Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I make a motion support. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Oppose say no. [snorts] Next is approval of the minutes from the November 12th, 2025 meeting. Are there any additions or corrections? If not, may I have a motion and a second? So moved. Support. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes.

Oppos say no. Minutes are approved. Is there any public comment on non-aggenda items tonight? Hearing none, we'll move on. Thank you. Next is the main reason we're here tonight is for the draft master plan review. We'll begin with an overview by Paula Blanc

who dim the lights. Good evening. Um I I put some slides together just to run through some of the highlights of the plan. Um, this is, you probably notice the format's a little different from the last draft you had. Um, I have a habit of never leaving well enough alone and always wanting to make changes and word smithing. So, the the content is pretty much the same. It's just it looks a little different. Uh, some of the recommendations have have expanded. There are a few new things and I'll I'll cover those. Uh just by way of background, the purpose of this plan, and I want to want to emphasize this, this is an amendment or a supplement to the 2018 plan. It is not replacing the 2018 plan because that plan is still valid. It covers the whole city. whereas this one is aimed at uh specific issues uh that have come to light since the 2018 plan was was prepared. So uh it is just an addition to that uh plan. Um there have been some new issues. We've discussed those in the past. And um one of the other things that we wanted to to look at was uh more recent uh census data. We have the 20120 census uh that obviously wasn't uh considered in the 2018 plan. So we updated that data. And then we also a major component of this was um fairly extensive public

engagement process. and we'll talk about that in a minute. So, in terms of public engagement, uh we had a web page devoted to the master plan. Um the the staff did a fantastic job of getting notices out all over the the city, including signs and uh um QR codes and and so on. Um, a big part of the web page was a public opinion survey and as of uh the last count we had 613 responses which is roughly 16% of all households in East Grand Rapids. And for this kind of survey uh that's pretty good. Uh obviously it's not a random sample or anything like that, but um if you look at the uh the map uh which I'll show in a minute of where the responses came from, we had a pretty good distribution from throughout the city. Um and then in addition to the uh citywide opinion survey, we had um uh specific uh opportunity for comments related to uh each of the four sub area plans. Uh and then of course we had uh some meetings with three of the four sub areas. Um we had pretty good attendance. the the gaslight sub area was 25 attendants. Uh St. Steven was the the largest with 59 people and the wealthy uh northwest wealthy sub area was 45. So again um all in all those were uh pretty

well attended. Uh in the survey we asked people to give us uh in three words what they like best about East Grand Rapids and the top two were walkability and and schools and then community safety, the lakes, uh friendly community and neighborhoods were the the others in in order of how frequent we heard those. And by the same token, we asked, "Give us three words that describe what you don't like about East Grand Rapids." And I I wasn't surprised that taxes came out. Number one, um expensive, traffic, cost of living, speeding. Um the uh it did surprise me in in this and one of our other questions where speeding and traffic enforcement came out as big issues. And maybe it's because people were going by um past experience, but uh as we've talked about before and and uh Doug confirmed and and gave me some data in the [clears throat] last year or so, uh the police department has really been uh focused on enforcing the the traffic laws. So that may be an outdated response, but uh and then lacking diversity and uh parking and and image and gaslight village were the the other dislikes. When we asked about um uh asked people to rank major concerns in the city, uh number one came out housing cost. Number two again was traffic enforcement. Three was lack of shopping. Four was property maintenance. And

that's another one that kind of surprised me because, you know, I think uh East Grand Rapids is a beautiful community. And uh it's hard to drive down any street without seeing uh a renovation crew doing something, whether it's roofing or siding or landscaping or what have you. So, uh, that one was I found interesting. Lack of housing options came in as the number five, overcrowding six, loss of natural resources seven, and neighborhood decline eight. Um, so those were sort of the the main issues that we we got from folks who responded to the survey. A couple other concerns that um we identified from looking at the zoning ordinance and looking at some of the demographic data. One is the age of housing. Um 69% of all housing in the city is at least 65 years old. Over a quarter of that housing was built prior to 1939. So almost a hundred years old. and only 6% uh of the city's homes were built within the last 25 years. So that's a potential issue that I think going forward um we need to be cognizant of and maybe that's where the maintenance issue comes into play and and enforcement of of maintenance requirements. But um obviously East Grand Rapids is an older, mature, builtout community. So uh the numbers aren't terribly surprising, but uh it's something that we we need to be aware of. And then the second other

concern that I wanted to bring up was the nonconforming conditions in the city. And if you can see on the map, I've circled several areas uh not just the single house here and there, but uh whole blocks and and in some cases neighborhoods where um the lot sizes andor the width of the lots don't conform to the zoning requirements. So, you'll see when we get to recommendations that um that's something going forward we really want to take a look at. Uh whether it means revising um the the minimum requirements in in one or more districts or creating a new residential district or what have you. But uh in the uh uh northwest wealthy neighborhood, for example, a lot of those lots are 4,000 square ft. Uh the minimum lot size is 5,000 square ft. So, um, some of the issues are in our ordinance, we specifically say you can use a non-conforming lot, but if it's nonconforming, uh, your allowed height is only 25 ft, not 35 ft like for other permitted uses. And um those lots are subject to the same lot coverage maximum uh as if they were conforming, which makes it difficult for uh an owner to put in an attached or detached garage, uh an accessory building, add a patio, things like that. that because of the

