Mt. Pleasant City Commission Agenda and Minutes

Work Session of the Mt. Pleasant City Commission
Monday, August 23, 2010
6:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

WORK SESSION:

1. Work Session on Redevelopment District

Regular Meeting of the City Commission
Monday, August 23, 2010
7:00 p.m.
Agenda
CALL TO ORDER:

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

ROLL CALL:

PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS:

1. United Way Proclamation

ADDITIONS TO AGENDA:

PUBLIC INPUT ON AGENDA ITEMS:

RECEIPT OF PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:

2. Minutes of the Mt. Pleasant Planning Commission (July)

CONSENT CALENDAR: DESIGNATED (*) ITEMS

CITY COMMISSION MINUTES:

* 3. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of the Mt. Pleasant City
Commission held August 9, 2010.
All interested persons may attend and participate. Persons with disabilities who need assistance to participate may
call the Human Resources Office at 779-5313. A 48-hour advance notice is necessary for accommodation. Hearing
impaired individuals may contact the City via the Michigan Relay Center for Speech & Hearing Impaired: 1-800-649-
3777.

City Commission Agenda
August 23, 2010
Page 2

CITY COMMISSION MINUTES (continued):

* 4. Approval of the minutes of the closed session of the Mt. Pleasant City
Commission held August 9, 2010.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS:

5. Consider transfer of funds from the Brownfield Redevelopment Finance
Authority to the Economic Development Corporation for the purpose of
incenting economic development.

6. Set a public hearing for September 27, 2010, for the proposed Conditional
Rezoning of properties located at 1116 E. Pickard, 1202 E. Pickard, and 802
N. Brown to rezone the south 50 feet of the property from R-3, Residential to
C-3, General Business.

7. Set a public hearing for September 27, 2010, on a proposed Ordinance
Amendment to Sections 154.081 (B) and (C), and Sections 154.082 (B) and (C),
of Chapter 154: Zoning Ordinances of the Code of Ordinances regarding
residential uses in office districts.

* 8. Consider an easement amendment with Hunter Realty for the property located
at 2000 S. Mission.

9. Consider setting a special meeting for Monday, September 13, 2010, to begin
at 2:00 p.m. for the purpose of holding a closed session.

10. Consider closed session pursuant to subsection 8(e) of the Open Meetings Act to
consult with attorney regarding strategy in connection with specific pending
litigation.

* 11. Approval of payrolls and warrants.

ANNOUNCEMENTS ON CITY-RELATED ISSUES AND CONCERNS:

PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA AND NON-AGENDA ITEMS:

3777.

City Commission Agenda
August 23, 2010
Page 3

RECESS:

ADJOURNMENT:

3777.

PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, The United W ay o f I sabella C ounty b egan a s t he C ommunity
Chest/United Fund in 1954, created t hrough t he s upport o f t he
Chamber o f C ommerce a nd t he inv olvement of local
businessmen who wanted to find a way to help meet the needs
of the community; and

WHEREAS, The driving force during t he ea rly d ays o f t he U nited W ay o f
Isabella County was the no tion t hat a u nified, o rganized
campaign c ould b etter a ddress t he need s o f the local
community, the slogan “Give ONCE and for ALL when you give
the UNITED way”; and

WHEREAS, In t hese d ifficult ec onomic t imes, t he U nited W ay of Isabella
County has r esponded w ith a new f ocus f or t he f uture: b asic
needs, education, and economic self sufficiency; and

WHEREAS, The United Way of I sabella County desires to establish an event
that shows ho w M t. P leasant a s a c ommunity c an m ake a
difference in t he l ives of others, b rings f ocus t o neig hbors in
need, and celebrates how each m ember o f t he c ommunity
can choose to LIVE UNITED;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jim Holton, Mayor of the City of M t. P leasant, M ichigan, a nd
on b ehalf o f t he M t. P leasant City Commission, do hereby
proclaim September 11, 2010 as the:

"CELEBRATION OF RIDE UNITED"

in the City of Mt. Pleasant and formally invite and call upon Mt.
Pleasant citizens to c elebrate a nd enc ourage ea ch o ther, a s
cyclists p articipate in a 3 -mile F amily F un R ide, a nd a s a
community welcome those c yclists p articipating in t he R IDE
UNITED 100 -mile ride, whose j ourney w ill ha ve b egun in K ent
County and will end at Island Park.

In Witness Whereof, I hereunto set my hand
and t he Gr eat S eal o f t he City of Mount
Pleasant, Michigan, this 23rd day of August,
2010.

________________________________________
Jim Holton
Mayor of Mount Pleasant

Mt. Pleasant Planning Commission
Minutes of Regular Meeting
July 1, 2010

I. Chairman Orlik called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Present: Brockman, Holtgreive, Lux, Orlik (Chair), Rautanen, Robinette

Absent: Kostrzewa, Smith (Vice-Chair), with one vacancy.

Staff: Gray, Murphy.

II. Approval of Agenda:

Motion by Rautanen, support by Brockman to approve the agenda. Motion approved.

III. Approval of Minutes

A. June 3, 2010 regular meeting.

Motion by Brockman, support by Holtgreive to approve the minutes from the June 3, 2010
regular meeting as written.

Motion approved.

B. June 3, 2010 Work Session.

Motion by Brockman, support by Rautanen to approve the minutes from the June 3, 2010 work
session as written.

Motion approved.

IV. Zoning Board of Appeals Report.

Commissioner Brockman reported that the ZBA heard three cases at their June meeting.

1) The first case involved a request for a sign variance for MC Sports, which was approved by
the ZBA. The applicant was requesting a variance to allow a sign exceeding the 100’ cap for
stores within a shopping center. The Board granted the request based on the fact that the
applicant was keeping within the 1ft2 per 1 foot of building frontage ratio and they felt that this
location was somewhat unique based on the amount of store frontage, as there are very few
stores within a shopping center that exceed 100’ of store frontage.

2) The second case heard was a request to allow a second driveway access onto Fancher Street
within the first 100 foot of lot frontage for the new warehouse going up at 1280 N. Fancher.
The ZBA granted the request based on the fact that the second driveway would be used as a

Mt. Pleasant Planning Commission Minutes
July 1, 2010
Page 2 of 8

service drive only and also took into consideration the small lot sizes on the North end.

3) The third case heard was a request for a setback variance for an addition to be built
on an existing residential structure. The addition will be used to extend the kitchen
and carport and will not extend into the setback any more than the existing structure,
but will maintain the existing line. The Board considered the lot size as a factor in
making their determination.

V. Public Hearings: None Scheduled.

VI. Public Comments:

Chairman Orlik opened the floor for public comments. There being no one who wished to
address the Board, the public comments session was closed.

VII. Site Plan Reviews:

A. SPR-10-11– 1029 S. Douglas - Site Plan Review for expanding the parking area and adding
two additional parking spaces. Staff reported that the site currently is licensed for 17 occupants
with a total of 16 parking spaces. The site is currently non-conforming as it does not meet the
current ordinance requirements of a 1:1 parking ratio. Adding the additional two spaces would
bring the site into compliance in regards to parking. Staff reported the two additional parking
spaces would be located off the alley, with the size complying with ordinance requirements.
Staff further commented that the applicant is willing to provide landscaping along the front of
the property and also along the south property line. Staff referred to the landscaping plan that
the applicant brought to the meeting. Staff stated there is currently a dumpster on site and noted
that the site has been the target of illegal dumping in past years. The applicant has indicated
they would look into the possibility of eliminating the dumpster and possibly using trash carts
as a way to help solve this issue. Staff reported that the proposal complies with the minimum
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.

Laura Harter, representing the applicant for the case, addressed the Board. Ms. Harter stated
they have a meeting set up with the waste hauler to address the trash issues referred to by staff.

Chairman Orlik asked if the space designed for the compact car would remain on site. Ms.
Harter indicated it would.

Commissioner Robinette asked for specifications on the proposed landscaping. Ms. Harter
stated they would be adding some mulch, boxwoods, a burning bush, ground cover, etc. She
also indicated that they would be adding some arborvitaes along the parking area as a living
shield for the two additional parking spaces.

Chairman Orlik indicated that with the landscape plan submitted so late, he would like to see a
clause that the proposed landscape be acceptable to the Planning Director.

Motion by Robinette, support by Rautanen, to approve SPR-10-11 for the property located at

July 1, 2010
Page 3 of 8

1029 S. Douglas, based on the site plan dated May 17, 2010 and prepared by Mears
Engineering, for William F. Marshall, with the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall provide a landscaping plan acceptable to the city staff prior to
commencing with construction.

2. The applicant shall provide a plan to address illegal dumping on the site to staff prior to
commencing with construction.

3. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Division of Public Safety
(DPS) and the Division of Public Works (DPW), including storm water management.

Commissioner Lux asked if staff would be telling the applicant what types of plants to use in
the landscaping and where the landscaping should be placed. Gray stated that staff would not
be designing the landscape plan, but would review the plan designed and submitted by the
applicant.

Motion approved unanimously.

