[2:30] Awesome.

[3:12] Please rise for the pledge of allegiance.

[3:15] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[3:19] republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[3:25] justice for all. This is the Selen City Planning

[3:30] Commission meeting for Wednesday, February 25th, 2026. Will the recording

[3:34] secretary please call the role? >> Here.

[3:37] » Carol >> here.

[3:39] » Yes. >> Marl

[3:40] » here. >> Gerba

[3:41] » here. >> Heft

[3:42] » here. >> Staff present tonight are community

[3:45] development director Atkin and recording secretary Katnik. Uh is there a motion

[3:49] on the table to approve the agenda as distributed unless there are amendments?

[3:52] » Move to approve as distributed. >> Second. All those in favor? I. All those

[3:57] opposed. Motion passes. Is there a motion on the table to approve the

[4:01] meeting minutes of February 11th, 2026 as submitted, unless there are

[4:05] amendments? >> Move to um

[4:10] move to approve. >> As submitted.

[4:13] » All those in favor? >> I. All those opposed. Motion passes.

[4:18] Public comment. Under the open meetings act, any citizen may come forward at

[4:22] this time and make comments. The person is requested but not required to state

[4:25] their name and address for the record. Comments will be limited to three

[4:28] minutes per person. Seeing no public comment, uh we will go with unfinished

[4:33] business number 26-03, application from Cambridge Real Estate

[4:38] LLC for a preliminary site plan for a mixeduse development at 1080 East

[4:42] Michigan Avenue. Lot 28, parcel number 18-12-31-480-20.

[4:50] and lot 13, parcel number 18-12-31-480-013.

[4:58] In our packet, we had a memo dated February 18th, 2026 from community

[5:02] development director, community development director at Kent.

[5:07] » Yes, thank you. So, the provisions that were suggested in

[5:13] the uh packet from two weeks ago, those were corrected. Uh, so I'm going to go

[5:19] over some of the comments that are in this one and I'd like to apologize for

[5:25] the first recommendation in there. I forgot to put a word uh for the deferred

[5:29] parking. It's the recommendation is if they don't have tenants prior to the

[5:36] final uh lift going on then to those parking spaces. Right now we have two

[5:42] tenants two tenants per the other two white box. So until that time comes when

[5:50] uh plus allow us to get a better feel where the amount of parking is going to

[5:56] be necessary out there closing 64 total spaces. Uh without those it would be

[6:02] down to 50 uh with the two drive-thrus. Um

[6:07] that included units. So, the applicant did read through these

[6:14] and if you give me a moment here, I'm going to share up on the screen um

[6:20] suggestive and visions.

[6:44] So the focus here is going to be up on the commercial. So the suggestion was uh

[6:49] I believe it was the second recommendation was that the south west

[6:54] corner these buildings here. This was 24 ft. They would like to keep the two-way

[6:58] traffic on the west line uh with p and have pavement markings in there

[7:04] identifying drive-thru lane. Uh there was a

[7:08] bottleneck back in here for the 24 foot wide. And on uh up here, I drew a little

[7:16] diagram with this is when it was 24 ft. What would potentially happen if

[7:21] somebody was trying to go around the back of the building and the the

[7:25] drive-through lines are backed up and somebody else is trying to go around,

[7:28] there wouldn't be enough room in there for three cars to pass uh through. So,

[7:35] they did widen that to 36 ft to allow for um that additional cars to pass

[7:43] through. The other recommendation was to turn the dumpster because they were

[7:50] facing each other and in order for the trash hauler get in there the way when

[7:56] they were facing each other, they'd have to make another pass all the way around

[8:00] the building or try to do a multi-point turn and then uh to access the other

[8:07] dumpster. Uh they did separate the dumpsters out originally as they are

[8:12] today. uh just for the sake of room and convenience for the um

[8:19] uh uh uh employees coming home. The

[8:24] they're able to meet the 20ft setbacks on both sides

[8:30] here and the 100t setback line up front and maintain

[8:36] uh 24 ft for the aisle access in all areas.

