Planning Commission - Special Meeting

Coffee for a new emotion to reenter open session. I'd like to move to reenter open session. Support. Straight vote. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes. Opposed say no. That's closed session is now reopened. Next on the agenda is public comment on non-agenda items. If you have a comment on something that's going to be on the agenda later, like the logic property, you can talk about that later, but right now it's for non-agenda items. If anyone would like to make a comment, please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record and address the commission. Hearing none, I'll close the public comment on non-agenda items. We'll now continue. I move to Do you want me to just go ahead and jump in? Okay. Uh I'll move to remove from the table the previously tabled motion regarding the land division request on 250 Plymouth Road. Support. All those in favor say yes. Yes.

Yes. Opposed say no. Thank you. Next is the public hearing on the land division request for 250 Plymouth Road division into five residential lots while retaining the existing primary building. And just as a reminder, we're focusing on the land division approval, not the site not a site plan approval. We'll begin with a summary from Jay from

[snorts]

Thank you, Madam Chair. So again, we are continuing our discussion and deliberation uh regarding uh the proposed land division at 250 Plymouth Road, uh commonly known as the Brookby Estate. Um just as a reference for everyone, uh what area we are talking about. This is again the overall area of the site. Um so all of the area you see on this drawing here is the current boundaries of the Brookby Estate. Uh the request is to divide this property into five lots. Um among these, um the existing Brookby Mansion uh would be retained as indicated by the applicants to be incorporated into lot number two in this concept. Um and then lots one, three, four, and five uh surrounding this. Um we have discussed the standards of review for land divisions and uh city's analysis um at our last meeting. Um I just wanted to show a couple more uh clarifications and additional context we provided to help uh with the decision-making by the commission. So first off, relating to the question of um what areas are to be compared in reviewing the standard and specifically standard 3A, which is the parcels that are harmonious within parcels within 500 ft of the site. Um this map that you see here shows um what all of the parcels within 500 ft of the Brookby Estate site is. Um So again, this area here that's bordered here is the site. Um the parcels that are colored are all those that are within 500 ft. Um we've also taken the extra step of modeling uh what the proposed lots would be within this and how their areas compare onto the parcels within 500 ft. Um but at minimum, again, this map shows um the area that is to be considered in terms of the standard 3A. Um are parcels harmonious within 300 ft? Um as

mentioned in our memo and also memos from um Mr. LeBlanc, our consultant, um we continue to feel that this standard is met um mainly based on the fact that there is a wide variety of lot sizes and shapes such that um it is hard, if not impossible, to say that there is a single distinctive type of lots within this radius. Um so between that and the fact that all the proposed lots do meet the standards and requirements for the R1 district, we continue to feel that this standard is met. Um the other question that came up uh when specifically was related to lots three and four, which are the two corner lots. One is a corner lot at Robinson and Plymouth, and then lot four is next to that to the east um and the developability of that lot. Um as a technical matter, uh developability of lots is not part of the review for a land division request. Uh that being said, we did do a very quick model of that lot um and what sort of house size could be built on that lot. This mock-up shows that this building footprint uh represents approximately a 4,500 sq ft two-story home. Um as you see in this lot, um there's ample room for the house to be located here with ample building envelope if someone wanted to even expand further than that. Um ample room to have access, whether it be from Plymouth or from Robinson. Um and again, with this being the smallest of the proposed lots, um our conclusion would be again, while not technically part of the land division review, um we believe this demonstrates that, you know, there is ample opportunity for this to be reasonably developed as proposed. Um beyond that, uh none of our analysis has changed since last week. Um so if there's any lingering questions about any of that, um we're happy to address any questions that the commission has. Um I have a quick question about what I believe is lot five. Um Does that have any special or additional environmental uh regulations or setback

