I don't know.

So that's what she's doing.

But she's one of the years.

We'll start in just a moment.

If anyone is going to speak today and you haven't signed into the lectern yet, feel free to go ahead and do so and we'll be ready in just a couple minutes.

Good afternoon.

This is a regularly scheduled meeting of the Toledo City Plan Commission.

Ms.

Cotrell, will you please call the roll?

Emory Whittington.

Brandon Wakehoff.

Here.

Chris Ball?

Here.

Air Crossweather.

Mr.

Chair, you have a quorum.

Notice of this meeting was posted in the office of the Toledo Lucas County Plan Commissions in the Cork of Council's office and the lobby of one government center.

Copyright notices available for inspection interfiles if anyone will care to do so.

We have a procedure here at the Plan Commission that if you plan on speaking today, we must swear you in.

At the beginning of each case, I I will call the case and I will ask the applicant to step forward.

Anyone in the audience who wishes to comment on a case will have an opportunity of three minutes to do so.

And then after everyone has asked any questions, uh the applicant will have time for some closing remarks.

We do not.

A director's report.

I have a quick one.

I'd like to move to the end of the agenda.

Okay.

Do we have any final plats?

We do not.

We have one request for deferral.

I number five is case M423.

1103, 1104, 1107, 1116 relating to the downtown parking lot review and improvement advisory committee.

Surface parking lots in the downtown and warehouse districts.

The applicants requesting a deferral to the April agenda.

And we are the applicant on that case, correct?

Correct.

Basically the deploy act met and they deferred any action on their end, so we thought it would be appropriate for us to defer.

Okay.

Uh I'll accept a motion on that deferral.

We have a first and a second to uh defer case number five to the April agenda.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

If you were here today to talk about the park downtown parking lot improvement plan, uh we are not going to hear that case today.

Staff recommends approval for the following three reasons.

Vehicular ingress and egress to and from the site and circulation within the site provides for safe, efficient and convenient movement of traffic.

And the proposed plan provides for the safe, efficient and convenient movement of pedestrians on the subject site.

Staff further recommends approval, subject to 59 conditions which will be reflected in the minutes.

Mr.

Sutton, welcome back.

We we approved the northern part of this project a few months ago.

Tell us about this part of the project.

So we have been we have been uh doing the development work for them.

This will, as you can see, uh basically be it it's actually gonna be three lots.

It's gonna be three buildings uh eventually.

The two buildings that you see on the far south side, we're going to combine it into one, but for the purposes of today, it's the it's two buildings, and then we have an outlaw uh along Seacor, primarily for hopefully a future restaurant.

Excellent.

Okay, and there are uh 59, I believe, conditions of approval attached to the application.

I believe there's a few you want to discuss.

Do we do we want to go through those at this time?

We can.

They're primarily the same ones that we went through for Westgate North.

Um, there's a letter in your packet that we received yesterday.

Um I believe there are four items that you'd like to discuss.

Do we want to just go through those one by one?

Do you want to take us through the first one?

That'd be great.

So the first one is really changing the sidewalk widths from six feet to five feet so they'll match up with what we did at Westgate North.

That's the first one.

Um do we do want to do these one at a time?

Let's do them one at a time.

Okay.

And Lisa, remind me, that is what we did with the north part portion, right?

We did five feet sidewalks.

We did.

And so these sidewalks will tie in, they'll be the same size and shape as the sidewalks for the northern portion.

Correct.

Yep.

Okay.

Um, any uh questions or comments on that request.

I'll make a motion to to modify um item 36 to allow for the five feet sidewalks.

Is there a second?

We have a first and a second.

All those in favor of that modification say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Um the next one.

Number 38 is changing the setback or the requirements in the setback along Seacor Road for the number of trees that are required.

We are currently showing nine.

The city would like to have twelve.

Um what we're trying to show here is that we're really what we want to be careful of is screening for all the retail behind at Westgate North.

That's the primary concern, uh, especially Dix House's board and the others that are coming.

