Welcome, and thank you for attending the August 13th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. We are calling our meeting to order if I could ask for roll call please.
Commissioner Willet-La Roy,
Gatsen.
Here.
Taylor Garza, President, Cypher, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here,
Blake, here in the Senate.
Hi, I'm going to make a motion to approve minutes for working, I get a motion to approve
minutes for July 23rd, 20, our regular meeting on July 16th, 16th, 26th, and the special
meeting on July 23rd, 20th, 26th.
So second.
All in favour?
We are going to move one to public hearing.
Hearing case 202616, request to amend the Plan Unit Development at Harvard to Narrow
Condemniam Association, Partial 6124425, 000000 to reduce the amount of sidewalk to be
I'm going to defer to Commissioner Mosaic for comment.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I live in Halbert Island.
I want to disclose that.
The city attorney has previously defined that I do not have a conflict of interest,
relative to this issue.
But nevertheless, I intend to abstain from voting on this matter.
Thank you.
Can we get staff to report out on this public meeting?
Yes. We'll also need to approve the minutes, but we can do that.
You're just, I'm sorry.
Yes.
We're going through this stuff.
Yes, I'm sorry.
You're going to get a publication.
This may be for funding manager.
Given that it's not a technical, conflict, interest, and it's a discretionary
abstinence of staining from the process that is not triggered then the requirement that it be uniform
of the remaining members who's want to confirm this the case not at the planning commission level
This is just a referral to the this is just recommendation. Yeah, so and that
This will be a question really becomes within the mind at the city commission level. I'm curious about that
If someone's discretionary that's staying you shouldn't trigger the requirement that it's unanimous by the remaining members
And if I'm a manager and then just for another clarification, no matter how the vote goes tonight,
this does get referred to the city commission. So whether it's an affirmative vote or like a group of denying the application,
it still goes to the city commission. So just want to make sure that's clear.
So.
One of that.
Okay. If we can have staff report out please.
Sure.
So in August, 2024,
a harbottom kind of any misociation applied to amend the planning and development to allow
an additional 10 buildings which would include 28 new units total on vacant lots that are
located on the west side of the development. The amendment was approved with the following conditions.
A turnaround must be incorporated at the end of channel view points. An additional fire hydrant must
be at a long channel view point. We have since worked with the fire marshal and determined
that is not actually necessary. The storm water premise must be obtained from the engineering
department before construction commences, which is standard. Landscaping plan is provided.
They plan on doing that when the individual homes are applied for. That's fairly standard
as well. And number five was that the sidewalks through harbour town circle. East and West
are installed within two years
from the commencement of construction.
Harvard Town, Condominious Association,
has been unable to find a way to finance the installation
of the new sidewalks throughout the entire development.
So they are now proposing a scaled-back version
of the sidewalk connection, which would include
a new sidewalk from full-and-street entrance
to the Indian-estreet entrance as depicted on the map.
That's included in the packet.
The engineering department reviewed the plans and had some comments about the sidewalk proposal.
They suggested that a crosswalk will need to be incorporated at Indiana Street, including accessible ramps.
The existing sidewalk on Indiana Street that this will connect to is on the south side.
So there will be need to be a connection from the north side that leads to the sidewalk on the south side.
While the city is engineering group or consultant, whatever ends up designing this will be able to make the highlighted route work.
Several of the driveways on the east side of harbour town west harbour town circle will get quite a bit of steeper near the roadway.
He noted that some residents may be unhappy with the results as the steepness of the driveways may cause bottoming out or a lumpy ride.
He was able to provide a sketch that I have handed out to everybody.
We should have in front of you about how that would look and why the increase of steepness to the driveway would happen.
Also noted that grading easements will be needed outside of the existing right away, particularly along the east side of the street.
If not obtainable, retaining walls may be necessary, driving up costs.
grading easements for the driveways will be absolutely required and are necessary for
project as proposed and improve sidewalk ramps. Require and grading easements and
possibly requiring permanent easements will be needed at the full-and-street entrance
to make this sidewalks ADA compliant which is a requirement for public sidewalks when
upgraded and
we also have a recommended motion below which includes those comments.
Thank you.
If the applicant is available, you have
opportunity to come out if you like.
Actually, actually, before we do that, I do have a question for staff.
Okay.
So the.
The sidewalk concerns.
That engineering brought up about.
The the mumping or so whatever in the.
Approval that we previously did, it was for.
Was sidewalks to be on both sides.
