Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

you are. We were all shaking in our chairs.

Okay. I'd like to call this Tuesday, February 3rd, planning commission meeting to order. Um, I do have a land acknowledgement that I deliver first. The land on which we gather is the territory of the Ottawa and Chipoa peoples who have stewarded this land throughout the generations. Thank you for your strength and resilience in protecting this land and inspiring us to uphold our responsibilities to do the same. Roll call, please. Commissioner Anderson, present. Commissioner Swanson here. Commissioner Dur here. Commissioner Tread Treadwell here. Commissioner O'Brien

present. And uh yeah, Commissioners Hershey and McGillary are out of town and um Maxwell emailed us earlier that he wasn't able to attend tonight. Thank you. Announcements.

Yeah, just two at this time. I did receive one from Maxwell wanting although he couldn't be here today, he wanted to share that the county in partnership with the Michigan Association of MAP or Michigan Association of Planning on March 5th will be hosting a standby your plan training session for regional and county uh planning commissioners. He said he will have a flyer uh distributed tomorrow. So, we'll get that to you if you're interested of course via Katie. Let us know and we'll get you registered. and um the national planning conference in Detroit at the end of April. The registration is open. I believe Katie has been corresponding with some of you on that. That's it for now.

Amazing. Okay. Approval of minutes. Looks like one is from 28 2025. Not 2018. I almost made that mistake. I make the motion to approve the minutes. All those in favor? I I Do I have to say all those opposed? If we all say yes, probably best.

Okay. All those opposed. Okay. Thank you. Approval of minutes is completed. We have nothing in old business. So, we're on to our first item of a new business. the introduction of an application by Empire Sunset Investments to reszone the properties under their ownership on Mson Avenue from C2A to C2. Yeah. So, we did receive this application. Um so these three properties were conditionally reszoned in 2023 um from C1 which was a third coast and the former social security administration building as well as the parcel to the east which was R1B at the time. They were conditionally reszoned to C2 with the prohibitions and limitations voluntarily submitted by the applicant. Um, as you all know, there was a lengthy probably six-month discussion last year about the conditions or the timeline specifically in the zoning ordinance as it relates to uh conditional resoning that a certain percentage had to be completed. I think 75% within two years, 100% within uh three years. Um, the applicant has been working diligently on plans and working to establish partnerships uh for that development. has been coming to the city planning department um working with us and getting information regarding that. And as you know, last year he did request a one-year extension um to that. The ordinance only allows a single one-year extension at that time. Um so I believe in conversations with the applicant, they he was waiting to see how the discussions last year played out with the planning commission, which ultimately uh there was no action or direction taken on that. So with his current conditional resoning set to expire, I believe in July of 2026, he has submitted the application to reszone it just straight to two to C2 without the conditions. Again, this wasn't his desire. It was his initiative to initially conditionally reszone, but

that timeline has left him in a place where he would um have to lose the work that he's put into the project so far once July hits. So, in the staff report, um, we've laid out the ordinance language as it relates to the timeline for reference to short-term rentals. The general property information, collectively, the three parcels equal about 2.2 acres. Right now, they're separate parcels. Um, the applicant is aware that if there was a development that was to use all three that they would have to combine them, but until that time comes, they are listed are still lots of record as separate. So, um, as you go through there, you can see the the zoning around it. Um, when it comes to reszoning discussions or decisions, of course, we reflect back to the master plan. What that says in the Michigan Planning Enabling Act does require a zoning plan. So, when you have your future land use map, um, you have to have a component in the plan saying, okay, in order to get to those desired outcomes for each of those future land use categories, which zoning districts would be appropriate. So in referencing that um it does list the C2 as one of the appropriate for this um uh future land use categories. So it is consistent in this location. And I would remind the planning commission in fact the property is already zoned C2. It just has those uh conditions in place that unfortunately um will not be able to continue if the the property lapses. So there aren't any specific standards to weigh when it comes to reasoning. The the real factor is consistency with the master plan and what the master plan calls for as we just discussed. But historically, the six questions that are posed at the end of the staff report have been put into reasonzoning requests just to help think through those discuss or those points to consider. And as staff, we put some thoughts in there for you. But again, these aren't binding standards that the decision has to be made on like a site plan review or anything like that. Just a bit of a thought exercise. So, um, with that, there's no action tonight. Reszonings

require a public hearing, so that'll be scheduled for the March 3rd meeting. Um, but the applicant is here and, uh, I'll leave it to the chair. He may have some comments to make. Um, and you may have some questions for it. Do we want to discuss first or would we like the applicant to come up right away and then discuss? Yeah, Mitch, I've got a question which is perhaps best answered by the applicant.

Okay. Um during the first process, there was very extensive leg work done by the applicant to listen to the surrounding largely residential neighbors and hear their specific concerns, which I really respect uh the process done to uh in advance of bringing a proposal before planning so that we didn't have a bunch of people with torches and pitchforks upset about something that uh changing uh in a way that they didn't want. Um this removes or potentially would remove uh those stipulations. So, have there been concerns uh from the neighborhood uh about the chance of those things happening? Thank you. John Collins, Empire Sunset Investments. Uh, yes, I have um met with Sue Chang, who is a representative of the neighborhood. It's very clear to me that the conditional zoning conditions. Oh, okay. not used to that in my face.

None of us are.

But um it's very clear to me that the concerns raised by the community directly transferred to conditions in most cases, not everything, but in a negotiation process to conditions on the conditional permit. Now, those concerns the community has have not gone away. Those concerns are still there and I'm aware of that and I have reached out to Sue and we have met. We're going to continue to meet and I expect we're going to have a successful resolution before the public hearing for sure on how those concerns can translate into the new permit either through certain restrictions or there's a number of different mechanisms that those can transfer. And if they can't transfer, then we'll come here and tell you that. We'll say we could do this, but we couldn't do that. And but we're going to work hard to accommodate the concerns that we had agreed on originally.

Thank you. Any other Yep, Jackie. Just a logistics question. Um, if a public hearing is scheduled for March 3rd, is it possible to have a a vote of this body that same evening? Yep. So, um, just for the rest of the commission, the public in general, the action of the planning commission when a public hearing is required can't occur till after it, but it can happen on the same night, but it's also not required to happen on the same night. you know, there may be something and I say that to say if some point is raised by the public during the hearing that requires greater depth of analysis by the planning commission, you have the freedom to to take that route. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions for the applicant while he's standing there? Okay, seeing none, thank you, John. Thank you. Um, do we mind going to public hear to Nope. I'm so sorry. public comment and then coming back to the body for more discussion. Okay. So, I'll open up public comment on this item which is a the resoning of the Mson Avenue properties and then just as a reminder name, residency address. Okay. Eventually I'll get there. Um and that you have three minutes.

Okay. Um it won't take me that long. I'm Sue Chang. Uh my address is 521 GOA Trail. So, I live on the the little private road that backs up to Mr. Collins properties. Um, there's some new faces here. There's some faces that are familiar. So, I was going to just give my brief synopsis, but um, Mr. Collins kind of did that already. Um, if you look at the one thing that I wanted to point out is if you look at the conditions that we worked on when Mr. Collins came to us um and wanted our blessings basically on changing the zoning of these properties. Um it was it was to be able to improve on the small bakery that's been a great neighbor. We have no complaints about them. Um the social security building that was there was a great neighbor. Um we had no complaints about them. Um, if you look at the conditions, they're basically C2, so he can have that bakery expand. It's not able to expand now. It's out of um, it was grandfathered in. That's why it's allowed to even be there operating on a C1 property now. So, the C2 is what he needed for what he envisioned. um low intensity restaurants, maybe a sandwich place, a salad place, something like that with some residences above. Um so so the conditions are basically C1 conditions as far as if you look at intensity, the size of the buildings, um the hours of operation, you know, closing at 10 p.m. versus being able to stay open until 2 am when they back up within 35 feet of

residential properties. I get it. It's on Mson. We understand that. Um, we understand the master plan, but taking something that is now residential zoned and bumping it all the way up to where anything goes with the C2. I trust Mr. Collins. We have a mutual respect, friendship. But if something were to happen where these properties didn't get developed and they were zoned C2, if they didn't get developed to his vision, anything would go there and anything going there is not appropriate in our neighborhood. So, we want to support this project. Um, and hopefully we'll, like he said, we'll be able to figure something out. Um, kind of blindsided by this. um thankful to him that he let me know that this meeting was coming up. He's a good guy. But um we haven't we haven't figured it out yet. And I can tell you the neighborhood would not support a C2 zoning for those properties. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other public comment on this item? Okay, seeing none, closing public comment. Just as a point of clarification, it is already C2A. So, it's not residential right now, that zone. Um, so I just wanted to make that clarification, but that designation is conditional and set to expire. Correct. But it's not like as of today going from residential up to commercial. It's already kind of been in this middle ground. Um any other discussion by the group? Jackie?

Um a clarification in terms of tree canopy. Is there a 35% tree canopy uh requirement here? And if so, is that for each of the three parcels individually or is that treated as as a unit?

