[2:09] Thanks
[2:24] regular meeting of Park Township
Planning Commission is now in session.
[2:28] First item on the agenda is the approval
of the agenda.
[2:33] Anything that anybody wants to move
around
[2:50] » second item on the agenda is the
approval of minutes from our July 23rd
[2:53] meeting. Uh I've gone through this. I
did not find any
[2:58] corrections or revisions. Does anybody
else have anything?
[3:05] » All good hearing none. Seeing none to
present
[3:13] all
[3:20] » being here. It's always nice when we
have participation and residents joining
[3:26] us. Typically, it's when we have
something that might be a bit
[3:30] interesting for those that live in the
area. So, it's it's good. We want your
[3:34] input.
We will have this set up tonight. Um the
[3:38] first thing that we'll have is public
comment. That's an opportunity for you
[3:43] for up to three minutes. Um, and the way
we'll do this tonight, we got to have
[3:49] two public breaks. One specific uh to
the butternut crossings
[3:56] and the second will be specific to Ben
Club.
[4:04] Uh, if you have something that you'd
like to speak about other than those two
[4:08] things, public comment period would be
your
[4:13] privileges to do that. If you want to
speak on either of those other topics,
[4:16] we would have to hear
[4:25] everybody on. We got a request that
sometimes we're a bit hard to hear,
[4:30] particularly if you're listening.
So, we want to make sure that you're on
[4:37] and we're up close. Okay. Okay. with
that open public comment and uh if you
[4:43] do have just I'll give you since we have
a number of people just kind of provide
[4:47] a few grounds uh which is why both the
public comment also public hearings uh
[4:53] this is the time to hear from you
welcome your comments which are very
[4:57] important to us and they play into our
conversations
[5:03] um we do want to comments excuse me
three minutes 30 the debate is really
[5:11] the three minutes each. Obviously, the
applicants have
[5:16] us. Um, as a reminder, when you do come
up to the podium to speak, please do
[5:22] give us your name. Write your name down.
Should be a form up there to do that.
[5:27] And, uh, so do please sign in and, um,
give us your name.
[5:33] And please do address your comments to
the chair. Um note that we won't look at
[5:38] the dialogue with you during this time.
This is your opportunity. It's our
[5:43] opportunity to listen to your comments.
Um the meeting itself belongs to the
[5:49] planning commission. So once the
comments are completed and in this case
[5:53] the presentation for each of the two
we'll have our discussion and then we
[5:59] will come to a decision on next steps.
So you'll be able to understand that
[6:05] process. Everything we do is in an open
meeting process. That's requirement. And
[6:10] so you will see you will see in here
everything we talk about consider.
[6:15] Um
and if you do have factual questions
[6:20] that come up that you're not in a
position to answer, you can direct those
[6:24] to staff and they'll follow up with
response for you. Okay. So with those
[6:29] ground rules, uh let's start with public
comment. So let's start uh on the right
[6:35] hand side this time. Any comments that
are not pertaining
[6:44] across
[6:50] the right hand side over the left hand
side. Any comments? Yes.
[7:12] Okay. So
[7:19] about C2 also on the tree ordinance. I
just want to reiterate that as you guys
[7:25] are playing
a utopian perfect solution for all these
[7:30] things
in real life
[7:34] issues real life copy boundaries like
lack of oil because of requirements for
[7:41] boat storage
all those things. So please consider
[7:46] what's actually happens.
[8:09] Not quite sure what you're actually
getting
[8:13] less.
Thank you.
[8:21] » All right. Any other folks at this time
that would like to speak to something
[8:26] that's not relevant projects?
If not, we'll go ahead and close this
[8:32] public comment and move on to the
development review and public hearing.
[8:42] At this point, we always discuss this.
Is it better to do the public hearing
[8:46] before the presentation and the final PE
or what's your thoughts?
[8:51] » Uh why because this has been presented
before, why don't we go ahead and do
[8:56] first? Okay.
>> Thank you. In that case, uh we need a
[9:03] motion to open the public hearing.
>> All in favor?
[9:08] » I public hearing is open. Uh let's
start. Uh this time with left side uh
[9:15] right and this is on 109 crossings. So
this is on plan use development which
[9:22] would be this to give some context. This
is property directly across west high
[9:27] school and we have Pat review on this.
So this is the file.
[9:32] Okay. Anyone on the left?
[9:40] Anybody on our right or left?
>> I think I know why everybody's here. All
[9:46] right. [laughter]
[9:51] » Okay. All in favor of closing the public
hearing and
[9:58] with that
like present
[10:03] discussion.
[10:09] stay
[10:23] in my brothers meeting.
Uh so we were here last month. I think
[10:30] we had a good discussion
[10:34] state of
plant because of the collaboration that
[10:39] we have both the staff and planning
commission. So we appreciate the
[10:43] feedback um and I'm just going to
briefly kind of go over
[10:48] set changes that were made um and just
some of the things that we identified at
[10:55] a few of those things and then mostly
we're just here to answer your
[10:57] questions.
[11:00] » [clears throat]
>> So this is noted in the report but just
[11:02] calling attention to it. Um there were
additional trees that were placed around
[11:08] the storm water detention based
[11:16] so
[11:29] we had
to um
[11:35] most that space a little bit adjacent to
the uh to the detection
[11:45] idea. So, so we won't take all the
credit. Shake your hand in that. Um,
[11:53] one of the things noted on the static
report, um, the note about a 20-year
[11:58] growth plan, and I recall that there
being a little bit of discussion about
[12:03] it, um, but I guess, um, that wasn't
necessarily clear to us that that was a
[12:08] very strict directive. Um, but uh, you
know, in in reviewing that staff report,
[12:14] I do have some imagery that I can show
you if you like. You guys wanted to see
[12:18] that of of what sort of a 20-year growth
on those trees would look like. And what
[12:24] you see in the plan isn't necessarily
what trees will look like the day
[12:28] they're planted. There is certainly some
growth that you see there. 20 years.
[12:33] Okay, maybe
diameter to their um to the canopy of
[12:39] the tree. So, I brought some inventory
if you wanted to look at that. Um but
[12:43] again, the L100 sheet the landscape plan
you see is pretty well representative of
[12:50] what those trees would look like.
Look at that if you'd like.
[12:56] » [clears throat]
>> Um,
[12:58] one of the things in the report I guess
I just wanted to quick clarify I think I
[13:03] think I understand
what it was.
[13:07] It's a point of clarification for staff
noted the minimum powerful sizing
[13:12] 15
water and sewers available. We're
[13:16] assuming that that very specific to a
single family meant
[13:23] of connection if and when available.
[13:30] » One of the items in your report though
that we do want to talk some pretty
[13:34] specific attention to is the setbacks
recommendation for that
[13:41] single family residence. So,
[clears throat]
[13:45] and I think we we kind of see how it was
determined, but just something that I
[13:50] want to talk about that. So, it's noted
uh that staff recommends front yard 40
[13:55] sideyard on the north side 10 ft side as
30 of course that sideyard and south is
[14:03] the location now
and
[14:07] walking area. Um, so it's understandable
why that would be increased to 30, but
[14:14] the rear yard, which is the western
portion of the site. Now, it's true we
[14:18] indicate on the plan that that is an
area that we sort of identified as tree
[14:25] preservation. Okay. Um, [clears throat]
however, um, with the location of where
[14:32] the house is likely to go, this is
mostly because of topography uh, and
[14:38] length of driveway. um and the grading
that have to do.
[14:45] We're not in favor of being restricted
to that 90 ft at the rear setback. Um
[14:50] something a little bit more reasonable.
Now, uh as a side note,
[14:54] but I think that per the ordinance rear
yard setback is 25 ft. Am I right about
[15:01] that?
Yeah. So what's being recommended is it
[15:05] increase to that rear setback from 25 to
90. At 90 is just going to hamstring a
[15:11] bit too much of um the area where the
house can go and the applicant like a
[15:17] little more flexibility with that. So as
a compromise what we're suggesting is a
[15:22] 60 foot rear step back in that area. So
going from 25 to 60 increasing that
[15:28] minimum rear step back to 60 rather than
going at full 90. Again, the topography
[15:33] of the area, the rating that may be
necessary, the likelihood of the house
[15:37] placement there really works a lot
better. As a side note with that too,
[15:42] again, if my assumption is right that it
was to be consistent with what the tree
[15:48] preservation is, um,
note that the tree preservation isn't
[15:53] limited to just where that is, right? So
on the north and south of the house and
[15:58] all the way up to the road will be a
heavy heavy canopy of trees, right? The
[16:02] house will be nestled amongst it, right?
So if you just simply look at the image,
[16:06] it may look as though trees stop here,
but everything else is clearcut to the
[16:10] rope. That's not the case. So I manage
that that would have that if you wanted
[16:14] to see it, but just understand that that
we're proposing a compromise of 60 ft
[16:18] rather than that 90, which is a little
bit too far um from where the the
[16:23] applicant be comfortable that they can
find the appropriate place for the
[16:27] house.
[16:31] Um
[16:34] there's there's a note in the uh the
staff report regarding the broker
[16:40] commission um potentially adding in the
lane. Um there's a little bit of
[16:45] confusing language there. We're
certainly willing to discuss it a little
[16:48] further, but I think the context was,
you know, um, yes, there is technically
[16:54] this requirement that dedicated open
space be adjacent to a public right of
[16:59] way, but I think we all sat in this uh
room last month and determined, well, it
[17:05] wouldn't really make sense to try to
have open
[17:09] cut space adjacent to the road. What we
like there is to have a tree canopy
[17:14] that's there preserving that tree
canopy. So wanted to discuss that a
[17:18] little bit further, but just wanted to
call attention to and I have some images
[17:22] of that as well if we wanted to to talk
in detail about that.
[17:38] No problem.
>> Uh so the treement calculations is
[17:41] another thing
[17:46] that I wanted to make sure to discuss.
Um because it was called out in the
[17:49] staff report. Um and I just wanted to
give a little bit of background on it.
[17:56] Um you know we do know that the the
calculation that we did and this is
[18:00] shown on your L100 sheet. um that we
assign a 1,600 square foot um sort of
[18:07] per tree canopy in our calculation. Now,
how we came up with that is um that is a
[18:15] standard that is used in several not
many other municipalities um
[18:20] specifically like city records. Um they
use that that calculation
[18:25] um you know I believe it also had been
discussed in the tree preservation
[18:30] subgroup as well. Um, you know, we feel
like that is a very reasonable size
[18:38] because it is almost industry standard
for
[18:43] us
as noted in the in the report. Uh, that
[18:48] represents a 45 foot diameter tree. Now,
what you'll notice uh in the um
[18:58] the 20-year plan we showed you, many of
our trees are shown in that 30 45 foot
[19:04] diameter tree range. So, we feel like um
that calculation is reasonable. Um, note
[19:11] too that even at that 1,600 square foot
calculation, that ends up with a
[19:16] requirement of 26 trees to be placed on
the site placement when you apply the
[19:23] 25% that 1600 square foot.
Be careful about doing math in public,
[19:29] but basically results in a requirement
of 26 trees. That's
[19:34] we're proposing 35 trees. Okay. So,
we're proposing well over what that
[19:40] minimum requirement is for tree
replacement. I think when you look at
[19:45] the uh landscape plan, we were very
strate strategic on where they're
[19:50] placed. Our emphasis was on tree
preservation at every possible location
[19:55] that we could. and we think we've come
up with a um a good quality reasonable
[20:02] plan for tree preservation, open space
usage and tree replacement. Um so again,
[20:10] you know, we I can I can discuss that a
little bit further um if you guys would
[20:14] like to do so as well. Um but but we
understood and I think we heard it um
[20:20] very specifically from some members is
not quite so concerned about um
[20:25] calculating a percentage as much as does
this make sense? Does this look good? Is
[20:31] this a reasonable play? And we think so
that it is.
[20:36] Um there were there were kind of three
kind of key items that um you know were
[20:42] were discussed in some detail towards
the end of last meeting uh even to the
[20:47] point where we wanted to ensure that we
heard it correctly and we sort of pulled
[20:51] each member and I just want to go
through each one of those because this
[20:54] is what we heard and this is sort of
responded accordingly with our site
[20:59] language.
[21:02] » First off is uh is the bike pack. Okay.
So there was discussion centered around
[21:08] a a bike path or take a long butternut.
