Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Like Jerry's kids are going crazy right now. They're like, "Dad, we want to go to school."

Yeah. Never had one. We never had flood days. Back in my day, we walked uphill and floods. We will begin in one minute.

Yeah, it's not. Yeah, but it's not there's like it's really quite minimal. The worst was the car but like could have been through the floor. So like nothing came in through the door spots. So basically was like how high is the dirt in the crawl space then if it has less yeah a dirt crawl

which was full so yeah could be way worse though and guess who's got all the yeah how how great for you to be crawling around in pools and I don't want you to be in kick myself out of the way. Let him hear. Not even slightly. No, I tried. Okay. Welcome everybody to the What is the date even?

April 21st. Tuesday, April 21st, 2026, Trevor City Planning Commission special meeting. Um, I'd like to call this meeting to order at 601. And the land acknowledgement that I have is the land on which we gather is the territory of the Ottawa and Chipoa peoples who have stewarded this land throughout the generations. Thank you for your strength and resilience in protecting this land and inspiring us to uphold our responsibilities to do the same. And roll call, please. Katie. Commissioner Treadwell, here. Commissioner Swanson, here. Commissioner Cameron present. Commissioner Anderson here. Commissioner Deter here. Commissioner Hershey here. Commissioner McGillary here.

Commissioner O'Brien present. Commissioner uh Rearden here. And Commissioner Holtry here.

Thank you. And big welcome to commissioners um Michelle and Megan. Megan, you were here last time, but it's another it's like your second one and Michelle's first one. So, congratulations and we're so happy to have you here. Um, topics for consideration. The first item that we have is a consideration of a site plan review submitted by TXC Great Lakes Fund LP DBA Tommy's Express for a proposed car wash on the properties located at 1054 and 1060 East Front Street. We have talked about this once before. We sent it for a traffic study that is now back and the public hearing is happening. And I'll turn it over to Leslie. Hello. If uh any of you haven't noticed, I'm not Sean, so he couldn't be here tonight and he's briefed me on everything. So hopefully I can um represent uh the the planning uh planning department's review of these items. So, um, Tommy's, as um, Anna mentioned, Tommy's did come before you in February with their site plan review. And just as a reminder, site plans uh generally are um handled administratively and any commercial uses that generate uh traffic uh traffic and trips uh exceeding 500 do come before the planning commission. So that's the reason that this is here. Um, and the last time it was reviewed, it was found to be um, mostly in keeping with all of the standards and requirements. And two issues have kind of come up uh, have risen to the top. The first of those

being again traffic uh, concerns about this very uh, complicated um, intersection. Um, so we do have uh joining us tonight, you can't see her, but I'm telling you that Lori Paltric um from Wade Trim who performed the traffic study is has joined us tonight and she's here to answer any of the question any questions you might have and tell you more about um how the traffic study was accomplished. She has recommended as part of her traffic study that there be consideration for closing the entrance on Garfield um and not including that entrance due to um some turning uh movement conflicts and uh other issues at that location. And um the second issue of that has kind of risen has been in regards to uh potential noise impacts. So um as a reminder, the ordinance does allow that for these types of uses that there be a a masonry wall adjacent to um uh residential areas. So that is proposed here. It can be between five and six feet. And in Sean's review, he's recommended in addition to that wall, some fast growing uh vegetation in combination with that to help uh deaden noise traveling from the site onto adjacent properties. Um, so I'll let you um talk a little bit about that, but he's also recommended that that go uh that that be handled in

the details administratively. As a reminder, our zoning administrator who will be issuing the land use permit ultimately for this is a landscape architect and he can work with them to select uh species that are appropriate there that will uh accomplish the effect we're after. So, um, with that, I'm gonna just turn it back to Anna and certainly try to answer any questions that might come up. So, I figure we turn to the group first, um, pull the group, see if we have any questions for the applicant, go through the typical process or the, um, engineer and then usual process after that. Brian.

Okay. So, have you talked to the applicant? Are they willing to get rid of the driveway? I personally have not talked to them. I think they have been uh they've been given this information. So, we'll hear from them tonight.

I guess I'd like I mean, we don't have a site plan with that driveway eliminated. It'd be nice to know what types of changes that may or may not make to the site plan other than, you know, if they're just going to square it off and eliminate that and then do something else with that. I don't know. Uh, but I guess that's my question. Um, you know, they've got a sidewalk connection or something in there. Um, I think I don't know what that is. Anyways, that's what I want to know. And then my other question is I wasn't here at the first time it was reviewed. Um so my other questions are talk about deliveries in smallcale trucks. I don't know what's a small scale truck. Minor point just a question. Um but the other thing is again it comes down to uh the question about hazardous substances or potential pollutants. And the my question is staff did staff receive a list of the chemicals they use to wash cars. So uh this uh site plan did come before the staff level design team and some of those questions were addressed at that level um including um you know because there's representation on the design team from the um the city utilities and uh I know that those questions did come up and there were conversations back and forth between the uh Tommy's engineer and the engineers and storm water folk or I'm sorry um uh wastewater people at the city. Um and again they might be able to tell you more about that but it was something that came up and I know that they

so it was discussed and reviewed so of what the materials are that being used in the car wash. Okay. Because it's not in the in the the staff just dismisses it. No hazardous materials. Boom. That's not really an answer in the staff report. I know it wasn't your staff report, but it doesn't really address it, but it's also what raises questions among the public about this. I'm sure it's not going to be an issue. I'm sure it's going to be it's being would be addressed, but again, it's just something I thought should be

I wanted to know if it needed to be a condition or if it's already been done. So uh and I have to tell you it was a question that I had as well and the way I understand it and again I think Tommy's can address this better than I can but the way that I understood it at the staff level review and design team was that there's some on-site treatment uh and it's a recycling system with some treatment on site. There's a building committed to that process on the site. Uh, and so anything that goes back into the uh city sewer system is treated and uh I assume that there's nothing that shouldn't be going into the city system uh that would be present. Jackie. Um, this has been my first chance to in my time on the on the planning commission review a traffic study and um there there were a couple of questions that were raised as I went through it. One had to do with um the source uh of the assumption of of um volume of washes. And I believe um the Wade Trim report referenced a a standard manual that would would give them input on that. And I just wondered if we can verify um how that aligns with this high-speed um um car wash that at last meeting told us that they were going to be processing 200 vehicles an hour.

I think that's a Lori question. So Oh, go ahead, Lori. You heard that Lori? Good. Thank you.

Yeah. So, as part of the traffic impact study, um we use we can use two different ways to generate the traffic. So, one way is um a standard best practice which is the Institute of Transportation Engineer trip generation manual. Um that's a collection of data and past projects um from actual sites. And we looked at that first um and we've got a total of I think it was 88 entering trips during the weekend peak hour, 68 during the weekday afternoon. And another source you can look to is actual data from similar um sites. So Tommy's had their actual some actual data that they were able to provide to us and it closely aligned with the numbers that we got from the trip generation data. So that's what we used.

So So I'm hearing you say that the 88 weekend and 68 weekday were the numbers that you used in analyzing traffic impact.

Yes, we added we modeled um the network in the area adjacent to the driveways for existing conditions and then conditions with those trips added to it. Thank you. So, it sounds as though there might be a discrepancy between the the numbers we heard in February from Tommy's and the numbers they supplied you. Thank you. I guess my interpretation would not be a discrepancy, but like they can Tommy's is more than able to grab their numbers from other locations or estimate out a top, but there's no like until we see that in this area, we h we can't we could predict any sort of number. I think that there's always going to be that discrepancy, but like we can't ever try to get the perfect number or perfect image of what could happen there until we see an example of it. If I might comment back on that, um the uh conversation in February, I think was was based on their actual estimates of um revenue generated and then you know divided by the average cost of a car wash and they confirmed that somewhere between 150 to 200 washes per hour was was a a viable estimate for us to work with. So,

no, I hear that. And that doesn't guarantee that's happening. That's all I'm saying. We can only rely on the applicant. We can I think there's just no guarantee. We can use any numbers um like that for certainty. Anything else from us before we go to the applicant? Debbie?

So, I have a question about noise and hours of operation. So, I don't think anywhere we know the hours of operation and the noise ordinance decibb are different for different hours. So, um I'd like to hear the hours of operation if we know them. Okay, Shay. Um, so there, let's say the applicant closes the Garfield entrance, but they're still going to have those two curb cuts, we'll call them, into the alley. I keep coming back to um it's going to generate a lot of traffic in the alley and like I know the applicant said that they would they would fix the alley, but it's all about it's more about maintenance for me. Like who is responsible for maintaining that? And I know that generally it's it falls on the neighbors to, you know, do a special assessment to fix that. Um, I guess like I I I think I made it pretty clear last time that I still not super happy with this. I'm happy that the curb cut is going away from Garfield, but I think it's going to generate a lot more traffic in the alley, which leads to long-term maintenance issues. So, I don't know that there's a question there. Just stating a fact. I think I've got a list for Tommy's when they come up. So, Jackie,

um, one of the things that I think has not yet been discussed here is um, full um, issues about cyclist and pedestrian safety um, at that intersection. And um you know given that there are sidewalks, there are multiple pedestrian crossings, there's even a a marked uh bicycle lane uh on the west side of Garfield where this parcel is located. Um, I I wondered since the city has adopted its complete streets policy and now has established its complete streets advisory board if they shouldn't be given an opportunity to look out for um multimmodal safety and and give us some input back specifically focusing on on cyclists and pedestrians.

