Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. All right. Good afternoon. Welcome to the February 12th meeting of the city of Moskegan's planning commission. A roll call, please. Commissioner Golat Laoy here. Johnson

here. Da Garza Cipher here. Garan here. Kenir Mazade Blake here and Simmons. Thank you for that. The first item will be approval of the minutes from January 15, 2026. Do I have any amendments or changes to the minutes as presented? Motion to approve the minutes as presented. Second. Wonderful. All in favor? I.

All oppose say no. Hearing none. Minutes are approved. All right. And now we have two public hearings on the agenda today. The first being case 2026-02, request to amend section 2321 of the zoning ordinance to allow wireless communication service facilities. Cell towers is a special use permitted at a specific location at 1800 PEX street, also known as Marshfield, by vertical bridge. Staff report, please.

Um, yes. So, wireless communications support facilities are allowed as a special use permit in eight areas throughout the city in an overlay district. uh a few years ago, I believe it was 2019, we approved uh a location at the water filtration plant. We have a tower there now and uh a pole and also at Marshfield in about the same location where this is being proposed. However, uh the company that would like to apply for the special use permit needs a little bit larger of an area than it was approved before. Uh so you can see the difference of those two uh surveys that we have have received. Um basically the same location and uh if this is approved they would be able to apply for a special use permit uh in that larger area. Uh if it was denied they could still apply for one but it would be in that smaller area. Uh this larger area and we can let the applicant talk. He is here um explain a little bit better detail. uh but it needs to be a little bit larger so that it can uh have collocation which is actually a requirement of our special use permit. We did hold aformational meeting last night from 4:30 to 6:30 here in the chambers. Uh we believe we only had two people show up. One of them was the groundskeeper of the baseball field. Uh both people were on board with it. Didn't have any concerns.

Thank you. And we did notice everybody within 300 ft. Although that's not usually required for an ordinance amendment. This does have a specific location in mind. So we decided to do that and we invited them to theformational meeting as well. Okay. Thank you for that. And I do understand the applicant's here as well. If you have anything you'd like to share with us podium.

Yes. My name is Jason Riggs uh with Kimley Horn. Um yeah, so basically we're looking to amend the uh zoning or ordinance overlay district number five Marshfield. Um the area uh that was there was originally a 20 foot by 40 foot which would only accommodate a tower and one carrier. So to get it in compliance with the uh collocation requirement also in your ordinance as well as Michigan law, we're looking to expand that area to allow for future collocation as well. That's the intent there. Uh in amending the ordinance. Okay. Do any commissioners have questions for the applicant at this time? Seeing none. This Go ahead.

I'm not quite clear exactly where. I mean, I see this the the the map. I see them. I'm not quite clear exactly where relative to the If you look a couple pages down, we superimposed it over an aerial. Uh so it's at the corner of Hullbrook and Gyrock. Where can you move to the tower be? Yeah. Where is the tower? Where will the tower be located? The tower will be right here on the other side. So towards the field between the field and the walking path. Yes. Okay. Is but will those trees need to be removed or they can you can you can navigate around the trees there?

So one of the trees may have to come down. I mean ultimately we would have a landscape. So if you're looking at the kind of outer perimeter almost looks like a U shape, right? So that 10-ft area would be for uh either existing landscaping or uh additional landscaping. Uh that would be the intent. The actual area for the tower facility would be 40 by 40. So to clarify, there are two trees in this space and you're saying one may need to be removed.

Correct. But if and again this is only if you know we get to the point where we go and or proposing the new tower uh and get to that point we'd have a landscape plan where we'd add much more and additional landscaping around the whole facility. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Oh, I'm sorry. Now for the applicant. Okay. And to the the tower would be replacing the uh existing stadium light. You would be replacing the existing stadium light, correct? That the tower would ultimately replace that pole and the new light or the lighting would be replaced and that's the intent of that area and probably why it was chosen by the city.

The light would be placed elsewhere or that tower would have both the light and you'd have additional um fixtures or or space capacity for cellular. Yeah, the the tower would be taller than what the existing pole is. Okay. Uh, and who currently has the responsibility for maintaining those lights? Do they have access to uh the um clippers? Sorry. Okay.

Okay. Any other questions for the applicant at this time? Seeing none, this is a public hearing, so I would open it to the floor. If anybody would like to speak on this item in the audience, you may come forward now. Seeing none, we'll open it to the phones. The number is 231-724-6721. Specifically regarding this public hearing, you may call now. Seeing none, I would take a motion to close the public hearing.

So move to moved and supported to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any oppose say no. All right. And then any additional discussion from commissioners with a motion and then you can go with a motion. Uh I move the the request to amend section 2321 of the zoning ordinance to allow wireless communication service facilities as a special use permitted at the location identified in the survey be recommended to the city mission for approval. Second. Supported. Any discussion? Yield to Mr. Manager. Um, so just to to clarify, Mike, this is to amend the ordinance. This isn't the actual special use permit.

Correct. This will be a recommendation to the city commission. Uh, this will go to the February 24th meeting where they will ultimately vote on approving or denying that. If it's approved, it'll give the applicant a chance to apply for the special use permission, which will come back just to the planning commission. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that was clear for the folks watching. Thank you. same question for clarification. But to piggyback on that then when um if this does get adopted by the city commission um and the applicant comes back seeking that permit, that's when we could um when we talk about landscaping, that's where we could have conditions as part of the special um and we go over the special use permit conditions and all of that. Okay. Thank you. Any other discussion?

Good. Seeing none. Okay. There is a motion on the floor to approve item A. Roll call, please. Commissioner Blake, yes. Gun, yes. Cipher, yes. Johnson, yes. And Willlette Loy,

yes. Motion approved. All right. Public hearing B, case 2026-03. requests to amend the zoning ordinance to define veterinary clinic and to allow them in several zoning districts B2B4 FBCMS uh FBCNE FBCN FBC MSW LFBC-LC and LFBC planning.

