Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. I'd like to invite everybody or welcome everybody to our uh planning commission meeting. Um if you would please silence your phones, we'd appreciate it. Uh, I would like to recognize uh Christine Anderson from uh the township attorney and Jonathan Palin from uh the township planner and Ava Miller from Gibles Webster. Uh so welcome to the February 17, 2026 planning commission meeting. Uh with that, uh let's see, let's stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right. Uh, do roll call. We have Rick Leel here. Kathy Vosberg here. Uh Richard Brokart is uh excused. Brian Carr here. Ralph Dwarski here. James Powski here. Mark Renault here. Eric Haidider here. Carl Leonard is here. Uh I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting on February 3rd.

Support. Motion by Carl, supported by Mark to approve the minutes. All in favor? I opposed. Motion passes. I'd like to uh make a motion to approve tonight's agenda. Support. Have a motion by Carl supported by who supported that? Kathy. Motion by Carl, supported by Kathy to approve the agenda as submitted. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries.

All right. Um we do have public comments. If anybody wants to uh uh get up and talk about anything at all, you can. You've got three minutes. If it's about um the public hearing, you'll have a chance to say something then. Uh but you uh if you'd like to come up for three minutes, more than welcome to. Anybody? No. Okay. So, with that, we have a uh public hearing tonight. Uh I'd like to make a motion to open the public hearing.

Motion by Carl, supported by Mark to open the public hearing for reszoning number 379. Um, so what that's about is they're requesting to reszone 15.86 acres of property located north of 25 mile road south of Gratchet Avenue from C3 General Commercial to C3 General Commercial and RM2 residential multiple family. parcel number is 150090451 003. Um with that Ava, if you'd like to uh vote for the public hearing public,

okay, sorry about that. Uh so the motion to open the public hearing. Uh all in favor? I opposed motions carries and the public hearing is open and

all right so I'll be looking at a review dated January 9th 2026 for reasonzoning 379 starting on page two the subject site is zoned C3 general commercial and the applicant seeks to split zone the property and reszone the eastern 2/3 of the site to RM M2 multiple family residential while the western third remains C3. The C3 district permits a variety of non-residential uses as well as single family residential as a special land use while the RM2 district permits 3.63 dwelling units per acre. Moving on to page three. Is the proposed zoning consistent with the master plan? The master plan's future land use map designates this parcel as multi-family density. The master plan describes this land use um as densities ranging from 2 to 10 units per acre um multiple family areas are intended to permit a more intensive residential land use by providing for various types of multiple family dwellings. Missing middle housing is envisioned within the multiple family and mixeduse districts. The residential density plan identifies the housing density for this property as 5 to nine dwelling units per acre. The RM2 district permits 3.63 dwelling units per acre. Moving on to page four. Um the site has access to water but does not have a sewer connection. The wetlands map shows the presence of wetlands and hydric soils in the northeast corner of the site. Uh has the applicant provided evidence that the property cannot be developed or used as zone? Uh no, they have not provided evidence as to why. However, the only residential type of use that could be permitted in the existing C3 zoning is single family residential as a special land use. Reszoning is necessary for the developer

to be able to propose any new multifamily dwelling. Uh is it compatible with surrounding uses? The proposed RM2 portion of the site is compatible with the surrounding parcels which consist of a mix of residential uses. The parcels immediately north and south of the site are also zoned RM2 while the property to the east and part of the south across from 25m road is zoned A1 agricultural residential. Also south of the site across from 20 25 mile road is zone C1 local commercial. The remaining C3 portion on the western side of the site could function as a transitional buffer between the M2 general manufacturing district zoning north of Gresian Avenue to the proposed RM2 portion of the site. [snorts] Uh the burndin on 25 Mile Road and Gresant Avenue is likely to not be greater with the proposed RM2 zoning designation than its current designation, but a full traffic study would be needed to determine the impact of change. The parcel is currently zoned as C3 and reszoning a portion of the parcel to M RM2 would entail a less intense use. Uh is there other land currently available for this use? Uh there are parcels directly north and south of the subject site with an RM2 zoning classification that are vacant vacant along with a parcel located further south down Gratchet Avenue on Carriageway Drive that has a parcel zoned RM2. Will the development of the site under proposed zoning be able to meet zoning district requirements? Uh both the RM2 and C3 portions of the site meet the minimum lot size requirements. Uh is resoning the best way to address this request? The planning commission could consider allowing multi-family residential uses in the C3 district considering single family and two family uses are already permitted in the district. uh when a C3 property is

directly but abuing um the residential district. Has there been a change in circumstances? The subject property has not had any development proposal since the master plan was adopted in May 2021. Uh and then question 10, is the resoning request consistent with the master plan for the area? It is consistent with the future land use map for the site as is a design designated multif family density. Uh and the reasonzoning request is to reszone a portion of the site to RM2. However, leaving a portion of the site zone C3 is not consistent with the future land use. Is the proposed zoning district a logical extension of the existing zoning in the area? If reszoned, the request would extend the existing RM2 zoning located to the north and south of the site connecting the isolated parcel. And would approving the request grant a special benefit to a property owner or developer? Uh the planning commission should review and consider whether or not this applies. And that will conclude. Thank you.

Thank you. Um does the applicant uh is the applicant here? And would you like to come up and present your information to us? My name is Charlie. There's a button on the left hand side. I'm sorry, on the right hand side. Can you hear me now?

