Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

with liberty and justice for all. This is the Selen City Planning Commission for Wednesday, May 13th, 2026. Will the recording secretary please call the role? Young here. Carol here. Costic here. Marl here, here and then Hampton Lefford absent. Staff present tonight are community development director Atkin and recording secretary Katnik. Um I do have an amendment to the agenda. Um and that is under new business 26-04. Um I would like to include include the revision date for the memo uh for May 8th, 2026.

Madam Chair, I'd also like to add a discussion. I'm hoping that uh at the end of our meeting this evening that uh community development director A can can give a very quick update on uh progress uh regarding the uh development of the former lot 28 on East Michigan AB. It's a mixeduse development next to Zippy's car wash. And then a last amendment just to include the email from the fire chief which um I did pass out. Great. Thank you. I'll move then to approve the agenda as amended. Madam Chair, support. All those in favor? I. All those opposed. Motion passes. Is there a motion on the table to approve the meeting minutes of February 25th, 2026 as submitted, unless there are amendments? Move as submitted. Second. Oh, sorry. No, you're good.

Support.

All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion passes. Public comment. Under the open meetings act, any citizen may come forward at this time and make comments. The person is requested but not required to state their name and address for the record. Comments will be limited to three minutes per person. Seeing no public comment, we'll start with new business 26-04, application from McDonald's for a combined site plan at 7847 East Michigan Avenue, parcel number 18-12-31-390-20. In our packet, we had the memo dated May 4th, 2026. revised May 8th, 2026. Uh from community development director Atkim.

Yeah, thank you. Uh so just a little bit of background. So this building was originally built in 1977 and it was 3,400 square ft and over the course of the years. Uh it had been a number of times. Uh at the time it was built, it was on C3 commercial, which is a general commercial. Then in 1981 is when the SPA zone came in to play and uh the properties that you know of now were all reszoned to SPA1. So over the course of the approvals or excuse me renovations in 1987 uh they wanted to add a refrigeration walk-in cooler large one to the rear. And at that time they received a use variance uh for that the fast food drive-thru uh furning east Michigan because it is not a permitted use uh in the SBA zone um uh then or now. So, uh, the overall scope of the project is they're going to demolish the now 5,400 square foot building and the, uh, parking lot, all the drive services, um, the dumpster enclosure, everything that's out there. And they'll construct a new 4500 45,590 foot building, which is just over 800 square feet smaller than the new one. um a whole new parking area, the uh traffic circulation will be the same and excuse me, the impervious surface will decrease almost 8,400 square ft on the entire site. um in the packet uh going through the page two the uh the bulk requirements the area with the setbacks uh and noted in there that the height was height of

the overall building was about a foot and a half too tall. Um the applicant came in today and we discussed that and that revision has been made. Uh so the uh height of the the parapit will be right at 20 ft. So that one's been taken care of. um parking and maneuvering lanes are are all up to code and um setbacks requirements. Now, with a maneuvering lane in the front in the SPA zone, uh it states that if they want to have maneuvering or parking in the front yard, then they have to increase whatever the required setback is by an add 50%. So the building actually sits back 75 ft with a 50 foot buffer and within that 25 foot area there's uh three spaces uh that are on the uh I'll just call them the east and west side and the maneuvering lane in the front uh just for the circulation traffic made that correction that's what was that you received on Friday and the excuse Um the utilities we had a uh we had a pre-application meeting in March. Uh they had um myself, engineering and wastewater uh involved. They wanted to make sure that there was going to be a grease trap in installed. There is going to be a grease trap on site on the western I believe it's on the western uh drive area. Uh, OM has also had pre-application meetings with them to discuss storm storm water management requirements and they're they're going to have to board underneath East Michigan A. So, which submitted all those permits to the state to get

