Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I think that's what he's doing, but I could be very wrong. Mitch is the one that looked at the I haven't looked at anything. I mean, he's your brother, but it's not like you're linked by radio. I know. It was pretty funny. It was nice that he got my Hey, your dad still has a surveying license. So, I mean, I think after 20 years, he was like, I just 30 years he's like, I can't students in here. It looks like too I think he likes doing it. Yeah, we do. Yeah. Yeah, I enjoyed it. I didn't actually complete my certification because I didn't see it as a necessary part of the skill set. But yeah, I think learning it enough is Yeah, frankly, I didn't even know he kept up his permit or his search until this whole thing went down. I was like, "Oh, did you do that on purpose in case the children ever need Absolutely. I'm sure you do. Absolutely. Chris like one day these three will need something and I'm going to do it. Yeah. I just like the idea of like well natural also just in his line of work that exposure helpful to have the most you know you put him in yourself and your employees. Crazy that it like is really for him to have that experience in his current Hello. Welcome everybody to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Trevor City Planning Commission. Today is May 6th. Welcome to all of you. Uh called roll call, please. Oh, I'm sorry. Land acknowledgement. Can we do the roll call while I find the land acknowledgement? Um Commissioner Dur here. Commissioner Hershey here. Commissioner Treadwell here. Commissioner O'Brien present. Commissioner Heler here. Commissioner McGillivary here. Commissioner Anderson here. Commissioner Swanson here. Commissioner Cameron here and um

Commissioner Nap is absent. Thank you. Now for the land acknowledgement. The land on which we gather is the territory of the Ottawa and Chipua peoples who have stewarded this land throughout the generations. Thank you for your strength and resilience in protecting this land and inspiring us to uphold our responsibilities to do the same. Are there any announcements? Uh none at this time. Okay. So, the first uh thing I want to bring up before we get into old business is adding something to the agenda. Now, our bylaws under article 5H allow you to suspend the rules and add something to the agenda if we have an affirmative vote of seven people. So, the thing at hand is a project uh at the request of Joel Peterson. Um and the only thing that we would be adding to the agenda tonight is whether public land um can be turned into a public private partnership perhaps in the form of a park and is that consistent or inconsistent with the master plan. So we're not talking about the entire project just this public private partnership. So, if anybody would like to put forth a motion to say, "I'd like to suspend the rules of the bylaw and add this to tonight's agenda." Uh, please do so. I'll move I was not listening to what you said. I'll move to add this item to the agenda tonight because the motion in here I realize is not what I'm doing. So, I'll move to add it to tonight's to suspend our bylaws and add it to tonight Tuesday, May 6 agenda. Second. So, we have a motion and a second. Yes. Where is this coming from? I mean, we've got nothing in the packet. We did

get an email regarding it. I didn't check my email that email beforehand. and the application. It's sort of, you know, it's one of the reasons we have um, you know, why we have an agenda and to add something completely new kind of out of the blue. What's the reason that it has to be done tonight? So, I think there's a couple uh reasons. One, we met with the city attorney to talk about the process that this needs to go through for approval, and it was determined that first city commission or sorry, first parks and recck commission, then planning commission per the planning enabling act, and then city commission. um because of timing of our bylaws and when our packet has to go out, which states on Thursday before the meeting, the parks and wreck commission meeting didn't occur until that night. So, we had to submit the packet before getting a decision from parks and wreck. So, on Friday, we looked into what it would take. Now, there is a possibility of moving it to the 20th of this month. I will say at this point, we're intending to cancel that meeting. Um but that is an option before you because staff will not be at that meeting. will be in Lancing for a conference. Um the other issue and this, you know, isn't doesn't direct your timeline, but the property owner is in a due diligence period. So, he's trying to well get through all his approvals on this uh while that is in existence. And I forgot to mention on the 16th, they'll also be going to the DDA board since this is within their boundary as well. So, speaking with the attorney, it was determined that this could be added. Um I spoke with her today about that um just to go over it. So, it really is up to the the planning commission. Um, at the end of the day, the parks and recck commission really decides the design of it. The city commission will determine the agreement um and any, you know, funding or anything like that that's related. Really, the only question for the planning commission is if a park was at this location, would that be inconsistent with the master plan? I can't expand on my motion. I reviewed

it this weekend and I felt like it would not be problematic if we picked it up and reviewed it tonight. Um, so that's why I moved that way. Mr. McGillbury, you have something else? Okay. So, right now we're voting whether or not to put it on the agenda. So, we have a motion to second. So, all in favor say I. I. I. All opposed? N. No. Do we need a roll call vote? Yes. Um, Commissioner Dur, yes. Commissioner Hershey, yes. Commissioner Treadwell, no. Commissioner O'Brien, yes. Commissioner Heler, yes. Commissioner McGillary, no. Commissioner Anderson, no. Commissioner Swanson, yes. Commission Oh, and no get. So, I believe we do not have the votes. Correct. So, um we'll move on, but perhaps at the end of the meeting, we will discuss if we want to have a special meeting two weeks from now when the on this issue. Okay. Okay. So, we'll move on to uh old business and uh the first matter of business is 5A, the short-term rental public hearing. And I'm going to take that away. Yes. Um, so I'm not um as versed in in this item, but so I'm going to ask uh Katie to jump in and um and correct me where I might be wrong, but the planning

commission has looked at this item for several months now and um has um uh put together a recommendation to uh lower the uh percentage of allowed short-term rentals in all of the um commercial industrial hotel resort districts except for hotel resort which would stay at 100% and um and to eliminate the possibility um lower it to 0% for the industrial district and all of the other C districts and districts um as detailed in the information in your packet between 25% and 50%. Um in looking at this, one of the concerns was um whether this would create nonconformities. So, we did um do some research and put together some information that's also in your packet about potential non-conforming situations that would occur. Um I do want to uh remind you that if generally speaking, um under zoning, you have um non-conforming rights. So, anytime there's an established use of land, uh, that can continue as long as you don't do anything to eliminate that use of land as a property owner. So, if you had a license right now, you could continue with that license. Um, and you could keep getting new licenses even if the zoning underlying changed. And the other thing I would remind you is that it's kind of a two-part thing

for the short-term rentals. It's the zoning end of it um that makes the allowances under zoning for the land use and all of the policy end of it um relating to issuing the licenses and the specific policies regarding um non-conforming status of those units um would lie um in the the second group of ordinances that are general law ordinances. Those are um implemented uh and enforced through the clerk's office, not the planning office. So, it's kind of two separate tandem um parallel tracks. And um I I dare say I hate to say this uh just because I don't want to make any promises, but it could even be that the city commission says any buildings that are currently allowed to have 100% short-term rentals. Uh even if the zoning changed and there weren't currently 100% of those units with licenses, it could be that the policy that they establish is that those buildings could continue to always pull licenses. in a way that to me makes some sense because it would be really hard to um go unit by unit and figure out who has non-conforming rights and who doesn't and who has lapsed. Uh so it could be that that's the case. So, generally speaking, the things to keep in mind is that these policies um that you've developed and that we're having a public hearing on tonight relate to um the zoning only and um and also uh the the non-conforming

status is a little bit of a separate issue that could be tackled separately. So, um, if you had any specific questions about those numbers that we provided, uh, just the raw numbers of potential non-conforming, um, in every district and and really by building, um, I think, uh, Katie can fill you in on that. Thank you. Sure. Does anyone on the commission have questions for Leslie or anything to bring up to discuss? I had a note. I actually had two notes. Um so for in the actual ordinance itself 1347.01 um to C I believe should be 25% and not 50%. Because if you look above we had 25s for all the D's. I went back to look at my notes. I can't actually find it in my notes because I think I was just assuming lots of other people were tracking the percentages, but I think it just needs to be changed in the ordinance. Okay. So, that's a conversation for you all to decide on. So, in my notes, I had 50% for D3, but in the table it shows in the table it shows 25 and that's fine. So help me understand because um in my notes when I had 50 I had also because the discussion surrounded the Gillis Street development which was already there which is the primary thing. I mean I I'm just looking for clarity here so we know. So is that what you guys want is 25 on that. So if you look at if you look above No, I know what it says in the referencing looking back at my notes. I don't remember. So I'm going to look to the rest of the group. That's the thing. Whatever you guys decide is

that's what we put forward. that we did have that discussion with the Gillis Street thing. Yes. about just the fact that we questioned whether that you know the um Mil Street or whatever we call that one I that the one over on off of Hall and Hall front and uh Grand View Parkway you know is that in the future likely it would change um that it's probably shouldn't be you know that the question why it's a developmental zoning as opposed to either assigning it downtown zoning or Um, that was the one we talked about wanting it to be C4A, I think, instead of D. Yep. Yep. So maybe, and the C4A number matches 50. So maybe that's what happened. I don't I truly don't remember where we landed. No. And I think I'm recalling that now because I don't know where we landed. Future land use map projected that as C4A. We talked about 50%. But then we said sometime down the it'll be a project and I don't remember which number we landed on. Um I'm personally fine with either. I would just want to make sure that we need that they match. Yeah, we would need clarity before any kind of motion. I think in terms of I guess in terms of preference I'd say 25 for all the D's and if and when we change to C4A then we change it to match just so that it is very clear and it's not like muddy that we changed it before we changed it out of a D. That's a good point. It's a fair it is it's a fair point. Yeah. So are we going with 25% then? That's I haven't heard an objection to that from anyone. So, I think that's Yeah. I mean, maybe it'll prompt a res. So, I should be reszoned. Yep.

Oh, then my other note, so sorry, was at the end the nonconformity document sheet table. Great was amazing. It was very helpful. Um, there were no D2 items on the table. Does that mean that there would not be nonconformities in that district? Uh, I think yeah, Dave gave me the list. Okay. Because as I think about it now, D2, the only location that really has a lot of short-term rental licenses is that Boardman Flats development. Are you familiar with that one on the north side? And that one's already limited to 25% because the changes had been in there. It is. Yep. And and Common Grounds is operating at that same percent. And those are really the only two in that area. So they because of past action, the planning commission, city commission are already at that 25 and have been operating there. So we don't have the the non-conforming issue there. And frankly, um before 2019, there wasn't a lot of investment at all in 8 Street. So a lot of this has come afterwards. I agree. So just wanted to confirm that. Thank you. That was it from me. Anyone else have anything? Mitchell, you Brian. Um, so this was brought up to me recently and um, we haven't and I've kind of shied away from delving into the policy uh, the policing powers aspect of the city commission, but Leslie pointed out that, you know, the city commission has the authority to, you know, allow allow them all to continue and not have any non Well, I mean, they'd still be non-conforming on zoning, but allow them to have licenses indefinitely. Uh, but

the policy, the city commission could go the opposite direction and just say we're not going to allow anyone to pull licenses. I mean, it's if and because they don't have a draft policy right now um that addresses how that's going to be enforced. We don't have any policy that says we the city commission has a policy that says um on how it's going to treat non-conforming short-term rentals and it doesn't have one for these changes. So now I'm wondering if we're a little uh well I mean we need to have the public hearing but I guess I'd like to hear from city commissioners on if that's been discussed and which direction they're leaning. Um uh and I mean I've brought this up before um and now you know and I'm just going to reiterate it here uh and we can talk about it again later after the public hearing. Um, no, I was on the planning commission before we looked at limiting it to we eliminated it in the C2 and C3 zones because they don't allow hotel motel. So then we created it and we didn't address those other areas. maybe we should have then but the inconsistency with the numbers um making a C4 uh C4C 25% and which is even less than C3 um I just you know I just have a hard time with you know the consistency for the D district also applies I think to CAC4 C3 districts and even the community center so Um, but that's I mean we've had these discussions before, so it's nothing new.

