Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[music] [music] [music] [music] Well, you've got a whole thing of fruit in your [laughter] office,

right? Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the October 23rd uh special meeting of the city of Moskegan's planning commission. We have a few items on the agenda today. First of all, may I have roll call, please? Commissioners Wat Laoy here. Johnson Montgomery Kee here. Cypress here. Gan here. Kenir here. Mazade here. Blake here. And Simmons here. All right. Thank you. We have a quorum. And then first item is approval of the minutes. Minutes of September 11th, 2025. If I could have a motion.

Motion to approve the minutes of the regular planning commission meeting on Oh, wait. September 11th. September 11th. Support. Moved and supported to approve the minutes of our previous meeting, September 11, 2025. All those in favor? I.

All those opposed say no. All right. And then we have two items on the agenda. Public hearings. First item A, case 2025-38. Request to reszone a portion of the property at 560 Mart Street from Waterfront Marine WM to Waterfront Industrial PUD by West Michigan Dock and Market Corp. Uh yes, the applicant is requesting to reszone a portion of the property uh which is located um on the other side of the fence as depicted on the attached map. Um it's proposed to reszone 23 and 1/2 acres of the 43 1/2 acre site to WIPUD. Uh once WIPUD is put in place, uh every approved plan must come as a PUD. So the applicant would then be allowed to apply for a PUD under that zoning designation. Uh currently there are port related activities taking place on this section of the property. Although they are considered legally non-conforming or grandfathered, this would um bring them into conformance uh with that for this new zoning. Um this project is related to the property swap project that um everyone may be familiar with. Uh we included some videos and some depictions of how that would work and um staff uh is recommending approval of the project. This helps us this whole land um swap project would help us accomplish many goals that we have been planning for over the past several years that are in our master plan and our imagine Moskegan Lake plan that are noted below. Um and that goes uh for both cases involved in this project.

Okay. So firstly, um just we're going to open this up to a quick discussion on the commission and then we'll go to public comment. So do I have any questions as of now? My my question is more of a mechanical question. You mentioned that this would be a waterfront industrial PUD and then it would allow for um the property owner to apply for a PUD, but how would how does that work with this property when um there's already uses on the property that would um be compatible with the zoning? So, does this Go ahead.

Sure. That's a good question. Um so, they are grandfathered in for what they are doing now. um any other use that is allowed in WIPUD that they are not doing uh they would be required to so if the property owner assuming that all the uses currently on the property comply with the new zoning requirements um if they do nothing to change that then they don't need to do anything with the correct thank you any questions on this as of yet. Um, do we have a list of what those current uses are for grandfathered? 124.

That's the current are you you're not you're not talking about what is allowed. You're talking about the current uses. Current uses that we're saying are grandfathered based on the time frame. Yes. Um, shipping of aggregate is the main use. It wasn't in there. Scott can probably talk a little bit more about their operations.

So, uh, as Mike mentioned, uh, storage of aggregates that are brought in by vessel and trucked out is one of the larger uses. We have silos on site, um, that are leased out that company brings fly ash in, stores it, hauls it back out to job sites. Um, we occasionally have large cargo projects. You may remember a number of years ago when the big windmill blades came through. Um different activities like barges that bring in uh the stone used for revetment things of that nature. Okay.

And so then uh I think the question basically lies with the new zoning opportunity. what the differences are, what uses, if if nothing changes, if there was no additional agreements or purchases or sales, the new potential uses. Yes, the new potential uses are all spelled out in the zoning ordinance excerpt, which is included uh as WIPU. So, there are starting on page 19 there are 19 permitted uses. uh with some accessory uses to those and there are 10 prohibited uses listed.

Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to have those kind of readily available. Sorry, I forgot. Here I pull up on the screen. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. [clears throat] All right. This is a public hearing, so at this time I will allow any members of the audience who would like to come forward and speak to this item to do so. [laughter] Of course.

