Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We're still graduating. Wait, he would have moved me over.

Yeah. I'm sorry. You're early.

You're early. Perfect timing. No, that's stuff you don't think about. I know.

Okay.

Welcome, everyone.

Sure.

Interesting.

It's 5.30, time to start our meeting. Before we get to the main focus of our meeting tonight, we'll take care of some housekeeping items because it's the first meeting of the city fiscal year. We have a few more things than normal. We'll begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. Will everyone please stand and join us? Thank you, everyone. First on the agenda tonight is 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. Motion carries. Next is approval of the minutes from the June 9, 2026 meetings. Are there any additions or corrections? If not, may I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes? So moved. Second. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Opposed say no. Motion carries. Next on the agenda is public comment on non-agenda items. Please note we'll have public comment later regarding the glass light investors and the PUD. So we'll have that later. If you'd like to make a comment on a non-agenda item, please come to the podium and state your name and address before making your comments. Please address the commissioners and remember this time for comments only. Would anyone like to come up? Hearing none, we'll move on to the next item. Thank you. Next on agenda is our annual election of officers. I love that we're all working together as a team this year. We brainstorm so well together and share our strengths. It's worked out really well. So welcome back everyone. We'll begin tonight with election of chairperson. As chairman, the primary role is that of a facilitator. A chairperson should always be well prepared to recite over meetings and make sure they're conducted in an orderly manner, both with fellow commissioners and the public. The chairperson will guide deliberations, encourage participation, and decision-making among commissioners. Always be fair and respectful. Make everyone feel valuable and welcome. Is there a motion to nominate someone for the position of chairperson?

Go ahead, Brian.

I'll nominate Mary Mapes to return as our chairperson. Second.

Are there any other nominations? If not, we'll close the nominations. Any further discussion? Then we'll take a vote. All those in favor of re-electing Mary Meeks as chairperson, please say yes. Yes. Opposed, say no. Thank you, everyone. I'm honored to be the chair again. Next on the agenda is election of vice chairperson. The duties of the vice chair are the same as a chairperson. So if they are not available or if there's a conflict of interest, they'll lead a meeting. Is there a motion to nominate someone for the position of vice chair?

I would like to nominate Brian Miller for vice chair.

I'll second. Are there any additional nominations? If not, we'll close nominations. Any further discussion? All those in favor of electing Brian Miller as vice chairperson say yes. Yes. Opposed say no. Congratulations, Brian.

Thank you.

Next is election of secretary. If both the chairperson and vice chair are not available or have conflicts of interest, then the secretary will lead the meeting. Is there a motion to nominate someone for the position of secretary?

I nominate Matt Fein. Support.

Any other nominations? Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor of electing Matt Fein as secretary, please say yes. Yes. Opposed say no. Congratulations, Matt. Maybe Brian and I'll kind of plan time away at the same time. Not together, but at the same time. Thank you, everyone. Again, I look forward to working all together as a team again this year. Next on the agenda is the informational discussion of training opportunities. Zoning Administrator Jay Giannotti will discuss training opportunities. available to commissioners. Jay?

Yeah. Well, first off, I'll echo Chairperson Mapes' congratulations to everyone. Once again, we have the same membership as we've had for the last few years. So thank you again for everyone wishing to continue to serve on the Planning Commission and looking forward to another good year of good discussions and hopefully some interesting things happening. Since everyone is new, I won't spend a whole lot of time on this since I'm sure everyone has heard this multiple times before, but we've provided in the agenda packet again links to important documents that would be useful. The city zoning code, city master plan, commission bylaws, and all things that you probably are all familiar with, including the master plan. We'll note that since we completed our update process this past spring, that is now available on the website too alongside the 2018 master plan. So both that and the update are there. for everyone to peruse and reacquaint themselves from time to time. We also spent a couple minutes talking about different opportunities for training or sort of continuing education type of things that could be useful as a planning commissioner. Many things are the same as they were before. One of the most comprehensive things is probably the Michigan State University Extension Citizen Planning Program. which is intensive but very comprehensive overview of planning and zoning topics that could be useful for a planning commissioner or anyone else that's interested in city development and regulations. As usual, this is available online on your own pace or if those interested in doing this in person, there's always the opportunity to do this at the Michigan Association of Planning State Conference, which this year is in Kalamazoo from September 30th through October 2nd. For those who want to go into a deep dive in terms of public service type of topics, MSU Extension also has their governing essentials series. New this year is expansion of three topics to four topics. So previously there was meetings about the Open Meetings Act, parliamentary procedure, and components of extraordinary governance. This year they added a fourth module about ethical public service. If no one has done this before and is more interested in getting more in-depth experience with public service and public servitude, this would be a good opportunity to do that. For those that haven't done this already, again, there is that additional topic now that could be of use for those people. And again, from time to time, as we are aware of opportunities for trainings, other topics of interest, we will definitely bring those to your attention for those that are interested. And as a reminder, the city does have a policy to provide some financial assistance for those that wish to attend a training session or a meeting of this type. So is anyone interested in doing this and wants to take advantage of that, feel free to get in touch with myself or Doug and we'll get you more information.

