Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We're recording. Okay, let's call the meeting to order. Uh, do the roll call, please. Kate Bargo, yes, here. Dan Delah Hunt here. John Fe here. Blake Harris. Greg Pujo here. William Seammons here. We have a quorum. Do we want to excuse Blake since he's called? Yeah, he let us know. Do we need a motion? Okay, we have a motion to uh So, make excuse him. Second. I see a a motion and a second. Any questions? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. I. Opposed.

Okay. We had the minutes for the se September 18th, 1925 meeting. Everybody had a chance to go through them. Any changes? Questions? No changes. No questions. Motion to approve. I'd make a motion to approve the minutes from the September 18, 2025 meeting. Second. We have a motion, a second. Any questions on the motion? All those in favor say I. I.

Opposed. That passes. Um, this is an adjudication hearing. Uh, consider two issues. Since it's adjudication hearing, you need to be all you people out there need to be sworn in. So, if you'd raise your right hand, promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So, I help you. God. I do. You are sworn in. Okay. Okay. The first item is uh an application submitted by Fox Architecture Design LLC on behalf of Poland. Poland. Poland.

Okay. Poland Composits USA. Formerly it owns or excuse me, a property it owns at 1319 First Street uh for a variance to construct a main building and a front yard setback of 5T whether section 1137.08 requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 ft. You have the staff's comments. Is there anything additional?

Just a couple things. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, as we can see on this slide, left-hand side, this property, uh, technically it's three properties, which um is fine. Um, they intend to combine all of them, but it's zoned uh CR commercial Recreation District. Right hand side, you can see a zoomed out view. This is pretty close to the Sunduski Bay on First Street. Moving on, here are some elevations. On the top left is taken from First Street. uh red outline shows the property in question. Most recently, this building was the Beer Bait and Moore um location. It was also, as I understand, the old East Side restaurant. Right. So, um moving on to the bottom right, we can see the eastern elevation. Um and then top left, northern elevation and bottom right facing southwest. And this is just really for this board's sake, for fun, the general area of the proposed Indusky Bay pathway, just for your reference. Um, in all caps, preliminary, not final. Okay. Bottom left. Um, same thing moving on the western elevation facing east and then uh or top at any rate. Yeah. So, we're continuing along showing the pathways location. As it sits right now, this building is around 4 ft from the right ofway line. in the front property line. Uh what's being proposed and was requested was about 5 ft. Um so the whole scope of work is to demolish the existing building which is in serious disrepair structurally speaking. Um and then construct a new 32404 40 ft office building with the long side instead fronting on first street 5 ft set back behind the front lot line and then modifying the existing parking lot to accommodate the new building. New building actually has a smaller footprint than the existing structure.

uh the setback request. Um the applicant has been working for some time with our city's public works department on the location of this building relative to the proposed pathway. And so this variance request comes informed by all of their discussions with our staff. Um here are some proposed elevations on the top. This is what it would look like facing um First Street and then on the opposite side facing the parking lot. and then a couple side elevations. So, uh staff analysis. The owner did obtain site plan approval for from our city planning commission for this site at their 924 2025 meeting that was conditioned on subsequent variance approval for the reduced setback. The new layout of the property will reduce the number of curb cuts from three down to one, making on-site traffic circulation safer and uh reducing potential congestion on First Street. Uh just for reference, the proposed variance would permit the office building to be constructed 5 ft from again the front lot line and right on the other side of that would be public rideway, presumably the pathway. Um, so the reduced setback would still be aligned with the intent of the commercial zoning district and all other zoning code requirements would be met by this proposed building. Therefore, staff recommends approval with the following condition. One, all applicable permits are obtained through the building department, engineering department, and any other applicable agency prior to construction. Thank you.