Just putting it out there for now. I'm offended for I am. Any other comments? Thank you. In terms of the city commission, if you're you're asking what their current stance is, I I think it's fair to say as far as police powers, um we're on hold and that uh I made a presentation regarding options for police powers and made a pitch to establish an ad hoc uh subgroup of the city commission and that is uh pending. There's no action taken on that. So, um Mitch, is there anything else you wanted to add? Yeah. Uh speaking as another city commissioner, but neither of us can speak for all seven of the board. Uh, I got the sense that the city commission wanted a little more resolution on what the planning commission was discussing on the zoning side rather than ending up with having one conversation happening at the planning commission about the zoning and another parallel conversation about the city commission that may or may not line up in the end. That's what I took from that meeting was Jackie. You gave your presentation as you mentioned and your ideas and it seemed like they wanted to wait to see what you guys send up to them. So then they knew what to discuss and how to how to address it. So, and if it's anything like the previous time we went through this, which Brian referenced just moments ago, they can send it all back. They can send parts of it back. They can send none of it back. We've seen this all before. So, at the very minimum, I'd like to get this moving because it feels very chicken or the egg. the longer we

wait. We've already waited years between when we pushed this before 2022 2020 was before my time. Wow. Um so that's five years frankly and a lot has changed in five years. So that's that's where I stand. And I would say to Brian's point when this happened in 2020 that's when the city did adopt an ordinance for those districts and how to deal with the nonconformity. So there is a precedent for how they've dealt with this in the past. different commission of course. Yeah, I was on that commission so I was a little bit more comfortable at the time with how it would work out. Yeah. Anything else from planning commission members? If not, I'm going to open up the public hearing on short-term rentals. If you have any comments to make, please come up to the podium, state your name and address, and you'll have three minutes to present. jump right in. All right. So, uh, my name is Connor Miller. I'm a resident at 890 Boone Street. I'm a Garfield Township resident. Uh, but I am also employed at Aspire North Realtors located at 852 South Garfield Avenue in the city of Traverse City. Uh first I would just like to thank the Traverse City Planning Commission for continuing to make expanding housing opportunities a top priority of your annual goals uh for 2025 as you have in previous years. So thank you for that. Our association is also acutely aware that following decades of underbuilding and underinvestment, the United States has an underbuilding gap of more than 5 million housing units in the last 20 years, which has only exacerbated in desirable communities like Traverse City and Northern and the Northern Michigan region. So, thank you for your commit

continued commitment to supporting closing this gap. Uh this evening I would like to share with the Trevor City Planning Commission our association aspire north realtors efforts to conduct a study to evaluate the positive and negative effects of short-term rentals on the Traverse City community. The goal of this study is to provide objective third-party research on the economic contributions and workforce housing impacts of short-term rentals. This information will help to direct local and state policy goals to maximize the benefits and minimize the harm of short-term rentals at a local, regional, and state level. Our association is currently working with our state realtor association, Michigan Realtors, and collaborating with local partners including Traverse City Tourism, Housing North, Traverse Connect, as well as the Michigan Short-Term Rental Association towards the development of this research study, research study, excuse me. At this time, we have received two quotes from one from a vendor who's conducted these short-term rental studies across the country, as well as an instate vendor. In the absence of this data, we hope that you will short-term rental policies like tonight's proposed decreases in allowable percentages of short-term rentals in commercial, development, and industrial zoning districts. We want to ensure that any short-term rental policy changes will uh support the results that you hope to achieve. We hope that you will partner with us to support the development of an objective research study on short-term rentals, which can drive policy change that supports our local economy as well as housing uh availability and affordability for residents. We look forward to working with you to support reasonable regulation of short-term rentals in the Traverse City community. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else would like to come up? Hi, my name is Jody Lungquist. I submitted a letter this afternoon to the planning commission, although um I'm sure many of you are quite busy, haven't had a chance to have a look. I'm here today to express my opposition uh to the planned changes to the ordinance. I feel like um you're aiming at the wrong target uh by selecting existing properties. Um from a broader economic standpoint, I believe this could be quite devastating. Um again, as it's well-intentioned, it's unlikely to result in meaningful new long-term housing options, particularly for families and workforce um housing here in Traverse City that you're hoping to uh retain or create. Instead, I believe it will erode economic value, investor trust, and the flexibility this city has long championed as a strength. I urge you to reconsider the scope and scale of these changes because there are better and more targeted ways to promote housing affordability without penalizing those who acted in good faith under prior zoning policies to support Traverse City success. I forgot to mention I uh own and live at 224 East State Street. Um, and as a single person with an eight pound dog, I can tell you that this property was not designed for family use or even yearround living. Um, I I live modestly. I don't actually own a lot of clothes or shoes, but I can't fit a dresser in my bedroom. So when you are thinking about reszoning these and the purpose of these properties, um I really do encourage you to think about the existing properties and their intended uses um will not actually impact your long-term goal. Thank you.

Anyone else? Hi, my name is Trent Sims. I live at 1 19875 Arthur's Way in Lake. However, I am a local business owner that facilitates quite a few of these short-term rental properties in Traverse City, a licensed realtor by trade and an owner of multiple short-term rentals in Traverse City. Um, to be clear, I fully support reducing short-term rentals in new developments. However, what urgently needs to be clarified is what happens with an STR license when a current owner decides to sell their unit. As it stands, city policy allows a new owner in a grandfather district to apply for and obtain an STR license within 90 days of the purchase of a licensed STR. Will this same policy remain in place under the proposed changes? It is important to recognize that the planning commissions and city commissions have created a clear framework for how to legally invest in short-term rentals in Traverse City. Over the past four years, 100 plus million dollars has been invested into Traverse City STRs based on that very framework. Now, with this proposal there, there's growing uncertainty and potential financial harm for those who have followed the city's guidance in good faith. Many of these property owners now face the risk of losing significant value, potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars if they can no longer sell their STRs with the ability for new owners to reapply for a license. This right currently exists in districts like C1, C2, and D2. So again, I ask under this proposal, will grandfathered legal non-conforming STRs retain the ability to transfer ownership with a new buyer allowed 90 days to apply for the STR license? Thank you. Before anybody else comes up to speak,

because we've heard this a couple of times, I want to reiterate what um Leslie said at the beginning of the meeting. If you currently have a short-term rental and you've been asking for licenses every year, you will be able to continue to do that. As far as selling a property, um, and the licensed state law allows you to do that. So, um, any policy that the city commission is going to write, I don't think s can supersede state law. So non-conforming status is a legal status under state law and it travels with the the land, not the property owner. So if I own a gas station that's been zoned out and so it's non-conforming and I sell it to the chair here, she can still run that gas station. It doesn't you don't lose that non-conforming status except through abandonment, which is an intentional act, too. Not if I closed it for six months and reopened it, that doesn't mean I lose that status either. So, just to make sure that everyone knows that this is looking forward on future developments and how many STRs really would be allowed in those because of that uh legal protection that's provided. Who else would like to speak? Sam Flamont 1719 Apache pass. Um I actually again I'm in full support I echo what Trent said in full support of of the limiting of and um I think I spoke here about six months ago, seven months ago when this thing first started with a hard cap which I still am in favor of. I think a lot of this a lot of the zoning issues is going to be hard to police and I think the city commission is going to say the same thing. How do we if we have a building where I mean right now and I I know for a fact there's buildings around town where 25% is not being observed. So, how are you

going to police that instead of just having a hard cap on rentals in general? And if somebody sells their property and the new owner does not get the n doesn't reapply within 90 days, that comes off of the the ability to get a license in the future. And then you have a hard cap. You don't have to worry about policing every single unit in every new development. I think that is going to be a huge challenge. I mean, just looking at Airbnb, there are certain buildings that look and show as though they have five units in them and they have 25 units in them. So, I I I just I think that's going to be a major challenge is in the policing and understanding what units are actually being used in these new developments. And I'm in complete favor of just saying, "Hey, we have 550. We don't want anymore. 550 is our number or 540 is our number." And as things drop out, we end up losing some down the road. Some people may not want to buy and continue to use these things. I mean, it happened in East Bay Township just like this. East Bay Township set up 25 or 30 below where they were where they currently were as people sold those came off and it turned into long-term housing. I know this for a fact because we actually used one of we had one of these. We sold it to somebody who moved into in there and now they're having their family live there. So that to me is a much simpler way to to go about this because you will you'll actually you'll you'll stop people from approaching the development with the short-term rentals in mind and they'll approach it from a community style mixeduse building with how does this best fit the locals that we want to support here because that's what the that's what the goal is and I and I know that. So that's my that's my two cents. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Hi. Uh, Cara Gelvin, 439 Webster Street. Um, so I know we're not I know we're not supposed or allowed to have the back and forth, but I guess um the clarification still needs to happen of what happens when um a sale happens. From my understanding what in other townships have happened is that um non-conforming use does apply to the zoning but not necessarily to the permit itself which is why after 90 days they if that person was to go and resell like they the next person can't reapply for it. So, I'm in agreeance with with what you guys are saying and I hope that that does stay true. Um because as others have mentioned um some of my clients it would be detrimental to them if they um were not able to resell their property as a short-term rental. And I think I just also need to clarify. I think a lot of people think of people who own these short-term rentals as investors from out of the area. I have many clients who that that was their plan for retirement. This is how instead of putting it into a stock market or 401k, this is what they're doing. And to immediately lose value out of the gate, that's their retirement. And I just need that to be clear. And that's why I think we're pushing back so much on the clarification of what happens when you sell. Um because what I'm hearing isn't really actually what takes place in real life. um in this particular instances of having the police power and um zoning um ordinances together. So um also I it's if you've been watching the market, the market is self-regulating. Um you see trailside units that used to go into bidding wars up um pushing 400k selling

for much lower um after sitting in the market for a while. this just almost feels like it is not needed and as others have mentioned um it creates investor um distrust in wanting to come and develop further and I think that just really needs to be pointed out that are we causing more harm when the me market is already self-correcting as it is. So thank you. Thank you. Hello. My name is Ryan Scott and I'm a proud resident of Triforce City. Uh, I reside at 118 Gillis Street, number three, the Freshwater Flats building. Um, and I've been there for a couple years now. Uh, I rent my condo as a short-term rental. It's helped supplement my income. I started hosting because I love this town. I wanted to share it. Traverse City is such a special place. Uh, from our lakefront sunsets to the cherry orchards is such charm. The income I earn from hosting isn't just a side hustle. It's part of what allows me to live here. that helps cover the rent, the rising cost of rent and living and gives me the flexibility to stay rooted in a town I love. I'm not a big investor. I don't have multiple properties and I'm just a regular working guy who's just trying to make things work. So, back to what everybody else was just saying about the the non-conforming. If I was not able to resell with a short-term license, that would hurt me at a big detriment with this development. So what if whatever you guys are saying is true, I am I am all about limiting short-term rentals and being smart about it, but to detriment to myself and many other owners within the G Street development, that would it would be very detrimental to us financially. So thank you. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Mark Newton. Three minutes will be difficult for me, but I will do my best to comply. Please don't have your stopwatches going. Um, we do. I uh I flew in from Sarasota uh for this meeting uh because it was important to me. Uh I am a president of a local condo association that has 12 units. Some of the owners are in in in attendance tonight. I also own others in town. This is personal in terms of this is what I do now. I I was an attorney. I was a teacher. I was a mediator and I was divorced in the last year. And in the divorce, I made a decision to keep all my rental properties in Naples, Florida, Sarasota, and here where I've owned properties for five years. I manage and own four that are 500 square feet condos that certainly are not are are not the size that would be indicative of having single families move into Traverse City. part of what I wanted to talk about and had an agenda I'm going to skip and and I need to learn and I need to be more involved so I can know what you guys are doing and I can be more proactive. I do not understand all the different percentages. I've looked at your online work. We've got 25% here, 30 here, 100 here, zero here. And just driving here, I'm just thinking how are these numbers who in in the back rooms are coming up with these numbers in terms of is it to encourage short-term not short-term but is it to encourage people to move to Traverse City and if we cut in this district 50% we're expecting X

number of people to move in. uh if we cut it in this district or I don't I'm not privy to those internal discussions and paperwork that probably is on file and I need to educate myself but I don't understand it. Is there a rational basis for all these percentages? And do you have goals? Do you have goals that if you reduce 50% here that you'll get eight more people to move in? Sorry. Go ahead. Is it okay? Yeah. I don't want to I I will get involved, but I would like to know more about um how these percentages have a rational basis in what your goals are. And yes, this is personal. If I lose my Airbnbs, this is all I have. This is what I do for a living. I'm no longer a lawyer. I'm no longer a teacher. I made a informed decision to be an Airbnb owner and manager and take great pride in it. And I take great pride in this city and I don't want to lose what I've made decisions for. And many of these people have made those decisions that they don't want it taken away. We hear this that you've got, look what happened in New York City. They took all short-term rentals away even after long discussions. So, we don't have a lot of trust. Your time and I appreciate the opportunity and I have more to say, but I'll try to get involved. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, that I'm going to close the public hearing. We're going to go back to the commission. Um, but but for the benefit uh because we know this, but for the benefit of the people sitting here, I want to remind everyone that the Traverse City Planning Commission when it comes to land use decisions comes up with an idea. That idea is sent up to the city

