well good evening everyone welcome to twenty thirteen here in city hall our first meeting of the year we're glad that you are in attendance in chambers or watching at home or on some electronic device somewhere we have to first call led tonight by our colleague brian birch and mediately their following we will have the pledge of allegiance to the flag i would invite everyone to stand in us in these items our heads with their lord we pray that this new year will bring us closer to you we pray you may take the time to get to know you help us to truly celebrate the gifts you graciously given us and use them to serve you and spread your word to love another person is to see your face we see and love you with all the people we meet so that in turn they can see you with us we know that all human relationships take time and there to grow in deep and this is also true of our relations with you the father in the holy spirit which must grow over the course of our lives in this new year but it's realize that every action of ours no matter how great or small enables us to be in touch with you let us accept you in our lives in a way that pleases you as truth to be spoken as a life to be lived as light to be lighted as love to be followed as joy to be given is peace to be spread about and a sacrifice to be offered among our relatives friends neighbors and all people i pledge allegiance to the there are copies of tonight's agenda located in the rack in the rear of the room additionally if you have a computer or a laptop or i pad or i phone for that matter you may go to the city's website and find not only a copy of the agenda for tonight but also a copy of the materials that council has reviewed in preparation for tonight's meeting that information typically is on the website usually the friday before our meetings so you can see what it is we're looking at as we are getting ready for these meetings every other week every week with study sessions when you look at the general you'll find that there are certain items that have an asterisk next to them and these are the consent agenda items we believe that these are somewhat routine and we've discussed them before our intention is to handle them all at one time with one motion and one vote regardless of where they show up on the agenda now if someone thinks that perhaps it's not quite so routine there will be the opportunity after we have a listing of what is on the consent agenda for a member of the audience to come forward and remove an item where members of council can also remove items from the consent agenda but before we get to that process we would like to read for us what is presently on tonight's consent agenda to approve the minutes of the close session minutes held december and regular session minutes held the summer nineteenth two thousand and twelve item six to approve the absence of council member at large  import a one to approve the filing date extension for the how on board of public works budget from february fifteenth two thousand and thirteen to march fifteenth two thousand and thirteen i had important to to approve a two point six two percent increase for the schedule of water and sewer charges and assessments effective in calendar year of two thousand and thirteen fourteen a three to approve the re state for the conservation programs manager position as communications and customer programs manager with a pay grade increase from a v p nine to a five and a communications specialist position to customer communications specialist with a decreased pay from a b p seven to a b p six as indicated in the report i am fourteen b one thousand nine hundred eighty two except in place on first reading of ordinance tax amendments to section thirty nine dash one ninety eight presidential infill regulations and to create a new section thirty nine x one eighty eight central park neighborhood special exception of item fourteen d two to adopt and improve the c c resolution for the transfer of location  small winemakers license for warner been years twenty six east eighth street item fourteen three to approve an adopt a resolution for the liquor control commission on a transfer of ownership of a two thousand and twelve class c license for blue star in the prices at four thirty west seventeenth street i know fourteen eat three point one two award the bid for mechanical maintenance services for various city buildings to allied mechanical services  inc rates and parts markup as described in report and that the mayor and deputy city clerk be authorized to sign a contract subject to approval as to form by the city attorney i don't fourteen in three point two to approve the inspection and preventive maintenance service contract the county for various city own facilities at a rate of thirty dollars and seventy nine cents to sixty four dollars and eighty five cents per hour i'm fourteen you three point three two except the november two thousand and twelve monthly financial reports as presented and i had imported five point two to approve the send to the principal shopping district board for a term of january you want two thousand and thirteen through december thirty one two thousand and sixte ok that's what's presently on the consent agenda would anyone care to remove an item from  any bill circle on the attorney for central park chapel of a number of homeowners in the central park neighborhood we request that item agenda fourteen be one regarding the text amendments be removed from the consent of john of this evening ok will do that it will also take off nineteen a as well which is corresponding to that anyone else care to remove an item from consent and a member of council wish to remove an item from consent or multiple items  the agenda for this evening so for example hypothetically if you are to discuss the central park chapel situation that will be coming up later on the agenda so this is not the time to discuss that but anything that is on anyone's mind is not on the agenda here is your chance rules  are pretty simple we just ask that you step forward the microphone so everyone in the room and at home can hear you state your name and residential address for the record and council rules i met up to five minutes to address come to the microphone   right seeing no one we will then move on to fourteen b one which is the plan report from the planning commission first reading