Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.

Proceeded.

Would the secretary take the roll call, please?

Chairperson May.

Here.

Commissioner Steenburg, he was going to try and make it, but if not, asked to be excused. Commissioner Walz. Here. Commissioner King, he's also asked to be excused. Commissioner Williams. Here. Commissioner Bozzi has asked to be excused. And Commissioner Daniels. Here. You do have a quorum with four members. Thank you.

Next, we need approval of the agenda.

Move to approve. Second. Oh, here's Mr. Steenberg.

Thank you.

Move like.

We have a motion to approve. Was there support for that? Support. Support. Any discussion on the motion? Take the roll, please.

Yes. One was that Commissioner Daniels made a motion. Thank you. Commissioner Daniels. Aye. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Walz. Aye. Commissioner Steenburg. Let's see approval of the agenda. I thank you and chairperson may. The motion does carry.

And next we need approval of the minutes for the regular meeting of April 9th 2026. Move to approve.

Proven supported.

Any.

Hearing none, take the roll, please.

Commissioner Daniels. Aye. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Walz. Aye. Commissioner Steenburg. Aye. Chairperson May.

Aye.

The motion does carry.

Next, we have public comment on non-agenda items only.

If there's someone here who wishes to make a comment on an item that's not on our agenda, this is their opportunity to come forward to the podium.

And speak up. And on and on agenda item. We'll move on. Our business items first item. The 2, 5, 0, 0, 1, 0. Revised request for site plan approval to construct and new 4 unit residential building at 28541 Crowder Avenue in the RM3 Multiple Family Residential Zoning District. Start out with our consultant's presentation report.

Good evening, Chairman, Commissioners. Before you tonight is a revised set of plans for the proposed four-unit residential building that you did see This submittal documents to you is a little unique in that the applicant did make changes based on the comments from the meeting and submitted site plans in April. Our review letter in front of you is based on those April set of plans. However, their architect must be very efficient because he was able to, once he received the review letter, was able to provide revised May plans. And so there's two sets of plans. You should have two sets of plans with you. that one is an April set and the other is May. So my review letter, I'm gonna go over based on the April set and my response to that, and then noting on the May set the additional changes they've done. I know this is typically not done, but we have received direction from council to try and make sure that any site plan gets approved, has very minimal items left available for approval. So the applicant was just trying to make an effort to address that. And we'll see how this goes.

And if it gets a little continuous, maybe in the future, we might just request that those plans...

reflective of the letter. But with this proposed development, the first issue we had from the original set that was addressed in April, paragraph B on page two, the applicant originally the building did not meet the 30-foot setback because of the projected window. The April site plan does show the building, the very edge of the building is 30 feet from the front lot line. So also noted the height of the building the height of the building to the peak of the roof is 25 feet 6 inches. Technically we actually or measure height to the midpoint between the peak. The height of the building is actually 22 feet. So with these revisions on April plans. development because they have a variance for the side yard setbacks. The proposed building is completely in compliance with the conventional requirements. With regards to building design, one thing you requested was material samples be provided. The applicant has provided them.

They're on the table for you to take a look at.

However, in the April set, we did want to have them note the color of the materials. That wasn't the case, but in the May set, they have noted the proposed color, which matches exactly with the materials that you have. So the May set does include that detail. It's requesting here that the elevations be revised. They have been revised.

Moving on to parking.

Originally, they needed to provide one ADA-compliant spot, and on the April set, they did provide an ADA-compliant spot with a five-foot passenger loading area. However, on that April set, it turned out that they lost one space. They are required to have nine parking spaces. In the original plan, they had seven outdoor spaces and two in a garage space. There's two separate one-car garages. So those were the total of nine parking spaces. By adding the ADA spot on the April plan, it did lose a standard parking. But on the May set, the applicant has revised that to include... total of nine parking spaces because they made slight adjustments to the width of the landscape islands that are located on the east and west side of the lot. So now that May set is in compliance with the minimum parking space. It does have the ADA compliant space with regards to that. One thing that wasn't addressed on the April set was detailing a fully enclosed parking closure for a 3 sided enclosure for the rolling hand carts. But on the Mesa they have provided a rip. Closure for the hand carts in that West side. Island I should say so the Mesa does include that wire cash enclosure. The ordinance as well. And final issue was with regards to sidewalks. The original plan actually didn't show a sidewalk leading from the parking space to the doors. for the upstairs apartments. The applicant initially provided on the April set a sidewalk leading to the lower apartments from the south of the building. We forgot to do the little stubs off of the sidewalk to the doors that lead up to the second floor apartments. So on the May set, they have provided that additional hard surface sidewalk.

So that way there's a hard surface sidewalk going from the parking lot to the doors and entry for the

So with that, the only outstanding issue, to go back to paragraph G, is the proposed lighting. The applicant did submit a photometric plan and did include the light fixtures. One thing we just noted is that, and the proposed fixtures are in compliance and everything else is in compliance, it's just that we noted that they do have a light fixture on the east side of the building. Technically, that's just a yard area, and it's not really required because there's no pedestrians walking on that side, and there's no parking on that area. So we would suggest that they actually remove that light just so that way it's not shining into the residents on the east side.

So that's the only thing on the May set that we believe is outstanding.

So with that, we do believe that the site plan, the May set, is insufficient. ordinance standard, and we would recommend granting approval just contingent upon any opinion the Planning Commission has on that light on the east side of the building. And then, of course, obviously, the applicant complying with any engineering and fire approvals that are done during administrative review for the clients.

Any questions on the report?

Yes.

Has it been reviewed by the fire marshal yet?

No, he hasn't done an official review just yet. He typically waits for final site plan and review when the engineer does that review.

Okay.

I noticed that the weights to the first floor entrance were removed from the site plan. Shared wall with the restrooms, but I meant to move them to the adjacent to the door, but I don't see them at all in the drawings anymore.

It's kind of hard to tell but on the photometric sheet One there's a different sized Graphic and then a label of b5 and b6 right next to the door. Oh, you don't have that in there You want us on the April so Okay, and then that well, yeah, I might be on the equal set but even on that when I do believe that that has

Okay, so that's got the single light. So I had asked to have it moved to the side so the light wasn't on the back of the person entering the building so they're not shadowing through the door.

It looks like he's got the fixture onto the north side of each door.

Yeah, this is the April set, so I only see B-7.

Yeah, for the second floor entrances.

Yeah, but on the first floor entrances into the space, person's back is to the light as they enter. Oh, so I see what you're saying.

A similar configuration for those units as the front units.

Yeah.

It's just the addition of one light.

It would be the removal of one light and addition of a light, possibly.

But it makes sense. Yeah, I can see. I'm sorry. That is a safer configuration. So that way the light is, just like any residential light, is right adjacent to the door. So it would be on the east and west side of the hall and west wall in the courtyard.

Any other comments or questions? Everyone satisfied with the materials for the facade? Yeah. The colors? Anybody want them? I think they've already seen them. Did you want them?

Yeah, no, I didn't see them.

I'm all set.

Okay. Did you have anything else, Mr. Ortega? No, that's it.

We have one question.

Okay, would the applicant care to approach the podium and make his presentation? Maybe we can straighten out the lighting issue.

Good evening, good evening. Gary Slaton. Yeah, whatever the light is. Was it adding a light in the back or something?

So the first floor entrances on the April set, you showed the B-7 light right in the middle between the two bathrooms. Okay, and then we took it out, I think. On the A1 set, it's not shown, but Ortega showed us on E1. But if you put them adjacent to the doors, so, you know the whole The rear the rear doors.

Yes same as you have same as you have for the second units the second floor units have the light right adjacent to the correct and He just went with one light along the shared wall, but it makes sense to have one light for each door. Absolutely.

Somebody might want it on, somebody might not want it on. I didn't catch that. That's definitely not a problem.

And is there any problem with removing that light on the east side?

Not at all. I think he did it, he thought it was a code, but it's not. I told him to just remove it. Yeah, we just don't.

Because of the proximity of the neighbors there, we don't want to be shining light.

It makes perfect sense. It makes perfect sense. So no, no, we're happy to get the project going and whatever it is that you require. Hopefully the colors, I think their modern colors look good.

Yeah. I think everybody feels that the colors are satisfactory. Mm-hmm. Okay, were there any other questions for the applicant or comments?