commission. It is the city commission who will decide the policies, what happens when you sell things. We have nothing to do with that. Um, so our goal was to discuss short-term rentals and how we should change it. And if they uh this commission decides to vote tonight to send it up to the city commission, there will be much more work that's going to happen at that level as far as policies and things like that. So that's not within our purview. Um uh and again I just want to say as we've said now this is the second time that if you currently have a license you will have a license uh as long as you continue to apply for it. So now coming back to the rest of the commission uh according to what you've seen in our packet we are not required to make any kind of decision tonight but how are you feeling uh right now? We have discussed this for a very long time. Um, and it is it time to send it up to the city commission to start working on this is really our question before us. So, what does everybody have to say? Like it to continue meaning you'd like it to go before the city commission? Yes. Thank you. Does anybody else? Yes. Yes. I'd like it to move forward. I won't say that this is perfect. Uh, perfection is frankly an unachievable goal. I'd be the first to admit that any numbers that we have on in here are inherently arbitrary. Uh if somebody calculated out something, you'd end up with a recommendation to have 38.7% rather than a nice rounded number like 25%. though um I can say this is a solution that we decided through multiple discussions that we've had as a body. I

would have preferred something slightly different maybe a cap uh but choosing what that number that we're capping it at is difficult and if we're trying to say we want them more in some part of town but less in other part of town and don't have a mechanism uh to buy back licenses or to otherwise encourage the closure of them, then we have limited uh pressure in saying where we want them. As it stands, even if we say no short-term rentals are allowed in Traverse City at all, every um rental that is currently permitted will continue to be permitted as long as that uh property and business owner follows all the rules and continues renewing their license each year. Anyone else have anything to say, Brian? Okay. Uh, we did talk about having just one cap. I like that idea. We were kind of talked out of it. Um, I wouldn't say talked out of it. There are a lot of arguments made against it and it's really not something we can do. So, we don't have the authority to do a cap. Uh, that's something that's up to the city commission. So then we talked about zoning and you know if you look at these numbers I agree all the different numbers. I'm not a fan of uh it's we came up with 35% because some of us wanted 50 some wanted 25. So we split the difference. Not a lot of justification in that number. Um, I was on the, you know, on the planning commission and the city commission when we put the restrictions on C1 and C2 and

those restrictions were um simply because uh we wanted to leave the 20 what we didn't allow our rationale was simple. We did not allow hotels in C1 or C2 um or resorts. Hence why were we allowing what could b was basically becoming uh condos that were being used as hotels and resorts. Uh and as a result we left the 25% to try to encourage um developers for new construction. Is that worked out? Who knows? But that was a rationale. Was it a correct rationale? That's question. But it was the reasoning was there. um uh you know and I think what you know we can't go in and um really limit new new construction only in their zone. Our tool is basically we can try and pres uh try and get people to create more housing with a mixture of short-term rentals. Um, and uh, you know, so and I understand the rationale behind this somewhat. I'm not comfortable with anything less than 50%. And we keep saying you won't lose your license. Well, currently the city policy is once you sell your you cannot sell your license. License doesn't transfer. But if you buy a property that had a license, you have 90 days to apply for and get that license. So it is um you know and we did have a conversation with the city attorney about how that plays against the whole question of state law and grandfathering and that's a question if

someone want you know that's a legal question a judge would have to decide but that's the city policy currently. So, if you have a license, you can sell it as a short-term rental. It should not impact it. If the city commission continues that policy, that's the question. That's really important. If we do move this forward, if someone makes a motion tonight, I understand. I don't I think we've pushed this as far as we're going to push it. I understand why people want to move it along. uh and at the next level I mean if someone makes a motion to present it as I will make it I will ask I will present two amendments. One to change the percentages uh for the C3 and the C uh 4 A C regional center. Yeah. anyway 4C to 50% and I'll also ask the motion that we encourage the city commission at a minimum to maintain the same policy addressed for on these um the same policy going forward with the transfer of licenses as they did for the C1C2. That's it. Okay. So, you're you're only suggesting change is C4C. No, C3. No. And C3. And C3. Okay. You can have a hotel. There. Was that both at 50% then? Was your recommendation? Okay. Okay.

Um I found Mr. Flamont's comments about cap and the u benefits of a cap approach in terms of enforcement be very persuasive. Um I know that this body has been steered toward tinkering with percentages from the beginning of our discussions and um I am I have [Music] been proceeding down that path. I I am concerned at this point that we're building something that that may not be functional. And um I I am attracted by the experience of East Bay Township and and the success that they appear to have had with their cap and and manage approach. And um if if I was starting fresh, that that's the direction that I would go. But that is something that the city commission can decide when it comes before them. Correct. Anyone else have any comments? Question. Do we have to do we can we do we have to send it up with a recommendation? What do you Okay. Say that again. We have to send it up with recommendation with a recommendation. Do we have to recommend its adoption? I mean, if we voted, if we vote no, it still technically goes to the city commission. Either way, it's up for them. They don't have to take it up, but it's up there. If we vote yes and make a recommendation, then they're going to have to address it. But, do we have to make a recommendation? I think if you're going to send it up to them, yes. Yeah, you have to. You know, this is different in that you don't have an applicant that you're providing due process to. This is your own initiative

as a planning commission. So you don't have to do anything, but if you're going to send it to them, you need to send it to them with a recommendation. What would they so that they respond to? Okay. Yeah. But again, you don't have to take any action because you don't, you know. So just a thought that if we don't send this up, does that free the city commission to pursue the police powers options that are in front of them? The city commission cannot change any of the land use components without a recommendation from the planning commission. So I said police powers. I know. But the police powers that we've been talking about have been in relation to the changes in the licensing. So we already have the police powers there. So um I mean they can tinker with the police power any time but it wouldn't I don't know what they would be fixing in that case because police power relates to the land use. Do you mean the cap Jackie? Could be the cap, could be um lengths of stay, it could be any number of other policy and operational issues. Yeah, I think currently addressed within our written ordinance. I mean, I feel styied at the at the city commission because they're waiting for planning commission action, right? Yeah. That's the way it's designed to function. Yeah. So, um I'm going to make a motion. It's going to be a lot because I have an amendment. Oh, no. Um it's just the one I mentioned earlier. It's just the percentage that doesn't match that we landed on. Oh, once we have a motion on the table, then we can be making the one last comment I wanted to make before I did the official motion though is I think a lot of these I think it's going to be multi-tered. There are going

to be many layers to this process. This is just a layer that we have been talking about for seven months. I think Sam mentioned months probably years if you go back to the first time we passed this in 2020 for C1 and C2. Um there are there might be a cap layer, there might be police power, there might be limitation, there could be so many operational components. There are going to be so many parts of this. I just don't want to wait any longer because it exposes all of the areas of our city that could be something else. Um, so I will make the motion to recommend the approval of the proposed changes to zoning ordinance section 1344.01 uses allowed. Section 1346.01 uses allowed. Section for 1347.01 uses allowed. Section 1347.01 01 uses allowed with no as detailed in the draft vacation home rental regulations ordinance amendment with my proposed amendment that for um 1347.01 01 number 2 C. The percentage needs to be 25%. 25%. Do you want to further amend that? No. No. We have to vote on my motion. Oh, that's right. That's we have a second. Second. All right.

So right now it's the motion with the amendment that 1347012C becomes 25%. We have motion and second. All in favor? Wait. You have to have discussion after the motion. I'm sorry. Okay. Discuss. I thought we I think Brian would like to amend the motion. Yeah. We had a Okay. Never mind. Okay. Go ahead. So I want to amend the motion. Uh, and I'm going to be simple about it. Hope you can follow this. I want to amend the motion that the C3 community center percentage be increased to 50%. Right? And that the C4C regional center be increased to 50%. Two, that's it. and along with Anna's 25%. No, Anna's was stated in the motion. So Brian is amending Anna's motion. So Anna, do you accept his amendment? She doesn't have to accept it. It needs a second. Oh, I thought both the originator and the That's a friendly friendly and that's not in our bylaws. Okay, that's the city commission does. Got it. But they don't have to. So do we have a question? I'll second the amendment for purposes of discussion. I'm trying to get a map pulled up. So sorry, I'm just behind. So to recap, we had a motion by deter 25% included in my motion. Correct. Was included in the motion. It was seconded by Jess. Brian has made an amendment to the motion to increase the percentage in C4C and C3 to 50%. Mitch has seconded that amendment. So, at this point, it comes back to the commission for further discussion. Get ready for this amendment. Did you

say it's already 25%? You said I But it's inconsistent in other places. She's just cleaning it up. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. I'm just waiting. We have discussion on the amendment. Yeah. I I think there should And Brian, you can recap on this. So, a vote on accepting the amendment. I already made my my statement previously on my why. And we have a second, right? And we have a second. So, we're discussing it. Okay. I mean, my reasoning remains the same. I thought C3 should have been 50% from the beginning. Uh, you know, no lower than that. Um, and again, I think that the C4 uh C should also be 50%. Um, and partly because just for some consistency. So that's my you know I mean alone and um and also just because it creates less nonconformity overall speaking as a seconder we do have some pretty significant reductions in this uh even though this doesn't change anything of the units that are permitted it okay looking forward it could radically shift And uh these numbers are arbitrary. So uh perhaps in those two categories it does make sense to have um something of a middle ground. If we're looking at the C4 district, it does um create a bit of an inconsistency that most of our hotels are in HR districts that are allowed to operate 100% short-term rentals, but then we have uh buildings like the Parkplace that are in C4 and would be limited. I'm not expecting that uh the

Parkplace Hotel will start listing all of their units. on Airbnb rather than their own website that they've used for 20 years now, but it does seem like uh an inconsistency there. How they advertise them doesn't impact what they are. Yeah. Parkplace is a hotel like any other hotel. It's not covered by this. Not a short-term rental. So, right. They're also not dwelling units. They're rooms. That's the difference. Mhm. Okay, I'm going to hold out because I really, as desperately as I want to concede, Brian, I really truly do. I just can't. It It will I would not be able to sleep at night for a couple nights if I knew that I left that out there. I just I know that it could be one person in one dwelling unit and that is enough for me to take that risk. Um if it meant that somebody could stay in this town living. Um so I yeah that's my that's my remark. I know it feels so silly about tiny little arbitrary percentages, but I there are so many residential units in those two zones alone that I I can't do it. Now's the part that I don't know what we do. Do we vote on my motion? There needs to be a vote on the amendment. on the amendment and if that uh passes then before the original motion that well yes yes because what you're essentially doing is you made the motion there's a proposed amendment the planning commission needs to a vote to

incorporate those if that's the case then you will vote on that amended motion if the amended motion that Brian made um doesn't pass then it reverts back to the original motion for vote okay and other people can make other amendments correct yeah I got a second one But we have to vote on this one first. Yes. Okay. So, does everybody understand Brian's changes? The C3 from 35% to 50% C4C from 25 to 50. Correct? All right. So, we have a motion and a second. All in favor of the motion say I. I. I. All oppose say no. No. No. We need a roll call vote. Uh, Commissioner Swanson, yes. Commissioner McGillary, yes. Commissioner O'Brien, no. Commissioner Treadwell, yes. Commissioner Heler, no. Commissioner Anderson, no. Commissioner Treadwell. Oh, I'm sorry. I wrote you down twice. Uh, Commissioner Deter, no. And who did I forget? Me. Commissioner Hershey? No. Did I forget anyone else? No. Okay. So, the amendment failed. So, the motion on the floor is the original motion made by Anna with the clarification that D3 be set at 25%. Correct. We'll talk. It's just I'm telling you there's just draft language. Okay. Got it. Got it. Got it. Oh, it's it's in here. That's the part. That's the part. Got it. Got it. Got it. Just that one part. So it has to be with 134701 being consistent with what was on the table. Yes. Okay. Does everybody understand that motion? No, I have another motion. I want to amend her motion. So she basically she made a motion and her change though she called it an amendment was just part of her

motion. Correct. Correct. We don't vote on her amendment. Correct. But I want to make it add something to again one more proposed amendment. Okay. I wanted to split them up. Okay. And that is that we include a statement from the planning commission that it in strongly encourages the city commission to apply the same policies uh um the same uh is it a resolution or is an ordinance? I think it was a resolution protecting the non-conforming status, right? Said it adopt the identical resolution protecting the non-conforming status of these new restricted uh zones. Well, you also previous said with the transfer of licenses, well, that's it's that's in the that's part of the that's part of it. What they currently do is as long as you maintain it and without a break of 90 days. Okay. So you just want that to remain, right? And I want that to remain. All right. So what's the second amendment then? That is the second. Oh, I mean I thought you said two things. Well, the first amendment I said yeah, the first one. Oh, I thought it was another two. Got it. Got it. Just one second. Sorry. So now we have to have a motion on this new. Well, Brian has made the motion for the amendment. Um, it would need a second. Second. Okay. So, he's Does that include now? Anna's first. Okay. Great. All right. Does everybody understand what's before them now? Yes. Okay. So, we had a motion to second on this amendment to Anna's original motion. The only thing I would say is for language purposes, it might benefit us to say similar to the way they enforced it for C1 and C2. just something like that on the record so that they when we when this first came before them these specific limitations