I didn't know that was happen. Good afternoon. My name is Jake Ekhol. I'm the director of development services for the city of Moskegan. Um, I really just wanted, and I'm sure our uh, fantastic planning staff already put it in there and and we'll reiterate, but set all the potential Third Street redevelopment and and land trades and stuff aside, had Mart [clears throat] come to us, those of us that work here now in this capacity, and said, "Hey, you know, some years ago, we were reszoned and and this kind of prevents us from doing additional business operations on this site. we would like to do. We would like to reszone to industrial PUB. We would have entertained that request through a planning and zoning application and likely recommended approval because it's consistent with existing uses on the site. So, just wanted to add that bit of context. There is all this stuff going on out and this is part and parcel to that, but this is something that had you set all that aside and they had made this request, I think we likely would have recommended approval in any case. So, wanted to give that context. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, I am not seeing anyone else in the audience, so I'm going to go ahead and go to the phones for public comment. 231-724-6721 just a moment or two. Any calls coming in? [clears throat] No. Okay, thank you. Uh, right. We're going to I'd request a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Oh, support. Moved and supported to close the public hearing. All in favor?

I post say no. Thank you. All right. So, to continue some discussion, if anybody would like to motion on this item, we can do so. I move that the request to reszone a portion of the property at 560 Mark Street from Waterfront Marine to Waterfront Industrial PUB be recommended to the city commission for approval. Second moved and supported. All right. Do I have any additional questions, comments, concerns?

Maybe just a clarification. my based on what Jake just said um it's my understanding and maybe I'm not correct this action is independent of the land swap right I mean regardless of what happens there if this is approved this is approved right that is my understanding correct thank you

that was my understanding as well um so there was some you know basic discussion and as we have an additional joiner I I think he had some perspective on that um but the question here is is this use approval consistent with our current master plan and intentions for the downtown area. And so obviously there's a land swap in in front of us and a discussion which I keep saying that word but I'm told it's more of a purchase understanding than an actual swap. So it's not that this is being traded. There's just a group of agreements together. Um, and so I think the question when it comes to zoning is should this property be zoned based on master land use plan or is it possible to make it contingent? And that was a question. Did you get a chance Mike to see if

we discussed that a bit?

Yeah. So staff had a discussion about about whether there should be a contingent reszone or not. And uh my inclination would be no. And the reason being is that the the property owner still has to come back with a with a PUD um approved site plan to do any changes on the property. Um and that as we were looking at how this would work um in the larger uh context of the discussion we're having regarding fisherman's landing in Martoc um one of the reasons that staff agreed to um have this discussion earlier in the process is because if the agreement was to was to not go forward for some reason. gives Mart do the ability to uh continue their port operations in a way that's similar to what they desire to do at Fisherman's Landing. So, this is just helping to move that process along. They still would have to come back for a PU for for the actual PUD. Um but if it was conditional, um I think that that adds another layer there that would be um that would just kind of complicate things. they can do what they've what they've been doing for decades um on this site um as it's currently set up and then uh this just allows them to do what they would have been doing there um if the zoning hadn't changed in the late 80s. Um and this, you know, this was a question that's come up from the public is why can't they do what they want to do at Fisherman's Landing on their on their own site? Um this would allow that if those things weren't to go through. zone. Um but because they have to come back for a PUD layout anyways, the that is sort of a conditional resone in and of itself.

Um the list back on there of the uses. Just had a quick question and forgive me sometimes it's difficult to get to these on the current system. Okay, so if we scroll down and just look at the uses that will be essentially included in this industrial option, none of these mention residential. Right. So, my understanding is is that in the event that um Marduk retains this property and they're looking in the future to do some kind of residential mixed use, will we need to reszone at that point? Correct. Okay. Yep. Yep. That's correct. Okay. That was my main question.

