Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

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 Saline City Planning Commission meeting for Wednesday, July 8th, 2026. Will the Recording Secretary please call the roll? Yeah, here Carol here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Staff present tonight are Community Development Director Atkin and Recording Secretary Katnick. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as distributed unless there are amendments?

Move to approve as distributed. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Is there a motion on the table to approve the meeting minutes of June 10th, 2026 as submitted? Unless there are amendments. As submitted. Thank you.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. 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, there is no unfinished business tonight, and there is no new business. We only have three discussion items on the agenda. Number one is the attorney opinion of Section 61 of the Michigan Planning Enabling Act, Act 33 of 2008.

THIS SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE REACHED OUT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND SAID IT SUPPORTS THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNDER CERTAIN GUIDELINES, I GUESS, DEPENDING ON HOW IT'S LOOKED AT. SO AGAIN, WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS SOME DIRECTION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THAT'S HOW YOU WANT TO APPROACH US. THERE IS NOT A LOT OF PLAN THAT WILL BE OBSERVED BY THE COMMISSION, EXCEPT FOR SOME BUILDING THE CATWALKS, I GUESS, OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM. THEY WOULD GO THROUGH BUILDING. AGAIN, NO SETBACKS AS PART OF THAT. SO I'M JUST LOOKING FOR SOME GUIDANCE AS TO IF YOU WANT A FORMAL REVIEW TO COME IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

Well, I mean, included in the memo is the line that says, however, the proposed ground features, thickness of concrete, barrier-free ramps, special pavers, and subground features, including trench drain utility modifications, require specific engineering standards to be reviewed by the engineering department. Okay. personally as an engineer would like to see this with an engineering review to come to us like I would like to see the full engineering review which would include plans in a pretty far along you know, state before they can be reviewed by engineering. I don't think a preliminary site approval followed quickly after by final would be the way to go. So I would think that's more of a preliminary final site plan with engineering review. At least that would be my preference. Does anybody else have anything to add?

Yes, due to my pending legal lawsuit and recent filing with the city. I cannot comment on anything at night. Thank you.

I was, I guess my, my question would be like, what is under. It's not clear necessarily from the enabling act, like, to what extent the planning commission is reviewing this. And so, like, why would be. What would be the reasons why our review of something like this would be different from our review of, like, a site plan of any anything else that might come before.

Well, we don't have standards for this type of use other than we do describe public parks, public space, not even public space, just public parks. Even then, it is identified in zoning ordinance as a use. SO WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD REVIEW AND WOULD BE A COMMENT ON WOULD BE THE LIGHT POLE HEIGHT TYPE OF LANDSCAPING AND PRETTY MUCH THAT'S IT OR ANY AMENITIES THAT ARE OUT THERE. Covered structure or something.

So, I guess my, my question is, like, it's, we don't have standards for the, like, 1 of the things was that the. Ordinances currently written doesn't really account for this portion of the planning and enabling acts. Like, expectation that planning sees these kinds of things to begin with. And so I'm wondering, like, does it. Uh, is it just an artifact of the fact that our ordinance just doesn't cover this generally that we don't have standards like, would there be standards if our ordinance was written to comport with.

What the expectations of the enabling act, I think with the enabling act, the section reads is it. basically what we have in our ordinance.

So, would we, if we were to consider other things, are we in violation or like, what is the, like, are these limitations that are for the planning commission boundaries or are they just.

Like, a baseline well, typically the planning commission is. You know, approval with conditions that are reasonable, that can't be anything that is obviously unreasonable or we want you to do this or put a giant phone in the middle of it or something like that.

So we want to have, we want to look at engineering schematics, even though we're technically commenting only on things like labels and things like that. Like, are we outside of the balance of what our audience allows us to do? Yes. That's currently written. Okay. Yes.

I don't have an issue with this body reviewing and commenting. I think the general practice, the more set of eyes on a project of this magnitude is probably advantageous. My concern would be that there is a timing issue here with state funding that's being received through the, and a desire to, I think, initiate construction activity within the next probably 60 to 90 days. Um, so I think most of what's being requested and most of what you articulated this evening is already available and could be disseminated to the group. Um, if if there was consensus to to review this, I would hope that it could be either added as, um, added to as part of added to an agenda as part of a special meeting, either at our tentatively scheduled meeting in August or excuse me, July or the 1st meeting in August. Yeah, I don't see a problem with that because what I mean.

What I would request would be, you know, what are the height of the light poles down there? I think there's 2 existing light poles. They propose 3 additionals. The covered seating area, which is near the parking lot. Anything else they would think the planning commission would want to see I'm sure the petitioner can do a whole overview of the project Into whatever whatever detail that the body deems appropriate of course within reason, but you know I don't know anything the special pavers they mentioned I didn't see any detail beyond the call out and sidewalk areas barrier-free ramps are.

