like I mentioned,
46:22 we have the next ZPAC meeting
46:24 that we're gonna be reviewing
46:25 the subdivision standards,
46:26 zoning procedures and definitions.
46:29 It's gonna happen in May.
46:30 It's the 19th of May is that meeting.
46:32 So my intention is to hopefully get a quick turn,
46:35 get on the docket for June at some point
46:38 to kind of go through the points
46:40 from the ZPAC meeting there,
46:42 and then hopefully I will be back on the docket
46:45 before the recess, probably end of July,
46:49 to walk through kind of our plan
46:51 for the review of the final zoning ordinances,
46:55 and that's intended to be kind of a rehash
46:59 of these steps of going through
47:01 and really kind of starting at district
47:04 and new standards, development,
47:06 building and science standards,
47:07 zoning procedures and definitions,
47:09 hopefully have about a month to a month and a half
47:13 with each step of working through those.
47:17 So because it is, we just wanna get it right,
47:21 and it's, and even for us,
47:23 the value of that final review is immense
47:26 because we've been moving through this
47:28 at a steady clip and a steady pace,
47:31 and it's impossible to get everything,
47:33 kind of your arms around everything,
47:36 and so it's very valuable that we're gonna go through this,
47:40 and like I was mentioning,
47:41 our intention is to try to do that
47:44 between Committee of the Whole
47:45 and Planning Commission at the same time
47:46 so that we're not doing the two-step process
47:49 with Planning Commission and then coming back to you all,
47:51 but you all can have the opportunity
47:54 to discuss it collectively at each step
47:56 and work through it
47:57 so that everyone is hopefully in a much better place
48:01 come November to move forward with this, so.
48:09 Thanks for walking us through this.
48:10 I'm very encouraged by this work, as I've said before,
48:15 I know it's been a long and detailed,
48:17 I wasn't even on council when this started, so.
48:19 That's how long this has been going on.
48:25 I certainly appreciate that,
48:28 taking those steps to make sure
48:30 that we can eliminate some of that kind of
48:33 just back and forth by making some simple rules
48:36 that, I mean, that'll be very efficient for everybody,
48:38 especially folks who are coming in here
48:40 before that body who,
48:41 a lot of them are not used to it at all.
48:44 I really like the prohibited building materials.
48:46 I'd love to see that in the signage section as well,
48:48 like LED strip light.
48:50 I mean, there's any number of things
48:51 we could do on that,
48:53 because simply, how many arguments
48:55 have we had with contractors,
48:57 and you can't use EFES, well, why not?
49:00 Because we said so.
49:02 No, it's actually prohibited in the code.
49:04 So that's like a really quick way
49:05 to start knocking things off the table,
49:07 so I appreciate that.
49:09 I know I have a gazillion questions about this
49:11 that are detailed, I'm not gonna get into it here.
49:14 I encourage my fellow council members
49:17 to go through this in detail
49:21 and do the same and follow up with planning,
49:23 but if there are any larger questions, comments,
49:26 Councilman Bullock.
49:29 I do appreciate this to the planning department.
49:31 Thanks for continually reporting back.
49:35 We have a couple of us on the committee,
49:37 on the council that are in the planning
49:40 and legal profession and do property
49:43 and real estate and design.
49:44 A lot of us don't, so I find it helpful.
49:48 One or two comments back to the sign thing
49:50 and then a process comment.
49:51 So on the signs, there's both the new
49:55 who are using casino-level cartoon-like
50:00 vivid colors and very bright lighting
50:05 and then having no screening at all
50:07 on their front windows
50:09 so that their whole store interior
50:11 essentially is functioning as a sign
50:14 and is typically vape stores that I'm thinking of.
50:20 So in effect that because there's no screening
50:25 under requirement, the interior is activated
50:28 as a billboard and that seems excessive.
50:33 And then on the flip side, you've got legacy stores,
50:35 beverage stores often who are using
50:38 the back of a vinyl sign to screen
50:42 the fact that they've got shelf of stock,
50:46 whether that's snacks or alcohol
50:49 and they're above the storefront,
50:55 what's the term, the maximum amount of signage
50:58 in windows that are allowed.
51:01 Now that definitely will have an impact
51:03 on those interior operations of those businesses
51:07 but they're supposed to figure that out
51:09 and I do think it's good if we're spending more time
51:13 on the enforcement side.
