Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

HEAT. HEAT. All right. Thank you for your patience. Hello everyone. Welcome to the March 12th meeting of the city of Moskegan's planning commission. May I have a roll call, please? Commissioners Leroy here. Johnson here. Garza here. Saber here.

Gan here. Kener Blake and Simmons. Okay, we do have a quorum. So, we'll get started. And to start off with, we do have a new member of the commission. So, like to welcome Mr. Dearza to the commission. Thank you so much for uh joining us. And we do have a slight change to the agenda today. And I do believe we're going to be removing a few items uh including A and B. Yes. Both A and B.

Um and so we will take those back for further consideration before bringing them back to the commission would be my request. Okay. And then we have approval of the minutes from February 12th. We take a motion. I move to approve the minutes from the regular planning commission meeting of February 12th, 2026 with uh one change of recognizing Commissioner Deagarsa as excused versus absent just because we appointed her like two days before that meeting and so I just wanted to recognize her excused for that meeting. Thank you. All right. And then do we have a second? Second. Okay. Moved and seconded to approve the minutes from February 12th. All those in favor?

I. All those post say no. All right. We do have additionally uh case 2026-7. Staff initiated a request to amend the zoning ordinance by eliminating B3 central business and RT two family residential districts and all other references to these districts in the zoning ordinance. If I may have a staff report, please.

Uh yes. Let me change this on the screen first. All right. Uh the B3 central business district was eliminated back in 2015 when we adopted the formbbased code. Uh so pretty much everything that was B3 is a type of our formbbased code whether it's downtown or a main street. Um so we see no reason to keep this into the ordinance. Also with the amendments that were made during zoning reform, uh everything zoned R now as long as it's at least 40 foot wide does qualify for a duplex. So there's no longer a reason to have the RT district as well. And we actually went and reszoned all of the RT districts uh last year to R or to a formbbased code designation where it was deemed appropriate. Uh so for now we're just proposing to remove these and keep them as sections that are open uh in the ordinance and uh you know going forward in the future you know we've started discussing about since we have the master plan adopted uh maybe taking a look at readopting the zoning ordinance. It technically hasn't been done since 1987. Uh, but we feel okay with that because we do such a good job and we're so active with always looking at our ordinance and constantly making amendments. I would kind of like to keep doing that, especially with some of the goals at the master plan to keep doing these one by one rather than all at once. I think it gives people a better chance to review each particular item, especially the larger ones that, you know, may require more discussion. And then maybe in a couple of years once we tackle more of those initiatives, we could open it up for a full resoning just to go through the whole ordinance and see what else may be outdated, what laws that are referencing it may have changed, and possibly renaming some of

these zoning districts. You know, if we get down to only two zoning districts, we probably won't want to call them B2 and B4. You know, maybe rening those B1 and B2 or something else more appropriate. So, looking a little bit farther down the line, I think that's something that we can do. And just for now, we would leave these open in the ordinance. Okay. Um, I would take a motion to discuss this case. It's a public hearing.

Public hearing. Where? Oh, there we go. You guys are the best. All right. So, this is a public hearing. Um, there is no one in the audience, however, so we would immediately go to the phones if anybody has specific comment on this item. 231-724-6721. We're all good. So, it wasn't working the other day. Okay. There's a delay. Significant delay. Okay. I haven't gotten to you giving the phone number yet.

Giving space for the TV delay. And for anybody joining us on live reminder, this is your opportunity to call in for the public hearing regarding public hearing C 2026-07. Seeing none, okay, I would take a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. support moved and supported to close the public hearing. All those in favor? I. All those opposed say no and then I would take a motion to approve. Madam chair.

Go for it. I move the request to amend the zoning ordinance by eliminating B3 central business and RT two family residential districts and all other references to these districts be recommended to the city commission for approval. Support. Okay. Moved and approved. moved and seconded. And so then, do we have any further discussion on this item? Seems like a reasonable change to make. Okay. I don't have anything in particular. Again, I think this we're doing things a bit administratively at this point. Just kind of cleaning up some zones and districts. So, I would take a roll call.

