Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome and thank you for attending the August 13, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. We are calling our meeting to order. If I could ask for roll call, please.

Commissioner Willette-Laroy? Bronson?

Here.

De La Garza? Present. Seifert?

Here.

Galran?

Here.

Keener?

Here.

Mazade?

Here.

Blake and Simmons.

I am going to make a motion to approve minutes for, or can I get a motion to approve the minutes for July 23rd, our regular meeting on July 16, 2026 and the special meeting on July 23rd, 2026. So moved. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

We are going to move on to public hearing. Hearing case 2026-16, request to amend the plan unit development at Harbortown Condominium Association, partial 6124425, 000-000000, to reduce the amount of sidewalk to be installed as required as part of their plans to construct additional housing. I'm going to defer to Commissioner Mazzei for comment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I live in Habertown. I want to disclose that. And the city attorney has previously opined that I do not have a conflict of interest relative to this issue. But nevertheless, I intend to abstain from voting on this matter. Thank you. Thank you.

Can we get staff to report out on this public hearing?

Yes. We'll also need to approve the minutes, but we can do that. I'm sorry. I was reading through this stuff. I'm sorry.

You can get a clarification. Sure. This may be for the planning manager. Given that it's not a technical conflict of interest and it's a discretionary, abstaining from the process that is not triggered then the requirement that it be uniform of the remaining members. I just want to confirm that's the case.

Not at the Planning Commission level. This is just a referral to the City Commission.

This will be a question for legal counsel, then never mind. At the city commission level, because I'm curious about that, if someone's discretionary abstaining, it shouldn't trigger the requirement that it's unanimous by the remaining members.

And if I may, Madam Chair, and then just for another clarification, no matter how the vote goes tonight, this does get referred to the city commission. So whether it's an affirmative vote or to approve or deny the application, it still goes to the city commission. So I just want to make sure that's clear. Okay.

Everyone good? Okay, if we could have staff report out, please.

Sure. So in August 2024, Harbortown Condominium Association applied to amend the planning and development to allow an additional 10 buildings, which would include 28 new units total on vacant lots that are located on the west side of the development. The amendment was approved with the following conditions. A turnaround must be incorporated at the end of channel viewpoints. An additional fire hydrant must be added along channel view point. We have since worked with the fire marshal and determined that is not actually necessary. The stormwater permits must be obtained from the engineering department before construction commences, which is standard. A landscaping plan is provided. They plan on doing that when the individual homes are applied for. That's fairly standard as well. And number five was that the sidewalks through Harbortown Circle East and West are installed within two years from the commencement of construction. Harbortown Condominium Association has been unable to find a way to finance the installation of the new sidewalks throughout the entire development, so they are now proposing a scaled back version of the sidewalk connection, which would include a new sidewalk from Fulton Street entrance to the Indiana Street entrance, as depicted on the map that's included in the packet. The engineering department reviewed the plans and had some comments about the sidewalk proposal. They suggested that a crosswalk will need to be incorporated at Indiana Street, including accessible ramps. The existing sidewalk on Indiana Street that this will connect to is on the south side, so there will need to be a connection from the north side that leads to the sidewalk on the south side. While the city's engineering group or consultant, whoever ends up designing this, will be able to make the highlighted route work, several of the driveways on the east side of West Harbor Town Circle will get quite a bit steeper near the roadway. He noted that some residents may be unhappy with the results as the steepness of the driveways may cause bottoming out or a lumpy ride. He was able to provide a sketch that I've handed out to everybody you should have in front of you about how that would look and why the increase of steepness to the driveway would happen. Also noted that grading easements will be needed outside of the existing right-of-way, particularly along the east side of the street. If not obtainable, retaining walls may be necessary, driving up costs. Grading easements for the driveways will be absolutely required and are necessary for projects as proposed. improved sidewalk ramps requiring grading easements and a possibly requiring permanent easements will be needed at the Fulton Street entrance to make the sidewalks ADA compliant which is a requirement for public sidewalks when upgraded and we also have a recommended motion below which includes those comments thank you

If the applicant is available, you have an opportunity to come up, if you like.

Actually, before we do that, I do have a question for staff. Sorry. If you may. Okay. So the sidewalk concerns that engineering brought up about the bumpy nurse or whatever, in the approval that we previously did, it was for sidewalks to be on both sides. Or was it to be on one side or the other?

