Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

my Okay. Well, I guess we can get started then. Okay. This is the regular meeting of the Garden City Planning Commission. It's Thursday, uh, August 14th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. I'd like to call the meeting to order. And our first order of business would be to stand and 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. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Be seated.

Would the secretary take the roll call, please? Yes. Chairperson may here. Commissioner Steamberg, he's asked to be excused. Commissioner Walls here. Commissioner King here. Commissioner Williams here. Commissioner Bosy has asked to be excused. And Commissioner Daniels, we're uh hopefully we'll arrive maybe later. You do have a quorum with four members, Mr. Chair. Okay. Thank you. Uh next, we need approval of the agenda. Need a motion. Second. Motion made and seconded. Any comments or corrections? Chairperson May. Yes.

I just had one question, maybe just a point of order. I know when the uh agenda item G came before us in April, we had a public hearing. As we contemplate this business item, are we to incorporate the public feedback we got at that time or is that is that something that should be on the agenda? as I'm I'm I'm just questioning people. Uh we're having a new public hearing for for this for this item. Well, we had a public hearing, unless my notes already correct, back in April when we considered this

and I remember there were comments and there were there was attendance and so my question is for the agenda today are we to consider those comments from April or is is it I believe we can consider those comments but we would be taking new comments tonight if anything okay comes well well it's not a well Mario can talk um so yes all all relevant data and comments from previous reviews should be considered and has considered them. However, um no additional notices are required and so no addition.

This is not an official public hearing. This is just open to public comment. Correct. But as as we as we accepted those comments from April, we should be reminded of that feedback as we contemplate today's decision, I guess, is what you're saying. Okay, I'm good then. Okay. Uh okay, we have a motion to approve the agenda. Yes. Um the first vote is Commissioner Williams. Hi, Commissioner Walls. Hi. Commissioner King I. Chairperson May I. Motion does carry.

Okay. Next we need to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of July 10th, 2025. I'll make a motion to approve the uh meeting minutes from uh July 10th, 2025. Second. Motion's made and supported. Any comments or corrections? Hearing none, take the role, please. Commissioner King, I. Commissioner Williams. Commissioner Walls. I. Chairperson May. I. Motion does carry.

Uh, next we have public comment on non-aggenda items only. If there's someone here who wishes to speak on a non-aggenda item, this is their opportunity to come forward and do so. Seeing no one that wishes to speak on a non-aggenda item, we'll move on to our business items. Is first one is PPL25-000012. It's a request for special land use and site plan approval to construct a gas station and convenience store building with a drive-through restaurant at 314 06 Ford Road in the C3 General Business Zoning District. Uh, Mr. Ortega, could you start us out with your report?

Yes, Mr. Chair. Good evening. We're here tonight to consider this revised application. The site itself just to remind the public site itself are two adjacent lots at the northwest corner of Fort American Road. And the applicant is proposing to construct this gas station and convenience store building with a drive-through restaurant window and then the associated gas station. U gas stations and drive-through windows do require special land use review and approval from the city. And one of the primary issues that we consider with uh special land uses is compatibility uh with the adjacent land uses and the adjacent zoning districts. Um the original site plan located uh this proposed drive-through window on the west side of the building and it was not clear at that time on the speaker and many locations. The revised site plan now shows the speaker menu location the northeast corner of the building away from the adjacent residence to the west also shows that the pickup window is still on the west side of the building the building size itself has been reduced therefore resulting distance to the drive window is now 30 ft The zoning ordinance does require a 40 foot minimum setback uh from residential property for commercial structures. Currently there's a 6T screening wall existing along that west property line. So the planning commission during the course of the evening should indicate the if sufficient changes have been made to this configuration to achieve compatibility with those adjacent residences uh and uses

if this proposed compat proposed configuration compat is acceptable and they feel that this proposed configuration can achieve compatibility. We do not know that still need to obtain a 10ft variance from the zoning board of appeals for this current configuration. U believe the current uh and while each zoning while each varian space is unique I believe their modifications were based on existing structures and previous approvals of a of a 10ft variance from commercial buildings from a 40 foot setback. But once again the planning commission must consider compatibility and also the use of adjacent property and how this would impact this configuration impact. The governor primary issue uh for special van use is the impact on traffic. So the original site plan proposed one full turning movement entrance uh and exit driveway approach on Ford Road and then two full turning movement entrance exit approaches on Marin Road. Uh the revised site plan now shows that an exit only access drive on for road is also restricted to a right turn only movement. The applicant has indicated they've been conversations with the Michigan Department of Transportation which governs the authority of Ford Road and they have proposed they believe they propose a configuration that could be acceptable to Emma. U as I mentioned the revised plan shows two existing uh Marimo driveways currently on the site uh and their approaches and the applicant is proposing constructing two two new configurations for the Marman Broadway approaches.

African has indicated they have not yet had discussions with Wayne County uh on the road configuration issue, but they they proposal is based on the fact that there are two existing curb cuts on their opinion that that forgive me the can speak to their own opinion but I was just mentioning this conversations their their approach is to say, well, we're not increasing any approaches on you know, in the end, the site will need MD approval and it will need Wayne County approval for these configurations. And while we do believe um their intent will be to allow access, we also believe that main county will uh grant if they were to grant approval would be for a would have the most least negative impact on the uh on the traffic in the area. So the planning commission would have to conclude during the course of the evening if they wanted to make any kind of a motion that this configuration would not have any negative impact on the traffic. As I noted, we need outside agency approvals for these in the past. Sometimes in those outside agencies approvals required planning commission has a conditional approval on those. However, that's not required. You can choose to have other approvals from outside agencies with regards to regard to special issues. You know, the site configurations have improved greatly terms of the improvements. However, you always have to take in the other approval including impact of public

health, safety, welfare, uh the need for the proposed use, your opinions on that is utilized and determining whether recommend going into specifics for the automobile filling station or gas station requirements. Regards to setbacks, I've already noted the 30 foot proposal setback whereas 40 is required. We also note that the zoning rights requires a 20 foot setback for the canopy from the roading 18 in from so the applicant would either have to revise the gas station canopy size or location or the variance for that setback of the canopy as well in addition to the building. And there are some additional notes that we would like to see on the plan just to verify that there will be no outside storage of inoperable vehicles and no uh vehicle sales conducted on the site. And then finally, with regards to the requirements of the ordinance for special use for the drive-thru window, they meet the requirements for front edge driveway staffing spaces. However, we know that they are required to have control of the sound level. As I mentioned, revised plans show the location of the speaker venue at the northeast corner. However, we would request details of those many boards and those speakers uh to ensure the minimum levels needed to function are are achieved without impacting any adjacent residences. This goes for the sound level of the speakers and most recently menu boards typically now are uh LED illuminated images and TVs basically for lack of a better term. And there are methods to include a

light sensor, photometric photometric light sensor along with automatic dimming controls to ensure that while they're bright enough during the day to be seen in sunlight, they're automatically adjusted to minimize their light levels at night. Because if you don't have those mechanisms, the brightness level on those create excessive amount. So in the end, if the planning commission were to recommend to council site plan special use approval, we recommended that be contingent on site plan approval, MD approval, and county approval, the city engineer firework approval, the applicant submitting a revised plan that has the two notes and details of the speakers. And then we ask other approval contingent upon them obtaining a variance for the building location and the canopy location if they don't provide location. So those are specific issues related to special. There are other outstanding issues related to time.

Uh no objection. Why don't we just go through the site plan?