requirements being along a Coldbrook Creek there? Generally, I would say no. Um there is a small amount of floodplain along the creek, however, it's only about uh 20 or 30 ft. Um so whatever it is, it's only within or not much more than what the standard setback could be, so it would not in any case be large enough to make any any problems with developing that land. Thank you. Any other questions for Jay? But quick follow-up to to Mr. Fine's uh question. Uh so the city participates in the national flood insurance program, and so uh you if there is a floodplain issue, you what are there How does that supersede the local zoning? So we we do uh participate in that program and the updates of those FEMA maps, uh which are done about every decade, um I think the current FEMA maps for floodplain areas was approved maybe 3 years ago, I want to I want to say. Um and um and Coldbrook Creek in that area certainly with with within that. And actually, we've just we just experienced a quite a stress test on that, too. Um the numbers we got back for precipitation actually exceeded uh 2013 um here in the area. So um so that that's that's our all-time record um here in East Grand Rapids. Um uh I would also add that the the drainage easement uh or the the easement that Jay referenced, that was placed by the city when former lot splits were completed uh for the properties to the east there. Um uh so uh basically to make sure that the city had access to uh to work with uh the drain commission, etc., to make sure we keep that clean. So uh I can tell you that over the past month, uh our Department of Public Works has been there almost every day removing logs and everything else that can get

stuck in that culvert. So And that's that's that was the purpose of that easement. Prior to those other lot splits of the state, um there was not an actual easement. Um so in terms of the flooding, that matches up with uh with the FEMA maps and analysis. Um doesn't impede anything uh from the upland development areas.

So it's a technical question, the interplay of the zoning like the uh building's building code and and the zoning code relative to the floodplain boundary, you know. Right. There's we don't have any um because of the building envelopes don't intersect with or enough of a building envelope don't intersect with a conflict with the the easement or the the floodplain map. It did. If it did, then that would be that would be an issue for us that we would raise. But we we don't see that in this case. Thank you. Anything else for Jay? Thank you. We'll now hear from the builder and developer. Please come to the podium and introduce yourselves and say who you represent before you speak. Good evening. Uh my name is Lucas Jones. I live at 330 Plymouth Avenue Southeast, uh directly to the south of Brookby. Uh sorry I wasn't able to be here at the last

[cough] meeting. I was [clears throat]

out of town, but wanted to have a chance to kind of voice some thoughts as a neighbor and as somebody who's obviously part of this uh this project. You know, uh my family and I moved to East Grand Rapids 4 years ago uh from out of state. Um I can't tell you how lucky we feel to be part of this community. I think um so first off, I just want to say, you know, we're very grateful for the work that you all put into to the city in making it such a safe and harmonious place. So we wanted to start with that. Um something that we think about every day. I think in this case, you know, with with this project, um you know, going back to the very genesis of when we were looking at the saving. Obviously as somebody who sees it every day, walk by with my kids every single day and you know, we're since you share a property line you can see it in the backyard and you know, we always had this as something that we were really curious about and we were always, you know, the last years since we've lived here just frankly hasn't been utilized and it's you know, it was always very curious that nobody lived there, nobody seemed to be doing very much with it. It always kind of was in our the back of our minds to say it'd be really interesting if somebody could do something creative or you know, to make more of this this property and you know, I think as we started developing the idea more and more and getting other neighbors and other people together to be really on the same page with what it could be, you know, one of the things that was absolutely top of mind for us from day one was let's make this as digestible as possible for everybody. Let's make this as seamless as possible and we we you know, we entertained ideas early on and said like look how many how many lots could you make out of something like this? Could you make 10? Could you make 12? Whatever and you know, and I think very early on and and larger part of it came from the the conversations we've had with Doug and Jay and their team, we concluded pretty quickly that we just didn't want to go down that path. We're not developers, we're we build homes and we're neighbors and you know, I frankly

I didn't want to build anything next to something that I think the other piece of it was just you know, these types of conversations are frankly like what we were kind of trying to avoid. Like you know, it's I think you know, as you've had a chance to kind of review some of the words that we've sent and you know, our our presence here, I think you'll probably detect some level of disappointment or frustration and that's not directed at anybody individually, it's directed primarily at the fact that like again, we were very intentional and we tried to be from the get-go to try to make this as as straightforward as possible and so, you know, I I hope that you know, we can certainly answer any questions that that you know, you have. I think we you know, want to be respectful of normal process and everything like that but again, you know, we feel very confident that what we've what we've envisioned here, what we've put in front of you has been very well thought out, orchestrated with the the help of the the fine folks here at East Grand Rapids and and the public works department and you know, I I hope you also recognize that you know, there's nobody who has more of an investment in this direct neighborhood and the feel of what this this property can become than than you know, the people in this room. I think Um, you know, the the last thing I'll just talk about briefly is is the mansion itself and I know that's something that's you know, while it's not technically on the table or part of this consideration, I think we're all on the same page there. There's no doubt that you know, from the get-go we wanted to figure out a way to respect the history of this property. This is not just land, this is a there's there's a legacy here and honestly the more that I've I'm not architecture historian by any means but the more I had a chance to really dive into just you know, what what this property represents, you know, that was always something that

