Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. So, I guess we can get [Applause] started. Okay. I'd like to call this meeting to order. It's the regular meeting of the Garden City Planning Commission. It's Thursday, May 8th, 2025 at uh 6:32 p.m. Our first order of business is the pledge of allegiance to the flag. If everyone would stand, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Be seated. Would the secretary take the roll call, please? Chairperson May, here. Commissioner Steamberg, I. Commissioner Walls, Commissioner King, here. Commissioner Williams here. and Commissioner Bazi is not present. You do have a quorum with four members, Mr. Chair. Okay. Thank you. Uh, next we need approval of the agenda. Someone cares to make a motion. Make a motion to approve the agenda. Support. Motion's made and supported. Any discussion on the motion? Take the role, please. Commissioner Williams. I. Commissioner King. I wisher Steamberg I chairperson May I motion carries. Uh next we need approval of the minutes from the regular meeting of April 10th 2025. I'll make a motion to approve the regular minutes of April 10th, 2025. Support. Any uh corrections or discussion on the motion? Take the role, please.

Commissioner Williams. Hi, Commissioner King. Hi, Commissioner Steberg. I, Chairperson, May, I. Uh, next we have public comment on non-aggenda items only. If there is someone here who wishes to comment on a non-aggenda item, they can come forward and address the commission. Seeing no one, we'll move on to our business items. First item, DPL25- 0013, a request to establish a mixeduse building at 29317, 29299, and 29217 Ford Road and reszone the site from CBD Central Business District to PUD, planned unit development. Okay. Uh we'll start out with our consultants report. Good evening, commissioners. Uh tonight we are here to consider a PUD at the southeast corner of Ford Road in Middle. Uh so the applicant uh the site itself actually is comprised of four tax parcels. Uh the total approximately 1.61 acres in area. There are three structures on the site. Uh the first at um 29317 Ford Road and furthest uh west on the property is collocally known as the Orange Jewelry Building. Um it's approximately 4200 square foot uh foot building footprint. Uh to the east of that building is a two-story mixeduse building uh that has an approximately 5,500T buhprint. And then to the east of that building is the Mazone building typically is what we've called it in the past. And it is a one-story multi-tenant

commercial building that has about a 9,700 ft uh footprint. And it is actually one story. It's kind of even despite its height. But um the site itself also actually has a 97 space uh parking lot to the rear that has access uh via partardo. And the applicant is proposing uh to demolish all of the structures on the site and then construct a fourstory mixeduse building. Uh it would have a 20,000 square footprint uh right at the uh northwest uh corner of the site. So along the building wall building zero lot line along Ford Road and along Middle Belt. Uh it would have the site itself would have about 8,500 ft² of open space and a 94 space parking lot. Uh so the building would have two 20,000 ft of ground floor commercial retail space and then the top three floors are proposed to be occupied by 60 apartments. So as proposed uh the this type of structure is not in compliance with our current current central business district standards which this is zoned. So the applicant is promoting proposing a planned unit development process and this process allows the city to modify these underlying standards of the central business district uh which is the current zoning in order to permit a pro in order to permit permit a project that will provide a recognizable and substantial benefit to the community. Uh these modifications by the applicant include a reduction in the parking requirement, uh a reduction in the open space, modification to the parking lot configuration requirements, uh an increase in building height, and an increase in residential density. And I'll go over those specific modifications in a moment. Uh we haven't

had a PUD in a very long time in the city. So just to review with you the review and the review and approval process, it's basically a two-step process. uh one is where the city considers this PUD reszoning and the development plan uh proposed. So um this involves the first step involves an amendment of the zoning map. The site would be amended to PUD and it also involves the approval of a plan development plan. Um we uh in order to uh just specify the uh that the fact that the zoning ordinance doesn't spec specifically indicate the entire content that is required within the plan development plan. Uh typically the plan development plan uh in my experience uh requ includes all the information necessary for the planning commission and the council to uh be assured that of the detail you need to make the determination that this meets the intent and uh uh criteria of the PUD process. So the information that is within that plan development plan should be what you need in order to determine that this does meet our intent as a PUD. Uh so in order to do the go through this process uh it first involves uh what we'll be having tonight which is a public hearing uh to discuss the these options. Uh and then ultimately at some point the planning commission would make a recommendation to city council uh whether approval of the PUB resoning and approval of the plan development plan and then uh the city council holds their own public hearing and then they will ultimately decide on whether the the site is reszoned to PUD and whether the the the plan development plan is approved. So that's all involving in the first step. Then the second step is final site plan approval. The second step will the

applicant will be required to come back to the planning commission and have a site plan that is detailed within our zoning ordinance and has all of the specific requirements uh as we normally have for construction of a project. Uh so this would include uh all the details we normally require for a final site plan approval. Um and just as as note as you as you as you gentlemen are aware that typically our our final site plans involve the specifics of uh the architecture the uh the floor plans the um and then with this with regard to the final site plan configuration uh landscaping uh separate landscaping plan separate lighting plan and then any additional information uh that is listed within the zoning ordinance. So that's the review and approval process. Uh I've prepared a review letter for you with regards to the specific criteria involving plan unit development. Uh, and these issues include first looking at the eligibility criteria, making sure this site is eligible, and then delving into the project design standards, and then I've also outlined for you uh the specific approval criteria listed in the zoning ordinance that you should consider when you when you um when you ultimately make your your recommendation to city council. First, with regards to eligibility, uh the site we do believe is eligible to consider to be considered as a PUD. We wouldn't bring it before you if it wasn't considered eligible. Uh they meet the minimum front frontage and size requirements. Uh the capacity of the adjacent public utilities is sufficient to accommodate this proposed structure and these proposed uses. Um it's compatible, we believe, with the plan development intent, which is to uh not only remove any uh uh older structures or structures that are no longer viable, but also allow for the

construction of new structures that are up to modern standards. uh we do believe in the end there would be a substantial benefit in terms of economic impact by promoting a higher level of design and investment in the city and the applicant is in control of all the property. So we do believe the uh the site is eligible. Um one thing I wanted to point out is that one of the aspects of that goes through this with regards to eligibility is is that phrase of recognizable and substantial benefit. uh the planned development shall result in recognizable substantial benefit to the ultimate users of the project and to the community. Uh this is done uh specifically by fully empty planning, excuse me, fully implementing the goals of the master plan. But projects uh that also exhibit exempl exemplary site and building design also provide a readily recognizable benefit to the city. So our review is based on making sure that we continue that that it has emphasizing that if we're maintaining uh and implementing the goals and objectives of the master plan and also making sure that the site design and the building design are uh of a high quality that will be provide that benefit to the city. So as mentioned we do believe the project is eligible. uh when we look at the project design standards uh beginning at on page four uh this location is you know pre puds are permitted throughout the city so the location is appropriate the permitted uses that are being submitted are permitted by right in the CBD district so having a mixeduse building is is appropriate for PUD uh and then getting into uh the modifications uh as noted uh the the within the CBD district. Uh the maximum building height right now is 2

and 1/2 stories or 35 ft and the applicant is proposing a four-story building. When it comes to density requirements, the site is permitted uh 28 dwelling units under our current standards and the applicant is proposing 60 uh and based on parking uh based on it being part of the downtown and being with the parking in the downtown requirements and it's what's allowed under th those standards. Normally this would require 157 parking spaces. Um but one thing we want to point out is that you know that that standard is based on 2.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit which it really is in the end. We've been dealing with this with some other aspects of multif family development in the city and it really is an old and outdated standard for 2.2 parking spaces. It's no longer required in modern zoning ordinances and it's definitely no longer 2.2 two parking spaces is not something that's required in downtowns throughout Metro Detroit. In McKenna's experience throughout Michigan, we that that parking standard is is significantly lower than that. But we do make want to make sure that emphasize that parking needs to be able to function for the site. It's not about reducing it for the sake of reduction. It's about making sure that it's reflective of modern data and reflective of modern standards for that. So the applicant is actually proposing right now 97 parking spaces on the site and then there is a requirement uh for open space the the ordinance requires 21,000 square ft uh of permeable land area and the applicing 8500. So when it comes to these design standards and and the aspect of a PUD, the issue is uh to prov the city is allowed to grant modification. It's allowed to grant use regulatory flexibility to achieve a type of development that meets the intent of the master plan and the goals and objectives

and then create something that is of an exemplary design and or benefit to the city. Uh so modifications of those dis Like I mentioned, modifications of existing base standards are permitted for a PUD, but only if they result in a higher quality of development that would be possible without the modifications. Uh these modifications will result in a four-story mixeduse building in the downtown. It's cons which is consistent with the master plan goals and objectives. And you know this and this build type of building has not been possible under our current standards. We've had these development standards for decades and we have not yet seen this type of building yet created in Garden City. Uh so the PUB would allow for something that is part of the goals and objectives of the downtown. Um but one thing we want to point out is that the most effective way to ensure that uh these modifications that are being asked for do result in a high quality development is by specifying uh the building and site design standards that are to be constructed. Uh those can be be done through a something as such as a detailed design requirements. Um, you know, the African is you have a rendering in front of you in addition to the plot plan. Uh, and this rendering shows a building uh that has an overall building style we would describe as a Midwest urban aesthetic. It has, uh, utilizes stone and red brick facads, double hung windows. It's an attractive building. Uh, you know, they've taken cues from the administration. uh you know the the use of the light colored stone on the ground floor with an arched first floor roof line at that corner with a beveled corner and then they even put a clock above the door. You know, that's something that echoes the elements of the of the orange jeweler building of the of the old city hall that's there currently. So it echoes

that design in the new building. Um then it also has vertical columns that create, you know, subtle ar articulation that is very important in a large building. It it minimizes the mass and scale and it also leads up to a very attractive uh roof roof line coroness. Uh the proposed it actually has um the rendering shows u uh balconies for the residents uh but that they're recessed behind the walls. So therefore they can be something that provides a benefit to residents. They can go outside and and have some fresh air and some light enter their building, but they aren't going to be overhanging or directly impacted by the traffic along Ford and Middle. So, it's a way to create that urban atmosphere without necessarily having it intrude upon them, their residents. It's something that they could experience if they wanted to. However, we do believe that to ensure the final design in this rendering maintain these features, we recommend that any approval includes a detailed list of these architectural elements uh including the material architecture of the materials involved, the elements and characteristics and details that contribute to the design as part of that plan development plan. It's something that could be detailed and listed on that on that site plan or on that rendering. So all the elements that I just listed in terms of materials and colors uh could be just be listed by the applicant. Other things to improve this existing building we believe would be uh the use of stone wooden lintil stone window lentils at the base of those windows. Uh utilizing brick soldier courses possibly also for the window sills or aprons. Um a stone stylized cornice roof line. uh they're proposing that the rendering seems to be utilizing a brick which is very hard to do. I don't think it's feasible with with doing that as a part of a roof element.

