Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. Welcome to the uh Chesterfield Township Planning meeting for uh November 18th, 2025. Uh if everyone would please silence your phones. Um, I would like to call to order the planning commission meeting on November 18th, 2025 at 7:01 p.m. Uh, I would like to make a few introductions. Our township attorneys here tonight, Robert Sbert, our township planner is here, Jonathan Palin. and from Gibster Gib Gifles Webster, Stephanie Osborne and Ava Miller are here. Uh, with that, if we could stand for the pledge of allegiance. I

aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, I'd like to call roll. Uh, Rick Label here. Kathy Vosberg here. Richard Brokart here. Brian Carr is excused tonight. Ralph Jorski here. James Clinowski. Mark Renault here.

And Eric Haidider here. And Carl Leonard is here. I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes from November 4th, wasn't it? Yeah, November, sorry, November 4th, uh, 2025. Motion by Carl Leonard, supported by Eric Kaider, to approve the minutes. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. Uh, I'd like to approve the agenda for tonight as submitted.

Motion [snorts] by Carl Leonard, supported by Mark Renault to approve the agenda. Any uh comments or questions or anything? No. Uh, all in favor?

I I opposed. Motion carries. Uh we have public comments if anyone from the audience would like to come up. You have three minutes. You can talk about anything you'd want um outside of the agenda items. Uh seeing as no one wants to come up and we'll move on. We have no public hearings tonight and we have the regular agenda. Rick, would you like to uh read the uh uh item A? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Item A is sign review J25-0424, the Propeller Basin Properties LLC. They're located at 48740 Jefferson Avenue. They're requesting a variance on Chesterfield Township's ordinance of chapter 52 signs, variances for a freestanding sign. The uh the applicant is present this evening. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Uh would the applicant like to come up and tell us what you're looking to do? Uh state your name and there's a button on your right hand side.

Brian with Sorama 3686 Harper Avenue, Clinton Township and I'm here for Propeller Basin. They're looking to do a pylon sign on their property. Um, we're looking for a height variance for the 12 foot. Being a marina, everybody parks in front. And if we keep the sign at the 8 foot height, you're not going to see it. Obviously, the sign to be right near the canal. You're not going to see it over the boats that are in the canal. Um, if you've been to the property, you'll notice the parking lot is slightly below the road. There is a bridge right there. So, we're asking for height variance to 12 feet. Pretty simple. Yes.

I don't have any uh questions of the applicant. I I do understand the the problem, the issue because I um before I even looked at the pictures, I thought, oh, coming from the south going north could be an issue being able to see the sign. So I understand why there's a application to put the sign higher. I'll leave it at that for now. Uh Brian, is the uh sign going to be lit, back lit,

internally lit with the electronic message center? Okay. Uh within the within the ordinance limitations, the the client has a right the ordinance understands it has to be shut off all the hours. He has no problems any of that. Okay. All right. That's it. Thank you. And that's the only variance is just the height, not the square footage or anything. No, we're actually under square footage. Okay.

That's allowed. Uh just the height variance because of visibility. The property is quite unique because it has a basically a telephone pole. So it has a really strange property line and the one corner of the building is kind of at the property line. Originally we're going to have to put it behind the telephone pole which would have made it, you know, much closer building. It wouldn't have been visible. We've been working with the county now for about a year and we finally got a variance to put it just a little bit forward so that's in front of the building and be visible. But the sign space falls within everything. The only difference is four feet or four feet higher than our [clears throat] eight foot requirement.

Correct. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Mr. Clonowski. Yeah, [clears throat] I can I can see the practical difficulties here and I would have no problem with it. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Uh Mr. Brokart, I I've got a few questions for you. [clears throat] So, you want to you want to go above the 8 foot to almost 13 feet, correct? 12 feet. 12 feet. Okay. And then the the illumination uh the bottom part of your sign is illuminated, right? And you can have pictures.

Correct. [clears throat]

What we were provided is a detailed sketch. There we go. That's right up here. The amount of the illumination, as I understand, it can't be more than 25% of the total sign area. Those have it about 33%. Um, maybe I'm wrong with my math. When I skinnied it and I I laid it out, I got closer to 26. So, you're going to need a variance for 5210B. Uh, I mean 5210A. And then the electronic messages can't exceed more than 3,000 nits in full daylight or greater than 150 nits at night. You're aware of that. Will this sign exceed those?

No. These are fully controllable. We can control light. We can control the nits. It's got automatically dimmer built in it. It's It's not a It's not one of those import signs. It's fully control. Are you going to have anything scrolling back and forth? Because when you go from one scene to the next, it has to be instantaneous. So there's jumping around or flipping. You're read the ordinance. He's aware of that.

You need the height because people are parking out front. It's all parking in front. The boats are in front. The boat The sign's actually going to be in front of two wells. So sign in front of two wells. Are there boats between the street and the sign? Yes. 12 feet going to be enough? I live right there. I I drive by there multiple times a day. He probably should do more, but we tried to stay within the limits of what I've done in other businesses. They're similar. So, we're looking to put the sign literally right here to try to get it out of traffic areas. And these two boat these two wells are right here.

[clears throat and cough] I I have no more questions. Thank you, Mr. Renault. Actually, no, my questions have already been addressed. Thank you. Mr. Leel, I don't have any questions. Um, the chair has a couple questions. Um, the one the one picture uh can we pull that up, Jonathan? The one picture looking uh uh south there.

Yeah, back up for a minute. No, back up to that one right there. So, I was out there today and uh the sign is only covering, if you look up at that sign right there, it's only covering diagonally half of the one well. And uh they said they weren't going to have any I mean, the only vehicles parked there is if somebody has to park there, if their boats there, but I I guess I'm not I'm not sure on the height. Um cuz when I was standing there, obviously I was coming from New Baltimore. Obviously when you're driving in that direction, you can't see anything. You see the side of the building. And until I got to the front where the angle was facing south as I pulled in the driveway, then you could see that it was propeller basin. The only other way it would identify is if you use GPS and you use the address as your marker to your destination. Um I I don't know that what the benefit is to have the sign that much taller. Uh if it was 8 foot tall with all the signage on top, you would still see that over top of a car. So if there was a car parked in front of the well, you'd still see the sign because you got a big void underneath the sign. Not sure how much was there. It doesn't [clears throat] really show the distance from the ground up to the bottom of the reader board, but um propeller basin marina if it's up at 13 ft or 12 feet, it's going to tower above any car. Our car is not even 6 foot tall.

