Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Plymouth Township Planning Commission meeting will come to order at 630. And if Secretary, please, or Vice Chair, call.

Yes. Dennis Cebulski. Here. Tim Boyd. Here. Stuart Popp. He's on his way. Sandy Gross. Here. Dan Callahan. Here.

Bill Hikes. Here. Ashley Krueger. She's excused. And do we have any changes to the agenda? I have none at my end.

Mr. Chair, I move we approve the agenda as submitted for June 17th, 2026. Second.

Moved by Commissioner Boyden and supported by Commissioner Grouse to approve the agenda as submitted. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. And there are no minutes to approve, but we will have them at the next meeting. Is there anyone here that wishes to make a comment on a non-agenda item? Yes. Trustee Stewart.

Good evening, John Stewart, 14956 Maplewood. Same home address and same law office on Main Street for the past 42 years. It's been a good day and I want to keep it that way. At 7.30 this morning, there was a joint meeting of the city and township with John Bezuvis and Chuck Kermy. There was an unemotional... listing of projects, growth and development in the city and township. This was sponsored by the Chamber. There isn't anything we can't figure out. I wanna ask you to continue your work. I'm here to say thank you for the work you've done on the master plan. We need to go onward and forward. I reminded them that all across Michigan, a week from tomorrow night, I have invited thousands of people for a patriotic band concert in Kellogg Park. Same music as the Detroit Symphony plays at Greenfield Village. Same style as the Boston Pops. Same conductor for the past 44 years, and yes, Mr. Chairman, Carl Battishill has a bachelor's and master's degree from the University of Michigan. The patriotic symphony concert is a week from Saturday night. We have a chance to show our positive culture. I happen to have a strong belief that a lot of that includes good music. So, it's my privilege to serve on the Board of Trustees and sit next to a lady who is meticulous, as well as a wonderful person, and her name is Sandra Groth. I want to thank you for your work here tonight, and end with the positive words of we need to go onward and forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Okay. And moving on to old business application 2493, the Ann Arbor Road corridor conditional rezoning extension. Turn it over to the planner.

Thank you, Chairman Cebulski. Liz Hart with McKenna. This is a, if you remember at our last meeting, we extended this conditional rezoning extension request. We tabled it to get some feedback from the township lawyer. And after discussions, we came to the conclusion that in order to be able to deny this extension request, you would need a cause, findings of facts of why you're denying it. And as staff, has reviewed this, we do not believe there is a cause for denial. So that is why we are recommending that you approve the extension tonight. And I'll also let the township attorney answer any questions that you have regarding this. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other commissioners have questions?

Not a question, but more of a comment. We keep delaying, delaying, delaying. This is an extension of 90 days. Why not extend it for a longer period of time just so we do not continue to bring it in here? We have no control over the court. The applicant has no control of the court.

I think that was proposed last month when we talked about it. I wouldn't object to having something that's up to the applicant six months or more. Is the applicant here? Would you object to a longer extension? No, I think that would be six months. Six months. All right. Any other comments from the commission? No. Our attorney, do you have any comments you want to make regarding this?

No, as it relates to the proposal to amend it from 90 days to six months, 180 days, that seems reasonable given that we are waiting for it to be reassigned and reviewed by a judge in Wayne County, and that can take considerable time. Okay.

All right. So is there a motion for an extension of six months?

Mr. Chair, relative to PC application number 2493, I recommend that we extend the expiration date by 180 days to expire on what I guess would be December 16th of 2026. I'll second it.

Moved by Commissioner Boyden, supported by Commissioner Ikes to grant 180-day extension to application 2493. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Good luck. Next is application 2576, a conditional rezoning along Ann Arbor Road. And I'm ready for the planner's report.

Thank you, Chairman Cebulski. So this is a application for a conditional rezoning on vacant land at the corner of Ann Arbor Road and McClungfield Road. The property is a 4.25 acre parcel, and they're requesting a conditional rezoning from the current zoning of R1H, one family residential district, to R1, one family residential district. They are proposing 13 lots, including 13 single residential family units. Back in November of 2025, the Planning Commission decided to table the application for six months to give the applicant time to address comments. And then at last month, we did an extension request for six months, but they were coming back in June. In your report, you have a little site background. There were previously two proposed conditional rezonings for this site, and your page two just goes over them and how they're a little different from this one. So going over the conditional rezoning review, criteria one is the request in accordance with the basic intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. From our findings, we found that the use does remain single family residential and the zoning does not intensify the use category, only the density. Purpose statements for the R1H and the R1 are identical, demonstrating that the proposed district supports the same intended residential character. All permitted and special uses remain unchanged, ensuring no new or incompatible land uses are introduced, and the rezoning facilitates harmonious plan development consistent with the stated ordinance purpose. Criteria two, will the proposed amendment further the comprehensive plan goals and policies of the township, and is the proposed amendment consistent with the future land use map of the master plan? So we found that the master plan emphasizes preserving and enhancing positive living environments and the project does deliver low impact compatible single family homes in a predominantly residential area. And the future land use map calls for one to three units per acre for this zoning district. The proposed 3.29 units per acre is slightly above The above that, but still within the low to intermediate density intent, especially given the adjacent to the major roadways and the existence of similar smaller lot developments nearby. We believe traffic impacts will be minimal. 13 units is far below the allowed units that would be allowed in the R1. And the adjacent roads, Ann Arbor Road and McClumpa, are designed for moderate to high traffic. And again, the project does advance aging in place goals. At least 10 of the units will be single story ranches, directly supporting master plan directives. The parcel's location at a signalized or high capacity intersection makes it appropriate for slightly higher residential density. And then a tree survey has been completed. And in the last recommendation, it was to offer better alignment with the master plan environmental goals. And I'll go over that in a later section. And they have increased their tree preservation. Specifically, there are 405 trees that have been inventoried, and the tree survey does break down the proportion of each species present. And from the revised plan, they are preserving 24 additional trees now. Criteria three is the proposed zoning consistent with the zoning classification of surrounding land. We found that the project's design, specifically the detached single-family homes, mirrors the existing surrounding development pattern. Although the R1 district can allow a greater number of units, the applicant voluntarily limits the site to 13 units, making the actual density less intense than permitted and supporting compatibility. And in addition, the New England corners across the intersection is very similar comparison development and housing as their detached condominiums. The density for that area is 2.99 dwelling units per acre. And the visual and architectural character are similar to what they're proposing. And this supports the idea that small clustered single family sites are appropriate at this intersection. criteria for could all requirements in the proposed zoning classification be compiled with on the subject parcel? We found that all stand dimensional standards of our one district including the lot area with setbacks height and coverage are being met or exceeded. There's a In the past meeting in November, it was recommended that stormwater detention be redesigned to allow greater open space, a pedestrian network be added, and the tree protection be improved. They did increase the stormwater detention. They took out one lot next to it, so that will remain open space. They're also proposing visitor parking in that area. They did add a pedestrian network, not along Ann Arbor Road, but they did it internally and along McClumpa. So the next step is for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees, either approval, denial, or table the application. Staff is recommending approval, is recommending the Planning Commission recommend approval to the Board of Trustees based on the following findings of facts. The proposed rezoning aligns with the intent of the zoning ordinance to protect the public health, safety and welfare and to promote orderly land use. The applicant has proposed a number of voluntary conditions to further this intent. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the 2015 master plan. The rezoning does not grant the applicant any unfair advantage. The proposed development will still be required to meet all applicable zoning design and site plan requirements. The amendment will not result in unlawful exclusionary zoning and the proposed zoning will be consistent with the zoning classification of adjacent land. I do want to go over the conditions that they have proposed, specifically number five. It states instead of building a gazebo in the open space area east of the detention pond, they will work with township staff to identify recreational opportunities in the community for contribution. Now this isn't very specific and it doesn't actually really relate to zoning. Now this is a nice gesture of them. but it may be something that we table this application for them to come back with more specifics regarding to this condition. And I just wanna note that condition number four, while they are offering that, specifically in the landscape section under buffering and screening, I do interpret this section, I believe it's 26.2, where it states, that if the abutting residential district is different in scale or character, that they do have to put in a landscape buffer. So they're already required to put in a landscape buffer. This is just an extra condition, but they would still be required to meet that buffering. Otherwise, the other three conditions we do not have a problem with. They're stating only a total of 13 lots. They're committing not to having driveway access directly to McClumpa Road and Ann Arbor Road, which I believe that means driveway access to the individual units, not specifically to the site itself, which it does have an access road into the site from Ann Arbor and McClumpa. And then they're committing to ranch-style homes and at least 10 of them being ranch-style homes. That's my presentation. I know the applicant is here if you have additional questions for them. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Any applicant is here?

Hi, Uldi Vittens, Vittens Engineering, representing Bondalee-Hosari Express General Construction, Inc. And they're located in Livonia, Michigan. And I'd like to thank the planner for the presentation. It was very thorough. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer.

Okay. We'll open it up for discussion. Any questions? Commissioner Graf.

I see that you are proposing, there are 13 lots. You've made it 13 lots based on the size of the development, correct?

Yes, you know, what we did is, you know, we presented a couple of parallel plans. You know, we looked at the existing zoning, and I believe we could get six, seven lots, seven lots with the existing zoning, in which we would have actually preferred because, you know, we wouldn't have had to build any roads. We wouldn't have had to put in stormwater management. You know, we could have done it on a land division basis. but the big drawback was the State Highway Department said that they're not gonna give us any curb cuts out onto Ann Arbor Road. We'd like to see if the township would help us get a reduction in the speed limit on Ann Arbor Road, but because it's currently 55 miles an hour, You know, they said no to individual driveway access out to Ann Arbor Road. So then we had to look at, and then we also talked to Wayne County and they, you know, if we did install an internal roadway, which we're proposing, you know, they wanted the road drive approach to line up with the driveway at the church on the east side of McClumpa. So that put us the road right in the middle of our site. And, you know, so we had pretty limited options. You know, we would have preferred to, you know, develop it under the current zoning. You know, we wouldn't have had to, you know, our costs of building roads, you know, much higher than if we could have just access to Ann Arbor Road and McClumpa.

Are you finding your dealings with Wayne County to be productive, and I'm asking you that because I know there are issues with the condition of the road. People, you know, talking to Wayne County and trying to get them to work with some citizens to make some changes in that area. So I'm just curious to know, do you feel that you've established a good working relationship with Wayne County, or are you just?

Yeah, I know the permit engineer pretty well. I knew him before he was in the position that he is at Wayne County. You know, we both worked on some joint projects for an architect in Dearborn.

Okay.

And he seems fairly helpful.

Good. We might want to look at that name just as a possibility for some of the concerns that residents have.

Other comments, Bill? Do you have anything? I do. Thank you. I knew you would.

