Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat.

a a vegetative zone, but not what it's for or where it is. It's just a zone. And there's nothing about a setback. And I recall, and I wish the mayor was here because I think I've heard him say 35 ft also, but I'm not seeing that in any of the notes. And I know from prior projects that if it's not written in the notes, it doesn't mean that the the developer is obligated to do so. And this these comments are coming from experience in this community. So I just want to make sure that we are doing the best we can for our lake because it really is about our economy, our way of life, and our culture. So thank you.

Thank you for your comments. check the time. You can just come to the microphone, give us your name and at least what neighborhood you're coming from, please.

Um, my name is Fasil Abdocator and I'm president of Lakeshore Federal Credit Union and I know the property is right next to us and we've always thought that would be nice to have it developed, but I did live on Lincoln Street, five houses from the paper mill. I worked there for 38 years. Um I know that when I was a kid the property where you want the um houses that's all fill and I know that there's a lot of pollution in that in the paper mill because I work there. I do have asbestous and I know another gentleman back there has the same thing too. I mean I I hope you could do something that clean it up but it is a scary situation. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Anybody else who'd like to come forward from the audience? Not seeing anyone at this time. I will go to the phones. Again, this is a public hearing in regards to item A. 2317246721. [Applause] Okay. Well, I'm not seeing anybody calling in and there was a strange noise I'd like to avoid. So, I'll move to close the public hearing.

Supported to close the public hearing and hopefully nobody was trying to call in through that. All those in favor? I.

All those opposed say no. All right. Motion to close the public hearing. And at this time, I would take a motion um on the item in order to open up to further discussion. I would like to note that um there are two recommendations on there. Um the planning commission has the ability to decide is this is a major or a minor review. If it's minor, the planning commission has the purview to approve or deny it on its own. Um if it's a major, then we make this board would make a recommendation to the city commission. Mike, where are those? I'm only seeing I'm not seeing the options. I'm only seeing

Yes. Thank you. Will you be able to get those changes uploaded? Oh, not down here. Oh, there it is. Okay, there we go. Um, which would you? So, um, I move uh I move to request uh to amend the PUD as presented um in the staff report and note that this is a minor amendment. Second.

Okay. I have a motion and support to um request the PUD as presented in the staff report be approved. And then do we have any further discussion? So I just wanted to elaborate on why I'm noting this as a minor amendment. This was approved by the planning commission and the city commission as a more dense development. This is a less dense development that's being um requested at this point. Um, and as a general rule of practice with planning and zoning regulations, a less dense development is considered a more minor amendment. So therefore, I think uh all things being equal in this consideration, we have to look at what's before us and what's been approved and that this is a minor amendment.

Any other comments at this point? Um I think there was a question in regard to whether the uh previously discussed buffer is currently um included in the PUD as approved and I don't know that we have access to the in its entirety if we can review that where it is. I think um the request for the changes wouldn't impact any of those aspects of it. So whatever um conditions and approvals that thei that the commission had put on it whether the PC or the city commission would still be there. This is simply the number of uh units that are along the lake. I had a question too.

Um Mike, do you know if we have any updates from is it Eagle is the entity that's responsible for updating us about if the water and land around the area being developed is um yeah, what Joe said. I don't have an update on that, but they're going to need to sign off on that before anything is constructed. Yep. Do you know about ETA? Like is that ne next year? Because I know he said 2020. Yeah, Mike.

