Feb 09, 2026 Planning Commission

[00:00:29]

I LIKE THAT. I LIKE THE CIVILITY.

THE SAME THING. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THE MOMENT TO SETTLE ON.

WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 6:30.

[1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY? PRESENT. COMMISSIONER NAHUM? PRESENT. COMMISSIONER SNYDER? HERE. ALL RIGHT.

SO WE GO TO THE NEXT PART. PUBLIC REMARKS. DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE ARE ANY PUBLIC REMARKS, SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

[4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

SECOND. SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY SECONDED.

MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY, PROPERLY SECONDED BY NAHUM. SNYDER.

SNYDER. IT'S OKAY. SORRY. SEE, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN I'M THE CHAIR.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. [INAUDIBLE]. AND THEN WE GO TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ]

SECOND. HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY SECONDED.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ANY DISCUSSION? ANY DISCUSSION? SORRY ABOUT THAT. ANY DISCUSSION? THE NAME. THE MISSPELLED NAME OF ONE OF YOUR COMMISSIONERS HAS BEEN CAUGHT CORRECT.

I NOTICED THAT, BUT. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IT'S BEEN MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SHREWSBURY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BROOKS.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ABSTENTIONS. MOVE ON TO COMMUNICATIONS. DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WE HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS.

NO PUBLIC HEARINGS, SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA, UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

[8.A. Parking Ordinance Update ]

I SHOULD HAVE SET THIS UP. SO, AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THE PARKING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE 8, OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING. WE'VE BEEN, AND YOU ASKED STAFF TO DO A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPARISON WITH A COUPLE EXISTING SITES.

IT TOOK SOME INTERPRETATION FOR VARIOUS REASONS, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH ARE ORDINANCE, PART OF OUR PARKING REGULATION TIES TO NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES. SO WE'VE HAD TO DO SOME ESTIMATING ON HOW MANY EMPLOYEES WOULD BE IN THIS SIZE OF A RESTAURANT.

BUT I THINK THIS GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF HOW OUR PARKING ORDINANCE AND OUR PROPOSED NUMBERS FIT.

THE FIRST THING I'LL DISCUSS IS ANNA'S HOUSE.

THIS IS THE PROPERTY AT 1753 WEST GRAND RIVER.

IT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT AS A PIZZA HUT IN 1986.

STAFF DID FIND THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN FROM 86.

DIDN'T HAVE THE EMPLOYEE INFORMATION, BUT WE DO ESTIMATE THAT 15 EMPLOYEES MIGHT WORK IN THERE.

THAT SHOULD SAY. ANNA'S HOUSE, SORRY ABOUT THAT.

THAT GOT THROUGH EDITING LIKE THAT TOO, I WILL NOTE.

AND THAT THIS, THIS RESTAURANT WOULD REQUIRE BETWEEN 49, 41 AND 49 PARKING SPACES.

THE 86 PLAN INDICATED THAT 62 PARKING SPACES WERE PROVIDED.

SO REMEMBER THAT 41 TO 49 IS IN LIGHT OF OUR OF THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE, SAYING A 20% INCREASE CAP, RIGHT? SO WHILE 62 IS BEYOND THAT, THE 62 DOES CONFORM TO OUR CURRENT REGULATION. SO THIS WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE OF 13 EXTRA PARKING SPACES TO EXIST IN ITS CURRENT FORM UNDER THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. JOE'S ON JOLLY WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT TO CALCULATE BECAUSE THAT WAS APPROVED AS PART OF THE WHOLE ELEVATION MUPUD.

[00:05:06]

THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FLEXIBILITY BUILT INTO THAT THOUGH, BECAUSE IT IS AN MUPUD.

SO HAVING SAID THAT, WE BROKE WE WERE ABLE TO BREAK OUT THE JOE'S ON JOLLY SITE.

BASED ON THE APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT FOR JOE'S ON JOLLY, THERE WERE 119 SEATS IN THE RESTAURANT, THAT REQUIRES 29 PARKING SPOTS. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY EMPLOYEE INFORMATION.

HOWEVER, AGAIN WE USED 15 EMPLOYEES AS A ROUGH AVERAGE.

SO WITH THAT, AS. WITH THAT NUMBER, WE ESTIMATE THAT JOE'S AND JOLLY WOULD REQUIRE BETWEEN 44 AND 52 PARKING SPACES.

KNOWING THERE ARE 38 PARKING SPACES ON JOE'S AND JOLLY, THAT SITE IN ISOLATION, WOULD BE UNDER PARKED AND WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE MORE PARKING OR GET A VARIANCE FOR THE UNDER-PARK STATUS. NOW REMEMBER, I'M NOT THROWING SHADE AT JOE'S AND JOLLY.

IT'S ADJACENT TO OTHER PARKING AND IT'S PART OF THE WHOLE PROJECT.

YOU ASKED US TO JUST BREAK THAT OUT AS IT STANDS THOUGH, SO THAT'S WHAT WE DID.

THAT WAS THE BIGGEST THING I HAVE TO REPORT ON YOU, FOR YOU TODAY.

THE OTHER EDITS THAT YOU ASKED FOR IN THE ORDINANCE ARE IN THE ORDINANCE AS, AS IT STANDS.

AND I CAN NOW TAKE QUESTIONS OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO.

ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? CAN YOU REMIND US OF, LIKE, THE MAIN EDITS THAT YOU MADE? AFTER THE MEETING ON THE 26TH, THERE WASN'T A LOT OF OTHER STUFF, BUT.

THIS WAS CORRECTED TO SAY LESS TO, OR LESS OR EQUAL TO 50 VEHICLES.