the much smaller lot size uh would drive the percentage of coverage up. So that's another aspect that we want to look at going forward. And then the the main focus of the plan was looking at sub areas and you're all aware we identified four sub areas in the city. Northwest wealthy, Greenwood, Gaslight Village, and St. Stephen um picking those because uh since the 2018 plan was prepared, changes have occurred in all of those areas that uh warranted some uh closer look. So with respect to Gaslight Village, um again originally when we set out to look at Gaslight Village, the idea was we would look at the uh Gaslight Investors property and the Gaslight Plaza property as a unit. Uh and shortly before we got started, Gaslight Investors came in with a a plan. Um, so we sort of backed off from getting into uh looking at options there until we knew what their uh what their plan was going to be and and what the outcome might be. So most of the the recommendations in the the Gaslight sub area relate specifically to Gaslight Plaza. And uh as you're aware, we did a number of uh concept drawings showing links with the Gas Light Investors PUB

um in in one uh tearing down part of the the existing shopping center and all the the options. We recommended liner buildings along wealthy to be consistent with the rest of Gaslight Village. [clears throat] And I think in all of the the options, we also showed some kind of public plaza space for activities. Uh so those elements are pretty consistent throughout. It's just the arrangement of buildings and and how many buildings. uh were recommended the parking counts changed in in each one because we in some cases we turned the parking um to a an east west orientation and others it was a north south orientation. the Greenwood neighborhood. Um, we started looking at this because of all the attention the area got when we dealt with the uh conditional reszoning to allow the uh real estate office. And um as we looked at it, we discovered that uh roughly half of the land area within that sub area is nons single family residential. We've got a large townhouse complex. We have three office buildings. Uh we have the uh um the real estate office on the corner. and then in the midst of um the single family there's a a duplex. So clearly right now that entire neighborhood uh is mixed use. Um but

then again having received an application from Gaslight Investors, we thought well it might be prudent not to make any recommendations to change things in the Greenwood neighborhood. uh because Gaslight Investors is proposing town homes right along uh this frontage there facing the Greenwood neighborhood. And we've got u uh we've made zoning changes along Love It. So maybe it's prudent to wait to see how all of that shakes out before we uh talk about changes to the any more changes to the Greenwood neighborhood. And the Northwest wealthy neighborhood uh again is one of the more mature neighborhoods in the city. Some of those houses are over a hundred years old. Um it borders right on the uh eastern border of Grand Rapids and uh Easttown Business District. Um there within that area, most of the the land is zoned R3 single family. Um there are two areas strips north and south of wealthy that are currently zoned multifamily and there are a couple multif family duplexes or multif family uh buildings within those areas but there are also a number of duplexes uh within the area south of wealthy street more sort of scattered throughout the the interior of of that neighborhood and those are not zoned multif family so they are non-conforming

uses. So as we looked at it um and when we had our neighborhood meeting with that group um there was a lot of concern about uh not encouraging multifamily throughout the neighborhood. Um there's parking issues. there were concerns about how some of the rental properties are being maintained. Um so uh our recommendation for that neighborhood is to extend the existing multif family residential along uh east along wealthy to Rosewood. And you'll notice that in addition to those, there's one little lot on the other side of Rosewood that we also recommend be multif family because that's an existing uh I think it's a duplex and it's it's nonconforming. So, if we're going to extend the the zoning that far, uh it just makes sense to pick up that non-conforming use and zone it appropriately. But we did not recommend any multif family within the interior of uh the neighborhood. And again, wealthy is a busy street. It's a transit route. Uh there's multifamily uh zoning already uh in the neighborhood. the abuing uh Grand Rapids zoning is transitional neighborhood which essentially is a mixeduse zoning. So this makes sense to just uh transition from the Grand Rapids zoning uh into uh this neighborhood. And then lastly, St. Steven.

Um, we know that the school is closed. We're still trying to find confirmation, uh, something to confirm the rumors that the church is either being closed or not. Uh, we haven't been able to do that yet. So, I'm still uh, pursuing that. Um, but St. Steven property encompasses the entire block and then around that uh are uh smaller single family homes. Uh again, many of them uh are fairly mature homes. Um the neighborhood abuts the city of Grand Rapids to the west and uh the senior housing um project there. When we had our neighborhood meeting um the there was a lot of comment about um trying to use the existing building. Uh a lot of ideas came up. Uh it was suggested that um we talk to the Grand Rap Grand East Grand Rapids public school system. Uh there were all kinds of ideas. Um the one thing that was consistent throughout most of the comments was the um park space. It's a essentially a school playground, but uh it appears that that is a neighborhood gathering place. It's not only where the kids play, but neighbors just come together for social hour and and place to to gather. So, uh that was clearly a priority for whatever happens uh on that