we we wanted to be respectful of and again, we really feel like the way that we've created this plan helps satisfy that in a very reasonable way. You know, one of the pieces of feedback that I think has been shared previously but I wanted to emphasize is the property as it existed before was just it was overwhelming. I think you know, the the property was on the market for a while and Aquinas University, Aquinas College, you know, had a [clears throat] really hard time finding a buyer for it and you know, one of the things that they found and that we certainly found is that managing five five and a half acres as an individual buyer is is a chore. It's there's a lot of cost, there's a lot of considerations, it's overwhelming there. So, [snorts and clears throat]

you know, both from our perspective in trying to find a plan that we thought was the most feasible and again, seamless for consideration but also, you know, being realistic about what a modern family needs, what a modern buyer needs and you know, we really feel like the path here is going to become the best possible outcome for for everybody involved and again, I say that as a as a member of this community, as a neighbor and as somebody who you know, we we all feel like we've been extremely thoughtful about what we put in front of you. So, again, just wanted to kind of exercise or or express our desire to be part of the solution here. We we come here today with a very optimistic mindset. We'd love to have you know, productive conversation here and it sounds like that's what everybody's teed up to have and thank you for your time and consideration and again, your service to the community. Good evening everybody. My name is Chris Darski. I'm a litigation counsel for Everstead Design Company. I don't know if you'd like me to speak now or if you would like me to wait for public comment. I just have a few minutes of You're kind of part of the whole team here?

I am a part of Yeah, then you can speak now. Thank you. Um, as I mentioned, I'm counsel for Everstead Design Company regarding the land division application. You know, in full transparency, the comments that I intended to make are really really made for me by the agenda materials that you've been provided in advance of this meeting and I know that I speak on behalf of Everstead and I appreciate um this planning commission's um listening to them about their sense of urgency in wanting to to get a timely response and you guys scheduling this special meeting. So, um we appreciate that. The comments that I was going to make really just align with the memo that the memos that we've received. The and that have been provided to you all. Those being from Deputy City Manager Doug LaFave, the April 20th supplemental memo from Paul LeBlanc and the March 25th memo from Zoning Administrator Jay Ginotti. So, I don't think that anything I'm going to say here is going to come as a surprise you know, regarding what the zoning ordinance requires from the planning commission as you consider your decision on the application. Looking at the zoning ordinance 5.406 regarding the review of land divisions, um Mr. Ginotti kind of pointed out that you've been given a series of I think we've been given a series of green lights here from the standpoint that our standards [clears throat] that we're looking at. Mr. Ginotti's memo kind of points out that that all of those each of those standards have been met. I know that you know, Mr. LeBlanc echoes that sentiment and recommends that this land division be approved and really just want to emphasize that when we're looking at the harmonious standards, that those standards are kind of articulated on an objective standpoint and we're kind of reiterated by Mr. Ginotti tonight when

you're looking at kind of lot width ratio and and whether or not it's it's consistent with other lots within a 500 ft of the proposed lot split. So, really we ask that you consider this thoughtfully as you have. Ultimately that you approve it but regardless of your decision, I just want to I know you've got Mr. Huff here who I've gotten to know over the past 6 months. You've probably gotten good counsel from him. I just want to [cough and clears throat]

point out that that the land division act under MCL 560.109.1 because there was some question about this. I watched the video of the last hearing requires a written decision on the application and to the extent that you're going to deny that decision, that you articulate those reasons in writing so that you know, our client can and I can can take a look at that and and decide what those what what next steps we're going to be going to need to take but hopefully those next steps are moving forward with with with these lots and and and development now. But happy to to speak and answer any questions but otherwise, thank you for your time and attention this evening. Anyone else from the team care to talk right now? If not, commissioners, do you have any questions for the team? No? Then at this [clears throat] point, we'll open the public hearing regarding the land division request for 250 Plymouth Road. We'll welcome public comment. Please come to podium, state your name and address for the record and limit your comments to 3 minutes. Would anyone like to make a public comment? Hello everybody. Thank you so much. I know several of you and those of you I haven't met before. I just want to thank you for the time you give to volunteer to make our community really great and I know it takes time away from your families. Thank you so much. Um Did you state your name and address? Yes, I'm Betsy Anderson. I live at 900 Edgemere. Thank you. Um First, I want to explain that I am a

