Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

And using the guidance within our master plan. So that's what we're looking at now. And we'll have to make a recommendation. And by we, I mean you, the planning commission. Make a recommendation on the proposal before us. So there, again, today there will be no action taken on this. There will be at your next meeting a public hearing and a recommendation going forward. Happy to answer any other questions and we do have our applicant again joining us remotely.

We do also have Mr. Scott Hardy who would like to say something on this matter. Do we have any questions or comments before we turn to either the applicant or Mr. Hardy?

Are we getting an update about the property immediately to the west, I mean to the east?

I don't have an official update on that property. That property is zoned C3 to the east and there was a development proposal on that property. that was approved by the planning commission and I think there's some question about whether the change in zoning being proposed, the zoning tax change might impact their plans and I think maybe Mr. Hardy has some information to share but I don't have anything officially submitted to the planning department. Thank you.

Thank you. Brian? Okay. I have a question. On page 22 in the master plan under the gateway, commercial gateway, what are, in that map, what are the pink zones?

So this map is the map that just takes all the other color off of the map other than the commercial gateway zone. So these are the areas identified as commercial gateway. So it does include, from my scrutiny, it does include this property and this stretch.

It doesn't appear to include this property to me. It looks like it's maybe some of it but not all of it. I mean it's hard to tell, it's not very accurate. It is a really weird line. It doesn't really include the intersection whatsoever.

This property is west of the intersection.

The intersection at Garfield and 31. Right. and the property west of the intersection. So I can't tell from the zoning map because it's very small. But so that's your judgment that it is included in the gateway?

I did do a little sleuthing and measuring and comparing to other maps. And to my eyes, it did match up with this property.

Because I think there's a question about whether all or part of it is even in this. And if it wasn't, I'd like to know what other color it would be.

It would be HR. Well, the other plan district is called. neighborhood center neighborhood center um chunk i see and to me the names are kind of backwards i but so that confuses me a bit but yes that it's another commercial district but it's called neighborhood center and i can certainly get more detail i like both of those okay i'd also like to see a little bit i've been out of town so i wasn't didn't have time at a conference i've

just got back about an hour ago. So I did review the packet but I didn't have time to do a lot of independent research. So I'd also like to see the actual, a little bit more on the surrounding zones, the zoning map that we have in here right now that shows the existing zoning. I'd just like that expanded a little bit more than what we've got in this photo. And I have a question about the application. According to the application, it's supposed to include site plans. Well, there's no site plan in our packet. Was the site plan submitted?

As far as I know, no site plan has been submitted.

It's on the application, but it's not in the, I think Dave said it's not in the ordinance. So we have it on the application, but it's not actually required in the ordinance.

So we don't require anything other than the application itself?

Well, and the site plan wouldn't have been for what they are proposing. It would have just been the parcels.

Well, the site plan just basically says existing buildings, lot lines, everything else. And you're saying that the application requires it, but we don't actually require it. We're just using an old application with a bunch of stuff on there. And we accept that and they can submit this application 24 hours before a public hearing. I don't know how that works. Well, it's right in the application. I mean, why are we even using this as an application?

I mean, we can talk to the zoning administrator about that, but.

Planning department, a minimum of 24 hour, 24 days.

Yeah, yeah.

Those hours. No. 24 through me. Okay. I apologize for that. The last question I have is. And maybe I'm confusing this with a different approval process, but aren't these normally introduced and we decide whether or not we want to, if we have enough information to schedule it for a public hearing, rezonings, or is that something else? Isn't that traditionally what we have done?

I don't have enough history at the city to know exactly, but we have put an ad out in order to meet the timing requirements. We have published an ad and sent notices as of last week anticipating a June 2nd public hearing.

My only thought to that, Brian, is it maybe conditional rezones that we do that on?