So possibly utilizing stone or some some other kind of high quality material along the roof line would be appropriate. Um specifying that how much the columns project from that that wall to make sure that we maintain that that articulation is important. uh even specifying something as simple as making sure that the these are double hung windows with muttons and grill or muttons or grills within the windows. Uh you know those are details uh for a a window and an aspect that contribute to the uh the overall style of the building. So that that one of our main recommendations is to make sure that we have those details involved. some of the aspects of the residential density just to to conclude with those beginning on the next page. Residential density uh modifications are permitted by the PUD uh when those densities will not adversely impact uh water and sewer service uh storm water drainage uh road capacity traffic and the you know parks and the character of the area. Um, as we've talked about briefly in the letter, uh, you know, this is located along, uh, Ford and Middleb Belt, which has our direct access to sewer and water mains. Uh, and these mains are designed to accommodate the highest density of development achievable in the city. Uh, they're also directly adjacent to Ford and Mill, which are the primary regional corridors for traffic. If there's any roads that could handle traffic from an apartment building, it would be Ford and Middle. We don't have any other roads that are designed of a higher traffic volume to accommodate that. Uh so if anywhere the this is where it would be. Um and one thing we just want to point out too is that once again uh the master plan envisions this as the heart of the downtown area and developed with a pedestrianoriented urban character. Uh the proposed density

and these number of units is typical of similar regional downtowns uh found throughout Metro Detroit and we don't believe it would it will not adversely impact the area. The the intent is to have residents live in your downtown to shop and frequent your businesses. Um finally things to point out uh with regard to the design the open space requirements. once again to point out that the project typically would require 21,000 square ft of permeable land area. Uh the standard is what we believe that standard and that number of volume uh excuse me the amount of land area that that calculation results in is more typical of a suburban residential style development. Uh you know 21,000 square feet is is nearly half an acre. That's a pretty decent sized park for 60 people. So, you know, in directly there. So, it's not it's not something that you normally find for in an urban area for just one development. Um, you know, the applicant is proposing 8,500 square ft of open space. Uh, this includes uh a small public plaza area to the east of the building along Ford and to the south of the building on Middle Belt. So, they will have small little parklets is what you could call them. uh they have the ability for someone to sit outside and and and u wait for for someone to show up uh wait for someone to visit them or that sort of thing you know a meeting area. So uh it is typical of an urban style rather than suburban. So we do believe the modification of that urban some modification to the open space is warranted given that we're proposing a urban style development. Uh and then other things in getting into design, you know, we're starting to reiterate ourselves. It goes over utilities once again right against Ford and Middle. They have the main utilities in Maine. But we will point

out that um there's a DTE easement and overhead utility wires run east west to the rear of the existing structures. Uh so the applicant really will need to indicate how they intend to accommodate that existing easement. We note that because previous development in the area, specifically the McDonald's, kind of was was held up by without having a clear thought out uh awareness of that easement and making accommodation to DTE to make sure that they would accommodate it. Um finally, one of the as other aspects I just want to point out when it comes to the design standards is uh pedestrian vehicular circulation. There's going to they're going to maintain the uh sidewalk system along forward and along middle Belt. They're proposing a sidewalk adjacent to the building so a a person could be able to walk the entire perimeter of the building. And then they're maintaining the vehicular access configuration. Vehicles would access this site still only from Partardo. They're not proposing any kind of curb cuts on on Ford or Middle Belt and be the same configuration with parking in the back. That's something that we strive for and is a requirement of the downtown of the central business district. They're not changing that. Parking will be to the rear of the building. So, and it's not going to be a change to residents, old or or new residents uh for this site. So, those are the aspects regards to the project design. Finally, uh on at the beginning of uh page six are the I list out the standards for approval to consider and basically it's a reiteration of of all the other aspects we've been talking about. Uh we do believe this uh as this entire project as proposed is per is in conformance with the plan development concept because once again this will allow for the construction of an economically viable mixeduse building. That's one of the reasons for the four stories. they're going to need uh additional

revenue from those units to develop a building of this size and style. They're actually going to be needing other aspects that they're going to go through later uh with other entities to to m to make this economically viable for themselves. So, this is just one aspect, the the height. Um, but you know, starting to reiterate myself and reiterating in the letter, this is something that has been planned for in the downtown and and has been the intent to have a a higher density residential mixeduse in in in the downtown. Um, and we've seen this uh occur in other communities in the area too. just to point out, you know, others other communities have have attempted to achieve the to achieve this type of pedestrian downtown that used to exist. Uh, and they have achieved that, but they really only achieved that level of activity. And not only that, but successful businesses. They only get those successful businesses when you have a destination and residents in the area. And uh, typically they involve these these kind of buildings. they they involve fourstory, five-story buildings to make it economically viable. So that's why um honestly that's why we've also we're undergoing a master plan right now looking at our housing standards looking whether they should be changed. Uh but that's also why we have the PUD is to allow someone to ask us ask ask the city excuse me if if modifications warrant. So with regards to the criteria of approval as I mentioned you know they're all listed out right there. Once again, we talk about public service. We talk about impact of on traffic uh accommodations for pedestrian traffic and then compatibility with the master plan. Those are criterias to consider for the approval and we do believe that as proposed the applicant uh this type of project could meet those conditions of approval.

So, in the end, we do advise the planning commission to recommend to city council uh the approval of the plan unit development reszoning and the approval of the plan development plan contingent uh upon the applicant submitting a revised plan development plan that includes uh any building and site design specifications uh listing that is as detailed by the planning commission. Uh and then the applicant including uh one other aspect I in my letter is regards to storm water management. We want to make sure that every aspect of that is uh dealt with during this process. So we would just recommend approval contingent upon they comply with Wayne County standards during final site plan approval. uh applicant including modifications to DTEment that are uh acceptable to both DTE and the applicant during final site plan and then obtaining final site plan approval from the planning commission. While that's a requirement of the ordinance, we just wanted to reiterate that as part of of this. So, apologies for that lengthy review, but it, you know, this is a major project for the city and and I just wanted to make sure that um go over those details for you. So, I can take any questions at any time. Yeah, I have u a question. Well, number one, I had a question about the size of the uh property because in your review letter, you say it's 1.61 61 acres and in the applicant's letter it says it's 2.61 acres which is correct. So it well the site is 1.61 on the north side of parardau. They also own a fourth another parcel on the south side of parardaux that when you add together is 2.61. Their original application was considering including something on on that southern parcel but at this time they're they're proposing that as a

future phase. So it wouldn't be under this that other additional acre on the south side while they own it is not at this time proposed for development. Okay. Uh second I had I have some comments about the parking. Mhm. Uh you mentioned that you feel that our ordinance is old and outdated and no longer required, but our parking ordinance for multifamily housing is very similar to most of the communities around us. Uh Leavonia and Canton have the exact same parking requirements. uh Westland and Dearbornne have a tiered system where one-bedroom apartments are required to have 1.5 spaces and two-bedroom two spaces. And the only one that's significantly lower would be Dearborn Heights where one and two bedrooms are 1.5. Mhm. And I'm I'm thinking even even with that amount of reduction, we're still woefully short. So I would say that um you're absolutely correct. Those are the standards that are in the other m municipalities. But then you when you look at the style of development in those communities, that's why they have that style. You know, Leavonia right now doesn't have a downtown. Leavonia is proposing a downtown. They're going to be looking at changing theirs. Canton doesn't have a downtown. They have they have the uh Cherry Hill development. Uh but that was done under a PU well they call it plan development they plan not plan unit development they call it a plan a PDD plan development district is how they do it and that was done long time ago. Um but they actually do that throughout the city. Uh and then as you mentioned other communities that have

more of a downtown who have a standard. So um while some modification I wanted to bring that consideration just so so you could con look at this and possibly consider a modification as acceptable. I will say that you know when it comes to that standard that they're proposing it is aggressive with regards to the amount of density. Uh I'd be interested to know what the applicant is thinking in terms of you know if you have 60 units uh they're still while they're on for and middle and they have access to bus routes chances are every every resident there is going to want to have at least one car so you know I'd be interested to know if how that the resident's relationship to the parking is going to be and say if for example they were one parking design designated for each housing unit then that only leaves 37 spaces for the commercial. Now whether that's enough, you know, that's that's a pretty You've got 20,000 square feet of commercial. Exactly. Yeah. That's a lot. And that's a lot. And in our ordinance, um, retail stores are required to have one space for every 150 ft. Mhm. That's right. So that's like 133 Mhm. parking spaces by itself. Exactly. Yes. I mean we we if we fill up the lot with our residential parking where the people that want to go to the store are going to park, right? So that that is that is um definitely something that I was looking at with regards to this type of modification. One aspect of that is, you know, you look at 20,000 square foot. We also have a standard for u a um what we call a shopping center. The shopping center standard allows one parking space for every 250 square ft of uh retail area. And that's actually net floor area, not gross. So typically, you know, if you have a 20,000t building, you're going to need back of the house areas for your heating and cooling equipment and

garages. So typically, and within the ordinance, we do take out uh if the applicant doesn't provide a site plan, excuse me, a floor plan of the uh that 20,000 foot, we take out automatically 20%. So, uh, for that back of the house and then that's the standard within the zoning ordinance that we apply. So, it would be 18,000 square foot applied under 250 and I believe that comes out to 67 or something like that. So, if you did that, then you're looking at least at um, and let me make sure that's right. That's correct. um you would be looking at at least maybe possibly needing another 30 parking spaces to meet that kind of standard if we're only giving one to each apartment unit. If correct now that's that's that's a two-tier that's a two phased modification if you will. One allowing only one parking space per apartment and then two having uh this application of the shopping center standard. So that's about it's about 6770 parking spaces. So if you got 37 that's still about double of what they're proposing. Uh well if you had 60 for the parking for for the I mean they're proposing 30ome spaces for and then 37 yeah only 37 34 excuse me 34 then you would need at least another 30 uh somewhere else. And they do have the fourth lot excuse me the lot on the south side. So that's something. And then as I I you know I know this is once again new to us and and something like this is not um you know I'd like to say say that every community has something that automatically works for them all the time but if any person here has ever visited downtown Plymouth or downtown Northville you know the parking isn't exactly uh and they have huge parking lots behind their stores on Main Street and they also have a parking structure structure. Exactly. Yes, they have a

parking structure which is something that many of the other communities around here like Dearbornne and Royal Oak and Birmingham, they all have parking structures. They may have different requirements. A lot of them have parking on the street, too. Exactly. That's the other aspect. No, there's no parking available there. Right. But that is another aspect of it too is that the community that wants to have these type of downtowns, wants to have this type of building in their community, some aspect of the of the site is eventually uh uh benefited from the adjacent from from development from the DDA or from the from the city for on street parking or parking structures. There are definitely I have some clients that that have parking plan problems, but the reason they have parking problems is because they don't have a structure yet. So, they have constant people coming to their downtown, but then they don't have then they have parking issues all the time. So, we're maximize trying to maximize parking. So, it's one of those things where honestly it is it's a chicken and egg thing because parking structures are not cheap. uh those communities that have them have utilized DDAs but they have property values in the DDAS that can support tiff that can support that and you know so it's one of those um aspects that is a very good discussion to have especially at the beginning but then it's a matter of uh eventually uh trying to understand how what approach the city would like to take to this issue because it will be an issue Will the city look to creating the development and creating the land values that could then support that in the future or is it something the city is willing to uh have um on their own to create first? Uh which I can tell you 95% of cities don't do that in Michigan just because it's

it's a it's substantial investment. But to to to get him back to to that the specific question on this particular site, it is about right now what could accommodate it and what would make it uh economically viable and also economically uh non-ex excuse me functional making the parking functional for all the people that visit it and also the property areas around it. So that's why I do think the benefit of them having a lot to the south is something you could consider uh to allow for at least a minimum of more. I think we could reduce our requirements, but we're we're going to need more. Exactly. So, looking at that property on the south side of the of part, I think would be an option. Yeah. As something. And what that number is, we you you would have to determine something that you feel the city is comfortable with in terms of modifying because all your numbers are correct, uh, Fred, with regards to those modifications. Uh, but I looking at this, we do come up with this problem. Uh and we do have other issues and other aspects that we don't have in our ordinance that other communities deal with is hours of operation. You know, sometimes it doesn't always probably won't work on this site because we want to have businesses in that 20,000 square foot that are active more in the evening hours. Normally what you have for parking modification is if the residents are gone during the day, the businesses at the bottom if they were all office space, then office workers could come park in those 94 parking spaces and then they'd go home. But as an urban area, an urban center that we're trying to create, in theory, we'll also have people there at nighttime hours because hopefully there are restaurants down there or shops that people want to frequent at night, which would start talking restaurants, you need even more parking, right? Yeah. So you know there's other aspects of that but then um yes absolutely like you said you'd have to consider that right now since this is the first one how to slowly turn

slowly allow modification that is acceptable to the city for uh for those parking standards. Okay. Uh any other comments from the commission about I had a question about the parking in that um I know it's only a few spaces but I think uh Mr. Artega, your report says 97 and this sheet says 94. Apologies. Existing is 97. Proposed is 94. Yeah, 90 94 is the proposed version. So if if mine says 97 is proposed, it's not. It's 90 97 is the old, 94 is new. And the only other question I was going to ask is about just like the fire marshall as far as this being a taller I know we have the towers next door, but how would how would we know that the city is equipped to handle something like this? I had informal conversations with the fire marshall and I do believe that we have the accommodations, but we can also request formal review and and and a review letter to you to to um confirm the capacity of the of the fire department. Yeah. Another way to supplement our fire protection would be internal protection systems too. Yes, that's something that would have to be discussed. Absolutely. Well, I would think would be required by the fire code. Pardon me. We have mutual aid as well. Yes, we do. Yeah. But yes, every aspect when it gets to final site plan, every aspect of the internal layout of that building for what is required for mixed use and you know fire department connections, all those kind of things are going to be necessary within the building for adequate I believe we're or whichever international fire code we're a part it will have to comply with. Yeah. Anything else? Uh me I would just like to see a a resolution on the parking before we proceed before you know they build and we have a problem. I'd rather it be settled now. Yeah, I agree. Absolutely.

