Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

acknowledgement. The land on which we gather is the territory of the Ottawa and Chippoa 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. And I forgot the roll call. Okay, next to do that. McGillary here. Anderson here. Cameron here. Heler here. Swanson here. O'Brien here. Nap here. Hershey here. I show Duri and Treadwell absent. Thank you. Hope everyone is doing well. We are here tonight for one topic which is consideration of a public park to be located on city-owned property at 429 East Front Street through a public private partnership. um as you all know, but so the public knows the reason that um Sarah's here instead of our normal planning commission staff is they're all at a planning commission conference tonight. Um so we had a memorandum telling us that the reason um we are considering this is because the Michigan Planning Enabling Act requires us to state whether or not we feel this public park is consistent or inconsistent with the master plan. That is the only issue before us tonight. So, what I would love is to have a motion and a second and then we can discuss it and then open it up for public comment. I'll make the motion to affirm the proposed public private project by Joel Peterson to improve the city-owned property at 429 East Front Street for recreation purposes as presented at the May 6th uh sorry, May 20th, 2025 planning commission meeting. be found to be uh oh wait, sorry. Uh be found to be consistent with the city's master plan in terms of location, character, and

extent. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, great. So, this is the issue before us. Does anybody have any questions or comments? Jackie's first. Thank you. Um I think we all received a a note from the beaykeeper um asking about how the plans for this um align with our uh in process repairarian buffer um project. So I'm would like to hear more about that if we can. I I'm just going to reiterate the the question before us is if this is consistent with the master plan when it comes up to the city commission. And I think that's when all those kinds of questions are going to be asked. We only have one question before us tonight. So a repairarian buffer isn't relevant to land. I'm not saying it's not relevant. I'm saying it's not the issue before us tonight, unfortunately. I know. What does everybody else think? I mean to play devil's advocate here and for conversation a lot of our goals for the master plan are centered around housing. Um, so I'll I'll put that out there if anyone wants to talk about that if this is a you know supported use for our goals. Also, not the issue before us, didn't I? Yes, this regular version. So, and and I understand your narrowing of it. I sent an email asking uh that same question. What are we voting on? Are we voting on the plan before us which is what we're our motion states that the proposed public private project that we're affirming that it's consistent. So we're stating the project is consistent. The motion is not stating correct that a

park at that location would be consistent with the master plan. Um and I don't know if this will come back to us. It was another question I asked the city planner. He did not respond to the email I sent him on Friday. I don't know why I didn't follow up. Um the to me the memo indicates that the public private partnership has to do with the park. That is that's not what the motion states. But besides that, I just had a couple of things I wanted to bring up. So, one, as the the memo points out, and I think it's somewhat embarrassing for us because our commercial core does not mention parks, pocket parks, anything. We have a section that refers to, I think, arts, culture, and recreation. And then there's a paragraph defining what that is. And now where in that is parks or recreation mentioned again? So that is it's that I find was an oversight when we adopted this master plan. However, there are others to supplement mentions parks and there are other places in the master plan where it the importance of parks is um is supported. But it also has my other my other issue with this is that you know those things talk about return be turning our natural areas and conserving them. Uh our commercial core does talk about not creating um you know taking into account uh the importance of storm water retention um and this conceptual plan adds more hard surfaces. There's no definition

about what type of inhardred surfaces there are. So, I'm reluctant at this point without more information about the conceptual plan. And my question was, will the actual park design come back before us or not? Yeah, I I did speak with staff this morning to make sure that when I read it and what we heard two weeks ago and they confirmed that the only thing that we are voting on tonight is whether a park is consistent or inconsistent with the master plan because that's what the zoning enabling act requires us to do. My assumption is when it goes up to city commission, all these kinds of questions that you're asking, the city commission will ask. And whether or not it comes back to us, I have no idea. But we we are not voting on the project at all tonight. It's on whether a park is consistent with the master plan. And they said yes, that's absolutely correct. When I asked that question, um it's in my text messages. I can show it to you if you want to see it or I can read it to you. But um that's what happened. Now, as far as you are correct, there is not a lot mentioned about parks and since I was on the master plan committee, the reasoning was because the city has a parks and wreck plan and so it would refer back to the city to that plan and parks and wreck a couple weeks ago voted in favor of this park. So, that's we have nothing about their discussions or why or how they found it. Is there anyone here from parks tonight? Not that I know of. No, we I would support this motion if you amended it to simply state that it's a motion to affirm a park uh you know be located at the property of 429 East Front Street. But the word project for me I have problems and I'm