Okay. Uh my name is Charlie Stapleton representing Lombardo Homes. Address 13001 23 Mile Road, Shelby Township, Michigan 48315. Um we are requesting um a split zoning um of this parcel um keeping the hard corner of Grashid and 25 mile SC3 um due to the heavy industrial on the west side of Grashid um and the commercial um portion of the property on the south side of 25 mile. Um we think this would leave us a good transitional zone uh buffer between the heavy industrial um into the RM2 zoning. Um the remaining RM2 portion um we plan to reszone matches the township's master plan as well as the adjacent RM2 um properties to the north. Um as of right now, you know, we are a residential builder. We do like to build residential. Um we don't have a current plan under development right now, but there are a lot of wetlands um on the site that we'd like to delineate um as well as do soil tests and other due diligence before we come up with a full developmental plan. Um the [clears throat] commercial property portion split would have a frontage of roughly 400 feet on 25 mile road and 562 feet on Grashet Road. Uh leaving the RM2 frontage on 25 mile road of 600 feet. That's all I have for you right now. Thank you much. Um, with that, if there's anybody uh out in the audience that would like to come up and speak on this, uh, you got three minutes. You can

talk about anything you'd like about this proposal. No one. Okay. Um I'll bring it back to you, but you probably are all set then. You don't have anything to add? Okay. Um with that, I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing.

Motion by Carl, supported by Mark, to close the public hearing. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. Would you mind turning that microphone back off, please? Thank you. Uh, with that, we'll bring it up to the board. Kathy, you like to start us off?

Thank you. Um, currently the document said that currently there's sewer is not available there and I realize there's no site plan or anything yet. Is wondering if it's the intent of the applicant to try to connect to the sewer. Um, as of right now, we um do not know the situation with the wetland as well as the soils types out there. So, um, we're not sure if we're able to connect to the sew or not right now.

It's not it's not necessary for this, but I was just curious what you were considering. All right, that's all for now. Thank you. Thank you. Um, Eric, you can stay up. You might. Yeah, you might want to just hang out up there. There might be a few other questions. Thank you. I know you're a residential development. Uh, do you have any ideas what you're going to do with both properties if we do reszone it in any way? Are you going to keep it intact under Lombardo? Yes. Yes, it would be Lombardo.

Back to my first question. Do you have any idea what you're doing if we do plan on reszoning it? What you plan on doing with the property? U we would like to build something residential there. Um we just need to do our due diligence on the property to figure out the capacity of what we could build there.

Ralph James Mark, my two questions were answered. Brian, I have no questions. And Rick, do you have anything? One question. Looking at your u the layout of the property, the plot plan of the property. There's the corners cut out. Is that that corner where there's an existing home? Uh that's a corner for the rightway um on Grasset there. It's the along 25 Mile Road. There's a corner cut out of it. A notch out. There's a notch out of the corner of the property. Is that where that house is at?

Yes, I believe so. Yes, it's the um adjacent properties parcel. That's just how it is. That's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um and pretty much anything I was going to ask has been covered, so I don't have anything at this uh time. Um, so do we want to vote on this tonight or do we want to postpone for the next meeting? What's your pleasure? Tonight or later, Kathy? I think we should postpone.

Postpone. We It's been something that we've been consistently doing um lately. So maybe postpone it till the next meeting. Can we get it on the agenda then for the next meeting? Should be able to. Is that what everybody wants to do? So yeah, that's everybody agrees with that. Okay. Yeah. I was I was just going to add our normal operating procedure is to wait two weeks after we close a public hearing just to make sure there's nothing that comes up afterwards. So yeah. Yeah, we've [snorts] been pretty consistent with that. So um so with that, if someone wants to, uh make a motion.

Mr. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to postpone making the decision for recommendation to the regular the regular board until our next meeting in two weeks. We have a motion by uh Rick Leel supported by Mark to postpone uh a vote on this item for two weeks. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. We'll see. See you in a couple weeks. Yep.

Thanks. With that, we have our regular agenda item and [cough] excuse me, this is for Chesterfield 5 LLC site plan number 2025-07. uh M1, which is 4.331 acres north side of 21 Mile Road between Gratchet Avenue and Herb Drive. Uh parcel ID 1509 30-352 dash 006. So I believe this is coming back to us from a past meeting. So, uh, is the applicant here? Oh, there you are. Yes.

Sorry.

Um, yeah, you probably should. I I don't know if there's been any changes. I'm going to I'm going to pull it back uh and see if Ava has anything to add uh from Gilles Webster. Okay. Sorry. No, you're good. I don't How much did we address? I can briefly go over stuff. Just kind of just just kind of run through anything controversial. Okay.

All right. Okay. So, I'm going to look at our review dated from November 25th, 2025. Um, let's see. Any outstanding items? We'll look at the top of page three on our district standards. Um, the applicant sought a variance from the ZBA at a recent meeting for the I believe the rear yard building setback. Um there was also the interior sideyard building setback that did not meet the standards. Um the required setback is 50 feet and the plan showed the 12T distance. Um as for screening, the planning commission should determine if the screening provided is sufficient. Um let's see. Um talking further about the screening um the rear yard screening um major screening is required in the rear of the property where the site abuts the HMR district um but the applicant is proposing that the existed uh existing wooded area will provide sufficient screening. Um looking at parking lot landscaping uh the applicant proposed five arborite trees uh and had uh the remaining 16 trees provided throughout the surface of the parking lot. Um the planning commission may wish to discuss if the location of the trees um at the edge of the lot sufficiently meet the intent of the standards. Um for parking, the applicant should provide the parking calculation of one space per 300 square ft of floor area for office uses in both buildings. Um

