Planning commission denies special-use and site plan for proposed gas station at 2200 (address referenced as Bridal/Broadway)

The Bay City Planning Commission on March 18, 2025 denied special-use application SU25-04 for a proposed motor-vehicle service station with three pump islands and a 2,148-square-foot convenience store at the property listed in the staff report as 2200 (address referenced as Bridal and later as Broadway in the record). Commissioners found the submitted site plan lacked required dimensional detail and did not meet applicable code standards for parking stall length, drive-aisle width and pedestrian access.

Roddy Beslick of Fenton Land Surveying and Engineering appeared for the applicant and said the proposal would renovate an existing former fast-food building and add three pumps under a canopy; he acknowledged outstanding items including landscaping, a lighting/photometric plan and clarification of the dumpster/screening. Staff said MDOT (Michigan Department of Transportation) had been consulted regarding curb cuts and that initial conversations with MDOT’s Transportation Service Center were favorable; staff also noted technical requirements from engineering and right-of-way permitting.

Residents spoke about concerns with traffic and safety. Rebecca Childs, a nearby resident, said her property backs up to the site and cited worries about traffic flow, noise and trespass to her yard; staff recorded a separate phone comment from Thomas Wright opposing the project.

Commissioners focused discussion on technical site deficiencies. One commissioner observed that parking stall lengths on the plan were shown as 18.5 feet where 19 feet is required, that two-way circulation lanes did not meet the 24-foot standard and that ADA requirements for accessible parking were not satisfied. The commission also noted the plan lacked building elevations and detailed lighting information. After deliberation, a commissioner moved to deny the special-use application on the basis that the site plan did not meet section 122-382(b)(2) dimensional and circulation requirements; the motion was seconded and carried.

Staff said the denial did not preclude the owner from returning with revised plans that address the code-required dimensions, pedestrian accommodations and lighting. Any future submittal would need to show full dimensional compliance or obtain the appropriate variances.