CITY OF WARREN PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
Regular Meeting held on May 3, 2021, at 7:00 p.m.,
A Regular Meeting of the Warren Planning Commission was called for Monday, May 3, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. via Zoom in the City of Warren, Michigan 48092.
Commissioners present: Jason McClanahan, Vice Chair Warren Smith, Secretary Nathan Vinson Claudette Robinson John Kupiec Syed Rob
Also present: Ronald Wuerth – Planning Director Michelle Katopodes – Planner II Judy Hanna – Office Coordinator Mary Michaels - Chief Assistant City Attorney Patrick Conlin - Communications Department Justin Crown - Communications Department
1. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair McClanahan calls the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. ROLL CALL: Vice Chair McClanahan – I did get some correspondence from Commissioner Chowdhury that she had a work commitment, she was not able to make it this evening.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Rob to excuse Commissioner Chowdhury, supported by Secretary Smith. A voice vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
MOTION: Corrections on the agenda; by Mr. Ron Wuerth. 8C. June 3rd, 2021, changed to June 3rd, 2022. Agenda item E. Change date to June 3rd, 2
2022. Agenda item F. Change date to June 17th 2022. Item G. Change word “expired” to “expiration”. Motion to approve the agenda with corrections was made by Commissioner Smith, supported by Commissioner Kupiec. A voice vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 19th, 2021
MOTION: The motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Robinson, supported by Commissioner Vinson. A voice vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
6. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
A. SITE PLAN DEMOLISH A BANK AND REPLACE IT WITH A NEW OIL CHANGE BUILDING ADDITION TO EXISTING MUFFLER SHOP; redeveloping the east side of the Van Dyke Avenue block between Republic and Continental Avenue; 23252 Van Dyke Ave; Section 27; Khaled Maadarani (Jeffrey Graham). TABLED FROM 4-5-21 TO 4-19-21 TO 5-3- 21.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Rob to remove from the table, supported by Commissioner Smith.
ROLL CALL: The motion carried as follows to remove from the table:
Vice Chair McClanahan……….…Yes Commissioner Robinson………...Yes Secretary Smith…………………...Yes Commissioner Rob……………….Yes Commissioner Vinson…….……...Yes Commissioner Kupiec……………Yes
PETITIONER'S PORTION: Mr. Jeff Graham – I’m with one of the partners. My name is Jeffrey Graham, the partner here is Sam Maadarani. What we’ve done is we originally came with a car wash. We worked with the Warren Planning Department and they were opposed to it so we took it off the table and we basically went with an oil change. It made it a little bit longer, to include a wheel alignment bay, and we received the notes from the Planning Department, their review, and we pretty much agree with everything that’s listed on there. The other thing that we’d like to do, though, is that since we had to narrow the width of – you’ve asked us to narrow the width of the driveway, and we’re fine with
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
3 that. But then we’d like to do the reverse, the cars would be coming off of Van Dyke and then exit off of Continental. The original plan was to go the opposite way, so the cars would exit on to Van Dyke, but now we’re going to switch that around.
We did agree with the, we have no problem with the recommendations that take out the parking to the south off of Continental. There are two sections of parking and replace it with landscaping, which we have no problem doing. And then converting the parking to 90 degrees instead of the slanted parking. We have quite a bit of extra parking that we don’t need, so by losing those spaces doesn’t affect us. And that’s pretty much it. The only one thing that we would like to change that’s different on the drawings was on the exterior elevations. The existing building we’d like to put a (inaudible) around it to make it the same height so the building looks like one original building. We would keep the same height in the rear of the building because it won’t be seen but along the other street and Van Dyke, the building would be – it would be raised to match the new addition. We made the addition to be a little taller because we’ve got -- we also have a mezzanine, a small mezzanine up there for storage for parts and that was the reason for the necessary height.
Secretary Smith reads the following correspondence:
TAXES: No Delinquent Taxes. DTE: DTE does not object, however, there is a probability that the utility lines may need to be relocated. If so, relocation of the polls would be at the expense of the property owner. ENGINEERING: 1. The driveway entrance along Van Dyke Avenue to meet city of Warren commercial driveway standards. 2. Stormwater detention will be required for the change in site conditions. 3. An MDOT right-of-way permit will be needed for all work within the Van Dyke Avenue.
FIRE: 1. A knox box must be mounted near the entrance and provide keys or key fobs for the businesses per the city ordinance. 2. The contractor must use IFC 2012 for code compliance during this project.
Mr. Ron Wuerth reads the recommendations of the Staff: Approved with conditions: Planning staff does not recommend the 5.3 variance.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
4
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – Ron, can you put up the pictures please. Just south of the building, we had a driveway. We have no problem removing the parking lot and making that landscaping, but we need that driveway because some of the customers coming in aren’t coming in for an oil change, they’re coming in for a wheel alignment. And so, they would take their car and park it in the back, and then a technician would come and get it when it’s ready and bring the car in and bring the car out. They wouldn’t even exit out the front they would exit out the back because the equipment for the wheel alignment would block them.
We do have a glass door in front, but that’s mainly for sunlight and for aesthetics. But we do need that driveway along the edge. We have no problem taking out the extra parking. So, is that going to be an issue to have that side driveway?
Mr. Wuerth – Well, the main reason we felt that there shouldn’t be any ingress in there because you’ve got the two or three doors that are bringing cars out. And we felt that the best entry way to the entire facility was the one where the muffler shop is. I can demonstrate, they come in through the muffler shop and because we changed the driveway, east of that building you can then turn and go right to get your oil change. And if they happen to miss the muffler shop drive, they can get to Republic and still come around and still use that north/south maneuvering lane. So we felt there was enough access there.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – I guess we are looking more at the marketing of the business. The marketing of the business is really, people pull in to the front, because oil changes are not thought out, they’re a spontaneous reaction, and that way they’re able to pull right in and exit out the back. And then they have a choice, they can exit off of Republic or Continental.
Mr. Wuerth – Either one they can exit from, or even the muffler shop. Yeah. So there’s a lot of circulation there, that’s why we felt that that would be a landscaped area on that corner.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – We have no problem with the landscaped area, that looks fine. It’s just that we wanted to have, you know, right now that landscaped area is like many feet, we just wanted to make it 30 feet deep instead of 50 feet deep.
Mr. Wuerth – All right. So then if we were to say that you could have the drive, then that drive would be a one way in.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – Right. Yeah.
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
5
Mr. Wuerth – Okay. But no parking up in that corner.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – No. Those will be people coming in for a wheel alignment.
Mr. Wuerth – I guess that driveway could be about kind of the way you see it there. It can be 17 feet in width.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – Okay.
Mr. Wuerth – And the planning commission can make the final decision on this.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – I have a couple more items which are, if you look at our drawing we wanted some circulation back there so cars can maneuver and where you’ve got your landscaping is only 20 feet away from the back of the building. We would just push that landscaping further back so that it would lose 2 or 3 spaces so that they’d have room to maneuver cars in and out.
Mr. Wuerth – Not a problem. Go ahead and do that.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – And then the dumpster, we think because it’s two businesses, we think that one dumpster wouldn’t be enough, so we had a double dumpster, which is a 20 by 20 instead of a 10 by 20. Is that okay?
Mr. Wuerth – Where does it go?
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – In the four corners. Where it is right now.
Mr. Wuerth – Okay. Back there.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – The problem with the location with the dumpster, though, is by closing off that driveway the dump truck cant get to it without having to do some major maneuvering.
Mr. Wuerth – I disagree. He can come in off Continental, make the loop around. That’s a 20 foot wide maneuvering lane and it’s wider at the curb.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – Well, if you tell us we can do that, we have no problem with that.
Mr. Wuerth – Yeah. He can do it. He can go in, pick up, back up, and then go out the other two way, and that’s already wide enough, too.
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
6
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – The last thing was that in lieu of a berm, we’d like to take down that wall and put a new brick wall back up with limestone cap, very attractive, and then have trees directly behind it, rather than the berm.
Mr. Wuerth – The trees can be there, all right, that’s fine. I guess I wanted it one way to be able to be able to screen the looks of the parking that’s going on back there.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – The wall would be the same height with the berm.
Mr. Wuerth – Okay. I think that would be fine, but the landscaped area, you can certainly place grass in there. The same with the 10 foot wide island that’s there, that other strip in there, if you want to. Or just mulch it, but we want some nice green space back there.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – Okay. Yes. Yeah, we have no problem with that.
Vice Chair McClanahan – What was the use of us tabling items, if this is the way we’re going to run it? Shouldn’t all this have been taken care of with the tabling? Isn’t that why we tabled it, and so we could review all these changes, and now we’re getting a million changes here at the last minute? What was the use of tabling it? We could have done this last meeting if this was what we were going to do.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – The drawings weren’t ready then. We’ve been fast tracking this and I got my comments from the city today, from the Planning department today.
