Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Plymouth Township Planning Commission meeting will come to order at 6.30 and if the secretary please call roll.

Dennis Cebulski, here. Stewart Pop, here. Sandy Groth, she's excused. Dan Callahan, here. How do you correctly say your last name? Osios. Just so I don't mess it up again.

Osios.

Osios. And Ashley Krueger.

Here.

Okay, thank you. And the approval of the agenda, there are two changes or additions. Before we have the public hearings or public comment, Tim Boyd has asked to have a few minutes. He'd like to make some parting remarks since he has now resigned from the commission. So he'll be talking for a short period of time. And if there are any questions or further discussions after his comments, just let me know and we'll probably schedule another meeting for that because we have such a full agenda. And then we're going to move application 2612, the special land use for the golf track to after the Delta Electronics. So that will move the special land use for the indoor outdoor recreation facility to be after that. So with those changes, is there a motion to approve the agenda as amended?

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve the agenda for September the 16th with year two additions. Okay, there's support. As approved.

Okay, moved by Commissioner Poppin, supported by Commissioner Callahan to approve the amended agenda. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. And are there any comments on the minutes? Is there a motion to approve as submitted?

Yeah, my name should be S-T-U-A-R-T. I think it was spelled wrong in one part.

Okay, since you're Secretary, you'll have to correct. All right. Any other changes? Is there a motion to approve the minutes as corrected?

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve the minutes as corrected, minutes from August the 19th. Support.

Moved by Commissioner Papp and supported by Commissioner Krueger to approve the agenda, or approve the minutes as corrected. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Commission carries. And with that, I'll ask former Commissioner Tim Boyd to step up and give us his thoughts.

Thank you, Chairman Sevelsky. Tonight I'm speaking as the recently retired Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. I want to start by thanking former Township Supervisor Curt Heisey for asking me to serve on the Planning Commission, and by thanking our current supervisor, Kermie, for having me continue to serve after my term officially expired last year. Becoming a Planning Commissioner is a complex assignment. Even after five years on the Commission, I was still learning things at every meeting. What I want to do here is relay some of those things I learned in this role and what to watch out for as commissioners. Secondly, I want to address the term missing middle housing and its implications for Plymouth Township. Lastly, I'll touch on three recommendations for you as you move forward as the Planning Commission. Over the last couple of years, resignations and reassignments have left the Planning Commission with very little long-term experience, probably the least degree of long-term continuity, in the entire history of the Planning Commission. As a result, our long-term knowledge and counsel is now solely represented by Chairman Cebulski, who served on the Planning Commission for, believe it or not, three decades, first as commissioner and then as our chairperson. While Dennis is probably not all that comfortable with what I'm gonna say here, my view is that you need to listen very closely to any advice and counsel you hear from Dennis. Next, if you have not already done so, please take advantage of the Citizen Planner course offered by Michigan State University. I think you'll find it truly helpful in your role. Then, keep in mind that decisions by the Planning Commission must be based on you following and interpreting the applicable law as it applies to the Township Zoning bylaws and charter. When you're evaluating a proposal, it is not sufficient to simply conclude, I don't like this. when making your decisions. Perhaps the single most important point that we need to make tonight is this, decisions of the Planning Commission that go against recommendations from the Planning Department must include clearly stated findings of fact incorporated in the motion that is put up to be voted on. This is really essential, not only for the applicant and the Board of Trustees, but also in case there are eventually legal challenges to your decision. Now I want to switch gears and go on to my observations on the topic of missing middle housing. This is a term that is being used nationally to advocate for a bandwidth of actions all the way from completely outlawing single family zoning to less intrusive but still inappropriate actions for single-family zoning in Plymouth Township, such as allowing duplexes by right in single-family neighborhoods, implementing zero lot lines, abolishing minimum lot size or minimum square footage requirements, and or allowing ADUs, which would permit construction of a separate second residential structure on an existing single-family lot. Now this term missing middle housing is supposed to refer to the lack of housing choices between single-family housing on one end and large high density apartment buildings on the other end. Missing middle housing topologies include duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, as well as townhomes, cluster homes, mixed use developments, and those ADUs that I mentioned. My view is that changing single family residential zoning laws to accommodate missing middle topologies may be appropriate for older and higher density municipalities like Grand Rapids and Detroit. However, for an outer ring metropolitan municipality, Plymouth Township already has a healthy mix of other than single family choices with even more on the way if you look at all the proposals we've approved in the last two or three years that aren't fully constructed yet. Further, Dennis and I have discussed additional possibilities to accommodate future missing middle housing in Plymouth Township without changing our single family zoning. For example, we could revise existing commercial and industrial property zoning to allow their use for missing middle housing topologies. I understand that based on counsel from NGOs like the Michigan Association of Planners and their national association, most municipal planning agencies generally do support missing middle housing actions that would alter single family zoning. Educational events by the Michigan Association of Planners have told their audiences, including commissioners like yourselves, to, and I quote, stand your ground when it comes to pushing their recommendations to overrule existing single-family zoning. You, in turn, need to be on guard, and if necessary, equally stand your ground in opposition to missing middle housing recommendations from the planning department that you determine are inconsistent with Plymouth Township's new master plan in future direction. Finally, When faced with public comment on the need for affordable housing, my own view is that forcing missing middle housing changes to single family zoning in Plymouth Township will not result in truly affordable housing choices here. Instead, truly affordable housing should be a statewide priority and it should be focused on municipalities like the newly revitalized city of Detroit, which according to the Detroit News has 120,000 vacant lots as of February of this year. Bottom line, please do not discard the issue of missing middle housing in its entirety, but instead look for opportunities to accommodate missing middle housing topologies without changing Plymouth Township's existing single family neighborhoods and zoning. Finally, three observations going forward. First, it's really important that you closely fly spec materials that are prepared by the planning department as well as by applicants that come in front of you. Do not be afraid to ask for clarification of anything that doesn't sound just quite right to you. And require applicants to provide lawful proof of statements that sometimes show up in their applications, such as environmental issues and or deed restrictions prevent developing this site for residential purposes. Ask to see proof, lawful proof. Second, I strongly recommend that you avoid making changes to the just agreed master plan unless they're truly important and justified. Making changes undermines the authority of the master plan and invites further changes and would establish an overall lack of long-term continuity for the plan. Finally, in setting your planning commission priorities going forward, take the lead in developing suggested ordinance changes that are highlighted in the new master plan. For example, all the changes we discussed that would add rigor to the early planning and retention of natural tree stands and heritage trees in new developments. Well, I hope you find those observations to be of some value. Thank you for your attention tonight. Thank you in advance for your new and continued service representing this wonderful place we call Plymouth Township. Good luck. Very best wishes. Well, thank you, Tim.

Those were very astute observations. We appreciate that, and it's well thought out, and I'll hand these out. And don't go away. Come back. You certainly were exceptional in your services, Vice Chair, especially when putting together the master plan. Using your own term, you really fly-spected all the different drafts, all the drafts that we did, all the little data tables and all that, because some of that verbiage or numbers changed from you know, draft to draft, and you caught all of those. You know, and typically, you know, when a commissioner that has been with us for quite some time, we always do a resolution of appreciation. But because of your service both here and also on the ZBA, I think it deserves more. So... So on behalf of the Planning Commission, I was thinking, what could Tim really appreciate to represent his service with us? So we know you're a really big tree lover. I think, in some sense, we all are. But we can always count on you in looking at every tree, walking the sites, especially Plymouth Walk. So what better way but to give you a part of the oldest tree at Greenfield Village? It's over 300 years old. So you can have that. That's great. And then, it's not over yet.

It's not over yet.

Then, also, I'm sure you'd want to contribute to the environment. So here are acorns from that very tree. With an interesting article for the Tappan Oak and the University of Michigan campus that has unfortunately passed away, got diseased. And it's about a student that collected those acorns and started samplings from it. And he offered it to the university. So he offered a, what you want to say, the son or daughter of that oak tree. So here you are, one for inspiration and one for that.

Okay. And one for the future, yeah?

Yeah.

Well deserved. Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks again, Tim, we'll miss you. Yes, yes.

I'll miss you all too.

Public comments, is there anyone here that wishes to speak to a non-agenda item? Okay. Moving on to old business. Application 2596, the Ann Arbor Road, 655 Ann Arbor Road, it's the old Wendy's site. So, I don't know who takes this on.