So with the with the nine trees, and actually you could count it as 11 if you if you count the end caps of each of those islands.

Um we know that we're very close, but we don't really want to put in any more trees because it's just gonna block visibility.

Okay.

Um this is your case, correct?

How do you feel about that request?

I I'm okay with that.

Um part of the 12 comes from the drive aisle, kind of on the opposite side of the chase bank there.

Um so I think without that, they probably go to ten.

I I'm okay with the waiver.

Okay.

Commissioners, any questions on that item?

Um, are we calling it are we call are we saying the plan has nine or ten trees showing, Alex?

What do you think?

It's it's showing uh nine the way I counted it.

Um I counted the two NCAP trees as part of the interior parking lot landscaping, which is the next thing we'll talk about.

Okay.

I'll make a motion to um modify item 38 to allow for nine trees instead of twelve.

Is there a second to that motion?

Profile or second.

We have a first and a second to approve that modification.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye, any opposed?

Okay.

Next one.

This is number 41.

This is primarily the number of trees that are required uh per code for this development of this size.

And I'm glad that Alex has got this brought up on the screen.

There's really no place to put any more here.

Um we've we have packed in as much as we can on all the various islands that we control.

We really just have no place else to put it.

I will have a caveat though.

Uh there's a the revision that I was mentioning that we're gonna come back in with with combining those two buildings into one.

I mentioned to Alex earlier that when we do that, we'll add some more landscaping behind that, which we currently don't show today.

So, but in the front, on the islands in the front, we really have no place else to put them.

Okay.

Um when I read this request, because it it appears that the site plan will change somewhat.

What I'd like to do is the my recommendation to the to the commissioners is that we leave item 41 subject to the final discretion of the plan director, and and Lisa will just be able she'll be able to work with you to arrange that landscaping based on the final plans and and approve a final design.

Um any thoughts on that?

I like it.

Yeah, that's perfectly acceptable to us too.

Okay.

I'll make a motion to add to item 41 that the final landscaping plan will be uh at the discretion of the plan director.

Oh second it.

All in favor say aye.

Aye aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

And so that this is the one I need you to explain to me a little bit more.

Okay.

Um this is number 51.

So Alex, can you go back to the site plan for just a second?

Okay.

This these are the wall surfaces that are primarily on the north end of the big building.

Um, and I guess you could add that it's the uh east side of the large building as well.

Uh long time ago, we came in, I think prior to I don't know, months ago, and we discussed doing precast here because we're doing precast everywhere else, and we knew that anywhere where it abutted a street that we wanted to have these four-foot bump outs.

And so we're prepared to do that, but it was the back of the building on the far north side that we don't think has village visibility from the street.

If you look, there's a hallmark building.

Alex, can you possibly point to that hallmark building?

On the red button.

Right there.

That's a Hallmark building that's already existing, single story.

We don't think yet the traffic signal and and with the landscaping that's already on the back side of this that anybody's gonna see any of the bump outs on that elevation at all.

And so that's why we wanted to keep it kind of consistent with what we've done on Westgate North as well.

Alex, what are your thoughts?

Uh you gave them a very similar waiver on the Westgate North portion.

Um, and I I do agree that most of that facade where it won't be uh bumped out uh will be blocked by the Hallmark building.

So and then you you're gonna have a line of landscaping on the rear side of that building too, the large building.

Correct.

Yes, yeah.

It's shown real small on this plan.

So what Alex, what exactly would be the the change or the modification of this item?

Are we just saying that with respect to those to those walls that they don't have to have the bump out requirement?

Yeah, the um with respect to the eastern facade of the anchor building, um they don't have to have the four-foot uh wall offset and would that also be the northern northern side too?

Uh I don't believe I put that requirement on the north side because it don't the the requirement only currently affects the east side of that building.

Yes.

Okay.

Commissioners, any thoughts on that issue?

I just one question.

Uh what is the purpose of the offsets?