the applicant has provided 125 spaces with four of them being ADA accessible. Um based on the numbers provided, the applicant will be under the required amount of parking spaces and the planning commission may wish to discuss whether additional parking is needed. Um let's see. The applicant should provide detail a detail showing the proposed bicycle parking facilities. Um the planning commission may wish to discuss whether the location of an off- streetet loading and unloading zone may interfere with parking in circulation. Um, they also may wish to discuss whether additional pedestrian safety measures are needed and also consider the trash receptacle screening if the chain link fencing is appropriate. And then that'll wrap up my brief summary. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Uh, and uh, go back to the applicant. Thank you. Greg Iicabelli, 5363 Christy Drive, Chesterfield, Michigan 48051. And um I guess I can just start right at the top of uh Gif's review and just address each just address each item at at uh one at a time. Uh start from the beginning. Um first I'd like to just start that um all the other departments have uh we've gotten sign offs from fire road commission uh drain office will be a submitt for soil erosion permit um looks like selfridge is okay with it and assessing just as requesting the easement there already is an existing easement that um um has access to the cell tower in the in the rear of us. So the other departments um have all been addressed. Um starting with uh the review, the first thing is the setbacks, the rear yard setback and the sideyard setback. The variances were obtained last week for those two. Um we've got the uh next note would be which parts of the roof will have rooftop screening. Um that'll be that'll be determined based on once the uh once the layouts are established with the tenants and we know the location of the rooftop units or any of the HVAC units or any other appliance that's on the roof, they'll be they'll be properly screened according to the um um ordinance. And one of the one of the questions I have on that if the um does parapet count as screening? If the rooftop units are below the parapel line, does that count as screening? And again, we can address that once we have our once we got our unit locations and stuff. That's just one question I have. Um but uh we show the screening detail on the drawing um with the siding and

and all the all appliances on the roof will be screened via parapet or via um siding. Uh the other the next item would be the location of the trees. um use that word paraphy. I've never heard that word before, but uh um we've got the the parking lot trees. We've got them uh proposed along the perimeter of the of the parking um the parking areas. Um we prefer to have them especially with industrial buildings. Um those landscape islands start they become a they become a a nuisance with uh snow plows. Snow plows hitting them. Um mulch or or stone or leaves all ends up in the parking lot. They end up in the catch basins. They end up in the drains for the the trough drains for the truck wells. They just they become a nuisance. So we just we we prefer to keep them off to the sides um if possible. That's how we've done them in the past. Um, they are they do take up parking spots. So, technically they would, you know, if they weren't where we have them, we could have parking spots there. So, we we think they fall underneath the ordinance of being located within the parking area. The next item is um the detail for um I I handed out some literature earlier. The last page shows our our site plan our site prepare forgot to include the detail for the uh bike rack. So, we'll add that as part of the if if uh we would ask the planning commission to make it contingent on submitting the drawings and adding the bike rack to the we show it on the plans. We just don't have the detail attached to the to the drawings, the actual bike rack. Um it'll hold each bike rack will have a capacity of five bikes and I believe we have to provide for eight and we'll have two, one for

each building. Um the next item to address would be the um screening between the um residential to the north and uh the north of the property. We um we would like to ask the planning commission for uh relief on the um the major screening required because it's it's not single family that we're butdding up against. It would be the sideyard of a large uh proposed retirement community. And there's uh there's a there's a very heavy wooded uh existing buffer there um between the parcels. The buildings will be approximately 300 ft almost 300 ft apart and there's a there's a drain that separates on the other side of the existing woods and then the neighboring property as they as they finish up they will have uh they've got additional landscaping to provide as well. So there's there's going to be plenty of screening. There's a gap between the existing woods um along our north property line. There's a there's a there's a there's maybe a 20ft gap of no trees on the um on our on our northeast property line. So we would propose as a um as a contingent on the approval, we would revise the landscape plan to show additional screening on that little gap area. that would help. Um the the truck well for the building that faces the residential faces west, so they won't it it won't be an isore. I don't even think you'll even be able to see the the back of that building from that residential. Um especially in the when the leaves are all on the trees and everything during the during the spring through fall. Um and uh we would make up the gap there in that corner and plan further further uh screening to allow for that. Uh and and we think that would offset the major screening requirement. We'd ask we'd

like to ask the planning commission for that. The next item is um the uh our proposed trees. Um the abbervitees that are there are existing. We're not proposing those and we're not including them in any of our additional tree counts that we're adding. Um we're we're planning an additional 15 trees um along the east property line for that reduced uh sideyard setback. But the abberites that are there, they are currently they're planted all around the fence that separates the the property from the cell tower. There's a fence line there and those abberites are existing and they're they're uh uh along that fence line. We're showing them on our landscape plan, but we're not counting them. We're not using them as our towards our tree requirement count. Um the additional next item would be the additional parking. The Chesterfield Township ordinance um as the GIF's report states it would need approximately 156 parking spots. We are providing 125. Um there's a small reduction um because of the bike racks. I think there's a two additional reduction with the additional bike racks. Um we feel the 125 parking spots is more than enough for these uh size facilities. Um, basically for the industry standard is usually one parking spot per 350 ft of office space, one spot for 500 ft of manufacturing space, and then one one space one parking space for every 1500 square ft of warehouse area, inventory area, um, new materials and tooling areas where there's less where where there's less employees. This this comes in uh we've got a blended ratio of of um we're providing a blended ratio of 600 uh one one parking spot per

600 square ft of the building brings it to a total of 125 thou 125 parking spots which includes four um ADA handicap spots and that's more than it's more than efficient for this size of a this size of a facility the size of these two facilities combined. Um, next item would be um the height of the curb. Um, I this is I guess my question here is um a standard parking curb is 6 in tall. Are they asking for this to be reduced maybe to a 4-in curb? Um either way we would have no problem with that because I I I I know my wife and my kids come home with their louvers hit all the their front lower fairings on their cars are all because of that reason. They're all hit. So I've got no issues lowering that if that's a if that's what that the intent is there for that. Um we can go either way with that. Um the next item would be the truck wells. Um these are these are double truck wells. Um, we do show some parking in front of them and uh they're double truck wells which allows for more maneuverability. They can they can handle two trucks at a time. Uh, most of these deliveries now are large cargo trucks and cube vans. There'll be occasional uh full semi-tractor trailers um delivering product coming and going and uh there's maneuverability to get them out in and out easily. If there's, you know, if there happens to be a, if they're using every parking spot in here, they might have to have a few employees move a few spots. They'll um, you know, the tenants always adapt that. There's there's no ever there's never a perfect situation for truck maneuverability, and the tenants always seem to adapt to the to how the buildings are are built and placed. Um, we can get um I can provide the the maneuverability layout. It the engineer didn't provide that on here. He doesn't