and how they enforced nonconformities in the C1 and C2 for this purpose it might be beneficial to have that in this language. Would it be easier to say that they include the these that they include um uh C3, C4 A, C4B, C4 C uh D1, D3 and D3 uh I guess and including an I industrial um in the existing uh policy or in the existing uh grandfathering policy. Yeah. Whatever makes it easier for clear I think we Well, I think between myself and Mitch and Jackie that this will be conveyed properly. So, we have it here. It's called the grandfathering policy. Do you think we have They'll make it look a lot prettier when they actually put it in writing. Each one of these. No, I don't think so. We don't need to do that. I don't think we have to designate each and every one. No, I think we're good. Yeah, the intent is clear. Yeah. As long as the intent is clear. Okay. Oh, I have a question or I have a point of just to lay this out. So, for a building that has eight units and all eight are currently STRs and then they get let's say reduced 50%. The only way that would ever that building would ever be down to four units, which would be the new allowed amount, is if four units either sold or the owner didn't renew their license. And even if it's sold, typically they Well, they sold, but then didn't renew in. So, it could

take 20 years before those actually went from 8 to four. Correct. That's why most of this we've been emphasizing is looking forward. I mean there's a strong protections as has been mentioned by people during the public comment you know there's expectation b backed investments that they've made you know so those are protected so it's more of a yes it's the future and it's always been that way since we've been discussing this is looking futuristically are we ready to vote all in favor the amen on the on the amendment I said it earlier but on the amendment all in favor I I All oppose. No. Vote. Do we need to do a roll call? Yes. Uh, Commissioner Hershey, yes. Commissioner Swanson, yes. Commissioner McGillary, yes. Commissioner Anderson, no. Commissioner Heler, yes. Commissioner O'Brien, yes. Commissioner Deter, yes. Commissioner Treadwell, yes. Motion carries. So that brings now an officially amended motion to the floor which was a Anna's original motion with the clarification on D3 with Brian's addition that the planning commission I'm going to paraphrase strongly recommends that the city commission adopt and implement the same grandfathering policy strategies to protect the non-conforming status of the existing short-term rental licences. Yes, that's what we just No, you voted on the amendment to make that now what I just stated the official motion. Okay, so now we need another motion for voting. Now we're voting on the Well, we can continue discussing. Okay. Yes. Okay. Go ahead. I'm I'm very confused. Sorry. So that's just on the original motion. Got it with

what? Yes. Yes. Well, uh, I'll propose another amendment. I thought this might be more complicated, but it looks like it can be added as a simple sentence, um, to setting a citywide cap at uh, 650 units. What is the current number? Okay, I I'm going to just recommend that if you're going to introduce something that drastically different, you're going to need to renotice a public hearing that's never been published to the public. So you can you can bring that up for consideration, but you can't take action on it at this time because there hasn't been notice given. Fair enough. I amendment which that any planning commissioner can request that you know that's through the chair that that be brought on for discussion at a future meeting. You want to go that route? I do think I want to keep it warm. Um, I think we will hear very shortly from the city commission whether or not they're happy with this route or not happy with this route and I think we will have clear at least hopefully have more clear guidance on whether or not they there is any bite for that. So I think we just keep it warm this year. It's up to them. So does Anna's motion need a second? I thought no. Yeah. Okay. So, we're voting on second. We just need a vote, right? Okay. So, all in favor? I. All oppose? No. No. Roll call. Commissioner Hershey, yes. Commissioner uh Swanson, yes. Commissioner McGillary, no. Commissioner Anderson, no. Commissioner Heler, yes. Commissioner O'Brien, yes. Commissioner Dur, yes. Commissioner Treadwell, yes.

Okay, you great guys. Okay, can I just um offer a little bit of information that I have regarding East Bay Townships um cap? The way I understand it is that the cap that they established and they came to that cap through lots and lots of analysis. Um so they determined what their cap was. that number is substantially below the number of short-term rentals they currently have. So they created this new ordinance or updated ordinance. They created their cap and now they're in a holding pattern. It's effectively a moratorum and they have to wait for a lot of attrition for short-term rentals to fall off before they even get to the point where they have to figure out how do they entertain new applications for the very few that become available. They haven't even begun to figure that out yet. So, I think there's even though it's an example to look at, I think there's lots of open questions with East Bay Township and some other places that have placed caps, they thought they were closer to how many they actually had and they are well below their caps. So, I don't know that the caps where they're close have really been tested anywhere in Michigan or at least around here that I know of. and I have done lots of research in former a former life on short-term rentals and so I just would caution you that the cap might not be the panacea you think it is because there's a lot of unanswered questions. Thank you. In a lot of cases where caps have been effective, they started with a cap. It's when you go back to an existing system that never had a cap and you try to introduce it where it loses a

lot of its effectiveness because of the existing status there. So that's why we had recommended work within the system that you've created already through the city um and probably be more effective in the long run that way than the other way. Thank you. All right, let's move on to old business B. Introduction of PUD application 25p1 referred to as the TC mill work submitted by owner Tim Pullium for the property located at 1032 Woodmir Avenue. Mr. Winter. Yeah. So this is being brought before you just for introduction. No action tonight. Uh this is procedurally a lot like the safe harbor slop. So we wanted to get it in front of you um while we're conducting our internal analysis. So, um you'll see that the the staff report is in draft form because we're waiting on the feedback from the um appropriate development based departments in the city to comment. Um but at this time um you are given the plans just to review them. The applicant team is here to ask questions. You had a preview of this, I think, back in December when they came to the planning commission to request a recommendation to the city commission to apply for a PUD on a parcel of land less than three acres. And this one's just over one. And if you recall, um, we discussed the unique constraints on this property. It's a long linear property running north to south with three front street, three front yard setbacks on Sheffer, Carver, and Woodmir. You have the railroad lines. you have a curve linear western uh property line and a city street that has no easement instrument yet crosses their property. So through this process we intend to get that cleaned up and we've had conversations with the attorney on how to make that happen. So they plan to do a mixeduse development with a larger anchor

building on the south end. As you recall, they had a outdoor outdoor lifestyle retailer that plans to locate in there and they were also looking for some sort of food and beverage tenant as well. That building has height limitations on it because of the airport approach zone. So, I think it uh is going to end up being the shorter of the um four buildings. uh it also has limits on the the type of uses that can occur there mostly u preventing ones that uh facilitate a high density of people. So from what you were originally presented with back in December till now they have flip-flopped where the retail location is going to be in the building and the uh food and beverage component because that's going to have a higher density of people. So the north end of that building is right outside uh that airport approach zone. So although these are four separate buildings proposed, it would be built on one single um foundation which includes underground parking. So that would be incorporated into it. Um the access for the the underground parking would be off of Carver Street. Uh the three buildings to the north uh beyond the commercial would be for residential purposes. Uh the renderings show three stories. Um the planning commission December asked why not four and I know that the applicant is considering that you know um I think it has a lot to do with proformas. How do things balance out and what makes sense? So um you know typically with a planned unit development uh you're you're typically getting some sort of uh public benefit as well through this. So in this case they have proposed um paving that portion of Sheffer Street. the concept that you saw in December showed more of a parking lot there and the planning commission talked about well you know if there's events or things like that where are people going to park so rather and we also were running into issues too

with uh how do we maintain the snow plowing how do we keep access to the property to the north emergency vehicle turnaround things like that and really the best option there then is let's just pave Sheffer street make it more like a traditional city street with on street parking um and so they did that parallel they there's a lot of nuance with the fire department as far as how wide that travel lane has to be, what distance it can be from the building to have ladder truck access and things like that. So, as of now, they are um what they're proposing is compliant with the fire code. We've probably had two or three design team meetings with staff and the applicants at this point, including construction code office and the airport to work through all these to get it to this point. Um, but with a PUD, what you're essentially creating is a a mini master plan and zoning plan for that particular development. So, they will build what you see there. Of course, there's amendment procedures as they come up. Those of you who've been on here for a while probably have dealt with a few at Morgan Farms, which is our probably most notorious PUD. Um, but at this point, I just want to point out that the approval of the PUD does not automatically allow them to start construction. All right. This is setting the baseline of what they can they can build there. So once a PUD gets approved, then they finish their construction um drawings. They bring those in for all the permitting. They get analyzed based on the PUD approval as well as the zoning. So what we've done in the staff report is called out where the PUD has deviated uh from the existing zoning. So through approval, that is where the deviations would be allowed to occur. mostly has to do with the setbacks. Um, they actually did a really good job as constrained as the site is of of meeting the the standards of the ordinance. So, I'm I'm impressed with the work that they've done so far there. And the footprint of the first building, I know, is larger than what the the current C2 allows. Um, that has a 6,000 square footprint limit. Um, on the topic of

public benefit, I forgot I skipped over this part. The um applicant is also proposing that non-motorized trail connection which is in our mobility action plan. So that's great at that location to connect with the Boardman Lake Trail. Um that has not been fully engineered yet. Uh so that would be a level of detail that comes later that engineering would have to sign off on. Um but I I'm happy to hear that they're willing to incorporate that as you heard in December. It benefits their business. It benefits the community. But uh with the mobility action plan this summer um there is a couple blocks of Carver Street that are going to um receive what we call a cape seal. They did that a couple years ago where they put that slurry down. It kind of extends the life of the road. Um so we are working on installing bike lanes for the entirety of Carver Street to connect the Traverse Heights neighborhood to that uh trail connection down to Boardman Lake. So the timing of these two things is is really complimentary to one another. Um so at this point again there is no action. Um a public hearing is required. So that'll be scheduled for the June I think it is third meeting. Um again uh you don't have to make any kind of decision at that point but no decision can be made and a public hearing is required through the process. So we're going to go ahead and get that scheduled for you all. Um so with that I know the applicant is here. Um if the chair allows they may want to give a brief overview and then uh we're available and they are too for questions. now would be a good time to to ask questions you may have about their development since they're present and provide any direction to them that you may want to see. Um, Mr. Winter, other than so other than the change to the access to the boardman lake trail, the fact the plans now are a lot more detailed. Oh, and I like that change much better than the switch back.

Um what are the other major or significant changes from the concept plan from was presented previously? Um I'm trying to think uh I've seen so many the road and the parking lot. That's the main one. I'm so forgiving because I'm trying to think of all the iterations that they've sent us that we've given feedback to and so I'm trying to think of what you have seen. Um I think what you saw in December also had on the east side of the building, the Woodmir side, they had parking on that side and that uh street that went up, but um that was intended, I think, for fire access, but that would have required either a hammerhead or a circle to turn around the vehicle. So, it wasn't really achieving that. And by getting rid of it, we could put all the parking. And at that time, they we weren't talking about like street parking on Sheffer like we are now. So, by incorporating that street parking, that wasn't needed as much. So then they're able to shift the building back and more be more in compliance with the base zoning. We'll say, but that's really about it. Um, to date, we have not received uh any significant changes to the renderings and stuff like that. So, um, when it does come time to the motion, since what has been presented to you is a three-story building, um, you may want to note that if you're sort of a four story just I I you know this is something in June or July just put on your radar but you may want to note that the planning commission approves that it could go up to four which is what the base zoning allows but just for clarity um for people working in the future because these PUDs will travel with the land so we could all be gone and people in the future will need to figure out what's allowed Mitch I do like the idea of four stories Even

though the renderings here are three, um I understand that all the financing hasn't been lined up. So, additional things could come through and uh part or all of the building could be changed to a four-story design, which is allowed under our zoning law. So, I think we should call up the applicant team and hear what they have to say. Come on. Hello, Tim Pulliam with uh TC Milworks. I'm part of the development team um 516 West 11th if you need to know that for uh this. Um yeah, we really didn't make many changes that were driven by us. Uh when we were in in December, we kind of came in with like what we were dreaming to do. Um we met with all of the departments multiple times, two or three or more in some cases. Uh we took all their feedback. um we made changes along the way and sometimes one department's feedback maybe didn't align with another department's goals. So sometimes there were changes one way and then changes that came back a little bit. Um but after a bunch of meetings I feel like we're in a really good spot with all the departments. It still fits well for both the client that's going to be occupying the retail space. Um it still seems like it's a nice scale for that area. Uh things have shifted or moved just a little bit. Um, but I mean we're definitely happy with the way it all turned out and it seems like all the departments are where they need to be so that it works out well for them too and doesn't uh, you know, create any headaches for any of them as we move forward with this. It's not substantially different uh, from our use by right, but definitely uh, having this PUD makes the project stand on its own a lot better. Um, it also fills the need of the mixed use which is going to kind of be the anchor and allow us to set the tone for that development. Uh, and not only that development, but really to to set the tone for how the rest of Sheepard gets developed in the city, like do something really nice here, kind of set the tone for what's possible. And

