Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat. Good afternoon and welcome to the city of Moskegan Planning Commission meeting for um Thursday, April 16th um 2026. Um our first order of business is to elect a chair for the meeting today. Um as our chair and vice chair are not here. So um I'll entertain um nomination for a chair for this meeting only.

I nominate I motion to nominate you to chair the remainder of this meeting. Thank you. I have a motion. Do I have a support? I support nominating you chair this evening. All right. So have a motion in support to nominate Brian Mazade to be the chair for this meeting only. Um any discussion or any other nominations? Any discussion on that motion? All those in favor say I. I. I. I.O. Same sign. Motion carried. Thank you. All right. So the um so the first order of business is the uh roll call. Planning Commissioner Wlette Loy, Commissioner Johnson here,

Garza present here. Zade here. Blake and Simmons. Okay. Um so the first item of business um after the roll call is the approval of minutes of the meeting of the regular meeting on March 12th, 2026. I move to approve those minutes as presented.

Support a motion and support to approve those minutes of the meeting of March 12th, 2026. Any discussion on that motion? All those in favor say I. I. I. Post. Same sign. Motion carried. Before we enter the public hearing, I just want to um take a a minute to indicate how we'll handle the these meetings or these public hearings. Um first of all, we'll um have an introduction of the subject by um the city staff. Um after that, um the petitioner, if there is one, we'll have an opportunity to make any comments. We'll have uh uh questions from the planning commission to the staff and to the uh petitioner um if applicable. Um and then after that uh we'll open the um the subject to the uh audience both here and um virtually I guess. Um and then after that um after that opportunity is made for all public comment then we'll um close public hearing and and uh take action on the matter. So with that um let's move into the first public hearing. Mike

this is case 2026-10. It's a request to amend the Harbor 31 plan unit development uh for a new residential development at 170 Vidian Drive and to amend the waterfront access pass within Harbor 31 by Wolverine Building Group. So, um this development is located in with in Harbor 31. Uh if you've seen the the lot, you can see that much of it is considered undevelopable because there is environmental easement on it uh by the Michigan Department of Environmental Great Lakes and Energy. Um so development has to occur outside of those boundaries. Their initial plans were for some town homes, but they were not going to be able to to make that with the layout of the easement. Um so they are proposing four separate apartments that will have 12 units each. Um so that's a total of 48 units. They're proposing 67 off- streetet parking spaces. Uh they had also proposed five parking spaces in the in the terrace. Um staff has asked them to eliminate um if we could we pull this up at the same time or I'll get into that. We'll talk about some of uh the amendments to the plan after this. Um so these types of buildings are allowed within the underlying uh zoning district. Uh however the the wetlands prevents uh the parking placement and the required need to amend. So that requires the need to amend the PUD. Um also um something to note is a portion of the Grand Valley State University parking lot to the west of the development actually encroaches onto the meadows. Uh so this will have to be removed prior to construction. Um, you can see on page two of the site plan that depicts the east parking lot and uh page three depicts about what that potential parking lot could look like.

That's not what they're proposing now, but that the owner GVSU of that parking lot will need to amend their their parking lot in the future. Um, a storm water management permit application will need to be submitted to the engineering department and the original storm water management permit for the overall site may need to uh be modified. So, the applicant has been aware of that and will apply soon. Um, the landscaping plan does lack canopy trees. Canopy trees should be added to each parking lot and the vacant areas outside of the environmental easement. Um the plans for paved terraces for parking would remove several of the trees. Uh if the designs approved, uh additional street trees should be planted throughout the development. Make a note of that. And we sent notices into everyone within 300 ft of the property. Uh you have a couple of messages from Kevin Murphy who is an owner of one of the condos inside Harbor 31 and the Vita Nova condos. Um he also plans on calling in so you can re view those notes and uh expect him to call in um to make comments when we go to the phone. So staff is recommending approval of the co the site plan with the condition um one of the conditions of the original PUD that that there was going to be two public easements to the boardwalk. Those have not yet been installed. So what staff is asking uh is that before one of the the conditions on this approval could be that certificate of o certificate of occupancies may not be issued until uh that easternly I'm sorry the western path there's two paths the eastern and the

western until the western path is installed and is usable and also to put another sign on next to the the path that would indicate that this is a public access to the boardwalk. There's one at the beginning of the development when you come into terrace, but once you get into the development, it's a little confusing as to where that access point should be. Couple other things that um we've discussed that we would like to put conditions on the approval. Um obviously the storm water management plan, the public access trail and signage. Um the street trees that any street tree is removed shall be replanted somewhere else within the development and staff can work with them on placements. And um we've also been working with the public works department on an issue. Can we plug this in? Get those pictures up. Thank you. Um there is an entrance on the north side of the development. Um this may take a moment PC meeting. Thank you. So this is what the current entrance. You can see um where are we?

Oh, here we go. So, right here is an entrance to the northern portion of the property. This is the property down here. As you can see, it gets a little wonky right here. Uh where it curves over here this way. It also curves over here this way. Um, our engineers have come up with a proposed solution uh, which the developer can speak on. We talked a little bit before the meeting. Um, something like this. This is just a quick sketch she came up with to maybe show how this could function better. They have agreed to take out the parking spaces uh, in this area because this would be rather dangerous for ingress and egress with 90° parking right here. So since they are removing that, we could shift this road down to the south and then bring these curbs down here as well. This parking lot owned by Parmener would actually gain several parking spaces. And I that is it for the staff report. I'll bring up the plans. So, right here is where the existing parking lot at the GVSU building is, which is Encroaches. And this is a potential redrawing of what that parking lot could look like. Is that it, Mike?

All right. Any questions for us? Just questions. I heard you said they agreed to remove those seven parking spots, and I noticed DW did reference having an issue with that as mentioned in the packet, but there's one map that shows that they're there. There's another map that shows they're not there. And so, and I don't see any language and like a condition saying those being removed. So I just wanted to confirm like the the PE amendment that's proposed and being brought forward is not inclusive of those seven parking spots. Correct. So that should actually be another condition that those are removed. Okay. And you're talking about the GBSU right here. These ones right here. The one that would need to be removed to accommodate the uh straightening of that road. Um and have we heard from

they they did actually remove those. I I had a new plan. I I did not upload that yet, but it just shows those removed. Okay. Gotcha. And the applicant is here. Okay. But it still should be a condition though. It still should be a condition. Yes. Okay. Go ahead. Well, I was just wondering if you have their What have we heard from the applicant with regard to about straighten the road? Are they amenable to that? They like that, they don't like it. Um

there there's some issues since there's different ownership there and Mr. Henrikson and I talked briefly before the meeting. I think he'll be able to talk about some of his concerns. Um, if we can't come to an agreement today on exactly what that looks like, you could always uh we could either table it or we could approve of the condition that they sit down with staff and we come to an agreement on how exactly that could function better. Okay. Okay. Any other questions for staff? I have more, but not right now. Okay.

All right. So, Mr. Hendendrickson, would you like to address us? Good afternoon everybody. Dan Hendrickson. I'm a architect, also part owner in the development. Been in this involved in this project since 2007. I was a young man when I started this. So, we're ready to get things rocking and rolling. Anna uh Palh is with me. She's a civil engineer with Paradigm Design. So, have technical questions. She's a lot smarter than I am, so she can answer those. Um, thank you for allowing us to be here. So, nice job, Mike. Um so working on this project a long time we had several different concepts before this one and this because of the wetland that migrated on the site basically 2017 2016 it was not a wetland so uh we had high water tables uh Teladine Continental Motors didn't finish their job land was left low watering crept in DEQ got involved which is now Eagle and uh lo and behold we have solved that we got a grant from the state uh we put a bunch of our own money into it so We created all the wetlands that you see out there today. Spent about $3.2 million doing that. Um, which uh took out about seven acres of development land. So, this was really tricky to try to figure out how we can use this property here in lot we call now lot D next to Grand Valley. So, came up with this concept. These relatively narrow apartment projects, threetory garden style apartment uh buildings, four of them will fit on the site nicely with parking uh between the buildings. It's the only way we could get this really to fit. What's really interesting is these all these units will then face the wetland which is then makes the wetland become an asset to the development. So, uh putting parking between the buildings um the point is that I think it's what a 40 foot setback from the road is where parking needs to be. That's why we're here today primarily. Um the buildings do sit up against the road which is good. That's form based code likes your buildings close to the road. So that's the good part. So it's really the parking itself and we've talked about either putting landscaping there or something to buffer that hard edge of the of the parking. We do have some I

think it's eight off- streetet parking spaces we'd like to put off from Verdian Drive. So that um gives us uh enough parking ratio to have basically one parking spot per bedroom in the development with about another 10 to 12 guest parking spaces which is I would consider probably a bare minimum. And uh there is ability to have some parking on Vidian Drive. I think Mike maybe we can talk about that at some point but because the road gets a little wide kind of at the throat where we talked about this entry drive back to Veridian drive Vidian project so we can do some off street parking there if we needed to. Um do you want me to address the issues that like the the road issue now or do you want me to wait?