Or was it to be on one side or the other?
It was to be on one side or the other, but we hadn't actually picked out the route yet and we did note that it could cross the screen a couple of times to maybe try to avoid situations like this or other situations that would arise.
So with or without making any changes there would so potentially be the same challenge.
Correct.
Yeah, if you keep it on one side, I believe you're going to run into some steepness challenges, whether or not you're crossing over back and forth.
There is potentially going to be some issues before this.
Thank you.
Thank you, Manager.
Anyone else?
On the dial.
I have anything else to say before we bring up
the applicant.
Is the applicant here?
Well, you please be so kind and state your name and address.
Good afternoon.
My name is Mark Schultz and I'm here representing the Harvard Tellen
Condo Association.
Many of my comments would be repetitive of what Director
Fransic just said.
I do want to add with regard to the engineering drawings.
We would intend to hire a civil engineer to detail all of the
during requirements meet the city codes and ADA codes so that we don't do anything wrong in this situation.
Again, many of my comments have already been heard by Director Fransik so we'll be able to answer any questions that you may have.
Anyone have any questions for our applicant?
If you have anything else to say, you can feel free to answer it.
Thank you.
welcome. Now we're going to open up for public comment. If anyone is out there in the crowd,
that would like to have something to say, please come up to the podium and state your name
in your address.
Yes, ma'am.
Arbor Azulaf, I live at 3440 Pitch and Hill Court.
The financial aspect of this project is that to be born by harbour founders, the city going to
provide the paving and then the maintenance.
I should press that for a developer.
Usually not question in the answer time.
Yeah, it's a public area.
We're interested in the question they received.
We have anyone else that would like to speak.
Good evening or afternoon.
My name is James Fox.
I don't live in the association, but I'm on the back side
of an analysis street.
And I'll be affected a little bit.
My home sits up a little bit higher.
But we have what I consider a pretty good doing area behind our home.
and nobody there today and one of the buildings is going to be placed behind that
and I'm just curious how that will react with the doom and the grass lands and the woods
behind our own.
Thank you.
We have anyone else in audience?
My name is Kim Privy, I live at 1473 West Cargertown.
I'm not familiar with all the rules of overtime, but I know that within our rules uniform
is one of the things that we stress.
For instance, if I wanted shutters on my building,
I can't give shutters because everybody
have to.
If I wanted to paint my garage door,
I can't do that because everybody would have to.
This sidewalk that's proposed right now
is starting basically at Indiana Coins North to Folgan.
I have friends and other people that live on East Harbour
Town Circle that presently walk for exercise,
walk to go to Bowdocks, walk to go to the lake. They're walking on the street. They don't have a sidewalk.
My vision is, if we have to have a sidewalk and we have uniformity rules and herpertone,
and a sidewalk should be provided with everybody. These people are walking in the street. They have no choice.
I talked to some of these people and we also have a slight concern and nothing against the
docs, but we believe that the docs proposal as like emergency entrance or something
from their property to our property, but a lot of residents to go to Botox, to go to the
lake, may use that exit to walk in the harbour town, likewise, they will be walking on
hypertoncircle in the row, to the original sidewalk. So I feel that it's uniformity,
excuse me, has to be done, with a sidewalk for the whole property. The other thing I'm
concerned with with the proposals right now, I drive beach-free, I drive the ovals. I drive up to
these pedestrian walkway signs. I'm diligent and make sure there's no residents, but I've also
walk til throats, and many times there are vehicles that don't buy by those signs.
They just drive right through, even though they're supposed to stop from me.
This new sidewalk proposal that we have starts on the west side of the street, from Indiana,
to the proposed first unit that's going to be built.
And then I'm assuming it's going to be a crosswalk that goes across West Harbour Town and I'm
guessing again that the other thing that you're going to be able to do is to put a pedestrian
walkway sign there because there's no stop lights and that means it's a problem because
of what I encounter every day by the beach.
Our Paton every month, our newsletter is talking about, note, it's 25 mile an hour speed limit.
Don't speed. We're not going to have potentially 28 more vehicles. If you do one per unit,
56 of you go for two driving through there. Come on to bow to Oxford and order their residents.
We've been concerned about speed. Now we got more traffic going through there.
I just don't see that one that plan is already out there is feasibly because of that.
If we're going to have a sidewalk, make it from Indiana.
I don't know how you would do it, but make it from Indiana.
Across to the west side.
So just one crosswalk.
A side to foot from Indiana to foot.
