Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm going to say that tonight. Yeah, so please rise for the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands 1 nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice.

Will the recording secretary please call the role? Yeah, here Carol here. Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

And the 4 is absent stop present tonight. Our community development director Atkin and recording secretary. Um. After I have 2 additions to the discussion portion of our agenda number 5 will be 660 East Michigan Avenue and number 6 will be a resignation from planning commission. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as amended unless there are additional amendments?

I was going to add the resignation as well. So you beat me to it. So I'll move to approve as amended noting your 2 additions. 2nd.

All in favor all those opposed motion passes is their motion to approve the meeting minutes of July 8th, 2026 as submitted unless there are amendments submitted. All those in favor all those opposed motion passes public comments under the open meetings act. Any citizen may come forward at this time and make comments. The person is requested, but not required to state their name and address for the record comments will be limited to 3 minutes per person. Seeing no one in the audience, unfinished business tonight? There is none. New business, 26-05, request to extend the preliminary site plan approval for Cambridge Real Estate LLC for a mixed-use development at 1080 East Michigan Avenue, lot 20A, parcel number 18-12-31-480-020, and lot 13, parcel number 18-12-31, Dash 480 dash 013 in our packet. We had a letter dated July 24th, 2026 for Mitchell. Oh, my God, Michael. Of Cambridge real estate, I can't say his last name and I'm going to butcher that too. Um, okay. Um, Mr Atkin.

Yeah, so the 25th of this month will be the 6 month expiration of the preliminary site plan. Additional things added to the residential portion of it. We do have a final site plan in hand. It's being reviewed right now, or I have comments back from the fire department engineering has it. So that will be on next month's agenda, but it's for commercial portion only. So, with the residential portion. Um, they do have, uh, an agreement with bank supplies to acquire what I believe is locked 13, which is the 1 between 12 and road. Did they close on it? So they're going to add additional residential, uh, buildings to that. They're no longer doing. Single family attached, there'll be town styles rental, and they're going to. some sort of like a complex-like structure for residential also, and they're working with Washtenaw County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority to get brownfield funds

FOR A HOUSING TIF.

SO IN ORDER TO GET THAT, A CERTAIN NUMBER OF THE UNITS HAVE TO BE MARKET RATE. SO THEY'RE WORKING THROUGH THAT RIGHT NOW. I BELIEVE IT'S ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE STATE, SO THAT MIGHT DRAW THAT PROCESS OUT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER FOR THEM TO GET THE FINAL FOR THAT PORTION OF IT. SO THEY'VE KIND OF CHANGED THE WAY THEY'RE APPROACHING IT WAS ORIGINALLY THE TENANTS WANTED TO GET IN IT THIS YEAR. IT'S NOW BEEN PUSHED BACK TO THE SPRING, BUT THEY CAN MOVE A LITTLE BIT QUICKER NOW ON THE COMMERCIAL ASPECT OF IT, GET THAT ALL WRAPPED UP, GENERATE SOME REVENUE, AND THEN CONTINUE ON WITH THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF IT. BUT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN SITTING BACK DOING NOTHING ON THIS. ACTUALLY, THE LARGE DETENTION BASIN THAT WAS JUST SOUTH OF THE Um, commercial area has been reduced in size since they have additional and another they're reworking the entire, uh, drainage pattern or a drainage system for the residential version of the property.

Excellent. Um. Is there, I guess we can ask questions in a minute. So, is there a motion on the table to acknowledge receipt of the letter dated July 24th, 2024 from Michael of Cambridge real estate.

So.

All those in favor. Hi. All those opposed.

Actually, I have a question in the memo. I apologize. Sorry. I was thinking we're going to have discussion.

Oh, I was going to say questions. Comments from planning commission members was next. Okay. So. Okay, so should we need to redo that all those in favor of acknowledging receipt? All those opposed motion passes comments questions from planning commission members. Mr. Why are we extending this for a full year?

It can be granted for up to a year.

So, there's just so you're having that issue before with giving.

I think part of the reason is with the state, you know, they have to go through the brownfield redevelopment. Through the county, then it has to go on to the state this time of year with the state or their fiscal year coming to an end. It's going to take a little bit of time.

We only require 1. we only allow 1 more extension.

So, what it is now 1 extension for up to 1 year. Okay.