then hopefully as the other parcels to the north of us have an opportunity to develop, uh, we've put together a nice model that works well for the community and um, is fitting into that neighborhood. So, happy to take any questions. Any questions for Mr. Jackie? Jackie first. Go ahead. Thank you. Um I I would like to have some more information and this may be a premature request, but um I I would appreciate some details as far as um the intended use of city-owned parkland that's contiguous to your your lot. Um specifically the lakeside pavilion on city-owned parkland. Um I would like to know about the tree removal plan and what the new ex the new proposed tree line is going to be. How many trees will be lost? Um there was a mention in the in the current draft of the PUD about um maintenance and funding agreements. So obviously we'll would like more detail about that. And um I we have had a repairarian buffer zone committee working and I don't know where their work stands right now but um if it's at a point where we can see a po you know an outcome I I'd like to know how this aligns with with the work of that committee. Yeah, absolutely. So um I guess I can start with the public land. Um, I mean it will be a gateway to the neighborhood and also obviously to our development which is nice. Uh, I use the Boardman Lake Loop a lot. I live on the other side of it in central neighborhood. Um, we're definitely lacking both places to access it if you aren't lucky enough to live in the neighborhood where you can just walk a couple blocks and ride your

bike to it. And we're also missing other uh recreational amenities around the loop. Uh it's a beautiful loop, but there's not many places to sit and enjoy the view or to meet and have a sandwich. Um I kind of anticipate that this public space will provide opportunities for people to do that. Um Hall Park sees an awful lot of pressure. Um it seems like a lot of that pressure are people coming into town and parking all along the grass and the railroad tracks there when the lot is full to use the loop. Um, obviously it will be beneficial for our retail clients and our potential food and beverage c uh clients that people like to come to the loop. Uh, it's an awesome uh public asset for the city. Um, but it will also be good for the businesses that operate there. Uh, one of those businesses and who will be the anchor there is actually a 50-year-old business from Trevor City. So, it's nice that we're able to hopefully uh provide them a spot where they'll be able to operate for another 50 years. Um, and so the more traffic we get around there, the better. And being adjacent to public property in a public park like setting obviously is going to be beneficial for that. As far as the repairarium buffers and things like that and taking down the trees, all of that is actually on the city property. So ultimately, whatever plan we come up with, it's going to be up to the city. The none of the tree removal uh along that uh lake shore is on our property. We don't own any of that. um we're helping uh make those improvements, but ultimately it's going to be uh 100% up to the city. Uh we hope that there's repairarium buffers. We find water quality to be super important. That's why we're here. Uh and it's a lot of what we do at our business at King Technical Solutions. Um so I'm confident that the city will work to that and whether they did or not and if it were our property, I know that we would. We've already engaged a watershed council and we also are working with some other friends that are in that business. They're local businesses as well uh to talk about what that would look like. Um and we've also in the

process of this talked about how we're dealing with storm water management and things like that. It's one of the reasons why we wanted to put as much of our parking as we could under the other imperial services of the building footprint. However, through the process between fire and uh city streets and things like that, um they really encouraged us to add the access and add the parking. So, we are going to have some additional storm water that we're going to have to deal with and we're working on those agreements. Once we get through, I believe this process and we have completed engineering. Then we would work with the city attorney to make sure that those agreements are in place. We also worked with city parking and we have some work to do still but to determine uh what the parking looks like out there. Is it metered parking? Um ultimately we're flexible. Uh we're pretty self-contained in our footprint, but you know those decisions will impact us and so you know we hope that we can be a a part of voice at that table. Um but not an overwhelming one because ultimately we need to do what's best for the community there. Thank you. May May I ask follow up on just a couple of points? Um how about tree removal on the portion of the property that you own? Yeah, it's there's definitely going to be some tree removal on the portion that we own. And there's a policy and a tree fund. So any place that uh there are trees removed will either be replacing trees or paying into the tree fund. Um and we also uh take that pretty seriously. in fact at our wood shop um we plant trees for every project that we sell already. Uh trees are a super easy way to help mitigate climate change. They make our cities cooler. They help filter storm water. They give us evaporative cooling and they give us shade. And so uh there's definitely going to be some tree removal and we're definitely going to be complying with the rules the city has in place and I would imagine probably even exceeding those as much as we can on as the site

will allow. So and and then last one I promise. No, no problem. Go ahead. Uh involvement of parks and recreation as you're discussing use of city parkland. Um are they key players in the conversation? Yeah, they were um in the meetings as well with us. I think they were in at least two of the design team meetings that we had and were able to give their input. Thank you. Yeah, it was a great process. I mean, it was really nice. I've never been through this process before. Um and my brain's a little bit fried after watching you folks have to go through the last process. So sorry but um it was great to get all the departments ahead of the project and be able to talk about what their issues were and understand and even in some cases like I mentioned see where you know um everybody has goals and for the most part they align or overlap but sometimes they do conflict with each other a little and so uh you know we worked through it and I feel like we ended up with a with a pretty good spot where where we're bringing it today and and now we just um I need to get building. Thank you. Ah sh uh Tim, correct me if I'm wrong, but last time you were here, you mentioned that the airport restricts how high you can go. Is is that still that's true, right? It's it's only true on the building that we're exceeding our 6,000 footprint. Okay. Um it's not true uh where the residential are. And we showed the residential three stories to begin with and and I agree like well I kind of agree um when we build things like the building on front and cast that we own uh when we first got that property we didn't plan on developing and a lot of people came and said you can do four stories there and you'll have views of the bay but it especially in that moment in time it didn't feel like it fit the scale of the community all that well and so these renderings reflect what we feel fits that neighborhood. There are homes across the

street across Woodmir there. There's not a ton and this is a corridor that's going to be important to probably build up an infill. It feels like even in the master plan that that that's what what you folks believe as well, but uh we don't need giant walls. I mean, it's a pretty site and I you know, I don't know exactly how the neighborhood is going to take it and to just assume that it makes sense to do four stories on all the residential. It may or may not. We've thrown around the idea that if retail does really good there that maybe it makes sense to have some retail on the first floor of some of those residential buildings which would then make it make more sense to go up an extra story. Um, you know, I think that we'll know for sure over the next six to nine months what the makeup of those three residential buildings look like. the building that's that's really giving us like kind of a a timeline problem is is the retail mixed juice because we have somebody who has a deadline that they need to get out of an existing space and into a new one and it's February of 27. So, you know, we know we want three buildings of residential. They may end up being four floors, but uh the one that we really that we're focused on most and I know the PUD covers the entire site, but is you know, we need to um we need to get the mixed juice going just to to meet the timelines for the for the customer. Thank you. And just to because you had mentioned, Jackie, the um pavilion at this time that's in the original conceptual renderings of the architecture, but that hasn't been passed through in the plans that are going to be potentially approved. So, that is something that could come later. We talked about that. Um, yeah, I mean, it's awesome and we'll do whatever we can. Obviously, we we want to support it. I think it's great. I've worked with already. Uh, they were some of the first people that I contacted to talk about this East West Connection. The new Safe Streets Alliance has reached out. We're excited that the east west well I'm excited because I'm a bicycle

commuter and I feel like we need more east and west connections and really some more north and south for people coming in like the hundreds of units we're building on top of the frameier and it's like an island and no kid could ever get from Lef Franer to downtown without taking their life into their own hands. So we're excited that we can be part of that and maybe even be the catalyst to help get it going. Um yeah, I will add um with the trail and stuff once installed that is that's city property that city's infrastructure at that point. So um I did have a conversation with TAR no answer yet but there is a Boardman Lake Loop Trail maintenance agreement between the city and Garfield that covers some things and this is outside of Tims. This is just internally as we've discussed how the maintenance is going to occur, whether or not those agreements cover those spurs that lead to it. Uh their agreements kind of silent on it. They had a meeting I think last week. They were going to start discussing it because this isn't the only location like at 10th Street and 12th Street. We have some other spurs that are pretty vital to the Loop Trail. So, should they be considered as part of that? So, I just wanted to give you an idea that that is um something that we're still working in the background. So all those type of agreements are things that um will go to the city commission when this uh PUD if it does in fact well it will have to one way or the other recommendation go to them and make their final decision. So those are those like kind of parallel tracks that were discussed that uh are working in the background. I did want to add sorry um in regards to the repairarian buffer group and the work that they had started and Uh we can talk later if you want about where the status is with that, but uh we did take a look at this or I took a look at this in um in light of the work of the repairarian buffer committee and um like Tim said

um the impact is well away from the shoreline and it would be outside well outside of the area that would be under consideration for any ordinance. amendments. Um and uh but certainly we did look at that and uh the other part of the recommendation from that committee was that there should be controlled access points uh to repair lands like uh or repairarian locations like Boardman Lake instead of lots of little um uh spots where people have just kind of made their own access point to better control those. So, I think that this would be looked at within that context as well. Thank you, Anna. You had a question. Yeah. Uh it wasn't really a question. Um I think we'll talk more about this when it officially comes back at public hearing, but I am in favor of a fourth floor if you ever get around to that. Um, my building also has an we have six floors. The sixth floor is um an entirely community. It's a community space. I think it's a really great example. If you ever want to come tour it, just find me. But it is a space that um has open air access and like grills and tables so people can sit outside. It kind of gives you, it's another story, but because it's open and accessible and everyone in the residential building gets to access it and you like rent out the space sometimes, like it feels really community centered and kind of

feels like less of an intense story. Um, with that open air access, it really kind of just blends. It sits back enough that you can't really see what's going on from the ground level. um just an idea. I think it's a great example of being creative with height, right? Well, we definitely want it to have a feel of community. Like we want people to be neighbors there. We want people to live here because they like access to the lake and because they like a bike and ski shop next door. And I mean, that's that's kind of all part of creating gravity that attracts the type of people that want to create the type of community that that we like to be part of. So, it w it was kind of the emphasis in the idea of the development. Like I mentioned when I was here in December, we did not buy the parcel to develop it as developers. We bought the parcel because we love TC Milworks. We're outgrew the space. We have a beautiful new wood shop over in Arrow Park, which is probably a more appropriate spot for a production facility and that freed up this place. And then, you know, my friend Andy at Brick Wheels called and so here we are. Um but that is an important part and we would love to go four floors if we can find a way to make it work. Absolutely. Thank you. I I will add if I can on that just so the applicant is aware that the planning commission made a recommendation in 22 that the city commission passed that does allow. So in this district for instance the the max height is 45 ft. You can go an additional 15 to support rooftop access and amenities. It can't be more than 20% of the roof area or 1620 square feet, whichever is less. And it's limited to food and beverage service, bathrooms, storage closets. Uh because our ordinance previously, I mean, your building had to get a conditional res to allow that community room. So, we just legalized it because we're getting so many requests about it um in an effort to support that desired community space. And for a lot of these

buildings, there isn't like a yard. The roof is where you get outside and stuff. So, not a requirement, it's an option. Just know it's there. Yeah. No, we love it. I mean, it's it's important. It doesn't necessarily help things be any more cost-effective integr I I I and I enjoyed the the short-term rental talk. We're reaching this point where the cost per square foot to build is probably getting to the point where only people are coming in to buy these things. Like, we have so many rentals and the price that you can get for them is going down. And we have a cost per square foot construction cost that continues to go up. And I feel like we've pretty much reached a point where regardless of what the percentages are, we're not going to see people building entire buildings of short-term rentals in town anymore. Rachel, yes. Following up on what Sean just said, is that percentage or how would this be applied in this case? Uh does this count as one building since it's all on one pad or would that be uh that percentage of each of the four structures? Each bu each structure would be looked at individually. So it's not uncommon to have buildings share foundation. So Anna's building and the building being constructed, Anna's building was built with a foundation to support the building next to it. So it's they're separate buildings even though they share a foundation. It would just be in a case like this a lot easier if all of that could be on one of the four. Yeah. But yeah, I really appreciate the applicant um respecting neighbors across the street that do have one-story houses. And even though our both our zoning plan and our master plan, future land use show more intensity along this corridor along with more both commercial um use and multif family residential. Uh a respect for of the size and scale. However, I it is worth

