Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. We're going to start the September 1st Justice Field Township Planning Commission meeting. I'm going to call the meeting to order. If everyone could just please silence their phones to avoid any interruptions. Thank you. And with that, if everyone could stand for the pledge. All right, thank you. First, I'd like to welcome a few of our participants here this evening. We have Jill Baum and Ava Miller from Gifford Webster's, Robert Siebert, our township attorney, and Jonathan Palin, our township planner. Next, we're going to do the roll call. Kathy Vosburgh, Eric Heider, Alton James, Kevin Hustak, Rick LaBelle, Brian Carr, Rick Brokart, Mark Brunel, I am present and Carl Leonard is excused. All right. I would like to make a motion to approve the minutes of the prior meeting from August 18th, 2026 support. All right. All those in favor opposed motion passes. I'd like to make a motion to approve the agenda as presented. All right, all those in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Passes. All right, public comments. Does anyone from the public would like to come up and speak about anything they'd want? You'd have a three-minute time limit. Anyone? I'll take that as a no, and we'll move on. Okay, we have one public hearing this evening. I will make a motion to open the public hearing. Support. Support by Rick LaBelle. The public hearing is now open. Ava Miller from Giffords Webster will go ahead and give us a review.

All right, thank you. So the first review we'll be looking at today, we have a review dated from June 4th, 2026. This review is based on the site's old plans dated 5-15-26, which have since then been updated. The current plans we'll be discussing today and that are in your packet are from 7-21-26. So I'll address any updates and items since this review was written on, since there's a lot to cover, I'll be addressing the items that need more explanation and are more for the planning commission's consideration. Um, So this project proposes one 20,248 square foot industrial building. The proposed building will comprise of 4,579 square feet of office space and 15,669 square foot of shop space. And the site is currently 33.43 acres but is proposed to be split with 8.56 acres in the southwest corner planned for the currently proposed development. The Planning Commission is tasked with reviewing the plans and deciding whether the site meets all zoning ordinance standards and their intent is applicable and also find that all eight standards for special land use have been met to grant special land use approval for the site's outdoor storage. The proposed use, the applicant is proposing to use the site for logistics transportation services. Uh, the site is proposed to have a, um, industrial building with an office area shop and support area, uh, with 25 parking spaces and 123 semi trailer parking spaces, um, constituting an outdoor storage use a new asphalt access road from 25 mile road is proposed and the shop will provide general light maintenance and basic service as needed for the businesses, goods and equipment. Moving on to page three, the district standards are all compliant with the exception of the outdoor storage land use requiring special land use approval. Looking further down, instead of M1, it's actually M2, but the standards are the same. Not the same, but we use the M2 standards. Just mislabeled it accidentally. So we're gonna look at item D, the roof-mounted fixture screening. The appliances shall be enclosed on all sides by view obscuring screening, so as to not be visible from off the site, and the design of the screening shall be approved by the Planning Commission. Sheet A2 notes that all rooftop-mounted HVAC equipment will be screened by a building parapet and shows equipment on top of the office building on the east and west elevations so the planning commission may wish to discuss this design moving on to page four we'll look at f3 the ordinance requires a 20 foot wide green belt in front of the decorative fence in the front yard to screen the view of storage materials and activity the site plan calls out a six foot wide green belt the area between the plantings and the road is proposed to be grass So the planning commission may wish to discuss if this meets the intent of this requirement, the 20 foot green belt versus having the six foot wide green belt with the grass. Um, additionally, a part of the standard is to include, uh, an eight foot tall or eight foot tall plantings in the green belt currently proposed are plantings that are six feet tall. The evergreens that are six feet in height do meet the standards of the landscape section of the ordinance and will grow to exceed eight feet. Uh, and since, since this species will mature to be over, uh, the required height in this specific section, we believe the intent of this standard is met. And then we'll move on to the top of page five. We're going to kind of address all of the items on this page at once, starting with the first one regarding fencing. The Planning Commission shall determine if the proposed fences are acceptable. First, a six foot tall black galvanized chain link fencing with a metallic core wire is proposed along the side and rear lot lines. So these ones will be less visible to the public or from the road. Additionally, a six-foot-tall black decorative aluminum fence is proposed for the fences located more towards the road and near the building, so more visible. Additionally, the access gate is proposed on the west side of the building and is set back over 230 feet from the road and is proposed to have a privacy fabric screen with 80% opacity secured over the chain link fence. The Planning Commission should also determine if the proposed fences are compatible with the proposed building, which is currently proposed to have gray CMU blocks and bricks. Lastly, the Planning Commission may wish to discuss whether there is a need for additional screening and whether the height of the fence is sufficient at six feet high. According to the standards, a fence may not be less than four feet, six inches in height, but depending on land usage, it may be required to be eight feet in height. So right now they're at six, but if you see the need to increase it to eight, um, then there's that standard there for that. Uh, looking at the top of page six, the first row, uh, openings shall be screened with a metal framed wood screening gate. This is not compliant for both the rolling gate and the pedestrian gate. A rolling access gate is proposed across the access drive, the gate, is metal framed chain link with a black wire fabric and has the 80% opacity black privacy screen and the pedestrian swing gate is also proposed and made of a decorative black aluminum to match the fence line. The applicant noted that they are not proposing a wood screened gate in order for the gate to be operational for the electronic gate. We're going to look further down at the last row of the page now. If open storage is to park wheeled vehicles, then it shall be paved to parking lot standards or provided with a surface acceptable to the Planning Commission based on use. The open storage area is designated for parking for semi-trailers and is proposed to be surfaced with 10-inch 21AA aggregate. The planning commission shall decide if this is an adequate surface treatment for this specific use. And then moving on to page seven for building surface materials and alteration, the road facing south elevation of the office building is proposed to be mostly made out of brick and also has precolored split face CMU blocks on the top and bottom of the facade. This appears to be compliant with the updated building material standards as well as the masonry impact barrier standard, although it's hard to know for exact measurements, but this is something that can be looked at administratively. The remaining building elevations are proposed to have precolored CMU blocks, and the east elevation additionally has flush metal vertical panels on the canopy for the truck well. regarding the corner clearance, item B. The sign location and plant material have been adjusted to not be within the corner clearance triangle and is compliant. We'll look at E, tree preservation. The applicant has provided a tree removal permit application, including a tree survey. The tree survey indicates that the 10 highlighted trees are to remain as they are located outside of the project work scope parcel and that the other 110 trees are to be removed. Per the tree reservation requirements, 10% of the tree canopy must be preserved or replaced. And we reviewed the survey as provided, and the updated survey may be reviewed administratively. But with the 108 trees proposed to be removed as of right now, 11 new trees are required to be replaced. These trees as stated in Section 5.35 may not be double counted with screening trees, parking lot trees, or frontage trees. So the applicant will need to add these as additional trees. The applicant is still missing some of the items as listed in our last review, the one that we're currently looking at, such as the seal of an arborist or landscape architect, as well as the listed maps and photographs. We'll look now at item G, parking lot landscaping. Five parking lot trees are required and the applicant has proposed five two-inch caliper black pearl redwood trees at the south end of the parking lot. One may be placed within 10 feet of the edge of the lot while the other should be placed within the surface of the parking lot or in the curb islands at the end of the rows or between spaces. We note that if three-inch caliper trees are proposed, only three trees would be required as opposed to the five with a two-inch caliper. And then that there are two available islands at the end of the lot where two trees could go, and then the one could be within 10 feet of the lot. Looking now on page 8 at item I, lighting, a photometric plan has been provided and it is noted that all fixtures will be shielded and are dark sky friendly. We have 14 pole mounted lights mounted at a height of 25 feet and they're proposed at the edge of the site and along the entrance drive. Four pole-mounted lights at heights of 20 feet and 25 feet are proposed in the south parking lot and along the access drive. Lights are permitted to be a height of 25 feet or the height of the building, whichever is less, unless modified by the Planning Commission. The warehouse portion of the building is 24 feet 2 inches, and the office portion of the building is 18 feet tall and 2 inches tall. And so based on the height of the warehouse, the Planning Commission shall determine if the additional 10 inches in height is allowable for the lights mounted at 25 feet. The Planning Commission may modify the height limits in industrial districts based on the position and height of the buildings, other structures and trees on the site, potential off-site impacts of the lighting, and the character of the proposed use relative to the surrounding area. And then we'll move on to item J, off-street parking. Between the industrial use and office use, 52 total parking spaces are required. The applicant is proposing to add 25 parking spaces which is 28 less than what is required. 28 parking spaces are then proposed to be land bank to the east of the parking lot for this deficiency. The land bank parking must also meet the requirements of the ordinance. The spaces to the north are noted as 17.5 feet long, when the minimum allowed would be 18 feet with adequate overhang. It appears that there is enough space for this and should just be updated. The Planning Commission must determine that the applicant has submitted substantial evidence showing that the parking needs of the occupant will be less than what would be required by the ordinance. Additionally, it is noted that there may be an office expansion in the future that will be under separate permit review and approval and should not be considered at this point. We'll move on to page 9, item M, the bollards. There are 55 total bollards proposed for this site that are located around the building and fencing in the rear and interior side yards. They are proposed to be PVC-covered concrete-filled steel pipes, 4 feet tall and powder-coated safety yellow with a painted factory finish. The Planning Commission may wish to consider if the bollard color needs to be changed to be an earth tone or if the proposed safety yellow is warranted considering the use of this site. Additionally, the applicant shall note that the bollards are located at least three and a half feet from any walls or similar barriers such as fences. And then that will conclude my review. But, of course, if there are any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

