Good evening. Welcome to the City of Warren Planning Commission meeting,
April 13th, 2026. Will you please stand for the pledge of
allegiance?
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it stands, one
nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
Item number three, roll call.
Commissioner Ansar.
Commissioner Holowaty.
Present.
Commissioner Hawk.
Present.
Commissioner Dudzik.
Present.
Commissioner Maury is here. Commissioner Bonacki.
Present.
Commissioner Smith.
Present.
Item number four, approval of the agenda.
Mr. Chairman,
I thought I saw Commissioner Ansar.
Is it Darien?
And so he's here also.
Okay.
Good evening, sir.
Good evening.
Sorry for late. I have to go to restroom.
So item number four, approval of the agenda.
Chair, I make a motion to approve the agenda.
Support, Maury.
There's a motion by Commissioner Holowaty, supported by Commissioner Maury.
All in favor?
Aye. Aye.
Aye.
Any opposed?
Item number five, approval of the minutes of March 23rd, 2026.
It has to be approved at the future meeting because the minutes weren't prepared in
time.
Item number
six. Let's see. I'm trying to see.
I'm trying to see if our ex officials are here
this evening.
No? Okay. Item number six, public hearing items.
Item number 6A.
Item number 6A, site plan for a gas station with convenience store
located on the northeast corner of Mound and 13 Mile Roads,
31104 Mound Road, Section 4. Michael Wiegand, Gazebo
Real Estate, Josh Brinton, and Agree Convenience Number
One LLC, PSP250050. This was
postponed from December 15, 2025, January
12, 2026, January 26, 2026,
February 9th, 2026, February 23rd, 2026, and
March 23rd, 2026. Thank you.
Thank you. Is the petitioner here? Can you come up, please?
Tell us a little bit about what's going on, if you had any new changes that you
made and things like that.
Absolutely. Good evening.
Good evening.
And thank you for your time.
So I wanna begin with one important update since our last meeting.
The Macomb County Department of Roads has
approved our proposed access on Mound, and they have
no further comments to our traffic study.
At this point, the record is clear and unequivocal.
The project
has been thoroughly vetted and meets all applicable standards
in safety and compliance.
Despite that,
we still understand that there continues to be opposition
from the neighboring property owner, Mr.
Lloyd Brown, who has a direct interest in the adjacent
parcel and has been consistent in his desire to prevent
this use from moving forward.
We've reviewed the latest letter from his traffic consultant.
As with the prior submission, we responded in detail and
demonstrated that the comments raised are not only extraneous,
but ultimately immaterial to the merits of the application.
I wanna be very clear about this point.
This is not a disagreement amongst experts.
This is a single unsupported opinion standing against a clear
and consistent body of professionals.
The opposing neighbor's opinion contradicts the opinion of all qualified
reviewing parties.
Every qualified agency and independent expert has either
approved this project or raised no concern.
Our traffic study meets all standards set by MDOT and the County
Department of Roads. It concludes
that the intersection will continue to operate at a level of service
B, which is an efficient and strong rating.
The Macomb County Department of Roads has approved our access
plan and traffic study.
General Motors has withdrawn its objection after further review.
General Motors' independent traffic engineer, Kimley-Horn, has
found our plan and traffic study to be acceptable, and the City of
Warren's own professional
planning staff is recommending approval.
There is zero, no, not one piece
of objective evidence that demonstrates that this project creates a safety
issue or that it fails to comply with the ordinance requirements.
Our proposed use is permitted under the city's ordinance.
The standard before this body is not preference.
It is compliance, and on that standard, the answer is clear.
At some point in this process,
we need to rely on facts, data, and qualified
reviews, and not subjective opposition from
an interested party.
With that,
our traffic engineer will come to speak to some of the comments to the traffic
study. Thank you very much.
Thank you, sir. But right now, we'll go through our correspondence, and
if we need him to come up, we'll do that.
Correspondence?
Correspondence, taxes current, engineering.
Preliminary review of this site indicates that planning commission approval should
be contingent upon the petitioner's compliance with the following conditions.
Number one, Macomb County Department of Roads approval and permit are required
for work in the Mount Road right of way.
Number two, on Mount Road right of way, Macomb County Department of Roads
allows the maximum 30 feet back-of-curb to
back-of-curb width for the proposed drive approach at the property line.
Similarly, the City of Warren allows the maximum 30 feet
back-of-curb to back-of-curb width on 13 Mile Road right of way.
Number three, all the existing and proposed utilities within the vicinity of the
project limits, along with the material size,
should be shown. Comcast. In response to your utility
request for the above project, please refer to the attached map for the
location of Comcast CATV and fiber facilities.
Aerial cables are highlighted in orange for fiber and yellow for coax cable.
Underground is highlighted in blue for fiber and green for coax cable.
If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact us by email
at cccutilityrequest@team
sigma.com.
MCDR. Macomb County Department of Roads, MCDR,
has received and reviewed the enclosed preliminary plan for the
above-referenced site. MCDR has the following objection to the
proposed development at the above-mentioned site.
Number one, MCDR allows only 30 feet
back-of-curb to back-of-curb wide entrance approach in
MCDR's road right of way. Verify and revise the
Mount Road entrance. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact me at the phone number above,
586-463-8671.
Note, per the correspondence between Mr.
Bush, MCDR, and Robert Matko,
CESO, P.E., Mr. Bush
acknowledged two key points pertaining to the project.
Number one, the site driveway on Mount Road can be
40 feet in width. Number two,
MCDR will not require a deceleration
lane or taper on Mount Road at the 7-Eleven site
driveway. The revised site plan indicates the driveway to Mount Road
at 40 feet in width. Thank you.
Thanks, Madam Secretary. Planning department's recommendation.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The recommendation is
as follows. It is recommended that the site plan
for a new Speedway gas station and convenience
store with a six-dispenser auto
canopy be approved with the standard conditions of the planning
commission, and more specifically.
Number one, all items to be addressed on the
revised site plans therefore,
and they have been addressed. Therefore, no new
revisions are required. And number two, a performance bond in the
amount of $258,000 be posted
according to the estimated cost of
$8,600,000 by the petitioner.
There is a note. The planning staff recommends a reduction in the
bond to
$158,000. So with
that,
Mr. Chair, the recommendation is submitted. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Swarth.
This is a public hearing on this item.
We've had several public hearings on this item.
A lot of it was back traffic studies, which we've had three or four traffic studies
done. A lot of it's been about safety,
which we've looked the concerns and the drawings have been revised to
add more safety to the area.
The only thing I can think of, which
seems like the petitioner's come in, and they've gone over
everything with a fine-tooth comb.
They've made additional changes to satisfy the requirements.
In the city, it meets the ordinances. It meets everything in the city.
So
unless there's something that
you can add to what we've already had, because everything that we've talked about
before has been recorded.
So it's already in the notes.
So unless there's something new
that hasn't been discussed that may be of interest at this
point in time, then you can come up and speak on it.
Now, the traffic...
You want to say something, sir?
Yeah. Pardon me, Chair.
I just wanted to make it clear to the planning commission that the traffic
consultant for the applicant is here and had actually updated
his report again to address specific comments that
were raised by a project opponent, and
refutes every one of them. And so, he would like to have the opportunity to address
those to this planning commission.
And we were also hoping to have the opportunity to reiterate
our legal position that this matter is entitled to approval as a matter of law,
and
take this group through that. We're hoping that we have the opportunity to do that,
but obviously, you're the chair.
Thank you, sir. I was getting ready to get to that point.
I was going to allow him to-
Thank you
... come up and see if he had some new things to say.
So sir, you wanted to come up and say something about the traffic study?
State your name and address for the record, please.
Robert Matko, CESO,
13060 South US Highway 27,
and that is in DeWitt, Michigan.
Good evening, Chairman, members of the Planning Commission.
You did receive, I'm sure, a packet, and you'll probably be hearing again
opposition again tonight. They may even try and bring some
new information to light. But we took that response
letter we provided you, I believe, three weeks ago, the
response to those comments, and I'd like to
briefly just walk us through some of those concerns.
I think the study adequately addressed those comments, but
I think, again, going through this, I'll try and make it fairly quick,
but I believe upon conclusion,
if you have any questions, I'll again be free to
answer any of those you may have. So, with the first
comment that we received about the traffic count data, and
I think it's been pretty clear, we've stated that we
took all these different counts. We looked at MDOT's counts, we looked at
GM's own count that they had a local traffic count
firm perform, and we took the worst case scenario of
those, which was the GM-provided count, which was done in
2024.
It clearly states that in our traffic analysis.
So in response to this comment number one, we actually even included
in the report the text that calls out that we use the
GM count. We grew that by two years to come up with
2026 volumes, which again, were by far the most
conservative. The gates for GM were all open.
There wasn't any construction going on, and those were the counts
that GM also wanted us to use. So
again, we used the worst-case scenario with that, and I think
our response to comment number one clearly shows in our study
that that's exactly what we did. In terms
of
the comment number two,
get to it here.
I think it's the same thing. It talks about the balancing of the
traffic volumes and what counts were actually used, and we just
indicate, again, refer to response number one, the GM
traffic counts that were provided were used.
That growth rate too was carried through all of the volumes,
not only at 13 and Mound, but at the site driveways, at the
crossovers. So again, number wise, very
conservative.
Comment number three talks about construction
timeline, about 18 months.
I've worked on big box developments even, and they don't even take
18 months. Developments such as this, you're looking at six, seven
months, somewhere in that timeframe.
Granted, the longer this continues on, it's obviously pushing
that date further and further, but 18 months is
not what this construction is going to take.
I'm sure you all know with other developments here in the city,
C-store developments, they certainly don't take 18 months to
construct. So I think that response
clearly indicates what's going to happen
there. Comment number four,
you can see here,
there was a comment about our trip generation table in the report.
So you can see we put a side-by-side comparison.
They're identical, the tables.
Our table is clearly
been used. MDOT, we do numerous studies throughout
the state. We've never had a comment on how the data is shown.
We actually do include a percent on inbound and outbound,
which I think is important. I think the consultant that reviewed our study
shows pass by as a separate line item.
If you look to the right in our column, we actually have PB, which
below in the table calls out pass by trips.
So in essence, those tables are identical.
Continuing on to comment number five.
This is
about
the site driveways and how they should be accommodated.
We indicated this, again, as a general statement by the reviewer, and
we feel that the proposed 7-Eleven site driveway does exactly
that. They are designed to accommodate
the traffic generated by the proposed development.
Not only do we feel that way, but again, you heard
from Josh, Mr. Brayton, indicate
everyone from the county to GM, GM's
consultant,
the city staff, we've had all these numerous
experts review the study, and they all agree that
there's no issues or concerns that
they
have brought up that we haven't addressed.
Comment number six
talks about the
intersection delay and the Synchro LOS
methodology. We use that because that's specifically what
the
Department of Roads actually indicated for us to use was the
delay. That was based on a conversation.
We took it one step further, and if you go to the next page...
Well, you can see here at the bottom of the page, this is the
level of service in our report. This is the PM peak hour, which
is the worst hour. So you can see we had a B, I believe it's
19.1 seconds delay. You can see with the
HCM 2000 methodology, what it does is
Synchro doesn't look at it as a
cluster intersection, and that's why we looked at the delay.
So if you use the HCS 2000 methodology, which is an older
methodology, but it will look at a cluster intersection.
You can see the levels of service, which takes each leg of
Mound Road. If you think about it, it's almost like there's four signals, if you
will.
And it gives you a delay for each of those legs.
And you can see, again, they're B level service, except I
think the one direction is a very good level C
condition. So in other words, very representative of what we have in our
report.And if you
go to the next slide, you can actually see, and we included
the actual printouts of the
HCM 2000 methodology.
Again, clearly coinciding with what we came up with in our
report.
Continuing on.
The revised analysis shows the right-turn lane is warranted on
Mound Road. I think we covered that. We talked to the county.
They agree in this situation that
they did not feel a right-turn lane was necessary at this
site. I think if you go throughout
different areas throughout Mound Road, you can see that there aren't
right-turn lanes. We had this discussion.
They actually brought it to the director of Macomb County,
and they came back. I think the email was included also,
but they will not be requiring a right-turn lane or a taper.
Only a few more to go through here.
Comment number eight talks about the traffic volume at 13 Mile Road
driveway were revised to reflect just below the
threshold for a right turn taper.
Due to the limited sight distance at the intersection approach, a right-turn lane
would be recommended to reduce the potential for rear-end crashes.
Again, we only assign the traffic
based on, I believe the initial comment was about pass-by
traffic.
We looked very hard on this. We certainly aren't a firm to try and,
let's say, show numbers that are lower than what they should be.
We don't do that.
It's not part of our business. So we do feel that with the
pass-by trips and what is shown, obviously a right-turn taper is
not required,
nor was it shown in the study.
I think also we will eventually get to it, but you'll
clearly see that
I know initially GM, one of their concerns was
not necessarily sight distance, but they were more concerned with
vehicles turning
out of that driveway and adding
to the queue or just with the additional
traffic. I think once we moved the site driveway and
made that modification, it was really to, again, working with our
neighbors and trying to appease everyone, and we do
feel that the driveway that's there, we eliminated any right turn
out
sight distance concern.
Also, at the same time, we eliminated any
concern that GM initially had,
and that's why they no longer are
indicating opposition. They are just, again,
I guess they're okay with what is shown right now.
We'll, again, also get into the stopping sight distance here shortly.
Comment number nine talks about the queuing summary
and shows,
again, a 95th percentile queue, which obviously is the worst queue that
you could possibly experience during an hour.
And
what we did is, and I believe we'll get to it here if we can pull
up.
We'll actually show a video if we can pull that video up and
just show you. This is a SIM traffic model, and
it's like you're looking down from a helicopter at the intersection.
So this will just show you
how, especially, this access on
13 Mile Road will operate. So hopefully we can get that pulled up.
I think it's a
video file
that's on the flash drive.
While that video is getting pulled up, I'll jump ahead to comment number
10 about safety review.
Again,
it's obviously the opposition reviewing this, and
they're talking about 13 Mile
and Mound Road. And what they
failed to mention, too, is the queue length and whatnot.
If you look, and you'll see it in the video here, the queue length for that
eastbound to northbound kind of left turn that'll go into the site
on 13 Mile Road, the queue length is about 40 feet.
What that's saying is obviously there is enough
gap to where that left turn movement into the site on 13
Mile Road can be made very adequately.
If that queue length for that left turn, it's where the crossover is, if that
were an issue, you would see queues 200, 300, 400
feet in length and potentially backing up into 13 Mile and Mound Road.
The maximum queue that was calculated for that is 40 feet
in length.
So again, it's not an issue. So I know
what they indicated, and we show it in our report, 13 Mile and Mound Road.
When you have,
what, over 4,000 vehicles in an hour traveling on a road,
you're obviously going to have certain accidents up and
down Mound Road. It's just there's that much volume.
I do know that the volumes have slightly decreased
since the improvements were done at 13
Mile Road and Mound Road. Specifically, there were
upgrades to the signalsMast arms,
pedestrian crossings, and of course, the Mound Road
itself. So here you can kind of see if that's showing.
Now, I don't know if you all up there can see it or not, but
what we're showing here is the queue.
So you can see coming in the westbound direction,
you'll start to see it queue up but pay attention to that
crossover, eastbound and northbound, that goes into the site,
and specifically pay attention to the queue there.
So we let this run for a couple of minutes.
Again, this is using Synchro version 12.
Simtraffic, it is a
fairly detailed program.
So again, you can see some of the queues starting to queue up.
And again, this should be noted, there's no modified signal timing
here. This is the exact timing that
the Road Commission has supplied.
So you'll see now how it just filters and clears out,
and you can see how the eastbound and northbound left
actually is able to enter the site.
There is enough gap. And again, I think the important thing to note
here, certainly there is some queue that happens on
13 Mile Road, but I think the important thing is
how quickly that
actually moves through the intersection and also how important
the eastbound and northbound left can enter the site.