I don't know. Okay. It just seems to me that we've always usually these things have an introduction period. Then we have a study session for any question that we can address any questions that are raised at the introduction. And then we have a public hearing. And we decide if we have enough information at a minimum to schedule the public hearing. This has been scheduled internally by staff. I don't think that's what we've generally done with anything as serious as a rezoning. But if we're, you know, I understand Sean's gone, so we're kind of flying by the seat of our pants right now. I mean, it's, you know, right now, and I guess the other thing I have here is based on the application with no supporting documentation or evidence from the applicant telling us why they think this is a better zoning than the existing zoning, and I don't believe that staffs, the job to figure that out. I'm looking for from the applicant a reason why this zoning is better than the current zoning, other than it may bring more profit to the seller of the property. That's a good reason, but probably needs to be a little bit more than that. And I don't see it, this is pretty much a bare bones application. So maybe that's something we need to address with our zoning ordinance going forward. That's it for me.

Okay. Any other questions before we turn to the applicant and Mr. Hardy? Because maybe they can answer any, some of these. Any or some of these. Seeing nothing, we'll have conversation after. Do not fret. Mr. Hardy, you can come on up and then we'll get to your counterpart in a moment.

All right. I am Scott Hardy. I live at 406 Northwest Silver Lake Road. Is the mic on?

Can you hear?

Okay. 406 Northwest Silver Lake Road in Garfield Township. And I am the realtor, commercial realtor representing the potential buyer of this property. So I am here to answer any questions that you might have and as to the reason for the rezone, We would love to be able to operate within the HR zone. I think everything we want to do can be accomplished there except, and we understand there's going to be another process to this, that the applicant wants to be able to provide a single lane drive-through because they're a bank and they have diminishing demand for drive-through services, but demand nonetheless, so they want to be able to at least have that as an option for their customers. They fully intend to use pretty much the same footprint that's already there on the existing building. But again, what we need to be able to do is to fall into the C3 zone so that we are comparable to the adjoining property, which is the old Burger King and that drive-thru capability. Other than that, I think, Brian, it's Pretty much that's the sole reason that we're here right now. Obviously, in the world of commercial real estate, time is money, and we were not anticipating the additional SLUP process, the special end use process. But if that occurs, we'll have to live with it and figure out a way to negotiate around that because we know it's going to be a protracted approval process. Yeah, Mitch?

Yes. There are currently three parcels in this request. One of them does have a financial institution. Will the drive-through be attached to that or will that be using one or both of the now vacant parcels to the west?

I can. Ian, are you there?

I'm here. My name is Ian Wilson. I'm the principal architect at Nolan Carter Architecture. I can't see anybody, but nice to meet you all. Yeah, to answer that question, part of the need for that is to, yes, we need additional property to facilitate the new bank branch and what would be, like Scott had mentioned, banking has changed, as a lot of people know. I mean, not a lot of people go to the bank, so it's a very but we do still have to have the drive canopy attached, which would be a through wall transaction that would be on the backside of the facility. So ultimately, the single property with the current financial institution just wouldn't create enough property for us to be able to do that along with the parking needs.

Okay. Any other comments from you, Ian, and or any questions, any other questions from this body for Ian? Jackie?

Is this under consideration as a multi-story building?

It is not at this point, correct, Ian?

Yeah, it would just be a single story, approximately 6,000 square feet, like I said, with the drive canopy to give that option for patrons of the facility. With the understanding that we've done an actual study of the two facilities that will consolidate, and you're probably talking a transaction on site of around or less than six per hour that would be actually going in. and or using the drive. And just to be very clear, the hours of operation are from 8.30 to 5.30, no weekends, no holidays. So you're talking about a very low impact from a transaction.

I have a question. I was wondering what the I mean, obviously, it would just maybe be a guess at this point, but the footprint of the building because in HR, you can be under the 6,000-foot threshold. So I'm just wondering if you have that sketched out yet.

Yeah. So, you know, to Scott's comments and actually when you were going through the HR, We are already looking at from a programming and a layout standpoint that this will primarily be 6,000 or less. But again, what hits us is obviously with the function of a bank having still residual need for people that obviously from whatever mobility reasons or whatever the case may be that utilize a drive-through.

