[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.

Park Township Planning Commission Meeting - August 27, 2026

Transcript