Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, there we go. Okay, the time now is 402. I will call to order the Wednesday, April 22, 2026, City of Battle Creek Planning Commission meeting to order. Can we get a roll call for attendance? Commissioner Hughes here. Commissioner O'Donnell here. Commissioner Gray, Commissioner Morris here. Commissioner Dennison here. Commissioner Motton is absent. Commissioner White here. Commissioner Formato here. Mayor Binky here.

Thank you. On to approval of the minutes. This being the March 25th, 2026 meeting. Are there any questions or comments on the meet on the minutes? Move that we approve the minutes. Support. It's been moved and supported. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed. Same sign. Minutes are approved. Any correspondence? No correspondence. Any additions or deletions? No additions. No deletions.

All right. We can now proceed to our public hearings and deliberations. As a reminder to all with public hearings, we'll hear from staff, then hear from the applicant, then open the floor for public comment. We ask that when coming forward, you state your name and address. Once comments are completed, we will close the public hearing. If you want to comment on something not specific to the public hearing, you will be provided time to do so later in the agenda. We will take comments at that time. As a reminder, commissioners, the role of this body today is to hold public hearings on the request to review any proposed changes, put forth a recommendation to the city commission. Any change recommended by the planning commission must be approved by the city commission. With that, we'll start with our first one. We'll open it up for public hearing for consideration of special use permit request number PSUP26-00001. This is a petition from Battle Creek Memorial Park Association for a special use permit to allow for a cemetery expansion. The current parcel is within the I1 light industrial zoning district staff report. So, this is a fairly simple application that you see before you. So, I'll just give you a really quick summary here before we go into the public hearing. Um, this is for the expansion essentially of the Sunset Garden Cemetery. Um, if you're familiar with um the location of the uh uh Memorial Garden Cemetery, um it's on the uh east side of Helmer Road. If you go directly across Helmer to the west side of of Helmer, you'll see the Sunset Garden Cemetery. Um and then there's the larger parcel directly to the south of that um that is also owned um by the cemetery. They are looking to expand onto that parcel. um basically extending

the drive from the Sunset Garden Cemetery onto the new parcel um to allow for the creation of 158 new burial plots. Um they're not proposing any additional parking other than some cutouts along the way on the drive around the um the new plots. Um uh for those reasons we do not feel this would have any um adverse impact on infrastructure um in the area and we feel that the current infrastructure is sufficient to support a development like this um and staff recommends approval of this item.

Thank you. Are there any technical or clarifying questions from commissioners for staff? All right, seeing none, we can move on to public comment. Is there any public comment on the special use permit PSUP26-00001? All right, hearing none. Are there any uh deliberation, questions, comments from commissioners? I will call out that the city staff has the um recommendation for this on page I believe 12.

John, could someone tell me how you naturally bury someone? I believe that's above my pay grade. Mine too. Is anyone here? Is there any a representative of the organization? Is there a Yeah, please you can come forward.

Just state your name and affiliation.

Yeah. Uh Alexander Yoast. I'm the general manager at Battle Creek Memorial Park Cemetery. So, the natural burial is in effect a throwback to how burials were many, many years ago. At Battle Creek Memorial Park, we require uh cement vaults. Um so, a metal casket usually is lowered into a cement vault. In our new natural burial garden, the vaults will not be required. Uh it has to be an all naturatural casket. So, like a wooden casket, wicker casket. Uh there will also be no uh harsh imbalming chemicals. So only natural chemicals used in the imbalming process. Um the grave itself will be a little bit shallower to keep to keep the casket within the root zone so that um the body and casket is decomposed quicker and it becomes part of part of nature again a little a little faster. Um this is kind of a growing um it's gaining a lot of interest in the country and in the state. There's I think 15 other cemeteries in the state of Michigan that now offer natural or green burial options and we would uh be the first in this area to offer that.

There be any identification uh for the grave? So that's up to the family. Uh it'll be a very simple identification like a boulder with a plaque on it and then we'll have a main memorial area that will have a large granite boulder that they could have their names engraved on. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Any other questions for me? Yeah, my apologies. I overlooked you and skipped over you. So, if you have anything else, please add. Not unless anybody has any questions for me.

Are there any other questions for the applicant? All right. Seeing no other questions for the applicant. Are there any questions in general from commissioners? Any other comments. All right. Be looking to entertain a motion for this. Again, the staff recommendation is on page 12. Uh please have a specific motion to this agenda item including your intention and mention any conditions. There are conditions listed by staff for this. Move for the approval of special use permit PSU26-00001 um with the staff recommendations as presented.

Support. It's been motioned by Commissioner Gray. supported by Commissioner White. Are there any further questions? All right, let's vote. Commissioner Dennison, yes. Commissioner O'Donnell, yes. Commissioner White, yes. Commissioner Formato, yes. Mayor Binkkey, yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Gray, yes. Commissioner Morris,

yes. All right, it's been supported and passed. Thank you all. We can now move on to the next item. We'll open the public hearing for consideration of reszoning request number PRZ26-00001. This is a petition from community action agency on behalf also of Michael Moore to reszone three parcels from MFR to T3 staff report.

So just for clarification purposes, if you take a look at the first page of your staff report, you'll notice those three addresses that are included as a part of this of this application. 14 Yuba Street, 175 Main Street, and 169 Main Street. Um those three addresses are actually contained within two separate parcels. So the larger parcel that contains the majority of uh the community action ay's campus um um is made up of um that uh the parcel that has the two main street addresses. The 14 Yuba Street address is the one of the adjacent parcels on this site and this is the one that's owned by Mr. Moore. Um Mr. Morris provided um a letter of agency to community action agency to act on his behalf in this application. Um if you take a look at page 21 of your packet, you'll see um an illustration of the zoning map um with the two subject parcels highlighted with yellow stars. Um the again we're talking about the basically their main campus site to the south of Bennett Street. Um the uh the smaller site that is currently owned by Mr. Moore um lies along Yuba Street. It's adjacent to a portion of Community Actions property that is currently zoned T3. Um now uh uh the current zoning of the main campus and Mr. Morris property is MFR highdensity multiple family district. What community action is looking to do with Mr. Morris property uh should this be approved is to essentially retrofit the the existing single family residence on the site um that's currently vacant um into new office space for up to five additional staff members for their operation. Um again if you take a look at that map

again there's there is adjacent T3 zoning to that site. Um, if this proposed resoning were approved, it would create an adjacent a contiguous continuation of the T3 zoning district, um, as it would continue to extend out from the existing parcel and from those parcels to the west of Main Street and Yuba Street. Um given the nature of current development on the site, um the existing nature of the single family home that is also a subject of this application and the proposed reuse of that building. Um staff is recommending approval of the application that's in front of you.

Thank you. Are there any technical or clarifying questions for staff from commissioners? All right. Is there anyone from the applicant here today? I will not skip you. Good afternoon everyone. Joshua Reach, chief operations officer with Community Action. We appreciate you considering this proposal. Our housing services continue to expand in Calhoun County. Um we do have office space in Kalamazoo County. That lease is expiring in the next year or two and we're considering moving that housing staff to Battle Creek. So, this expansion will help us with that. Majority of our services continue to be in Calhoun County even with Kalamazoo being the larger of the two. Um, so we're proud of that and we want to continue to expand in this city.

Any commissioner questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your time. We will open it up for public comment for resoning request PRZ26-00001. Are there any public comment on this? Mr. Morano Jim Marino 451 Main Street. A question. So it sounds like the majority of the campus is already T3 if I understood correctly from the staff report.

I do believe so. Yes. So this small piece of property on Yuba, which is a home, basically will become an office complex basically or be turned into an office setting if I understand that correctly as well.