Thank you. Um so we have been uh working with Glen Park Animal Hospital who's located on Sherman. They are looking at a new facility. Um they proposed one uh at the end of last year and we had noted that it actually wasn't allowed in Lakeside. Uh this they found another location in Lakeside uh that they're interested in, but again it's not allowed. Uh staff looked into it a little more and instead of having them apply to amend the ordinance, uh we decided that our ordinance may be a little outdated when it comes to vets. Currently, they're allowed as a use by right in B2. I'm sorry, as a special use permit in B2 and a use by right in B4. However, they're not allowed in our formbbased codes, and there's a lot more form-based code districts now. Uh, so we believe it's a fairly compatible use. Uh, the one distinction we did want to make is the building types, um, and how those approvals could look. You know, we think if you're in a retail build type building and you don't have any, you know, shared walls or anything, um, that seems pretty standard for, uh, a veterinarian. If you're in a mixeduse building, um, it's probably good to hold a public hearing. We had the cat cafe, uh, hearing a few months ago, and that's worked out great, but there were some people with some concerns, so I think we did a good job of working it out at the special use permit, put some conditions on there. Uh so I do think it should be um people should be notified if it's in a shared type of building. So you can see the type of buildings that we requested um in these certain context areas. Uh whether it's a mixeduse building requiring special use permits, S indicates special use, P indicates um permitted by right. Um so you can see how we change those. Also, we don't even have a definition for a veterary clinic.

Um, so we decided to add that as well. You can see uh noted in the staff report. And the way the ordinance currently works, uh, it talks about animal or veterinarians with or without commercial kennels. Um, so different cities write theirs differently. Um, ours focuses more on, you know, are you going to have overnight stays or possibly outdoor uh animals and we allow that in our industrial districts, which we don't have any, but it seems like um a fairly good spot if you're going to have outdoor kenneling. our definitions. It was left out of the proposed definition as from the veterinar from the veterinary clinics, but to note that it they will not have uh commercial kennels in these unless it would be in the I2. So,

um we have the definition for kennel and it says more than three dogs or four cats. So, as long as an animal hospital did not uh have more than that overnight, and that's pretty uncommon. I had a lengthy conversation with Glen Park just to get more familiar with veterinary clinics, and they don't do any overnight uh lodging, but I think it would be reasonable to expect that some vets may have to have a single animal overnight. Um, but that's not the same as a commercial kennel where they're holding numerous ones, you know, for a day or a week. So that distinction has been made uh in this ordinance.

Okay. Thank you for that thorough report. Um we are the applicant. So we don't have an applicant. Um but we do have this as a again as a public hearing. So I will allow anybody in the audience who has input on this item to come forward at this time. Seeing none, we can open the phones. 2317246721. Nothing coming in. Okay. Motion to close the public hearing. Would take one of those. Uh so moved. Support.

Moved and supported to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. I. All those oppos say no. All right. So public hearing is closed. I would take a motion on this item. I move that the amendments to the veterinary clinics be recommended to the city commission for approval as proposed. Support. All right. Moved and supported on item B. Any further discussion from the commissioners? I was going to say this this makes sense to me. Uh we have dog grooming in different areas that you know have similar context codes. Um and it you know as a pet parent who likes to walk places, it would be nice to be able to walk to a vet. Um, so I think that this makes sense to me.

Okay. Um, as part of this, uh, do we need to also adopt in that definition or is that part of this entire motion? It's a tart. It's part of the entire motion. Okay. We're including defining of veterinarian. Okay. Clinic. But I also wanted to add I um appreciate you uh doing a little bit of the hair splitting there with the uh kennels and

saying this is not what we're talking about and um coming up with uh what I think are reasonable limitations but also acknowledging that there might be a pup or a kit overnight for whatever reason. I would say my concerns have been met. One would just be you know as a neighbor. So again, we would have a public hearing if there was a shared um use on the property. And then also I have had to have a cat overnight somewhere. So that certainly seems like something a clinic might choose to do. And so everything I would think of has been addressed at this point. Okay. Been motioned and seconded. I would take a roll call, please. Commissioners Willy, yes. Johnson, yes.

Cipher, yes. Yes. and Blake. Yes. All right. Motion passes. We now have unfinished business. Anyone have unfinished business today? Seeing none. New business. Looks like we have 2026-04 request to amend the planning unit development at Hartshorn Village 0 Boardwalk Cove Drive parcel 24-427-0000-0000-00 by Hartshorn Village. Staff report, please.

Uh, yes. So, staff is um recommending that this be considered a minor amendment to the PUD. the planning commission has the ability to decide whether it's minor or major. Minor can be adopted uh today or if it was a major it would require a public hearing. So they would need to come back and we would do the public notification requirements. Um however this is pretty small amendment to the site plan of the PUD. Um, it's asking to add two more single family houses where it was just a little bit extra land up in the northwest corner uh of the residential part of the development. Uh, that would also include moving the walking path, eliminating one of the walking paths to the bike path and realigning the other one and also to change the topography uh of the development. about half as much of the fill as initially proposed um will be brought in and it's really a realignment of some of the houses. So I can let uh the representative for the development here explain that a little bit further. Um they also had so it's two two more single family units they were proposing to for a total of 22. They actually had an idea for a 23rd unit. Um, try to pull that up.

Go down. If you see where the drive is, that goes um north south and there's like a little island. If you see where my mouse is here,

um they proposed a 233rd unit there, but it's much smaller uh of a parcel and I'm not sure the the housing types that are approved as part of the PUD would necessarily fit in there. So, I wanted to see a little more uh information and the developer sounded like they weren't exactly sure how that would work or if it would be a shed or a house, but I said um it should probably be a little more thought out before being brought here. However, the planning commission does have the purview to also say house could be pl placed here if we wanted to do that or we could ask that more information be brought at a later date.

Can we zoom in on this slightly? Yeah. It's right there. Okay. So, can you just walk back a little bit more through? We're looking at adding two additional units. Yes. That would be units 21 and 22 right here. And just south of that in between the drives, they had an idea for a 23rd, but as you can see, it's not nearly as large as the other lots.

And you also mentioned a change in grade. I know that nearby we've had some flooding issues. So, how do you anticipate this might I probably ask the applicant to address address that. And then I'll change to the um path as well. Yes, the path.

Try to show you how it currently looks. It was on. I'm not seeing it. No, that's the bike path. There should be a path. It might not be the right page. Were you talking the bike path or were you talking to No, there's a walking path. Okay. Yeah.

I just wanted to look at each item that we're adjusting here. Yeah. in context. So, here is what it was initially approved as. You can see there's a a path to the left of number 20 and to the right of number 15. Everybody see those?

Mhm. And if we go to the proposed plan, we see one has been eliminated on the left where the houses will be and the other one will be pushed a little more to the east. We're on the right page. This right here in between 16 and 17. Do we currently have sidewalk included along the roads in this development? Not on the the road. It's a fairly It's more like a shared drive. Yeah, it's more of a shared drive

than a traditional subdivision neighborhood or something like of that nature. I think the from my understanding the intent was that the the bike path and the sidewalks on the lake side were kind of the sidewalks for the neighborhood. Um and then that was a shared driveway in the back.

