The City of FerndaleAgenda

Ferndale YouTube: https://bit.ly/2Y94pbS Ferndale Code ofOrdinances: https://bit.ly/3oiuEYh Ferndale Zoning Map:https://bit.ly/2ZAzPs7 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2021 @ 7:00 PM Ferndale City Hall Council Chambers

1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES 3.a Consideration of the Meeting Minutes from the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on

September 21, 2021 4. CALL TO AUDIENCE 5. REGULAR AGENDA 5.a Consideration of the appeal of an appeal of an administrative decision at 1461 E 8 Mile. 6. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 7. BOARD ITEMS 8. ADJOURNMENT

1

October 19, 2021 Community & EconomicDevelopment

FROM: Justin Lyons

SUBJECT: Consideration of the Meeting Minutes from the Board of Zoning AppealsMeeting on September 21, 2021

SUGGESTED ACTIONApproval of the Meeting Minutes from the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on September 21, 2021

Agenda Item CategoryOperational Item

Agenda Item Deadline Date2021-10-13

Item DescriptionPlease see attached for draft minutes.

Item BackgroundPlease see attached for draft minutes.

Item CostsN/A

GL#N/A

CIP#N/A

Additional Notes

CITY OF FERNDALEREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION

ATTACHMENTS: Minutes BZA 2021.09.21.pdf

2

1

The City of Ferndale Minutes

Meeting of Board of Zoning Appeals Tuesday, September 21, 2021 @ 7:00 PM

Ferndale City Hall, 300 E 9 Mile Road, Ferndale, MI

1. ROLL CALL Meeting called to order at 7:01 PM. Present: Michelle Foster Nicholas Munck Judy Palmer Mike Steidemann Ian Williamson Absent: Leah Blizinski Austin Colson Raylon Leaks-May

Moved by Palmer, seconded by Foster to excuse the absence of Blizinski, Colson, and

Leaks-May.

AYES: Munck, Palmer, Steidemann, Foster, Williamson NAYS: none

ABSTAIN: none 5-0-0

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Moved by Palmer, seconded by Steidemann to accept the agenda as Presented

AYES: Munck, Palmer, Steidemann, Foster, Williamson NAYS: none

ABSTAIN: none 5-0-0 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3A. Consideration of the Meeting Minutes from the Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting on August 17, 2021

3

2

Moved by Palmer, seconded by Foster to accept the minutes as Presented

AYES: Munck, Palmer, Steidemann, Foster, Williamson NAYS: none

ABSTAIN: none 5-0-0

4. CALL TO AUDIENCE There were no speakers. 5. REGULAR AGENDA 5A. Consideration of Two (2) Dimensional Variances at 475 Withington Presentation by staff. Presentation by applicant. Public hearing opened by Chair Williamson at 7:16 PM There were no speakers. Public hearing closed by Chair Williamson at 7:16 PM Discussion by commission. Applicant elected to table their request. 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS None. 7. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS Discussion of filling the open Alternate seat on the board. Update on the Master Plan process. October 26 & 27 will be community summits, with promotion coming soon. Residents are encouraged to participate in the Master Plan process as it progresses. 8. BOARD ITEMS Update on meeting procedures. 9. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:18 PM. ____________________________________ Jordan Smellie, Elections Manager & Clerk of the Board of Zoning Appeals

4

October 19, 2021 Community & EconomicDevelopment

FROM: Justin Lyons

SUBJECT: Consideration of the appeal of an appeal of an administrative decision at1461 E 8 Mile.

SUGGESTED ACTIONPlease see attached staff report for a draft motion.

Agenda Item CategoryOperational Item

Agenda Item Deadline Date2021-09-14

Item DescriptionPlease see attached staff report for more details.

Item BackgroundPlease see attached staff report for more details.