not saying I wouldn't support this as presented in the future. I'm just saying the project as proposed I could don't have enough information to decide if it's consistent or inconsistent with the uh with the plan the master plan. What about anyone else? Any comments? I guess for me when I read like what's in the information shared commercial core future land use district is planned to include the following uses. retail, entertainment, other commercial office. Recreation to me says park, but that's just me. So I understand where you're coming from though, Brian. I I do. But I think when I think of recreation, I think of park. I think of river access, which is something that's highlighted in the parks and wrecks master plan is access to the river, which yes. Does this plan does this project include that? No. But it could, right? And I can agree with the park. I'm just saying I'm not sure I'm ready to approve up this project. And it raises another question for us as a planning commission and maybe it's, you know, something we can discuss at a later date is are we still reviewing, you know, city construction projects to be consistent with the master plan? And I I you know, my I'm getting old. My memor is failing me. Did we review something like that last year? I don't recall it. Um, but I don't know if we had any big projects that were on that magnitude. But in the past, we reviewed, but that we do it so early in the process. It's easy, you know. Um, I mean, I've seen projects come back that I that happened that I recall reviewing for the last time on the planning commission. That was three years ago. But usually we actually see engineering

drawings. And this commission has requested changes that we I thought made the project better. So, if that's another question from the staff, apologize for that. And I and I don't know if this makes anybody feel more or less comfortable, but if you look at the magazine portion, goal one, and that wasn't meant to be, you know, the best school or the highest goal. It just happens to be goal one, says Steuart and cherish our natural resources and green spaces. It includes the words park. And I don't know how many of you went and looked at this piece of land. I went over and looked at it. Um and and what is in the um memo, uh there's been people looking at the trees. A lot of the trees are dead and are dangerous, need to come down. It's not a beautiful site at the moment. Um and so turning it into a park with nice plantings and benches to me means we're cherishing our na our green spaces, which is number one. So, at least to me, that that says it's consistent and that's the only question that is before us. Does anyone else have anything they want to say before I open it up for public comment? Nope. Would anybody like to make a public comment, please? Sir, you're the um Are you the applicant? Okay. So, um we'll talk to you when everyone else has made their public good. Okay. Fred Bimber 1223 Randolph Street city resident. I think that the comments of Brian Mil Mcgelbury here are spot on. If this board is just limiting itself to a determination of whether this the location of a park in that spot is consistent with the master plan. have a motion and a vote that actually determines that. Don't make it

sound like it's broader than it is and say we approve this project because it's consistent with the master plan. If the only thing you're considering is whether it is or is not consistent with the master plan. He's right. Do a motion like Mr. McGilly suggested and that will be what more clear about what you've actually determined. Totally agree. Thank you. Anyone else? Um, yes. Uh, Richard Robbins, uh, city resident, uh, but here representing the Grand Traverse Safe Streets Alliance. Um, and this is just a an overall comment for for this type of a project. Uh we represent hundreds of households uh that are in Traverse City uh through our our eight alliances and I'm here representing them them today. We applaud public private initiatives like this. Joel and and his organization and his con his his company have built some great pro great great properties in the city and I see this as a really great public private partnership opportunity for us. The concern the the alliance has is the lack of best best practices planned for safe non-motorized transportation in downtown Traverse City specifically on both State Street and Front Street. And the reason that's important for this uh uh specific project is there is no viable plan for downtown Traverse City for safe cycling or running uh currently. And we're not talking about putting a stripe next to parked cars. that is dangerous and it's now considered non- best practices and and not recommended for any cities at all which we currently have but there needs to be a change and that change we will have been having some discussions

with uh the DDA with planning the city etc about what is the plan but the reason for being here today is whatever uh we do strike in a public private partnership on this property but on both sides of Front Street both the property for the building and the park is that we need to have a consideration for a future plan that has to be in place for uh multimmodal alluser uh u usage for transportation and we don't have that right now and we have a mobility plan but it does if that's what's been implemented for downtown it is not best practices and so in order for in this project we want to make sure we incoror incorporate those uh going forward so that we don't get to the point where we we do these types of projects and all of a sudden the infrastructure is not there and we have to rebuild it. So that's that's our our position as the alliance. So thank you very much. Thank you. Any other comments? You like to comment? We have questions for the applicant. Questions? What would you is there anything you would like to say to him? Yeah, I I would just say thank you for coming out when you guys weren't supposed to meet and I appreciate that. So, I know uh there was a little snafu at the last meeting on on my end. So, apologize for that. But, um I appreciate your consideration of this. Uh I know your your um decision making here is is a narrow decision. you know what you're trying to decide. But, uh, little broader scope is we um, you know, in in looking at this piece of property across the street from this building we wanted to build, I I just was saying to myself, hey, you know, what could we do to possibly improve this piece of property? My office is right there