So, I think from from a zoning perspective, that's not the the purview of the planning commission when making that zoning decision. But from talking with the developer, I do know that they're um close to having final approvals uh from Eagle, which is one of the reasons that these changes are being requested in this way. Um, as the planning director pointed out, they can't move forward with any um, construction until Eagle signs off on that. But a lot of what Eagle looks at when making the signing off uh, final decision there is based on the zoning approvals that we do. Um, so it's kind of a a chicken and an egg thing. Um, but we're just looking at the the zoning aspect of it. So,

and I'm sorry, Mike, was there were you able to highlight in the current PUB where there are in fact any specifications for buffers or distance between the water which would apply to the current and the new change. I'm not really sure what buffers were. So there was discussion previously in regards to a distance of I think approximately 35 to 40 feet of a buffer between the water's edge and any valve. Do you remember? Oh, here we go. Yeah,

excuse me. There is no change to any of the buffers that previously existed or the the setbacks between the water and the home. The differences are um the number of lots and the movement of the road and as we mentioned 15 less staggered lots uh 17 less staggered lots and

I understand that what you're referencing is is that the current request is in regards to the density. What I'm trying to clarify is in the original request whether we have validated that the original request for the buffer strip is intact in the agreement. Since it was two years ago, I wasn't I don't remember if that approval um the the buffer language was added within the approval or whether it was actually on the site plan. So, I'm not sure of how it was done, whether it was on the original site plan or whether it was um based on uh that being a condition of approval. So, I don't really know that answer, but I know that we're not changing it by amending it because the amendment only impacts the layout of the lots and the number of the lots.

I do understand. I I'm asking staff if they can please verify where we've cataloged it. Jonathan, please. I realize it seems outside of the purview, but I I do think it's pertinent at least specify it's in there

because I would agree that items need to be documented and and in writing, especially as as folks are looking to potentially purchase these properties, they need to understand, you know, whether they'll have the ability to get right down to the water. I don't know if that'll factor our decision. Yeah, I'm not I'm not sure that that would be a relevant factor for the decision. Um we're not opening up the discussion about the whole um PUD, the original PUD, right? I mean, I think I just wanted to have reference to the original PUD and whether that was in there. It is what it is, right?

And we can't change it. Yeah. I I I don't think cuz if if we were to do an amendment um that's not relevant to what the request is. That's not that's not the preview of what what we're discussing today. We have to fa we have to focus on specifically what the request is. Um we I can confirm that all conditions that may have been put on it are approved. I did check the files before the meeting and the the site plan is marked as approved. So everything had been met. Yeah. So that would so then any conditions that were there Mike have been correct. Okay. Okay. Yeah. And I believe I believe um well

to be fair I think this is an important item we talked about here about expanding viewsheds and that was another item that we previously discussed about this development. So while personally I I frankly have no issue with the changes at hand today. I want to make sure that we are taking the time to understand the development in its entirety and not let it become kind of you know back door. Um I so I found the minutes. Um sorry I was like scrolling through a bunch of things. Um it says so final PUD uh development approval 2400 2850 Lakeshore Drive. Um and there's a staff recommended approval and it's looks like it's number six. It doesn't actually specify the amount, but it says a landscaping management plan will be submitted and approved by the DPW director inclusive of natural vegetation zones. Um, and a revised Oh, that's fire marshall plan um permits of various state agencies, which is the Eagle uh changes that we're dealing with today. Um utility plan to DPW, it's not applicable. uh storm water permits standard um and traffic study which was completed.

Okay. So whether or not we understand the definition of natural visitation zones, we may need to come back and and discuss whether or not that can be specified in more detail. Yep. Okay. And that's what in Yeah. And it also says on the plan 17, it also says on the plan, the actual drawing number 17 under general notes that the um landscaping plan has not been submitted or approved as of yet. Correct. And so because we couldn't see that in this approval is my question to review it. So thank you for taking the time to do that

and that would be the expectation because that was the discussion at the time. Okay, seeing no further commentary from the commission and there is a motion on the table and we did I believe have a second. So I would take a roll call, please. Commissioner Simmons, yes. Blake, yes. Mazade, yes. Kenir, yes. Gan, yes. Cipher, yes. Montgomery Keys, yes. And Wlette Loy,