All right. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Come on up.

Mr. Chair, just real quick. There was a motion by Mr. Renaud in support of Mr. LaBelle to open the public hearing, but there was no vote on it. So can you please do that?

Apologies real quick. All those in favor of opening?

Aye.

Opposed? Okay. It's official. Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Ron Chiesa from RA Chiesa Architects. We are the architects for the project. As it was explained through the review, you got the gist of the project. I do want to make a few corrections just so it's clear for this board. We have a six-foot decorative fence across the south side of the property, which is like what you would see at someone's pool. and that's per year ordinance and we have arborvitaes in front of that to provide screening on the west side of the building. There was mention regarding the 20-foot greenbelt area. So we do have grass that we have screening provided by the arborvitaes in front of the decorative fence. So I do want to make that clear. fencing would be six foot high and galvanized fencing in the rear of the property, which is not, it would not be the black coated. And that's something that you typically see throughout the whole community at all of your industrial subdivisions. Everyone's got the galvanized fencing, which is the silver color fencing that typically goes around the rears of their property. We have no screening back there because of the nature of the business. I do want to clarify regarding the gate. We have proposed a black steel gate with a fabric coating on it because it's a motorized gate. So if we were to put wood on there, that's heavier. We don't even like to use wood. Our dumpster, we have called out composite material, so that will last longer. Wood, I hate. It just cracks, peels, doesn't look good after a while. But our gate, the operational gate, is over 200 feet back from the road. You're really not going to see anything other than a black mass. And then the pedestrian gate that is adjacent to it, we didn't want to switch that to a Galvanized frame with wood slats on it when it's in line with the already aluminum six-foot-high decorative fence So we kept that fence the same material that fence is also perpendicular to the road So again, it's not going to be visible to the road and it again is set back 225 feet back I do want to clarify and talk quickly about the five trees and We have a relatively small parking lot in front of the building, so if we were to put in the islands to house these trees, we'd end up having spaces that are split about 40 feet apart. Obviously, to plow that would be somewhat cumbersome, So we felt that we're meeting the spirit of the ordinance with the five trees at screening from the road. So you're not going to see any asphalt. Again, it's a relatively small site. Um, it was spoken about switching to three inch caliber trees would decrease the tree count. If anyone's done any projects and tried to find three inch caliber trees, it's very difficult. So sometimes it's even difficult to get an inch and a half and two inch caliber trees. So we'd prefer to stay with five trees as we've got them spaced out. And then with our banks parking, we can continue that line or we can look at that point in time of doing something with islands to create some, some planting inside that. Um, Again, we've designated the parking spaces as land banked. Anyone that has an industrial building ownership of one would probably understand that when you're looking at ordinance requirements for parking based on the size of the buildings, that it's way more spaces than what you actually need based on staff. We've done buildings that have 80 and 100,000 square feet shops, and they've got 12 to 20 people working on them based on automation and just based on how things are today. So my clients here, they can address the fact that 24 parking spaces is more than enough, 12 in the shop, 12 in the office. We have 25 provided. To touch base on the ballards, Our bollards, again, are in the back. They're safety bollards, so drivers don't hit the building when they come in. So we'd prefer to leave them yellow. There was reference to keeping the bollards three and a half feet away from the building. For safety reasons, you want them closer than that, because if they're too far, a truck at an angle will hit the building still. There's no requirement in the code for keeping three and a half feet between a bollard and anything. This is not meant for pedestrian and we have access around the bollard so the pedestrian activity is not restricted in any way shape or form. So we'd like this commission's approval on leaving them yellow versus something that's more muted. The color of the building and the materials are what you see on your screens. We've got a couple different shades of gray. All of our block on the building is precolored. Even the block in the back, even though the building is so far back from the road, the sides of the building are all precolored. There is no painting. We go from decorative block transitioning into standard block after we've made a decent return. And I worked with the staff regarding how far to bring that return back on that plant material. So as far as our rooftop units, they will be screened from the parapets that's on the front office building. There are no units up on the shop so that we don't have to worry about screening there. So everything is screened based on our existing building design and our heights. Galvanized fencing, I touched. That's in one of your items for discussion. We don't feel we need any other screening. We've got a lot of screening on the project. The building is set back from the road. or proposed paving for the back being 21 double a stone is very typical with what's throughout the community for businesses that have similar activity like this. So that is, uh, what we would like to see go on this project. We've provided the, um, plants show that a fire truck can circulate through the site. They can turn around, they've got a hammer head so that they can turn around in the front parking area. So everything's accessible per code. AND ANY REASONS THAT THERE WOULD BE AN EMERGENCY. TALKING BRIEFLY ABOUT THE LIGHTS, SO YOUR ORDINANCE ALLOWS 25-FOOT HIGH LIGHT POLES. OUR BUILDING IS 24-2. We'd rather see the lights stay at 25 feet on those poles versus going down to 24. 25 feet is still low, but you guys are better than a lot of communities because they cut us off at 20 and we did a project last year and it was 15 feet. But you just have more lights. So it's one thing or the other. There's a mention in part of our reviews about a taper along 25 Mile. Obviously, 25 Mile at this point is all gravel. So if we get approval from this board, obviously, we'll meet with the county and discuss that. And that might be a deferment. It's kind of hard to put a tapered lane in when you have a gravel road at this point. There's not official grading and whatnot. And no one else in the area has that. So with that being said, I will answer any questions you have.

Okay, first, does anyone from the general public want to speak on behalf of this? Any questions? Okay, I didn't think so, but I had to ask. All right, I will make a motion to close the public hearing and bring it back to the board here. All right, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? All right, we'll bring it back to the board here. Ms. Vosburgh?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for being here in the project. Sounds very interesting and happy to see businesses interested in joining us. I have a question more about operations. We'll let some of the other ones ask more of the technical questions. What type of, will the trailers be loaded and or unloaded at your site?

Dan, would you like to address that? Sure. There'll be a little bit of both, but I will let Dan, Dan is the owner, I will let him explain that for you.

