Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

like I'd like to call the August 12 meeting of the Bidden Harbor Planning Commission to order. City clerk, would you call the role, please? Commissioner Adams. Present. Commissioner Archabald. Commissioner Bell. Commissioner Henry. Commissioner Hensel. Present. Commissioner Marshall. Manager Little. Mayor Muhammad. Present. Chairman Reid. Present.

You have a quorum. At this time, I need a motion for the motion to approve by support. Commissioner Hensel, yes. Manager Little, yes. Mayor Muhammad, yes. Commissioner Adams, yes. Chairman Reed, yes. Motion carried.

Minutes. I move we approve the minutes.

Motion is made by Commissioner Hansel, supported by City Manager Little. Commissioner Hensel, yes. Manager Little, yes. Mayor Muhammad, yes. Commissioner Adams, yes. Chairman Reed, yes. Motion carried.

At this time, I would like to open the meeting up for public comments. Please keep your comments to three minutes. No one came forth, so we will close this session of the meeting. like to open up for new business. We have a site plan review at the parcel known as 11-54-2300-0067-01-8 commonly known as 456 South Fair. The site plan is for a restaurant. Do we have a presentation?

There it goes. Okay. We just wanted to switch up a couple things on our site plan. On the original site plan, it had a deck, but it wasn't as big, and we moved it to the back of the building. And on the original site plan, it had a storage container that was going to be put on as outdoor kitchen. And so, we wanted to remove the outdoor kitchen and just barbecue on the deck. and the number of parking spaces will still remain the same as approved on the last site plan.

So, you're requesting a modification of the original approval for the existing plan? Correct. Okay. Has the city staff had an opportunity to review the changes? And if so, what are they? And are there any other issues that we should be aware of? Yeah. So, this new deck where it's put, it actually takes seven parking spots away. I'm sorry.

Uh for this new deck, it actually takes uh seven for my accounting, six parking spots away. Um, and then with that being said, it also adds occupancy load limit, which will then add also uh parking spots, which I have it all here um in my paperwork here. Um, so from the original site plan, that's the reason why there's so many site plans. I got in the middle of this. Uh, so I started from the beginning. So, even on the on the approved site plan that he has approved before he uh moved the deck, um I counted each parking spot. Uh it says 26 on here, shows 24. Um I believe also the GFA was incorrect then. Uh for what the occupancy, uh is intended for for restaurant bar. Uh that would be uh GFA one for every 100 feet of uh square footage. Um that would put it to 37 parking spots. Um not the 13. Um and then there's multiple other issues with that uh from the new site plan that he just uh submitted with us. Um, so there's also a trash container that was original on the site plan where he was supposed to rip up concrete, existing concrete pad that was there. Now that there's a brick wall being put there, I'm guessing the trash container, which would be also spot uh nine and 10, I believe. That would take away. Um,

this is on three.

Yeah, number three. Number number three is the last site plan that we just received. Um so it takes away that. Uh there's snow storage on each side which it would take away the snow storage also. Um and then the aesthetics of the property lot also the trees from the first site plan uh for the looks of the parking lot itself. We have a list of issues here. What impact will they have on the changing of the plan? These

have to be corrected first before

in in the way the ordinance states it. Yes. To have the correct amount of parking spots per GFA that was the the old zoning ordinance. Now with the new one, uh I also cited that in here. Um it's one parking spot per three seats or bar space. So an occupant load of 96, that would put it at 32. And then if you had the deck on, depending on where your storage is or deck space, it's still undetermined on that part. Um, that would also add parking spaces to it.

Now, are all of these parking spaces with in the um are any of these parking spaces on the city property? or street. So these are all on the parcel itself. Yes. So by him increasing or as you put it um adding additional space, he's limiting the number of existing spaces. Absolutely. Yes.

Now the other issues that were brought up, is parking the only thing that we should be looking at right now? Um, so, uh, parking is the major issue. Um, the trash container, uh, placing, um, and I I get he's still working through phases of the aesthetics of the building, but with the new site plan, uh, there's missing trees here, um, the shrubbery. Um, there's, uh, where the trash can should be um that, uh, we've seen, but at the moment, parking is a major issue. And then the occupancy load also um cuz once you get past 99 also we'd have to fire suppression system. It gets into a whole another um issue at that point.

