City Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, 6 o'clock. So, we'll go ahead and call this meeting to order of the Tuesday, May 20th meeting of the Marquette City Planning Commission. Um, we'll start with Roco. So, if you start us off, please Margaret Rainer here. Alex Wilson here. Kevin here. Alice here. Jane Pin here. And sir is here. Is there a motion to approve the agenda? I move we approve the agenda as written. I'll second. All in [Music] favor? Same. Okay. Um the minutes from our last meeting on May 6, any additions, comments, changes. Um yeah, on the old business when the motion says that it's approving the agenda, not approving the uh future PC by the PC bylaws. So that needs to be rewritten. Um here on PC bylaws, it says motion being carried to approve the agenda as presented rather than a motion to update. Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay, good catch. All right. Any other changes or additions? All right. By consensus, did these look good to everybody? All right. Okay. Um, are there any conflicts of interest for today's um anything on the agenda for meeting? Right. No conflicts of interest. So, we will start with our first agenda item, which is a a public

hearing on our land development codes. Um, uh, Dave or Andrew, you want to come start us off? Yeah, I'll just say that, um, this is a culmination of nearly six months of work. Um, I think we've had nine planning commission meetings, uh, work sessions on these comprehensive set of amendments. every there's 15 articles in the land development code and we are um addressing 13 of the 15 um with various amendments. So it's fairly comprehensive. Um again we we had a joint work session with the city commission before uh we got very far with this. I think we had one meeting before that joint work session to talk about this. Um and then we came up with a whole bunch of other stuff that wasn't even contemplated um in that initial work session. Um yeah, so we've got a lot of material um a lot more than I thought we would have when we started the project. And um of course this is something we've been doing each year and I was talking to Alex before the meeting. Um and you know this has worked out pretty good for um our down time of year to look in the fall when applications start to tail off is to turn to looking at the code and what we can fix and how we can make it better for everybody and we've been doing that for several years and uh I think we've seen everything that's in this. we have do you have been over this material at at least one of those um 10 meetings we've had. So um don't really plan to address anything in particular but we'll just go through and from it's all now organized from the first section

um article two when we start with definitions and uh not everything in here again is new material. Some of it is in there for context, but we do have a lot of new material that is uh highlighted and underlined. Material that's being that's proposed to be eliminated is shown with strike through. And so yeah, everything uh from two article 2 to article 14. So unless there's any questions about any of specific correction, we did touch article 15. Okay. I know there were two Commission. Yes. I I thought when we talked about parking requirements that we were going to allow the people to choose the number of parking spaces they actually needed and not dictate what they needed so that we don't have another problem with a company that needs to have more parking spaces because of the number of their employees. But must have been the building size that limited the amount of parking. So now they have to park on the road on the hill going up. I thought you know like an apartment house uh we cut the parking down which is nice but we cut it. So people should be allowed to pick the amount of parking they need. Can you tell us what section you're on specifically so we can all get on the same page? Article 9,

but that didn't come up. We've made changes in the past that address that issue with specific land uses. For retail and office, there is only a requirement for two parking spaces. Um everything else is voluntary and there's some other uses in there that have a voluntary basically optional use or number of parking spaces required but we haven't gone into the other uses that have specific standards have not been changed and we that wasn't even discussed in any of those 10 meetings we had this year. Okay. I was misunderstood because I thought I brought that up. You need more parking. You should be allowed to have it. Oh, what you're saying is parking maximum. Yes. Should should be changed. There's always next year. We can always get back into it next year. Unless you have a specific recommendation right now that you want to change, if there's something you want to bring up that's in there. Well, I know one instant right now where a guy has to come up with one parking space, one more parking space, and sometimes you just can't do it. But again, like an apartment house, a twobedroom apartment house, you should be allowed to have at least two parking spaces per unit. That's for sure. And then you should have a couple extras in case there's ever a guest that wants to come and stay overnight or if they want to have a uh like a travel trailer or some other