Yeah. I was just trying to understand how the residents would access those nearby amenities, right? Like would they need to then go out into their driveway and then walk all the way around or was there an opportunity for them to engage Okay. All right. So, we're looking at doing this as simply a um yay or nay versus a public hearing. So, I would take a motion. We said we have the applicant here as well. Yes. The applicant want to come forward. We'll do that first.

Good afternoon. Justin Longstrath with Mo and Brew engineers representing the applicant. uh I'm the engineer that put the PD plans together that are in front of you today. Um in general, I think it is a pretty minor request. There is u some great um desire to have some additional lots. Uh the market is supporting some additional lots on that side. So that's where we've looked at shifting some of those around to create a few extra. Uh the road configuration or the private drive configuration and everything towards foranos is really the same as what was in the original PUD. So we're only talking about the lots that front on the marina itself. Uh we've added two more and shifted the the walking path around like what was discussed. As far as the grading is concerned, when you look at the grading that was proposed in the original PUD or even the PUD amendment that was approved in 2024, it really created a pretty flat plateau across all of those lots with a pretty steep drop off where we're showing lot 22. What we're trying to do is work more with the existing contours where you may have a couple of lots that are at one elevation, then it drops down and kind of steps its way north, which is a little bit closer in alignment with the existing grading that's on site. Um, by doing that it allowed us to effectively cut the required fill in half from what was originally needing to be brought on site. So, a lot less material to be brought on. Grading still works. Um, roads, utilities, they all work with the new grading plan, but that was the impetus behind that.

Do we as of yet have any uh elevations of this intended? Um, we do have approved elevations. uh they had already been approved. They weren't asking to change any. There's a few different housing types and they range from one story to all the way up to three stories. Any other questions for the applicant? Yeah. Um Justin, lot number 22, would it would its driveway be off of the the shared road with Forcanos?

It would be um it would be a similar situation to if you pan down a little bit. Um, lot 11 also, okay, would be in that same configuration.

Um, I should also point out we've had multiple conversations with the city's engineer on storm water and we're quite a ways down the path with those discussions as well. I know that's not really what we're talking about today, but just forformational purposes. Um and then maybe what I'll also talk to um because staff had mentioned it was lot 23. Um that area is very similar in the last version of the PUD. It was just kind of a leftover and one of the things that the applicant was just theorizing is is there something that we could do there other than open ground. In talking with staff, we're not far enough along in any sort of development of what that might be. And so we really want to kind of take that off the table right now. Um, it is an odd shaped lot and kind of left over, so we don't want to um, force anything there.

Okay. Any other questions? Sorry, you're fine. Um, and kind of get back to the chair's question from earlier, Justin. The um, the grade changes and there is some wet areas just to the west of that. Are you guys concerned about that at all? Are you above where that where that might get wet? Because it does if you just cross that road there along the bike trail, there's an area that gets swampy. It's an emerging wetland. Yeah, it's an emergent wetland. So, just want to make sure that you guys are conscious of that.

Yeah. Um, as part of the drainage plan for this, I think we have an opportunity with our grading to direct some of that runoff to the structures, the storm structures that we're building as part of this phase of the development. So, I think we can help direct some of that to where we want to go as opposed to just pushing it to the west. Okay, great. Um, is there an assessment of the total amount of um non-porous surface now that we've increased the properties? That would be part of the storm water calculation, right? It would be part of the storm water. They're going to have to amend their plan. So, that will need to be approved in order this to move forward.

Yes, it does. Um but from a planning standpoint, uh it's two more developments that are going to be um probably less porous or less concrete than open space. So, uh it's it shouldn't be too difficult to treat the storm water with as much green space as uh the lots are providing. Anything on this side? Mr. Gar, do you have anything? No. Good. Okay. Also,

I have a question. Does the addition of the two additional additional lots, does that add to the timeline or is it the same? Um, it it will remain the same. Okay. I think from a timeline perspective, construction pending an approval and making sure that we meet all of the storm water requirements from the city engineer. I think construction wants to start on this pretty soon as weather breaks, which hopefully is sooner rather than later. Thank you. Okay, that's all for me. You have one last

uh how many lots have been built or are under construction presently at this site? Um, in phase two, none. I'm not sure. In phase one, last I was out there, it's maybe three or four. There's three up and one going up now. And there's another one, I think, with foundation they put down there, though. So, there should be five. Okay. So, three fully built. One's underway. And there's not a fifth one that's I don't think so. The third one, I think, is being finished and the fourth one's being laid. Okay.

Yeah. The one closest to the road is the onetory newest. And so you intimated earlier though that this where you 21 to 22 could be going is more attractive, more appealing. So you have someone essentially lined up to construct there then versus elsewhere because we're we're talking about 22 expansion of 22 and we're like four in. Um so we're just just scratching surface of the number of units contemplated here. The applicant has had interest in lots along that stretch. I'm not sure which of those lots specifically. I don't I can't say for sure today if it was 21 or two if that was part of it or if it was somewhere between 16 and say 20.

I don't know the answer to that, but I do know he has had interest in lots in that stretch. Okay. And what what's the dimensions for what's contemplated from lot 22? other dimensions. Um while he's looking for that um is this we would have determined this previously but um is this going to be an HOA this entire development going to be an HOA individual? I believe so.

I don't have the dimensions. cuz we'd have to measure it. He does have that the building. We're talking about 22. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. And so you mentioned earlier in terms of building design though that there are some that could be three stories. So ostensibly a three-story building could house could be built at what we're considering potentially lot 22. How does it interplay with the um consumer's energy easement that runs right through that that on this schematic in any way?

Yeah, what's that right there? The dotted line. Yeah, it's right next to the driveway. They're going to have to I assume stay a certain amount of distance away from that. So they wouldn't be able to build within that possible within the That's the question is is that possible within that?

Well, um I guess even if we approved it, if they were allowed to do it, they would still have to meet all the requirements of any setbacks from um easements uh including D and DTE consumers, whoever it is. Um so we're we're saying from a zoning perspective, it's okay, but all the other factors would have to come into play, too. Um So, I'll just say that I'm okay with 21. I'm okay with the change to the walkway. I'm a little uneasy about 22. So, I have not I'm not settled on 22 personally. Um,

have you um while you're up here, have you contemplated the distance from this easement? Do you intend to build in that space? um we can't build in that space, but we can also work with consumers to relocate that easement if necessary. And so without knowing exactly what building footprint might be elected to go in that space, it's a little difficult for me to answer if we would need to move it or not. Um I I that lot is large enough to support the footprint for the approved buildings. It may just require some coordination with consumers to move or adjust easement lines.

