City Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

is now called to order. Let's start with the roll call. James here. Margaret Rand here. Jun here. Nico here. Steve here. And Alex Wilkinson here. Um, now we move on the agenda. Uh, does anyone have any comments on the agenda or would like to make a motion? We have in addition to the agenda, we received a piece of correspondence today for agenda item 18. Okay, we get a motion.

I move that we approve the agenda as amended. Support Margaret Rener. Yeah, we both Yeah. Sorry, this is my first time. Okay. Okay. [laughter] Uh any discussion? All right. Any discussion? Uh vote say I yes. All in favor say yes. Sorry. Yes. [laughter]

Uh against uh the yeses have it. All right. Um now uh for last meeting um are there any additions or any comments on the minutes from the last meeting? No. Um, can we get a motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting? Don't need a motion. No motion. All right. As long as it's approved by consensus.

All right. Cool. Um, now, uh, conflicts of interest. Do we have any? All right. Um and then now public hearings um for 01 resoning 0226 for 1308400 and 1402 Division Street. Um city staff comments. Cool.

Okay. The planning commission is being asked to make a recommendation to the city commission regarding a request to resone the properties located at 1308400 and 1402 division street that are zon mixed use M- to be zoned general commercial GC. Attached in the agenda is the staff report which I am showing on screen. And in this report it shows all the different actual standards for the existing mixeduse zoning district and then the proposed general and commercial zoning district. Then it also shows the section 54.1405 zoning ordinance amendment procedures for which the planning commission has to review the items see if the proposal meets those reszoning items. So, um, some additional comments. These three parcels were previously regulated under the South Marquette form base code under which one parcel received approval for a parking lot and outdoor storage area and the other two parcels had an existing approved outdoor storage use. In 2019, the South Marquette formbbased code was replaced with traditional zoning districts and these parcels were designated as mixed use which made the outdoor storage uses legally non-performing as outsource storage is now permitted use in the mixeduse zoning district. In 2025, the property owner constructed a large hangar type structure that did not comply with the current code. The owner was unaware that the expansion of the non-conforming outdoor storage use by the placement of storage buildings on 1308 Division Street was not legally allowable. The property owner sub subsequently met with staff to discuss options for bringing the site into compliance. Applying for reszoning is one available option and if approved of bring the site into compliance. If the resoner request is

not approved, alternatives will be discussed with property owner. Attachments are the applicant application submitted by the applicant. The area map for the proposed three parcels are highlighted outlined in blue. The block map again the three parcels are outlined in blue. And then the zoning map showing the three parcels outlined in blue with the mixed use zoning. Then photos on site, proof of mining journal ad, the land use typology map and our master plan and reszoning considerations for planning permissions. And then um as stated before, I did receive one piece of correspondence today prior to the deadline to the community development department. I oppose the request to reszone the three properties under consideration for this resolution 01 re0226. The most significant reasons are one that the property would inconsistent with the stated intent of the GC zone listed in chapter 54 article 3 section A that the property owner erected the structure without due diligence and would be rewarded for that lack of compliance. Three, that the property would be adjacent to MDR zoning. Four, that the resoning may have unintended consequences for the neighborhood even with the best intentions of the property owner. that a future owner of the property could place any of the GC intended uses in the future, such as a hotel or restaurant with outdoor alcoholic service. For these and other reasons, I request the municipality to reject proposal and for the property owner to find a different solution to remedy the problem structure that was erected out of

compliance graded. Sincerely, J. Center 319 West Hampton Street. And then did um the planning commission have any questions for staff? Uh, Commissioner, um, could you, uh, clarify for me exactly what options we have as a planning commission voting on this? We can either approve or deny, recommend or recommend approval, recommend uh, denying this. Do we have any other options? No, those are the two options that you have for resuming request.

So, okay. All right. Um, anybody else? All right. So, we move on to the applicant now. All right. Uh, yes. State your name and address, sir.

David Holland, 425 Avenue, Marquette, Michigan. I'm here representing JJ Rentals. and we'd like to get it reszoned. I think it was general commercial at one time and we're hoping to get it back to that. The main reason for like 1308 divisions because it's a storage lot. We did make an error in putting up. I realize that now. I thought because it wasn't a permanent structure, we could do it. That was my fault.

But a lot of the businesses down there are general commercial. I don't think it's a an unusual request to try to get it back to that. So hoping we can uh work with the city on it as far as getting that getting a storage lot approved in whatever form that may be. We're in the building JJD and Safe Light. So those are all commercial businesses kind of fix that area. I know there's several other businesses down there. Silus customers union peace company electric forward. So there's a lot of commercial in that area and there is also residential and there's a lot of rentals I believe. just hoping that can work with us and they'd like to work with with you all. Any questions? No questions. Okay. Um and uh public testimony. Anybody from the public?