Uh the purpose is to not just have a blank wall facing a street.

Um you know.

I hate to use the poll barn example because we always use it, but the poll barn example of just a flat wall facing a street.

You don't want to see that, especially in a large retail development.

You want that offset a little bit.

I don't know.

The thing is it I mean it it technically fronts C core, but it's it is set behind another building that already exists.

Currently, yeah.

Yes.

All right.

Um I don't have an issue with it.

I'll make I'll make a motion to approve the waiver for that um eastern wall of the the anchored building.

Uh is there a second?

We have a first and a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Any others?

That's it.

Okay.

A lot easier than last time.

A lot easier than last time.

All right.

Is there anything else you want to tell us about the project?

No, I suspect that uh you know we're gonna be in shortly with this minor revision to the site plan, and we'll go through with a release and Alex need us to to handle.

And the and the remainder of the 59 conditions are acceptable to you?

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Uh commissioners, any additional questions for the applicant?

Hearing none, I'll ask, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor of or opposed to this application?

And Alexander Oh, sir, please step forward.

Richard Williams, Chester?

Come on.

Come on all the way up.

Sorry.

It's really not a question or a comment.

It's really more uh I'd like to get a copy.

Is this okay?

Well, what's that?

I would I would just like to get a copy of everything we're discussing here today.

Is that possible?

I believe they're on the thing.

I can't read that, obviously.

On the table over there underneath the screen there are everything with everything we're discussing?

Yeah.

Okay, sorry, I got here late because of your parking situation.

So there's copies of each of the cases right over there.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Alex, any calls, emails, or other correspondence in advance of today's hearing?

Uh yes, I got three calls, all general inquiries.

Okay.

A lot of people asking about what tenants will be going in.

No.

We can't decide based on that.

All right.

Commissioners, any final questions for the applicant?

Any closing remarks, Mr.

Sutfin?

No.

No.

I I think everybody understands that this is going to be very harmonious to what we're doing at Westgate North.

Thank you.

At this time, I will accept a motion on the case SPR 25-0059 as we've amended it.

Paul will make a motion to approve as amended.

You'll second it.

We have a first and a second to approve the case.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That carries unanimously.

And I believe outside of the change you need to make, you are done.

You do not have to go to city council for this.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good luck to you.

Ms.

Catrell, can you read case number two into the record?

Item number two is case SUP 250041.

Special use permit for used auto sales at 631 South Reynolds Road.

Staff recommends approval for the following two reasons.

The proposed use complies with all applicable provisions of the zoning code, and the proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses in terms of scale, site design, and operating characteristics.

Staff further recommends approval subject to 22 conditions, which will be reflected in the minutes and not render the record unless there's a requested I do so.

Thank you.

This is the application for special use permit for used auto sales on Reynolds Road.

Is the applicant present?

Would you please step forward?

Hello there.

Can you give us your name and address, please?

Oh yes, my name is Devin Nichols.

Um if you could speak into the microphone, it otherwise we can't hear you that well.

Do you need the address for the location or my personal address?

Whichever one.

Okay.

Uh Devin Nichols, uh 631 North Reynolds Road.

And what was your name again?

Devin Nichols.

Devin.

Okay.

Sir, what's your name and address?

Will you please both raise your right hand?

Do you both swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth?

If so, say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Please tell us about your request.

So you want on what?

Like I don't talk in front of people.

I'm sorry.

Um so we have um a used car lot.

Um we're just looking to get our special use permit so we can start business.

We've been going through it for a little while now, so this is uh this is a former used car lot.

Yes.

And it's been sitting empty for some time.

Yeah, I think it's been it's been a little over a year.

Um a little over uh three years.

Three years.

Three years.

And you are applying today to get a permit so you can reopen a used car dealership at this location.

Uh the application has 22 conditions attached to it.

Have you had a chance to look at those?

Um I think that's what I just had opened up here.

Yeah.

Are those conditions all acceptable to you?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Um mind if I jump in for a second.