Mr. Wuerth – Those were sent out Friday, and I thought we sent emails, if I remember correctly. Judy, I think that’s what we did, that’s our practice, isn’t it, Judy?
Ms. Hanna – Yes, that’s the practice, what to do, is send them out in the emails.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – We have no problem with anything, we just need time now to make the changes that you recommended.
Vice Chair McClanahan – Sounds like there’s a lot of problems. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to comment on this? This is a public hearing.
Mr. James Labo – Yes. My name is James Labo. I live right by where the bank entrance is now. Since they put in those bicycle lanes on Van Dyke, it’s very difficult for us to get on to Van Dyke and try to go southbound every
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
7 morning, since Van Dyke is down to two lanes, traffic backs up all the way, even past Republic, so it’s impossible to turn left out of here. Even certain times of the day, not just rush hour, and that’s with the bank not even being in operation, just because of those bike lanes, they’ve cut down two lanes on Van Dyke. I can’t see people stopping on Van Dyke to turn in to either Republic or on to Continental, or on to the front of the business, if that’s where they’re going to be coming in at. There’s going to be cars back up there now, heading in a northbound direction. It’s mind boggling now to try to get out of here and I can’t see more business, more cars and now that we’re down to two lanes in either direction, it’s just become a big hassle. And that’s with the bank being closed.
Vice Chair McClanahan – Thank you, James. Anyone else from the audience with a comment?
Mr. James Labo – I also want to make a statement about what’s happening at that location now where the bank is. Where you see all those parking spaces in the back going east from the back of the building is now, there’s at least 25 or 30, they look like abandoned cars over there now. They got flat tires, no license plates on them, and they’re building up. It was first a few, then 10, now 20, now 30 of them over there. They haven’t moved in months. I’m afraid of rats and other things happening, or criminals coming to break in to them. It looks like a junk yard over there right now. I just was wondering what they were going to do with that. I want to make a complaint about that buildup of old abandoned cars at this point, and what’s going to happen back there? Are those going to remain or what’s going on with that? It’s a problem now.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – Those cars have an open invoice on each one of those cars.
Vice Chair McClanahan – Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else from the audience? Seeing none, we’ll turn it over to the commission.
MOTION: A motion was made by Secretary Smith to approve supported by Commissioner Kupiec.
COMMISSIONERS PORTION: Secretary Smith – To the petitioner, I just need clarification on a few things. With this oil change, you said the cars are going to enter the oil change from Van Dyke?
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – Yes.
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
8
Secretary Smith – Because on the drawing it shows that they were exiting on to Van Dyke.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – Right, that’s changed. That was changed by the ownership.
Secretary Smith – Now, the alignment section in that building is going to be at that end, the south end?
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – The alignment is going to be at the south end of the building, yeah. The last stall is going to be the alignment.
Secretary Smith – The cars that enter the alignment rack come from what direction?
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – From the back.
Secretary Smith – From the back. So all the cars are going to come –
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – From the back and exit and then the alignment cars are going to back up, back out. Because the alignment equipment is in the way. You drive your car on to the alignment machine, but you can’t drive over it. You drive up to the alignment machine, they hook the plyers up, they do the test, and then once they’re done, the technician backs the car out and they exit out on to Continental.
Secretary Smith – So they’re going to pull in the back off Continental, in to the alignment place, and they’re going to back back out, and then go out to Continental?
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – Right.
Secretary Smith – So, if that’s the case, what’s the purpose of having the driveway that you wanted at the side of the building?
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – Well, that was because they were coming in off of Van Dyke, going around the building, and then coming in.
Secretary Smith – Why can’t they turn off of Van Dyke and go down Continental or Republic and come in one of those ways, and then enter from the back? They’re entering from the back, anyway.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – The entrance to the building is from Van Dyke. The business entrance is from Van Dyke.
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
9
Secretary Smith – I know, but all the cars are going to enter for the oil change.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – The cars are going to enter in off of Van Dyke, and then the alignment person is going to shift around the side and come back in. The alignment person can’t go through that overhead door because there’s equipment in front of it.
Secretary Smith – I understand.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – That’s why we need the driveway.
Secretary Smith – I’m trying to picture the change here, because you’re showing two doors, where you got cars pulling in to the oil change off of Van Dyke, and then they’re going to go through in to the back parking lot.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – Right.
Secretary Smith – Then you got the alignment is going to come off of Van Dyke also, and go around the back and then back out and go in from Continental. Everything is coming off of Van Dyke in to – now, say you got a lot of cars that need oil changes, are those the cars that are going to be parked in the back where the spaces are at?
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – If the oil change backs up, which we don’t expect it to because we have three oil change stalls, so it would be incredibly rare for them to have more than two cars trying to get – and then we have three cars in front. So it would be incredibly rare to have more than six cars getting an oil change. And if they are backed up, the cars coming in would simply go around to the muffler shop which is part of the same building, and would enter in from there, then they can wait their turn, and then one of the technicians can get their car and bring it around. We don’t anticipate ever having more than six cars. I mean, if you’ve ever been to an oil change, you never see more than six cars.
Mr. Labo – Yeah, you do. There’s an oil change place similar to the setup you’re trying to do now right at Eight and Van Dyke, and it’s very congested there. Cars are backed up in front of the car wash.
Vice Chair McClanahan – Please, James, not now, this is commission time. Thank you.
Mr. Wuerth – Mr. Vice Chair, can I have a comment to make here? I’ve got to get something straightened out here.
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
10
Vice Chair McClanahan – Yes.
Mr. Wuerth – Jeffrey, maybe I’m confused, but that plan shows the cars being serviced in the oil change and exiting to Van Dyke.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – That was the original plan.
Mr. Wuerth – You said you changed it?
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – Yeah. The clients would like to change that to where to cars come in off of Van Dyke.
Mr. Wuerth – I’m sorry, I can’t go along with that because you’re going to end up with a backup and I know you will. All you need is two cars that are sitting there, and now you’ve got a problem with the pedestrian walk way. I’m very concerned, that’s why we wanted this driveway less in width because I didn’t want anybody who walks there to have to dodge cars, or cars to dodge them. So it was estimated that they were going to exit, then they could back up and go behind it to the east if they even had two there, or line them up in that maneuvering lane.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – Okay, well you convinced us. We will do it the original way.
Mr. Wuerth – Okay, because I just think it’s too dangerous to go the other way. All right, so they’re going to make sure it’s that way when I check it in the office. Those are going to exit to Van Dyke. You can have the – it depends on what the Planning Commission wants to allow that one way drive, I don’t know about that. I guess I’ll leave that up to the Planning Commission, but make sure it’s, that they exit out.
Secretary Smith – I still feel, Mr. Graham, that if they’re going to exit coming on to Van Dyke, after they go through the oil change, and I still feel if the alignment place has to enter from the back, there wouldn’t be a need for that driveway at the end of the building. Because if you got somebody coming in the driveway just to go around the building to get in to the alignment place, it doesn’t make sense to have a driveway there.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – Okay. Can I have one second with my client, we’re getting there. Once second.
Commissioner Rob – Mr. Chair?
Vice Chair McClanahan – Mr. Rob.
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
11
Commissioner Rob – I fully agree with you. There’s a lot of changes that he’s saying that he’s going to do, and there’s a lot of I think communication gap and I’m getting confused also. I think this should be tabled. Let them sort it out with Ron, with everything, let Ron become comfortable with everything. Now on the table with the commission, he’s saying he’s going to change that, then he’s reversing it, I don’t think this is going in the right direction. Let’s table it, and let him work this thing clearly with Ron and then come to us so that we don’t get so many changes. That’s my recommendation.
Vice Chair McClanahan – My concern is that we’re going to table it, and then our next meeting we’re going to be on this meeting spending an hour discussing it like this. So, to the petitioner, when we table it, we want you to sit down with Ron and the Planning department and deal out all these issues, so we can look at this as commissioners and research it. We like to go to the site and see what’s going on, now we’re trying to envision all this, this is not the way business should be done.
Commissioner Rob – I’m in full agreement with you that this should have been discussed with Ron before the meeting. So I would make a request to the maker of the motion to table it so that petitioner can really go through and talk to Ron and give a precise decision what they want to do, not on the table of commissions, because if we do that, they will approve, if we don’t do that, they will not approve. This is the plan we are talking about, and the petitioners are going to spend money on it. That’s my recommendation to the board.
Vice Chair McClanahan – Does anybody support a tabling?
Secretary Smith – Before we table this, I had a couple other comments to talk to the petitioner and Ron about. I wanted to bring those up, also, before we decide to make a motion to table.
