CITY OF WARREN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
Regular Meeting held on July 9th, 2018, at 7:00 p.m.,
A Regular Meeting of the Warren Planning Commission was called for Monday, July 9th, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Warren Community Center Auditorium, 5460 Arden, Warren, Michigan 48092.
Commissioners present: Jocelyn Howard, Chair Natasha Houghten, Assistant Secretary Edna Karpinski John Kupiec, Vice Chair Jason McClanahan Claudette Robinson Warren Smith, Secretary Nathan Vinson Neharunnessa Abdullah
Also present: Ronald Wuerth – Planning Director Michelle Katopodes – Planner I Judy Hanna – Senior Administrative Secretary Anna Cleghorn – Planner Aide Caitlin Murphy - Assistant City Attorney Megan Price - Communications Department
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Howard called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. ROLL CALL: All Commissioner present.
4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner McClanahan to approve, supported by Secretary Smith. A voice vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018 2
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 18th, 2018
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner McClanahan to approve, supported by Assistant Secretary Houghten. A voice vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
Chair Howard – If there are any items that you would like to vote no on this evening we are going to ask our Commission to please state your reason for voting no on any item based on the recommendation from the Planning Department and also you’re reasoning behind your decision on this evening.
6. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. SITE PLAN FOR PARKING LOT: Located on southwest corner of Van Dyke and Prospect Avenues, 21351 Van Dyke; Section 33; Kerm Billette (Walter Hage). TABLED FROM JUNE 4TH, 2018
MOTION: A motion was made was made by Commissioner McClanahan to remove from the table, supported by Assistant Secretary Houghten. A voice vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
PETITIONERS PORTION: Mr. Kerm Billette – The property has Nono’s Pizza on the building and it has a 40 foot lot next door and it’s used for parking. The parking lot was to be paved and I believe he’s all ready to put the cap on and they stopped it saying you need a site plan for it because he has outdoor storage for a grease container and a dumpster at the northwest corner of the building. The petitioner is here to answer questions about the recommendations from Mr. Wuerth.
Mr. Walter Hage – I’m here on the issue of the property on Van Dyke and Prospect. In 2015 I was able to acquire this property, it was an asphalt parking lot that had decayed and crumbled over many decades, the owner refused to maintain it and I was finally able to acquire it. I approached the head of the zoning department with photos explaining what I wanted to do. I was particularly concerned about one aspect of the project but I explained the entire project to him they knew the full dimensions of it and he sent me to the Engineering Department. A representative from the Engineering Department walked me back down to the Zoning Department whereupon they began to consult, and they really didn’t have any answers. I left them with the photographs for a couple of weeks before I went back. At no time during this process did anybody say Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
3 to me you might need a permit for what you want to do let me send an inspector out there and see what you’ve got and see what’s required.
However, the asphalt company that I contracted with did contact the head of the building division and they were told as long as you’re not touching sidewalks, catch basins, or curbs you can go ahead and we proceeded to resurface that parking lot. An inspector came by and said you’re building a new parking lot here and gave me a citation for that, nothing could be further from the truth. That lot is a parking lot, was a parking, has always been a parking lot. According to the city’s own records it was a parking lot seven years before the City of Warren was even chartered.
After several years of trying to move this project along and not getting any straight answers from any of the bureaucrats in city hall I decided to approach it as if I was building a new parking lot. I got a site plan, I had a survey done, I filed them and the result was I was handed a two page laundry list of requirements that the city wanted me to meet. I ended up coming before the Planning Commission back in January of this year and telling them that most of this stuff had been done already. This is because the people that draw up these lists are sitting in cubicles somewhere in city hall looking at outdated downloaded photos of google. I was willing to do everything else on that list, however, there are two problems with that one, the city wants parking blocks on the edge of the parking and two, they want an enclosure on the dumpster. This lot is only 40 feet wide an enclosure which would stick out 10 feet into that property eliminates 25% of the maneuverability of vehicles getting in and out of that lot.
In order to get into that lot, you don’t approach directly you have to make a right angled turn into the alley and another right angle turn from the alley into the parking lot. They have delivery trucks that are coming to this business delivering various products and these trucks range in size from the size of a FedEx delivery truck to trucks that are nearly the size of a city bus, this includes the garbage truck that has to empty the dumpster. So when you restrict their maneuverability you’re forcing these vehicles to maneuverer back and forth in order to position themselves int the lot which creates a hazard for life and property. This is particularly true with the garbage dumpster, because that dumpster is the size of a large garbage truck has on top of it two large metal prongs which are mechanically lowered by the driver to slip into sleeves on the side of the dumpster in order to lift the dumpster up over the top of the truck empty it into the truck set it back down in place. In order to do that garbage truck Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
4 has to be able to hit that dumpster directly head on. By the time you lower the metal prongs on the side of it you’re already increasing the length of that truck by another four to six feet. It just simply is not possible to do it under safe conditions.
When I was here in January I supplied the Planning Commission with photos that showed that in numerous instances and we’re only talking about lower Van Dyke from Eight Mile to Stephens, in numerous instances long the way the entrances to parking lots to those business and the exits to parking lots are over sidewalks they roll over sidewalk. There are no parking bumpers you have to be able to roll in and out of the parking lots. So the bumpers which are not required in other instances are really unnecessary in this instance because in more then half of a decade that that parking lot has been there there’s never been an incident. Even more crucial when these trucks have their space restricted by a dumpster taking up 25% of the width of the lot plus having to maneuver around the parking bumpers they create a dangerous and hazardous situation. This lot is flanked by two utility poles on the west side of the alley. So these trucks have to be able to get in and out safely and it simply can’t be done.
Since I was here in January I have consulted with experts and contractors those who were willing to come into Warren in the first place to do business here and it is a situation which would create a hazard which is totally unnecessary and dangerous. I supplied this Commission with photos of business after business where along Van Dyke they have dumpsters and no enclosure has been required. In fact, in four municipal parking lots parallel to Van Dyke there are dumpsters and the city does not even require enclosures of itself around the dumpsters that are in its own municipal parking lots.
Therefore, I’m here this evening to ask you to approve my site plan as submitted without the requirement of an enclosure and without the requirement of parking bumpers. To require me to do something that is not required of other businesses that the city does not even require of itself is a form of discrimination. To my way of thinking to require me to do something that the city itself does not require of itself is a violation of the constitutional principles of fair and equal treatment. Not to mention the fact that the situation that would be created is dangerous. Not only is it dangerous for the trucks moving in but for the vehicles departing because when you sit in a vehicle and you depart the parking lot by turning into the alley and then into the street the height of a dumpster blocks your view your vision of what may be coming down that alley. So you have that additional situation where the vision of the driver is blocked creating a situation Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
5 that is very dangerous. Again I ask this Commission to approve my site plan as submitted without the requirements of parking blocks or a dumpster and to not discriminate against me. Thank you.
Secretary Smith reads the following correspondence:
TAXES: No Delinquent Taxes. ENGINEERING: 1. The subject property is three parcels. The parcel boundaries shall be shown on the plan. Additionally, it is recommended that the parcels be combined. 2. The plan shall indicate the proposed acreage of disturbance. 3. All proposed and existing utilities with corresponding easements shall be shown on the plan. 4. A storm water collection system is required. Detention may be necessary. 5. It is not recommended to allow parking directly adjacent to the building, especially where a door is present. 6. It does not appear there is the required distance for parking with a 2-way maneuvering lane at this location. Additionally, it is recommended that there be a physical barrier between the parking lot and public sidewalk. 7. All existing site features shall be shown. It appears the existing light pole and billboard sign may be missing from the plan. 8. The note stating “cap existing asphalt parking lot” shall be modified to reflect that this area has not been previously approved as a parking lot. The proposed pavement section shall be shown on the plans. 9. The purpose of the proposed areas noted as “T” and “grease” shall be clearly identified. If “T” represents a trash enclosure, this area shall meet City of Warren requirements. ZONING: Non-conforming parking lot – no variance needed to hard surface parking lot as proposed on the plan.