for zoning ordinance text amendments regarding central park in phil and i would normally turn to greg to introduce this but since he's not here ryan we will turn to you and i suspect mark will be coming up very shortly yes i'd like to have mark attend come to the podium and speak to history behind this subject and also  answer questions related to the age of the facilities that are near the church and speak to the resolution as to your suggestion for first reading tonight very good this past  june the planning commission was approached by several residents from the central park neighborhood and residents were asking the planning commission for some  relief well relief in these residents eyes to some operational type things and other items that were happening at the central park chapel  planning commission and in the residents embarked at the beginning of june and went over the entire summer and throughout the fall period discussing issues that were relevant to the central park neighborhood quite quickly people from a central park chapel became involved in it was a good session give give and take in regard really kind of in regards to some of the future of the central park neighborhood and and what may be best in one person's eyes or in other people's eyes for the continuation and nurturing of of that the list of building uses that are that would require a residential infill review under section thirty nine dash one ninety eight of our zoning ordinance and just for a real quick primer on that one that that is an an existing section in the zoning ordinance that really is kind of concerned with building scale issues architectural issues really kind of how the building in the in the characters of buildings fit into established neighborhoods so if that's an existing section of the ordinance so new nonresidential buildings as well as additions to residential buildings that are within the central park neighborhood area and in that area is defined on the map in front of you and the south part of that area is drive and obviously the north part  of governed by zoning board of appeals and that new section would apply to both residential and nonresidential new buildings and  two existing buildings that that in essence get that building to over twenty five hundred square feet in size and that number was kind of picked by the planning commission  based on an evaluation of of the many property sizes that are in this neighborhood as well as the actual building square footage is and so forth in this neighborhood and was deemed to be a good threshold at which say if you're going to have a new home and it's underneath that area area it would not require a special exception it would require a residential infill however but to go over that it was deemed that size of a building is large enough that other neighbors in the area should have a have an additional say so to voice whatever concerns or comments that they may have in that process so that special exception process by no means whatsoever says that any buildings over that threshold cannot be ultimately be approved but what it does is it just provides another it provides another step in the process to allow people in that neighborhood to become a part of the decision making process so that really kind of in  essence is the are the two proposals in front of you tonight we've had a chance to review this more in depth there in your study session back in  december i know there were lots of questions in regards to some of the specifics at that time i know also a lot of that meeting and we referred to this that you're at your study session just an hour or so ago we provided you with additional information on the actual age of the buildings in that neighborhood now the deeper purple buildings here just to kind of give you a flavor of the age of the homes in this neighborhood the deeper purple ones are any structure that was built from the one nine hundred seventy on word you know that we can use  so that's these buildings and they're primarily probably tear downs that occurred along lake mack and so those are some new homes that went in there   so most of the homes just going to eyeballing it most of the homes here or were definitely pre world war two and actually pre depression  while going through that neighborhood you can see that there's obviously been a lot of improvements to the homes there's probably been a lot of new siding new windows and in additions have been put on such that you may say well that some of these homes may not look like historical buildings you'll find in a in one of our historical districts needless to say they are quite old  homes and some of them probably retain the historical features more than others but just sufis that to say that it is it is to be historical neighborhood  i could go on and on but i trust that respond to some comments here if you if you do have any questions for the questions for me thank you mark are there questions from counsel to mark or staff generally mike place just mark since we've got a couple of weeks before the final vote would you make sure that we get this somehow for electronic like it was not in the mail is not part of the package so we certainly wish you would make sure that please thank you other questions for staff all right we certainly want to give public an opportunity comment on this one since i know that that's probably what most of the folks in the room are here to talk about so if you'd like to comment on this particular item against simple rules of council for up to five minutes name in residential address for the record please and be sure to talk at the microphone so everyone can hear you the microphone is open concern and that is similar to the comments that were raised at the study session last time the primary concern among those that i represent is that this is really an ordinance that addresses a problem that does not exist i think if we look at the ordinance as mark indicated it really tries to accomplish two things first and nonresidential properties to the list of those that are subject to the infill requirements and in so doing attempts to limit any expansion of buildings by non residential property owners within the district if we look historically at what's gone on there there has not been a problem with buildings expanding in the neighborhood neither the chapel nor the law office or the