As we eliminate this, walk in the middle of the road with pedestrian walkway signs.
That is going to, you know, to me, that is a danger, because I, I sort of lived pretty
near where that crosswalk is going to be, and I'm watching cars go by every day.
There is no 25 mountain horse to be there.
I'm watching people that are walking, they don't, they don't heed those cars.
I've also talked to people that lived on the East side, or East Harbor Town Circle, that
when they walk, they've told me, when they come to Indiana, they're not going to walk
across to the west side of the street to get on to your sidewalk.
They're just going to keep right on walkin',
which means they're going to walk to that first unit
that's being constructed until the sidewalk starts.
So that has a limited part of the traffic.
I think I'm going to hear me walking.
That's my point.
Thank you for your comments.
If we have anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak right now,
You're going to...
I should have said this before, handsop, apologize. To keep your comments limited to three minutes.
Glenquist, I have a 1639 West Habitat on Circle.
But there, in the complex and and on a private house, for the last 15 years, walked three times a day through the neighborhood,
and they had not a need for an sidewalk ever.
So, look, concern about previous plan where it said all the way through the development goes through my yard.
I don't benefit from that financially or because it don't walk there anyway.
So I'm not sure that we've put the issue to bad with regard to through the complex,
but I'd like to see that we have sure that it's not going to happen.
Thank you.
Do we have anyone else in our audience that wishes to speak?
If not, we're going to move to the phone lines. You can call in at 2 3 1 7 2 4 6 7 2 1. Again, open up the phone lines. Call in at 2 3 1 7 2 4 6 7 2 1.
I'm going to give that just a few more seconds here.
It's not even done to you yet.
Oh, forget us the delay.
You're just now announcing it.
No calls yet.
So we have no cause, I am going to move that we close the public hearing.
Yeah, I got it.
You want the whole thing or just go over here, I know.
I moved to close the public hearing.
Second.
We're close.
That public hearing, if we have anyone that would has, by the words.
Oh, I'm going to move.
Yeah, go to the public hearing.
We need, can we vote one?
The calls in the public hearing, please.
All in favour?
Aye.
All opposed?
The occult in the public hearing case 20 2016.
2026-16.
Do we have any comments from Commissioner?
One more comment.
We did receive two emails that I've placed in front of everybody.
You may want to take a minute or two to read those.
Both of them will lose.
being residents in harbour town that would like sidewalk throughout the
development.
I'm sorry, one of them is not in harbour town. They are in Nelson.
Nelson Street or Nelson Street. Nelson Street. Nelson Street. The the longer one that
resident Charlotte is from the Nelson neighborhood.
Has everyone had
opportunities to read both emails?
Yes.
Commissioner.
Or do we need a little time?
Anywhere?
Yes.
Give just a few more seconds for commissioners to finish reading those emails.
Then open up for any comments questions concerns that commissioners may have.
There are any commissioners that have any comments concerns.
questions please feel free to yes I'm before determining what motion to make
we permit the applicant to come back with voting for questions yes I
applicant Mr. Schult would you please come back to the podium thank you
good afternoon Mr. Schult hi could you give us some background history in
in terms of, what is transpired since the Commission took action in, towards the end of
2024, with transpired with the housing association, in both you've taken as an organization,
discussions, examinations of costs and the, like, you could just kind of bring us up to speed
as to what is transpired on your end since then.
We did have a vote of the co-owners, and that was concluded on April 11th, 2025.
that vote was not successful.
There were 96, yes, 69, no, and 30 people did not submit a ballot.
And that equals 190 co-owners.
And by the bylaws of Harvard Town and Canada Association,
the ballots that were not returned are considered a no vote.
So basically, the motion to proceed with the PUD failed.
We think that mainly the no voters were opposed, well, we did not have a lot of information
about the sidewalks at that time.
During that time period of the vote, we had already sent out the ballots.
The city gave us an estimate of $400,000 for the sidewalk.
And then the county assessor came along and said that she would only assess the people
where the sidewalk abutted in front of their units.
If you happen to live across the street from that particular unit,
you would not get taxed, but the people that abutted the sidewalk,
they would bear the tax burden.
That tax burden would fall on maybe 50 to 55 of our coal owners
as compared to spreading the cost of the project to all coal owners.
This is actually in conflict with the state of Michigan condolences
in regards to that this sidewalk would be placed on a common element of the condo association in the State of Michigan Condo
Log indicates that any improvement on a common element is shared by all condo owners not only the one set of buck this.
