Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It's 5:30 and time to start our meeting. Would everyone please join us in the pledge of allegiance and stand? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you everyone.

There you go. Just in time. Next on the agenda is the approval of the agenda. May I have a motion and a second? So moved. Second. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Opposed say no. Agenda's approved. Next is the approval of the minutes from the January 13, 2025 meeting. Are there any additions or corrections? If not, may I have a motion in a second? Motion. Is there a second? Second.

All those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Next on the agenda is public comment on non-aggenda items. Please come to the podium and state your name and address before making your comments. Please address the commissioners. And please remember this is time for comments only and always please be kind and respectful so no one feels uncomfortable and everyone feels welcome. Anyone like to make a comment on non-aggenda item

Nancy Patterson 21104 Gorm Drive Southeast Grand Rapids. Two quick things. There are a lot of improvements that the community is trying to make. And if I could just suggest we look at the Reeds Lake trail and see what the signage is like because it's really um mindboggling. It's hard to get around Reeds Lake if unless you know where the trail is because of lack of signage and arrows pointing Reeds Lake this way. At least it has been in the past. Maybe something happened in the last 3 months I don't know about. And number two, the um there's a proposal to make the wetland area um more human friendly. And since we are a community that wants to look towards sustainability, could we please look at minimal changes to the wetland area that parks and wreck will be recommending to change. I know they got a 500,000 matching grant to improve, and I'm using air quotes here that area, but whenever man improves something, it takes away from the local insects and other things that live there. And when you add in a parking lot with more toxic runoff into the wetlands, when you add structures like for the proposed outdoor classrooms, you know, you're going to have more lighting that affects fireflies, that affects other insects, that affects other nocturnal critters, it affects bird migration. Let's, you know, when that comes up, please think about how we can keep that area more

natural. And I thank you for your time. Thank you, Nancy.

Good evening. My name is Marty Collins. I live at 2740 Lake Drive in East Grand Rapids. Uh, I will be attending the next city commission meeting as well where I think my comments are uh probably more appropriate. But because you're elected officials, I'm trying to influence and touch base with as many people as possible regarding uh Commissioner Blazic's proposal that would limit the East Grand Rapids Police Department from interfacing with uh ICE uh on occasions, and I would imagine they're quite quite rare inside of East Grand Rapids when they believe a a incident needs to be investigated. When you stand back and look at this community, uh there's 12,000 roughly 12,000 residents here. On any given day, there's 2500 to 2,800 students making their way around from from preschool up through 12th grade. Sports being played at playgrounds and parks and ball fields throughout this committee, this community. And I would think that at the forefront of everything that any city official does, it's to prever preserve the safety and welfare of the residents here. So I ask that uh as this thing makes its way uh into the city chambers that you'd consider safety amongst the very top of the list as the city and the city manager and and mayor make their decisions on which the direction that they want to go. I think it'd be a huge step backwards for the city to be known as sanctuary city, only making it more dangerous for our law enforcement officials to do their jobs and making it more dangerous for us residents to reside here. Thank you.

Thank you.

Would anyone else like to make a comment on a non-aggenda item? If not, we'll move things on to the next item. Next on the agenda is a public hearing on the draft master plan update amendment to the 2018 master plan. Tonight we're going to change things up a little bit. We're going to begin with an introduction and a presentation by city planning consultant Paul LeBlanc. Following Paul's presentation, Deputy City Manager Doug Lefay will talk briefly. After that, we'll have the public comment. Then after the public comment, we'll have commissioner discussions, questions, or clarifications. Paul, you're up.

Good evening. Uh, I know we've talked about a lot of this with the planning commission, uh, but for the benefit of the public that that's here tonight, I thought I'd do a quick review of the high points of the plan and uh then uh go from there. So, um, first some background. Why do we do a plan in the first place? Uh the number one reason, not the best reason, but the basic reason is that state law requires that uh if we have zoning, the zoning must be based on a plan. And the law goes on to say that that plan should be reviewed every five years to make sure it's still relevant. Doesn't mean it has to change, uh but it has to be reviewed. And in our case, after reviewing the 2018 plan, um, which u the city has implemented much of, um, I think both the planning commission and city commission felt that, um, some adjustments needed to be made. Some of the data that's in that plan were based on 2016 estimates of census information. Uh, a lot of what's recommended in that plan has been implemented, but there are still a lot of things recommended that that maybe are being worked toward, but haven't been fully implemented. So the idea was the 2018 plan is still relevant, but let's do an update or an amendment to that plan to uh take a deeper dive into some specific areas in the community as well as updating some

of the the demographic information and so on. So uh that's what we have done. So other reasons for doing a plan uh are being proactive. The idea behind a master plan is to look into the future and that's what uh our plans have typically done. Also to address local issues. This isn't a boilerplate kind of plan. We really wanted to focus on what's important to East Grand Rapids. And then uh one of the earlier speakers mentioned the importance of sustainability in East Grand Rapids and that's important as part of this plan as well that uh the the sustainability of this community is is one of the things we're proud of and we want to make sure in our planning that we uh make sure that continues. So, um, the purpose of this plan is not to replace the 2018 plan, but to serve as an amendment or a supplement to it. As I said, going into a deeper dive into certain neighborhoods in the city, as well as updating some of the the older uh data that we have. also to reinforce some of the recommendations in the 2018 plan that are being worked on but haven't been fully implemented. Uh update the data and focus on specific areas. So one of the things that the 2018 plan did not contain was a vision statement. Um there are a lot of goals in the plan. There are a lot of recommendations in the plan, but typically in a master

plan, we start out with a broad vision of what we want the community to be. And so, we have added a vision statement that essentially says we're a great community. Uh we want to maintain our sustainability, keep our excellent school system, uh continue to invest and and improve upon Gaslight Village, uh provide a variety of housing options uh for current and future residents. Um provide for ample open spaces and parks, comprehensive trail and pathway network, and superior public services. And I know and you know that we're working on a lot of those things like parks and recreation uh improving the the uh bike paths and and pedestrian accessibility throughout the city. So uh this is just to reinforce that these are the things we value and we want to continue striving for them as we go forward. So to to get to the next level beyond the vision, we've identified a number of goals and some of these goals are consistent with what's in the 2018 plan. Um the first one being uh increasing the variety of housing options and I'll talk about that later when we get into some of the public comment. Expand the network of trails, pathways, bike lanes, etc. uh to create complete streets throughout the community, achieve universal accessibility, especially for those persons with uh mobility challenges, and provide open spaces in Gaslight Village for social interaction and community events. That's something we've talked about a lot uh both here and with the city commission uh with respect to