THAT WAS A TEXT CHANGE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP. AND THEN, I THINK THAT WAS THE ONLY. EVERYTHING ELSE WAS UPDATED AFTER THE MEETING ON THE 12TH.

SO THAT'S THE ONLY UPDATE MADE SINCE THE 26TH.

OKAY. IN THE TEXT. SO BASED ON THE REVIEW. SO THANK YOU FOR LOOKING AT THE ANNA'S HOUSE AND JOE'S EXAMPLES.

SURE. BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WAS INTERESTING.

DO YOU THINK, IS THAT. DOING THAT, DID IT ALTER OR MAKE YOU REFLECT ON ANY OF THE CHANGES THAT WE'VE BEEN THINKING THROUGH? THE KEY, THE STICKING POINT TO STAFF SEEMS TO BE THE 20% NUMBER. AND THAT WAS PROPOSED WITH THE I, WITH IN THE NAME OF LIMITING FUTURE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. THAT NUMBER COULD WORK.

THAT NUMBER COULD BE ADJUSTED. OR MAYBE YOU DON'T LIKE THAT NUMBER YOU'VE GOTTEN.

YOU'VE HAD THREE EXAMPLES NOW OF RESTAURANTS.

STAFF COULD LOOK AT OTHER NON-RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENTS, BUT IT'S, AT SOME POINT, YOU KNOW, YOU GOT TO MAKE A CALL ON WHERE THAT IS IF IT'S THERE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, BUT STAFF IS PRETTY COMFORTABLE WITH THE ORDINANCE AS IT IS, OTHERWISE. IF I COULD JUST SAY BACK WHAT I'M HEARING.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE BASED ON DOING THESE THREE EXAMPLES AND WITH RESTAURANTS, THE 20% MAXIMUM SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE THING.

IT SEEMS LIKE IT CAN FIT. IT CAN. BUT IF YOU GO BACK AND YOU TRY TO APPLY IT TO OTHER DEVELOPMENTS, IT MIGHT NOT FIT, AND YOU'RE CREATING NONCONFORMITIES.

YEAH, I DID NOTICE THAT. NOW IS THAT A BIG DEAL? NOT IF THEY DON'T TRY TO EXPAND THEIR PARKING.

RIGHT. BUT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? BRIAN MCCONNELL. COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL? I THINK WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS BEFORE, SO PLEASE REMIND ME, IN THE CASE WHERE SOMEBODY WHO WAS NON-COMPLIANT TRIED TO EXPAND THEIR PARKING,

[00:10:03]

NO, GO THE OTHER WAY. A, IN THE CASE OF ANNA'S TO USE THAT FOR, SINCE I MADE, SINCE WE MADE THAT COMPARISON, IT WOULD HAVE IT WOULD BE OVER PARKED BY 13 SPACES POTENTIALLY.

AGAIN THAT'S A, THAT'S AN AVERAGE NUMBER. SO THAT.

FOOTPRINT REMAINED THE SAME THEN THAT WOULD BE CONVERTED TO SOME OTHER SURFACE THAT COULD BE GREEN SPACE.

SO YEAH, IF ANNA'S WAS TO GO OUT OF BUSINESS AND THAT BUILDING WAS TO GET REDEVELOPED.

THEY WOULD INHERIT THAT. THAT WOULD BE A NONCONFORMING, A LEGALLY NONCONFORMING SITE.

TRYING TO TO INCREASE THAT NUMBER WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE.

IF WE WERE TO COME IN AND SAY, WELL, WE HAVE MORE MODERN GREEN SPACE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS THE CASE, I'M JUST RUNNING, I'M JUST USING THIS AS AN EXAMPLE.

IF WE COME IN AND SAY, WELL, YOU REQUIRE, YOU'RE NOW REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH SITE PLAN BECAUSE YOUR CHANGE OF USE, YOU KNOW, TRIGGERED THAT. WE HAVE GREEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, SO FROM THAT 13 NOW SUDDENLY YOU LOSE FIVE SPOTS BECAUSE THOSE HAVE BECOME PARKING ISLANDS AND THINGS. YOU DON'T GET THOSE FIVE SPOTS BACK.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT EXPLAINED, ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION OR YOUR POINT, BUT THAT'S, THAT IS EXACTLY THAT'S HOW THAT WOULD WORK.

THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION. SO IF YOU HAVE A THIS IS ALL HYPOTHETICAL, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING IF THERE'S A VARIANCE THAT'S REQUIRED.

SO IF A NEW BUSINESS COME TO ANNA'S HOUSE, FOR INSTANCE.

SURE. THEY INHERIT THOSE THAT SAME NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, THEY WANT TO EXPAND, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE A DESIGN WHERE THEY HAVE SOME GREEN SPACE OR WHATEVER. HOW WOULD THEY EXPAND? I MEAN, ISN'T IT KIND OF LOCKED, LIKE LAND LOCKED? HOW WOULD THEY. OH, MAYBE. THEY WOULD HAVE TO ADJUST.

MAYBE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SITE LOOKS LIKE.

I'M NOT LOOKING. I'M NOT. I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS.

IT VARIES, IT'S A KIND OF CASE BY CASE TO YOU.

CORRECT. YEAH, I GOT YOU. YEAH, YEAH. YOU GOT TO LOOK ON A SITE-BY-SITE BASIS ON VARIANCE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE ANY ROOM TO EXPAND.

THAT WASN'T THE POINT. RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT. OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. SHORKEY? I HAVE MORE OF A STATEMENT SLASH QUESTION.

I GUESS IT'S A STATEMENT, AND THEN YOU TELL ME IF WE CAN TURN THIS INTO WORDS.

