Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Uh, welcome everyone. This is the regular meeting of the Garden City Planning Commission. It's Thursday, June 12th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. I'd like to call this meeting to order. And our first order of business is pledge allegiance to the flag. If everyone would stand, please. 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. Be seated. Would the secretary take the roll call, please? As chairperson may here. Commissioner Steenberg, he's asked to be excused. Commissioner Walls here. Commissioner King here. Commissioner Williams has asked to be excused. Commissioner Bosy has asked to be excused. Commissioner Daniels here. Mr. Chair, you have a ch a quorum of four. Okay. Thank you. Uh, next item is approval of the agenda. If we can have a motion. Um, I'll make a motion to approve the agenda, but I would like to suggest an amendment. Okay. Um, uh, at, uh, last Monday city council meeting, the proprietors of House of Dank, uh, approached the council and asked that a amendment to the zoning ordinance would be considered to allow them to be open on Sunday. And my recommendation for the approval of the agenda is could we add to H1 with a C um to have discussion on whether we would want to have a public hearing on that topic. Okay. I'm sorry. Uh who was requesting this? The proprietors of the business

approached city council and and had suggested that what business was that? That's the House of Dank. That's the the um adult use marijuana. the adult use marijuana uh by Stew Evans. Okay. I guess Garden City is an outlier that we are unique in that we do not allow them to open on Sunday. And so my again my only suggestion today is that we have a place on the agenda to have a conversation on whether we would even want to have a public hearing. Maybe now is not the time, maybe it is, but I thought at least we would have addressed the the public feedback. Okay. Okay. If there's no objections. Um Oh, can we have a support please for that motion? I'll support it. Right. Thank you. Right. All right. Any discussion on the motion? Okay. Uh we'll uh add that after the uh item two on the agenda and uh have a discussion for a uh possible public hearing to consider the uh opening of Sunday use for that business. Um take the role, please. Yes. Uh Commissioner Daniel, I'm sorry, Commissioner King. I Commissioner Walls I Commissioner Daniels I chairperson May I motion does carry with form Mr. Chair. [Applause] Okay. Do we I'll get a motion to approve the amended agenda. Yeah, I think we're good on that one. That's what we did. Yes. Okay. That was

that was with the whole agenda. Okay. Then moving on. Uh next item is approval of minutes from the regular meeting of May 8th, 2025. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes uh from the regular meeting of May 8th, 2025. Support. Any questions, comments, or changes? Hearing none, take the role, please. Commissioner King. Hi. Chair Commissioner Walls. Hi. Commissioner Daniels. Hi. Chairperson May. Hi. Thank you. Okay. Next item is public comment on non-aggenda items only. If there's someone here who wishes to comment on an item that's not on our agenda, this is time where they can come forward and uh make those comments. Uh seeing no one, we'll move on. First uh business item. Number one is PP 2225-00003 requests for a special land use and site plan approval to construct a multi-tenant commercial building with a drive-through window at 28484 Ford Road in the C3 General Business Zoning District. Okay. Uh can we start out with our consultants report, please? Yes. Uh good evening, commissioners. We're here tonight to consider this special land use and site plan review uh which will be familiar to some of you. Um this is a 19,165 square foot lot and located on the north side of Ford Road west of Harrison. Uh the site is currently vacant, but it was previously uh and the previous structures on the site have been demolished, although some curb cuts and parking areas remain from the previous

drive-through use. Um the applicant is proposing to construct a 3385 square foot uh two tenant commercial building. Uh one of the primary tenants would be the primary tenant would be on the west side of the building, a Duncan uh now they just go by Duncan Duncan restaurant uh with a drive-through service window. Um, now while the site did operate in the past as a as a um drive-thru for a hamburger restaurant, um the current zoning ordinance does require uh special land uses uh review and approval for any drive-through use in the C3 district. So that's why they are here tonight. Uh and actually this property owner has proposed a similar use in the past, but they've never just they've never completed the review and approval process. So therefore that's another reason why they've uh started again with this proposed project. So with regards to special land use uh within the zoning ordinance we have our general criteria. Uh as mentioned we've the planning comm well I should mention uh previously the planning commission has recommended approval of the special land use for the site for this uh type of use and u and configuration. Um, so going over briefly my my uh my note my uh points from my review letter when it comes to special land use. The first item we always look at is compatibility with adjacent uses. And basically uh you know the site is directly adjacent to properties that have a similar level of activity as this proposed use. There's a drive-thru to the west. There's other commercial activity to the uh to the excuse me drive-thru to the east. Uh a uh other commercial activity to the west. uh and as proposed uh we do believe this uh facility would be compatible with those other commercial uses in addition to the fact that while there is uh residential property to the

north it is a multif family residential and once again those sites have been uh historically uh located adjacent to commercial property. So, this configuration is found throughout uh the city and therefore we do believe uh establishing reestablishing a drive-thru on the site would be compatible with these uses. We also look at the master plan. Uh the master plan designates the site as mixed use. Um, and while the mixeduse category is intended, uh, one of the intents of the master mixeduse category, I should say, is that this location is is intended to begin a transition from those general commercial uses on the, uh, along on the east side of town, from Inkingster to Harrison. Uh the intent is to begin a transition to more uh a more mix of uses, more dense uh configuration of uses as they approach uh downtown at Ford and Middle. So this is like that area to create that transition. So while not comp uh so while there are generally a majority of uses to the east that are singleuse sites operated by just one one one use on the property uh so therefore this establishment would create multiple uses on the site. So it's an attempt to we do believe that's a a reasonable attempt to provide different alternatives and a mix of uses on the property. So it can be construed as being compatible with the master plan. Um there are other aspects uh that are similar characteristics for the special land use approval that are in my in my review letter. I'll just point out one aspect is the impact on traffic. Uh so the applicant is proposing to relocate the existing there is an existing curb cut on Ford Road on the east side of the property. They're proposing to shift this to the east and then construct a