Good afternoon, first of all, everyone. Yes, so we are planning to have a dock where we could unload freight, store it for a short time, and then ship it out again.

that would be redistributed perhaps to a different trailer?

Yes, so we do international shipping, and there are going to be trucks that are coming from over-the-road, long-distance shipments, and they're getting delivered into Canada, into Ontario, whether it's Windsor or Toronto or London, and we will transfer the freight then at our facility and ship it on the Canadian trucks.

Speaking of that, do you have any... plan or thought of actually using the tracks at all?

Not at this time.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Heider? So you're storing semi-trailers and trucks in the back for the storage, so you're not proposing any type of screening on the northwest and east side in the back of the storage facility?

No, there's no required in your ordinance. It's only required from the front of the street view.

And it's going to be 21 AA? Yes. Jonathan, do we have an ordinance on storage in the back for hard surface, or would this be a determination of us as a board?

So it is a determination of the Planning Commission. What the ordinance says is... Open storage areas shall be hard surface with gravel or other suitable approved material and drain to meet Township engineering requirements if open storage is to park wheeled vehicles Then it shall be paved to parking lot standards or provided with a service acceptable to the Planning Commission based on use The city engineer on

I have, and he's in favor of what we've proposed. Okay. And just as you probably are aware, the exact same business is right across the street and they're on stone. And obviously there's no improvements per what we have to do on our project since we're new. But it's prevalent throughout and all your salvage yards, everything, landscape yards, everybody's got the gravel.

All right. Thank you. Mr. James.

Nothing major. You mentioned the arborvitaes that are going to be in front of the fence. I'm trying to remember which side. You said that was on the east and west sides?

The west side, that side is closest to the road, but it's still like 188 feet, I believe, from the road. The other side is set back deeper. Okay, but the fence is at six feet in terms of height.

Is there a planned cap for how tall the arborvitaes will be once they're...

The arborvitaes we have specced are a slower growing, so they're controllable. They're not going to shoot up to 25 feet and look hideous. So they're more controllable, but they will grow taller. I've got some that I put in my yard, and they start out at 6 feet, and they're now 12 feet. Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Brokard.

I just want to make sure I understand. First off, thank you for coming in today. I think you've done a really good job. on a pretty complex issue here. So I appreciate the care that you put into that. I just want to make sure the one thing that is kind of a, a nook in my craw here is that the road commission wants a lane set aside. You'd be willing to meet with the road commission and come, come to an agreement with them for, uh, what do they call that? A, a taper lane.

We've made it known that with approval from this board, we will meet with them to discuss that with them. We do that on every project because whether it's a diesel lane acceleration, moving of the approach a little bit to line up with something else. So, um, we obviously have not met with them because we don't have an official project, but that's something that we've made known. I've told Jonathan that, and we have it in writing and our documents back to the community.

So you've seen the November 14th letter from them and you're willing to meet with them with the approval of this commission.

Yes.

Thank you.

Mr. Houston.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You did a really nice job explaining everything. Thank you. The main points that I kind of was concerned about have kind of been covered. I understand the safety bollards and the yellow like that makes sense to me from us, especially in there being in the rear and from a safety perspective. My only. don't even say it was a hang-up was just looking at the fence and like the proposed alternate of the fabric just knowing that sometimes those things can get tattered and torn like going from the wood i understand it's a weight issue um i just worry about that fabric screening kind of and that's only at the the 30 feet of the movable gate it's nowhere else and it's not a major concern it just you know if it's something that might get weathered especially in michigan

It shouldn't. It's using a lot of baseball fields as the screen on the outfield fencing, which we've done. We did Brother Rice's field, and that's what we put out there. So it should last. And again, I'm sure my client, he doesn't want anything. After the way this project looks, he doesn't want something that's going to look shabby at the entry.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

uh yeah just a few questions um the uh the 21 double a uh it is a good surface for compaction purposes my only question is is um how much truck traffic are you going to typically have just for dust control in regards to summer months when it's really dry and you know with the fines and all that gets loose i'm just how much truck traffic do you have are those things gonna be reeling in and out of there all the time

Well, obviously, Dan's going to want as much activity as possible. That makes his business successful. And by the way, I didn't mention, but he does have an existing facility in Clinton Township as well as in Texas. So this is not a new startup. They are established in this. Obviously, with anything just like the roads, you know, if it's extremely dry... you're going to have to deal with that. Thankfully, this is really in the back 40. It's heavily treed that adjacent to this. Dan owns 32, the 32 and a half acres. We would be splitting off a little over eight acres for this project. And then the rest will be developed differently at a later point. But dust control measures would be just whatever is necessary. I'm sure if it was a problem years ordinance zoning ordinance official would be out there, you know, giving them notes that they need to take care of that. But no different than the road in front of the site.

Yeah, no, I'm aware we've allowed outdoor facilities with the gravel, but we haven't allowed it usually with the 21 double a cause of the fines. But that's why I'm just asking again how much traffic that they have. I mean we have allowed gravel services in the past. It's just, um, It's the fines that create a lot of the dust. So just was trying to understand that. And then on your drawings you say sod versus seed. Why the option? Is it sod?

We typically go with sod on all of our projects, but depending on the time of the year and the development, sometimes you have to do seed. So both of them are allowed. I prefer sod for the instant gratification, but sometimes you have to use seed.

Yeah, so sod versus seed and then irrigation system. Is the irrigation in or out?

Irrigation always has to be provided.

Okay.

With either.

clarify and that is noted on our landscape plan notes well that was why I was confused because your notes not clear on your drawings so it's not no and I was trying not to pick on you too much I'm trying to turn a new leaf and be nicer so I'm just pointing these out because it might be something you want to look at And then just to answer the Gifford Webster's questions, I concur with the bollards. These are for safety reasons, so they should be yellow. So as long as they're pre-finished, like you say they're going to be, I would say that's acceptable. The chain link fence in the back, I personally don't have an issue with it. We've allowed that in the past. So from my perspective, I didn't see an issue with that. The lighting, I think, should match the building height, but I could be persuaded by the rest of my team here. I understand it's easy to just put it at 25, but it's also easy to put it at 24, too, which it does comply with our ordinance. And then the last thing I wanted to mention was just the sidewalk. I know the sidewalk says future, and I do understand that this currently right now is not Um, you know, there's not like there's residential in the area, but I, for one, uh, that's been on the board for a long time, you know, uh, and for us that have been in the community for 25, 30 years, you know, we do have a, you know, a big push to, for pathways and sidewalks. So I never liked banking them or pushing them to the future. Um, I'm a proponent of you're building it. So put the sidewalk in. So that's just notes to my fellow, uh,

board members uh i think the sidewalk should always be put in when possible other than that that's everything i have the only problem is if i can address that is we have a sidewalk to nowhere and by the time there is some connections on that sidewalk probably is in need of replacement and the note that we have is typical in all communities which typically will will let that pass until it the future right away comes through. And that's also through my conversations with Jonathan. This is what we worked out. So that's based on our conversations also.

And, and the sidewalk to no way was an excuse that everyone's used in the past, which is why we have a lot of areas that now need to be filled in. So again, I mean, you know, I'm just sharing my opinions to the fellow board members, but I think that the sidewalk, if, If the county comes back and says they need to do something with the right-of-way at a minimum, then definitely the sidewalk should be put in if they're doing something with the roadway. But I would say maybe if at a minimum we tie it to the county right-of-way and road modifications, if that comes through, then I think the sidewalk maybe would be required at that time.

Usually what happens is everyone is typically walking along the gravel shoulder when you have sites like this. So when the site, the new sidewalk is set back another 30 feet or so, they're never going to just walk across the grass and go to the sidewalk. So that's why most communities just allow a deferment.