Um I don't have it. I could look it up to 35%. That sounds about right for that district. So, I think you're in the right area. Um, it would depend on how it gets developed. So, if it's a development that's going to span all three and then we would have to combine the parcels and then it would be 35% for the new parcel that is created. Um, if one parcel is developed on its own, then it's 35% of that parcel alone. So, um, the intent that has been expressed to us is to probably eventually combine these and have a singular development there. Um, we don't have that application confirmed yet. That's the conversations that have took place. So I I imagine in the future we'll be having a discussion about 35% in the totality of the three lots. Thank you.

Any other conversation on this item? Yeah, Mitch, to that last point, yes, one of the three lots is um virtually entirely forested, but if they were merged, uh it would seem simplest to just count uh existing forest as part of that 35%. And even at the 65% development of the rest of the parcel, most of that forest would still stay there. But uh we do not know how future development could would um unfold.

Um and then to to clarify it confirm it is 30%. Thank you.

Not to open up a can of worms, but I can't help but see some parallels to uh what we did last year along Union Street when we had an applicant brought to us uh about a specific parcel, in this case, three parcels. um that we can see yes that doesn't meet uh what seems to be a very logical future use of that area and also is inconsistent with our future land use in our master plan but that character is not unique to these parcels. The Mson Avenue corridor is mostly zoned HR, but it does have a patchwork of C1, C2, C3, C2A, a multifamily development scattered in there. And uh I don't know how quickly the applicant uh wants to move on this. If uh he wants um that public hearing and potential action to happen on March 3rd, then it can do so. But we can also use this as a springboard to see uh what makes sense as a more unified or cohesive uh zoning outlook for Mson Avenue. Since yes, uh this is not spot zoning. It's reszoning to what's right next to it, but it is also not uh what is across the intersection,

which is a higher use.

Yeah. I um Yeah, I thought about that myself. I also thought about the conversation we had, I don't many years ago about 8th Street when we were reszoning 8th Street because that butts right up to the Boardman neighborhood and we were talking about what the north side of 8th Street looks like and what that density should look like and what we want it to look like. Um, and there was a lot of thought and discussion around that. So, it is there are parallels for me. Um, C2 makes sense. I hear you, Mitch, that we should use it as a springboard. I think that there are also other things that I would like to address before we start looking at that of like the uses conversation like that is something we very obviously all want to talk about and think about. Um, so yes and like maybe I think is kind of where I'm getting at with that. Um, this makes sense to me. It's like there's a lot of C2s in this little chunk. There's some C3s. There's HR like which are higher densities. There's C2 just a C3 just down the way. Like it it makes sense. Um. Yeah.

May I ask for a suggestion? Um

I will say uh Commissioner Treadwell is consistent in that you have brought this up on Mountain Avenue number of times due to the patchwork development and this this has come up and I think it's a very warranted discussion. Um I think it's one that probably will have a much longer timeline. I mean, I think at this point you have an applicant in front of you um asking for a specific reasoning related to a potentially expiring action on that request will determine whether he can keep moving forward on his development plans or not. So, with that, you may want to consider the application and wait till right now we only have half a planning commission present. We have two vacancies, some turnover, get the get that taken care of and have a full body to have a deeper dive and have more insights into that. um something for consideration.

Great points. Okay, seeing no movement, I think we can move on to our next agenda item if Yep. So, pleases. No action. So, we'll have that public hearing. The public hearing. Yeah. Third. Um, so we will have that notice ran in the newspaper um, at least 15 days beforehand and we will mail the notices to the occupants and property owners within 300 ft. Let them know. So we'll see you again in March.

Thank you all. Okay, moving on to item B. Consideration of a site plan review submitted by TXC Great Lakes Fund LP DBA Tommy's Express for an automatic enclosed car wash, vacuum stations, and mat washing building located at 1054 and 1060 East Front Street.

Yeah, thank you. Uh these properties are the site of the former uh Burger King, which has since closed in the Cup of Joe at the southwest corner of Garfield and Front. Um this property is zoned C3. So the use that has been requested is a use allowed by right which means if all the standards are met then it has to be approved. It does not have a subjective component to it. Um so again the applicant is proposing to construct an automatic car wash one where you just drive your vehicle in and it conveyors you through it and out the other side. Um it will have a number of vacuuming stations as you see in there as well as that mat washing building on the outside. Um so they have submitted their plans. uh staff has worked with them um both in our department and other departments individually. They have come to the city's design team. Um there is a curb cut on Mson at or yeah east front at that point. Um that has been approved by MDOT because that is their trunk line. So they have the location on that. Um they had all the necessary information turned in. So with any site plan review um there are standards that uh have to be met. So those have been itemized. The forms have been distributed to the different departments with their comments and those have been enclosed through in there. So as is typically the case, we ask the applicant to provide a response to each of those standards and then staff provides one as well. I just want to point out that that is a starting point for your consideration. This is done in a way to aid you in establishing a finding of fact, but by no means are you forced to um accept at, you know, full face value the the staff report. Um, however, if you do choose to modify it, you'll notice in the um motion language, it it is important to itemize which standards aren't met. And um I think it's also important to remind the commission that in establishing a finding of fact, there should be information or data to support whether the standard has been met or not

met. And that should be part of the ultimate discussion that occurs. Um so you'll see there is a curb cut provided on Garfield. Uh there are two on the alley. Um these are the locations of the current curb cuts that exist on these properties. So they're not new curb cuts. Um but it is a new use and of course those curb cuts were permitted at a time long ago when you know the context may have changed. But with that said um we do go through and put in the um allowed uses that we have there. the special requirements. We've detailed those as well. That would apply in consideration. Um those are actually what we look for after the site plan has been approved before we issue a land use permit. So after a site plan's approved, they'll come back to the individual permitting department and then we'll look through again and make sure that everything is met. We've been in a lot of discussion, especially our zoning administrator, with them on those specific requirements as they relate to not only um the sighting of the building and stuff, but as well as like landscaping and things of that nature. Um and with that, we do have representatives from the development team here today, and I'll turn it back over to you, chair, but I think they may be um willing to to discuss with you.

Sure. Do we want to go straight to the applicants, or do we have anything to say first, Mitch? Uh yes. Uh Director Winter, you said that MDOT had approved the curb cut, which yes, both curb cuts are existing along uh what East Front Street. Had they offered specific feedback on the curb cut on Garfield? No, they only um referenced their own trunk line. Yeah. So, and on that one specifically, uh Mat has not M. trunk line, but it is still closer than their own standards for uh

Yeah. But they they typically will only comment on their own. Um they have uh required that the one on east front be a right in write out only. Um so that was a condition of their approval. Anything else before we go to the applicant? Okay. Turn it over to the applicant for a couple minutes.

Thank you very much. My name is Brett Dr. I'm the vice president of real estate at Tommy's Express. I'm also one of the investors in this project. I have with me Ethan Mao who's our project manager and Steve Woody who is from Natervelt, our civil here to uh hear any questions or comments that you might have. But really appreciate the opportunity to present this project to uh Traverse City uh for some of those on staff, some of those um in some of the various departments. You know, we've been looking at this site and sites in Traverse City and Grand Traverse in general for about four and a half, five years. We looked at the site originally about four years ago. Cost was a concern at that point. Uh the cost has come, I'll just say, within reason. Um and uh we have the opportunity to purchase. We do have this site under contract currently. Uh we do appreciate working with staff, specifically Sean and Dave. Um and then all the department heads in trying to get a site that is really atypical for us in that our design um generally does not have a building up on the road like you're is required in this district and so forth. So, I think we've uh we've gone through a number of iterations and a number of um hoops to jump through to get to uh one that does satisfy your ordinance and does get to a point where uh you can feel comfortable in in knowing that you have a very nice product on the corner of Front and Garfield. Um just a little bit about Tommy's. Tommy's is a 50 plus year old company. We've been in cart washes equipment business for over 55 years. We started franchising these uh Tommy's Express locations about seven years ago and there's 270 franchise locations across the country and those are growing. There's another about 400 in the works across the country and now the

world. We're in Paris and in Canada as well. So, um, on top of that, um, these sites here we're very proud of because West Michigan sites are are part of our corporate sites and we are West Michigan based company. We are West Michigan through and through. We don't see Traverse City any different. We many of us have vacation homes and homes in this in the market here and are very proud of that. Um, a lot of the investors in the project are are uh locals here to the to the area as well for for summer homes and so forth. So, um, having said that, we're making our way in this direction. We've been, uh, we have a site open in Gaylord now, a site open in Cadillac, and those communities have been very excited and very receptive to it and so forth. It's a little different. It's not your your dad's car wash or my dad's car wash, for sure, where you'd have wait half the morning and Saturday morning to, you know, get a car wash. It's not the same as a lot of car washes you see now with long lines and and things of that nature. We see those here in West Michigan specifically with the snowy day followed by the sunshine. We'll still have busy days, but that's what these are built for. These are state-of-the-art. Uh these uh these models that we have, in fact, this is the flagship model here can process well over 200 cars an hour. So, you don't have the long lines. You don't have the cues. And then we have staff that if you ever get to that point, they're redirecting traffic within the site and andor blocking off entrances or so forth so that you're not getting in stacking into the road and so those are generally the concerns of a lot of planning commissions and I appreciate the position you're in Ottawa County. So I appreciate the con the things you have to take into consideration and uh in in reviewing this project. So, I um I think you presented a very complete project. Um I don't necessarily feel that we have to, but if you would like us to, our our

civil engineer is willing to walk you through the entire project. Um and certainly here to answer any questions, address any concerns. Um we have a fairly short due diligence period on this project. the seller was willing to um give us another shot at taking a look at the site and we've eaten up a lot of that time with um staff and departments trying to get to a product that you could be proud of, we could be proud of and make work. So um appreciate your consideration of it tonight and hopefully we can come to a consensus that uh one way or another that uh we can move forward or not. So uh having said that, I'm here to answer any questions if you would like. We may do a full presentation or we're prepared to do that. Um the your packets were fairly complete. So if you need any additional, let me know and we're here for questions.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I don't personally need a full presentation. Does anybody else have a want for that from the group? Okay. Thank you. Um questions for the applicant. Let's start there to try to keep it an organized flow. Jackie. Um, actually I think this is a question for staff. Um, within the staff form that that was in our packet, you were recommending approval with conditions, but um, could you give me a quick thumbnail summary of the conditions that were recommended by staff?