Mr. Ron Wuerth – Before I get to the recommendation just a few comments about the past here and my meetings with the petitioner. If you look in your findings you’re going to see that we had a meeting together January 16th of 2018 and we talked about the bumper blocks, we talked about the trash enclosure, and it appeared at that time as I say in the findings here that they were convinced that might be the best way in a final resolution. That was part of a recommendation at one time and the petitioner came forward and said that no he wasn’t going to agree to any of that. So when that happened that’s when I had no really choice in the matter other than to go back to my original recommendation that I have here before you tonight that requires the concrete curbing, the poured concrete Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
6 walls for the trash enclosure and all that type of thing. So I wanted to just frame.
The other issue you may even call it interesting fact is that Mr. Hage owns the property to the west, it’s a vacant piece of property zoned R-1-P west of the alley. I have witnessed many people throughout the City of Warren with properties that are separated by an alley having their trash on an area like that and still allowing people to be able to get into the parking lot without any problems. I’m just simply saying that area should have a trash enclosure there’s plenty of room it can be angled, which you will see in certain areas along Van Dyke. And I won’t argue with Mr. Hage about the fact that there are other places that don’t have trash enclosures. The only way we work with that is as we go. As someone comes forward for site plan approval we require it. It’s my recommendation we need one and I tell you that. It happens practically every meeting that we come to and I read that same sentence regarding trash enclosures. This goes on not only along Van Dyke but throughout the whole entire city but it’s our policy to eventually get those things in or sometimes we change the looks of them. It might be a concrete block with brick on the exterior and fill the voids and make it look like the facility that’s there such as a McDonalds or Tim Horton’s or something like that. Very seldom do we offer up a chain link fence with the slates or white vinyl fencing there have only been a few, but it depends on circumstances.
Mr. Billette brought in plans last week I was able to look at them on Tuesday and they included the trash enclosure and they included the back to back bumpers along the north property line and the east property line just like we had agreed to back in January. The problem is is that these two don’t agree with each other. So with that I finally decided I had to continue on with the original recommendation. Which I’ll read right now.
Mr. Ron Wuerth reads the recommendation of the Staff:
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner McClanahan to approve, supported by Vice Chair Kupiec.
COMMISSIONERS PORTION: Commissioner McClanahan – I appreciate all the work the Planning Director and his staff does. Especially in the south end of Warren a lot of people have talked to me about rat problems and I see a great need for an enclosure and everybody that comes up here has the
Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
7 enclosure so I think the enclosure should stay according to the recommendations.
Vice Chair Kupiec – How much trash do you actually generate in your business?
Mr. Walter Hage – The trash is emptied once a week from the trash dumpster and once a week from the grease dumpster.
Vice Chair Kupiec – And how big is your trash dumpster you have on the property now and is it enclosed?
Mr. Walter Hage – It’s roughly 3 x 6 and no sir it’s not enclosed it’s never been enclosed.
Vice Chair Kupiec – And you also use the city garbage disposal correct?
Mr. Walter Hage – The city hasn’t picked up trash along Van Dyke from the commercial businesses for years.
Secretary Smith – How often do they dump the grease container?
Mr. Walter Hage – Once a week.
Secretary Smith – Within in the last few meeting and with this particular meeting one of the issues that’s been going on with this is that we are recommending the masonry trash enclosure. On the last meeting we have also suggested doing a chain link fence with the slates to possible obscure it that way, I still think that there should be a trash enclosure. The issue I’m seeing at this point and time is you read the recommendation we have approval on the table for that concrete enclosure. Mr. Wuerth stated the lot on the other side of the alley is your lot where you could put the concrete trash enclosure, which would eliminate the problem with the trucks getting in and also the parking in that particular lot where the parking is at. I guess my question is I want clarification that we are going to go this way or go a different way. Right now you’re saying one thing he’s saying another thing and I haven’t heard anybody agree on which way it was going to go and that’s what I’m looking for now.
Mr. Walter Hage – First of all with respect to the litany of requirements that Mr. Wuerth read again we had agreed to it. Many of the things that we were going to do anyways that’s not the problem, the problem is the parking blocks and the enclosure. The original meeting, the way I recall it and the way I remembered, is we Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
8 had an agreement on being able to do these other things that the city wanted but that the stumbling blocks were the parking blocks and the enclosure, that’s the way I recall it. Now as Mr. Wuerth said, and sir I’m getting to your question as I understand it, as Mr. Wuerth said we handle these things on a case by case basis as we come to it but in that limited space of a mile and a half from Eight Mile to Van Dyke they have four municipal parking lots that have dumpsters on them and they don’t have enclosures around them. So if they are going to approach it on a case by case basis why hasn’t the city itself required of itself what it’s now trying to require of me. That they don’t want to answer, that they gloss over.
In terms of the lot next door first of all that’s a residential lot it had a house on it. The house was abandoned and these were in the years before the city was tearing down these abandoned houses it was occupied by squatters and drug users. I was afraid it would catch on fire and endanger not only my neighbor next door but the building as well. So I took it upon myself to acquire that property and I took it upon myself to teardown that house at my own expense. So it is a vacant lot but it’s not a commercial lot, I can’t imagine anybody on the Commission that would agree to having a dumpster placed on a residential lot next to them. In fact, what if that house had still been occupied it would still be there it would not even be a question of being able to put a dumpster on that lot. I certainly wouldn’t do that to my neighbor attempt to go through the whole process of trying rezone a commercial lot and have it paved and do a site plan and a survey for that, so I can put a dumpster enclosure on a lot next to a neighbor. It’s simply not feasible.
When Mr. Wuerth says that Mr. Billette and I can’t agree what we are really talking about is an effort to try to straighten it out. So when Mr. Billette goes to Mr. Wuerth he’s discussing it he’s probing to see what might be possible, where we can compromise. It’s not that he and I disagree it’s that Mr. Billette is doing his job of trying to iron out the difficulties so that we can move forward. So the stumbling points again is the danger that’s created by a parking lot that is flanked by two utility poles. You have to make two right angle turns to get into that parking lot, it requires these trucks to maneuver back and forth. It’s particularly true with the large garbage truck that has to position itself directly in front of the dumpster in order to slip the metal prongs into the sleeves and lift it. That’s why it’s simply not possible and it’s really not necessary because we’ve never had parking blocks in that parking lot and we’ve had no incidents whatsoever. There’s numerous other examples along Van Dyke where the entrance and the exits to businesses parking lots are over sidewalks. The fact that this dumpster would obstruct the view of anybody leaving the Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
9 parking lot in a vehicle just simply makes it too dangerous and it’s totally unnecessary. Mr. Wuerth wants to talk about handling matters on a case by case basis then he should be asked why does the city have dumpsters on its own parking lots with no enclosures around them.
Secretary Smith – The parking lot is entered from the alley and exited from the alley right?
Mr. Walter Hage – Yes sir.
Secretary Smith – That’s the reason why I don’t really see the problem with the bumpers because like you said there are some problems which I did notice also where they drive over the sidewalk but there’s a driveway along that way for them to drive up there. If you didn’t have the bumpers there what would stop the people from not exiting at the alley and just driving over the grass or the sidewalk to get into the parking lot, so that would be the purpose. I feel it’s a safety hazard of someone walking down the sidewalk, somebody trying to back out of the space and they don’t see the person walking and they bump into them.