neighbor on the lake. I um I have not uh checked into exactly how far we are away but I it's pretty close to 500 ft. And it is definitely a part of the neighborhood. Uh we use the whole lake. There are all these people. We are neighbors. Um and so as a neighbor on the lake, I feel incredibly fortunate that the Whitmarshes and the Joneses chose to buy this property. We have all been concerned ever since it went up for sale. I believe they are by far the best folks for the future of the land, the neighborhood, and this lake for several reasons. This lot split preserves and minimizes any harm to the lake. Only one property in fact would be able to have a dock and add a motorized uh it would be able to have something on the lake with a motor. This lake is home to a very diverse um wildlife population, which is growing. In the past few years, we keep getting more and more species stopping in and staying on the lake. Green herons, uh great blue herons, mink, um today we have some red-breasted mergansers that we've never seen before. There are wood ducks, and on and on. Um I believe it's the best and only realistic way to preserve the mansion. Everyone one wants to see that remain. It will now be a desirable property and manageable for a family or a nonprofit. They don't have to worry about collecting the goose poop, which is

hundreds of dollars for some of the other neighbors that have large um lawns like that. It isn't an easy thing to keep up. Um next, these builders know the neighborhood and their neighbors. If you look at where they're putting those um lots, I can tell you right now they probably looked over where the flood plain was. I understand the geology of the lake and how squishy mushy the land is. They have everything up near the roads. That is for sure a really good idea. Um last, I just want to say that they know the neighborhood. They have made efforts to um in fact add a spark to the neighborhood. We now have a um block party with all the different families on the lake and and there are all these young kids. They are here for the schools. They're here to take advantage of the new sidewalks and the mobility. Um I think we're very fortunate and I hope you will vote for this split. Thanks, Betsy. Anyone else? The little ones aren't walking up. If no other front public comment, then we'll bring it back up here and have discussion up here. Good. Like to start your take? Uh sure, I can start. Um So, my take from, you know, I'm not an attorney, but I am a licensed civil engineer. And so if I look at 3A, I did a little math. And so there are 29 lots within 500 ft of 200 250 Plymouth. 21 are zoned R1. Nine of those have Fisk Lake frontage. Said another way, 42.8%

of R1 within 500 ft have lake frontage. The proposed split of this lot has 20% of new lots on lake frontage. So, that standard appears to be inconsistent for me. On 3B, where it talks about the existence of uh flood plain, wetlands, drainage courses, and terrain, and the ability to develop building sites on each parcel without unreasonable disturbance of such features, I look at the overall development or the the overall lot split, and I see uh the the topography is the property slopes from west to east towards Fisk Lake, and it includes the drainage feature, uh the creek. The proposed lot configuration appears to create interdependent drainage patterns across multiple lots, rather than independent drainage solutions solutions for each parcel. So, specifically um based on site topo, there are concern my concern is that runoff from lot three and lot four will flow into lot two and lot five, and then runoff from lot two will subsequently flow from lots five uh towards lots five and one. The application does not provide sufficient info to demonstrate that each resulting parcel can be developed independently without creating adverse downstream drainage impacts. I think that's That's what I got. That's my take. Thank you. Mr. Matz? Going down the line. Um

The only thing that I or the one thing that I think I looked at was uh 3A um talked about the width to depth ratio of the parcels um in relationship to the 500 ft. And I feel like when you look at the map, especially thank you, Jay, for this map. It helps a lot. Um most of the parcels are very um rectilinear. So, I I don't think the especially sites three and or what we're calling three and four fit in with the consistency of the width to to length ratio as stated in 3A. Sorry, I'm just making a note. I I have no questions. Matt? Um

[clears throat]

sure. Um I guess I just start by saying that, you know, I'm I'm less than enthusiastic about uh being part of a process where we're potentially splitting up a a historic estate. Um however, I do understand that there are other issues at play here that need to be considered. Um when I when I look at the plan and the zoning requirements, I do believe that that the the lots as proposed substantially comply. Um In regards to the harmonious question, um I think that is very much a valid and legitimate question for us to ask, and and we should ask that. Um but when I look at it and and especially compare uh the proposed lots to to what is within 500 ft, I think it it would be reasonably harmonious. So. Thank you.