Yeah, the only condition recommended at this time specifically from staff was the combining of the lots into one lot for a single development. So that is listed in the sample motion if that is one supported by the planning commission. But there is the opportunity you know the planning commission can within limits apply other conditions as well. I I say go for it, Jackie. There's If you've got him, go for him. I got didn't see any movement yet, so you go, Jackie. Thank you.

Um I I needed some help with clarification. Um it um we're we're treating this as a zone C3 community center. When I looked at the future land use map out of the master plan, it seemed to me that I was seeing this as C2 neighborhood center. Can can I get clarification on that, please? So the future land use map in a master plan are the general locations of land use categories that would be necessary to get the the vision of the master plan achieved. Um those are used to inform zoning amendment decisions to codify the regulations to get that at this time that work has not been done. So we operate under the existing C3 zoning that's in place. So this is considered compliant with the master plan zoning at this point in time.

No, because we haven't changed the zoning on it yet. Yes. So it's compliant with the existing regulations which is C3. C3. Correct. Right. Yes. Okay. So we are judging against C3 standards. Correct. Correct. Yes. Now that gives the planning commission the opportunity in the future to consider a reasonzoning under those prescriptions and recommendations of the master plan and based on what you recited from it then C2 might be the likely designation you know but that would be for a future discussion of the planning commission.

Okay, great. Thank you. Um, obviously I have I have questions regarding um traffic counts and um noticed on the site plan that there were a number of of spots where it was indicated that um review was needed by the Grand Traverse Road Commission. Um, and I I would like to know if there's any information available about whether this business is likely to create a net increase in um is trip ends the correct metric to be using here to evaluate traffic. Um, but I I I am interested if we are indeed putting through um clean cars at the rate of 200 per hour. That's a little more than three per minute. Um, you know, looking at the franchise site and extrapolating some numbers, if the average uh revenue, gross revenue retail is 2.2 million for one of these franchises, that it translates into about 150,000 uh car washes annually. And um I' I' I'd like to know how we're how we plan to evaluate the impact on traffic. I can address that a little bit too. So, first of all, I just want to make sure that uh I address when you talk about the 200 car per hour that it's built to do that. It can do that, can handle those busy days. The average day is probably going to be less impact than what the Burger King and the Cup of Joe is going to have as far as traffic car and cars through there. um your your numbers are about right in terms of what you know those an average car wash should be doing. You know whether it's 150,000 cars or a year or what. Um I will suggest though that you know with

all due respect that this corridor specifically this intersection has been has been uh studied extensively by MDOT and the road the road network there. Um, and part of the reason that we walked away from the site two and a half years ago was because of the work that was going to be proposed on Front Street. It was taking quite a bit of the property. It widened the front street there and then it was going to require us to go to a ride in ride out. So, we've already had the one restriction there in terms of well, first of all, we have less rightway and we have a ride in ride out on Front Street. And we agree with it. We think it's appropriate. We do and we think that's fine. Um, but we also believe the the the Garfield intersection has functioned fine. Um, it's still the it's still a product of you will only go somewhere where you feel comfortable or where you know. Um, if you see a big line, you're probably not going to go to that to that site that day. Um, if you know that you can use the alley and it's easier, that's fine. We just need another point of egress basically egress from the site and specifically our ma our vacuum aisle there so that doesn't dead end versus using the alley. I always thought it was a shame that the Burger King sign had to have on their sign permanently on their sign use the alley. I mean that's not a a road network if you will. So um I think Steve had something to mention about the traffic and traffic study. We can do traffic studies all we want. We can conduct traffic studies and they probably say something different than than what you would do, but um we have not had those issues. That's why we built the wash the way we did. That's why we have the exact flow around the wash, the turn radiuses, everything that's in there is built specifically for uh ease of traffic because if they can't get in and out of that site easily, they're not coming back. And we

need that. our our member our our revenues are based on club memberships and you need to have somebody that wants to come back, wants to pay on a monthly basis to be able to use that car wash. That's the other thing about the club membership is it does even those times out because you know that you don't have to go on that one day that probably everybody else is going. You can come back at any time and you also know it's only takes three minutes to get through. So it's pretty easy way to do it. So I with all due respect if if I think it's been studied to death and uh unfortunately um if that's a condition of the planning commission um I don't know that we'll have the time and that this project will go through but it's something we can discuss.

I'm sorry Steve.

Uh commissioners, my name is Steve Whitty from Nederveld. We're the design engineer for the site plan. Uh thank you for your comments and your consideration tonight. Um, again, thank you to staff. They've been great to work with. Just a couple of things on the access. Uh, as you already indicated, I have been in discussions with MDOT on the project as a whole. Um, now their jurisdiction is just Front Street, but they did review the entire plan since Garfield is not under their jurisdiction. They're not going to comment on that. So, they didn't. Uh, but they did comment that the design of the driveway, the way I configure it with the pork shop island being a right in, right out only is what they were looking for. And then you noted on the plan that I say subject to MDOT approval, subject to road commission or city approval. I do that on literally 100% of my plans. And the reason for that is because we do not get permits until we have site plan approval. So, so I put that note on there to indicate to a municipality that we need to get permits in their final approval yet. So, that's why I put that there. Um, the other thing I will point out on access is uh we the location of the driveway off Front Street is in the same location as the existing drive. Again, it'll be right in right out. And the location of the driveway on Garfield is the location of the existing driveway. and we're we're eliminating one arguably two driveways off of the alley. So we are reducing the amount of alley connections. Um so wanted to bring that out to your up to your attention. And then last thing I was going to say is we have on other Tommy's site um had police and Bandon Brink do traffic studies just to give you an idea. The traffic studies that they've done on I think three different locations. their trip generation is a total of during the peak hour is a total of roughly 100 vehicles. Um and a trip is considered either entering or exiting a site. So they basically said the peak hour would be roughly 50 vehicles entering and 50

vehicles leaving. That's the other reports that they've done. I would anticipate that trip generation is would be similar if they were to do one for this site. And then the last thing I'll point out on trip uh trips and traffic and stuff, although you do have some people that will be live away from the car wash and think, "Oh, I'm going to get my car washed. I'm going to drive there." Most of the traffic is actually already on the roadway network. Very few people are sitting at home thinking, "Ah, I'm bored. I'm going to go drive go, you know, drive two miles and out of my way and go to a car wash." So there that is there there is that factor involved, too. Um, so if if there as uh Brent indicated or Brett indicated, we do really would like to have conditional approval tonight to keep the project moving forward due to the tight time frame involved in the due diligence. Uh, but if you have any questions on the site plan or engineering or anything like that, I'd be more than happy to help you there. So, thank you again for your time.

Thank you. Other Do you have more questions, Jackie?

Oh, yes. But I'd sure like to give other people a chance. Mitch, you go and then we'll go back to J. I have a question about um site selection because I understand this is an area that does have uh two driveway has had two drive-through businesses does have uh high traffic counts but looking at other Tommy's locations in Michigan including the ones in um Gaylord and Cadillac that you mentioned they tend to be further from the central core um the one in Cadillac is not in Cadillac itself. It's in Harrington Charter Township. Uh the one in Gaylord is in in the city, but it is a location, I would say, uh analogous to further south along the Garfield Avenue corridor where you do have uh much you still have very high traffic volumes, but you do have um a lot more of those classic C3 um autocentric commercial uses. And it just seems like uh for what is undoubtedly very valuable land so close to the bay uh why a car wash is seen as uh more economical than other metal options.