yes. All right, that moves on to our second public hearing today. 2025-37 request to amend the plan unit development PUD at 3400 3460 6474 Willcox Avenue, 1875 Waterworks Road and 1490 Edgewater Street, the Sandbox to modify parcel locations, modify parking layouts and a sidewalk connection to the boardwalk, eliminate two multif family buildings, and add seven single family residential lots. May I have a staff report, please? Yes, the original PUD was approved in June of 2019 and this would be the third amendment. Um, I will pull up the map here in a moment, but there are two exhibits to look at. Uh, exhibit B shows there's two different areas. Exhibit B shows increasing lots 1 through 12 from 38 ft deep to 70 ft deep. Uh, also lots one through six have been shifted to the south to allow for a sidewalk connection to the boardwalk between lots six and seven and the parking on the east side of the median was eliminated. In exhibit C, the configuration of the public road and alleys was simplified placing the lots on each side of the road. uh the number of single family homes, single home lots was increased from 19 to 26 in this section and two multifamily buildings with a total of 10 residential units were eliminated. Uh you do have a copy of the comments that we received uh between now and when the staff report was sent out. And um we also have two motions uh recommended whether or not you believe it's minor or major. And I will go ahead and pull up the plan which shows the differences.

So, this is exhibit B that shows the parking layout. Uh, where there was parking on both sides of the median, that has been eliminated. Um, they initially had parking south of that med, I'm sorry, west of that median. Um, it was 90° angles. However, that's not allowed. So, we worked uh with the public works department and they're okay now with the new slanted um angled parking and this is exhibit C which throws the three changes there um the alley in the street changes and the elimination of the two multifamily buildings along with the addition of the six homes seven Okay. And then do we have an applicant present today?

Yes.

You have anything you'd like to add before uh covered everything that we had intended to. Um just I'll go through the reasoning a little bit. the uh exhibit that's in front of you. It just simplifies the road structure significantly and moves homes onto the waterfront as opposed to looking across the street at the water. Um it's a net reduction of two residential units in the entire development from 240 down to 238. And the change at the other location, uh as we were designing homes, the lots were a little shallow. We made them deeper. um gives us room for garages that were not originally anticipated in that area and we were able to eliminate parking on one side of the road to accommodate that.

Do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? Mr. Milman, um

so my question is about uh a couple things. Um he answered the the density question that I had. Um But the issue I guess that I'm most concerned about is the parking lot. And we and I know when um you were in front of us in 2024, um that parking lot that is now being proposed on public road A was introduced at that time. It wasn't in the plans originally. Um, and one of the concerns I raised at at that time, and maybe you can talk about it, was uh, in the very original plan in I believe 2018, there was a parking lot proposed in the souththeast corner of the development that would have abuted some property on Edgewater. Um, maybe you remember that. It was a fairly large um, parking lot. And I know the planning commission at that time had some concerns about the proximity to other residential units. You know, they're got a parking lot in their backyard. And uh some of the residents in Harbortown have that same issue now with this parking lot or or the angle parking on the on the road now. Um and I'm I guess I've had a hard time understanding why that's necessary now when it wasn't necessary originally. So to be clear, the change is what was approved is what's on the left.

I I understand that, but before 2024, it didn't exist at all. Um, we need parking for the marina and eliminating it in other locations forced it over here. We originally had proposed a lot here. We got rid of the parking lot. We have now gotten rid of half of the angle parking on the street. So there's just a limited number of parking I think it's a very big improvement. Can you tell me how many spaces you had previously and how many have now? Because I think it's a pretty significant reduction, isn't it? Uh it it is. Do you know how many you have now? Is it is it like about 30 26 to 32? I'd have to count them there.

No, that's not important. It's not important. I don't know the exact and I guess the other concern I know that there's a resident that um raised that in our our material is that u the parking in that area has been moved a little bit to the north. So it impacts some more um property owners where it didn't in the past. If you look on those two um on the side by sides, you'll see that the um where the parking started on the north side previously is farther south than it is currently. And I don't know if that's intentional or um or or why that occurred.