[clears throat]

So, I think um I I'd echo your your first comments, you know, my my personal feelings about dividing up a historic property are one thing, but um you know, I understand the realities here. And you know, there's no doubt section one is met. I know the applicants were very careful to say how they've gone to great lengths to make sure that those um standards for this um this zone are met. Um what I'm what I was basing my decision on at our last meeting, um Doc, can you put this up again? I feel like this would be helpful. Um I made this map before Jay made a prettier map, so just bear with me. See if I [clears throat] can get the mouse, too. So, [snorts] you can kind of see the the blue I tried to I was on the GIS map and kind of did the 500 ft out from the lot line. So, this is our like rough 500 ft radius. So, what I was looking at were, you know, primarily those lots in the pink outline. There are 11 lots that are sort of similarly situated um within that 500 ft. You know, I'm looking at like what what borders Robinson or Plymouth and then have lake on the other the other side. And so the pattern that I'm seeing are those long skinny lots, and and sometimes even wider frontage at the road, narrower at the lake, with an emphasis of you know, but apparently everybody wants to you know, have lake access. There there's two outliers in there. One is up here, and that's one of those outbuildings that's original to the estate that presumably they carved out so they wouldn't have to destroy it, and then there's another one

over here. So, the vast majority of these lots are long skinny going from road to lake. And that's what I think I did a poor job of expressing my hesitancies with respect to um factor three is we have this division happening that creates four inland lots um out of five. And that just doesn't seem to, you know, follow that pattern to me. You know, even if even if five and one split, you know, like if you thought of the southeast corner of lot two was angling towards that the waterfront so that you lots one and five have water, that would that would seem more harmonious to me and when we're talking about lake frontage. Um And where where I'm struggling today to be to be honest is thinking about the the bigger 500-ft radius and how much weight to give to those other lots in the 500. Um versus those that are like more similarly situated. So, just just to give the full picture of the concerns and and where my head's at, that's that's where I am right now with that struggle. May I staff a question about that? Is lake frontage more of a site plan consideration versus a lot split? Do you know what I'm saying? I I would not necessarily say that's I mean, [clears throat] the biggest difference with a site plan is that you're usually designing the entire site. You're showing [clears throat] where roads are, you're showing where drainage facilities are, things of that sort. Um the site condominium that was done on Eleanor Lane would be an example of project that required a site plan because of everything was being taken care of by that. Here, they have vacant land or semi-vacant land and they're

asking to carve that up in certain sizes. Um and they're not depending upon anything being added to the site to facilitate or support those um those properties. Um as I think Mr. Lafeve has mentioned before, uh city obviously has regulations on access, sanitary, sewage, water. Um those potentially can all be met since each of these properties front on a public right-of-way where those utilities exist. So, um I I don't think it's that is necessarily a distinction I would make. Um I guess what I'm saying is that we take we really can't take into consideration, can we, whether or not his lot or lake So, yeah, to to be clear, I'm I'm not saying like a certain percentage has to have waterfront access. It's a it's a shape. It's the shape and dimension. That's that's the pattern that I'm referencing and, you know, where my thinking was coming from in saying that this is not harmonious with those lots around it. Okay. But, we also have to consider the lots within the 500 ft as well. Correct, staff? That's what I'm saying.

Correct. Yep. Anything else, Laura? Sorry. No, that's fine. I I think about it a lot and so like a lot of it's in my head, so it's good to ask the questions to make sure I'm I'm saying everything. No, it's just it's factor three for me that's the the struggle. [clears throat]

Yeah. Mr. Miller? Sure. Uh 3A is about the land division uh whether it adversely affects um character of properties. Uh will it be consistent and harmonious? I think we've been provided with a number of guidance. Uh we have been provided for this meeting and the previous meeting with various illustrations, maps, drawings. Uh and also a variety of uh professional guidance. That leads me to believe uh given the, you know, the actually the variety, you know, variety of uh lots within the 500 ft. I'm more accustomed to the 300-ft radius, so you go out to 500 ft and you're going to pick up a lot of things and that's the radius uh we need to work with. And so, I do believe given the given the range of property sizes um the width with the depth ratio um that uh I I feel that uh the resultant five parcels would would be generally consistent and uh would would be harmonious and consistent with the character of properties in the surrounding area. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Sure. Uh so, I'm uh