Thank you, sir. Sorry. Thank you. Um any public testimony? No. Okay. Uh, commission discussion. [clears throat] Um, I'll start out, I guess. Um, could I um mention that somebody either needs to make a motion to um to wave the rules or for discussion or to make a motion right away? Uh, Commissioner,

I'll make a motion to suspend the rules for discussion. Um, support. Support.

Oh, can we have a vote? Yeah. [laughter] Um, the vote uh vote for support, please.

I uh any votes against? All right. Uh we have voted to suspend the rules for discussion. All right. So, um I'll start, I guess. Um so, a lot of the area um within a block of this property is zoned uh general commercial, particularly along the highway there. Uh I know the uh master plan um designates a lot of this area. Uh well the master plan doesn't really define u zoning for the parcel. It sort of gives a general indication of what it's looking for. Um, and I don't I guess in my opinion, uh, going to general commercial is not that big a stretch. If I look around at what's adjacent in that area, and what the current uses are in in that area. Um, so I guess I'm starting out to be inclined to approve the res.

Anybody else? Commissioner P.

Um I think it's important to recognize that we saw a res or a conditional resoning request recently for property pretty nearby um to where this is about a block and a half away. Um I don't know if it's appropate to say this. I'm surprised that there's not more folks in the audience tonight. Um, which yeah, but I appreciate that we received some correspondence um from the neighbors. Uh, I drove over to this spot today to look around. Um, and remembering back to what a lot of the neighbors, the people who live in this area had said the last time we looked through resoning, a lot of the sentiment was that South Marquette is actively has actively been trying to become more residential and more neighborhoodly. and that the last time we did the master plan, that was why a lot of these parcels were zoned in excuse and that it was pretty intentional in order to kind of aid in that evolution of South Marquette into a more neighborly area. Now, Maridos has been here for a long time. It's a really appreciated business in the community. Um, and I'm not really against them having storage there, but I do kind of question if a reszoning to general commercial is the right way to go about it. Um, I think that there are other opportunities like I don't know if we could I mean I know that we can't consider them tonight but I would maybe encourage us the applicant to look at either a text amendment or a

um to like add a special land use or um a conditional reszoning to just add this to that property because yeah, I can't help but worry about like if anything were a change in ownership of that property, what it could look like if it's owned general commercial in the future. Any other comments, Commissioner?

Well, as was mentioned, I think this is a long established business. It's operated within it did operate within the parameters of the city's previous zoning for the property and it serves a south area as well as a much larger geographic area. I believe it's the only pet supply store between Harvey and West Washington Street trying to according to the master plan we're trying to have businesses that minimize automobile trips. Um, I think this meets that standard of the the master plan. Um, it uh when the city changed the zoning in 2019. I don't believe it was with the intent of making existing businesses non-conforming or pushing them to other locations. It was to further promote the mix of residences and businesses that exist along division street. Uh I wasn't here in 2019, but I was as we were developing the section of the master plan and I'm the one who proposed to excuse zoning for this area without realizing that it would impose some hardships on the way existing businesses were operating. was to try to actually um allow for residences to remain there, but to um allow for reuse of some of those existing buildings. Um some of which I think have switched back and forth between residents and business a couple of times. Um master plan says that division street should have the look and feel of a village main street. Division Street dates back to the late the mid to late 1800s and still has much of the look and

feel of the main street it was for South Marquette for over 150 years. I think for decades this property was occupied by a sausage manufacturing plant. When that plant closed, it left a large difficult to reuse building that could have become a blight for the neighborhood city. the existing business, put the property back into productive use without demolishing the existing buildings. And I think it's important to work with them to find ways to allow them to continue to operate on the site in a manner that does not impose on their immediate neighbors any more so than the other businesses that have operated along this corridor for 150 years. I don't know that prezoning is the best answer, but I think it's what we have to decide on tonight. Um I guess the uh in looking at the property, I um I don't think that the um temporary structure that was put up really contributes to the neighborhood. I'm sure some of the neighbors do have a problem with the visual effects of that. Um, a more permanent building might solve the issues, but I don't know that the property owner is in a position to provide that at this point. Um yes, uh alternate uses on the property could result if we change the zoning, but um it could result if um people pursue reszoning in the future or a special land use or something as well. So just because we reszone it doesn't leave it wide open, I don't think to

some unacceptable uses of the property either. That's all I have right now. Thank you. Uh any other commission discussion?