Item CostsN/A

GL#N/A

CIP#N/A

Additional Notes

CITY OF FERNDALEREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION

ATTACHMENTS: 1461 E 8 Mile-BZA Staff Report-10-13-21.pdf1461 E 8 Mile-BZA Application-7-21-2021.pdf

5

1461 E 8 Mile-BZA Appeal Letter.pdfPlanning Commission Minutes-06-02-2021.pdf

6

1461 E 8 Mile – Administrative Appeal October 13, 2021 - Page 1 of 2

Community and Economic Development – Staff Report REQUEST Appeal of an Administrative Decision APPLICANT Mark Aubrey (Motor City Pawn Brokers)

1461 E 8 Mile, Ferndale, MI 48220 OWNER Same as above LOCATION E. 8 Mile, between CN Railroad and West End Street PARCEL NUMBER 24-25-35-459-006 ZONING C-3 (Extended Business) STAFF Justin Lyons, Planning Manager ATTACHMENTS Board of Zoning Appeals Application – July 21, 2021 Appeal Letter – July 13, 2021

Summary The applicant is requesting an appeal of an administrative decision regarding the Conditional Rezoning procedure noted in the standards listed in Ordinance 1087, Chapter 24, Article XIV. Amendments., Sec. 24-323. Procedure. The Board of Zoning Appeals is a body of limited powers. Under Sec. 24-425, its powers include:

(1) Interpret this chapter and the zoning map whenever a question arises in the administration of this chapter as to its meaning or intent. Any interpretations shall carry out the intent and purpose of this chapter, the zoning map and the master plan and shall be made in accordance with commonly accepted rules of construction for ordinances and laws in general.

(2) The Board of Zoning Appeals may hear and decide appeals and review any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative official or body charged with the enforcement of this chapter, including the director, the building department and the planning commission, other than special land use or planned unit development applications. The BZA may reverse or affirm, in whole or in part, or may modify the decision and make a determination as, in the BZA's opinion, should have been made, and to that end, shall have all the powers of the officer or body from whom the appeal is taken.

The applicant’s original conditional rezoning application was approved by City Council on November 15, 2015. The applicant submit an amended conditional rezoning agreement and application to the City on April 27, 2021 to amend one condition related to the display of firearms in the showroom. Sec. 24-325 g. notes “the conditional rezoning agreement may be amended by the city council with the property owner's consent in the same manner as was prescribed for the original rezoning and conditional rezoning agreement.” Based on the zoning ordinance, staff scheduled a public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting on June 2, 2021. The Planning Commission considered the application and amended agreement, and the Planning Commission’s motion on the item failed with a 4-4 vote. Staff’s interpretation of Sec. 24-323. (d) Procedure is that since the conditional rezoning application was denied at the Planning Commission, the application shall not be resubmitted for a period of one year from the date of denial except on the grounds of new evidence, materially revised request, or proof of changed conditions relating to all of the reasons noted for the denial found to be valid by the planning commission.

7

1461 E 8 Mile – Administrative Appeal October 13, 2021 - Page 2 of 2

Please review the attached information, submitted by the applicant, identifying the reasons for the appeal requested.

Aerial Photo of Site & Surroundings

Image of parcel denoted in red from Oakland County Property Gateway (2020)

Amendments - Procedure (Section 24-323 (d)) (d) Petitions for rezonings, text amendments or master plan amendments that have been denied by the

city council or planning commission shall not be resubmitted for a period of one year from the date of

denial except on the grounds of new evidence, materially revised request, or proof of changed conditions

relating to all of the reasons noted for the denial found to be valid by the planning commission.

Example Administrative Appeal Motion MOTION by , seconded by , that the Board of Zoning Appeals AFFIRM the City staff interpretation of Article XIV. Amendments., Sec. 24-323. Procedure that since the conditional rezoning application was denied at the Planning Commission, the application shall not be resubmitted for a period of one year from the date of denial except on the grounds of new evidence, materially revised request, or proof of changed conditions relating to all of the reasons noted for the denial found to be valid by the planning commission.