Okay. So, it sounds to me that they would need to move that easement potentially in order to build what they intend to build there. Um, which some of your concern the viewshed or Yeah. Well, awesome. The interplay with the easement, you know, if it's going to require ement to be relocated, if it has to stay, it just sounds like it might not be buildable. But yeah, I was wondering when speaking about the prospect of a three-story building going right there, um it would diminish the viewshed looking down the driveway and we're already losing more and more of our view sheds and our master plan does call for preserving and expanding viewsheds where possible.

Um I I'm supportive. We're only talk we we're talking about two lots. Um and this seems to be a very minor amendment especially when you look at the uh two different iterations uh what had been proposed. Um it's certainly uh a less dense uh proposal than uh when we had approved uh condo buildings uh you know mini highrises if you would. Um, so it it it in in my mind it's it's very minimal. And uh I think it was last week I saw or heard or was told uh four additional lots uh were closed on

uh with within the development. That's pretty good.

Thank you for that. Um again, so we're looking at from a public perspective as they would enter this overall property, um there's basically a triangle. It comes to a close there and building in that end corner would would affect the view I think uh quite considerably. um just for me entering the space and and entering a public park space. Obviously, it's it's not city property, but there would be an impact to the way that it's viewed as you come down that road.

So, I guess and I would counter Yes, I do think it would impact view, but the view there is of a corner of the marina and over towards the Boys and Girls Club. It's not a viewed of the lake. The view of the lake wouldn't really be impacted. you're looking into the well, but I mean that's direct. Yeah, I think and I think the idea is that the easement is really kind of gives us that that additional viewshed. Um so I think that's where we're stuck. But also it's not the entrance to the park. The entrance to the park is down Adelaide Boulevard. Um that's an exit from the park. Um not an entrance by vehicle. Yeah. Not pedestrian easement. There's a requirement there. Yeah.

Yeah. So, and then the bike trail where a lot of people experience is on the other side, so it wouldn't impact that. Um, I would agree um with Commissioner Garin that it's a minor amendment um in the overall footprint of the project. So, if I may add one thing too, and you know, I do appreciate the, you know, the consideration of a viewshed, but I think we'd have a lot le there's a lot less uh um elimination of a potential viewshed to this than past iteration with a block building or two. Um and uh you're you're not going to have a rectangle taking up a you know a a quarter block uh potential one or two structures.

I guess the question becomes um you know what impediment are we requiring by not not including 22 that would you know eliminate the potential for a unit to be built there. Um, but it does sound like in order to build there, you would need to likely adjust the consumer's easement. That implications of moving the consumer's easement for the newbies here. Is that a cost to the city? Is no no that it's all on consumers.

So, as you can see, um, we're showing on the screen here coming down this road, you have power lines on the right. So, consumers has an easement there. Um, the sideline benefit to that easement is that nothing is built there. So, we can see through it. Get down the road. Yeah, you can actually go down the road a little bit more. I'm down the road. And that's why I was starting trying to get the idea. Yep. Let's follow that truck. Um, just see if you can go a little farther.

Yeah, you can get all the way. It goes all the way through. And so I just just for the public's sake I would add that you know we we consider a marina to be you know a commercial enterprise but it is really considered a type of park to many folks and many folks do enjoy the view of a marina as compared to other land uses. So that can you back it up a little bit? Yeah like and then too far. you know, Marina View is going to be a sellable asset versus other things for sure.

But just saying when when you're still coming up the road, you'll still have everything in front of you and to the left with the view of the lake where that house would be um to the right of that tree as from from a viewpoint. So there there is some there, but it you'd still have a good What alternative easement do you anticipate might be suggested? What was that? What alternative easement have you contemplated if you needed to request one

um from consumers? Um I think what it would entail is probably a relocation if necessary. So you still would have an easement, but it would just shift over to allow for the footprint of the house. Any other thoughts?

Yeah, I'll just uh I guess reiterate that I I would support this with just the 21 and with the sidewalk path being changed with regard to 22 and 23 since 23 is not before us. It's may or may not be be buildable. That's an open question. It also has a easement going directly through it. Um, IC22 is in a similar vein. Maybe it's not quite as uh complicated as 23, but it's fairly close to similar um maybe not the topography, but size and also an easement running right through it. Uh consumers energy easement running right through it. So, I guess my proposals would be have 22 and 23 come back. You know, if that's something that they wanted to do in the future, come back with that. I mean, I will I will support 21 and the sidewalk graph. Um not 22 at this time. That's my view.

Random question, Mike. Is it possible that if if we were to approve 22, even though the um elevations allow for a threetory, could we say that that one couldn't be more than a onetory? Sure, you could put put a condition on that. Is that I'm not so sure. Just the idea concept here. I'm not so sure it's the height and you build anything, you block the view. Yeah. It's not so much the height. It's it's just the idea. And we've talked about this in the past that the view of everyone contributes to the kind of sense and quality of life of people who live much farther away from the actual property. Um, and so taking taking away that corner

once it's up, you're like, "Oh, it's there." And it definitely impacts it. I don't think the height personally is going to make a difference.

Can I ask a question? Oh, sorry. Oh. Um, what I would just put in there, I mean, they're asking for two, uh, two more sites and so it's redrawn within the PUD minimally, but the ground existed beforehand. Even drawn this way, would that have precluded a structure on a portion of that dirt as it was anyway? you know, in in the last two PUDs, you know, so are are we throwing in uh uh an impediment, you know, to the property owner on this? Uh

do we have the currently approved because we're we're we're only assuming, you know, that this was always going to be it's right there uh an empty piece of dirt, but but in past iterations, the current PUB is empty. there's a pathway going through and it's empty open space. So, you wouldn't be able to build a structure there without a amendment to the PUB. Okay.