Uh this right ask for a motion. um but um also go over all the standards and section 5405 that would be the preferred way to go about this and um I'll just add that when Andrea and I some background when Andre and I first met with D and talked about this um what they could do to resolve the issue with the um unauthorized buildings um where they did have an author drive storage lot. Um, we thought about options. Um, of course, we thought about the other options, but the the problem, one of the problems with the a conditional reszoning for the one property, these properties weren't different business names. Um, now they're combined into they're all under the same business. went through the process of combination and um the but the 1308 was where the storage the outdoor storage and parking was approved and I I let Andrea explain this a little she can explain a little better than I can I think more familiar with this assessing background but there are a variety of problems that come up when you look at a this single parcel be trying to reszone the single parcel even conditionally. You want to talk to that a little bit?

Basically, the 1308 parcel is tied to the mayor's parcel. That was they requested to add the parking lot in there and they requested the outdoor storage to the mayor's parcel. They also can't have accessory structures without having a main structure. So, it's all tied together. So it makes sense at least for the 1400 and the 132 1402.

Yeah, I need that just make sure right. So the 1308 here and the 1400 are tied together. But also through looking through all my stuff, the 1402 also contain contains storage from the Marino's parcel also where the parking lines go. So they're all kind of really tied together. The previous existing illegal non-governor uses aren't really tight. So it makes sense they're applying to all three.

And the the other thing, thank you. The other thing we got of them is that um as a single parcel being reszoned that does create a spot zone even though if it's conditionally re conditional reszoning you kind of can overlook spot zoning that you kind of allowed to look past spot zoning. Um but it it still is more I mean just think about it. I I think of it as more of a logical thing to have all three in one zone. Um it's, you know, as you go through the spot zoning considerations, I think you find that it's not a spot zone when you look at three parcels. It is when you look at one, but it's conditional. You could overlook that. But there's problems with doing it as a single parcel because it's so tied into the other parcels. It's these are accessory uses basically to the main uses and those don't really stand up as a stand on it on its own on a parcel because they're basically uses are accessory to the main retail business.

Thank you. Um all right. Uh so on page 17 is the uh standards for uh review. Um say I was going through one by one. Uh first one is consistency with the goals policies and objectives of the master plan. Do I read off the comment or

uh no no we can just discuss it now. Um any discussion on uh the master plan topic consistenc um again I would point to the uh fact that the master plan looks at this area as a whole geographic area with a lot of different zoning within it and it doesn't uh prohibit the idea of general commercial within this area. And uh I think there is general uh uh general commercial uh zoning very close by. Um and I don't think that this activity is um inconsistent with what the master plan is trying to accomplish here. So that's my thoughts on it. Anyone else? Commissioner,

just as I mentioned earlier, I think it meets the master plan goals of trying to serve uh or provide a basic service to that neighborhood that uh is I'm sure needed. Um and then also that it is part of the um makes for a main street that uh master plan calls out for division street as well. Anybody else? Um

actually question comment saying that this is for the community. I can understand the mayor's is great for location but adding that extra parcel which is the one that is bringing this here is that actually supporting the community or is it supporting business specifically?

I think it's a a vital part of the way the business is operating right now. um if they scaled way back on their on their product lines or something like that um I'm not sure they would be able to run a sustainable business um on just a single parcel that um the 1400 block um I realized that uh at some point the business expanded from the 1400 block over there. I don't recall when that happened. Um, but as staff mentioned, they did go through and get permits to make that site compliant with the zoning ordinance that was in place at the time. And they did not request the rules to be changed. The city just went ahead and changed them. um actually in a in a very large scale uh move that may not have even be been brought to the uh direct attention of the property owners or the ventures. So if they had objections at the time they may not have been aware that they had the opportunity to raise Yeah. I think that's about their their comments. Um my question still stands if that fire is to do something that way.

I I would say that you know we're looking at reszoning that parcel as well as the main building looking at it as one whole thing. We're not looking at that property by itself. So, I think that's the way to look at it, right? And I actually I had a question for the city on this one. Is why are the all three parcels are being reviewed at once? Is it just because it's just within the same business or because they're all looking at each other? Yeah. So, what I stated earlier

that they just had me explain is that the 1308 and the 1400 are tied together, but also the 1402 has some of the outdoor storage that's tied to 1400 as well. So, they're all tied together. The uses are okay. So, if I business those in separate lots that were tied together, then I would have to do some of those. If you wanted [clears throat] to reszone, it would make sense to resone all of them together. You wouldn't resone just one and not do them all if they're all using up the same. So per my staff report, they all have outdoor storage. So they're all legally knocked right now, right? Yeah. So that's they're all tied together. Okay.

Um Okay. Uh next is uh intent and purpose of the zoning district. Um consistency with basic intent of um Thomas do I just move on if there's no comments? Yeah. um looking for general consensus on these items or any opposing views discussed.

I'll just say in reading the intent for the general commercial use district it does I feel like pretty well describe Mary's use. Um so that so in that case I do think it's consistent the intent of all um but again it's like the all the uses come along with zoning it general commercial we have a consens consensus on All right. Um capability of the street system to accommodate this use. Everybody in agreement that's all right?