In addition, the county assessor also said, and I have to back up here as I'm sorry.
The sidewalk, if we go all the way on East and West
Harbour Town Circle, there are plots of land that do not belong to
Harbour Town.
There are other privately owned, some owned by the Sandocks,
some others are owned by individuals.
The county assessor said, on those particular parcels
that are owned by the Sandocks and the other private individuals,
adding a sidewalk would not improve the value of their property.
And so those people would not share in the cost of this sidewalk going through all of East and West
Tableton.
So that, there again, we never did go back to the coloners because we knew that if we said,
hey, we have a section of the sidewalk, which would have been about 10% of the sidewalk, that we
would have to pay rather than the owners of the property.
So we did not proceed down that road.
We did have some conversations.
And we talked with the mayor and the city managers
see forth.
And in December, we said, could we consider
this shortened version of the sidewalk?
We have talked to our developer,
who is Mike Boschcraft, a bosscraft home in Holland.
He is willing to front the money for the sidewalk.
and then deduct that money from the proceeds that the condo association would receive from the building of the 28 units.
So we have the funding element in place, and so now we're just looking for the city to approve the short and sidewalk version.
If in fact the city goes back and says, sorry, we need to have sidewalks in the whole condo,
social, both East and West, however, tone.
This proposal will die.
We will not construct the 28 units.
It's, it's that simple.
So Mr. Schultz, the vote that happened in April of 2025,
that was after hearing from the county session's office
so it informed that it were not comfortable assessing
every property of the kind of association in Hamilton.
Did, was the county session aware of the law
you referenced the regulating condos associations and that.
Yes, the ultimate element.
Yes, the R attorney of an Alexander of make-aware and several names, they're located
in Permanent and Hills, and actually they're from helped write the condo law for the state
of Michigan.
So yes, R attorney reached out to the county assessor and said, by the way, you're in conflict
with the state of Michigan Condol law, but the county of Sussur decided to go over
our own way and said, sorry, this is my ruling.
So the Sussur was not persuaded.
No, that was that law.
It's not persuaded.
There were, and you mentioned meeting with the mayor myself in the city manager, and
you've had many conversations with our DBW director as well.
One of the meetings, one of the earlier meetings, not the one in December of last year,
But one of the earlier meetings, there was conversation around trying to work out a development
agreement with the city where the city would front the money and then assess individually.
But it would be a contractual agreement with the condos association.
It would not be a formal assessment of every property owner.
So it would be up to you all to work out how you're paying that back.
Was there any discussion amongst you and your residents around going that route potentially?
And I'm raising this because after our meeting in December of last year, you know, it was
comfortable with this modification.
I was the one that originally advocated for sidewalks for the continuous sidewalk throughout
Harbour Town, East and West of Harbour Circle.
But hearing the issues and the flights and the struggles with being able to make the happen
and also the fact that my original advocacy was predicated on the belief and the understanding
that the original P.D. had for Harvard Town had required a sidewalk, but it was never implemented
in North enforcement happened. And so that's why I was so such an advocate of, okay, now
it's before me, I'm not going to pass this up. We're going to follow us through and get
a sidewalk in there. I understand. Come to light. Since then, there can be no one can
find any actual records or documentation of the original P.D. requiring that sidewalk.
And
So, for a moment, I still personally prefer, you know, a sidewalk going with the length
of that for a number of different reasons, you know, complete streets and coordinates, part
of our city policy, but was understanding and willing to be flexible, but I'm hearing some
of the folks that have come tonight as well as some emails that are focusing your community
that do want the sidewalk throughout the entirety of that street.
So I'm just trying to understand what conversation has been happening and you're in with your
numbers and if what has been explored and if because it sounds like that vote, it
will be counted the 30 apps of staining as know, even that, that's pretty close.
96, yes, 99, we would have needed two thirds vote, which is like 127, yeses, okay, you
need two thirds, got it. We were about 30 short. And that was based on the belief that only
some properties could be assessed, not all properties.
It's not going to understand why people might vote no on that, you know,
than here unfairness.
And even some of those 60 no voters, we think we don't know for sure,
but in conversations after the fact, we found that they voted no
because of the ambiguity of the sidewalk cost and who was going to pay for it
or what the route was and how it was going to be funded.
Relative of the question that you raised about if the city contracted with Habitown Condo
Association and then the Association said, okay, 190 co-owners, you're going to get
to assess you X amount per year for the 10 years or 15 years at home over that agreement
with Workout.