Any questions for Jay?

Jay, you're a certified member of AICP, American Institute of Certified Planners. So as a professional planner, you do that. How many hours of training do you do a year?

So as AICP, we're required to have 32 hours of training every two years. So that's impressive.

We appreciate you doing that.

Thanks, Jay. Next on the agenda is a continuation of public hearing part a, for the recommendation to city commission for the plan unit development phase one final plan for five 15 lakeside. Please note that tonight we're breaking down the public hearing into two parts. So we'll be doing the revised PD agreement as a separate hearing after the first so that we don't get anything confused and we can keep straight things straight. We'll begin tonight with an introduction and presentation by Zoning Administrator Jay Giannotti. Following Jay, we'll hear from the developer, have questions among us briefly, and then open the public hearing.

Thank you. Good evening. So as Chairperson Mayes mentioned, we're here again to continue a discussion and public hearing on the phase one final plan for the Gaslight Investors Plan Unit Development. Again, this is focused on the northern parcel 515 Lakeside for the development of 40 residential units in three buildings. I know we spent the last meeting going in depth about the different standards of review and the different modifications to the plan over time. Since there was a lot of favorable comments at the last meeting, I won't do that necessarily tonight. I'll just highlight a couple things that have been tweaked in this version of the plan. Probably one of the Two of the most significant plans are, first and foremost, the pathway at the northeast corner of the property there has been modified based on comments last month to remove the connector that was going to the sidewalk in this location. So that little spur has been removed and additional landscaping around that curve has been added. Again, this is based on comments about pedestrian safety to encourage pedestrians to cross at marked crossings and not at the middle where there is no marked crossing. The second change of note is in this parking area here south of Building F. As part of a recommendation or suggestion from the Commission, the applicants have provided a more formal photometric plan for lighting in the PUD. As a result of that, to make sure that all the publicly accessible areas had sufficient lighting, additional light was added to that parking area. which resulted in the reduction of one parking space to accommodate that. I would like one correction, minor correction under standard D1 in the text. The text in there still refers to 26 parking spaces south of building F. That would actually be 25 now with this modification of the one space removal. That's being said, we would still consider this change to be considered a minor change based on the fact that this change does not change any of the conditions of approval. It doesn't affect the required parking for this phase, nor does it affect the total parking requirements for the PUD as a whole. So for those reasons, we feel this would still qualify as a minor change. Assuming the Planning Commission feels the same way, this can just be an administrative approval for this modification. Beyond that, again, I'll defer to the architects at Integrated Architecture to speak more about the plan and any other revisions that have happened since last month. But again, as Chairman Mays noted, this is part one of this agenda item, which is focused solely on this final site plan. After this, if there is a recommendation to the City Commission on this, then we would move to consider the PUD amendment, which was distributed to you last Friday. So if there's any questions about the site plan here that we could address before bringing up the architects, we can do that now.

Thanks, Jay. Thank you. Mike, will you please come to the podium and introduce yourself to everyone?

Good evening, Mike Corby with Integrated Architecture. Let me... We did produce a few more graphics that help illustrate some of the things, but it has been a productive few weeks just so we've got some of them. conditions that were part of the original presentation that we did last time taken care of. So I'll just highlight some of those. As Jay mentioned, the two most significant things were on the northeast side of the property, we removed that sidewalk. Again, this was at the direction of the city. I think we had talked about maybe some different landscape options up in this area right here. We originally had that walk that had steps and I think there was some concern about this potential intersection and folks coming down and then maybe crossing. So the, I think the direction that we got was to provide this landscaped area here and continue our kind of our gradual ramp down toward lakeside here so that it basically puts you where we want you to be if you're going to ultimately cross lakeside. The parking space that we lost, as Jay mentioned, was a result of the photometric analysis, making sure we had a continuous light level on our new drive here. So our strategy in the previous submission was to have a light pole at each one of these kind of peninsulas. So we added a peninsula that would allow us to get additional light here. So those were the two major things or somewhat. So this these we've updated some of the renderings to show some of the some of the landscape measures, I think the curb and I'll show you a cross section here and some taller grasses, native grasses along here, as well as a continuation of the I think we also were understanding that you would like a continuation of that edge further to the north, so we've done that as well. And this is showing kind of a cross section. The curb does help kind of contain that lane, which I think is a positive thing. And again, some taller grasses along here help to kind of reinforce that edge. Again, showing some of the planned species for both the the landscaped edge here as well as kind of this buffer or this kind of edge that we're creating here. I think the last, so I went over that. We did add also some bollards here, again, as a result of the photometric plan. And we are planning some lighting in the carports themselves, again, to get some spill off I think there was an additional light here just to get some, the foot candles in this area to an acceptable level. So those were the, again, all positive things that were a result of the photometric. So we're, we're very happy to see that it was easy to accommodate into the plan. So I'm here to, if there's anything else that you want to talk about with the plan, I think I think you're splitting it up, so I guess we'll wait and talk about the agreement if you have questions on that later.