hotel that's in the area have undergone any significant expansions the chapel did undergo a small expansion a number of years ago they had some bathroom facilities and a changing facility but not an effort to increase the capacity of the chapel in any way more along the lines of just being able to accommodate those people who are already in attendance so there is not been a demonstrated problem with building expansion residential property owners within the district the other the other thing that the ordinance attempts to do is to add this new special exception requirement to both residential and nonresidential property  owners the residential property owners that are there are already subject to infill regulations and when i talk to the people that i represent who are residential property owners in the area their concern is that they're now having to jump through a new set of requirements and the question they asked me is why their requirements that have been in place for the last several years seem to be working there have not been any problems with those there is no other residential district in the city that they're trying to impose these restrictions on so what is it that's unique about this district that we need some additional restrictions on residential property so that's a concern and i think before we jump jump to the conclusion that that's necessary there should be a discussion about what are we trying to accomplish and what ancillary effects are there from this the other thing i want to raise just briefly and that's in response to a question that was raised last time i believe by councilman for throughway he was asking about the seventy five hundred square foot lot requirement that had been in a previous version of the ordinance and why that had been dropped and i know there had been some discussion about that from the chapel standpoint their primary concern on that issue was that that requirement would make the chapel and non conforming property and that's a concern because if they want to make any changes to the property it becomes very difficult from a zoning perspective once it's non conforming so to not do that to not make it virtually impossible to do any expansion that we had asked the peps board of the part of the order to be removed the chapel lot currently has roughly five thousand square feet i believe so if you say that any any lots must be i'm sorry it's over seventy five hundred square feet i believe it's ten thousand square feet so if you set seventy five hundred square feet as the minimum it's already over that if they come in to add a request for like a small canopy or something like that that would be virtually impossible so that's the concern that would apply to the other property owners as well both the law office and the hotel that are there suddenly would be making those properties non conforming and that was the problem if you recall the discussion we had here a few weeks ago with the m forty situation we had some properties that were non conforming that made it very difficult for them to do any building expansion and we try to find a work around so so that we have a way that situation we were police at the seventy five hundred square foot requirement was removed the last thing i want to mention just just briefly is it just give you a little bit of background on the chapel and what goes on there i know last time there was some questions that were asked about that the chapel has sunday services that begin the sunday before the fourth of july and labor day weekend depending on the calendar year that works out to be about nine or ten services per year for sunday services they have a morning service and an evening service so that could be eighteen to twenty services per year and then in addition they do have weddings that take place there and on average has been between ten and twelve weddings per year so if you take the twenty sunday services in and the twelve weddings you have thirty two events that would take place there and twenty two days so twenty two out of three hundred sixty five days are to be something going on at the chapel just in terms of use issue at a typical service sunday morning service and let me back up the chapel has inside seating fixed pews seating for roughly two hundred people in addition for morning services only they set out chairs on the outside of the chapel building on some concrete aprons typical sunday morning service would have anywhere from two hundred to two hundred fifty people attending there might be as many as three hundred chairs set out but a lot of the number of those chairs would not be filled but the average attendance would be two hundred to two hundred fifty people there is one sunday morning per year where that number changes and that is when the reverend jim brown preaches that is usually also the last sunday of the year labor day weekend so that adds some additional pressure at that service they may set up as many as four hundred or four hundred fifty chairs but on average they would get between three hundred and three hundred fifty people attending for the tim brown service and that is the busiest sunday of the year for sunday evening services there are no chairs set up outside all  seating is inside on sunday evenings they average somewhere between seventy five to one hundred guests on a sunday evening so roughly half of the capacity about thirty seconds ok and then weddings they do not allow any outdoor seating for weddings that at one point they did do that but for the past several years they have not so all weddings said inside and so the weddings are limited to a maximum of two hundred people now thank you thank you very much microphone is still  supporting area residents appreciate the efforts john by the planning commission to bring the amended infill proposals for the central park neighborhood which were recommended on eleven twenty seven twelve to this level and also for the city's our words to maintain its neighborhoods we as homeowners and supporting residents feel that these amended proposals which now include residential structures should be adopted this would provide some extra protection for homeowners though minimal from overbuilding in adversely affecting this current neighborhood these comments are also important to repeat it's also felt that these proposals though compromise would be compromised without