new curb cut on the west side of the of the site. Um, so this would allow for a uh circulation plan where vehicles would enter on the east uh either go into the building or use the drive-through window and then exit on the west side of the property in a out outward motion. Um, and this is generally uh relatively um convenient and efficient method of uh utilizing that drive-through window. Uh we have indicated to the applicant to speak with uh Michigan Department of Transportation which is as regulatory authority for Ford Road and they have had initial discussions. Uh they there's I believe you do even have some emails discussions with uh MDOT from the applicant and they are uh they've just generally been uh have indicated they are uh acceptable of this configuration and even with that addition of a new curb cut MD dot seems to be appropriate with that. Um so in the end uh given the history of the site, given the past approvals, given the existing land uses and the proposed mass uh future land use, we do recommend that the uh we do advise the planning commission to recommend approval of this proposed multi-tenant building with the drive-through restaurant to city council uh based on compliance with the uh standards of approval but contingent upon uh site plan approval. for this for the site. So, those are the comments I have on the special land use requirement for the drive-through window. And I can uh go over the site plan issues at this time or after discussion of the special use aspect there. Any uh discussion on special land use recommendations? So, I guess maybe one question and I maybe this is for the site plan review itself, but

um can you just remind me why is the special land? It's because of the drive-thru specifically. Correct. Yeah. So, because of the homes that are directly to the north and I know there's a KFC right to the east, right? But there are also three homes right to the north. So, is that something we would normally do a public hearing or like would these residents know that special land use request out right now? Yes. Yes. We will be holding a public hearing in a moment here. Oh, yeah. Yeah. And they they have been uh mailed every every property owner within 300 ft of the property has been sent a notice of the drive-through request and it was advertised in the uh Detroit News and Free Press and um yeah, and we will have they will have the opportunity to comment. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh is that uh is it for the special land use items? I mean there I can go over the site plan issues if you want or we can wait. Uh well, we should move on. I think I think probably before we do the site plan issues, we'll go to the uh public hearing and uh should we just I'm sorry. Should we reflect in the minutes that the applicant is not present? Well, actually, we do have a representative. Oh, I'm sorry. Are you the applicant? Yes. Usually the applicant sitting there. Okay. I'm sorry. Well, if if you're done with your report. Yes, sir. Then uh if the applicant would care to come up and uh make their presentation, this is Andrea Bader. She is the architect from Jeffrey Scott Architects. Right. Thank you. I really don't have a presentation. Um, I just any questions I can try to answer for you guys. Okay. Well, one of my questions was about the uh the finishes on the the building, the fiber cement siding. Mhm. And uh we don't have

any elevations that show the colors or anything. Uh I sent color elevations. The elevations we have actually were black and white. So they have the notes for the They have the notes for the colors. I don't know if I uh Okay. I thought for sure I sent the color ones as as well along with the packet. They were 11 by 17 I thought. Oh, and by 17 are they? They were smaller ones. They weren't I don't think they were full size elevations. That's it. Yeah. Two pages. I have 85 85.1. Okay. They must not have got included in the set. So, the colors are noted on the on the elevations. Um, and I can reference them, but they but there just aren't any colored renderings on the top, right? I thought for sure I sent those. I can send them to you guys so it's it's easier for you guys to see. Well, it's mainly uh maybe if you could just go over your uh your plans for the um building for the building colors. I think if I can read it. Yeah. Okay. I think the main colors are supposed to be white and gray and then the can't really see this. I don't know why the color. And which part of the building would be that be? H which part of the building would that be? the are the are the large walls with the uh horizontal siding is that white or the Okay. If you look at the west elevation Mhm. I think that main the main part of that will be gray. So that large wall would be gray. Mhm. And then usually the

bumpout that says Garden City runs on Duncan, that'll be a honey color. It's like a light brownish color. It's similar wood tone. It's noted as wood tone. Yeah. Okay. And then the bigger panels I believe are either white or gray. Like I really can't read this. Can I ask while you're looking, is there a a template? So if we were to look at another store and you'd say, "Yes, it's exactly like this store." Is there one that comes to mind that we could look up. Yep. It's like the one over on Wayne. You know that one? Yes. They're real similar to that. But they're all going to be similar. Duncan has a kind of a motif. That's what I'm thinking. Yeah. Mhm. Wayne and Plymouth. Yeah, they just remodeled that one recently. I think they have a That's not the rectangular panels that are like basically more like a large rectangle. Those are gray peter. And then the larger but narrower horizontal planks are supposed to be the off-white. And then they also have, like she mentioned, the bumpout is going to be a wood tone uh to the to the actual uh siding. And then along the east, west, and north elevation will be more of a a standard 4 inish horizontal uh siding that's going to be gray, a pewtor gray as well. So, it's like a standard Peter gray around the three elevations, but the Ford Road elevation will have that the three colors on there. And then the paint the little channels along where it says Duncan are the orange and pink and white strips. Okay. Find one that looks none of these look like it. So, do you mind approaching? Is is the

color palette the same? This is the Wayne. Okay. More like this one. Sorry. We're all searching similar, but the slightly different. Okay. I'm really sorry. I thought I had the colorations. Meanwhile, we know that typically uh largescale corporate restaurants have the same features. Personally, I do like the idea of them being slightly different using the same color palette or materials, but a slightly different configuration at least that allows for some creativity. Yeah, creativity and loss of monotony you might normally see on the on the sites. So, and generally speaking, it'll be modern in style and character, but it's uh starting to be repetitive, I guess you would say. Okay. Other than the color, it's questions for the applicant. I had a question about the curb cutout. Uh so in the email with uh MD dot it says on page three um from the city says that easterly driveway would be constructed as right in only no left turn into the property and the westerly one would be a right out only no left turn allowed out of the driveway. Um some of the other email chain later said that there was an in-person discussion. So I don't know if some of that was discussed y about yep we discussed all of it. We went and met with them and they agreed to have us in only and out only but a birection non-restricted access each way. Okay.

