Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] Mosqu water everybody that we're going to get for the four o'clock. Call the meeting. Hello. All right. Today's May 15th planning commission meeting for the city of Moskegan. May I have a roll call, please? Yes. Sorry. Hold on just one second momentarily. All right. Commissioners Montgomery Kee here. Blake here. Wlette Loy here. Simmons here. Gon here. Made here. Cipher here. It's over there. It's coming. Johnson. He was excused, I believe. And Kener. All right. And then we we will have a review of the minutes.

Um I'll move to approve the minutes as presented. Do we have a support? All right. Motion and supported for approval of the minutes. Do we have any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? I. Thank you. All right. We have several public hearings on the agenda today. Item A is hearing case 2025-17, request for a special use permit to operate an urban commercial farm at 2407 Barlay Street by Cody Sloan. Okay. Um, point of clarification. Um, we're actually going to ask to remove we remove this this one. Yes, we had a complication with the application. There might be a discrepancy. So, we want to pull that and make sure everything's all right. We've withdrawn item A from the agenda today. All right. Item B, hearing case 2025-18. Staff initiated request to reszone the property at 236 Monroe Avenue from B2 Convenience and comparison business to formbbased code urban residential FBCUR. This is related to the item from last month when we reszone some properties in Midtown. There was actually a really good public comment uh from the adjacent neighbor asking that we don't reszone that to Main Street because that could um bring a business expansion or even a parking lot behind them. We do have an updated photo of what that parcel looks like now. Uh it's been cleaned up. It doesn't look really look like a former alley anymore. And I think the most appropriate thing would be to zone it urban residential which would um allow only for housing. So the most common thing there would be a really um narrow house if anything went there otherwise it would just stay vacant. Okay. And so this is a public hearing and because we are the initiator we

don't have any uh other folks to speak on that. If any members of the public wanted to speak to this item now would be the time. Not seeing anyone in the room. Did you have I have a question for Mike. I think we kind of bypassed that. Okay. Can I ask that question? So, who owns the property? It's um a it's just a private party. The city doesn't own it. No. Okay. And uh we did notify them and we had our um input group for a notification for these property owners and they did not participate or they didn't reply to any of the notifications either we sent out. All right. Thank you. I would move to close the public hearing. We do have to go to the phones, I think. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Sorry. That's all right. So, um, seeing as I have no one in the audience, we will go to the phones. The phone number, if you have, uh, any inquiries, is 231-7246721. You would have three minutes to provide remarks. We'll give that a few minutes. While we wait for that, I did have discussion after But let me know if I have thatbody. I'll move to close the public hearing. Support moved in supported to close the public hearing. All in favor? I hearing none opposed. Um or seeing none who could be opposed. We'll close the public hearing. And we have a um motion on the let's see potential motion to where is it? I got it. Do we have an option? I move that the request to

reszone the property at 236 Monron Avenue from B2 Convenience and comparison business to form base code urban residential be recommended to the city commission for approval. Support. Okay. moved and supported to approve uh the item B. Any discussion? You said Nope. Didn't I thought Didn't you say you did something? What do you say? No. Good. Um Okay. So, I'm hearing no discussion on our end. We'll take a roll call. Commissioners Blake, yes. Montgomery Kee, yes. Cyper, yes. Will that Loy? Yes. Simmons. Yes. Goran. Yes. And Mizade. Yes. Okay. Motion passes. Going back. We have a few more hearings. Item C, case 2025-9. Staff initiated request to amend article two of the zoning ordinance to amend the definition of family. Staff report. Sure. So, um, staff has been looking at the definition of family. Um, it's something that kind of comes up from time to time. Um, when we get questions about who's living in a house and who's allowed, um, sometimes there's nonprofit groups that have what you would consider sort of like a boarding house. Um, and there's two different definitions, so it makes it pretty confusing. Uh the first definition is basically if you're related by blood or marriage uh adoption or anything like that plus two other people. Um the other definition which is functional family basically gives an unlimited amount of adults that are all living as a domestic family and share

