Planning Commission - Special Meeting

Yeah, she's very excited. Seems very much in her. You wouldn't happen to have a vinyl. We'll be We'll be beginning in one minute. You just wanted it for yourself. That's so funny. So, I'm dealing with like financial aid record. You can't do both. That's ridiculous. doesn't he wants to get rid of summer so that can actually get you can get a little bit that's too much work but talk to superc now I'm trying to walk I have a facetime with her tomorrow but um university partners are pulling out of there which it's got to be similar enough to my existing so I'll remember yeah I know but then I'm I am more prepared at my desk then I write it on a sticky note it goes underneath my mouse pad I put it in my little thing because I'll forget for the first two is not here today I like where you're going with that gonna be capital I've been using the same one but now it's There's like four on your water in your way. I'm just waiting for one more minute to 602. Nobody shows up for where I'm all kind of the same. I've been trying out a new one when I'm pro a new one. Did you see? It's on the kind of southwest

corner. My grandpa has like this big like password. Tomorrow can't log in. I don't remember us. My password is like always the same like I never remember the username. There's so many. Oh, here's right here. Actually, I'll just give him a minute. All right, we can start. It's a You can really see a minute property. Hello everyone. Welcome to the special meeting of the Trevor City Planning Commission. It's June 17th. Welcome everyone. Welcome commissioners. Um, as al always we'll start with our land 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. Uh so I'm calling this meeting to order and roll call. Commissioner Anderson here. Commissioner Duri here. Commissioner Hershey here. Commissioner Knap here. Commissioner McGilly here. Commissioner O'Brien here. Commissioner Treadwell here. Commissioner Swanson here, Commissioner Cameron here, and Commissioner Heler is absent tonight. Thank you. So, we're going to move on to topics of for consideration. A, a public hearing and possible recommendation on PUD application 25 PU1 referred to as the TC Millworks for the property located at 1032 Woodmir Avenue. Mr. Winter. Yeah, I'll start with a brief overview and then hand it over to the applicant team if they wish to speak more on it. But as you know, this is a uh mixeduse development on the east side west side of Woodmir um between Woodmir and Sheffer just north of Carver Street. The site uh current previously had been an industrial site with the uh

manufacturing in TC Milworks which has recently relocated to Arrow Park Drive. So the development proposal includes a commercial building as the southernmost largest building. Um it will be tenant to a outdoor recreation retailer um and possibly a food and beverage unit uh in the future. That is the building that is within the airport approach zone. So its height is limited and its uses are also limited um in that location. The applicants have been working with staff including airport staff and have dialed in uh a plan that meets the the standards at the airport and the FAA for that. The north build three buildings will be residential buildings. The exact height is to be determined. Um they have proposed three by zoning. They can go up to four. Um but as they have discussed with the planning commission in the past that will be determined on really the proform and the numbers moving forward. Um there are some public improvements that will be proposed with this development. The first is the paving of Sheffer Street on the west side of the property uh for the portion running along theirs. Um and that will include parallel streetside parking. It will have a connector as called for in the mobility action plan uh down from Carver Street to the Boardman Lake Loop Trail and they will have sidewalks on Carver. Um, with a PUD, you are allowed to deviate from zoning, but it has to be approved. Uh, so there's only two deviations really that have been proposed through this PUD. The first is um some exceptions to the the setbacks, the front setbacks on the southwest and north side of the building. Um, as well as there's a 6,000 square foot minimum or sorry, maximum building footprint size. um and they are proposing roughly a 10,800 foot building for the southernmost building. So again, that is

all approvable through this PUB process. Um in terms of the master plan, um it is consistent as the staff report indicates specifically this location was one of the four primary redevelopment sites where we had artist renderings done and what has been proposed is uh very very similar to the renderings that came out of that public process and all the feedback that we had received. So with the PUD there are a series of standards. Um as is always the case we present the standards. We ask as part of the application that the applicant provide their response to those standards and how they feel they're meeting them. And then staff does the same. And then we indicate from staff perspective whether it's satisfied or not. This is a starting point for the planning commission. Your decisions have to be based on a finding of fact and that is what this is intended to serve. But again, it can be changed and modified by the planning commission uh at any point. Um and then with that uh there were two standards specifically two and 11 that required some staff input. So those review forms were circulated to the staff with the affidavit signed and included in your report. So uh we did put two um possible motions in there. One motion to recommend approval. Um there were two conditions that staff had put in that motion for your consideration. Um there's also wording there for a recommended denial. Now at the end of the day, a PUD, the final decision is determined by the city commission. So once this moves on from the planning commission, it'll have to be introduced at the city commission. They'll have to set a public hearing and hold it and then make a decision. So it is during that time that they can uh consider any agreements that they want to establish with the the property owner through this development. There may be the need for some which would occur at that level as I mentioned at the last meeting. Sheffer street is not platted but it exists without an easement instrument in place and in fact goes over the applicant's property. So that