It was to be on one side or the other, but we hadn't actually picked out the route yet. And we did note that it could cross the street a couple times to maybe try to avoid a situation like this or other situations that would arise.

So with or without making any changes, there would still potentially be this same challenge? Correct.

Yeah. If you keep it on one side, I believe you're going to run into some steepness challenges, whether or not you're crossing over back and forth. There is potentially going to be some issues before this.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Anyone else on the dais have anything else to say before we bring up the applicant?

No. Is the applicant here?

Is the applicant here? Will you please be so kind and state your name and address?

Good afternoon. My name is Mark Schultz, and I'm here representing the Harbortown Condo Association. Many of my comments would be repetitive of what Director Franczak just said. I do want to add with regard to the engineering drawings, we would intend to hire a civil engineer to detail all of the engineering requirements, meet the city codes and ADA codes so that we don't do anything wrong in this situation. Again, many of my comments have already been heard by Director Francic, so we'll be able to, I'll answer any questions that you may have.

Anyone have any questions for our applicant? If you have nothing else to say, you can feel free to ask.

Oh, that's it.

Thank you. Thank you.

You're very welcome. Now we're going to open up for public comment. If anyone is out there in the crowd that would like to have something to say, please come up to the podium and state your name and your address. Yes, ma'am.

Barbara Zuloff. I live at 3440 Pigeon Hill Court. The financial aspect of this project, is that to be borne by Harbortown or is the city going to provide the paving and then the maintenance.

Is that a question for staff or a developer?

Usually not question and answer time.

After the public hearing, we can address any questions we received.

Do we have anyone else that would like to speak?

Good evening or afternoon. My name is James Fox. I don't live in the association, but I'm on the backside of it on Nelson Street. And I'll be affected of it a little bit. My home sits up a little bit higher. But we have what I consider a pretty good dune area behind our home and nobody there today. And one of the buildings is going to be placed behind that. And I'm just curious how that will react with the dune and the grasslands and the woods behind our home.

Thank you. Do we have anyone else in our audience?

My name is Kim Preby. I live at 1473 West Harbortown. I'm not familiar with all the rules of Harbortown, but I know that within our rules, uniformity is one of the things that we stress. For instance, if I wanted shutters on my building, I can't have shutters because everyone would have to. If I wanted to paint my garage door, I can do that because everybody would have to. This sidewalk that's proposed right now is starting... You know, basically at Indiana going north to Fulton. I have friends and other people that live on East Harbortown Circle that presently walk for exercise, walk to go to Bodocks, walk to go to the lake. They're walking on the street. They don't have a sidewalk. My vision is if we have to have a sidewalk and we have uniformity rules in Harbortown, that a sidewalk should be provided for everybody. These people are walking in the street. They have no choice. Talk to some of these people, and we also have a slight concern, and nothing against the docks, but we believe that the docks' proposal has like a emergency entrance or something from their property to our property. A lot of residents, to go to Bodocks, to go to the lake, may use that exit to walk into Harbortown. Likewise, they will be walking on East Harbortown Circle in the road, the original sidewalk. So I feel that it's uniformity excuse me, has to be done with a sidewalk for the whole property. The other thing I'm concerned with with the proposal right now, I drive Beach Street. I drive the ovals. I drive up to these pedestrian walkway signs. I'm diligent in making sure there's no residents, but I've also walked those routes, and many times there are vehicles that don't by those signs. They just drive right through, even though they're supposed to stop for me. This new sidewalk proposal that we have starts on the west side of the street from Indiana to the proposed first unit that's going to be built. And then I'm assuming it's going to be a crosswalk that goes across West Harbortown. And I'm guessing again that the only thing that you're going to be able to do is to put a pedestrian walkway sign there because there's no stoplights. And that presents a problem because of what I encounter every day by the beach. Harbor Town, every month, our newsletter is talking about, note, it's a 25-mile-an-hour speed limit. Don't speed. We're now going to have potentially 28 more vehicles if you do one per unit, 56 if you go for two, driving through there, going to boat docks or going to their residence, and we've been concerned about speed. Now we've got more traffic going through there. I just don't see that one, that plan that's already out there, is feasible because of that. If we're going to have a sidewalk, make it from Indiana, I don't know how you would do it, but make it from Indiana across to the west side. So it's just one crosswalk. Westside or Indiana to Fulton. That's going to eliminate this walk in the middle of the road with pedestrian walkway signs. That is going to, you know, to me, that's a danger. Because I sort of live pretty near where that crosswalk is going to be. And I'm watching cars go by every day. There is no 25-mile-an-hour speed limit. I'm watching people that are walking. They don't heed those cars. I've also talked to people that have lived on the east side or east harbor town circle that when they walk, they've told me when they come to Indiana, they're not going to walk across to the west side of the street to get onto your sidewalk. They're just going to keep right on walking, which means they're going to walk to that first unit that's being constructed until the sidewalk starts. So that has eliminated part of the traffic of human walking. That's my points.

