Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We will begin in one minute. Yes. Perfect timing. I would like to call this meeting Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026 planning Traverse City Planning Commission regular meeting to order. So the land on which we gather is the territory of the Ottawa and Chippewa 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. Roll call please, Katie.

Yeah, Commissioner Swanson? Here. Commissioner O'Brien?

Present.

Commissioner Treadwell? Here. Commissioner Holtry?

Here.

Commissioner Dutry? Here. Commissioner Anderson?

Here.

And Commissioner McGillivary is not feeling well. Commissioner Hershey is out of town. And Maxwell is, had a prior commitment. And am I missing one? Oh, and Commissioner Reardon also had a prior commitment. Announcements?

Maybe this is for our city commissioners to report on, but just so you know, last night the city commission did approve the two zoning text amendments that were forwarded to them. They will take effect eight days, I believe, after publication. So within the next couple of weeks, they'll be in effect. And the only other thing I'll tell you is that we have a summer intern starting on Monday. If you have any special projects you want him to work on, let me know.

Thank you. Okay, approval of minutes. Approval of the May 5th, 2026 and May 19th, 2026 draft meeting minutes. Do I have a motion? I move for approval of the May 5th, 2026 and May 19th, 2026 draft meeting minutes. Support. Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Thank you. Motion passes. Old business. We have two items tonight. First is the public hearing and possible consideration of a rezoning application for 1026, 1028, and 1040 East Front Street from HR to C3. Leslie?

Thank you. So last month you did take a preliminary look at this rezoning request. Part of the discussion last month was a question from Commissioner McGillivary regarding the actual locations of the planned districts relative to the actual property lines. So he did overlay those and found that he was right and that the majority of the property under consideration does fall within the commercial, I'm sorry, the neighborhood center plan district. So I think it's fair to say that our master plan which is the guiding document that helps the planning commission make decisions like how to how to respond to rezoning requests is a great document for long-term planning but there isn't a lot of immediate short-term guidance on some of these questions and this would be one of those cases. So there's some complications with this or considerations that complicate the issue. One is that this particular plan district called the neighborhood center district, it's intended to be a pedestrian oriented local service kind of district where people would feel comfortable walking to coffee shops and local businesses with a compact development pattern. That district boundary intentionally is a little bit vague. It wasn't really meant to overlay property lines on. And then when we do that, though, we see that that planned district crosses property lines. It doesn't necessarily relate to specific properties. It's a suggestion that within that area, the intersection of East Front Street and Garfield, on all four sides of that intersection, that's an area where that development pattern is anticipated and planned for. The master plan goes on to say that the appropriate aligning zoning districts are either the D districts, a revised C3 district, or a to be created new commercial district. The D districts as a reminder is the districts that pertain to very specific sites within the city and this is not one of those sites. So it's not appropriate to zone this property D. The other two districts that the plan recommends also don't exist at the moment. So we're kind of a little bit unguided here. The adjacent planned district, the commercial, get these a little bit confused, the commercial gateway district does more clearly support rezoning to C3. And it is the area just west of here. See what else I wanted to tell you about. Anyway, I'm going to tell you a little bit more about this property as a reminder and the zoning request. This zoning request we've been told by the applicant is in support of a financial institution with a drive-through. The C3 district which is being proposed is the only zoning district that as of yesterday did not or, did allow drive-throughs as of right in association with the bank. With the change that was just approved, that can still happen in the C3 district, but there's another layer of review. There will be a special land use review associated with any drive-through. So you could potentially make the argument that the the envisioned revised C3 district has already been revised. If that was the intent to soften that district or put a few more controls on the C3 district, I'm not sure that that's exactly what the master plan envisioned, that it might be just a rethinking of that district based on a more specific development plan or corridor plan, area plan for that area. But again, in absence of that, this is a revised C3 district that we're working under as soon as that gets enacted. And of course, there are other uses that are also allowed in that district because there's no guarantee that even if that does get rezoned, that proposed use of a bank with a drive-through would actually come to be or they may turn around and sell the property or something else might come through or drop through. So other uses that are allowed that would not be allowed under the H2 district include things like kennels, mechanical amusement arcades, microbreweries, pet boarding, repair services, restaurants, retail trade, service stations, theaters, vehicle wash, veterinary services, warehousing. Again, all of those, many of those things that are auto-centric would now also come tied with a special land use review. I guess a couple of other things that I would bring to your attention which I think are relevant one being that the recall that the property immediately to the east where Tommy's was proposed the car wash that is currently zoned C3. I don't see that zoning category changing in any time in the near future I don't think property owner is going to ask to down zone that property. That is again within that compact walkable neighborhood envisioned area. So to the east it's zone C3. To the west there's more clear support to zone C3. So this property also becomes sort of an island of HR right now. So it's kind of complicated. We have a lot going on. You know, in addition to that, there's all kinds of zoning and uses that surround this property. There's R1B to the south. There's C3 to the east. There's C1R3 to the north. So we have a lot going on there. So this is for sure kind of a transitional area. We're not calling that in the master plan, but this is kind of the classic mixed use area in transition. So I didn't mean to make this more complicated for you, but I did want to give you as much background information, as much analysis as I can to help you make a reasoned recommendation to the city commission. So again, after tonight's public hearing at your option, you could make a recommendation to the city commission. They would take final action on this rezoning request. If you have anything else you want me to complicate your life with, I'd be happy to give you more information.

Thank you. Hold on, Jackie. I think, does somebody want to speak? I know they're here tonight, Katie. Do we know if they want to speak on this item or just?

Guys, were you intending to talk or you don't have to?

No, sorry. We have representatives of the applicant here in the.

If you do want to speak, you'll come. Yeah. I just figured this was the time before we get into it and then come back to you.

My name is Ian Wilson. I'm obviously representing, how can I say it, not necessarily the applicant, but the potential end user, if that makes sense, right? Not to make things complicated, but I think Leslie, uh broke apart the situation uh best as possible obviously we're looking at the the end use of the property i know that this is obviously for a rezone so that is the obvious question there um i think we we discussed a little bit at the previous meeting what our intentions are is to consolidate uh already uh financial institution that has two branches here in the community and consolidated into one. The usage of the property is a very low volume. Obviously, I've looked through your zoning code probably more than I typically, you know, would. you know from uh from a circulation and a volume of traffic uh it it's it's pretty light uh it's a basically uh uh an eight o'clock to 5 30 no weekends no holidays and uh it would it would meet the current uh drive-through requirements uh on the back it's a it's a single drive-through uh typical bank branch banking has changed over the years the volume of people going to banks is very low But this would be a consolidation. So that's the reality of what we're here looking to see for the end use. And I'm happy to answer any questions that anybody may have with that.

Thank you so much. Any questions for the applicant from us while he is standing in front of us? Okay, Mitch?

Well, to be clear, Things like the specific volume of the drive-through would be addressed through the special land use process, not through a rezoning.

Yeah, sorry. I didn't, you know, it's hard for me because obviously we're looking at the end use, not necessarily where you're at the situation of the rezone. So, you know, our position is, you know, down the road. And obviously we know about the special use permit for the drive-through, which obviously then would have to happen after this. And so we're very aware of that. So that is obviously our intent long term.

Thank you. Okay. Seeing nothing from this body for you, you, yeah, feel free to take a seat. Correct. We might need you back, I guess. Okay. Returning to this body, do we have anything we want to talk about before we open up the public hearing?