[8:43] Instead of removing the bypass lane in its entirety and the green space that

[8:48] was between them, there's going to be a 5 foot wide uh strip strip of grass

[8:55] going between there uh just to prevent anybody running into the building or

[9:01] lessen the likelihood that somebody might might hit the back of the building

[9:04] there. All the parking

[9:08] stalls do meet uh minimum requirements. Um, same with the number of HDA spaces.

[9:14] I haven't done a deep dive into the landscaping yet, uh, only because things

[9:20] were being shifted around, so I didn't want to, uh, put too much time into, um,

[9:28] counting that up in case had to be moved around. uh

[9:34] the sidewalk here. They did make it meander through putting crosswalks in.

[9:41] Uh there's a recommendation in there that you know that they or requirement

[9:45] for the ADA accessibility ramps and to provide detail.

[9:50] All the sidewalks uh where they're more open are pushed back from the road. Uh

[9:56] they added a sidewalk connecting on the west side here down to

[10:02] the um I guess the western end of the residential. So there'll be two points

[10:08] of access for residents over here and then

[10:12] residents on the west side and also residents

[10:17] here. Lot 13. There's a letter that was included in

[10:22] the packet from engineering stating that at this point they they do feel that the

[10:29] storm calculations and the size of the storm basins do

[10:34] accommodate the amount of uh storm water runoff that will occur.

[10:39] And um they have been said this last time they have been communicating with

[10:45] the engineering and the engineering consultants to go over that. Um then

[10:51] once the I was speaking with the applicants tonight once they get

[10:56] approval for the preliminary site plan they will start working doing a deeper

[11:02] dive into the engineering with all the utilities fire placement um

[11:08] storm basins sanitary things excuse me things of the like. Um I believe

[11:15] uh in the details one of the recommendations last time was to install

[11:20] different type of lighting fixtures in the residential area instead of having

[11:24] the commercial and industrial type lighting. Uh they are going to be a

[11:28] single pole with a single bulb on the top of the decorative um uh shielding

[11:34] around it or glass frosted glass almost. Uh that will be that will go throughout

[11:38] the residential area. Um

[11:42] they grew there's some areas in here for some play area and both of the easements

[11:51] down here. Oh, I'm sorry. They have a in the event that the neighboring property

[11:57] that pass through, they put a they reserve some space here for a possible

[12:02] drive. That might take some reconfiguring at some point, but they're

[12:07] designating some space there for an ement accessment to the west and then

[12:15] also to the south here going up the Beimis Road. That's why this space here

[12:20] is open and it'll go down south of Beamis Road. They are still

[12:24] communicating with the owner of 1294 Beach Court here who owns the property

[12:31] just to the east. It's bank uh bank supplies. Um this property is vacant.

[12:37] The other one has two buildings on it, but they are separate parcels. Uh so

[12:42] they're trying to work a deal there to get that

[12:48] hopefully in the future make that into residential as well.

[12:52] Then the the last items that were in the review, uh those are

[12:57] to be included. A lot of it's just detail paperwork be included

[13:03] forward things that are separate processes.

[13:08] » Great. Thank you. Uh just a question about the 14 deferred spaces that are on

[13:13] the northeast corner of the parcel. Um why would if they are not needed

[13:18] depending on the tenant would the configuration of that right side, the

[13:24] eastern side change? >> No. No. because they would still have to

[13:28] maintain that 24 foot. >> So, it just wouldn't be striped.

[13:31] » It just wouldn't be striped. >> Okay. Correct.

[13:33] » Thank you. >> Well, configuration is it would be long.

[13:37] » Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Mayor.