he doesn't show it, but we can we can add that on there. Um the other issue would be um any pedestrian safety measures. Um none of the none of the man doors open up to any driving lanes. So there's there, you know, the employees and visitors should pretty, you know, everybody should be pretty safe. It should be a pretty safe in uh um site once it's built out. the um dumpster enclosure. Um the the proposed dumpster enclosure is a masonry dumpster enclosure on all three sides. The front gates are the front gates are proposed to be uh the plan shows them as a chainlink fence with obscuring on them. Um we would we would build those with uh cedar wood. We'd build the gates out of cedar wood and we can make the uh approval contingent on that as well. we would modify that. Um I th this is just a a mishap on our on our end here. We we never build the gates always have cedar wood on them. We we don't build them with a with uh a chain link fence. And uh next item on here is the size of the offices. The uh drawing just shows an an approximate office location on there. So again, we will get into the actual size of the office once the tenant space is determined. And uh um most likely it'll be in that 10% range of the size of each buildings. That's the that's the trend with the if if a building is 10,000 square feet, it'll have a,000 ft of office. If it's 20,000 ft, they'll have 2,000 ft of office. That's usually the the industry standard on that. Um and I think that covers everything. If anybody's got any questions, I can try to answer them the best I can.

Thank you. Um, so we'll bring it back to the board and uh start with Kathy if you got some questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, through the chair to Mr. Aabelli. Thank you for being here. Um, is there a sidewalk in front of along 21 mile? I I I'm not real good at reading plans. Yes, there's a 10-ft proposed sidewalk.

Okay, thank you. And the um proposal in the in the back of the buildings, the north side, the buffer between between these buildings and the proposed residential. Uh does that require or have you done any do do you have uh numbers on what the density of that is and what the density of the trees in relationship to visibility from behind? I'm sure you're going to do whatever would would work the best, but I'm just wondering if there's standards that you go by. We didn't get an exact tree count, but it's a it's a pretty heavy tree canopy that's existing there

currently existing. Yeah. That you wouldn't have to add. Yeah. If there's more needed, we will we will we have no issues adding more. Thank you. That's all I have right now. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Eric.

Yeah, a couple comments. Uh I know you highlighted a couple things. Uh uh one with the truck wells. Uh the truck wells are you like you said double truck wells that are 50 ft deep but you only have 50 ft of access in the front. Uh would you provide some type of circulation simulation plan? Because if you have semis in there the turn radius on a semi is is quite large and you have parking right in front. Uh as you said if it that whole parking lot is completely filled. I can't see the turn radius meeting, you know, these requirements of only 50 feet in relationship to front of the both truck wells. And I don't know what the dimensions are on building one uh on the vertical going back into a a a perpendicular parking space and through there going either left or right. So, I I know there's a difference between semi-truckss, box trucks, uh, in relationship to the turn radius on each one of those, but if you have a trailer on a on a semi that is 40, 50 ft long, uh, that's going to be extremely tight on that uh, 20 foot parking space in front in that 31 uh, aisle space, even though you have turn race in front of the uh, the rear parking and the dumpsters. But I I'd like to see that on paper with the with the engineer on on a simulation plan on exactly how that's going to kind of work.

Yeah. They won't um if you're looking for a semi to be able to come in there and pull a complete circle. The it won't show that it they'll show it pulling in. Oh, I understand that. Backing into the maneuvering lane and then backing in 100%. I don't expect the full radius. It's not going to be Yeah. This this site is designed to have the hammerhead for the fire department to be able to get it has to have the tee to because a fire truck's got to be able to get in and out of here. And uh right where the where the maneuvering lane basically would hit where the um dumpster enclosure is that would that creates the hammerhead for for a truck to turn around for a fire truck to turn around in and out in and out there. And yeah, we can I can have them simulate on here the traffic pattern.

Yeah, that would be great. Uh second thing on the uh split face uh you have it stained. Is that pre-stained or are you going to stain it in the field? Combination of both. It would be a combination of both. Okay. Yeah. All right. Then the roof screening you have 6 in or 6 [clears throat] feet tall for your roof screening depending on what type of rooftop units are going to have compared to if you said if if a parapit is screening also it is but I don't I think the the screening around the the units on all four sides would be probably a better situation in this call because going six feet on a parapit that's quite expensive.

Um the it depends on the location of the rooftop units. The screening doesn't necessarily have to be you just need to screen the unit. We would prefer the parapet to act as a screen because it's less roof penetrations and it's long longterm less maintenance. The the when you screen the rooftop units themselves, they're you know you're putting you're putting you're putting penetrations all around units. They um you know like like any flat roof, they go through a freeze thaw and they you know there's always a always a pen always a leak there. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Ralph.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, are you building these for speculation or do you have tenants in mind? We've got we've got a tenant in mind, but we're under an NDA, so I know how to understand that. Yeah. I apologize. No worries. Um, did you did I hear you say correctly that you had approval from the ZBA on the setbacks? Yes. Last Wednesday they approved the 12T sideyard setback and the rear yard 50ft setback.

Okay. I am just personally I'm just looking at this piece of property. It looks like a big building for the property and the parking lot doesn't support, you know, the the building itself and I'm just it just looks big for that spot. And if we 12 feet on either side, just hope that's not opening us up for future issues.