Yeah. Can we just go through the site plan at this time? So with regards to site as I mentioned substantial revisions that reduced the building size the orientation of the canopy and gas pumps and they location of the underground storage tanks accessation that we'd like to see included include for the building elevations the masonry color has not been indicated. Lately some of our buildings come in standard gray color material honestly don't have any distinction from cinder blocks at times those colors we just like the applicant to know their color for the materials of the facad and then we highly encourage them to not utilize masonry concrete color they have provided a fuel canopy graphic on sheet SP2 and the elevation. This graphic shows the elevation of the fuel pump canopy including dimensions and understand the clearance height of 14 ft. The graphic also indicates the electrical line would be raised to a height of 24 ft and the cable line to a height of 20 ft. Then the maximum height of the canopy itself will be 17 and then the existing canopy existing cable electrical line will stay in its location becting the site and going over the canopy for the gas. That's their proposed configuration. They have indicated that they've begun discussions with DTE for the knowledge. We did talk about we

did I have handed out a handout from DTE indicating their preference that these the buildings not be located underneath utility. However, there's not a specific requirement from DT for that. seem to be able to to have that modified there. We're doing research to determine if building code does prohibit a building within an ement. Um, and then the zoning ordinance does actually prohibit uh things like landscaping, signage, walls, and accessory structures in easements unless that easement does permit the a structure to exist. So if the applicant wants to locate this structure in in the DTE easement, in a minimum revised easement would be required indicating that the structure would be allowed within the within the easement. But that's that's the the mechanism that would allow for it to happen with regards to other issues whether that is the best configuration or not or whether that line should be go around the perimeter of the site. That's it's a issue for you to discuss and consider. With regards to parking, they have, as I mentioned, they reduce the size of the building. As a result, the amount of parking spaces proposed uh are sufficient for the reduced convenience store configuration. And then uh there that leaves nine spaces on site to be utilized by the restaurant. If for example, if have a 400 foot rating waiting area for a carry out restaurant and then they have two employees. That would only require by ordinance six parking spaces. So then

there would be enough parking spaces on site for that. So right now they're not proposing any configuration of the restaurant space that would be done by the tenant. So at the time of tenant build out uh their COO and their building permit review and only be approved if there's enough parking spaces to support whatever configuration they have. So it can be done but it but the specific requirements will be uh detailed when builds out the restaurant space. But it is technically based on the reduced size of the revised parking configuration there. There would be enough parking spaces meeting our ordinance requirements. Um with regards to reconfiguration, they have shown a graphic for the truck fuel truck delivery. It does appear to function adequately. The a truck driving southbound on Marman would enter the northernmost Marman Kirk, drive around the canopy. stand at the fuel underground fuel tanks on the west side of the building of the site and then exit the site for road heading west. So that does look like it should function. They have not provided graphics for emergency vehicle or a trash hauler a garbage truck. So we would like to see those graphics to make sure those vehicles can safely navigate the site. We also note that configuration for the drive through. It does look like it should function, but we'd like to see the graph for that as well. Pretty tight turn around the building. Landscaping they provided it seems to be efficient. It would be up to commission

additional landscaping for example along the west property line for screening purposes. There is a 6 foot um high wall that's required already there. It's only up to you if you'd like to see additional softening of that wall with landscaping. And I mentioned the trash dumpster enclosure proposing a neat configuration on the west side of the site in between the proposed building and the wall. It's angled. Looks like it does might be tweaked a little bit angle to allow for a trash vehicle to come in, pick up the uh the trash the dumpster effectively and then do a T movement and exit the site in a forward motion. So, it looks like it should work. Um, but we would like to see that graphic as well. And they also need to have some type of solution for grease storage. A lot of times um These restaurants require outdoor storage. They either can do that or they could have a requirement that the site will use an internal grease storage system. There are methods that that these fast food restaurants or any restaurant uses grease. We store it in a building. There's a spot for lack of better word on the outside of the wall in the building and a truck comes up and vacates and evacuates. but the internal tanks but that's something we've been noticing around the city that is needs to be within and finally plan details. So in the end, once again, as with site plan with special menus, conditional approval could be granted if you so choose

and that would be revolving around combining the lots that exist, obtaining the variances from the ZDA, obtaining city council special use approval, and then revising the site, providing the additional information requested items A through F. Recommendation So while that is a relative amount of requirements, I would say that the site plan has been revised significantly too. Seems like it could function, but whether it's compatible is up to you.

Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Ortega before we go on? Yeah, go ahead. Mine's pretty easy. Um, just to clarify on the special land use, it's the drive-thru that is creating that requirement. Correct. If it was just a gas station itself. Oh, the gas station itself. Okay, that's the clarity I was looking for. Go ahead. 1,200 ft. How many parking spots are required for the opening for the convenience store?

Um, it is 80% of that and then I think 10 No, those aren't pump. It's one per 150 floor area and then based on the floor, they have the floor plan in the building. So they have 1500 ft of usable floor area and then that requires 10 parking spaces for the convenience store and then six for the 400 ft of the car. Right. And that 10 includes their employees. Yes.

Yeah. There's a table on the review letterage. Yeah. I also I thought I said 19

There's three adjacent to the canopy above the underground storage. Sometimes people 17 18 19. It's not counting the loading or unloading. It's there's two spaces there, Mario on the west line. Yep. And then there's four along the Ford frontage.

Yes. And then there's one, two, three, four, five mid block, mid site on the far west side in front of the trash, the dumpster enclosure drive. Good with that. Okay. Yeah. Maybe maybe we'll uh allow the applicant to uh come forward and and if you want to make your presentation and then we can uh go on from there.

Gentlemen, good evening.

How are you? So we can get started said everything that needed to be said, but I just wanted to emphasize on the certain uh you know things that um we re we we reduced in size or we gave up where we sacrificed on our side, you know what I mean? Um many things. Um, starting with the building, we did set it back to 30 feet instead of 40 in order to still have enough um square footage to operate what what the owners want to operate in um um for the carry out and for the convenience store. We we're willing to go to zoning board for the extra 10 ft variance. We're hoping that uh that's something that they can grant to us. Um, number two, um, we I shrunk the building in in in a in a few different ways, you know, and then shifted it a little bit to the east and played with it for a long period of time in order to get to where I I I am right now. So, that was the biggest uh obstacle. Secondly was the approach from MDOT. So, we had some some talks and with the help of also the owner's representation, the secretary that's not here today, but uh she we were able to get a letter saying that they would approve the the right-hand turn onto Ford Road. Otherwise, they were we I'm not sure where this project would have uh ended up if we didn't get that approval. So, they did um I do got an email. I can show you it. It's just a It's just a um um an email right now statement that says that they approved it. That's all it is right now. But I think I mean they're going to go along with that. You know what I mean? Um we can provide that. So they're allowing a right-hand turn only. So there's no traffic that's going to um you know have a traffic uh

implic implications like you know um congestions or anything like that on Ford Road. now. Well, we've we've had one or two other businesses that have done basically the same thing, only allowing a right turn out of their business, and people continually try to turn left or try to turn into it from the other side of Ford Road going in the other direction. So, it's very difficult to uh control that. I mean the only the way it's proposed the way it's uh the proposal the the the way it's turned on the curb

it's going to make it impossible somebody have a for to make a right hand turn into the parking lot because it's proposed to also the curb to show that this is only can be a left turn. It's not going to be a right turn. So, even if you're coming down Forge Road, you're not going to be able to make that turn because the curb is going to stick out a little. I mean, the way if if you didn't have that uh access, wouldn't uh your customers be able to turn out onto Marman just as just as well? Oh, yeah. Just as well. Yes.

Yeah. So when you were here before we discussed this and you had pretty much agreed that you could do without that access. No, we agreed talking about we talking without talking about road.

I'm talking about the access out onto Ford Road. Yeah. Um, no. I think they were trying what what were what they were going to do is talk to the uh neighbor neighboring building next door, the the owner next door, and they had some extensive uh talks in order to uh combine one approach for both businesses, but uh while it was going good at one point, the owner just said, "No, I don't I don't want that extra traffic in my, you know, in my business."