Okay. Uh, is there anyone in the audience that wish to speak in favor of this request? If so, if you'd come to the podium, give us your name and an address. Good evening everybody. Joshua Fox, architect, 1717 East Perkins A. Here's a representative for the owner along with A Lake. Adam, thanks for the presentation on all the information with this property. Uh the goal the goal for this property is uh the owner is now Pollant which is the facility directly behind this area. They're going to be putting their headquarter offices for this area in this new office building. The goal was to originally we evaluated the existing East Side Cafe building. Tried to see if we could get the offices put into there. Uh we had a uh a speesus abatement done at the time uh structural analysis done at the time and just come to the conclusion that is is pretty dilapitated on the interior. Um and it doesn't really function with the way they are in their offices layout. So we're trying to push everything into this space that we just weren't able to get to work out. So this will be the offices for the space. So some of the offices that are at the existing facility are going to come out to this building. So all the employees will check in. And there's going to be maintenance offices, um, uh, conference rooms, bathrooms, and a, uh, locker room basically in this area. So, everybody will come in and check in in this location, then go and work at the facility. Um, with the next project on the next list, we're going to be utilizing that space. So, we're kind of swapping facilities here and trying to utilize this front area. We did incorporate the the pathway. Uh, we kept everything off of there. We would love to be at the front, you know, where the existing building is today, but we we're push it back a little bit farther. So, that's the reason for the 5- foot setback request. Um, we can't go back too much farther because we got the existing parking lot

and there's an existing drive that we're trying to maintain in that facility. So, the that's the reason for that. We probably got another foot maybe I think that we could probably accommodate, but the closer to the road to align up with everything else is is our goal um with the facility. Uh, other than that, that's all I had. If any questions, I'm happy to answer. Okay. Are you going to speak on this one or just the next? Uh, either one. We'll both be on the same one. Okay. Did you want to speak? I really Okay. You don't have to.

Okay. Um, not seeing anybody else unless you're going to talk. Okay. Uh questions from the board. I guess my question is more for staff. The the only building besides whatever we're going to call it, the east side building that is that close to sidewalk is the im the building immediately west of the drive, the that stone building. Then all the other residences are set back further than that. I didn't know if that was taken into consideration by staff and that was there's only one one building that's that close five or six.

They're not as close to the they are not there's a front lawn on those other buildings. I thought there were more than just that one stone building that's immediately west of the drive that is almost on the sidewalk. East side step set back slightly more than that. And then all the other residents residential buildings to the west of that are set maybe 10 feet. What did staff take that into consideration?

Yes. Uh residential I mean this is sort of a mixeduse block. We're in an industrial subsection of this block of first street. And in terms of the industrial feel and look um especially given the elevations proposed from a site planning perspective that uh was considered and seemed deemed to be appropriate um in terms of how it matches up with that like you're mentioning existing street edge. Um it's still orderly and aesthetically uh appealing. Um my concerns are are are Let me ask one question first. It says here that the zoning on the west side is of course recreational and residential business. Is there

that's what your your u uh the staff report says. Thanks. on the west RB residential business that's very on the you can see on this slide Mr. chairman toward the bottom left. Realistically, I mean, I could have interpreted that question, I guess, in this report to mean immediately adjacent, but I I think of like the general block, what's visible in a screenshot of this. So, if you can can you see that um light brown on this slide right now toward the bottom left of that left image right above the word legend.

Thanks. You talking about that? That's way over. Yeah, I'm just talking to me my question is immediately to the west what's the zone commercial recreation okay not not business or recre or residential correct okay I don't know why that that threw me sorry I'll take that under advisement all right my uh my concerns are um the east east side cafe building is about what 20 20 some feet wide this new building is about three times wider than that tight to the sidewalk are real close to me. That's too big of a mass. I I know when um Hod's built their boat building, which would be the next one down,

you know, they stayed 30 ft back cuz it's a huge mass that would have been right on the street. They they wanted to be on the street because it gives them more boats, but uh they stayed back at 30 ft. Um I I think somehow or other we've got to be further off the off the street than 5T. I um I can't support five feet. I think it's important to consider that that property while I wasn't here at that time. I can imagine that property uh had a lot well there was a lot more property to play with. Yeah.

This is a much smaller situation and we're a much more uh intimately situated so to speak and we have an existing parking lot like Mr. Fox mentioned that because of the minimum uh drive aisle widths um it they don't want to go too far back because then they are elimin so think about it if we zoom out they're eliminating a couple um entrances to try to make it safer and salvage most of the existing parking lot restripe modify layout etc which was taken care of and approved but um that would that wouldn't really aid that effort moving it further even further back too much further back.

Well, they're only required nine parking places and they're supplying 17 and what the number is. So they if they move it back and they lose two parking places, they're still have more parking than than what's required. The what what was approved was more what was more than required. That's correct. I'm just saying is if the building was moved back, they they still meet the requirements of having enough parks.

