Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

in my office. I ran out of state Michigan closed PNC. Oh, that would make sense. But that one makes me a little bit nervous just because it's super specific to to areas. Yeah. That it should be more yellow. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. This is the Selen City Planning Commission um for Wednesday, May 14th. Uh will the recording secretary please call the role? Young here. Carol is absent. Fos here. Marl is absent. Gerb here. Hu here. Leaf here. Staff present tonight are community development director Atkin and recording secretary Katnik. Uh is there a motion on the table to approve the agenda as distributed unless there are amendments? So moved as distributed. Second. All those in favor? I. All those opposed. Motion passes. Is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes of April 9th, 2025 as submitted unless there are amendments? Second. 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. Did we receive any? Yep. We just have the email comment from Mayor Marl, who won't be here tonight. He says, "I have previously reviewed the proposed ordinance and have no objections. I'm hopeful it can be reviewed approved by city council in the near future." Great. Thank you. Unfinished business 25-07, ordinance number 876, an

ordinance to amend appendix A, section 2.01, rule applying to text section 2.02, definitions A through B, section 2.04, 04 definitions F through K sections 2.07 definitions S through W of article 2 section 5.03 accessory structures of the city of Seline zoning ordinance. Uh we have a memo dated May 7th, 2025 from community development director Atkin. Take it away. I received some email or an email after last meeting uh with some comments and suggestions. Those changes have been made. Um there were some grammatical errors that I didn't notice when I accepted all the revisions. It somehow it put everything into one big definition. So all those particularly for solar um so those have been corrected. And then uh there was a question on the about the landscaping around. So a uh figure has been drawn added and expanded on uh for the landscaping. Now I understand there were a number of questions uh that weren't brought up the last meeting. So if we want to jump into those now um we just work our way through the ordinance. uh the proposed revisions uh why these revisions are taking place. I'm happy to answer any of those questions. Sure. Does anybody have any direct questions right now or changes that they see as uh to the ordinance or clarifications? I I only found a couple of minutes, but the only and and I can show I'll show them to you later. I'm not too worried about them. The only thing that I noticed that was sort of substantive and I don't know if it was

in it the last one or if it wasn't and I or if it wasn't I just missed it or if it wasn't but on the definition of the personal scale SCEs the second part of that definition looks like it's like a prohibition or like a requirement of how they that has to be treated and that felt to me like it's not the definitional section is not the right place for limiting like or telling somebody how something has to I I guess it maybe it was just the way it read, but it felt less like a part of the definition and more like a uh a requirement or a prohibition of like treating that. Um could you just clarify? We're article two. Sorry. Yes. Section 2 07 definition M3 for solar energy systems personal scale. Yes. And maybe it's just the wording or maybe it's um so in my experience with solar uh not necessarily on personal scale but large farm solar farm type DTE consumers will purchase back any of the excessive. So if that is the case that DTE is buying these back that they're not going to on a personal scale generally they're not going to because they're not going to uh produce enough watt or whatever. Um it's just saying that it can be sold back as primary use. So it's more for personal you know to power your house. You can't push it back into the the system. Yeah. I just didn't know if like that's something that should be like this should be left in just a definitional section or if that's actually something if you're telling them they can't use it in a certain way that it actually needs to be like in a substantive word itself right because because since it's in definition I worry that that's

not going to be considered like operational language it can definitely be added or something to see definition for yeah I just wasn't sure. So, because I the word shall kind of trip just tripped me up. So, maybe it was just changing the way it was defined. But otherwise, if it's they were telling them they can't use it for a primary, you know, the primary back, but it can't be right. The reads the whole Yeah, I understand that the I don't I don't know where else that would go, but it felt like that might be something that should be like in the ordinance itself in the action parts, but I can't find the actual verdance. Yeah, I can go through there. [Applause] I guess the easiest thing to do in this case considering that not enough power is going to be generated or stored. in the personal scales. We can just wipe that section out. Not not the definition, but just that last