Did you have any additional comments? We missed our first round. Um my observation or commentary with regard to the current request or question as to whether or not to uh reszone this the waterfront industrial uh PUD district um is that I don't think it aligns with our existing master land use plan. And so from my perspective at the planning commission level is not to support this um with the caveat that when it comes to the city commission um I have a different u more latitude and a different lens to look at it. Um and so there may be an opportunity or that position could evolve at the city commission level. But from a planning perspective given what our master land use plan and the um longestablished vision of consolidating this east end which is actually spoken to in um this if you go to the preamble it speaks to it being consolidated on the east end and not allowing this elsewhere. And so um then creating this elsewhere is directly contradictory to what our zoning says. And so given the language in the preamble, given our master land use plan, I'm disincclined to support creating this district. And I understand that it would have to come back for a site plan or a formal PD to be approved. But once you create the district, you are um essentially establishing legal obligations and expectations that when you create this district that at some point you will approve a POD aligned with that. Um, and given that contravenes what the preamble and our measel plan says, I'm disincclined to support creating the district um, presently there.

I would I would disagree a little bit on that. And the only reason I would say that is because this this property is a little unique. Um, their family has owned it since the 1930s. um the grandfathering portion of it um makes the situation a little different. Um even from my vision of what I'd like to see down there and the plan um [sighs and gasps] it's probably in the best interest to accommodate what's going on there now. Um with the hopes that sometime down the road that that'll change

one more. Go ahead. Well, I was going to just um respond that the as as noted because it is non-conforming, legally non-conforming, um the operations that they have continue will continue and in the event that we can't um deliver on the vision of our master use plan of consolidating on East End, that's where I'm much more open to um revisiting this and to to your point, you know, allowing their [clears throat] reconfiguration of operations where they exist now. Y um but at this present um point I don't support the question at hand.

And so um I guess that brings my question to is this is anything contingent currently on this reszoning because it seems to be a matter of timing. My understanding is that there's a potential agreement in play. Uh but has that been finalized?

Correct. So the um the the way that the agreement is contemplated is that at the point in time that the agreement would be executed, the reasonzoning would take effect too. In order to to do that, the planning commission has to look at it first um and make a recommendation whether to approve or not approve to the city commission. Uh and and it's it's really um set up as a way that if if things don't go forward um the the property owner Mark Doc doesn't have to come back to the planning commission, the city commission after they've already gone through all this public um uh engagement on on this process and and come back and ask the the planning commission, the city commission to make a change to their property after another agreement didn't um did not go through. So it um so the contingent on this is that this isn't what you know in the absolute long-term in the perfect world of this agreement that we're trying to look at whether you you think it's a good agreement or not would be that there would be mixeduse development down here in the future but that um one of the olive branches that we were looking at in the negotiation discussions was doing this uh reszoning earlier in the process in as an insurance policy that they could continue to operate their business in the city if if they weren't able to relocate it.

She owns the property. Mhm. Property. Um, one final item is in the event that we're doing things differently than we might normally do. So, my question is very much so. In the event that we do this reszone, the negotiations continue and for whatever reason they don't materialize, do we as a city then have the capacity to request an actual additional reszone or um I mean

so two years from now because we've been having I say that because we've been having these conversations for many years and plans and so on and so five years from now if there's no plan in place and we're really again looking to ensure that downtown becomes not a full port and and is very light use industrial at the most we have the ability to essentially request some new restrictions clarifying question that speaks to this to some extent okay because we were talking about contingency the [clears throat] like um as I understand it when we approve any PUD there is an expiration essentially if no action is taken on um development in accordance to the PUD or the like it would disappear. But that's does that apply to a district as well or just the PUB site plan?

I believe it would be the site plan. Yeah. Um so that never mind then. Okay. And I'm only exploring these because it's a complic I know it's a complicated scenario and I just want folks to understand that we've contemplated Oh, sure. 12 ways to Sunday. Yeah. [laughter] That this could be done. Um and and I think you know to to to your question, Madam Chair, the um I I don't think that I mean the city could certainly talk to the property owner and say, "Hey, we think we need to reszone this back to something else." Um the one thought that I had as as um the mayor was talking was, you know, we

did a for lack of a better term, a forced reszone in the late 80s. Um and

and then you know through the '90s um you know and all the way up to today there there's been multiple attempts to try to get the site redeveloped and and find another location for for Markdock. And so I think you know having the forced re reszone um in the future even if it was you know a request might just put us in that same situation. And what this does is um in my mind anyways is look at the property in a way that if if this latest attempt isn't successful um and there's been some really good attempts over the past you know 30 years um if this if this isn't successful. it's in the community's best interest to allow the business to use their property in the way that it was originally intended um as as a port and they they do own it.