Attorney Mary Michaels – I’m sorry, if there’s a motion to table, that could stop debate unless there’s no second.
Secretary Smith – I made a motion to approve it, and there was a second on the approval. So the approval hasn’t been denied yet to bring it to the table
Attorney Mary Michaels – I understand, it’s just that a motion to table takes precedence.
Vice Chair McClanahan – Do we have a second on the tabling?
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
12
Commissioner Rob – Mr. Chair, because I am making the motion, can we allow Mr. Smith to at least address those issues before I start the motion? I did not make a formal motion, I just recommended.
Vice Chair McClanahan – Okay. There’s no formal motion to table. Mr. Smith, go ahead.
Commissioner Rob – Mr. Smith, go ahead, and then the petitioner will know what we are looking for, also.
Secretary Smith – Thank you, Mr. Rob. I visited the site, also, and I did notice some cars that Mr. James had mentioned along that wall, that had flat tires, and if the cars are going to parked in spaces like that, then that area, if it’s going to be there for any length of time, has to be noted as open storage because you cannot bring cars in there and have them sit there for periods of time if they’re not going to be worked on right away. You may have open invoices to work on these cars, but until they’re actually worked on, and they’re sitting in an area, that has to be open storage. Mr. Wuerth, do we need to make an area for open storage for those types of vehicles?
Mr. Wuerth – They’d have to propose the open storage, and open storage in that zone would be a use variance. And that is kind of a serious thing that one has to consider. In their operations with a muffler shop and the things that they’re doing, I think you should be able to go in and have your car serviced in the morning and pick it up at night and the site is clear. That is the way I think this operation should be. Nothing should stay overnight unless it’s put inside the building.
Secretary Smith – As of right now, things are staying overnight. That would change that designation from parking to have to have an open storage area.
Mr. Wuerth – It would have to be a proposal for that, it would have to be on the site plan for a use variance to Zoning Board of Appeals. That just prompts the commission, I’d say, you got the right idea, and think now about the tabling so that I can talk to Jeffrey more. The other thing is is that I’m hoping that when Jeff comes to talk to me with the others, that that site plan now, with all these items that we put up here can be completed, so that we then bring it down to very few items or changes. Or maybe we agree and there will be no changes when you’ve finally taken care of this problem because I’ve seriously got to have the survey completed, and I don’t understand why that got in such bad shape.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – We only had a partial survey. The others have a survey for the full site. Mr. Wuerth – Yes.
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
13
Secretary Smith – I did make a motion to approve, I’d like to decline my motion to approve and change it to a motion to table.
Commissioner Kupiec – Before we table, I have suggestion to make also. In view of the issue that was brought up with all the cars that are coming and going and standing still, whatever all these cars stacked up in there, I think it’s appropriate that the Planning department send a letter to the Zoning Board and have them go out there and check and see what’s going on because we don’t want to get ourselves involved in a situation where we got all this open area and we start selling used cars there, and stuff. I think, like what was said, normally at a muffler place, you can get the car in and out the same day with any kind of normal reason. It can be different because you could be held up for parts, but as far as oil changes and mufflers, that’s normally in and out the same day, and there’s no reason to have 10, 12, 15 cars stacked up there, especially if they don’t have license plates on them. If they don’t have license plates on them, you can have all the open orders on them you want, but you’re (inaudible) so something doesn’t make sense to me. I think we ought to look in to this as this think is being tabled. Thank you.
Vice Chair McClanahan – Do we have a support to the tabling?
Secretary Smith – I changed my motion to support to table. Mr. Kupiec had supported my approval, so it would be up to Mr. Kupiec.
Commissioner Kupiec – I’ll support the tabling, but I think this thing, we have opened a big can of worms here. We’ll have traffic on the premise, so we don’t want to start doing that, because we’re just worried about policing them anyway. We need to keep them out there on the streets, not making traffic, but it’s just the idea. I’ll support the tabling, but I think this letter should go down and have someone go out there and take a look at this situation, see what’s going on –
Vice Chair McClanahan – Mr. Smith, does your tabling include the letter?
Secretary Smith – Pardon me?
Vice Chair McClanahan – Does your tabling include the letter to the Zoning Board?
Secretary Smith – Yes, that would be fine.
MOTION:
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
14
A motion was made by Secretary Smith to table, supported by Commissioner Kupiec. Includes a letter to be sent to Zoning to check on the stacking of vehicles.
Mr. Wuerth – Mr. Vice Chair, you need a date to go to, we’re looking at June.
Ms. Hanna – June 21st.
Mr. Wuerth – There you go. That’s our next best one to go to.
Vice Chair McClanahan – Mr. Graham, is that going to give you enough time to prepare yourself?
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – We can prepare the architectural site with plenty of time. My only question is will we have a survey done in time because I know they’re running behind schedules on surveys. I would try to push it through (inaudible) we’re also a survey company.
Vice Chair McClanahan – Should we push that back a little further, Ron?
Mr. Wuerth – Go to July 12th?
Vice Chair McClanahan – July 12th should give you enough time then, Mr. Graham.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – I was thinking June 21st, and if we have an issue, we’ll call you.
Vice Chair McClanahan – I think July 12th.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – I think June 21st we should be fine. I can’t guarantee the survey work will be done, but I know the architectural will be done, because I haven’t talked to the surveyor yet. I’ll find out when they’re going to be finished.
Mr. Wuerth – Mr. Graham, make every effort you possibly can to get with the surveyor and see if they can get that done. June 21st can probably be the date.
Mr. Jeffrey Graham – Okay. And we’ll send you the architectural drawings early for your review.
MOTION:
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
15
A motion was made by Secretary Smith to table supported by Commissioner Kupiec. Includes a letter to be sent to Zoning to check on the stacking of vehicles. Table to June 21st.
ROLL CALL: The motion carried as follows:
Vice Chair McClanahan…………Yes Commissioner Robinson………...Yes Secretary Smith…………………...Yes Commissioner Rob……………….Yes Commissioner Vinson…….……...Yes Commissioner Kupiec……………Yes
B. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC ALLEY VACATION; located between Marcy Street And Joliet Avenue; approximately 90 ft. east of Ryan Road; Section 29; 24422 Ryan Road; Kenneth Lawler.
PETITIONERS PORTION: Mr. Kenneth Lawler - We are requesting that the north/south alley, which is on the side of our commercial building be vacated. It currently has no public access. The north half of the alley is a paved parking lot, which is fenced in on both sides, and the south half is a grassy area, so I’m just requesting that that be vacated. Thank you.
Secretary Smith reads the following correspondence:
TAXES: No Delinquent Taxes. WATER: Approved as presented. DPW: Approved as presented.
Mr. Ron Wuerth reads the recommendation of the Staff: Recommendation alley be vacated.
1. Retain existing utility easement within the alley. 2. The land division act includes various procedures pertaining to amendment, petitioner is responsible for complying with any further procedures as may be necessary under the Michigan Land Division Act MCL 560.221 et al. 3. Petitioner should consider petitioning the city to close the east/west 18 foot wide public alley that is along the part of the offset south property line. 4. Approval is obtained from City Council. Petitioner must complete the conditions within two years or the approval by City Council will automatically be revoked.
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
16
5. Petitioner must provide planning department with documentation indicating that all conditions as assigned are completed.
PUBLIC HEARING: None.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Rob to approve, supported by Secretary Smith.
COMMISSIONER PORTION:
Commissioner Rob – To the petitioner, you are aware of all the recommendations, am I right? You agree with all of the recommendations?
Mr. Kenneth Lawler – Yes, I am.
Secretary Smith – Mr. Wuerth, I’ve got an issue with a couple of drawings. It’s showing the streets on the web map as Joliet and Marcy, right?
Mr. Wuerth – Yes.
Secretary Smith – On the official records of Warren Township that’s in our packet, it shows the street that’s Marcy as Marie, and the street that’s Joliet as John Avenue. I don’t know when they changed the names, or what’s happening here, but I know on the official documentation from Macomb County, it’s showing those names as Marie and John instead of Marcy and Joliet.
Mr. Wuerth – The names in those subdivisions were changed. I can certainly look it up because there’s a resolution every time they change a name in a sub. But it seems like throughout that entire sub, all the names were changed at one time in the past. So the official subdivision tells you one thing, but then sometime after the sub was approved by everyone, they decided to change the names and they went in and amended the plat.
Secretary Smith – Okay. Because the plat that I have shows the other names.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Rob to approve, supported by Secretary Smith. ROLL CALL: The motion carried as follows:
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
17
Commissioner Rob………………Yes Commissioner Kupiec…………...Yes Vice Chair McClanahan………...Yes Commissioner Robinson………..Yes Secretary Smith…………………..Yes Commissioner Vinson……...... Yes
C. SITE PLAN FOR OPEN STORAGE; located on the east side of Warren Avenue; approximately 159.5 ft. south of Ten Mile Road; 24800 Warner Avenue; Section 30; Jason Symborski (Kerm Billette).
