Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. No, she chaired February. Good afternoon. March. So, wait, which months are these? Yeah. It was March, but this is a special meeting, not the regular meeting. She she chaired the regular March. Yeah. Everybody, good afternoon. Welcome to the Thursday, March 27th, 4pm meeting of the city of Moskegan's planning commission special meeting today. Okay. Roll call, please. Commissioners Johnson here. Gan Laoy, you're here. Here. Ciphford here. Kener Mazade Montgomery Kee here. Blake here. And Simmons here. Okay. And then we have approval of the minutes from the regular meeting of March 13th. I'll move to approve the minutes. This actually says 2024. Oh yes. March 13th of 2025, please. And then motion for We is right though. We need to correct the who who chaired the meeting last

month or not last month but at a regular meeting this month. So that's all. I don't know if we need you can just do it administratively or we need to incorporate them into the motion. That's a question to you Sarah. I think that's probably where discussion. Okay. All right. To approve the minutes from the regular meeting of March 13, 2024 with correction 25. Oh, 25 with correction of the chair to leave reflect the uh yeah support. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. Motion passes. Moving on to public hearings. Um yes. Since we have the uh yeah point of order. Um, since we have the in the gentleman here for 551 Young, do we want to do that one first or we have the latitude to move that up? I suppose we could go back into old business first. Item five. So, we have case 2025-10, request for a special use permit to operate a marijuana retailer with drive-thru at 551 Young Avenue. Uh, so this is also a public hearing. Nope, we had We're just revising. Okay, coming back. So, can you give us a background of where we're at? Yes, we did have the public hearing already, so that was closed. Um, there were no comments from the public at the public hearing. Uh, we did have a couple of items that were outstanding though that, uh, we wanted the applicant to look into. Um, they have started working with the engineering department on the storm water permit. So, that doesn't look like it's going to be too much of an issue. Uh, that we thought it might be. Um, we wanted to look into the fence that's going over the paper street, uh, Temple Street, and the engineering department doesn't have a problem with

that. And they said that they could let them use that uh, if they improve it and as long as they daisy chain the fence. And what they mean by that is they want it to be able to be unlocked by separate keys by either the drain commissioner, the engineering department or the fire department. Um, and one lock will be able to one of their individual locks will be able to unlock everything. So, as long as we have that as a condition, there should be no issue. Um, we did have the letter from the drain commissioner. They are okay with having those structures on there. They did revise the um site plan and they show the bike lane which uh I like the design of that they didn't go and take it put it where the cars are going to be. It's kind of its own separate thing. Um so you can see that on the site plan and the storage containers uh that still needs to be addressed but I put that as a condition. if you uh are inclined to put it that way, that they are either properly stored or removed. And uh I'm not too worried about having that language in there because it's ultimately something that will need to be addressed before we give them their marijuana certificate for their retail store. And that says that you've got to be in compliance with everything in on the site plan uh before we can give that to you. So that's something we would withhold. Now what he can do is either remove them from the property uh or he's also um thrown out the idea that he may uh store shipping containers on site as a business which is allowed. Um you would need to be have a business license from the clerk. This is an industrial

business or zone so that would be allowed but you do have to screen storage from residential and the right ofway. So, you could either accomplish that by a 5- foot privacy stockade fence or by putting them behind the building. So, do I have a Well, I guess the question is what's the motion here since it's not a hearing approving it? Staff recommendation. Okay. Um, can we move on to discussion? Go ahead. I move that the request for a special use permit so that we may proceed with debate and discussion. I move that the request for a special use permit to operate a marijuana retailer with drive-through at 551 Young Avenue be approved with the following conditions. One, a new storm water permit is issued with engineering department. Two, the temporary storage containers are either removed from the site or they obtain compliance through the necessary procedures. Three, the property owner provides a daisy chain on the existing fence to allow the public works department, fire department, and drain commissioner to access um drain commissioner, otherwise known as the water resources commissioner to access the site if needed. Support. Okay. Any discussion? Yeah, I just have I do still have a question and I know Destiny's not here today. Um, Commissioner Kener. Uh, however, there was some discussion about safety on site for the staff that'll be running across the parking lot from the sheds to inside. Um, and also the storage of money. I'm not so sure um that the design is as safe as it could be. And I I know that we're just working right here on the land use component here, but um I just wanted to throw that out there for some thought. Any other commentary at the