responsibility of the house and cook and clean as one unit. but it restricts it to one person per 225 square ft which actually would allow quite a lot of people um and I did a calculation and I believe around a 4,000 house which would be a large house but we do have some there that would allow up to 17 people. Um we do know um there are a lot of people that are not meeting the definition of a domestic family. Uh but for whatever reason the cost of living these days. We see people that are breaking it just by one or two people. and staff believes that for the most part, you know, we don't even know about these until somebody tells us about one or asks if it's legal. Um, so there's really not much to look into, but there are a few departments in the city where we do notice that there are a lot of adults living in a standard single family home in our neighborhoods. Um, a lot of times these are aging houses. You'll have maybe six or seven adults. um putting a lot of stress on the house. Uh hot water heaters, you know, they're not all the stuff's not built for commercial use. Um storage, uh we had a house like this on Walton that just had a fire. There was, I think, six or seven adults living in it. So, increasing it up to five, I think, is okay for a size. That's a a typical size of a normal size family or people inside of a house that these houses can accommodate. Um, but when you get over that, I think we start looking at boarding houses or single room occupancies, which we're going to be talking about in the next item. So, what I really kind of tried to break

this down into is what's reasonable for these types of house and our infrastructure to host. And what this basically would come down to with these two cases is a family could be um uh four additional people which plus a family which could be up to five unrelated individuals could all be relate uh in our standard zoning. Our neighborhood zones if you want to go a little bit bigger which sometimes is still in a in a house a boarding house would be five to 10 people. And then you have your single room occupancies which are for larger buildings. Um whether that would be built from the ground up or often cases we have people looking into our former churches and schools for those. They're really um those are really good options for those type of buildings. So um I think what this ordinance would do, this amendment would bring a lot of people into conformance. uh make them feel a lot more comfortable with their living situations while still giving us um the ability to protect our our housing resources from overcrowding and getting rid of that two definition I think would be important and just going with this one standard definition before I open it up to public comment does anybody have discussion so so Mike I uh I don't have any issues with the language that you present I think it's um pretty detailed And I and I tend to like it. I just think that that's a difficult thing to uh enforce. You know, you're right. Mhm. You know, I mean, I I've seen it occur in the past and and I think you did a great job of uh detailing what's what. Um but good luck. Yeah. No, that's our biggest thing. I've never had to actually enforce. We've had a couple complaints here and there is over many, many years. doesn't come up often. Not even sure how

I would ask for some of these. Um, but it's a a question a lot of communities across the country are looking at right now. I was down at the National Planning Conference and many communities were talking about changing it. In some states, actually in Colorado where the conference was, they the state legislature um they passed a bill that says you can't even define a family anymore. So, there's states that are looking at that. Yeah. I I kind of like that idea the best, but um like I said, I think you did a good job um detailing what's what. Yeah. And initially we thought maybe we should eliminate the definition, but when we really thought about it, you know, we were asked to look into a single room occupancy ordinance. So obviously there wants to be some type of re regulation and and this type of housing. um you think about transitional housing, homeless shelters and how that would play without, you know, getting rid of the family. So, it's not quite as easy as that, but I think this would be a good next step to, you know, test that. Thank you, Commissioner G. uh dovetailing on uh Brian um and I had contacted you earlier now with this definition and then with our next topic um codifying you know a zoning ordinance and we're talking about numbers does this compared to where we are at now uh give us at least uh a little more paper uh ability for enforcement on these on these numbers. Yeah. I think well in the past we kind of had to make some really good programs go through some unnecessary hoops. Think of like the step up program that does really great work. Yeah. And now we put them through because they were one person over.