You know, he didn't like the idea. So then we had to go to this alternative uh route and we were able to um to get a green light from MDOT for that. It wasn't easy, believe me. There was a lot of people involved. Uh I I kind of looked at the emails, but at the end I was I they didn't uh CC me on all that, but I I I ended up getting this email um from the owners. Okay. Was there any

um the other stuff I wanted to talk about? So you were concerned about the right-hand turn out. I mean it's really hard for someone to really make that left and then even though there's signage uh and restriction in that sense. Um the these these right-hand turn out from all sites even if you go to uh places like Meyers and you know Costco and things like that when they have only right-hand turn out. I mean you could kind of say the same thing to these kind of big developments. I mean, we're having this in a small development. Uh, it's going to be it's the way that it's designed from MDOT. They designed they still got to go over this design one more time, I think. You know, even though they looked at it, they didn't really comment on the curvature and stuff like that as as of yet because I didn't receive anything yet. But the um it kind of you know um the curvature that the owners uh trying was trying to explain is that it curves to a point where it's really impossible for the that person to try to make that left turn unless he really wants to get into an accident, you know, and how many people are going to want to try that? I mean, one out of a thousand. I mean, I think they're going to understand that there's a sign that says right turn only and that's it.

Going on to Marman. Um the only uh comment that was uh on the approaches on Marman was um the northern approach was supposed to be 25 ft set back uh from uh Ford Road and we provided that. Now as far as MD dot uh I left it up to the owners to communicate with them and I I till today we didn't get any I didn't get any response but

but um there's one person that's been in contact with them. She's on vacation, so we weren't able to. I I forgot to ask her that question about um the Wayne County thing, but I know she was in contact with with them. Um but I mean, if if if if it means that after you approve this and uh and and uh Wayne County doesn't approve our approach to the north, I mean, we're just not able to to put that they're not able to put this. We're not able to design this in there for them. So, it's not something that's in my hand or your hand. it's uh Wayne County. If they approve it, we're good to go. If they don't approve it, we're going to have to just landscape this area, you know, uh and close that uh northern approach closer to Ford Road. So, that's what that's how I can comment on that. Um as far as the dumpster, you know, Mario said his due diligence about the angle, we went uh back and forth on this design. Um,

if I can interrupt you, it looks to me on your plan like that dumpster, especially with the gates open, is going to obstruct the drive-thru for your proposed restaurant. No, there's there's enough spacing. We can we can angle it a little uh I don't know why it's angled like a 45 that much but we can always angle it more tilt it a different angle just slightly if you but as far as um the distance between the the corner of that dumpster all the way to here there's not a designated dimension on this right now but I could see it's about uh you know 12 ft and you know something like that I mean this closed

that's what I'm trying to say the west area now is a dead area you can't use it for parking. You can't use it. You can only use it for an escape lane. Um if somebody decides not to order something and he can just leave or not pick up his order or something like that. I mean it's really a dead area basically. And while we're talking about that west area, um we're uh if you're worried about any kind of speakers we were talking about or stuff like that or any kind of uh uh talking when when they're serving the food at the at the window or something like that because now the speakers the speakers were always on the east side, but maybe it wasn't labeled to the where you you could have seen it uh properly. But I did have a uh I did have something labeled on the previous plans. it was always going to be on the east side, but now it's labeled um you know it's there that where you could see it more. Um so the other proposal because I said the west end was a little bit dead. You could add um you know iber i ar i ar i ar i ar i ar i ar i ar i ar i ar i ar iberites some trees something to buffer more of that noise where the owners along along with the 6ft high screen wall where the owners don't have to you know hopefully hear any any kind of uh interaction in what's going on in this business. So that's something we can also add. Uh

yeah, the uh the pickup window wouldn't normally have speakers, would it? Just just a menu board. So that No, the menu board is only on the east side. That's on the east side. So on the west side where where the drive-thru is. Usually they just, you know, uh welcome the person and and and take their credit card, right? There's no there's no uh speakers there to uh create a noise problem. There's no there's no speakers. Okay. Yeah. Um, we can plant some trees back here to avoid We did. We We have that on the landscape plan. Yeah.

To avoid some of the lights that you were talking about. So, if they grow the trees grow taller, it kind of like uh what Mario was saying about the the lights of the uh of the menu board. So, as the as the as the uh the green goes up higher, so that's be will eliminate the the noise and it will eliminate the division also.

Yeah. One one of the things I was concerned with with the menu board where it's currently facing on that corner was that uh they can be quite bright and it could uh create a problem for traffic on Marman. So, are we talking about having automatic dimmers uh for nighttime on those boards or I mean the lights, you know, most lights are on timers now and things like that. If they can be on a dimmer, we could make that happen, too. But, I mean, most of that that signage, like you saying, it's going to be buffered by a lot of landscaping that's

on that on, you know, in front of that uh on the corner. I mean, alongside the south side, alongside the east side, and on the corner side, we could landscape it a little bit more to buffer that uh any light or glare that's going to come out from there. But also, you know, also realize that you're uh 18 ft away from the property line. So, I mean, you're far away. I mean, you're not that menu is not up on on top of that uh up along that corner. That's all I'm trying to say. Mhm. 18 feet away and the wall does take off, right? What's that? The wall does take off. So if you come down this block by the wall,

right? No, there's no wall. No, just landscaping. Okay. Yeah. I had a question for you, gentlemen. Um the So the the drive-thru I'm still concerned about cars getting trapped, but how how critical is the drive-thru element of this development? Is that critical or is that something that you've discussed as maybe taking out? No, for this location, it's really important. I mean, the drive-thru creates a lot of business for for these for the carry out. You know, uh I think, you know, the owners really want that to happen. It just also obviously creates a lot of traffic for a pretty small space. I think a lot of my concerns go away or or come into play, if you will, with the drive-thru. But I just wanted to ask the question as to whether

and with the menu with the menu board on that corner of the building, I can see traffic backing up and blocking your access to Marman, the northernmost access.

I mean, if you if the I mean, if the guys are lucky enough to have that kind of business. Yeah. I mean, some things could happen. I mean, you don't know what what would what's going to happen if they're really busy. it it you know it might just spill into well they're they're not going to have to if you want to look at it a different way I mean they're going to have to uh come in uh on the northern approach if they see that this is full to where this approach is so they don't block this the the southern approach and they have uh like a little lane uh between the two approaches on Marman if you understand what I'm saying um that can make it work that way but I don't think it's I I don't I don't think the design was intended to you, you know, in order to meet the code and Mario can answer me this. We we need a certain amount of stacking spaces. I understand. I mean, if you I mean, the all the only alternative with that is if we move that that menu down to the back of the building uh to the back of the building in order to have more stacking space. why the menus are are are away from the window and then and then from the window how do you how do you count spa uh stacking spaces basically? So that is um or an issue. It is an issue with the requirement. The requirement is a total of 10 t stacking spaces from the drive through the pickoff window. See that's what from the window

and so it doesn't get the specifications of as you're talking about you know the wait time at the window typically is shorter than the weight time at the main board. So I I agree both to you that at that at that particular location it's good for keeping the noise and glare away from from the residents on the west side. Right. But then it does create higher probability of a stacking lane blocking. The alternative is to to move the menu board and the speaker maybe midway behind the middle of the halfway down the building.

Yeah. And actually actually we moved them halfway down. And then then I guess if they put in a higher arbor righties at at installation six armor righties and installation along Crowder then they could um then that would help with the screening and that. But the only issue then is across the street from there's a vacant lot and then a house. Yeah. So it's like which it's well you could have issues with the light. Yeah. If there's no if there's no screening, right? So it would have to be screened in some way. So it's a matter of trying to find that balance between the two issues.

Yeah. But across the street on that end, that's commercial, isn't it? Or is that residential? Right now it's zoned residential. Oh. and it's used. Well, then there's a technically there's a vacant lot that actually is for sale on it. And then there's an existing residence to the north and then but technically those corners are planned as commercial. Someone would have to come in and request it to be reszoned. Commission and city council would have to consider if they want to endorse that method of the plan to extend commercial even further north.

My I guess my concern with the whole stacking the drive-thru is once you get in there, you're trapped. I just pulled up a lot of other businesses on foot road that have drive-throughs and I did not see one that had a configuration like that where you're actually trapped and you can't get out. So, my concern is more from a health and safety standpoint as well as blocking it. But if you go down for road, I mean, I pulled up on my phone and Google Maps, there's I couldn't find one that actually traps you in the drive-thru. Yeah. You get a car disabled in that line and you're stuck. Yeah.

