[15:46] of the Mount Pleasant Planning Commission is now called to order. Miss

[15:49] Paviko, will you please take a roll call? Commissioner Dei here.

[15:53] Commissioner Farley here. Commissioner Frederick here. Commissioner Havvel's

[15:58] here. Commissioner Irwin here. Commissioner Kingsworthy here.

[16:02] Commissioner Leash absent. Commissioner Martinez here. Commissioner Ortman here.

[16:09] We have a quorum. Thank you. The first item on our agenda is the approval of

[16:15] the agenda. Does anybody have any changes that you would like to make?

[16:19] Move to approve the agenda. Second. Second. All those in favor?

[16:25] Opposed? Motion passes. All right. Uh the next item on our

[16:30] agenda is the approval of the minutes of the May 1st, 2025 planning commission

[16:35] regular meeting. Does anybody have any changes that you'd like to make?

[16:42] Move to approve. Second. All those in favor? I

[16:49] opposed. Motion passes. The next item on our agenda is

[16:55] the approval of the minutes from the May 1st, 2025 planning commission work

[16:59] session. Does anybody have any changes that you'd like to make?

[17:04] I want to move to approve. Second. All those in favor? I I

[17:10] opposed. Motion passes. The next item on the agenda is

[17:14] the zoning board of appeals report. Mr. Hell's Madam Chair, we did not meet.

[17:20] Thank you. The next item on our agenda is the

[17:24] communications. Uh Miss Povo, did we receive any communications?

[17:29] Yes. Um so you've received communications related to three cases

[17:33] for tonight. The first one was an email received in opposition to

[17:39] SUP-25-08 for the short-term rental at 105 East Broadway. The second case for

[17:45] the gas station at 802 North Main Street, you've have received for SP 259,

[17:51] you have received 63 letters in opposition and one additional letter in

[17:56] opposition. Um, both received today. And then the third case um the next case

[18:02] that we received opposition letters uh is regarding Z the resoning 25-2 for

[18:08] 1104 East Chipua. There w there was one letter with 12 signatures that have been

[18:14] received on June 4th and one email received uh today in opposition as well.

[18:20] Thank you. The next item on our agenda is the

[18:26] public hearing for um our first one is SUP

[18:31] 258, a request for a special use permit for short-term rental. Miss Podiko, if

[18:35] you'd please introduce the item. Sure. So, first I apologize for the slide

[18:40] saying sup5. I meant 258. So, the first case that we have here tonight is uh the

[18:47] applicant Rich Swohhurst on behalf of RJ Downtown Investments LLC is seeking

[18:53] approval for a short-term rental located at 105 East Broadway. The goal is to

[18:58] convert the two existing dwelling units into short-term rental units to bring

[19:02] more tourists to downtown Mont Pleasant. The existing building is a two-story

[19:07] mixeduse building. Midori restaurant is located at the ground floor level and

[19:11] the second story has a total of 1,672 square ft. It contains a

[19:17] one-bedroom unit with approximately 500 square ft and twobedroom units with 750

[19:24] square ft. There is no parking on the premises. However, there are several

[19:29] public parking spaces at the town center and Jockey Alley parking lots. Overnight

[19:34] parking is also available at the Jockey Alley parking lot. The two dwelling

[19:38] units already have a valid rental license through the fire department for

[19:42] a family or up to two unrelated occupants in each unit. The applicant is

[19:48] not proposing any building or site alterations at this time, but has

[19:51] indicated that he would do general unit improvements to market them as

[19:55] short-term rentals. So, this is a map of the

[19:59] location of the site. As you can see on the map on the map, we have on the north

[20:05] uh the restaurant Pitanelo. It's a commercial establishment. On the east, a

[20:09] mixeduse building. On the south and west, also mixeduse buildings. The

[20:14] future land use designation contained in the 2015 master plan says mixeduse high

[20:19] for the surrounding parcels. And the districts of the parcel and surrounding

[20:24] parcels is CD5 urban center character district with the residential

[20:29] restriction at the ground floor level as a special requirement.

[20:35] So, this is a picture of the current conditions viewed from Broadway looking

[20:41] northeast and the conditions viewed from the back of the property looking

[20:49] southwest. When analyzing the general standards that apply for any special use

[20:55] being proposed, I have not seen any issue with this proposal.

[21:01] When looking at the specific conditions that apply to short-term rentals only,

[21:06] um the se the there are several of them that are not applicable to this case and

[21:11] then the ones at the bottom uh are applicable and the applicant complies

[21:15] with those

[21:18] requirements. Regarding public comment, we've have received one email in

[21:22] opposition. It has been delivered on June 4th, 2025 and the letter was sent

[21:27] to the planning commissioners before the meeting and it has been placed at the

[21:30] dis for your reference as

[21:35] well. So the attached written response that the applicant provided to the

[21:39] special use criteria was able to demonstrate the proposed use is

[21:42] consistent with the character of the area and the future land use identified

[21:46] in the master plan. More specifically, staff observed that the proposed

[21:50] short-term rental will help bring more tourists to downtown Mount Pleasant. The

[21:53] use will help local businesses. The use will help attract more temporary stay

[21:58] options in downtown. We do not have a hotel, unfortunately. So, that would be

[22:02] a way to get tourists into downtown. No outdoor gathering spaces are provided.

[22:07] Therefore, the proposed use will not lead to noise disturbance in the area

[22:11] for long-term residents. And the building is located close to a public

[22:15] parking lot that allows overnight parking. So no impacts on traffic are

[22:19] expected. So with the findings and analysis in this report, the staff has

[22:23] recommended that the planning commission approves

[22:28] SCP-25-8. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Uh

[22:32] do any members of the planning commission have any questions for Miss

[22:39] Pyo? Okay, seeing none. Uh if the applicant is here and you would like to

[22:45] speak, you're welcome to come forward up to the

[22:48] podium. And if you could please state your name and your address for the

[22:52] record. My name is Rich Swindle. Um my address is 110 West Michigan Street. And

[22:58] um appreciate you guys hearing out this uh request. Um essentially, uh my family

[23:04] has had this building for I think it's been about 16 years now and the upper

[23:09] units um are just kind of tired and would like to improve the space and

[23:15] unfortunately the rent levels in Mount Pleasant or at least downtown are pretty

[23:18] low right now. Um and doing uh some analysis on short-term rental um seems

[23:25] to be a way that we could afford to um improve the space. Um we are in the bar

[23:31] and restaurant business in town and seek any and all ways to increase traffic and

[23:36] more tourism downtown. Um as well stated unfortunately we don't have a hotel and

[23:43] so our goal is to kind of get any and all tourists that we can towards the

[23:48] area. Um if you have any questions for me I'm happy to help answer.

[23:54] Any members of the planning commission have any questions for the applicant?

[24:00] Okay, thank you. Thank you. Now, I will open up for public comment

[24:06] related to this case. And if there's any members from the public that wish to

[24:11] speak, you're welcome to come up to the podium. Um and just um for uh a reminder

[24:18] that um each person is allowed to speak once per um proposed item during of a

[24:25] hearing and that um you have a maximum of five minutes for

[24:33] speaking. Okay, seeing no one from the public here. Is there anyone

[24:37] online? I don't see anybody online. If there's anyone on Zoom that would like

[24:41] to speak, please raise your hand. Um, so I can call your name. U, meanwhile, I'm

[24:47] looking at email and I don't see any new emails coming in tonight.

[24:52] I don't see anybody on Zoom. Okay. Thank you. I will close public comment and

[24:57] open discussion.

[25:01] Move to approve SP 258. Second. All those in favor? I opposed.

[25:09] Motion passes. Okay. And the next item on our

[25:14] agenda is the public hearing for SUP 25509 and

[25:19] SPR25, a request for a special use permit and site plan review for a new

[25:24] gas station and convenience store. Miss Podiko, will you please introduce the

[25:27] item?

[25:31] The applicant KC Atanasov on behalf of Christrist Oil Company is seeking

[25:36] approval for a special use permit and site plan review to build a new gas

[25:40] station and convenience store for food mart at 111 Palmer Street. The current

[25:46] address there is 802 North Main Street, but just to clarify, the address will be

[25:51] changed to 111 Palmer Street to address and reflect the convenience store

[25:55] location to comply with the zoning rules. The proposed scope of work

[26:00] includes the demolition of the existing 14,213qt building located at the corner

[26:06] of Maine and Palmer Street and the construction of a new

[26:11] 6,50T convenience store with eight vehicular and four bicycle parking

[26:16] spaces. The gas station will provide eight pump stations and four electric

[26:20] charging stations which are to be installed in the

[26:24] future. This is a map of the site's location. The current use of the site

[26:30] immediately to the north across Pickard Street is DTE Energy. The on the east we

[26:36] have a liquor store and a single family home. On the south a duplex and a

[26:43] triplex and on the west a post office. The future land use on the north is

[26:50] industrial and mixed use medium. Mixed use medium on the east, mixed use

[26:56] low and residential on the south, and mixed use low onto the

[27:03] west. Actually, I'm going to make a correct. Oh, no, that that's the future

[27:06] land use map. That's correct. Um, the zoning is what you see on the map. It's

[27:10] SDI, industrial special district on the north, city, general urban and city

[27:16] suburban character districts on the east. And then on the south, we have

[27:20] again city 4 and city 3. And on the west side we have a civic zone designation on

[27:25] the post

[27:28] office. So these are the current conditions viewed from the corner of

[27:32] Palmer and Main Street looking northeast and the conditions view from

[27:38] Picker looking southwest. And I'm just going to make a note here that this

[27:42] corner has been referred to the community as the gateway to downtown

[27:46] Mleas Pleasant and it has been vacant for decades. So it is one of the

[27:51] priorities for the community for a long time to see that corner looking much

[27:56] better than what it does today. Um so just wanted to put that as a historical

[28:00] background to everybody when looking at the general

[28:05] standards that apply to all special use permits. We do see one item that we want

[28:12] to highlight here for the commission. So, as with gas stations, we understand

[28:18] that usually applicants would like to keep the lights on. This gas station in

[28:23] particular, they're not anticipating opening 24/7. They would be closed

[28:27] during the evening. And any new lighting that's added to the site has to comply

[28:32] with the city code lighting standards, which does not allow light to uh go

[28:37] beyond the property lines. We have a foot candle measurement at the property

[28:41] lines that they have to abide to. However, uh because we know that this

[28:45] could be different than what people experienced. It's currently dark.

[28:48] There's nothing going on on that site. We have uh done the review and the

[28:53] building safety official um basically provided a comment in his comment sheet

[28:58] that I referred to in the conditions as well to have the applicant once uh the

[29:03] electrician installs all the lights come to site and measure the property lines

[29:08] uh the basically with a light meter to make sure that the site complies indeed

[29:12] with the city code uh ordinances. So that is what you see there the condition

[29:17] of approval. The next one uh is related to the same one and it's just a

[29:22] different uh section of the ordinance. Both of them are really trying to get

[29:27] into nuisances and how uh special uses could potentially impact surrounding uh

[29:33] sites which include potential noise, light, traffic, intensity of the use

[29:38] itself. Um so again light uh kind of raised to to the top and we are putting

[29:42] that as a condition. And then uh going to the

[29:47] specific requirements for gas stations all of those items have been met by the

[29:51] applicant. I would also say that we worked with the applicant for a very

[29:55] long time on this proposal. They have come to the city a few times uh trying

[30:01] to develop and they couldn't comply with the rules. uh we worked with the

[30:05] architect on this particular site plan inter iteration for I would say around

[30:11] five months at this point um to get them to a site plan that complies with the

[30:16] ordinance. So that's why you can see here um all the proposals complying with

[30:20] the special use. So for site plan review I'm going

[30:24] to go through what they submitted. Um they submitted a larger packet but I'm

[30:29] putting here the drawings that are relevant to the zoning ordinance. So you

[30:32] can see here on the left side is the proposed site plan. Um one thing to note

[30:38] about the site plan is that the building placement mattered a lot. Pickard is a

[30:44] high-speed road. It is a hightraic highcapacity truck traffic area.

[30:51] Therefore it was much better to have the pumps oriented to that side. Um because

[30:57] those who are traveling and through Mount Pleasant, they may need gas. So,

[31:01] it is good to be visible on that end, but also we do not want the pumps to be

[31:06] too close to residential properties, even though we do allow gas stations in

[31:11] any CD4 district here in Mount Pleasant. The other uh item is that the

[31:18] convenience store uh is then oriented completely along Palmer to have that 60%

[31:25] frontage along Palmer and really screen the the gas station uh from the

[31:30] community or from the residential neighborhood. There is only one narrow

[31:36] uh driveway opening at the southeast corner of the site on Palmer that is

[31:42] going to be an exit only. So we're trying to disincentivize traffic through

[31:47] Palmer. And the only reason why there is an access there is for trucks to be able

[31:52] to come to the site from Pickard or Maine, unload, and then come unloaded

[31:58] and exit through Palmer uh unloaded. So we're not also adding a lot of um you

[32:04] know heavy loads onto Palmer, which is not designed as a traffic route uh to

[32:09] protect the asphalt. Um the other thing to mention is regarding the landscaping

[32:14] plan that you can see on the right. We have uh made sure that the applicant

[32:19] complies with the streetscape standards. So you can see a lot of new trees that

[32:22] are going to be planted on the site. And um the building is set back uh 20 ft

[32:28] from the street um to give more wiggle room for landscaping. And uh one thing

[32:34] to note is that along Pickard Street, the current sidewalk is immediately

[32:38] adjacent to the curb. There is no landscaped strip in between making it

[32:44] very difficult to walk on that stretch. It feels very unsafe. So the applicant

[32:49] has electively so they're not required to but they are going to be improving

[32:55] that whole sidewalk and bringing that sidewalk from the right of way into

[33:00] private property and providing an easement to the city uh for access on

[33:04] that sidewalk. Um and then they're going to be adding street trees in between uh

[33:08] the sidewalk and the curb as well.

[33:13] So regarding the phototric plan, they already submitted a phototric plan, but

[33:17] it did have this language that the phototric evaluation is not for

[33:21] construction. So that's why I put as a condition of approval that they do apply

[33:25] with uh final uh lighting uh plan with the specifications for the lighting

[33:30] that's being proposed and uh the photometrics plan, which is what you see

[33:35] here indicating the foot candle measurements on site.

[33:41] And then the architecture team has also completed elevation drawings indicating

[33:46] compliance with our facade standards which include a lot of glazing. So you

[33:51] can see how all elevations include a lot of glazing compliant with the zoning

[33:55] ordinance. And the building is uh pretty varied in terms of materials and push

[34:00] and pulls to break that facade and not create you know straight facads.

[34:07] This is the elevation on Palmer Street and you can see how the there is a

[34:11] public entrance onto Palmer Street which is a requirement of the zoning

[34:15] ordinance. So pedestrians are not having to go onto parking lots to access the

[34:20] building. It's actually in fronting the

[34:23] street and this is the east elevation which basically will be in fronting the

[34:29] house uh right next door. Um, so it will be set back beyond the driveway and

[34:35] that's the facade that's going to be the side

[34:39] facade. The applicant has shown uh this picture as well just to ask if we would

[34:45] allow a shed like this as an enclosure um a type of enclosure for their um

[34:51] waste. So they submitted that to us and then going through all the

[34:58] requirements I did not see any issues with the ones that you see here on this

[35:01] slide and I'm going to stop when there is an underline which are the times in

[35:06] which I saw an inconsistency and have a condition of approval here again

[35:10] building standards all cleared more building standards since

[35:16] it's a new build so you have all those rules that we have to look

[35:20] for regarding private landscape caping the site plan shows the first slot layer

[35:25] exceeding the minimum 30% landscaping requirement which is great. So there's

[35:29] more landscaping than required. Uh the landscaping plan shows street trees

[35:34] within the street the tree the three right ofways but it does not show the

[35:38] area where the building is set back further than 15 ft complying with one

[35:42] tree per every 50 ft. So we both require trees between sidewalk and curb and we

[35:48] require trees between sidewalk and building facade if the building is set

[35:53] back more than 15 feet which it is. Therefore I have that as a condition of

[35:57] approval to comply with that

[36:02] rule. Next uh off streetet loading storage drive-thru trash receptacles uh

[36:08] requirement. The proposed garbage shed does not clarify if the space will

[36:12] accommodate waste and recyclable materials. So the applicant would need

[36:16] to provide more information regarding their waste management and if recyclable

[36:19] materials will be stored within the shed or within the building. Uh this the

[36:23] recycling is a requirement for every type of use in the city of Mount

[36:27] Pleasant. Uh it is a requirement in the city code aside from being a requirement

[36:31] in zoning ordinance. Lighting um I already

[36:34] mentioned lighting so I'm not going to repeat myself here. So we have that as a

[36:38] condition as well. Regarding public comment, we as I

[36:43] mentioned we've received a total of 64 letters in opposition delivered today.