BUT TO ME, I MEAN, JUST HEARING THE EXAMPLES THAT YOU'VE PROVIDED TO US TONIGHT AND IN THE PAST.

IT FEELS LIKE A LOT OF THIS IS VERY SITE SPECIFIC.

AND SO MY GOAL, IF I WAS TO SAY, YOU KNOW, WAVE A MAGIC WAND AND HAVE A PERFECT PARKING ORDINANCE, IT WOULD BE WHAT MAKES SENSE. WHAT DOES THE BUSINESS OWNER OR THE, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY OWNER WANT? AND IF IT'S A BUSINESS, WHAT DO THE CUSTOMERS NEED? AND, HOW DO YOU FIND THAT SWEET SPOT THERE THAT'S ENOUGH, BUT NOT TOO MANY? BECAUSE WE ALSO DON'T WANT TO HAVE MORE DEVELOPED, YOU KNOW, PARKING PAVEMENT THAN WE NEED.

SURE. AND SO LIKE BUT I KNOW WE HAVE TO HAVE A REGULATION OR AN ORDINANCE THAT PUTS SOME BOUNDARIES AND DEFINITIONS AROUND THAT.

BUT I REALLY LIKE THE IDEA OF SORT OF SETTING OUT A STANDARD, WHICH I THINK WE HAVE, BUT THEN ALLOWING FOR COMMON SENSE, LOGICAL VARIANCES WHEN IT MAKES SENSE SITE SPECIFICALLY FOR A PARTICULAR BUSINESS USE IN A PARTICULAR SITE.

AND SO, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO GET THERE.

I THINK WE'VE WALKED AROUND IT, BUT IF I HAD TO SAY, THIS IS MY INTENT AND THIS IS WHAT I WANT THIS TO DO, THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD BE. AND I MEAN, DO YOU FEEL LIKE THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE COULD DO DIFFERENTLY THAT WOULD MAKE IT MORE LEANING IN THAT DIRECTION? ARE WE BEING TOO RIGID OR NOT RIGID ENOUGH AT THIS POINT, OR HAVE WE HIT PRETTY MUCH THAT SWEET SPOT? OR WAS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK IN ONE BIG QUESTION? NO, I'M TRYING TO THINK THE. I'M TRYING TO WE COULD GO BACK AND TALK ABOUT IT AS STAFF.

WHAT I'M TRYING WHAT I THINK I'M HEARING YOU SAY, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE IDEA THAT THAT CAN BE A SLIDING NUMBER BASED ON THE SITE? WELL, I KNOW YOU CAN'T.

I MEAN, YOU CAN'T WRITE AN ORDINANCE TO DO THAT.

IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE SMELL TEST OF DOES IT MAKE SENSE HERE, BECAUSE WHAT THEY HAVE AT JOE'S AND JELLY YOU JUST SAID REALLY DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING SPACES IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE. BUT LOGIC TELLS US IT DOES BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT'S SITED AND THE WAY IT'S THE MUPUD.

AND HIS HOUSE HAS TOO MANY, BUT THAT MAY BE WHAT THEY NEED BASED ON THEIR MODEL AS BREAKFAST.

AND SO THEY MIGHT HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE AT BREAKFAST AND THEN NOT AS MANY AND OTHER, YOU KNOW, OTHER TIMES OF DAY. AND SO THEY NEED MORE SPACES OR THEIR SITE ALLOWED IT AND IT WAS ALREADY THERE, SO THEY JUST KEPT IT. AND YOU KNOW, OR IT'S ACTUALLY ALLOWED UNDER CURRENT ORDINANCE, IT MIGHT NOT BE UNDER WHAT WE MIGHT BE PROPOSING.

[00:15:06]

AND I'M NOT SURE THAT WE KNOW THAT UNTIL WE HAVE THE SITE PLAN REVIEW.

SO I DON'T WANT TO LOCK US INTO HAVING SOMEBODY HAVE TO COME TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE THAT REALLY SHOULDN'T BE NEEDED BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I DON'T WANT SOMEBODY PAVING OVER ALL THIS GREEN SPACE TO PUT IN PARKING SPACES.

YOU KNOW, LIKE I WANT IT TO BE PERFECT AND I'M NOT SURE HOW TO GET THERE.

AND SO I WANT TO FIND THE BEST POSSIBLE. CLOSE TO PERFECT.

AND THEN GIVE SOME DISCUSSION WHEN NEEDED FOR ADJUSTMENTS TO THAT.

STAFF CAN GO BACK AND DISCUSS THIS, BUT IT'S.

IF YOU SET A NUMBER, GOING ABOVE THAT NUMBER IS GOING TO TRIGGER A VARIANCE.

I KNOW. I MEAN YOU MIGHT SET UP A TIERED NUMBER AND THIS WILL TAKE A LOT MORE CONVERSATION THAN JUST WHAT NUMBER DO YOU WANT.

BUT YOU COULD SET UP A TIERED NUMBER WHERE YOU COULD GO, WELL, WE WANT YOU TO CAP IT AT 20% OVER, BUT YOU CAN GO UP TO 50% OVER IF YOU PROVIDE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING EXTRA AMENITIES AND THEN INCENTIVIZE IT.

THAT WOULD BE FINE. NOW WE'RE TALKING WHAT INCENTIVES WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS? EXTRA, I DON'T KNOW HOW, YOU KNOW, EXTRA GREEN SPACE, I THINK IS THE MOST POPULAR IDEA BASED ON YOUR CONVERSATION.

YOU CAN ALREADY PUT AS MUCH BIKE PARKING IN AS YOU WANT.

