Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to uh welcome everyone to the regular meeting of the Garden City Planning Commission it's Thursday March 13 2025 at 6:30 p.m. we'll call a meeting to order and our first order of business is a pledge of allegiance to the flag if everyone would stand please I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible liy and justice for all thank you be seated would the secretary take the roll call please chairperson may here commissioner steenberg not sure uh commissioner King here commissioner Williams here and commissioner bosi he's asked to be excused you do have a quorum with four members present Mr May okay agenda someone cares to make a motion I'll make a motion to approve today's agenda there support Second motions made and supported to approve the agenda for tonight's meeting um any questions on the motion or discussion hearing none would you take the role please commission I commissioner steenberg I chairperson may I motion passed next item is approval of minutes from the regular meeting of February 13 2025 we have any uh Corrections or comments on the minutes the minutes of uh February 13th second motion made and supported any discussion on the would you take the role please commissioner steenberg hi commissioner King hi commissioner Williams hi chairperson May I the motion

passes okay next item is public comment on non-agenda items only if someone is here that wishes to speak on a non-agenda item and address the commission uh saying no one uh we'll move on to our first business item number one uh PPL 24-20 this is a request for a site plan approval to construct a new multi-tenant commercial building at 28401 Warren Road in the se1 local business zoning District start us off could we begin with our Please Mr Ora yes good evening uh chairman May Commissioners uh tonight I'll just be summarizing my review letter for this proposed development uh with us tonight is the applicants engineer Anan alati uh available may have um the site itself uh the entire property I should say that's owned by the property owner is comprised of eight separate tax parcels and it's totaling approximately that's right so technically the property owner does own eight tax Parcels which comprise 12 the underlying Lots the total 26949 F feet the applicant is proposing to only locate their development on nine of those underlying Lots which which approximately is four of those eight or five of the eight separate tax part so it's a little confusing as the

underlying Lots were individual 30 foot about 30 foot wide lots that numbered one through 12 uh some of them were combined no no doubt for the uh previous development which was the old uh Fruit Stand that used be in this location on is the fact that the applicant should combine the lots that are going to be for the new building and then if they need to leave separate the three individual lots that are not going to be proposed as part of this development okay that is will be one issue um because the applicant is proposing to construct a new 5,4 50t one-story commercial building uh for multi-tenant commercial use uh with an Associated parking lot on once again nine of the underlying planted Lots um site plan construction excuse me uh construction of new buildings require site plan approval uh the majority of when it comes to the architecture and building design the applicant is proposing that this building will have a brushed Mason uh it's going to have a brick veneer wall uh above uh with glass windows and doors uh metal panels will also be used along the roof cornice line and then a column elements uh between the window placements so in the end the mo the building will be modern in style and it's similar this property owner actually does own the multi-tenant unit use that was recently well several years ago refurbished uh to the West because is the the restaurant is a multi-tenant building that they did this property owner owns and did refer verbish uh so but they are proposing a somewhat similar uh building style since we don't have any specific design requirements for our commercial buildings not in the down um applicants tend to make sure that their uh buildings are designed appropriately for the type of Market they're seeking so this will be an attractive building as

proposed um the applicant has uh provided us with a site circulation plan to ensure that the site uh will have adequate capacity to uh provide access for large Vehicles including emergency vehicles and loading zone U and uh loading and delivery vehicles and those uh turning radii and and and ordinance the applicant is proposing a sufficient number of parking spaces for the proposed uh building um the number of parking spaces uh is going to be equal to 29 standard two of those will be ADA Compliant uh and this is will be sufficient if the building is utilized for a retail uh tenants so they're used for sales of goods and and provide services the parking will be sufficient for that um the applicant notes that at this they're thinking they're going to be occupying it as their main office space so they actually will be an office use of this majority plan at least currently proposed but should in the future the tenant Spa the building be divided into other tenants there would be sufficient retail uh parking for retail parking for the site um a modest amount of landscaping along the perimeter uh including a decorative fence along the Warren Road Frontage with uh low hanging with low Ling shrubs so similar to his other development which we believe is very attractive for an urban style uh development of this character and then the aan will be walks are constructed appropriately and and um for the for during the construction review there are several is uh going back to number a on our on the second sheet is the lot combination we would request uh lot combination application that combines Lots one to nine of the underlying plat with regards to

architecture we would request that the applicant re uh revise the elevations to indicate the colors for the proposed materials what colors will be utilized when it comes to loading zone and space requirement technically require a delivery loading and unloading area um the applicant once again has indicated that due to their their proposing an office working office tenant space and believes there's dedicated loading zone um the zoning ordinance does give the planning can modifier or wave this requirement for a loading zone depending on the typ on the methods of delivery allowed onto the site so we would a dedicated loading zone is necessary or not uh and if so if the Planning Commission comes to determination a loading zone is required then the man the site plan would have to be revised to dedicate to indicate where loading zone would be one other thing we wanted to make a note of uh the zoning ordance does require the construction of a Mason six foot high masonary screening walles uh the applicant is proposing one along the southern property line which is adjacent to residences um however we note that there is also a sanitary sewer uh in close proximity to the location of the propos uh um so in order to ensure the footing will be adequately distant uh separated from that sewer line and prepare and and not cause any undue damage the city Engineers review will determine where that masonry wall should go so we would just no ask the site Planning Commission to any approval for the site the city engineer approval of the location and then if necessary any slight modification to the building placement or parking lot parking space placement as related to maintaining that correct location of the wall to the building and to the Sewer the benefit here is that on the northern part portion of the site the uh Drive aisle

between the property the the landsing and the in the parking spaces is uh is is uh greater than what's required by the ordinance so there is some leeway in that that um space that could be if there needs to be a shift because the city engineer does want a shift in the building footprint something that could be be done and it only takes a foot or two to make sure that that that footing is not damaging the sewer review and of course if for some reason there's a substantial need to change to the Planning Commission to make any changes if if you granted approval um with regards to trash and dumpster enclosure as I noted the applicant does own the property to the West uh they are proposing opposing utiliz on that site in the enclosure but they're also stating that they're going to be utilizing a uh janitorial service that will take their garbage uh as part of the daily cleaning uh we would just recommend that the applicant provide a dumpster sharing agreement to ensure that that relationship in perpetuity since the applicant is not proposing a dumpster on this particular site so they would give themselves a dumpster sharing agreement so that way if for some reason in the future one or both of the properties are sold that relationship is maintained and this site will always have access to a an adjacent dumpster those are uh items that were outstanding so in the end uh we do believe that this proposed development will create a new retail and service opportunities for residents of the city and uh utilize a very long vacant uh lot uh in in the city uh while in substantial compliance we do recommend uh there are some outstanding um items that need to be addressed so we if the Planning Commission Grant approval they could be contingent upon the items I've noted uh just now and that are noted at the bottom of at the appropriate

time okay yes Mr steber um brand new building brick veneer why uh well I think the the term veneer right there might not be uh accurate we can make sure or you could also note that the veneer not be a thin brick or not be any kind of product that's not um uh substandard because uh a lot of the um well number one actually I should step back technically we don't have any design requirements outside of the downtown so technically the applicant could propose what they'd like uh we do know that the is typically not high quality product and so you could request that any brick product be a full face brick and a and the veneer is usually is actually typical of most commercial buildings now because they're no longer the brick isn't a loadbearing material so it doesn't need to be a standard brick wall uh the the underlying substructure is is what's supporting the actual structure and every uh exterior uh surface is a veneer of some sort but you're right high quality full I like to see that full face brick because if it's not full face brick then it's in my opin substandard cuz it's glued in place rather than masonary construction which will last for the next 50 years or more um this sharing agreement we're looking at how many square feet of building here 5,000 plus square foot building and we're going to share a dumpster the applicant has a level of frequency of collection they feel that's appropriate I whether that's sufficient or not I yeah I had a comment about the dumpster agreement too because the dumpster on the other property is at the furthest so you're talking about