Thank you.

And I should say also, again, I don't know whether we're supposed to be talking about the actual use of the property but this is a bank that's been in town for quite a while they have a presence downtown and they have a presence south of town and this is a consolidation of those different facilities one of which is leased and so the idea is to provide enough space that they can consolidate operations on front street and again plant their flag here in Traverse City much like they dispersed already

Thank you. Yeah, typically we're not supposed to speak about the future use. So I do just want to like answer that. Like we're not supposed to because.

I'm just saying the question was asked about why the need for rezoning.

Yeah.

So that's.

I hear you. I just, we have a couple new members up on the body so I just wanted to make sure that they know that. Like we are supposed to be planning this rezone for the future, for whether or not it aligns with the master plan and assessing that. I have thoughts. Do you want to use, do you want to answer your thoughts first, Brian?

Well, I just wanted to explain why I asked the question. And because Mr. Hardy's been in front of us before for a rezoning. Yes. And he requested it and he presented, his presentation was much more broad uh... on in that case uh... we're talking about old town about why the current zoning doesn't work and isn't really working for that whole area this is basically an extension of a zone that's currently existing to basically allow for a drive-through it's a rezoning of the property which changes its use basically it's probably the uh it's literally the most intense broadest use we have in the city for property the c3 and it's for anything and then the question so i mean i don't need an answer tonight but when you come back i'd want my question for me is why is this a more appropriate zone than the existing zone and that's really what i'm looking for from the applicant when you come back well let me make the

one comment about that in generalities. One of the interesting points on this is, again, this is from a real estate perspective, this property has been on the market for over a year and a half, possibly two years, and that HR zoning right now is not enough to be able to entice somebody to invest in that property and make use of it. We felt the C3 zone offered some additional expansion of capabilities for that property. That's why, at least from a market standpoint, it's a more attractive parcel than to get sold and back on the tax rolls in the new use at this point.

So this is Ian again. So if I could comment to the gentleman, obviously, you know, with the consideration of why, you know, the C3 versus the HR and to Scott's point point, you know, from the development standpoint, when I'm representing a client, you know, obviously we're trying to navigate around the zoning requirements and obviously how Traverse City, you know, works their process and to accommodate that. So from our standpoint, you know, and coming into this meeting, you know, having discussion with staff, you you know, the rezoning as an independent, and I understand the commission's responsibility because you're looking at it from a fact of, you know, the rezoning being one part of it. Obviously from the development standpoint, we're looking to the rezoning. So obviously we can go ahead and fit what our project type is. So I completely understand what you're saying with the C3 being so broad. You know, you open up the the the the door to the rezone and what does that look like, you know, from our standpoint, we're looking at it as we're trying to facilitate the development of this project that we feel Is beneficial to the community and is is part of, you know, an update for the people in the community. But again, we're trying to navigate around the zoning requirements that that Traverse City has so You know the whether whether it's it's you know better or worse than the HR for purposes of Traverse City, I guess I have to leave that up to the planning and master planning. You know, our purpose here is really to try to work with the community, work with obviously the client that we represent in the financial institution and try to help out as much as we possibly can within the parameters. You know, understanding too that, you know, We work in developing projects in a lot of different communities. And I understand the idea of trying to get something that fits correctly in that area. And that's why I've tried to reach out to and connect with staff and try to connect with people to make sure that we're doing this correctly. I feel from a planning and architectural background that you know, our facility, and I know that we're not supposed to be talking about it, but really at the end of the day, you know, that's what it's about, you know, is different than maybe something that's taking on a very, very heavy load. So, you know, I don't know how we navigate between the rezoning as one and the intended end use without them kind of coexisting, but I understand that that's what we're talking about tonight. And again, if anybody has any questions in regards to But I'm open to any questions.