Yep. So start with safety, okay? The road in that intersection has always been dangerous. It was dangerous when I had to cross McLaughlin. It was a dirt road when I was in high school, okay? There was no light. There was no blinking light. It was a stop sign. And there was no light even at Ann Arbor Road intersection with Beck. People are doing 70 miles an hour there. So getting the speed to decrease is a must, regardless of whether it's 13 lots, 10 lots, or six lots, right? And the reason it's dangerous is because there's a drain and there's a low spot. You cannot see what's coming from the west. There's a utility. piece of architecture there that perfectly blocks the view no matter how close you are to the intersection. So this intersection is latent with the safety issue. The Michigan Senate candidate Stella Lansky and I myself and Pam Stopper actually met with the police department about two months ago and we all shared our views on what can be done at this intersection, right? So it's a problem. We need the state's help and That's the first thing, the first point I want to make is that something has to be done to cut the speed coming from west to east because it's a dip and you really can't see what's upon you until it's upon you. The safety of the trees is also of paramount importance. I applaud the fact you're saving 24 more, but my goodness, I think we were losing about 93% the last time we looked at the plan and maybe another 6% with 24 trees on 405 gets us to 13%. It's still woefully behind and below where it needs to be to maintain the character of the township and a buffer to the neighborhoods that are there to the south, to the north, as well as to the west, Woodlawer. The proposal in the deck we have had the 13 units, which has the McClumper Road access, which decimates the existing trees. Sheet C-1, which is the second sheet at the back of the deck we had, had a 10-unit proposal which still had the two entrances, one on McClumper Road, which also decimates trees. There was a six unit proposal that was in there that actually has two lots that come onto McClumper Road, which is consistent with the housing that's on that side, and four that would go on to, I think, Ann Arbor Road. I would love to see what happens to the trees with the 10 unit and the six unit, right? Because we do want the ranch housing. Our survey and residents are clamoring for ranch units because this is an aging population. And the execution that was done diagonally in the southeast corner had a commons area in the middle. It was really well done. So I'm still very perplexed with the improvement in trees, which is nice, but still nowhere near enough to maintain what's there and to satisfy the residents that took their turn speaking at the podium approximately two, three months ago, the last time we were in here. So those are my comments.

Okay.

Thank you. First, I commend the applicant for coming forward with a plan that is significantly better than the other two plans that we had previously rejected. I also think that the planner makes a valid point about this development at this density being comparable to New England Corners getting cornered across. New England Corners is a very nice development if you can actually get back in there. I have concerns. This is kind of looking forward into our discussions about the master plan. We have to prioritize the retention of our natural tree stands and natural spaces within the remainder of the township. This proposal removes most of the trees on a heavily treed piece of land. I suspect this might well be the most heavily treed piece of land available for residential development in Plymouth Township that's left in the entire township. It's also interesting that in this particular case, and again, I commend the applicant, they had a certified arborist actually do the tree survey, which has been a weakness with some of the other applications we've seen in recent years where the arborist was not certified. So the tree survey carries a lot more weight and accuracy, but about 85% of the trees on that site are categorized as fair to good condition. That is a much, much higher percentage of trees in that condition versus the typical tree survey we see in the township. So what I take away from that is that 85% of the trees should be preserved under an ideal situation. I think, obviously that is not the case with this level of density. So, I'm really, you know, I'm troubled here. I also want to make another point, which is that in addition to the comment from the planner about trying to clarify condition five of the applicant's offer. The applicant has stated that the MDOT in Wayne County will not approve individual driveways onto Ann Arbor Road. If we were able to get individual driveways approved, this could probably be developed as a traditional single family development with six lots going onto Ann Arbor Road. Now, we've been told that MDOT won't do that. We've been told that Wayne County won't approve it. But unfortunately, I've not seen any written proof of that. Now, again, I don't want to cast dispersions in this applicant, but in the past, we've had other applicants make statements like this without verification. And in the end, it's turned out that they weren't true. In this case, I suspect it probably is true, but I want to see it in writing before I approve this. And then the last comment I have is that We've made progress in Plymouth Township in recent years about addressing different housing types. We approved a number of subdivisions with a much higher level of density than I personally would have preferred, but they speak to offers in the township. We've approved proposals or have them under discussion to have more first floor plans. But I want to know what about our traditional single family zoning in the township? That was the number one request from the survey that we had with 800 applicants. was a professional for single family homes. And most of them said single family homes on larger lots. There's very little land left for residential development in Plymouth Township. And my question is, are we missing an opportunity to address that part of the township housing need? So the bottom line on this is I'm having a very difficult time making up my mind because I see a lot of pluses to this, but I also see drawbacks. But at the very least, I would like to see in writing from MDOT that they will not allow us to put driveways onto Ann Arbor Road.

That's MDOT and or Wayne County?

And or Wayne County. Or also it's been suggested that the township traffic engineer might allow that. So any of those three would satisfy my concern that we actually... get proof. And again, it's not an aspersion on you. It's just a history that we've been in other situations like this where we haven't had the written proof of statements that are made by developers.

Yeah, if I could clarify that, Wayne County just has jurisdiction on McClumper Road.

Okay.

So it's just STEMDOT that has jurisdiction on Ann Arbor Road.

Thank you.

And we did have a meeting with... Andrea Jones, she's with the Taylor Service Center and her traffic engineer. And, you know, this was discussed. In fact, you know, with the layout, we're not even guaranteed our driveway approach out to Ann Arbor Road. You know, they didn't commit to that. You know, they said they would consider it, but they weren't ecstatic. So we may not even get any you know, but with the layout, you know, we do, we would have a T turnaround, which would, you know, satisfy the fire department as far as, you know, getting access. And so we may end up with just an access out to, um, a clump of road. We're still not guaranteed. And if they do approve the drive approach to Ann Arbor, it's going to be just a right into the site and a right out. There won't be any left turn there. So, you know, people going westbound on Ann Arbor Road will be able to drive in or people can leave going westbound.

So you could just have them send us a letter to that that summarizes that discussion.

Yeah, and we can get a letter. I can... contact Andrea Jones and see if the traffic consultant can write something up.

Okay. I also have a question for our attorney. It seems to me like that would be a taking where if the MDOT would not allow us to develop that lot, that piece of land with traditional driveways onto Ann Arbor Road, is that an illegal taking or is that a reasonable position for MDOT to take?

I mean, they would have to substantiate it with facts as it relates to, like, I think a couple people referenced the 55 mile an hour speed limit, traffic counts, things of that nature, but if it's properly substantiated, I don't think it rises to a taking. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Pomp, do you have anything?

To me, it seems like a well thought out plan. I understand about the trees, and I do No, that is a heavily wooded lot. I mean, I think something is gonna get built there. It just is the way the world is now. I think the fact that most of these will be ranches is a good thing. I think to be able to have new homes in Plymouth Township is to me generally a great thing. So I, I don't know. I think it's pretty good.

Commissioner Callahan? Same feelings in regards to the 10 homes that are the single story. I don't understand why the Ann Arbor Road, 55 mile an hour, is that high right there in that area.

There's been a lot of discussion in the past about the 55. Some people would like to see it. reduced down to 50 or 45 once you get to the western part all the way to the Washtenaw County line because there are more residential egresses and ingresses along that way. That particular site is somewhat dangerous because there's a light there and a lot of school buses go in and out of there. So that, you know, that's a real concern. Plus there's a curve further west of that intersection. I am sensitive to trees, but I've noticed in the landscape sheets that you've provided that most of those trees are black locusts. And my understanding is that black locusts can be somewhat of an invasive species. Are you able to speak to that?

Yeah, I can. It's a tree that, you know, from down south and it is, you know, all trees are good, but it is classified in Michigan as an invasive species. I know after the last planning commission meeting we had when we got tabled. In my feed, news feed, I got a pop-up that in California, they were cleaning out a park that had these black locusts also. And, you know, because they were trying to get some native trees in there. And in our landscape plan, we are, you know, any trees that are not exempt that, you know, that are good trees, you know, we, you know, and if we're cutting them, we're, you know, we have a replacement plan for that. So... And, you know, I think, you know, and it takes time for the trees to grow, but we, you know, we'd like to, you know, get as many trees planted. You know, we have the street trees as part of the landscape plan. We're going to have four trees that the homeowners can decide where on the lot they want them planted, you know, so we can, you know, work with the homeowners and the homeowners landscape architect when the homes are getting built to, you know, get some additional trees in there. So we're trying to work with that. We do have another bigger area that we eliminated the one lot next to the detention pond. The pond itself we're trying to minimize so we can again save some additional trees. And I didn't send Liz any photographs, but there's a couple of sites that use terracing, which minimizes the size of the pond. So they're like these mini retaining walls. And I took some pictures of some other developments in the township. And I've got them on my phone if anybody would want to take a look at them. The one site I took pictures of, they had a fountain in there. I've tried to get fountains in detention ponds for years and years and Wayne County doesn't approve that anymore because their justification is that the fountain stirs up the sediments and the purpose of the detention pond is to have the sediments settle. you know, and then they can be taken out at some point, you know, if it's part of a maintenance, you know, plan, either in the forebay or, so, you know, it is, it is a terrorist and, you know, that, you know, that, that'll add to the, you know, and it's more expensive to build that kind of detention pond, but it looks, looks very nice.

So did you get pictures of the ones that are along Plymouth road near Hagerty? Yeah. There's a couple of condo developments out there. Right. Yeah. Those are, are very attractive. Yeah, I'm familiar, you can show it.

That's the terrace thing that they have. So we're proposing that type of detention. But again, they don't allow those fountains anymore.

But my understanding is the fountains help

They help aerate, but they don't.

And the mosquito population. So I guess you trade one good thing. One issue for another. Right. So Bill, you had indicated you'd like to see more trees, but how do you justify that? How many more would make you happy?

Better trees? I'm all for. I don't know. I mean, the residents that are north i'm sure would like to have quite a bit more on the property line area right to try and make it at least a period of what it is right and i do agree with mr pop right something needs to go there the question is what's the right something that has ranch units okay that has as many trees as possible that's safe and i think that the The traffic piece is the biggest piece here that has to get solved, because you could put a turning circle in there just west of where that drain is to slow all this traffic down, okay? And that might be the game changer that the developer needs and the existing residents on McClumper Road need as well.

A turning circle where?

Just a little west of where that drain is, right, that separates Woodlawer North from this piece of property.

Along Ann Arbor Road?

Yeah. Yeah, that would certainly cut the speed down, right? It would help the school buses that are going to Pioneer, right? It would help people that are trying to turn from McClumper Road towards Pioneer or go across to get to Salem, Canton and Plymouth High School, right? It has a cascading effect of safety for all drivers in all directions, regardless of the time of day. And I think that would then open up the eyes of what this could be. Maybe they let driveways on Ember Road, maybe they don't. I don't know, but that traffic problem has to get solved. And it's the key block to the play of getting the right proposal into the end zone through, I think, the Planning Commission.

Yeah, I think that that would be a very long-term wait because the residents waited a very long time to get that light there. And you know, the way MDOT works, They budget way in the future, and there have been issues that people want immediate resolution, and it may take two to three years. Look at Ford Road, what they've been trying to do. They've been talking about that for years.

Decades.

Yes, decades. But it's a good point. I'm not making light of what your suggestion is, but it's a very long-term solution.

Those solutions do tend to get sped up the way the city of Northville did at Seven Mile Road and Sheldon, right? They put that turning circle in because all the housing that was coming in. It was an end game. So it wasn't upon the developer to go make his case and solve this on his own. It was he was getting help from the city of Northville, right? So it was a joint need and a joint want for overall safety as well as the development. And maybe that's the partnership that's needed here that we can figure out. WHAT THE RIGHT PATH IS. WHAT THE RIGHT PATH IS. I DON'T KNOW THE RIGHT ANSWER I DON'T KNOW THE RIGHT ANSWER I DON'T KNOW THE RIGHT ANSWER ON THE TREES. ON THE TREES. The 6% they added on top of the 7% that was there when they were here 90 days ago, because 13% still doesn't cut it in my book, right? But there is a way to do better. And that's what I'd like to see before I put my stamp of approval on this.

Better in what way? The trees?

Yeah, trees that help separate and give you some privacy from the homeowners to the north, right? Because they all paraded in there and talked about the deer that carry ticks and You know, they left that part out, but I reminded them, right, that, you know, we have a tick problem here in the township.

It's always good and bad on every thought.

For the benefit of the community here tonight, I'd like to try to describe this piece here. This is the map of the site. And basically, every circle is a tree that's on the site right now.