Did you have anything else you wanted? No, thank you. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Next, is there any comments from the public or questions?

Okay, seeing none,

We'll move on to the Planning Commission discussion. We have several of the items that were listed as an original report have been taken care of. We have the material colors are good. We added a parking space. Trash enclosure is detailed. Light level reduction is taken care of. Oh, did we talk about the sidewalk being added?

Yes.

Added that. And I assume we're talking about Sidewalk here, F, it says note stating repair or replacement of existing Crowder Avenue will be completed as needed. Is that sidewalk we're talking about?

Yes, yes. Forgive me, I noticed that. Are you talking about the street? No, he's not going to be required to repay Crowder, no. It's the sidewalk there. If there are any trip hazards, if the surface during construction gets damaged, then they would just be required to repair and replace any portion of the sidewalk. Okay.

Within their property to be level and free.

That's a building code requirement that they always take care of during construction.

And in our approval, we would require final civil site plan construction drawings for the city engineer to be approved. and as well as utility and drainage of the site and review by the city's fire marshal.

Yes. Okay.

Any other questions or comments? Anyone care to make a motion?

I move to support provided that the light on the east side is removed. Lights by the first floor entrances are Taken care of to be adjacent to the doors and the b7 moved On review and approval final site civil site plan construction drawings by the civil city engineer That includes the utility and drainage for the site as well as review and approval fire marshal second

Is there support? Support. Support. Any comments, questions on motion? Would the secretary take the roll please?

Yes, Commissioner Daniels. Aye. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Walz. Aye. Commissioner Steenburg.

Aye.

Chairperson May.

Abstain. I've already voted on this at the CBA. All right.

Thank you. The motion does carry four to zero.

Okay. So I plan to approve and Mr. Ortega to move forward. Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

I look forward to doing the next one after this one.

Okay. Next item is zoning ordinance amendment. We have a public hearing on the proposed amendment language regarding residential parking standards. We have a presentation by the consultant, please.

As the commissioners know, we have been going through attempting to have amendments to the residential parking standards to allow, to give those property owners more options for parking on site. And basically in the end, after the discussion, I believe direct and efficient way to address the issue. The language in front of you is what you've seen previously. Paragraph A3, the driveway width is gonna be allowed to be increased to a maximum of 30 feet on a residential lot. On page two, paragraph, the new paragraph four, a driveway shall extend in front of the house by no more than 20% of the width of the front of the house. That's because previous language specified that no driveway could be located in front of a structure. So typically with that standard, even with a 25 or 30 foot wide house, you're only gonna get So that gives property owners an alternative.

And then we took the liberty of looking at the other standards with regards to commercial vehicle parking.

On page three.

Paragraph C at the top.

So to change the specification from a three quarter to a one ton commercial vehicle.

And then to be consistent with

Accessory structure standards which because the accessory structures are allowed like sheds and even garages are allowed to be three foot from a side lot line Paragraph d3 has been revised to say that the recreational vehicles when they're parked in a side yard would be allowed to be three feet That's a language that's proposed and that's language that was Public hearing tonight

We'll open the public hearing.

Does anyone wish to.

Make a comment on this item. We have three minutes to come up and make your comments if you wish to do so. It's not a question and answer period, but simply a time to state your feelings. Anyone wish to come forward? Now seeing no one, we'll move on. We have any written communications.

We did not receive any written communications.

Then we'll close the public hearing. Move on to the planning commission for recommendations.

I just have a grammar.

I understand.

On 7, page 3, part 7, the first C, second line, it says, provided that the vehicle in not a utility truck. I'm assuming you mean provided that the vehicle is not a utility truck.

Luckily, those things are called Scribner's errors, and those can be correct. grammar in the fact that spell check doesn't get some that was all any other uh... recommendation recommendation public residential parking

I support. And supported. Any comments on the motion? Would the secretary take the roll, please?

Yes. Commissioner Williams.

Aye.

Commissioner Daniels. Aye. Commissioner Walls. Aye. Commissioner Steenberg. Aye. Chairperson May.

Aye.

The motion does carry with five affirmative votes.

Okay, moving on. Our next item is zoning ordinance amendment and public hearing on the proposed amendment language regarding therapeutic massage facilities. We'll start out with our presentation of the consultant's report.

Yes. This has been brought to our attention due to the various locations of therapeutic massage and also in an attempt to further be in compliance with the state law. Because state law does specify certain types of massage therapy that does require a license, but not all. There are some massage services that don't require someone to have a license for them. that by just classifying massage therapy as a service use but requiring the license would be sufficient. But it does seem like there are those individuals that want to do that. Non-licensed therapeutic, non-licensed massage services in rc1 so the language in front of you is uh goes into specification uh more detail regarding a definition for massage service provider and massage services that are unlicensed to specify specifically that uh excuse me to specify in more detail that the physical therapy facility is where uh standard physical therapy done by a doctor done by a by professionals, medical professionals have that ability to do that within there. So things like physical therapy will not be impacted by these changes at all. And then amending the zoning districts to then specify that all massage therapies, even if those are licensed, are only allowed in C3 after special land use approval. So that is a language that has been proposed .

OK.

Any questions on the report?

No questions, but one comment. I was just down in Pompano Beach at my daughter's and there's a business that advertises an ice cream parlor for massages. But they don't call it that. It's hug therapy. And apparently it's quite successful because she's got offices in Pompano Beach and New York City. So I guess there's a lot of different names you can...

applied to this but that's why this this language in these terms of like a anybody doing anything else like that justice massage services and those still those i have to be done after special approval with certain setbacks in residential spot when you go on this lady's uh... website which we did as a joke find out uh...

There may be more to this than meets the eye because you can get hug therapies overnight. You can get hug therapies for the weekend. There's a lot of variations of that. Long hugs.

Okay. I think I think our ordinance would cover that with.

Yeah, yeah, the way these are defined in the way it's captured captured that that that would be under these definitions to be confined defined as a massage service and then it would. And restrict them from being in the city at all that we can direct them where to go. They would have to be in the C 3 district may have to come and get special menus approval from any commission and city counts.

I just have one item I wanted to discuss regarding the Central Business District. There are, I believe, one or two already established there, and so will they be grandfathered in?

Wouldn't they be existing non-conforming uses?

That is correct. With just this amendment, because this is a zoning ordinance, it would... under those all those businesses that are uh... currently established that are not in the c three and you say be legally not will say that after discussions with the city manager and of counsel licensing ordinance purpose that would require uh... sunset date in which at a certain point in time in order to obtain a business license all massage establishments would have to be in full compliance with the zoning standards. That's something.

Would that include a physical therapy?

Well, physical therapy is listed here as a separate physical therapy, and physical therapy is a standard service that's permitted in all commercial hospitals.

So that's not required to be in a C3?

No, only those that provide massage services or are licensed state massage therapists. They're permitted in the city, but they would have to be in a C3.

So this is a similar tact and approach that other communities have used and we have used in Garden City

for the caregiver grow establishments.

Previously caregiver grows were regulated and we did regulate them and specify that only caregiver grows have to be located in industrial.

But in the zoning ordinance that's what it says. Then we also adopted, the city adopted a general police power ordinance that does specify anybody doing a caregiver grow and wants a license to caregiver grow has to, and that's for medical marijuana, I should specify. Medical marijuana caregiver grow under the MMMA, the first state law for marijuana. Caregivers are allowed to grow plants for their patients.

Up to 72 plants.

Activities were being done inside residential structures. They were causing all kinds of problems with the amount of electrical service going into a site, brownouts happening in residential neighborhoods and all these other characteristics. So the licensing ordinance was adopted that required them to obtain a license.

And the only way they could obtain a license after a certain time period was to comply with the zoning, meaning that they'd have to be located in the industrial area.

That was an effective tool in removing caregiver growth from our residential neighborhoods. So this is a similar tactic that's potentially being considered for a city council, that therapeutic massage, after a certain time frame, the ones that are established would have to obtain it. In order, when they get their next business license or visits renewed annually, they would have to make sure, they would have to submit the verification of their compliance to the zoning.

It's going to be under consideration now. Obviously, I'm not an attorney, but we would have legal counsel review that, but that's just an approach being considered.