PETITIONERS PORTION: Mr. Jason Symborski - Good afternoon everyone. Good evening, rather. The item here is outdoor storage. This item was approved two years ago for the same item and the same plan. It was with Robert Tobin, who was the architect planner on that. Unfortunately he is no longer with us. It went through the four steps of the plan; the four meetings were approved and the last one was not. He was there and went through all the meetings, so these have already been approved before.
Secretary Smith reads the following correspondence:
TAXES: No Delinquent Taxes. DTE: Approved as presented. ENGINEERING: 1. Site plans shall show and identify all existing and proposed underground utilities in the vicinity of the project including the pipe sizes and discharge points. 2. Outdoor storage area should be hard surfaced, concrete or asphalt pavement. The outside perimeter of all paved spaces shall be a minimum six inch concrete curb and gutter. 3. Variance shall be required for gravel outdoor storage space. 4. Dumpster pad should be a minimum of eight inches concrete. 5. Indicate the total area of earth disturbance. 6. Soil erosion and sedimentation control permit a waiver shall be required for this site from the Macomb County Department of Public Works. 7. Robert J. Tobin and Associates company does not exist. Site plan shall be on a valid, registered engineering company title block.
This concludes correspondence.
Mr. Ron Wuerth reads the recommendation of the Staff; site plan for open storage be approved with standard conditions.
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
18
1. Five copies of revised site plans must be submitted indicating the following:
a) Correct the Zoning information on site data chart to read: M-2 Medium Light Industrial District (balance) and P, Parking District (south 45 feet). Remove MFG. b) Per Board of Appeals variance granted on September 9, 2015 the contents of the open storage are limited to construction equipment and materials. c) Per the Board of Appeals variance granted September 9, 2015, storage area A, can be stored on gravel. The area approved by the Board of Appeals measures 25 feet x 134 feet and contains 3,350 sq. ft. Revise the plan to meet the variance obtained on September 9, 2015. d) Provide note on site plan indicating contents of item stored. e) Per the Board of Appeals variance granted on September 9, 2015 storage area B measures 44 feet x 54 feet and contains 2376 square feet. f) Plan received for current application includes some of the areas previously dedicated to passenger parking, now as part of the outdoor storage areas. g) Per the Board of Appeals variance granted on September 9, 2015, total amount of outdoor storage on the site is 5,726 square feet. h) The plan must be updated to include three parking areas. i) The parking area located in the northwest corner of the site is set back 12 feet from the west property line (Warner Avenue). j) Concrete bumper curbs setback 5 feet from the east property line shall be provided on the site plan. k) The following note shall be provided for the parking located in P district “Passenger vehicles only.” l) The parking areas on the site shall be paint marked within six months and noted on the site plan. m) Indicate all existing and proposed utilities, including power polls. n) Indicate the berm on site plan o) Provide two deciduous trees p) Indicate the six foot high wood screen fence along the east 70 feet of the south property line.
2. The following variance may need to be obtained from the Board of Appeals prior to the release of the site plan to the Building Division. 3. A performance bond in the amount of $30 be posted.
NOTE: The Planning staff believes that the proposed bond amount is too low given the fact that additional trees, driveway repair and paint striping
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
19 are part of the improvements. A new estimate shall be provided closer to $20,000 resulting in a bond in the amount of $600.
PUBLIC HEARING: None.
MOTION: A motion was made to approve by Secretary Smith with discussion, supported by Commissioner Kupiec.
COMMISIONER'S PORTION: Secretary Smith – To the petitioner, Mr. Symborski, I was by the site the other day, and one of the things I looked at, they were saying that the driveway on the north side of the building needed some repair. So as I pulled in and looked around, I noticed that the back fence over by where the gate entrance is to your open storage to the back side of the building is gravel, but you got approved for, in September, in front of that gate there was a shelving unit, bunch of pallets stacked up there, and in a couple of the parking spaces, it looks like some equipment trailers. That area is not labeled for open storage, so those things cannot be in that area. Am I correct on that, Mr. Wuerth?
Mr. Wuerth – Yes, Mr. Smith. You are correct.
Mr. Symborski – Those items will be removed.
Secretary Smith - Okay, very good. I just wanted to make a note of that because that wasn’t open storage there, and I saw the things sitting there, so, you can’t have those item sitting in the area. And those trailers that are there cant be there either. They would probably end up being in the new area. Do you understand that?
Mr. Symborski – Yes, sir.
Secretary Smith – Okay. The planning staffs recommended a bond of $600, is that okay with you, do you have a problem with that or anything?
Mr. Symborski – I don’t know that the cost is going to be as much as they expected. Hopefully not, but maybe if it was a little less, that would help.
Secretary Smith – Mr. Wuerth, what do you think on that?
Mr. Wuerth – I don’t want to be hard with the people, but I don’t think $600 is that much money, but that’s my opinion.
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
20
Secretary Smith – So, Mr. Symborski, if we go with the $600 bond in this approval, for it to be approved, it would be that increase on the bond.
Mr. Symborski – Okay.
Mr. Kupiec – Mr. Wuerth, it was mentioned to you by engineering that Mr. Tobin, god bless him, he has left us, but the document that’s been signed by him initially, does that have to be changed or signed by somebody else?
Mr. Wuerth – It is signed by Kerm Billette, he put his stamp on there, signed by him. He took over a lot of the work that Mr. Tobin had going and Mr. Tobin’s company is now out of business and Mr. Billette needs to insert his information as far as being in business. So that’s what should be done there. I think that’s an easy correction.
Mr. Kupiec – That is an easy correction, it’s something that should be done.
MOTION: A motion was made to approve by Secretary Smith with discussion, supported by Commissioner Kupiec. With a bond increase to $600.
ROLL CALL: The motion carried as follows:
Commissioner Rob……………Yes Vice Chair McClanahan……….Yes Commissioner Robinson………Yes Secretary Smith…………………Yes Commissioner Vinson…….……Yes Commissioner Kupiec…………..Yes
7. CORRESPONDENCE:
8. OLD BUSINESS:
A. MINOR AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN FOR NEW MENARD’S HOME IMPROVEMENT STORE; Located on the west side of Van Dyke Avenue; approximately 1,058 ft. south of Fourteen Mile Road; 32501 Van Dyke Avenue; Section 4; Tyler Edwards (Andrew Walters – MCA); Minor Amendment is for a yard gate expansion and relocation of the existing generator/transformer.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Rob to recognize as a minor amendment, supported by Secretary Smith.
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
21
ROLL CALL: The motion carried as follows:
Commissioner Kupiec…………….Yes Vice Chair McClanahan…………..Yes Commissioner Robinson………….Yes Secretary Smith……………………Yes Commissioner Vinson …………..Yes Commissioner Rob……….……….Yes
PETITIONER’S PORTION: Mr. Tyler Edwards – Good evening, Tyler Edwards, Real Estate Representative with Menards. Probably no secret that people shop online more and more and that’s not going away, so what Menards has done is actually implemented an online order pickup area at every store location across the country. In order to do that we have added another entrance lane to all the yard gates. So if you were to look at the site plan and the yard gate, there’s actually two entrance lanes, one exit lane. The entrance lane closest to the store is an automated entrance lane for guests with online orders. You scan your barcode at that new entrance lane, you pull around back to the back of the building near the rear side of the garden center, pick up your materials, all without interacting with the gate guard.
The middle entrance lane is still operated by the gate guard, it’s still there for guests that buy products at the store or truck deliveries. And then the addition is going to be the exit lane, that’s just moving a little bit further south. That exit lane is still operated by the gate guard the way it is today, so there’s really just one more entrance lane to help traffic flow through the store a little bit easier. You will notice that we removed about 25 parking stalls to allow traffic to navigate out of the new gates and out of the yard area. With the increase in online orders, we actually have less of a demand in the front parking lot because people are skipping going in the store and they just drive through the gate and pick up materials.
So the loss of those stalls is inconsequential to the overall demand of the store. There’s still plenty of stalls available even on the busiest days. The transformer generator are being slid to the east just to get them a little bit further away from vehicle traffic and then just so you know the existing gate is constructed out of green steel with a white steel roof. That’s going to be continued on the expansion, so everything will look exactly the same when the project is finished. We’ll probably get started here this summer and finish it up by fall and you’ll probably never notice that it wasn’t there
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
22
before when it’s finished. Kind of a minor project overall for us but we’re excited to do it.