We thought about that, but this situation with the Sandox owning part of the property and some
individual co-owners where the burden would be all on harbour town for that approximately
10% of the linear feet of the sidewalk, which might be 500 feet or so in that
vicinity. Again, we thought, well, co-owners are not going to be willing to pay for the
sidewalk on property that does not belong to us. And when the county assessor took
first stance that, you know, it was all on a harbour tone, and particularly all on just the co-owners set about at the sidewalk, again, that kind of blew this whole thing out of the water.
Pardon my expression.
I appreciate that additional insight and background. One more one more question to understand your process and I guess you're by-laws perhaps.
What did it require for you as the to petition for amendment to PUD, with just a vote of your board? Did it have to go to the every property owner to say yes we support pursuing the PUD amendment?
Yeah, if the planning commission approves this and goes under the city commission and then the second reading of the city commission
And then we would have an approval for this short and version of the sidewalk
Then yes, we would have we would go back to our developer because we have some other issues with him mainly on the exterior look of the proposed buildings
And he's indicated he's willing to make the buildings look exactly like harbour town is today
He what he did is supplied as some of his stock photos of prior work that he had done and he's
This was a third-generation contractor
He's built several condo communities up and down West Michigan West Michigan shoreline. So he's very
credible in this area
So he said, yes, I can build these buildings with my foot print, but put a harbour town look on him and all he did was give a stock photos of his
prior buildings and not have his CAD people do their work to make it look like carbotons.
So we intend to go back to him and get some revised drawings, not drawings and think of
the right word, the correct view of carbotone, so that we can then proceed on with a second
boat to our co-owners and say, now we have the sidewalks defined, we have the funding defined,
We've got the exterior look of the buildings defined, and we believe now that we have a project that we can go forward with.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Thank you Mr. Mayor.
Any other questions?
I do.
Two.
So if the sidewalk will, if we don't vote for sidewalk.
That's correct.
If you don't plan on going through with the development.
That's correct.
It's financially not in our interest to do it if we don't get the shortened version.
Okay.
And again, just so I have a, it's wrapped around my head.
Even the individuals who are part of the HOA that will not have the sidewalk,
they still will have to pay for the sidewalk.
That's correct.
Okay. Thank you.
It's an equally shared deal according to the state law of Michigan, the state condo law.
we can not do an improvement to a common element and only assess certain co-owners.
It's one or all. It's all, basically. We cannot say, well, these 10 over here have to pay,
and these 10 over here don't have to, it doesn't work that way. That's the state law.
Yes.
Michelle, should this pass and eventually you prevail at both this level and from the electives?
would you continue to have the conversation about what is potentially possible as far
as sidewalks through the entire development as part of a different conversation?
We would be willing to have that conversation.
It would be difficult to fund it because of the way that the county assessor has stated
her position.
So that, unless the city absolutely says you have to have sidewalks on this portion that
we're not talking about today, it would have to be a city tax basically.
Yeah, so that the option that we put out there as Mr. Schultz was talking about was essentially
the city would pay for the sidewalks to go in and then there would be a contract with the
and then they would have the dues associated with that and the HOA itself would be responsible for paying us back over probably a ten-year period.
So, and that's just to be consistent with city ordinances when sidewalks go in are replaced in front of a home.
It's the responsibility of the homeowner unless there's some exciting circumstances, which there's a couple of situations.
So,
that's that was sort of the agreement that we were trying to lay out that would have gotten around the concerns from the county assessor.
And she and I did have a conversation when she initially came through with her position on it and it's been well over years since that conversation.
I don't remember the details of it, but essentially there were some state court rulings that she was looking at
that she felt didn't give her the authority even taking into consideration the condo law
and that that's why she wasn't comfortable rolling an assessment across all the properties,
which is another way that we pay for those sidewalks as well. And again, in that case, the city
would still be paying the upfront cost and then we'd be recouping them through the special assessment over time.
So the contract option was essentially a similar option just with a contract with the HOA as opposed
to, on the individual properties.
I, you know, of a mind to vote,
guess, on this particular option.
And one reason, that one of the big reasons is,
I think it'd be Shane and Miss Out on,
you know, additional housing within the city.