Okay, any other... No, we don't. I guess we haven't opened the public hearing on this. We'll do that now. Public hearing is open at 7.03. Does anyone wish to come forward to make a comment concerning this ordinance amendment? seeing no one we'll move on do we have any written communications we receive no written communications then we'll close the public hearing at 704 and move on to planning commission discussion and recommendation for approval or Or not. Any comments from the commission or questions?

I guess my comment would be as far as a sunset date on existing businesses, I don't think there should be one. I feel that if they're already here, they've been operating, we haven't had any issues with them, we should let it be, but For somebody else to move in, they would have to conform to the new rules and regulations. So I think putting a sunset date on something like this, probably not a very good idea.

Okay, but that's not part of this?

It's not, it's just my account.

Okay. And that would kind of run concurrent with... other examples where we have non-conforming, but they're established.

Correct, exactly.

Now, if they were non-conforming and established, but very problematic, that's a whole different story, because then that's something that can be addressed in the ordinance area.

That's a good point that while, because my general script to deuces that are legally non-conforming, I tell them, you know, we don't call it grandfathering because when someone feels like they're grandfathered in, they're allowed to do whatever they want. They can't. When they're legally non-conforming, I tell them, you know, the city had a certain set of rules. We give them the benefit of the doubt that when you were established back in the day, you were in compliance with all rules at that time. And however, just because a city has changed their ordinances, it doesn't mean that we can, with just changing the zoning ordinances, that we can require them to comply with the new standards. But there are certain things that they are allowed to do and not do. A legal nonconforming use cannot expand the size of the building if it's a setback issue. It can't extend that use into other parts of the site to increase the size. conformity, they're restricted to their existing conditions at the time that they were legal. But the business can be bought, it can be sold, and it can be maintained.

They can do a certain amount of maintenance, but they can't do any improvements that are intended to make it be staying

beyond what's normal structural. They can make structural, necessary structural change.

But even if the business is bought or sold, at the point it's bought or sold, doesn't a new owner have to BY THE NEW RULES?

NO, ACTUALLY, THAT'S THE THING. WELL, THE KEY TO THAT IS IF A SITE BECOMES VACANT, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WAS ONE OF THE USED CAR SITES, ONE OF THE SMALLER ONES, RIGHT NOW OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE IS YOU HAVE TO HAVE A TWO ACRES MINIMUM TO ESTABLISH A NEW CAR SALES USE. This site was 20,000 square feet or even less, but it's been there forever. It was the Ford lot on the south side of Ford and Hubbard. Hubbard. Yeah. So it went vacant. So the ordinance states that if the site is vacant and the use isn't operating for six months, then the legal nonconforming status expires.

Then any new use of that site ends up being full

lines of all the zoning. Someone re establishes that use within that 6 month time frame it's allowed to continue. It's a property right that runs with the land unless they go beyond the it's not in perpetuity. So in that particular case the applicant got their application in just under the wire and they were allowed to continue and establish the new car sales lot on that same one. But some of those specific rules, and that's a very good point, is that if it's vacant for six months, then yes, it goes away. But if a new business comes in, they can pick up the ball and run with it and keep going.

So is that an ordinance as far as six months per the city? Can we work on landing that so if it changes ownership, that it's not going to be conforming anymore?

We have to look into that.

Since we have the new standards and we're not letting anybody else come in with that size lot and do it?

It would be something I'd probably have to rely on attorneys to provide opinions on because that involves property law and whether that's vested right or not. Could be that similarly to what we've done with these caregiver grows and what might happen with massage therapies, that when someone applies for a business license...

If it's been a vacant site, maybe they have to be in full compliance.

I mean, it's possible. Because, you know, I guess that point you're making is... similar to these other things so but it's i will say that the vast majority if not all of my clients do have some time frame some some of them go 12 months some of them someone can be it can be vacant for a year and then it can get re-established six months is usually the is actually the standard but isn't the new c of o doesn't that squash that though no that's the thing when it's legally non-conforming like that if we can if the applicant establishes that it's legally based on all their previous permits and our experience with the existing uses on the site, we can establish that it's generally legally, because the burden of the ordinance says that the city has to demonstrate that it's illegally non-conforming or that it's been vacant for more than six months in order for that non-conforming use to go away.

So it's one of those things where it is written

not on statute, but on case law.

So I believe that there's some merit to that, but it's not something that doesn't mean we couldn't look at it.

We could definitely look at it.

The city prevailed on that a number of years ago. On the, let's see, southwest corner of Middle Belt and Cherry Hill, there was a shell station that was vacated There had been a murder there of a teenager many years before, and it sat empty for quite some time, years. And then they came back in and wanted to reopen it as a gas station. By that time, our ordinance had changed to say that you had to have X number of square feet To open it and they challenged us in court, but we prevailed on that six month Rule of our ordinance there But I kind of think that it I Just looked up the two that you're talking about on my phone. I didn't even know they were there So I'm guessing they're not too problematic the the two non-conforming on Ford Road that I So I don't think we should rock somebody's business that's been doing business appropriately in the city.

So if- I don't think this ordinance does that. No. What the further steps that Mr. Ortega is talking about might, but that's not what we're dealing with.

Right, I understand that. would just hope that maybe these comments get back to the council that sunsetting I don't think is, if you want to sell it and you've been following the rules up to this point and you can sell it and they follow the rules, I don't have a problem with that. But sunsetting it I think is unfair.

I just wanted to add that kind of back a couple comments ago regarding Kind of trying to eliminate legal non-conforming structures or uses it also comes into a Factor about property taking not only land use rights property taking so I was involved many years ago in something like that where the city was then taken to court and they didn't lose and Because it was considered a taking of their rights and taking in the value and so required some Paying out shall we say is correct correct? Yeah, and so it's kind of what legal non-conforming does and we can to answer Commissioner walls we when it becomes a new C of O we issue that to the person or the business like who is the new person and So we can keep their land use rights intact Even signs to you know, we have a lot many legal not confirming signs Also, they sign rights and property rights really hold true for everything almost But where we can make improvements is that building code change that changes and things like that we can get the improvement at that time if there's something you know out of ordinance at that time or out of out of code and And so we get the improvement done with the CFO, but they keep the use. Okay.

Does someone care to make a motion on the recommendation?

I'll make a motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve the zoning ordinance amendment. We're only making a recommendation, not approval.

To recommend approval? Recommend approval by the council.

Yeah, to recommend approval by the council.

Yeah. Okay. Support?

Support.

Motion is made in support. Any questions or comments on the motion? Secretary, take the roll please.

Commissioner Steenberg.

Aye.

Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Daniels. Aye. Commissioner Walz. Aye. Chairperson May.

Aye.

The motion does carry with five votes.

Okay, next item is zoning ordinance amendment for data centers. Discussion of the approach to regulate data centers. Mr. Ortega, you want to start us off?

Yes. So city council felt the recent increase in interest to establish data centers throughout Michigan warranted establishing moratorium because the city doesn't have any regulations now with regards to data centers. So the council did pass a moratorium, a six-month moratorium in April 6th to prohibit application for any data centers in the city. So in keeping with the moratorium... How long is that moratorium? Six months. So in keeping with the moratorium, the reason for the moratorium isn't just to make people try and go away. What it is is behind the moratorium is we need to establish regulations for data centers so um... provided the planning commission and so they directed planning commission to consider zoning amendments uh... that would regulate data centers and provided we make uh... progress on discussion of items and and and looking at draft text and providing uh... as long as that's moving forward uh... While the goal would be to try and have something to council so it can be adopted prior to the expiration of the moratorium in six months, it's also very common that if a complex issue such as this one, there's more time needed to create the language, city council would have the authority to grant an extension another six months to allow the planning commission further time to because it is a very complex issue. What I have in front of you is something of data centers in a lot of a lot of places our firm has been working in those communities in which the data centers are being proposed not celine and so we have extensive experience with looking at site plans for these uses some of the characteristics also i've already adopted or excuse me i've already created amendment language for data centers and other communities i will say that those communities are more So the issues that are discussed here do apply to the city, but I think given the size of Garden City and given the built-out nature, it's gonna be pretty obvious where they should go. Just to cut to the chase with regards to that, While you might think that Garden City isn't going to be a place where any data center would go, there are different types. So the ones in the news are what's called the hyperscale. They're used for either multi-tenant or for a large operator that wants to do AI, they want to do cloud-based. customers but then they propose even bigger sites to provide huge buffers around them in an attempt to be compatible with adjacent properties. 500, 800 square, 800 acre sites obviously won't be established in the city. However, data centers mainly need things, two things.

