Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

for a residential subdivision on a 4.25 acre lot located on northeast corner of Ann Arbor Road and McClumpa Road. It's currently undeveloped and vacant. The Planning Commission previously tabled the application for up to six months at the November meeting. The applicant is requesting an additional extension of 90 days in order to address comments from the Planning Commission. It should be noted that the applicant has submitted the required documents and will be on the June meeting should the request for the extension be approved.

I would like to note the actual site is on the northwest corner of that site, not the northeast corner.

Right.

The applicant here.

The sign was removed for the email request.

I didn't see it when I drove by.

Yeah.

Okay.

For repair. It's out for repair. I don't know when it'll be repaired and reinstalled, Dennis, but we found out about it.

Okay. Any other discussion? Is there a motion?

Mr. Chair, I move that we grant an additional extension of 90 days for PC number 2576.

I'll support it. So will Dan. Dan beat me to the punch. Just couldn't hear him.

Move by Commissioner. and supported by Commissioner Callahan to grant the 90-day extension. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Application 2496, 4700 Ann Arbor Road, conditional rezoning extension. We have that before us.

So we have another conditional rezoning 90-day extension request. This is for an auto wash facility of 2.45 acres in size located on the northeast of Ann Arbor Road in Hagerty. The property currently contains an unoccupied two-story office building, formally applied fitness solutions. Planning Commission previously approved three extensions for this project. The applicant is requesting the extension in order to account for the current status of proceedings at the Wayne County Circuit Court where they are waiting for a ruling on a motion to vacate the consent judgment. Closed. Find the review letter. Should Planning Commission find the extension appropriate, a motion would be needed.

The applicant here? Yes. Richard St. Lawrence. You want to step up to the podium? Thank you.

You were right when you predicted it might take longer with the Wayne County Circuit Court. As of this date, they still have not assigned it to another judge. That's still pending. So that's why we requested the extension into your late August meeting. And I'll take it from there. So hopefully we get something handled by then.

Do you think that'll be long enough? Do you have any idea? You don't know anything more than still waiting?

Well, we keep contacting, and this is the status. Keep saying that they're working on it, but we still don't have it. I looked at the docket even today, and there's nothing on the docket. It just says waiting for assignment to another judge. So if your pleasure would be to go beyond the August 19th date, I think that we requested, we'd be fine with that.

I would like to ask the two ladies from planning, what would happen if we were to deny the extension and let them get through their court thing and then come back? Is there a problem with doing it that way versus us continuing to extend, extend, extend?

It just, it restarts the application. So they would have to start from the very beginning.

And what does that entail exactly?

I believe like the public hearing for the conditional rezoning, a recommendation for planning commission approval from the board, which I think you guys already rejected the consent judgment, like changing that. So it would go back through to the very beginning.

I know that the township has taken the position that they are opposing the release, the relief, you know, from getting rid of the consent agenda. So it kind of seems counterproductive to me if the township board is saying, no, we're fighting this. Why do we just keep extending, extending, extending? That's really my point.

I will note there is nothing in the ordinance that puts a limit on how many extensions they can request. So that's why they've kept coming back and we've allowed it. But I do understand your concerns, Andy.

Thank you, Laura. You've probably learned, Liz, you've probably learned from me that I like to go above and beyond sometimes what it says. And I just think that this has been going on for a long time. I know that they're building another car wash at Five Mile. And I just know that the township board is opposed. And so being a member of that board, I'm not comfortable agreeing to an extension.

If I could address that comment that you made. Yes, we've been working with township officials to turn around, try to come to a resolution on the development of that property. And what this does is allows us to keep that door open to work to the resolution. So I understand your concern from that standpoint and understand the township's position. And after last meeting, we were scheduling to try to work out a plan with the city official, with the township officials. So if we could have that extension up until August, hopefully we could work something out with the township between now and then. And then we could deal with what your issue is after that if we don't. We're moving forward to try to get to a resolution where we think hopefully that the Township Board of Trustees would approve.

Well, I can tell you as a township board member, I won't be approving it. I happen to live here. I absolutely do not agree that it belongs there. Sure.

I understand that, but it may be a different kind of resolution there. So we're trying to not have to go through a public hearing there. And so if we could just have that opportunity, and I understand your position as a board member, I understand that I've personally met township board meetings as far back as almost a year ago. I understand that. And we've got different direction there and hopefully I think we can make the township happy here during the summer and maybe make yourself happy too.

I don't think you're going to make me happy.

Well, you may not want a car wash and I understand that. So maybe it'll be a resolution without one. What we need to do, here's the point of this, and you bring up about the litigation there, it really is really a motion to turn around and vacate that judgment. That does not impact and give anybody this applicant any opportunity to move forward with the car wash. What it does is it gets rid of some issue that was pending before with that old judgment that limited the kind of use that could be there. And what you had was you had that if we don't proceed with that back years ago, the original owner there, when they came in with their consent judgment, If they did proceed with the health facility, that it would revert back to an OS zoning. And then the OS ARC, remember there's been amendments, and you know that as a board member and the planning commission does, there's been amendments to that ordinance. OS ARC is what the zoning designation or classification is. So we still need to be able to clarify that judgment. So that's why I would like that pending where maybe we work out a resolution with the city and I know the position of not having a car wash and hopefully we come to a resolution where you're happy and it's not a car wash or it's something that's acceptable to the city. But we just need that approximately 90 days to be able to try to work that out. At that time, if you want to boot us out of here, that's okay.

I do want you to understand, I don't want to boot you out. I just happen to be a longtime East side of the township resident.

Sure.

And that car wash to me is a nightmare. It's just the thought of it going there. And I know that sitting on the board, when we made a decision as to, um, not wanting to remove the consent agenda. That was a unanimous decision. So I'm just speaking from the standpoint of the person who sits in that position.

Right. And I read the minutes there. And what happened was initially at the conference that we had with the municipal officials there, we were going through what we had to do because there were, issues that were raised in that consent junction back then that just made it complicated to be able to turn around and develop that property, even without the car wash. So we need to be able to do that. And what I'm doing is hoping that we can work out a resolution with the city and then basically end up with an agreed upon site plan that turns around as a part of that judgment where we amend it. And I understand the position of no car wash, and I appreciate that totally. It doesn't mean that I'm standing here before you saying we're looking for a car wash there. And I want to make that part for the record right now. I want to be able to just proceed and have this opportunity for this next 90 days.

So I have a question for staff. So let's say the judgment is vacated and it ends up that they're not gonna get approval for our car wash. And let's say it moves into office, retail, residential, whatever. That would start another whole process, wouldn't it? Yeah. So the only advantage at this point is if it is vacated, then, and they come back still for the car wash. It just, basically it saves them new filing fees and the rest of that. Sure.

What are, would you say are appropriate grounds for denying approval of a extension like this? Can it be anything, or are there certain standards or grounds that have to be met to be legal?

That's a good question. I'm not very familiar with these extensions. I do kind of wish I would have asked the lawyer to be here now, but I'm happy to find that out for you guys.

Yeah, I'm a little concerned about not granting it because we have been known in the past to deny applicants something and it turns out we didn't have the wherewithal to do that. So I'd rather, from my own personal side, I'd rather err on the side of the applicant to ensure that we're not going to be caught up in another legal mess.

First of all, sir, could we get your name? I don't think you said his name. Richard Sable, S-A-B-L-E. And you represent? Albrecht L. Carwash. Okay. I have a couple comments here. I concur with Chairman Cebulski We need to be careful that we follow the proper process here. Some of us were on the board when we, another applicant, as it wasn't a direct comparison, but somewhat analogous, and we turned down the request and it ended up getting in court. And I just don't think that's necessarily in our best case. What we're deciding tonight is not that we approve or disapprove of a car wash or anything. What we're deciding is whether we should grant the applicant another period of time to try to sort out the situation in the court, which is not, I don't think directly their fault that this has been delayed. My other comment is I'm very uncomfortable with your suggestion that there might be other options than a car wash. We can't make a decision based on a unclear statement like that. The decision we need to make tonight is only about should we be granting the applicant a fourth extension to try to get the court to make a decision. And on that basis, I think that probably the, I would say that if we were to turn down that, we would need to have some pretty significant findings of fact that would support that decision. I don't think there's enough findings of fact to do that, so therefore I think that we should go ahead and approve the extension as requested, but disregard any conversation about anything other than the original car wash being an option at this point. If the consent judgment is turned aside and you come back and bring something else, that's great. But we would discuss that at that time.