Commissioner Hel, did you have some comments or questions?

Uh it's hard to tell from this. Uh but I have a question. Um, in part it's missing landscape. Um, but along Mineral Avenue, um, it's hard to tell if there's a separation of grade or something that would protect pedestrians on the sidewalk and mineral. Um, and then also a question from this site plan. It appears that the uh dumpster is basically going to be more or less abing someone's private property and residence. Um that's quite a disruptive thing for people who live in houses adjacent to those types of um areas. I live in one myself. So, I'm wondering if if that's the ideal place for that. But for sure, we know that we need some some sort of separation between pedestrians and parking along Mineral Avenue.

Yes, Mr. Bolock. That was our exact thought by having that dumpster right there in the front of the street. That's why we moved the dumpster to the back of the alley and it'll be easier access by a dump truck. I mean for the garbage um people to come access it. So it just got shifted and the parking lot got shifted up. That was it. But it is located in the back when he said that it was getting blocks laid on there. Commissioner Adams.

Thank you. My question is is there any of I really hate that we did take a trip around the community to look at some of the things that we should have because this would have been one of the spots that we should have. I'm aware of this property because I used to hang out there in another day in time. But um is there any of that property that actually belongs to the city around this u dwelling [Music] because that lot right there next to Oh gosh, the old Rusty Pigs has been vacant forever. Is that the city's property?

We on that lot. That's our lot, too. Oh. So, is my question becomes is that property there a part of the parking that we're discussing? No. All I got We used to just park there. I mean, but if he's the owner, does he have um the right use utilize it as parking or it should be within the site plan.

I would believe he'd need another site plan that would uh with the stipulations of drainage and the what he needs for gravel and asphalt and and all of that. Um, and then another thing would be the only thing that's dividing them is our public alley. Um, way it says in the code is adjacent, which it is, but there's a public alley in between him and that other lot. Okay. So,

question becomes along with a statement if I may. Um, I remember this gentleman when I was playing economic development uh co-chair and this is how long this young man has been working on this and I hate to see that we we just had um we just had a minority business of a restaurant that closed even though it was in the township. We've had dreams and conversations in the community about how nice it would be on a Sunday if we had a to go and sit down and eat after church. So, is this something that we can work with to fix today to put this on the right path so that this gentleman can open and operate his restaurant? Cuz I I I don't like to cook anymore. My kids are long and gone and I like to be able to just go and sit and eat and I can park in one of my friends house up the street driveway and walk down which is this Michigan um residential laws that we're looking at here.

Yes. And this is not the local zoning ordinance. Yes, both our zoning. This is in other words, the planning commission didn't come up with this. These are the official ordinance and rules that we all follow. Yes. Okay. Off of our ordinance, our city ordinance. That's why I'm trying to separate where you're going. Okay. Is this something that we can just you know make our own decisions about or is we have to follow the zoning ordinance and the laws?

Chair Marie. The reason being is that the eight years that I served as legislative chair knowing that some of these ordinances and things needed to be rewritten and uh just relegated all over to fit businesses that come forth like this young man. So I guess that's where that question came from. Is this something that we can do to help this gentleman get his business up and operating so he can feed his family as well? We need a legal opinion here.

So, I think there's good news and bad news with the site plan. And I'm going to start with the bad news and I'm going to end with the good news. I think the the bad news is it it doesn't fit within the confines of the zoning ordinance. So, the zoning ordinance requires a certain number of parking spaces based on the space in the building. And right now, it doesn't meet that. And there's a few that, you know, are drawn on here that don't quite meet that because they're blocking traffic or if somebody tries to turn out, they're not going to be able to see. But the good news is you do have a lot next to you that you could utilize for parking. So, there I think there's a really good alternative. I'm glad you brought that up that there's an adjoining parcel that can potentially be used for parking to meet the requirements cuz right now I was trying to calculate it, but it looks like there are 23 um is that right? Are there there's 26? I'm sorry. There's 26 spaces on the current site plan. Is that is that right? And there needs to be 40. and the planning commission doesn't have the legal authority to override what the zoning states and and that's what you were getting at. I think that's a very good point. But there's this adjoining parcel that could p potentially be used for for parking. So I think that is a fix that can be done, you know, as far as adding that parking to the site plan and putting it on the adjoining lot. Um the bigger issue that I don't you know again we're not making this decision today but the addition of the deck has to be included in the building. So this is state code and I don't want to gloss over the fact that that deck increases the capacity of people that can be in that building and the zoning I'm sorry the building inspector has to consider that deck when he's looking at how many people can be in this structure. that puts the structure over the limit and requires it to have um sprinkler systems. So, that's a whole different