the gaslight uh investors plan development as well as looking at other areas of Gaslight Village where we can provide some um areas for public spaces and social interaction. and then enhancing the image and vitality of Gaslight Village, adding more events, screening parking lots, encouraging more business, and promoting walkability. Um, preserving neighborhoods. Uh, East Grand Rapids is predominantly a residential community, predominantly a single family residential community and uh, the neighborhoods are um, uh, prized features of the city. So ensuring that those neighborhoods remain attractive and desirable uh is an important part of the long range plan and then strive to achieve carbon neutrality for the city operations by 2040 and I know the city is actively working on that now. So, a little bit of perspective. Um, as we looked at more recent data, the latest being the 2003 U census estimates, um, one thing that jumped out was that we have actually grown in population since the 2010 census, which is very unusual for a community like this. The reason it's unusual is number one, we're built out. Uh number two, we're we're an inner ring suburb and we're an older community. And

typically communities like this at best remain stable, but in many cases uh start to lose population because people are moving out to find something better and and so on. In our case, we've actually grown by nearly uh uh 700 uh new residents since 2010. Um it's not because of massive growth, but uh I think a lot of uh of the development in in East Grand Rapids has been people uh tearing down a home and rebuilding a new one or adding to a home. Uh you'll see in a in a minute that uh the median age in the city is also declining and the household population is increasing and that seems counterintuitive. A lot of our conversations have been about, well, we're losing population, the population's getting older, uh, people are going elsewhere ex instead of East Grand Rapids, and the data seems to suggest something different. So, some key statistics related to East Grand Rapids, the population has gone up by 6 and a half%. The median age has actually declined. We've gone from 38.1 median to 37 um in 2023. The percentage of persons 65 years and older has increased to 11% from about 9%. Um no surprise the median household income has increased uh from just under $100,000 to 1685.

uh but it has not kept pace with the increase in median housing value. Uh that has doubled from 249,000 to 52,000. Uh likewise the median rent has gone from just a thousand a little over a,000 per month to over 1,800 per month. Uh 77% increase. and the household size has gone to uh roughly three persons per household, 2.98. So, one thing we wanted to do was see how East Grand Rapids fared compared to other communities of similar characteristics. And by that I mean uh fairly affluent communities uh communities nearby communities in the Grand Rapids metro area. So we looked at Ada Cascade Township and Grand Rapids Township and then overall Kent County just to see where we we uh fit in. Um populationwise we're 11,400. Uh we're the smallest of the the comparison communities. Our median age is the youngest of the comparison communities uh and about on par with Kent County which is 36 and a half years. I found this surprising because looking at Ada Cascade and Grand Rapids, those are townships. They're roughly 36 square miles. They have a lot of vacant land. they have an opportunity for a lot of development. Um and yet uh their their median age suggests that um

they're not attracting young families u like East Grand Rapids seems to. Um likewise with persons 65 and over. Um yeah, we've gone up a little bit uh uh with an 11% uh ratio of the the population, but we're the lowest among all of those comparable communities as well as the county. So again, I think that's a very positive sign that young families are moving into uh East Grand Rapids. median household income is roughly comparable to Ada and much higher than uh Cascade or Grand Rapids Township and and double what it is uh in Kent County. Uh likewise, median value slightly below ADA uh but significantly higher than uh Cascade or Grand Rapids and of course Kent County. Uh the same with uh median rent and owner owner occupancy um is tied for first place with ADA. Um that's the ratio of owner occupied homes to rental properties and we're at 94.3%. Kent County is at 70%. And then again, persons per household, we have the highest uh number of persons per household of all those comparison areas. So, um I think those are very positive findings for East Grand Rapids that this is still a very vital community and it's still attracting uh interest from uh new residents. So, as part of the master plan

amendment, um we felt we being uh me as well as the planning commission and city commission obviously uh that public engagement was critical and so the city has done a lot to try to uh get people to uh provide input certainly to make them aware of of what's going on. So, we've created a a web page just devoted to the master plan. There have been a number of notices put out by the city in bulletins and newsletters. uh the city website. Um signs have been posted and uh as part of the master plan website, we had a citywide opinion survey posted there. And um as of a couple weeks ago, uh we have 615 responses, which is about 16% of all the households in the city. For a survey like this, that's really good. it it's obviously not a uh uh a survey that's um selective or um looking for uh the words are escaping me right now but a random random sampling survey uh this is just give us your thoughts whoever wants to participate so 16% of the households is really a a good turnout. And then in addition to that citywide survey, uh for each of the four sub areas that we had identified, we had a

place on the website where people could offer specific comments to those areas and we had a pretty good response in in those as well. Then finally uh after we got into the the meat of the plan uh and had come up with some ideas, we had neighborhood meetings with three of the four neighborhoods. Gaslight Village uh we had 25 people attend St. Steven sub Area 59 and Northwest Wealthy, which uh originally we called East Town and decided that that wasn't a good name for it. So, we named it Northwest Wealthy. Uh we had 45 people at at that session. We did not have a neighborhood meeting with the U um

Bear with me. Greenwood. Greenwood. Greenwood.

Greenwood. Thank you. Uh with the Greenwood neighborhood because just prior to uh starting the planning effort uh we had gone through we being the planning commission uh and city commission had gone through uh a fairly lengthy series of meetings with the neighborhood regarding whether the former antique store uh should be changed to an office use and uh as a result of that we felt that we had pretty much heard what we were going to hear. We had a good feel for the neighborhood concerns and after discussing the direction with with you all. uh we concluded that we probably weren't going to recommend any changes as part of this plan until we saw how some other things in the area played out and we could always come back and revisit that. So, um that's why we didn't uh go to that neighborhood. Um, in terms of the responses we received about what people like about East Grand Rapids, um, to no one's surprise, walkability in schools were the number one and and two responses. Um the the community itself, safety, Lake uh Reeds Lake in particular, friendly community, and great neighborhoods were all things that people uh a majority of people cited as things they really liked. what they don't like or didn't like. Um, again to no one's surprise probably is taxes, um, expense, traffic, cost of living,

uh, speeding, lacks of lack of diversity and parking, and the image of Gas Light Village. Um the the thing that probably surprised me most of uh those comments was related to the traffic and speeding. Uh and we've had some conversation about that and uh Doug has explained how uh when COVID hit and for a few years after that the police really did back off some of the uh traffic enforcement. But as of 24, uh, that's been ramped up again. And we've got data that illustrates that the traffic stops have definitely increased and and enforcement is back at precoid levels. Uh, then we asked for things that were of particular concern. Uh, number one was housing cost, traffic enforcement, lack of shopping, property maintenance, and that one surprised me. Um, lack of housing options, overcrowding, loss of natural resources and neighborhood decline. And I think again, neighborhood decline surprised me as well. I think that's kind of related to the the property maintenance. But, uh, as a non-resident, but somebody who has spent a lot of time driving through East Grand Rapids and as part of this plan, uh, I've walked every one of those four neighborhoods as well as other areas. And, uh, I mean, I've always been impressed with the amount of renovation and rehab that takes place in throughout

