Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Meeting to order. This is the regular meeting of the Garden City Planning Commission. It's Thursday, July 9th, 2026 at 6 30 p.m. First order of business with every one stand to say pledge allegiance to the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Be seated. SECURITY AT THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

YES, CHAIRPERSON MAY. HERE. COMMISSIONER STEENBERG HAS ASKED TO BE EXCUSED. COMMISSIONER WALLS. HERE. COMMISSIONER KING. HERE. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. COMMISSIONER BAZI HAS ASKED TO BE EXCUSED BUT THEN HAS ALSO RESIGNED FROM THE COMMISSION AND WILL HAVE THAT BEFORE THE COUNCIL ON MONDAY. SO WE ARE IN NEED OF ANOTHER COMMISSIONER. SO SPREAD THE WORD. please okay thank you and then commissioner daniels has also asked to be excused this evening so you do have a quorum with four members present mr chair but i do want to advise that a portion of our meeting does involve a master plan amendment and a public hearing. Part of the Mission Planning and Zoning Enabling Act does require that we have five votes for any changes to the master plan. So we will be able to have the public hearing that's been noticed, we can discuss that, and then at a future meeting we will have to have a vote where we have five members in attendance. All right, thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next we need approval of the agenda. Approve. Support. Motion and supported to approve the agenda. Any questions or comments on the motion? Hearing none, take the roll, please.

Yes, Commissioner Walz. Aye. Commissioner King. Aye. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Chairperson May.

Aye.

The motion does carry.

Next, we need approval of the minutes from the regular meeting of June 11th, 2026.

I move to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of June 11th.

Second.

Motion is made and supported. Any comments or questions on the motion?

Take the roll, please.

Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Walz. Aye. Commissioner King.

Aye.

Chairperson May. Aye. The motion does carry.

Okay, next we have... Public comment on non-agenda items only. If there's anyone here who wishes to comment on an item that's not on the agenda, this would be the time to step forward. Seeing no one, we'll move on to our business items. First item is PPZ24-0004, a request to rezone the lot at 27500 Marquette Avenue from R1 Single Family Residential to C1 Local Business. Mr. Ortega, would you care to start us off?

Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, everyone. Tonight we're here to reconsider the proposed amendment for this piece of property at 27500 Marquette Street. This is located on the north side of Marquette Avenue, west of Inkster Road. It is a single lot parcel, approximately 2.05 acres in area. and it is occupying an existing building that was previously a church with classrooms within the building at the time. It is currently now vacant. Site is currently zoned R1, one family residential, and the applicant is proposing to rezone the property to C1, local business. review letter for you with regard to all the requirements in the zoning ordinance with regard to rezoning but I'm just going to summarize some of the highlights when we look at a rezoning the Planning Commission asking in Center number one will the proposed amendment be in accordance with the basic intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance The applicant is, at the time, proposing an architecture and engineering office to be utilized in the building, along with a daycare facility. However, as this is a standard rezoning, I just want to make sure that we're all aware that the Planning Commission and Council must consider all permitted and special land uses within the potential new C-1 zoning designation.

Could you give us an idea of what those uses might be? Absolutely, yeah.

So like in C-1, the permitted by right uses are mainly there for providing the convenience of persons residing in adjacent areas to have limited shopping or service uses. So that includes permitted by right professional medical or financial offices. technical or art schools, health clubs like a small scale yoga studio or something to that effect, personal service uses such as salons, and retail stores such as something that produces like a jewelry store, candles, some kind of small scale retail operation. It does not permit other types of uses, including it does not permit, would not permit gas stations or car washes, nor drive-through restaurants, car sales lots. Those are all prohibited in the C1 district because the intent of C1 is local service to residents. Those type of uses that I just mentioned are more auto-oriented. Those would belong in C3 up on Ford Road. They would not be permitted in the C1 district. So, with the idea being that the zoning ordinance has separated these uses into these different districts, the applicant is proposing to utilize them for a permitted or special land use in the C-1. We do find that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance. We also look as whether the amendment proposed rezoning would be in in compliance with the goals and objectives of the city's master plan. The master plan designates this property, along with all properties adjacent to it on the north, east, and west, and that block, basically, that large block north of Marquette Avenue, as mixed use. So mixed use is, once again, something that's similar to C1 in that it provides small sales, convenience, retail, and service uses to adjacent neighbors. and actually as a mix use designation the intent of the intent is provide uh... residential with commercial on the site however uh... the zoning plan of the master plan does indicate that c one would be uh... a type of use that would be provided for uh... adjacent residents so as the applicant is proposing a daycare or it's permitted in the district uh... You know, it's going to be directly adjacent to residential uses, residential areas, and would be attractive community service located within convenient walking distance of nearby homes and schools, which would directly serve residents in the area that may have young children. Other things we look at, will the... don't have any exclusionary zoning. It does not. Will the amendment be set an inappropriate precedent for any type of spot zoning situation? It does not. Directly to the east of this property is the Santu Funeral Home, and that is zone C1. Directly to the north is other parking lots and some other uses, but those are also zoned already as C1. So this will be directly adjacent to C1 zoning for on the east and north. So it's consistent and we just extend that pattern that already exists in this area for C1 zoning. And so that was the main, the final point I wanted to indicate as paragraph six in my re-letter. It is consistent with the zoning classifications of surrounding land uses. In the end, rezoning this site would allow the property owner to redevelop a vacant building. It would eliminate a vacancy. It would allow for the property owner to develop the site in a type of use that would not only be consistent with the master plan, but also provide services to adjacent residents. So in the end, if the Planning Commission does make a determination that this is consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance, we would recommend any positive recommendation to City Council include your findings of fact with those standards.