You see what I'm talking about? I I do see it. Um, and I'd have to talk to the civil engineer that laid it out if there was a reason or that's just what happened. But, uh, looks like 26. And then, and my last question is about the, uh, public road A, I think it is, where it goes all the way to the north. Um, where it kind of where basically is, I guess, like a hammerhead at the end. And that was all public in the past. And there's a uh part of it's now private. Is that cor? Is that correct? Am I looking at that right the the other slide? Can you go back to that, Mike? The overall

Yeah, it was public road D. I'm sorry. Now it's private road E and that's all been reconfigured. Is there a reason for that? I mean, I'm not Okay. um those sections that section to the north of public road CD on the original plan was in fact private. Oh the the the section to the west to the left to the left which is north. Yes. Okay. That was private now but now now it's private in both directions and that's because there are no turnarounds at the end of those roads. Yeah, that's that's fine. I just wanted to understand did that

the the rationale behind that. Um I I'm I'm really pleased with the changes you've made. I think uh reducing the density I think is always a a good thing. Although I think that you've provided uh you know you're way under the density requirements and I think the adjustments you made are pretty reasonable. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments here? Um I do have a comment. It looks like you've removed um intended uh docks along the marina or you initial and you were initially intending to develop the docks or those a future imagine. It's just not on the drawing though the there are still docks. Yes.

So what will change is these docks that you see on the left side were marina docks. They will now be private docks in front of those homes. But they will be developed by yourselves. The docks. Is that correct? as part of the development, not as a future request by a homeowner. Correct. They're they're being permitted now. So, and but that has been submitted as far as the shape and size of those. Has that been submitted to staff as far as the latest site plan, including the docs? Go down to the overall site plan. I think it's in there.

I think so. And it may have just been that we were looking in a zoom that didn't include it in that zoom, but I want to make sure that the overall site plan includes them.

That help? Yeah. I have to orient myself here a little bit. Now it's a different direction. Yeah. Zoom in a little. Okay. Okay. So, we've got the arrows pointing to the parking lot and then arrows to the left pointing to what we're doing. Okay. And so, the docks are supposed to be in that channel. And I don't see them. There they are. You see what we're looking at is here. Yeah. They did not It does not appear that they drew the docks in, but they are on the eco permit. Okay. And so I guess my question is a site plan that doesn't have all the items that are going to be in existence.

Question. I'm going to ask you the same question that I asked Mr. Rooks. Um with the seven single family residential lots and the sort of redesign on there, are is there going to be room for ADA compliance in your in your lots? So, we do not intend to build homes. We're selling lots so people can build what they wish for in the most in most locations. Okay, great. That's a good answer. Thank you. Good. Um, okay. Okay. And just before I move on, I guess my question is is to staff is if we have a a site plan that doesn't have a built item on it, what are we

are we talking about the the do the actual docks in the channel? Correct. Yeah. Um I believe we could just make that a condition of approval that he resubmits that with those drawn. And so is there any change expected to the shape or size of the docks as from what was originally submitted? No, they they're on the ego permit and that has not changed. Thank you for that clarification. All right. If there's no other current um questions to yourself, this is a public hearing, so we'll open it up to folks in the audience to come forward. Thank you.

Anybody in the audience wishes to join us, take your turn at the podium. Just give us your name and at least what neighborhood you're joining us from, please. My name is uh Bill Lenbach. I live at 1616 East Harbor Circle. I'm speaking today as an individual who's lived there for some 14 years now and also as a retired professional registered planner. I wish to speak in favor of the change in the exhibit B design layout with one relatively small exception. Overall, the latest design is a major improvement in to the lot, roadway, and parking design configuration and functionality. Uh, plus it, uh, provides for boardwalk connectivity. I'm in favor of all of these aspects. The one exception and resolution request is that the northern limits of the parking lot in exhibit B remain as approved in the PUD of August 27, 2024. This latest design layout in exhibit B has shifted the previous parking area further north by about 50 plus feet or three or four parking spaces from the previous design layout. further impacting the back areas of the closest condo units, including mine. I would like to request that three or four spaces on the north side be removed from the north end and added to the south end of the parking lot as was shown in the previous layout. This will lessen the impact on Harbortown units as a whole um as there will be few fewer visual and noise impacts on the south end of the lot parking lot. I believe this modification can be accommodated in the site plan at