[36:48] The letters were sent by email and are placed at the

[36:53] dis. So the staff analysis is that the redevelopment of this site of as an

[36:59] important corner of Mount Pleasant will be helpful. It has remained vacant for a

[37:04] long time. So, we're looking forward to see the site redeveloped. It will

[37:08] utilize city resources more efficiently through an infield development in an

[37:12] area with existing infrastructure. Provide a design of a

[37:16] gas station that is more pedestrian friendly. Improve the streetscape uh of

[37:21] all street frontages, but especially improving the sidewalk along Pickard.

[37:25] providing convenience and food market option to the surrounding neighborhood

[37:28] residents and create 20 new jobs in Mount Pleasant and new employees will be

[37:34] splitting through three shifts. Therefore, the amount of proposed

[37:37] parking seems to be sufficient to accommodate staff and

[37:40] customers. So, the staff recommendation is for the planning commission to

[37:44] approve SUP-25-9 and

[37:48] SPR-25-05 subject to the following conditions. One, the applicant shall

[37:52] submit A, a revised site plan with final sidewalk layout approved by the city

[37:57] engineering department. B, a revised landscaping plan showing four trees

[38:02] within the front law layer along Palmer and another two trees within the front

[38:06] law layer along Main Street. C, a revised phototric plan. The lighting

[38:11] installer shall certify lighting values at or below the values shown on the

[38:15] final compliant plan prior to the issuance of her certificate of occupancy

[38:19] by the building safety department. Two, the applicant shall submit more

[38:24] information regarding waste management showing compliance with one of the

[38:27] following. A, the proposed garbage shed shall include a dumpster or rule cards

[38:32] for recyclable materials or B. Space within the building shall be reserved

[38:36] for the storage of recyclable materials until collection by a commercial hauler.

[38:40] Three, the applicant shall comply with the additional requirements of public

[38:43] safety, building safety, and public works. That concludes my presentation.

[38:47] Thank you. Thank you. Do any members of the planning commission have any

[38:51] questions for Miss Plug? Uh, two quick questions. Um, do you know if they're

[38:57] going to be using dimmable LED lighting and why specifically do they need a

[39:03] special use? Yes. So, the I'm not sure about the

[39:08] lighting. U maybe they can answer to that question. Um regarding the SUP, so

[39:13] every gas station requires a special use permit in Mount Pleasant. Uh if they're

[39:19] being placed on the mixeduse district, in this case, City4. Okay. So, it's only

[39:24] because it's a mixeduse district. Exactly. Okay.

[39:29] I had a couple questions, too. Um you had mentioned that um they wouldn't be

[39:34] open in the evening. Do you know what hours they're proposing to be open?

[39:37] Yes, I can find that information

[39:46] here. So, it's going to be so 6:00 a.m. to midnight. So, they're going to be

[39:52] closed from midnight to 6:00 a.m.

[39:57] Okay. I have a follow-up question to that. If they decided down the road to

[40:04] be open 24 hours, is there any type of ordinance that would prevent that? No.

[40:10] Okay. Um, and then I also had a question around the timeline of the project. Do

[40:17] you happen to uh I'm not sure. Hopefully the applicant can shed a light on that

[40:21] question. I had another one, Manuela. Oh, sorry.

[40:24] That's okay. Uh, so the driveway on Palmer, is that absolutely necessary for

[40:30] trucks to get in and out of there? It was hard to configure with the truck

[40:35] turns. Um, it was very difficult, I think. Um, with the building location

[40:41] and building size that we require it. It was a tight site. Okay. Thank you.

[40:48] Was there any like community engagement or anything done

[40:53] before like with the neighborhood surrounding the site? No, I don't

[40:58] believe the applicant has uh discussed with the neighbors. Maybe they can speak

[41:02] about that. Um the way it works with public hearings, we are required to

[41:07] notify the residents within 300 ft of the site. So residents have been

[41:13] notified according to state law uh through mail and uh they we also place

[41:17] the len use sign on the property so once people are walking by they know that

[41:21] there's a land use action coming in thank

[41:28] you okay any further questions seeing none if the applicant

[41:34] is here uh and would like to speak and present your case uh please come to the

[41:39] podium So, the applicant is online. Um, so I'm

[41:44] going to give the cue for Mac TV to put them on the screen. Seth, you can go

[41:48] ahead. All right. Good afternoon. My name is

[41:52] Seth Matech. I work for Wickwire PC. We are the engineering consulting firm for

[41:57] Chris Doyle that uh has been working on the project with them.

[42:01] Um, we are just applying today because we are uh have we've been looking at

[42:09] this property for a long time within the city. Um, I've been working with Manuela

[42:13] for the past three or four months on developing a site plan that the city

[42:18] would find uh would find acceptable. Um, we feel that the development here is

[42:24] going to boost the local economy and really stir develop more development in

[42:28] the area. It's going to redevelop a currently vacant lot, as Manuela said,

[42:33] right in the um right in the downtown area of Mount Pleasant, right as right

[42:38] as people are entering the main street. Um it's going to provide local products

[42:43] to the local community such as food, drink, gasoline.

[42:49] Um the the lighting in the city has been or the lighting in the store area has

[42:54] been designed in a way to limit light escaping the lot. Um we've used fencing

[43:00] and landscaping to shield that residential lot um adjacent to the

[43:05] property to shield the residential area from any light. The uh lights on the

[43:10] property are going to be LED directional down lighting to also limit um to also

[43:16] limit some light pollution from the from the area. At the Crystal Oil stations,

[43:21] there is no music played or intercoms from the uh canopies. So, there is no

[43:27] noise disruption of the nearby neighborhood

[43:31] whatsoever. During the construction of the project, the city sidewalks would be

[43:36] maintained or replaced as necessary to uh to develop the driveways to the site.

[43:41] And as Manuela said, we I worked with her on

[43:45] um designing the site in a way to to uh make the sidewalk along Pickard meet the

[43:53] city streetscape uh requirements. And that would be a part of the project that

[43:58] Christoily is willing to include.

[44:02] Um, one thing that uh, Manuel and I was mistaken on my application, the uh, the

[44:09] hours of operation for the store would be from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., not not

[44:13] 12:00 a.m. And the store would never look to change their hours to 24 hours,

[44:21] uh, 24-hour openings. And then Manuela and I had spoken. I uh sent in a phase

[44:27] one phase one environmental study to her as part of the application which did

[44:31] find some contamination on the site. But as part of the process of the project,

[44:38] if it was approved here tonight, we would move into a phase 2 environmental

[44:42] study to further examine the the uh contamination on site and the site would

[44:47] be cleaned up completely as part of the uh of as part of the project. That would

[44:52] be part of their uh part of their development would be to decontaminate

[44:58] the site. And another question that was brought up regarding timeline for the

[45:03] project, they would be planning to perform the demolition on site after the

[45:08] first of this year or after the first of the year this coming winter with uh

[45:11] development of the property following that. And uh if the commission has any

[45:17] other questions for me, I'm here to answer them.

[45:22] Thank you. Uh, do any members of the planning commission have questions for

[45:26] the applicant?

[45:29] Yeah, I have one. Um, just kind of reading through everyone's, um, letters,

[45:34] I see, you know, a lot of common themes for concerns from the public. Um I guess

[45:39] in your experience um have you you may not know this, you may you may not but

[45:46] um for noise complaints I mean in your experience have these locations created

[45:52] a lot of disturbance and loud noises in the area?

[45:57] No, not in uh not in our experience with uh operating these stores and getting

[46:02] new developments up and running. Um I think that there might be uh

[46:08] concerns about that at a lot of locations and then once the stores are

[46:11] up and running it turns out that um a majority of the time there is never any

[46:16] issues as far as noise once the uh once the store is operational.

[46:22] Thank you.

[46:26] Hey an additional question. So you mentioned the existing site has or

[46:32] there's some existing contamination on the site. Um are there environmental

[46:36] plans um to mitigate any potential future contamination or emissions

[46:41] issues? So there uh there would uh future potential for uh for

[46:51] contamination is minuscule. It's almost nothing. the uh tanks they use for fuel

[46:57] storage are certified by the state of Michigan and and uh other governing

[47:04] bodies. They're doublewalled to ensure that there are no leaks. They're

[47:08] regularly maintained. So, um the risk for future contamination is

[47:14] uh next to nothing with these developments.

[47:18] Seth, would you like me to answer answer jump in and answer this question? Yes,

[47:21] sure. I have uh I have a member of Chris Doyle here also. Hi, my my name is uh my

[47:26] name is Casey. Um I'll be acting as the general contractor if this uh project

[47:30] was was to come to fur rotation. Um as far as the environmental contamination

[47:35] on the site, um our goal is to clean that site up to to the optimal state

[47:40] standards. um whatever the the the DNR and um uh the other other uh associated

[47:47] industries advise us to do once that contamination is discovered, we're fully

[47:52] equipped to follow those that protocol. Um as far as the environmental um uh

[47:57] safeguards that are in place, uh it's going to be a a double wall system. Um

[48:02] meaning double wall tanks, double wall uh spill containment underneath all

[48:07] penetrations, double wall pipe. Um it's continuously monitored. Um so no no no

[48:13] matter at at any given time uh there's sensors in the tank that are monitoring

[48:18] uh contamination levels and even if there were were a failure of the primary

[48:22] layer, it goes into the secondary layer layer and alarms go off where we're

[48:26] we're compelled to react to that. Um it's maintained. It's um it it's audited

[48:32] by by not only the state every 3 years, but we're required annually uh to go in

[48:37] and perform different different tightness test to prove that the system

[48:40] is 100% integral. So, as far as future contamination, um there there there's

[48:47] very very minimal risk that this would these systems work. They've been in

[48:51] place for the better part of 15 years. Um and uh no no not notable um uh issues

[48:57] with them. uh even uh uh states have adopted those regulations and forced uh

[49:03] operators to convert over to these things uh with new development and

[49:06] existing developments. So it's a very very safe system. Uh in addition to

[49:10] that, the storm water uh if there's any type of surface spills, there's going to

[49:14] be a secondary leak. Uh it's going to have a oil water separator installed.

[49:18] That oil oil water separator is going to make sure that none of that

[49:20] contamination enters um the uh you know the groundwater or the uh or the earth.

[49:27] So, um I think as far as an environmental p uh uh perspective, I

[49:32] think it's going to better the site and safeguard the community in the future.

[49:36] Thank you, Casey. Could you for the record please state your full name? Uh

[49:40] my name is Casey Atanis. Thank you.

[49:46] That brought up another question that I have. Um you had mentioned before that

[49:49] you've done some environmental testing already at the site and there's you

[49:53] found contaminants. Can you tell us what those were?

[49:57] I don't have the exact contaminants uh in front of me at the moment. It was

[50:01] done as part of a phase one environmental study. We enlisted Mina

[50:05] Environmental out of uh Paskki to perform those. I believe there was there

[50:11] uh the previous use of this was like a hardware store for the oil the oil uh

[50:17] field equipment from the oil fields in Mount Pleasant. Um,

[50:22] and the current owner believes that there were some spills there at some

[50:28] point during uh when when it was in use as that hardware store and maintenance

[50:32] shop. Um, as part as part of the project moving forward, a phase 2 environmental

[50:39] study would be done to further flesh out what those contaminants actually are.

[50:44] Okay. Thank you.

[50:48] Any further questions for the applicant? Okay, seeing none, I will now open up

[50:56] public comment for comments related to this proposal. Um and just as a friendly

[51:02] reminder, um we welcome our our community to come up and come to the

[51:08] podium to please speak your full name um and your address and that there is a

[51:14] limit for one speaking time uh per proposal and a limit of a maximum of

[51:20] five minutes. Um and just for our understanding of how the public speaking

[51:26] works is that we are we very much do want to hear your um you know your

[51:33] thoughts and your concerns and your um you know your think your interest in

[51:38] this project. Um but please understand that this is un this is not a um

[51:43] dialogue that we will hear you but we will not be commenting or answering

[51:48] questions. Okay. Okay.

[51:55] Hello, my name's Alicia Horman. I live at 113 East Palmer Street with my mother

[51:59] and my brother. Uh, so I have a lot of concerns about this going up right

[52:05] there, living there my whole life. This is the only place I know. I have grown

[52:09] up in Mount Pleasant my whole life at 113 East Palmer Street and I have always

[52:14] seen that building vacant and I've always wished something to go into it,

[52:18] but I'm really concerned with it being a gas station with knowing the area even

[52:23] though we are adjacent to a police station, all that. I have had many

[52:28] friends who have gotten in severe trouble around that area. I'm not sure

[52:31] if a gas station coming helps that out. As long as uh bringing in the gas and

[52:38] the convenience and the food, I don't believe we need that. Down the road

[52:41] there is a sitco, there's a meer gas station, and right there there's the

[52:45] empty keg. So, I would love love love to see something go right there, but I am

[52:52] not interested in seeing a gas station go there. I live with a deaf dog who I'm

[52:57] very concerned about something happening to. I have black cats or stigmas. I have

[53:01] a lot of animals. We have a lot of family. And with the destruction of the

[53:06] building, I'm concerned of how that'll affect my house. The property lines are

[53:11] very close between each other. When you see on the sketches and you look at the

[53:15] pavement, that is this close to my house. So, I'm concerned for the parking

[53:21] with my cars. We have three cars in that driveway and we all fit in our own

[53:24] driveway. But if there's semiis going through, there's already that tire shop

[53:28] that's down the road. The semiis down. How am I going to be able to access the

[53:32] road to go to my house? Or even when it's being built, how can I access my

[53:36] house and go inside?

[53:40] That's all. Thank you. Thank you.

[53:46] My name is Carol Horman. Um I live at 113 Palmer. I'm going to keep it short.

[53:52] My daughter pretty much got it to the point. We are not looking forward to a

[53:56] gas station there. We would love to see some improvement there. That'd be great,

[54:01] but um a gas station I think is just going to bring all sorts of stuff to the

[54:07] neighborhood that we don't need. Thank you. Thank you.

[54:14] I have three additional. Okay. Um, if you'd like to bring them

[54:19] over to our our staff.

[54:28] My name is True Mashinski and I live at 721 North Fans. I am on the corner of

[54:37] Palmer and Fans. I'm very

[54:41] concerned. Our area is the old north end. It's

[54:47] historic. Palmer Street has always protected the outline of the city of the

[54:56] old north end. Main Street also up to Mission and

[55:02] Broadway. I'm concerned about traffic. When Mission and Pickard were having

[55:08] their corners redone, we ended up with a taste of the influx of people using our

[55:17] street as a service drive, semis included, to get to where

[55:23] they needed to be. And it was

[55:29] congested. It was noisy. There was additional litter.

[55:35] We do not need a gas station. I realize something needs to be done with the old

[55:41] trains building, but something other than a gas

[55:47] station. We the area that we live in, they're starter

[55:53] homes. Palmer Street, Bennett Street, as I walked to

[55:59] talk to my neighbors, and we do know our neighbors. It's not a neighborhood that

[56:05] you go into and you don't know who lives around you. I'm fortunate to live in an

[56:13] area where we know the block or the block across the street and we're there

[56:19] for each other. In the neighborhood on Palmer and

[56:24] Bennett, we had four new families that moved in, young married

[56:32] people. They've had their first child. Um, these four people individually on

[56:39] between uh Bennett and uh Palmer, three-month-old kids, four

[56:46] month, six month, they're happy to be in the neighborhood. We have a very very

[56:53] quiet neighborhood. The old adage of saying

[56:57] the streets roll up 9:00 our neighborhood is quiet. There's you have

[57:04] kids that might be riding their bikes. You have neighbors that are walking

[57:09] their dogs. People stop and talk to one another. Um you meet new people. It's

[57:16] the same. We we recognize our neighbors. So, a gas

[57:21] station would be detrimental to our neighborhood because when Palmer Street

[57:29] will get all that extra traffic, what will happen is then Bennett will be the

[57:34] street that has to hold the old north end. And then when more more

[57:42] commercialism comes through, then where does it stop? and you're going to lose

[57:48] really decent homeowners that they're affordable homes. They're smaller homes

[57:55] and these are starter families and they want to be in the neighborhood and I ask

[58:01] each and every one of you to I don't mean to drive by and look at the old

[58:06] trains corner. We're aware that train's corner has protected our neighborhood.

[58:14] We realized you do need to put something there, but it needs to be something that

[58:19] is low impact. the

[58:25] um we you just my question is and I know you can't answer me but I know you drive

[58:34] but walk through our neighborhood walk down all the way down

[58:42] to Kenny school on Palmer Street meet the neighbors do Bennett do fans Lancing

[58:49] Franklin University these are people that take pride in their homes. We have

[58:56] landlords that are there that make affordable housing for

[59:02] people. They take care of their yards. So, please reconsider what you're

[59:10] doing. Thank you. Thank you.