B. SPR-10-12 – 1280 N Fancher. Chairman Orlik referred the Board to the updated information
provided by staff following new information submitted by the applicant earlier in the day. Staff
reported that the site recently received approval from the ZBA, allowing a second driveway.
Staff reminded the board that this site was approved by the Planning Commission in May for
the proposed warehouse. The proposed tenant has asked for some modifications to the site plan
to accommodate their needs, therefore this request is back before the Board. Staff outlined the
changes to the plan, including the addition of an overhead door and driveway facing Fancher
Street; the addition of a self-contained cleaning station on the north side of the building; the
addition of 3 maple trees along the south property line; and a reconfiguration of the parking
area. Staff further commented that the applicant has included some stone and vinyl shake siding
to help dress up the building. The plan calls for a phased construction, with the back 2,400
square feet of the proposed 8,400 square foot building to be built at a later time. Staff
commented that with the cleaning station having outdoor exposure, the applicant has been asked
to provide some screening. They are currently working with the tenant to determine needed
clearances.

Wally Link, applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Link reported that the tenant is in the business
of servicing water pumps for the oil industry. He addressed the screening issue, stating they are
not sure yet how they are going to screen the cleaning station, but will do what they need to do.
He stated they would like to keep the screening as close to the tanks as possible without
hindering operations. He further reported that there will be no drains in the cleaning station –
the system is self-contained with the waste put into a storage tank and hauled away. Chairman
Orlik questioned whether the cleaning station was the property of the owner or the company.
Mr. Link stated it was the tenant’s station and if they moved out, the cleaning station/tanks
would go with them.

Commissioner Rautanen asked if there were chemicals used in the process. Mr. Link stated

July 1, 2010
Page 4 of 8

there were no chemicals – the process uses steam and hot water to clean. They are cleaning
mainly mud, sand and dirt, with possibly some paraffin.

Motion by Lux, support by Rautanen to approve SPR-10-12 for the property located at 1280 N.
Fancher, based on the site plan dated May 12, 2010 and elevations dated May 27, 2010
prepared by Dennis Maloney, architect, for Wally Link, with the following conditions:

1. All conditions related to the original Site Plan Review (SPR-10-08) remain in effect.
2. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of DPS and DPW, including
requirements related to the installation of the self-contained cleaning station.
3. Construction of phase 2 of the project may proceed provided that the Site Plan Review
remains current. Construction after one year from the date of this approval will require
the applicant to seek an extension of this approval or a new site plan approval.

Motion by Holtgreive, support by Brockman to amend the motion to include the following
condition:

4. The applicant shall submit a revised plan to the Community Development Department
that screens views of the self contained cleaning station when not in use prior to
occupancy of the building, along with a financial guarantee to assure its completion.

Motion to amend the original motion carried.

Motion to approve SPR-10-12 with stated conditions 1-4 approved unanimously.

C. SPR-10-13 – 2000 S Mission. Site Plan request to allow an expansion of the outdoor dining
patio in front of O’Kelly’s. Staff explained that the applicant is requesting approval to increase
the current patio of about 1,900 square feet to over 2,900 square feet. The use is a permitted
accessory use in the C-3 zoning district. Staff noted that DPW has indicated there is a utility
easement and a sanitary sewer in close proximity to the proposed patio. Staff further noted that
the surface placement of the patio would be allowed with an agreement, which would be
drafted to state that any restoration/replacement costs incurred due to necessary excavating to
repair the sanitary sewer would be the responsibility of the owner. The applicant has agreed to
enter into such an agreement. Staff also noted that it was also the applicant’s responsibility to
coordinate the patio installation with other utilities that may be located within the easement.
Staff stated that the proposed patio advances the outdoor amenities that the Planning
Commission has encouraged through the Redevelopment Overlay Zone for Mission Street.

Commissioner Robinette questioned whether the agreements would be in place prior to the
commencement of the construction. Staff indicated they would be.

John Hunter, applicant for the case, addressed the Board. Mr. Hunter stated they wish to
expand the patio to benefit their food business and to gain a Mission Street presence. He stated
he feels the plan fits with the City’s plan for Mission Street. He indicated they wish to put in
some decorative stone, along with decorative fencing to enhance the appearance. They wish to
extend the patio around the north side of the building for overflow during larger gatherings.

July 1, 2010
Page 5 of 8

Chairman Orlik asked if there would be an entrance to the patio from Mission Street. Mr.
Hunter indicated the entrance would remain in the back with fire gates available from the patio.
He further stated that the existing patio is 80% covered and they wish to extend the patio for
those who wish to enjoy the weather.

Commissioner Lux asked if it would be possible to have an entrance in the front. Mr. Hunter
indicated they did not wish to do so right now as it would be difficult to monitor two entrances.

Commissioner Lux expressed concern with the proximity to Dr. Osbeck’s drive. Mr. Hunter
did not believe this would pose any problems, and further stated Dr. Osbeck has an easement
for the drive, and stated they may be able to “jog” the proposed patio if needed.

Brief discussion ensued regarding the proximity of Dr. Osbeck’s drive to the proposed patio
and whether they had been notified of the proposal. Staff stated that notices do not go out for
Site Plan Reviews and that the project meets the requirements of the ordinance and easement
issues are a private issue between the involved parties.

Motion by Robinette, support by Lux to approve SPR-10-13 to allow the installation of an
outdoor patio at the property located at 2000 S. Mission Street, based on the drawings
submitted with the request, with the following condition:

1. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Division of Public Works
(DPW) and the Division of Public Safety (DPS).

2. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City regarding the placement of the
patio within the utility easement and in close proximity to the City’s sanitary sewer
prior to construction of the patio. The agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney.


D. SPR-10-14 – 1705-1720 S. Mission - request for final Site Plan review for 5,000 square foot
retail building with drive-through. Staff reminded the Board that the applicant was granted
conceptual site plan approval under the Mission Redevelopment Overlay Zone in February,
based on the upgraded materials and site appearance. Staff reported that the site layout is the
same as what was approved, with the landscaping focused on the public side of the
development, to include a green buffer with decorative fencing, including shrubs and trees.
Staff further reported that the applicant has indicated they would dress up the existing sign with
some brick on the piers, similar to what is proposed for the building. The building itself will be
a mix of glass and brick, with some changes in building height, awnings, etc.

Commissioner Robinette asked why the north entrance into the parking lot was significantly
smaller than the south. Staff explained that the south entrance is the existing entrance. The
north entrance is being designed to line up with the cross connector road that is being pursued
by the city to run through the Gordon Food Services parking lot. MDOT has indicated that

July 1, 2010
Page 6 of 8

there is sufficient distance between signals on Mission to entertain the idea of a signal at this
entrance. With a signal, there wouldn’t be a need for a wider entrance.

Chairman Orlik asked for clarification on the location of the water main. Staff stated that there
is a hydrant at the end of the main and since the main was not located on the site plan, it is
unclear if this will be an issue or not. If so, the applicant may either need to relocate the main
or shift the building. Staff further stated this would be the applicant’s responsibility.

Brandon LaBelle, representing Lacoz LLC, addressed the Board.

Chairman Orlik questioned Mr. LaBelle on why staff just received the landscape plans. Mr.
LaBelle stated there was a miscommunication between himself and his architect and the
landscape elements were left out of the site plan that had been initially submitted.

Board Discussion:

Mr. Robinette stated he feels this will add some life to the area and approved of the appearance.

Motion by Lux, support by Brockman to approve SPR-10-14 from Lacoz, LLC and grant final
plan approval for Special Use Permit 10-01 to allow construction of a 5,000 square foot retail
building on the property located at 1705-1721 S. Mission Street under the Mission
Redevelopment Overlay Zone. Approval is subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall comply with all conditions and requirements associated with the
conceptual approval of Special Use Permit 10-01.

2. Approval is based on the materials submitted by the applicant with the request,
including the elevation drawings prepared on June 7, 2010 by Case Architecture; the
site plan prepared by CMS&D (job no. 0802-031), last revised on January 15, 2010; and
the landscape plan prepared by Case Architecture, Inc. for Lacoz LLC (project number
10-148-10).

3. Details on the proposed decorative fencing shall meet the requirements of the Mission-
Pickard DDA.

4. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of DPW, DPS and MDOT.

Commissioner Holtgreive stated that given the lateness of the submittal of the landscape plan,
he would like to amend the motion to include the following condition:

5. Final placement and type of landscape materials shall be subject to approval by the
Community Development Director/Planning Commission Secretary.

Motion supported by Commissioner Robinette. Chairman Orlik agreed.

Commissioner Lux stated she is happy with what the applicant has submitted and feels we are

July 1, 2010
Page 7 of 8

not giving the developer enough freedom to choose the type of landscaping he prefers and
indicated that based on the requirements we have set, the lateness of the submission was not
entirely the fault of the developer.

Commissioner Brockman questioned whether the landscaping had already been approved by
the staff. Staff indicated that this was the Planning Commission’s decision, and although he
stated he appreciates that things may look minor, this is the first development to be approved
under the Mission Redevelopment Overlay Zone and we want to get it right.

Chairman Orlik called the vote on the amendment to the motion. Motion passed to include
condition #5.

Chairman Orlik called the vote on the approval of SPR-10-14 with stated conditions. Motion
approved unanimously.