No one can really see that, Tim, from this.

Well, I'm not going to get into details. I just want to get an overall summary. So basically, what you have, every circle is a tree. And every tree with an X through it is a tree that's being removed. So I tried to go through and highlight the ones that are left. And the ones that would be retained are along the northern border here. There's some very nice clumps along the northwest corner here. and along the western border here. And then there's some along Ann Arbor Road that are preserved by not putting in the sidewalk. But the rest of them are being removed. So that's necessary for this property to be developed the way that it's being proposed. So just to kind of give you a little bit of an overview of what we're talking about. Thank you.

I see someone here.

Hi, yes, Issa Hosari with Express General Construction Incorporated. Just a couple more comments to address the tree issue.

Are you a member of the public or are you part of this team?

I'm with Express General Construction. Oh, okay. I'm the son. So I just wanted to address some of the tree concerns. So out of good faith with last time, once the concerns were brought up, there were a couple of meetings that discussed how we could save potential trees. And as Aldi said, we're willing to work with the new homeowners to address additional four trees per home. So it's around 52 new trees additionally that we're trying to save as well. The main goal behind this development is to provide ranch homes for the community. As you said, that's something that we had in mind. With the current zoning, we could have built something else, you know, with bigger multi-use homes, but with the ranch, we believe that we're helping the community and we're making a good effort to save trees. Also with the trenches that he recommended, that would give us more space to include those trees with that empty lot that we saved. So really we've been trying to protect the trees as much as we can and also plant new ones that aren't invasive. So I'd love to hear any comments that you have and we'd really love to push this through and work with you to get these homes for the community.

One other item there.

If you can come closer to the mic.

One other item on the drawings, we are proposing easements along the north property line. There's a, you know, a landscape easement so that, you know, the homeowners, once those trees are planted, they would not be able to, you know, to remove them. They'd be able to maintain the trees. And we also have a landscape easement along Ann Arbor Road to So any trees that get planted in that area, replacement trees would be preserved.

Personally, I appreciate the efforts you've made. You know the retention pond, that is a greater cost for you to try to save as trees as you can. The way you've oriented the houses, the backyards to the north side for those neighbors. I'm not sure, and the conditions that you've proposed. I think so far, in my opinion, this is probably out of the three presentations that we've heard over the years on this property, this is probably the best one.

We've really tried to make a good faith effort to take into account the community's needs. And I believe that trying to include more trees, like you said, and really work with the Planning Commission has helped us get to this final point. So considering the current limitations with Ann Arbor Trail and the speed limit there, we believe that this is a really great option for the community. And we'd love to really push it through and hear back from you as well.

There is no public comment requirement for this stage, but I see a number of people. Are you here to hear this discussion, or are you here for another application? Is there anyone here that wishes to have to comment on this? Okay, come on up. Give us your name and address, and you have three minutes.

Hi, I'm Stella Lansky. I live at 46280 Green Valley Court. which happens to be the last court on McClumpa before you get to Ann Arbor Trail. McClumpa, what you're saying, is supposed to be a collector road designed to accommodate Margaret to high volume traffic. I don't know if anybody's been down there lately, but it certainly is not made to do that. It may be Wayne County's problem, but part of the road is missing at the end of Ann Arbor Trail and McClumpa, and supposedly, like Bill was saying, we worked to try to get that fixed, and it's supposed to be on the Wayne County docket for this season, but who knows? And then you have, okay, so when you get there, the road narrows. There really shouldn't be parking allowed on both sides of the road, but they allow it. And when you get to the end of McClumpa and Ann Arbor Trail, there's the list. crosswalk for the kids to go across McClumpa to get to the park and then they have to go across Ann Arbor Trail to get to the park because that's how it was designed. There's no lights and we walk our dog over that way. I would say a third of the people do not stop for the crosswalk. You've got, you're maybe only talking about 10 or 13 houses, but you're looking at two to three cars to each house. So you're starting to have that kind of traffic. We've got the school buses. If you go down Ann Arbor Trail, there's two schools at Ann Arbor Trail and Sheldon that let their kids out at different times. So you've got the morning and the afternoon rush, plus the daycare that's over there. And then when you look at the other side of McClumpha, you've got three high schools that are feeding onto McClumpha. And before you approve something like this, you really need to address the problems that we have with McClumpha not being the road that can accommodate the traffic, it can't handle what it has now. And people go speeding down there. The chief had a sign put up so they could watch people's speeds. I was gonna call and ask them to put one on Ann Arbor Trail because these people are just zipping down there. So we really need to address what's going on there before you can put more traffic onto that road.

Thank you. Okay, thank you for coming. Is there anyone else? Okay, all right. Well, the recommendation is to postpone this application for getting more detail on the condition number five. And I guess we would ask the applicant to look again at the trees. I thought the tree survey, as Commissioner Boyd had said, was a certified arborist, which is probably one of the best surveys that I've seen in a long time. So do you have more to add?

Just to respond to the traffic issue, really the idea behind having these single family homes is that we target older people that are trying to move in that are requesting single family homes that are ranch style. So really if we have bigger homes like proposed in the current residential zoning, those would be bigger homes that accommodate bigger families, more children, more traffic as well. So really we had that in mind as well, trying to take into account. the traffic issue. In regards to the trees, we've actually followed and met with the Commissioner multiple times to make sure that we were able to find a balance between what was recommended and how we can save as many trees as possible. So if we move forward again, we'd like to know what further steps would we do because we've met with the Commissioner as well about the trees. So we tried to add more trees by having the four per house. We'd love to we'd be open to exploring more options, but really we have looked into this and done extensive research to really save those trees. And considering that some of them are invasive, we would be providing Michigan trees here that aren't invasive in the future as well. So we'd really love to see if, is there gonna be a drawback if we put this postponed again, or if we really work forward, we're able to start on something that really could benefit the community.

Which commissioner did you work with on the trees?

I meant the city planner, my bad.

At the township planner?

No, we did meet with a couple of commissioners too.

He met with myself and with Tim. Okay.

Senator, I brought up the same concerns when we had the meeting there. Okay.

Yeah. I'm at a loss, Bill. I mean, I know how you feel about trees, but I don't know how many more trees can be saved on that site.

I'm not sure that they can realistically save any more trees either at this level of development. So in my mind, the question is, is it appropriate to be developing this at this level of a density or... should be developed at the original zoning, more traditional single-family homes, probably six lots. My view is that probably you could save a considerable additional amount of trees. So that's why this issue of access to Ann Arbor Road is really key. And that's why I want to see in writing the position of the MDOT because in effect what they're doing is eliminating the opportunity for this land to be developed and save as many trees as possible?

If they were going to develop it with single residential, there's no guarantee they're going to keep the trees.

That's certainly true.

It's a crapshoot to put it mildly.

And to add, like you said, you know, there is an issue for single family home, especially ranches in Plymouth township. So, you know, we were trying to address both of them and really, you can really address the issue with not having enough ranch homes, but also a good faith effort to save those trees. If we go back to the drawing board, then we'd have to, like you said, consider, How many trees are being saved?

Again, I think on the effort to do first floor masters and we've been working on that and we've made progress. So, you know, to just suggest that we're starting from scratch here is not accurate. I do think, as I mentioned earlier, I do think we need a few more traditional single family homes in Plymouth Township on the land that we have left for development. But again, that's just my own view. So there's two sides. Oh, I'm saying that there's two sides.

Yeah, of course, yeah. It is a difficult thing to try to plan ahead because we do have most, the township was really designed for families, and it still is. We want to preserve the character of the township, but we also want to have the older folks also wish to stay here, although I've been reading with increasing interest occurrences that people want to live in their own homes as long as they can. There are tax consequences too if they leave their homes in addition to caring. But perhaps there are families here currently that their elderly relatives want to live closer to them and this might provide an opportunity for them as well.

And just add in our design, we have two designs. It's not just only ranch homes. It's kind of, we have both of them as well.

Okay. I had one more question I want to ask, Graham. In the packet, right, you've got sheet C1. There's actually two sheets labeled sheet C1. Yeah, there was a couple of parallel plans. So there's a 10-plot sheet C1, and then there's a six-plot traditional single-family home sheet C1.

Seven, but it may be six.

Yeah. Whatever it is, getting the ranch homes we need, we want. We're not trying to discourage you. And I don't know what the right answer is on the trees, but I do know that you could probably save a little bit more. You could probably plant more. The key I want to bring here is if you look at the Farmer J. Pulte property, I think it's Plymouth Acres, if that's what it's called. They actually went and talked to the neighbors. Plymouth Farms. Plymouth Farms. Thank you. That was close. Appreciate that. Don't forget that. They actually talked to the neighbors that were next door and on the street in the back to get their input on the plant. which I thought was pretty novel because you're going to be neighbors with these people as a developer and the people buying in there are going to be neighbors also. You want to be good neighbors as builders, you want to be good neighbors as neighbors that are buyers, right? It'd be nice to see you guys reach out to find out what they think because they might say good enough. If they do, I'll say cool, right? But this is the most densely plot thing that I think we have left in the township that's still there with trees, whether they're called good or bad, invasive or not. The bottom line is I'd like to maximize it. And I do want to get more ranch homes in there. Maybe the answer is put 10 ranch homes in there on 10. instead of 13, then it's six less vehicles coming in and out of there to Estelle Lansky's point that she made. I don't know what the right answer is. I think there's time to get it by delaying it and sharpen the pencil and get the safety answer with MDOT and Wayne County and the traffic safety engineer to get it in writing because something's got to change for the good of the township and Pioneer Middle School and students that are going to the high schools. as well as people that are coming in to do business from the West.

I'll play the devil's advocate. So you say that you don't know what the right answer is, so when they come back, how will you know that it is the right answer?

In my book, Because I'm an engineer, we're asked to put 10 pounds in a five pound bag, then we're asked to put 15 pounds in a five pound bag. The bottom line is everything is relative. Better is better. What's best, I'm not smart enough to know that, but when I see something that's better, I feel more confident of backing it and approving it and voting for it as opposed to Where we're at today, we're at today is better than we were 90 days ago. So I give credit to the developer and the time and the architect for what they put in here. I just want to push a little bit farther to see if we can get something better because to Commissioner Pop's point, something's going to go in there, right? And I'd like the best something in there that meets what the survey of the residents they're saying, which are ranch homes.

Well, put in perspective, this is the third one. This one is better than the previous two. Plus, this one has conditions. So there are more controls on this particular proposal than there have been on the others. So you have to take a look at it globally in making a decision. Commissioner.

Who would be responsible for getting the information that we need from MDOT and we need it from Wayne County and the state, right? So who would be responsible for?

I think it would be you if you've worked with someone at MDOT.

I've got contact with both of them. And again, Wayne County has jurisdiction on the clump of it. I can get a letter from MDOT The traffic engineer and Andrea Jones, who's a permit engineer in the Taylor Service Center, who handles Wayne County in this area here.

Okay. I did not see the other presentations, and I don't feel like I missed a whole lot based on what I'm hearing. I like the presentation. I like what you're doing. I like the fact that you're doing the single-family ranch-style homes. I like the idea of having a smaller development, fewer units versus... Who knows? what could end up there. So to me, this is a very positive opportunity. I just think that we need to do everything we can to ensure safety at dealing with the traffic issues. If there's something we can do, not just as a planning commission, but I sit on the board of trustees, if there's something we as a board can do to try to encourage the state or the county, just let us know what is needed so that we can move forward with it.

It might be worthwhile to maybe get MDOT in here you know, outside of our project, just look at the speed limit on, because there's a lot of residential, you know, between Beck Road and McClumpa.

And we have our elected representatives as well from Wayne County and from the state. And, you know, we certainly can work with them. We just need to know, we need some direction as to.