Yeah, I appreciate that uh question 100%. So, first of all, this is uh would be one of multiple sites in the market. So, this wouldn't be a single site where everybody that a Tomy's membership would have to go to. Certainly, it could be anybody visiting from Cadillac, from Gaylord could visit it and uh and use the membership there. However, um the zoning is is part of it. This is one of the only corners that permitted the zoning. Uh we did look at some other sites in in the market that did not have the zoning by right to be able to do this and um and I think that's also the part of the reason that the price came down on the site is because it did try to do mixed use multifamily other uses. In fact, I think the ticker this morning is that the ticker is that your local

um had had mentioned regarding something regarding that too. uh where the broker even mentioned that, you know, the price was reduced. We've had other ones, they they don't they just don't pencil out. Um even our project is is one of the higher cost ones to be able to do that. Um but it is it's a convenience item. That's why it's different. That's why you don't um maybe equate it to some other areas. Um we don't equate it to further south on Garfield. We need to be in the middle of the traffic. Like I said, it's not your destination. It's not somewhere you're going to go to automatically. We want you'd be driving by on your way to drop the kids off to school or way home or wait your lunch hour, be able to do it on a lunch hour. It's a convenience item. It's top of the mind. I'm driving by. I I know I can get in and out of there in three minutes. So, that's why it's a little different here. Um, and we all and we think we're state it's a state-of-the-art product and it's something that you can be proud of on a even a prominent corner like this. So, and the design and the the additional elements that uh we work through as staff and with the department other additional departments I think is going to make it really sharp Jackie unless Jerry do you have something Jerry go

yeah so I live about 700 ft from this site um when I looked at the layout cuz like drive through this intersection all the time when before where it currently stands you have you know you can't get to the Burger King lot from Cupa Joe. Um I mean that whole intersection's a little chaotic in general. Um, but just looking at the site plan and the curb cuts, I mean, it does allow for a lot of ingress, egress, I guess. Like the Burger King, barely anyone turned off Front Street into there anyway. Um, the alley would probably be the main point of entry. Um anyway, I'm just looking at like it almost seems like it's more config it it's better configured than it is now. I guess I would say for a drive-thru based on the site plan. So, um and I just think even that cup of Joe like if it fills up people just don't turn in there. Um, also I was thinking the green mitt, which is the other car wash, and they only have one entrance and exit essentially. Um, and that one seems I mean I know people turn left out of there. They're not supposed to, but it's also a larger lot.

Mhm.

So, I don't know. I guess I'm not as I don't know what the I get that maybe people don't want a car wash here, but I mean in terms of the flow and the site and it's been sitting there for a couple years, I don't know. It's tough for me to I'm trying to gather my thoughts because I I don't like this. I'll be frank. Like I walk and bike on Garfield south on Garfield quite a bit with my daughter and the trailer and stuff and like having to having that entryway right next to the alley is incredibly dangerous. Um that's my biggest concern right there. And already this intersection is horrible. Like anecdotally I walk it a lot and it's it's terrible. So, and I'm not saying that like this is going to break that, but I just think it could be better. I mean, I understand that it's a use by right and everything, but I'm I'm not a fan of the the driveway being that close to the alleyway. I also have concerns about the alley, too. Like, I you know, nobody's going to use the driveway off a front street, and very few people will. So, they're going to exit and enter off of the alley. like who's who's paying to have the alley repaved for, you know, as much use as it's getting. It's already in terrible shape,

you know, like so like that's one of my concerns, too.

I'll address one of those concerns in your packet. You'll notice if you can zoom in enough, maybe uh we are actually proposing to repave the alley to and to improve it. So, um, yeah, we agree. It shouldn't it shouldn't have to be that way to have a commercial business that has required to have access off of an alley. Sorry. But so, and yeah, understand your concerns. Do we have Sorry, Jackie. I had one just for a second. So, if we're looking at some of the imagery, you have kind of like the snake line. So, then you you have the the building footprint and then you have the curve and you have a line and then you have the vacuums. If and when the lines are backed up, they're like 20 cars. Do they then go are you envisioning them going up against the vacuums? Yeah.

Or are you Okay. I just wanted to kind of get that or out the alley. Yeah. Okay. I mean, if you look at the amount of stacking in that queue, there's such amount of stacking. Uh Tommy's, we have what we call a vacuum concier. There's always somebody out in that area. Oh, because we've got the three the three lanes feeding into three lanes of stacking. I missed that part. So, you're going to have that and um yeah, two of them are are club only lanes. So, those are just consistently moving. The one up closest to the building is the cashier lane. That's the one that could possibly only get backed up by timing it takes to do a transaction if that was the case. Okay. Um if it gets too long, that vacuum concierge is directed to direct traffic back internally only.

Okay. um followup the so and this is outside of our purview I'm just interested so hours of operation and like staff so what are the hours of operation and you do say there's staff on hand most the time y so just wanted to kind of conceptualize that the beauty of our model is that it it doesn't take a ton of people to run it but we'll probably be employing 15 to 20 people um in local people in the market um we're very proud of our local managers and so forth. In fact, you may have noticed the Gaylord manager is up for small business person of the year as a as our local manager.

Um it um it definitely doesn't require too many people, three, four people at the most on a given shift. There'll be a few more on shift changes and that type of thing. So um it doesn't take uh a ton in terms of that. So I'm sorry. Another question. Hours of operation. Um, generally it's going to be 6 or 7 until 8 or 9. Okay. I just was making sure it wasn't 24/7 like the one that I go to, which then could be problematic in terms of staffing. So, yeah, they have a certain minimum number of hours and this is a corporate store, so we won't we won't run anymore.

Perfect. Thank you, Jackie. Um, back to the traffic issues. I I have to uh support Commissioner Brian, in terms of concerns about um pedestrian and also cyclist safety, um the um current curb cut that leads to Cupa Joe I believe is a right turn only ingresson um situation and it crosses a um a marked uh cycling lane. It is operating in an area with heavy pedestrian traffic both crossing the road. Um there is a a heavily trafficked and now open yearround ice cream shop directly across from that. So having having that curb cut potentially transformed into both ingress egress and left turn right turn would be a major concern for me and I think also would be another reason for us to to request a real solid and updated uh traffic study. um as you mentioned that that entire stretch of roadway was reconstructed quite recently and so um I think it it it behooves us to be um alert to things that um may have changed as a result of that that redesign. I think it was brought up by one of your departments. Um the sidewalk and pedestrian and then the crosswalks across those that will those will be redesigned and then have the um have the handicapped um um notifications, the pavement markings and things of that nature. So the sidewalk across every curb cut will have that as well. So

I have more. Mhm. Keep going.

Um I noticed within our our C3 um um ordinances regarding um you know size of building relative to frontage. Um I think it's a 477 foot frontage on on uh East Front Street. And that in order to reach the 60% building threshold of that 477 square ft that 30% was coming from the building itself, its length and that the other 30% was actually coming from a um 4ft tall decorative fence um that has 8 foot um row iron gaps in it. And and interestingly those foot gaps are also treated as transparency in order to meet the C3 requirements that 40% of the street side frontage of the building um be transparent. So um and and actually that that requirement I think is uh requires that it be actual glazing. So, I don't know, maybe maybe our planning director could comment on some of those aspects.

Yeah. So, on the the openings of 40% um it doesn't have to be glazing. It windows or street level activity. So, it doesn't have to be glass window panes. So, a fence would be street level activity.

Yeah. And other things mentioned include public atriums, display spaces, pedestrian entrances, internal circulation, sidewalks. All of those can be used as ways to what they're trying to accomplish there is not just a solid uninterrupted wall. Um so it does not have to be just solely glass, but there is that 40% and that one standard. Yes, it's um in 1344.09 09 and it is number two and that is the one that um the building should occupy 60% of the property with and that is challenging. It does give staff the opportunity to um determine whether that's practical or not. So we've been trying to meet them in the middle because in this case this is a pre-designed fabricated building that really is a shell that's covering a piece of equipment that is doing the actual work. So, um, in working with them, this is the largest model that they have. Um, and unlike many of their other locations that I have seen, they typically orientate them perpendicular to the street, not parallel. So, this is a change to meet ours. Plus, our lots are typically only 160 ft deep because of our platted alleys. And so, to get that circulation, prevent the stacking, uh, that that kind of dictated that horizontal or parallel orientation to the street. So this is um a way that we felt they could meet it in spirit given the practical limitations of how these type of buildings function as a shell covering uh the piece of equipment.

Um so may may I be sure I understand this is staff discretion.

It does it does allow for that in the ordinance. Yeah. But this is a case where it's actually up to you guys to decide um as one of the things. But that is again where we were trying to work within just the practicality of that situation. Now I will They've tried to explore other options to meet that more uh at face value such as lpping off a piece like creating a separate lot. Um that was reviewed by assessing uh that was not approved by assessing because they were afraid that it would create an unbuildable lot. So they didn't want to be the city be stuck in something that couldn't be built. So, um, they came back to the drawing board and we as a team, uh, staff with them explored what options could be utilized to try to meet that.

Mitch, sorry, Jackie. No worries.

Yeah, I wasn't actually going to bring up the wall, but thank you, Commissioner Anderson, for doing so. uh because I find it uh very odd and uh frankly a legal fiction to call uh for purposes of how our zoning code was written a wall with some fence in it as equivalent to a building with windows in it. Yes, there is flexibility that it doesn't have to be uh part of a building and it doesn't have to be windows. But my plain reading of our zoning language is that you uh have an activated space that looks like a building. Uh do we have any other cases uh where a wall or fencing has been used to meet these requirements?