[59:20] I'm not sure where I'm supposed to face. Um, I'm Kathleen Martin and I live at

[59:25] 401 East Palmer Street, three blocks from the post office, three blocks from

[59:30] the building. Um, I just learned about this whole development plan two days

[59:38] ago. I'm horrified. If id have had a little bit more time, I could have

[59:43] prepared something just a little bit more coherent. But this is a quiet

[59:49] neighborhood. If you think that it's not going to destroy the old north end by

[59:54] putting in a gas station and convenience store, you are delusional. There will be

[59:59] a whole lot more traffic going by. We have plenty already on Pickard. We don't

[1:00:04] need more on Palmer. We've got young children that just pop out in the middle

[1:00:08] of the street. I mean, they're kids. that's what they do. But um the foot

[1:00:12] traffic that will be increased by having a convenience store there is going to

[1:00:17] increase. We already have trash thrown in our yards all the time. Every every

[1:00:22] week, sometimes daily, I have to go out and pick up cans or slushy uh cups. It

[1:00:27] It's ridiculous. But it's going to be way worse if they are going for a a a

[1:00:33] convenience store. Um, it also means that there'll be more foot traffic of

[1:00:38] uh kids that probably shouldn't be in the neighborhood wandering. We have

[1:00:44] enough problem with that as it is. Um, you're not going to put in a a a speaker

[1:00:49] for for music. That's lovely. Do you think that these uh cars that go through

[1:00:55] aren't going to have their music on? It'll be loud. The neighborhood will be

[1:00:59] disturbed. It's already loud when the motorcycles go down Palmer Street with

[1:01:04] their music blasting. They travel, it's 25 miles an hour. They travel through

[1:01:11] there at at least 40, if not faster, from fans, making it all the way to Main

[1:01:17] Street. They don't even look at the yield signs. Somebody's going to get

[1:01:21] killed. And if there's more traffic, the chances of that is increasing. Yes, that

[1:01:26] building's been an eyesore. It has been neglected. that hasn't been maintained

[1:01:30] or taken care of. But a gas station is not the answer. We have seven gas

[1:01:36] stations within a half mile on the corners. It'll put the empty keg out of

[1:01:41] business. There's no way. There's a business that has been there a long

[1:01:47] time. It's not right. If you want a good spot to put in a gas station, go down to

[1:01:52] Lincoln and Picker. There's a there's an empty lot down there that might be

[1:01:58] better suited. We do not absolutely do not need a gas station at that corner.

[1:02:03] It's a bad idea. And I don't know why the neighbors weren't notified about

[1:02:09] this. You indicated that uh the neighbors had letters sent out. No, they

[1:02:14] didn't. Absolutely not. So, bravo for keeping this a well-kept secret. I am

[1:02:20] appalled.

[1:02:28] Hi, my name is Norma Bailey. I live at 222 East Andre. So, I don't live on

[1:02:33] Palmer, but when I heard about it, I felt I wanted to speak my mind also

[1:02:37] because I walk those neighborhoods. I'm an older person with a dog. I walk those

[1:02:42] constantly, morning, afternoon, evenings. See lots of kids, see lots of

[1:02:47] dogs, see lots of people. I stop and talk. I heard that this was going to be

[1:02:51] an entryway entering into the downtown off of Pickard down to Main Street. That

[1:02:57] makes no sense to me whatsoever. People can gas up down at the sitcom. They can

[1:03:02] gas up down at the uh speedway, but I just don't understand why that decision,

[1:03:08] even though I understand that that's an eyesore. I walk by the eyesore for 25

[1:03:12] years and keep on saying I wish somebody would do something with that but I don't

[1:03:16] think that a gas station is the right answer because of all the things that

[1:03:20] these people have said will occur. So thank you for your

[1:03:34] time. Good evening. I'm John Dquilla. I live at 219 Bennett. It's about two

[1:03:41] blocks from the proposed site of the Chris Grass station. Uh like some of my

[1:03:46] neighbors have said, I heard nothing about this till 3 days ago. I don't

[1:03:50] know. Um you know, well, contacting the local community about some kind of

[1:03:57] development like this. Baloney. That's all I can I can say about that. I have

[1:04:01] no time to really prepare for this. I could prepare for this a lot better.

[1:04:05] lot, you know, and

[1:04:08] sound more concise than you have and you. As for oil separation from

[1:04:17] non-point runoff pollution that this station will

[1:04:21] have, it has been proven that benzene contamination is going to continue to go

[1:04:27] into the ground soil. Do you even know what

[1:04:31] nonpoint water pollution is? runoff, water

[1:04:34] pollution. I have a bachelor of science degree in national science with um uh

[1:04:40] resource development. I'm also a registered nurse, been working with uh

[1:04:43] in human health for 40

[1:04:48] years. Like I said, I wish I had a lot more time to this. Let's talk about some

[1:04:52] of these problems. I reading about uh special usage conditions. they're

[1:04:56] talking about as long as the surrounding uh uh usage within 300 ft of the

[1:05:04] proposed site is not anything past that is not going is um I guess just not

[1:05:10] considered. You know 300 ft past the end of the property. Uh as long as

[1:05:16] um you know it's not going to upset the neighborhood uh then it's it's going to

[1:05:21] be fine. Well, the neighborhood goes a lot further than 300 ft. There's things

[1:05:25] here that you talk about that are in the proposal that you know are not limited

[1:05:31] by 300 feet, 600 ft, 6,000 ft. The noise, we've talked about the noise

[1:05:39] already. Uh the I don't think the police department you will uh um uh reinforces

[1:05:46] noise ordinances in this town. It's it's insane the the the loud noises we have

[1:05:52] in this neighborhood. is a beautiful neighborhood. My house, the original

[1:05:56] part of my house was built in

[1:06:00] 1868 and there's beautiful homes in this neighborhood and it's a family

[1:06:04] neighborhood and there's children out. Now, you say, "Well, this gas station's

[1:06:08] going to be, you know, up in that corner and it's going to be out of sight and

[1:06:11] and the light, you talked about the lights. There's a lot more to it. The

[1:06:15] odors, the hydrocarbons that are escape constantly when anyone comes in and

[1:06:21] fills up their cars. I talked to you about the benzene pollution which is not

[1:06:25] going to be controlled by your oil separation system.

[1:06:30] Uh the uh transient traffic is ridiculous. Motorcycles, loud trucks,

[1:06:37] people who aren't from the neighborhood. We don't need

[1:06:41] that. Now the corner is needs maybe some development though. I see that ivory,

[1:06:47] you know, the ivy on the side of the building that is stands there and I see

[1:06:50] that as a nice cushion just like like TR was saying, it's a nice buffer on that

[1:06:56] corner for our neighborhood. And that part of Pickard is not that developed

[1:07:02] that it it is actually really quite nice compared to heading east on Pickard,

[1:07:07] which looks horrid. Or how about Mission? You want an ugly gas station

[1:07:11] like this and this odious gas station. I I saw the one that was built out Pickard

[1:07:17] east on Pickard and you got more concrete there than

[1:07:21] a than a football field and it you know we don't need that here. You want that?

[1:07:28] Put that crap down on mission south on mission where that horrible sprawl is.

[1:07:34] What do you want Mount Pleasant to look like? Some kind of ugly, you know,

[1:07:40] suburb of Flint or something? You got these beautiful old neighborhoods, these

[1:07:44] Victorian homes. You got these um uh family areas. This We don't We really

[1:07:51] don't need What do you want? A a 18th 18th gas station in this

[1:07:57] town. I'm Yeah, I'm kind of upset about this. I really am. To the point that if

[1:08:03] this continues, I'm going to start protesting. You start protesting at the

[1:08:06] construction site. put together the community and we'll we'll close this

[1:08:11] down if the city commissions don't think they already got the guts to do it.

[1:08:19] Thank you. Oh, and this is a 65th letter of opposition. Who would like it?

[1:08:35] Hi, my name is Brenda Dazilski. I live at 722 North Lancine and the side street

[1:08:40] is Palmer. I'm here to tell you it took me three years to get a flag at that

[1:08:44] intersection because people would run it every day. And somebody's going to get

[1:08:49] smugg and you add more traffic, it's horrendous. I'm here to tell you I moved

[1:08:54] here from Traverse City to work at the state home. It was a quiet town and when

[1:08:59] I go home to Travers and see all the changes that are made all the time, it's

[1:09:03] not fun. It's not pretty. And that's what this is making me think of. If

[1:09:07] that's the gateway to downtown, then put a statue or a monument saying, "Welcome

[1:09:11] to Mount Pleasant. Why do we need a gas station?" As far as I'm concerned, it's

[1:09:16] a holy mess. And I moved down here and I enjoyed it. But if that comes in, I'm

[1:09:20] seriously thinking about moving and I will go back

[1:09:23] home. That's all I have to say. We just don't need it in our neighborhood.

[1:09:42] Hello, my name is Chris Wendelhurst again at 110 West Michigan. Um, I just

[1:09:47] uh I guess have a little bit differing take on it and um would like to speak in

[1:09:52] support of the project. Um, I've seen that eyesore of a site there for decades

[1:09:59] um, living in this community and I guess I just want to caution that I don't

[1:10:03] think that um, there's a whole long list of lineup of better opportunities

[1:10:08] coming. Um, and I commend the staff's efforts on producing a project that um,

[1:10:16] not only meets but exceeds the uh, standards required in our community.

[1:10:21] Thank you.

[1:10:29] Okay.

[1:10:40] Um, my name is Dan Herrera, 113 East Bennett Street. I've lived there for

[1:10:47] going on 10 years. And uh I live right on the corner of

[1:10:52] Bennett University and there's a lot of people that walk their dogs and walk

[1:10:57] their kids and carriages and stuff like that. People running up and down Bennett

[1:11:01] Street and University. There's people that come from this courthouse that

[1:11:06] takes walks down university because I see them every day. They walk down the

[1:11:10] street all the way to Pigger and back. And with traffic going through there,

[1:11:15] it's gonna be hard for anyone to be going out for walks and running and

[1:11:19] walking a dog and their kids and stuff. So, and I do the same thing there, too.

[1:11:25] I walk around the block and stuff like that, you know. But, uh, I just want to

[1:11:30] say just I'm opposed to having a gas station there cuz it's going to congest

[1:11:35] the area because you got the mailbox, the mail post office right there. And

[1:11:40] that's going to be a congested area right there going into Pickard and

[1:11:44] Maine. How that road is not going to be big enough for all the traffic going

[1:11:48] into the gas station and coming out on Main Street. So they'll start cutting

[1:11:53] through the neighborhoods. So I really don't think

[1:11:57] that's a good idea to put a gas station there. Thank you.

[1:12:13] Okay, seeing no further um public Oh,

[1:12:21] my name's Chloe Mercer and I used to live in the north district at anyway my

[1:12:25] current address is in Bammer Woods, 1840 Woodland Drive. I also own a piece of

[1:12:29] land out on the Chipua. No one's really thought about the impact that this is

[1:12:32] going to have on the Chipua River. It's going to be the closest gas station to

[1:12:35] the Chipoa of any of the others in town. The ramifications that that could have,

[1:12:40] there's a lot of children that play in the chip island parks right down the

[1:12:43] road. I guess I would just encourage all of you to think about the environmental

[1:12:47] impact it might have not only on the direct buildings and things like that,

[1:12:50] but the people that live here, the kids that play in that water, the kids that

[1:12:53] are, you know, floating down the river in the summer, canoeing with their

[1:12:57] parents, fishing, all these things that are going to definitely be impacted.

[1:13:00] Having something that close to a major source like that is just something that

[1:13:04] I think deserves a little more consideration than 20 minutes of

[1:13:06] anyone's time.

[1:13:16] Thanks. And no one else here in person. Are there any anyone from the public

[1:13:21] online? I don't see anyone online with the hand raise feature nor on email.

[1:13:29] Thank you. I will close public comment and open discussion. And as we enter

[1:13:34] into this discussion time, I just want to do a friendly reminder of um that I'm

[1:13:41] very thankful and I think we all are very thankful for our public to our

[1:13:45] community to um make your voices heard and share your your thoughts and your

[1:13:51] concerns of support and opposition and just um and letting us know how how you

[1:13:57] feel about this project. Um but and that being said, I do want to do a friendly

[1:14:02] reminder also with our commission that as we are moving into discussion that um

[1:14:07] per state law, our job as the planning commission is to make sure that we are

[1:14:11] making our decision on um whether this proposal does or does not meet

[1:14:18] compliance and our decision is not based on our personal opinions.

[1:14:26] So with that to understand um with that understanding um

[1:14:32] we'll open discussion.

[1:14:38] I will want to say that that corner uh man picker should be a prime corn uh

[1:14:44] corner uh but nobody has touched it for 25 years. It's been an economic

[1:14:48] wasteland for 25 years. I so badly want to vote for us for this. But 65 to

[1:14:55] nothing, that's hard to argue with myself. I'm going to vote

[1:14:59] no. But the people should realize they might be stuck with that corner empty

[1:15:03] for another 25

[1:15:12] years. Can I ask a question, a follow-up question that popped in my head as I was

[1:15:18] listening to people? Um, I understand the reason for meeting

[1:15:22] the one-way exit on Palmer is there, but it's primarily supposed to be for the

[1:15:28] like trucks, I'm assuming delivery trucks. Could there be like a gate put

[1:15:33] there that with like an electronic opening so that the only time that exit

[1:15:38] on a Palmer would be for um

[1:15:43] trucks? Is that is there further anything else that we can do or that

[1:15:48] could be done to mitigate that effect on Palmer that traffic

[1:15:53] effect? So yeah, so we did ask the applicant to do a right turn only. So

[1:15:59] basically would have to exit out of Palmer and then go to Main Street and

[1:16:04] then take the signal to go east or west of town. Um or obviously you can go

[1:16:08] north south of Maine. Um the the only thing I can think of um to make sure

[1:16:16] that folks comply with that right turn is to really design that opening in a

[1:16:22] way that does not allow a left turn. Um but the applicant is already committed

[1:16:28] to put signage. Uh it, you know, not a way in, it's only way out and it's only

[1:16:34] right turn. But I I haven't seen any projects with gates or anything like

[1:16:40] that. Yeah. Thank you.

[1:16:46] I'm thinking about I'm leaning towards voting yes for this for three big

[1:16:50] reasons. It um it meets the standards. It's a development of an area

[1:16:56] that's of a parcel that's been undeveloped. And I'm concerned that

[1:17:02] anytime we have a development project now, we have huge amounts of people

[1:17:07] coming from in or outside of that neighborhood to object to something and

[1:17:11] now we're going to be shutting down development opportunities. I don't want

[1:17:15] to get to the point where we now are in the habit of of just shutting everything

[1:17:21] down that meet standards that meet the requirements that we've set forth in our

[1:17:27] plans and in our discussions as a community. So, I'd like to hear if other

[1:17:34] people have comments adjacent to that. Yeah, I'd like to echo that sentiment. I

[1:17:40] I do appreciate everyone's cander here today. Obviously, we had a lot of uh I

[1:17:45] mean, I could tell this is a tight-knit community. I mean, 60some letters in

[1:17:49] opposition. Um, and I appreciate everyone's time over here, but I mean,

[1:17:53] this does meet the criteria. Um, I understand everyone's concerns. Um, but

[1:18:00] I believe the engineers and everyone involved will make sure that, you know,

[1:18:05] hopefully we'll quell these concerns and there will be no accidents and noise

[1:18:09] complaints. And so that is why I'm going to vote yes on this.

[1:18:14] Thank you.

[1:18:17] Okay. Would anybody like to make a motion?

[1:18:27] Move to approve SUP-25-09 and

[1:18:33] SPR-25-05 subject to the following conditions. One, the applicant shall

[1:18:37] submit a, a revised site plan with final sidewalk layout approved by the city

[1:18:42] engineering department. B, a revised landscaping plan showing four trees

[1:18:48] within the front lot laying along Palmer Street and another two trees within the

[1:18:54] front lot laying along Main Street. C. A revised phototric plan. The lighting

[1:19:00] installer shall certify lighting values at or below the value shown on the final

[1:19:07] compliant plan prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the

[1:19:13] building safety department. Two, the applicant shall

[1:19:17] submit more information regarding waste management showing compliance with one

[1:19:22] of the following. A, the proposed garbage shed shall include a dumpster or

[1:19:27] rolled cart for recyclable materials, or B, space within the building shall be

[1:19:33] reserved for the storage of recyclable materials until collection by a

[1:19:38] commercial hauler. And three, the applicant shall comply with the

[1:19:42] additional requirements of building safety, public safety, and public works.

[1:19:51] Second. All those in favor? I I All opposed.

[1:19:59] Opposed. Roll call. Uh, do we need a roll call with It was two opposed.

[1:20:08] Okay. Yes, please. Okay. Will you please call a roll call vote?

[1:20:17] Commissioner Dei, I. Commissioner Farley, I. Commissioner Frederick I

[1:20:22] Havvel's hi Irwin nay nay Kingsworthy I Leash absent Martinez nay Ortman

[1:20:35] I motion passes motion pass. Thank you. Okay.

[1:20:42] Yes. Yes. civil discon.

[1:20:49] The next item on our agenda is public hearing for

[1:20:55] Z2501. It's a request to reszone the properties for CD4, a general urban

[1:21:00] character district to CD5 urban center character district. Miss Pediko, if you

[1:21:07] could please introduce the item. Yes, if Mac TV could put the PowerPoint on the

[1:21:12] screen and then I'll start. Thank you so

[1:21:20] much. The applicant new the applicant new yellow Marty on behalf of Great

[1:21:26] Lakes Bay Properties LLC is applying for reszoning from city 4 general urban

[1:21:31] character district to city 5 urban center character district for the two

[1:21:35] parcels located at 221 West Michigan. The parcels are currently vacant.