And then I can take any questions. Does the Commission have any questions?

I have no concern with how the property is being proposed to use. My concern is more about what it could be used for in the future, including retail stores. Does the commission have any options to grant the change while putting some kind of limitation around what it can be? Or if we say it's a C1, it's a C1.

So at this time, because it's a standard rezoning, we don't. The things that we rely on to make sure that any proposed development is consistent with and compatible with the adjacent property would be the fact that if If they propose anything, they require a site plan review from the planning committee when they come in front of you. To let you know, the zoning ordinance currently, if the applicant does propose redevelop the existing building and not change the footprint as a permitted use, they would not come before you for the office. However, if they did propose, well, let me double check one thing, but I do believe that If they do propose then at a later time a daycare center, that does, while permitted in the district, it'll require special land use approval. So at that point in time, it would come in front of you, and at that point in time, you have the authority, and the city council does as well, to establish certain characteristics and criteria to limit its particular hours of operation, sizes, that sort of thing.

Let me triple check that to make sure that that is, in fact, by special means.

It is under 1-4, Child Care Center. B-1-4.

But maybe just a quick follow-up on my question. If the applicant was to receive this approval and then down the road decide to sell the property and a new owner kept the footprint, they didn't need a site plan, they could theoretically do anything that is allowed in a C-1. Yes, as permitted uses.

So once again, those are offices, a business or technical school. libraries, museums is listed. Retail uses are listed. I will note that certain retail uses do require to be within the C3 district, such as like smoke shops or bars or those type of things. Those are not, and no food service would be allowed on the site.

So it would mainly, once again, be retail, small scale.

The intent has always been small scale retail or service or office as proposed by the entity. as proposed by the district and the master plan.

Was there any other questions?

Did you have anything else? No.

Okay. Next, we'll move on to presentation by the applicant. Is the applicant present?

Yes. Yes, he's here. Be prepared to come to the podium.

So what we're proposing here, I know Mario stated what we're doing. We're gonna put an office building, which is an architectural firm, and it's owned by me. And in the back, We're going to have the daycare, which is an existing, used to be for the church, like classes, maybe schooling they used to do. And in the middle, it would be separating between the two facilities, the utility rooms. The parking lot is on one side of the area, most of it. And for the daycare, it's facing the daycare. And for the office building, also we have parking spots like area for the architectural firm.

Is this in the same lot? Yes.

is on the south side of the building yes the one that's on the uh on the main street that's facing the uh daycare that portion of the parking lot would be used for the daycare and the other part would be used for the architectural firm So I see that you had some question raised regarding the C1 and I would like to answer. So if you look at the whole area here and I see where you're pointing at that if I sell this property one day someone is going to come and put something that You have, I mean, the neighborhood, they have no interest in it, like a retail or some kind of restaurant, which is in the C1, I think it's restricted from restaurants and stuff like that. But if you look at the whole area around me, it's all C1. So anybody can come and do what I'm proposing tonight in terms of office. And they can use the same zoning, which is C1. And my parking lot is attached to another parking lot nearby. I think it belongs to the funeral home, which is a funeral home is C1. And my part, the parking lot that it is related, I mean, mixed with my parking lot. And there is, I think, a shake-hand agreement for us to access from that part, from the parking lot side where the funeral home is. And that... I don't know if we are allowed to go in from there, but this is not our discussion. I mean, I have two entrances from the street, and I can access into my parking lots, both of them. But the main question is if... I'm proposing for a C1 still, you know, nearby the parking lot. If someone buys this parking lot next to me, it's his own C1. He can build a C1 facility on it, not necessarily to be an R1. So an R1 also allows a daycare, but it does not allow office. So I would really appreciate an approval on the C1 because we're trying to fix up the building and make it look nicer and put a good touch of landscaping and make it very cozy for our firm, and we are very quiet, and that's why we picked that corner because it's a nice neighbor and a quiet area there.

Okay, any questions?

I just want to comment for the record. Although, yes, it is a C1 to the north and to the east, to the west and the south it is not. So that's just the challenge that we need to work through. So you're not surrounded by C1.

Yeah. What I meant, my neighbor, I mean, attached to my apartment. Yes, it is adjacent to a C1, but also to our one. Yeah.

any other questions for the applicant nope okay well unless you have something else you'd like to add you can have a seat thank you thanks okay next we have uh our public hearing at this time i'd like to open the public hearing and invite members of the public to come to the microphone to comment on the proposal if they wish when you come up please fill out the information sheet and introduce yourself by telling us your name street name and city in which you live this is only your time to make a comment not to receive a response from members of the Planning Commission or have a conversation with other members of the audience. Your comments will be limited to three minutes. Now, does anyone wish to come forward to make a comment?