type of recreational vehicle. There's no place to put it. There's a process in the code we're dealing with um appealing the parking maximum and the site plan we're looking at tonight has far more barking than what is allowed by the code. Um if they just went by if if there wasn't an process to require or request an exemption. But at the same time, in tonight's when we get to it, you're also saying they need more parking. Yeah. Or their employees or whatever reason. So between the the process and here that allows for people to submit um some kind of study or um a reasoned explanation of why our maximum parking standard doesn't work for them. There's also the variance process. Okay. Just that all depends on who's listening to their request. I mean, depends on the group that's here. If you get the wrong group, you're not going to get anything [Music] through. You can request things, but it doesn't mean people are going to listen, right? And then, like I said, if there's a specific section of the code that you would like to see language changed, we can talk about that. But I think at this point we have been through a lot of this stuff. I just misunderstood when we talked

about it. That's all. I didn't see it in writing. Okay. Um does anyone else have any thoughts? I think because normally would have an applicant but the applicant in this case is sort of ourselves commission was the one who put the code together and these amendments. Um they were injured we received any correspondence about this. Okay. So yeah there is one thing um or two things that I believe they emailed me about um that I sent. No. Okay. Never mind. Um so when I was updating this I found that there was an error in the residential limited animal section. Somehow through the years reviewing an important um paragraph got removed and our code was referencing this paragraph. There's a couple fixes here. So here in the animal limited keeping it was missing this line right here. A requirements applicable to all residential limit animal keeping. It just had these numbers and then all of these sections for the chickens, the bees, the rabbits referred to this A which was missing. So we're proposing to put the A back in and then call this B again. So fixing it basically. Okay. Then the other item

was Right. So, uh due to the volume of permits that we're getting, uh it is has been very difficult for us to meet the 10 business days of the workload that we have. So, we're asking for when we get swamped. I mean, we're usually we try to be around five days. Um, but to change the code so we're not hands are tied to allow for 15 business days to review a permit. If we don't get to currently, if we don't get to the permit within 10 business days, it automatically gets through. So, a lot of times we have to drop some things and then try or work overtime and things like that. So we're just trying to make it work for that the busy time and to give us a little bit more time. So that was another proposal. Anybody have any thoughts on that? Just changing lengthening the review process time for comments. We're good with that. Seems reasonable. Um so that's really only the only new stuff. Everything else you guys review. Great. Uh, any thoughts on that? Did we receive any correspondence? You said, Dave, no. No correspondence. Um, there's an opportunity for public testimony if anyone would like to come to the podium, state your name and address. Anyone has comments on the landing code? No. Okay. Code. Um, commissioner discussion. Anyone want final last last words about these amendments?

Anybody else? All right. Then, uh, let's see. Would anyone like to propose an emotion? uh after review of the land code amendments presented as case 01 ZA052025 and after conducting a public hearing and careful consideration of the contents of the draft LDC amendments planning commission finds the draft LDC amendments are consistent with the recommendations goals and policy objectives of the community master plan comply with section 54.1405 of the land development code represent an improvement to regulation that affects property owners in the city and therefore are justified and appropriate and therefore should be approved by the city commission as presented. Great. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you. All in favor? Any opposed? Any All right, motion passes. Thanks everyone. Um so moving along. Are there any citizens wishing to address the commission on agenda items at this time? Um when we get to the site plan review, there'll be opportunities there to talk about um the the um GMC project, but any general comments right now on any other agenda items. Is there an agenda? I didn't I came in late, but Oh, sure. Yeah, it should be copy. The only other item on our our agenda is the site plan for GMC site. Um, we need to come up to address. Yeah, if you could come and state your name and your address, please. All right. Uh,