moment? I have a couple questions. One, there's a bike rack, I believe, shown on the right side of my screen, just to the right of the driveway. That's a bike rack. Yeah. but that it's far away from the bike path entrance, which I I don't know if that's a permanent installation item, but it just seemed closer to the road, which kind of defeated the purpose of separating it from the driveway. Um, and then for the public street situation, I guess the question is, is this still considered a public street? And so we're allowing this to be fenced essentially so long as we have access, but we're then removing the the opportunity for it to be a public street. So wouldn't we want to be looking at vacating that instead? Any ideas or thoughts there? Um, normally I would think a vacation would be appropriate, but the engineering department seemed to think that we were never going to be installing a street here. So, okay. Okay. Do we have any other examples, I guess, of where we have non-paved public streets that we fence off? Just Well, I just want to piggyback on that. What uh the planning manager said because you indicated that engineering suggested that they don't think would ever put a road in there. Um so if that's the case, why what what would be the drawback or or or negatives of pursuing a a vacation uh you know vacating it entirely if we're don't ever expect to actually put a road through there. Um I mean it's it's reserving our right to if for some reason we wanted to extend the road in the future. uh there might not be a reason to do it now, but that doesn't

mean in the future there wouldn't necessarily be a need if we wanted to connect um Temple. It's Temple, right, that would be bringing through um down to Deleno. It's probably just a reservation of rights more than anything else. Um it may be more beneficial for the applicant to vacate it for himself in his own knowledge to know in the future it's going to be available. It's probably more important on his side than ours. So, it's still that option is still available to them if they want to pursue it and then go through the process and whatever protocols or um filings and so on and so forth need to be done. Um they could take that initiative themselves. Okay. Does the current date of the property include the street? I guess that's the question is this fence has arisen at some point and so when a vacation occurs usually I believe it's divided down the middle unless there's an agreement between the adjoining party um so in a way they're also preventing access from others so anyway it's one of those things where I don't want to set a precedent of just like well there's a fence here and so it's too much work to figure out what should be here so I I think we at least need to identify what the situation is that we we recognize that this is a public street that it's not used, something of that nature. Um, and then so the bike rack, public road, uh, landscaping plan. I think those were those were the only notes that I had. just not super keen on the I could imagine if it was a you know city property for example that was not being used as a public street and we were basically saying you know sure you can come through here because it's not regularly used but we're preventing

people from having this access they don't really know that they could if engineering's okay with it right you know, I I don't see a problem with it at all. Um, and I do see what you're saying is, you know, maybe someday. Um, we will, you know, want to use it um to connect those straits so it's safer just to leave it alone right now. Uh, where is the fence? Can you can you on this image right now? Can you tell me where that that fence perimeter is? fence basically under the word other numbers 240 square foot. Okay, it's right there. But where is it to the the western? Yeah, western edge like running north and south. So that looks like that's running east and west or maybe I'm getting my directions perpendicular to that. Where's the perpendicular? Sort of at it's basically right right on the line. Right on the just Yeah, because this is at an angle. So it's pretty much right on the line. So the the Okay. So because I'm just wondering like the entrance I wish I could take a arrow or highlighter to to so you all know what I'm talking about and show but right where your cursor is right that the that second so the middle line so is that the middle of the road and then to the right and to the left that would be the the full width of what the platted road is in such case the entrance where it says 240 ft is on their half of the road if it were ever to be vacated you following Can you answer that? Yeah. Yes. So, the rightway is 34T. We're utilizing the 17 foot driveway 100% on it. Um, so I I guess I wish I had something too. If you look at the middle dotted line, that is exactly

where that's the center line of the road. Okay. Um, the fence is to the Do we have a directional on this map? To the left. To the top is north. So, it is north. Okay. So to the just to the west um of the fence is to the west of that though you can actually see in the street view there's there's no curb there and that's where the fence is. Okay. So the fence is almost right at the center line too. Um okay. Yeah. I mean, knowing that the entrance is firmly on if if it ever were to be vacated and the entrance knowing that the entrance is is on your half of the roadway if it were to be vacated, then I'm more comfortable if we were to move forward with this. And um also just to maybe put some other minds at looking at the county GIS in that instance, yes, the the easements there for the road or the the road rightway is there. Um, but the way that the property lines are done in that instance, it's as if the road is not there and the fence is on that property line. So, if if you go just north of Young on Temple, the property lines take into account the right of way. Um, south of Young, they do not. So, it's it's as if the road isn't there. So, so I think that would answer that question. If it was to be vacated, the fence is in the correct location. Is it possible to grant an like a specified easement basically? Again, it's just one of those matter of a a street with a gate on it because either should not be a street or there shouldn't be a gate when it's a public street. I mean that the property owner probably would want to pursue that for their own benefit um and protection I suppose. But um what we are approving is a special um land use permit. So, it's subject to,