Yeah, I believe the the majority and staff can correct me if I'm wrong. The majority of the main campus is currently MFR. Correct. It is. Yep. What what they're intending to do by with the proposed reszoning of the main campus piece and this additional piece is to then combine the three parcels and then to be able to use them then as one single T3 zone parcel and then it's all T3. So, can you state your question again, please? It was to confirm that the house that's going to be converted to an office structure would then be part of that T3. The entirety would all become T3. I think Travis answered that one. Okay.

And said that yes, that was the purpose and the intent to move from multif family residential situation high density to just T3s as a final footprint for the entire campus of CA's footprint there. Correct. Thank you. You're welcome. The other comment I had was Yeah, I'll say that for the public side because it's probably not the time to do that one. I'll say that one.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. Are there any other public comments? All right. We will be I'll be looking for a motion. The staff recommendation for this is on page 24. Again, please have a specific motion to this agenda item. Are there any further clarifying questions? Any deliberation amongst commissioners on this? I I have a question. Yes, Miss White. What is the most significant difference between MFR

um high identity and T3? Know that there's a list. I'm just curious about the kind of extreme.

So, the MFR is going to allow for um or I'm sorry, the T3 would allow for additional commercial uses versus what the MFR currently allows. There is a a very limited number of items usually like health healthcare related um offices that that can be located within the MFR zoning district. However, in order for Community Action to utilize that single family property right now for what they're looking to to convert it to that office, they would have to have it reszoned to a to a district that allows additional commercial uses and office uses that the T3 allows. Now, the T3 does also allow um essentially every sort of residential use provided that the property can meet the residential density limits um within the T3. So it does allow for again for still for single family, two family and multiple family within the zoning district, but it it then opens it up again for those additional commercial uses.

Got it. Okay. Thank you. And then I have one other question. Is it looks like the applicant has not talked to the local residents about this? Is that correct? Did I say that?

They they have not been before the uh the neighborhood planning council yet. um we are working with them uh to to contact the uh the MPC to present it to them uh prior to action by the city commission. So the plan is then to forward that information from the MPC to the city commission. So today we wouldn't know if there was feedback or anything from folks in the the vicinity about the zoning until just point of process until essentially right before the city commission meeting where this would go. Am I saying that right? Process-wise. So we're

potentially reviewing this without public comment or feedback. The public hearing today is to gather feedback for Okay. So, it's been communicated just hasn't been part of the neighborhood planning council. Cor correct. The the public hearing was noticed was noticed appropriately. It's but again we we typically try to get these applications again before the neighborhood planning council to to seek out additional feedback in addition to what's required by by the zoning enabling act. So okay got it. Thank you.

Any further questions from commissioners? All right. I'll entertain a motion. Um, move for the approval of reszoning request PRZ26-00001 with staff recommendations as presented. Motion has been made by Commissioner Gray. Is there support? I'll support that. All right, there's been support. Any further questions from commissioners? All right, let's vote.

Commissioner White, yes. Commissioner Morris, yes. Commissioner O'Donnell, yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner Gray, yes. Commissioner Formado, yes. Mayor Binky, yes. Commissioner Dennison, yes.

It has been supported and passed. Thank you all. We will now move on to the public hearing for consideration of zoning ordinance text amendment. Let me make sure I get it right. A26-02. This is a petition from the city of Battle Creek to consider various sections of chapter 1281.01. So, uh staff has uh during the process of drafting a conditional reasoning agreement um with um a recent applicant um has come across some items within contained within section 1281 01 that um likely need some amending. or uh for at least for clarification purposes. Um but also to to simply uh uh lay out exactly what the what the terms are. Um just a brief rundown of the the proposed language amendments. Um staff is looking to add additional language that clarifies the the meaning of the terms substantial progress and bonafide development as it's related to the expiration of an approved conditional resoning. Um looking for added language that clarifies um that minor amendments to the to the proposal that do not change the zoning or the conditions that were originally offered by the applicant can be approved without having to go back through the exact same original conditional reszoning process. um clarifying language that states that um where a proposed development of multiple single family or two family residences

is involved that that those items are subject to site plan review. Um uh that that specifically will come into play um a with the BCU conditional resoning that was done um I believe it was last summer. Um but B um with any future proposed development um that may not be subject um uh that may not be subject to anything right now that's within our zoning ordinance um as far as um and I'm slipping on the term um um I can look it up for you here though uh the subdivision act. Um so any any proposed um um addition of multiple single family residences that is not subject to uh uh uh those requirements uh would then still be subject to site plan review. So the language of the ordinance would simply clarify that fact. Um, and then the last piece is uh the removal of language that currently requires that um a second public hearing notice be placed in a newspaper prior to city commission um consideration of a zoning amendment. So, this applies to zoning map amendments and zoning text amendments. Right now, um as you're holding right now, you this this body right now is holding the required hearing under the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act. So that hearing is noticed in a newspaper at least 15 days prior to the hearing and um if it's a map amendment, notices are sent out to all addresses within 300 ft of the subject property that satisfies the state requirement and the requirement of our zoning ordinance. However, there is a piece of language that's still buried in our zoning ordinance that requires that the city commission consideration of that item be noticed at least 5 days

before. Now, it doesn't state whether or not that's a hearing or an introduction. It just simply in broad flat language just states that it has to be noticed in a newspaper. Um, this kind of we sort of took notice of this about a year a year and a half ago. Um, from what we can see, we're not seeing that it's generating any additional participation or or comment from uh the public or interested parties beyond what is already being generated through through these hearings here. Um and it is it is a significant financial cost that's that um the department is having to continue to carry um in order to make these publications. Um publications within either the shopper or the inquir are not cheap. Um and so um the the way that we're kind of viewing this is we're viewing this as a potential cost-saving measure especially um for an item that doesn't appear to be necessarily generating any additional feedback. Any technical or clarifying questions from commissioners?

Commissioner Gray.

Yeah. Um, tr I was wondering, so should all of these go through? I I guess I'm thinking about this last one when you were just discussing that one. Um, has the city considered any of the um economical ways to do any versions of this um if that second 5-day notice um is voted on and approved by us and the commission. Um, so we've not explored anything else. Um, um, we can certainly take a look at what any potential other options might be in order um, to still provide an an additional notice whether maybe that's posting um, here on the bulletin boards and posting on the city website. I mean, those would be potential options that wouldn't that wouldn't have a financial burden along with them. Um, so

yeah, I I I would love to see other cost-saving measures to do as much of this as we could um outside of the um newspaper outlets. Uh because I I just think people get information in different ways. And so it it would be nice if this it was called out like the specific you you notice something in its entirety like notice for this meeting and that there's public hearings um for this meeting but to actually create something similar to what would have gone into a publication as a call out on our Facebook and social media platforms etc and website. So if that's possible, I would love to see that kind of replacement. It doesn't cost us any additional money, but it it it can appear like that in various platforms so that we have I don't know how many followers, but we have a lot of followers and that they will see that um and be able to engage should they want to. One thing I will say too and and I think what you're probably asking for is something maybe more specific just to that singular item. Yeah.

But um all of that information so all of that information that's going to be on the city commission's agenda obviously is always published with the city commission's agenda ahead of time and and ahead of this five-day period anyway. And so um I mean in a sense so it is already basically kind of posted and and put on the city's website and made notice of. Now I know what you're saying though that yeah so people don't have to dig for it that it's right there in front of them. So however a one-click notification kind of thing, not a three or four click thing. Okay. But if it's possible that's all I'm saying.

Okay. Do would you think broadly speaking for all of the agendas or is it like item specific uh like anything that would have been in that second 5day notice in publication? Okay. To replace it with um on the social media. Yeah. Okay. An economical way of doing the same thing. Yeah. Well, can I add to that? Go for And you know, people don't read the newspaper anymore. Yeah.