I believe the architect called me, or the engineer called me.

And he did have a problem with the ADA parking requirement.

Yes.

Um right now the uh condition does the calculation um for the number of ADA spots they need based on all spots shown on the site plan.

Um but the design professional would like it to just be for the customer and employee parking spaces, not for the display area.

Chris, I might defer to your expertise on this, but my thought is if it's a if it's an ADA requirement, do we really want to waive that?

I think it's an interpretation of the I'm fine with it.

Uh because you're not going to need ADA parking for display.

I mean it's just display, right?

Um the people that would be using the parking would be the employees or the whoever visited to purchase a car.

So I don't have a problem with that.

So the request would be to reduce that to what?

How many spaces?

To um they have to still tell me how many will be customer and how many will be employee.

Um so whatever that ends up being.

Um it won't be as many as required right now.

It will probably be one, maybe two.

Okay, so I guess the question is if we don't have that information, what do we put what do we make the condition of approval?

We just we change the condition to exclude the uh display area spaces.

Okay.

I would agree with that.

We will require ADA compliance spaces for all customer parking, excluding any of the displaced parking spaces.

Customer and employee parking.

Customer and employee parking.

Lisa, you got I would concur with that.

Yeah, okay.

That's a reasonable.

I'll move to modify condition one uh to allow the uh ADA calculation to be based off of customer and employee spaces and not the um display area at the parking lot.

Um is there a second to my motion?

Ball seconds.

We have a first and a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

That condition is modified.

It was there anything else, Alex, that you were aware of?

No.

Okay.

Umside of wanting to open a car dealership, is there anything else you want to tell us today?

No, I don't think so.

Okay.

Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in on this case?

And Alex, any calls, emails, or other correspondence in advance of today's hearing?

None.

Okay.

Um staff has recommended approval of this application, commissioners.

If there are no final questions, I'll accept a motion on this case, SUP 25-0041.

Motion to accept.

Ball seconds.

We have a first and a second to approve the application.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

That carries unanimously.

And you do go.

Lisa, this is an at this goes before city council, correct?

This does, uh, 318.

March 18.

March 18th at 4 o'clock.

In here.

Okay.

Thank you.

Good luck to you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Case number three, please.

Item number three is KZ26001.

Zone change from CR regional commercial to CM mixed commercial residential at 3360 and 3356 Monroe Street.

Staff recommends approval for the following reason.

We proposed zone change is consistent with the Ford Toledo plan, applicable neighborhood plans, and state of purpose of the zoning code.

Good afternoon.

Name and address, please.

Good afternoon, Kevin Roscoe, 3356 Monroe Street.

Mr.

Rasco, will you please raise your right hand?

Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth?

If so, say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Sir, tell us about your request.

Uh how's everybody today?

Uh I bought this property approximately six years ago, and I started putting my blueprint plans in from the design and professional to get everything taken care of.

And when I went to go apply for my occupancy, they let me know that I didn't have commercial residential use anymore, that I had lost it because I guess it hadn't been rented out in a year for residential.

So they told me that I had to get a zone change from if they went to commercial regional or regional commercial and I had to get it changed over.

Okay.

And what what is the plan for the building?

I know there's two buildings there, correct?

Correct.

And what do you want to do with the buildings?

Is it going to be a mixed use of residential and commercial?

Yes, it's commercial downstairs, residential upstairs, and then uh it's nine apartments and the rest is storefronts.

Excellent.

Um, any questions for the applicant?

Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this case?

Aleya, any calls, emails, or other correspondence in advance today's hearing?

We have not received any correspondence.

Sir.

I do have one question.

The city has been making me apply for three permits, um, 3366, 3360, and 3356.

So with this zone split or change, will it go back to those original three addresses and not just be the two addresses?

Because I only see the 3360 and 3356.

So it's two buildings, right?

It's three.

It's three buildings.

Yes.

Was the third building already zoned appropriately?

I I would do zone changes by legal description, not really by address, so it's included.