keeping in mind that uh there is a railroad track, a road and that road is a divided highway with a median in the middle. There are street trees on the far side of the road. There are some trees in the median. While there are currently relatively few, there are there is space uh permitted to plant trees on either side of the sidewalk between the road and the railroad track. And u more trees there could certainly whatever height the building is, um offset uh the change in appearance and account for the fact that there are trees on the site that will be removed. Of course, the other side of the road track is not property you control, but if you're paying into tree the tree fund, you can certainly recommend that, hey, here's a great place that to put new trees, and that's where they can go. I also uh like the change to having a retaining wall on the edge of the parking lot and um two access points on either end to a trail that connects to the Gorman Lake Trail rather than back. Uh, on one hand, it's a lot easier with this design to carry an 18 foot canoe over the shoulder. Not saying that I will move in here or anybody that does will have an 18 foot canoe, but it works a lot better for this. and looking at uh what the city will end up doing on its side of the area. Having that retaining wall um one reduces the amount of space required for the switchback and provides a lot more opportunity for what can happen there because it you're not required to have as steep a slope. So,

uh if you want to put more trees there or to have patches of lawn or some combination thereof have range of shrubs. It preserves a lot more opportunity in that. One question I do have to the applicant is I appreciate what you've done with the site plan within your area, but the idea of uh paving what is currently an unpaved, uneasemented, and poorly demarcated road is immediately to the north. that poorly demarcated road uh splits around an island and it seems very odd to have a road with street road that's paved and on street parking immediately go to a road that's gravel of indeterminate width and has tree growing in the middle. So yeah, it is off your property. So, it would have to be the property owner to the north, but I'd like them to be brought into the conversation. Not saying that they have to agree to having the rest of the road paved and you paying for it, but some cohesiveness for what Sheffer looks like going forward. So, we did address that some in that uh we're fairly certain that we know the long-term plan and strategy of what's going to be happening to the north of us. And I feel like we'll be setting the tone. And so when that business eventually decides to develop, and I believe it will probably be the business owners that decide to develop it, uh we'll have provided a model for how we feel like things should be done. And it was a very interactive model that involved all the community departments. Um and so I think that it should be easy for them to follow suit and continue along that street with something that that looks nice and maintains the character of what we're

doing. And I think You have first mover advantage an access to the trail that comes off north end of your property but is very close to the south end of theirs. Right. It sure is. All right. Thank you. Anybody else? So the street I'm sorry the new is it's a new street. It's going to be a city street. It's a city street now. We get act 51 money for it. We just own some of it and let you guys put your stop sign on. Yeah. We cross their property entirely on the south, right? Yeah. So, yeah. Okay. Because you don't have an ement. You could take one if you needed. And that street continues north, right? And it continues. That's the city street there with the tree in the center of it. So, really, if the city wants it paved, the city commission should talk to the city manager about making it a priority to be paved. um not really up to our applicant in front of us. And if the city, you know, and if the city commission wants to see those trees from the tree fund targeted to the other side, they can they would have be much more influenced than the applicant in directing where those trees would go. We would love more trees adjacent to our site. Yeah. you know, you know, all those things are on city property and that's up to the city commission. I think they're great suggestions. Can you get in trouble for planting trees? I don't want to put it on the applicant. It's really that's up to the city commission. Last comment and that's simply that when this comes back before us. Um, I know a lot of people would like to see four stories, but just can a PUD be worded in such a way that they have the option to go to the maximum height of the zone and we're not

limiting them. So, we don't have to have this come back for a minor or major PUD amendment. Yeah, I would structure the draft motion for you to reflect somehow like built as prescribed, you know, otherwise base zoning prevails, you know. Um, on the topic of tree fund, I will say uh our zoning administrator had done an analysis of their landscape plan that was included and the their tree plantings meet the canopy coverage as proposed with our zoning ordinance. So, that's why it's not called out in the thing. Um, and we don't just let people pay into the tree fund if there's room to plant the trees. Yeah. You know, the only time that we really run into it is downtown where you have 100% coverage allowed where there really is nowhere to plant it. Um, but yeah, we don't let them just choose that option. If they can meet the spirit of the ordinance, we require it here. Yeah, I wasn't here for the uh December uh meeting, but I think it's a great project. I actually This has always been an interesting part of town. It's kind of the wild west. It's like this dirt road. You can't even really see the lake from it, you know. Um, so I think yeah, having that connection there and kind of, you know, I drive down Woodmir all the time and yeah, it's definitely I think it would be a very warm welcome for that uh corridor. So, very cool. Awesome. Thank you. Anybody else? I I have a question. Can I ask any of the trees on your property? Are they viable to mill and use? Is that in your plan? Well, we hope so. Uh, I've been slacking a little bit, but Mitch and I, City Commission Mitch, not Planning Commission, Mitch, have talked about the Trevor City Tree Ordinance, and we already on a pilot program have been working on something we call the urban wood rescue where as the city takes trees down from the neighborhoods, we have taken some of those trees. We've done a couple maples from Slab Town and

oak from Central Neighborhood. We also have an entire pile of black locusts from the senior center that we're going to repurpose into Parkland play toys. So, you know, it's funny that we have a wood shop and we order wood from a lumber distributor out of Detroit who orders it from somebody on the east coast and in a lot of cases the trees were cut down somewhere here in the Midwest and they were loaded on a semi and they're driven to giant industrial kils on the east coast and they're turned into lumber and then we order them and they're shipped back here. And it just seems silly to me when we got to wood shop because my main business is Keen Technical Solutions and we think about things like this. I thought why on earth are we allowing the city like we take the positive environmental impact of these trees. Every year they breathe 30 to 50 pounds of carbon and they live in our community for 100 or 150 or 200 years. We take our trees so serious that we have a Trevor City tree map that geollocates every single tree and tags it and gives the height and the species of the tree. And then at the end of their life cycle, we chop them down and chunk them up and we put them in this giant industrial chipper and we send them over to biomass plant to be burnt because they don't charge us to get rid of them. And so a 100 or 150 years worth of work immediately gets returned back to the atmosphere. And it just felt like if we can just capture some of those on the way by probably in the grand scheme of things for a similar cost, especially when you don't only measure value in US dollars, we can catch some of those on the way by and we can mill them and we built a kiln. It's at the new wood shop. You should come check it out. It's a low energy input dehumidification kil and we dry that wood and then we turn it back into products that allow that lock stored value carbon all that work and it's funny and it doesn't matter what you believe in or don't believe in but wood is carbon like 70 to 75% of the weight of wood is carbon that's what wood is comprised of and it's carbon that the tree breed then is CO2 and so if we can turn some of that back into products that go back into our community and hopefully live on for another 30 or 40 or 50 years or maybe even a hundred years someone's front door or the bar at Brady's or the tables at Nobo across the

street. Um, you know, not sure if that counts for our commitment to the tree fund, but I think that it's important and it's something that we've already been doing. So, Okay, very cool, Tim. Thank you so much and thanks to you and your team for being so thoughtful in everything you're thinking through. I It really comes through to us and thanks a lot. Thank you. No problem. I appreciate the time. And you've got a great community um dinner. I mean, that's right. Every Friday, stop on by the wood shop. It's not bribery. It's free lunch for everybody. You can check out the uh some of the urban wood rescue stuff. All right. Thanks. Thank you. So then just as a reminder for the applicant team that your public hearing is set for then our next regular meeting, which my calendar is not pulling up, but it looks like June 3. Yeah. So June 3rd is when you're scheduled. All right, everybody. Um, we're going to take a five minute break. Sorry to those who are here for the next agenda item, but a five minute break and for the students to come up and get your paperwork signed and we'll be back in five. I don't know. So, I've already talked about this before. This happened like at the same time we were doing this C12 or zero summer. That's what it was. It was like 2020 still.

Thanks for sharing. So, introduction, new business, a introduction of a zoning map amendment submitted on behalf of Three Spartans LLC to reszone the properties at 418 and 420 South Union Street as prescribed by the master plan. Mr. Winner. Yeah. Yeah. So, we received an application from Scott Harvey, the authorized agent for the ownership of the two lots in question. Um, and the request is to reszone it from its current C2 designation to C4A. So, I've written uh an analysis in that staff report. Um, couple things to consider. Um, first of all, the master plan does specifically call for reszoning the 300, 400, 500 blocks of Union Street to C4A. So that's the first step whenever you get a zoning request as a planning commission is what does the master plan say regarding this in the future land use map. Um and so that future land use category is the commercial core I believe it is called. Um and so that is contiguous of downtown and parts of 8 and kind of boardman area and stuff like that which is very similar to what the last master plans future land use map called for as well. Then when you look at the action plan and the zoning plan, they take it a degree further in specificity and say specifically C4A. So whenever we get these, we usually do a sideby-side comparison for the planning commission. This is what C2 allows in terms of uses and dimensional standards as well as what the in this case proposed C4A. Um I want to point out one of the key differences is building height because we went through this process. We even had these discussions at the planning commission in 22 um when we were uh discussing some of this and that is Oldtown is really part of downtown. So how do we make it a more natural connection and there's been a lot of efforts tying Oldtown to the rest of downtown through the replacement of the South Union Street Bridge. Um one of

the re main reasons we wanted to incorporate the the pedestrian lighting into the bridge was to give that visual connection to Oldtown because it kind of creates this dead space. Um the current project that the DDA is working on of course is Rotary Square right there and then there's Fish Pass under connection. It really collectively will help unify this. So we started having a conversation on Oldtown back in uh as I mentioned 2022 with the owners as we we hit a problem. Um I think it might have even been at the building just to the north of this. Uh we had a law firm that was there that was growing. It was in a two-story building and they wanted to build a third story. Well, the current C2A allows up to 45 ft, but you have to have at least one story of residential if you go above 30. I sat at the comments and had a cup of coffee with my predecessor back in 22 trying to understand this. And he mentioned this was put into the new ordinance in 1999 because no one was building residential units downtown. So, they were trying to incentivize somehow how to get residential units downtown. Fast forward 26 years, that's not really the case. You know, the residential units are being built. Are they used for long-term? That's a different conversation that we touched on earlier today. So the building to the north since his two-story building was approximately 24 feet to build a third story to meet their business needs would have put them at 34 feet which mean exceeded 30. So then they would have had to build a fourth story just for residential units and from a business perspective that didn't make sense. They they didn't have necessarily the funds to do that. They are a law firm not a landlord. Um and unfortunately they they moved out of the city after over hundred years in Oldtown as a result of that. So that really started generating these conversations about uh the zoning in that area. So C4A is also 45 ft. So it doesn't allow for a higher building um than what would be allowed now, but it doesn't require

that you have one floor for residential. So, in this particular case, you have a vacant lot and one lot that is currently developed. Um, and I believe there are some there's at least one tenant in there of personal services. Um, and the property owners would like to develop this uh as one property. So, they would have to combine the lots. The one building would have to be demoed. I think they're more on like a two-year plan, maybe. Is that correct, Scott? So, it's not imminent construction, but these projects take a long time to plan and permit. So they're they're working towards it. Now, one of the holdups with C2A is or C2, sorry, is it limits the building footprint to 6,000 square feet. Um so, uh given the the two lots combined as one, that really leaves a lot of undeveloped land that just has to sit there because they can't build a building more than 6,000 square feet or they have to build two separate buildings. And so that starts to become a little cost prohibitive at that time because now you're talking two HVAC systems, two electric system, you know, all that gets doubled in there. So um what you have before you is this specific request for these two properties. However, I have proposed a conversation with the planning commission to potentially expand the consideration to the old town. Now, keep in mind legally uh the attorney is probably going to object to spot zoning where you make like a little island that's one zoning within a district. The act calls for establishing districts that are unified and things like that. This is again directly supported by the master plan that that's the direction it should go. So, it is possible for the planning commission to um in their recommendation to expand beyond the two properties that were applied for. This conversation also came up when we were talking about the conditional reszoning on Mson Avenue. Mitch, I think you brought it up there. You had three lots.