Yeah, I think that would be probably be good.

Sounds like that's the biggest issue. So um I'm not sure I don't really have a cursor or pen but the original intent if everybody knows I know Brian remembers this. Uh, Vita Nova was the development that Doug Hardra Spring Lake did and so we built that forplex that's there now and he had uh plans to build the rest of it out. Um, that project never really took off. So the forplex was built and that was it. There was a road that came in and you can kind of see it where it says uh there's that road came in that was meant to be the drive that goes back to this parcel what they call parcel A. Parcel A I bought from Actile Bank back in 2012. Ended up being um no ability to get to parcel A. So, we had to take this road and because I I was unable to negotiate or deal with the forplex, they were not allowing me to use that drive as originally planned. I had to go around that. So, we had to dip this road into lot D to get to that property. So, luckily I own lot D. I was able to do that for $0, although although we had to add the cost of that. So the only way we can get to the Vidian drive was to actually sweep the road back which caused that geometry issue we're talking about today. Um move it north. I don't know how we do that. I guess we can move the the the prop the road which is down

plan uh plan south but I'm not sure how that works. And then Mike you have a sketch. You can maybe pull up that sketch of what that would look like and I've got an alternate solution for that. So this would involve departmental tools parcels. This would involve um the forplex partial. This would involve lot D and this would involve Vian shores development. So four owners would have to get involved in this to make this happen. What I'm proposing is we leave the curb cut off drive just as it is and do a much better and graceful swoop down to the left so it looks as if the driveway then kind of takes a quick left rather than a hard left. I think that'll solve the problem. Now, I I realize the forplex drive is a little awkward, but I think it's four units. I don't think it's a big problem, but if we make this road look a little more intentional and a little more geometric, I think that will solve that problem. And I'm willing to do that. I'm willing to take So, I don't know if you can mark up, Mike, where where we talked about a little just soften that edge

right here. No, no. Down right there. Yep. Come on. So like this kind of come up there and just do a Oh, right here. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

The other side of the road right there. Yeah. Take that and and run that up to existing curve, but make it a much more graceful. Start about where you see the white line ending and then fill that in with asphalt. That'll make this road appear as if it's a road with a little curve to it, which is all fine, right? Curves. roads are pretty typical. Then you're not dealing with much of an issue with uh parallel. You're really not getting into that. It's just really the geometry of the entry drive into that for the forplex, which I think is still going to work. It it it cleans that up, makes it a much more graceful thing, and I'm absolutely willing to do that as part of this project. U Mr. Henderson, would you connect to that existing curb to the west then or? Yes.

Okay. So take that and just make that a nice S-curve and soften that up by getting rid of these parking spaces. It allows us to do that. And again, then the road comes in, takes a just a little slight dip to the left and runs around. I think we could stripe it possibly to make that more clear. And I'd be willing to work with um with staff to come up with the geometries how we do that. Moving it completely this way. I it's just going to be probably four parties involved and I know how it's gone so far. Um, it feels like it's a difficult ask. This does the exact same thing. Mike, do you have a opinion on that or a thought?

I would probably defer to uh Dan Vanderhid, our engineer in the back. Um, I'm not sure if Dan caught that. I mean, we're kind of we're kind of operating on the fly and I don't know that that's a best it may not be, but Dan might be immunable to a condition where we sit down. Before we do that, mayor,

while he reflects on that and decides if he wants to weigh in at this point, can I just get a a cl get some clarity? Um, because you mentioned pulling it down could entailing four different property owners. Can you help me understand because like if we did just straighten it out as as depicted right now, just straighten it out. Um, you'd be giving up and you already are committed to giving up those seven parking spots where the you see the green area, green brownish area. Um the the so that'd be foregone and be now part of the proposed road according to this schematic. Um how does that involve these other aside from parameter because parameter would be end up adding potentially space to the parking lot which you could end up potentially working on agreement saying hey no there's added parking spots you know I reserve for uh my tenants or our tenants or you know future future tenants. Um so I'm just wondering how what other complications or or how is that otherwise problematic? Um, and how would that help me better understand the concerns with potentially having four different property owners with straightening out that road? And what other concerns or problems do you foresee going that route? And and I understand I appreciate you saying the gradual the sloping, you know, is is an improvement from what's there now. Um, so I'm not discounting that, but if you could please help me understand the concern.

I think Well, okay. Yeah, surely you can move that down. I mean, that's you end up with a curb cut into a city-owned road, which is fine. We can work through that. sidewalks you you need to just it's just there seems to be a lot that you have to do if we just simply make the road a slight curve. I think it accomplishes exactly the same thing at far less expense for one and I know we don't necessarily talk about expense but that is true um project needs to be feasible for less expense and I think it does the same thing if not maybe a little better solution with a little curve so I've never really liked that little blip in there and I I'm not exactly sure why that we actually created that the way we did anyway so I have no problem doing it this way I just think it's just the amount of um people that have to say yes to um increases to four or five and then that just becomes more and more difficult. We're going to try to move quickly with this and I I could see that being the the thing that's going to take the most amount of time is getting everybody to agree to agree. So, so I I I want to understand too, I guess, I I guess I I understand what the mayor is saying and I and but if Mike, we use the plan that you're suggesting, one property owner gets some additional spaces, but that is a curb along it, right? So, they so they would lose access to that um access road, right? Uh, no.

From that side. If you look at the cursor, are you are you talking about this line right here? Right. I I believe that would remain open, actually. Oh, that's not a curb. No, that's meant to be. Okay. That's just It was kind of drawn on the fly. Okay. Uh, all right. All right. So, that does does change, right? Yeah. There'd be a connection there at that either way. Whether we leave the road right where it is right now and then we make the turn that we're talking about or or we do this, it's still open to prime uh lot. Okay. Anything else you want to tell us, Mr. Hendendrickson? I guess in addition to this issue,

uh, regarding Grand Valley, I've I've been talking to them over the years. We've known this is coming for the last two or three years. So, I've talked to Karen and and I know they bought the building what, this December, so perfect timing.

And, uh, she understands this. Uh, took him by a little bit by surprise. um trying to figure out who's going to pay for it obviously. So that's probably the biggest hurdle. They understand the need to do this. They actually like the idea of putting the parking closer to the building because that grass area is kind of awkward. So I think we lost about five spaces by doing this. So we've had this communication. We're talking so we just need to get through that end of the day. We can build this uh project from basically one through three. And so it's really only affects a little parking and one building. you build the other three buildings without an agreement in place, so to speak.