you know, revocation if needed be. But, um, I think that that's probably more of a concern on the applicant's part of whether or not they want to get a recorded easement, but it is a public street, so I don't know if that's really necessary. Yeah, you can see the fence right there. Yeah. And I mean, and the the other thing is the fence is existing. Um, it's an existing environment. It's not like it's being added. Um, so I'm assuming there was a fence permit at some point because we don't know exactly when the fence went in. Okay. A lot of people put in fences there. Okay. Unfortunately, um, last suggestion, what about a timeline on the gate approval? Just so that again, it's that isn't sitting there forever and people have the opportunity to address it. Just your thoughts otherwise I'll leave it be. I'm not following. Um so the basically the gate approval with the lock is the condition and so we want that to be indefinite or is there for a period of time be indefinitely the way I would so long as the permit is in effect. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. So yeah, I don't I would say it doesn't expire and he doesn't get the permit to operate without meeting all those conditions. So um he has to do it. Any other thoughts? He wants to operate. Roll call, please. Um no, this is just retail. Just I just was double checking because usually a lot of times there are special land use permits for marijuana related things. We have like order control, but this is just

retailing um for the for this permit. Right. Okay. Roll this. Commissioner Simmons. Yes. Blake. Yes. Montgomery Keith. Oh, yes. Cipher. Yes. Will Laoy? Yes. And Johnson? Yes. Thank you for joining us. You're welcome to hang out. We're going to go back to the top of the agenda. Approved. Take care. Okay. Oh, ready. Staff report hearing case 2025-16. So staff initiated request to amend section 21101 of the zoning ordinance to require the zoning administrator to review all PUDS uh for accuracy before a certificate of occupancy can be issued for any building. Um we've run into some issues over the years of this happening most notably with the Harbortown um most recently the Harbortown development where the sidewalks weren't put in for about 40 years and now we're making them. Um I'm going to a meeting tonight about that for a special assessment for that and um we have looked into other communities what they've done and some of them put a clause in there that the zoning administrator has to uh sign off on the plans before a certificate occupancy can be issued from the building department. Um we worked with city of Cooperville. know somebody that used to work there, so they helped us out. And um we kind of modeled it after theirs, but it's something that's pretty common in a lot of different zoning ordinances. So, uh in section 21101,

after the PU development time limits, we're I'm proposing that we put in the PUD plan compliance. Uh and that would state that the zoning administrator shall ensure compliance with all of the provisions and requirements of the PUD plan and construction and placement of all the improvements therein before a certific certificate of occupancy is issued for any building within the PUD. Okay. So as a public hearing um this sorry this is confusing for me. It's not direct. Basically, we open this up to the public at this point right now. Okay. So, there is nobody here in the audience if you could not see that from home. So, if anybody would like to call in, we'll give you an opportunity to do that. 231-724-6721 if you'd like to speak to this public hearing. We'll give folks a few minutes to call from home. We need a Jeopardy theme song. Give it another minute. And if you're just joining us, we're taking phone calls for the public hearing. Nothing coming in. Okay, I'll move to close public health support. Motion in support to close the public hearing. All those in favor? I. All those opposed say no. All right. Public hearing is closed. Where's the motion? I'll do it.

I move that the request amend to amend section 21101 of the zoning ordinance is recommended to the city commission for approval as proposed. Support moved in support. Any discussion? No. Thank you. And thank you to the planning department for bringing this forward and our city man working on. And I had a conversation with them last year about what can we do to better ensure compliance with our planning our PUDS um and the conditions that the the planning commission the city commission attaches to them. Um and so I appreciate this being brought forward. Um I do have a couple questions. Um one of which where it references um so I'm just going to read it uh and it is on screen but read it for anyone that uh may be at home watching or elsewhere. Uh so what's being looked as adding is PUD plan compliance. The zoning administrator shall ensure compliance with all of the provisions and requirements of the PUD plan and construction and placement of all of the improvements therein before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any building within the PUD. So my question is with regard to where it says um uh placement of all the improvements therein. Uh so you're ensuring compliance with all the provisions or requirements of the PD plan and construction and placement of all the improvements therein. What do all of the improvements entail? What does that what does that mean? Improvements. Is that just the public amenity or public facing improvements? Is that meaning every aspect of the PUB um that was called out? Meaning all those things were built. Um even if they were like just private um you know buildings, not not public facing. Yep. I think it's up to the zoning administrator to interpret where they should be on that plan. Obviously, if it's the first building of many going in where they can't, if they had a public amenity like a bike path or something, obviously that bike path couldn't go in right away because it would get damaged with the construction of the other buildings. So, I think the way that this