Um and it said it couldn't be a nonprofit when you do that. So this this will also help with in that regard. So um although it is hard to enforce a lot of people ask about it so it'll give clarity and another question that goes right on top of that now that you mention it. So say temporarily somebody has a border in their house. How do they go about that? Do you have to get like a permit for an extra person or what do you do? A boarding house? No. Say me. I live in my house. So now all of a sudden I bring in somebody temporarily who's not necessarily a family member, but it takes me over that particular number. I mean, should I call you and go, "Hey, Mike, I People do this person." Right. Yeah. you know, um well, if you're related by blood or marriage, you're you are part of a domestic family and then two other people. So, really what a lot of the times it comes down to is three adults. People will be asking how many unrelated adults can team up and run a house together. That's what the question I receive the most often is. Okay. Okay. I guess it's clear as mud, but we'll work on it as we go along. And I'm just I'm just thinking a little bit about, you know, kind of people per bedrooms, but I know it gets dicey to to manage all that because then you get two, you know, you get a couple per bedroom and, you know, if you have a three-bedroom house, that's six people want to rent that. So, um, but I think we're trying to make things a little smoother rather than more complicated. You know, I I think back to um when my when my father was a kid and he talks about this a lot, but you know, my family, we were immigrants um from

Poland. So, we would bring over new relatives and they would stay in our house, maybe one or two for a few months until they could get on their feet, then, you know, hopefully get somewhere else. But I can see the way the housing market and everything is going now. I can see people doing that a lot more often when it's not really a rental. It's just borrowing a room for a while. Um, you know, so there's that kind of a boundary you have to think about. I have encountered um at least in my neighborhood a lot of transient folks who are using housing that does not likely belong to them. Yeah. And uh I do you know I should just want to know if this is something that can be applicable to you know finding many gentlemen in the same home who clearly uh even if one of them owns it. Exactly. Yeah. Oh yeah. Stay with me for a while. Opportunity there to resolve some of that possibly. Any other discussion? Okay. Uh as this is a public hearing. If there's any commentary uh from the audience please come forward. Seeing none, I'm going to go to the phones. 231-724-6721. Give folks about two minutes to call in. Two minutes feels like a really long time. It does. I'll move to close the public hearing. Support. All right. So, we have a motion to close the public hearing. Supported. All those in favor? I. All those opposed say no. All right.

Public hearing is closed. Um I'll take the motion if you want. All right, I'm looking at it. I move that the request to amend section two of the zoning ordinance to amend the definition of family be recommended to the city commission for approval as presented. Support. Moved and supported. Uh to accept the um motion as read. Any final discussion? Seeing none. Roll call, please. Yes. Yes. Simmons. Yes. Will at Laoy? Yes. Cipher? Yes. Montgomery Kee? Yes. And Blake? Yes. All right. Motion passes. So, we have, I believe, one final public hearing of a similar vein. Let me get back to the beginning there. Summer break. All right. Item D, hearing case 2025-20. staff initiated a request to amend the zoning ordinance to create a section that allows for single room occupancy homes and rooming house uses. Staff report. Uh so this is another uh residential use we'd like to introduce. The city commission asked us to look into this. Um we currently don't have an ordinance such as this. We do have a definition of a boarding house. Um, through our research, we've seen boarding houses usually refer to when the owner stays on site and rents out rooms. Ours doesn't say that, but we're proposing to amend that so that we have that definition, which would be different from the single room occupancy. And the single room occupancy is when um there's uh common amenities are shared like restrooms, um kitchen, laundry facilities, and either one or two people depending on the room uh

would rent out a bedroom. And we actually see these kind of popping up from time to time throughout the city. Uh and we don't really have any guidelines on them. um sometimes it forces them into a variance. Um so that's one of the downsides of not having an ordinance such as this uh because we'll see people try to fill this need because it is a need that a lot of people are seeking. Uh so it creates this demand which we see some landlords going through um and renovating these buildings and it could actually be a positive because you know from time to time we'll have vacant school buildings or church buildings and these are really attractive sometimes to be renovated into a single occupancy. Um, so what we're recommending is to allow this in our RM1 districts, uh, because that kind of matches the density you would see, uh, in a multifamily development without getting too large. And a lot of our former church or our churches and our schools are zoned are our district. And if we made this be an RM1, it would need a reszoning. And although it would be one parcel, I would not consider it a spot zone because our master plan actually talks about the need to redevelop our former commercial and school buildings because it can be a problem when they just sit there and maybe get demoed. So, this could be a really good use. It would it would meet the master plan, so it wouldn't be a spot zone. Uh it would allow two public hearings. So one for a reasonzoning to let people know what's going on and then another for a special use permit because this would all be um allowed as a special use permit. So everybody within 300 feet would be notified. Um this tends to be kind of a nimi topic. We've seen that in the past with some special

