Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

how are you good how are you nice

wear it all day and often because it's a summer thing.

It's a nice summer sport coat. I didn't get the green shirt memo. Sorry about that.

Apparently neither did I. No, you I guess didn't either. Blue is good. Blue is always good. Tim, I am impressed you always buy shirts with couplings.

it's like your little thing it is or one of them it's fun yeah it's fun uh at ford um very formal but cufflinks were kind of almost too much yeah so i kind of saved the moment for the very very good meetings yeah and i don't have to worry about that so now yeah

Wear them. I mean, you'll never wear the damn things out. Hi.

How are you? Good. Wow. Well, I was on that, but too...

Okay. Still in the house. My mom's 94. Okay. Okay. I know.

The Plymouth Township Planning Commission meeting will come to order. Secretary, please call roll.

Dennis Abulski.

Here. Tim Boyd. Here.

Stuart Popp. Here. Sandy Groth.

Here.

Dan Callahan. Here. Bill Iks. Here. Ashley Krueger.

Here.

A full house. Okay.

Is there a motion to approve the agenda as submitted?

So moved.

Is there support? Support. Moved by Commissioner Groth and supported by Commissioner Boyd to approve the agenda as submitted. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. Is there a motion to approve the May 20th minutes? And Liz, were we going to have the June minutes at this meeting?

I emailed them out to you yesterday.

Okay, so I thought you would have printed copies.

I don't, but I'm happy to run up and print them.

No, that's okay.

I apologize about that.

First, is there a motion to approve the May 20th? No.

I think we should hold off. I wanted to hold off to make sure, A, we read them. I did print them and read them today.

No, I'm talking about the May motion, which was in our packet.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. No issues with me. Sorry, I thought it was the gentleman.

So is there a motion? I had a question.

Okay. On page three of the May 20th meeting, the second paragraph from the bottom, it says, it was noted that the Township Board of Trustees has already rejected the consent judgment and is actively opposing the applicant's request to vacate it. Is that exactly correct?

I did make that statement at the meeting that the Board as a whole, the Board of Trustees have rejected the request to allow the cluster, the consent agreement to, we don't want to ignore it. We're pursuing it. We're pursuing it positively and not asking for it not to be eradicated. So I did say that.

Is the wording, does the wording capture that to your satisfaction?

Maybe not. We can take the word actively out and just saying opposing the applicant's request to vacate it.

The Board of Trustees, what they really did was reject the...

The request, yes. We rejected the request.

Okay, good.

With that, I'm okay. So that will be a modification?

Yes.

Okay. Are there any others? Okay. So is there a motion to approve the minutes of May 20th subject to the correction?

Mr. Chair, I move we approve the proposed minutes for May 20th.

With that correction.

Yeah, with correction, support.

Moved by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Eichs to approve the May 20th, 26 minutes subject to the amendment. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. And the minutes of June 17th, which were emailed out. So what's the pleasure?

Bill, you wanted to... Yeah, so I did review them. I printed them, right? Went through them thoroughly. And what I saw that was missing, right? and I know we've had some rotation on secretaries here, and I know they do the best they can, but I was very specific on wanting to make sure McKenna Hall did follow up with Plymouth Downtown Development Authority on the dance studio that moved out that may have created an opening for someone from Park to move out and take it, so you could potentially get a child care center in Park where parking and traffic is no problem. It's easy to get to. There is nothing in either Commissioner comments in the closing or the body, so I at least wanted to get an amendment to go on the it's relevant to from where we are it's to me it was a suggestion that you would make to the to the people in the city of Plymouth it was a suggestion to our planning community that has a relationship with them right just to while it was hot and it was free and it was it was available and it was but you want it reflected in the minutes yes please right but I also would like to make a motion that we postpone approval until I see the hard copy because I have not seen them either all right good

All right, well then is there a motion to postpone the review of the June 17th minutes until the next meeting? So moved. Okay, second. Okay, moved by Commissioner Graf and supported by Commissioner Boyd to postpone until our next meeting the approval or the consideration of the minutes of June 17th. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. And then... This is time for public comment for a non-agenda item. So is there anyone here that wishes to speak to a topic that is not on the agenda? Yeah, can you come forward because we are recorded. But wait till you get to the mic. Thank you.

It's my understanding that you can't hold people to this non-agenda item issue. You're the attorney? I thought I heard that at a board meeting. Are you going to allow people to speak to the master plan before you make a decision? That's my question. Yes. Okay, so I don't need to speak now?

No, correct.

Okay, because when I read the agenda from home, it appeared that you only had one public comment section.

No, there's two. We're having a public hearing on the master plan. But this is an opportunity for anyone that has something other than what's on the agenda.

Yeah, I understand that. I want to know, since I read the agenda last night, I didn't see a section prior to the discussion of the master plan for comments. Are you going to allow that?

It is item number seven, public hearings. I printed it. Public comments.

Probably our computer didn't print it properly.

Okay, it says hold public hearing for new charter township of Plymouth master plan for land use.

Okay, our printer is low, so we didn't go get another whatever. Okay, I just wanted to be sure. Thank you.

Anyone else that wishes to speak to anything other than what's on the agenda? Okay, then we'll move on to application 2601. the 42-345 Ann Arbor Road and Arc Sign Review for the Fifth Third Bank, which I believe now is a Coal America branch. So the planner, you have your report.

Thank you, Chairman Zabowski. Liz Hart with McKenna. This is an Ann Arbor Road corridor sign review. This is for the 655 Ann Arbor Road, which is currently shown as Comerica Bank, but Fifth Third has bought out Comerica and they're changing the signage. So what they're proposing is to install two new monument signs, one on Ann Arbor Road and one on Lilly Road. They're just replacing the existing Comerica monument signs. They're gonna install one new wall sign. Again, that's just replacing the existing Comerica one. And then two directional ground signs at the entrances off of Ann Arbor Road and Lilly Road. The proposed signs do meet all the standards for the Ann Arbor Road corridor, and we don't have any issues with them. I will say the north elevation, the fifth third symbol is proposed to be 17 inches in height, which does require the Planning Commission approval. That's because the symbols are only allowed to be 16 inches, so it's just an inch larger. So you'll have to approve that. And then the monument sign that is along Ann Arbor Road is replacing the existing pole sign structure. So that will be removed and it'll be a monument sign. And in your packets, they did show a night view of the signs. You'll see there are three colors that represent the branding. And the bottom part of those signs, those monument signs, is white. And that's not going to be illuminated. It's just the lettering of the sign. So I do think that's pretty acceptable in terms of how we have been looking at how exterior lighting has been impacting Ann Arbor Road. Then the two directional signs, they do meet the size requirement. They're not to exceed two square feet per side, which they're proposing 1.99 square feet per side. And they just help facilitate vehicular traffic flow on the site. I know your packet does include a few other signs like a stop sign and a handicap parking sign. And then there's a window sign, an ATM sign. Those are all incidental and they're not part of this review. We've reviewed them and they do meet the ARC signed ordinance. So we are recommending approval as presented tonight. I'm not sure if the applicant Kim with Allied Signs is here, but I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you.

Is the applicant here? Yes. Okay.

My name is Bob Bongiorno with Allied Signs here on behalf of the Third Bank. Like the young lady said, the sign package proposed is pretty much what the sign ordinances will allow. It's pretty much like for like with the Comerica signage that will be removed and the Fifth Third signage that's going to be installed. Okay.

I would like to know why you can't make the the symbol sign 16 feet instead of, or 16 inches instead of 17, if 17 is the standard.

In the mass manufacturing of fifth third product nationwide, it's pretty much a standard size in the production. And to make one sign custom for one inch, For one sign, the cost would be an additional cost to make it custom for one inch. These signs are mass produced to size specs nationwide for fifth third. They try to keep everything standard for branding and identification.

I appreciate that, but... We also have ordinances for a reason. Different communities would have them. So I was just curious to know what the reason was for the change.

Like I explained, mass production of the product. If they try to keep it standard, it's all sized proportionately with their logo and the lettering throughout the country. I guess if... as many cities have fifth thirds in, if they had to comply like for an extra inch on every sign in every community, I think that would be a huge problem for fifth third and the manufacturing, the manufacturer of the signs.

The plus is that you're going to take down the pole sign.

Yes, the pole sign will be removed, which now after 20 plus years, that pole sign's been up there. It's kind of like an eyesore with a nice new monument sign, brick monument sign taking its place and landscaping around it. I think it's going to beautify the corner there.

This white banding that is underneath the Fifth Third information, how bright is that? Pardon? Is this white banding at the bottom of the sign, that's lit, correct?

No, that is not illuminated. Just the wording, the lettering of Fifth Third Bank. The wording is white, okay.

Liz, my recollection is that we've made accommodations on slightly larger letters, something I always worry about.

Thank you.

Do we have examples, Liz, that you can refer to us, right? Because this is pretty uniform, and that side of Annaber Road, I think, looks awesome.

I believe Taco Bell was one of them, and then I'm not familiar with any others, but I'm happy.

I think it might be Duncan, not Duncan Donuts, the other one. Scooters? Not scooters. Big B?

Big B. Yeah, I'm also happy to pull that information for us for next time, because we will be looking at Duncan again.

So the thing I want to add is, do, by any chance, Bob, do you know what it would cost to actually get it in compliance to 16 inches instead of 17.812, since it really is 17 and 13 sixteenths, so it's really not one inch?

It's less than one inch, additional in size.

It's actually one in 13, 16 inches larger.

Well, splitting hairs like that would probably cost thousands of dollars for an individual sign to be made.

Okay, and you're the local sign maker, so you haven't made this sign before?

We're the local installer. We are not the manufacturer.

Ah, okay. I see. So we do have a precedent. Yes, we do. Okay, thank you, Lewis.

Any other concerns, comments, questions?

I have a comment.

Yes.