That's why the one is a little bit smaller than what's there now. Okay. So to help the prevent people from coming in and out. That the drive width would be minimum of 18 ft. Is that yes on the drawings on it has 22 22 on that. Okay. Yeah. And you would also provide signage at each Okay. Yep. It's noted. Yep. Directional signage. Yeah, that's noted there as well. On one side it'll say do not enter so they can't go out and then on the other side it says welcome or whatever. Same with on the other end. Is there any other uh questions that we have for the applicant? Uh, so with the ordering uh system on the north side facing the residential, I know there's the sound screening on the back. Did we have any concerns about that facing the residential? Yes, it would be. We do know in the site plan issues, yeah, that it would need to be uh installed with a volume control option. Uh, and there are other issues with the menu board as well they can get into, but Yeah. But yes, it would definitely be a concern uh that we try to mitigate as best as possible that it still functions but it's not um obtrusive to the residents. So, okay. Was there anything else you'd like to add for us? No. If you have any more

questions for me. Uh if your approval or if or when your approval goes through the council, how soon would you be starting construction? Um we still have to submit for permits obviously. So probably in another month or two. Okay. So sometime this year. Mhm. For sure. Yep. Okay. All right. If there's no other questions and you have nothing else for us, uh you can have a seat. Okay. And uh we'll open the public hearing and if anyone wishes to speak during the public hearing, they could come forward now. Uh seeing no one, we'll uh close the public hearing at uh 6:53. Or one other thing, do we have any written uh communications concerning this? Yes. Um, we had one written communication email uh to the uh city clerk um objecting to the proposal. They live on uh Crowder and they're objecting to it. They were within the 300T radius. Okay. Was there anything specific about their objection or objection is um noise, litter, uh smell for the most part. Okay. And I I don't know if he you know the plans weren't present. Um but the wall is is part of the plan. So I don't know if that may assist or not. So you have

the street number of that president. Um kind of recommend 28443. Yeah, that's directly. Okay. Well, uh, hearing that, we'll close the public hearing again and, uh, move on to the commission discussion recommendation or the, uh, special land use recommendation. Do we have any, uh, comments or discussion from commission? No. I mean, I I think uh the discussion around the site plan itself and the speaker and the signs and all of that we can probably get to, but I don't have anything on the special land use specifically. Okay. Well, if we want to move on then, uh we can make this recommendation for approval with contingency of site plan approval. Someone carries to make the motion. Uh, I will make a motion um regarding PPZ25-00003 request for special land use contingent upon site plan approval to construct a multi-tenant commercial building with a drive-through window at 28484 Road. Second and seconded. Recommendation for approval. Any comments on the motion? Hearing none, would you take the role, please? Commissioner King, I. Commissioner Walls, I. Commissioner Daniels, I. Chairperson May, I Okay, moving on to uh site plan review. Mr. Ortega, you want to start us off?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Um so with regard to the site plan review uh we have touched on uh some of theformational items I wanted to bring to you most notably the um the uh some of them being the architectural design of the building. Uh as as I mentioned as we've discussed it's going to be this fiber cement panels. They are very durable. They can be very attractive. They they are modern in in size and and they're very modern contemporary. The only thing I just noted is that sometimes while we don't have a lot of these type of buildings yet in the city, uh they tend to be there tend to be more of these in the region now. So it's just a note where um that's one aspect that we have to consider that maybe at some point in the future this might become dated. Um one a couple things I just want to point out first for information to the applicant is just that as noted in my my review letter. So this the applicant is proposing that with the configuration of uh 17 parking spaces uh there's going to be four employees for the Duncan but based on a 400 square foot uh dining room/standing area which is the requirement for uh carry out restaurants. Uh they would require eight parking spaces. So generally speaking that would mean 12 parking spaces are allocated for the Duncan. So that leaves five parking spaces available for the second tenant in the facility. Um so while that might be appropriate and could fit a uh office use or a retailer, uh if it was to be another uh um carry out restaurant, which we tend to see more happening uh in our our commercial properties, uh that it could still work, but the d but the pickup area in a carry out restaurant would be very minimal. So, I'm just making the applicant aware

uh that might impact their um their tenant allocation in the future. And this is something we've been working with other property owners in the city. Uh for example, some of the newer construction ones, they wanted to have a little bit more carry out restaurants than basically the parking lot could handle. Uh but that's okay because they're just made aware of it at the time and the allocation of the tenants is just the the based on the market conditions and who they can find in the site. So, I just wanted to point that out right from the beginning for the applicant. And then the other thing being that um as noted uh with regards to the residents on the north, we do the ozoning request does require a screening wall. The applicant is proposing the screening wall that is required six foot masonry. Uh the one thing I noted is that they are indicating it seems like it's pretty close if not on top of the existing sanitary sewer line that goes through there. Now, it has to be field verified. So once it gets field verified, it might not be an issue, but uh the the M screening wall is required. So it might need to be shifted either to the north or potentially to the south if uh that that sanitary sewer line is there because there's no the the screening wall is required. It's a requirement. Uh and the zoning order specifically states if a utility is in the way, then the wall just has to become further on the private property outside of the easement in in a in a location that is that is acceptable to whomever holds the easement. This case being the city. So just making them aware because if for some reason that occurs in the future uh that it's right on the spot, they might have to readjust uh their building building location and even possibly. Uh but that's just something that tends to happen during the construction phase. But one thing I want to make them aware of it right now. So then uh we get getting to the issues of uh and any necessary revisions uh to this. Uh one

uh kind of an important aspect is two tandem items. Um we would like to see and require a a truck maneuvering plan for the site uh for not only emergency vehicles uh but also any kind of loading uh uh delivery vehicles I should say uh because technically the zoning requires a 10T x 50 foot loading zone. The planning commission does have the authority to modify that requirement as necessary based on the use on the site based on their proposed um um the proposed use the needs of the needs of their current use and that and and and the hours of delivery. They have noted that um note on on sheet C102 states that the loading will occur during non-b businessiness hours. In our experience, that's something difficult to contain with uh to control with with delivery vehicles. Some others also indicate that they would not utilize tractor trailer vehicles. While we do applaud that if that's what's going to happen, that's also difficult control. Well, but we'd like to see we would see the applicant respond to what would be the proposed uh solution for deliveries because having a tractor trailer vehicle back up into Ford Road is just not an option in that location. and it's just so busy there. So, we'd have to try and figure out what their solution is for loading. Um, and that we think is going to be very important. And then other things uh some minor not minor but someformational items uh with regard to landscaping based on the size of the build the lot width. Uh they actually need six trees and 18 shrubs. So, the landscape plan should be revised. regards to lighting, uh there's a little inconsistency between whether the height the pole would be 20 or 25 feet from grade. So, we just like that inconsistency of the of the pole light fixture height uh