I mean, whatever engineering reviews they've completed, I'm assuming can be disseminated channel through your office and then provided to this body. Yeah, but we're in the process. Well, I mean, if we're going to aim for the 1st meeting in August, um, that would buy the petitioner a bit of time to to finalize or to provide additional details. Um. I mean, the presentation that was provided recently to city council could certainly be revised and updated. I think that would be applicable and of interest to this body into the broader community. Um.

I'm just agreeing with Mayor Morrow. I agree having extra eyes on this is probably advantageous. It's very hard to think of a project that would be a site plan change that wouldn't go through here. And it's a big enough change that I think that it should. Because this is another place that, uh, the, the public could come and see it as well and have comments on it. And I agree not huge changes, but I think that it needs another set of eyes.

Unless there's an objection, you want to make contact with Mr and his associates tomorrow and maybe kind of slate this for that 1st meeting in August, which is wise.

Is there any other discussion that's required for item number one Seeing none Discussion item number two is the sign ordinance amendment continued from the June 10th 2026 meeting There were

comments came in so I didn't have to revisit it again. AND HAVING THOSE BE INTEGRATED INTO A MONUMENT SIGN, NOT AS A STAND-ALONE SIGN. CURRENTLY THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR THOSE TO BE EITHER A STAND-ALONE GROUND SIGN OR A WALL SIGN WITH A PERMITTED AREA OF 75% OF WHATEVER So if you're wondering what that two by four is over there, I found that in the basement. The markings on it, the black markings are one foot increments. The red ones are six inch. I brought that just for reference. 8 feet tall. You know, we can all visualize what that is, but then say I have, you know, for reference, real reference, and then even back here where the exit sign is from the ground up is 7 feet 11 inches tall for reference. Now for sign area, the TVs, these two in the front are 12.86 square feet. Uh, there's 1 on the wall over there, which is larger. Not everyone can see it. That 117.18 square feet. And the 1 in the back there is 12.997 square feet. No, on the other side of the. This was the smallest that's the smallest. I didn't measure that 1. there's 1, it's wall mounted. Some can see it some cap, but that's that's the largest. So what we're talking about. DO WE WANT TO, EXCUSE ME, ALLOW AN ELECTRIC MESSAGE BOARD SIGN TO BE 25% OF THE TOTAL AREA OF A MONUMENT SIGN? YOU CAN FIGURE THAT OUT, OR 50% OF THE SIGN AREA. MY OPINION OF HAVING AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD SIGN AS A WALL SIGN IS NOT, IT'S NOT So that's something I would like to further discuss just out of curiosity.

If I may, Madam chair, what was the standard that was used in the city of Jackson when you were there? 25% okay. Which I'm assuming is pretty not uncommon in other jurisdictions.

It depends on the location. Sure. Sure. Then there's also, as far as the electronic motion board sign goes, that can be either accepted or expanded upon, you know, because there could be some uses in an R3, R3A that is not residential. So it's kind of vague as to whether that is intended for any sign that's facing an R zone with a residential use. COULD THEY BE PERMITTED IN AN R ZONE FOR A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE, LIKE SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, SERVICE CENTERS, OR THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. Light pollution, or any interference or obstruction with neighboring properties, because typically there would be residential uses surrounding surrounding those areas. So. Something to consider there and I. Yeah, I rewrote it, so not permitted. Not permitted in the C3 or SBA. OR I-2 ZONING DISTRICT WHEN IT'S A BUDDING OR ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL USE OR PARCEL ZONE R1 OR RESIDENTIAL. SO IT ALL DEPENDS ON HOW YOU WANT TO, THE LANGUAGE YOU WANT TO USE THERE. ANOTHER THING WE SPOKE ABOUT WHERE LIGHTING. YOU SEE SOME BUSINESSES THAT GO AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE BUILDING. KIND OF JOCKEYED WITH THIS A LITTLE BIT, WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BELONG IN SIGN ORDINANCE BECAUSE WE DID ADDRESS STROBE AND FLASHING LIGHTS IS NOT PERMITTED TO BE INTERIOR OR EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING OR SOMETHING TO DRAW ATTENTION TO THE BUILDING, WHETHER THIS WOULD BE THERE OR BETTER SUITED IN THE LIGHTING ORDINANCE OR THE SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE FOR LIGHTING. SAME GOES FOR THE ANIMATED SIGNS, WHICH IS THE BIG HIGHLIGHTED ONE. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS WHERE IT'S VERY SPECIFIC TO AN ANIMATED DISPLAY THAT'S FROM ONE BUILDING ACROSS MICHIGAN AVE ONTO ANOTHER BUILDING DURING CERTAIN TIMES OF THE YEAR, HOLIDAY SEASONS IN PARTICULAR. it's only permitted in the downtown area it wouldn't be permitted in residential for people who flash these up on or have these types of displays flashing on their house or their garage doors or things like that so if we make that an exemption under the lighting ordinance since you know christmas lights or whatever people hang from their house is So it encompasses all those types of things. Then there was the question about wall sign allowance for corner lots and double frontage lots.