I just wanted to mention that I appreciate you removing the pole sign and replacing it with lower monument signs. I think that's a nice improvement to the site. I do want to understand the timing of that removal. When will it be removed?

Will it be concurrently with the... Well, I believe the target date for fifth, third opening is September 7th. So this can be a quick turnaround for everything. That's why they're hoping to get approval from planning to move forward with everything, get permitting and get product in production. Because they do plan on opening September 7th. So that's not a lot of time from now to September.

So the poll sign will be?

Will all be removed relatively quickly. Comerica Bank, I believe, is closing on the 7th and then the location will be de-branded.

Understood. Thank you.

I had another, a comment, one. I don't know who pulled this package together, if it was you, Bob, or if it was the planners, or if it was Atlas, the branding company, but it's very well done, number one. The dimensions were easy to read, right? And the layout, it's a significant improvement for signage that's there at that site. from what we've laid out for the arc. So I'm glad to see the execution come together and some it's easy. The only question I had is there was a sign that had a variance to 25 square foot and they wanted 29. And it was on page number three, item number four on the sign area on the premises with front street frontage less than, supposed to be 25 square feet. This one will be 29. And I didn't know if that was the same story of it's going to cost thousands of dollars or what. I just didn't know why it wasn't compliant because everything else is to the money in compliance.

I believe the ordinance allows one square foot for each additional foot, and there's setbacks at 28 feet right now. So that's why they were able to go up a little more.

So the setback allowed it. All right, great, great answer. Thank you.

Anything else from anyone?

Is there a motion to approve this? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE PC NUMBER 2601, THE ARC SIGN REVIEW FOR FIFTH THIRD BANK AT 42345 ANN ARBOR ROAD. SUPPORT.

MOVED BY COMMISSIONER POP AND SUPPORTED BY COMMISSIONER BOYD TO APPROVE APPLICATION 2601. AS SUBMITTED, ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. Next is application 2604. Thank you, everybody. Yeah, sure. Thank you.

Good luck.

Thank you. Application 2604, corrected address is at 40984 Concept Drive, the DR group, limited partnership, and your report.

Thank you, Commissioner Zabulski. Good evening. Before you is the final site plan for 40984 Concept Drive. It is a 14,000 square foot parking lot extension and two new truck loading overhead doors for an existing 48,000 square feet industrial building currently used for laser marking, cutting, and wielding technologies. The subject property is zoned industrial. The parking and truck loading additions are expected to bring minor impacts to the overall site design. In terms of parking, the proposed parking lot scale and location are not expected to generate any barriers to the surrounding properties. An additional 14,166 square feet of the site is proposed to be covered in impervious surfaces, bringing the site total to about 75% from a previous 66.5. A landscape plan was provided, and it indicates the removal of four non-heritage trees. The site is required to replace 64 DBH inches removed. The proposed site plan exceeds the minimum requirements for replacement with 16 trees. However, I want to note that the landscape plan does not provide the caliper of the replacement trees, so staff recommend as a condition of approval that the applicant submit the caliper of those replacement trees so we can confirm they're meeting the minimum requirements. Stormwater is to be collected and discharged into an existing off-site detention basin, and public services, including emergency response, are not anticipated to be adversely affected. The township engineer and the township fire marshal have approved the plans as well. The site has adequate internal circulation and driveway access to accommodate vehicles and trucks without creating new traffic impacts. For pedestrian access and circulation, while the sidewalk may be installed in the future along the frontage, staff currently is not recommending external pedestrian access improvements at this time as part of this application. And based on our review, McKenna staff does not see a safety concern with pedestrians accessing the building directly from the parking lot. The site does have five existing barrier-free parking spaces located on the west side of the building, and staff find the current pedestrian and access and circulation conditions meet the intent. For landscaping, a 10-foot buffer with screening landscaping is required along the parking and vehicular use area. It was not included with the submission, the existing planting. So staff is requiring as a condition of approval that the plan be updated to show the existing buffer landscaping and street landscaping and submit it for review to make sure that they're maintaining and there isn't any need for new plantings. The proposed addition is not going to impact the existing parking that is on location. So staff finds the parking requirements are met. The site does have three existing loading spaces, but the proposed plan will add two to result in a total of five loading spaces. And these are sufficiently sized and arranged to accommodate the turning radii. The two new truck loading overhead doors are similar to the existing 12 by 14 overhead doors, and the proposed changes to the facade will match what is existing. The overhead doors will be reviewed by the building department through their permitting process to ensure that proper structural utility and safety codes are met. Based on the two outstanding items that require adjustments, it is recommended that planning commission grant final site plan as it is an amendment to an existing site plan for application 2604 for unit 12 parking lot addition. The applicant is here to take questions and so am I, but before that, I will be presenting the engineering report on behalf of Spalding de Decker. Spalding to Decker is also recommending approval of final site plan. One general comment is that they provide the cost estimate for construction of all underground utilities and paving and grading to be installed with this project. In terms of storm drainage, the proposed work includes 0.32 acres of impervious addition. This will not trigger a Wayne County review. but it will need to be verified that the capacity of the existing structure and sewers is not exceeded by the proposed parking lot addition. They will still need to submit their final engineering plans for approval, but at this point they recommend approval of final site plan.

Fire Department has no deficiencies that they would see from a public safety. So just to be clear, what are the two outstanding items? One is the tree caliper for the replacement trees.

They're both in relation to the landscaping. So the tree caliper for the proposed plantings that are going in as replacement, and then just to note the existing landscaping that is along the right-of-way in the vehicular access area so that the screening continues to be met.

Thank you.

And the applicant is here? Okay.

Good afternoon, I'm Chris with Dems Development. How are we doing today? Good. Do you have anything to add? No, this is an existing building that our company owns. We have a new tenant that's prospectively moving in and they're the ones that have a need for the additional asphalt parking area as well as the overhead doors. We are well aware of the requirements that the city has put on us. As far as landscaping, the caliper, the value of the engineering and the capacity, I've already been in touch with our engineers and our landscape architects and we'll have it prepared for you within days. Questions? Yes.

I see nothing in writing that specifies what that tree caliper at minimum has to be.

It has to be at minimum 1.5 inches. I put the 11 required trees in there at that calculation, but I can send you the section of the ordinance that requires that.

I had actually already looked it up, and we had specified previously that we're gonna do eight eight-foot pine trees, but we will put a caliper of the trees on the drawings. Okay. I'm sorry, 16 pine trees.

Other questions, concerns, comments?

Yes. With the new tenant, they're in laser cutting, which is great. Any idea how many people or employees will be in to accommodate the loading and unloading of these two additional truck bays?

For the loading and unloading of the truck bays, there's probably going to be 15 people working in that general area. The overall capacity of the building is going to be about 65.

Great. Okay. Thank you.

Other comments? Is there a motion to?

I do, I'm sorry.

Sure, go ahead.

Taking my microphone off mute. I just want to understand, is the parking lot expansion, does it alter traffic volumes entering or leaving concept drive, or is it more for on-site circulation?

It's going to be for loading up, because the company that's tentatively moving is Renewal by Anderson, and that area is going to be designated to load the door walls and the windows into the service vans that will be pulling out. So it will not be an excessive amount of vehicles added to the traffic.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else? Is there a motion?

Mr. Chair, with representation to PC number 2604, I recommend final site plan approval subject to the conditions in the planner's report. Second.

Moved by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Papp to grant approval to application 2604 subject to said conditions. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you.

Next is, well, there is no application number, but the applicant is us, the Township Planning Commission, requesting the approval of the master plan. Do you want to lead us through discussion or how do you want to kick this off?

So this is to hold the public hearing first and then later we can have more of a discussion. But before you tonight is the final draft of the master plan. And in this final draft, we addressed the almost 100 comments that were provided to us from the public. And those that we felt were appropriate to make changes to the master plan are highlighted in yellow. And I think in your, sheet that goes through all the comments. I put in some page numbers so you can reference that. But as for right now, I just recommend that we open the public hearing and ask for the public comments and we can have a discussion about it after too. Okay.

So with that, I ask you could kind of line up if you want and be recognized. You have three minutes.

Do we need a motion?

Yeah, we will, but I'm laying this out. Yeah. You have three minutes. I ask you to be clear, concise, cogent, and most importantly, civil. So again, I'll ask the control person in the room there to put the timer up on the screen here. And is there a motion to open the public hearing at seven o'clock?

Mr. Chair, I move we open the public hearing for the master plan public hearing input on seven o'clock. Second.

Moved by Commissioner Boyden, supported by Commissioner Callahan. Is there a, signify by saying aye if you approve.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. Who's number one? Well, no. Okay, if you can set the timer. Thank you, I appreciate that. Thank you. Ready? Okay, give us your name and address if you desire.

Okay, my name is Nancy Romawi. I live at 42650 Revere, which is the corner of Revere Avenue and Hackberry Street. This is in regards to the proposed Making of the corner at Lilly and Joy Road into commercial from designated R1. Okay. We've been against this for at least three years now. And Lilly Road, the traffic is so bad that since when I was coming from an appointment I had to take a friend to, that I actually got a pizza and sat in the parking lot here at Township Hall to eat my dinner because if I had gone home, the chances of me being able to get here by 6.30 from a 5.30 arrival at my house date were small. Okay, so. It's been brought up many times about traffic studies on Lilly and Joy because of the proposed commercial designation. However, nobody seems to be willing to pay for this traffic study. And it's my feeling that if this company that wants to make this commercial that wants to build whatever it is that they're planning, they should be told, you're responsible for getting a traffic study before we even consider what you want to do and make it commercial. Because once it's commercial, there's no going back on that. It's not like, oops, we made a mistake and we're mad we did it. I mean, in my personal view. So thank you very much. Thank you.

I just want to clarify one thing. So what you're asking us to consider is that if it goes to commercial, that William and Joy Road site, that you would want a traffic study done.

Number one, I don't want it to go to commercial.

No, but if that comes before us, we still have to hear it.

Yes, that should be done.