YOU GET CREDIT AT A CERTAIN, WHEN YOU GO ABOVE A MINIMUM BIKE PARKING, YOU GET TO, YOU KNOW, USE THOSE IN LIEU OF ACTUAL PARKING SPACES. THAT IS A POTENTIAL ROUTE.

OTHERWISE THAT THAT NUMBER CAN GO UP OR DOWN OR IT CAN COME OUT.

MAYBE I MIGHT. LET THE MARKET DECIDE. YEAH. I WAS GOING TO SAY I, I'M PROBABLY LIKE, I KNOW THAT WHAT I'M SAYING IS NOT EASY TO QUANTIFY IN A, IN AN ORDINANCE, BECAUSE MAYBE I LOOK TO OTHERS WHO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY OR NON-MOTORIZED, YOU KNOW, ANY OF YOU HAVE INCENTIVES. COULD IT BE, YOU KNOW.

SURFACE THAT'S BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE IT FILTERS OUT OR IT DOESN'T CAUSE RUNOFF OR, YOU KNOW, THAT'S GETTING BAD. NEVER MIND. NEVER MIND, I'M JUST THINKING OUT LOUD.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS. IF YOU DO HAVE IDEAS, I'D LOVE TO HEAR THEM.

BUT I AM NOT GOING TO HOLD MY BREATH WAITING FOR YOU GUYS TO COME UP WITH A PERFECT PLAN, BECAUSE.

COMMISSIONER MCCONNELL. YEAH, I TAKE YOUR COMMENTS TO HEART THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO BE OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE.

AND AS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CONDITIONS SUCH AS IT'S A BREAKFAST PLACE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO TIE UP THOSE BARS.

THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME, I DON'T, I CAN IMAGINE THAT A LOT OF OTHER POTENTIAL LOGICS WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THAT SORT OF JUDGMENT OF WHETHER A DIFFERENT CONDITION SHOULD APPLY BECAUSE OF X, Y, OR Z.

IT'S A HOSPITAL OR WHATEVER IT IS. SO, IT FEELS LIKE IT COULD BE TRICKY TO TRY TO ENUMERATE THOSE.

I LOVE THE IDEA OF JUST KICKING THE BALL TO THE ZBA.

HAVE IT OUT WITH THEM. IF THEY THINK IT'S. WELL, YOU RUN THE RISK TOO.

IF YOU, IF SUDDENLY THREE OF THESE VARIANCES GO TO THE ZBA, SHOULD WE JUST REPEAL THIS PART OF THE ORDINANCE? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A COUPLE THOUGHTS.

COMMISSIONER BROOKS. WELL, I THINK EVERYONE KNOWS WHERE I STAND ON PARKING LOTS IN THE TOWNSHIP, AND MY GOAL IS TO REDUCE THEM AT SOME LEVEL, BUT NOT TO HAVE THEM.

I THINK OF I WANT THE ORDINANCE TO WORK BEST FOR EVERYONE.

SO THAT INCLUDES AND I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT BEST MEANS IN THIS CASE, EXCEPT THAT IF WE THINK ABOUT OUR STRATEGIC PLAN. WHAT'S THAT DOCUMENT CALLED? MASTER PLAN.

MASTER PLAN, NOT STRATEGIC PLAN. MASTER PLAN, IT OUTLINES WHAT OUR SORT OF GUIDING PRINCIPLES ARE.

SO TRY AND PROMOTE POSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT IN THE COMMUNITY.

WE HAVE LINES AROUND ECONOMIC HOUSING. WE SUPPORT BUSINESSES AND WE SUPPORT RESIDENTS.

AND SO I SEE THIS POLICY AS THIS ORDINANCE IS TRYING TO FIT WITHIN THAT, WITH THAT, WITHIN THAT VEIN, BECAUSE WE CAN'T KNOW WHAT THE EFFECT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE BECAUSE APPLYING IT TO HISTORICAL EXAMPLES PUTS THOSE HISTORICAL EXAMPLES WITHIN A CONTEXT

[00:20:08]

SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE EFFECT IS GOING TO BE EXACTLY.

BUT WE DID CREATE A MASTER PLAN THAT SAYS THIS IS WHERE WE WANT THE TOWNSHIP TO GO AT SOME LEVEL.

AND IN MY MIND, PLACING A MAXIMUM AT WHATEVER THAT RATE IS, WILL GIVE US A POLICY MECHANISM FOR PREVENTING TOO MUCH PARKING LOT.

BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE LAND, THAT REALLY IS, THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DEVELOP ON OR THAT THAT MUCH AT LEAST THAT EXISTS, THAT'S LEFT. AND I DID FIND, SO THAT'S MY THOUGHT ON THAT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE EXACT NUMBER SHOULD BE THOUGH, SO LIKE 20% SEEMS REASONABLE.

I DID SOME RESEARCH AND FOUND THAT I BELIEVE THESE ARE CORRECT.

I HAVEN'T VERIFIED EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE, AND I DID HAVE SOME AI ASSISTANCE HERE, SO I'M JUST GOING TO PREFACE THIS STATEMENT BY SAYING THAT, BUT LIKE SO MT. PLEASANT, I BELIEVE, HAS ELIMINATED ALL MINIMUMS. AND THEN NOW THIS ALSO COMES FROM THE IT'S CALLED, DO YOU REALLY NEED ALL THAT PARKING? FROM THE MICHIGAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.

SO IN THIS DOCUMENT, THEY TALK ABOUT MT. PLEASANT HAVING NO PARKING MINIMUMS IN ALL DISTRICTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

MARQUETTE AND TRAVERSE CITY HAVE IMPOSED PARKING MAXIMUMS FOR SPECIFIC USES.

AND THIS DOCUMENT CALLS OUT RETAIL AND OFFICE SPECIFICALLY.