is worded, it kind of leaves it up for interpretation for the zoning administrator to make a a a reasonable call on what should be completed. Now, if it's just one building, we should be looking at the building itself, the direct amenities around it, the bike racks, the parking, the landscaping, any lighting directly out in front of it. But if it's things that are going to take a it's a larger project and it takes more coordination like street lights all up and down the property, obviously that can't that's not feasible to have that all in there. I kind of like the word improvements because it is sort of all-encompassing. I mean, that's the way I understood it. That gives you the leeway. And as you get farther and farther into the PUB, the more important that that bike path or whatever it's going to be is going to be need to be completed before that final building gets to CO. Uh just kind of give a little context um for how I use this in previous communities. Um, as was alluded to, um, when I was the planning director and city manager in Cooperville, we had a a similar portion of our PUD ordinance and, uh, there's a housing development that was going in. Uh, and before each house got its COO, I would have to go out with the checklist like were the street trees in place, were the was the sidewalk put in, um, was the grass put in, things like that. And then sign off on it for each individual. um CFO. Now, that's different. Those are single family homes, individual CFOs, but to what the planning director was stating, it there is that discretion there to make sure that things are being met the way that they need to be. Um it could also be going forward with PUDS because this is in the ordinance. Uh, it can also be put in as a condition that the zoning administrator has to

sign off on specific things um within within the within the um conditions that that that's that's another additional layer there. Yeah. And it also protects the property owner as well. I mean, you don't want them to keep working on something when you're not in compliance and you're going to make them rip it out and start over. So, it's good for them, too. So to to follow up um and it's good to know that you're starting out that your interpretation is this does give you that discretion to issue COS here require improvements issue them that's not how it reads. So that's I I want to square that like this does not this seems implexible and it does not give you that discretion because it says the zoning administrator shall ensure compliance with all of the provisions and requirements of the PUD plan and construction placement of all of the improvements therein before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any building within the PUD. So the current phrasing does not give you that latitude of discretion as I read it um and interpret it. So if that's the intent then I think we need to revise the language to reflect that or give you that that that that discretion or flexibility. I would also basically ask about kind of the order of operations as well. Right? So when you have a a multi-building property and maybe you are looking for occupancy of again a portion of it, it seems that there's an opportunity to order things in a way that allow you to skip out on things. So if we just took out the word all and just said of PUD plan and construction and placement of the of improvements therein before a certificate of occupancy would that free that up a little more. My mind's still stuck on what she just said. So can we revisit that just a moment? Jill, can you can

you hold on to that? Um following what um our chair just said if it were because what it was described as earlier like okay you can get this phase done but we're not going to ensure compliance with these other things but you get this phase done we'll give you CO phase two COO these things aren't done still but we need them done before phase three and what I think you just suggested is if they just bailed on phase three never did it then we've lost our in our stick so to speak well that's where you talk about if you do conditional what does Does that look like if you give a conditional CO c of A to a condo building that people are living in and now we're saying hey we're going to revoke that certificate of occupancy because you haven't finished doing the the things that are required within the PUD if um so one thing that we had in in the other ordinance that I worked under was performance guarantees. Now, we rarely used that, but it was a tool that was there that if we were concerned about something, we could force the developer to um do some type of a deposit or do some type of performance guarantee that we could go get that we could go get money from a bank to go finish what it was they didn't do. Um, a letter of credit. Sorry, I was drawing a blank I was drawing a blank on what it was there for a second. Um, we didn't generally exercise that because it was a um that's a nice stick, but but but but it but it was there. Um, and the only time that we ever did it was that letter of credit and then once they performed what they were supposed to perform, we basically ripped it up and it wasn't it wasn't there anymore. So that um that's something that could be there. I don't think it could only be something that could be applied to PUDS in the future. um with the letter of credit. Yeah. Like like like kind of the stick part of it. Yeah. Yeah. But that's something that some communities do. It