sentence. So the M3 would now say personal scale SCEs, a ground mounted or building mounted SCES that is accessory to the principal residential use on the parcel. Period. End of sentence. End of definition. Yes. Mr. Leford Ford, are you okay with that? I mean, I I I mean, as long as that's you know, capturing or that there's no concern, I think, you know, and you know better than I would that there's that there's that there is a concern that anybody would ever be able to generate enough energy to do it to use it for something else and that city council wouldn't want it that way, then if I mean, you know, I I would defer that part to city council, but these these Yeah. more I guess to better define them would be the roof mounted type. Um and typically when any power that excess power there's battery backups and reserves that they store in house for cloud. So it's not enough it would be a detriment to them having these selling that power. So I can take that out. I was just going to say I mean I can think of one or two examples where they actually were feeding power back to DTE but isn't the primary or way the definition should be is that it is for personal use for that property only. Yeah. And define it that way or be more specific to that perspective. Then they usually get a discount on their Right. Right. No, I was just saying do you want to put into the definition or something that makes it very much restricted to use for the for the building itself or I don't know because I know what what the issue is. You're trying to avoid somebody coming in with a commercial setup to um generate power. Yes. Yeah. Putting a small building out there and Yeah. the other 95% of the property is a farm, solar farm. Um,

is besides the I mean I only have we only have the little piece of it here. Besides the uh the part where in 5.01 I got myself all mixed up in the fi in 5.0 where is it? Uh 5 yeah 03G. Is that the only part that's uh that actually has substantive solar panel submissions? Yeah. Okay. So, right now the only solar panel provisions where there's restrictions in that way except for the ones that are attached to the accessory dwelling. There's one there's a provision there, right? So yeah, I guess and I guess the only other possibility would be to take if you were really wanting to avoid that would be to take that piece and you know wedge it into there and also wedge it into the accessory dwelling section to say like that this is in both whether it's ground mounted or building mounted. can't be it has to be incidental to the uh um or have h solar pan panels uh roof mounted. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Or just Yeah. Or hes Yeah. So maybe in subsection N M in section under definitions in 2.07 07 solar energy systems. Maybe that with what Dean was recommending we put language in that definition that it it is I don't want to say proprietary to the parcel it is on or the lot that it's on, but

it'll I know what you're trying to say. I'm just trying to figure out the appropriate language. We could just take the sale and distribution that last sentence in three and put it up under M. Well, it's still in a definitional section. So, that's my still my problem. I wondered if maybe I guess the other option would be like and I'm sorry this is kind of like so technical but I wondered if like maybe the other section would be like G becomes solar panels uh more broadly and then there's a se there's a there's there's a the broad prohibition that you can't sell it back for it has to be still incidental to the to the to the primary purpose and then there's groundmounted subdivision uh specific um requirements underneath that so the solar panels generally are pro prohibited from uh use yeah I wonder if that I mean well I mean it's all under accessory right so it wouldn't it has to be incidental to primary right um I mean I guess maybe maybe that's the thing is that if you depending on how you interpret that could you say that it because it has to be accessory to the principal residential use on the parcel that is building in the idea that you you're any any selling back can only be incidental and can't be primary. So maybe it's just redundant. I don't know. Like maybe that second part is just redundant in the sense that because it is already has to be is already defined as being an accessory to the principal residence residential use. Meaning you couldn't like selling back any more than any amount that would be incidental and making it a primary use would actually not make this a personal scale SCES anymore by definition. Yeah. I mean by

definition it isn't a residential. So it would even if they did sell it back if it gets to a point where it's because this this is really looking at the structure itself and everything. It's not like Yeah. My bigger concern is not necessarily the solar panels on a building but it's the polemounted ones standing in a yard. Yeah. So maybe, so maybe that I mean I can see that definition. If you're if the definition is accessory to the principal residential use on the parcel, then maybe that just builds that second part in and we don't need that second part at all because that that by definition would mean you could not distribute excess energy pime as a primary purpose because then it's not accessory anymore, right? Yeah. Okay. So the solved cut it out. Take the last sentence off. No, that's my recommendation. Does anybody have any comments about that? That's fine with me. Um, what was our former for these polemounted solar? And this just came keeps coming up in my mind. Did we have somebody already identifying that or we're adding that in? We're adding it in. So if we didn't want to have that, I know there's an issue about allowing solar and really was more the issue of allowing solar on buildings, panels and that type of thing. It's really this concern of how many panels can you put within a yard? I mean, what would be the coverage if you were to put a pole panels on a pole and everything? This goes back even with my wind generated issue that we don't really specify either because you can put a wind generator on a pole. I This one says it can't be greater. Oh, and that's in height. Well, the solar panels since it's really the ground mounted, it's not really ground coverage. I mean, if they're on a pole, that's only taking up that much ground area that would be imperium, right? But