property that it include some kind of open space or or park facility. So, with the St. Steven neighborhood, we did a number of different options. Um obviously, one being uh keeping the existing building and finding other uses for it. right now um I think 20% of the building is actually being used and that's only two or three days a week. So the dascese is really interested in finding a a more viable uh use either selling the property or generating an income uh stream [clears throat] a use there. Um, another option is town homes. And you'll notice on all these options there, there's an expanded open space and play area regardless of what the proposed use is. Uh, and then I think, uh, at our last planning commission meeting, it was suggested, well, you know, let's let's not forget it's a single family neighborhood, so let's show what that could look like. Uh so these would be single family homes on lots similar to what's in the neighborhood. And uh you know again depending on the outcome of the church itself uh all of these concepts could ultimately be expanded to encompass the the whole block. And then uh we did one option with no development but uh just converting the space to uh public open space and play areas. So um one of the things that's new in

the plan is a vision statement. Um the idea behind a vision statement is to try to give some overall direction some rationale to the plan recommendations. Um so uh here uh I said East Grand Rapids will continue to be a highly desirable residential community. Its long-term sustainability will be maintained through excellent schools, ongoing investment and enhancement in the Gaslight Village District, variety of housing options for current and future residents, ample preserved open spaces and parks, a comprehensive network of trails and [clears throat] pathways, and superior public services. What I tried to do was capture what we've heard as really the essence of what makes East Grand Rapids a pretty great community and uh uh encapsulate all that into a a vision statement. I think it's important for both the vision and the the goals and the recommendations that um those give us a foundation when we're looking at future development proposals. Uh I think you know the the gaslight investors project is a great example. We were able to point to the 2018 master plan and say you know it's showing essentially this development. It's mixed use. It's a variety of commercial and and residential. Um you know the the details of the plan with circulation and and so on were not an exact match but uh the concept [clears throat] of the use was what was important in terms of looking at the

plan. And then in terms of goals, again trying to uh look at the vision statement and uh the input we receive to uh identify where we want to be 10, 20, 25 years from now. Increase the variety of housing options available. U that's a big one. I think um when we did the survey um I forget [clears throat] the exact number but it was something like 27% of the the respondents said um we want when we sell our home we want something other than a single family home. We want an apartment. We want a condo. We want uh senior housing. Um an accessory dwelling unit. So, uh, clearly there's there's a desire for more diversity in the the housing options in the city. Um, expand the network of trails, pathways, designated lanes for walking, biking, running, uh, create a street, complete streets mobility system, achieve universal accessibility throughout the city for persons with mobility challenges. And that's something that was in the 2018 plan. And it's something I think [clears throat and cough] uh Doug and and his folks are taking pretty seriously in all the improvements that are being made and have been made. Uh provide open spaces in Gaslight Village for social interaction and community events and that's something that we heard loud and clear as we went through the various iterations of the the PUD. uh enhance the image and vitality of Gaslight Village uh by promoting additional events, screening the parking

lots, encouraging more business, and promoting a walkable environment. And again, um a lot of that has uh been expressed loud and clear as we've gone through the the PUD reviews. uh preserve the city's attractive, desirable neighborhoods through enforcement of property maintenance regulations, prompt street repairs um and routine patrols by public safety officers. And then last, strive to achieve carbon neutrality for city operations by 2040. And that is currently one of the goals of the city. And then when it comes to recommendations, um, a lot of these, if not all, piggyback on the findings of our analysis, explore potential options such as new zoning districts, amending current districts, or reszoning to alternate districts to reduce concentrations of nonconformities. uh increase opportunities for housing variety and attainability, create a a zoning ordinance amendment to allow administrative departures in lie of variances for certain non-conforming conditions. That's something that has been talked about u a lot about ways we can uh add to Jay's workload [laughter] and minimize the the [clears throat] procedural requirements of sending everything to the planning commission and or the board of appeals that there may be some things that um we can address administratively um in terms of a allowing expansion on non-conforming properties

or um waving certain requirements rather than having to go through the the formal appeals process with the board of appeals. So, we'll be looking at that. Uh review older neighborhoods and consider coverage and setback amendments. I mentioned that earlier that um you know maybe we need to uh increase the lot coverage for some of these non-conforming lots or create a new district uh improve communication and outreach regarding enforcement of the property maintenance code and create or enhance public spaces within gas light for community events. So those are um some of the recommendations. I couldn't get them all on one page. So, work with owners and tenants of the Gaslight Village Plaza to promote infill development along Wealthy Street. Um, it's the owners are on board with that. It's the tenants that need some prompting. So, uh, but it's certainly something worth pursuing. Um, enhance Western Gateway to Gaslight Village to create a sense of arrival. Um whereas right now it goes from single family housing to commercial uh at one intersection. Maybe there's uh would be appropriate to consider a gateway or signage or something to uh create more of an identity. Uh expand community events in Gaslight Village and Collins Park. work with the rapid to expand transit route service and convenience to reduce personal vehicle use. I think that's a worthwhile uh um recommendation to pursue because you know we keep hearing about parking and gaslight