traveling at least a couple hundred feet down to the dumpster to be able to use it which doesn't seem reasonable I did point that out heard of a a c company that takes a trash away with them I mean it may be something new it may be something never had it here I've never heard of that in 30 years being here so I I did have this discussion with the owner but they we wanted to make this pres technically within the zoning ordanance I don't we don't have anything that actually requires a dumpster be on site just that they have it um uh if a dumpster is on site it is enclosed I would also point out that technically uh as a property owner the taxes that they pay includes a two cubic yard dumpster so they're already paying for a two cubic yard dumpster uh that could be utilized the issue of course with that is finding a location and then finding a building the enclosure we've been running into this lately something that we need to look at in terms of amending the zoning ordinance to address this issue but right now there's no specific requirement unless you feel that the site plan approval is uh the the criteria for site plan approval Merit than the need for on-site dumpster hardship for the owner operator here but uhu build uh companies come and go but build and next year they could not exist or they're too expensive or or or but if there's a dumpster on site to support this building then they go hand in hand and they'll be there forever no matter what the other companies do and a special use permit we don't even have any Assurance of exactly what's going to go in there I mean it's everything in the I mean what what it tentatively might be might be used for as one thing encompasses quite a few different items

and of those items all need the support of a dumpster to take care of those businesses let's say we approve this the way it sits today and in six months after they have their CFO what's going to stop them from dropping a dumpster without a close uh code enforcement would would issue them uh communicate with them that they need to put that in an enclosure uh I will say that that's you know that those efforts are owing in the city whenever someone does do that and it doesn't H it happens sometimes the closure can be minimal it can be ex extensive part on the administration to trying and get someone to build that enclosure is not um cheap but it is something that we that is required whenever a dumpster is on site apply for a carry out restaurant or something to that effect that requires special land use approval in C1 you could require them to have a dumpster at that time like you said Kelly if they wanted to dump put a dumpster on the site in the future the city Administration would make the effort to let them know that it has to be an inside at a later date too it might take up one of their dedicated parking spaces which would put them under the required amount that is true um with regards to required parking whenever a multi-tenant building goes in uh anytime a CFO is applied for we make sure that the proposed use and their specific parking requirements are sufficiently provided on site uh so for example with this being a um if it is the entire site is utilized for um office technically they only need 15 parking spaces for the office use it's not Zone strictly for office use it could be changed later correct exactly that you're exactly right so I was going to say like if they did point but I but basically what would occur is I would

let them know through the CFO process that the for the sufficient to handle uh the parking would not be sufficient to handle it they'd have come an office use or something that effect so making sure the mix of uses because property owner is attempting to get a right tenant mix based on the market uh with probably tenants that have too much of a parking the city lets them know that mix of uses is not going to work because the site doesn't have parking spaces so we do that very often you know working with that that with the seems with a little forethought we could possibly true put the dumpster where it needs to be and what we've run into in the past and this has happened more than once o over is that um they 30 years AG we made that uh start to happen is with new construction or extensive remodeling what has happened in the past is if there's no dumpster there and then a ten from now that requires a dumpster he just puts a dumpster out in the open and to get that corrected is very honorous honorous for the city later it'll take way too long and a lot of City resources back and forth back and forth in C1 a good many of those would require a a dumpster to do business and if there's multiple tenants one of the tenants here is talking about a janit torial service that carries the trash away with them they all go along with that program I don't know it it's it's not typical and it's not something I'm comfortable with I don't like the uh I don't like the face brick and I don't like the fact of no dumpster okay well

why don't okay we allow the applicant to uh if you're done yes yeah is uh representative for the applicant here would like to speak and the applicant is here also this Sam correct yeah right good evening I'm good how are you great I'm Sam Victorian properties I'm the owner of the property I also own the Strip Center directly to the West okay property um I've heard what you've had to say uh about the dumpster enclosure totally understand the concern um we are planning an occupying the building when it's constructed for our office use um and we do at other locations use a janitorial company that comes out and removes our trash now yes I can definitely understand that I can't guarantee that a janitorial company is going to be around forever um so I understand the concern um at the end of the day if if it's something that it's going that's going to make the Planning Commission uh comfortable I'll proceed with hopefully revising our plans and putting in an enclosure if we could make it work um I just didn't feel it was necessary given our use and that we're going to be occupying the property okay question how many storefronts do you have to the West that you own we have well five but I have one tener that occupies three actually six I'm sorry one tenant occupies three another occupies two and then one occupies one on the endcap so it's six does but there's five potential storefronts there and you have three tenants currently correct and how many potential storefront the existing structure or this new structure although we haven't submitted you know interior plans yet showing the layout of the building and having a open layout where we're not going to demise the space it's just going to be one big box and you expect to occupy that I do there will be rooms but it's not going to be demised into individual it'll be

hit one door one central door yeah yep right in the center 10t Double Door really elevant okay thank you well of course that has to be approved by Fire Marshall as far as travel distances and things like that for the exiting so one main entrance you look at like individual Suites to individual Suites yes so you could potentially have 20 different business owners in that offices office related people um that I own another building in fact on Middle Belt in Leonia we have the same setup I've got a Jan company that comes out enters everybody's Suite mes their trash hauls it away that's actually the business that I that I'm in um aside from the fact that I'm a landlord for 25 years and own nearly 80 properties I am in the business of leasing out suets okay and why the face break when you're doing new construction quite honestly that surprised me as well that I'm not crazy about that either so we will be changing that okay okay well that can be one of the contingencies if we approve this I I just think there might have been a an error on our end it's not something that I asked for okay Sher yeah just two items um on the dumpster enclosure I would I'd imagine to make the building more marketable in the future so I think for you it probably make it for the future for the future just the common I suppose um as far as uh you you're you're saying with the brick veneer uh I guess Mario like you had asked about color that's what I was going to ask so is that something that you're also prepared to put into the plan yes definitely um it will be most likely the plan is to go with a darker color I meant a charcoal color something like not not necessarily exactly what I

did with the West Renovations but something really darker um it just I feel like it's more modern my last question you said one door but the plan shows two doors is it two that we put on there that's which is two doors was most likely the architect fault it was necessary which is fine and I believe both doors if he did put two doors they're the same level height that's yeah that's what we're looking at thank you yes Mr Miller I do have one question what is what is the intention with the other three lots what what do we envision with those the extra Lots just so we know we didn't feel they were necessary for the development and I mean they were there in case at some point they were needed in the future there wasn't really any plan for it okay all right I just was wondering number one velopment future devel and of course it's always nice to have options in the future it could be parking expansion right yeah parking or someplace to put a dumpster or that all right thank thank you yeah bigger it's bigger will trigger you know ordinances I know you know you know how it is bigger areas yes go ahead there there was also a discussion item around site circulation so I don't know if we want to applicate to as far as loading as far as loading zone just loading zone whether you feel like we need to find no dedicated loading zone we should discuss it so I just thought maybe while the applicants have any thoughts on again just because of the use we didn't feel a loading zone would be needed um I don't recall ever having the need for a loading zone with an office space at any other property and that's the reason why we didn't feel it was needed here it looks like you don't have one to the property the West no we don't okay and it's never been an issue yeah for the for the type of businesses that you're talking about right it's probably unnecessary unnecessary