Thank you. Jackie. This may be more of a question for staff, but you mentioned setbacks earlier. And am I correct that the front facade setback for the C3 is zero, whereas for HR it's eight feet or something?

I don't think they're ever zero. Let me see if I can find it. I'm sure Leslie will find it.

I might need to do a little bit more research to give you the best answer. The way it's written in the ordinance, it just leaves the front setback blank.

So I think that means zero, but I- I was mistaking the setback for parking for the setback for building. Okay. You tracked my question. Okay, so it's a parking specific setback. It's a parking specific setback, thank you.

Well, the major street setback ordinance says it's 19 feet from the center line.

Correct, that's what I was operating under. Yes. Which is generally the easement. Yes. so i guess i have just a request from staff is i guess i would like clarity on the difference between the two districts in the future land use map because just like brian said it's not clear to me um and it's that's i i'm sure you did a lot of calculating i've done that in my life um but the You can't really see where those lines are. And when you look at the future land use map for neighborhood centers, it's a different district recommendation. So I would like to explore that a little more.

Sure. I think I can overlay those and get it a little bit more exact. You know, generally when master plans are a little more squishy, they're that way for a reason and they don't indicate property lines because it's intended that it be a little bit more of a approximation. But I understand the need or the want for that more particular and I'm pretty confident that They do align and they may have intentionally aligned it that way, but I'll certainly get an overlay so we can all see it more clearly.

Yeah, the two districts themselves in the future land use are, it's a step down kind of from that C3. So my concern is more C3 butted up against R1B. We have to think about. how to make transitions and just want to do that responsibly. Right, absolutely. Thank you. Mitch?

Yeah, I would say this does get not just to our process with the special land use permit for auto-centric uses, but in the direction that we're going with the master, I mean with not the master plan, the zoning code rewrite. Because as it's set up right now, we have C1 and C2 as something like, a dentist's office that's much lower scale commercial, and we have C4 as our downtown core. And numerically, C3 exists between them and in our zoning uses, a lot of it is between. But in practice, C3 tends to be much more auto-centric uses, not just drive-thrus. But in terms of built environment and design, much larger parking lots relative to building size. A single story building as opposed to multi-story which you can have in both C1, C2 and in C4. So it seems reasonable that more uses should be allowed in this area but it does get into the question about what the ladder or other scheme of our zoning code looks like.

Yeah, my biggest fear, concern with this is that, and it goes hand in hand again with the rewrite, is that we only allow drive-throughs in C3. Do we want to go through the process of Especially if we go through the new process of having a SLUP, requiring a SLUP, do we actually want to keep that? Because I don't. I like C3 here for the multi-story. That's what I think this should be, is something with a higher density. It hurts me to think that we could have another parking lot and a drive-through in that space where you could have something higher density because it is up against that trunk line. So for those of us on this body, just to think about, the use of a future drive-through and or other auto-centric uses. Again, we just talked about this with SLUPS. But thinking about where we see those fit the best within the city, there might be some flexibility. So that way we're not always feeling like we've got to change everything in a C3, everything to a C3 to allow for that use. When I think there are other more creative ways to allow that. without missing out on the density or just the thought of the potential housing that we could be missing out in that density just makes me sad. So just thinking about it more broadly, Yeah, and that's what I'll say about that. And the reuse of buildings with a drive-through, don't even get me started on that. Future use 20, 30 years down the road if banks are, things happen to banks. We don't necessarily need another drive-thru that's been converted into a home on 8th Street. That's all I'm trying to say. So I just want to make sure that we're thinking about it really inclusively and futuristic as best we can because it's a rezone. And then I'll leave it at that and go back to the body if we have anything. Go back to the applicant or Mr. Hardy and then kind of open up public comment and come back if we want.

I do have one question. Sure. Because obviously the SLUP process in this process is new. Can you give me any sense of timing so we can manage expectations from both the seller and the buyer's side of this process? And I don't know whether that will happen after a commission decision or does that happen during a commission decision or is that a planning commission? Yeah. At this point.