the square foot criteria for n residential structures as well so we are asking the council to reconsider the seventy five hundred square foot thirty percent maximum coverage guideline for the nan residences currently in full guidelines exist homeowners in this area and your original info regulation was adopted into two thousand and seven to prevent the it's these guidelines are for the homes only and do not include the non residential structures so what it doesn't do even though it's protecting the homeowners from incompatible you know design and architecture and style it doesn't protect them from when buildings are sold rebuilt is newer expanding this would be the non residential structures so these proposals would add nine residences to this ordinance and provide just better guidelines it also provides a special exception  process which would allow the area to comment to view public lands and to make comments on them the city has stated in their own until ordinance two thousand and seven that it can make changes and amend necessary by many in the current ordinance to include all structures it would apply to everyone it would allow for balance to the area and all neighboring structures it would allow for transparency so that building plans would be a public record and available for comments it would include a special exception process for formal review to also include non residences it would allow for consistency when executives or board changes guidelines would provide direction for rebuilding or expanding and it would allow for  enjoyment property for everyone in a balanced way in summary we're asking the city council to approve the amended infill proposals and consider the square foot component for residences for additional concerns perhaps a separate process or ordinance could be implemented that would address teardowns vacant residential and conversion to other use and so rebuilding strategies these could provide additional tax revenue and provide more economic stability to the area we're asking you to plan today and to look for the future lastly i'd like to make some comments regarding bill says sickles comments so that the chapel would become non conforming as a result of these ordinances were passed it is my understanding that the chapel is already a non conforming building both in structure and function secondly regarding the summer services which shirt are held from for the ten to eleven sundays twice a day he quoted the attendance at being two fifty two hundred two hundred fifty they had is totally incorrect and we have to validate it with pictures it is greater than four hundred forty people when both aprons are used and additional tents have been set so we do have concerns about expansion we're not saying that services can't be held we're not saying that chapel can't rebuild right now with it non conforming the windows are screens so it's basically an open air chapel thank you for allowing me to speak thank you for the non conforming issue i think the structure i know that there was there used to be some aprons and i'm looking at the city attorney aprons one was taken down on the north side of the chapel and that was a non conforming i think side yard encroachments or something like that i know that was not allowed to be rebuilt on the use question though in our one a microphone it still opens want to clear up that the question on the non conforming or try to clear it up maybe made it a bit more confusing good evening and welcome good evening my name is said and i live at twelve thirty two beach drive in central park  i support the infill guidelines that we have and i would also like to think the planning commission or what they propose i an area residents in the designated area support the amended info proposal and a new special exception proposal we also appreciate the work done by the planning commission and for making these recommendations to the city council there are twenty one supporters for these proposals the signatures can be name and address verified i and chris munson and if they have this pronounce of names i apologize though they couldn't be here they support the proposals love the neighborhood and want to have guidelines apply to all structures to preserve the neighborhood we also feel that the city council should place a priority on input from infield area residents first comments from nine residents there were i believe the chapel submitted the properties which are in feel we ask that you keep this in mind when placing weight on petitions and thank you for allowing me to speak now if you go back to your picket and you look at the number of chairs placed outside and you will see easily the total exceeds four hundred people and all she had to do is go and count the cars too and you'll see what the number of attendees are thank you for listening to me ok thank you live at five seventy bay ave i'd like to thank the commission for putting all the work into this and i'd also like to thank the city commission for listening to it i do support the info regulation and i also do support the amendment i have a lot of concerns about the fact that it because of the fact that i have seen the motel go on the market several times go up and down on the market i really don't want to have it although i love i really don't want to have i really do want to have some limitation in a residential neighborhood as far as what does go and it's nice having nathan in the loft on the corner there at central park law it's a beautiful spot i remember several years ago and mayor mckeon was still mayor he called that area community a cottage corners and a lot of the residents several of them mr sickles clients have adopted that as well for using and use it for the guard for yard sales and garage sales and at the time my understanding from in speaking with nathan about it later on is that that was for a commercial entity so to me the fact that the mayor the previous mayor called that area commercial corners caught its corners excuse me and yet it was also and i think there was also some of the funding for the commercial entities in the neighborhood to be more incorporated as cottagey for that feel and like i said a lot of the residents have adopted it it is a great neighborhood to be and we have people driving in from outside of the area to walk their dogs in the neighborhood so you know it's a great