exactly all right did you have anything else you wanted to say about your application okay I look forward to the development it's going to be a beautiful building okay thank you thank you yes now we'll open it up to the commission for comment uh question question to Mario before I make my decision for this dumpster enclosure uh we have a roughly 55,000 ft building here uh could you remind us what is allowed in the C1 yes uh it's primary retail uses so any sales of retail products uh also service uses so salons and barber shops but also uh repair facil repair services of small scale items watch repair that sort of thing um um in the C1 then uh they do they do allow uh Carry Out restaurants are allowed if they require if they obtain special land use approval so there would no and that's the only type of restaurant that's allowed in SE so no restaurants would be allowed uh in the district uh it would require a resoning to another uh District in order to allow for standard restaurants say uh and then any other it issue uh uses are and shall include offices of course offices are permitted by right you know business executive administrative offices also uh business and technical schools um we have had some interest in people providing uh driving schools uh in the area um financial institutions are permitted without drive-through facilities permitted by right in the district and then medical or dental clinics and offices um health or exercise clubs meaning something like a with the like the orange theory or something something that fits in a

that's like a studio situation you know 1500 square foot and then one trainer providing classes that kind of thing um libraries museums public own buildings are printed in the district I already went over retail stores and uh and also uh service uses and then an arcade or permitted by right and then special use approval would be required for or any kind of uh automatic washer dryer dry cleaning establishment uh financial institution with drive-throughs technically can request special land use approval based on the current configuration I don't see that occurring just because there's not enough stacking space uh funeral homes group daycare homes or Child Care Centers I mentioned Carry Out restaurants and then veterinary clinics all those all those last uses require special use approval they would have to come before you before and provide a configuration that would work for that particular type of use including their hours of operation before they could operate on the site okay uh what I hear is a lot of items that could potentially require a dumpster um with a 55,000 Square ft building um if the owner operates that forever as his office uh I see no problem and no dumpster required but I don't see that as happening uh long for no way we can guarantee that's going to happen that's and it it would appear as if there's room in the corner of the parking area that a dumpster could be placed back there with a a small dumpster with an enclosure yeah so i' I'd like to see a dumpster and the the owner is already going to be

paying taxes on one if in the first place and it might also actually be a favor to you because in the future if five years down the road you don't want to use that for your office you have a more sellable building because at that point you would definitely be required to to put a dumpster in and I think it would be better to do it right up front if you keep the building forever it's not going to get that much use but if someplace down the Road you decide that you don't need that office or you need a bigger one someplace else then you have a more sellable building to a wider array of uh of potential uh leases or did you have any other no items that's it okay was there any other comments or questions uh which one more question for Mr Ortega I noticed in your letter you you referen the location of the screening wall yes apologize if you said that during your update what was the topic on the screening wall that so the the detail on the um site plan doesn't have a sufficient enough information to determine if the footing required for that masonry wall will be sufficient distance away as required by the city engineer from the existing sanitary sewer there you really won't be able to know that until they provide a uh a state a survey that has accurate location of the utility line and then an accurate location of the of the of the of the and that would have to be approved by the city engineer then exactly so the city engineer could so screening well is required the ordinance actually specifically states that if there's any type of utility or easement that prevents the a screening wall from being on the location then the screening well just has to be moved so in this case it would just have to be moved to the north uh sufficient distance away

from the the the as determined by the city engineer for the um for the wall and then if that occurs there is some room that where the building footprint even if necessary needs to be reified because as proposed their applicant is proposing rear entry exit doors from the building so you need a minimum distance of at least 5 feet between the back of the wall back of the building and the screening wall M but there is enough space uh I believe uh between the drive aisle and the property line to shift the building further north provide everything with adequate distance I would just recommend that that note be included as part of your approval that the city engineer uh verify an an adequate location for the screening wall okay was there anything else no no did you have anything no I think we cover it okay well I I wrote down the how just how do you feel about the inclusion of uh a dumpster in the a small dumpster in the corner of your parking lot in the back okay great because I think I think that's a necessary uh addition to the plan so we're talking about uh adding a dumpster to the uh contingencies and also the face brick lock combination and well yeah well that's already included in the notes so me I didn't include we go through the the notes in addition we add the dumpster and uh the face brick and we allow city engineer approval the loading zone is unnecessary that was in Mr yes we have we haven't

really discussed that have we decided that the loading zone is not necessary or or is it do you think it is no I do not think it is is I don't think it is in a C1 I don't think it is I don't really either do you do you agreee no I don't think he needs it okay and the 5 foot required space the wall may already be pushing it tight in that if the engineer has to move things a foot or two in order to uh not bump into the sewer lines yeah and uh so I so if we if we go with the modifications or the contingencies lifted we already have uh listed the uh approval by the city engineer and the Fire Marshall so right if someone cares to make a motion with these contingencies one one moment yes um there was no public comment or question asked we don't normally have public okay sorry sorry okay I'll I'll make a motion make a motion for approval um noting the uh lot combination which is already stated in our paperwork here and uh city engineer approval um so we don't bump into the sore lines uh which is already on our paperwork here and changing our paperwork from face brick to face or from brick veneer to face brick and from no dumpster to a dumpster enclosure and I'll leave that up between you and Mario to determine the best location um You probably don't have a whole bunch of choices there but

whatever you think will work we have a couple of other items that need to be included here and uh also we need a a cut sheet for the lights uh to show that we're not spilling them into people's bedroom windows on the other side of the six foot wall and make sure they can't be adjusted yeah adjustable do that do and uh we're not doing this one because we're not seeking a sharing agreement we don't have a sharing agreement and and we already city engineer and we have Fire Marshall and city engineer approval of plans right okay could you read that motion back to us when you get it all this is a motion by commissioner steenberg to include the uh elevation material uh to be full um to be face brick um to not include the Zone uh loading zone a screen wall location to be determined by the city engineer light fixture cut sheets those would include the um not ability to adjust um to include a dumpster enclosure um then also the engineer and Fire Marshall approval prior to the final uh issuance of the building permit very good do we have support support any discussion on the motion would you take the role please do you want any U any public comment it was listed don't normally do public comment okay all right so we've got a motion and support by commissioner steenberg the first to vote commissioner

steenberg I commissioner King I commissioner Williams I Comm chairperson may I the motion does carry okay your motion's carry uh contact Mr Ortega and you can work out the details with him thank you and welcome good luck thank you than okay moving on our next order of business is uh zoning ordinance Amendment discussion of proposed amendment regarding parking on residentially zoned Lots Mr Orga you want to start us off there yes uh based on the request from the planning Commissioners we have presented you with the uh current section as that was that was recently amended by by by your recommendation and city council approval for uh the residential uh District's parking and driveway standards um however uh they did make one minor uh deletion of your proposed text uh and and I forgive me I wanted to at least have this in front of you so that way we could discuss further because what you're seeing in front of you is what the city council uh did deny so I wasn't sure what other approach you wanted to take uh there are some options we can do we can add more Graphics that could show like the percent like how much a vehicle could park in front of the driveway um but EXC I'll just step back for a second the the sentence that was removed in this sentence is pro right now showing in this draft in front of you says uh a driveway uh for residences no with no garage or a detached garage a driveway shall extend in front of the house by no more than