And that was actually my question too. Um, if. They finish lot 20A now, and they can't get through the brownfield. Will they have to reapply as lot 13 on its own accord?

Yeah, they'd have to go through the preliminary again, which is probably what they're going to have to do anyway with this, with the residential portion, since there's going to be a section of it that we haven't seen, plus everything's being reconfigured. So we'll just go through the preliminary site plan again at that time. When they submit the residential, but for the time being, this is for the entire site. So, if they can get it in, I guess it would be an amendment to. Their original preliminary site.

IN MY OTHER QUESTION WHAT ARE THE DATES IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THERE WERE REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY NEED TO DO STUFF WITHIN THAT AGREEMENT IF I REMEMBER RIGHT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT GIVING AN EXTENSION THAT EXCEEDS WHAT'S IN THAT AGREEMENT I WANT TO SAY THAT WAS ONE YEAR THERE WAS A CERTAIN CRITERIA THEY HAD TO MEET IN THEIR DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD

FOR PROPERTY FOR LOT 12 HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE YET. SO I CAN GO BACK AND CHECK, BUT I THINK THAT WAS ONE YEAR THAT THEY HAD TO START CONSTRUCTION. AND I THINK THAT EXPIRES IN DECEMBER OF THIS YEAR.

I BELIEVE SO, YEAH. SO THEN WE'RE GOING TO BE APPROVING AN EXTENSION THAT EXCEEDS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

SO THERE'S A PROBLEM. WELL, THEY WILL BE DEVELOPING A PORTION OF 20-A. That's where the, for the commercial portion of it, just not in its entirety because I have 20 years. We'll just say divided in half the North half being commercial in the South half and the result will they be turning dirt by the end of December? Because I think that's the requirement in construction there because they want to have this thing open by the spring. The plans they submitted there.

storm, they reworked their water system. It's there.

I spoke with the engineer a little bit today about this, and MC said, you know, just at first glance, in 10 minutes, she looked at it and she thought it was really good.

Okay. I guess for me, my problem is I want to make sure the dates line up because we've run into this problem before. Yeah. So, for me, I will not be supporting extending this unless the dates line up. I don't want to, I don't want us planning and giving them something that we don't have. Properly, if we had that information, I think we could move forward. I just don't know. I probably find it for you real quick.

I'm looking right now.

We continue to tie this lot up. That's my biggest concern and not knowing what's going to happen in the next 6 months, especially with a major election coming up. I want to make sure that we, uh. Are are securing what we're doing.

So, Chris, you anticipate they will be here in the fall with the final, they'll be here next month. Right? I think for the commercial. Correct. Okay. Then that meets the December goal.

Not if they haven't started construction transfer property.

Was January 14th. Of 26, yes.

Sure, if it's December 27 and I don't have a problem with it, I thought we probably gave them at least 2 years, but maybe I'm wrong. I know we kept extending their purchase agreement and then they finally got to the point where they pause the land. There was an 18 months.

IN MY HEAD, I'M GETTING THINGS CONFUSED BECAUSE WE DID HAVE TO EXTEND THE PURCHASE AGREE AT ONE TIME.

WHAT'S THE RULE A YEAR BETWEEN PRELIMINARY AND FINAL?

THEY CAN HAVE UP TO ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN. Approval. That's what there is.

Okay. Yep. The preliminary is good for six months. Final is good for a year.

Correct. And you can have one extension of up to one year. It does not have to include the year property.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SIGN?

THERE WAS SOMETHING WITH THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT BECAUSE NORMALLY YOU PUT THAT IN THERE.

YEAH, THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT ALLOWED THEM, SO THEY EXTENDED THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT 90 DAYS And they took them out until, well, the closing date. Their original $25,000 deposit, initial, so they had six-month due diligence period. Excuse me, originally, six months. Or no, 270 days. So let's say nine months.

And we make it if you approve this, can we make a contingent on that? The dates don't overlap. I mean, it's going to take time to find out what the actual answer is. So, at this point in time, I don't want to dislike postpone this for another month because it'll be past their expiration date.

Yeah, just your motion to approve and grant the assumption that the dates don't conflict with 1 another same reason why that would be.

THE DATE OF THE EXTENSION SHALL NOT EXCEED ANY DATE WITHIN THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OR... PURCHASE CONSTRUCTION.