currently, just down the road, and I drive by it, you know, every day. um and thinking to myself and I did a little bit of research and there's a lot of other cities around the country that do uh most of their downtown beautifification with public private partnerships and uh so that's where I first came up with the idea and I I think it's a really kind of innovative one um and I know there's been some other discussions about u different types of you know there's a big rotary discussion that's a different you know, that's not a public private, but a lot of public input. Um, and I just think it's a win-win win. You know, it's uh for the city, for the residents, um, you know, for the tax base uh to to incorporate this. So, when I approached the parks commission, I I I said, "Hey, this is this is a conceptual plan." And and and it's still a fairly conceptual plan. What they approved was we're interested in pursuing this with, you know, my company, but ultimately it's parks who will decide exactly what gets done there. I mean, as far as everything goes. And I and I said I'm totally open to it. I'm not trying to dictate what gets done on city property. I'm just saying, hey, it it's it's uh going to benefit uh a lot of people if we can join together and work on this. Uh, so that's that's the spirit I've taken uh with this and I think that's the spirit that it should be taken. It's it's a it's all city decisions. It's it's like they were building this park. Um, but there's just uh somebody other than the taxpayer paying for it. So that's uh that's what I would have to say. Any do you have any further questions? Questions. Thank you.

Okay, back to us. Um, I think I agree with you, Brian, that this needs to be amended and um the pirate park um proposed by How about that? Um, can I uh put forth some language and see if you like this motion to affirm the proposed public private park? Um, then I had proposed whether it's proposed twice in the same sentence. We could be uh suggested by Joel Peterson, something like that to improve. I just want to get the word park in here instead of project. So Shay, are you willing to amend? I'm open to amendment. Yeah. Okay. So you need to make another motion to amend. All right. So I'm just replacing project with park. Motion to affirm the proposed park by like it either has proposed by, suggested by, something like that. Joel Peterson, why don't we just state that a motion to affirm I mean the public private question isn't really necessary. I mean all we have to do is motion to affirm that a park uh to improve city own property at 429 East Front Street as into a park for recreation purposes as presented in the uh May 6 20th May 20th. I think it's supposed should be May uh today's date. Yes, it wasn't presented at May 6. Sarah's showing me a simplified version. You want to let me throw something out there for you. Motion to affirm a proposed park at the city owned property at 429 East Front Street for recreation purposes as presented at the May 20th, 2025 planning commission meeting to be be found to be consistent with the city's master plan in terms of location, character, and extent. So moved. Do we

have a second? Second. Any more discussion? Are we good? Okay. I have one more comment just out there just for future reference. Our master plan does call for public spaces to have an art installation. I I'm just saying it's but that's not what we're voting on today. But if you want to get a plaque or something notice your dedication, maybe your picture or portrait. I'd be on public art is public art in Tart City is always encouraged. Yeah. Okay. Great. We have a motion, a second. All in favor? I. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you everyone. That is our only business tonight. Do we have any announcements? No. Is there closing public comment by anyone? all of you to Driver Safe Speeds Alliance is having our first um event uh during Smart Commute Week. It's uh on June 3rd at the library from 4:30 to 6. We have all the bike shops as well uh bringing in the latest com uh uh commuting technology, ebikes, cargo bikes, uh uh standard bikes to display as well as uh Traverse City Power and Light is going to talk about their e E rebates. So that's from 4:30 to 6. Love all of you to come and uh from 6:00 to 8 we have a panel discussion on what is the future of non-motorized infrastructure in Traverse City. We have a panel with the engineer uh certified engineer that does this type of work as well as u the disabled bicyclists and and runners on the on the panel. And we'll have four short videos in a public

discussion uh to have discussion about how do we how do we make that change in Traverse City. So I'd invite all you to to join and then sign up on uh on gtsafests.org. It's a very cool website and take a look at what we have. Uh we have great visualizations and conceptualizations. Not that we're telling people how to do things. What we're saying is here's the art of the possible. And so anyway, hope that's helpful. Thank you for the invite. We do have a planning commission meeting that night, but we might be able to come for a little bit. Okay. Uh any other comments for the public good? Then we are journed. Thanks for coming for this very short meeting.