Wendy Harless, I'm here representing my family's property at 8959 Lilly Road. I just want to read to you from your goals for this new master plan. Protect and enhance residential neighborhoods. The reduction of incompatible and uses particularly truck traffic, congestion, and industrial encroachment within or near residential neighborhoods is an important objective. Changing the future land use map, that corner, that northwestern corner of Lillian Joy would completely change the character of our neighborhood. This is the 10th time I have been at this podium in the last three years asking either the Board of Trustees or the Planning Commission to please not change the future land use map. The current future land use map of record has that entire corner as R1 residential and that's what it's been the whole time that my family's owned that property for the last 52 years. I have also personally been to meetings of this commission about just the master plan, not just about the spars and ZY investments proposal, but specifically about the master plan asking you not to include my family's property within that new zoning, which previously has been called mixed use development in this new master plan. It's now being called local retail and residential, call it whatever you want to, it would completely change the character of our neighborhood. I am pleading with you to please give me some peace to find places where they can purchase property and develop it. I don't know how they get my contact information, but I am ceaselessly hounded with phone calls, text messages, emails, Things in the mail. People drive into my driveway, despite the fact that there is a no trespassing sign right next to the driveway, and they knock on the door. If I don't answer, they write me a little note. Hey, would you like to sell the back acre of your property to me? No, I feel like putting a not for sale sign out in front of my house. I'm not kidding. Like for three years, we have been asking you to please not change this future land use map. We would like to see single family residences there. That's what we would like to be built. We realize change is coming, but can we please make it compatible with our neighborhood and make it the least impactful on all of the congestion and And I would also like to ask how would changing this future land use map impact the current lawsuit that is in the courts between MZY Investments where the Board of Trustees has declined their request to change the zoning because it doesn't fit with the current future land use map that's on record or the zoning that it currently holds, which is our one residential. So how will this impact that ongoing lawsuit?

Okay.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Heather Trinkle. I'm on the cul-de-sac. I'm 9032 Hackberry. And I have two young girls who are impacted already by the traffic at Joy and Lily. So this traffic gets backed up so bad that people cut through our cul-de-sac and they whip around the cul-de-sac where our children are riding bikes and running and with no regard to our safety as residential people. So it is already very frustrating with the current traffic there. especially if you try and turn left at that light as it is. And to then have commercial development in our backyard is very frustrating as a mom, as someone that is really trying to develop a better community where she lives to see just more commercial building into our neighborhood and also just more concrete. So there's already a creek on the other side across from us that is always high. So now you're adding more concrete. Where do we think the water is going to go? Into our basements. So as someone that lives there, I don't need to see like more concrete going across and how high they're going to go. Two, three, I don't know how many floors of apartments they're going to try and put there where our families are trying to like So I guess I'm just frustrated by moving the commercial across Lillie to also include this corner that is key to our community here. So just in terms of safety, just the nature of our land use, I would just love that you guys would keep this residential as intended. So I... And if you, I don't know why this is now across Lilly and previous ones. I didn't think that this mixed use was across where Spars is. We fought it before, so we all kind of thought this had gone away. So it is just frustrating that we don't feel like we're being heard and then we have to come back again. So instead of spending time with my young children, I'm here fighting again with my neighbors.

We appreciate your time.

Hi, my name is Sandy Dodge. I live at 8867 Manton, and that's the first street west of Lilly off of Joy Road. I totally agree with your suggestion of doing a survey, but I would request that you would do the survey when school's in, when PCA is in schedule, because the traffic that comes down our street going northbound on Manton is incredible in addition to the traffic at Joy and Lily. I've sat waiting to make a turn, a right turn onto Joy Road from Manton and I've sat there for seven minutes just to go right. You don't even go left on Manton onto Joy Road anymore and that wasn't during school. And with all the traffic that currently is coming onto Joy Road because of Ann Arbor Road, to get out of our subdivision and I can only imagine the folks that live on Lilly what that's like. We have been talking about this for a long time and I share the frustration of others that have said that we had hoped it was an ended conversation and we wouldn't have to deal with it any longer, but clearly we do and I just hope that you seriously consider the impact on the residents in that area. The poor people that live right there on Lilly It's going to impact them more, but it's going to impact us as well because cars cut through our street all the time. We had one of those speed things on our street for two or three weeks. And it was great seeing it there, but it should have been there four or five weeks ago when school was in session because the traffic is incredibly heavy. And we've got a lot of young families on our block as well. So I would really hope that you will consider the neighborhoods, the people that live there, and the impact that this will have on them as you consider this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Crew Dennis. I'm a 30-year resident of the Plymouth Estates subdivision. My wife is a 50-year resident of that subdivision. It is our combined opinion that the traffic has reached the point of saturation. I want to be just another face to stand in opposition of any rezoning of the Lily Joy Road area. During rush hour periods, the traffic is even worse. Just coming to this meeting, it took me seven minutes to get out of the subdivision at Postop and Lilly. That's ridiculous. Just completely ridiculous. And as a retired police officer, I can see where the impact during rush hour could lead to emergency response by both fire and police during that time. We have the entire Plymouth Estates subdivision and we have the Plymouth Manor apartment complex. That's a fair number of people. and they should be remembered when it comes to their public safety. So as I state, myself and my wife would like to stand in opposition to any kind of zoning change that may impact traffic along Lilly or Joy. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Chris Robbins. I live on Manton as well. I'm just here to also, as everyone else that seems here is here today, to discuss the change from R1 residential to mixed use. This is an absolutely horrific idea. I think that this planning commission has largely been a benefit to this community over the last 15, 20 years of my lifetime that I've been living in Plymouth. And this particular change will be a significant departure from that. This does not represent what this planning commission stands for, which is listening to the community and all these people that are out here today. I don't know how many of these people will come out for a regular planning commission meeting that did not personally affect them in all of our lives individually. which this goes to show just how big of an impact that this one potentially insignificant change would make that to all of us as a community is a very significant change that directly impacts our ability to get to and from work, to and from our parents' homes, to and from school or class to do whatever we need to do to get food. During this heat, especially, just walking in those areas right now, I don't feel comfortable walking on the other side of Woolley Road to the other side of our subdivision, just because that traffic is so bad, even at eight o'clock, nine o'clock at night. My parents, they go, they get their beverages and things like that in the commercial zone in Canton on the other side of Lilley. And they want to be able to walk just across Lillie, five minute walk. And it takes them 10 minutes just to drive a walk that would take five minutes. So I think that this really would very strongly negatively impact this area. And Lillie, I mean, the way I joined Lillie, it takes me There was one time I was coming home from work. It took me five light cycles before I could make a left. And there's already a left turn lane. I don't understand why we can't just add a light for a left-hand turn lane that already exists. You don't need to redesign the whole road. You don't need to do anything. Add a light there. And that would save all of us. And it's a safety concern. There have been so many times where I've seen police laying outside at that light and stop people going through a red light, going through a yellow, as someone else has described. The safety issues, accidents, traffic. There was one week there were three accidents at that light in Joinville because people feel like the need to make that left off the red because they can't get through on the green light. So anyway, that's enough for me. Thank you guys. I appreciate you for all you do, but please make sure that you do the right thing here.

Hi, my name is Cindy Morin. I live at 42434 Lily Road, which is right off, or 424, Apple Creek Road, which is right by Lily. We've all been here a bunch of times. I do agree with everyone that has said something about traffic, about just the building there and changing the actual character of our neighborhood. Plymouth Township is a very desirable community to call home and pursue the American dream. There are standards and expectations that come with home ownership here. I've personally lived there 30 plus years there with my husband. Our peaceful neighborhood has a lot going for it. Family friendly, mature trees, close to town town, shopping and services, and just darn nice folks. The Future Land Use and Zoning Plan and the Strategic Action Plan say that they work together to protect and enhance residential neighborhoods, improve traffic safety, and encourage reinvestment in aging commercial corridors. Let's unpack that. One, neighborhoods. In the plan, it states the core of the Plymouth Township remains the single family, single unit residential housing in appealing environments. Appealing environments. Changes to the 2015 future land use map are stated to reducing negative land use impacts on the residential areas, improve air quality, reduce noise and safety risk, and enhance overall livability. Removing R1 from SPAR's properties does not support this. The township's master plan cites several objectives that nurture this area for continued growth, support and contribute to the small town feel that we all love, but that is all at risk if we degrade these standards. A community wide survey was used to gather for feedback on the master plan update and residents widely voiced their concerns for affordable housing, increased traffic congestion and the desire to maintain that small town feel. How does changing the zoning on this property promote that? It does not. That brings me to point two, improved traffic. Traffic has notably increased over the years. We've all covered this issue every time we meet here about spars. Instituting a zone change on the nearby property will exacerbate this problem and make it even more frustrating to exit the neighborhood. Lilly is commonly used to avoid Hagerty, 275, and the current construction projects on Morton Taylor. The last point, three, encouraging reinvestment in aging commercial corridors. Changing our one zone to mixed use does not support this. Ann Arbor Road corridor includes mixed use zoning and is the primary commercial spine for the township to reduce the need for outward commercial expansion and sprawl. The Ann Arbor Corridor is literally a block away. In fact, I walk to my dentist, I walk to the car dealership when I need to have my car repaired. In closing, the township desires affordable single family home units. Demolishing them on sparse property and the open green space that this area lacks is in violation of the resident's

You're past the three-minute mark.

Which is in goals of the master plan and infringes our quality of life and negative effects of property values. Do you want to live near this? I don't think people on the west side of the township would trade.

You are past the three-minute point.

I'm just saying, this only serves one purpose, and that's the arm.