Shay. Question for staff. What's to keep us from rezoning all the way to Gilbert Street?

Um, so while you're only tonight's application is what's before you. Um, and that's what the, um, the notices in the public hearing, uh, only pertain to this property. Um, you know, Recently, we did a mass rezoning on Union Street. But generally speaking, mass rezonings without a request from the property owner are a little bit more of a rare thing. And I think it's something that would take more time, take further study, and get some buy-in from those property owners. Not that it couldn't happen, but maybe not tonight.

I wasn't at the last meeting, so that's why I asked.

I think Jackie and then Mitch. Thank you. Again, a question for staff. Not too long ago, we did a rezoning on three parcels that were further east on the same roadway and that involved some conversation about neighborhood center versus community gateway and so forth. Was there anything about that decision that leads us to set a precedent here that we need to be thinking about or two separate issues?

that's a really good question i didn't look at that one with the same viewpoint as this one it would be interesting to compare the two but as a general rule actions taken by the planning commission don't set precedent each application stands on its own merit thank you if that helps it does mitch yes to uh

I do see a purpose in expanding the scope of this slightly, though looking at both our future land use map and our current land use conditions in our zone as affected by this running map, the two properties immediately east of Gilbert are used for that explicit lodging category in the hotel resort district. And though we can plan for a future in which that is of some different developmental nature, I see no issue in our urban fabric to have those two lodging establishments there. It does bring into question the fact that there is a single family house that is neither a hotel nor a commercial business wedged in between at 124. And I could be prepared to amend the motion that we have before us to include that property as well though it would put us into the situation of and staff was very helpful to look this up because a public hearing requires notifying all properties within 300 feet that would add three properties to that radius and if any people that reside at those properties or that own those properties felt that they were excluded from the process because they were improperly notified, then that could present an issue.

Again, I think this is A unique situation in that we have a rezone before us that comes in a package that we have to look at and address and a lot of this I feel like we want to address and get ahead of but again we can't because there's a package so it does fall into some of the long-term projects we have, the rewrite, again, I'm going to say this forever and ever, the rewrite project that we have because I do agree with Leslie that there is probably a creative way that we could add a district for these rare instances where we really don't feel like something fits. And we want particular uses on that zone and We want it to look a particular way to blend whatever zones it is next to. I think we've come across enough of a need for that in the last year, I feel like, that that's how I want to treat something like this going forward if we can get ahead of it. But separate from that, this is its own nice little package that I feel like we have to address at this point. That's where I stand on it. But we brought up good points. Mitch?

Yes, a further question for staff. Is there a reason, I understand the timeliness of this application, but in the broader scope things, or if we decide to put a pause on this application and move forward with something else, that all are part of the intersection of Garfield and Front, couldn't be uh rezoned to c4a since the master plan does point to something like this being of a similar intensity to our downtown area which is our c4a through c it would be a rather unorthodox as all three c4 districts are currently in our immediate downtown but This is perhaps the best case outside of that area for another area of similar zoning conditions to our downtown. And similarly, that would encourage the first floor commercial, but also higher intensity development with retail or office space on the higher levels.

Do you want me to respond? Yes. So there's a lot packed in there. I think there was I think included in that a suggestion that maybe this could be held off until we took a broader look, but there are due process obligations we have to anyone who submits an application so we have to be timely with processing that request. I think you know you're on the right or you know a supported train of thought that a broader view of this area needs to be taken. The master plan clearly says that this is among many corridors that require a corridor plan uh with a you know specific view to what a little bit more of a aspirational what will this look like in the future and i would hesitate to jump to c4a as a solution because i think you need that interim corridor plan and also the master plan, the guidance that it does give says C3, like a revised C3 or a fully new district. So I think it would be hard to jump to C4A, but I certainly think that it may be appropriate to take action at the conclusion of this application to direct staff to take another look at this corridor and maybe come back with sort of an interim report about some of the issues and some of the options that you might have rather than waiting for that elusive corridor plan to happen although as an aside the city commission did discuss in their OKR discussion last night that corridor plans that there is a recognition that this master plan calls for that and there are a lot of things that hinge on those quarter plans being completed.

And thank you for that. I do see a bit of a problem in that our residential and our commercial districts step upwards in intensity but C3 is a little awkward as it tends to be much more auto centric. resulting in where you could have C1 might be a dentist, C2 could be a two-story office building, then it goes down to a one-story car dealership as a classic C3 use before going to our downtown C4. I do see it in the spirit of our master plan and building on the auto-centric uses special land use permit process that we just passed to segregate those out and have C3 exist as an intermediate intensity of use, but then have those auto centric uses perhaps being in an overlay district that highlights those areas like further south along the Garfield corridor that are well suited. that development pattern.

One example area that I just kind of stumbled across when I was looking at the map is the corner of Cass and 14th. That is surrounded by all of the exact same zones that this is surrounded by with the exception of HR But it has the industrial zone instead. So I think it's kind of a good example of what that looks like. It's the corner with like the offices.

And 14th Street is identified as a corridor.

Another one of those corridors that we want to focus on. But it does, and that is already C3 that block. And so it's a pretty comparable to me surrounded by the R3 and R1B. When you look at the map, it looks very similar. That one also has C2 next to it, which this one does on the other side of HR, and then industrial.

Jay? I'm supportive of moving ahead with this rezoning, but then maybe, like Leslie was saying, directing staff to take a little bit deeper dive into this corridor or this intersection in general.

Do we have a motion? Do we want a little more conversation before we open the public hearing?

Do we have to go to public hearing first?

We've done it both ways. Oh, okay. Which would you prefer? What is cleaner? I think I think going straight to public hearing before you make a motion. We can do that. So I will move on to the public hearing portion. So this is the public hearing specifically for this item. Then we'll come back and have the motion and continue to converse with each other as a board. Comment announcement is that we ask that you state your name and address. Indicate if you're a city resident, non-city resident, and or city business owner. We have a three minute time allotment per speaker when your time has elapsed. Katie will notify you or you'll hear the timer beep. Please address your comments only to the planning commission and we request that all language be respectful to all parties. Does anybody want to make comment on this specific item? We will again have a separate generalized public comment at the very end that we can talk about anything on, but this is specifically for the reason.

My name is Steve Brown, 1039 East State Street.