Well, the top of the sign itself is sorry on my glasses on 40 in to the very top. Yeah, it's 136 to the very topus. And then you got the encasing around. It's 29. 29 40. So you're going to be around 8 foot clearance on the bottom. That's what I mean. It's just put you barely about about foot and a half above cars. Right. And the sign and that's in the opening of the sign, the lower part. Right.

Correct. So if the sign came down to where you could read, you weren't dealing with the void, you'd read the top part, propeller base, and you read the reader board. I I mean, I'm not sure you need 12 feet to see it. I I think it you need a sign. Obviously, it needs a sign, but I'm not I'm not sure the height. It doesn't seem like anybody else has any issues with the height, but uh I guess that's I wouldn't say that I have an issue with the height. With the height?

Well, that's that's my only issue because we're making we're going in another year or so. All the signage is going to get changed. Even at the other marinas, they're going to be lowering them. So, is that going to open up where everybody's going to want a 12-oot sign? on all the other marinas instead of dropping to where we're going to require them to be. Uh I guess if there was something there that was permanent could be a a brick wall or another sign. It could be something but looking at looking down south on the ground looking in that direction uh there's really nothing obstruct obstructing it. And on the north side, uh, you got some boats that are hanging close to the um the the boats that are stored there on the north side of his driveway. You might have some blockage because they're close to the the the drainage ditch, but as you get close to the driveway, boom, it's the building's right in front of you and the sign would be right in front of you at that point.

So, I brought this picture kind of show beginning and end where he was right now. The water is extremely low. And you can get an idea that the sign's going to be right here. This is the top of the boat with the water extremely low. But is the top of the boat going to be taller than a car that's on land? Oh, [clears throat] easily. A car is 5 and 1/2 ft 6 feet tall? Easily.

I don't know. It's just my [clears throat] opinion that I'm I'm not I'm not seeing the the height as a as a major thing, but I definitely see the need for sign. So, that's that's my comments. Uh do you have any other things you'd like to uh bring up? That's that's pretty much the challenge cuz I know like right now the water I'm a boater and the water right now is extremely low and you know 3 years ago when the water was up I was using steps three up to get on my boat. Now I'm stepping down to get into it. So with the canvas and the bammy and all that in the boat with the boat wells being right there.

Well the thing is we're we're [clears throat] identifying what's in that well. I have no idea. It could be just a speed boat either. you know, it might not be a large boat. And the way the water levels are, I don't think you're going to have I don't think they're going to improve that much next year. They might. It'd be nice. I know a lot of people that aren't boating next year because they lost the last couple of months this year because the water dropped so much. So, I don't know. It might be a small boat there, but I I know this is longterm a long-term fix. Uh, but that's my opinion on it. And with that, if you have nothing else, I'll bring it back up to the board and see if anybody else has any other ask a question if you don't mind. Sure.

One quick question Mr. Leonard brought up. Um, and you had brought up the elevation change between Jefferson and the parking lot. How far is that? I I'm assuming, you know, standing there, it's probably a couple of feet. Is it a foot or two? I mean, I mean, do you have any data showing? I don't measure. I can only tell visually. doing in the parking lot. You've got the guard rails. The bridge is slightly higher. So, you're going you're going up higher uh at that point. I'm not a surveyor, so unfortunately I can't tell you the great difference, but there's obviously a difference. Thank you. I just want to make one other comment. I'm not saying that the sign should be at 8t total height.

I'm just not seeing the need for the 12 feet. That's the only I just wanted to clarify that. So, uh, anybody else have any comments? Either side, on my right, my left. Brian, is this the best location exactly for where the sign should be in relationship to visibility for traffic? Well, we've been walking this property for 18 months. This has been been a year and a half project between working with the county, walking the property, trying to figure out where cars park as they park in front of the building. When we actually started this, pickups were parked right there. wearing now pickups minimum six six and a half feet tall.

Um especially the newer ones they keep raising them up. I've got a 20 and it's I'm 5'8 and it's way taller than I am. So with the pickups lined up in front they got a boat behind them. We figured we need at least 8 foot clearance in the bottom to see, you know, to see the sign over it. That's where we came up with going to the 12 foot. I know other businesses in the area have had similar parking issues and that seemed to be the standard the the township was using. So that's why we designed it that way. Um so again, even with the pickup truck, if you've got 8 foot clear underneath and it's 6 and 1/2 ft tall on a truck, you got a foot and a half of a open gap. And that's why I'm saying it seems like it's a little much of an ask for variance. Okay. Um, the other thing too, Eric, I wanted to mention is, uh, they were supposed to be 15 ft further back towards the building, which would have definitely been blocked by another boat well. Uh, and so I see there's some issues there, but um my feeling is the height could be uh less and and not you know not 8 foot but you know something that that might work that would definitely benefit and help this out. So with that uh

Sure. May I have another moment? Sure. Sure. If you wouldn't mind I'll take another moment with you. Um, so how much clearance is underneath the sign?

I mean, I I just did the math. I deducted 29 in and 49 and 40 in from 136 the total height. Correct. I came up with 5.58 ft underneath the sign. Underneath. Okay. Underneath underneath the sign from the bottom of the sign to the ground. My math correct? So, what I'm what I'm wondering back to what Mr. Leonard was just alluding to, what if what if we did allow the sign to be another foot taller? Let's say we give you a variance for 9 ft. That would give you almost well give you 6 and 1/2 ft under the sign. Is that tall enough for for a car? I think it's tall enough for a car. Six and a half feet.