Um we know that that would impact trees
[21:15] in that area and the whole discussion we
had last what we had heard and and what
[21:19] we noticed uh from the uh the minutes
that we read is that bike path had
[21:25] support of one member and was not
supported by five members of the
[21:29] planning commission and one planning
commission.
[21:32] So you'll notice that we did not include
the bike path on that. The other one was
[21:36] the idea that there should be a a
permanent easement for the internal um
[21:43] walking path within the site. Um that
was proposed. Um all members were on
[21:48] board. So you see on the plan now that
there's an easement for that path there.
[21:56] And then finally there was a bit of
discussion regarding that path and what
[22:00] material it should be made out of. Um
and it it really kind of fell into three
[22:06] categories of that. Right? So should it
be natural? Should it be paved with
[22:12] concrete or should it be some other
material? Third one would be other
[22:17] right. Uh we didn't hear any members say
that they thought it should be paved. Um
[22:22] we had discussed sort of the pros and
cons of um paving it and I think that it
[22:28] was clear that the cons um elevate the
pros
[22:33] the natural path. So talking natural um
it proposed like a a mulch path. Um
[22:40] someone even mentioned just straight
dirt path. Um but we think a mulch path
[22:45] would be nice that seemed to have a
support of five members. uh and then two
[22:50] discuss you know maybe there's an
alternative
[22:53] so so what we reflected in the plan is
what we understood maturity plant
[23:01] natural
that had the lead on the trees um it
[23:05] gives the opportunity to I'll just say
work with the land right where we
[23:12] meander it how we want to um we can
avoid um you know
[23:18] some of the more we'll say important
trees or root systems that we discover
[23:22] as we uh as it's being installed. It's
the least impactful um but yet still
[23:28] something of quality and something that
you see very often. Uh so so what you
[23:35] see in the plant is a is a mulch path.
[23:40] Finally, um there's a note about
dewatering and the language in the
[23:45] review and actually the language that
made it into the proposed resolution um
[23:50] is quite familiar. Um it looks as though
it was taken directly from another
[23:56] project that some of us might remember.
Um and that's understandable. We get it.
[24:01] We understand. Um there are some key
differences though in this project with
[24:07] the the other project that that is
implemented.
[24:11] First and foremost the other project um
had a full storm water pond right an
[24:17] actual wet pond that was digging into
the water table
[24:22] that there was a bit of demonstrated
impact on neighboring properties. That's
[24:27] not the case here. we have a dry basin
um and so uh that that basin will
[24:34] obviously I guess be out of the water
table right so um the construction of
[24:40] that sorry the construction of the basin
the dry basin
[24:46] shouldn't require any dewatering
furthermore um the sanitary sewer the
[24:51] invert is about 2 feet above where the
water table is even um consulted a
[24:58] an excavator that we've worked with in
the past and discussed the fact that hey
[25:02] we have sanitary sewer its about two
feet above where the water table is in
[25:07] your experience would you have to
dewater in that case and the answer is
[25:10] no.
So our recommendation is that it's
[25:14] unnecessary for dewatering language to
the resolution.
[25:21] um willing to discuss that further but
uh but you know if there is no
[25:26] dewatering um it doesn't seem necessary
to place the the restricted language
[25:32] that
[25:36] so with that we're here to answer
questions appreciate all the feedback
[25:40] that we got we listened and
look forward to
[25:50] Um I as far as touch I'm not I'm not the
title we talked about the educator
[26:02] thank you not
[26:06] experts in that field
[26:11] engineering folks water resources
believe that's what isn't
[26:17] that's reason
I do want to there are a number of
[26:22] things even with changes we talking I
don't think there well I will say there
[26:26] are a lot but I'll address the I'm going
to open it up and I have to sorry
[26:33] commissioners for further discussion but
I do have to get closer but sorry
[26:39] my own so [clears throat] one of the
things we did after we had the
[26:44] conversation about
pattern boy is had discussion with the
[26:49] parks folks and we talked about that
with them about all the different
[26:54] substrates
that and the recommendation that came
[26:58] back was that mulch is actually one of
the most to be uh for a variety of
[27:04] reasons. I think the direction we got
was that either a paved path or using
[27:11] essentially a gravel type path would be
easier to maintain
[27:15] mulch. Mulch is going to leave.
It is something that can be easily added
[27:21] but it also goes in other places that
don't necessarily
[27:25] it would look like a more natural path
but that's one of the reasons that we
[27:29] video shoots. Now this is me right? We
have we're an independent panel as you
[27:35] know. Um everybody may not agree but
that was the rationale for my
[27:42] got some additional comments coming.
Um, I've got a number of other comments,
[27:48] but with that opening
the conversation
[27:56] number,
[28:01] um, prior to getting discussion, um, I
would be interested in seeing the
[28:07] revised drawings um, that you referenced
so that I can compare them to what was
[28:12] included.
>> Yeah.
[28:15] that were
[28:19] » 20 years.
[28:24] » Yeah. So, um came up with some imagery
that just shows further growth of the
[28:31] trees. Again, the ones that are showing
on your L100 plan are now day one. Um
[28:37] but there could be a little bit further
grow them. So I can hand you pass
[28:45] around.
[28:55] One of them is colored up nicely.
>> That's always
[29:02] the other one is just black and white.
So these will be the same and I'll start
[29:05] it either end you guys.
Appreciate
[29:31] years
[29:35] more or less maybe not to the day but
yeah the idea is the should grow to
[29:43] about that based on material source
[29:53] » we have landscape architects
[30:00] » yeah you'll see it's not
but there is a slight difference so we
[30:04] attempted to depict that
>> I think is better
[30:10] because they would
categicize
[30:22] that some of them growing into buildings
and growing into each other road you
[30:27] know obviously there's maintenance that
needs to happen right some of it can be
[30:31] over top so you know
it's our best
[30:41] And then
we were question
[30:46] the inner lines on this revised drawing
reflect what was
[30:50] » Yeah, I just overlaid it on the top.
>> Perfect. Very good. Thank you.
[31:07] I'll throw one more thing out. Um you
referenced the 90%
[31:13] lot.
Um I think the rationale you hit the
[31:18] nail on the head. This is one of the
concerns that I think we discussed in
[31:21] the last meeting which is is that lot is
developed.
[31:25] Are we going to be able to maintain that
because you're I know you're calculating
[31:30] uh part of the the tree can is that
because it is part of the development is
[31:35] that the trees that are in that far.
So if that's the case, we want to make
[31:42] sure those are maintained because it is
partic
[31:46] for sure. Um so again, a couple things
on that. We can simply modify that
[31:50] drawing and keep those trees that would
be surrounding that area and we probably
[31:54] end up with greater amount of trees that
would have lost. Also, um if you're
[31:59] looking at it from a strictly numbered
standpoint, what you see um and it
[32:02] should be noted on the plan set in the
tree preservation area is 1.26 26 acres.
[32:10] If we were to reduce that to uh
the 60 rather than the 90,
[32:18] it would be 1.2 acres. So, we're talking
a net loss of 006 acres of trees. Just
[32:26] looking at the plan set again, there's
quite a few more trees. In fact, I mean,
[32:31] might as well just, you know, help.
[32:35] So, here's an image that I'm going to
show you um that would show a depiction
[32:41] of a house being located um roughly at
that 60 foot setback. You'll notice on
[32:47] the if you look at your tree
preservation sheet, right? There's a
[32:50] hatched line that shows what we're
counting as trees preservation. Well,
[32:55] I've added in the other areas that would
be preserved as trees. We don't know
[32:59] exactly where it's going to be, but this
image that I'm about to pass around will
[33:03] indicate areas that trees will be
preserved in a typical plan.
[33:12] Again, none of this is counted in a tree
presentation right now. Those are trees
[33:16] that will be preserved. We just don't
show it on the plan right now. We could
[33:21] » and it would be greater than what you
show, but we just don't know.
[33:25] Will this house move over to here and
then is it right? So we we had kept it
[33:31] to here before and actually the train
reservation was here move back to here
[33:36] 6. So I think you understand the idea.
>> Yeah. No, that's helpful. We It's hard
[33:41] to evaluate what we're doing.
>> Yeah.
[33:44] » So that's helpful. Another way to put it
is if we were to revise the the tree
[33:49] preservation exhibit to include that, we
would actually go up from what we have
[33:53] now and still at the 60 ft.
[34:06] » Mr. Chair, may I ask a question please?
The 1.26 We can acres trees preserve
[34:14] include the trees that be planted.
Correct.
[34:17] » Right.
>> There's an exhibit. Um the best do is
[34:21] look at that was a specific exhibit
requested and yeah. So that that's so
[34:28] it's 1.26 plus one year coverage.
>> That's correct. Um the
[34:36] city
>> 35
[34:44] I have done the calculation with the 20
years on those three species took about
[34:50] 10 minutes.
Um
[34:53] those trees in 20 years should give you
about 0.58 acres of tree canopy. Okay,
[35:02] plus or minus. I mean, they're all in a
range, but this these are 2 and a half
[35:06] inch PBH trees in full sun in Michigan
zone six. Those three species
[35:12] specifically
give you a range of where I end up and I
[35:16] took number in the middle. So, 1.26 26
acres of trees being preserved plus the
[35:22] additional.58
acres from those trees planted in 20
[35:26] years should give you 31%
coverage on this 5.9 acres.
[35:34] So I
see
[35:42] » I've already got
[35:47] » Thanks.
That's that's very helpful. I think we
[35:51] were we were startling a little bit
because we thrown around that average
[35:54] reposition. We heard that 1600 square
foot piece. That's a very large, very
[36:01] healthy, very mature, probably one of
the larger trees.
[36:05] So, we want to make sure that 20 years
gives us a good range and good
[36:09] expectations what that's going to look
like. Now, we hope that we'll all be
[36:13] here in 20 years to be able to validate
that. But at least folks that enjoy that
[36:17] neighborhood
[36:34] are some of our preferred species.
Nothing.
[36:37] » Yes. So they're their their
[36:42] two that will go up high and red bug
will spread an umbrella,
[36:49] » but it won't go as high
and uh they're going to be pretty.
[36:55] » Just as a quick sidebar to our resident
probably
[37:01] a lot of these, we're also working on a
tree preservation
[37:05] right now updating our current So we do
spend a lot more time have spent a lot
[37:10] more time talking about trees species
invasive species which you want to
[37:15] avoid. So this might not seem like a
typical meeting
[37:23] especially
>> Mr.
[37:29] um whatever you decide about size and
the location and all of those things
[37:35] possibility in there which is helpful
since we're need to look at that rewrite
[37:39] coordinates um but the notes that are on
the map showing the tree preservation
[37:45] area
not like plus or minus whatever you
[37:48] decide should be reflected on the map we
haven't had there aren't a lot of your
[37:52] neighbors to this uh so I don't know as
many comments as we do sometimes but I
[37:56] and others on staff have been Mr.
Measure making sure that this is exactly
[38:02] where it should be. So we need to make
sure that we got
[38:13] questions discussion points.
>> Can I go to the
[38:18] » Can you go to the
[laughter]
[38:23] » I'm one of the ones that does not want
David. Okay. might be the only one that
[38:30] um
[38:36] uh
I look at this path as being a bike
[38:41] usage, a paved path is for
it's for parks where people pound up and
[38:48] down.
But I do have one significant concern
[38:52] about this path and the route it's on.
And well, I'll just say uh about halfway
[38:59] between
the condos and the zone there is an 8
[39:05] foot elevation change that happens right
now like this. Um that that path crosses
[39:15] on its way towards 46.
It's not
[39:21] it's it's it's
very similar to the to the slope on the
[39:27] back side of the 146
that boat in line.
[39:34] Um
>> Oh yeah, it gets better for sure.
[39:37] » Yes. So, I I I think we need to address
some sort of timbered steps uh that are
[39:44] anchored in the ground that that will
get people up and get people down.
[39:49] Otherwise,
sort of a path will end here and then
[39:53] there'll be another path that starts up
there and you'll comfortably be able to
[39:57] get the bottom to the top or back the
other way.
[40:01] » Yeah, we wouldn't do that. I mean, one
of the advantages I think about most
[40:05] natural path is you have the ability to
sort of sweep it, make more turns, so
[40:10] you can kind of meander your way up that
hill. Um, now it's in that area. And do
[40:16] we have enough room? I don't know.
>> Um,
[40:20] it would build it's in the building
of that.
[40:26] Well, you know, as as far as as far as
if you look at when we have 100.
[40:37] » Yeah,
it it will be steep. No doubt.