is one of those things that through development we'll probably need to clean up with the attorney's office but um she's aware of that. Nothing major you know there's there's path forward with all that. So with that I will hand it to you chair to see if the applicants have anything else they want to add. First of all, does any planning commissioners have any questions of Mr. Winter? Would the applicant like to come forward and give any information you'd like us to know? Uh yeah, good evening. Uh Tim Pium. I'm uh the applicant. Uh we had a good conversation the last time. Um I feel like we've been going through this process quite a while. We took a lot of good steps. Um it was a very interactive process. I feel like it was pretty uh comprehensive as well. We worked with all the departments and after some back and forth to make sure we could uh get everybody as happy as we could along the way. I feel like we have um all the departments uh bought in with a plan that works well for the community and for each department and um still works well for um both our client that we're building the uh the retail space for the m in the mixed juice and um also it's going to do great adding housing there on the um north end of the property when we get to phase two. So, I I'm happy with the way this all went and I'm just looking forward to moving on to the next step. Uh because we're going to try to get the mixed juice done by February of 27. Kind of a hard deadline with that. So, thank you. Yeah. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant? Okay. Before I open up the public hearing, could we have a motion in a second? We just have it on the floor. You can do it in this case after the public. Okay. All right. So, I'll open up the public hearing. Is there anybody here to speak about uh TC Milwork project? Okay. See, not now. I'm going to bring

it back. Okay. Now I have it in front of me. Um, I move that the planned unit development application 25pud to construct a mixeduse development consisting of four buildings and associated site improvements referred to as the TC Milworks and located at 1032 Woodmir Avenue be recommended to the city commission for approval with the following conditions. One, that all necessary permits be secured prior to construction. and two that the trail connector from Carver Street to the Boardman Lake Loop Trail via the adjacent city-owned property, the paving of Sheffer Street and associated on street parking and the sidewalk along Carver Street be completed before the issuance of any occupancy permits. Second. Uh any other discussion? Anderson, thank you. Um I I was wondering if there's any more information available regarding the um 6 inch water mane that's referenced uh I believe in the context of standard 11 for adequate public services and facilities. I just wondered about the um pressure concerns, water pressure concerns and if it is found that in order to maintain adequate pressure that a larger water man is needed who um whose responsibility is that? So in general um developers if they need a larger water demand would be on the hook for that. But um talking with Art, the director uh municipal utilities, he did not see that as being a an issue though for this development. So he didn't anticipate that anything larger than the current 6-in water man would be needed. Is that what you're saying? Okay. Yep. Because he he filled out that form and said, "Yeah, I'm going to anticipate an impact on it." So, and he was part of all the design team meetings, too, where this was discussed.

I just say we've, you know, this been before us a couple of times. It was a solid plan when it came to us the first time. We asked for some tweaks. I'm happy with it. Great. So, appreciate it. come. Um the the letter from the watershed center um mentioning preservation of healthy trees on site and um you know concerns about some of the the um very early plans and imperous surfaces leading down to the waterfront. Is there any any further conversation? Yeah, actually um Leslie and I and Katie, were you in on that? I don't know if you were in that, but we met with the watershed center about two weeks ago with Heather Smith. Um, discussed it. Uh, it was a quick meeting. I think she was satisfied with uh what what's occurring there. Um, it was more of a discovery type meeting, like just learning the facts more about what's being proposed. And so, we showed her the updated plans. Um, at this time, the the pavilion that was in the original conceptual plan isn't moving forward. You know, that's not that's something that could be addressed in the future. Honestly, it probably would be led by the city. it would be on city property and stuff like that. Um, so yeah, she didn't have really any concerns anymore. Everything that is being proposed is upland of the existing trail and and things of that nature. And from what I think they had seen before when they wrote the letter and as you guys noted that the trail concept has been toned down quite a bit now that they got the elevation grades that that cut down the impervious surfaces and stuff. So great. And any any further discussion about the for instance the the heritage oaks that are on the lot on on the developers lot. Yes. Yeah. Um in what regards? Well whether any of them can be preserved. Yeah. I mean that's really ultimately going to be a question for them. Um they did note some areas of some tree preservation, some tree planting in their landscape plan,

but um they they have they do have the right to cut them down if they want to develop. Any other comments or questions? Okay. So, we have a motion, a second. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. Motion carries. Thank you. Now, we're going to move on to 4B, public hearing and possible recommendation on the reszoning of the three and 100 and 400 blocks of South Union Street to C4A. Mr. Winter. Yeah. So again, this was initiated uh by the submission of an application um by Scott Hardy, who's a representative of We Are Spartans LLC or something of that nature. Right. You can come up. I'm sure there may be questions. So when this was introduced at the last meeting, it was noted in the staff report that you know this whole stretch 300 400 500 block of union is called for in the master plan for being reszoned to C4A which was the reasoning classification that the applicant was requesting for 418 and 420 South Union. Um as we've discussed a number of times you know spot zoning is something that the law doesn't really support. You should have cohesive districts. So that led to the conversation of considering in addition to these two parcels, you know, that corridor. Um, we only noticed the 300 and 400 block. We we heard a lot of different discussion from the planning commission. It sounded like there was pretty solid consensus to move forward in consideration of those two. 500 block, a lot of things were up in the air. So for now, the 500 block is not in consideration. And if that is something that the planning commission wishes to explore in the future, we can do so and notice a public hearing for those blocks, but we kept it within the the two blocks that we heard um most interest from the planning commission on. So um as we discussed at the last