Did you have anything else? That's that's uh it. Okay. Uh yeah, I have a concern about the parking too. You have 60 units here at at an absolute minimum. We need to devote about uh 60 to 90 spots just for the people that are going to live there. Yeah. And we've only got nothing for anything else. Right. So, we have two wild cards. We have open space which we may or may not have flexibility to possibly put more parking there. And we have an acre that's just across the street. And by being across the street, I mean it's 40 foot away. Yeah, not any kind of significant difference. And there is a potential that that could be made into a private lot specifically for residents of these structures and be marked accordingly. And that would I would sooner be in the outlot than crammed up against the building with with all the other cars. So parking is a definite consideration, but we have the two wild cards. We have the potential for open space variability and also another acre within 40 ft of this. Yeah. And we have to look at that because one other thing that I thought about with the open space issue as well, it's quite a bit short of what we're asking for right in the ordinance. Uh move it across in the letter. No, in the letter that we received from the applicant, he mentioned, I believe it was in that letter, he mentioned the possibility of having rooftop access for the residents, which would kind it's not permeable space, but it would give them recreational access to an open area. Not year round, but

right, you wouldn't sit out on the corner year round either if there was a foot of snow out there. No, but you're not going to set out in the parking year round either. Exactly. Exactly. But we can talk. So that's a third wild card. Really? But parking, we don't have enough. Okay. Well, let's move on then. And uh have the applicant are Did you have anything else, Mr.? Okay. Uh then the next item would be presentation by the applicant. Do we have a representative for the applicant here or [Applause] um so could you introduce yourself please? My name is Elbert Abbis with A4 Holdings GC. Um Daniel Roen with Fishbach. I'm the engineer for the project. Um, so I I believe, you know, we've all come to the conclusion that, you know, the project aligns with the city goals with economic revitalization, community benefits, um, sustainable uh, development. We can get into that uh later, but we're you know uh pursuing talks with uh uh uh industries like PACE who make buildings energy efficient and things like that in terms of windows uh insulation, HVAC units and everything. So, we're trying to make it as you know green as possible. Um, in terms of the traffic and infrastructure uh planning, we've already established that we're not asking for any more entrances off of Middle Belt or Ford Road. So, I don't believe that anyone over here has any uh problems or uh uh concerns in regards to

that and in regards to the traffic impact. Um, in regards to the design, uh, compatibility, um, we've, uh, went a couple rounds with this and I believe that, you know, um, from what I'm hearing is that you guys are, um, happy or okay with the design uh, that we are proposing with the different uh, aspects that uh, Mario talked about in terms of, you know, the red brick and the lighter colored um uh limestone if you may on the bottom with the clock tower and everything. Um um so I believe our concern right now is the parking availability. That seems to be the main hang. I think that's the main concern. Yeah. Um, and we don't want to develop something that is not going to be beneficial for our commercial or our residential tenants because in in the end it'll impact our uh uh final you know uh ROI if you may um to try to maintain you know people that are going to stay there long term people that are going to want to do business out of there. Um, I had previously proposed and I don't believe it's within the city's uh scope um that the uh the acre that's on the backside. Um we we were planning on developing some more units back there doesn't have to be anything crazy. Um but in the meantime um if parking is an issue um and that's what's going to stop us from pursuing this goal. I know you know in terms of green space currently there is no green space on the property. So you know what we're proposing um I think fits um and

accommodates the green space that would would be necessary or needed um for this type of development in a downtown area. Um but looking at that parcel, that 1 acre parcel, what I had proposed previously in private discussions um was that you know uh the parking structures are obviously expensive. Um and it's not something that we can take on alone. And I don't know if it's within the city's uh um line of direction that they're able to take on right now, but we were willing to allow the city city to build a parking structure that wouldn't only accommodate for a downtown for us, but it would accommodate for a downtown for others as well on our property. Um but to move this along further and and and and and just try to get you know some sort of conclusion and resolution so that we can you know move forward. What I would be willing to propose is that, you know, on the uh side closest, the side that's on uh Partardau Road, um we can we can devise some parking spots there temporarily. Um and and when the city's ready, we can, you know, possibly build so that other people can utilize it as well. And if not, we'll just utilize it for ourselves. But we're not going to go up. We're just going to, you know, do flat level, ground level parking, you know, possibly add, you know, I'm I'm looking at the size of this, you know, the uh width of this uh uh parcel, and I think that you can probably fit, you

know, 25 to 30 more spaces without taking over the entire one acre. Um, and then this way, you know, in a future development, if we wanted to build six, you know, condo units or something along the John Hawk side with the parking on the side, we can, you know, utilize that and then add additional parking at that point. I think there might be room for both. Actually, yeah. So, I mean, we just we're we're we're here to work with you guys. We we just honestly we just want to, you know, get some sort of direction and and be able to move forward if that's a stipulation, we can designate certain amount of parking for right now to help make this work. Um, we were hoping that we would do it later. Um, but if that's a stipulation, let's not hold it up. Yeah, we need we need to include that in the initial plan, I believe. Okay. But, uh, I think that's a real workable solution. And what we have to do is decide on how much more parking we need to make this viable. Yes. Uh first of all, are do you know how many one or two-bedroom units are going to be in the building? Um there might be a few two units. Uh but most 90 I I would assume. Um do we have uh do we have anything pertaining to that right now of the account? No. Yeah. I we're what we're trying to drive is more, you know, uh young business entrepreneurs to come live in the downtown area. We're not looking for big families. Obviously, big families are going to require more cars. Um, so there might be a handful of the two units, but we don't mind keeping it

one unit to be totally honest, but you might want a couple, you know, a few two units out of the 60, you might want 10 of them to be two units. Okay. Um, are you looking at uh um individual uh other than one and two bedroom something lesser than that as like efficiency studios or anything like that? We're we're definitely some studios and onebedrooms. That's mainly what we're proposing. But you're saying at this point you don't have a so um set of numbers in mind for those uh items. If I may, one of the um just generic aspects of this is that uh looking at it for the size of the units themselves, uh while they're considering they're they're going to do what they need in terms of their market analysis to determine what's viable for the market. But just looking at the numbers, if you look at if you have a 20,000 foot floor plate, um typically 5 to 8% of that is taken up in hallways. So if you have something like that, take out the hallways and everything, you're looking about an average of about 910 920 square foot per unit. Now how they divvy it up for themselves and everything and if they need utilize more and I'm using a very generic estimate, you know, but you know that that's what you're looking at as an average. So they definitely could go smaller units. I mean, but the market itself is, you know, we're we're going to be new to this. Our area will be new to this and so it'll be interesting to see. So most of our units will probably be around 750 to 800 square f feet. There you go. Studio and one bedroom. Yes. Yeah. Sounds like Okay. I was I was just trying. So we might I mean honestly we we may not even end up with 60 units once we, you know, put pencil to paper. Um we'd like to get as many units as we can to be totally honest, but there's definitely hallways and common areas that are going to be

implemented in the building as well. What's your thoughts on uh rooftop uh access? Um I I don't have much thought on it. I mean, anything to get the project moving at this point. Um if we have to, you know, create some rooftop access, I don't I don't see that being an issue. I think it'd be an excellent uh adjunct to your to your uh uh project being as how there's absolutely zero that exists now in this city and there's not a whole bunch in the immediate area until you get downtown Ann Arbor Ferndale Royal Oak right so that would be something I would think that'd be a unique drawing card to have that access available not just access but to have a rooftop climate available. Yeah, we're we're not opposed to that at all. And that could also potentially free up some of a little bit of ground space, although Yeah, I don't know how much it's going to free up now, but yeah, I think we we still need what's uh proposed for the the ground space, right? And that would be in addition to that. Well, I was thinking more here and less here or move this to there. You know, looking looking at the plans, the the only thing that I can see that we would be able to free up in green space cuz we'd like to keep the park over there on the side. And then everything else is kind of like, you know, directing, you know, uh, parking in between the parking spots. The only spot would be just a few spots over there by the dumpster. if we moved the dumpster all the way to the end and enclosed it and then you would probably free up about, you know, three or four

spots. Yeah. I I was only asking about the uh the the number of bedrooms in that out. I was trying to visualize how it would affect the parking requirements. If you were going to have more two bedrooms, it would probably require more parking. Honestly, our our initial thoughts were there going to be studios and onebedrooms, but I would assume that after you go through the process, you might want to add a few of the two bedrooms. Yeah, you might have 10 maybe. If that. If that. Okay. Yeah. But we'd be open. I mean we we would be open based on the you know parking stipulations that you provide us to you know dedicate certain amounts to that whether it's five spaces or you know five units or you know or 10 units whatever it may be. Um but we're we're open to that. you you have a tremendous amount of frontage on the busiest intersection on M153. How many retail spaces are you uh envisioning at this point? Um it's it's hard to say because it's going to depend on the tenant and we want it obviously to be kind of mixed use. We don't we're not looking for all restaurants. We're looking for, you know, a mixed use with boutiques, um, some professional, you know, buildings, whether it's a dental practice or, you know, a medical practice. Um, and, you know, we'd obviously like to have a restaurant and possibly, uh, something to complement it with like coffee or dessert or something. Um, kind of like what you see in the downtown Dearborn area. Um, but we that's more when you go downtown Dearbornne, you're looking more

they they there's a lot of restaurants, but there's a lot of people that um it's a different it's a different base over there. They they go out a lot. Well, here's what I'm looking at. We're looking at making a decision based upon I don't know how many studios, how many onebedroom, how many twobedroom, or how many retail spaces. I I I don't know how I can make a decision based upon not having any kind of legitimate numbers any of that. Yeah. Well, we can only look at the square footage. We have a ground floor with 20,000 square ft. And what percentage would you say generally would work out to be upfront? 18,000. About 18,000. Mhm. That being said, are we going to put a But now whether it's a restaurant here, one building, one retail, are we going to put 10 different uh commercial storefronts here? Uh well, if they were all retail storefronts, we could get away with, you know, what we were talking about, one for every 150 square feet. That's what our current. And even that's going to be too much. We're going to have to downgrade that. What about a dentist office or a medical practice? Yeah, medical practice. I mean, they have several employees that each have their own car and then the people that come there that I I I think the issue that we need to to figure out is we need to have a mandatory minimum. And I think as much as you don't want to hear it, it's going to require a large portion of the lot across the street. Okay. It's it's I mean we're probably looking at another 60 spaces I'm thinking otherwise other than you're even uh proposing right now at 94. You figure even if somebody even if a single person moves in, you got one car then you're going to have married couples. I I would say in the the residents you're probably if we move one and a half cars for the residents on the

upper that would be tight. I think that would be tight. And then and then you're you're already at your 94 spaces. We're not even addressing the commercial and that that gives nothing to commercial. So we have to decide how much take a shot in the dark and how much do we need for commercial, right? So I and if you look at like downtown Dearborn, I know we were talking familiar on Michigan Avenue, there are giant parking lots behind a lot of those buildings. There's city parking lots. Yeah. Which we don't have that much. Correct. Right. So we're trying to work with what we do have. Yeah. We have well you have that acre parcel on the other side of part. I I think that parcel will be adequate. I don't know how much of that parcel we need to eat up. So why can't we uh I'm sorry for interrupting. Let's come up with a number and make the approval based on the parking spaces that you guys recommend and then we'll work it into the parardau. If we can develop parardau then we'll develop it. If we can't, then we'll use it as parking, but I don't see a need to, you know, keep pushing it down the road. So, you'd be willing to restrict what you could develop? If you want to take all of parardau parking lot, I'm I'm okay with that. I just want to move forward. That's it. And that's not the goal. I'm just saying like you would be willing to restrict what you could build on the John Hawk side of that property. Maybe it's only a fourunit or a six-unit condo complex. Maybe there's Yeah. to to accommodate the rest of the parking for 100% because this is the big project right here. You wouldn't have to restrict once it's earmarked as parking for this project. Any future projects would would take into consideration that it's previously earmarked for another project. It's but it's going to restrict what he could possibly build just by the number of parking spaces we have to put in. Uh what other parking spots can you typically put on an A? I was about to tell you. That's what I was going to