village and um concern about parking on the streets and traffic and so on. Um, uh, if we can do something to, uh, further improve transit service to the city, that could help some of those parking and and traffic issues. Incorporate inclusive design of all public facilities to ensure accessibility uh, for those with physical disabilities and age related impairments and continue to implement the other city plans. And we've talked about in the past there. It's not just the master plan, but we've got a bike and mobility plan. We've got a parks and recreation plan, a climate action plan, utility plans. So, all of those are intertwined and and all going on um at different uh levels. And one of the requirements of the the planning act is that the master plan needs to include a zoning plan. And that's essentially acknowledging based on the recommendations what if any zoning changes would would be required or if no changes how it relates to existing districts. So, uh, we've talked about reducing nonconformities. That obviously would mean amending existing districts or adopting one or more new districts. Uh, improving opportunities to expand uh, in mature neighborhoods. Again, looking at existing or potential new districts, increase administrative approvals would require an amendment to the existing ordinance. Uh expanding housing options in the

northwest wealthy neighborhood ex would involve extending the MFR zoning east along wealthy. Uh providing additional housing in the St. Steven neighborhood. uh again would require um likely amending the existing districts or adopting a new district. If obviously if it's something other than uh building single family homes, we have to reszone the property to to make that uh acceptable. Uh redeveloped Gaslight Village Plaza. again review the ordinance to ensure potential uses and changes are permitted and increasing opportunity for housing. Another zoning uh change to allow greater choice. And you know, a good example is what uh we've done along uh um

help me out u the street right next to Gas Lake Village. Wealthy.

Love it. Thank you. [clears throat] I I was thinking flet and all kinds of um so um you know that was a reasonzoning to MFR but um in some communities where I've worked uh they've expanded their single family districts to allow two family or multifamily under certain circumstances. So there are various ways we can can make that happen. It's just a matter of uh looking at what we want and and how we're going to get there. So, the next steps um depending on comments and and suggestions tonight, uh we'll go back and edit this draft. Uh once we're happy with uh the way the draft reads, we will schedule the public hearing. Um it sounds like given uh the Corwell Health uh request, probably the earliest we could do a public hearing is February. Um after the public hearing, again depending on public comment, um there may be modifications to the draft. Once those are done, it comes back to the planning commission for review and hopefully a recommendation uh of approval and then that goes on to the city commission for final adoption of the plan. So that's the the plan in a nutshell.

Very well done, Paul. Yeah. Question. Anyone have questions for Paul? If not, I have a question. All right. You talk a lot about enhancing the public spaces within the Gaslight Village for community events and gatherings. I'm wondering if it's possible to incorporate John Collins Park. It just seems like that would be an area to enhance as well as a public space and it mentions in item nine expanded community events in Gasite Village and and Collins Park. Yeah.

I keep thinking when you're there like for a concert or something, they have that little area where the musicians are and all the public is facing away from the water. when we have such a beautiful water area, I'm wondering if we should consider thoughtfully at some point enhancing that area with, for example, uh shell area by the crew building or by roses where people are at least seeing the water on the side. It just seems like we have such a beautiful thing there that we could really enhance in other ways, too. I've heard mentions of possibly relocating the boat ramp or whatever, but that's such a great space and it's so close to Gaslight Village. Just wondering, does anyone else have any thoughts on that? Am I crazy?

You are not crazy. I think Collins Park is a wonderful asset to East Grand Rapids. The one thing that comes to mind when I think about Collins Park is the ducks. [laughter] Yeah, they're geese. Good point. The geese. Geese and ducks. What? I love animals. You want more of them, huh? I want [laughter] more. Less. Yeah. There. It It becomes a nuisance when it's huge. Yes. When there's so many just there. Yeah. It could be worse. If there were geese, you'd really have a problem. I thought there are geese. There's plenty of geese there. Yeah. It is the geese. Tell us more, Doug. Yeah. Yeah. We'd be h I guess I'd be happy to tell you a little bit about

Can we put the geese in the master plan? Like

Well, um we do have uh some wildlife management programs that we operate that are not necessarily something that we advertise. Um uh we we are uh permitted by um US Fish and Wildlife and the DNR uh from public works. We actually have [clears throat] a boat that we send out in the springtime and we um harvest uh eggs from nests that we be GPS each year to remove those. and um um uh take care of those properly in accordance with our permit. Um we also do remove nests that are also in those areas too. So um that's something that residents on the lake uh they they know when we're supposed to come um um based off of that time of year um when when they're nesting. And so they will residents will look for our boat and our crews going out um to do that. And um I can say that uh um though we we can't get them all. Um I we do we do show a population decline, you know, over the last 20 years uh in in the park and and and around the area. And residents around the lake will attest to that. Um because like I said, if we're if we're late a day, they'll call our office and say, "Hey, I didn't I didn't see the public works boat out there." Um so just just something to share with with everybody. And I also know our parks and recck team. Um we've tried things from um uh listing the services of uh some some canines that come and um kind of uh uh help move the geese along. Um other products that actually it's like a um almost like a fertilizer product that isn't harmful to humans or other animals, but um it doesn't um have a good taste of the grass that they like to eat. So we apply those types of products. And so there's some things that we're working on uh with those types of things are always evolving. Uh but it is very important because uh we experience it um as staff or residents too and just thought I'd share a couple of those things that are are happening that maybe people don't know we're we're doing. Um but we are always looking to