meeting as well, um you know, this was an an idea that was actually explored at the end of 2021 into 2022. Um, we had a number of meetings with the property owners, handed out flyers to them to explore this and it was all generated by a long-standing property owner that their business needed to expand and because of the the zoning limitations, they weren't really able to and they relocated outside the city after over a hundred years. So, that was just kind of a signal to to us that maybe this was something to explore. That effort did kind of fall by the wayside because it was shortly thereafter that we picked up the we started the master plan, the mobility action plans. we just needed direct staff capacity elsewhere. But again, it came through in the master plan process um and now is before you today as a result of this application. The one thing that we noted at the last meeting is that one table that has all the properties uh in this stretch and all the rows that are identified in red are non-conforming with the current zoning classification. So in other words, if Oldtown was wiped out by a tornado today, you couldn't build Oldtown to look the way it is today. So there's a disconnect with what's what actually exists and what many people tend to love about that portion of town and what the zoning actually allows and we've been running into that that rub. So that chart's pretty amazing. Yeah, it's it's quite telling. Um so with that, this is the necessary scheduled public hearing. Um I'll turn it back over to you, chair, and again the applicant is at the podium to answer any questions. Any questions or comments first of Mr. Winter? Any questions for the applicant? Nope. I mean, the applicant asked us to reszone his property. Now, we're talking about reszoning two blocks. So, it's, you know, the question is if we understand his need. He covered that in previous presentations. So, it's really it's a it's a two block res we're

looking at. if we want to narrow it down to two properties, then I might have questions for him. Yeah. So, to that point, you may notice the the way the motions were structured that if it is the planning commission's desire after deliberation to recommend approval, that motion would be inclusive of the two properties that we received an application on. So, I talked with the attorney about this. If the um planning commission does not want to or wants to recommend denial of the reszoning of 300 and 400 block then you should take a separate motion on the application specifically so that due process is followed there. So does that make sense what I'm saying? Okay. Are you saying regardless we have to take up both? No. or only if only if the recommendation is to deny the 300 and 400 then there should be a separate motion on to recommend or deny the applicant specific request. So but what's before us now is the 300 zoning 300 and 400 block of the district. Correct. Any comments on that? All right. Would somebody like to make a motion? Well, you can open up the I'm sorry. I'm tired. Sorry, people. I'd like to open up the uh the public hearing. Uh anybody here for uh the resoning of the 300400 block on Union Street, please come state your name and address. Hi, good evening. Uh Brad Lystra, 623 South Union Street. I um that's the ninth between 9th and 10th on Union by St. Francis. Um, I don't have a strong uh particular opinion on the zoning issue uh for that property or for Oldtown neighborhood, but I do want to kind of talk about traffic flow through

that area as it could relate to changing the zoning and if those buildings and the occupants in those buildings in could potentially uh create an increase in traffic. um in addition to what's happening further north on Union Street with the Marriott Hotel that's under construction at the moment and also the possibility by JNS of the hotel um the boutique hotel that's been discussed going into the site by the diner there. All all said that that is could potentially all create some pretty significant traffic flow increases. And I came here tonight because I wanted to mention the idea of well to go back a little bit. I have seen traffic coming on city maps before for the Union Street corridor and if there's potential to um look at the numbers here in terms of traffic flow and look at the speeds um which people carry through there and the number of cars that we're going to see. What options do we have for traffic going knowing that we have St. Francis there with young student drivers, a lot of people, you know, walking dogs and a lot of kids playing in that corridor. Um, is there an opportunity for bumpouts? Um, to slow things down just a little bit. Um, maybe more of maybe police presence. I'm not I'll leave traffic calming, you know, to the experts and what that could entail for that corridor, but it got me thinking the other day of there might be some opportunity for improvement there for for the neighborhoods that are pretty close to a growing city infrastructure. Thank you. Thank you. There anybody else who has any comments? All right, then we're going to close the public hearing, bring it back to the commission. Mitch, yes. Going back to a bit of history, uh what is now Union Street had um before Grand View Parkway got built,

before the current interstate highway system, uh was part of Dixie Highway, which uh we now largely call uh US 31. Um that would have routed through our downtown and then out Union Street connecting to what is now Veterans and South. But now we have division that carries a lot of that traffic. So, as a share of the city's overall traffic volume, it does uh receive significantly less than it has historically. Um, not that I don't recognize that there could be neighborhood concerns, but um I will point out that it's been brought up several times in discussions about downtown parking that the Oldtown parking deck is currently underutilized. that is uh one or two blocks away uh from these properties in question. So theoretically um new development here even if it is um car or residential I mean commercial or residential development that uh does involve more car trips. Those uh cars can be using the parking deck and may not be on Union Street itself at all. I do find this um an interesting historical case in that the Oldtown neighborhood, not just these two blocks or even the 500 block, but extending the full length of Union Street uh to 14th Street and Cast Street um to the edge of town have not never had a consistently residential character. though uh large stretches of both streets are listed uh as residential in our zoning maps. Um probably because of some of that earlier history with the main highway south of town going through uh this corridor.

It has uh commercial development on these two blocks of Union Street but also um in the blocks 500 block. And then we have places like Daring's Market and uh St. Francis itself that are non-residential in nature and would point to a different intensity of use than our zoning map uh describes. I am very much in favor of elevating uh the 300 and 400 block to a C4A assuming that uh that the specifics of C4A are agreeable to the current property owners and um there's nothing objection inherently objectionable in that. But I would also like to, as emphasized by the master plan, look a little further south and uh potentially see how our zoning map andor future land use map could be made more consistent with the historic development character of this area. such that uh yes, we have one uh developer or potential developer coming forward with two properties, but there are similar cases that remain in the areas that we have not addressed. Well, Greg, would you would you like to make the motion? No, I have something. Oh, okay. Sorry. Sorry. I was just going to say uh the same thing about the parking structure. I think this will utilize an underutilized space. Um, and we examined this space years ago. Um, uh, when I first started, maybe five or six years ago, and it felt like there could be some work. And, um,