And I think I followed, Mr. Treadwell, your thoughts, but I don't claim to follow them completely. On the corner of Division and Randolph, specifically behind the Dairy Lodge, is a commercial first floor office space with residential dwellings above it, going up to maybe three stories or so. That's what I perceive you were describing at one point. Speaking for this resident, I would welcome that sort of build out of the space that is between Garfield and Gilbert, if you want to go that far, but those six lots we've been talking about. Personally, I don't have any objection to the notion of a bank either. But I think that once the rezoning is done with special land use permit requirements or opportunities in place for review, I don't see a restriction that would necessarily prevent another carwash going in on that same lot, not on the Tommy's lot but with the one you're talking about tonight. And that concerns me. So I think it's a stark contrast those two kinds of developments whether it's a car wash or a car repair place, something like that versus the kind of first floor commercial development office space with residential above that I think would be value added for that part of this town. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name's Scott Hardy. I live at 406 Northwest Silver Lake Road. Formerly lived all my life in downtown Traverse City. So I'm very familiar with the problems that we encounter with trying to settle on zoning ahead of time. I'd like to comment a little bit about the applicant in this. And the applicant is obviously the owner of the property and the person who's selling that property. That property has been on the market for well over a year. There have been no takers, no major offers at this point. And part of the problem has been the HR zoning criteria. One of the things you did last night or the city commission did is to institute this slump process. And while it's protracted the eventual sale and construction of whatever is going to get built there, ideally in our case would be a bank, It seems to be a backstop process for you to control future uses of that property because most of the conflict, if I'm not mistaken, in this town centers around auto-centric uses. How intense the use is is pretty much driven by how many car trips daily go in and out of that property. Um, I, I can't say, and I don't mean to speak for Ian, I'm not trying to commit them to the next two decades of being there, but their use is probably the least intense use that we could put there. And because we need to drive through, we're asking for a C3 change in zoning. That's the primary, primary reason right now that we're doing this. So I can appreciate. Commissioner Treadwell wanting to solve the larger issues on this, but there is a clock ticking on the process as far as the seller goes and as far as the buyer and the ultimate user of that property goes. So whatever you can do to give us an answer on our specific application and then maybe use that as an example of how broader things in zoning might be able to be accomplished would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

My name is David Levine. I live at 1019 East Front Street, basically across the street from these properties. And I'm kind of in agreement with what these gentlemen have said as far as the the impact that a drive-through bank is going to have to the neighborhood. I don't think that that's pretty much going to cause any significant issues. I do have an issue with the wholesale rezoning of an area and opening up to the things that were on the list. that you gave applicable to that prospective rezoning decision. And things like a boarding kennel, things like a car wash, there are, These are things that don't really fit that sort of thing and is there anything that can be done to allow a specific use for a purchaser that we're talking about here to have it rezoned exclusively that particular property, whatever property they choose to buy without opening up a can of worms for all of these other things to slide in behind them and have the way paved for, uncontrolled commercial development. So that's my question. So thank you.

Thank you. Any other public comment on this item? Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing on this item. The one thing that I will answer is I think As I mentioned earlier, we do plan to do a zoning rewrite as part of that big project which is, it's a huge project that we wanted to take on as a board. we would be examining, reexamining, moving, removing uses. Uses in particular is something that we have all talked about pretty extensively over the last couple of years since our newer master plan came out. So I think as part of that, we would be looking at all of these districts across the city and re-examining what we believe their future uses should allow so i think that's a moment where we can control kind of what you're looking for in that you by way of re-examining and redefining your uses allowed that puts that back into a controllable state. I think that's part of the definition of planning in general. I can defer to Leslie on that because that's her entire career. But it is a little bit of a chicken or the egg situation where you want to control enough so that you can design a future that works for a city at the same time not controlling it so much that the market will just crash or not allow for anything to happen and stagnate properties for years and years on end. So I think we're in a We're in one of those moments where we have an application from somebody because they have an idea for a space and we haven't been able to prioritize working through that rewrite yet because we've had so many other applications this year. So it kind of just falls into the schedule of when we can have time to start biting off that really big project. But if I know anything about this body, I know that we really want to get it done. So I do think we'll start taking some of that on soon and We did move really fast on that slup for auto-centric uses because of this in particular, where we knew that we wouldn't be able to get to the uses allowed across the whole city yet. But we knew that we had a vision for where and when we wanted auto-centric uses, and we didn't really want that a ton, so. I hope that answers your question as best as I can. Okay, anything from this body and or motion? Jerry, then Shay.

Yeah, I just think kind of with the public hearing, I mean, a bank being there is not a big, it's going to be pretty quiet development. It's the owner owns three parcels there. We're just looking at what's in front of us. It is just interesting to see where this HR seems to be. I definitely think that needs to be addressed, especially in this area. Yeah.

It felt chicken or the egg to me. It felt like the property probably existed first before the zoning got then developed and defined where that use was because it is so in that one little particular spot to me where the rest of it is so far away. Yeah, agreed.

Didn't mean to talk on you. No, you're fine. But yeah, I mean, at face value, it seems to be pretty straightforward that, and it's not a, as we just went through the controversy of the property next door, I don't see an issue with a drive-thru bank.

Thank you. Shea.

I'm going to make the motion that 1026 and 1028 and 1040 East Front Street be rezone to C3 as supported by the master plan and initiated by the representatives of those properties be recommended for approval to the city commission. Support.

We have a motion and a support. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed?

No.

Okay, roll call vote please, Katie. Yeah, no, you're okay.

Okay, Commissioner Duteri? Yes. Commissioner Treadwell? No. Commissioner O'Brien?

Yes.

Commissioner Anderson? Yes. Commissioner Swanson? Yes. Commissioner Holtry? Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. I think I do want to get in the habit of explaining lightly why we're voting no. I can envision that the comments that you've made tonight, Mitch, are probably in alignment with why you're voting no, that you have an interest and a concern for that space. Just wanting to reiterate that after the vote, and then we'll move on.

C1, the split between two categories in our future land use map points to questions about whether this rezoning is in fact the best category going forward. I also see us in a bit of a hard place that lest we end up spot zoning, we face only two categories, HR or C3, neither of which matches quite what we or the applicant want to see and unless we go through a conditional rezoning process, which is not what the applicant asked for, we are left with two choices, neither of which is ideal.

Heard. Perfect. Thank you so much.

I would like to, like I said earlier, I just want to reiterate, like I would like staff to maybe take a look at this intersection for future discussions if possible. Not to take up more of your time.

No, it's fair. Add it to that list that we keep talking. At the end of every, I think this is great. I really do like that we are adding them as we're going. I do feel bad for Leslie, but I do think adding them as we go when we hit a hot spot that we want to come back to first is a great way for us to try to tackle this.

So if I can just give a little rejoinder. We are bringing a couple of smaller zoning rezoning text amendments to you hopefully this summer and I think we certainly can't do a full-blown corridor study but we can take a closer look at it with this notion in mind that we have all of these uses we have kind of a vision Is there a shortcut to get there that might either be, I know that Mitch is a fan of the overlay, as am I, and maybe there's an appropriate overlay district to propose or something that will be kind of a stopgap without creating too much of a herky-jerky kind of reactionary constant change in zoning that isn't well thought out so i want to make sure we take some time and it may be that it's too complicated to do but at least we can take a look at it and see if there's a shortcut to uh creating something that will hold us until we can get to that corridor study if that will work i will certainly try to do that yeah thank you okay moving on to item b the draft riparian buffer ordinance

Thank you all for coming, by the way. And we have a presentation by Leslie. Well, we're going to hope it pops right up, but we don't know. You want to take a little break so you can? No, it's over there. Oh, okay. Oh, look at that.

There it goes.