I think that's the big takeaway here.
I'll go ahead and move on to the next.
Comment number 11 was, there is a potential for increased rear-end
crashes on both Mound and 13 Mile Road at the site driveway
locations due to the projected turning movements.
I assume if you add one vehicle to any location here, sure, there's a
potential.
But what you need to do is review that in the proper
manner and have professionals that review this, and
obviously the professionals that matter in this case have
reviewed the study, have reviewed the analysis, and have no comments,
but have approved what was done. I think that's the big takeaway
here.
And to add to that, too, even in the study, we did show that there was
only one accident at the site driveway on Mound Road
in the last five years at
approximate location of where our site driveway is.
Now, that's not at the intersection of 13 and Mound
Road. That's actually at the site driveway.
I do understand that, I think maybe a couple of months ago, there might have
been an accident just south of the driveway where I don't know if this
person was reading their phone or something and hit a utility pole,
but obviously, that is not a situation that would be
because of our driveway or someone trying to turn right into the site.
Comment number 12, the TIA was not provided to the
MCDR Department of Roads for review.
The study should be provided for concurrence with the proposed
site driveways and proposed operations.
We actually have submitted the report to the Macomb County
Department of Roads on two separate occasions and have had
numerous conversations with Department of Roads.
They were contacted early on. I
think we even included in the letter some of the email
communication with the Department of Roads, and as stated, they
have no further comments on the study other than to say they are not
requiring a right turn into the Mound Road
access.
Again, we have comments
and emails between the county, us, regarding submittals.
We also have emails included where the county
indicates
no need for the right turn or taper on Mound Road.
We also have
communication on the driveway width, which the county has
agreed to have 40 feet in width. This is
from Robert Bush and also the director at the Road Commission.
They've had numerous
internal meetings on that, and the decision, I think, was
about three to four weeks ago when they came up with the decision.
The only thing I might have skipped over was the stopping sight
distance, and I think we clearly showed in the
letter, we actually put a diagram or an exhibit showing the
stopping sight distance
for the vehicle, just to show that there wasn't a concern
for a rear-end accident. We did satisfy the stopping sight distance.
I think what you have before you is a complete
study. We've been through
every possible entity. To have another entity try
and review this,
I think there was mention of a third-party reviewer.
The county is there for that
purpose. Your own city is there for that purpose.
We've had meetings and discussions with GM.
We've really tried to go above and beyond on this site.
Again, you're going to hear comments from the public tonight.
I think it's important to realize the comments that
were upon us three weeks ago, how they were addressed, and
I'm here to answer any further questions that you, the Planning Commission, has.
Other than that, thank you
for hearing me tonight.
Thank you, sir, for your presentation.
Nicely done.
Well, that's a tough one to follow.
I don't have any visual aids and certainly no moving pictures.
You know me now. I'm Pat Lennon. I'm an attorney with the Honigman firm.
This is our client's fifth appearance before you on this project.
We've submitted letters. We've submitted application documents,
traffic studies, supplements to traffic studies, videos,
literally hundreds of pages of reports, and hours of
conversation in this planning commission.
We've diligently answered every question, pursued and obtained all requested
information,
and put to rest virtually every question that's been presented to us.
Mind you, this has all been done in connection with what's called a buy-right
project.
A buy-right project that has been recommended for approval by your own city, by
Macomb County, and by every impartial governmental
body that's looked at it, other than yourselves to this point.
But this isn't news to you because at no point during this
discussion have we been told that we don't meet particular requirements of
the ordinance, because everyone knows we do.
As we all know, due to vacancies on the planning commission,
we were required to come back tonight.
We had a four to three vote to approve, but because of the vacancies,
we need a fifth vote, so that's why we're here again.
We would like to think that a majority approval would be sufficient, but
under the rules of Warren, in this case, unfortunately, it isn't.
I've gone through the legal standards with you before.
I know it's probably the most boring part of these discussions,
so I won't go through them again
in detail.
You know the project's legally entitled to approval under Section 501 (5) of
the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act because it satisfies the objective
requirements of your ordinance. This was made clear in our letter of January
7 and in the January and February meetings.
We'll also share that Michigan case law makes it clear that a planning
commission cannot generally rely on the blanket
excuse of safety to deny an application.
In this case, the case of OCS v. City of St.
Clair Shores, a Michigan Supreme Court case from some time ago,
there was a public hearing
where a building permit was denied based on general health, safety,
and welfare requirements. The court held in favor of the gas station applicant in
that case, indicating that a planning commission can't
simply just generally deny something based on, quote, "just safety".
But I think you all know what the legal arguments are and what a lawsuit might be.
But we're here tonight to avoid that, and we have the chance to do that.
We would rather obtain a fifth vote tonight
than go down another path. So as we
prepared for this meeting, we looked really hard at the prior meetings and
tried to identify every question everyone had.
And after reviewing and analyzing all the videos and all the information and all
the comments, particularly from those of you that voted against the approval,
we think we've addressed every one of those.
So as you just heard,
the team here has provided a thorough and professional traffic impact
analysis. They've updated it multiple times.
They've confirmed it with the General Motors traffic engineer
and have refuted all of the comments raised by the project opponent,
who is really just one group.
It's clear that the project will only have a minimal impact on traffic.
The traffic study confirmed that following completion of the development, the
intersection will continue to operate at level of service B.
That was made clear both today and after the project is done.
So that is not a significant change.
To make the study even more conservative, you heard that the Sesco team
increased the counts by 25% to account for
potential changes in traffic.
Again, the conclusion was level of service B.
In an effort to satisfy some of your requests, these are particular things that
came at us, not necessarily ordinance requirements.
It's now been analyzed as of, I believe, four different dates.
The first time someone said, "Oh, that was election day." Another time, someone
said, "Well, that was Martin Luther King." Now we've looked at this, I believe,
on four different separate dates.
And so they've been reacting to your feedback and saying,
"Okay,
you don't want this date. We'll try that date." So four dates seems
unprecedented to me. And I have to tell you, each date, as you've heard,
did not change the level of service.
There was a particular question, I believe it was Mr. Douzet and Mr.
Onsrud at the beginning, were curious about General Motors'
concerns because they spoke at the first meeting.
And we were urged, and at great effort, the team went and
met with them, met with their traffic consultant, talked things through.
Now, GM has withdrawn their objections.
I believe they're officially neutral with respect to this
application, which is a step forward.
But beyond that, in an effort to eliminate any concern or argument, they
closed the exit from the property onto 13 Mile
Road. Remember this? This was a big concession.
That wasn't in there originally, but there was concern about sight lines, and they
were willing to do it. You know what else they did?
They expanded the width of the driveway entry from 30 to 40 feet.
Macomb County wasn't suggesting that.
It wasn't necessary, but that came from this team up here, and we reacted
to that and did it.
Now,
as you've heard tonight,
if you're worried about who's got skin in the game or who's working for whose
client, think about who isn't. Well, Macomb County isn't, and
they've approved this. Your staff, they don't have iron in the
fire. They've also approved it. General Motors, they've withdrawn their objection.
General Motors traffic consultant, Kimley-Horn,
we aren't hearing from them.
And so what does that tell you? If there was a safety concern,
wouldn't they all be raising their hands, and wouldn't
our traffic consultant? Well, that's just not been the
case.So ultimately, the applicant has
addressed every comment from the planning commission, whether it
was emanating from the ordinance or from your requests.
We feel like we've fully addressed them and solved them, and we do not see
the safety issue or any issue. So what we would ask you to
do is follow your ordinance. And what your ordinance would tell
you is that you should approve this project.
So we truly hope you do that tonight, and we look forward
to discussing this further and as needed.
But that's all I have for you.
Thank you, sir.
Given all the facts that we've heard in this meeting and the last few
meetings,
and the way the petitioners come to the conclusion
of answering all the questions that were brought to them,
this is a public hearing. If anyone would like to speak on this item,
my
suggestion would be, if you have something new that
hasn't been heard in any of these meetings or something
different than what's been heard tonight,
then come up and state your request.
But other than that,
this is a public hearing. Please come up, state your name and address for the
record.
Good evening, chair and commissioners.
My name is Julie Kroll, and I'm with Fleis & VandenBrink,
and we're located at 27725 Stansbury Boulevard, Suite
195, Farmington Hills, Michigan, where I'm the traffic engineering group
manager and licensed professional engineer with over 25
years of traffic engineering consulting experience.
I'm back before you again this evening to provide a summary of the review that I
performed for the revised traffic impact analysis prepared by
CESO for the proposed Speedway gas station and 7-Eleven convenience store.
I
provided a copy of my review to the city and to
Macomb County Department of Roads via email on Thursday, March
19th, 2026, and I requested that
the planning department provide you with a copy of my review letter
and the email that I sent in the correspondence
that I'm going to speak about this evening.
Hopefully, you've had an opportunity to review that information that I sent to the
city.
The review included an evaluation of the revised TIA prepared by CESO,
dated February 17th, 2026-
Excuse me one second, ma'am. I don't want to cut you off.
The
public hearing people
only have three minutes to speak, okay?
You've already spoke for a few minutes.
I haven't set my timer, so I'm going to set my timer now.
Okay, so you only have three minutes to speak.
I didn't tell you that in the beginning.
I understand.
So go ahead.
I will be less than five, three minutes, I promise.
All right, thank
you.
The revised TIS that they prepared addressed several items that were previously
noted during our initial review.
There was two additional items that I wanted for the planning
commissioners' consideration tonight.
The first one was regarding the queuing, which the applicant did show in their SIM
traffic models. It does demonstrate, as in their
models and in the data that was included in the traffic study, that those queues
will extend past the driveway. So I want the planning commission to
understand that that will be not an all-the-time
occurrence, but it will occur.
And the other one was to talk about the stopping site distance.
They did provide that additional information in a slide previous this evening.
But as part of that consideration, we do know that we're going to see increased
right turn volumes from what's currently experienced there, and that
would benefit from a right turn lane on
13 Mile Road at the site driveway. That's all I wanted to add this evening.
Thank you.
Thank you, ma'am. Have a good evening.
Does anyone else would like to speak on this item?
Good evening, chair and commissioners.
I'm Jordan Siegel, counsel for Walton & Engineering at 31330
Mound Road. I want to explain why the site plan
still does not meet your safety standards under Section
2216B of the zoning ordinance, and why that is
important, and why that gives you the discretion to deny the site plan because it
does not meet all requirements.
First, the data problems persist despite multiple attempts
to provide
proper data. The applicant's traffic counts were originally taken on
Election Day,
and then during a week of Martin Luther King Day, and during a blizzard.
Times when schools were closed and major employers like GM and Stellantis weren't
on normal schedules.
If their data is so good, why do they continue to use
this faulty data in their
study? Why do they use this as a backup to the data that they
received? And the answer is clear, because it helps them state
that the traffic counts will be as they say.
There's an acronym, GIGO, garbage in, garbage
out. When you use the faulty data in the background, that skews
all of the data. So they can show you as many snazzy videos as they
want. When the data supporting that video is faulty, what
you get is not only a wrong video, but a misleading one.
Section 2216B requires that decisions are made on accurate,
real-world conditions. That is why they do not meet the city's zoning
ordinance.
Second, you just heard about the queuing problem.
This is a clear safety issue. Think of it this way.
When you're stopped at a red light, the line of cars behind you is a queue.
Our independent reviewer found that the backup of cars on westbound
13 regularly extends past where they want to have you believe it
will. The driveway would be about 285 feet from the intersection, but
the traffic models show the cars backing up further than
thatThat means drivers trying to turn into or out of
the site would be doing so in the middle of stopped or slow-moving traffic,
creating exactly the kind of rear-end collision risk.
The crash history confirms this risk.
Now, what we heard was there was only one accident at the site, but that's not
where your focus should be. It's not at the site.
It's in the intersection leading up to the site.
And there we saw 163 crashes over the last five years.
77 of them were rear-end collisions.
Adding a high-turnover driveway for a gas station on these
frontages without the safety improvements that we called for would
needlessly make an already
dangerous situation even worse. And you have to ask yourself, why is
Walton Engineering here? They don't have a dog in the fight.
They don't care whether or not there is a site here, except for the fact that it
makes a situation on their doorstep dramatically
unsafe.
It's not like they have a particular dog in what's developed next door.
Excuse me, sir. Time's almost up.
Okay, thank you.
Look, at the end of the day, you have two licensed experts who
disagree. When that happens- ... you err on the side of safety
because you don't want to be in a situation a year from now wondering if your
decision led to a crash. We ask you to deny this application.
Thank you, sir. Have a good evening.
Anyone else?
State your name and address for the record, please.
Beth McGrath. I represent 31200 Mound
Road. Same address, 31200 Mound Road, Warren, Michigan.
This building currently holds a single tenant, PNC Bank.
We have an interested party looking to move up to 150
people into this building, increasing the professional workforce in Warren by
that amount. As part of their due diligence, they completed their own
assessment of the location characteristics, including neighboring businesses,
both commercial and retail, traffic patterns, and more importantly, safety.
Overall, they were satisfied with the businesses and the services that could be
provided to their employees. However, they have significant concerns regarding
traffic and safety implications associated with this proposed
development. Specifically, the proximity of 31200 Mound Road
parking lot to what appears to be the single exit point for this development.
It raises serious considerations.
The development, combined with the already high traffic on Mound Road,
could create hazardous conditions for ingress and egress for the
employees. On a daily basis, you can witness traffic speeding up and
down Mound Road and nearly running into those that are trying to turn into
31200 or any of our neighbors to the north.
The safety of the employees is a top priority for this potential
tenant, and their concerns may terminate this transaction,
and quite honestly, others in the future, which prohibits our ability to
succeed and grow in Warren, where we've been for a while.
We would welcome a business that provided less traffic while still supporting the
historic district. And although the interested party, Agri Realty's
study states that it is safe, our day-to-day experience shows us
otherwise because we live it. This is a case of book smart
versus street smart. Therefore, we respectfully request that the proposed
development be denied. Thank you.
Thank you, ma'am.
Good evening.
My name is Kelly Stevenson. I live at 30118
Lorraine.
I have been proudly
living in the city of Warren for the past 55 years.
My family has continued to live here, and I have raised four children in the city.
Warren has always been my home, which is why I feel compelled to speak about
this proposed plan to add yet another gas station to an
intersection at 13 and Mound. This intersection is already
unsafe. The current turn lane configuration makes it extremely
difficult to tell whether a vehicle is in the turn lane or the through lane.
Adding another gas station will only increase congestion, confusion, and
the likelihood of serious accidents.
When you turn the corner and are suddenly faced with trucks turning into a gas
station driveway, it creates an unnecessary and dangerous
situation. I have four college students
that use this thoroughway daily. The traffic volume and flow are
already concerning, and adding more congested traffic,
especially trucks, only place them and other residents at greater
risk. I also work in Warren and have for over 30 years.
So I have personally experienced these traffic conditions on a regular
basis. The city of Warren frequently states that it wants
to promote new business and attract entrepreneurs.
While I understand and support economic growth, I struggle to see how another
gas station helps achieve that goal.
As a mother of four college students, I can confidently say that
my children, and many like them, are not going to remain in Warren
to work at a gas station or convenience store after earning their
degrees. They will take their education and talents to cities that
offer careers and industries that promote growth,
innovation, and professional development.
We already have a large Sheets at 12 and Mound, a Speedway
nearby, and another gas station at 14 and Mound.
How many more gas stations does that area truly need?
I believe Warren would be better served by attracting businesses that
invest in education, skilled employment, and
long-term economic growth, rather than adding another convenience store
that risks becoming a traffic hazard and community hangout
that contributes little to our future.
Let's focus on development that lifts our city up rather than creating
issues that could later appear on the nightly news
I urge our city leaders to consider this proposal and
prioritize safety, thoughtful development, and
opportunities that encourage our young people to stay, work, and build their
lives here in Warren. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you, ma'am.