They're all included in the site.

All three buildings are included in the site.

They are that will not affect your permitting, unfortunately, or your addressing.

But all three are in this in this zone change.

Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that 3366 was going to be its own entity again.

That's all.

Yeah.

Okay.

If it I mean, if it makes them comfortable, we can add the reference to 3366 in the application.

I don't have a problem with that.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any final questions for the applicant?

If not, I'll accept a motion at this time on Z26-0001.

Motion to accept as modified.

Moving to move.

Second.

We have a first and a second to approve the application.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That carries unanimously.

Sir, you'll be back here on March 18th at 4 o'clock for city council.

Okay.

And good luck to you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Catrell, case number 4, please.

Item number 4 SUP 250046.

Special use permit for community recreation active.

At 2858 and 2860 LaGrange Street.

Staff recommends approval for the following two reasons.

The proposed use meets the stated purpose of the Ford Toledo plan and the zoning code.

And the proposed use is compatible with adjacent land uses.

Staff further recommends approval subject 29 conditions, which will be reflected in the minutes and not read into the record unless there is a request that I do so.

Thank you.

Sir, name and address, please.

Kevin Brown, 325 Superior Street, Rossford, Ohio.

Go ahead and raise your right hand.

Sorry.

Go ahead.

Do you swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth?

If so say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

And sir, you're the architect on the project, yes, I am.

Why don't you take us through the application?

So basically all we're doing here is uh it's an old um an older uh retail space that was previously used for a tax office.

My client wants to turn it into uh like an after school program.

So there's three storefronts involved with this, and I think we just need a special use permit because she's changing it to a project like that.

Is she gonna occupy the entire building or just one of the locations?

The whole thing.

The whole thing.

Okay.

And is it um is is it gonna be does she own it or is she leasing it?

I think she's leasing leasing it.

Okay.

There were there were a couple conditions that I looked at in this application that I was a little confused about.

Um item eight.

That we want to they want her to install a thousand gallon outdoor grease separated trap.

Is that she's not operating a restaurant, is she?

No.

Um so that uh comment came from environmental services, and I can reach out to them to double check about the intent of that condition and get that resolved for the planning and zoning committee.

That that condition just seems strange to me basically.

I absolutely did not see that in there.

I would have question it myself.

Um, you know, we were talking about putting a kitchen in there just for like you know, after school, you know, basic sense, but there's no reason to have a grease trap is if you're running a McDonald's, you know.

I I agree.

I I would let Dana work on getting feedback on that.

Okay.

And I might ask for that to be removed at some point in the future.

If there's no if there's no uh commercial kitchen in that building, that seems to be in a condition that doesn't fit this project.

Um there are 29 conditions of approval, 28 others than we just discussed.

Uh, were you comfortable with the rest of those conditions?

I was.

Um, you know, I saw their lot of related parking, bicycle parking, some landscaping fencing, so it standard stuff.

So I will advise my client what she needs to do with all that and we'll comply.

Yeah, and the challenge sometimes when we're leasing the property is just getting the owners input and commitment to make sure these changes happen as well.

Some of these might require the the assistance of the owner to actually happen and occur.

Um, I don't have any other questions.

Uh do you have any questions for the applicant?

I'll just note once again, Lisa, that um I always find that the uses that fall under this community recreation section are very odd to me.

And I think it's something we should look closely at when we do the zoning code rewrite.

Sure.

This this to me is not a recreate.

This is a this is an after school.

This is more of an educational type program than a recreational program.

So I would agree.

Um is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this case?

And Dana, any calls, other correspondence in advance today's hearing.

Just one general inquiry asking about the use, and they had no issue with the um intent.

Thank you.

All right.

At this time, I will accept a motion on case SUP 25-0046.

I will make a motion for approval.

We have a first and a second to approve the application.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

That carries unanimously, and sir, you'll be back here on March 18th at 4 o'clock before planning and zoning.

All right, thanks.

Thank you.