Thank you, Chairman Cebulski. Good evening, Commissioners. My name's Liz Carter. I'm with McKenna. So, before you tonight is Application 2596 for a major administration administrative review site plan amendment. You saw this back in May on May 20th and 2026, where you postponed or tabled the application for the applicant to make some adjustments to your comments, which they have, and that's what they're presenting to you tonight. So before you is a proposal of a facade renovation to the existing building. The building was constructed in 1978 and most recently was a Wendy's restaurant. So just going over a brief summary of what the proposed building facade reservations are. So your previous proposal had a larger parapet on the front facade, which has been removed from the design and the existing flat style roof with the parapet will remain and be painted a lighter gray than previously shown before. Reclad portions of the building with fiber cement lap siding and fiber cement panel systems. They're going to retain some portions of the existing brick facade and repaint it to match the proposed color scheme. They're reusing existing storefront windows and doors. There will be opaque window film to portions of the drive-through facade to screen interior operations. They will be modifying the drive-through window configuration. and installing a canopy element along the drive-through area, and adding new wall-mounted light fixtures to the building. So as I said previously, the site was previously developed and utilized as a restaurant with a drive-through, and they're proposing to keep that unchanged, so they're gonna continue to use the site as existing. And no changes to the overall site layout are proposed with the application your site Access comes from the two access drives along Ann Arbor Road And then parking is distributed around the building as well as the internal drive-through aisle goes around the building in like a horseshoe shape Existing landscaping along Ann Arbor Road and the rear property line are proposed to remain and they do also provide that separation from adjacent properties. There's no changes to the existing site features, so preservation of site features will remain as existing. Same with vehicular access and circulation, there's no changes. Pedestrian access, there is no pedestrian access from the sidewalk from Ann Arbor Road, and there's no proposal to change that, but pedestrian access to the building is mostly from the internal portions of the site. parking lot. They did add crosswalk striping from the west side of the stripe from the barrier free parking spaces to the entrance that was requested from staff last time. So they've updated that and there is adequate pedestrian circulation on the site. And again, no changes to the landscaping. We do expect landscaping to be cleaned up and continue to function as it was previously approved with the previous site plan. parking and parking the existing paid parking is being proposed to say there's 46 spaces on the site and then drive the drive-through stacking area provides approximately nine as this was approved and established on our prior approvals and there's no expansion to the building or anything triggering conditions to be up to be modified or updated what's existing is appropriate for the site So going back over some building design and architecture. So as I said, in your report, there's pictures of what was previously shown and what is revised. So you can see that parapet, that tall parapet is being reduced and the signs being moved to the center of the building. And then just some, again, on the drive-through elevation, just that parapet and the height of the building being reduced, and then just some changes to, just some of the coloring of the building and that drive-through area. So we do find that it does provide a more cohesive appearance and is consistent with the intent of Section 14.2.4 to promote a quality building design and compatibility with the Ann Arbor streetscape. Exterior lighting, this does require Planning Commission approval, so if you approve this tonight, just keep in mind you will be approving this exterior lighting. So there is accent lighting proposed on top of the drive-through canopy, and as proposed, it's not downlit, it's not covered, so any of that lighting will project out. The photometric plan does show that it meets the standards for light intensity on the site. It just does... It is more for an architectural element of the building, which just requires Planning Commission approval for that. Last time, you guys didn't have an issue of it. I just wanted to note it again for you so that it's there. And then the signage you see on the building will be approved with the next application because it is in the Ann Arbor Road corridor, which requires Planning Commission approval. So we'll do that next. But based on our findings in this report, we do recommend approval of the Pro Site Plan Amendment. And I'm happy to take any questions about the application and the applicant is here as well.

The applicant is here. You want to step up? While you get yourself situated, I have a question on the landscaping. So does it meet in the application or in your report? It says it was approved in 2022. Are the standards still the same today as they were in 22? Yes, yeah. And is there any review of the condition of that? Is there going to be a review after they clean it up to see if there are any dead plantings that need to be replaced?

I actually believe code enforcement has either been in contact with the applicant or the property owner to clean up the dead stuff that's there existing, so they will have to...

Replace anything that's...

They'll have to replace everything and bring it back up to... standards, yeah. Okay, all right.

Do you have a presentation?

Hi, my name is Evelyn Mazumovic from NOR. I only have the two items that were requested at the last planning meeting, so it's examples of other Duncan locations around the surrounding area, and then also the material board. For the actual presentation, it's what you already have in your hands.

If you could just pass it, just bring it up and pass it to us. Thank you. I have a question on this, the canopy lighting. It's an LED light?

It's a strip light, yes. If you aren't a fan of it and don't approve it, we are okay with it since we don't have the rest of the monolith and we don't have a sign as we're proposing now. So if that's a big issue, we can easily remove it.

Because I don't believe we have any lighting like that. And we've had discussions about, you know, there's a prohibition, as I recall, against neon lighting. I haven't seen neon lighting in years. And the new LED lighting replicates that. I don't know what the commission feels about having, approving something like that since we don't have it. And there's always been a concern. Thanks. So you want to talk about that?

It's just one strip. It's just one strip, yes, along the front of the top canopy.

Along the top of the top canopy.

Sorry, not over the drive-thru, it's on the front. Over the drive-thru canopy, yes.

So it's on the side of the building?

Yes, above the drive-thru window.

Okay, well, what do you folks think?

Is it more for decoration or is there some benefit?

It's more for mood lighting. Uplighting of the site.

When would that be illuminated? Is it turned off at a certain time?

Yes, so all the lights will be turned off. I don't recall exactly at the time that the ordinance asked for, but we do add that in our photometrics that they will be turned off. Oh, so that applies to the, okay.

And the signs lit up too.

Correct, but they'll be also turned off at the time.

Yeah, okay. That's fine, yep.

And I saw there that this pink color I saw noted on one of these renderings.

Yes.

Where's that pink going?

So from the last meeting, we did have more pink and white stripes since we had the monolith on the corner. But since revising the elevations, we only have it proposed at the side of the drive-through. And we also have less. So it's just pink and white stripes on the honey wood tone around the drive-through bump out.

It's the standard colors.

Chairman Cebulski, I will note, I did notice there was less of that pink and white striping on the building. It is more heavily on the drive-thru side. I will confirm that that's accurate.

Oh, okay. And you're comfortable with the pink?

It's definitely a reduction from what was proposed before.

Yeah, it is.

And I do think it's a little more appropriate and it does match what, I know the one down past 275 isn't in the corridor, but it is very similar to that one, yeah.

Does this have anything to do with the other Dunkin' Donuts on the other side of 275? I mean, is that like a separate owner that stays open?

So our franchisee does have a large portion of the Michigan area. I couldn't tell if that was theirs or not.

Okay.

But all the new Dunkins or the remodeled Dunkins do have to have a particular identity, and what we're showing is brand standards. Of course, if they would like to have the monolith, they would like to have signage on all sides if possible, but they understand that it is whatever the jurisdiction allows.

And the other Dunkin' will stay open?

Yeah, that Dunkin' doesn't have anything to do with this.

Yeah, okay.

Well, that Dunkin' is more attached to the gas station.

Yeah. Well, America runs on Dunkin', so they want one on every corner.

Both a source of fuel. Are there questions?

I have another one. So pedestrian safety is really important to me. And I understand there's no direct pedestrian access from Ann Arbor Road to the site. However, my concern is more pedestrians just walking on Ann Arbor Road. Since there's a hatched pedestrian crosswalk on the site, could that sidewalk area that crosses the two driveways in and out of this site also be cross-hatched?

We can cross-hatch if it's within our property line. We're not proposing to have anything additional outside of our property line since that would probably open up other approvals from different jurisdictions. But we could definitely add some additional striping within our site.

Do you know if that area is within their site or is it an easement? It's not, and we have talked to engineering about this before, and it was not recommended to have them put it in there. It's not typically something we see as well.

Is there any other way to caution cars that there are pedestrians on that road walking? In your missus, personally, so that's why I'm sensitive to it.

Yeah, besides the signs. Okay. I'm not familiar with a good way to enhance the visual side of that, of the pedestrians along, like in the public right-of-way in front of their site, yeah.

Okay, thank you. What if we add a directional sign within our property line in front of the... drive-through lane, say like pedestrian crossing or slow down or something like that, that wouldn't be a big thing. We would just have to ask our, well, it depends. We could either ask our signage vendor to add that to their package so it matches, like orange, pink, or something like that. Or if, since that's not in our package right now, and if we are approved, we do wish to not go to another meeting, but we could also just ask the GC to add a generic sign.

I mean, if it's determined that that's effective, then I would definitely be supportive of that. But if, I mean, signage overload is an issue as well. People don't always pay attention to things like that. So I wouldn't want to just promote the use of another sign if it's not going to be effective.

We don't have anything there right now. So it's not like we're adding a third to five. We'll just be adding one more. So that's something that we can also add during our CDs. Okay.

Other questions or concerns? And if people are okay with the LEDs, the first one, you might open yourselves up to something. So just remember that. Is there a motion? Are we ready for a motion?

I think so. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion, PC number 2596, Dunkin' Donuts at 655 Ann Arbor Road. I make a motion that we approve the administrative review for the Dunkin' Donuts. Site plan amendment. You're approving the? Sorry, the site plan amendment, right. Is there support?

Second. Okay, moved by Commissioner Popp and supported, I wanna make sure I get your name right.