area to be and i guess i would appreciate it if you would take this seriously and look at it from all aspects and  the microphone remains open all right we shall then close public comment on this and counsel it is time for a motion please golly that's a hard question to answer the floor is yours i would just add that i recall that it was not that long ago a few years ago i think when we were dealing with similar in feel regulations and and discussions about the nature and character of this neighborhood i think it's obvious would be obvious to anyone even a casual observer that there is a unique quality to this neighborhood that's sort of part from most other neighborhoods that i'm aware of in this city and i've been here for quite a while as long as you guys but long enough to know that there's something unique about this area that needs to be preserved  i've gathered and i've heard number of points of view on this from both sides it seems to me that what the planning commission is recommending  accomplishes that it preserves style size of buildings both residential and commercial i think it provides opportunities for if something should arise in the future that might be out of the norm it provides vehicles for those things to be considered a case by case basis so as best as i can determine looking at this it seems to be a good a pretty good plan for this area so barring any other convincing argument to the contrary be supporting  and who would like  is there anything being proposed in this ordinance that would prevent the chapel programming from going forward as it does today  i think not so i guess i'm struggling with what is exactly the argument what is the reason why the church chapel folks and some other residents  i have a hard time with this i don't get where the where the issue seems larger like it's their stand the chapels their understand that there's there must be some pretty working relationship going on there because we talked about twenty services plus ten to twelve weddings it's only in about a two or three month period of time but it's in the heart of summer when everybody's living there and that's it's like saying we're going to let it shopping during the christmas holidays i mean that's when people want to live there and have the ability to appreciate that area i guess i don't see i agree with hooked with dave i think that this is a very very unique neighborhood i think the church has some deep roots there and it's a great thing the neighborhood must be supportive of that kind of programming because i have been there and i know that the cars and the infringement that takes place on sundays for people to come not so much from the neighborhood but from all all all over the place to appreciate that church and that's an important part of the neighborhood too but  i don't see anything that the planning commission has put forth here that that doesn't mean that it isn't a pretty reasonable thing for the long term of that neighborhood because i do think it is unique and i do think it was on the plan commission in two thousand and seven when we dealt with this the first time and i think this is a logical next step and say that absent any other argument i think this is pretty reasonable way to proceed you know it's a you make a reasonable point i think i can't speak for the chapel or or or any given homeowner in that area but if i if i take a step from that you know maybe that the question of you know answering the question of what's the big deal you know if i tend to lean this way when i think about property owners rights and what may be here's what i see i see a map here that has by my estimation three commercial properties in the whole neighborhood there's three  so adding layers on there doesn't seem to be a purpose here what i hear is that there's a bit of frustration with some neighbors with a chapel i don't think this address that i think this addresses what quite frankly addresses three specific parcels and adding a layer of bureaucracy on to their process when the owner of that property might have a vision to do something with that property and i'm not so certain that what we don't have a place already  handles that and then i also look at a map and you know if we're talking about unique pressures the migration pattern on this map has had no movement since two thousand and four in eight years there's been no expansion or no building to speak of and so you know i i understand your point i really do and i think as i look at this though and having watched this process from the zoning board side of things as well i think this one comes to us in a really unique way and it's not to discount the planning commission or mark's work one bed it's solid work i just think it's you know i have a tendency to believe that the the problem is almost nonexistent so  i don't see myself supporting and i would i would dare say if we look at this map we might want to consider what those pressures are if it's it's not just a little bit of a contentious matter with a couple  merrett let me make sure counsel is aware of the fact that i mean tonight you're only place in the sun for first reading and that you would have your public hearing at the next meeting will where what is typical of course is that this first reading is often a sort of our formality to get to the public hearing at least get additional public comment and i so i wanted to make sure we were making a motion to approve or not approving this ordinance tonight all we're doing is setting up for the first reading right like your next fully understood and b and the problem being is we don't have a meeting next week where i think we should have some more discussion if we have the meeting we had a great discussion a couple three weeks ago and this is our time so that there's not any surprises in two weeks i believe in the end you're absolutely right we don't need to drag this out tonight and drag it out in two  weeks you and i tend to see eye to eye specifically an awful lot in the personal property rights and there are some things i can't argue with you on i'm going to take a little bit a different twist on it i  think you're not seeing much movement in the core of this because the neighborhood is congealed and said we've had enough dave is absolutely right this is our second go around are we talking three typical commercial properties no they're not