I know that was addressed in the traffic study. Lori, do you have anything to add on that front?

As part of the traffic study, uh, yes, we we always do a safety analysis. Um, more so looking at the traffic crash data and the history and the patterns that are present. So, we looked at the crashes between 2021 to 2025. There was 122 crashes, uh, which is about 24 crashes a year. And there were, let me see here, um, one pedestrian and four bicyclist crashes. Um, so definitely some concern with, um, you know, adding additional curb cut that's so close to the intersection of Front and Garfield. Um the traffic models show that the northbound queuing would actually back up past the driveway during the peak hours. So that was another reason that we thought it would be best for safety um not only for vehicles but for also people walking and biking in that area. There's a lot of different conflicts, a lot of different movements with the driveway across. Um, so we did not do an indepth um pedestrian analysis, but definitely think that.

Thank you. I can't tell if she got cut off or she just stopped speaking. Okay. Ask her, is she here? Lori, can you hear us? Nope. Lori, can you hear us? TBD, where still there. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. We'll keep moving and come back to her. I don't know if this was her. Anything else from this group? I think we have a handful of things we can ask Tommy's right away. Um and then it'll always come back to us after public hearing as well. Jackie,

um there this is an issue that I I felt was asked but perhaps not fully answered at our February session and that had to do with um the use of a a low decorative wall to satisfy the requirement that um 60% of the frontage on East Front be occupied by the building itself. Um, so I I would I would like to hear more from staff on that issue and um, you know, I I'm I'm concerned about it. Okay. Seeing nothing else from the group, do you have an answer on that one, Leslie? Or

I know that um there was discussion um with the city attorney regarding um the different sets of standards and what is administratively reviewed and what is the perview of the planning commission. And it was my understanding that the standards of review that are um uh highlighted in the staff report are those that are the planning commission's perview and a lot of the other standards are site plan review related at the administrative level for determination of com compliance with those standards. So, I think I'll um hand that to Lauren.

I don't have the specific provision pulled up on my computer. I could pull it up, but we did discuss it. And this is um part of the ordinance that's within specifically within the planning director's perview to review. And since he did that, that is sort of off off your plate as the planning commission. That's not one of the standards that is within the ordinance for this commission to review. That is one for the planning director to review. So, just to be sure I'm clear, this was done prior to our February meeting at the discretion of the planning director and we no longer have input on that. Right. Is that correct?

It's not that you no longer have input. It's just not the planning commission doesn't have input on that particular the ordinance um assigns that decision to the planning director and not to the planning commission.

Thank you for the clarity. Okay, I'm gonna turn to the applicant and see if they can answer a couple questions. I've jotted them down. I'm sure you tracked, but Garfield entrance conversations about Garfield entrance. Uh, in case you know the conversation around chemicals and pollutants and how that was resolved. Um, looks like Oh, the traffic study. Those just the numbers that you gave us originally, noise and hours and operation. I think that's probably it for now. The last one I have is cyclist pedestrian safety. So, if you have anything on that topic, that'd be great. But, yeah. Great.

Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, my name is Brett Doctor. I'm vice president of real estate for Tommy's. Um, hello again to some of you. A lot of new faces here from February. So, appreciate that. And, um, again, I will offer at the last meeting whether you want the full-blown presentation, you know, with our engineer and everybody to do that. But, um, it sounds like you've all done your homework and, uh, understand the application pretty well. Some of you have sat through that already. Um, to answer some questions of folks that haven't been here, um, I'll try to do that as well and, uh, what's changed since then. So, um, we've been working on this project for four over four years. Um, at the time it was price more price oriented and prohibited from us doing it. The price has come into the realm where we can do this project now and um have uh really look forward to doing it and being a part of this community. Um, we're a Holland based company, West Michigan based. This is going to be one of our corporate stores that we run corporately with local talent and it's going to be amazing. You're I I think for all the concerns you have, you're going to be very well pleased with it. this is the top of the line, the state-of-the-art, um the the best experience that you'll have washing your car. So, I I just want to want to reiterate that. So, um we spent a lot of time in the past year with staff, actually going back four years ago with some other concerns with staff and with the various departments. We submitted the application last fall. Uh worked through uh with the planning department on a number of issues. Um made the formal application. It did go through all of your city and county departments for everything from storm water treatment and uh that's when they reviewed the uh what was being discharged, what would get to the storm water, what would get to the sanitary. uh it went through all of your public works in terms of the power consumptions

and and you name it. Um the and the only deficiency that came out of staff reports last meeting, it was came up last meeting was at the time you did not have a city engineer on staff, excuse me, a city engineer on staff that dealt with traffic, a traffic engineer on staff. So that engineer was not the engineering department was not able to sign off on the traffic study. So you brought it up as a continued concern and it was tabled or I forget what you called it recessed whatever uh from that meeting to this and we entered into a traffic study. Um if you'll remember I did try to say well can you can prove it conditionally upon us removing the Garfield entrance if the traffic study proves that. Um I'm happy to say that we are willing to do that. That was the only deficiency. That is one of this the remaining concerns in the staff report. The traffic study showed the Garfield entrance should be closed. Uh and staff, city attorney, etc. agreed that that should happen. Um and we are agreeable to that. Um we do think it would function just fine without it. People know how to traffic get in there. There's a currently a site there right now or a traffic or a curb cut there right now with a full full-blown coffee shop there and it's their only entrance and access besides the alley. So, it we're we're confident it could work, but it neither here nor there. We're willing to let it go. The only other concern in there was the additional uh vegetation for the screening wall on the alley and we were agreeable to do work with that. Um, we've worked with Dave on many elements of the of the plan in terms of landscaping and so forth. So, we think it would be um, good to work with him and trying to find some fast growing species that that would accommodate that. So, um, I'm going to address a couple of your concerns and then I want to introduce you just to a couple people um, here that we have here that can

address maybe more of them because I'm not an expert on any of it. I know the real estate and I know that side of things and I've been in your seat before so I understand your concerns and your questions and want to make sure you get it done right. So, um I will answer a question on the traffic study. Not that it matters anymore because we're agreeing to to eliminate the Garfield entrance and we think that'll be helpful. Um and then just continue that sidewalk straight through there like it should be without the without the drive curb cut there. um traffic generation. Um I don't know where it was confused or not, but we agree with those average numbers, average hour numbers. Um our car wash is designed and that's why we're the best, one of the best. It's a belt. It's not one of those chain and rollers where you got to guide yourself into that track and scratch your rims and all that kind of stuff. It's a belt and you can you you get through. And we can process cars in excess of 200 cars an hour. That's why you don't see them backing up into the roads like other car washes even in this area. And I understand your concern. We try to eliminate that concern by doing that. We don't ever have it turned up that high except on those busy West Michigan days after the snow and you get uh a little bit of sunshine. So um so we can process that fast. We don't. We can process as fast. We generally are processing about 180 cars an hour, but that's not how many go through. That's the belt speed. That is the belt speed that can be done. Um, so I I just wanted to address that. I we agree with the traffic study. We also agree that we could probably get traffic to say anything you wanted it to say. Um but it um yeah to address that concern um in the chemicals that was addressed with the city engineers um as well when

during their review. The last one was hours of operation. Hours of operation. We leave that up to our franchises. We have 275 franchises across the country. Um 6 to 10 is probably the maximum hours we'd ever allow. Most sites in West Michigan are be 7 to nine. I think our corporate stores are all 79. Um, I'd have to look up Gaylord and Cadillac, but that would be a good representation because that would be on the same staffing situations. So, okay.

And we agree that that landscaping wall in the back or landscaping added to the wall, masonry wall would work out well. So, having said that, I think we have met all the standards for for the review. um addressed everything at the staff levels, at all the department levels and have a plan that I think you'll really be happy with. Um but having said that and understanding that you have a lot to consider and everything else, um I just want to introduce you so we know have the full contingent here of people to answer any of your questions and I want to ask one person to speak after that in in a second. But we have with us our engineer from Natervelt, Steve Witty, who you heard from a little bit last time. Ethan Ma is our project manager at Tommy's. Our general counsel is uh Taylor Webb in the back there. Um we have hired um local council Robert Parker here and the sellers council is also represented here as well Katie Sabbo. So anything you we think we have the contingent covered here. any questions you might have and so forth. But I did want Robert to just address just a little bit of the situation, how we got here and where we hope to end up tonight. So, thank you for your time. Oh, by the way, we do have a copy of that plan. We just got we got the staff report at the same time that suggested us closing Garfield. We have a full-size version. We have a ledger size versions for you to see with that Garfield Drive clos. So, we do have you share that.

Yeah, we would like that. Thank you. Uh, thank you. Um, yes, Robert Parker, 901 Triber City Law Firm, Parker Harvey. Um, I've looked at this sort of from a high altitude perspective. I not getting down into the granular level like the engineers and so forth and purely from a land use perspective. Um, this of course is a use as of right within the the zoning district. Um, and what that means is if you know it's not necessary to get a special land use permit or anything like that, it comes before the planning commission though on a a site plan review. Um, I think I think where the tension is created in the application is in addressing the design standards in 13449. And those design standards obviously are intended have to be uh one-sizefits-all. uh we don't as as community we don't really know I don't can't anticipate with preciseness what sort of development proposals are going to emerge and so they are necessarily broad and sometimes lack uh specifics but do uh contain a general outline of the character uh that the community is looking for. I think where the problem arises in this particular project is it is so unique and by nature a car wash uh is uh certain dimensions and its formation and how it sits on the property is dictated by the function and so I think that's where we bumped into a couple of these design standards in 13449.