20% of the width of the front of the house uh so that's what was say may extend that's there you go that's very good point right away yeah you should say may um so that's one aspect of it but this is as it was proposed to C Council um as it was proposed before it didn't include uh attached garages correct because um when when you look at the attached garage standards um because there is a lot of a little bit more leeway for them because the language States Lots with attached garages so permitted one driveway located between the attached garage the closest side Lot line in the front lot line so a lot of times the attached garage at a minimum they should have at least three feet on one side based on our minimum setbacks sometimes they might have 9 foot or more so they they tend to if they have it available to them putting extra hard surface in front of the garage between the garage and the side Lot line and then therefore they get that's where they get their uh they can have the opportunity to have extra parking space in their driveways and extend it that way um I know we talked about that a little bit but I think that area and that reflects basically what's what's current language and we really didn't change that that much um because I believe in our discussions what we were trying to tackle was we have lots that sometimes are only 40 foot wide uh and and in the in these lots a lot of times then you've got a detached garage in the rear uh so by this ordinance currently stating uh Lots with no garage or dechat garage shall be be permitted one driveway when right now we say shall not exceed 20 ft in width um because usually it's about trying to get from the street

to the back detach garage um when you have a 40-ft wide line house we still have a 12T uh combined side yard setback one of those can be a little small as three foot so you put three foot on one side you put that 9 foot on the other side the 9 foot typically is where the garage where the vehicle can pass so uh we Al so that then having that standard where the the the paving shall not be in front of the house is what you know basically gets uh is is the situation that the residential property owners are placed on 40 foot wide Lots they in theory could have a driveway 20 F feet in width but then the space between their side Lot line in the edge of their house is only nine could be as small as 9 ft um so therefore then they uh in the front they only have that one drive aisle situation a lot of times people when they have the space want to have that extra 8 foot if you will I would think I mean I personally I think for them to function they need to be more you probably want them more like 10 foot so that way you can have enough space to open your doors and everything so a car can off to the side in some location and then a vehicle can still drive in in the driveway to the back of the backyard to the back garage detach garage that sort of thing so we have seen instances in on on these type of lots where Property Owners tend to uh have contractors and sometimes they do maybe they were approved with a flatwork permit Maybe not maybe it's done on the weekend but you could travel the city and see these driveways that are 20 foot wide and they go in front of the house um meaning the front for yeah please interrupt me yes just to comment

and I I recall the conversation and at least in my mind and I wish I could share my screen here with the group but I was thinking about the 1950s Style brick ranches that are all over the city where individuals have snow days and have a hard time figuring out what to do with their vehicles I wasn't thinking about some of the homes like for example on John Hawk where the entire front lawn is paid and so the idea we have one on B on a 40 foot lot he he didn't need a ruler he black top from wall the wall as I recall when we were trying to construct this amendment it was limited to 20% of the width of the front of the home and the idea was that the resident would have some flexibility to add more parking but they could not the ordinance paid their entire pave the front yard yeah yeah I think maybe the addition of a graphic showing a typical maybe 55 ft wide lot yeah what 20% 20% would look like you know I got up here but we still have a lot of 40% wide Lots the city I took the liberty of going on Google and actually looking to see how many and what was existing some before some Afters um so council could have actually some pictures to look at to see what they would look like and what most people would be doing is usually on those ranches that he's speaking about they'd be Paving about 4 ft that's grass they already got a 3ft service walk so that most people be Paving about 4T I guess my concern is what I don't understand is we allow Circle drives which is entirely more concrete than what they would be adding in 20% of their house and you can have three vehicles stacked In A Circle Drive and it's legal to park on that with all of the discussion that was at City council with people complaining about parking

over the sidewalks I just thought this might be a remedy for some people to be able to get their vehicles off the streets not be blocking the sidewalks um I think the biggest thing is we got to remember we're not in 1950 anymore and it's not one car I think the average car in Garden City or the average house Garden City probably got three maybe more cars um and and you'll see and I'll I'll give this for Council to have for reference but there are pictures in here of houses with this already done houses with circle drives with driveways on both sides of a circle drive so and and I know that the ones with circle driveways and driveways on both sides were permitted because they new builds within the last few years so quite a few of them by me yeah so I think if we're going to allow the new builds to be able to do it on the larger Lots we should be able to give some of our residents another option for parking on their Lots yeah it is a tough maybe maybe rather than saying 20% maybe we should go with a definite figure like extending 4 feet in front of the house cuz I was about to that would be more acceptable I I think so because we have a number of different quote unquote standard with lots in because City the driveway your screen for instance is already probably a foot away from the house so that gives you 5 ft and maybe room to park two cars side by side the problem you'll have with that is where that his step is and a lot of those homes if you only allow him to go 4 feet from the edge of the home you'll be in the center of the step unless we're going to allow them to have fourt of they should they shouldn't be right up to the step I don't don't think

I mean that doesn't well that driveway is also going to propose as a service walk on most houses yeah it's going to it's going to be both so I think we and I I recall this conversation I think we said something like 5T but no more than 20% but then we started doing the math saying does it really matter but when you get a 40 foot wide lot 20% is half the house a 40t wide LP most houses are only 20 22t wide 20% of the house not 20% a lot right yeah but even oh that's true it's whether it's house your house width is about 20 ft so you can only put 4T in front of that house anyway that's the conversation we had right you have a smaller home you're going to be c a couple feet that's the thing that doing the math again because this is where we were last time on a 40 foot wide lot I would go the way of 12 foot has to be set away for the setback So in theory the house itself could be 28 ft wide so to maximize it so then 20% of 28 ft is 5 and 1/2 foot it's 5 and 1/2 ft so you're back at this situation of it's five but Fred it's a good point maybe saying a specific number another five foot or four foot you say 5et it might be more acceptable right and we can also include a graphic to show what that would look like on a typical house right because it could be that that maybe the council members felt 20% and they weren't thinking of the 40 foot configuration and you know I mean that is a good good point we're talking about we're leaning on the 40 foot configuration of those situations but I guess in the well no you're right if we had a number then that would definitely elay any fears because if people have 60ft wide lots and then then they had a larger house than if it's 20% in front of the house a little longer ranch right I

mean bigger lots and longer houses there's more uh 20% might end up being considerably more than that right I I think that might be a a good way to approach it is by uh a hard number not rather than a percentage I I think we need my personal opinion we need to keep it at the percentage because if we put a hard number on it on a lot of these Lots like I said you're going to have the driveway into the step it's going to be right in the middle of the step on the port meaning that it should go past it or that it should meaning that why is that a bad thing well then how do people get on the stop how they got to walk on the grass to get on the well if it goes past it why is that any better because usually about 8 ft is the edge of 6 to 8 ft is the edge of the house to the edge of the porch where you would have your service walk yeah okay so this is a 3ft Surface walk that's 4T so that' be 7 ft so you're saying to only allow 5T so then we allow them to do 5T which would make all this grass and they wouldn't be able to get on their porch you'd be able to park two cars there but you eliminate the surface walk yes that's why I thought the 20 well if you do that either way you're going to eliminate the service walk in most places because the porch is normally close to the driveway some places it's not but a lot of them are like that I guess my biggest concern was all the circle drives that we have in the city and we weren't concerned about concrete coverage on those well we're worried about 8 feet possibly 6 to 8 feet in front of a house instead of a an entire Circle Drive that's 10 to 12 feet wide 60 ft or so well I think I think the