8

BoardofZoningAppealsApplicationCityOfFerndale

SubmittedOn:July21,202112:22pmAmerica/New_York

BoardofZoningAppealsApplicationDateofApplication July21,202112:12PM

TypeofZoningAppealRequestType(checkallapplicable)

Appeals

Briefdescriptionofrequest seeattachedletter

Applicant'sInformationNameofApplicant MarkAubrey

NameofBusiness MotorCityPawnBrokers

Email mark@motorcitypawnbrokers.com

PhoneNumber 5868556275

BusinessAddress 1461E.8MileFerndaleMI48220

SidwellNumber(ParcelID) 24-25-35-459-006

LegalDescription T1N,R11E,SEC35FORDHTSADDSUBN117FTOFLOTS63TO67INCL&E1/2OFN117FTOFLOT68

ZoningDistrictoftheproperty C-3

ZoningDistrictofpropertiestotheNorth

R1

ZoningDistrictofpropertiestotheEast

OS

ZoningDistrictofpropertiestotheWest

OS

ZoningDistrictofpropertiestotheSouth

OS

Areaoflot 19,305squarefeet

Widthoflot 165''

Depthoflot 117''

Interestintheproperty Owner 9

Owner'sInformation

CriteriaforALLVariances

IftherearepracticaldifficultiesorunnecessaryhardshipincarryingoutthestrictletterofthisOrdinance,theBZAmaygrantavarianceinanyofitsrulesorprovisionsrelatingtotheconstruction,orstructuralchangesin,equipment,oralterationofbuildingsorstructures,ortheuseofland,buildings,orstructures,sothatthespiritoftheordinanceshallbeobserved,publicsafetysecured,andsubstantialjusticedone.Pleaserespondtothefollowingstatements.Theapplicantmustdemonstrateallofthefollowingcriteriainordertoobtainavariance.GrantingofavariancebytheBZAshallnotconstituteanassurancethatabuildingpermitwillbeissued.

A.PublicSafetyandWelfare.Describehowtherequestwillnotimpairanadequatesupplyoflightandairtoadjacentproperties;increasethedangeroffire;unreasonablydiminishorimpairestablishedpropertyvalueswithinthesurroundingarea;harmtheenvironment;orinanyotherrespectimpairthepublichealth,safety,comfort,morals,orwelfareoftheinhabitantsoftheCity.

seeattachedletter

B.CompatibilitywithNeighborhood.Describehowtherequestwillbecompatiblewithadjacentuses,andofsuchheight,location,sizeandcharacterthatitwillbeinharmonywiththeappropriateandorderlydevelopmentofthesurroundingneighborhood.

seeattachedletter

C.TrafficImpacts.Describehowtherequestwillnotunreasonablyincreasecongestioninpublicstreets,makevehicularandpedestriantrafficmorehazardousthanisnormalforthedistrictinvolved,takingintoaccountsightdistances,trafficflow,provisionsforpedestriantraffic,andminimizationofpotentialtrafficconflicts

seeattachedletter

D.Nuisance.Describehowtherequestwillnotcreateanuisance;

seeattachedletter

E.UniqueCircumstances.Describehowtherequestresultsfromspecialoruniquecircumstances

seeattachedletter

10

peculiartothepropertythatexistwhicharenotapplicabletothegeneralneighborhoodconditions.