Understood.

I'm wondering if we shouldn't even grant it to September because of the slowness of the judicial system. Because I think then we're going to have a similar discussion again if, you know, things haven't moved, you know, in the courts and then you're back.

Yeah. I think that's got some merit.

I also think it's important, and I'm inclined to table this, to have a clear understanding of the implications of denying the extension and get legal feedback on that.

So I have a couple things I want to say. Number one, getting the legal guidance and tabling isn't a bad route to go for now because we don't want to end up in a legal issue. But this is not once, it's not twice, it's three times. And the applicant has no control, nor does the planning commission. All we have on a statement of finding a fax is the fact there isn't one person in that neighborhood that wants this car wash to go in there, rightly or wrongly. And these people were hot. And we didn't get yelled at or sworn at, but there wasn't one person there that wants to see that go in because there's already plenty on there. The second thing I want to share is they did take the three-foot hole that was by the sewer and fill it in. They did a very cheesy job with gravel, but at least someone cannot fall in and break their hip, which was a risk before. Now, there are many craters that are in that parking lot still to this day, which could have easily been filled with a coal patch, right? So it's a safety liability. It's probably not in compliance to the zoning requirements for parking lots in Plymouth Township. and it's disturbing to me that we've been going through this for 12 months now, that it's still a safety risk for someone to walk through there or drive their car, and there's a red, yellow, green light that's in there which can be traveled on, but you're going to ruin your suspension, right, or blow a tire out, and it's going to be over a $1,000 repair for a brand-new wheel and tire on someone's car. So I liked the business proposal when I saw it, but we're not here to decide that tonight. I didn't like the fact that none of the neighbors wanted it. I think the Planning Commission has been very fair to Elkar Wash, right? With the five-mile site, it passed with flying colors because there's a lot of good that's there. But this site and this legal issue, right, I don't mind tabling it, right? But I'm inclined to try to not grant it, right? And the fact we have a lawyer sitting up here, I'm grateful for, right? So I'm willing to table, but I'm not willing to extend, right? Because I'm in a camp right now of not extending at all. And the only way forward for me tonight is either not extending or tailing it to get legal guidance.

The other point is that even if we denied it today, that still will not prevent them from, if this whole thing, vacation, takes place, it still wouldn't prevent them from coming back and doing the exact same thing or a modified car wash in some way. We can't just say, well, the neighbors didn't want it, so we're not going to grant the extension.

And that's a very valid point, Dennis. Thank you for bringing that up. I appreciate the wisdom you've got with doing this for three decades versus a year and a half here. The other point I want to mention is that there are so many houses that are for sale in there that that neighborhood is turning over, that there are neighbors that aren't even aware that it bought in there, that this thing is orbiting. And I'm sure the sellers didn't disclose, hey, there could be a car wash here. So restarting the process if the consent judgment is set aside, I think we're all smart enough to fast track this with our planners' help because they really had a good proposal that had a nice, buffer of trees and the lights. They did everything we asked for, and I haven't seen any applicant go to the level of this one, which is why the car wash flew through the process at Five Mile. We'll have a loggerhead of residents there, and I think those residents... should be provided the opportunity to learn that this is back, right, on a fast-track process with the public comments at that point in time. So I'm okay with Ashley's suggestion to table it, but I'm not okay with granting another extension because this is third time.

You do raise a good point that they just came back. I wanted to verify. So if they did just come back, we would not have another public hearing?

Well, only if you extend it, they wouldn't need the public hearing, right? Like, if you don't extend it, it would start the process over and another public hearing would be required and all that.

And I think that leaves ourselves open to the public that don't completely understand the dynamics of how this works in thinking that something doesn't smell quite right.

Yeah. I mean, this thing was an A-plus from a sustainability viewpoint. Every technology they put in there, on noise evasion, on recycling water, and You know, there's so many things right, but my gosh, when there's a whole mountain of people that, you know, had flames coming out of their mouths and smoke out of their ears.

I was not one of those. No, she was actually very calm.

She was sitting where Chuck was in the back.

Well, what's your pleasure? So is there a motion to table it is what you're looking for, Dennis? To seek legal counsel.

I can go with that, to table it, to seek, to get legal counsel, to get advice. That's your motion? That's my motion.

I second that, because I think Ashley had a great suggestion.

Thank you, Ashley.

Okay, so moved by Commissioner Groton, supported by Commissioner Eichs, to table application 2493, pending advice from legal counsel. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Oh, I'm opposed. So let the record show that Tim Boyd opposes. All right. So you will let the applicant know when this comes back on the agenda?

Yeah, I'll reach out to our attorney tomorrow. Okay.

Okay, sounds good. I just have one last thing I want to add. Please get the rest of that parking lot fixed.

If somebody would send me, I'll give my email address. If they send me what needs to be done, I'll make sure it gets taken care of. What's your email? Real simple one. S-A-B-L-E at S-A-B-L-E dot com.

It's very simple. You're right. Okay.

So just for clarification, that last extension turned around and expired, you know, as of I think today or whatever. By doing this tabling, does that continue it for that six weeks then? Is that what it does?

We're kind of keeping it. active by tabling. We are postponing something.

Okay, that was my question. I understand that. And I understand you now have new legal counsel. Is that what it is? Yes. Because I was dealing with your prior attorney there. So that's where there's some miscommunication going on in terms of what we were dealing with from my first conference that I had. And we were on board knowing, and I just wanted to clarify this. When we met last summer or the beginning of June or July or whatever it was, the big point was, look, we gotta just get rid of this consent judgment and get back to whatever it's going to be. We understand that the Planning Commission would recommend or did recommend no car wash, and it's up to the City Council. I understand that. I've been doing this for 50 years, and I understand that, but... just to be able to develop this property. And that was a conversation I had. So I'm open to meeting with your new council and everything to go through that. But that's where something got out of whack here when you switched.

And we need to take the responsibility of following up with you so that you know exactly where we are and what we're doing. And the planning department can do that, right?

Yeah, we will. Okay. So just to clarify, with that tabling, would it mean that we're coming back before you in six weeks? Is that what it is?

You'll be coming back before us after we get our legal opinion. Okay. So I'll find a date then, right? Yes.

Okay. Yes. I understand that. I just like to pin that stuff down so I know that's what I'm dealing with. So that way, whatever we're doing, you know, maybe we get something resolved, you know, by then or not, but at least I know everything's still moving forward. Absolutely. And it's not like I got to start from scratch then. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it very much.

Yeah, I just wanted to encourage you, Richard, to go across the street, park your vehicle, and walk carefully through the parking lot and take photographs, right, yourself, so you see what we all see, and to be extremely careful because there are probably somewhere between 25 to 35 very wide potholes that are very deep as you are in the front, on the side, and behind it, and on the cut-through street that's part of that property. And the guys wanted to make the road wider and redo everything, which was phenomenal on that approval. And we're being very fair with Ashley's suggestion to table this tonight, but I want to also have our car wash be fair to our residents to resolve the safety issue that's presently there.

