s any communications from the audience anyone in the audience would like to speak on the agenda all right next unfinished unfinished business and table items the development plan review for the crescent shores residential and mixed use project to be located at five forty five and five sixty one crescent drive and five thirty two west sixteenth street crescent shores is the applicant right new business that sound you hear robert rolling over in his gr one neighborhood commercial district to the sci fi a professional office service district midwest construction is the applicant to read through these letter b plan review for a new branch bank building to be located at six seventy one michigan avenue midwest construction is the applicant prepared a memo for the planning commission and talked about the rezoning the real reason for the request was that due to the building setback requirements of the c ones own district the applicant felt that the c five district would better accommodate their desires on both setbacks and on the drive through speaker capabilities for the for the bank facility the exterior speakers generally in terms of uses the c one and the c five are very similar c five is a little more restrictive but it certainly is consistent with the proposed use the proposed use would would be allowed in either zone district and the end result simply is the the difference is essentially it's the speaker system that is is accomplished by this you do have a recommendation from staff to approve this there are no this this is a resigning so this is a recommendation that would go to city council and be happy to answer any questions shielded from it well i think the nuisance sections of i wouldn't say that will take care of that if it becomes a problem i have to say i don't i am not aware of any situation where we've had that concern come up after the fact you know from from neighbors objecting to a speaker system in this case this particular site let me just go to the next site on the map before you this is the property that we're talking about  is own district but i guess really where the land is district what i'm after is you can't quite see it here the back part of the site is an existing parking lot that is not part of this development so it's  adjacent to an existing parking lot that could ultimately be either commercial or residential and use but the immediacy of neighbors residential neighbors in this case are very few  i'm sure if that answers your question there if there is an issue that comes up then we would pursue it from a nuisance perspective thank you if i might if you think about that site there really is last residential adjacency than what there is even for the bank branch a couple blocks away which i think abut directly on to directly to a residential area so that i can't match who knows i suppose that's possible but i don't really foresee a major issue on that issue here with this proposal with parking in the drive through positions are out here so if you're going to the drive through you enter here and can come through parking in the back if you handicap parking spaces here i mentioned in the study session briefly that there were issues of landscaping this is coming to you with the planning staff recommendation to table the reason for that tabling recommendation is that there's inadequate information about what this landscaping is along this  and what landscaping might be proposed in this area in both those cases there's a ten foot setback of pavement from the property line required planning commission can reduce that but the ordinance requires ten feet and some substantial landscaping as a screen along those edges so the recommendation is to table or get information today about what that landscaping is to the point that you'd be comfortable with that and then our recommendation to approve it and there are three conditions relate to requirements by the board of public works the app controlled by by the requirements transportation services as noted in the report and the reap record and other requirements that are noted in  have the ability to approve it if you wish if they're able to provide additional information to your satisfaction and we'd recommend you approve it so does the applicant want to speak to the plan you my name is brian senate i am with the dressing and associates here in holland michigan i'm here with that it's got your links with think you know for midwest construction and i'll speak a little bit and i'll try to be brief i'm happy to answer as many questions as you like but i'll try to keep in my part short i would say that the primary reason for the rezone request is that speaker system and that it is prohibited within that c one the setbacks are virtually the same between see want to see five they didn't make a significant difference so it is that speaker system and i think of you know from a nuisance standpoint we're not talking about some kind of a speaker system that you might be considering that would be announcing something to somebody you know out on a lot just about the landscape and you don't want to go right there yet the speaker thing i think is a pretty much out of it's well yes there is a ten foot requirement for the setback from a residential zone i have a drawing here today where i've i've clarified that a little bit we're calling out a three foot high  evergreen shrub along the east line going that are going up on the document ca if you give it to fill hilda will arrange it for it is that we have confidence  i know the small ones are very difficult to read and the only difference between this drawing that i handed you which is the same as the one that he's pulling up there and the one that was submitted is only this hedge along the east line  feel that there's an existing commercial use on that site right now a parking lot for that tanning salon which used to be a grocery store and so we're pulling out a proposed three foot tall evergreen hedge i don't know if that meets your satisfaction at this point or not than the other one would be on the south property line we're calling out a six and a half foot difference that's from the property line to the edge of the curb out of that parking space now i'm not showing a hedge at that point here right now now that we're opposed to it but i feel that the setback which is seven feet the building setback is seven feet why would you  need a parking lot set back of greater than what the building set back would be i'm sorry can the second one that you're just talking about point that out to me again the second one there was a residential use zoned property across twenty eighth street  that's why the southern property line is pulled into this as well so there's technically there is a ten foot setback or a parking space on the south property line i see i gotcha i'm following  so i would be grass otherwise it would be grass it would be irrigated and which one are you talking about the east or the south south would be grass potentially it could be i mean the landscaping is going to meet the requirements of landscaping ordinance i'm not showing that yet that would be something that we would be asking for a condition for staff to approve an eventual landscape plan signed and sealed by a landscape architect wall screen not less than four feet height i suspected you would keep in mind that we're also going to be six inches lower with the curb to the pavement and then possibly another six inches up to you know the base of where those evergreens are which does get you up to