Thank you, James. Yeah, with regard to the screening to the north, uh I went out there and looked. It needs some filling. You know, there's some gaps in there, but uh if those gaps are filled, I think it'll be okay. That's all for me. Thank you, Mark. So, I have a [clears throat] couple of items. One, uh Eric, you knocked off two of them, so thank you. [laughter] Made that quick. [snorts]

Um, but I am I will reiterate I am concerned about the traffic patterns, especially with trucks because yeah, I don't see how that's going to be able to clear anything right there. Um, so yeah, I would I'm I can't commit to anything. Try to at least see that's that's plausible. Um, then the other question I have, which I think I may be stealing someone else's thunder, but um, the screening on the back, I know it says it needs to be filled in, but whose property is that on? Is that your property or is that somebody else's? the screening crosses the it covers both properties. It comes over um the the the site plan that's submitted to you does not doesn't show the actual topography with the tree canopy on there, but it it follows the tree canopy follows all the way till about 40t from the property line.

Right. But where but where my question is really going is Mr. Clonowski just said is that there's some spots that probably need to be filled in. Do you have the legal right to put that in there? Was it on your property or is it somebody else's? We would fill it in on our property. We'd fill in on our on our uh overhang. And there's enough room for that with the parking and everything. Yes. [clears throat] Okay. I'd like to be able to see that one, too. So, that's it. Thank you, Brian. [clears throat]

So, I'll uh I have quite a few concerns um that [clears throat] I that I'd like that I think we need to walk through. So, one for site plan approval, the the set's not complete for uh site plan approval. So, I think some of our questions come from the fact that you don't have property lines. So, typically there's a survey that's submitted with your site plan approval and then there'll be an existing condition survey and then you'll have a site plan and that site plan then will take those uh geometries of the site and then you know you're you then show your new build on that. So, so to like uh Mark's question, right? I had the same question in regards to like the north because to me it looks like you're building uh your parking lot right I'm assuming right up against the property line but I'm like that can't be right because typically a 50- foot setback there is no construction allowed within a setback. So if you were given a variance of 50 foot setback te technically that should be a green space and then your parking and whatever you're building is is outside of those setbacks. That's what a setback is, is there's typically no horizontal or vertical construction within that setback. So, I definitely need to understand the property lines um in in relation to uh your constructing the site because um it it definitely appears to me that the site is being overbuilt, which is why we have ordinances with um setbacks so that you don't overbuild on a site. But I understand what you're trying to do and and I think we could be flexible, but you know, we definitely need to understand uh the property uh line in association with what you're trying to build so we can understand that because there needs to be some type of screening on the north side for sure. Uh regardless of what's existing, that's not your property. So at any time they can clear those trees or there's those

trees can get diseased and die off and they have to be cleared and at that point then there's no screening uh unless the residential properties uh do it. But that's why again the M1 is supposed to be um responsible for that. So um we would definitely have to see an expansion on your um on your site plans. Another question I have is uh obviously we talked about the loading docks so I don't need to really go in there but obviously a turning radius study is imperative to understand the constraints of the site. Uh the screening wall I'm well aware you said that you're waiting for units but the screening wall cannot be at the same as the parapit. They're two different things and you're not going to have a parapit that deep. This type of building that you're building is probably a pre-engineered building and parapits aren't very tall. Um so the screening will be required and then obviously you know we would have to understand where the screening is going to be. Um and then obviously validate the heights of that to make sure it actually screens the the equipment itself. Um I didn't see any sight ballards on your site plan which is another thing that we typically like to see is sight ballards because what we're looking at is traffic patterns and then we're looking at the difference between vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffics. So I didn't see any type of ballers and I also didn't see any type of parking lot blocks. So your your build your parking half your parking goes right up obviously where there's a perimeter curb you know they addressed you know that was addressed already with Glesw Webster. I don't have a preference in the height of your curb but when it does park against the building there has to be some type of a bumper whether it's a highway rail or you're going to use parking lot bumpers. Um, but I'm not sure how that works because of the depth of your um your parking spaces. So, we're going to have to see that on a site plan to understand are you putting in parking blocks or you're going to put like a guardrail against the building because again the you're a developer so you're familiar with the fact that you know cars are allowed to overhang and

that's taken into consideration on the depth of the parking spaces. So I we know we're going to need to understand that uh to understand how uh that's incorporated into um your site plan. Um the [sighs] the other thing regarding the site plan is your utilities. Typically we in particular want to see storm water management, right? because you're responsible for the runoff of your entire property and because you're basically making your entire site impervious [laughter] and I we're going to need to understand your site utilities. Uh so typically site utilities are also part of site plan approval so we can see where you're pulling your utilities from. Are they, you know, are they located in a proper space? Make sure they're protected. Make sure people can't hit them. Make sure vehicles can't hit them. Um, and then obviously with storm water management that goes without saying. We need to understand how the water is, you know, just how you're planning on controlling it. Whether there's a retention system, an underground retention system, are you using, I'm assuming, an existing uh storm water line that's running along 21 mile road. Either way, um you know, we typically will see grades and elevations of your storm water management so we can uh just make sure all that is being properly addressed and um your adjacent uh properties are uh being protected. Um the other thing that uh that I think is an issue is your phototrics. your there's no way that we allow I mean I looked it up but I'm just I think you should have your electrical engineer look it up but you have zero foot candles in um several of the parking spaces uh like 0.1 to zero and um there has to be some type of general lighting for safety for pedestrian safety as people are walking to their vehicles especially in the winter months in

particular um but you have zero foot candles um in several of those spots and a lot of between 0.1 and zero in many of the spots which I'm pretty sure is below the minimum requirement uh for foot candles um for safety reasons. So I think that needs to be looked at um when you resubmit and [sighs] I think that's all my comments for the most part. Um, I mean, again, I I'm I'm open and flexible because I, you know, again, we we try to promote as best we can development, but we do got to make sure that the minimum requirements are being met. Um, and obviously, we have to honor ZBA. So, if ZBA approved, but I still um I still think we need to, but again, that's why we need the property lines because we definitely have to validate the north. Um, it looks like the site setbacks you did uh build outside of the 12 and the 25 I think you're approved for, right? 12 and 25. 12 on the east, 25 on the west. Is that correct?