Commissioner Gan. Yes. Yes. Garza, yes. Johnson, yes. And

yes, I believe that means motion passes. All right. So, we are moving on to public hearing item D on the agenda. Case 2026-08, staff initiated request to amend section 404 of the zoning ordinance to establish maximum lot widths in our neighborhood residential districts and a staff report on that item. So currently uh in the zoning ordinance the R districts has a minimum lot width of 30 feet also has a minimum lot width of 40T for duplexes and 50 for triplexes which also need an alley but there are no lot maximums. However, in the formbbased code urban residential zoning designation there is a lot width maximum which works out very well. That's 60 ft. um that would normally allow you to combine a couple of lots, some of our smaller lots or work with your neighbor to adjust them on on needs. However, what this would do is prevent people from acquiring multiple lots and stacking them and preventing development. Uh there's a good portion of the master plan which we've attached that shows some of the areas that this can become a problem where people kind of create almost a super lot with, you know, six to eight lots. um that really hampers redevelopment efforts. So, this would really just bring the R districts uh kind of aligned with the urban residential formbbased code districts uh to prevent the combination of these lots.

Okay. And as this is a public hearing again, nobody in the audience. If anybody at home would like to comment on this item, 2317246721, give us a call and let us know. Um, in the meantime, while we're seeing if there's any calls, this would not affect folks who currently own uh various lots.

That is correct. I meant to say that because that's a good point for bringing that up. Uh, anybody that already has them combined would be considered legally non-conforming or grandfathered. we would not be able to tell them to separate them. Uh if they currently own them and have not combined them, I suppose it would prevent them from actually going through with the process. However, this still needs to go to the city commission and then 10 days after adoption. So, there will be some time still for people to do that last minute if they wanted to. Okay. Um as of now, no one has called in. Just started scrolling. Just started. Okay. Ken's keeping an eye on the live stream for me.

That's good for that. We'll give it a 30 more seconds. See if we've got any fans out there.

All right. Seeing none, I would take a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. support moved and supported to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. I. I. All those opposed say no. All right. Public hearing is closed. Um any further discussion from the commissioners on lot maximums in the residential district? Um any any scenarios you consider where you know this really might put someone in a bind for something that we would otherwise encourage? Um if I could make a motion first. Yeah. Okay.

Cool. Um, I move to request the amendment of section 404 of the zoning ordinance to establish maximum lot widths in our neighborhood residential districts be recommended to the city commission for approval. Second. Moved and approved. And now you could tell me if you have any thoughts on it. I think we're back to the administrative cleanup unless you have any pressing items. I do think

it's a it's a it's a legitimate concern we're trying to resolve here. Um I'm just wrestling with the appropriate maximum. Um and I'm wondering if an alternative to using the zoning court zoning code to try to solve this um dilemma concern you know with these super lots. Um, do we have are we empowered to find a way to charge a fee or a higher tax on lots that were to exceed so that there's still that flexibility, but you're just going to have to pay more considering the part of the dilemma is that we get these super lots and they're not generating the the tax revenue to sustain the infrastructure that's serving these, you know, super lots. And so I'm just wondering if there's a

alternative approach to tax or charge a fee um for lots that were to exceed a certain threshold. So um if if I may, Chair. Yeah. Um the as far as taxing, no, there wouldn't be any other way to do that because tax is just based on the value of the property. Um so we wouldn't be able to do anything like that. I'm not and I'm not aware of a way that we could charge a fee. Um cuz that would be for have to be for the service services. Yeah. So I mean infrastructure. Yeah. But that but that would need to be through the infrastructure like

through the cost of connecting to the water or sewer um or we have the connection fee that's paid and then the rate that's paid. So I don't I can't think of anything off the top of my head that would allow that. Okay. And I I take uh Jonathan at his facts because you know at this we some of us have been attempting you know through the years to see about implementing a land tax which is a bit different than

um current property taxes and whatnot to address a lot of these issues. However, that hasn't made a lot of headway in this state and um even with you know the uh public utilities tax or whatnot. I'm not aware of any other community currently that utilizes that type of a a fee system and I'm I'm just wondering if it would, you know, pass muster um uh through the state legislature courts too.

And it would essentially it would be an unrealized value tax, right? We're basically saying that this if given full opportunity, this land could have higher value, but it's being able to put that into an enforcable mechanism. Yeah. Yeah.

So, if I grew up in the Sheldon Park neighborhood and there are quite a few lots that are um fairly wide, you know, that it would exceed 60 ft. You know, some are 66 feet, some are 90 ft. One lot in my block that I grew up with was 120 ft um wide. And if those property owners, let's use the 120 foot example, um, or the 90. Let's say they wanted to parcel off a piece of it, like I just want to take a, let's say 90 foot, like, well, no, that would be 6030. Let's say 120 foot. They're like, I just want to take 30 foot wide, break it off my lot so that I can sell this and someone can build on it, but then they'd be remaining with 90 ft in their lot. So, would that be considering creating a new lot if they're you got an existing lot 125, now you want to create two lots. So would they not be

they'd be going they'd be going towards conformance which is a good thing. They'd still be over but we can go from 120 down to 90 even though the max is 60 they're going towards conformance so we can allow that. So that would be allowed. Okay. And I think that's what was valuable to consider is is we get the overall goal of the um change requested here but we want to consider who would be affected in in changes that they're they're looking to make. I think that that would be a good example there. Oh, Sarah, Sarah, did you have an item said about the taxing on land, bigger land?