No, but there was an instance where the planning commission approved a true north gas station and allowed the canopy to which isn't a building. It's just a roof to satisfy the 60% requirement. So, but it's still a covered space. You can stand under that canopy and you don't get rained on. I mean, you could do the same with a you're just doing it in a car here, but it's just you're under a space, right? No, you're next to a fence. This is as you're pulling in.

I thought there was a covering. There's a roof covering on the building portion, but Oh, you're talking about the other Okay.

the additional fencing to meet the lot frontage. Jackie, noise and light. I have um concerns with 15 um open to open open to the air vacuum stations that apparently could be running from is it 6:00 am to 900 pm uh right across the alleyway from R1B residential uh buildings. Um I I think I saw on the uh site plans that there is a plan for was it 22 exterior lights on on that parcel and um and that despite that whoever wrote the read someone red

Leonard read yeah read Leonard um issued a disclaimer saying they could not be responsible for safety and security with that lighting. plan. Um, can you comment on that, please?

A couple things there. I'm going to back up half a step on the the building frontage, um, the transparency and the, uh, the 60% frontage. With this being quite a bit of frontage on both front and Garfield, this corner lot, it's very difficult for that to be achieved. Um, if you look at the transparency itself, the calculations that were done had, we have 43% transparency. that does include the openings in the fence or in the in in the wall in front the four foot wall. Um it was suggested and I think it's a good idea. It was suggested from staff to provide those 8ft openings to let people kind of peek through make it look better. We don't have a problem doing a solid wall there, but again I think it would look better keeping those uh uh those 8 foot gaps there. I know it's hard to tell from an architectural standpoint or architectural plan standpoint, but we did submit some photos of an existing site. Um, I drive by Tommy's Express all the time and I never not one time have I looked at a Tommy's Express thought they don't have a lot of glass. The whole the whole product along the frontage to me screams that yeah, there's a lot of transparency in glass. So, we have done what we can to address the 40% transparency. We've added that that wall to provide for the the additional screening and to give the the feeling that they're that the building frontage is longer uh to meet the 60%. You'll notice that the 4ft wall that's proposed, it matches the bottom uh CMU block that's in the building itself. So that continues on. So we feel that that will be uh very attractive. Um, from a noise and a lighting standpoint, Red Leonard does all of the lighting plans for Tommy's Express throughout the country. Um, I don't think they have 22 lights, but maybe they do. Uh, but they look at the ordinance and what they normally do is your your ordinance has a minimum or I'm sorry, a maximum average lighting across the site. I forget if

that's one foot candle or one and a half. And typically that they consider that not safe because it's not light enough. Um, I have I have seen that elsewhere too. other plans non red Leonard I've seen other phototric people say the same thing when they see that low lighting intensity that doesn't mean municipality you need to increase you need to change your ordinance you need to do something else it's just their disclaimer that they put on it because they don't want somebody you know mugged or something when they're out there when there's not enough lighting so that's just their recommendation that's not Tommy's express saying hey there city of Trevor city there's something wrong with your zoning ordinance that's just a statement that Red Leonard puts on their plans when it gets that low. I believe the lighting does now meet the standards of your ordinance. Uh so we meet your your requirements. And then from a noise standpoint, uh the vacuums do create some noise. Uh the vacuums themselves, they're right on the pedestals. So Tommy's has done noise studies before and right at the the the canister for the vacuum that decibel level is 88 dB which is fairly high but it it really really reduces as you move away from that canister. Um there are Tommy's expresses right adjacent or nearby residential. Uh we've never to my knowledge I don't think there's ever been a complaint on that. The other thing I'll point out on the vacuums is uh between the vacuums and the residential, there's the vacuum space, a drive aisle, and then the city does require a 5-ft tall solid wall all along between the vacuums and where the residential will be, and then a 10-ft green space where we'll be plantings and other fac um other landscaping as well. So, there is some space there. There is the screening. Um, and then uh again realize that it's not 24 hours a day operation. Um, and then the last thing I will say is that this use that's proposed and I realize some of you do

not like a car wash. A car wash is a permitted use by right. It's not even a special land use. So we do meet in our opinion all of the standards and it's a by right use. It's not we're not here saying this is a special land use. The use is questionable. It's a buy right use. So again appreciate all your time and your comments tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Jackie. Um, could you provide some more details about that barrier wall along the alleyway and um how wide exactly the two ingress egress um gaps in that wall are going to be?

Yeah. So, so answer your last question first. The gaps that I or the driveway uh throat width I have is 24 feet. That's the minimum that I personally like for two-way traffic. So, one way in, one way out. So, both of those are 24 foot wide. Um, the wall itself, we we haven't it hasn't been designed yet as far as the material. Um, Tommy's did uh send a kind of a composite wall that gives the appearance of masonry or concrete to city staff. City staff didn't like that at all. So, it's not going to be that. Um, so I'm assuming it'll just be a standard CMU block or uh masonry wall. It has to be. So, it's not going to be, you know, wood fence or anything like that. That's going to be a solid wall and I believe the requirement is that that has to be five feet tall. Um, and that's per your ordinance. That's Yeah.

Thank you.

Yeah, it's interesting. I'm not sure why, but the the ordinance does require if you have um the outdoor vacuums and you have a bar district behind you or across an alley that you have to have a wall minimum of five feet, but not to exceed six feet. So, I I don't know where that six foot limit came in. Um, on the topic of the phototric plan, just to affirm that they do meet the the ordinance standards, um, they had submitted one, Dave gave him some feedback, they modified it, it meets all the requirements of the the lighting ordinance. Along those same lines, to piggyback on what Sean said, the first one that was submitted by Red Leonard, it was too intense. So that's why I think in part two why Red Leonard, their second one put a disclaimer saying, "We don't think this is light enough." So I think that's probably where it generated from. Jackie.

Um materials um both for the the building and the landscaping. Um help me Sean please. Um in C3 I know for other developments we've had discussions about natural brick and natural stone and those being predominant um portions of the building cladding. I don't know if that applies at this site or not, but I I'd like clarification on that. And I also noticed within the landscaping plan that there was uh an indication of using geoexiles. Um obviously microlastics that close to the bay would be a concern. And then I'd also like some clarification about the storm water retention plans. Um I at first I thought it was fully going to be contained on site and then there was something in in uh the packet materials that indicated it was going to be equivalent to the current storm water retention capacity. So if I could understand more about both all of those issues.

All right. You might have to remind me I'll start with materials. I think okay materials those discussions were uh that's a specific requirement to the C4 district and this being C3 it doesn't have that one yeah the downtown one and that's aligning with uh some of the historic development patterns and materials that you see down there um question on the landscape landscaping materials I noticed um some geoexile and and am concerned about whether that's plastic based

um I don't have information on the the material of it. We don't have any prohibition in our ordinances preventing it. It's a lot of times um required for stability of soil and that's why it gets incorporated. Um and then the last question was on um storm water retention. Are they are they meeting the storm water retention uh capabilities of the two current buildings which are being demolished or are we getting better at this as we go?

I can address that. So So what uh the site right now has no outlet. So there's two smaller storm water holding areas along front and then as a part of the Burger King property they actually have three rows of 36 inch storm pipe along the alley. Uh so what our project does is um we're we're increasing the amount of imperous area by under 1,000 square foot. So it's a very small increase in the amount of impervious area. And then what I did is I calculated the existing storage volume on the existing site. So I figured out how much volume those two smaller holding areas above ground can handle or to hold. I figured out what the underground detention that's there right now for Burger King can hold and then what I'm proposing is substantially higher volume than that. So what will happen is uh pending site plan approval a geotechnical report will be done. As a part of that geotechnical report there'll be permeability tests that will measure basically how fast water soaks into the ground and that'll help me confirm that the site will work. Um, I can tell you that after this project, the way that it's designed now, when it gets built, there will be less water leaving the site than is currently leaving the site. And my guess is right now there's no water leaving the site. Related to that, MD dot where roads, MD dot is extremely, and I mean extremely picky about not letting any water that doesn't go there already onto the road. So, as a part of our final MDOT approval for that write in right out, I guarantee they're going to ask me for drainage calculations and they'll be reviewing it as well. So, to answer your question, after this project, storm water will actually be better than what's out there now.

Yeah, and I can affirm that um the city engineering department has been involved in the discussions on the storm water management system because that's not in the zoning ordinance, police ordinance, and they issue a permit for that. And it is true after they get site plan review they'll move to finalize the hydrocalics and submit that for their permit. Um in 2019 we adopted a new storm water management ordinance. So by construction they will be forced to comply to the new ordinance which is more um prescriptive than what Burger King and Cappa Joe were uh developed under. So that is currently going and until they meet all those ordinance requirements and get a permit by engineering they can't start construction. So that would be the phase that follows after the planning commission.

Okay. And and the guideline for imperous surfaces within C3 is 80%. We believe so. Well, sounds right. And and the site plan that we're seeing now is what percentage impervious? um that we I don't have calculated in front of me yet, but that is where like I know Dave has worked with them on that. Um and he may have the definitions because that is a requirement for the land use permit, not the site plan review. It's 69.7%. Thank you.