[1:21:41] Previously, there was a building that was used by a beauty shop and a resale

[1:21:45] sporting goods store. If the resoning is approved, the applicant plans to build a

[1:21:50] mixeduse building with space for office and retail uses on the ground floor and

[1:21:55] four stories of residential uses on top with approximately 16 dwelling

[1:22:00] units. This is a image of the site's location. The land uses and zone in the

[1:22:06] surrounding property as are as follows on the slide. On the north, we have a

[1:22:10] vacant building. On the east side, we have a vacant building.

[1:22:16] owner uses for storage. On the south side, there is a single family home and

[1:22:21] on the west side a multiple family building. The future land use

[1:22:25] designation for the whole area is mixed use sorry on the north side is mixed use

[1:22:30] high and then the surrounding sites are mixeduse medium. The zoning is city5 for

[1:22:36] the north side and with the residential dwelling unit restriction and city 4 for

[1:22:41] the surrounding sites. The subject properties viewed from the corner of

[1:22:45] Michigan and Pi looking southwest. Uh you can see how we have streetscape and

[1:22:51] it's a vacant parcel and you can see the building that's vacant sitting right

[1:22:55] behind the vacant parcel. And here the subject property is

[1:23:00] viewed from West Michigan looking south west to the alleyway. The alleyway is

[1:23:05] currently not paved. It's gravel and you can see here what it looks like today.

[1:23:12] So, regarding the resoning designation, um we can see here how it's currently

[1:23:17] zoned CD4. City4 limits development to no more than two stories and it allows

[1:23:22] for mixeduse developments, residential or commercial only developments. And

[1:23:27] then the reasoning request is to do CD5 and allow the building to go up to five

[1:23:34] stories um similar to Broadway lofts that you see here next to city hall.

[1:23:41] So this is the reasonzoning map proposal. So you can see a little bit

[1:23:45] more regarding the adjacency of the surrounding sites and zoning

[1:23:50] designations. So city5 would be at the corner of Michigan and Pine and across

[1:23:54] the street is where we have other CD5

[1:23:59] designations. So any reasonzoning must meet criteria for the map amendment

[1:24:04] that's being proposed. So these are the criteria that the applicant has provided

[1:24:08] answers to. Um and then I read the criteria and then based on the responses

[1:24:14] of the applicant I do see that the applicant is consistent with the list of

[1:24:19] criteria in the zoning ordinance. And these are the other ones

[1:24:24] that are uh noted here. And as you can see, the planning commission or city

[1:24:29] commission um subsequent to the planning commission review could have other

[1:24:33] factors that they would like the applicant to tackle as part of the

[1:24:38] application. So we placed none at this time since it's under review right

[1:24:44] now. Regarding the master plan, this is the document that guides us through any

[1:24:49] reasonzoning request. Basically, the way it works is if any applicant calls city

[1:24:54] staff and proposes a reasonzoning that's inconsistent with the master plan, I

[1:24:59] tend to say that we are not going to support it because it's likely going to

[1:25:04] get a denial. When we do have applicants that proposed a reasonzoning that is in

[1:25:08] alignment with the master plan, that's when I take the project forward to the

[1:25:12] planning commission and make sure that the applicant has a complete application

[1:25:16] to support the application. So in this case the master plan calls for those

[1:25:21] sites um as mixeduse medium designation under book one sustainable land use. You

[1:25:28] can see how the future land use map gets assigned specific zoning districts for

[1:25:33] mixed use medium. So you know that all mixed use designated areas are split

[1:25:37] into low, medium intensity and high intensity. For medium intensity we do

[1:25:42] have the option to have city 4 or city 5 as its zoning designation.

[1:25:48] on book three focus redevelopment. We have further goals that I thought were

[1:25:53] in um related to this case. So the first one is regarding focusing our efforts to

[1:25:59] reduce the vacancy and utilization of properties in downtown Pleasant where we

[1:26:05] have obviously a lot of infrastructure that's already built. It's centrally

[1:26:08] located and easy access of residents and the broader community. It also uh asked

[1:26:14] that we focus on downtown success and growth by increasing the number of

[1:26:18] people living and visiting downtown which this project uh proposal to add

[1:26:23] more stories on the mixeduse building is only going to be able to have uh an

[1:26:28] increase in residential units and therefore residents in downtown

[1:26:31] Pleasant. As I mentioned, City4 limits developed to two stories. So City 5

[1:26:35] would allow the city to better achieve its

[1:26:39] goals. So through the analysis staff finds the proposed conditions are

[1:26:43] consistent with the character of the area and with the future land use

[1:26:46] identified in the master plan. First, the new mixeduse building will help

[1:26:50] activate this portion of downtown that has not seen much investment within its

[1:26:54] surrounding blocks. Two, the residential units will add much neededed housing in

[1:26:59] downtown particularly to those seeking smaller units in a more urban walkable

[1:27:04] setting. So those could be senior single person households which we're seeing an

[1:27:08] increase. It's a trend not just here in Mount Pleasant but everywhere in the

[1:27:12] nation. And then as well as graduate students who I've been hearing a lot

[1:27:16] from uh CMU and uh the other colleges, they tend to not want to live in

[1:27:22] apartments with other students. They tend to have and want a quiet space. Uh

[1:27:27] some of them have families too. So this could be a good option especially for

[1:27:30] those who do not own a vehicle. Residents will contribute to the local

[1:27:34] economy bringing more clients to existing businesses.

[1:27:38] and new retail and office spaces that will be provided as part of the mixeduse

[1:27:42] building will help offer opportunities to existing businesses to expand,

[1:27:47] relocate, and would also provide options for new retail owners and service

[1:27:51] providers to locate within downtown if they choose to do so. So with the

[1:27:55] findings and analysis in the report that was shared with the planning commission

[1:28:00] staff recommends that the planning commission recommends that the city

[1:28:04] commission approves Z-25-1. And this is a image of the

[1:28:10] proposed ordinance that goes together with the reszoning application. That

[1:28:14] concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Do any members of the

[1:28:19] planning commission have questions for Miss Paulo?

[1:28:25] Okay, seeing none. If the applicant is here, would you and you would like to

[1:28:31] speak? Thank you. Please state your name and your address. Sure. Hi everyone. My

[1:28:36] name is Neil Yalamari. Um I'm based in Sagena, Michigan, 3766 Nugget Creek. I'm

[1:28:42] the developer and owner of this project. I'll keep it quick, but um been working

[1:28:46] on this concept with Manuela and her staff for the past couple months and

[1:28:49] very excited about it. Um, I think this has the opportunity to fill a lot of the

[1:28:54] housing needs, commercial needs downtown and just serve the broader purpose of,

[1:28:58] you know, helping bring more economic activity and revitalization to the area.

[1:29:04] Um, my manual has my contact information if anyone needs to reach out to me. I'm

[1:29:08] more than happy to chat about this project. Thank you. Thank you. Um, do

[1:29:13] any members have of the planning commission have any questions for the

[1:29:16] applicant?

[1:29:20] Okay, seeing none. Thank you. Um, I will now open public comment for any comments

[1:29:27] related to this case.

[1:29:35] Um, not to bother you guys with all your all my time here, but um, please restate

[1:29:40] your name. My name is Rich Hurst at 110 West Michigan. Um, I also own the uh

[1:29:45] neighboring property to the north and um would like to speak in support of this

[1:29:50] project. Um, it's been a vacant lot for quite some time and uh the proposed

[1:29:55] plans similar to the uh building just west of here I think would be fabulous

[1:30:00] to be added to our downtown neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:30:09] Um I don't see any more people from the audience um in person. Any Is there

[1:30:16] anyone online? No one is online. Thank you. I will close public comment and

[1:30:22] open discussion.

[1:30:25] I move to recommend that the city commission approve Z2501.

[1:30:30] Second. All those in favor? I all opposed. Motion

[1:30:38] passes. Next item on our agenda is public hearing for

[1:30:44] Z2502. A request to reszone the property uh from CD3 a ser a sub urban character

[1:30:52] district to CD4 general urban characteristic with residential dwelling

[1:30:57] use only designation. Miss Paviko, if you could please present.

[1:31:02] The applicant Scott Ebell on behalf of Laughen Associates is applying for

[1:31:06] reszoning from CD3 suburban Character District to city for General Urban

[1:31:10] Character District with the residential dwelling use only. A special requirement

[1:31:15] for the parcel located at 11:04 East Chipa Street. And just to clarify and

[1:31:20] pause, it's the proposal is not to allow commercial uses on this parcel. Um I

[1:31:26] noticed that some of the communications uh referred to that. So this will be a

[1:31:30] residential only resoning. The current use for the

[1:31:35] property is a single family residence. If the resoning is approved, the

[1:31:40] applicant will be proposing to demolish the house and build a development

[1:31:44] similar to Palmer Place with multiple forplexes on the

[1:31:48] property. So the land uses and zoning of the surrounding premises are as follows.

[1:31:54] As you can see here, the whole uh area is zone CD3 suburban character district

[1:32:00] and the light yellow on the east side is a large suburban character district

[1:32:06] CD3L. On the north uh of the prop property, you have a forplex and a

[1:32:11] single family home. On the east, there is an office, Central Michigan Care. On

[1:32:17] the south, multiple family complex and a single family house. And then onto the

[1:32:22] west a house and an accessory dwelling unit. And the future land use

[1:32:27] designation on the north is residential. And then both east, south and west or

[1:32:33] basically this whole block where the site is

[1:32:37] located. Um and the again the master plan flags it for um missing middle

[1:32:42] housing development. So the city for resoning is consistent with the master

[1:32:46] plan. Regarding the resoning designation, as you know, right now we

[1:32:51] have the parcels on city 3 suburban character district, which basically

[1:32:55] allows for single family homes and then uh duplexes or accessory dwelling units

[1:33:01] pursuant to a special use permit. When mentioning the surrounding uh uses of

[1:33:06] the site, uh there are a few triplexes, duplexes, ADUs, um some of which, you

[1:33:13] know, all of them have been built prior to the ordinance. And so there are some

[1:33:18] that are existing non-conforming structures today. The reasoning to city

[1:33:23] 4 will continue to be limited to residential due to the special

[1:33:27] requirement that's also being proposed. And the change is into the residential

[1:33:33] typologies that can be built. So aside from residential, you could do duplexes

[1:33:38] as a right, accessory dwelling units as of right, and then multiple family

[1:33:43] dwellings as a right. All of those uh are trying to reach what we call the

[1:33:48] missing middle housing typologies. So, anything between single family and

[1:33:53] multiple family buildings will be able to be built including town homes, um,

[1:33:57] forplexes, triplexes, etc. So, this is what the map looks

[1:34:03] like. The reasoning of the parcel from city 3 to city 4. While all the

[1:34:09] surrounding parcels, although flagged in a master plan for the CD4 designation,

[1:34:15] are not being proposed as part of this application because this applicant

[1:34:20] obviously can only propose a resoning on their own site. If the city would like

[1:34:25] to undertake a resoning of the whole block, that is something that would be

[1:34:28] consistent with the master plan. And another thing to mention is that it's

[1:34:33] not considered spot zoning when

[1:34:39] All

[1:34:41] right. So, regarding the criteria for map amendment, again, uh the applicant

[1:34:46] has provided uh information about each one of these criteria and it is

[1:34:53] compliant. And again, there is no additional uh requirements of the

[1:34:58] planning commission at the time of the application. Therefore, none at this

[1:35:03] time. Regarding the master plan, here you can see what the map looks like. Our

[1:35:07] future land use map that has been adopted in 2020 flag this whole block

[1:35:12] for attached residential designation in the map. So everything that you see in

[1:35:17] orange is eligible and um the future land use designation in book one

[1:35:24] sustainable land uses uh is site. Um and then we have a house. Um and then this

[1:35:31] is the the home that has you know three dwellings basically in one parcel. Um

[1:35:38] yeah and this is the parcel in in question. So this configuration of this

[1:35:43] large block with really deep long lots is very unique in Mount Pleasant and

[1:35:49] that's my indication of the reason why the consultants and the my predecessor

[1:35:56] previous city planner selected this whole block for a reasonzoning because

[1:36:00] it is a good area for infill that can actually achieve greater density than

[1:36:06] elsewhere. Uh, for example, one could not do a subdivision and include several

[1:36:13] single family homes due to both law with minimums that we have, but also

[1:36:17] subdivision laws that have a ratio requirement. You can't create a really

[1:36:22] long and skinny parcel. It's against the legislation. So, you can't add density

[1:36:28] elsewhere or in another way basically on this parcel.

[1:36:38] Okay. Uh, any further questions for Miss

[1:36:44] Pyo? Okay. At this time, does anyone have any questions for the

[1:36:52] applicant? Okay. All right.

[1:36:57] Um, now I will open for public comment for comments related to this case. If

[1:37:03] there's anyone uh from the p from the public that would like to speak, please

[1:37:08] come to the podium and speak your name and your address. And as before, we

[1:37:14] limit speaking to once per proposal and you have a 5m minute

[1:37:20] maximum. Thank you. My name is Megan Moreno. I

[1:37:25] live at 201 North Brown Street, a property that my husband and I have

[1:37:30] owned since 2007. Uh we are both lifelong residents of Mount Pleasant. Um

[1:37:37] myself essentially born and raised here through Mount Pleasant school public

[1:37:41] schools, Central Michigan University. And we have chosen to remain here and to

[1:37:46] invest our family's uh life and time here and have invested in our property

[1:37:52] which is our home and has been our home. Um I have several concerns regarding

[1:37:58] this. The first of which uh was very clear in the map that when we purchased

[1:38:03] our home, we purchased a home in a neighborhood of single f primarily

[1:38:06] single family residential homes. That's what we're surrounded by. Um there's a

[1:38:11] reason why we chose this neighborhood. There's a reason why others who continue

[1:38:16] to buy and why people remain in this neighborhood is because of the character

[1:38:20] of the neighborhood which is single largely single family homes. Um we do

[1:38:26] live on a unique block. It's very appealing. It's very nice and we would

[1:38:30] like to keep it that way. Um, additionally, the construction of a five

[1:38:37] building apartment, five buildings of apartments directly behind our property,

[1:38:43] which is to the east at the south end. So, what is currently the open green

[1:38:48] space would then be altered to uh 20 units of dwellings and 40 parking spots.

[1:38:56] No one is going to buy our house should we ever decide to move with that

[1:39:01] compared to what we have now. Um, additionally, it will affect our

[1:39:05] property value. So, both the viability of sa future sale, which we don't intend

[1:39:11] to move, but should this move forward, you know, we might have to to rethink

[1:39:16] that. Uh, and we we don't want that. It would also increase noise, increase

[1:39:21] traffic. Um, and like I said, we I I understand that there's potentially a

[1:39:28] need for housing and housing um in this capacity, but my feeling is that it's at

[1:39:34] the expense of people that have invested their lives into properties that are our

[1:39:40] homes. I took the initiative um to go around the neighborhood and yes, it was

[1:39:46] 12 property owners that signed. I did get um signatures from multiple, you

[1:39:52] know, people living in the dwelling, not single owners.

[1:39:58] Um but every person that I mentioned this to immediately said, "Oh, no. We

[1:40:04] don't want that. We don't want that." So, the entire neighborhood, I canvased

[1:40:09] Brown Street, Chipoa, and Broadway, that whole entire block. And I did not

[1:40:14] encounter one individual that was in favor of this. And I'm really kind of

[1:40:20] shocked to hear about the master plan because some people didn't feel they

[1:40:26] were notified about this request for resoning. I certainly do not feel that I

[1:40:31] knew that my entire block and my property is on the master plan to

[1:40:36] potentially be CD4. And that's a little upsetting to me. And I think we need to

[1:40:42] um maybe look at how these things are communicated. And I understand after

[1:40:48] listening to the other comments that um we have an opportunity to state our

[1:40:52] concerns, but it seems like they don't carry a lot of weight. I hope that this

[1:40:56] will because I do think while we maybe need more housing for some, we should

[1:41:01] also value the people that have made this their long-term home. This is our

[1:41:07] community and these are homes. Thank you.

[1:41:22] We survived a truly unfortunate distraction. Uh I'm Chuck Kresby. I live

[1:41:29] at the east end of that Chipoa neighborhood at 111 Russell Street.

[1:41:35] Um, it's really a delicate balance trying to build a perfect community and

[1:41:40] serve the interests of of all the constituents who live in it. And I we

[1:41:44] understand that that's a significant dilemma. The challenge we in that Chipoa

[1:41:49] community face is much as Megan communicated.