Secondly,
I've given this situation,
I would hate to put an impediment in, you know, front of the ownership
for use of their property. Now, through almost 40 years of not 40 years, we have a situation
here that if indeed there is a deficiency meaning the sidewalks won't put in. But the mayor
even mentioned a hard time finding if that was ever really a requirement. Now we've gone through
how many developers in the first developer with Dick Anderson, John Dearing picks up
the project. And then, you know, now, now we have, you know, ownership in the form of
Okay, I knew it so she's right. How many, how many administrations or even times that the sidewalks came up,
you know, in front of the elected and basically it was pushed off. We've had 40 years
of either inability or unwillingness to bring enforcement of some sort to force the sidewalks.
but that was never done. The kind of the topic of the sidewalks had come up at least once
back when I was still on the commission with you, Mr. Mayor, and it didn't go anywhere, you know,
the discussion. So now we have the condo association with, you know, practical difficulties to
circumstances that are unique to this property for the current ownership. This was not
self-created.
And you know how many current residents were residents at the time in the
1980s when this even came up. Maybe 50%. Okay. And to your point about the transfer of ownership
from Dick Anderson to John Darion. I believe I'm not sure on this, but we did find some
records that in early 1990 or early 1990s there was a sidewalk boat and at that time
John Darion still owned a greater than 50% of the parcels. So he had a boat of yes or no. And so
obviously he voted the down because he had power over the empty parcels at that time.
So, we think that's probably why that boat failed, is that he didn't want to put in the sidewalks at his expense.
I'm guessing there.
I'm not sure.
Again, I'm going to vote in the affirmative, because I believe that this is a good option.
Thank you.
We'd hate to see the development of additional housing in the city of Michigan,
stymied and also your ability as ownership to be denied, you know, the use of your own property.
One of the benefits there, and then, you know, somebody's got a nail down, you know,
just the deficiency actually exists. And, you know, if it does, then we do have
legal bearing including you know court case to say build these different things or you
continue on you know as a body as a corporate body you know the residents and find some work
around assessors and whatever else because there is a call for sidewalks by some of your
ownership, but I understand that and it's it's the funding element that is
it is and there was a question asked you know tonight who pays for this he better
be clear on that one because it seems like you know some people aren't clear
that and all the cities not going to come in and put inside walks they don't we
wouldn't do that and any neighborhood you know the it's either going to be a
neighborhood in this city. On the short and version of the sidewalk, the developers are going to
pay the upfront cost and just deduct it from our proceeds. So that's why we have the funding
element in place for the short and version. If we were faced with the extended version all the way
from Pulton Street all the way to the end of East Harbor Town Circle,
we have a problem that we don't
because after 40 years of head scratching as to where the heck are the sidewalks who
pays for it and are you really required to, I'm not going to hold up the development of
additional housing in the city of Michigan or deny your corporate body, the residents
there, an opportunity to use their own property.
Thank you, sir.
One other point I'd want to make on the 28 additional units.
All of the infrastructure is already there.
The roads are there, the utilities are there.
The water insurers are there.
We're not like the Sandacks.
We're not like the Savvy property that have to still put in all of these infrastructure elements.
So if we do receive approval, and perhaps early 2027,
we might be able to see something go up.
But I'm not committing to that, but we have a lot of the infrastructure already there so that it's not a stumbling block.
And that would be nice to have additional people living there to actually pay the cost of maintaining that infrastructure.
Thank you.
I was going to add a note that Head Conversations to DBW about how can we engineer, how can we do this the different ways.
And one of your residents has to post can't you do something in the street itself instead of having a sidewalk.
And so I did convert with their city manager and our DW director on that.
Is there a way to have a marketed walking path out of the roadway that exists?
And DW director did review that and it's not.
He would not recommend that given the current with the roadway.
That's the problem, is the road is just not widening.
A little bit wider, then you're talking a little bit about each side.
And basically then you would make Harper tell a circle of one lane road.
Yeah. So if we're just a little bit wider, then it could have been able to accommodate both the
two-way traffic and separate. We would have loved to have that.
Which is unfortunate, because I would have been the cheapest option.
So really, by far, and make everyone happy, most everyone's having, you're not going to get universal happiness.
You work for a fire. We make a long ways towards making everyone happy.
Mr. Rindig.
Can you confirm with regard to the search for any documentation
with regard to any side block requirement,
predating the commission action in 2024?
As I recall, there were some meeting minutes that referenced it,
There was we couldn't find any actual documentation of the PUD requiring it or any minutes of motions that spoke to it.
That's a really good question and I brought it up more during the first go around.