we've obviously heard from a couple of those businesses like when we did this years ago, and they moved on because it wasn't fruitful. Um, and I I wonder if this would have saved that and would have they would have preferred this kind of um zoning. So, I'm also in full support. And then maybe if we can just make note, I know that 10th Street is pure trash. So, like the the condition of 10th Street, there are so many potholes that I specifically avoid that road. So, if and whenever we get to resurfacing of streets in a CIP, let's just kind of keep that in mind because I think that would be a perfect spot for bumpouts. Um, yeah, I don't know if it knows when that'll happen, but whenever it comes through in the CIP, I think that's a good idea. Yeah. And so, that's a design detail that the city's been implementing with its reconstruction. So if you go by Veterans Now or Madison, you can't park the first 20 feet uh up to a stop sign. So they've been just bumping that out for less impervious surface and better. I was picturing Madison over there and I think it would be great honestly both sides like Ninth and 10th because when you come around the corner and there's a a spot right there. Um I think that's a great idea. Yeah. And I think it's good to point out the survey results that were in our packet. Plus we had letters of support in our packet like the is in the area. We'd like to see this change. Um, so yeah, the traffic is I don't This is a reasonzoning, so we're not going to address really we're not going to address traffic because it's not project specific, but it does increase intensity a little bit. Um, it's interesting. It's interesting question, especially bringing up 10th Street. Uh, you know, if that you would think that's potentially going to get

done, but I thought that was going to get done when I was elected to the city commission in 2017. So, you know, it just it's a priority question. Yeah. You know, and eventually other parts of a street will get done and that's really a time to, you know, to raise awareness with uh city staff um and, you know, about and planning commission if there's a reconstruction, we do have a say. So we I think we're the city's pretty good about bumpouts and things and traffic calming. I think really for that, you know, your biggest concern is using it as a through street. I think whatever we end up doing with 14th Street, that's another project that's probably 10 years away. may if it moves more traffic will have a bigger impact on the flow on Union Street than um what we do uh than this resoning will. But we've been talking about this resoning for half a decade. So um yeah, it's due. I don't have any of it. The changes for I mean the changes in use are and um restrictions are relatively minimal. Yeah, you're right. I'm looking at engineering's 9-year street reconstruction street or sheet and it's a few years old this version but yeah 10th street was supposed to be done in 23 so so it goes but I'd like to bring us back to the motion at hand do you have uh yeah I'll make the motion that the 300 and 400 blocks of South Union Street be reszoned to C4A as prescribed by the master plan and initiated by the representatives of 418 and 420 South Union Street be recommended Ed for approval to the city commission support. Jackie, do you have your hand up? Yes, I did um have a question. I just wondered if someone

could describe the outreach and notification to current owners of R1 and R2 properties that are contiguous to this area that is being proposed for resoning and if there's been any communication with the neighborhood association that represents those folks. So, we did the through the master plan. We communicated quite a bit about this. This was what was proposed and part of our neighborhood uh listening sessions that we conducted. Um as far as the notice, we just followed what was required in the law. So we noticed it in the newspaper. Um the what was it? The um communications director put it in the bay briefs to to give additional notice. So they also do not have a neighborhood association. Central, fun fact, old town. Well, Central's like adjacent. Yeah. But that specific area between like in like ninth crossing, Cass crossing 10th, I don't know if that specifically has if we're neighborhood talking about only the 300 and 400 blocks, would that affect areas by 19? No, it wouldn't. No, it wouldn't. No. So, this would be between six and eight, right? Exactly. Okay. And I did speak at the central neighborhood association meeting about this very item on the agenda informing them that it was coming down the pipeline. Um that was the meeting last month. Um it was originally scheduled at that time to a June 30 third 3rd meeting. So although I told people electronically that the it had been rescheduled to today, it doesn't have the same uh impact necessarily as saying at a public meeting, but we'll just have to see. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? We have a motion, a second. All in favor? All oppose? No.

Roll call, please. Commissioner Anderson, no. Commissioner Dur, yes. Commissioner Hershey, yes. Commissioner Nap, yes. Commissioner McGillary, yes. Commissioner O'Brien, yes. Commissioner Treadwell, yes. Commissioner Swanson, yes. Thank you. Thank you. Now, we're going to move on to C. Consideration of amending the conditional resoning requirements and the city of Traverse City zoning ordinance. Mr. Winter. Yeah. So, we're just bringing this back to you um because it was brought up as part of the discussion when John Collins, who was here with us today, uh as you know, he had a conditional resoning approved by the planning commission, recommended by the planning commission, approved by the city commission um for the properties uh where Third Coast is located uh and the two the two adjacent lots to the east. So the former social security and the um large formerly R1A or B lot there residential um and it was discussed so John was here recently to ask for an extension because he has been working on the project um but as you all know construction is it's difficult right now um contractors materials all that stuff. So the planning commission throughout that had mentioned like maybe we need to revisit this, you know, maybe this isn't really all that realistic of a timeline. So met with the city attorney and we talked about it a little bit. Um and it's not required that you have conditional reszoning in your zoning ordinance. It's not a requirement. Now, the law does say that people can apply for it. So if you didn't have it in your zoning ordinance, it doesn't mean someone couldn't try to ask for a conditional resoning. Um, but having it in there does kind of signal as like, hey, this is one of the land development options. More often than not, and I would not, this is definitely not the case in what I heard from uh John Collins when he was here, but we've kind