Um

and we've you know limited them a bit because it they're a grandfathered use and and one of the things with a nonconformity within a grandfathered use is that you can't make that nonconformity more non-conforming. Um, so you can continue to do what you've done. Um, but you can't necessarily do new things that you weren't doing at the time that it changed. Um, there there might be a little bit of wiggle room there. Um, but you're certainly not going to, you know, rebuild the whole site and and put um, you know, containerized operations and things on that because it wouldn't be um, you know, just like looking at this list. um bulk storage and um cargo are handled are in different spots um and so you know as our grain elevators and things like that so they're different types of uses

is cruise ship considered part of uh the fairies I would I mean I guess that would be up to the zoning administrator I'm sorry I didn't catch that cruise ships currently in the industrial are they allowed my question is is let's say cuz you know we all we all want things to [clears throat] move along some [laughter] good result but in the event that that doesn't and we look at what Mart could be as it is I would presume that they would want to continue to have cruise ships down there which they don't currently or would without additional or would they consider hosting the cruise ships there

my my imagining when we talk about future of Mardock is basically some right now right so it's it's it's people as well as marine items. So, I was just curious if cruise ships already be a cool cruise ship doc. I mean, I'm not seeing anything that would necessarily exclude them. It says railroad and passenger fairies. Yeah, right. That would be a passenger ferry. Okay. It's your interpretation of it. That answers my question. Yeah. [laughter] Okay. Um, that's where I'm at. Again, I just wanted us to be able to have a vision of what in the event that nothing changes, what we could continue to engage with Mart on that is more Oh, sure. akin to what our downtown needs. Yeah.

And the and and actually if if I may, Madam Chair, the um to kind of give some insights into some of the discussions we've had, um they're you know, I believe that they want to be good partners with with the community and even when they're looking at if something was to happen here that, you know, they would rather have at the other site, they would want to make sure it's complimentary. Um, and so I think that's the um, a message that's been delivered. So I don't, you know, I think you would agree with me, Scott, or Yeah. Not to put words in your mouth, but Yeah. Yeah. And it's like, it's lakefront property, so it's got a lot of value to it. So, who knows what they're going to want down the road.

All right. Any final thoughts? Um, I'm just wanted to I just want to be sure before I decide which way I'm going to go with this. So, we're really just ensuring that this is not about the swap at all. Essentially, it's just about making this to where it's supposed to be according to our current zoning. Right. So, the the landowner essentially has said, I'm hampered by my current zoning and I don't therefore have the capacity to use my my property to the extent that I would desire to have the option to do.

And um if Mr. Mayor, if you could give a little bit more depth in how it does not align with the current master plan. Mhm. Um, m chair. Uh, yeah. Could you pull up the preamble? Um, and then with regard to the master language plan. So, there two pieces with regard to that because it says it's intended to promote the consolidation. Where' it go? There it goes. There it is.

Uh it says that uh water waterfront industrial PD district is intended to promote the consolidation of commercial port activities at the eastern terminus of Moskegan Lake because of its proximity to the interstate, establish industrial uses and isolation of residential zones. Um it further says the intent is to localize this district to promote symbiotic relationships among industrial port activities and discourage the expansion of such activities elsewhere along the skating lake frontage. Um, and so expanding it to this site, even though there is legally non-conforming use here presently, because the city took action decades ago to move away from this type of activity here, um, is reverting course and acting in a way that's contradictory to what the preamble to this district says, but also what our master land use plan envisions, which was consolidating this activity on the eastern end of Moskegan Lake, not having it in the heart of our downtown. Um that said, when when I said I'm from a planning perspective, I'm not inclined to support this request at the city commission. There's greater latitude. And what we heard from the manager um a few moments ago was with this other development agreement that's being anticipated with potential deed restrictions tied in. Um and so we've seen a version presented to the city commission last month. Um it'll be interesting to see what evolves and what gets brought forward to the city commission uh next month. Um and that's where there may be um rationale for me to vote yes at the city commission on this but no at the planning commission. Um but from a purely planning um perspective I'm a no on the request. If I if I could with the the master plan in our last master plan, the previous one, the 97 plan, that was a very big goal to move everything to the east side of the lake.