adjusted to not exceed 25 ft from grade. And then when it comes to the drive-thru uh requirements and the and the uh speaker volume, uh we do request that they have a control fitted and noted on the detail for the for the menu board. And also we found with these new menu boards that are basically TV screens uh their light levels can get very high at night. So we do recommend the installation of a photo cell with automatic dimmer so that the menu board gets uh automatically dimmed whenever obviously at night time but whenever in there's a sh storm or something like that you know th those can get dimmed so that way there's no ambient light or glare uh uh going with the with the screening wall. be very minimal but just that idea of trying to have that one extra layer of protection for residents we think is important. So those um those are the five items we recommend as but in the end we do feel that uh this proposed use will benefit the city provide some additional uh dining options for residents and then also in the end deal uh remove a a long vacant site in the city. So we do recommend approval contingent upon uh a solution found for the loading and delivery and uh those three other items for information for revised site planning. Okay. U do you have any comments about any of the recommendations that u are in that report that you have yet to comply with? Um, let me see how much lands. We will provide a truck turn plan. We just didn't have time to get it done for tonight. I was going to try to get it done, but we didn't have time to get it done. So, we can provide that so you guys can see the fire truck and then um

any other vehicles that are going to go around the site. So, we can do that. We will fix the inconsistency on the light pole. Um note um we can provide additional landscaping that was required. Yeah, it would appear as if on your landscape plan there there were some areas where additional landscaping could be added. There was some blank spaces there. um kind of tight. It is it might be necessary to put some of the trees along that eastern property line because uh just the amount of space available, but we can work with the applicant to find an appropriate place for those. But you're right, it's a little tight right now. Yeah. And then for the uh drive-thru um order board and equipment, we are checking with um Duncan to make sure that they have the equipment that can do that the sound volume and the and the photo cell. Yeah. Okay. [Applause] Yes. Um I don't think I you had shared what are the intended hours of operation. They are did we put it in the report? I think it said some place 4 to 8 in the narrative. Yeah. 4 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. daily. The drive-thru would be open at 4:00 a.m. That's normal for Duncan. And the drive-thru would be open at 4:00 a.m. Okay. Yeah. He told me 4:30 to 5:00 is what I when I asked him this morning they'll be open. And your deliveries would occur at periods when the store is closed. Yes.

Okay. Do you know what type of trucks they use normally to deliver? You know what? I don't know the exact size of the truck. We can find that out and put it on the truck term. Uh, did you have anything else you wanted to say about the uh site plan? I don't think so. Unless you have any more questions for me. If we have any more questions, we'll ask. Perfect. Uh, no other public here, so we'll move on. Planning Commission discussion and action. Uh any discussion or comments about the application for the site plan? I don't have any issues with it. I thought the landscaping adding would be a little much, but because you're trying to keep those signs and everything visible, but maybe I'm wrong. Yeah. Well, I think if you're willing to do this, I think possibly we could have you administratively, if we approve this, uh, take a look at the landscaping plan and see what can be done with it. Yes, absolutely. We can work with the applicant probably focus more on having the shrubs in the front of the building, maybe one or two trees and then Yeah, exactly. lower shrubs and then the trees could be on the uh, like I said, there's a landscape buffer between their site and KFC. that looks like big enough for for trees. So that could accommodate the additional trees so it doesn't block anything and then it's beneficial too because then the trees will eventually provide shade on the parking lot. So one one item Mr. Chairman, if I might uh point out again with regards to the loading zone and and um the delivery, I should say the delivery vehicles. One as one aspect I put in my uh note was maybe uh a recommendation for the com for the

commission uh that your approval also be contingent upon uh the delivery vehicles maybe needs to be rewarded but making sure the delivery vehicles do not back up or cause congestion onto Ford Road because that and if they do in the future that would constitute a violation of the site plan and just wanting to get that on the record now because we have had some difficulty with other uh sites where they're they have one proposal that they feel could work for their deliveries, but then they end up going with a standard configuration to just having delivery vehicles all over uh and utilizing the right of way rather than utili being able to make that extra operational and management effort. effort to work with delivery companies to make sure they they deliver to their site with whatever they need, whether it's box trucks or smaller or at night, you know, but a lot of times we get um mainly because I've also lately I've been seeing a lot of the Duncan down on uh on Ford past uh Wildwood. I've been seeing semi-trailers delivering over there. So, yeah. Yeah, I I can imagine they do use semi semi-trailers that but uh that would come with the maneuvering uh plan to make sure that trucks can semi maneuver around the uh the building. Yes. If uh that's going to be an necessary item to be part of that plan. Yes. as well as firet trucks and emergency vehicles. Any other comments or questions about the site plan? Should we have any other

discussion about a potential ten tenant like what kind of business that just we have any idea? No. Okay. But I just can you give us just a it'd be food service some kind of food service? I don't even know. I think it was going to just be for a lease. I I you know, I talked to him before. He had he didn't have any idea, you know, just seems like such a small space. I don't know what phone store or you know, something like that. Kind of what I think would fit, you know, that kind of thing. Yeah. Kind of limited with parking, right? Insurance office or something, you know, Yeah. It really is. I don't use a lot of them have uh ice cream. Okay. next door. But having that, I don't know if that would um work with the parking situation either. We would basically work with the whoever the new tenant would be if they wanted to be a carry out or ice cream. In theory, it could work. They would just have to when they configure the floor plan just have it very restricted area for so that for the number of customer for the number of customers. So it won't encourage people to linger and it won't encourage that sort of thing. Unfortunately, uh, but if it was an office, it makes sense honestly because, you know, yeah, the size of that building could fit two to three office workers and, you know, real estate, insurance, something like that. Okay. Any other questions or comments? Kind of speaking to the the written uh letter from the public um with the trash being issue, is there anything in the drawings denoting like a public waste receptacle or anything on the outside of the building? on the outside of the uh No, I don't think so. Isn't there a dumpster enclosure included in the back? Yeah, in the back.