conundrum in that situation is that the Circle Drive by necessarily H having a proper turning radius and then and then we also require in the in these ordinances that there's a certain amount of green space between well it's supposed to be between the property front property line and the edge of the uh Circle Drive so there's Green Space in that area so it's truly a circle or a half circle I should say so by the time you try and do that a lot of these smaller Lots they just don't have the the W lot width to accommodate a Circle Drive and and because of that you see the circle drives on larger typically larger lots and then what you have is that the percentage of the lot that's covered by hard surface ends up being smaller the total amount of square footage might be bigger on these bigger Lots but because their lot their lot width and depth is larger the percentage that's covered by uh hard surface is less and that's a and not to get into that but that was something we actually didn't even approach is this idea of allowing for a lot of hard surface is going to increase the runoff but setting that aside again um I did a little bit of the math on these 4-ft wide Lots if we let them have the 20% uh and and their standard driveway then about 36% of a 40 foot wide front yard is covered with with uh hard surface 36% I haven't done the math yet on a larger lot but we could maybe that's something that information that we can bring back to you like having an analysis of what's acceptable amount of percentage of hard surface in a front yard do we not have an ordinance on that now on a percent no because no because the weight we hang our hat on is the idea that no that you're not supposed to have hard surface in front of the house except if you have a Circle Drive then

then that's the the loophole that people can do if their lot is wide enough to accommodate all those requirements of a circle drive then they can they can do it so is there an ordinance or a building code right now that something can't concrete their whole front air there there is a requirement that they can't have uh that the drive will by by nature of the fact that they saying the driveway they only allowed one driveway in this certain width and and depth and then we do have another standard that says they can have hard surface in front of the front of the house uh except for ex for the ccle Circle Drive and this that's where I'm caught up on this so we're going to allow that Circle Drive but not allow 20% in front of the house which would be less on a Circle Drive what if we what if just to move this forward we said 20% but no more than 5 ft mhm okay would that include the service walk no because I don't a lot of people ain't going to be able to do it they won't have the room the the ordinance would be silent as to whether you could put concrete around the stoop right right that wouldn't be the driveway anymore so you can have a service walk and the driveway yeah so you're still going to get the 8T is that's the thing we don't have a requirement for a service walk and you know there are some lots that actually don't have a service walk because they basically use their driveway as their as their walkway because they don't want to have it for some reason uh and it could be the configuration of the house itself maybe the house doesn't have a front door on that front facade and they have it on the side CU sometimes you have your L configuration houses um trying to think if there's other ways to address it because I I do like the idea of you know allowing 20% but more more than 5 feet but I hear

what you're saying Kelly that you know then how is that a additive that will help the situation because if it's just an extra five foot how can you fit a car on there you can't what number are you good with I was the 20% I thought we just had to take it back with council with some to show them what people were doing to EXP explain to them I think that's why they didn't pass it last time they didn't have any visuals they thought people would be parking their car long way on a on a pad so you could have an 8ot wide pad all the way over to the window that that was some of their questions I think we just need to give them more visuals because it made it past us last time with the 20% mhm but on a 28t on a 40ft lot a 28t wide house it's 5.6 ft right then that would be the maximum on a 60ft lot with a 30 foot house depending on which side of the driveway's on because your driveway can't exceed 20t yeah that's a six I think if you do the math it works out proportionately so on a 60ft wide lot technically in the building em envelope so the build of the house could be as wide as 48 ft because you just take out 12T for The sidey Yards so then 20% of that is 9.6 feet so what if we said no more than 6 feet 20% are no more than 6 feet just to move this forward that way you have a cap on it that's fine with me what we can do is bring back visuals to show because if if I think visuals might help maybe there was a lack of understanding where about what they were voting on and what people

were trying to really do as far as what they filling in why don't uh why don't we change it in that respect and uh make a 20 and five yeah 20 and what is it 20 and six 20 and six 20% but no more than six feet six okay okay that'll that's room enough to park a car well that should give somebody a a nine it says 15 feet for a driveway and a 9ine foot driveway depending or and you got to leave it can't exceed 20 ft we got to we had that before correct couldn't your driving couldn't exceed 20 fet we did and actually it's in there right now now yeah so that needs to stay yep okay so we can make those you want make about that I'm sorry do you need a motion to that effect or uh I I'm good with with your direction we can make the edits we can provide Graphics yeah and then so looking at the so you can see the the language one more time before we call it public hearing sufficient all right then thank you we we good we move on I did I did just have one other question just what about the service walk though a lot of people are a lot of people are filling in the 4T area between MH that gives them 7 ft the service walk is 3 4T you know what do we do make them s off a foot of this you know so that's my only my only concern because where I've seen it the most it's not 40 foot Lots I've seen it the most supposedly 50 foot Lots in the kind of the southeast quadrant of the city it appears quite often so I just was wondering your thoughts that's actually three driveway is it well when you join the

two Labs together who's going to keep them from parking on it I eliminated mine uh I eliminated the walk and extended the size of the porch and just moov the walkway to the driveway and I have 19 ft to play with between the house and the in the lot line but I also have a a a block wall to contend with so I park tight to the wall and let the wife Park tight to the other and it leaves 3 and 1/2 ft to walk between the cars and go to the front porch okay okay uh did that answer the question so we leaving the service walk CU I didn't get anything out of it I mean I I don't have a clear understanding either so would you want to have a text in there that says uh no combination of driveways and service walk shall exceed 20 ft or 20 well 20 ft so the driveway and the service walk can not exceed 20 ft right yeah but standard width is 10 foot for a driveway as a general rule slabs are 10 by 20 but they' still be 10 by 10 they'd still be shrunk to the 20% or 6 feet and usually a service walk is 3T correct right so you're at 9 ft you're at you're still under 20 ft you're at 19 you're at 19t for a single Lane driver correct for a double lane driveway they couldn't do it because they're already a double lane driveway at 20 ft so the maximum would be 20 ft that that acceptable 20 foot maximum width which we have already Prett sure we have already yeah because I so would would specify that the service walk is included in that calculation would that be good or in the

20 in the maximum 20 foot you know I think we have to keep the surface walk out of the equation cuz that could be wholly separate true if if the porch is in the middle of the house they're probably going to put a walk if it's buted up against the driveway it becomes driveway well but mine my porch exit on the driveway it doesn't exit towards the street it exit yeah a lot of them do that yeah yeah so in essence I don't have a wholly dedicated uh man walk or a service walk I'm using the driveway for that but so I think we should kind of keep the service walk out of the equation cuz what about the person that's got the 40t long house and the porch is right in the middle and the service Walk we're going to want a service Walk we're silent on the service walk today right true I don't think the service walk matters if we put a maximum of 20 ft on the driveway and most of the houses they'll be I can pass this down but that service walk where they're filling in will be within 5 ft of the driveway okay like that's all if the porches on that end it's not porches on that end the people that have it aren't going to be able to pour all the way to that other service walk anyway cuz they're restricted within the 6 ft or 20% so they would never be able to do it anyway yeah yeah so 6 and 20 and the service walks are out they stay away we're not even talking about service walk yeah service walk okay CU it becomes a driveway once you put a car on top of it sure so I think that just confuses it are we all clear with this now yes okay thank you that's first

time okay next uh item is housing Readiness Grant master plan Amendment yes so um thank you for those that were able to attend the open house for the master plan hopefully you uh saw all the all the residents that uh were able to come and participate after the after the uh open house we wanted to continue the public engagement so the questions that we had at that at the open house were converted into a digital survey and they were put on uh the city's website and so that Community survey uh was up from February 1st to the 19th so in total there were actually 155 responses uh to our our openhouse with regards to this so before you is just a summary of the individual results that we've gotten based on the questions we presented um you know and and it addressed issues uh in the in the open house about the preferences for the housing types you know ranging from the housing for all life stages to options in the darant toown uh Garden City and Beyond we wanted to G engage residents and stakeholders ideas on what type of housing should be uh talked about in terms of allowing for encouraging in the city so they we did get some uh interesting feedback and takeaway some of our key takeaways was the fact that uh 36.4% uh indicating that more assisted and independent senior living options uh would be appropriate there are residents that are looking for those other alternative housing options than single family um but they did manage that indicate that they the residents are actually more supportive of what they might term as gentle density housing types so not necessarily A quadplex or or a Triplex structure uh but tow houses uh or Cottage houses meaning smaller