Thank you for your comments. If we have anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak right now, we're going to ask, I should have said this beforehand, so I apologize, to keep your comments limited to three minutes.

Mark Lindquist. I live at 1639 West Harbortown Circle. I live there in the complex and in a private house. For the last 15 years, walked three times a day through the neighborhood. I've had not a need for a sidewalk ever. A little concerned about the previous plan where it said all the way through the development goes through my yard. I don't benefit from that financially or because they'll walk there anyway. So I'm not sure that we've put the issue to bed with regard to through the complex, but I'd like to see that reassured that it's not going to happen. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have anyone else in our audience that wishes to speak? If not, we're going to move to the phone lines. You can call in at 231-724-6721. Again, opening up the phone lines, call in at 231-724-6721. I'm going to give that just a few more seconds here.

It's not even done to you yet.

Oh, I forget it's the delay.

You're just now announcing it.

No calls yet. So we have no calls. I am going to move that we close the public hearing.

I move to close the public hearing.

Second.

We'll close the public hearing if we have anyone that has further words. Can we vote on closing the public hearing, please? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? We are closing the public hearing case 2026-16. Do we have any comments from our commissioners?

Well, one more comment. We did receive two emails that I've placed in front of everybody. You may want to take a minute or two to read those. Both of them allude to being residents in Harbortown that would like sidewalk throughout the development. I'm sorry, one of them is not in Harbortown. They are in Nelson.

Nelson Street or Nelson Neighborhood?

Nelson Neighborhood. Okay. The longer one, that resident, Charlotte, is from the Nelson Neighborhood.

Has everyone had an opportunity to read both emails?

Yes.

Commissars? Or do we need a little time?

Yes.

Okay. Give just a few more seconds for our commissioners to finish reading those emails. Then open up for any comments, questions, concerns that commissioners may have. If there are any commissioners that have any comments, concerns, questions, please feel free to... Yes, Mayor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Before determining what motion to make, we permit the applicant to come back to the podium for questions.

Yes, sir. Applicant?

Mr. Schultz.

Would you please come back to the podium? Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Schultz. Hi. Could you give us some background or history in terms of what has transpired since the commission took action towards the end of 2024? What's transpired with the Housing Association, any votes you've taken as an organization, discussions, examinations of costs and the like? If you could just kind of bring us up to speed as to what has transpired on your end since then.

We did have a vote of the co-owners, and that was concluded on April 11, 2025. That vote was not successful. There were 96 yes, 69 no, and 30 people did not submit a ballot. And that equals 190 co-owners. And by the bylaws of Harbortown Condo Association, the ballots that were not returned are considered a no vote. So basically, the motion... motion to proceed with the PUD failed. We think that mainly the no voters were opposed. Well, we did not have a lot of information about the sidewalks at that time. During that time period of the vote, we had already sent out the ballots. The city gave us an estimate of $400,000 for the sidewalk. And then the county assessor came along and said that she would only assess the people where the sidewalk abutted in front of their units. If you happen to live across the street from that particular unit, you would not get taxed, but the people that abutted the sidewalk, they would bear the tax burden. That tax burden would fall on about maybe 50 to 55 of our co-owners as compared to spreading the cost of the project to all co-owners. This is actually in conflict with the state of Michigan condo law, in regards to that this sidewalk would be placed on a common element of the condo association. And the State of Michigan condo law indicates that any improvement on a common element is shared by all condo owners, not only the ones that abut this. In addition, the county assessor also said, and I have to back up here a second, I'm sorry, the sidewalk, if we go all the way on east and west Harbortown Circle, There are plots of land that do not belong to Harbortown. There are other privately owned, some owned by the Sand Docks, some others are owned by individuals. The county assessor said on those particular parcels that are owned by the Sand Docks and the other private individuals, adding a sidewalk would not improve the value of their property, and so those people would not share in the cost of this sidewalk going through all of east and west Harbortown. So there again, we never did go back to the co-owners because we knew that if we said, hey, we have a section of the sidewalk, which would have been about 10% of the sidewalk, that we would have to pay rather than the owners of the property. So we did not proceed down that road. We did have some conversations and we talked with the mayor and City managers Seaforth and in December we said, you know, could we consider this shortened version of the sidewalk? We have talked to our Developer was Mike Boscraft of Boscraft homes in Holland He is willing to front the money for the sidewalk and then deduct that money from the proceeds that the condo Association would receive from the building of the 28 units so we have the funding element in place and And so now we're just looking for the city to approve the shortened sidewalk version. If, in fact, the city goes back and says, sorry, we need to have sidewalks in the whole condo associate, both East and West Harbortown, this proposal will die. We will not construct the 28 units. It's that simple.