is permissible. How does that get incorp? So it's a condition that you add on to the POD. What does that language look like if like off the top of your head or like how would that be structured? It just it says um that the that the planning commission um or sorry the city commission on the recommendation of the planning commission may um require a performance guarantee and then those that can be either a deposit of money letter of credit uh probably those would be the main two and then those can be exercised at you know at the commission's discretion. Is that something that necessitates the zoning ordinance to be amended to enable that or is that something that's already an option that we could be exercising as we're approving PUDS as as it stands? In my experience, it's something that is in the local ordinance but is consistent with planning and zoning enabling act. um footing if it were explicitly yes called out as but I'm also not the planning director here so I don't know how our planning staff because that would be um Mike's call on how he interprets that in the planning act about needing a I would think the language would need to be in there in the ordinance yeah okay and we've seen language like that and I would also think it might need to be relevant per occupied structure right because again you have to approve each occupied structure. And so the question is is when would that be released that that requirement? When would it be released? The final building, right? So generally with a with a multi- well with with a multi-unit building, Mike, it would be you're not necessarily getting CFOs per floor. You're getting CO for the whole building. That's what I understand. Yeah. So in so if if it's a multi-phase of buildings, you're still it's it's still

limited to really the structure you're looking at and maybe not not the entire thing. So if someone was but that's where the performance guarantee comes in. If someone was to bail on a PUD, you wouldn't release that performance bond or that letter of credit until it was all done. And if they bailed, then you would go use that letter of credit to complete the the public parts of it or the Yeah, I really here's the thing. I think the frustration that I've experienced with the public over the years, a lot of it has to do with, you know, promises that the public feels that they are coming soon, right? Like, okay, let's just be patient and we have this thing to look forward to. And then when that doesn't happen, even if other things do happen, there's a feeling of a sense of loss. Mhm. So I feel that the opportunity to say we all decided that that was a great opportunity for the public and we as the public want to keep moving forward with it and so that's the benefit we get out of approving the development if if that fails to continue. We can move forward with the public portion of it, right? Rather than having to scrap the whole idea. Um so I mean I'm very much interested in taking that forward as long as it's something that we can actually put into practice um and apply across the board. not necessarily relevant to this discussion, but I would think that if that was to be employed, we'd be we would need to the commission the city commission would be need to be very specific about what the performance guarantee was for. So whether it's for sidewalks or a bike trail or street trees, specific amenities, specific amenity that might not be met there. Um and yeah and maybe even to review and agree that yes we want to go forward knowing that the development will not it also seems that there might be a point of okay let's bring you know the letter of of credit back and say okay we have this available to us do we want to

exercise it or do we want to for whatever circumstances um I know that's additional steps of things but um I think it gets to the point of the matter which is getting the thing that the people expected at the end of the day. Are you still word smithing this? Well, I'm wondering in light of what we just heard from city manager about language regard performance guarantees of letters credits and needing to incorporate that into the ordinance itself before we could add that as a condition or just on firmer footing before adding that as any conditions on future PDS. it would make sense to just like refer this back to staff for adding that, you know, as well while we're amending this um and potentially um give them opportunity to to look at the the language of the existing um proposed amendment um for fine-tuning or to better reflect the intent of having that latitude or or you know reasonable discretion um as projects are moving forward because I I do think it's unreasonable. The way I read it, it seems very strict and rigid and says you will not get certificates occupancies unless you've completed every single thing first. And we know like these mega projects that are multiundred millions of dollars. They're in phases and they need to get this done, you know, and a lot of the performers are based upon get this phase done. It's going to start generating capital. That capital can then be used to uh fund those improvements. And so I do think it's sensible to have some flexibility in there. Um, Mr. Crash, I just don't see how this language provides that. Um, it seems strict. Um, I just want to go on the record for one thing. The the sort of how it's worded now. Mike did talk to me about this. So, it's um, so one of the reasons that the performance stuff wasn't in there was after we had talked, but then also Sarah just pointed out that we do have another point in our zoning

ordinance that has performance guarantees in it already. I can pull it up on the screen. Oh, yeah. That that works that works better than emailing it to me. Um, she's going to pull it up right now. And I think another thing to consider too is is the phasing. Is it that there's so much latitude in the phasing, right? And that's where things get messy. And that and that could be and it depends on the um the type of PUB that you're doing. And the nature of a builtout city like Moskegan is we don't do a ton of PUDs. um when except for now a lot um but but when but like when when you look at more suburban areas they do a lot of PUDs and it's very specific on how things are phased in but you're also building in farmland and it's a little bit easier and it's it's different. Um so performance guarantee section [Music] 2325 that pretty much covers what you were talking about, doesn't it? I'd say the one thing that's missing from there would be um public amenities. Um this is about sidewalks, right? Well, no, this isn't just about sidewalks. He used a he used an example of a a PUD uh with an issue with the sidewalk not having been installed um you know decades ago um as part of the the PUD. All