[40:42] A couple things. Number one, we didn't
see any other reasonable place to put
[40:46] it. Um two, could we meander it a little
bit if we did a natural path? Yes. Um is
[40:53] that going to be enough to avoid maybe a
few um put some timbers in or steps or
[40:59] something? Maybe not. we we may have to
do that. Um but you know I don't think
[41:04] that that's anything that
afraid to do.
[41:09] » I just want to address have have it be
our concern your concern that that
[41:14] that's a very steep slope.
>> It is very steep slope.
[41:18] » It is part of the path that needs to be
not accessible but climbable and
[41:23] desensible.
>> For sure. Yep. Um, so I think, you know,
[41:27] we can agree to if there needs to be
some timbers put in place, um, that's
[41:33] something they'd be willing to do, but I
agree with you that, you know, certainly
[41:36] consulting parks and rep makes sense. I
think they're used to heavy duty use,
[41:41] right? They're used to the public just
accessing it um numerous times, all day,
[41:46] every day has a little bit of a
different
[41:50] pace than than what we're talking about
here.
[41:54] So we'll take that.
I would love [clears throat] to see it
[41:59] one day
[42:05] at the other endocation.
[42:21] » Yes. And then there would be the
responsibility to
[42:30] that's very common element to the
association. So responsive.
[42:53] Yeah, I would I would just I guess add
on that we would I would encourage uh
[42:59] strong consideration of putting way
because there's also
[43:07] we want it to be usable. We want it to
be accessible. We suspect
[43:15] the part of our job is to think about
the future today. So I think
[43:21] Dr. Far
I think you do want to make sure that
[43:25] that's going to be something
[43:39] else
any other feedback or comments or
[43:42] questions or
[43:48] Mr. Chair, I uh there was a comment
not sure whether it was Mikas or yours
[43:56] above what was the RCD perhaps adding
another lane out in front. There's
[44:03] there's three today and you thought it
was a bad idea, but OCRC
[44:09] talked about it.
If that happens, would that fourth lane
[44:15] go on the school side
of maybe I'll ask an easier question and
[44:22] this is for me too. the right of way
move the border of the right of way move
[44:28] if it was put onto the
>> uh the right way line would only move if
[44:35] a road commission decides that
sometimes they will ask for additional
[44:40] right when there's a developer
it's not something that they indicated
[44:44] to me when we talked about it before but
it's possible that they could um when we
[44:50] discussed they indicated that addition
on the development side.
[44:58] So
[45:11] certainly
[45:15] by
[45:19] it sounds like that might still be a for
discussion that's
[45:28] There was a question about would
[45:34] is there enough room in the riving way?
The question was did we have to pick out
[45:40] trees? That was the question. So I went
out there and I started at the corner by
[45:44] the blueberry farm and I walked out and
it and it's five paces in from the
[45:51] rightway
border and aren't
[45:56] there aren't any more than 10 trees in
the whole length of of the property that
[46:02] are in that in that five aces before the
heavy tree comes in. So my basic answer
[46:10] to your question, I'm not sure if it was
your question or his question, but if
[46:15] another lane goes in, if the right way
doesn't
[46:19] not for tree there are there are you
might take out some nice trees, but
[46:25] there's nice trees directly behind them.
So it just means you you have to manage
[46:31] that no couple.
[46:36] » Yeah. And one of the things just keep in
mind.
[46:48] » Yeah. And
so
[46:52] should be fine.
[46:58] » It should be.
[47:04] I'm just afraid that they put the
additional way
[47:10] because there's already an additional.
>> Yeah. on the side.
[47:15] » Oh yeah,
[47:28] » we struggle to see how work right with
the configuration of how lanes are right
[47:34] now. Can't imag can't imagine a design
batting of a lane. You just can't our
[47:38] engineers can't quite wrap their head
around it. But regardless, it's not our
[47:42] deal. It's the road Christian. If
they're going to do it, they're going to
[47:44] do it. Doesn't matter what we say in
this room right now.
[47:49] » To add it on the development side means
they're going to take the middle line as
[47:53] it comes down the road.
>> We can't imagine how
[48:00] to
[48:04] comfortable. I I'm I'm comfortable that
anything that has to come out of the
[48:08] current right of way won't hurt our
presation.
[48:15] That's important
because I was worried about trees that
[48:20] might have to come out
[48:24] that are in better shape than our
[48:30] This is just something we don't know.
doesn't sound like perhaps it's going to
[48:35] happen but still good. Um
[48:41] I don't know this one but any Whoops. I
think we are really decision on that.
[48:48] Let's jump back for a second. Um, sounds
like we got a recommendation for either
[48:55] semi-p permeable or soft
for parts. Sounds like that might that
[49:02] may not be the most desirable option.
[49:09] I know we did this last meeting.
[49:19] some stuff out there kind of materials
in general. So is very accessible
[49:26] might feel that too much now. Um we do
as the township um we deal with
[49:31] developments that are 100 years old that
are 15 years old and so establishing
[49:35] that right that's a good thing. um chips
and pines which is kind of that little
[49:39] gravel stuff um is kind of the next step
down and that's actually probably what I
[49:44] would recommend for this and you know
you may decide that that's too much and
[49:47] that's and that's fine but that's a it's
a permutable surface it protects the
[49:50] roots it's considered accessible you can
argue about
[49:58] the mulch and the dirt leaves the roots
exposed and the mulch um it is a shaking
[50:05] surface require a lot.
So those are that's kind of the summary
[50:11] of what we received as far as different
pathways.
[50:16] » Thanks for the clarification chips and
vines.
[50:20] » Yeah, we have two types of gravel. We
have pines which are pathways and then
[50:24] some of the gravel out there is that
[50:31] gravel for this.
[50:35] Okay,
>> question for the chips. Is there more
[50:38] ground preparation for lay down the
surface or
[50:42] » I think so. Um certainly the recommended
mulch, right? So there's there is a
[50:47] slight concern less so than with
pavement but with the chips and fine you
[50:52] do need to prep that surface a bit more,
right? Got to scrape that top layer soil
[50:58] compaction that sort of thing. So it has
the potential to
[51:05] Okay. Any other questions that pass
before we can really quickly
[51:13] » start?
[51:31] I would be fine with it, but I think the
chips and pines um after the discussion
[51:35] about slope on there will help stabilize
that a little bit more. I'm pretty sure
[51:39] that's pretty sandy soil out there. So
she's gonna be shel
[51:48] Thank you.
[52:00] It sounds like the hill and getting a
true.
[52:16] » Yeah, the easement is 30.
[52:26] So yeah, you know
something.
[52:35] » Well, I'm still a mulch guy except for
if you have to put steps in anywhere
[52:41] along that way. I would use chips and
client just
[52:46] » chips and chips and
>> well I can take a formal roll call but I
[52:53] think
[52:57] people that
[53:03] I guess we're good at that point we had
I think 42
[53:10] for the chips and as
[53:15] I usually consider myself a tiger.
All right. Um, anybody else have
[53:21] anything else? I think we've covered
most of the things
[53:28] once everyone has gone through.
[53:36] » Great. Thank you. Um
asked a question about buffers
[53:43] sort of at the edges
on the north and south
[53:52] that that question hasn't been answered
or
[53:55] » no we haven't discussed that yet. Um,
and so the reason why I brought this up,
[53:59] this was the page in your your kind of
the areas where it's the reason why I
[54:04] wanted to bring back to you. This is
development that
[54:08] years ago when it was constructed, not a
whole lot of joy over how
[54:19] plant look like you're going to have
some pretty there practice. And most of
[54:23] the trees that were in that area had
some very damaged do very well. Still
[54:27] had what looked like a good paper. It
didn't turn out quite as well. So I just
[54:32] wanted you to take a second look at that
to make sure y
[55:40] the area. She left parties alive.
Here's
[55:49] the problem is one of the things we know
there is a lot of tendencies
[56:14] through there.
It might make sense just because you
[56:22] have you have this piece
[56:34] again. We don't want this is a trade.
They don't retreat but there's
[56:40] abody
else.
[56:48] » The only place in this diagram that I
saw is
[56:53] uh is C area C.
>> No, no, that's the property line.
[57:00] » Yeah,
>> that's outside behind the
[57:03] store. First of all, I want to say I'm
very excited that planting wildflower
[57:07] seeds in both of these basins.
>> You are going to be demonstrating to the
[57:13] uh retention basin across the road by
the soccer pitch
[57:18] » full of pipe racks
what things could look like. So, thank
[57:22] you. Um, but see, I'm you know, it's
going to be it's supposed to be a water
[57:30] collection area. It's going to get
swampy and then the property line there.
[57:35] I'm just wondering if we wanted to put
in some ary or something that can have
[57:44] wet feet and still thrive.
[57:51] Hey, this is this is this is a
development property line. This is the
[57:56] association
goes to here and that beyond. I don't
[58:00] know. It's
I don't know. I don't know what it looks
[58:04] on the other side of the property. It's
more is it the same elevation as where
[58:09] that swale is going to be?
>> Uh well on the on the south side of that
[58:16] property line is trees or heavy trees.
>> Is it the same elevation as the swale?
[58:23] Well, no. The swale down
>> down but but it's not going to the swale
[58:27] is the swale elevation is not going to
cross the property. No, no. The intent
[58:33] of that right is to capture all
[58:42] same thing with the area. I guess I'll
point out
[58:47] part of our storm water management
system. There is a swale that runs back
[58:51] in there. We're awfully tight back in
there. So, we've done our best to
[58:54] preserve any of the trees right up at
that property line. Do need to fit a
[58:58] swale in there. So sort of better
balance here
[59:03] whale warm water with water management
and keep as many trees as we can. So
[59:10] anything that we don't um right out or
that swale we're just keeping those
[59:15] trees that are there. So you see in that
area it's
[59:19] very exciting.
[59:25] All right.
Do we want to
[59:30] any any other areas we got covered?
So with C that
[59:47] work
[1:00:02] Yeah, you were you were over there
today. Uh curious
[1:00:08] pretty. Yeah, I I was again with the
caveat that when you set the line
[1:00:17] equipment across to protect tree that
needs to be finally protected because it
[1:00:22] isn't I mean it isn't deep but there's
enough if you don't start nibbling it
[1:00:28] away on the other side of
protected tree area.
[1:00:42] BC.
How about section?
[1:00:51] We feel that there's definitely got
enough there to be prevent
[1:00:58] access to people.
And it'll start
[1:01:05] to
[1:01:21] obviously
[1:01:24] visualize exactly which of those trees
are. Um so to the test of the available
[1:01:32] information.
[1:01:40] » Okay.
[1:01:44] » All right. Thank you. With that, let's
do standards or do you want to just kind
[1:01:49] of
[1:01:56] kind of list
[1:02:01] some of the standards?
>> We'll go through the
[1:02:05] » um one of the things that Chuck had
mentioned
[1:02:08] and I would suggest I'm a little bit
uncomfortable with just saying
[1:02:13] that out. Um he's right to thinking of
where the sewer line is to put in
[1:02:21] that it's going to um reminder for
especially newer people that the reason
[1:02:27] why looking so closely at water
is that crops are very very very
[1:02:41] crop yield and it can it can kill
We want to be really careful about that
[1:02:46] so we don't damage someone's props.
Um I would suggest that we include a
[1:02:53] clause in resolution
document that says that can be waved by
[1:03:01] restriction can be by consumer if they
don't find that. So if it looks like
[1:03:06] it's it's a far enough distance away and
death isn't
[1:03:11] that growing that we can get rid of it.
[1:03:30] Um this talked about this on the psychic
condo uh location um and question and
[1:03:40] and comment on that. So I had mentioned
before whatever the treaty preservation
[1:03:45] area is to be
[1:03:51] um because that is a firm line. Um so
their request is 60 ft. Um 90 ft is
[1:03:58] accepted the measurement based on what I
measure the drawing for current
[1:04:10] established. you want to allow for that
60 ft um with a change in dry
[1:04:18] preservation per
[1:04:32] » so the side yes so you talk about that
too so this was determined the north
[1:04:37] being 30 or being the standard 10 the
south being the proposed 30.
[1:04:59] » Well, may I clarify? No. So the
sideyards of that single family home are
[1:05:05] not currently calculated in the open
space with the tree preservation.