Yep. And as I said before, comparing what's out there now to what is proposed, we are adding just under 1,000 square foot of imperous area. So we're adding a little bit of imperous area, but it's very similar to what's out there now. And you are correct, it is 80%. Okay, I'm going to go to public comment and then come back to the board if that's okay with everybody. Okay, so I'm going to open up public comment on this item alone. We'll have general public comment again later, but this is on the car wash. Okay, Justin. Uh, seeing no movement. I'm looking for eyes again. Okay, I'm going to close public comment on No, you're fine. You just have to come up to the podium. State your name, address, and whether or not you're a city resident, and um you'll have three minutes.

Okay. Well, I have more of a question than a comment, but um Katrina Otman, city resident, and I live at 7-Eleven East Orchard, so very close by. Um I guess my question is,

although the proposal meets all of the planning requirements to be allowed to be built in that area, what is still left for the community to do if we just simply don't agree with that usage for that corner of the city? It's near an elementary school. It changes the use of that area for the future. And I don't want to sound too youthful and idealistic, but I think there's some value in the city plan that we have further down the road. And if we put something like this in now, there's a very low chance that we'll ever get it back out if we want to use that space for something better, like something that should be in between an elementary school and a public children's park. Thank you.

You're Thank you. I almost said you're welcome. I don't know why. Um, so we don't typically do a Q&A, but I will say that um we are beholden to our master plan as a body and um and our zoning ordinances and we have discussed as a body on a general rewrite of our ordinances. And this is where I kind of see this falling into alignment is a lot of the uses that are in each of these zones are inherited from previous iterations and previous bodies and I don't think they necessarily reflect what our most recent master plan was trying to address. So, as we and we have decided that one of our goals this year is to do a massive rewrite and that means examining uses in every single district that we have. So, I think that's a really great place to come to a public comment and voice your concerns about what you think should be in a C1 or a C2 or a C3 district. Um, that's the best use. Also, you can email us at any time. We're pretty receptive. Uh, oh, and we have public coffee hours twice a month. We'll get to those later. Um, do you have anything to add?

No, just that the the public coffee hours are a great time to have dialogue and conversation because the formal meetings don't really allow for that. So, that's why the planning commission has taken that directive. But, yeah, I think um, Chair Dur hit it the nail on the head there. you know the uh there was a different two master plans ago that informed the 1999 zoning ordinance that we're operating on as amended. So um there is opportunity and a goal to to address uh those changes prescribed in the master plan this year. Agreed. You're welcome. Any other public comment?

Yeah. Oh yeah. Sorry. You don't ever have to do that. You can just get up and walk to the podium. Well, I'm a resident. I live at 711 East um Orchard Drive. And I'm a walker. And when we're talking about all of this, I'm thinking of walking along um Union Street or Front Street or any of the slightly busier ones coming up to an alley where there's a possibility of eight cars coming out of it at once. When people drive into the restaurant and different places like that, they stay a while. But at a car wash, what is it? 15 minutes? No longer than 25 probably. I don't know how many bays they're planning to have, but I have this vision of El Garfield being crowded because of eight cars leaving the car wash and 15 minutes later more eight cars are going to come out or whatever number the bays are. And that is my concern. I think it's way too busy for that area. And I understand they have mostly put them up and slightly out of the city. This is smack dab in the middle of everything. I don't think it's right, but that's my comment. Can I get your name, please?

Carol. Carol. Thank you. Any other public comment on this item?

Okay, we're going to close public comment on that item. Back to the body. Shay.

Um, I'm going to make the motion, but I have two things. I think we have two applicants in the audience for our two open seats right now. And, uh, second thing, I think this really this confirms for me that like we should really prioritize the rewrite that like I I don't care for this project, but I'm beholden to what it is currently zoned. And there are a lot of things in our ordinances and our codes that don't align with what the community wants. But I am beholden to what it is currently zoned. So I'm going to make the motion uh that the staff report for the site plan review application 26p1 be adopted to establish a finding effect and that the application submitted by TXC Great Lakes Fund LP doing business as Tommy Express to construct an automatic enclosed car wash with vacuum stations and a mat washing building at 1054 and 1060 East Front Street be approved with the following conditions. the two partials be combined as one.

Okay, there's a motion on the floor. Okay, seeing no support.

I think that motion dies. Anything else from this body? Any other motions? Jackie. I'll give a try in the interest of public safety for pedestrians, cyclists, all modes of transportation and um because of concerns regarding alignment with the um frontage requirements and um other aspects of uh fulfillment on the um ordinance requirements. I move that we table this proposal pending the results of a traffic survey and a second staff review of um the discretionary uh approach to the um decorative fencing along the frontage of of uh Front Street.

Can I ask a question? Is table the right term or is it like deferred to defer? Thank you. And I needed help. Um the planning commission needs to provide direction on that with that wall because we've done our work and worked through them with the the the possibilities of what could be done there. So um we would like direction from the planning commission on how you would like to see that achieved. Um my personal direction would be not to allow a 4ft wall to be considered to fulfill the 60% frontage requirement. another possible way for meeting that requirement.

I don't know that I have the expertise or or the stature to uh to be able to offer an alternative.

Okay, Jerry, I mean, this is where I kind of based on what Shay said. I mean, I think it. We're just in a tough spot because it meets

everything and we need to look at what we have. That's what's in front of us. Um, I mean, pretty much the traffic study is always brought up when there's any kind of opposition. Um, and usually they don't always even occur or they don't meet the requirements for it. I've seen it in other projects. So, I guess I can make the motion. I didn't support it. Can I make the same motion? Well, I think for order of operations, Jackie, that was a motion. I think that you made. So, I think we need to wait to see if that gets seconded. Um,

and then come back to the body. Um, full transparency, I am in support of most of your motion, Jackie. I just can't get behind the fencing part because I feel like staff did their due diligence. So if there's I'm open to a friendly Great. Yes.

Okay. Uh I never do these. So, Jackie, would you accept on your motion to defer until we hear back more from the results of a tra of a traffic study, a friendly amendment to only defer for the traffic study and not Yes, the fencing. Okay. Yes, I would. Did I do that right? Was that okay, Jack or Katie? I think so. You're kind of just omitting the fencing part. Yeah. So, it's deferring to complete the traffic study. Yeah. Mr. Chairperson. Yes.

Um I I apolog I don't mean to interrupt. Um tableabling, deferring, whatever it is would probably be worse than a denial because we would still be stuck with trying to figure out something, spending time, spending additional money. Yeah. Without any control of the project. Heard it. It'll go away. I heard. May May I make a suggestion? Um, let's get through Let's get through some things up here first. It might be something that you may be considering. Sure. Okay, I'll hear it.

Um, in the interest of safety, public safety, and understanding what what a traffic study might might produce, perhaps a resolution could be or motion could be to accept as presented. with the exception of the Garfield entrance should a traffic study prove it should be eliminated or reduced. Okay. Um

what what what would a traffic study additionally prove is really what what are we going to gain or lose based on a traffic study? If the goal is to eliminate the Garfield entrance and a traffic study proves that, we're willing to say fine, we'll we'll eliminate it if the traffic study proves that. Okay. And if we could get it conditionally approved based on that, that is the I'm I'm we're fine with that.

Okay. Thank you. We're going to get back to our business. Um, the reason I am in support of this motion is because there is a specific report from a department head that 1366.04 standards for granting site plan approval. She requested that she needed she couldn't make a determination without a traffic study. I think this is an in my opinion an adequate compromise. This is the first time we've seen this. I understand that you're on a time crunch. We often see plans or hear about them uh frequently like we'll hear about them maybe a month or two before they come before us. And this is the first time this body is hearing about this. So I am not beholden to a timeline. I do appreciate and understand that you all are. Um, so I wouldn't want to take too much time. I think that they have capacity to probably turn that over pretty quickly and we meet every two weeks. Um, that's my opinion. Again, that's my opinion as a board person, not chair. So, I'd defer to the group if we all have that kind of consensus. So, going back to the fact that we have a motion on the floor that we have to vote on or have to

Did we hear a support? Yes. My No, my friendly amendment is not support, is it? Oh, no. I'm I'm sorry. We haven't had a second. We haven't had a second. Yeah, we just had my friendly amendment. But does that need a second? Yes. Okay, does I'll support.

Okay, so Jerry is supporting my friendly amendment. So then I will add in exploring this um opportunities for the planning commission with the city engineer and the city attorney. So engineering had some staff changing changes and they do not have their traffic engineer in house anymore. So we do have a traffic firm on retainer or an engineering firm rather for that purpose which is Wade Trim. Um so if it is the will of the commission to do that um that engineer has our I believe contacted them this morning um and put it on their radar uh we would bear the cost of that since we just simply don't have the expertise because of turnover in house and we we already are paying them for this service. So um that would likely be the way that it would play out.