In terms of the number of spaces, I would have to look at the the driveway widths. If you, as you can see, this is kind of a a weird shaped sub lot here. Um, it's not like we have a completely blank canvas for them to play with. I think that should be taken into consideration. There's a fence back there across right

if I can answer to or jump in. But yeah, so the reason that we're not pushing it back any farther, there's basically we're taking the same square footage footprint of the building. We're just turning the sideways on on First Street. There's a main power line that's in the property that's not allowing us to push it back any farther. So if we push it back farther, it cuts off our driveway coming in off of our pollen driveway. So with this plan, we're basically eliminating two driveways coming off of First Street. So we're we're trying to make it safer in that respect. And of course, if you look directly across the street, Lucco structure is hundreds of feet long and it's 25 ft tall. So uh being up against the street, I don't think I think we're going to try to make it a little bit more landscaped area and try to make it a little bit more friendly to the area compared to what was there. But we do have some constraints with the power line and stuff that's cutting through that property and it kind of cuts through on an angle and cuts through to the RV park and HOD's properties up to the kind of the northwest of that area. So the intent was basically just to take that same square footage and and rotate it so that we could maintain as much of the property as possible but still keep landscaping at the front area.

This one. So if you move back to 10 ft, you lose basically one parking place. Well, if I move if I'll move if I move back 10 feet, I lo there's a power line uh there's a power major power pole in that island on the on the north side of the driveway. There's kind of like a little island on there. It would shorten my driveway up to like 15 ft maybe coming in there. Doesn't show up. So, it wouldn't be a dual access drive northeast corner of that right of the old building. Mr. Chairman, would it be helpful if the applicant's representative pointed it out on this site plan? I I can see it on the site. Okay. I wasn't certain.

There's a line that says it's uh it's overhead and see where it is. Okay. Yes, we have a we have a couple constraints there, but our our main goal is to basically get rid of the two drives. It I I think I I I agree. I we're okay. I think we can move it back a little bit. I don't think I can get that much. I think we can go a couple feet, you know, to get a a nicer landscape in that area. But the the goal was try to keep this the streetscape to kind of blend in with the the lower houses on the in the commercial buildings down to the west in that in that case.

I think it's a good project. I any any footage you could get it back away from I also looking at the bayfront corridor, the the bikeway. Mhm. Otherwise, it's right on the street and I don't think that's a safety plus way to engineer it.

Yeah. There. So, we're trying to accommodate the city's pathway coming through here. So, that's why it's one is being turned in that direction. So, we're we're losing a lot of landscape that we can use and square footage that we could use in that space. So, that's the reason it's kind of pushed to the east a little bit more as well. But this, yeah, the path that we have shown here is what they provided us at the time of of the creation for the pathway. So, kind of fighting a knuckle here for the pathway and the sidewalks and and trying to keep everybody off of their property as well. Right. How much further can you push it back?

I don't have an exact dimension, but I I could get I get you close. I got a 30ft driveway. That's my limitation. So if if they would allow us I mean we could possibly go back another 4T that would give me a 26 ft driveway that would still act as a as a dual acting drive off of our main drive because we got to keep a dual acting drive for that area because it's the only way in and out of that that property. Personally, I think that would be a really good compromise just to open up the north side of First Street for the pathway and to get you a little bit more in line with the other buildings other than the one that's immediately west of you. It's the only one that's really right on Yeah.

on the sidewalk. Yeah. So, in our site plan, it's at the It's hard to see, but there's a number nine there. we'd basically be losing another one more space, you know, by shifting that to the north. I I think the owner would be would be willing to do that, but we just we got to maintain a minimum of 25 ft for that driveway to be dual acting. Yeah. So, if you could go back 5T said four, it's it's not ideal for us. No, we'd love the 5T. It's we're requesting, but we're we're open to, you know, to to work with you guys. You said uh Yeah, I think he's saying nine existing driveway to go to 9 30 and you and you said you need 25 to go in and out.

Yeah. So, so if I if I lose I can't go any more than four more feet because then I would lose into the driveway space more than what would be required for the zoning requirements. So, if we can go 9 ft a total of 9 ft. Okay. I can we could accept drive says it's 30. That's what's there. That's correct. So, you could go down to 25. Yes. So, you could move five feet further back. Uh I I yeah, possibly could. I'm trying to say four feet because I I'm only going to lose one parking spot instead of Yeah. adjusting another parking spot. I think that's we're trying to maintain as many spots as possible cuz they have about 25 employees that work here.