VIII. New Business:

Commissioner Brockman reported that the ZBA had asked the Planning Commission to entertain
looking at the Sign Ordinance, in particular the 100 ft. cap on building signs in shopping centers.
Chairman Orlik asked if the request was for the Planning Commission to look at the ordinance this
year. Commissioner Brockman stated they did not expect it to happen this year, but asked that this
be put on the list of things to consider, along with the density issue, and setbacks in the North End
Industrial zones.

IX. Other

A. Proposed Amendments to the OS-1 and OS-2 Zoning Districts: Chairman Orlik introduced
discussion on the proposed amendment to the OS-1 and OS-2 zoning districts, and asked staff
to give a report.

Gray stated that following last month’s discussion the consensus of the Planning Commission
was to amend the ordinance under the Special Use Permit option, which would allow all single
family uses and multi-family uses that require a Special Use Permit to also require a SUP in the
OS-1 and OS-2 districts. Uses allowed by right in these districts would continue to be allowed
by right in the OS districts as well. Although not specifically discussed at last month’s meeting,
staff included the OS-2 district, which is also used as a transition between residential and
commercial uses.

Chairman Orlik stated he feels the proposed language provided by staff is in line with what the
Planning Commission requested and indicated he would endorse a motion to set a Public
Hearing for August.

Motion by Brockman, support by Holtgreive to set a public hearing for August 5, 2010 on the
proposed ordinance amendment.


July 1, 2010
Page 8 of 8

B. August Planning Commission Meeting: Staff stated no cases have been submitted at this
time; however the deadline is not until July 12.

C. Staff Report: Master Plan: Staff stated that the Master Plan was adopted in 2006. State law
requires the plan to be reviewed every five years. The review can be a simple endorsement of
the existing plan, or the Commission can take this opportunity to address additional issues.
Staff stated that he feels that although the Master Plan is still relatively new and good, there are
some things that could be updated/added, such as: New demographic data; Mission Street
Overlay, Perpendicular/grid streets, Access Management plan, Neighborhood Module, etc.

Chairman Orlik asked if there were any plans for Pickard Street. Staff stated it would make
sense to include Pickard as the Access Management Plan addresses both Mission and Pickard.

Discussion included a proposed time frame for the review. Staff indicated the process would
likely take at least 6 months to assure all state requirements are met. Board consensus was to
include update of the Master Plan in their 2011 Goals.

X. Adjournment

Motion by Brockman, support by Holtgreive to adjourn. Motion passed unanimously.

Meeting adjourned 8:08 p.m.

bam

Minutes of the regular meeting of the City Commission held Monday, August 9,
2010 at 7:03 p.m. in the City Commission Room.

Vice Mayor Kilmer called the meeting to order and the Pledge of Allegiance was
recited.

Commissioners Present: Mayor Holton (8:12) and Vice Mayor Kilmer;
Commissioners Ling, McGuire and Tilmann

Commissioners Absent: Commissioners English and Joslin

Others Present: City Manager Grinzinger, City Clerk Howard and City Attorney
Smith

Public Input on Agenda Items

Edward Fisher, 1344 Highland St., spoke in favor of keeping “No Parking” signs up
(TCO #7-2010).

Received the following petitions and communications:
1. Capital Projects Status Report (July)
2. E-mail correspondence from Mr. Mark Freeze regarding Traffic Control
Order request
3. Mt. Pleasant Housing Commission Minutes (June)

Moved by Commissioner Tilmann and supported by Commissioner Ling to
approve the following items on the Consent Calendar:

1. Minutes of the regular meeting of the City Commission held July 26, 2010.
2. Bid of Godwin Pumps of America of Bridgeport, New Jersey in the amount of
$15,264.00 for the purchase of a trailer-mounted diesel powered Portable
Generator.
3. Bid of Central Michigan Asphalt in the amount of $254,110 for the 2010 Street
Mill and Overlay Project.
4. Payrolls dated 8/3/10 and 8/6/10 and warrants dated 8/5/10 all totaling
$760,851.21.
Motion unanimously adopted.

A public hearing was held on the request from CME, LLC for an Industrial Facilities
Tax Abatement Certificate.
CME, LLC representatives David Stevens, Mike Goin and KC Kumler spoke of
current initiatives, goals and challenges of CME and asked the Commission to support and
approve the Industrial Facilities Tax Abatement Certificate. MMDC President and CEO,
Brian Anderson, spoke in favor of the Industrial Facilities Tax Abatement Certificate.
There being no additional comments or communications the Vice Mayor closed the
public hearing.

Moved by Commissioner Ling and supported by Commissioner Tilmann to approve
the following Resolution Approving Application of CME Corporation For Industrial Facilities
Exemption Certificate For A New Facility.

WHEREAS, pursuant to P.A. 198 of 1974, M.C.L. 207.551 et seq., after a duly noticed
public hearing held on June 3, 1985, the City Commission by resolution established the
University Park Industrial Development District; and

WHEREAS, CME LLC has filed an application for an Industrial Facilities
Exemption Certificate with respect to a new facility to be acquired and installed within the
University Park Industrial Development District in the amount of $4,200,000 of which
$4,000,000 is personal property and $200,000 is real property; and

WHEREAS, before acting on said application, the City Commission held a hearing
on August 9, 2010, at Mt Pleasant City Hall, in the City Commission Chambers, at 7:00 pm,
at which hearing the applicant, the Assessor and a representative of the affected taxing
units were given written notice and were afforded an opportunity to be heard on said
application; and

WHEREAS, construction of the facility and installation of new machinery and
equipment had not begun earlier than six (6) months before June 23, 2010, the date of
acceptance of the application for the Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate; and

WHEREAS, completion of the facility is calculated to and will at the time of
issuance of the certificate have the reasonable likelihood to retain, create or prevent the
loss of employment in the City of Mount Pleasant; and

WHEREAS, the aggregate SEV of real and personal property exempt from ad
valorem taxes within the City of Mount Pleasant, after granting this certificate, will not
exceed 5% of an amount equal to the sum of the SEV of the unit, plus the SEV of personal
and real property thus exempted.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Commission of the City of
Mount Pleasant that:
1. The City Commission finds and determines that the granting of the Industrial
Facilities Exemption Certificate considered together with the aggregate amount of
certificates previously granted and currently in force under Act No. 198 of the
Public Acts of 1974 and Act No. 255 of the Public Acts of 1978, shall not have the
effect of substantially impeding the operation of the City of Mount Pleasant or
impairing the financial soundness of a taxing unit which levies ad Valorem
property taxes in the City of Mount Pleasant

2. The application from CME LLC for an Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate,
with respect to a New Facility on the following described parcel of real property
situated within the University Park Industrial Development District, to wit:

PART OF SE 1/4 SEC 27, T14N, R4W, COM AT SE COR SEC 27, TH S 88D58M 47S
W 85 FT, TH N 50 FT TO POB, TH W 114.50 FT, TH S 17 FT, TH W 1252.65 FT, TH
N 500 FT, TH N 10D03M00S W 284.58 FT TH N 52D36M 55S E 595.21 FT, TH S
64D00M43S E 1071.35 FT, TH S 03D14M00S W 282 FT TH S 316.22 FT TO POB, EXC
LOT 13 OF MEADS LITTLE ACRES SUBD NO. 1.

be and the same is hereby approved.

3. The Industrial Facilities Exemption Certificate when issued shall be and remain in
force for a period of 12 years.

Resolution unanimously adopted.

Moved by Commissioner McGuire and supported by Commissioner Ling take no
action on TCO #7-2010 but request that the Public Safety Director review all data collected
to determine what temporary order should be put in place for 90 days. Motion
unanimously adopted.

The Commission requested the Traffic Control Board/Parking Committee to look at
“No Parking” issues in this area and others.

Moved by Commissioner Ling and supported by Vice Mayor Kilmer to postpone
action on potential policy on waiving property tax penalty or fees until staff can bring
back procedure for waiving property tax penalty or fees.

AYES: None
NAYS: Commissioners Kilmer, Ling, McGuire and Tilmann
ABSENT: Commissioners English, Holton and Joslin

Motion failed.

Moved by Commissioner Ling and supported by Commissioner Tilmann that staff
implement a form or procedure regarding Tax Penalty and Fee Waiver requests (including
reasons for the request from the taxpayer and staff’s background information on collection
efforts) instead of the Commission approving a policy related to such requests. Motion

Moved by Commissioner Tilmann and supported by Commissioner McGuire to
adjust the fee structure for parking meters by raising the per hour charge from $.25 per
hour to $.50 per hour effective prior to the beginning of the fall semester. Motion

Moved by Commissioner ling and supported by Commissioner Tilmann to enter
into closed session pursuant to subsection 8(d) of the Open Meetings Act to discuss the
possible purchase or lease of real property.

AYES: Commissioners Holton, Kilmer, Ling, McGuire and Tilmann

NAYS: None
ABSENT: Commissioners English and Joslin

Motion unanimously adopted.

Announcements on City Related Issues and Concerns

Commissioner Tilmann announced the Isabella County Council of Governments
picnic will be held at the Isabella Township Park on August 18th at 6:00 p.m.

Commissioner McGuire announced walking event to provide funding for Meals On
Wheels and asked for support. For more information contact the Commission on Aging.