Do we want that to be an aggregate if they have one sign on each frontage road, I guess, for a wall sign?

Or is it right now the way it reads and the way I propose that it reads is one square foot of signage for each linear foot of billing frontage on the address side, the primary side. BUILDING FRONTAGE IS GOING TO BE A LOT MORE NARROW THAN IT WOULD ON THE SECONDARY SIDE. SO IT'S NOT REALLY PROPORTIONAL, BUT IT WILL STILL ALLOW THEM FOR ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE ON THE CORNER LOT, BUT STILL ONLY ONE MONUMENT SIGNED UNDER CERTAIN REGULATIONS IF THEY HAVE, I THINK, OVER 400 FEET OF FRONTAGE, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M LOOKING FOR GUIDANCE, HOW YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT, OR I CAN... We can bring this back and go through it again with any other corrections that you see or would like to see.

So, if I may, if there's consensus on these points tonight, we would be voting to recommend on August the 13th.

Depends on what the commission wants if they wanted to have another look at this at the next meeting. Okay.

I don't have a strong reactions at this juncture. I wasn't part of the conversation at the most recent meeting because I wasn't here. So I kind of want to. Go out in the field and look at these measurements in, in, in, in, in the spaces in which they're actually applicable. My preference is I always lean in favor of. Streamlining and reducing the burden that exists, particularly on our businesses, but while at the same time, maintaining an appropriate standard, um, fair is fair to the chairs point into mind. I mean, if we're having, um, if we value a 2nd, set of eyes, um, pertaining to the, uh, downtown gathering space, um, noting, and I think this will come up on Monday that we have a forthcoming. Council policy committee meeting that will likely be scheduled in the next 2 weeks. They've got a laundry list of issues that they've got to address, including some timely issues. I also wouldn't mind having them take a look at it and providing feedback. That would be 3 council members who are not part of this body. Um, so that would be up to the chair and you, but, um, I. Again, I would welcome some additional bot.

Don't take zoning ordinance language to the policy subcommittee. It's not policy. You know, all this has to go through city council anyway. Sure. And city council could just as easily at the time that they based on the recommendations planning commission, send it back to the planning commission. Yeah, and just to be clear, the intent of this rewrite or this amendment was to simplify it, but you do get a lot of calls from people. Can you explain this to me? And we have difficulty explaining it to them to make it streamlined or.

No, I think it was, I think you've accomplished that, which is great.

Other than what we talked about tonight with the, I didn't change any of the excuse me. I didn't change any of the, uh. Sign heights or, uh, the allowable area on things. So it's pretty much the same. Just. Little cleaning it up. Yeah. Yeah. Things in there that discuss allowing more signs during, uh. Election times and to me that really was kind of. Uh, flirting with content, which we can't do. So I just I remove that entirely.

Mr. Kyle, um, it just as a comment, um. The seasonal sign. First of all, I'm sorry the seasonal lighting is not a sign. Correct. So I would. Maybe even want to make a comment that seasonal lighting is not a sign and therefore not go.

So, yeah, that's why if we put it in the lighting section of the word and said, it's exempt right then. So they could still do.

Whatever it is they do downtown.

And then that would also, um, that covers everything in a residential that they are exempt from that for that type of lighting.

I mean, some, some residents go all out with lighting and some don't. So, yeah. Yeah. I don't think we should.

Touch that, you know, we make it exempt. Yeah. Yeah. We're we're in the clear.

Uh, just for clarification, that would mean moving the lighting on the parameters of buildings and the animated sign for seasonal lighting that would move to the lighting ordinance and it would be struck from the signing sign ordinance.

Yeah, it would be taken from the sign ordinance and added to I can't think of the section. UNDERLADING WOULD BE NOT ALLOWED BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET THE LADING ORDINANCE AND THEN SEASONAL ANIMATING OR DECORATION.

SO WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ANIMATION AS AN ISSUE RELATED TO ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARDS OR HOW IS THAT CLARIFIED?

ANIMATION AND ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARDS, SINCE THEY WOULD BE USED AS A SIGN, ARE PROVED.

SO THEY CAN STILL

THEY CAN KIND OF LIKE A POWERPOINT SLIDE OR JUST AUTOMATICALLY CHANGE. THEY CAN'T HAVE FIGURES OR THINGS LIKE THAT THAT ARE DISTRACTING OR ANY SORT OF ANIMATION.