Yeah. But as for outside trash can, I don't think we have one noted. We can always note one. And you can always add that as a condition of approval to to have the site plan revised to note location of uh additional trash receptacles. That might be good if there's going to be two potential restaurants there. You mean for people driving through and then throwing their coffee cup away and things like that or parking and then eating and dining and taking their cup and throwing it out if they're outside lingering in their car. There should be there in that case there should be some outside receptacles. I I would think in front of the building or to the side of the building have one one or two would have to be on the east side where all the parking is. Yep. Absolutely. So that that could be included in the motion. Yeah. We have any other issues or comments? We have several contingencies that should be included as well as the requirement for the delivery vehicles and trash outside trash receptacles. Someone care to make a motion. One more question. Sorry. Yes, go ahead. Uh, does the outdoor lighting stay on all the time at after dusk or what? The po the pool uh pole lights, do they stay on all the time or they dusk to dawn? I don't know for sure on that one. Okay. What the requirements are? But we do have requirements for the lighting to be basically contained on site. Okay.

Correct. With our phototric plan and you have adequate uh yes that they have a photo they have provided a phototric plan. It is compliance with our standards. Okay. Um for minimum light levels so that way it's safe. Our our ordinance doesn't get that specific into those uh the hour the continued uh illumination of the site. It's something we need to address in the future just as a side note. But as as mentioned, the the light level is contained on the property. So doing we're doing a lot even though well we're doing a lot to try and control glare in the city. So it's it's an ongoing issue that we're always trying to address. Is it? No, I'm done. Okay. We're looking for a motion. I'll make a motion uh to approve site site plan review uh with the addition of we're going to handle this with you, right, Mario? Yep. The uh I line items one, two, and three on the site plan recommendation on Mario's proposal here as well as the as well as the delivery vehicle not backing out onto the street. that amendment and then also an outside trash receptacle control on the plans. Okay. Is there support? I support motion's made and supported. Any questions, comments on the motion? Take the role, please. Commissioner Walls. I. Commissioner King. I. Commissioner Daniels. I. Chairperson May. I Okay, your site plan is approved. Uh the

council still has to approve the special land use and that suppose they'll have a public hearing for that too. Actually, they they don't need to for that. They don't need to. Okay. But uh either Matt or Mariel will let you know when the uh item will be coming up on their agenda. Okay. So, thank you. Thank you so much. wish you good luck. I I believe though it will be the 23rd June 23rd is what we're shooting for. Okay. June 23rd at 700 p.m. Okay. Thank you. [Applause] Okay. Next item. PPZ25-00005 request to establish and reszone the lot at 30719 Crowder Avenue from R3 Multiple Family Residential to C2 Community Business. Uh Mr. Ortega, would you start us off? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Um, as noted, this site is 30719 Crowder. It is a 9,940 square foot lot about 75 ft wide. Uh, and currently it's occupied by a 1 and a half story single family uh for rent residential dwelling. Uh, the dwelling itself is about 1,200 foot in ground floor area. Uh the site is actually zoned R3 multif family residential and the applicant is proposing to reszone it to C2 neighborhood business. Um within the letter I noted the existing uh zoning existing land uses and future

land uses of the of the site. Um and beginning the discussion with regards to whether uh this resoning would meet the basic intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. Um, one thing we're pointing out is that uh right now, just some additional information, the applicant uh owns this piece of property. They also own the medical office building to the south at 30730 Ford Road as well as the adjacent parking lot to this site on the east right at that that corner of Crowder and uh should have known Chodka. Um, and the property to the south is zone C2. The property to the east that is a parking lot is zone VP, uh, a vehicular parking. And then the property to the west and north is zoned uh, R3 as well, multif family. Um, and there are apartments on that property. It's a twostory building, two and a half story building. on the west of this site. To the north, there are uh what I would call uh ranch town houses or ranch apartment style apartments. It is a multif family structure, but it's a r it's a a singlestory with I believe three to four units in that property to the north. Uh and it's a type of structure that's found uh along those several blocks right there. Um and basically uh within the city we've always had normally for majority of the city for our commercial corridors what we have is the commercial property fronting on on Ford Road or on on Middle Belt and then to the rear of those properties is either single family or multif family property. So it's a backto-back configuration. uh if this were to be uh moved forward then

you would have a configuration where a C2 designation is side to side with the multif family and residential properties on the west uh of the site. Um now it doesn't happen often that configuration but there are a few locations in the city where this kind of extension into the residential areas occurs. Uh the the first example that came to my mind was that we do have the medical office building at uh Rain and Partardo. So that's three 3311 Ford. It used to be the uh New Life Church. Now it's a medical office building and that was conditionally reszoned to uh C1, but then it is adjacent on the side to a single family. So basically we do within our zoning ordinance, we do have our standard requirements for providing the masonry wall along that along those rear property lines. Uh in this particular configuration, the applicant would be required to install the uh that masonry wall on the west side of the lot. In addition, they would have to provide a setback that's commensurate with the existing setback established on Crowder. So, it would have to be a certain setback away from Crowder as well. And it would have to be a commercial building. It would have to be a commercial style that is is consistent with our C2 properties uh that offers opportunities for customers to enter the building. Uh in this case, it would probably be front the door would be fronting either on a crowder or on to the west on the parking lot. And so basically the question before you tonight is whether uh you feel if you feel it's appropriate and if you can determine that this side to side relationship created by this resoning would provide the equal protections uh that we have for our normal rear configuration. One other aspect to point out I just wanted to mention is the future lanius designation. This the master plan designates this site then all property to the east, west and south as mixed use uh in it and then property to the north is designated as multif

family residential. Then within the master plan it states that uh the it offers alternatives for mixed use that mixeduse category. They could designate the areas and they can these mixed uses within the the land use uh category could they could be uses that stand alone. They could be uses that are located next to each other. So residential next to commercial or they could be located within the same structure. Now, typically uh within the mixed use and the effort of the city has been to have a a a a mixeduse configuration where commercial is and and commercial is located on the first floor and then we have a second or third floor with the residential above. That's typically what we have. But the master plan does leave the door open for this potential of commercial next to residential uh within the mixeduse designated area. So once again, it is something that's not necessarily conventional with our back, but it is something that we have seen in a couple other sites in in the city. And the idea being uh to allow for more commercial residential property, excuse me, commercial property intermingled with residential in in areas. And so it's a matter of whether we feel whether the planning commission feels it's appropriate to allow for this uh in this particular location with this particular situation. The other questions with regards to the uh zoning uh resoning, you know, they're pretty straightforward, but there is, you know, there's not a mistake within the zoning ordinance that is requesting the resoning. Uh you know, this isn't an inequitable situation corrected by this resoning. Uh it wouldn't be an exclusionary zoning that would limit a district. So once again in the end question before you is if the if you the planning commission determines that this proposed resoning is consistent with the basic intent of the zoning ordinance and is consistent with the goals and