Um, I'm pleased though that um I think that we've worked through all of those and uh with working with staff, it seems apparent to me that uh compromises, reasonable compromises have been uh reached on all of them to satisfy uh the spirit of the ordinance. And so I think uh uh again um probably meeting each of those precisely probably for any project is going to be difficult. But I think through uh conversations with uh uh the staff and working through these issues, we've been able to come up with uh solutions to all of those which meets the spirit certainly the spirit of the ordinance. Uh again just reminding everybody this is a use as of right and it is our hope and expectation that the application will be affirmatively addressed uh this evening. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions from this group now that we've gotten some preliminary answers? No. Oh, Brian, is there are we going to hear from the engineer? We can if you'd like. I I don't I looked at I'm just about to That's a good point. That's a good point. That's fair. Yeah. I think we were all digging into our our copy, but thank you

commissioners. My name is Steve Wedi from Nederveld. Uh thank you again for your time and consideration regarding this request. Um I think most of the questions were answered as the planning commission were kind of commenting on things. I was jotting them down myself, so maybe I'll backtrack a little bit. Um the main contention at the last meeting was traffic, as everybody that was here already knows with the outcome of the traffic study. Um, we have agreed to eliminate the drive entrance off Garfield. Since the timing of that was kind of at the last minute, I did hand out to you ledger size plans of the site plan. I do have full-size copies of even the grading plan and utility plan, but I figured the planning commission wouldn't necessarily be interested in that stuff, but I could go over that with you if you'd like. Uh, what on the plans, we eliminated the driveway, obviously. Um, the other difference between this plan and the last plan is I did add two vacuum spaces. If that's a deal breaker, I don't think that's necessarily a make or break deal to have two more uh vacuum spaces, but to use up that area, I did add two vacuum spaces. Um, I extended the 5 foot to six foot tall masonry wall out closer to Garfield. Uh, so that got a little bit longer. The drive entrances off the alley I kept exactly the same as before. And those two entrances line up with the existing Burkings entrances. We did contemplate moving the east driveway off the alley further to the east. Uh we can still do that. But again, I kept it where the existing Burger King entrance is now. Figuring that to me made sense. But if staff or planning commission wants us to slide that further east, that's I'm sure fine as well. There was a question on the size of truck deliveries. They don't really get trucks as my understanding. It's really all kind of van box trucks type things uh vehicle so they can easily fit in a normal parking space and those typically aren't done during business hours. So again, we don't need like a loading dock or a semi space for that. There's a

question on the materials used and the possible pollutants for this. Um I believe all that information was shared with city staff um and have been reviewed. I will point out that Tommy's has hundreds of locations across the country and I do know for certain that many municipalities in West Michigan have specifically looked at the materials used to wash cars and personally I've never had a concern expressed back to me from a DPW storm water reviewer or anything of the nature. So there's nothing really atypical that Tommy's uses as what any car wash would use. There is a comment about water reclaim. Uh we do have or Tommy's does have a water reclaim system that's really for the water that's used to wash the car. About a third of the water that washes the car is reclaimed and then reused as I call it gray water, but it's not really that. It's been used once, but then it uses it reused as part of the car wash process. That helps limit the amount of water usage. Uh which is obviously a good thing. There's a question again on the traffic. Um the traffic study that the the city's consultant completed had uh estimated vehicle trips of 170 trips per peak hour. Um other other traffic studies that Tommy's has done, they've had Fleece and Vandenbrink do those. The trip generation that uh Fle and Vandenbrink has historically used is between 100 and 130. So the city's traffic consultant used a little bit higher number which is perfectly fine. And I will point out that the traffic study was done by the city's consultant. It was not done by Tommy's consultant. So if there was any concern about well the traffic study was shifted to benefit Tommy's that is not the case because it was the city's consultant that did that. And the outcome of that study was again the elimination of the Garfield entrance which we're okay with. And then I think that was really the main concern that was brought up. The level of service on the streets didn't change. Um, I think the traffic study did bring up possibly adding a small taper, but then in the

city's consultant talking to the city department, that was decided not a good deal or not a good idea to do. So, that was eliminated. There's a question on the noise. Um, as Brad indicated on our plans, even there's a general note saying that the maximum hours of operation is 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m., but that's really the maximum it is. A lot of stores have start an hour later, close an hour earlier to compensate for the noise. We are adding that six to seven or six foot tall masonry wall all along the alley. The other thing I'll point out is that the vacuums are not right at that 10-ft setback. There's another drive aisle between there. So, we're not hugging right up next to that alleyway. Um, I'm sure you've all been to the site and not that we can claim benefit for it, but the neighbors to the south of the site, um, the neighbor closest to Garfield has garages there. Next door has a fence and then further to the west, opposite of of us, that's really where it's mostly open. Um, but then their house is obviously further to the south. So, so it's not like their house is right up next to the alley either. Uh, there was a question on um the alley maintenance. Um, as was indicated last meeting, Tommy's has agreed to uh modify and improve the alley. Um, so we'll work with city staff on that. As far as ongoing maintenance is concerned, Tommy's is a good neighbor. So if there's, you know, uh, assessment or their portion of the payment, um, you know, they're they're willing to do that, but the alley is there for everybody's benefit. And, um, so that that's our opinion on that. Then there was a question on the cyclist or the pedestrians. I'll say I'll regarding that. I'll say with the elimination of the Garfield entrance, that'll obviously help the conflicts, help the safety there. And then I will also say that regardless of what the use is here, there's always going to be that concern for pedestrian safety. So, I don't care if it's a Burger King. I don't care if it's a Tommy's Express. I don't care if it's a multif family residential, you're always going to have that that conflict

there between pedestrians and uh um people in cars. And then the last thing that I'll say um that was questioned again is on that decorative wall and the 60% building coverage. And I believe the attorney mentioned this too, but um specifically the ordinance actually gives that discretion to the planning director. Um that's actually section uh 1344.09. And then um it says unless determined to be impractical by the planning director, the building width shall not be less than 60 ft of the property width of at the street. So the planning director, we've worked with him and have and he has come to that conclusion. Um, and again, I think that's in under his purview as opposed to the planning commission. So that being said, I really appreciate your time. I didn't mean to ramble on, but I think there were some loose questions asked that weren't addressed. I wanted to address those. Thank you.

Thank you, Brian. So, you filter the water, it creates some type of sludge, I'm assuming, that's left over. How is that removed? it it's not there's no filtering the the water reclaim system while there's um baffles and weir walls so the sediment settles out of it but there's no like filter or anything that it goes through but you have a and then the outlet to that is the sanitary sewer right and you have a sediment trap correct and how often does that have to get removed how often are those pumps do you have any depends how busy the cars are but So it's like uh and it's removed almost like uh

septic septic treatment plant. Thank you.

Um yeah, you can go again. I see. I guess you know I so I appreciate them giving us a new plan. Um I'm assuming that you know uh there'll be also there'll be additionally you'll be creating a new landscape plan with the request from the from the city and that would be reviewed by staff anyway. So I'm not worried about that. That's it for my questions. Thank you. Okay. Seeing nobody jumping out of their seats, I'm going to go open the public hearing and then we'll wait. Do we have to move? Do we need a motion before we go public? I think it's not public comment. Oh, great. Public comment. Okay.

You need a motion before public comment. Okay. No, we don't. No, you don't. No, we don't need a motion for public com. That's how we usually do it at city commission. Well, I more discussion. We've done both before we make a motion. So, we have done both. I'd rather hear public comment first. Okay. Okay. Let's move to public comment. Is there anybody that would like to make public comment on this item? You can just come right up to the podium. We need your name, address, and whether or not you're a city resident, and you will have three minutes. And Katie has a little timer that'll go off.

There's no clock in here.

Um, good evening. I'm Steve Brown. I'm here with my wife Kelly, our son Tyler. U we own the property direct one of the properties directly behind the proposed car wash on East State Street. Our address is 1039. We know that the most well the traffic study was published given to you late last week uh posted I don't know if it was late Thursday or late Friday. It's all a blur to me but I pulled it up when it was there and I got to look at it. That's why I apologize now for getting you sending you about this time last night our comments, our concerns, which hopefully you all have received. I don't expect you necessarily been able to read that so quickly. I'm hopeful. But we have some pretty serious concerns about this proposal and whether or not it's a byight plan doesn't alleviate the concerns. the decision determination about whether it's a byite plan is is the cities to make and there'll be discussion later in this session tonight on trying to fix some of these problems through ordinance revisions which I commend you for and maybe I'll back up first and I don't want to take too much time doing this but I want to acknowledge your personal commitments to helping out and what you're doing and volunteering your time and your energy and acknowledge the staff who've been helpful for us in talking about this. But I would like some acknowledgement or notice as to whether you did receive the email that

we sent. Okay, very good. Um, obviously we have concerns about what the operation of this facility might how it might impact our our our living there and and quality of life and the property value there as well for us and our neighbors. And some of our neighbors have expressed support for us raising these issues. Um, we highlighted traffic, noise, and and water as three main issues. Um, and those are the main issues. Do we have the traffic engineer back online?