I am going to play teacher for a minute and just walk you through some things. Since we have new planning commissioners, since this has been going on for a long time, since not everyone's all on the same page, I'm just going to take a minute. This is a long PowerPoint, but I'm going to go through it quickly because I know we're on a time limit here. So, first I'm going to tell you, I want to tell you a little bit about why Why do we even care about our riparian buffers? What is it that we're trying to do here? So some of the benefits of a riparian buffer are to protect against excessive flooding and against erosion of banks, loss of property. We've all seen, you know, some serious flooding going on recently and so we know it can happen. And creating a riparian buffer where there's more vegetation along the shorelines of our creeks, rivers, lakes, and coastal areas helps to uptake rainwater by deep rooted plants. So we're looking for native vegetation. That vegetation slows down the rate of runoff. In turn, natural tree fall helps to slow down the velocity of a waterway, reducing erosion along the banks. And trees and other vegetation hold up the soils and the shoreline. I've got more of these. I'm going to go through them more quickly. Repairing buffers also offer pollution control and improve water quality. Again, the vegetation through their root system take up nutrients that otherwise might be entering the waterway. It helps to kind of corral sediments. Tree fall again helps to collect things that might otherwise be entering our waterways and compromising water quality. The riparian buffer also provides habitat, protects our fish populations, and by having naturally occurring native species in these areas, that in and of itself inhibits invasive species from taking over. They are less likely because that area is not as vulnerable if native plantings are planted there. Large trees overhanging the waterway help to cool water and protect cold water fish populations. That shoreline area provides an ecosystem that's very delicate and keeping it as close to its natural state helps to provide all of the life cycles that our fish populations and other wildlife and other systems all depend on. And again, native species are important to encourage the establishment of invasive species. This all helps to protect our property values and promotes public benefit through all of us enjoying and using our waterways, being able to promote visitor use of our waterways. It protects our property values. And, you know, I think it's worth saying that we all take pride if we're living on clean waters that people want to be. interacting with. And this is a little aside. I was actually born in Flint, Michigan. I often think of when I was really little and you would not want to get anywhere near the Flint River. It's way better now, but You know, that's not always a given. So taking pride in our water resources are important. This is just my little graphic showing that all of these things build on each other. They're all connected and collectively they have compounding benefits. You know, that's just kind of a quick snapshot of why it's important. It's not just a green thing. It's not just lip service. It really does impact all of us, even if you're only worrying about your property values or about maybe you're just concerned about ecosystem protection. But there's something there for everybody. So this has been a long time coming. Both Anna and Mitch have served on our riparian buffer committee and that committee also included several property owners who all have property on different riparian types. Our creeks, river, Boardman Lake and coastal owners all participated on our, in our riparian buffer committee. At the very beginning, we went through a process to try to figure out what are we actually trying to do? What are our goals? So these were some of the goals or these were the goals. Create repairing regulation, regulatory zones, I'm sorry. varying regulatory zones. That is not the same thing works everywhere. So we have to take a different look at the creeks versus the bayfront. They're not the same kind of water bodies. Where it makes sense, there should be regulations that pertain to those. They did want to be sure that preferred planting lists were included. They wanted to be sure that All of the regulations were location sensitive and again with the varying riparian zones, the thought was that nearby areas are a little bit different than the outer lying areas, the more upland area. We still want to have some control but it may be different depending on how close you are to that water body. They wanted to promote renaturalization of areas where practical preserved viewsheds because remember these are riparian owners. They are concerned about their viewsheds and about their own property rights. They were all very concerned about invasives and they specifically wanted to find ways to keep fertilizers, pesticides and chemical pollutants away from the shorelines. So I think we hit most of these and I'll tell you what we maybe need a little more work on. So staff went back, we looked at our current zoning ordinance and found Without even creating new regulations, there are a lot of We're pairing adjacent regulations already in our zoning ordinance that are just kind of sprinkled throughout the whole ordinance. Some of them are needed just some housekeeping. Some of them didn't make sense. There were districts that regulated setbacks from say the bayfront when that zoning district doesn't even exist on the bayfront. Things like that where we just needed to tighten it up. You know, make sure that all of the definitions and everything work together. So that's kind of the first part of this. In discussions at a staff level, we also determined that really boat houses as a staff that was strongly recommended staff wide to just no longer allow boat houses. So any kind of structure whether it functions as an actual boat house or if it's a shed within the water setback that those would no longer be permitted. And then to prohibit patios, porches, buildings, driveways, any other impervious surfaces within the water side setback. And also our creek side setbacks, again, kind of some housekeeping things that we needed to address regarding creek side setbacks. Then we separately created a whole new chapter in the zoning ordinance that is the riparian buffer chapter. And within there, we created two regulatory zones. One is the riparian buffer which is depending on the kind of water body is either 25 feet or 50 feet it's roughly always with very few exceptions it's equal to the setback the building setback so within that building setback from a water body there would be restrictions that we are now calling under these regulations the riparian buffer Within that 25, 50 feet, the very first 10 feet is the most critical area. So that still has the repairing buffer restrictions, but on top of that, there's additional critical repairing buffer restrictions with more restrictions, more limitations on what can happen within those first 10 feet. So again, this is by water body. The riparian buffer, the larger area is either 50 feet, 25 feet. Only in the C4A district, it's 10 feet. And then that critical zone, regardless of the water body, is always 10 feet. It would, as it's proposed right now, within that larger riparian buffer zone, most buildings and impervious surfaces are prohibited. Removal of trees are prohibited. There are some restrictions or there are some conditions and situations within which you can remove trees. That's currently in the zoning ordinance. So that will stand. Then a new thing would be that you could no longer store snow piles, compost piles within the waterside setback. You couldn't create any new parking areas within that setback. You couldn't store boats or IRVs or trash dumpsters and any Shoreline hardening especially along the river and lakes could not happen on private property. So with anything there's some exceptions. It's a little bit difficult when you're reading through the regulations. There's a list of things you can do and then all the exceptions to that. So some of those exceptions are that on private property you could have a deck, a dock or pervious walkways. Any public improvements like we have lots of pathways within our waterside setback, especially like the Boardman Lake Trail, bridges, shoreline stabilization, any critical infrastructure. The city and other entities have, they are exempt from zoning regulations and where things have to be, sometimes we just have to allow them to be there if there's a greater good certainly we'd like to see something different in some situations but some of them just have to be there this also allows some tree trimming within that setback and temporary flood controls and If, for instance, you are building a new development and you get a stormwater plan approved by the city and any other entities, and for some reason that includes, say, a retaining wall or something that needs to be there as part of that system, then those can be within the waterside setback, again, if it's providing for that infrastructure we need for flood control. and some level of soil erosion protection. Then within that 10 critical feet, that critical riparian zone, the first 10 feet, there's almost nothing that can happen there and that's also a no-mow area. So along with this, there would have to be some changes in city ordinances where we require people to mow their grass and not let it get over a certain height, there would need to be an exception allowing for this within that 10 feet. And there continue to be some exceptions. There are areas right now where we have A really good example is the bank right across the street on 8th Street. If you've gone behind there, I'm not trespassing, I'm sure, but you could take a peek behind there. And in fact, the Repair and Buffer Committee did take a walk back there. When that property was developed, they did do a restoration of the shoreline there, put in vegetation that would meet the requirements under this, but it's not naturally occurring. It's not a normal area per se, but it's a more manicured kind of application and it also includes an access point to the water. It's like a little low profile viewing area and some steps and access to the river there. The Repairing Buffer Committee felt that that was a reasonable use of that shoreline. They felt that that was a responsible way of maintaining a shoreline and so there are exceptions built into this that are in line with EGLE's permitting process. for shoreline stabilization which is kind of a natural approach as opposed to hardening the shoreline. So that is allowed under this and then people would have to submit a specific plan. I'm forgetting off the top of my head what it's called in this ordinance but a specific landscaping plan that would be approved by staff and must be prepared by professional that knows how to also get those permits from EGLE. I think, oh, I'm like, I think we already talked about that. So the last thing I'll tell you about here is that, of course, we have lots of things that would become nonconforming under this ordinance. Some of those are just property maintenance things like the NOMO area or where you pile up your snow or where you store your RV. Those kinds of things that are temporary in nature, our attorney tells us those don't have grandfathering status. Those would have to come into compliance immediately. And then other things like a building within the setback, just like all of our other nonconforming buildings, they would have the rights and responsibilities under zoning that allow them in certain circumstances to expand those uses and to retain them as they are for their useful life. So then I've got a few samples here just so you have an idea of this. If you took a close look at your packet you may have seen the link to a map experience that Jerry and his team put together for us that allows you to zoom in on different properties and see where these buffers would lie and and give you more layers to choose from to add more information. You could see where the wetlands are. You can see the aerial photo and all the property lines and get a better feel for what the actual impact is of these regulations. We have, I just have again a little excerpt of our aerial photos and you can kind of see under that proposed buffer area that does coincide with the trail along the Boardman Lake. And there are areas within the city that there are extensive public improvements within the buffer area and those are not going anywhere anytime soon. So, you know, there's recognition that those are there and that those would remain and, in fact, have recently been shored up. And it's interesting to watch where the, or take a closer look at where the creek is and how it meanders and what the impacts are there. We had lots of discussions at the committee level and also at the design team level about fences. As you probably know, fences are not, Currently in our zoning ordinance, no permit is required for fences. This does say that you could not have a fence within the waterside setback within that riparian buffer area. Partially to protect against anything getting into the water that shouldn't be in the water and partially not to impede any wildlife and navigation on creeks. Creek specifically. Um, there were a lot of people who felt that, you know, there were reasons to have those structures within the waterside setback. It was, uh, there was a reminder at the design team level that If we did allow fences and they felt that there was some reason to do that, that they certainly could not be anything plastic or something that would introduce microplastics into our waterways, which is a big concern at the city commission level. So there's still a few open ends here. I think we're close to, if not ready right now, to put this in official ordinance format and bring this to a public hearing. And just wanted to reintroduce it to you and give you a little bit more background. And hopefully you had a little bit of time to take another look at it. And if you have any, if you caught something that is in logic which I think there might be one or two things still in there that do that or I tend to get the words impervious, impervious confused. So if you found that, let me know. Or if there's anything else you have comments on or you want us to take another look at prior to bringing this back for a public hearing, I'll be quiet now.