ask. Yeah, I was about to say. So, typically, uh, if you're looking at if you went if you went with 60 parking spaces, at a at a minimum, you need about 18,000 square foot. So, that's that's a little that's about a half an acre. Yeah. 40%. Definitely with regards to the the parking component and what's part of the PUD that can be part of the PUD plan plan development plan that we talked about that's on here. But one thing to keep in mind is that um I do think you know as as the future happens as hopefully more of these type of projects come forward these things can be amended because for example if for some reason well the the ultimate thing would be this this gets developed other property values get higher more of these these come in Kmart site gets developed and then you're talking about a value that maybe eventually we have a public parking on this side And so then that site that they own could eventually be with other development, but that's what happens. It's it's a snowball effect that happens later. So while yes, you could make sure that there are certain components of the um parking that are associated with these uses currently. It can always be amended in the future doing the calculations at that time. Once again, doing just like you're doing now, making sure that it functions the right way. Make sure that it functions for the new res new new people. and then re taking a look at again under the new conditions that are like 5 or 10 years from now. So I I guess my concern is I don't want him the your developer to be restricted of what he can put in that building. Exactly. Once we resone it if he wants a sit down restaurant, I want him to be able to have that and not be worried about parking. You understand what I'm saying? If if you want a medical facility, I'd rather you just take care of the parking now and then you can put whatever you want down there. I just don't want to be

restricted. You come back to us asking for, you know, something else or because we don't have enough parking to put that in that space. I I like the thinking ahead. How much did you say? How many spaces could we put in a half an acre? Did you say over 60 probably in half an acre you do more? Uh let's see. Just if I can step in when I laid this out just to get an idea of what we would, you know, if we didn't get any parking reduction, I got over a hundred. Yeah. Having an access off of both Partardau and John Hawk. And if we if you use that whole lot. Yeah. If you use the whole thing and that's with some open space with um you know, meeting the 15 foot uh landscape islands. If we reduce those, you could you know get another spot you know there. You could probably gain another 10 if we reduce some of those things if you don't want access both roads. Really, I I was kind of thinking that with your with your commercial property, if you're putting in restaurants and other businesses like that, you're going to need almost that whole 94 spots that are directly behind the building. And if you can add another 90 spots on the other side for your residential, I personally I think that would probably work to the chair. Yes. I don't understand. We're putting the cart before the the horse here right now. I understand you don't have a floor plan. This is conceptual. And other than the addition of some more limestone on this building, I love the project. However, being as how it's conceptional, it's not up to us for me to look at this drawing and guesstimate how many retail spaces we're going to have and how many onebedroom and how many possible to determine how many

retail spaces because every retailer that comes to lease is going to want a different square footage. So, how can I tell you? All we can do is say what the square footage is. Yeah, cuz that's how Mike that's how we've been doing some of the newer ones. Like for example, the new commercial building up at Ford near uh near near uh Town of Country. That one did come in as as just the square footage. Uh it was developed to have as most up to eight units and then then as they're leased, some of them take singles, some of them take doubles. So like right now like the rug store that's in there they took two two units and then that use takes different but you're absolutely so that's why typically now based on the the the floor the foot the floor plan you know 20,000 take out 20% 18,000 trying to figure out that and that's why normally I would do on a sub on our normal commercial developments do 250 square ft as a as a shopping center configuration and then if they do put in a restaurant then that's when I I would when they do the CFO and have the restaurant come in I would look at the number of you seats and sure I understand that but in order to get to this point I have to believe that I would have an idea about how many storefronts I would want to put here and I would have a conceptual idea if not written on paper about how many one-bedroom there's market studies ies that dictate all of this. What's the average new retail spot? How much do do new people coming into the market today usually expect to have? Whether that's one, two, or three storefronts, it's still a certain number of storefronts here. Is it left up to me to go on this and go, let's see, that's one

storefront, two, three, four. So regardless of the number of storefronts, it's the it's the floor area they use is what we do. Okay. And excusing that, um, I'm sure there's market studies and analysis that dictate to you what your ROI is going to be for studio, onebedroom, twobedroom, and and with the demographics of this area, what you expect to build there. So, I'd like to see some hard numbers because we're talking about how many parking spaces we need for what I don't know we have. Yes. So, I maybe a suggestion here would be to go with Mr. Ortega's would go with our ordinance. It's 157. I mean, we're not we're not at a plan site review just yet. Okay. So long as the applicant understands that our minimum expectation would be our ordinance and we would expect them to use good judgment given however your plans develop. Sure. I think they've demonstrated a willingness to use that site across the road for parking. Right. So, I think it's helping hopefully helping guide you to say when you come back, assuming we take this forward today, um when you come back the site plan at minimum, we would expect it to meet our ordinance and then we would as your plan develops single unit or I didn't feel or multi-unit etc. you would use good judgment and how you bring it back to us. I mean 100% right now I guess what we're looking for is the minimum requirement so that we can move forward in terms of storefronts if that's what you're concerned about. We're we're we're talking square footage kind of like what Mario was talking about to see, you know, to give us a minimum on the parking. But whether it's, you know, five storefronts or 15 storefronts, I don't think that's going to matter. But I mean, typically your average storefront for what we're

looking to implement is going to be between 2,00 and 2500 square f feet. Um, so you probably end up with, you know, probably about 10 storefronts, but someone might come in and say, "Hey, I need for, you know, this restaurant, you know, our restaurant has, you know, 4,500 square ft." Um, and a coffee shop, uh, like what they have in Dearbornne typically has the same thing. So, it's going to depend on the tenants that are attracted to the area for us to be able to, you know, split the, you know, shelves for them to, you know, operate out of. Well, based on square footage, I mean, um, uh, Kelly stated and and reiterated that we're willing to use the other parking, uh, the other lot to accommodate for the parking if we can if we can do, you know, what he's proposing, uh, 157, you know, actually, I don't I don't think that 157 is a good number because that is only for residential. That's only for our current requirements for the apartments. That doesn't even include any for commercial. Even if we reduce it to two for the apartments, that'd be 120. I think we could go down to 1.5 for the apartments. But I think I think what we need we need 90 spaces for the apartments and we need another 100 spaces for commercial. 100 spaces for commercial. What's our requirement right now for that square footage for commercial? And is the use different based on what it is? Is it if it's a doctor's office, is it different? It's 72 for the commercial. So, so based on our current standards and and one aspect about this in terms of the tenants themselves and what they are, I think that's one of the reasons in the

ordinance, we have what's called the shopping center standard. Um because that allows for a certain variety. Exactly. allows for a certain variety of of of uh carry out type restaurant versus professional office like a real estate office versus a hair salon. You know, that shopping center mixeduse because that also fac tends to factor in hours of operation because a real estate office will close at 5:00 even though we might need them after 5. But anyway, um so yeah, that standard uh is 250. So that's 72 parking spaces based on for the commercial. For the commercial. For the commercial. So we're 162. Yeah. And I'm So we're about 50 short, right? Which is less than a fourth of an acre, right? Which is we and I'm good with the one and a half for residential because the 2.2 is sounds high. Yeah. Well, and honestly 1.85 is kind of the standard in in this particular circumstances. There's only going to be one person living in there. Yeah, in a studio, I would imagine. And you're a 4,500 foot restaurant right now. How many spaces are you required to have there? Ballpark it. You don't have to be right. It depends on the number of seats. Yeah, it doesn't go by square footage. F feet. I got to believe his kitchen area is probably 1,500 square ft. So, he's probably got about 3,500 ft of seating area or 2500 ft of seat. It's a little bit different because there's a pocket park that we also utilize um because of where you're located down there. Yeah. Um but I'll tell you in Westland we just opened up a broman Ford Road and uh between Newberg and Wayne I believe talking about was down there. Yeah. So,

um I can't remember how many there are, but there's not a lot. There's maybe Can Can I verify it? I'm If I'm guessing I'm guessing around 20 to 25, I think that there it's definitely under 30. I was assuming it's 25. So, so my whole thing with the parking is we can the only way we could do this right now is on square footage. We couldn't do it on the use of the building. It's physically impossible. And not just the the use of the building to begin with, but the use of the building in 10 years. You're going to have different tenants come in and out, which could change your parking standard, which is why it makes sense to use the shopping center standard. Yeah. Yep. Yeah. For the commercial for the commercial part. Correct. I like that. So there's 72 72 72 spaces for the shopping center standard and if we reduce and at 1.5 that's 90 for the res. So 160 and 90 for the 162. Yeah. To the right. So we need 90 for the residential, 72 for the commercial. Yep. Okay. So we're going to have to use at least a portion of the lot across parardau. Okay. to total that number. But hopefully that'll leave you enough room to develop something. What does half your lot give us additional parking? What is a half a lot? Half an acre. Half a lot would be 60. I mean, if there's no green space involved in the parking lot, I mean, the minimal green space, just like when you're looking at the picture, just like around the perimeters. I mean, you don't need a park or anything like that. But when you're doing that, I mean, I'm assuming you can at least fit 60 in in a half a acre if we included the that lot across parardau in the boundaries of the PD. Could we squeeze in more lots per

per the area? Excuse me. You mean more? If we included that as plan development, could we squeeze in more parking spaces? Actually, you wouldn't need to. What you could do is uh the applicant, since he's the owner, he developed that as parking possibly, and then you just give himself a parking sharing agreement to allow that to happen. And that could be a standard of approval. Let me check and make sure that he's allowed to build that as parking on its own. It's zone CB CBD. Yeah, it's CBD. And there's all kinds of provisions for parking and CBD. There are, but we need to end up with 162 spots. We have 94 on the north side of Partardo and the rest of them would be on the south side. And and just just to be upfront, even I'm okay with the one and a half for the residential. I think you guys are being good with that, very generous, but realistically on the suites, one car, and the majority of them are going to be suites. We're looking at 700 750 square foot a unit. They're going to be suites. Think they have visitors though, right? But but until we actually do the architectural design, we won't know. So, I mean, I'm okay with the 1.5, but it will be less. But that's fine. It gives us more. But there there will be some even one bedrooms that have two people with two cars and so that half of space is making up for for that. I suspect there will be a lot of girlfriends and boyfriends and two cars

even in studios and one bedrooms. I I think in the end if everything's prospering, you fill up your commercial spaces and everything, parking is going to be still pretty tight, but we're not going to develop this until we know what's going on with that. You understand what I'm saying? So, if like I said, if we need to use the entire area, we're okay with that. Well, that would be fine with us if you want to use the entire area. That would I think I'm just saying that we need 70 spots over there. Yep. And what do we do in the approval process to guarantee that? Can a supplemental parking lot? I think we'd have to in include it in the PD district. I think we're going to have to because I uh parking lots themselves can't exist independently in the CBD district. They have to be attached to a building. Yeah. So, we'd have to That's how we proposed though, isn't it? When we were doing the different aspect of of the site. Yeah. Um yeah, one other ways that that that this could move forward with um making sure that the parking gets improved is the requirement that it be constructed in the future or we can amend the PUD to allow it or we can the issue is we'd have to it's the reasoning aspect. the resoning as as advertised as as these lots on the north side. So, we'd have to include the southside lot in the resoning to PD. That has to be part of the plan. Yeah.

Part of the PD. Okay. Yeah. And Yeah. The only other Can we add that on tonight or do you see it as problematic down the road? Down the road. No. uh moving forward to trying to get in front of council. It would take restarting the project because it has to be reszoned as PD plan development plan unit development. So that then this site would the the parking if you tie it to this would have in order for him to develop that lot solely as a parking it have to have some it have to have be the right zoning district. Isn't there a way to combine that lot even though it's not attached? Even if it did, it's the fact that the reasonzoning is proposing the PD boundaries around these lots on the north side of Partardau. The the PD boundary has to go to the south side of part. So then the site has to get Does it have to be uh zoned the same to be connected to that building? It could it could be have other we have businesses that are zoned one thing and they have a vehicular parking zone lot right behind them. Exactly. Yeah, that's what I was going to say. But then, but that does involve a reszoning. So, it' be reszone it to PD or excuse me, you reszone it to vehicular parking. Yeah. Uh, so it would be a separate step. That's true. It could be a separate step that's done separate from this. Could you and could be a condition of approval of the PD to create a VP zone have to do? Yeah, I think that that's probably the best way. Yep. To move forward. It could it could be a condition of approval that the site on the south side be reszoned to vehicular parking and the applicant developed 60 plus parking space. I might have a better aspect to this though through the chair. What do you got? I just think that maybe uh instead of saying vehicular parking, it it would be probably reszoned to Pete plan development also because if you

reszone it to vehicular parking, the only thing that occur there and you know part of part of the the the master plan or part of the the goal of the plan development district is that we want flexibility and I think it's a I don't think we should reuse all of this. I think we should leave him some flexibility because I feel there is marketability of the part of the John Hawk site. You know, I I think that should be done. And so I don't want I think it the plan development uh for parking, but then then to amend the plan development later, you come back to us and say, I want to amend I want to put in six uh condos there or something. You know, I think that would be the way to do it. It would Okay. Yeah. because we don't I don't think we need to make the whole lot a parking lot. We only need 72 spots to a you know the the uh condition would be for the uh reszoing of the phase 2 uh lot to plan development. You know the condition would be plan development to accommodate you know 72 vehicles or or the number that we come up with. Yeah. You know I think would be the seven is the the bare minimum. Yeah. And we we want to um part of it is the flexibility and also what the developer builds they have to be able to market and and we understand that too. Sure. So yeah. And I think we need to be a little flexible too. We've been wanting this for a long time. Oh absolutely. I think this is a great development. I'm I'm really pleased with the whole thing. We just need to make it workable and it's got to have parking to be workable. I think like you say for your ROI, you don't want you want people that go there and enjoy it and don't have a hassle every day parking and people that are going to the individual stores andor restaurants and can find parking conveniently and not be aggravated.