the panels could be significant in size and cover the entire Yeah. backyard possibly. Yes. Generally in a residential uh when the companies they go through will assess how much is necessary. Um we're my thing with it is are we adding something that we really don't need to add at this point where we really are more concerned about allowing for I mean, it's an accessory structure, but does it need to be allowed if we allow them to put solar panels on their existing buildings? Some don't have that option because they have to submit a structural engineer uh uh certification with it that it can support it. That tends to be a lot of weight and they the way they're fastened to them, they might not be able to put them on a roof. So they go to the ground mounted ones. Um typically they have to face south. If there's a lot of trees there then they I mean yeah for me I guess it's understanding the coverage. Do we have any difference in the setbacks for those panels and everything else? Yeah it's in the last section that they have to be at least 10 feet away from the property line. I think uh 5t from their rear. Um, can we because I know this is going to be an issue. Can you identify that no more than a certain coverage of the lot can be done? That might be overly restrictive uh from the the standpoint that if they need certain amount of panels, but they can't fit them. I mean, when do you get where do you get to impervious surfaces? I mean, you now have panels that are going to be where water is going to be on them

and everything else and all that. I I just don't know. I mean, we really don't see that as in a big in a big um structure plan like a big big solar plant. I can't say what I want to say. Solar farm. Solar farm. But when you start looking at it, it's like if you need to put your entire backyard into panels, I can't see that's something that a community is going to like as a standard. Would you could you I mean I don't know what the actual like size of panels or how many panels are needed generally for like a home in our in our thing, but could you do something like you do with the accessory dwellings and accessory structures generally where you have a Mac Depending on the lot size, you have a max. And that was going to be my question. Does the table that's in D, does that count for solar panels as well? I was looking at coverage for imperous as an impervious surface, not for I guess uh what's being the the area being occupied. But that would be in plan view that that that coverage would still be an area. I mean impervious surface there's still going to be runoff associated with it and it's going to be concentrated flow at that point. Um just because one if if they can't do roof mounted we could always make it a a special use that way um give us a little more skin in the game as far as uh setbacks um or where they can go or the amount of coverage what it will look like. Um that sounds sounds doable opportunity to talk about it and whatever else talk about it and you know if they need one more panel that's going to I mean the whole issue really falls back to HOAs where the biggest concern is but in the other situations where if

somebody decided to put an entire solar farm in their backyard then the neighbors wouldn't have any opportunity to say wait a minute that's could you know affect value of my property or anything else. question. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Um that would be my suggestion of we can make it well industrial is not going to need the personal scales. Um there's going to be the bigger ones, but we can say uh put something in as anything that is any ground mounted solar panels in a residential district residentially zone. That's any specific district uh residential district um is required to get a special land use. Would that go under G section G? Uh like number four. No, that would go in this section. Just the uses permitted permitted use of special land uses. Um, one's not in here. Different section just be addition to what is permitted. So then you wouldn't would you take this? Would would this one would G stay in then? It wouldn't stay in. Yeah, because that would be it might get moved to um section 4 special land uses that have additional restrictions to Okay. um with this being so if they fit another panel within that 10 ft, right? Does anybody have any comments about the special land use for a certain number extra number of panels um that was just discussed? We want to put a number on just the personal scale of ground mount residentially zone districts. Okay, I'm okay with that. And I I'll stay I'll steer clear of the personal scale or ground mounted because there's kind of a