Mr. Chair, we do have a deferral ordinance for sidewalks. As this site currently sits, it would qualify for the deferral. So that's something that could be worked through during engineering. If the road is improved or there's other criteria that isn't met, then at that time it would be required. But as of right now, it would require for that deferral. And we do have an application and agreement that the applicant can go through during the engineering process.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to start off my questions, you talked about arborvitaes for screening. It's a very rural area, a lot of deer. The type of arborvitae that you're proposing most likely will be eaten. The reason I know this is because I've experienced it.

We have not with this particular species, thankfully, on other projects. And I know what you're talking about because

my office building they eat the tent shoes every year so just be aware of that keep that in mind when you're coming down to your your final plans if you would go over the twenty foot greenbelt uh... situation again in the front of the building where where where we stand with that because i know that you're proposing one thing our ordinance requires something else what what's going on there yeah the way i take your ordinance is that you have to have a greenbelt of twenty feet in front of the fence area we've got well

beyond that because we're set so far back and your ordinance also states a six foot high fence and screening. So we've provided the six foot high decorative fence. We originally had a black, uh, coded chain link fence and after our preliminary meeting with Jonathan, then we changed it to the decorative fencing that you would see around a pool. The pool ones are typically only four and a half feet high. This fence obviously being six feet high. And they're very luxurious looking. So in front of that we have a six foot planting bed that will have the arborvitaes, but then we've got probably 60 feet of grass. So we have more than a 20 foot green belt per se.

If Giffels Webster could just remind me here, what is the zoning surrounding the site?

I can address that if you'd like. It's M two across the street on the south side. It's M two to the east on the other side of the railroad tracks. It's that parcel is M one and then it gets back into M two surrounding that. So it's all, we know that site very well. I heard you do.

Okay. So there's no need for a berm that I don't think out in front of the building. Um, fence material, building materials. Personally, I don't have a problem with the building materials. It's, it's, um, it's consistent with what is in the area. We appreciate you using the colored, the colored masonry. Um, the tree quantities. There, I can hear a little bit of a pushback on the amount of the quantity of trees. There's no place else to fit these extra trees in on the site. And I understand that, and we'll get to the land banking in a minute for the, for the parking. But, um, there is an outline of where you're thinking that additional parking will be in the future. What is stopping you from planting those trees now?

Well, we certainly can. If we're short 11 trees based on the percentage, We certainly work with staff on meeting that requirement. We're meeting the requirements of everything for frontage as well as the parking lot. The only difference with the five at the parking lot is we have them in front as a screen in front of the building. They're a little bit lower tree, so they don't grow a monster. They're not shade trees. So they end up typically looking a little bit nicer. But we do not have a problem with adding the 11.

That can be dealt with administratively.

Yeah, we have no issue with that.

The light pole heights, I lived this dream my whole life. I'm an electrician. 25 feet, I understand your quandary. In order to get your photometrics, to get your projection, you don't want pole lights in the middle of this parking lot when you've got drivers moving around. You want them away from the parking lot. You want light in the parking lot. Personally, I don't have a problem with 25-foot trees. Land bank parking, we've done that quite often, and I agree with that scenario. Just as you had mentioned, we've got buildings with an extreme amount of parking and they just don't have that many employees. So I do agree with that. Um, the bollard color problem with that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right. Thank you. And because as usual, the board has answered all my questions, so I'm good there. Um, with that, uh, we would entertain a motion if anyone has one.

I'd like to make a motion, Mr. Chairman. regarding DM International LLC site plan 2025-11, special land use M2 on 33.43 acres, located on the north side of 25 Mile Road west of Gratiot Avenue. The address is 29229 25 Mile Road. It's parcel ID number 150904300005. I moved to grant the applicant's request for special land use at this location with a single caveat based on the following. I'm going to use some reference data here. The first reference is the Giffels-Webster report dated June 4th. The RA, I'm not sure I'm going to say this right, Chiesa?

Chiesa.

Chiesa. Architects report dated June 26th. We have subject responses from Chesterfield Township Fire Department, Chesterfield Township Police Traffic Unit, the Macomb County Department of Roads, the Macomb County Public Works Office, Selfridge Air National Guard Base, and our Chesterfield Township Master Plan. There are eight standards for special land use required and related to this motion. My findings include, number one, The proposed land use in the general manufacturing M2 district is in harmony with surrounding areas, all industrial. Number two, public safety and health are unaffected by this proposed development. There have been no concerns voiced by either the Chesterfield Township Fire Department or Police Traffic Unit. Number three, traffic impact is of no concern as noted by the Chesterfield Township Police Traffic Safety Unit email dated November 20th, 2025. Number four, the appearance and nature of the proposed development does not impede nor discourage normal development of adjacent properties. Thus, visual impact and compatibility requirement is met. Number five, the development is deemed needed and convenient for the public at this location. Number six, environmental and noise protections such as excessive noise, dust, odor, smoke, or glare related issues have been adequately addressed by the applicant. I thank you for that. Number seven, the proposed development conforms with our master plan, specifically with master plan goal number two stated as follows, and I'll quote the master plan here. promote steady orderly development that will result in a balanced land use and diverse tax base in the community while supporting the local economy and workforce. End quote. Last and number eight services and infrastructure are compliant with the township obligations as long as, and this is the caveat I talked about earlier, long as the applicant meets with and adheres to the declaration and taper lane requirements voiced by the Macomb County Department of roads letter dated November 14th of 2025 for the reason stated and with the applicants acceptance of my cop caveat as stated I move that we approve the applicants request for special land use at this site I'll support

We have a motion and we have support. All those in favor? Yes.

A question first. Rich, are you saying it must be the caveat with the Department of Roads, it must be what is in our documents that we have or that they reach an agreement with the Department of Roads?

I would ask them to reach an agreement with the Department of Roads. Thank you.

It could be in or it could be out based on our discussions.

Yeah, you guys have to figure that out. Right. If you guys say it's good, it's good. If you guys say or you can't come to an agreement, then it's not good. You need to come to an agreement with those guys.

Yeah, we need to convince them. Otherwise, we have to do what they say.

Correct. All good? All right. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed?

All right. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Congratulations.

Okay, we will move on to our regular agenda items. Ava, would you like to introduce the North Bay Lots 1920?