Secretary Smith reads the following correspondence:
TAXES: No Delinquent Taxes. DTE: Approved as presented.
This concludes correspondence.
Mr. Ron Wuerth reads the recommendations of the Staff: Second minor amendment be Approved with conditions.
A note on the site plan indicates that 420 parking spaces were existing, 8 cart control parking spaces and 25 reworked parking spaces reduced the amount to 387 parking spaces. It is assumed that the five parking spaces replaced by the generator transformer and CT box system were part of the removed parking spaces. The 387 parking spaces shall be indicated on the site data chart.
A performance bond of $3,000 be posted according to the estimated cost of $100,000 by the petitioner.
MOTION: A motion was made by Secretary Smith to recognize as a minor amendment, supported by Commissioner Kupiec.
ROLL CALL: The motion carried as follows:
Commissioner Rob……….……Yes Vice Chair McClanahan…….….Yes Commissioner Robinson…….…Yes Secretary Smith…………………Yes Commissioner Vinson…….……Yes Commissioner Kupiec…………..Yes
B. THIRD MINOR AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN FOR OPEN STORAGE OF TRUCK TRAILER PARKING; Located on the south side of Tank Avenue; approximately 800 ft. west of Van Dyke Avenue; Section 16; 7500 Tank Avenue; Joseph Vaglica/Ann Kefalonitis (STAG Industrial Holdings); Minor Amendment is building addition for expansion of shipping bay, proposed “exit only” driveway to Tank Avenue, and modification to fence and entrance. RECONSIDERATION OF APRIL 19, 2021 VOTE.
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
23
Mr. Wuerth – This is a reconsideration vote, probably Secretary Warren Smith should lead this off.
COMMISIONER'S PORTION:
Secretary Smith – After looking at some pictures of the site, we noticed some things on the site that were changed that weren’t on the drawings and that’s when I did a reconsideration on it because we need to make sure everything was supposed to be on the drawing is being considered. Some of them have already been done.
Vice Chair McClanahan – Right. The Fence.
Commissioner Robinson reads letter from Mr. Wuerth – This letter is dated April 29th, 2021.
To the City of Warren Planning Commission, from Ron Wuerth, This is regarding the reconsideration vote of the proposed third minor amendment to site plan for open storage of truck trailer parking at 7500 Tank Avenue. The body of the letter says, on April 22nd, 2021, the Planning department received and email request from Warren Smith, Planning commission secretary, to reconsider his vote on the prevailing site approving the above mentioned request. Secretary Smith’s reason was that the ornamental black aluminum fence proposed along the front property lines of Tank Avenue and Donald Court, one feet off the existing sidewalk was constructed prior to the Planning commission recommendation and final approval al by city council.
Secretary Smith also mentioned that there were other changes to the site that had not been approved. The planning director and staff upon receiving the request to reconsider the approval seized all administrative work on the proposal and placed the request for reconsideration on the May 3, 2021 Planning commission agenda for review. The planning department sent communication to the petitioner, Joe Vaglica and requested a meeting prior to the planning commission meeting to discuss the fences and other issues on the site.
The planning director and staff commits to perform a detailed inspection of the site on April 22nd. The petitioners revised site plan received on April16th proposed a relocation of the passenger vehicle exit only driveway. The following is a list of issues and changes that should have been made known at the April 19th planning commission meeting.
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
24
The proposed six foot high ornamental black fence exists along the front property lines of Tank Avenue and Donald Court. The location of the fence was recommended for a variance to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Planning commission will now assume the responsibility of variances for the requirements of the district.
With this in mind, the planning staff would recommend that the existing fence be relocated to the 25 foot setback line along Tank Avenue and a 10 foot front setback line along Donald Court as its most amenable setback.
The passenger vehicle exit driveway was proposed to be relocated east and to be in line with a north/south internal maneuvering lane. The planning staff would not recommend this location because the driveway entrance to Tank Avenue would be only 50 feet west of the stop bar and stop sign at Donald Court. The planning staff would recommend the new location of the exit driveway be located 280 feet west of the stop bar and stop sign. The location affords stack up spaces from the stop sign for passenger vehicles and semitruck trailers and allows passenger vehicles to exit from the site east and west safely.
This location will also have no effect on existing trees in the front setback area and allow acceptable site distance in each direction.
Number three, the site plan shall indicate two north/south internal pedestrian walkways existing to the parking area. A total of 16 parking spaces were eliminated due to this change. The use and location are recommended and shall be indicated on the site plan.
Four, the site plan shall indicate the expansion of the passenger vehicle parking area to the west reducing the area where semi-truck trailer parking was previously approved. There would be an increase to the amount of parking spaces to the site data chart.
Five, the semitruck ingress and egress driveway was observed to be used also as parking along the west side and tractors along the east side. It was difficult to maneuver and felt dangerous to drive through this area with the other tractor trailers moving through this area. The site plan does not indicate this site plan in operation. The formerly approved trailer parking was to eliminate parking of tractors and trailers along the maneuvering lane. This parking was found along its entire length to the trailers storage areas in the rear of the property.
Six, the landscape island area near the southwest corner of the building was removed. The site plan should indicate the change.
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
25
Seven, one or two additional trailer spaces were added south of the island previously mentioned and removed at least 20 feet of the landscaped area. Being replaced with the storage trailer spaces. This expanded the amount of trailer open storage. The entire revised site plan shall have the open storage of truck trailers reevaluated and the site data chart updated.
Eight, the most east existing truck well located on the south elevation of the building no longer exists. This area was changed on overhead at grade service door for truck deliveries. The change shall be indicated on the site plan and south elevation plans.
Nine, temporary lunch room area located on the east side of the front of the building shall be indicated as temporary. The size, shape, height and square footage shall be noted on the site plan and on the site data chart. To summarize, on April 28th, the planning director received a call from Joe Vaglica, architect for Bridgewater Interiors. The planning director described reasons for reconsideration. Mr. Vaglica indicated he will work with the planning department to resolve all issues and said he would report the concerns to Bridgewater Interiors.
Bridgewater Interiors has expanded exponentially with its business and it is to be commended for it, however the city of warren is responsible for monitoring the changes to this site. The planning commission will work with this business to solve their expansion concerns and look to obtain final approval for the changes from city council. Cc, Everett Murphy, chief zoning inspector, Mary Michaels, City attorney and Joseph Vaglica.
Secretary Smith reads response letter from Bridgeview.
April 29th, 2021 To Ronald Wuerth, Planning Director, City of Warren,
Dear Ronald Wuerth, Bridgewater Interiors has received a letter drafted on April 29th 2021. The letter was in regards to the reconsideration vote of the proposed third minor amendment to the site plan for open storage of the truck trailer parking located on the south side of Tank Avenue. Requesting Joe Vaglica, Ann Kefalonitis STAG Industrial Holdings; minor amendment is building addition for expansion of shipping bay, proposed “exit only” driveway to Tank Avenue and modification to fence and entrance.
We, Bridgewater Interiors, are requesting that the vote is considered for May 3, 2021, planning commission meeting. Please respond to address concerns in the noted visit April 22nd, 2021.
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
26
1. Ornamental black fence was installed to protect the safety of Bridgewater Interiors employees property. In the past six months our site was a target for several break-ins. We have this item on our site plan and part of the May 3rd approval. 2. The passenger exit driveway proposal is not supported by the planning staff, a new location has been identified and noted on the site plan. 3. The site plan did not include our pedestrian walkways added in the parking lot for safety. The site plan has been updated. 4. The site plan did not show the movement of concrete barriers in the west side of the parking lot to allow additional parking. The site plan has been updated. 5. The semi-truck ingress egress was observed to be used as parking. Bridgewater has a separate offsite lot to store trailers, the outer curbs is used as staging to move to the offset lot. The staging is not long term, storage only for shorter term temporary. 6. A landscaped area near the southwest corner was removed. Site map is updated 7. One or two additional trailer spaces were added south of the island. Site plan has been updated. 8. Most east truck well located on the south elevation no longer exists. Site plan has been updated. 9. The temporary lunch area that was being for Covid reasons, site plan has been updated.
Bridgewater Interiors is a large company with large customers, growing business and increasing work force. We appreciate the support from the city of Warren planning commission, and will ensure going forward that our site map is kept up to date with any future changes. Looking forward to the approval and future growth.
Yours sincerely, Sheila James.
This concludes correspondence.
Mr. Wuerth – I can respond to the letter from Sheila James. I can certainly appreciate the fact that out of the nine items, that seven of them were addressed. That is extremely important and that is what we were looking for, is to have that site plan updated. I’ve got to check it, of course, and make sure it’s correct. The two items that were not really addressed were the first one about the fence. They didn’t say anything about the fact that I’d like it relocated. The problem is they put the fence up before they even came to the planning commission, that’s a fact. And I had that
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
27 conversation with Joe and he clearly understands it. You don’t put things up until you get approval, that’s the main issue there.