So, we do need to figure out a way to get that information to people. You know, it's expensive, but I bet you if you look at the circulation of the newspaper, I think more people probably because the shopper comes to your house, more people probably glance through that. But I don't know very many people that get the newspaper anymore.

I uh I would agree. I do know though that the statute requires for it to be public like publicated in a widely whatever they call spread around application or publication. So you almost you're you're limited to the one or two that we have locally based on the statue. So it's it's good to point that out and and make note of that and see what we can do there. And you wonder what that public notification means now now that the world has changed so much. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Any additional questions or comments?

Yep. I have a couple. Oh, my apologies. Yes.

Yes, that would be me. Um, I do I think more information is better than less. And so I hear about wanting to be conscientious about paying and you know do what what our commissioners have said but I I know some of the things that we've um I think the one stone jug road where it was almost like people were complaining that they had not seen or been contacted because they may not have been in the 300 feet and it wasn't like clarity around um who would have gotten which notice when and so I I'm in favor I'm fine with the rest of it, but I'm in favor keeping in some version of this. What is this under Ga or whatever this might be? Um, that does speak to still communicating the five days prior to city commission meeting. You know, maybe it's to Commissioner Gay's point. It's on the city's website. The very specific zoning like like not just, oh, there's a meeting coming up and here's the agenda. the very specific zoning thing that might be infect affected or impacted. I just I think um it feels like it is important to still make sure that we are overcommunicating. Um so that's my first comment. Excuse me. My second comment is about the neighborhood planning councils. And a big part of me says and I this food for thought um you know as we're I'm thinking about process right the between the planning commission the city commission when things come up a big part of me says like if there is an active neighborhood planning council you know a part of me says I I would like the applicant to meet with them before they even come to a planning commission meeting. I know every planning council is different but I just put that out there as a point of

process. It feels a little out of order that to and I'm just, you know, using this one example today. A little out of order to then say like, "Hey, by the way, we didn't meet with the neighborhood planning council. We're here requesting the planning commission to take a vote. We're still going to meet with the neighborhood planning council. If something is surfaced, we'll deal with it at the city commission meet." You understand what I'm saying? So I don't know if there's a way to strengthen that or maybe it's an additional point about you know for those who have active NPCs uh engaging prior to even that to the extent possible coming before the planning commission. Yeah the order say go ahead.

Yeah I was going to say the same thing at after this vote um under the commission um comments that we kind of take a look at that. So, I'll I'll save my comments for that. Um,

I was just going to say I know that the city commission used to have or still do that um Facebook uh where they talk about what's coming up on the Tuesday meetings and that gets out there pretty good and explains point by point what we're doing on Tuesday nights. And so, I don't know if we want to do something like that for the planning commission, just a brief here's a Facebook page, here's what's coming up. But that that saved us some money and and uh I really like the way they edited it. It didn't seem like very long. It was only like a five minute process. Doesn't cost much at all. So let me look into stuff like that to like you said not not too many people reading the newspaper anymore. They're looking they're looking for the quick headline on Facebook or or uh whatever website or app they're using. I mean I don't even know if we have a way to use an app to send out information like that. How much that cost us. uh to to geo fence it just to city of Battle Creek or a certain neighborhood. Um maybe to help with items like this with the MPC, you know, hey, there's a zoning in your area or something like that. Saves saves a lot people a lot of money without having to have a mailer. At least you get some type of message. So, thank you.

Yep. Any additional questions or comments? Yes, John. I have one comment. Yeah. I'm not quite understanding what the real problem is. Is it that people are parking their vehicles on unhoused lots? We're not we're not to that one yet. Oh, that's the next item. The definition's confused. We've we've gone far into deliberation on technical questions. We're not quite there yet. All right.

Yeah, we're still on the uh A2602. What page is that? Uh, so the staff report in our packet starts on page 42. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Any further technical questions? Hearing none, we can open. Is there any public comment on this item? All right. Did you find your way, mayor? Yeah, I did.

Okay. All right. Is there any further deliberation? Again, the staff recommendation here is on page 43. I know there's been a lot of conversation uh in particular around the notice requirement aspect, but there are other changes being made in this amendment as well. Um, can I ask a question of the city staff?

Go for it. Um, should we include in the motion um those cost-saving ways to for the city to seek cost-saving ways to duplicate the public notice? um newspaper public notice requirement. Should we include that in the motion? I guess for the attorney who's here um or just recommendations with the staff I mean um motion to approve with the staff recommendations. I think that probably a motion to approve with the staff recommendations would be most appropriate uh given the scope of what the agendum item agenda item is. Uh but you can always and I think staff has heard that they should probably look into these alternative cost-saving measures.

So you're saying not to include those additional costsaving measures in the motion. Correct. Correct. I I I think that it would be best probably to just keep it to the um what's on the agenda for this particular motion. Thank you.

Right. Can I um clarifying question then? So to our discussion about notice I mean there's a cost saving aspect. There's also this one paragraph that is included in the staff's recommendations to keep to take out and my thought was not so much was actually not taken out. I think we're we may be talking a little bit more about wording. So is that can the motion be everything except for one part specifically around notice to be determined at the next planning commission meeting? I'm trying to make sure I'm saying that correctly. So, specifically to the paragraph requiring the extra five-day notice, there's nothing in the Michigan statute uh that or the zoning enabling act that requires there to be this special extra second notice in this limited circumstance when we're making amendments to the zoning code. Typically, all of that's going to be covered under the 15-day notices that get sent out. For some reason, and this is probably something that is a legacy item from previous zoning ordinances, this special 5-day notice has remained uh as the ordinance has been updated. But there's nothing there's nothing in um Michigan law that requires this special extra set of notice in addition to the 15-day notice that's already being sent out,

right? But we've been doing the fiveday notice for till whenever. So there are as a community folks may expect or anticipate that, right? I mean, you know, that's still a decision from a planning commission, city commission perspective, not just about the minimum required by state law. Correct. That I mean, that would be correct. Yes. Okay. Um, this this is specifically speaking to map amendments in like text changes. Correct.

Correct. So the extra five days, there would have to be an item that comes to us that is a zoning text amendment or map amendment and then when it goes to the city commission, there's an additional 5-day notice. It's not if there is a zoning designation like a special use permit or a zoning change for a particular parcel, that's not in question here. It's zoning text and map amendments.

Yeah. So I I think you said that uh uh that is zoning change for a specific parcel wouldn't be that would be included. So yeah. So any any any amendment to the ordinance which like you said includes text or map amendments. Okay. Um for the approval of zoning ordinance text amendments A26-02 with the recommendations as presented by staff. It's been moved by Commissioner Gray. Is there support?

Second. Supported by What was your last name? George. George. I know that's wrong. Morris. Morris. Thank you. Been a long day. Okay, I'm going to take a nap now.

All right. Any further questions before we vote? Yeah, I think um I just wanted to point out when I say those additional uh cuz cost savings was mentioned in here. Uh what I was meaning was if this goes through that we find additional ways that um are not costing us more but are are available through variety of platforms that are already um we already have access to um to make sure that we're reaching as many people as possible and to investigate having it look like it may have looked um if it had been that additional 5-day notice.

Is it possible that we can have staff maybe research this and provide us with an update at our next meeting? We can do that. Okay. Would that suffice for commissioners? Sure. that way we can kind of continue the discussion on going forward.

Yeah, I'm fine with that. I just want to make sure that we're we we've had folks come in here and say they didn't know, they didn't hear, etc. So the question is for some things that do then impact them, how are we making sure that if they're not reading the newspaper um that it is actually truly accessible beyond the you know kind of basic standard and then and then you don't have situations people you know they can't say they don't really know. I mean I hear the minimum about the law. I get all of that. I just I go back to more is better versus assuming that just because something went out on a planning commission agenda that someone understands that the especially if they've got a strong opinion about it their next part of their you know right to you know appeal whatever they would like to do is the city commission it's part of you know our process so that's my emphasis we can we don't have to get into it I don't know that it's going to largely change the kind of what your recommendation is it is about how the work happens and ensuring that people are informed when they they come to the meetings.