[1:05:11] The image that I showed you wasn't
necessarily to indicate that we're going
[1:05:14] to include those areas in the tree
preservation because we don't know where
[1:05:19] that house is actually it might move up
here which means it would you know you
[1:05:24] have further uh tree preservation on one
side or another because to me's point
[1:05:29] it's fairly specific where it's at. What
we're proposing is that tree
[1:05:33] preservation stop vertically at 60 ft.
The purpose of the image that you saw
[1:05:38] was just to depict that there will be
more tree preservation. And I think this
[1:05:42] goes without saying that similar to uh
you know the other um the three homes
[1:05:49] that are not included in this PV.
They're not just going to clear cut
[1:05:52] their block because there's no tree
preservation ordinance there. They're
[1:05:55] going to nestle their house in there.
They're going to have a driveway and
[1:05:58] then they're going to keep the rest of
the trees. So my point is there will be
[1:06:01] significantly more tree preservation.
This is just bare minimum that we're
[1:06:05] getting to the 31% that we had talked.
So our recommendation is to stop it at
[1:06:11] 60 ft, right? Whereas the minimum right
now is 25. What's recommended is 90.
[1:06:17] We're trying to meet say in the middle
and say more reasonable is 60. That
[1:06:23] allows for a house to be built but it
will be amongst the cluster trees.
[1:06:27] » May I ask a question?
>> Sure. I know you're saying there may be
[1:06:30] um a need for the site to adjust. Um do
you have a ballpark of how far in either
[1:06:39] direction that may be? And would you be
able to identify an updated area to at
[1:06:45] least include along those edges? um even
if it ends up still being smaller than
[1:06:52] the trees that end up being preserved,
but something that could be as a a
[1:06:57] tradeoff to that setback that would
still be included efficiently.
[1:07:04] » I don't know how difficult it is to
estimate.
[1:07:07] » Again, I don't know. But the one thing I
can tell you, as far north as it goes,
[1:07:12] you're preserving an equal amount at the
south side and vice versa. Right? if you
[1:07:18] get nudge down, you're preserving more
trees than it weren't. So, it sort of
[1:07:22] equals out either way. I don't know if
that answers your question, but
[1:07:28] I don't know how much it would move, but
regardless, it moves 10 feet north,
[1:07:32] you're saving 10 feet more trees up
south. It moves 15 feet south, you're
[1:07:35] saving 15 feet tree.
[1:07:40] um
going through these exercises
[1:07:45] um the unfortunate part if it's not in
the plan and it's not in the drawing
[1:07:52] then
it's not efficient and I appreciate the
[1:07:57] the good faith effort um with the
personally the effort um and evaluation
[1:08:04] that we
the
[1:08:17] um specific
preservation,
[1:08:20] » but I would be okay with the proposed 60
setback if we've got
[1:08:28] » maybe one of the things that we could do
is we can include the setbacks
[1:08:32] themselves as tree presentation.
[1:08:38] If you want it indicated on the plan, by
all means, we can indicate those those
[1:08:43] setbacks areas as tree.
[1:08:47] » Yep.
Thank you.
[1:08:50] » So that the reard setback would align
with the tree preservation boundary
[1:08:55] being 60 ft on the west side and then
the tree preservation boundary would
[1:08:59] also include that north side set back of
20 ft south.
[1:09:05] That sounds
correct. I think I think the
[1:09:09] understanding is probably
that presentation area.
[1:09:23] All this is
[1:09:34] just like a
[1:09:40] number.
[1:09:58] I didn't mention the specific
requirements as far as treatment.
[1:10:06] replanting as
watering conditions. I want you to know
[1:10:11] that
[1:10:18] » I think we talked about
[1:10:28] so with that
amendments. Now we want to go through
[1:10:32] the uh go through the standard.
>> Yeah, go through the standards. Um what
[1:10:37] I had so two choices um you could ask
them to come back with plan to see um
[1:10:46] the revision any changes to the
resolution. I think I think the only
[1:10:50] change res
[1:11:01] and then I think we want to
show
[1:11:08] that
[1:11:11] I think those are the three changes that
[1:11:16] » so your option would be um to say very
specifically recommend this resolution
[1:11:22] and report with those changes in site
plan. um or uh I would go back so you
[1:11:29] could take a look at them
kind of on the line. I think it would be
[1:11:35] okay to send this way. Um but it is kind
of on the line where it's not just one
[1:11:40] thing it's so that's
>> there would be time to revisit
[1:11:49] » right and this is because this is a
final actually I'll have to look at see
[1:11:54] how it falls this will
[1:12:06] There's a little I can check and see.
[1:12:12] Pushing it too close, but those are the
big options. It won't have this.
[1:12:22] » I think we have
[1:12:27] I would like to have
[1:12:31] that
[1:12:36] ready to go. We're not going to be able
to
[1:12:46] » Okay. Well, you're on the board, so
we've seen this a couple of times. I
[1:12:52] think as long as
[1:13:09] I can go
[1:13:14] a nice
taking our input
[1:13:21] various things always discuss.
It sounds like we're at a point. Let's
[1:13:29] go through
[1:13:44] your
scans.
[1:14:06] Oh, I'm sorry. I'm
>> okay. So,
[1:14:14] all right. So I'll roll through
uh PUB standards of approval. Number
[1:14:20] one, the community will
substantial benefit users of the project
[1:14:26] and a benefit that would otherwise be
unfeasible or unlikely to achieve
[1:14:31] development. Uh my other recently
approved developments
[1:14:37] provides housing
[1:14:47] page 12
will not result a significant increase
[1:14:52] in public services and facilities and
places
[1:14:57] upon surrounding lands or the natural
environment
[1:15:00] ultimate adverse effects. faculty
provided
[1:15:04] by
[1:15:07] P is not expected to
[1:15:12] facilities
[1:15:19] that
being added
[1:15:26] PV will be generally compatible with the
master plan and consistent death and
[1:15:30] objective
This chapter 38 article division 8
[1:15:34] chapter PUB aligns with the master plan
goals for housing
[1:15:40] to
PUB will not result in significant
[1:15:43] adverse effects
and compatible character surrounding
[1:15:51] proposed PUB is located across the high
street from large high school campus in
[1:15:57] alignment with zoning and future land
use plans.
[1:16:00] So is there pattern with the surrounding
area
[1:16:05] for
this develop
[1:16:13] water basin this property
[1:16:20] number five
will protect all flood plans and wipes
[1:16:24] filling except as approved for essential
services or recreation that means the
[1:16:29] flood PL or wetlands are are on
approximate the site standard.
[1:16:36] Number six, the PV will preserve and
maintain mature wetlands, woodlands,
[1:16:41] fields, pastures and meadows and create
sufficient buffer
[1:16:46] conflicts between residential and
agriculture.
[1:16:50] a few areas of our woodlands are
preserved
[1:16:54] above
[1:16:58] active agriculture
property and the dry store water is
[1:17:03] nearest
[1:17:08] will be introduced to the dry retention
pieces.
[1:17:15] PUB will be seen if this is unblocked or
they are interrupted particularly in
[1:17:21] seen from right away so far
practicable
[1:17:27] there are notable scenic districts this
is parcel
[1:17:43] your computer will protect your rural
character when
[1:17:49] this is
[1:17:55] pedestrian walkways may be provided so
they easily site uh the applicant
[1:18:02] pedestrian access between the
condominiums and street standard
[1:18:11] the individual buildings, roadways and
open space are designed to identify as
[1:18:18] features. There are untouched areas of
woodland
[1:18:27] requirements.
[1:18:30] The PV will be adequately deterred by
public utilities and services that fire
[1:18:36] protection or public
[1:18:49] services available in the current
services area
[1:18:56] should be in compliance with all the
federal state
[1:19:00] Township
[1:19:04] is expected to be in compliance.
[1:19:09] If the PUB is completed phases, the PUB
show each phase is complete in itself
[1:19:16] services, facilities and open spaces so
that each phase contains all of the
[1:19:21] features necessary to ensure the
protection of natural resources and the
[1:19:25] health
users of
[1:19:34] board be required
[1:19:40] completed by occupancy numbering
units for non-residential uses. This is
[1:19:46] intended to be a one single phase
project.
[1:19:53] Thank you. That's it.
[1:19:59] So, with that,
I think we're ready to uh have a motion
[1:20:04] to approve this.
[1:20:10] » Second.
>> Okay,
[1:20:15] we have a motion in a second. All in
favor?
[1:20:18] Any oppose?
All right.
[1:20:23] Thank you.
Anybody
[1:20:27] need a quick recess before?
[1:20:33] We'll keep rolling
[1:20:38] to jump.
[1:20:45] Let's uh give us a minute here to just
wrap up our last
[1:21:09] I think it's Charles.
[1:21:42] Yeah.
[1:22:01] Thanks everyone for their patience. uh
this new city. This is how we are
[1:22:07] and we we do appreciate y'all being here
and we also appreciate
[1:22:12] this project.
[1:22:21] So at this point
uh we are ready to
[1:22:30] house. So
[1:22:39] something
[1:22:44] different
[1:22:55] before we had a zoning board. So um
that's what is
[1:23:00] also pretty substantial.
[1:23:05] So that's why um that's why
special use the application itself I'll
[1:23:11] just very briefly go over it is for an
addition of a number of docs. Um it
[1:23:16] increases the number of docs pretty
substantially.
[1:23:19] It will be a is that some of the folks
that are currently in the parking lot to
[1:23:25] the area will be some existing partners.
Um there there
[1:23:34] for quite some time I think that's
probably what the conversation will and
[1:23:38] should
[1:23:41] not as far as things bring to the
discussion.
[1:23:48] There was one though there are different
[1:23:57] clify that make sure that we're on the
same page. Um and the similarly the doc
[1:24:03] area
changes all be on the same plan. So
[1:24:07] we're looking at at one set again just
to make sure that we're on the same page
[1:24:11] for that.
We could suggest that
[1:24:17] for
during the summer months um but think
[1:24:24] that we're suggested that one of the
things
[1:24:28] when it comes to the overall use of
[1:24:33] there may be other things that come up
as well especially in public comment
[1:24:37] periods.
[1:24:42] » Great. things.
>> All right, with that we will uh go ahead
[1:24:47] and open the public comment. I'm sorry,
the public hearing uh for the Mattow Bay
[1:24:54] Club plan. So, uh first of all, we need
a motion to go ahead and do a second.
[1:25:01] » Second.
>> Okay. All in favor?
[1:25:03] » I
>> uh let's start. Let's see. Let's start
[1:25:08] at 11 this side in the back. And if
you'd like to get up and see uh about
[1:25:13] the Magic Bay Young Club project, uh
please do sign in. Please let me
[1:25:21] go through that
[1:25:30] drive also
owner manager properties partners
[1:25:37] here on behalf of all those things.
Um,
[1:25:42] given the time for public comment, I
won't attempt to read the thesis I think
[1:25:46] of earlier.
>> Thank you. Thank you.
[1:25:51] » I did put a lot of time into it,
research into it. So, please take the
[1:25:54] time to read it, confirm the details,
follow up on any questions it leaves
[1:25:58] with you. Park Township Park Township
has a great record system. You can find
[1:26:03] additional info on the club's prior
applications.
[1:26:07] I found that my mom was Park Township
Planning Commissioner in 1980 and was
[1:26:12] welcomed for a three-year term.
Something I didn't mention was that I do
[1:26:18] have great memories of hanging out and
racing to the O club. My dad was a
[1:26:22] commodor there.
As a former member of WIC, I think the
[1:26:27] SL proposal isn't good for the O club as
it ruined a couple of the best
[1:26:31] attributes.
Water view and several races for both
[1:26:35] children and adults will no longer start
and finish by see yes the members voted
[1:26:42] to approve this but it was highly
contested and those that contested it
[1:26:47] probably won't be letting you know their
opinion as they don't want to be looked
[1:26:51] at as members that cause problems at the
club.
[1:26:57] We've tried to help NBC with parking at
different times. About 10 years ago,
[1:27:01] Commone approached me about it, hoping
to borrow some parking for their
[1:27:05] employees. I found that I provide them
with parking spots in our unused parking
[1:27:10] lot on 32nd Street. We gave that a try.
What happened was their employees
[1:27:15] refused to park that far away, so it
didn't work out.
[1:27:20] And now we use that parking lot for
trailers.
[1:27:24] I do need to remind you that the last
time WYC received approval from the
[1:27:28] planning commission to build for slips,
it was because planning commission
[1:27:33] thought there would be a net gain of six
parking spots because they proposed
[1:27:37] adding 10 parking spots. However, this
was a bait and switch type tactic.