Okay. Thank you.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Karen Dennis. My husband spoke earlier. I wasn't really planning on speaking, but besides the traffic, which I realize every single one of us has mentioned that, but we all have to get out of that neighborhood occasionally. So that is a big thing. I also want to point out the environmental impact that this would have on our area. I know Heather mentioned the water with additional concrete. There will be no place for the water to go except for into our basements. But besides the water, there is the air quality. If you increase the traffic, there will be more emissions. The noise pollution. Again, with the increased traffic, the noise pollution is only going to get considerably worse. Light pollution. There's already, it's already difficult to enjoy the night sky. And we have a number of us garden, and we do that for wildlife, and if you increase light pollution, that is going to significantly harm the local environment. flora and fauna in the area. That's it. Like I said, besides the traffic, I just really want it to be pointed out that the environmental impact would be extremely detrimental to our area. Thank you for your time.

Well, thank you for coming. Thank you.

Hi, Mary Pine, 48-year resident. I've been here many times for one thing or another. I don't have a prepared speech. I want to make it brief. What they're all talking about is the tip of the iceberg. It's not considering the community, why people moved here, and why we're entitled to have the community we bought and thought we were getting. Change will happen, but it has to be well considered. We copied the master plan, all these little pink papers I'm going to refer to later. We've copied everybody's comments. I've read it all. I was told when I asked the Planning Commission if you were for or against social engineering. Now, it was people on the Planning Commission have made it clear that they don't want the term missing middle. All these pink little papers are where it's camouflaged in your master plan. The missing middle comes from California, from the University of Berkeley. California is a whole other animal. And as one of my daughters who lives there, I just wrote down what she told me, it's a cautionary tale. Now, I would like to emphasize that things have not been well considered. You have major traffic problems, which they're all referring to. The responses were evaluated by our planning people that are hired to serve the community. and they kind of blow off some of the comments. We're having a deer traffic problem. If you're gonna build in all the empty space, the fellow next to us who's a civil engineer was pointing out, the reason why we have all this deer traffic is because they built in a land behind Trailwood that's where the deer used to live. Now, it's a health problem. I was told, by my comment that it's not their jurisdiction. They don't care if there's gonna be a fatality on Ann Arbor Road and is it Hagerty? And they don't seem to care that my husband has Lyme's disease. He did a $600 DNA test. He has two forms of Borrelia, two forms of Babesia. Now he's very tired all the time. He may never recover from this, I don't know. Things have to be more considered by the planning commission. Now when I get back to social engineering, I don't think you're really considering what the community is. We are entitled to have a nice community that we brought our homes in to live here, raise our families. We can age in our homes. The cycle of life means we will sell our homes someday. But we're not obliged to people who want to live here. If I wanted to live in Bloomfield Township, the city of Bloomfield, I don't have the right to say I want to live here. Anyway, there is a comment in here that I found astounding. Obviously, you are inviting social engineering. You are paying these planners to have a... You've exceeded the three-minute mark.

I know.

I'm almost done. To have a social agenda. Somebody has commented that you should have the... Yes, in my backyard, people in, but not the no in my backyard, people in. That was the major tell of what this plan is about. And according to, I think, our Constitution, both sides should get a say. So I really am not pleased with the master plan.

All right. Thank you for coming. Anyone else?

Good evening. My name is David Murray. I am at 42580 Joy Road. And like I think Wendy said, I was a little bit surprised. So I have not been here 48 years. Some of my neighbors have definitely been here a lot longer than I have. I have been here four years. This is my fourth year just now. And I am the property directly next to Spars. And so, but I'm also included, as Wendy said, in this rezoning aspect that would zone myself and the only other neighbor I have right next to me in between myself and the creek also in this zoning change. And four years ago, if spars would have been able to, which this obviously would allow them to do so, if they were to have had that development done that they had proposed a few years ago, I probably would not have bought my property because of the fact that I would not want to be purchasing a property directly next to a lot of parking lot and a lot of other things of that nature, whether it be single story, multi-story, whatever that might be. And if my property and my neighbor's property and Wendy's property or any of those other properties were then pushed out because of the fact that we don't want to be next to that sort of property, then all of my neighbors behind me, I have a long skinny lot. And so I'm next to a lot of the neighbors that spoke today. they would then be, even if I'm, even if I'm out, then they're looking, their backyard is right there. And so again, I bought the property. Yes. I wish spars their back lot. They would do a lot more with it. Let's do a lot of the neighbors that spoke today. Um, they would then be, even if I'm, even if I'm out, then they're looking, their backyard is right there. And so again, I bought the property. Yes. I wish spars their back lot. They would do a lot more with it. Um, but I understand that their mindset is elsewhere right now and legal battles or whatever the case may be. And they're not investing into it because they're hoping to do something else. Um, but again, the, the aspect, the The community is there. Not just this past weekend. We had a nice block party. Unfortunately, a lot of the conversation was more about this than just our own community. And we did have some of that, too. I don't want to take away from that. It was an excellent time. But again, we want that community. We want that neighborhood. And unfortunately, I think this is a big distraction, something that is not something that really any of us desire. So thank you for hearing our comments. Well, thank you for coming.

Hi, everybody. My name is Dave Maben. I'm a neighbor right across the street from Heather at 9037 Hackberry. She has to put a sign out, okay, to say our kids are playing here to keep people from zipping around like crazy, okay? Think about each of you. Would you like that for your grandkids or kids or whatever? Having to worry about your kids being hit by a car, okay? But not only that, you got the freaking light pollution. There's gonna be the light pollution. There's gonna be, I live on the creek. The creek is right there. It'll rain an inch or two and it's all the way up to my steps. Okay, I got a deck, and then there's my steps. And that's where the creek comes up. What if it goes three to five inches? What's going to happen then? It's going to get into my freaking basement. You understand what I'm saying? And I think that with this stuff going on, the concrete, like they say, or whatever they do for paving's sake, it's going to create a problem with all that. It's going to make it worse. So I would really like you to do like you did about a year and a half ago and say, yeah, we're not going to do this after all. Now, all of a sudden, here it comes. We're in this ugly head again. We got to fight this thing again. You understand what I'm saying? You know, so, I mean, this is ridiculous. They have to keep coming back and fight for our rights, you know? So that's it. I'll write my name. Dave. One last thing. Where that is, they should have a sign saying there is no open outlet here. I don't know why they haven't had that in all the years. I don't know if anybody in here knows Roy Banks. He was the greatest neighbor that I ever had. That guy, he'd give you the shirt off his back without telling anybody about it. And he would come here and talk about that. Nothing ever happened. Nothing ever. What do you wait for? You wait for somebody to get killed and then, oh, well, we better do something now. No, do it now.

Anyone else? Is there a motion to close the public hearing at 7.32?

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a motion to close the public hearing on the Charter Township Master Plan public discussion at 7.31. 7.32. 7.32. Who supports? Support.

Who was that?

Me.

Moved by Commissioner Papp and supported by Commissioner Boyd to close the public hearing at 7.32. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Okay, folks want to discuss the comments or any other comments that you may have?

Chairman Zabolsky, if I may make one comment. I just want, I hear, the community and the future land use does not rezone the property, but it does allow for somebody to come in and ask for a rezoning. However, this has been brought up by a commissioner and we are open to changing it back to the residential medium density that's already there. It just would be a recommendation from you to change the future land use to that.

That's my recommendation. Let's move forward.

Second it.

Well, let's finish talking about the master plan in general. Granted, there was focus was just on this one particular area, but we're looking at the entire township. So let's look at the whole thing in perspective. Okay.

I do have another question about that parcel. And if I'm not entirely clear why it's being suggested to change to that new zoning. Do you have any background on that?

I do believe it was possibly requested by the property owner of the Spars property over there and the future development that they do wanna do and then also the appeal that is going through the courts right now is more for mixed use development.

Because that's in accordance with what they wanted?

Yes. It is what they wanted and I think most of you weren't here at the very beginning of this because we have a relatively new commission. And it did end up in litigation. And my understanding is it's still in litigation. I guess I would say that we have to just wait to see how they get their day in court and where this all ends up. So there's nothing we can do immediately, but certainly these comments, and I counted that there were 11 folks that had come forward. So your comments came in loud and clear. Unfortunately, we can't come up with an immediate solution to the concern.

I would like to comment, especially for the audience, because I am new to the Planning Commission. I was not here before, so I didn't hear you all come in and say it. I did not ignore you. I never heard it. But what I want to say is that I am an Eastside resident, and I hear you, and I agree with you. because Lilly and Joy Road are a nightmare in terms of traffic. I did not vote for Gray's Greenhouse for the very same reason. I don't think we need any more traffic there. So I'm certainly open to and amenable to doing what we have to do to make this residential because I do believe that's what it should be. I just want you to know that.

I have a question for clarity. So if we change what's currently in this future land use in this draft, and we put it back to R2. R1. I'm sorry, R1, pending the outcome of the litigation, that doesn't necessarily mean that it couldn't be commercial in the future. Is that accurate?

Yeah.

I just want to make sure the audience understands that as well. The attorney is here. He could speak to that.

Yeah. The litigation proceeds my role as the township attorney and so I'm not familiar with the current status of the litigation because I'm not handling that particular case but what I would certainly recommend is to the extent there were a ruling that would be as I understand it adverse to the township requiring it to be zoned commercial that wouldn't be implicated one way or the other with the master plan if it's the the interest in the belief of the Planning Commission that it should be residential, then that should not be impacted by the pending litigation. The court has the authority regardless of the recommendation of the Planning Commission to make a final determination on the pending lawsuit.

Okay, thank you.

That helps. My question is, and Dennis, you and Tim have the experience here, right? Going back this little blue key notch on this intersection, right? It's blue on the future land use. Was it that way back in 2015, the last time we did a master planter? No, it was residential. That's what I thought. Okay.

With an overlay. Actually, there was an overlay that said overlay of It had a little qualifier saying for future possibilities. I can actually find the wording if you need it. I believe it.

There are a couple of houses on that, right?

I'm sorry?

There are a couple of residential houses on this particular person.

Actually, there's three along Lilley and there's two along Joy, including the gentleman that just spoke here.

Okay, thank you so much.