single family homes as part of an overall development similar to The Cottages down at U Meadows I know it's yeah The Meadows right here on middle Bel and then resid we did find that they were supportive of um having residential uses in the downtown uh and even looking at having additional uh square foot uh stories to accommodate create a more active and vibrant downtown with residents in close proximity to the uh potential future businesses so you know some of those questions uh some of the results were uh you know when we we ask people what are the most uh positive aspects of living in Garden City 48% uh like the city's location in the Greater Detroit region that was we thought that was relatively high but definitely Public Safety uh and sense of community were the highest uh factors that people uh enjoy about living in garden the city um some other aspects to point out uh just asking people open-ended questions about Garden City in general uh the thing that stood out the most was that they enjoyed their close connections with neighbors uh in in the cities that that's created by the current housing um we did want people to think about the different housing types Alternatives and that included asking everyone uh where the type of homes and places they've lived in their over their lifetime um there was a high percent of respondents 45 uh excuse me uh over 90% actually have lived uh in single family uh dwelling units which is the predominant uh dwelling unit type in the city however we note that um there were still 43.5% of residents indicated that they they've lived in lowrise apartments with five stories or less so that type of housing unit isn't necessarily

unfamiliar to you know almost 40 to over 40% of residents in the city so it's something that they uh can see as a type of housing product they were willing to live in at least at some point in their in the course of their life um we didn't ask we then ask people specifically what types of housing do you think might be missing the most in Garden City um and once again this is where assisted and Senior Living options were pointed out uh town houses ranked at 36.4% and the cottage houses were ranked at 27.8% um so this gives us an idea of the type of units that could possibly be included in a master plan uh action plan to to consider for the future and then also then eventually into looking into modifying the zoning ordinance to allow for these type of housing the uh the uh type of other types of housing that might might fit in a single family neighborhood uh such as duplexes or triplexes they were relatively low on the survey the residents only about a little over 10% and then only a little over 5% thought that that type of housing unit would be something that they would be considering um Within the city uh and then we asked specifically uh the idea of accessory dwelling units or back in the day used to call them mother-in-law units or you know those that having a single principal single family structure on the site and then having another dwelling unit that's separate on the site on on the same residential lot um so actually uh a majority of the the most people did say they probably did not feel appropriate about having a dwelling units but they did say if if they were to have them over 35% uh felt the Carriage Home Styles meaning a standalone structure in in a rear yard would be appropriate uh

or converting a garage one thing we note is that you know when it comes to this kind of discussion I had the discussion sometimes when we get to the downtown question um about the the certain characteristics of accessory dwelling units that might be acceptable for example a lot of communities have experimented with accessory dwell units by making sure that there's no visible uh attribute on the principal structure of the accessory dwelling unit so it's looks just like a single family home but so but either the so then the entrance for the accessory dwelling unit is in the rear or the side or it is completely concealed by the principal structure on site so that's for an accessory drw dwelling yes I believe yeah in terms of that that would include the standards uh communities have been willing to embrace the different housing types by making sure that they have more uh specified design standards that's something that we'll definitely be recommending within the master plan and then the then if we get the zoning ordinance amendments for any of these type of units making sure that these are designed to be of high quality with not only materials but architectural details is going to be very important and then finally we we did talk about housing in the downtown Garden City you know what housing would be appropriate um we had our presentation of the different types of structures whether it's a three-story building that's all residential three-story with that there were over 20% that favored a four story mix use and even some were willing to go like over 19% supported a five-story mixed use so to me that means that they're very sensitive about the scale and mass of a building not W to feel overpowering and the good thing is zoning ordinances can be written to minimize that I I presented it to some people when I was there uh at the open house so these

reflection these survey responses might not have the benefit of that uh knowledge about zoning standards meaning that fourth or fifth Story requiring a 10- foot or 15 foot setback on that fourth or fifth Story so that when people are walking along the street it it looks like a three-story building that's what happens with the Mayflower building in Plymouth uh uh theirs is a little different because theirs required a mansard a mansard roof yeah well I guess it is a mansard roof up there that that and you know there are alternative ways we could allow for a four-story or five story mixed use or something like that so that way public hearings um so you have the rest of the the data in front of you uh I just wanted to point out those highlights um from we will be taking this data and using it to formulate uh the rest of uh the the master plan Amendment uh we're be talking about um taking these ideas and how to uh develop them into action plan by first evaluating our existing structure our existing ordinances and evaluating our existing housing stock identifying locations which where these sites the residents have told us they could be acceptable and then the different housing types and then through a um through a bu bulleted list and other recommendations the action plan of the master plan will will present uh the Planning Commission with suggestions on how to implement some of these that would be allow for different housing types in the city but making sure that the residents's uh uh uh opinions are are are met in there so that's we're working on that now and uh that'll be something coming up at a future meeting yes I just I find it interesting on on your second page around the location in

the Greater Detroit region I always think of that as a strength of Garden City just us kind of being in the middle of everything and I just wonder in depending upon how you process all of the feedback and turn it into a a proposal if there is like this flywheel effect of because of our location because of our downtown if we were to increase the number of floors that we allow owed a developer to produce a complex it brings life to the downtown it just seems like there's a there could be a story here for how these how we leverage these strengths to bring people downtown to bring life to downtown MH there's definitely what we're going to attempt to do and I pointed that out because in my head because I think I think I can't remember who but someone at the open house pointed it out it's the fact that you know you think about like Royal Oak or Ferndale or well you can think further of Birmingham you know proximity to downtown when people want to go to a game or people want to have an event they can hop on the freeway and get there and then it takes about 20 minutes but they distance right here you can hop on Ford Road you can be downtown pretty quick it's by what 15 minutes maybe if that I haven't done it lately from right here 25 minutes yeah 25 almost any un less there's construction and laying on 94 oh right down once you get into the city M yeah so you know Ling I mean just yeah you can go in any direction and be someplace pretty quick but even people that are in close PRX to me to downtown Plymouth or downtown Northville they're definitely taking longer to get to downtown Detroit oh absolutely so you know that idea of uh you know we we probably aren't going to do a full-blown marketing analysis for particular residents we're going to do a market analysis of the square footage of in the the commercial aspect of land uses in

the city but you know it could be something that that as an attribute that that you know people would be will like saying they want to have a nice what I always term a Midwest style downtown where it's a little bit of a slower place but then have direct have convenient access to a major Metropolitan downtown area so you know that might be some way that we could that that people that are going to propose these type of buildings could Market their their their sites the idea of condos with retail on the first floor on the former Kmart property sounds kind of attractive because you know we spent quarter of a million dollars 35 years ago on the Hyatt Palma study to make us a walkable City we've moved in that direction little by little by having front doors now placed on Ford Road most more aren't being used but uh they're there if this if it was a more walkable if there are more things to attract people walking um I think uh putting a a residential complex along with some mixed retail that site's certainly large enough uh what is it 6 and a half or seven uh well it's about 6 Acres itself when you include the other adjacent property that's not under ownership it is about seven I think the other thing we need to consider is what kind of investors we're going to get in here we need to be able to appeal to those guys too to be able to build with building cost now their their profits are from floors three four and five one and two pay for pretty much the construction so we found that out three years ago and a apartment complex got nicked because of that cuz they couldn't make a profit at two and a half stories nothing's getting any cheaper