Commissioner, Chairman Stavolski, can I just make a clarification? Sure. Do we want to add the sign? that Ashley was discussing as a condition. I don't want it. I don't think it needs to be a condition. Just checking. So as, so recommending approval or approving as presented. That's what the, I'm sorry, the commission's approving as presented.

You're talking, did you say sign?

Approving as presented. Yeah, okay, yeah.

And so it was moved by Commissioner Popp and supported by Commissioner Posios. Did I get that right? Approving the site of plan amendment for application 2596. All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. Next is the sign. Who's handling that one?

Thank you, Chairman Cebulski. Liz Hart with McKenna. Before you tonight is the second application for Duncan, PC2597, which is a sign review. This was presented to you in May of May of 2026. The applicant is proposing three wall signs, one on the west and east facades and one on the north facade, one ground sign along Ann Arbor Road. ONE MENU BOARD AND THEN TWO DRIVE THROUGH OPERATIONAL SIGNAGE. THE WALL SIGNS DO COMPLY WITH THE MAXIMUM SIGNABLE AREA, THE HEIGHT, THE QUANTITY, THE PROJECTION, AND THEY'RE NOT PANEL SIGNS. WHAT DOES REQUIRE PLANNING COMMISSIONER APPROVAL IS THE LETTER SIZE OF THE PROPOSED SIGNS. In the Ann Arbor Road corridor, signed letters and symbols are not allowed to be larger than 16 inches, or they require Planning Commission approval. Now, the north elevation lettering is 24 inches, and the east elevation symbol is 36 inches, so both of these require Planning Commission approval as presented. The ground sign, as proposed, will replace the existing pole sign structure and it does meet all the requirements of the signs. Has a monument, it's within the boundaries of the subject property, it meets the setback requirements. Sign area is also based off of a setback, which allows this sign to a maximum of 25 square feet, and they meet that with I'm sorry, 27 square feet total, which they meet that by the sign being 25.68 feet. The height of the sign is only six feet. There's only one sign proposed. And then monument signs shall have a brick base, which they are proposing a Wyandotte modular brick base, which also matches the Ann Arbor Road standard design details. And then the lettering and style is clean and simple and readable and there's no more than two different fonts on the sign. There's no more than three colors proposed and there's one uniform background. And then the base of the monument sign is 30 inches in height. The drive-through sign, it's located behind the building on the lot interior. It will be separated by the adjacent lot by more than 45 feet, so it makes it pretty much unreadable from the lot line. It serves only the drive-through users. In my hazards findings, I said partially complies. I shouldn't have put partially, it does comply. And then there's no volume proposed from the menu board. And then your drive-through operational signs, the clearance bar and the speaker box canopy, they both meet the height requirements and they're both integrated sign panels. So these aren't really classified as directional signs in the zoning ordinance. They're more ancillary operational site elements, and they're just associated with the drive-through use, which we had no issues with. So as I, we are recommending approval of the proposed signage as presented, and as I said before, those letterings are larger than what is allowed. Planning Commission does require, is required to provide approval for those. At our last meeting on these signs, we asked about what other signs on Ann Arbor Road have received approval for larger lettering. I found a few. Taco Bell, In the report, it says no lettering shall be larger than 16 inches, but on the actual plans approved, they're three feet. For the logo, it's three feet, so they're larger than the 16 inches. Wendy's, for this site, when it was approved, the logo, the W, was approved for 18 inches. Mano, I'm not quite sure where that is on Ann Arbor Road, but the M logo is 32 inches. Xfinity has a three-foot logo. IT WAS A LITTLE UNCLEAR WHAT WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING IT WAS A LITTLE UNCLEAR WHAT WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT WHAT WAS PROPOSED COMMISSION, BUT WHAT WAS PROPOSED WAS 33 INCHES, AND YOU GUYS WAS 33 INCHES, AND YOU GUYS DID ASK FOR A REDUCTION? DID ASK FOR A REDUCTION? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HAPPENED I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HAPPENED FROM THE PLANS. FROM THE PLANS. IT'S A LITTLE, I'M NOT, THE IT'S A LITTLE, I'M NOT, THE RECORDS DON'T REALLY SHOW QUITE So there are places, there are quite a few places that have been approved with larger signage like this. So I just want to note that, that this isn't abnormal for the corridor. So that's my presentation, and then the applicant is here.

I have one question before I go to the applicant. So on page six of your report, it says partially complies. The menu board gives the directions. So what does that mean, partially complies?

That was a mistake.

Oh, okay. So it does comply. It does comply. Okay. Okay. Do you have a presentation?

No, it was involved with the same that you already have.

And why do you need the larger lettering?

We would like larger lettering since we already reduced it from the first time. We reduced some signage. And since we got rid of the two identifications, which is the pink and white monolith, we would like to have, or the pink and white corner monolith, we would like to have the larger letter signs so that we are not missed. One of the reasons that the monolith is proposed In the standard is it's taller so that you can capture cars coming from farther away if they aren't originally in the area of this project and if we have larger lettering we can hopefully capture them when they're going on both sides of the street and then they can turn around and go into our site. There's more of course is getting more traffic into the property.

Questions from the Commission?

So when you looked at the other property so three feet is like the max, right? Effectively, I think you said 33 inches or something. Roughly, yeah.

The next highest one I have is 32 inches.

32, yeah. And the Verizon signage, we changed some of the standards for that, I believe, because their sign was really tiny and they had requested it. Do you remember that or was a party of that? We had to change some of the rules, I guess you'd call it, of that sign. I don't particularly have a problem with the increase in sign because you did get rid of the parapet, which really is a great improvement, I think. The monument sign is much more attractive than the pole sign that was there.

Yeah, we tried to comply as much as possible. For us, this process has taken a little bit longer. The client is like, why isn't this approved? And I told the client, you want it approved even before you come to us. So we're working with you guys, you're working with us, so we hope that we can get both options approved because we are ready to submit CDs in the next two weeks if we are approved.

Okay. Does anyone have objections to the sign?

No, I think there's gonna be a big improvement over the current site.

Yeah, it is. Well, whoever makes the motion, be sure to note the rationale why we are permitting that larger sign. So it's primarily because they got rid of the parapet. Okay. So you're gonna make the motion?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we approve the proposed sign package for PC number 2597, Dunkin Donuts at 655 Ann Arbor Road. including the increased sign height to 36 inches because they agreed to remove the paraffin. Paraffin. Paraffin.

And the monument sign. I think that should be added as well.

And revise of the monument sign, yeah.

It was a pylon sign, I think. Was it a pylon sign? It was a pylon, yeah. Right. Pylon in favor of a monument sign.

Yeah, okay, great.

You would actually be approving The east elevation 36 inches, the north elevation 24 inches as well. The monument sign complied.

Okay, then the 36 inch sign as long in the front and the 24 inch on the side.

Okay, is there support for that? Report. Okay, moved by Commissioner Poppins, supported by Commissioner Krueger to approve application 2597, the ARC sign for Dunkin' Donuts at 655 Ann Arbor Road. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. Thank you very much for your time.

Have a good evening.

Good luck. Next is application 2609, the Delta Electronics Administrative Review. Do you have your report?

Good evening, Commissioners. Sajj McBurroughs from McKenna. We have reviewed the application for administrative site plan consideration. The applicant, Delta Electronic, proposes to construct a new 12,500 square foot megawatt microgrid and a new equipment pad with transformer and natural gas standby generator. The existing site contains a 26,550 square foot industrial facility. The site is zoned technology and research, and it is located within the Metro West Technology Park. I have given you the site history, but I just want to note that in 2023, there was a site plan amendment, which approved the solar on the site and the existing microgrid on the southwest corner of the site. So as far as zoning, the existing site as a high technology testing facility is not proposed to be altered as a part of this application. However, I want to note that the intensity of the use of the site is expected to increase with the development of the megawatt microgrid project. For site design, the resulting microgrid will remove 12,500 square foot of green space. The modifications proposed to the southwest corner of the site are not expected to adversely impact the overall design of the site, and the township engineer and fire marshal have approved the plans. I do want to note that Planning Commission will have to approve a portion in relation to Section 28.31.1. Mechanical equipment, including air conditioning units, transformers, and generators, including the slab upon which the equipment is mounted, shall not be located in the front yard area. So the Planning Commission may permit equipment to be located in the front yard upon finding that such location will meet the spirit and intent of the zoning district. And that is not located closer than 20 feet to any residential dwelling or district.

And they are not.