right. Give folks a minute or two to review the newly provided content. not new but for reference. So should we um table this? And so my I guess my question here is is that the need to discuss this today on a not regularly scheduled commission meeting is the question of is what hindrance does tableabling require? Yeah, look at my I mean we're we're we're we were here because I asked them to move it faster. Um, it's not on staff, it's on me. Okay. Um, the if if if we were to do some tweaking, it wouldn't be the end of the world. And if we brought it back at our next um PC meeting with the updates that the commission would like to see, I think that would be acceptable. What What I was more concerned about is if if we brought it in April and then we weren't to have more changes until May and then it kind of kept getting pushed down at that point. Sure. Um, understood. But one more month wouldn't Well, I mean really at this point it's two weeks. We don't have an April meeting. Oh, we don't have an April meeting. Oh, we're not. Oh, okay. Oh, so there's your May. Okay. All right. So, if we re rewarded the um the actual um statement to be a little bit more broad more you're you're looking for more flexibility for the planning director. I I I see after reading it a couple times. I I like the generic term that you're using in there. I I think improvements is really good, but I I do agree like we got to wait until the whole thing's done um in order to get that occupancy. So that's where you're going with that, right? Um and I and I understand that our zoning is saying

he's interpreting that it gives him the discretion. Yeah. me as the the the policy maker, I do not see that discretion built in there or allowed. And so that could create I don't know. I I I'm I better prefer precision and um I think it could create potential conflicts in the future, you know, um saying, "Hey, this is what your zoning law says. Our zoning administrators not adhering to it." And I and I'm sure I'm going to hear that from uh residents about, you know, certain developments. And so that's why I would prefer the language in there to reflect the intent. Um, so how would we do that? Because I I think what we're trying to do is build in that during the process that he's able to approve or disapprove going down the line. We don't want to wait until the very very end. So we do we say like improvements during each phase? Not everybody calls it a phase. Um that I don't know if that Well, I think that's kind of part of the issue is is that when the POD is approved, it needs to be approved in a way that you can then go back and checklist it, right? So the point is the phases need to be identified in a way that they're expected to be okay. Check. Yeah. But are very hard to identify and they change constantly all the time. That's not that's not how that works in the real world. Even though I see what you're saying. What? Yeah. What What if it was to be something that was tied to how the building department does their because they sign off on individual structures. What if we said something like and all the public improvements are reasonably completed as a percentage of the plan or something?

Can you explain that in a different way? So that try one more time. Like if you had a thousand houses being built and a huge bike path going through it. Yep. I'm not going to make the bike path go through it on the first house, the first occupancy because the bike path would get damaged every time a house is getting built. Right? So something with the word reasonable in it or reasonable they are on their with assurance that they are on a reasonable path to complete the project. I like that because it also shows the discretion that the staff would have on taking into account things like if you were to build all the sidewalks all at once, then when you're building each individual house, the sidewalks are going to get destroyed. So, there's no point in putting it in until the house is done. Um, and so that reasonable word applied with the professional review of the planning staff gives them that ability to explain back to me as the manager of the city commission or the planning commission. This is what I saw as reasonable and here's why. And in the sidewalk example, you know, if you have a development of a hundred houses, chances are you aren't building all of them. Sometimes there's five houses that don't get built and they get built later. So you don't want to be able to say, "Well, we can't build the sidewalks until they're all in." Right. So we have to have some So if we said reasonable progress, yes. Is that what you're thinking? Reasonable. Reasonable progress towards completion of all aspects of the plan. That's what we're coming back to is is everything moving forward. question is, is everything moving forward and not getting left behind? Well, I think that's that's where the the

professional staff comes into play on how they on on using their expertise on how development works and construction works and and and those type of things and being able to document like, hey, this part isn't done, but as you go forward, you know, we're not going to issue the next CFO or we're not going to issue um, you know, or this is a conditional CFO and you've got 60 days to to finish this other aspect of it. We we do that in the building department all the time. You get a 30 or 60 I think 90 is as far as they go um on conditional CFOs. It's been a while since I've had one. Um but you could do now for residential that's a whole another thing. But but it's it's about the communication process with the developer from from the staff. And I I think what to go back to the example that Mike was giving at the beginning of the conversation at Harbortown was because we didn't have that check-in and communication with staff. The the planning staff and city commission made one approval and then it went to the building department and they've got a different purview and it was all done to that standard. But we didn't go back and look at this other standard. Is the whole thing coming to completion? Yeah. And this is giving the planning staff the another tool to go back and say that because right now they you know Mike could go hey you know they didn't finish this and we're like well we didn't give you any authority to tell us that they had to finish it. How do we incorporate the letter of credit concept into this? Because I think we we've kind of moved the language into the reasonable right like adjusting with a reasonable expectation. Do we have to I think it's already in there. Yeah. Do you with the um performance that you was talking about the letter that they have to sign? Do you think of that as a deterrent? Because when the developer was up here, he was saying like how they can sometimes run out of money and things