Can you say at 12 we have five and a half feet? No. So, we've got we've got 136 inches tall. The sign is 136. You subtract 40 in and you subtract 29 in. It gives you five and a half ft underneath the sign from the bottom of the sign to the ground. To the ground as he has proposed, but that's at 12 ft. And no, that's at I'm sorry. That's at 12 feet. You're right. So if we give 9 ft. You're right. You're right. I apologize. I was backwards. Sorry.

Okay. Now I know it's over six foot. The height of this sign in my estimation, it's the perfect light. You You have to go higher if you're going to get above the pickup trucks. And if you're only looking at passenger cars, you got you got to go lower.

You're right in the middle. In my right in the middle of the wrong mics. There you go. I I think it's you're right in the middle of a wrong height. I'd be more likely to approve a taller sign than that for the reasons you've given. People are going to park in front of it. And if there are pickup pickup trucks, and there are, even in your picture, there's a pickup truck. A taller sign would meet your your needs. A lower sign is going to be worse. So, the reason the reason you've given us to approve this doesn't make sense to me because pickup trucks are going to block the almost the entire illumination of your sign. If you intend on letting them park in front of the sign, it's not going to work. That's how I feel.

Yeah. And I've done the same math you did, Rick. So, I understand where you're coming from. I think that I think I would have a really hard time approving the variance for that sign because of what you've said. the parking situation is going to make that s sign null and void as far as communicating with the illuminated part propeller base and marina. People will see that even with a pickup truck, but if there's a pickup truck up front, you might as well you might as well get rid of the elimination. That's how I the uh the other part too is there was a comment made that the road is what almost two feet taller than the ground level. So the picture at the bridge. So So you're going to be elevated

another couple feet when you're driving on the road to where the sign is. I was thinking 10 feet, but I'm not here to negotiate. You know what I what I should be. I'm just having a hard time at 12. So with that, I'll entertain a motion if anybody wants to uh uh if there's no other comments or questions. Somebody wants to make a motion. One other comment.

Sure. Well, I I I think you know, we're concerned about the the parking in front of the sign or on the side of the sign, but if you want to go by the law, technically you're not supposed to do that because the property, if you go look on page four, is the blue line. You can't technically park on the park on the rightway. Even though they do, you know, it's it's technically you you shouldn't. So that kind of takes away, you know, parking in front of the sign. But this is more of a comment than anything. Let's just say that he has to pave the the gravel. The the the the pavement would be on the property line and not in the rightway. So that takes all the parking away from in front of that sign.

We've we've had this before with parking in front of a sign. I can't remember which business it was. Bushimis, was it Bushimis? And I think uh we might have had the same thing at the the rust proof. Uh Tom's glass.

Yeah. And uh you know, they had the same situation. You're kind of limited to where the sign's going to go, where the best place to be. I kind of went through that with the owner today. We walked around outside a little bit and uh I really do feel that uh a sign is necessary, but again, the height is is the part that I'm struggling with. So that's all I have. Anybody would like to make a motion or entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate uh you do have in front of you the um variance criteria from the ordinance. So any motion needs to be based on those five criteria from the ordinance. The only other thing I might add to it is currently it's at like total 54 square foot box area. If he decided between now and the time of building it that he did want to use the full 64 square foot, that would bring the height of the bottom of the sign down. So he's he's under square footage. that's giving him better ground clearance. He has landscaping his plans to build around the base of the sign to make it attractive, but if he decided he wanted to expand the top cabinet, the bottom sign has to go down in order to do that. And that would put, you know, to get him to that 64 square ft.

Here, real quick, huh? Is it 12 feet? I'm looking at the math up there. I see. is 1364. Yeah, that's the original drawing. 11.33. So, it's not really 12. I mean, that was the original drawing. We updated it. Oh, okay. To 144.

Anybody like to make a motion to approve or deny? Well, the question is is um would you offer a 10-ft sign if we um I mean maybe that may sweeten the pot for us.

If the city so you know if the board so deemed it that it made more sense to go a little bit lower then I'm sure he would entertain it. He's just trying to he's making quite an investment in the sign. This is not a small investment and like I say, he's got some landscaping he wants to do with it. Once he does, he's living with it for a long time. So, the the property is unique, the frontage is unique, the property line and the with the uh with the setback because of the telephone or power pole, everything about it. Um where the where the sign is proposed on this drawing, the first few times we're out there, pickups are in in front of those wells. So it's it's at 8 foot clear. If you get it at six foot clear and you're standing behind the pickup, you're not going to read the sign. You have to go way back to get an angle to be able to read the bottom of that sign. So as it's designed right now, you only have maybe a foot and a half of clearance, assuming they're using, you know, that they're parking a stock 4x4 pickup. It's no large tires. It's no anything that these people do to their trucks. It's just stock. So being a marina, it's trucks.

So So I'm not sure where all these trucks are going to park because where the sign is, there's only one boat well that's uh parallel to the sign. They come into the store, they grab things from the store, they go in the yard. But all those trucks, I was there today. My truck was parked on the other side of the telephone pole. It's so I was not anywhere near the sign. And if they're going to have landscaping in that, I'm not sure if they're going to be parking, you know, right up next to it. And on the other side on the south side and there's not that much room for a bunch of trucks. So there's not there's not a lot of side. So I mean whoever has their boat there, they might be the only vehicle there whether it's a truck or a car. So I'm just one opinion up here and there's being a boater. You understand that's busy in the summer. There isn't anything.

I understand all of that. But I know what we've done in the past by dealing with parking in front of it and uh we've worked with them. I just I just thought this was a little more than what

is need because what's going to happen is everybody's going to have to modify their signs and then what are we going to go through this? How many more marinas are down the road? They're all going to come in here and come up with the same thing. So even if there's a a variance, it's something that we have to live with as well for all the future signs that are going to be requested. So with that, I'll entertain a motion. I'm I'm open to a motion. Recommendation. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion. Um after deliberation with the uh with the applicant um the applicant has agreed to lower the sign to a 10-ft level. And what that does is it um it maintains our uh 8oot requirement but taking into consideration that the road is approximately two feet higher um there is a practical difficulty there. With that, um, I would like to grant the individual a variance of two feet for his sign. The sign review is J25-0424. Um, the first item is special circumstances or conditions particular to this property. Um because the building is angled and um it is lower than Jefferson, I would like to grant the um the additional two feet.