Can you talk about the one issue that Mike brought up and it's been it's an issue that has been brought to our attention by um public member is um the access to the Bora. Can you talk about that? Sure. Can

can we pull up a drawing? Can we develop the maybe the is there an overall site plan? I don't remember what you have in the pack. So, right now the the drive entry and terrace comes into the circle, right? So there is a sidewalk right now between Yeah, there you go. between Parmetal Tool and our lot I that goes about 3/4 of the way to the boardwalk and stops and it's like I want to say it's a five foot wide sidewalk. Our proposal is to make that a 10 foot wide sidewalk with a sort of a gathering area at the end. We'd have to ramp up from the very end of it up to the boardwalk. I think it's about 20 foot of ramp to make that look um intentional be right on the center line of the drive coming in and that would be the main public access. We'd sign that. We'd put a sign out there saying so I think there's a sign right now at the entry of Harbor 31 but from there there's no signage and that's been one of the beefs of of some of the people that are associated with the association is that there's not good signage and I agree we can put a sign there make sure that that's public um access number one. There's also

that's the in the center of the drawing. Yes. All right. Make that 10 foot wide. Make it a little grander, a little more intentional.

Um and then the other one would go through the development. It's on inn. Now, this is an old Yeah, that's not it. So that's that's the new one is that's an old site. Uh yeah, we we had just used the other one for discussion, so I hadn't presented it. But I did want to mention to um the board that this eastern uh path, it's not going to be able to go in as this. If you've been down there, you can see that there's also designated wetlands all through here. So uh he they are working on a new proposal for a path. We've seen it. It's pretty good. Um, but they want to work with their potential developer that they're working on for this side of the development and see how that shapes up before they actually present the path. We've seen some mock-ups of it and it it seems uh like it would work very well. It would be very identifiable, especially with extra signage.

How important is that issue relative to the PUD amendment that's before us today? this uh what we would like to do is uh just leave it the same for this eastern development and have them come back and amend it when they're ready and a little bit further for the that one. The one we want to address is this center one. That's that's why I asked

we're we're committed to putting the center one in as part of this pro as part of the the metals project. We're comfortable as a developer putting it. The other one we just don't know what the geometry and what that's going to look like yet. So I hate to hold up this project that could take a year. We don't know. So we don't have the luxury of a year. So, we can definitely put this one in. I've already talked to Chris Kelly and his group. They're more than happy to give us a five foot easement onto their property. There already is a little bit of one there right now. So, I've got that agreement with them. And so, who's that with? Chris Kelly tool. Okay. He's he's willing to do that. Okay. We'll we'll build that as part of this project. Um, is there anything else you want to tell us about that issue?

Okay. Is there any any other questions for Mr. Henrikson, we good? Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so this is a time for the public hearing. There's anyone in the uh live audience that would like to address this issue, please come forward and state your name for the record and we'll give you three minutes to address uh this issue. Anybody? Okay. If not, um, we'll go to the, uh, viewing audience and the phone number to call is 231-724-6721. Correct. Yes.

And, um, you'll have three minutes to address the planning commission. We know somebody is trying to go in to try to call. While we wait for the call, I would just like to mention that I did uh go down uh to the development with the engineering department and we looked at on street parking. It's not It's coming in. Nope. I'll I'll finish that. So, okay. So, caller, um are you there? We got another Wait, I am. Okay. Um

Hey guys, this is Leah Willlet Loy. I I understand what we're doing here. So, apologies that I could not make the meeting today, but I did have some public comment um on this item specifically. Um firstly, uh improved and clear access to the boardwalk is very important to the community. So, we need to take the opportunity, I believe, to um address anything that we can during this process. Um and I also absolutely appreciate that we consider the wetland an amenity however it came to be. Um I did want to make a couple suggestions. one to request whether uh the developer has had an opportunity with Grand Valley to consider um more of a parking lot swap scenario to make things a little smoother there. Um and whether there's any opportunity to consider the parking lots on the west side differently. Um so that would be one question. The next would be whether the dumpsters could be moved farther away from the wetlands. You'll see two dumpsters sort of the center of the development and each are placed close to the wildlife fence. Um being around a lot of dumpsters and cleanups, you'll find that things tend to migrate um in the vicinity and they're likely to end up in those lowland areas. So seeing if there's a way to possibly move that um to maybe the northwest corner. Um, and then also any opportunity in the landscape plan to have um, evergreen bushes or trees is always much appreciated. Um, I just wanted to make those suggestions and appreciate otherwise I have no other input. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else? There's a couple people trying to get in. Okay. Can you reset our timer? Thank you. So, will they just come on? Uh, they're not calling, but if we just give them Yeah. Yeah. half a minute here. Absolutely. Otherwise, we might be able to try to call them.

Well, we want to make sure we make every accommodation because we know somebody's wanting to just call You're on with the city of Moskegan. City. Hi. Hi. Can you say your can you state your name for the record, please? And then you have three minutes to make comment about this uh subject matter.

Sure. This is Kevin Murphy 142 Midian Drive, Moskegan, Michigan. Uh I am the president of Lake Front Condo Associates, also referred by Dan as the forplex. Um, I want to be clear from the beginning that LFCA is in favor of growth and development within the Harbor 31 property. Uh, LFA LFCA sits within Harbor 31 PUD and has uh representation within the Harbor 31 HOA. We have consistently made an effort to be cooperative and supportive partners. However, over the past 5 years, there has been a lack of communic consistent communication, follow-through, and mutual consideration, which has made the relationship challenging. Uh, we first addressed the public access, signage, and enforcement issue, which has been a at least a six-year issue. Uh my my original comments were for the public access signage and enforcement which is directly ti tied to this putt amendment. Currently there is one public waterfront access sign but no wayf fairing no posted rules no defined access routes. This becomes very difficult for the folks that live in the area that we live there 247 365. There is no way to uh monitor or just enjoy ourselves on weekends. Sometimes uh the five unofficial access points have been given to Harbor 31 and the city. These five unofficial access points are used by the public and we have to remember that there needs to be

a balance between private ownership and the public which I truly respect. While the boardwalk abuts the private property, it is categorized as a common element similar to a public sidewalk. I can tell you though the public sidewalk that there are people that sit there 12 hours a day fishing, which is up to them, but people usually walk past the sidewalk. Uh with that said, there is a shared responsibility between Harbor 31 and the city that needs to actively be involved to ensure clear access points, posted rules, and a for and enforcability standards. Uh with the addition of the 48 new units, there will be an increased traffic and foot traffic accessing the boardwalk. without defined access that traffic will continue to uh cross will continue to go across private property. Harbor 31 has been required to install a uh this public access since 2020 in their third HUD amendment. Now they're working on their seventh HUD amendment. These obligations should be addressed as part of the process and not deferred.

Mr. Murphy, I need to ask you to wrap up your comments now. Oh, sure. Uh, so let's be clear. The, uh, LFCA supports development, but it must be paired with planning, accountability, and implementation. With summer approaching and the public use already occurring, we are reflecting that the rules and regulations signage and ware installed within 60 days and the design public access path to the boardwalk within 120 days. and a parking and circulation study prior to final approval. These are not new requirements. They are existing obligations that need to be implemented. As density increases, responsibility and management access also increases. Our goal is to be supportive while preserving quality of life, safe access, and clear expectations to the public.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Anybody else? Nobody's been trying during that call. All right. So, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Support. A motion support to close the public hearing. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor say I. I. Oppos. Same sign. Motion carried. All right. Anything else you want? Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. One other thing I'd like to mention is uh an initial comment of Mr. Murphy's was the parking. Uh there are about one and a half space I think 1.6 spaces per unit which is pretty good. Uh kind of what we encourage in a downtown walkable area. Now what we wanted to confirm is that there actually is street parking available for overflow parking because if there's not then it's really hard to have like a one for one parking ratio. Uh but it it it should work here because uh working with the public works department, they determined that uh eventually we can sign for street parking on one side of the street on Vidian and they would like that on the south side of the street and if we went out and measured it. So there are approximately 61 on street parking spaces through all of Vidian, the east side and the west side of the traffic circle. And that does include taking out uh proposed curb cuts that are going in for the hotel.

You're you're talking about 1.6 without street parking. Yes. Okay. Yep. So then there's an additional 61 just on Vidian. So there's a lot of parking in the areas. Okay. And um I don't want to I don't Did you want Mr. Vanerahide to address this on this real quick before we go to You want to talk about what I just want Yeah. Sure. piggy back on this before we go to back to the other topic again. bring in director Vin, right? Um, so you just mentioned something about impact with regard to the curb cut for the hotel. What what what was that? Uh, we didn't add on street parking spaces there. We calculated that's going to be taken out. So, okay.