[13:40] » Uh, Director Atkins, I I see this on page 11 of of your memo. So, I'm

[13:45] primarily asking the question for the public's benefit, those who may be

[13:48] reading about this meeting or watching it after the fact. I think often times

[13:52] or too often, we conflate and confuse preliminary site plan with final site

[13:56] plan. And they those processes are distinct and different and there's a a

[13:59] higher burden that needs to be met uh at at final uh site plan approval or when a

[14:04] petitioner is seeking final site plan approval. Excuse me. But it is your

[14:07] recommendation tonight that they meet the uh qualifications for preliminary

[14:10] site plan and that the uh mo subsequent motion to approve be be uh be be

[14:15] granted. >> Correct. Yes.

[14:18] » It's all I had. >> Questions? Um Chris just and as um

[14:24] previous weekly since we've gone through nobody's revision thankfully members of

[14:28] the commission have been looking at it from the last meeting and this meeting

[14:31] doing a lot of work on this. Um was there any consideration of deferring the

[14:36] parking spaces in the front instead of the ones on the side so that we wouldn't

[14:40] have as much pavement in the front? That's my one disappointment on this

[14:44] development is that the buildings aren't further up and less asphalt. that was

[14:49] not considered originally um because there were there was a way for them to

[14:55] fit those in the ones that are being recommended for

[14:58] referral. That was our our initial suggestion only because they were only 5

[15:03] ft from the property line. That was before there was some reconfiguration of

[15:07] the uh storm basins. >> Okay. Um other than that, I think we've

[15:13] answered most of the questions. I know we talked about the one-way traffic on

[15:17] the um western side of the lot, but now that you've reconfigured and added that

[15:21] 36, I guess that works. I mean, from our consideration, it's not really a city

[15:25] manager. If it backs up and plugs up, that's their problem, not ours. So,

[15:30] » thank you. >> Can I just ask one question in terms of,

[15:33] you know, sometimes in these in these we just generally have something from the

[15:36] fire department or something that's saying everything is copacetic in terms

[15:39] of the ability for fire trucks to get in, turn around, etc. Have we talked to

[15:43] them? Has the fire department cleared this? That just

[15:46] » fire department did look at it. They made some suggestions about

[15:50] um posting some signs about uh specifically down in the residential

[15:55] area for fire lanes, those parking on street and then also the turn radiuses

[16:00] that which they supplied uh in the commercial area. Um that was they gave

[16:07] those to us uh during the last meeting. Um but again since things have been

[16:12] reconfigured I'm going to the areas that they made their recommendations have not

[16:18] have not changed from last site plan to this site plan

[16:23] but I will have prior to or when it comes to the final site plan they will

[16:27] be reviewing that again especially once the utilities go in they see placement

[16:30] of higher >> and excuse me additional where the fire

[16:36] grounds would be. >> Okay.

[16:40] Yes. >> And Chris, you feel there's no need for

[16:42] a traffic study or anything in this terms to make sure that there's any

[16:45] concerns with inflow and outflow of traffic to 12?

[16:48] » No, not not in a commercial industrial area. It's not typical for for if this

[16:53] were a big like the one over there in North Maple where

[16:59] you're adding residents. Um this is the trips per day is going to be a little

[17:04] more difficult to calculate. Uh but this being right on Michigan a It's It's not

[17:10] going to make a significant impact by any means.

[17:13] » Okay. >> And the safety concerns that being

[17:15] residential driving in and out of there, not an issue at this point from your

[17:18] perspective. >> I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

[17:20] » I There's not a concern about residential driving in and out of there

[17:23] at this point and commercial in that same drive.

[17:25] » No, they're completely separate. The access points are completely separate.

[17:36] Do you see any problem with queuing on uh US12 to access the uh commercial in

[17:43] the front? So, uh add for for traffic. Yes. Any

[17:48] additional right turn lanes that you think would be necessary? Um the parcel

[17:51] directly to the east has um a right turn lane. Just wondering the acceleration

[17:59] lane. >> It's a it's a del lane. Yes, Spencer.