We had some of the literature there that we found. Unfortunately for whatever reason we don't really have zoning files that predate 1990.
They were tossed at some point.
So we don't have the original plan, there's some pieces of it but it doesn't exactly show
a sidewalk, but looking through the files around 1997 and in 2004.
There were discussions about it, and those emails referenced that the sidewalks needed to be installed. It didn't say where they were.
Both sides of the street, one side of the street throughout the entire development or not. It just looked at some point that there was a requirement that a sidewalk should be put in, but we can't find exactly where that would be located.
One comment on the original PUD in our discussions in the past two years or so, we have reached out to John Darian.
He's still with us and he lives in the Trevor City area.
He had indicated that he does not have any of the PUD documents also.
So we went down the same road that Director Francis was that we were in search of the same
documents and he said, no, I don't have them.
Whether he did or not, I'm not sure, but that was his answer.
Thank you.
Have any further questions, comments?
I was going to address a couple of the questions that came up but then also kind of give
my position to, so a question came about the open areas and how that's going to be impacted.
So that was a dress, they've already had approval for the expansion, and that was a dress in that last public hearing by the PUD.
But they would need to meet all Eagle permit requirements as well for anything with Dune grass and things like that.
So those things have been addressed.
I keep looking at this and thinking about perfect mean the enemy of good and our goal here is to have more sidewalks.
If we don't allow this change, we're guaranteed not to have more sidewalks.
If we allow this change, there's a possibility that we'll have sidewalks and the co-owners
will have the opportunity to vote on it.
And that's really what this process does is it gives the co-owners in hard recounting the
ability to go back and vote on the situation.
So Lake Commissioner Garran, I'm also going to support the amendment because I think it moves
this in the right direction.
It's not perfect.
It's not the way that I would want to see it.
would want to see more sidewalks, but we're guaranteed not to have the sidewalks if we don't
make the change.
Yes, Mr. Man.
As you can see, I move the request to amend the Planning and Development Harvard Town
County Minimum Association to reduce the amount of sidewalk being installed as required
as part of their plans to construct additional housing.
You recommended the City Commission for approval with following conditions.
One, a turnaround must be incorporated at the end of the channel view point.
Two, a stormwater permit must be obtained from the engineering department before construction
commences.
Three, a landscaping plan is provided.
for a crosswalk will be installed at the end of the street.
Five grading easements will be needed outside this existing right away,
particularly among the east side of the street.
If not obtainable retaining walls may be required.
Six improved sidewalk ramps and requiring grading easements
and possibly requiring permanent easements will be required
at the fault and entrance to make the sidewalks ADA compliant.
I had a friendly amendment for clarity and note that the requirement
for a fire hydrant is removed, because sometimes I can create questions in the future if there's
a condition in one and then not in the next. So note that that is the reference to the fire hydrant
requirement previous version has been stricken from this version. Second.
Motion is again.
move by our mayor, Kim Johnson, and this is a part of a commission government.
Can we have a vote?
Well, I'll just say the final thoughts.
I will support the motion that's on the floor.
As our manager said, ideal, the ideal would be there to be sidewalk among the entirety
of that road.
That's still my personal preference,
and I'm going to continue to advocate for sidewalks
We're responsible in our city, so we have complete streets, which is a city policy of ours.
However,
the exciting way of circumstances here, and there was good faith effort made on the city's
part and the kind of socials part to find a way to be able to fund and install the sidewalk and do
to fiscal constraints, engineering constraints, topography constraints, determined that it's just
not feasible at this time.
I still would like to see that find a, still to find a way
to make that happen.
However, if we were going to get a sidewalk
at all here, I think this is a very important section
of the sidewalk, connecting Fulton to Indiana,
street.
And by extension, connecting Harvittown Beach
through Indiana to Pirmarket,
is important.
And you all have sunk in costs already
and these vacant lots and I understand this is an important development not only to help
get more residents to help shoulder the cost of maintaining your condo association and your
facilities and common areas but also the development process is going to be significant and
help support your association and condo residents as well. So I will support this maybe a little
of a grudgingly?
I mean, grudging might not be the right best words,
but saddened, maybe, we couldn't find a way
to ensure that there's going to be a continuous sidewalk
on either side of that street.
That would have been part of the preference of the ideal,
but has the manager said sometimes the perfect
can be the enemy of the good.
And those are my thoughts.
Yes.
Just as a disinformation, under planning law and under planning developments,
there is indication of separating a new amended proposal from the existing and reading through my notes from our training.