I'll see, I'll talk to Andrea Jones and see what she recommends. And then, you know, hopefully. I think it was the one that was against the driveways coming up to Ann Arbor Road.

The other thing I want to add on that, if I may, Dennis. Yeah, sure. Estelle, Pamela, Stopper, and I did meet with Chief Nitell and his two traffic enforcements, Sergeant Jeff and the other enforcement patrol officer, Jeff. I just can't remember the last names. They will also tell you that the speed on that road is a problem, and they'd like to see something done as well. So you have police, you have residents, you have a developer, you have a trustee here. Everybody wants to make this place safer, right, which is great, and we have an opportunity. So let's give them the time to...

And we've talked about that, you know, I think at one of the, not this past joint meeting that we've had with the Board of Trustees, but previously a few years earlier, and this same topic came up, is to reduce the speed on Ann Arbor all the way to the county line.

Sandra, we've also, in developing the master plan, the exact words didn't get in the final report, but we talked about the need to get both Ann Arbor Road and North Territorial reduced to 45 miles an hour all the way to the... Yes. Part of that was based on feedback from the community.

So we're certainly willing to work with you to accomplish that. I mean, another development is another reason to lower the speed limit. So let's work together and see what we can come up with.

Absolutely. Okay. Okay. We are, but I want to ask a question. So we're going to postpone this, it looks like, to get clarification on condition number five. And then the comments that you heard today, particularly on the letter, how much time do you think you would need? Three months, six months?

Probably less than three months, but if you extend it. You can come in earlier. And then, you know, if you could let us know who we should meet with as far as, you know, working on some recreational opportunities for the township, you know. The planner, like you've been discussing with them. Okay. And we'll come up with some ideas.

So three months. Yep. Okay. So is there a motion?

Mr. Chair, with reference to application 2576, I propose we table this for up to three months for clarification on the Item number five of the conditional letter from the developer, clarification from Wayne County and MDOT and the traffic engineer regarding traffic restrictions and possibilities for additional feedback regarding the trees.

Is there a support? Second it. Okay. Moved by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Ikes to grant or to postpone application 2576 for up to three months to gather additional information as noted. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to application 2593, building four, final site plan review at 1500 Ridge Road. The planner has her report.

Good evening, Commissioner. Sajma Carrero is from McKenna. Before you, you have the application for final site plan approval of 193,000 square foot speculative warehouse building number four and storm water detention basin on a developed 100 acre parcel located along Ridge Road north of State Highway 14. The plan also includes mass grading of a large portion of the property to result in three building paths. The subject property is zoned in the industrial district. The site currently contains an existing building along Ridge Road with approximately 15 acres of outdoor storage area situated behind the building. The applicant is proposing to construct a speculative warehouse considered to be Building 4 and has indicated that additional buildings may be proposed in the future as the property continues to develop. The mass grading proposed on the site is for the future development of additional buildings and storage lots to be located on the site. Site access is proposed from Ridge Road as well as through access easement from Metro West Technology Park. Park off of Anchor Court. For site appearance and coordination, the proposed facilities scale and location are not expected to generate barriers to the development of the surrounding vacant properties and are similar to the previous building number one. Preservation of site features. There are three wetlands present on the site. It is not expected that these wetlands will be impacted by the development of building number four. because no infrastructure is located near it. We did receive a revised tree survey for the final site plan. It indicates the removal of 368 regulated non-heritage trees and 30 heritage trees. It also includes a preservation of 250 trees greater in DBH than eight inches. The final site plan is required to replace 1,574 inches of DBH and the landscape plan meets ordinance requirements for the replacement of trees through the provision of 988 DBH inches throughout the site as shown on landscape sheet two, two A and three, as well as the intent to pay for 586 DBH of replacement heritage trees into the township tree fund at a rate of $150 per inch removed with a permit for a total of 87,900. Before final site plan approval, the applicant must update the number of inches of non-heritage trees removed to 3,952 and the total number of DBH inches removed to 4,538 on the landscape sheet as well as any other discrepancies that are in the tree removal required summary. It is important to note that there is a portion within the proposed grading that was not surveyed due to heavy foliage cover. Planning staff recommend that these trees be surveyed prior to grading and a replacement plan or payment be provided as needed. Moreover, as a condition of final site plan approval, no earthwork shall be permitted on the site prior to the verification by the township of the limits of disturbance and the areas to be preserved. And a replacement method identified for those trees that were not surveyed in that grading area. For public services, there should be a minimal impact. The township engineer has approved final site plan with items to be addressed to the Satisfaction of Planning Commission. Vehicular access and circulation, the site has adequate internal circulation and driveway access to accommodate vehicles and trucks without creating new traffic impacts. The township fire marshal has approved the plans. For pedestrian access and circulation, revised plans show internal sidewalks have been provided between the parking spaces and the buildings to provide a safe route to the building from the parking lot. The site plan provides an interior path to the doors that may be accessed adjacent to parking spaces. However, as stated in tentative site plan review, it is recommended to provide parking lot pedestrian crossing hatching in the parking aisle, but it is not required. Emergency access. As stated before, the Township Fire Marshal has approved these plans so they meet the emergency access requirements. For landscaping screening and buffering, the applicant has met the parking lot landscape requirements, the street yard landscape requirements, 10-foot buffer requirements, as well as the biosquill requirements. A general comment from the Township Engineer about plantings near the utility easement, It was requested that any trees be moved outside of the utility easement. Upon further review, it should be noted that there are several areas where the trunk of the trees are on the edge of these easements, but the potential canopy of these trees will substantially still go into the utility easements as they mature. So it could be of concern in the future, not right now. So it is recommended that these trees be pushed further from the easement line, if feasible. For parking, the Planning Commission found the proposed parking using the developer's historical data satisfactory for the proposed use. That was in 142 spaces, including six required barrier-free spaces. And the applicant has provided an alternative parking plan should they have three incidents of problem parking that they would construct if needed. The site plan complies with 42 truck docks for the loading space requirement, which is in excess of what is required. For building design and architecture, the proposed building facade is tilt-up concrete wall panels with reveals in textured paint coating. The main colors of the facade are varying shades of gray. The previously approved building, one on the property, has very similar architectural design. In tentative site plan, Planning Commission discussed that they appreciated the current design of Building 1. However, no formal approval of the current design was made. The applicant has not provided updated elevations or additional building design in architecture, but the Planning Commission may modify the below listed requirements for building design in architecture if the proposed project is found to meet the objectives of Article 28 of the zoning ordinance. For lighting, the photometric plan complies with light intensity at the property line as well as on the site, as well as the maximum allowable height for the poles and the correlated color temperature. The waste enclosure on the site is located on the northwest corner and is proposed to be surrounded by three evergreen trees. The enclosure is not visible from Ridge Road and is screened to the greatest extent practical from the private access drive. The proposed waste enclosure is six feet, secured by a screen wall that matches the exterior facade. The waste enclosure is not masonry. However, the Planning Commission may modify the material requirement provided that the alternative meets the screen objectives of Section 28. Currently, there are no signs proposed for the project. And it is recommended that the Planning Commission grant final site plan approval as presented with the conditions of all engineering items to be addressed prior to final stamps as well as the listed conditions below to update the discrepancies and the tree removal required summary as well as no earthwork being conducted on the site before a survey is conducted of the area that was not able to be surveyed. and the township confirmed the limits of the areas to be preserved. The applicant is here to take your questions and I'm happy to answer any questions as well. Thank you.

Thank you. And we have the engineering report.

Good evening. I'm Melissa Cholani with Spaulding D. Decker. We reviewed the HRBP building number four with mass grading associated and a proposed attention basin. The project as mentioned is located south of Five Mile Road, just east of Ridge Road. Site access would be provided off Anchor Court, which is a private drive and Ridge Road. The site gross area is 100.10 acres. Water service would be provided by extensions from the existing public water main located along the east side of Anchor Court and the existing water main along the north side of the private drive. A domestic lead and fire service would be provided to serve the building along with additional hydrants on site. Sanitary service would be provided from the existing sanitary sewer along the south side of Anchor Court. Service leads would then be provided to serve the building and future expansions as well. Stormwater would be collected by a single storm sewer collection system and discharged to proposed detention basin, which is located on the southeast portion of the site. As the planning team mentioned, we do want to share as a reminder that any landscaping should ideally not be installed within the utility easements unless it is approved by the township. We also want to remind the applicant to secure the following permits, the stormwater agreement, the water main easement, as well as the sanitary sewer easement, approval from Wayne County, the soil erosion sedimentation permit from Wayne County Department of Public Services, Land Resource and Managed Division. And then obviously in please with the regulated wetlands on site. We also want to make sure that you're securing all EGLE permits, the Michigan Department of Environmental Great Lakes and Energy. We are very comfortable with the site plan. And so at this time we would recommend approval for the final site plan for this project. Thank you.

Thank you. And as noted, we have the report from the fire department and they have no objection from a public safety perspective. And the applicant is here. Can you come up?

Good evening, everyone.

Hello. Did you have any presentation to make

I DID WANT TO SHOW, WE DID HAVE SOME AERIAL PHOTOS TAKEN OF BUILDING ONE, JUST TO SHOW THE BUILDINGS, YOU KNOW, THE MATERIALS AND EVERYTHING, MEANING THAT IT'S NOT CMU, THAT IT IS TILT UP CONCRETE, JUST PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN FOUR PHASE ONE OF THIS PROPERTY. SO JUST SHOWING THEM, YOU KNOW, THAT BUILDING FOUR WOULD MIMIC AND LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THIS BUILDING, BESIDES IT'S A LITTLE BIT SMALLER. And you just want to note on there too that the landscaping that we had put in place there back when that building was constructed in 23, that the growth is great. The trees have been growing well. The maintenance that is being done is being performed as needed. And you can see all the growth of the extra landscaping we put along the frontage of Ridge Road as well. And everything seems to be growing and taking as it should.

Commissioners, we also have building materials over here if you want to.

Oh, yes, I would, yeah. Let's see the building materials. Do you have those?

If any of you are not familiar with that building, I don't think those pictures do credit to the building. It really has a very attractive elevation. Very well done.

And just a note, too, the photos are from this morning. We did go out there this morning to take those, so they were as most recent as we could.

It is an attractive-looking building.

Thank you.

So it's the same materials as that existing building?

Yeah, it'll be tilt-up concrete with the textured paint that we have there of the materials.

So let's get some of these outstanding questions.

Yeah. I have an outstanding question, Donis.

I was going to lead off. Go ahead. Sure. So the, so are you in the process of updating the number of inches of the non-heritage trees as noted in the...

Yes, so we did, so on the plans we, We had put the inches that we were replacing and required to replace. We didn't have the, so we already took the 25% is what we put on the plan. So we do have the, we already have the revised numbers on here. We just got to put them on the sheet. That's just how we calculated them on the plans. But it does meet, everything does meet the ordinance. Okay.

Can you review that?

Yes. They would just need to update those numbers to reflect the numbers before the math.

Go look at them? Yep.

We've checked them.

Okay. Okay, so the other thing is the Planning Commission may modify the list of requirements for building design and architecture. And I think, Bill, you had a comment at the previous meeting about the building. We're going to get into that. So we'll put that aside. And also, the Commission should... consider the waste enclosure is not masonry. However, we can modify that. So think about that as we continue our discussion. So Bill, I'll turn it over to you to talk about the building elevation and the other issues you want to talk.