That would be later, yes.

Thank you.

Don't go away yet. You might have questions. I know I have a couple.

What is the material for the carport roofs? Will they be flat or sloped slightly?

They'll be a slightly sloped pre-finished metal.

And then there is a reference on the documents about the back entry by the building F, whether awning or canopy or something to make it a little more visual. Do you have any thoughts on that?

We were really providing that as a convenience for the residents. We did not want it to be mistaken for an entrance for guests. It's it's set up so that you can go to get to the south a little bit easier But we didn't think it needed to be highlighted.

So there's more of a discreet kind of a correct Just come like you said convenience.

Yes Anyone else have questions The the change in the sidewalk that'll that I'll keep the crosswalk as is correct in front of and There will be no new additional crosswalk if it was go straight.

I

No, I think as we mentioned in the traffic comments, our hope is that you keep the actuated crossing there. That certainly makes that safer. And I think people are getting used to that. So yeah, we're, we're tying into kind of the infrastructure that you've already got established.

Anyone else? Thank you, Mike.

The last thing, as Jay mentioned, the civil engineering things have all been worked out through the city and Naderville. John Casserly is here from Naderville if you have any questions specific to that. Thank you.

Do you want to come up? Might as well. Please introduce yourself first.

John Casterly, civil engineer with Naderveld 217. He's Cesar Chavez. So working with the city's consultant engineer on the stormwater outlet across Lakeside. We had prepared a plan. It is acceptable, meets what the consultant engineer was asking for. We are looking to revise that a little bit. So I met Him out last Friday. We're taking a few more survey shots to kind of refine that but I think they letter he provided so these Satisfied as is it works. We're gonna work to try to make it a little bit better For the development and the city so so to tweak it per se It should be pretty minor Anyone have any questions for John So I think everything else should be satisfactory to the consultant engineer.

Thank you, John. Thanks. At this point, we'll open the public hearing regarding Gaslight Investors PUD phase one for public comment. Please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Please address the commission and limit your comments to three minutes. And again, as I always say, please be kind and respectful. Thank you.

David Decker, 925 Belle Claire. Judgment day for the city is August 7th. Today we filed a motion asking in the court to declare what we've said all along, the city needs to play by the same rules as the residents do. And when it does, the result will be that the protest petition will be deemed valid, the PUD ordinance amendment will be deemed to have been rejected, The city the developer and the residents will need to come together to collaborate for a plan that works for everybody The city rejected the protest petition By reading requirements into the contents that do not exist under the governing law and the city also claimed that the protest petition was inapplicable because the City Commission's decision was administrative and not legislative even though the city processed the PUD ordinance amendment as if it were legislative. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck. It was a legislative decision. The hearing in front of Judge Quist is Friday, August 7th, 8.30 in the morning. So it's probably best for you to table this until after August 7th.

Thank you, David. Anyone else?

Hi, Jerry Anderson, 435 Edgemere. Kind of reiterating what David just said. During the last year, you have had hundreds of residents express very strong concerns about this development and shockingly few come forward in support of it. 1500 residents signed a referendum petition saying that they thought that this should be looked at more closely and more favorably to the residents as opposed to the developer than what has happened. The city commission and the planning commission have chosen to go deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to their own residents. you have acted as if those statements didn't even take place. The city's inexplicable loyalty to the developer and the development have gone to the point of violating their own city code in order to get this thing passed. Certainly one of the more shocking things I've ever heard a city employee say is that they would rather be sued by their residents than by a developer. As a voter, I find all of this to be shameful, and I certainly hope that as of August 7th, when this is found to be, the protest petition found to be valid, as it certainly was legal and valid, that you will then put your thinking caps on, get together with residents, with all interested parties, including the surrounding commercial properties, with the developer, and come to a decision that is in the best interest of all of East Grand Rapids. Thank you.

Thank you, Jerry. Anyone else?

Good evening. My name is Judith Baxter on Hall Street.