the city. there are uh contractors trucks parked almost every street you you go down. So uh the the neighborhood decline really surprised me. Um other concerns that we heard um 69% of all housing in East Grand Rapids is at least 65 years old. That means uh those homes were built prior to 1961. 27% of all homes were built before 1939. That means they're at least 87 years old. And only 6% of the homes built in the last 25 years are um uh were built in the last 25 years. So that number isn't surprising because again we're a builtout city. So most of the new homes are going to be tear downs and rebuilds. Uh we we don't see massive new subdivisions coming in like they do in in the townships. Uh other concerns, uh we've talked about this nonconformities. Um, we went back and looked at uh lot sizes and widths throughout the city and we found 13 areas, not just individual lots, but 13 uh blocks or neighborhoods where we have uh nonconforming conditions. uh which means that the lot size andor the width of the lot does not meet the minimum requirements of the zoning district that those properties are located in. So as we get to the

recommendations, you'll see that one of the main recommendations is to go back and look at those areas and see how we can uh make some adjustments through the zoning. Um, one of the problems right now is the lots can be used. The lots are developed. Um, but our zoning ordinance puts some limitations on uh what can be done on a non-conforming lot. Uh, for example, um, homes cannot or buildings cannot be higher than 25 ft. Whereas in a conforming lot, the the building can be 35 feet. Um the lot coverage for non-conforming lots because they're smaller uh makes it very difficult in some cases to add an accessory building or expand a garage or put in a pool or a patio. uh because we're we we've got maximum uh percentages for uh lot coverage for buildings and imperous surfaces. So those are things we really want to look at. Um so the sub areas um we identified four northwest wealthy Greenwood Gaslight Village and St. Steven. Um we chose those areas for a number of reasons. Um one was uh the age of some of those areas like uh Northwest um the Northwest wealthy neighborhood is one of the oldest neighborhoods in East Grand Rapids. A lot of the homes there, if not most of them are a hundred years old or more. Uh

so we wanted to look at that area to see okay have conditions started to deteriorate uh are there things that need to be done to maintain the vi viability and vitality um changing conditions uh one of the big ones was uh the Grand Rapids Dascese announced that they were closing St. Steven School and we thought, well, that's a big deal. What do we do with that area? What do we do with that property? Uh, and then new opportunities, uh, the Gaslight Village area and and the development that's been proposed there. So in Gaslight Village when we started this um we had included both the DMW Plaza and the Gaslight Investors Planned Development property as part of the the whole sub area. Uh before we really got very far into the planning process, the Gaslight Investors Group came in with an application to amend the uh concept plan that had been approved back in 2004. and um that we made the decision to not um propose any alternatives since they've come in with a plan that the planning commission and city commission would be evaluating and and uh making decisions on. So we showed uh the the plan that they had proposed as part of that development and really

focused on the um uh gaslight uh plaza DNW plaza. Uh but having said that, we also wanted to look at how those two properties would interact. um how we could integrate the Gas Light PUD with the existing DNW plaza, what improvements we could make to the uh Gas Light DNW Plaza. Um one of the the key things was recommending liner buildings along Wealthy Street. Um because a lot of the public comment we heard uh regarding Gaslight Village was um how unsightly uh how drab Gaslight Plaza was or is because you've got this strip shopping center from the 70s and 80s stuck way back on the the back side of the property with this massive asphalt parking lot out front. Um so we wanted to look at ways to uh change that and then also uh a lot of the comments we heard both from the surveys and as we discussed the the uh uh gaslight investors PUD was we want more public space, more activity space, more gathering space and so that was something we looked at uh very clearly. Um we ended up with uh four different concepts. Uh one was based on retaining the existing gaslight plaza the way it is but adding liner buildings along uh wealthy street and providing

connectivity with the gaslight investors project. The others all uh proposed redeveloping the site, tearing down the existing building and uh adding a new grocery store and some other shops and uh liner buildings. And uh along the uh souththeast corner of that site on all three of those redevelopment plans, uh we've added public spaces um as something that was essential. So then the Greenwood neighborhood. Uh again, as I said, we we decided not to recommend any changes, but we did want to look at some of the characteristics of the neighborhood. It's currently an existing mixeduse neighborhood. approximately half uh if you the the map up there shows in brown multif family and two family uh residences. The yellow gold color is offices and then down in the uh southeast corner is that mixed use of office and and single family home. So roughly half of that neighborhood is nons single family. It's already clearly a mixeduse area. Um but having said that um again we decided that there was no immediate challenge that required change. Um, we wanted to take a step back and wait to see uh what if any influence the gas light PUB would have on on that area as well as uh the

Loveit Street area because we changed the zoning along to u uh high density multif family residential and uh I think that was something that was recommended in the 2018 plan. Um we we wanted to see if we reszone that that uh stretch of love it um what impact that would have and really we haven't seen what I think a lot of people expected uh instant conversion of single family homes to duplexes and multif family. Um so we still want to give that some time and and evaluate what impact that change may have had. Um then in the the northwest wealthy neighborhood uh again the existing land use is primarily single family residential. Uh but if you look at all those brown uh uh shapes, those are either multifamily or two family dwellings within that single family area. Um there are several that front along Wealthy and there are also a number of them u in the south half of the neighborhood south of of Wealthy. Um, that neighborhood is a budding Grand Rapids. It's a block from Easttown Business District. Um, it's clearly uh ripe for some kind of transition because the zoning on the Grand Rapids side is transitional residential which allows multif family, single family and

and so on. So, what we've recommended is that the existing multifamily zoning, which is shown on on that drawing, be extended another half block to Rosewood on both sides of wealthy. uh and one parcel on the east side of wealthy also be zoned MFR because there's an existing two family dwelling there now. So we wanted to clean up that nonconformity. Um when we held our our neighborhood meeting with the folks in in that area, uh they felt pretty strongly about not allowing the other multif family and two family south of wealthy uh in the midst of the neighborhood to be reszoned uh to make them conforming. uh they had some concerns about parking and maintenance and and so on. So we we stopped short of uh recommending that all existing multif family be changed to MFR, but we did want to see what what the results might be if we extended it along Wealthy Street. And then the St. Steven neighborhood. Um the turnout for our neighborhood meeting with them was the largest of the three. Um the school has been closed. Uh there apparently is some discussion about closing the church as well. Although I I spoke to their facilities director uh just a few weeks ago and he said that really hasn't been decided. still kind

of up in the air. Uh so we we're focusing on the school property. Uh the the entire block is occupied by the church and the school and parking areas. Uh but the block is surrounded by single family homes. Uh again, a lot of them are older homes. They're on small lots. Um there it's it's a very um very quaint livable kind of neighborhood. Uh to the the west of those single family homes um is the city of Grand Rapids boundary and the Clark homes is the use uh right there and that consists of condominium units as well as the senior care facility at at Clark. Um, one of the things we heard loud and clear from the neighborhood meeting was the neighborhood park or what was the school playground um is more than just a school playground. It's a focal point for the neighborhood. It's a gathering place. They talked about uh people just congregating there to chat and have coffee and and so on. Um so that became one of the priorities for us as we looked at different development concepts for this area. And among those one was simply leave the school building where it is and look for potential alternate uses. Uh during one of the meetings it was suggested that uh the city approach East Grand Rapids public schools about