SO THERE COULD BE SPECIFIC ZONES THAT THIS WOULD BE APPLIED.

THEN THERE'S SOME OTHER EXAMPLES OF ANN ARBOR WHICH JUST FEELS TOO DENSE AT THE MOMENT TO ME AS A VIABLE COMPARISON, BUT IT COULD BE. BUT ANN ARBOR HOW KALAMAZOO AND MARQUETTE HAVE ALSO EXEMPTED CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THEIR DOWNTOWNS FROM SPARK PARKING SPACE MINIMUMS, WHICH I THINK, BRIAN, YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE.

SO THERE IS THE OTHER, THE OTHER AVENUE, RIGHT WHERE WE JUST SAY THERE ARE NO MINIMUMS, WHICH DOES PROVIDE FOR ABSOLUTE FLEXIBILITY. BUT I STILL THINK IT COMES DOWN TO, WHAT IS IN OUR MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT AND WHAT WE CAN ENVISION FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO SHAPE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT? IF I CAN JUMP IN, YOU MADE A REALLY GOOD POINT.

THAT MIGHT BE THE FIRST. DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO APPLY TO, INSTEAD OF SAYING WHAT USES DOES THIS NOT APPLY TO, YOU COULD SPECIFY THE USES YOU DO WANT THIS TO APPLY TO.

CHAIR BROWNBACK'S CONCERN HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY RESTAURANTS.

MAYBE YOU DON'T WANT TO APPLY A PARKING MAXIMUM TO A RESTAURANT, BUT A RETAIL, A LARGE, A BIG, YOU KNOW. AND IN POINT OF FACT, COMMERCIAL CENTERS, I HAVE A MAXIMUM BUILT IN.

THAT IS ANOTHER ROUTE YOU COULD GO WITH THAT CAP.

SAY, WELL, RETAIL AND OFFICE USES ARE MAXED AT 20%, BUT RESTAURANTS ARE OKAY BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT, I'M THROWING THAT OUT THERE NOT ADVOCATING THE POSITION.

IS THAT ALLOWABLE? I'M SORRY. YEAH, YOU CAN DO IT.

BUT YOU CAN DO THAT, ESSENTIALLY. I MEAN, IF YOU CAN SAY, IF YOU CAN CALL OUT SPECIFIC USES TO SAY THAT THESE ARE EXEMPT, THEN YOU COULD GO THE OTHER WAY AND SAY THIS APPLIES. YOU KNOW, THIS APPLIES TO SPECIFIC USES.

AND THEN I WOULD RECOMMEND GO INTO THE DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS THAT YOU JUST UPDATED AND UPDATE THAT NUMBER TO REFLECT THAT IN THAT TABLE. MR. THAT'S THE, WHICH TABLE IS THAT? GOING THE WRONG DIRECTION.

BEGINNING. YEP. THIS. OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT IT WAS.

SO CENTERS LESS THAN 50,000FT², ONE FOR EACH 200FT² OF GROSS AREA UP. YOU KNOW, CAPPED AT ONE, CAPPED AT 20% OVER THE NUMBER.

YOU KNOW, I WOULD SUGGEST IF YOU WANT TO IF YOU WANT TO SPECIFY USES, AMEND THIS PART OF THE SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE AND

[00:25:06]

AND IF WE DID DO SOMETHING LIKE A MAX OR MINIMUM THAT WAS APPLIED BASED ON THE LAND USE.

WE CAN ALL IMAGINE THE PARKING LOTS THAT WE KNOW OF THAT TEND TO BE MOSTLY PARKING LOT THAT DOESN'T GET A LOT OF USAGE, LIKE THE PERCENTAGE OF THE PARKING LOT WHEN IT'S AT CAPACITY IS NOT FULL.

SO WE COULD STRATEGICALLY DEFINE THIS. OR WE COULD TARGET LAND USES THAT HAVE MORE TURNOVER, BECAUSE THEN IT'S MORE LIKELY TO GET CAUGHT BY THE POLICY CHANGE.

NOT TRYING TO DOMINATE THE CONVERSATION BY ANY MEANS.

ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? NO.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, SO THE NEXT STEP. OKAY.

FOR THIS. YOUR CHOICE IF YOU WANT STAFF WILL BRING THIS BACK FOR ANOTHER CONVERSATION.

THIS IS CLEARLY THE STICKING POINT, WHERE DO YOU WANT THAT NUMBER TO BE.

I THINK. I HAVE A QUESTION. I THINK WE CAN. GO AHEAD, SORRY.

CAN'T, IS IT REASONABLE FOR STAFF TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT NUMBER IS, THOUGH? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S ATTAINABLE? I THINK WE CAN GIVE YOU SOME OPTIONS BASED ON THIS CONVERSATION AND GIVE YOU LIKE 3 OR 4 SETS OF PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR THAT PARAGRAPH, AND THEN YOU GUYS CAN PICK WHICH ONE YOU LIKE BEST.

OKAY. I WOULD ALSO SUGGEST, IF THAT'S THE STICKING POINT AND YOU'RE OKAY WITH THE REST OF THE ORDINANCE, WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING? IT WOULD BE THE SECOND MEETING IN MARCH, AND THEN YOU COULD DECIDE.

YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO DECIDE THAT, YOU COULD JUST, YOU COULD TALK ABOUT THAT THAT NIGHT AND YOU.

AND THEN IT WOULD COME BACK. FIRST MEETING IN APRIL FOR A VOTE AND RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE FORWARD.

OR DO YOU WANT TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION ONE MORE TIME? WELL, WHAT'S AT THE PLEASURE OF. WELL OR YOU CAN DO BOTH.