of seen it used as a workaround to get around what the zoning doesn't allow in a district. So, one example is allowing a a drive-thru. So, the CVS at the end of Front Street, that's a conditional reszoning because we don't allow drive-throughs in that district, but they got a conditionally reszone to a district that does allow them. PC Lofts, they had a conditional reszoning to go higher for a community room. Um, so it's up to the planning commission. We just wanted to give you the space and time to to discuss that whether or not. So, a couple options before you is you can decide to possibly extend those timelines that are listed there in the ordinance. You could do away with the timelines altogether. There's no requirement that you have a timeline. You could do away with the conditional resoning land development option altogether or you could really do nothing. You know that there's no requirement. But again, we wanted to give you that opportunity. And to put it in perspective, um we're having the same conversation. and I serve on the airport zoning board because we have timelines built into our permitting and stuff and we're seeing the same thing. It's just it's really not realistic structure market up here those those timelines. So So if we extend the timeline, do we extend it uh according to the original um I can't remember. I just scrolled right by it. It uh the original years the original years meaning uh okay uh a project was at least 75% complete in two years and 100% complete in three years. So if we is that what it would be if Yeah. So you could push those timelines out. You could do it three years and four years. You could change those percentages. Oh, you know, it's one of those things that conditional resoning is a resoning. It runs with the land, you know. So, it it's kind of interesting that this is one type of resoning, the only type of reasonzoning

that we say you have to act on it within a certain amount of time and have it completed. Was the reason because you were trying to allow the market to keep up and to snag that? Like, is that what the original intent was, do you think? I because I don't understand why you would put that tight of a timeline. Yeah, it it predates me so I don't know the history on it. But when I had sent the request um from John that the planning commission recommended the city commission, I had written in the memo that the timelines were brought up as a possible future discussion and the clerk responded to me like I'm so glad to hear that because it's not the first time that they've run into this before. So it sounds like even before my time they've had issues with these timelines and conditional resonings. Now, so I'm reading this again. So it says the applicant is afforded the right to request an extension. However, they are limited to a one-year extension and only are eligible for one extension. So an extension may not be that's what started this. Yeah. Great thing for but but if we if we if we say the timeline can be extended, doesn't that mean it can only be for one year? Well, no. So it's it's kind of like two separate things. So there's the base timeline and then there's the option to have an extra year which in this case the applicant exercise he requested that and it got approved. Okay. Um so that's I mean that's another option. You don't have to limit it to just one extension. You know you could make it a year-to-year thing until you know the city commission finally says and on recommendation of the planning commission enough's enough. We're going to let this revert back to its original base zoning. question. Who handles? Do all extensions come to us or are they done administratively? They all extensions get approved by the city commission upon recommendation of the planning commission. So, it's got to go to the planning commission and then they get the final say because it's a

zoning a reszoning essentially. Why don't we just add a year to both? First permits for three years and extension is two years. So, we could do three years of, you know, the two-year extension could be done administratively. If they want a third extension, they got to come back to us. Yes. Okay. I'm just taking notes on all this. Sean, what I I may have missed it. Um, conditional resoning is it's an option to eliminate it. Is that the norm? Like do most cities not have re conditional reasonzoning? Yeah, like we when I worked in Acme, we didn't have it in our ordinance. Again, it is mentioned in state law, so someone could have come in, but you know, I think the fact that we didn't advertise it as an option in the ordinance. We never got it. Never got that request. So, let's say I mean, you piqued my interest when you said drive-throughs that that you use that as an example because I hate drive-throughs. Um, I guess my question though is if let's say we talk about eliminating conditional resoning, does that apply to this applicant? So, in this case, I think what it would do is just change his zoning to what he required. It wouldn't be a conditional agreement anymore. And I know that the part of the conditional reasonzoning was because the neighborhood didn't the neighbors didn't want pot shops or whatever. was that that was a big that was one something that stuck out to me. Yeah. You know, in this case, it was the applicant who on his own initiated it as a way to good faith to show the neighbors like, "I'm willing to work with you. I don't I want to advance my properties, but not in a way that you find." He could still do that though, right? He he could basically say, "We're going to build this building, but I'm not going to have pot shops in it." Oh,

yeah. Yeah. I think he was and he's here. He can speak for us, you know. Yeah. um trying to, you know, as neighbors get their support and hear their concerns and address them because with conditional reasoning, as we talked last time, the applicant voluntarily submits the conditions and that's what what occurred. Um it gets a little tricky for planning commissions and city commissions because you can't really work with those much. You either have to thumbs up or thumbs down them where other things like the previous PUD, you know, we put some conditions on it. You can't add any conditions to a conditional resoning request. You just got to take it at face value or deny it at face value. So, which if we're being honest is kind of the the same with all resonings, right? We don't attach conditions to resonings in general. Um those would come with the actual development approvals down the road. But yeah, so the thing about um like say reszoning the property. So you just say, "Okay, we eliminate conditional reszoning. We just reszone his straight with no conditions on it and you know something happens and he says I can't build this project and he sells it." Well, now the zoning has been changed and the new owner can do what they want within that zoning classification. And I think the concerns of the neighbors at the time were more focused on just, you know, they're kind of an isolated little area. they're, you know, encroaching too much on on their on their homes. Um, but, uh, you know, and so it's a question of does that matter? I I think, you know, some of the other things that you've cited, I mean, CVS was, you know, it's not it's not a fast food drive-thru, it's a pharmacy drive-thru. And why you may not like drive-throughs