I think she's listening. Lori, are you still listening? Can you hear me? I'm here. Yep. Yep. Good. Okay. So, I'm gonna I can't cover everything that's in the letter that we sent, but I trust that you've read it or you will read it and you can consider it that way. Um the fact that the literal counts of traffic to established baseline traffic density or volume in that area and particularly at the main intersection there at Garfield and and East Front that those counts were done in early March of this year is surprising. Your t Your time's up.

My time's up. Yeah. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Steve. Um, do you have a provision to allow somebody to use another public comment time? We do not. Else can speak. No, but many other people can speak. Okay. Well, I guess I'm done. Please read the letter. Thank you.

Any other public comment this evening on this item? Kelly Brown, 1039 East State Street, owner. Um, I am concerned about the change that we just heard about tonight because I understand that closing Garfield is a safety concern because of congestion at the intersection. But I also think that I heard Brian say that we could be responsible for an assessment for improving the alley. And I also heard 100 or more cars per hour, which doesn't make sense to me. We don't want that much traffic in the alley. And also, the walls do not block the sound from the residential area. So even though six feet is better than five, there's still two openings there that are going to affect that residential area. So, I'm not sure that that's solving any problems by closing the Garfield entrance and taking the property off, taking the traffic off of the property and putting it into the public alley and making that a maintenance problem for the homeowners adjacent to that. And also, I may not understand how the system works, but if you're adding extra banks of vacuums, that just seems to make the noise ordinance more of a problem. And from what I understood from the tables of the allowable decibel levels, we know already that the operation of those will exceed what's allowable in a residential area. So, it seems like you would be approving something that is certain to be noise violation.

So those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment on this agenda item? Okay, seeing none, I'll close public comment and come back to the group. Do we have a motion? Do we want to talk some more? Okay, Mitch, then Brian.

Yeah, question for Lauren. Um, we had a site plan uh that we reviewed that was in our packets. Um, then a condition was proposed. We didn't vote on that condition. Uh, based on the traffic study, uh, the applicant submitted a site plan that meets those conditions. Uh do we have to uh look at the site plan that was in the packet in compliance with um the posted meeting and open meetings act um time requirements or uh can we look at and consider either of these plans equally? Uh my suggestion would be that if the uh if the planning commission's desire is to um make sure that that curb cut goes away to still include that condition um in whatever action that you take.

Even though there's a second site plan, Brian, I think you indicated you wanted to say something.

Yeah. Um, okay. So, I'm going to start with and I told you so. When that shell station went in further east on Mson Avenue, I voted against it. Uh, and I cautioned this. We're going to see more developments like this. And the city commission and the planning commission at the time ignored it. uh didn't like the right aid. Same thing. We've talked about doing corridor regulations, you know, but seems like now that it's moved east of G or west of Garfield, we're getting more attention to it. I don't like this project. Okay. If it was up to me, I'd say no, but I don't have the I have no my discretion is limited here. Um, you know, and nothing against your action. I think it's probably going to be the best car wash we've seen up here, but we'll wait and see. But that's neither here nor there. I know a lot of people brought up a lot of issues. Um, the long-term maintenance issue of the alley. It's a public alley. City pays 50% for alley reconstructions. Property owners pay the 25. the other 50% that would be split among um you know for that section of alley it would be 50% uh or half of that would be covered by um if the if so all the property owners would have to agree to it if you want your alley improved rarely do they get appro improved um I can't I don't haven't been down that alley in a while

not good

but it wasn't a good alley before and it's going to be an improvement for a while. I just I don't think you can basically deny uh a property owner access to an alley. Um it's a public right of way. Um the noise issue. Um if I make a motion, I'll strike those extra uh sites, those extra vacuuming sites. Uh I think it makes it difficult with currently we would have a a tree there and that suddenly that island becomes so narrow I don't think it could support a tree. So I would definitely move to strike the extra vacuuming slots um that's in this site plan. Uh but the noise is you know the city's got a noise ordinance. The city has people who are trained to measure for noise violations. And you're never going to know if this is going to work until it's built. That's just the way noise things are. And if you're in a violation, you're going to have to uh um you know, then you're going to have to complain to the city. But it's not no noise. It's going to be noise above the level set by the city commission. It's not a level set by the planning commission. It's a city commission sets the noise ordinance. Uh um yeah, it's just I know I had concerns because of the way the staff report addressed the issue with um with the uh chemicals, PAS, all that stuff. Uh but apparently I've been told it was discussed and reviewed in detail. It's just not reflected in the staff report. So, I will take their word for it that they spent time discussing it. Um, it's pretty much where we lie on staff. It's

kind of our what has to happen and let's be honest, there's these things are all over the place and uh the newer ones are better than the older ones. Um, and I don't know if there's we have any we are not experts and we don't have anyone coming up and telling us that this is a danger to anyone who's qualified. Uh, saying this is a danger to the environment. Um, so um, that's kind of where I'm at. I mean, I understand all the concerns. traffic studies. I've watched traffic studies be used and whenever a traffic study doesn't support your point of view, it's a flawed traffic study. I've just and you look at it, but these traffic studies, the traffic engineers are literally traffic engineers. It's what they're certified and they're trained in. They have to follow certain standards. Um the standards are always the same and we always think there's either more cars or less cars. Uh, but I can also tell you I've seen these things go to court and the traffic engineer's position is going to, you know, basically it's going to carry the day. So, I don't see how we can deny it based on our own traffic study. Um, and if they had not come up with a plan for me to look at today, I would have said we should delay it for two more weeks until we get a plan in front of us. what we have. So, I'm going to reluctantly support this going forward and I might even if anyone else has any comments, great. Otherwise, I'll look to see about making a motion. I can find it on his page.

Mitch has a hand and Jerry is looking at me like he wants to say something.

Uh, question for staff. Does the closure of the driveway on Garfield and thus um not having uh additional passageway through there uh have any impact on the requirement of lot coverage along that uh dimension? Again, um it's my understanding that when the zoning administrator and planner issue the land use permit and a final approval of the site plan, they'll re-evaluate all of those standards uh to ensure that they're still being met.

Debbie, just because the issue was raised um Lori is her name. Lori, in your traffic study, was the summer traffic uh considered?

Yes. So, at the time that we were um tasked to conduct the study, you know, we took the counts in the springtime, which is not ideal, especially in this area of the state where you have a lot of tourist traffic. Um, but we did have counts. We did citywide counts for another project um that were taken at the peak um in August and we compare compared those counts to the August. They were fairly similar and that may have to do with some of the construction that's been going on in different areas. So at that particular location, we actually did have August counts and it was pretty similar. Um, so for the purposes of this measuring the Q the Q lengths northbound, we're showing that the traffic was going to back up past that driveway. And that's one of the other main reasons based on the model that we recommended moving it. And that aspect of it would not change if we if we had uh separate counts.

Okay. Thank you. Jerry. Yeah. I just think it's a good reminder that just because we don't, you know, being a planning commissioner, just because we don't like something doesn't mean we can vote no. And I think that's the unfortunate because I I uh I see some problems, but again, we have to remember our role and then also how do we fix this moving forward. So, which I think we're taking steps just a little. Yeah. Yes. Mitch.

Yeah. To that point, uh, last week I went to a a different planning commission that similarly had a contentious item on the agenda, a proposal for a special land use permit in Leland Township. And one, that process had been before the board for a longer period of time than this has been. Had more meetings, had more public comments. Uh but it also came uh with especially when there were substantial um questions raised in the initial finding of fact. A second legal opinion was brought forward that did a deeper analysis and gave uh multiple courses of action for the planning commission to take um that were seen as having firm legal grounds. We do not have multiple courses of action before us. Unless Lauren wants to weigh in.

No, I just had one Yeah. uh comment and this is not to at all place a finger on the scale, but just for your uh comfort and the public who may be watching, the city does have a um a wastewater discharge ordinance um a whole chapter. It's 1043 that deals with what ends up in the sanitary um and there is a an inspection of manholes that goes on. it's monitored by um our partners at Jacobs that run the plant. So, we do know what ends up at the plant and and um they test for that to make sure that it doesn't damage the plant and that it also complies with um state and federal regulations for um discharge water. Thank you. That's really helpful, Shay.

Uh I'm I'm with Brian on this. I will reluctantly support this, but I think this highlights how important the rewrite is and how like we need we should make changes knowing that we're not going to get everything 100%, but we should make changes. So, Brian, yes, I'll make the motion. Okay. Which I'm just I never thought I'd be doing this, but Yeah, me neither.

Um I feel like we've exhausted all options. uh and uh um nothing personal against people at Tommy's but anyways motion the staff report for site plan review application 26 SPR-01 be adopted to establish a finding effect and that the application submitted by TXC Great Lakes Fund LP doing business as Tommy's express to construct an automatic enclosed car wash with vacuum stations and a mat washing building at 1054 and 1060 East Front Street approved the following conditions One, two parcels should be combined as one. Two, that a series of fast growing trees be planted along the screening wall to mitigate sound traveling onto neighboring properties. This is where I'm going to change it. So, and that the landscape plan be updated to recognize the elimination of the driveway and that the landscape plan and plantings be approved by the city zoning administrator.

Got it.

But you're not going to ask me to read this back tonight. And three, uh, the proposed curb cut on Garfield Avenue be prohibited with ingress and egress provided through the alley south of the properties and from East Front Street to a right in right out configuration as required by the Michigan Department of Transportation. And four, that no additional vacuum stations are added. Uh, I think you said there was two. We'll just say beyond what was submitted in the original site plan. I think she's got it.