I CAN STILL BRING THIS BACK IN TWO WEEKS. SURE.

BUT I THINK IF YOU'RE GOOD WITH THE REST OF THE ORDINANCE, WE CAN SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS. WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION? ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? I'M HAPPY TO GO AHEAD WITH A PUBLIC HEARING AND SEE IF WE CAN GET ANY INPUT FROM OUTSIDE OF THE TABLE.

AND MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT THE TOWNSHIP BOARD ASKED US TO LOOK AT.

AND THE LAST TIME THEY ASKED US THAT, WE SAID, YEAH, YOU SHOULD CHANGE SOMETHING ABOUT THAT AND GAVE IT BACK TO THEM.

WE COULD ALSO LET THEM KNOW WHAT THE PUBLIC COMMENT WE GOT ON THE TWO OPTIONS ARE AND LET THEM, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THEY HAVE TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. SO OKAY, SO IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S OKAY. YEAH. THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO.

YOU'LL FORGIVE ME? I'M GOING TO CHECK DATES, SO.

AND THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH A PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT A SPECIFIC PARCEL.

IT WOULDN'T BE ANY PARCEL. IT WOULD GO IN THE NEWSPAPER.

THE NEWSPAPER, YES. LET'S SEE. SO TODAY'S THE 9TH.

YEAH. I'M SORRY. I'M ALSO LOOKING AT THAT, REMEMBERING THAT THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT REACHING OUT TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY INTEREST FROM THE.

I DID. OKAY. NOW THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT I DID SPEAK WITH DIRECTOR CLARK, THE ONLY TIME THE MICRO MOBILITY QUESTION HAS COME UP HAS BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS WITH HASLETT VILLAGE. NO OTHER COMMERCIAL ENTITY HAS TALKED ABOUT IT PRO OR CON.

AND THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THAT GOING TO BE BUILT INTO THE TRAILHEAD, IT'S NOT EXACTLY WHAT YOU MIGHT BE THINKING, MSU'S, LOT LOOKS LIKE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT WE ARE GETTING A TRAILHEAD AT THE AT HASLETT VILLAGE.

[00:30:05]

YOU ASKED ME TO ASK ABOUT THE SCHOOLS IN MICROMOBILITY.

I DON'T IMAGINE THAT'S GOING TO BE A BIG DEAL, BUT I'M STILL WAITING FOR INFORMATION.

THE CONTACT I ASKED TO LOOK INTO THAT FOR ME.

SO WITH YOUR PERMISSION, WE'LL PUT THIS ON THE MARCH 23RD AGENDA FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.

AND THAT GIVES STAFF PLENTY OF TIME TO PUT THIS CONVERSATION TOGETHER AND PUT A MEMO TOGETHER AND GIVE YOU SOME OPTIONS ON WHAT TO DO WITH THIS CAP.

AND THEN WE'LL TAKE IT FROM THERE AND THEN IT'LL GET APPROVED.

WELL, NOT APPROVED APPROVED. YOU'LL HAVE YOUR VOTE ON, APRIL? WELL, IN APRIL. SOUNDS GOOD. OKAY. THANK YOU.

SURE. ALL RIGHT, THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE CHICKEN ORDINANCE UPDATE.

[8.B. Chicken Ordinance Update ]

ARE YOU A LITTLE SCARED ABOUT THAT? OH, WE DISCUSSED THIS AT YOUR LAST ORDINANCE.

AT YOUR LAST MEETING. YOU INDICATED YOU SUPPORT ALLOWING CHICKENS IN THE RB AND THE RX DISTRICTS.

YOU ALSO ASKED FOR A MORE CLEAR DEFINITION OF WHAT IS A REGULATED BOWL: CHICKEN OR RABBIT? SO, BRIEF UPDATE IN THE ORDINANCE. RAISING OF CHICKENS AND RABBITS, ACCESSORY TO ONE-FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE RAAA, RAA, RA, RB AND RX JUST ADDS THEM IN THERE.

AND THEN IN THE STANDARDS THE FIRST STANDARD, THIS LANGUAGE HAS BEEN ADDED.

ONLY CHICKENS OF EGG LAYING AGE AND OR RABBITS OLDER THAN THREE MONTHS SHALL APPLY TO THIS ORDINANCE.

I THINK THAT WAS WHAT YOU WERE, WHERE YOU WERE TRYING TO GO WITH THAT.

ARE THEY OLD ENOUGH TO BE LAYING EGGS AND OR ARE THEY OLD ENOUGH TO BREED? AND THAT IS WHAT I HAVE FOUND AS THE BREED AGE FOR RABBIT.

THAT IS SOMETHING I HAVE NEVER HAD TO RESEARCH IN MY CAREER BEFORE. BUT I HAVE IT NOW.

WE THANK YOU. THE AGE OF A CHICKEN. IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE WE NEEDED TO TIE IT TO THE AGE OF THE CHICKEN.

JUST, ARE YOU STARTING TO LAY EGGS? OKAY, NOW YOU'RE.

NOW WE CAN. NOW WE'RE GOING TO REGULATE THAT.

AND STAFF CHOSE TO DO THAT RATHER THAN TRYING TO ADD DEFINITIONS AND MAKING YOU GO BACK.

IT JUST SEEMED LIKE THIS WAS A MORE NATURAL FIT FOR THAT INFORMATION TO BE.

AND THEN BECAUSE THIS WAS SUCH AN EASY ORDINANCE TO PUT TOGETHER, YOU DO HAVE A RED LINE AND A CLEAN VERSION OF THIS IN YOUR PACKET.