So, we know we're over the limitation of of the the building requirements, but we want to maintain their staff requirements as well. So, it's possible that I could shift that last spot last spot to the north a little bit more, but then it it chops up my driveway where it comes into the triangular space. Right. What What type of vehicles do you have coming in and out of there? Is that your driveway that's going to go back to the other part of the the property as well? This facility is only employees and and cars and trucks. You have no semis. That's what I was worried about. Yeah. Maybe a UPS truck or something like that is probably the biggest vehicle that'll go through there. Yeah. All the main traffic for the trucking and stuff going to the facility is down the main drive. Okay. Yeah.

Well, I'd be in favor you punch out that other four feet, make it total nine. I'd be fine with something like that. I think it's the entire blocks mismatched. all all along that block. So, I'm I'm happy that something's getting done with that building, right? Yeah. Looks like a good project. Yeah, the owners are excited. They're they're trying to do both projects as we'll talk on the next one, too. But, uh they're uh they're not planning on going anywhere. Their comment to us is we're we're here forever and they've been there for a long time already. So, they're uh they're pretty uh set to stay. Is that a motion?

I'll make a motion then if uh if you're willing to do the extra four feet and make it a total of nine. Is that Do I have that right? Yep. I'd be in favor of the variance. I would second that. We have a motion and a second. Um would you include the uh all the other requirements for building all the other good requirements? Yep. The city here. [Music] Okay, we have a motion to second. Call the role, please. William Seammons, yes. Greg Pujo, yes. Dan Delahunt, yes. John Fe, I vote no. Kate Fargo, yes.

That variance is she's allowed to vote. Varian is approved. Okay. The uh next item is an application submitted by Fox Architectural Design on behalf of PCCR USA is basically the same company Joshua. Yes. Okay. For property that owns at 1321st Street for a variance to construct a main building which will expand existing nonconforming use whereas section 1151.02B requires that existing non-conforming uses not be expanded. staff requirements or anything additional?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this property is also zoned CR Commercial Recreation, uh, which is the reason why we're here. Um, as far back as staff could find, this property, uh, most of the buildings were constructed in 1930 or in that decade. And as far as we could tell, it's always been occupied by manufacturing or storage use or in combination. Uh, for whatever reason, the zoning just um doesn't quite match up with what's technically allowed in a commercial recreation district today. Although, like I said, it's been operating there for decades on decades, almost a hundred years, uh, as far as we can tell. Um, this is PCCR USA is just the parent company of Palant. Um, it is the same owner. This is a picture of the seller and elevation of the property. You can see on the left is the main manufacturing building. Um, as there's some warehousing in there. And then on the right hand side, the side closest to us of that building, which we'll see from a top- down perspective shortly, is where their current offices are, which are being moved to the other site we just looked at. And then besides that are other existing um warehousing. What pollen makes is a a resin based product. That's a lot of it's used for what fiberglass and with boats is one application and there's a few others. Um onto the site plan though we can see this building. Uh the scope of work here is to construct a new non-combustible 3,828 ft storage building. Um they would use this building to store manufacturing process materials on skids after delivery which will then be transported to the main building for processing in conjunction with the existing manufacturing and storage uses on the site. Um here's a proposed floor plan.

On the top left here we can see five um five bays. The entire footprint is dedicated or floor plan rather is dedicated to storage. On the bottom right, we can see some proposed elevations and down lighting. That elevation is from if you were to drive in there and then look to the right. So that's technically the western elevation, but it's the front staff analysis. The owner obtained site plan approval for this site at the 924 2025 planning commission meeting condition on subsequent variance approval. Two, the majority of the existing buildings on this site were constructed in 1930, which we've gone over. Um, these lane uses do not appear to have disturbed adjacent properties. To the contrary, staff did receive a letter of support from an adjacent business and property owner, John Hodi, to the east of the site. The proposed variance would allow this building to continue to grow or expand in place, which is very desirable from a planning perspective. Four, this would allow the facility to expand um while still upholding the intent of the planning and zoning code in at large. And lastly, all other zoning code requirements would be met by the proposed warehouse building. Staff recommends approval with the following condition. One, all applicable permits are obtained through the building department, engineering department, and any other applicable agency prior to construction. Thank you.