[1:41:53] We live in basically single family dwelling units and then taking for

[1:41:59] example we live in I live in and many of my neighbors live in one acre lots with

[1:42:05] one house. So to see a oneacre lot turned into a a residence for 20 people

[1:42:11] in that immediate community with again 40 parking spots dramatically changes

[1:42:16] the nature of the community. that the traffic would absolutely double on that

[1:42:20] on that street with 40 40 houses in there. So there there is a and Lord

[1:42:26] knows we appreciate the master plan and the intention of that. But one of the

[1:42:30] criteria for reszoning is that the effort be profitable for the for the

[1:42:37] people who are supporting it. And clearly there are opportunities within

[1:42:41] CD3 to turn that property into a viable profitable operation without putting 20

[1:42:49] units there, 40 parking spots and an enormous change in the nature of that

[1:42:53] community and still maintain a profitable operation for for the

[1:42:57] sponsor. So uh that is basically our concern. We believe that there's an

[1:43:02] opportunity for that program to go forward as CD3 without having to be zone

[1:43:07] CD4 and just in a much more modest fashion. And we humbly beseech you to do

[1:43:14] that. Thank you.

[1:43:27] Hello, I'm Chelsea Tenwaldi. I live at 11:05 East Chipua, which is directly

[1:43:32] across the street from 11:04. Um, something that really kind of uh hit

[1:43:38] home for me was the future of the area comment. Um, I the single residence

[1:43:43] homes that um I see a lot of my neighbors out here. Uh, I consider us to

[1:43:49] be the future of the area. Um, I bought my house in

[1:43:53] 2012. Um, didn't have any intentions on headed out anywhere. So, um I really

[1:44:00] hope that the future of the area remains uh single resident homes. Uh putting an

[1:44:06] apartment complex in like Palmer Street, Palmer Street, is that what it is?

[1:44:10] Palmer Place. I'm familiar with that area behind Wendy's Tim Hortons. Um to

[1:44:16] me, they don't look like houses. They look like apartment complexes, which if

[1:44:20] you're a Mount Pleasant resident, you're very familiar with the CMU college side

[1:44:26] of town. um that sure looks like something that belongs in the college

[1:44:30] side of town. So when you have, you know, people who have lived in these

[1:44:34] houses for years and years and have no intention on leaving, it just seems

[1:44:38] extremely out of place for the area. Um, and much like the two previous people

[1:44:43] said, um, you know, having five buildings with four units

[1:44:48] each, at least 20 people, if there's a couple people, 40 people, kids, there's

[1:44:54] one entrance and exit from that from that facility, I guess you could call

[1:44:59] it. And that one exit is directly onto Chibi Street, uh, which is literally

[1:45:05] directly from my driveway. We've always felt very safe where we are with

[1:45:10] traffic. Uh people do drive too fast, but uh it's, you know, going away from

[1:45:16] the houses. This is now going to be coming right at our house. Um so it it

[1:45:21] it just seems so so out of place to me. Um like I kind of mentioned, you have a

[1:45:27] what I think is a distinct uh you know, area of campus versus you know, old

[1:45:33] school Mount Pleasant. And this is this is definitely turning it into a very

[1:45:38] gray area and it seems very out of place. Um, one other thing that I did

[1:45:43] want to mention, um, it seems like there's some people who have talked

[1:45:46] about rental units and how traditional apartments are maybe I mean there's a

[1:45:51] ton of them here and people want to be creative about new housing. Um, this

[1:45:55] just seems like a standard apartment complex. What makes this unique? Why do

[1:46:00] we need this? um dorm capacity at CMU is down because enrollment's down at CMU.

[1:46:06] It just seems like we don't need more of the same thing, especially in the area

[1:46:10] that it's being proposed in. It's going to ruin our neighborhood. So, that's all

[1:46:16] I have to say. Thank you.

[1:46:32] Hello, my name is Patty Strong. I've been before this board in the past to

[1:46:37] protect my property. This time it's um down the street the other way. I live at

[1:46:43] 906 East Chipua Street. I was hoping Dave Lapen would be

[1:46:48] here since he's a local to see what the comments are about his proposal.

[1:46:56] I found out about this development from a Brown Street neighbor four days

[1:47:01] ago. We were floored by the size of this proposed development and not being

[1:47:07] notified. My husband Max and I have lived at 906 East Chipa Street for 45

[1:47:12] years. He's lived there his entire 74 years. I've been before this body in the

[1:47:20] past. Our homestead shares a property line with Graph Graph's Mission Street

[1:47:26] Auto dealership. I fought battles with the city to protect us from the the

[1:47:31] expansion of the Burger, then Shaheen, then Graph dealerships. Most recently,

[1:47:37] Graph was allowed to put in a significantly large multi-bay car wash

[1:47:42] facility on the north side of their building. We had to put up with many

[1:47:47] months of construction polluting our land with noise, cement dust that

[1:47:53] polluted our backyard, including our white pines and garden. And the result

[1:47:57] of the car wash addition doubled the noise and litter. I have to endure daily

[1:48:02] as I work from home. My husband Max is a third generation owner of our homestead,

[1:48:07] which originally originally was a farm on a dirt road. We live on four lots. I

[1:48:13] should mention that. Same size as uh Darcy Lapsom's property. Our East Chipua

[1:48:20] neighborhood is unique in that the south side of the street has several homes

[1:48:25] with double or quadruple lots that go south around 360 ft sharing property

[1:48:33] lines with the Broadway Street homes. There are no fences and it's a safe

[1:48:38] place to play and enjoy. We have four lots just like Darcy has.

[1:48:45] Darcy and Dave's father used to play Santa for Max and other neighborhood

[1:48:50] kids back in the 50s. We have zero apartment buildings on

[1:48:55] our street. It's a quiet neighborhood except for the pixie traffic which has

[1:49:00] lots of drivers blaring their engines and music.

[1:49:06] We still re we still predate that, but I'm I'm cool with it. The two duplexes

[1:49:14] on the north side of Chipua about halfway down the block added 8 to 10

[1:49:18] more vehicles a day, but that seemed to be

[1:49:22] a a good use of that property, which used to just have an old cement block

[1:49:27] building on it that used to be storage for pipelines or

[1:49:33] something. Our neighborhood does not need five apartment buildings on a lot

[1:49:38] the size of my property. We don't have any C4 properties on East Chipwa Street

[1:49:44] other than those on Mission Street. None. Michael and Rosemary's Gay's

[1:49:52] apartment building on the southwest corner of Brown and Chipua brick

[1:49:56] building. I had I talked to Rosemary earlier today. She's owned that building

[1:50:01] since 1974. It has three apartments. Next to it is

[1:50:06] an office building that's been a chiropractor or similar business since

[1:50:12] I've lived

[1:50:16] there. One guy where I lost my place here.

[1:50:24] Oh, one guy said earlier tonight, why have the plants Why have these plans if

[1:50:29] they're turned down projects that meet all the

[1:50:34] requirements? Well, I have an answer for that. The city planner claims we're

[1:50:39] under a rent crisis. I call bull crap. I don't care if this proposed project

[1:50:45] crosses the tees and dots the line of a master plan. I don't care if it checks

[1:50:49] all the planners boxes. Master plants don't tell you what to do. By the way, I

[1:50:56] drove by Palmer Court and Palmer Place and I was

[1:51:01] disappointed. The building sagging was moldy. I saw a broken window on one of

[1:51:06] the apartments. It's just not the same situation. Right across the street is

[1:51:12] the Pickard Street businesses. It's all commercial. Not a single residence or

[1:51:17] apartment building. Nothing like our block. Every single apartment complex

[1:51:24] has signs on it that say, quote, "This condominium for

[1:51:30] rent." The planning commission and city officials need to keep residents

[1:51:34] informed and listen to us. I don't like, you know, if it wasn't

[1:51:40] for Mrs. Mareno, I wouldn't even have known about this and I wouldn't be here.

[1:51:44] And that's wrong.

[1:51:49] You want to increase density, do it somewhere else. Addie, I want to thank

[1:51:54] you for your time. We've meet met the five minute limit. I made it all the

[1:51:59] way. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

[1:52:09] Get them.

[1:52:14] I'm Sally Rose. I live at 301 North Brown. It's the corner of Brown and

[1:52:20] Chippoa. And I too had hoped that Dave Lapam would be here tonight because I

[1:52:26] wanted to commend him in some respects. He was my landlord at one time and I

[1:52:32] found him to be very friendly, very thoughtful. Um,

[1:52:38] but I wish I'd written a letter because I like that much better than public

[1:52:43] speaking. I've lived at my home for probably 30 years and I've seen some

[1:52:48] change when the duplexes went in to replace the the really ugly kind of

[1:52:54] storage facility. But I also wanted to say that I feel like it's like two

[1:53:01] American dreams kind of at cross purposes. The American dream of owning

[1:53:06] your own home and the American dream of being an entrepreneur. And Dave Lapam is

[1:53:12] a wonderful entrepreneur. He's done a lot of good for the community. But this

[1:53:18] is one time where I think, wow. When I saw the plan for five buildings, I just

[1:53:24] was floored. I could not fathom that that would be a good use for that

[1:53:32] property. I assumed at some point something would happen to it when Darcy

[1:53:37] died because it is a wonderful big lot. But I also went to this um a friend went

[1:53:46] to the census reporter and pulled up some stats because my initial feeling

[1:53:51] was wow don't we have enough apartment buildings in Mount Pleasant. But the

[1:53:56] census report said of 13,572 units housing units that the

[1:54:05] occupancy rate was actually a little bit higher than what I anticipated. the

[1:54:10] vacancy rate. Um there are vacancies and um of those units that are

[1:54:20] occupied, 68% of them are rentals. And I'm thinking there are federal programs,

[1:54:28] or at least there used to be, for helping young

[1:54:33] families achieve that goal of owning their own home and having something that

[1:54:39] they felt like they were really investing instead of plunking all that

[1:54:43] rent money and having nothing in return. I assume there will be some kind of a

[1:54:49] compromise, but I really hope that uh five quadro, you know, fourplexes is not

[1:54:59] the solution because it really is something when people say there will be

[1:55:06] more traffic, there will be more noise. Um why do we need it right there in that

[1:55:13] specific place? it would be very easy for you to say, "Yes, it meets the

[1:55:18] criteria. Let's do it. Let's go for it." But you're not living there. And I think

[1:55:23] that's something that is really useful for you to know that um

[1:55:29] not every place is the right place for five additional units with 41 parking

[1:55:36] spots on a seemingly quiet street. If I could pick up my house and move it off

[1:55:43] of Brown Street, I would because I love my house, but Brown Street is a main

[1:55:50] thoroughfare for everyone that is smart enough not to use Mission. Um, I'm

[1:55:56] really concerned with what will happen on the other street, Chipawa Street, and

[1:56:01] I hope you take that into consideration. Thank you.

[1:56:17] Hi, I'm Rosie Gray. Um, I used to live at 913 East Broadway. In 1977, my

[1:56:26] husband and I bought our first home on Broadway Street and we lived there for

[1:56:31] 27 years before that. So, I have both spectrums of how it is to live there.

[1:56:38] Um, before that, we bought the apartment uh triplex on the corner of Broadway or

[1:56:46] Brown Street in Chipoa and we lived in the first floor of that building. That

[1:56:53] was 51 years ago. We still own it. I know what it's like to be a homeowner

[1:57:00] and a first time owner homeowner. Um, and I also know what it's like to have

[1:57:07] rental property. I have several rental

[1:57:10] properties in town. Um, my husband and I own Grace Furniture in downtown Mount

[1:57:18] Pleasant and we also have the apartment buildings.

[1:57:22] I feel so strongly about taking away that safe haven for

[1:57:30] all the people that live on Broadway, Brown Street, and Chipoa. Cuz when we

[1:57:37] lived on Broadway Street, Broadway is a very busy street and it's even worse now

[1:57:43] than it used to be. And I remember thinking, what would we do if we didn't

[1:57:49] have that back lot that was empty? We owned that back lot. We kept it up and

[1:57:55] it was our safe haven to get away from everything else that was happening. And

[1:58:01] you felt like you were almost in the country.

[1:58:05] When we lived in the apartment building, it was still the kind of the same way

[1:58:10] because we own the extra lot between Megan and our

[1:58:16] apartments. Um, and the people that live in our apartments right now love it

[1:58:21] because it's a quiet place. We keep it up and that extra lot that we own, um,

[1:58:30] we don't plan ever to build on it. We just wouldn't do that to the community.

[1:58:34] We wouldn't do that to the neighbors. That lot we've had for 51 years as well.

[1:58:40] We could have built something on it. Um, but we chose not to because it would

[1:58:47] change the whole dynamics of the neighborhood just like what they're

[1:58:54] trying to do with that property that they want to put the five buildings on.

[1:59:00] I think we'll have our first traffic jam in an apartment complex because if

[1:59:07] you're renting that to I don't know how many people would be living back there,

[1:59:13] but they would all be young families and all young families have to have a job

[1:59:18] and to try and squeeze all those cars in and out in the morning to go to to work.

[1:59:24] I just can't even imagine it. And I don't even know why anybody would want

[1:59:28] to take a perfectly great idea and stuff it full

[1:59:35] of buildings instead of letting that be a green

[1:59:39] space. Um I know that it's it's an easy well it isn't

[1:59:47] easy anymore. it used to be. I mean, 51 years of rental properties, I have a lot

[1:59:53] of experience with how things are done today because it's not like it used to

[1:59:59] be. It used to be very easy. We never had to put an ad in the paper to rent

[2:00:04] any of our properties. They always rented

[2:00:07] continually. Today, there's so many people I just wouldn't rent to because

[2:00:13] they don't take care of it. And we have had and you can check with the city

[2:00:17] inspectors or the firemen or whoever it is that comes in and

[2:00:21] inspects. Um all of our apartments have been

[2:00:26] totaled by people renting them and we had to gut every one of them and so we

[2:00:32] are just now finishing up with all the remodeling. It's a very tough business

[2:00:38] to be in and it's it's a hard business to keep track of everything and we don't

[2:00:44] own a ton of rentals anymore. Um but even the ones that we still have, it's

[2:00:52] still hard. Somebody breaks a window, they don't tell you about it, you don't

[2:00:56] know about it, starts to look bad. I make sure that I go around and tell my

[2:01:01] tenants constantly, please, if something happens, let me know right away so I can

[2:01:06] take care of it because I don't want to look bad for the neighbors either. So to

[2:01:12] put that many buildings in such a small space and take that away from the

[2:01:19] community, to have that as a safe haven, to take our green space away and and for

[2:01:26] somebody else to profit. And I I look around town and I know that there are so

[2:01:31] many apartments that are not rented. And um I don't know why we need more. I

[2:01:38] honestly don't know why we need more. It's hard for us to even rent ours. And

[2:01:43] I'm very particular now because I don't want them to wreck my buildings. I try

[2:01:48] really hard to give it to them as I wished I had it, but so many times you

[2:01:54] don't get it back that way. So, I just want to say I support the people in that

[2:02:00] community right now on Broadway, on Brown Street, and on Chipua. And I hope

[2:02:06] that before you make a decision, you really think about what if that was in

[2:02:11] your backyard? What if that was happening in your backyard? How would

[2:02:15] you feel? Think about that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:02:32] Good evening. My name is Anthony Marino. I too live at 20 North Brown Street with

[2:02:38] my wife. Um, we've lived there for 17 years. 17 years. It's a little

[2:02:46] home, but it's our home and we love it dearly. It means a lot to us. This is

[2:02:52] not just where we live. It's our community. It's our

[2:02:56] lifestyle. What this proposal is doing is taking away all of our lifestyle that

[2:03:03] we've come to love in our

[2:03:06] neighborhood. What I'm hearing a lot from the beginning of this

[2:03:11] proposal was about renters. Renters, renters. Renters come and go. What about

[2:03:17] owners, property owners of people that have enjoyed a

[2:03:22] peaceful way of life? It's quiet. It's green. It's

[2:03:30] beautiful. That lot, but she didn't show in her pictures up there. She showed the

[2:03:35] house and she showed some of the other buildings around the area. She didn't

[2:03:40] show my house. My house will go directly up to that property that would have five

[2:03:47] buildings. And let me tell you this, that whole field back there, I don't

[2:03:52] know how it would fit five buildings. If you guys can see this

[2:03:57] picture, this is a view from my house. This is that field where there'd be all

[2:04:03] this building's 40 parking spots. God knows how many cars and noise coming

[2:04:09] at all hours of the night with lights, loud

[2:04:15] noises. And this thing is to me, this is about one thing

[2:04:19] only, profit. He owns property all around town, apartments all over. This

[2:04:26] is was his brother's property. This is an opportunity for him to make even more

[2:04:32] profit at no expense to him for buying the piece of

[2:04:37] land. If you go around town and you look at some of the other properties he owns,

[2:04:42] they're not very well kept. I don't want to see that in my

[2:04:47] backyard. I don't think any of my other neighbors want to see that. I look at

[2:04:53] Sally. I see her all the time out working with her flowers in her garden

[2:04:58] on Chipela Street. Sometimes she gets pretty close

[2:05:01] to the road. That could be very dangerous for

[2:05:05] her. People that rent these kind of places, they don't pay attention. They

[2:05:11] don't really even care about who lives around

[2:05:14] them. But us owners, we care greatly about our lifestyle and our peace of

[2:05:22] mind.

[2:05:26] just I really hope and pray that that doesn't get taken away from us because

[2:05:32] it would be a shameful shameful thing to do. Thank you.