[1:27:44] The result was overbuilding the property
by four or more boat slips because the
[1:27:49] 10 spots that were said to be new
parking spots weren't new at all. They
[1:27:54] just been parking spots used in the
grass for years, but they were not on a
[1:27:59] previous approved site plan. So the
planning commission at that time treat
[1:28:04] them as new parking spots and they had
been used for years prior because MBYC
[1:28:10] has had a parking problem for a long
time.
[1:28:17] almost
new application is also a big switch or
[1:28:21] shell game type of concept. Again,
they're saying they're making the
[1:28:25] situation better by moving the small
boats that are in the parking spots on
[1:28:28] the floating docks and then those
parking spots will now will now not be
[1:28:32] available will now be available to cars.
Well, those spots should have been used
[1:28:37] by cars anyways as they have a parking
problem and those are parking spots
[1:28:42] and that's what's causing this problem
that keeps it learning problem. Now, you
[1:28:48] can't double dip on those spots and
count them a second time
[1:28:52] as new parking just because you're
moving the boats up. If they want to fix
[1:28:56] the problem, move the small boats in the
current parking lot to the new proposed
[1:29:01] floating docks. Then use those parking
spots for the current uses that cause
[1:29:06] the parking problem, but don't add more
slips
[1:29:10] to that situation.
>> Thanks.
[1:29:12] » Y
[1:29:29] Hi, I'm with mom and well also a big
neighbor of mag club. We surround him
[1:29:36] many many sides. Um, I just read through
lots of ways research that he did in
[1:29:42] sending all of that letters and what
struck me is a very loss in continuity
[1:29:48] and that's on both sides of the road.
Meattow has a change of board
[1:29:52] periodically, a change of commodors and
it's it's a very big turnover. Um, you
[1:29:59] as a planning commission have changed
over the years. Staff has probably
[1:30:04] changed. So there's a lot of history but
not a lot of continuity. And as I read
[1:30:09] some of these things, it kind of stands
out. I think when things are changing,
[1:30:14] we often forget the things we don't want
to do. And I think parking and being a
[1:30:20] parking police officer is something
nobody wants to do. You don't want to do
[1:30:24] it. Um we don't count things. So I think
that we've had a lot of strange
[1:30:29] interpretation about the parking things
in our yard. I would invite you all to
[1:30:34] come and stand on our parking lot. See
what looks like it's empty. You'll
[1:30:38] notice the condor does have one spot to
himself. And he doesn't use it very
[1:30:43] often, but he does his part there. Um,
it does that that yacht club does all
[1:30:49] many many things. It's it's boat slips.
It's two or three dining rooms. It's a
[1:30:55] pool with lots of chairs. It's outdoor
seating. And then, of course, we have
[1:30:59] the um learning center for sailing. So
all these things are happening and many
[1:31:05] are over laughing. Last night I drove by
when I went home was flying. It was a
[1:31:11] Saturday Wednesday night race.
We are not in favor of the docks because
[1:31:18] the parking is not available now. Thank
you.
[1:31:39] name is Chris
2305.
[1:31:45] So, I want to speak more just from a
neighborly standpoint because not only
[1:31:51] do I work at our family business, um,
but I also live there, too. And so, I'm
[1:31:58] well aware of the art club and Cummings
and going there. And so, it brings me no
[1:32:03] pleasure tonight to speak out against
something that they want to do because
[1:32:08] of all the wonderful facilities they
have and because of the sailing program
[1:32:13] that they have. My hesitation is more
with what's already been talked about is
[1:32:19] that with the parking and when it's
busy, it's hard to be a good a good
[1:32:25] neighbor. When people are parked on our
property, on our grass, um, in our
[1:32:31] parking lot that's meant for our
customers, when our grounds crew has to
[1:32:36] continually replace sprinkler heads. And
as my mother-in-law spoke of, we don't
[1:32:42] enjoy being the parking police. Um, so
with that, I just ask you to think about
[1:32:48] the change that happens when there's not
adequate parking. And if they increase
[1:32:54] their slips, where do all those cars go?
As a neighbor, we don't feel that we
[1:33:01] should have to absorb or accommodate
their parking issues. And I'm not sure
[1:33:05] like neighbors feel like at some point.
It's just too much traffic and too much
[1:33:12] overflow. Thank you.
[1:33:25] » Thanks. You're okay.
[1:33:33] I know you want to speak.
[1:33:47] And the parking is the big issue. No
doubt.
[1:33:54] You know, it's not like you build a boat
slip and there's one extra car there. uh
[1:33:59] on Wednesday night with the racing
there. There might be six or seven cars
[1:34:04] showing up with six or seven people to
crew on boat and uh you know it's just
[1:34:11] it's just overcrowd when they're parked
on the lawn or parked on the street um
[1:34:17] and it's uh it's just not a healthy
situation.
[1:34:22] The other issues Oh, but I I sent a
letter and I was told that it was
[1:34:27] distributed to each of you. Yes. Thanks
for considering reading that. Thanks for
[1:34:31] providing book u the character in the
neighborhood is at risk. [clears throat]
[1:34:39] Um voting and environmental issues um
play into this as well. But I think that
[1:34:48] um the yacht club can prosper
and do well with the existing slips that
[1:34:57] is going out into the lake is is beyond
my imagination that the Army Corps could
[1:35:01] prove that because it's just encroaching
on the shipping channel and you know
[1:35:07] that that's safety issue for sure. So uh
I hope you consider all these things and
[1:35:13] thank you.
[1:35:21] Okay, we can our right, your left
start.
[1:35:33] » Yeah, I can I get an opportunity to
speak that
[1:35:37] section?
>> Uh, yes. Yeah, you'll have a chance to
[1:35:41] present your as the applicant. Yes.
Yeah, absolutely. Public public hearings
[1:35:46] part is really for those who have a
basically just want to provide input on
[1:35:52] the project itself.
Just clarification that um if if it's
[1:35:59] many individuals speaking in favor of
the project.
[1:36:03] Yes. If you're just presenting this
project,
[1:36:07] » right? So whoever whoever plans on being
the spokesperson for so like that would
[1:36:13] be have time to do that
but if you have others that are either
[1:36:19] in favor or opposing time
[1:36:24] to one speaker to
[1:36:30] several of us are prepared to address
issues related to the application. I
[1:36:36] just want to make sure that we don't
>> Sure.
[1:36:43] » If if it's a team I I'm gonna ask your
guys on this one, but what's the best
[1:36:48] way to approach this? I don't think that
situation.
[1:36:51] » Yeah. And I mean, you know, that
individual, they have kind of a primary
[1:36:54] presenter people ask questions. So
there's a couple of presentation very
[1:36:59] specific things are presenting.
[1:37:05] Okay. Is that work?
>> I don't see a dozen people.
[1:37:09] » No, I don't see
this group.
[1:37:13] » Yeah, that's fine. We'll make sure we
have time
[1:37:17] folks for the parts of the
[1:37:23] So, anybody who's not part of the
presentation,
[1:37:26] do you anybody on this right side that
wants to get up and provide additional
[1:37:30] feedback?
[1:37:34] Well, with that, uh, I entertain a
motion to close public hearing.
[1:37:42] » Okay.
[1:37:46] » All right. Applicant 14.
[1:37:54] Uh, please do.
[1:38:05] Great.
>> So, thank you very much for uh allowing
[1:38:08] us to speak to this and um I just want
to go kind of quickly over the narrative
[1:38:13] that pops
through it.
[1:38:19] I'll
[1:38:22] cut
the club. I do have a parking space at
[1:38:26] the club. I try to use it as often as
I'm there. And uh then I I put my
[1:38:31] parking space outside the toward the
corner because my truck is big and I
[1:38:35] don't want to take up space. Um anyway,
uh with me uh I have a little team. I'll
[1:38:41] introduce this that probably makes sense
to me at this point. We have Scott
[1:38:46] Smith. He is our project manager for the
Dark Project. Um he is a former board of
[1:38:51] director member. He was chief of
navigation with the US Coast Guard and
[1:38:56] captain of the coast guard cutter
icebreaker vaccine. So uh he he is here
[1:39:02] to support any discussions that do with
navigation and access also the Eg and
[1:39:10] Army Corp. And then we have Bob Dong
who's already said hello. Bob is our
[1:39:14] judge advocate counterpart and then
Spencer Anderson from Edward Resources
[1:39:21] and Edgewater if you don't know them as
a a national leader in Connecticut
[1:39:25] design consultants to help us make sure
that we're covering all of our needs and
[1:39:30] doing the best job we can
[1:39:37] overc
as as we said is a private marina we
[1:39:42] currently have 78 West slips. We have a
members only restaurant and bar provide
[1:39:47] facilities for community and junior
sailing. Mic is requesting we add 48 new
[1:39:53] slips to our area and install 4,300
square feet of floating dock for our
[1:39:59] existing dinghy fleet. And we believe
that we have shown
[1:40:07] parking space
parking lot
[1:40:11] will be completed in two phases. Phase
one will start this fall if possible and
[1:40:17] would be completed before the summer
2027. Phase two will be planned to start
[1:40:22] in fall 27th and will be completed by
the summer 28. The uh project has been
[1:40:28] approved. Phase one has been approved by
the membership asking for permit entire
[1:40:33] process. So we want to fix back this
piece of it again get approved the
[1:40:38] entire thing
the um financial um all the financial
[1:40:44] components in this have been completely
secured. So we don't have any issue with
[1:40:48] that. The phase one project which is the
first group of docks is 30 new slips all
[1:40:56] like the current slips we have over
there. They're all pile subverted timber
[1:40:59] docks and it'll be to the northeast of
our current um docks and it'll be on the
[1:41:05] lakeward side as
construction supported fixed timber head
[1:41:10] wall also include four finger beers six
slips replacing taking out three so it's
[1:41:17] a positive three you don't have to do
all it's all on your
[1:41:22] uh the replacement of our existing
floating dock system with a larger
[1:41:27] better configured floating back system
would add 4,300 square feet of drive
[1:41:32] which is the dingies they're currently
in the park out in our park and then um
[1:41:40] reconfiguring um the dinghy parking area
provide
[1:41:46] space
phase two would be the next year it
[1:41:49] would be 12 horse so total what you
already have seen is 48 slips during
[1:41:56] During phase one and phase two, we plan
no changes to our landscaping, lighting,
[1:42:01] or signage. That's important because our
landscaping is
[1:42:06] pretty along the street. We try to keep
a nice base to the road. All relevant EG
[1:42:12] and US Army Department of Engineered
permits have been secured and we've had
[1:42:16] those for a couple years. Actually,
our project motive is is that, you know,
[1:42:22] we have a we have a high demand for Bose
slips. We have a wait list members that
[1:42:27] would like to put their votes at our
club. We just don't have the slips for
[1:42:31] them. Currently, some [clears throat]
members store their votes off site do
[1:42:36] want to use them. Others are stored as
we've said in the park and launch
[1:42:42] owners want to use their boats. Addition
of 48 foot slips would allow existing
[1:42:47] members with their boats in the water of
the club instead of having them in the
[1:42:51] parking lot. Not all say there's 48 post
the parking lot water, but there are a
[1:42:56] number of the installation of a new
floating dock system is a refinement of
[1:43:01] our current floating system and would
allow us a lot more efficient both
[1:43:06] staging and launching. And this
[clears throat] supports our community
[1:43:10] and junior sailing programs as well as
moving about 30 of our current dingies
[1:43:17] that we have that are used every
Thursday for Navy sailing as well as
[1:43:21] dingies that are used for junior sailing
out of the water opening up the room for
[1:43:27] 80 parking spaces. So by adding 80
spaces, it brings our total count to
[1:43:34] 196.
The intent of this is to try to keep
[1:43:40] could put in more spaces trees grass.
So we're trying not to do that. I think
[1:43:48] it's kind of funny conversation trees
going to
[1:43:54] um let's see
mixed use apartments as was introduced
[1:43:59] earlier when we were first talking about
this the you know we're not just a
[1:44:03] marino we're not just a restaurant we're
not you know we're a combination of
[1:44:07] other
[1:44:11] » so by adding slips we're not bringing in
more people because it's already our
[1:44:16] existing members that are on campus. So
people who might use their boat. So the
[1:44:22] mixed use actually is kind of ideally
suited for what we're talking about
[1:44:26] here. Um we have given you a table
outlining all park requirements for
[1:44:30] uses. Um the mar3
[1:44:35] slips
per the requirement is full parking
[1:44:38] space would be 123 parking spaces. The
restaurant with 200 seats would be 100
[1:44:44] parking spaces. But with mixed use, we
think although that ends up at two ends
[1:44:49] of the 223,
we think that the general park requests
[1:44:54] would allow us to be shorter by the 27
spaces because our like I said, they're
[1:44:59] already there. So that was
our idea for the
[1:45:06] um
[clears throat] I think I can conclude
[1:45:11] I'm going to conclude with that we want
to be neighbors. Um, we don't we don't
[1:45:16] like, you know, to have any enemies in
the neighborhood. We don't think that
[1:45:20] this is going to be a bad use of the
water. We think that our current members
[1:45:25] are good stewards of the community.