this time with little inconvenience. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and for your consideration of this request. And if I may, I'll provide Mr. All right. Thank you. And just as a reminder, uh folks who have comments, you have up to three minutes to provide your remarks. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Roger Brink. I live at 1460 East Harbor Town Circle. Uh the building and I've lived there for 20 years. The building that uh I am in has uh four other residents uh in that building. We happen to be the closest to the uh development uh of the Sandox. Um we look forward to being good neighbors. Um and we congratulate Sandox on uh finally getting approval through Eagle. So that had to be a monumental uh success story for them. Um we have a couple of uh myself and my neighbors uh who have the two buildings that are closest to the roadway and to the development itself. We have some questions that uh and comments. One of the issues that we're haven't really understood is what is the distance from our condos to the start of the new access road that is being planned for Sandox. Um there's been we've looked at all the drawings and the best that we can we can't find that there's any definite distance indicated in the development plans. A meeting was held 64209 between Harbortown representative and developer in which 180 feet uh uh was tentatively agreed to. There have been many plan changes uh during that time and so we're just looking for clarification. What is the uh approved city distance to our condos and the development uh um for the for us and the development people? Could be a simple one to respond to. Um this the the second one um there's a condominium building number 27 uh that uh will be directly in back of our condo

building which is number eight and number nine and we are concerned that uh it is going to block uh our view that we have. Um, and to give a uh little bit more clarification to that, and I have to thank the sand products people for this is a a concept drawing, but as if you look at it, you can see it's a uh the roof. We're worried about the roof. Um, so it and we're directly in back of it, so it would block uh us off uh possibly. Um, we've talked to Sand Products, what's going to be the height and uh, etc. And I don't think that's been fully uh, um, received as an answer. Um, we we met with the Sand Products representative in December 2024 who kindly came out to meet with uh, uh, several of the neighbors. Um, and we talked about this condominium building that is going to be right in back of us. We expressed our concerns and requested that the building be relocated to another area which was not directly and closely behind our condo building.

I do apologize that that is your three minutes and I've asked them to put the timer in the future so that you'd be able to identify that. Unfortunately, that has been three minutes and we have to limit comments to three minutes per person. Um if you have another person I'm one minute I'm one minute from the end. Okay. I apologize as a public hearing we have to keep it the same for everyone. I did mention that before. I've never been to a public hearing before. But I did I did mention that before you started and I will leave the timer up for future folks. If you had somebody else who wants to speak on that, they're welcome to come forward. So in in conclusion, I'm going to get a conclusion out of you here. Um need you to we we really would appreciate if uh Sandax would take another look at the position of that condominium.

Do we have other folks who'd like to speak? Thank you. So you're welcome to come forward. That's a bummer to get yelled at. I know. But

I'm David Caukins. I I live in Harbortown. Beautiful Harbortown so far. And uh my concern really I wasn't going to come here today until I was driving uh home this morning from breakfast and I noticed some nut on a uh I don't know scooter of some sort doing 40 miles an hour in the oncoming lane um avoiding traffic and passing a car u on the road. And then I realized that these two developments are going to go on simultaneously on Lakeshore Drive. I don't know how we're ever going to get in and out of Lakeshore Drive with these two developments that we're talking about today being done at the same time simultaneously. And and uh it is simultaneous, isn't it? The timing is simultaneous. So it my concern is whether or not we can get down Lakeshore Drive to get to where we live in beautiful Harbortown. And I don't know if that's going to be the case, but I I'm expecting uh a major issue with Lakeshore Drive. So that's more of a city issue than it is a developer problem.

Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Anybody else would like to come forward? Um, in far as response to um have someone in the back there, let's let some folks back there. We'll come we'll let you come back when we're ready. Go ahead. Yes.

Just give us your name. Let us know what neighborhood you're from and you'll have three minutes. Thank you.

All right. My name is Carolyn Blake. I'm from Lakeside. Uh, and yeah. Okay. So, I was reading through some of the things uh the packet and I noticed they called uh okay, Sand Products was mentioning that the wetlands were only created because first of all, um I guess I'm I'm more just here I'm I'm not here specifically to say whether or not the parking should be like 90° or 45 degrees. Um, that's less concern to me that I just want one more chance to say like the people building it and who's building it that I think this place is special.

I need you to direct your comments to the commission.

Oh, I think this place is special and I think it's a place that has characteristics of what makes Michigan and Moskegan like truly special and beautiful and amazing. I think it's an ecosystem unparalleled in the rest of the city and I just think we can do better um for it. I noticed in the packet there was something mentioning that the wetlands were only created back when sand products eliminated that tall dune. And so I I kind of was thinking so we're we're kind of using that as a defense. So like okay, it's okay to destroy these wetlands because we created them. But I thought maybe a different way to approach that would be to look and it's like, you know, in the past, yeah, we made some mistakes. Maybe we we took this iconic uh 250 foot tall dune that was like the part of our skyline and we sold it. And for a while, like the whole land was just kind of decimated at that point. But I think we can see it in a positive light that that created some wetlands. And so my hope and suggestion would be to like stop there and say, you know what, we can we can live with that. We can say we created these beautiful wetlands and just appreciate and celebrate them. Um I noticed there were some places that were called like the unaffected wetlands. I would just like to say that I think all of the wetlands will be affected. Um, if you put all these houses there, there are people will have lawns and chemicals and all that stuff and that's going to affect them. The corridors where wildlife can move, those will be affected. It's there's no wetlands here that are unaffected. I

guess the changes here to me that are suggested today that doesn't matter much to me. I'm kind of equating that to asking the people of Aldrenon to decide um or I'm sorry, Aldderon to decide like what kind of drapes should go on the Death Star. It's it's not going to help you hear your comment. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other members of the public who would like to comment? I'm not seeing anybody coming forward. So I will take a request from the phone. 2317246721.

Anything ringing in? Nothing ringing in. I'll take a motion. I think the developer wanted to I think we have to do that after. because it's public comment. Well, then I I move to close the public hearing. All right. Moved and supported to close the public hearing. Do you have a point? I have a comment. Are we going to allow the developer to speak after the closing of the public hearing? Um I would be happy to do that. Okay. But I want to clarify if that's a Okay. Yeah. Okay. All right. And so all in favor of closing the public hearing. I

All those opposed say no. Hearing none. um public hearing is closed and at this point we would take a motion to discuss. I would be interested in hearing back from the developer if you want to do that before or after that. I think after is fine. I would rather hear from the developer before we make a motion because um perhaps he has something that um we would want to consider in our motion. Okay. Um I will go with that. So if you did you had additional comments or just response to someone typically we try to do that in the meeting.

Just uh one quick comment somebody and I don't recall who it was brought up the issue about the parking I think it was you Brian moving to the north and then this gentleman addressed the same thing. I don't believe that was intentional and to the extent civil engineers say we can move it back south we're more than happy to do that. So, we will move that back south to the extent that the road design allows for it.

I think we need to be specific in our um motion of what we are approving. Oh, that's an interesting map. Sorry. Something fun was happening there. Um and so just to clarify, the agreement is is that you will move what specifically? parking shown the north end of the parking will be shifted to the south as as far as we can without eliminating parking spots and still having a good flow for traffic. Thank you.