[2:05:42] [Music]

[2:05:51] My name is Sue Yoder. I live at 10001 East to Andre and my concern is I work

[2:05:56] at Poland Elementary School and if you but an apartment complex there there's a

[2:06:02] lot of kids who walk to Poland and they will be affected by that traffic. Plus

[2:06:06] there will be families moving there who will come to Poland and right now Poland

[2:06:10] is bursting as it seems. We cannot hold anymore. We are the largest. We have the

[2:06:15] most population at of elementary schools in Mount Pleasant. We are have 75 more

[2:06:21] than the next one closest to us. If you have families come in and they bring

[2:06:25] their fa and they bring their kids and they have to send them to our school. I

[2:06:29] don't know where we could put them. We'd have we don't have the room and we don't

[2:06:32] have really have enough staff that we'd have to hire more people which we

[2:06:35] probably couldn't do right now. So, and that like that's one problem people have

[2:06:39] not looked at is how it would affect the school that is one block away. And I see

[2:06:43] kids walking to school. I drive to school. I go down there. I see the kids

[2:06:46] walking every day and all that traffic is going to affect them and these are

[2:06:50] kids who only go up to second grade. So, they're going to be affected by this.

[2:06:55] The school will be affected by this. And I just wanted to bring that because no

[2:06:59] one brought that to anybody's attention that that's something that could be

[2:07:01] affected. Thank you.

[2:07:17] Good evening. My name is Scott Bell. I'm the applicant. Um I didn't feel a need

[2:07:21] to step up here before. And while it did a wonderful job of presenting the

[2:07:26] argument, um our our intent with this property was to provide housing for that

[2:07:33] missing middle. Um there's plenty of student housing in this area. Mr. Lapam

[2:07:37] owns a good deal of that student housing. That market is pretty much

[2:07:42] saturated. this was intended to be um a use of his brother and former partner in

[2:07:48] all of his apartments uh to utilize that land as as is something that could help

[2:07:54] build the the area and provide housing that's needed. Um I just wanted to come

[2:08:00] up here and say that Mr. Lapam is not here because he has me here to represent

[2:08:04] him. Um that's what we do at Lapam Associates.

[2:08:09] I feel that this is uh a good project for what is in your master plan. It's

[2:08:17] what is called for there. It's a good area. It's close to schools. It's close

[2:08:20] to the main road. The intent is to market to younger professional families

[2:08:25] that are more inclined to walk and ride bikes. Yes, there will be an increase in

[2:08:30] traffic. No question. With 20 units, there will be multiple cars there. But

[2:08:34] uh the point of its location being very close to the downtown, the main main

[2:08:39] district or the main business district is that it has close proximity for

[2:08:43] families to walk to or ride bikes to. Um the plan that we have proposed is

[2:08:51] very conceptual. The concept uh was one that

[2:08:55] Dave and Darcy both enjoyed the the quadplex with having two units on the

[2:08:59] ground level and two units on the upper level.

[2:09:05] they just felt this was a good spot for that type of a development. Uh and that

[2:09:08] is why uh Mr. Lapam has has pursued that. Um and if there were any questions

[2:09:14] from you, I'd be happy to answer them. But at this time, I'll move it over to

[2:09:18] the next level. Thank you for your time.

[2:09:29] If there's no further public um coming up for public comment, then um are we at

[2:09:36] a point that we can check if there's comments online? Zoom. Yeah, Zoom is

[2:09:40] back. Uh I don't see anybody here and uh not on email as well. Okay, thank you.

[2:09:46] Um then at this time I will close public comment and open for discussion.

[2:09:58] I'm just going to say I I'm I am going to vote against this reszoning because

[2:10:03] it's quite clear that nobody wants it in the neighborhood.

[2:10:08] Um maybe if at some point the city reszones the whole block so everybody

[2:10:13] could take advantage of it and sell their property as needed or develop it.

[2:10:16] But as as it stands right now, I'm not I'm not going to vote for this.

[2:10:22] Yeah, I I share Glenn's concerns, especially since the property in this

[2:10:27] instance is right in the middle of CD3. If it

[2:10:31] was on a border or it touched another CD4 or CD5,

[2:10:37] um I think it would be an easier case um to support it, but and the traffic

[2:10:43] too. I do think that we're a couple times. I do think that's going to be an

[2:10:47] issue on that street too. I mean, you're not you're used to a

[2:10:51] single family home there with just one person or a couple coming out,

[2:10:57] but potential of 40 cars to seem like an awful lot there. So, and if the city

[2:11:02] doesn't want to reszone the whole thing, I also agree with Glenn that the city

[2:11:05] should do it as a whole block rather than just one in the middle.

[2:11:12] Yeah, I'm struggling to be really transparent. Um because I

[2:11:18] completely empathize with everybody here. Um and I live very closeish to

[2:11:24] this um myself. Um, but I also my background is in

[2:11:31] housing and affordable housing and I work every day

[2:11:36] um around and um interacting with the numbers around the missing middle

[2:11:44] housing. And so that is a major concern of mine um and one of the reasons I did

[2:11:50] join the planning commission. But I have to also concur that this may not be the

[2:11:55] exact um right place for that. Um so I like I said I'm I'm of two minds on this

[2:12:03] but I am also leaning towards not voting to approve this. But I had a

[2:12:09] question. What happens if we vote to not approve something that's consistent with

[2:12:15] the master plan? And I apologize I didn't have that question before now.

[2:12:21] So what happens if the planning commission denies a this motion that is

[2:12:25] because it's consistent with the master plan that's asis.

[2:12:30] So the correct procedure would have been to flag issues with the master plan when

[2:12:35] the master plan is under review. It currently is and it was presented to you

[2:12:39] all and no changes were required in the future land use map regarding this area.

[2:12:46] So it is a problem to a a bad precedent to set to deny a motion that's

[2:12:53] consistent with the ordinance and policies that have been approved. Um may

[2:12:58] may I ask about that? Because doesn't the master plan want the whole block

[2:13:04] changed? It doesn't particularly want us to do the a shotgun approach to it, does

[2:13:10] it? It does flag the whole block eligible for city 4. Yes. At the same

[2:13:18] time, it doesn't really like the city has to take action,

[2:13:22] right, on block size or area wide resonings and we just don't have time to

[2:13:30] do that all at once after the master plan is amended or is adopted. The whole

[2:13:36] reason behind ma master plans and future land use maps is to signal to the

[2:13:41] development community what can go where development wise. So in this case

[2:13:48] we have a future land use map that tells this block any any parcel in this block

[2:13:54] can is good for growth and so applicants can property owners have the right to

[2:14:00] apply for reszonings on a single parcel by single

[2:14:04] parcel basis.

[2:14:08] So, we have the issue, right? It's a we have the city of Mount Pleasant. We need

[2:14:12] housing and we flag the areas in which we want to transition out of single

[2:14:17] family low density to higher density. So, we're one of them. The master plan

[2:14:23] does not prevent Swiss cheesing of zoning then. No. So, uh we call maybe

[2:14:29] you're we're getting into spot zoning grounds. Spot zoning would have been if

[2:14:33] an applicant wants to change a parcel zoning designation inconsistently with

[2:14:39] the master plan future land use map. If we were to approve something like that,

[2:14:43] it could be challenged in court. It could be configured as a spot zoning.

[2:14:48] Anytime there is a single parcel that is eligible for a reasonzoning applying for

[2:14:53] the reszoning, it can be approved. It's not spot zoning. It's not inconsistent.

[2:14:58] It's not okay incorrect. When did when did we adopt our master

[2:15:04] plan? Was it 2020 2020? 2020. Yeah. So, it's a precoid master plan

[2:15:12] that's not really focused on reality anymore.

[2:15:17] If that's the case, you could have brought it up when the master plan

[2:15:21] amendment was presented just a few meetings ago. And if there are massive

[2:15:27] issues with the master plan and it's not reflective of reality today, then the

[2:15:32] planning commission should direct staff to change the master plan and the master

[2:15:37] plan has been presented. The changes that we have proposed are related to

[2:15:42] mission street are related to demographics and are continue to support

[2:15:46] housing. I I did work and missing middle thingy. So yeah. Right. So, so if there

[2:15:51] is anything else that is not reflective of reality, it should be flagged at that

[2:15:57] time and not when applicants are coming here and proposing something that

[2:16:02] complies with the document that has been approved in 2020 with all public

[2:16:08] outreach and planning commission, city commission support. I'm just I'm just

[2:16:12] saying it's obvious it as it stands right now, this does not reflect the

[2:16:18] character of the neighborhood. Is that a valid reason to vote against it? So, so

[2:16:24] no, because zoning zoning is a long-term game. So, anytime that we were we were

[2:16:31] talking about growth is because we don't have it. So, there's always going to be

[2:16:35] the first larger building that gets built in a low density area. It's always

[2:16:41] going to be that way. The only difference is which communities have

[2:16:46] enough connections to be able to shut that down and say not in my backyard and

[2:16:51] which communities don't have those resources to be here tonight fighting

[2:16:55] against apparently a project that's not please them. Uh but the planning

[2:17:01] commission I just want to restate that our job as pl as myself the city planner

[2:17:08] and the planning commission is to pass forward policies that have been adopted

[2:17:14] as a whole community. It's not even my policy. I wasn't even here in 2020. I'm

[2:17:20] bringing something that has been adopted and again confirmed just a few meetings

[2:17:26] ago with the master plan amendment process. Yeah.

[2:17:31] Okay. And I just kind of want to harp on this. I think the applicant said it's

[2:17:36] like meeting in the middle, right? I think we had a case uh the school,

[2:17:40] right? Um and everyone said, "Well, we need, you know, middle, you know, that

[2:17:44] middle class housing, right? So, we don't want the school." Well, we have we

[2:17:48] have this at our table right here. And now we're saying no.

[2:17:53] So, it's I'm just having a hard time saying no to this when we've had

[2:17:58] communities say we want we want this now. Some communities saying we don't

[2:18:02] want this. It's in the master plan. We it it came up a couple meetings ago. We

[2:18:07] did it. And it's I get it. I get it. You know, feelings are high. I get it. I

[2:18:13] really do. But I mean, we're here to plan and grow. And I feel like every

[2:18:20] meeting here, we just have people saying, "No, no, no, no, keep it vacant.

[2:18:24] Keep it vacant." And we're just, you know, just stunting this growth. And

[2:18:29] that's not what aligns with our our planning, our master planning. So, and

[2:18:34] that's why I asked the question about the master plan because that is really

[2:18:39] kind of a deciding factor for me is that we have um these notices posted

[2:18:45] regularly on the city website. Um, and anybody has the option to come and um,

[2:18:52] submit input on those plans. Uh, and it only seems like when something isn't

[2:18:59] going, you know, that you don't agree with that then you want input on. Um, so

[2:19:05] I think it really is important um, to be engaged at every level and not just when

[2:19:10] something impacts you. Um and so that that is really why I

[2:19:17] asked that question is because we have gone through that and I know you have

[2:19:21] put a lot of intentional work into that. Um as has the entire commission and the

[2:19:27] city commission. Um and so that really was the deciding factor for me I think

[2:19:33] and that that it is consistent with our with our master plan

[2:19:39] and we don't make the ultimate decision anyway. Yes, city commission who the

[2:19:44] city commission who has a different remmit for how they engage with the

[2:19:48] community has to make the actual decision to resone and then after that

[2:19:52] the applicant has to make an actual submission presumably it might have to

[2:19:56] go through the plan it has to go through the planning process we might be

[2:19:58] reviewing it again before we give our acquiescence or opposition to it right

[2:20:04] yeah those are also really good points so thank you for that clarification I

[2:20:10] really appreciate it.

[2:20:16] Okay. Uh, we are still open in discussion. Is there are there any

[2:20:20] motions? Going to move to recommend that the city commission approve Z-25-02.

[2:20:28] All those in favor?

[2:20:33] Second. All those in favor? I I. All those

[2:20:39] opposed. Opposed.

[2:20:44] Will you please call a roll call? Commissioner Deainy. I. Commissioner

[2:20:49] Farley. I. Commissioner Frederick. Hi. Commissioner Havll's I. Commissioner

[2:20:54] Irwin. Nay. Commissioner Kingsworthy. I. Commissioner Leash is absent.

[2:21:01] Commissioner Martinez. I. Commissioner Orman. I. Motion passes.

[2:21:10] Okay. Uh, the next item on our agenda is the public hearing for

[2:21:19] Z2503, a request to reszone the properties from CD3, suburban character

[2:21:24] district to CD4, general urban character district with residential drawing use

[2:21:29] only designation. Miss Paul Vidiko, if you would please introduce the item. All

[2:21:34] right. So the last resoning that we have is a city-led action. So that is a time

[2:21:39] in which the city of Mount Pleasant is putting forward a reszoning application

[2:21:44] um to the planning commission for review. So we are applying for reszoning

[2:21:49] from city 3 to city 4 within with the residential dwelling unit only special

[2:21:55] requirement for the two parcels located at cross lane street. The properties are

[2:22:00] currently vacant. it um sums up to around 12 acres. And if the resoning is

[2:22:06] approved, the city will be able to seek partnerships and apply for

[2:22:09] infrastructure and in housing development grants to aid with the

[2:22:13] construction of attainable owner occupied housing units as well as

[2:22:16] affordable rental units. So this is the picture of the

[2:22:21] current vacant land um at cross lanes. The land use here is um the existing

[2:22:28] site immediately to the north is a commercial property. On the east side we

[2:22:33] have Mary Maguire Elementary School. The south we have single family residences

[2:22:38] and on the west we have duplexes and single family residences. the future

[2:22:43] land use. We have the Union Township uh regulating the use all around the north

[2:22:49] and we east side of the city of the site and then we have residential uh zoned uh

[2:22:55] or flagged in the future land use map for the south and west portion. The

[2:23:00] residential category is basically for single family and then duplex CD3

[2:23:05] designation which is the current land use of the area.

[2:23:10] the zoning um it's CD3L on the south and CD3 on the

[2:23:18] west. So these are the subject properties viewed from cross lanes

[2:23:23] looking

[2:23:27] northwest and this is the subject property view from main lane looking

[2:23:31] east. It's hard to see we have uh vegetation covering the site. The site

[2:23:36] seems to be fairly flat and uh here is the where the street would eventually

[2:23:42] continues if we are able to get uh grants um to help with the

[2:23:48] development. So the reasoning designation again we're with a resoning

[2:23:53] petition from city 3 to city 4. Um it would continue to be only housing

[2:23:58] development and it's a typology and density change. So going from city 3,

[2:24:04] six dwelling units per acre, single family homes to city 4, 35 up to 35

[2:24:10] dwelling units per acre, mixeduse building or missing middle buildings um

[2:24:15] all the way from duplexes to uh triplexes, forplexes, accessory dwelling

[2:24:21] units, and multiple family dwellings not exceeding two stories in

[2:24:26] height. This is the proposed zoning map. Um so you do have the city4 designation

[2:24:33] in the very end of town um being proposed for this

[2:24:41] site criteria for amendment. I provided you with answers. Historically, I looked

[2:24:46] into previous packets of city lezonings and staff used to not provide answers,

[2:24:51] but I did provide it to uh help just, you know, have a comparison between

[2:24:58] actions and there's several of them that are not uh applicable in this case.

[2:25:04] [Music] Um and then going through the master

[2:25:08] plan. Um this is the most important part. So the future land use map

[2:25:13] designation flags this parcel also as attached residential. So for more

[2:25:18] density the book one sustainable land use flags attached residential

[2:25:23] designations or city 4 as the underlying district. City4 limits development to

[2:25:29] two stories helping ensure the character and scale and development pattern will

[2:25:32] be compatible to the existing neighborhood. And then the future land

[2:25:35] use plan places an importance on creating housing which meets the need of

[2:25:40] households today and into the future and it furthers targets the construction of

[2:25:45] missing middle

[2:25:48] housing. So for this proposal we believe that the proposed resoning will help

[2:25:54] enable denser yet contextual forms of housing development in this area in

[2:25:58] alignment with the master plan future land use goals. Um just regarding

[2:26:02] contextual forms of housing development, obviously it has a big range of building

[2:26:07] types that are allowed in city for this was done by design both with the zone or

[2:26:12] master plan. But the one we're really interested in seem on pleasant is a

[2:26:16] typology that we do not have. We call it bungalow courts which are small detach

[2:26:22] houses around shared courtyards and open spaces. It is a typology that uh was

[2:26:28] very common in the 20s and 30s, 1920s, 1930s and it is a typology that can help

[2:26:35] provide uh cheaper ownership opportunities and also great for seniors

[2:26:40] wanting to downsize. Um so I have been working with the housing commission

[2:26:44] habitat in listening year in trying to create something that we see the need in

[2:26:49] the community. Um we don't have funds to do that ourselves. So it's highly

[2:26:55] reliant on grants. Therefore, the resoning is the first step towards that

[2:26:59] direction. Um the sizable land is one of the few areas located within the city

[2:27:04] limits that provides the potential for Mount Pleasant to growth in a larger

[2:27:08] scale and have helped tackle the housing shortage pointed out in state and

[2:27:12] regional housing needs reports. Um, so there is a state report that says the

[2:27:17] city of Mount Pleasant is in short of approximately 80 owner occupied units

[2:27:21] and over 700 renter occupied units. And then I was just taking note of the draft

[2:27:27] report that I have from MCOG from the regional association here saying that

[2:27:32] Isabella County has a really low vacancy rate of 0.6% 6% of non-conventional

[2:27:38] rentals which are rentals that are not in large gigantic multiple family but

[2:27:44] are in what we are calling missing middle housing which is completely it's

[2:27:48] extremely low based on a healthy market that needs four and between four and 6%.