I defer to staff on that one, but we did pass it at the planning commission level on our Tuesday, May 5th meeting. So it is a requirement.

And it was introduced yesterday at the city commission.

Okay, it is a requirement of our body and was introduced at the city commission yesterday, but we'll have to go before a vote at the city commission. Yes, on June 1st.

And I believe that's expected June 1st. Oh, thank you.

But as an applicant, am I. then going through the slop process at the commission level? Or am I going through it here at the planning commission? Okay. Yeah, yeah, that's what I thought. And that requires an introduction and a hearing? Or is it? So I'm repeating the process again with the slop. Again, I'm not complaining at this point. I'm just trying to manage expectations. I will say I would I think your SLUP process is also your fail safe in terms of the details you're looking at for intensity of use and auto centric issues that you might want to evaluate at that point.

Yeah, and to that point I can say that a drive through bank with six vehicles per hour coming through is a lot less intense than a car wash with 200 vehicles an hour coming through.

But they could put up a gas station with 200 vehicles going through. Correct. I mean, it's rezoning. Again, we can't. I mean, I understand what the applicant wants to do, and I'm not saying you're, you know, but you rezone it, and then they find out this doesn't work for some other reason as they get into it, and then, you know, the property's back on the market, and it's been rezoned for C3. Correct. And then you get someone else coming in who wants to do something that's much, you know,

Which raises a question, does change of use trigger the slop process?

It could, depending on intensity. If it changes the site plan, it would. Pardon? If it changes the site plan.

That's true.

Well, if they were adding a drive-through, it would trigger.

Yeah, but that's after the rezoning. You've got to get the rezoning before you can even apply for this. Correct.

I understand.

So that's another thing. So if we act on it then and we recommend it or don't recommend it, then you have to get on the city commission. So that's at least a month for them to consider it.

Brian, can you get a little closer to the mic?

and that so that's another month for them to consider it and then if that gets approved then you can come back and apply for the slump but that'll take you a while to get all your i mean you know that's a pretty uh That's a pretty big application packet and that requires staff review and then it comes to us and I think slips might actually be the thing we have to decide whether or not it's ready for a public hearing. I could be wrong, but. And so you know you're probably talking at least three months, maybe longer for the slot. They tend to take a long time.

okay of course they could maybe they won't adopt the slip so it won't be an issue always a possibility anything else from this body for either the applicant or mr hardy yeah just a just a quick and and this is this is just me talking obviously uh worked in a lot of different areas um and and listening to your group and it and it's a a very you know, very respectful conversation that you guys are having. It's, it's kind of like you're a, and, and we're, we're in it too with obviously Scott, but it's, it's kind of a loop that you're kind of caught in like a catch 22. Right. So, You know, it's, it's interesting because I'm just kind of observing to from somebody that that that works, you know, in other communities. Yeah, because now you have the special use, but the special use goes after the zoning, you know, I completely understand where the, the Commission is thinking about it is because if something doesn't happen. According to plan with the with the special use, then you know they've already resolved. Right. So, you know, it's a, it's a tough. It's a tough situation. So I just wanted to say, you know, I think there's some of you were kind of alluding to, you know, how do you, how do you, how do you fix that kind of loop system that is created there. But yeah, but know that, you know, obviously we're willing to to answer any questions or or help out in any way that we can so

Thank you, Mitch.

Yeah, final question for Mr. Hardy. I understand that you are the agent for these three parcels and from a strict vision, that's why the application is these three parcels. Was there any consideration to including as well 1024 to the property immediately to the west? Because on this block, we do have... at least in built type, two drive-throughs that are zoned C3 to the east. On the west, we do have two lodging establishments zoned HR, but between them, there is a single family home that doesn't meet either of the criteria.

Well, just for point of clarity, I represent the buyers of this property, but I'm here also sort of speaking on behalf of the sellers. One of the reasons we are in this property is because of its simplicity in terms of construction. Also, I will be honest, the two properties that you speak about were under contract until a week ago. Yes. And the price points are markedly different.