It was not only desirable but was a lot, you go ahead and handle the new proposal without
dropping any perceived efficiency that had existed, you know, from the past and you would
still pursue, you know, that, but we're not even sure, you know, if there is a deficiency
or a breach in, you know, existing contractual PUD language,
but there is, that's part
the mechanism, under planning law, that within an existing unit,
you do address a new proposal
without dropping the need to address the pre-existing situation.
So, that's just an aside.
Any other comments?
Just a clarify, given we just heard from Commissioner Garret, I think the event that we're
documentation were to surface that was a requirement of the original POD. No action being taken
here, undo that previous requirement. If it were to be found, if we found out that side was
re-required and this didn't pass, no no I'm saying if this were passed because we're talking about
just one, we're talking about taking away a new requirement that we added in 2024 or a condition
for an amendment. And so we're removing that condition to that amendment of just one area
that's being developed. If you were, if you were, if documentation were to surface that the
original PUD had required a sidewalk that is not now negated because we simply are
mending a condition for these additional housing. I would kind of tough to answer. I guess I would
say no, it wouldn't because the conditions are about the expansion and not about what is existing
there at the time. So, and that's also why I made that from the amendment to add the striking
of a hydrant in there to make sure that it's clear on what is changing. So, this is strictly
related to them being able to do the expansion that's in place. If we found out that the original
requirements were not met, that would be a different discussion. Now, I don't know if it would be
that discussion. If that was discovered, but I would see these as two separate things.
Okay, thank you.
You went out.
I'm going for a vote again.
Commissioner Keener. Yes.
Go around.
Yes.
Say for? Yes.
It was Garza. Yes.
In Johnson.
So we have a guest on hearing case 2016.
I'm going to move on to unfinished business. Do we have any unfinished business?
I'm going to get a confirmation, but that come to the City Commission August 25th, or that
be in our September, and should the August 25th?
So just for folks in the audience and your neighbors know that this will become the City Commission
on August 25th, and that's when the City Commission will be considering the planning
commission's recommendation.
And there will be public comment available at the beginning of the commission meeting
before the Commission deliberates and votes.
Thank you for clarifying.
If you want to open a business, do we have any unfinished business, no unfinished business?
Well, I just wonder, when are we going to have a joint city planning commission meeting?
That's a good question.
We could schedule one.
We probably wanted to decide what the topic would be.
Because we were supposed to be doing one every once in a year.
Yeah.
to read the moment.
Yeah, that would be true.
So, I guess for each of us to decide, I would respect the bodies on the particular topic
so I want to discuss one of which is what we've been having.
There's a broad board previously, which is around public access.
Waterfront public access.
And so there was some little discussion here, deferred back to staff to get clarification.
And it had popped up on our agenda for a close session discussion at one point.
that didn't happen, and I haven't seen it returned,
some prompts that's a topic that can be addressed
by the Planning Commission and the City Commission together,
considering it was the City Commission that had given direction
to move forward with the zoning change to support more water
from public access.
Do you know about when?
We would have to figure out.
Yeah, we'd have to figure out dates that would work
I think every the last time we did it, we just combined it with a city commission meeting
or if we want to have a special meeting in a different location or something like that
that could accommodate everybody.
Thank you.
Any new business?
Move on.
Any other business?
So, with that being said, we want to open up to general public comments.
Any about there?
Any one out there?
That has anything.
Any general public comment?
Please feel free to come to the podium.
Yes
sir. Well we're waiting can I ask your question of Mike Pramp's in the last public
hearing there was discussion about or made mention about the docks. Do you have any new
information about the status of that project that you could share with us? I do not. I'm not sure
if the city manager has any. I believe there's working through the permitting process with the state.
I heard that there was, I'm sure we all want to hear this, but I heard that there may be another request coming back to the planning commission for another adjustment to their PUD.
You heard that.
No.
Thank you.
active general public comments seeing us how we have no one out in the audience
we've got one down there no one that looks want to give public comment we're
going to move to recognize your presence thank you we're going to move to the
fold lines again that number is two three one seven two four six seven two
Again, that's 2, 3, 1, 7, 2, 4, 6, 7, 2, 1, 4, any general public comment?
Because we don't want to do it.
What else?
We have no cause.
I am going to move to make a motion for a giant minute.
So move.
Second.
Move by Mayor Kim Johnson.
Seconded by...
That you, Commissioner.
down.
Mr. Steve.
Thank you.