objectives of the master plan uh you could recommend make a recommendation of approval to the uh to the city council. Okay. Uh well, I don't really think it's appropriate to inject commercial properties into a residential area. Uh for one thing, in addition to the couple of u multifamily units you mentioned, there are also quite a few single family units in that same area. Yeah. to the north there are three. Yeah. On that block and some more down. True. Yeah. East of Shotka too. Mhm. And the uh the one example that you mentioned that we do have the church on Ron and part that in that example all of the activity from that business is centered on the Ford roadside. Right? People enter the building from the Ford roadside. They park their cars on the Ford roadside and they don't have to exit onto Partardeau at all. There's not even any pedestrian traffic created towards part and there is quite a setback from Partardo to the building. Yes, it's a standard 30 foot. Yep. At least that. So, I don't I don't think that would be the same situation that we would be creating here. I uh I'm just not in favor of uh imposing the commercial activity on the residential area. Uh

do you do you know why he's requesting a C2? Well, C2 would be consistent because at least the C2 to the south. So, if he requested C1 or C3, it would be a little bit more of a spot zone situation where it would be standing on its own. Uh the applicant uh which was advised of the meeting tonight. I'm not sure why they're not here. They indicated they would be here this evening. Uh but the applicant has discussed uh construct tearing down the existing single rental dwelling and constructing a a building that can continue the medical aspects that they they have. Uh meaning they would have it for a uh re either retail or or retailer for medical supplies and equipment is one aspect they're trying to do. might be a large might be a lot of internet based activity but that but they are made aware that as a as a C2 zoning it would have to have some type of customer entry into the building that's other aspect of the C2 it would have to be a commercial building and Fred I agree with you that uh while the most the least intrusive and least impactful on adjacent residences would be to to ensure that these uh entrances and and the and the and all the other function of the site is oriented to the east and to or to the south. Um to be to just make everyone aware that currently we don't have specific requirements within the zoning ordinance for that conf for that kind of uh building configuration and use configuration. I would I believe that this has incurred in other sites because it just makes sense from a marketing standpoint. Why have a have a site focused on other other locations when the commercial benefit is along Ford Road? Um but technically we don't have any requirements currently that would require them to to do that. So that's

another aspect to consider that they would be going in and not have a um requirement at this time. But as as mentioned, I believe they want to do a at least right now they're proposing that. But also one other aspect just to make everyone aware as a standard resoning. Uh this is something where if it does get approved for C2, they would be allowed to establish any permitted use that's within the C2 uh district and they would be allowed to esta to request any special land use that's permitted in the C2. So they that include a auto repair garage uh for special with through special land use. Yes. uh they they would be allowed retail uses, they would be allowed office uses, uh they would be allowed service uses like hair salons and that sort of thing. And then they would also be allowed a carry out restaurant by right in the C2 um and a sitdown restaurant. And then, forgive me, I'm going to the district to to confirm the other permitted uses in the district. I do believe auto repair is permitted as special land use. Um, but it is something that they could request. Um, wouldn't the special land use be better from the standpoint we're looking at? Correct. As in now they can't if it reszones to C2, they'll have open a field day on that one. Well, they could do they could do anything they want that's allowed under a C2. Yeah. If we approve it, right? So they would have to come and we I would think the special annus criteria gives the planning commission the power to to require if to require that extra level of protections for um for uh residents and actually other aspects of them specific to minor auto repair. We actually have a within

because we had the um review and approval for Hollywood Sound. It's one block to the east and when that came in our zoning ordinance requires a 40 foot setback from any minor auto repair from any residential zone property. So technically they couldn't I mean more than 50% of that lot would have to have a setback from the residential of the west. So having that being auto would be impractical, but they can still request it. And they could also request uh open air businesses, group daycare homes, funeral homes, and then financial institutions with drive-thru facilities are permitted or can be be approved through the special use process. So they could request those as well. Well, let's move on and then we can get to uh discussion later just to uh clear this up. Um we would have next we would have presentation by the applicant. The applicant's not present. So we'll move on. Uh I would open the public hearing for this at uh 7:29. ask if anyone is interested in speaking on this item. Seeing no one, is there any uh written communications concerning this item? There are none. There are none. Okay. So, uh, seeing no one and having no written communication, I'll close the public hearing at, uh, 7:30 and we'll open it up for discussion with the planning commission. There any comments or questions from the commission? Well, I agree with your concern about it

going uh that close to residential. I think we had another property um where you know the building was on Ford Road and okay, you need to back for parking or whatever. But the fact that this is its own piece of property, I think offering it up as a C2 opens it up to too many disruptive business types. We can't control that. So, um I don't think it's really fair to the residents in the area. No, not now with the ability to put whatever you want, right? Yeah. You could sell the sell the lots and then that would be reszone for anybody else if they wanted to. Right. Yeah. I wish the applicant was here to maybe give us some more perspective on what they were thinking and maybe I would be more open to it. But based upon the proposal and you know that without that context I I have a hard time with it. Any other comments or questions? Can I ask just a kind of a point of order? So our options today would be to not recommend. Um if we do that is that close it out for six months or something. I can't recall. Well, the applicant if if it is denied, then they can't request an approval for one year. That's a year for for any type of new resoning to the site. Okay. So, it would be that or table it if we thought. I don't see any reason to table it, but uh any other comments or questions? Just from my understanding, tableabling it that would mean it would just come up again at the next meeting. Okay. Do we