John Santu, my residence is in Garden City. I am aware of the possibility of the child care center and probably don't really have an argument as far as that. But my concern with this piece of property is that all of its ingresses and egresses are in a residential area. Normally in commercial, you're on a fairly main street where your entrances and egresses are off of the main street. where this one, this piece of property goes three blocks into residential area. And so all of its ingresses and egresses would be from the residential area. And I'm concerned about if it goes to C1 or any of these other allowances in a C1, something that would maybe cause problems with regard to that residential area.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else? Hi, my name's Sid Davis. I live at 1012 Belton. I'm four houses from the church. I don't see how building a commercial building in there and putting all that traffic on our emergency route, and then you're gonna put it in a daycare where when those kids get out of school, the cars are lined up all the time, so is that gonna hold up our buses and everything every day when they gotta get to the schools when those guys are getting out of school? And if they change and sell it to somebody else, are we gonna have like a dispensary move in? Or have all these cars running up and down our street all the time because we're right on the, even with the driveway? Me and my wife don't want it. And I just met this man paying for my wife's funeral because she's got cancer and she's dying. And I don't want her all over there during her funeral hearing a bunch of kids screaming and yelling outside playing while my wife's getting ready to be buried. And that's all I got to say.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to come forward to make a comment? Okay, seeing no one, do we have any written communications?

We did not receive any written communications.

Okay then. Then at 6.50, we'll close the public hearing and open discussion with the Planning Commission.

YES. JUST ANOTHER QUESTION, THE HOME AT 27600 MARQUETTE, IT'S IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST OF THIS PROPERTY, THAT'S OCCUPIED? YES.

IT WAS THE FORMER PARSONAGE AND THEN WAS SOLD FOR A FAMILY TO LIVE THERE.

WELL, I'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS. I love that the idea that an applicant wants to invest in the city and do something with a vacant building. I am challenged, however, with the fact that it is an R1 to the immediate south and west of the building and to one of the comments kind of encroaching into the residential area with a C1 zone. So I'm challenged with this request.

I'm a little bit concerned, not because so much of the suggested use, but the possible uses that may happen in the future that would result in more traffic, more noise in the neighborhood. This type of zoning request results in us opening up the property to an a whole number of different uses. And I'm a little bit concerned about that. Any other comments from the commissioner?

I don't see the daycare having much more traffic than Sunday Church, to be honest. I mean, daycares usually drop off. There's usually not lines to drop them off. The parents walk them in. So I think that'll be reduced traffic.

The good thing is it is a boulevard that's one-way traffic, so you're not going to get people out of there trying to turn on an extra road and then have to go around the boulevard. I don't see a problem with that. As far as an architectural firm, I mean... Usually that's one time a day, one time the other day, unless they have a client.

I don't see a lot of problems with the use, but I understand what you guys are talking about, about the future. I guess my concern would be, though, if we got somebody willing to invest in our city now, and that's what we keep asking everybody to do, why don't we turn it away because of what somebody might do in the future?

kind of an agreeance with that. I don't necessarily see the problem. What is the thing about the R1 being daycare that's allowed?

Technically, a daycare would be allowed in the R1, but they would have to do a special land use approval. If they move forward and they establish daycare, they still have to come to you for special land use approval.

But that's for that's for state licensing to is that not true. I'm sorry was that it would also require state license.

Absolutely yes, they cares requires make state licensing.

Yes, Mister chair, yes, that is for a larger than 6 children in care. But just just that would be a special land use in the sink in the hour one for the home day cares that like have 6 children or less don't have the same rules.

More like a home daycare? Yes, correct. Correct, yeah, that's called a family daycare home.

What is Merriman zoned in between Maplewood and Warner Road?

It's a mix of zoning it includes some do you mean the Inkster Road sir? Over all the office buildings are on the west side of the street. Oh, okay on the west side So on the west side and majority of those actually are are one Single-family, but then there's tour as you get closer to Cherry Hill I'm sorry.

You said Mary Martin in between middle or on Maplewood or Warren Warren Warren

The dental office.

Yes. What is that zone? I'm just curious because there's directly R1 directly behind that.

That's at Dover. Is that helping you across from Barsons? Okay. Oh, yes.

Thank you. So from Maplewood, those first three blocks going northbound towards Warren, those are single family. But then starting at Windsor with the office for the dentist and the Model T office, those become C1 and C3. He actually gets a C3 at the corner of Warren and Merriman Party Store.

But in that case, those entities are right on Merriman, right? So this business is not right on Inkster for this piece of land, right? It's behind the funeral home.

I was just curious what they were...

I think if there was a way that we could establish that the suggested use would be the only use available, this wouldn't be questioned as much. But leaving it open to multiple uses available in C1 raises some other concerns.

by state law, the applicant has the option, his choice. We can't require of him anything other than what he presents to you, but the applicant has the option to change this right now to a conditional rezoning in which he would choose what uses are permitted on the site noting to you and then there would be an agreement signed between him and the city that is recorded that would specify what uses are or are not permitted on the site. Similar to other conditional uses we've done.

Yes, if there was a conditional rezoning of this type, would this be any more burdensome on the applicant?

Well, technically, he would be limiting himself to other uses, but if the applicant is amenable to this proposed use and this is what he wants to do, that's typically when other... Whenever we receive conditional applications from other people, that's what they wanted to do. They said, this is the use I want. For example, up at Ford and Rush, there is the... Is that what it is?

It's not Ford and Rush.

Ford and Rush. Ford and Rush, the previous, it was Community Church. The frontage of the parcel with the parking lot, that's commercial.