They need access to some type of cooling alternative. So that means water mains typically, but there's also the other alternative for cooling is air-cooled, mainly basically air-conditioned.

but at a massive scale. But then they also need access to internet transmission lines.

They look like massive data lines. And there's certain locations within Michigan in which these large scale fiber is located.

And so they want to try, and their best alternative they want proximity to these. But then the other thing is that they're not all hyperscale, to go back to that. Sometimes these data centers, sometimes they're just allowed for business.

Sometimes a business needs to have a dedicated location in their business for computing because that's what they do. And so you don't necessarily want to restrict them because then you're kind of losing that kind of employer that needs like a 5,000 square foot portion of the building to have a server. You don't want to necessarily restrict that. But then there's also other types of data centers that are dealing with the banking industry. And so they need to be in close proximity to urban areas to deal with and then they have create, and they actually have a very higher level of employment than some of these AI ones where they just need someone to make sure the AI is is not yet taking over.

They're just watching them. But these other employees, things like banking, insurance, health care, they rent out space in these edge data centers or co-location ones. They make sure that there's always constant reliability of your banking sites, your credit card sites, your healthcare sites. And those have more employees. But then they tend to be in urban areas. One of the bigger ones in Metro Detroit is actually in Southfield. And you wouldn't know it because it's like a six-story office building. It's not massive in scale, but it has multiple levels of computing. So there's a potential that could exist in Garden City.

I haven't done the research yet to see where the transmission lines are.

In the end, once again, because of the residential nature of the city, the most obvious location is placing these in the industrial district.

And then we then propose regulations on maximum footprint size for these. And then...

IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THEY FIT IN THE SIZE AND SCALE. AND THEN THE OTHER THING THAT REALLY WITH ALL THESE IS THE ISSUE IS THE OPERATORS ARE JUST NOT VERY FORTHCOMING WITH THE DETAILS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. SO A LOT OF OUR REGULATIONS IN OTHER COMMUNITIES ARE GIVE US INFORMATION BECAUSE ONE ISSUE about these data centers, the hyperscale ones, is like the megawatts needed don't directly equate to the size of a building. Sometimes these megawatts can be, you know, massive building because they want to spread them out and they have a different proposal for air handling that requires more square footage, sometimes it's less. So in the end, ordinances need to have very detailed, require applicants to provide a lot of detail on specific uses that are characteristic of the data centers. How much electricity are you using? What kind of, does the existing, they have to do an analysis on the existing infrastructure existing electric users. And then same thing with water, if they're going to go build this water base. Sometimes they use closed-loop systems in which they either use a certain amount of water that gets recycled on the site or they use chemical base, like they mix it with but basically, so because those are more efficient than water, but then where does that go? How do they deal with it?

Some places have these things called swamp coolers, which is a way in which they have a certain level of moisture in the facility to do this.

And then there's all kinds of crazy things being proposed. I think Facebook putting a satellite out in space and then beaming down electricity to power one of their things or something.

So that's why, because they aren't forthcoming, because they're proprietary information, they can still submit enough details for us as a planning commission and a community.

What are you going to be impacting? What are your characteristics?

And is it going to fit in the city? So the ordinances would be based about that. Based on...

of information required to get details from the applicant.

And then we would recommend this being special land use. And then feel free to ask questions.

It seems like the possibility would exist. Looking at the housing readiness plan and other data that's out there, our population is shrinking and it will continue to shrink a little bit. So I could see the possibility of a school being vacated, additional, maybe one or two schools being vacated. And schools generally occupy a pretty big footprint when you look at the building and the adjacent land.

So they're tearing down the church on Ford Road across, I think, by the Target. So that's a pretty big.

Yeah. I don't know what they're doing there, but I'll bet they rebuild. And I bet it's going to be very elaborate.

If we designated only the industrial area for this application, we wouldn't have to worry about it being in the middle of a residential neighborhood where there used to be a school or a church. So that would, to me, be the logical place to do it.

That's how we dealt with marijuana when we didn't know all the information right away because the state was mixing.

Some of our industrial districts really close proximity to residential.

That would be...

But I also feel that maybe we could, I mean, for us as far as regulations and rules, we should be looking at the master plan and what's gonna coincide with that and be the best for the residents and not impact them the most, the least amount of impact. So we could almost work on making it the same way we were able to limit the amount of marijuana facilities in the city. I mean, if we did no larger than a 2,500 square foot building, has to be on five acres, and cannot use water cooled, we're pretty much limiting what they could do here.

We did it with marijuana.

I mean, as far as the 2,500 square feet, it's not gonna let it be a big one. Five acres, there are not many five acre lots in the industrial district. And not letting them tap into our water at all, I think is a huge thing. Our infrastructure, as far as water, has already tapped enough around here. Those are all breaks and issues.

I don't think legally we can restrict that part. Well, that'll be part of the discussion, actually, you'll have, because you can, the intent of the, by the end of the process, we're supposed to allow them, and everybody takes a little, some counties take it a little differently. I believe, so you can't have enough regulations where it completely zones that. but you definitely can have setback buffers, just like we have for marijuana, so they're set back from a certain distance from residential properties. You can have maximum or minimum sizes, but you don't necessarily have to be exactly in lockstep with your existing lot sizes, because other uses like this, and typically with adult businesses, You can't zone them out by just having so much of a deep setbacks that there's no feasible location. But you don't have to roll out the red carpet and then make it readily available on multiple sites.

In the area that we're talking about possibly letting them come into... The infrastructure over there has already taken a big hit with electricity with all the big factories we have over there and everything we have going on now. Not saying they can't produce their own energy or get different transfer lines or whatever, but I think if we limit them, we can control the impact they could have on the current residents.

We want to be careful on the restrictions because there's always workarounds. So in the report, if we limit electricity by the footprint, they could throw in generators. And now you introduce the exhaust from generators and the noise of that.

But you also have a noise with generators. They have a noise ordinance. Yep. I mean, that's why I said, even if we put a stipulation on it to not let them use water cooled in the city, they still have two other options they could use.

And you said you said the. Keep it kind of close looked on it because it's proprietary is that like their water systems and cooling systems and all that and that's their argument that there is this proprietary information but it's.

Because that's directly related to the zone. So couple things. That's why in the ordinances, the application requirements are very detailed. So that way they can't try and say that these... Because here, you guys will be dealing with the zoning ordinance. So you do have to focus it on zoning aspects, meaning proper location, the proper relationship that it has with others, other land uses, but then also the... potential negative impacts from its use characteristics, such as noise. And so one of the big things, like if you do restrict water and only require air handling, a lot of issues with some of the other data centers and other communities, like I think it's Virginia or Oregon, certain states have a big issue with the noise from the air handling, because the decibel levels are just massive.

And it's not just noise, it's vibration, too.

But that goes back to your question in saying that you have to give us that information. How big these things are and how much noise you're going to generate. So definitely noise, a noise impact study is part of our list of information.

The water.

Water is definitely one of it.

Yeah, because you need for urban heat island. Yeah, there's a lot of heat. So generate a lot of heat.

Yeah, exactly. Create a whole heat island in a specific area, whether they're doing it with air, ethylene, glycol, water, it doesn't really matter.

Well, in theory, the intent for all, the need for all these either air or water is to keep the heat down, but it is, can't be notable exactly from exhaust.

They're exchangers. They're taking it from here and putting it in my backyard or... Somebody's backyard.

Yes, that's right. The other thing I'd be curious to know is is because we don't know much about these things when you bring in stuff that's needs that much electricity or water or whatever you need to create new means new and coming into the city does that does that fall. What is that fall on and where and how and financially where does that go and how will that impact or electric bills.