to get that ball rolling. Um the only issues that came up um that need to be addressed are sorry page here. Um they don't identify a dedicated loading space. Uh right now the uh requirements for loading space is 20 ft by 50. Um now in certain situations we have um not required this because they can do deliveries uh after hours and not they're not necessarily large semitrs but if they are um they could either be required to plane commission can require them to put in a building space or if it's after hours uh it's not going to impede traffic or customer service on there, they can park in the most convenient space. My I anticipate it probably be in the uh to the rear of the building there. Um the sign out front considering the overall uh redevelopment of this site. Um everything will be brought into compliance except for that sign since that sign is part of this entire development and it's a complete rebuild from the ground up. That sign out front will have to be brought into compliance. It is the original sign uh from 1977. Um, it was moved uh from a other lo separate location or I think it was just north of the uh northern egress and uh I saw a document that it had been hit by cars three times uh in that possession. with back in the early 80s I believe and then um the addition of a gateway fence along the front there uh included a

diagram on I think page five for the applicant so they could see and we did have that discussion today um it didn't seem to be that there was going to be any issue with that so on the last page did uh have the items to address separate them out for the site plan and then uh require consideration necessary after site plan has been approved for permits and then right away from state waters applications separate application.

Thank you. Um I do have a question just to start this off with. Um for a preliminary and final site plan, we traditionally have engineering review that goes along with this. I know you had said that there has been pre-application meetings. Um but for a complete demo of a site, building and all. I just wanted to ask why there was not a a memo that was included. that since it's a rebuilt and everything's being shrunk the impervious service, there's not going to be any they're going to um clean out the existing uh storm area. So, it it I didn't feel the need for there to be engineering review for the storm water. They did submit the documents but it's it's uh if any like I said there's going to be a decrease in in previous surface so it's going to be little little change.

I I don't agree with that. I think that that's something that should have been um at least we've had that before where for any preliminary combine combined preliminary final site plan there's been engineering review as part of it and I think that that would have been um maybe let me sleep better at night um just knowing that even with a complete rebuild. So I want to put that on the record that I don't agree with that that statement. Traditionally, engineering and site plan for everything that's above ground is not necessary at this point. Uh since it comes after and they do have to go through the uh construction review with engineering and um they've submitted the documentation for that.

Thank you. Any comments for the uh community development director? So, Chris, can you kind of explain then how all the new retention and whatever will be handled on site? Is there a new pod or is this all going to be in the back behind the fence? Yeah, currently is stay with the uh the pond that's currently there on the the southern property line. There's a little odd shape there. In fact, it's all one property. So yeah, they're going to utilize that and clean it out. And will they bring I mean now that's being a complete redo, will they have to bring everything up to code that is currently an engineering standard?

So county will come in and assess determine all that aspect. Additional questions for the community development director. I think the only other question I had Chris was oops um um was lighting and we had talked about that. It's really the signage and the use of those LED line signs and everything to make sure that those aren't as bright as they currently are right now. Yeah, there are standards for LED lighting and the sign ordinance now. So, they'll have to meet those require address for that. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. If there's no additional questions, I'd move to acknowledge you the May 4th mill. Second. All those in favor? I.

All those opposed? Motion passes. Uh applicant developer comments limited to 10 minutes. Um, if you'd like to come up and speak, uh, you may come to the podium. Just make sure that the green light is illuminated. I was having a hard time hearing you, so I guess I didn't. Yeah. Did you just vote on the project or No, we just voted to uh that we got our memo. You got it. Thank you.

All right. Good evening. Um, my name is Joe Manor. I'm a construction manager with McDonald's and I'm here with the McDonald's owner operator OB data and we're here to present on McDonald's store located on East Michigan Avenue. As Chris mentioned, um we've been here since November of 1977 and we believe that we've been a good community partner uh since we since we arrived. Uh I stand before you today requesting that we scrape and rebuild the existing building and uh rebuild it with a 4590 uh prototype gold standard building with a plate place and sidebyside drive-thru. Okay. I'll touch on a few of the highle design items for the project, but if anybody has any questions uh after that, I'm happy to uh answer. Uh we've got the uh digital images on the screen. I've got the hard copies here as well, but the uh the building is generally in the same uh location as it is currently that uh while respecting all of the building and parking setbacks and uh and the large DTE easement that's on the let's just uh say north is up here on the screen. It would be on the on the on the bottom of the screen um below that purple dotted line there that you see. Um, we're incorporating two stack lanes for the drive-thru where currently there's only one. And it's a bit hard to see, but uh I wanted to make note of the uh loading and unloading zone. That's almost the entire length of the building just on the non-drive side where the cars are stacking up before the order point. Uh Chris, can you zoom in on that a little bit that uh it's actually a cross-hatched area? Oh, there it is. there that uh so that was our proposed um