Y we agree. Um the capacity of the city's utilities and services to accommodate.

Everybody in agreement? Okay. um uh changed conditions since the zoning ordinance was adopted or errors to the zoning ordinance. Um staff says no conditions have changed nor was there an error. Um all good there. No [clears throat] exclusionary zoning. Um staff says no the proposal will not result in any exclusionary zoning. All right. Um environmental features. Um city staff says the zoning is generally compatible with the site's physical, geological, hydraological, and other environmental features um [clears throat] with the permitted uses in the proposed zing. Any thoughts on that? [clears throat] I bet we're all good. Um potential land uses and impacts. Uh staff comments say proposed resoning would allow all the possible land uses for a general commercial zoning district. Um we must determine the comp compatibility of the proposal in this location comments. [clears throat] I mean, yeah, that's where I take a little bit of issue [clears throat] because again, anything that happen in the future, you know, I I know and appreciate Mars as a business and I, you know, hope that their use of those parcels would never change, but we have to know that they could. And yeah, I would just caution us to be reverting a neighborhood back to, you know, past uses when it's been kind of intentionally moving towards more residential uses. I just point out that you can look back

at page um six or 14 that shows the permitted principal uses for GC and of course the special uses. So special uses can have you know a much more intense process but um you know that's worth thinking about. Do do any of those uses really conflict in that area? A lot of them already exist in that area.

Yeah. In my review of it, I in the permitted per principal uses I did not see anything that really seemed incompatible uh with that area other than uh perhaps you know stinging of was at large uh large scale. I'm looking for what that was here. Um equipment sales and display uh which typically you would need a larger area for it. So um so it seemed to me that most of these uh activities were already going on in that area. We're not introducing anything. Some of the uh special land uses I think could pose some more concerns, but I don't think we'd be out of line if we were to approve this or recommend approval. Any other thoughts on that? No. Okay. Um, so we're mostly good with that, I guess. All right. Just trying to get some sort of consensus here. Um, in relationship to surrounding zoning districts and compliances with the proposed district, um, [clears throat] city staff says, uh, parcels to the west and south are in medium density and parcels to the east and north are mixed use. Um the LEC requires a buffer between commercial and non-commercial uses. Um these partials above residential uses and would be considered legally non-conforming due to not meeting 10-ft landscape buffer requirements. Um existing structures at

1400 and 1402 have been in place for many decades and do not meet side and rear setbacks. Um which is legally non-conforming. This would not change if requests approved as the setbacks would not conform with proposed GC zoning district likewise would not um any more comments on that commissioner.

Um not so much on dimensional compatibility but I guess I do have a question for staff about the way some of the outdoor storage is handled at present. Um, is there any record of neighborhood complaints about erodence or anything from some maybe that it might be attracted to the types of materials that are stored outside for these parcels? Yes. Not in our computer system. So, we started entering stuff in around [clears throat] 2004 reinforcement. So, not since that time.

Thank you. Just another piece of information. So if this is approved, these outdoor structures, the new temporary structures temporary, but those would need to be brought [clears throat] into compliance with the setback. So at present it's not just the um the fabric building that is auto compliance the other shipping containers are as well right I I don't know exactly where they're sitting

I mean I have to see a plot plan with it but if they are they they have to supply a zoning compliance permit for them and then show us how they're in compliance. Okay. But if at this point it's the the non-compliance is based on the lack of a permit and possibly the setbacks and not the types of structures or um size of structures or anything that you're aware of. It's possible there could be a height issue, but um not sure. I think it said you could go 36. Yeah, I don't I don't

Okay, thank you. Yeah. Um, so along those lines, that would also include um garbage enclosures and things like that that would then have to be built for what's being used on that site. If any garbage enclosure was new, it would have to be anything existing remains non-p performing. Okay. So, they don't have to change anything. They only had to change the new stuff that they did without a permit. Oh, I see. Or anything added on after that. So, we're generally good on that.

Okay. Um alternative zoning districts uh the city staff deter to be determined by the planning commission as stated above the future land use plan provides guidance for development within each place type while recognizing that each property is unique and thus offers flexibility for the designation zone districts. Does anyone have comment on alternative zoning districts? Sure. I wonder if staff could be precious on why form based zoning was considered inappropriate for division street.

Well, I'd say if um so forbased zoning really kind of an intent to make the third street or the division street corridor more like Third Street, North Third Street or downtown. Um, and what it it's got the penistration requirements that you see on in the waterfront district, which means you've got have a lot of openings in new buildings for renovated buildings. Um, the courtyards building is a good example of that. Um, on the corner of Jese and Champion Street. Um, so when that building was um remodeled, the the owners had to comply with the the penistration requirements were really extensive and it became a really beautiful project. It's a beautiful building um when it was completed but those requirements were not um welcomed that you know that that level of requirement met a lot of resistance.