VIDEO OR ANY OF THAT TYPE OF THING IS STILL PREVENTED.

CORRECT. ANYTHING, IT HAS TO BE STABBED FOR A CERTAIN TIME FRAME AND THEN CHANGE IMMEDIATELY, LIKE UNDER A SECOND OR SOMETHING.

Um, and the 1 thing you've changed all the way the prohibited has now been kind of consolidated into 1 or 2 lines. Is there anything that. Hasn't been anything that's been prohibited and changed from. Um, what our current ordinances. There's a, we used to identify each specific 1 and now it's based in 1 single line under, like, page 24, so.

Uh, 1211 is now prohibited signs and it goes from. SUBSECTION A TO Q. AND I DID ADD TO THAT, I PUT THE FEATHER FLAGS IN THERE FOR ONE, BECAUSE WE WERE REFERRING TO THOSE AS BANNERS. BUT JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T MEET THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT, BUT I SPECIFICALLY CALLED THOSE OUT. I IDENTIFIED THEM OR DEFINED THEM IN SECTION TWO FOR DEFINITIONS. Believe last meeting I did. Provide everybody with the definitions or no, they are. Yeah, that's in there. And then also the diagram for the site clearance or the clear vision tend to be easier to understand and then moving billboards from.

Yeah, you mentioned, um, lighted signs adjacent to residential areas. Um, I would encourage or allow that to happen, but with the caveat that they turn them off.

After business hours after business hours. Yeah. Or. I believe. be a big hindrance if it's near a house or residential use, but once it's dark, shut them off. So we can go either way with that.

I think in some respects that's better because depending on the business, what do we mean by business hours otherwise?

Yeah, so we just, it does

Do we currently have that anywhere in our ordinance?

No, the only thing I have is that it has to automatically be able to adjust to the ambient lighting. I think these things are so sophisticated now. I would just do that.

The only other change I would propose is directional signs specifically for yard sales and or realtor open houses to allow them in the right of way. So that if you're on a main street, you don't want to put that in the yard but you might put it out by the streets saying turn right for the drive sale uh frankly people do that anyway so uh i just think the ordinance should be reflect a normal circumstance the issue there is uh

it's a street sign or something like that. So it's one of those, where's the cutoff? And if we allow for this type of thing.

Specific limit for 24 hours. You know, put a short time limit on it, but... They can have it up during a day and take it out in the evening.

I guess the question with that would be, would that then have to be a permitted sign that would have a stamp that's on it so that if somebody drove by and saw that it was outside of that time, that they would just take the sign. Right now, with a garage sale sign, it's my understanding that it would just be pulled if it's within their, yep. And then you leave them in the basement and then, you know, the whole panel is on.

You know, I talked with the property owner, so you can put it on the other side of the sidewalk or.

My understanding is you guys don't do even that, like, having to come and get your signs stamped anymore. Right? It's like, no, right? Because it's like, you just, you. Get permission it just put some signs some places, but then you have 7 days or whatever the for banners.

Temporary signs, it's 30 days. They can have them up.

You're not having all your signs stamped like they used to have those like Purvis stickers on the signs.

Yeah, no.

Um, I just had 3 quick things that were, I found my 2nd passive on a bunch of other little things, but just 3 things that just I wanted to mention 1 is just a note on the right above where the diagrams are for the sign areas. It says that the sign area is limited to the size of the cabinet or structure, but then that kind of excludes channel signs. IT'S IN THE DIAGRAM AS A CHANNEL SIGN WITHOUT A CABINET OR STRUCTURE, BUT YOU'D HAVE TO MEASURE IT FOR CABINET, FOR CHANNEL SIGNS WITHOUT CABINET OR STRUCTURE.

YEAH, I SAW THAT, AND YOU HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT OR MENTIONED THAT IN THE FIRST ONE. OKAY. AND I CAN EXPAND ON THAT. ESSENTIALLY, IT'S, EVEN IF IT'S A CHANNEL SIGN, THERE'S BEEN COMMUNITIES I'VE WORKED IN WHERE EACH INDIVIDUAL LETTER OF A CHANNEL SIGN IS MEASURED. So, that's kind of what I was trying to go with here with the, uh, so, yeah, channel letter signs. I put the, you can, I don't know if you can see it as well. Uh. The arrows more horizontal, right?

I think I think the diagram shows that I just think it's not necessarily reflected in the. wording of the D right above that. Oh, okay. It's just because it says it's either a structure or a cabinet, but I just think you need to maybe broaden that out so it does cover that. 12, 10, I kind of mentioned the idea of restoration or what do we do about restoration as a trigger for somebody who gets damaged and they want to restore. I also thought about What happens if there's like an ownership change or things like that? Just like broadening the idea of like, how do we deal with those nonconforming signs?