Hello, commissioners. My name is John Epic.
I live at 13521 Hawk Drive in Warren.
Just a little background. I retired from the Warren Police Department.
I was with them for 27 years, and I retired as a police
lieutenant. I patrolled these streets, and I drive these streets every
day. I drive through this intersection every day,
and it is crazy the driving that is going on now,
let alone adding to more traffic coming in and out that close to
the intersection.
But not more importantly, but my other
question is, who does this benefit?
Who is this benefiting by putting this here?
We've had conflicting stories on traffic safety.
Studies don't show everything, okay?
But who benefits? You guys represent, you guys are looking out for the interests
of the people of the city of Warren, not some billion-dollar gas
station. Okay? So who does it benefit?
Risk versus reward. Are we going to risk the added
traffic and the added risk of traffic
accidents? To what benefit does the city get?
So who's benefiting from this?
I would ask you to deny this application. Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Good evening, everyone.
Good evening.
I just want to say that
I want to introduce myself first. I'm Mark
Steenberg. I've lived in Warren for 71
years. I was born into the township in
1955, and Warren became a city in '57.
I served for 12 years as Warren's mayor
and went through so many episodes just like
we're having here tonight, where the planning commission has to
decide, is it about big business or is it about the
people and what is good for the people you represent?
I've known Lloyd Brown for nearly all my life.
I appointed him to the Downtown Development Authority,
and he's done so many things and been so
instrumental in so many of the great projects that
added so much enormous value
to our city.
Lloyd, like me, grew up here also. He attended Cosano High
School.
I went to Lincoln High School.
Our fathers grew up here and went to Lincoln High School together
in their time.
I'd like to talk a little bit about old Warren Village and the
great history that exists there. There's so many people that
have come and gone through there, dating way back
before Warren was ever founded, even as a
township. And it's a wonderful,
beautiful place. And always in my time, we
fought very hard to maintain and uphold that history.
And now we're here today, and we're faced with another
gas station at the gateway to the Warren
Village area.
I believe that this is going to be detrimental to that.
And
we need another gas station?
I've
seen
so many things happen in my time. In my time, it was
about car lots, although I see your
agenda you still have to deal with car lots, but it was
about car lots and storefront churches and things like that.
And now you're faced with things like too many gas
stations.
You're faced with
car washes and
a different set of circumstances. And I feel for you.
Those are all going to be tough decisions for you.
We have 19 gas stations-
Excuse me, sir, your time's-
... on Mound and Van D**e between-
Excuse me, sir, your time's almost up
... 96 to 14 already. And Speedway has gas stations on 12
Mile right by Mound, one right over on Van D**e.
And I know that you
probably voted for having the Sheetz come in.
Sir. Sir, excuse me, your time's up.
You replaced Pampel Lanes.
Can you conclude?
Hey, those guys got to speak. I'm going to speak for a little while.
Everyone gets to speak for three minutes, sir. You had three minutes.
Yeah. The, uh-
Sir, your time is up.
I'm going to say that I-
Sir
... am glad that you did what you did at Pampel Lanes.
Sir,
your time is up.
Oh.
Thank you.
I find this abhorrent. I've been a citizen-
The public hearing
... all my life, probably a lot longer than most of you, and I can't
speak when you allowed that guy to speak.
We appreciate-
The one guy talked about-
Sir
... one accident in five years.
Sir.
There's not even a driveway there yet.
Sir, we appreciate your comments, and we appreciate your service as mayor of
the city of Warren in the past.
But the public hearing, the people get to speak for three minutes.
Hi there. My name is Suzanne Fonts.
I live at 11575 Emms Drive, City of Warren.
Lived here for 54 years. I'm going to make this really brief.
I know legal arguments.
Sitting here, this is the first time I realized there really wasn't even going to
be a right turn egress into there. All I can say is this is unsafe.
I drive there every day. I've lived here
My whole life, this is the gateway, as Mayor Steenberg said, to the
historic district of our beautiful city.
So besides the fact that I just think it's going to be ugly, I don't like it.
First time I've heard there's no going to be right turn egress to
move over to turn.
I drive there every day. Cars accelerating from
Mound
pass there. I don't know. I'm not a traffic safety engineer, but I'm a
driver, and
just safety is so much more important than
business. Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening, board.
I want to thank everybody that
took time out of their day to come and speak, and I
appreciate the board the last time that you voted on this,
and this motion failed. And the reason why it failed is because
there are some valid concerns here,
both at the commission level and at the community level.
And as Mark indicated, I spent 30 years here,
raised my family here,
and I volunteered just like you guys did.
16 years on the DDA, I was the chairman, and I had a lot of tough
decisions I had to make. And I can tell you something, it's easy
to say yes,
but when I was the chairman of the Downtown Development Authority, I was probably
the guy that said no the most. And it's
your decision, it's not mine. I do respect you folks for taking
time and giving back to the community.
That's why I did it for 16 years. I have a lot of money
invested here in this town,
and I care dearly about Warren, my employees, and
the community at large. So I just want to thank everybody that came here
tonight, and I know that this board will make the right
decision. Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Jennifer Fonts, 32044 Vegas Drive.
I wasn't going to speak at all,
but I have to say what popped out to me was the fact that two traffic
studies were submitted Martin Luther King Day and Election Day.
Everybody knows that those are not the busy days of the year.
So maybe they tried to pull the wool over your eyes, and now they're
saying, "Okay, this time we're giving you more legitimate information." It
just suggests that their credibility should be questioned.
I've driven up and down that road. I've lived here 60 years.
I haven't been driving 60 years.
Hundreds and hundreds of times, as I'm sure most of you have.
I'm asking you to just consider your common sense. Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening, Commission. Oscar Zamora, City of Warren, 26
years living right at Chicago and Mound.
I don't think anybody besides me
and Mike have seen that corner more than anybody.
I've never had a problem there. Everybody seems to be concerned
about traffic queues. Try living two houses off of Mound,
and you see the cars in the morning lining up for more than 200 feet,
and they're either going to Waltonen or GM or some other company there twice a
day. So if somebody wants to bring up queues, let's talk about that
one first. The other issue I'd like to point out is everybody
keeps bringing up safety. You've already heard from the attorney that safety
cannot be a consideration. Nobody up there has a crystal ball,
and neither do I. You could go out of here right now tonight and get in an accident
leaving the driveway. Nobody knows. It's called fate.
So safety shouldn't be a concern. I think it's time to let this man
sell his building. I don't think that Speedway is going to
throw an $8 million investment out there just on
a whim. Everybody's saying we don't need another gas station.
We don't need another gas station. Have they done any studies?
I'm sure before investing $8 million, Speedway has.
Now everybody agrees, state, county, city, your own
planning commissioner, that this meets the requirements.
There's no reason not to pass it. Pass this tonight and let this
man get on with his life. Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Good evening, board. Michael Wigan, owner of the
Gazebo. I wasn't going to speak tonight and plead my case
again because I told you all my reasons for what I
want to do. But these
good people who want to
purchase my business, they've
gone out of their way to meet all expectations that the
citizenry and the board's asked. I think they've gone
above and beyond, and I just think that shows their
professionalism.
And
as far as Mr. Brown, he's been a friend of mine for
30 years, and I still consider him a friend.
And
I
have no ill will towards him because I think he's really doing what
he thinks is right in his heart. But we are
meeting all the codes and all that.
And that being said,
everybody that has spoken here tonight has either been an
employee of Mr. Brown's, a relative or an
employee of a relative of his.
So just take that in consideration.
This is all
coming from one source, and I appreciate
the point of view, but
I think we've gone through all
your questions and answered them for you.
Thank you, sir.
Good evening, commissioners.
My name is Joey Ager. I'm the president and CEO of Ager Realty Corporation,
and I appreciate the four or five meetings that you all have spent
working on this project in conjunction with my team.
Developments and redevelopments of historic real estate, not historic
in a conservation sense, but of legacy real estate, can be a
challenging things for neighbors,
for adjoining business owners, and for residents of any city.
I'm the CEO and president of Ager Realty Corporation.
We're the largest retail landlord in the state of Michigan.
We're based in Royal Oak. I live 15 minutes from here.
We own 200 gas stations nationwide.
The last thing that my company would ever want to do, and is affirmed
by
the city,
by the county,
by our engineers, by multiple traffic studies, none of which
were
created on Martin Luther King Day.
It was the week of Martin Luther King Day, and there have been four.
The data is empirical.
This is a B-level intersection.
It is safe. The county has said it's safe.
It has met the requirements of both the city, the county, and
is with 7-Eleven Speedway, which has very strict rules and
regulations regarding ingress and egress.
But most importantly, we're a Michigan-based company that I lead.
We would never build anything that is unsafe.
We're not adjoining residential uses.
We're talking about an adjacent property owner that is an industrial use that is
the interested party here.
But by right, this property
can serve as a gas station. We fully intend for it to serve as a gas
station, and we've done everything that we possibly can as a
neighbor based in Royal Oak, Michigan, to satisfy the
needs, the wishes, and the desires of the adjacent neighbors, including General
Motors
and the council here.
Is there any questions I can answer?
No, sir. Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else like to speak on this item?
Seeing none, we'll turn to the commission.
Mr. Chairman,
I'd like to make a motion that we
turn this down with discussion.
Support by Commissioner Ansir.
Any discussion?
Mr. Chairman,
there have been a number of things that have been brought up here.
I'm not an attorney. I don't play one on TV.
We've got enough attorneys here to
have a heck of a good time legally.
But
my concern from the get-go has been that
that right turn
is a blind turn,
and I'm very concerned that somebody's going to get killed in that
intersection.
The petitioner has gone over and above what could and should
be there,
and they've done a terrific job on changing it
per meeting, and it's actually a very
good site plan.
The problem is the location of the site plan.
If this was on a 90-degree corner
someplace, wherever, even across the street on
Mound, I wouldn't have a problem with this at all.
But as soon as you put that right turn
from 13 Mile Road,
and
whoever has said that this is not a problem, well,
I've been on that intersection, and I've
almost gotten creamed by somebody coming up either Mound or
crossing
Mound on 13 Mile Road.
It's also been brought up that
there are a lot of people, everybody
has looked at this and agrees with it, and
that we shouldn't even be talking about this
in terms of safety or otherwise.
Well, at one point in time, the whole world thought the world was flat.
I listened to these comments, and that's the
one thing that goes through my head.
I think Mr. Regan, the owner of the property, has done a super job
at the gazebo. I really do. I've been
there a number of times, and it's just terrific.
But pulling into it or leaving it
leaves a lot to the imagination, and it's
scary every now and then.
Coming into that and going westbound on 13 Mile Road
after the left where the split between Chicago Road and 13 Mile Road
is, is fine and dandy, but that one turn
going to westbound
13 Mile Road, when it comes to Mound, it's
very scary.
So on that basis, I can't support this.
If it was on a 90-degree turn corner, no
problem. I'll be the first one in line to
go with it and to approve this. But because of this
crazy turn on 13 Mile Road, and I don't
know how this was approved originally, but
because of that turn and because of everything that everybody wants to do there,
I can't support it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, sir. Anyone else?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Go ahead, Mr. Ansari.
I also agree with Duza.
By the way, my mom's house on 13 Mile and Lauren.
Almost every week, 10, 15 times, I
take this 13 Mile and Mountain Road.
So it's been 10 years. I know this road very well.
And I completely agree with my colleague, Duza, that
safety
is first. I heard that one of our residents said, "No, safety is
not the main concern."
Yes.
As a commissioner, when we are sitting here,
we prioritize our residents' safety and constituents'
safety. When we make a decision, we don't prioritize any party
or any group that may
benefit them. We always care our residents' and constituents'
safety and betterment. So when we make any decision,
our priority always safety and our neighborhood and residents.
So I personally think
that for this location, as Duza mentioned that, yes,
if any other location, we approve you other as a speed way in different
location, I was the one that
said yes. But for this location, I personally think no.
So that is the reason for the safety concern, and I'm also
going no.
Thank you.
Anyone else like to speak on this item?
I've had my say.
I have a few comments I'd like to make.
I don't think we're looking at the big picture.
You say you don't want another gas station on the corner.
We've approved a bunch of four complex units in
Heritage Village, which is right across the street, which is going to be more units
that are going to be over there in that area.
Number two, there's other things that can be done with the traffic.
I've seen it happen in smaller towns than this.
I've seen where they put up a sign on the main road that has a flashing
yellow light that says, "If this light is flashing, proceed.
The light's going to turn, so prepare to stop."
You could do that. As far as the right turn off of 13 on the Mound, you
could have a sign that says, "No turn on red,"
or have an arrow, which will allow them to turn on red.
So there's some simple things that can be done with the traffic to curb
that problem. But the number one major problem is
people don't use their brains. Everybody's in a hurry.
Everybody wants to run, be first. They don't think about the other
person. They don't respect each other.
So as long as people don't think
positively about moving in traffic
or making a right turn or being respectful to the other person on the
lane, you're going to have an accident.
There's no way you're going to get around it because you can't control how people
think,
okay?
And until you can control how people think, if we're all robots and you can program
the robot, "Okay, you can't do this, you can't do that," then you don't have an
issue. But when you can't control how people think, and with
people's attitudes, with everything going on in the world today,
a lot of people are impatient.
And if you don't have the patience, but like I say, you got Heritage Village right
across the street. They're getting ready to put up multiple units over there.
So another gas station probably wouldn't hurt that area.
And like I say, not everybody likes going to the same gas station
anyway. So that's my
result on this. I think the petitioner's done a fantastic
job putting this petition together.
They've answered all the questions that we've thrown at them, and they
even made some more changes, which I say are good.
So my point of view, I would say that it should be passed,
but that's my point of view.
We're done with that part right now.
Yeah, I just want to make a quick correction just to make sure everyone's aware.
Mr. Commissioner-
Sir.
He was making a few statements about-
We are-
I think there's a misunderstanding.
Sir. Sir.
Okay. It's on the commissioner portion right now, so we don't have
any participation from the audience at this point in time.
Okay.
So that's my point of view on everything.
So that was a motion by Commissioner Duza to deny, supported
by Commissioner Ansari.
Is there anyone else who wants to speak on this?
Mr. Chair, if I may?
Sure.
I
would like to make a comment, especially I know this project
meets all the requirements with our city, everything.
We know it does. However,
I personally have to agree with one of the comments that you just made right
now, especially with having that flashing red light or the yellow
light. If that can be placed, I feel like I would definitely be
leaning forward to going
forward with this project. I think other than that, with the way this
project is right now, not having that right turn available in there, and
then talking about the fact that we had one crash in the last five years in the
parking lot, I feel like it just doesn't add up in there.
So keeping the sense of we know Mountain is busy.
When we come and say we only had one crash in there, that just does
not add up to me. So I would want to
maybe after we go through with this motion, even
maybe make a conditional condition in there that we
have something that approaches with a flashing yellow light or a
red light, they're prepared to stop.
I would like to make that and then see how the commission thinks about it, bring
that discussion up with the commission.
Thank you.
Anyone want to comment on that?
Seeing none. That was a motion by Commissioner Dusek, supported by Commissioner
Ansar, to deny. Roll call.
Commissioner Dusek?
Yes, to deny based on safety factors.
Commissioner Ansar?
Yeah. To deny
based on the safety factor.
Commissioner Holowaty?
Yes to deny, due to safety factors.
Commissioner Hawk?
I also is not agree because of very
strong evidence they are presenting about the safety
issues.
So at this time, I say it is denied. Yes.
Commissioner Mori? Yes. I'm also going to vote yes to deny, keeping
the consideration of safety. Commissioner Bonacci?
I vote no to deny it. I think it should've been approved.
Commissioner Smith?
I vote no to deny.
So it's-
Five to two
... five to two to deny.
Thank you for all the work you've put in,
and
it's been denied.
Have a good evening, everyone.