Mr. Walter Hage – Well sir the strip that would be on the north side of Prospect there’s the sidewalk and a grass strip with a curb, it’s not an entrance to the parking lot it’s not something that people would roll over or back out over of you’d be running over a curb and a grass strip. That’s never happened and there’s no reason for them to do it it would damage their vehicles. Have I answered that question sufficiently?
Secretary Smith – I still have some concerns because I don’t think it’s clear of which way we are voting to go. The vote right now is saying we are going with the recommendation, so I’m going to turn it back over to the Commission. Thank you.
Chair Howard – I do want to thank you for being very thorough in your calls and explaining your side I know at the last meeting you asked for this item to be tabled until we had a full Board to hear your case. You’ve stated your case quiet articulately so I do want to thank you for that. Two things that I do want to address you’ve indicated that parking lot has been grandfathered in even before Warren was chartered if that’s the case sir I would strongly suggest it to Zoning Board and tell them that you have a hardship that you feel as though this is something that is being an undue burden on you and ask them if you can get a variance to have that omitted.
Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
10
To this Board what we attempted to do at the last meeting is to have a compromise by having a screen and also a chain link fence to which you were not in agreement with, I do understand that you’re standing on the principle. The principle is that you believe that there are other businesses there that do not have that requirement. So our obligation per ordinance is to require that enclosure to be closed in. If you feel this is an undue burden, then I would suggest that you take it to the ZBA for a variance with that as well as the bumper blocks. Because what you’re sharing with us is that those are the only two issues that are actually impeding this process.
Mr. Kerm Billette – The thought that we had about an enclosure the fence was going to be 8 foot from the building and 12 feet wide with two 5 foot gates or 10 foot openings the gates would be on the north side of it. There’s already 24 feet of curb on the side and I would propose that we take the area between the sidewalk and the curb which is about a foot and put the medium size bumper blocks all the way down within 10 or 15 feet of the alley, that was my first proposal that we made, if I recall the dimensions correctly it was 8 x 10 for the fenced in area for the dumpsters.
Chair Howard – Yes sir, now I have to see whether or not Mr. Wuerth is in agreement with that because we tried to have that conversation and then we changed again. We have a recommendation before us and as Secretary Smith has indicated which way are we going to go so we need to see if we can secure this tonight not to table it and to take this to a vote. Mr. Wuerth what is your pleasure?
Mr. Ron Wuerth – My pleasure is to answer some of the things that he brought up first and then we’ll see about what you’re asking for Kerm and how that may fit into your purview here Mr. Hage. To answer the question about the trash dumpsters in the city parking lots, they don’t belong to the city they belong to people who live and work along there with their businesses. The city allows them to keep them there and maintains them just as they are, they take up a parking space a valuable parking space. These people don’t have a location on their site, it’s so tight along Van Dyke that in some of those parking lots they do that. They can take it away at anytime and then what are we going to have trash in plastic bins sitting out in front of their place all along Van Dyke for all I know, or in the back. Then if you want rats to start tearing up the place believe me they will. It is factual that those are owned by others and the city allows it, they can be removed at the snap of a finger, a snap of the Mayor’s finger if need be.
Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
11
Secondly, the trash dumpster in the vacant lot no one wants to see a dumpster the way we ask for it sitting in a vacant lot. So what do we do to make sure that it looks reasonable well and fits the area we ask for landscaping, usually arborvitaes. We make a really good use of that take a look at some of the drive thru’s and you’ll see where they’ve tucked away their trash enclosures and put arborvitaes, trees, or shrubs, or things of that nature to dress it up so that it’s not going to look so out of place in a vacant lot, not that it’s where it should go.
Finally, with Kerm and his many discussions with me I can appreciate the plan that you brought. When I saw it in my mind I’ll say you know what this is fine I’d love to take and recommend it, but I cannot because it’s the petitioners site, it’s the petitioner who makes that final decision. So that’s why that’s what you had there we have it sitting on the table waiting for some reaction to it to be worked on or not worked on. I can appreciate you trying to solve it.
Let’s go back to what you wanted me to respond to, what was it?
Chair Howard – It was the trash enclosure Mr. Billette was speaking of the fencing, the original recommendation or suggestion in a compromise that we had some months ago. He’s proposing that again, we want to see what your thoughts are on it and then see if we can get a consensus from our petitioner. I believe this Commissioner is ready to vote as is tonight.
Mr. Ron Wuerth – Like Mr. Hage said there are different situations and we have to address them that. And as far as the size of what you had proposed 5 feet deep I think these are smaller trash dumpsters are they not?
Mr. Kerm Billette – Yes.
Mr. Ron Wuerth – So that helps a little bit with the maneuvering I know it’s tight, but we still need something that’s going to screen it. So a chain link fence can be smaller it can be the design that you proposed Mr. Billette and I would recommend that.
Chair Howard – Alright so we can opt out for the trash enclosure in lieu of the 5 foot fence, Mr. Hage are you amenable to that?
Mr. Walter Hage – First of all the discussion of landscaping along Van Dyke it doesn’t exist anywhere. Secondly the excuse that these dumpsters in the municipal parking lots do not belong to the city doesn’t wash. These are municipal parking lots no matter who owns Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
12 the dumpster there are no requirements. And not only that there are other business sitting along Van Dyke without the dumpster enclosures they don’t have them.
Also, you said I’m here on principle, it’s not principle it’s a question of safety. You restrict the maneuverability of trucks in and out and vehicles in and out of that property including even a smaller enclosure obstructs the view of vehicles trying to depart that property unable to see oncoming traffic through that alley. It’s not principle it’s a question of safety particularly when there’s no need for a change of what has been going on for decades in that parking lot. It doesn’t look bad, it’s not a threat to the neighborhood.
Chair Howard – So Mr. Hage what I would suggest based on your comments that you’re sharing with me is that you take the two items in question to the ZBA ask for a variance based on a hardship share with them that you don’t believe that these two items should be part of your approval and if they agree with you they’ll strike them from the recommendation. With that we are going to take it to a vote.
Mr. Walter Hage – This Commission has the power to stop this right now instead of telling me we are going to this but you can have an appeal process. This Commission can say right now this is wrong, it’s dangerous, and we are not going to go along with it we are going to leave the situation as it is rather then sending me to the ZBA. So I ask this Commission to take action now to put a stop to this.
Chair Howard – And I think where the issue is sir is that we don’t concur. And because I don’t believe this Board concurs with your position I’m not going to withdraw your rights to pursue this further.
Commissioner McClanahan – We’ve had an issue with the rodents in Warren and it’s been going on and on and we are trying to put an end to it. So we are changing things and as Secretary Smith said it’s a safety thing.
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – The zoning ordinance does require screening for refuse or recycling containers therefore you would need a variance in front of the ZBA to waive that requirement completely. So the Planning Commission would not have the authority to waive that requirement there would be a variance needed.
Chair Howard - Thank you Attorney Murphy and again thank you so much sir for your passion. That was a motion by Commissioner McClanahan, supported by Vice Chair Kupiec.
Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
13
ROLL CALL: The motion carried as follows.
Commissioner Vinson…………………… Yes Commissioner Robinson………………… Yes Commissioner McClanahan…………….. Yes Vice Chair Kupiec………………………. Yes Commissioner Karpinski……………….. Yes Assistant Secretary Houghten………… Yes Secretary Smith…………………………. Yes Chair Howard……………………………. Yes Commissioner Abdullah………………… Yes
B. SITE PLAN FOR PARKING LOT ADDITION: Located on the north east corner of Hoover and Stephens Roads; 24060 Hoover Road; Section 26; Bruce Mateyak (Robert Drouillard). REQUEST TO TABLE TO AUGUST 6TH, 2018.
MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Chair Kupiec to table until August 6th, 2018, supported by Commissioner Vinson.
ROLL CALL: The motion carried as follows:
Commissioner Abdullah………………… Yes Commissioner Vinson…………………… Yes Secretary Smith………………………….. Yes Commissioner Robinson……………….. Yes Commissioner McClanahan……………. Yes Vice Chair Kupiec……………………….. Yes Commissioner Karpinski………………... Yes Assistant Secretary Houghten…………. Yes Chair Howard……………………………. Yes
C. SITE PLAN FOR OPEN STORAGE: Located on the west side of Hoover Road; approximately 590 ft. south of Toepfer Avenue; 21445 Hoover Road; Section 34; Hatem Hannawa (Edward Boryn). TABLED FROM JUNE 4TH, 2018. REQUEST TABLED FROM THE PLANNING STAFF TO AUGUST 20TH, 2018.
Mr. Ron Wuerth – This is a request from the Planning Staff to have this tabled until the August 20th, 2018 meeting, we’ve had no communication with the petitioners. That’s what they were asked to do through a letter form last time, but they have not communicated with us. First thing I’ll do tomorrow is check with our Zoning Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
14
Inspectors to make sure that they haven’t moved their trucks in places where they shouldn’t be on that site. And also we’ll contact them not only by letter but by phone and see if I can get a meeting with these people prior to the August 20th, meeting.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Abdullah to table until August 20th, 2018, supported by Secretary Smith.
ROLL CALL: The motion carried as follows:
Commissioner Abdullah………………… Yes Commissioner Vinson…………………... Yes Secretary Smith………………………….. Yes Commissioner Robinson………………... Yes Commissioner McClanahan……………. Yes Vice Chair Kupiec……………………….. Yes Commissioner Karpinski………………... Yes Assistant Secretary Houghten…………. Yes Chair Howard……………………………. Yes
D. SITE PLAN FOR NEW DRIVEWAY APPROACH TO RETAIL CENTER: Located on the southwest corner of Mound Road and Elmer Avenue; 28069 Mound; Section 17; Caren Burdi (Kerm Billette). TABLED FROM JUNE 18TH, 2018.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner McClanahan to remove from the table, supported by Assistant Secretary Houghten. A voice vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
PETITIONERS PORTION: Ms. Caren Burdi – Good evening, thank you Board Members for adjourning this item for me at the last hearing, it was important to me and I appreciate it. Caren Burdi 31851 Mound Road, Warren, I represent the petition which is Warren Market. What we have here is the Warren Market and the daycare center that’s attached to it. This is Mound Road traveling south, this is 696 down Martin and then 12 Mile.
I am here asking for a driveway on Elmer Drive. Years ago when this went in, I think about 30 years ago, the homeowners here did not want a driveway here on Elmer I will tell you that things have a way of changing, a turnover of people etc. This Warren Market is extremely popular with the residents that live in this neighborhood. Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
15
He makes some chicken in there that people line up for I don’t know what is in it but I’m going to try it. And many of the constituents of the daycare center are from the neighborhood.
So this is the concern that we have, it’s not a problem when you’re turning off of Mound and you come in and you go to the daycare or go to the Market, but if you live anywhere over here and you want to go back into the subdivision you have to come out you have to go down past the light past the Mobil Station for the turn around. Then there’s two lights on the other side to the light that’s past the post office come back around to come in the neighborhood. So they are waiting for traffic to clear and they are driving the wrong way into the subdivision. So the owner of the store says these are most of my customers I’m very uncomfortable with this seeing them drive the wrong way.
I don’t believe that there’s anybody here from this neighborhood that’s objecting to this now, as a matter of fact they are in support of it as he’s been discussing it with them as they’ve been coming in because he knew that they would get notices. So it’s been a very positive response so we are asking to have a driveway here for access from the neighborhood.
I’ve read the recommendations my client and I are in agreement with everything on the recommendation. But in addition you’ll see where we also have to close out the daycare center it was never closed out and we’ll take responsibility to combine that and get the whole site up to the standard that we need it. So my request here tonight is to be able to access a driveway on Elmer.
Secretary Smith reads the following correspondence:
TAXES: No Delinquent Taxes. DTE: Approved. ENGINEERING: 1. The plan shall show all existing utilities and easements. 2. The drive approaches must comply with our current standards FIRE: Approved.
Mr. Ron Wuerth – I’ve heard rumors of the traffic movements that Ms. Burdi has described and to come out and go north waiting for the traffic to clear must be like playing chicken out there.
Mr. Ron Wuerth reads the recommendations of the Staff: Item 3 – if they want to keep that they have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for variance. Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
16
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Vinson to approve, supported by Secretary Smith.
COMMISSIONERS PORTION: Secretary Smith – Good evening Ms. Burdi, I was by the site today and I looked over the playground because I realized it hadn’t been included so I wanted to see exactly what was done on it. I noticed that the parking lot has a hole in there I almost lost my truck in there when they do the driveway are they going to make the parking lot repairs also?
Ms. Caren Burdi – Absolutely, he’s got to make those improvements, or they are going to get worse and deteriorate. I think he’s got a lot in mind even with sprucing up some of that landscaping kind of like a revamp right now. So yes I have mentioned to him that he’s going to need to take care of that and that would be a perfect time when he’s putting in the driveway.
Chair Howard – In terms of the existing site plan that we are going to forward into this one, Mr. Wuerth you can assist me with this as well, is there an existing bond from the original site plan that’s still active?
Mr. Ron Wuerth – There’s a $900.00 bond.
Chair Howard – Do you want to have that roll over or do you want to release that bond, how would you like to do that?
Mr. Ron Wuerth – No, actually I think we’ll just stay with the bond that we asked we don’t have to make it any larger than it is.
Chair Howard – Thank you and Ms. Burdi please share with your client thank you for his awareness and also his attention to safety for our residents of Warren.
ROLL CALL: The motion carried as follows:
Chair Howard……………………………. Yes Assistant Secretary Houghten…………. Yes Commissioner Karpinski……………….. Yes Vice Chair Kupiec………..……………… Yes Commissioner McClanahan……………. Yes Commissioner Robinson……………….. Yes Secretary Smith………………………….. Yes Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
17
Commissioner Vinson…………………... Yes Commissioner Abdullah………………… Yes
E. SITE PLAN FOR ANTENNA ADDITION TO EXISTING MONOPOLE TOWER: Located on the west side of Groesbeck Highway approximately 438 ft. north of Toepfer Road; 22001 Groesbeck; Section 35; Paul Del Bene, AT&T Mobility (Ping Jiang).
PETITIONER: Mr. Jacob Stricker – I’m going to be adding three additional antennas to the existing array. Our wireless provider is AT & T.
Secretary Smith reads the following correspondence:
TAXES: No Delinquent Taxes. ENGINEERING: Approved. FIRE: Approved. COMCAST: Comcast has indicated that they have aerial optic fiber utilities running along Groesbeck Highway.
Ms. Michelle Katopodes reads the recommendations of the Staff:
MOTION: A motion was made by Secretary Smith to approve, supported by Commissioner Abdullah.
ROLL CALL: The motion carried unanimously as follows:
Commissioner Abdullah…………………. Yes Commissioner Vinson…………………… Yes Secretary Smith………………………….. Yes Commissioner Robinson………………… Yes Commissioner McClanahan……………. Yes Vice Chair Kupiec……………………….. Yes Commissioner Karpinski………………… Yes Assistant Secretary Houghten………….. Yes Chair Howard…………………………….. Yes
F. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MEDICAL MARIHUANA FACILTIY DDA LOCATION CRITERIA: To amend Appendix A, Section 4G.08 to clarify medical marihuana facility restrictions in the Downtown Development District.
Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
18
PETITIONERS PORTION: Ms. Caitlin Murphy – This is a purposed amendment basically clarifying the area in the DDA where you’ll have prohibited medical marihuana, it’s a request from Council. I did provide a slightly amended proposed ordinance different than the one that you have in your packet. The changes are minimal, it’s just the wording. I also provided you a map to show more particularly the area in question. So that is basically it, I can answer any questions that you may have.
Secretary Smith states there are no correspondence.
Mr. Ron Wuerth reads the recommendations of the Staff:
Chair Howard – I’ll have Secretary Smith read the boundary lines once again.
Secretary Smith reads the boundary lines for Medical Marihuana.
1. A Medical Marihuana Facility is not permitted to have any of the following: a. The portion of the Downtown Development, the District commonly known as DDA District as described in Chapter 2, Section 2-112, north of 12 Mile Road, including all lots north and south of abutting 12 Mile Road. South of 13 Mile Chicago Road thoroughfare including all lots north and south abutting the thoroughfare. East of Mound Road including all lots east and west abutting Mound Road and west of Lorraine Avenue including all lots east and west abutting Lorraine Avenue. b. The Downtown Center, as described in Appendix A, Article 21B; c. The Village Historical District, as described in Appendix A, Article 21A; d. The Van Dyke TIFA Authority District as described in Exhibit A of the Resolution Establishing Tax Increment Finance Authority adopted September 23rd, 1986
PUBLIC HEARING: Mr. Chris Aiello – Chris Aiello for the record, 32411 Mound Road, I’m an attorney and I represent numerous individuals that have projects that they were developing under the ordinance on the north side of 13 Mile.
It’s been pretty well known that there were big projects that were going to be economic development to the city. These two projects have been sitting for two years, they’re vacant and I don’t Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
19 understand why we would want to now delineate the north side of 13 Mile verses just the south side of 13 as it was before. It doesn’t make any sense I think you should deny it and send a message that we want economic development for the city. Why exclude certain projects from something that’s going to bring revenue and generate business to the City of Warren that’s here and that’s going to go forward, why stop it. And why at this time are we now eliminating the north side of 13 Mile when there are projects on the north side of 13 Mile that are existing that have been known to the entire city that are under purchase agreement that are not going to sell anyway and have been vacant for about 5 years. I can’t think of a better reason to send a message to say at this time there’s no need to change the wording of the last ordinance it doesn’t make any sense; why would you want to exclude that now? It just doesn’t make any sense.
MOTION: A motion was made by Secretary Smith to approve, supported by Commissioner Abdullah.
COMMISSIONERS PORTION: Secretary Smith – The changes as far as north of 13 Mile what was the purpose?
Caitlin Murphy – It was a request from Counsel to change it I’m not sure there was some confusion at the Council Meeting I’m not sure what the intent of Council was when they passed the original ordinance, but like I said it was a request from Council.
Vice Chair Kupiec – I didn’t understand your answer to Secretary Smith?
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – When they passed it originally a month ago there was some confusion about the boundaries, what boundaries they intended. There was a request from Council to change the just recently passed ordinance that’s why it’s before us today for a recommendation to Council.
Vice Chair Kupiec – And I guess my question then becomes how did they finally conclude what boundaries to use and how to use the boundaries that they’ve decided, where did the decision come from?
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – It was a request of one of the Council people some clarification on where the boundaries where. They did make some original decisions about where the boundaries were and they wanted to clarify a little bit on that.
Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
20
Commissioner Robinson – The question I have was there an effective date where this was implemented and for those businesses who were unaware of this going forth that have invested monies into facilities what happens to them? And are the businesses who were already in place before this what happens to them, are they going to be affected because they unknowingly didn’t know about this. How are we going to address those business who were unaware and already in place before this came about?
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – I believe that the effective date was sometime in May so it hasn’t been very long these ordinances are subject to change obviously the Legislator can change them with your recommendation one way or the other. I think there was some confusion and some clarification that he did about the exact boundaries and what properties they were speaking of.
Commissioner Robinson – So you’re saying that May was the effective implementation date of this going forth. So what happens to those businesses who have already invested money in these areas what’s going to happen to them now, I mean were they aware of this new ordinance?
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – Well we are having a public hearing on it right now. I can’t speak to what the businesses would do or whether counsel will pass this so I can’t speak to that.
Commissioner Robinson – That’s my concern because we talking about considerable amount of money and those business owners being hurt by this which they were unaware.
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – I understand, I mean there’s a possibility as the audience member mentioned that the sale was contingent. I don’t know if the sales went through I don’t have all the information on it so I can’t speak to what would happen in the future.
Commissioner Robinson – So those businesses that were already in place they will let them remain where they are?
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – They don’t have approval, so they wouldn’t be a non-conforming use because we haven’t released the application or granted any local licenses and the State hasn’t granted any licenses neither, so they wouldn’t be a non-conforming use.
Vice Chair Kupiec – I’m looking at this map that we received for the first time tonight and as I see this pink outline outlines the General Motors facilities? Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
21
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – That is correct, and some DDA area and that would be the prohibited use.
Vice Chair Kupiec – So are we saying all the General Motors area is excluded from doing any business as far as marihuana is concerned?
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – That is correct as well as those other areas within that restricted area.
Vice Chair Kupiec – And what areas might they be, the pink area encompasses all of General Motors?
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – City Center is also within that and then the lots abutting both 12 Mile and the 13 Mile Chicago thoroughfare, as well as to the east and west.
Vice Chair Kupiec – This is a first hearing on this subject?
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – This would be a recommendation of the Planning Commission. By State Law any amendment to the zoning ordinance has to go through the Planning Commission for recommendation onto the legislator or City Counsel.
Vice Chair Kupiec – At the time that the Council made their decision on this were they aware of the fact that we had some business people in the area who had a large investment in facilities waiting to open up these establishments?
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – I do not know if they were aware of that.
Commissioner McClanahan – Just clarification, this whole area was already excluded it’s just the boarder on the other sides of those roads correct?
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – It’s clarified that the lots abutting the entire area.
Commissioner McClanahan – The area in the center was already excluded correct, it’s just a clarification on the other sides of the road are now going to be excluded to, correct?
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – That is correct, yes.
Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
22
Secretary Smith – My thinking on this is they probably didn’t want a marihuana on the other side of the street they wanted to keep a thoroughfare that didn’t have a marihuana facility on one side and then the DDA on the other side. It’s just that the lots that are abutting the thoroughfare so if they went a lot back it wouldn’t be affected by it.
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – That is correct yes. Like I said I don’t know exactly what was in Council’s mind.
Chair Howard – Let’s just circle back around to Ms. Robinson’s concern and also to your comments there. You’re indicating that none of these licenses have been issued as of yet?
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – That is correct.
Chair Howard – So if there were businesses who were attempting, or their thoughts were to do that our building or engineering have not issued permits for these businesses to start operating?
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – That’s correct they would need a medical marihuana local license as well as the State license in order to operate.
Chair Howard – And the original ordinance was written in May?
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – The effective date I believe was in May.
Chair Howard – So somewhere there was some rethinking of where this would be and as Commissioner McClanahan has said now we are just looking at the abutting lots that was prescribed in the areas that we could not have that?
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – It wasn’t spelled out specifically in the ordinance but it would be north and south abutting 12 Mile and the 13 Mile Chicago Road thoroughfare, but it wasn’t explained either.
Chair Howard – So again our areas which as Commissioner McClanahan had indicated the Downtown Development the DDA, also our Van Dyke TIFA Authority, our Historic District, and now we are going to spell this out north of 12 Mile south of 13 east of Mound west of Hoover, the Downtown Center, and then the Village Historic District these were the areas.