acquiring that and apparently that was done and not wellreceived. Um maybe the building could be uh repurposed for multifamily housing or for senior housing. Um there are a lot of potential uses but the cost of renovating retrofitting a building like that uh in in some cases can make it infeasible. So we didn't get into the financial we just looked at potential uses. Uh another concept was town home development. Um that's in the upper right hand corner. Um, another concept was just continue single family residential. That's in the bottom left. Um, based on the the minimum lot size requirements for uh that zoning district, um, we calculated that we could get eight single family homes on the property whereas we could get 10 uh town homes. And then the last concept on the lower right is simply create a park. Um uh one of the things we we found was in looking at the location of uh public parks in East Grand Rapids. Most of them are in the northern half of the city. uh this area is not well served except for school facilities um with with recreational areas. So um again none of these are recommendations. They were done just to illustrate what the potential is uh what appropriate uses might be. uh then the next step is up to

developers and the dascese if they want to move forward on on any of these. Um so some of the recommendations um as I mentioned earlier looking at all those non-conforming lots and figuring out if there's a way to amend the ordinance to create a new zoning district uh or to adjust u some of the setback requirements. so on um increase opportunities for housing variety and attainability and that's why in especially in the St. Steven options we tried to show a variety of residential options not just continuing single family but looking at other housing options as well. Uh consider zoning amendments to allow administrative departures in lie of variances. Um the the zoning board of appeals only meets every three months and uh some of the meetings are cancelled even at that. We haven't had a lot of variance requests. But the idea here is maybe look at the zoning ordinance to see if there are some things that staff could approve rather than sending somebody to the board of appeals meeting. uh which uh requires maybe a three threemonth wait and a public hearing and uh u uh a a lengthy process that may not be warranted for some requests. Um, also look at the lot coverage and setback requirements in the R2 and R3 districts uh to allow uh more uses, accessory buildings and detached garages

and then um improved communication regarding the property maintenance code. Uh we discussed this after getting the input from uh the neighborhood and uh I think the the feedback from city staff was uh we we don't have the resources to go out and drive every street and look for violations of maintenance codes. we have to rely on complaints uh or if we see something uh not that we've gone out looking for it but if if we come across something then we can um address it. But uh the idea here is okay we have a property maintenance code let's make people aware of what the rules are and um talk to them about proper procedures and then uh again going back to public spaces not only in Gaslight Village but Collins Park and uh making even greater use of the spaces that we have with community events and so on. Um then uh working with the owners and tenants of Gaslight Village to promote some of the concepts that uh we've put in the plan. Um the owner of Gaslight Village is very supportive of those recommendations. Um their major tenant not so much. So, uh, uh, it'll take you

mean Gaslight Plaza. Is that you said Gaslight Village? Gaslight Plaza.

Um, so, uh, it may take a while, but I think eventually there they may come around. Um, enhance the western gateway into the village. That was a recommendation in the 2018 plan. Um, you know, we go from uh single family residential neighborhood right into Gaslight Village. There's no transition. There's no, uh, symbol that indicates you're coming into the business district. So, um, we wanted to suggest that and then work with the rapid to see if we can do anything to, uh, encourage greater use of transit system and reduce the number of vehicles uh, on city streets. And, uh, incorporating inclusive design of all public facilities. again to especially address those with uh physical disabilities and age related impairments and then continue to implement other city plans and this is something that I think when we started this whole process uh there was a lot of concern about well you know we we need to address parks we need to address transportation we should include this uh but it was pointed out that the city has those plans uh in uh uh done by other departments. The parks and recck plan, for example, has to be done every 5 years in order to qualify for state grants. So, we know that's a priority. Uh we've got a mobility and bike action plan that's being implemented. Uh climate action

plan, utilities and infrastructure plans. So, We're not doing a master plan in a vacuum. We've looked at those plans. We want to make sure that uh everybody's in sync and and we're coordinating with one another. And then uh the planning act requires that the master plan include a zoning plan. Um really most of the recommendations involve reviewing the zoning ordinance, making amendments to the ordinance in one way or another, maybe adopting new districts. Um so those are things that will be on the to-do list for the planning commission in the not tooistant future. and next steps. Um, tonight hopefully we'll hear some public comment. Uh, the planning commission will be asked to consider what they've heard. Um, we may end up uh modifying the draft as a result of public comment or comments that planning commission members have. And you will then be asked either tonight or at a future meeting to uh approve the master plan uh and make a recommendation to the city commission that they adopt it. And then the city commission will review and adopt and then we begin the fun part and that's implementing the the new recommendations in the plan. So, um, before we get into comments, um, I know Doug has some things he wants to address.

Thank you. We can get into the Sure. We'll have questions for you later. All right. I'll be here.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair and planning commissioners. Um, we always uh staff always shares communications that we have with on any particular topics or issues um in advance uh or in alignment with our meetings. We did we did receive uh uh some comments um regarding specifically regarding pages 14 and 15 from a resident who I believe is here this evening um as well and uh some of that was related to a phone conversation. So I just wanted to kind of share some input there. the the city's um intent for the graphic we we we shared there is a very macro look of the Gas Lake Village greater surrounding area in terms of some uh parking capacity utilization study work that we've been doing um to align with uh future consideration regarding uh development in Gast Lake Village but also the uh upcoming East Rapids public school capital improvement projects uh really just to give us a baseline of where we are today. So, in no way is it intended to um diminish concerns. In fact, um the um uh I think one of the the sentences there on page 15 at the top, however, the loss of you know, prior two story parking structures coupled with proposed development of remaining vacant acres will warrant another look. So, what we're we we all know that we have some some work and review to come ahead for us. The intent here was to provide a very macro snapshot of just uh for those who want to know what we're looking at. Um with compiling this uh these studies, we've worked with uh staff and consultants. That report is actually like more like 50 pages and dials into a lot of different ways you can look at this. So um speaking with the resident, they they wanted some more information, etc., which we we provided, but we just want everyone to understand that we're not taking any sort of position on or recommendation on parking. We're just providing a snapshot and we did provide for how we uh determine what the utilization is as far as a percentage

etc. right from the the national parking uh manuals etc. Uh with no commentary from staff at all just so you're aware that you know we're getting we're the the graphics and stuff that are shared there are from industry best practices not related to any sort of opinion. So I just wanted to share that with all of you and I'm sure we may have some additional dialogue with this item after public comment. So with that uh I'm all set madam chair. Thank you, Doug. We'll now welcome public comment. Please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Please remember these are comments, not a debate. Please address your questions or sorry, comments to the commissioner and keep your comments to three minutes.