The expected sound level of the property was not provided at the time of this review. So planning staff have requested the applicant provide a sound study to identify the predicted noise levels at the property line as well as a vibration study to comply with the general code requirements. I will talk about preservation of site features with the landscaping, but the vehicular access and pedestrian access are not proposed to be altered. Asphalt pavement will be removed and replaced. The initial submission for landscaping proposed to remove 23 trees. The landscape plan provides a plant schedule but does not include the DBH replacement calculations. So we're requesting a revised landscape plan with a maintenance schedule and the table of the trees surveyed including species, DBH condition and whether they are being preserved or removed. For screening, the original plans had an evergreen screen around the mechanical units. The second submission that we received removed that screening, so McKenna staff is recommending that the screening be returned as was initially provided in the first submission. The proposed berm that they are putting to screen the microgrid from the road does not currently meet the minimum five to six foot height requirement. McKenna staff have provided alternative recommendations to the applicant to provide either a couple rows of boulder, block retaining wall, or low evergreen shrubs to make up for those two remaining feet. Those Recommendations were not reflected in the second plan, so we continue to recommend that planning staff require those. The berm landscaping currently also does not meet the minimum requirements of the ordinance. It must incorporate deciduous shade in ornamental trees, evergreen trees, and shrubs to appear natural and provide variation. For parking and loading, building design and architecture, they are not proposed to be altered with this plan. For exterior lighting, a lighting site plan has been provided for the new microgrid. The proposed photometric plan includes a maximum foot candle of 15, which exceeds the 10 foot candle allowable by ordinance. Additionally, the foot cannibal at the property boundaries and the overall average of the site have not been provided. So we are requesting a revised photometric plan that complies with the standards of Section 28.8 . There is no new signage proposed. So based on the number of outstanding items, planning staff recommend that the Planning Commission grant tentative site plan approval with a condition of all engineering items to be addressed prior to final site plan approval and with the listed conditions below. I am available for questions after the engineering report. Thank you.

And just so you note that on the copy I have, and I'm not sure if this is true for everybody, I'm missing page four. So page one and two

It was missing the even pages.

It was missing. So when you were reading, I got a little confused, like I didn't read that.

Yeah, I had to print it separate.

Oh, from the website?

I went online and printed it, yeah.

Oh, okay. That's a good idea. And the engineering report.

Good evening, Commissioners. Luis Amici from Spalding-Decker. We have reviewed the site plan submittal for Delta Electronics microgrid project. Plans were prepared by Novak and Fraz engineers. We received two plans, one dated July 23, 2026, and the other one September 1, 2026. The following are our comments. In the general items, we just As the revised plans include the existing utilities, they're not depicted correctly, some of them, and we also want them to show the improvements done on the site just recently with the other project that it was mentioned by the planner. Regarding the utilities for the proposed project, the water main, it is unclear. if the proposed microgrid will need to connect and be served by the public water main system. More information is required regarding the fire suppression for the proposed mechanical units and confirmation whether the project will connect to a public water system. There is no sanitary service required for this project, but they will need to relocate the existing service line serving that building south. OF THE SITE. FOR THE STORM, IT IS INDICATED TO BE COLLECTED BY TWO STORM SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEMS AND DISCHARGED TO ONE EXISTING OFFSITE REGIONAL DETENTION JUST EAST OF THE PROJECT SITE. THEY ARE NOT PROPOSING TO MAKE ANY NEW CHANGES TO THE OR MAKE any detention improvements on site. The site appears to be very disturbing over one acre and in previous addition appears to be closer to half an acre. So this will definitely trigger a county review and they will determine if additional detention or pretreatment will be required or any other improvements. to the regional detention basin will be required. We'll be asking for more calculations proving that the existing stormwater system can accommodate the new development. But based on these comments, we are recommending tentative site plan approval with the condition that they're all addressed before final site plan approval. I know we're all for any questions, so thank you.

And as noted, we have the report from the Fire Department with no deficiencies from a public safety perspective. The applicant is here. If you want to come up. And just for the Commission's information that Commissioner, then Commissioner, or maybe he was a trustee, Ikes, and myself and Supervisor Kermie and staff had toured this facility and got an explanation of what they were doing. So that was helpful, at least from our perspective.

My name is Patrick Gibbons. I'm with Douglas Electric, acting as construction manager on behalf of Delta Electronics. We kind of facilitated and helped with the design and getting the documents together. I do have a brief project summary I can read. So the project purpose, Delta Electronics proposes a dedicated microgrid test facility at the north end of its existing Plymouth property. The facility will provide a controlled environment for testing and validating battery cells, energy storage systems, power conversion equipment, controls, and the way these technologies operate together as a complete microgrid. Extension of the existing primary 13.2 kV power source from the southern ESS pad to the north microgrid pad. The long-term plan, the site is planned to be flexible for phased research and testing platforms. The permanent infrastructure will allow Delta to install, evaluate, reconfigure, and replace testing equipment over time as battery and energy technologies continue to develop. This will support current and future battery cells and energy storage testing programs. evaluate equipment under controlled operation conditions before wider commercial use, test the interaction of battery storage, power conversion controls, utility power, and on-site generation, and provide a durable site framework that can accommodate the future test configurations without repeatedly rebuilding the core infrastructure. A high-level scope is we're going to be constructing a permanent reinforced concrete equipment area with organized below-grade utility and electrical pathways. that will allow for the flexibility for the different systems. Installing the electrical distribution, communication, grounding, and natural gas infrastructure needed to operate the test facility. Constructing the new berm to the north of the pad with several new trees and shrubs. Coordinate required storm sewer and water main modification associated with the project area. And we'll maintain the paved service and emergency access and restore any affected parking lot. safety and code coordination, the developed design incorporates dedicated emergency access, electrical grounding, equipment clearances, utility coordination, and fire department connection piping to serve the six battery storage units. Final construction remains subject to applicable building electrical fire utility and site plan reviews. The use of the property, this project's going to expand Delta's existing research and product development activities on its current industrial campus. The proposal establishes a permanent site infrastructure for testing. It's not simply the placement of a temporary equipment on an undeveloped head. And the master plan provides for a stable platform for continued battery cell energy storage and microgrid innovations as technology continues to evolve. Thank you.

Are there questions? So you're mostly testing and modeling so you could sell like a bigger scale version for your other customers?

Correct, yeah. Mike Standings with Delta.

If you can come up to the mic because the sessions are recorded.

Yeah, Mike Standing with Delta Electronics. Yes, we are a world leader in switching power, and so we're applying it to microgrids now. We currently supply many of the server farms with their power supplies, so we already have that as part of our business. The microgrid will help alleviate the power requirements for a server site. And so we can basically even out the power draws. We don't interface with the water. So that's one good thing. And we just have to move all the utilities out from under the area.

I have a question about the sound study that's being requested. So when we were out there, I think we all agreed we heard the freeway more than we heard from the humming of the equipment they currently have. So how would that sound study?

I sent a presentation today for the sound. We are below your 65 dB at the property line for all of our components.

And what about the vibration?

I'll have to understand more of what your requirement is. The only thing that's going to vibrate is the gas generator, and it's isolated around its own pad.

That's on the south pad as well? That's on the south area.

Near their freeway. Right.

If they exceed the vibration or noise levels that are in the general ordinance, then you can approve that. I did get to glance at what they submitted for the sound study, and the highest emitting mechanical unit at the property line is 64 and the maximum at the property line is 65. So they do comply with the sound aspect. But they have not submitted the vibration levels. There is a table that I referenced in the ordinance that says what measurement levels they would require. So it would likely just be to the rear property line. And as I said, Planning Commission can approve levels that exceed that if they find that sufficient.

Was there any of the new equipment you're planning on installing there? Do they vibrate? Is it just that gas generator? Just the gas generator.

That's currently there? Right. We make what's called a solid state transformer. So basically uses, takes the medium voltage AC and creates a DC out of it without any moving parts. And so we just wing the electricity around using MOSFETs.

So when you, they must have gotten approval to install the generator that's there now.

There's not currently a generator, so they're adding a generator and that would need to meet the vibration requirements.

So you are adding another? We're adding a gas generator as part of the test environment to do the sequence testing with different grid type structures. Okay. Is it bigger than the one you have now? The generator we're proposing is a 300 kilowatt, so it's not a very big one. It's... There currently is not a generator. There's currently not a generator. This will be the only one.

So we'll need the vibration study.

Yeah, and we can pull that together.

Okay, questions from the commission?

I have a question. So there appears to be, there's gonna be a substantial amount of equipment outside. So from Halyard and the surrounding properties, what will actually

Given the guidance from the township, you're going to see a lot of trees.

Okay, because you're going to put the screening back in? Yeah.

Okay.

And then just to comment on that, so the berm is three feet tall, and based off of the information we received above that, you would see seven feet of the mechanical units. So we're recommending the evergreen screen around additional trees. in addition to the trees that are on, the required trees that are on the berm. Just so that it's the first thing you see that there's some screening and then they can just see the rest of the other building.

Great, okay. And then you're removing 23 trees to staff. Do we know if there's any heritage trees that are being removed?

So that's one of the items that I requested from them. We would need the condition, the DBH, whether they're being removed. or preserved, and then from there we can calculate the replacement requirements, which they can place those replacement trees on the berm, but without the table, we'll have to wait for that. Okay.

That's all I had. Thank you.

But the trees that we saw, those were planted. Those weren't older, well-established trees prior to the construction of the building. Is that correct? Which? The trees.