And I've been doing this, like I said, for 50 years as a zoning land use attorney. I have a good reputation that if I say something's going to get done, it gets done. I've done major developments with General Motors Tech Center with Ford Motor Development. And I've dealt with issues with communities where just even recently in Macomb Township, they had a punch list of an old site of a coals that was to be developed. We turned around and said, give me the punch list. Let's get it done. We were supposed to do it by June 30th. We got it done this May, you know, and that's what I'm used to doing because you can't proceed before committees such as yourself, a planning commissioner or board, unless you have some kind of a reputation that if you say you're going to do something, you're going to get it done. So, you know, and I'd just like to just clarify those things, but I want to let you know that. So, you know, I'll be on it if it gets sent over to me, and we'll take it from there. Okay. Me driving this kind of traffic, I'm not used to this side of town. It took me an extra hour and a half through all that traffic on the expressway. Where do you come from? Well, I live in Oakland Township, but I come from Sterling Heights. My offices are there, Macomb County, right. So that's my basis and I've done it all around town, the first time here in Plymouth. So I've been in Canton, I've been in other places and Canton, we took over a defunct development of what was it? 500 acres and redid that one and put it back to work and everything that took. you know a couple years to plan it i'm used to working with planners and with uh council people and boards of trustees but i just need that time and uh i lost time when you know when something didn't happen last summer that i thought was going to happen so i just want to let you know that thank you very much okay thank you so now you know next time give yourself two hours to get here well i did i left that form I left that floor.

Please stop by and look at it. It's literally a three-wood shot from here in that direction. And say hello to Kid Rock when you get back home.

Well, if somebody creates a punch list, you know, and they have pictures in, then I'll make sure.

I don't think we should have to bring a punch list. If you're representing the landowner here and you want us to have confidence in this development or any development on that parcel, we shouldn't have to give you a list of what needs to be done to your own property.

That's fine. I understand that. I don't need to argue with you about it. I'll go there and look. I just assume that somebody turned around and said, well, there's this, that, and that. So if you had issues and they were in writing, let me have it. I'm not asking you to send your inspectors and turn around and give me an inspection punch list. I'll go there. We'll look at it and take care of it. If you've got specifics that you know about, send it to me.

We will. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you, Richard.

Drive safe.

Okay. Next is St. John's Towers, the entry sign, site monument sign.

Thank you, Chairman Sevelsky. Liz Hart with McKenna. Before you today is the Towns at St. John's entry feature with signage. Originally, there was a different style of sign approved with the PUD, and they decided to change that, which in the PUD agreement requires the Planning Commission to review and approve it. So that's why this is before you today. It does comply with all of the... sign requirements, setbacks, the design for monument signage. I will note that I sent you an email stating that they decided to change their minds about the exterior lighting. And I did print off the proposed exterior lighting that I am proposing. It is up lit. So section 28.8 of special provisions is where the exterior lighting is. And there is a provision that the Planning Commission can approve something like this. under special circumstances. So you are able to look at it in that way or not allow the lighting as they are presenting it. That's my report. The applicant is here to give you some more detail about the signage. I think they even have a material board for you to look at.

Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. Yes.

Good evening, everyone. I'm Brooks Cowan with Pulte Homes. And the update is essentially, we were just looking to modernize our sign and change some of the styles up for that. I have the sample here, if I could pass it down.

Thank you.

It's the flat side that we'll be facing towards the traffic. And then in our conversations with the planning division, We were told you're required to have cutoff lighting and that it can't be uplit. And so we said, this is not a hill we're gonna die on. We won't include that within the application. However, poking around the ordinance, we saw that there are some special exceptions for uplighting. I believe the printout that was handed to you has some examples. And so it would be page two. If you look at the left, there's the smallest light for the, I guess they call it the flood lighting. It's a range of 20 to 35 watts. You see this fairly typically with illuminating landscaping or an address on a house. And going through the sign ordinance with illumination, there's a section that says, you know, got to be pointed directly at the target that would be the case here it would be very minimal so we know that it is uplit and we planted the ground we're looking to have one on each side of the sign but not a hill it will die on if you're opposed to it that's okay but we would like to make that ask here and as the planner stated looking to update our design and we are in line with the sign ordinance for that. So with that, take any questions.

I have a question. So this material that you sent around, is this the timber tech?

It's like a Trex timber tech.

So on the note on the plan, it says the sign phase, you know, three inches thick, HDU painted, approved colors, hung from steel, self-structure, embedded in masonry, steel covered with timber tech.

So the posts that go up and then over that the sign is hanging from, that will be the timber tech treks.

But is there any wood? Is wood a part of this sign? No, not real wood.

So I think that'll last longer than wood.

And what is that made of?

That's beyond me. I know they use it for decks. Oh, okay.

All right. So it's... quite weather resistant.

More weather resistant. And UV resistant too.

So do you know how many lumens would be on this light that you're proposing?

Do not have a photometric plan and I don't know the exact lumens, but it's a 20 to 35 watt bulb. I would say fairly typical to when you're driving around at night and you see people illuminating the numbers on their house address. Very similar to that.

Dennis, I looked this up. This is a 50-50 blend of recycled wood fibers and polyethylene plastic film. So 95% recycled.

I just didn't want it to be wood. Some wood that's preserved. Something that is... I don't know. There's no lumen. Oh, yeah.

I would like to know, you mentioned that you had decided you didn't want to die on it and special circumstances. So Liz, could you tell us what the special circumstances are that he's alluding to that has made them change from what they were doing to this uplighting?

I believe that would be a better question for the applicant, but I would say it's probably because it is at the entrance of the site having lighting there. I don't know if they have a street lamp right there at the entrance, but I would assume like traffic at night being able to see where the entrance is, this would accommodate that, but I would ask the applicant that question.

Is that the point, sir? that she was saying that I should ask you that question. You said that you looked at the ordinance and there were special circumstances and that's why you've decided to change your proposal. So I'm just curious to know what were the special circumstances?

Sure. Just that it's very minimal in terms of lighting being directed at the sign that we would like to have illuminated at night. And within that section of special circumstances, there's item C where you can make special exceptions. They talk about uplighting. The Planning Commission may approve uplighting of buildings for aesthetic purposes. We also think aesthetics during the evening where people would be able to read the light as they're coming into the intersection. That was relevant to our ask here. Subject to site plan approval provided the light intensity is strictly limited. AN AREA OF ILLUMINATION IS CONFINED TO A SPECIFIC TARGET SURFACE, AND SO SMALL LIGHT, MAXIMUM 35 WATTS, WOULD BE CLOSE TO THE SIGN. IT WOULD JUST BE ILLUMINATING THAT.

IT'S JUST GOING TO ILLUMINATE THE SIGN SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW WHERE THEY ARE.

CORRECT. AT NIGHT TIME, SO WHEN YOU'RE COMING BY AND SAY, OKAY, THIS IS THE ENTRANCE TO THE SITE. SO THAT'S C. AND THEN D IS ADDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS MAY BE PERMITTED WHERE THE PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINES UNIQUE OR SPECIAL CONDITIONS ON THE SITE WARRANT EXCEPTION. given the amount of units at this site. We would just like to pursue that special exception given the small lighting for it.

Is this just going to be for the entrance sign?

Just for the entrance sign. So we'd like to have one light on each side. Okay. Two total lights. Pointed just at the target.

I have a couple of comments here. I'd like to have the commissioners turn to page four of the planner's report, which is the comparison of the previously approved sign versus the new sign. Keeping in mind that this sign will be there for many years and it's on a major entrance to the township, I feel like the sign from an architectural point of view is a step backwards. But more than that, if I look at the materials, we've talked about the materials of the new sign, the timber tech imitation wood. If you look at the blueprint, That long, narrow thing along the bottom is actually precast concrete. Whereas if you look at the original plan up at the top, you'll see that it had cultured stone brick throughout much of the design. The caps were limestone or cast stone as opposed to concrete. And architecturally, it just, I don't believe the new materials, the timber tech material is represented in the architecture of the town homes. Whereas the original design did include a stone that was more commensurate with the development. So my takeaway here is that this is a step backwards and I'm presuming it's less expensive. And that's perhaps one of the reasons that developers proposing it. But before we, get too much into detail on the lighting. I do just want to point out to everybody that the new sign is architecturally and material wise a departure from what we originally approved. And if the board commission's okay with that, fine, but I just want to point out the differences.