Yes. Okay. Yeah. So, yeah. So, you know, when you update that, just make sure the property lines are in there so we can take a look at that uh that orientation. And other than that, that's my comments. Thank you. Oh, yeah. That was Well, why don't I let you do that one? I It was It is on my list. I didn't [snorts] Thank you. Um Rick,

thanks again for coming in this evening. Um being as Brian briefly touched on it, um we recently went through a um giving developers, architects the opportunity to elaborate with the building materials, but in doing so, even in the industrial areas, um we still do require brick on the front of the building, on the road side of the building. Um you had made the statement that some of it will be stained, some of it won't be stained. Um, and it's also part of our ordinance that I don't think has been adopted yet by the main board, but um, what we proposed is that um, the well, it's it's always been in our ordinance that that we that there's that there's no painting. And if you're staining something in the field that's considered painting. Um, with that being said, um, you have to look at the front of the building. There is brick required to the front of the building. Secondly, on um building number two on the west elevation, you show a man door egress door. And back to Brian's comments about parking blocks. If you got a car parked up against a building, how you going to get out of that egress door? Something needs to happen there so that we can make sure that that all of the egress doors aren't blocked by a car up against the building. Um, thirdly, on page, and if you can just help me understand this, on page L1, you show the burm that's on the front of the building. There's a burm detail. And um, I'm not that bad at math, but it says there's a 10 foot on one side, 10 foot on the other side, and there's a three-foot in between at the top of the peak. And it showed your overall dimension is 33 feet. Can you explain how that works?

the the Burm along 21 Mile Road is a requirement because the residential homes on the south side of uh 21 Mile Road there. The Burm is designed to be a oneon it's designed to be a oneon they're center what we did is we centered it within the rightway easement from from the rightway to the to the building. that's centered in the setback. So that that burm it's it's designed so it can be the grass can it can be cut pretty simple with a with a lawnmower. I understand I'm talking about the burm detail on your drawing. Okay. It shows it is 30 33 feet wide but your drawings your dimensions are 10 ft is only 23 feet. Oh that that's an error. That's yeah that's a typo on the Yeah, it's off that's something that's going to need to be addressed. Yeah, if you would please.

Yeah. Um, yeah, should be a three-foot top flat for the for the plantings. It should have a the top of the burm should be flat three feet and then Yeah, he should be he's should be 15 and 15, not not 10 and 10 on here. Thank you. Yeah. Um, the next the next question is is this the 6-in curb comment that was made by Guilford's Webster. A if you if you could elaborate where that came from, the 6 inch curb.

Uh I believe in the standards, uh it was never specifically said what the height of the curb should be. So I believe we just commented if the curb appeared to be too high for the planning commission that you should consider for it to be lowered. That's where I think it's coming from. I'm I'm looking at the curb detail on the on page C1. It shows the curb and gutter, but then you go up to the dumpster location and it it shows a six-inch curve. Is that where the six-inch curb is coming from from your comments?

I mean, it's inside of a dumpster enclosure. I don't think that the applicant needs to address that is where I'm going with that. I mean, it's just a standard curb and gutter for the rest around the rest of the site. I I I don't see a dimension of six inches on a curb and gutter around the site. 6 in uh curb is a pretty standard. It's it's a it's a most of the time it's an engineering standard for the townships or the communities. Um my understanding is it they might be requesting it to be a little lower so the fairings never came up before. Yeah. And so the fairings don't I'm sure that what you have is fine.

Yeah. Material is curved. Um that's all I have, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Um does the applicant have anything else you'd like to add to any of the comments made?

Yes. Um I I did not know that providing a a a a topography and a and a survey were usually the the the site prepare um he gets the information from the survey from the actual survey and he pulls that off, puts the meats and bounds on here. Um the topography, we've never gotten into that stuff with site plan approval as far as utilities, um water, sewer, it it's on site there. That's usually handled at the next stage at engineering. um drainage and all that. The site is there's a 21inch storm sewer outlet that's been provided for on the site in the northeast corner there. That's where all the storm runoff will go to. Um the site will not have a detention basin. Um it's uh the the the storm outlet is is sized for this property. That that storm outlet [snorts] um my understanding is prior to us owning this property, this property was part of the shopping center property next door. When that was developed, it was split. This was split off of that and that's why the 21 inch lead is there to provide the storm water runoff. It's already been um factored in uh for that. The drainage has already been factored in on that. Um the pipe um pipe we call them pipe ballards the sight ballards those are that's pretty standard that they they're they're put at every um um overhead door. We usually provide them on all overhead doors and that and and usually on the corners of buildings as well. Um, again, I I I don't know if that's a specific requirement that they should be shown on a site plan, but we can address that as well. Curbs against the buildings. Um, we you've not done that in the past where we've where the cars park right up against the building. Um, again, curbs there just end up they end up they end up beat up. They end up settling. They end up getting hit by snow plows. Um, I,