Support. Okay, we have a motion and a support. So, we're going forward with our vote. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? No. Roll call vote, please. Give me a second. Who supported that? Was that Jerry or Shay? Sh. Sorry. Maybe I should have given you more time. No, sorry. Just I need to bring it up.

Sorry. I have it already. Okay. Um, Commissioner Dur, yes. Commissioner Hershey, yes. Commissioner McGillberry, yes. Commissioner O'Brien, yes. Commissioner Treadwell, yes. Commissioner Swanson, yes. Commissioner Rearen, yes. Commissioner Holtry, yes. Commissioner Anderson, no. Motion passes.

Thank you. Thank you all for your time. Really appreciate it your consideration. I know you're in a tough position. So, thank you. I'm going to give it a second to And we're done with Lori then. Oh, yeah. Lori, thank you so much. Thank you, Lori. Thank you. Thank you. Have a great night. You, too. You, too. Um, so I don't know if this is the proper venue. She'll be here after. If you have a question after um find me in my office hours

and that's when we have our public comment. No, that's when we have our public comment. We have it on every agenda item and we have a generalized public comment again at the end. So, you do have two avenues for public comment. I I don't think it'll be a couple hours. That's all. It'll be a couple. Yeah, we don't want it to be a couple hours. Um, okay. We're moving on to item B. Continued discussion on a zoning amendment, zoning text amendment to officially add municipal park markets, excuse me, to the OS open space district. Um, am I kicking this one to you, Lauren, instead?

Um, you certainly welcome to if you would like to. Basically, it's just a continuation of the conversation from last time. I think you can elaborate if people had any other questions. I know we I don't think we had any. Um, so I guess I'll Well, I have a question. Let me get off. Okay. So, and this is a question I sent to Sean, but he's not here. And my question is, well, one, it's related, but a separate topic is because of the size of the pavilion, and I haven't double checked on it. would it require a special use permit?

Right. So, I did I did look at that. Sean forwarded that to me. Um and my opinion is no. Um the um the struct it's a structure and the reason that I say that is a couple of reasons. Number one is that I think it meets the definition of a structure which um talks about pergolas as well. So, I think this is more akin to a pergola. But if you take a deeper dive into the definitions and um what it means to uh to uh to have a square footage when it refers to that, the square footage is defined as being um measured from the walls. So it's it's really buildings that uh would require a special land use permit, not a structure like a pergola or this type of pavilion.

So under the zoning, the structure isn't a building and a building There's structure it's separately um defined in the ordinance. So building is defined structure is defined right. Okay. So is that like a square is a rectangle kind of chicken or the egg square something like that. So I understand the language here is simple. My question is do we want to address the actual definition of municipal markets? I'd like to see that at the next meeting to see and can we even tweak that at the public hearing or is it too late for that? Is that scheduled for the first meeting in May or May 5th? Yeah,

I think we can um bring you back something of a tightened up definition of a municipal market before that meeting to have in your packet. Okay. Does that help? Yes. Okay, thank you. Jackie,

just to follow up on a lingering question from last time in terms of unintended consequences, I know we're focused on the the lot B and the potential farmers market pavilion structure. Um I with the the help of some research from various city sources, it appears that there are 28 other um OS or open space zoned parcels in the in Traverse City that will be impacted by whatever is decided here that will essentially be opened up for uh municipal market use um by Wright. and they include things like F&M Park and East Bay Park and Clinch Marina and Hannah Park and even our smallest neighborhood parks will be open for potential municipal market use. So, um I'm not sure that that was the intention of of this. As a matter of fact, my understanding, and please correct me, is that the purpose of this is to expedite uh release of RFPs for construction of the DDA's farmers market pavilion project. And uh so that's why this is this is sort of a fast track. And um so I guess I would ask each of each of my colleagues here to think about um those unintended consequences on 28 other city parks and to ask our our legal advisor whether there are ways to put some guard rails around this that wouldn't wouldn't have that in unintended consequence.

Certainly. So I I think that lends also to the definition um and it's sort of inherent in the um in the in the words municipal markets. It would be really up to the city commission um where those would be because they're municipal. They're not um they're not just private uh folks that can now come wandering on to all of our parks and have a market. So, um, aside from, uh, you know, any permitting processes that would go on, any any and all construction or, um, alterations to any of that OS would end up being in the perview of the city commission to approve or not approve, um, those types of of uses in the parks. And I have no problem with it. As long as we have a tight definition of municipal market, I don't see why we couldn't have simultaneous little markets popping up. I I like that idea, Brian.

Yeah. I mean, I don't know. I mean, it's a potential use, you know, it's and honestly, after having long email um correspondence with the local attorney, I question whether or not the current farmers market is actually legal. Um, but it's, you know, it's been going on for, you know, since 1984 and I don't think anybody wants to stop it. Now, again, I think you just have to say it's these are, you know, the open space are the open space parks and if the city commission wants to use them for some reason for some type of market or promotional event, then I guess the question becomes, you know, do you trust the people you elected to run the city to manage the parks. And again, then the question is, it's also a question is, you know, is this pavilion an appropriate use? Well, that's really a question for the parks and recck commission and the city commission. It's not a question for us. Our question is, does it meet is it an acceptable use under the master plan, not whether it's a good use or the best use, just is it a good use or not? No. Is it an acceptable use? Whether you agree with it or not, that's never the question for us. I just kind of believe we got to stay in our lane um going forward. So again, I agree that, you know, I'd like to see the definition of municipal markets, what it means, tightened up a little bit, but you know, I mean, we can say what we want, but if the city commission wants to put a market there, they can change the zoning code and be done at any point. They don't need us

without us. Yeah. we can say no on this and then they can go say yes and you know they're the final arbiter of this. We just give them a recommendation. In this case, I think the recommendation is good. Jackie,

um if I could share um some background information that became a a topic of discussion last night at the city commission meeting and that was around parks and recreation and their responsibility for determining uses of parks. Um my understanding is that they are embarking upon a process to review um the park use policy which currently is structured uh along the lines of high impact and low impact events which are treated somewhat differently. um they are considering moving in a direction of commercial uses versus community uses and restructuring their their park use policy along those lines. So, um I I appreciate your commitment to redefining m municipal markets. Um and and I just like to be sure that we are thinking about how this may coordinate or not with the intentions of the parks and reck commission. Debbie, I hope this isn't too nitpicky, but last time I remember we had a discussion that people who want to hold a market can apply to do that. Correct. Am I correct? Like if I wanted to do a Christmas market in a park, I could apply. Right.

Right. It would be through the parks and public land use policy. Why do we only have municipal market and not markets in here? because other types of markets are already happening with a permit. Um I think the reason is because those private uses in in public spaces within the city are handled through a permit process to let third parties utilize the space. Um and they are not allowed to uh

to uh install any permanent structures within the space. It's a temporary use which is more appropriate for a permit process or a licensing process than it would be for zoning. And the question that comes with uh that parks and public land use policy and all of the things that happen in parks is whether it's a park use, whether it's consistent with parkland use. Um and it's temporary. So it's not really appropriate as a question for zoning, but rather for that permitting process. Mitch question I asked before and now that we have uh our city attorney here, I guess the person to ask is here.

Is there a specific reason that we have to have such um a fine-tuned list of uses allowed rather than uh a more broad statement about uh the types of activities we would like to see in the seven category. I if I'm understanding your question correctly, um I it goes back to the basis of zoning is that there can't be any uses that are disallowed with within the within the municipality if they are allow legal uses. And so that's why we would list allowed uses within the zoning ordinance in every different zone. So I don't know if that answers your question.

Yes. But like why do we say not just we allow theaters but it is so specific that it only applies to one single um theater in one single building or the the Khan Foster building you're talking about? That's what it says. Well, I I if we don't want to be here for three hours tonight, I I don't know if I'll go into the the whole backstory of the Khan Foster building. Um, but it it that was a that was a basically an outcome of litigation that uh that led the city commission to the determination to add that um that specific use into uh the zoning ordinance.

And we couldn't have just said theaters are an allowed use. Yeah. I I don't remember the specific I mean it was it was the outcome of litigation. Brian, I mean they could have. Yeah. But they, you know, it's just people who were there doing things at that time and it's a continues. It's how specific do you want to be, you know, and so we say municipal markets, which is pretty simple. Previous administrations got more specific about things because they just wanted to approve it for one thing because they thought that was best. And it's I think it's a good question you have though.

Why do we why are we so definitive about all these things? Why are you know but because it's the way it is and I don't want to spend a lot of time playing with it right now because it's not high on my priority list because again it's only things allowed by the city. But I would make an argument also I I could see you could argue that the city allowed a art show to go on in one of its parks. It would be in violation of the zoning ordinance because it's a municipal market. It's a municipal approved market and I don't think we allow them. So, but I think we've been doing it for so long, you know, why are we even talk we might as well fix it now and just let it keep going unless people have a problem with it. So far, I don't have a lot of people with a people or have a problem with the pavilion. They don't have a problem with the farmers market. Two separate items.

No, it is. Yeah. But I to Mitch's point, you know, if I'm a a small theater group that's starting and I want to do some theater in a park and I read this, it makes me think I can only do it in a building built prior to 2013. And we don't want people to think that. I mean, I don't want people to think that. I think you could always go in and ask to amend it again when we rewrite it and add cultural events. Yeah.