So, um so doing math here, Justin, uh we all would have to vote to approve it by the number of people here. Would it be uh to the mayor's point it looks like we've got enough for the one. Would it would that be an acceptable path forward? and then taking a look at how those other two might come out in the future. Or is it all or nothing? No, I mean I'm not going to stand up here for the applicant and say y

that we um that we don't want any sort of approval uh on this. So I think if there is an opportunity that at some point in the future we come back and have a specific discussion about 22 maybe with some renderings. I I can see both sides, but uh I look at the Google Street View that had been pulled up and there is a pretty considerable viewshed still. Now, I understand um from the commissioner standpoint, it would block certainly some of the marina, but if we could come back maybe with some renderings or some elevation views overlaid, that might help show that a bit more. Uh maybe that's something that we can do. Um, I think if you look at the PUD that was approved previously, I think there may have been even some grading that extended into that vacant spot that would have I mean maybe not certainly not obscured a view as much as what a house would, but it there was some things going on on that site anyway. Um, but if we could be open to additional conversations in the future, then I think that we would be open to that.

I appreciate that flexibility. I think that uh the folks on this board are trying to balance the idea of the the future use of this space and how it's going to be very intermingled between, you know, potential new residents, um parkland and and different uses. And so, um I would agree that I'm I'm happy on on 20 um 21 for now. And um but if you have the opportunity to come back when it it's more potentially if it's more pressing um and we have more of a sense of what the future of the property is really going to look like, I would be happy to take it that way. I think we might have a motion. Okay.

Um I'll take it. Um and then tell me if I do it right, mayor. Um I move to approve the amendment for the Hart Shore Village Plan Unit development adding lot 21. Um as it is a minor amendment. Support. Okay. Motion and support on the floor. Any final discussion from the commission? Seeing none, I will take a roll call, please. Commissioners Blake, yes. Yes. Cipher, yes. Johnson, yes. And yes. Thank you. Appreciate your time.

Thank you. Okay, let's get back to that agenda. Thanks, Justin. See you. All right, just the full front agenda, please page if you would. I think we're moving on to a few other items. Get up to my front page there. There we go. Okay. So now under any other business looks like we have election of officers planning wants to let us know how that

so uh Leah is currently our chairperson and Destiny is our vice chair and we need to do elections again. So we will take a recommendation from someone a motion.

Are you inclined to continue serving the role as chair available and interested if such nomination occurs? I mean I've served as well as chair so I don't necessarily see it over the compelling reason to make a change. No, you know, um so I move to um appoint Leah Wlette Loy to another term as chair of the planning commission. Second. Do you want to do both in the same motion or separately? I'm happy to save time.

We can do them together. Um then we I move to reappoint Leah with La Royoy as as chairperson and Destiny Kener, Vice Mayor Destiny Kenir as vice chairperson um for the planning commission. Okay, there's a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Motion and a second. And I think we should do roll call on that one. I second with love. All right, commissioners will yes and thank you Johnson. Yes. Cert. Yes. Yes. And yes.

All right. Wonderful. Now we have planning commission representative on the zoning board of appeals. We have an update there. Yes. Jill Montgomery was our representative from the planning commission on the ZBA. So now we need to have someone else. We don't need to elect anybody I believe but just want to see if there's any interest from anyone on the board. Commissioner Garin, would you be interested in that was going to be mine serving on the zoning board of appeals? Sure. Okay. Looks like we have some interest to be very often.

Um did you state this is not an official appointment just a recommendation? We make a recommendation to the CRC that then makes a recommendation to the city commission. Then the city commission makes the formal appointment. Okay. Um we can do a So I move to recommend the appointment of uh Steve Galin as the planning commission representative on the zoning board of appeals. And that term is for how long? Until someone Until someone Oh, it's in it's in know. The city commission will take care of that term. Yeah. It's in our CRC packet. The expiration of the term. I don't know off the top of my head. All right. Forever.

And then again, this is just a recommendation. So, we will submit that to the committee. Um, roll call. We have a second. Second. Oh, you did me to it. All right. Commissioners Blake, yes. No. Yes. Cipher. Yes. Johnson. Yes. And Royo.

Yes. And thank you for continuing to be involved, folks. All right. Item C. Does anybody have any urgent business they need to get to this evening? If not, I would like to move into this item in some depth. Okay. Um, so we don't have a full board today, but we do have a quorum. So, I'd like to get talking about some of these goals. If necessary, we can extend this topic into our next meeting as well. staff update, please.

Uh, yep. We are requesting that we come up with a list of goals. It's one of the requirements as our status of a redevelopment ready communities. Uh, we did this last year. Um, there's no set number of goals we need to focus on. Anything that um, anybody is heavily considering? Not sure if I listed it on here, but we've had some more discussions lately about Well, yeah, here. Um, reszoning certain business districts to foreignbased code. I think that would help uh many of the the zoning districts in terms of redevelopment and walkability, parking, all of those issues. Um, also there's been some discussions about allowing more residential in these business zones and that's allowed through the form based code. So, uh, you know, housing was a big issue for us last year, the past couple years, and as far as planning goes, um, we've approved just about every type of housing development allowable. Um, so maybe now it's time to look at how we can incorporate more into our commercial districts uh because we simply don't have the amount of residential lots available to meet our housing needs assessment. So the goals identified in that. So that could be uh definitely a good one. We do have some cleaning up of some ordinances. Uh B1 and B2 are very similar. Staff has some ideas about how to consolidate some of those. V3 we don't even use anymore. That was our downtown which is form based code now. Um RT has pretty much been replaced by the R districts because now we allow for duplexes there. So there's some cleaning up of the ordinance. We could make it quite a bit smaller and more readable by eliminating those.

Um staff's working on some signage ordinance updates. Uh but we can pretty much just present those to you. Landscaping improvements are always welcomed. Uh, one thing I I would really like to see and we already do this in our formbbased code, but institute um maximum lot widths in our our district. So, uh, people can't acquire several lots maybe from the land bank or from their neighbors that are undeveloped. There's a few of them throughout the city where people have, you know, six to eight lots and one house on them. So, we'd like to be able to avoid that in the future. We mentioned low impact design that could go along with the master plan. Uh especially in our natural habitats section,

see there's a link to that. I don't know that I clicked on that previously. Um

just some ideas that you can show what can be done in parking lots. Uh we talked about uh maybe some landscaping requirements as a buffer zone to the water. There's not a ton of developable land that's not already planned for along the waterfront, but as houses get replaced over the years along the waterfront that could potentially be beneficial. Good information to review here to consider as we take you forward. Okay, there's one more item on your staff suggested list, I believe.

And um the master plan also talks about identifying community needs as it pertains to PUDS. So there's a discussion on waterfront access, public access. Staff's actually working on proposing that again. We tabled that last year

uh around the middle of the year um and we were asked to kind of make some updates to that. So, we're doing that now. But the plan also talks about, you know, what would be beneficial for each neighborhood if there is a planned unit development, whether that's a playground in a desperately needed area, waterfront access, um, community center.