It created a lot of frontage. It really wasn't spot zoning, but Mitch posed the question, you know, what's best, wait for people to come or be more proactive and start implementing the master plan because the planning commission can initiate zoning changes as well. And and that's really ultimately a discussion for you all because by instituting the zoning um you're controlling the development pattern more so than just haphazardly waiting for opportunities to come before you. You're really setting the development stages or stage rather in a more cohesive way. So it can have more of a broad vision. It gives in terms of investment more um predictability to what is allowed and what is not. Um so I think that's about all I have on this. Um, oh, one thing I will add, uh, I did put a chart in there with a bunch of red lines. So, those are all the properties in I think the 300 and 400 block, maybe even the 200 that kind of align right there that are currently non-conforming under the C2 zoning. And I think that's an important fact is that what you see in Oldtown right now couldn't be built under its current zone. And so if that's what you like, really C4A matches what's there today a lot better than what the current zoning designation is. Yes. And going after that, it's not just um supported by our master plan, but it is in our goals to uh look at changing the zoning of this section of Oldtown to probably C4A. Right? It doesn't mean that we can't have C4A with conditions or something else, but This is something that we've discussed in the past and had recognized as something going forward. Uh I am personally in favor of using

this as okay an applicant came forward with a specific project that it does make sense. It is consistent with future land use. But I see no reason to not have this be what kickstarts the communication the discussion about uh that entire two block stretch of uh Oldtown. The only uh potential hangup is uh that might take more time than the applicant would want. But if we have some time. So, the applicant is here. Would you like to come up and speak to us, Mr. Hardy? Sure. Scott Hardy, 406 Northwest Silverlake Road, Garfield Township, formerly 25 years on Washington Street. Um, I represent the owners of the property. Um, I'm also in conversation with a potential developer who is under contract who sort of noted that this was a this problem of not being able to do the density that they wanted made the project cost prohibitive. And it's not the first time I've heard it from potential developers on that property. Um, I can also say that I represented Michigan State Federal Credit Union when they bought the building on Union Street right near Sixth Street and they have plans or had plans to be able to go up on that building and they would run into the same problem that Rogers ran into that in order to do that they needed a floor residential. One of the things that's been critical in this town is to find housing that's affordable, and I'm going to use that term loosely at this point. What this developer wants to do with those two lots is to put potentially 24

units on there with some on-site parking um and have those units smaller and affordable. There's a niche in the market right now that's not being met, and that's um young professionals or double income, no kids. It's just exactly what you heard previously about short-term rentals. This is not um a move on the part of the developer, the person who eventually would buy this and develop the property to do this is not a short-term rental play at this point. This is to go after a marketplace that we think is underserved and to create a vibrant community in the Oldtown area. Um, this could put as many as 30 people there as residents of the area shopping in that area. There will be two commercial spaces on the ground floor because that's what we think is needed. And right now, those are dormant lots. They're dormant vacant lots. So, we thought this would invigorate Oldtown. And I'm not trying to sound overly altruistic. Ultimately, uh, my job is to make sure we sell the property, but I've worked with the developers to come up with a plan that I think is a major contribution to downtown Trevor City and would provide, again, units in an affordable range with some on-site parking, but also with the Oldtown parking deck about a block away. uh maybe even less than that. So it it sort of works synergistically with all the things we're trying to do in the city and lacking any incentives. We've got to be able to build this in an affordable range with the appropriate density to be able to sell them at an affordable rate. So that's sort of the logic behind all of this. I understand what Sean's saying about you can't spot zone. Um, on the other hand, I also can't have this

take the path of short-term rentals and be a conversation in perpetuity. Um, so I I need from a business standpoint to get some hopeful response to this to that you're in favor of this and we're going to move it forward and there's not a lot of resistance so that the developers can plan what they anticipate doing. Now, I'm ready to answer any questions. First, I have a question for um uh for Sean. What if we we're going to reszone all three blocks? What's the time? What's your timeline on that? Yeah, I mean the timeline's no different than reszoning two lots necessarily as far as what's required. Um really comes down to you guys how much. But I know that's that's what I'm saying. I mean, if I mean, you've been doing this for a while. Give me your estimate. Then we'll add six weeks maybe to that. So when people come in and they inquire about a reasonzoning, we typically tell them the whole process is two to three months because of the public hearing notifications and then the shipping it up to the city commission and stuff. Um that's best case scenario for a zoning amendment. Um and then it's really up to both bodies how much time they deliberate on it, explore. Um, I will say having spent extensive amount of time in 2022, like this isn't new to the planning department or even the planning commissioners who were around in 22, um, or the DDA for that matter. I mean, we held public meetings at Carnegie on this topic. We've held them at the Oldtown Playhouse. Um, so a lot of the ground work's been done already is the point that I'm saying. So, um, I don't see this being prolonged from a procedural standpoint necessarily. It's really up to how much time the planning commission would want to deliberate on it and for that matter the city commission as well. So within that timeline, does that have to be decided first before the project can be decided

upon? I'm sorry, say that again. The the change in the zoning does that have to go through first and then the project? Well, yeah, because the the whatever zoning classification, whether it stays or changes is going to dictate what what can be built, right? Okay. It's not going to dictate it. It's going to decide whether we will build or or anybody will build anything in that. And I just because I know the process, we have allocated six months to see if we can't get this zoning change through. I I I know you never should have told us that. That was I know, but I'm not being unreasonable. You should have told us three months. Well, I need an answer by the time I leave here. No. I mean, even conservatively, we can have uh a public input session at some point in the next month. We can schedule this to be a topic of discussion at our study session in June. we can then if we want to move forward have it at our first meeting um in July and then it will be city commission in August and okay that's not an expedited framework but even with an extended input process we can have this by September so that is working you're you're talking about reszoning all of it not just Scott's project okay and for clarity sake we're talking 8 down to the parkland to Hannah. Is that what we're talking about? So that's that's a scope that the planning commission would need to determine. The master plan includes the one block south, the 500 block of 8th Street. I wondered about that. That's why I was asking because it feels it feels spot zone to me. Yeah. Its current capacity

like that C1 spot. Is that what you're talking about? just feels C1 on one side multif family and it starts to messy. Yeah. Fall apart. It is. It is a little messy there for sure. More coherent. Yeah. And I I will point out too that you know as a result that this was an item prescribed in the master plan. This this isn't new, right? We had public open houses to get feedback on this. We had um numerous engagement opportunities, public hearings and stuff like that. So I I just want to bring that to the point is the planning is where you do the most of the you know feedback on the public engagement and then you make these type of proposals or changes and then you get some feedback through the public hearings and then you kind of move on through. The one bit that I would say I I want to do it. Let's do the whole thing. I want to do the whole chunk. Makes sense to me. Get rid of C1. The one thing I will say the debate that we got into over 8th Street is just an example. I'm going to bubble up because people did not like when we were reszoning 8th that on the north side of ETH it goes straight to residential. South side is like mixed. So they wanted to split the difference of the sides. I don't really believe in that. If it's a corridor, it I feel like it would look really odd if you had one density here, the other density across the street just to try to blend it a little better. So, I just want to call that out here that if we do that whole strip, we'll end up with C2 as a strip in the middle. um which I'm kind of fine with, but just want to call that out in between a D1. So, it feels like a little messy. It feels like maybe we could just take over

that whole thing to C4 since you showed us all the non-conforming anyway. Um that way it feels less spot zony. that way. It's a larger C4 A in between R2, R1, D1, and whatever brown is R3. I like that idea myself, but that's I mean right now I think what I'm hearing and correct me if I'm wrong is we would like to get on the agenda as soon as we can about changing this zoning. Yes. Um and so it will work with the timing of Mr. Hardy's project as well because I mean I'm all in favor of it too. It sounds great especially with all the housing units um that you're proposing. Um So, I think that's the direction, right, that we're giving at this point in time. Mitch, yes. Uh, I know the change applied to parts of downtown, but would the change uh that required at least the front uh 50% of uh C4 um properties on the first floor to be a residential, I mean to be retail or restaurant carryover if we extend it to this district as well. Yep. and thus would preserve the current feel of you have businesses along that stretch that might have other uses above them. But yeah, what feels like a downtown district. Yeah, those C4A design or standards would would then apply to to this portion of the town. C2 would not prohibit um the whole building to be res. Correct. Correct. C4 doesn't either. So, that was a big talking point. Um, it was decided by the planning commission that they wanted to

keep the option to allow residential on the first floor, not short-term rentals, but they can have residential on the first floor. However, in order to support future commercial activity, if they want residential on the first floor, they still have to build it 14t high, 50% window glazing, all the all the outside public realm elements, if you will. Um, so I'm not positive about the reszoning of the two blocks, the C1 and C2 C2 blocks south of 8th Street, but I understand it's my feeling is it's something we can I agree we need to go from basically Sixth Street. um all the way to uh at least to eighth and maybe to ninth. Um and so I guess I would start with ninth and if there seems just to be a lot of opposition to it, we can cut that off. Yeah. Um Yeah. You know, and it's and I understand I mean we I guess Mr. Hardy, have you had any conversations with the Central Neighborhood Association? Uh no, we have not. Um, and have a meeting 6 p.m. tomorrow. Yeah, maybe I will see some emails. Um, I was anticipating this would go from 8th to 6th, that's that's the core of the business district. And the minute I start having to reszone things that essentially look like residential areas, that's where I think the push back from the neighborhood might come in. I I I don't know that for a fact. I can see definitely uh we have it in

other parts of the town uh a process of stepping down from the highest intensity of commercial which in our downtown is C4 to um R1 as residential. Uh we have a list of non-conformings for C2 in this current district. But if you extend south, there are other commercial businesses, including law firms that and a deli that have operated for years, even though it's zoned residential. Uh, I don't I'd be comfortable most comfortable with extending C4 to um 8th Street, but then we could look at something whether it's a C1 classification or something else for uh others extending further south recognizing that there is a history of commercial use interro along that stretch. uh and to say it's part of the character and to not have a sharp divide between C4 to R1. Yeah. And that's definitely something. I mean, although the the master plan says a 300, 400, 500 block, the planning commission isn't obligated to take that all in one bite. You know, you could do this the 300 and 400 block. And again, it's recommending C4A. Um, you may find for the 500 block block that maybe there's a different designation that serves a better transition to that lower R1 intensity there. Much akin to the eighth street thing, right? Originally, the plan recommended form-based code, but as they worked through it, they found a that the hybrid approach works a little better. Um I will say that we do have um language that when you in the C4A and it's the same as D2 that when you are

abudding or across the alley from an R district that you have a 20 foot rear setback to give that more space. Now what is interesting in this case is Locust is not an alley. It's a street. So we might want to have a discussion on what maybe change would need to be there to get the intended outcome. Um C4A doesn't have a step down in height as you approach the rear property line if you're abing a our district, but that's because um like the D2 district allows 60 ft. So it steps down to 45 adjacent to residential. This maxes out at 45. You'd end up with it since virtually every property as currently does will have parking in the rear plus it has locust. alley, but potentially they they wouldn't be mandated to have parking. I just want to make sure I'm not saying you're mandated. I'm saying just how the businesses and properties are function. They might have um and I just want to make not only does do we not require parking for residential uses, we don't require parking in the C4. Moreover, if you're within 500 ft of a parking deck, which this property is, we also don't require parking. So, there's three um elements in play there regarding that. Does anybody have any other questions for Mr. Hardy? Oh, not N. Or for Sean. So, just a brief question. When did 418 come down? Because I I'm surprised that I go past that every day within a block of it and then I see it on these satellite images as a vacant lot. And I'm just so used to there being those I believe it's been gone for about two and a half years, maybe three. It's okay, It It's kind of obscure there. And the other building

obviously will be coming down as well. Like I said, I've never been inside, so it doesn't uh as many stories as business as they do. Did you have something to say or ask? Yeah. I'm just thinking for um when was the last was the last time we did this would have been 8 Street did what? Like a blockwide resoning like this. I mean I would probably say yes. Uh the previous agenda item those two properties which are really quite long uh Tim Holiums and the one to the north they got reszoned together. 21. But yeah. Oh, and then the conditional resoning at Third Coast, that was three adjacent parcels, one being quite large, which honestly was about two city blocks worth of frontage. We also talked about talked about don't think we did Boardman, the corner of Boardman and where the TCAPS building is. So, like there have been prolonged discussions about pretty large chunks of space getting reszoned. The last one though is of an actual block that you and there was a lot of local opposition to that and we had a lot of meetings. We did a walking meeting. I was in a city commission with residents and neighborhoods and I don't think we ever won a single one of them over. They still thought it was just the worst thing ever. So Jackie was first. Oh, I'm sorry. I see your hand. Thank you. Um to that point, uh what is the most efficient way for us to have access to you said there were some public

meetings held in 2022. I think it would be helpful to to understand what happened in those and then also any master plan input sessions um for this area would be good good to have access to and you help with that access to what the public feedback um yeah I mean most of it Harry was there most of it was just discussions with the property owners um I would say there was really really not opposition to it to the ones that we were meeting with Um, I mean, again, we're seeing this problem occur a lot here. We saw it with Rogers. We've heard it from Michigan State two years ago. We're hearing it from this property owner that the zoning isn't really matching with the the development pattern in that area. Harry B with the D. I don't have anything to add other than we we'll look through our notes. I know we took notes on, you know, whiteboard kind of stuff so we can find what we heard um and see if we can get back something. So, thanks Harry. Yeah. And I think you can easily take any of the conversations and information that we pulled from master plan sessions because these conversations came up time and time again where you would have the conversation in the basement of the parkplace at your table because you would be talking about ADUs and somebody would be like, "Oh, you know what I like and don't like?" you just end up in these rabbit holes of like conversations of the entire city. So, kind of part a lot of it is probably not recorded, but hopefully we can find some notes from at least your more formal meetings that weren't like those breakout sessions. So, I would remind you from the 8th Street resoning, there was a lot of neighborhood complaints because we