I'll support that. I got to go through the rest of the here.

Sorry. The um the second thing is the commission should consider whether strict enforcement of the ordinance provisions would serve as a you useful purpose or hindrance to the sign effectiveness. um allowing the extra two feet. I think that um it would enhance the availability of the sign so that it does apply there. The safety implications of the proposed sign structure and located must be thoroughly evaluated to ensure that it does not pose significant risk to the public health and safety. Um he has maintained the setback per Mcome County's road commission. So it does not um in any way cause any kind of safety um problems. The benefits of the sign to the general public and applicant should be weighed against the potential risk hazards for traffic safety and vehicle clutter. Um what lower raising the sign another two feet and granting the variance for two feet does enhance safety. Um the building is well illuminated. It's um it's very evident where it's at. With that, I'll make a motion to approve.

I'll support that. I have a question on the motion. Um is there uh do we have to bring up the uh the reader board and the message changing that there's a certain amount of time between messages. I can add that to the motion if you'd like. Um the applicant has already acknowledged the fact and he is very aware of the township ordinance of how often the sign can change as well as the overall illumination of the signs. So the applicant is aware of that.

Okay. Continued support. So we have a motion by uh Rick Leel supported by Carl Leonard to approve the sign review uh for a two-foot variance in height. Um, that's for sign review J25-0424. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. It's approved. Thanks, sir. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Ladies

here. Um, what I wanted to ask the applicant is the 10 ft. I know you'd replied to that before the 10 feet would would be um satisfactory to the owner. He asked me to represent him because his child is sick. So, we went over a lot of scenarios. We didn't um we didn't go over splitting.

Yeah. What if some if something different were offered? Yeah. if someone with different will offer this furnace a height. Um because if he maxes out the 64 square foot, we're essentially going to end up with the same clearance in the bottom. So at this point, I'll tell them the 10 foot is what was accepted and if we have to do something different, we'll come back in front of the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank we're all set. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. Great. Thank you. Uh so we know that many years uh many of you go to the Michigan Association of Planning Conference. Um but this year was a little different and we didn't see any of you there. So we thought we'd bring the conference to you. some of the sessions that we went to that we thought were helpful and some of the ones that um you had interest in. So I'll um provide an overview of these. Um we have uh really four conference sessions and then I'll touch on data centers because our team did a lot of research on that. Um and we provided a a handout on that. Um I will note that the first one uh navigating the law and planning practice I actually did not attend that one so I'm sharing Jill's notes from it. Um but luckily we have Mr. Sbert here to uh maybe answer any questions that you might have. So we'll jump into that. Um three knowledgeable speakers at this one. Um there are four three cases in one uh legislative update that I'll review. The first is um Joe Sack vers Mayfield. Um here the Michigan Supreme Court uh reaffirmed that conditional resonings cannot be used to approve a land use not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance in that district. So the um situation was that the applicant

wanted to expand a non-conforming dragway and put that in as a condition of a reasonzoning um but it was that use was not allowed either by rate or as a special land use. And so um that uh the court clarified that conditional resonings cannot substitute for use variances and um this was not approved. So there's one case related to conditional resonings. The second case um is related to uh short-term rentals and homeowners association covenants. Um, this one, uh, there was a homeowners association that had a, uh, covenant that restricted what the homes could be used for, and it did not allow short-term rentals. Um, the the case ended up going to the Michigan Supreme Court and was split 33, uh, which then deferred the, uh, ruling of the lower court of appeals, um, as the, um, the result of the case. and um they had the lower court had decided that um the HOA could maintain those restrictions on short-term rentals. So um this did not set statewide precedent for zoning or land use law. Um but something to keep an eye on because that may evolve um and it does emphasize how private covenants can still impact land use. The third case um and this is one that uh thankfully Mr. Sieber is um has been really uh promoting best practices around our um special land use findings and zoning board of appeal findings all of our findings and making sure that they're very clear. So um in in this case Montree First Mon and Mon Township

and several other cases uh the courts have uh thrown out uh cases that came to them due to the lack of factual findings that were clear or sufficient articulation of reasons. Um and so this really underscores the need to have well doumented records. Um, and so in order to do that, it's recommended that all boards incorporate their decisions in a formal statement of findings and conclusions, ensure that those findings are based on competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record, and and specifically address all the required elements of the relevant zoning ordinances when granting or denying permits or variances. The fourth um kind of key thing that was talked about in the session is a pending amendment to the land division act. The idea is to create more uh opportunities for housing. We know we have a housing crisis in Michigan and throughout the country and so um the state is looking at ways to address that. So currently if you have a parcel that's between 10 and 20 acres the lot can be split into four separate parcels. Uh right now there is legislation that is has been approved by the Senate, approved by the House and is now waiting signature from Governor Whitmer um as to whether that number could be increased to be 10 parcels um on a lot that size. Um if this goes into effect, local ordinances would have to be amended to allow more parcels. So it won't be automatic um but each jurisdiction could decide if that's something they would like to allow. if they do. Um, and statewide we're likely to see more land division applications for smaller residential developments. Um, so for example, up to 10 lots on what was previously one large lot. Um, and built on private roads. And this would not require them to go

through the platting process that is currently in play. Um so this could result in the need for increased public water and sewer supply systems and could increase the risk of storm water drainage issues. Um and so this will be up to local governments to decide if they want to adopt the smaller lot sizes and then what they need to do to amend their ordinance to mitigate um the possible impacts. Do you want to add anything to anything I mentioned?