So, that's why I proposed last time um if if we were able to have an approach go out to Crowder um so they could escape in that sense, but it's not required. I mean, and he it was said before by by Mario, too, um, that a a escape lane is not required, even though we have it not along the back side of the building or even the or even going entering into that drive-thru. But on the west side, we do have an escape. They're able to get out of there from by that time by by the time they get to the west side before they get to the window. By the time they get to the window, I'm sorry. By the time they get to the pickup window, pretty much. Yeah. But it's not required. I mean, that's the only thing I could Yeah. define myself with.

One one more thing regarding the lights. I just want to bring to your attention. This is not going to be a 24-hour restaurant. So, what are what are the hours of operation?

It could be about 11 12 a.m. max. Um, something in that range. I really don't know what the oper I'm very sure it's not a 24-hour because modern eery does not present breakfast. Okay. and they don't have enough capability to stay open till like 2:00 a.m. or 3:00 a.m. where they're actually losing business that way because they're not anticipating that traffic like past maybe 11:00 dinner time latest just just a thought I wanted to bring out there that this is not going to be a 24hour uh just because of the light issue or the sound issue because of the neighbors trying to put them at ease and keep them comfortable. I know sometimes it's school days and nobody wants to hear anything from outside or people ordering chicken or sandwich. We totally understand that. Uh that's why we kept it as far away from the residence it could be and at the same time if there's any uh anything we need to do or you can help us with blocking that something off of Marman so they don't see the brightness of that light and still it's not going to be 24 hours. So it's not going to be an issue of

wasn't the landscape. Yeah. So, we're it's not going to be an issue of the light more than Well, the lights are going to be pointed downward, so I'm not sure. And the menu boards can be tilted down so they're not standing up straight when somebody's driving and they see it. So, it'll be tilted more towards the driver and going down like this. So, the driver actually when they pull up next to the menu board, they could see them. So, you could play with these things, some angles.

So, we provided a phototric plan too. I mean, if we want to really emphasize on lighting, that shows that all the all the um the decibels um of lighting uh doesn't um uh doesn't pass more than zero at the lot line. I mean, it's at zero at the lot line, you know what I mean? So, there's no light going out into the traffic or even in that rightway where the grass is or the sidewalk. So, if they have a little little uh shine, I'm not I mean, you can't control it 100%. But other than that, the phototric grid shows the way it tilts and and and the way it's reflected and all that in a sense where there's not supposed to be any glare coming going over those property lines. Since you brought up the phototric plan, uh, one of the requirements would be cut sheets for your fixtures and they would have to be the brackets would have to be such that they weren't adjustable once they were installed. They have to shine directly downward.

Okay? And also there wouldn't be allowed on top of the canopy or the buildings. Um the Oh yeah. No, we never put anything on top of the building, especially for gas stations. I mean, I think used car lots do that and stuff like that, but not we I mean, we're just having um wall wall packs wall packs on the wall over doorways and and such. Uh certainly. Okay. Well, we would those those cut sheets uh showing the fixtures and would have to be provided along with your application. I'm not sure how much you provided over here. I I'm pretty sure he did provide something, but

Well, I think we had your photometric sheet, but I don't think we had details about the brackets or or the fixtures. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I need to improvise. Okay. [Applause] Was there anything else you wanted to address while you're

um Let me just see. [Applause] Uh so we reduced the building size. We talked about that. Uh received notice from the M DOT uh for that right-hand turn. Uh met other um uh setbacks like the the app for approach on you know being 25 ft. We met the city code for that. Uh speakers for the drive-thru. We talked extensively about um the dumpster rotation. If we needed to rotate it just a little more to the if you're facing the plan to the left, um it might just work a little bit better to free up more space like you kind of indicated um that it may need. Um we met the parking requirements. Uh um any other questions that arose? The escape lane. I can't really say anything about that. I was I I mean, I'm the one that kind of brought it up. I like to have escape lanes and stuff, but if it's not part of the code, then, you know, we want to live with that. You know what I mean? And we need the space actually because we can't move that building, you know, toward the the north or it's going to ruin that whole design uh that we created right there. again. Um uh when county approvals uh I think we uh and then uh as far as the carry out uh Mario answered that uh from my engineer I think providing only 400 square ft of waiting area in the front. They're not going to need more than that because it is that restaurant is uh that restaurant or any restaurant that goes in there is designed just for carry out. They don't want people to be sitting around um you know and next to the gas station and stuff like that

jam with those students. Yeah. So you you won't you won't have a space with tables in the front. No, this is just just like Eureka ery that they have over here. They just go and pick up their food and they leave. Yeah, that's all.

Okay. And then as far as the color of the samples of the building, the the owner the the own the owners but you know uh Dr. Fatty also that also owns the one on Henry Ruff is also involved in this. He kind of tries to be consistent with all his gas stations. We're building another one on uh in Leavonia on Plymouth and uh in Marman and um he likes to use the same materials that he has on that Henry Ruff. Uh okay. Well, we would like to see samples of those so we could include that in the approval process. Yeah, it's a it was a red brick with a um a limestone look uh stone that was just emphasizing the entrance, but we can provide that for you.

Okay. And that was the only thing there were limestone colored and sized complimenting materials at the poles and at the corners and emphasizing the entrance to the Henry R gas station. Now, split face block that are gray. Oh, okay. Yeah, he does he does use split face block, but if it's something that you would like to see something that looks more like limestone or more it can it could be man-made stone but looks like limestone instead of single face I mean that's something that you could uh you can ask for in the hopefully it will get approved in order.

Okay. Uh if you have nothing else right now, uh you can if you want to take a seat, we'll uh we'll move on and we may have more questions for you. Okay. Very good. Thank you.

Uh well, next would be uh public comments and questions. Uh we have no public here, so we can move on to planning commission discussion and recommendations. Uh, we have a lot of items on on here that need attention. I've got two pages of items from your recommendations that that need to be modified or uh documented. So, uh, does somebody wish to start out here?

I got a question on the the gas station canopy being built on the ement. Do you have an ordinance against that?

So, we do have an ordinance that states that it's not accessory structures are not permitted unless the easement uh basically permits it because what it is is the ement specifies the conditions within that easement. Typically the existing easement would say no structures whatsoever in the easement. So it would be a matter of so if that's the conditions now and that's the conditions and it couldn't be in there. The only way it could be in there is if the applicant spoke to DTE and then they re and DTE chose to revise the ement to allow the structuring.

That's typically how it works. My next question is that only for commercial or is that the same ordinance for residential? Same resial.

Okay, Frank. So I maybe if we just um spend a minute on the special land use, I guess what what bothers me is um going back to the April meeting, we had a lot of resident feedback about the traffic and I was just looking at the minutes from that meeting and it was traffic flow, traffic flow, traffic flow and just how and I appreciate the creativity of the applicant. There's just so much going on in this small space and um Mr. Ortega, you point out the 40 foot minimum setback So, you know, we've heard from residents are concerned about the what's going on in this small piece of space and we're, you know, potentially allowing some variances. So, could we just spend a minute on the variance like how the commission feels about ex

Yeah, sure. Um, well, there's two variances. One I think is unnecessary personally. Uh, the one cons considering the size of your canopy being about one and a half ft too wide, too close to the Marman. We could revise that. Is there any reason why you can't make that one and 1/2 ft smaller so it's not intruding on that? Yeah, we could lessen the Okay. Yeah,

so that would eliminate the need for one variance. the other variance, the uh 40 foot requirement on the west side. Uh they're asking for a 10-ft variance there. What does everybody feel about that? Maybe since I brought it up, I I just think given the drive-thru, the way that it will be routed with the dumpster just seems there's a lot going on in this space. So, there's a lot of dead space over there, though. I don't I don't know if the variance over there is such a big deal as much as to the north and to the east where you're you're locked in. I think that

but theoretically you could theoretically you could you know what I mean create space anywhere, right? Or you could you could create space on the east side of the building by shrinking the building, right? Making it smaller. Yeah. Yeah. or eliminating the uh restaurant portion completely. I suggest about dumpster.