I'd like to recognize our ex officios, Council Woman McGee and
Councilman Noonan. Welcome to the meeting.
Wow.
Item number 6B.
Item number 6B, site plan for modification of
existing site to accommodate truck docks, detached
storage buildings, and exterior doors located on the
northwest corner of Sherwood Avenue and 8 Mile Road,
65658 Mile Road,
21555 Sherwood Avenue, Section 33.
William Turner and FNLR Straight VI
LLC, Jonas P. Palm, Albert Kahn Associates
Inc., PSP260012, postponed
from March 23, 2026. Thank you.
Thank you. Is the petitioner here this evening?
Good evening, sir.
Can you tell us a little bit about your project?
Yep. Good evening. I'm Art Senn, and I'm a facility manager for Mopar,
division of Stellantis. We do all the parts and service.
And the purpose of this project is to update the building to
accommodate
new parts that we're going to be moving in there from our Marysville, Michigan
facility. The parts in that facility are going to be moving to a new location
that we're currently building. These infrastructure updates are required to
basically improve the material flow that we're going to have inside the
building.
So we got Albert Kahn here as well that did the engineering on the
project as well as PEA. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Correspondence?
Correspondence. Taxes current building.
Construction of modifications will require a building permit and plan review
application to be submitted to the building department.
Engineering, preliminary review of this site yielded no comments from the
engineering division. Fire, as of now, the fire
department doesn't see any issues that may hamper our operations for
PSP260012.
DTE, DTE Electric Company has received the site plan,
reviewed the site plan for modification of existing site to accommodate truck
docks, detached storage units, and exterior doors.
DTE has no objection to this request impacting
65658 Mile Road, Section 33 per the site plan provided,
as long as the 10-foot clearance are maintained from the power
lines in the area of any new building or expansion of
existing buildings. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me at
586-783-1978. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thanks, Madam Secretary.
Planning department's recommendation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The recommendation is as follows.
It is recommended that the site plan for
modifications of the existing Stellantis site
for new truck wells and new storage building be
approved with the standard conditions of the planning commission, and more
specifically, number one,
five copies of revised site plans
shall be submitted indicating the following.
And that would be A, the five sheets,
and that is sheet
00.C01.00
overall site plan key. And then
there's... Let's see. I can't make this any
quicker
. There's sheet
00.C01.01
site plan south,
and sheet
00-C01.02
site plan
south central,
sheet
00C01.03
site plan north central, and finally, sheet
00./
C01.04
site plan north, shall be deemed the site plan
for the project.
1B, add the measurements and notes for the truck
wellThat are provided on sheet zero zero
C zero four point zero two two,
sheet zero
zero/C
zero one/zero three, site
plan North Central.
1C, add the measurements and notes for the
PEMB storage building and waste
storage area that are provided on sheets
zero zero/C zero four
point zero one two,
sheet zero zero/C zero
one/zero two,
site plan South Central.
1D, the accessible parking spaces and
access
aisles in parking lots one, two,
and three shall be striped per ADA requirements.
Update sheet zero
zero-C zero
one-zero one, site plan South, and
sheet zero zero-C
zero one-zero
two-site
plan-South Central per ADA
requirements.
Condition number two, the following variance may
need to be obtained from the zoning board of appeals prior to the
release of the site plan to the building division, and
that is to retain open storage closer than
150 feet to the property line, and that would be
the east property line of Sherwood
Avenue.
If approved, the variance shall be added to the revised site plan.
Condition number three, a performance bond in the amount of
$82,500 shall be posted according
to the estimated cost of
$2,750,000.
And just to comment,
this item was postponed last time
for the reasons of a correction and
modifying the plan so it was quite a bit more legible.
We had a meeting on that. And as you can see,
they
have plans that are very, very acceptable.
Just wanted to comment on that. So with that, Mr.
Chair, the recommendation is submitted.
Thank you, Mr. Wirth. This is a public hearing.
Would anyone like to come up and speak on this item?
Please come up, state your name and address for the record, and you'll have three
minutes to speak.
Seeing none, we'll turn it over to the commission.
Chair, make a motion to approve with discussion.
Support.
That was a motion by Commissioner Duzac.
No.
No. That was a motion by Commissioner Holowaty, supported by Commissioner Duzac.
Yeah.
Discussion?
Can I have the petitioner step forward again, please?
Good evening, sir.
Good evening.
Thank you for your patience in
letting us work through the first item on our agenda.
Okay, just a couple more quick things.
You've gone over, seen the recommendations through our planning department.
Do you have any comments or questions regarding them?
We plan to, again, work with the city, be a good citizen in the current
location. That's why we wanted to stay in Warren, double down on Warren.
We have our plant across the train tracks from us.
So, just worked with the planning commission on whatever we need to do to make sure
we have definitely an aesthetically pleasing building and working with the
community in that area.
Thank you, because I know,
it used to be Chrysler, but I know it's Stellantis now or...
That's correct. Yep.
Yeah. But they've been there many years, especially with the truck
plant not far from there.
Yes.
And they've been good neighbors and working with the city.
So,
I just want to make sure that you have no problems or questions regarding the
recommendations.
No, sir.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you, sir. Anyone else like to comment?
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duzac.
Before you sit down,
you came up with a very, very good site plan.
I was genuinely surprised at how much property you
have east of Sherwood.
Yes, sir.
Does all that fill up?
Yep. So, great question. So, to clarify one thing is that we are
tenants on that facility. So,
the owner on here, which was state, the FNLR, Straight6 owns the
property. But our
lease is for the entire property there.
And then currently we're using the lots across the street for our employee parking.
I was surprised at how much land you have for
parking east side of Sherwood.
That's one. And two,
how many semi-trailers have you got
there?
I mean,
just from driving up and down Sherwood, there's over
a couple of hundred easily.
Yep. It's in the couple hundreds. And I think everyone has seen in the
news that this facility is an important piece of our
larger network optimization in the United States, where we're
consolidating our warehouses. So again, it's been in the news that we're opening a
much larger warehouse in Van Buren, and
this warehouse is, again, a critical part of that plan.
So we got a lot of pieces in motion whichResults, and we
have currently extra storage on the site that we need.
All right.
Are you planning on hiring more employees?
So currently what we have scheduled is going to be similar employee count as we
work through the plan.
Okay.
But the important thing is that, and probably I didn't mention earlier, so this
facility here will basically accommodate all aftermarket
collision parts for Mopar in the world.
So that's all your Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, and RAM parts as well as
far as the US market, we got parts coming in from Europe, that will all be
distributed from this location and shipped throughout the United States as well as
overseas to any Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, and RAM dealerships that we have there.
Are you flying into Willow Run or
are you using the railroad spur or-
Oh, we're currently not using-
Everything.
Yep, currently we're not using rail. It's all by truck.
Okay.
All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, sir. Anyone else like to comment?
To the petitioner, good evening, sir. I just have a quick question.
I'm not going to let you go that fast.
All right.
I know Stellantis had on Nine and Hoover, they had a warehouse over there, and they
had a lot of semis over there. Were any of those trucks moved over
to this location?
That's a great question.
Can you talk to the mic?
Push the button.
Is the mic... Is it green?
Yeah.
Okay, go ahead. Okay.
It's not working.
Did it get pushed here? Warren?
Huh?
Did it get pushed here?
Oh, sorry. I hit the button up here. My fault.
I'm not used to this button up here.
All right, very good. Yeah, I apologize.
At the Nine Mile and Hoover location, that's a different group.
That's with our manufacturing, our MLM group, and I don't know their current plans.
No, I just wondered because,
after that one kind of closed down, I noticed more semis over there, and I was just
wondering if they'd moved some over there.
But one comment I do want to make is
that I think you did an excellent job on the drawing.
I was able to read it and understand it.
Yeah.
And the only comment I have about the drawing is I would like to see a little more
dimensions on the elevation drawings.
I mean, you show the elevation of the building, but there's really no dimensions on
the door locations and stuff like that.
So I would like to see a few more dimensions on the elevation
shots. But other than that, it looked like you did a very good job on the drawing.
A lot better than what we had before.
Yeah, understood.
Any other comments?
That was a motion by Commissioner Holowaty, supported by Commissioner
Doucette. Roll call.
Commissioner Holowaty?
Yes.
Commissioner Doucette?
Yes.
Commissioner Ansir?
Yes.
Commissioner Ha?
Yes.
Commissioner Moe-Loves, yes. Commissioner Meineke?
Yes to approve.
Commissioner Smith?
Yes to approve. Good luck with your project, sir.
Mr. Chairman?
Yes.
I'd like to request a five-minute recess.
There's something with the court reporter that
she needs to fix something. So if we can take five minutes, I'd appreciate it.
It's now 8:23. We will take a five-minute recess.
Thank you.
The battery's dying. I asked those questions with the rail.
No truck parts on there, but the rails, they're using trucks.
Yeah.
I
know.
Oh, I'm going
to
the
bathroom.
It's
been that long
already?
It's
almost time to reconvene, so we need to get everybody together again.
Starting back up.
Seven seconds.
What
the
heck?
Okay.
Welcome back to the Planning Commission meeting. We're reconvened.
Item number 6C.
Item number 6C, special land use site plan for change of
use from car wash to used car dealership, located on the east
side of Dequindre Road, approximately
2,355.8 feet south of 14 Mile
Road, 32150 Dequindre Road, Section 6.
Eddie Hano and Eddie and Steven Inc., Alex Hano,
PSPSL-250002. Thank you.
Good evening.
Good evening, Planning Commission. Good evening.
Good evening, sir. State your name for the address and also tell
us a little bit about your project.
My name is Alex Hano.
What do you call it?
We have been
in this car wash since 2007, and we've had a bunch of car
washes and competition open up in the area recently, and we've wanted to go into a
new business, a car dealership. So that's why here I'm bringing to you guys a
special land use and site plan for a change from a car wash to a
used car dealership.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
Correspondence.
Correspondence, Texas Current Engineering.
Preliminary review of the site yielded the following comments from the engineering
division. Number one, joint access agreement shall be required.
Number two, use 24-inch
times 36-inch paper for standard engineering site plans.
Police. The Warren Police Department has reviewed the submitted site plan and does
not foresee any issues at this time. AT&T.
AT&T does not object to the proposal.
We do have facilities in the vicinity, but they should not be affected.
Comcast. We have no conflicts with this proposal. MCDR.
Macomb County Department of Roads, MCDR, has received and reviewed the
enclosed preliminary plan for the above-mentioned site.
MCDR has no objection to proposed development at the above-mentioned
site. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me
at
586-463-8671.
MCPWO. Macomb County Public Works Office,
MCPWO, has reviewed the site plan for the project
referenced above and has determined the proposed site disturbance is less
than one acre.
However, if any site work extends farther west
toward Dequindre Road, a permit will be required because
the Red Run Branch B drain runs through the property.
If a no objection letter is required, please forward your request to
wesley.donick@macombgov.org. Prior to
construction, a soil
erosion permit may be required from this office.
Contact our soil erosion department at
586-469-5327 for
more information regarding same. Thank you.
Thanks, Madam Secretary. Planning department's recommendation.
It is recommended that the special land use and site
plan for new used car dealership be approved by City
Council and with the standard conditions of the Planning Commission, and more
specifically, number 1 (15) copies of revised site plan shall be
submitted indicating the following.
1The plan shall list any existing used car lots within
700 feet and automobile repair shops,
automotive service businesses, tire service business,
new car dealership, or new automotive retail business, auto wash or vehicle
laundry, or automobile storage within 200 feet.
The plan only needs to list these businesses if they're located within the City of
Warren. If none exist, notate this on the plan.
1The plan shall indicate that cleaning and refurbishing of vehicles will take
place within the building.1C, the plan shall indicate
that any use of horns, amplifiers, or any other devices for
outdoor transmission, amplification, or broadcasting of voices or
music shall be prohibited. All other ordinances restricting
noise and loud music shall apply. 1D, the plan shall indicate
that festoon signs are prohibited.
1E, the plan shall indicate that flashing lights are prohibited.
1F, the plan shall indicate that temporary signs shall be prohibited from the
site, but may be allowed with an approved permit twice annually,
unless prohibited in this section.
1G, the plan shall indicate that outdoor temporary feather signs or
wind-blown signs or streamers are prohibited from the outdoor
areas of the property, including without
limitation from display, attachment, or a fixture upon parked or
display outdoor vehicles, outdoor structures, buildings,
pedestals, or any other outdoor item upon which they may be
affixed. 1H, the plan shall indicate that human signs are
prohibited.
1I, the plan indicates a dimension of 24 feet
from the north side of the proposed used car lot building to the south side of the
existing building to the north. It appears there is an ingress-egress
between 32150 Dequindre Road and
32200 Dequindre Road along most of this shared
property line. The site plan shall be updated to reflect this.
1J, update the site plan to comply with the landscaping requirements, a
front lawn, a front yard landscape berm per section
4D.45 and 4D.15 of the zoning
ordinance. 1K, per section
15.01F, a decorative or ornamental
fence in a split rail, picket, basket weave, or similar style
constructed of wood, metal, or iron, but without sharp points protruding
upward, shall be provided along the setback line of the front.
Chain link fences are not allowed. Update the plan accordingly.
1L, provide the area of disturbance on the site plan.
A stormwater narrative explaining how the site will comply with this
ordinance will be required if the area of disturbance is over an acre.
1M, the plan indicates the front setback is 25 feet.
However, in an M2 district, the setback is 50 feet.
Update the site plan to show the 50-foot front setback requirement.
1N,
the three plantings listed on the site plan under the landscape
notes are invasive plants and shall be replaced with non-invasive
species. The invasive species are the crimson
pygmy bayberry, the dwarf burning bush, Austrian pine.
The recommended alternatives for shrubs include ninebark, bush
honeysuckle, shrubby cinquefoil, arrowwood
viburnum, and meadowsweet. Recommended alternatives for trees include
Norway spruce, eastern white pine, and concolor fir.
O, the plan indicates that no on-site irrigation is
proposed for the project. Therefore, the petitioner shall indicate how they plan
to maintain the landscaping on the site.
P, the plan shall be updated to reflect all easements on the
property per the reciprocal easement agreement between
32150 Dequindre Road and 32200 Dequindre
Road that was recorded with Macomb County Register of Deeds on February
27th, 1996, in Library 06930,
page
606. The plan shall show the recorded easement area,
as well as a dimension proposed access route.
The parking spaces on the property to the north shall also be indicated and
dimensioned on the site plan. The plan shall also indicate shared maneuvering
lanes, such as the 24-foot wide drive between the north side of
the proposed used car lot building and the south side of the existing building.
To the north, it appears there's ingress-egress between 32150
Dequindre Road and 32200 Dequindre Road along most of
the shared property line. The site plan shall be updated to reflect this.
Q, change the label from New Handicap Sign to New
Accessible Sign.
R, update the site plan to include concrete curbing around the entire
landscaped island proposed, including along the north
property line. This is in reference to the row of parking set back 50
feet from Dequindre Road. Number two, the following variances may need to be
obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to the special land use and
site plan being forwarded to city council.
So 2A, is to be located within 200 feet from the property
line of a site being
used for automobile storage, and that's the Red Run
Storage, which is located immediately to the east and south of the property in
question. And 2B, to waive three parking spaces.
Per planning staff's calculation, 16 off-street parking space are
required, and 13 spaces are proposed.
2C, to allow 13-foot and 14-foot one-way
maneuvering lanes around the building.
If approved, the variances shall be added to the revised site plan.
And number three, the special land use permit should be approved as the request
meets or exceeds most of the standards stated in section
22.14B,
1A through F, and 22.14B, 3A through
C.
Four, special land use permit approval as obtained from city council, the
petitioner shall complete all conditions within a two-year
period, or approval by the city council shall be automatically
revoked. And number five, a performance bond in the amount
of $1,500 shall be posted based on the estimated cost of
$50,000 by the petitioner. And this ends the recommendation.