Yeah, the last time we met, which was 90 days ago, back in the middle of March, I'd given a marked drawing to the two gentlemen that were here, right? And this is not the third time in front of us. And my specific request was, Hey, guys, you know, there's 14 specific heritage trees that could be saved, right? And if you were able to play with this little piece of the retention pond, and it looks like, based on the geography, a jog was made to it, but... There's four heritage trees that are gone. Yeah, there's four. This mic is phenomenal. I really love the new technology here. So it looked like there was an opportunity to save four from the jog that you guys put in the retention pond, but this plan shows that they're gone, okay? And it looked like there's six more that are between the parking to the east proposed building four, because we're just trying to clear-cut land and maybe put another building between the retention pond. And there are another... Six that were on the other side, and these were not small trees. Some were as big as 44 and 30 inches in diameter, breast height. So they were substantial. So the request was, can you please look at that? And I gave them the marked drawing. It was colored in pencil and markers to make sure no one could misunderstand it. It doesn't look like anything was done to try to save even one of those trees, which I find disappointing.

We did save two of the trees by reshaping the pond. There were two of the...

Northeast corner of that lot, and there was one at the southeast corner of that lot.

Okay, so maybe 581 and 563, and partly why I'm struggling, gentlemen, are we have totally different tree numbers on the new tree plot, so it's even better. This is a better arborist tree plot than what you had before, so I give you guys credit for that. They updated the tree numbers.

Okay, 581 was a 24-inch rock elm, and 563...

inch white pine. That'll be green all year round. So if you save two, thank you. I just wish you could have saved more out of the 14. So I just struggle with why we're trying to clear cut for the next building now when potentially the economy may change and there's six more trees in between the retention pond, right, that are of 20, low 20 inch. So I'd still like to see six more saved because we don't have to clear cut between the retention pond. But thank you for saving two. I'm still disappointed in saving the next six that are between the parking area and the retention pond.

Typical man, never happy.

And then...

Wow.

You did some, but you didn't do enough.

Joe Webb, Webb Engineering. Just the big reason why we're masquerading the entire site, there's a lot of topography out there. And it's economy of scale is what this is really coming down to. If we just grade for building four in the basin, then we're going to have to come, they're going to have to like stockpile a lot of this material, handle it two, three times in the future. So the intention is to masquerade the entire site for the building four, building two, building three, and a potential building five, which would be east of building four.

Any other comments?

Yes, I had one. We spoke last time. I noted that the elevation of the new Building 4 that faces Anchor Court, that's the south side, had no architectural detailing. And I ask that you consider moving the fake windows from the west side around to at least a third of the south elevation. This is the side of the building that would face Anchor Court. So this is the south side of the building. This is what most people driving along that street would see. So what I had asked is that they consider taking this architectural detail from the west side and put at least one of those along the south side. So we get a little bit more architectural detail on the south. And again, that would be more consistent with the architectural detail that you have on the building one that faces Ridge Road. So I had asked about that last time. I have two questions. Did you consider that or are you considering that? And it's just not reflected here. And then also for Commissioner Sapolsky and the planning department, is it appropriate to be talking about elevations? at site plan review?

Yeah, they're talking to them.

Yeah, is it appropriate to be raising issues on the elevation as part of the site plan review?

Well, this is the final site plan review. Right, so it is on? Yeah. Okay. This is it.

So we did match that south side. We did match building one on there, and you can see it doesn't show up as well, I guess, on the rendering, but on the floor plan here, you can actually see the, ins and outs, I guess, of the panels overlapping and the articulation of the roof following the slope down that we are stepping the panels down, and then we are putting two of the panels on top of each other to create that lap, and it's the same exact architecture that we did.

But are there any of the fake windows that face Anchor Court? We don't have any of the fake windows on there, no. Okay, well, what are the windows on Ridge Road? When you look at the elevation, there's the ones that look like windows, and I realize they... Some cases they are and they aren't. Yeah, go back to that. Okay. Do you have any? Yeah. So, yeah. There's a couple more. There's one that's just... The one on the right. So if you run your arrow... Okay, yeah, there you go. So... One, can you actually scroll to the right? It's the one on the far right there. I don't know if you can do that. I'm just looking for some level of detail like that, at least along the western one-third of that site. Keep the other, you know, the remaining two-thirds of that site facing Anchor Corps can be exactly the way you have them, but is it possible you could at least put those whatever that architectural detail is that looks like windows on the western one-third of that southern elevation.

And we don't, if it is required, we could look at that?

Well, I can't require it. I'm just asking the possibility. Commissioners, any of the rest of you?

I agree with you.

I agree with you, too, and if they're real windows, it'll let light in there, which will cut down your electricity bill, right, because you get southern exposure most of the day. So that's a great catch, Jim.

To be honest, I would actually allow you to switch off the western elevation. You have that treatment all the way along that side. You could take the northern end of that and make that plain and swap it into the western part of the southern elevation, so you're not buying any more material, you're just changing where it's located. Is there a practical reason?

The frontage of that building is set up for the individual tenants, so they have that storefront entry point.

Oh, I see, okay, I understand, okay.

Okay. All right, any other comments from the commission before we get into the, I think it was the- I still don't like the suggestion, even without swapping the location, it's a very valid point too.

I just want to know about the waste enclosure. If it's not masonry, it says that we can modify the material requirements. I've never dealt with that before, but I'm curious to know what the commission's position is on that and what we might want to suggest.

What is the material? Tilt-up concrete. So it's just matching the building. Instead of masonry, it's tilt-up concrete.

matches the building. We have made changes, Sandy, in the past, you know, similar to what, you know, to match the building or there's a variety of reasons. Sometimes it's in better with the overall plan.

So you, for the most part, you all are comfortable with what they're doing? I guess that's what I'm asking. Yeah. I think so. I think so.

Okay. I think so. Particularly in this case, it's way back in the back where nobody sees it.

It's way in the back. It matches the building. Yeah.

It's really...

Okay. I'm fine with it. I'm just asking. I wanted to be sure. Good question.

Any other questions, concerns? Are we ready for a motion?

Yeah. Okay. Okay. Mr. Chair, I move that we grant final site plan approval for application number 2593, 1500 Ridge New Warehouse, subject to the conditions of the planner's report on page 10, and also with the request to consider adding some additional detail to the western third of the elevation that faces Anchor Court.

What was the last part about that elevation? For them to consider it?

To consider adding architectural detail to the western one-third of the elevation facing Agri-Corp.

I'll second that. Moved by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Graub to grant final site plan review to application 2593 subject to set conditions. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?

Opposed.

No. Commissioner Ikes opposes, but the motion passes. Next, under new businesses application 2599, the Jungle Driving Academy, a special land use. Final report.

Thank you, Commissioner Zabolsky. This is a special land use request for the applicants proposing a driver education academy within an existing multi-tenant flex building that is in the industrial district. They're proposing to occupy about 2,400 square feet of tenant space, which is going to include two classrooms and an office, and it's classroom instruction behind the wheel training on public roads is the proposed use. There is no on-site driving practice testing or vehicle maneuvers proposed, and they... are proposing to have two training vehicles on the site during at least the first year. So again, the property zone, the industrial district, and the proposed use is not specifically listed as a permitted use, but may be considered as a special land use if consistent with the district intent and surrounding development. And a public hearing and planning commission approval are required for this special land use. So going over the special land use criteria, Criteria number one, compatibility with the surrounding area. So we found that it's located within an existing industrial flex development on Five Mile, surrounded primarily by industrial and flex commercial uses. The use functions similarly to an office classroom operation and is less intensive than many of the industrial uses permitted by right in this district. And there are no exterior changes proposed to the to the building or to the site. Consistency with the master plan, the site is designated for industrial and employment uses. The proposed use is low intensity educational office use, and there is no conflict with the future land use designation as it remains industrial. And we do find that it does meet the intent of the industrial district. It is just a driver education activity. It all occurs indoors, and no manufacturing, processing, outdoor training, or hazardous activities will happen with this use on that site. Public services, existing utilities already serve the site, and there's no anticipated impacts to police, fire, water, sewer, or roadway capacity. traffic and parking access remains through existing driveways on a five mile road. There are no new curb cuts or access changes proposed. Student drop off and pick up will occur within the parking lot and shared parking I did go out and look at the parking lot because the applicant has stated that there's about 35 parking spaces available in front of their unit. When I went out there, the parking lot was pretty full, about two-thirds full, but there were adequate enough spaces for them to be able to use for parking. So we established that parking exceeds the ordinance requirements under the most comparable parking classification, which is under... the traffic and parking criteria. And again, the existing site does comply with the industrial district standards, no building additions, no paving or changes to lighting or landscaping are being proposed for the site. So we do find that the use is compatible with the surrounding development. It is consistent with the intent of the industrial district and has adequate parking and infrastructure does exist. No variance is required and the operation is primarily an indoor educational use and not a driving track or testing facility. So we are recommending approval of the special land use application 2599 for the Jungle Driving School subject to one condition. The applicant shall submit proof of state from the state of Michigan driver education provider licensing to the planning department. And we base this off of our findings of fact. One, reuse of an existing tenant space with no site expansion. Two, minimal traffic impacts and adequate parking supply. Three, compliance with the industrial district development standards. Four, no variance required. And five, is being indoor classroom based on educational use with no onsite driving practice. The applicant is here and you do have three separate documents of one being their narrative for the site, and then a second Q&A document that was questions from staff pertaining to the use, just some additional information. And then the applicant also submitted an additional narrative just giving you a little more detail on how the use is going to be used on the site. I'm happy to take any questions, and like I said, the applicant is here tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. So the one document that was referenced is dated today, and I had an email exchange with staff earlier that when we have these special land uses, we've talked about this for years in past commissioners, that we rarely ever get what are they going to use the land, you know, how are they going to use this, hours of operation, employees, and all of that, and I felt that That really wasn't, some of that was answered in the Q&A. So they adopted, I guess, another Q&A. So that's another document you should be looking at to see if you see any questions, any concerns that you might have about the operation in itself, in addition to what the staff has looked at as it relates to the ordinance. And I think this has the potential of being a document a trendsetter because there could be similar requests for the other units that are on this particular site. So the applicants is here? Okay, do you want to come up? Do you have anything to present? Okay.

Just, I want to know how this works. If this is something that we agree to, do we have to schedule a public hearing for a future date and then we have to post it or can we do the public hearing here tonight?

Well, we can do the public hearing tonight. This is not a public hearing.

It is a public hearing, and it was noticed with the appropriate timing.

So you can hold the public hearing tonight.

Yeah, we'll do that tonight. Oh, yes. Yeah, I didn't see where that, where there would be a public hearing, but down in the bottom. Yeah, that's true. Okay, good. Usually you say at the top, public hearing.

She just did that to see if you would catch her.

I guess. Okay. Any comments from the commission? Or do you have anything you want to add?

Sure. My name is Ryan Duff. I'm with Hillside Investments. Represent ownership. And we're excited to welcome this new tenant into our park.

Are you finding other similar tenants that are using this as classroom or retail space?

Any interest? No, we consider the facility light industrial with some quasi-retail, you know, low-impact type use, classroom, office, clerical type use. So it fits the whole complexion of the park. With the amount of parking and accessibility, it's a good fit.

Do you still have some vacant units available? I do.

So you are the owner of the facility? I'm a member of the facility. I work with the owners, yes.

I notice the parking lot is not in great condition. It seems like you've made some repairs. Do you have any plans to upgrade the parking lot paving at any time in the near future?

We do have plans to do some repairs in specific areas, but to do the whole lot at once, that would be a future budget.

Okay, but you are planning to make some conditional repairs?

Yes.

Thank you.

A couple questions about this.

How long has Jungle Driving School been operating? Jungle Driving, by the way, my name is Chris McCarroll. I am the owner of Jungle Driving here, hopefully locating in Plymouth Township. Jungle Driving School has been open for approximately 20 years. It was founded in Ada, Michigan. and is now starting on its franchise development.