now so it's like we almost need to increase this depending on the lot they want I put it on and where it's at we we should consider going up to you know four five stories to get more investors interested instead of stuff sitting vacant forever yep I agree go higher than that right so that's what dictated but uh it was about three or yeah yeah and there's already quite a few units there and he wanted to add even more and had the land to do it and the parking and everything else he says couldn't make a profit at 2 and A2 so he walked away from the whole thing nothing ever got built that's what I'm saying if we want to increase our population density we don't have that many empty lots the only place we can go is up right and that would be a way to do it yep so maybe something for a future topic to look at that height requirement oh absolutely yes it's going to be part of the proposal stories next to my house in R1 but uh we've got a whole bunch of places where that could work okay uh are we all set with uh that Master Plan discussion yeah next item is scheduling of public hearings uh we have requests for public hearings for the following first one is special land use public hearing to consider an adult use marijuana grower processor and retailer at 32330 Ford Road this is the exist medical marijuana Yep this site already has a license for a medical marijuana grow process and provisioning Center uh they have chosen not to open at this time but they have submitted an application they' like to uh go through the process to to be allowed to do adult

use marijuana okay we need uh make a motion to set a public hearing I'll make a motion to set a public oh go ahead just when do we get more context on so the I'm sorry I didn't no please uh no so this is uh you authorizing us to begin uh setting up for the public hearing so we will adverti make the arrangements to with the Detroit News to advertise we will send out the mailers and then as is standard one week prior to the April uh meeting you will receive a packet with all their submitt documents and the review letter of the of the um of the application and whether it meets the requirements of the ordinance so just for example it references grower oh it does say retailer okay M all right that's where they all want to be need a motion to set a public hearing go ahead I'll second you were about to make okay yeah I'd like to make a motion to have that uh brought up as a or established as a public hearing please support and that date would be or next regular meeting April 10th right the uh first vote is chair uh commissioner steenberg I commissioner King I commissioner Williams I chairperson may I motion carries next item is special land use public hearing to consider a gas station and drive-thru restaurant at drivethru restaurant at 31406 Ford Road where is where is that next to so this is the northwest corner of Ford in

marman and so this is a site that was recently rezoned from uh C2 and uh multif family to completely see2 how toi the zoning there so instead of the car wash we talked about when you bought it last time now it's a drive-through restaurant well it would be a gas station and they want to have a drive-through window on the site at the gas station at the gas station yep so they want to they want they're proposing so any discussion somebody want to make a motion I'll make a motion for a special land use hearing to consider a gas station drive-thru restaurant at 3146 for for public hearing support support okay comments take the roll please uh commissioner Williams hi commissioner King hi commissioner steenberg I chairperson may I motion carries okay next item is uh commissioner comments regarding Planning and Zoning matters uh first Mr Ortega do you have anything else for us NOP nothing else chamber um just one thing I went through some of my previous papers this is the site on Paro that's going to have awnings and plastic shutters I'm very dissatisfied with it um from this drawing that it doesn't bear any resemblance at all uh although I think it'll probably look acceptable having plastic shutters and awnings over the doors it's not even

close to what we approved and I don't understand why we sit up here and go back and forth with all these details and some meetings with a small group we had multiple meetings at this table and then it goes ahead and gets built totally from after all that after all that conversation and going back and forth and getting everybody's opinions and fine-tuning it with the owners and The Architects and the engineers and everything else and it gets built totally different I don't understand why we allow this I think the way to avoid that next time instead of approving us approving a proposed elevation that shows us I think they actually need to bring us a stamp set of plans that is is what they're going to build not an idea that was an idea so I think the problem is we need to stop approving ideas if we want to see what they're actually bringing to us I'm I'm in agreement with that as far as the elevations are concerned correct we get a set of stamp plans but the elevations aren't necessarily the final thing right they're kind of subject to change as long as we within our building codes I mean on both these elevations it shows a portion of the the front facade is being proud of the rest of the building by guest in of 10 to 12 in we have a completely flat building on all four sides there there is nothing proud whatsoever um this elevation uh looking at the original elevation with the combination of the the black and it could be real wood siding or it could be uh vinyl sighing which mock wood you can hardly tell the difference till you get 5T away and then with the the horizontal element on the

vinyl sighting I thought this looks spectacular it looks new it looks modern there is there is a stamp on that sheet yeah but that's say do it say a proposed elevation or is it actually the conceptual front and parking elev conceptual that's the key this was part of that we don't we don't want con ual we want the final elevation well even this shows areas that are proud to the building but U no it didn't turn out anything like I'm disppointed uh I agree this this I mean looking at other locations in the state where I'm pretty sure the rent is higher than here this is the type of construction I see over and over again there's there's it's not a flat building this actually looks like four individual buildings that just happen to be side by side now I know you worked on it Matt and I know you worked on it Mario but I never want to see this again as long as I sit here or maybe I shouldn't sit here because I never want to see this again um I'm very disappointed in the outcome of that building that's all okay Mr Williams uh I'm I'm good okay I I'll just support commissioner steber comments and recalling that there was some controversy from residents on this building and that uh you know those of us who thought about it and wanted to do the right thing by the city kind of sold it as hey we know this is going to be a beautiful building right it's so for the Builder to change it we did a lot for this if I maybe had one question on the topic when it comes to the building department are there Gates if you will as to where you know a pallet of bricks gets

dropped off are there any checkpoints that the building department has with a builder of a major um development like this I have I'll just hey we'll see let us know when you we need your SE of um certificate of occupancy so there are definitely requirements in the building code for uh when inspections have to occur uh so that's in the building code as a planner I don't know what triggers them I have talked about and and sometimes we have had uh preconstruction meetings where we talk about the after the plan has been uh the building permit has been is has is going to be issued for a set of drawings you know I I've I've often tried to make sure that we have some kind of pre-construction meeting so that we coordinate everything not only from a logistical construction standpoint but making sure that we're all working from the same set of drawings uh because and it's gotten better uh as we've included uh the digital plans and the digital plans are included within our our computer system and they are attached to uh the properties and then it's a matter of whether when those are referenced in the reviews I think maybe something we could do is look at making sure that the reviews of uh building building electrical Mechanical plumbing uh reference the site plans but it's you know a lot of times they don't uh delve into those issues because they're site related the site plan and that sort of thing elevations of course are part of the building code and it should be something that gets evaluated um one thing we do here is have our our uh site plan review of a plan that isn't the final construction site plan because then because we do you know trying to be business friendly we let the applicants come in and do that and so it's beneficial and it's worked and and a lot

of the other things we've had set up work for example the the um multi-tenant building on Ford Road a few blocks east of iner uh that building did end up looking uh as as was presented uh in the site plan and so those checks and balances worked and how this one worked you know there are other things we could we could look into in terms of that like for example uh applicant providing us with material samples prior to installation or something like that doesn't the applicant have to if they change the elevation they're not required to come back to the building department with an RFI or stamped they're required to whether they're required to they built not to that elevation it was completed before they submitted any plans before they were stopped it was well it was 2/3 then I guess at that point we got to make them tear it down so I mean at the at the point where they're not even going to do the paperwork they need to do and they're just going to give us the entirely wrong elevation if we keep letting them do it to be bus friendly they're just going to keep doing it well that's definitely wasn't any aspect of of that review process like man said that they had the the plans and then while they were in the review process the construction started and then they by the time that um uh by the time it was made aware how did they get the building permit no the the building permit was issued already it wasn't in the review process process so the the footing and Foundation was done already um but that elevation the way it shows to the way it was built it shouldn't even have passed the rough framing inspection because the elevations are so different well the elevations as submitted are are are not what you have seen either um the plans were presented and approved with uh uh basically the plans that we had had the