People aren't going to want to walk across Ford Road to park. No, it'd be a lot easier if you could just suggest that part is a whole different thing. Yeah. Uh, okay. So, we make this a condition. Yes. That this approval, the phase 2 PUB includes the construction of parking spaces on on the to be included as a planned development. Planned development. What number do we want to fix to that? 67 or 70? Well, we've got 60 or we got 94 on the north side. Uh, we need we need 70. We need 70 on the south side and that will that will give us an adequate number I think. Yep. One other aspect too when we eventually get to this uh PUD for the space too as a as a feasibility for it just for the applicant in terms of site design. How he designs a parking lot could also include land banking. So like depending on the number of parking spaces he needs, uh they could be some of them could be designed and then some of them could be planned to be parking parking spaces but not constructed. I mean it all depends on the phasing of the project. And the only reason I bring that up is because uh while we hope this gets constructed as as quickly as possible, I'm sure just like the applicant does, there's going to be other aspects of the financing and of other aspects of the project that is going to be needed that might take some time for the site to get fully utilized. So, and it's not any and I just mentioned that as something to consider later on in phase two, but but you're absolutely right. Yes, a condition of approval could be that phase two of the pro pud phase two of the project include a

PUD reszoning the southern property for a minimum of 70 parking spaces. Okay. You could do some room here. What is it? You could do some tele. Okay. Yes. Do we want to talk to the applicant at all about the appearance of the building and any kind of specifics? And I I realize we're not looking at a site plan today, but presumably if we go forward tonight, we would see a site plan. Yeah, we have some recommendations on just kind of wondering if we should if we should share those with the applicant that Sure, we can talk about that. that's on page four at the bottom of the letter. And it could be as something as simple as bullet pointing items that you see in the rendering that you want to make sure are included in the final uh building. And then also any supplemental suggestions like I had or you had. Yes, sir. Sorry. My only suggestion is when you bring us a site plan, don't have it a proposed site plan. Bring us one that you physically going to build and not deviate from. Yep. So that when my request Oh, yeah. Okay. Uh going going through your comments, we've we're talking about uh Do you have a copy of this letter by the way? Yes. Uh on on page four uh down at the bottom detailed design requirements. We have the use of light colored stone on the ground floor as

proposed in your rendering. Can we we have uh with the clock over the door on the corner the vertical columns to create articulation and then we go into more detail about them. We recommending um stone window lentils, brick soldier courses for window enhancement, sills and aprons, a stone style cornice roof line. What were you going to uh build the the cornice with? Is I I see some cornises that seem to be built out of plaster. Eas, we're not going to Are you planning on build using stone to build the cornice on the building? Is he referring to this right here? The roof line. Roof line. Are you looking at stone or ephus? Whatever you guys want. We prefer stone. Okay. On the bottom for the light color bricks. I don't know if limestone is still used. uh commercially as a viable building product, but I'd like to see limestone on the bottom that would totally, you know, it would mimic that original look of that corner cuz it's been limestone for 90 plus years rather than white brick or beige brick or is that something or other? Is that feasible using limestone for the first floor? I'm not an architect, so I won't to answer that. I I would just be curious about the the longevity of the limestone. Generally, limestone's a softer material. Yeah. Been there 90 some years. It's been on the stone. It

needs to be cleaned occasionally. Limestone of 90 years ago is different now. Just like concrete of 30 years ago is different now. So, I know I'm not saying we can't do limestone, but it won't be able to be like a facade. It'll actually have to be a full limestone piece. What would you recommend to replace it with? often is like a poured like a panel type construction. Uh maybe Commissioner King could maybe share that down the way. I think that is there that we took a shot of the uh the uh building at Main Street and Arbor Trail in Plymouth if you're familiar. It's a similar type of residential on top with the commercial use on bottom like a building. One thing we want to consider with that aspect is I believe limestone is going to be really really pricey as well compared to other things. And I'm not saying that we can't do it. I'm just saying that it's it all also has to pencil in for us properly and we're ready. Yeah, I understand that we need we would like something to mimic that look though and something that's going to be durable. Yeah, you can see that. Maybe something like a durable masonry product that mimics I believe those are like a limestone color like block almost. That's what it is. Yeah, that's exactly what it is. That's really what I had in but like limestone isn't I think a building material we use commonly anymore. No, it is more of a it's a trim. Yeah, it's it's a veneer. Yes. Uh and and honestly the durability of it depends on the thickness of the veneer. Yeah, but you know, you know, sometimes veneers are considered like people think of it as a negative statement, but basically all it's mainly because none of the masonry products we use anymore aren't actual structural. They're not you're not loadbearing. They're all steel

underneath or even wood. Wood sometimes is steel on the first floor, wood a 4:1 or 5:1. So um but I think something like you guys are saying actually just to be detailed is a masonry product that is has a durability and and appearance of masonry or like product that is a durability or similar appearance of limestone. So what did you say the Plymouth one was? Block. That looks like block. It looks like you know Oh yeah it does. Full full depth block. Yeah. Not a not a veneer. And integrally colored too. Integrally colored because that what happens is then they mix the color in during the production of the mason instead of a color on top. I don't know what you guys think. I think that would look good. Yeah, I agree. If that's what you had in mind, I think that would work. Yeah. What out of what out of these items that were listed in this paragraph are do we think is important? Do we want to make sure that we include? Uh I think the stone uh we have the reverse the stone sills the stone sills under the windows I think makes it look dressy. I would I would like to see that. What exactly are your under the windows right here? The windows. The sill and the and the uh lints here. Yeah, but he wants the soldier bricks there, right? Well, either one. I was sorry. I was throwing a mix of different things that you might come up with. But like they could just just a stone sill and a stone. It would just be a stone material here. Yeah. Could it be the same matching as the bottom would be the standard limestone sill? I think similar as far as you're going to be away from

it. Yeah. Yeah. Those are like Yeah, that that building that we showed you has those sills kind of the same there too. That's kind of like the recessed uh patio areas are those is that an accurate representation? That that is what they look like. Uh because the ordinance difference it can't extend beyond the face of the building. So sure I believe you know people want value. Would that exist on the uh um south and east faces of the building if that south and east that's in the parking lot the back parking lot there's not as much of a view necessarily but if that's what would be required I think that's what are we talking on the other side these are the so that's one aspect we would probably recommend too is like the all four facades all the same materials because that parking lot that is just as visible yeah coming down middle belt That's what you're going to see. Yeah, that's an important thing, too, that all four sides have of the building have to be finished the same way, not just the the front material wise or material wise and style-wise. Okay. Yeah. So, you're looking at balconies on the balconies on the Sure. Okay. Well, and the other the only other thing I had other than the the red brick for the upper floors was the vertical columns. I I I like the looks of that. It breaks up the the front of the building. Yeah. And uh I I want to make sure we get the vertical columns. And it's recommending here a minimum of 8 in sticking out from the wall. Um I I guess I just I want to clear up the roof area. If that's not mandatory, but if we can do something, we'll go ahead and do it. But I'm assuming if we did something on the roof that there's also going to have to

be something would be different. Oh, you mean safety thing? Yeah. Yeah. Definitely have to have something like that. And then the cornice you mean on the roof? Mhm. Well, that your corner parit would just have to be higher to to take care of that. So this would still be here. This would be it would be set in for rooftop access. Okay. What would be the minimum height on that parapit to be safe? 36 in. to 42 in 42 in. Yep. Okay. Yeah. But I mean I don't if you guys to have the balconies all the way around the building and have that rooftop available. Um I might move in. You know, we're not making the rooftop a requirement though, right? Just a possibility if he can do it. Well, is that what we want? We've got that's you don't you so here let me uh let me share with you something. Um you're not familiar with uh a lot of the things that we do but um let me see. So when we uh we we do restaurants right now but we're venturing off into some other things. But when we do something, we do it right. We're not here to cut corners. We're not your typical person that's going to come get approval and then do something completely different. We don't we don't do that. Um my brother served on the uh chair of the DDA for West Dearborn. Um our concepts are and and and a lot of people would vouch for it is what stimulated the growth in West Dearborn. When we first developed our first concept, Yogurttopia in West Dear Airborne, um there was nothing like it over there. Um the lines were out the door. Um for you know, as long as we

were open over there um and then we developed Bro Modern Eery. Bro Modern Eery became a staple of the community over 10 years ago. Um and that triggered what other people developed because there was about a 35 to 40% occupancy rate in Dearbornne and then when people seen what we do it raised the standard for everyone else and then the city progressed and everything is leased out now. Um and then we developed the great commoner. This was a space that was not an iconic building, but a historical building, and it was proposed to be torn down, and we were against it, and it cost us a lot more money to keep that building. Um, and and and re uh purpose it for a restaurant versus I believe it was a wedding uh store uh dress store previously. um in downtown Detroit. We built a broom modern ery over there and it was voted top five scenic restaurants in Detroit because everything we did over there and I can always provide you guys with pictures so you can see what it is that we actually do. But we don't cut corners. You go to Westland Bro Modern Eyer um for a space like that that was in Old Boston Market um it's been a hit over there from the get-go and we haven't even had our grand opening. It's expected to do more numbers than what we do in Dearbornne. And Dearborn is uh very very solid in Dearbornne. We were actually the number one uh uh number one in uh purchasing for, you know, ground beef out of any restaurant in in almost all of Metro Detroit. Um so when we do things, we do it right. We inserted the pocket park that was underutilized by the city um and and had worked out an agreement with them to

lease it out and we made that pocket park beautiful. And right now we're renovating it and and every one of our restaurants that we do, we're constantly renovating every 5 years to give it a new refreshed look because we believe that, you know, you keep things fresh, you keep things clean and you you're constantly making people want to come back because they're sick of coming to the same place. So if you want to continue to see these profit margins, it's okay to reinvest a few hundred,000 each time to to make that happen. So yeah, what you said, what's proposed is not always done. You're right. But with with myself and my brothers, we do things right. At least we like to think that we do. And we've gotten a lot of recognition for it. Um, our restaurants were voted best restaurant in America, best burger joint in America by three different magazines. Um, right now we're currently franchising and we have over a 100 applicants and we stopped taking applications because we want to grow organically. Um, so I promise you what we do is going to be an asset to the city and it's going to stimulate the growth to the city. We're not we're not a, you know, oneot wonder where we just want to make our quick buck and leave. this project over here is not making a quick buck because it's such a high exponent expense for us that the ROI is nowhere near what we had anticipated. But we believe in, you know, the growth of Garden City and that's why we've stuck with it and are trying to, you know, come to a, you know, final resting area here so that we can kind of you you'll see. I mean, Garden City is already having a lot of people come here and look at your buildings and talk about redevelopment, but I promise you, nobody does it like what we do. I'm not saying there's not better developers, but there's not a lot of people that are

willing to put in the sweat equity and and and uh and the financial equity that's needed and sacrifice, you know, uh some of the ROI on that as we are. Everyone else is looking for just the bottom line. We're looking to make a statement and be a part of history in every city that we go into. I'm I'm very encouraged by all that and and I I look forward to to all of it. And what I'm hoping that can happen here is that this building in Garden City is everything you say it's going to be and it's going to be a bring a wow factor to that corner because we can use that to springboard other developments that we're looking at in our uh rest of our uh city as well. So, u I look forward to all that. And I just think that having the uh balconies on all four sides of this building to have that rooftop with your additional parking, I I think it's going to bring that wow factor that you want and we want and I think that's going to be a good thing for everybody. So, when I say it doesn't always happen, if it if it's not on paper, I don't see it as happening. Uh, I've been sitting here for 30 years and it's been my experience that if we don't talk about it today and put it down in our notes and say we're going to do it, then it more than likely it won't happen. And uh I think that would be part of the wow factor you're building because there's nothing I can't think of a single rooftop um unit uh in this immediate area. And so that would further enhance your building and give it even more of a wow

factor than I think it's it's already has. Yeah. So we we we want to do the rooftop. Great. I'm not going to promise you that we are because at the end of the day, we're going to look at, you know, the cost and everything, but if it's if it's something that can be implemented, believe me, we're the first people that are going to do it. Um, so we, let's just say we're planning on it, but I don't want it to be a condition. And I will come to you before we even develop and say, "Hey, I can do it or I can't do it." I'll be upfront with you guys um and transparent as possible. Um, you would know more than anyone the cost of it. I don't know because I'm not really into the development side. Um, but if you tell me you can do it, we'll do it. I mean, if you tell me financially it's not going to break the bank, then yeah, I'm I don't know about the support structures under the roof and and what has to be done and what has to be surfaced and all that. I don't know. I've never done a rooftop. I'll just be upfront with you about that. But if you tell me that it's you know economically that it can be done and keep us you know above water then yeah we'll do it. One key aspect of that will be at least the discussion is happening now so they could factor it in to their considerations when they do the final site plan and then the size and scale of it though I think can be done appropriately. So, as as you noted, yeah, when we get the details with the site plan, we'll be able to see and it might be it might be modest, but but that's fine cuz you know, it doesn't have to be the whole roof. Now, the rooftop is it does it Let me ask you this. Does the rooftop um is that just for residential or can commercial use it as well for Well, I was thinking just residential. I was thinking just residential. It would be really nice. Commercial, you'd have a bigger benefit and you'd be able to That's what more money Nice. If it had a commercial use to it, that's that's what I was That's an option that I hadn't considered, but