This is Ford and Farmington. where the women's daycare are rain, I'm sorry Ron for Ron yes, okay, thank you get their mention okay, thank you very much.

So yes afford Iran, you have the strip malls along Ford but at Ford and Ron there's a parking lot that's owned. commercial. The building behind was technically zoned R1, and it was a church building. The church has been vacant. That building was vacant for an extended period of time. And then the applicant did say they wanted to do an office use. They proposed conditional. So it is now zoned C1 conditional with only offices permitted. So originally that was proposed for a medical office, and it's currently a medical office. But once again, that's something that the applicant chose to FOR THEMSELVES TO PRESENT TO THE CITY. SO IT DOESN'T, IT'S NOT INTENDED FOR THE CITY TO NEGOTIATE WITH THEM OR SAY LIMIT YOUR HOURS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT'S JUST THE APPLICANT UNDERSTANDING A SITUATION AND THINKING THAT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS AND BECAUSE I WANT TO DO THIS, I'M WILLING TO AGREE.

YES, SIR. MY QUESTION WOULD BE WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR? LIKE A LIMITED RETAIL? Is that like the biggest concern?

We would be limiting it to only the daycare and the architectural office.

Technically, you would be responding to whatever the applicant chooses. So if the applicant says, I want to retail, but then I would like to allow service in office, then you would respond to that. But if he does say these are the only two uses I will ever use for that site, then you would respond to that. But it's just not, once again, it's not supposed to be like a negotiation, but you react to it. So if he did say no retail but service and office, you would then vote on that if that's his final submittal.

based on what he's proposing. Would you approach? Does that make sense? Do you understand what we're talking about with the conditional zoning?

So I do understand what you're saying. So I want to ask the board, so what you do not like to have there? If I wanted to see one, which items you want me not to have there? from the CO1 category, like retail?

We are concerned about all of the other possibilities that would happen other than an office and a daycare. The office and the daycare, in my mind, would be acceptable. I'm a little bit concerned about other retail possibilities and all of the other possibilities. I don't have the list in front of me, but all of the other possibilities that would happen in a C1.

Okay. I don't understand that, but let me tell you this. So I have three kids, architects. So architects, architects. But I have one or two law. So if you restrict me on architecture, so I cannot get one of my kids.

Not necessarily architecture, but office.

Oh, office, yes. I'm okay with the office. But I can put like any professional, yeah, like law, architectural, civil. But I don't want to restrict it by writing only architectural.

That would be perfectly all right. Would that be acceptable?

Yeah, just maybe a suggestion if you wanted to work with Mr. Ortega. So I'm looking at the ordinance now under 154.271A1. You could have a business executive, administrative, and professional offices. So if we were to say it was limited to that A1, which is in the ordinance, it sounds like it would cover you for both the architectural and the potential law.

Yeah. I mean, even office goes also for... Do you have to add in the daycare to that? Yeah. Yeah, of course. I need the daycare because this is how we're designing it, the daycare in the back. utility split between me and the daycare and the front where the chairs used to be utilities and the rooms how they are.

Mr. Ortega, would that seem like a reasonable approach? Well, as long as the applicant is saying, I am now restricting myself to business executive, administrative, and professional offices, and the possibility of submitting applications for daycare in the future for special needs, which would be B4, group daycare homes or child care centers, if that's his application.

Are you... Are you saying that you would like to change your application to conditional zoning with professional offices and future daycare?

Not future daycare.

I would... Well, I mean, not tonight, but you know, because it still requires special use approval. So you would still be, you would be allowed to... I mean, going through the process of special land use.

Yes. Okay. Yes. Yes. I would like to... I mean, not peace, though. Again, I'm just to make sure that we are into this. I would not like to take the office, like any office use I can use. Not retail, I'm okay with that. But any other, even if... If in the future my son, maybe one of my daughters want to be a medical and I want to give her a piece, she can put a medical office over there, let's say a doctor's office. Is it okay?

Then yeah, then it would be one business and four medical or dental clinics and offices. Yeah.

Yeah, I'm okay with that.

Okay, if you'll make a clear statement to Mr. Ortega that you want to change your application to conditional zoning for those items, then we can proceed.

Yes, I would like to do that. Yes, please.

We good? Okay. Any other questions? Any comments about this? Okay. You can sit if you wish. Okay.

Thank you.

Is there any other comments or questions from the commission? So are we tabling this for tonight? I think we can move on it.

You are allowed to move on it, because what it is is he's not expanding his uses. He's narrowing. So the public hearing was for the entire breadth of all the uses, and he is choosing to narrow it. So it would be conditionary zoning. Prior to going to council, then, he will be bearing a conditional use agreement that will specify in there that those are the only uses that will be permitted on the site, and then that would be part of his application in front of council.

Okay, you want a motion?

Yeah, we just need a recommendation for council.

So I will move to recommend to council the approval of PPZ24-0004, request to rezone the lot at 27500 Marquette Avenue from R1 Family Residential to C1 Local Business with the conductions... WITH THE CONDITIONS DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT TONIGHT PRIMARILY AROUND LIMITING THE USE TO OFFICE BUILDING USE AND DAY CARE.

ANY QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION?

COMMISSIONER WALLS. AYE. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS. OKAY. SO YOU'RE ABSTAINING? ALL RIGHT. AND CHAIRPERSON MAY.