like that. That's why they won't finish all the PUB plans. Is that have you seen that before? Uh I so I I think that that does come up as a concern. Um, and that's why in the in my previous community, I think we only did it once um as that letter of um and it was letter of credit which was a lower threshold for the property owner as far as what the cost is and I don't remember what all adjustics are. I'm not um banking person but um the the actual amount of money that they put into that was much lower. Um but it wasn't nothing. It wasn't nothing. And the point is is here is when you have especially a very valuable piece of property that again the public is supporting you know things based on future expectations it's it's focusing on being able to assure that that future expectation has some opportunity to continue if the developer does in fact have to you know move on to something else. Um I'm just wondering how if we can move that into practice if we have not been doing it as well I think or if we need to take that to commission and it's already there right yeah it's already there so as a tool if I'm thinking improvements and I like reasonable progress so what I would suggest is the zoning administrator shall ensure reasonable progress is being made to comply with all of the provisions and requirements of the PUD plan and construction and placement of all of the improvements therein before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any building within the POD and then adding a a sentence of before a certificate of occupancy can be issued for the final building or buildings of a PUD the zoning administrator shall ensure complete compliance um with all the provisions and requirements of the PD. It gives that flexibility of like if you're seeing progress to be made, you can issue the certificates of occupancy, but

you're at the end of the the PUD and you're like here's the final building. Okay. You have to demonstrate or you have to have completed all of the improvements before that final CI or CFO can be can be issued. Does that work for you, Mike? All right. Got a green light. So, we would need to make motion. Um, I got all my time. I think you just you could just say uh motion amendments. Yeah. Friendly amendment as presented by the mayor. Can I do that? You'd like a friendly amendment as presented by the mayor? Yes. Okay. And Jill and Jill will friendly support that or support that friendly or however you want to put that. I'm going to read it again. If you since it's written, you can't see it on the screen. if you could read it one more time. So the revised motion as I'm suggesting is the or I guess motion to make a friendly amendment. Uh the zoning administrator shall ensure reasonable progress is being made to comply with all of the provisions and requirements of the PUD plan and construction and placement of all of the improvements therein before a certificate of occupancy uh may be issued for actually mayor is may be issued for any building within the PUD before a certificate of occupancy can issued for the final building. We go with buildings or building just building building S final PUD. Yeah. Final PD. Final elements. For the final elements of the POD, the zoning administrator shall ensure complete compliance with all of the provisions and requirements of the POD plan and construction and placement of all of the improvements therein before certificate of occupancy issued for um is issued. It's like a four breath sentence. Okay. It's kind of the same sentence repeated. It's just a few um tweaks between um so that Okay. Um, having that

on the floor, do we have any additional discussion on the motion? Generally, I do have one question. Um, is there any kind of denial process change here whereby if you do not feel that someone has met those expectations, does it just sit until they do? Yes. Okay. Um, and then the landscape plan was mentioned in there, but oftentimes the landscape plan is submitted separately. And so I just wanted to comes along with the PU reiterate that that would be available before Yeah. Um, the PUD was completed. Yeah. It was often a prerequisite. Okay. All right. Roll call, please. Commissioners Johnson. Yes. Yes. Cipher, yes. Montgomery Keys, yes. Blake, yes. And Simmons, yes. You'll hit email on that to get that over before we change our mind. Um, okay. Do we have any other items on the agenda here? Any new business? Um I think I would real quick just add on new business that there is an ongoing um shoreline trails and greenways planning process um that we that has had some workg groupoup meetings but there will be additional meetings coming to the community um and so that's through the West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission uh and they are looking at shoreline trails and greenways throughout uh the Moskegan area. So, I would just recommend that folks follow that process and find an opportunity to participate. Um, they're looking at improving everybody's access to multimodal um trails and to waterways.