How do we deal with issues of nonconforming signs? You have to permit for maintenance. If it's say a sign got blown down in this weather we had this past week, or it gets struck by a vehicle, that's out of the owner's control.

So they can restore a non-conforming sign that's been destroyed.

As long as it's the same size and everything. If they want to make it smaller, great. But it's a difficult push for something that they have no control over to make them come into conformance. Now, if it was a vacant building, Put back up in the same then when a new business moved in there, then we can make it.

So, you're saying that the example I'm thinking of is when we had that billboard and it got blown down on down. That was the example that we were able to eliminate that billboard because it was not conforming. I have a concern with allowing for acts of God to now allow to have a. A really better truck, the obstructive sign being replaced after it's finally been damaged. I mean, that'd be like, if the house burns down, do we not require it to be brought all up to code?

It's possible we can put language in there. or whatever the value is.

Because actually that's what we used when they took down the KeyBank sign.

It's kind of the same with, say, non-conforming use in any zoning district or residential use in a commercial district. If it burns down, can we rebuild it as is? Well, as long as it doesn't.

Uh, just this, um, I thought maybe at the very end, whereas the enforcement that in addition to sort of, um. Violation, you know, being, um. Charged a violation for a day. I wondered if there's at some point. The city has the develops the right to just remove the sign and. Charge the owner.

12 say that again, commissioner, we'll be charging them for what?

So, right now it's like a nonconforming sign, like a violation sign in violation of this is getting charged per day for being in violation. But I wondered if that at some point that just flips to if there's at some point, there's like, it just gets to flip to being like, that the city has the ability to actually just remove the nonconforming sign and charge the owner for removal.

If it's. safety hazard, we could remove it. But if it's something that's non-conforming or has been there, we have a process for enforcement warning and then they get ticketed and BUILDING SIGNS BEEN VACATED FOR A LONG TIME UM WE CAN ASSESS THE TAXES WHO KNOWS WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE IN THERE IS THE ABILITY TO REMOVE SIGNS IS THAT PROBLEM OKAY OKAY THAT'S ALL I GOT

Just 1 last 1, and as you mentioned that remind me this track in here, where does it say that when a business goes out of business, the time period, which the sign needs to be removed. It usually ends up being 1 of our bigger abandoned.

So the non-conforming sign would be tied to the structure of the building that it's with. And there's language in there that after so many days, the non-conforming has to be brought into compliance. So that would include the entire site. So that would be tied back to that.

So the monument signs that we see at shopping centers where they may have not changed the sign on there, the business is still there. The business is gone, but the sign's still there a year later. How is that? Is that in here still? Shopping shopping center sign, or even even a building that has no longer has a business in there, but the science still place there. Used to have used to be in the ordinance that that has to be removed after 30 days or something like that.

I just didn't there is an abandoned sign section here. Although it doesn't necessarily it doesn't have to, like, state a specific time. It's like 2 section L. Must be removed or replaced shall be removed immediately.

Yeah. I didn't know if abandoned meant that type of sign or abandoned being these temporaries and some of the things that are placed on the cards. Yeah, it says, Amanda, it's fine in 207. sign must be replaced with 1 faces.

Thanks.

I appreciate all the diagrams. That's helpful.

You put a lot of work into this. Thank you.

Going down from 28 pages to 10 is an accomplishment. Yes, it is.

So there's plenty of things that we just talked about with both moving things to lighting and then comments that we had. What would be your plan going forward? Will you be making some changes and then sending out a Word document for updates and comments as well? Just wondering what your preference is.

How long this 1 ended up being 3040 pages worth of red line. So then have it on the August 12th agenda as an enumerated action item. And then if it's approved, it would go to council the 1st meeting in September.

There's not a rush on it, so there's not a big question.

I think at least let's have it as a discussion on the 12th. If we can't get get consensus on the 12th, then we can revisit it our subsequent meeting. If we have a 2nd in August or the 1st in September.

So, just to be clear, so they found some more grammatical issues that I noticed that I didn't notice the 1st, you're going to give us a different clean version to do.

Are you just going to take the clean version? You get that? I got tonight tonight. Mark that 1. okay. I'm not going to. But so, yeah, moving forward, so just not getting perfect.

Thank you.

Are we all in agreement with that? So we will have a 2nd, you'll have 1st edition with all the red line changes and you'll have a 2nd edition, which is. The clean version with the new red line.

Yeah, essentially there'll be 2 separate copies of red versions red line version 1 version 2 and then.

And if you provided a bullet of each change, a bullet listing of all those changes would be helpful. So we know exactly what you did change.