And always please be respectful and kind and not make anyone feel uncomfortable. Thank you. Would someone like to come up first? Good evening again, Nancy Patterson, 21104 Gorm Drive Southeast. When I first became aware that the amended master plan was available back in December, I I was really excited to read it. Um not 100% sure why the 2018 master plan has to be brought forward and be considered law. I asked the city manager about this. Well, why are these things still being planned when times have changed? It's not as if the master plan is a law. He says, "No, but it kind of is. And it looks as if the 2018 master plan is accepted as is and it's being amended by 600 online computer comments and I don't know how those comments were vetted. I don't know if there are stat a statistical representation of East Grand Rapids as far as the demographics. age, sex, etc. I don't even know if they're East Grand Rapids residents. I brought this to the attention of the city commission at a December meeting, and I never heard that

anyone could verify where those 600 comments came from for the amendment of the master plan. So I would just just based on that I would urge you just to out of hand unless you have more information than we have reject the amendment to the master plan until you know more about where that information came from. I had no idea that we could weigh in on the master plan until it was already in a draft form. And I'm going how are we sp I'm pretty well informed. I've lived here 14 years and how are we supposed to have heard about that? So, I would like you just to reconsider where we're going with this and maybe take a step back and get more information. Thank you.

Thank you, Nancy.

Anyone else? Good evening everyone. I'm Craig Hansen. I live at 739 Gladstone. Uh I'm uh very grateful for everyone's time. This must be an enormous undertaking. Um so I'm especially interested, not surprisingly, in uh the St. Steven uh district. Um I can get very excited about many of these in general. Um, it seems to me that we do have an obligation to increase variety of housing uh and density. It seems to me that kind of least successful would just be a continuation of residential uh housing. Um, but I'm especially uh just want to comment on what seems to happen from my vantage point a lot in East Grand Rapids, a very little regard for context. And so I realized at some level we're talking about a kind of 30,000 foot level, but I really what's to me is really extraordinary about uh East Grand Rapids is there is an incredible variety and much of the neighborhood is coherent, but it seems to me that much recent edition uh often feels like it has been overbuilt, as if it doesn't conform to the rest of the street, etc. So moving forward with St. Steven, I could imagine a version of these plans that would be fabulous and make Rosewood and Gladstone much better. I also could imagine a version that suddenly becomes an island unto itself that is a disaster. And I I'm not sure the solution of that, but I just would put a plug for context appreciation and the degree to which the the planning serves the neighborhood rather than the uh the the plan becomes a tool for developers to impose a will that may not correspond to what the neighbors would want. Thanks very much.

Thank you, Craig. Hello, I'm Nile Dems. I live at 701 Laurel Circle. That's a block from Wealthy School. Um, I in in three minutes it's hard to tell you all my thoughts about this plan, but to try and and get a few thoughts for you to think about before you approve anything. One is I think probably less is more. You hire a planner, they're expensive, they got fancy offices, they got lots of gear. Paul's very exper experienced. So he he works up stuff. He works up plans for an area and this and that and he has lots of people to assist him. But East Grand Rapids is a very stable community as the plan says it's built out. It is what it is. If you start, if you will, messing with it because you're going to change things and you want to promote this and you want to promote that, be very careful. If you track at all government planning in cities and neighborhoods, you'll find that yep, some of those things were nice and they worked and a lot of them turned out to not work at all. They missed the market. They were disastrous. Just looking at what you might do over by Easttown, as the prior speaker mentioned, that's a very stable area. A year ago, I

was here when you had a public hearing for people from that area and they said basically leave us alone and whatever you do in the St. Stevens area, it should match our neighborhood. Now, if you got all that sorted out, you know what it is, fine. Why do you even have conceptual drawings for it? What you're going to allow? If you look at the parking was mentioned for Gaslight Village, I that looked like a miracle to me. You had a parking garage there that was supposed to under a contract be saved and it provide would provide a lot of parking. Now the person that wants to build out gasside village has torn it down to said it was no good. And it was no good because they didn't maintain it. But they said the contract said, "Yeah, you'll have to replace it when we tell you to." But he said, "Yeah, I'll replace it behind DNW." Now, if you drive to Gaside Village and you want to eat or you want to buy some from a shop, do you want to walk over behind the DNW store and then back to do that? The parking garage should go right where it was, but you got to conceptual drawing that moves it back behind DNW. Why? Because you bought in on that developer's plan. I don't know what'll happen. That plan that's in the middle of a King County uh circuit court lawsuit now. But I think less would be more if you be real cautious about what you're going to endorse in your plan in terms of telling people they can or should do to go forward because you don't really know and you're

setting yourselves up unless you be real careful about things. Remember the person trying to build out Nile, can you the new proposal has cut his parking in half from 2004? Where's all that parking going? Somewhere. Thank you, Nile. And you got to be careful that it's not planned for. You have a lot of things to look into. Thank you.

Anyone else? Good evening, David Decker, 925 Belclair. Um, I've got concerns with this draft version of the master plan. It attempts to say that parking and gaslight village is not a problem. Business owners, as noted in the master plan draft on page 14, say they have concerns with parking. And residents of East Grand Rapids echo that concern. Many residents have given up on dining in Gaslight Village. They don't invite friends from Ada or Cascade or Rockford to dine in Gaslight Village. Parking's too too complicated. It's a problem. They go elsewhere. Parking just to get a cup of coffee or a bagel or for dinner is complicated in Gaslight Village. The draft master plan on page 15 attempts to gloss over the issue saying the 2018 master plan included a parking study which concluded that parking was sufficient. And it goes on to say that we've done an updated study of all parking public, private, and school in Gaslight Village. That study was done in May of 2025. That's the study that I talked with Mr. Lefave about that he referenced. And that study confirmed the findings of the 2018 parking study. So in 2018 there was no problem. In 2025 there's no problem. But business owners say there is a problem and residents believe there's a problem. Well, there's a chart and a graph there that Doug referred to as

well, and he referred to about 50 pages of study. So, there's a lot of detail in that study. Unfortunately, what's in the draft plan is a summary that shows all 1310 parking spots in the study. The chart needs to show gaslight village parking only, but instead it includes the Department of Public Works up by the baseball field. It includes the parking at Wealthy Elementary School. You ever park there and go to dinner in Gaslight Village? It also includes the senior parking lot at the high school. And it includes all the parking on the side streets, Floral, Pinerest, Lakeside, Maxwell, and Ogden between Argentina and Lake Drive. I don't think any of us would consider those to be Gaslight Village parking. So, business and residents, business owners and residents have concerns with parking in and around Gaslight. The chart doesn't show that. you have the data to show gas leg village only parking. So please update the chart appropriately. Now when I spoke with Mr. Lefave, he shared that the city has had conversations with the owners of the DMW parking lot and are attempting to put a process in place to use some of their parking. The city's searching for solutions. So acknowledge the problem and work toward options and solutions. And it sounds like you're starting down that path. The master plan is a five-year document. For the next two to three years, extra parking pressure from the high school renovation is going to be significant. The senior lot will be closed for at least two years. That's 111 parking spots. David,

are you about ready to wrap it up? Yes, I am. Yep. I just got a final sentence here. That's 111 parking spots that are going to come out of the system and put additional pressure on gaslight village parking. So, please update the master plan to show the search for solutions to the gaslight village parking problem and number two include reference to the reality of the parking pressure for the next two to three years from the high school renovation. Thank you, David. Thank you.