So there are other locations in other places in Michigan? There's one in Michigan, sir. Oh, okay.

So this is a franchise opportunity?

Yes, it is.

You're a resident of Plymouth?

Yes, I'm a resident of Plymouth. Been here at the end of the month. It'll be 24 years. Township. Township.

Great. And the next question is, it looks like there's a combination of you're going to pick students up at high school during weekdays. Is that my understanding correct and what was in here?

Yes, sir. The intent, based on scheduling drive time as required by the state, is to group students by the high school they're at as they schedule their drive time so we can pick them up in their parking lots and return them to the parking lots where they'll be released to their parents, which is very similar, which is what every other driving school in the industry does today.

Is there any simulation that you'll do in the classrooms? I mean, we used to have little simulation cards. No, sir.

Those don't. No, they play those at home. No, sir. This is all classroom. This is all classroom. Mario cards. Okay. Okay. No simulators. Okay. All right. Thank you. You're welcome.

Any other questions or concerns? No.

No, I just think it's a good idea to be a little bit flexible on some of these industrial sites, just because there's a number of vacant buildings, like a lot of them. So I think it's a good idea.

Yeah, but this is a little bit different than the other buildings, unlike the Dance Academy that's going to come up, because this is a new building designed for uses that could be, as he's suggesting here.

Yeah.

Okay. Well, are we ready for a motion? And so we've got the statement. Oh, yeah, we have to do the public hearing. So we'll open the, well, we have to have a vote. Do we have someone make a motion to open the public hearing at 8.06?

I make a motion we open the public hearing for Jungle Driving School at 8.06 p.m. Second.

Second. Okay, moved by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Ikes. Actually, that's Commissioner Groth. Oh, Groth. Oh, I was... Looking at the time. Yes, I wasn't paying attention to you, Sandy, because I was looking at the time.

I know, it's because of what I said earlier.

Okay. All in favor to open the public hearing, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this? Okay, is there a motion to close the public hearing at 8.07? Mr.

Chair, I move we close the public hearing at 8.07 p.m. Second.

Moved by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Papp to close the public hearing at 8.07. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. So we have the statement of facts in the planners report and then you might want to reference this Q&A as far as what would be going on on the site as part of the special land use approval.

Good reuse, as Commissioner Papp said. It's a challenging location from summertime weekdays pulling out on a five mile road there with real driving experience.

Which is a good thing.

If you can survive that, you can survive anywhere.

Well, the next step would be taking 275. I'm ready. Okay. Whenever somebody else.

I'll make a motion that we grant special land use approval for the proposed drive academy located at 470915 mile road based upon compliance with the stated facts under land criteria 2.7 of the zoning ordinance and that we include but not limit to the findings of fact as proposed and that we require the applicant submit their state licensing to the planning department prior to Operation? Second.

And include the Q&A as operational?

Yes.

Okay. All right. Who supports that? Dan. Dan, okay. Moved by Commissioner Grout and supported by Commissioner Callahan to grant tentative, not tentative, but final... Special land use to $25.99. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. Good luck. Glad to have you here.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

As well, from Hillside Investments, we're very appreciative of your support in helping us fill our facility.

Well, good luck with the rest of your development there. Next is application 2600, the dance studio here for a special land use. So, Plany, whoever has this report.

Thank you, Chairman Swolsky. Sasha McBoroughs from McKenna. Before You is a special land use application for a proposed dance academy, Synergy Dance Academy. They're proposing to have three dance rooms and support spaces with approximately 150 enrolled students on Clipper Street, west of Beck Road. Synergy Dance Academy is a youth-focused dance education facility providing instruction in ballet, jazz, tap, hip-hop, contemporary, and related performing arts disciplines. The applicant proposes to occupy approximately 9,000 square feet of an existing building and intends to add three walls to the existing interior. The proposed facility will introduce regular staff changes and the pick up and drop off of students between the hours of 4 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and occasionally Saturdays 7 to 3 p.m. for private lessons. The subject site is zoned industrial, where any indoor or outdoor recreational sports facilities can be classified as a special land use. Subject site is a 0.96 acre in size with an existing 15,360 square foot building and is part of the Metro West Beck Industrial Park. As I mentioned before, no exterior building expansion or site redevelopment is proposed. The proposed recreational use is compatible or comparable to a general office or classroom use and is less intensive than the warehouse and industrial uses permitted by right in the district. The proposed use will function as an educational and recreational facility that generates minimal noise, vibration, odors. And the proposed schedule of activities would result in approximately 35 to 40 students at a time, plus instructors and limited administrative staff, with staggered class schedules to limit the number of pick-ups and drop-offs. Additionally, the hours of operation, 4 to 9.30 p.m., are largely outside of the traditional business hours, limiting potential conflicts with neighboring uses. The presence of existing recreational uses in the industrial district should be noted. Specifically, the USA Hockey Arena is directly to the west of the property and a martial arts training facility exists within the industrial park. Planning staff recommend that the proposed use is compatible in intensity and scale with the surrounding uses and is not expected to negatively impact adjacent properties. The subject site is designated as light industrial in the 2015 future land use map and the proposed use is not in conflict with this designation. No disturbance to existing natural features beyond normal property maintenance will occur and the applicant will preserve and maintain the existing mature trees and landscaping along Clipper Street. The proposed recreational use is low intensity and does not involve manufacturing, processing, hazards, and radiated disturbances of any kind that the district regulations are intended to guard against. The use is therefore less intensive than the manufacturing and processing uses the district permits. In addition, the Woodridge property manager has confirmed that they are aware and consent to the proposed Dance Academy use, and they do not expect the Dance Academy to create any material adverse impact on the site. or its ability to accommodate the proposed occupancy. The applicant is a registered teacher with a, I don't know how to pronounce that, Council of America, a member of Dance Educators of America and a certified dance, a teacher of Dance Masters of America. All instruction will be supervised by the three instructors present at any given time and the facility will not be hosting public assembly events such as recitals or performances. These events will be held at a separate location in Canton. The facility is anticipated to operate within the typical service levels of a commercial use and is not expected to diminish or adversely affect public services. In terms of traffic and parking, as a criteria of special land use, the proposed recreational facility must abut a major thoroughfare. The proposed location abuts Beck Road, a major five-lane thoroughfare, Single point of vehicular access is from Clipper Street. The applicant indicates the intent to have a staggered classes to ensure arrival and departure periods are not overlapping. Peak activity is anticipated between 5.30 and 7.30, which is after typical business hours and is not anticipated to interfere with the surrounding industrial office uses. The parking requirements align most closely with the requirements for trade schools, commercial and vocational schools. The existing 32 spaces exceeds the parking required and the parking lot is adequately landscaped from the public right of way. The facility does not, again, does not involve outdoor assembly, high intensity commercial activity or hazardous materials. And as a result, impacts related to noise and activity levels are expected to remain consistent with the existing character. The existing site layout complies with the required dimensional standards for research in industrial parks. No exterior site modifications, changes to building footprint, or changes to impervious surfaces are proposed, and no variance is necessary to accommodate the proposed reuse of the existing building. Based on this, we recommend the Planning Commission grant special land use approval for the Synergy Dance Academy at 47495 Clipper Street based on the compliance with the above stated special land use criteria, including but not limited to the following findings of fact. The proposed dance academy will be a reuse of an existing building and no exterior building expansion or site redevelopment is proposed. The proposed recreational use will be a less intensive use compared to that permitted by right. The subject site is located adjacent to industrial and office uses in a butts back road, a major thoroughfare. The subject site has adequate parking and will have the highest predicted traffic impact outside of regular business hours. The existing site layout complies with the required development standards for research and industrial parks that are modified from standard industrial district requirements. No variance is necessary to accommodate the reuse of the existing building and the use functions as an educational recreational use conducted indoors. It will not host public assembly events such as recitals and performances. The applicant is here to take your questions and I'm happy to answer as well. And just like with the Jungle School, you do have a project overview as well as a letter from Woodbridge Properties.

And we have to do another public hearing, correct?

Yes. Okay. And the applicant is here. Okay, so like the other one, there's this project overview, and I think when we are looking at the use, which is what we're here to think about, this is all she had read was the justification for it. So I would say paragraphs two and three of the project overview is really the typical kind of information that we look for in special land use applications. Do you have any presentation to make?

Just to answer questions. Okay. and let you know what we're about. Okay.

Just out of curiosity, what's the age group of these?

Three and up.

Three and up.

We start at age three and we go through adults. Oh, okay. And we are a current business in downtown Plymouth. I've been there for 17 years.

Oh.

And my building was sold last year, so I wanted to find a new home.

Oh.

And my husband and I live in the township, so, yeah.

Makes sense. Wonderful.

Yeah.

Are there any questions? I have one. There are no trees. There's two really beautiful trees in the front.

They're Christmas trees. I love them. Wonderful. Yes.

So I'm trying to keep a straight face here, Dennis. I'm struggling, OK? So Trustee Stewart talked about the meeting this morning between the city and the township and development, right? Yeah. This is a great place. I like the reuse, right? There's a lot of, I think, dance partners and students. You can probably pull a Northville township that's not very far away. and 60% of the population is west of Shelton Road. So it's a great location. It's a great reuse. How big was the existing facility on Main Street that you guys are getting pushed out of?

I'm still there. I have until July 31st. I'm at 4,620 feet.

Okay, so you're more than doubling, which is great.

Which I needed to do. Pre-COVID, we had a warehouse down the street across the tracks behind Bodie's, and we had our competition team there, and our recreational dance was in the main building. and COVID. So we got shut down and we finished our lease in the warehouse and just didn't renew it and modified 500 South main. So we could house everybody, but gratefully we've outgrown it again.

So it's a great problem to have. It's a great location. So I'm for this for the record, right? So I welcome the township. The reason I was asking the question is just to share with you guys is when the city of Plymouth comes knocking on our door to put daycare centers in really bad locations that are dangerous, right? those that are vacating, this could become a potential candidate to whoever the new building owner is, landlord, if it's not already leased out. So I only say that so our planning partners can reach out to maybe suggest that that's all.

It's funny you should say that, sir, because my broker thought the same thing. He had a daycare center that was looking to get in downtown area. And that building is in the DDA area as well.

So, yeah. Great minds think alike.

Any other comments from the commission before we open up? Okay. Is there a motion to open the public hearing at 821? Mr.

Chair, I move we open the public hearing at 821. Second.

Moved by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Ikes to open the public hearing at 821. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application?

Dave.

Okay, then we will close the public hearing at 8.22 if there is such a motion. Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry, go ahead, Tim.

Mr. Chair, I move we close the public hearing at 8.22.

Okay, is there support?

Second.

Okay, moved by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Grau to close the public hearing at 8.22. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Are we ready for a motion? Yeah, we are. Okay. You want me to make it? Yeah, why not do it?

Chairperson Cebulski, I'd like to make a motion to approve PC 2599 for the Academy as a special land use, right, to relocate the township and the facility as is.

Second. Well, on the statement of facts contained in the planner's report. I left that sentence off. And the second and third paragraph of the project overview. This is incredible. Okay. Thank you. Do you second? Okay, so moved by Commissioner Hikes and supported by Commissioner...

Excuse me. You said 2599 and this is 2600.

Oh, I had the driver can. Great catch. I read the wrong document. The attorney is... That's a great catch.

We got to keep this attorney. Thank you.

I think it's out of trouble.

Okay. So noted. Yeah, we'll restate that as 2600. Yeah, okay. So... Paragraphs 2 and 3, the statement of facts as presented... Okay, so it was moved by Commissioner Axe and supported by Commissioner Papp to grant special land use for application 2600 subject to said documents. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations.