This is a recommendation from this Board back to City Council again based on their request that this ordinance have some specifics to it Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
23 that is detailed in clarity where it would be. So this vote is to receive as written and then to forward this on to City Council for further action and if they want to chop it up some more then they can do that. However, we are voting on the ordinance as written and has been presented to us on this evening.
Vice Chair Kupiec – Madame Chair, in reference to what you said this opinion that was written wasn’t it based on what the Council decided originally?
Chair Howard – Yes sir.
Vice Chair Kupiec – So they are recommending how to write the ordinance?
Chari Howard – That’s correct, and our Board to support that or if there was a no vote then give your reason behind it and then we will send it back to City Council and then if they want to do any modifications at that time they can, but it will be as written.
Commissioner Robinson – I’m kind of thinking when I look at 4G08 prohibitions I’m feeling that there should be more clarification because when you prohibit it’s a wide area here. There’s no indication of a mile or so many feet from 12 Mile or one mile from 13 because when you just openly say north of 12 Mile or south of 13 what distance are we going to specify, there’s no clarification here that expands pretty much the core of Warren. Are we going to say so many feet from 12 Mile or what?
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – The purposed ordinance does state that it would be lots abutting both north and south 12 Mile, so that would be any lot that is abutting the 12 Mile corridor.
Commissioner Robinson – Then it should say that then.
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – It says abutting 12 Mile.
Commissioner Robinson – I don’t see anything about abutting in section 1 and 2 that I was reading, oh I see it down here in 4G. I see it thank you.
MOTION: The motion carried as follows:
Secretary Smith…………………. Yes Commissioner Vinson…………... Yes Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
24
Commissioner Abdullah…………. Yes Commissioner Robinson………… Yes Commissioner McClanahan…….. Yes Vice Chair Kupiec………………… No I’m not in favor of any marihuana facilities anywhere near a residential area. I just heard that the State just approved some additional exemptions for marihuana use for medical use, but I just don’t understand the boundaries the way they are set. Unfortunately, these people made an investment, which I’m sorry for them I wish they would have moved out further towards Groesbeck Highway where there’s a lot of open land. I’m going to vote no, I’m against marihuana anywhere in a residential area and I’m just not fully satisfied the way this thing has been resolved. Commissioner Karpinski………… Yes Assistant Secretary Houghten….. Yes Chair Howard…………………….. Yes
G. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MEDICAL MARIHUANA FACILITY MEASUREMENT AMENDMENT: To amend Appendix A, Section 4G.07 to clarify medical marihuana facility measurement.
PETITIONERS PORTION: Ms. Caitlin Murphy – Okay so this proposed amendment is to also clarify the section describing how we will be measuring between a facility and a prohibited use, meaning a school, church, or one of those other uses. Currently the ordinance has two systems of measurements that are inconsistent so obviously we need to have just one system of measurement. So basically we are striking out the Liquor Control Commission measurement. On further research the Liquor Control Commission measurement potentially allows for a school, church, or other prohibited use to actually abut a medical marihuana facility depending on what street or address they go around the block that’s how they measure it. So that’s why it was decided to have the first sentence from the nearest point on the prohibited use lot to the nearest point of the facility building a simpler measurement.
Secretary Smith states there are no correspondence.
Mr. Ron Wuerth reads the recommendations of the Staff:
PUBLIC HEARING: Mr. Glenn Eckert – This has been confusing to say the least about what has been going on with the different measurement technique. The concept from going from the LLC measurement back to the radius measurement I could understand it fully and I could also Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
25 understand how by using the LLC measurement that there could be a facility right in the back yard of a house. But by transferring it all the way back to the 500 foot radius there is another option that could be considered and that would be to have an area to use the LLC measurement but you a distance 300 feet or 200 feet as a minimum to any restricted other property residential, school, church, or park.
There are people in the community that I’m working with personally, I’m a real estate broker that have buildings that would qualify under the LLC measurement. One client I have has three buildings that could qualify under that measurement, but because it’s going back to the 500 feet only one will qualify. The residential structure that would be blocking the other two buildings from being utilized is 350 or 360 feet away. But in order to get to that residential house you’ve got to jump it’s at the end of a dead-end street and in order to get to where the house is you have to jump three or four six-foot fences. So, there is another way to look at it, I talked to the head of Zoning about this and make my point, and now I thought I’d do it again. That’s basically all I have to say.
MOTION: A motion as made by Secretary Smith to approve, supported by Commissioner Abdullah.
COMMISSIONERS PORTION: Commissioner McClanahan – So this is pretty much just to protect the schools and the residents from it being directly next to them?
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – That is correct and also to use one measurement, the original ordinance as passed by City Council had two measurements so obviously that is very difficult to enforce.
Secretary Smith – This also to me seems like you’re going from the facility to the property line of the property so therefore whatever distance it is you’re not going from the facility to the residential property or church property you’re going to the property line of that property to the building of the facility?
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – That is correct, yes.
Secretary Smith – And that’s like a walking distance measurement.
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – I don’t know how exactly they calculate it in Zoning.
Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
26
Commissioner Robinson – So the city has not started issuing licenses yet because we’re still formulating and clarifying parameters for medical marihuana is that correct?
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – That is correct, there needed to be a couple of clarifications that need to go through Council including this measurement issue as well as preparing administratively for applicants.
Commissioner Robinson – Because I can recall that the Mayor wanted these facilities to be in an industrial area, so is there a shift in his mindset because he didn’t want them in the neighborhoods near residential areas. He wanted them restricted to industrial areas so is that mindset still in place?
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – As the ordinance reads right now most of the facilities are only permitted in M1 through M4 which, would be your industrial areas. There are also dimensional requirements of 500 feet from things like schools, church’s, and that type of thing. They would still be in the industrial areas as the ordinance reads now.
Commissioner Robinson – So these businesses that are coming into Warren should first check with the city before they even sign a purchase agreement to purchase a facility. They could lose their money if they don’t know about all of the new restrictions that are coming forth.
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – That is correct, like I said before sometimes those are contingent on local approval, but I can’t speak to the exact situations of the business owners.
Commissioner Robinson – Do you have an expected date or month where the city would get closer to issuing licenses is there any idea?
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – Well we will have to go to Council after these amendments are here and from there it will be just getting the application ready and getting everything up and running.
Commissioner Robinson – Before Christmas?
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – I’m not going to put a date on it.
Chair Howard – Attorney Murphy as Secretary Smith has indicated this is just to get a consistent form of measurement a unified form of measurement so that when we go to measure the 500 feet it is consistent and that is something that will be demonstrated Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
27 throughout verses having two forms of measurements. Can you share with them how the Liquor License Bureau actually measured before and what this new policy is, I think Secretary Smith mentioned it, but we want the Commissioners to be very clear as to what we are voting on currently.
Mr. Caitlyn Murphy – It’s a little hard to explain without drawing it out, however, they use the two addresses of the properties that go out to the center line of the street that the addresses are on, they don’t measure between the lot line and to the center they take the closest distance by road even if you are going the wrong way on a one way to the other address at the center line. So they basically will go around the block, down the street if it’s down the street, so that’s how you can have a situation where the two lots are abutting the two backyards are abutting each other and yet still have your 500 feet distance.
Chair Howard – Okay, so we just want to have some continuity in what we are doing and actually go from lot line to lot line.
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – Lot line to the edge of the facility.
Chair Howard – We are going to send a recommendation to the City Council in the draft form as is to use our standard form that has been proposed here and Secretary Smith will you please read that into the record.
Secretary Smith – Our proposed amendment is as follows Section 4G.07 distance, for the purposes of this article distances are calculated by the direct measurement from the nearest property line of the prohibited land use to the Medical Marihuana Facility Building.