Tyler Peterson, 718 Homestead Street. Um, I was informed, yeah, by Andrew, I've been trying to potentially build an ADU and I might have missed that discussion. Was that like the first thing? Yeah, so they approved the recommendation to the city. Okay, great. And so just to confirm that's like you can build up to a 770 some square foot 768. Yeah. Okay. And there's no matter the primary structure on the correct is what was proposed. Okay. And the other thing with that too was um the house that I live in is pretty small. Also like the footprint it can use can you extend that still or is that just like in accordance to the ADU that you could build up to that? Do you still have to be in the confines of your your primary home the the 768 foot ADU would be in addition to your current home? Is that what you're asking? Well, I the way I've interpreted it is that um you couldn't build like an accessorary structure um greater than the footprint of your Oh, the language above the 50%. Yeah, that was erased. So, the only thing in there is that you maximum 750. Okay. Yeah, cool. You guys are all in favor of that? We just approved it. Sweet. Thank you. Thanks for showing up. Yeah. Commission has to approve this recommendation before law. Yeah. Yeah. And so that's when you think that happens. Um end of June. End of June. Then 10 days onto that before it's actually law. So mid July. Okay. All all anything that goes into effect here is going to be in early July July 10th 15. Okay.

Thanks. Great. Anyone else want to address the commission on agenda items? Okay. And seeing none, we don't have the old business. We'll embed into our new business, which is 04 SPR0525, the site plan review for the new GMC vehicle sale site at um 11:01 West US41. So, um we will start that process with city and staff comments. The staff have reviewed the proposed site plan for the construction of a new commercial building, new parking lot, dumpster enclosure, landscaping and site improvements for 1101 West US41 and have provided comments regarding plans. Those comments and the applicants narrative response are in the packet. In the staff report, we provided the zoning district standards and the proposed uses and provided dimensional regulations. Also, as David mentioned earlier, their proposal exceeds the minimum parking space requirements and they're asking to um exceed the maximum because they need the inventory spaces. And then the site plan review standards, the relationship to the community master plan and the attachments. Site plan review application, the police department staff comments, applicants responses to department of public works, engineering, fire and zoning staff comments and the area map, the block map, photos of the [Music]

site, and the site plan. Did you guys have any uh questions or comments for Looks like no. Thank you, Andrea. Appreciate that. Um, at this time, the applicant, if you could come forward and state your name, address, and give us like a quick overview of project and see if there's questions. I'm Brian Savlin. I'm the civil engineer on the project. Um, I'm with Wickwire Associates. My address is uh 2448 US41 West Marquette number 240. Yeah. Um Nikki the uh general manager is also here to talk about any operational um questions you may have or more of the architectural um stuff as well. We did do have detailed architectural plans that were included. Unfortunately, uh the architect wasn't able to make it here today. And if there are some specific questions, he did say we could call them in on that. But basically, what happens in a in most dealerships, including GM, a lot of the the exterior look of the buildings are driven by GM themselves. If you've you've run into this, I'm sure over the last several years, if you have chain um commercial businesses coming into your area, they all pretty much have their standards and they try to get all their facilities some of the same. So, so basically to run down a few things, we're we're really just jumping from one side of US 41 to the other side. Um it

gives them a much better view. It's it's actually a much uh easier approach into the the business as well and it's and it's safer. Early in the project, we went to MDOT um who also brought this to their corridor committee for a review and uh they're just we're at a point right now where all we need from them is our storm water permit. And we're really not changing the drive entrance or anything like that. All we're doing is lowering the grade a little bit. So, there'll be a little bit of grading in the right away, but other than that, it's pretty much everything is on site. Um, from what you see out there right now, just to give you a little general idea what will happen is there used to be a hotel on the site and it's it's up in the air quite a bit. Um there were storage units on the back side of it which drop down and to maximize the the area of the site. We're actually cutting the first part where the hotel used to be, we're lowering that grade by about 3 ft plus or minus and then leveling a little bit more with with the back of the site. And that creates a little bit more space for our our mobility around the site. Um, as uh your staff mentioned here, the uh the parking was a little confusing to us, but once we got a little deeper into the site um for for a car dealership like this, there's nothing that really specifically says what you have for display, but there is what's called hard surface display parking. That's not like official parking. So, we think we've got it worked out, but we'll make sure we'll work with staff here on we'll have like detailed areas for body shop work, for