didn't do mailings and we said, "Well, why can't we do mailings?" And the city attorney said it was a legal issue. So, we're not required to do mailings if we're doing a large track like this. And the city attorney will tell us we do not do mailings, but uh because you can get sued if you go outside the bounds of what is required by the applicant if it gets denied because you reached out too much to the neighborhood. One thing we didn't have then that we have now that really helps is our weekly bay brief that and then a summary post that our communications director does on agenda topics to help get the word out still within the spirit of what the zoning enabling act requires at and frankly I won't get into it but we we had that revision with like an old master plan like the timing was not the greatest. So I think the timing kind of set the stage for people to just I don't know have lots of thoughts about eight the future of eight street if you look at Yeah. But and the thing I think a really powerful graphic well I don't know if it's a powerful graphic but powerful information is how much of it is nonconforming you know uh you know I mean I think it's it's just the fact that you've got all this development that's zoned and none of it's conforming. Yeah. You know and we should change it you know and you can't tell them to tear it down and build new. You got to tell them to um you know, you might as well get the zoning to meet the neighborhoods what's existing. Yeah, that's one of those situations where like if a tornado ripped through Oldtown, you couldn't rebuild it the way it is today because you, you know, if it wiped every building out, they lose their vested status to rebuild. Then they would have to

get different, which is not the C2 zoning, not that downtown feel that we have in Oldtown. I I don't want to prolong this any anymore because I'm exhausted, but I guess my question is hearing Brian's experience with 8th Street, what's going to get Scott what he needs? Like what what is going to get him within that time frame that he proposed to us? What like is it let's do his two lots and then we'll talk about the rest of it or is it let's talk about all of it? I would say the quickest path is to talk about all of it. Okay. My concern is if you move forward with just the little stamp that he has a representation over, that's going to serve as spot zoning and the attorney's going to stop it. Okay? And then he gets nothing. So, you know, you got to think about districts as a whole um and what you want that district and how it's going to be developed and function rather than a piece by piece approach. Plus uh if we are going to have some community input then that will color the standards for what we want this whole area to look like. So if we are saying C4A with conditions it gives us a sense for what the conditions are that hopefully are something this applicant can work with but yeah so as of now it was scheduled for the June 3 agenda for public hearing. Um That public hearing would have to be noticed on what is under consideration. So what we would like for our roles is to get confirmation from the planning commission that you want that notice to include 300 and 400 blocks of South Union Street. Okay? And again, that is a notice to get public input. That is not what you ultimately have to vote on. You could reduce it down. you could, you

know, but the public hearing, I tend to like to have them earlier on to hear from the public to inform the process and not wait until the very end. Um, if anything, that might clue some people into these discussions and they'll pay attention by not, you know, we'll still we won't do the mailings necessarily, but we will do the notice and the bay brief and obviously stuff like that that's required by law. And what about this project? The public hearing is going to be for the zoning change now. Yeah. We're not talking about the development itself. Okay. Just the zoning classification. Okay. Um the project itself when we receive the application we will look at it um in terms of trip ends and at 24 units it will not cross the threshold to trigger planning commission review. So all the internal departments he can build whatever he wants under his own. He doesn't come back to us. He he can tell we know but he could build whatever is allowed you know I guess he built 24 you know two stories of of he built the giant biggest world's biggest McDonald's no drive no drive there's no you can see no drive bikes um so I think one thing that's important for a planning commission when you're considering a reasonzoning is not a particular project but what the zoning would allow because the a change in zoning classification doesn't promise that that's what's going to happen. The the owners could sell the property the next day and then someone else has control. Um and in this particular case, it's not applying to a single property, but more of a a corridor, a district. So, it would be applicable to all of those. So, think of it holistically. Um really spend some time in the next month looking at some of those differences and uses and dimensional standards and things like that. Um maybe cross reference those

with that non-conforming table and you can get a better idea of how many properties would be conforming. Um, it's not great to have a ton of nonconformities in a district. That's usually telling you something's wrong with the zoning. Um, and it puts another burden on the property owners. It makes it more challenging for sales and financing. We get a lot of calls in our department from insurance companies on non-conformities and what would be allowed if something happened to it. So, it provides more security for the property owners and their investments. Just for clarity sake, the um agenda item does say 300, 400, and 500 blocks. Yep. So, you can we just make sure that that get Okay, great. Yep. Yep. Now that I'm hearing that direction from the planning commission, that was just with the master plan. And I do not do well with these numbers. So, 500 is south of the other side of eighth. Eight to ninth. Okay, great. Where Scott says it starts looking more residential. Yeah. Yeah. But then you have the C1. Yeah. Or we include that one too. The direction that I was hearing is not that block at this time that we're focusing on the 300 and 400. Yes. But if we're including 300, 400, and 500 for discussion, then it's a little more open-ended for Well, that would be probably a recommendation is let's notice all three blocks. Yes. and then you don't have to renotice and have a new public hearing and then based on input you can decide what you're going to do maybe scale it back maybe there's a need to add additional standards to C4A just keep in mind that they also apply then to the rest of the C4A district so take that into consideration um and we can have you know those maps together at the next meeting a lot of that okay east west Like I'm trying to when you say blocks I get really confused. So are you saying

both sides of the street? Yes. Okay, great. That's just what I wanted to confirm. Locus to the unnamed alley. That is an alley. That's perfect. All the way down. Yeah. Great. All right. So, it sounds like we have the direction for that June 3rd meeting. Mr. Hardy, did you want to say anything else? Well, I came representing two property owners for two specific lots with a very specific problem. I would encourage us to limit this from 8th to 6th because I have the sneaky suspicion that we go into the next block where the demand for this kind of zoning may be there in the future, but there's nobody other than the Remax building right on the corner that probably cares about the height and the lot coverage and because most of it's residential. Even Grant Parsons has converted his to commercial, but it's a residential house. So the we're willing to go along with the complete resoning and follow the master plan and whatever time that takes it takes but I don't want to have scope creep put this on an agenda for the next two. I'd like to be alive when this happens. We will try to go as quickly as possible but understanding it's going to the city commission as well. I understand and I just see it as if we have all three blocks but then we decide to only deal with two or just deal with two and then change the third to all C1 or C2 in instead then that is a lot easier than if we decide to do with two and then we got a lot of input about the third block. Y we're going to have a public hearing. I don't expect us to actually take no action in June. I mean, it'd be nice, but I just don't see it happening. Okay. So, um, you know, I think because especially if we don't if we Well, I don't know if we're going to have

another meeting this month. So, you know, I'd like to get out there and walk with the properties and like I said, have a better handle on it and then get the public feedback and address their concerns. one of the concerns we'll probably I don't doubt that there's a good chance we'll chop that 500 block off but okay you know so and again we're not asking for any more height we're not asking for anything other than to be able to do the density required to keep the units that we're building affordable that's really the core of this right thank you so much right now before we go to reports I want to circle back to this Joel Peterson request us that did not get on today's agenda. So, we have uh a couple of options. One is that we change our study session meeting to a special meeting just for that, knowing that none of the staff is going to be here. Or we also kick this over to the June 3rd agenda, but it's too late. You're you're going to have to have a a May 20th meeting. They need a response on this. That's due process. You can't you know you can't if by choosing not to take action or consider it today then we're going to put it on the next agenda which is well why is it a due process issue? I mean we have we have a timeline. They didn't make it. I know. I know. So it just go on the next agenda. So it would go on the next agenda and so we have Oh, you're saying we have to have a meeting. Yeah. Instead of cancing. I wasn't going to be here but I I will come to that meeting. I think you're going to be asking. I have a procedure that day, so I won't be here that day, but I can submit my opinion in writing. Yeah. And I think you're the only one who I just don't I mean, honestly, I didn't see the email, so That's fair. I'm behind. And but the other thing is I have a hard time philosophically voting on things uh taking action on something that isn't notice to the public. That's fine. So,

it's not a something I haven't I want to get into. So I just want to make sure we all agreeing that the next meeting which was going to be cancelled will now be held as a special meeting just for this one topic which now what is the topic now putting it on the well today's topic was putting it on the agenda for today's meeting on the agenda. So it be an agenda to to vote to send it up to the city commission. Yeah. Yeah. And I mean the vote of the the planning commission doesn't mean it's it's going ahead. It you know has to and parks and wreck has approved the concept but they haven't approved the the plan. There's multiple stages that will require parks and rec meeting will require this meeting meeting this body will require a meeting of city commission and they can't happen in order but the city commission could decide to have a meeting before we've taken our action but this vote would be just to send it up to the city commission this public private partnership does it well it's a vote to basically say it's and it's consistent with the master plan yeah you're not voting on the partnership. You're not voting on the design. You're not voting on any of that. Just is it appropriate to have a park there per the master plan? Correct. That's the only question. And that just comes from the planning enabling act. So before park there as uh envisioned by the applicant. Correct. Correct. Yeah. And this is the same process um we've taken on other like um the trail for instance the tart trail along the waterfront, the lower boardman. We go through parks and wreck then planning commission, DDA, city commission. Yeah. I mean almost every public project. Yeah. Yeah. To whether or not it's going to be and so then you have a concept whether or not the concept it's consistent with the master consistent with the master plan and we probably don't need the applicant here again or unless people want the

applicant here. That's a if I'm the applicant they should be here. Yeah. And that's why he was here today in case it got added. He said he's going to come. Well, who's going to who's going to be your substitute? Well, there's nobody. It's just us. We're going to figure that out, right? Or maybe we can drive really fast from our conference to get back. I don't know. We're going to try to Where is your conference? East Lancing, the Michigan Association of Planners. Can we push it back a week? Um, you I That's Memorial Day, so we have a city study session. So, we'd have to push it back to Wednesday to the Wednesday. Yeah, let me talk with the clerk's office on that. Yeah, whatever works out best for you guys. Yeah, you can find somebody else. It is important that we have You know what? Get the parks and recck director. It's their fault that didn't get on the agenda. Get them to stop you. She might stop and put you on speaker, you know, or whatever. You can zoom in. Oh, I got hands-free driving's legal. No, are we allowed to have you? You're not. I am. the body. Okay. Yeah, you can. We just will you let us know which date whether it's going to be in two weeks or three weeks and then we'll go from there. That sound good? Okay, let's move on to update from the city commission. Anything to report? We had a a very extensive section of meeting about um the SL for safe harbor uh with nearly an hour of public comment. um that did end up being passed unanimously by the city commission as it had been passed unanimously by the planning commission. So it does keep them within their time frame to then be able to operate through the summer and I would just add that it appears

that there may be some Richmond to bring back some of the enforcement tools that might public safety concern. Don't know if that will actually happen, but there was conversation. Okay, the next is update from the planning department. Anything else to add? I don't think so. Um, business as usual. We're the city commission's entering the budget process. So, we've submitted all of our stuff vetted through the city manager. So again, if approved, we always put in a healthy amount for professional development. So again, let Katie know of any opportunities you want to participate in. Um even if they're webinars that have a cost, you know, we can register you for that and take care of that. Okay. Uh Traverse Commons Joint Planning Commission. Did you guys meet? Uh we did. Yes. Trying to think of when that was. April sometime I missed it. Yeah. So, um they are moving forward. Uh they submitted their permits to the state for the solution to the water pressure issue that they're having out there. This was really critical because Botanical Garden received a ARPA funding distribution that has time limits to it to renovate the second cathedral barn. And I drove by last week. I think that work is commenced. Um, but they weren't going to be able to occupy it because they weren't going to be able to pass the fire inspection because of the low water pressure. They even have staff when they have events have to go around and like jiggle the handles on all the toilets to get them to fill up and stuff. So, there was a major issue out there. Um, but that's moving forward. The current master plan is about 10 years old out

there. Um, and to my knowledge has never been reviewed. You know, every five years you're supposed to review it. So, we are working through that process. Um, defining what that might look like. I had a meeting with Elise Crafts who helped facilitate some of our master plan discussing with her because to be honest, myself and the Garfield planning director are are pretty busy. So, we may uh and we have a separate fund for the common so we may use some of that to facilitate the process and uh that's really where we are. Common. How about a board of zoning appeals that we don't seem to meet? Yeah, it's already been cancelled. It's already been cancelled. A riparian buffer. Oh, did me. All right, I think we've covered all the reports. Thank you for the uh your attention to this lengthy meeting and uh we're done with short-term rentals for now. I know. Send it back. We're done. That's a possibility.