ROLL CALL: The motion carried as follows:
Chair Howard…………………….. Yes Assistant Secretary Houghten….. Yes Commissioner Karpinski………… Yes Vice Chair Kupiec………………… Yes Commissioner McClanahan…….. Yes Commissioner Robinson………… Yes Secretary Smith…………………... Yes Commissioner Vinson…………… Yes Commissioner Abdullah…………. Yes
Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
28
7. CORRESPONDENCE:
SUBDIVISION LOT SPLIT: Request one lot into two lots; Lot 301 (13-34-153-021) in Piper’s Second Van Dyke Farms Subdivision; located on the north side of Studebaker Avenue, approximately 338 ft. east of Van Dyke Avenue to be split into two parcels; Section 34; George Barnes (RDG FUND-5-LLC) 8067 Studebaker. This project was approved by the Planning Commission on June 22, 2015. It was then approved by City Council on September 8, 2015. The items were never completed; therefore, the project was expired with City Council. This project is information for the Planning Commission to know what has transpired.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner McClanahan to receive and file, supported by Commissioner Vinson. A voice vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
8. OLD BUSINESS:
A. MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR BUILDING ADDITION, TRUCK WELL ADDITION AND OPEN STORAGE OF VEHICLES: Located on the northwest corner of Eleven Mile Road and Arsenal Avenue; 8333 Eleven Mile Road; Section 15; Charles Bennett (Petr Kotrba). Minor Amendment is for removal of fueling island and tanks, surface truck delivery area and truck well, building modifications and eliminate some parking spaces.
PETITIONERS PORTION: Mr. Matthew McCallum – I’m here in place of Charles Bennett this evening. We are asking to have items that we had originally purposed as part of the building be removed from the plans themselves and to move forward with the project on the basis that those items would no long be completed.
Secretary Smith reads the following correspondence:
TAXES: No Delinquent Taxes. DTE: Approved. ENGINEERING: 1. The plan prepared by studio design – ST LCC is not drawn to the scale provided. The plan shall be revised to match the drawing scale provided. 2. The paving and grading sheet prepared by Nowak and Fraus Engineers indicates the proposed parking area is 5,069 sf or 1.05 Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
29
acres. Since earth disturbance is over one acre, pretreatment of the storm water runoff generated from this site is required. 3. The proposed dumpster enclosure shall be on a concrete pad. FIRE: Approved.
Ms. Michelle Katopodes reads the recommendations of the Staff:
MOTION: A motion was made by Secretary Smith to recognize as a minor amendment, supported by Assistant Secretary Houghten.
ROLL CALL: The motion carried as follows:
Chair Howard……………………. Yes Assistant Secretary Houghten…. Yes Commissioner Karpinski……….. Yes Vice Chair Kupiec……………….. Yes Commissioner McClanahan……. Yes Commissioner Robinson………... Yes Secretary Smith………………….. Yes Commissioner Vinson…………… Yes Commissioner Abdullah…………. Yes
MOTION: A motion was made by Secretary Smith to approve, supported by Commissioner Vinson.
COMMISSIONERS PORTION: Secretary Smith – I drove by the project today and I saw the construction going on, there was an issue brought up by one of the neighbors a few meetings back where the light poles are painted white and he was getting glare off the lights it was like daylight at night time and I don’t know if that concern had been addressed or not.
Mr. Matthew McCallum – I apologize it’s the first time hearing about it I’ll definitely looking into it, but at this point there were no plans to move forward on changing the color of the light poles. Again, this is the first I’m hearing of the complaint and I will happily look into that for you.
Secretary Smith – Thank you sir.
Chair Howard – So what was your rational for reducing the amount of parking? Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
30
Mr. Matthew McCallum – The rational on the reduction of the amount of parking is the allotted amount of parking that we have will more then adequately deal with the people working within the building as well as a pretty solid estimate of how many people will be coming and going at any time. We also were above the required amount of parking within the area so we felt that the larger greenspace actually would be more beneficial to the look of the building and aid in the drainage system.
ROLL CALL: The motion carried as follows:
Chair Howard……………………. Yes Assistant Secretary Houghten…. Yes Commissioner Karpinski………… Yes Vice Chair Kupiec………………... Yes Commissioner McClanahan…….. Yes Commissioner Robinson………… Yes Secretary Smith………………….. Yes Commissioner Vinson…………… Yes Commissioner Abdullah…………. Yes
B. SITE PLAN FOR RELIGIOUS FACILTIY: Located on the southwest corner of Nine Mile Road and Automobile Boulevard; 8120 Nine Mile Road; Section 34; Natasha Wiley (David White). The Planning Commission and the Planning Staff to have a discussion regarding this property.
Mr. Ron Wuerth – This was indefinitely tabled by the Planning Commission and should be removed from the table.
MOTION: A motion was made by Secretary Smith to remove from the table, supported by Commissioner Vinson.
ROLL CALL: The motion carried unanimously as follows:
Commissioner Abdullah………… Yes Commissioner Vinson…………... Yes Secretary Smith………………….. Yes Commissioner Robinson……….. Yes Commissioner McClanahan……. Yes Vice Chair Kupiec……………….. Yes Commissioner Karpinski………… Yes Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
31
Assistant Secretary Houghten….. Yes Chair Howard…………………….. Yes
Mr. Ron Wuerth – There was a request of the Planning Commission to indicate what happened to it basically it just sort of vanished after being tabled indefinitely well that’s not what happened in this case. This started out being a site plan for a religious facility at the corner of Nine Mile and Automobile and in the end it was decided by the Zoning Board of Appeals they overturned the Chief Zoning Inspectors review that this was a different type of use from the use that was there originally. And different meaning similar, that was the catch word that was used in this case, so here it is, it’s a religious facility that wants to go in and what was there before was the Center Line Masonic Association, basically a Masonic Temple. They argued the fact whether they were similar or the same and in the end the Zoning Board determined they were the same. So once they said those uses were the same all the new use had to do was obtain a certificate of compliance and be able to occupy. You see that my opinion is different I brought it in chronology up until the day the ZBA made their review and you see what my opinion is.
And my opinion is that they are definitely not the same, they are similar there are some basic reason that I spoke of in this review regarding different parking requirements and there are different Christian belief separations here between Masonic Temple and a religious facility that is Christian. So with that I give you the report and this should simply be closed.
MOTION: A motion was made by Secretary Smith to close the file, supported by Commissioner Abdullah. A voice vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
C. SITE PLAN FOR OPEN STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT, TRUCK PARKING AND SCRAPPING: Located on the north side of Eight Mile Road; approximately 300 ft. west of Mullin Avenue; Section 34; 11177 Eight Mile; Najib Atisha. Site Plan approved from Planning Commission on March 21st, 2016. The Site Plan has expired.
MOTION: A motion was made by Secretary Smith to recognize expired site plan supported by Assistant Secretary Houghten. A voice vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
D. MINOR AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN FOR OPEN STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT, AND TRUCK PARKING: Located on the north side of Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
32
Eight Mile Road; approximately 300 ft. west of Mullin Avenue; Section 34; 11177 Eight Mile; Najib Atisha. The minor amendment is for changes to open storage. Minor Amendment approved from Planning Commission on April 10th, 2017. Minor Amendment has expired.