Are there any other public comments? If not, we'll bring the discussion back up here. Commissioners, now is the time if we have questions for Paul, Doug, and then have discussion among ourselves before we consider our next step. So, Paul and Doug, be ready for questions. Sure. Anyone like to start?

Um, I just have uh the one clarification question, I guess. Um, we're referring to this as an update amendment, and I'm just wondering in the future when we look at a project, are we going to be eval evaluating it according to to this or or the 2018 master plan or or both or how does that work? Well, I think the intent was to not uh include anything in the amendment that would contradict the 2018 plan. The 2018 plan is pretty much a 30,000 ft view of the city, whereas here we really focused on four sub areas to get into more detail and and context. As the gentleman uh mentioned earlier, a lot of the goals are the same. We've added some goals. We've added some recommendations, but I don't believe there's anything in there that conflicts with with uh between the two plans.

Thank you.

I'd like to follow up on Mr. Fine's uh question. I'm looking at the 2018 future land use map uh which is our current official future land use map, right? and it it showed an expansion of like MFR like along uh near gas light and is it isn't it true that all of our resonings to MFR have were made possible right in effect because of that so um when you talk about like expanding MFR on wealthy just a little bit of it um and I'm looking through the wording and it it's not really shown as a master plan land you know a future land use plan amendment. It's not proposed to amend the future land use map to that effect. It's just almost like a discussion of of uh that maybe that could be MFR zoning. So, I'm just wondering about um that would be kind of you could say to use your term a conflict between 2018 and in 2026. Um so, because that area right now is showing a single family on the future, Lady Smith, can you just help me work through some of that? uh like what is that relationship between the future land use map and some of the things we're looking at now? I probably should have discussed this earlier, but well, we could amend the future land use map, but the the language in the the amended plan is to expand that zoning along wealthy. Um

I don't see that as a conflict. I mean it because it's currently master planned for single family. So wouldn't wouldn't we be proposing a slight slightly adjusted future land use map that there'd be a that map would be in this document for tonight. We could do that but again this is amending the 2018 plan. So we're saying reszone x number of parcels along wealthy street to MFR. Are is it saying that that is a recommendation? That's what so so we'd have to look at that language and then maybe throw in an updated take the 2018 map and add a few, you know, blocks of brown or whatever, then we'd be in good shape, right?

Yeah. So, you're basically saying take this page and take this drawing and codify it. I'm just saying that I mean, isn't that what we need to do in order for it to be Yeah. so that it's an effective future land use man so that can be serve as the basis for resoning in the future like we did like we've always done in the past

I had a similar question I think that what my interpretation of your question because I had a very similar thought to that I think it's the implementation the master plan is the overall plan when it comes time to implement that like we did for um kind of on the back side of wealthy or backside of DNW that you'll come forth with an amendment to actually change the zoning so I think that's how it gets implemented Yeah, but that's the zoning. But I'm talking about that you can't really change, you don't want to change a zoning map without a a future land use map that's serving as a backup, right? That's been based on this analysis that we've done in detail here.

I I think we can address that. Um just to be more clear um depending on uh action this evening that could be something that um is is an add-on um in terms of a condition of approval um from this evening going to the city commission if that's the perview of the planning commission.

Yeah. And then uh kind of related is when we look at those clusters of uh non-conforming residential areas, they they likely all fall within the the 2018 future land use map which shows single family. So I think we're probably okay there, right, if we add a new zoning district or two or move things around in terms of the zoning. But do we feel that that broad uh plan planned area for single family would accommodate those kind of tweaks that we would like to do in those 13 non-conforming areas? Yeah, we're not changing the use. We're just changing the zoning to legitimize those properties. So that would be the idea is they would remain single family,

right? The idea.

Yeah. A lot of it will will be um kind of vetted out um depending on the outcome um is really when we when we do study sessions to review what are the impediments or what are the issues. We know some of them from some of the public who have been before you um uh throughout this process. Um, so when we're looking at particular areas, we we don't have like the recommendation in terms of what the specific changes would be, but I think when we look at doing study sessions to to look at certain areas where we can define really what's the predominant issues for non-conforming in this area versus another area, um, that's where we'll kind of vet those out. But we do feel comfortable with the overall goal looking at the entire city in those areas. um you know will help us have that backing to to look at um what we can do to to look at those non-conforming issues.

So I think I have a slight followup to Ton's question. Um how is the amendment and the the 2018 master plan? How are those two documents shared forth after we adopt like presumably we're going to adopt something right? So gets adopted. Is the amendment a second document that is referred? Does it supersede anything in it? supersedes the old one. That would help me with the future land use. But you could call it the 26. Yeah. Is this a 2026 master plan or is this 2018 master plan because that helps a lot with the master the land use? 26, right? If you wanted to.

I don't know. Yeah. If there is something in the amendment that is like the the zoning along Wealthy Street that would supersede the 2018 plan because we're amending okay the 2018 plan. That's helpful. Thank you. Um Doug, you you I appreciated your update on the parking at the beginning. you mentioned, hey, the top of that page says we recognize we need to open it up and review it. Can you can you help me a tiny bit with just how we select like the I got to get back to the chart really quick, but it's like 1310 or something like that. And

resident mentioned that that includes parking spaces on streets, which I'm happy to think of. I park on the street all the time, but I also understand concerns from people who are like, I'm not parking by the baseball diamond to walk to Jose Babushkas. So how how are those parking spaces selected and what's that look like?