[clears throat]

obviously we're all struggling with standard three. I've been trying to arrive at a decision about whether or not standard three has been met by this proposal. So, for let's see. Uh for sure, Commissioner Akram and I think Commissioner Schwartz have have made similar observations uh about whether or not the 500-ft radius is the only variable that can be used to determine whether or not something is harmonious. And and like Commissioner Akram, uh a lover of spreadsheets and data, and so I I started with, you know, do we do we only consider the 500-ft radius or is there room for subjectivity? And uh the observation I would make is that standard three says, "Location and size of the resultant parcels shall be generally consistent to the size, shape, and area of the lots in the surrounding area in the proposed split." Generally consistent, somewhat subjective, I would say. Uh and then in reviewing conformity with properties in the surrounding area, factors which should be considered are total size of the parcels created, the width of such parcels, and the width-to-depth ratio of the parcels. So, we have some some size measures that we're using which are generally going to be objective. But, I keep falling back on the fact that we're using the word harmonious and harmoniousness. And I [clears throat] know from some conversations we've had that, you know, even if the resulting lots meet every single technical measurement of our zoning ordinance, which in this particular case is R1, I think that I have to argue that harmony itself, harmoniousness as a measure, has to mean more than mere technical compliance. Because if it was merely technical compliance we were after, then we would say that. And that the ordinance does not say that. The the ordinance uses a word that is clearly intended to you know, to allow for some subjectivity. So, then the question is, well, what does that what does that mean? We still have to look at this 500-ft radius. And so, uh similar to Commissioner Akram, I I took a look at

that data table that we received for average acreage and uh of lots. And if you look at the R1 zoning area within the 500-ft radius, you immediately carve out What do we got here? Like six lots that are each an eighth of an acre to a quarter of an acre. So, there's these tiny lots on Briarwood. I happen to love them. It's one of my favorite streets in East Grand Rapids. So, by observing the size of those lots, I'm in no way uh claiming that I don't love that street. It's beautiful. Uh but, if you take out a bunch of eighth-acre lots from that calculation, then the average size of the lots that are residential within the 500-ft radius is uh a good deal over an acre. And suddenly, lots three and four seem like um we're being asked to approve the creation of the smallest lots in the neighborhood. Uh every R1 lot in that radius except for 405 Plymouth, which is also in that 0.4 range, every other lot is basically an acre or nearly an acre, 0.8, 0.98, things like that. So, when I look at it that way, uh I start to struggle with the idea that the size measure of harmoniousness is being achieved by these lots. And I'm I'm struggling because that's a pretty basic measure. So, looking at that, uh I'm not sure that I would consider it to meet the criteria of harmoniousness there. The other word that's used in our ordinance that I was trying to consider is the word conformity, which I think we've obviously been shown a number of documents that show it's very difficult to look for any sort of consistent lot size in that area. So, I keep falling back to the R1 lots that are nearby and looking at those sizes. I also think um within that 5 ft, we're looking at a college, we're looking at lots that are in a different municipality. Uh we may be down here at the end, like barely touch a hospital. So, there's there's obviously other uses in the area, but I

would certainly never say that uh bringing other uses to this parcel would wouldn't would change the harmoniousness either, right? Like we would want to be considering those things. So, for me at least, it's about the size of those lots. Uh I think you've heard some other arguments uh for orientation and things like that that could be considered, but but I'm really hanging my hat on 3A and the size of those lots just not being harmonious with the other R1 properties in in the radius. So, that's it. Thank you. One of the notes in the materials was you don't want something that's not present within 500 ft. And there are within 500 ft lots that are smaller than that. So, it's not anything different. When you look up harmonious online, it says it's a development that is compatible with, not injurious to, and consistent with existing or intended character of the surrounding area in the community's master plan to ensure new projects fit into their context without causing excessive disturbance. Compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood character. I spent quite a bit of time walking by these properties. I'm sure if those cameras really are up there like it says, I'm sure they've seen me walking by and studying and the pacing it off. And it is totally different than when you drive by. It's a totally different feel. The lots seem a lot bigger. Sure, you look at them on paper, three and four look really dinky, especially when you look next to Brookbie. Like it just looks like a little shed. But, when you look at the other homes like on Plymouth, the white one that was just redone and stuff, I see any potential homes in here blending in a very well. There's a home that was redone next door to the left is a Tudor home. There's wide range. The house Mr. Lucas Jones lives in is a house without a basement. A very kind of modernistic house. I've been in that home. It's very completely different style. So to say harmonious and lots the lot sizes

all change a lot. I think it is my opinion is it is fitting in. Anyone else have any questions? We don't have to go in order now. Our staff any any comments? Would it be possible for me to answer some questions as a lifelong resident and very knowledgeable about There are lots adjacent to this property that obviously were allowed by the city. It doesn't seem fair. Also, across the lake almost all the lots are a third to a quarter of an acre and they are big. I think you're I think you