typical in any way shape or form mr cicle chose his words very carefully earlier saying that the not an issue i believe there is an issue and that's why it's before us again in a short period of time there may not be any media needs to change these commercials areas there on the fringe all we have to do is look on the other side of east end there with a condo project that used to also be small residential homes the potential if we don't guard this neighborhood is the neighbors are asking us to is that same  thing and i just just so i heard it correctly you just nod yes or no and i'm directing this at mr sickle for those i can't see do i understand that the church services are specifically between july fourth and labor  day so roughly and he is answer was the sunday before july for up to labor day so we're looking at roughly a sixty day window dave had a very very valid point there and i guess if i might digress just a little bit mark i'm going to get you to challenge one more thing on here if we know full time residents versus summer of these parcels if there's any way we can figure that out i think that may help just a little bit if you wouldn't mind doing that along with the make sure that we get that other for those following along at home mark and it's absurd that we'd check the tax records for homestead questions or not  you know if i had a if i owned a piece of property out there during the heart of the summer and i had thirty two different time frames taken away from me in a sixty day period specifically on the weekend  know most of the and i'm going to venture a guess here and if i'm wrong i stand corrected most of these cottages are probably weekend maybe a couple of weeks during the summer and i'm hoping to get some explanation to whether i've got some balance some the ladies in my statement there and i'll wait for that to come but if i owned a piece of property out there and i had a good portion of my summer taken away because of the events and i don't think anybody saying that the church shouldn't be there it's and i set up a couple weeks ago i think this is a fantastic problem to have is that we have such a successful church in an area there that  we've got all these people coming in and that's a wonderful absolutely wonderful problem to have there's a lot of churches around here that would love to do that i'm going to cut this short and just simply say as i did a couple of weeks ago five years ago as dave said we went in we discuss this and now it's coming back again so obviously we didn't do a good enough job first that we need to look at this and make sure we do it right this time the neighbors are asking us to preserve their neighborhood it is a very very unique there is not another neighborhood like this in the city they're finally saying enough is enough we put up with coin the term somebody else did the mcmansion along the water taking down a couple of cottages and putting bigger ones up but i believe the neighborhood is coming together they're saying listen let's preserve what we have let's keep what we've got left let's not let a road any further so hopefully we can have a little bit more discussion in a couple of weeks we are just doing this on first reading tonight so any other comments i'd be looking forward to e mails everybody's got the e mail supporting whichever way you want to go i'm looking just like whatever your neighborhood is you want to protect your neighborhood to be the very best neighborhood that it can possibly be in the city we're looking for neighborhoods with leadership i think this is areas demonstrating that central park is a special neighborhoods got a rich history change or change always comes in i think what they're trying to do is is just trying to slow that down a little bit and giving some responsible stops to slow it down a little bit and yet give those who want to make changes a vehicle a way that they can make those changes as well and it seems like a very responsible an ordinance to protect this  neighborhood and i'd like to see two thousand and thirteen become the year of the neighborhood because i think that's what we're really doing we're dealing with a lot of neighborhood issues and if we can fortify this one and fortify others get leadership in there have people really care i think that's exactly what we want anyone else bryant played i'll jump and i when this came up i'm planning commission i had some very strong words to say and i will not repeat them this time but i echo the point is i don't see what this does to change anything at all and the comments we've heard tonight are that the problems may the problems come with the programming of the church in which none of the staff changes any of that so i don't know what we'll see again in another five years but i i mean aside from people trying to shut the church down i don't i really don't see this change to be in any way a resolution of that unfortunately and therefore i just don't see the point you know have nit pick with the buildings the size the setbacks and whatnot it doesn't change the people in the popularity of the institution and therefore it's not going to change the programming or the number of cars the chairs or any of that i just i don't i don't see the point which is located at section thirty nine dash ninety five of the ordinances and it talks about that it basically it's a neighborhood commercial zone you know there was public comment some discussion about the you know the idea of a food restaurant coming into the spot that would not be in all most likelihood a permitted use in a c one district if you look at some of the permitted uses c one interesting lee one of that is specifically excluded from being a permitted use is a motel hotel or trailer park so already we've got one non conforming use in there but the idea you know and also there's a thirty five height thirty five foot height restriction you know see one so you know we're not going to see a major structure going into that space and of the existing ordinances which is also supported by the existing master plan which gives it even additional protection so you know i can echo some of the things that brian said that the complaints that seem to drive most of this discussion here tonight at the planning commission before were used issues related to the chapel and i asked the question of the planning commission does