Mr. Anderson and Mr. Decker are tough acts to follow here, but I think it's very important for the Planning Commission to understand that this lawsuit was filed because city residents were not being heard. Demonstration of that is here today in this meeting when city staff is promoting the project. City staff, they're indistinguishable from developer staff. When Mr. Jay Giamatti gets up here and talks about the plan, and then the architect here on behalf of the developer talks about his plan. There has not been one no vote by this commission on any aspect of this plan whatsoever. despite a very strong citizen opposition to this plan and also lack of absolute studies supporting this plan. No environmental study, no public parking study, no public traffic study, no financial feasibility study, nothing. The responsibility of the Planning Commission and city staff is to make sure the interests of East Grand Rapids residents are heard. It's not to impose your personal beliefs or your personal wants on the city, is to represent the city for any future development. I've heard commissioners state, well, we can't tell a private property owner what to do with this property. But that's exactly wrong, because your job is to protect the charm and charisma of East Grand Rapids from development which would ruin, transform, or change that development. Otherwise, somebody could come in and put a slaughterhouse on Gaslight Village or a firecracker factory or something else. So I'm asking you to reconsider. This is a perfect time for you to reconsider what you are doing and what your role is for the residents of East Grand Rapids, the taxpayers, the people who pay for this, who moved here without this big development in the city of East Grand Rapids. The residents had to file a lawsuit to be heard. That's a pretty strong statement, as well as filing that referendum petition. I ask that you listen to them. You have an opportunity to table this vote tonight until you get the results of this protest petition, which would prove that the vote for this by the city commission was in error, illegal, and would stop this project. You have that opportunity to demonstrate to the residents of East Grand Rapids that you represent them.

not the developer and i ask you to do that thank you thanks judith are there any other public comments hearing none we'll close the public hearing and bring it back up here staff want to say anything or otherwise we'll have discussion yeah

Just want to clarify one thing. I forgot to mention the introduction is For the site plan part of this we are recommending two conditions of approval if the clinic mission finds them favorable One is some updates to the stormwater management plan, which was alluded to a mr Casley when he spoke basically aligning the stormwater plan with recommendations from the city's engineer and consultant. The second is the addition of wayfinding signage for direct pedestrians, motorists, cyclists, and freight to appropriate places within the PUD. That came up at the last meeting. It wasn't addressed in this revised materials, so we are still recommending that be a condition of approval when it gets to the city commission. Planning Commission can also attach other conditions as they see fit as well.

Thank you, Jay. Comments, discussion?

I got a question. If I can ask Attorney Huff just to help us with how legally we ought to navigate the existence of the lawsuit between the city commission and residents in the context of a planning commission meeting. That would be helpful.

The reason this matter is proceeding is that the developer has asked that it proceed and there's no provision of state law or local law which imposes an injunction on their rights to do this. So is there some risk being assumed by them that this could be shut down by a court decision? Yes, there is. But that's their decision to proceed and the city is not in a position to stop what they're asking to do because we have no basis to stop it. I also think that you have to realize that when there's a lawsuit, obviously both sides think they're going to win or there wouldn't be a lawsuit. So there's no reason for either side to project what the outcome of that hearing will be. There's nothing in place, as I say, under either state or local law that would deprive the developer of the right to ask you to proceed to act on this matter tonight. As a practical matter, you're the planning commission. They wanted to get this process underway because there's other stages this has to go through, and they didn't want to waste the time. They're assuming they're going to prevail on that motion, and that's their right to do that.

So I guess one follow-up, just to make sure that I understand the process and whatever, does moving it from here, so let's say this gets recommended for approval instead of, it goes to the city commission next.

Correct.

Does our vote in any way impact the outcome of, like is that part of the evidence submitted in the lawsuit or is it totally?

It has nothing to do with it. The portion of the lawsuit that they are currently appealing deals with a provision in the city code that allows residents to file a protest petition against a rezoning under certain circumstances, which the city believes do not exist in this instance. So proceeding with this has nothing to do with the factual nature of what's being built, how tall it is, how many parking spaces there are, or anything else. The lawsuit deals actually with two procedural issues. no factual issues.

Okay. Thanks. I have a somewhat related, not really related, but an easement, a question about the easement on the east side. I don't know where that stands, but I'm just wondering if that would, the outcome of that issue directly affects this concept plan or if it...

The outcome of the issue could affect this concept plan. I believe you saw in your materials a letter from the attorney who represents Lakewood Hills and he mentions that he is working with the developer to see if there is a common solution they can get. As far as the city is concerned, our only concern is We do not believe we can approve this development without that issue being resolved. So one of the conditions you'll see in the PUD agreement is that that is a condition that the, that issue has to be resolved before any building permit could issue or the project could proceed. So if that isn't, then that's gonna be a stumbling block at that point. But it needn't be a stumbling block today.

Does anyone else have a question for John?

I do. One of the residents indicated that we haven't listened to our constituents as a commission and that the development would affect the charm and charisma of the community and compared it to a slaughterhouse and a firecracker factory. The referendum, did that address any of those topics?

We never got that far, Commissioner, because the referendum would have just put it on the ballot for the residents of the community to vote on whether or not they approved the development as proposed. As you may recall, there was a referendum the first time this project came to the community back in 2004. The referendum was actually in 2005. And at that point, the community voted and approved what was being proposed at that time. But in this particular instance, the issue with the referendum has to do with the petitions that were submitted and the validity of the petitions that were submitted. And all these are on time things that were highly regulated by state law. And the termination was made that their petitions were insufficient. So we never got any further than that.