So, Mr. Schultz, the vote that happened in April of 2025, that was – after hearing from the County Assessor's Office who had informed that they were not comfortable assessing every property of the condo association in Harbortown, was the County Assessor aware of the law that you referenced, regulating condo associations and that it would be a common element?

Yes. Our attorney, Evan Alexander of May Goyer, several names. They're located in Farmington Hills. And actually, their firm helped write the condo law for the state of Michigan. So yes, our attorney reached out to the county assessor and said, by the way, you're in conflict with the state of Michigan condo law. But the county assessor decided to go her own way and said, sorry, this is my ruling.

Okay. The assessor was not persuaded. No, it did not persuade her. And you mentioned meeting with the mayor, myself, and the city manager, and I know you've had many conversations with our DBW director as well. One of the meetings, one of the earlier meetings, not the one in December of last year, but one of the earlier meetings, there was conversation around... trying to work out a development agreement with the city whereby the city would front the money and then assess individually. But it would be like a contractual agreement, development agreement with the condo association. It would not be a formal assessment. of every property owner. So it'd be up to you all to work out how you're paying that back. Was there any discussion amongst you and your residents around going that route potentially? I'm raising this because after our meeting in December of last year, you know, I was comfortable with this modification. I was the one that originally advocated for sidewalks, the continuous sidewalk throughout Harbortown, east and west of Harbor Circle. But hearing the issues and the fights and the struggles with being able to make that happen, and also the fact that my original advocacy was predicated on the belief and the understanding that the original PUD for Harbortown had required a sidewalk, but it was never implemented and no enforcement happened. And so that's why I was such an advocate of, okay, now it's before me. I'm not going to pass this up. We're going to follow through and get a sidewalk in there.

I understand that.

It's come to light since then that no one can find any actual records or documentation of the original PUD requiring that sidewalk. That's correct. And so I backed off a little bit and said, okay, I'm not as firm on it. I still personally would prefer a sidewalk going with THE LENGTH OF THAT FOR A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT REASONS. YOU KNOW, COMPLETE STREET'S IMPORTANT AS PART OF OUR CITY POLICY, BUT WAS UNDERSTANDING AND WILLING TO BE FLEXIBLE. BUT I'M HEARING SOME OF THE FOLKS THAT HAVE COME TONIGHT AS WELL AS SOME E-MAILS THAT THERE ARE FOLKS IN YOUR COMMUNITY THAT DO WANT THE SIDEWALK THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRETY OF THAT STREET. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT CONVERSATION HAS BEEN HAPPENING ON YOUR END WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS AND IF WHAT HAS BEEN EXPLORED AND IF... BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT VOTE

April 11th.

While you count the 30 abstaining as no, even that, that's pretty close. 96 yes, 99 no, and not refined.

We would have needed two-thirds vote, which is like 127 yeses. Okay, you need two-thirds. Got it. We were about 30 short, roughly.

And that was based on the belief that only some properties could be assessed, not all properties. And I can understand why people might vote no on that, you know, the inherent unfairness.

And even some of those 60 no voters, they've... We don't know for sure but in conversations after the fact we found that they voted no because of the ambiguity of the sidewalk cost and who was going to pay for it and what the route was and how it was going to be funded. Relative to the question that you raised about if the city contracted with Harbortown Condo Association and then the association said, okay, 190 co-owners, we're going to assess you X amount per year for the 10 years or 15 years or however that agreement would work out. We thought about that, but this situation with the Sand Ducks owning part of the property and some individual co-owners where the burden would be all on Harbortown for that approximately 10% of the linear feet of the sidewalk, which might be 500 feet or so, not in that vicinity Again, we thought well our co-owners are not going to be willing to pay for the sidewalk on property that does not belong to us and when the county assessor took her stance that you know, it was all on Harbortown and Particularly all on just the co-owners that abutted the sidewalk again that kind of blew this whole thing out of the water Pardon my expression I

Appreciate that additional insight and background one more one more question to understand your process and I guess your bylaws perhaps What did it require for you as the to to petition for amendment to PUD? Was it just a vote of your board?