That's why I'm doing the red line in here. So red, or excuse me, clean with red. The clean version you're looking at tonight are all the changes from the red line. This clean version will become the new red line. Right. Which will be version two of the red line. And then the next clean version you'll see will be changes from red line one, red line two. on the claim. So it's getting kind of messy in the red line.

And that's why I'm saying if you could just also bullet point those on a one-page summary of what you've made changes in the section, that would be helpful.

You'll be able to see them on this clean one because they'll be...

Still red. Yeah, they'll be red, but it was helpful just to have a summary instead of having to go through the whole document.

Yeah. And then, if you are looking for comments back, please just say when you'd like comments back, if it's prior to the next meeting, if you need it 5 days before, just because I need a deadline at this time of my life.

Yeah, it depends on how many.

Okay.

Yeah.

It's fine. No, it's good. We value thoughtful, thorough proofreaders. It's a great skill set.

We can go through the whole code, man. No problems. Chris was saying he wanted to do that.

Third item tonight for discussion is the site plan review ordinance and procedures amendments submitted in our packet.

So this is site plan not sign plan like the original one I sent out. Sorry about that. So I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY WERE ON THE BOARD OR ON THE COMMISSION BACK IN 23 WHEN THIS WAS OVERHAULT DONE, BUT THERE WERE SOME. IT'S CONFUSING AND IT'S NOT VERY STRAIGHTFUL OR USER-FRIENDLY, SO WENT THROUGH AND TRIED TO REALLY CONSOLIDATE SECTIONS AND MAKE IT MORE THIS IS THE TYPE OF PLAN I'M COMING INTO. WHAT TYPE OF SITE PLAN AM I GOING TO NEED? CAN IT BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE, A SKETCH PLAN? and the indoor storage facility that was done a year and a half ago or so. They don't need a full site plan. It's all interior. I think there was a little exterior, but that was also an amendment to special land use so they wouldn't what is necessary for a preliminary site plan, the table remains relatively unchanged. Then pretty much what staff's responsibilities are on dissemination of plans and

THESE THINGS IF IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE IT. THESE THINGS CAN BE COMPLETED AND ACHIEVED A LOT FASTER THAN

Okay, so that's the question I had. So you're saying that, uh, planning commission gives a conditional. Preliminary site plan approval, the conditions get met and they're just like, very this would be for final. Okay, so, but you're saying. So, so you're saying final site plan approval with conditions and the conditions get met and then it doesn't have to come back again.

If it doesn't, if the layout and things, because playing commissions responsibilities and make sure that it meets the zoning ordinance that all these boxes fit inside of this big box of that.

But you're saying so you're saying like if the final site plan approval Planning says yes with these conditions still at the final like yes But still there's conditions and then the conditions get met that can just be dealt with Administratively at that point because there's not there's been no changes in the conditions are not conditions that would require revisiting it again If it doesn't change the layout that was submitted preliminary and then at final

What if specifically they are changing parking with barrier free spaces, either increasing them to a certain number? Is that something that let's say it was a condition and it was met and changed, but it does change part of the circulation. Would that come back at that point? Let's say specifically the last final site plan review that we looked at and asked for additional.

would change.

And that's what I'm asking you because if a condition is met but it does make a change then when that's a gray area.

When you say circulation you're talking going from clockwise or counterclockwise or one lane to two lane?

It could be specifically with McDonald's we had talked about having barrier free spaces on the west side sorry the east side of the lot versus the west side they were farther away from the building we asked about them being closer things like that that they said that yes we will add more but they didn't say where they would add more or if they were actually going to add more so that particular just going to reach strikes on the west side the reason why they didn't put them on the east side was because of the drive-thru to pass through the

Legally, they wouldn't be able to do that because of the ADA standards. It has to be the closest and least distance from the front door. That would not be something I would recommend at a site plan review. And if they disagree and want it on the other side or

likely make it come back to site plan okay and I guess we have the like we just have the right to make that decision like if we're you know but when we know at the final site plan review that these are the conditions we're asking for we can say at that point and we want it to come back to planning yes and we and so that can just override any sort of yeah and subsection it's like D or E planning commission study plan I think it's E yeah

Yeah, let me playing commission at any time can.

Requests required to come back just the time of the conditions appear like it's conditions, but I'm not really sure.

I think it's a, yeah, or if they submit something for administrative after. After the fact with the conditions, and the conditions are kind of. The gray area is sketchy. I could just, I can also. YOU'RE GOING BACK TO FINAL SITE PLAN. BUT IF IT'S UNCHANGED, THEN IT STILL MEETS ALL THE

Um, okay, a couple of things that I noticed that I was, I think we just need to be fleshed out a little bit more is it's, it's sketchy. It's kind of hard to tell, like, where the line gets drawn. I know that it's probably really hard to define what gets has to be a full site plan and what has to what has to be a sketch plan. Like, very clearly, but 1 of the things I think that was is under B. Because there's a sketch plan under B, this is 802 and then there's administrative review of a different kind of sketch plan that doesn't require planning commission review. But the sketches under. No, under D do require it. So, like, kind of knowing. Kind of defining, like, what kind of sketch plans required administrative just planning commission review and what kind of schedule is don't maybe we're just are using a different term or something that makes that really clear a distinction.