Thank you for your time. And ladies in the planning department, thank you for your guidance with this. You're a big help. Thank you. Welcome to Plymouth Township Business. I know you already live here, so. Yeah, I'm excited to have my business here as well. Good.

Yeah, thank you.

Questions on the monthly planning report? Anything you wish to call our attention to or we should be aware of or if not, questions that we receive and file? Okay, then we have Commissioner comments and I'm going to turn to Commissioner Boyd, who I know has, and we have some discussed several comments that you want to make.

So, I hope that you all saw in your township email last week, I believe it was last Friday, Liz sent out a deck of what would be the proposed plaques or presentation boards that we would use for our open house next week, correct? So I have a few comments and one strong comment recommendation. I don't know if the rest of you have this in front of you or not. I can run through these. I think probably most of them there would be no issue with. One of them probably requires some conversation. Liz, we could do this a couple ways. I could run them through right now, or if the Commission wanted, They can ask Tess, Dennis, and I to meet with you separately and go through these later on this week. What do you recommend?

I recommend going through it tonight because our graphics team is working on it. So any comments that you have, I'd need to get them to tomorrow.

Okay. How many of you have this document? I did not see it.

I read it, but I didn't read it. I brought a copy of the images.

Is this the one they're going to have on the boards?

Yes, exactly. Oh, so we do have it up here. Perfect. So, by and large, I think this is a you know, a presentation that's pretty self-explanatory, would let people walk around the room and be able to understand what's going on without having to have one of us there to explain it. So overall, I do like the approach. The specific comments on the first page, item number five on this, I don't know if you can blow that up, but it basically says that It talks about the 63-day period for review and comment before the commission can hold its required public hearing and act. And it says that we are actually in that window tonight, the night of the review. The public comment period ends on the 22nd. This is on the 24th, so we are not in the window. But I do recommend we could just simply say on that last sentence that feedback from tonight will be included or will be reviewed with the Planning Commission during our public hearing on July 15th.

I want to interrupt for just a moment. Go ahead. Have you received any comments from anyone at this point?

Sorry, what was that?

Have you received any comments from anyone at this point?

Yes. I won't show you guys my folder, but yes, I think we've received at least seven. All emails, all written out.

with general questions or do they express serious deficiencies in their view?

Nothing serious. Actually, the one we received today was complimentary to the master plan. But when we get all of them, we'll put them all together in some type of table so you can review each of them.

Did you get comments from the Environmental Commission?

I'd have to check. I'm not sure.

They said they were going to, so I was just curious to know if you got them.

Yeah.

I think they did, but yeah. You mentioned it last time, and we double-checked, and it was from her, I believe.

Yes. Okay, good. Thank you.

So are you okay with that change, Liz? Okay. All right. Moving on. Basically it goes through, much of these are charts and documents pulled from the master plan itself. The board five on housing, this is a good example. On a number of these, they're recommending that we have a feedback element where we give the people who attend sticky notes and ask them for their comment on a particular chart. In this case, the feedback comment is what housing options are missing for you or your family? I'm a little concerned with, I think it's a good question, but I think it needs some context. And what I would like to see you do is before you present the charts, I would like you to reference the feedback we received from the 800 surveys and to paraphrase that from the master plan, It says, when asked about preferred housing types, residents favored single family homes. The most popular were single family homes with first floor master planning suites, followed closely by single family homes on large lots. So I think we need to give some context so people know that's what the feedback that we received was. And then they have the opportunity to comment on this and ask, are these housing options, or is there anything missing? So I would really like to see that incorporated on that page.

Okay?

Okay, then the next page there, that one right there, that chart I do not believe is in the master plan. And it's a pretty interesting chart. My comment would be, if we put it on this page, we should add it into the master plan. Moving on. Much of this, again, is lifted straight from the master plan. Then we get to a second section, and this is the one with the Ann Arbor Road corridor. Okay, and this is where I have some real concerns. So can you go to that document, the Ann Arbor Road corridor maps?

Oh, yes, yeah.

Okay. The idea here, I presume, is to talk about some of the ideas we've talked about how we could improve the Ann Arbor Road corridor. And the actual presentation has a number of different sites that show what could be done. The concern I have is that conceptually we've talked about perhaps one, the first one, but the others we've never talked about in any detail. And I believe it's way premature to be putting this in front of the public and also think it's confusing because basically the idea here is to just suggest that there are uses on Ann Arbor Road that could be other than what we have. So I would actually like to retain, go back to the first chart, Liz. I'd like to retain this chart because I think this one talks about the idea of multiple uses on Ann Arbor Road. So to give you the orientation up at the very top, is the railroad tracks. And then just at the very tip top is Plymouth Walk. So we're basically looking at the piece of land that's west of Plymouth Walk and west of the railroad tracks that's presently the RV storage and then the dump truck area. And what they're proposing here is they're showing how this piece of land could be developed with a number of different uses. And what we have is, for instance, along the very front, The orange is a commercial retail type usage. The aqua color is kind of a combination of office and retail. So basically the first floor is retail. There would be offices on the second floor. And then the far right would be retail. And then further back in this section, you have some housing units that would help us with missing middle housing. The blue-purple ones would be duplexes, and to the south, the yellow areas there, could be townhouses, although as Commissioner Cebulski had suggested to me when we discussed this, those also could be duplexes. So it really shows how we could have multiple land uses along this section of Ann Arbor Road that would be a real improvement to the community. So if we're going to talk about Ann Arbor Road corridor, I believe this is a good page to do that. The issue I have is with then the other pages that are followed. So this next page here basically talks about this actually shows something that could be used in the what I believe is a storage lot behind Fox Hills, Chrysler, Plymouth. And from my retail experience in my career at Ford, I can assure you that dealership, there's no way they would give up that piece of land. Absolutely not. So I believe that's inappropriate. The next page is, can you scroll to the next page? The next page, no, go back one, I'm sorry. Can you go back one? Okay, go back one more. There you go. That one, that's actually the existing Arby's facility. And again, this would propose townhouses on the upper floor and commercial on the first floor. We haven't had any discussions about this. I don't believe it's necessary to get the point across. And then the last one, and if you can go on, this is the one where I really have a big issue. This actually, the blue area here proposes building four duplexes in what is currently a single family lot in the Green Meadows subdivision. And my view on this is we are not going to put duplexes in existing single family neighborhoods in Plymouth Township. So I have a whole number of concerns. First of all, this proposal here is inconsistent with the future land use that we're proposing in 2025. This piece of property is proposed as medium density residential as it is right now. The second is that this is in direct opposition to priority action plan number five. It's one of our pages that talks about housing and neighborhood protection. And it says the township shall work to retain the integrity of established single family neighborhoods. And of course, if we did this and put duplexes in one lot in Green Meadows, that would set the precedent for a bunch of other potential uses, and that subdivision is a key asset to the community, as is, it's one of the few places where you can get really affordable single-family housing, both existing, and there's some new homes being built there that are relatively affordable.

And I see people being up in arms about that.

Is it possible for you to go to Google Maps and show us that site so people can see that? That way people can visualize it. And I also feel, you and I talked about it, Tim, and at the beginning of our master plan, we say that one of the goals is to preserve the character of the community. And Tim and I both feel that this does not preserve the character of the community. I agree. You have to zoom in so we can really see it.

Was this, is this like ordering like a commercial or something?

It's behind, you know where Barston's is and the Red Island? Yeah. And next are those town homes. It's behind those town homes. You'll see the single dwelling home. Okay. That would have to be taken down.

It's on a big lot or something?

It is quite a large lot. I was surprised when I looked at it.

It actually ends up, because of what's proposed, they would have a road that would connect. Can you go a little larger? And a little, and kind of, it's over to the left now. Can you kind of center it to the right?

Hang on one sec.

I hear that Domino's Pizza and Bigby Coffee.

Yeah, it's to the right of the Bigby Coffee.

Where Red Olive is. Kind of across from the Chicken Bowl.

So there's the two townhome buildings. This is directly behind it. There's an existing single-family home on this piece of land. And also on the right side of Oakview Road, there's another single-family home that would have to be demolished to create this gray road that basically connects the townhome development to Oakview Avenue. So you'd be taking out two single family homes that already exist in Green Meadows. So I'm opposed to this proposal if it ever comes in front of the Planning Commission to begin with. But the bigger issue is for purposes of clarity in this conversation with the community that comes in, we only need one page to show this. And the first page shows with the idea of the multiple use, gets the point across. So my strong recommendation is that we drop these other pages and just use this one page to get the point across.

I agree with you, Tim. The other thing is, and I know that this is a concept, this is presented as a concept. There's no proposal or expected proposal. But I can see if residents that live in that area see it, they're going to get all worked up over it.

You're absolutely right.

So one clarifying question, Tim. On that one page that we like, right, that had the two orange buildings and the aqua-colored ones? Yes. Yeah, that one. Is that Lilly Road right in front of the two orange buildings?

No, it's Ann Arbor Road. Ann Arbor Road.

It's Ann Arbor Road. Okay.

And actually, Liz, since we would not be showing the others, we should probably get rid of that number six at the bottom because that's one of the other proposals.

Okay.

Right, that's the one where the bowling alley is. So if you can, it's not a big deal, but if you can eliminate that, I'd recommend you do that.

So where I was trying to go with it, Dennis, was if it's Ann Arbor Road, maybe you can label Ann Arbor Road just so people have an idea where this is at. There's one example that shows people have a hard time seeing what a house looks like when it's a blank piece of land. They can't see what Tim can see because he's done this his whole career, right?

So could you just write in Ann Arbor Road along that? Yeah, that'd be perfect. And then maybe along the railroad tracks, just put the CSX railroad tracks.

And then they'll know Zik or this is, and it'll serve the purpose of one visualization.

I will just say on this section, It was actually Stuart that pointed it out in his email to me. I realized I copied and pasted the wrong section of the Ann Arbor Road. It was more about our connection to the city ordinance and just working with the city. I changed it to the vision and then the goals of what we're trying to do with the vision. So it's a little different now. I'm happy to send it to you so you can look over it and make sure. I think it better... explains what that picture is actually trying to do now instead of what I had before.

Okay. And those are the only, oh, there was one other comment I had also. You're going to have a chart that shows the future land use page. It would be helpful to have as a backup the current zoning map and also the existing land use map. And I would recommend we have those behind the future land use map. So don't bring them out unless we need them. But it would help, you know, I think for people, if somebody has a question about a specific site, we could say, well, here's actually, this is the present zoning. This is what is presently allowed. The future land use is what we would like to see it become given.

Tim, would you be okay if we printed them out on like an 11 by 17 sheet or would you want a board?

It's up to you, Liz, whatever you, you guys, this is your presentation, so whatever you think is appropriate. Okay, sounds good. Those are my only comments.

They're good comments, thank you.

Okay, any other comments? No, you've covered it, we've discussed it at length, and it took me a little while to figure out, you know, the last one that, with the, the duplexes into that residential area. And I don't know, Liz, but you know, I've been thinking about this. So I think from a financial standpoint, from a developer, what really is the difference between the houses and the dupe or the townhouses and the duplexes? except it's just a different style of living. Because we also have condos that have two units to a building or three units to a building. It's just a different name for the same kind of living situation.

Yeah, kind of. I mean, condos will typically have your deed agreement, your HOA agreement, things like that. Townhomes don't necessarily have to have that, but if they wanted to be condos, then they would. And then it's also just a difference of buildings. development, how you develop a townhouse is different from like a condo if it's not like a duplex.