difference between the two. Okay. Um but it'll still be I'll just stay personal scale or ground mounted as in a uh special land use and residential districts. Okay. Um I had a question about the u maximum size area table. um because it's kind of inconsistent between what you're allowing per um the lot square, you know, the square footage of the lot versus the uh maximum area for an accessory structure. Um and from the markups there are the you know 16,000 which is you know a little bit over.367 acres to about 0459 acres. Um the 16,000 and1 and over 20,000 um that's a pretty big lot size for the city of Seline. How many units across the city would that I did do these calcul there's a couple hundred of them believe it or not. Okay. U maybe less than 200. Um and then anything over 20,000 is even less per residential. It was compared to the I think there's about 3,000 lots that were zone residential. Um it's it's a very small portion throughout the entire city. Um is there something that's driving adding those two additional um lines to this table? It was brought to us um more for proportional standards, you know, larger uh larger accessory structures for larger lots just for the sake of proportion. Okay. And the only reason I'm asking

again as an engineer, my brain likes numbers. Um it you know the the first line in the table is about 9% you know the second line in the table is anywhere between 6.42 to 9.62% of the lot coverage then 5.25% to around 7%. So it's it's just it's it's inconsistent. And so I'm just wondering where these numbers incre why it's incrementally as as it is like based off the the the current three or the u the first three on there. So it's an additional 50 square feet. Uh no it's not 50 50 and then it goes to 70 and then yeah it's up to 90 then to 90 again 90 also. Uh we did look at percentages. Now percentages would to actually lessen the uh allowable area even if we went up to 30% of say a sideyard 50% of a rear yard because it varies based on the location of the structures the primary structure. So this one at least um this will allow up to two. Mhm. Um as a in an aggregate so they could have smaller one side larger in the rear. Um but with the percentages it was all over place then the calculations they have to go in and then debate over what may or may not be the actual area. Okay. So this is the aggre this is the total maximum size area of the two aggregate correct 80 uh this is this is necessarily just for one okay two per uh residential with not to exceed that total area. So, if I have a 400 foot

garage and I'm on a 20,000 foot lot, I can only have an 820 foot additional building. I mean, I'm sorry, 620. You're saying it's not you can't qualify for multiples. You can only qualify for the total of what's for the lot site. Yep. Okay. Yep. So if you already have an existing building of like a 10 x10 building which is 100 square feet it'll be deducted from what the total So the maximum you could have for is 830 for a 20,000 foot. Correct. That's helpful. Thank you. Yeah, that's stated. Uh I just never thought about that until you just mentioned it. So section 5.03 03 subsection three for detach. Any additional questions that um might have shaken out when reviewing this or from the last two meetings? Just a couple. Uh can you remind me again how fences will play out in this? They're not considered an auxiliary structure or All right. But how will those play out in terms of the new setbacks? Still not an issue? Still not an issue. Okay. No, because you can put a fence right up on the property boundary. I think it's about Don't you have to be a foot off of the three inches? I think uh in the front yard it's three feet. Um rear yard right up on them. 5,000 foot because that's going to I mean that's a concern right now with some of the small setbacks that we have already where buildings are only 3 feet or shorter and then you get to that point you can't get in between the buildings when fences go up. So that might be something to consider measure consider doing and I've done this in other communities a neighbor agreement

where if they want to put it on the lot line if they have a a copy of a a certified boundary survey they can submit that. Then it's up to the installer to put it on that property line or an agreement between the neighbors that yeah, we're we agreed that we think that this is where the property line is. That way there's no it it's would still be a civil issue if there was a disagreement, but there's paperwork stating that you agreed or the previous owner agreed at that time. Um those tend to work out pretty well unless uh uh there's two disagreeing neighbors. One would have to get a uh survey, legal boundary survey or hold it a foot back at the least. Yeah, because I think I mean there's starting to seem like more requests for fences in town than there have been in the past. So it's probably something we need to look at. Okay. Um as I'm looking at definitions, we had a bed and breakfast definition in there, but do we have anything for Airbnb or short-term rentals? No. So, anything that isn't stated is not permitted. Oh, okay. It works that way. Ordinances. Yes. All right. So, right now then we don't permit short-term rentals or Airbnbs. That is correct. Okay. Um the one other thing is right now when we look at an expansion, we do expand ADUs out into other um residential areas besides R2 right now for ADUs. For ADUs, yes. This will take precedent for that. Correct. In terms of the size of the ADU and stuff you built or does our Okay. Um well, or do we need to modify our ADU to address modify the ADUs because there seems to be some language that was left out that uh for short-term rentals, right? Um that uh anybody who lives there has to, you know, six month minimum.