They had no variances.

They had no variances. Mayor Zidos had dealt with the the unwelcomed requirements for what the parking lot screening BMS that were required to be put around it that were very challenging for them to try to meet the those standards um and so on with the other build. There's just there's a lot of commercial use in that area that it was sort of asking too much to you know we kind of came to an agreement as staff that with the number of variance requests we have and the comments we got from different business owners and and potential developers was that those standards were really not suited well suited for that area and intended to agree with that and we working on the community master plan back in 2015. [clears throat] Uh, and Steve, you're you're pretty brave taking all the credit for the next you being the one to recommend the next piece. I think it was a committee decision.

Well, I I brought it up, but yeah, it was voted on and it was supported, I think, by everybody.

I think we were looking at places all around town that had excuse districts. Seemed to make sense. Um, but anyway, I think there was general agreement on the planning commission too that the cornbased districts were were appropriate for North Third Street from downtown or for the part of downtown that's on the waterfront adjacent to the waterfront waterfront district. But they weren't really working very well for South Market. That's something, you know, we need to do periodically is evaluate whether these districts we have are working for for the people that, you know, live in them and do business there and for the rest of the community. So, I I think that was the right decision. Obviously, u you know, not all the choices that we made were correct with. This is the second property that's been as asking to reszone these pie. Uh, I think Dave that was a another property that was reszoned to general commercial um that was mixed use.

Yes,

I'm pretty sure that was the reason. Um and so in reality the I think for the forbased code is more suited to building new structures and buildings than it is to reuse of some very old buildings that we don't really advocate being torn down. So okay thank you. Any other comments? This was alternative z we're all good on those other alter alternatives. [laughter] Sorry. Um 11. Reszoning preferable to text amendment where appropriate. Uh staff comment says a text amendment to add outdoor storage uses permitted in the mixed use zoning district would affect all mixed use districts. Um any comments on that? Anybody?

Yeahhead. I would just ask I guess when the mixeduse district was developed um why outdoor storage was not added as a permitted or special land use. Sure. There's going to be the same reason why last um tax amendments that indoor storage was not the self storage facilities were not is that they felt that was more industrial and they didn't want the mixed use is the idea between commercial and residential. They wanted it more of that type deal. Thank you. Anybody else? [clears throat]

I go back to u um some other previous comments that if we amend the mixed use zoning district to include outdoor storage, we are sort of opening a can of worms in lots of other areas without understanding all the ramifications. I don't think that would be a good approach in this instance. Commissioner L. Yes. I I think as well that uh [clears throat] we we designated mixeduse areas in areas that already had a lot of residential construction with the idea that existing homes would be converted into small businesses. Um they would use the small residential lots uh to provide neighborhood businesses, whatever. And I could foresee a lot of problems if we allow outdoor storage on everything that's currently zone mixed use. Um, in this neighborhood, this is not the only outdoor storage. I believe the house has considerable outdoor storage, but it's some general commercial right around the corner from here. So there may be others coming here as well [clears throat] at least for storage of vehicles things on property. So I guess I'll thank you. Anybody else? Uh so we're all in agreement that we should not add outdoor storage to mixed use districts. All right. Um and then uh number 12, isolated or incompatible zone prohibited. Uh planning commission will need to determine if these the proposed zoning would create an isolated or incompatible zone. Um, any comments on this? Anybody?

Uh, Commissioner, just noting that there is not general commercial directly adjacent to any of these parcels, which is something that we considered in our last resoning request and something that I think is important to consider. Now, it's in the neighborhood, but it's not directly adjacent. Any other comment?

You know, that's correct. It's not immediately adjacent, but it's within a block away. It's very close by. So, it [clears throat] doesn't seem to me that this would be a really completely isolated activity within that area incompatible with what's in commission. I think in in hindsight I think perhaps the parcel that silent voters currently occupy should have been left as general commercial as well and then it would be a robotic property. Um and as uh even though Commissioner Duter was pointing out he didn't think it was an area for large equipment sales. That's what that building previously was large truck dealership trucks. So, um, I've asked before, we can't change the the scope of a reszoning request to include some other properties that we think should be part of it. Um, so I won't intend [clears throat] to do that at this point, but I think like I said in hindsight, um, it's a still an automotive repair business either zoning district, but it probably should have been as general commercial. Thank you. Question

more of a question for city. Can we leave something as general commercial especially when it's done something there for like before the changes started taking place and maybe once the exchange of hands then it changed to what the zoning was going to be updated as to be able to get away in these kinds of situations if it was general commercial before why did it change to property owners didn't change business didn't change nothing changed by sector

so if it was it would have been general business before general commercials in their zoning district. But so the planning commission did a a citywide thing where they went through and decided what areas might be mixed use and this was some of the areas that was chosen and that was just the exercise that was done. And I think the logic behind that is that if this is if this property were to change to another type of use, you would want it to change to something that's maybe partly residential, partly commercial or all residential. Those would be compatible uses in that area um rather than more intense um a more intense use. But um this is basically the continuation of an existing uses and I realize I mean you could have some possibly more intense uses in the future with the general commercial but as you guys have said it's those uses do exist in this area. So it's not anything that would be drastically different from what's existing. My thought is why you couldn't just stay as it was until it exchanged hands to something else and then it changed mixed use.