for a lot of people, my in-laws for one, my parents when they're old, getting out and, you know, there's they're that's like a major issue for some of them to get out, you know, so it's a con it's not just a convenience for them. It's almost a necessity. There's always other workarounds, but you know, it's hard for someone when they're, you know, getting up there in age to realize you can, you know, have your drugs delivered. Uh, oh, some one point you could get that. But anyways, um, you know, they're not going to call Door Dash. Uh, it just So, but there's other tradeoffs on this. I mean, and I have no problem with, uh, you know, conditional reszonings. You either like it or you don't. If you don't like the conditions, then you reject it. You know, that's your options. And you know, you can while technically you can't negotiate, you can let them know what you don't like about the project and they sometimes come back and make those changes or incorporate those changes and you can get tradeoffs. Um, you know, I think the current, you know, one we're re referencing, I don't think the, you know, the conditions there are, uh, if they were lost, it'd be a big deal, but I know the neighbors wouldn't agree with that, the direct neighbors. So, you know, it's just, you know, they have something, they have a deal, and they were hoping that it would continue. Um, that's the way they look at it. They have a deal, we don't have a deal. So, I just I'm not in favor of eliminating conditional resonings. It's just another tool. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, you know. I mean, I never agreed to CVS with that parking lot. No way. No how. What a waste of space. So, but I wasn't that actually. There are some things that actually predate me. So, there are

You're terrible. If uh so if this up if this Yes, he did. If the state law there's no requirement uh for state law for a timeline, do you know the rationale of why the city put it in in this? I I don't no that gets to my question next which is uh do we in our building pro permit process or uh in other permit and inspection processes have mechanisms that would in place to prevent say Castle who seems to be content with letting a vacant lot sit on 8th street in the hopes of it someday being a gas station, starting um to construct a gas station there, get their stuff approved, and then sit on a 10% completed project for 15 years because there's no timeline. Well, the the I think the state law has uh timelines attached to building permits. I think you have to have something ongoing, you know, within like a six-month time frame, and if if not, those permits will last. That timeline only applies to conditional only to conditional. And David may be right. We don't deal with the construction code permitting. So I'm not as familiar with that uh those requirements or even whether or not they require an escrow which sometimes incentivizes moving a project along. Um but site plan reviews, they do not have a expiration date, but once you pull the land use permit, they do have an expiration date. So, in practice, and this is true everywhere I've worked, people usually don't hold a land use permit until all their ducks in a row and they're ready to break ground. It's like the last thing they do. Sometimes way too late. In fact, the contractors are in sight and they're like, "Can't you approve this today?" You know, it takes a little while. that

that's an issue I see with removing timelines entirely is if we have um something that we're changing the conditions to facilitate a specific development and that development falls through or stalls out at some point. I don't want us to be left in a situation where we had a potential development and Now, uh, it has essentially, uh, pre precluded other stuff from happening there. My only devil's advocate remark, Mitch, I'm so sorry, would be the example of my neighbor currently. I was going to bring that up because, but that's they don't have a conditional reason and they're just but they've been caught in legal memo. So, it's true. Although I think this most I I think the most recent bout of work was unrelated. I think they have now gotten stuck. So I think they're in like a position where they start a little bit and then they lose funding and then they have to restart. And I think that's the current situation which again could happen to anybody. Yes. Um so there are situations where we could be stuck in that regardless. So, I wouldn't want us to I'd want to keep us in the conditional reszone lens just so that we're like realizing that this is just one of the pieces and it could still happen outside of that. I feel that constitutional reasonzoning is a fundamentally useful tool and this property is a very good example of that. Um I given the neighborhood concerns that were raised through the whole process, uh I don't think that um 551 Mson would

have necessarily been reszoned from R1B to C2. uh which is part of the condition and all thing because the developer listened to what uh the neighbors specifically wanted in that parcel since yes it is a commercial highway but it does it has been vacant and backs up to residential land in a way that those residential neighbors have come to accept. So if they are going to see development there and they have some say in the scale, the noise, the type of establishment that's there uh and that ultimately makes that redevelopment um happen. I think that's a fundamentally good tool. Thank you, Max. I I I was just curious um in addition to the instance that we've been discussing uh have there been other instances, you know, either just anecdotally that you guys have have worked with uh developments where this timeline has been a challenge. Well, not too no, not a lot because we don't really have a lot of other timelines in our ordinance um besides this one and the land use permit. No, other instances where there's a conditional zoning in place where the timeline has has posed a challenge. I don't know that since I've been here, this has been I think this is the first one we've gone through. I your building was looking for an amendment to their conditional resoning when I was here. They did not get it. No. Um but yeah, but I I don't have a lot of history on myself. We've reversed too. Correct. And I don't know what the reasons were you've approved and then the next time they weren't constructed and I don't know if it was the timeline was too

tight. I'm sure that had something to do with it. Uh I know one I just remember one of the projects they just you know they just the deadline was coming up. they couldn't get it done. So, they just said, "We're gonna walk away." And it was um you know, and I think that was just simply I think that it played into it, but was it the sole reason? No, it seems like it it may may make sense to to look at that that one additional approval and and play with that kind that timeline. um either extending that to to multiples or either maybe extending that period which I think is aligned with what you were saying what Brian was saying and and I agree I mean these are really tough times now that we're in I mean I don't think we can compare it to any recent times that with construction and cost of materials being so crazy and I think that the number two extending the timeline makes the most sense that of everything that you have listed here. Yeah, because the reality is like most people aren't going to get too deep into development plans until the conditional resoning gets approved because you're not going to spend that money on those plans unless you know you got a green light from the city. So you figure the clock starts at what is it two years? Is that was that the timeline? I mean it could take a year of just development of the plans going through all the permitting. I mean Fullium and them they're not even ready for construction. They started in December with us and we're now June and they just got a recommendation. And so I mean that alone, you know, you can see how that eats into some of that time, just the administrative part. So, um, my only comment is I don't feel like an additional one is long enough. So, I'd want to do a couple more in that second. If you add one, it goes from two to three years, your first one, which is fine for most projects. Oh, you're adding one to the first one also. Adding one to the first one and one to the second one. The second extension would