Yeah. Okay. You were taking that into account the future. Okay. Got it. Um, and so then the additional on street that you um prefer being on the south side, does that include their proposed terrace parking on the north side? That would still be included. That would be extra. That would be extra. That still would be included though. or like you're not you're not saying we'll have these addition on the south side on street but we don't want because I know there was some concerns or reservations about the the once parking on the north side. So is that still yes included? Yeah. And bring we let them know you know we weren't really comfortable with the eight parking spaces to the north but that if they could remove those then the curb cut on the terrace could be fine.

Okay. I just wanted to get that clarification. Thank you. So in that small area, there would be parking on both sides of the street. Right. I'm not sure how you want to handle this. If if Mr. Vannerhyde is if he wants to talk about the change of the roadway and or how you want to deal this. I my preference is that we I guess my preference usually is that we are able to address the issues that come before us at the at the time in the any nuances that we might have so we can have the petitioner walk away with a decision um one way or the other. So, you know, if we can work through this issue relative to the parking and curb cuts, I'd like to do that. Um,

but I also know that sometimes, you know, there's too many balls in the air. So, yes. Um, what's your preference? My preference, um, I guess would just be discuss it a little more with, uh, the public works director. And uh you know, I think it may be hard to come out with a decision today, but I think you know, if we talk it over, maybe we can feel comfortable enough to where we know we're going to come to an agreement afterwards and staff could approve that. Mr. Vanhee, are you uh are you prepared to uh talk about this issue with us today?

Good afternoon. Yeah. Yeah. Commissioners, uh Dan Vanderhyde, director of public works for the city.

Um I certainly don't mean to be an obstacle in this process. Um I just think that um the this development has has occurred in in many phases and over much time and that has through no one's fault resulted in a a complex and unique arrangement for access in this part of the world. And this seems to be the last or nearly the last in this part of the development. Uh and so it seems to me that this is our time to make sure that we uh set our residents and uh the folks who are going to uh visit this part of the world up for success for the long term. And I I am not opposed uh in principled to the uh suggestion that was made earlier uh you know shifting the road over a period of time instead of just this little cut over that uh that we have right right now. I think if that happens, um, you know, we have to acknowledge that that still involves probably working with at least one, if not two other property owners. And I'd want it to happen in a way that, um, uh, makes the um, solves the real problem or or makes the situation safe. I don't think I can show on the screen, but in the area that I uh that I highlighted green kind of in the center of this map, if you go just beyond that, uh there's sort of a peninsula shaped piece of turf. And in in that area, there is both a fire hydrant and a fence. And so right now in the dark, what we have is the public headed directly at a black fence and a fire hydrant with no signage and no indication that they might be about to run into it. So that's that's my main concern.

Obviously aesthetics is is not really my thing. That's yours. Um, but I do think that whatever we end up with, uh, I would encourage the commission to come up with, whether it's here tonight or in the future as, you know, discussions between my office and and the developer, a solution that that everyone can live with and that makes a safe uh, passage through this area, you know, without with a minimum of fuss. Mr. Van, when you talk about some of your concerns, are you talking about with the sketch that we have in front of us or are you talking about the um proposal from Mr. Hendrickson?

Well, this this proposal makes sense to me. Um I understand his hesitation of having to approach multiple property owners. uh he did open that door a little bit by showing, you know, improvements on the Grand Valley site that are uh offsite, but if he's unable to reach an agreement with one or both of the property owners on the north side, I don't think the solution is unworkable. It just needs to uh contain some additional features that make sure, you know, folks are going to be safe.

Do you have any opinion about um Mr. Hendrickson's suggestion about, you know, um, smoothing that, um, angle of that curb.

I think that's fine in concept. I think he may still need to work with at least Parmentor and I would still like to probably require him to work with the Forplex in order to at least put some signage on their property that indicates people need to move over to the left. Okay. All right. Is there anything else you want to tell us? Do you Is there any questions for Mr. Van? Sorry to put you on the spot. We do appreciate you coming and uh talking to us about this. No. No. Um

I'm actually here for another item and just having to be here. Well, thank you for that, too. Yeah. Um, so Director Vanderhid, as as far as signage goes, are you talking like a like a yellow diamond directional type just curve sign? Yeah, I think it depends exactly what what the developer suggestion looks like and, you know, once it's laid out, but I think some kind of a, you know, move to the left, uh, sign, you know, is what's needed. Yep. Yellow. So, it's a cautionary Yeah. Yeah. So, Yep. Any other questions for Mr. Vanhey while we have them?

I was only going to go as far as saying that, you know, in in in the past when we've had some of these uh little complications, you know, we can continue to uh discuss the efficacy of the PUD amendment, which I don't have any issue with um because this is what PUDs are for. and

the wetlands appeared by no control of the uh the uh petitioner. Uh but in the past um you know we've been able to move as far as you know approval. However, you know, with uh final workouts with the appropriate departments like DPW and planning and, you know, leaving the the final trigger pull or however they want to work that out, you know, uh to, you know, allow the the uh project to move forward. Those become part of our conditions. Yeah. Okay. Yes, sir.

Yeah, I think it'd be reasonable if you were to have a condition subject to approval of public works and planning um on any change to that. A change needs to be made uh versus what's in the proposed PUD amendment. Whether that's the the quick mockup, you know, schematic that you all came up with, which for me, I think is the ideal. That's just me. I'm not opposed to what's proposed that's sensible. It's it's it's trying to solve the same issue um in a maybe more expedient and cheaper fashion. um but that gradual slope. So I understand it and I'm not opposed to it. I'll just say my preference or what I think is the ideal is to have a straight shot of a of a road um through there. But I'd be comfortable, you know, having that be a condition subject to approval um of planning and public works.

Okay. So for them to hash out what is Yeah. Okay. Best way forward. So, we we need to have a motion on the um floor to uh to deliberate on. And but before we do that, can can you walk us through now uh Mike what conditions we need to be considering in addition to the most recent one that we've talked about?

Yes. So, I'll pull up what we had in the staff report. We had four recommended uh motions. The first one was the storm water permit should be updated. Second, the certificate of occupancies for the meadows are not issued until the western path to the boardwalk is constructed and usable. I would also add that we add a signage to that. That that's where the public access is. Um any street trees that are removed uh from the terrace parking shall be replaced elsewhere and staff can work with them on those placements. Um there was a lack of canopy trees, so that would be number four. Um, the other would be to realign the drive entrance to the north. Uh, to work with staff and to have staff approve that and to eliminate the eight parking spaces to the north

to eliminate the eight parking spaces to the north off of that drive.