Can you come up to the podium? We usually do not take questions because you've had your chance. So you will be the one and only person.

Yeah, my name is Stuart Dodge. I live on Manton. With the actions here tonight, if the Planning Commission votes to restore it to R1 in the master plan, would that affect the court case at all? Or what position is the township taking in the court case? Are they wanting to keep R1 or do they want it to go commercially?

Again, this is a separate, these are parallel tracks as far as I understand it with the status of the litigation, so this would generally have no impact on the litigation. And this is only a recommendation to the Board of Trustees.

This is a two-step process, so... Let's say we move ahead and vote to approve the master plan. It then moves on to the Board of Trustees. Now, they can either approve it or they can deny it, but it takes both bodies to either approve it or deny it. So if they voted opposite than we did, then we'd have to go back and forth and see where the conflicts are and try to resolve those. So it's a two-step process.

What's the next step?

Well, if we approve it tonight, then it would go on to the Board of Trustees, and they would take the matter up and either approve it or deny it from their side. It takes two approvals. And it is a guide. A lot of people think that this is law, and it isn't. It's a guide. And if we say that, I believe we do cover that in the preamble, if you want to call it that, in the master plan.

So all this discussion was on spars, nothing about grades, right?

or any other area of the township. But there are other areas that are a concern for some of the commissioners. And I'm gonna turn to Commissioner Boyd right now, because he and I have had extensive discussion about it.

Thank you. One thing, there is, I believe, an error in the future land use map on Northville Road. on the west side of Northville Road and on portions of the east side, we've actually changed the zoning in the last several years back to single family. So I think that was just an administrative error. We need to look at the Northville Road south of M-14 and update that and reflect exactly what the zoning is that we've already changed. So that needs to be done before it goes to the Board of Trustees. The second comment I have is you're talking to the come up with the right word in this. We all have the same traffic concerns that you do. That's why it was so overwhelming in the feedback we got from the community. It was certainly no surprise to me that that was the feedback. We had listed a number of areas that we felt needed a complete traffic study, including all of Ann Arbor Road from CSX to M14 or to 275, as well as Hagerty, because that feeds into it. And then based on feedback from the community, we also added mentions of Sheldon and Beck that came through in the surveys and on the feedback from the community. Some of the feedback we got from the 60 day period from people again, as was referenced tonight, suggested that we also add Hagerty and I don't have it right in front of me. Let's see, it's on page 98. I'll just reflect it here. And anyway, the point is, okay, we added in Hagerty Road, Plymouth Road, and Schoolcraft Road as potential for the study. And I would like to see us add on that same paragraph, Lilly Road, because we can We know that the issues that are on those other ones are also on Lilley Road. So I would like to make that as a firm recommendation. As far as the SCAR site, I don't expect anybody to give us kudos or anything, but we've spent countless hours on this plan. And also I want to say Dave Laderwick over there, when he was on the planning commission was also heavily involved in this. I remember asking the plan, when we were in the final review, why this particular corner was the light blue commercial residential, local commercial residential, the new idea that we came up with for that zoning. But I don't recall what Laura gave us back as the answer. So when I went through this this week, it made me again question whether that's the appropriate category for this. But at the very least, My own personal belief, and again, in light with some of the comments that were quoted here, is that there's at least a portion of this site that I think should definitely remain R1. And those are the two homes that are west on Joy Road, the gentleman that spoke, and the second home to the west there. And then the three homes on Lilly Road that are on the west side of Lilly that are currently single-family homes that would be basically torn down if the sparse thing was done. There's vacant land directly to the west of those. It actually goes up against the little stub road off of Revere Avenue, which is part of the subdivision that many of you live in. I'd like to see that also. I'd like to see the three houses on Joy Road and that vacant land directly behind those three remain residential. That land could be developed with several homes off that stub road, off of Revere Road. We need single family housing in the township. It probably would be more dense than you would like to see, but it would be single family. So at the very least, those are changes I would like to see.

I think if the commission. Okay.

Okay, well, again, we have to reflect the community as a whole here. One of the toughest things for us is to balance between what the broader community wants and what an individual homeowner or an individual property owner, what their rights are. But anyway, so I hear your point, but my point is I'd like to see that at a minimum, that area remain single family. Now, if the sense of the planning commission is that we go all of that way back on that entire piece of land, to R1, I'm fine with that too. But at the very least, I'd like to see those areas I mentioned go back to R1. So those are my comments.

Okay, getting back to the future land use math. I think they're still studying what you're just talking about. The other issue, the other comment that I have on the future land use map is that we did this a couple of revisions ago that we've asked, and I don't see it on the one that is, you know, that we're considering. And I don't see, there was supposed to be shading in those areas where there was a consent judgment. So that includes areas like the Ridgewood Hills, the Ridgewood Northridge Church, the development there around Kroger at Sheldon, and the Plymouth Town Center that's just adjacent to Township Hall. Those are the ones that I recall, and there might be others. And one other thing I wanna add to, I would like to add to the recommendations to the Board of Trustees. We've talked an awful lot about trees. And I've spoken to you about the trees and I did some preliminary research about trees and we're data-driven, correct? Yes, we are. Okay. So how do we know when we have enough trees? So it turns out that there is various maps that have been done that cover tree canopies, the percentage of tree canopies. There is none that focus just on Plymouth Township. But for the region that we have here in southeastern Michigan, it's 38.6%. There's tree coverage. The regional target for our area is 40%. So I would like to add some verbiage about that the township undergo a tree study, a tree canopy study. You could find the right words for that. That would enable the township to determine what is the appropriate amount of tree coverage that would guide us into forming perhaps a different type of ordinance than we have right now, maybe more aggressively, maybe less aggressively, and to protect the trees that we have.

If I can make a comment, today I was actually at an event for Wayne Forward with Wayne County and they did say that they have available a tree canopy coverage map and so I will reach out to them to ask them to parse out the data for Plymouth Township and they should be able to give us that so that we wouldn't have to wait on that.

And I think Liz and perhaps you did turn that when I had a discussion with you, you did sign something to one of your people?

The federal government has a map. So this one might be more specific because it's just Wayne County, but we can take a look at both and get that data, yeah.

And happy to add to the plan, yes. Thank you. I thought that would make you happy, Bill.

Well, it makes Commissioner Boyd happy as well as myself, and I'm sure it makes the trees because it's safety and it's air quality. And I drove over the bridge two days ago where I could see crystal clear. Today, it's a dark cloud because of forest fires, right? You can't even see. I'd see pictures today. Which is... underscores the importance of safety trees and the air quality what they do so we can all breathe but getting back to safety right this uh master plan page 51 includes the the metrics on accidents that joy road and lily road is number seven of all the intersections that's just a little two by two intersection okay in comparison to some five by five lanes that are a little bit higher but only a little percentage higher so uh we heard the residents right and to commissioner boyd's comment right going PARTIAL BLUE AND ORANGE TO ALL ORANGE. I WOULD SUPPORT GOING BACK ALL ORANGE, RIGHT? AND TO TIM'S POINT, RIGHT, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT RESIDENTS UNDERSTAND YOU DON'T OWN WHAT'S OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARY OF YOUR PROPERTY, AND WE ARE GOVERNED BY ordinances and laws and guidelines that we all have to follow. So something will go there at some point in time, right? And I would be disappointed if five or 10 years from now, the same people are back there complaining about, you know, putting in a single family home residence because people want the housing here, but it, something will go there someday, but staying out of the commercial color at this point in time, I think it's probably a prudent thing to do. And I'm certain the trustees would probably go along on it. Yeah.

I just want to say one more thing since I spoke to all of you. Everyone sitting up here has spent a lot of hours talking about this particular master plan, talking about the desire for Plymouth Township to maintain the standard that it has, making it a residential friendly community and maintaining our quality of life. So I say I was not on the Planning Commission, but I want to assure you that's not an affront to any of them because I've listened to them all express the same concerns you have. So I just want to be sure that you know that they are trying to do what is best for the residents.

Thank you. I also wanted to make the comment He mentioned that the tree thing would make us happy as planning commission, but more importantly, the tree issue is something we've heard from the community time and time again. So hopefully, the reason it's here is because of what we've heard from the community overall.

It was among the top. A couple of points. When we did our survey, 800 residents responded to the survey, which may not seem like a lot to you, but it's one of the highest. We beat out Northville Township when they did their survey. So it was an effort to hear from all the residents. And we also, for the first time that I'm aware of, We had an open house. I don't know how many were aware of that, but we had a couple weeks ago where McKenna had put out easels various aspects of the master plan for people to come out and look. They had an opportunity to put little post-it notes. All of that is reflected in the material that was given to us prior to the meeting that we've all reviewed it. And some of this is, it goes way back. It's a complete collection of opinions and thoughts from the residents. Anything from this side? Ashley, do you have anything you wanted to say? Mr. Callahan, do you have anything you want to say?

Stewart? So, we're not, are we voting on anything today? We'll make a motion.

Any other thoughts? I had one other thought with data centers. They're in the news. It's dominating, okay? It's not in this document. We did get some comments back in the wonderful package that our planner has provided for us, right? And I understand the Board of Trustees put a moratorium in place, right? So the fact that there's a moratorium in place, we might be covered, but it may have been prudent to put something in here, right? Because I know we were all collecting information, as is our township supervisor, right? To understand the ramifications of what to do, how to do it. And it probably gets down to design specs, okay? So noise pollution, light pollution, and traffic congestion are things that are in a plan should that ever happen, right? But at this point in time, we're in a moratorium. So maybe it's all right that it not be said for now, not to slow the train down here.

I've thought about that, but you know, it might be, we could always modify this as time goes on. And I just heard briefly on the news today that the governor is considering certain restrictions about data centers, especially what they termed hyper data centers. So these are those big ones you hear like in Saline, Belleville area, because Southfield, from my understanding, has up to 13 data centers that are in office buildings. So they're not, they call them hyper data centers that we hear about at the outlying areas of Southeastern Michigan. We can put something in there, a recommendation perhaps would be the way to kind of approach it. What do you have a thought as to what you would like to see with a recommendation to the Board of Trustees? They're still in the midst of deciding themselves what to do.