loading unloading area. I would also mention that from the order point or the the speaker to the cache window on the top side of the screen is is 100 ft and that's a little bit greater than what they have currently. So, the throughput of the cars going around the drive-thru is much more efficient than what it is today. I realize that you have a sixcar stack uh requirement for each uh drive-through lane, but I would expect that that uh that we would never see six cars on the back side given the uh the efficiency of the drive-throughs. I would mention that we have proposed parking count of 35 stalls. uh the zoning text requires 29 and currently there's 57 right so to the point that Chris made about the impervious surface being much uh less than what it is today that's how that uh is calculated in uh we propose collecting all of the storm water on site through multiple catch basins and underground uh piping that leads basically to the existing location of the pond uh where it is currently I can tell you that that that pond will be dredged out. It will all be new. All the structures in there will be new. And we believe that we've submitted all of the detailed calculations and grading plans that uh one of the one one of the members uh noted before as well. So, we're just waiting comments from that. But the the uh the concept is the same as we're collecting all the water, taking it underground, taking it to the pond, and then it goes back out to East Michigan Avenue. We we propose improving the site lighting with new LED cut offs at uh at

20 ft. Uh the average foot candle level uh at the paved surface is 3.77 foot candles and.5 foot candles at the property line or less. zero up light. If we can maybe go to the exterior elevations then Chris. So it was mentioned before that maybe in the packets that you have it showed the front of the play place being at 21'7 in that's been modified to 20 ft uh per your per your requirements. the uh the building itself, the exterior is full brick. Uh Apollo panels above the white trellis uh and around the uh the drive-through windows. If we just maybe scroll to the next page, there should be two pages in there. Yeah. So, the three drive-through windows on the on the bottom uh image there, this round around those windows is the Apollo panels, hardy plank siding on the parapit walls. And uh I guess what I'm saying is that all of the materials are timeless and uh and durable to withstand the harsh Michigan uh winters as well. I mentioned before that uh that we submitted the the um the engineering drawings to uh is at OM and uh MC and and uh Tesha as well. We talked about the loading zone parking setbacks uh have been adjusted. Uh we're working with MDOT currently along with the county and third party reviewers on any of the uh storm water comments. And as Chris mentioned earlier, the uh the fence and the column enclosures um at the front property line that uh I noticed that as I was driving up and

down Michigan Avenue today that uh uh that's a requirement. I also understand that we uh were required to have a burm on the front of the uh site as well. So I'm not sure where that fence and those columns will actually sit. It's on top of the burm in front of the burm, but we can work those details out at a later date. But with your uh with your conditional approval today on uh preliminary and final, uh we're prepared to revise the construction drawings uh with some of these items that we talked about today and uh complete um our our permitting process um so that we can start work as soon as possible in hopes that we can even start here in 2026 and finish before the end of the year. that uh once we do groundbreak, we anticipate a 14week schedule and um and right now we're tracking uh end of August, early September. Project is currently out for bids right now with uh competitive bids. So, I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you very much. Any questions for the uh applicant developer? Yes. Was it Joe? Yes. Yeah. out of curiosity um what what is the the rationale behind demoing the existing structure and building new as opposed to retrofitting or remodeling the existing building. So the building itself is 50 plus years old. So um there are there are parts of the building that um uh that you just want to refresh. The building also has a basement and McDonald's is moving away from any facilities that have basements. Okay, very good. That's all I had.