Absolutely. I appreciate all the comment and deliberation on this. It has been moved and supported. Uh let's proceed with a vote. Mayor Binky, no. Commissioner Dennis, yes. Commissioner Gray, yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner O'Donnell, yes. Commissioner Morris, yes. Commissioner White, yes. Commissioner Formado, yes.

Motion pass. All right. Now we'll move on to the public hearing for consideration of zoning ordinance text amendment number A25-01. This is again a petition from the city of Battle Creek to consider an amendment to section 1262.02 staff report.

So uh this is a continuation of an item that was uh that staff was u asked to take a look at uh last summer. Um, as a result of that, the planning commission requested a recess on the item and that staff presents um the proposed um zoning or the proposed amendments to each of the NPCs to gather additional feedback on the item. Um so, uh those meeting minutes um that are available, I believe there was one NPC that the minutes were not available for. Um but each of the other MPCs that uh that had made us available are included in this packet. Um as well as kind of an additional um uh report that one of the NPCs send as well. Um just to summarize and I don't want to uh characterize beyond what's in the the minutes but generally speaking we we found um reception to be pretty supportive to this amendment when uh presented to the MPC's um where there was concerns um it was similar to I think um um to items that the planning commission had expressed potential concerns with um as far as whether or not um cultural differences and what kind what's viewed as a front yard or or um how how lawns are viewed differently um how there could potentially be issues there. Um uh having said that um the the staff recommendation right now we we did not provide a recommendation given the fact that this is this is an item that's entirely discretionary um as far as the planning commission is concerned. So whereas normal um like we just went through tax amendments um reszoning applications um special use permits whereas those have obviously a a very defined set of criteria by the ordinance

um as to whether or not they meet the standards. Uh amending the ordinance like this is is strictly um um the perview of the city commission ultimately but the but the planning commission to make a recommendation. Um, so given the concerns that were raised by commissioners previously, um, at this point staff's not making a recommendation other than to to ask that a recommendation be made to the city commission on the item. Um, just for additional note, um, there is an additional um kind of cleanup item in here. It's just um creating consistency of the term zoning administrator versus planning and zoning administrator within chapter 1262. So that's just uh again that's more just cleanup item to ensure that consistent language is being used. Um now from a staff perspective again while we're not making a recommendation sort of the functional uh uh effect of this would be and and the best example that that I think we can give is if you take a look toward the end of your packet there's some photos in there of uh properties that staff has been called on to u to investigate. Um, typically what is being investigated with these is parking violations. The problem with a property like the ones that you're that you're seeing here is the actual violation is the the existence of the car parked illegally on a front yard on an on an improved parking surface. Once that car is moved and provided it doesn't it's it's not put back in that place that the the violation at that point's been abated. However, assuming that that this sort of access or parking has been going on for months or for for an extended period of time, you can uh I mean you can you can see kind of what happens to some of these

these yard spaces. So, they turn into kind of they turn into kind of mud pits or or dusty areas during drier seasons. Um so, that's with regard to front yard parking. The very last photo that you see is another issue that we've been dealing with um fairly frequently. recently has to do with folks taking access to properties through unapproved driveways. Basically, through two methods. One is folks are simply driving up over curbs and accessing portions of the property. Um, and then another way that folks are accessing is through old curb cuts onto properties that may have had a demolition. And so now we have a vacant parcel, but we still have the existing curb cut there. folks are at times using those as additional access to properties and then driving through and around front and side yards to um to gain access. Now again, as you repeatedly drive over those areas or andor park automobiles on them, um they do get ruddered out. They do get be they become bare spots essentially in lawns. Um, what I would say again from a staff perspective is if this if this amendment were to be approved, the idea is not essentially to go around I would from again from a staff perspective and nitpick little spots on front lawns um versus having at least some some teeth or some ability when we're dealing with situations like the photographs that you're seeing here beyond the simple parking violation. So to to attempt to maybe get some of these areas cleaned up a little bit. Um um if this language were approved, it would give us the ability essentially then to to require that some sort of seed or or some sort of ground cover be placed in those areas versus letting them continue again to kind of run out and turn into mud and dust. So that would be the functional effect I would say of of this language if it were approved.

So what happens if somebody doesn't want to do that? What was that?

What what happens if somebody doesn't want to do that? Um right now there is no there there is no item in the zoning ordinance that would give any authority to enforce anything right now on those properties. Um if if the language were approved uh then it would be an item where again if you have spots on or if you have if you have portions of your lawn that have again that are deteriorated like this at that point um then I mean essentially whether whether the individual wanted to or not I mean it's it would become an enforceable item. Um, so if this was approved, can you describe what enforceable ite I mean this is what ticketing? Is it a lean on the property? I just want to understand what you mean by enforce enforceable.

So So enforcements, the way these typically work is uh staff will uh first notify with a letter and um attempt to work with the resident and give them a reasonable amount of time to um to abate whatever the violation is. And that can be a parking violation or it could be any number of other violations of the zoning ordinance. Um if at a certain point again we hit that point where we've uh we've worked with the resident we've tried to give reasonable amounts of time um uh we will work with residents again given the time of year at times to potentially extend. So I mean with an item like this obviously the expectation is not going to be that in the middle of December that somebody is going to go out and obviously seed or or or work on a portion of a lawn. Um staff would certainly work with folks on that but um um but at a certain point once there again that kind of a time limit has been exceeded then yeah those would eventually lead to ticketing. So any further excuse me technical or clarifying questions for staff from commissioners. I just want to clarify what what the current the current current sorry ordinance says is that all other properties other than the single family and two family residences have to follow this landscaping rule already. So it's already enforced on other properties that are not uh residential of single and two family homes. So, we're just changing the language on that to make it uh enforceable and usable for the whole um city. Correct. That's

correct. Yep. Right now, um commercial and multiple family uses already have to comply with essentially comply with their landscaping plan and their in their approved site plan. So, and really all is needed is some type of ground covering over that type of area. It doesn't necessarily have to be grass like you said. It could be some cedar or rocks or something. They could they could um put a permit in to make it a second driveway if they followed the correct zoning rules. Yeah. Provided Yep. It met the the requirements. Yeah. Just currently it's under an exemption for that those type of properties. Thank you.

So, what if someone doesn't have money for grass seed? Are is the city going to pay for it? I'm just I'm just playing devil's advocate on the kind of how you enforce folks who may not have money for grass seed or another place to park their vehicle. And so it sounds like if unless the city is planning on providing some set of funding for beautifification it just seems like a a doing a whole lot of ticketing to get someone to put grass seed down. if you they don't have money for grass seed and you're not going to pay for it. This seems complicated just as one example.

I uh that is that's kind of my one question as well to kind of second that. I think when this came to us last, my concern was essentially requiring every single family residentially zoned lot to have to have cover. thinking of seeing driving through the the community and seeing all of it like that's quite a burden. Um exactly how it would be managed. You know, I think it to what extent it would be managed. Um I myself have have gotten a code violation letter for parking in my front yard. So I uh understand that aspect to it as well. But yeah, to the to what extent are we going to be able to keep this under control? But I do agree with needing something some sort of cover.

Yeah. I don't know if I could add something or not. Uh, currently on the books there's there's regulations for keeping your house painted. Mhm. And we've dealt with that when we purchased our house and I appreciate the city keeping up on this. However, I also see that the city has a program and I don't know how it's funded, but there's free paint sometimes available, right? And that's awesome. Yeah. Some people can can really use that. Um I don't know if this is something that you would just say, hey, can you throw or can we can we work our gears in order to make something like this happen as well as well as paint, you know, in the same type of program.