SO IF YOU'RE GOOD WITH THIS, STAFF WILL SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THAT ON MARCH 26TH AS WELL.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. SHORKEY ON THE CHICKEN UPDATE, CHICKEN ORDINANCE UPDATE? JUST A VERY BRIEF ONE. HOW COME IT CHANGED TO SECTION 2 INSTEAD OF SECTION 1? WHERE? IN THIS ORDINANCE, LIKE YOU HAVE REDLINED OUT SECTION 1 AND, UP AT THE VERY, VERY TOP.

IS THERE SOMETHING THAT COMES BEFORE THAT THAT ISN'T HERE OR? NO, THAT IS. OH, OKAY. BECAUSE I THINK, I THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT.

I THINK THAT IS SIMPLY WHATEVER TEXT AMENDMENT I USE ON THIS HAD A PARAGRAPH AHEAD OF IT.

OH, OKAY. AND YEAH. ALSO MR. MCCURTIS SHOUT OUT, YOU BROUGHT UP THE IDEA OF USING THE ROOSTER ORDINANCE, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I DID. AND YOU WERE CORRECT ON THAT.

I JUST IT WAS THE SAME ORDINANCE. YES, YOU WERE CORRECT.

GOOD JOB. YEAH, WE'LL FIX THAT. SO IS IT. YEAH, THAT'S SECTION 1 OF, CLEARLY THAT SECTION 1 OF THE ORDINANCE, OF THE RESOLUTION. AND THEN WE'LL FILL THESE NUMBERS IN.

OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESEARCH. THAT WAS MY ONLY OTHER COMMENT.

I APPRECIATE YOUR INDULGING OUR COMMENTS LAST MONTH.

ABSOLUTELY. SAME HERE. YEAH, I ABSOLUTELY. I SECOND THAT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESEARCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR.

[00:35:01]

WHEN WE FIRST READ THIS, IT SAID NO ONE WAS ABLE TO HAVE MORE THAN THE COMBINATION OF FOUR CHICKENS AND RABBITS. THAT IS CORRECT. THAT'S ON THE BOOKS RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SUCH A, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE NUMBER, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO IT, I JUST, BUT I'M FINE WITH THIS. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DETERMINE THAT RABBIT'S THREE MONTHS OLD, BUT. BECAUSE THAT IS THE AGE AT WHICH THEY ARE ABLE TO START BREEDING.

OKAY. THE QUESTION IN FRONT OF YOU FROM THE BOARD WAS, DO WE COUNT BABIES? AND YOUR OPINION ON THE MATTER SEEM TO FALL WELL.

ARE THEY OF AN AGE WHERE THEY'RE ABLE TO START BREEDING AND OR LAYING EGGS AS APPLICABLE? THEREFORE, THE AGE OF A RABBIT IS THREE MONTHS.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT. I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'D KNOW IF A RABBIT'S THREE MONTHS OLD OR NOT.

IF IT HAS BABIES. I KNOW THAT. SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT ANY RABBIT THAT'S FULL GROWN BUT DOESN'T HAVE BABIES? NO. IT'S STILL. IT'S STILL A BABY. IS THAT WHAT IT MEANS? I WOULD SUGGEST IF YOU HAVE A PET RABBIT AND IT HAS BABIES, YOU'RE GOING TO REMEMBER THAT DAY? YEAH. NO. WELL, YES. YES, YOU WOULD DEFINITELY REMEMBER THAT DAY.

I JUST. IT'S FINE. OKAY. IT'S FINE. I'M GOING TO MOVE ON.

DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I DO, AND THIS IS PROBABLY, AGAIN, ANOTHER KIND OF NITPICKY SORT OF YOU'LL FIX IT WHEN YOU DO IT.

BUT IN THE, IN THE TAP WHERE IT'S SAYING WHAT YOU'RE AMENDING, IT SAYS SECTION 86-368(B)(8), RR DISTRICT IS HEREBY AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS.

BUT THEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THESE USES IN DISTRICTS THAT ARE RAAA, RAA, YOU KNOW.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE IN THE RIGHT PLACE BASED ON THAT REFERENCE.

LET ME SHOW YOU THE ORDINANCE. OKAY. AND WHERE I WAS TRYING TO LOOK AT IT LAST TIME, I RECALL, BECAUSE I STILL HAVE THAT PAGE OPEN HERE AND I.

OH. OKAY, SO THIS IS SECTION 86-368(B)(8), RR DISTRICT. AND THEN THIS IS B, USES PERMITTED BY RIGHT. AND HERE'S 8, RAISING AND KEEPING OF CHICKENS AND RABBITS AS NONAGRICULTURAL USE. OKAY. AND THAT IS THE SECTION THAT IS BEING AMENDED.

OKAY. BUT IF WE'RE AMENDING RR BUT THEN REFERENCING ALL THESE OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS, ARE WE ALLOWED TO DO THAT IN THAT SECTION OR.

WELL, THAT'S HOW OUR ORDINANCE IS STRUCTURED. YES.

ALL RIGHT. BECAUSE THEN IF YOU GO LOOK AT THE RA DISTRICT, IT SAYS AND LOOK AT THE ALLOWED USES, IT IMMEDIATELY SAYS, WELL LOOK AT THE RR DISTRICT.

AND IT'S THAT STUFF. EXCEPT FOR LIKE I DON'T KNOW, THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS THEN THAT ARE AGRICULTURAL THAT ARE GET EXEMPTED.

BUT OKAY. IT'S CALLED A STACKING ORDINANCE AND IT DRIVES US NUTS.

GOT IT. YEAH, I JUST, I COULD SEE WHY I WOULD DRIVE YOU NUTS.

THAT MAKES SENSE. SO THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING IT.

OTHER THAN THAT, CONTENT WISE I HAVE NO COMMENTS.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.