F.NotSelf-Created.Describehowtheallegedhardshiphasnotbeencreatedbytheactionsoftheapplicantoranypersonhavingacurrentinterestintheproperty.

seeattachedletter

CriteriaforNONUSEorDIMENSIONALVariances.TheBZAmaygrantanareavarianceonlyuponafindingthatpracticaldifficultiesexist.Pleaserespondtothefollowingstatements.Theapplicantmustdemonstrateallofthefollowingcriteriainordertoobtainavariance:

CriteriaforUSEVariances.TheBZAmaygrantanareavarianceonlyuponafindingthatunnecessaryhardshipexists.Pleaserespondtothefollowingstatements.Theapplicantmustdemonstrateallofthefollowingcriteriainordertoobtainavariance:

CriteriaforAPPEALS.Anappealshallbefiledwithinthirty(30)daysofthedateoftheorder,determinationordecisionappealedfrom,or,iftheappealisfromadecisionofapublicbody,withinthirty(30)daysofthedateoftheapprovaloftheminutesofthepublicmeetingatwhichthedecisionwasmade.BZAshallreviewalldocumentationsubmittedconstitutingtherecorduponwhichtheactionappealfromwastaken.UploadSitePlanindicatingthelocationofanyandallbuildings,propertylines,parkinglots,dimensions,andotherpertinentinformationabouttheproposedvariancetoassisttheBZAinmakingitsdecision.

https://seam.ly/ssqcX0Bk01_SitePlan(1).pdfhttps://seam.ly/fxEgAAWfCityofFerndaleBZAAppealLetter7-13-21.pdf

UploadProofofOwnership https://seam.ly/DNGPGqdfWarrantyDeed2.jpeghttps://seam.ly/El8dftn4WarrantyDeed.jpeg

SignatureData FirstName:markLastName:aubreyEmailAddress:mark@motorcitypawnbrokers.com

11

Signedat:July21,202112:21pmAmerica/New_York

12

17195 Silver Parkway, #309 Fenton, MI 48430

Phone: 810-734-0000 Email: sprague@cibplanning.com

July 13, 2021 Board of Zoning Appeals City of Ferndale 300 East Nine Mile Road Ferndale, Michigan 48220 Attention: Mr. Justin Lyons, Planning Manager Subject: Appeal of Administrative Decision, Conditional Rezoning Agreement Amendment,

1461 E. 8 Mile Road. Dear Board Members: On behalf of Mark Aubrey and his business, Motor City Pawn at 1461 E. 8 Mile Road, I respectfully ask that you overturn the administrative decision of the Planning Manager, Justin Lyons, disallowing the request to amend the Conditional Rezoning Agreement amendment to be heard by City Council. The Planning Commission heard the request from Mr. Aubrey at the 6/2/21 meeting with a vote of 4 to 4. Mr. Lyons has categorized the request from Mr. Aubrey as a “petition for rezoning” when in fact the property was already conditionally rezoned and he is now asking for an amendment to his conditional rezoning agreement with the City. City Interpretation of Request

The following is an excerpt from the email between Mr. Lyons and Mr. Aubrey indicating why his conditional rezoning agreement amendment request would be withdrawn from the June City Council agenda: “Hi Mark, Thanks for the call. Below are excerpts of the ordinance (Sec. 24-323 Procedure) I referenced regarding a rezoning denial vote: (d) Petitions for rezonings, text amendments or master plan amendments that have been denied by the city council or planning commission shall not be resubmitted for a period of one year from the date of denial except on the grounds of new evidence, materially revised request, or proof of changed conditions relating to all of the reasons noted for the denial found to be valid by the planning commission. Sec. 24-325 (3) Following the public hearing for a proposed zoning amendment, the planning commission shall make a recommendation to the city council based upon the criteria listed in section 24-323, Criteria for amendment of the official zoning map (rezoning). In addition, the planning commission shall consider whether the proposed conditional rezoning agreement:

13

City of Ferndale Board of Zoning Appeals Appeal of Administrative Decision for 1461 E. 8 MIle July 13, 2021 Page 2

a. Is consistent with the intent of this chapter. b. Bears a reasonable and rational connection or benefit to the property being

proposed for rezoning. c. Is necessary to ensure that the property develops in such a way that protects

the surrounding neighborhood and minimizes any potential impacts to adjacent properties.

d. Is necessary to allow the rezoning to be approved, in that the property could not or would not be rezoned without the proposed conditional rezoning agreement.

e. Is in the public interest and is consistent with the recommendations of the master plan.