I would commercially for it then it might make more sense. No, I be against it. No, not at all. Restaurant the summer and catch me up there. Oh, yeah. That would be very interesting. So, that's probably why it's best to allow it cite it as a potential feature. Yeah. And then during final site plan, they can determine the actual size and use of it. Yeah. But yeah, we all vote for outdoor eating up. Well, then we'll put that in there as a as a definite maybe. And after you crunch your numbers, you can see the architects and the developers and we'll see what we can do. And you know, I mean, I I I think it's great idea if we can benefit from it commercially. the tenants would be more into single over there. Yeah, very possible. Uh well, unless you have anything else you want to add, uh we need to follow through and actually open our public hearing and uh that won't take very long and then u we can finish our discussion and make whatever motion we need to make. So if you don't have anything else, have a seat and we'll thank you get on with the meeting. Okay. Uh I would like to open the public hearing at 8:15. Anyone has any comments or questions, wishes to come to the podium, identify themselves, please do so now. Uh seeing no one, I will ask the clerk if we have any uh written communications. We did not receive any written communications.

Okay. Then at uh 8:16, I'll close the public hearing and we'll go on with the uh commission's discussion and recommendations. I think we have a an excellent project going here. I I would certainly like to see it go forward and with the addition of the [Applause] uh the other uh contingencies. I think uh unless somebody has some comments to make. Can I just review the conditions as we discussed just so we can maybe frame up a motion? Sure. Um, so I think we said a letter from the fire marshall confirming the ability to handle this property, this building. Uh, number two, a followup planned development plan um for the applicant's lot south of Partardo and north of John Hawk to include 70 parking spaces for a total of 162 on both properties. And I think the third item which really attaches back to the future um site plan which Mr. Ortega's recommendations A through D and then enhances to the concept drawing um including the capture the items captured in the uh Mr. letter. I think it's D1. In addition to masonary materials with limestone or or limestone appearance and all aesthetics and materials on all sides of the building, I guess. Okay. And you've included the recommendations A through D. Yes. Yep. So, that would be I think and Mr. Sure. Maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong, but all all of your recommendations are uh to the regarding the site plan, the future site plan, not in the recommendation on the plan

development plan. Well, correct, except for the architectural detail list that you guys went over. and obtaining uh final site plan approval is contingent on approving the uh PD plan development. Yeah, it has to go to council and we'll do the parking as a part of the PUD. K. Do you want to make a motion with those contingencies for recommendation to the council? I'm happy to make you repeat it for the record. Have you written it down? Okay. Mostly. Okay. I've got it down, too. And I think between the two of us, I can I can out. Okay. And if you if you can get it straight that's fine to the uh to the meeting minutes I will be able to is there support support any comments or questions on the motion you know I guess may maybe a comment on my own motion is um given we have had over an hour of conversation how do we translate this for city council so it doesn't become a two-minute decision based upon that we have a tremendous opportunity to redevelop one of the most major areas in our city. Yes, this could be the one of the most major developments in our city in many many years. I just wonder if one or more of us should I don't know if that's been done before should accompany Mr. Ortega. Yes, you're always more than welcome to attend. Would would you would you care to do that? I I mean I would be willing to do it just to give again the context around

a lot of dialogue on a complex idea. Yep. And yes, I think that not not let it be um just dismiss. I'd be willing to go too that I think that would Well, you would highlight all the benefits about the additional new residents to the city. ensure that we address the parking issue about bringing people into our DDA corridor which goes to make our city more walkable. And Mr. Miller, could you just let us know what city council agenda this will be on when once you once correct if the if the motion passes? So the the plan if the motion passes is I I don't have my calendar before us. the uh I think on the 19th of May at the council meeting we will request that they call a public hearing and because this is the only ordinance one of the only ordinance there's a couple others where remember we kind of remove double public hearings through a lot of the ordinance but we did not do so for plan development district so they will have to have their own public hearing call it was optional it was optional to have a joint public hearing for this yes yes so they're going to their own. They didn't choose to do this, right? They didn't. So, we will um at the 20 So, my my plan is if it's approved is that the 19th will call the hearing for the 23rd of June and then after that um it would then be effective after that. There and a part of their public hearing is of course um of course if Commissioner King and Williams are present also um your recommendation of course has weighed heavily on their decision too. So, I just have Yes. One question before we vote. Will this go into a a fourstory building? There's no maximum height yet. Do we have anything in mind? Like if if we're if we're going to approve the four story, we should kind of have a height.

Do you know what the height of the building's going to be? I have no idea. Ba based off of our old ordinance is about 14 feet per story. So it' be about 54 feet. The only thing is that you kind of typically want that first floor to be a little bit taller to have all your utilities and everything. You want to go like 16 or 18. So then maybe 60 or something. I was thinking 60 65 like Oh, 16 you had in mind. Okay. Pardon? Shall not exceed. We want room for the parapit too. Yeah. We would measure I think the height goes to the roof floor. I don't the roof deck. It's the roof deck. the roof deck. Yeah. Not it's not the it's not the parrot wall is a permitted ext like for example there will be an elevator and there'll be stairwells and those will be permitted extensions above the roof deck. Well that will that will come at the site plan. Yeah. I'm thinking like maybe I mean we ft gives them 16 1/2 ft per floor. I mean a cap is not a bad thing either. Uh, of course has to be amended. We have to return. But right 65 I I we want I think I think we should wait till the site plan comes in so we can see what everything looks like. That's true. You have four stories. You don't need to necessarily do it now. What happens over on the former Kmart site, too. Yeah. I just don't want them design something and come back to us and us not be able to do with a 70 foot tall building. You know what I'm saying? So that's why I was just trying to Yeah, we want fourstory building, not a six story building. Just trying to get like a general idea of what we we're looking at. Yeah, we we have support for this height uh addition too that happened many years ago. Plant uh what was it?

Plant Moran the Ann Arbor study that talked about in your CBD your tallest buildings as and it that's true. Yeah, I think it was Beck and Raider, but yeah. Yeah, that's that's part of the C CD CBD ordinance, right? Yeah. That the taller buildings be at the center of the and then it fans out then gradually go down from there. If that the case and we got to make this one taller than a 13story tower over there, maybe not. We'll have to work on that. Is there any other questions? No. Would the secretary take the role, please? It was a motion moved by Commissioner King and it was supported by Commissioner Steenberg. The first vote is Commissioner King I. Commissioner Steenberg I. Commissioner Williams I. Chairperson May. I The motion does carry. Chairman. Okay. The motion's carried to recommend approval by the city council. It goes to them next and uh it's in their bag to do with what they wish. You have our support and we'll see you next uh with your site plan. Correct. The um kind of the procedures just so you know Albert and uh Dan Dan right Daniel. Okay. make sure uh is that you know kind of following the approval of the plan development plan uh reszoning to plan development the applicant shall submit a final site plan review for um by the plan commission in accordance with normal site plan review procedures is from the ordinance. So after the council does it then yeah you'll we'll see you back. Yes. Yes. Okay. You guys intend to be at the council meeting? Yes. Well, that yeah, they will be required to be for the 23rd. Yes.

If I were in sho your shoes, I would have a nice big drawing of this to to show the the council. Put it on nasal up in front of them. But I'm projecting I I don't know. Hopefully, they we'll communicate you with you because we have to do a notice also. Yeah. I'd emphasize about the new people that you're bringing into the city potentially and the and the premier retail space right in the epicenter of our downtown. I Good luck. Oh, I if if you have an opportunity to speak, which you will, I think I would emphasize the fact you're bringing potentially 60 plus new people into the city and that you're bringing a premier retail space right in the heart of our DDA. Um, not to mention a gorgeous building with a lot of different opportunities available and green space that doesn't exist there now. I think I would highlight all of that. Thank you. Thank you. And good luck. Thank you. I think Mario will go. I'll just walk them. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. Appreciate it. Good luck. Thank you. Y you guys have a blessed day. Thank you. You too. That doesn't happen too often. No. Well, hopefully not more often. He He was there when we did the sharet. I talked

to him briefly towards the end. He's got a lot of projects going in a bunch of different cities. Well, I guess we have to wait till uh we have a fabulous opportunity here to redevelop that corner in a very beautiful way and and could spark a lot of other development too. I think this will this will definitely spark what's happening at at Kmart. I certainly hope so. spark that and we don't we don't want to I don't we don't want to restrict oursel to four stories because if you can envision we got what six and a half or seven and a half if you include the city acreage and everything else seven acres okay I could envision a fivetory building there with retail in the foreground and residential in the background you think about how many people drive down for road through our city and it's uh unremarkable. Yes. Except at Christmas. Except at Christmas time, right? That's right. Yeah. That's the only time people notice. Right now, we're just a pasture. I don't mean that in a disparaging way. I just mean people driving the city just driving. Yeah. They're they wouldn't know when they get into Garden City versus Unfortunately. Well, other than we have our entrance that at Instster, but beyond that, unless you're paying attention to around you, you might not know you've gone from one community to another to another, right? Until you come to a downtown, but this will make a difference. No doubt. Yeah. Uh uh this similar to tooth there. Yeah. Do you want to head go ahead before Matt comes back and with the discussion of uh the housing readiness grant? Yes. So, uh

just to let you know, we're continuing uh development of uh we've concluded our generally speaking our analysis of the existing zoning standards and other policies we'd like to address in the master plan. So we'll be having we're develop we developed goals and objectives for the ways to modify the housing policies based on public input and then we'll be looking at um some other aspects to include include such as detailing uh residential design standards also detailing different housing types that could possibly be developed and then also looking at where they could be developed. So with that in mind, that's why before you I handed out just recently and this will be more of an exercise that you know I don't know if we want to get into a lot of the details tonight or it's something that you might uh benefit from visiting uh these sites and then uh coming back with input uh next time uh at our next meeting. But basically as we've just been your your cursory discussion you just had now you started talking about different sites in the city what we'd like to see as potential and what would be appropriate in those locations. So before you is just a very simple um outline of some of the existing information on different types of sites because the site the city we are we are built out but that doesn't mean there aren't opportunities for site development. So, uh, and Fred, I don't know if you It was underneath the uh the um There you go. So, basically what what I what's in front of you is just a um something to provide some basic information to begin this the process of looking at different types of sites and seeing what is what could be appropriate. So the first type of site is uh something that might be used by another uh existing uh entity or was used by something in the past. It's kind