Ms. Michelle, I have a correction I need to talk to you about.
Okay.
In our findings on page 14, item number
I, it says landscaping exists between the sidewalk and street curb
along Nine Mile Road, but between the sidewalk and the street curb of Groesbeck
Highway-
Mm.
... islands are concrete. I think that needs to be eliminated from our findings.
Yeah. That
should not be there.
Okay. And then there was another one above the H.
It said a six-foot high chain link fence exists along the east property line, and
the site plan andPlan indicates this to
remain. So how does that correspond with the fencing that they were talking about
in the recommendation?
The
fence in the recommendation has to do with what's required for the used car
lots. It says a fence actually along the front, the decorative
fence.
Okay.
Is that which one you were referring to?
The-
I just wonder if that particular-
No, that's K.
That's something different also.
That's K.
Okay.
Because it said the chain link fence should be allowed, or not allowed rather.
That's in the front, along the front setback.
Okay. I just wanted to make those clarifications in the findings.
Yes.
Okay. Very good.
All right. Thank you.
Thank you. Thanks, Ms. Michelle.
Okay.
This is the public hearing. If there's anyone who'd like to speak on this item,
please come forward, state your name and address for the record, and you'll have
three minutes to speak.
Seeing none, we'll turn it over to the commission.
Chair, I make a motion to approve.
I support it with a discussion.
That was a motion by Commissioner Halawati, supported by Commissioner Hulk.
Discussion?
Mr. Chairman, if nobody else wants to jump into this, is this
the old Menlo Tool building?
Sir, can you come up?
No. This has been a car wash for a long time, even before we even took ownership.
Oh, was it? Okay.
Yeah.
Oh, well, hopefully it looks nice.
Hopefully-
It will be.
Hopefully it works for you there.
It will not be...
Hopefully I won't be disappointed, let's put it that way.
You won't.
Or we won't be disappointed.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Anyone else?
Yes. Mr. Chair, I would like to ask.
Go ahead.
Okay.
So did you
talk with planning department? Because there are so
many recommendation.
What do you mean?
So did you talk to them to see are you okay with this?
Yeah.
All the recommendation?
We went through everything to make sure the zoning is okay.
And it took a long time to get to where we are here, to actually get to the
meeting, and talk with you guys to see if you guys are going to approve it.
So we went through everything. We read through all the
laws and everything, and everything we need required to give to my architect, and
we did accordingly.
Okay.
And anything you guys need changed, we're willing to work with you guys with
whatever you need.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
Mr. Chair?
Sir.
May I-
Stay at the counter please, till we're finished.
Mr. Chairman?
Commissioner Ansara, go ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a question. Did you purchase this property
to do car dealer
or you owned it before?
No, we are still the same owners. No ownership is changing.
Okay. So you are
just taking as a lease?
Yeah.
Okay.
Yep.
So he was basically asking the question that did you review all those
recommendation?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Recommendation is-
Of course
... a big list.
Yes.
And you also have to go through the zoning board because there
are some variants also.
Yeah.
So you reviewed all of those things?
Yes.
You think everything is okay with you? It's okay?
Should be, yes.
Okay. All right. Congratulation.
Thank you, my friend.
Anyone else like to speak on this item?
I have a couple questions. Good evening.
Yes, sir.
Number one, I would like to see a little bit better illustration of
dimensions on the elevation drawings.
Mm-hmm.
Like I say, show the height, but they don't show anything as far as
dimensions on any of the elevations.
Yeah.
And the other thing is there's a note on here that the
plan indicates no on-site irrigation proposed for the project,
therefore the petitioner shall indicate how they plan to maintain the landscaping
on the site. So how are you planning to maintain the-
We already have there, as we speak, we have a full size, the
ride-along lawnmowers and we get enough rain here in Michigan.
The grass stays green there, no problem, and whatever landscaping
we put on the site plan, we'll follow up with whatever non-invasive species of
plant or bush that you guys recommend, and from whatever you guys want, whatever
makes the city
beautiful. I'm sorry.
Well, the only thing I'm concerned about, a lot of times we say require
irrigation for-
Yeah
... especially when you have a lot of plants and shrubs.
So we need to know
if you've got some sort of plan to go out and water them if it gets a dry spell,
and they don't-
I mean-
... get enough water, and you can't depend on the rain.
We could definitely do that. We could figure out some kind of water to take to the
other side and water the grass and plants.
Because I hate to see you plant all that stuff, and then it go bad.
It won't, man. It won't.
All right.
We're putting that much money, it won't.
All right. Well, thank you, sir.
Thank you, sir.
Any other questions?
Sir?
We'll let you leave in a few minutes.
Okay, okay.
I'm sorry.
You're okay.
Okay.
That was a motion by Commissioner Halawati, supported by Commissioner Hawk.
Roll call.
Commissioner Halawati?
Yes.
Commissioner Hawk?
Yes.
Commissioner Ansara?
Yes.
Commissioner Dizzay?
He has to approve.
Commissioner Moribos, yes. Commissioner Minaki?
Yes, to approve.
Commissioner Smith?
Yes, to approve. Now you can leave and go home, sir.
Thank you guys so much.
Have a good evening.
Item number 6D.
Item number 6D, site plan for new automatic conveyor car wash
located on the west side of Shanor Road,
approximately 156.17 feet
south of 12 Mile Road, 28877 Shanor Road, Section
14, Joseph Paluzzi and
JPTH Properties 1 LLC, Sameen
PattakClean Hub Car Wash,
PSPSL-260002.
Thank you.
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Good evening, sir. Can you state your name and address for the record?
Good evening.
My name is Keith Lutz.
I'm with API, 5101 Williams Lake Road, Waterford,
Michigan. I'm here representing Mr.
Patak, who is the owner of Clean Hub Car Washes, as well
as Mr. Paluzzi,
who is the property owner.
We are proposing a modern 3,800 square foot, single
tunnel, automatic conveyor car wash.
This car wash houses a 115-foot long automatic
conveyor,
which uses the latest state-of-the-art car wash equipment and technology,
which also includes 10 high-velocity air dryers.
The site will offer 17 user-friendly vacuum stations,
dual stacking lanes for 21 vehicles,
user-friendly well-lit pay kiosks, concrete parking areas,
a 100-foot drying lane,
and well-maintained landscaped areas throughout the site.
The proposed development sits on an existing vacant parcel, which is
located on the east side of Shanor, approximately 300 foot
south of 12 Mile Road.
The property is bordered by Warren Woods Middle School to the east, Tim Horton's to
the south, and a BP gas station to the north.
The site is part of a parent parcel, which is 1.90 acres, which
contains Tim Horton's.
We are proposing a 0.94-acre split for the Clean Hub Car
Wash development portion.
This lot split will maintain existing access drive easement
shared with Tim Horton's and Warren Woods Middle School.
Our building
is designed to fit in more of a retail-type setting.
It's designed with contemporary architecture,
which emphasizes clean lines and has a strong visual tower feature,
giving the building its identity.
Our building uses strong contrasting colors and durable materials,
including a combination of brick,
split-face concrete block, architectural cement board panels,
along with metal trims, fascias, and awnings, and LED accent lighting that
help to accentuate the design.
Clean Hub Car Washes is locally owned and operated, and currently
operating three locations, including Sterling Heights, Oxford,
and Shelby Township.
Hours of operation will be 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday through Saturday,
and 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Sundays.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Correspondence?
Correspondence. Taxes. Current building.
Building will require building
permit and plan review application for construction of proposed car wash.
Engineering. Preliminary review of this site indicates that Planning Commission
approval should be contingent upon the petitioner's compliance with the following
conditions. Number one, lot split is required to confirm
to proposed site plan.
Number two, know and show all the existing and proposed underground
utilities. Number three, any work in the Shanor Road right of
way shall require a permit from the Macomb County Department of Roads.
Number four, accessible space must meet current ADA requirements.
Number five, shown stormwater retention must
comply with the current City of Warren
Stormwater Ordinance.
Police. The Warren Police Department reviewed the submitted site plan and
anticipates that the proposed shared-use driveway, Tim Horton's,
Warren Woods Middle School, may create major traffic backups
extending into Shanor Road, raising concerns about the
traffic flow and safety. AT&T. AT&T does not
object to this proposal. We do have facilities in the vicinity, but they should
not be affected. Comcast. We have no conflicts with
the proposal, but we have aerial and underground facilities in
the area.
MCDR. Macomb County Department of Roads, MCDR, has
received and reviewed the enclosed preliminary plan for the
above-mentioned site. MCDR has no objection to proposed
development at the above-mentioned site.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at
586-463-8671.
MCPWO. The Macomb County Public Works Office,
MCPWO, has reviewed the site plan for the project referenced
above and has determined the proposed site disturbance is less than one
acre and will not require a stormwater review from this office.
Prior to construction, a soil erosion permit may be required from this
office. Contact our Soil Erosion
Department at
586-469-5327 for more
information regarding same. If a no objection letter is required, please
forward your request to
wesley.janek@macombgov.org. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Secretary. Planning department's recommendation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The recommendation is as follows.
It is recommended that the site plan for new
automatic conveyor car wash be approved with the
standard conditions to the Planning Commission, and more specifically,
number one, five copies of revised site plans shall be submitted
indicating the following.
A, the survey plan indicates easements on the
property. Indicate dimension, the location of the
easements on the site plan.1B
indicate the proposed number of car wash bays
in the site data information.
1C indicate on the site plan the location
by providing the dimensioned
outline for the 21 stacking
spaces and the five dedicated drying
spaces.
1D, in the northeast corner of the site,
replace the 90 degree angle
corner with a curved corner as
provided in the northwest corner of the site.
And condition number two,
two copies of revised photometric plans shall be submitted
indicating the following.
The photometric plan indicates light
exceeding 0.0 at the property line.
The new lighting shall be adjusted so that the
lights do not encroach beyond the property
line.
Condition number three, the parcel number identified as
13-14-226-025
shall be split into two acreage parcels.
An application shall be submitted to the planning department
requesting approval of the acreage lot split.
Condition number four, in conjunction with the acreage lot split, the
petitioner shall provide a recorded document for
ingress and egress with the owner of the property abutting to the
west, that's Warren Woods Middle School, and south,
that's Tim Horton's.
This document shall be approved in draft format for form
by the city attorney prior to it being recorded at the Macomb
County Register of Deeds. A copy of the document shall
then be provided to the planning department.
Condition number five, the following variance
may need to be obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals
prior to the release of the site plan to the building division.
A use variance to construct a new automatic
conveyor car wash at the subject property which
contains multiple zoning districts,
C-2 general business district, C-1
local business district, and P parking district.
The minimum zoning district required for this
type of car wash is C-3,
wholesale and intensive business.
If approved,
the variances
shall be added to the revised site plan.
Condition number six,
a performance bond in the amount of $69,000
shall be posted according to the estimated cost of
$2,300,000 by the
petitioner. And so with that,
Mr. Chair, the recommendation has been submitted. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Werth. This is a public hearing.
Anyone who would like to come up and speak on this item, please come up, state your
name for the record and your address. You have three minutes to speak.
Audience.
Hi, my name is Terry Smith. I live at 13671 Joyce Drive,
right off of Shanor.
I had two girls that went to Warren Woods right there by where
they're proposing this car wash.
Like they said, the driveway would be adjoined
with the existing driveway that already goes into the
school and also goes into Tim Horton's.
I've watched several mornings, people coming in off of Shanor
to turn in and wanting to go into Tim Horton's, but they couldn't
because all the people coming out of the school had that driveway blocked.
So now you got cars backing up out on Shanor in cross traffic.
Number two reason I'm against this,
you're going to have outdoor vacuums for the people.
This business is going to be open when school is letting
out. There is hundreds of kids that come walking down through
that corridor. We don't know what kind of people is going
to be there at those vacuums, but that does give them a reason to
be there that they don't have now.
So I think it's a big safety factor for the kids and the community,
and just like I said, the overall traffic that it's going to
cause is going to be horrendous.
Thank you, sir.
With three businesses using one driveway.
Thank you, sir.
Anyone else like to speak on this item?
Good evening, members of the commission.
My name is Joseph Paluzzi,
399 Fisher Road in Grosse Pointe.
I am the owner of the property. I'm also the original
developer of the Tim Horton's site,
and I just want to shed a little bit of history about this site and how it
became what it is today.
When we originally purchased this property, we purchased it from the school
system.
When we designed the Tim Horton's facility
and the
subject parcel for today's
meeting,
we worked very closely with the school system to
create the access drive that is currently
in place.
The access drive that's in place services, yes, both Tim
Horton's, the future use of this property, and the
school
All of this, once again, was designed in conjunction and
cooperation with the system.
I have not had the opportunity to come
before your board for 15-plus
years with anyone who's shown interest in this site.
We have marketed
this property in every way that we could,
and this is the first time that I'm able to be before you with
a request to do a new development on the parcel.
Also note that there is pedestrian walkways that were
created for the pedestrian
walks to the school. They're in place today,
and they're visual if you go to the site, or if you've been to this site, I'm sure
you've seen that. But I want to stress that we've had a wonderful
relationship with the school system.
We've never had one issue
in that drive, and we work collectively to this day
with them on maintenance type issues, snow plowing.
It's all done in one harmonious fashion.
So I appreciate you hearing our request this evening,
and hope that you vote to approve. And obviously, any questions, I'm here.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you very much.
Anyone else like to speak on this item?
Seeing none, we turn it over to the commission.
Mr. Chair, if I may have a discussion.
I would like to bring a discussion with the rest of the commission
that if we can request the petitioner to do a traffic study,
especially due to the fact that this relates to the middle school that is
there. There's three businesses that is going to be there, that is using
one driveway. So I'll be very interested and curious to see what that looks
like, especially in that entrance.
Okay, so you need to make a motion about that one.
We have to motion to postpone it, and then we can do the traffic study.
Something like this.
If I may, there should be a motion-
Right
... either
prior to the discussion.
There has to be a motion prior to the discussion.
Okay. I'd like to make a motion to postpone this until we receive a
traffic study.
Yeah. I support it, Commissioner Ansara.
There's a motion-
I think, we need to do traffic study, so then we can make
a right decision.
There was a motion by Commissioner Mori, supported by Commissioner Ansara to
postpone this until a traffic study is completed.
Any other discussion on it?
Is discussion open?
Yes.
Mr. Chairman,
although I appreciate a traffic study there, but even
the
police department
lists
that
there can be backups onto Shaner.
And
the problem is, from my standpoint anyway, is that there's
one driveway
servicing three businesses, if you will.
And no matter what the traffic is,
believing that there won't be a backup onto Shaner would be
not thinking this whole thing through.
Ron, is there
any way-
I know
... that
we can get a...
I'm worried about the cars lining up on Shaner.
Is there any way to-
Commissioner Doucette?
Is there any way to get another driveway in there or something?
Well, Duke, that's why we have a motion to postpone, so he can look over
it and see what he has to do.
And I'll-
To deal with the traffic study and figure out if there's a different way.
I agree with it, but-
Okay
... after everything's said and done, I think it needs another
driveway or something.
Thank you.
That was a motion by Commissioner Mori, supported by Commissioner Ansara, to
postpone.
Roll call.
Commissioner Mori, I vote yes. And then I think this gives some time back
to the petitioner to review their site plan that they
presented to us.
So I vote yes.
Mr. Chair?
Yes.
I think you need to give a time period down here-
Yes
... unless you think this is an indefinite postponement.
Well, normally when we postpone, it would go to the next meeting.
Do we have room on our schedule for the next meeting?
That won't be-
Which we really don't, because that's next week.
No.
So we need to move into-
If you're asking for a traffic study, you won't
get it from the petitioner in one week.
Okay.
No, that takes time.
So what's your suggestion?
So
I'm asked
minimum
two weeks and maybe a month to do it
properly.
We went through this in the
first meeting about traffic studies.
