Ms. Swackhamer stated that they would not be made to come up to these standards unless they make a 20% or more change to the property.

Mr. Tevis stated that routine maintenance would not be required unless you made a 20% or more change to the roof, the street facing façade, or the footprint of the structure.

Mr. Brand asked about page 10 regarding no private septic or wells and asked if there were any existing systems.

Mr. Tevis stated that none existed that they knew of.

Mr. Brand stated that Mr. Lett had made a statement that it would take 3 lots to build on and asked if in the overlay, would new houses all be required to face the street.

Mr. Tevis stated yes. He stated that it was not in the Ordinance but that there were no homes that did not face the street.

Mr. Lett stated that Columbus Avenue was interesting because the existing homes already faced the street, and that would be the only place moving forward where you would need 2-3 lots.

Mr. Brand asked for clarification, the proposed overlay does not require the homes to be street facing.

Mr. Tevis and Mr. Lett both stated that they would need to be street facing.

Mr. Brand asked about the changes recommended by the Plan Commission Office.

Fred Daniel, former DMMPC Zoning Appeals Planner appeared. He stated that several small changes were discussed during a consultation with Mr. Tevis where nothing was dictated, suggestions were just offered. He stated that they discussed how accessory dwellings (ADU) might fit the area, parking, and smaller house sizes. He stated that when he started 30 years ago, it was common to have at least 2 adults in each household and that was less which leads to fewer cars and less of a need for parking. He stated that sometimes when older ordinances are used, we end up with a parking lot that is not used so they discussed street parking versus parking lots and how much would be needed. He stated that if items were found in the future to be problematic, there is a procedure for amendments because as we all know, nothing is perfect. He stated that this was an opportunity to acknowledge the good that was happening in McKinley and this was an opportunity to put something in place at the neighborhood’s request that would preserve, protect, and promote what was happening in the area. He stated that he understood the concern regarding taxes, but that as he understood it, development and improvements in an area could have an impact on those tax amounts. He stated that he hoped the City could look into how they could help the residents to not feel financial burdened by the improvements to their community.

Mr. Brand asked Mr. Tevis if he agreed that the ADU and parking were the changes that had been discussed between the overlay committee and the Plan Commission.

Mr. Tevis stated yes. He asked Mr. Daniel if he found anything out of character for an ordinance draft.

Mr. Daniel stated no. He stated that the group that put this together did a very thorough job in combining the existing overlay language with the unique character of McKinley.