[clears throat] And the drainage is not a good [cough] Something We Mr. Madam Chair, Madam Chair, this this dialogue needs to be amongst the commission at this point. So Thank you. Any other questions? Discussion? Seems like we're split. So one way to resolve that would be to have a motion to approve. to say, would anyone like to make a motion? Yeah, I might do that. See where we end up. Yep. And keep in mind staff had some conditions if it were to go through. They do have some recommended conditions. You might want to take a look at those and someone discuss that.

Should be in the motion for sure, right? Yep. Well, uh let's Tom I think you're right. Let me share. One way to move forward would be to have some sort of motion. Do you need to go over those with us, Doug, or No, I think you can um if if you're going to do the motion to approve to see where things settle just motion motion to approve with conditions as noted in the memo of the staff memo. Yeah. Pull up those conditions here. They're on page 102. While we're looking for that, can I ask sort of a procedural question? Like the the what if? Like what what happens if if this were denied, could the applicant come back with a new plan and like are there standards on how different that has to be from the current? I think Mr. Ginnetti alluded to this at our last meeting that would have to be if there's a denial, would have to be uh it's as noted in previous considered substantially different. Correct? Something like that.

That's what we've used. Sorry. Yeah, generally the term that's used in the zoning ordinance is something that's substantially different. Now, what exactly constitutes substantially different, um that could be open to interpretation depending on what a second attempt would look like. Um so I don't want to get too hypothetical in that regard in that case, but And and this is not a zoning variance where that standard is clearly a high standard and um it would seem to me I I agree with Jay's comment. I guess it would depend what came back what changed. Uh but certainly yes, there this this does not preclude an amendment of their proposal. Okay. A question about one of the recommended conditions, the existing outbuildings along Robinson Road should be demolished before land division is recorded. This is if the request is granted. Correct.

Yeah, what is the What can you summarize what the What what that would do is eliminate um non-conformities so that they could actually have the lot lines not, you know, be through the center of a building, something like that. Um that's a a common thing for redevelopment that we require so that way we have everything in in conformity. Would someone like to make a motion?

Well, I I can move that um the land division uh application uh for the parcel at 250 uh Plymouth Road Southeast uh as submitted uh be approved with the conditions that are recommended by the staff which is that um I'm going to pull that up here. It says uh that the compliance that there shall be compliance with the legal descriptions and surveys that have been submitted with the application. That the transfer and recording of the relevant deed or deeds or land contract or contracts with the Kent County Register of Deeds happen within 90 days of the commission's action. Which should be today if it's approved. And that if uh and that the existing outbuildings on Robinson Road be demolished before the land division is recorded. Second. Second. Any further discussion? I So uh in seconding [snorts] that, this is actually probably going to come as a shock. I I am actually in support of this. Um this is really really borderline um for me. Um but having had a lot of discussions um and thinking it through and having spoken about it here tonight, like that's that's where my my head it has been at in thinking about the harmonious nature along the lake and um you know, I zooming out and seeing the varied properties, zooming out within that 500 ft, um just ever so slightly tips the balance

for me. You weren't swayed by your math? Commissioner Miller and I's wonderful math. [laughter] I I'm a lawyer, so I don't do math. Any other discussion? If not, we'll have a vote on the land division request for 250 Plymouth [clears throat] Road Southeast. All those in favor say yes. Yes.

Yes. Opposed say no. No. No. The motion carries and the land can be developed. Thank you. Thank you, Madam. Our next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for May 12th. JR Doug, do you foresee anything coming up? We do indeed. Um I don't know if you want to specify specifically Doug or not it's or unless uh Manager Charles wants to. Um we we do have um a a phase one uh site plan uh uh for you all to review uh for Gaslight Investors um at the next meeting. Thank you. Next is adjournment. May we have a motion and second to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Second. All those in favor say yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Opposed say no. Meeting adjourned. Thank you, everyone. Happy Earth Day. Thank you. Hey, Doug.