I mean, if 22 parking spaces is required and we're providing 31 because that includes the the parking at the pump. I don't know why, you know, I can't move that dumpster into two of those spaces site where it says five parking spaces. We can give up two parking spaces right there and and put it right there in that corner here. Do we point to order that we're Yeah.

If you could Yeah. if you could just hold off for a minute. Right now is our turn to have a discussion and we'll bring you in if we have a question. But uh so I've said my piece. I just have a concern about accepting a 10-ft variance when we've heard from residents that they've been they're concerned about the traffic that comes out of this property. Yeah, it's definitely an issue. Oh, my concern clarification for you guys the requirement for the 10 foot varian will require them to go to the zoning board appeals to officially get

Yeah, we're we're just approving a contingent on them getting that approval. But definitely you can consider this shrinking of the build, you know, the the building location, the building proximity being 30t away as your criteria for special because of its proximity to the property for us for the building accessory structure on e

this is within section 154.022A uh location proximity easements or rightway accessory buildings structures or uses shall not be located within a designated ement or rightway except as permitted within an executed easement agreement. So they would have to execute an easement agreement with the easement holder that would allow for the structure to exist within the easement. Uh I think the holy idea of putting canopy directly under the power lines in the easement is unsafe

and shouldn't be allowed. I think there are other options. I mean, I've talked to our local fire chief, talked to building department officials, I've talked to people at DTE, and all of them told me this is not a good idea, that we shouldn't allow that. And I believe we have options. We can or you can uh reroute the wires around your property rather than over your property. Right now you have to put in one new pole to route it around your property. You may have to put in three new poles, but you would still be able to do it, I believe. And it would be a much safer situation. and it wouldn't go over any of your buildings or canopies and uh it would be a safe much safer situation and you can even maintain the 15 ft recommended distance that DTE has along the back of your building by putting it out close to the street.

You want to run it to Crowder? Yeah, I would run it I would run it down to Crowder across Maramman there and then down to where you can come back and reconnect it. So that I believe is a much uh safer and a better way of doing it. And it's I don't believe there would be anything to prohibit that. You'd have to get approval and work with DTE to have it done. But I believe that would be a uh a logical alternative. How does anybody else feel about that?

I defer to your expertise. I feel it's a better option than what's presented right now. Okay. Well, that that's how I feel about that particular issue. Can I just I'm sorry, just to mention maybe just for the record here, these were two pieces of property and that that power line had ran between the pieces of property. Yes. Right. There's still two lots there. Right. that haven't been uh combined yet. And so it's it's in between those two pieces.

Basically, I mean, we don't have official documentation, but looking at the planted uh properties along the for north side of road and just looking right across the street, there's the alley. The the alley existed behind road properties that fronted on for road alley existed. That's typically where we put in all the util That's probably why that line exists. And it goes and it that line continues along in the north side road all the all the way down until Yeah. And then but then even past Henry Ruff to

and it's only going it might actually go up to a Kmart property because it's not overhead and then west not going to the west. It probably stays in that location until the car dealership. That's sorry we were on the wrong. Sure. So, same situation when when a site has a larger use, the lines eventually were moved to go around. Yeah. Originally, there were buildings on each of those lots and the power lines ran between them.

Now, we're changing that, combining the lots. So, we've the best choice in my opinion is to reroute the lines around the property rather than through it. It's the only safe uh way of doing it. If that line should come down for any reason, it could energize the canopy and even the gas pumps. So, it's not a good situation. Uh that's that issue. Uh special land use. Okay. the impact on traffic of the Ford Road access. I have a problem with that too. We have two sections in our ordinance. We have access management which tells us that uh we need to promote safe efficient travel within the city and min minimize disruptive and potentially hazardous traffic conflicts which I think that would create. Then we also have in the section on automobile repair and filling stations in ingress and egress. It says curb opening for drive shall not be permitted where the drive would create a safety hazard or traffic nuisance. And I think that putting a drive on the forward road does all of that. I think it creates a safety hazard and a traffic nuisance. How does everybody else feel about it?

I don't have a strong opinion on it. Do you feel that? I I know people abuse I mean McDonald's at Middle Belt and Ford. It's also designed to where you can't make a left and people do they do it anyway, right? I think the bigger issue for car traffic is the sub approach closer to for that's where we're going to have a big nuisance. So on the one on Marman yeah I think that's going to be a bigger problem than the one on road and go north. Yeah. If anybody tries to go out there Oh tries to go north on the Marman.

We're going to run into that problem every time there's a corner lot. I think though that's we're seeing it every building. So, we're going to minim we're going to have that issue no matter what. But I also believe it's of our job to minimize it. We already know that we have current businesses that we're fighting that problem with. But the only way our job to try to minimize it here,

the only way this would work then is by combining these two lots like they want and having that one that's up here that's not even on that corner lot. Because if as it as it is right now, if we only had this one corner lot being developed, there would be no curb cuts at all. And the only reason we have the one that we're okay with is because it's on the existing lot north. So that's the problem we're always going to run into with this. It's always parking. It's always curb cuts. So what do you think the solution to the uh or the best solution for the curb cuts would be? Are you happy with is everyone happy with the current proposal they're making? And I suppose the reason why there's only I'm sorry that there are two curb cuts on Marramman is just given the the volume of the property, right? Like you couldn't have one curb cut here that was maybe further north. Well, if you only had one curb cut, they'd have to turn around inside the property and go back out the same way they came in, which would be congested. I think

I'm sure the applicants spent much more time than we have on trying to make it as best as it can be. I think the challenge is just the volume of traffic that could be on this property. restaurant together. You would still have two curb cuts on Marman.

Still have two, but they would they would move the building over and get rid of the restaurant. Yeah, it's Yes, definitely. I think these configurations are an issue. Um, and the one thing I guess I wouldn't say not being a traffic engineer or planner, but In my experience, having that southern curb cut um kind of that far south, I think that would actually reduce the probability of people driving northbound going in there because they just know that's just not going to happen. It won't eliminate it completely because people will be

uh then I would think once again probably the only way to do that might be to have that as a restricted exit only going southbound. But in the end, I do feel do they have communication with MDOT and MDOT is saying the four road theory can work. I would be interested in hearing what Wayne County has to say because Wayne County has the authority. They have the traffic engineers and they could indicate what configuration is acceptable.

Yeah. Now, I don't know if they they use the same criteria as as you would because you have to consider the impact of this traffic on on Garnet City in large community. Um, but having a professional's opinion on those configurations and locations and sizes might be beneficial. What? Yes. What if we did cut that one as well like that? The biggest problem with the McDonald's location is it there's an in and out on that one. And if you look between them, it's almost like kind of slightly curved up. People Yeah. You can't hardly see it when you're driving through. You almost can't see it.

The big problem with that one was originally as approved it was supposed to be a raised curve and it was a raised curve and people were starting having issues and then on a weekend that was changed to a road curve. So that's why that that curve is now softer and so people just drive over it. People drive over and and the key thing is Mr. Wall said yeah it's entrance as well and so they can get into there's both ways. Yeah. where I think the Ford Road one is more ideal when you're trying to direct traffic one way and maybe that's the answer for this one too is to have that

maybe maybe that would be helpful to do if we had the south one on Maramman also exit only and have it have it configured like the one on forward road in the forward road one I think that eastern curve on there could be extended more to further direct people to go to the west make it more obvious that it's can't turn in trying to put some kind of signage there people ignore signs

not only definitely they sign there because they are worried about they have so they have their criteria I'm trying to have signage and make it blatantly obvious people shouldn't be doing this. But yeah, we'll do what we

So, I don't think it's going to matter if we move the curb cuts up. That's Marman Road. We know how that's going to back all the way up to Crowder anyways at any given light. So, it's not going to matter where I think those curb cuts fall. I do think it might be important to have two curb cuts, even if we direct the traffic one way, just because if you have just one curb cut on this whole property, people trying to get in and out of just one, it's going to that's going to cause more of a problem than the once in a while person trying to take this curb and make a right onto, you know, I think that's going to cause more issues. I I would think yeah, restricting the number of curb cuts would be an issue because of because of the volume of of a gas station.