Thank you for pointing that out, Commissioner Boyd.

Can I make a comment? In my conversations with our development team, talking about the materials of the original, it's not brick, and so it's like a cultured... Yeah, it says cultured stone face. Right, it's more of like a concrete where they kind of carve in that brick appearance on the outside, so it's not actual brick in the original approval. So I just want to make that clarification.

So could we maintain what was originally approved and then... agree to the lighting and make it a happy medium for everybody?

Well, as the Planning Commission, you can vote however you want. We're just here asking, you know, we would like to make the update for the sign. You know, if you're like, no, we don't like the sign, but you can do the lighting, we're amenable to that. However, we would prefer the new sign. I think we've done what was approved in, you know, five-ish years ago for the review process. We've done that at a few sites. We want to not have so much redundancy with the signs.

That is an exclusive site, though. Commissioner Boyd is correct. It's an exclusive site, and it's something that garners a lot of attention. And I agree with what he said. I like the original better.

What's the reasoning for the change in design?

The team likes it more. They wanted to make an update. I think they've done what was included in the originally approved plans a few times. And I think they want to, maybe it's getting tired. They want to update a new sign for this location.

So it's subjective, really?

It's really subjective.

I want to provide an objective viewpoint here. Tim, your comments are incredible. The detail, which I actually applaud you bringing it, because I overlooked this. I had to take photographs with my phone here to actually look at the height of the sign. I want to look at the fact that the limestone is incredibly nicer, number one. The fact it's curved allows the water and snow to run off, number two. You get better materials. The sign height isn't quite as high with the original one. So it's less obstructive if you were stacked in traffic and you were the second vehicle trying to make either a right-hand turn or a left-hand turn on what's an extremely busy, dangerous road that has the number one and two accident volume in Plymouth Township. People are rushing to get on the freeway, they're rushing to get home. So I like from a functional objective standpoint, I like the first proposal better because it's curved, it's less obstructive for the view of a driver, right? It's lower in height and it's better materials and craftsmanship. And this is, there's not much land left to develop in Plymouth and this is a gem of a location, right? And from an objective standpoint, safety standpoint, I'm fully aligned with Tim Boyd's comments, right? And I appreciate Trustee Grove saying, that why don't we just put the light you want on there and keep the original sign. If we were to do that, I would be okay. But the proposal from the guys that wanted to change, I'm not aligned with that at all.

And we can be difficult because we live here. We have to see it and deal with it all the time. And so do our citizens. I always think that in terms of how people who live here are going to react to it.

And actually, the uplighting would, I think, complement the older sign more. There's more texture to it, where this one is flat. So I am in agreement with that.

But I mean, if you want the old one to say towns at St. John's as opposed to St. John's towns, is there a problem with that?

No, not for me.

So you could still change the language if you wanted to.

Okay.

Are we making it easy for you?

Sure.

The discrepancy in size between the one from the sign company versus the .

measurements and height and design. Even with that, this is three and a half feet, this is four and a half, four feet just forward.

Sure, so this one will be put together by the sign company who would be making the part that's hanging in the center and then the other dimensions are from the engineering firm who would also be doing the installation of the base and the stone. They talk to each other.

Let me try and do it differently. I've read probably 5,000 engineering drawings in my life. Both signs are 18 feet long in length. Okay, believe it or not, when you look at the base that was below the new one that's rectangular, that says 18 feet, the old one says 18. The height of the old one is lower, okay? It's 5'4 versus 6", and it's 5'4 at the peak of the radius in the vertical direction, right? If you slice through at the halfway point, so it's blocking less of your view, which is why I made the point about safety and visibility. So if I heard Trustee Grothright, right, and the verbiage, right, if you've got new lights plus the wording that's on the new one, right, with the old design with the limestone curve radius, we might hit a win-win and win.

And I would be willing to make a motion to that effect unless you want more conversation.

The only thing I would like is to have staff to review the lumens on this. and see if they would have an issue. Because we don't have a photometric information here. And I like the idea of softer lighting. I've always championed for softer lighting. So I don't doubt that. But I would like to see or know what is the brightness of the light. but I agree with everything else said. I like the older sign better. I think it compliments the site better. I mean, St. John's, I know it's not part of St. John's, but it's classic architecture. It isn't quite the same, but it has that more classic high-end look than this. This looks more country with the timbers and all of that.

up north issue, right?

Yeah. It's just a different setting. There's nothing wrong with it. It's just I don't think it's the right setting for it.

So my motion along with staff reviewing the pro metrics of the lighting.

Lumens, especially lumens. And the color, what's the temperature?

Yeah.

Did you check it?

Yeah. Okay. You just got to say the motion out loud so the secretary can record it. Tim's doing two jobs here.

I did say it out loud. The motion is to agree to the lighting contingent upon staff review of the illumination and the prometrics and the color, keeping the old entrance sign that was already in place and approved, with you changing the wording to towns at St. John's as opposed to St. John's Powers.

I would second that motion. We hit all four points.

All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?

Motion carried. Oh, no. I'm going to just say no. But I'd like to explain why. Just because I don't have an issue with the new design. I actually think it's a little bit more updated. I do think it kind of looks a little rustic, but if that matches the architecture of the development, in your opinion, you're more of an expert on that than I am. But that's the only reason I'm going to vote no on that. Good to know.

So the motion, we did, I said, you said, okay, I did already the aye and the nay. You voted nay. There you have it.

Thank you so much. Thank you.

Yeah, good, Brooks, thank you.

We're looking forward to seeing it.

Yeah, it's coming along.

Okay, next is the... Application 2596, the administrative review on Dunkin' Donuts at 655 Ann Arbor Road. And you have your report.

Yes, thank you, Chairman Stavolsky. Liz Hart with McKenna. So before you is a major administrative review for a site plan amendment at 655 Ann Arbor Road, which you may have recognized it previously as the Wendy's that was there. Duncan is now coming in and replacing that. So mostly they're just proposing a facade renovation on the existing building. They're not changing anything to the site. So access is going to remain the same. The parking was already approved under the original site plan, so that will remain the same. And landscaping is not. new landscaping is not being proposed and the existing landscaping will remain. However, in the report, we noted that it just needs to be maintained because if you go out there now, it's a little rough. So they do need to fix that up. And then in terms of pedestrian access and circulation, so Ann Arbor Road has the sidewalk in front of this site, but there is no sidewalk coming into the site. And they're not proposing to do that. And that is okay. It would require them to remove a lot of landscaping, which we're okay with that. However, I do recommend that they put in pedestrian cross hatching specifically with the barrier free parking, just to kind of put that visual for drivers coming in that there are still pedestrians walking in this area. And there is barrier free parking on both sides of the building. So that would be required on both sides, wherever that is. There's 46 on the site with nine stacking spaces. That is existing. And they're not proposing to change that. The site plan does not show a loading space. Now they're not required to do the 15 by 40 foot. They just need to show an area where loading will take place on the site. So we do request that that's put on the final site plan that will be submitted to staff if you approve this. So there's a lot going on to the building that they're changing. Let's see. So I'm just going to go over the summary of the building facade reservations. So they're removing the existing mansard-style roof parapet that's at the front, and they're going to install a taller monolith architectural feature. That monolith does still meet the building height for the ARC, so it is under that. They are going to be reclouding some of the existing buildings, so they're going to be covering up some of that brick. We did ask that they not cover up all the brick, and they did accommodate us with that. So it's a mixture of both. Brick is still going to be exposed, and there will be some clouding to it. And they will be painting it. They're following their color scheme, gray charcoal, and then there's orange and pink and white accents on there, as well as on both of the side elevations, there's a different wall color, like wood looking, and that just breaks up that blank wall area. And then I think they're putting a sign on one of them. They are also, they plan to keep the front facade the same, so those opaque window films will still be there. They are modifying the drive-thru window configuration, so they're just shifting it a little. And then they'll have a drive-thru tower feature right over that window, which is a canopy and then some branded architectural elements. And then there's kind of a canopy metal thing that goes around some of the building. I don't believe it sticks out too far. But so mostly the proposed building design represents an upgrade to the existing structure, upgraded architectural features and cohesive branding elements. I just do want to note there is a lot of corporate branding into this architectural design, which is very present in this design. on this building. Now when you look at what's around it, there is branding happening on other buildings, it's just not quite like Dunkin'. So I just want to note that as you review specifically what they're doing. Exterior lighting, so they're proposing downlit features and they don't exceed the maximum illumination levels except they're They didn't put what the CT, the cool color temperature, would be on there, so we just want them to confirm that in their final plans. They also have LED accent lighting, and it's not very clear how that's being laid on the building. Is it upward or downward? So we've just asked the applicant to confirm that. Now, the Planning Commission can approve accent up lighting for aesthetic purposes, which I believe is what they're trying to accomplish that with. And there is no provision there. They did not provide like a nighttime view of what that would look like. So I'm not entirely sure exactly how bright, but on the photometric plan, there is one spot that shows like 18 foot handles and they are required to reduce that. And they are working on that with their photometric plan. So there is a condition that the photometric plan just be updated and submitted to staff to ensure that it meets that.