All right. So we're going to look at item eight, eight of the irregular agenda, North bay lots, 19 and 20 site plan number 20, 26 dash zero eight. Uh, the site is zoned. Um, one, it is 2.5, six, seven acres North of Gratia avenue in the North bay industrial park parcel ID Number 150904201011. Address is 56461 Precision Drive. We are going to look at the Giffords Webster Review Letter dated August 11, 2026. The project proposes one 23,040 square foot industrial building. The proposed building will comprise of 3,000 square feet of office space and 20,040 square feet of shop space. The Planning Commission is tasked with reviewing the plans and deciding as to whether the site needs all zoning ordinance standards and their intent as applicable. Moving down to page two, the site is located north of Gratiot Avenue in the North Bay Park for industry on Precision Drive and is vacant. The site is surrounded by parcel zoned M1 light manufacturing. The proposed use for the site is for industrial and does not currently have a user. Access is proposed off of Precision Drive through one driveway leading into the site. The M-1 light manufacturing district standards are all compliant. We'll move down to page three. I will note for the M-1 district and additional standards, item F, if the applicant can note their compliance with these regulations and limitations on uses on their plans. And then moving down to site standards, item A, building surface materials and alteration. The road facing east side of the building has an office that is predominantly brick, but also has cast stone veneer as an accent and pre-finished metal coping. The four inch brick veneer is manufactured by Glengarry in the color beige gray, which is compliant. The main part of the building is also visible from the road and has an insulated metal paneling on more than half of the facade. The insulated metal panels are manufactured by Kingspan in the color driftwood and no other specifications have been provided for this material yet. An 8-inch thick CMU impact barrier is also provided on all facades except the south facade, which is composed almost entirely of 12-inch thick CMU blocks. Both CMU options are manufactured by Grand Blanc Cement Products and are noted to be painted beige. No materials that are painted or require painting shall be permitted on any elevation of any building in any zoning district. The applicant shall remove any painted materials in addition to the impact barrier. The rest of the north and west facades comprise of the insulated metal panels previously stated. The minimum area of brick required on each facade is 75% if it faces the road and 25% if it does not face the road. The applicant noted in their response letter and on the plans that their current percentages presented on the road facing facade are 53% metal panels and 47% masonry and glazing. Additionally, the other facades do not have any brick. The impact barrier provided is made of CMU blocks. AND THEN WE SAID WHICH ARE NOT CONSIDERED BRICK. THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE THE ROAD-FACING FACADE WITH AT LEAST 75% BRICK AND THE NON-ROAD-FACING FACADE WITH AT LEAST 25% BRICK. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM I NOW, LOOKING AT LIGHTING. At the end of the paragraph there, we touch on the uniformity ratio, which must not exceed 4 to 1. The entrance road is slightly higher than this at around a 5 to 1 ratio due to the lower illumination, which should be addressed. Moving on to item J, off-street parking. Between the industrial and office uses, a total of 55 parking spaces are required. The applicant is proposing to add 57 total spaces to over the requirement, so the Planning Commission may wish to discuss whether the additional parking is necessary. Next, we'll move on to pedestrian circulation, item N. A five-foot-wide sidewalk is proposed along Precision Drive, and a sidewalk is provided along the entrance line of the building in the parking lot. It does not appear that any crosswalks are provided. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss further pedestrian safety opportunities. Item O, bollards. It appears that two four foot tall bollards are proposed at the north side of the building, protecting the unloading and loading garage, and two additional ones are provided within the dumpster enclosure. A detail of the bollards is provided on sheet LP2 and is noted to be a concrete-filled pipe that is safety yellow color. So the Planning Commission may wish to discuss again whether the coloring of the bollards to be yellow is warranted for additional attention or awareness for this area. And then that will conclude my review. And if there are any questions, please feel free to ask.

All right. Is the applicant here? Come on up.

Good evening, Maria D'Agostini-Lukasavage from D'Agostini Companies. We're located at 38700 Van Dyke Avenue, Suite 200, Sterling Heights, Michigan. We're here to present North Bay Lot 19 and 20. Oh, there you go. Before we get into the details of the building, I wanted to reintroduce ourselves to the community. We have developed here in Chesterfield before. We did the Sugarbush Farms development, gosh, back in the late 90s, early 2000s. And then we also did the Admiral's Cove development, condo development at 21 and Gratiot. D'Agostini Companies, we do land development, general contracting, and property management, mostly for our own portfolio. My father has started our family's business in 1972. We've been developing in southeastern Michigan over a few million square feet in his career. We're fully integrated, and we offer turnkey solutions from land development, design engineering, and construction. Moving on, our objective is to partner with the communities that we do business in, provide functional, versatile spaces that provide optimal efficiency for industrial users, large bays, clear ceiling heights, ESFR fire suppression, to give maximum versatility for our buildings. and our users. Um, these buildings are speculative buildings. We do not have an end user in mind. Um, some of our concerns with the site as proposed is, is largely due to that to, uh, package protect for the versatility of the building. Um, the the carrying costs and maintenance of the buildings as well So if you're not familiar with North Bay Industrial Park, it's southwest of 26 mile Road and Gratiot Avenue we own the remaining parcels in the development The one we're speaking of tonight is in this Uh, you could see it that vacant parcel that's just after the bend in the road. Um, and it is, if you move on to the next slide and zoom in a little bit, it's, uh, the rear yard has a drain and the railroad tracks. Um, and then there's, uh, buildings developed on each side of it as well. Um, if you want to move back to that slide that you were at, uh, I think it's important. So when we get to the site plan, you're going to see that the South wall of our building, it sits five feet off the property line as such. It needs to be a three hour rated wall, um, with a very specific type of block. Um, and it's, it's, going to be approximately 25 feet, I believe from that building to the south. So, uh, some of the concerns with the facade requirements is due to, to building code requirements and the, the hour rating of that block wall. Um, moving on the, uh, North Bay industrial park. We've owned these, uh, lots in the park since early two thousands. Um, today we're seeking to develop lots 19 and 20. And then our intention is also to come before your commission for lot 12 and 13. Uh, but that's not on the agenda today. Um, both lots are tucked back in the, uh, subdivision, if you want to go to that aerial view. This is a well-developed park. The remaining lots are ours. And most of these buildings were built in the early 2000s. if you the the subject parcel is that vacant piece of land that's in the forefront of the photo that backs up along the the railroad tracks this is important uh with some of our contentions with the facade requirements the back of this lot is going to back up against a drain and a railroad track so I think it's important to have some flexibility in your ordinances and not require facade requirements that no one will ever see. Moving on to the next slide. Next slide, please. So if you could back up for a moment. So these are two buildings that are right on Precision Drive. The Impostato building, although it meets the masonry requirement on the front facade, it's just a split-face building. I believe it's Flagler building that's immediate adjacent to us. As you can see, it's an older facility as well. And although it's beautifully maintained, neither that building does not meet the requirements of your current ordinance, nor does any other building in the in the park. Um, this slide is demonstrates what, uh, the fit and finish of the proposed building would look like. You see the metal panels on the upper portion of the shop, the metal panels to also help us achieve our energy envelope that we're required to meet for the building code. Um, it's a, it's a more efficient method of construction to meet the energy code. Another thing I want to point out, the 25, percent requirement of brick on the perimeter of the non-street fronting sides poses some challenges. So when you do brick, the cross section of the walls, especially for a shop industrial space, impact on the inside is just important enough. impact on the outside there's high lows that crash way more often on the inside of the building than on the outside so when you do brick you have to either do a framed wall with sheathing and brick or you're building a black wall and then you're doing some decorative Brick masonry on on the outside as well so it does pose some challenges and it just additional costs that you know market rates in in this subdivision don't really warrant so Beginning with the end in mind our intent is to build a speculative building that we can actually rent out for you know a market a market price So that's important when we spec these buildings and go at risk in these developments. This is a building that we actually built on precision drive. It's very much what we're proposing for the building that's presented here today. This building is... at 56201 Precision Drive. Again, it has insulated metal panels on the upper portions of the shop, smooth-faced CMU on the lower portions, which offers maximum versatility. Oftentimes, we'll get a user that wants to poke through a vent, add a door, fill up an overhead door. So to not be able to have materials readily available and have to go order a special order of brick or some other type of materials, dyed black, that you know, over the passage of time, die lots don't match, lead times, availability, there's all sorts of things. So having that maximum versatility, especially on the shop massing of the building, where you can get CMU, fill it, modify it, open it up, paint it, it's very important for speculative building type uses to allow maximum versatility. It's at South Property. Again, just demonstrating the site. This is a link if you want to click on that link. That'll open up the plans. Oh, maybe not. I think you guys all have all the plans. Again, we feel confident we can meet every request that Gibble Webster has opined on in the review. Our biggest contention is wanting that flexibility with the facades for both insulative value, versatility, and be able to modify and change these buildings as the users change.

Next slide.

Well, that's your beginning.

It's where I'm going when this job is over. So Cherry Creek Industrial Park. I don't know if any of you are familiar with Shelby Township, the industrial park that fronts M53 between 23 and 24 mile is one of our developments. You'll see a common theme here. The CMU walls, the smooth face CMU walls with the insulated metal panels up top. And then we always try to provide, you know, the front office facade have brick with stone and metal canopy details. We try to have architectural features on our front facades. If you scroll through, these are some of our developments. Buildings that we've done. that just kind of demonstrates the quality of work that we do. We're not trying to skip corners, but we do need, you know, we plan to have versatile, easily maintainable buildings for the users and as tenants turn over. And I believe that's a conclusion of the presentation.