AYE.

SO THE MOTION DOES CARRY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YOUR MOTION WAS APPROVED. YOUR APPLICATION WILL GO TO CITY COUNCIL. THEY HAVE THE FINAL APPROVAL So you can get together with Mr. Ortega to put together your agreement for the conditional rezoning.

I have a question.

Yes.

So let's say after 10 years, someone buys nearby the C1 now zoned, and he went into a plaza to retail. I have the right to come back and change the zone, right?

You have the right to come back and ask to have it rezoned again. Because next door, they are- That doesn't necessarily mean it will be approved, but you have the right to ask.

Oh, okay.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. I apologize.

Okay, moving on. Next item is master plan amendment. Public hearing and consideration of adoption on proposed amendment language regarding accessory structures and residential

working standard in that part of the second part wasn't changing the only just want to scratch that second part it's me that that that's restructures and residential parking standards it's it's about uh... what's in bold this master plan amendment public hearing condition

You want to start your presentation, Mr. Ortega? Yes.

As you all know, the Planning Commission has been diligently working on an amendment to the master plan. The city received a grant from the state of Michigan to consider an amendment that would focus on housing readiness, meaning evaluating our housing alternatives in the master plan and making changes that would the needs of residents of the city and future residents for housing. So before you tonight after going through the required 60 day review and review process for comments is a proposed amendment. This includes some changes that was directed by the planning commission and there are some additional changes that we will understand that the planning commission wants to have in this document.

which we will get to in a moment.

But the intent, once again, is for the city to allow for increased variety and diversity of housing, opportunities to expand affordability, and review our development opportunities. Because once adopted, the plan will include some consent initiatives to promote these new policies. So the goal for this evening is to hold a public hearing on the master plan amendment. As Development Director Miller noted, the state law does require that a three-fifths majority of the planning commission would have to adopt this master plan. So on a seven-member board, that requires five members. So tonight we will hold the public hearing, and then you will vote at a later time. and then the council will also be adopting this by resolution they may have chosen basically the as a state grant they have uh... listed within the michigan statewide housing plan some goals that that they would like to see communities consider we have aligned the plan to line up with those goals in a way that suits the city's needs in a way that focuses on the city's uh... desires for for things such as uh... you know the the housing ecosystem making sure there's communication with other housing agencies and providers data systems trying to get more issues on data as we know The initial drafts of these didn't have all the data that we wanted, so we have been going through to revise the data and get that out there. So I'll be moving forward going with that. We had a public hearing, public process, or we had a visioning session and allowed the public to provide their ideas about where the city would like to see new zoning opportunities and the type of housing they'd like to promote. That community feedback included that the most appropriate new housing would be something like a townhouse-style housing development closer to downtown and closer proximity to downtown. opportunities for senior living, to stay in the community, to not have to move out of town, but to stay within the city. So that's also something that we have attempted to prioritize. We also noted that when it came to housing and if the most opportune area being in the downtown, what type of housing would that be? And the community feedback did say they were comfortable with three-story and even four-story mixed-use buildings in the downtown area, focused there to provide another housing opportunity and type for people. And, but also they also focused on things like making sure that the materials would be reminiscent of a small town feeling with the brick, but accents that would look more modern too. So embracing the past by moving forward in the future with the design and style. So we're using this community feedback. We also evaluated the key demographics. As I noted, there were some initial hiccups with just finding the most accurate data, but the master plan has been revised to include ADDITIONAL DATA ON HOUSING, FOR EXAMPLE, REFLECTING THE IDEA THAT THE FACT THAT HOUSING VALUE IN THE CITY HAS GONE UP SINCE THE LAST MASTER PLAN FOR OUR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND FOR OTHERS. AND THEN THIS PLAN IN FRONT OF YOU INCLUDES THAT NEW ENHANCED DATA. HOUSING VALUE HAS INCREASED. It has noted situations such as the fact that, which, you know, it's a situation that the city prides itself on, but it's something that identifies an opportunity for the fact that the city in Wayne County, in the western Wayne County area, almost has more, has a higher rate of home ownership. In the immediate adjacent communities, only the Bonia has a higher housing ownership than the city. While that's a point of pride and that's something that's to be encouraged, it also means there's another opportunity to create rental housing for people that want to introduce themselves to the city or young families or that sort of thing. And in addition to that, I think that also mirrors and reflects the community's input of having that type of housing in the downtown area, focus on downtown, maintain the single-family neighborhood to keep the housing down. rental opportunities downtown. This would reflect in by having brand new housing, there was also increase the rental rates being potential to increase with brand new housing opportunities. Because right now, the age of the rental housing stock is on the lower end. It's showing its age. having new and we're actually seeing it already as a side note with just the one new building that is a rental opportunity we've had adjacent home rental property owners come in asking about how they might need to revise their buildings so things that the master plan in terms of its proposal that would be in line with the state goals, inclusive design, meaning making sure that all new housing types include more barrier-free opportunities, more modern design such as open concept, those type of making sure that they're finding accessible housing. And then, as I've mentioned already, this master plan is focused on creating opportunities for housing downtown through the use of townhouse-style development. So much to the point that the key point of the plan is proposing a redevelopment downtown at the Kmart site. Proposing three and four story buildings along Ford Road, mixed use with commercial opportunities. And then along Beachwood, having townhouses along Beachwood to reflect the residential character in that area and to transition from the commercial activity on Ford Road into the single family homes in Beachwood. So while the focal point in the center would be, like I said, three or four story buildings, the center of the block, along Brandt and along Beachwood, there would be smaller scale buildings.