Of a short-term nature and leave it at that. Not only cultural facilities but you know that's again it's question of use for structures. Do we regulate use? Do we regulate structures? Well we regulate both but not always. So is a temporary use allowed? Can I go start? Can I go? I can't go open up a temporary weekl long um

uh you know landscape built facility in my or every weekend sell landscape things from my front yard. I got a lot of hostas I'm trying to get rid of, but it might not be a bad idea. But the city wouldn't allow that. They'd let it go until somebody said something about it. Then they'd come tell me I can't do it anymore. Well, you know, so is that an allowable use? It's if it was the city uh parks department that was doing it quite possibly in the city park on city. It would be municipal market.

It wouldn't be a Brian market. Maybe Brian can sell his hostas there. I don't know. you know, um it's just I mean you can argue this forever, but it's again it's something for a discussion further down the line because yeah, when we get to the uses allowed, I think we're going to spend a lot of time in there. Yeah. And we will remember this conversation when we get to us is allowed. I know we will. We will. Do we need to allow golf courses or outdoor swimming pools when neither exist in uh We do have an outdoor swimming pool. Yeah, a splash pad is a we because we filter the water.

We reuse the water. It is a swimming pool by definition. It is defined. Yeah. So, can I ask? Yeah, sure, Megan. So, does this have to do with the pavilion or is it separate? It's a separate uh like how is this connected to the farmers market pavilion project? I guess it is connected to the farmers market pavilion. Yeah. Uh we recently did that and um that that exposed this uses allowed item. I see. Okay. Which passed unanimously. Correct. Yeah. Pass us. Yes. Through us. Okay. We approved it as consistent with the master plan.

Correct. Correct. Most people liked it. I like it. Yeah.

Okay, let's move to public comment on this item. Is there any public comment on this agenda item? Okay, seeing none, I'll close public comment on item B. Anything else from this body on that agenda item? Thank you, Lauren, for being here and adding to the discussion. Okay, moving on to item C. We have a continued discussion on a zoning ordinance text amendment to classify autocentric uses such as car washes, gas stations, and drive-throughs as uses requiring a special land use permit. This is a continued discussion. I believe the public hearing is also scheduled for that first meeting in May for this item as well. Turn it over to Lesie. Yeah. So um I did spend a little quality time with this and I I think I understand it now. Um so the idea is that currently these uses are allowed as a use by right um in various forms in the C2C3 and D districts. And uh the proposal is to wherever they're used wherever they're currently allowed as a permitted use to move that to a special land use category. uh and any of the existing um standards that apply to those uses that are already in the zoning ordinance just to ship them and put them in the appropriate location in the chapter that addresses um special land use standards. Uh and while Sean was at it, he moved all of them to a more logical place and combined them, consolidated them in this

proposal. So, it's not uh this proposal does not include any changes to those standards or uh even opens those up, but just moves them with the anticipation that a deeper dive would happen again with a full ordinance rewrite. And for added context for the public, special land use permits just require more scrutiny. They come before us every time. So if again just to give a little recap, we heard from Tommy's, we were already talking about a rewrite and immediately saw a gap in our uses allowed and thought that at a minimum we can put in more stringent requirements. regarding a required review process by us instead of just by staff as an allowed use. Um,

and can I just add that although that helped to, you know, make it a more um urgent uh issue to be separated out from the full zoning ordinance rewrite. Uh it is called for specifically in the master plan as an action item to re-evaluate those uses and consider special land use um designation for those which is a good point. We decided as a band-aid we would move on this right now and then readress it again during the rewrite because we don't know if if we're going to like this solution long term. Mitch?

Yes. And I would say it would make sense to uh not just require special land use permit, but limit um these to specifically C3. But I don't want to do that using our current zoning map without a clear understanding of how many non-conforming uses that would then create. Um, I mean, we already have uh both active drivethroughs and um inactive drive-throughs in categories other than C3. Like the Huntington Bank on West Front Street is C2. Uh the Beard Building used to be a bank. Um does have a drive-thru. They're not using it,

but that's R1B. And yeah, I I would like it um to be not just a more stringent process uh by which people by which uh developers uh go through to get a drive-thru, a car wash, etc. But also a limitation to those parts of the city that are better suited than perhaps they were in the past. But I'm guessing we don't have a list of where all the drive-throughs in the city are.

You're talking about non-conforming drive-throughs or all drive-throughs? Well, I would say all drive-throughs that aren't in C3. But I mean, what if you've got an existing drive-thru, you're pretty much going to have an existing drive-thru. It's a non-conforming use and it's going to continue to be allowed. There's nothing we can do about it.

So, I mean, it's it's an interesting question. um you know about and you can you know but I think here's a question do we want service stations and repair stations with no more than two bays with fuel dispensing in C2 we want fuel dispensing in C2 we take out fuel dispensing how many non-conforming uses does that create an interesting question I like the way we write that no I hate that is two bays is that two pumps Is that a lane on each side of a pump? Is that two pumps, four pumps? Yeah, I don't know.

What's two bays mean? Nobody even knows. Okay, I brought this up. I sent all these. I went through all of these two means east and west. You know, are we talking about really fuel service? Are we talking about service stations? We talking about vehicular service stations or does this include my if I take my washing machine and it allows me to drop it off for service, is does that count as a repair station? Uh, you know, these really we're talking about gas stations, you know. Are we talking about two bays with of fuel dispensing? Are we talking about two bays of repair services? I don't know. But is this something we can look at in the rewrite?

I just think we're rewriting this now. My suggestion was fix it. You know, I mean, we're just, you know, it's a vehicular fuel service station, okay? or fuel dispensing station and repair stations with no more than two fuel pumps. Yeah, as I you know or one pump station, Misha Bay, what's a pump station? It's both sides. I don't know.

If it would, this is I mean, if we're looking at the use by right under this, it looks like service stations and repair stations with no more than two bays without fuel dispensing. meaning the service bays are most likely, you know, let staff, but they're they're most likely referring to those repair areas. So, where you would see the car lift, right? But we also have it with fuel service, but that's a special land use permit. That's what the suggestion is is that you get rid of anything that has fuel dispensing becomes a special land use permit. So, those repair stations, like I'm thinking about what is the what's the garage I want to own as my in my old life? It's the green one. Randy's. Yes. It's so cute.

So like something like that would be a use by right. Whereas something that if they added, you know, it's Randy's out at airport and Cass, they actually have field dispensing. So that becomes a special use permit, right? The old Randy's used to too. But yes, but the question is is sort of like why are we it it's very confusing and it's and it's using the same language to define two different things for uses by right and uses that are not by right. Yeah. And is a two bay repair service station still what we want in the city? I don't know if there are any. Is that acceptable?

And not to debate that because I I just was trying to look at that definition but I your questions actually prompted another one for me if I may. Mhm.

which is um Mitch had brought up the non-conforming. So, and you were talking about the um an existing drive-thru but not in use. Does that continue to have that right? If it's no longer in use, does it then fall subject to if we move this to an autocentric special land use permit? The building you mentioned, Bar has uh an existing drive-thru that's not in use. Where does that fall? Yeah, I'd have to look at that and do the analysis based on whether it's a there's two different kinds of nonconformities, right? So, I'd have to I'd have to run through that analysis

because I think that that actually would inform how important it is for us to think about this and the creation of non-conforming or are we even getting meaningful change by not going deeper because yes, there will be many of these autoentric uses that currently exist even where we might not want them. Now, we're we might be creating another one.

Yeah. Uh but as long as they are operating within the rest of our city and ordinances and state and federal law etc and continuing to be used in their original permanent use. Yeah, there isn't much to do. But at what point have they not been using that or um are they changing from one uh development type to another? Does that then trigger something? So can I just quickly add um although stop me if I'm uh oversimplifying it but there is a classification of non-conforming uses uh class three which are uses that were a use by right that became a special land use and so it there that is a recognized status and it tells you within the zoning ordinance how to treat those. Okay,

that's why I said I have to I have to read the words and run through the analysis.

It's chapter 13. It's my experience with non-conforming uses and when they ex when they this use allows them really is a mishmash of different results based on different circumstances and how hard they want to regain that and what the judge says. So that's always a toss up. But uh I mean I I have lots of questions about the some of the that we've have written in here. It's like, why does a bank drive-thru have to access an alley and do any of them actually do that? Have can only have access to an alley while a car a gas station can have access to the road as can a car wash station. But banks and personal services are supposed to access have access, you know, only through an alley in some districts. Why do we have that? What's the

which is why we're doing the zoning rewrite? I know, but it's also why are we why do we even have that in there? I my question is we're going through all this. I mean, we can just slap it in, but we have bad language. We can change it now. Let's do some of it now. This is more of a uh issue coming forward. I'd just like some answers some of these questions. Maybe there's good answers to it. I don't know. But it's also could be something like why we have a why we allow theaters previous built before 2013 municipally owned because it was written to address one bank

you know and that's kind of you know there's a lot of that in our ordinance which is why we need a rewrite I just you know I just there's lots of questions here that things don't make any sense to me um and I don't even know what qualifies as an alley you know but most of them have driveway ways to the street and then you go through the parking lot. So I don't know Debbie eventually we're going to vote on this correct some point it's on the next um meeting first. Can we vote separately on the slle part with the understanding that all these other questions will be coming up in the zoning rewrite

because you know the sl part for what does it say drivethrus and gas stations car washes that kind of thing we or do we because all you did was reorder the current language correct so can we you know just vote on the part we all know that there's a lot of rewriting and and explanation that has to happen and then we can just do that board rewrite. I'm not sure that I fully understand the question. Uh but uh are you saying leave the standards um where they are?