The evergreens have been there for years. Right. One of those spruces is a heritage tree. It's on the newest drawing that we tried to submit. But most of them are pretty raggedy. Yeah.

I think the commissioner's referring to the three new trees that were planted. We're moving those. Okay, yeah.

Yeah, the three new ones are getting moved. We'll send you the new drawing. Yeah, we got it this morning.

Is the generator, that's only running when you're doing a test. Test. You need the generator. Yeah, right.

Normally we have 2.8 megawatt hours of battery storage already. And between the solar and the battery, we can run the building for days. Yeah, yeah.

Okay, okay.

That's what I assume. Yeah, the generator is just for testing to do the sequencing with all different types of energy.

Yeah, yeah.

Any other questions? So we're, the recommendation... is I have to take care of all these outstanding items.

That's my question. As far as all these open items, Is it common to recommend approval even though there are so many?

It's tentative. So they have to come back once they resolve all these issues. It is common.

Tentative is generally about the use of what is being proposed. Is the use feasible and is it something that the zoning ordinance supports and the commissioner support? And then with final, the outstanding items should be addressed. I do want to bring back that If you are approving as presented for tentative, you will need to permit the mechanical units in the front yard.

We will have to what? Permit.

Permit the mechanical units in the front yard. Because mechanical units aren't permitted in the front yard. So just be sure to include that.

We talked about that when we were there.

front but they'll be shaded by the or they'll be blocked by the trees or yeah yes or berm or whatever yeah okay any other questions or concerns are we ready for a motion I think so mr. chairman I would like to proposed that we provide tentative site plan approval for PC number 2609 Delta Electronics at 47659 Halyard Drive with a variety of conditions. Conduct a sound study for the specifications in the report. Conduct a vibration study for your generator. Provide a revised landscape plan with the maintenance schedule and with the trees, the DBH, etc. Return the evergreen screening surrounding the mechanical units. Update the proposed berm to either meet the minimum height requirement or provide one of the alternative recommendations. revise the berm landscaping to incorporate deciduous shade and ornamental trees, revise the photometric plan to comply with the standards specified in the report, and permit mechanical units in the front. However, they should be at least partially blocked by the trees and berm.

and also the items in the Spalding-Decker report. Okay, and the items in the Spalding-Decker report. Is there support? Support. Moved by Commissioner Popp and supported by Commissioner Callahan to grant tentative site plan approval to application 2609 subject to said provisions. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. Good luck. Thanks. Thank you. And again, Nicole, even pages were missing from this report as well, just so you know. Next, we're going to see the application 2612. The golf track franchise is here for their special land use. Oh, wait a minute, wait a minute. Now, what did we do? I think we messed up. You know what we didn't do? Oh, no, okay, I'm okay. I confused two applications. All right, your report.

Thank you, Chairman Cebulski. Liz Hart with McKenna. Before you is a special land use application for an indoor recreation facility. also known as Golf Track, located within an existing multi-tenant flex building at 469795 Mile Road. The applicant's proposing to occupy a 4,800 square foot tenant suite for a golf simulator for clients to use. This use introduces a commercial service use in the industrial district and is subject to a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Reviewing section 2.7, which are the criteria for a special land use review. Criteria one, the intensity and scale of the use in comparison to surrounding uses and conditions. So as stated before, the subject site is an existing multi-tenant commercial building located along Five Mile Road and is served by a shared parking lot. The use will occupy an existing tenant space and all activities associated with the use are proposed to occur indoors. The facility is proposed to be member only and will primarily operate by appointment. And the primary services consist of golf instruction, private lessons, club fitting, and practice. So the application narrative indicates that the facility will have about four to six hitting bays. And the proposed access is between 5 a.m. and 12 a.m. And based on the scale of the facility, the applicant estimates about 48 parking spaces, which from our calculations, based on what, they don't know the exact amount of bays, but based on what they've said, four to six, the site does have adequate parking to be able to be used. So given the indoor nature, limited number of bays, appointment based and membership only operation, the use of an existing building, shared parking, the intensity and scale of the proposed use are not anticipated to be substantially greater than the surrounding commercial industrial areas within the surrounding area. Consistency with the master plan. So the application was submitted under the 2015 master plan, which identifies this property as light industrial. We do find it consistent with the 2015 future land use designation because the proposed golf instruction and practice facilities indoor is service-oriented use that would operate within an existing building and is comparable in intensity to the other lower intensity uses that are occurring on this site. Specifically, recently you guys approved a driver's school in the same area. It's just the building just to the west of it. I did put in my report that how it does meet the 2026 master plan, just that in the 2026 future land use map, this property is considered local, commercial, residential. which is intended to accommodate neighborhoods serving businesses and services, which we found that this proposal is still consistent with the 2026 master plan as well, even though we're approving it under the 2015 one. I just wanted to note that. There is no impact to any existing natural features or services of the site and surrounding area. The intent of the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, we believe has been met. The use is low intensity service oriented activity will operate indoors and no manufacturing processing hazardous activities or insignificant industrial impacts are expected to take place on the site. Again, that applies to criteria two, no hazardous materials. It should be, we expect it to be operated so that the public health and safety welfare will be protected. Criteria three, served by public services and facilities. We do expect, it's an existing tenant space, so it's already served by public water and sanitary, police and fire protection. So we don't expect, we anticipate to operate within typical service levels. Criteria four, vehicular circulation. Again, it's an existing site. Access to the site comes from Five Mile and then within the site, there's just existing parking. Criteria five, the facility does not involve outdoor assembly, high intensity commercial activity, hazardous materials or uses that increase potential risk to the neighboring properties. So as a result, impacts related to noise and activity are expected to remain consistent with the existing character of the area. In criteria six, we do believe the proposed site layout is in compliance with the development standards of Article 19 of the Industrial District and Article 26 of off-street parking. As I said before, the existing sites of multi-tenant building served by shared parking. The applicant anticipates four to six golf bays. Although that final number hasn't been determined yet, but they'll still have to be required to meet parking of one space per two tees. So depending on how many tees that golf bay has, it depends on how much parking they're required. But again, the site does have adequate parking. So pending any additional information or recommendations presented during the public hearing, we recommend the Planning Commission grant special land use approval for the proposed indoor recreation facility for application 2612, based upon the compliance with the above stated special land use criteria of section 2.7, including the following findings of facts. The proposed use is a reuse of an existing tenant space within a multi-tenant building. No exterior building expansion or site redevelopment is proposed, and the use is less intensive than industrial uses permitted by the right in the district. The subject site is located along Five Mile Road, a primary arterial, and the use generates minimal traffic that operates largely on appointment basis, and the shared parking field has been observed to have surplus capacity. The existing site layout complies with the required development standards for the industrial district, and the use is consistent with the intent of the district. No variance is necessary to accommodate the reuse of the existing multi-tenant building, and the proposed use functions primarily as an indoor golf instruction and practice facility, including private lessons, coaching, club fitting, and practice. The use does not include an outdoor golf course, driving range, or other outdoor recreation activities. I'm happy to take any questions from staff and the applicant is here for questions as well. Thank you.

The applicant is here then? Okay. Do you want to come up and do you have a presentation?

I have a quick question for staff. In the packet, the layout was described as illustrative and not specific to the site. Before build out, will we receive any kind of final plan showing the actual number of bays or anything like that?

No. Okay, so is there a potential that the use could be more than what they're proposing? With what you approved tonight is what they would be allowed to have. So if they increased it, it would be a change of the special land use. They have to come back before you. Okay, thank you.

Hello, my name is Ryan Duff. I am with Hillside Investments, COO of Hillside. Hillside does have several assets in the Plymouth Township jurisdiction. Andover is one of our facilities that we own and manage and are excited to have John present Golf Trek. We think it's a great fit with our facility and layout, as Liz mentioned. Plenty of parking, circulation, first floor access, and actually the way this facility sits, it's what we call the end cap, which gives him that extra visibility, and we think it's a great fit and would love your support.

Evening, everybody. Well, this is a little nervy. I'm not used to public speaking, but... They're my friends. Most of the time. I'm used to it. I talk to everybody on the phone. I'm not a person. But yes, my name is John Green. I am the executive owner of an exciting opportunity. It was presented for Golf Trek. It is a franchise. It is a indoor golf training facility. I would like to point out that this is not like some of the other places. I'm an avid golfer. I've been to a lot of different facilities that offer food and beverage, and they offer walk-ins and all this other kind of stuff. This is strictly for avid golfers, especially my son has definitely gotten to the game. My nephews have gotten to the game. I've been local to Plymouth for the past 20 years. I've worked in downtown Plymouth. I play all the courses around here. I do think there's a lot of opportunity for the growth of the game, thus the reason why I did invest into this franchise. So, yeah, this is, again, strictly an indoor training facility for people that are avid golfers that want to improve their game so they can enjoy the

And it's a membership type of, do you have a set limit to that membership or?