And then also townhouses along Beachwood.

And as townhouses, then you have a similar, a familiar feeling of people's front doors and porches. They're going to be fronting on Beachwood across some other homes. So that's the intent. Yes. Oh, sorry. Well, I'm close to done.

Okay. So maybe we could advance.

I'm sorry. It was out of the corner. I didn't see that.

I'm sorry.

No, we want to see the slides.

Just go through them quickly so the people in the room can see also if you could. Yeah, it's right here. We're having technical difficulties.

As I mentioned, this is a housing amendment for master plan. These are the goals that they are trying to GOALS FOR TONIGHT, AS WE MENTIONED, WE'LL HOLD OUR PUBLIC HEARING, BUT WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT ON ADOPTION. AND THEN THE NEXT SLIDE IS AN INTRODUCTION, AND THEN AFTER THAT IS OUR GOALS THAT WE MENTIONED FROM THE STATE HOUSING PLAN THAT WE'VE CHOSEN THOSE GOALS TO EMPHASIZE THE ASPECTS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO THE CITY. So that way, that's the intent of this too, is like, you know, the state has these goals, but they're not applicable all over to every single community. So that's the whole point of doing our city plan to make sure that we emphasize those that are appropriate for Garden City. So in the next slide, we, you know, just summary again of the public process, all the comments that people provided, the opportunities they had in that slide as well.

Just beginning the summary of those community feedback, like I mentioned.

primary ones about assisted living. And the next slide is in the downtown, having that three-story or four-story mixed use. That was the comfortable characteristics they'd like to see. And then on the next slide, we go into that final summary of, like I said, quotes we took from residents directly about how they like to race a pass but look at new design for the future. Next slide we go into. Finally it's just a once more votes from downtown about downtown seeing the down there.

It was a strong characteristic you want to maintain and emphasize.

Next slide. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY NEGATIVE, IT'S JUST AN OPPORTUNITY TO POSITION THOSE THINGS IN AREAS THAT THE CITY IS COMFORTABLE WITH. SO ON THE NEXT SLIDE, AS I MENTIONED, THIS IS SOME OF THE NEWER DEMOGRAPHICS WE WERE ABLE TO FIND INDICATING THAT, YES, IN FACT, HOUSING VIOLENCE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN GOING UP IN THE CITY. But I will note that the rental housing values in the right graph, that sharp drop down, I believe that reflects the older housing values of our rental housing and the lack of investment by current rental owners of redeveloping their sites. So hopefully in the future, as we see new development, that will encourage them to reinvest in their own property.

The next slide.

THIS BEGINS OUR PROPOSED INCENTIVES, I MEAN, THE POLICIES PROPOSED IN THIS PLAN, INCLUSIVE DESIGN, AS I MENTIONED, MAKING SURE THAT HOUSING UNITS, INCLUDING THE RENTAL HOUSING UNITS AND BRAND NEW RENTAL HOUSING UNITS, REFLECT MODERN STYLES, MODERN DESIGNS, BUT NOT ONLY THAT, BUT MODERN NEEDS, THE NEEDS OF MODERN RENTERS. That's just an example of a potential style of a townhome that could be there with a front porch with front doors. On the next slide is a redevelopment plan for the Kmart site with those mixed-use tire buildings on Ford and with the residential porches and that sort of thing on Beachwood. And then the next slide is the future land. Introduction to the future land use map, which is very similar to our existing future land use map, but just emphasizing some of the other opportunities within the city, especially in the downtown. So finally, in the next slide is our zoning recommendations. As I mentioned, once the master plan is adopted, the zoning recommendations that the planning commission will next tackle, because your work never ends, to implement this would be looking at increases to maximum amount of building height in the downtown, currently limited to two, if the public would like to see three or four story, changing that zoning ordinance text to allow that. As you've experienced with some of our recent apartments being proposed, the parking requirements are not reflective of the adjacent communities. So to match that, to match the modern styles and the needs of those developments, taking a look at and reflecting on the minimum parking requirements in the downtown, excuse me, for multifamily areas, We'll consider and talk about adjustments to setbacks as an option. Then the CBD district and possibly the review process to allow some things that the commission wants to see by right. And then also the potential for creation of new mixed use standards. That might be an opportune time to look at creating an actual mixed use district. So that's the summary of the plan itself. But one key point we wanted to point out, I will just say it right now, that one of the The plan originally included some other housing types, such as that cottage style. If the Planning Commission doesn't want it, we'll just get rid of it. It's just one option that we included as a housing type. If the Planning Commission doesn't want it, it's gone. We can focus on townhouses, focus on downtown development, and focus on making sure that the housing types are appropriate for this area and not creating any kind of negative influence on the single-family housing stock.