(4) If a conditional rezoning agreement has been offered by the applicant and recommended for approval by the planning commission, the city council may approve the conditional rezoning agreement as a condition to the rezoning if it meets all requirements above. The conditional rezoning agreement shall be incorporated by attachment or otherwise as an inseparable part of the Ordinance adopted by the city council to accomplish the requested rezoning.” Appeal Response: The following is a list of reasons why the administrative decision (interpretation) is in error and not supported by City ordinances or State law: Application of Section 24-323(d), Procedure, to Conditional Rezoning Agreement Amendment

The Section cited by Mr. Lyons applies only to petitions for rezonings, text amendments or master plan amendments, not conditional rezoning agreement amendments. The procedure or process specifically for conditional rezonings is covered by Section 24-325 (below), so Section 24-323 does not apply.

City of Ferndale Conditional Rezoning Ordinance Rquirements

Section 24-325(g), Conditional Rezoning, Amendment, of the ordinance states that “The conditional rezoning agreement may be amended by the city council with the property owner’s consent in the same manner as was prescribed for the original rezoning and conditional rezoning agreement.” The original conditional rezoning request was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission and then approved by City Council after Mr. Aubrey added conditions to his request. What is being requested by Mr. Aubrey is the same process as was prescribed for the original rezoning and rezoning agreement. Not allowing his current request to be heard by City Council does not follow the same process as the original rezoning and conditional rezoning agreement, per City ordinance. Michigan Planning Enabling Act

If this were a rezoning petition, which it is not, Section 125.3401(5) of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act states that “A zoning ordinance and any subsequent amendments shall be approved by a majority vote of the members of the legislative body.” Under State law, the Planning Commission therefore lacks final decision-making authority on rezoning requests and can only recommend to City Council.

14

City of Ferndale Board of Zoning Appeals Appeal of Administrative Decision for 1461 E. 8 MIle July 13, 2021 Page 3

In essence, the interpretation by Mr. Lyons would give final decision-making authority for conditional rezoning requests to the Planning Commission, which it does not have. Moreover, a 4-4 vote for a recommendation to Council means “no recommendation” while a 4-4 vote for a final approval, like a site plan, means denial. Even if Mr. Lyon’s interpretation above regarding Section 24-323(d) was correct, which it is not, a 4-4 vote is a “no recommendation” vote and the meeting minutes are incorrect by stating it was a vote to deny. Requiring a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission for any rezoning application to move forward immediately to City Council is contrary to the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act. An interpretation for a one (1) year delay is therefore not supportable under State law.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the above discussion we respectfully ask that you overturn the ordinance interpretations by Mr. Lyons for the following reasons:

1. Mr. Aubrey has not submitted a rezoning petition and the one (1) year time frame does not apply to this request;

2. A process for amending an existing conditional rezoning agreement is found in Section 24-325(g), and Mr. Aubrey is asking that it be reviewed in the same manner as was prescribed for in the original rezoning and rezoning agreement, per the ordinance. This would be a Planning Commission recommendation to City Council for final action;

3. The ability to amend the conditional rezoning agreement lies solely with City Council and the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act does not support the interpretation of Mr. Lyons, which would effectively result in a denial of the request by the Planning Commission; and

4. The Planning Commission can only deny requests that it specifically has authority over, like site plans, and a 4-4 vote on the conditional rezoning agreement amendment is effectively a non-recommendation, not a denial.

If you have any further questions, please contact us at 810-734-0000.

Sincerely, CIB Planning

Carmine P. Avantini, AICP President

15

1

The City of Ferndale Minutes

Meeting of Planning Commission Wednesday, June 2, 2021 @ 6:30 PM

Remote via Zoom This electronic meeting is held under provisions of the Open Meetings Act (MCL 15.263).