Yes, so it actually kind of goes back to one of the questions that Ashley had brought up about the number of bays. So in this planning phase that we've been going through, we are pretty much set on five bays. That looks to be the number for the square footage. We've done a test fit that looks like it would fit in aesthetically thing called put view which it's it's this new technology where you can you know it follows your putt it lines up your putt it's for short game purposes for golfers out there but yeah so five bays membership only typically the math comes out to about 40 members per bay is about the max that you're gonna be able to keep your members happy without having times booked too frequently. So if with five bays, we'd probably max out between 180 to 200 members at most. Okay.

And the membership, it's a monthly or you sign up for a year?

There's different options. Annual, just like anything else, if you pay annual, you're going to get a little bit more of a discount. If you go three months, you know what I mean, it's tiered. Okay.

Questions on this from the commission?

I just have one question. They said that this meets the new master plan. Is that correct?

Okay. Anything else?

I have a question about the hours of operation, and this is kind of more from a security standpoint. Sure. So in the packet, it says operation, it's operational from 5 a.m. to midnight. Is it staffed that whole time?

So with it, With it being membership-based, you actually have access to it. So no, would it technically be staffed at 5 a.m.? No, I wouldn't anticipate that. That is something that we could also look at based on seeing what our volume is at certain times. And I think that's gonna be the key factor if I had to hire somebody or be there myself. That's part of the gig, right? So if that was the case and if that was an issue, that would be something that we could address.

Then what controls are in place for access and security if it's not staffed?

Yeah, I believe there's key fobs and then I have access. We actually have a tech, I don't want to say the wrong word here, but like a tech guy that actually can log in to every single golf track facility that's out there right now. So if we have any kind of issues, excuse me, I can always reach out to them. But yeah, it is key fob and code to get in. Alarm cameras. Alarms, yeah.

Okay, and then what's the reasoning behind those hours?

So, yeah, sure. I can say for myself, I'm an early riser. I know some people, they go to the gym at five in the morning. I know plenty of people that try to go and get swings in before work. I got people that work later that want to go and swing at nine o'clock at night when maybe they get the kids down to bed and they're like, you know what, I'm going to go swing for an hour. So I think leaving it open, I don't think anything good comes after midnight, to be honest with you. I think you open the doors to a lot of liability there, but I think midnight's a fine number. The other facilities that are open, that's currently what they go by, and they've not had any issues. Just to clarify, when we say open, we say open to the membership at that time. Correct, yes. Not open to the public. Correct, it is open just to the members.

And then how are you certain, and I'm just, this is more curiosity than weighing on the decision here, but how do you assure that it's just members entering and they're not bringing their friends and other people?

I guess I don't necessarily have an answer for that. I can say that I talked to other owners. They have not had any issues with that because I've said the same thing because of even just looking at it from the financial aspect of it. Because if they're just bringing in people, I mean, we'll have security cameras and everything, everything will be in place. But the idea that, you know, if somebody's just bringing in all these random people, that would end up costing you money in the long run as well. So they've told me that they've not had any issues with this. And these are owners that have had a few facilities that have been around for a few years now. So I wish I had a better explanation than that.

And then is there a way to shut off access to members if needed based on security concerns?

In what way?

can you cut off their access to the key, like deactivate their key fob remotely or?

Yeah, you can do it remotely.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

This will be a non-alcoholic facility?

Correct. This is no food and beverage. Again, we're staying away from, we're not trying to play in that field. You know, again, I know there's some other facilities that do offer food and Bev and that's good for them. But that to me just opens up more, not only cost and everything else that goes with it, but more liability. So, no, we are not doing food and beds.

So, it's kind of like a self-service golf gym?

Very much so.

Golf gym, I guess, yeah.

Yep.

Other concerns, questions?

So, it sounds like it'll be midnight to 5 a.m. is when you're closed, closed. Correct. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. Is there a motion to open the public hearing at... 750.

Okay, Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we open the public hearing on PC number 2612, special end use for golf track. Is there support?

Support. Moved by Commissioner, excuse me, moved by Commissioner Popp and supported by, just one moment. I'm sorry. Oseos. Oseos. I have to look at the name to open the public hearing at 7.50. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application? Okay, hearing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing at 7.51?

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we close the public hearing on PC 2612.

Okay, is there support? Support. Moved by Commissioner Papp and supported by Commissioner Krueger to close the public hearing at 7.51. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. Any other discussion on this? If not, is there a motion?

All right, Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we grant special land use to Golf Trek at 46979 Five Mile Road, PC number 2612. With any findings in the Planner's report.

Is there support? Support. Moved by Commissioner Papp and supported by Commissioner Krueger to grant a special land use to application 2612. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Welcome to the community.

Thank you for the support and John hopes to see all you at his new facility. Thank you.

When do you plan to open?

by the time like with demo and build out, if we anticipate the build out, probably take about four months. Perfect timing.

There you go.

Going into spring break.

Time for spring break, yeah.

Thank you again.

Thank you.

Going back to application. Yeah, there's only one more. Okay, Application 2611, Special Lane Use for an Indoor-Outdoor Recreation Facility in the Planners Report.

Thank you, Chairman Cebulski. Liz Hart with McKenna. Before you tonight is a special land use application for a proposed indoor and outdoor recreation facility located at 13101 North Hagerty Road. That's that northwest corner of Plymouth and Hagerty Road. The property is zoned C2 General Commercial and an indoor outdoor recreation facility is permitted as a special land use. Going over the special land use criteria, the proposed use. So the proposal includes an indoor recreation building that will have soccer courts, indoor turf and practice areas. And then the outdoor recreation facility will have three outdoor synthetic turf fields that includes soccer and baseball. The facility would accommodate scheduled practices, leagues, rentals, tournaments, and other organized events. From the applicant's narrative, they say that typical attendance is anticipated to approximately be 100 to 150 spectators, with larger events potentially reaching approximately 300 to 500 spectators. The proposed hours of the facility are 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays and 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekends, and the outdoor facilities would operate seasonally. Okay. We do find that the proposed use can be compatible with the surrounding development, subject to site design considerations. And then with the consistency of the master plan, so this was submitted with the 2015 master plan, which identifies this area as commercial on the future land use map, and Again, this commercial designation is intended to accommodate commercial uses within the township, so like C1, C2, and the ARC districts. So the proposed development does, is compatible with the proposed use with the master plan, because it is designated for commercial future land use in the 2015. Now the 2016 land use, I just want to make sure that's clear for you guys that it is on the future land use shown as local commercial residential. So like that, the previous application we just looked at, that's those future land use for the 2026. but as it was submitted under 2015, it is compliant with the 2015 Future Land Use Map. Impact on natural features of the site. The site does contain existing woodland and other vegetation, and the applicant does indicate that tree removal will be required for the development. However, existing vegetation along the western portion of the site, that's up against the residential area, they will preserve existing trees vegetation where feasible, and then the rest will be supplemented with new landscaping. And a tree survey and detailed site plan will be required during the site plan review to identify existing trees and establish preservation and removal of trees. So intent of the zoning district, the C2 district is intended to serve the commercial needs of the general community and provide for the planned concentration of more intensive uses that may generate larger volumes of vehicular traffic. So this proposed use is public facing, it is service oriented commercial use intended to provide organized athletic and recreational opportunities for local residents, schools, athletic clubs, teams, and community organizations. Um, so we do find that this is consistent with the broader purpose of the C2 district. However, the anticipated periods of increased activities associated with these potential games, tournaments, and other events, um, are consistent with the district's intent to accommodate more intensive commercial uses that may generate increased vehicular activity. Um, but again, uh, we, We do have a, the site design will be important, especially with, in terms of noise for the residential. So that's why I just note this for right now. But so criteria two, the use is designed, located, proposed, or operate so that public health, safety, and welfare will be protected. There's no hazardous materials or emissions or industrial processes are involved. So we do expect this to operate in a way that protects the public health, safety and welfare. Criteria three, adequately served by public services. The site is proposed to be designed to be served by existing public water, sanitary, roadway, We don't anticipate it to adversely affect existing public services, and neither does the applicant, but again, site plan review will also help us determine vehicular access and impacts of that. Criteria for vehicular circulation, the subject site's located at the intersection of Plymouth Road and Hagerty. And it's proposed to have two access easements, one on Plymouth Road and one on Hagerty, and then the internal circulation to accommodate those vehicular vehicles and emergency vehicles. The plan does show 403 parking spaces on the subject property. And then the applicant does anticipate approximately 150 additional spaces within the parking area east of the site through a formal shared parking agreement. We have not verified the required number of parking spaces for the proposed use. I have checked their bench on their site plan. They show how many bench seats there are for some, and there is a requirement for that. They do meet that requirement, but in terms of the building, I don't know the size of it, so I'm not able to calculate any required parking. However, that will be reviewed with the site plan if this gets approved tonight. In addition, that extra 150 spaces The zoning ordinance requires commercial uses to provide parking on the subject site, so we need to look into if that 150 off-site spaces require further evaluation or some type of extra special approval from the township, because right now I don't believe our township has an ordinance for shared parking like this, so we'll just have to get into that with the site plan. Okay. So criteria five, the location, use, and assembly of persons in connection with the proposed use will not be hazardous to the planning unit in which the use is located or hazardous to the specific use or life and property within the planning unit or incongruous therewith or in conflict with the normal traffic of the planning unit. So the proposed use will involve indoor outdoor activities and the assembly of participants and expectators associated with practices leagues rentals tournaments and other organized recreational activities Larger events may result in increased concentrations of people in periods of increased traffic and activity on the site However, we do not anticipate it to be PROGRESS WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT, WHICH INCLUDES COMMERCIAL, INSTITUTIONAL, INDUSTRIAL, RECREATIONAL, AND RESIDENTIAL USES. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONCENTRATION OF PEOPLE, TRAFFIC, PARKING, NOISE, OUTDOOR ACTIVITY, THEY CAN BE ADDRESSED THROUGH SITE DESIGN, THROUGH THE SITE PLAN REVIEW. THEN CRITERIA SIX, THE PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT OF ARTICLE 29. So we do find that the proposed site plan can can be appropriately located without impairing the existing use or projected development of adjacent properties, subject to final site plan review and compliance with applicable development standards. So just with what's provided on the conceptual site plan, we do believe that it can meet all the requirements in Article 29. And then for B, sufficient landscaping, fencing, walls, and other means of buffering are provided. So they do provide landscaping on the plan, It's not thorough. Again, this would be reviewed during the site plan. However, based on what they're showing in terms of where the fields are located, the buffering with the parking and then landscaping, we do believe that the site can accommodate appropriate buffering and landscaping between this use and the residential to the west. So that will all be evaluated during the site plan review. But so based on that conceptual plan, we do find that is appropriate and can potentially meet these requirements of the zoning ordinance. So overall, based on our review of the special land use, we do find the proposed recreation facility meets the standards of the special land use approval. Pending any additional information on recommendations that come out of the public hearing tonight, staff is recommending approval. Our recommended condition at this point is that the applicant submit a formal traffic impact study with the site plan application. But I do want to remind the Commission that the conditions included in our recommendation are just a starting point. The Planning Commission can consider additional reasonable conditions for the facility where appropriate to address concerns identified by the position or concerns raised through the public hearing tonight. So as you hear from the applicant and the public tonight, if there are particular concerns the commission believes need to be addressed, then that can be discussed as potential conditions. There are a number of more detailed site design items that will continue to be evaluated through the site plan and engineering review, including the speaker system, lighting, landscaping, screening, parking, traffic, drainage, and other site improvements. But so with all this, we are recommending approval again, based on the following facts of finding and subject to any additional conditions the planning commission determines are appropriate based on its review and public hearing. So the findings of the facts are as follows. The intensity and scale of the proposed indoor and outdoor recreational facility are compatible with the surrounding uses and conditions. The proposed site arrangements places the outdoor athletic fields away from the adjacent residential development with parking and landscaping providing additional separation. The proposed recreational facility is consistent with the intent of the 2015 master plan. The proposed development is not anticipated to result in significant adverse impacts to the natural features of the site or surrounding area. The proposed recreational facility provides a community serving use that is consistent with the intent of the C2 General Commercial District. The location, use, and assembly of persons associated with the proposed recreation facility will not be hazardous to the planning unit or to life and property and will not be incongruous with surrounding uses. The proposed site layout can accommodate recreational use and associate activities without impairing the existing use of protected development of adjacent properties. And the proposed landscaping, fencing, screening, lighting, and other buffering measures can adequately minimize potential impacts to nearby residential properties subject to final site plan review and compliance with the proposal. I'm happy to take any questions now. The applicant is here to present to you. And thank you for your time. Thank you.