The only recommendation I come up with is to extend it to us to gather the right facts, right? Because this does have an implication on safety and health, right? The info sound is just horrible below 20 Hertz that none of us can hear that affect our hearts and our minds. And it just, it's all bad. So I'm not sure which way to go on it, but I know the trustees are aware of it. And I also wanted the public to understand we have been discussing it. We have been looking into it. A couple of spend a study sessions on it. Okay. Online, right? to learn more, and we're working with our planning teammates here to get our hands around what to do so we can come up with the right solution. So I'm not sure what the right answer is, Dennis, but I just want to make sure the public hears the fact that we're aware, we're working on it, we're investigating it, and Haste makes waste on this, right? And there's a moratorium in place, so it's more for awareness that they know that, which, you know.

Yeah, I agree. might be premature until we get more information, but I think we've all, as you said, we have been discussing that we're all sensitive to it. We read things as we see them in the public press, media. I take it the commissioners have looked at the recommendations that appear toward the end of the document. Those mostly would lie with the Board of Trustees. Are there any other issues that you would like to see covered. Are we ready for a vote?

What did you say?

Chairman Cebulski, just how the agenda is written, we're gonna be making a vote on the master plan after we do the other two public hearings. That's how we were directed to do it. So we'll do that in a minute.

Oh, okay. Oh, right. All right.

So it's a resolution.

Yes. Yeah, it's a resolution. All right. Well, then we'll just move on to the next one. That's I think some people might be interested in knowing. I'm sorry. I missed. We're going to be talking about we're going to have the vote on the master plan. OK. After we do this next.

Oh, OK.

Which kind of goes hand in hand, but has a township wide impact. OK. Put it that way. So we'll just lay that aside, stick around for the latest and greatest on that. So we'll move on to text amendment to the zoning ordinance 99 section 14.2.3b to establish updated outdoor play standards for childcare centers. So do you want to lead the discussion on that?

Yes. We have discussed this at, I think, probably about three different meetings now. So this is a text amendment specifically to the Ann Arbor Road corridor. So section 1423B1 is within the Ann Arbor corridor. And the next public hearing is for the overall township. So this proposed amendment just modifies only the minimum outdoor play area standard. It doesn't, take away the review criteria applicable to this land use, so it stays a special land use. So if anyone ever comes for a childcare center in Plymouth Township on Ann Arbor Road, it still has to come before you for approval. So that means you still have the ability to look at compatibility with the surrounding land uses, including traffic, access, buffering, noise, lighting, and overall site design, okay? So as staff, we do believe that this amendment better aligns with, better aligns the township's regulations with the current state licensing requirements while still maintaining local authority over land use compatibility and site design. So this is a public hearing and a, to consider and to consider and approve the draft text amendment and make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees.

Can you provide the public with a brief summary of it? What would be changing?

So what we are changing specifically, right now the child care centers in all of Plymouth are required to have 500 square feet of outdoor play space per child, a minimum of 3,000 square feet of outdoor play space. We are recommending it to only to there be just a minimum 3,000 square feet, not we're taking out the one 500 square feet per child requirement. So the minimum outdoor play space would be 3,000 square feet.

Okay.

Which is also, sorry, above the state requirement. The state does require only 1,200 square feet. So this is more than what the state requires as well.

Okay, all right. Did you wanna say something before we open up?

Yes, I do want to say something. I have a serious problem with us making the text amendment. I think that what we have in place is and it's a good standard. And I don't believe that daycare centers belong in the Ann Arbor Road corridor. So we're changing text and then saying, okay, now we changed the text, so now we can allow the daycare center. I am vehemently opposed to that. I don't want to see changes to this text at all.

And then for clarification, do you have something? No, please. Further clarification. What brought this to our attention is the Ann Arbor Road corridor, there's a zoning district there that sort of overlays the current one that we share with the City of Plymouth. So the City of Plymouth and Plymouth Township have different standards regarding this issue. So we have to come to to some agreement, we've looked at it. There are some things that really need to be reviewed and looked at in more real time than it has been in the past. So that's what requires this. So you'll be hearing particularly with Trustee Grout talking about Ann Arbor Road, the area is looking at the old Rite Aid. We don't have any say in what happens there because that is the That's the city, it's not the township, but we do share this common zoning district. So that's really what we're talking about here.

So they are asking us to amend our ordinance to accommodate them so that they can have a daycare facility there.

And I'm saying... Let her finish.

And what I'm saying is that first and foremost, An Ann Arbor Road corridor is not specifically designed to house daycare centers. We're talking about the former Rite Aid property, and I don't believe that we should adjust the standards that we have to accommodate them so that they can allow a daycare center in an area that I don't believe a daycare center belongs.

You'll have your chance to speak, please. This is our chance now. Okay, anything else, Sandy?

No, I'm sorry, I think I'm done.

Is there a motion to open the public hearing at 8.02? Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry, I have a question for our planning staff. So I reviewed the draft of the amendment, and it says a fenced outdoor play area. Is outdoor play area defined at all? What does that mean exactly?

It is not defined in the ordinance. It would just be an outdoor space.

Okay, so it could even just be a gravel area or a green space or?

Preferably a green space.

Of course, but I mean, since it's not defined, it really, it's open to interpretation. Yes.

Okay, thank you.

So it could be a parking lot.

It could be a parking lot with play equipment on it. I have seen those, but it would be fenced, yeah.

But as part of the review process for that, we would have an input in that, correct?

Yes, you absolutely could require them to do grass instead of concrete, yes.

Okay, is there a motion to open the public hearing at 8.03?

Mr. Chair, I move we open the public hearing at 8.03.

Moved by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Papp to open the public hearing at 8.03. Now, who wishes to come up? Step on up.

Do I have to sign my name again? I've spoken about this several times, and it was my impression at the last meeting that you basically stated there would never be a childcare center there. Did I misunderstand something? And another misunderstanding I want to clear up is Sandy's last name is Growth, as we all have to have growth to understand what's happening in our township, which is not good right now. So her name is Growth. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you. I'm sorry, I couldn't say it. Somebody has to stick up for her, right? So I thought you said there was not going to be a daycare center. I presented photos of the truck or vehicle that went through that building, and it's not a good location. Because the city of Plymouth might want to rent that, it makes no sense. And if you're changing the guidelines and the discussion of what the surface is gonna be of the playground. I have gravel in my knee from the Catholic playground I played in. I still have it at the age of 76. So we have to start thinking of the children. It's not an ideal situation for children. In fact, it's an incredibly stupid, location for children. So I hope you will not, I thought it was a finished issue. There should not be a daycare center there. Now you've pointed out that it's on the city side, but there's a development center there. And it looks to me, my impression is it has to be agreeable to both sides. We weren't real happy with that one store that was in there. So when I pick up my grandkids from the airport, it's no longer there and there's a kitchen place there now. I appreciate that a lot. Okay, think of the children, please. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Drake Philippus. Good to meet everybody. This is my kid Roman. And I'd like to just present this idea to think about- You can direct your comments to the commission. Oh, yes, yes. So yeah, this is my kid Roman right here.

We didn't see a picture of your kid, yeah.

Yeah, right. He's about two years old, and he goes to a daycare on Helm Street in an industrial corridor. That's a road, a lot of heavy traffic. I can drive 80 miles an hour down that street. There's no police policing that street like there is on Ann Arbor Road. So just think of those other opportunities. Where are adults, young adults that have another kid on the way in November sending their kids? I do understand the perception of that site, At the same time, when we look at what can actually go in the city of Plymouth, or excuse me, the township, 3,000 square feet I think is more than enough. If we look at 500 square feet per kid, most of these schools, you'd be surprised, have 70, 100 kids. That's almost 40,000 square feet of outdoor play area. That's just unplausible when you look at how much space is needed for the outdoor play area. Yeah, I think mainly I do. I live on a street where there's probably not over-exaggerating 20 kids under the age of 10, and all those parents are looking for places to put their kids. These daycares are all at capacity. So this does solve a need for parents that have jobs. Their kids aren't old enough to go to school yet. And you also look at the state requirement. We need 1,200 square feet for this state. I wouldn't just look at the site. I think the traffic study, all that stuff will be addressed. Also, another thing to point out are other daycare locations. There's been another location on Telegraph Road that was just built. Right on Telegraph Road, way heavier traffic than Ann Arbor Road. There's one on, I think it's 10 or 11 mile. So that traffic is a thing that's going to be addressed by the Planning Commission. And I, again, accept that. But when we look at these other locations that these daycares are operating out of, they do operate and they operate perfectly fine. So. I would hopefully that you understand this is a problem in the community. People need daycare. And I'm going to think about five things as soon as they sit down. So, yeah, that's what I got. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Since the hearing is mostly about the outdoor space, I just try to focus only on that part. Although I do agree that Plymouth could need daycares because I do personally know families that come from Plymouth, go to Kenton to bring their children to Kenton locations because they do not find the quality care for their children here in Plymouth. About the outdoor space, if you think about like 500 square feet for one child, that is really like a lot. That would mean if you have a classroom with 20 children in it, you need a playground that is like 10,000 square feet big. Now, think about what happens with 20 children maybe in a classroom going outside, two teachers, what's going to happen? They need to run really big distances Sometimes children at that age between, like, let's say three and five, they make choices, they are acting in a split second, and then you need a teacher to run down that big space to maybe save them from getting hurt. A space that big is not safe for the children because there's too much room for them to get hurt and not enough time for teachers to get to them to help them, whatever is going on. And with this age group, there's a lot going on. They're very quick. They're very energetic. And look at teachers that work in child care these days. I would say half of them are not in the best physical space, shape, I mean. So you need to consider that the bigger the space, I feel it's less safer for the children. Teachers need to be close enough to the children to help them in situations where they need help. And 500 square feet for one child is, in my opinion, and I'm a mom of children. I work with children every day. I'm working in child care almost 10 years now. It is just too much. It is, for me, a safety concern if you are requiring that much space for a child.