All right. We'll bring it back up to the board here. Kathy, do you have any questions? Eric?

All right. Well, let's start with the building itself. You know, the 50% front facade that you're trying to achieve with just the brick of the office and then the, you know, the spec area of the warehouse, the facade, you can change the that area to meet the brick requirement? Or instead of using a smooth CMU that was painted out, which we don't allow, you can use a split face that's precolored. Are you willing to do that? And also to meet the requirements for that.

So the owner is receptive to the front facade of the building. being more, I'll say, willing to comply with the curb. Our major contention is the 25% around the perimeter portions of the building and not being able to paint the perimeters of the shop portions.

Well, you can meet that with split face.

Split faced, so smooth face is optimal. And the reason why is when you're attaching fixtures, penetrating the buildings for HVAC equipment and other things, split face does not provide you that smooth finish. Also, too, a color-embedded split face, With modifications and tenant turnover, you're never going to get it to match. It's a special order material, timing. There's certain considerations that we try to avoid to allow for optimal versatility in these facilities because they are spec buildings and they have no end user. Understand that but still you can still achieve that 25% on You can certainly achieve it but the you know back building the goal is to You know build buildings that have a return on investment and fit within the market ends so this particular development does not warrant some of the architectural details that are included. The project simply doesn't pencil out.

Some of the pictures that you showed in the Shelby Township does have all brick on the front facade like you showed. and met the requirements. So you're not willing to change the sides.

So a lot of those buildings that showed brick on the entire front facades, those were two story buildings. If you looked at the one story office with the two, I'll say the higher shop bays, those hall had insulin, excuse me, insulated metal panels on the front. And that's what's happening here in this building. The front office is all brick, but it's only a single story where that high bay shop area has insulated metal panel. If you want to go back to that.

I understand. I understand that also, but, uh, uh, but, but you're willing to do like a split face in the front or a brick facade front to meet the 75% at least.

So the owner did express that, you know, for the, for the front of the building, um, you know, he'd be, he'd be, more inclined to dress up the front. But again, his intention is to have all the shop portions of that building in the high bay areas, be the insulated metal panel with the smooth face CMU on the lower portions. We could do the split face block on the portions of the building that are, can you go to the elevation of the, on the site plan? There is a, yep. So on the front elevation, I'll say on the wing walls that are below, if you go up, So where he's showing the CMUs to the right and to the left of the office portion of the building, he'd be inclined to make those the brick. We use the utility brick in most of our buildings. But for the perimeters and around the office,

Okay, and are you willing to change the dumpster enclosure locations of the embossed concrete wall to a brick or something that matches the building? Certainly we'd match the building, yes. Second thing is, since it's still a spec building, I'm concerned about your truck pathway for semis going, especially turning to kind of the north of Precision Drive on the turn radius. Can you or the engineer provide a truck safety plan or a circulation plan to see if that works? Because that looks like that radius goes off the road. So I believe the radius to the... Yeah, your semi is going from one way because the angle of the approach in the driveway going into the docking bay in the back... you know, leads to possibly going out. And if you turn left, that turn radius and that angle seems a little tight for a larger semi.

So there's two trucks that he's demonstrating there. One's coming and making a right-hand turn in, the truck that's also further into the site, and then the left-hand truck. So both of them show that it can make the turn, But I could try to have them clarify that on the plan.

I would like to see a separate plan for radius on trucks and then the size of what semi is going to be in there if it's a standard 35-45 long semi.

I can, does it identify what the truck size is on there?

I can have them clarify what they're using in their turn studies. Yes, please.

That is it for right now, thank you.

Mr. Olsen? Nothing to me right now. Mr. Brokart?

I'm okay for now, thank you.

I'm okay for the moment too. Eric did a good job covering a few of the items. So I was happy to hear about the dumpster enclosure because that is a requirement that we matched the building material So so obviously on a revised plan. We'll like to see that The are there lights in the truck well I didn't see any other photometrics for any lighting in the truck well area just typically there's like lights and so I was just curious if You were adding lights to the truck will I?

Yeah, so we usually put a wall pack in the truck well. On this truck well, because it's a single bay, I would be inclined to put it on the long wall of the truck well, but we certainly will have it illuminated.

Okay, yeah, I mean only because I didn't see it on the photometric, so I didn't know if that was a different type of light fixture or something, and obviously it would project out, so. That was one of my questions was the truck well. There's no utility plans, so I couldn't tell the stormwater management or where all the utilities were coming into your building. Because typically we would get a utility plan of some type. So what is the, so I assume there's, I'm assuming all the utilities are at the street in this location and you're tying it to an existing storm at the street, a sanitary at the street.

Yeah, there is sanitary and storm available at the street.

I believe the... Yeah, just because stormwater management is one of the things we look at because the majority of your site now is going to be impervious, right? And so we typically would like to see just where... the stormwater and how it's being managed. And then we usually like to see the utilities, where they're coming in at, you know, like do you have to have a transformer, where that's going to be on the site, does it have to be protected, are there bollards around it, you know, just the basics so we can understand how the site is set up.

Yeah, so if you go to sheet... The ring.

Yeah, I'm on that sheet.

There are. Yeah. Show the water. I apologize.

Well, no, you're okay. So here's the biggest thing. If you could just take notes because you're going to have to make revisions anyways and probably come back with updated plans. So it's okay not to answer. I'm just kind of going through my comments, and you can kind of think through it. The other thing that I wanted to cover is the building materials. Okay. so I totally understand, you know, the sensitivity around, uh, you know, return on investments and all that stuff. Unfortunately, that's not something that we take into account in regards to our ordinances because that's not, we're legally not really supposed to, right. Um, you know, our job is to enforce the ordinances, make sure that the building is being done in accordance with those ordinance and, and obviously be consistent across all applicants so that we're fair for everybody. Uh, I understand we're not Shelby, which you just show those, because I had the same comment actually Eric did, which is, I mean, I saw the Shelby buildings, and whether it's two-story or one-story, it can be done. Whether it's cost-prohibited, that's a developer's thing, really not our thing. But what I can tell you is, You know, your metal siding, you know, we're going to have to, when you come back, it might be helpful if you brought back samples in regards to what, because you just say metal siding, but there is a lot of different types of metal siding that's out there. And so obviously you'd want to know what type of siding you're going to be using, you know, what's that finish and what you're trying to go after. So again, we can understand that. And then in regards to the block, I can tell you that we're definitely not going to prove anything painted. So regardless of what materials, whether you want to use, you know, split face or you want to go smooth, you had mentioned about smooth and penetrations. Well, that's really not true because you're going to be penetrating most of your stuff at the metal siding. No one's going to penetrate a block wall if they don't have to. You know, they're going to go up to the metal siding because it's much easier to flash around and make sure it's weather tight. Not that you can't penetrate the CMU wall, but it just, that one I didn't really buy. You know, our preference in regards to, you know, working with other applicants, everyone's always put on the split face because you can get it pre-colored and pre-finished and you don't have to paint it. uh... but again if there's a a smooth block that you can get uh... impregnated with the color and i was i think that border be open to it uh... but i can tell you painting that's definitely a hard no within our ordinance and i don't know uh... anyone's going to prove that but you know we you can try uh... i think other than that i think that's the two biggest thing is you know the obviously is our front facade we're concerned with i mean i i don't have an issue with um... you know, the metal siding above, but, I mean, even if you just kept the height of the building and did the masonry, you know, so that's along the entire front of the road, and then you did the siding above, assuming that it's aesthetically, you know, like it's, you know, meets the ordinance requirements, because I know we were pretty, we tried to be really flexible to give developers a lot of options with the metal siding. As long as it meets those requirements, I mean, I think, We're not going to have an issue with it, but I think we can be flexible. Again, I can't speak for everybody, but I don't have an issue with the metal siding possibly above, but at least the wainscoting at the height of the building or something similar to that would be maybe something you can propose. Other than that, I think that was everything I had, sir. Thank you.