All right, great. Look at that. The next session, um, several of you mentioned that this one was of interest and this one is, um, one that our colleagues, excuse [clears throat] me, um, Joe Tang Gary and Andy Amont did, and, uh, all focused on planned unit development. So, because it was internal to GIFs, I stole their slides. So, these are really pretty because they were done for the conference. Um, so you'll get, you know, a an abbreviated a shorter version of the conference session here. Um, so just briefly to bring everyone up to speed, remind you of what a plan unit development is. So this is a specific process. Um, Chesterfield has one that's in their ordinance, your ordinance. Um, and it provides a property owner with zoning flexibility and it provides the municipality with a benefit. Um so basically I think about it as um just kind of this negotiation [snorts] or collaborative effort where the property owner comes seeking uh relief from something or multiple things and says uh if you can you know adjust what the standards are for this project because of these things in return I will be able to give you XYZ um that's a benefit to the community and so the idea with the PUD is that you get projects that are more innovative, more creative, that are um better suited to the land, to the use, um to the surrounding community. And so it's it's really a tool, a development tool to provide um better projects in a community. The zoning enabling act um allows for puds um gives municipalities power to permit puns and enact zoning ordinance requirements pertaining to them. Um and again the this idea of waiverss or

modifications um is a key uh impact of the PUD zoning ordinance. So, PUDS are um again really good for for sites that are um maybe challenging to work with given the normal or the standard um standards for that district that it's in. Um it might have uh different topography or it might be situated next to um another use that um needs some uh consideration. Um it might be a mixeduse sort of project. Um lots of different reasons why a PUB would be a good development tool option. Um and often again these are projects that come to communities that um really when you did the master plan and when you put in the zoning codes for it um this was not really in anyone's imagination. And so this flexibility allows these things to come to fruition if they're a good fit with um the the master plan vision and the needs of the community at the time. [clears throat] This is one example, Dorsy Estates. Um this is in Ipsellani. Uh here the goal was to create density on the site. Um and here uh this was actually a master plan um kind of uh specific area that was called out in their master plan and um Ipsy was interested in providing some missing middle in particular for um some of their younger population that's there. So uh this site uh was was developed. um there are ways that communities go about development that um are not very good and so the the um presenters pointed these out. So um as good as puds

may be approving too many of them could be problematic. Um, they also point out that some communities use what they called stealth PUDs, which basically you slide in a use or something that's less desirable and really wouldn't make it through in a normal review process um by use of a PUD. Um, they also talked about communities that take batches of unjustified dimensional and or use variances to the ZBA. So, this would not be the PUD route, but again, just routing everyone to ZBA and granting those um those variances when they're really not um called for. Um and then some communities simply just avoid PUDS alto together and um don't want to don't want to have that collaborative back and forth negotiation with the developer. um or uh in other cases PUDS are used in lie of use variances or for minor ordinance deviations. So we're trying to avoid those sorts of situations and um that we really haven't had too many PUDs in my time here. So I can't say if that's something that we do or don't do, but um I I imagine it's something that Chesterfield does not uh do none of those. Um, so, uh, some PUD basics. Again, you already have a PUD ordinance in your, um, zoning ordinance. Um, but it might be worth, you know, if this is something that we think we're going to see more PUDS coming to the township, we might want to think about um if the ordinance regulations are really incentivizing developers in the right way and also getting uh the what the the township wants out of it. Um, so some PUDS can be permissive um where they're they're pretty open-ended and they they allow for a lot of things. Others are really

restrictive where it might limit uses um to a narrow range of uses or um have really um specific design standards. And then others can be prescriptive where it says this is our vision for this area and this is really what we want to see and we're not interested in anything else. and those might be more um common in a specific um site or parcel as opposed to a more widespread uh ordinance language for that. Um, we'll also need to, of course, refer to the master plan, see what the master plan calls for if you were to amend the PUD regulations, and then, um, consider uses and development patterns. And then think about if you're interested in promoting new development, redevelopment, or both. And, um, you might apply or have different standards depending on what your goals are and what the the circumstances are. Another thing about PUDS is um some communities use um a automatic qualification process where for example if you are in a certain district you automatically qualify to be eligible for this sort of development process. Um others require discretionary qualification where the developer has to um prove that they're qualified, the project is qualified uh to be considered a PUB and then they can move forward from there with the negotiations of the project. Um and again the community should consider if certain uses uses should be excluded from the PUD option and that can be um included in the qualification and eligibility criteria. process and approval authority. Um so uh th this session was really interesting um in my opinion because it w there were two planners that were there and then they had a developer there and the

developer point of view um was something uh you know to be other than when I'm working directly with someone on a project but to hear kind of overall what de what what developers need what do they think what's what works for them what doesn't work for them um was really helpful and so the um the developer noted that having a pre-application meeting is really really helpful um in terms of setting the stage, getting everyone um together to understand what the vision and the purpose of the project is, what the limitations are um if it's a feasible project for uh the community um to to even consider. Um so that pre-application meeting she really stressed was really um a key component of uh what she found to be uh a successful step in making developments happen. Um some uh sometimes communities will choose to use um a process that's more similar to special land use review and approval. Um others will um do a map amendment uh associated with the approval for the PUD. Uh the developer also talked quite a bit about how many public meetings are needed and working sessions. Obviously, there's going to be a lot of discussion and back and forth between the developer and the community. Um but trying to um make sure that the public meetings and working sessions and the internal meetings all align with um forward progress and that there's not a whole lot of [snorts] reworking especially late in the game. Um so maybe having public meetings early or working sessions early uh is a helpful way to go about these. Um, some communities require concept review versus a full site plan review. Um, again, from the developer's perspective, she um said

that they prefer concept plan um review upfront. um that uh just allows them to get um get a good feel for what is possible and then to spend the money and the time working out the details with the engineering review um and all the other technical reviews that have to be done. Um and then finally the development agreement. Um, so at the end, if the PUD is approved, a development agreement is written up that basically says, "Here's what this project is going to bring to the township. Here's the modifications or waiverss that will be provided and outlines what all will be on the site." And um again, the developer said, you know, it's it's helpful to um she finds it's help it helpful to bring a d a draft development agreement earlier on in the process and really work through that language throughout as things evolve to um make sure everyone's on the same page and comfortable. Again, we talked about public benefit. Um, often, uh, PUDS will provide something, uh, to the community so that they can get those modifications or waiverss and that can be a range of things. Um, this is another example. Um, this is Frasier Square, um, 71 town homes and duplex homes. This was in Gross Point Schools. Um, and this was a a PUD project that, um, was done fairly recently. So, some other considerations, um, if your development agreement is really specific, it can, uh, be challenging to make changes to the site in the future. So, uh, when writing the development agreement, which would be something that the planning commission wouldn't be involved in, um, other than outlining