I do have a question about the um parking spaces that are here. Um I see that what was existing was four accessible spaces uh barrierfree spaces. I see that we've moved down to two. Um is there a rationale for uh eliminating some of the um barrierfree spaces?

Right. So, so the um the four barrierfree stalls I believe are on the on the drive-through side currently. And um I think it's quite a ways. I mean, you're you're you're crossing the exit lane of the drive-thru currently, which quite honestly isn't ideal, right? We realize that. Um there's nothing to say that we can't add additional stalls, but we're just we're working with the uh the ADA the way it's written and that we've got 35 parking stalls listed which uh which then require two uh barrier free stalls along with the u the 8 foot uh van accessible aisleway, right?

That uh talking with one of the one of the people here earlier um yeah, maybe we want to reconsider that. Maybe we want to bump it up to three, right? Thank you. Additional questions? Yes. Um, yeah, I actually had that discussion with our uh community development director about the number of space and so if you would be willing to up it to three, I think that would be helpful. Um, same concern I had was that it seems like it's a farther distance away from the building, but I understand that probably having cars coming in versus going out where they might be more distracted would be beneficial to us. So I now understand with that discussion at that point. Um do you anticipate replacing all the fencing to the back of the property also? That's yes

getting all that. Okay.

Yes. So so currently uh and I don't have an existing site plan with me. Um but currently the the fence line in the back actually jets out. Uh it runs up due north, jets out towards the pond, comes up, comes back and then goes up to the north property line. Based on the building placement and just sliding it up a little bit, this building is is uh I guess shorter uh than what the existing one is. So, we're able to get the drive-thru lane uh through there in front of the power pole that's back there. If you're familiar with the site in the drive-thru, I imagine it's a challenge in the wintertime, right? And uh we realized that that was a problem. And so the to answer your question, the fence will be replaced along the u far east property line separating this the uh the site and the building from the pond. Great.

Additional questions? Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. If there's no additional questions for the applicant, I would move to open the public hearing, affording the public an opportunity to speak to this issue at 7:24 p.m. Second. Second. Okay. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion passes. Uh, all public comments to be heard, a limit of three minutes per person. Um, please come to the podium. Make sure that the light is illuminated if you need to talk. Thank you very much. Oh, sure. Peeps.

Thank you for uh addressing handicap parking. I still don't think three spaces are enough. I go there attend a lot of meetings there in the morning. There's a lot of seniors that attend there for their senior coffee in the morning and and four spaces I think is appropriate to keep it at four. So, I'm hoping you guys will consider adding a condition to keep it at four and then put it in a place where it's more accessible for seniors and people with disabilities because uh right now where they should be is where you have the uh pull and park and you order on the app and they bring the food to that area. So, I'd like to like to keep it at four, which is I'm pretty sure what it is right now. Um, thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no additional comments, I will move to close the public hearing at 7:25. Second. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion passes. Uh comments, questions from planning commission members either from uh to community development director or to the applicant developer.

I have a question is can you handle forest spaces AD? I I guess um I guess I I guess I'd like the opportunity to talk with the operator on that directly. Um as you may or may not know, McDonald's is um above and beyond typically on any ADA requirements. Um we we uh we pride ourselves on that. Um, I'm just concerned about if we have 35 parking stalls and we take two more away and plus the cross-hatched areas of what that leaves for the count. Right. So, I I just I would like the opportunity to talk with the operator on it, study it a little bit and um, you know, just make it a condition of approval or something. Right. I I guess I I found it surprising that she went from 59 to 35. Uh I I I assume you've done all sorts of studies to figure out that's the right number, but it's a big it's that in itself is a big reduction. So yeah. Yeah. That uh as as you can probably imagine, McDonald's has lots of analytics on lots of different things, right? And uh and we felt we felt comfortable with Um, actually we I think the site plans that you're looking at actually showed 37 park installs um until we until we pulled the u the front bypass lane uh back. So

additional questions additional questions? Yes. Do you feel that a third one is possible? Absolutely. That would be a compromise that Absolutely. because I greatly appreciate the fact you've reduced the number of parking spaces because the impervious surface is an issue that we had and in fact I would have liked to seen more but I understand what you need and what I've seen as the usage has been so a lot of those parking spaces have not been used so I think a third would at this point in time would be appropriate. Sure. Additional questions or comments?