use permits we've had um for um overnight lodging or u multifamily uses in some of these former church buildings. So, um, again, it's it's something that's really needed to serve a demographic. It's usually for lower income individuals. Um, and we do see the demand here. So, what we've come up with is a single room occupancy and rooming houses ordinance, which would be under general provisions. Uh and that states that rooming houses uh would be allowed as a principal use permitted in our neighborhood residential and form base code urban res urban residential and RM1 districts uh with a few conditions and the owner must live on the property for a boarding house and there may be up to two people per bedroom and a bedroom must have at least 100 ft for a single tenant and 200 for two tenants. Houses at least 2,000 square feet in size um may allow up to six total people live on site and houses up to 2500 square feet can allow up to eight people living on site. And we would ask that the parking requirements just match that of the underlying zoning district. Um so you could think of those as smaller uses than a single room occupancy. It's more of a traditional house and someone renting out a couple of extra bedrooms. Single room occupancy tends to be broken up into a lot of extra rooms. So, we wanted to uh say that these would be allowed as a special use permitted just in RM1 districts. Uh the manager typically doesn't live on site, but we said they could or could not live on site. Uh there may be up to two people per bedroom. Same standards, 100 square foot for one person, 200 for two people. We said there shall not be more

than 20 bedrooms per building. Uh we do have a few of these large SRO that have become legal over the years through either grandfathering or special use permits or variances. And when there's a lot of people on site, there tend to be a lot more issues with storage. Um we get a lot more calls from the neighborhood with issues. Um it generally talking with our inspectors that just seems to be generally overcrowded and less up to living good living standards when there tends to be too many people. Um while we did say you could have up to 20 bedrooms and two people, we would still want to cap that at a a cap of 25 people per building and that there could only be one dwelling unit per site so that you could only have one per parcel. And it states that all bedroom occupants would have access to the common areas. And we had something in here that Grand Rapids does that I really wanted to put in here. It says at least 90% of the SRO units shall be occupied by the same tenants for a continuous period of at least 90 days. And really that would kind of cut down on some of the transient nature and really help distinguish it from being a trans transitional living center. And typically you don't need as much parking at these sites. So we wanted to cut that down and just say you would need one parking space for every three bedrooms. I do have one question here. You mentioned that all occupants should have access to common areas, kitchen, baths, laundry. Um, so in the instance that someone has a a master bedroom type style where there's a bathroom within the bedroom, that kind of rule that out or are you saying that somehow

designating a common bathroom is different than that? That's a good question. Uh, because in a lot of these ordinances you see the bedroom may or may not have a bathroom, but it's not intended that everybody gets to use that bathroom. So there should be one common area where everyone gets to use that but not all restrooms should be common. Correct. Okay. So I I see if you if you read it as to say that the common areas which are kitchen, bathrooms and laundry y that all occupants I think we should amend that a little bit common areas. Um, and then, um, just a little bit on the thought behind the one parking space for every three bedrooms. And I know we don't need a bazillion parking spaces all the time, but um, they're not related to each other. Is that actually enough? And is that going to cause crowding on the street? Well, if we're they're going to go the single room occupancy, it's probably going to be in a larger building and they're like if it's going to be a former church, it's going to have a parking lot, a former school will. Now, these won't always be the cases. It could go into a very large residential house. Yeah. Yeah, it could. I'm thinking of my house. I live in a great big Victorian. So yeah, but the chance of you well the chance of reszoning a typical single family house into an RM1 is probably going to be considered a spot zone, right? And so in order for this to be um essentially usable uh by someone who owns this home, they would need to go through the following process outside of this isn't a use by right. So they still have to go through additional process. Yes. Special use permit. with the