you know, I understand the comment. I, I've been doing this for almost 40 years, and I have yet to see a car hit an industrial building on the side parking parking to it. Um, and, uh, so again, the lighting, too. I'll I'll look into the lighting, but, you know, this building will be it'll it'll have the proper wall packs. All the exit lights will be lit up. That that's going to have to be done by code anyways. And, uh, so we'll make sure that gets addressed. and um um curbs on the buildings and then the utilities. We we've again I didn't think we got into storm sewer designs for site plan approval. If that's something we need to add, we can go back and we can add that. But we never we very rarely get into the engineering at site plan approval. That's usually addressed at the next stage. um in the masonry. Um the has has the ordinance changed that that there is a requirement for face brick? There always was. There always was a requirement face for face brick in the building. Like I'm like I was saying we lessened the requirement giving architects the opportunity to be more creative with their with their designs. But it's always been a requirement brick in the building. Um, split face the architectural block. It is considered a masonry product. Yeah, I can see the ordinance where where it has the face brick or other aesthetically pleasing materials, decorative decorative materials. Um, is there an issue with architectural block? They look that there's the ar the buildings built with architectural block

look very nice. Is there is is are we being told we cannot do that? Do I have to come back with a different elevation? Mr. Pal I would say yes you have to come back with a different elevation. I mean it is it is brick brick is required. Brick or is required. Um so masonary typically blocked masonary is on the is on the on the other three elevations in the industrial areas.

So the um that ordinance did go in front of the board last week. Um it was published today so it goes into effect in 7 days. Um and the schedule was clarified. Um, so it does now state the minimum area of brick is 75%. And then the other 25% there's a schedule of allowable materials Is it does it is it strictly face brick or does it still have the language that allows the planning commission to make the determination? As Mr. Palin stated, it is brick. We have looked at other opportunities for people to do something a little more creative. Um, block is hasn't been one of them. does the um the one piece masonry unit that is a it is a face like what you see on a Home Depot or what you see on a Walmart where it's a where it's a brick but it's a block too.

If you want to present something like that, please do. I'm not sure what you're referring to, but um again, as Mr. Palin said, okay,

we will certainly look at anything. Can't guarantee your approval, but we'll certainly look at it. We don't build anything ugly, by the way. you you if you drive around and look at any of our developments, any of our buildings, I don't think there'd be we're we're uh gray and blue are our colors and that's how we like to that's how we like to build our buildings and uh it gives them gives them a unique a unique distinction and uh the ones we built up in North Bay very very pleasing aesthetically aesthetic looking looking buildings. the ones we finished on Herb Drive over there. Just that's, you know, we've just did a couple over in Shelby Township, too. We keep our color themes. We like to keep our color themes the same. Makes it easy. Makes it easy on the trades and it makes it easy on everybody, but um if we have to come up with something um um you know, we'll we'll come up with something.

I don't think we're concerned about the actual design. I think it's more the the material itself. Yeah, the design is great, but it's the material that with our ordinance. Yeah, which is different than other communities, but right now it's brick or better. So, yeah, there's there's we can achieve that. There's there's uh ways to achieve that. Are you uh are you all set or did you have more? Yes.

You all set then? Yeah, I've got um I think we addressed everything. Um just uh an answer I can I'd like to get these drawings re revised right away if I need to do I need to start getting engineers involved already for storm sewer calculations and all that. I think that's a that's a next step. I don't think that's here. Mr. Chair, I'm going to bring it back to the board.

The the engineering design is not required to be submitted at this stage. We do require um I mean we typically require a preliminary layout of utilities um but the applicant needs to understand if they're not showing if they're not showing um storm water management on the site plan and then something changes say Mcome County Drain Commission requires something and it changes it could impact their site plan. they'd be they'd be required to come back and with revised plans if that if there's an impact to the site design but yes the actual engineering design is not required at this stage sorry I just want to clarify that

no we know that that wasn't what I asked for but I asked for what you had asked what you said which was the basic understanding of your site right so the survey again understanding your site parameters how they relate to the adjacent properties. That's what we're looking. We're just looking at the high end of it. I don't need to see your calculations or an engineering study or your design analysis, but we need to understand the constraints of your site and how they relate to your adjacent property owners. That's what we're looking at. So, because we've had properties where they have to add a transformer and we [clears throat] so we look at that relation to where that transformer where you're proposing it. Is it in the middle of where a vehicle go? Is it where pedestrians are at? Like just it's adjacencies. Again, always around vehicular and pedestrian, how they're separated and the safety and the flow of your site. That's what we're looking for. So hopefully that helps. So with that, it it looks like we've got some things that we're looking to come back with. So with that, I'll entertain a motion if anybody wants to uh come up with a motion and what we're looking for.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to postpone making a decision this evening, giving the applicant an opportunity to adjust his drawings up to four meetings. I'll support a motion that was We have a motion by Rick, supported by Eric. Mr. Chair, before we vote, should I um should we outline each one of those or do you have everything? Yes. I was going to ask for the same. So I think it would be good to do that. Thank you. I think we should out I should outline all of the um required make that part of the motion adjustments is make it part of the motion. Everybody's on the same page with what uh

um first of all the first item that I would like to include in the motion is as Mr. car said a uh a full site plan drawing showing the property lines, showing the rear property line where the trees are at um so that we can decide whether or not a um more substantial buffer needs to be placed between your property and the um the um the adjacent property. Secondly, um revise the drawing to reflect the true size of the burm in the front of the building. because the drawings are incorrect on the um on the drawing. Uh thirdly, you um include on your site drawings the um the actual dimensions of the curb and gutter so we have an understanding as if it's 6 in, if it's 4 inch, what it is. Um, thirdly, I'm sorry, fourthly, is um we're going to need to see flow on uh on the site. How trucks are going to get in and out of here, how they're going to get in and out of the truck wells, uh pick up the dumpsters, making sure that if in fact there's a large vehicle, they have room to turn in your site. Um next is the um the building material on the front elevation which would be the south elevation of both buildings um needs to be updated. Um, was there anything else?

The uh the phototrics um update the phototric drawing to um include lighting in areas where there isn't any lighting. Um yeah, we just I just addressed that a drawing to address that. Is there anything else anybody else can anybody want to include? Oh, the ballards. Yes, include all your ballers. Ballard height as well as ballard color. And then lastly, a question that I didn't ask if you could include on your drawing where the uh the bike rack is going to be located. It is on the drawings. We have to add the detail to it.