So our intent was not necessarily to leave here with an approval. Our main intent was to introduce ourselves as developers and express some of the concerns that we see burdensome and prescriptive for us as speculative developers to take on and go at risk in these developments. I disagree with the metal panel comment. We actually prohibit people from penetrating our metal panels because it is more costly to repair. If you puncture a metal panel, first of all, there's always the issue with trying to match it with shading. But you have to go take off the metal panels because they're all tongue and groove. And to replace that panel, Is very very costly and you're exposing the building to the elements Whereas with masonry you can again fill in the holes patch the black You know it these are materials that are readily available and then you repaint the whole side of the wall that is the area affected as a land developer and property manager of millions of square feet of southeastern, Michigan and Um, this is the mousetrap we found is, is best suited to, you know, meet the goals of the communities we work in.

So Mr. LaBelle

Honestly, I don't have anything negative to say about this other than the painted block. When you drive through this development, many of the buildings are what you're proposing here. We've had issue with paint. And I'm not saying that your builders, your developers would cause issue, but we've had issue with other developers, painters, that the paint peels off the block after a year or two. And so when our ordinance was written, we eliminated paint as being allowable on these buildings. We don't allow people to paint brick. We just don't like paint. So if you can come up with something different there, that would be awesome. Other than that, I don't see any issues, you know, as far as the metal panels go. You did specify a manufacturer, and I recognize it. It is a quality product. The lighting ratio at the driveway, I don't have an issue with that. The parking, I don't have any issues with that. And the bollards, no issues with that. Other than just a note maybe on the dumpster enclosure also. But that can be handled administratively, that note. So if you can propose something other than painted block, I think we could have a home run here this evening.

I will certainly take that back to ownership. I'm not ABLE TO MAKE THAT DECISION FOR THE GROUP TODAY. I'LL TRY. THANK YOU.

AND LIKE I SAID, AS USUAL, AGAIN, THE BOARD MEMBERS HERE HAVE COVERED MOST OF MY QUESTIONS. I WOULD THROW OUT THAT I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH YOUR FAMILY AND YOUR WORK. I ACTUALLY DO LENDING AT A LOCAL COMMUNITY BANK AND WE'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH YOUR WORK. SO IT'S GOOD STUFF. So I will tell you, um, I do want to say that, um, like Mr. LaBelle said, uh, I agree with everything he said. It's the paint thing. It's just, it's a killer for everything else I can get on board with. That is the one thing that just would kill me. So if there'd be anything else proposed, we would greatly appreciate that.

I'll certainly take it back. Thank you.

All right. Excuse me one second. Would you, um, we have an option here this evening. What we can do, um, we can postpone making a decision this evening, giving you an opportunity to come back in front of us. Um, how long do you think you would need? Would you be able to have the answers, the answers that we need by the next meeting, which would be in two weeks?

I can certainly, uh, circle back with Jonathan. Um, if we, if we want to leave that as an open item. Um, but yes, I can, I can certainly. circle back. I know we do intend to submit a site plan for the, it's just shy of 200,000 square feet in the same park. I think it's 180,000 square footer, another speculative building. But again, we will have the same contentions because we need that, that versatility, that building will be a precast metal panel or a precast.

You know, I think that I would be willing to, And maybe I'm speaking out of turn here and these other, I'm going to get crucified at the end of the meeting. If we could have some kind of specification, some kind of guarantee, some kind of a convince me that whatever product that this brick is being painted with, I'm sorry, this block is being painted with, we're not going to have issue with it. If you can provide, I would be willing to listen to something like that.

Certainly Sherwin Williams. They're the preferred vendor of the materials we use. Um, there's a spec that they use a block fill with, you know, X amount of coats and X amount of finished coat. Um, and they provide, you know, warranties based on certain application methods. Um, I could bring that information if that's something that the commission would consider. Certainly.

It's beyond the, Sherwin-Williams is absolutely a wonderful product. It's the application that we're, where we have issue. Certainly. With the bleeding of the water, the moisture inside the block, moisture content in the block as they're painting, things of that nature. I've lived this nightmare for years. If in fact you can come up with something, because especially when you get into a 200,000 square foot building, a million square foot building, it's a little difficult to,

I'm fully aware. Not our first time to the rodeo. We've had paint fail.

We're flexible to work with you. It's just if you can make us feel better about what you're going to provide.

Certainly. And we could provide those application methods and more clearly demonstrate what we would be doing. Just convince me. I'm going to try. I will certainly try, of course.

Okay. So is that the route that you'd like to take is we'll just make a motion to postpone a decision this evening?

Let's make a motion to postpone. I'm currently working on the package for the 182,000 square footer.

It was 200 just a minute ago.

No, they... So what happened was we had a user. So we submitted both of these buildings together during the first go-around. We had a user that was very interested in the... 182,000 that's how it was originally proposed, but they wanted to bump it up to 200,000 until Short story is we we kicked the can to see if we could make that deal and modify that site plan as I understand it they're Still on hold, but we don't want to wait any longer, so we're gonna submit it as proposed and make the first round of comments on that site plan and I'll bring both of the packages back for the next go around.

Sounds great. Sounds wonderful. Thank you. Mr. Chair, let me make a motion to postpone a decision giving the applicant an opportunity to, um, to convince us on some of the items that we, we spoke about this evening. Um, one being the painted block. Um, If the applicant would, as part of my motion, please include a sample of the metal panel for the rest of the board so that they have an opportunity to experience what you're putting up there. With that, I'm not going to set a time limit. we will say up to six meetings, which would be 12 weeks. Would that be enough time for you?

Yes, we should have our, our other package ready. I'm hoping in the next couple of weeks and we'll get submit everything together.

Then we'll postpone up to see, we'll give them the applicant an opportunity to postpone up to six times, six meetings with that. I'll make that motion.

All right. We have a motion and we have support.

Yes, sir. Can we add to the motion that with the building details the utility plan and also the truck circulation plan?

Good point. Certainly, yes.

Thank you. And still supported. All right, that has been amended. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? All right, very good. Thank you. We'll see you.

Thank you. Nice presentation, by the way. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, and we will move on to our next regular agenda item, Maria's Villa site plan. Jonathan, are you taking this one? Okay.