So mixed use is a completely new zoning district that we didn't have and the cellar pet code was a mixed use code basically. So when the they were changing these these different areas, they were trying to sprinkle more excuse into the city and that this core was chosen to be part of understand businesses that are already going through this process. Why change that reason for it outside of longterm funding?

Just a thought. Thank you. It could have been could have been done better. I mean, we could have done better with our reszoning recommendations in that area. That's that's the bottom line that I can see [clears throat] your question. We could have done better, but we didn't we did what we did. Commissioner,

I agree with that. I think we tried to go through basically parcel by parcel and tried to determine what was the correct zoning, but we also didn't want to create spot zoning by, you know, going alternate zoning districts from one parcel to the next. We tried to make it fit the proposed zoning uh along corridors and neighborhoods and um I think did our best to try to find the one that we already identified that would best apply to that neighborhood. When you're taking a mixed neighborhood as division street is as old as it was not established, it's hard to find the new uh zoning district that is just the right one to cover everything. The concern is we open up general commercial but no longer does it concern spot zoning for any future that wants to also resone whether that's what we want in that area or not

on that um point I think it's good to turn to um the analysis of the spot zoning and the reszoning analysis that's in the package.

So in that I just don't I don't know what I'm supposed to say. Well, um starting with the uh the spot zoning, um it has to meet all four characteristics there. And I handed out that sheet which does a little bit better job of explaining the four different characteristics. Um and they all have to be met for a spot for it to be considered a spot zone. Not just one or two. They all have to be met. Um, so that that's something to discuss. We've already discussed some of these issues [clears throat] with standards you went over.

Does anybody have thoughts on the spot resing standards? All right. Um, so we've gone through the status for approval. Uh, is this where I can ask for a motion or is there something else? I just clarify that either you you found that there was no this would not be spot. Okay. Um, consensus on that. That's pretty important.

Okay. Uh, sorry. Gotcha. Um okay. Uh um standards for a Okay. Um Oh, yeah. We're on 12. All right. Okay. I thought I was reading through the specific spot. Um, so, uh, commissions, yeah, we'll need to determine if it's, uh, will create an isolated or incompatible zone. Um, and the standards for a spot zone are, uh, small in size, inconsistent uses, special benefit. Um, and then contrary to master plan. Uh does anyone have any comment on any of these characteristics

that you feel it meets all of them? Oh yeah. Would that would this site meet these standards of small size inconsistent use a special benefit and contrary to master plan?

Go ahead. Well, I even though it says there is no dimensional uh determination as to what's small in size, I don't feel basically three parcels or a whole block and part of the next one constitutes small in this context. Um, so I don't think it needs that one and um I don't think it's contrary to our master plan in that uh he said it's we're supposed to be trying to create a mix of businesses and residences along that street. Um and there are others in the neighborhood that do [clears throat] benefit from outdoor storage. uh they are under different zones. Um other properties could also I think qualify to um reszone if they feel they have any for outdoor storage as well. So I don't I don't think it's speeding all four of these.

Any other comments or thoughts on that? I would agree with Mr. that I don't think this uh meets all the criteria for spot zone. It's fairly large parcel block plus um it is not inconsistent with the area uses around there. Uh and it seems to meet the intent of the master plan and future land use plan of the master plans. Any other thoughts? So, we're all in agreement that it doesn't meet the standards of a spot reser.

Okay. Um All right. And now this motion motion.

Uh does anyone have a motion? I [clears throat] move that we recommend approval of the reszoning to the city commission for the following reasons. uh that the uh master plan and the future land use plan recognizes that uh this area has unique properties um and provides a lot of flexibility that the general commercial uh zoning is included in the master plan for this area. Um that it is does not meet the criteria for spot zoning. um and that it serves a neighborhood and community need in this uh in our community.

So for staff, we would like you to mention the codes the codes. Yeah. So like in the middle of this so after conducting a public hearing review of the application and staff like referencing all the items that you reviewed and then with the community master plan and the requirements for land development code and section 5405. So if you you could add that to your motion that would

okay. All right. So uh in addition to what I previously said uh start with this preamble that after conducting a public hearing and review of the application and the staff report analysis for 01-Z-02-26. The planning commission finds that the proposed reszoning is consistent with the community master plan and meets the requirements of the land development code section 54.1405 and hereby recommends that the city commission approve 01-Z-02-26 uh for the following reasons which I've that sound good.