YEAH, PERFECT.

YOU MAKE THAT MOTION, MR. GEARBAUM.

YEAH, I'M SURE I WROTE HOW I SAID THAT. THE EXTENSION DOES NOT EXCEED... ANY DATE IN THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT. DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. EXTENSION.

DEED OF EXTENSION MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH DATES INCLUDED IN PURCHASE AGREEMENT.

DEED OF EXTENSION MUST NOT EXCEED must not exceed date of extension, must not exceed any dates as stated in purchase agreement.

I didn't say purchase slash development agreement. I don't think there was a development agreement. I think it was all stated in the purchase agreement, but just in case.

I have the recorded real estate purchase and development agreement. There we go.

When was that?

You're making the motion? Yes. Okay. Is everybody okay with the motion that was made? Yeah, read it back.

That the date of extension must not exceed any dates as stated in the purchase development agreement.

That was a motion to approve first, correct?

Yes, approved.

I'll second.

Any additional discussion? All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. That brings us to discussion items. Number one is the downtown gathering space. Are they getting close to their dates from? Oh, my God. Is that what it is? They're working with me.

Further notice, I think there's a high likelihood that there's going to be some modifications to the, um, the design and plan with still a desire to move expeditiously to begin construction activity, either preliminary activity later this this year, but more likely in the spring. Um, I think Mr and I have a sit down with Mr and his associates next week. And our recommendation, at least my recommendation is for council to revisit the matter at a work meeting at our 1st, regular meeting in September, which is late because of Labor Day. So I think that would be the 14th. I think there should be some more clarity in about a month's time. Anybody have questions or discussion on item number 1 and again, I'll propose that actually our Monday's council meeting. So we should have that confirmed that it will be a work meeting on the 14th. And of course. You would all be welcome to attend.

Great.

Thank you. Discussion item number 2 sign ordinance amendments continue from the July 8th, 2026 meeting. I did bring up concern that we did not have a clean copy of article 12. But I guess if there's any discussion on it, Mr. Red and blue, so 2 sets of provisions.

Pick up here because the link has the.

Do you want my.

There's just so many colors. It's hard to review all of the things.

ON WITH THE ORIGINAL ONE IS I TOOK I THINK THE CLEAN COPY THAT EVERYBODY RECEIVED AND THEN DID UPDATES TO THAT. OKAY. SO WHAT'S IN BLUE ARE THE MOST RECENT CHANGES FOR THE UPDATES THAT WERE MADE BETWEEN LAST MONTH'S MEETING AND THIS MONTH'S MEETING, ADDRESSING SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE. SO MORE OF IT WAS JUST CLEANED UP. THERE WAS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SIGN CALCULATION AREA, SO I EXPANDED ON THAT IN ADDITION TO I THINK I ADDED MORE TO THE nonconforming structures. outlying lighting, flashing lighting, be it on a building or somewhere else. I even addressed landscape lighting, and we can talk about that when we get to the section, but I transferred everything out of the sign ordinance that wasn't prohibited and put it into the lighting and glare section and expanded on that as well, consolidated and expanded on some other items that are in there. ON WAS THE ALLOWABLE AREA OF AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD SIGN WHEN IT'S INCORPORATED INTO A MONUMENT SIGN. RIGHT NOW I HAVE IT 50% OF WHAT THE TOTAL SIGN AREA WOULD BE. I'VE SEEN IT AS LOW AS 25%. IT JUST CANNOT BE A STAND-ALONE ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD. Part of another, and I believe right now, the current ordinance, it can either it can be a standalone electronic message board side, either on the ground or on the wall, which would permit them in the downtown district as well.

Well, with standard and some of the other municipalities you've worked for Jackson, Adrian, 75 to 30%.

Do we have any signs like that in the neighborhoods in the city that is an example?

That are incorporated? I believe the closest I can think of is the one down by Zippy's. I think they have, it's not a LCD Screen type is more electronic. I couldn't tell you what the area is of that, but that one would have been installed under the previous sign ordinance prior to the 2023 amendments. I do believe that, you know, the overall sign height and area means, so I don't know how that was calculated. GAS STATION PRICING AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT THEY STAY PRETTY STAGNANT.