Yes, Bill.

You had mentioned the branding, right, that this is more than usual. I mean, something on the west, something on the east, something on the north. That didn't scare me. Is it the size of the letters that's too big or tall or wide, or it's just...

We're going to review the signage in the next application. I was just noting when you walk down Ann Arbor Road specifically on that side, there's red brick in the buildings next door to it. It's not gray. And then the coloring, the the branding coloring is what would stand out. But I do know across the street, there's an automobile dealership that has their coloring. Right next is another automobile service that has red in their business name. And then they have it on as well as like a Mansard canopy. They have it there. It's just very different from what we're seeing right now there. You know, with Wendy's being there. So I just wanted to point that out.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

So we are recommending the Planning Commission approve the proposed site plan with four conditions, the marked crosswalks between the barrier-free parking spaces and the main building entrance, the dedicated loading space, and then confirming the orientation of the proposed LED accent features. which way they're oriented, and then subject to planning approval, if you guys approve that or not. And then a complete photometric plan, including the compliance with the 10-foot panel maximum, including color temperature values for the fixtures prior to any permit being issued. That's my presentation. The applicant is here to take your questions, and I'm also happy to take any more as well.

The floor is yours.

I'm gonna put my project manager on the phone. Okay. They're not as close as I am to here, our location. So I have them on the phone here. I just need to put them on speakerphone. Pardon me for a second for that. All right, Evelyn, can you hear me? All right, I got you as close as I can to the microphone.

I'm watching the meeting through YouTube and I know there's a little bit of lag. Hope you're having a good day.

I don't understand what he's watching on YouTube.

So, I mean, I know that you probably have questions along the way here, so.

Should we ask our questions now? Are you having a presentation?

No, I don't have a presentation. I think it's just would be the questions.

Okay, well, it's going to be a little difficult, but I can lead off. So when I look at the rendering here, the colored rendering, and you mentioned the LED lighting, and on that parapet where it says Duncan, and then I see white stripes, is that LED lighting?

I'm sorry, you're talking about the drive-thru elevation?

No, I'm talking about the main front. Like the front of the building? No.

Okay. And you're talking about the white stripes that are within the wood?

Right. You know, kind of that supports that parapet, the tower feature. Is that LED lighting?

No. No, those white stripes would not be LED lighting. They're metal trimmed, I believe. Metal trimmed... And same with the pink and white, they're metal trim pieces.

And I have the same question about the magenta stripes that go across there. Are those LED or just painted?

Again, the pink and white stripes would be metal trim pieces at both the main front facade monolith and also at the drive-through tower. The only LED lighting would be at the canopy, but that's designated both, I mean, designated on the... Pardon me for a second. It's designated in the photometric plan.

So... So where is the LED again? I'm kind of lost here. It's in the back or in the front of the building? Where is it?

Commissioner Cebulski, if you open the big plans, if you have them, on page A-5, on the front elevation, it shows LED light fixture at the base of the monolith. And then it also does identify the pink and white channeling as metal. So it's on that one. And then it's on the drive-through canopy as well. And that's on page A5.1.

So, Liz, on 5.0, the call out at the right says LED light fixture at base of monolith. slash top of trim at monolith only. What is it doing? Is it highlighting the Duncan sign and the white and magenta stripes? Where is the LED lighting focused? It's down lit.

So it must be underneath that.

So it's downward. It's not upward.

Yes. That's what he said. It's not up lit there. However, on the drive-thru canopy, it does say LED fixture at top of DD orange accent beam and DT drive-thru canopy. And that's where that 18-foot candle is being seen.

You know, the thing when I look at it, when we were looking at signs along Ann Arbor Road, you know, we always got into a big conversation about no more than three colors. And they also didn't like white. So that's another discussion that I plan on introducing is that monument side, but we'll put that aside for a moment. But when I look at the color scale here, I come up with like six different colors on this building. There's gray, charcoal. pink, orange, and white. So that's an awful lot of colors.

Dennis, I don't recall the actual architectural building being restricted to three colors. No.

The signage. Right. It was mostly signage. But I'm just making the comment, it's a lot of colors. And you had raised the issue up about how it fits in with the surrounding area. Is this building, I can't picture it. I was trying to find it on my phone. Is this next to that building? what used to be the Midas muffler shop.

Yes, it is. It's being laid to the east.

And have you noticed here, we were having this big discussion about uplighting. When you travel westbound on Ann Arbor Road to see where those lights are, they're very blinding.

On the auto place next door?

On the old Midas muffler. Yeah. That's a side comment, but... I don't know. I threw that out for discussion. What do you think about the colors, the number of colors, and, of course, the architecture of it?

It's flashy. It's busy, right, to your point, Dennis. There is a lot to look at out here. And the product is great to taste. The coffee is incredible, right? Do they need all the flash? I think this stuff sells itself. And I'm not aware of another donut shop anywhere around here. So this is a nationwide name brand, right, that doesn't need all the pop and sizzle because it's a great product.

So your point is?

If we had less color, I would be okay with less color. I don't think we need as many flashy colors on there, right? And the white and the pink at the top on the north facade is too much. Maybe they can come up with a toned down proposal that is more consistent with what we do at Elk Car Wash. You know, with the Plymouth Township, you know, gray that came up.

Well, we had a similar discussion when Taco Bell was changing their look. And at first, the commission, there's a lot of colors in there, but they're muted. Yeah. And that was found to be acceptable. But what the initial proposal was, it was a little bit over the top. But it turned out nice. They still have their colors, but it's muted.

There's a way of toning it down, right? Maybe they can't come back to tone down proposal.

Would it be? More beneficial if the brick was not painted and left as is, which is more of a reddish earth tone existing brick. Would that make any impact? On the. Comments or colors?

I'll open it up to the commission.

Can I just add another color?

Yeah, yeah. Can I just read that red instead of the brown?

The red brick already exists on site.

I'm going to drive by there on the way home and look at what's surrounding, what's nearby in order to answer that question. It's just too hard to do it here and now, but.

Can you take out some of the striping, the pink and the white? That would reduce some of the colors. Is that something that can be done?

So from my understanding, many of the elements that you see, like the orange canopy, the striping on the monolith and also the DT tower, which is white metal and black, I'm sorry, pink metal. Those are elements that are branding elements from Dunkin Donuts, the brand or Dunkin, the brand. And those are kind of their direction with their stores going forward. presently. I know I've seen it in other new Dunkin stores around the regional area, so. That's that's to my knowledge of why those colors, why they're prevalent, so they're branding their banking colors is what exists on this tower structure. Yeah, they would, the main entry, or the monolith, they call it, at the front, that's like their spot to put their logo and their brand, to have those colors that are representative of their brand. And then again, as well, at the DT Tower, being that is, many restaurants today are drive-thru oriented.