Thank you.

I have to clarify some of those issues because . Excuse me. I just offered to do that.

Thank you. Anything else for John?

I don't know who would be the best person, you know, to address this, but about the conditions, number nine, about the fiscal impact study. I guess I would have appreciated a little longer narrative there that just so we're all clear what the fiscal impacts would be. It doesn't reference the Brownfield Redevelopment Authority, which I guess would either be the city's own or would be the county one. So there's a tax increment financing district would be established, right? And so the increase in property taxes that would be coming in that would be associated with the increase in property value from the development, right, would be captured and paid back to the developer under that. So it just kind of glosses over that whole process. You know, and to say that they will be making a request, we don't really know what might happen in the world. So I think it would be better if it said, if the developer submits that, These would be the, generally speaking, this is what would play out. And it was approved, this is what would play out. And the community would not be receiving property tax revenue from this phase for, I don't even know how long, 20, 30 years, whatever it is. So just to kind of clarify kind of how that process would work out if the developer submitted the request and it was approved. So I don't know what we could do just to, just so we're all clear about that. As we, as we, uh, if we approve this recommendation to the city commission staff, just an additional paragraph, just laying that, laying that out in more detail, the scenarios that could occur, just the basics of the basic scenario that that's assumed it's assumed.

Yeah, I guess the kind of the perspective we looked at is, you know, this is not that's not really related to a zoning related issue. And for this phase that is outlined here, there's there is no request for that. Now, there certainly may be four additional phases, but for what's before us today, there is no request. So this is not totally tied.

But you said this would be in the capture area, right?

As Mr. Lefebvre noted that no request has been made. Um, so our understanding that they may look to capture on this, the length scope, um, et cetera, is not, um, known at this time. The, I would note in the various analysis through the concept plan, um, it was noted by, uh, city staff and others that this would have no fiscal impact as far as services goes to on, um, City services wouldn't require extra public works employees, public safety, et cetera. Right. So when you look at the fiscal impact, that just does not exist with this, particularly with this phase.

Would that be more of a public services impact? The fiscal impact would be what it is, right? There would be a property tax revenue that would normally be generated would not be available, right? So that's just kind of the raw fiscal impact, and that has various service implications, which don't seem to be a concern as you laid out. Just to be clear about it to everybody, because we are publicly taking, making a recommendation possibly tonight, just to be clear.

Keep in mind tonight what we're looking at is the standards of review. So can we have some discussion about that and thoughts on phase one?

Nothing new.

Matt?

No, nothing to add at the moment.

Laura? Nothing to add. Tom?

All set.

Brian?

I wasn't here last time, so I will say that I reviewed the meeting minutes the discussion and the standards of review and i and i find them to be met so i don't have anything to add to the discussion that occurred last time or what's in our packet but i'm comfortable with it is anyone comfortable making a motion regarding a recommendation to the city commission for phase one of the gasoline investors project I'll make a motion that we send this, that we recommend approval and send this to the city commission with two ways of looking at conditions. First, we have the table in the packet of ten conditions from previous meetings that I think we want to carry forward. And then number two, the two new suggested commission conditions, one being the stormwater management plan needs to be updated and then the other is that wayfinding signage should be added to direct pedestrians and other users that are not in not in a car or I guess also motorists. Yep. So, uh, adding those two conditions to our list of 10 would satisfy this for me could go to the city commission.

Second question for Jay changing the one parking space from 25, six to 25. Is that, that needs to be a condition or that just correct it as a typo.

We would just correct that as, as you know, that we feel this is just a minor change that It doesn't require any additional approvals, assuming the Planning Commission feels the same way.

Is there any further discussion before we have a vote? If not, we'll take a vote on the plan unit development phase one final plan for 515 Lakeside Drive Southeast with the conditions that were noted by Brian. All those in favor say yes.

Yes. Yes.

Opposed say no motion carries. Thank you everyone for your work on this so far. Next on the agenda is the continuation of the public hearing part B for the recommendation to city commission for the revised P you do agreement for planned unit development phase one final plan for five 15 lakeside drive Southeast. Once again, we'll begin with an introduction by Zoning Administrator Jay Giannotti, and then we'll hear from City Attorney John Huff.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So again, part two of the PUD recommendation process is the approval of a PUD agreement that goes with the site plan. This is sort of the legal document that formally spells out what are the requirements, what is expected of the developer, any conditions that are to be carried forth with the development and continued operation of the PUD. I'll let Attorney Huff go into most of the detail about what actually is in this document, but I'll just note at this point that in terms of the conditions that we talked about, you'll notice that a lot of them have been incorporated into this document in Articles 8 and 9, Article 8 being conditions or standards for the PUD as a whole, and Article 9 being standards for this specific phase of development. To the extent that conditions or recommendations that have been recommended in the past have already been satisfied in this plan. Those have been resolved and no longer necessary in this document. Those that either still need some additional attention or things of that nature, you'll find are in this document. At this point, I can turn it over to Mr. Huff to actually talk about what's in the amendments.