service shop work, for customer parking, and then for for employees as well. So, there's several parts of the ordinance that came together for the the parking lot calculations. But your ordinance did work in this situation that what we need to get out there. uh uh does work. Um in regards to the site, one of the bigger concerns out there is uh the storm water in that area is a little tricky that it eventually goes to wetstone and MDOT did have some concerns on that. Um, but what we're able to do, we have enough property out to the east end of the of the site where we have a large storm water basin and then the water actually has to build up quite a bit and backflow up the up the pipe and go into a small line that goes into the club and then the storm. So, it's only a 6 in storm. We're actually reducing the storm water significantly from what went there before. The the old site used to overflow right into the end of that rightway. We have everything graded away from the rightways and back into the parking lot. So, we pick up everything internally and we send it to the east. All the roof drains will be collected and put to the south part of the property as well. So, um, we've got a couple of minor landscaping items that we still need to address. I think it's just a a small count on the number of shrubs and trees, but we'll make sure that's there. We do have a really nice buffer already. Uh, to the south, it's a it's a big hill and we're going down even further. And then to the uh to our east, there is a residential property. So, we're doing both uh landscape items

there and we're also including a a 4 foot high privacy fence over there. So, in regards to to that. So, the utilities, we're trying to use the same connection so we don't have to go out into Mloud to do any any major works there and the size of the utilities that were from the hotel working here. So that's just kind of a basic overview of the site and what we did and if you have any questions get up and ask. That's great. Thank you. That's really helpful. Nikki, I don't know if you want to add anything. No, I'm here. If anybody has any questions on, you know, operations or employees or anything like that for um does anyone have any quick questions for the applicants before we move on to budgets? Yeah, I do. Um, regarding employees, how many people do you anticipate working inside the building at one time? And it says here you got 13 spaces for employees. I figured you would have more than that. We have about 40 employees. Okay. Fewer of them are part-time. I believe there's more than 13. Maybe I'm seeing it on the on the north side of the building. It says 13 spaces for employees. I don't know if that's that's probably not the total that's been worked out. Yeah, there's been uh different modifications to that. There's a lot of parking in the rear and that and like how we how we do it now, you know, which will be similar where you know the front facing you want to have for your customers where our employees will be parking in the back. Okay. And some of that on the site and some of that is some shift work and things like that. So it's not like that's the total that's there all the time. So thanks. Any other questions for

applicants right now? I will say we need Nikki's last name. Oh Nikki. Um Remalong. Do you want me to stand up? Yeah. Okay. Sorry. For the Yeah, because I think it it records. Um, it's actually it's Nicole. N I C H O L L E and then Remalong R E M I L O N G. Okay. Uh, there's no questions at this point. Is um there any correspondence on this? It's review. So, Oh, yeah. Okay. Uh, any public testimony? Anyone wishing to speak on public? Okay, seeing none, then we will open it up for commission discussion. Um, anyone have comments, thoughts? Um, in I'm just wondering because you said that our um new LDC amendments won't be official law until July. And so in the landscaping standards um we just passed new landscaping standards that recommend native plants and private invasive plants. Um is there any way that we when somebody submits something they submit code as it is? Okay. Any other questions comments better? So, I know you mentioned that um GM tries to keep everything pretty standard for their building styles. I'm curious if um there's any architecture. I haven't here, but for architecture wise, what this might look like color scheme wise on the outside. I know we tried to um be kind of similar to a lot of the buildings here in Marquez. So, I was curious if there's been any thought to