I have one question for staff. Are there any zoning districts where use like this would be permitted as of right?

Not off the top of memory. Okay, thank you. There's, I believe the C2 allows indoor, but it's just when it gets to outdoor, that's when it becomes a special use land use. Got it. Thank you.

Pardon, I wasn't paying attention.

She just asked if there are any districts that would allow this type of use out, right, permitted. And I said that the C2 indoor recreation facilities are permitted, but outdoor recreation facilities are where the special land use comes in.

All right, the applicant is here. Maybe you can bring the board up a little closer because it's a little far.

The board closer? Yeah, maybe right in this area. I thought I was going to get projected, but I guess not.

All right.

Yeah, a little closer. That's good. And maybe tilt it a little bit that way so those folks there can see it. That's perfect. There you go. That's good, that's good.

Thank you.

So thank you again. Again, my name is Ryan Duff, Hillside Investments. We own this piece of dirt. Victor came to us six, seven months ago and started talking about this opportunity. actually the same time as we were working through with the planning department to try to figure out the best use. We've had some mishaps and Victor fell on our lap and got away from a big old building and got into the kids sports facility complex and couldn't be more excited with three kids part of travel sports. We think it's a Super cool thing and ecstatic to be here tonight to present this to you guys. Victor has put a lot of work into this. He's working on another facility within basically the region Plymouth, Plymouth Township. So there will be two facilities like this, one indoor, one outdoor. And we couldn't be more excited and would love your support. And I'll let Victor get into more of the details of the operation and how this all flows.

Yeah, pleasure meeting you guys. I'm Victor Rolf and one of the owners of Prime Athletic is the operating company. This has been like a four-year endeavor with me and another soccer dad. Both of my kids play travel soccer and every winter we complain. that I have to drive to Novi, Ann Arbor, just for my boys to train, right? So when we came across the property and we met Ryan, we thought this would be a great opportunity to bring a training facility to Plymouth so our kids can stay here. And now this is a multi-sport facility. So my kids are soccer, but it'd be football, baseball, basketball, and I'll go into a little detail on the site plan, but allow it to have an indoor application for training. And we are actually bringing technology kind of like the golf sims and all that, but a way to help gamify the indoor experience so kids don't get burnt out. There's gonna be a lot of tech put into this to help kids enjoy the sports from that side, but also this facility is gonna be equipped with a rehab site. So part of what we wanna build is be able to one-stop shop. So if a kid does get hurt, how can we bring them back into the field in a reasonable manner and all in one spot. So parents don't have to drive five different locations with three different kids. Like we can take them all to one location. The outdoor piece is actually really unique because it's all turf. So what does that mean? So normally during April, when the parks are still closed, kids can't train or they have to go back indoors and come April. Everyone wants to be outside or nights like tonight when it's raining, the kids are going to tear up all of those outdoor places. turf fields at our parks and all that. The turf allows to keep the parks in better condition because the turf can withstand all of that side of the world. And as Ryan mentioned, we are opening another building at 350 South Mill. It's going to be a little bigger of an indoor soccer facility as well. But right now we're trying to From our business perspective, we have anchor tenants. So we have a few of the soccer groups in the area, DCFC, Perfect Game. We are talking with the Plymouth Steelers to put football there, Plymouth Reign. So we're trying to give these guys homes to go into from that perspective. Also go into a little bit of the use. So it's seasonal, meaning that the outdoor facility is only really going to be busy from April to November. That's it. Then it shuts down and you won't have any use on the outdoor during the winter months. It is also hourly based, meaning kids start training at five or four if you're the high schoolers to eight, nine, 10 o'clock. That's during the weekdays. So a lot of it is off of what people are working. So like Burroughs is right across the street, heavy traffic. And then Ryan, the other one that's industrial. And then When the big use comes, that's on weekends. when we will host baseball tournaments and or soccer, what they call ECNLs, where we actually bring in other clubs from out of state. So it's got a big economic value to the city as well. We're bringing clubs outside of the state. They stay here, they eat here, and they will play at that facility. So on the weekends is when we expect that higher number of traffic and spectators, and you won't expect that during the weekday. So I'll try to give you as much as I could happen to answer any other questions you guys may have.

For the weekend, what hours would you talk? And the weekend, the indoor facility would be open during the summer months too if it rains or?

Yeah, so the indoor, if you look at the site plan on the indoor, it's got three basketball courts, and then it's got where we see- Let me just stop you there.

So when I looked at this site plan, what is the building? I see that the baseball, is it this building that's- Do you mind if I come up here? Yeah, where's the building? I couldn't figure it out.

This is the building.

Okay, that's what I thought.

So this is the building.

So that's year-round.

It's not year-round because that's seasonal, too, in the sense that when the indoor facility is going to be slow during the summer months, it basically goes down to zero utilization, and everyone moves up. So they kind of complement each other for that.

Those are basketball courts, though, so... That's what you said.

Yes, they are basketball.

So they can't, they won't be playing basketball in the other.

No, but basketball slows down in the summer. Like in that regard. Like the utilization of the building comes down to roughly 35% utilization during that. Fine athletic area, that's our PTU. soccer games in the indoor facility so you won't have games in any of that so in the winter this utilization comes way down because this is not being utilized and since we're not running games it's really just basketball training and volleyball and then some cheer with the during the weekdays and then just to confirm some of the building metrics

there are some questions with the building height and how that ratio works with the parking.