EXCUSE ME, STAGNANT. ZIPPY SIGN REALLY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ALLOWED, AND IT WAS, AND THEN WE RESTRICTED ITS MOVEMENT OR IT'S CHANGING, WHICH WAS THAT AT LEAST WAS IN THE ORDINANCE. SO NOW THAT ZIPPY SIGN WOULD BE ALLOWED PRETTY MUCH ANYWHERE INCLUDING DOWNTOWN?

UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, YEAH, YOU COULD HAVE monument or wall sign that is electronic. In this one, it's no longer permitted as a wall sign, only integrated into a monument sign up to a certain percent. I wouldn't recommend allowing the electronic message board to be bigger than the traditional sign, 50%. Help these two TVs in the front here are just under thirteen square feet.

That's not that big for a sign.

It's the flashing flashing and the lighting and all that, which is all addressed in here that they have to change no more than one change every fifteen

WE HAVE THE BLINKING OPEN SIGNS, WE HAVE THE SLIDING OPEN SIGNS, WE HAVE, THERE'S A NUMBER OF THEM DOWN THAT, WOULD THOSE THINGS BE ALLOWED, OR ARE THEY... LIKE, DID YOU SAY OPEN SIGNS?

YEAH, THERE'S... THOSE WERE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL, BUT THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE, THEY'RE NOT FLASHED, THEY CAN'T FLASH TO MOVE, RIGHT?

OKAY. ONE OF THE THINGS ON HERE, IT SAYS, OPERATION OF ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED BETWEEN DUSK AND DAWN. Why would we allow non-residential uses in a residential?

Churches, schools, institutional uses. It's not unusual anymore for, well, typically schools, but schools are going to do what they want to do because they don't have to abide by local ordinances.

We tried to identify institutional as a separate type of category because non-residential sounds like you could do commercial stuff.

Sometimes there would be, you know, depending on how long it's been there. You know, like, you think of up here on what industry that's industrial on the north side.

It's not residentially zone, but it's in a. I think we surrounded by residential residential.

But then, I mean, that that would be comparable to something like this.

So, in that situation, say, like, kind of thing. The pharmacy. That faces commercial. Oh, I know. Well, it would be the commercial building that's on Bennett Street. So that could have commercial businesses in it, because if it's an I, it's zoning. But then they can only have their signs working between dusk and dawn, even though they could have hours that go until 9 o'clock. Yes.

So they have to turn their signs off at 6 o'clock? Photosensors on them now that they can automatically turn them off.

No, I'm just saying how you're going to run it.

I can see people trying to leave their signs operating until their hours. We can put something in there about hours of operation, but if you're not a 24-hour operation, then they have to be shut off at

Certain or when during non business hours, I mean, part of the thing was, I know these electronic signs were more concerned with distractions and flashing into a residential area. And that's where I'm still hesitant on approving residential electronic signs.

after sunset and 30 minutes before sunrise. And given, you know, what I've seen as far as sign applications here, other than McDonald's, I haven't looked at any applications that have electronic message board signs just because they tend to cost a lot more now. And the upkeep on them, plus there's the additional expense of having to wire them and everything else that goes into it. It's a different type of structure. Most are just sticking with a standard sign. I mean, some of these electronic message board signs can cost up to $10,000. or they can just get a regular sign for a lot less than that.

The one thing, too, was being downtown and maintaining the historical approach to it and everything. Were they electronic?

Yeah. They wouldn't be allowed in the D... Or the D2, they're still prohibited. Excuse me. Only permitted in the C3, SPA1, and I2.

So, C3 is no longer, I mean, we didn't overlay zoning. I didn't know how that worked over the C3. Downtown, so it's D1 and D2 downtown that overrides the C3. Thanks.

No, this is this is a lot of work, but thank you for the updates and, you know, keeping it going. Definitely appreciate it.

There's very few places in the D1 or D2. Yes, D2 is mostly residential. That's, you know, McKay, Henry Street, those. But for somebody to want to put a digital sign on their wall in the D1 district, there are very few locations that they can do that. I mean, most of them are going to want to do something that's projecting because they're so close to the road that there's just, there's no visibility to them.

Because I know people put them in their windows. The Beat Alley had one down there at one time. But that one we controlled from the flashing and everything. Okay.

Did we talk already more about certain temporary informational signs between the sidewalk and curb? That's in the memo that I sent out.