give you two. That's five years. Now after five years and you know all the other thing I said that's doesn't matter to me. Keep it simple. Add your you want to add a third extension. You know, it's basically you could consider that, but it would have to be something serious because the other thing about this is, you know, sometimes things change, our circumstances change, and after five years, you may be looking at that and saying, "Yeah, maybe that wasn't such a good idea after all." Yeah. So, you know, that's the other thing. You not you don't have to extend it. So, um, I missed your first year. So, as long as there's like a combined total of five, I think that's good. So, the way it reads now is that you get the Sorry, I'm reading the MCL part. So, you have two years um to get to 75% and three years to get to 100 with a single one-year extension. I'm hearing from some commissioners maybe a change that to three years to be at 75% four years to be complete. You get two one-year extensions approved administratively but to be eligible for a third one-year extension you need to come and go through the planning commission who makes a recommendation to the city commission. And even this that we're talking about is a recommendation of the city commission. Correct. Oh yeah. this is I mean it be a zoning amendment so they would have the final say on that. So um and I've heard a couple other points but that's what I'm hearing is more of the consensus that's building. Um so if desired I can put that together as redlined language and bring it back at the next meeting. Um this would require a public hearing and just uh FYI we probably wouldn't hold

the public hearing for this until the beginning of August. um we'll talk about it later, but uh right now we're on a special meeting because we're out of sync because of the previous So I'd like to get back on sync um and not turn July into a special meeting if we don't have to that study session because we wouldn't be able to make the July 1 meeting public hearing notice yet. Jackie, yes. Um, in terms of considering an extension with a total of six years before it would come back for another planning commission review, could someone summarize for me the advantages of that versus just eliminating the timeline completely? Well, can I add one thing just so I understand? So, what is the main general process difference between a reszone and a conditional? Is there different costs? I mean, it still has to go through public hearing. It's still one seems to be maybe more permanent long-term because if you reszone it versus a conditional, but I'm just wondering like what's the why wouldn't they just reszone it? So in some cases, sorry, but there may be some elements that the new zoning classification um is appealing to them and they that's why they want it, but they there may be other things that come with that full-scale reasoning that could be detrimental to the surrounding properties or not consistent with the character of that location of town. So that's where the conditions come in. Like, hey, I want to like, so in this case, the applicant wanted to take a residentially zoned property and make it commercial. Um, but then realize that there could be some nuisance uses with the adjacent residential as Brian had mentioned. And so that's why I worked with them to voluntarily come up with the condition. So the the main difference is the applicant voluntarily puts their own restrictions on what the

new zoning would allow. So it could be less contentious too. Could be. Yeah. You know, I will say though, um, in most cases, I do not see the applicant working with neighbors as much as this partic particular applicant did. You know, a lot of times it's just because they want to get a community room up top or a drive-thru or something like that. But, um, yeah. All right. But so to Jackie's point, you're talking more about just eliminating the timeline in general, not necessarily. I'm I'm wondering if we're talking about such an extension of of timing. What's the benefit to having an extended timeline versus no timeline at all? I I hear that point and kind of agree with you there. I think um what has been proposed though might be a good you know mediator like middle step like let's well let's test first an extension and see how that works and then you know then if we need to revisit we could and then eliminate them or you could do it now you know it's up to you guys but I mean you could you can have a project start and then they can't find workers or you know and it could just sit there right just partially yeah that's that's a different issue but um mostly it's there's things that slow it Now my question for the not for not having any timeline on it is you know if once you have a conditional resone the reszone stays with the land the conditions stay with the land you know and then you've got basically a contract. So now that the owner has to either come to you and ask you to dissolve that contract and maybe the city doesn't want to then do we get sued I don't know I'm just saying there's a lot of you know if you start to go if you go with no no ending I

think five years or six years is way more than enough. So, but if there's no ending, you better talk to the city attorney and make sure there's no other extra complications down the road with that one. And two, I think again, circumstances change and maybe the city doesn't want the conditions, but I don't know if the city can decide to revoke a conditional resoning just because it wants to once it's already granted it without cause. I don't know. I mean, you can change zoning, but conditional zoning is a contract. I mean, it's a signed contract between the applicant and the city commission. So, I and I don't know how those contracts get changed or amended. Well, they get amended through almost like a an amendment to a slump. It's the same kind of process. Goes through the planning commission public hearing that goes to Well, I understand that part, but it's also a contract. I mean, we do a zoning permit. We don't have a contract with anyone. We just change the zoning. This is your zoning. But when you sign your name on it, we you're contracting with them. They're agreeing to follow these conditions, this conditional resoning. And the city's, you know, allowing them to do those certain things. I don't know if those contracts have an end date or what get out of the contract. That's a legal document that has to be dissolved and I don't know what the process for that is. So, I'm just saying if you don't want to have any if you don't want it to ever expire, you better find out how it gets changed legally down the line. Do the conditions run with the land? The conditions run with the land. Yep. The the clearest way that it gets changed in the future is by, as you mentioned, just through a reszoning. Zone it to just a base zoning district. Um and then that reszoning would supersede the um