So this is this. For, like, decks or detached accessory structures, I think things that. Can be done administratively, which require a. Plot plan. Sure. Yeah. I didn't go back and take this out. Okay.

All right. Yeah, expansions and plot plan would be for things that can just be administrative. Exactly. Okay. Yeah.

So, in our applications, there's a. that to be confused in here, you know, because it's not, I didn't want to clarify a process that we, or add a process in here that we currently do, you know, just on the building side that, so, and that's typically stuff that things will call.

When's a sketch applicable? Commercial, residential? What are the conditions for when you can just submit a sketch versus having to do a full plan or have an architectural sign-off or that nature?

Or, I'm sorry, can you repeat that?

Like an example, replacing a roof on a commercial building requires, in the past, it required a signature of an architect.

Yeah, for commercial, that's all on the building side. Okay. That's 100% on the building side. That's building code. They don't even have to submit a plan. That just comes down to a building permit application or building permit.

In this example of sketches, can you still do sketches on commercial or not?

I'm just trying to understand what you want. The storage place would have been a sketch plan. So in their commercial. So, yes.

Um, 1 of the things was just that, um, there's only at 1 point in it's under the preliminary site plan section D. It's like 1 place where it says, uh, sketch plan approval that it up planted by the planning commission or the city council. But, like, just noting that that's the only place in this entire thing where city council is sketch plan.

AMENDMENT, THEY HAVE TO GET FINAL APPROVAL FROM CITY COUNCIL.

OKAY.

Yeah, I got to clean that up.

All right.

Yeah, this is very rough.

No, it's fine.

I just said, I'm just saying, I request whether they have these with these things are just because you're on the preliminary D. I did have a question on that. Why did you change from 180 days to 1 year? I remember before your time discussing that pretty much at length, because we didn't want plans to stall. In preliminary, and then getting another year of an extension. So just wondering why that that was changed.

Yeah. I don't have a, I just did.

Okay.

And that was kind of. What's your temperature on it? I mean, if you want to keep it at 6 months, I keep it at 6 months as well. Definitely. Yeah, that's fine. I don't have a problem with that. We can also just. Cheers, right? We had a lengthy discussion about that.

I think back in 2023.

So, page 7 of 16, the beginning of the final site plan, just like with a preliminary site plan that there's like a.

Just to, like, make those consistent with each other. So the application submittal this.

So we can everybody has time to look at it and if a right and there's just not 1 in the final site plan.

There's not a specific number of days. There is 1, the preliminary site plan 30 calendar days, but there isn't a similar specific date in the final say plan 1.

But land uses all need public hearings. Yeah, I need to do a lot of tie back to other sections in here for because they did talk about site condos and. Now, here's something I was contemplating then I would just see what you're. Temperatures for this too. It's not required by Zoning Enabling Act or Planning Enabling Act for special uses or conditional uses to go on to City Council for approval. That can be finaled at the Planning Commission stage. For what now? Special uses, conditional uses. SO IT COULD, THE FINAL APPROVALS COULD BE DONE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE A RECOMMENDATION.

THE REASON I ASK, AGAIN, IS BECAUSE THIS ADDS TIME TO THE PROCESS, BOTH ON THE PRELIMINARY END AND THE FINAL SITE PLAN. It's it's up to you.

It's we can bring it up in council. My, my guess is they do not want to relinquish that authority. And that's fine. Yeah, that's my hunch.

But we, you know, because of this, it gives that 2nd review of that and the special consideration, because if that's kind of the situation, it gives a 2nd thing on it.

And then we just leave it as is and. That's also been standard practice for many, many decades. Yeah, I've worked in communities that have done it both ways. So I just wanted to. Put that out there and see, you know, what you feel.

The only other thing I noticed, or that I think we just need to flesh out a little bit more is the appeal process under, like, section administrative plan review. This is a point of, like. Yeah, or the applicant and like, if there's going to be that requesting, is there do we have to have like a deadline for that?

It's like, you know, with an administrator review, if it's denied.

Do they have a deadline for having to do that? Do they have, like, you know, like, you know, any, I don't know if there's any, like, timelines usually.

Not necessarily.

If they go for a variance, basically, you know, it's a state proceeding. So they can't proceed until they get their appeal and the zoning board can say, take it to the planning commission.

Or it just is however long they want it to take them without.

Exactly. Yeah, I can just. Yeah, I can re, I'll rework that.