That's the last word. And page 1, that's on page 2 of 2 with signs that were submitted. I didn't incorporate them anywhere in here.

And I know Mr. Carol, that's something that you have, you know, you've wanted to have added. So thank you for including that Chris. Okay, so with the sign ordinance, I guess what's the next procedure forward? If we have additional questions, comments.

If you have additional, Commissioner Laforte, I don't know if we crossed signals or misunderstood. She thought that, she stated that I was going to send out the red line before the meeting so they I'm not placing blame, but I think that she would want to have another look at this. That sounds good. And that's no rush to this. Okay.

So discussion that in September approval, October.

Yeah, I mean, that's what it gets to. Okay.

Thank you very much. Number three, site plan review and procedure ordinance amendments continued from the July 8th, 2026 meeting.

TABLE FOR SLATE PLAN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS. YOU CONSOLIDATED THAT. IF YOU SEE ON THE RED LINE WHERE I TOOK

I took out the natural features section, but everything that's in there I put into site plan description.

So that basically is the existing features on the site that you'll see.

THAT I SEE, I HAVE SEEN ON OTHER SITE PLANS. BUT THAT LARGELY REMAINS UNCHANGED. I DID PUT BACK IN THE SECTION THAT I ACCIDENTALLY ADMITTED.

Sorry, could you explain again where the natural features portion was moved to?

What's that?

Where did the natural features?

It was in the table for site plan data.

I see it's all crossed on page 12. I see it's all crossed off.

Yeah, but I took all those sections and inputted them under, most of them are under section B and C. So they're all, again, addressed. just keep it concise and consolidate the table. But for the inspection section, I put that back in and expanded on it, broke it out a little bit more for, you know, planning zoning staff and engineering staff and going through that and the violations section expanded on that also. IF IT DOESN'T, IF IT'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE, THEN, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE SO MANY DAYS, AND THEN CITATION, CIVIL INFRACTION WILL BE ISSUED. IT PRETTY MUCH FOLLOWS THE SAME, HAS THE SAME LANGUAGE IN IT THAT IT DOES FOR THE SIGN AND SIGN ORDINANCE. for preliminary site plan review and final site plan review. It was very wordy, very detailed, step-by-step. Then this is returned, then it goes to these, and then they're returned, and then it comes back. It's going to be sent out for review. It'll come back and things like that. There was one under the preliminary site plan section. The existing ordinance states that after preliminary site planning, I'm paraphrasing, the discretion of the Planning Commission, they will allow the applicant to start pulling stuck with, you know, partially developed land. And typically, if there's a performance guarantee or any bonds, those aren't issued until after final

FAIR DEAN KIND OF FELL INTO THAT ROLE. FAIR DEAN PROPERTY FELL INTO THAT SITUATION.

EXACTLY. SO I DON'T WANT THE CITY TO BE LIABLE OR RESPONSIBLE FOR HAVING TO CLEAN UP THAT MESS. BUT, AGAIN, THESE CAN COME BACK SINCE YOU DIDN'T GET THE CLEAN COPY OF IT.

NO, I HAVE THE CLEAN COPY OF THIS ONE.

DO YOU WANT TO PROVIDE I'm excited to revise the entire session. It was very mounted non-residential lighting.

Yeah, I mean, there was a question that I did ask prior to the meeting about holiday lights that stay up year round. I guess questions about that. That looks like in your update that it's been that that is prohibited outside of holiday periods. But I guess I'll ask that question too.

How are they waiting? Feature to, uh, you know, eliminate a building line and stuff like that. And they would have to come down. It would not be so what's proposed based on what's proposed and how they dates in here. Uh, it just, I think it, I think it's a seasonal or holiday lighting. I can't remember.

We want to identify the specific periods. It's just that I know 1 or 2 buildings. Yeah, they've decided that there's a holiday like for every day of the week.

Expand on that. I think it'd be helpful from the main source of power. I don't know.

Basically, it's string lacer strung across the entire building.

IN THE PROHIBITED LIGHTING SECTION H, YOU MENTIONED IT.

JUST KIND OF HAVE TO FIND A DIPLOMATIC WAY TO DESCRIBE WHAT THEY CALL THOSE ICICLE LIGHTS DURING... AND IT'S BUFFERING.