Anything from this body? Okay. Shea, then Mitch.

A couple of questions. Along the Boardman Lake, there are the, I think they're the condos there where the trail goes down. You can either go up behind them or you can go down along the water. This would be subject to, that development would be subject to.

Are you talking about Riverine?

No, it's further south. Further south past the pavilion. Oh, yeah. Further south of like Oriana and stuff. Yep, yep. They would be subject to this. Right. Okay, cool. And then I was looking at the map. It's pretty cool. The one thing is NMC, they're not subject to our zoning? I thought they were.

NMC, yes.

They're exempt?

Are they showing up exempt on that map?

They are.

Okay. That's a good question.

I think we, I know they're, I heard that they're subject to like our parking requirements. So that might be something just to look into. Okay.

Because I know we included T-caps.

They are exempt. know that they are exempt from our zoning but I don't know that NMC actually is so I think we bundled like federal property state property they're not yeah they're not federally funded directly

The map is a tool, it's not the legal standard that we are holding ourselves.

And I'm not saying that, I'm just saying you could probably remove them if it is true that they are not examples.

So the intention is to eventually not just use that map internally but also have it available to the public so that they can look up their property and see where that buffer might lie. It's not exact. And also so that they can plan for their own property and have easy access to looking up what applies to them so that's the intent so we should try to get it as accurate as possible my initial thought is to show the buffer on all of the properties regardless of ownership and then call out the properties that may currently be exempt because they may fall into private hands at some point or change zoning or have be found to be required to meet some zoning requirements. So I'd rather just kind of hedge our bets both ways, but that's fair.

Mitch and then Jackie.

Yeah, I'm glad That we're finally here after six years, but we still have a couple months that would have to go through for public hearing and city commission approval if we decide to go ahead with this. But I am seeing light at the end of the tunnel, so that is good. I am grateful in light of the flooding that we saw in April, not just in Traverse City area, but across northern Michigan. a little more careful look on sheds of any type, other storage, fences, etc. Because we did have some flooding in Kids Creek, but that was... what I would say is well within normal level of what happens a couple times a year. But upstream along the Borden River, we saw significant issues caused by fences, by docks, by sheds, by boat storage. That was within the floodplain and here would be within the riparian setback. And in the flood scenario, that debris ended up, or that became debris that washed downstream, creating issues. And though I'm not blaming anybody's utility shed for taking out Bightner Bridge, it can definitely cause issues downstream if you have that sort of debris that is coming loose. I do have a couple questions about, specifics in that like driveways are not permitted as impervious surface but is there an allowable route if a driveway is put in that might be say a geotextile that can't is designed to support weight would also has natural dirt there and might even have grass.

So there is something that was recently added into this, which Maybe we need to test and make sure it covers all situations but the intention was if it's a traditionally hard surface or impervious surface that can be made pervious and have proper storm drainage associated with you and approved by the city's engineering department then The intent is that that could be permitted under here.

Okay. Yeah, it could be such a unique scenario that it would fall under something that could be an administrative exemption or through our board of zoning appeals. But I'm thinking of the significant renovations or actually tearing down the whole building and then rebuilding it where Mundo's went in next to max bar hardware. that they did end up putting in a driveway through the back, through the construction process, that is within the riparian setback, within the floodplain, and on what was originally loose waterlogged and unconsolidated sediments. What is it now? I think it's a walkway I know they have that building there, they can get everything all deliveries off of front street they have like two parking spaces that aren't on that belt driveway area but. It does make me wonder just as we're planning for the future, what has been allowed and what could happen. Um, I also wonder, yes, the maps are helpful, but specifically looking at, uh, you have the slide showing where Kids Creek is winding along Front Street. Um, how much ground truthing there will be for this because I can see in a couple places where the creek itself is clearly identified and it is not at all within the Blue Squiggle.

So, um, uh, editor's prerogative, I took an older photo for demonstration purposes only of where I thought the creek was and I would not rely on this. I would rely on the mapping that Jerry and his team did. But specifically when it comes to the creek and its tributaries, it does get complicated. And with some input from the watershed center, I think we solved that issue so that we define these water bodies the way that the state law defines them. Which allows us to have some case by case investigation to determine if the definition of the state matches that water body. So we would not have to have pre-identified it or have it correct on our mapping. It doesn't need to be named. It would just need to function the way it's defined under the law to be subject to these rules.

Okay. And another question, four cases where somebody is either reinforcing, renovating, or putting in new hardening along any waterway. That's generally prohibited under this, but there are cases where EGLE would approve a permit. I'm thinking of a house. right on division next to that speedway, that the house is within five feet of Kids Creek and it's got a crumbling concrete wall between the two holding up the house. Could you speak on how EGLE's permitting process would interfere or not with this ordinance?