Okay. and then results of that would come back to us and these don't require a public hearing. So it would just come back to us as another site plan review just continuation of the same agenda item. Okay,

Mitch. Yes, just looking at the broader context, this is an intersection that um has been pretty busy for the last 80 years. Um has seen significant changes of uh various uses like the Cup of Joe was once a drive-through bank. Um I I have eaten at that Burger King that was there. I ate at the Arby's that uh existed where the right that is now a dollar uh going to be a dollar store is. Um didn't actually get coffee at Cobau, but I didn't like that uh location specifically because of the driveway configuration and the way that it made it uh unsafe as somebody that would regularly walk and bike along the road Garfield. Uh when I heard that uh that Burger King was closing, I was very excited about the promise that that posed for something a little less uh carentric going in here and something that frankly is in line with our master plan. uh directly across the street is uh a blatant example of how uh in the past Traverse City Planning and Zoning has missed the ball and had to course correct in response to finding out oh that presents the problems. specifically talking about the right aid and how close it is uh to the street which means that the sidewalk is very close and this dumb gear is literally impassible because there's too much snow and ice uh thrown up by the plows. Uh we did, as I say, course correct as a body

and pass the major street setback ordinance in 2019. And this uh site plan is in compliance with that in that it is set farther back and does have a a sidewalk that isn't directly along the road, but it still isn't what our master plan shows for this area. It's not what uh both Joyce for area and in the written portion lays out as the trend that Traverse City, particularly those areas uh closer to downtown and closer to the bay uh should be developing. Uh while and okay the original motion to um also ask questions about the wall. I understand that uh staff did their work and found a solution to meet that lock frontage requirement uh within the design specifications of the applicant. However, uh I'm not um a judge. I feel that uh staff was wrong here. I don't think that getting them to look at it again would give us a different answer, but I disagree that a wall uh meets the intent of uh that lot frontage.

Okay. Thank you. We do have a motion, a live motion. So, I think we should vote on that. Um, but I'll Any other comments? Okay. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? No. Okay. Roll call, please. Katie. Yeah. Give me just a second, please. Sorry. Um, Commissioner uh Treadwell against the motion because I wanted the wall in there. So, I didn't second it. All right. Thank you. Um, Commissioner Treadwell, no. Commissioner Anderson, yes.

Commissioner O'Brien, yes. Commissioner Swanson, yes. Commissioner Dur, yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Anything else on this item? Okay. All very much. Thank you. Um, okay. Does anybody need a five minute break? Are we good to keep going? Okay, great. I think the last two will wrap up.

Perfect. Appreciate it. So, we're on to C, which is introduction of the city of Traverse City and Traverse City Light and Power Capital Improvement Plans 2026, 2027 through 2031, 2032. Yeah. So, there's no action on this item now. Of course, every year the city updates its six-year capital improvement plans, laying uh out projects and improvements throughout the city. Um, CIP projects are not typically maintenance projects. Those just get budgeted, but these are things that really change the landscape or the functionality of the city there. Um, so many of these items, if you've been on the planning commission, you've seen before because they usually start about six years out and every year they bump up. Some of them will sit there in year one, which is the year to possibly budget it for five, ten years. And there's things in there um listed on the planning department that predate my time at the city. And in fact, um so at this time there is no action. We're just introducing it to you. The planning commission has to hold a public hearing on it. So that is scheduled for March 3rd as well. So we'll have two public hearings that night. The one for the resoning and the one for the um CIP. Um you're really looking for consistency with the master plan. You know, a lot of these are kind of more technical projects that deal with utility capacity, things like that, meeting code requirements. Um, so what we have done in the past and what we would ask of the planning commission is to review this um and to send any questions by the end of the day, Friday of this week, to Katie. We then compile all those questions from planning commissions. We distribute them to the appropriate department head of those departments so they can answer them because as planners we we don't know about a lot of that stuff. Um and then we will bring those answers back to you all for the study session um in two weeks from today. Uh does a holiday move that

moves it to Wednesday. So it'll be a Wednesday meeting because of Yep. because of uh President's Day. Yeah. Um and then the planning commission can have a discussion on those. If the responses from staff did not fully answer your question, then we will ask them to come to the the public hearing night to speak on it more. We try to be respectful their time. They're at a lot of meetings that night and stuff. So, if we can get questions answered without them giving up an evening, we try that option first, but they will be willing to come on the third for the night of the actual public hearing. So, with that, um I don't think we have any more to add. Um, but if you have any specific questions, we'd be happy to ask them.

Um, I I had a chance to take a look at the draft and um noted that there was a a new aspect. I think it's new this year, the scorecard, the overall scorecard rating. And I found myself at a bit of a loss to understand how to use those total scorecard ratings uh in in understanding uh the input from staff about priorities. Um so you know for instance uh I just took a look at the planning and u planning department projects and um the open space master site design and planning project had a overall scorecard total of six and the um you know transformation two which is the the the um I think pedestrian and bicyclist crossing over uh Parson's road had a 59 Can you help just give us a little coaching on how we should interpret these scorecard numbers?

That is a great question. I may have to ask the treasurer because she created those in conjunction with the city manager. We had nothing to do with it um with the creation of them. Um and so even the numbers are a little interesting to me because if I remember right, Katie and I went through them together. Each of those variables were like a one to five and you self-rated um one being low in the most case and five. So how five criteria with a score of five each created a score of 59 I don't know but that's the math that they're creating in another department the finance department for this I think is intended to and and correct me well I think it was asset management oh asset management Benjamin

yeah sorry it was asset management and Benjamin um but then Heidi the treasurer put them in because she has the admin access for controlling all that stuff so um I think it was the best attempt that they could do to anticipate OKRs which hadn't been adopted yet at the time when they the staff because we were working on this for months were trying to go through that process. Um and I think it's it's really just there to provide information to the city commission when budgeting items whether things rank on priority because some of those scoring criteria were like critical to life safety and stuff like that. Well, you know, a park improvement might not be critical to life safety as much as getting a water man that can fight fires and stuff like that. So that's what they were trying to do there, but this was their first iteration. So we um if you could um put that in an email with a question to Katie that then we can ask the people that created it because we're not the ones that created that score system.

What do you want in an email beyond what I just asked? Well, then we have a record because we compile them all. Um well, but my point is time is of the essence. Okay. Um you want our responses by end of day Friday. That's three working days from now. Question. So can if you can just tell me what meaning I can make out of those scores in my review that will that will help me get better quality information to we weren't involved in the creation of that. So we can't answer that question at this time. Um how does my putting that in in an email to you help you get the answer faster?

I think it's then that they can forward it to the people that created it. can't just pick up the phone. I mean, I guess they probably could, but it could be lumped in with the questions that we're being asked to, but but I need a response before I can give you my questions. That's the question, though. Yeah. Your question is what they're asking for. My question is an enabling question to be able to assemble my questions for them by Friday. This is this is a pre-existing need before I can give you my questions. So, I need to understand what this information is before I can formulate questions.

Uh, we will do our best to get you an answer. Again, we we don't have the answers for that because we weren't involved in that creation. So, we'll we'll do our best to try to figure an answer for you. Thank you. Any other questions, Jerry? Um, yeah. I'm also not familiar with the score. That must be a new It's brand new. It's never happened before. Um but for our sake right we are just know we we have to review the CIP as the planning commission to make sure that it coincides with

yeah it's a formality like we're just reviewing that these projects are in alignment with the master plan. I think the scorecard's kind of irrelevant but I understand Jackie that you want to use that when you evaluate as a tool. Um, but I don't see how I would really gauge that for myself. Like you're looking at the project to make sure it aligns with the master plan, not necessarily what the project's scorecard total is. I think that's more for staff.

Yeah, that was intended to help inform the budget process by creating a a quantifiable ranking on those, but it you were correct. It has no bearing on the work of the planning commission because they're just at consistency with the master plan. And so in dealing with that, the example that I've used before and I'll just say it again for consistency, like let's say you had an area in your jurisdiction that the master plan called for conservation. So an area where we're not trying to get development to occur uh for the time being and the CIP lays out a plan for building a road to that location, providing utilities, water, and sewer. That would be an investment of public dollars inconsistent with the master plan because that would be an investment reporting development when the master plan's calling for an area not to be developed.

So those are the type of things that the planning commission would look for in their charge under the planning enablement act.

I will take any tool I have to speed this process. So if if some explanation can be made available, I would be appreciative. As I said, time is of the essence. I understand that you need our input very promptly. Right. So, asset management and the city manager together came up with that scorecard. So, I can ask them to provide it to you. But, thank you. Yeah.

Um, okay. I'm going to open public comment on the capital improvement plan. Any public comment on this agenda item? Okay. Closing public comment on agenda item C. Moving on to D, which is the reappoint of Mitch Treadwell and Anna Duria as city planning commission representatives on the Grand Trevors Commons Joint Planning Commission Board. Um, do we need a motion for this or is it just I think a motion is good to have on the record. Okay.

Yeah. Um, I am more than willing to continue. I think I don't need to. I'd love it if somebody else wanted to be on that board since now I'm chair and there's more responsibilities with that than before when I was agreeing to it. However, I do believe that Mitch is a great chair of that body and I definitely think that he should be on there. So, I move to reappoint Mitch Shreadwell to the Joint Planning Commission board. Second. Okay. So, you want us to vote on that and then Sure. Okay. We can talk about the next one. Okay. Um, all those in favor? I. All those opposed.