51:16 But the fundamental point,
51:17 the reason I'm bringing it up here
51:18 is that the rules for the frontage
51:24 that is approved by the ABR has a ripple effect
51:28 on all these issues that I'm talking about
51:30 and then of course it's in the hands
51:31 of the building department to chase.
51:36 But I do think, I mean I have gotten,
51:38 those are not hypotheticals,
51:39 those are real constituent complaints
51:42 and I've done some follow-up over the years
51:43 and probably should be doing more of it on that.
51:47 Now on the process, I doubt it's gonna be realistic
51:51 or desirable to do seven council members edit and amend
51:57 in whenever the final version of this final draft
52:01 is coming through and then much less with ABR
52:03 and planning commission here too.
52:06 And I also don't claim to wanna go through
52:11 every issue with a fine-tooth comb,
52:14 other council members might,
52:15 but I might be more like Councilman Striebig
52:17 who's got several key points that have come up
52:20 in our experience in the neighborhoods.
52:22 Garage is for sure one of them
52:24 and there could be some others.
52:25 So how do we work through that?
52:27 I mean ideally probably we identify
52:31 and get those somehow into the hands of the ZPAC
52:35 that ZPAC's expertise can give us a chance
52:39 at being successful with those things.
52:41 Just to make this efficient,
52:45 as chair of this committee,
52:46 if people want to get me their individual thoughts
52:49 and ideas where they have concerns
52:50 or they really wanna concentrate,
52:52 I can compile those and share them with planning.
52:54 That way we're not all hitting them
52:56 from all different directions.
52:57 So I'm happy to do that.
53:04 Councilman Bixenstein.
53:07 I want to echo Councilperson Hamilton-Steiner
53:10 and Council Vice President Baker
53:12 in appreciating that affordable housing
53:15 is a consideration through this process.
53:17 So thank you both for bringing that up.
53:19 I'm gonna ask a question that perhaps
53:22 is common knowledge to everybody else,
53:23 but it's not to me.
53:24 So I'm gonna ask with regards to signage,
53:27 sometimes I've noticed that temporary signage
53:30 on our commercial buildings
53:32 lingers sometimes becomes permanent signage.
53:36 And I was just curious insofar as
53:39 what rules are in place
53:40 and what's considered with this particular update
53:45 as far as limits to how long a temporary signage
53:50 That's another area, Councilman,
53:51 that needs clarification and more,
53:53 just putting it more in bold.
53:58 Temporary sign, our current code
54:01 has like one line that talks about temporary signage.
54:06 just through practice and experience,
54:08 you're basically referred to the building department
54:10 to get a temporary sign permit.
54:12 And it's on them for the,
54:14 and this tells you how it's in the code.
54:17 I can't even remember
54:18 how long each temporary sign permit lasts.
54:21 Is it like 90 days?
54:23 And you're supposed to go get another one.
54:25 I do know they were $15.
54:27 And there's nothing in the code
54:29 that applies any standards to temporary signage.
54:33 So through practice and experience,
54:35 we've basically come to the point of just saying that,
54:37 well, you have to meet the same standards
54:40 for your district for a permanent sign
54:43 for temporary signage.
54:45 But it's a point well taken.
54:47 It is trying to define where and when temporary signage
54:50 is appropriate for use, duration, the approval process.
54:55 A lot of times our code does not prescribe
54:58 an approval process for temporary signage.
55:00 And so you do end up with everything under the sun.
55:07 an area that we are actively working at getting better at,
55:10 the enforcement around temporary signage
55:14 was sporadic at best,
55:16 up through about the last six months ago.
55:19 And so, because it sits in that uncomfortable space
55:23 between planning and building
55:26 property maintenance and zoning.
55:28 And so it's like the, I don't know,
55:32 the ugly thing that nobody wants to touch.
55:34 So among many things, ugly things.
55:37 Thank you, I appreciate that consideration.
55:40 I think sometimes I'm probably overthinking it,
55:42 but psychologically sometimes,
55:44 until a storefront has a more permanent sign,
55:47 I have to wonder if their intention is to be permanent.
55:53 I'm sure, again, I'm overthinking it,
55:54 but I always appreciate
55:57 when there's permanent signage on our storefronts.
56:03 There's nothing more permanent than the temporary.
56:06 Any other comments?
56:08 Sorry if I've rushed everybody.
56:09 It's my wife's birthday today,
56:10 so I'm trying to spend a few minutes before.
56:13 All right, if there's no more business before the committee,
56:19 committee's adjourned.
56:20 Thank you to the planning department.
56:21 I really appreciate the update.
56:22 Looking forward to what's coming next.