Yeah. And honestly, I would have to that's a discussion I think we'd have to have with um leadership in the department. Um, so unfortunately I probably can't answer that question today, but

well, I think one of the things you got to think about too is if we're going to, you know, enforce grass or some sort of greenery, something ground cover. Um, right? No matter what, it costs money, but you also have to keep it up. I mean, you can't just throw grass seed down and expect the grass is going to grow. Now, we got to water it and we've got to take care of it. So there's, you know, there's more to this than just what we're talking about. And then and then what what kind of burden is that on the city to go around and you know police it?

Mayor, I'm going to go back to you. Did you have a question? Yeah, there's one question I have is why Travis, why haven't you made a recommendation

on this item? Uh I I I would say from a staff perspective for for the reasons that have been discussed here today. So um uh so we understand that there are concerns from there were a number of concerns expressed originally by a number of planning commissioners. Um uh I I certainly understand exactly what the concerns are in terms of how would it be enforced? um who uh how would we again uh is is there any way additional way to work with residents who maybe have um have issues that we have to deal with? Um uh and again it's just weighing that against the um um what the effect would be of if it were approved. Um again then having having the teeth then to essentially to have some additional enforcement beyond parking violations. So um I would say at this point it's um it's an item that staff was asked to u take a look at and um gather feedback on and put together um a report on. However, I mean, if there are concerns from the planning commission, um I mean, at this point, um I I would recommend that the planning commission obviously make make the decision that they that you feel right now is um is best regarding this language. Um um there's there's pluses and minuses to either either approach at this point. Um and again ver versus being an item where there's a very again a very well-laid out set of criteria where if an item meets that it's essentially recommended for approval by staff something like this that gets more discretionary in terms of is this an item that the planning commission and the city commission both truly want. Um I at this time that's and given the fact that

there was original concern expressed about it. Um uh right now staff is just trying to put as much information as we can before the planning commission to try to help you all make the best recommendation that you can make to the city commission. Um and then of course then that um allowing that then to become the city commission's decision. So it I mean kind of just quickly flipping through this I mean this is kind of refreshing my memory though there it does seem like there's some leniency like say someone gets a violation um like one question was posed in an NPC meeting you know what if I don't like grass what if I want to make it into a garden like the ordinance gives options instead of grass plant material and stone you just can't cover more than 40% of your yard in pavement so there is some leniency it seems like in the existing ordinance that if required to have ground cover. Um the city will work with individuals again just to what extent? Any further questions?

Yeah, I have one more. So I'm I'm back to enforcement. So how so let's say you give out two or three tickets and folks don't comply or you're some just use somebody who's complaining about the same neighbor over and over again just as an example. I mean, is that all you can do then is just to provide the tickets? I I'm trying to think through like what's the worst case scenario for something like this? Does the city I mean can you essentially take their home from them? I just, you know, I'm just using this as an example.

Um I I I don't know that it would that it would go to that. that I mean the typical enforcement route what what happens once a ticket is issued is when a ticket's issued it is then uh forwarded to the to the district court and then the court will then set up at that point um they set up what's called a pre-trial conference and that's an opportunity for uh one of the city attorneys to meet with and usually the staff member that issued the ticket to meet with the resident to see if they can figure out a date or see if they can figure out a way to get compliance on the item. Um if that's not successful or if if it's um if it's clear at that point that the or that the uh that the property owner is simply wanting to go to a hearing, then it's forwarded to the court then um with a request date for with a request for a hearing date and then the court will set a hearing on the item. So,

Got it. Okay. Thank you, John. Um, Travis, was this a result of the property over in the Brewer neighborhood that had a fire and they rebuilt the house and then when it came time to uh seed the yard, they refused to seed the yard. They just let the weeds grow and they cut the weeds.

So, I do I do recall I think that property was discussed when this was when this was initially when staff was asked to take a look at this item initially. Um I I I don't want to say that's the that's the singular reason for it but I but I do recall that that was discussed at that time. Any further questions? So just to clarify one tech one last technical clarifying question because staff has not made a recommendation but this is back up for consideration. So essentially what staff brought to us back last year in July, those proposed changes carry forward. So through all of the meetings, there have been no additional changes.

Correct. So So the language that you're seeing in front of you today is is the same language that was proposed when this was originally okay. Presented. Thank you. Uh no more technical or clarifying questions. We'll open it up for any Oh, I just have one more comment. Yeah. You know, it just there's two sides to this coin. You know, as a homeowner, you also, you know, you want your property and the people around you to keep up their property because if they don't, it it affects my property value. On the other hand, all the other issues that we just heard, it is

Yeah. I just have to say, yeah, do we do we have to vote on this right now? I mean, I don't want to put it off too much longer, but I'm asking like I guess I feel like this doesn't feel like it resolves what I think we're trying to solve for for real. I just a thought and there's not a clear recommendation. I just I feel like there's a missing piece somewhere. Um and maybe it's just me. I just Well, if you're moving to a table, I'll support it. We We should still get to the public hearing portion. We haven't even made it to that point yet. We've we've only asked technical and clarifying questions. Okay.

And then we can we can get to a uh any sort of motion. Are there any questions or comments from the public on this matter? Mr. Mareno? I listen to each of you talking about the burden, weigh the scale, so to speak. But these pictures here, they don't do justice to the concern at all. I think if you don't act on it today probably be in your better interest because I think you need to truly get a collective of the city look because there are two addresses on Main Street which is one of our gateways into our community. The address is 247 Main Street. It's an apartment. 259 Main Street, which is an apartment, home, quasi. But each and every one of these places has vacant lots between them. And the two properties, 247, 259, they use it as their private drive-thrus and driveways. And if you look at those dog on things, they're as blank as this dog on room because they've been driven on. There's existing curb cuts because property used to be there, but they're gone now, but they still use them as existing driveways. So, it's responsibility. If you're a landlord, it's a business. And businesses don't eat costs. they always pass them on to their customer. So those individuals in particular truly need to be held accountable. And if this gives any credence and allows it, I think it's a good thing. But I do believe this needs to be said a little

bit deeper and get a bigger picture of the whole city because those few pictures, nah, that's not even the the dog on tip of the iceberg. That's not even a scratch. It really needs to be looked at because something does have to be done because ultimately if we're trying to improve the community as a whole and we want to bring in more businesses and more residents, you got to clean up the act around because if you don't that's why a lot of people probably look at us and say Kazoo Jackson you know we'll go down the road further and we lose out because of that. So we need to help ourselves as a community and if this has the means to try then you know study a little bit more and get more details and truly truly put it together something that's going to work so that we don't have that scale in balance situation but we make everybody be accountable at the end of the day if you're a property owner you have responsibility understand finances are hard but at the end of the day you're still a property owner doesn't take a whole lot to make your party look nice. I mean, nobody asks you to spend hundreds of thousands. Just simple care. Pick up your trash or your yard. You have a few bare spots. Hey, there's ways to get creative with those bare spots, but they shouldn't come from people parking the cars in the yards where they don't belong.

Thank you. You are an NPC chair, correct? I am NPC1 to be exact. So, there was What was the feedback like? Were you present at the meeting when this was

we were supportive, but I believe, as I said, this needs to go back. You need to get a bigger picture so you can look at it holistically for the whole city, not just onesie twoozies because there's all kinds of goodies all over. I mean, Lyn Ward Gray can probably attest in her area because I mean, we're not we're not unique as far as, you know, hey, not my neighborhood. It happens all over the city. Yeah, every one of us have one of those little uglies, maybe more than others, but we have them. That's why I say we need a bigger picture and then something a little bit more comprehensive perhaps, so a real solid decision can be made because the enforcement wheel that we got going right now, I call it the perpetual court hamster wheel. Stuff winds up in the courts, it stays there perpetually forever, literally. Nothing ever gets resolved. And we still have the problem. We're talking about years from now. Ah, so what do we do? We wasted a lot of time and money talking about economics.