All right, definitely a big update. So I know there will be comments on this. Thank you for providing both copies of it. And we will intend to have updates prior to the September meeting. We have 660 East Michigan Avenue that was added to the discussion tonight.

1, 2nd, so I can log into. We had a pre-application meeting with a group two weeks ago yesterday. They're ready to start submitting plans for these.

Are submitting plans for a reconfiguration of the property?

Yes. Stuff what's going on. They're looking to put a drive through coffee shop in there. No, I'm bringing this forward because currently under the only ordinance, they're not permitted. except for those that are incidental to the primary use or purpose or structure. When this was built back in 1987, this came up as an area of contention because car washes are also prohibited from fronting Michigan Ave. And so the way they If you can see the blueprint here.

There's supposed to be a road there, right, Chris?

Exactly. So along the east side, which is between Michigan and the car wash, once all was said and done, it was developed, and this drive was put in, they deeded, or they granted a 33-foot wide easement to the city. and state that that is a service road of sorts, because originally that was supposed to go from East Michigan Ave down to Bemis Road.

THAT RUNS DOWN THERE.

SO I HAVE THE DOCUMENT RECORDED, DOCUMENTATION FOR THE EASEMEN AND ALL THE INFORMATION HERE. THAT ROAD OR THAT SECTION IS CALLED AG GROSS, RIGHT? AF. AF GROSS. AND THE CARWASH FRONTS THAT ROAD, NOT EAST MICHIGAN AFF. SO MY QUESTION. TO HAVE ANOTHER. MY QUESTION IS, THEY WANT TO OVERHEAD YOU. SO THIS RIGHT HERE IS THE 33-FOOT WIDE EASEMENT THAT RUNS THE LENGTH. THE SECTION OF LAND BETWEEN MCDONALD'S PARKING LOT AND THE LOT LINE OR THE EASTERN MOST EASEMENT LINE THERE, THAT'S 20 FEET WIDE. THE CITY OWNS THAT. SO MY QUESTION TO YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION, AS I TOLD THE AFRICAN, I WOULD PRESENT. They plan to keep the access in the same area, same location. They're just going to mill and resurface it, redo the whole site. The building will come down. Circulation pattern will be about the same. Since this was allowed, the car wash was allowed under the disguise that it fronts AF gross road or street or what have you, would that same apply for a drive-through facility?

Is there any advantage at this juncture in maintaining that easement?

No, because, well, I think they're, they actually have a detention basin in there as well. And I want to say that there's an overhead utility line easement in there too. I did see some documentation and I don't remember exactly what was done, but I think they tried to The owners, I can't remember their names at the time, tried to get the easement dissolved. Yes. And the city said no.

But at this point. It's advantageous to us to maintain it. Not that it makes much difference. Is this a local outfit? Is this a national brand? It's Sevenberg coffee. Sevenberg? Brew. Sevenberg, okay. I'm not a coffee drinker, so. No.

So, Chris, what's the law now about facing Michigan Avenue? Because McDonald's is right next door, and a significant portion of their business is drive-thru.

They got a back-end went into effect in 80. McDonald's put in late 70s and then they are getting a use variance when they expanded their building after the SPA. So they have a use variance to have. In order for them at that time to expand their building footprint they need to get a use variance. Why don't we just give this company a use variance? Well that's the route I'm going. Because they're looking more allowing, keeping the approach where it is and considering how it was done for the carwash, would it be viewed the same for this different type of use fronting that road? Now, the use variance, it's 50-50. I wouldn't even say it's 50-50. There is no hardship that they could.

I mean, why don't we allow them to face East Michigan Avenue and have a drive-thru? We have to rewrite the ordinance.

So, let's rewrite the ordinance. Dan, I think it goes back to history where back in the day, they didn't want Michigan Ave to be another Washtenaw Ave. And that's why SPA 1 is... What it is today. No car washes, no drive-thrus, no nothing. But there's avenues away from that. Even when Wendy's came in, that's off of Hopper Drive.

They did the same for Zippy's.

For Zippy's, yes.

Well, the people that are buying Lot 20 that we just talked about, their front two buildings are going to have drive-thrus.

They had to go through the Sauk Trails Covenants, and that use was allowed through.