Public Comment on Agenda and Non-Agenda Items

The City Commission recessed at 8:15 p.m. and entered into closed session at 8:23
p.m. The Commission went back into regular session at 8:33 p.m. A separate set of
minutes was taken for the closed session.

The meeting adjourned without objection at 8:34 p.m.

Bruce Kilmer, Vice Mayor Jeremy Howard, City Clerk

COMMISSION LETTER #113-10
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 23, 2010

TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 2010

FROM: KATHIE S. GRINZINGER, CITY MANAGER

SUBJECT: CONSIDER TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT
FINANCE AUTHORITY TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR THE
PURPOSE OF INCENTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

In June 2009, the City Commission authorized the transfer of $300,000 from the
Economic Development Fund to the Brownfield Redevelopment Finance Authority.
The allocation was made to front the cost of demolition and clearance of the
property located at the southeast corner of Main and Pickard Streets paving the
way for a substantial new development on that site. Unfortunately, the potential
developer and prospective owner decided to remain in their existing location. The
site was then promoted to additional people/companies as a viable and attractive
business location. As Community Services and Economic Development Director Rich
Morrison details in the attached memo, it seems timely to reconsider the use of funds
currently held by the City’s Brownfield Authority.

The City and its partners have been working with a number of new entrepreneurs
who would make attractive additions to Mt. Pleasant’s business community.
Incentives and direct assistance will play a large part in whether or not these new
companies, or others which may come later, choose to locate in the City of Mt.
Pleasant and are successful in their early stages of growth. Because at least three
of the business owners will be making site decision shortly a budget transfer is
being recommended to the City Commission.

It is recommended that the Commission approve the transfer of $250,000 from the
Brownfield Redevelopment Authority to the Economic Development Corporation for
the purpose of offering incentives and/or assistance, when appropriate, to
businesses willing to locate within the City of Mt. Pleasant.

This recommendation is appropriate for the following reasons:
• The City previously allocated the funds under consideration to provide
incentive and direct support to a company willing to relocate and add to
the economic base of the community. The purpose remains unchanged.
• The original proposal for which the funds were to be used is no longer
active and no recent interest has been shown in the property. Instead,

Commission Letter #113-10
August 23, 2010
Page 2

• Several entrepreneurial companies, preparing new products for market,
have shown an interest in locating and growing their business in Mt.
Pleasant.
• The Economic Development Corporation was established under state law,
specifically to conduct economic development activities on behalf of the
City.
• The EDC is structured to represent the interests of the community in a
business-like fashion and is positioned to work directly with business
owners.

MEMORANDUM

TO: City Commission
Kathie Grinzinger

FROM: Rich Morrison

DATE: August 18, 2010

SUBJECT: Reallocation of Economic Development Fund from Brownfield Authority to City’s
Economic Development Corporation.

The City Commission may recall that it approved a transfer of $300,000 from the Economic
Development Fund to the City’s Brownfield Authority in June 2009 to support the redevelopment of the
property located at the southeast corner of Main and Pickard Sts. At the time, there was a local business
that was strongly considering building a new facility at the site. Although a significant amount of time
and effort was spent on that endeavor, the business decided to remain at its existing location for a variety
of reasons.

Since that time, a number of people/companies have looked at the site. Some have looked to tear down
and rebuild and some to rehabilitate the existing building. At this point however, it does not appear that
there is anybody interested in making a significant investment in the site.

As such, it may be time to look at a reallocation of the funds for a different purpose, which is not tied to a
specific location.

Staff has been working with a number of startup companies, some of whom have been reported on
previously such as Institutional Liquidities, Bardic Wells, Wild Game Soup, and Spa Bath, and several
others that have not yet been reported on. Each of these companies has its ‘own personality’ and are
different in terms of what they do, how many people they employ, what their needs are in terms of a
facility, and why they wish to locate in/around Mt. Pleasant area. The common need of each of these
companies is funding and support. Another common thread of the companies is that they can locate
almost anywhere they wish.

With the exception of Institutional Liquidities (exchange of foreign currency), the companies make a
tangible product. All of the companies expect to grow and add jobs as they grow.

Most of the companies that we have dealt with cannot acquire capital through conventional means
(banks). Some of the companies have been able to secure funding at alternative sources; however,
interest rates at these alternative sources are often above market rate interest. One alternative source that

we have been working recently with is Northern Initiatives http://www.northerninitiatives.com/. Other
potential sources of loans include United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Small Business
Administration (SBA) loans which are government backed loans to banks.

Most of these companies do not generate enough job creation or make a significant enough investment to
qualify for assistance from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation at this point in their
business lives.

Getting into the business of assisting startup companies is fairly risky business. It is almost impossible to
predict which companies will succeed and which will fail (the cold truth is that some will). To that end,
over the past year or so, staff has talked with a number of people (bankers, startup companies,
entrepreneurs, investors, legal counsel, and others) to try and figure out some ways to provide meaningful
incentives for startup companies with job creation and growth potential to locate in Mt. Pleasant, while
limiting (to the extent possible) the risk potential. Some of the ideas are conventional such as direct low
interest loans, some of them are newer, but that we have models for like interest rate write downs, and
some are experimental such as local government grants. It is likely that assistance for these startup
companies will vary from company to company based on their unique needs. As such assistance will
need to be tailored to the individual company

In return for the assistance, the companies will be required to sign documents committing them to remain
in the City for a time commensurate with the size of the assistance.

Currently, there are 3 companies that we are working with that are ready to make location decisions and
incentives will play a part in whether or not they chose to locate in the City of Mt. Pleasant.

Criteria will need to be established to govern the assistance granted to the companies. Examples of the
criteria should include:

• Number of jobs created and wages
• Anticipated enhancement of tax base
• Growth potential
• Interaction with other local businesses, non-profits, and other partners
• Solid business plan
• Company level of investment/commitment to City
• Site/property enhancement (i.e. if the company is willing to locate in or rehab a
distressed property)
• Preference given to companies that produce a tangible product or good
• Intended for non-retail companies

As there are numerous variables involved with this proposition, it is difficult to predict the amount of
funds needed by the companies we are currently working, let alone future prospects. Based on the
flexibility needed and the nature of the endeavor, staff is recommending that the City’s Economic
Development Corporation (EDC) be tapped to work with these start up businesses, when they get to a
point where funds are needed. The following is a list of the EDC board members who are currently
serving:

Tim Coscarelly Jim Holton Joe Pius
Tim Dolehanty Tom Krapohl Nancy Ridley
Kathie Grinzinger Joe Olivieri Jeff Smith

In concept the idea of interest rate write downs has been discussed with the City’s Economic
Development Corporation and there appears to be support from the board on this incentive.

Furthermore, staff is recommending that the $250,000 previously allocated to the Brownfield Authority
(June 2009) for the redevelopment of the S.E. corner of Main and Pickard Sts. be re-allocated to the
City’s EDC for the purposes of assisting non-retail startup companies with job creation and growth
potential. The City’s Brownfield Authority membership is made up of the same people who serve on the
EDC board.

Requested Action

Consider re-allocation of the $250,000 of economic development funds transferred to the City’s
Brownfield Authority in June 2009 to the City’s Economic Development Corporation to assist non-retail
startup companies that create jobs, have growth potential, and satisfy other criteria.

Attachment:
June 2009 minutes.

Excerpt
Mt. Pleasant City Commission
Minutes of Regular Meeting
June 8, 2009

Moved by Commissioner McGuire and supported by Commissioner Joslin to approve the
resolution transferring funds from Economic Development Investment Fund to the
Brownfield/EDC and keep City Commission advised on use of funds.

WHEREAS, the City of Mt. Pleasant (the “City”) has established the Brownfield
Redevelopment Finance Authority of the City of Mt. Pleasant (the “BRA”) pursuant to 1996 PA
381, as amended; and
WHEREAS, Act 381 allows the BRA to provide incentives for redeveloping contaminated
or blighted sites in the City by paying costs including those for site preparation, demolition,
infrastructure improvements, lead and asbestos abatement, and costs to address environmental
contamination, and
WHEREAS, the BRA wishes, either itself or in cooperation with the Economic
Development Corporation of the City of Mt. Pleasant (the “EDC”), to advance such costs on
projects it finds to be both eligible and meritorious of such support to be repaid in whole or in part
from tax increment revenues generated from the redevelopment of the site, but currently lacks the
funds on hand to advance such costs; and
WHEREAS, Act 381 authorizes the transfer of City funds to the BRA; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has determined to transfer funds from the City’s
Economic Development Fund to the BRA to use for such purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City shall transfer to the BRA from the City’s Economic Development Fund the
amount of $300,000 for the BRA to use either itself or in cooperation with the EDC to provide such
incentives for the redevelopment of contaminated or blighted sites in the City as may be within the
respective powers of the BRA and the EDC.
2. All resolutions and parts of resolutions are, to the extent of any conflict with this
resolution, rescinded.
Resolution unanimously adopted.