And as a reminder, a PUD is, you know, typically a benefit to a developer. So there is an opportunity to engage with the community and determine, you know, how everyone can benefit from that. So that's why we have that within the PUD process.

So there it might be worthwhile taking a look at each neighborhood and trying to identify the needs of that. That might be a little bit more relevant for staff to go out into the neighborhoods and neighborhood associations and try to do that. So not sure if that's necessarily planning commission. So for these seven um suggestions from staff you mentioned that some of them are already for example sign ordinance update you're already kind of move forward who's some potential suggestions there otherwise I think it would be helpful to understand maybe a timeline like what are we what are we considering as when we should address these items because then we have the actual goals that we're going to go through and there's probably a lot of things we're going to want to talk about and specifics but as far as these um is this something that we could come back about in a given amount of time like could we look at sign ordinances next month for example or do you need more time?

Um I would say we would need a couple months notice on on some things. Signage is probably further along than everything. So we wouldn't have it ready for March, but April we could. Okay. The deadline for the next meeting is already today. So

and Brian will be back for the April meeting. Okay. I only asked because as these are just the goals for the year, we're already kind of working our way through the first quarter and then as folks start doing spring planning is when folks are going to come to us more with, you know, ideas as well. So, if we can have a sense of what a potential timeline could look at for these so they don't fall off the wayside, that be good. Well, I think maybe ranking them would help staff Okay. uh be able to come up with a timeline better.

Uh personally, I would say that the the consolidating the um business district resoning, uh the lot width, those are items that I think staff is regularly looking at. And so, as soon as you're able to get those to us would be fine um for review. As far as signage, landscaping requirements, impact design standards, and community needs, I think those require a little bit of thought and review of what, you know, what the board is expecting compared to the master plan and some potential what are some resources we haven't looked at. What are some potential new opportunities to engage on those? Um, so of those, do do folks have something that is of priority to them that they would like us to do with staff or get public input on in the nearest future?

Do you have a priority item on your end

of these? Oh. Um, all of them that it it may make not too much difference, but I think at least to have it in ink. You have uh uh task leaders in in the columns. uh my recommendation would to take a clearer look at that and insert planning into uh a certain number of these places because I think it's essential that uh an eye of planner is part of the consideration and that's not a knock against you know engineers or anybody else but you know planning is doing the work day in and day out with really parsing what it means to rebuild or restore neighborhoods, um, legacy business corridors, etc. And I and I think um uh the the input is essential and and I think the proof definitely the proof's in the pudding for the work that's been done out of planning um you know going back to the mid uh 2000s and the implementation of uh uh new old planning concepts such as you know formed base code

and you know uh uh how can we uh better have uh street design Um because sometimes when you you know you throw out the term short blocks. Well, I I I think it's essential that we're in there to really impress what the heck a short block is and how detrimental, you know, long blocks are. Um you know, for for any of us urbanists. Um I just I would just Yeah, we're going to get into the details of all those other goals, right? I mostly am asking the ones in front of us. So, we have signage ordinance updates, right? Landscape.

And that's where I was getting, you know, like uh like goal to insert yourself more there, you know, uh uh planning. Uh we're going to come back, trust me, in just a second here. Goal set.

Do you have any of these items that are I think of more priority than the other if we were to come back on say April and and request that we revise them? you know, pick one of these to come back type. Really quick, just to piggy back on the comment though, we forgot the long blocks. Um, reopen Fifth Street. So, or connect Fifth Street across the way since since, uh, because we've got a a super long block and we talked about extending Fifth Street across Shortland Drive. So, um, that was somewhere in our goals or plans. So, I don't I would I would like an update on that. I mean, that was that was from a time ago that we talked about wanting to have a drawing and everything, didn't we? Yeah. So, I'm just wondering like where that might be at.

Okay. So, we'll we'll check our goals and if not, we'll put it somewhere. Um, add that to the list for the folks over here on my right again. Is there any of these that are of more priority to you that we can ask staff to come back to us about for April? signage ordinance updates, community visits, communities, low impact design, and landscape requirements. I'll defer to the rest of the board. Okay. Well, then I'm going to request that we focus on landscape design

requirements. I think that that's come up regularly from community members as far as buffers, waterfront development that we need to have a good conversation about what, if any, revisions we need to make. Um, and then we can look at signage after that. That would be my next next on the list of the ones I mentioned. The rest I think you guys have a handle on what you're expecting us to look at and you'll bring it to us when you get it ready. Sound good? Yeah. Okay, that would be nice. But you also gave us a list of the ongoing goals by item and some of us have had the opportunity to review them in detail. Mike Mike knows I have a vendetta against the residential lot with minimums and maximums. So yeah. That's probably the maximum lots.

Yeah. Information is important to you. Okay. Um, can we take a look at the list of goals that you set um on the screen? Uh, starting with the E. We've got E1.2 is where I started making some notes. Do you have anything before that? Let's see. Goal one. There we go. Okay. Goal one. Anybody have any comments or questions with E1.1? I already did. Say that again. I said I already did. Okay. Insert ourselves in in many places.

Insert ourselves. Okay. Just be more more involved in all conversations. At least at least planning staff, you know, to bring that perspective in. I think it's continually essential. Okay. It's the it's about the built environment and sometimes we're too siloed. Again, like I said, not not not to pick points on any other department, but uh and DS is development services. Yeah, just to for clarification, planning is a part of development services. Sometimes I wrote planning just because it's the planning department going to be working on it. But if it's going to be the whole department or the whole division, this will be the development services division.

Okay. So E1.1 um planning more at the forefront is the request. E1.2 I made a note uh regarding Brunswick. Just a question of whether we have any momentum or thoughts on the Brunswick property and whether that's something we can keep our eyes on. We we do keep our eyes on it. Um we've been unsuccessful in getting uh Brunswick to talk with us about the site. I do want to stress that um Brunswick Bowling Company here in Moskegan is not the Brunswick which owns the site. They've been a division.

Yeah. No, they're not even they're completely separate legal entities. Um we do have a good communication with the local Brunswick. The Brunswick that owns the site across Lake is uh radio silent. I see. So um we do try periodically uh both planning and public works um or sorry I should say development services and public works tries to communicate with them but we've had no success there. Road trips in order show up in their office. Yeah.