So a couple things there's two things I'll talk about is is this the system as a whole um um that uh you know even from surge events where you can pull people from even the fringes right um when we we in the the parking study uh we also added um in levels of service. So, if you remember from looking at traffic engineering, there's different levels of service A through D um and and with that and those are all part of the the parking utilization best practices. So um so some of it is you know what's generally available in in in a particular area and there certainly is going to be and there there is a difference between a difference uh and it could be probably you probably amongst all of you would have different differences of opinions from a level service A which is really close um to your destination versus B and as you move out from wherever you place that circle um what you find is that people that um depending on what their ability ities are needs or some people won't ever pay for parking. So, we didn't we didn't actually include any of the paid parking here, which which is in Gasite Village currently. Um, we looked at what were public spaces that were uh open to the public and generally free at some period of time. And we also wanted to make sure that we're cognizant of doing the counts. Um and and we literally send people out on the hour to count every single car in all these surrounding areas and GPS them because um uh we want to make sure that as we move forward with the large school project and with uh the gaslight investors project we have a baseline to understand at least what today where are people parking and gaslight village is very different than what you will see and I know you're all aware of this like on a 28th street where every single business has 60 to 100 spaces that our level service aches you can walk in the front door. Well, our environment, the gas village is not 28th Street. So, uh, level service is going to be minimal based off of where you actually find your parking and where your destination is. So, that's that's a

preference and certainly we respect that preference for for some folks, but um, Gas Lake Village is a shared parking environment. And so, at least from the perspective here, the 139 spaces or 10 spaces, excuse me, really were looking at public assets. So, we did not even count like the yacht club's parking or gaslight investors parking because those are not available to the general public. So, there's even more parking available depending on whether you're willing to pay or you have memberships or other things. Uh but again, we just wanted to have a look and see of the public parking that's generally available. What is the utilization? You know, who's parking where? And we certainly we certainly do see that um um certainly south of Lake Drive. Um, and I know you all are probably very familiar with this too between Lake and and and um Argentina that we do see a large student population um that uses on street parking um in that shared environment and and oftent times what we've also learned too um not to get into too much of the weeds in the parking studies, but you'll see that that actually increases during the day because if they're parking in like a senior lot or a school lot, they want to get out quicker. they are willing based off of their level of service expectation to walk a little bit further so they can get in their car and get out of there versus having to wait. So, it's a complex issue and in this type of environment um again we look at things from a shared perspective and less of a a more suburban type perspective of I would like to pull up in front of a restaurant and do everything there. Um certainly because of the the uh restrictions we have in terms of the development patterns of more of a traditional core community um it's just not feasible. But we wanted to at least do this exercise so that we we we are and can work with East Grand Rapids public schools on their short-term and long-term uh uh plans and solutions around the parking question as well as be informed as we uh potentially look down the line of whatever happens with gaslight investors. Um so we that's

why we looked at the entire system for everybody including students etc. Just a quick uh question about the 1310 that includes the plaza right where the DN it does because we noted it as private open to public. It's shared right it's an agreement with the city from way back or something.

There's there's really not a formal agreement. We've had conversations with the owners and we've we've had some u discussion with them and a willingness to work with the city on a more formalized arrangement uh for for some potential use of that lot so it's not um and better signage. I think we heard from the public uh this evening. Um and and I I would agree with that that um that's something we can work with our our school partners on too for certain hours. Um I know everyone's got like the Merles parking signs anywhere. um those types of things. But if if we can be better um and make improvements around uh with our partnerships we have on shared parking that's available um to let people know like on off school hours or weekends whatever you could park in the Bley lot and then you're like 30 seconds from restaurants and and gas light if people don't realize that today that's something that we can improve upon. and there if if they there were going to be some outuildings you probably apparently you said that the owner likes that idea of course Spartan Nash doesn't like the idea but in theory that would take take up some substantial amount of that parking so that is something that's kind of hanging out there as is on the other hand building a new parking ramp behind D&W so this this chart could change quite drastically um

I would say though uh when we did those concepts for the plaza uh we did count spaces and uh in some of the concepts we would lose a few but not not a large number uh because in those concepts where we're tearing down the existing building and building a new building that's smaller that's giving us space for some additional spaces. So, um, yeah, we might lose a few, but it's not substantial. Just something to keep in mind, right? It sounds like we're working on some.

Yeah. Yeah. And I guess the the other piece I would add for some of the the parking assets that are more distant from a level of service perspective um again because we have a shared um parking system. One of the things that um our team noted from from doing the counts is that depending on what activity is happening or what's happening with the schools, we have visitors from outside the community that may utilize uh our our trail network or our walkability and depending on what the capacity level is on say lakeside in front of John Collins Park. They will shift their behavior parking behavior more towards public works and those those type of more distant assets. So really to count out a variable that's very much a part of what happens. We didn't want to do that. We wanted to count everything that that symbiotically works together um for the different types of uses and events. So, while I recognize uh there may be someone out there that would like to walk from public works for dinner and gaslight, um I would agree that that's probably highly unlikely. However, when we're looking at a system of users that are using a shared network, um those assets are important because they relieve stress on core areas when the core area is not the use of the the person parking.

Thank you. So, one one last follow up on that and I'm totally happy to move on, but uh we're obviously able to send this forward with some hey, make this change city commission before we fully adopt it or is it fully adopted if we pass it out of this? No, it will go to the city commission and then they will add any sort of conditions or or text changes that they may have as well.

So, for me reading the parking stuff, um I do think that it paints a slightly different picture than the reality. So, we've got some verbiage in here that leaves us room to maneuver, which is important, and I appreciate that. I I think it would be a more accurate 2026 master plan, if we're calling it that, right? Or even a more accurate amendment if we at least paid some service to the fact that we know that this is likely to be a challenge for a majority of the next 5 years, because we do know that the high school project is going to create some pressures on some of this. And and also just that um I I don't know how we do it. I you know I don't know how you have a second version of this graph this line graph that shows what's realistic during the day but I do think there's a widely held and hard to refute belief that like if you wanted to get a cup of coffee at 8:00 a.m. there's literally nowhere to park like so it would be nice to at least pay some lip service to the fact that we understand there's a challenge and that we want to work on it cuz I feel like we do and we know that but this doesn't quite say that. So,

and maybe what we do is we just remove the graphic alto together and just put the text in there because like I said the if you look at the the full study there's a lot of different nuances. This was like the this was like the we're driving you know this is the airplane over from you know 10,000 ft. So maybe it's more helpful if this is misinterpreted just to take it out and just note that what we recognize challenges in the future and we'll utilize uh data we have to to connect with and coordinate with the schools in future development. Maybe I think that's helpful. It's also helpful because even though this is supposed to be like the master document and then we have the gaslight village proposals coming to us, those are also mandating parking studies. And so I I wouldn't want those to point at this and be like, look, we don't need to do anything when the whole the whole debate was about when they do it, not if they do it. So

I think that's a good point to mention that if anything is done, there is going to be a study, right? Again, this isn't just cover everything. if Gas Light Plaza does something or whatever, there's like I said, we've we've got a lot of segments that of like what does just the schools look like or what does just the the cities look like, etc. So, um I think we can weave in a um if that's amanable tonight, that can be one of those items that we add for conditions around removing the graphic and language around just noting that we know we have challenges and that we're u we're cognizant of them and we're making sure we have studies and baseline to help guide direction for future development. I'd appreciate that would be and then these concerns are going to be addressed in those studies. They will be

future studies, Ricard studies and I was chopping at the bit to make that suggestion. So sorry also just add not only the graph but the discussion about the 85% and the suggestion that we're fine. I think the terms were glossed over. You know, I like I I think I would remove that that commentary as well because it suggests that we're good.