We have deferred case number five.

And so Lisa, can you can you read case number six into the record?

Commissioners, case number six is in your packets.

Number six is case M126.

Study of buildings of historical community importance and potential, long-term preservation strategies, including qualifying publicly owned buildings.

We've we've seen a similar version of this for privately owned buildings.

This is this will be the for the publicly owned.

Staff recommends the planning commission recommend to city council consideration of local designation of these properties and the creation of new programs to prevent severe deterioration of historic architectural and cultural significant properties throughout the city.

Thank you.

Bill were the applicant on this, correct?

City Council is the applicant.

Um so thank you.

Uh my name is Bill Harbard.

I uh associate planner for the Toledo Lucas County Plan Commission.

So uh as Ms.

Cattrell mentioned back in 2024, we did conduct a study on privately owned buildings that met the criteria outline.

As part of that study, also was a moratorium on the demolition of historic structures.

Um City Council extended that moratorium uh in 2026 to extend out to April 22nd, 2026.

Um reason for that extension was to allow us to complete our study to include publicly owned buildings.

So staff took the list from the 2024 list and combined it with the newly compiled 2026 list of publicly owned properties uh that met the criteria.

Um the 2024 list contained 358 data points.

The 2026 publicly list uh included 344 data points.

So when we combined that, we were just right around 700 data points.

Um I reduced that uh list by removing properties that were in overlay districts.

Uh the purpose of removing those properties that were in overlay districts was they currently had a demolition review process that was currently in place.

Um so the purpose of the study is to provide a secondary review process for uh prior to the demolition of historic properties that met these criteria.

Um that reduced list uh then came down to 139 total properties.

Um on exhibit A in your packet, that's on page 6-6.

Uh I provided some examples of what properties uh to be considered for local dis designation may look like.

Um exhibit B, located on 6-20.

That's a full list of the 139 properties.

Um I did find that all 139 properties met the study criteria and should be uh should be uh considered equally for the landmark designation.

Um I did find that the full list did so when we combined the private and the public together, I did find that the revised full list did contain a good mixture of schools, churches, fire station, banks, libraries, and other other privately and publicly owned buildings that includes some interesting landmarks such as uh the Benz Pool located at Savage Park and the Overland Smokestack uh there at the former Jeep site.

Um we felt that this uh gives a nice broad uh spectrum of buildings that could be uh carefully considered for local landmark designation.

Um staff did look at the study criteria as well uh as the location, age, condition, architectural historical, and cultural significance, in addition to the size of the structures.

That's how we compiled our list.

And I found that the list uh was a nice comprehensive list that they're all acceptable for landmark designation, as well as techniques uh that can assist with the long-term preservation, um programs such as facade improvement grants, historic preservation grants, and uh new programs such as historical roof programs or low interest loan programs can assist with the deterioration of these buildings uh until they can be preserved.

So be happy to answer any questions you guys may have concerning the study.

Thank you, Bill.

So these these buildings that are listed in this application, these are all publicly owned buildings?

No.

So um exhibit A is just a example of what locally designated properties could look like.

The exhibit B, which is 139 properties, uh that is the combined list that includes both publicly and privately owned buildings.

So understood.

So this application won't in itself designate these as landmarks or historic buildings.

It is it is just a study of buildings that could be designated in the future.

That's correct.

We're currently working with city council in order to put forth an RFP in order to have a consultant uh look at locally designating properties in small groups such as maybe 10 at a time.

So my question is with respect to privately owned properties.

Um if they're designated, how does that impact the property owner?

So local designation has no immediate effect on properties with the exception of uh it would then provide require a review process as part of look uh prior to demolition, okay.

Um City Council does per the municipal code, city council does have the ability to designate um any property in the city of Toledo publicly or privately owned.

Um so uh in terms of a review process outside of that improvements to the building, local designation really won't have any uh immediate uh impact on those properties.

So beyond demolition, does it add any barriers to like you know a a rehabilitation of a property or or alterations or modifications to a property?