Also, that fence is not where I think it should be, and I’ve had experience enough to understand that to move it back helps create some open space and you can also see the front of the property. I make a comparison to what General Motors did along Van Dyke Avenue, when they moved their fences back, it created open space. That’s what we want here and I’m more than happy to sit down with Joe and Bridgewater to describe where I think that fence should go, but it certainly shouldn’t go right up there by the sidewalk. That’s my opinion.
The second part is number five, that’s the semitruck ingress and egress. When I said I was a little worried when I went down through there, I was. Because first of all there’s not striping where these trailers were parked on the west property line, no striping for the tractors on the east side and then driving up through there and being faced with another big semitruck coming out or them moving semitruck trailers around worried me a bit. Where they expanded the parking lot out that used to be a trailer parking area. I know they got problems and they talked about this in the letter that those trailers are temporary. I don’t know what temporary means. If any of them stay overnight, it’s a problem along the maneuvering lane. It’s a wide maneuvering lane, perhaps it can accommodate, but perhaps they need to paint mark the spaces down through there to keep it a little better organized. I’m not sure but I’ll tell you when I got in the back area on that curve they had trucks parked on that curve. I suggest all of you go on that site, and if anybody stops you, just tell them who you are and you’re permitted to go in there and drive around and check it all out and you can better understand what I saw when I went out there on the 22nd.
To summarize, I think the fences need to be moved and that maneuvering lane has got to be I’m not sure what has to be done there maybe parking spaces shown where vehicles can be temporarily stored. I understand they do a big business; I want to keep them doing it, but I want to keep them doing it safely for anybody else who goes through there.
Joe Vaglica – Good evening, this is Joe Vaglica, the engineer architect for the site. After I spoke to Ron a couple days ago, I think a week ago. We went out there and we resurveyed the property and we actually updated the site plan. So the site plan is updated, and Ron knows that every time he asks for something, we get it to him ASAP. Unfortunately the fence was put in and I wasn’t aware of it when we had the meeting. I talked to Bridgewater and I have a representative for Bridgewater here tonight, Ann. I told her that what Ron had asked me, to move the fence back. She’s here and if that’s what we have to do that’s what we’ve got to do. There’s
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
28 no issues. I think that from what we have, I’m able to work with Ron. When we left it off last week, it was approving the site plan, pending me meeting with Ron and going over our site plan and I’m still willing to do so.
I would like to proceed that way so we can fast track it and make it to city council later on and then go for permitting. Our biggest issue is not those minor things in the front like the secondary entrance, that was something that we were thinking about putting in for safety reasons. Our biggest issue was that addition that we’re doing in the back. We get steel delivered sometime in August and I’d like to have permits by then. Everything else I’m willing to hold off and wait until I get Ron’s blessing.
I got Ann here, also, she’s on the line. She’s the facility manager, she represents Bridgewater and she can talk about the fence.
Ms. Ann Kefalonitis – Yes. Good evening everyone. My name is Ann Kefalonitis, I’m the facility director for Bridgewater Interiors, and have been for the last three years. I had property management company prior and I’ve been running the location improvement for the last three years.
As far as the fence goes, we did apply for a permit for a fence in the rear of the building and also the side of the building. Chain-link fence with ornamental fencing along the side. We did receive the permits and we went ahead and performed that installation. We secured the back of the building and the sides and we thought that by doing so, it would help improve the security of the parking lot, however, I’ve submitted many reports from the city of warren.
We had about 16 vandalism events and stolen vehicles at our location. And in the month of November alone. Also, that was 16 in November and just continuous break-ins and the employees felt extremely unsafe. We did make drastic measures by ordering the fence and it came in. We applied for the permit; however we obviously didn’t get it in time. We went ahead and installed the fence because our employees were so upset that they felt we were not considering their safety of them personally and also their vehicles. So we went ahead and installed the fence.
With everything changing with Covid and people feeling unsafe because of that, we wanted to make sure that the employees felt safe. So we went ahead and did that. We are willing to relocate the fence, of course it’s going to be a major expense, however we respect the city’s decision and if it will look better for the city and as well for us, we will make that change, of course. We thought by installing it where we did, it looked the best, because we have ponds and our neighbors next door, the large KUKA plant, had a fence installed prior to us, very similar. We tried to position it
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
29 on our property the best that we know how and to keep our employees safe. That’s the main reason we did the fence.
In regards to the parking in the back of the facility, we did change some green belt, if you will, to add additional trailer parking. We do plan on doing the full striping. I’m in full agreement. (Inaudible) – drivers in the back of the facility. We have made other improvements such as the sidewalk that you see here in the picture with the guard railing. We had many employees walking through the employee parking lot and it was just unsafe with the amount of vehicles there and we wanted to make it safer. We took out the asphalt and installed concrete with the guardrail barriers.
We didn’t have any bad intensions when we installed the fence, we weren’t trying to get away with anything, we were just trying to keep our employees safe and being that we did receive a permit prior for the fence in the back of the building and the side of the building, we just didn’t feel that we were doing anything bad, even though we were still applying for the permit. So that’s all I can say on that. If you would like us to change it, we will take care of that.
Vice Chair McClanahan – Do we still want to do a motion to reconsider? Since they seem to want to abide by all the changes.
Mr. Wuerth – One of the main things here, bringing them back to discuss this is to make it clear that this is a recommending body, and when you go before city council, now it becomes pretty serious business. Again, I can appreciate Bridgewater’s work and what they do and everything, but I didn’t want to see it go there and then have you turned down. Now that we’ve gone through this process, I think we can go forward.
What I did describe was a 25 foot setback along Tank and 10 feet along Donald Court. I just talked about some kind of striping for safety reasons along that ingress egress truck maneuvering lane. Along Tank, that 25 foot setback is the back curb where the parking is along Tank. So that would be placed all along Tank. Then you run it east and west towards Donald Court. The reason I said only 10 feet there is it’s tight where the ponds are. It still would create a little more green space and that would work all the way through Donald Court and you could connect up the way you got them.
My graphic shows ten feet away from maneuvering lanes, too, but it’s more internal if you want to keep them where they are at internally, then do so. If I can see you make the changes on that Joe, then that looks good.
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
30
Mr. Joe Vaglica – Yes, I can.
Mr. Wuerth – That maneuvering lane you got to have something that creates a safer situation over there. If you can give me plans that have those changes I’ll take it forward. I’ll only take it forward with the planning commission approving our discussion.
Mr. Joe Vaglica – Thanks Ron.
Vice Chair McClanahan – Attorney Michaels, should we make a minor amendment with these changes?
Attorney Michaels - It was not on the agenda listed as that. There’s a motion for reconsideration and based on the planning commission rules, you can table but you have to act at this meeting on the reconsideration. The commission may table reconsideration, as long as you suspend the rule of 9.9. Then table the reconsideration and I think you have to bring this back as an amendment. Its not listed as an amendment on the agenda.
Mr. Wuerth – Planning needs to discuss, and just so happens our next meeting is next Monday. Joe, could you get it done for next Monday?
Mr. Joe Vaglica – I have it already done except I got to move the fence back, which I can do that and then we have to talk about what you want me to do.
Mr. Wuerth – We can talk on Thursday, get the plans back to me and we can bring it right back to the planning commission next Monday. Does that make sense, Mary?
Attorney Mary Michaels – If I may, the reconsideration has to be tabled because there was already a vote on this plan. So there’s no obligation, although the petitioner can make the change unless there’s a motion from this commission to do so. So there’s the reconsideration, id either table it or make a motion next time to amend a decision previously decided. The easiest way is to table the reconsideration. Then you can withdraw it at the next meeting and present the amended site plan at that time.
Mr. Kupiec – I’d like to request Judy to that last item that Warren Smith read, the nine items, if you could email me over a copy of that. I have no document of that at all.
MOTION:
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
31
A motion was made by Secretary Smith to table the reconsideration until May 10th, 2021, supported by Commissioner Kupiec.
ROLL CALL: The motion carried as follows:
Commissioner Rob….…………Yes Vice Chair McClanahan…….….Yes Commissioner Robinson….……Yes Secretary Smith…………………Yes Commissioner Vinson…….….…Yes Commissioner Kupiec…………..Yes
C. SITE PLAN FOR OPEN STORAGE OF LANDSCAPING MATERIALS; located on the west side of Blackstone Avenue, approximately 596 ft. south of Stephens Road; 23831 Blackstone; Section 26; James Malkiewicz (Jack Durbin). Approved on June 3, 2019; One (1) year extension to June 3, 2022.