And so these are the kind of things I think that you know we we're not going to spend all day on all of these but I think it's just good to say have we looked at this goal? Have we made any attempt? Where are we stuck? So we're stuck because we're not getting anybody to talk to us. So thank you for that. Okay. Uh anybody I have 2.1 um a suggestion I had was just basically to kind of identify the features of pride in our neighborhoods. I think some of our neighborhoods if they don't describe like Marshfield we know that that is based around the park and there's a lot of you know pride around the the park itself. Some of our neighborhoods I'm not sure that other neighborhoods could tell you what about that neighborhood makes it interesting and special. So I think there's some opportunity for us as a city to kind of build a little bit more engagement in that way so that we all understand the different parts of our cities um and their kind of sense of personality and the sense of place. Um so I just I have that two cents about that one. Anybody else on E2.1 E2.2 um I was curious about Getty Street and actions we've been taking there. Yes, we've had several meetings um with businesses along the corridor. We're trying to get them to form a formal association and also talking about bids and corridor improvement authorities so they could address uh improvements through you know tax increment financing or assessments. So, I think we've just had our third meeting with them.

And still a little too early to say whether we can get the cooperation we'll need to see that through. Okay. Do you need any support from anybody else to help you do that? Now is the time to tell us.

One thing I I I forgot to link here is staff. We actually came up with a corridor improvement checklist. And one of the things I started noticing was, you know, throughout the years we've had all of these corridor improvement plans. And everybody gets kind of really excited about them at first and then not so much a couple months later and then even less so six months or a year. Uh, and then you get kind of bogged down in how thick they are. And then you start noticing that no matter what corridor is, they all kind of suggest the same thing. Slow down the speeds, widen the sidewalks, more public amenity infrastructure, things like that. So, what we've done is, and I'll share this for the next month, is create a checklist so that businesses can kind of self assess where they're at in terms of um what the zoning looks like. Would you have restrictions for expansion? Would a better zoning district help you? Um do you have an active business association where you work together? and staff can provide um sample documents on how to incorporate something like that. We're also educating them about corridor improvement authorities and business improvement districts and how that works with those assessments. Um parking, street amenities are the sidewalks wide enough is traffic too fast. So, we're having them fill these out or we're going to and then staff will be able to offer certain services to come in and educate them on, you know, what a proposed better zoning district would look like or how you would set up a CIA or a bid.

So, as a business owner in, let's say, the Gaddy Street District or, you know, one of our many specific business districts in town, if I want to engage in this conversation, how do I currently do that? you're have multiple just contact us at development services and we'll uh get you that checklist and you can either fill it out with your group or on your own or staff can walk you through it and then we'll took a take a look and come up with some results and some recommended paths forward. That way we don't have to wait for a formal corridor plan for every business corridor. we can assess where they're at now and the next um items they'd like to achieve to improve their districts.

Do we when you engage with the city of Moskegan's website as a business owner, you know, we have our headings of like kind of what how do you engage with the city, is it readily available that these resources are available? This new one uh just got finished last week, so that's not on there yet, but it will be. Um our development incentives are on our website. So, yeah, there's there's good resources. Uh, sometimes it helps to talk to staff first to help you navigate through that, though.

Awesome. All right. Thank you. I have E2.3. Anybody else have comments on that one? Okay. Um I did have an I a thought on um Century Club folks who I think you know we had some change over on folks um and the usage of that building. Do we know whether the tenants in that building have been have located other spaces? My initial thought was to suggest some things on Third Street, but we've had developments since that don't make that available. Yeah. Uh they've been working with our development analysts on relocating. not sure the status in all the businesses.

Sure. Initially, the reason I brought it up is because uh while we have new development going in on the end of Third Street, that was previously a large vacant building and there was thought of, you know, kind of a marketplace potential there, but that's not currently available. 1185 Third, that's uh that's going to be redeveloped, but that's new information since I wrote this down. Okay. Anything on your side? Not there yet. Okay. Uh 2.4 All right. Um, there was mention of a downtown tram. I don't know what that is. It's a big golf cart. It's a big golf cart that pulls people around. When do people get to use it? Uh, farmer market. Farmers. Yeah, farmers. Okay. So, it's operating during farmers market hours generally.

Yeah. Where does it go? Just around downtown. Um, it's sort of uh it's it circulates around downtown. You'll see it go up western in clay. Um, usually as far as Third Street, I think, is as far as I see it, and then up to Terrace. Um, well, it doesn't go to Terrace. It'll go down Jefferson. Um, I ask because where would I could I catch it to go to the farmers market? Yeah. Yeah, they would stop and pick you up. So, it's somewhere. Nope. Okay. They It just continually runs on Saturdays during busier times. It's a service that Ramos provides. Okay. Um, all right. And then of rainbows,

I mentioned u the folks have asked a lot about kind of culture along the bike trails and being able to, you know, have clear signage and outreach as to what it what the expectation of a user should be, especially with ebikes

um and and just kind of the culture. So just a conversation there about whether we can engage with especially visitors and residents more about how how best to engage on bike trails. Um and then 2.4 scooters. I made a mention about um youth but I'm not sure I can articulate it at the moment. I don't have anything else until E4.2. Anybody have anything? No. Nobody. Okay. Um, is the checklist for E4.2 in the um, is there an entrepreneur portal of some kind? Again, from that kind of business website standpoint. Is there a way that people, new businesses can get this information?

Uh, what type? Now, so it says create a community engagement portal to address the concerns and needs of local entrepreneurs. Does that already exist? No, not not beyond our development incentives.

Okay. So, we yeah, it's not actually a portal, but if if you were to go to the website and look at starting a business, uh you could get a hold of the business analyst, and then either uh Jocelyn or Isabella would go out and meet with you um and go over what um services we have, what requirements you have to have, business licenses, if you're doing a special land use, what all those processes are. So, we have staff who kind of can come around and help folks through that. Do we think we need to have this as a goal then to create this portal or do we think it already exists? It can be more robust. Yeah. Yeah. Strengthen it.

Use some additional resources and maybe tell people where to find it. Yeah. Okay. Uh and then I have E5.2. Anybody have Z? If anybody has something before me, just let me know. Um, I wanted to know if we are a tree city. Yes, we are.