No. Well, no. No, she's saying just just adopt it the way it's presented by staff and not make any changes now. We can go back and review all this include the slop that you've suggested, which I think is a great idea and then the rest of it, all this crazy language that we have a lot of questions about would go we would discuss as we go through the review process. So, I think what you're suggesting then is not to move those standards from where they are right now because again, these aren't proposing any new standards. These are just existing standards.

Yeah, I I'm fine with moving them. I just want to make sure we can get that slump voted in and then worry about what the language is saying later on when we're going through the review because there is crazy language that

So I think that's what we're doing built into what the proposal from staff is. Yeah, I think just Brian brought up a fair point which is some of this we also just want clarity on and he it's basically a chicken or the egg again situation like is it worth it to spend the time while we're looking at it now trying to move on this one item versus moving on it now and then diving in a little deeper later on. It's we're going to spend the time on it but are we doing it now or are we doing it later? And in my opinion, I as badly as I want to solve the definitions and and uses, it goes back to the last conversation, which is that I want to act and move on this now so we're not in another situation like we were tonight

in two months because there are properties for sale right now and and we could be there. Um, and I know I will want to have a way more thorough conversation than we than time allotss for in the next two weeks about the definitions of all of these things. I also don't know how I feel about two bays versus I don't want to think about that right now. I want to move on this thing that I know that we can take action on and could maybe prevent another sticky situation. Jerry.

Yeah. So on 8th and Garfield, the Jippy Lube would be what I would consider two bays. It's like a small oil change place. Is that right? But that's saying that that wouldn't require a special crew as long as it's not dispensing fuel. Ah, I see. Or isn't Well, but oil would be considered fuel. Fuel. And aren't there conditions about vehicle trips generated as well that might elevate like this is how we had this here is 500 vehicle trips but also special right I'm just wondering

just thinking of when we're talking about bait like it's that's super small and it probably doesn't have that many trips but anyway yeah it's a good example to think about we're out I'm Michelle. Yeah, I have one clarifying question and I think this is what the memo says and I just really want to make sure I'm getting this. All of the requirements. So, all we're doing is reclassifying these uses as a special land use permit. And the standards for approval were already in the ordinance. None of them are new. Correct. But it was a use by right. Correct.

And they had to meet all those standards. Correct. So, we're not adding additional standards with the exception of with a special land use permit. It must come before us. Come before us and city commission. The way it's the way it's proposed is that it's a city commission approved one, not an administrative one. Oh, perfect. Yep. Thank you. There are some minor changes and adjusted and the adjustments in the requirements in the special land use permit that have been added in. There are there are they're minor. I don't think they're major, but they are in there. There's some things that were changed that we discussed at the last meeting that Sean brought up. I don't remember what they were. I can watch the meeting.

Um, but I just think there was a couple things um that were discussed and um and uh are we adding and then we're also adding traffic studies to this? Correct. Yeah. So, that's also Yes, that's a completely new change. That he just as far as I know that was in Sean's memo, but that wasn't noticed. I had to send the notice before that before. So that I know but that's but that's the intention and we can notice it for the June meeting.

So that would not be included if we took a vote in May. Correct. And so special indies permits prior to this did not require a traffic study. It's the autocentric ones that we're saying will require a traffic study. Okay. Okay. And I will go back and look at that meeting. Thank you. Because there are changes.

Yeah. And there's so he I mean when the reordering and why he moved things around in some places like uh he removed uh where you know because of the special land use permit and it said in these districts where it's required by special land use permit and that's been removed. Personally, I like that being in there because it told me, you know, when I'm looking at these things, but and because I'm a layman, I don't For him, it makes more sense. So, but for me, it's I just sort of like what are we talking about? Where do we allow these things like theaters, live and performance arts centers, you know?

Oh, these are special land use permit. They're allowed in R3 multiple family dwelling districts. So, this is another one of those things. I'm pretty sure this is for um it's one of what's Yeah. So, you know, serve for existing uses that we've created zoning to allow them. So, but apparently now you get another one here special use permit. Anyways, okay. We have a lot of these one off uh rights in the zoning ordinance.

I think this was so they could put the u um the handicapped access on it that was required. Okay, I'm going to open public comment on this item and then we'll come back and talk if there's anything else we want to talk about. Uh we're also going to talk about it at the next meeting. So we're going to exhaust this one I feel like. So we'll open public comment on this agenda item which is the um yeah the you heard it all. The transference of from uh use by right into requiring a slot. Seeing none on this agenda item kick it back to the board. Do we have anything last thoughts on this before we part ways for a couple weeks and then talk about it again?

I think we should move on it faster. Okay. Special meeting next week. Her. Okay. It's a band-aid, but it's something. I agree. Agree. We should have moved on it a year ago or more. Yeah. And then we wouldn't have this. Well, I'm not a fortune teller, so we're never going to get anything 100%. Like that's never going to happen. So if we can continue to move the needle in the right direction or what we think is the right direction based on the community, that's all that matters.

Okay, moving on to item D, the city attorney discussion. Um, so this is something that Commissioner Hershey and I have talked about. Um, and in light of the city attorney's notice and the need for the city commission to uh either re-evaluate or hire a new individual, we thought that this would be a good time to discuss our needs as a commission separate from that. Um, it's something that has come up a lot on occasion where we will say, for example, I wonder what the city attorney thinks about that or we would like this run through them before we take action and make a decision. Um, which then kicks the ball down the line. We have to wait another couple weeks. We see an agenda item again. we'll see them like two or three times sometimes because we won't somebody won't bring up the fact that we want an the attorney to review it. Um so I think this would help us out a lot in a moment where I I think we have the potential for some change and for some um more support. Um Commissioner Hershey, do you have anything to add that I left out?

A perfect example. we had the city attorney here and how much

uh smoother the meeting runs when we can ask the question directly rather than asking either Sean or Leslie to get with Lauren to come back to with a memo or something to us. And um you know Lauren works for the city. I the city attorney works for the city. So sometimes all you know those matters are are ahead of ours and so sometimes it takes a while and u you know whether and and you know what we said in you know just a proposed letter that we were writing is we won't always need a city attorney here. We will probably know based on the agenda item of when we would need the person here or not and it would be at regular meetings most likely not study sessions but we just wanted to have the option of having an attorney present when we need them. So

Jerry, I mean just based on the conversation at last night's meeting, I mean maybe that's something if we have a law firm that they can be available more to the planning commission even remotely. I like as part of the proposal or RFP for Yeah. I did not get to review that meeting. So do our city commissioners have any summary that they could provide? Thank you, Jackie.

I'd be delighted. Um the uh direction was given by the city commission to issue an RFP for uh to put a a law firm on retainer that would give us access to multiple attorneys with multiple specialties that we are expecting them to come back to the city commission not only with that RFP but also with a proposed rubric for evaluating submissions against the RFP. Um, and then in addition, there was conversation about the fact that um the city attorney at this point is one of two employees that report directly to the city commission. And so to understand more about that um relationship, should we end up retaining a firm rather than an individual?

Yes. versus the manager, city manager is what you mean. The the city manager actually does not have um um a voice I believe in in this decision. This is a decision on the part of the city commission itself. So if you have uh if you would like to express what you see as your planning commission needs, I think this is an opportune time and that communication should go to the city commission itself would be my suggestion.

Yeah, I should have clarified. I'm sorry. I meant the city manager and the city attorney are the two roles that respond to the that are managed directly by the city. Correct. Body. That's what I was. Perfect. The only two. Yeah, that's what I thought.

Yeah. and we can um I can make sure that those if you have other um specific desires for for services for this board um other than just availability um I can make sure that those end up in the RFP as well that that's going to be reviewed by the city commission on May 4th. Um uh and we can go from there. Y Brian

um Lauren, do you think it would be advantageous to have posted zoning changes um reviewed by the city attorney uh or city attorney firm prior to a vote and a recommendation by the planning commission because normally that sometimes it happens but a lot of times it just gets reviewed when it goes to the city commission.

Um, I think it it depends a lot on the on the amendment sometimes, too. More simple amendments, you know, it it may not be quite as necessary, but yeah, I think it's a good idea to have it to have it reviewed um before it goes to the city commission if especially if it's a more complex type of an an issue.

Thank you, Jerry. Yeah. And I think um just some of this is to trying to prevent like lawsuits and things, right? I mean, and protect ourselves. So, yeah, we're not lawyers. This is complicated. So, um yeah, I just think to Debbiey's point, if we can, we just need assistance. We can still do our job, but we're not we're not here to make any kind of legal opinion on some of this. So, yeah, Debbie, we just want to make sure that because the proposed letter went out to everybody, correct?

Yes. So, we want to make sure everybody's happy with that and that, you know, it's not just coming with two from two of us, it's coming from all of us and you're okay with that.

Yeah. So, I'd say send any any notes to Katie and then she'll feed that out to us to in to add to the letter. Um, and then I think any um other requirements kind of like what Brian just proposed, we can definitely add that in there and um Lauren can add that to the RFP. Um, so I think there's kind of two two paths and routes. One is what we'll what we would like to see added into the RFP or into the rubric, I'm sorry. Um, and then the other route is just our our stance on the request. Brian, sorry.

Nobody. I was just saying, are you looking for more commissioners to be added to this letter or I think we would like to send it from the body if we get buyin from the whole body. If we get somebody that doesn't want this, please let us know and then we won't send from the body, then I would have to take like a roll call. Um, but it I think it would be more obviously we have two city commissioners that can speak to these conversations, but I think it is more representative of the body to have a written statement that can just be forwarded on to them. Um, and then they can ask questions. Brian.