Secretary Smith reads letters to Planning Commission
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Robinson for a one and a half year (1.5) extension, December 3rd, 2022. Supported by Commissioner Kupiec.
ROLL CALL: The motion carried as follows:
Commissioner Kupiec………………Yes Vice Chair McClanahan…………….Yes Commissioner Robinson……………Yes Secretary Smith………………………Yes Commissioner Vinson……………….Yes Commissioner Rob….……………….Yes
D. SITE PLAN FOR OPEN STORAGE OF VEHICLES; located on the north side of Eight Mile, approximately 115 ft. west of Warner Avenue; 2811 Eight Mile; Section 31; Manny Kassab (Kerm Billette). Approved on November 27, 2017; First extension request approved to November 27, 2020; Second Extension requested to November 27, 2022.
Secretary Smith reads letter to Planning Commission.
MOTION:
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
32
A motion was made by Secretary Smith for a one and a half year (1.5) extension, November 27th, 2022. Supported by Commissioner Robinson.
ROLL CALL: The motion carried as follows:
Commissioner Rob….…………Yes Commissioner Vinson…….….…Yes Secretary Smith…………………Yes Commissioner Robinson….……Yes Vice Chair McClanahan…….….Yes Commissioner Kupiec…………..Yes
E. SITE PLAN FOR OPEN STORAGE OF TRUCKS, EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS; located on the southwest corner of Groesbeck Highway and Toepfer Road; 21605 Groesbeck Highway; Section 35; Maggie Boehm (Leroy Schultz). Approved on June 3, 2019; One (1) year extension to June 3, 2022.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Rob for an extension to December 3rd, 2022. Supported by Secretary Smith.
ROLL CALL: The motion carried as follows:
Commissioner Rob….……………….Yes Commissioner Vinson……………….Yes Secretary Smith………………………Yes Commissioner Robinson……………Yes Vice Chair McClanahan…………….Yes Commissioner Kupiec………………Yes
F. SITE PLAN FOR NEW BUILDING; located on the north side of Ten Mile Road; approximately 537 ft. west of Schoenherr Road; 13343 Ten Mile; Section 23; Frank Jarbou (Michael Mcpherson). Approved on June 17, 2019; One (1) year extension to June 17, 2022.
MOTION: A motion was made by Secretary Smith for an extension to December 3rd, 2022. Supported by Commissioner Rob.
ROLL CALL: The motion carried as follows:
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
33
Commissioner Rob….……………….Yes Commissioner Vinson……………….Yes Secretary Smith………………………Yes Commissioner Robinson………….…Yes Vice Chair McClanahan………….….Yes Commissioner Kupiec…….…………Yes
G. SUBDIVISION PROPERTY SPLIT REQUEST; property located south of Guy Court, approximately 292 ft. east of Lorraine Avenue; one subdivision lot split into two parcels; 11050 Guy Court (13-10-252-036); Section 10; Mohammed Miah. Approved on October 23, 2017. Extension to November 13, 2020. Expired.
MOTION: A motion was made by Secretary Smith to recognize as an expired site plan, supported by Commissioner Robinson.
ROLL CALL: The motion carried as follows:
Commissioner Robinson………….…Yes Vice Chair McClanahan………….….Yes Commissioner Kupiec…….…………Yes Secretary Smith………………………Yes Commissioner Vinson……………….Yes Commissioner Rob….……………….Yes
9. BOND RELEASE: None at this time.
10. NEW BUSINESS: Letter from Planning Director clarifying the role of the Planning Commission when making recommendations to City Council regarding the Arsenal Industrial District.
Mr. Wuerth reads letter: I’m making this statement to you, and I want your approval because the Zoning section in the building division really does not want to take any Zoning Board of Appeals variances that have anything to do with the Arsenal Industrial District that would relieve them of any discussions with their board and as we did earlier in this meeting, there was some negotiation. We called attention to the concern about the fencing and where that should go, and they agreed to that. We talked about the north/south maneuvering lane and we got that hammered out and they’re
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
34 going to do some paint marking along there that’s what I expect and they said they would do it. What I’d like to do or expect to do in the future is if there is something like this, items that stand out and need some negotiation, I’ll make every effort to do that prior to the Planning commission meeting. If there’s a case where the commissioner and planning director don’t agree then we take it to planning commission for a recommendation of approval to city council. But if it has to be negotiated we’ll pose both sides of the argument and planning can make a recommendation that way. Who knows maybe city council will have their own ideas about what that recommendation would be, or what the approval will be.
It’s going to be on the shoulders of city council. This is what I believe should be done.
Commissioner Robinson – Due to the employee concerns because there has been a lot of vandalism on that property, are you flexible in terms of leaving the fence where it is due to employee concerns regarding break- ins and their safety or are you steadfast in your position that that fence needs to be moved because you know its going to take time to do that. And it still leaves employees safety at risk. Is that something that you’re inflexible.
Mr. Wuerth – I did take that under consideration and when I first mentioned this to Mr. Vaglica, he said Ron we’ll go out there we’ll tell them what the situation is and I’m sure they’d remove the fence immediately. I said no, don’t do that. Leave the fence where it is at this point. We need a decision from the planning commission regarding it, but if everyone agrees that it should move back and they agree it should move back, everything is there, the fencing is there, all they need to do is go back and put it in the new location and just move it. So with that I think they can still control the perimeter the way they need to and provide the safety and protection that those people need. That’s why I said not to move it right then and there, but they can move it as they go along. I think they’ve got security in cars. I didn’t want them to take it out, stack it up some place, I think this way it would be easier just move it as they go piece by piece in sections.
Ms. Robinson – But when you’re putting up a fence in order to provide continuity and safety you have to put it together because it still is going to leave some open areas.
Mr. Wuerth – There’s open areas but there’s security that will keep an eye on those open areas. They put that fence up rather quickly. They’ll do the same thing when they relocate it.
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
35
Secretary Smith – You were saying some of the changes wouldn’t have to go before Zoning, because it’s the industrial arsenal district. Are you trying to set something up similar to what you were talking about doing with General Motors at one time they have their own thing because they can make changes within there because General Motors doesn’t have to do that, either. If you’re trying to set up a separate thing that General Motors where everything can be handled through without going through that, if I remember correctly.
Mr. Wuerth – We call that the BTRC. What we were attempting to do there is match up with what they have in everything parking to buildings to all of it. That still is on the table and were worked at in to the new Zoning Ordinance. The best way I can characterize in the Arsenal Industrial District is that it’s sort of like PUD. They create new rules and Arsenal Industrial District because they have that word usage, anytime you use the word generally, well, you don’t say that in a regular zoning ordinance. Because now you can’t define it.
I think Mary Michaels can easily indicate that that is hard to defend. Work with your neighbors, when I brought up the issue with the sign, for that matter it says that the sign generally not exceeding 75 square foot requirement. Tell me what generally means. They seem to think it’s three times the amount, which I still don’t think it should be that way. A little late for that one so it comes down to they want to go a little beyond what the general requirements are then we’ll take a look at it and consider it. It was time to make a change. I fully expect to fix this as I said, when we approach it during the new zoning ordinance review.
Mr. Kupiec – There’s no comparison to what you’re talking about at Bridgewater compared to General Motors. The big thing is called space. General Motors has plenty of room to work with, Bridgewater that’s the problem they have. The problem is, it’s like trying to put five pounds of you know what in a three pound bag. It wont fit. Too much operation going on there, there’s a lot of people coming and going, trucks are out of control trailers are out of control, there’s no staging area, they’re out of space they have no room
That place needs a development at least twice the size it is now. Just for staging the trucks and trailers. At any given time you drive through that cutoff from Van Dyke over to Martin and 12 Mile entrance to General Motors its like a race track in there. Trucks are coming and going left turn right turn, horns blowing, alarms going off, it’s crazy.
As far as the employee safety, the fence is one thing, but security is a big issue in a large area. They’ve got a lot of people going on 24/7 operation,
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
36
wall to wall going on all the time there’s just no room for what they’re trying to accomplish. That’s the biggest problem I think. As far as this letter, one of my concerns is we take on more responsibility. I think it’s long overdue that the planning department has more say so than Zoning with some issues that are taking place. On the other hand its about manpower, too. Finally got yourselves some people on board, training and development to get your operation going where you’re not constantly being criticized and now we’re taking on some more work. So with that being said I’ll leave it at that.
Attorney Mary Michaels – Receive and File would be my recommendation.
MOTION: A motion was made by Secretary Smith to receive and file, supported by Commissioner Robinson.