Yeah. Makes sense. Okay. Seeing not a ton of conversation, it sounds like we've got a couple things that we want to have staff look into and get back to us before the public hearing next week. And maybe a couple things that you and Ian can look into and get back with us on. I'd be happy to.

Are we safe to assume there will be a public hearing?

Yeah, that's already been noticed. Okay. So that'll happen. Yeah.

Yeah, you paid for it. Yeah. I didn't.

Yeah, I know.

It may come out of my hide, but I didn't pay for it.

Yeah, that'll happen.

Okay. Well, thank you for considering this. And like I said, I know we're not supposed to talk about specific projects, but my buyer, is very anxious to plant a larger flag in Traverse City and make that commitment. So thank you.

Thank you. So let's go to public comment on this item. Public comment, let me go look at my. So public comment is specific to this agenda item. So about the rezoning, if you have any thoughts, opinions, comments, concerns, questions. We ask that you state your name and address. Indicate if you're a city resident, non-city resident, and or city business owner. We do allow a three minute time allotment per speaker. When your time is elapsed, the clerk will notify you or you'll hear the And please address your comments only to the planning commission and we request that all language be respectful to all parties. Does anyone have any thoughts, comments, concerns on this item? Yeah, you can just come on up to the podium.

Kelly Brown, 1039 East State Street. Just want to say that I oppose the zoning change that's under consideration. I feel like with residential on three sides of the property, opening it up to C3 or C4 would be There's too many possibilities of things that could go in there that the Planning Commission has previously expressed that they don't want for the gateway to our city. So I just, that's my comment. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else like to make public comment on this agenda item? Go ahead.

I'm Steve Brown at 1039 East State Street, and it's a rhetorical question for you, and maybe it's a simple answer. I'm wondering based on my previous work elsewhere whether what would be preventing an applicant from requesting a variance, a zoning variance on this property to allow them to do what they want to do outside of compliance with existing zoning strictures rather than having to go through an SOUP process that we used to do. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, any other public comment on this item? Great, so we'll close public comment. Leslie, do you have an answer? I mean, it's by request, so it seems like they made the request. They would have had the opportunity to do that. That's my understanding.

And this is worthy of some input from the city's attorney. But generally, a variance that effectively rezones a property by allowing a use that would not otherwise be allowed is considered at the least a use variance at the most, you know, defacto rezoning of the property and sometimes won't be considered. So again, I don't know exactly what the history has been in the city, but generally that's the practice. Yeah.

And procedurally, it would go through the Board of Zoning Appeals and as Planning Commission representative to that, I can tell you that yes, that is a route that property owners and developers can take. but it is meant to represent cases that by its building location type or other constraints is limited from what zone categories on paper would otherwise allow. Say you have a property that because it only has access on this side and this other side, even though every other property along that block has access, in different configurations, you need to be able to have a drive-through to be able to have people enter and exit the property. But this is not a unique parcel compared to other parcels on the block or other parcels in either zoning district.

Makes sense. Any other comments from this body tonight on this topic? Okay. Seeing none, it looks like you have a couple things to get back to us and we'll definitely be talking about this next time at the public hearing on Tuesday, June 2nd. Is that when we decided it was? Yes. So that is it for our discussion topics tonight. So we're moving on to general public comment. This can be about anything that your heart desires. So we're opening general public comment if anybody has one for this evening. Same instructions apply, but you know that, Doug.

Doug Kimball, 523 North Spruce Street. Just another reminder to please bring the microphone to you and speak into the microphone.

That's it.

Thank you. Any other public comment? Last call. Okay. Seeing no public comment, I will close the public comment again, and this meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everybody.

Thanks, everybody.

Thank you, Ian. I'm so sorry. I forgot.

No, that's fine. I feel bad I couldn't see anybody, but it's nice to meet everybody anyway.

Thank you. See you.

Thank you.