Thank you, Jay. Does anyone have any questions for Jay? He skipped away so fast. If not, we'll catch you later.

Sure.

All right. I'm going to address, as Jay said, a few more details of the PUD agreement and why we have a PUD agreement. We have a PUD agreement because Section 5.48 of the East Grand Rapids Code requires that a final site plan be accompanied by a PUD agreement. That is to be reviewed and a recommendation obtained from the Planning Commission before that agreement can move forward. If the Planning Commission approves that document, it's still subject to additional review and approval by the City Commission prior to any final approval of this project. This agreement will be signed by all parties to the agreement which are predominantly the city and the developer. When a PUD is done in phases, as this one is, the PUD in this particular instance is primarily going to concentrate on phase one, and you'll see a whole section of the agreement that has conditions for phase one. If and when additional phases are approved, there will be additions made to this agreement to incorporate those changes. I should add, however, that this agreement is going to completely supersede and restate the PDV agreement from 2005. And you will note, as I go through how this agreement is structured, that the beginning agreement contains a history and other things of the development to indicate what has happened between 2005 and 2026. I would also point out the Section 5.4 of the City Code, which contains the requirement for the agreement lists factors that should be addressed by the agreement. And this agreement has been reviewed by city staff in our office, and we believe those conditions are addressed, but it's up to you as to whether or not additions or deletions from the various provisions of the agreement are necessary before you make a recommendation. The thing to remember is this is a binding agreement. This is a contract between the development the developer and the city. This is done because standard zoning provisions do not apply to this development and the substitute that the communities have because of that is a binding contract that is legally enforceable. State law does not have a requirement for a PUD agreement, but almost every municipality in the state of Michigan, at least if they have a PUD ordinance, has a mandate that a PUD agreement accompany any procedure. So it's effectively the most common practice that's followed in the state of Michigan. As I noted before, This agreement starts out, if you look at it, with a paragraph name background, and this goes over some of the history of what has transpired since 2005 to this date, and it also discusses uses and approvals which may have been granted. We then skip to, I should point out, Article 1 was a draft of that article that got taken out completely. That's why we start with Article 2. But you'll see that that section was reserved if we ever needed to put something in there. So Article 3, which is really the second section, deals specifically with any units that might be built within the PUD that are condominium units. Because those units will also have to have approval as condominiums under state and local law. At this time, All of the units in Phase 1 are going to be condominium units, and accordingly, there will be a master deed that needs to be recorded before, in addition to PUD agreement and PUD approval, before construction could commence. Articles 4, 5, and 6, and 7 are shorter and simpler, and they just deal with the specific things. I think you'd find their titles to be descriptive. of what items they are dealing with, but those are still requirements that need to be met. Article 8, as Jay pointed out, is probably the most comprehensive article, and it contains conditions which are applicable to all phases, not just the one you're considering tonight. So those requirements would need to be met as well. And then Article IX contains conditions which are applicable only to Phase I, which is the phase that's in front of you this evening. Once again, as additional phases are requested, they would need to be reviewed and approved individually, and an amendment to the PUD agreement would be made at that time. Article 10 is just kind of a standard miscellaneous contract term provisions that I'd be happy to answer any questions about, but there's nothing in there that's particular to this development or even to a PUD. These are more standard contract provisions. And as you can see at the end, the agreement is set up for signature by the developer and the city. Once again, this is a contractual arrangement in lieu of a zoning ordinance since the zoning ordinance conditions don't apply. Your review of this agreement should concentrate on the conditions imposed on the developer and any modifications you might want to make to those conditions or recommendations. Since this is a contract, the developer has seen and reviewed or has legal counsel reviewed this document and has agreed to the provisions that are contained in the document before you this evening? I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have about this agreement or questions may come up as you're going through the agreement.

John, the PUD plan that we just recommended be approved has Some conditions, right? Yes, it does. We're throwing around the word conditions a lot, so I just want to make sure we get the flow down here. So, for example, the stormwater management plan would have to be updated. Yes. And so when, by when would that have to be updated before it goes to the city, the commission?

You know what I'm saying? I think what we would request if the plan commission is amenable is that to mirror the site plan that was just recommended for approval that the PUD agreement under Article 9 for the specific phase would add G and H specifically to note those two site plan approval conditions as well.

Okay, so they get picked up again.

Yes, so that they complement one another. So the agreement complements the site plan that was recommended. So it would be the same. It would be G, which would be the stormwater requirement as noted in the memorandum, as well as H regarding the wayfinding signage.