I just, I think duplexes have a negative connotation. Everyone thinks it's low, you know, low income or whatever, and you're exactly right. The condos are the same thing. Whether they're three, four story, okay, I guess they're a little bit bigger than like the St. John's things. I mean, the whole thing's like 20, every unit's like 20 feet wide. I mean, I don't know what's so special about that.

I think part of it's marketing.

Yeah, yeah. I think townhome sounds better than duplex. I think that's part of it.

Yeah, you have to consider the area that we're talking about. We don't have those. So it does have a negative connotation because then people think, okay, so now what are you trying to jam into this little space?

Right. But I... I mean, Tim, I agree with you. I think single-family homes on large lots are the most preferred in Plymouth Township, but there's almost no land left, so you're simply preserving that. But any piece of land left, I can understand why people want to put condos or townhouses or PUDs or whatever, because you are trying to... I guess, one, justify the whole project. But number two, I think where you will see more of this come before us as there's just these little tiny pieces of land left. And I guess if we're not going to be open to any of these, then okay. Then we just want... you know, homes on the lots, on the big lots. And that's it. But I think we should be a little bit open to...

I totally agree, Stuart, but I also think we need to be consistent with our zoning and our future land use.

Yeah, and I'm not saying two duplexes there is, you know, something great. I'm just saying it just probably depends on the area and...

you know, the proposal. There's very little single-family residential land left in the townships. So the reality is... most of what we will probably see will be multifamily already existing multifamily zoning is my guess.

Well, yeah, yeah. Or PUDs, like the one on Powell Road. I think we'll see a little bit of that.

I think the other point is, and I think we made it pretty clear in the master plan that wherever we go from here is going to keep intact and preserve what we have because people are here because they like what we have. So for us to speculate at this point, is not really going to do anybody any favors. You're right. Put duplexes there. Well, we don't want this. Let's just keep focusing on maintaining and improving, but not getting into all of those details, especially with the public coming in because they're not going to understand everything that's going behind all of this.

So kind of an extension of this discussion, have you heard anything where I get on the Michigan Township Association on this package of bills that was before. The nine bills? Yeah, the package of nine bills. Or if our attorney has heard anything about these, I'm sure you've heard about it.

I think you're talking about like 52-29, 52-30, all of that progeny. I have heard about those. They were pushed over to committee. There was a lot of conversation. I know in particular... In some areas, some of the sponsors, every community in their jurisdiction filed a resolution opposing it. And so I don't suspect it'll move anywhere in the current format. I think it definitely will. I think they're going to, the revisions that I heard focused on making those incentive-based so that if you did pursue it as a community, there would be an incentive provided to that community, but they were in no way obligatory.

Any other discussion about any of this or other topics?

On the master plan, no, but I had two other points on other topics.

Well, if we're done with this sort of general topic, then bring yours.

Our current supervisor allowed us to take our dogs into Plymouth-McClempa Township Park, which I applaud. Okay. And I've had a number of residents ask me, boy, it'd be nice if there was an opportunity to have dog runs somewhere in there. And I looked at that site many times. I used to play baseball there at the Diamonds up there, and there's plenty of parking. And I look at what Northville Township did with their soccer fields. They have a dog park in there. And if you had a size specific, outside the outfields, there's narrow areas that are long where you could have probably a couple runs that has a gate and an entry. I only wanted to bring that forward because we're the planning commission. and we can plan these things out, and maybe we could take that to the trustees at some point in time, right? I just wanted to bring it up for awareness to have you guys think about it, okay?

Okay.

So that was the first one. Okay. The second one was our Bradbury residence. They've got that 119-inch DBH heritage tree that's encroaching on the asphalt, and the president of the HOA wants to cut the dang thing down, and there's residents that are upset. And Saj and I had talked last week on Wednesday, and we're hoping to find out if they were able to pull the landscape plan. What can we do to help, right? Maybe it's bringing in the HOA president and committee to have a conversation. I'm not sure what to do, but I want to see what McKenna was able to find out in the last week's worth of time.

So we haven't been able to pull up the approved landscape plan because our Carol Martin, our administrative assistant, she hasn't been here. She broke her wrist. So I don't have any way of truly finding it with the access I have to certain files and things. I can probably reach out to the building department, see if we can find it, but they do have to meet, what the approved landscape plan was. So whatever they're doing, they'll have to replace trees. In addition, I believe with talking to Spalding Detector, they recommended asking them to hire an arborist to determine if they can actually just cut down the roots and stop what's happening with the asphalt. I haven't been in contact with Bradbury. She hasn't reached out to us specifically, even though she said she would, the HOA president. And I don't have her contact information.

I will send you what I have because one of the residents sent me an idea of how she went online and got some information. And she said that might be a good way for us to get the information. So I'll pass that on to you and then you can contact her directly. Yeah, that'd be great. Thank you, Sandy.

I think those apartments have been there for at least 40 years.

Probably, so we might have it. It's been there since I've been here. Right, we might not, but at $250 an inch, that's about a $30,000 bill they'd have to pay in addition to the arborist. And all of a sudden, cutting down this tree to solve this problem might not be the lowest cost solution.

Well, and there's an attitude that we can do what we want. And so they're kind of being told, no, we, there are, you know, we have a tree ordinance and there are restrictions and you're kind of saying, well, we'll pay the fine. And so what, let them do it. So we need to be proactive as much as we can to prevent it from happening.

Okay. So that goes into another discussion that we've had in the past here, because, you know, we've had circumstances, situations where, developers will come in and take the tree down before they even show up here. And then what's the fine? They're willing to pay for the fine. And so the question is how, how should the fine be stiffer? Should there be real consequences? And we talked about that here amongst this current commission as well. Yeah.

I agree with you. I just, I do want to note. So our tree ordinance doesn't cover residential only if they have a development plan and that was approved by you guys in the board or whatever. So when they have that, they have to meet it. But if it's just a residential property, I don't have any authority to make them replace trees or anything like that. Just wanted to make that clear.

which is good and I'm glad you brought that up because we have a hole in our system here and I'm looking to you guys knowing what the holes are that we're dealing with on existing sites versus new ones to get the holes filled with reasonable, sensible things that are logical way to go forward so we don't have somebody trying to solve a problem without realizing they might be creating a bigger problem and there's ways to solve things logically.

And again, they're trying to look at the resident that contacted me is looking at the fact that this tree was on the landscape plan. So do they have the authority on the site plan or whatever? Do they have the authority? People are grasping at straws to try to find a way for their argument, which I certainly understand. So you're right. This is a good chance for us to look at that and say, do we need to do something different? I don't even know that we would do it, but.

But is Bradbury considered residential?

It is residential.

Yeah, no, I know what it is. I was just kind of rhetorically asking. Well, it's not on the same plan.

Yeah, it's different because they have their own set of rules and deeds and all that stuff, but the key is if it was part of the plan that was approved when it was built back in the 70s, then what they're saying is you can't just remove that without. So it is complex, and it is something that needs to be looked at.

10-foot diameter tree, there aren't too many of those in the township.

Okay, anything else from anybody?

Yes, Commissioner Cebulski. We're looking at doing a study session in July again to go over data centers, child care centers, and do we need to do the land division? Yes, you did ask for some additional information about the Land Division Act, so we're looking to... do one more work session pretty much with you guys on those three items, and then hopefully we can move forward with public hearings.

In August, you said? July. July.

I'm not recommending July 1st. I'm recommending July 8th.

That might be tough, but the other issue is we need to know what the deadline is on the moratorium for the data centers.

18 months.

It was 18 months? Yes. Okay, so we're okay. We're okay. We might want to make that a little bit longer. just because July is a big travel time for a lot of people.

Also, Liz, do we need, as a planning commission, do we need to discuss any changes that we would be making to the master plan based on the 63-day comment period before we present the master plan at the July 15th meeting?

Sorry, did you want to know if we, we need to make changes prior to that?

Yeah, do we need to, is the master plan we're gonna present for the public hearing, is it any different from what we've already presented based on the feedback that we get from the public comment period?

And yeah, that's the key because with this open house thing that we're having, we can anticipate we're gonna get more comments, so it has to be considered.

We'll make changes that we find appropriate from the comments to the master plan and how I've done it in the past is just highlighted those changes. I think Laura has done it too. We've highlighted those changes, but then anything that you would want added to the master plan or change, you could do so as a condition of approval and still be recommending it to the board.

Will we see those comments from people?

Yes, yes.

So you would bring to the July 15th meeting a revised master plan, incorporating your take on the feedback. Yes. But it would be the first chance we would get to see as a planning commission of those changes.

Yes. But would we see the comments prior to the 15th?

We can absolutely send them to you before.

Is that what we can?

But were you asking if the clock resets or anything or what?

No, I'm just... You know, the July 15th meeting, we're supposed, the idea is this is the final master plan that we vote forward to the Board of Trustees for final approval. And if it's got a number of changes from what we previously agreed, as the Planning Commission, we need to make sure we agree with those changes.

And maybe then we will have to schedule a special meeting just to do that. Maybe we will.

Yeah, we could do it on the special meeting if we want. Let's see what we get.

Yeah, maybe that's the, let's see what we get. Okay. Decide if we need it. If it's minor changes, then...

It's not a big, it's not a big deal. I'm anxious to see, but if we got roughly seven people that sent things in, we'll see how many people show up for the open halls. Some of it might be they're showing up for information.

Right.

And that was... You know, my goal is to educate people.

And then, of course, we hold a public hearing on July 15th. So it's possible that we might, somebody might point out something that we hadn't thought of and we might have to further advise. Okay.

All right. Anything else?

So do we, so no July 8th or do we want to? Let's see what you get in comments and let's see how the thing goes next week and see what kind of, you know, what people are saying and the volume of the changes that people recommend. Sounds good.

So, well, just a straw vote. Does July 8th work for people? No, I'm in the Upper Peninsula. You're in UP? Sandy?

I don't know for sure, but I...

If we have to, I'll try to work around it, yeah. I don't know. I'm presuming it's okay. Okay. Well, we'll play it by ear and see what happens. Okay. All right. Are we now ready? Did anyone else have anything, last comments?

I do just want to mention one thing. For you guys, the gun club, we met with them yesterday. You may have noticed they were working on their site recently. We did a stop work order. They have come to us with a state act. We are sending it to the township attorney to review. That pretty much allows them to do what they want. even increase their use, which is what they were trying to do. So I just want you to be aware of that. If you start seeing activity on that property again, if you're over there, that's what's happening with that right now.

How are they planning on increasing their use? Do you know?

They're adding a couple more ranges. And then I, I don't know if they're adding another building, but they are applying for a liquor license.

And that's going to affect residential too, with a mobile home being so close. Yeah.

Yeah. So they, From our interpretation of the act right now, which we're going to wait for the township attorney, it appears they wouldn't need to come back through to open up the special land use. They would just be able to do it.

Oh, wow. So that is in the township I'm trying to remember? Yeah, it is. Okay.

Yeah. It's where the range is. It's just inside the township line. The entrance isn't, but where the buildings are.

And then one more thing. Remember on the corner of Plymouth Road and Schoolcraft, the northwest corner that was going to be there rezoning was going to be a warehouse or whatever the thing is. It's Plymouth Road. Plymouth Road, Plymouth Road. No, no, Plymouth Road and Hagerty, the northwest corner. The notice of rezoning is still up for December of 25.

We actually had a meeting with them today. We'll ask them to take it down.

Oh, okay. All right.

So now I'll make a motion that we adjourn so that before somebody else comes up with an idea.

Motion to adjourn at 8.59 made by Commissioner Groth and who supports it? Give me a high five. Me. Moved by Commissioner Groth and supported by Commissioner Pop to adjourn at 8.59. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Adjourned.