Okay. We want to do that to see if the applicant comes and actually is here or does it not change? I mean, I think it's a 90% chance not changing. Yeah. um in my opinion um because I guess my concern is even if the applicant was to be here and I'm trying to kind of give everyone the benefit of the doubt here but even if the applicant came and said okay I'm going to do a medical office and it's going to be 8 to 4 and no disruption well I we he might keep it a year and sell it and now it's correct me if I'm wrong but it would not come back to us it's now a C2 so that the next uh owner right right so so technically if if you did make a recommendation of approval to a straight C2 then if city c it goes to city council if city council approves it then you're absolutely right then then it can be bought and sold and the next person can come and whe whether whatever use is permitted in the C2 or whatever they can either have those by right and then the other uses they could request a special land use so they would go through the process switching it to the C2 just deny it and then allow him to come with a special you he could come to with a special use within the year Well, he he couldn't you the special use would be only for what's the current zoning. So, it would only be the R3 for special use only R3 for residential. I think R3 it's like nursing home schools. Correct. Basically, it's Yeah, exactly. in child care centers and that sort of thing. Not a medical office. No, no, I looked at No medical. No, it's not. So the only other alternative for them and I guess we'd have to make a determination is if if they came and acquested a well no they if if the yeah if it gets denied the reasoning gets denied then they have they they can't request any new resoning for one year. Okay. Any other comments, questions? One other thought and I'm sorry I'm

really trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Is there another um zone that we think would be more appropriate? Um the other zone that we would that would be less intensive would be the C1, the local commercial. Um you know, there are different schools of thought on whether that would be uh uh of a spot zone issue or whether that's more of a transitional issue. you know go because we always talk I always talk about transition uses we go from commercial uses to multif family residential to single family some people think if you have intense commercial uses like a C3 or C2 you can slowly transition by having a C1 be the buffer and then have multif family and then have res a single family so that the the the activities on the on the sites go down at a more gradual transition than than what we normally have but you know it's still then then it would be a C1 adjacent to there and then within the C1 they still they're permitted office uses spot zone we really can't we shouldn't set a precedent like that that's the other aspect of it is like it's a bad preced kind of show we vetted you know I understood through it but yeah someone care to make a motion recommendation. I will I will make a motion to recommend the denial of PPZ25-00005 request to establish a reszone of the lot at 30719 Carter Avenue from R3 multiple family residential to C2 business community business. Second. Any questions or comments on the motion?

Hearing none. Would you take the role, please? Miss Commissioner King, I. Commissioner Walls, I. Commissioner Daniels, I. Chairperson May, I. Motion does carry. Okay, moving on. Uh, schedule of public hearings for the following. Public hearing to be considered for a special land use for carry out restaurant in the C1 local business zoning district at 1859 Inkster Road. Uh this is the new what that is now. Yes, this is the new uh well res relatively new um multi-tenant building right there at Instster and John Hawk and it um the one they just built the one they just built. Right now they have they've got the barber shop, they got the pharmacy and now they on the corner unit they want to put they'd like to put in a carry out restaurant. This is C1. So C1 while they have to go through special use uh special land use review just to make sure that the carry out restaurant is appropriately scaled given the amount of residences and adjacent to the site. So okay, we're just requesting we hold the public hearing to to to discuss the the consideration. Any comments? No motion to set a public hearing. I'll make a motion to schedule a public hearing for uh the C1 local business zoning district at 8859 Ingster Road uh for special land use for a carry out restaurant. I second. What would the date of that be? July 10th.

Yeah, that's our next regular meeting. Yes. Is there support of that? Yes. Okay. Any comments on the motion? Take the role, please. Commissioner Walls. I. Commissioner Daniels. I. Commissioner King. I. Chairperson May. I carries. Uh, next we have a public hearing to consider a plan development reszoning for parking lot on the south side of Paro east of Middlebell Road to be associated with the plan development at 29317 Ford Road. This is the additional parking for that. Okay. Development. That is correct. the applicant is moving forward and they've heard your concerns and they they have already submitted an application to uh make sure that the parking is sufficient for the site for the development I should say. Okay, questions. I'll make a motion for public hearing to consider a PUD reszoning for a parking lot on the south side of Partardo Avenue east of Middle Belt Road to be associated with the PUD at 29317 Ford Road. Second. Any comments or questions on the motion? No. Take the role, please. This Commissioner King I. Commissioner Walls. I. Commissioner Daniels. Hi. Chairperson May. Hi. And we had one more uh public hearing request. Uh you want to go over that with us again? Sure. Uh so at the last uh uh council meeting, the proprietor of

the new house of dank, the new u medical and adult use marijuana uh grower processor storefront um had commented that Garden City was unique in that we do not allow uh them to be open on Sundays. And um so I I happened to listen to that meeting and I thought it would again maybe it's not time they just opened um but at least we have a conversation on whether we we think we should have a public hearing to consider it. Um, I just always try to think of how do we keep the city competitive and, you know, new businesses opening and keep keeping them open. And if if if Westland and surrounding cities Sunday is not a factor, um, I think we should at least be asking ourselves why is it a factor for us? Do we know if these businesses are open in the surrounding cities? I'm going on his word. I have not done the correct. I have not done research on. And can we find out before we have a public hearing? Um, just to provide some con a little additional context, I've written other ordinances for other communities and they have they have put in restrictions on Sunday hours. Some have not. It's just a personal preference for whether they they do or they do not feel it's uh something uh applicable to their neighbor to their community. What are the reasons for laminating? uh mainly because actually some of the sometimes they what they've heard from the uh the operators is the operators are the ones that said let them know that Friday nights and Saturday nights are typically their most uh busiest nights or busiest busiest days of which they're selling product. So they they

you know they in terms of the level of um traffic and level of activity on the site they they wanted to try and u mitigate that and provide kind of a relief from customers after having them from Friday and Saturday. They're like all right the adjacent properties have dealt have have experienced heavy traffic for two nights in a row so let's have one day for for for a rest bit basically. Um it does look like though in inst at least the first one I've seen the flower bowl over on Ingster in Cherry Hill uh they are open on Sunday from 9 to 6 and the Westland the closest to live it was uh Sunday 10 to 9. So they are. Yeah. So they have some open in Westland and Ingster. Yeah. In same thing at least we could restrict the number the hours of Absolutely. Yeah. Because just add a another point of reference the other at least the other one I know of off the bat in Ingster. Uh the Vibe at Cherry Hill and Middle Belt they are open 9 to6 on Sunday as well where there is open 9 to9 every other day of the week. Okay. Does the state level have limits on No, the state the state doesn't regulate the hours of operations. That's that's one thing they do leave for the uh the local community to determine. So that's why you have seen and I will admit that that the the Sunday restriction was early on in the review and approval process for these um these uses. They like you said they they've we're trying to craft ordinances that would allow and and similar to what the city has done allow for a slow transition and slow growth of them into we've had medical for the longest time and we didn't adopt adult for for for until after you know other communities had the