And and like what I was what I was explaining, there's a there's a difference between really what the 85% really tells you from industry risk practices. You really got to look at overall in your system capacity, but there's also the difference between level service. And I think that's often times what we the mix between what we hear from uh from from some residents and and and business and so some of those in the business community is the level of service is very different from from different environments in terms of a a shared parking and those are all valid for sure. Um so we can certainly u pull the table out the the graphic um is um understanding that it its use is not having the intended uh uh effect and then u note that uh parking studies done uh utilization will be will help inform uh other developments and associated requirements something like that. I think if we're okay with that we can we can add that to the condition lists.

Thanks. There was a there was a concept that right,

Paul that you put together for the Gaslight Village neighborhood that brought the DNW grocery store to the main street up to the front and it had a parking structure in the back. If we added that back in, that could be that could address that. We're thinking about, you know, if the market needs more parking, we're we're we're constrained by land, so the only thing we can do is go up. And if we bring the store up to the to the wealthy street and put parking in the back with a parking structure, I think that shows that we've thought about it. Yeah, we we could put that back in. Um but when I discussed that with our our uh designer we we were concerned that by putting it up in that corner. How do you accommodate loading and uh the trash removal and and all of that where where it it is now or even where we propose to put it if the building is demolished. We still have that back alley which is a service area.

Yeah. I think I think you know I spend a lot of time in Gross Point and Birmingham. They have this they have this they've figured it out, right? They have this they've brought the grocery stores to the to the main street and put parking structures behind it. So I I thought that could be something that we could do. We can look at that. Didn't we look at that though in the past? It was that was one of the things and I think we collectively toss that out for exactly for Paul's reason. I mean, the back the back of a grocery store is very unsightly and it's just loading docks, cardboard boxes and trash that I mean, you could do a parking garage with a high first floor that loading could sneak under. I mean, it is possible, but

I'm just trying to come up with ways to add that we have thought about where could we add more parking. Um, okay. The the the other comment that I had was simply um just to talk about the process. I believe we started this in February of 24 and I want to commend staff for the the creating a timeline and communicating it at with every single mailing for water bills for putting it on the website for communicating and making this making this process um as transparent as possible. Engaging the public with how many signs did we put out for the master plan survey? 80ome signs. Um, so there was a comment about they people didn't know that this was happening. It it was communicated pretty pretty well for two years. So I I think you guys did a great job. I think that we've been transparent. I think it be we've been very thorough. Um, and I think it's I think it's a good plan. Greg, we skipped right past you.

I I'm We've had a great process. Um I feel like my comments over the last two years have been hurt and so feel good about it. Peter, I would echo that. I I mean, I felt as I read through this, there was no surprises in it. We've been very informed. We've talked in depth about every single one of these things in here. So, you guys did a great job, you know, addressing them. It's probably never perfect and it'll always evolve, but um you know, it's a great update. So, I'd like to add the same things. You guys have spent a lot of time on that, a lot of communication and appreciate that.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions before we ask for a motion or if there's no further questions or comments, would someone like to make a motion?

Yeah, I'll make a motion to um what are we? We're sending this forward to the city commission with recommendation for approval uh with two conditions. uh first that we update the future land use map to reflect the recommendations of the MFR extensions along Wealthy Street which are found on page 26 of the amendment draft. And the second condition would be uh to remove the parking graphics and add some language indicating that future developments likely require parking study recognizing uh the widely held observation that parking is a challenge in the current state of Gaslight Village. And those would be the two conditions that I wrote down. So the motion is to send it forward with those. I would second that. There any further discussion?

Just to be clear, is that the uh MFR along wealthy is that the only case in these study areas where where that would apply? Right. We we did

we did point out that with the concepts uh St. Stephen, for example, if some of those uh concepts were uh desirable and they wanted to implement them, it would require a zoning change, but we're not recommending that at this point. You know, if if they did single family homes, the property is already zoned for single family homes. Um but town homes or um some of the uses that might go into the existing school building may necessitate a zoning change.

Would that also require before the zone I mean going through the process properly? Would that also require a small amendment to the future land use map? Yes. So that'd be a two-stage process. So when you amend that future land use map, that's that's a that's the thing where we do all the notifications and all that. You can do those concurrently. Yeah. Oh, okay. Thank you. Any other comments? If not, we'll have a vote on the master plan update amendment to the two 2018 master plan with the two noted changes. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Opposed say no.

Motion carries. The next step, this will go to the city commission. And again, thanks to Paul and the staff and Doug and everyone else for all their work on this. We've had the first meeting, what was it in 20 three 2023 in August or 2024? Well, the first Yes, correct. Yes. So, this has been a long-term project that we've all been working on. So, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Next is report of the city commissioner. I'm guessing that Doug will probably do something in the absence of Laura tonight.

Sure. Um what I'll cover uh the um the city is currently in the midst of uh starting its budget process. Um so staff um is working on that. We uh did have a a joint department head uh strategic planning session with the city commission this past Saturday and from that um we work on different um goals that we align in our budget with our strategic plan. Um so uh stay tuned for those types of items in terms of the the city budget which is something we obviously have to do every year and aligning those goals with ma things like master plan and and other plans we have as we look at projects and operations and those types of things. Um beyond that I uh um I don't have anything else to add.

I would like to thank public works for all their work during all the snow month of January. We all appreciate it. Yeah, we have a heck of a team and they've been working around the clock in a lot of different unique shifts. Certainly, we're not perfect. Um it's a it can be a tough environment um out there and if anybody's ever interested, whether it's the general public or planning commissioners or other officials, um we're always happy to to schedule ride alongs, those types of things. Um uh it it's can be a very eye openening experience to to see really how talented our team is and the the challenging environments they operate in. I got to tell you, I actually did that back when I was a city commissioner. It was awesome. I cannot recommend it enough. I would like to do that sometime. I baked cookies and brought it to them

and they and they and I know they really they really do appreciate you know obviously um you know during cleaning up from storms or is not on everyone's to-do list as a resident too that they really enjoy. Um and so as I noted sometimes it's just a challenging environment. So the the even the smallest positive voices sometimes to see the difference that makes with our team um cookies or just a thank you um that's not something that they often hear. It's usually um how we may have missed the mark and um even though the intent is to to never miss the mark. So appreciate that or just a friendly wave when they're going by. Yep. They love they love those too. Thank you.

Our next meeting is scheduled for March 10th. Do you have any idea if there's going to be anything on the agenda? No, but uh Mr. Geianati, we expect him to be back actually on the 10th. So um so we'll welcome him back to the team and look forward to uh moving forward with this and many other items. So thank you. Great. Thanks. Next is adjournment. May I have a motion and second? All right, you may have a motion. Second. Second. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Oppos say no. Thank you everyone. Let's start tomorrow at page 15.