Thank you very much. Um, is there a motion on the table to make a recommendation to city council, Seline City Council to approve, not approve, or approve with conditions the combined site plan at 7847 East Michigan Avenue, parcel number 18-12-31-39-020.

This would not have to go to city council for approval. But it's just a standard site plan, correct? Yeah. It's not special land use. So it's there's no So the motion would read then to you can just cut out that first bit um to approve not approve or approve approve conditions the combined site plan for 7847 East Michigan Avenue. Correct. Yeah. I'll move to approve with conditions as stated in your memo and that a third handicap parking space be added. Would we remove um number one because the height that one has been achieved. We can remove number one.

Number two loading space. Yeah, that's not Do we need to add anything in conditions in terms of how that loading space can be used and hours and such? You don't feel so. Yeah, I'll second that.

Any additional comments? I I my only comment is I I still think that this should have been an engine there should have been an engineering review provided to go along with this. um just to make sure that every I with a August start and bids out um you're running really close that if if anything is not right that it's going to be a huge change order to to fix it now because we didn't do the work up front. So I I just need that on the record. Okay. motion on the table um to approve with conditions. Um

chair, could I just clarification about the statement you made? Yes. Would that then be the responsibility of the develop of the owner? Should any of those changes be needed to be done and will we have to come back to us or is that just something how will those issues that you mentioned be discovered at this point in time if there are any? I mean scale if there are any changes then I I can make the determination if it needs to come back for

and if engineering did have a chance to approve this or to review it would there be a reason that it couldn't be done in two weeks and just do this again just to make sure that all eyes were dotted and teases were crossed. That's I just would feel better with it as an engineer review looking at engineering drawings.

I mean I I am having a concern about site plan reviews in general and other developments that are happening in this community that should be coming through this planning commission. So if this is an issue and a concern that uh you feel strongly about, would you support them postponing this for two weeks?

I would postpone it for two weeks. I I feel I mean obviously engineering would have to see if there would be enough time to review it but if they've already been in contact and applied for permits to bore underneath of M uh US12 with M. Brighton then yes I think that I would feel better knowing that there was another set of eyes on it period. That's it. I I will not personally vote to approve with conditions for this because I feel so strongly about it. I I would not, if I may, Madam Chair, I I I'm willing to broker a compromise. I'm not going to vote to postpone this to revisit it in two weeks. I I don't envision that there's going to be any glaring issues or deficiencies that are noted in a independent uh u engineering review, but if we want to make a condition that an engineer review this and then come back if there are deficiencies or problems, I'm happy to support that.

You made the motion. Your choice. I guess that would be is that a friendly amendment or what is that amendment? I mean I made my motion the way I made it. The question would be is that sufficient I guess just expand the amendment

of our other engineer that's on our board. I mean from your perspective I respect your professional review of this and concern. Does that meet your needs if we had a separate one review? I'd like to see if it's a condition that there's an engineering review that is completed. I would like to see the memo and it does not get put into that we don't see it. I'd like to know that it was done to know that it was done. Okay. We can add that condition with that that review information be returned back to council once completed. Planning commission or planning commission. Sorry.

That's okay. I am not not on council. So that would be the fourth fourth condition. Fourth condition of this question. Yes. So as I mentioned, we have submitted all the calculations and engineer plans, right? So there's no question about that. Correct. Uh we're awaiting comments to come back. And if you conditionally approve the project today, right, is that the building department's not going to issue a building permit until all of the conditions from engineering have been met.