put Yeah, I think it's it's a black like metal exterior look and then quite a bit glass and that's about all you're going to get out of a siblings for, you know, but there's brakes in the building and everything and there are details called out in there. I forget like the front of it there's a lot of glass in it. Um but yeah, very professional, ve very nice looking, modern modern like to look for more. [Music] Okay, other comments, thoughts? Just uh one thing that we did last year when we went through that one code amendments, one of the recommendations was in site plan reviews in the standards that we recommend that the color palette of any buildings not include more than 50% black, white or shades in between gray. So that's a standard on North Third Street that people have to comply with the new buildings, but it's not required. But what what guys settled on was putting it in the list for site plan review as a recommendation. Just wanted to bring that up again because I was I had forgot like exactly what happened to that. That's what happened to the other thing while I'm talking that you guys can recommend to change landscaping um that's been proposed because landscaping is typically the last thing that gets done on any kind of a building site especially new sites. Um, so you can just make a recommendation to change anything you

see in there that's not um that doesn't comply with the recommended code standards, but the applicant does not have to follow that recommendation. So it can't be a condition of approval recommendation. Thanks Dave. Thankation. Um, with that, would anyone want to entertain a motion or be a further discussion? Um, could I ask that we recommend that they use the new part? Yes. Do we have to go through line by line? Oh, do we? No. No, we don't. Is anyone prepared to make a motion for your findings? In fact, I will I would state that you should state that you look through them at least. If you all agree, they met all those standards. That should be in the language of the motion, too. your play for it. All right. After review of the site plan and the supplemental documentation dated 4225 and the staff report for 04 SP0525, the planning commission finds substantial compliance with the city of Marquette land development code. the site plan review standards of section 54.1402E and hereby approves the site

plan with the following conditions that's uh uh an amended plan is submitted to meet staff comments and the recommendation that um landscaping be changed to utilize native plants when possible. Great. Thanks Mr. Click. Any second? I'll second. Commissioner Bicken. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Any abstain? All right. The motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. We just so you know, we do usually include like your entire as option for landscaping items with local landscapers, you know. So, as long as those are, you know, lists and stuff, put them in there. All right, moving on to our second item. We have a second extension request for 420 North Third Street, the mixed use building proposal. Um, everyone get a chance to read this over. They changed companies. Is that the reason for the extension who they were going to utilize? Was that am I correct on that? That's what they state in the letter. Reason for extension request EP properties has engaged a new architect and general contractor to facilitate the completion of our previously approved project. Not sure, but it seems like that's what they said last. I think I think I think the architect was from Minnesota or something that came. It's a new architect I'm working with now. Okay. But this would be the last the last

extension, right? Correct. Around. So, this would be the last last extension. Yeah. Commissioner, question for Andrea. If you're working with a new architect, are these folks still planning the prefab design of the building where because I seem to remember that that was going to be like a drop in place building. Yeah. So, I haven't seen any revisions yet. Okay. And that's the problem. We've been waiting on revisions and I think contacting them to get the revisions deadline comes up and now they hired a new architect and it's kind of drag it out. Not I'm remembering that last year there was um when they initially when they got their site plan approval their final site plan still had um an issue that they couldn't comply with and we ended up making a recommendation to change a portion of the LDC that would that they could comply with with in relation to the parking lot buffer to property to the norm and that was changed so that they didn't have to have a buffer there because it didn't that was an example where the code didn't make some sense. It was too cookie cutter. Um so they couldn't comply with that until the code was adopted. So they had to ask for an extension there. Um and that made sense. So I think that was the first extension request and this is the second one. Right. This is so um that's why in the first case. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Anybody want to discuss this or is there a motion someone would like to make?