So having those relief valves exits would be very helpful. But if Wayne County does approve it, you know, then does it if they do, you know, if they do approve it, then they, you know, uh then it meets requirements of the county. Correct. So, Sure. At the very least, can we require to be an exit southbound? Yeah, that's what we were saying. Say make that even approves it as it is before us.

I'm not sure. I'm not sure. You only have one entrance. Tradeoff turn in the left hand turn lane, turn left into there or stop dead. If there's no traffic, people are still going to try to turn in. I'm just saying if they're going north right that first entrance it's going to be a problem. So the only really the only traffic that could enter the property would be southbound Marman traffic correct

in one entrance. And from a regional standpoint, the only thing I'm thinking is that from your typical rush hour, daytime thing, I believe the the reason this site might be attractive is is the access of entry to metro airport and the traffic volume going southbound on. Yeah.

So, I don't think allowing the access via southbound traffic is beneficial. I don't have any proof, but I would think it would not it wouldn't negatively impact the business because the vast majority of people would be southbound near traffic accessing this. You're not having people traveling eastbound on Ford Road accessing this site. Yeah, that's going to back up. No, no, those those people won't access it. It'll be all of the people coming into the site will be off Marmont. Yeah. And I mean that's already dictated by this. I would be more concerned about that power line than than these Oh, definitely these ins and outs. Yeah.

Safety. I think we need to uh definitely address the power line. They don't they don't put an application in when they they dictate that if that was a southbound turn on to Marman. That doesn't go in on the application to Wayne County. No, absolutely. Well, it would if if they correct how it's how it's proposed is how they would make a submission. So, it' be changed and then resubmitted, right? Yes. Okay.

But both kind of MDOT and Wayne County are uh they kind of only react when they get an application. And so MD dot, you know, gave a gave some preliminary, but for the county, you have to you have to give them a plan and money or else they they're almost silent on everything, you know. So So we can we can say what we want here, but the county is the final say, number one, and and they won't say anything until they really apply,

you know. Same with I mean, we we won't look at a special land use until they pay the money and and we review it. So similar. But I guess what I Okay, so if we if we did say, "Okay, we want this approved with just a a southbound turnout and then Wayne County came in and said, "No, you can do whatever you want." They can't override that from our our standpoint, right? No. No. Yeah. Because you're you're giving the approval for the special land use permit for that contingent upon that.

How do we want to deal with the access Are we interested in making that one southbound exit only or is it I think we need to discuss the power that you Oh, definitely. Uh actually there's you know there's got done yet

right there's there's so many items on here that need to be either corrected or changed on the plan or just made a note of on the plan between the site plan and the special land use. I think we should go over those items, let them make the necessary changes and come back to us with it. I don't think we can give contingent approval on this with so many deficiencies. I think we need to see that everything is done properly.

So, do we want to go over Um, do we just want to build on Mr. Ortega's list?

Yeah, I Well, I believe so. Um, going down Well, going down my list, I went down most of your list where you've made notations that things need to be addressed. And starting out with the site plan a we must combine the lots. B uh have we decided on the 40ft setback situation? We haven't. I don't believe we have to make a decision whether we want to approve it contingent on a variance or if if we

I didn't have a problem with that personally because that that's such dead area. that you're talking about on the left side. Yeah. Yeah. That's that's dead area regardless. So that's going to give 30 30 feet. There is a wall along that area right here. So from the wall, but it's going to be 30 ft instead of the 40t that's required. So they need a variance for that. Yeah. But like I said, with nothing going on over here, I don't I don't see there being an issue because of how the dumpster is configured. If this was parking or something like that, then I I think that'd be a problem. I agree. Okay. Yeah. So, everybody on board with that or

Yeah, I can get in order in order to do away with that problem, they would have to make the building significantly smaller. I mean, yeah, I'm I'm still just concerned with the drive-thru just out with with the dumpster. So, maybe we we talk about how to prevent congestion here and the foot is not the answer, right? Like that like I hear what Commissioner Walls is saying about creating dead space, but it does solve a problem for how this dumpster and drive-thru configuration.

But the thing is, if you had the 40 ft, then you'd kick you'd kick the building 10 feet that way. Correct. To make your drive-thru here, but you would still have the problem on the back of the building regardless. So, you'd have to pull the building forward 10 ft and then you're going to run into parking issues here, pump issues. I wasn't referring to the lack of an escape route. I was referring to where the dump the dumpster enclosure and drive-thru. A lot of these things are coming together and one there's a there's a curb, a drive-thru, a dumpster, loading and unload. There's a lot going on in this corner. Yeah, cars kind of have to snake their way through it.

So, so if you if you were to take this to 40 feet, you would relieve this area from as much congestion. But I can live with I think that's that's a lesser of the concern. Okay. So one thing just point out one of the issues with the dumpster enclosure being in that location and not being in that corner where there are what is it five parking spaces along the west is because of the existence of the over lines running in their current location. the lines weren't there because there could be in those spaces and then because there that would that would solve an issue there relieve some congestion.

We're going to have a little more congestion that would be on them. Well, then if they move the the dumpsters, they'd probably be able to make them bigger. And if they move the lines, they move the lines. Move the lines. Yeah. Yeah. They first have to move the line and then they can move the dumpster. Yeah. So, I think if we can agree on moving that line, we'll eliminate two of those issues right there. You'll get that dumpster moved down here and also you won't have that line over the canopy, which seems to be our biggest issue right now safety wise.

Oh, yeah. I I think that's the number one issue, that line. It's got to be moved around the the building rather than over it. Mhm. We'll have parking if that if that uh dumpster goes down into those that spot much tighter, but we'll have enough. But but yeah, it would work still. Yeah.

Depending Okay. So, we're going to go ahead and accept the variance request for the 40ft set back. We need to have you provide material colors of the masonary and samples. Uh, next is the uh fuel pump canopy with the DTE power line over it. That needs to be changed to route the DTE lines around the property rather than over it. Yeah. That would have to be represented on your plan. Uh,

and the setback for the the canopy that can be shrunk too. Yeah. We don't I think it's in another spot, but yes, this this canopy needs to be shrunk by a foot and a half so we don't worry about that setback. Uh I would like to see the canopy columns uh wrapped in in brick to match the building. Does everybody agree with that?

Yeah, that looks good. [Applause] Well, while you're looking for that, um,

good. Okay. Well, that should be included in the plan. So, uh the truck maneuvering plans must be shown and revised as necessary along with the uh that would be fuel trucks, the emergency vehicles, and the uh garbage pickup. The uh drive-thru plan should show inner and outer wheel paths for the vehicles so we know they can make turns in there. Uh how does everybody feel about the landscaping? Are we adequate on landscaping or do we are we coming up short there?

I think the landscaping's fine. I think we're going to transport it on the west side in front of that person more. Okay. some some more uh greenery along that wall. Yeah. To grow taller than the wall.

Yeah. Okay. Uh okay. Along with moving the uh electrical lines, we can move the dumpster enclosure because right now it appears to be obstructing the drive-thru lane and it doesn't provide for a grease container. And as I mentioned, we need circulation graphic for trash pickup. Lighting plan needs cut sheets for fixtures and a note stating that all shall point downward and not be capable of being angled after installation. Also, the lights shall be mounted on shall not be mounted on the roof of the canopy or other structures. Then with the uh special land use um the only thing I have is that it must be contingent on site plan approval and the filling station regulations 30-foot setback for the west property that needs a variance. the canopy. You agreed to change the width of the canopy to bring it within

the 20 foot setback. Uh, we need a note on the plan sheet stating that no inoperable vehicle shall be stored overnight on the property and a note stating that sale or rental of any type of vehicle is prohibited. As far as the restaurant is concerned, we should have an automatic dimmer on the menu board to reduce the light level in the evening. And we need details on the type of speakers and control of sound level. Along with that, uh, approval would be contingent on approval from MDOT and Wayne County

and the city engineer and what? City engineer number five. Yeah. And the city engineer and fire marshall. southbound.