And that does provide more time in theory, right?

I mean... Correct. If those were to appear by the time it gets to the City Commission, those would be likely removed because it would be in the plan.

Thanks, Doug.

Other questions at this time? Other questions for John? Well, the quick follow-up to that easement agreement that's been discussed already this evening, that would be, so maybe it's not our concern, maybe it's more of a City Commission concern, so this goes to the City Commission. And that would be a condition, right?

I mean, your approval is an important step, but you're right. It's not a veto or anything else. They're expecting you to have laid the groundwork by spending time going through these plans, coming up with the conditions you find contained in this document. And what you're doing at this point is saying, in order for the city commission to engage in final approval, they want to hear from you first. And that's the way the code is set up.

And then they would see that it might go to them without that easement agreement being resolved, right?

It could go to them, but it is a condition that's in there. So unless they took that condition out, which I would say is very unlikely because I know they're concerned about getting that issue resolved too. Part of the trouble with that agreement is it's a three-headed monster because there was an agreement between the developer and Lakewood Hills that deals specifically with the easement, but there was a lawsuit between the city and Lakewood Hills that ended up with a consent judgment that will have to be modified, we can't modify the consent judgment until they agree on a solution to the easement. So the city is as interested as anyone else in getting that issue resolved.

And Commissioner Tilma, what I would add is that we do have that noted here in Article 9, 9.1a, the easement agreement regarding the shared access drive between Gaslit Investors and Lakewood Hills shall be resolved prior to commencement of any construction of phase one. That extends it out to up until the time construction starts.

Thank you.

Anyone else have a question for John or Jay or Paul?

Paul, do you have any other comments you want to make about what I mentioned?

I don't think so.

Okay. At what point is the H-O-A established and things like that for the down the road?

That's down the road. It would be a requirement to get a building permit, so it has to be done after various approvals have already been issued. But the HOA would be in the condominium documents, which, as I say, also have to be reviewed and approved by the city. And there's various landscaping issues and so forth that are put in that document rather than some of these documents. But these documents mention that and point out that that agreement has to be put in place and satisfied before a building permit can issue.

OK. Thank you. Anyone else have questions? Thank you, John. Any questions before we open the public hearing? We'll have discussion again after as well. At this point, we'll open the public hearing regarding the revised PUD agreement for Gaslight Investors. We'll now invite public comment. Please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Please address the commission and again, limit your comments to three minutes.

I want to point out to you at the last meeting when this subject of the concept plan for the PUD was brought up, it was intended to vote at that time and you didn't have the PUD agreement and it was pointed out to you that you couldn't move forward without the PUD agreement by the attorney who was here for Mr. Huff. Developers, Mr. Corby stood up and said, can't we do this now? Can't you just approve it and we'll work out the details later. And Ms. Babes, I believe it was you that said, yeah, we did that before. And what that telegraphs to the community is that they're not following the rules here. You're not following the city ordinances in your desire to get this thing moving. And that telegraphs to the city that this, or to the residents of the community, that the city is not listening to the residents. You're discussing landscaping and the type of bricks and the color of the bricks, but none of you are talking about what's concerning the residents, which is the size and transformative quality and the ultra-modern design of this development. Again, telling the residents that they're not being heard. So again, at this point, and you have enough, you've been asking some very important questions that nobody has any data for. Traffic, parking. This fiscal feasibility, whether this thing could succeed in our community, not just whether or not they get a Brownfield or the developer gets a $20 million tax abatement, which I've heard through the community. I don't know how true that is. I had, although I did hear that from a city commissioner, you have enough questions and I know you want to kick this down the road and put this problem into the lap of the city commission, but you're the planning commission. You're supposed to be looking out for the, for the citizens, your step, the first gate. for the residents to be heard. I mentioned about the firecracker factory and the slaughterhouse. To point out to you that as the Planning Commission, you are there to stop a firecracker factory and a slaughterhouse because you have the authority as the Planning Commission to tell the developer, no, we don't want this, or no, this is too big, or this doesn't meet our charm and charisma of East Grand Rapids. So does this development to a large number of City of East Grand Rapids residents. And you haven't once said no. You haven't once told the developer, you know, you could downsize this. We could do this, we could do that. Not once. And that tells the citizens of East Grand Rapids that they're not being heard. And that leads to the lawsuit. And the protest petition does involve a lot of these concepts because the protest petition protests the development by the surrounding property owners who don't like the size, Massive up the size the transformation quality of it how it affects the easements of the neighboring property So it is a complicated question an issue with many moving parts until you have data Making a decision without data. I don't think is a wise thing to do as a commissioner as a representative of the city of East Grand Rapids And you have the opportunity now to say wait, let's hear what happens with the lawsuit Let's get some more data and then make a knowing and intelligent decision. Thank you.