this motion too. Okay, you're on the roll. The planning commission uh should approve the request for an extension with the case O2 SUP 0623 with the expiration date to be 62026. Okay. Is there a second? Second. And all in favor? Any oppose? Any abstain? All right, the extension passes. Great. All right, the third item of new business is just um a letter of support. I can talk about this. Um it's just I have a colleague in my department at Northern who is trying to develop a position a Fulbright position. Fulbright scholar program is just like a very old um international exchange program between American universities and universities in other countries. So she wants to create a position in our department which is department of earth environmental geographical sciences to host someone who would maybe have expertise in community planning and development. And so she asked me to write a letter of support um either just as myself or I even I think a stronger letter would be with the support of the planning commission. So um this would this person would like you know wouldn't necessarily um shape the agenda or you know really be involved in any way but might be able to provide a training or do a workshop or give a talk about community planning and development other so um I just think it's a cool opportunity. I our chances of actually getting this position are probably pretty slim but I was just wondering if you all would support um support this effort I guess and the letter And you can be honest. You can be like, "This is a terrible idea." Now, we did this through the

school with a lady from um Scotland and it was very interesting. Oh, interesting. Yeah. I don't think she Yeah, I don't think she has any single person or country in mind. So, who knows? I just don't know. Is it okay with the city? It's not really the city's thing to weigh in on. Yeah. They wouldn't be like telling the city what to do or really doing anything with the city unless we invited them to give a talk or do a workshop or something. Yeah. I just say that from my experience as a somewhat recent student in this um department of earth environmental and geographical sciences that having someone there with community planning expertise it's it's never a bad thing. So I think that it'd be great if yeah I definitely support this letter and I would hope that we'd have some chance of getting the person. Thank you. Thanks Mr. Any other thoughts on that? Uh I'll just add um I uh went through a planning program uh in Michigan. Uh in that program I met people from all over the world. Uh brought some cool ideas that I never heard before. Um ways of dealing with things that we haven't really done much over this way. Um and I've learned a lot from them. So I think uh anytime you get some other viewpoints in it's probably a good thing to you can learn from it at the least. So definitely awesome. Thank you. Great. All right. Well, I guess with your consent I'll leave planning commission on there as sort of like people who support it. I think our staff would fully support it. I think there'd be not just a oneway

thing either. I think there's opportunity for an exchange of perspectives. Great. Great. Again, well, yeah, could add your name on there, too, David, if you want to be on there or your Okay, fantastic. Great. Well, thanks for your support, everybody. And we did get it. I think it really would be cool, but we'll see. They're pretty competitive to get. So, all right. Uh, moving on to agenda item five. Citizens wishing to address the commission on non-aggenda items. All right. We have no correspondence meetings or from other boards. We have no training. We have no work sessions. So that brings us to commission and staff comments. Um, Commissioner Primo, do you want to start us off? No problem. Thanks for all the work you guys did on thatund and some pages. Uh, no comment. Uh it's been a long process to get through all this. Thanks for staff's work on this and thanks for everybody for their diligence in attending and going through all these items on our agendas for the last couple months. Yeah, I really like that this has been added to our agendas quite a bit and had some great discussions. Thank you for the extra and hard work. Yeah, same here. I appreciate all your work and um your close detail like noticing where one line is absent. So, thank you all for your work. Any comments? Um just back to the point that Wayne brought up earlier when we were talking about the the hearing. Um, we can certainly add that to our

list to go back and look at next year. Um, review again the the maximum parking standards and see if there's areas where we can change make some changes that would be appropriate. One of the things I always think of where when I said that exchange of ideas too with somebody international is even people from other even lower Michigan don't quite get how hard it is to work around the amount of snow we get here and how the amount of snow we get here um impacts what what our code looks like with those parking requirements. I mean, people always say, "You guys should just do away with residential parking." They did it in this city and that city and it's pretty hard when you got a parking ban on the streets and uh you know, six months of snow years. We can look at the maximum parking standard though and if you have some specific recommendations this time you should tell us sooner than later. All right. Glad to try to work on something in that regard. I just want to have to say thank you for the thank yous and thank you for your hard work as well. I can say thank you for thanking us. Okay guys. I'm very grateful to work with all of you and I'm very grateful that this meeting was 44 minutes. That's like a record.