Unit building three or unit. All right. So, is someone prepared to make the motion um relative to this matter and assuming it's a a positive mo motion um to include the conditions, Mr. Garin? Thank you. Um, I move to request to amend the Harbor 31 plan unit development at 600 Shoreline Drive for a new residential development at 170 Vidian Drive and to amend the waterfront access paths within Harbor 31 be recommended to the city commission for approval for with the following conditions. Condition one, the storm water permit is updated with the engineering department. Uh condition two, the certificates of occupancy for the meadows are not issued until the western path to the boardwalk is constructed and usable with appropriate signage uh which will be agreed upon I believe with uh staff. Uh number three, any street trees that are removed for terrace parking shall be replaced elsewhere in the development as approved by staff. Uh number four, the landscaping plan is revised to include an additional 10 canopy trees on site, including at least two per parking lot. And we now have a fifth condition that the realignment of the approaches on the north. Um that configuration will be determined after completing uh agreements and approvals with staff and we have eight parking spaces which

will be removed on the north on the north. Yes. Good job. Does that sound that sounds right? Okay. So I have a motion. Is there support for that support? So, a motion in support to um to recommend approval of the PUD amendment with the conditions as stated. Before I ask for a vote, I I do want to ask Mr. Hendrickson if since we've changed this, do you have any comments um relative to the conditions that have been presented? No comments. I'm comfortable all the all the conditions. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Any other uh comments from the planning commission, Mr. Mayor? Um

yeah, a couple different comments with regard to the impact on the GVSU parking and that that proposed changes um which they'll be responsible for. Um initially had some reservation about that. Um and I and its previous version showed that that was parking was going to be remaining intact and I was like, "Oh, that's nice." Um, but what's been pro here and what looks like they're going to be doing there, um, is an improvement. Um, I I have a private office at the innovation hub. I'm there often. Um, right now the way the parking lot is being so close to the roadway, people use it as a roadway. They cut right across. Um, which is problematic. Using the parking lot like a roadway. So being able to shift it over and having more of delineation separation from the from the roadway is going to be much better. Um, and so I I have no problem with that that that modification there. Um, and it is actually nice to see the wetlands wetland again. They dried up and with all the rain uh recently, the wetlands are wetlands again. I noticed because I was just last week I was like, "Wow, the wetlands are gone." And bam, they're back now. Um and with regard to public access, so it mentioned amend um it says amend the waterfront access paths, but to be clear, we're just speaking on the center one. Um that other one is for a future modification. Um and I like that the with the ramp um coming right off center. That is a a nice access point there. And we definitely need a sign. Um we have a sign on the approach, but we definitely need a sign to look right at the that access point. um just throwing it out there because I know how uh much of a concern or or interest um this public access has been um amongst our community as well as the city commission. You heard it, you know, last time an item was before the city commission. Um and the thought was like, well, we're not not going to get in the public access over there when we're dealing with some other um feud amendment here. Um that was with the with the hotel. Um but there definitely was a lot of uh interest in securing um

improving the public access sooner than later. And so I appreciate the condition here saying this must be done before any certificates occupancy um are issued. Definitely appreciate that. I wonder though if since there already is a public access point that's just unofficial public access um if perhaps we I'm not going to ask that we add this as a condition right now but I'm asking you to consider this before it comes to the city commission of the access point to the far west where there's a sidewalk now that comes from uh the roadway to the boardwalk which is um actually how I access because I'm over at the innovation of so that's the closest point and um I take that sidewalk to the boardwalk when I go there. It's not technically a public access point at least not in the the POD but it is a de facto uh public access point and it exists already and so perhaps that's a way to identify and recognize this is public access in the meantime that this preferred much better um centrally located public access is created sometime in the future. throwing that out there for your reflection. Um, and as well as my fellow plan commissioners and the city commissioners.

Well, well, what I would say about the um access point we're talking about today is, you know, to me the outside date is when the occupancy permits are issued, but it doesn't have to wait till then. No, it doesn't. So, it could be done sooner. And, you know, hopefully that does occur. Mhm. It may lead to some confusion if we open it up temporarily.

Well, I don't mean temporarily. I mean like that just being a third. I I wondered that before, but I was like, you know, we don't I was going to bring it up in the pre past, but I was like, you know, it's already it's going to just operate as a deacto public access, you know, but I'm thinking maybe maybe it is better to actually identify as this is an official public access point. Um people use it um just to avoid consternation around that point being used in the future that it is a public sidewalk to a public boardwalk kind of thing versus just a separate element. But I just wanted to raise that share that um as another potential improvement for public access and to this development. But um I'm happy to support this amendment otherwise um and would be excited to see more development um this development further progress um and with the the

wetlands as a focal point and and amenity there it'll be a nice improvement and um be able to provide a lot more housing for our community which is very much needed.

Any other comment on the motion? you know, other than um I think as we complete the uh buildout, you know, within the development, I think there'll be a lot clarity, a lot more clarity with the reality because we've been dealing with, you know, 25 odd years of an open field and, you know, waiting for something, you know, to occur. And we've had some things occur. And in the meantime, you know, people have been using, you know, cut across those empty fields to, you know, access wherever they they can, which has led to request for fencing, which has u led to requests for can we get some relief here because people are using our our yards as, you know, a public space and the public space is the sidewalk on the water. Um, but I think as we build out and there's more reality as to what are the parameters on and uses on each one of these lots, we'll be in a better position. Uh, and even as far as, uh, you know, parking. Uh, but I think the parking reality has been a reality from day one because, you know, uh, past iterations have shown, you know, a, uh, more compact, you know, denser, uh, use of the entire property. Uh, and so onward and upward. And thank you, sir.

All right. Roll call, please. Commissioner, yes. Yes. Yes. Garza, yes. Johnson, yes. Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Hendendrickson, and good luck to you. Thank you all. Do we anticipate this be on the May 13th general session for the commission? Yep. Okay. Did you Did you hear that? No. It's uh intended to go before the city commission on May 13th.

I wouldn't since I got here um closed on the land for the hotel today and so we're looking to mobilize on site uh probably Monday. Oh wow. So you'll start seeing some activity out there Monday or so. We're looking at a May 19 uh groundbreaking event at 11:00 in in the morning. So, that invite will be sent out. Appreciate it. Great. Thank you. I'm looking forward to that. May 12th is the May I think I said Tuesday, May 12th. I said the 13th. It is May. Tuesday, May 12th. You'll see that from uh Wolverine Building Group is putting the the flyer together. So, thank you. Thank you. Um I don't have the agenda in front of me. Next item of business.

Sure. This is case 2026-11. Staff initiated request to amend section 20 of the zoning ordinance to change the required front setbacks for waterfront properties in the lakeside mixed residential context area. Go ahead.

So the lakeside mixed residential context area has a front build to zone of 5 to 12 ft but the formbbased code also allows waterfront properties to consider either the street side or the waterfront side as the front of the property. This means that a building may be required to be placed anywhere from 5 to 12 feet from the pop property line facing the water. However, since all of the property may not be above the ordinary high water mark and also since the water levels fluctuate, uh it would not be possible to place a building always uh in this close to the water in many situations. So what staff is proposing to do is to amend the ordinance to require that waterfront properties to only build above the ordinary high water mark and not to have a traditional setback from the waterfront property line. So if you choose to have your frontage as the street, whether you are a type of housing unit or a cottage court or cottage retail building, which is allowed, uh you could place that 5 to 12 feet off the front property line. If you choose to have the waterfront as your front, which many people are going to do, they want to be on the waterfront. Um, instead of us guessing where the property line is or where it should be and maybe that area 5 to 12 feet is under near underneath the ordinary high water mark, it would just make sense to allow them to place it anywhere above the ordinary high water mark.

So, you're not require in that case, you're not requiring the 5 to 12 feet, correct? Okay. This is uh somewhat related to um Mr. Gz's proposal. We've done some zoning work over the past year and while we're laying out his property, you know, everything we planned was great, but now that um we're in this situation of building placement with ordinary high water mark, it's causing some problems and probably will with other properties in the future. Okay,

any questions for uh staff? All right. So, this is this is a public hearing. Um, if anybody would like to address this issue, please um come forward, state your name for the record, and you have three minutes to speak. Nobody. So, now we'll go to the viewing audience. If you'd like to address this uh matter to the planning commission, please call 231-724-6721. State your name for the record and then you have uh three minutes to address this matter. Oh, we got a caller.

Hello, you're with the city of Mskegegan.

Hey everybody, this is Leah Willlet Loy following regarding the item of um along waterfront properties. I wanted to make the comment that we've had a lot of discussions about buffers and essentially um the ordinary high watermark may come into play if the property extends beyond that. However, we need to establish some type of buffer between the ordinary high water mark and any actual building in my opinion. So I would agree that the ordinary high water mark should not be built past but that there still needs to be some type of buffer between wherever the water may be which would be a habitat zone um in many situations and any actual building. So that's my comment. Thank you. Thank you.

Is there anybody else? Nope. I would move to close the public hearing. Support a motion in support to close the public hearing. Any discussion on that motion? All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. Motion carried. I'll um take a motion on the on the subject. I move the request amend section 20 of the zoning ordinance to change the required front setbacks for waterfront properties in the lakeside mix for residential contact area be recommended to city commission for approval.