that four feet so a four foot head would effectively be five feet which would be we would we would usually do that anything higher than that would i would tend to think would look a little bit out of place and then what is your intention to when we talk about every green hedge what are you thinking about at that point then i provide a kind of box what or what what's the idea and the idea i'm not a landscape guy i don't know the names of all the things question we're raising here is precisely that line i mean i don't think you're going to get a lot of and i think frankly i'll speak for myself directly that i'm pretty excited about this proposal and the future of this facility being built in this space we're just sort of nibbling at the edges and some of the things that you know will have impacts beyond the site itself so the rug is that the nature of my question is whatever we plant next year this year but you know probably next year will it grow taller than what the planting is right now so when we look at it ten years from now is it going to be closer to something that's you know seven or eight feet tall as opposed to staying at that for for our intent would be to plant something that grows to four feet in height and you know it wouldn't be that on day one but by the time somebody built a house there i can pretty much guarantee it'll be four feet high if i would like to point out section thirty nine fifty four point one of your ordinance that's where this allowance of yours to use some discretion here does give those three criteria so that we you know as long as we can show that we can effectively produce some screening and separation also says that it's necessary the reason that we're doing this is because to take seven feet six and a half feet away from that parking lot we tend we lose the safety factor of parking movements from cars going in and out that's that's the reason we're not asking for this just because we want more parking we're asking for it because it's a safety issue because once you pull in there you've got cars potentially backing into each other we need that that with that's why we're here so that i think satisfies the second one could i ask you a question as well on the just the flow of traffic and as i look at the diagram the site plan appears to me that there is no entrance point off michigan stickies stickers on the ground something that would last three big ones make it you know as bold as possible two signs one on each side you know do not enter or exit only one of the other and we also you know look at it specifically with what happen going to pull in there right well yes you know it's not going to have its tail end sticking out into traffic it can get up it can get in there and it can make a movement to get its way back around i think as a lay person or are looking at it from a layperson perspective it strikes me that that that's a good traffic flow entering from twenty eighth street exiting on to michigan i like that flow well we also have a you know a right turn only kind of exit point or i assume you and brian talked about we  approval tonight you know with with the conditions that have been outlined i'm comfortable with those conditions there is one of the requirements is to submit a detailed landscape plan as you indicated and we can review the the specific but we those those two changes the set back of the parking from the property lines yes how far is the parking exactly from the property line what's required required to be ten feet and it shows as three and a half feet on the east side and six and a half feet on the south side and i might point out those dimensions are to that edge of the concrete curving so you've got some other distance i mean i didn't make it to the asphalt which is another potentially two feet inside of that to the very edge of any kind of a concrete or paved surface is who's responsible for sidewalks their entry points or access from the road for pedestrians if if we i need to replace the sidewalk based on the grading plan that will will will still you we're still yet to figure out we will rebuild that to the city standards brian white wanted when we do that he wanted them to be poured independently so you don't have this connection and potential cracking going through from one of the other so we will meet those standards with whatever sidewalk i'm i'm sure there will be more than done but i'm not sure it will be all of the sidewalk will be replaced bill looks like there's a lot of i mean the sidewalk along michigan that's right it's all concrete to michigan where there are plans to change that or how far a set back or that's supposed to be or are they going to stay exactly the same place where they are now i can address stormwater since that's the topic of the night and that was another condition that brian white brought up and you're going to meet that well he mentioned the environmental concerns and there is some contamination that's not a surprise and the environmental consultants did recommend that we do not have underground infiltration that would push potentially contamination further than we wanted to go so what i have done kind of like this first flush that you talked about i'm having it drain off onto a rocky or grassy area so that we can we can have a clean water infiltration for that first part anything is more significant than that would have would be allowed to flow over into the top of this catch basin so it's a pretty it's a good design the best we can come up with without having more underground infiltration we would like to do that we would comply but it's just not in the best interest of the public safety to do that at this point if if i could just ask is what you just described what he is asking of you are you're suggesting something different from what he is required in the us well he he asks for underground infiltration but in the name time he says if you can't do that because of environmental concerns of exacerbating the contamination then then we're ok with that i basically what his his or his letter says and that summarizes the discussion we had and that is the fact after discussing with the environmental consultants they did recommend you know you don't want to infiltrate you don't want your own water pushing a nation out there that's not what we want so has the city engineer reviewed any sort of drainage plan is that what you're referring to this letter yes that his review of it yes and he will get it he will get you will get fine you will get i know all that we will do we will get down to the design of all the sizes and everything like it's motion just i don't know if we want to have a discussion first but i will just reiterate something that i alluded to a few moments ago and that is i think this is a very good design it strikes me that if you had told me that this site a would be redeveloped within five years of the gas station going away and b would have this kind of design placed onto it i would have i would have probably laughed out loud because i wouldn't have expected something like this and i'm very pleased with it i think it will be an incredible improvement to this part of the city this will help this stretch of michigan avenue it will be great to have whatever bank this is located close by it you know the design of it is relatively close to you know to the sidewalk so it works well with the idea of a neighborhood kind of branch and not merely a highway drive up kind of branch and i think about the chemical bank branch that was built a few years back on the