Okay. Great. So, definitely Mitch is there. I don't think that I can just rescend my involvement. So, I can definitely continue, but as we have two vacancies, I just don't want to take that opportunity from other people when they do fill those seats. Go ahead, Jack. a process question. Is there a reason why this doesn't these appointments don't follow the the citywide ad hoc process for appointments to boards? Because so it does for um one person lost.

So the ordinance for the joint planning commission says that two planning commissioners from Garfield appointed by that body and two planning commissioners from the city appointed by that body will serve on there. And then there's two at large, one from Garfield Township and one from the city. So the one at the city that's at large that does go through the ad hoc, but these are just appointments to meet that ordinance much in the same way that we appoint a planning commissioner to the BCA and things like that. Correct. Y so it's it is a little different um than than that. Um

it's basically like Yeah. It's like a half commission like it's not because we only meet four times a year. It's like the planning commissioners are also on this other commission. It's almost like serving on a committee in some regards how they appoint them. It does feel like that. Anna brought up a good point um in interest of seeing if someone is wanting to serve in that capacity. They do meet quarterly. Um sometimes special meetings if they need to just because quarterly I think we had to have an extra discussion about

we had one in November because there was an amendment. I will say though um they are moving towards um rewriting their master plan which is a very very different type of plan than what we would have at the at the city. Um

partly because you know it's it's a it's a unique property, right? It's not about transformation. It's more about conservation and there's a lot of um restrictions on that property through conservation easements, historic easements, what can and can't be done. We actually have spent the last probably six to nine months at that planning commission going through and reviewing the existing master plan which was adopted I believe in 2009. So it's been some time. The common has changed a lot since then. That time there was largely one um one

ownership entity out there. So through those discussions, we realized that that master plan and we just had a meeting last week, I believe it was. Um that master plan was a great plan to lead the development of the reg the development regulations out there at the Commons aka their zoning ordinance and that whole process. But now that we the comments has matured and evolved past there, we realize that a rewrite probably isn't most sorry, an update probably isn't most appropriate. We probably need to rewrite, right? things have changed a lot with a focus on what does governance at the commons look like? What does the maintenance of infrastructure look like? So, it's it's a reflection of the evolution that's occurred out there and the needs that that master plan is going to have to reflect to guide the next 15 years of decision- making.

Jackie, would there be any benefit to holding our second appointment until we are fully uh staffed on the planning commission? I think unfortunately we can't because there will be a meeting before that. I you may have the opportunity um and we can verify in the ordinance that you get to keep ser serving until you so it is possible that you could stay in that capacity and then once we get a full commission we could bring this back for consideration and reappoint the last one. I I would be very much in favor of that. Yeah, I'm fine with that. when we have another uh couple people here and nobody else wants to serve, you can end up serving by default.

Thank you, Mitch. Yeah. Yeah. Heard. Yeah. I think that is the as long as that is in alignment with the the policies or the and we'll verify and if not then we'll bring it back. Let's do that discussion. Perfect. Great. So, just to confirm, Mitch has been reappointed to his role. He was just elected chair last week. So, that's fitting. Um, and then you're going to continue to serve and we'll come back once the full commission has been seated and continue the discussion on that appointment. Correct. Mhm. Okay. Um, okay. Moving into Oh, yeah. Moving into reports. Uh, a update from the city commission.

A land speed record was set at last night's city commission meeting. 10 minutes 11 11 minutes. uh there were only four uh commissioners in attendance unfortunately due to illness and various personal commitments. So um we did what business we could with four and the rest has been u moved to our next regular meeting. Now the challenge is can you keep the next one to 11 minutes with all those shifted items? We'll wait with baited breath.

Um thank you for that update. Update from the planning department. I don't think we really have much going on. Haven't shared yet. Uh we're kind of entering into budget season. We've been working on the CIP. So, this is where a lot of our attention has been focused. Um we'll be working as a department this week on the OKR survey, which a lot of those things uh really fall on the planning commission. So, um we'll do our best to answer those questions as we go through that tomorrow. Other than that, uh the office hours. Oh, yeah. The next office stores are on February 11th uh at noon. Um and this will be at Common Good Bakery, the one on the east side.

Um nobody has signed up for that yet of the planning commission. In case of emergency, I think I can do it, but I'd love for somebody else to sign up. I can probably do it. Okay. Thank you, Jerry. Who said Jerry said that Katie is gonna follow up with you at noon? At noon. Yep. Um, okay. Update from the joint planning commission which I think we already went through

that with the updates or going from update to rewrite for the master plan election of uh chair sec vice chair and secretary and I'm chair. Uh those are the main things. So we will have to see how the master plan rewrite process unfolds. It will be a great opportunity to get additional feedback on from owners, from businesses, from residents about how that area has transformed. The physical buildings haven't had that much change but the use has dramatically changed and we have a better understanding of uh the challenges that are presented by say very outdated infrastructure

and I guess I'll tack on to that that uh since it was in the same room immediately after well slightly after uh I sat in on the Garfield Township Planning uh commission meeting which had nice discussion about uh potential allowances for food trucks there and they started a discussion that uh I wouldn't say is urgent but perhaps is timely for the city to have as well about um since they are part of the national and state conversations how data centers and highintensity uh computing facilities fit into our zoning and land Similar to Garfield, they are allowed in um industrial zones by right. But is that uh the way we want to have it or do we want to discuss that?

The other thing I'll add from the joint planning commission is they did recommend a zoning map text amendment that'll be coming to the city commission for introduction and to the township board for introduction. both I think scheduled for possible enactment in March. Yes.

Kind of interesting because it'll it'll go at the next regular business meeting of the commission for introduction and charter requires it to be 14 days before enactment because of President's Day and the city commission meeting shifting by one day. That only gives 13 days. So, we have to push it out a whole month before enactment. But that's how it works. And the ordinance does require that both bodies affirm um or approve an amendment in order to enact it. It was a pretty small one. Um it dealt with the community garden um and sheds. So there was a limit that they could have like one shed, but there's three nonprofits there and each one would like to have their own tools in their own shed. So it kind of went just part of the undevelopable land. So there are a wide um range of opportunities for other future use that may require a use or some small pole building.

Yep. So that's and that was initiated by the joint wreck authority that kind of oversees that property and just the tenants that they work with. Update from the board of zoning appeals. Haven't met and uh already canceled for next week. So, 15 months in a row of

update from the repairarian buffer committee. I think we just got an update from you, but um I did just get a map from uh GIS. So, I have a couple questions for them, but um I think we're probably ready to go ahead and set our next committee meeting so that we can uh do one more review at that level and then pass it on back to the board. Awesome. I see update from Grand Traverse County on here. You kind of gave that at the top because Max is absent.

Yep. Max um he had to step out today. Like I said, they will have that training coming up on March 5th with the flyer for distribution tomorrow. Um, and the last Max and I spoke, he he was uh planning at the next study session in two weeks to give a um overview of the zoning atlas and how that works, as well as a presentation of the corridor growth strategy for the county that uh they've been involved in through the county's EDC and housing north. But I'll verify because I know he's got a vacation plan next week and stuff.

Um, so we're into the receive and file section. And I think many of you have reviewed or hopefully you've reviewed the memo we received from the city attorney regarding the relationship between the strategic action plan and the master plan. Um, I just wanted to put this on here so that the public knew that we had received that response from the attorney, but we will have a an upcoming presentation from city staff on the relationship in more depth. Um, where I'm hoping city staff will be present and we can ask questions and get clarity on where our purview lies and where we follow which guiding document when. Um, So, just wanted to put that in there. Anything else to add to that point?

Cool. I think uh we were working with the chair on scheduling that and it was decided that it would again be best until the vacancies get filled so that they're aware of, you know, what the strategic plan is, stuff like that, and the city manager was very supportive. I just didn't want us to have to do it twice. It felt so inefficient. So, here's hoping that happens in the next couple months. Um, so moving on to general public comment. I will open general public comment if we have any. Justin knows the instructions so I'm not going to relay them.

See me up here so many times. Um, Justin Reed, city resident, um, 638 Kaiser Drive, permit 1B, Traverse City, Michigan. Um, I like to relate about the um whole entire mobility of Trevor City. Um, I know it's a good idea um about looking at our city streets, about looking at the pedestrians, bicycling on public transit. Um, however, I do know that there's challenges that come with that because there's some city streets, for example, Garfield, unless you're going to go ahead and you're going to um demolished homes or anything like that or to wind out Garfield, it's still going to be the same traffic. There is nothing you can do much about that. Um, you can put up signage, you can you can paint um all that, but it has a challenge to it. Um, so there's no really easy fixes to this. Um, but you have to, you know, you cannot do promises on saying, "Yes, we're gonna we're gonna go ahead and we're gonna create a 100% safety for bicyclist on Garfield." That's not going to happen unless you would widen the road or, I don't know, put delineators down the road. Um, so I would also say that um you have partners in the community. You got Tart Trail, you've got um Tart has a turn in town which is the on street bicycling. um you know those are that is a great partner if you're trying to figure out like the best practices and the best best ways on looking at um east west and north south as far as um designating

bicycle um routes. So thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment this evening? Okay, seeing none, I'm going to close public comment and this meeting is adjourned. Thank you. If you are here for civics, I'll be happy to sign your form verify.