COMMISSION LETTER #114-10
MEETING DATE: AUGUST 23, 2010

TO: MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 2010

FROM: KATHIE S. GRINZINGER, CITY MANAGER

SUBJECT: SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 27, 2010, FOR THE PROPOSED
CONDITIONAL REZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1116 E. PICKARD, 1202
E. PICKARD, AND 802 N. BROWN TO REZONE THE SOUTH 50 FEET OF THE
PROPERTY FROM R-3, RESIDENTIAL TO C-3, GENERAL BUSINESS

At their meeting of August 5, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
and concluded that a request by Redbird of Mt. Pleasant, Inc., and Barnes
Development Company, LLC was appropriate and that a recommendation of
support would be made to the City Commission. The details of that
recommendation are attached in the documents provided by Jeff Gray, Director of
Planning and Community Development.

The applicant(s) are proposing to rezone the entire site to C-3, General Business, to
accommodate the development of a Belle Tire store. (A map of the property is
included in the attached memo to the Planning Commission.) The applicant has
presented several stipulations they would be willing to offer as conditions to the
rezoning request; Mr. Gray details these in the attached memo.

The Planning Commission, based on the materials and testimony received at their
August 5 Public Hearing, recommends that the property in question be rezoned with
the proposed conditions. The action requested of the City Commission at this time is
to set a public hearing of its own for September 27, 2010, to receive comments on
the conditional rezoning of the property at 1116 and 1202 E. Pickard and 802 N.
Brown.

ck

Attachment

MEMORANDUM

TO: Kathie Grinzinger, City Manager
Rich Morrison, Community Services Director

FROM: Jeffrey M. Gray, AICP
Director of Planning and Community Development

DATE: August 18, 2010

SUBJECT: Request to Conditionally Rezone 1116, 1202 E. Pickard and 802 N. Brown

The Planning Commission received an application to amend the City’s official zoning map by
conditionally rezoning the properties at 1116 and 1202 E. Pickard and 802 N. Brown. There is currently
mixed zoning on the properties. 1116 and 1202 E. Pickard are zoned C-3, General Business. The
northern 60 feet of 802 is also zoned C-3, but the southern 50 feet of the property is currently zoned R-3,
Residential.

The applicant is proposing to rezone the entire site to C-3 General Business to accommodate the
development of a Belle Tire store. The location is shown on the map included in the attached
memorandum to the Planning Commission.

The applicant has presented several stipulations that they would be willing to offer as conditions to their
rezoning request. These include the offer of a primarily brick masonry building, with a matching buffer
wall and dumpster enclosure. Stipulations have also been offered regarding the operation of the building,
including hours of operation, the guarantee that the use would be solely for Belle Tire, and assurances
that there would be no outdoor servicing of vehicles or storage of materials.

On August 5th the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request. The applicant presented
the matter and answered questions from the Planning Commission. One resident from an adjoining block
to the southeast of the site spoke on the matter. An excerpt of the minutes is attached.

The primary concern expressed at the hearing was the potential for noise related to the proposed use and
the placement of the buffer wall. The following was noted at the hearing regarding noise:

• All of the tire service bays are oriented toward Brown Street and the commercial and office uses
that are west of the property.
• The southern service bays are used exclusively for vehicle alignments and no pneumatic tools are
used there.
• Interior walls are used to prevent sound from travelling through the building from the tire service
bays.

ZC-10-03 – Belle Tire
August 18, 2010
Page 2 of 2

• Bay doors would be open when weather permits. There would be no exterior audio devices,
outdoor music, etc.
• All vehicles are driven into the service bays by Belle Tire employees; Belle Tire does not honk
vehicle horns prior to opening service bays.
• Belle Tire only services passenger cars and trucks; there is no servicing of large commercial
vehicles.
• Deliveries would occur using larger trucks and would occur during the hours of operation; the
only activity on site outside of the hours of operation would be lawn mowing and property
maintenance.
• The proposed building has been oriented to the north of the property keeping it more than 85 feet
away from the residence to the south.
• The applicant offered at the public hearing to extend the 6-foot high brick masonry wall planned
along the south property line along the east property line to limit any impacts on properties to the
southeast.
• The applicant has met with the adjoining property owner to the south on Brown, as well as a
couple of other residential property owners to the south prior to filing the application with the
City. Staff has received no comments or concerns from those residents.

In addition, there was some discussion as to whether the buffer wall should be placed on the south
property line, as proposed by the applicant, or shifted to the north with landscaping on the south side. It
was noted that placement of the wall on the property line avoids the maintenance issues that can go with
having parts of the applicant’s property outside of their every day view and creates an opportunity for
landscaping to be placed for maximum benefit for those viewing the property from Pickard Street. The
applicant noted that the proposed wall and landscaping have been considered by the adjoining property
owner.

Based on the materials and testimony submitted, the Planning Commission concluded that the applicant’s
request was appropriate and therefore recommended that the property in question be rezoned with the
proposed conditions.

Requested Action:

The City Commission receive the Planning Commission recommendation and set a public hearing
for September 27, 2010.

Attachments:
1. Conditional Rezoning Agreement
2. Draft Ordinance
3. Staff memorandum to the Planning Commission
4. Draft excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes

CONDITIONAL REZONING AGREEMENT

This Conditional Rezoning Agreement is made as of ________________2010, between
Redbird of Mt. Pleasant, Inc., a Michigan corporation, whose address is 1210 East Pickard St.,
Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48858 (“Owner”), Barnes Development Company, LLC, a Michigan
limited liability company, whose address is 1000 Enterprise Drive, Allen Park, Michigan 48901
or its assignee (“Buyer”), and the City of Mount Pleasant, a Michigan municipal corporation,
whose address is 320 West Broadway Street, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48858 (“City”).

RECITALS

A. Owner is the owner of a certain parcel of property located at the southeast corner
of Pickard (M-20) and Brown Street located in the City of Mt. Pleasant, Michigan and more
particularly described on attached Exhibit A (the “Property”).

B. Buyer has entered into a purchase agreement with Owner pursuant to which
Buyer has the right to purchase the Property.

C. The Property is comprised of three parcels as described on the attached Exhibit A
The southernmost parcel (Parcel 3) is currently split zoned. The southern 50’ of parcel 3 is
zoned R-3 Residential pursuant to Section 154.051 of the City’s zoning ordinance. The northern
portion of Parcel 3 is zoned C-3 General Business pursuant to Section 154.067 of the City’s
zoning ordinance.

D. Owner and Buyer are interested in having Buyer obtain approvals to develop the
Property as a Belle Tire (the “Proposed Development”) in accordance with certain conditions set
forth in this Agreement (the “Rezoning Conditions”), which include developing the Property in
accordance with the proposed site plans prepared by Christopher Enright Architects., Job No.
______________, dated _____________, 2010 attached as Exhibit B, (referred to as
,

“Development Plans”), a large version of which is on file with the City’s Office of Planning.

E. The Proposed Development consists of a use which is allowed in the C-3 General
Business District but which is not permitted under the current R-3 Residential zoning
classification applicable to the southern 50’ of parcel 3 of the Property.

F. To facilitate the development of the Property with the Proposed Development,
Owner and Buyer have requested that the City rezone the southern 50 feet of parcel 3 from R-3
to C-3, conditioned upon the City accepting the Rezoning Conditions voluntarily offered by

CLARK HILL PLC DRAFT 08.02.10

Owner and Buyer.

G. This matter was considered before the City Planning Commission on
_____________________, 2010 and the City Planning Commission approved and agreed to the
uses and conditions as presented by the Owner and Buyer and as set forth in this Agreement.

H. The City Commission has reviewed and considered the Owner and Buyer’s offer
of conditional rezoning concluding that it provides for an orderly, well-planned and economic
use of the Property, and that the self-imposed conditions offered by the Owner and Buyer will be
beneficial to the City and the public.

I. This Conditional Rezoning Agreement is being entered into pursuant to and in
accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in Section 405 (MCL 125.3405) of the
Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, being Act 110 of the Public Acts of 2006, as amended, MCL
125.3101 et seq.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

In exchange for valuable consideration and the rights and covenants under this
Agreement, the parties agree as follows:

1. Conditional Rezoning. Subject to all terms and conditions contained within this
Agreement and the provisions of Sections 154.067 and 154.172 of the City’s zoning ordinance,
the Property, as described in Exhibit A, shall be rezoned from the R-3 Residential District to the
C-3 General Business District. The Zoning Map for the City, relative to the land described in
Exhibit A, shall be amended to reflect the rezoning classification as set forth in this paragraph.

2. Specific Use and Development of the Pickard Street Property as a Condition to
Rezoning. Subject to all terms and conditions contained within this Agreement and the provision
of Sections 154.067 and 154.172 of the City’s zoning ordinance, the Buyer voluntarily agrees to
the following stipulations as conditions to the rezoning of the Property by the City:

a. The Property shall be used exclusively for the operation of a Belle Tire Store as
depicted in Exhibit B. Exterior of the building shall be mostly face brick veneer accented with
Cast Stone, Exterior Insulated Finish System (EIFS) and Standing Seam Metal. Business is
primarily the retail sale and installation of tires, wheels and other assorted automotive parts such
as brakes, alignments and windshield replacement. No heavy engine or transmission repair shall
take place.

b. No work shall take place on any vehicle on the exterior of the building.

c. There will be no exterior storage, discarded tires, display of goods, materials or
vehicles on the exterior of the building.