what the waiverss and modifications are and the benefits, um, but making sure that there's some flexibility if you're interested in in future changes to the site or allowing those future changes is important to consider. Um, and then, uh, as you know, uh, it's always important to have the planning commission and the legislative body kind of on the same page with projects so that, um, developers aren't blindsided when they go to get final approval, um, if it has to go to the legislative body. A couple other quick things. Um, there are what the presenters called PUB siblings. Um so things that are uh either type like variations of PUDs or subsets of PUDS. Um one of them is adaptive reuse. So if you have sites that um could be reused in a certain way um you might consider designating it as um or thinking about a PUB set PUD standards that could support the redevelopment of those sites. Um we know that adaptive reuse is important in terms of sustainability um in terms of the materials and um also in terms of keeping the community fabric together in that area. Um this was a vacant three historic three-story building in a residential zoning district. Um and they did an adaptive reuse here um where flexibility was granted to uh use flexibility was granted um to allow various uses in the building. Uh and this is an example of an adaptive reuse up in Marquette. Um turned it into nice apartments. Another um not PUD but uh kind of similar way of thinking about things

that is maybe more um you have more experience with is the cluster residential development. So in this situation developers can uh increase the density of an area in exchange for um providing some other benefit. often it's open space or environmental like preservation of area um protection of a significant natural feature something like that. There's also plan development or master plan districts um where you the township might identify a site of a larger area and say um you know this is what we want to see. So, county line crossings would be an example you may be familiar with from the Lest Master planning process that fits this um this category. And then there's um flexible development districts or overlays. So, um this uh still has the base zoning um and the standards typically are held for that unless this overlay has standards that override it. Um so for example we work with another community that has a overlay for um their commercial corridor and they require um quite a few design and like landscaping and architectural elements um to create a cohesive look in the cor in the corridor. Um and so that's how they um and there's there is some flexibility that's given for people who can go above and beyond the minimum requirements of the corridor. Again, just a couple quick comments from the developer. Um, she noted, you know, that PUDS are really comprehensive. They're um you're bringing a typically more complex um unique project to a community. And so

making sure that everything is aligned early is really important and that everyone's on the same page. Um she also uh again felt that it was important to educate people early, the public if possible, but also um the various boards and uh commissions that they would have to go through so that they again everyone's on the same page. They're familiar with the project and hopefully can head off any concerns early on and those can be addressed earlier in the design process. Um she suggested hosting working sessions. Again, just increasing the communication, clarifying project goals, making sure everyone is um on the same page, engaging early and often, anticipating concerns. So, thinking about what um what the public might say, thinking about what the community might the uh township or city uh administrators might say, and then um work together to solve those issues. and um she just really noted that you know it's if if a developer comes to the community with a with a peed sort of idea um having a good relationship is really important to having a good project outcome. So again here's Dorsy Estates. I showed that earlier on. Um this is um uh missing middle housing in Ipsellani for um ideally uh younger residents but could be for whoever. Um they did have some challenges um with the uh porches. Um those ex ex went into the setback. So that was one place that they asked for um modifications and waiverss. Um but in exchange they did uh provide pocket pocket parks. Um and uh they provide a traditional neighborhood design in a historic district. Um bringing some of it out to

the existing public sidewalk but also oriented some towards the private road. So neat development. And then finally um here to celebrate the success of PUDS um she said you know think about them as you're getting something that's predictable. You're going into this uh process with the idea that hopefully you'll end up with a um development agreement that is what you're envisioning that's predictable. You know what you're going to get. Um, but with that predictability, you're going to get uh there's there needs to be some flexibility to make all those things happen. Um, a lot of these projects have good community buyin because they are innovative, creative, they meet various needs that aren't able to be met with the current standards. Um, in cases where you can get efficient approvals, that's always worth celebrating. Um and often again these projects provide balance or create a opportunity to balance various interests and show policy and action. So I'm going to pause there. We're that's two of the three sessions. Questions, comments, keep rolling.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um thank you for that presentation. That was that was great. I learned a lot sitting here in a few minutes instead of somewhere else for a few days, but I'm sure we've got even more out of it. Could we go back to that? Uh you mentioned that uh one of the planners, I'm sorry, one of the um developer was talking about the preapp meeting and the the question about that was who who would uh be part of that preapp meeting? Is it different than when a developer would come to say just the planning department and start asking some questions?

I I think it could be a little bit different for every community. What we do here currently is we have written to do our ordinance a the pre-application phase which is a public hearing with the planning commission where there's no formal action. It's just the beginning process. They come in, they pitch their project, the planning commission can share thoughts, say, "We like this aspect, we don't like that aspect. We need to go back to the drawing board or that's never going to fly." So that pre-application phase is done. The the formal pre-application process in Chesterfield is by ordinance done with the planning commission, but that's not to say there isn't even a pre pre-application where they're meeting with staff to kind of go over, you know, what the ordinance ordinance expectations are. Do you think the developer thought there should be additional type of meeting or used in a different way? I'm just curious.

I don't think so. I think her point was to have communication [snorts] early and often with staff and um any other important stakeholders in the community and then to carry those conversations through. Um I think uh she was um really adamant that you shouldn't be like the f the first time um people are hearing about the project and that the planning commission or legislative body is hearing the the project is the night that they're making a decision on it. So having early conversations and working together to um to meet the needs of all the parties and to use the the site um to the best use um was really her her takeaway I think.