Uh, we haven't really come to a decision about that. I'm not opposed to doing that. I think it would probably make traffic flow a little bit better on that uh southernmost curb cut. I would We're saying it would only maybe right turn only. Yeah. Would that be uh acceptable for you people? A right turn only for that uh southern curb cut on Marramman.

Okay. My only my thought if I could just Yes. you know, is that sometimes the two-way have the two-way entrance, you know, if your vehicle has your filling station or your filling on one side, you know, like, you know, you think of yourself when I go in, I'm like, well, I won't go in that one. I go in this one so I can go around cuz it's on the right side of it, you know, and so I'd rather have the movement happen on Marrammen as opposed to inside. That's my only thought, you know, is that, you know, I would wait to get to that in so I could go in. They have two rows of of pumps. I know there's two rows of pumps, but I still I don't know. That's how I think, you know, it's like I'd rather I always go

if one side's full. I guess you'd like the option of going around on the other side. And that's what I'm thinking is like circulation would occur that way, you know. I'd rather not see anybody. Sure. Sure. But there could maybe the signage of course would say um signs sign don't mean anything. You can always put up a no left turn sign. But I know that. So

you know I mean the thing is we're sacrificing so much as much as it's important for the safety on the outside of the site is I mean safety factors on the inside just like talking about congestion somebody wants to leave the site there alternatives instead of just one option coming in that site there'd be three options to leave one option to enter. There' be three options to leave. One option to entertr

I think it's No, I I think it's going to create a lot of congestion right there on the southern approach. It'd be okay for southbound people, but if we're if you're going to let for southbound entrance, not northbound entrance, right? Correct. I mean, we can put up a no left turn sign, but people will ignore that and do what they want. The only difference is they're going to drive 40 ft and turn into the next one. Yeah. It's not going to stop. You're referring to exiting the site from the southern side, not allowing the person that's exiting to take a left. That's what you're

I'm proposing you create something like you did on Ford Road on the southern side of Marland where it's an exit only onto Mar going south. If they want to exit and go north to enter the site, you are restricting entering entering from the southern part of Mar. That would only be an exit lane. It would be an exit only just like for all exit. No, we need more entrance. I mean, you're telling me there's one entrance to this whole site? That's what that would create. Yeah, that's going to be so hard for you guys. people going down Mirramman. If they drive back past the first one,

that's Yeah. If they pass they pass the first one, they can catch the second one. Yeah. Otherwise, they're going to go to a different gas station. Well, the only the only other option we could have was to put up a no left turn sign there and hope people pay attention. Yes. So, people coming northbound on Maramman won't try to turn into that. You're going to have traffic issues where you have people in the lefth hand turn and you're 40 ft from Ford Road trying to turn left into that gas station right there. Now on the south on the southern approach that says there's no way there to the north I'm not the north I'm good with

it's not the north approach at all. It's a southern approach on America. The northern approach is absolutely No, but

he's saying he's saying he wants to only have exit exit only on the southern approach on turning right just like from that southern approach.

On the southern one, you would do the same thing. There's no left hand exiting the gas station. That's no problem. I know that people, you know, miss the first I mean, I'm sorry.

Yes. Go ahead. We were really proposing that let's let's get MD and R have a say in this and then we can propose what we need to propose and then we can listen to any comments and maybe then we can come into an agreement but let's let's see what the study is. See what are maybe one company's going to say hey no exit no entrance only one exit one entrance of Americ's no entrance then this whole thing is that you know that's what we proposing is that and Wayne County let us come to you with a study showing you that what these people have told us what they allowed us to do as far as breaking and then we can have that discussion. But for us just to sit here and just kill this project that we all know one against.

Okay. Okay. Well, if you would like to do that, what I'm what I'm suggesting is that we table your application

because there are so many there's there's two pages of items from Mr. Ortega's uh reports that need to be addressed and especially the uh the rerouting of the electrical lines if we table it and allow you to come back with those changes and during that time if you want to talk to Wayne County and have them make recommendations or MDOT we would certainly look at There are recommendations at that point.

I have a question too. How come we're there's we're not allowing an entrance off Crowder? Is there a reason there's not? We don't normally like to dump commercial traffic onto side streets. I I get that, but there's one on Henry Ruff. There's one on Well, there's a lot collector roads though. Uh Crowder really isn't a collector, you know, really. Yeah. Yeah. Henry says help alleviate some of the traffic issue we're having also. But most of that lots like right within that. What are you going to come in and out? Unless you were just trying to get out of line. You're going to come right into the drive-thru line.

I would prefer to keep traffic off of Crow. I mean, there are houses right there then, too. That's another Yeah. Having one come in off of Crowder would immediately put you in the drive-through line, not in the gas station. And after the after the ordering window, too. I'm just asking. It was just a question. Why? Yeah. I mean, there's there's interest on all our kinds of collector streets. Collector side street. Harrison, there's houses right there. Henry Ruff, there's houses right there. Harrison and Henry Ruff are both major streets. They're side streets, but they're major streets going through the city. And they do have some uh they have slightly wider Yeah.

profiles. They typically have light they have lighted intersections at some points like Harris Henry Ruff Henry Ruff definitely has lights on Cherry Hill and has others. So it might seem it's it's a subtle distinction but the intent is to have have parallel roads to our major roads that alleviate the traffic bone whereas Crowder really it is only intent is to provide direct access to the private property typically surprised. A lot of neighborhood gas stations and stuff like that, people get their necessities and stuff like that. They don't like to go out to the main road that says, you know, they like to instead.

Um, so what he's suggesting that you have an extra if if and only if the you know proposing and we add right there and it would just be addition to that safety. I just don't feel you guys would have as many people trying to turn left going north. They would turn I think a lot of people would turn left onto Crowder and then enter offer. Yeah. Instead of trying to cross four lanes of traffic, three lanes of traffic to turn left into there going north.

I honestly think no left turn onto the south entrance is a great idea. I think it's an amazing idea. I at least allow people to come up to the Yeah,

I totally see your point where people making a right turn right away. I I totally see a point. But having that sign there, no entrance or no left turn, I think that resolves that should be able to resolve that issue. But also at the same time allow us to breathe a little at least for people just to have easy entrance and easy access because people might as well. I do I I do think the double entrance might be a good idea too because of what you said earlier about how you choose a gas pump. You get a lot of that. So what what'll end up happen if everyone comes in on one, most gas tanks are on your left side. They're all going to take that side and it's going to create a weird turnaround thing in there.

One of the issues too similarly is like there's really only single lane uh configuration on cars that are parked at the gas pump. So like the gas pump cars and the Marman Road curve, there's only one lane. So, you might have a lot of people uh going head on, you know, one wants to go north on the site, one wants to go south. Somebody have to get similar like the speedway situation uh where they have that that same kind of thing. Only one car can get by. Yeah.

So, it may be an issue. And one other thing, even though I know um the issue you guys are facing is that we're to the you referenced McDonald several times and so that issue with saying no left turn and no entrance into from that can be frustrating. But I would think this has a little bit benefit if it was a southern uh southern Maryland curb cut had a McDonald's configuration where cars exiting go south, cars can enter on the to enter into that south one going in and have a a raised curve in the middle sometimes like a pork chop or raised curve island situation but an actual raised curve

but yeah raised an actual raised curve and then if people see the white day they're trying to enter in that one then they have an option they can just drive that extra 20 ft to the north and then make that left turn movement into the northern Maryland you know they'll have that capability of doing that instead of trying to force into the site in that southern area. So then my question would be on the Ford road curb cut the way we have it. Why aren't we allowing westbound traffic to enter off of for road? That would be the easiest thing for somebody going westbound. Just put it left. Well, because they're just coming through the intersection. They're going to stop right there. They're doing the same thing at Marman.