2


d. Hours of operation shall be as follows:
Monday: 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Tuesday: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Wednesday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Sunday Closed

e. The Buyer will construct the property in accordance with all Local,
State and Federal building requirements. All drainage shall meet governmental standards

f. The Buyer shall cause to be installed a 6-foot high masonry wall to match the
proposed building at the south side of the property where the commercial use meets the
residential use approximately 164’ in length as depicted more accurately on the attached
Exhibit B. Further, the Buyer shall repair any damage to the existing landscape located at
710 Brown Street.

g. The Buyer shall install perimeter full cutoff lighting fixtures on the building and
around the property. Site shall meet all requirements of the City’s zoning ordinance
photometric requirements.

h. The Buyer shall cause to be installed a masonry dumpster enclosure to match the
materials of the building in accordance with the City’s zoning ordinance.

3. Rezoning Conditions. Buyer agrees to develop the Proposed Development on the
Property in accordance with the following conditions which have been voluntarily offered by
Owner and Buyer as a condition of the rezoning:

(a) Buyer agrees to develop the Proposed Development on the Property in
accordance with the Development Plans, as reviewed and approved by the City, and pursuant to
this Agreement.

(b) Except as provided in this Agreement Buyer shall be subject to all
applicable codes and ordinances applicable to development of the Property, including but not
limited to the City Code, construction code(s), the Zoning Ordinance, or requirements of any
other governmental agency having jurisdiction over the Proposed Development, except to the
extent that City approves waivers, modifications or variances to any applicable City
requirements.

4. Time Limitations. Subject to weather restrictions, the proposed improvements
to the Property contained within paragraph 2 above will be completed by the Buyer no later than
18 months from the Effective Date of this Agreement. This time period may be extended by the
approval of the Planning Commission, upon application by the Buyer, which approval shall not
be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed.

3


5. Binding Effect; Assignment. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to
the benefit of the successors and assigns of the Property. This Agreement may not be assigned
by the Owner or the Buyer without the City’s prior written consent, which shall not be
unreasonably withheld.
.
6. Recording. Upon execution of this Agreement by the Owner, Buyer and the City,
this Agreement shall be recorded with the Isabella County Register of Deeds.

7. Amendment. No amendment to this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties
unless set forth in a written agreement in recordable form executed by Owner, Buyer and the
City. Any amendment to the Agreement shall be recorded with the Isabella County Register of
Deeds.

8. Voluntary Offer. The Rezoning Conditions imposed in this Agreement for the
conditional rezoning have been voluntarily offered by Owner and Buyer. If Owner and Buyer
elect not to commence development of the Property and Proposed Development within twelve
months of the Effective Date of this Agreement, Owner’s and Buyer’s rights under the Zoning
Act, the City Code and Ordinances, and other applicable laws of this state shall not be affected,
however, the parties agree that this Agreement shall be void and that the Property shall revert
back to its former R-3 zoning classification.

9. Execution by Buyer. Buyer is executing this Agreement in order to be bound by
its terms in the event that Buyer consummates the purchase of the Property from Owner in order
to develop the Property pursuant to the terms of this Conditional Rezoning Agreement. If Buyer
does not acquire the Property within 120 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement Buyer
shall have no obligations hereunder and the parties agree that this Agreement shall be void and
that the Property shall revert back to its former R-3 zoning classification. The parties
acknowledge and agree that until Buyer purchases the Property from the Owner no building
permits for the Proposed Development will be issued by the City, however, the Buyer may apply
with the permission of the Owner for Site Plan Approval and any Special Land Use Permits
required for the Proposed Development.

10. Breach of Agreement. A failure by the Owner and Buyer to comply with the
terms and conditions of this Agreement shall constitute a violation of the City’s zoning
ordinance. Additionally, if Owner and Buyer fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement the City Commission, after a hearing at which the Owner and Buyer shall have an
opportunity to show cause, may determine that the Property shall revert back to its former R-3
zoning classification.

11. Interpretation. This is the entire Agreement between the parties as to its subject
matter. This Agreement is to be construed and interpreted under the laws of the state of
Michigan. The captions are for reference only and shall play no part in the interpretation of this
Agreement. However, the recitals are an integral part of this Agreement.

4


[END OF TEXT; SIGNATURES FOLLOW ON SUBSEQUENT PAGES]

5


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date and
year set forth above.

OWNER:

REDBIRD OF MT. PLEASANT, INC., a
Michigan corporation

By: _____________________________

Its:
STATE OF MICHIGAN )
) ss
COUNTY OF ____________ )

This Agreement was acknowledged before me in _______________County on ______
__, 2010, by ___________________, the ______________ of Redbird of Mt. Pleasant, Inc., a
Michigan corporation, on behalf of the corporation.

__________________________________
, Notary Public
___________ County, Michigan
Acting in ____________ County
My Commission expires:

6


BUYER:

B A R NE S DE V E L OPM E NT C OM PA NY ,
L L C , a Michigan limited liability company

By: _____________________________

Its: ______________________________

STATE OF MICHIGAN )
) ss
COUNTY OF ____________ )

__, 2010, by ___________________, the ______________ of Barnes Development Company, a
Michigan limited liability company, on behalf of the company.

__________________________________
, Notary Public
____________County, Michigan
Acting in _________ County

7


CITY:

CITY OF MOUNT PLEASANT,
a Michigan municipal corporation

By: __________________________

Its: Mayor

And

By: ___________________________

Its: City Clerk

STATE OF MICHIGAN )
) ss
COUNTY OF ____________ )

__, 2010, by ___________________, the Mayor and _________________, the Clerk of the City
of Mount Pleasant, Michigan, a Michigan municipal corporation, on behalf of the City.

__________________________________
, Notary Public
__________County, Michigan
Acting in _________County

Drafted by: When recorded return to:

Stephen R. Estey City Clerk
Dykema City of Mt. Pleasant
39577 Woodward Ave., Ste.300 401 North Main Street
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858

8

EXHIBIT A

Legal Description of the Property

EXHIBIT B

Development Plans for the Proposed Development

6662760.1 26426/121493

ORDINANCE NO. ________

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP OF CHAPTER 154: ZONING
ORDINANCES OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.

IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF MT. PLEASANT:

Section 1: That Chapter 154: Zoning Ordinances, is hereby amended as follows:

(a) Conditionally rezone the properties located at 1116 and 1202 E. Pickard and
802 N. Brown from C-3, General Business and R-3, Residential to C-3, General Business
with the Conditional Rezoning Agreement offered by the applicant.

The property is legally described as:

Parcel 1: A parcel of land commencing 1288 feet east of the NW corner of Section 14, T14N,
R4W, Thence east 84 feet, south 220 feet, west 84 feet, north 220 feet to the point of
beginning, City of Mt. Pleasant, Isabella County, Michigan.

Parcel 2: A parcel of land commencing 1372 feet east of the NW corner of section 14, T14N,
Thence south 220 feet, thence east 80 feet, thence north 220 feet, thence west 80 feet to the
point of beginning, City of Mt. Pleasant, Isabella County, Michigan.

Parcel 3: The south 110 feet of the east 164 feet of the following described property:
Commencing 72 rods east of the NW corner of Section 14, T14N, R4W, Thence south 20
rods, thence east 16 rods, thence north 20 rods and west 16 rods to the place of beginning,
City of Mt. Pleasant, Isabella County, Michigan.

(b) That the Zoning Map be corrected to reflect the change in subsection (a)
above.

Introduced and read the _____ day of __________, 2010.

Passed, ordained and ordered published this ____ day of __________, 2010.

Planning Commission Staff Report
Conditional Rezoning ZC-10-03
July 30, 2010
Reviewer: Jeffrey M. Gray, AICP, Community Development Director

APPLICANT: Christopher Enright, Christopher Enright Architects on behalf of Redbird
of Mt. Pleasant, Inc. and Barnes Development, LLC

PROPERTY OWNER: Redbird of Mt. Pleasant, Inc.

LOCATION: 1116, 1202 E. Pickard and 802 N. Brown

REQUEST: Conditionally rezone the properties from R-3, Residential and C-3 General
Business to C-3, General Business.

SITE AREA: Approximately 1.24 acres.

FUTURE LAND USE: Commercial and Urban Residential

BACKGROUND:

The site is located at the southeast corner of Brown and Pickard. It consists of two parcels that front on
Pickard (1116 and 1202 E. Pickard) and a third that fronts on Brown (802 N. Brown). The site is
illustrated on the location map, below.

Location Map

The property is currently vacant. The parcels at 1116 and 1202 E. Pickard are currently zoned C-3,
General Business. The northern 60 feet of 802 N. Brown is also zoned C-3, while the southern 50 feet are
zoned R-3, Residential.

ZC-10-03 – Christopher Enright/Redbird of Mt. Pleasant/Barnes Development Co.
July 29, 2010
Page 2 of 6

Land uses and zoning on the surrounding properties are as follows:

Land Use Zoning Future Land Use

North Commercial – Restaurant C-3, General Business Commercial
East Commercial – Retail C-3, General Business Commercial
South Residential R-3, Residential Urban Residential
Commercial – Gas Station/
West C-3, General Business Commercial
Retail

BACKGROUND:

This property has been subject to rezoning proposals a couple of times in the past. In 1998, the entire site
was zoned R-3 and proposed for rezoning to C-3. The intended user, Auto Zone, planned to retain a 50
foot landscaped buffer on the south end of the property. The rezoning was approved, with the south 50
feet remaining R-3. Obviously, the Auto Zone did not subsequently build on the property.