Thank you, Judith Would anyone else like to make a comment? Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back up here for consideration and discussion. Who would like to start? Any thoughts, anyone?

I can throw a couple thoughts out there. I'd like to say thanks to the city in writing up a couple of these things that I feel like we talked about a lot during the meetings. Number one, I really appreciated the clear definition of major and minor change in item 6.3. Just sitting through some of these meetings and seeing where the disagreement has been about whether something should be administrative or not helps to have that in writing. So as we move ahead with the idea of a PUD agreement, knowing what constitutes a major and minor change is going to be very important. I recognize that's a standard component of these, but I think it's helpful to see it written like this. Also in Article 8, excited to see timelines added to these as someone who moved to this community just during the 2005 referendum where we really didn't have timelines added to these things. I think this is a much stronger agreement than we had in the past, so thrilled to see that stuff. And I guess the last comment I would make, And maybe this is more about the site plan that we just sent forward for approval, but I should take umbrage at the concept that we haven't listened and made changes. I think that the plan that's in front of us is different, considerably different than versions and versions and versions of this plan that we've looked at over the course of I don't know how many months, at least 18 months. So I do feel like requests and changes have been made and that we've been seeking that balance between the developer who has rights to develop their private property and the community that all of us live in and want to see continue to be successful. So that's it for me.

Thank you, Brian. Matt?

Nothing to add.

Laura? I think that was really well said. Yes, it was.

Thanks.

Mr. Tillman?

All set.

Mr. Metz?

I agree with Brian. I was just going to say, reading through this, I was really happy how I feel like it really covered a lot of concerns that may or may not come up in the city. And I think it's covered well, which is great. It alleviates potential issues in the future. So well done. Thank you.

Is there any further discussion? Or is someone comfortable making a motion?

I make a motion to approve the PUD as written.

With adding the other conditions, G and H?

Oh yes, with adding G and H, I'm sorry, yes.

Is there a second?

You're recommending it be sent to the City Commission for approval? Correct.

You're seconding it?

Anybody else was interested in seconding it or not?

I feel weird sending something to myself, so I tend to .

I'll second it.

Is there any further discussion? If not, we'll take a vote on the recommendation to the City Commission regarding the revised PUD agreement for Phase 1 for Gaslight Investors with the additional conditions GNH noted. All those in favor say yes.

Yes.

Opposed say no. Motion carries. Now, at this point, it will then go to the City Commission. Again, thanks to everyone for all the documentation and work. Next on the agenda is a report of the City Commission by City Commissioner Schwartz. Thank you.

So I do want to address some of the public comments today because I think things are being misconstrued and there's a difference between someone saying that the private property owner can do anything they want with their land and saying they can do anything they want within their rights. And I don't appreciate my comments being taken out of context in such a way. nor do I appreciate the bias, the accusation of bias on my part or anybody else with the city. Everybody up here is a fellow taxpayer, a neighbor. We spend our time doing this. I should be at a birthday party right now. People have other things to do. We do it because we care about our community. That's why we're here. So it should go without saying, but if anybody here needs to hear it again, there is no bias here on my part. I am not in the pocket of anyone. And like others have said, we have listened a lot I've made myself available outside of this setting. I've had phone calls with some of the people who sat in here today and said that we don't listen. So if anybody does want to ever speak, email, call, I make myself available. There's a difference between not being heard and decisions not matching your desired outcome. So moving on. Last week, city commission approved the concept plan for waterfront phase two. That is the section of land that's sort of like across from the big open field and those docks that go out into the water. So we're talking about that strip of land that's between Lakeside and Reed's Lake Boulevard. So after many meetings with the public, having a consultant, excuse me, a consultant involved, the concept plan was discussed at length at the last commission meeting and was approved. So it'll go forth for final design and then that'll come forward again before city commission, before anything else moves forward with that. We also had a deep dive on parking last month. And so that was with some traffic consultants and this is gonna sound weird, but if you have any interest in traffic or parking discussion, it was the most engaging discussion. They were really, engaging. You know, we learned a lot and we discussed a lot about what our community is looking for in terms of level of service and how a potential parking garage may fit into that discussion. People have varying ideas and there will be another deep dive on that on the 22nd. Mr. Charles, where is that meeting on the 22nd that's led by city staff as well as school staff?

Is that the little auditorium in the high school?

Thank you. So that'll be on the 22nd. And yeah, that is it for my updates. Thank you.

Thank you, staff. Do you have anything to add to that? Our next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for August 11, 2026, which is, believe it or not, the week before school starts. Do we foresee anything being on the agenda at this point?

We are planning to have a meeting at this time, yes.

Thank you. Next on the agenda is adjournment. May I have a motion and a second to adjourn?

So moved.

That's fast. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Opposed say no. Meeting's adjourned. Enjoy the beautiful night. It's so nice to look out and see the little sailboats out there. Sure is.

And I don't think it's as hot as when we walked in.