south side as well and this sort of has that similar feel to it and i think that's been a really positive for for michigan or washington whatever it is that at that particular point so i think this is going to be a very very good thing and some of the trade offs that gives in the takes that we're talking about strike me as inherent with any sort of redevelopment ideas especially on smaller sized lots where there are some constraints from topography previous uses  potential contamination and just frankly sizes so i think that you know we we've got a very good project in front of us and i'm very pleased that it's going to be going forward so thanks and your comments questions discussion i'll headlights and something that will grow to the right i mean if you drive an escalator up there their headlights are extremely high so i heard i heard four feet is where were you ended up you know i was just hoping that there might be screening it looks like from the plans to that we're filling in some of the gas station it looks like there's a huge curb along michigan and we're filling that in correct ok need to do separate public hearings for the rezoning and for the site plan review or i can do them together is that ok so yeah ok i will open the public hearing at this time for both the rezoning and the plan review since there's no one here i will close the public hearing for both of those and then we can make a motion if anyone so desire may ask a quick question of phil the staff under new business letter c text amendment section thirty nine dash two and thirty nine dash fourteen regarding official services planning commission is the applicant can't going to do something but he'll be right back  this is a recommendation coming from staff city attorney's office the board of public works request a recommendation for proposed amendments to sections thirty nine two and a street on fair banks the discussion about how to procedurally move this through the approval process was it is an ongoing discussion but one of the things that we are looking at is bringing this  through as an essential service and there is a section of the ordinance that deals with essential services there is a recommendation here to amend the language a bit in recognition of maybe some of  the uniqueness of a power station generating station or power plant as it's described in the ordinance probably a once in a lifetime sort of construction project or or proposal that the city will  face it is a recommendation that gives that a little bit separate treatment rather than going just to the board of appeals and having them review because of the size and scale of the impacts of this it is a recommendation to treat essential services other than the sort of facility by going to the board of public works i'm sorry one of appeals but for a power plant power station generating station or power plant that would go to the planning commission for a site plan review and you would review it as the commission you would review it under the normal requirements of site plan review there is some additional language if you're if your copy of the language is in color most of what i've just said is what spelled out in all of the red markings on this draft of the ordinance there is an additional phrase in here of unrestricted height that has been added to this  with the knowledge that the height limit within the underlying zones there will be exceeded by the power plant by the stacks on the power plant it's rather than requiring going for a variance for this because of the uniqueness of the power facility itself the recommendation is to add that that language of unrestricted height so that that is no longer a requirement to go for a varian included in this be the need would arise in another location of peaking plant if the need would arise in the future for a peaking plant in a different location is that covered plants that they flip basically turn on when we need extra power generally speaking the efficiency the operating cost efficiency isn't as good the operating costs are higher so you only use them at such times as when you need the peak power so we have we have air offsite there in a is we don't have final drawings or designs for for the facility at this point so i don't know what the answer to that whatever number we would pick would be wrong when limit is a nice number  looking especially when you look at what the waterfront if you were to change it and get i guess my only point on this would be that the likelihood of us ever building another two hundred twenty five million dollar power plant in this community that has stacks of any magnitude is slim to none and as the old saying goes slim just left town the peaking unit stacks are certainly nothing when they'd fall within the existing ordinances anyway so what we're really talking about is is just that the new primary combustion turbaned stacks and the likelihood of us ever having to cross this bridge again is so remote that you know maybe our grandchildren might have to and when that comes to time then your grandchildren can fight with your grandchildren and figure out why we should have picked a number at some point if they just don't like the unlimited forever phil has been consulted with us yes ok comments we have not notified them of this again i without asking them i don't know what their response would be you know we have tall stacks at the james too young and i have not heard of any sort of a issue relative to fire protection i don't know the answer though i mean i guess bottom line the stacks are going to be the stacks one way or the other if we're going to build the plant and they're going to have these kinds of stacks and i think i want to say there's some sort of in the design of it there's some sort of either suppression put in place or something that have you know it's part of the overall design for the reasons that you probably can't get a ladder truck that's gone well and then they'll go central for creosote buildup and this is probably pretty limited we would hope so with the stack kite then also there were cars if they fell or or there was a problem anything happened they would fall onto the property or would they be so tall that they would fall on to other properties  not knowing exactly what the dimensions of it will be the facility if it's close to any property line it's close to the west property line on the rail line that runs through but it's it's not immediately adjacent to that i don't know prevailing winds out of the northwest so it would blow the other way we don't even think you can make allowance for error and tunnels where they fall know those are all you know we don't do that know questions or comments pertaining to the feel you feel comfortable with this yes to margaret said earlier past past commission meetings where we're trying to create standards in applying the rules to all properties and plan plans that come to us and come at the meter earlier today relating to you know how tall the doesn't merit a parking lot well it's applying the standards across the board to everybody so that's kind of where i was in relation to that thank you staff was you see on here we we actually have two well one the second one we no longer need to talk about first one is just we wanted to mention greg robinson is no longer on the planning commission and he kenyon has taken his spot on the commission  greg spent fourteen years or so on the planning commission and from staff we have really appreciated all of his his wisdom and and energy and recognition