In 2001, the property owner sought rezoning of this 50 foot area, as well as the southern 55 feet of the
adjoining Redbird property, which was also in a residential zoning district. The City approved the
rezoning on the Redbird property, but denied it on the subject property due to concerns expressed by the
adjoining property to the south regarding buffering.

CONDITIONAL REZONING:

At the time of the previous rezoning requests, the Conditional Rezoning tool was not available to the City.
As the Planning Commission knows, a Conditional Rezoning request allows a specific development
proposal and conditions offered by the applicant to be tied to the zoning district. In this instance, the tool
allows the Planning Commission to consider whether the particular development and buffering plan
offered by the applicant is appropriate for the subject property.

The applicant is proposing the construction of a Belle Tire retail store. The applicant has provided a
proposed site plan and building elevations for the development. The Planning Commission will note that
the applicant is proposing a predominantly brick building with glass, EIFS and standing seam metal
accents.

In addition, the dumpster enclosure and the 6-foot screening wall that would be built along the south
property line would be of brick masonry to match the building.

The illustration below shows the R-3 zoning district overlayed in gray on the proposed site plan. One row
of parking would be built in the rezoned area. The parking would be setback 26.3 feet from the property
line. The applicant proposes the installation of some landscaping along the north side of the screening
wall.

Only the masonry screening wall is required by Ordinance. The parking setback and landscaping exceed
Ordinance requirements.

ZC-10-03 – Christopher Enright/Redbird of Mt. Pleasant/ Barnes Development Co.
July 30, 2010
Page 3 of 6

Proposed Development/R-3 Zoning District

Rezoning Agreement:

In exchange for consideration of the rezoning request, the applicant has provided a proposed Conditional
Rezoning Agreement (copy attached) that includes several conditions that they are willing to offer
regarding the use of the conditionally rezoned property. These conditions are listed on the third page of
the Agreement.

The proposed conditions are intended to assure that the site will be utilized as a Belle Tire retail building
designed as shown on the plans. The conditions include some operational conditions, as well. In
summary, the conditions will accomplish the following:

• Commit to the use as a Belle Tire store, constructed of the materials and design shown on the
plans.
• Assure that no vehicle work will occur outside of the building and that no exterior storage,
including discarded tires, will occur outside of the building.

July 30, 2010
Page 4 of 6

• Confirm the hours of operation.
• Confirm that construction will comply with all applicable standards.
• Commit to the installation of a masonry screening wall along the south property line with brick
matching that of the building.
• Commit to the installation of full-cutoff (downward directed) light fixtures that meet the
requirements of the ordinance.
• Commit to a dumpster enclosure of brick masonry matching the building.

The Conditional Rezoning Agreement includes a number of mark ups recommended by the City
Attorney. These recommendations are currently under review by the applicant. Staff intends to present a
final agreement at the meeting approved by all parties. The changes recommended by the Attorney do not
change the conditions offered by the applicant, but address administration of the Agreement.

If the conditional rezoning request is approved, a Special Use Permit and site plan review will be required
prior to construction taking place. Staff has done a cursory review of the plans and notes that building
height and setback requirements are met, required landscape buffers have been shown, and minimum
parking requirements are met. The applicant has indicated that the driveway along Pickard will be shared
with the neighboring property to the east. A final and more thorough review will be completed with an
application for Special Use Permit and site plan review if the rezoning is approved.

MASTER PLAN:

The parcels fronting on Pickard are designated for commercial use on the Future Land Use Map. The
Brown Street property is designated for Urban Residential. It appears that it is the intent of the plan that
the properties along Pickard should be utilized for commercial use with an appropriate transition to the
neighborhood.

DIVISION COMMENTS:

Division of Public Works (DPW) – As is indicated in the attached communication from the DPW, there
are a variety of issues that will need to be addressed with a site plan review. The applicant is currently
working with DPW on the most significant of these, which is the sanitary sewer main that runs through
the property in the location of the existing building. It appears that this issue will be brought to a
resolution, as there are a few options for addressing the situation.

Division of Public Safety (DPS) – DPS has expressed no concerns at this time and will provide a
detailed review with an application for site plan review if the rezoning is approved.

ANALYSIS:

Applications for rezoning are subject to meeting the criteria for amendments listed in Section 154.172(D)
of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has provided written responses to the criteria (see Attachment 1).

In addition, when considering applications for conditional rezoning, Section 154.172 (C)(3) of the Zoning
Ordinance also requires the Planning Commission to review the offer of conditions and to consider
whether:

July 30, 2010
Page 5 of 6

(a) The proposed rezoning or map amendment will interfere with the orderly development of nearby
properties according to the existing zoning districts(s).

(b) The proposed certain use and development of the land will interfere with existing permitted uses
of nearby properties.

(c) Any proposed condition on the use and development of the land will protect existing permitted
uses on nearby properties from significant negative impacts of the rezoning.

(d) The requested rezoning with certain use and development of the land as a condition to the
rezoning is consistent with the Master Plan for the area.

The Conditional Rezoning tool affords the City with an opportunity that did not exist with previous
applications for rezoning of this property. In staff’s view, the applicant is offering a building and site
design that provides an appropriate transition to the adjoining residential neighborhood. Further, the
extent of commercial activity in the area to be rezoned is minimal, consisting of a single row of parking
more than 25 feet from the property line.

The proposed development and its design are consistent with the intended character of development for
Pickard Street and the design and operational conditions offered by the applicant should assure that the
development will be as compatible with its neighbors as possible. In staff’s view, the Conditional
Rezoning request is consistent with the criteria for approval listed in the Zoning Ordinance.

RECOMMENDATION:

If the Planning Commission is comfortable with the proposed conditions, or with any additional
conditions offered by the applicant, the Planning Commission may consider the following action. If the
Commission is not comfortable with the request, it would be appropriate to recommend that it be denied.

The Planning Commission recommend that the City Commission approve conditional rezoning
ZC-10-03 from Christopher Enright Architects on behalf of Redbird of Mt. Pleasant and Barnes
Development Company for the properties located at 1116 E. Pickard, 1202 E. Pickard and 802 N.
Brown from C-3, General Business and R-3, Residential to C-3 General Business, in accordance
with the Conditional Rezoning Agreement offered by the applicant. Approval of the Conditional
Rezoning is recommended on the following basis:

1. The applicant has proposed a development that includes a building and site design of high
quality, durable building materials consistent with the intended character of Pickard Street
and appropriate for maintaining the character of the adjoining neighborhood.

2. The applicant has proposed a brick masonry screening wall compatible with the design of
the building that will help to minimize negative impacts of the commercial use on the
adjoining neighborhood.

3. The applicant has offered operational conditions, relating to hours of operation, exterior
lighting, and outdoor storage that will help to minimize potential adverse impacts related to
the proposed use.

July 30, 2010
Page 6 of 6

Attachments:
1. Applicant’s responses to the criteria for rezoning.
2. Proposed Conditional Rezoning Agreement with markups from the City Attorney
3. DPW memorandum
4. DPS memorandum dated July 20, 2010
5. Site plan and building elevation drawings

Requests for rezoning are evaluated on the following criteria {see Section 154.172(C} for additional detail). Please
respond to each of the criteria, indicating how the request meets each standard. Please address each of the
criteria completely. Feel free to include photos, illustrations, drawings, letters of support, or any other information to
demonstrate how the standards will be met. Attach additional sheets as necessary to address each of the criteria.

(1) Consistency with the goals, policies and future land use map of the City's Master Plan, including any sub-area
or corridor studies. If conditions have changed since the Master Plan was adopted, the consistency with
recent development trends in the area. Gc~" I rc::::tJGlJii9, PW:>
~ t;Nr>ve I'/~"
~ OO~AL "i'GNCN6 Ittl 1ffS~. IT.~ 7HltTTIie·
c::~ ~.. g e:NN6 Ne.A W~ ~NTNNe=pl~70 ~
1 ~~ <? 'tiD ~ lMO NO ~ ~~.",."".". t,¢IrIl.,.
(2) Compatibility of the site's physical, geological, hydrological, and other environmental features with the host of
uses permitted in the proposed zoning district.
iii.. ~16
t::iF- ~ 'Sf'Te 1I1(.L.. ~i r=tt:tb~ f)se •
~ S/lftJJrHs ~.

(3) Evidence that the applicant cannot receive a reasonable return on investment through developing the property
with onebf the uses permitted under the current zoning.