I know, but traffic doesn't flow quite as heavy on Marman as it does on Ford Road. I don't think I'm just saying this would be more flow than if somebody coming at a dead stop either in the lefth hand turn lane or the left lane to turn left across three lanes of traffic into the site. Right? Like if you were on a westbound Ford Road, you could just turn into that site. It would be way smoother because there's nobody going westbound on Ford Road site. Actually, there's no road at all. If we if we do that, it's going to encourage people to turn left off of eastbound Ford Road. If we open that up to make it a two-way drive,

okay with people turning left off of northbound Marman. I I'm just saying we're it's a double-edged sword. That's the issue we're always going to have with these corner lots. It's always going to be that because if you shrink that back down to what that lot initially is, then you're not going to have any entrance if we keep this mindset of I'm just saying it's always going to be an issue. I agree. I'm just saying from a safety standpoint for me, if I'm westbound on Ford Road, I think it would be safer to turn in off of Ford Road into this than to turn right on the Marman dead stopped 40 ft and then try to cross three lanes of traffic. It would be safer for

There's no slow down lane there. There's you don't have a deceleration lane. You've got people speeding up to try to get through the light and then somebody stopping just past the intersection to turn in to get rear ended. And that's just just like they do at uh subway on Ford Road. I'm I'm agreeing with you 100%. We have the same thing on Marman. If you're looking at that aspect of it, you have the exact same thing on Marman because there's no de acceleration when Yes. We've debated this for like 40 minutes. Yeah. I think we will need M DOT and Wayne County to weigh in. Um so I Yeah, let's

I think we have the My proposal would be we have the no left turn sign. I like the idea of the raised curb cut to discourage people from making a left out of the southernmost Marman um entrance exit. Okay. So table

I think we should table it allow them to make the the changes that have been outlined on this report from Mr. for Ortega, you can contact Wayne County and MD DOT and see how they feel about the whole situation. And if you take care of all these other more minor items along with the major one as far as redirecting the electrical lines around the property, then I think uh you know this will be the only stumbling block when you come back and we can work that out at the time. So, can we have a motion to table until the applicant?

We have two motions to make. Uh, special land use and site plan. Okay. Table both of them. Okay. So, we'll just need to need to do so. Somewhat will want a summary of these things or do you feel like we've done that? Do you I I've got I've got the written down. No. Most of everything that I've brought up. Okay. And I and I took most of everything off of your report. So I think uh specifically for special land use, I can leave the the report as such, but then in this site plan, we can add those items that we've discussed in that motion. Is that okay? Yeah. Okay.

So I'll make special land use. Uh I'll make a motion to table the special land use proposal. Second. Any discussion? Would you take the role, please? Yes. Commissioner King. I. Commissioner Walls. I. Commissioner Williams. Hi. Chairperson May. I. The motion does pass 4 land use portion at 31406 Ford Road. A motion for the site plan.

Make a motion to uh table the site plan review as well with the added information. We all I think he has everything right. Support. I just have a comment. So the only problem I have with this is if they get the study from Wayne County and it proposes that we have control. We have well we still have we still have control over special land use and the site plan review is still up.

We're not here's my problem. If if they go to Wayne County and Wayne County approves it or MDOT approves it, then how are we going to say, "Oh, this can only be a right turn. This can't have a left turn." Both say they're fine with it the way it is. Well, that the um I mean they are transportation engineers that are making the decision. It's not. Yeah. So, I I think we can rely on their expertise in that case. Maybe if they if they disagree with the biggest thing, like you had said earlier was traffic flow, congestion, and if if we don't if we're not able to limit it before it goes to Wayne County, there's no way we're going to be able to limit it after.

Well, we don't seem to be able to find an answer at this point. Okay, just comment. Um I think Mr. Miller would have taken a note as part of the motion to include the um the uh southernmost entrance on Marman to be left only and I think the applicant agreed that they would use you know take measures to make that happen. So I think we have influenced it.

Where are we? We have a motion. We have a motion and a second on the floor. Okay. Uh, take the role, please. Yes. Commissioner Walls. I. Commissioner King. I. Commissioner Williams. Chairperson May. I. The motion does carry to table 3 to one.

Okay. Um, your application's been tabled. Uh we'd like to see you come back with the changes that we talked about tonight on your plans and in the meantime you can contact Wayne County and MDOT and maybe get some recommendations from them about handling the traffic flow and uh hopefully we can work this out when you come back. Thank you. appreciate your cooperation. Okay. Other business. We have zoning ordinance amendment discussion of proposed amendment regarding parking on residentially zoned lots. Mr. Ortega, tell us about this. My I don't have any new uh language for you on that because I wanted I will definitely have it for the next meeting. It will be on it will be in your packets.

Okay. Next we have commissioner's comments regarding planning and zoning matters. Mr. Walls nothing. Could you just say another sentence of what this is? I'm trying to remember. Is this the property where the the owner wanted to uh Oh, no. The uh Oh, the uh the zoning. Oh, this is the the drive the driveway. Okay, I got it. I have nothing else. Thank you. Okay. Yeah,

my only comment why you guys need to understand why I voted no or may is because everybody is in agreements on how much of a nuisance McDonald's is the left and M do and Wayne County that this is going to be the same thing, but we still have site plan review. We're going to on this propert we're going to have issues anytime we have a corner property like that. I think I don't know. Oh, that's my position and I I empathize with what you're saying, but I don't know how you have a property owner invest in a corner lot without there being curb cuts and the risk of a

excuse this some jerk trying to make a left and account for drivers. I guess that's right. Yeah. The problem with the the McDonald's is you have a right hand in and then with that we're going to run into that issue when whenever we have that, you know, there there's going to be one way that you're going to have to go into the lefth hand lane to turn into that property or we take one out. We're lucky we have three on this one. I just don't know if with one on that size property or if they quit this then we cut that property back in half and then we won't have any entrances with our mind thought like that is my only my only thought. I guess my only thought the best for that.

I think that's something else that the planning commission should be looking at. Yeah. Uh Mr. Miller, you have anything?

I wanted to ask if you had any idea when we might be getting a site plan on the plan development. We are going to council for the final approval of the resoning for phase two the parking lot. Their focus at the moment is the working with development county on the aspect of financing. Um so I'm not sure where the site plan is on their their schedule. I can remind them of the approval requirements within the PB and the time frames of their those approvals, but Mr. Miller might have more detailed information on that.

I just we're uh the next DDA meeting is on Tuesday. We're going to kind of have anformational session about what is proposed. Number one, the site plan or the uh USET was approved. Um, and then also talk about the tiff, the tax increment financing portion of the of the of the project itself. So, a portion of the increased taxes would go to help pay for the shortage in the development. And so, it's a brownfield redevelopment plan that would have to be adopted. So, we're we're learning about that. um teach actually teaching the uh DDA about what what all is involved in that. Um so I think once they get the financing portion in place then we'll have some you know the plans will start to go forward. So

do you have any idea how long that might take? Maybe another couple months. So they have to um first of all the DDA has to give a a resolution just support of the project. Um that's the first step um which may occur on Tuesday or not. I'm not 100% sure. Um then if not, it would be September and then they have to go to Wayne County also to go to the Brownfield Redevelopment Authority to get the development plan in place. Um and also the DDA and city council. So there there's a lot of financing lot of steps, huh?

A lot of steps. Um they're also looking at trying to put another layer uh of financing on that will address and also give some tax credits to uh energy efficiency. Um, also so they're just trying to stack different levels of financing to to do that. Um, because there there are a lot of factors in and in in hand at hand. Of course, moving of easements, uh, power lines, the demolition of 20,000 square feet of of building, a lot of that is is costly. It's not we're not Canton Township. We don't have green fields to to just you know put knock down some corn stalks and put up anything unfortunately. So we're um we have to do things that are costly to get development. So

okay. Okay. Okay. The only other thing I wanted to mention was I don't know if anyone else has heard this, but uh I heard just a couple days ago that Will Pister passed away

on uh July 4th, I believe it was. Uh Will of course was a longtime member of the planning commission and dedicated uh chairman for the planning commission and I just wanted to mention this and send our condolences to his family. That's all I have. Uh next meeting 11th

is uh September 11th 2025. Oh I will u entertain a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. All in favor? I meetings adjourned.