Members of the public, including persons with disabilities, can participate remotely:

Join the meeting from your computer or smartphone: http://bit.ly/FerndalePC

Join the meeting by telephone:

888 788 0099 US Toll-free 877 853 5247 US Toll-free

Phone Meeting ID: 449 883 6027 Phone Passcode: 113153

1. ROLL CALL Meeting called to order at 6:40 PM. Present: Christa Azar (Ferndale, MI) Patrick Braga (Ferndale, MI) Deborah Brazen (Ferndale, MI) Michelle Foster (Ferndale, MI) Dustin Hagfors (Ferndale, MI) Brittney Hoszkiw (Ferndale, MI) Greg Pawlica (Ferndale, MI) Kate Baker (Ferndale, MI)

Absent: Matthew Showalter

Moved by Hagfors, seconded by Foster to excuse the absence of Showalter.

AYES: Braga, Brazen, Foster, Hagfors, Hoszkiw, Pawlica, Azar, Baker NAYS: none

ABSTAIN: none 8-0-0

16

2

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Moved by Pawlica, seconded by Brazen to accept the agenda as Presented.

AYES: Braga, Brazen, Foster, Hagfors, Hoszkiw, Pawlica, Azar, Baker NAYS: none

ABSTAIN: none 8-0-0 3. ELECTRONIC MEETING PROCEDURES & PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Staff presented the online sign-in sheet for attendees, and for anyone who wants to receive updates about any project discussed at this meeting: https://ferndalemi.seamlessdocs.com/f/planningcommission 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4A. Consideration of the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting on April 21, 2021 Moved by Foster, seconded by Hoszkiw to accept the minutes as Presented.

AYES: Brazen, Foster, Hagfors, Hoszkiw, Pawlica, Azar, Braga, Baker NAYS: none

ABSTAIN: none 8-0-0

5. CALL TO AUDIENCE There are no speakers. 6. PUBLIC HEARING 6A. Consideration of an Amended Conditional Rezoning Application - 1461 E 8 Mile Presentation by staff. Presentation by applicant. Public hearing opened by Chair Baker at 7:08 PM. Julie Hanke: I’m against the amendment. I’m across the street. Robert: I’m against this; we went through this 5-6 years ago. Heidi: I’m shocked we’re already selling guns here, knowing our city’s values and the fact that it’s Gun Violence Awareness Month.

17

3

Dominic Soave: I feel bad for the owner. Royal Oak is selling guns right on Woodward. I feel like he’s missing out on a lot of money. Paul Collom: I am opposed to this amendment. It’s a bad idea because it will invite crime. Public hearing closed by Chair Baker at 7:24 PM. Discussion by commission.

Moved by Braga, seconded by Foster to, in the matter of 1461 E 8 Mile, that the Planning Commission RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the Amended Conditional Rezoning application of the parcel listed below from OS (Office/Service) to C-3 (Extended Business) to City Council with the following findings, after a Public Hearing was held as set and published for this date and place:

Findings 1. Parcel number 24-25-35-459-006 was previously rezoned from OS (Office/Service) to C-3 (Extended Business) on November 15, 2015.

2. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 2, 2021 to consider an amended conditional rezoning agreement and zoning map amendment to rezone the parcel from OS (Office/Service) to C-3 (Extended Business).

3. The Future Land Use Map and Master Plan classifies the subject site as Commercial/Office. The proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and future land use objectives of the Ferndale Master Plan.

4. The conditional rezoning is in writing, will be executed by the applicant and the city and recorded with the Oakland County Register of Deeds. All costs associated with the review and approval of the conditional rezoning agreement shall be the responsibility of the applicant.  

5. The uses described in the conditional rezoning agreement are compatible with surrounding uses and zoning in terms of land suitability, impacts on the environment, density, nature of use, traffic impacts, aesthetics, infrastructure and potential influence on property values. 