And that's fine. I I as an engineer would like to see the fact that engineering reviewed the calculations and that that comments were comments were made and were addressed because once it goes to bid once it starts to get built problems are problems and knowing that they have been looked at is what I want to know happened. I don't feel even if yes calculations were provided and you're awaiting anything on that this in my opinion is an incomplete packet. I just would have felt better knowing that it had been looked at and any comments had been given for storm water for circulation for anything like that. That's my my whole thing on it. I've been doing this for a while. So that's that's it. I just want to know that it was done

and that comments were addressed. Can before we vote, can Danica read or staff leazison, excuse me, can you read that fifth condition then? Okay. So that's that once the engineering review that the information is returned to planning commission once the engineering review is complete. Well, first you're mandating that engineering review be done. The fifth condition is that an engineering review be done and that the report be returned to to planning commission with the inference being that if there are deficiencies or errors then this would it would be returned to this body for consideration.

All right. Good with that? Yep. Okay. All right. Mr. Gerbot. Um we need a second to that motion. So paused already second unless he objects now to the added language. Second. All right. So, there is a motion on the table to move by Gearbach, second by Fostic to approve with conditions the combined site plan at 748 7847 East Michigan Avenue with the five conditions that are noted uh that the staff uh recording secretary has in the memo. Any additional conversation, discussion? All those in favor? I

I All those opposed? Nay. Um motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Um discussion items. Uh the city manager update on the gathering space. Thank you, Planning Commission members. And uh hopefully in your packet, I understand you did receive a copy of the uh current uh plan for the uh downtown community gathering space uh which I think we all know is uh obviously just uh immediately on South Ann Arbor Street on the east side of the there behind Carrian Cafe and Murphy Square property. So with that uh obviously this has received some public attention already in the announcement of some of the funding from the state uh and been working with practice properties uh the owner to uh look at the conceptual plans that have been developed thus far and want to now bring that to the planning commission for your review and comment. Uh just to note that these plans will be further developed. We do anticipate coming back to um hopefully uh your meeting in June uh with a little bit more detail, but we want to receive any comments at this point so that we can advise uh the property owner and the architect and um landscape designer that's currently working on on the plan. So, with that, uh just a few highlights. You'll note um hopefully uh you recognize the the site uh and the building arrangements on the site, but you'll note most of the area behind the building will be regraded. Uh so it creates a a much more gentle slope. Right now it's kind of a uh flat and then you know drops off a little bit. So create more gentle slope for uh ease of traversing the property. Uh note the uh sidewalks on the south side of the site will be realigned and replaced uh again to gain a little bit of space. They're a little bit wider now. And then there's more of a circular or half a circle uh stairs that go down and kind of cut into the space a little bit. So that's designed to uh gain some additional

space. Uh note there's a provided pretty much concrete walkway around the perimeter of the site so you can easily traverse it. Uh the center of the site, you can see the green area is intended to remain as sad. Uh the red areas on the site, uh they're proposing a seating area adjacent to the building. Uh currently uh the property owner is working with a restaurant bar entrepreneur um kind of a a small tasting room as has been described uh to me and so they could utilize that space as well as any other tenants. There' be another tenant space in the basement to be able to use that utilize that space immediately behind the building. Additionally, you'll see on the south side of the site a small uh stage area and that will be create a small level area for small performances, you know, small uh bands, those types of things uh that uh could be utilized on the site. Uh near the adjacent to the parking lot, uh the uh arrangement has pretty much remained the same except for some additional landscaping and some ballards. Uh so that drive will remain pretty much as it is currently today to uh access the existing parking lot. However, we do hope to replace the surface with a stamped concrete uh so that uh so that that is more decorative in nature and provides the a space. The other thought being uh that you could cordon off or block a portion of that drive and open up additional space for larger events even placing you know potentially entertainment in that in that existing driveway area. So some other uh site features uh proposed to be added uh small pergola. Um the idea here is to try and screen this space a little bit from the parking lot. So it provides a little bit of you know you don't just be looking out at cars uh so to speak from uh from the uh from the space. And again that's intentionally why the the the trees you don't along the drive access drive are um are also located in that general