Okay. I I see that some of that does take place here. But we also u think of not with a PUD but there's other examples where it goes to planning. It's fine. Um then perhaps something or maybe is not quite fine but anyway goes through the whole process and then gets to the uh board of trustees and all of a sudden it falls apart and and what they've been walk through the planning commission is I think very thorough sitting here and you explain things to the applicant and I just that came to mind when you were talking about that. So, I don't have a solution exactly, but um that would be something I think we need to continue communicating with with each other. The boards need to also develop relationships with each other, too. So, it's um that helps take that surprise away. Thank you,

Mr. Clonowski. Yeah, that uh we had the uh pre we used to have the pre-planning meetings and you [clears throat] know now you don't have as many agenda items but when you had 10 20 agenda items those pre-planning meetings that we used to have were invaluable and you would have ne it it it helped a lot and I it does help a lot on that. Um and now on the PUDS sounds like there's a lot of negotiation going on. Is is that am I reading that right?

It can be that way. Uh for example, I'm working on a PUD and another community that's been ongoing for way too long. Uh maybe I shouldn't say it that way. It's been going on for it's been going on for a long time because there's been a lot of back and forth between the planning commission. The planning commission will say we want to see this and then the developer will bring a concept plan and it's not quite right. So they're they're getting close. They're fine-tuning. Um and they started kind of this far apart and they've made their way together. So it's taken um that's taken that community uh quite a bit of time and and discussion. I think um I think there are other opportunities. For example, um some of the working sessions that the developer brought up where it might be a portion of the planning commission and staff and um the developer that might to get get together and review the concepts um or uh talking to the public ahead of time. I think that um could have headed off some of the the concerns. Um, so it doesn't have to be a long drawn out process with lots of negotiation. Someone could bring a a concept to you that, you know, maybe you've outlined in the master plan and it it matches and you say, "That's great. That's what we wanted. That's what we said we wanted." Um, or it could be something that they imagined and all of you say, "This is actually a really good idea and a really good fit. We don't have any, you know, real problems with it." So, it it could go both ways. Um but the idea is that um there there probably is a little bit more negotiation and discussion than a typical site plan because there is the opportunity for waiverss and modifications um which isn't always the case in standard developments.

Yeah, I know I I know we've been told more than once that we can't develop or uh de make how can I say this? we cannot develop the project for them. But yet in this case it sounds like there is negotiation going on. So I I where where's the line there? Yeah, that's a good question. So I um and maybe Mr. Sber or anyone was it? I knew that. [laughter]

Okay, I'll talk and he'll tell me if I'm right. If not, he'll correct me. Um but yeah, so the um you would not, you know, you're right, planning commission does not design projects for applicants. Um but you can say, you know, we'd really like to see this sort of thing. Can you incorporate that in your project or we really don't like this building material that you've used or we don't like um you know, we would like to see more landscaping and it's up to the developer to take your feedback and incorporate that. You're not saying I want more trees in this area and I want you to use this sort of building material. But what you are telling them is what you propose doesn't quite meet what we think at of as an exemplary exemplary enough project to grant whatever modifications or waiverss you're asking for and we're asking you to step it up a little bit more so that um we benefit from this project just like you will.

Anything to add? Okay. Did you have more Stephanie? No, sorry. I have a couple more slides, but anyone else questions? Everybody all set with questions? Oh, um, this question is for Mr. Palin. We currently, I believe we have two PUDs in Chesterfield Township. We've got the one where Cabllas is at as well as um where Walmart and um there's two, correct? Uh we actually have more than two. So the town center where Cabllas is at is a PUD. Um Wateride is a PUD.

Um the where Walmart is is actually our C4 district which is kind of I think one of those siblings you were talking about. The township I don't know two decades ago created a the C4 district which is essentially outlines a PUD but with a zoning district itself provides flexibility with an overall development plan. Um and then we have um Plymouth Village as a residential community that's a PUD. Um what came out of that was um some of the future improvements coming to the county bowls park. Um and I think there's one more two that I'm drawing a blank on right now, but there is there is a few in the township.

Has it been beneficial to the township having the PUDS?

Um yeah. I I mean the the county bowls is a perfect example that's you know coming to life. It's been a little while since that PO was approved. I mean it was before I was with the township but we're starting to make improvements there which probably would not be happening if it wasn't for that. Um you know the um town center one has it's been a little bit slower because right as that was getting off the ground uh the economy went down. So it's on I think the second or third owner since that was approved. But, you know, did the township did get some um protected natural resources there and some redevelopment of former lagoon sites. So, um I mean there's certainly benefits. Yeah. Thank you.

Anyone else? No. Stephanie, it's all yours.

Yep. Just a few more things. Um the next session that we discussed I'm getting there. Um or the next session that I attended uh was the not your grandpa's parking study innovation and parking standards. Um this one was really interesting. Uh this one took place in Sterling Heights. Um the city according to SMCOG has 42% of it covered um either with buildings or roads, parking lots. It's all impervious, 42% of it. Um and so they recently went through a master planning process and they uh realized that um there's a big mismatch between their um parking that they have and the parking requirements that are in place currently and their future land use vision um current market trends and their sustainability goals. They just um adopted a sustainability plan recently as well. And so, um, their current process is that parking reductions, no matter how big the reduction, it currently has to go to city council for review and approval. And so, with the master plan, there was quite a bit of public input that was provided. And some of that public input input uh indicated that around key corridors, people wanted to see more compact development. They wanted to see green space, mixed uses and uh so the master plan took all that information and provided some ideas to meet that vision. So here's a list of strategies, various ways to um create those more pedestrian friendly mixeduse uh nodes. And um with the master plan, they uh they discussed what each of these could look like. And after the master plan was adopted, the city said, "Okay, we we really want to tackle this issue, but we need some data before we start changing a bunch of things in our ordinance to support