So, I think one of the predicaments we find ourselves in here is that most of our actions, our recommendations to the city commission. Okay. Literally, what we just adopt the site plan review was the only action we take. That's a final action. Um, everything else we do is simply a recommendation to the city commission. And sometimes depending on the workload of the city attorney, those final recommendations don't get reviewed by the city attorney um or if we make changes on the on the fly, they don't get reviewed until it goes up to city commission. And then if there's if the city attorney has an issue with the language, then it has it delays everything then and sometimes it never comes back to us and we have and things get lost. So, I think having, you know, an attorney review these things, you know, when we're looking to at some point in the process earlier or in the middle would be a timesaver for everyone involved so we don't get pushed down the wrong road. Whether or not we need attorney year at our regular meetings or special meetings, you know, I think sometimes it's gonna, you know, if I'm the city commission, I think I'm looking at the budget and I'm saying, No,

even if they if even if we take a bad step, it's it's just a really it's it's really for

I think I can see them saying maybe it's not worth it simply because it's our final decision whether we're attorney then efficiently wise I think it's better off in the long term for everyone and everyone's time involved not just ours but staff time is to have it reviewed sooner rather than later. I could be wrong. Lauren probably, you know, has a better handle on that than I do. I just know that um you know, depending on what's going on in the world of the city, uh it's you know, you just sometimes you just got to get in the queue and wait. I think that's going to happen no matter what the city does. And when you're defining sooner rather than later, are you en envisioning that like like for example with not atmies because that was separate but with an item like the other two conversations the municipal markets or the open space are you envisioning we talk about it and and

move to have the public hearing

that we're re we're reviewing this right now we have a a a major change to the uh zoning ordinance. I think before we take a vote on it, it would be nice to have the city attorney review it. At the same time, it's four chapters and all that moving stuff around makes means it's, you know, I mean, I went through it and it took me about three hours and I wasn't looking at it for, you know, legal nicities. So, it's a ton of time. So, you know, it'd be nice to get it done before we send this up to the city commission to make sure, you know, all our ducks in our in a row. But again, that's a it's just a queueing thing.

Yeah. Dependent upon a lot of variables. But I agree. I think that it this is kind of what Debbie and I were speaking to, which is like it it helps knowing that the attorney has reviewed this, signed off on it. That memo is from both the planning director and the attorney because they both looked at it and there's like maybe a little blip in a memo reviewed and signed off and or reviewed and here are our notes or comments. I think that is really helpful before we take the action. um at least in my perspective like before we have the public hearing on an item. Debbie, so here's my thought. There's been a couple of times tonight included where in our packet it says, you know, you can't vote no on this unless you can prove legal reason. Be nice to have attorney here to say, is my reason legal? Is there a case law on that that says my reason that I'm coming up is legal? That would be very helpful um and would make these votes sometimes easier than sitting around speculating and wondering.

Yeah. It's not that point's legal. It's just that you have to have a finding of fact, right? Which is not a legal point. It's a question of this these are our findings. We find that this does not meet these standards and this standard or that standard. But you have to prove it. Well, you have to define why you're the city attorney will have to prove it. Eventually down the line they could but I mean yeah you have to have some basis for any findings what staff presented to us was that is the findings I that's their basis that's the review so you would have to come in and say this is what I disagree with for us to put a motion in

and we have to have create our own findings of facts and say it does not meet the zoning ordinance for these reasons. I looked I couldn't find any legitimate what I consider legitimate reasons. But whether or not I consider them legitimate or the city attorney considers illegitimate. City attorney's got, you know, that's a that's a whole different question, you know. I mean, I can have a finding and she can say, you know, she's going to say, well, yeah, it's questionable, but but if she were sitting here instead of waiting for that, it would be it would make things a lot smoother. as far as I'm concerned. But

yeah, it's it's true. But this is literally the only thing we do where we have a final say. Literally. Yeah. Oh. Oh, no. I'm sorry. We can also adopt a master plan. Yes. Which can then be either accepted by the city commission or ignored or rejected. So that can be or might not be the final thing we do. You know, it's just I mean I Yeah, I understand what you're saying. You weren't an attorney here. I'm just I'm like not all the time. Well, tonight would have been a good night for him. It was a good night. Appreciate the city attorney being the last swan song.

Go ahead, Michelle. I just wanted to express that I support the the letter and the sentiment behind it and that it's not going to always be necessary and I also um recognize Ryan's thoughts in that, you know, there's not a lot that we take final say on, but I I do think in the past it has given commissioners some um confidence in what they're doing. And um I I do think it's probably not every time, but having the ability to incorporate that resource to a a board of volunteers and lay people would be really nice. So I probably won't send an email, but like there's my support. I will I'm on board with the the the sentiment of the letter as it stands. Um, and certainly when we talk about when we're changing zoning, um, things like that, having that reviewed prior to going to city commission, and I know that wasn't in there, but I wanted to I do support that. And

again, there will be times also where that person, that individual, that firm will have to make a decision between planning and city. There are things that we pass them that they don't like and they will pass back and forth and back and forth. But it, in my opinion, I think it could strengthen our assessment, maybe validate our work. oftentimes our our work can be um just discredited like we haven't actually worked on an item for a prolonged period of time and we haven't had it reviewed by the attorney and all of these things and I think all of them are kind of check marks along the way to say like yes this is the work that we have done at the planning commission level city commission here is what we are giving you um yeah so I guess stay tuned Let us let us know your thoughts and let Lauren know your thoughts also.

Um, okay. Did I already do public comment on this item? I did not. Okay. Public comment on agenda D item. Um, the city attorney discussion. Sure. Yeah. Yep. The Yes.

Yes. It's for the people at home. Uh Steve Brown, 1039 East State Street. And very briefly, I've been in your shoes and I've served as a public official elected in a different place and been through this discussion 17 18 years ago. And I think you're going in the right direction. Um, I think there are a number of reasons to help um, have coverage for your discussions legally. Um, advice, not just substantive input on decisions, while that's probably the most important. uh a firm can have a a a lead council and then they will have other folks who might have a particular interest and knowledge in land use planning that could be particularly helpful for you. And so I encourage you to do that. Think about that. The other thing that happens is life happens and people move on. And if you have somebody who's been involved additionally as an attorney working in in the city, in the town where we are, it can be come come to be helpful. So I think this is a good idea and I think this might be a good opportunity for somebody from the public to say out loud, thank you. So thank you.

Thank you. Any other public comment on this agenda item? Okay. Thank you. Moving on to announcements. Anything from staff? No. Other than the planning conferences this weekend and early next week, planning conferences this weekend. Uh Anna, Mitch, myself, and Sean will all be there. The national planning conference in Detroit. Um okay, that's the only announcement.

Yes. Uh moving on to general public comment. So this can be on any topic one might see fit.

And Steve Brown, 1039 East State Street. Um, it didn't occur to me until the end of the presentation on Tommy's and the discussion, but I have a question about this, which it may seem odd, which is that they're going to combine purchase and combine two lots into one lot in order to be able to create what they want to create. It's sort of the antithesis of a subdivision. But if I wanted to do that with a lot that I live next to and I did that, would I then put a application for a land development proposal that I wanted to create on that combined lot through a subdivision chapter of the ordinance of the code or is it not applicable? Does that make sense?

Yeah, I I can answer. Usually we don't answer public comment. the city's platted and so we wouldn't go through a subdivision um uh process for that within the city. Right. Okay. Just to be clear, the reason I ask is that that gives you guys a whole lot more leeway to raise issues. I think if I read the subdivision chapter better or Well, maybe it doesn't, but anyway, it's a moot point. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh Doug Kimble, 523 North Spruce Street. And first, congratulations to the candidates that were uh appointed to the commission. Um I want to recall the comments of Chad Janick uh that he delivered to a city meeting on governance and he said that people serve in committees and boards. People that do serve in uh committees and on boards do so acting in the best uh interest of the residents and to improve the lives of the citizens of Traverse City. So that's the residents who live here right now, the citizens who live here right now. Um, and just in case the new commissioners weren't following the process of the creation of the master plan, um, I and many of my neighbors attended listening sessions before the master plan, open houses. We spoke at meetings uh planning commission and city commission meetings over and over um about having in opposition to having Bay Street designated as a transitional neighborhood on the future land use map. So, and and the planning chair person at the time said that neighborhood preservation was the top concern, that the plan was based on resident input, that the citizenry wrote the

plan. So, imagine how that sounds to to me, to my neighbors who who went to all these meetings, went to the uh listening sessions um saying that we don't want the neighborhood changed or put uh designated as a transitional neighborhood. Sounds pretty tonedeaf to me after all we've done. and we um then uh submitted a petition with well over 300 signatures saying that just this you know we would like to just remain R1B and not be designated as a transitional neighborhood. Um and so preservation of the neighborhood um planning commission says number one goal. Strategic plan says preservation of the neighborhood. And even in uh talking about rewriting the zoning code, uh you said, you know, leave the neighborhood characteristics intact. Leave neighborhoods intact. But yet we're we're still um transitional neighborhood.

That's um that's my comment. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other public comment? Okay, seeing none, I'll close public comment and this meeting is adjourned. Thanks for having a meeting half the length of city commission last night. It was four hours last night. Yes.