6. The conditional rezoning agreement does not authorize uses or developments of greater intensity or density than those permitted in the proposed zoning district.

7. The capacity of city infrastructure and services sufficient to accommodate the uses permitted in the requested district without compromising the health, safety and welfare of the city. 

8. The apparent demand for the types of uses permitted in the requested zoning district in the city in relation to the amount of land in the city currently zoned to accommodate the demand. 

18

4

9. The proposed amendment to the conditional rezoning agreement to permit the sale of firearms does not appear to create a more intense use or additional site plan modifications.

Conditions 1. All of the improvements identified on the attached site plan labeled “Attachment A”.

2. Use of the building will be limited to a pawn shop.

3. The exterior of the building will be repointed and cleaned/re-painted to create a well-maintained appearance.

4. The doors and frames will be repaired/replaced to provide an attractive appearance and improve security for the building.

5. All windows will be repaired/replaced, where necessary.

6. The three (3) overhead doors facing E. Bennett Ave. will be blocked off to prevent entry and use.

7. All loading and unloading will be from the 8 Mile Road entrance or overhead door on the west side of the building (closest to 8 Mile Road).

8. The chain link fence and gate in the side yard, facing E. Bennett Ave., will be replaced with a solid, decorative vinyl fence and access eliminated.

9. All remaining chain link fence along the west property line and facing 8 Mile Road will be painted and repaired to present a neat appearance.

10. A screen mesh will be added to the chain link fence to screen the area from 8 Mile Road and the abutting property.

11. All grass areas will be maintained and kept in a neat and presentable condition.

12. New building-mounted lighting will be installed utilizing fully shielded LED fixtures, directed away from the residential properties on E. Bennett Ave., meeting ordinance requirements.

13. Parking areas in front and on the west side of the building will be re-paved and striped to accommodate both customer and employee parking.

14. Security cameras mounted on the exterior of the building will not infringe beyond the property lines on E. Bennett Ave.

15. The hours of operation will be from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday.

19

5

16. Mark Aubrey will continue to work with both the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and abutting property owners to solicit improvements to the road surface.

17. Mark Aubrey will relinquish his current pawn license and cease operation at his current pawn store on 771 E. 8 Mile Rd. when the new location at 1461 E. 8 Mile Rd. opens.

18. Firearms will be displayed at least 30 feet from entry or exit, and will not be visible from exterior windows or doors.

AYES: Foster, Hoszkiw, Braga, Brazen, NAYS: Hagfors, Pawlica, Azar, Baker

ABSTAIN: none 4-4-0; motion fails Commissioner Foster stepped out of the meeting at 8:09 PM. 6B. Consideration of the zoning text amendment to Sec. 24-165. Medical Marihuana Facility, Provisioning Center, Marihuana Retailer and Safety Compliance Facility Presentation by staff, including an interactive map from the State of Michigan: https://michigan.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=cd5a1a76daaf470b823a382691c0ff60 Commissioner Foster returned to the meeting at 8:11 PM. Public hearing opened by Chair Baker at 8:22 PM. Dominic Soave: I don’t feel we need more facilities for this in the area. We’re already saturated. They should have to do medical first as a step, before they get to do recreational. Ryan: Ferndale has been viewed as a leader in cannabis industry. Traverse City is the only other city with both medical-only and recreational-only licenses, instead of just facilities jointly holding both licenses. There’s more upside for Ferndale residents in allowing all facilities to have recreational licenses. Medical-only limits who can use that store. Kayla Miller: I disagree with this change. I think we already have enough facilities for the residents, and I don’t think it would change the revenue that the city would get. I know people come to Ferndale dispensaries from other cities. Even though we’re known as paving the way, I don’t believe that adding more facilities is necessary to continue that growth. Doug Mains: I’m in Lansing, here on behalf of Liv Cannabis, a retailer in the city. Liv welcomes competition and an expansion of licenses, but wants to ensure a level playing field among businesses and safety in the community. Ferndale has taken a methodical approach. Liv and its