issue that we're not deciding today, but I just wanted to point out um we do have the building inspector here, but the deck puts it over the limit for the number of people and requires a sprinkler system. So, there's bigger issues involved than just we have to deal with here. We just have to deal with the parking and the the garbage. [Music] That's not the point right now.

Yeah, that's so that's state law issue. We're dealing with the local I just didn't want to gloss over the fact that this new there is a there is an approved site plan for this property. Um we're looking at this new site plan that adds the deck, but it adds a bunch of layers of requirements to it. And one of them is the parking that you're dealing with today. And there's a potential to add parking next door.

Okay. So, Chair Marie, my question becomes one of the questions that I asked way before now. Why don't we have someone like our code enforcement officers to come up and work with Mr. Bullock on this to make sure that everything is in compliance since they know the laws and the rules and regulations in which zoning governs. Um we we have we've been in multiple multiple conversations. We had a meeting with him before this talking about all of this that he has approved site plan if you if you uh so we did have a meeting with Blocks. He does have an approved site plan. If you would just stick to the site plan, we would come out and inspect it and we' probably be open. It's when it adds all this and then now that's where we're getting into our job reading all the code. Um, it was from one of our guys driving by, seen a deck put up. So, we go to see if there's a permit for it. No permit. Now, we're in this situation.

How many issues are there outstanding that require a permit that has not been issued? Um, so far the deck, um, I mean to this site plan, the trash container, um, being moved, not being on here, um, just from the outside, that's all I could say for outside. We haven't done been into doing fire inspection or anything like that yet, so I couldn't say anything for inside aesthetics of it. U recognize the mayor.

Yes, sir. Uh so if I'm hearing this correctly, uh the initial Mr. chair uh site plan uh that was approved um and listening to the staff. If we were addressing that matter um then it would be a different conversation in terms of moving forward. But if I'm hearing correctly, the additional deck has caused additional discussion and additional rules not only state but local that changes the dynamics of this development. Is that correct? Okay. Um, and this is what I would share. You know, the city of Benton Harbor has been sued before by a different business because we went forward with another business, but it was a violation of a local ordinance. and the other business sued and said that the city of Benton Harbor is violating their own local ordinance which is causing an injury to us and we lost. So I'm just saying that to say you know my heart wants to help wants to facilitate But my mind, which is looking at MCL

and local ordinance, won't allow me to because of the potential harm that it would cause the residents in the city. So if somehow we can reconcile the old site plan, new site plan or eliminate one. I think that is is the dilemma or you know I would like to introduce because not being open is not good for you or the city but being that we are regulated by laws and ordinances um we're restricted and confined to following them to the chair. What do we need to do right now to enable him to get his business up and running,

Mr. Bulock? And so, Mayor, we thank you for your comments and we definitely understand exactly what you're talking about. But um in our site plan that we have that our architect drew, he drew the deck would be nobody will be on the deck. It would just be for storage. If you could see on the site plan, it says storage on there and the other part was just cooking on there. So it won't be people on the deck out there. And so if we follow exactly what my architect stamped and approved and what he said the debt gonna be, it won't go over the 99 for as the sprinkler system that's needed. But if if staff want to just consider what they think it should be, then that's what's doing it. But if we follow what was designed and how we plan to use the building, I don't think that staff can determine or dictate what we determine or what we going to use our building for. If it's on there, as you see, storage right there and everything if it we follow what's on the plan, everything lines up with the code. Only thing doesn't line up is parking. And like you said, we can use the other lot adjacent to that to solve that. Uh thank you, Chairman Reed. after hearing that because I I assumed what probably everybody else assumed too that it was going to be utilized for outdoor eery but I remember now that

that the storage space that he spoke of he made clear that it would be utilized for storage and cooking. So if that's the purpose and if he's found in any violation then Mr. Mr. Chair