MOTION A motion was made by Commissioner Abdullah to recognize expired site plan, supported by Assistant Secretary Houghten. A voice vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
E. EASEMENT VACATION: Located on the north side of Ten Mile Road; approximately 180 feet east of Ryan Road; 4175 Ten Mile; Section 20; Michael J. Healy Jr., (Robert Tobin). Easement Vacation approved from Planning Commission on October 26th, 2015. Per Planning Staff project to be withdrawn.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Vinson to withdraw the project, supported by Commissioner Robinson. A voice vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
F. ALLEY VACATION: Twenty ft. wide north/south public alley located approximately 100 ft. west of Mound Road, 105 ft. east of Albany Avenue and south of Hayden Street; abutting Lots 77 thru 81 and 211 thru 213; Ramm & Co’s Mound Park Subdivision; 20829 Mound Road; Section 32; Quality Real Estate Management (Laura and Vinson Bahri). Planning Commission denied on July 11, 2016. Per owner they are requesting this project be withdrawn.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Robinson to withdraw the project, supported by Commissioner Abdullah.
ROLL CALL: The motion carried as follows:
Chair Howard……………………. Yes Assistant Secretary Houghten…. Yes Commissioner Karpinski………... Yes Vice Chair Kupiec……………….. Yes Commissioner McClanahan……. Yes Commissioner Robinson………... Yes Secretary Smith………………….. Yes Commissioner Vinson…………… Yes Commissioner Abdullah…………. Yes Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
33
G. SITE PLAN FOR EXPANSION OF JUNK YARD FOR M-97 CAR PARTS: Located on the west side of Groesbeck Highway; approximately 800 ft. south of Eleven Mile Road; 26395 & 25301 Groesbeck; Section 24; Jennifer Chupa (Robert J. Tobin). Approved by Planning Commission on June 20th, 2016. Owner requesting this project be withdrawn.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Abdullah to withdraw the project, supported by Assistant Secretary Houghten.
ROLL CALL: The motion carried as follows:
Commissioner Abdullah………… Yes Commissioner Vinson…………… Yes Secretary Smith………………….. Yes Commissioner Robinson………... Yes Commissioner McClanahan…….. Yes Vice Chair Kupiec………………... Yes Commissioner Karpinski………… Yes Assistant Secretary Houghten….. Yes Chair Howard…………………….. Yes
9. BOND RELEASE:
SITE PLAN FOR NEW WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY: West side of Groesbeck Highway, approximately 438 ft. north of Toepfer Road 22001 Groesbeck Highway; Section 35; AT&T Mobility (Mark Jones). Planning Commission approved the Site Plan on December 13, 2010. Project has been finished, release the bond paid in the amount of $3,300 on July 29, 2010.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner McClanahan to release the bond, supported by Commissioner Abdullah.
ROLL CALL: The motion carried as follows:
Chair Howard……………………. Yes Commissioner Karpinski………... Yes Vice Chair Kupiec……………….. Yes Commissioner McClanahan……. Yes Commissioner Robinson………... Yes Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
34
Secretary Smith………………….. Yes Commissioner Vinson…………… Yes Commissioner Abdullah…………. Yes Assistant Secretary Houghten….. Yes
10. NEW BUSINESS: Nomination of Officers.
Ms. Caitlin Murphy – We should start with one position at a time ask for nomination and the person has to accept the nomination and you will vote I believe next month.
Secretary Smith – Nominates Chair Howard as Chair.
Chair Howard – Yes, I will accept your nomination.
Commissioner Abdullah – I nominate Chair Howard as Chair.
Secretary Smith – Nominates Commissioner McClanahan as Vice Chair.
Commissioner McClanahan – Thank you, yes I will accept.
Commissioner Vinson – Nominates Secretary Smith as Secretary.
Secretary Smith – Yes thank you I accept.
Commissioner Abdullah – Nominates Secretary Smith as Secretary.
Commissioner McClanahan – Nominates Assistant Secretary Houghten.
Assistant Secretary Houghten – Yes thank you I accept.
11. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION: None at this time.
12. PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT: Mr. Ron Wuerth – I did have a few days off during this time period, aside from that a couple of things might stand out. ITC the corridor they want to go forward with a rezoning and then site plan approval. A little bit later they want to rezone and do the same thing site plan approval on some more of their property which is to the east. I don’t want it to be confusing it’s all part of the same property that they have there. I did attend another GM District Meeting where they asked us for some feedback on some parts of the sections in the Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
35 new district zoning presentation, so we are working on that. Our next meeting is scheduled on the 26th to maybe get closer to finalizing that and bringing it before the Planning Commission for a recommended approval.
I did attend a couple of census meetings, we are also getting close to finalizing the census and that’s in agreement with the county on their numbers. We’ve been working closely with George Anthony and he’s been guiding the group well in this endeavor. So we are looking to the middle of July here to finalize the numbers and send them off to the Federal Government. To clarify this, these are addresses in places that you can and should be able to find people so they will visit or send something through the mail during that time when the census people come around to actually take the census. You would be surprised at how they can murder some of the road names that are in the City of Warren and it’s not unusual for them to do that and that’s what messes things up and we got great help from the Assessing Department.
There were two Master Plan Meetings one at Fitzgerald Senior Center and the other at McKinley Elementary School off of Toepfer and in our opinion they both were reasonably well attended. So we finally finished the Master Plan Meetings with he public and received their suggestions. Beckett & Reader will take that information and turn it into something that we all can understand when we move forward during the Steering Committee work that we are going to be doing.
I did meet with he Assistant City Attorney regarding the De La Salle lawsuit, so that’s ongoing. I did attend one City Council Meeting actually that’s where there was a reconsidered ITC rezoning request that we recommended, and they didn’t have representation at that meeting so it came back they did finish it and did approve that rezoning with ITC. Then there was a lot split that was just simply wasn’t completed and you saw that on our agenda tonight. I did attend Meijer’s grand opening, everyone go down to 10 Mile and Schoenherr and take a look at the new store, I think you’ll like it. I took a tour through it after the grand opening the CEO was at that meeting along with other dignitaries throughout the area. That’s about it.
The only comment I have even though the public hearings are over with the Master Plan that doesn’t mean that the public is excluded from anymore comments, thoughts, or ideas that they might have regarding the Master Plan. You can go to warrenmasterplan.org and take the survey I think we’ve complete review on that so that’s going Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
36
to be a real document for everyone to work with. They continue to get more information from people and analyze the data. Everyone of those questions are important, real, and they are there for a reason.
Commissioner McClanahan – It was a great turn out at the Master Plan Meeting and a lot of good input from the public, so things are moving along great.
Chair Howard – It was good, it’s been a great exercise and what we can do and look at for the city. So definitely go on line do the survey and give your comments.
Vice Chair Kupiec – You mentioned Meijer’s, it is a beautiful facility but one thing I noticed in traveling through there is the berm and shrubbery on the north side seem like it’s dying off. I don’t know if there’s not proper irrigation there or if it’s the type of trees they planted, the west side is beautiful.
Mr. Ron Wuerth – I only surveyed the inside of Meijer’s, I didn’t go around and look at the outside because they haven’t asked for the site inspection yet, but I’ll keep that in mind. If there’s foulage any type of trees or shrubs that they planted that are dying they have to replace.
Vice Chair Kupiec – Did we recommend what type of arborvitaes or trees to be planted throughout or did they do that themselves?
Mr. Ron Wuerth – We have a list of arborvitaes that are used there’s about three different one all producing the same effect and that is to screen and green throughout the year.
Chair Howard – I also noticed that berm, but other then that it is amazing. Commissioner Vinson has indicated that we do need to look at our meeting schedule for the 2018-2019 year so we need to start looking at those dates.
13. CALENDAR OF PENDING MATTERS: None at this time.
14. ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner McClanahan to adjourn, supported by Secretary Smith.
The meeting adjourned at 9:31 p.m. Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018
37
______Jocelyn Howard, Chair
______Warren Smith, Secretary
Meeting recorded and transcribed by Mary Clark - CER-6819 E-mail: [email protected]
Mary Clark CER-6819 July 9th, 2018