vicinity. Uh so with that also you know site lighting uh idea is to provide that overhead string lighting. So there'll be poles with power associated with that and then some potential additional lights on near the stage as well as one additional light uh near the uh drive into the parking lot. So that's uh the current proposal. uh it is uh reaching the point where we do need to go now into more engineering uh design uh for the site. A couple other underground improvements I'll note uh the storm water uh will have to be extended uh to make sure obviously the low area on the site is drained properly. Uh right now I think there is a well there is a storm sort that extends into the site but it will need to be extended and potentially replaced. We're also evaluating some of the other storm lines adjacent to the service parking lot and the sidewalk areas to see if those lines need to be replaced or what their condition is precisely. So, that's an overview and uh my goal here tonight is to take any comments back to uh practice properties so that they can incorporate any thoughts or changes that uh the planning commission may recommend. Actually, I grabbed my pen for that. Is it my understanding? It It's my understanding that there is going to be fire escapes um that are installed to allow for additional units at the the top above Carrian. Is that is that correct what I've seen in in drawings?

So, if you see that dashed line on the uh plan, there will be basically a walkway or I guess you somewhat of a patio walkway that Yes. Then there could be uh doors that exit out to that and then exit out uh to the to either end. Okay. Or into the building. Believe the MEDC grant is contingent upon not only the creation of a green space but four new housing units in the downtown and a net positive of one new business in the basement of Carrians. Okay. The Carrian building. Thank you.

Yes. Um and this because of my council role. There was approximately 20 fire code violations that were identified back in 2020 related to this project. How will those be incorporated and resolved? Uh so obviously with the uh application for permit for the new units, the residential units, it will have to go through the building department and the building official will have to review uh the plans uh and ensure that they do meet the fire code. That's part of any permit review. additional questions or comments. Um, this will be coming back as a site plan redevelopment then. So, we will see this all the details that go along with it, both reviews, both community development and engineering that go for a site plan review. It's my understanding that uh in looking at you know the zoning or criteria they're in developing the outside space it does not trigger a formal site plan review

that's inconsistent with what we've done in the past we have other sites that have been redeveloped so I'm very concerned with the city not applying the consistency what other what other properties in the past Oscars that property was redeveloped just recently with required number of site plan reviews by this board. I don't think that's applicable to this, but there's no parking being added. Um there's no physical building additions being

engineering grading, change in use, increased pvious surface, ADA. There's a number of things going on. So my perspective of this is it should be treated like a normal site plan review that we've done in the past. It seems like it's getting a a different treatment than we've done with other properties. And also with regard to the drainage, we'll probably need someone to look at that and verify it's correct. Yes. Yeah. So, as I mentioned, there is an existing storm uh sewer that services the site. It will need to be extended and we've already had OM involved in and reviewing how that would be extended.

Okay. So, if we could get their response, I guess just what's the if you're this is coming for the June meeting, what is the purpose of it coming for the June meeting if we're not reviewing any part of it? I I mean the request of the planning commission to take a look at the site uh and you know basically you know to be assuming it would just be provide some planning it would just be a a a discussion item then it wouldn't be new business current plan yes okay additional questions or comments for the city manager thank you very much for your time

we can I can if I may we can certainly share this body's concern we talked talked about having either a special meeting or a work meeting to discuss this project and to uh update council sometime in the next few weeks and we can we can share the concerns that that were expressed from the deis today and if there's a desire from council to go through a more formal site plan process we can we can certainly consider that. How do we get that on the agenda? How do I get that how do I add that to the agenda to a council? If I ask if you send this to council and they say, you know, do I send in a comment, say that I think that this needs more formal site plan review or is this

Well, why don't we just do this? Um, yeah, we'll we'll we'll work to to notify you and the rest of planning commission as to when that either special meeting or work meeting occurs. Um, and obviously you and any other citizen or concerned party are are free to to attend. If you can't, you can submit comment and the clerk would be delighted to read it into the record. Thank you very much.