I I'd like to make a suggestion because I don't think we can make a decision today. Um and I say that based on the fact that we don't have a a site plan that complies with the zoning ordinance. We're trying to accommodate somebody's um dream and make make a building happen for a use. Um adding parking on a lot that isn't indicated in the documents that we use to review means that we cannot review this project as a complete project. So, if there is ownership of the lot, that will have to be shown to the staff, you'll have to include an some sort of amendment to these documents, which you can work with them on to make sure that you are in compliance with the zoning ordinance and also the state building code. So, I would suggest that we table this project for today and not make a decision and give you an opportunity to negotiate those changes with the city staff,

Mr. Chair. Mayor,

um, so with the additional deck, because I understand that it's it was it's what's current is larger than what was approved. So, how does that affect even if it's storage? Because if if we're presuming that it's going to be, you know, north side of Chicago, people sitting out on the deck eating Alaskan salmon and you know what I'm saying, then that that changes the development. But if it's just going to be storage and cooking, does that impact the number of persons?

I believe to the chair, we're told earlier that this additional storage space would be considered as part of the building. That's where I'm stuck.

Yeah. So, um, we do have the building inspector here if anyone has specific questions, but even storage is counted in the square foot of the the square feet of the building and and there's still an occupancy level even for storage. Like for example, if there's cooking there, there can be a few people there cooking. So, the building inspector has to take all that into consideration. And I think he's going to look at it as storage and if there was seating, he can say if it's seating, this is going to be the occupancy. If it's storage, this is the occupancy level and then that decision is made based on what it's going to be used for. Is that is did I represent that correctly?

He should be at the table, Mr. Chair. Shouldn't be speaking from the audience. Yes.

Would you identify yourself, sir? My name is Todd Herurder. I'm the building official for the city. So, in the building code, yards, patios, courts, and similar outdoor areas accessible to and used by the building occupants shall be provided with a means of egress as required by this chapter. The occupant load of such outdoor areas shall be assessed by the building official in accordance with the anticipated use. Okay. So outdoor areas are are part of the occupant load. Okay. The the that was section uh 1004.5 outdoor areas. Section 1004.1.1.1 intervening spaces for accessory areas where occupants egress from one or more rooms areas or spaces through others. The designated occupant load shall be the combin combined occupant load of intersecting accessory and intervening spaces. So there is a a means of egress, okay, that has to go has to go out out on on the part of the deck that is not storage. Okay, so that area there has to be included in the square footage of the building for occupant rating.

Question, Commissioner Adams.

Thank you, Honorable Chair. I I I didn't know that that now is a perfect time because I was at this building I think uh a month or so ago and the children were touring some young youth that we were working with and I was asking about a space that seemed like it was dead space and I remember asking Mr. like what was that? Because I thought it was a storage space and he I would like you to explain to me what that was because it seemed like it was dead space that was taken away from um the inside area. Okay, there we go. Yes. So because of the accuracy level, we had to build another room inside for extra storage as well to take away so where we wouldn't have to fire suppression that room. And um so the other question I have um the code that you read is that the commercial code or the residential code?

That's the commercial code. Okay. And and then another thing we need to acknowledge that storage does add to accris but storage is calculated differently from the area where people will congregate at. Every space is is uh calculated differently based on what the space is used for. So kitchen is is calculated different than storage. that's calculated different than a seating area which is calculated different than um say an office. They all have different calculations per square foot and how many people per square foot.

Correct. May May I ask you a question?

Yes. If if I'm understanding what I've heard so far, we had an approved plan and we now have a situation where it's been modified. So, it's unapproved, but it was suggested that if a modifi a modification was made to this plan that included the parking across the street that it may be able to satisfy this. Isn't it as simple as one or the other of those two? Because I I know you can't just simply take somebody's word that this is going to be they can change that next week or next day. But is that the case that

either you go back to the plan that was approved by removing part of the deck or if you're going to add parking, you modify it, have you resubmit it with the parking uh for the lot across the street along with evidence that you own the property. Isn't it that simple? Yes. And could that be could could it

the space that I spoke about on the inner side since that outside deck has to become some sense of storage and that portion that was made to had been designed that took away space from the inside now can be opened back up since that deck is larger for the storage that would be needed. And that's just a question to the code enforcement officer because I mean what I'm hearing is one could satisfy the other and that space inside could be utilized now if that debt is considered part of the building.