this." And so that's where the parking study came in. So they looked at 35 private off- streetet parking lots at these mixeduse nodes um throughout the the city and then also along Van Dyke. They uh looked at historical area aerials and also did current field counts. Um so they had data collection for multiple years data points over multiple years. Um and then they took the supply data so how many parking spaces are available in each spot and they took the utilization data. How many cars did we see in each parking area? um and they put it into a GIS model um that included some other data points and were able to to um map various things with it. And then they took the results um of how much parking there is, how much it's used, and they compare that to the ordinance requirements and the IT, the international transportation engineers manual. Their findings, I think, were pretty impressive. So, in 2025, the most utilized parking lot was 55% utilized, and that was um at a condominium development. And across all the parking lots that they looked at in 2025, the average utilization was only 27%. So, they have significantly more parking than they actually need. Um, and they compared this again to the ordinance and to the IT manual and determined that overparking would exist even if the sizing followed just the ordinance and didn't include additional spaces or followed just the IT manual and didn't include extra spaces. So, they just have a lot of parking there. Um, and so this uh substantiated what they were uh what they were hearing and seeing. Here's an example. So this is one of the nodes at 17 mile into Quinder. Um you

can see some aerials from 2017, 2019 and then 2022. This um parking lot had a 31% utilization and uh that means that it had 26,000 square feet that could have been used for something else. So you can see the chart on the right where they have um they're overparked even according to the zoning ordinance by 24 spaces. Um, and really again they're not using they they don't they don't really have a need for all this parking here. This is another example at 15 Mile and Ryan Road. Um, we've got a couple more data points across the years, 2010, 2015, 2018. March 2020, we all know what was going on then. I'm not sure if that was pre or post shutdown, but um there's some cars there. And then June 2022, um, this parking lot had 20% utilization, which means that there's about 15,000 square feet available for other uses. So, um, they did some reform, they did some, uh, changes to their zoning ordinance, and, um, this is one of their early success stories. So here um they uh someone came to them and said, "Okay, we want to redevelop this site." Um and they use a GIS tool to examine how much parking was actually needed based on utilization. And took it to city council and the city council justified a reduction of 150 parking spaces. And you can see um the picture on the bottom is the new development. And so um here instead of having the sea of parking, they gained a new building. They have 54 additional trees, 197 shrubs, and then this 4,500 square foot plaza with seating. And you can see, I don't know if my arrow shows up. Nope, it doesn't show up. That's okay. Um to the left of the building, you can kind of see where there's a mismatch in the pavement

coloring, there's a pedestrian walkway that extends from the strip um kind of at the back of the site all the way up to the sidewalk um along the roadway. So, that was a pretty neat um conversation with uh our friends in Sterling Heights about this and they're hopeful to see more new development um and changes to their parking areas uh to better use the land and meet some of their sustainability goals. The last session that I'll talk about and then we'll talk briefly about um data centers. Um the last session is ble bicycle futurism and um this is uh just one slide about key takeaways. There wasn't anything that was really like groundbreaking in here. Um but we do know that people are starting to use ebikes and um use them in more places becoming more popular and we're seeing them on roadways. Um and biking is great whether it's an ebike or a traditional bike. Um we know that it provides health benefits. it's good for the environment. Uh reduces congestion on roads. So we we do want to incentivize these things. And um what the presenters were saying was that um the the guidelines that have been put in for road design or that are out there for for road design um are often misconstrued as standards. And so people will read the the IT manual or other um other resources for how to build a road that might include a bike lane or might not. And basically those are those are really just guidelines, but they're they're um require they not require they suggest more space is needed than what is really needed for safe travel. And we know that um narrower streets are safer both for cars

and for pedestrians. uh and bicyclists. So, um the one of the key takeaways was um a suggestion to have narrower streets um both for safety reasons, but also uh the street networks uh that are created when we have more streets that are narrow, those can actually carry more vehicles and can decrease travel times um as opposed to just continuously widening our streets. Um so she was a big advocate for that and then um she also talked about uh reducing confluence points to improve the level of service safety and travel time. So that was the bicycle one and um finally data centers. I did not attend a session on data centers. Um but our team has done quite a bit of research because it's becoming a uh an important planning topic um here in Michigan. So um why are they becoming more important here in Michigan? Well, the state has um announced that they're providing tax relief um long-term tax relief for data centers to locate here. So we're seeing more proposals for them in more communities. Um in short, data centers are what makes uh lots of our internet uh sort of activities work. Um data centers house the computers and the servers and all the other infrastructure that's needed to um do various computing functions. So if you've ever saved anything to the cloud, that's because there was a data center. Um and they're they are known for in not only the amount of data that they store and um in that but also they do store it safely and securely um and so that's um oops important to note. Uh there are various types of data centers various sizes um

but they all kind of have some similar concerns. um most commonly water and energy use. They're very water intensive um for their cooling needs and then they're energy intensive for all the computing work that's happening. Um and so planning tool, we do have planning tools that we can use to um signify where data centers might be more desirable and then ways to mitigate their impacts. So more about that is um in the the newsletter that Ava passed out. Um, I'll also mention, I forgot to mention this, the second um handout that you have is a handout from the PUD session. Um, so you're welcome to both of those. And that's that's what I have from um the MAP conference recap. Happy to try to answer any other questions you have about the sessions.

Thank you. Anybody have any questions or comments? No. Oh, Kathy, I have a question about u data center locations. We hear about them in um wide open areas. Is there any type of data center development um that's reusing unused buildings or uh locations?

I believe the tax incentives um are heavily focused on brownfield sites. Um, but I'm not sure about reuse of buildings being a large component or any part of the tax relief. Um, so I'm not sure if they're incentivized to do that. Um, I also I I have not heard of any examples. I guess that's the short answer. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Anyone else? If not, um, the planning commissioners have three minutes if anybody has anything else to talk about. Kathy, Eric, Ralph, James, Rich, Mark, Rick. Just want to wish everybody a happy Thanksgiving. Thank you. And I would like to do the same. Um hope everybody has a great Thanksgiving and u our next meeting is December 2nd if we have an agenda. So uh with that I'd like to adjourn the meeting at 8:21. Uh motion by Carl Leonard uh to adjourn the meeting at 8:21 supported by Mark Reno. All in favor?

I opposed. Motion carries. And that's it for tonight. Thank you.