I didn't see it. Scratch that. Um with that, I think um uh did we mention the parking blocks between the buildings? Do we is that also add what what your intention is for if you're going to be putting any kind of parking box up against the building to make sure that the building is um first of all allowing egress in and out of the door as well as um cars not hitting the building. I think I'm I'm complete Mr. Chair. Thank you.

So we have We have a motion by Rick uh Mel's with a list of of items looking to show up at the next meeting on the drawings and that was supported by Eric. Do we have continued support? Eric, continue. Yes. Thank you. Uh and we're going to postpone this up to four meetings. So, uh, with that, um, with that motion to postpone up to four meetings, uh, all in favor? I opposed. Motion carries.

Thank you. Thank you. One last thing. I think we should ask the applicant, would he be able to do it in four meetings with the uh, survey and the engineering because that usually takes two to four weeks. If actually a survey gets on uh, is is hired. They're two to four weeks out and by the time they do drawings, you know, that might be more than four meetings. We'll have it ready for the next meeting. Okay. Yeah. With the top boundary is already done. We've already got it done. It's that's Yeah, we it'll it's just turning the layer on the AutoCAD. We'll take care of it. We'll we'll make these corrections. Okay, great. Well, looking we're looking forward to seeing you at the next meeting then. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh next thing on the list is uh we're looking to uh discuss the data centers. Um and uh we had I brought it up at the last meeting that maybe we could form a committee. Um so if anybody wants to So what are you asking for presentation from this evening? Do you have a presentation? So, um, you're going to have something for the next meeting then. So, what we could do is if we're ready tonight is to see if there's four people. I guess, uh, Rich,

maybe we could do a next meeting when Rich is here because I think he might want to be interested. No, he's already on it. Yeah, I was just going to say he he's already put his hand up. So, if there's three other people I know he volunttoled me, so Okay. Yeah, it came up earlier. So the Oh, he volunteered you. Yeah, he volunteered me. Um, and I and for this committee, uh, four people I'm going to have to pass on this one. So, I'll do it. So, we got We might have to have a a a lottery. Um, why? So, we know we had Rich Brian.

Yeah. Marketer. What's wrong with that? Oh, we won Mr. L, too. Well, I don't know because uh Kathy wants it. So, we got more people than four uh looking to do it. She's a trustee. Bley isn't. She could be on. [snorts] Mr. Chair, my interest was because I'm the trustee, this will go to the full board and I think there's some things I can contribute related to that um that process I think would be helpful.

Okay. And if anybody read the Mcome Daily this past week, there's been a few articles and there's a couple other communities that are putting brakes on and doing a moratorum. So, I don't know what all is going to come out of this, but so this is um something for all of us to explore and and uh with the presentation and the committee, we'll figure it out. I mean, are we limited to four? Be six.

No, you can't can't have a quorum. So, out of nine, there can only be four people, just like in the other ones when we did the master plan and the building products and the other ones, the cannabis. Um, I was on all of those and we we only had four of us. So, um, we'll hold off uh and and pick the four people at the next meeting. We can do that. We'll do it now. You want to do it now? Yeah. I mean, it don't I mean, I can step aside. I'm fine. No, I I was just told Rich told me I had to be on it. I [laughter] And he's not here to say no. So, I guess his uh his motion stands.

Um well, we know we have Rich, so beyond that, uh we need three other people. If you need someone, I'm more than happy to. If there's too many people, I'll do it as well. Draw straws. It doesn't matter. But I'm happy to. So, we got Rich, Brian. Um, I think it's good for Kathy to be on there like you said that there's going to be a lot of information. This is a big deal uh for the community, you know, whatever we end up doing. So, you want to be on it then? Yeah. Good. Yes, please. I'm wondering if we wanted to appoint an alternate in case somebody can't attend the meeting. Is that um

We never have before. Usually the way the meetings were, they they were spread out enough that everybody coordinated and was able to make them. So we could to get around we'd have another subject matter expert, somebody interested. Yeah. In the w in the wings. Well, we we uh we need one more person as part of the the four. So we got Mark. All right. And then do you want to be an alternate in case I'm always willing to do whatever. Okay. I think M Yeah. Mr. That's what he's done. He's built them.

Yeah. The thing is with with Rick being on it is he's, you know, a lot more familiar with probably most of us. So, um, I mean, I've been on the other committees. We're going to have I'm sure that whatever's presented, we'll have conversation as a general group and I can put my two cents in then. Okay. I mean, but I I'm always willing to help. We got the four. We want to stick with the four we just picked. We got Rich, Brian, Kathy, and Mark's interested too. And I don't have I mean, why don't we wait? Why don't we just finalize it two weeks from now or in the next meeting, can we just find And maybe in the meantime, if anybody wants to talk to each other, we can do that. You have your list. Yeah, you have your list of interested people. Let's just wait till next week. TBD. At this point, we know who the four are

and then we'll just go from there. We'll tell Rich he's out. [laughter]

Yeah. No show. Sorry, should have came to the meeting. Um, okay. So, we can do that. We have planning commissioners comments if anybody has anything they want to add to this uh meeting. Left, right? Everybody's good. Mr. Chair, I mean, I did do quite a bit of um research on data centers. Um, if in fact does anybody wanna have anything to think about over the next few weeks or do you want to wait? I'd say we can wait then we can hear from Ava and then we can all just kind of jump into it uh from there.

Sure. So, appreciate it though. Um, well, with that, looks like we uh we're at the end of the meeting. So, I'm going to make a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:15. Second sport. Motion by Carl, supported by Mark. Motion to adjourn the meeting. Uh all in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. Good meeting. Thank you.