Yeah, so that is. One, it does seem, and while that's not their official stance, Detroit Edison and consumers, DTE and consumers, basically they're not at this point in time being apprehensive about connecting them. get to sell electricity, these people. So they want to be able to do that. And kind of the same thing with water, too. The Van Buren system is going to use a lot of water, but GLIWA, Great Lakes Water Authority, says we can handle it because they're going to do that. But who issue is a for for us yet you have to remember to view the ordinances right here we need to focus on zoning to make sure that the the zoning ordinance amendments uh... principal and a focus on that however when the other aspects of were definitely doing is we what we are going to can will be proposing uh... a licensing ordinance for these uh... have to get an annual license Because with a licensing aspect, you can require annual reports. So the key to this is one of the aspects that we've structured would be every year, they have to say, all right, how big, and these are some of the larger ones, but even the smaller ones, how much electricity are we using? How has that impacted the grid? we bring in dte as part of the licensing they say all right dte how is this impact of the grid are you suggesting they need to have um additional improvements to the infrastructure to maintain them, well then they're the ones that are going to be required to do it, to make sure that they don't negatively impact the residents. Because unfortunately, across the nation, it's gone both ways. Sometimes these uses, when they come in, they're in effect because of the way it's structured with electric companies. There is a net drop in the rates just because of the structure of that particular utility and the regulations of that particular state. Others, it has caused increases to everybody's electric bill because of the necessary improvements and of all the other aspects. Because if you ask DTE right now, they don't know for sure how much this is going to impact I don't have the numbers in front of me. If you'd like, I can provide them. The state only produces so much electricity. If they allow these in the size and scale that they're proposing, it's going to use a lot of it. Therefore, it's going to be necessary to increase the amount of energy produced And that takes money. I went to the commission, the state commission, to get rate increases last year. They're already back asking for more increases. They're asking for more increases. And that's just standard. They're standard. and based on standard growth of the state. We're not growing that fast.

They asked twice within one year, one calendar year.

Right, no, that's exactly what it is.

They've asked twice.

Well, Galen, our representative, has already put a bill up in Lansing DTE donates to every politician in the state of Michigan, without exception. Every politician. So no matter who gets elected, they've got friends in Lansing. And you said they got their rate increase last year. That was supposed to take care of business for two and a half to three years. They're already back. So, you know... we need to look at all the different aspects of this and figure out a way that we have the control rather than giving it to them i don't want to let them

uh... be here and then monitor them for a year and find out all they're using five times more than the initially projected when they think trying to change that after a year won't that won't happen well the the good thing is that licensing ordinance could require that because we can be structured the agreement licensing ordinance would require an agreement with the applicants and they would have to do annually report these things and then i would have to work for ten years So, but I, to me it's an approach that allows them to, because it leaves, doesn't make the city vulnerable to lawsuits by these corporations that have billions of dollars and can throw money at corporations to uh sue a community because it would be the language we're proposing will be our order zoning orders is focused on zoning licensing is focused on operations uh we're just asking for this information and at that point in time we'll we'll do it so as long as you have those in place If someone walks through the door and wants to, then they'll know the rule, because after the moratorium, here are the ordinances, this is the playing field, these are the rules you have to abide by. And then, you know, they couldn't resort, I don't believe, I'm an attorney, but I don't believe they couldn't resort. taking a legal approach trying to force their way into a community.

Couldn't we do it real easy with a zoning ordinance? Like very basic, not to phase them where they can't come in, but how big a facility they could put here based on the size of the city. Like even if we did 5,000 square foot building, but it'd have to be at a minimum of two and a half acres and the maximum wattage used. Couldn't we just do something like that if they fell in those parameters?

We do it with our houses, the 80% rule.

Right. So the good thing is, this brings up another thing. So you're absolutely right, Kelly, that is definitely the approach. That's actually the benefit of being a mature community. We don't have a lot of opportunities. But also setbacks. I would throw setbacks into there, to have setbacks, 500-foot setbacks from residential districts. Because in the end, we already know, based on doing RADI-I with... doing service maps for the marijuana uses, basically that amounts to having someone on Park Lane or Industrial. And then you can specify the lot size and the use. So it's pretty straightforward for us. But then adopting the licensing ordinance, I think, will be that. One other aspect you have to keep in mind, just in generally speaking with this, is in some of the rural communities I have to deal with, not only just dealing with these, they've already had to, and they're dealing with wind, solar, battery energy storage systems. But all of those, there's a state law now that is written that says that those communities, if they can't write zoning ordinances that go beyond four different key aspects of a zoning ordinance, Because if they do, and if they don't be in complete compliance with what the state law says, then the applicant can just go to the state, the same commission, and the commission can just say, oh yeah, we give you approval to operate in this local municipality. And they can supersede the local zoning ordinance. If the ordinance isn't written in compliance with the CREO statement.

But they don't have that yet.

Yet, but what they do have is there is a state law that exempts, as long as a data center is in compliance with certain requirements for, I think, employment, and then there are some other standards in there. If they're in compliance with these standards, they get a tax break. So that's the reason we're seeing a lot of these data centers come in now, is they're tax-exempt from state... I can't remember the exact tax. I have the law on the computer. The state is offering tax breaks for these computing centers to come in and establish themselves. But right now, they're all running up against... Everybody's doing moratoriums. So the problem could be if... start going back to the legislature and says, hey, we want to come in here, but your local municipalities aren't letting us in, the state could do again and take away another local power and require them in certain places. Like housing right now. The housing bill says maximum building footprint in residential is supposed to be 500 square feet. That's a legislation they're trying to pass in the state right now.

It's like the cell phone when that happened. I was going to mention that. Except in this case, instead of federal, it's state that's actually promoting it more than anything.

Because back in the day, when cell towers first came in, a lot of local municipalities, we were writing ordinances to prohibit and require fall zones and all these other things. problem in the end was the state amended the planning law, the Zoning Enabling Act, to say that cell towers can't be restricted.

That's where NIBI came from. Not in my backyard.

So all of these are great questions and they're all relevant and so with your permission we can begin crafting language for you to look at and react to. So I have some

Feel free to give me more details of what you think is appropriate, but we would present a zoning language that would say it's required only allowed in the industrial, a certain setback from distances, a certain maximum building footage, a certain minimum lot size. Height. Height, yeah, height too. Yeah, actually, because, yeah, there are in other communities.

But we don't end up like Southfield? Right, yeah.

And zoning, can we limit their power demand or power usage?

And I... I don't think so. I don't think so. Not from the zoning standpoint. From the licensing ordinance, I don't even know if they could do that.

That would be on the local utilities to determine, right? Is that something that's going to come up in the future?

Yeah.

We could limit the type of cooling.

Maybe in terms of some of the features they're proposing, because like you said, some of these that use the swamp cooling systems, they have outdoor pools for the effluent or the gray water. Once they're done with it, they put it outside.

Yeah, I think it's the gray water that gets outside and then it gets stored.

or get temporarily until it is until it is transported out outside underground or outside surface outside outside outside like a detention pond where that we can limit the lot size they want to do that too right exactly we could see if we could have specific requirements that say no outdoor storage of

Seems like something very similar to the marijuana ordinance like you're saying. There's too many gray areas.

For the licensing.

Did the city prevail or are they going to?

Building it already. So actually that's the one thing that's kind of funny because living in it. you guys get the commercials out here but for some reason even though they've already won they have these commercials that say celine uh yeah arm i can't call it farm the farm or something the farm yeah it's just called the farm they're calling it the farm and it says we're providing this money acres we're providing this and it's going to be great what they don't everybody's already forgotten is they came in they applied the township uh denied them they they I don't know the exact details, but they didn't make the motions correctly. They denied it, but it wasn't supported by their master plan, what they were doing. So they got caught up with that, and so they ended up being taken to court, but then it ended up being a consent judgment because they did negotiate with... So the leadership of the township negotiated with the applicant, and then... But the applicant said, oh, by the way, we'll give you some fire trucks so you can deal with the batteries that are going to be on site and all the chemicals and everything. We'll just give you some fire trucks. We're going to give you $15 million or $25 million. Yeah, we'll give you $25 million. And we're going to put a 500-acre boundary, green space boundary around it. so that we can do it. And so they're advertising it as like, oh yeah, Celine's getting all this stuff because the applicant chose to give that to them. So it wasn't like anything that they earned or was part of their ordinance or anything like that. It was something that was determined through the legal channels because the community was forced to accept it.

So since we're doing an amendment to our master plan, wouldn't this be the perfect time to work this into that?