Support. a motion and support to um recommend the uh ordinance amendment. Any discussion, Mr. Mayor?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this is a sensible amendment uh they bring forward. Um, in the same vein as the the caller and our and our planet chair who just spoke, I do wonder uh not necessarily tied to this specific um uh ordinance amendment, but for us to contemplate across all waterfront properties um requiring some kind of uh buffer, some kind of native planting, native landscaping, vegetative buffer um that would be conducive to a healthier watershed. Um and so I think that's something that we should evaluate as a city. It's one of the goals in our master plan and uh we haven't addressed that one yet, but it's definitely at the near the top of the list. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Commissioner Johnson, yes. Darza, yes. Cipher, yes. Yes. And yes. Motion carries. Um item number C.

This is case 2026-12. Staff initiated requests to amend section 20 of the zoning ordinance to remove and edit several areas of the formbbased code. Um staff's repo proposing these amendments. Um the reasoning behind it are many. Um we've been using the code for over 10 years now and staff has noticed some regulations that need to be rem removed or revised. several of them. Um it's very challenging to actually uh enforce on some of these. Um also some resonings have brought about multiple expansions across the eight neighborhoods. Um we have creation of manu context areas specific to the lakeside business district in adjacent adjacent residential areas in 2019. This was modeled after but never fully integrated into the original foreign base code document. um continued reszonings and expansion that are anticipated to implement the goals of the master land use plan. Uh eliminate redundancies to improve readability for users and generally make the document more accessible. This is a big one. Uh if you flip through our code, you'll notice about the first 20 or so pages really is just uh story and probably not really necessary for the ordinance. Uh developers really appreciate when we can point out the sections that pertain to them. This should make it a lot easier and more readable and when we find that the developers are able to read it uh more easily, they're able to present us with a better plan to start off. Uh so also simplify regulations to ensure that the code regulates the things that it should be and uh not the things that it shouldn't be. It's an opportunity to address document formatting as the zoning ordinance transitions to MUN code, which we hope to do uh shortly after this amendment. Uh so in general the proposed updates include uh updated wording to be more specific, clear and concise where necessary. Uh it will eliminate redundant language and references to the zoning ordinance with

overlapping regulations. Um connect zoning ordinance sections references throughout uh removed unhelpful regulations that have minor effect uh on intended results and remove suggested regulations some of which will be used to draft actual regulations. So, we have Jamie Pesh, uh, our planner three here in the department. He's going to give us a quick, uh, presentation to go over what we have, and I'll let Jamie take it over from here. Good evening. Um, so there's a lot here. Obviously, our formbbased code currently is about 240 pages. Um, in order to do this, and for formatting purposes, I took all of the text out of that document. Uh, it will still be a very visual graphic document that has a lot of diagrams and such. um but it has been reduced to roughly a 100 pages in text at this point and obviously there's still some formatting decisions to be made um as we move to Municode but uh overall I think that cover page there summarizes the intention of what we're doing here quite well um I'm happy to review it in any more detail that you all may want. It's kind of a hard thing to present on just because there's a lot of different angles that you can come at it from. Um, but generally speaking, uh, that summarizes it. And the code is broken down to a lot a lot of different sections. I don't know how in-depth you all went in reviewing some of the things that were in your packets, but uh, if there are any specific questions, I'm happy to answer those. If there's anything more broadly that you'd like me to elaborate on, I can do that as well. Um, it's a little tough just because of the way the document's formatted. It's hard to make text changes and uh, layout changes all at the same time. So, it feels like you're looking at two different documents, which coincidentally is how we treat our zoning ordinance right now, where we have a form-based code and a regular ordinance. And we're hoping to get closer to a point where we can merge all of those together, make it more accessible for the general public, um people interested in investing in the

city, making improvements to their own properties. Jamie, I have a couple um a question and a comment. I guess my question is much of the um changes that you're proposing are uh taking things out of the ordinance things that and some of the things that um provided a requirement. So those things that are removed that required some kind of specific requirement does that mean that then they're either not required to do those things or they're no longer pro prohibited from doing those things. How is how does that work?

Right. Yeah. So, a lot of the things that were removed would be design requirements that we had that would come into play occasionally. Um, more often than not, we find ourselves not needing to reference it. Um, the things the the designs for buildings that people propose or layouts, it's already covered in most cases. Um, one of the ones that repeats itself throughout this is actually a requirement for pylisters. And those are just vertical elements of a building. when you build a building, there's going to be structure that almost mandates those anyway. Um, and in a lot of ways, we don't think that requirements like that try to achieve what the formbbased code was meant to achieve. Um, it it feels a little bit uh like decoration in some ways. And we wanted to loosen things up for developers to do more creative things in some cases. And uh that was one of the ones that was more or less cut out of the ordinance. Uh so to your point, yeah, they would not be required anymore. So um so I have one more question and a comment. One of the items is if I remember this right is it talks about allowing architectural uh elements to be within the public right away. Is that something we've normally allowed in the past and can you talk about that?

Yeah, it would be new with the formbbased code. So about 10 years of that. Uh that actually isn't changing. It's just being more specific in the way that it's worded. um it was quite elaborate in the way that it was written out, it referenced specific things that can be allowed. Um in one of the early sections, I believe it's uh section 2003, they define all of those things very succinctly in one section. So we basically change it to reference back to that section so that you don't repeat yourself over and over and over throughout the code. Um it was written very much with a print copy in mind and we're moving more and more to a digital world. Uh that's not to say that we can't provide print copies to people that need them. We can. But in looking at this from the perspective that most people are going to view them, we think making this more concise, removing some of that redundancy is just going to make the code more accessible.

Okay. And my question is uh relative to um what what I believe is a requirement um to to have sidewalks um and developments on both sides of the road. Um, I'm a little concerned about that. I don't know that that in my opinion, I'm not sure that's all necessary and all developments. Can you speak to that? Yep. Yep. Um, so that section specifically applies to subdivision and access

that it differs from planned unit developments. So subdivision, it differs from a planned unit development. Okay. Uh, subdivision requirements are actually their own chapter in the city code of ordinances. um these where they overlap, this will take precedent. Uh where they don't, that section of the chap or that chapter of the ordinance will. In this case, we're talking about developments that are replplatting larger plots of land. Um plan unit developments operate under their own zoning requirements, so to speak. So, it wouldn't be automatically applied to PUD. I think we would prefer to see it in a lot of cases, especially in areas that are affected by the formbbased code, which tend to be downtown centric. Uh but it wouldn't be something that is mandated for every planned unit development. And typically we see that more than we see um subdivisions just because we're a built

when do we have a a replat? I mean there it's very rare. I think maybe the last one that I can think of is the Bluff and Bay Estates. I think that was technically a subdivision and not a but it's a but it's a site condo. Even that might also be a plan development. So it's incredibly rare and it would be more common. Okay. Oh, so just so I understand.

Yeah. Yep. And that's the same thing with that same section about subdivision. Um there was a reference to the public realm standards, which is a huge section that we're removing in anticipation of having uh street design standards at some point that will effectively replace that. Um again, right now we handle it with public works and it's sort of a case by case with the plan unit development, but because we don't see many subdivisions being built, it's very rare that we'd ever have to reference that. Okay, I'm done. Any other just to bring back because I was did have a question about the public realm standards being removed entirely. So my understanding that only comes into play when you're doing new subdivisions or new plats, not Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. It it's it helps. It's guidance. Um so I believe that we looked at it very generally more as a recommendation uh for things like Adelaide Point um early on in that project development. The interesting part of it is that the word recommendation shows up like 44 times in this document and all of them are in that specific section for public realms. So, it's never been a requirement. Um, it's always been recommendations in that section which um goes well beyond what zoning would typically look at because it encroaches into the public right of way and that is usually the realm of the public works department. Okay. Okay. But we'll have additional design standards forthcoming that will be incorporated. Been a long process but we're still working out.