opportunity to experience the the the industry. So now it's um you know it has been has been has in the region that we are seeing more of them and they become they're starting to become uh more available in the area. So whether how the city wants to modify them, it's up to up to you. You could also have a public hearing just to gauge input to see if anybody's would would see what people's uh residents opinion is about changing that require restriction. And maybe just while the commissioners think about it, I'm looking at the ordinance now and ours says 9 to9 Monday through Thursday, 9 to 10 Friday and Saturday and then no sales on Sunday. Mhm. Checking other facilities in Inkster, they they they all of them so far are closing at 9:00 p.m. the six days of the week and then Sunday 9 to 6. Yeah, I know there was a push for later hours on it was Saturday. I don't really see a reason to limit it on, you know, not Sunday, but I mean, I guess that's also the public hear. Yeah. Well, if we if we did allow it on Sunday, I think we should limit it more. Yeah. But I mean if they have I don't see a problem with it being open for a period but especially given you know I think the city's done a nice job about saying it's got to be in I believe it's the M1. So we have contained yeah we we have it very contained and therefore letting this business be successful by giving them some hours of operation on Sunday if we said 9 to5 or whatever. Um it just seemed reasonable. We're not seeing issues on the other days. Right. And it's a beautiful building if you've driven past it. I think they've done they've done a very nice job dressing it up. I will say that that the vast

majority almost all of them that I've ever oper consider, you know, interacted with they they they do have uh they do make the largest substantial effort to make them designed well, operate well and and and so far so good. They've been whenever a municipality requests something of them, they they they comply because they understand it's a it's a new market. So, what if we were to um if we were to have a public hearing and then maybe if if Mr. Miller would get the police chiefs, there any reason why? Yeah, we can have a recommendation from them. And then Yeah. Is there any reason why that would be if they don't want to attend the public hearing? They can give us a recommendation. If we don't get any negative c or excuse me, customer, I think I'm at work still. If we don't get any negative citizen feedback, um then we would move forward. Yeah. Also I just a side note chair person May is that I don't you know there were just a couple other locations that met the requirement in our ordinance and um we haven't had anything move forward on the other two kind of spots that were acquired for this purpose. Um so I don't know I don't know if that you know having extended hours may encourage them. Yeah. Correct. So or or not. I I don't know um you know if we is there going to be competition or not I guess what I'm trying to think and so far we haven't seen it but you know of course we're open the we've opened the door so we're waiting I guess so well if it seems too restricted I can see why they would be hesitant to do anything but if if they feel that they're competitive I I think probably they they would move ahead we Do we have a motion on the floor? I mean, if the commissioners will entertain one, I'll be happy to make it. Um, I'll make a motion to hold a public

hearing regarding uh zoning ordinance 154.165G2, uh, which pertains to the, um, hours of operation for medical and adult use marijuana facilities in the city. um with the inclusion of the chief police is um effective on whether that is of any concern. Second. Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. Take the role, please. Yes. Um that is Commissioner King. I Commissioner Daniels. I Commissioner Walls. Hi. Chairperson May. Hi. The motion does carry. Well, that would also be July 10th. Yes. Um, if I may, Mr. M Mr. Chairman, um, with regards to this, typically we do have would have draft language for any ordinance when we hold the public hearing so they have something for the public to react to. Would you like me to prepare something where we change where we proposed a certain set of hours on Sunday and then that'd be simple. What if you tell me what hours it'll be? We'll put it on there and then see what it is. 10 to 6. 9 to 6. 9 to 6. Yeah, I I think the cut off at 6 is good. I agree. So 9 to six or 10 to six that in the amendment. 10 to six. Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. Sounds good. All right. Uh commissioner's comments regarding planning and zoning matters. Uh Commissioner Daniels, do you have anything? Thanks for uh helping me on my first day here. Uh other than that, no good. Thank you. Oh, welcome to the commission, Mr. Walls. I'm good. Okay. Uh just the is it bar 153,

whatever that used to be. It seems as though it's uh in pieces. So, a couple things. So they I will say at least this applicant has been moving forward because we've had multiple people attempt propose different projects. They did propose initially that they were going to tear down a portion of the building in the rear and then renovate the building. However, once they started the demolition process, they kind of fell. I was I was going to say that that structural issues came up, but basically because the rest of it started to fall down because it had been so long uh neglected after the fire that it just all came down. Then they were starting having some issues with the I believe they had some soil issues and and with regards to the site. So the original uh construction documents needed to be adjusted to make sure the foundations and the things that they were going to install for the building be uh meet state meet meet the building code and and structural engineering requirements. So they've been going through and um provide they have provided revised plans and they just came in today actually to uh pay their latest revision to the building permit. So hopefully then we'll start seeing construction soon and then I don't know if made aware but what what the issue will be is that this property owner owns the bar 153 and then they did buy the uh vacant building to the adjacent to it which was the vacant which was the jewelry store and then the additional property with being that parking lot next to the jewelry store to the east and then also even uh what is right now a barber shop. So they bought all that property uh which made it much better because for them now any any tenants that are going to be in the new building will be have access directly off of Ford Road whereas in the past always the conundrum was they were going to have to park in the rear and they

will be having parking along the the um off the alley to the north of like on the south side of the alley as the building will not extend the full length from Ford to the alley. It'll end about 25 ft from the edge of the alley so that way people can park in the back. Um because because they actually while in the historically those other adjacent uh kitty corner uh parking lot that used to be there that's right on on Crowder right there that used to be owned by the same person but then eventually they got sold separately. So now someone else owns those three vacant lots on uh on Crowder between the two apartment buildings. So they don't have right now they've talked about it, but right now they don't have to. And at least based on the size of the building and this additional parking they've acquired, it will function for as a shopping center parking standard. Um and all these approvals were predicated on a renovation of the building. So that's why you never uh it was never brought to you because it was always a renovation that did not uh meet criteria for full site plan approval. It was always modifications. So thank you. That's all I have. The facade will be very attractive too just by the way. It actually would be modern again. Did you have anything else for us, Mr. Ortega? Nope. Nothing else. Nothing. Nothing. Okay. Our next regular planning commission meeting will be Thursday, July 10th, 2025. And I'll take a motion for adjournment. Motion to adjurnn. Motion made and supported. All in favor? I. Okay. Meetings adjourned. Thank you.