this addressed any of those issues whether parking whether it's size of service whether it's those kinds of things and the answer was uniformly no to those questions so i you know should we continue to work on some of those neighborliness issues absolutely and ryan did so last spring and i suspect they'll be more work to be done to be done in the future but i'm not sure what this does to address any of that so first reading an no motion passes five yes three no right so it goes on for second reading in two weeks there be a public hearing scheduled at that time as well ok thank you everyone for being here on this issue tonight you're certainly invited to stay if you'd like to leave that we don't understand that also then we move on to i believe all the way down to some gifts fourteen point one the city manager's office is pleased to report the following gifts to the city parks recreation and transportation department received donations totally one hundred thirty dollars the digraph nature center public program expenses and adopt a sugar maple events committee of the high act secured six hundred dollars in donations for the two hundred two thousand and thirteen event called the mixer to raise awareness of the issue of youth homelessness in the  from five hundred dollars and russ is about how enough one hundred dollars it is recommended that the said donations be accepted with appreciation and an expression of gratitude be forwarded to the what is the pleasure of counsel motion  with appreciate their support in nancy's absence supported by white men is there any discussion of one comment this is the third year in a row where frank cry has made a sizable donation toward the end of the year  and it is no secret that frank has been a major supporter not only of holland but in particular he has been a financial supporter of outdoor ice facilities and he knows that we're not in a position at the moment to engage in that sort of thing like some of our neighboring communities have at least not in a refrigerated sense but frank continues to hope and dream that at some point will be there and has reminded us reminded us of that in his letter to us and this year he would like us to find a way to use his donation for programs that affect our items that affect the youth and i have communicated with frank through a letter that hopefully went out today that i've got a few ideas where we might be able to use that money and i want to get his input what that might be so thanks frank thanks to all of our donors very generous of them all we have motion we have support all in favor please say i pose the same that passes  then at least on our action items tonight finally we have fourteen five point three the community energy strategy why don't we just quickly handle this since i believe our intention is to table it this evening until our next meeting so the briefest of introductions might be appropriate at this time please thank you mary yes we have one individual who's been responsible partly responsible for those whose ill tonight cannot be here and there's also some ministry of details but for the communities benefit  just a reminder that council adopted a resolution pertaining to the community strategies in july that led to the formation of citizen based task forces in september one of those task forces is community energy education and outreach that task force team has met a number of times you approve the report and establish a budget for their planning purposes in november they would like to use four thousand dollars of that twenty thousand dollars budget for the purpose of establishing a an objective community energy website that builds off of successes in the past and creates new opportunities for hopefully students both  and hope college students to participate and gain learning experience as well as its future knowledge so however given that there are some details still being worked out as i mentioned we respectfully request that you table this tonight that motion was made by birch supported by two or three tabling motions can have no discussion so all in favor of tabling please say i oppose the same the matter is tabled until our next meeting that takes us down to communications from the city manager out in fifteen tonight mr mayor one is to make sure that everyone puts on a calendar the council coffee with this year the board of public works as well and that saturday january nineteenth that's in this room at nine a facial action tonight with motion then that meeting would not be held given no agenda items ok the city attorney is not in telling we should actually take official reason as we we notice all all in favor please say i was the same that meeting study session is cancelled for next week communique that's all right ok great communication from me this evening only wishing everyone a happy new year and as ryan alluded to  it's seemingly crazy in that we're not even halfway through our fiscal year but this is the time of year when we begin talking about the twenty fourteen fiscal budget and and ryan mentioned the coffee with council which happens later this month that then leads shortly thereafter into a council retreat and then staff hunkers down and begins budgeting in earnest and then we look at this shortly after spring break so right around the early part of april this is the time when we begin to think all things budget this is the time therefore when if you have ideas for all things budget or things that we ought to be thinking about that we're not new year's resolutions you know they go they all get broken but you can come and talk with us about things that you think we ought to be doing and we'll do our best to give serious consideration so look for information on the coffee with counsel and maybe maybe even hot chocolate this year we'll see on january nineteenth the budget pictures improved slightly so maybe we can can deal with packets of hot chocolate nothing fancy january nineteenth when that will be happening on a saturday morning she usually means it's going to snow that morning you know that's really all i've got aside from usual contact information we do want to hear from you on items that we are discussing that we should be discussing that we aren't in those sorts of things our city of holland dot com is where you can find out information about us how to reach out to us and how to share your