Yeah. We need to get down to more solid ways of dealing with as opposed to perpetuating the hamster wheel because that goes nowhere. It just stays perpetually in motion and yeah, no good. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Are there any further public comments on this item? All right. Hearing none, we've discussed some, but is there further deliberation from commissioners? Yeah, Mr. O'Donnell.

Thank you. Um, I've went to a couple MPCs on this uh thing beside with theirs too, but they all seem to be in agreement with that that there's um it's just overuse of not just front yard parking, but in the sidey yards and other people's property not taking care of it. I can tell you just on EMTT Street alone on the weekend, it's hard because on the weekdays they'll park normally because they know that there's law enforcement around. On the weekend, they know that they're not there and they're literally parking boats in front of their property and the grass is missing on a lot of the front parts of their lawn there right away. That type of thing. And um some of my suggestions were just put up some more no parking signs to prevent them from blocking parking there, destroying that part of the thing. And um that'd save a few dollars because if they take the sign down now, you've wrecked community property. Um there's got to be a way to stop that. But the but there's there really is there's a small section on EMTT Street. I can tell you starting on Friday night all the way through Sunday and and the dirt's still there. It doesn't look good. And it's expanded. It used to be two or three houses. It's expanded to about seven on a weekend. I'll call on a Sunday. And they just say, "Call the non-emergency line." And it gets to be the same with myself. Why am I calling the non-emergency line? They may have cases. I don't know. um for those. But um it's expanded all the way down now from Capitol EMTT Street to uh East Avenue North, but even further now down to Central Street just on just on EMTT alone. I don't know how everybody else, but that's a main thoroughfare. And um I and to put down like I was saying earlier, you can get crushed concrete. You can get um cedar, something to to clean that up to make it

look a little beautiful and still possibly use it as a driveway if you file the right permits. I mean, I I I get fined if I take my water heater out of my house and, you know, got to dispose of that properly. So, um, I just have to say rules are rules and we got an small exemption that's been overlooked over these years and and being abused at this moment. So, thank you. Any further questions?

I do have a because I I guess I want to make the distinction between the role of the planning commission, the role of the city, right? like making being clear what what kind of role we are playing at this point. I mean, I um I know we have issues with because we're talking about parking right now, but you know, to the gentleman's point, like it is bigger than that. And there's a big question about whether making a twoword text change results in double the amount of calls to the city with an expectation that you all are actually enforcing whatever it is by the very nature of getting the increased complaints. And I and I guess I feel like we where I feel like we're missing something maybe is actually like I don't know if the city has the capacity to manage that many more complaints actually enforce keep up with whatever that might be while also balancing someone deciding or some sets of people deciding to go to court and complaining that it's unreasonable for someone to tell them what to do with their property. You understand what I'm going like where I'm going with this. feel like there's a a somewhere there's something else missing. Not to mention, I also want to make a distinction between someone parking in one way and making a conscientious choice to park knowing good and well they should not versus, you know, blight that exists that we still haven't quite dealt with either. Right. So, I don't I don't have an answer. I just I I guess I I feel like maybe this is a part two discussion, but a part two in light of what your actual capacity is to enforce and what's reasonable to expect because if I don't know, I just part of me thinks that you're going to get an influx of calls that the city's not ready for. Um to be completely honest,

uh and we still haven't figured out how to manage the current flow. So just food for thought. I don't know if others have feedback, but I that's what I'm thinking of at least.

Um what's the typical number of kind of warnings or hey, did you know um before it moves to um uh the courts or is it different like you were mentioning the painting? how how many notices to um paint your house are received before it moves through the system.

So, I can't necessarily speak to um um code items like painting um because they're because those are kind of separated from zoning. Um but but I can say from a zoning standpoint um when we're dealing with enforcements, what we will again what we'll do is send that initial letter out notifying the property owner and then giving them a a time period either to bring it into compliance or to contact us to then have again to then have a further discussion about what we can do to try to bring the to bring the property into compliance. So, I would say I mean we typically would send one notice uh one formal notice prior to a ticket. Um but I would say in the vast majority of those circumstances uh before a ticket is issued unless there's absolutely no effort to contact staff or to follow up on the um on the violation letter. Um provided that there is. Usually there's there's um um there's again a number of conversations and efforts to try and to try and rectify the problem without having to to issue tickets on items. So I could kind of speak on the painting. I had that done. I was cited for that probably like six years ago and I called right away and said, you know, please explain. They were very helpful. uh first gave me a 90-day extension and then the weather was getting to be winter and they gave me another six months to actually uh get it done. So, it wasn't like it was a you know, you're going to jail or anything like that. There wasn't any uh money being fined to me either. Just like you said, communication with staff and u making sure that the I wanted to know exactly what needed to be. It was my garage by the way, but um but still I mean it we do offer reasonable amount of time to people. Um and um same with the water heater permit I had to pull. It took a while to get that. It was during COVID time so it was very difficult and I got

extension on water heater permit. So if you just talk to them it's it's been very helpful.

Yeah. I was more specifically I was using those as examples because they came up but I was more specifically talking about zoning. if some how many notices would they get if this was in place or for the um ones that are already zoned this way um other than single and two family um what the process is and so I'm I'm understanding you to say it's one notice and there's contact the person can the the homeowner can always call and ask questions and ask for extensions. Is that what we're saying? Okay.

Correct. Y further questions. All right. So it is our role today to hold the public hearing, hear from the public, deliberate on the item, provide all this feedback with whatever recommendation to the city commission. So all of your comment and feedback is is very well appreciated. Um I think in general something should be done sooner rather than later. And I don't think we're going to solve all the world's problems with one one one vote, but getting one step closer is is a lot more. Um I if there's no further questions or comments, I'll look to uh a motion.

So this is where I could move to table this potentially. You would want to clarify your language there because one motion would not bring it back ever. one would postpone it for X whatever you would recommend. Oh, I just want to postpone it. One more meeting is what I would suggest. What What would be your request or reasoning within that? Because if we just postpone it and nothing happens, we're going to be in the same position in the next meeting.

Yeah. I I feel like I don't have a good understanding of by the nature of changing two words, what the implications are. Actually, I know we've talked through them. We've talked kind of around them. And again, it's one thing to talk just It's one thing to focus on how people are parking and how things are enforced potentially. And I think there's a bigger set of issues, you know, when we talk about whether it's a private, you know, commercial owner, property owner, or a homeowner. So, I just I don't feel like I have a comfortable enough set of understanding of any implications of what literally two words, right, might mean. And by you know between now and whatever this is why I ask questions around enforcement and what's the bigger picture even you know whether it really is you know are some areas more priority than other areas for certain types of enforcement where you know this only really you know this change is probably only going to really infect this neighbor or that neighborhood. What happens if you do have an angry neighbor that you know calls repeatedly about xyz house? what happens for folks who work 9 to5 and can't call the city when the city is open to try to navigate or negotiate. I mean, I just I just don't have a a good, you know, so if others don't want to postpone, that's, you know, that's absolutely fine. I just don't think I have enough information to, you know, provide a yes uh vote on it. Just me personally.

Okay. So, I'm hearing a few things here. So, I think I want to clarify with the city attorney. um the item that we are deliberating on now if this were to be postponed. Can that motion be made or do we need to vote on this first? By by vote on this, do you mean the proposed language?

Yes. So if you wish to post postpone this to a certain date, you know, the next meeting, however much time you think would be appropriate uh to get this information, then essentially you would make the motion to postpone this particular item for consideration uh at a certain date in the future. Thank you for that clarity. Is there a motion either way? Yes. So, I move to postpone this particular item to our next planning commission meeting to give the city enough time to share more detail around the implications of the language change.