Did it have to go to every property owner to say yes, we support pursuing the the PUD amendment Yeah if the Planning Commission approves this and goes on to the City Commission and then the second reading of the City Commission and And then we would have an approval for this shortened version of the sidewalk. Then, yes, we would go back to our developer because we have some other issues with him, mainly on the exterior look of the proposed buildings. And he's indicated he's willing to make the buildings look exactly like Harbortown is today. What he did is supply to us some of his stock photos of prior work that he had done. And this was a third-generation contractor. He's built several condo communities up and down West Michigan, the West Michigan shoreline. So he's very credible in this area. So he said, yes, I can build these buildings with my footprint, but put a Harbortown look on them. And all he did was give us stock photos of his prior buildings and not have his CAD people do their work to make it look like Harbortown. So we intend to go back to him and get some revised drawings or not drawings, I can't think of the right word, the correct view of Harbortown, so that we can then proceed on with a second vote to our co-owners and say, now we have the sidewalks defined, we have the funding defined, we've got the exterior look of the buildings defined, and we believe now that we have a project that we can go forward with.

Thank you, I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Any other questions?

I do. Two. So if the sidewalk, if we don't vote for the sidewalk?

That's correct.

You don't plan on going through with the development?

That's correct.

Okay.

It's financially not in our interest to do it if we don't get the shortened version.

Okay.

And again, just so I have it wrapped around my head, Even the individuals who are part of the HOA that will not have the sidewalk, they still will have to pay for the sidewalk?

That's correct.

Thank you.

It's an equally shared deal. According to the state law of Michigan, the state condo law, we cannot do an improvement to a common element and only assess certain co-owners. It's one or all. It's all, basically. We cannot say, well, these 10 over here have to pay and these 10 over here don't have to. It doesn't work that way. That's the state law.

Mr. Schultz, should this pass and eventually you prevail at both this level and in front of the electeds, will you continue to have the conversation about what is potentially possible as far as sidewalks through the entire development as part of a different conversation?

We would be willing to have that conversation. it would be difficult to fund it because of the way that the county assessor has stated her position. So that, unless the city absolutely says you have to have sidewalks on this portion that we're not talking about today, it would have to be a city tax, basically.

Yeah, so the... The... option that we put out there as mr schultz was talking about was essentially the city would pay for the sidewalks to go in and then there would be a contract with the hoa and then they would have the dues associated with that and the hoa itself would be responsible for paying us back over probably a 10-year period um so and and that's just to be consistent with city ordinances when sidewalks go in are replaced in front of a home it's the responsibility of the homeowner unless there's some extenuating circumstances, which there's a couple situations. So that was sort of the agreement that we were trying to lay out that would have gotten around the concerns from the county assessor. And she and I did have a conversation when she initially came through with her position on it, and it's been well over a year since that conversation. I don't remember the details of it. but essentially there were some state court rulings that she was looking at that she felt didn't give her the authority, even taking into consideration the condo law, and that's why she wasn't comfortable rolling an assessment across all the properties, which is another way that we pay for those sidewalks as well. And again, in that case, the city would still be paying the upfront costs, and then we'd be recouping them through the special assessment over time. So the contract option was essentially a similar option just with the contract with the HOA as opposed to on the individual properties. Yes.

I, you know, have a mind to vote yes on this particular option. And one reason, one of the big reasons is...

I think it would be a shame to miss out on additional housing within the city.

Secondly, given this situation, I would hate to put an impediment in front of the ownership or use of their property. Now, through almost 40 years, if not 40 years, we have a situation here that if indeed there is a deficiency, meaning the sidewalks weren't put in. But the Mayor even mentioned a hard time finding if that was ever really a requirement. Now we've gone through how many developers, you know, the first developer with Dick Anderson, John Darien picks up the project And then, poof, you know, now we have, you know, ownership in the form of... The Condor Association. Right. How many administrations and even times that the sidewalks came up, you know, in front of the electeds and basically it was pushed off. We've had 40 years of either inability or an unwillingness to bring enforcement of some sort to force the sidewalks, but that was never done. The topic of the sidewalks had come up at least once back when I was still on the commission with you, Mr. Mayor, and it didn't go anywhere, you know, the discussion. So now we have the condo association with, you know, practical difficulties due to circumstances that are unique to this property. For the current ownership, this was not self-created.