So, I think, you know, that's possibly more of a question for EGLE and some of these particular cases we might have to, number one, make sure that there's a trigger within this for us to even know about this and to enforce our regulations. But also to work with EGLE to determine, you know, when it's, within their guidelines and their requirements and if any of those trigger our non-conforming section of our ordinance. I agree that can get really tricky and I think to complicate it the EGLE has kind of been changing their philosophy a little bit and they are moving toward more I'm just going to call it green infrastructure and natural solutions which is great but I think it does

Yeah, we did see a shift during the last high water period on Lake Michigan and Lake Huron that they started off in their previous mindset of being very willing to approve hardening and revetment permits but then that they became more hesitant the longer it went.

And I think this might be a good time to make sure you're all aware The city has committed some of the brown bridge funds to through the parks department for erosion control on coastal properties, park lands, beaches owned by the city and to The idea is to hire which we're just completing the interviews right now. Hire a multidisciplinary team to help us identify projects, areas of concern and ways improve our erosion control in those areas while still providing public access and with a longer view to the future. Both below the ordinary high watermark, there are some things that we can do and we have control over with the proper permitting and above the ordinary high watermark. I'm hoping to co-op that team and use them to help refine some of these and to create some of the companion documents like our planting list and our examples for those native landscaping plans that I talked about to help make sure that we have that right and that it will be helpful for the public but I think those live outside of the zoning ordinance. Anything else, Mitch?

I had meant to say this earlier, but I'm glad fences and trash dumpsters are recognized as being ill-suited and also potential barriers to not just wildlife movement, but to water flow and debris during flood conditions. That's my train of thought.

We can come back if you want.

Okay, Jackie. Thank you. First, I wanted to say thank you to the Riparian Buffer Committee for their perseverance and for having gotten this far. My question actually is kind of fits neatly with what Leslie was just talking about as I read through the PowerPoint and so forth. I was a little chagrined that, you know, City property and projects, public lands were exempt totally from this. So I'm glad to know that it's on the radar. I'm going to be funded to the extent that we can. I wondered if the committee had any conversation about whether short of being either fully exempt or fully subject to this new chapter of the riparian buffer ordinance, whether there are options for oversight of public projects. I don't know really what I'm asking for. Maybe it would be something that looks like a slup for public coastal and waterfront projects.

I think what you're, if you're done, I think what you're speaking to aligns with what we heard from the Watershed Center. We just got some communication from them and they're disappointed that there's just a blanket pass or exemption for publicly owned properties. And I think there has to be a recognition that zoning is one tool and it goes so far. So there are restrictions to what we can zone. We are preempted in many situations. There might be some room to tighten a little bit within here for certain entities. And we can certainly go back and talk to the legal team again and see where there's room for that. But I think that the better place to address those concerns are with those other plans underway and with a broader strategy, which I think I strongly feel that there's a commitment to that on the part of the city and the city engineering department and others, our drain commissioner in partnership with the watershed center. We also just applied for a grant that would tie in with that team looking at our coastal areas. That takes it a little bit of a step further, looks at vulnerabilities for any public and to a lesser extent private properties in the coastal areas and the mouth of the river that may be impacted by storm surge in particular in high water situations. And then part of that is to give a zoning critique or recommendations that might end up becoming some tweaks to the riparian buffer regulations. So that would take, that would just take it another level and I think it's that level of investigation planning and a comprehensive look at certain areas in light of the city's responsibility for critical services as well to try wherever they can to come up with those more natural solutions that we've found over time. And by we, I shouldn't say we, I'm not a biologist or a water specialist, but I think collectively we've seen over time that those are, you know, historically better solutions for flood control and high water situations. And I think we're moving in that direction. And I don't think the zoning for repairing is going to address all of that. I think it's got to come from lots of directions.

Sorry for the long answer. No, no. It's a great answer. I found myself wondering if, you know, what the approach that we're taking with Complete Streets to have a standing advisory committee, if an idea like that might have legs in terms of demonstrating our commitment to water quality and that, within the public sector if the zoning is focusing on the private sector, whether there's something we could do structurally that might elevate the conversation.

And, you know, the Repairing Buffer Committee has asked to have an ongoing advisory role. It's kind of TBD whether that will be happening. I'm still new enough at the city, I don't know how those committees get appointed, but it's been passed on and I'm hopeful that there could be a standing committee like that for those recommendations.

And that's something that Mitch and I might be able to be helpful with. One last question and I'll stop. Is it difficult to find out, out of our riparian parcels, how many are privately held and how many are publicly held or a rough proportion? Maybe within Jerry's system that's something that is doable. That I think would be helpful in terms of carrying that conversation forward.

Yeah, especially because you're right. I mean, my head thinks it's a small number of public, but I think collectively, percentage-wise of shoreline, especially along the Boardman, Ottoway River and Lake, it's probably a lot higher than I'm thinking. So I think taking it in context of that and I think your comments are well and the watershed's concern, watershed center's concern about the fact that this wouldn't apply to all of those properties. If we actually did the math and it's 50%, then I think that starts to make that issue more apparent. So I'm sure Jerry can do that for us. He's probably doing it right now.

Yeah, I suspect. Jerry?

Yeah, I'm just thinking on that, like the west end parking lot that was done a year or two ago. That would obviously be an example, though, where putting a parking lot that close to the water, we're breaking a lot of rules by doing that. But in the same token, it's a public access point. So that would maybe be a case where if we enforce that on that property, then we would have been able to do anything, right? like put a bathroom and.

Yeah, I think it goes back to what Leslie was saying about the greater good of like some of the walkways or public access and that one in particular like that bath house I think is so important on that side. It makes sense but again would, yes, would require evaluation I think at every.

But at the same time there's a lot of back and forth in that one about like, or why are we putting geotextiles in the bank, you know, all that, which Jackie's point could be addressed if it's in the buffer zone.

Yeah. And anybody who was at the multiple repair and buffer committee meetings, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know if we ever got that into it about, the public versus private it felt like a lot of the focus was on private i know we got presentations from staff and staff were at every meeting but i don't think we ever had the like an in-depth hour long conversation about public versus private, but we did have an hour long conversation about fences. So I just, it's not popping up to me like a memory of that except for the first go around when we were in a meeting in the conference room with my father who was talking about it.