So what Mr. Bolock is trying to do is stay under the the requirements for suppression. Okay. The requirements is anything over 99 it has to be suppressed. fire suppression. Okay. So, when I did my original calculations, he was well over 99. That's why that space inside, they had to turn it into quote storage uh space because storage is calculated different than dining. Okay. In dining, in his circumstance, it's 15 square foot per person where storage I think it's like 100 square foot per person. Okay. I I don't know that right right off hand, but so when you do your calculations based on the square footage, that tells you how many people. So if he takes away that storage area on the inside, it's going to boost his calculation back up to well over 100. So he'll still have to have fire suppression with or without the deck beam storage.

Okay. Mr. Chair, I I'm just curious. Um, if the site plan was already approved, then why was the deck added to change the plan? Mr. Bulock.

Yeah, we So, what we did was um it was a big storage bin that was on here made for outdoor kitchen. uh if you look on the original site plan. So I don't think that space should be should be subtracted out of that for the deck because of look purposes. It was a big old unit we was going to use for outdoor kitchen. And so for look purpose we just said we'll barbecue on the deck and we just made the deck larger a little bit larger than the original one was. But do is it is did you understand that by making the deck larger it changes the project?

No, I didn't understand it at the time. No, I didn't understand it. Um because it wasn't um nobody was going to be used for seating. It was just outdoor just cooking. And we have a food truck and so for our tents and different things like that, that's what's going to be used um for the outdoor storage. We're just going to keep our different tables and stuff um and stuff we take with our food truck to different festivals and fairs in that storage area. It'll be an enclosed storage area

because I think that you know what the manager mentioned um you know it's it's it's one or the other. It appears to me that, you know, either we go by the initial plan that was already approved or if you want to, you know, move forward with the additional deck, you know, then we almost have to just scrap what was already approved because now it's it's a different development. Same place, just different development. And I think that's where, you know, maybe if you would have consulted staff before you built the deck, pulled the permit, then maybe they could have shared with you then that, you know, as a business owner, do you realize that if you add this additional deck and larger size is going to impact your uh capacity uh requirement? ments which would now kick in the suppression system which is probably $100,000 or more. So did you did you realize that not because it was outside but I understand y'all on the other side of the table as a resident taxpayer on this side of the table going into that office is hard to contact. Nobody be at the window. You make numbers of phone calls, don't get them returned. It's hard. You can ask a lot of people in this city how hard it is to deal with the office.

Mr. handsome.

Um, I I can't answer that question, but I I do also want to point out when we approved the first site plan, there were issues with the number of parking spaces and that those issues have not been really resolved. So when I suggested that under the new site plan or even now if you were to re reverse course and go with the plan that was already approved, expanding the deck takes away two two more parking places from you square footage wise. You don't have the space for it. And then if you go back to the first one, you still haven't resolved the issues with with the staff that we raised initially about the number of parking spaces available for your business. So at that point, you also mentioned that you had the lot, but the lot isn't on any of the documents that you've submitted to the planning commission to consider. So without the documents, we don't have a complete site plan to give you the review that you're entitled to, which was my point earlier. I go back to this. We could today say, "Sorry, you don't meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. We are we don't rule on the building per stuff. We just rule on this

site plan." We could say no today and you would be stuck for a year. I don't think that's a good resolution for you. So, so my suggestion is that we table this project today in order to give you the time to resolve the outstanding issues including that parking and to get it on a document that you can submit to us so we can evaluate it and move your project through. So, I would like to make the motion to table this. Okay. Motion has been made to table it. Do we have support? Support. Commissioner Hensel.

Yes. Manager Little. Yes. Mayor Muhammad. Yes. Commissioner Adams. Didn't mean the debate is over. Yes. Chairman Reid. Yes. Motion carried.

Have a question. Chairman Reid. We had a discussion uh I think when the gentleman was here when we um passed the uh master plan uh to move forward. We had great discussion on ordinances and and zonings and all of that um um that any resident or business owner would need and that it would be put on the site. And I think that the purpose of that is basically what I just heard Mr. Bullock say uh having a hard time reaching someone to get a question answered. So if he when he redo when he redo all that needs to be redone, will he find what he needs on site if he can't get a hold to anybody?