Okay, so the intention would be that you would move the entirety of the parking as far south as could be feasible. you have a comment and I just have a just for the audience. It is it possible to just stand out so we can see the plan with the public road access? They were just asking about it. I know it has nothing to do with the motion, but it's good for my review as well. So, thank you very much.

Okay. Okay. And at this point, I think if we're discussing the plan in more detail, we do need a motion. We can change it if we need to, but believe there was a recommended motion. I've been looking at the maps, too. I know it's hard to go back and forth between the two. Let's see. I I move the request to amend the PUD as pre presented in the staff report be recommended to the city commission for approval and including um moving the parking parking move from the north to the south and I don't know which lot that is exhibit exhibit exhibit B exhibit B. There we go. Thank you.

Do you have the motion? Yeah, but it's not very good. Does that work? I thought this was If you are considering this major, then yes, if you consider it minor, we could board approve. We get it. We should do that first. Then, so I'll pull up the motion options. Motion options. I'm just retract my motion real quick. Okay, motion's been retracted. It hasn't received a second at this point that I heard anyway. Um, and so I would also add that whomever might make a motion might consider including that the final site plan include all buildable items as should always be the case.

Yes. Do you want me to Jill, why don't you start over? I can't see. Okay. Um, we're going to let Jonathan take over. Um, I move the request to amend the PUD as presented in the staff report be approved and noted as a minor amendment giving the overall reduction in density with the condition that all buildable elements be included on the final site plan and I will so support that. Thank you Jonathan. Okay, moved and supported and additional discussion. Can we include in there um the comments um with respect to the um parking? Yeah. Moving to the south. Sure. Friendly amendment if you will.

There's a just a friendly Yep. I accept thatly amendment. Any further discussion? Thank you. You got it. Sorry. I think it's in progress. All right. I will take a roll call, please. Sorry. Um Jill. Jill. Yeah. Yeah. I second it on the amendment and then accepted and then seconded Jonathan had to help me. All right. I said I remember my glasses so I can see the screen. Commissioner Loy, yes. Montgomery Kee, yes. Cypher, yes. Gan, yes.

Kenir, yes. Mazade, yes. Blake, yes. And Simmons, yes.

Okay, motion passes. That is the conclusion of our public hearings for today. Um, unfinished business. I have nothing listed here. New business, I also have nothing here. Um, does I have any other business from members of the commission today? Hearing none, seeing none, I have one item. I just wanted to discuss if we could um provide some clarity to residents on the process for um understanding vacant housing in the city. So, folks have come to me and I just wanted to understand if there is a resource we can provide to them. um or a a clear understanding of when they can report issues. So, outside of just safe build, sure, you know, um at what point can folks say, "Look, I have an issue here."

Yeah. I think anytime that whe whether it's it's a vacant house or if there's a a nuisance property or anything of that nature, uh there's the cick fix option uh through the app or reported through the website or just simply by calling uh the planning department um at city hall to uh just report those issues and we can go out and take a look at it and figure out what the process is that we're going through. Hey um everyone, we're still in a meeting. Just got to be quiet, please. We're still conducting business. Please take your conversations to the hall. Thank you.

Um so that if there are issues, uh we we can go and take a look at it. It's not necessarily always going to be the same timeline. Um it could be different things for vegetation, it could be different things for dangerous building and there's processes that we have to go through. So sometimes it's it's usually better to start those processes earlier. Um so that way we can have a timeline. Um, and then lastly in regards to that, is there anywhere that a resident can see what's already occurred on a particular property so they know that whether they're just kind of adding to previously reported issues or if there's an opportunity there?

If it's in cclick fix uh and the issue is still open, you'll be able to see um if if something has been reported. If it's in another way, um Mike, help me out here. I don't know if if there's a safety building issue like something that gets reported to either safe or the planning department. There's not a spot on our website or something where the general public could see that would be a foyer request. Yeah, I don't think there's anything. Yeah, I'm sorry. I was a little distracted too. We do have our vacant building registration as well. So, if you can help us identify vacant buildings that have been vacant more than several months, we can put them on hard list.