Um there was I can't remember excuse me the exact some of the other language that it has to be incidental. Um it can't be owner occupied so that they can't rent you know rent the house can't be sold separately. Um but those are part of the ADU. do not need to be incorporated in this auxiliary unit type thing building there is cross over but yeah there's a minimum uh in building code there's a minimum area that uh for little space um so right now if somebody wanted to put on a you know 840 square foot uh ADU they could that is a large ADU. Yes. Um so that's going to again it's going to play into how much space is available. Um if they go two stories then in certain zoning districts they can go 24 feet I believe. Uh if they're building but if they're building new it can only be 15. Raise that. No, I think where we ran into one concern was well, we knew that our minimum size for a structure was bigger than would be that you would expect to build for a smaller ADU unit. So, I didn't know if this will take president over that or the ADU ordinance will address that and make it smaller. ADU will address it and be smaller. Unless it is a second story, then it could be the footprint of the building going up. you know, we don't want somebody has a 900 square foot and then have to narrow it down. But, uh, that does that even get for me it gets to that, 200 um, and then basically if it's a vertical building, it's much less

of an impact than it is a and in no case could it be larger than the uh, principal. Okay. Um, I had one other question. No, speaking of ADUs, I know it's kind of off topic. They are permitted in the R2 district. Now, if you look in the zoning ordinance in the R 3A, R3, maybe R3B, it's anything that's permitted in the R2. So, it expands on that already in the zoning district. Even though in the current uh accessory structures it's limited to the R2 explicitly stated but right I don't and I think we did it because the issue was being more that we wanted to see it as being in multiple family residential existing already versus putting it into single residential and causing issues there. I want to take out that confusion. Yeah, I agree. Sounds good. you know, explicitly state somewhere that it only one place that says R2, but then if you go into the permitted in special land use, uh, in the zoning ordinance, it trickles down to other zoning districts. So, I just want to take some of that confusion out. Yeah. Um, that's it for me right now. Additional discussion. Uh, is there a motion on the table to acknowledge the receipt of the memo dated May 7th, 2025 community from community development director Atkin? So moved. Second. All those in favor? I. All those opposed. Motion passes. Um, is there a motion to open the comment period at public comment period at 7:33 p.m.? Moved. Second. All those in favor? I.

All those opposed? Motion passes. All public comments will be heard. a limit of three minutes per person. Not seeing anyone coming forward, I move to close the public hearing. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion passes. Uh comments, questions from planning commission members. Uh in addition to our initial discussion, I just have a I I have a couple there, but I don't know if we want to actually like mention them. Maybe I should mention them on the record. Um so I'll just walk through them really quick. They're just really minor. Um, but that's my my jam is um finding knits, so I apologize. Um, the on the section 2.02 definitions A through B, there's just a missing parentheses under accessory dwelling unit ADU. And then the lettering when you get to these different sections for definitions, uh, go gets off at some point. like 202 goes through R, but then 204 starts back at I and then 207 starts back at K again. So that all just needs to be tweaked. Section 202. So 202 ends at R, but then 204 Oh. starts at I. Yeah. Uh that's be because nothing above those were changed. So those that uh won't change. Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay. So that we're this is not the entire No. Okay. Sorry. Okay. Then ignore that. Was interjected. Okay. Got it. All right. Then the only other thing is under section 207 M uh and M1 and this I don't think this will change when you change other things. I just wondered if because you call these accessory structures um and

struct and I wonder changing building to structure and building in M1 to back to structure is just more or comprehensive than structure includes a building but building doesn't include a structure that yeah okay that's just the general name of it but I see what you're saying just because we have a definition for building and we have a definition for structure but structure is broader of a definition than building. Yeah. Otherwise that's it. Thank you. Any additional comments? Just again when we look at we took out the definition of garage and yeah we have a number of other definitions for like automobile all those type of things. Um is accessory structure supposed to be a catchall for everything? Yes. And there's no concerns related to insurance or anything else that the use of that I guess the use of the accessory structure. So you can use that accessory structure for basically anything now except yeah accessory structure cover shed pole barn garage. Um just just to take the again back about 10 years ago, the table identified garage and accessory structure. So you could have an accessory structure up to 200 square ft, but then the garage was uh the 840 square ft. So just took all that out. That condenses the amount of coverage. um for accessory structures and it takes out the guesswork. Well, what is an accessory structure and why it isn't a detached garage one? And then when I look at it says accessory use, the definition is a use reasonably and