Yeah, you have to have so many people on staff. I I talked to our our tree specialist on staff. You have to have so much funding dedicated to it. Um, I think you have to have two people on staff or something. It the threshold isn't um counting the trees or anything like that. It's about providing the resources to plant new trees. And I believe we are that again, right? We are a street city. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We've been for years now. Yeah. I thought we I thought it lapsed for a minute. I thought Dave told me Well, I mean, in the three plus years that I've been here, we we've

This was a while ago. I've signed it. I've signed it every single year. I've been mayor. Garin's probably signed it every single year. So, again, to become designated by organizations that will bring visibility and economic. So that was one that where I wanted to clarify like have we done that? Is that something that you know we've got on a sign somewhere? So we have I was actually talking a lot about the estuaries I believe in the master plan. Um I think there might be some potential there with the land swap in the estuary. So um as far as a n the national river estuary program that Grand Valley was looking at maybe. Yeah. Okay. Oh yeah. We'd like to get a NER. Yeah. Ner National Research and Reserve. Okay. And is that something that planning can help with then?

Perhaps. What was that? That planning can help with dialed in with I believe Scolton's office and GBS water resource institute about advancing a NER um in Moskegan. Yeah, we could try to set meetings up with the appropriate people at least. Okay. Again, I know that Grand Valley was involved in that at one point or at the very least have an understanding of what that would entail so that we can have that baked into our our our planning process and thoughts going forward because the last thing we want to do is is do something that

move forward and now we're preluded from having a NUR after the federal government finally says yes, you can have a NER because I as I understand it, the only thing holding up from us getting a NEUR is funding. um that that Noah has to have additional funding to then uh create a new NEUR um but that that's not happening. The governor has is supportive of a NUR here. I understand that Congress Golden has advocated for as well. GVC has been involved. So I think it's just a funding thing. So I think if we understood what like that would entail in terms of like space needed and accommodations that we just kind of have that okay

at the top of your mind or on our radar. So my point was what are the lists or things that award cities for their actions or what are the designations that we might want to try to achieve and so national estuaries is one that we've identified that we can look at and we'd ask staff to be aware of the requirements for that. Um we recently completed the shoreline trails and greenways plans. Um what of that are we now planning to incorporate into our ongoing planning? Have we had that conversation? We have not really started any concrete conversations at least in the planning department yet on that.

Okay. But it is complete and available. Um we're so I think that that's something that we should the work's been done of what people are interested in. So I think we should take it into consideration. We the city as well has participated in spending that money. Yeah. Um, okay. It's my understanding that the the Moskegan Area Parks and Greenway Coalition uh is going to be engaging different municipalities on moving from the planning to the implementation phase. What that looks like, all I know is it's done. We helped pay for it and so we've got what the answers are and actively participate in the process. Yeah.

Take a look at it. Okay. Uh then I don't have anything till T1.2. Anybody have anything before that? Well, I do want to because you talked about just you just mentioned uh Oh, that's to Mosqu Lake itself. No, I'll bring it up then. Nobody have anything in the ease potential. Okay. T1.2. Um I just made a note of whether Park Street, for example, could include a commuter path. It is very wide. That was just a local observation. I mean it runs the south part of it runs right by the bike path. Right. So the bike path, you know, and then Park Street goes north. So the question was, can we connect kind of more into the center of the city

potentially along Park Street? Just again, I recognize it's very wide. We are going to be connecting the the Lake Trail to the Lakeshore Trail um up Samford. So we will have that connection into the into the city core that way. Um, and then there had been a plan at some point in time, as uh, former commissioner Spataro informed me, of connecting that part of the Lake Trail eventually over to the Lakeshore Trail by the Boys and Girls Club somewhere in that area. That'd be wonderful. Um, but I'm not I'm not sure on what the actual path is there.

No. And there there was issues with properties including M Dot Mountains and Yeah. Yeah, that's true. And uh Uhhuh. I just put a tunnel straight through anyway. So yeah, they got rid of one the east west corridor and they put in that mound of dirt. Um Okay. So do we have this detailed? you're you're still working on the traffic volume and speed, but it doesn't necessarily acknowledge the street design components. So, we still have that in process. We were looking at basically places where the street is not necessarily a complete street.

What was the question? T1.2 is asking folks to create and maintain a detailed inventory of existing street design. I think the the reasoning would be to identify opportunities where it's not a complete street. I mean, we're constantly evaluating our streets. Um, we are not doing anything new. Um, we did just enter into this contract that that is going to produce the speed data which could help be a factor in

how we design our streets moving forward. There's also discussions. I mean, our master plan identifies different types of street types, but it's not exactly part of the ordinance or requirements.

I'm just looking at the goal in front of me. So, whether or not we're planning to create a detailed inventory or whether we think that that's not necessary, that's just where we're uh T5.2. Anybody else before that? Well, uh, while we're talking about, uh, design streets to save all uses street equitably, putting people first, um, getting updates on where we're at, if we've made any progress on reconfiguring Mos Parkway because that was the thing when we when we when we set aside the Shoreline Drive road diet and we're like, we're not moving forward with that. But it was understood that MDOT as it was explained to us that the MDOT required us to finish that study. So we did the phase two also at the urging of our residents in terms of you should do it in the middle of the the summer. So um we did a phase two for that but also to satisfies MDOT's requirement of like we need this data to inform consideration of reconfiguring Moses Parkway. And so when we left it and said, "Okay, we're not doing Shoreline Drive right now, but we Mos Parkway is a priority and is in still important in terms of reconfiguring and narrowing that." And so, have we advanced that whatsoever? Um,

you don't have the answer right now, but I'm just like that I just want to bring that to the forefront of our of our goals and like are we thinking it's something that has to be 10 years from now or is it something that we think you know what that's possible within a certain space of time? I think that's the question. We'll keep it on the radar. Point of information, I guess. I have to deal with a matter. You'd like to Oh, you need to leave. Yeah. Okay. Um um I did explain that we might need to do this in two parts. Yeah. So, um and I I think I asked everybody but you if they had to leave.

Um so, we've gotten through all the ease and we're on T point T1.2. So, if we can kind of make a note of note of that that I'd like to go through the rest of them at our next meeting. Um, and we hopefully have additional folks present and that we've already asked staff to address uh the goals they've put forward and prioritize landscaping. Um, to bring that back to us if you could in April. Back to the agenda. No public comment. I just made sure I didn't miss anything before that. No.

Okay, I didn't. So now we would be on general public comment. There is nobody in the audience. So I will go to the phones. 231-724-6721. If you have a comment on anything we've discussed today um or other business for the planning commission, you may call in now. I am not seeing any calls coming in. Motion to adjurnn. There's a motion to adjurnn and I will take a second. Anybody

second? All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed stay here. We'll see you next. Darn it. We don't have five. Now we