innovate as well. What about other things such as tree trimming? I see families down there quite often and they're ducking under the tree to sit underneath there because the trees are too low. you lift them up and things like improving the landscaping and even things like more tables. It's just so limited. It's just such a great spot. I wonder could staff remind us I know there's some deed restrictions on that property um that yeah like

for some things there are deed restrictions like for like a like a swimming beach or some other things like that. Um, in terms of some of the maintenance, that's something that, you know, we certainly um uh can work with uh our grounds maintenance team through parks and recreation on. I mean, that's um certainly something that just from comments, I don't think we necessarily need to put that into the, you know, the plan, but that's certainly those types of feedback and things are are great for us to make sure that we align with our maintenance or activities. Thank you. Does do the deed restrictions allow for something like the band shell, though? cuz I' I've asked about playgrounds in particular, if you can believe it. I have to look at it, but Okay. Yeah, we'd have to look.

I think regardless on on the topic of like this page of the master plan that has the Gasite Village sub area drawn, it could it could be helpful just to shade Collins Park nice bright green like we did for Waterfront Park. It's uh if you're looking at your PDF, it's like page 14 because then at least calls attention to it and says, "Hey, there's a there's a big park right here on the lake because we have waterfront park shaded in." So then it just kind of goes with it and makesense kind of nice and call people's attention to it.

You could and you could even shade the stuff across the street from what we have shaded on water waterfront park. I don't know what that is. The old call like the fake trail with goes under it's water park. The other side is still waterfront park isn't it I guess. Yeah. So all that could be shaded and then the then the sub area map looks nice and it's got green on it where we're actually using open space. Good. Anyone else have questions for Paul?

Paul I did have a question and I don't know if it's in the big document is definitely one of the first slides talked about 613 responses which is 16% of households. Are those 613 households or is that my wife and I each filled it out and my 18-year-old kid filled it out? Like how we how we actually measuring that and just curious. Yeah. Um it I just took 613 uh divided by the number of households in the city and I I am reasonably sure that there were some households where husband and wife were kids filled out but I don't think it was that many. Okay,

that would skew that percentage. And I was just trying to get a read on how good is that because to I mean I don't know to me that still seems so low. I can't believe we can't get more people to do it. Although I'm not picking on anybody's attempts at doing it. It seems like we did. The other the other piece is to working with the website consultant. We we made sure that we like um had a way to kind of track IP addresses and stuff like that too. So we weren't getting like responses from other communities or nothing from me cuz I forgot. Right. Right. Right. So there was there was like a screening aspect of that. That was one of the one of the things we went through with the with that consultant to make sure that those were stripped out. So, okay.

So, I think they're probably fairly, as Paul noted, um, fairly accurate in terms of being in the community and not 50 from one household or somebody who's really into one aspect of this. Cool. Thanks. I I think uh in addition to that percentage, what what I found um helpful was in looking at the distribution of the responses from around the city. It wasn't all concentrated around the neighborhoods that we were focused on. It was all over the city. Cool. helpful.

I think one of the things that we did see too was quite a big uptick when we when we put out physical signs in the neighborhoods. We included the map that we we did to just to catch people when they're out for a walk or taking the dog out, etc. We did see once we got those out, we did see like a spike for a period of time. So, people that may not uh have uh been aware of the survey because they get a million emails in their inbox or perhaps, you know, some of the um uh newsletters we send out, etc. on your in your snail mail or something like that. Um didn't reach them. We tried to have something very old school out there uh to really interact with residents uh too. So there was something they could see, make them aware um of what we were trying to do. So we did see an uptick. I don't know what the number was, but I remember telling you that we had just gotten them out and like within a couple weeks we saw quite a big uptick. So, we did capture some of that um some of some residents or community members that may not um uh utilize may not have utilized or seen the other approaches we took.

Thanks. Yep. I I've got three minor uh comments, questions. Uh one on the goals uh on page 12, we mentioned screening. One of the goals is promoting additional events, screening parking lots. What does screening parking lots mean? Well, that's mainly in relation to the Gas Light Plaza. And that's that's been one of the the big uh negative comments that we've got this strip center in the middle of downtown and the parking lot out on uh on Wealthy.

Oh, kind of blocking the Yeah. Okay. Now, I I see. And that's the idea behind putting those liner buildings along wealthy. Yeah. Screening it so you can't see the parking lots. Okay. Yeah. I didn't know what that meant, but uh I agree with that. Um and then with the one of the goals was reducing nonconformities. Is that are we referring to existing nonconformities or future? Well, should we clarify that? Right.