ROLL CALL: The motion carried as follows:
Commissioner Rob………….…Yes Commissioner Vinson…….……Yes Secretary Smith…………………Yes Commissioner Robinson………Yes Vice Chair McClanahan….…….Yes Commissioner Kupiec…………..Yes
11. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION:
Mr. Jonathan Lafferty – Good evening, honorable body, the planning commissioner. It’s nice to see, comedically speaking, it’s nice to see that you have a long this meeting as well, that City Council is not the only one that is capable of achieving that. I appreciate the deliberation that took place this evening.
On a more serious note, I did want to bring to the commission’s attention, a few months back you approved a plan for Detroit Memorial Cemetery, for them to construct a new mausoleum. As part of the conditions of that agreement, I had brought concerns to you about the exterior fence along Thirteen Mile Road, and the broken out windows of what I believe is their maintenance garage that also borders Thirteen Mile.
To date, the fence has been completed, they did make good on that promise, but the windows have not. I wanted to bring that to this boards’ attention that I’m not sure if the Planning commission was still holding their performance bond, but perhaps planning could send a letter asking about
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
37
a time frame on when those windows would be replace. That would be my ask of the commission, if you could kindly follow up on that, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Kupiec – We should send them a letter, asking them when it’s going to improve and check our open file and see if that is still open.
MOTION: A motion was made by Secretary Smith to send a letter to, and call Detroit Mausoleum, supported by Commissioner Kupiec.
ROLL CALL: The motion carried as follows:
Commissioner Kupiec………….Yes Vice Chair McClanahan….…….Yes Commissioner Robinson…….…Yes Secretary Smith…………………Yes Commissioner Vinson…….……Yes Commissioner Rob………….…Yes
12. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Mr. Wuerth – Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Just a few things that I can mention, here in particular. We had an interesting Zoom meeting for an industrial building on the southeast corner, down on John B Avenue. I hardly ever get down there, but they actually want to do a little expansion, so we’ll see what we’re going to do and help them, just east of Dequindre. That was one thing.
The most interesting Zoom meeting that I attended with Michelle and Tom Bommarito was with the Macomb County Planning Department. It was discussing items and concerns that the city of Warren has and what we are doing with our master plan, the new things that we are doing with our non-motorized vehicle plan or a bike plan. We are moving forward with a housing study; we’re going to move forward there’s and RFP out there now for the village historic district area. Our village of Warren and they’re finally going to do something there.
And a corridor study, a very important one that’s going to run along Van Dyke, from Stephens down to Eight Mile, that’s our TIFA area. So those are examples of what we talked about. We talked about grants and from a planners point of view, very exciting just to have that type of conversation. Michelle, if you want to add anything to that.
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
38
We did get information regarding the U.S. Census, and I can tell you that the city of Warren is still number three in population in the state of Michigan. With that, that’s about it.
Vice Chair McClanahan – With the latest census, we stayed ahead of Sterling Heights?
Mr. Wuerth – We did.
Vice Chair McClanahan – I have a question, I don’t know if it’s political games being played or what, with the reappointments on some of these boards, it seems really fishy to me, some of these. But I’ve heard some stories that some of the commissioners on different boards were not approved because of attendance. I know that like with us, tonight, we had a commissioner that had a work event and was excused. It seems like the excused absences are being ignored. And I know that especially with Covid this year, we had one commissioner had some health issues and missing time, I just, is that being considered at all by council or does it matter? Is it all about politics when we have a wonderful, hardworking, smart commissioner that may or may have been sick with Covid and is being denied, I just don’t understand. Is that being considered, the excused absences due to health issues with some of these boards that aren’t being approved?
Mr. Wuerth – I attended the last city council meeting and I attended the city council meeting two weeks before that. The meeting before that, city council had Jeff Schroeder outline in exact terms in parameters that are expected of commissioners and members of the boards. Which brings in different things and certainly attendance is a big one and I think in our bylaws we talked about that. There are excused absences and then there is unexcused absences. Commissioners need to try to be here, I know it’s all voluntary and it’s tough.
Vice Chair McClanahan – I got a lot of friends that are attorneys, can I make one of my friends that’s an attorney, can we make him a planning commission attorney now we’ll just declare that position, and we’ll get him a six figure job. Is that possible?
Mr. Wuerth – I’m not going to answer that one, but all I’m saying is that Mr. Schroeder outlined it quite well. I think that our city attorney, Mr. Vinson, could have done exactly, if not, a better job. But that is what it is. All I’m saying is there was discussion about it. There was discussion about default, there may be other reasons why people are denied or tabled and that’s all I’m going to say about it. I can’t I don’t want to wander in to that kind of thinking.
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
39
Commissioner Robinson – Jason, I’m so glad that you brought that up because I wanted to comment about Warren’s letter to the Mayor regarding the termination of Jocelyn Howard’s chair appointment. I was wondering if any feedback or correspondence from the mayor regarding her unexpected termination. Ron did you receive any correspondence or did Warren receive any correspondence to the letter that was address to the mayor about that?
Mr. Wuerth – Planning department hasn’t received any correspondence.
Secretary Smith – I haven’t received any, either.
Commissioner Robinson – No response from the mayor about her termination.
Mr. Wuerth – No. I can inquire if you want.
Commissioner Robinson – I really would because due to her tenure and her service over the years, I just think that re-consideration should be made on her behalf. Just from that point alone.
Attorney Mary Michaels – I believe that the Mayor is going to resubmit Ms. Howard to city council for reappointment, but the mayor cannot reconsider, that’s only in the realm of city council. But there is an opportunity to resubmit the name, if it hasn’t been done already, my understanding is it will be done.
Commissioner Robinson – for reconsideration.
Attorney Mary Michaels – Only council can reconsider. And I believe that time has passed. I believe it is within the mayor’s power to resubmit the name.
Mr. Kupiec – You got a good point and it is very political, but as far as attendance, sickness is sickness, illness is illness, and when people are sick they’re sick. It’s not like they’re running a situation here where we used to have to go to Nine Mile Road to the local pubs and drag two commissioners out of the pub to have a quorum. Which used to happen. Not planning, but other commissions. It’s just the idea that the majority of people that are on commissions hopefully are working except for us retirees, and we paid our dues, so we’ve got a little free time. It’s just the idea that the excuse or unexcused was a big issue and again talk about the six figure job now, he was working for the city at the time, and some of these bylaws were written so he should be very familiar with them.
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
40
It’s just the idea that it takes time to call in and tell the chair that I won’t be in tonight because I’m not feeling well. I guess you can ask to bring a doctors excuse, but realistically you don’t have time to do it I’m sure integrity speaks for itself that’s why he’s on the commission. I’ve been in that position myself, I’ve answered I had people call me say the same thing, I got an ache I don’t feel like I can participate, so you take that in to consideration. As far as someone abusing it, that’s another story. It’s a fine line drawn, but I think that first of all if someone is abusing it, it should be noted, it should be discussed with them to either the planning commission, to a small group of people or brought before him presented in a letter, saying look, you had a couple times off here in a row and we got to have you here because we need your vote.
Hopefully it’s not used against the people on the board right now waiting to be approved, because if it is, I think it’s out of control. It’s a touchy subject. If you’re sick, you’re sick. That’s all there is to it. It’s not like we’re filling up a team of rocket scientists going to the moon to try to get something accomplished, but on the other hand, we have a responsibility and I think we take the job seriously. Just the idea that we have people looking at us, we have the mayor looking at us, council looking at us, and if they see a situation going on, they should hope we would straighten the person up and if it doesn’t then the person gets straightened up by the commission or by his peers. That’s all I have to say, it’s a very touchy subject when dealing with older people, but one day in life, we’ll all get there. Hope people respect that.
And I called Michelle on Saturday and she got back to me with answers, so I thank you very much for that. I do have a question for Mr. Wuerth, one of my favorite corners, Thirteen Mile and Mound. That area is becoming quite dilapidated and I think I’d rather have cars parked out there than with a bunch of garbage in the parking lot. Is there anything going on in that corner? I sure would like to see a Kroger there, but that’s not going to happen.
Mr. Wuerth – Well, timing is everything. And I received a call from Mr. Shango’s son, Nick Shango and he is ready to bring in a site plan that will show some new retail buildings on that corner where Mike has had his vegetable sales and all that type of stuff and flowers. There would be room for these retail buildings and also room for Mike’s vegetable and flower sales. So he’s going to bring it in. You’re going to see this site plan within maybe a month and a half. I hope that answers your question.
13. CALENDER OF PENDING MATTERS: None at this time.
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021
41
14. ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: A motion was made by Secretary Smith to adjourn, supported by Commissioner Rob. A voice vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
______Jason McClanahan, Vice Chair
______Warren Smith, Secretary
Meeting recorded and transcribed by Megan Price - CER-9296
E-mail: [email protected]
Megan Price CER-9296 May 3rd, 2021