SO FOR THIS ONE THE NEXT STEP IS. A PUBLIC HEARING.

PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. WE'LL SCHEDULE IT WITH THE SAME NIGHT AS THE PARKING.

THAT'S THE OTHER ONE. ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO THE AGENDA.

OTHER BUSINESS, WE DON'T HAVE ANY. OOPS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS.

AND THEN REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. TOWNSHIP BOARD UPDATE.

[10.A. Township Board update ]

IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN, THE AGENDA IS GOING TO HAVE A PRECEDING ITEM EARLY ON THE POWER LINE.

AND I WOULD URGE FOLKS TO HAVE A LOOK AT THAT AND THINK ABOUT IT.

IT'S GOTTEN QUITE A BIT OF. EARLY ON THE POWER LINE, IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? THERE'S A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A HIGH VOLTAGE POWER LINE, AND SOME OF THE PROPOSED ROUTES ARE IN OR NEAR OR AROUND THE TOWNSHIP,

[00:40:06]

IS THIS IN ANY WAY RELATED TO A CENTER THAT PROCESSES DATA? NO, NO, IT IS NOT. THEY, THE APPLICANTS HAVE DENIED THIS.

IT'S ANOTHER HOT TOPIC. JUST CURIOUS. SORRY. I DON'T MEAN TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF TOWNSHIP BOARD, BUT I KNOW THAT THEY'VE GOT. I WAS AT THEIR SPEAKING SESSION.

IT'S NOT, I CAN, IT'S UPGRADE RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING POWER TRANSMISSION LINE.

BUT IT'S NOT CONNECTED TO A DATA CENTER OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

ITC JUST DOES THE POWER LINE. YEAH. THAT'S WHAT THE, THAT'S WHAT.

YEAH, THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. SO THE BOARD IS GOING TO TOMORROW NIGHT CONSIDER A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO ONE OF THE ROUTES THAT GOES THROUGH TOWNSHIP PROPERTIES AND THROUGH SOME NEIGHBORHOOD, NEAR SOME NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTIES AS WELL.

AND OUR REPRESENTATIVE IS COMMISSIONER. YEP. SO I GUESS ON THAT NOTE, YOU KNOW, IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC THINGS THAT THE REST OF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE ME TO SPEAK ON. MY HOMEWORK TONIGHT IS TO GO THROUGH ALL THE MINUTES FROM LAST YEAR AND COLLATE OTHER THINGS.

BUT IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC THINGS YOU'D LIKE ME TO MENTION OR CALL OUT AS ACCOMPLISHMENTS OR I GUESS THE OPPOSITE OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS, LET ME KNOW. BUT OTHERWISE THAT'S. I'M WORKING ON THAT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT. ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO LIAISON REPORTS.

[10.B. Liaison reports ]

I SAID THAT BEFORE. I'M GOING TO SAY IT AGAIN, AND I COULDN'T BE HAPPIER. PROJECT UPDATES.

I HAVE NOTHING FOR YOU. NOTHING NEW SINCE THE LAST MEETING.

NO PUBLIC REMARKS BECAUSE NO ONE IS HERE FROM THE PUBLIC ANYMORE.

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS. I JUST HAVE ONE MORE AND, MR.

[13. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ]

HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF STRONGTOWNS.ORG? YES. IS THAT A REPUTABLE RESEARCH? YEAH. OKAY. I MEAN. I DON'T SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON IT.

SURE. IT'S ADVOCACY. YEAH. I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S GOOD OR BAD.

I JUST. OKAY. YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE A VIEWPOINT.

ADVOCACY IS FAIR. THE OTHER EXAMPLE I WANTED TO ADD HERE WHILE WE WERE TALKING WAS BECAUSE I WAS LIKE, I DIDN'T GIVE MINIMUM PARKING MINIMUMS A FAIR SORT OF THOUGHT.

AND SO I, GOOGLED ANOTHER QUESTION, BUT OF ECORSE MICHIGAN.

ECORSE, MICHIGAN. E. C. O. R. S. E. THE TOWN.

THE TOWN. POPULATION LESS THAN 10,000. THEY ACTUALLY ELIMINATED PARKING MANDATES IN 2021.

SO THERE ARE OTHER PLACES THAT ARE DOING THINGS LIKE JUST REMOVING MINIMUMS, WHICH I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE.

BUT IT'S LIKE I FEEL LIKE IT'S UNLIKELY THAT A, A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER IS GOING TO WANT TO BUILD A PROPERTY THAT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF MINIMUM SPOTS TO SERVICE CUSTOMERS.

AND I KNOW IT SEEMS, I DON'T KNOW IN MY WHENEVER I LIKE, I'M TALKING A LOT ABOUT THIS, LIKE, OH, LET'S JUST GET RID OF MINIMUMS. I'M LIKE, OH, WHAT'S THAT GOING TO DO? LIKE, IT SORT OF FREAKS ME OUT A LITTLE BIT. BUT THEN I'M ALSO CONTEMPLATING LIKE, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF IT? AND IN SOME WAYS HAS LED US TO OUR CURRENT PREDICAMENT.

AND SO I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO THINK ABOUT WHY WE HAVE MINIMUMS OR MAXIMUMS, AND TO SHAPE THE ORDINANCE IN A WAY THAT WOULD BE MEET OUR GOALS AND VALUES.

BUT ANYWAYS, JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT OTHER EXAMPLE FROM THE OTHER SIDE.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS? NO.

ALL RIGHT. ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. SO MOVED.

SECOND. PROPERLY SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NAHUM, MOVE BY COMMISSIONER BROOKS.

SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL RIGHT. MEETING IS ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.