specialist permit um and assure that they have appropriate zoning in that. Okay, good. Great. Any other discussion or questions before we go to public hearing? Anybody in the audience care to speak to please approach the podium or give us your name and you want to tell us. Good afternoon. My name is Jake Ekholm. Um I wanted to speak a little bit on the necessity of single room occupancy in contemporary housing environments. So uh not that long ago, a matter of several decades, single room occupancy, whether it was uh entitled boarding houses or uh different sorts of tenement housing was another common term, especially out west. Um they were a common part of the housing spectrum and they were often effectively basic housing for uh young people for people with limited means. Uh most often consisting as was kind of described as somebody having their single room uh single doicile room with shared commercial kitchen and either communal or individualized bathrooms. uh they really got zoned out uh with a lot of suburban suburbanization of zoning uh across the country. Um both in wellestablished older communities like ours as well as in new upcoming communities. They really um were seen as antithetical to that traditional neighborhood uh suburb neighborhood that folks wanted to be a part of and that was really the product that was largely for sale throughout the decades. So what we've seen now is the product of that where we're seeing more and more folks that are transients couch surfing unfortunately living outdoors um when in reality had this product still been a part of the housing stock a percentage of those people would not be living outdoors today or sleeping on someone's couch. And um we think that it can be done uh with integrity and that it can be something that is mutually beneficial to the property owner as well as the recipients of those rooms. And so just

wanted to speak out both as a citizen and then as my my role as the division director that I think it's a necessary part of the housing spectrum that we're lacking right now despite being very progressive and at the forefront uh with housing with zoning reform uh which is in credit to this commission. So I would urge you to continue that progressivism. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? your name and what neighborhood you're uh my name is Devin Washurn. I'm in the uh I down I recently purchased a property down on Irwin Avenue. Um one of these churches that you're actually discussing here. Uh I wanted to speak up in support of this because it opens up a lot of options for buildings that are of an odd shape size that may be too large for a duplex but slightly too small for multif family. Um, well, I just want to say thank you and very much in support of this. Thank you. All right. Anybody else? All right. We'll go to the phones. 231724 6721. I'll just hold my breath until it rings. Don't hold your breath. All right. It's like the longest clock ever. Okay. Nobody's calling in. So, I'll take a motion to close the public hearing. So, moved. Support. Moved and supported to close the public hearing. All those in favor? I. Anybody opposed say no. Right. Motion passes to close the public hearing. Any further discussion before we go to roll call? I do just generally have a

question as to um if there's any regulation on the types of policies that a homeowner would be required to have essentially, you know, if you have a rooming house of 10 bedrooms and now you have 20 additional people living in the home. Is there any kind of expectations of how those folks interact with one another on the books? Anything that we're aware of? just kind of as far as as far as like from an eviction perspective, right, as folks and how folks are allowed to to live there, is that something that would go through a regular landlord process because they have to be there for at least 90 days be the expectation? Yeah, I lived in one um when I was going to Michigan State and it worked out actually quite well. I rented out my room and then, you know, we had our common areas. The only thing is is getting on the other people to clean up their dishes and all that stuff, but that's room. Yeah. These are just out of the question if there's anything that we've experienced with those kind of disputes between folks. Yeah. You want a motion? Sure. I move that the request to amend section 2318 of the zoting ordinance to create regulations for single room occupancy and rooming houses be recommended to the city commission for approval. Support. All right. Moved and supported. And I will take a roll call, please. All right. Commissioners Blake, yes. Montgomery Kee, yes. Cipher, yes. Wat Laoy, yes. Simmons, yes. Gan, yes. And Made, yes. Okay, motion passes. That concludes our public hearings for today. Do we have any unfinished business? Do we have any new business? Oh,

man. All right. Any other business? Not really sure what that I got a rant and when I say it out loud, I don't know if it actually makes sense. Hold on one second. I want to ask it on air. Try us. So for the SRO process for somebody that might get find um a school or something like that, church, could they potentially get like LITC funding for that or is it just for new developments? I don't think LITC funds SRO's I don't know if there's a state because it's for low income individuals, right? In my research, the federal government talks about there's some ordinances for that. So, I don't know if there's any federal funding, but I know LITC is a traditional individual families in their units. So, that wouldn't be supported, but there could be something out there. I'm not I don't think it'll go through the LITC process. I'm not sure if the city manager knows of anything. I can't think of anything with LITC. Um, but I think just by the nature of these type of uh projects, the the cost to rent the rooms would be much lower than others. so that you would be in that um that window of of rental cost. Um so it's it's so it's another tool to provide um lower cost rental options for folks, right? So yeah. Yeah. So you're probably you're getting close to that rent you would pay, but you're probably giving up a little more of the space the tech. All right. item. So, um my uh comment I guess is about the last about the last meeting. I know I wasn't here and one of the items was about um enforcement of the PUD requirements. Um and there was some change in that. And I guess my concern about that is how