It doesn't MDOT have a lot to say about that, too. They don't like the curb cuts on Michigan Ave, but they'll allow them. And just to give you some history, I know at one time they talked about having a separate drive parallel with Michigan Ave where you get everybody off Michigan Ave in the park. There's spots in Washington Ave that are like that.

There's three different options for this original. setback or frontage in there. The other option, and they had this as a temporary access point, when the Bridgewater Lumber was there, they had a shared drive. But the traffic engineer stated that was just going to cause too much hassle, too much ingress-egress at one point. And then this was option number three that they came up with, and then PUTTING THE EASTMAN IN THERE, GIVING IT A NAME, AND ALL THIS STUFF. SO THAT'S HOW THEY GOT AWAY FROM IT FOR OUR COMMISSION. SO MY QUESTION IS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, DO YOU, THIS, USING THE SAME

Any strong opinions? So what you're saying, Chris, is that because that easement's there, this qualifies as being a kind of a street?

Based on attorney's interpretation and comment.

It's going to increase traffic flow in and out of there, though.

But I wouldn't anticipate there being queuing issues. The drive is long enough coming, you know, even if the building footprint is the same, I don't anticipate queuing there. It's wide enough, 33 feet wide at the entrance.

This one, this shows 39.

Okay. I mean, it could be, if they're going to tear the building down and everything, doing like the other one require... Queuing and everything to go around and behind the building and then come back out the front.

It's going to follow the counterclockwise pattern. Same as it does. Now, it's going to be, I think, um, 2 drive through lanes.

What's the name of the company was again 7, the intended drive in the front and go across the front and come back around and out same circulation pattern is currently.

The building, I think the building that they're going to put up, there'll be 2 separate buildings. 1 is counter. Restored or something and the other, I don't think combine the buildings are over a 1000 square feet. They're very, very small. Why would there be 2 buildings like a storage? Yeah, I think so. Refrigeration.

So, this what I see online is that it is exclusively coffee and drink. They offer no food.

Nothing was strictly in and out.

Yeah, this is what this is just a sketch that they gave me a couple of weeks ago.

So, are they moving it forward and reducing the amount of green space in the front from where car washes now?

I already informed him that that has to be 50 feet.

The buyer doesn't want to do it. That's a huge piece of property for very small buildings that simply serve drinks.

I like the fact that there's somebody willing to buy an old car wash and tear it down because somebody's, you know, just like a point of view shop, they're very specific to the type of use. One thing too is, you know how we did on the other one, it seems like that design right there though has a lot of impervious surface and just

I don't know. I think well, to Dean's point, it's going to look like even more impervious surface because the buildings, the smaller they shrink. Yeah, this is.

This looks like just conceptual design for it for the pre application meeting.

Just give us something to look at. So they haven't expressed any desire to do any other business ventures on site.

No.

Okay. No. You got the space for it.

It sounds like they'd have been excellent tenant for Cambridge, Cambridge.

Dunkin Donuts. Those 1st, these are your typical coffees. These are more like.

Energized yeah, this is and there's quite a bit of drink. There's excuse me on the drink menu. There's a lot of sodas, lemonades, smoothies, milkshakes. teas, energy drinks, yeah.

I don't know, you can get just a regular black coffee. That's hot.

You can charge more. More stuff in it.

Chris, are they only going to have one pickup or two? Two.

So there's no drive-up. They show me up, they walk out, get the order, take it back inside, then they drive back around. And on the east side, there are double doors or sliding doors and they bring it out to you. So there's no pickup window and there's no ordering board. So how do you know what to order?

I would assume it's like bear claw coffee.

Chick-fil-A's got a board.

Yeah, they may have. Almost positive they said there wasn't a board. Great summer. I wouldn't want to be out there.

Is that the bulk of their business done via a non traditional drive through? Do they prefer people to come into the there's no.

So what are you looking for from us? If they decide, you know, with their pre-application meeting, if they would keep the same entrance, the same easement, is that our, is Planning Commission's preference or, I guess.

Since it's already been approved this way, even though it's a change of use, but both uses are not permitted along East Michigan Ave. under the current PLANNING COMMISSION VIEW THIS AF GROSS AS THE FURNAGE AS OPPOSED TO EAST MICHIGAN AF.