okay thank you mr miller just like to summarize i say much more quickly and i just did i i just wanted to add also uh part of the the thought to looking at the housing disaster plan really came out of an opportunity for a grant that i was able to write and receive for the city but in the meantime and you know i don't want to say that we're forward thinking as the planning commission here but in the meantime since we received the grant we started the process you know the state started to adopt these part bipartisan bills for the adoption of less local control more state control and housing and actually the city council did pass a resolution objecting to the loss of local control and they were able to use of course we got a grant from FROM MSHDA ACTUALLY TO LOOK AT OUR OWN HOUSING NEEDS AND ALSO ADDRESS THOSE NEEDS THAT ARE IN THE STATE HOUSING PLAN AND PART OF WHAT THOSE KIND OF I WOULD SAY FORCED BILLS THAT WERE STARTING TO DEVELOP AND GAIN SPEED WAS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ADDRESSING EVERYTHING ALMOST YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AND WE'RE A LITTLE BIT AHEAD OF THE GAME. PER SE AND WE'RE ABLE TO UTILIZE AGAIN THAT THE CITY IS WE'RE BEING FORWARD THINKING AND WE'RE USING I KNOW LONG-TERM PLANNING ISN'T FUN AND EXCITING BUT IT IS PART OF THE PROCESS NUMBER ONE AND IT SHOWS THE STATE THAT LOCALS DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS IN OUR COMMUNITIES BY GOOD PLANNING, BY GOOD ADOPTION OF POLICY, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF. AND ON TOP OF IT, WE GOT MONEY FROM THE STATE TO PAY FOR IT. SO I THINK THAT HELPS TOO. SO I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT AS EVERYTHING THAT MARGARET SAID ALSO. SO THANK YOU.

JUST ONE COMMENT ABOUT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING. some of the housing alternatives, specifically the cottage courts, I can't support. And I can't support the amendment as long as that type of thing is in it. So I would like to see that removed. I think, you know, we have, we have a good stock of home owned buildings in the town. We have, I kind of disagree with the lack of housing diversity. And in the document it said that we have way more three-bedroom homes than smaller homes, but yet we have over 2,000 homes smaller than three-bedroom homes. And that's according to the census. And so I don't think we have a lack of diversity in that respect. We don't have a lot of larger homes, but we don't have a lot of lots available for building larger homes, which are more popular at this point probably. We already have relatively low home prices compared to As your document points out, our average price is $168,000 compared to $249,000 for the rest of the region. So I think we have attractive pricing for people who are first-time buyers and small families. And I wouldn't like to see anything compromise that. but I believe we would be lowering our existing housing values by including smaller homes that don't meet our current standards. So I would be opposed to that. As far as the downtown part of the program, Totally on board with that. I think that's really going in the right direction and I like what I see. So I think we should concentrate on that and continue.

If I may, I agree with what you're saying and I also think that there's no, as a planning commission, you will be controlling the ordinance requirements in terms of minimum housing sizes and minimum units. Once again, I see this as having an opportunity. If people want that while maybe our percentage of dwelling units with less than three bedrooms is small currently, that can be taken up in the downtown in the rentals or in the townhouses. Townhouses could be like a two-bedroom unit that's a little bit not small, but it's not a 2,000-square-foot home. Maybe it's a 1,300- or 1,400-square-foot home.

I think the vast majority of our homes are probably under 1,000 square feet.

Could be, yeah, yeah, it could be, but we're definitely getting a lot that are renovating those to try and get bigger, just reflect modern families.

That reflects the fact that people want a little bit bigger house, not smaller.

And then the challenge we're facing throughout Metro Detroit and everywhere is that rather than continuing in the cycle, if you will, of when they need that new home, though someone will move into a bigger home, People just aren't moving out of their homes because of various reasons. So rather than moving out of the smaller home, they're making the homes bigger. So by creating those smaller one- and two-bedroom homes in the downtown, then maybe that'll kick-start our cycle. Maybe that'll kick-start our cycle for people.

Yeah, I think downtown is where we can make our biggest splash.

Absolutely.

Okay, I'm... At this time, let's move on to the public hearing. It's 7.30, I'll open the public hearing to comments. Again, this is an opportunity for anyone to come forward, comment on the master plan amendment. And you'll have three minutes to make your comments. So does anyone wish to come forward and make a comment? I see no one. Yes. Oh, I thought you were raising your hand. Okay. Okay, seeing no one, do we have any written communications?

We have none. Thank you.

Well then, we'll close the public hearing at 7.31 and move on to discussion by the commission. ANY COMMENTS? YES.

SO I GUESS THE COMMENT I'D LIKE TO MAKE AND EMPHASIZE THE POINT OF JUST US BEING A SMALL CITY AND HAVING LIMITED RESOURCES AND WE DON'T NECESSARILY MOVE AT AN EXTREMELY FAST PACE. I THINK WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE MASTER PLAN FOR PROBABLY A YEAR. HOW MANY MEETINGS DID WE SPEND TALKING ABOUT DRIVEWAYS? I think, so my point I wanted to emphasize is I think we need to be extremely focused. I think the master plan had a lot of good ideas around like the ADUs, accessibility, the cottages, which we're going to take out. But I really appreciated the downtown development and what we think we can do to make the city vibrant, attractive for young families. I think there'll be a flywheel effect. And so I would just... encourage the commission to be very focused and not get lost in every opportunity or we're not going to get anything done.

I agree with that. I think the focus on the downtown would probably be a better use of our time and probably get more out of the small amount of resources we have. I agree.

Do you have anything? I agree with everything you said about the cottage homes.

I agree with

Okay, well, if there's no other comments, we don't have enough members here to vote for a recommendation. At this point, do we need to table the motion?