And

You know, how many current residents were residents at the time in the 1980s when this even came up?

Maybe 50%.

Okay.

And to your point about the transfer of ownership from Dick Anderson to John Darien, I believe, I'm not sure on this, but we did find some records that in early 1990 or the early 1990s, there was a sidewalk vote. At that time, John Darien still owned greater than 50% of the parcels. He had a vote of yes or no. Obviously, he voted it down because he had power over the empty parcels at that time. We think that's probably why that vote failed. He didn't want to put in the sidewalks at his expense. I'm guessing there. I'm not sure.

Again, I'm going to Vote in the affirmative because I believe that this is a good option. Thank you. I would hate to see the development of additional housing in the city of Muskegon stymied and also your ability as ownership to be denied the use of your own property. One of the benefits there... And then, you know, somebody's got to nail down, you know, does the deficiency actually exist? And, you know, if it does, then we do have legal bearing, including, you know, court case to say, build these darn things, or you continue on, you know, as a body, as a corporate body, you know, the residents and and find some workarounds, assessors and whatever else, because there is a call for sidewalks by some of your ownership.

I understand that, and it's the funding element that is...

It is, and there was a question asked tonight, who pays for this, You better be clear on that one because it seems like some people aren't clear of that. No, the city's not going to come in and put in sidewalks. We wouldn't do that in any neighborhood. It's either going to be assessed or part of other funding mechanism in any neighborhood in the city.

On the shortened version of the sidewalk, The developers are going to pay the upfront cost and just deduct it from our proceeds. So that's why we have the funding element in place for the shortened version. If we're faced with the extended version all the way from Fulton Street all the way to the end of East Harbor Town Circle, we have a problem that we don't quite know how to pay for.

Sure. But I'll be voting in the affirmative because after 40 years of head scratching as to where the heck are the sidewalks, who pays for it, and are you really required to, I'm not going to hold up the development of additional housing in the city of Muskegon or deny your corporate body, the residents there, an opportunity to use their own property.

Thank you, sir. One other point I'd want to make on the 28 additional units. All of the infrastructure is already there. The roads are there. The utilities are there. The water and sewer is there. We're not like the sand docks. We're not like the savvy property that have to still put in all of these infrastructure elements. So if we do receive approval, perhaps early 2027, we might be able to see something go up. But I'm not... I'm not committing to that, but we have a lot of the infrastructure already there, so that's not a stumbling block.

And that would be nice to have additional people living there to actually pay the cost of maintaining that infrastructure. That's correct. Thank you.

Yes, Mayor. I just want to add a note that... had conversations with the DBW about how can we engineer, how can we do this the different ways? And one of your residents had proposed, can't you do something in the street itself instead of having a sidewalk? And so I did confer with our city manager and our DBW director on that and said, is there a way to have a marketed walking path out of the roadway that exists? And our DBW director did review that. He was like, it's not, he would not, recommend that given the current width of the road.

That's the problem. The road is just not wide enough. If it were a little bit wider, then it might have been able to... Because you're talking about three feet on each side, and basically then you would make Harbortown Circle a one-lane road.

Yeah. So if it were just a little bit wider, then it could have been able to accommodate both the two-way traffic and a separate pathway.

We would have loved to have that.

Which is unfortunate, because that would have been the cheapest option. It certainly would have. By far, and make everyone happy. Well, most everyone's happy. You're not going to get universal happiness, unfortunately.

You are correct, sir. We make a long way towards making everyone happy.

Mr. Renzig, can you confirm... with regard to the search for any documentation with regard to any sidewalk requirement predating the commission action in 2024. As I recall, there were some meeting minutes that referenced it, but we couldn't find any actual documentation of the PUD requiring it or any minutes of motions that spoke to it.

That's a really good question, and I brought it up more during the first go-around. We had some of the literature there that we found. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, we don't really have zoning files that predate 1990. They were tossed at some point. So we don't have the original plan. There's some pieces of it, but it doesn't exactly show a sidewalk. But looking through the files around 1997 and 2004, there were discussions about it and those emails referenced that the sidewalks needed to be installed. It didn't say where they were, both sides of the street, one side of the street, throughout the entire development or not. It just looked at some point that there was a requirement that a sidewalk should be put in, but we can't find exactly where that would be located. Thank you.