OK. Just to clarify the situation. The recommendation is that the existing requirement that we currently have a 500 square feet of outdoor play area per child would be changed to a minimum outdoor play area of 3,000 square feet.

What sounds reasonable to me. So, because otherwise let's say that building has like a capacity of, I don't know, let's just say 100 children would go there and you want like 500 square feet per child. That is just ginormous. It's just not within reason for me, so. Okay, thank you. Thanks.

The other consideration you need to take into account is what we're doing is you may have 20 children, 30 children or whatever, they're not most likely will not be all on the playground at one time. You know, they cycle throughs usually between age groups. So the whole entire population of the childcare center may not be outside at the same time. Depends on how they're structured.

Good evening. My name is Rhonda. I've actually worked in childcare program for about 15 years now. I am a mother of two. I actually support the 3,000 square feet. I second what the lady said before me. You're talking 500 square feet per kid. Rounding up, that's over two acres. Just to put it in perspective, a football field is 1.1 acres, so that's double. And just like you said, yes, maybe a classroom, one classroom at a time is gonna go outside, but still, you have an immense amount of space. These children are running. You have teachers who are trying to catch up, making sure they're getting to them on time and they're trying not to get hurt. And then it falls back on the teacher. As for the location, I can see a lot of people were saying that they're against it, that it's on Ann Arbor Road in Plymouth. I have struggled to find good daycare and childcare in the area. I just recently moved and I am trying to find a good daycare or a childcare. and most, hopefully, something that would open that's curriculum-based, something that's private, something that's reliable where I can keep my kids. Now, I came from Canton, but then my job is all the way in Ypsilanti. Rush hour traffic is insane. By the time I have to go drop them off, go to work, come back, pick them up, it's crazy with the traffic. And I'm spending half of the time on the road, and it's just a struggle. I was hoping that something would open up in the area where it could be something reliable where I can put my kids and the commute would be much, much easier. So that's also a point that I would like to make. Also, if whatever location meets all the requirements, I have seen childcare programs that are in awful shape that probably don't even meet all the requirements when it comes to, well, maybe, up in Ypsilanti that there are different requirements. But what I'm saying is that if you find a location, even that in that Ann Arbor Road location where you said it used to be a Rite Aid, if it meets all the requirements and it could be built into a nice childcare program, I don't see what the issue is with that. One I've seen far worse, and I think it's just a great addition to the community and people who live in the Plymouth area.

Thank you for coming. Anyone else?

Good evening. My name is Angie and I have worked in the early childhood education for over 26 years now. I actually do support this proposed amendment to establish a 3,000 square foot minimum outdoor play area for childcare centers. I believe the standard better reflects the realities of today's high quality early childhood programs while still providing children with a safe, engaging outdoor space. Throughout my career, I have had the opportunity to work for many exceptional schools and very few of those schools have a 5,000 square foot designated outdoor play space. I do believe that this 3,000 square foot is more practical and it aligns better with the industry standards and it does allow for child quality childcare programs to better serve families without compromising children's health and safety. I do respectfully encourage you to approve this amendment and thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you for coming.

Hi, guys. Bill Pine. I want to bifurcate this issue. Sandy has made a very important point that no one's talking about. You're talking about the Plymouth Road, up the Ann Arbor Road corridor, and you're talking about childcare. I have every sympathy for the folks who are continuing with childcare issues. The question is whether or not that needs to be separated from the Ann Arbor Road corridor issue. Thinking outside the box might get you there. Every three or four days I drive by this huge thing called Centennial Park. Acres and acres and acres of wide open space. It's not in Plymouth, but it's right across the road. There's Park, and I know it's well booked, but something that's a non-standard issue for childcare, which no one is saying isn't a good idea. needs to be addressed. And the issue of preserving the Ann Arbor Road corridor as our commercial spine ties in with, and I'm going back a bit to the master plan. The message you guys are getting from everybody who's thought about this is you need to ratchet your focus up a couple of levels and say, hey, everyone's saying they want to kind of keep it like it is because it's working. The impression that one gets, and I don't mean this derogatorily, is that the builders think that if they hold their breath long enough, you guys are going to agree. What you want to do is you come up with a standard that maintains the principles that Sandy has talked about, that you guys have talked about in terms of the master plan maintaining Plymouth Township as it is, and then enforce it. Don't cave to the builders. Do the stuff that's right. Meet needs like child care, and then everyone will be happy. The problem you have is you've got all this stuff that's kind of mixed together, and you're down in the weeds a lot of the time. So raise your focus and try to do some of that.

Good evening. My name is Jay Patel. I'm a resident of Plymouth, and I have two children. I have a one-year-old son and a three-year-old son as well. I've been a resident of Plymouth for several years now, but now that I have children, one of the things that myself and several of my members of family that have children in similar age, friend groups, they all have a very similar issue at the moment, which is finding childcare in Plymouth that is high quality and safe. One of the things that I struggle with looking at this requirement of 500 square feet per child, thinking about my own children, is I just don't see how that's viable. The child care facilities that I've toured in the area, none of them look like they even have 5,000 square feet in total outdoors play area. So I'm not really sure how this ordinance or this requirement would you know, kind of stand at the moment because I don't really see any other child care facility in Plymouth that has it. So it seems very prohibitive to introduce another child care facility just because of the amount of space that it would even be required. And secondly, I mean, you know, thinking about it holistically as well, I mean, I just don't see how a, you know, play area with, you know, I'll give 20 children as an example because that's a normal, like, preschool-sized classroom. Twenty children are, you know, outside at a time because that's one classroom. I don't see how two teachers would be able to properly manage that in a safe way. So that's my concern here. I'm choosing to keep my children in Canton at the moment because what's offered in Plymouth is not viable and not at the level of standard that I would expect to bring my children to. So as a resident of Plymouth, it's disappointing that we don't have any other childcare options. So I think this is something that really needs to be looked at.

Thank you. Anyone else? No one else, okay. Is there a motion to close the public hearing at 821?

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

So moved by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Papp to close the public hearing at 821. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. Another aspect of this that I don't want to have people forget about, that if we got an application for a childcare facility, it would be a special land use. So they just can't come in. There's no zoning area that say, well, you can put a childcare place right there. It would have to come before the planning commission and it would have to be approved by a special land use. So we have quite a bit of control over where they should be and looking at the various aspects that would be important for us to review.

Yeah, I don't feel the 3,000 square foot minimum is a bad solution. It seems to be more than most of the other.

It is, it's an outlier. It's more than the surrounding communities. Yeah, yeah. You have anything down at this end, daycare?

So Dennis, yeah, I had a couple of comments I want to make. Number one, this whole issue surfaced when the city of Plymouth came to us trying to stick something in a bad location. Okay. That's the crux of it.

Okay.

So it's hard to find daycare. I get that. Okay. The township has several locations and I know some are undercapacitized and they have actually availability. I talked to one this morning. Okay. First United Methodist Church on North Territorial. The fact of the matter is The city needs a better location to do what they want to do that provide safety and air quality for the kids to play outside, whether they're in a stroller with someone pushing it or if it's kids running loose, right? And that's where this all started. When you look at the other communities, right? They have various amounts, right? Of what they're allowing. I don't know what the right, Answer is, I would like to have the experts tell us. I'd like to have shrubbery that hides the fact there's kids in there, the way the new morning, I think it was, it was on Hagerty Road that relocated from the golf dome at Oasis, right? School does. You have to have the ground so people don't get hurt. You have to have protection. And maybe that right size is a combination of all the above. But on one simple metric, I don't think this is it. And we're getting cherry picked here. And I don't think that's what's best for kids in this township. It should be a holistic, fully integrated solution. If it's 3000 feet, plus this, plus that, plus the others, then I might get there. But right now, I'm exactly where I was two months ago, which is still a no.

Well, the state minimum requirement is 1200 square feet. So I don't know, would you consider them the experts? You know, that's the question. You know, what is enough? I mean, we're still an outlier, if you will, compared with the other statistics. And the other issues that you raise with the shrubbery and place surfaces and all of that. That would be something we would all consider in a special land use and would be carefully reviewed by staff.

Which is true and and I would be more than willing to hear that proposal come in but I come back to where this all started was a bad idea in a bad location that was a safety issue and this is diverged into a size requirement, and it's a simple spec. And there's so many more specs like engineered fiber that's safe for kids to fall on so they don't break an arm or a leg. That has to be a comprehensive proposal on a special land use, and I would entertain that. But on this being cherry picked here, right, because the city wanted to do something, right, in a not too safe location, I'm not there at this time. So it's all due respect.

But making the list a prohibitive list so you don't have any new daycare centers coming kind of defeats the purpose too, though, right?

I don't see anybody doing that. That's not the point. The point is... Well, Bill was saying have this laundry list of things you want to... What he's saying is that the original concern has expanded into a lot of different issues. That's, unless I misunderstood.

You don't understand.

Which is taking us back to the fact that it's at a building location that a vehicle ran into the building when it was occupied. It was a pharmacy and a vehicle ran into the building. So it is an area where the speed limit is high and the concern is does it belong in the Ann Arbor Road corridor? That's why I say no, I don't see it as a safe location.

But here again, I have to say this, it's when we look at these various issues that come before us, you know, rezonings, for example, you cannot spotlight one particular site. And this site is not even in the city or in the township. But what it did do is it brought forward to us that we needed to look at our own standards because ours was really quite up there. And there is a need for daycare centers. So we're bringing it down to a more manageable size, still being at the higher end, if not the highest end compared to neighboring communities.