brick uh to the first floor uh brick on the side and then it was a Hardy plank in the front uh it also did have five um more Gables across the front those were removed you know in the framing section too so uh we I mean we were uh our inspections were done at at the intervals required and did it between our inspections um we don't the building department doesn't go out we it cannot unless unless the the council wants to change and then that will also increase the fees so so what are the ramifications if somebody does not build something to the blueprint are there fines like if you put up a privacy fence without a permit you get fined or you pay double the permit fee is there something to encourage these people to maybe do it as presented one possibility and we don't see this anymore we used to get samples of brick and siding and Etc building materials would actually come in here this is the Brick we're going to use here's a brick this is the siding we're going to use but our rights are our rights have been reduced because we can't regulate those is is is not something we can regulate so I guess the next time that comes to us with that drawing corre something like that we put a motion we could say contingent to the change of the brick can only be on 70% of the building and the rest has like we could do that here correct and we did and we did wouldn't wouldn't it be fairly simple to require the applicant to sign some kind of adastation before they break ground of you know these are my final plans I signed the at estation that they will not materially change from what's been presented do we do that or is it

all in the honor System is in their building now now we do require everyone that has a certificate of occupancy to sign a use statement so therefore what's propos what their proposed business is is the proposed business in the site uh so we do that aspect of it so it could be something that we could do I mean we have the body that's making either the decision or the recommendation for city council so you would think that when we agree to something with the applicant here that's what sticks um so I I might suggest uh Mr Ortega if that's something you could think about whether some kind of a or know Mr Miller if it's you some is there some kind of attestation document that we upon our approval that is now your role is to sign that attestation to say that these plans will not materially change or you will bring them back before the the commission I I think instead of making a rule we we have the plans adjusted like I don't know if we put the photometric plan in that uh Amendment did we for the previous uh construction of the building did we the one on war oh was a photometric pan was included in the pap was in here already it's I've been thinking about that oh we're not going to use the Red Brick we're going to use this okay I I I hate to make things more expensive for somebody when it doesn't need to be but I think it needs to be we're not approving it bring me back the new drawing this is what you're building bring me that drawing with the AIA certified architect stamp right on the corner of it otherwise no building permit gets issued period because Garden City's a pushover City guys you do this in Dearborn you ain't opening that building do this in Westland you're not opening that building do it in in Leonia you're not opening that building they're going to tell you to build it like that picture

says I don't want to uh you know so we were left with what uh I'm going to distribute just so you can see what what was was um some amendments that did finally come out of you know you you get lemons you have to make lemonade and I'm not blaming you or but I did want to pass them out and just so you had them so that you know that um you know we can't control yeah we can't control take one of take one and pass it down I guess we can't control what occurs out there and the adastation sounds wonderful also I've worked at a city hall for 31 years and developers just do what they want um some are good some are bad um but I did want you to see that uh we took to heart your concerns I I was concerned also I drive by it of all the time also and I was trying to look to add some features that would make it um have some um ulation of the facade um given individuality to each of the units um in the original plans that were approved um they had a common sidewalk along the front a 7ot wide sidewalk along the front and in that site plan you can see that it is now an individual um right on the front page uh if you want to see um that each one now has its own porch its own service walk to the public walkway um and an individual tree in their front yard of each unit um to take away the apartment esque feel for it um the same facade uh is put on the back and also at the end at the top kind of gable brackets to give it some some character across the front so um that's what uh the developer is doing to

address our concerns and um you have that um and it will be built from what we see if there's any change to that I I will give up I guess um but um so I wanted you to see what was done and what is being done currently those pictures were taken this morning probably about 8:30 and I know they continue to work the rest of the day uh because the neighbor of course phoned us about the work so well any changes are made without approval don't give them their C of correct we've had many U conversations with the developer yeah I I I applaud what you guys came up with um to rectify something that you should have never had to rectify so in the future we're going to try and make this to where you don't have to help the the Builder build what he's supposed to build because that's what it came down to the own has ended up being on you guys to find a solution for why he didn't do what he was said he was going to do with all the paperwork and all the meetings so we did we get a change through the building department showing it like this at one point or another no they have now yes but prior to it being bricked to the roof no no and the inspector was out just to make sure that those changes um meet the code also you know that make sure it's attach the header ex exactly so those things were done so all right then uh did you have anything else Mr Miller okay the only question I had was about the U 153 bar you see they're tearing it down last I looked the only thing left was the front wall yeah I thought only 20% oh really they did that much I I

didn't believe so either I I didn't go back there I saw part of it okay oh what I was asking was do we know what's going to be there now yeah so the their proposal was to um so the building foot the existing building footprint occupied the entire lot there which meaning it went all the way to the back to the alley their proposal is to to take off the rear 20 ft of the existing building to in order to create a uh parking on the site behind there and then they're going to renovate the existing front facade on Ford Road uh and then renovate the site into a multi-tenant building uh and they have control of not only that building but then also the adjacent lot with the former jewelry and then they they actually bought the uh the individual lots that are the driveway off of that between the jewelry store and the barber shop and they actually bought the barber shop too so they're in that control of that entire uh at site of that the benefit of that is then their their customers for the multi-tenant building will have direct access off a Ford Road that was always the issue is anytime anybody did anything they couldn't they officially didn't have access to those others so they were proposing you know the people would have to use the alley to get back there or find somewhere else to park so this is a much more comprehensive approach to the entire site um but the best of mind now it could be that maybe the the middle was gone though the problem is is that a good portion of the center of the structure was the roof had collapsed so right that may be U unfortunately probably what they're dealing with too and it could be that that too that you know for the longest time the city has been fighting with the owners and and uh to deal with it because of the fire the fire damaged to the on the west side of the building and the problem was the owners miraculously changed hands and then we had to because of the state law

we had to start over from square one when they when the owners change and so that's what happened each time I mean it was in front of the building official did as best he could because he was putting them in front of condemnation hearings and he was going to condemn the building and then somebody showed up oh I'm going to do this we wanted them to you know the plans seemed viable and they were approved they re issued a building permit and then oh they changed the ownership again so unfortunately the can down the road and we have do it this owner now he at least now he's doing it and I get the feeling and I'm not I'm not a building official or a structural engineer but I would think kicking the can down the road that long that fire damage suddenly became a lot worse than what it was initially due to the weather so it most it might have resulted in the the construction the collapse of the middle of the structure and therefore then instead of just taking off the rear 20 foot they probably have to keep going and going well I I can't say exactly how much they've taken off the building they're supposed to have it like you said a spe like line to allow for a sidewalk and to allow for parking and access to the door and what's do we know what's going to go mul commercial building multi-tenant commercial oh okay TBD I do have one other item yeah just uh the volunteer appreciation dinner um has been cancelled and so if you have responded um that I think you received the email but I just wanted to let everyone know that um we don't have a proposed date for another one but it's been canceled this time so so you have an another night off this month all right okay all right show somebody okay uh next regular Planning Commission meeting is Thursday April 10th 2025 and I'll take a motion for adjournment motion to ajour support motion made and

supported all in favor I I I most meeting's adjourned thank you