You can understand-
Right
... how long they take, and if they're contested, then it takes even
longer. I don't know about that, if that's going to happen in this case, but
it takes time to do the proper job
by traffic engineers. So,
I'd say a month, but I don't have-
But being we only have one meeting in May, why don't we do the first or second
meeting in June?
Which is June 1st.
Yeah, June 1st or June 15th.
Sir, would that be good for you?
Petitioner?
Do you think you can do it?
Is the submittal process the same in that situation, where
we submit
30 days prior to that meeting?
Documents-
We're just submitting it
... to us when you have them, but
we really need to meet-
Yes
... that timeframe.
Yes.
And usually, that information needs to be, this is on a
Monday, probably the Monday before either one-
Yes
... of those days.
Yes. The June 1st-
One month, yeah.
We could make the June 1st meeting work.
Okay, thank you, sir. So make a motion-
Mr. Chair, I have one question request.
To petitioner, can you please do the traffic
study weekdays, the school
days, and peak hour, like 1:00 to 4:00, that time,
please, so we can get the exact report?
It will be easier for us to make a decision.
Commissioner Ansir, he's going to do a traffic study.
After he does a traffic study, then we can comment on what he needs to do. Okay?
But I-
There's no sense in going into it now,
because it's postponed till June 1st.
So he's got time to look and see what he needs to do in that particular period of
time. Okay?
But it'll be hard to report them if we send them back again.
Thank you.
So that was a motion by Commissioner Morey, supported by Commissioner Ansir, to
postpone to June 1st.
Roll call.
Commissioner Morey, I vote yes. Commissioner Ansir?
Yes. Postpone.
Commissioner Halawadi?
Yes. Postpone.
Commissioner Hawk?
Yes.
Commissioner Dusek?
Yes, to postpone.
Commissioner Bonecki?
Yes, to postpone.
Commissioner Smith?
Yes, to postpone to June 1st. Thank you, sir. We'll see you then.
Have a good evening.
Item number 6E.
Item number 6E, site plan for tire service and minor auto
repair facility located on the east side of Dequindre Road,
approximately 40 feet south of Golsan Avenue,
22760 Dequindre Road, Section 31.
Samir Yaldo, 22760 Dequindre,
LLC. Steve Dumont,
Designstruct,
PSP260013. Thank you.
Is the petitioner here?
Good evening, sir. State your name and address for the record.
Yep.
Steve Dumont, Designstruct, 23617 John R Road, Hazel Park.
I'm here representing this project on Dequindre
for Mr. Yaldo.
We worked with the Planning Commission and came up with...
Originally, we were going to do a used car lot, but it was too small for that use.
I think you guys remember that.
And working with
the planning director, Mr. Worth, and his staff, we came up with,
I think, a much better solution for the site.
It's an existing building. There's a lot of non-conforming existing
elements on the site that we are bringing up to code, and we think this
is a good use for this property.
Thank you, sir. Correspondence?
Correspondence. Texas Current Building.
Building requires submittal of a building permit and plan review application for
a proposed building modification. Engineering.
Preliminary review of this site yielded the following comments from the engineering
division. Number one, show how you intend to drain the parcel.
Number two, show and identify the location of all existing and
proposed underground utilities in the vicinity of the project,
including pipe sizes and discharge point.
Number three, drive extending to existing buildings shall not
be permitted. Number four, dumpster pad shall be minimum
eight-inch concrete. Number five, any construction within the
Dequindre right of way shall require a permit from Macomb County
Department of Roads prior to construction.
Fire. In regards to the traffic letter and site plan for
PSP260013, in the general notes
section of the site plan, it states that no vehicle service will take
place in the building. However, there is a vehicle lift and service
area on the plans. Please have the submitter clarify
this. Police. The Warren Police Department has reviewed the submitted site
plan and does not foresee any issues at this time. AT&T.
AT&T does not object to the proposal.
We have facilities in the vicinity, but they should not be affected.
Comcast. We have aerial facilities in the area, but we have no conflicts
with the proposal. DTE. DTE Electric Company has reviewed the
site plan for tire service and minor auto repair facility.
DTE has no objection to this request impacting
22760 Dequindre Road, Warren, Michigan 48091,
Section 31 per the site plan provided.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at
586-783-1978. MCDR.
Macomb County Department of Roads, MCDR, has received and reviewed the
enclosed preliminary plan for the above-mentioned site.
MCDR has no objection to the proposed development at the above-mentioned
site. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at
586-463-8671.
MCPWO. Macomb County Public Works Office,
MCPWO, has reviewed the site plan for the project referenced
above and has determined the proposed site disturbance is less
than one acre and will not require a stormwater review from this
office. Prior to construction, a soil erosion permit may
be required from this office. Contact our Soil Erosion Department at
586-469-5327 for
more information regarding same.
If a no objection letter is required, please forward your request to
wesley.jonick@macombgov.org. Thank you.
Thanks, Madam Secretary. Planning Department's recommendation.
It is recommended that the site plan for tire service and minor auto
repair facility be approved with the standard conditions of the Planning
Commission, and more specifically, number one, five copies of revised
site plan shall be submitted indicating the following
1A, the site plan was drawn in an architectural scale of one inch
equals 10 feet. The revised site plan shall be provided in an
engineer scale of one inch equals 10 feet.
1B, update the zoning on the site plan to read M2 medium light
industrial district.
1C, update the parking calculation on the site plan as
follows. Number one, provide the square footage of the first floor of
the building, which will be used for the tire and minor repair use.
Use the parking calculation per section 4.32 subsection
20, which is one parking space for each 500 square feet of floor area.
And number two, provide the square footage for the second floor of the building,
which will be used for a building storage area.
Use the parking calculation per section 4.32 subsection
23, which is one parking space for each
1,200 square feet of gross floor area.
And number three, per planning staff's calculation, the first floor of the building
is 2,957 square feet and the second floor is
1,331 square feet, for a total of
4,288 square feet. Planning staff utilized the following
calculations to determine the minimum number of parking spaces.
And so for the first one, it's 2,957 divided
by 500, which equals roughly six parking spaces for the first-floor use,
and 1,331 divided by 1,200, which
is one parking space for the storage use.
Four parking spaces are provided on the site.
The minimum requirement for parking is seven spaces.
Number four, the petitioner received a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals on
September 9th, 2020 to waive 1,926
square feet of required off-street parking.
This would equal approximately four parking spaces based on how we've
converted the square footage to spaces like we calculate now,
which is roughly three parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet.
Therefore, no new variance would be required for parking.
1D, there is an access door located on the north
elevation of the building to the south.
That's 22730 Dequindre Road. The door location shall
be indicated on the site plan. The petitioner shall modify the location of the
accessible parking space so that the access aisle is in line with the
access door.
E,
update the label PH parking to accessible parking.
F, a note shall be provided stating all outdoor retail sales of items shall be
prohibited on the site. G, under general notes,
change number two
from the word inside to outside.
H, add the total square footage of disturbance on the site plan.
I, indicate the building setbacks on the site plan.
J, add past Zoning Board of Appeals approvals to the site plan.
K, a note shall be provided stating open storage of materials shall not be
permitted on the site.
L, the plan indicates new asphalt up to the west property line along Dequindre
Road. However, instead of asphalt, the west six feet where the
existing fence and gate is to be removed shall remain lawn.
Curbing in line with the driveway approach shall be provided on the property
around the new lawn area up to the south property line.
M, add the standard trash enclosure note on the site plan.
The enclosure shall meet the city requirements.
A trash enclosure measuring a minimum 10 feet by 10 feet shall be
constructed of six-foot-high brick and boxed poured concrete walls with a
45-degree angle cap, have screen gates, and be placed upon a
minimum 10 feet by 18 feet concrete pad that provides an
eight-foot-wide apron. Masonry blocks shall not be used as a construction material.
And number two, two copies of revised elevation plans
shall be provided indicating the cardinal direction information.
And number three, the following variances may need to be obtained from the Zoning
Board of Appeals prior to the release of the site plan to the building division.
And that's A, to allow maneuvering lane 20 feet in width instead
of 22 feet. B, to allow parking spaces
20 feet in width.
It should be, let's see,
20 feet in width instead of 22.
That should be length,
not width. C, to waive an eight-foot-wide greenbelt
or six-foot-high brick and boxed poured concrete wall along the east property
line abutting the R1-C one-family residential district.
And if approved, the variances shall be added to the revised site plan.
And number four, a performance bond in the amount of $840
shall be posted according to the estimated cost of
$28,000 by the petitioner.
We do have a note that the planning staff believes
the proposed bond amount is too low given the fact that additional landscaping is
part of the improvements, resulting in a bond in the amount of $1,000.
And this ends the recommendation.
Thanks, Madam Michelle.
Thank you.
This is a public hearing. If anybody'd like to speak on this item, please come up,
state your name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes to speak.
Seeing none, I'll turn it over to the commission.
Chair, I make a motion to approve with discussion.
Mr. Chair, I support it.
There's a motion by Commissioner Holowaty, supported by Mr. Hawk.
Discussion?
Can the petitioner step forward, please?
Once again, thank you for your patience.
Okay, I just have a couple
quick questions. What type of repairs will you be doing at there?
Yeah.
Tire repair,
oil changes. Nothing of a major
on engines or transmissions, just-
So you don't anticipate any overnight?
No.
And what will your hours of operation be then?
10 to 5.
So you will not be needing to store cars overnight there-
No
... while they're being repaired.
In and out.
In and out. Because I know a few repair places, sometimes they have to
store them overnight, and then you end up with a lot of cars on the lot.
Yeah.
Sam will schedule them if he gets too much on a Monday, which
typically happens. He'll schedule them for Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday to come
back.
And one last question. Any problems with all the recommendations that our planning
department set forth?
Yes. Everything on the recommendations from the
Planning Commission, pages 10, 11, 12, and
13, we're in agreement with all of them.
Okay. Thank you, sir. I relinquish the floor.
Any other discussion?
Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Dooley.
Sorry.
The only thing that I have, and I don't know where else you'd put it,
is the trash enclosure is next to
residential.
And I don't know where the heck else you'd put it.
Yeah. Neither did we.
You know those trucks are-
I know. That's why I'm asking
... difficult. And that's why we even put it at a 45-degree angle in the corner-
... hoping that it makes it more accessible.
The turning radius coming in from Dequindre is too tight to try and
navigate that without backing into the building and taking half the building down.
Do you think you need the trash enclosure?
Because the
flip side of it is that you can keep it all inside,
until you're done and throw it out once a week or whatever.
Right.
But the only thing that bothers me is the trash enclosure next to
residential.
Gotcha.
And I don't know where the heck else to put it.
Is that a planning requirement? I don't recall.
No.
It is. Okay.
Mr. Worth, can you come up and
speak to that?
I'm just being a PITA today.
Okay. In the discussion, if he
believes he doesn't need that
structure of the enclosure, if he's got room enough to store inside, then
he can take that off of there, maybe put another parking space,
and he can indicate on the plan
with a note that says that the garbage will be stored
inside the building.
Thank you, sir.
Would you be in agreement with that?
Yeah, I don't believe...
The owner.
Okay. Hello, owner.
Mr. Yeldu.
Good evening.
Good evening. How are you?
Good. Assamer Yeldu. I
can store the garbage disposable inside the building, but
in the meantime,
where do you want me to dispose it once a week?
At the curb. Yeah.
Is it going to be curbside, on the bay?
Because if there's brakes done,
rotors done, it has to be in a dumpster.
So there's no food or...
I mean, food is just the workers.
Yeah.
Yeah. I mean, nothing like that.
Plus, behind me, I know it's residential, but it looks
like a lumber. They do some lumber work
behind the building.
Okay. I think that that one, the-
Right there. Yep
... that's not a house right behind you, is it?
The way I see it, the way when I go there, it's lumber.
I see lumber, trees,
people, you know he's cutting the trees.
Okay, because it was kind of open. If
there's no house there, then I say go ahead.
No, there's no house. I don't recall there's a house.
I'd say then put it there, but
I'm not a fan of putting garbage enclosures
next to residential.
I understand.
Then fine and dandy. Thank you, Mr. Chair, then I'll support.
Thank you. Any other-
Mr. Chair
... conversation?
Mr. Chair.
Go ahead, Mr. Ansah.
Petitioner.
Yes, sir.
You just mentioned that if motor's done,
that means-
No, not motors. We don't do motor transmission
... you just mentioned in your earlier speech that if motor's done, where are you
going to put it? In the dumpster.
Rotors.
Brakes. Rotor.
Rotors. Rotors, brakes.
Yes.
Okay. Rotors, brake, and tire change. That's all you're going to do.
Rotors, brake, tire change, and oil change.
Oil change.
Yep. Minimum. That's it. No transmission, no engine.
I
goes around this area. There are a lot of,
what do you call?
Mechanic.
Mechanic shop around there. All of them, they say,
I'm not trying to say you are going to do the same thing, but
say that it's a minor, just oil change and tire change, but I see
almost all of them, they doing other thing, changing motors
and doing full mechanic shop.
See, if you change motors, like a transmission, they're going to stay overnight.
I'm not planning to have the car stay overnight.
Yes. I saw that a few of them around this area, they're
doing the same thing, keeping the car, and weeks
after weeks, car is in the parking lot, and changing motors and doing
full mechanic shop, like fully.
We're not planning to do that. I'm not planning to do that.
There's a lot of commission shops all up and down there.
All right. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure.
Anybody else want to address the discussion?
To the petitioner, good evening, sir.
I had a few questions.
Sure.
There's a door in the building to the south of that, which opens up into that
parking lot. Do you have an ingress, egress
agreement with the owner of that building?
You're just talking about Mike?
Yeah, the building on the south side, there's a door which comes into that parking
lot.
That comes into his parking lot?
Yeah, it does.
Yeah.
Mike's.
No, there's no agreement with-
Well, you need-
We know... I work with Mike-
But still, you're going to need to have an agreement.
If you're not the owner of that property, you're going to have to have an agreement
with the owner.
Well, no. It's his property.
That property's mine, that property line.
The adjacent-
You see that gate?
Yeah, the adjacent property owner needs to do something about that.
Right, but-
They're wanting-
... that door opens out into the parking lot of his property.
No. That's his property.
I can comment.
You can answer?
Yeah.
Okay.
Chair, well, what we said about the moving, so the access aisle's there, because
they can't block, we don't want them blocking the door, but this is their
parking lot. They just have maybe, I don't know if it's an
emergency exit or a access door to their building that happens to open up into
this area. That's why we suggested the access
aisle for that,
the accessible parking space be placed in an area where it's in front of
the other people's door, too, so that-
Oh, okay. That's what you all think.
Yeah, because they shouldn't put a vehicle there blocking
the neighbor's door.
That's probably an access door. I don't know if they've spoke with their neighbor,
but they have one on their site. The neighbor has a door
that opens into their
property.
So what would prevent the neighbor from pulling the car in there to go
into that other building?
Well, I don't think they have access to it that way.
They just happen to have a door, an access door, like a-
Like a man door.
Yeah, a man door. Person door. Yeah.
Not an overhead door.
Not an overhead door, no.
No, not an overhead door, but it's a
regular door-
Yeah
... that you can access the other building.
Well, he cannot access the building.
Not the building, just the parking lot.
Just the parking lot.
Yeah. See, kind of where they, I think where their accessible parking space is,
that's where I believe the door is at on the other building to the south.
So we just thought if they moved the access aisle so that it's open
and no one's door is being blocked, they just need to show
it to
get that dimension on there to be 100% certain that's where it is.
But based on what we could see in the field check, it looks like if you
move, kind of swapped it and make sure everything still meets
ADA requirements, that should address it so
nobody's door would be blocked.
I mean, so the-
So, well-
... neighbor's door would not be blocked.
What would happen if they closed that door off?
It doesn't matter. It's not their door, it's the neighbor's door.
I understand that.
Yeah.
So how would that affect the neighbor if that door's closed off?
We're just saying there shouldn't be a vehicle there, so it's not, there's not
blocked.