Close down at a reasonable hour. We go
[1:45:29] home, we don't have police, we don't end
up parking on the street unnecessarily,
[1:45:34] but occasionally, of course, we have a
big event and uh and there will be
[1:45:37] people parking on the street, but that
happens in every facility. It's not
[1:45:41] common.
So, so these uh
[1:45:51] » you just you want to just respond or
[1:46:07] without being patronizing
a thank you
[1:46:12] for Having served for about 10 years as
planning commission member member of
[1:46:20] I know
a lot of time a lot of effort
[1:46:31] um as
said I'm former
[1:46:37] club and as it turns out my daughter is
now commodor the
[1:46:42] and I serve as a
provide legal services without paid
[1:46:58] do that. Uh I live on in Mar2.
[1:47:07] I just want to comment on the parking
issue. Uh we have in fact
[1:47:14] parking issues along the way and we
think we have addressed them along the
[1:47:19] way. And
while there are times where both flows
[1:47:25] are working is very infrequent. I
noticed that the photographs that the LP
[1:47:31] submitted with her package included an
event in 2025
[1:47:36] that we invited 100 uh young sailors
from around the country to come and
[1:47:43] participate in competition.
Uh I lived in that area. I drive in that
[1:47:48] area nearly every day and those
photographs were most unusual.
[1:47:54] So it's easy when you're subjecting to a
program and trying to make financial
[1:48:00] competition
to come up with general
[1:48:05] the truth of the matter is I heard them
as the [clears throat] self drive on
[1:48:11] many occasions when the are having huge
functions in their barn their car
[1:48:20] we have to put up security people to
protect our
[1:48:25] And we have the same situation with
people parking along the streets up and
[1:48:30] down the street. Hope they understand
[1:48:36] neighbors. You don't hear club
complaining about their situation.
[1:48:42] underneath all of this is really the
real issue and that is and they admitted
[1:48:50] in their written material if we get
permission of these slopes then they're
[1:48:57] going to lose customers but I know from
my experience we know from your
[1:49:02] experience your job is not to protect
financial competitors
[1:49:08] this your job is obviously to help
protect
[1:49:12] the community and to make sure that
standards are being maintained as I
[1:49:19] suggest that we are. Excuse me.
[1:49:25] » So
with that, we are very happy to answer
[1:49:28] any questions that you have. We
encourage you
[1:49:34] maybe
this evening and allow us to move
[1:49:39] forward.
[1:49:57] with that. This is the presentation the
applicant presentation
[1:50:05] public hearing. Um, so thank you for
presenting and I I'm I'm very fortunate
[1:50:14] here. Um, I I'm not a vote
but I'll speak this knowing your
[1:50:19] background. My nephew right now is a
mass maritime. I grew up in
[1:50:25] Massachusetts but not so fortunately
when we're looking at what's been most
[1:50:31] relevant
[1:50:34] engineers that look at the
the effectiveness and efficiency of the
[1:50:40] doc
[1:50:43] those sources.
Um, I think it's really interesting that
[1:50:50] so many people that have fond memories
or are members are uh enjoy and
[1:50:57] appreciate everything that the club
does, but also as
[1:51:02] specific and concerned about the
parking.
[1:51:07] So, it's I can see that people
feel very good about what we do but are
[1:51:13] very concerned about
[1:51:19] So, I'm just I'm gonna I have a number
of things here. Um I I will ask a couple
[1:51:25] of questions and I kind of open it up.
Um
[1:51:29] growth from over the last say over the
last two to three years. Are you I've
[1:51:35] seen a lot of numbers around is it
around 600 members at this point? Yeah,
[1:51:39] that's been a stable number for
[1:51:45] just after renovation. So about 10
years.
[1:51:48] » Okay.
[1:51:52] I noticed one question I had was in the
per looks like they were issued 22 23.
[1:52:02] Um I I assume this is a pretty expensive
proposition. Is there other reasons why
[1:52:08] that why the project is now is now on
the board? Does it take
[1:52:14] a slow moving organization? It has to go
through and go
[1:52:30] about 75%.
[1:52:36] That's and um that's how we
>> I was involved in the peritting process.
[1:52:44] We got to the original two or three
years ago. And I can tell you that it
[1:52:49] was the intention at the time to lay the
groundwork to make sure we could do it
[1:52:54] in the first place before we started
spending money with.
[1:53:06] So that was our first
[1:53:10] five years, right?
[1:53:16] Um, I noticed in the Army Corps of
Engineers, I think they approved 50
[1:53:20] slips and sounds like that's
[1:53:28] approved.
[1:53:35] What? This is this is relevant to
parking. Um, can you kind of tell me a
[1:53:41] little bit about the
program? It sounds like it's
[1:53:53] » Oh, sorry.
[1:53:56] Thank you. Um the MJA is uh it's been
it's been since uh well I'm up to old
[1:54:04] but it's been around since I was a kid.
Um and the age range is around six years
[1:54:10] old for kinder sale and then up to um
you know high school kids in our in our
[1:54:15] general summer program. We also do adult
learners sale which have two loads for
[1:54:20] that and that's on Tuesdays and Thursday
nights. So not when kids are there and
[1:54:25] um it's a very popular program. I think
we had um among all of all the kids this
[1:54:31] year was around 400 which is um you know
but it's spread out across the whole
[1:54:36] summer in some cases there for five
days. So it's it's us but and then when
[1:54:41] we do these big events like go over the
B sometimes people across the country
[1:54:47] and you know virgin what have you but
that's two or three days um everyone has
[1:54:52] a great time
they go back to other machine awesome
[1:55:02] Well, this is
[1:55:06] 400 or not.
>> Yeah, we we've had um this year we were
[1:55:11] um the number flexes, but it's probably
around 60% to 40%
[1:55:17] public versus club member kids that are
there. Most of the time the way it works
[1:55:22] is the parents drive in uh you know they
they drop off their kids, they say hello
[1:55:27] to the coach and then they're gone and
then they come back at noon and they
[1:55:32] come back at 4 and pick up their kids.
We also run a a sailing program um for
[1:55:37] Black River and we have um H Christian
and
[1:55:42] a couple of other high schools that are
based there and train there in the fall
[1:55:46] and in the spring and then we have
college and Grand Valley that also train
[1:55:50] there spring and fall and um some of
those but some of those kids get dry but
[1:55:56] that's not even close to peak season so
it doesn't matter.
[1:55:59] Thanks.
[1:56:06] Chair, may I speak?
>> I'm going to interject as we go along on
[1:56:10] certain, but um so I had two of my sons
actually go through the sale program.
[1:56:16] This is pretty good. It was over 25
years ago. You guys had great
[1:56:21] programming. Um lot of involvement with
community as you just explained outside.
[1:56:30] I hear all this and I hear the parking
issues. It's almost as if
[1:56:37] and um I really don't know how to
address that. But
[1:56:42] my comparison is I listened to the
issues. I you know I compared to the
[1:56:49] short-term rentals around me. I hate to
bring that up but yes one time events.
[1:56:55] Well, they've got onetime events several
times with parking on my lawn and the
[1:57:00] neighbor's lawn and and disrupting the
neighborhood big time. And it sounds
[1:57:03] like some of your overflows may do that
and it's just the wrong subs the wrong
[1:57:10] way. Um, first phase of this being just
add more voting slips seems backwards to
[1:57:18] me. I think the first phase needs to be
addressing parking and accounting for
[1:57:25] large events and making sure that those
people can stay on your property and not
[1:57:30] gender on your neighbors.
>> So, um, one of the things that that
[1:57:35] happened over the last
>> just just clear this is kind of
[1:57:38] discussion phase for us
>> as far as if we have some questions that
[1:57:43] we need verification.
>> Thanks. We'll ask
[1:57:49] [laughter]
[1:57:53] I'll just I'll just say that I thought a
little bit about I think it's probably I
[1:57:59] don't think the the issue is intentional
but it's a result of people there.
[1:58:14] Yes.
One one thing in the application that
[1:58:18] struck out to me struck out to me um was
he used they used parking portraits um
[1:58:28] to come up with the 223 spaces
but they only used restaurant bar and
[1:58:37] marina but the parking ordinance also
has
[1:58:43] parking requirements.
And also it has parking requirements for
[1:58:48] assembly halls which I would call the
the sailing center and assembly hall.
[1:58:54] So, I'm having
I don't I don't know what those
[1:59:00] accessory uses, as they're called, adds
to the total, but I think 223
[1:59:06] from an ordinance definition is is low
in this
[1:59:12] uh request, but I don't know how.
[1:59:17] » Thank you.
>> That was one of my questions as well.
[1:59:21] There's
um 600
[1:59:24] 600 members
um 78 slips
[1:59:30] um but um occupancy of the main building
is 200 200 restaurant how does that work
[1:59:38] if 400 people show up are they I would
imagine
[1:59:44] their own you know like how do you
manage
[1:59:48] um the different uses that have any
terms of politics
[1:59:53] or
>> we we can ask that question if you've
[1:59:56] got because I I assume you have weddings
if that's
[2:00:02] » weddings you got a conference whether
there's a conference
[2:00:08] no we we don't really have a conference
if we're going to do if there's a
[2:00:11] wedding there it's going to be um
because that night there wouldn't be
[2:00:16] members so we do weddings if we do do
weddings they would be in in the fall or
[2:00:20] in the spring. We don't allow them in
the summer. And then um there is no real
[2:00:25] assembly area for like the junior area.
What we did is there was a an open
[2:00:30] portico area. We closed all that, but
that's just where the kids go and put
[2:00:33] their bags and they're going to do some
classroom time while they do their
[2:00:36] classroom time. Again, these aren't
people that are driving there. One of
[2:00:40] the things you say that they came to us
is how do we increase our parking on the
[2:00:46] campus that we have? And the way that we
came to that was, oh wait, we get these
[2:00:50] boats in the parking lot out of the
parking lot, which seems really simple,
[2:00:54] right? Like we've done just tell people
it didn't it isn't that easy. But then
[2:00:57] we said, oh, we can get all the JY's,
the 420s and the VX all types of boats.
[2:01:03] We can get all moved and then that can
all become parking and the only way to
[2:01:07] do that is we're model water. And so
that is why in the in the order of
[2:01:11] things junior dock area the floating
dock area in place our current floating
[2:01:16] dock area is number one that's in phase
one that's the first thing that we need
[2:01:20] to have happen in order to increase the
so that was thought and um you know
[2:01:26] again it's a number of people that can
be there
[2:01:33] understand your point about the pool but
it's still the same group of people.
[2:01:41] » [laughter]
[2:01:50] » I also have another question. Is there
some
[2:01:54] that members have that show or there any
way to indicate
[2:01:59] who they're who is parking there as a
member?
[2:02:02] » So, we have uh parking rules that are
uninforced. We do have a permit process
[2:02:07] which is not enforced and one of the
things we're trying to avoid is you know
[2:02:11] creating a lot of enforcement about that
but we certainly can and and at times we
[2:02:16] will we'll say hey you're we're going to
have you know 125th anniversary party so
[2:02:22] we're going to tell everybody you car
and and that works out just fine. Um,
[2:02:28] and we have um, you know, we know that
our neighbors have rules about parking
[2:02:31] and we don't park there and we don't we
don't have any problems with parking on
[2:02:35] the street where we've had anybody get
towed or any tickets or anything. So, we
[2:02:39] do we could enforce the rule if we need
to.
[2:02:46] » Sounds like we could have enforced the
rules several years back
[2:02:52] the we're in right now.
[2:03:04] Yeah, my thoughts are, you know, take
anybody down here for example. They've
[2:03:08] got limited parking, but they comply
with uh the number of parking spaces
[2:03:13] required for the seats that they have.
Um, if they wanted to move a little bit
[2:03:18] further than the strip mall, they'd have
to add more parking isn't available.