Yes. As I indicated earlier, and I don't want to make issue of this, many of the questions that you ask can readily be answered if you simply read the ordinance. There's a lot of ordinances,

but if you go to the site and look it up, it breaks ordinances down to where you can find the one that you need to. And I think we need to recognize as a city that excuses like it's I mean and I understand sometime it can be difficult but that depends I I try to deal with IRS nobody more difficult. You often don't get nobody but you still are required to meet all of the requirements that are in the IRS. uh we want to help you and we want to see it go forward. But I think you have to realize yourself that once you got an approved plan, the next step is get the permits. And if you did the things that you were supposed to do, we might have been able to avoid getting to where we've gotten. And I I guess there's not a lot else that you can say about that. This isn't this is for the safety of the general public as well as yourself as an owner. So we have to comply with these things. We can't just go by the seat of our pants because a person says, "Well, this isn't going to be used for that." That's today. What's going to be used for next week or next month or next year? You know, we we have to comply with this and have to work through it.

So if we reduce the deck down to where it was at, everything will be good. Well, I want to ask a question to clarify. So if you go back to the original site plan, you still have to provide the documentation that we discussed earlier about the actual parking spaces that there is a um some sort of ownership and that it's the same ownership as the building and the property the building is on or that there's a lease agreement that makes that parking available to the restaurant. So that there's no question that you've provided the spaces that are required by law. Now I have a question for the city attorney. We today we're looking at a third site plan and the first one had the contingency of providing the parking that was supposed to be negotiated and settled. Can we go back to the first sight plan if that's what he chooses to do? and then also get those additional documents and be in compliance.

Yes, you could go back to the first site plan and approve that subject to receipt of the documents showing that that lot next door is going to be used for parking and that it's owned by the same entity.

Okay. Um, quick question because we had it was another zoning ordinance when we started this and he told us that we didn't need the additional parking that can be worked out um with the number accuracy and if you go back to the recording cuz I just listened to it just to refreshing my memory of all this before I came here and so if we go back and listen at the recording so now why is it different Since we got a new zon in officer, why is his rules and regulations are different from each other's if we go back and listen at the recording?

Right. So, I was not at that meeting and so I don't want to speak to exactly what was said, but I can find out. I can look at the minutes and I can go back and even watch the recording if necessary. And I think that's important to do so that we're on the same page. Um, I will say yes, the zoning ordinance has changed since then. the original site plan was approved under a different ordinance and so we'd go back and look at that and that would govern I can tell you that. Um I think we'll probably have to go back and look at what was said back then to make sure that it matches up cuz what we're not trying to do is make this more difficult for you. If things were approved then they're they're still approved. I guess that's what I want you to know. We're not going to try to change the rules on you halfway through. But I just I need to make sure I understand what the rules were at that time.

Correct. That's that's what I wanted to understand. Um, mayor. Yes. So, that that I I agree with what was said um that if it was the other site plan was approved under the different ordinance, then that site plan is subjected to that ordinance. But a new site plan with a new deck and with new changes, then it would have to be subjected to what's current today. Is that so it couldn't be considered modification? No sir. Is that a new site plan?

No, sir. Because it's the the previous site plan with the sprinkler system, with new parking lot, um you know, with those changes, I I think that it it becomes really something different. Chairman U Commission Helen Commission

the the an answer to modification. We we asked for documents to support the parking previously and we asked that you work with the staff to make sure that that was documented. So, we're not we're not changing anything other than to say you you need to make those documents available to the staff and that you need to build what is exactly on the site plan that was approved. Otherwise, we're looking at a different project under a different ordinance and those requirements will be slightly different and we will have to go through that entire process. So we at this point the decision is yours. We cannot tell you, you know, tear down the deck and go back to the first site plan. If you choose to do that, that makes your life probably a lot more simple. If you really prefer the third one because you put some time and effort into it, you still have to answer the issues that are relevant to the third one which involve buffering it on Mineral Avenue to to separate the pedestrian walkway, the sidewalk from the parking lot for the safety of pedestrians. And then you also have the issue of resolving how many parking places are necessary and providing them and documenting them. Uh and then you've got fire suppression. But those are your decisions to make. And with the project tabled, you have an opportunity to make that decision and to come back to staff and come back before us. He will come back before us to let us know you've complied.