Uh we did discuss that recommending putting that into the current master plan, but we ultimately did not recommend that. I I don't believe the current master plan actually states those words about moving it east, even though that would be ideal, but there are

I hear you. Is that for reasons? the intention of moving you're saying you're asking about the moving the port to the east end was that for safety reasons um I think the initial intention there was again to allow different type of districts and uses and that um again there's there's imagining and conversation about creating a continuity along the lakefront right where that one can travel along the lakefront from a great distance and if we move port activity to the east side it's it's really a terminus it's it's an end of the lake and so we we kind of don't have that breakup. So that was really the intention is is just to eliminate

it. It's also because of transportation the east end of the lake facilitates location that's close to highways um easy to get in and out. It doesn't disrupt the city center. So there's there's good reason behind that from the port perspective. There's other reasons which is you know they more access to the highway on the east end and again having all of their operations local to one another you know their partners and other companies operating similarly is is a benefit as well. So it all makes sense to everybody to move port operations to the east end. Um but it's a complicated

well and then this property is a little different. It's been owned for a long time. Yeah. All right. So, it's going to take time. Last one.

Um, you know, I do see in the, you know, the preaml there. I I think the word that pops out to me is, you know, uh to promote the consolidation, but and I don't know if that means um at the cost of inhibiting, you know, the current uh landowner or the operation. um they by right under you know the grandfathering can continue to operate as they have within certain parameters you know the past hundred years um and as is am I correct that should the property be transferred and or sold that um as is with If there isn't a substantial change to the uh type of operation, it could be carried on.

Correct. You know, even after a transfer or or a sale. Um, I I know that we have a vision, but if the business has a vision of, you know, potential improvement and expansion on a portion of the property, um, I think that we have to be careful if we're seen as inhibiting um, the the property owner,

you know, who by I uh you know can can do that. Um because we may have our visions um but they got caught up in a map um you know by our choice and not by theirs.

Yeah. And I I would agree. I think that um there is there's a balance there, right? because we we could leave all businesses to their own devices and we'd be in a very different place. So, it's definitely a dance between, you know, folks that we need who have investment in the community. Um, and also the idea of of quality of life and creating a, you know, a cohesive community that has lots of different uses and opportunities. So, um, I think we're all looking for um, a future that's different and better for everybody. Um, I'm I'm inclined to to go ahead with this as it is. Um but again we're we have other things in play and we expect that they will go accordingly. So roll call please. Can I one more? Can I say something?

So as I understood earlier and maybe that's changed now. I thought I I was under the impression that this is going to go through the normal course of action and the city commission will take this up and if it's approved then it's approved and it stands as it is. Um regardless irrespective of what happens with the land swap. Am I getting I seem to get the impression that this matter is going to the city commission part and parcel with the land swap issue or together. Well, they're I mean they'll be considered at the same meeting but separate items.

Okay. Um, so they, so if if the reasonzoning um wasn't to go forward for some reason, um, then that might impact the on the developer side about the the agreement. Um, but they're they're separate items. They they'll stand independently of one another and be considered independently of one another. So, you you should consider this as if nothing else will happen in the future. We need to consider this accordingly. Yeah, that's that's what I asked earlier and that was the but then [clears throat] our discussion seems to indicate that they were part and parcel. It's a tool in the in the potential negotiation,

but it is because in the agreement that was brought forward last month, it is prerequisite. This action is a prerequisite for the development agreement to move forward. So they are in that mind. Yeah. In that two separate but they're two separate action items, but they are definitely uh [clears throat] inter in um intertwined. Okay. Okay. Roll call, please. Commissioner Simmons, yes. Blake, yes. Hazade, yes. No. Yes. Cipher, yes. Montgomery Keys, yes. Johnson, no. And Wlette Loy, yes.