One comment on the original PUD. In our discussions in the past two years or so, we have reached out to John Darien. He's still with us, and he lives in the Traverse City area. He had indicated that he does not have any of the PUD documents also. So we went down the same road that Director Francik was, that we were in search of the same documents, and he said, no, I don't have them. Whether he did or not, I'm not sure, but that was his answer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Schultz. Thank you.

Do you have any further questions, comments?

So I was going to address a couple of the questions that came up, but then also kind of give my position, too. So a question came up about the open areas and how that's going to be impacted. So that was addressed. They've already had approval for this expansion, and that was addressed in that last public hearing by the PUD. Uh, but they would need to meet all Eagle permit requirements as well for anything with dune grass and things like that. So, um, but that, um, so those things have been addressed. The, you know, I, I keep looking at this and thinking about perfect being the enemy of good. And our, our goal here is to have more sidewalks. If we don't allow this change, we're guaranteed not to have more sidewalks. Um, If we allow this change, there's a possibility that we'll have sidewalks and the co-owners will have the opportunity to vote on it. And that's really what this process does is it gives the co-owners in Harbortown the ability to go back and vote on this situation. So, late Commissioner Galleran, I'm also going to support the amendment because I think it moves us in the right direction. It's not perfect. It's not the way that I would want to see it. I would want to see more sidewalks, but we're guaranteed not to have the sidewalks if we don't make the change.

Yes, Mr. Mayor.

Sorry, proceed. I move the request to amend the Planning and Development of Harbortown County Minimum Association to reduce the amount of sidewalks to be installed as required as part of their plans to construct additional housing. We recommend it to the City Commission for approval with the following conditions. One, a turnaround must be incorporated at the end of Channel View Point. Two, a stormwater permit must be obtained from the Engineering Department before construction commences. Three, a landscaping plan is provided. Four, a crosswalk will be installed at Indiana Street. Five, grading easements will be needed outside the existing right-of-way, particularly along the east side of the street. If not obtainable, retaining walls may be required. Six improved sidewalk ramps requiring grading easements and possibly requiring permanent easements will be required at the fault and entrance to make the sidewalks ADA compliant.

Could I add a friendly amendment for clarity? And note that the requirement for a fire hydrant is removed because sometimes that can create questions in the future if there's a condition in one and then not in the next.

So note that that is being- Note the reference to the fire hydrant requirement. The previous version has been stricken from this version.

Second.

Motion has been moved by our Mayor, Ken Johnson, and supported by Commissioner Gottlieb. Can we have a vote?

I'll just say final thoughts. I will support the motion that's on the floor. As our manager said, the ideal would be there to be sidewalk along the entirety of that road. That's still my personal preference. And I will continue to advocate for sidewalks wherever possible in our city so we have complete streets, which is a city policy of ours. THE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES HERE, AND THERE WAS GOOD FAITH EFFORT MADE ON THE CITY'S PART AND THE CONDO ASSOCIATION'S PART TO FIND A WAY TO BE ABLE TO FUND AND INSTALL THE SIDEWALK. AND DUE TO FISCAL CONSTRAINTS, ENGINEERING CONSTRAINTS, TOPOGRAPHY CONSTRAINTS, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT IT'S JUST NOT FEASIBLE AT THIS TIME. I STILL WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT, STILL TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. HOWEVER, IF WE WERE GOING TO GET A SIDEWALK AT ALL HERE, I THINK THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT SECTION OF THE SIDEWALK CONNECTING FULTON TO INDIANA STREET AND BY EXTENSION CONNECTING HARBOR TOWN BEACH THROUGH INDIANA TO PIERRE MARQUETTE IS IMPORTANT AND you all have sunken costs already in these vacant lots. And I understand this is an important development, not only to help get more residents, to help shoulder the costs of maintaining your condo association and your facilities in common areas, but also the development proceeds is going to be significant and help support your association and condo residents as well. So... I will support this, maybe a little bit begrudgingly. I mean, begrudging might not be the best word, but saddened maybe. We couldn't find a way to ensure that there's going to be a continuous sidewalk on either side of that street. That would have been the preference and ideal, but as the manager said, sometimes the perfect can be the enemy of the good. Those are my thoughts.