It's it's mainly existing from that map I showed where we've got nonconformities. Uh like I said, not just one or two buildings here and there, but we've got entire blocks or [clears throat] neighborhoods where the the de existing development which was done, you know, maybe before zoning even, right,

uh doesn't match the zoning. So, we really need to take a look at that. So, you know, by just amending existing districts or adop adopting new districts, is that just terminology, you know, versus I mean versus solving the issue like I mean I think there's a presumption that the nonconformity is somehow an issue to our community and by just reszoning it like is that really

the nonconformity we're talking about is um non-conforming lots, not non-conforming uses. It's not a gas station in the middle of a residential area or anything like that. It's that we've got 4,000 square foot lots that are, I don't know, 40 feet wide or 50 feet wide. Our smallest residential district requires 5,000 square feet,

right? So, uh, we really need to look at because as I, as I said, we have we allow somebody to use a non-conforming lot, but they're not allowed to use it to the same extent that if they were conforming, they can't build a 35 foot home. They can only build 25. they're subject to the same uh lot coverage percentage that a larger lot would be subject to. So, they have difficulty uh adding an accessory building or widening a driveway or [clears throat] putting in a patio in the backyard because that'll put them over the 25% threshold. So, those are the things we want to try to look at and subress. So making changes to those non-conform we want to inspire changes to those non-conforming lots to make it,

you know, friendlier for living now. Yeah. I I see. Okay. Am I correct though? You're I mean I I think cuz I'd live in one of those areas. It's this page here, Chris, where it's like all circle and stuff like

we're not telling everybody who lives in the triangle between like Lake Floral and Argentina and Breton. I guess that's a trapezoid. Sorry. in the trapezoid between those four streets. We're not trying to inspire them to do anything. We're just trying to redefine what a nonconformity is because you have a hundred houses that are built that they can't even they can't do anything because they're all non-conform. But like another way is we what we're saying is do some study of these different areas to to look at more what they really are in terms of how how they were developed and and uh with the impediments we have if they go in front of the ZBA they don't really have a they don't really in many cases have legitimate reasons to make certain updates or things that otherwise aren't as are currently acceptable and and that's how they're built neighborhood is constructed. the zoning code in some ways um how it deals with these issues actually promotes um kind of um I would say past sort of approaches to um instead of um allowing for um enhancements to th to those existing uh areas pockets if you will is to purchase multiple lots it encourages like larger homes and larger so like it it encourages you to purchase multiple lots so you can meet the zoning and then build something larger. Um, that's what the current code actually more more incentivizes.

Yeah, we have one on my street now that's 35 feet tall. It's for sale, right? It's a non-conforming lot. So, you couldn't tear that down and rebuild it because the house that's there is there's no way it's conforming with R2. But if we fix the zoning, you could rebuild that house. You could add on to that house.

And what we've seen is what's what happens and sometimes is is that's exactly what somebody will do is buy multiple homes, tear them both down and build a because they can do that. they can do that um by right and so what we're saying is um because they can't they can't do certain things that already exist in the in where their garage is placed or with a lot line or something else. So what we're saying is um what we've heard from the community and what we're trying to look what we'll do is look at these areas and determine whether I mean some of them it may be just some setback things that that work. So, we'll do further like detailed dialed in studies of these areas to see what the, you know, what do we predominantly [clears throat] see? Um, do we see issues with them? Why can't they just be able to rebuild their garage where it is or something like that if we don't have any sort of legitimate reason to do so? So, they'll they'll have like individual looks at it and that's where I think we'll look at when we do um study sessions with planning commission in the future on these topics. That's where um as we've done with um MFR, like we've done with ADUs, we'll go through and really sort of like pick pockets and study them with with you all in the community to sort of see um what may work in one area, may not work in another. And as Paul's notes, there may be some broad brush strokes that helps every area um align with the goals and other ones it's going to be some more intricate surgery. So, this is just a thought, but you know, the word, you know, when we say reduce nonconformities, I wonder if we need to elaborate that a little bit more. I mean, if I lived on a nonconformity lot, it'd be almost like, what are you going to, you know, [laughter]

what are you talking to me?

Yeah. I I just think, you know, it's really to help those residents there. Um and then the last thing is um with the Greenwood neighborhood, you know, the wording and and I support everything that we're saying here. I just and I I feel like the hearings we've had on the master plan, there's acknowledgement that it's, you know, I I I wish I could remember the word in the first hearing, but there was a term that was used. It's wonky. It's, you know, it's just it's not it's just a an odd area. I I'd like maybe a word or a sentence in here that, you know, assuming that the commission agrees that, you know, something that we'd like to do something with it, like to improve it, but it's just not the time right now. Like I I'm just concerned that the wording as it's written suggests that, you know, we're satisfied with what it is, you know, right now. But I think, you know, at least my personal feeling is that I feel like something does need to be done. It's just not the right time to do it given the

And I um Can you call up that page because I thought I had something very similar to what you were asking for. Yeah, it's on page 21. Um it just says seems premature. There's no Yeah. And then I was I just kind of wrote in although there is an acknowledgment that you know change is welcome in the future or something along those lines. Something that I mean granted it is part of

I I just don't want someone to point to this and say well geez the the commi you know the city commission saying we want to keep it the way it is. I I just want some acknowledgement that, you know, um that we'd like to revisit it or that a change is welcome at some point. Okay. That would leave the door more open when it's the master plan is updated in the future. That's where I'm getting at with the PUD. It like Yeah. Like we don't want status quo, right? We're open to revision, but it's just premature at this point. Okay. Something along those lines.