All right. So, motion is approved. We have a second item on the agenda. Similar situation but different. [laughter] All right. If I could get a motion. I move that the request to resone a portion of the property at 501 East West Avenue from open space recreation to waterfront. Okay, hold on. I pause because this is public hearing. Um every time every time I do this, I apologize. Um, so, [laughter] uh, generally this is a public hearing, so if I have anybody who wants to come forward, we're going to do a quick staff report and then you'll have the opportunity to do so.

So, this is the staff initiated request uh, which is a little more directly related to the land swap project um, to reszone a portion of the fisherman's landing at 501 Eastwestern to WIPUD to allow for port activities on site. Again, uh once the PUD zoning is established, the uh owner would be allowed to apply for a PUD for certain uses. Um so again, this is only a portion of the property that we're asking to reszone. You can see it on the map. I will pull up. It's the area in red. Um the rest of it would remain OSR, open space recreation. uh would be open to the public. Uh we would lose about one and a half bays of parking which is uh roughly 46 parking spaces but the rest of that would uh remain open is OSR. And again, um, this request is related to a lot of our goals in the Imagine Mosskegan Lake and, um, the master plan, uh, including cleaning up the shoreline, um, you know, getting the mark dock activated for commercial use and publicly accessing the waterfront. Do we have any other staff updates or discussion from the planning commission before we go to the public hearing component? We will come back to you guys after that. I just have this need some clarification on a little something. The um so the the camp it's still going to be available for tournament. Yes. So I I don't know if I remember seeing in here or I couldn't find for tournament. Are are they going to allow temporary camping is temporary camping? So that will not be on the list.

Okay. Okay. Um this is a public hearing if anybody in the audience would like to come forward. I am seeing none. And so then we will go to the phones. 231 724-6721 and doesn't look like we have anybody calling in at this time. 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. Thank you. All right. Um, so any final discussion on this item? One question I have with a motion. I'll take it now. See, I thought I skip that part. I move that the request to reszone a portion of the property at 501 East Western Avenue from Open Space Recreation to Waterfront Industrial PUB recommended to the city commission for approval. Support. All right. Moved and supported. So, we'll move into discussion. I have a question on the um fact that we're reszoning a portion of this property and so um is that typical in that we can reszone not the entire lot but simply a portion?

Oh yes, we we've done it many times. Okay. And so has there been any consideration about the waters edge on the western edge of the property? What the expectated what the expected use of the western edge of the lot will be?

Um yeah. So actually in the um PUD oh sorry in the development agreement um that we've uh most recently uh been discussing with uh the MR do is uh the soften shoreline that exists there on the west end of the property um would remain soft. It wouldn't be publicly accessible but it would remain natural. Um, and it there's there's actually a delineation um, and I can't remember off top [clears throat] of my head how far back, but so many feet back from that edge is where um, is as close as they could high water mark because there's no hardened wall there. So, it was was it the ordinary high water mark? 25 ordinary. Okay. Yeah, for that.

Thanks, Scott. Um and so my question just out of concern and and interests that have been expressed is that um if there's a change in use here just how it's going to affect essentially the lake habitat. Again, we've done a lot of work in that area and so

moving forward if this um is approved and additional um agreements occur, any desire or request to harden the western edge of the property would require any permitting from us. Um well it's it's within the agreement that they wouldn't um so that would be a breach of the agreement um the city is not the one who would issue those permits um it would be Eagle and um Army Corps. Um however uh one of the reasons that uh this location makes sense for the proposed use um as you can see on the screen the the channel that exists there currently um which is used for active um ports for the unloading of the salt dock. Um it would allow uh West Michigan Dock to take advantage of the the harden area along the south uh southwestern portion of the campground um that currently exists. And that's where um the barge traffic would would largely pull in. Um so

and one more question. Um so in a photo that we shared of the current fisherman's landing use, right, we have [clears throat] a a freighter loading up there on the southern shoreline and then we have folks using the boat ramp. Um and they're just shown as parked. My question is is there actual space to operate the boat ramp while cargo ships are in play? Yes. Yeah. There's lots of room. Yeah, there's lots of room. Um and and also the um I mean that so that is an existing condition where Lakers are in and boats are coming in and out. Um there would not be a situation where you would have two Lakers in there. There's there's not enough room.