Um, thanks for bringing up. That's what I was going to share as well. And that is a um uh funded and supported by the city of Michigan where a principal uh contributed to that that process um to share to so you all have because it was asked at the last planning commission meeting. What are the dates some of the upcoming meetings? And so for the larger focus areas, these are the tentative dates that have been shared with me. Um, Wednesday, April 30th, 5:30 to 7 pm um at Unruly or Pigeon Hill. So that's TBD. We're looking at kind of doing a happy hour um in partnership with the um looks like the city Windsorick and the Chamber of Commerce. Um and that's going to be with biking and outdoors groups. Um so there'll be a focused conversation there tenatively Wednesday, April 30th, 5:30 to 7 p.m. exact location TBD. Um then the next one will be immediately the next day, Thursday, May 1st. That's noon to 1:30. That'll be business um businesses countywide um will be the focus of that. Um and that looks like it will be held at Wednesday at the West Michigan Regional Development Commission over there on Morris. Um and then there will be another larger focus area. Um and that's for all residents and neighborhood groups. It looks like that's going to be Tuesday, May 13th, 5:30 to 7 p.m. Uh, that location is TBD. So, I just wanted to since it was requested at the last planning commission, like what are the the schedule or timelines? Um, I just wanted to share that preliminary information so at least you have um that tentatively pencled in on your your calendars if you're interested um in participating those uh larger focus area groups. Uh there was a um engagement um in Moskegan Heights um on March 13th and then one yesterday with the Moss Lake Wershed Partnership public access group. Those were the smaller focus areas. Um and so last night's was particularly I thought engaging and productive uh conversation that had happened. So I hope lots of people have the opportunity to have a similar conversation. Um do I understand or over here that we do not have a planning commission meeting in April? We do not.

I will cross that off my calendar. Okay. Okay. Gotcha. Okay. We could just meet to have fun. Be here anyway. Okay. We will however be starting citizen planner that day. Citizen planner will be starting. So we will still be here most of us unless you've made yourself unavailable. Um any other items business pro for the next meeting we have in May potentially we will be moving to the civic clerk. So how the commission does their meetings, city commission, we will start doing that. So each of you will have a login to that and that is where the packet will go. So Ann was going to set that up for everyone. So you might get an email from that civic clerk saying, you know, you now have a login and then you just create a password. Okay. Could you remind us of that by email? Yes. Just so that because we're people are used to looking for their email. Would you just send us like, hey, go here now? Does that come when it's ready from Ann? Well, Ann, I sent her all of your emails. Okay. So, those of you that aren't already set up in there will should get one. I got one and it was just I think from the civic clerk site and it just says you're now a user. Okay. Um and then once you go in, it will let you set your password. Great. I got it because I'm usually going planning commission when I'm like looking for an agenda, right? So, we're all going to forget because it's two months from now. Oh, I'll remember putting that out there. Okay. So, that um expect to be May 15th for the planning commission meeting in May. Okay. So, just a heads up, I'll be um away. So, I'll be at the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Cities Conference in Milwaukee. So, I will not um be here. All right, J. Oh, you got one more new business thing or you Well, no, I wanted to circle back on when we're talking about performance guarantees and performance bonding for compliance. Um because as a as I uh mentioned briefly earlier, it says improvements covered improvements that shall be covered by

the performance guarantee or bond include oh but are not necessarily limited to I missed that. Okay, so I'm good with that then because I didn't see public improvements as streets and other roadways, utilities, fencing, screening, landscaping, common open space improvements. Those are not necessarily public amenities. And so that's why I wanted to include public amenities in there such as bike trails or parks or what have you. Um, and so that that was covered. But because it says not necessarily limited to, I'm good. So now that I've read it and see that language, I'm good. Thank you. I would entertain a motion. We going to do a little public comment. Oh, we could. I like that. We have to since we're all talking. Okay. Thanks for helping me out. All right. Well, there's nobody here, so that was hard for me to remember that part. Forgive me. But There could be somebody on the phone. 2317246721. I don't know. Um, there. Please give us a call. I'll give you about 5 minutes. So, delete that. I don't know why I missed that. While we're Are we going to have a ZVA? Yes. Oh, we will. Okay. And when I get back upstairs, I'm going to send it out. I'm going to be MIA for that meeting. I'm sorry. Because the agenda keeps getting moved. We need to always have like that in front of me. What are we doing now? I always pop just keep everything. Okay. I feel like with the intelligent young folks we have with the city now they could help us with our Jeopardy like waiting theme music.

[Laughter] [Music] All right. All right. Nobody's calling in over there. I'll move to ajourn if anybody wants to do that. Support to support me. All those in favor I I. All those opposed say no. Okay, we are adjourned. Has anybody ever said no? [Music]