customary incidental and subordinate to the principal use of that same lot or property. How do we how do we clearly say that they cannot be used for residential other or any other use and accessories? Well, when it says accessory use, so we have an accessory structure and then we call accessory use. But where do we exclude that? That I mean accessory use would be uh a home business, tier one, tier 2 home business that can't be greater than what the primary use is. But can that building have a bathroom and everything else in it? Okay. Yeah. Just I just want to make sure that we're we're widening that whole definition quite a bit and garage clearly made it was a garage for purpose of use of what's automobile storage and so forth. Yeah. All right. That'll be something council can discuss. Additional questions or comments? Oh, one quick thing. I do know that this was reviewed with the policy committee. Was there any other feedback that came from them or Okay, that was some maybe my understanding that I kind of went through them. So, okay. No other discussion. Uh, is there a motion on the table to recommend to Selen City Council uh to adopt or not adopt the new ordinance 876? Recommend to adopt with amendments. Move to recommend to adopt with amendments stated on the record. Just so I'm clear, we're taking the ground mounted and personal

scale as a special putting those making those special uses in section 4.04. 04. Yes. Is there a second? Sorry. Since that is not going to be something I anticipate being an issue anytime soon, I would like to put that out as a public for a public hearing since we're it's not included. Section 4.04 is not included in this public hearing. uh make those um changes special land uses since that changes the intent of the ordinance. [Music] So would you remove those from this in the recommendation moving forward to council? Excuse me. I would leave the sections relaxing currently, but then uh at a future date, another plan commission meeting, we'll have a public hearing to make those uh special land uses in section 4.04. Then it just it would they would integrate once everything is approved. So we have a period of window where they could actually request it and be able to and be granted it by right to be able to put in short period. I mean we can turn this thing around by next month. It's not that difficult. Just need that 15-day uh lead time.

I and this is just me thinking this. Does it make sense for you to open the public comment period for that 4.0? 04 before we recommend this for adoption because by right I mean a lot can I mean I know it's only a month but like a lot can change things can come through in a month that we might not want to happen. Yeah. I mean we should follow practice to make sure it's not going back and forth to council again. So even though because of that concern now that it needs to be public hearing, I'd move to postpone this to the next meeting. The other option would be just to take those the solar panels out and do it all as one and let the rest of this go through. It's it's at the decision of the because the solar panel is all new at this point, right? Yeah. Yes. So that'd be section 2.06. 07 just yeah the definitions remove the definitions and what the last section for accessory structures uh G section 3.01 or not I'm sorry 5.01 Could you correct the motion that's there and recommend to us? Uh the the motion would stay the same. Okay. Uh and if as long as the amendments to remove those till another date or I can include it all into a different public hearing. The motion remains the same because there are other definitions, other changes uh through section 2.2 of DES definitions 2.02

um then the removal of private garage and 2.04. Uh, okay. I stand corrected. The motion would not include section 2.07 or uh subsection ZG and 5.03. Mr. Port, you were the mover. I just amend my mot I amend my motion to recommend to adopt the new ordinance uh with the amendments and corrections that we've stated on the record except that we are excising 2.07 and 5.03G from from consideration that cover everything. Yes. that then the solar will just that stuff will be thrown back into the solar you were the secondary. Are you okay with that? Is there additional discussion on the motion? I think at this point I think we've answered a lot of questions. I appreciate you know um being able to have a second run at this and um I think we agree with uh having a better approach to this now we know that we'll be able to deal with this. So moving this forward to council I think is fine and to let them make their comments at this time is good. Uh all those in favor I all those opposed? Motion passes. Uh no new business, no discussion. Uh is there a motion on the table to excuse the absences of Mayor Marorrow and Dan Carroll? Second. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion passes. Uh, is there a motion to adjurnn at 7:46? Move. Second. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much.