It does not, no.

Um it's not like it is with an overlay district or anything of that nature.

It it does allow the property to qualify for state historic tax credits, though.

Yeah, I just you know, some of these properties that are on this list as examples, you know, like the zoo properties, for instance, they they're some of them are undergoing modifications or enhancements right now.

What I wouldn't want to do is create a barrier to improvement of property.

I understand the desire not to see them demolished, but uh I just want to understand that better.

Right, and I think that even properties such as uh the zoo properties specifically, the idea here is that we want to preserve these for not only this generation but future generations as well, and make sure that they're preserved.

Um and we're just trying to provide that additional review process in the event that they ever did fall into deterioration or neglect.

Um so that way uh the currently in terms of demolition processes and overlay districts, uh it is required that they be that a market study be provided.

So this will also allow for those to be marketed prior to any sort of demolition programs going forth.

Yeah.

Do you mind just because it's not um in this application stuff?

Do you mind just walking us through let's say one of these properties was designated and it came before uh it goes it would go to the historic district commission first for review if there was a demolition request, correct?

It would go to the city historic district commission, correct.

And then they will make a recommendation to the plan commission and then ultimately back to city council.

Okay.

And what are the um in making that determination, what are the factors they're supposed to look at?

In terms of local designation?

In terms of if if a property was locally designated, I know that when we've had demolition cases before, there are certain standards that need to be looked at or adhered to in deciding whether to recommend that demolition.

Can you just refresh us on what those standards are?

In terms of demolition processes, um, typically they look at those in terms of a feasibility study.

Um does this property make sense in order to rehab.

If I put in a hundred thousand dollars, is it going to be worth only sixty thousand after I I put in money?

Um what is the has it been marketed?

So we look at it a lot over a lot of broad areas, um, and we require the applicants to provide a lot of different information to ensure us that there is no other avenue prior to demolition taking place.

So I that has to do with with market study, um marketing the property specifically, and then ultimately um essentially to make a determination that there are no other options except demolition that are financially feasible.

That's correct, yeah.

And we see that sometimes in the historic districts where a property has been neglected for significant amount of time, water intrusions really taken a taking hold of a property, and the roofs and the walls have started caving in.

Um it doesn't really make sense in order to completely rebuild a structure such as that where it may be a little bit too far gone.

What we're looking to do is we're we're still working towards a demolition by neglect policy as well.

So we're we're proactively looking to try to head off some of those bigger issues that have been proven to be very deteriorating to these six store structures.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions?

Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this case?

And Bill, did you get any calls, emails, or other correspondence in advance today's hearing?

I did not.

Thank you.

At this time, I will accept a motion on case M1-26.

Well, we'll make a motion for approval.

We have a first and a second to approve the application.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye, any opposed?

That carries unanimously.

Uh Ms.

Cattrell, uh, director's report.

I just have three quick things.

We do have a special hearing on February 25th after the county hearing.

Uh we have an economic development project coming in that we wanted to get approval through pretty quickly.

Uh zoning code rewrite the bids have closed.

The same six candidates we had before applied again.

Uh we've look at them, we're gonna start scoring them next week.

Uh the top two we'll bring in for interviews, but we're gonna move pretty quickly on that.

Um then the last thing just in the back there, I wanted to maybe commend our two planning technicians for doing really a super job the last couple of months.

Luke and Becca back there.

Um seriously, they deserve it.

They're they're processing about 1200 cases themselves a year, permits and fence permits and things, and and they deserve it.

So I wanted to just give them a quick a quick uh kudos.

So that's that.

Thank you both.

Yep.

Um, so if you're able to join us uh on the 20s of the 25th?

Yes, that's just right after the county hearing.

There's only one case on county, should be two minutes tops for that report syndicate.

Uh Wednesday, February 25th, 9 a.m.

Here.

Here.

Okay.

All right.

If there's nothing else, anything else, Commissioners?

We're adjourned.

Thank you, everybody.