[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.