of larger that uh could be done for redevelopment for different types of housing. Um so for example, this is right at Cambridge and Hartell and uh this is I still I think it's still used by the hospital, right? Still used by the hospital. However, as you've seen if you've driven by the hospital, they're doing a lot of different things to redevelop that property. So, the potential exists for this or possibly other sites that might be owned by the by the uh school district, for example, the Burger, right? Burger. Yeah, that that one. Um or the old Maplewood Center. Uh you know, that's no longer developed. These are larger lots within a residentially predom predominantly resident single family residential neighborhood but might lend themselves to something alternative than single family could maybe some of them are better as single family but in terms of this uh you know it's uh 7 point this itself we just talked about the Kmart site this site on its own is 7 acres so what potentially could be done when you look at when you consider this on the future land use map for some reason it's called out as PD uh excuse me as a public utility public semi-public that's the purple on the future land use map versus surrounded by single family and then you have the commercial corridor along middle of course uh in the zoning map the entire site along with all the other property owned by the school district and then even some of the single family homes along Cambridge are actually planned excuse me zoned currently as public as PD for some reason. Um, oh, forgive me. Those are flipped. The zoning map and the future land use map are flipped right there. I'm sorry about that. The labeling of that is wrong. So, the map on your right hand side is the future land use. So, the map on the right hand side shows the entire site and

everything on Cambridge is planned unit semi-public. The map on your left is your zoning map currently. And normally whenever you go over these kind of exercises some you know planners will be asking what density can you what do you envision for this site and honestly that sometimes can be very hard for somebody for any person even the planners to consider in terms of dwelling units per acre that we can get to that number but sometimes you I feel like when you when you're looking at these sites and what could possibly be there you want to look at characteristics that you could see make it compatible with what's already existing. So, most importantly, the single family homes in the area. So, think about the type of front yard any kind of building that's on these sites could possibly be. Should they mimic exactly a single family 30-foot front setback? Is it something where you want to specify in the ordinances uh like front door location uh or distance from the street? Maybe you want to have sometimes the single family uh um other types of um housing units, for example, like a townhouse style. They they might be closer to the street, but they still have that that so they don't have as much of a uh broad appearance to it, but then the the style of the building itself is grand enough that it makes it very attractive. So, a lot of architectural detail going into a townhouse style building. Um, but when you look at that, the other thing you might want to look at is how high should the buildings be. So on these larger ones, maybe there could be a potential for a a townhouse style development. Um, I can provide you uh during between now and the next meeting examples of different townhouse locations in the area to consider. Uh, but there are even

different townhouse styles to consider. Some of them have the parking incorporated into the the ground floor of the building and then the height of the building goes up three even four stories. Is that acceptable or not? There are some that have the parking included in the in the front of the building uh with a garage entry in the front, but then the it only goes up two stories because of the way it's sized and scaled. It's just a two-story building instead of a four-story townhouse. Would that be appropriate? Um but then when it comes to something like that then if you have the each driveway in front then suddenly you're having a lot of ashvault and a lot of driveway in front very close to each other because the townhouse units are only 30 ft wide typically if at the most. Um but other aspect I just maybe you should try and envision is like all right how many people do you think could live in each one? Like if you have a townhouse style unit, the side, the depth and the and and the width of it, like I just said, like if it's only 30 foot wide per unit, you have one building. Typically, townhouse buildings have about eight units in them from from the edge to the edge. Uh so you can go to different locations and see how those relate. And then, you know, if it's a one-bedroom unit, a two-bedroom unit, how many people live in there? and then how many people you think could live in on a site that you think could be com compatible with the area. Um, one aspect of these maps that I wanted to include is the fact that, you know, some sites are adjacent to other non-residential uses. This is adjacent to the high school. Does that mean that that lends itself more to having more people there and have that transition between and have that almost act like a buffer between the high school and the residences that are single family on the other blocks? Maybe it can absorb the sound that way. Uh and then one other aspect of that, I just mentioned it

briefly was looking at um where where the parking configuration could be. Sometimes the town houses typically I I just mentioned some that have a garage, a personal garage in the front. Sometimes it's in the back. If it's in the back, then you have a much more grand view of the building in the front and then there's common parking in the back. Is that more appropriate or is it appropriate on the side? Okay. I mean, because I imagine we we might all have different opinions on what that might be, but wouldn't there be um I'll say recent developments like like just for example at Ann Arbor Trail and um Hines Drive, they took that little patch where there used to be a old school house, they turned into like a you know what I'm talking about? Oh yeah. So I I I don't know. Right. Yeah. No mills. Yeah. Thank you. So I don't know if that's competitive or not. It's interesting. So wouldn't there be examples of where you can we can see like what surrounding areas have done to develop smaller parcels of land? Yep. Absolutely. And so what I can do is give I you know like I said between before the next meeting I give you a map so you can take your own tours of those kind of sites in the area. So you look at the different types of housing and also in your own experiences if you've seen others that might look and just to get the idea of things it is intended the ma this is still the master plan so it's intended to be broad brush. So, it's just about trying to see what aspects you think are important to consider and point out in the master plan that then you will use when we're creating any kind of amendments of the zoning ordinance. So, this is one particular type of site. Like I said, there's various ones within the city. The next one uh is the uh the vacant lots that used to be the bar 153 parking lots on Crowder just east of Marman. Uh they've been vacant for a while as parking lots. They've been they are zoned currently. Uh and these labels and these maps are correct. Now on this

sheet, it is zoned right now multif family. It is planned multif family. Uh how and I will say that we did have one developer that approached the city attempting to develop the site, but it never got to any official review because the administration just knew what they were proposing was just too ambitious. they the number of units they were proposing, the amount of parking spaces they were reducing, even with our my with McKenna's opinion on parking, it was still too ambitious what they were trying to do. They were even going too many stories on that lot with that many things. I I have a question on since we're on this lot. How did this lot end up just a parking lot, undeveloped, and only a parking lot or it was uh you know, actually it's before my time, so I don't know. All I know is that it used to be the parking lot for bar 153 and for a while it was bought and sold with the front property. To the best of my knowledge currently it was now then separated. So the bar 153 redevelopment that's going on currently that's operating independent of this piece of property. Well I guess my question would be with what we were just talking with that gentleman with his parking lot being across the street. us having to reszone it was so this was never reszoned just to be a parking lot cuz it's it's adjacent across the alley which it really should have been to be solely a parking lot right it could be that depending on how long ago that was developed park if this is not a parking lot right yeah so I'm not exactly sure how that ever occurred it's just it was a up until recently it was a legal non-conforming use because it's been vacant so long it's no longer it has no no non-conforming status the only it only can be used for what's permitted in that district. So, it can technically no longer be used as a parking lot under the current zoning. They would have to reszone that as VP in order for it to be a parking for the bar 153, but it wasn't even part of the

property anyway. They got sold separately somehow. They got separated. It was lost through tax forclosure separately, acquired by separate people and just yeah, a taxation thing. But my point to this particular site is with with regards to this, it's in already zone multif family, uh, the number of units I can get to you, the number of units will fit on that lot. But one thing that's interesting about this site to the west of it, the apartment buildings that already exist, um, they're developed at a much higher density than the apartments to the east. There's apartments to the east. It's a twostory what I call motel style apartments because they're accessed via external hallways and they're not even a hallway. It's just an external access porch to each individual one. There's eight units there. Yeah. It's motel style. It's two stories and there's only eight units on that lot. Next door are two separate buildings. Each building each has a separate entrance with internal corridors that are um 23 park 23 units in that lot. Um and then you look at the individual parking that's behind it. None of none of these have those particular standards of 2.2 parking spaces per unit. How they function, you know, I'll be honest, I haven't heard in any uh complaints, but I'm not sure. I mean, it could be the single family homes across the street do find problems with those parking. So maybe that's not maybe likely we were talking about 1.5 might be appropriate. Probably all parking in that parking lot right now, right? Well, that's a very good point. We'll find out. Actually, it looked on the aerial and it did say cars parked there. That might have been what it is. So similarly to the questions I just have at the bottom of just looking at that looking at the the yards that the adjacent buildings have. What do you think would be appropriate there? The other thing about the apartments to the

west is that they are two and a two and a half story. They have a gu they have a it's not a garden apartment. It's technically a basement apartment. You know sometimes they might market it as a garden apartment. a garden of an apartment supposed to have access to a garden and it doesn't have access to a garden. It's just it's just a it's just a basement apartment with like the windows that you can get some light in. So, so, so my idea with this is there's these and there's other sites along Crowder that have different types of um multif family apartments. So consider what type of multif family um structures you think could be appropriate on that site and and once again number of people that could live there and then we can calculate all right what density does that and to give you some frame of reference a long crowder going further east we have a lot more of what I call ranch ranch house style multif family so technically it could be considered a it's not really a townhouse because it's one story it's that's why I call it a ranch house style right at the corner there at uh it's not Dover what in the next street over um there's a house there's a there's a bu there's a uh ranch style fourstory four unit building for four apartments it's just a ranch style it's very simple they only have four parking spaces on the lot and technically that is the the at the density that's currently within the zoning ordinance t technically I believe well actually it might be a little less I think it's 15.6 or 16 dwelling units per acre for that the ranch style apartments and and that's the true for most of the ranch style you'll see along Crowder. So if you if you drive up and down Crowder on this north side those apartment those ranch house apartments they're the 17 dwelling units per acre those are the kinds that we would get as permitted by Wright in uh multif family

currently. One other uh the next page is one other things that you know it's uncommon uh light uh sites that you might not think could be redeveloped but could be. I don't know if you noticed but well I'm sure you noticed and right now there is a a sign on on one of the properties with the the house for vac it's for sale. Um it's currently uh the entire site from Ford to Crowder is zoned central business district. Uh it's planned for central business district on the front parcels and crowder in the rear uh crow excuse me on the rear crowderf facing properties are actually planned as multif family and you know what are the options for that particular site. In the past for the golf for the mini golf we had someone trying to put a drive-through restaurant on there uh that did fell through just because of the applicant not getting cold feet. Um, but could this possibly be developed as as uh multif family? And if so, right now in our central business district, we don't allow residential on the ground floor. There are different aspects of different housing types that could possibly allow residential on the ground floor. Uh, as for example, in this particular site, maybe you have town houses in the rear half on Crowder and commercial on the front half uh and Ford. So that's just a different type of option and then that would allow for that transition even though technically on the north side of Crowder they're all single family homes but it's still zone multif family. So you know thinking about compatibility what could that be? And then finally the last one is is just to look at even it's not this entire site but it's it's ask to develop and ask to begin the discussion on our deep lots on our 300t deep lots. I thought this is a great example of what probably

was supposed to happen but then never happened. On the west side of this at at Shotka and Dawson in the northwest corner you see how block uh was intended to go through but it stopped. did not go through. Um, and so then you had homes on, you know, double, you know, maybe double double loaded lots that aren't as deep, but homes there, but then you have the the 300t deeper lots that were that were reflective of the historic development of the city that were the 300t deep lots were intended to be your garden lots. People were intended to farm the rear of these 300 foot lots and then use them as either I think it's more than subsistence farming. They were intended for income for for these people when they first did it back in the day. But now they haven't you know they never got developed. So in some blocks we have this mix. If you notice this is a good example on the west side of Shaka right here. they were able to uh develop the lot to have single family homes. But then on the east side of Shaka, the houses are just going north south. The house is off front on the the north or the south road. Uh but then if you notice just barely and you'll notice when you drive out on Henry Ruff, the east side of Henry Ruff again, you have that entire block was being able to through negotiation with multiple lot owners get lots deep enough so they could meet the at time zoning standards for lot area and lot width. Which brings me to a question, right? Yeah. At our last DBA meeting, we had a problem with a house that wanted to build on a lot that wasn't deep enough. And it was because of somebody who split

their lot on this type of lot and uh ended up with a lot that was too shallow and as a result needed two variances for setbacks, right? And we said at that time that we should have some rules in our ordinance about uh lot depth. We have lot width requirements. We have area requirements. We have frontage requirements, but we don't have anything that says how deep it should be. Yes. And I think that should be included. Do have anything been done towards that? Well, that was that'll be part of part of this discussion right here. It it can be we can do two things. We can either include it right now as a zoning ordinance amendment or we can also at a minimum I do want to at least include it in the master plan as well. So we we might get the cart before the horse in that one and get it approved before it even gets in the master plan. But at least we'll talk about that a lot depth. But the that's the reason I brought this up to bring up that issue about how did these other lots get cuz you look on the west side of Shotka right there. Some of the lots were able to like use two and I don't know the underlying plat but obviously those lots were probably about 100 foot deep maybe but then on the north half there's lots that are even deeper than that. Um so the idea is to talk about what could be done about these these 300t deep lots in terms of the adjacent roads. Uh number one being look at lot depth having the have that standard put into the zoning ordinance but then also look at because look at what could possibly be done in these areas. Um the master plan does have currently does have something that has a different range of what could possibly be done. But obviously that's actually one of the impetuses is for the reason we're looking at the master plan now because