Yes. Just as additional information, under planning law and under plan unit developments, there is indication of separating a new amended proposal from the existing. reading through my notes from our training, it was not only desirable but was lauded. You go ahead and handle the new proposal without dropping any perceived deficiency that had existed, you know, from the past and you would still pursue But we're not even sure if there is a deficiency or a breach in existing contractual PUD language. But that's part of the mechanism under planning law that within an existing unit, you do address a new proposal without dropping the need to address the pre-existing situation. So that's just an aside.

Any other comments?

Just to clarify, given we just heard from Commissioner Garan, in the event that If documentation were to surface that that was a requirement of the original POD, no action being taken here undoes that previous requirement, if it were to be found. If we found out that sidewalks were required and this didn't pass? No, no, I'm saying if this were passed, because we're talking about just one, we're talking about... taking away a new requirement that we added in 2024 for a condition for an amendment. And so we're removing that condition to that amendment of just this one area that's being developed. If documentation were to surface that the original PUD had required a sidewalk, that is not now negated because we simply are amending a condition for these additional housing. That's kind of tough to answer.

I would say no, it wouldn't, because the conditions are about the expansion and not about what is existing there at the time. And that's also why I made that friendly amendment to add the striking of the hydrant in there to make sure that it's clear on what is changing. So this is strictly related to them being able to do the expansion that's in place. If we found out that the original requirements were not met, that would be a different discussion. Now, I don't know if we would be able to you know, how we would go in enforcing that. We could have that discussion if that was discovered, but I would see these as two separate things. Okay. Yeah.

Thank you.

Anyone else? I want to move for vote. Yeah.

Commissioner Keener.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

So we have a yes on hearing case 2026-16. I'm going to move on to unfinished business. Do we have any unfinished business?

Can I get a confirmation? Will that come to the City Commission August 25th or will that be in September? The August 25th. The August 25th. Yeah. So just for folks in the audience and your neighbors know that this will come to City Commission on August 25th and that's when the City Commission will be considering the Planning Commission's recommendation. And there will be public comment available at the beginning, towards the beginning of the commission meeting before the commission deliberates and votes.

Thank you for clarifying. Moving on to unfinished business. Do we have any unfinished business? No unfinished business.

Well, I was wondering, when are we going to have a joint city planning commission meeting?

That's a good question. Schedule one. Probably want to decide what the topic would be.

Because we were supposed to be doing one every once a year. Yeah. Part of redevelopment. Yeah, that's true.

Yeah.

Okay. So I guess for each of us to decide our respective bodies on particular topics we want to discuss. One of which is what we've been having. It was brought forward previously, which is around public access, waterfront public access. And so there was some little discussion here, deferred back to staff to get clarification. It had popped up on our agenda for a closed session discussion at one point. That didn't happen, and I haven't seen it returned. So perhaps that's a topic that can be addressed by the Planning Commission and the City Commission together, considering it was the City Commission that had given direction to move forward with that zoning change to support more water from public access.

Sure. Do you know about when?

We would have to figure out. Yeah, we'd have to figure out dates that would work. I believe the last time we did it, we just combined it with a city commission meeting. Or if we want to have a special meeting in a different location or something like that, that could accommodate everybody.

Thank you. Any new business?

No.

Moving on. Any other business?

Nope.

So with that being said, we're going to open up to general public comment. Anyone out there in the audience that has anything for any general public comment, please feel free to come to the podium.

Can I ask a question?

Yes, sir.

While we're waiting, can I ask a question of Mike, perhaps? In the last public hearing, there was discussion about or made mention about the docks. Do you have any new information about the status of that project that you could share with us?

I do not. I'm not sure if the city manager has any.

I believe they're working through the permitting process with the state. That's the last I heard.

The last I heard was that there was... I'm sure we all want to hear this, but I heard that there may be another request coming back to the Planning Commission for another adjustment to their PUD. You heard that? No. Okay. Thank you.

Back to general public comment, seeing as how we have no one out in the audience. We've got one gentleman. Oh, sir.

He's not interested in giving public comment.

No one that looks to want to give public comment, we're going to move to...

I recognize your presence.

Thank you. We're going to move to the phone lines. Again, that number is 231-724-6721. Again, that's 231-724-6721. 21 for any general public comment.

We've got some homework to do. We've got some homework to do. Thank you, Doc.

calls. We have no calls. I am going to move to make a motion for adjournment.

Second.

Moved by Mayor Kim Johnson. Seconded by, is that you, Commissioner Garland?

Commissioner Steve.

Thank you. We are adjourned.