Okay. So, um, Commissioner Adams, then

thank you. I I'm still learning. I'm new to planning and zoning and I'm teachable. My question is is a financial one. I never knew and I still don't know if in fact to submit a plan like this, is there a cost that's incurred? And if there is, to resubmit or anything, does that is that an extra cost? And I'm asking because and I'm I'm going to say this because I've I've noticed that in the 12 well actually since 2002 since I've been down here as a Brownfield Authority board member when people of color come through this door and want to do business with the city of Ben Harour, it has not been fair. And I think that black people have been redlined out of a lot of things. And I'm hoping that we can work with this gentleman to ensure that we can get a minorityowned business up and operating that follows the laws, rules, and regulations, and ordinances of the city of Benton Harbor.

Uh Justin, you had something to say. Um, I just wanted to add to the the original site plan when we did have the original meeting with us three, we told them if you just go back to this site plan, we'll come and inspect it and you'll probably be open. It'd probably be open right now if it would just be what is already approved. If it was that way, we'd probably be eating there. It just this added all everything that and now as Hansel said also that we have to go through this whole thing and then that was my other question that you just brought up. So in the ordinance with a new site plan added to the new ordinance that'd be another $1600 fee

because it's a brand new site plan. That's the way I would interpret it. I just I would say, you know, we have to be fair in our interpretation of the law. And I think you're right. It does say a $1,600 fee, but I would consider this just a resubmitt. Okay. Um it wouldn't be a whole new a whole new $1,600. You would be resubmitting what we've already looked at and then just looking at the addition, if that makes sense. So I think we could look at that internally and have a policy that we're going to interpret that fairly for the citizens who are having to resubmit for parking or some other minor issue.

Yeah, that's fair. That's fair. When you have decided on what you're going to do, notify us and we can take the necessary steps to expedite the uh approval of whatever it is you all decide on. So, with that being said, would it just be the $400 fee then or no fee for a resubmit? because the the resubmit is for or are we just doing a just submit and I would just all clear while we're here.

Yeah. You know what I So I have not looked at that language recently or and I haven't looked at it in the new ordinance if I'm being very honest with all of you. I let me take a look at it and I'll get back to everyone. I think we can try to slide it in under the $400 you've already paid. Does everyone Is there anyone that doesn't agree with that? I think there is another $400 fee that's involved. There is for sure. Yes. Yeah. I pardon me. I I think that if um cuz I thought he already paid a $400 fee for this particular Yeah. Right. So if it's tabled then it would still be considered old business. Okay.

Brought back. Uh but I think and and agreeing with the the VP um vice president of the of the companion commission that it's the decision or or the honest on the business owner in terms of what direction are you going to go in. You know what I'm saying? That has to be decided prior to coming back before us because really we don't deal with the nuts and bolts or get in the weeds. We deal with a a a plan that has already passed the mustard or you with the staff and then we look at approve or not. But you know, we are considering your point that you know, we want to be fair, you know, without dismissal of policy because I will say that in my travels and going about DC, Chicago, you know, the minority businesses that have had longevity and success are the ones that are in compliance with the rules. Okay, I would like to bring this to a close so we can move on, please

and let us know when you arrive at whatever decision you want to make. Okay. Is there a way we can set up a meeting that way we can work together to figure it out? I mean, because I don't want to be just shooting at the hip guessing and not be able to talk, you know, to get things together.

Standard procedure for a site plan is to meet with the staff first and then um shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permits. Once you make sure that everything is in compliance and you've uh have your required permits, you're ready to go. uh still need the with a contingency though. Uh Commissioner Hinsel, you want to

Well, you you'll need to follow up with them to satisfy the contingency and provide them with the documents either way, whichever way you choose to go. Um and then and to the point earlier, you know, a $400 fee for a extra opportunity to speak to us all um is one thing, but with this new site plan, you actually would be required to follow the new ordinance. And the new ordinance has the fees built into it. That's not something that any of us here can make any decision about. That's in the law. So, there's a fee schedule. The city manager probably can help you with that. But none of none of us appointed officials can say you can do this for free. So, today we're trying to give you a break by saying this review you've paid for. We wouldn't charge you if you come back with the same plan. If you choose to make uh the changes and go ahead with a different plan, I can't guarantee that we won't have a charge. That's not up to us to make that decision. So that that might be an incentive one way or the other depending on where you need to be.