Um, the city of Denver actually does this with their mansions, what you would call mansion. They call the mansion tax um to help bring down the property cost for more affordable housing. I don't know how is that based on square footage based on I didn't read into it, but it it was part of housing that I was reading and I saw that they they do higher valued properties to kind of supplement the ability to build. I'll take a look into that. Thank you. I don't know this would preclude approving this wouldn't preclude future discussion of that opportunity. So, it's something that we could continue to look at. Do you have some

when what you know Sarah brought up um some state legislators, you know, have allowed municipalities to do that. there's a because some of these states don't have property taxes or uh income taxes or whatnot. So, um I remember Denver coming up as an example of something that moves towards the uh land tax concept,

some utility usage and things of that nature. And I know um Mayor Dugen, former Mayor Dougen um of Detroit had been advocating for um some land value tax essentially to expansive parking lots or you know people buying up land and just sitting on it. So being able to charge an additional tax on that. Any further concerns with moving forward with this item today? Uh, I'm comfortable moving it forward to the city commission um and hearing from our community in the process. Ashing it out further if you choose. Okay. I would um make the motion if you wish.

We did have a motion. We have a second. So, we're just going to have a roll call if you're all good. Okay. That's right. We already did that. Commissioner Wlette Roy. Yes. Johnson. Yes. Garza. Yes. Cipher. Yes.

Yes. All right, motion passes. Feel free to check at any time on procedure. I'm not offended at all. All right, let's get back to the final item on the main agenda. Item E, case 2026-09. Staff initiated request to amend section 703, 803, and 903 to set minimum density requirements for multifamily housing districts. If staff could report on that. So the zoning ordinance currently sets maximum density requirements for m multif family housing. That's the RM1, RM2 and RM3. RM3 is the highest density, but it does not require minimum densities. Uh and you are allowed to do everything in an RM1 zone that you can in or in an RM3 zone that you can do in an RM1 or RM2. So without these density requirements, sometimes there's really no difference between an RM1 and an RM3 if you're that RM3 and you're not going to build to that density. So I believe the most appropriate thing to do would be to set these minimum densities. And then if a certain parcel does not feel like they can develop that density on the parcel, the appropriate thing to do would be to request a reszoning where we can discuss it at that. So this would set minimum minimum density requirements along with the maximum density requirements in RM1, RM2 and RM3. And those minimum densities would be the RM1 would be 14 dwelling units per buildable acre as the minimum. And currently the maximum is 16. That would stay unchanged. Um and then RM2 the minimum density would go to 17 dwelling units per acre. And RM3 would be a minimum of 25 dwelling units per acre.

Okay. And just real quick point of information is if the lot is less than an acre, does the amount reduce? Yes. The minimum amount per acre. So if you have a half an acre, it' be half of that. And there's some leeway if we're dealing with rounding up or down or is this kind of pretty cut and dry? There's a little bit of leeway there. And you know, you can still do even as low as a duplex in a RM1. So, as long as you have a a very small lot, you still should be able to make that work.

All right. So, again, this is a public hearing. Uh I have no one in the audience, I don't believe, um who is planning to participate in this hearing today. So, again, we'll give folks at home an opportunity to call in 231-724-6721. I made the this. It looks like I did six.

My son really hates when I reference that. He's like, "You can't do that, Mom. My nephew went turned seven this year. So he like on his birthday he was going I think it's hilarious. I'm like I don't get it. All right. I think the TV has caught up with us in generally just started screaming

again. Keep talking because that just drags it out. Let it scroll across and if we see that's a good way to do it like once the item passes the p passes. Yeah, that's what you know you got there. All right. Countdown. In which case I would move to close the public hearing. I'll second that. moved and seconded. Your choice. Thirded uh to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I.

I. All those oppos say no. All right. And so the public hearing is closed. Do I have any additional um we're going to take a motion for the item E? I move the request to amend section 703, 803, and 903 to set minimum density requirements for multifamily housing districts be recommended to the city commission for approval. Support moved and jinx supported over here. Um for item E, any additional conversation from the commissioners?