[18:02] Um,

[18:10] I don't believe so. Uh, and I I don't know that they would be able to put in a

[18:16] de acceleration lane that would be long enough because I I and correct me if I'm

[18:21] wrong. You're you're the engineer. I'm not that that de acceleration lane would

[18:25] have to pass that property boundary. >> No, the del lane coming from wet coming

[18:31] eastbound. So >> turn

[18:34] » uh to turn right into the develop into this development. Okay.

[18:38] » I I don't anticipate that being problem. >> I think that's just something that MD do

[18:42] needs to sign off on before I I know that we've asked for um concurrence with

[18:47] MDOT whenever they review this um just because it's off of their road. But I

[18:50] still think that's something that needs to be looked at.

[18:52] » We make that as a recommendation for that uh MD give their opinion on putting

[19:00] it lane. >> Absolutely. Thank you.

[19:03] » There's nothing further. Madam chair, I'd move to acknowledge receipt of the

[19:06] memo dated February the 18th. >> Second.

[19:09] » Second. >> All those in favor? I. All those

[19:12] opposed. Motion passes. Uh applicant developer comments will be limited to 10

[19:17] minutes if you'd like to come up and speak. Uh the please make sure that the

[19:21] microphone is on and the green light is illuminated.

[19:26] » Hello. Um Michael Hamami, Cambridge Real Estate. Um, first off, I want to thank

[19:32] uh the commission for um the twoe turnaround time and accommodating us so

[19:36] quickly um and understanding that timing is critical for us to be able to deliver

[19:41] this. So, thank you for that. Um, we heard the comments that uh uh were

[19:49] said here last time we were here and um took uh a lot of the um comments that

[19:55] were made by uh Chris and uh Chris and our architect Denny has worked hard and

[20:02] trying to uh incorporate all those and and really uh you know Denny did a great

[20:07] job um fitting a lot into this site and giving us a space and and and and

[20:13] negotiating some of those radiuses uh expansions out to, you know, 36 feet and

[20:18] fitting the parking that we need here. Um I know that uh there were some

[20:23] comments about the banked parking. Uh the two buildings that we have are

[20:28] designed to accommodate four tenants. We already have two tenants committed uh

[20:33] under a lease and we received another LOI last week. So, it looks like we're

[20:38] probably going to have a third coming in um very soon. And hopefully before we're

[20:42] done with this, we'll have all four full. So, banked parking probably won't

[20:46] be a concern at that point. We will need all the parking. Um

[20:52] and uh yeah, that's that's pretty much it. Um we're excited to get started on

[20:56] this. >> Thank you very much.

[21:00] » Questions for the applicant developer?

[21:06] Um, I will say that you have made a a lot of changes from two weeks ago and

[21:11] I'm I'm glad that you heard us and and did make the changes in it because uh at

[21:15] the last meeting with um having plans that weren't reviewed that just didn't

[21:20] sit right. So I I do appreciate you turning it around in the two weeks. So

[21:24] thank you very much. >> Madam Chair, if there's nothing further

[21:29] for the petitioner, I also thank him for his time. Um, I would move to open the

[21:32] public hearing affording the public an opportunity to speak to this issue at

[21:35] 7:18. Second. >> All those in favor? I. All those

[21:39] opposed? Motion passes. >> Seeing nobody in the audience, uh, I

[21:44] will move to close the public hearing at 7:19.

[21:47] » So move.

[21:51] » Cheryl move her. I'll second that. >> All those in favor? I.

[21:55] » All those opposed? >> Motion passes. uh comments, questions

[21:58] from planning commission members either to the applicant developer or to

[22:02] community development director. >> I guess one I apologize madam chair. I

[22:08] should ask this of the petitioner earlier. Um again appreciate your your

[22:11] your time and u flexibility and patience during this process. Assuming you get

[22:15] preliminary site plan approval this evening. Um how quickly do you would

[22:19] like how quickly would you like to move things forward so that we could be uh

[22:22] considering a final site plan? um immediately. If we uh are successful and

[22:28] obtain preliminary approval here tonight, we will um uh start our

[22:33] engineers and on working on the uh engineering plans and and get back in

[22:37] front of you as quickly as possible. >> Okay.