Okay. An example, the reason I'm bringing this up, an example would be, for example, uh there's a fire in a home and then all of a sudden it's not occupied and you think, okay, well, you know, I want to give those people time and space, but you know, wanting to understand what residents can do in order to report either that something has not been resolved or that people are coming and going. So, people just want to be able to be proactive.

Yes. And absolutely. If if you're seeing people coming and going from a property that you know recently had a fire or is boarded up, we definitely want to know that. So then that way public safety can take a look at it. Um in that instance, it could simply be calling 911 or the non-emergency number at Central Dispatch and then we can get someone, excuse me, get someone out there to take a look at it. Um generally if there's a fire, is it like a year? It's it is a pretty substantial period of time before they have to start um fixing things up before they start getting ticketed. Um and a lot of that just has to do with insurance process.

Is that there a particular ordinance that we could reference or I can have this as a follow-up conversation, but I just know that several folks have asked me about various properties that fall into those categories. I don't know the ordinance off top of my head that regards fire. Um, well, I'll look into that and then hopefully be able to report on it a little bit more in detail.

I know it's quite a while. I I had a home that was destroyed in a nacho in a windstorm and it was well over a year. Um, wasn't here, but it's it's an extended period of time. If there's damage, insurance companies are slow. Yes, that's the problem. Yeah. Hurry up and wait. Yeah. But if it's just sitting vacant, different story. Yeah. And certainly if if there's people entering the unoccupied structures, we need to know that um because then we can either make sure it gets boarded up better or you know there's things that that have been reported. And you know, when I've done

when I've done police ride alongs, I think each time we've had some type of vacant building check um that we've been doing because there's been reports that, you know, this structure had people entering it or it looked like there could be or we just had ongoing knowledge of things. We would go by and check those. And there's um we do have a list um within the PD that they that they keep track of and look at things like that. So, and just lastly, I'll say that CC click fix, while it might be annoying to have to respond to it a lot. Um, I do think it's a valuable service and I have seen value from items that I've, you know, kind of reached out and told my neighbors about as well. Any final thoughts?

I would I just want to ask a quick question based upon that. Is is your staffing really good at the DPW? How's staffing holding up? And the reason I say that is because there are a number of things on our street that I've put in that system that get this memo. says, "No one is available. Sorry." You know, whatever. Cool. Just asking that.

Yeah. I mean, as far as the staffing level goes, you know, DPW right now is staffed. The challenge that we have with some of the some of the cicklic fixes is that from launching we had a large wave of requests that started coming in, but also particularly as it relates to forestry. We did a tree inventory uh this summer. And the tree inventory identified several trees that were in immediate need of being addressed. And so that kind of shifted that cick fix list. Okay. And so cclick fix doesn't mean that that it's going to be fixed immediately. It means it's going to get on our list to be fixed and then and then we triage it to figure out what the most important and critical items are.

That's really good to know for the public to know because there's a number of things that are sitting y would also add that at some point somebody's entered items and then there's like an auto response like yeah you know we had a big issue we'll get to it but not necessarily a response to the response. Yes. So, it needs to kind of be response. Yeah, it needs to kind of be like, oh, that was two months ago, right? So, great. Thank you. Good. Good.

And and actually, what one more thing to that to Jill's question, the as far as the staffing goes, we did have um in the forestry department, which handles a lot of those tree issues. We did have a um believe it was a retirement and then we had uh someone who was out for a good chunk of the summer. So there so so there there was there was some challenges but we got makeup. Okay, great. That's good to hear. Thank you. I'll take a motion. Motion to adjurnn. Support. Oh wow. All those in favor. All those opposed stay here by yourselves. For now time guys get [Music]