Uh just a question. Um the minimum maximum makes sense throughout all of them. The only question I have though is with regard to the uh RM1 and the minimum being 14. I'm just curious like how right at 14 versus say 12 or some other number uh for for the minimum. I believe that one I believe the R districts range from about 8 to 10. That's what we about average in our neighborhoods. So this is just slightly larger than that. So it's just a number we came up with. Okay. Gotcha. A matter of fact, you can probably achieve that density

with a duplex and an ADU on a very small lot now. So, kind of goes along the similar lines. Okay. So, if folks have a very large lot, they certainly have opportunity for multif family is what we're trying to say. Any other items? Okay. I would uh take a roll call. Commissioner Gan. Yes. Yes. Da Garza. Yes. Johnson. Yes. And Loy. Yes.

All right. Motion passes. And so that is all of our public hearings for today. We also have unfinished business on the agenda. Um last month we began working on 2026 goal setting uh with some guidance through the planning staff. And I'd like to continue that conversation. You have a question? Yes. Um I would ask to be excused. I wanted to make sure I came here for the vote because we've been having issues with quorums. Um, but it's time to go to the drugstore. Sue started going downhill yesterday and I started going downhill after noon. Ah, not feeling well. Okay. So, that's why I haven't greeted you all with a hug and a kiss because we don't want because Jonathan has to go on holiday. Okay. Hi. I do have your notes that I can share.

Okay. For the good. Um, being that we would not be voting on this item, our remainder of you Oh, that's true. We won't have a full quorum, but we want to continue the conversation. Any thoughts? I think next month, I believe Commissioner Mazade will be back um in Simmons for sure um and Kenir. So, it might be more productive to have the conversation with the with the full house um because I I know Commissioner Mazade will have some good perspectives on things as as well as the Simmons and um Kenir. So, okay. I'm just taking a quick look at the um Go ahead. Don't wait. Okay. Yep. You're good. Cool. All right. Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you, Mr. Garn. Just double checking some of the goals that we've prioritized. Um, and I would say that the point is is every month that we wait to continue these conversations, folks could be continuing to work on these items. So, sure, I would acknowledge that these are things that we confirmed last time around. I don't think there's any concern with that. So, I will go ahead and we checked out number two, one and two. Yeah. And we're still working on a couple of the other ones. So, we'll continue to move forward. Understood. Um any new business that we and again we don't have a quorum to vote on anything but anything we need to make sure to share with the public while we're available here

there's anything unique coming up in the next week. So we did share the presentation about the infill housing. Thank you. And like to remind everyone or share with everyone in the public that that can be viewed on our YouTube page from our work session this last Monday. If you fast forward to about the 1 hour and 11 minute mark starts the discussion I already memorized that starts the discussion after the roster wrestling meeting talks about the infill housing success we've had and the new housing dashboard that we have to track that which will be live next month

which I'm very excited about and I would add um there was intention to have a community conversation after some um suggestions regarding the um unhoused community and how we might kind of work together on those issues. know when that's coming back. I think that's relevant to the planning commission as well. Yes, there was some of that information in the initial presentation, but we took it out not to conflate the two. I would expect that to be ready in the next couple months. So, wasn't a set timeline for that. I think Jake said that April targeting April work session for that or am I miss recalling that? I don't remember.

I don't remember now. cuz I'm like we've like planned out the next couple work sessions and I can't remember what we put where. Okay. Maybe maybe he didn't say yeah next month or two and I was thinking April work session. Um but yeah there will be a focused presentation and conversation around um house population. Yeah. Correct. Yep. Um okay. Okay. So, one last thing. In the event that there is no um specific business applications or other items in April, I would like to have this meeting anyway to resolve this goal discussion. We have an application in things expected. Okay. Just want to put that out there. We've had several delays. So, I think we need to

have the conversation before it's summer time and everybody has somewhere else to be. Okay. Oh, that being said, uh no any other business. I would take a motion to public comment. Public comment. There's no one's here. I need a list one more time to the phone.

231 7246721. If you didn't have a comment on a particular public hearing item and you just want to let us know some thoughts on general planning commission items, we would take those now. See if they do the scroll. I'm going to put it in this drawer. Maybe it'll stay. I don't see it on the screen, so I'm not sure that that went across. Waiting on it still. just waiting with us while this phone number scrolls across the screen. Okay, I would take a motion to adjurnn.

I think we're good. So moved. Support. Been supported to adjurnn. All those in favor say I.

I. It doesn't really matter. We already have corn. Estro. Oh, see