Okay. Does anyone in the audience speak in favor of this request? [Music] Hey everybody, Joshua Fox, architect 1717 East Perkins A, the architect for the project along with AV Lake. Uh, thanks guys again. Thanks Adam. Uh, this one's uh fairly simple. It's just a zoning a zoning item because it's a zone commercial recreational. Uh, we're abiding by all the setbacks, uh, hype requirements, uh, fire ratings, all all sorts of things required for the building. um it is just used for their facility. So they do not have to keep transporting materials from Norwok to Sunduski. So they're trying to consolidate and bring everything back to Sunduski so they have a a full a full facility and it can go in and out of their manufacturing facility. Um other than that it was just a a zoning update.

Okay. Anyone um board will have any questions? No motion is in order. I would move to approve this variance as presented and requiring all applicable permits to be obtained. Second. We have a motion to second. Any questions on the motion? Seeing none, I'll call the role, please. Kate Fargo. Yes. John Fe, yes. Dan Delah Hunt, yes. William Seammons, yes. Greg Pujo, yes. Apparent is approved. Thank you guys.

Yep. Appreciate your time. Thanks, Adam. Uh, the next meeting is November 20th. So, that's got to be the Mr. Chairman before we adjourn. I'm not ready to Wasn't that was there? Okay. But you can make a comment. No, go ahead. Okay. Hey, Josh. Was that the old American property back there? Wasn't that the old American? Not yet. Not yet. I know. I think it was at one point. Okay. They were okay. All right. That's what I thought. Yeah, they merged, I think, in changed company names. Okay. All right. Thanks. Yep.

Anyway, um lost my train of thought. Um, I hope to move in the next three weeks if if that guy leesman. Um, so I'll be ineligible to be a member of the board. So, unless you move into your office, your boat house. Yep. My mail goes to my office. I'm not taking mail from Marshall app. So, I I don't know what legal uh residence is, but uh it's where you live. Pardon? It's where you live.

Okay. Well, I'm going to be living in Perkins Township. So, uh you will need at least one person and you may need two before November 20th if uh election goes correctly. Thank you for letting us know. Just let you know. Thank you. We have two leads. Thanks for your service. Well, at least on November time on this board, John, and all your service to the city, you're going to be missed. Sure will, John. Well, my office isn't moving. Good. So, That being said, a motion to adjurnn is in order. Comment first. One comment.

Uh, in regard to 2216 Milin Road, I was somewhat disappointed that the city commission okayed that development of the SE Sunduski senior loss. I felt that that going from 85 units to 100 units wasn't bad, but I thought the expansion to with 32 more units, going from 85 to 132, an increase of 55% was overbearing. And I thought it it felt to me like a bait and switch from a developer, which I've seen many developers do over time. And therefore I didn't think when it was said that when their uh comment said that that our vote was uh capricious and arbitrary. I took a front to that because I didn't arbitrarily make a motion to deny that because I felt it was because it was my feeling about it. I still feel strongly that that location is not a good location for that. There's plenty of other spots in this city would have a lot better access and egress without directing a lot of traffic down a narrow a narrow already fairly heavily used residential street. And I'm I'm pretty disappointed in the whole the whole deal. And that's all I have to say.

Okay. I'm I'm going to echo your comments because we're the two people that voted in the negative. Um I felt really strong that because I've talked to all those people on 42nd Street back when the school was expanding and it was a bad situation then that it's just going to be worse. Uh this is not improving it. Number two is sticking a five-story building out in the middle of this residential area. I I think it's going to be an eyesore to me. I don't care what the building looks like. It's uh it it doesn't fit. Um I'm I am disappointed that the city didn't at least attempt to fight it. You know, if you go and represent us at court and and they turn you down, then you do. But at least uh we made the attempt. My personal feeling is that I think the city looked at it just said here's a big million couple million dollar project that we're going to get. uh if we don't do this uh it's going to either fall apart because it's not going anywhere else. So, let's just let it go. So, that being said, uh motion to adjurnn is still in order.

So, moved. Need a second. Second. Okay, we have a motion second. All those in favor say I. I opposed. We are adjourned and maybe a vacation.