[2:03:25] Look at this like any other business got
certain activities going on.
[2:03:32] Sure. I mean right now probably 30 terms
[2:03:57] that there are 200 seats. There are also
individuals who are working
[2:04:02] photographers. There are other service
providers.
[2:04:08] Even with the revised perost number of
breakfast spots, they don't meet the
[2:04:14] offse parking that would be required to
host those events as you have
[2:04:22] or not. Um
[2:04:27] I know there's a limited amount of space
and it's it's clearly um it's clearly
[2:04:33] difficult because there is a lot of
community engagement and there is a lot
[2:04:38] of want to um be able to be a member and
be able to participate. Um but looking
[2:04:45] at
the use, looking at the space capacity,
[2:04:51] looking at um the reality
based on the plan that I have reviewed,
[2:04:59] I believe
[2:05:11] the number of members the number of
abuses um which do include outside of
[2:05:16] the community or outside of the
membership in the larger community
[2:05:21] um
[2:05:24] I can say I have I have attended a
wedding there many years ago it's now
[2:05:31] but
>> yeah if you reach what it
[2:05:41] the nature of
[2:05:45] greater than one.
So
[2:05:55] there's daily
[2:06:05] trailer
addition. So it is just the nature of
[2:06:10] the activity
more parking than just the main
[2:06:16] accommodation which was itself. So I
think that is has been a challenge over
[2:06:22] the time discussed
deal with I'm not sure there was already
[2:06:28] reasonable set of calculations that
allow
[2:06:37] that's
good into it. Thank you everybody. Um I
[2:06:42] guess a couple questions uh or a couple
maybe a timeout question. Um it's I I
[2:06:48] understand the challenges with the
smaller boats taking up space in the
[2:06:52] park, but I also think it's um not
totally accurate to say that we're going
[2:06:58] to we're going to add a number of
parking spaces
[2:07:03] repurposing been repurposing those small
boats and now there's a plan to be able
[2:07:09] to move those folks in parking lot
isn't going to
[2:07:16] » [clears throat]
>> I know you have you have your control.
[2:07:19] Um there was mentioned uh offsite
parking as a possibility.
[2:07:25] Have you that particular situation?
[2:07:37] We haven't put a a serious effort into
that making any offers on any property
[2:07:48] about that as well. So it would be
possible for us rent space on location
[2:07:55] could explore that we have.
[2:08:02] » So at this point uh any additional
comments for
[2:08:06] » I just have a question. running out of
the week of the and we won't get the
[2:08:10] number tonight but have a broader
understanding of what exactly
[2:08:16] what the facilities support on
required to
[2:08:27] » yeah we didn't do the calculation based
on the restaurant bar and the and the
[2:08:31] goals there have been a number of
questions that have come up about
[2:08:36] other rooms that are on the site as
well.
[2:08:39] So we can look back at that.
Um we could also park
[2:08:48] what what are the actual uses on the
site if we're talking about overflow
[2:08:52] parking
[2:08:55] you don't want
[2:09:00] you don't want to you don't want to do
that for one day. Um but if it's not one
[2:09:05] day you know how often how often is
overall actually happen this month or is
[2:09:11] this place where this issue happen so
those are some things that if you wanted
[2:09:18] to pursue that further from that angle
>> yeah I think I refer to
[2:09:28] » well that would be um the two options
one I could just go dig a little bit
[2:09:33] deeper with some of those
back to you or you ask the applicant to
[2:09:40] come back
to show
[2:09:49] more
experience as far as investigating
[2:09:55] offsite investigation
[2:10:01] that
[2:10:04] I like the idea
actual data
[2:10:12] and then also um even a better
um layout plan of how the
[2:10:22] coming right
open
[2:10:28] for um
trailers and whatnot. And then how do we
[2:10:34] get from there to 200?
[2:10:38] I'd like to see that.
[2:10:48] Well, the thought that's popped in my
mind is is what is what is stopping you
[2:10:53] from just doing the 4300 square foot
floating dock and the dies all on there
[2:10:59] and then see what the impact of that is
on parking and this third there's not if
[2:11:08] you got the permit you could do that
tomorrow right
[2:11:12] it takes some time yeah
>> well
[2:11:16] there's the cost to the cost to that but
you'd be debating parking places right
[2:11:20] but right now you other than asking for
the permit right now we don't have in
[2:11:25] our mind we don't really have a parking
issue it's something that's always in
[2:11:28] the background but we have to
put the correct action in place because
[2:11:33] we really felt this necessary
[2:11:38] the over parking that's in that area is
not exclusive to yacht club there's a
[2:11:44] whole bunch of cottages that only have
I know this is like sort of com but
[2:11:50] reality is that all those cars are
parked on 32nd Street those aren't those
[2:11:54] people aren't
that's just that's not reality.
[2:11:59] » They're not asking to expand.
>> Yeah. No, I don't
[2:12:03] » I don't that's the answer to why we
don't that's the answer to why we don't
[2:12:06] go increase the junior do right now
because we don't really have an
[2:12:10] oppressing need and it's expensive to
do. So we would do it to get the parking
[2:12:15] so we can do the slips but we don't need
to do it. We're not going to do the
[2:12:18] slips.
>> It looks like the base plan
[2:12:26] is a number spend half a million dollars
to build a bunch of floating docks that
[2:12:30] you don't necessarily need because right
now the boats are all there and on
[2:12:34] landing we don't have a parking prop.
But we need the parking spaces. We build
[2:12:38] that floating area and then we get the
parking spaces. need parking spaces for
[2:12:42] the new slider
that there's several people that say you
[2:12:48] do have problem.
[2:12:52] » It looks like you've also got
infrastructure that's required that's
[2:12:56] going to support
that.
[2:13:00] » Yeah, a little bit.
>> Okay. Thank you. Well, we've heard I
[2:13:05] think we've done already. Thank you all
for
[2:13:09] he has provided an option which I think
makes a lot of sense.
[2:13:14] We have really a few options. We can
either and since this is a special use
[2:13:19] this actually
[2:13:24] we have
[2:13:34] so
[2:13:48] what's happening other times
different
[2:14:02] are going to rely on equipment
[2:14:07] criteria for parking study or are we
going to providing some
[2:14:14] trails
and asking questioned here
[2:14:20] now
[2:14:25] um
how do you ensure that
[2:14:33] based on
specific
[2:14:38] criteria that would be
not subjective
[2:14:44] » um in that cost.
>> Maybe that's a question for staff
[2:14:50] that start with staff and they develop
the governes
[2:14:56] on the sharing
will allow for us.
[2:15:03] I think
on top of that
[2:15:13] addressing
[2:15:27] parking lot
without the boats because apparently
[2:15:32] numbers
respecting
[2:15:56] used
to
[2:16:02] check
[2:16:11] the numbers
[2:16:18] ask for
[2:16:27] And if and if there is how does what are
options here
[2:16:45] discussing but also I think
you have that kind of data for current
[2:16:50] use or recent
[2:17:00] we have a lot of probably a lot of data
that could be useful
[2:17:05] number of covers that day people serve
today um we would have that and um but
[2:17:11] we could you know we can take into all
sorts of stuff that feeds on that our
[2:17:15] computer system um we're not going to
have anything where we register key card
[2:17:21] that yeah we we have I think we have
sufficient data
[2:17:30] points
[2:17:37] when they are people
[2:17:45] » right yeah must have numbers for those
types of
[2:17:49] a pretty regular schedule.
>> We do
[2:17:52] know exactly how the wedding tells
each other.
[2:18:18] And I can't even ask for what are the
what are the criteria for
[2:18:23] the events.
I think really any
[2:18:31] schedule that you've got a plan for the
6.7
[2:18:41] changes over that time
[2:18:46] you know significant increase
[2:18:52] have numbers events that took place this
year anything you can provide would be
[2:19:00] hopefully I think as you mentioned maybe
you'll find some things
[2:19:07] we can't manage this because
clearly you feel you've been able to
[2:19:11] manage the parking situation but
neighbors others don't feel that way
[2:19:17] figure out
>> yeah have your didn't earlier We have an
[2:19:24] event like the an invitational for the
BX
[2:19:29] 40.
We go to one of our members down the
[2:19:33] road say put 40 trailers in your field.
Yep. Absolutely. We say hey all the
[2:19:40] people that are going to show up for
this event park over there and drive
[2:19:44] car. So we need to be flip and say we
don't feel like we have a problem. We
[2:19:48] know we're going to have something
coming that's going to do that. We say
[2:19:51] here's how we're stop
[2:19:55] you need to come
there will be a bus out there with the
[2:20:00] driver. So we do do those when it's
necessary.
[2:20:07] [clears throat]
[2:20:10] » Changing how parking has been open since
you got the permit from
[2:20:15] » No, I don't think anything has changed.
[2:20:22] » Your wind newsletter.
>> Yeah.
[2:20:24] » And from 2023, there's a little excerpt
here. Parking is always a topic of
[2:20:28] discussion and a study is in process on
how we might increase parking capacity.
[2:20:33] » Yes, we did.
>> Yeah, we did do we did do a study an
[2:20:37] engineering firm come in and they
publish
[2:20:42] grass along the road and I think parking
spaces along
[2:20:47] trying to
if that's required we could do it but
[2:20:51] that grass is a pretty nice feature. So
we can avoid it like avoid it.
[2:20:57] » You also reference simultaneous events
being calendar ball upstairs events
[2:21:02] people enjoy the pool.
>> Yeah.
[2:21:04] » So that does all the amount of people
that are on location at one time.
[2:21:10] » Sure. But one of the ball had 80 people
that year and you know 75
[2:21:17] go back.
[2:21:21] Yeah.
[2:21:31] else.
>> No, I don't think so at the moment.
[2:21:41] It is
question.
[2:21:50] » All right.
[2:21:58] So I would entertain a motion uh for a
motion at the table
[2:22:04] with the
[2:22:08] second.
>> All in favor?
[2:22:13] Thank you.
[2:22:33] Thank you folks.
[2:22:50] folks.
[2:23:18] We're still in session. Thank you.
[2:23:22] Thank you.
[2:23:28] » All right. So, we are now moving up
proposing to amended that was.
[2:23:38] » Yes. So, um I have a couple things that
I can go through here as far as the C2.
[2:23:44] Um at the at the board meeting, there
were a few comments that came in. Um,
[2:23:49] and one of the board members also did an
AI review or there's a bunch of stuff
[2:23:54] through the AI about this. That's not
correct. Um, so I went through the board
[2:24:01] as I just take a second look at some of
the things that come up. Um,
[2:24:06] unfortunately that came in just about an
hour.
[2:24:11] Um so there there were a few different
comments that came in made a few changes
[2:24:16] to based on
[2:24:21] um most of
there are a few different um categories
[2:24:27] I guess the came one was there were some
public comments primarily but some of
[2:24:35] the the review as well saying broad
need to
[2:24:42] quite a fewments
[2:24:49] for the short term to make certain
things go more smoothly until we get
[2:24:55] right. So um with the zoning ordinance
rewrite the RFPs were due today is today
[2:25:03] last week I don't know anyway they were
due recent
[2:25:08] we're meeting tomorrow to go through the
decision we need to interview
[2:25:19] that that process will be starting
within the next day what we anticipate
[2:25:24] that so when it comes to broaden the
scope. Really kind of want to keep it
[2:25:29] where it's at.
Changes.
[2:25:34] There were also a couple typos and there
was some wording that was that was
[2:25:39] confusing. So made a few changes around
that wording just to make that more
[2:25:43] clear. And then there's
were existing provisions on the distance
[2:25:49] of
presence of free space. um commercial
[2:25:55] properties and then the distance for
parking from the street and those two
[2:25:58] things didn't exactly predict each
other. They were different numbers were
[2:26:03] kind of the same. So those were that was
an existing one and one was 15. Um so
[2:26:09] that's really the only more policy based
item that is that was in there. Um
[2:26:18] there so for that one that's one that
you might want to take a look at
[2:26:22] harmoniz
[2:26:27] just putting those two things they might
have changed.