~. ~ C:elf..It&
0Itl A ~ ~ 1fL01¥tNr.~. M$J~
Tti,. ~pt.... (~~) ~tNe> N81. H:J)ef>
At5 fJaL. J.s
~ ~'Y U~ ~dt~ V(M:l.U.r(.
(4) Thecotnpatibility of aI/ the potential uses allowed in the proposed zoning district with surrounding uses and
zoning In terms of land suitability, impacts on the environment, density, nature of use, traffic impacts,
aesthetics, infrastructure and potential influence on property values. ftOfDlalO -arte (S
~r OoM~AC- SI1II ~1N6 CN W-*,. 97e ~ ........,..... '" tIAIIle
'1b bSI!s /'61:) elHt! ~ 1M ... ~. ~.~ CS Qc:It& tCf
~ 1Si6NIPfCANT -rr'W"F'fC, . .
(5) The capacity of city utilities and services sufficient to accommodate the uses permitted in the requested district
without compromising the "health, safety and welfare" of the city.
;u... lnlc,('1I!tS f:C.esf,$8 ANt> ,At.JAt~Ae:' ••

(6) The capability of the street system to safely and effiCiently accommodate the expected traffic generated by
uses permitted in the requested zoning district. A traffic impact ~tudy in accordance with the requirements of
Sections 154.121 and 154.122 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be provided if the proposed rezoning district
permits uses that could generate 100 or more directional trips during the peak hour, or at least 1000 more trips
. per day than the majority of the uses that could be developed under current zoning.

~ ~ ~~ ~X -£D -rpt.tf!5 ~ feAt< tlf-.. .
vc;e. Hl:) ~ $J~ to ailSf'STtiWT M-nt I)QI!!fS ~
9fU4"'......
NA-1Ule ~ J4(-2.t'.

Rezoning Application - Page 3 of 4 Rev. 4/1/09

•
(7) The apparent demand for the types of uses permitted in the requested zoning district in the city in relation to
the amount of land in the city currently zoned and available to accommodate the demand.
ff'Te!l-. A LCfJ6 ~l-, 1lftf:> ~ (~ ot-Lli CJf '11Ie Ff!JJ/ i'fb4T
~ ~M~Tf dqC- Qse •

(8) The boundaries of the requested rezoning district are reasonable in relationship to surroundings and
construction on the site will be able to meet the dimensional regulations for the zoning district listed in the
Schedule of Regulations. f+.L. A~'O OF "T'tt! ~ or~()JS.
WIlL e.e IUGilf

(9) If a rezoning is appropriate, is the requested zoning district considered to be more appropriate from the city's
perspective than another zoning district?

G-e 18 NP~-e ~ ~ use.

(10) If the request is for a specific use, is rezoning the land more appropriate than amending the list of permitted or
special land uses in the current zoning district to allow the use?

Yes-

(11) The requested rezoning will not create an isolated and unplanned spot zone.
~ltJ(::,. f41u.. KtJr ~ 7;ft:rf ~"'6. ~ ~N6 WilL..
atA1Fi! t.N~t1'f t:Jf ~~/tJG. 1'Eie ZC:IJ./I.l~ LINe. ~S "THe
~ fWPeJCr-( UNa.
(12) The request has not previously been submitted within the past one (1) year unless conditions have changed or
new information has been provided.

f ~e:e,- WS NC1r ~ MAte.

(13) Other factors deemed appropriate for consideration by the Planning Commission.

Rezoning Application - Page 4 of 4 Rev. 4/1/09


CONDITIONAL REZONING AGREEMENT

This Conditional Rezoning Agreement is made as of ________________2010, between
Redbird of Mt. Pleasant, Inc., a Michigan corporation, whose address is 1210 East Pickard St.,
Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48858 (“Owner”), Barnes Development Company, LLC, a Michigan
limited liability company, whose address is 1000 Enterprise Drive, Allen Park, Michigan 48901
or its assignee (“Buyer”), and the City of Mount Pleasant, a Michigan municipal corporation,
whose address is 401 North Main Street, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48858 (“City”).

RECITALS

A. Owner is the owner of a certain parcel of property located at the southeast corner
of Pickard (M-20) and Brown Street located in the City of Mt. Clemens, Michigan and more
particularly described on attached Exhibit A (the “Property”).

B. Buyer has entered into a purchase agreement with Owner pursuant to which
Buyer has the right to purchase the Property.

C. The Property is comprised of three parcels as described on the attached Exhibit A
The southernmost parcel (Parcel 3) is currently split zoned. The southern 50’ of parcel 3 is
zoned R-3 Residential pursuant to Section 154.051 of the City’s zoning ordinance. The northern
portion of Parcel 3 is zoned C-3 General Business pursuant to Section 154.067 of the City’s
zoning ordinance.

D. Owner and Buyer are interested in having Buyer obtain approvals to develop the
Property as a Belle Tire (the “Proposed Development”) in accordance with certain conditions set
forth in this Agreement (the “Rezoning Conditions”), which include developing the Property in
accordance with the proposed site plans prepared by Christopher Enright Architects., Job No.
______________, dated _____________, 2010 attached as Exhibit B, (referred to as
,

“Development Plans”), a large version of which is on file with the City’s Office of Planning.

E. The Proposed Development consists of a use which is allowed in the C-3 General
Business District but which is not permitted under the current R-3 Residential zoning
classification applicable to the southern 50’ of parcel 3 of the Property.

F. To facilitate the development of the Property with the Proposed Development,
Owner and Buyer have requested that the City rezone the southern 50 feet of parcel 3 from R-3
to C-3, conditioned upon the City accepting the Rezoning Conditions voluntarily offered by


Owner and Buyer.
G. The City is willing to accept the Rezoning Conditions offered by Owner and
Buyer to develop the Property with the Proposed Development in accordance with the Rezoning
Conditions and Development Plans, as a condition of rezoning the Property from the R-3 to the
C-3 General Business District.

GH. This matter was considered before the City Planning Commission on
_____________________, 2010 and the City Planning Commission approved and agreed to the
uses and conditions as presented by the Owner and Buyer and as set forth in this Agreement. the
Site Plan, Special Land Use Permit, and agreed upon the uses and conditions as set forth in this
Agreement.

I. After giving proper notice, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
proposed rezoning of the Property, as required by the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, MCL
125.3101 et seq., and has submitted its recommendations to the City Commission.

H. The City Commission has reviewed and considered the Owner and Buyer’s offer Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
of conditional rezoning concluding that it provides for an orderly, well-planned and economic
use of the Property, and that the self-imposed conditions offered by the Owner and Buyer will be
beneficial to the City and the public.

I. This Conditional Rezoning Agreement is being entered into pursuant to and in
accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in Section 405 (MCL 125.3405) of the
Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, being Act 110 of the Public Acts of 2006, as amended, MCL
125.3101 et seq.

J. The City Commission has approved the rezoning and map amendment subject to
the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

K. Owner, Buyer and the City wish to set forth their understandings with respect to Formatted: Space After: 6 pt
the Rezoning Conditions to facilitate development of the Property within the Proposed
Development.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0"

In exchange for valuable consideration and the rights and covenants under this Agreement, the Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt
parties agree as follows:

NOW THEREFORE, Owner, Buyer and the City agree as follows:

1. Conditional Rezoning. Subject to all terms and conditions contained within this
Agreement and the provisions of Sections 154.0678 and 154.172 of the City’s zoning ordinance,
the Property, as described in Exhibit A, shall be rezoned from the R-3 Residential District to the
C-3 General Business District. The Zoning Map for the City, relative to the land described in
Exhibit A, shall be amended to reflect the rezoning classification as set forth in this paragraph.

2


2. Specific Use and Development of the Pickard Street Property as a Condition to
Rezoning. Subject to all terms and conditions contained within this Agreement and the provision
of Sections 154.067 and 154.172 of the City’s zoning ordinance, the Buyer voluntarily agrees to
the following stipulations as conditions to he rezoning of the Property by the City:

a. The Property shall be used exclusively for the operation of a Belle Tire Store as
depicted in Exhibit B. Exterior of the building shall be mostly face brick veneer accented with
Cast Stone, Exterior Insulated Finish System (EIFS) and Standing Seam Metal. Business is
primarily the retail sale and installation of tires, wheels and other assorted automotive parts such
as brakes, alignments and windshield replacement. No heavy engine or transmission repair shall
take place.

b. No work shall take place on any vehicle on the exterior of the building.

c. There will be no exterior storage, discarded tires, display of goods, materials or
vehicles on the exterior of the building.

d. Hours of operation shall be as follows:
Monday: 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Tuesday: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Wednesday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Sunday Closed

e. The Buyer will construct the property in accordance with all Local,
State and Federal building requirements. All drainage shall meet governmental standards

f. The Buyer shall cause to be installed a 6-foot high masonry wall to match the
proposed building at the south side of the property where the commercial use meets the
residential use approximately 164’ in length as depicted more accurately on the attached
Exhibit B. Further, the Buyer shall repair any damage to the existing landscape located at
710 Brown Street.

g. The Buyer shall install perimeter full cutoff lighting fixtures on the building and
around the property. Site shall meet all requirements of the City’s zoning ordinance
photometric requirements.

h. The Buyer shall cause to be installed a masonry dumpster enclosure to match the
materials of the building in accordance with the City’s zoning ordinance.

3. Site Plan Approval. Effective with the effective date of the rezoning of the
Property pursuant to Section 5 below, the Planning Commission and City grant site plan

3

Mt. Pleasant City Commission Agenda and Minutes

Mt. Pleasant City Commission Agenda and Minutes

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (7)

Similar a Mt. Pleasant City Commission Agenda and Minutes

Similar a Mt. Pleasant City Commission Agenda and Minutes (20)

Mt. Pleasant City Commission Agenda and Minutes