All right. It's been motioned to postpone until the next meeting by Commissioner White. Is there support? I support that. I would prefer three months, but I will initially support one month. All right. It's been moved and supported to postpone. Are there any questions or concerns about postponing? I I was actually kind of thinking about Mary Mayor Mayor Binky's threemonth and wondered if it uh friendly amendment could be made to that because I mean I I'm sorry. I was trying to avoid that.

I I just I want to give them ample time to um research and provide the feedback. Okay. Okay. I'm I'm fine with modifying my motion. I just wanted to be, you know, Commissioner Hughes, you mentioned about making sure that this isn't just kind of sitting and keeping things moving. But if you know, it feels more palatable to um change the motion to postpone for three months, I'm comfortable. Good. I support Commissioner White, if you just want to restate your then is quick question. Are we sure that city can provide more information to satisfy commissioners?

I I so I just want to just quickly then clarify what kind of what you'd be looking for. So you're you're Are you looking for maybe um um a report on the number of uh of certain types of of enforcement issues that we deal with right now? And Okay. Do you want So before you resend, can we more can we clean up what we're looking for by commissioners first?

Yep. I can I can give you an a feel since I'm the one who had all sorts of questions. Why? Um I think it is a picture of what's happening now relative to the types of complaints and enforcement specific to zoning um uh violations or whatever it might be. I do think it's helpful to get an understanding of like so what does this mean by changing you know pulling out the language the two and um one or two you know single family I don't I don't conceptually I don't understand what how much of a difference that makes from a commercial property owner depending on whatever that might be. Um the third thing is also more about your I mean you talked a little about the process around ticketing and courts and all of that and so it's hard to put that in like is that five times a year that that happens. Is this 20? Um, based on, you know, even the fact that there are pictures in here of folks, you know, kind of showing examples of property, like if you get an influx, I have, can you even handle an influx? Um, knowing all the other things that you've got going on. So, those are the types of things. I don't think this is a I don't expect you to do like a full-on analysis. I think it's just having a little bit more con context around what's happening today and what does this truly mean for the city. I'm also very conscientious about you know you may have other things that you are doing around blight reduction and targeting that didn't come up here if that's also somewhat part of this as well. So does that at least from my perspective does that help?

I think so. Yep. Okay. Does that sound good with commissioners? When is the next planning commission meeting? Do we have agenda for next meeting? May 27th. We've got items. And I do want to make a a brief clarification. Um, under Robert's rules, you can only postpone for one month at a time. So if staff did not have the report, the information that commissioners were looking for at the next meeting, you would just simply make another motion to postpone it for whatever meeting followed that.

Yeah, I was I wasn't too hot about going further. I think we can next meeting is good. So the current motion that has been made is to postpone until the next planning commission meeting that being the May 27th meeting. It's been motion has been made by Commissioner White, support by Commissioner Banky. Are there any additional questions or comments? All right, let's vote. Commissioner Gray, yes. Commissioner Morris, yes. Commissioner Formado, yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner, excuse me, Commissioner Dennis, yes. Commissioner White, yes. Mayor Binkkey, yes. Commissioner O'Donnell,

yes. All right, the postpone has been passed. This will be back May 27th. Thank you for all of your input and questions. Thank you staff. We look forward to hearing more from you at that meeting. I believe that concludes our public hearings and deliberations. Again, thank you all. Is there any old business? No old business. Any new business? No new business.

Any comments by the public? Not on the public hearing items tonight. Can you hold just one second? I'm going to give the young lady in the back an opportunity to come talk. You're welcome. Thank you, James.

Hi, my name is Stella Ducket. I live at 349 Robertson Avenue in the new town plot on the west side of the county. I don't even know that I'm in the right spot. I don't know who to contact, talk to about my concerns. I received a notice of variance for 125 foot sign because I live within 300 ft of the property. Many businesses do not use their legal names. They do the DBAs. I thought it was for Sha on Columbia Avenue or Arlene's truck stop up the road. It wasn't until I saw the pink ribbons in the woods behind my home that I thought something was a little off. It took me a few minutes of digging through the city website to stumble upon an 86page document outlining a quick trip to be built travel center to be built in my backyard. Literally in my backyard. In this document, it outlines an 8,000 square foot building, 16 high flow pumps, and about the size of Love's truck stop in Marshall, if you're familiar with Loves. Okay, I can talk about the noise pollution. I could talk about the white pollution. I could talk about the noise, the amount of odd people that's going to be like literally in my backyard because it's going to be a truck stop. My major concerns are the fact of a petroleum leak. We all have well water. The city did run city water out on

Colombia. We have never been approached to hook up What happens when our wells are contaminated on high flow pumps? The property values. Right now, my property is worth maybe 20,000 to 30,000 more than when I bought it 30 years ago. I have lived in that home for 30 years. I don't see me getting what I paid for it if that truck stop is built. I was not made aware that this was happening. I had to go dig for this document to find out that it was happening. The utilities were there on Sunday doing some work. Again, as a property owner, this was not brought to my attention that this was happening. I have been in touch with Arlene's truck stop. They just put a lot of money into remodeling. They don't want it to happen because truck traffic coming off the highway is going to go to the first place they see. It will put our lanes out of business. Am I happy that Arleans is there? Not really, but it's far enough up the road that I don't smell petroleum on well certain days when the wind blows, but we don't hear the truck traffic. There's a nice perimeter around there and it has not affected the values of those homes that live there. They actually have increased. Another major point in this 86 doc page document was the traffic study that was

done that recommended no traffic lights that would be put in. They will use turn lanes. They will create turn lanes. I have lived there again for 30 years. I can tell you that there has been a numerous accidents between Arleans and Sha. People are like a moth to a flame to get on the highway. There's going to be more accidents. There's going to be more deaths. It really needs to have a traffic light now. And please, at any time that any of you would like to come out and try to make a loft on Robertson Avenue from West Colombia, feel free because you're going to be gripping your steering wheel all white knuckled for fear of getting rear ended. people do not pay attention and they're going way over the posted speed limit. So, the turn lanes that are recommended in the traffic study both for 2026 and 2030, I believe it was 2031, um recommending no traffic light. As a resident, there needs to be one. Now, I have talked to a few of my neighbors who did not know that this was going in either. They again thought that this sign was for Arleans or for SHA. Um that's all I have to say. I do not want the travel center. Um I am veinly opposed to it. Um if it absolutely has to go in and you're all have your heart set on it, at least a traffic light and a huge burm between us and them. I don't want just trees planted. I want huge BMS like the casino did for Aerson Drive.

Thank you. Thank you, Stella. Any additional public comment? Mr. Marino

Jim Marino 451 Main Street. My concern I didn't talk about earlier was process as long as I've been on the zoning board of appeals. That's part of the process that if you're bringing forth a request, it involves your NPC that you go through that process before you come to the board. I understand it's also supposed to be part of the planning commission's process that there's something coming to you. It should hit the NPCs if they exist first, then you second commission third. It's a process chain. If it exists, it should be followed. I mean, I understand there's emergencies. Okay, great. We can deal with those. But when it becomes kind of the norm where you get bypassed, that's a process problem. You invite trouble for yourselves because later on when there is a problem, they're going to come back to you and the commission both. So why not hit it off with the past? If it exists, use it like it's supposed to. If it doesn't exist and it's not being used, cut it out of the equation so nobody even can think about it existing. and then problem solved. Doesn't exist anymore.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any additional com public comment? Seeing none, any comment by staff or commission members? Yeah.