Yes. Well, to that point, uh public property is largely maybe not in the case of nmc exempt from zoning and we don't have to adhere to even police power ordinances for our own stuff if there's good reason uh it's not saying that we can't um encourage city policy to be different but that isn't the role of the planning commission. The planning commission is planning and zoning and land use for the city as a whole. It was brought up a couple of times in meetings. You're right that it was never a key focus because of that reasoning. And we brought up that when it comes to say no more provisions or pesticide and herbicide use, We can set a standard and be an example of how to say along sections of West Bay what a vegetated buffer looks like, but it doesn't mean that we need to wholesale change the regulations and policies that the Parks Department is following. City Commission if I'm putting on my other hat could do that but that speaks to the different roles of the different bodies correct and I did remember great go for it one was I like that there is a section on foot bridges. It feels rather personal to have the provision allows for navigation of public waters using non-motorized watercraft under normal conditions as somebody that literally kayaked Kids Creek as part of Smart Commute Week yesterday morning. And I'm pretty sure I'm the only person that has kayaked that or canoed it or used any part kind of non-motorized watercraft under normal conditions all year. But I like it, except for the fact that it sets a standard for basically clearance that then only applies to those public waters deemed navigable, which yes, Kids Creek is. It passes all three tests of historical use, point of fact navigability. and the eight foot log test, but those only apply to the main stem, they do not apply to tributaries. I'm not sure they would necessarily apply to the portion of Mitchell Creek within the city limits. So if you could amend that to say, public use, navigation of public waters using non-waterized watercraft under normal conditions, Or above the, say, five-year flood line. Yes, that's an arbitrary number, but it sets a standard that it's not impeding the flow of the water even under slightly higher conditions. And it allows some space above the water for wildlife and other stuff to travel. And it specifically says foot bridges, so I would presume that a driveway bridge would not be permitted. Looking at the case of, it had been one, I think it might be split into three properties now on Cedar Street, that yes, there is a concrete bridge that has no clearance underneath it. river is I mean the creek is within two inches of the bridge surface itself it doesn't meet any Eagle standards for bridges and I don't think you would even be seen as a safe bridge to use for construction materials but It does create the issue that then those properties are unbuildable unless they have some significant exception granted. But hey, those properties are majority floodplain anyway so from a practical standpoint, they have been unbuildable for decades which is why the only structure there is a condemned house.

Any other conversation, discussion on this point before we open it up for public comment?

Jackie? Just to finish up, I know we all received the communication from the Watershed Center. And they had a couple of other points that they made regarding trees and regarding, I guess, clarity of definitions. And I just wondered if there was a staff guidance or response to that.

I do want to get back with them one more time and just make sure I fully understand what their questions are and, you know, see if they have some suggestions for how to tighten that up. In regards to the tree removal, you'll continue, everyone will continue to be subject to the tree removal ordinance as it is today. It's quite restrictive. I don't have it memorized, but it's pretty restrictive. So this is not removing that in any way. is allowing some tree trimming and for those situations where they're either it's you know redevelopment or something doesn't exist right now or where otherwise you're able to do that more manicured or intentional landscaping plan I don't think too many people are going to be jumping up and down to do that, but for those instances when you're trying to put in a landing like what's showing on the screen right now or a footbridge or something, that will become part and parcel of the requirement when you're doing that to include that new landscaping plan.

And just to clarify, our current tree policy does allow a buyout option? I mean, if you have to take down a tree of a certain size that rather than replacing it, you can pay into a fund and a tree gets planted somewhere else?

I believe. But correct me, probably someone here knows better than I do. I believe that only applies to the coverage rates. So if you're putting in a parking lot or you're developing property with a building, you have to achieve a certain coverage of canopy. Correct. If you can't achieve that. Thank you. Then you can buy into that. Okay. But that does not apply to the waterfront. Thank you. Requirement to retain those trees. Yeah. Great.

So to that point. way the ordinance is written it looks at percent candy cover previous and at the end it would be possible to meet provisions by even clear cutting property assuming that you're replanting with enough trees that meet the canopy requirements but you're you're talking outside of the water side setback yes okay yeah And this strengthens the provisions of protecting the trees within the waterside setback.

Correct.

Yeah. Great.

And we did for added context have a pretty in-depth conversation about that as well about like we don't want to prohibit Property owners' rights, if they feel like they want to remove an invasive species, for example, they want to get that out of there and replace it with a natural, like a native species. So we were particular about that because we wanted to have a, we wanted to give them that leeway.

Excellent.

Anything else before we? Go to public comment, cool. So we'll go to public comment on this agenda item, the riparian buffer zone ordinance and then we'll come back.

Doug Kimball, 523 North Spruce Street. Just want to say that I'm impressed and happy to see the, what you've accomplished here and, but one question I have is, is this, Does this stop at city limits and is there, does the county have one? And if not, are you working with them at all on that? But I know you may not be able to answer it.

We can speak to it after. Okay. Seeing no other public comment, I'll close public comment, but one of the things that, is so frustrating is that we are like one of the last to have a riparian buffer. All of the tiny municipalities, for example, we were finding have them. East Bay Township has them, Long Lake has them. Bel Air. Bel Air. We looked at Bel Airs and it just felt so silly that the city of our size with as many waterways and water types that we have, didn't already have one in place and everybody else had one. So that is kind of what kicked it off six years ago. But I am glad we're finally there. It's a good call on the county front. That would be a good question to consult Maxwell with, just like what they're doing on that front, especially if they're considering bringing back a department and how they foresee that happening. So that's a good call out for us to. ask about but yeah this took so long and I'm very proud of it.

Garfield Township has stronger provisions about the building setbacks than we have here, but when it comes to landscaping, it's part of their broader landscaping ordinance, which is much more focused on aesthetics, and in some cases can be quite prescriptive about the landscaping plan for development, but it also allows, as you can see, parts of Kids Creek along US 31, where you do have... like in front of mcdonald's grass that is mowed right to the creek edge yeah so there is no uniform standard there is no perfect solution it is up to each municipality but we are behind the ball on trying to get this done definitely also um garfield township has much more stringent provisions about bringing nonconforming structures into conformance if they are undergoing substantial renovation. However, they benefit from fewer older structures within floodplains or other areas that would trigger nonconforming compared to the city which has been built for 150 years. but it does get into the problem of say Logan's Landing where you have a structure on both sides of the river that is entirely within the flood plain. It does not meet building code and whatever, but then any effort to bring it up to building code would fully kick in their setback requirements which would essentially mean at the very least picking up both buildings and moving them farther away from the river if not entirely tearing down and rebuilding.

So Leslie, what do you foresee as the next couple steps here based on, you'll take our feedback.

You know, I guess I'm wondering whether you feel that this is ready for a public hearing or if you would rather we continue with a few more tweaks and bring it back again without the long presentation?

Yeah.

were a couple valid questions that we came up with that we want staff to come back to us with mitch yeah to that point um we had some questions but there are four members of this board that are not present uh while we do have public comment uh we don't have anybody that from the watershed center or from uh riparian zones not that they haven't been involved through the process and can't speak at the public hearing, but I would like to see another meeting when we can have a little more discussion before we go forward.

Sure.

I think that's great.

Not to put the brakes on the process that's already been dragging on for six years.

I think we've waited long enough that what's another meeting or two. Yes. And then it gives you. We're still moving forward. It gives you time to gather the information. Jerry.

I mean, have we heard any feedback from private property owners on this?

Other than the ones that were on the committee.

So early in the process, we got a lot of written comment. I have them all saved, mostly from Bayfront property owners concerned about restrictions that might apply to them that would inhibit their use of their shoreline, restrict their ability to groom their beach. apply restrictions to them that does not apply or hasn't applied in the past to like hotels. We got a lot of comment in that vein early on, but that's about it.

I think that. Very, very early on, I mean Mitch was pretty much the only public comment that was like coming to the meetings the first time around when we established the committee. Then we took a little pause and we came back. And the committee, the second time around was really well rounded. We almost all attended the field trips. We had a couple different people on. A lot of properties, one of them was on the one that Shay asked about along the lake. One of them was in Riverine. One of them was on the Bayfront. One of them is right on Kids Creek. So they were really pretty expansive and they all came with totally separate just bits of wisdom and opinions. So I think, and at every point, I think our committee meetings were really extensive and So yeah, I think moving forward with the public hearing process, we'll open different avenues and we'll have different conversations and we'll hear from way more maybe different people. And good, we want as many eyes on this as possible. We always said from the beginning we want buy-in, ugh, emotions. If we want the region to survive and be the space that people are, I feel like people are trying to run to for protection. I feel like we're getting people from the south that really love it up here and really want to be up here. If we have to survive that, we have to start protecting everything around us better. So we have to get the buy-in from people. We can't force things on them. These are their properties, and I just want people to realize that to protect ourselves, we have to protect that land. Sorry, that was a bit of an emotional soapbox. Thanks, Mitch. Okay, is that enough clarity? Yep.