I have a few comments. With due respect to my two colleagues over here who I really value their input, what we're talking about here is an ordinance that applies to the entire township. It doesn't apply to one corner that it's not specific or I don't believe it should be driven by one corner that actually is not in the township. We have to look at what's right for Plymouth Township, all of the township. My view is that this ordinance helps move us in that direction. The second thing I want to point out is the chart on page two of the planners report at 3,000 square feet, we're above every other one on this list. City of Farmington, City of South Lyon, Lyon Township, City of Northville, City of Novi, Detroit. The only one here that's higher than that is Lyon Township. All the others were significantly higher than them. So even this ordinance as written is pretty restrictive, much more so than almost all of our neighbors. The third thing, and this is why public hearings are so valuable to us, even though sometimes you believe we don't listen to you, we always listen to you. I didn't realize we had an issue with a lack of daycare in the township. So I believe that should be driving our decisions as well. The proposal, the current law we have is very restrictive and would prevent opportunities that might otherwise occur for us to have some more childcare in the township. The last point is my own personal view and this may or may not be right, is that daycare centers are more properly located along major thoroughfares where it is convenient for parents to drop them off in the morning and pick them up in the afternoon, as opposed to more rural locations in subdivisions or even in the business park north of M-14. You'll see there's a comment in the master plan that we're not all that comfortable with having childcare centers in more industrial areas. So my own view is that even though the Ann Arbor Road corridor might not be the most ideal location, there is a rationale to have a childcare along Ann Arbor Road because it's convenient for people who are going into work in the morning and coming home in the afternoon. I'm not specific to this one particular site, which is not in Plymouth Township. I'm looking at it from a broader holistic point of view. And for that reason, from my perspective, I believe we should approve this amendment.

And I wanna just add, I agree with the two commissioners here that I don't think it's a great location, but I'm looking at the totality of what the issue is. And I'm not trying to focus on one particular site that's gonna drive a decision that impacts the entirety of Plymouth Township. And I agree with Tim. It was helpful to have people come out here and speak in favor of the child care because I was unaware that it was such an important issue. Well, it's an important issue, but it was a serious issue of shortage.

Also, the comment that too much is not good, that having a smaller area actually is more amenable to making sure that children are supervised properly. I had no idea that.

I was surprised to hear that too. Another good feedback.

That was good to hear. So are we ready to make a motion on the text amendment?

Yep. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the text amendment to zoning ordinance number 99 Section 14.2.3 to establish an updated outdoor play standard for childcare centers to a fixed minimum standard of 3,000 square feet.

Second.

Can we have a roll call vote? Yes. Yeah, okay. That was moved by Commissioner Poppel, supported by Commissioner Krueger, correct? Is that what you said? Correct. Okay. And let's have a roll call vote.

Dennis Cebulski. Yes. Tim Boyd. Yes. Stuart Popp. Yes. Sandy Groth.

No.

Dan Callahan. No. Bill Iks. No. Ashley Krueger. Yes. It's four to three passes. Okay, passes, all right.

Next is back to the master plan.

At the last meeting, you guys asked to separate out the public hearings for each section, so we just have the next section to do for child care centers.

Oh, the next section. Yeah. Okay. I was just sending it to you. Well, what was, this one was, so we considered and we approved the draft text. And so now it's to take that text and make the recommendation to the board?

No, so we just, you just approved and made a recommendation of approval to the board for the Ann Arbor Road Corridor District.

Oh, for the Ann Arbor.

And this is the special provisions, or special provision section, section 28641A in the zoning ordinance, which applies to all other zoning districts.

in the township outside of the area.

So it is the same thing.

But covers all the other districts?

Yes, it's where all the other districts that child care centers are allowed as special land uses in all other districts. So same thing, changing that standard from 500 square feet per child to a minimum standard of 3,000 square feet.

Do we need discussion on this? All right, well then is there a motion?

Is there a motion to open the public hearing?

Oh, yeah, that's right. Is there a motion to open the public hearing?

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we open the public hearing.

At 8.33. Yeah.

Second.

Second. Who's second? You did, okay. Moved by Commissioner Poppin, supported by Commissioner Callahan. To open the public hearing at 8.33, is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this issue? Okay, is there a motion to close the public hearing at 8.34? Mr.

Chair, I move we close the public hearing at 8.34.

I'll second it. Moved by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Ikes to close the public hearing at 8.34. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Any discussion?

No.

Okay, is there a motion?

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve the text amendment to Zoning Ordinance 99, Section 28.64.1a to establish an updated outdoor play standard for child care centers to a fixed minimum standard of 3,000 square feet.

Support. Moved by Commissioner Poppin, supported by Commissioner Boyd. Roll call. Yeah, to approve the text amendment for all the other districts. Yeah. Okay, roll call vote.

Yeah. So vote yay to approve. Dennis Zabulski. Yay. Tim Boyd. Yes. Stuart Papp. Yes. Sandy Groth.

Yes.

Dan Callahan. Yes. Bill Iks. Yes. Ashley Krueger. Yes. Okay, 7-0.

Okay, so motion carries.

Yeah.

Now do you want us to take up the master plan?

First is the monthly planning report and then the master plan.

Well, why don't we just reverse it because there are people here waiting. Absolutely, that's fine. Yeah, let's just move on to the master plan.

I'm prepared to make a motion if there's not any conversation about this.

Just before you do, I just want to go through what you guys were recommending for changes just to make sure I've got it and that it's on the record. So the Northville Road M15 reflect- M14. M14, sorry. Reflect the zoning change that was done before, right?

all of the zoning changes that have done along Northville Road in the last several years. It should be orange, R1, several locations. It's to residential medium density.

Okay. And then to add Lilly Road into the traffic study?

Add on to the recommendation paragraph on page 98, talking about traffic issues.

And then on the future land use map, add in the consent judgments shadings?

Right. Yes.

And then add in a tree study or canopy to determine the appropriate tree coverage. We'll do that in the tree section and action plan.

Recommendation to the board.

Yes.

Okay. And then to take that area that has been Oh, yes, yes. Designated as mixed use and take it back to R1.

R1. Are we following Commissioner Boyd's suggestion of just...

I'm asking to add that to it, so... Yeah, I'm recommending we take the entire southwest corner and make it R1 medium residential.

So all of the blue area.

That's what I'm recommending, yes.

Yeah.

Thank you. So that is the motion that we adapt the Plymouth Township 2026 Master Plan dated July 15th, 2026 with the provision that all of those things mentioned are included and incorporated into the final plan that will go before the Board of Trustees.

Subject to their approval.

Yes, absolutely.

So that was your motion, right? Yes.

Traffic studies in four locations.

Right.

It's called out on page 98. Perfect. And who supported this? I did.

Okay. Okay, no further discussion, right? All right, all right. So moved by Commissioner Groth and supported by Commissioner Boyd to approve the Charter Township of Plymouth's master plan for land use subject to the final approval of the Board of Trustees. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Good. Now... Now we go to the receive and file the monthly planning report. Did anyone have any questions on that?

What? He was summarizing, but the actual motion that I made, yes, includes all of those changes.

It's back to R1.

Yes. Yes. It's orange. Yes. So we're going back to R1.

We should wait a few minutes for people to clear out.

You're welcome. You can say that we listened.

Okay, why don't you start?

My question was on page 5, 9285 Elmhurst Avenue. I believe that's in Green Meadows. What is the lot split proposal there? It's on page 5, application number 2605, 9285 Elmhurst Avenue. I believe that's in Green Meadows. It says the proposal is for a lot split. It's under administrative review. What is being proposed there?

Um... Goodness, I'd have to look.

I think this came before the zoning board of appeals that I sit on. Okay. Those are mostly 100-foot lots there, and builders want to put as many homes as they can, so they're going for these 50-foot lots.

I think originally Green Meadows was 50-foot lots.

Yeah. Some of them were built. Some were built on double lots.

So we're going back to 50-foot, but it is single-family residential. Single-family.

Oh, yeah. Okay. Yeah, for sure. Okay.

Yeah, I know.

It's just some of them are on a corner, and the ordinances, you need 25 feet, and on a 50-foot lot, that's just not. No, I drove by it. I'm fine with it.

I just want to make sure it was still single-family.

One point about that, the houses that were originally on those 50-foot lots are about 800 square feet or 1,000 square feet. Yeah. And what's going up in place are houses that are over 2,000 square feet.

On a 50-foot lot? Yes. Yeah, they're stacked. Two-story homes? Yes, most of those are 50-foot lots.

Because we did at the CBA when I was on it, we did a number of those as well.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, all of them have, yeah, it's with the, most put the garage in the back, right?

If they're on the corner? Yeah. Yes, but it's not always like that.

No, okay. I live in Green Meadows. It's just 50-foot lot is... Yeah, it is. But that was the standard city lot, too, I think, too, right? Well, then it was the original plot of that. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I grew up on a 35-foot lot.

I had no other comments.

Okay, anyone else have comments on it? No, I just noticed now. I just see this resolution of adoption. We should have probably followed this.

You did a great job. You covered it. Don't worry, Dennis.

All right.

Ashley, once you come up with the minutes, if you could forward them to Liz so that she can forward them to us so that we can be sure that the motion for what we're sending to the Board of Trustees includes all of those provisions, that would be very helpful. That's a good suggestion. So Ashley is her name?

Yes. So are you our permanent recording person? I believe so. And your name is, what is your last name besides Ashley?

Sandra.

What was it? Sanders.

Like the candy.

Well, congratulations. Welcome. I hope you enjoy it. I look forward to working with you. Okay.

She's awesome.

Good. Any commissioner comments?

I'd just like to thank everybody for all the effort. Dennis over there.

It's a lot of work, but I think we've got something.

It was much needed and overdue, and it's covered a lot of ground, literally and figuratively.

All right, is there a motion to adjourn at 8.43?

I make a motion we adjourn at 8.43.

I second it.

And supported by Commissioner Ikes. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

August 25th. That unless they decide to do it earlier.