20

6

operational contemporaries have proven to be good operators. We don’t want the city to abandon the measured approach used so far. Liv proposes that the licenses go to existing provisioning centers, and require that they be open for 6 months first. Require that facilities must be medical-only first for a probationary trial period of 6 months, then be allowed to receive a recreational license. Sam Younis: We are the caregiver center on 8 Mile. We submitted an application 2 years ago, and are waiting for your blessing. We want to invest 5.5 million dollars into a state of the art building at that location. We’ve been waiting almost 6 years now. Chris Aiello: I’m an attorney on Mound Road, for Gage Cannabis. When the three operating stores were granted medical licenses, they had to prove they were good operators under ordinance, statute, and state. After 1 year of monitoring, they were eventually granted recreational licenses. Traffic counts and relationships were taken into consideration. Those three did it and proved themselves. There’s still 277,000 people carrying medical cards in Michigan. We thought everyone in the queue would have to do the same process of doing medical first and proving ourselves. We’ve done a good job of policing ourselves and being organized and staying safe for 1 year. I would ask that the same analysis be done of anyone else. We don’t want anyone else bringing in their problems. Everyone else should have to do the same thing. Jeffrey Schroder: I’m an attorney representing Nature’s Remedy on E Drayton. We agree with the recommendation. It’s a brand-new facility, $3-4 million, that already looked at traffic and went through Planning Commission. At the time, there was only medical marijuana; there was no recreational. When we applied, everyone was on the same playing field. The market has changed since 1 year ago or 2 years ago. It’s very difficult to get medical product, and many medical cardholders are not renewing their cards because products are all going to recreational. Even medical license-holders are not renewing the license, and are moving to a recreational license with a discount for cardholders. As far as not needing more facilities, this doesn’t necessarily lead to more facilities. There’s heavy regulation by the state. Omar Fakhouri: I’m owner/operator of Mink Cannabis. I’m in general support of the amendment. The way the ordinance is set up, it limits to 5 provisioning centers, and I think that number should be increased to 6 so that both categories match. There’s still medical demand; Detroit is medical-only and doing well. There are unique aspects to medical facilities and how they operate and what they can provide to patients. Consider having the number of medical and recreational licenses match. Brian Siegel: I own The Corner, and Star Trax Valet. I hope Planning will consider taking up designated consumption establishments for people to consume marijuana. Paul Weisberger: I echo Doug Mains and Chris Aiello. I’m not open to additional licenses in the city. Ferndale would be disproportionately higher than our surrounding communities. Having 6 facilities may be too many, but I do believe other facilities should have to go through the same process our facility did.

21

7

Public hearing closed by Chair Baker at 8:54 PM. Discussion by commission.

Moved by Foster, seconded by Hagfors, that the Planning Commission MAKE NO RECOMMENDATION to City Council on the amendments to Article VIII, Use Regulations, Sec. 24-165, after a Public Hearing was held as set and published for this date and place.

Discussion by commission.

AYES: Hagfors, Hoszkiw, Pawlica, Azar, Braga, Brazen, Foster, Baker NAYS: none

ABSTAIN: none 8-0-0 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS None. 8. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 8A. Update on possible changes to meeting location and format 8B. Update on Master Land Use Plan process 9. COMMISSION ITEMS 9A. Discussion on adjustments regarding a transition to in-person meetings 9B. Discussion on the status of the July 7 meeting date 9C. Farewell to Commissioner Braga 9D. Update on SMART’s June 3 public hearings for route changes proposed in September,

including the 430 route extension into Ferndale. 9E. Discussion on determining what methods the public might like to use to engage with

Planning Commission. 9F. Update from BZA Liaison. 10. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:21 PM. ____________________________________ Jordan Smellie, Elections Manager & Clerk of the Planning Commission

22