[22:42] » Yes, >> Chris, any issues? I know you've been

[22:44] working a lot on this document, so I know you have other priorities for

[22:47] working at this time. So, however you fit this in your calendar, we will

[22:50] understand uh and how this comes forward. So, whatever you need to do,

[22:55] but is there anything else at this point in time that you feel we need to

[22:57] consider it before we go into final >> at this time? No. No. I'll manage to get

[23:03] it done. >> Thanks.

[23:06] » Additional questions or comments? >> Thank you very much.

[23:10] » Thank you. Uh, is there a motion on the table to

[23:13] approve, not approve, or approve with conditions the preliminary site plan for

[23:17] a mixeduse development at 1080 East M 1080 East Michigan Avenue, lot 20A and

[23:23] lot 13. >> I move to

[23:28] uh approve with the conditions that are listed in uh preliminary site plan

[23:34] conditions one through three. Uh items to include on with site plan one through

[23:39] five. modifying recommendation one to include also uh uh a recommendation from

[23:47] MDOT that we don't that there is not a need for a deceleration lane on the

[23:51] right turn and then items uh one to two uh with regards to separate applications

[23:58] and requirements and then adding one more just that the fire department will

[24:03] re will review and approve again during the final site plan regarding turn

[24:08] radius and other fire related. >> Just to clarify, under the preliminary

[24:14] site plan, uh items two and three have been corrected.

[24:20] » Okay. >> I showed tonight and item one has to

[24:24] include >> not tenants are not secured for the

[24:28] meeting. >> Thank you. All right.

[24:31] » Okay. So, I make that motion.

[24:35] » You have that. >> Good to go.

[24:38] » All right. Any additional discussion? All those in favor?

[24:43] » I. All those opposed? >> Motion passes.

[24:46] » Uh, congratulations. Uh, we'll look forward to seeing you in final site

[24:50] plan. Uh, is there any discussion tonight?

[24:53] » If there's no discussion, >> just clarification. Will we have a a

[24:56] meeting in um uh March? >> Yeah. Two weeks. Okay.

[25:00] » Two weeks. No, there's uh

[25:04] nothing that will be ready

[25:09] for some other things working on but they won't be.

[25:14] » Yeah. And do you suspect a second meeting in March or No.

[25:16] » No. Okay. So likely nothing again until April.

[25:23] » One other question. >> Yes.

[25:24] » And I know I should w this a little bit sooner. Uh the abandoned car wash.

[25:28] anything on that one in terms of what we need to move forward on getting that

[25:32] taken care of? >> Nothing yet. And I have been meaning to

[25:35] talk to Craig about getting them uh condemning it. Um

[25:41] you might be in tomorrow and I'll make I'll make that priority

[25:46] for the building if you then

[25:52] can appeal or choose to walk away. At this point in time, I think that's

[25:57] probably the best route because we just delayed it so much. And having driven by

[26:00] it just recently again, it's starting to become springtime and it's going to be

[26:04] an issue again. So, >> no, I I apologize. It just keeps falling

[26:09] in the back of my head. >> Yeah, I that's why I kind of want to

[26:12] make sure that you get time to do those things too besides these other

[26:15] assessments. So, we may want to rush other things, but this that's one of the

[26:19] issues that's been on our board for 20 years now. So, appreciate it.

[26:25] Madam Chair, if there's nothing further, I move to adjourn this planning

[26:27] commission meeting at 7:23. >> Second. All those in favor. All those

[26:31] opposed. Motion passes. Thank you.

City of Saline: Planning Commission Meeting (02.25.2026)

Transcript