And I agree and I think we all have to understand it's your plan. It's the business's plan to do that. and whatever expenses and what decisions you make have financial consequences in how you do it. Had the first one been simply complied with and the additional information been provided, as I've heard said several times here, you'd probably be open and doing business already. But because of the you made an independent decision that's yours to make to do something different, you've also subjected yourself to having to do something different in terms of this review process. And uh I I think it's as simple as that. If you get with the staff, work out what's required, but first you got to make decision where you're going to go. They can't make that decision for you. And then when you decide what you're going to do, review it with them. They'll tell you what's needed and certainly whatever process takes place, you still got to buy permits and so forth.

Correct. I agree with you. But the hand different jobs have changed since we started this project. If you go down there in their office and look at our original plan that we turned in, it had that lot on there. Okay. M. They had the lot on there. But I think that the the the proof that you that you own the lot. Yes, I had that. They had that. They have proof that you own that the same name as the builder name. It was on there on the original lot. And the um the guy that uh what's his name that he worked for? Benton Township.

But did you submitted that it was going to be used for parking? Yes, we did. But he had us to take it off there. He said we didn't need it because we just focusing on this. If you go look at the plan, it had that we we it it was on there. This is we did it before we was working with staff. Now the new staff come in now we getting turned around different. We paid $1,600 first. Now we just paid $400. I don't feel we should. We can have Lyall come back if you figure felt like it was worked out and something changed. we can get him back to verify that.

I just want to say lastly, I'm not going to chastise a business taxpayer because you could have chose to go out in the township and open up a business. Um, I just want to say please don't don't don't put a chicken coop or something out in the back and come. But, uh, yeah, I'm hoping that the city will work with you. And it it's kind of like frustrating me because he started with me as a co-chair of economic development. You know how long that's been?

Yeah. Marshall and I have a letter a resignation from commissioner chairman of due due to some personal matters in my family I will be unable to continue to serve serve on the board. Therefore, I'm writing this letter of resignation. I would like to thank you and the mayor Muhammad for the opportunity to serve. Thank you, Stevie Archal. At this time,

Commissioner Bell, uh, there's a review we must make of that and until that review is made, her position is vacated. So, my understanding is that Commissioner Bell moved. Yes. Um, we will try to make contact with her and see if she'll send in a resignation. That's probably the easiest. That's what most people do when they're when they become un, you know, unavailable or they're unable to serve. They'll just send a quick email and then you can address it at the next meeting. Okay. Do we need to have the city clerk declare those as vacancies at this time?

I would say that the resignation you can declare as a vacancy, but you'd have to wait on Commissioner Bell until the next meeting and hopefully we'll have something at that point where you can declare the seat vacant. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay, there's no other old business at this time. I would entertain commission comments. Commissioner Henel,

uh I hate to raise it again, but um training. Where are we with our required training at this point? I think we're probably due for some updates and I know that there are a number of things that are coming up maybe that would qualify us as um updates to our training. So, could we have some sort of report for the next meeting so we know where we stand? That was a dis what I was going to speak to when it comes my turn to speak. Four hours per year is required to remain on this commission. Those who fail to do so will not be eligible for reappointment. So at this time I believe the city clerk has already provided the necessary training classes. We were allowed to voluntarily participate in those trainings. To my knowledge, I'm not sure that any of us has taken that. So that's something that we must look into and address as soon as possible. I'll get with you to prepare a letter indicating what's available and when we can get together to do the training.

Any other comments? Questions? Hearing none, I make a motion that we adjourn. Is this a paid training? No, we don't get paid, but it came out of our budget. Okay. Motion to adjurnn. Some moved. Support. Commissioner Hzel and the mayor. Commissioner Adams. Yes. Commissioner Hensel. Yes. Manager Little. Yes. Mayor Muhammad. Yes.