Just a couple of things. Um, when we look under administrative reviews, are those just the same ones that are already in there and just have been moved into a table and nothing's been changed that.

Yeah. Okay. And some of them just kind of shortened up because they gave examples like the. Expansion of a. Building our parking lot 1000 square feet or up to a certain percentage example, if you're at this number, then this is your best option versus this. So, it just shortened it up.

And then the 1 thing that comes up, I know we have underneath violations, but and then also in terms of performance guarantees, but. How would we include or is it not here? Is it more enforcement subsequent compliance with the original site plan? Because that's the thing we're running into right now. We keep talking about this for the last decade about going back, reviewing compliance with existing with the original site plans to make sure that the things that were supposed to be done have continued to be in compliance with the original site plan. because we get into a situation where our legal have been saying that you can't do that over a certain period of time, but I think we need to figure out how to achieve that, even if that doesn't happen.

Which page did you say and top of page 10, the last sentence of sub section a.

Pretty strong to me compliance, make sure that there isn't a time. The biggest issue we're talking about, there's a time. Is there a limitation limitation of time or something on that?

I've never heard of the time limit being put on, you know. A site plan once it's asked to hear it, because our attorney said there was so I've never run across anything like that.

Okay. So, when we do move forward to do cut site plan compliance, then we should be able to move forward. Okay.

You can also make it a condition that. What's presented what's approved in perpetuity until such times that.

Planning commission or something makes a main amendment to it.

They can do that. I mean, that's not unreasonable. Um, I have a good answer.

I know. God, who are you?

I was just gonna say, I can, uh. That last sentence subsection a, I can separate that out and make that.

Um, questions for me, um, throughout the document, it will say, like, whether our plan is approved, approved with conditions postponed or. We not approved. We don't deny here. Correct? So. Just to make it consistent with what we do in our agendas. It's approved, not approved. Wait, it's approved, not approved or approved with conditions. So as much as I like the word deny, I feel like we have to be consistent with what's in our agenda. Our agenda with that with the verbiage be consistent with the verbiage under it's actually on page 10 of 16. Uh, 8 dot. Um, I know we had talked about this before with a performance guarantee may be required by the city to ensure compliance with an approved final site plan. Um. In my past life, we always required that on every job. Is there a reason that we don't require? It's not an escrow because escrow is for something different, but like a performance bond that it gets built and.

Yeah, well, the performance guarantee at the bottom, and there was something. Performance guarantees really came in post 2008 because of the number of subdivisions that were being built and then just left. That can be, you know, again, something that the Planning Commission

Recommends, uh, I think that would be very smart. There's, um, I haven't been here as long as everybody else, but there's things that haven't been completed and that's why.

May is in there, I mean, you don't want to respond. Right.

So, can we remove maybe 2 is required from maybe is required. Guarantee may be required by the city to ensure thing or change. Maybe to is required. I think he's saying maybe not because if it's just based on the magnitude of the project, it would be appropriate.

Yeah, but that we can just add that as a condition to anything we want to.

Yeah, that would be at the discretion of planning commission.

We could become part of the actual absolute process every time that we make it conditional on that. So that that should be 1 of the questions. Okay.

Like, in the case, I know with Huntington woods, that was a big to do and took forever and changes that would.

Well, and even on some large commercial projects that are done that.

Because I can see it being done with layer farms.

Well, yeah, because we, uh, on the building side, we collect bonds, you know, we get the front and then we get bond per property and. Issue reissue those, um, as they get the CFO and then the, uh. Larger brand of the performance, um, once everything is completed, then I'll get that back. So there's.

And then, is there a reason that inspection was removed from this subsection as well? It was 813 originally. Where are you 16 of 16 in the red in the red line just flew through it.

only speculate that i meant i was going to rewrite some of that because it talks about subgrade improvements and engineering has somebody else do that uh yeah i probably meant to expand on her

We write that whether it be referencing somewhere else rewriting it. However, you do it. I think the inspection and setting that that tone is is very important.

Yeah, I think that was just.

Oversight on my behalf inspection and compliance or something that nature.

I know this is a lot of work, but it's appreciated for the, the changes that you're making. They're pretty substantial. So, um.

Maybe I took that out.

put it back in reworded but yeah i think that that would be good because there is subgrade inspection especially when you're tying into a city's um a city utility water you know and so just knowing that there will be inspections whether it be above ground or below ground super important yeah I guess the same thing you'll be updating the deadline of the red line and sending on.

I still got some white space on.

Okay, good additional discussion. That was not for all 3 of the items. Seeing nothing else. Is there a motion on the table to excuse the absence of commissioner half? All those in favor all those opposed motion passes. Is there a motion to adjourn at 818? All those in favor all those opposed passes. Thank you.