And we understand that, you know, the colors of the branding that...

There might be some modifications that could be made to the white and pink to reduce the amount of color to it.

I have to imagine there's other styles that are part of approved branding as well.

I believe that gets... by store planning based on certain circumstances, but the general intent is to provide their brand standards to their locations.

You asked if it would be better to maintain the existing brick instead of painting it. The existing brick is orange, red, white, gray, kind of like a what we used to call used brick in the architecture business. I would not recommend you keep that existing. It just adds further to the... Colors. Color clash.

You're right.

Would the board be, or would the committee be... more acceptable if they dropped the white and magenta stripes going across the front? It seems like a relatively minor change that would tone things down a little bit.

The white and the magenta clashes, number one. It's distracting to look at, right? So the question is if you went with just magenta solid horizontally or no magenta or white, right? But just the white with magenta, it's way too busy. It distracts from looking at the names.

And it's in such a high traffic area too that we don't want to encourage distraction. To me, it's distracting.

Yeah, I'm looking, just doing a casual search at other Dunkin' Donuts locations. And I don't know if, you know, I know the branding evolves over time. We've had that with that car wash here. They originally presented us with colors that fit in well. They started in Florida, fit in well with that part of the country. And up here, it just would look out of place. So I'm looking here at a Dunkin Donuts facility that just says Dunkin. It looks like it's against a white background. And then you have DD at the other end of it. It doesn't look as busy as this one. And then there was another one here that I saw that also is not, it's a smaller, well, it's a smaller store. All that is, is it shows a coffee cup that says DD on it. So I don't know, are you, is it evolving or are there different branding styles that you could use rather than this one that are less colorful but still brand recognizable?

Yeah, my project manager is mentioning that doing a Google search, I mean, I don't know exactly which images you're looking at. So it's hard for me to know exactly if those are older projects that didn't have part of that brand where they're at presently. I think maybe from what I can gather, maybe it's some photos of other recent local projects that are...

It would be better to come in, yeah, and I alluded to that, the brand... You know, the branding evolves over a period of time. It depends on where that facility was built versus now. But if you could provide us with examples of recent buildings that you've done, I think that would help. That's what we asked the car wash people to do as well.

And they did it. They came back with a proposal. And Dennis, do you remember Geranimals from like 40 years ago? The clothes you could buy at Sears with the shirts kind of matched the pants? Okay. This is a classic granimal's opportunity, right? Because I see the brown on the sign, which probably represents the coffee, okay? And if you had one magenta stripe under the word Duncan, which might be the top of the coffee or the cream, right, that's on top, and the rest of that rectangle is brown, it wouldn't be so busy and flashy. That's my two cents.

Yeah, but we need to see, you know, they probably put a lot of focus groups together and all that kind of stuff, so...

But I think the brown represents coffee on this sign, if I'm not mistaken, so...

Is not donuts just coffee?

In this case, no. I think the coffee is just as good as the donuts.

The stripes or the sprinkles on the donuts?

Maybe.

Sprinkles, that's what they're selling. It could be.

So my project manager is informing me as well. We can provide some examples of other recent Dunkin' Donut rebranding projects, particularly regionally.

Because we want to recognize the importance of the branding look. Yeah. But we're also concerned about the look that we're trying to achieve on that corridor as well.

Dennis, this is the Duncan on Ann Arbor Road just east of 275?

Oh, yeah, but that's a gas station too.

Yeah, but you do see some of the same elements, but it's not as bright.

You know, if this was a Ford dealership, Tim would probably say no to those stripes. If it was a truck, I'd say no to the stripes, but let them come back with better scheme than what they've got on the colors. There's got to be somebody that knows how to match stuff better than what we're looking at.

And I'll ask the Commission, what do you think about the monument sign? I think some, probably most of you have not been here when we've agonized over colors on monument signs.

I think that's the next application. Isn't that the other, another item?

No, it's a different one. Oh, it's a different one. Okay, well.

SIGNS A SEPARATE ITEM.

YEAH.

YEAH, I DO SEE IT ON THE OTHER SIDE. I WAS LOOKING AT IT BECAUSE IT WAS ON THIS PLANE. OKAY. Liz, what are you looking for us, a decision today or can we postpone it for further information?

Yeah, I will postpone it for further information for them to get you some examples. They can also address our conditions as well and they can come back.

Okay.

Yeah.

We can tell you that we want the Dunkin' Donuts there because that's my favorite place to go in the morning, so.

Okay. I drink Dunkin' coffee every morning, so.

And it's the right side of the road. If you're heading out to the freeway and work, you're gonna make a right turn. So it's from a safety standpoint, it's a great location.

Yeah. My project manager has a good question. Would this be another in-person meeting like today, a formal meeting, or would this be an online communique?

It would be like this meeting.

Like this one? Okay.

And we can postpone it. How much time do you think you need? Three months, six months? You can come in sooner, it's just.

I won't necessarily know that until I start to get some answers for you to resolve some questions. I know we're trying to resolve the photometric presently to resolve that. That was our last item that we couldn't. quite finalized for planning.

Do you have a timeline as to when you would like to open?

My project manager is stating that possibly next month. I mean, that's hopeful. I think that's a good goal.

We can do three months, and if you can do it next month, that'd be fine.

Having more time certainly is beneficial, just because we don't know all the things that are in front of us, obstacles and workloads and things like that. But I think the goal is to try to get this done as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Okay. Well, if you think three months is sufficient time, and you can come in sooner.

Yeah, I think sooner is going to be the goal.

Do you have other questions for us?

I think my project manager's last question was just the meeting itself would be the approval meeting, right?

Well, hopefully.

Yeah.

If you do everything right. Do everything right. Yeah.

Absolutely. All right. Well, I think that pretty much answers our questions. And I imagine this is both the monument sign and the building.

I'm going to suggest the Planning Commission review the signage so they can give you comments back, but we'll also table that decision as well.

Okay, table it to the next meeting?

And I would suggest if you, as you're going through this process, you might want to speak to staff.

Would you be able to provide any comments for the monument sign presently?

Yeah, we can do that.

Yeah, it's a separate application, that's why.

Okay. We'll take care of this. Is there a motion to postpone for up to three months?

I make that motion.

Moved by Commissioner, okay. Moved by Commissioner Groth and, let me see, make sure I pronounce your name right. Krueger. Krueger, yeah. Moved by Commissioner Groth and supported by Commissioner Krueger to postpone application 2596 for up to three months. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Okay, now onto the Monument side. Do you want to lead off?

So this is a sign review for Duncan. They are proposing three wall signs, one ground sign, one menu board, and then two drive-thru operational kind of signage. We reviewed it under the signage because there is commercial messaging on the drive-thru can. IS 30 INCHES, WHICH NEEDS APPROVAL. ANYTHING LARGER THAN 16 INCHES NEEDS APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO THE FRONT FACADE The front facade signage would need approval to be 30 inches. And then on the east elevation, the Duncan symbol of the coffee cup is 36 inches. So if you have comments about the size of the signage, this is your time to comment on that.

That's a pretty substantial difference.