[2:27:55] Um so just to give some parameters on that and then the gap analysis that has

[2:28:03] been done right now it's extremely flash and a fresh and in draft form also says

[2:28:08] that Isabella County has a rental housing gap of

[2:28:12] 1,936 units. So there's a long way to go here. Uh the proposed CD4 designation

[2:28:18] allows for a variety of housing types especially those classified as missing

[2:28:22] middle housing which means one the range of buildings types that fall between

[2:28:26] single family and multiple family and two that have historically been and

[2:28:30] still are able to provide more attainable housing options to middle

[2:28:33] inome households even without tax abatements pilots laex and all those

[2:28:40] programs. So staff finds that the proposed conditions are consistent with

[2:28:44] the character of the area in the future land use identified in the master plan.

[2:28:48] This is a large parcel. It is in close proximity to the elementary school which

[2:28:53] can help attract family households uh which are currently increasing the city

[2:28:57] limits. You may recall the demographics chapter um that we drafted as part of

[2:29:02] the master plan. We are seeing an uptick of uh populations between 30 and 44

[2:29:06] years old that need housing. The proximity to commercially zoned land

[2:29:11] along Pickard can help support existing business and perhaps even change a

[2:29:15] little bit the nature of the surrounding commercial properties to be more uh

[2:29:19] service um related and retail related. And the city is currently unable to

[2:29:25] apply for grants prior to the reasonzoning proposal. We do need to

[2:29:29] have a reasonzoning approved in order for us to seek grants. Um the state does

[2:29:33] not like to approve. So we will not be competitive enough if we still have to

[2:29:38] go through a reasonzoning process for that. Uh therefore this is the first

[2:29:42] step. Um so with all of that uh staff is recommending that this the planning

[2:29:47] commission recommends that the city commission approves

[2:29:51] Z-25-3. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Uh do any members

[2:29:56] of the planning commission have questions for

[2:30:03] Midiko? See none. Uh if the applicant is we don't need to for the applicant the

[2:30:08] applicant is myself. All right. Uh so um now I will open this

[2:30:14] up for public comment for comments related to this

[2:30:25] case. Thank you. And as before, if you could please state your name and your

[2:30:30] address and um that um speakers are we limit one speaking um per um proposal

[2:30:39] and you have uh a maximum of five minutes. Okay, that'll be enough. Um my

[2:30:44] name is Jane Fox. I live at 103 West Drive in Mount Pleasant. I've lived

[2:30:51] there about seven years and it's a wonderful neighborhood.

[2:30:55] If you come down Broadway, which is well, say this is Broadway, okay? You

[2:31:01] have to take William Street to go east or to go west. I'm right here on West

[2:31:08] Drive. My neighbor right across streets on East Drive. Now, all these people

[2:31:14] that want to go way down there off Broadway are going to come by my house

[2:31:21] and my neighbor's house. and all the people on West En drive to go to where?

[2:31:28] I don't even know. I never got a letter about this. Why not? I know you can't

[2:31:34] answer me, but this is my home and this is my neighborhood and they're wonderful

[2:31:42] neighbors and I never got a letter. And as anybody I've talked to here, they

[2:31:49] didn't get a letter either. Why not?

[2:31:53] Don't you give letters? Don't you mail letters to people who live in those

[2:31:59] areas that will be impacted by these decisions that you are

[2:32:05] making. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes. I I will tell you

[2:32:09] that. But none of us were notified. And you can ask everybody here if they were

[2:32:14] notified. We weren't. I wasn't. Anyway, to make a long story short, what is

[2:32:21] going to be over there? I really don't know yet. Has any did that explain what

[2:32:28] they're going to do over there? Are those going to be apartments? Are they

[2:32:31] going to be condos? Are they going to be lowincome

[2:32:35] houses, highincome houses, more family

[2:32:39] units? We I haven't heard anything about this and I wish I would have. I would

[2:32:47] have written a letter if I would have known known more about it. But I got no

[2:32:52] no letter on it. How can we we as property owners have anything to say

[2:33:00] when we don't know what's

[2:33:04] happening? So I I

[2:33:08] guess it sounds like probably we speak tonight and it's probably not going to

[2:33:13] make any difference. That's the way I feel right now. I don't

[2:33:19] feel like we're going to be listened to and I'm very

[2:33:25] disappointed as all my neighbors are and all my

[2:33:29] friends. The children walk around. We have people walking east, west, grand,

[2:33:35] east, south, whatever. They walk it every day. They come from across

[2:33:40] Broadway and walk in our little area. That traffic is going to be I see all

[2:33:46] the traffic that goes on East Drive, West

[2:33:51] Drive, Grand, East Grand, and they'll end up over there on cross

[2:33:59] lanes and the the the traffic will be

[2:34:06] terrible and it's a nice quiet neighborhood

[2:34:09] now. And I'm so

[2:34:13] disappointed. I love Mount Pleasant, but right now I am so

[2:34:34] disappointed. My name is Kurt Mey. I live at 417 East Drive.

[2:34:42] Um, the outlet for the land that we're talking about is

[2:34:48] right I'm right on that corner right there. We've talked about the elementary

[2:34:54] school. You're talking about the west drive and the east drive where it comes

[2:34:58] together. It's like a fork. You got what one outlet for that land and you got the

[2:35:03] other outlet east and west. It comes together on a fork with a stop sign to

[2:35:09] where? Broadway, which is going to be very,

[2:35:13] very difficult to get the outlet to go. And then the the rest of the traffic is

[2:35:18] for the school, which is in Union Township, I believe. But it's still you

[2:35:22] have a lot of kids that are walking.

[2:35:27] And I don't understand why the city is asking to reszone. As far as I could

[2:35:35] tell, the owner hasn't asked for it. A uh developer hasn't asked for a request.

[2:35:43] We didn't ask for the request. So, what are we doing? What what what's I get the

[2:35:49] master plan, but if you don't have a request, then why why do it? And I have

[2:35:55] to look at the worst case scenario. Say you do reszone it and you go to

[2:36:01] these fourplexes with the amount of acreage

[2:36:06] there. Worst case scenario, what do we got? Two 300 rental units in a single

[2:36:14] family residential area. I have to

[2:36:19] say I don't recommend reszoning for that purp. If it would have been if somehow

[2:36:26] you could go single family, make the lots a little smaller, it'd be one

[2:36:30] thing, but you're opening up a whole can of worms with this forplex,

[2:36:36] triplex, so on so forth. So, it's I would have to vote against it.

[2:37:01] Good evening. My name's Don Betha. I live at 407 West

[2:37:05] Drive. I did get a letter. Thank you very much. My neighbor did, too. He came

[2:37:10] over to talk to me about it. and um we just wanted to know what you are going

[2:37:15] to do. Um nobody seems to be able to tell

[2:37:19] us. I understand it's going to be reszoned, but are you putting in

[2:37:24] compartment complexes? Are you putting in, you know,

[2:37:29] forplex? And is it going to spill onto cross lanes or is it going

[2:37:35] to go out the other direction towards Pickard? I know that's I it's got to go

[2:37:42] through businesses to get there, but we're just kind of wanting to

[2:37:46] understand what you're doing. Um, putting in apartment complexes right

[2:37:51] there is is weird there. Yes, I get that there's a school right there, but that

[2:37:58] is a, you know, basically single family home residential area. Um,

[2:38:06] if you go down east in West Grand, they've got some duplexes and they fit

[2:38:11] right into the neighborhood beautifully. I can see developing that property and

[2:38:16] putting in homes, but apartment complex would be really weird. Um, you're just

[2:38:23] trying to pack people in and that never really works very well.

[2:38:29] But I also understand that you guys have already made up your minds and we don't

[2:38:33] get to say any anything about it anyway. But I just thought I'd put my two cents

[2:38:37] worth in.

[2:38:54] Hi. Uh my name is Rod Lamers. I live at 516 East Grand Avenue. uh my property

[2:38:59] backs up to this lot or one of the two lots. Um I just like to just say that um

[2:39:04] I've lived there for about four years. I notice a lot of uh residents in the

[2:39:07] neighborhood using it sort of informally as a park. Um and I I would say that we

[2:39:12] sort of have a um most of the parks are not in this area in town. Um so I think

[2:39:17] that would be it's a good amenity for residents in that area. So, um I realize

[2:39:22] this would probably be better at the um master plan approval stage, but just to

[2:39:27] put a plug in for um this lot does provide some value. Um and even if it is

[2:39:32] redeveloper homes in the future, having at least part of the property maybe set

[2:39:37] aside for a small park to to serve the residents, I think would be very

[2:39:41] valuable. Thank you.

[2:39:52] Okay. Um, seeing no one else.

[2:40:05] Oh. Yeah. I'm uh Don Hubble. I live at 504 East Grand. And as I witnessed

[2:40:14] tonight, I heard a lot of uh about the owners having to ask for

[2:40:22] reasonzoning. And then I understand that with this case, we don't have an owner

[2:40:27] doing that. Or is the city trying to own it? That's one big question. And I just

[2:40:36] uh I'm not in favor of it. So that's all I have to say.

[2:40:51] Okay. Um, seeing no one else from our present audience. Um, do we have any

[2:40:59] comments online? No one online. Okay. Thank you. At this

[2:41:05] time, I'm going to close public comment and open discussion.

[2:41:09] A quick thing on the discussion. Uh going from CD3 to CD4 will

[2:41:15] allow grant applications that could not be made now. Is is that is that the

[2:41:21] story? Yeah. So, um basically there aren't grants out there that I'm aware

[2:41:27] of for housing that would support a simple subdivision or a single family

[2:41:32] home development. All because grants that are placed by the state, MISTA in

[2:41:38] this case, I'm looking at the my neighborhood program, they are trying to

[2:41:42] help us tackle the creation of more housing and housing that's

[2:41:47] attainable. So, um when we get into that discussion and look at development

[2:41:53] options for creating attainable housing, we have to move away from single family

[2:41:58] home developments. So the one way to do that is to look at

[2:42:02] Bungalow Courts which is a type of single family development. It's just

[2:42:06] smaller single family which then gets into higher density of units per

[2:42:12] acreage. But that that's um so that's something I cannot do without the

[2:42:15] reszoning. And that's granable that that is

[2:42:19] granable. Exactly. Okay. So I got it's not huge a huge zoning

[2:42:26] change. I mean, that land has been empty since they passed the swamp act. Um, I

[2:42:31] don't know. I think I will vote yes on this

[2:42:34] one.

[2:42:38] Go ahead. Go ahead. I just have a clarifying question. There's currently

[2:42:41] no plan. This is just like the very initial baby stage of potentially maybe

[2:42:47] someday having a plan. Yeah. Yeah. So, um, I don't have the resources right now

[2:42:53] to hire engineering firms. architecture firms to create a beautiful plan. Um

[2:43:00] staff has done a lot already with the tools that we have and time that we

[2:43:05] have. So we did have the engineering department putting at least the through

[2:43:09] fairs to complete the streets that are missing there. So I put that in my

[2:43:14] application. And you can basically create three city blocks uh with the new

[2:43:18] uh infrastructure and they have calculated the amount of funds that we

[2:43:23] would need to build the streets the public infrastructure which would then

[2:43:27] incentivize housing development. Uh but we

[2:43:31] cannot it's like a chicken and egg situation.

[2:43:35] Um yeah. Okay. That was what I thought and I'm very familiar with the my

[2:43:40] neighborhood program. So yeah, and I can't really sell the idea of uh

[2:43:44] bungalow courts, um duplexes, forplexes, you know, so maybe some courtyard

[2:43:52] buildings. I can I can't try to get developers without have being zoning

[2:43:57] ready. Um and the Habitat for Humanity has been a great partner on this one.

[2:44:03] They are more on the owner homeowner ownership model. So their purpose is to

[2:44:10] serve the kind of minimum income range and have attainable ownership options

[2:44:16] which we really desperately need. Um so that has been my priority with this

[2:44:22] potential project and um the infrastructure funding from the mid

[2:44:27] neighborhood program is one that only local jurisdictions can apply. So, a

[2:44:32] developer could not apply for the infra the infrastructure cost or the the

[2:44:38] funding to build the infrastructure for a large piece of property like that. And

[2:44:42] we have I didn't mention that, but we have this one. We have another 12 acre

[2:44:46] site south close to Isabella Citizens for Health. Um, and then we don't and

[2:44:52] then we have uh maybe 20 25 acres along um the west side of town on Bradley. Um

[2:44:59] but then we don't have anything beyond that. Um and then we we do have the

[2:45:05] Crawford broom field, but we don't we just have those like four leftover large

[2:45:12] parcels and no one no developer is building right now because it's so

[2:45:17] expensive to build. They can't if they would to put infrastructure, build

[2:45:21] single family homes, create a subdivision, houses are going to have to

[2:45:24] be sold at 350, 400K if not more by the time that that is done. So, but the city

[2:45:32] is trying to fill those gaps because we are eligible for grants that developers

[2:45:36] are not in order to really try to tackle our housing crisis.

[2:45:43] And I I think it would me you mentioned on here like these bungalows are more

[2:45:46] targeted towards people downsizing correct. So like people are kind of

[2:45:51] retiring and things of that nature. Yeah. Yeah. Definitely. Deerfield 2.0

[2:45:55] right on the other side of that. So yeah, we don't need student housing. So

[2:45:58] we would be terrible business for the city to you know get into student

[2:46:02] housing construction. Um I think we all and we feel that from applicants too.

[2:46:07] People are seeing that our need is with long-term residents, is with workforce.

[2:46:13] Another statistics is we only have 11% of our top 35 occupations in Isabella

[2:46:21] County. Only 11% of those workers are able to afford housing. 11% of the

[2:46:28] majority of the occupations and workforce that we have. So yeah, we we

[2:46:34] are trying to fill those gaps as we can. And uh Mr. Fight, the owner, um he um

[2:46:41] had indicated to me back in 2022. He came to um to meet me when I was

[2:46:49] starting here and he said that he wanted to see something good come out of his

[2:46:54] property. Um at the time the city was not willing to do anything. We didn't

[2:47:00] know of grants that, you know, we were not uh ready to do anything uh in terms

[2:47:04] of owner, you know, potentially acquiring property and getting to

[2:47:08] development. Um I've been kept that property in mind for a while and uh Mr.

[2:47:13] Five passed. So now I'm talking with the the son and he is supportive and has

[2:47:20] provided a authorization which is required. So I do have the owner

[2:47:25] authorization for this reasonzoning request.

[2:47:29] Yeah, thank you.

[2:47:37] Uh, we are currently are in discussion. So, if there's anyone who would like to

[2:47:41] make a motion, going to move to recommend that the city commission

[2:47:45] approve Z-25-03. Second.

[2:47:50] All those in favor? I opposed. Motion

[2:47:56] passes. The next item on our agenda is the public hearing for

[2:48:04] TC25-01, a multiple buildings within the same lot, a proposed text change to

[2:48:09] table [Music]

[2:48:12] 154.45.A of the zoning ordinance to remove the one principal building per

[2:48:17] lot restriction within CD4 general urban character district better accommodating

[2:48:22] phase developments. Miss Povido, if you could please introduce the item. Yes.

[2:48:27] So, you already tackled the introduction of this, so I appreciate that. Um, I

[2:48:32] would also say that aside from um enabling multiple buildings in the same

[2:48:37] parcel, the proposed amendment would also include a clarification on number

[2:48:41] of accessory buildings allowed. Um, so we would be one per principal building

[2:48:45] since we would be moving towards allowing multiple buildings in the same

[2:48:48] parcel. and a new screening requirement that I'm proposing to help buffer

[2:48:54] principal buildings that are located within the third law layer um since that

[2:48:58] is could be a little bit of a change but I'll go through my presentation to talk

[2:49:03] a little bit more about rear setbacks. Um so the background on this is that um

[2:49:10] at the April 3rd 2025 meeting we have uh presented the master plan and the part

[2:49:17] of the master plan had uh the suggestion from the progressive companies

[2:49:23] consultant on proposed amendments especially to city4 regulations to allow

[2:49:28] for phase developments and allowing multiple buildings in one parcel is a

[2:49:32] way to accomplish that. Aside from that, I would also add, oh, and this is, yeah,

[2:49:38] sorry, I should have flipped the slide, but this is where in the amendment of

[2:49:42] the master plan, you can find that information about removing the one

[2:49:45] principal building per lot restriction to accommodate phase developments. At

[2:49:49] the master plan, it does say that uh it's something for us to discuss if we

[2:49:54] wanted to do that only on Mission Street or citywide since the scope was mostly

[2:49:59] focused on Mission Street. The reason why that I'm proposing this on a

[2:50:04] citywide level, so this tax change will affect every zoning city for zoning

[2:50:09] designation on the map today is because aside from not allowing phase

[2:50:14] development like you see here on the diagrams on the bottom corner of the

[2:50:18] slide, we are also not currently allowing forms of missing middle housing

[2:50:24] typologies. Our master plan is hyperfocused on creating missing middle.