This doesn't matter.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is a proposed consent judgment amendment for Maria's Villa at the July 28th board meeting. The township board forwarded this to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to see if this is consistent with the master planning land use goals of the township. The township board is the ultimate authority on the consent judgment. And after I'm done speaking, if you'd like, Mr. Siebert, to clarify anything with that aspect of it, I'm sure you'd be happy to. Um, but a lot of you probably remember this project from back in 2023. It was, uh, back in front of the township for amendment again. Um, this goes back, um, to, I forget the year, but it goes back quite a ways. Um, they, a couple of years ago they, uh, proposed to go to duplexes. Uh, the board did approve that amendment. Um, so now they're back again. Um, Lombardo homes is proposing to go back to a single family product. Um, The proposal is to go from 76 duplex units to 66 single-family units with a typical lot width of 60 feet. The roads and layout are proposed to stay the same as well as the utilities. The site has already received engineering approval, so there would only be minor modifications to the engineering required. Um, surrounding this property is single family to the north, uh, east and west. And then there is industrial property to the south, uh, with right now the elementary school is on that corner. Um, as I mentioned, the typical lot layout is 60 foot wide. The front yard setback is proposed at 30 feet, uh, which is consistent with the other, um, single family districts in the township. Um, which are typically from the center line of the road. This is a private road where the ordinance states it's 30 feet from the property line on a private road. Typical side yard setback is six feet and rear yard setback is proposed at 30 feet. The township's master plan designates this area as blended density residential, and this was the similar conversation that was had last time this went around. That density range is three and a half to seven units per acre. And I'll read this section from the master plan. This land use designation is intended to provide for an appropriate mix of single family and low intensity missing middle housing types. Missing middle housing types include two family units, duplexes, quadplexes and cottage court bungalows, detached single family units fronting upon green space using concepts of gentle density, These areas may allow single family duplex and a limited number of quadplex units when appropriate design and location standards are applied. The current R1C and R2 zoning districts are most applicable for this density designation. Implementation of this new residential category will also require the establishment of a new zoning district that will allow single family duplex and quadplex units by right in a single development provided single family units comprise at least 33% of the total units on a single block within a development. And that's on page 67 in the current master plan. The township has not yet drafted this blended density district, but this proposal is generally consistent with that designation as outlined in that section. So at this point if the Planning Commission finds it consistent and recommends to the township board They my recommendation would be to work with staff administratively to finalize the preliminary site condominium drawings As part of the consent judgment amendment they would have to done at that point and you know, re, uh, reapprove the engineering, so to say, and then come back to the commission for final site condominium. Um, you know, there is some stuff that we would still look for on a preliminary site condo. I didn't want to have the applicant go through all of that legwork at this point when it's still going to the board for a recommendation. Um, but I'm more, more than comfortable doing that portion administratively as everything else has pretty much been laid out. So at that point, um, I can take any questions that there are any.

Is the applicant here?

Good evening. Charlie Stapleton representing Lombardo Homes. Good evening. Much of what Jonathan talked about, I feel like I don't need to go over. But one thing that was mentioned is the infrastructure would remain the same. That does include the roads, water, sewer. There would be need for minor modifications with the storm, as well as grading on individual lot due to moving from the duplex to single family home sites. The reason we are proposing this amendment is due to the market trends that we've seen in our other communities. Single-family homes have been more successful in a lot of the projects that we've been doing, and we think this would be a better and more successful route going in the single-family homes direction. Another thing I'd like to mention is that That this is this proposal allows us moving towards a lower density site for the area, which we think would better suit the respective zoning with the adjacent properties. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer. Thank you.

Okay, Kathy.

I heard, um, thank you, Mr. Chair. I heard your presentation at, when it was at full board, I believe that you were at the full board. I was not at Lombardo at the time, but a representative was with this concept. And, um, I personally think while there's a lot of houses in tightly packed in there, however, there is a need for that type of housing. So, um, I don't have any major objections to this. I'll leave it to the experts here as to any of the technicalities of the lot sizes and the driveway size at length and things like that. Thank you.

Thank you. Eric? Actually, just one question. You said that this is concept one. Was there other concepts that you designed, or is this the first initial concept? This is our first preliminary site concept. Okay. So there's no other sign? Sorry, yeah. Sorry for the confusion.

Yes, sir? For me at this moment. Okay. All set?

I'm all set at this time.

I have a couple. One is this is I understand the history. So in 2023, the market told you to come to us and request the ability to build duplexes. And in three years, nothing was done. And now, so the market is telling you to build single-family homes on tiny lots. And my question is what prevented you from moving forward with the last request from 2023 when the market told you to do duplexes? then what's the plan moving forward to actually build these at the single families if we approve them?

At the time in 2023, you know, we had other duplex communities that we started in other areas. And since then, you know, they didn't work out as well as we thought they would. And right now, we actually are doing pretty well, especially in our single family market. So this is something we would want to move forward with as far as a single family unit.

So what's the range of the cost of these homes that you're planning on building? What is that market segment you're trying to fill?

I don't have the exact value, but typically these would be around like $600,000 to $800,000.

So you're feeling there's a huge market on tiny lots for $600,000 to $800,000 homes?

That's how our other communities have been successful in that market, yes.

Wow, okay. I learned something new today. You taught me something for the first time. All right, thank you.

I only had a couple things. Brian touched on one of them. I was curious what the price range was going to be because that was the first thing that came to my mind was at that price point, lots that small, I'm not sure if there would be an appeal there. Now, I agree with you on the duplex portion of it. That's what I do for a living is financing residential homes. I agree that there's not much of a demand for that, not from what I've seen in the last few years, so it would make sense to switch to this. the previous consent order as well there was part of the plan actually included like a recreational area and whatnot for the residents and I know you're trying to do these at site condos yes okay so with them being site condos what I didn't see and I may have missed it on the plan I was trying to see where the common area might be and were you planning on keeping the any type of anything that the residents can use or is that being replaced basically by the second water retention pond? What are the plans for that?

Currently there's wetland on the east side of the site. We plan on doing a conservation easement throughout all that essentially eastern portion of the site. Okay. But that is our only open space. Got it.

Okay. Remain the same as before.

Right, which is what it was proposed before.

Okay. Yeah, other than that, do you have any other developments where you've done homes of this size on lots similar to this size? Because, again, I'm curious, to Mr. Carr's point, it's an awful lot of money to have your neighbor six feet away from you.

Yes, yeah, we have. Yes, and they did end up being pretty successful.

Okay, that's the last question I had for you. Thanks. Thank you.

Okay.

Well, with that, we'll entertain a motion if anyone has one.

Can I ask one question? Yeah, please. Your definition of successful in terms of what is the percentage of those homes that were actually bought, paid for?

As far as like a site closeout from the project? Typically on a site like this, it's, you know, around four homes a month, I'd say once we're open for sale on a phase.

And that's out of how many total homes?

Well, depending on the phase and how you break it down, typically we'd open roughly 40 sites in a phase. And then if it's been successful, it would be four home sales a month from that phase opening. And then by the time we get towards the last 10 home sites and we'd open up the additional phase.

We wouldn't sell out in that area, in that market. From Mr. Carr's point, when you guys were previously doing other duplexes and the other units that you ended up doing in single families, you found those to be more successful. Were all the homes eventually sold at the same price point, the $600,000 to $800,000

Well, back then they weren't going for that high, but yeah, I mean, eventually the community does sell out, yes. Okay, thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion. This is amendment number four. Under consent judgment, 32.9 acres located on the north side of 24 Mile Road, east of Chesterfield Road, parcel ID 15 0 9 0 8 3 5 1 0 1 4. I moved that this planning commission recommend to the township board that the proposed amendment be approved as it is consistent with our master plan. In addition to the master plan, page 67 that Mr Palin quoted us, I'd like to quote page 57 of our master plan, which is specifically addressing residential and I'll quote, provide high quality housing for all residents through new residential developments and ongoing maintenance and upkeep to existing neighborhoods and quote, more so a variety of housing options will welcome younger residents and families as well as allow older residents to age in the community and quote, This recommendation to the Township Board is subject to the applicant agreeing to work administratively to finalize the preliminary site plans and draft the amended consent agreement. With the applicant's acceptance of the stated caveat, I move that the Planning Commission recommend to the Township Board that the proposed amendment be approved as it remains consistent with our master plan.

We have a motion, we have support. All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? All right, motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Can I just ask one question off the record? You said you're going to do a $600,000 to $800,000 price range. What if in a year when you start, the economy goes down where you might only be able to sell $400,000 to $500,000 in that area? Would you still design the same house at a lower rate, or would you redesign what you're proposing on a different clientele for house design?

That product would stay the same.

Which is at a lower rate.

Right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Continuing with the agenda, number nine, we have no presentations. Yes, thank you. And we are on to the commissioner's comments. Kathy, do you have anything for the group? Eric? Excellent. None for me. Thank you. Thank you. Rick? All good. All set. All set. Ryan?

We appreciate the motion.

All right. I have nothing additional. So with that, I will make a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8.43 p.m. All in favor? Aye. Everyone enjoy the holiday.