Yes, I think we should table the motion to we get a fuller quorum. So are more corn.

I don't know which is which so right. More quick comment for Mister take I had sent some written these are immaterial items regards really some wording semantics are is that something I need to bring up publicly or can we because I could just quickly run through that you think they're important enough to bring them up.

If you feel like there are typos or discriminatory errors, we can definitely make sure that those are changed prior to the next meeting. Because, you know, we have encouraged each planning commissioner to provide their individual comments so we can make those kind of changes.

I just we we did receive those and Mario to to include those and those the Scribner's errors to were there saying that it's minor thing so I don't want to waste the commission's time if it's only thank you do that but they're important and we'll make a change yes we need a motion to table

I will move to table the master plan amendment approval until we have a three-fifths majority.

Those have been supported. Any comments or questions on the motion? Here we go. Take the roll, please.

Yes. Commissioner King. Aye. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Walz. Aye. Chairperson May. Aye. The motion does carry.

Okay. Next we have zoning ordinance amendments on discussion and scheduling a public hearings. We have discussions of proposed amendments regarding issues below and request to schedule a public hearing for the amendments at the August 13th Planning Commission meeting. The first being on murals. Do you want to?

Just really briefly, you know, we've gone over this about three or four times, but before you is a revised text that includes at your direction the proposed amount of what we termed as messaging units within the ordinance. So it would be 10% mural message units. So at a maximum permitted mural size of 500 square foot, someone can have as much as three foot by 16.6 feet of message unit area. So that's been revised. And you have two versions, one that just shows the... edits that we've done over the past few weeks, and then the one version that just is the clean version that would be presented at a public hearing, because this is a brand new ordinance amendment. And for the public, the intent is to allow for businesses or certain buildings within certain districts to be allowed to paint murals on the side of the buildings.

Catch up here just a minute. Okay, we have any comments on the new language for... Neurals? I do not. Is everyone satisfied with this current language? Okay, then we need to move to several public hearing.

Yes, we do.

A motion to schedule a public hearing. That would be a public hearing on August 13th. Yes. Any questions on the motion? Hearing none, would you take the roll, please?

Yes, Commissioner Williams. Commissioner King. Aye. Commissioner Walz. Aye. Chairperson May. Aye. The motion does carry.

Okay, next we have indoor recreation facilities in the M1 zoning district.

Yes, before you is some minor edits to a proposed ordinance amendment that would allow for indoor recreation uses to be permitted within the M1 zoning as either a permitted use when they do not have or when that exclude spectator seating or if requiring special land use approval if an indoor recreation facility wants to include spectator seating but has to be in compliance with our parking standards. So this would be an effort to allow for our industrial buildings to have another option to lease out space.

Any comments? Is everyone okay with the language?

I just had a question.

This was never allowed before in M1. Are there currently businesses operating in the M1 like this? How did that happen?

So they are operating as under...

It's in the C3.

But there's a dance studio that's over on Manor. They were allowed. I don't know if they've just been there forever or. Yeah, that's the thing. It wasn't really recreation, but definitely.

Yeah, I mean, I do. Health clubs.

Yeah, well, that's actually, I was about to say before that was never allowed. And then I, not too, well, a few years ago, we revised our recreation definitions and we allowed health and exercise clubs listed now as a permitted use in the M1. So while before, because I don't recall getting their original approval, but moving forward now, they are legally conforming use. So right now, the dance studio over on Manor Park is a legally conforming use. This would allow things like indoor pickleball and indoor, you know, soccer fields and indoor baseball and that sort of thing in the end.

Any other questions?

I'll move to set a public hearing for indoor recreational facilities and the m1 zoning district second Yes, Commissioner King aye Commissioner walls aye Commissioner Williams aye

Chairperson May. Aye. The motion does carry.

Okay, next, moving on, we have Commissioner's comments regarding planning and zoning matters. Anything you'd like to add?

At one time, we talked about keeping an inventory of vacant commercial properties in the city, something that we would look at, maybe not every meeting, maybe twice a year or something. Is that, did we ever get traction on that?

We did not. We did have, we were working on it, Mario and I were, and I think an intern was doing it. Yeah, and then Summer left and I forgot to follow up. Correct.

I mean, even if it was the top five, might be good to make sure that we're getting exposed. I know typically at this point in the meeting we start to go off the top of our head. What's going on with this property? What's going on with that property? But I think it might be good for us to have a document that we refer back to and we key up. Like I said, maybe it's twice a year we take a look at it and see where we can nudge. Absolutely. That's all I have.

One thing, in case you guys might remember or if I don't, when it comes to eventually the end of the year, we need to start doing an annual review and plan for the Planning Commission activities. I think that would address two things. One, to make sure that we list the type of things you'd like to schedule, such as a twice-yearly review of vacant property. Also, two, focus, make the other work that you're working on more focused on priorities you... would like to emphasize, such as amendments to address the downtown development. Our intent is to start presenting those amendments to you as soon as provided the master plan amendment gets adopted. And if it does, we will move forward to implement it. Just to let you know, if that's something you can start providing direction as to what you want to see coming forward. Thank you.

I don't have anything either.

Well the next regular planning commission meeting is Thursday August 13th 2026. Motion to adjourn.

All in favor? Aye.

Motion's carried. Meeting's adjourned. Thank you.