The proposed ground sign will replace the existing pole sign structure, but what they're proposing right now doesn't meet the ordinance because the setbacks approximately 9 feet in our sign area is based on how far setback you are. So 9 feet allows a maximum of 29 square feet of sign area, and right now they're proposing 40. So we told them that there's a condition on there that they would have to reduce the sign to meet that, move the sign back, which they said they weren't interested in doing, or go for a variance. The drive-through menu sign is in compliance with the sign ordinance. There is a note in the staff report that the menu board is not represented on the photometric form. Now I do have a correction on that. Section 28.8 actually doesn't apply to the ARC for signage, now the 28.8 does have in their general statement signage, but it's mostly what we talked about with St. John's, that up lighting fixtures that are coming. So we would take off the requirement for the signage to be on the photometric plan. But we do still think having them provide and meet the CCT, the 4,000 Kelvin, is appropriate for signage. And I note this because we have talked about specifically Henry Ford and the lighting being just too much. And while our ordinance doesn't have anything about illumination intensity, besides it just can't really bother traffic, pedestrians, or your properties, The photometric plan is just not required at this point, and it doesn't need to meet those at the property line, lumen, foot candles, and things like that for signage specifically. So that condition will change just to requiring them to meet the CCT requirement of $4,000. And then, as I said, we're calling it drive-through operational signage, so the clearance bar and speaker canopy. We asked them to reduce some visual clutter. They had two commercial messaging on the drive-through clearance bar, and they reduced that to just the drive-through on the top, and then the order, the speaker box is only 10 feet in height, so they are meeting the height requirements, but it does just say order here, which is pretty minimal, but the reason why I asked for the reduction of the visual clutter is because these will be visible from the south, through the properties to the south. Not that it's... that it's a bad visual, it's just you can see it from the south properties. Unlike, you know, normally when you see signage out in front, it's not normally in the rear. But since our recommendation is changing to you tabling it, I open it up to you guys to provide the applicants some comments about it.

Well, we are concerned about lighting the sign issues, impact residential areas. One sign that's right here behind the Burger King, we were concerned about the house next to it and that light. So we are concerned about lighting seeping into the residential areas.

And I am concerned about the size of the sign. I think it's pretty excessive.

What are the thoughts about the white background? About what? The monument sign with the white background.

That's a question I don't know.

We have pretty much a new crew.

One thing that we had an email or correspondence about recently with the owner was that the lights would be turned off at end of business hours, which would be 8 p.m. for the Dunkin' Donuts, or Dunkin', pardon me.

It would be turned off what?

At 8 p.m. At 8 p.m. End of business.

But in the wintertime, When it's dark sooner, is that going to impact the residential?

The residential is, it's still there, but like directly behind this site is a commercial. And then there's one house like kind of kitty cat corner to it. There is a lot of existing landscaping between the two properties. But I do understand your concern. Their exterior lighting is all downlit. And they do actually have two lighting violations on their property right now, which we asked them to fix, which they are doing that with this. And they have provided, I believe on the site plan, that lighting will be shut off at end of business, which is part of the ordinance. It is required to be shut off.

Yeah, I'd have to drive through that site and look at those homes. I didn't look at it in that respect.

And their previous, their photometric plan does show that it does meet the property line foot candles and things like that. So they're not, the lighting's not going off into other properties.

The signs just seem big. The letters seem big.

They are.

If we've got requirements of 2018, nine square feet right and this sign is 33.66 it's off by about 15 just slim it down it should be compliant and we have these specs for a reason here right if these guys are too big then you're gonna have someone else come in it's gonna be too big and then everyone's gonna be up signing and you guys put over a decade of time into getting it to look copacetic and it looks phenomenal

We need to be careful about not setting a precedent.

Yes. Now, the monument sign itself, right, with the white background, it's too wide open. It needs to change. I don't know what it needs to change to, but it should be condensed with something on the trim to soften it. We did this without car wash, right? And we got to a good place. But even the monument that signs 7 feet tall, right? It's not obstructing view of people pulling in or out because it's inset, but it just seems really, really tall for a monument.

So those comments help any.

Yeah, I mean, comments help. I think we're going to be another.

It's a no-go with the white trim going to infinity and beyond.

That's why previous commissioners was never hot about white.

So the size of the sign is, we're focused primarily on the monument side. That's the sign that the size is focused on, correct?

Well, this one should be compliant to the standard, so it would skinny it down, right? It might not be so tall. The one that's on the north facade, right, where it's 33 point some square feet of the Duncan, that's got to get down to the 29 if that's the spec.

The monument sign is required to be 29 square feet. The

the wall sign that duncan does meet this it does it does meet it all right but the except for the size of the lettering is too big yeah well let's get the letters so it's compliant right so the square footage is coats which let's just get it to match and then we can look at it of the right way the way it was set up years ago and then we can compare it and bring our drawings of what we see tonight which i don't think anybody's thrilled with we're thrilled with the product we want them here but we want the signs to to mesh from a consistency standpoint.

I think we're heading into the same thing, the postponement. Yeah, the same three-month or sooner thing would work.

Yeah, up to three months.

Up to three months. Do you have enough feedback?

Yeah, I mean, I imagine there will be some agenda minutes at the end.

It's also available, you know, online. You can look on YouTube. So you can, your project manager can also, you know, I don't know if she's looking at it now or whatever. She can look at it and review it.

Understood. Yeah, I know that my project manager mentioned briefly the way you guys were talking. The monument signs, the background being white, that is brand standard, typically. So that's what I would imagine that they would want to stick with. But we'll have to work within those comments.

Liz, also just an item on your wall signage. Number three, the quantity of wall signs. We've got east, north, and west elevations. And it says that's based on the separate public means of ingress, egress. You just want to make sure the east elevation The floor plan shows an east entrance. Some of the elevations, it's not called out that way. I think it may just be a mistake in how they colored in the drawings, but I just want to double make sure we're not giving these folks more than they deserve because there's other businesses along Ann Arbor Road that would love to have a sign on the side of the building and they can't because they don't have an entrance.

Yeah, I do believe there are doors on both sides of the side elevation, and then the front has the access as well to that.

Any other?

I have a question for staff. So I know there's a lot of people that walk up and down that road. Is there anything that can be done to protect pedestrians walking across those ingress and egress to the site? I don't know. There might not be. That's what I'm asking.

Like coming from Ann Arbor Road? Yes, yes.

Or crossing the access drives?

Crossing the access drives. We could recommend the hatching, the crosswalk hatching again right there. That is in the public right-of-way, that area. So it might be something we need to ask engineering, make sure that's okay. But we could.

I've experienced issues myself in that area. People coming in and out of the drive-throughs and stuff.

Yeah. I'll check with engineering and when they come back, we can. Okay. Thank you.

That's another point of trying to reduce the number of curb cuts where we can. There's not much you can do at a drive-through, but, you know, we try to eliminate them where we can, but it's hard. All right, are we ready for a motion or is there a further discussion?

I'll make a motion that we postpone this for up to three months.

Okay.

Support.

Move by Commissioner Groth and supported by Commissioner Boyd to postpone application 2597 for up to three months. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Okay.

And again, you can contact staff with any other questions or guidance that you think you need.

Liz, will there be comments? Will you be sending us comments basically?

Yes. Yeah. I'll send them out tomorrow.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. You folks have been sitting there. Is there anything you wanted to talk to us about or?

Yes.

Okay. Well, come up to the podium because it's recorded.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission. My name is Kimberly Webb Horsley. I'm a resident of Plymouth Township. I'm here with my son, Amari Austin Horsley, from University of Detroit Jesuit High School. He's here as part of his U.S. history, U.S. government assignment, just to see the government at work. And I just thank you so much. This has been very illuminating for both he and I, and we've enjoyed our time here. We just thank you for welcoming us.

Thank you for taking time out. Thank you for coming. Hope you learned a lot. Hopefully it helps.

You're going to be a planning commissioner when you get older?

Don't know about that, but thank you again. I appreciate it. Thank you for coming. Good luck with your studies. Okay, the monthly planning report, did anybody have questions on that?

I'm happy to take questions on it if you have any.

All right. Any questions? No. Okay. I'll just take a minute at this point to welcome back Denise. Some of you may not have met Denise in the past, but Laura Simpson has retired, I understand. So are you the permanent replacement or were you? Temporarily into her position as . Temporary, permanent. Okay. Good. Thank you. Commissioner, comments? Anyone wishes to comment on anything?