Yeah. And with if gaslight is ever done at some point, that will change the dynamics of the area, too. So, I think it could future like Yeah. I like I I feel like that should be on the table. I Good. Good point.

Thank you. I did have one um comment on the vision. Um just massaging the language a little bit. When we say a comprehensive network of trails and pathways for bicycle and pedestrian travel, I wonder if we just want to use a more all-encompassing term for, you know, nonmotorized modes of traffic, something like that. Now you even have to be careful with non-motorized because I know the bike ebikes. [laughter] But yeah, maybe I'm sure you have a better term for it, but just to make sure that we're that we're including all of those different buckets.

Multimodal. Multimodal. Thank you. All users. All multimodal though includes buses and vehicles. We don't want buses and the trails. No trails. Yeah, I'll I'll give it a shot. Thanks. Good luck.

Anyone else have anything for Paul? We'll have further discussion after get city commission comment as well. Thanks, Paul. All right. Thank you. Anyone have any thoughts before we have Abby speak? Abby, you're up. Do you mean up there? Can I just talk here?

I'm mostly just here to listen tonight. I don't really have anything want to hear what you all have to say about the draft. Um, I did though just want to pipe in on the um block at the beginning when you were talking about the traffic enforcement. Um, that that complaint might be outdated. I just want to say that that complaint I think is very much not outdated. We do have data that certainly shows that our traffic stops are back to prepandemic levels, but we don't have disagregation about what those traffic stops are for. So, we don't necessarily know that there that we have an uptick in like in policing the most dangerous behaviors that people are complaining about. Um, so moving violations, speeding, things like that. Um, and if you're like me, I still hear lots and lots of feedback about um unsafe behavior on the road. So, I just want to make sure that we're clear about what the data do and do not show at this point in time. And that still is very much a community concern.

Thank you. Any further discussion up here before we consider a vote for final draft?

I think what we're we're seeking for tonight is to um beyond the comments and suggestions is is to schedule the public hearing. Yeah. Okay. Public hearing. And um from what we understand from Corwell Health, as was indicated by planner LeBlanc, um Corwell Health is planning um to be back here at the planning commission for the January 13th meeting. So we'd be looking at I think it's the February 10th meeting for for scheduling the public hearing and that will certainly give us an opportunity to have more time for outreach to the community, etc. as well. So we're looking for a motion to set that. I'll move to set that public hearing in February. As Doug commented, it's the 10th, I think. Right. Mhm. Okay. February 10th.

I'll second that. Do we need to be that specific if what if Corwell doesn't come back? This needs to be advertised as a public hearing. So, yeah. So, we're asking for a specific date. So, we have to prepare that. Yep. Right. Just to that point is if something happens with Corwell, we need to shift accordingly. So, can it be? Yeah, that's that's if they both land on the same day, that will be a pretty heavy agenda. So, just kind of like the next available time. But the motion needs to be specific to Yes. Okay. from a legal standpoint. Yep. Still February. It was moved. I seconded that.

Yeah, we're moved and seconded on that February 10th date. Any further discussion? N. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Oppose say no. Motion carries. Thank you. Next is an update by city commissioner Laura Schwarz.

Okay. Um so news today that was very exciting. We received a grant um that uh Derek Melville had applied for months ago and that's to help redevelop um Waterfront Park phase 2. Uh a grant for half a million dollars. So that's really going to go a long way. If Shay will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we have about half a million left earmarked for that. Oh, caught you off guard. Off guard, too.

I think it's somewhere around that that's been earmarked. Maybe you remember too, Abby. In our um our uh millage funds, I think it's roughly that. This email came out like an hour ago. I'm just excited. Or a couple hours ago. Very exciting though. that like, you know, potentially doubles our budget for what we can do in gas light phase 2, which is that area that's like where the two docks come out, where people go fishing, um, the trail there, and then the parking on the other side. Um, so definitely more details to come on what that will entail. Um, it's been a fairly quiet past couple of meetings since we last met. Um I think last time I we met um the election was still a little bit in flux for um Ward 2. Uh Chris Wesley was the winner of that election. He officially won by four um votes after all were counted. Um so Chris and I were sworn in last week. Um uh Commissioner Skaggs was not there. So I think that'll happen the next meeting. We also reviewed and have been reviewing the poverty exemption for property taxes. So, we did approve a change to that policy. So, that ups um the it'll be now be two times the um the income, the poverty income by family size. And then we also increased the asset exemption to $40,000 and made some exclusions for certain assets like a primary home, primary vehicle, art, jewelry. Um, so part of this was just to in some ways help um the board of review as they're reviewing looking at the assets and like how do we how do we value what art hanging on their wall or what jewelry they own and also just to help out those residents who are experiencing hardship because when you looked at these numbers in the grand scheme of things, it was a pretty harsh standard the way it was before. So that has all been approved. Um, and then the final item, um, I have