[2:50:29] It's very much what the state is calling for with what every single municipality

[2:50:34] I know of is trying to do. It's reading the planning field. American Planning

[2:50:39] Association is asking city planners to work on it. Right now with the one

[2:50:43] principal building per per lot, we are hurting the ability to create bungalow

[2:50:49] courts and the courtyard apartments. Uh so basically multiple

[2:50:54] apartments around the courtyard or single family homes around the

[2:50:57] courtyard. uh those forms of development are more historically uh more

[2:51:03] historical. We tend to not see a lot of developers doing those today and that is

[2:51:09] the main reason why there has been a push to develop those back because it

[2:51:13] can again tackle more attainable housing options. So they also help create that

[2:51:19] density that's more into context than if we would to build you know buildings

[2:51:24] that are have large footprints have uh double loaded corridors with several

[2:51:30] apartments it does help create that density in a more contextual form.

[2:51:36] So one thing uh the reason why I'm bringing this right now um I know that

[2:51:42] the master plan is not yet adopted um and that suggestion is in the master

[2:51:47] plan under review but it is again to help support the grant applications um

[2:51:52] so it is it goes alongside of the C the Z2503 resoning action um to allow what

[2:52:00] we're calling pocket neighborhoods in Mont Pleasant and then Um adjacent to

[2:52:06] that we have the developer proposing um five forplexes at 11:04 Chipua which

[2:52:14] will be related to the reszoning Z2502. So a text this check tax change

[2:52:20] will help basically both uh developments.

[2:52:25] Um, and then I wanted to get a little bit more into zoning and how this change

[2:52:33] uh relates to the other rules that we have. All the other rules will continue

[2:52:37] to apply. So for instance, density restrictions. We're not allowing more

[2:52:42] units. We are continuing to allow the same number of units per acreage. Um, so

[2:52:47] this change would basically instead of encouraging a large multiple family,

[2:52:52] let's say a oneacre site in under city 4, you could build one gigantic multiple

[2:52:58] family building that is double loaded, has units next to each other, occupies

[2:53:04] almost 100% of the lot because we only require 3 ft of a rear setback, and you

[2:53:10] could have your 35 units that way. Alternatively, you could break that

[2:53:14] density down into smaller buildings around a common space, which is much

[2:53:20] more into context than a gigantic footprint in the middle of a

[2:53:24] neighborhood, right? Um, so this is basically what missing middle is. It's

[2:53:29] exactly it's the premise of it. Um, 60% buildout requirement continue to apply.

[2:53:35] So buildings will still have to be closed to the streets and provide that

[2:53:39] um you know streetscape um parking location rules will continue to only

[2:53:44] allow parking in the back. So you're not going to have ocean of parking that you

[2:53:48] can see from the street and then buildings that are embedded within the

[2:53:53] ocean of parking. You're going to see landscaping. You're going to see a

[2:53:56] sizable or frontage and then you're going to see parking in the back and

[2:54:00] then you may see more buildings behind it.

[2:54:03] uh landscaping, streetscape, we continue to apply. And then in terms of

[2:54:08] distancing between buildings, we I had a conversation with the building safety

[2:54:13] official to make sure that I understood the rules. Building code will continue

[2:54:17] to apply. So spacing between buildings will be regulated by building code which

[2:54:22] is based on construction method method. So fire rating and amount of windows. So

[2:54:27] if you do provide more windows um you have to set back further and um usually

[2:54:35] you would need a lot of windows especially if you're doing multiple

[2:54:38] building multiple units right so um so that is how the kind of separation would

[2:54:45] uh exist as well as to ensure safety through fire rating standards. So um

[2:54:50] building code by itself is uh already helps regulate and ensure that folks are

[2:54:55] not putting buildings closed together because otherwise they will have to

[2:54:58] spend much more into the building engineering to make sure that that fire

[2:55:02] rating walls um are not uh potentially you know sending um fire hazards from

[2:55:08] one building to the other in case of a fire. So that's just wanted to restate

[2:55:12] that um city 4 already allows more than one dwelling unit per parcel by right

[2:55:18] through use regulations. So we allow all those typologies and it already allows

[2:55:22] buildings to occupy most of the reard as I mentioned. We have only a three-foot

[2:55:28] reard setback requirement in every single zoning district today. So you can

[2:55:33] create lots that are very shallow and homes that occupy most of the lot and

[2:55:39] all we require is the three-foot setback. Um that was not my policy. It

[2:55:44] is what we have in the book since 2018. So with that um I'm putting also this

[2:55:51] slide from a recent American Planning Association Michigan chapter

[2:55:55] presentation on pro housing and uh this is exactly the slide I took a screenshot

[2:56:03] of uh the talk and put the the link there. Um you can see uh the

[2:56:08] presentation but this particular uh slide was uh related to this topic. So

[2:56:15] they say replace minimum lot widths typically for infill should not require

[2:56:20] someone to own more than one lot otherwise project will not pen fill out.

[2:56:24] And then they have the illustration showing the missing middle typologies.

[2:56:28] And then the cottage court is right there in the middle showing how you can

[2:56:31] have you know small footprint homes that are more attainable and maybe a little

[2:56:36] you know multiple family in the back um to get a different typology

[2:56:42] into. And then I wanted to also look at Mount Pleasant and see what are the

[2:56:48] types of developments that exist already and that we actually do not allow them

[2:56:52] anymore. Those things uh if someone wanted to build the Rosewood condos

[2:56:57] today and get approval from the planning commission and the city planner, they

[2:57:02] are not going to be able to propose that because we don't allow multiple

[2:57:05] buildings within the same lot. So this is one of

[2:57:09] them. This is just another example. Franken Village at Gaylord. It's uh

[2:57:14] multiple uh aplexes. So we have six aplexes in one parcel. And you can see

[2:57:21] how uh in this one the applicant configured you know the buildings are

[2:57:25] you can see the spacing between them. Um all based on previous ordinances and we

[2:57:30] currently do not allow that. We don't allow B prey which is a

[2:57:35] fantastic neighborhood. I wanted to live there myself but units were kind of

[2:57:39] expensive. Um they are a compilation of multiple single family homes with a few

[2:57:46] duplex units in one parcel. And then there these are

[2:57:51] examples of developments that we currently do not have in Mount Pleasant

[2:57:55] and the ones that I've been exploring for the five property or maybe other

[2:57:58] vacant parcels in Mount Pleasant uh which are the bungalow courts. So this

[2:58:03] is an example of one that won tons of awards out there in the design field.

[2:58:08] It's called Dennis Grove in Kirkland. It's fully built. You can see the Google

[2:58:11] map view of it. And they have 15 single family homes in one parcel. And that

[2:58:17] green space in between is great for what some of the public comments were about

[2:58:23] about open space and community. Um, and this is another one

[2:58:28] which uh we don't allow which is in uh Montana. Uh, it has a different name.

[2:58:35] Let me see. Yeah, I didn't change the name. I apologize for that. Uh let me

[2:58:38] see if I can find it. Riverside crossing. Thank you so much. Um and they

[2:58:44] are it's a new development. So I wanted to show another uh pocket-like

[2:58:48] neighborhood. So you can see it's basically a pocket over here on the top

[2:58:52] and then a pocket here and then there is a private street that goes around it for

[2:58:57] uh vehicle access. But the building frontages are really around the court to

[2:59:02] increase that community building. And this one is under development and they

[2:59:06] are almost all sold out. It's a cooperative model. They have seven

[2:59:12] designs that you can choose from and then you can basically take ownership of

[2:59:16] a portion of the whole development if you um opt in. And it's usually co-ops

[2:59:22] are better at keeping affordability in the long run. Um and I've seen tons of

[2:59:26] them in in my um experience back in New York. um communities that co-ops that

[2:59:31] have been been there for like 100 years. Um so anyhow, so this is my recommended

[2:59:37] action for the planning commission to um approve or recommend that the city

[2:59:43] commission adopt tax change to C-25-1. And here you can see the

[2:59:47] overview again of the particulars of the tax change

[2:59:53] proposal. Thank you so much.

[2:59:57] Okay, thank you. Um, does any member of the any members of the planning

[3:00:02] commission have any questions for Miss Pyo? I

[3:00:05] do. So, those slides you just showed us, those are were not currently permitted,

[3:00:10] but they would be with this text change. Yeah. Okay. Second thing, um, the

[3:00:14] bungalow style too, would that permit tiny houses in the city? So, we don't

[3:00:19] have any minimum square footage requirement in the zoning ordinance. if

[3:00:23] that's something that the planning commission is interested in, you can let

[3:00:26] me know. But we don't regulate footprint or size of homes. So, um it's really

[3:00:34] dependent upon compliance with building code. But yeah, just as a basis, we have

[3:00:39] the accessory dwelling unit. It has to be at least 400 square ft, which is

[3:00:43] pretty high actually. Um I've had an applicant trying to do something smaller

[3:00:48] but couldn't. Um and then uh we don't have anything else for So you could do

[3:00:54] small homes. So you're saying yes. Yeah. So you can do it already now. Yeah.

[3:00:59] Okay. Thank you. Except it's all on one parcel. Then you can't do it. No, you

[3:01:04] could on one parcel. On one parcel. So you have to do multiple parcels. So for

[3:01:09] instance, city 4, you could I say the bungalow style though cuz that's all on

[3:01:14] one parcel, is it not? So uh bungalow would be one parcel. Yeah. So, you can

[3:01:19] do the bungalow style, but those could all be tiny houses.

[3:01:24] Yeah, they could. Yeah, that was my question. Thank you. Okay.

[3:01:28] Is So, you're saying that somehow back in 2018 or 2019, we accidentally zoned

[3:01:34] out condominium developments. Mhm. And and nobody noticed that. It seems like I

[3:01:40] spoke with the city attorney to make sure I wasn't missing anything. Um, and

[3:01:46] the way it is written right now, the interpretation is that a unit conominium

[3:01:51] would not be allowed. You could do a subdivision-l like conominium. So, you

[3:01:56] could sell parcels with buildings, but you couldn't be able to sell just the

[3:02:02] drywall to drywall, which is pretty common here and very popular. Yeah. Like

[3:02:07] quadplex condominium would not. Yeah. Okay. I got it. I got it. Yeah.

[3:02:12] Embarrassing. Okay.

[3:02:17] So these type of houses obviously could um go up in like some of the other

[3:02:23] applicants that we got today, right? Those areas. Yeah. So this change would

[3:02:26] affect um the potential project that we're trying to pull off bungalows and

[3:02:32] then also the previous applicant that went to do five forplexes. So without

[3:02:36] this tax change, they could only put more than one building. if they were to

[3:02:42] do some sort of subdivision within that site, um they wouldn't be able to do um

[3:02:47] multiple forlexes in one parcel. So, basically, we allow the density, but you

[3:02:53] can't really build it. I kind of wish some people stuck around for that one,

[3:02:56] but do we have to have a Is this a public

[3:03:00] hearing one? Yeah, we do have a public hearing.

[3:03:07] Right. Um any further questions? No. Okay. And then um with this, do I open

[3:03:16] it up for public comment

[3:03:21] then? Okay. See no one present from the public wishing to comment. Is there

[3:03:27] anyone online? No one on the line. Okay. Thank you. Um at this time, I will close

[3:03:32] public comment and open discussion. re I move that we recommend to the city

[3:03:37] commission that it adopt text change 25501 second.

[3:03:42] All those in favor I all opposed. Motion passes.

[3:03:48] All right. Uh next item on our agenda is public

[3:03:57] comment. Seeing no one here wishing to comment from the public. Anyone online?

[3:04:03] Okay. Thank you. I will close public comment. Uh, next item on our agenda is

[3:04:09] staff report administrative reviews. Mr. Toby. All right. So, we have two site

[3:04:14] plans that were approved administratively. The first one is 509

[3:04:18] industrial drive. Um, it was approved on May 12

[3:04:23] SPR-25-04. And it was a proposed impound yard at 509 Industrial Drive which

[3:04:28] includes a fenced area behind the existing building for vehicles.

[3:04:32] Improvements to the gravel drive, the addition of a sidewalk along the

[3:04:35] property frontage in the street of Brightway, parking striping and layout

[3:04:39] on the existing concrete area, bicycle parking, street trees, and planting

[3:04:43] forest

[3:04:46] screening. The next one is SPR-25-06 for 315 West Locust. Um it was

[3:04:54] approved on May 21st and it was a very small scope project. Um I may get back

[3:05:02] to all of you to see if we can wave some of these and just send to the building

[3:05:06] department. Um it was simply an enclosure behind an existing staircase

[3:05:11] so they can have storage in their uh three-unit rental

[3:05:15] home. Um and that's it. Oh, sorry. And then I have you don't have to call for

[3:05:21] this one. And it's another staff report. So, as you may have realized, we have a

[3:05:26] new planning commissioner here today. We are uh full now. We have our nine seats

[3:05:32] taken. Fabin Martinez started uh just today here at the planning commission

[3:05:37] and we did go through

[3:05:41] the shortest meeting you're ever going to see. We did a presentation on May

[3:05:46] 14th. And do you want to share anything about yourself?

[3:05:51] Today's your last day.

[3:05:56] I mean, it's been exciting so far. But I've been here for almost a year. I

[3:06:02] really like Mount Pleasant and I really like the direction it's going.

[3:06:06] Appreciate you, Fabian. Thank you. Welcome. Welcome. They are not always

[3:06:11] three hours long. So you So you understand? Yes.

[3:06:16] I got a normal thing. No, that concludes my effort. Can I can I just like say

[3:06:21] just one thing? I guess I just I don't know if I'm probably

[3:06:26] talking to nobody, but I guess this goes to like just everyone who showed up. I

[3:06:29] really appreciate it, but I just wish and I I pray and just hear hear us out.

[3:06:36] Hear what's being implemented. And don't just think, oh, something new is coming

[3:06:40] in. This is terrible. Like, there goes the freaking neighborhood. Because if

[3:06:45] they stuck around and saw what we're kind of proposing to build these

[3:06:49] beautiful bungalows so people who are aging can downsize and all of these

[3:06:55] things to help, you know, close this gap in a rental and housing crisis, they

[3:07:00] would understand. And I just I'm talking to nobody and I don't care because just

[3:07:07] please just open your ears. I understand it's it's frightening. change change is

[3:07:13] uncomfortable, but please, please, please just hear everyone out. And

[3:07:18] there's my TED talk for the day. Thank you. I I do want to also say I I really

[3:07:24] appreciate the bringing forth of that option, housing. I think that that is

[3:07:30] something that a lot of people do look for of having in a sense their own home.

[3:07:36] They don't need a McMansion. They're not looking for that, you They're looking

[3:07:40] for um home ownership that's not an apartment, especially with young

[3:07:44] families or young professionals. And um that would allow for so many people who

[3:07:51] are seeking housing to have that kind of opportunity. And I think it greatly fits

[3:07:57] in with our existing neighborhood model. It's it's almost like here's just

[3:08:02] another little courtyard building like a build addition to the existing

[3:08:09] neighborhood more than as we all know and we agree we we don't need any more

[3:08:15] student housing building you know so I think um I think that allows for us to

[3:08:19] greatly support that vision and denser housing and grow denser growth improves

[3:08:25] the tax base way more than single family housing does. Yes. It's just a fact. And

[3:08:29] so like maybe we should encourage those kinds of growth as opposed to well and I

[3:08:34] also think around young families there's a nice um yes for our aging population

[3:08:40] but also for young families having that kind of village almost um create you

[3:08:46] know being created in some communities. I can see that being really um you know

[3:08:52] something that young families could value as well speaking as a first house.

[3:08:57] I mean, we were in Metro Detroit. We I we didn't have a nice little grassy

[3:09:01] courtyard, but we had this little offshoot road that was an add-on to a

[3:09:07] neighborhood and we all had these little bungalow houses and it was amazing. I

[3:09:13] had this wonderful elderly neighbor and you know,

[3:09:18] she made us baklava and we helped her when her grandson flushed toys on the

[3:09:23] toilet. I mean, it was was a great neighborhood. It was uh you know, but it

[3:09:28] was it was just this one little like courtyard of of small little

[3:09:32] bungalow houses. It was it was really great. Commissioner Bartman, that was so

[3:09:36] eloquently said. I don't think we can say anymore. So, I'm going to

[3:09:39] move second. Second. Second. All those in favor?

[3:09:46] Also, thank you, sir, for sticking out. Thank you so much, brother. Thank you so

[3:09:52] much, man.

[3:09:57] Whoa. Shout out to

[3:10:02] God bless you, bro. God bless you. I need a sticker or something.

[3:10:13] Brother, normally it's like I think my first meeting was like maybe 30 minutes

[3:10:18] long maybe.

[3:10:31] So, you're going to have to be the bad guys. Good job.

Mt Pleasant Planning Commission June 5th 2025

Transcript