So, it was a process question. Um, and maybe it would be nice to have the staff maybe present at our next meeting how we can make sure that that process is followed. As uh Mr. Moreno said, we know some emergency um agenda items come to us and it's a timing thing with kind of what they're doing. Um, but it seems like that's happening more than than it used to. So, couple of questions as as you consider this request. Um, if we know that the timing is out of line with the commission meeting, so they've gotten the application in by the deadline. and they met that deadline. But we know that the um MPC meeting NPC meeting that it would be involved does not have a meeting before that application would be brought to the commission. What is the current process

right now? if if it if there is that gap like what you're saying. Yeah. If there's a gap, if we know it's just a a application that's coming in, there's no emergency um attached to this particular application like there's no time deadlines that this particular application has. Um yet the MPC meeting that it would normally be um presented at will not happen before the planning commission where that application would be brought forth happens. What is the current process

and you want us to just to come with a recommendation basically for for what? I'm I'm asking currently what the process is when that happens. I would say right now it's it's basically what we did today, which is to get the application in front of the planning commission, but then to um again to attempt to get that feedback prior to when the city commission considers.

So the applicant is not made aware that there is an MPC meeting that will be missed if it moves forward. So technically yes they can come to this commission planning commission meeting and present their application for action. But do we have the conversation with the applicant to say our process? Um and our commissioners generally like to follow a process of going to the planning commission involved first to consider that with the application at the planning commission meeting instead of only at the city commission meeting having that information presented. Are is there a conversation with that applicant about that? So, so I would say right now in the interest of meeting the requirements in the ordinance for getting these applications before the planning commission, no, I would say that does not happen. However, um if there's a desire by the planning commission um and I we'll have to work with the city attorney's office to see exactly how this would go, but um uh possibly making a change to the application to require as part of the application materials the feedback that's provided essentially ensuring that before the application is made that the applicant has already presented to.

So, so I'm just wondering is it even part of our process? Is this written somewhere or is this just a a a procedure that we've been doing for years is to recommend to an applicant to go to the MPC and um uh explain what they're doing for that NPC to to chime in. Is it written somewhere this process? Not even all of the NPCs are currently meeting in that part too. Yeah. Yeah, that's so so I'm I'm I'm wondering just let me go back to the basics. Is this process written anywhere that you guys are following?

I I would say and we can we can look through the ordinance, but I would say at this point there there is no no requirement within the ordinance that I believe it's just something we've been doing. I believe so. Okay. Um but again, but if we want to if we want to take on getting something put into place so that it is a part of the formal application process,

I think it is critical and and right now MPCs are the only avenue we have for that. Um outside of the public noticing process. Um so I think it's critical when you have a group of engaged citizens and residents um who are wanting to be a part of this uh community in that way that we actually formalize that process so that if the timing of an application comes in and it's not part of that process then that applicant will know that they need to to wait. So I mean I absolutely think it needs to be more formalized so that it is not um missed as part of the process.

I uh I agree. I certainly do. I and I certainly see both sides. My concern if formalizing that requirement would be uh developer timelines. you know, in my professional role, that's always a key thing. I think uh in some circumstances, it helps and some it it couldn't. You know, uh the public hearing coming to us is the time to hear feedback and ensure that the planning commission sees that the application is compatible with the master plan and we address neighborhood concerns. Um the 20th Street project though perhaps they absolutely refused to work with the public. The public showed up and voiced their concern. Uh and I think we acted on that in within their behalf. That process seems to work. I'm not sure formalizing an extra requirement though will make that process smoother. Yeah, I I I strongly recommend that we take a closer look at this um and create opportunities in our process that take the public voice into consideration in a formal way. And so right now it seems a little loose. Um and and it was good to hear from Mr. Marino that zoning has always followed that process. I thought we always followed that process. It just hasn't been consistent to me. um it seems in in in recently and I do understand that you know there's a certain process that we have to follow when an applicant comes in and the time

is clicking between the time it comes in and when we need to get it here and I'm not trying to hold up anybody's development I am so excited when anyone wants to try and um come to our community and make it better through um processes But we keep hearing from residents that I didn't know. We keep hearing from um MPCs that I didn't know. And there is just this this this just can't be a coincidence. We need to take a much closer look at this um in a in a very deliberate way um so that we are meeting the the um interests of both residents and those who want to do business with us.

Are there any comments on that matter? Yeah, I was just going to say I wonder if we're using maybe it's not process, it's protocols, you know, I just I wonder if maybe it's a wording thing because I don't I mean the ordinance outlines kind of what the flow kind of is. But in my mind, if if you know someone's going to go to an if you don't require someone to go engage an an NPC that's actively already engaging folks, then what have we really done? If they then come here, we make an assessment that goes to the city commission and they haven't even engaged beyond the whatever the minimum is required. So I, you know, I get it's not all going to be perfect. I nobody wants to hold folks stuff up either, but I just sometimes I wonder is it an is it an extra box that isn't so much a requirement, but more so if you did do it, how did you do it? And recognizing that someone on the planning commission is more than likely going to just like I asked, you know, about process to some degree or order that someone is going to ask about how folks actually engaged and communicated. Uh and that's for the applicant itself. I mean, I think there's more that was my part two for us to come back. I think it's all wrapped up in this process, process, protocols, whatever it might be discussion to come back to how we are communicating with residents at whatever point that is. I understand what the ordinance might say, but I I feel like the last several meetings we've had people say, I live either right outside the 300 foot boundary, don't know anything about a thing. I re I appreciated the comment also about the DBA versus what the company is actually called on paper. So that's not something that would you know trigger for me that like somebody would know that this company means this this and this and whatever. I just you know I don't know it feels like this it's important for us to to think about where we go from here. And I don't I don't

think it's all on the city to solve for it. I think it's on us to just find a happy medium whatever

that happy medium might look like. because I think about your capacity too and what's reasonable to expect from you and the you know rest of the staff um as well. So I do want to make that statement acknowledging that you know some of these are timeconuming. I see that. I I I'm thinking maybe just come back to us with some recommendations. Taking all this into um consideration, looking at what exists and and presenting this is where we are now. Hearing what you've heard. Um if you have some thoughts that might smooth the process out like maybe hey applicant um did you know that there's a u body of residents who might want to hear about this application before it comes to the planning commission. would you be willing to um engage with that MPC before coming to the planning commission and just maybe it's a point of making the applicant aware

as your part of your recommendation process. I I don't know but just take a look at it. Yeah. Any additional comment on that item? I don't want to move on if Mayor I just wanted to thank everyone for being here at the meeting today. Yeah, earlier today there was only four of us who called in and I think we did a pretty good job. Yeah, thank you.

I do want to go back to another thing that uh was made public comment. Um Stella had said a couple things about the new town in Robertson Avenue neighborhood. Uh I can't touch on all of it now, but I have heard as chair here in the planning commission from multiple items that have come before us that all of those residences out there are on wellwater and there's been a lot of activity. Um I believe I've had a conversation with the city to discuss what it looks like getting everyone hooked up to the water that is already out there. We're just not hooked up to it. Um, is there anything we can kind of formally ask from a planning perspective on that matter? Mayor, you know, your input is also valued.

Um, we can get we can get that item to the Department of Public Works. I think that's where we start. Yep. Um, is obviously first seeing what their capacity is to do it and then after that then kind of moving forward from there. So, okay. Thank you. Any further staff or commission comment? Just a quick question. So just based on some of the concerns that were expressed. So some of them it is well water but it sounds like there was more about what noise there are other elements that were brought up too. Um traffic I mean is that all going to be then covered by DPW or So

just as a curiosity about who's kind of picking up and responding to the feedback. Yeah. So, so right now we do not have a formal application. We we did have an application for a dimensional variance go before the zoning board of appeals regard related to the sign. We do not yet have a formal application for site plan review from from the applicant. Um if they apply for site plan review, correct? All of those traffic items, traffic related items will be reviewed by the Department of Public Works.

Thank you. Any further questions? All right. Thank you all. This was a long meeting, but I appreciate everyone for being here and everyone being involved. Meeting adjourned.