YOU KNOW I WONDER WHEN THEY DID THAT WHETHER MCDONALD'S OWNED THAT PROPERTY TO THE EAST YET OR TO THE WEST OF THEIR BUILDING BUT EAST OF THIS WITH THE INTENT THAT THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED FOR.

I WANT TO SAY THAT The city owned something wider in there, and I'm speculating and trying to remember. I mean, I went through a lot of documents to figure this out. A portion of that property that the city owned was sold with this with the intent of them putting the drive on the west side. And then when they figured out that's not going to work, that's when the easement portion came into it because they already had an existing right away in there I have gone too far back into old maps, uh, pre 87 to find out.

So, the intent probably would have been at 1 point was to make that, like you said, to make Bridgewater or Chelsea lumber that drive. I'll pay your drive. Yeah.

from East Michigan and Bemis Road. I have a question probably for Scott or Dean. There was nothing on that parcel prior to Goofy's. There was a house. Oh, there was a house, okay.

Yeah, thank you. One of them got moved back to Bemis Road. Yes.

One did and the other got moved down further at Bemis Road.

Yeah, there was two houses there at one time. Because that would have originally been part of Pittsfield Township? Yes. Yes. It's all very interesting.

I mean, the issue ends up being, is it going to be a more intense use than what it was before? I don't like the idea of a use variance being granted. Just know. The fact that they created that easement for that, it just seems odd that. Just looks at basically turning part of that road. That's supposed to be there. It's basically just green space right now.

Well, right now it's a detention basin.

Is that what it is? Yeah. So, what would it be in there? Okay. So what will it be in their plan? Same thing and they won't touch it.

I will say I have no strong preference about this either way.

The thing that alarms me is the size of the buildings for the tiny, a tiny business venture for a pretty significant lot.

My fear is.

thing for me is if you can do that but if they're not going to build on it they need to reduce the impervious surface on there and just keep it less of a part of it and more landscaping to address it you tried to put grass between the drives and all that kind of stuff too so that's the kind of thing that just kind of yeah there's these areas up here is all landscaped and stuff and i already talked to him about that and

Is is the configuration also look 101520 years down the line if this were to be redeveloped or they wanted to add a different business, a new or additional business venture on site? Does the current layout and design is that is that does that allow for for such a change? That might be a question for tonight. That'd be something I would look at as part of a preliminary final site plan.

These buildings. I don't want to say they're prefabricated, but they're only on a four foot foundation. There's no basement. They're very small. So. The, the odds of this getting redeveloped 30 years down the road are very good because there's not a lot there. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. As opposed to, you know, car wash and all the infrastructure that goes into that. They are aware of the need for a hydrant. Getting because they're going to have to pour under East Michigan Avenue for the water service coupling with them. They were going to look into that. Um. But, I mean, as far as timeline, I think this is, I mean, they could have this thing up and running and.

Oh, yeah, right. If it's all you're really doing is demoing and bringing in some prefab structures.

Yeah. Have you seen their picture of what that building looks like? It's pretty, pretty basic, pretty basic and pretty bright.

A lot of labels. I talked to them about a few things that need the tone, this tone, that tone.

What are their hours of operation there?

Seven brews all day every day.

yeah okay there's a lot of energy drinks milkshakes and smoothies they just put one of these down in adrian too did they a lot on in front of a grocery store yeah i just noticed it the other day it wasn't there a couple weeks ago we're at adrian front of meyer oh okay all right any additional discussion

I guess the last thing on the discussion items is we did have the resignation of Ms. Cheryl Heft to our planning commission. So Cheryl served here for a long time and just wanted to thank her for her service in front of the community. Mayor Morrow, do you have anything you'd like to add?

that she'll be presented with a proclamation and recognized as it's actually on the agenda here as a special presentation at the beginning of our next council meeting on Monday, August the 17th, which is this coming Monday at 7 p.m. So if you're inclined to attend, feel free. That'll be at the top of the agenda and it'll wrap up by 7.15 at the very latest.

unless we want to be dragged around for a while.

Any additional discussion items that we might have missed? Um, the next meeting is scheduled for September 9th, 2026 at 7 PM. Is there a motion on the table to excuse the absence of commissioner report? 2nd, all those in favor. All those opposed motion passes. Is there a motion to adjourn at 809 PM? So, 2nd, all those in favor. All those opposed motion passes.