conditional resoning in the attached conditions. So I'm with Brian and Sean. I think it's a good intermediate step. Oh, Jackie, sorry. Um I in terms of this being an intermediate step or or taking an intermediate approach, did I hear correctly that this is the only one in the five years that Mr. winter has been with us that we've had a conditional reszone. So, it's the in the four years I've been here, it's the only one, yeah, that has come through and been approved. The only other one was an existing conditional reszone did try to get an amendment to their conditions. Um, so is it fair to say that these are rather rare in in the city's experience? I would say that considering it as a test, we might be waiting a long time to I would say I have seen conditional resoning utilized here in this city more than any community I've worked in. So I to me I'd say the city's anomaly and how it has used conditional resoning. Um so uh again I it's hard to say that because we haven't had a lot over the last four years that we won't have more in the future. you know, I mean, like we could get three this next month. You know, we we don't really know. So, it's about, you know, setting the standards to make things predictable for people. Do you think you have enough from us to put something together? Does anybody else have any they want to say? All right, then we're going to move on to announcements. Does anybody have any announcements? Um, we have a couple. You may notice some new faces. We have some summer interns with us today. Um, we actually have three, uh, one temporary worker and two interns. The temporary worker who could not be with us tonight is Ted Arnold. So, as many of you remember, he served on the planning commission. So, he is here as our

resident document scanner for the summer as we're trying to digitally archive and reclaim some physical space in our building as it's getting a little tight. But with us tonight, we have Cole Maxon. Uh so Cole uh interned last year with Jerry in the GIS department and the year before that he interned with Nicole in parking services and he spent some time with us over Christmas break scanning documents and we also have Olivia who lives in Grand Rapids but is staying here and just a couple doors down from me uh this summer and um so she's working a lot more with Leslie on the sustainability stuff um and things like that. And so Cole's working more with Dave on the zoning uh you know plan review and things like that. So both of them are students at Michigan State and we are grateful to have them here today. So welcome. Yeah. I didn't catch Olivia's last name. Thank you. Y and you said you had a couple Oh, so another thing. Does anyone know yet for certain that they will not be here on July 1st? That's our next meeting. It's Cherry Festival week. It gets cancelled a lot because there's so many Fourth of July related absences. Does anyone know off? We don't have any application. I'd rather not be here. You could just You could just rather not. I won't. I heard it was going to be held at the beer tent, though. So, I just want to throw that out there. That's it was noticed. And you're buying food, too, right? Well, the city. Yes, of course. Okay. If it's there, then I'm fine. Yeah, I can make that one. Okay. So, let me rephrase that. Could you by a show of hands indicate a preference not to have a meeting on the first? We say vote. This is for not, right? Yeah. Raise your hand. Prefer not to knowing we have no we have no applications before us. So, all right. So, my next announcement because Mitch was bringing it up. Just a reminder that in the bylaws anyone could can submit to have an item on the agenda for discussion. Um, so it just needs to come in to be notified to staff at least 10

days before the meeting because you mentioned, you know, future discussions. Um, so just know that you're you're free to initiate that. And then on the topic of Union Street, just for any members of the public, the the unique history is that used to be the the highway before division was constructed the way it was and before the parkway. So the state and federal highway came down veterans down 14th Street, which is why there's a state police post there. It always scratched my head. Why do we have a state highway post here? and then it came down Union Street and then down Front Street. So, as much as many of us dislike the parkway for the barrier that it presents between the beach and downtown, it is kind of crazy to think what if the state never rerouted it and what if downtown was the main highway still much akin to Charavoy and stuff. So, you know, makes you think what things could be like. I say it could potentially be akin to KCasco where to expand from a two-lane highway to five lanes plus parking on either side, they ripped out half the downtown. Yeah. Um and then on that um the only thing I'd say is I I had the chance to attend the Congress of New Urbanism uh conference in Providence, Rhode Island last week. It was uh very good. Um learned quite a bit. Still kind of decompressing from all of it. It's a lot of sessions back to back toback for four days straight. So you taking a lot of info, but um this particular conference I like a lot because it's multi-disiplinary. So it's architects, planners, engineers, all all the trades kind of involved in community development, uh participating in discussions and things like that. So it was a great opportunity. There could be a study session. Yeah. Kind of re recap some of it. Some of it what you learned and yep, share articles with us or whatever. That would be great. Yeah, definitely. And um on a side note on that, just to remind everyone, we do have the Michigan Association of Planning Conference coming up. Um, we budget it for planning commissioners. It will be in Kalamazoo this fall. Typically end of September, early

October. Um, I'm sure the dates are on the website. It's late October. Late October this year. And then we do have the unique opportunity uh for in the spring of next year, which was also included in the budget that got approved is the National Planning Association conference will be held in Detroit. So, it's very accessible for planning commissioners. I mean, talk about learning opportunity. There's so much going on there. So, I would encourage you if it fits in your schedule and you can make it work to to consider that. And I sent you guys all an email about those April or something. So, if you you know have a better sense of your calendar now, you could reply because I am keeping track and no one's beholden to this, but just to give us an idea. Registration open. Oh, it's usually not until just like August. August. Yeah, we've got lots of time. Yeah. Any other announcements? Um, nothing other than it sounds like we will go ahead and cancel the July 1st meeting. Um, so we'll be back on the 14th or 15th. Uh, I'll have that red line for you um for this conditional reasonzoning amendment with a scheduled hearing, that first meeting in August. And then we'll see what comes before us um between now and then for your agenda. Great. Any announcements, mers? Anybody have a closing public comment they wish to make? Seeing none, this meeting is adjourned. Thanks everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I was way wrong. Way wrong about time.