Just one thing that Leslie's comment had made me think of when you talked about beach grooming which has been controversial in the city and elsewhere along Grand Traverse Bay and beyond. The language that we have says for properties fronting on Grand Traverse Bay and locations subject to persistent wave action and wind erosion where no existing vegetation exists, their terrarium buffer may be retained as a groomed beach. provided that any recognized coastal wetlands shall not be altered and all necessary permits have been secured. However, that vegetation line is inherently dynamic in The State Recreational Trespass Act, specifically the provision about giving public access to all Great Lakes shorelines, it says up to the ordinary high water mark defined by where that persistent vegetation ends. And in that legislation, that ruling law, it says that this is inherently dynamic and subject to change with storms and other factors. and cannot be well defined. We have seen many cycles of the water levels on Lake Michigan and recently we had relatively high water that strips away a lot of that vegetation even into the point of A 30-foot black willow tree that might have grown up in the last 20 years or whatever is now not there and you're left with when the water drops back down a sandy beach with no vegetation. I am a little afraid that this language then allows somebody to maintain that non-vegetated um pure sand beach as such when naturally dune grass willows dogwoods etc would start creeping outward in periods of low water and that would in the future continue to help stabilize the shoreline so um

I would want to go back and double check, but I believe that the ordinary high watermark for both the bay and the lake are an actual elevation.

Yes.

So that difference that you're talking about, even though that's a shorthand way of determining where the ordinary high watermark is, that you know if it came down to it and somebody were removing vegetation that was below the ordinary high watermark especially on the you know on coastal bay areas that would be in violation of this ordinance as we saw 13 years ago when cherry tree and in suites in east bay township got cited by eagle for operating yeah so it would be you know violation of state rules and it would technically be a violation of this ordinance. And that is true of the lake as well because it's dam controlled and there's a specific elevation. But other locations and in particular the streams are defined by that location where there's persistent vegetation and where the you know, the bank kind of falls off, and that's the ordinary high water mark.

Well, yes, there is flooding that can happen, but in a mean water level, the lake, the river, and the creeks are all relatively stable, whereas Lake Michigan has a six-foot range that fluctuates between every 20-so years.

Yeah, no one said it wasn't complicated. No, no.

it was easy we would have done it by now that's true do you need anything else from us then no i think the direction is to go back and make some further tweaks and bring it back uh for another peak hopefully a fuller board okay cool okay well that closes item b and we have nothing on new business we are now moving into the reports section so an update from our city commissioners

I think that Leslie did a fine job of reporting on what happened last night.

We had two items from the Planning Commission and we voted to pass both of them.

Thank you.

So, they will go into effect.

Thank you. Update from the Planning Department? Ken already covered that in announcement. Okay. Joint Planning Commission, we have not met.

No.

And Board of Zoning Appeals?

They did meet. I was not present. I heard that there was a unanimous denial of the signage from the Civic Center along East Front Street. Next week. Yes.

On a totally separate, like another one? Correct, yes.

Yes, T-Caps has a sign at Thurlby Field.

Signs all over the place, I feel like.

Before we went through a 16-month period with no meetings, time variances were at least 50% of requests to the Board of Signing Appeals just because there are so many unique situations or issues about what somebody wants their signage to be.

There is actually another request, too, about a garage and a dwelling and stuff. Are you going to be there, Mitch? You weren't there at the last one, okay.

Update from the Repairing and Buffer Committee. I think we covered that extensively. Update from the Grand Traverse County. We have no Maxwell.

He sent me an update, though.

I have an update. Fantastic.

He said two updates. He said thank you to those who completed the community development survey. We are presenting to the Board of Commission on June 10th. and the Economic Development Committee on June 11th, finalizing our engagement. And we will be working on a report slash plan as the next step. And then last month, the Board of Commissioners selected a firm, Community Scale, to undertake a countywide housing study. They will also be presenting at the June 10th meeting to kick off the project. We are aiming to have a final report completed by mid-October.

Those are really exciting updates from them.

Might compel someone to go to a county commission maybe? Yeah.

Well, we do have a housing study from Housing North, but that is out of date. And I would say we still have a clear need, but to have an updated picture for Grand Traverse County about where we are can point to successes we have made and directions for the future.

Fair. There's nothing in receive and file, so now we'll move on to general public comment.

Doug Gimbel of I-23 North Spruce Street. I just thought of another question which, you know, you might not be able to answer. But in the plan, is there policing and fines in the plan?

For the riparian buffer? Yeah. Yeah. Do you want me to answer?

Yes, when Doug is finished. Are you finished, Doug?

Okay, yeah, you can go ahead. So because this will be part of our zoning ordinance, the same enforcement abilities within our zoning apply equally to anything within this ordinance. So you know you can be ticketed and there are fines that apply and every violation is potential for a distinct ticket or action. You know usually you have to get pretty far down the line before you get a ticket you're given some opportunities to come into compliance but it would be the same fine situation and ability to ticket and enforcement so that was an important consideration in doing this that we're going to have to enforce this as well we can't have regulations that are unenforceable or self enforcing um you know it's got to be something that um is within our ability to enforce yeah that was a big conversation topic at the committee as well as like

not wanting to put more on the enforcement officer than we don't need to and understanding that some of the way, we were really careful with the wording because some of those situations could put that officer into some weird situations where they wouldn't know what to do. They would come across like, well, how do I know if they mowed or they didn't mow, like the no mow is obvious. So some of those things we were really particular about. Okay, well, I'm going to close public comment and this meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.

I just didn't know.

I'm so sorry, Jerry.

Do we have anything on the docket for the session?

For June? Yes, I think we did, didn't we? I have to look at your board. I don't remember.

We want to take up amendments for child care.

Oh, so those are some of the text amendments that you had talked about.

Yes, we have items. That's small. If you want to pair it up with other things, the revision of this, we can add that in. I'd hate to have a whole meeting just for child care, because it's going to be pretty short.

So maybe, Katie, you can send out a survey to the group to see how many people can make that meeting, just so that way we can kind of get a tab, tabs on if we can bring this riparian buffer right back with answers before we, and then decide there to have the public hearing.

Well, then the next one is July 7th.

I have to pull up a calendar. We're canceling that one.

And sometimes that, I know that can just be spotty with people as well. Yeah. You guys are canceling yours, Mitch?

Yes.

It's a jury festival. Yeah.

Yeah, Tuesday, July 7th. Yeah.

So we maybe need to talk. Yeah, we can talk.

And then we'll send out an email so that everyone's on the same page because it could be, it'll be an interesting next month and a half.

Mm-hmm. But at the moment, we don't have any applications or anything.

But we are a little short staffed. We are short staffed through end of July. Okay, now we're adjourned. Thank you.

I think that was more than 30 minutes. Almost four times as long as I expected it.