[2:26:35] So, so there was that. Um, there was a
comment um that was mentioned again
[2:26:39] tonight about some of the things we kind
of uh and specifically with regards to
[2:26:44] some of the kitchen stuff going on. If
you guys want to strip some specifics
[2:26:47] out, we're welcome to do that. The
purpose of that is that um when we're
[2:26:52] going through and receiving applications
and administering the ordinance and this
[2:26:57] is not specific this district
applications general um I think got a
[2:27:04] six page email today ask
what about this definition and what
[2:27:09] about that does this really mean that
and does that really mean this it more
[2:27:12] specific sometimes it can feel a little
bit too just it adds so people really
[2:27:17] know exactly
rather than going back
[2:27:22] if you feel like it's too much out but
that was
[2:27:33] so as usual the red line copy is
included um the previous amendments are
[2:27:39] in red the changes are
[2:27:54] Yeah. Yeah. Along with so we'll be a
hearing aid consultant that'll be
[2:27:57] looking at all of the districts, all of
the uses um you know is this the
[2:28:02] appropriate title for this? There have
been some suggestions um that maybe
[2:28:07] maybe the C2 district has it set up
right now really shouldn't be set up
[2:28:11] this way. Maybe the key needs to be
something that's more arena specific and
[2:28:15] then
commercial specifics and splits. That'll
[2:28:19] be something that they'll come back with
with recommendations.
[2:28:24] And I think that the good news is that a
lot of township and cities are going
[2:28:28] through exactly what we're going
older ordinances zoning ordinances that
[2:28:34] have been updated
years and things
[2:28:41] that we need to be able
[2:28:49] because of everybody else is not going
to process municipalities.
[2:28:57] There's there's a number of folks that
got quite a bit of experience doing this
[2:29:01] and they've gotten some really good
proposals
[2:29:05] to look and I think they're good. It is
going to be a lengthy process
[2:29:11] because the current ordinance like
pages. So there's a lot there, but I
[2:29:17] think the end of the end of the process,
we're going to have something sense
[2:29:23] consistent and
to answer your question, yes, I think
[2:29:28] this is a relative
solution,
[2:29:33] but shortterm could be
20 months
[2:29:41] requested for this.
[2:29:46] question
some of the requests for it.
[2:29:52] I can certainly appreciate
the thought and logic behind it. Um
[2:29:59] given the complexities that we are
experiencing even going through this and
[2:30:03] trying to make some minorities.
Um my concern and this does this create
[2:30:10] more confusion
amongst let's say some other
[2:30:16] related um
ordinances that we may already have out
[2:30:20] there right so AI was run against this
one checking
[2:30:26] my concern is the more changes we're
making here
[2:30:30] until we do the full ordinance rewrite I
don't really think we're stving mainly a
[2:30:37] particular issue. I think we're just
taking additional action.
[2:30:45] » We are there's there are
>> yeah there's some things that are making
[2:30:49] administration tricky that is
only the C2.
[2:30:55] » Yeah. Yeah. Originally when we started
this we're going to do one next that was
[2:30:59] before we were planning the rewrite. So
we're kind of go through and do some
[2:31:03] matches. Um, since we're doing the
rewrite, we're probably touch
[2:31:08] and
>> but there are some specific things.
[2:31:11] » Okay. But it isn't creating a conflict
sequence.
[2:31:14] » No, it shouldn't be. Um, and we do
whenever we do these updates, I did go
[2:31:19] through and I double checked all the
references and said, "Please double
[2:31:24] check this reference. It is probably
incorrect and it was not for clarity. It
[2:31:28] wasn't the it wasn't the flattering
I was used." So I did go back and double
[2:31:34] check all the references. So if we go in
and say you know um it refers to
[2:31:39] whatever the the particular section is
we check that any of the sections I go
[2:31:44] through and say okay does this does this
line. So can't say we never miss any but
[2:31:49] we really do go through checklist really
make sure as much as possible that we're
[2:31:54] not creating any.
>> Okay. I thank you. That makes me feel
[2:31:58] that I appreciate that more than just
the review against
[2:32:04] » Yeah.
[2:32:07] » So what's in red was the original edits
that were that were reviewed.
[2:32:16] » Yes. And that
[2:32:20] purple is what came on.
>> Yeah. I can go through those or um you
[2:32:25] can ask questions to check.
[2:32:34] » I have one question and it was confused
me. One of one of the purples
[2:32:41] changed from 15 to 12 and that's what 12
ft for a front set back green space
[2:32:51] you already mentioned and then as I read
through the here I don't know why caught
[2:32:56] my eye but
[2:33:02] on page 13
[2:33:05] about the parking their eyes.
[2:33:10] I think this
size.
[2:33:17] » So I'm just wondering why.
>> Yeah,
[2:33:19] » we put 15 then we got 12 and now we got
10.
[2:33:23] » Um, it is the size
[2:33:29] 135.
[2:33:36] Yes. requirements for parking area.
>> Yep. So that was um there should be
[2:33:41] provided on each side and
you know 10 ft. So not the front
[2:33:46] » and so 345
[2:33:54] too.
[2:34:28] Okay.
[2:35:07] It's I think it comes down to how far
Are you are you looking at the
[2:35:13] » I'm looking at
>> You're looking at your own
[2:35:20] » your own
[2:35:30] that's too muchever.
[2:35:45] Well,
I I want to benefit staff. Whatever
[2:35:53] the most
certain sections that really need to be
[2:35:57] addressed several
[2:36:05] applications,
right?
[2:36:14] staffed
[2:36:17] thus far.
>> I think I mean as as it is
[2:36:31] going to be going
[2:36:47] Well, we thought we had a warrior.
>> We sent it to the board and
[2:36:55] came about.
>> Well, it wasn't just that. It was public
[2:36:59] comment.
>> Oh, yes. I heard there were a lot.
[2:37:04] » Okay.
[2:37:09] I guess at this point
we can either feel like we've got
[2:37:14] something
[2:37:25] that most of the things were addressed
comfortable as it is.
[2:37:32] Were there specific things that you that
you thought came up that that we should
[2:37:36] talk about
>> discussing? No, just um
[2:37:43] I would say no. If you are satisfied
with what you highlighted here in
[2:37:48] purple,
that would get us to the point of um
[2:37:53] clarifying what current applicants are
waiting on and not
[2:38:01] while we wait for the to take
the week
[2:38:13] that's coming from representative,
>> right?
[2:38:25] » So,
do we need a motion at this point? is
[2:38:34] already
[2:38:39] recommendation
>> but now
[2:38:50] is with regard to
hotel resort
[2:38:57] and
[2:39:00] So
the access
[2:39:11] because we have two different GIS and so
they're not because our
[2:39:38] So is there a further discussion?
If not
[2:39:44] motion
[2:39:56] discussion
[2:40:02] all in favor.
[2:40:04] post.
[2:40:15] Um
[2:40:18] reports you want to speak
[2:40:23] up.
[2:40:26] » So it would be
ZBA.
[2:40:29] » Yeah, ZBA. Um we had three items. First
one was an issue with the fence that was
[2:41:00] rebuilding the walls in the
since they're
[2:41:07] not performance.
[2:41:31] We did and our board meeting was rather
it wasn't short but it was shorter than
[2:41:37] most of our meetings for our
um two presentations. Our financial
[2:41:44] audit for 2025 26 wased by
of um our accounting group that oversees
[2:41:53] that stuff. Our budget was balances
found and there was nothing to the state
[2:42:00] of Michigan for any
kudos to Connie and staff for just
[2:42:06] getting us through another
financials.
[2:42:10] The other uh presentation we had was
from the Ottawa County Road Commission
[2:42:14] and Kurt and coing the updates on road
projects around the entire county. So
[2:42:21] just not part time here. So, it was very
interesting. Um,
[2:42:26] and the bottom line for every
intersection that is requesting stop
[2:42:31] lights, they are no they're going to be
um they as road commission they are no
[2:42:37] longer going to be putting into
[2:42:45] the window. Now, interestingly enough,
the first section I will be 16th that is
[2:42:52] going to be around probably
[2:43:16] partner's question. It doesn't make
sense. There's so many big accidents at
[2:43:21] stoplights and roundabouts make
everybody slow down.
[2:43:27] I just thought it was an interesting
concept
[2:43:30] that way
[2:43:35] around
[2:43:42] the
[2:43:47] next meeting.
Perfect.
[2:43:51] » Does that mean a roundabout is headed to
Butternut and 144?
[2:43:57] » Yeah,
but that is um
[2:44:06] we have five plan
[2:44:31] people.
[2:44:43] » Yeah. One of the one of the things that
roundabouts do
[2:44:50] more
[2:45:03] us
[2:45:13] something along those lines. There's
just some emails right before the
[2:45:16] meeting asking about
[2:45:23] the quick look that I
look like. So you are encouraged to sign
[2:45:29] up for that.
[2:45:35] Um joint meeting with the township board
is I believe October 15. um
[2:45:43] came up for sure. I think that was the
regular study session
[2:45:49] Thursday.
>> Yeah, I don't have that on my calendar.
[2:45:53] » Yeah. So, um that will be an area the
board is going to be starting some
[2:45:57] strategic planning.
[2:46:01] This will be kind of going in with that
[2:46:08] same page and all of that you want to
[2:46:14] on my phone. You are correct. It is
October 15, Thursday.
[2:46:25] If you're able, let me know if you have
[2:46:35] [laughter]
[2:46:38] [clears throat]
[2:46:40] the one hillside
development. uh after that was approved
[2:46:48] by the planning commission board from
individuals.
[2:46:56] And so after a period of time discussion
that
[2:47:01] follow the intent of the
minor amendment
[2:47:10] approval. So that has been that has been
approved.
[2:47:14] Good job.
>> The minor one of the provisions or is
[2:47:19] that certain minorities can be done by
staff with
[2:47:33] » Um and then you touched on this already
uh but the zoning ordinance update is
[2:47:39] getting going. We got four proposals in
there pretty
[2:47:48] all of them are going to involve a
certain amount of
[2:47:52] zoning ordinances are tricky with public
engagement.
[2:47:56] So we want this
possible but there are going to be
[2:48:01] things
[2:48:06] but there's a there is a public outreach
education to each of these um what it's
[2:48:14] probably going to look like is large
chunks coming to the commission at that
[2:48:18] time not just for information and
review. Um there's going to be a
[2:48:23] steering committee um that will be
working on this so meeting more
[2:48:28] frequently to what the changes are going
to be.
[2:48:34] One of the challenges um is going to be
that this is an entire zoning ordinance
[2:48:39] re and so like to get into the details a
couple words get it very specific. It's
[2:48:46] gonna have to be a little bit more high
if we want to get it right, but in order
[2:48:50] to get it done, um, we're gonna have to
be just
[2:48:58] so the first phase, um, I think we had
about four months or three to five
[2:49:05] weeks. I think
I requested is going to be a technical
[2:49:10] analysis of the existing
to go through this day. Here are the
[2:49:15] things that adjusting things you don't
have that they have
[2:49:21] that smoother. They're going to be
looking at um primary zoning. We also
[2:49:26] have a subdivision chapter and we have
breakfast. Those are outside.
[2:49:31] We want to make sure that they all work
together
[2:49:40] will happen first and then after that it
be the actual rewrite process. So the
[2:49:45] total the total amount of time is 20
months that we anticipate it taking
[2:49:50] about February
[2:49:54] we anticipate complet so it is so it'll
go to process wise you'll see parts of
[2:50:01] it along the way there will be
qualification well and then
[2:50:10] recommendation planning commission
for approval with standard process as
[2:50:18] well.
[2:50:22] I was I was really excited to see that
one of the outcomes is going to be an
[2:50:27] easily document. There's an intent to
make this simple to understand
[2:50:33] um most ordinances that were written in
that way.
[2:50:40] Uh but the intent of this and it's part
of the part of the benefit of having a
[2:50:44] consulting team who's done this in other
townships and other municipalities is
[2:50:49] they found ways to
a lot simpler to understand that's at
[2:50:55] the end of the day that's what I think
everybody wants people understand what
[2:50:59] it is we're doing how it ties to master
plan and how it affects or benefits them
[2:51:08] » yeah looking at colors charts as opposed
to see
[2:51:15] things like that so you want to know
what
[2:51:19] that little picture. You won't have to
try to decipher.
[2:51:28] » All right.
Anything else? Thank you.
[2:51:33] That covers our agenda.
>> Just one comment. Since the majority of
[2:51:38] our colleagues
topic, we should probably try to be
[2:51:42] aware of that in the future
that item up on the agenda.
[2:51:50] I my thinking had been that since the
crossing been here a few times already.
[2:51:56] I thought maybe that would be good, but
it wasn't
[2:52:10] » Yeah, but you're right.
I always
[2:52:29] support.
[2:52:36] Thank you.