a a short prepared statement that I had approved because it is litigation. I figured everybody would have questions and this is all I can say about it. So, the city was um, sued by a group of residents on November 19th. U, we're working through everything with our attorneys, uh, including figuring out how much we need to budget for the litigation. Um, but all this is fairly fresh, so don't expect much more of an update other than what um will be made public through the course of litigation. Uh, the city's policy is to not comment on pending litigation. The official statement is while we don't comment on pending litigation, I can share that we follow guidance from our attorneys, the city's charter, and state election law to reach our determination. If you have any questions, no, [laughter]

I I do have one question. No, I might answer. Yeah, you can answer. Okay. Is because the city commission had approved the the the plan. Yeah. The next stage was to come back here to the planning commission with a is that on hold pending the litigation or could that happen while the litigation is going on? Do we know do we know what the developer Yes. That's an unknown really at this point. Um e either of those alternatives is possible that it stays on hold or that it is freed up at some point during

but is it up to the developer then to decide whether or not they want to come back to us given probably not a place right now to answer that question. You can't answer that. Okay. I have a different question. How often I didn't see anything in the documents for the poverty exemptions and such. How often does that come into play? Um maybe once or twice as far as number of people applying. Yeah. I just had never heard of it until recently. Yeah. So the board review previously approved one maybe two um exemptions a year under the previous income and asset thresholds. Um they actually approved three this morning. So And is that under the new threshold or still? Okay. Threshold.

Does that mean they totally don't have to pay taxes for that year or is it delayed or it's just No. So, they are exempt for taxes for that um that calendar year and then each year they reapply. Correct. Thank you. I was just I'd never had heard of that until I started following all the city commission things on it. I was just really curious about it. Yeah. Thank you. Anything else to add from staff? Winter maintenance and uh leaf pickup has ended because the that's what the forecast is. So, uh, we did make it through and we kind of blended those seasons a little bit and picked up what we could see and what we could get. Um, I'm sure that'll be a discussion topic if we do get a thaw along the way, but we'll we'll adjust and address that accordingly.

I'm glad you brought that up because yeah, there was

Yeah, if we if we knew when everything would stop and start with the seasons, I probably wouldn't be here. Um, [laughter] so, uh, it's kind of on an average looking at it and we we do make an attempt to try to accommodate when we have that overlap. So we had extra crews working overtime etc to so that we could do all you know two different seasons of services in that that period of time and um you know so we'll I'm sure uh when we get a thaw that'll be a discussion topic and we'll we'll we'll address those but uh for now the long-term forecast has been what it is which is cold and more winter and so um people I I'd be amazed if someone could rake their lawn right now with uh the snow they have but uh I've seen stranger Thanks. So,

has that new piece of equipment that that blade was specially made, has that been put into [clears throat] place?

We just received those a week ago and so we've had those out um uh kind of test test wearing them in I'll say and uh wearing them in because uh that type of equipment does require some of that. So, we've had um all four of them out um here and so you'll start seeing those more frequently as we um uh adjust to what their capabilities are. Um but now that we have four of them um we can we should be able to get much further along you know in their in the the system and routes. So um I think what you'll see what we've seen so thus far is that areas that we have um been able to go through um that coupled with some sunshine we've been able to really burn off any residual that we've broken and bladed off. Uh that's been highly effective. Um, and we're just trying to be able to see kind of what we can expect to share with the community with expectations uh what what that can look like. But if anything else, it does g they do groom sidewalks that um you have a lot of unevenness from uh you know frozen footsteps, those types of things um that can twist your ankles, those types of things. It it it looked like the salt and sand pile underneath the shelter that we approved uh earlier in the year is looks pretty low, you know, for this time of year. Is that just me or is are we concerned about

It's actually because that that facility is larger. Um it our normal amounts just look smaller in that in that facility. We were just talking to staffing this morning that because we have that capacity, we probably at this point, we've actually ordered the rest of our winter salt to go in there because we think we can handle um um all of our what what we what we need on average for a winter and two deliveries versus in the past with a smaller facility, we would have, you know, five, [snorts] six, seven, eight. Oh, so there's multiple deliveries then going. Yep. So they Yep. So we have we have more capacity now. So we only need to bring in the larger trucks just one one or two times a winter we think now. So glad we approved that.

Anything else? Our next meeting is scheduled for January 13, 2026. 26. Wow. We have a motion and a second to adjourn. So moved. Support. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes. Say no. Thank you.