that's going to happen. I'm not I know I missed that discussion and you don't need to to rehash that, but I'm I'm concerned about how um certificates of occupancy are going to be withheld until um projects are completed. Obviously, that's not what happens now. Um you know, I an example is Veridian Shores. They have work, infrastructure work that they haven't done yet, and they continue to build and I assume they're getting occupancy permits um all along the way. Um so, I'm just I'm just concerned about how that all works. Maybe the maybe it's just the last person in doesn't get their uh certificate of occupancy. I I don't know how that's that's going to work, but I'm concerned about that. Um we discussed it in, you know, when there were especially multiple phases involved, right, that there needed to be some discretion if there's multiple buildings going in, you know, that we can say, well, the DOC an opportunity to withhold. The DOC is a good example. That's going to be over the course of several years. And there's going to be homes that are built and completed. And while some of the I'm I'm guessing some of the uh requirements are not going to be met until maybe towards the end. Um so um yeah, I I understand the reason for it. I just think there's some concern um about how that's um going to operate mechanically. And then the other uh concern I have about um that issue was um Harbortown PUD, the original Harbortown PUD was used as an example. Um and and I have a concern about that because I know that the planning commission and the city commission um made a requirement in the amended PUD for sidewalks based on the belief that um sidewalks were originally required in the original PUD. And um based on the research that I've done, I don't believe that was the case. Um

and so the people in Harbortown are now going to be burdened um with based on the estimate of the city about $400,000 worth of sidewalks if they decide to move forward with it. And as of this time, um that project is not moving forward. So the the and it's likely not to move forward. And so the city loses out on 28 new homes and the tax base that um that that would be generated from that. And and from my standpoint, it's all because of some incorrect information provided to the planning commission and the city commission. I think the initial, you know, part of the conversation that we had was actually to try to avoid that situation whereby folks expected something to be completed and you know therefore waited till the end of the um the plan and then didn't receive what they expected. So if we have all of those items and we're able to say this can wait till the end there there's just more discretion on the planning department to say we can give you the certificate of occupancy understanding that you're not going to complete this section until this much of construction is done. But I think actually we were yeah but I I guess my point is is that the Harbortown development was used as a reason why we need to shore that up and I think the the whole basis for that was was incorrect. you know, the I mean, as far as I can tell, and and I'm happy to have the city uh correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell, that sidewalks were not required other than sidewalks on Indiana from Nelson to West Harbor Circle, and those have been put in. Those were put in as a part of the development. Other sidewalks were not put in because they weren't required. And so we've got this situation where um a project's not going to be able to go forward because of that requirement. Um and I think that's I think it's a shame. You know, the city says that we need all these new housing units and yet we have

a situation where uh 28 units aren't going to be built. And this is one of the few developments where residential developments where there isn't going to be any kind of uh tax incentives or um you know subsidies provided to the city or to the the developer. So that's my my two cents. Thanks. Yeah. I uh I don't think our opinion overall was much different than yours honestly. Maybe in a different words. It seems very similar. Well, well, Jill, I I mean, my point is is that with the plan, the planning commission with respect to the Harbortown amendment in October, um approved the plan amendment, um but required certain things and one of those things was the construction of sidewalks on East and West Harbor Town because of the belief that those were required in the original PUD and and uh and were not put in by the developer. And I don't believe that's correct. Correct. Well, I think one of the things that I that we were looking at with this and and this was largely driven by me as the city manager um wanting to have this in there because in a community that I managed previously, we had this provision and ordinance. Um, and the way that it worked was that as you progressed through a multi-phase development, um, you were looking at each individual, um, house. In this instance, it was, um, was Cooperville. Um, but the, you know, that was mainly single family homes that were going in. And so, we would look at the single family home. The example I gave in the in the city commission meeting was if some of the landscaping plans or things of that nature needed to be completed, but the house was completed in the winter, it wasn't reasonable for the city to say you have to plant your trees in January. And so therefore, um,