Well, the good thing is the master plan already identifies the industrial area, and it's already zoned that, and so we're being consistent with it. So we're being consistent with our master plan by if you choose a zoning ordinance amendment that does put it in the industrial. As long as you put it in the industrial, it's consistent with the master plan. Yeah, I think that's... Their problem was that they... Can't remember exactly.

Because it was agricultural to industrial, and that's where the issue occurred.

What I read about it is not that they tried to regulate it. They tried to block it, and they got caught in court. It was obvious that they were trying to block it, not regulate it. And that's where the industrial and the farming came. collided.

I think the problem might have been that their master plan might have said to have a certain amount of industrial and they went against their master plan. So I think that might be one of the ways that they got caught. Because then they were trying to just say no and preserve the agriculture and they didn't. Their master plan didn't have, when you want to preserve agriculture there's all this information you can put in your master plan to support agricultural preservation. You do analysis of the soils, you do all these other things. Putting your master BECAUSE AGRICULTURE PRESERVATION IS A VIABLE LAND USE, BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION, I BELIEVE. I MAY BE INCORRECT ON THIS, BUT I BELIEVE THEY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION IN ALL THEIR DOCUMENTATION, AND THEY DID GO BEYOND THE POWERS THAT COULD SUPPORT THEM BY JUST HEARING ONE WAY, AND THEY GOT CAUGHT.

WELL, TODAY THERE WAS ONE ON THE NEWS IN ALLEN PARK. YEAH. JUST SOUTH OF 94.

No, they're trying to go in Gibraltar.

The good thing is all these other communities have much more land than we do available. For the licensing... That's the thing.

These other style of uses you want to make sure.

make sure that the city is prepared in case someone doesn't walk in and say, there's a T1 line or whatever the line is right here on Vermilion 4 and I want to be able to support my banking center with a story building.

We know there's one that goes from Detroit to Ann Arbor, so we don't know how close it comes to us.

The for the the license and it might be worthwhile saying there are one thing when you first open if there's if you get one first opens you need a 6 month. And then a one year because from what I've seen working with some you know in the I T field is you'll see you'll phase out. the data center and servers. So you will get the building, you have all the permits, and then you will ramp up. So that first year might not even be at 100% capacity. Absolutely. Especially right now with the chip shortages and lead times. So they might finish and then you get that first year and they're only at 30, 40% capacity. So I think the licensing will be very important to have that. And probably in part of the application process, ask for if there's a phasing structure to full ramp up.

That's a standard thing to do. That's a very good point. Those are some of the details that I think they try and hang their head on. No, we don't need the details of the type of chips or the amount of technology.

What we need to know is how are you...

to be occupying the building and phase the occupation of the building and know the demands, offsite demands for your, based on the, how quickly you're going to be occupying it. Because sometimes there are these multi-tenant places where they create a cloud. In effect, when you call it a cloud, that's what these places are, it's the cloud. So they're creating server rooms and they, as they lease them out, then that's how they, whether they go quickly with 100% occupancy or just more slowly because they just had people, corporations to utilize these?

And a lot of them will be third-party expansion clouds for Amazon, Microsoft, Google. So they'll sell their resources if the demand exceeds what they're capable of providing normally. So think of like a power plant, all of a sudden you get a surge, then other municipalities can sell power to those areas. Yeah. In terms of decibels, too, there's SONES is another unit of measure. So it's the perception of loudness from a human perspective. So that would be something else we could look at using instead of just a straight decibel, which is more of like an OSHA measure. bath fans are regulated exactly so i'm doing that right now so i was like oh that might be a good use so that could be included in the the yearly licensing of because if you're not maintaining those industrial air handlers and they start whining and having a different pitch to them that affects human ears differently than just a decibel meter so i'm sure you know yeah a lot so

one last aspect of this. One other issue is some people are concerned that the industry hasn't addressed if at some point they might just abandon these data centers and just walk away because when you think about it, chips and the capability of those computer chips and whether it's more economical for them to cycle through the chips because of Moore's Law, chips get twice the capacity and half the cost every two years. That's why everybody's got to buy phones every two years or every year. Because of that, the zoning ordinance would be the place where we include a requirement for a decommissioning plan and also that information.

requiring an escrow bond for the potential for, if they do walk away, that bond is available to vacate the building and dispose of items properly for it to be reused for another use.

So we could require them to return their structure to the previous state before they...

Well, everyone's putting it in the ordinances, and that's something that's actually pretty standard and utilized with solar and wind. Well, definitely solar.

And it's something that, because the solar panels are a similar situation, they're also increasing in efficiency, so sometimes they're not sure if they're going to just abandon whole fields of previous generation and then just go somewhere else and establish new fields of brand-new, more efficient solar panels. The commission is usually more expensive.

Oh, yeah. And in fact, Moore's law doesn't even hold true anymore. It's faster.

So it's like... Before, I would say 18 months on the computer is only 12.

Yeah. So it used to be every double every two years. Now it's between like 12 and 18 months. So I was right. I was wrong.

AI was wrong.

Yeah. Yeah.

So... So anyway. So those are just some of the things you'll be seeing. So...

So...

Do we have anything else on that? No. Look forward to seeing your draft.

Yeah, okay, moving on. Next item is housing master plan amendment, discussion of draft plan. I thought this was going for a 60 day, period of comment.

It is, and it's out there for the 60-day comment, but it's just your opportunity at this point in time. You guys can comment on it as well. If there are other things within the ordinance that you have more time to look at and more things you want to address, I will say that we are getting more detailed and accurate, or up-to-date, I should say, characteristic data for all the housing. So that way, because I know that was a concern of Commissioner King.

So we're going to make sure we're getting that additional data that will be supplemented and included in here.

And I know there's some concerns about the housing types. We haven't gotten a lot of feedback just yet about the various types of housing that's proposed in this.

But, yeah, while the intent of the 60-day in the state law is to leave it out there for other municipalities and other adjacent properties and communities.

take this opportunity to get comment from planning commission as well and all residents just so that way at the end of the 60 day period you guys have any comments either tonight or later on feel free to do we address anything with the cottage style homes do we know like on the study that we did did any resident anybody that came in even ask for that type of we have had feedback that actually some people do like it In this community cottage style homes where you put what stuff kind of style cluster of them on a small lot and I actually do like it and they you know because they One of those a housing type whether it's a ground, you know, they like the idea that it's all one level Large because it's less to maintain and

when someone gets older, and they acknowledge, too, that they don't need as much space because their family has just gotten smaller as they've gotten older.

And then they like the idea, too, of being in a part of a community more adjacent to other people. So there are people that have been expressing interest in them. And actually, the other thing we're getting, too, is some of the...

It is the same thing.

actually don't like the idea of townhouses because they have to walk up and down all the stairs. We're getting it both ways. We're definitely getting, in fact, that the townhouses are very attractive because they're owner-based units and efficient because they're all in one style and close to downtown. By promoting those in close to downtown, that's something that everybody needs. Oh, that's a nice option to be

within walking distance. We kind of already have cottage style homes here. We have 800 square foot homes and 40 foot lots. How much smaller of a home are we going to try to pack in a really small lot?

Depends on what the state forces us to allow.

Tiny houses on the streaming channels.

That's what I'm saying. Are you ever good at tiny houses?

I don't like the idea because, well, number one, I think it's going to devalue the property around it. And I don't see that it's a desirable situation.

If it was allowed, I would say it once had to be its own zone and its own special area. You can't allow it to be intermixed.

Yeah, we can't allow somebody with a double lot to put in eight tiny homes.

Yeah.

Right.

So I would say, because this is the master plan, one aspect that you can include in terms of the action plan or the... in this document is you don't have to go through and craft the language right now that permits it. What you can do is provide direction to either yourselves in the future or future planning commissions if five, 10 years from now they bring up the issue again and want to consider it. Provide direction to them and what's the appropriate thing, appropriate characteristics in a zoning unit such as minimum lot size for the entire site, number of units on a location. make suggestions for that.

Didn't you say though the state was already kind of coming up or trying to come up with something like that?