I work with community development director. We did have a discussion, you know, when this first came through as to whether it would require a formal site plan opinion or a review and approval. At that point in time, we both agreed that it would not, but obviously we could provide a little more detail why, you know, looking at the zoning ordinance, you know, why we feel it would not require a formal site plan approval. Certainly is like the uh you know, obviously applicants willing to provide level of detail. Um but you know because there's no structure expansion, no parking. It was no um wasn't that's why particular we don't believe it would require a formal site review.

I just feel that it's a it's a P3. It's a public private partnership. I mean the city has has a has skin in the game on it. The the developer obviously has skin in the game and you know it's a it's a capstone. however you want to say it, it's it's a place that we expect the city to go to. It needs to we need to make sure that everything for it is is compliant, ready to go. So, that's the that's why I'm pushing for it because this is the only thing I've seen is this same drawing and whatever the renderings that the uh applicant has put in. I just think that it needs a a lot more detail um just because there's a lot of skin in the game. And yeah, as I stated the opening there that they are moving now into engineering. So,

okay, thank you very much. Um, would you like to discuss um lot 28A?

Uh, lot 20A, excuse me. Um, well, it's actually given a I think it has an actual address now. I'm I'm using the old terminology from when we first marketed the the the the site eight years ago. Can you give an update um and remind uh planning commission um the petitioner developer has closed on the property and he she they have to reach certain benchmarks in terms of completion of buildings and uh seeing suites occupied. So um he and I chatted about this briefly I think a week or two ago. Um obviously they need to get moving uh uh through the the final stages of our planning and zoning processes to get final site plan approval. Um, if you could state for the record or remind us, Mr. Atkin, what what sort of deadlines they're they're up against, I think that would be would be uh would be helpful.

Well, with preliminary site plan approval, uh they have up to a year to resubmit for um final site plan. Now, since our the they were granted approval February, March, I don't recall. uh they were able to come to agreement with Bank Supplies to purchase the lot south of lot 13 which I believe is lot 8 that will grant them access to Beis Road and develop that with more residential. Um part of the agreement is uh Bank supplies did find their circulation drive that goes through lot 13 useful. So part of the agreement is that they uh move that and uh create a new road for them. I think there's going to be some sharing of the detention basin there to the south. Um we are uh city manager and I are meeting Friday with a representative they have looking into brownfield uh just for site development soft costs. Um and uh they're want say they're going to try to fit another four or five buildings uh residential buildings same as what was on uh lot 13 down there. So um they're going to try to include that into the uh another site plan. As far as the development goes, I I my understanding is I have agreements with the tenants for the two buildings, the four units up front uh to be open and going by the end of this year, I believe. So, um last time I spoke with them, I said we might be able to get that part of the plan going and then do uh the other lot separately as a separate site plan review. Um, the other lot being the one that they are in agreement with Bank Supplies.

I mean, I I think it's great that they were able to come to an agreement with Bank Supplies to to purchase a lot so we get to see additional space developed. And I think it actually creates better continuity by having housing uh directly next to multif family housing at Burwick Park. I did want to just make sure that planning commission is aware that when it comes back for final site plan approval, it will be revised and modified and enlarged from what we had had previously seen. Right. Yeah. Very good. Any indication as to when they might submit for for final site plan? I mean, do you anticipate something

after Friday? Okay. After we meet with Brownfield because and I don't know what their entire game plan is there. They're just trying to see if they can't get some money uh to recoup some cost uh with development because there is a lot of uh cut that needs to come out there. A lot of dirt with that burn on the west side. Thank you very much. Additional questions about what 20A. Um, if there are no additional uh items for discussion, um, would somebody make a motion to approve the act absence of Heft and Lefort? I'll move to excuse. Second. All those in favor?

I. All those opposed? Motion passes. Is there a motion on the table to adjurnn at 7:52? Salute. I'll second that. All those in favor? I all those opposed motion passes.