you know, we're going to give you a conditional CFO that the trees will be planted by a certain date and then if there's not, there's a fine and that the the homeowner and the builder agreed to that going forward so that that way they would know. And then each phase was uh looked at a little bit independently so that they wouldn't necessarily impact the other. Um, so and that that's kind of how when staff and I were talking about it, how we were looking at things going forward here would be we would know what those requirements are um and be able to say uh you know we'll give you the CFO but um you to incentivize the project to be completion maybe we'll ask for a security deposit or some type of earnest deposit that if it doesn't get done then this the city can do the work with that deposit. Um and then if it gets done then it gets handed back and those um and that that's how it was handled in in my previous community. I I think it's a good idea. I'm just I think the proof is in the pudding. Um you know how it's how it's going to work from a logistic standpoint. I think it's I think it's a good idea. I I guess my other you know obviously my other concern was that the um example used was I think a a bad example that that's probably it then. I do think you know and and also in in amending you have to you review how we got there and whether it was appropriate. So I do think it was an opportunity for us to review what we expected that the development should have taken into account in the first place whether or not it was the best example. I'm sorry, what? Uh, as just coming back to the amendment and being able to then look at, you know, again, looking at the the plan as a whole that this you don't we don't want to continue to develop spaces that don't have sidewalks, right? So, we're just perpetuating that by not addressing it at that time. So, that was our intention. Go ahead. But to Brian's point, you know, having that we in some ways hung

our hat on the example of of Harbortown and he has an observation that, you know, he believes we got that wrong and that is is correct. Is there a way to review that? Well, um I guess my my Yeah. and and my my stance would be that I I think you know whether or not the example was the right example the the intent behind it um and that was Harbortown was not in my mind when I was looking at it there was another example um or there was another situation I should say um and but because we had been dealing with the Harbortown one that's that's the example that kind of came up in discussion but I think there's been other examples as well that um as we get more and more PUDs in the city that we need to make sure that we're we're looking at at those in a way that we have tools to enforce it. So looking at other communities that have done it successfully and then tweaking it to our situation. So I think you know the the example is one part of it but the the end outcome is is kind of what I was looking at. Um so I do also expect that you know homes will eventually be developed there. It's a beautiful, beautiful space and I can't imagine that it's never going to come to fruition. But if we did get it wrong, you know, outside of this Yeah. procedure that we have here and um I'm Oh, you're talking about the PUD amendment specifically, right? You know, the the the specific, you know, Harbortown, we we can be um you know, potentially out the the 28 houses. Uh but I guess that would be up to the uh the potential

for the proponent or the developer to contest, you know, our our finding. Okay, I'll leave it. Do you need a motion to because we still have public comment actually. Um but I actually have one other quick item. Do we um and this is just a question of procedure have a a place that residents can go to to readily understand the history of uh permits and other items on a particular property in their neighborhood? So for example, if there you know are occupancy permits given, if there are variances given, do we have that in one place that neighbors can go to by address? Not online. No, they can call us. Okay, we can. So currently it's all by the office, right? Good to know. Thank you. And uh now there is a lot of information on county property viewer and what's the one with all the the assessing residents can log in to BSNA online, but you need an account outside of your own, right? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. But Property Viewer has a lot of GIS um county GIS property viewer has a lot of information. Okay. Thank you. Uh we're going to open it up to public comment. Anybody in the audience would care to address, let us know. I'm seeing none and there's only a few folks here. So, we'll go ahead and go to the phones. 231-724-6721. So, my drink is dripping on me. Dripping today. All right. Anything coming in hot off the press? No. All right. I'll take a motion.

Move to close the public hearing. No. Motion to motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn and support and whatever you need. I'm okay with it. All right. We got a motion and a support to adjurnn. All those in favor? I. No opposed. Seeing none. You're a journ. All right. Now, can we go? Yes. All right. We got to go to class. [Music]