Okay. Um and that was my question is there only seemed to be room for cargo ship in a regular boat. It's a lot bigger than it looks from the picture. Uh but something that came up in our public engagement on Tuesday night um uh when uh one of Scott's colleagues was answering a question uh noted that a lot of the traffic that would be there from their operations would be barge traffic and those are smaller um uh vessels. I just don't want us to get ourselves into a position where um it seems like it would work but in practice it becomes you know [clears throat] unnavavigable for recreational traffic and so if the expectation is is that the boat launch will remain for the foreseeable foreseeable future um that I want to make sure that that was [clears throat]

any I'm sorry did you have some I wanted to speak on with regard to the western shoreline that you were just referencing um that is something that I'm interested in in ensuring is protected the the natural state of that shoreline and say it's sensitive um ecology environment right there. Um and so it is uh sound like it's going to be incorporated into the updated uh development agreement for that property. What we do have the opportunity to do in the future uh because right now we're just contemplating creating the district um when any future site plan or actual PUB comes before us, we could add a condition on there reinforcing what's in the development agreement um so that that 25 foot buffer is is protected right there. So, I just wanted to clarify that. And then, um, if you could you could you explain, you just asked a moment ago about temporary camping. What were you meaning by, uh, that

just with tournaments and stuff, just where they're going to stay? So, like the possibility of like having RV camping like in the remaining parking lot like we do for y was just the question in there. Could be done if it were a small enough tournament that wouldn't need all of the parking for trailers. So, if you had a small enough um tournament that they wanted to use, you know, a bay for camping, it would have to come to the city commission, you know, for approval. They could get it approved. Um the commission can approve camping within parks. Um but that would be a special event policy and request and so there is that opportunity. Just know every once in a while that kind of thing is convenient for

Harley-Davidson has done that I think [clears throat] on site for you know events and stuff. Okay. Yes. Okay. All right. Anything on this side? Everybody's good. Everybody's good here. All right. I'll take a roll call then, please. Commissioner Will Laoy, yes. Johnson, yes. Montgomery Keys, yes. Cipher, yes. Galan, yes. Kenir, no. Mazade, yes. Blake, no. Simmons, yes. All right. Motion passes. Did we have a public hearing?

Yes. Nobody Nobody was here. Nobody wanted to talk about it. Oh, okay. I didn't think we went to the phones. Oh, we did. Yeah. I mean, I'm pretty 99. Yeah, we did. So, non nothing was [laughter] happening. So, I'm happy to be called out because, you know, I I can miss some order of operations. So, thank you for that. But they can call us now if we miss them. Let us know. Yeah. So, there's a there's an overall public comment at the end of our meeting as well. Okay. Um, take a look back at the agenda here today. Don't think we have any other scheduled items. Could you pull that back up my computer? Thank you. Fantastic. All right. Any unfinished business from staff?

Nope. From commissioners? Seeing none, any new business? Uh, no. We do have a another meeting scheduled. I believe it's November 13th. So, we'll have a regular November meeting on the 13th at our regular time of 4 p.m. regular time. Thank you everybody for making today's meeting. We do appreciate that. Um, all right. General public comment. Now, if anybody in the audience would like to come forward on any items, seeing none and going to the run out there. I mean, if you have something to say, but we're probably going to take it on the on the dis here. All right. 231-724-6721.

Excuse me. Seeing none. Seeing none. Very exciting vacation to get to this evening. So I would take a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjourn. Supported. I got in favor. [laughter] Harvest fest. Don't forget to say I. I everybody. Thank you so much. All right. Ready for my