But the neighbor has access through a door into that parking lot.
Yeah.
There should be an agreement between the two owners.
I would guess so.
Well, not to get nitpicky, but we don't have to get from permission to do anything.
Well-
It's Sam's property. If they-
Does he own the building to the south?
Sam?
Yeah.
No. Mike Hance owns that building.
Okay, if he doesn't own the building to the south, then he needs to get an
agreement between him and the owner of the south that they can have entrance
into that property.
How about if, I'll block it, like I'll close it, that
door, because he's coming to my property, basically.
That's what I'm saying.
Yeah. So can I block it?
Yeah.
Well, that's going to be a safety hazard to him, probably. I don't want to...
Well-
If you want me to block it, I'll block it. Like I'll center block it.
But-
But there's no-
See, if you own both buildings, it wouldn't be an issue.
Okay.
But being you don't own both buildings, if he has to come through that door into
that parking lot, then he's coming into your property,
so therefore, you should have some agreement that he's allowed to do that.
I mean, we already talked about it.
I know they're putting accessible space there, but what if somebody parks a car up
there right in front of the door, and he can't get out the door?
How about we can put the-
Well, there's multiple entrances into that building.
I know Mike Hance, Easy Heating and Cooling, I use him as one of my subcontractors
all the time.
I don't know if you've got a picture of the front of his building.
You can kind of see it down there.
That one.
Yeah, that one there.
He has overhead door, man door, and several other doors in and out of his
building. I don't believe that that door coming into Mr.
Yeldo's property is a emergency egress door.
But there can be conversations as a good neighbor.
I'm sure Sam would...
Well, you can put those
bollards.
Bollards?
Put like the low bollards.
Yeah, bollards, but then you're taking up part of the parking spot.
That's fine.
So what planning has suggested is a good suggestion.
We put the accessibility lane in front of that.
We don't have to let Mike Hance enter this property.
He could walk out the sidewalk and into Mr.
Yeldo's property. There's no fence stopping people in and out of that
parking lot.
But I've never seen Mike use that door. I've been in his office.
I've gone over plans with him on other projects.
But
we can look into something, but there's really no onus
on Mr. Yeldo to do anything for the adjacent building to the south.
Well, my issue about the whole situation is, if Mike moves and
he doesn't own that building anymore, and somebody else moves into that building,
then they're going to have a problem.
And that's the reason if you have some sort of agreement in place
that you've got access that way, then it falls
in place with the property. So if another owner moves in there, he has the
obligate to be in alignment with that agreement.
Well, I understand your concern, but legally, this
is Sam's property. He has to make no concessions to his neighbor to the south at
all. I mean, if he wants to put a fence up along that wall,
it's his property to do so. I guess is
my-Not to be
aggressive here, but he doesn't have to do anything for his neighbor.
Okay, I understand that.
But-
I understand that
... to be a good neighbor, we won't talk to Mike Hance.
I can call him when I leave here. I've got him on speed dial.
I have a few other issues I want to discuss also.
Okay.
That was just one of them. The other one is he'd be doing tire
changes
and brake changes, rotors, doing grinding rotors and stuff
down. While
you're doing these changes, are these cars going to be in these parking spaces or
on the outside?
No.
And if so,
you got enough room inside the building to store all the tires that you're going to
need to do tire changes and all the brakes you're going to need to do all these
changes? Are you going to have enough room in that building to actually store any
and all of the materials that you're going to need to do these particular things?
Yes, sir. We do. Upstairs, we have it.
We can store upstairs and downstairs is going to be a storage, too.
And typically, all these automotive places now are on-demand.
Yes. On-demand.
They go get the parts they need for that job because he does schedule
things. He knows Tuesday a
Mazda X6 is come in for a brake job. He'll already have the pads
there. It's not like an automotive store where they store
for every vehicle. It's just on-demand.
They go and pick them up from their suppliers.
So if a person comes in, they need a set of four tires.
Mm-hmm.
And he's got those tires, he can go out and put them on.
So what is he going to do with the old tires?
He'll store them upstairs until he gets them to a recycler.
Has he got enough room to store them upstairs once he does that?
Yeah. It's like 1,200 square feet.
Because my only concern is
the driveway coming up to that gate
in the front,
you can't park any cars or work on any cars in that right away.
No.
So you can't have any vehicles there.
They're not going to be worked on in the lot.
It's
strictly for parking.
So the cars are going to be pulled inside the building to work on them?
Yes. There's two overhead doors, one coming off of DeQuindre, one off of the
parking lot.
Okay.
How much
business do you think you're going to generate doing the tires and the brakes and
stuff like that?
To make a living.
Oh, I understand that. I understand that, but-
Hopefully.
But what I'm saying, I guess what I'm concerned about, you say you can
schedule jobs
these days off if you need to, to keep preventing from an
overflow in the parking lot with parking.
Okay.
Correct? Because you're going to come in, do what you got to do, and then they're
going to leave. So you already know what you're going to need for this particular
vehicle when it pulls in,
right?
100%, like every company. Like Discount Tire, when you walk in, if they don't have
it, they'll send you back and reschedule.
Okay. And that's what you would do also?
Same thing.
Okay.
Those are the concerns I had.
Like I said, the biggest concern, I think, is the ingress talk with the neighbor.
Because like I say, if Mike decides to move tomorrow-
Right
... and another person moves in, then you got an issue.
And I think it's something that needs to be
written in a paper stating that this is what this is for and everything like
that. Just for the benefit of both owners.
100%.
Okay.
So
being that's been said,
that was a motion by
Commissioner Holowaty, supported by
Commissioner Hawk.
Roll call.
Commissioner Holowaty?
Yes, to approve.
Commissioner Hawk?
Yes, to approve.
Commissioner Ansah?
Yes, to approve.
Commissioner Dudzik?
Yes, to approve.
Commissioner Marie Bozzius? Commissioner Bonacci?
Yes, to approve.
Commissioner Smith?
Yes, to approve. But see if you can work those things out, because I think-
Oh, we will
... I think it's important.
I'll seriously call Mike.
Thank you.
Thank you. Have a good evening.
Thank you. I appreciate you.
Thank you.
Thanks for your time.
Item number 6F.
Item
number 6F, site plan for three new multi-family apartment
buildings containing a total of 18 units located on the south side
of 12 Mile Road, approximately 120 feet west of Van
D**e Avenue. 7602 12 Mile Road,
13-16-226-019,
and 020, 22, 26,
44, 45, 46, 47, 61,
and 63. Section 16, Asad
Sob and Forward Development, Inc.,
PSP260014. Thank you.
Thank you. Is this the petitioner? Good evening, sir.
Can you state your name and address for the record?
Good evening, Mr. Chair and commissioners. My name is Asad Sob.
I'm on behalf of Forward Development.
My address is 567 Chesterfield Avenue, Birmingham, Michigan.
Thank you, sir. You want to tell us a little bit about your project?
I've had this site for almost 10 years.
I own the building in the front, the shopping center right next door to the
gas station. We've
played around with it for numerous different things, what can be put in there, just
because it's a little tight in the consumer's building.
After meeting with Mr. Wirth and his team, we thought
multi-family would be the thing. The site is beautifully located right
at 12 and Van D**e.
We could always use more housing. I do this for a living.
I've been licensed since 1987 as a real estate broker.
I'm a property management, and I have a full office.
We do our own maintenance from landscaping to snow plowing.
We maintain our own properties.
We came up with three buildings that would occupy that
site.And it would give 12 and Van D**e what it really deserves.
Consisting of 18 units, three buildings.
One building would
be west of the consumer's building next to that
auto service place. It would consist of four units.
Next to the gas station, six units.
And on Stanley Road, it would consist of eight units,
one-bedroom units.
Thank you, sir. Correspondence?
Correspondence. Texas current building.
Building requires a submittal of a building permit and plan review application
for each proposed building. The Michigan Residential Code
2025 Section
R320.1.1 requires where there are
four or more dwelling units in a single structure, the
provisions of Chapter 11 of Michigan Building Code
MBC 2021 applies. This provision require
accessible route accessibility.
This project would be classified as a Group R-2 per Michigan
Building Code 2021, Section
310.3. Section
1108.4 requires not less than one
accessible route to a dwelling unit to be accessible.
MBC 2021 Chapter 11, Section
1108.3 requires dwelling units to be accessible units,
Type A or Type B. Section 202, Type A and Type B
unit provides a definition.
Section
1108.6.2.2.1
requires
not less than one Type A
based on the total of 18 units. Section
1108.6.2.3 requires
one accessible per unit. One accessible unit per
Table 1108.6.1.1.
Please. The Warren Police Department has reviewed the submittal site plan and does
not foresee any issues at this time.
AT&T. AT&T does not object to the
project, but we do have a concern. The site plan
shows the existing overhead pole
lead through the center of the property.
If the pole lead is to remain, there is no issue.
If the final plan is to have those lines removed, the petitioner must
discuss the relocation with the wired center engineer,
Joe Sukrowski. He can be reached at
js3649@att.com or
586-764-8261.
Comcast. We have aerial facilities in the area, but we have no
conflicts with the proposal. DTE.
DTE Electric Company has reviewed the site plan for three
new 18-unit multi-family apartment building.
DTE has no objection to this request impacting
760212 Mile Road,
13-16-226-019-020-022-026-044-045-046-047-061
and 63. Section 16 per the site plan provided.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at
586-783-1978.
MCDR. Macomb County Department of Roads has received and
reviewed the enclosed preliminary plan for the above-mentioned site.
MCDR has the following objection to the proposed development at the
above-mentioned site. Number one, provide
deceleration and taper lanes per Macomb County Department of
Roads Standard Detail 11B in MCDR's right
of way. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at
586-463-8671.
MCPWO. The Macomb County Public Works Office,
MCPWO, has reviewed the site plan for the project
referenced above and has determined this site is under the
jurisdiction of MCPWO. This project is
impacting and/or discharging to a county asset,
including one or more of the following: a county drain,
county road right of way, or other.
See Table 101 in the MCPWO's Procedure and
Design Standards Manual for Stormwater Management,
revision March 1st, 2024, for a further
explanation.
Any site disturbance over one acre will require the proposed site to
conform with the MCPWO's Procedure and Design
Standards Manual for Stormwater Management,
revised March 1st, 2024. Review Section 5 for
stormwater detention and drain easement requirements.
Prior to the site plan approval, it is highly recommended that the
design consultant and landowner schedule an engineering meeting
with this office to discuss how our standards may apply.
Apply by contacting Heather Morin at
heather.morin@macombgov.org or
586-307-8280.
MDOT. The applicant's site plan does not appear to have work in
MDOT's right of way. Any work, water main taps,
sanitary sewer taps, drainage, or driveway modifications
in MDOT's right of way, or changes to the drainage
system that may impact MDOT's stormwater system will
require a permit.
I also have a resident's
letter that was sent to us that I'll go ahead and read in the correspondence.
This was sent on April 10, 2026.
My name is Irene Baldridge Elson, and I live across the
street from this building,
7568 Stanley, Warren, Michigan
4092. I have lived here for more than 40
years. I am against the building of apartment
buildings on 12 Mile Road
where-Where are these people supposed to park?
I feel this is too many people in this small space.
Totally against this.
We have enough traffic from the gas station, pizza place, burger
place, sushi place. This is a quiet residential street.
Putting three building of 18 units each
is unacceptable to our residential
neighborhood. We have children on bicycles
playing, and we do not want this. Sincerely, Irene Elson,
7568 Stanley. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Secretary. Planning department's recommendation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The recommendation is as follows.
It is recommended that the site plan for
three new apartment buildings containing a total of
18 units
be approved with the standard conditions of the planning commission, and more
specifically, number one, five copies of revised site plans shall
be submitted indicating the following.
1A, per the building division's comments,
there shall be one accessible apartment unit
provided for the project.
Update the site plan data chart to include
this unit.
1B,
indicate the location of the accessible entrances
in the building where the accessible unit will be located.
1C,
planning staff calculated the number of required accessible parking
spaces based on the overall number of
spaces proposed. That's 31. However,
each building will also function as a separate
facility.
Therefore, the accessible parking spaces at each
building
shall be van-sized, and that's 16 feet in width.
Update the width of the accessible parking space
located near building one.
The island adjacent to the parking space
can be reduced two feet to provide for
eight feet instead of six feet, with an eight-foot
wide access aisle.
1D, indicate all proposed landscaped areas on
the site plan.
Condition number two, two copies of revised landscape
plans shall be submitted indicating the
following.
A, the plan shall indicate
the eight-foot wide green belt along the west
property line of the parking lot, and
that's lots 61 and 62, as
approved by the planning commission
on November 8th,
2021.
Okay, 2B,
provide an eight-foot wide green belt along the north
property line of the parking lot. Again, that's lots
61 and 62. The green belt shall be provided set
back 10 feet from the west offset property
line and 20 feet from the east property
line, the alley.
Length of the green belt in this area will be approximately
64 feet.
2C, provide an eight-foot wide
green belt around the transformer municipal
shed.
The green belt shall be set back 35 feet from the North
12 Mile Road property line.
Condition number three, two copies of revised elevation plans
shall be submitted indicating the following.
All three buildings would be accessed via
a landing with one step per
Michigan Building Code, and that's 2021.
The building with the accessible unit shall be
updated with the accessible entrances.
Update the applicable building elevation plans
and indicate the accessible entrances.
Condition number four, two copies of revised floor plans
shall be submitted indicating the following.
The floor plan
shall be updated to include at least one accessible
unit out of the 18 units proposed.
Condition number five, the 10 parcels
identified
as
13-16-226
and-019,
020, 021, 026,
excuse me, 044, 045,
046, 047,
061, and 063
shall be combined into one parent parcel.
An application shall be submitted to the planning department requesting the
approval of the combination.
Condition number six, the following variances may need to be obtained
from the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to the release of the site plan
to the building division, and that is
6A, to allow five units more
than the amount permitted, which is 13, for
a total of 18
units6B, to construct
the parking lot 15 feet
from 12 Mile Road and five feet from
Stanley Avenue. The minimum front setback in
an R3 is 25
feet.
6C, to waive five required parking
spaces.
6D,
to construct the six-foot high
concrete wall setback 10 feet from the front,
and that's Stanley Avenue property line.
If approved, the variances shall be added to the revised site
plan. Condition number seven, a performance bond in the amount of
$36,000 shall be posted according to the estimated
cost of $1,200,000
by the
petitioner.
And the planning staff
certainly is at odds,
I don't do this too often, with the MCDR,
Macomb County Department of Roads,
requiring
the deaccelerator taper lanes per Macomb County
Department of Roads standard detail.
Well, I tell you what, if you take a look at the site plan in front of you,
take a look at the site plan in front of you, there's already
a taper in there. And what is that? That's the right turn lane for
everyone who goes to Van D**e. What's left?
Well, room enough for a sidewalk. So
where do you put the deaccelerator and taper lanes?
I'll question that and contact those people and
find out what they were thinking, because I don't see any room
unless they decide to take part of the
property and put these deaccelerator
lanes in. I just don't see it. So it's got to be explained to
planning staff.
So anyway, with that, the recommendation is submitted.
Thank you, Mr. Worth. This is a public hearing.
If anyone would like to come speak on this item, come up, state your name and
address for the record, and you'll have three minutes to speak.
Good evening. My name is Jim Moore.
I live on 7503 Stanley Avenue, near the property that's being
discussed. The only thing I would like to see and request is that
noise restriction signs be put up on the
property that's holding the apartment buildings.
That's all.
Thank you, sir.
Sir.
Can you come over? There you go.
Sure.
All right, anyone else like to come up and speak on this item?
Seeing none, we'll turn it over to the commission.
Chair, I make a motion to approve with discussion.
Mr. Chair, I support it.
Go ahead with your discussion.
To Mr. Worth.
I just have a quick question, sir.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I vaguely recall maybe about a year ago or something,
where we discussed something happening at that same corner maybe.