Okay. Thank you. And I appreciate the the red line versions. This is so helpful um being able to go through it and um see, you know, changes um much more clearly. Thank you. I didn't sleep this past week because I I thought you may have been staying up and reading those. I I was convolesing so I had time. Any other uh questions for Jamie or comments? Okay. And so this this is a this is a public hearing, right? Okay. Oh, yeah. No. No. I was going to make the motion, but this is a public hearing.

So, it is a public hearing. If there's anybody in the audience that would like to address this matter besides Jamie, um please raise your hand and come forward. State your name for the record. You have three minutes. Nobody. So, now we'll go to um the viewing audience. If there's anyone um watching us um on television and you'd like to comment on this matter, please call 231724 6721 and uh give us your comments in 3 minutes. We're good. I'll take a motion to close the public hearing. So moved.

A motion support to close the public hearing. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor say I. I. I. Oppos. Same sign. Motion carried. Now I'll take a a motion on the subject matter. I move the request to amend section 20 of the zoning ordinance to edit several areas of formbbased code be recommended to the city commission for approval as presented. Support. Have motion support um to recommend approval to the city commission of this amendment. Any discussion on the matter? Roll call, please. Commissioner Mazade, yes. Yes. Cipher, yes. Garza, yes. And Johnson,

yes. Okay. Motion carried. Um, so that's the end of the public hearings, Mr. Mayor. Well, on the next item, I was just wondering if uh you don't mind, Mr. Chair, and staff complete. Um, what's that? I was going to ask if we can move it up. So, Mr. uh Vanderhey could go before we do the goal setting. I was gonna say let's uh defer the goal setting to the next meeting because I know our our planning chair is very interested in that. Um she was supposed to be able to be here and so just asking if we can defer that to the next meeting. What do you mean she wasn't here? So that's her voice.

I think that's a a good idea. So um we don't need to take any action. Um we'll just defer that to the to the next meeting. Um so then we'll go to the uh capital improvement plan. Is that what Mr. Vanheis is here for?

Yeah. So uh it's actually a requirement through the planning enabling act. And one of our u requirements to maintain our redevelopment ready community status is to have the planning commission review our capital improvements plan. It's a six-year plan and to make a recommendation to the city commission. So we have Mr. Vanderhyde here to give us a run through. It's quite an extensive plan, but I'm sure he can do a good job um highlighting the important parts that we'll want to focus on.

Mr. Vanderhid, good evening. Uh it is quite an extensive plan and we would be here for most of the evening if I were to go through it line by line. So, uh, what I believe what I will do is is simply describe the format of the plan and, um, indicate how you might, um, view the plan with regard to one individual project. And if anyone has any questions about that format or any specific project, I will do my best to answer them. Although not every single project on here relates to public works, uh, the vast majority of them. So we have uh each project shows as one line within the spreadsheet. Uh the project title is the leftmost uh project fix. Uh it kind of describes what the intent to do is. We have a phase column which if it's applicable uh notes whether the project whether that specific line item is related to the design of the project or the construction of the project. Some of the projects are large enough that the design of it uh is a an expense large enough that it needs to appear on our capital sheet. We have the lead fund which uh attempts to describe uh which fund of the city uh is paying for the majority of the project. It doesn't mean it's paying for all of it. Uh there could be particularly with linear infrastructure or street projects. There could be water and sewer and road involved and in fact most of those projects have at least two if not three. Uh we have uh the GL number is simply a description internally of how we track that project in our accounting system. So in the SNA the accounting system uh we tie invoices and budgets uh to those numbers so that we can track them over time. We then have a grants and aid column. So that is if we are

anticipating or have already been awarded uh some form of grant for the project. Uh whether specifically a grant or whether principal forgiveness uh which is a term often associated with our drinking water and clean water state revolving fund projects, water and sewer projects that we uh you take advantage of the state's bond program for. Uh not exactly familiar with the blank column there. I think that might just be leftover from something else. Um, well, I think at one point that was our bond uh amount. SRF projects. Looks like that got uh goofed at some point, but the uh GF or general fund uh that describes dollars that the city takes in from t generally from property tax, income tax, and state and other federal sources. uh basically the city's you know uh day-to-day fund so to speak and then all the other funds up there are a combination of enterprise and special revenue uh type funds major and local street uh we often operate them as a single fund because we have a transportation asset management plan on file with the state which allows us to move money uh from one to the other with very little restriction. The arena fund obviously is for uh the Trinity Arena. PI public improvement is a fund that the city holds that um funds a various uh number of capital items, things like fire trucks. Uh it's been used for um housing purposes recently. Um anyone has any questions about the specific projects uh in that fund, we can talk through those. State grants is a fund that we use for state uh funds that flow to and through the city. Uh for example, uh the state ARPA, excuse me, the federal ARPA uh ARP

um American Rescue Plan Act that was name of the act for COVID funds. Uh those funds have been sitting in for fund 482 state grants and they get moved uh as they get spent. So that's main purpose lately of that fund. Sewer and water are relatively uh clear-cut. Those are the funds that hold the funds and spend the funds related to our utilities. Marina uh the marina has its own fund. Launch ramps are also included in there. Take in income for slips and launch ramp fees and so forth. And the last two, PSB, which stands for public service building, and equipment are funds that we use uh to um charge rent is the term that we use. But effectively, what we're doing uh is allowing other funds and other uh parts of the city's accounting system to pay for those pieces of equipment. So the public service building fund holds the public service building and of course within that building the highway department which is funded by the road funds. The water department and sewer department which are funded by those funds sit within that building. And so those funds pay rent to the public service building fund so that the public service building as a building has a way to sustain itself, pay for maintenance, pay for employees who serve all the departments, things like that. And the equipment fund is pretty much the same. So that equipment is owned by the equipment fund and as each individual department, police, water, sewer, highway, uses that equipment, they pay into the equipment fund to fund its future replacement. Total cost is just all of those lines put together and then we have uh comments line just for miscellaneous notes and things uh in order to keep ourselves in check.

the fund um or excuse me the plan overall is split in by year. So um I don't recall exactly how many uh years are currently planned. The target is always uh six and as you move down uh through the plan you'll notice a year breaks as you go. Each year, the city staff sit down with the manager's office and we make tough decisions about which projects make the cut and projects that don't typically move into a future year and we talk about next year hoping that we'll have funds to complete them at that time.

Questions. Any questions for Mr. Man? I have uh a couple. So, and maybe I missed it, uh, Mr. Van, the the term of this plan, it's a six-year plan, and it and it, um, it moves, right? Okay. So, what is this plan? What year what years is this covering? What's six years? So, I'm not sure. We probably have I know there's some dates in here, but it's kind of hard to

We probably have the current year included as well. So um I believe though what you all are approving is the 26 27 and forward uh years and the reason I guess I should say that it's before you and maybe you might cover this I don't recall um is the uh redevelopment ready community certification uh requires this body. I I think it's impressive um to see all the different projects that the city is embarking upon either have or either have uh already completed or in the middle of or or plan for the future. I mean I it's it's it's very impressive and it's um yeah very very aggressive. I think one one specific um project I guess I saw in here and and and I'm not sure it's necessarily the what I'm thinking of, but in the document it talks about um some I think some parking improvements at uh u beach parking improvements. I I think it it mentions I know the city had a plan for um some parking improvements uh near the what is now the south um uh bath house. Um and then they were um that that was not done. It was not constructed and I think I know there's some concerns about um that plan and but it never came back. And what's the status of that? Or maybe it's not coming back.

It is. Yeah, it is coming back. Um we were fortunate to find funds uh within the ARPA dollars that the city commission devoted to uh parks capital improvements. So a portion of the plan uh is actually out for bid right now and next week Thursday we'll receive bids on the project. Uh portions that are included are the boardwalk for lack of a better term although it's a concrete path uh between the two bathous now. So from the south bath house to the north or the old if you prefer. Uh and that is uh 16 ft wide and it will be a little bit closer to the lake than the current one. Is that is that on the beach side of the parking?