I don't know how closely you all have been following this, but actually tomorrow in Lansing will be the first review of these bills, SB 5529 to 5532, and 5581 to 5585, which would largely remove local planning commissions from being able to review and approve applications for homes, particularly homes that are not single family homes. I wrote to folks today with my concerns about this legislation. I would just ask that we all keep in mind this, and if you oppose this legislation, which in my view is totally inappropriate for a township like Plymouth Township, might be very applicable for some of our densely settled older communities like Detroit and Grand Rapids. But for Plymouth Township, it's completely, in my opinion, inappropriate. And so I just ask everybody keep in mind and watch this. And if you have an opportunity to express your views, whether you agree with my view or have a different view of your own, I would encourage you to take that opportunity. And if anybody's watching on the video, any of the public, same comment would apply to you. Please become aware of this. Understand the implications it could have for Plymouth Township going forward. That's my only comments.

Yeah, and I also read recently that this is a similar situation that's happening in Illinois. and that some of the suburbs that surround Chicago are thinking or taking steps toward suing this approach for housing. All right. And any other comments? I had one.

Yeah, OK. Just want to reiterate. Chuck meets with the HOA presidents. He does it annually, right? And we made, it's in the minutes correctly, which is good to make sure we reach out to them. I don't know that the HOA presidents have been reached out to. They have. They have, okay. All right, fantastic. Just want to make sure that had happened.

Thank you, Liz, for making that, all of those things to make the public aware of our master plan. Make sure that everybody has an opportunity to provide input.

I do know the HOA presidents had a meeting And they were going to discuss the master plan, so.

They were? Yeah. Good.

Good.

Yeah. And also appreciate the efforts to move the linkage to the master plan is on the front page, where before I think you had to, I followed that. I think you had to take three or four clicks to get to it. So now it's more a little more user friendly. So I have a question. Is Laura still going to be with us, our main point person, or what's the relationship now with?

She's still around. She'll still be here when we need her.

Oh, okay.

But so, yeah, she's still around.

So questions should be directed to you. Yes. Okay, and then you will.

Yeah, and if we need Laura, I'm in constant communication with her. So, yeah.

Great. Okay, thank you.

I do, if I may, if that's okay. We do need to possibly have a work session in June, especially with Duncan. If they come back in June, that means our agenda jumped to six items for four. and we need to start a discussion on data centers. Our moratorium is going to be up soon, so we need to start that in June. And then it's been requested, again, by the gentleman that wanted to do the childcare facility on Ann Arbor Road in the city. They have requested for us to bring it back to discussion. So we would have to do that as well.

So I did see the email. I think... So we would not be discussing this at our regular June meeting?

We can. We absolutely can. It just probably would be a longer meeting.

Well, and I believe that there are two public hearings at that meeting. Yes, there are two. So you never know how those public hearings go.

Yeah.

I would suggest it be a separate meeting.

Yes. I do think it should be a separate meeting just because data centers, we haven't talked about it yet. And then we do have new members with the child care facility. So we really want to restart that conversation as well. And we might be looking into short-term rentals at that work session as well. It's been requested of us to look into it. We're just starting our research on it. Are we talking about Airbnbs? Yes.

So I guess I would...

And the Land Division Act that was just passed that will take... Doesn't take effect until next year.

Part of it's already in effect. What's the executive summary of that?

So currently, the allowable number of lot splits on a parent parcel is four, and that is going up to 10. So it... depending on the way that the township can kind of manage growth or development the way they see fit is determining the minimum lot size. So we wanted to bring this conversation up now before it goes fully into effect so that we determine the kind of growth that the planning commission would like to see in the township.

Those that are out there.

Is that part of the nine bill thing or is that, it seems like it's the same goal.

That already passed. Yes. This one passed. This one has passed. It goes into effect, I think it's March of next year.

Yeah. So part of it's already in effect and then the part that will have the most of those tense what's happening is in March of next year. But at this session, we would go into further depth about what this means and kind of what steps we would, you guys would potentially be taking.

And do we still have discretion at this point?

My understanding is they could come in and subdivide into 10 lots and not need approval for planning commission. But if they did like a cluster housing agreement or a residential unit development or PUD, they still would need your approval. But this kind of gives them the opportunity to go up to 10 lots without approval. Without approval, we would still look at it administratively.

But the way this can be regulated is the minimum lot size based off of the zoning district. So that still applies. So if you have a 40-acre lot and the minimum lot size is 10, you still can only have four lot splits.

So that's... That's the part that we need to...

Yes, that's the part that we want to kind of... put on the agenda before the rest of the act goes into effect.

I'm not sure what our role is in this because when I was first on the planning commission, all lot splits went to the commission, but it was a pretty black and white kind of a decision. So we decided just to have the supervisor do it. Is that still going to be the approval process?

Unless we change it, but yes, that's how it's done right now, yeah.

I'm not crazy about the idea of one person, especially an elected person, having that authority in a community, because to me, that's very far reaching. especially with what you're talking about.

But there's still minimum lot sizes, right? Yeah, as long as we check minimum lot sizes, engineering does their review, so they are still required to meet the ordinance. And then we write up a letter of review, kind of like a memo, to the supervisor. He reviews it and then pretty much signs and approves it, yeah.

That's why the commission stepped out of it, because it was just... It really was no decision to be made as long as it met the legal requirements.

Well, with my recent experience with politics, I just want to make sure we're protected.

I mean, that's as honest as I can say it. I'm sorry.

I guess I'm not following what discussion needs to be had. If there's minimum lot sizes already prescripted, What more is there to talk about? I guess I'm missing the discussion.

Let's say RH1 minimum lot size of an acre, but you have a lot that's 30 acres. You could split that up to 10 times. So it would increase the density available before you could split it four times. So you could only have four new houses, now you could have 10 new houses in that area.

Oh, I see, okay.

So, but we can get into more depth and put together a presentation, maybe some visuals to make it, lots of what's hard to deal with and there's some nuances, so we can talk about that at the...

the next meeting if that's okay. So perhaps you can look at your schedules and see what time works for staff and then you could email us with those times or put a survey monkey out or however way you want to do it and set up a date.

We typically, we have work sessions the first Wednesday of the month. If that works for everyone, we're available to do it. Okay. I believe, Tim, you suggested the 10th as well, which we can be available for that as well. So it really, we just would want the commission, everyone here for these discussions because they are some pretty big topics.

So you're suggesting the first Wednesday of June? Yes, it'd be June 3rd.

Works for me. That works for me. Bill, is that what?

I got to work on getting a, I've got a conflict. Yeah, I got to work on seeing if I can resolve it, but.

What about Dan and Ashley? The third works for me. Okay. Okay, I'll check with Stuart. I'll send him an email.

What could work, Dennis, if I had late approval, right? If we started at 7 instead of 6.30, right? I know I could be here by 7.30, best case.

7, you said, or 7?

If you started at 7, I could be here by 7.30, somewhere in the middle, join you in process. That would work.

That work for everybody? Yeah. Okay, 7? 7 o'clock. 7 o'clock on the 3rd. Okay. Okay. Do you know what the public hearings are for that mid-June meeting?

When they are?

No, what's the?

Oh, the special land uses.

Oh, they're special land uses.

They're special. One's for a dance, both in the industrial district. One's a dance studio. She's currently in the city. She wants to move to the township. And then one's a driving school.

Car driving, not truck.

A car driving, yeah, car driving.

I will not be here for that meeting.

Oh, the mid-June meeting? Yeah. Okay. Well, the public hearings are the most fun. They are. We're out of town. We're out of town. Okay, anything else from anybody?

Yes, we had talked at various times about having a meeting like a for add or whatever you call it on the master plan where we just have like an open house for people to come in and comment. I think Liz, you were going to check with Commissioner or Supervisor Kermy as to what his perspective on that was.

Yep, Laura is actually going to discuss it with him tomorrow. So we'll have an answer on that open house tomorrow.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Okay. Is there a motion to adjourn at 8.16?

Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn at 8.15 p.m.

Moved by Commissioner Boyden, supported by Commissioner Callahan to adjourn at 8.16. All in favor?