Some sort of development.
No.
No, it wasn't?
Not at this-
Just about the zoning.
Excuse me, what?
Just about the zoning.
That was a rezoning.
Excuse me. It was a rezoning hearing.
Oh, okay. So he came forward first with the zoning so that he could do
this.
April 22nd, they got approval to rezone the property
to R3.
Okay.
All right?
Okay.
All right.
That's right. I knew something was happening there
previous to tonight.
Well... Yeah. That's what I was-
Because I remember telling my wife about it.
Okay.
Thank you. Oops.
Okay. To the petitioner, can you step forward, please?
Thank you, sir, for that answer, Mr. Worth.
Yes, sir.
Okay.
As far as, are these going to be medium income apartments
or low income? Because we could use a lot of low to medium
income here in Warren.
Look, being the one bedroom
in there, we're obviously gearing for the one person or the young
couple that are coming in. So between low to medium, don't
want it to be too low. We want them to be affordable.
Okay.
And at the same time, we just don't want big families
with kids. It just doesn't occupy.
That's why we're
a couple of spots short of the parking spots.
So-
Okay, because here in Warren could use
some of the medium to low income, more housing like that. Thank you.
I relinquish the floor.
Thank you. Anyone else?
I have a question.
Mr. Hermala.
Mr.
Chairman.
Go for it. Go ahead.
Okay. I would like to ask a few question to petitioner.
Yes, sir.
Okay. So there is three different buildings, right?
Yes, sir.
Six units. Is it up and down?
Two floors.
The first floor will be brick, and the second floor would consist of hardie
back. So...
So the parking space will be assigned or just
randomly they can park?
Well, the way that they're designed, there's a four unit on
12 Mile Road, west of
the consumer's building. There's a six unit right behind the gas
station, and pretty much they'll parking spots close to each
building. So there is no need to assign them
unless we get to a point where we could put numbers on
each parking spot, where each unit would get one or two, depending
on how many people are in there.
If-
So there is a basement or no?
There will be a basement for the mechanicals.
Mechanicals for the hot water tanks and the furnaces.
The Michigan basement or just a-
Full basement, sir.
Full basement?
Yes, sir.And we're going to have laundry on site
too, for convenience. No storage.
There will not be any storage down there.
Okay.
Good. There will be a property management.
Who's going to manage the property?
I have a full staff. Consists of about 10 people, and my
son just graduated from Western Michigan. He'll be joining me.
We have a full office at 696 in Van D**e.
We've been there since 2003. I do this for a
living. I have a property management license, a real estate broker
license.
Full staff from secretary to... We do our own snow plowing,
we do our own grass cutting. And Mr.
Joe will tell you, I'm there on site with my crew just to make sure that
the streets are cleaned, the sidewalks are edged.
This project will not disappoint you.
I've built homes on Vermont, and they came out absolutely
beautiful. I own Table
53 Pizzeria on Van D**e, the old Taco Bell, and it came
out stunning.
So I'm very familiar-
Good
... with the city. I've been in it for a while.
I have 41 condominiums on Kennedy Circle and
on Hoover between 696 and Martin-
Okay
... since 2008.
They're very well maintained. There's no issues.
So you have very good experience with property management.
It's a full-time job.
Is it-
I'm not an investor.
Yeah.
I'm hands-on.
And you say they're one-bedroom apartment,
right?
They consist of
two and one. Building number one will have eight units.
They're all one-bedroom. Building number two will have four units, which
is west of the Consumer-- There's a little 20-foot wide
Consumers building. That four units will consist of
two-bedroom. And building number three, which is on 12 Mile Road,
right behind the gas station, will consist of six units.
Four of them are two-bedroom, two are one-bedroom.
So one and two-bedroom units-
Yes
... right?
Yes, sir.
Okay. So do you have any idea how much will be
rent?
For the one-bedroom, we want to keep them under $900, $950.
For the two-bedroom, between $1150 to $1200.
And including?
That's reasonable.
It would include water.
That's reasonable.
Gas and electric will be metered separately.
That's reasonable.
Okay. Thank you. Have a good luck.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, Commissioner. Deze, go ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Two things. Ron, the MDOT business says,
"Do not appear to have work in MDOT right of way." So we might as well
ask him because there's a driveway going out on 12 Mile Road.
So see what MDOT's got to say. And,
when you were reading number four with the 10 parcels, you
mentioned 20, 21, you didn't mention 22.
There is no 21, there is a 22. So if you go through the
numbers for the parcel numbers,
I want to make sure that everything is the way it ought to be.
I was actually paying attention.
I just want to comment. MDOT has
no interest in this particular right of way. It's a county road.
So that was-
Oh, is that... Okay.
You could ignore that.
Fair enough. Thank you.
Well, thanks for pointing it out.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Anyone else have anything to say?
Mr. Worth, don't get too comfortable. Come on back up a minute.
Two questions.
You're reading the recommendation.
Evidently, I didn't get the corrected or updated recommendation sheet,
because there are a lot of things that-
That's correct
... you read that were not on there.
Yeah. We
looked at it a little bit more in depth.
And
excuse me, I was off a couple of days last week, so I
didn't have a chance to
help Michelle review, like I said.
So we were able to do that this morning.
So yeah, there's a difference in your
recommendation and our recommendations.
Okay. I want to make sure I wasn't seeing something or not seeing something.
No.
But I do have a question on page three of our findings.
Number F, it says on April 28th, 2022,
a letter was sent to Lee Zumberman, Deputy City Assessor,
with information including three parent parcels.
And it's got 1316226062,
1316226050, and
13226051.
The 226051 doesn't seem to be listed as one of the parcels
that's being
included.
And also, it says lot 064,
east
14 feet of lot 63 and lot 61 and 62, along with half
of vacated alley.
My concern was, the one parcel that they're showing on the assessment
in '22 is not in
the provision for the new
unit. So I don't know what that went to or if it
was just overlooked or what.
Okay. All I can tell you right here, right now is
that we'll look into it and make sure we make the correction.
All right. Thank you, sir. And just-
You can answer it?
Yeah.
Okay.
I wondered.
Chair, this is the parking lot that... Oops, someone's glasses.
This is the parking lot that is behind their business.
They did a split with one of the lots.
Half of it is with this property, and half of it went to
that parking lot. So some of those parcels don't exist
anymore because they were split and combined, and now there's
new parcel numbers that were assigned.
Okay.
That's why they're not the same. But that happened before when he was
working on the parking lot for the commercial building.
Okay.
So that's what that is.
Okay. Very good.
Yeah.
Very good.
Thank you.
And one other thing I wanted to verify.
It says, "The proposed six-foot-high concrete wall shall be set back 25
feet from Twelve Mile Road property line." That's in your recommendation
also?
Mr.-
Please.
I thought it was somewhere.
Was that question to me, Mr. Chair?
It was actually to Mr. Worth, but he went and sat back down again.
But
I was trying to see something there.
I got questions.
Chair, we removed one of them, if you're referring to the wall from Twelve Mile
Road.
Okay. Yes.
Yeah. We re-looked at the plan. The wall, actually, it's a little harder to see on
the site plan, but the other landscape plan with the wall,
you can see the wall is going to set back like 35 feet.
So that was removed from the
recommendation. We removed it.
Okay. Thank you.
Yeah.
That's what I wanted to verify.
Yeah.
Other than that, I don't have any other questions at this point in time.
That was a motion by Commissioner Holowaty, supported by Commissioner
Hawk.
Roll call.
Commissioner Holowaty?
Yes.
Commissioner Hawk?
Yes, to approve.
Commissioner Ansah?
Yes, to approve.
Commissioner Dudzic?
Yes, to approve.
Commissioner Mori? Have our votes yes. Commissioner Minnick?
Yes, to approve.
Commissioner Smith?
Yes, to approve. Item number seven, correspondence. Seeing none.
Item number eight, old business.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you, sir. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Good luck with your project.
Thank you so much. Thank
you.
You're waiting on me?
Yeah. Old business, number eight.
Okay. Site plan for
two new storage containers located on the east side of Gloe
Drive, approximately 328.8 feet north of
Eleven Mile Road, Section 13.
27050 Gloe Drive, Angelo,
Jayden, and 27050 Gloe Investment LLC,
Pietro Diello, Sierra Marco, and Associates Inc.,
PSP230025. The petitioner was required
to obtain a use variance for this project prior to begin
scheduled for a Planning Commission public hearing.
The use variance was denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals on March 13,
2023, therefore, the site plan application process could not
process. The Planning Department is requesting a closeout of the site plan
project as it was never heard by the Planning Commission. Thank you.
Thank you. Motion to close out the project?
So moved, Mr. Chairman.
I second.
There's a motion by Commissioner Dudzic, supported by Commissioner Holowaty.
All in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed?
Item number nine, bond release. Seeing none.
Item 10, new business. Seeing none. Item 11, citizen participation.
If there's anyone in the audience who'd like to come up and speak, come up and
state your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to speak.
Seeing none. Item number 12, Planning Commission business, 12A, Planning Director's
report.
All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is our just
general report on
what we've done and what I've done, needless to say, since
March 23rd. And we've had numerous meetings
throughout. Just to highlight
some of them here.
On the 25th, we had a meeting with
the people who, they're called Court, or actually it's a...
I forget the name of the church. It's on Mound
Road right next to the post office.
That's the industrial building that's right there, and they're a lot of
shared use. Actually, the church is on the
top floor. But the property
spans quite a ways to the west, enough
so that they can put in a rather large
standalone building in the back. All right?
It's probably one of the few places that we still have woods.
We met with them and discussed it all.
It sure looks like they want to do it, so well, lose the
woods. But that's just the way it goes.
Anyway, so we met there. We expect to see them coming before the Planning
Commission on that particular site.
The next one was,
and this was also on the 25th,
on Sherwood. This is the east side of
Sherwood. It was a truck well, and they wanted to actually put
it in the front setback. Well, we try not to do
that anymore. There was
a time when
we would allow that, but we do the best to keep
trucks from maneuvering and backing in
and using the public road to be able to do that.
So I don't know if we talked them out of it, but I think we
did. And so that was just letting you know about
thatNext,
we had the follow-up meeting with Stellantis
and Val Renault, and like I said, that meeting
went very well, as you can see, and you got a site plan that you could
read
and
ask questions about.
Next, April 2nd, we had a meeting with a
woman named Faye Baker. She is a developer when it
comes to residential dwellings, and she's already...
Let's see. I think she's developed one
development, so to speak,
just west of Van D**e,
and she's working on the second one, which is more off
of Eight Mile and Hoover, over in that area.
But she's also looking at this location that
is behind Shaw Park, if you all know where
Shaw Park is off of Warner.
So behind the park is this open area.
It's
owned by the Chrysler Corporation, whose property
has a frontage on Nine Mile,
and their property spans way back behind Shaw Park.
Well, they wanted to sell that parcel back there,
and she snapped it up, and she wants to put in some more
dwellings. So we had a considerable discussion there.
She was, at
one time, looking to put a driveway
through the park to Warner. We
discouraged that particular way
of getting access. She can get access to
Dequindre. You have to drive
down some roadways with
some housing that
needs some work. I'll put it that way.
So anyway, she was hoping to get a different
way in there. So we
had a meeting about that. On the 7th, we met with
Home Depot. Been working with them
for quite a while now because of their outdoor
sales, whether it's temporary,
whether it's seasonal, or whether it's permanent.
And
right now, they're working off of one of our site plans.
I believe it's a 2019 site plan that they're permitted to
do certain things. They tried to do some things last year,
and it went against
our wishes with the city and with zoning.
So we had a discussion about what they next need to do, and
I believe they're going to be coming with another plan in front of the
planning commission on some of the temporary,
seasonal, I don't think it's going to be permanent, but those two,
and I think they'll need to get a variance.
Frankly, that's usually what follows, and that's what they've
experienced over the years anyway.
So we talked with them.
That's about...
Other than doing findings and
answering questions all the time, like everyone on the staff does
with the public,
I wanted to remind you that city
council has their budget hearing for
us, for the planning commission,
and that's going to be this Saturday.
Tentative time, 11:45 in the morning.
So I don't know who is attending.
You're all welcome, or just certain ones are welcome.
And
that's...
Where? Excuse me. Community center?
Yeah.
Where's it at? Where's it located?
Is it in... Okay, I'm getting a little mixed up here.
Conference room A.
All right. It's con-
Conference room A.
... conference room A right next door.
Yeah.
It's brand new,
refurnished, and everything else, so that's where
our meeting will be, along with
all these others.
So decide. Usually, Warren, you attend,
and anybody else who's interested,
please attend. Staff will be there at that time.
What else?
Sure.
All right. I think that's all I've got. Huh?
Can you hear me about the meeting on the 11th?
What? Come here?
What were you saying? Go ahead.
Okay.
Whatever you want.
So our meeting, May 11th, we're going to be
moving our planning meetings for a while to the cafeteria in the
community center. So next meeting will be here, but from
May till tentatively September,
we'll know as it starts.
We'll be meeting at the cafeteria starting May 11th.
So our public notices and our agendas will be updated, and they have been.
And
we've had meetings there before.
Mm-hmm.
And from experience, they weren't the greatest.
That's not the greatest setting to have a meeting.
So I've talked to the communications director.
We've talked to the parks and recreation director, both of who
monitor everything that goes on at the community center, and try
to get this scenario here
with
being able to speak, have your
computers sitting in front of you, and
that sort of thing, because in the past, it hasn't been that
way.And so we're going to have a meeting and try to make sure that
it's comfortable for not only you guys, but for the
public who
end up going in there. So we're going to, like you said, from May to September,
that's where we'll be meeting.
That's all I have to say about that.
And that's
all I have to say.
Thank you, Mr. Worth.
Any questions?
Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Worth?
Yes, Mr. Chair, I have a question for him.
You have a question?
Yes.
Commissioner Hogan.
How do you schedule all the site
plan, the too many plan, or too many
items in the one meeting? How do you
schedule them?
I think your question is how is it that we
have on some of our recommendations a whole lot of items and on other
recommendations, not that many.
Is that what you're talking about?
Yes.
Okay.
I'm saying like-
And-
... it look like it's too many item in the one day.
Yeah.
Like-
I'll say this, there are times when there are too many, and
we know enough in advance before we send out the
agenda to say, "No, we can't have this on any
particular
meeting until we've reviewed it," and we
usually send out
a letter. David reviews these. We're all reviewing them.
So if we can get them before the agenda goes out,
then
they're held until we can get them to change the plans,
amend them,
and come back with less items. But
as you can see, that doesn't always happen.
So we
end up giving it to
you guys, and we get to read a lot, needless to say.
We get to stay-
But I tell you what, if you think there are too many items,
I've seen other former planning commissions
postpone it until the plan comes back and it's been amended
in a much better way.
And they can use the recommendation,
fix their plan, come back
two weeks later or whatever it is, and we don't have to
spend time talking about it and all the reading.
So, that's an option
the commission could use.
Yep.
Okay. Thank you.
You're welcome.
Any other questions for Mr. Worth?
Thank you, Mr. Worth, for your report.
Thank you.
Item number 12B, Planning Commission discussion and concerns.
Mr. Chair, if I may?
Go ahead.
I just want to bring up one thing. I think I mentioned this a couple months ago.
I'm going to be missing next week's meeting because I'll be out of country, but
just wanted to remind and let Mr. Duzy know to be prepared.
But I will not be here
next week.
I'll bring a pencil.
Thank you.
All right.
Deal.
I'd like to thank the officer for sitting in our meeting tonight, sorry it was so
long. I tried to keep it as short as possible, but it didn't work out.
But number 13, calendar pending matters, seeing none at this
time, item number 14-
Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we adjourn.
Need a motion to adjourn.
I hardly second that.
There's a motion by Commissioner Duzy, supported by Commissioner Holowaty.
All in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed? Have a good evening.
Thanks.