It is because the parking lot itself is getting a little larger. So it's currently uh just park you park only on the we'll call it the right side if you're going the correct direction through that bumpy section. Right. talking about uh when we're done you'll be able to park in both directions. So that parking lot further out the last plan was something similar to that, right? Something similar but a different configuration. So that version, previous version had the parking lot encroaching on the beach itself. Um this is having the parking lot go up to the sidewalk maintaining a tree line so the existing trees and more trees can be planted and then the boardwalks going on the other side of the trees. So you have some trees providing shade for both the boardwalk and the parking lot.

Nice. We're getting a bit 80 80 some parking spots. Yeah, 80. I want to say 88, but it could be that portion. That was about the number before somewhere near there. Yeah, I think that portion might include the um different layout of the ovals lot. So, I think I think because we're unable funding wise to complete the ovals realignment, I think the the parallel portion is 60s something. That's that parking lot that you're talking about. At least my count of it, it was counted. Okay,

it was 80 some and I thought it was 8780, but I'm not certain, but it was not including the ovals reconfiguration because that's a different piece that we were wanting to reconfigure the ovals to squeeze up more parking and do Indiana Avenue and all that. But yeah, it was 80 something. So, so that parking lot and I don't want to take up too much time on this issue, but that parking lot is what I remember it was going to be self-contained um and some kind of barrier between that parking lot and Beach Street. Is that still the case?

Yes. Yep. It'll operate much like it does today where you'll have the choice um as you come past the deck and the the north bath house and turn back to Beach Street, you'll have the opportunity to enter that parking area and it'll be one way down until you enter into that parking area. What will be the barrier between the lot and it'll look very similar to what is there today. Um the plastic delineators um which some people like them, some people hate them. Uh but when we hit them with plows, they don't break the plows. Uh and they're easy to replace. Um long term, perhaps we'll be able to look at something a little bit more robust, but um that's the plan for now. Thank you. Thank you for spending time on that.

There's one other feature about that project is the um the walkway going down to the beach from the main concession. That's the accessible one that gets put in and out every year. This plan does have a permanent uh concrete path going down there with a platform. Um, not as far as the accessible pathway now because it has to stay above the ordinary high water mark, but um, there'll be a permanent pathway going down there. Hey, for what it's worth, I don't like the sanctions, but that's fair. My two cents. All right, I'm sorry to dominate the issue, but I had a couple questions. Any any uh anybody else? Okay, this isn't a public hearing, right? So,

not not not a comment p or not a question per se. Um, but thank you for for presenting and and speaking on this um and including all the different plans because this goes back to I think fiscal year 20 2019 2020 um up to now but I didn't see the one for 2627. So are we looking to adopt 2627 or we that's forthcoming or we're looking at adopting the 26 the 2627 isn't finalized yet because we haven't done the budget. Okay. So that's for not actually need to adopt anything today then. So I think it's you guys have to review that we have one. So just review the existing one of 25 to 26 and it was supposed to be six years forward which we do have. Yeah. Yeah. Um

it is. So maybe we should just wait. Yeah. Yeah. It's just rolling like and six year timeline it just because every year you wait it's a six year. Six year every year. We're kind of doing kind of retroactive you know from 20 to to the present. But as I understand, we don't approve it. Okay. We, you know, we're we're uh we're accepting that there is a plan, right? I mean, we're supposed to make a recommendation to the city commission, right? Technically, and when you go further into the the requirements even it comes to uh uh capital capital expenditures and building that's supposed to come to us first. So that's that's the for efficacy and does this make sense and so on and so forth.

So that's the the hiccup we're trying to resolve because this these all have come to the commission and been approved. It's just yeah inadvertently a step got missed with the planet commission and and and mo and most commissions in the state have missed this. Oh have missed out. It's but um people are trying to catch up. Okay. We do it occasionally usually when the RC reminds us. So, we're trying to get better at just doing this. So, we don't want to lose that. Yeah. So, I can able to secure that, you know, early amongst Michigan. Yep. Um, so I'm looking at the current plan and it goes through 2032. Um, so the and obviously the further you get out, the plan gets shorter and shorter and shorter because because the manager hasn't said, "Kick that down. Kick that down. Kick that down."

Right. But but we don't have that. But is that the one that's in in draft form for 2627 or correct? Yeah. So 26. Yeah. So, so 2627 um is there, but we're we haven't finished the capital part of the budget yet, so we don't know what gets kicked on to 2728 and then how all that how everything rolls down from there. Um, so it's we're we're going through the process. But thank you for catching that because I did not know that this that that that was a requirement that this comes to the Planet Commission for a former view before it comes to the city commission. Yeah, that's that's part of our enabling act. So, what do we So, what do what do you want us to do? We can approve this.

I think there's a motion in there, but it should just be a simple motion to recommend it. So, we recommend what we have, but we we at some point we're going to have the new plan. Yeah. I think we should get it on the books. Yeah. Yeah, I do too. So, does somebody want to make a motion to recommend approval of this plan to the city commission? Okay. Mr. Uh, I recommend to adopt and approve the capital improvement plan as presented and recommend adoption and approval by the city commission. Support motion and support um to recommend approval of the capital improvement plan to the city commission. Any discussion? Roll call, please. Commissioner Mazade, yes. Yes. Cipher,

yes. Gara, yes. Johnson, yes. Motion pass. All right. So, corridor improvement checklist.

Yeah. So, I didn't um really want to present on this. I've just kind of been teasing it for the past couple months. So, I wanted to get it in everybody's hands and just give a quick overview. We can go over this in more detail at our next meeting. Uh just give you time to review it. Okay. What we're trying to do here is um you know we're continuously going to different business corridors to do corridor improvement plans, but what we're finding is you know one they take a while to create and um two they're kind of all saying the same things. There are things that every business corridor needs to strengthen itself. Um, a lot of times we're recommending, you know, road diets, on street parking, street amenities, lighting, benches, things like that. Um, this is a way that staff can work with business associations to establish where they are at instead of waiting 5 to 10 years to hit a business corridor. We can hit several of these a year and see where they're at and see what they want to do, what they're missing. And really what we would like to do is strengthen the participation in business associations. Uh get these business associations started. We can help them. We have documents to share. And then eventually um if they have a need to make major improvements is to encourage uh the creation of corridor improvement authorities or business improvement districts which will create funding uh revenue for to actually uh go through with some of these improvements.

Okay. Good. any uh we'll go over that more next month. Okay. All right. So, we'll save any comments. Okay. Okay. And then um we're in new business. Any other business? Um the attorney memo. What are we doing with that? We are asking to move that. We're not doing anything with that. Okay. Okay. So, any other business? No. All right. Um, one comment I have, Mike, and maybe it comes any other business, uh, the infill housing plan that you sent out to us. I I thought that was well done. I really, uh, I really like that. Um, you know, the presentation. Oh, okay.

Yeah. I I thought that was really helpful for us as things happen, but then we don't really think about what's happened over the time. So, then we get to see um, what's all been accomplished. So, we'll try to do more things. That that was really helpful. Yeah. Thanks. U any other comments? Any um so any uh public comment? Anybody in the audience like to

Just one thing. Uh Mr. Vanderhyde, I just want to extol your staff for the great work since uh the Christmas holidays on the uh fissure in the water mane. The the only issue I had was I did ask that they let the cement cure and the uh the uh the blockages and the cone staff until the end of August, but I really couldn't make that case. But uh but no uh the the crews have been just remarkably uh forthcoming. The interaction with the public is great. So you're all to be commended for that stretch. And I know this is selfish, but you know, I was kind of hoping for that catastrophic uh uh issue to occur on Palmer so we could finally get it done. But but being you know the reality, but overall ju just thank you so much to your department and your great staff.

So if there is any other public comment here, we'll go to the uh the viewing audience. If you'd like to address the planning commission and public comment, please call 231-724-6721 and make your comments.

Nope, we're good. All right. If there aren't any co public comments, um we stand a journ. Thank you. Thank you.