Well the state is trying to do that but to me one of the two things about it is that what they're trying to do is just it's not consistent with zoning because it's intended to be for the local community. And so the way you combat that is demonstrate to the state, hey, we're looking into this. We're utilizing state grants to look at this situation. And Garden City has chosen what you feel is appropriate for Garden City. And so if you include some alternatives for that that say, hey, we don't want to go as low as 500, we're going to go down to 800 or whatever that number is. Or just the idea, once again, you don't even have to pick the number in the master plan. You can suggest something that's greater than 500 or something greater than 750 or something smaller than what is currently allowed. You don't have to But by doing this, and actually the state is gonna be reviewing this because this is, remember this is being paid through a state grant. This is gonna demonstrate to them that you're making conscious decisions and allowing for a wider variety of housing.

So then we can post a suggestion instead of have a suggestion forced upon us.

Just because there's a proposal dealing with this on the state level doesn't mean anything's gonna happen with it. That is correct. We've got two opposing chambers

Well, the only problem is all these proposed amendments are bipartisan support. So we want to be prepared for it. Different reasons.

There's a pretty large tiny house community in Detroit on Woodrow Wilson by Davison. IT INVOLVES ABOUT THREE STREETS THAT ARE ABOUT A BLOCK LONG EACH THEY HAVE BOUGHT UP TO THE FREEWAY. AND IT'S PRETTY NEAT AND IT'S PROBABLY APPROPRIATE FOR THERE BECAUSE THAT WAS REDEVELOPMENT AREA. You know, there's several channels on TV. I look on streaming channels about tiny houses. They can take a garage and convert it real easy. That could be a tiny house. And as a population ages, that could be a side income source. We could have every other garage in the city becoming a tiny house. I believe they can do that now.

Yeah, technically right now they're permitted, but they do have to get special land use approval. They have to come to you guys and get special land.

It's a little more complicated than it should be probably, but it's a possibility. As I believe putting an auxiliary house on a large lot, that would be another possibility.

Yeah.

both owned by the same property owner, of course.

Yeah, but now you're affected.

They would have the option of renting it out or having a family member live there, I suppose.

I'm OK with that I just want us to also keep in mind if now it becomes a duplex now you have another car or two cars on that same lot that was already there.

Yeah, we already have houses with five cars parked in the driveway.

Great, so now you've got ten.

My concern, I don't want to see them turn in a 10,000 square foot lot into five 2,000 square foot lots with a 500 square foot house on each one with Yeah, five cars for two.

We got to look at densities and stuff like that.

So I appreciate that.

It literally just to make amendment to increase the amount of parking. You just did that.

But I'm just saying a tiny house. I mean, what's the lot size? What's the house size? Right.

But like if but that was one household, not two households. Right.

But you but if you have one household that has four adult children that come back to live, you've got six cars on a lot, and you're trying to amend the zoning order to allow for the six cars on a lot. How is that any different than having an auxiliary unit in the back where the mother-in-law or the... grandparents can stay because they're probably going to be not driving to be getting driven around by the one worker.

Yeah, but right in the back.

But but but I but yeah, but these are actually is a very good question. I mean good discussion and I think you're addressed. SOME WAYS TO ADDRESS THAT CAN BE TALKING ABOUT THE SIZE OF A LOT. JUST HOW WE TALKED ABOUT WITH DATA CENTERS AND WHAT'S THE APPROPRIATE SIZE. MAYBE IN THE MASTER PLAN YOU SAY ENSURE THAT A LOT HAS SUFFICIENT SIZE TO ACCOMMODATE PARKING AND DENSITY AND THEN MAYBE THEN IT'S ONLY ON OUR 300-FOOT DEEP LOTS. MAYBE THOSE ARE THE ONLY ONES. ON THE 40-FOOT WIDE LOTS THEY JUST DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. in the 300 foot square deep lots if they do it the right way already, you know, in my time here, we've already increased the size of the accessory garages. Now people with 900 or 800 square foot houses have 2,000 square foot accessory dwellings because they have a camper and a boat and these things, which is perfectly fine because you guys have made the decision that, hey, they have a deep lot. The amount of lot coverage isn't getting excessive. It's not lording. If someone put that kind of house garage on a 40-foot lot, and yeah, it's going to negatively impact their neighbors. You guys hashed out the numbers. You made your decision you're comfortable with, and yeah, we're getting these larger-scale accessory structures, and we're not getting any complaints. There's not any issues with it. So I think having these discussions, and you tell us how to write it, and we'll write it the way you want, and then we'll...

But we do want to see the utilization of the 300-foot lots for additional housing. I mean, you see that, you know, off of Garden, Henry Ruff. Fox Street, across the street from me. Yeah, there's lots of them.

They're all 360 deep, I think.

And so those are opportunities to grow our population and tax base too is what we're looking to.

Also areas where people have purchased large lots because they like having a little bit of property.

Sure. And I mean, it would be up to them to make the decision if they want to sell. Like the house going up on Henry Ruff right now, it was only a single lot on the corner. What was it? 60 by 300, I think. Yeah. They ended up, you know, finally convincing the next door neighbor to sell the back part of their lot. so that they have that deeper, you know. So it takes some cooperation and I suppose the right amount of funds, but there, you know, I think is it two lots then that's eligible there? So we're starting to see that too though. And a lot of new houses are a good thing for us too.

I was kind of surprised to see over 2,000 rental units. because that changes the nature of the city too. Somebody that's here that's renting isn't putting down the same type of roots as somebody that's purchasing a house and whatnot.

Well, there's a demographic difference also with younger generations not being able to afford housing. So I know I have friends who've been renting 15, 20 years now, but they've been in the same community the whole time.

So just keep that in mind as well and that number also Included housing units in the multifamily dwellings to right so that you know It kind of skews that a little ball because of course we have you know the the ten-story senior apartment You know that creates. They're all rental. You know that kind so it wasn't single-family specific still have a pretty large percentage of owner-occupied Correct and actually we We did a map Did you share that with Commission or not? I the rental map with the No No, we could we could email it to you. Yeah, we can so we did a really a great kind of study about the concentration of rental houses in the city and we wanted to see so we actually took a took our These were, of course, licensed rental properties. And we took that, and then we overlaid it on our parcel map, and it created a dot as to where the rental, you know, multifamily and also single-family rentals. And it proved nothing, actually, to us. It is sporadic throughout the whole city. It's not a concentration. I thought there would be a concentration kind of east of City Hall. what is yeah a big one but they it was very sporadic so i mean i thought that was good because they're you know with the concentration could be reduced property values uh... but we don't have that it is sporadic and uh... we were glad to see that actually and that and it uh... provided that so we can we can provide that to you uh... so that you have it just to see it was a an interesting study and it also just provided a a little eye-opener that were We're not as bad off as many other communities regarding rentals, but we don't have the concentration that I kind of thought and we actually all thought. So it is sporadic, and it also helped with the ordinance enforcement and, of course, the registration of rentals and actually that one person in the police department that's handling the rentals can give us the best data, and it provided that for us.

And Garden City, according to this data from 2022, about 19% rent or occupied, including multifamily buildings. Dearborn Heights was like 25, 28%. Inkster was 45%. Livonia is 11%. Wayne is 38, 39%. Westlands, 38, 39%. Wayne County overall is about 30%. And then Wayne County, when you exclude Detroit, is about... 25, 28%. So Garden City at being 19, we're actually lower than almost every other community except Livonia.

In terms of percentage of rentals? But realistically, the only way we're gonna increase our population is with the amount of land we have is with multi-unit rentals.

Oh yeah, well.

Or owner-occupied, yes.

Or owner-occupied, or you know, as you were mentioning about alternatives of the 300-foot lots, and if the requirement is the property owner creating the accessory unit on site and being with the owner

you know that's that's something that's making sure that it's owner occupied so we're going to make a significant dent in that figure no but but you don't necessarily but once again you're not you're not

The intent isn't to be the highest amount of rental. It's just to have a variety, to have options, to have people that don't want to or have the ability to jump into home ownership right now, but still live in the community and not have to be forced to go to Inkster or to Westland or somewhere else. They could stay here.

I think one of our biggest opportunities is condominiums. Yeah. Because it has a more stabilizing force. When somebody buys, that's different than when somebody rents. And I know with the current economy, there's a lot of people that have to rent. They have no other choice to put a roof over their head. You know, we've always been a bedroom community, the 11,400 house where 92% of our tax base is coming from our one residential primarily. Our industrial park is just a sliver of our tax base and always has been. But I think our biggest opportunity for population growth is in condominiums. And I see that big chunk of property over there where Kmart used to sit as a golden opportunity. We just need somebody with real deep pockets to come talk to us.