Um, I'll second that. All right. Um, any further discussion? Any further discussion? Uh, okay. Uh, vote, uh, vote yes if you're in favor of supporting the reszoning. Uh, I uh, votes against. Um, the yeses have it. Uh, yeah. All right. Um, [laughter] okay. Um,

next item on the agenda, uh, citizens wishing to address the commission on agenda items. Okay. Um, no. Uh, any old business? No, no new business. Um, citizens wishing to address the commission on non-aggenda items. All right. Um, any correspondence, reports, minutes? Okay. Um, and trainings uh for the article No joke improv helps build better communities. Did everyone have a chance to look through that? Any uh thoughts on that comments?

Okay. All right. I thought it was great read. Yeah, that was a good comparison of Yeah. how impro works which is helps you think quickly be able to pay attention to what's being said in whoever is speaking um before you're thinking how to reply because you need to actually interacting well. Yeah, it was it was eye opening to see that comparison to something completely you would think is completely different.

Um yeah, maybe I could go try some Yeah. Yeah. I've had some um some times I've been in other communities for some like planning code meetings or open houses and things and I was definitely thinking about how like a lot of the time people think too or I guess I think too like what I'm going to say after they're done talking and it's like realistically you should shut up and then try to play off of what they're saying. So yeah, interesting read. Uh thank you for including that. Um, now work session, uh, land development amendments. Okay, so Andrew's going to pull up what I have and I've got these handouts, so take one. This will be pretty quick. Um, preface this with saying I've been working with our hydraology engineer on the riparian buffer section. I had noted that we um needed in the code part of this um section 320. Do you have another one of these?

Yeah.

I see. So in section 320, we did not identify um our last amendment to this section. So we've amended it once or twice before. Um, we didn't uh identify specifically that the riparian overlay district includes land located within [clears throat] the boundaries of a FEMA flood zone designated AE. So that's on the rate insurance maps. There are two flood zones designated along the lake superior. Um, and that's what this refers to. Um the one is a higher impact flood zone. I think it used to be called a high high action erosion zone or something like that.

Oh yeah. Yeah. Um high risk erosion.

High risk erosion zone. um that only exists kind of at the very um very western part of the land right up by the end of Island Beach Road and up to the north of that you know along the city boundary where the city meets the township that area the rest of it in the flood zone is AE designated as a so That's one thing we needed to do and we needed a better way to show what this is. We we don't have a drawing in the code. So our very astute engineer created these drawings. One for the waterways which are the rivers, creeks, the creeks, um the wetland areas and then the shoreline of Lake Superior. Um and she is very familiar with the the rules um the federal rules around all of these. She's worked in compliance for cliffs um for some other companies um and worked in the private sector in the conservation area conservation. So um we have a real expert. I mean she she's not a necessarily certified in wetland delineation but she knows a lot about it. And so she she created these drawings so that it's easy for somebody opening our code to look at this and say, "Okay, this is how they're measuring this. These are the things referenced in the code." Because it can be a little uh difficult to understand that. And then so all we're doing here

in the text is adding that number four item to the list of what the boundaries are what it applies to to the boundary zone which gets referenced up above that and then adding this figure which would become figure nine. And then in figure 10 um we kind of came to the agreement that we should actually add steep slopes to some either the name of the figure or in the table here so that people understand yeah 15% slope is what we consider a steep slope when you're talking about these additions to the right area buffer area. So anything in that chart is inserting slopes starting at 15% slope. So that's it. That's um I I I created a um single sheet with the drawings on it because the text is obviously a lot easier to read than the the back side of this where I have figure nine which was um that was just a cut and paste from an image. Um, I I had a problem trying to get the actual image file to go into this thing, which this was all put together within about a half an hour before the meeting. I knew a text had to be amended, but yeah, our engineer just got this drawing completed this afternoon. Left it on my desk while I was out over here setting up for the meeting. And uh so this will be the the actual drawing that's on this sheet that I handed out inside the sheet will be updated so that you can actually read it in the document or online. Um so this is just for clarity but

so you have comments. I think it's really well done. Would you please thank her for us? All right. Yes. I I notice on the figure it says wetland is defined by eagle or Michigan eagle. Um could that be added to the text as well just to be clear where the what the definition of wetland is? Yeah. Um that might already be in our definition. Oh the different areas. It is okay.