because those were none of those seemed feasible or none of those seemed I don't think a lot of feasible and I think the whole garden section should be removed from the master plan right and that's the thing that like this master plan amendment will be do doing that but then it's looking at these larger ones what if any where you have where you have a lot on a side street those lots are accessible if they're deep enough. Mhm. But we have to have some kind of regulations as far as lot depth. So at least that'll tell the homeowner if he needs to get his neighbors cooperation to sell off his lot. Exactly. So they can both sell their lots to have a deep enough lot to build a house on. Right. And that's what's been done in the past. And so yes, so definitely putting in the zoning ordinance a lot depth requirement will codify those what's been done in the past. So do we have anything in a current ordinance like over on Marquette and Wildwood? There's a house over there where there was a house built behind a house with a common road. Are we able to are we able to do that in the current ordinance we have? If somebody wanted to split the lot and use a common road on these 300t deep lots. No, it is not permitted right now. Uh, I will say if you look at the plat map of the this of the city and actually you can see one of well no not really. Um, so there are some other lots of these 300 foot lots and I don't know how those happened either. Those happened probably a long time ago where the 300 foot lots were split in half probably with the intent of having a p what that's kind of that's a town township style development where you have what's called a private drive or private driveway that allows so on the ordinance it allow people are allowed to develop something that um is not a public road standard. It's it's it's a driveway. So

it would be what 2 in of ashalt on a regular base that goes to that that 150 200 30 well not 200 150 200 feet in depth from the road to get a house in the back for lack of sense purposes. Um we don't allow the ordinance doesn't allow that now because any any lot created in the city from now and any lot that needs can be um uh with a with a housing unit with a with a home needs to have frontage on a public road. So, for example, on the north side of not block, but one block up one one one block up from Elmwood is the other lot. Uh the other street that doesn't go all the way through. Other people have been to try to develop those and and actually even even block even block right here. See if you look at block and it goes through. If people wanted to develop these other lot behind these other lots that in theory could get access off a block with just a driveway. The only way they could do that if they actually built a road to public road county standards to extend it to the east to get frontage on a public road and then do a lot split and then build homes. Right now that's what's in our ordinance and that's what it says. So that so that's why the rear of those lots that are on Elmwood and Dawson are not developed. If you look at it on the north side of on lots facing off of Elmwood, uh the second lot in there's a flag lot. Typically, it's called the flag lot. They have a a lot width that's only the the pole. It's only probably 10 or 20 feet wide intended for a driveway. And then to the rear is the is the larger area. Those are nobody builds those anymore. Nobody none of those lots are ever allowed as as a development. Even in townships,

there's minimum requirements for a width to depth ratio or something like that. So that way a flag lot can't be developed. So that way people don't just have a driveway that that leads to a single family home in the rear. Uh just because there's a lot of utility issues and a lot of privacy issues and things like that. Um but at the time with deeper lots and then and out in rural areas that was considered a solution for the development for new housing in these these units. And so that was a solution at the time. And I'll be honest with you, every township community that I have where I've ever worked in, they don't allow them anymore because they just had too many problems with them because either the the the lot yet the the driveway gets uh it's so long, it's not built the right way and you know trying to make it into a standard. So the utilities become an issue and all these other things and privacy is a big issue. Um but you know people saw the these these larger deeper lots and alternatives what is a solution? So that's the reason I just wanted to point this out to you and and see if you thought of something that could be acceptable or if it's more about in the current master plan. One of them says is enh uh maintain and en enhance the the benefits of those lots provided that it provides to the current property owners and mainly just continue with them as single family lots that are just very deep and probably too big to mow too too small to uh farm unless you want to put an even if you want to put an orchard on there you couldn't do that I don't know but um but anyway it's one of those things that that a different style because we've had that issue come up at the ZBA because of at a minimum it'll

develop into lot depth requirements. But if there's anything else in terms of the master plan in terms of housing alternatives what you want to do. So, like I said, I'm going to be providing you with a detailed list of the different types of housing in the area, also pictures of different housing that you use. And I'd be just interested if you if next month if you could provide me with some feedback on um what you think is uh necessary characteristics or necessary policies or goals to include in the master plan based on these type of based on where, if any, we could have different types of housing. I just want to comment. My house is in your picture. Oh yeah. Which way? Where? Which what? Which picture? Mine is one of the 300 foot lots. Mine is Mine is uh south of your square on Dawson. Um I guess my only And again, I'm biased because I like my lot, but I just don't know how you would really It seems like this would be super complicated, right? like this just to well honestly I mean that's as Fred mentioned the right now we have the garden designation in the future land use map when we did the 5-year assessment of the master plan looking at the options for those areas it just you didn't feel like they met the current needs of of residents such as of the residents and also of the city so we have to address it in some way and if even if it is about like I said in the end if it's about ensuring that the current property owners on 300 foot lots uh benefit from the aspects of that of that lot provides them and that's what it is. So I know we had talked before about a like a secondary residence turning into a garage into a secondary residence. The people with these 300 foot lots could they build like an in-laws home back there? So right now within the mass with actually within the zoning areas right

now you are the the modern well not modern it is the standard term for these is called accessory dwelling units. So it's a grandmother suite or something like that. Uh technically they are allowed in the city but in order for someone to do it they have to come and get special land use approval from planning commission and then city council. So whether some and there specific requirements I can't remember the the minimum the maximum size of them but honestly what we've found is whenever they require special use approval nobody goes through the hassle of going through special use to to do them. Uh but I will say that they are something that you know a lot of communities are considering now because it is something if you design it the right way if it's on the if you have the right requirements such as lot area minimum lot area or depth or separation from other structures other communities have have found it acceptable and other communities want are want to be more urban and then they do allow them uh because a lends that lends to that urban character like a Ferndale or something like that. That's but that's not to say they all have to be the same style. You can choose what you feel is appropriate on these type of lots. Right now the special uh not only you have to go through special land use technically we call them accessory apartment dwellings. Uh they're not allowed to exceed 600 square feet. So you the maximum you could have is this one 600 square foot accessory apartment somewhere in the rear of your property? No. Okay. Is there anything else? No. Talked enough. All right. We need uh schedule a public hearings for the following. First one is a public hearing to consider a special

land use for a restaurant with drive-thru facilities at 28484 Ford Road. This is where the uh Dunkin Donuts property Yes. was supposed to be. Yep. It is proposed for a two tenant building. One being Dunkin Donuts. And it is back before you because it expired. Yes. Correct. So they did come before you fired and so they're coming back. Come back again. Do it again. Huh? Do it again. Do we still have is it the same design as they had before? Generally speaking, yes. But I will say that they we made sure and they they have gone to MDOT to go through and get preliminary uh comments on their configuration and MDOT is appro is okay with having two driveways, an entrance and an exit off of this site. Okay. Now, we need a motion to uh schedule a public hearing. I'll make a motion to schedule a public hearing regarding the property at 28484 Road to consider a special land use for a restaurant with drive-through facilities. Any comments or questions of the motion? No. Is that Commissioner Steamberg supporting? No. Oh, it's Williams. Okay, thank you. Sorry. Take the role, please. Yes. Uh, Commissioner King, I. Commissioner Williams, I. Commissioner Steenberg, I. Chairperson May. I. Motion does carry, Mr. Chair. Next item is public hearing to consider a request to reszone a lot at 30719 Crowder Avenue from R3 Multiple Family Residential to C3 General Business

District. There's currently a house on that lot. Yes. Do you know what's behind the applicant's request? the property owner of the building to the south that was just redeveloped for the uh AB uh counseling and they they own they occupy that building. They they run that business. Uh they own the they own also the parking lot to the east of this site and they do want to develop uh they want to uh install a new uh structure so they can run a uh medical supply business. and demolishing the house. Yes, it would demolish the house. And this site is is in the master plan is mixed use. And what they're proposing requires a C3. Yes. Uh yes. Or medical. Well, it would be a spot zone if we went to anything else. Great. Correct. So, it's extending the C3 north. Correct. So, I'm Let me just confirm that. That's what I wanted to make sure cuz I don't Where is Yes, it would be north. North. Okay. Yeah. I'm just trying to find the map right now. The house is between like two parking lots. Yeah. Well, there's [Music] a U apartment building to the west, right? Yes. Uh, it might be I'm not sure what that is to the west, but to the north. Yes. But anyway, it's Yes, it would be in the

middle of a residential area. Forgive me. might be a um typo on my part for on the notice. The applicant I'll make sure that the applicant had the right thing, but actually it's C2 on the south. So a C2 would permit the medical business. Um and your motion would just be scheduling the public hearing for a reasonzoning. And I would just confirm with the applicant what their proposed zoning would be. And actually C2 would be the more appropriate reszoning because it would be consistent with property to the south. It would not be a spot zone. So C2 is probably um what they have on their application and I just have that as an error on the Okay. So we don't have to specify C3 just uh reszoning. Mhm. Somebody want to make a motion to schedule a public hearing for that? I'll make a motion to schedule a public hearing to consider a request to reszone the lot at 30719 Crowder. Support. Support. Questions on the motion? None. Take the roll, please. Yes. Commissioner Williams. I Commissioner King. Hi, Commissioner Steberg. I chairperson May I. The motion does carry, Mr. Chair. Okay. Uh comments regarding uh planning and zoning matters. Uh Mr. Ortega, you have anything for us? Nothing more. Nothing more. Mr. Neighborberg, nothing. Thank you. Oh, I'm good. I'm good. Matt, anything? Just one item that a lot of people call

about is the golden feather and I talked today to the developer and they're moving forward. It's it's been quite a long road and uh they do have the permits have been approved and uh for all of the trades I uh they're going they still need to do plumbing. Uh electrical started uh permits pulled on uh May 2nd. Uh so they're starting to really they've done a lot of internal work, demolition, all of that. Uh saw cutting floors to uh fix drains, all of that kind of work that you wouldn't see. Uh but um so again, I just made contact with him because it had been a while since I talked to him and I thought, let's see what's going on over there. And uh they're still planning to go forward. He u wants to get work done that will you will see of course soon and uh it's not dead in the water. Um, and he's planning to continue to do it for that school, the science, technology, engineering, math school. So, it is going forward. I I was I thought it was going to be a daycare or daycare. Yeah. I'm sorry. Yeah. Yes. Dayare. Yeah. Sorry. Nursery school. Yeah. Sorry. Yes. Daycare to STEM. Correct. Well, it is but it's the it is a focus for it is a nursery school focused on that. Oh, really? It is. Yes. for parents who want to push their kids into saying maybe they don't want them to take out of daycare. They want to keep on going like all stay in school, stay there because it's something similar to um across the street the the Paramount Accounting uh was which is associated with the medical business in Dearbornne. They also the special land use approved for them is not only going to be originally they were looking at daycare but now they are looking at having a higher level of of uh education for for I don't know it's not toddlers I don't know it's maybe four year olds or prek may I think oh it's a prek isn't that

just going to be for their own employees originally yes but they but they but because of the licensing that they needed to get they I guess there's an opportunity to develop prek education there. Okay. And then and so they're looking into it and that's why they haven't developed anything just yet. They did get their special use approval from um council and for us a daycare center is any licensed facility that was for for more than 20 children. So whatever number they have there if they choose a different route they can do it there too. So apparently it's becoming a thing. Okay. Are they are they using that building now or they're using it for the accounting? They're doing renovate well they're they they used it for the accounting and I think now they're doing some renovations the renovations they wanted to do to um the office spaces. Yeah. Because they originally were in there because they just needed more spaces for the tax season. But now the tax season's done they're going to make it more comfortable for themselves. Both my grandkids in Florida, I just got back. Um they're in a STEM class. Oh, yeah. Uh STEM and multiple languages. My my three-year-old granddaughter is learning sign language, Spanish, and English all at the same time. Oh, wow. She's in a class where they only speak Spanish three out of five days. Wow. And then they do sign language on one day in English. I know my granddaughter went through a program in Garden City Schools where she learned Japanese. Wow. She ended up going taking Japanese all the way through college and going to Japan after she graduated for a while. Oh, that's great. So, those classes they have here do mean something, I guess. Yeah, I guess so.

Do you have anything else? No, that's it. Telling? No, I'm good for a night. Thank Okay. But you're saying about Garden City Schools? Mhm. My My daughter's co-director of emergency planning and management for Miami Dade County. Oh, graduate of Garden City, NYU, and Georgetown. Good for her. Yeah. All right. Our next regular meeting will be uh Thursday, June 12th, 2025. Do we have a motion to adjurnn? Motion. Support. Motion's made and seconded. Second. All in favor? I I meetings adjourned.