Some of the mixed-use development plans that we've been seeing are certainly a step in that direction. I think that's really good for us.

and making the condominiums that to me also not only um opportunities for people that put down roots but all those that already have roots that want to once again i know i have the same story but the whole idea of yeah somebody nobody wants to you if you're done with mowing your 300 foot deep lot and if you're done with shoveling the snow but you want to see in the community if you moved into a condominium where somebody else does that for you And you get to stay in Garden City.

I think a lot of problems that we're going to face with that is the age of the population that's going to want to do that are going to go from homeownership of a house that is either paid off or real close to being paid off with taxes that they're paying that is 50% of what the new homeowners would be paying. Moving into a condo that costs

two to three hundred thousand dollars in paying double the property tax they used to yeah i don't even think that's realistic plus a big fee every month yeah but i will say that because of the rate the really the increase in housing values over time and a person that stays in there and because of proposal a and a lot of these people that are moving out of the larger homes because they're they bought it as a young family and they went through mature family now they're investors They have so much money from the sale of that house that they buy everything in cash value. Trust me, I've seen it where you try and go and buy a house and then you get outbid by someone that's just doing all cash because they're choosing a smaller house and they have money from their other house and they're just all cash sales.

We have pluses here in Garden City that seem to be intangible until you start to look closer at it. We're stable. We have low crime rate. We have good to excellent city services. These are things you don't find across the board in every community. Some communities you might find one or two, but not the other. Across the board, we have great stability here. And I think that's going to be attractive to somebody that's looking long term. that doesn't want to cut grass and doesn't want to worry about roofs and gutter cleaning and sidewalks, I think we're way underserved with condominiums. And I think had they not They, had we not, and I was 100% against it, putting a age restriction on the condos over on Middleville, I think those would have went in 10 minutes. I think they would have been sold out in 10 minutes. And the reason being is, When they built the new terminal at the airport, they required every single employee at that airport to park in employee parking, which is over off of Middlebelt. That means they get shuttled to wherever they're working at the airport. Between the pilots and the stewardesses, they all have second homes. No matter where they're based at, they all have second homes. We have two pilots in the family. They have second homes. One has a second home in Georgia, and he works in Atlanta. So he's in Fayetteville. He's 45, 50 minutes away. But the other one lives in California and works out of Detroit. Yeah. but flies back and forth so many times. He spends more time in California than he does here, but he has a home here. And I think those condominiums would have just disappeared instantly. It took, what, about three years before the last couple were sold and they had to discount them to...

It hit also, I think, at the wrong time, you know, how it was utilized to it. It hit at the wrong time. But now, you know, there's not a vacancy there usually ever. It's hard to get in, actually. Yeah, yeah. So it maybe works in their benefit now. I think that they see that.

I think the stability of Garden City overall would be attractive to somebody that was buying a moderately priced condo.

Do you make those right now? Moderately priced, there is no such thing.

I've been telling the wife we need to take the word expensive out of our vocabulary because at our age, everything looks ridiculously expensive, but yeah.

Is there anything else concerning the master plan?

No, thank you.

All right then, moving on. Commissioner's comments regarding planning and zoning matters.

One thing, I didn't stay away for five months because I wanted to. I took an annual very complete blood panel back in the middle towards the end of December. And while we're on our trip to head south and stop at a number of locations in the south and ultimately end up at her granddaughter's in Florida, I got a phone call from my doctor. And he wanted me to come in and I said, well, currently right now we're in Louisville. We're headed to Nashville tomorrow morning. I said, I won't be back in Michigan for at least five weeks. Can you tell me? He says, you have cancer. You have prostate cancer. I says, goody, what do we do? He says, well, it was caught very early, and I don't want to start any kind of chemotherapy or radiation until I absolutely have to, based upon your age and how fast it grows and blah, blah, blah. So I thought that was the end of it. So we end up down in Pompano Beach, and we stay at our daughter's with the grandkids and stuff for a month and a half. About halfway through that, I have to fly back to Detroit. I couldn't walk from here to the parking lot without looking for a chair to sit down. Part of that blood test revealed other information. I also have leukemia, which was also caught very early. Basically, if your PSA level goes up and your white blood count goes up and your red blood count goes down, you want to take a real close look at all of that. So for everybody here, we all have prostates. Prostate and colon cancer are some of the biggest killers. It can be determined with a blood test. Don't let it go for 10, 20 years. Get tested every year because they can find out. If it hadn't been for that blood test, I wouldn't know either one of these. So it's something to look into. And if you haven't had those things checked, I would recommend doing it right away. And neither doctor wants to start chemo or radiation. With leukemia, they don't do radiation. It's very intensive chemo. But neither one of them wants to start based upon how early it was caught. how slow growing it was, and my age. So today I feel pretty damn good. In Florida, I spent three and a half weeks down there, and I don't think I came out of the bedroom more than five times. And that's what prompted me to fly back to Detroit with my doctors and get the rest of the information. But get tested. They can find out with blood count. PSA level elevated, that's a warning sign. White blood count elevated, that's a warning sign. Red blood count decreased, that's a warning sign. And they can see this stuff very clearly. So don't sit back and say, it won't happen to me. That's what I did. I was lucky I had that blood test last year. My new doctor insists on this every year. And that was the only reason I got caught, because I hadn't had a blood test like that in 25 years. And either one of these could have easily killed me, left unattended. So, get checked.

Well, sorry to hear all that. Hope it goes well for you.

So far, so good. The one I have to see once a month, the other one once a year. Okay.

Doesn't sound too bad.

No, no, I'm very lucky. If you watch any TV and you see those commercials for, what's the Danny Thomas Hospital? St. Jude. St. Jude, thank you. And you see those little kids with the scars going from one side of their head to another and no arms, no legs. No, I'm lucky as shit. But do get tested because they're finding out both prostate and colon cancer, and they don't know the reason why. It's happening at much younger ages now. People in their late 20s and 30s are coming up with prostate and colon cancer, and they don't know the reason. It's kind of a recent phenomenon of the last several years. Anyhow, that's it. Okay, thank you.

Kelly, anything?

Nothing tonight.

Matt?

Nothing.

Muriel? No. I only had a question about sheets. Do you have any idea when they're gonna start?

is a very good question uh... they submitted construction plans and i mean we're going through do you have met met you have an update on i was gonna look at that today i forgot to check them or permit crush we have we have uh... the engineering plants are in review right now at hennessey engineering uh... also there's an easement issue that we're working on but when i was talking to the engineer uh... becky klein at p a r uh... engineers uh... they're going to still go through with permitting and all of that and the easement issue is not going to slow up the that portion so uh... but it will possibly require a resolution the council regarding the easements and things like that along hubbard so it's it's a a mar on the title their title and so we'll have to hash it out with the attorneys and engineers so that uh... utilities

That's actually... Moving along slowly, though.

Yes, slowly. They submitted construction plans right away, and so it's just engineering reviews, the engineering... Because they did everything with regards to any kind of conditions of the planning commission.

That was all... That and Dunkin' Donuts, too. I think we got their plans back from engineering, and they've got their comments, so for Dunkin' Donuts, too.

What about Oren?

I'm glad you brought that up. Well, they have apparently some finance issues. They're unable to get financing. Yes.

part of their anything's changed with that you know a part of their funding was to come from any dc which you know most of the funding was taken away in december uh... is part of the problems their financing is not coming through uh... i've been in communication with them and they're going to be coming with revi revisions to what they proposed i think i'll be shrunk in size and downsize correct i don't believe it will involve the demolition either of at least the oren building and possibly the old hotel So we'll see, but I've been in communication with them, and we're just waiting for them to take the next step, because right now, as I explained to them, it's zoned PD, and it's zoned for a four-story structure, and so right now, we have to go back, kind of, and so we're looking at which way to go. We'll involve rezoning it, probably back to Central Business District, so...

WHAT WAS THE COST OF THE INITIAL PLAN? DID YOU EVER HEAR ANY NUMBERS?

I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBERS.

I HEARD 20 MILLION.

I DON'T KNOW.

OKAY. NEXT REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IS THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2026.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN?

MOTION ADJOURNED.

SUPPORT. ALL IN FAVOR?

All right. Meeting's adjourned.