Yeah it is. And we talked about how um Eagle and I think actually the EPA under the Army Corps, the Army Corps of Engineers is the enforcement arm of the EPA in terms of inland or bottomlands of Lake Superior and other navigable rivers and whatnot. So the EPA we she talked about may maybe we should actually say you know the EPA or code army corps as well but eagle follows kind of follows those federal um guidelines too. So just saying eagle was adequate.

It is in the definition I just verified. Any other comments? Do we need to make a motion to um No, because this comes back again like once we compile all of Okay, so we're all good with that. Um so we're all good. Uh that's that's the only changes. Okay. Um all right, moving on to commission and staff comments. Start with commission. No comment. No comment.

Um, earlier this week I attended a webinar with Dave and Andrea regarding data centers. Um, and which was interesting, talk about what other communities have come across and there are some zoning issues that maybe you could we could address. Um, and I guess on one hand, uh, after going through that, I don't think these buildings are quite as scary as, um, they're sometimes made out to be. Uh, the biggest thing is that they're very large, a lot of them. Um, and the biggest the three biggest thing takeaways that I got out of it was they do impact water usage, which, you know, we don't really have any control over. uh they do draw a lot of power which again we don't have any control over um and uh noise is a major factor with these facilities and that is something that we could uh impact and write some zoning ordinances around to better control that. So those are the takeaways I got. I don't know if Dave and Andrea have any other comments regarding that, but I I thought it was very informative.

Um, happy new year for anyone who celebrates. Good discussion today. Is a recording of the webinar available for the data center? We'll have to test it. Uh, sorry. We just got it in an email today, but I need to send it to somebody who wasn't signed up for it to see if they can open it up. And if it is and you know, thank you. No other comments.

I just point out that the reasoning would recommended tonight. Um, that doesn't mean that everything is just fine. No more. They still do have to meet the standards. of the general commercial district and have a lot of stuff to do with those standards too. So in that respect I think this was just the first step. Um and the commission still has to approve it and last reformation. [laughter] Um and one more thing I guess that we put up um have commission assistant city engineer that you might want to consider some other cross-section changes in the master plan where development code um city was going to work with staff about that but after dealing with the Wilson Street multi-use path It occurred to me that we could accommodate more snow storage and more multi-use paths throughout town if we didn't follow the just tradition of placing the road on the center line on the center line of the rightway all the time. our current um adopted crosssections all place the road on the center line of center line of the rightway. And if we're really going to give um other means of transportation other than automobiles of their fair share of the rightway, maybe we ought to stop centering everything on the automobile. Um, so I understand the staff is going to take a look at whether that's a a

feasible option on street builds and some of the more streets that might be developed in the future and try to provide a better balance. That's all. Thanks. Um, just want to thank you all for your grace uh tonight and just figure out how to run this meeting. Uh, can't wait for Kevin to be back. Um, [laughter] I believe there's at least one spot open on planning commission right now. Someone usually calls it out, so I would want to do it. And also with the storm coming, uh, once again, um, I just think we should mention that the city should expand uh, their sidewalk plowing coverage. I know plenty of people that uh, don't venture out of the house when the storm hits. So, I just think that should be noted. Um that's all you have on it. Um yeah, I was gonna um touch on that that webinar we watched about data centers a little bit. Um yeah, hopefully we can share that but Jake did a pretty good job of saying what was important there. Um one one takeaway though that struck me is this uh recommend don't just categorize don't create just a a category for data center but a high use high impact kind of industrial use kind of a use category um because that's basically covers a lot of things. Um but uh anyway, yeah. Well, we've got a lot of work to do with um kind of figuring out how how we want to structure that. And there's there's a lot more to it than just, you know, deciding on [cough and clears throat] the zoning categories. There's those

things we have to look at with other industrial type of uses um with decommissioning bonding requirements um and how how those businesses might respond to complaints. Um recommend all those things be built into codes. Um we and we addressed a lot of those things. I've never heard like you know responding to complaints as addressed in the code before but it's not a bad idea um as you understand what they're talking about but um the reasoning for uh hearing at the city commission could possibly be the first u or just following the week you have your next uh meeting which is April 7th. So, it's possible it could be the first meeting of the U month for the city commission. I

think March. March. When is it? Yeah. Um too fast already. Yeah. I'm kind of wishing for spring. Um [laughter] it could be the first Monday or second Monday of April, but it might be the last. We'll we'll figure that out. you guys know and I'll obviously let you all know. Uh we'll want to have the chair at the meeting probably for that. But uh yeah, thanks. Good job. Thank you. It was only first time you get to get more experience. It'll be better.

My only comment about the data that has reporting that the um person had just finished writing report this month. So, we really are, you know, front line of trying to get this done compared to um h having a lot of codes and everything written. It just seems like everyone's if they're doing it, they're doing it now. So, um like I said, we'll see um how it all works out. You may or may not receive. All right. And with that, the planning commission meeting is adjourned at 7:15