So for the parking too, the building is approximately 60,000 square feet and that's where the 320 parking comes into and then with the bleachers you have your

So they would just clear, clear, cut the whole damn thing. Well, there's a lot.

We'll just be right across the corner.

Is that the restroom access work?

Yeah, that's here. So this is... Restroom access? It faces Haggard, the Rivian section.

Okay. Where's the train? So the train is up here. Got it. And they'll be locked? They will be enclosed and locked. Okay.

So this is the restrooms here?

Yeah.

Okay.

Here, here, here. The white area.

Where are the bleachers?

The bleachers are what's highlighted in the white squares. Those little, okay.

Around the... Gotcha.

And what's... Those are road bleachers. They're not, yeah, they don't look very big. On the site it'll show up very small, yeah.

And are the outdoor fields intended primarily for soccer?

Soccer and baseball. So right now, the way this model works is we have anchor tenants, so they sign a 10-year agreement to have this space. So it's primarily going to be soccer, and then baseball will double, and they will alternate. So we'll do the soccer games one weekend. We'll only run about two baseball tournaments a month. That's it. We're not doing it every weekend. And depending on the tournaments, it could be roughly about max 50 teams, low-end 25 teams. So there could be a weekend where we're running baseball and then a few soccer games on that side. I'm not sure you see these outlines right here.

Mm-hmm.

And no sound systems or amplified music or anything like that is intended?

There's no proposed at the juncture of life to have a sound system or anything like that. There may be some systems for emergency aspects of like a lost kid. but not a daily, hey, this is going on, people are jamming, right? In the site, we'll have lights. The lights are going to be associated with the field, pointing at the field from that side as well.

Went to stress working with Laura on this site. It's always been important. There will be a berm. There is a wooden belt here that will stay on that screen. There was thought into the parking to make a smooth transition to be, you know, kind of a center block.

If I may, are you guys putting up nets for the baseball fields? Nets?

That's like backstops. Yeah.

Yeah. These will have backstops. That's why they're a little farther back than the, so the baseball diamond doesn't go all the way to the soccer field. These are going to be permanent backstops in that way. You will have netting along the parking lot side to along here. We'll try to keep it as minimal as possible just for a visual aspect.

Because there'll be drivers on.

Yeah. Let's just make sure that's in your site plan application.

Most of these fields, right, typically the way they do it, they go to the city and ask for the taxpayers to pay for these build-ups. That's not our intent here.

So on this hedgerow, and you said there would be a buffer, how wide of a buffer is it? Have you figured that out yet, or is it still... Oh, so you don't, that's not your property. Your property is right, these trees.

So you're pretty much just clear-cutting the whole thing, right? For the most part.

Yeah, the whole thing. Before, when we were looking at a plan, most of the trees are up in this area.

Yeah, it's higher vegetation towards here.

Mm-hmm. But I read in here that there was, in the planner's report that, in the planner's report, you had mentioned no environmental issues, but there is an environmental issue here, or has that been completely gone now?

I'm not familiar with an environment, it's the one to the north.

Pardon? It's the property to the north. The property to the north, oh, that's where it is?

Yeah, that's the brownfield. We were looking with engineering on that, and we thought it was this site, but when we looked again, it's the site to the north.

To the north of it, where they have the little building they're pumping something.

Yeah, it's a brownfield, I believe, currently.

So you're making money just from renting out these three buildings? All fields? I'll see indoor. Plus a little bit, yeah.

Wow. So, you know, these are only four-row bleachers. How many people sit in these bleachers? Because this is an awful lot of parking.

I have the calculation score of that. That will all be submitted through the site plan approval. I'll make sure that that's all provided and you guys have approval.

So when I was reading through this, the concern that I have is, you know, if this was approved for the special land use, what happens, what risk is it then that we're not pleased with, for example, the buffering from the adjacent sites, they can't meet parking requirements, you know, a number of things that will be looked at at site plan. So they would assume that risk if they can't bring this forward?

Yes.

So you had mentioned

operating at like, let's say 4 o'clock, 4 or 5 o'clock when school lets out to about 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock. So what happens on the weekends? What would be your hours of operation?

7 a.m.? 7 a.m.? Like all day? Okay. Yeah. Those weekends are a little bit bigger for the older kids. And we'll run a little later. But mainly, it's like tonight, right?

I remember reading this, because the new commissioner, so they give us this, you know, what they're proposing, what this would be used for. And so that goes into the details. We always look at the operation hours and people, you know, how many people they draw in to see if that's appropriate, is that an appropriate use. So here you would be operating it from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. on the weekdays for out and right. And then 6 a.m.

So they have to get kids there to start to warm up on the early side. And again, that's on the weekend. During the weekdays, these fields

So you wouldn't be using this at all for other events like an outdoor concert, or it would be strictly athletics? It's all athletics.

It's all built on training and work. It's not built for amphitheater, concerts, parties, festivals. That's not the use case here.

It's nice. So how many seats are there in just one of these four-wheeled wheelchairs? Okay. And Liz, how do you calculate the number of seats? It depends on how many people. It's not like Michigan Stadium. Yeah.

It's done by, I think the ordinance does it by feet.

By how many feet of seat there are? Yeah. It's in ratio to the parking requirement. Yeah. So I believe every, don't quote me on this, I believe it's every four to five feet requires a parking space. Oh, okay. And that's how we, and that's.

And so forth. No, go ahead.

Bring lawn chairs maybe if there wasn't enough. Potentially or standing around.

And this is all geared toward 12-year-olds and under?

Yeah. So like the baseball is U10 and under. Soccer will go up to the high school. places to play, basically the same caliber of fields that you get in high school at the Ember. They can actually train on it because everyone wants to train on turf because it's a lot better on their feet, it's a lot better for injuries, it's a softer

Without spending too much time, I did read a story about the other facility in the city of Plymouth. Just out of curiosity, since they have sort of joined together, how is that facility used for? What is that going to be there?

So that is my facility. I'm good for that facility as well. That one is going to take a lot of the indoor a smaller field inside of it. And that is going to be used to move the kids that were training out here, now indoors during the winter.

Both sites will run in tandem with each other, but off-season of each other.

Hillside will have involvement in the Mill Street site. We can get full support from the city. We can get approval our first time around. And it's been great support. It's an interesting design with the translucent wall from what I read. Go ahead.

So does the replacement trees apply to this or any of that kind of stuff? Where do you put them? Like on the edge or where?

Where they can fit on, but also they can pay into the tree fund.

Oh, they can pay. Okay, okay, got it. Okay. How much is that?

Might wanna get a tree survey as soon as possible. Especially once the foliage starts going down, it's the best time to get someone out there.

We don't know if they're- Along the edge is gonna be new plantings, like you can't- Can you save anything? Can you save anything along the edges, along that divider?

Yeah. Yes, we'll try to. And whatever we need to, we will be planting as well, too.

Are there any heritage trees you know? Have you done a tree survey?

We haven't done any.

Oh, I'm sure there are.

There will be a tree survey. There will be a traffic study. Yeah. This is going to be completely, you know, worried on and looked at.

Other questions on use?

Any adult leagues? I mean, if people come to you and they want to have an adult league?

Yeah, we'll offer it for adult leagues.

So these two fields, the one in the city and the one in the township, complement each other? You expect sort of the same customer base?

Besides, this one will have a bigger baseball base. The other one will have indoor batting cages, but this one will have a bigger... Baseball use.

Any other concerns before we open up to public hearing?

I think the concept's good. God, this is one of the last nice pieces of land left, and it's just gonna be clear cut and three fields, but I don't know. It's a great concept and community benefit and all that. And kids, I know, all that's good. It's just a prime piece of land for that. Well, what would you rather see in this place? I don't know. Yeah, I guess more traditional commercial, but that's...

They'd be doing the same thing. The trees would still be gone, yeah. Yeah, the trees would be cut down there, too. That's right.

Yeah, but you can kind of craft a little extra spaces.

Is the turf going to be green? No, no, no, no, you can't.

It's not going to be green. Yeah, turf will be green, right? We're trying to be this as inviting as possible. I know a big aspect, when I worked at Burrell, this is the entryway into the downtown. I know that's why.

Okay, well, let's open the public hearing at 8.36. Is there such a motion?

All right, Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we open up the public hearing for PC number 2611. INDOOR AND OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITY.

IS THERE SUPPORT? SUPPORT. COMMISSIONER POPPIN, SUPPORTED BY COMMISSIONER CALLAHAN TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING FOR 2611. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK TO IT?

GOOD EVENING, BOARD. MY NAME IS JOE REILLY. I THINK THIS IS A NEEDED Space, soccer fields would be really good, I believe, in the township. There is a ton of money. Stuart, you made a comment. How do you make your money back? There's a ton of money in training and rehab and all that kind of stuff. I know from Total Sports and Nova I used to go to, those places are not cheap. So there would be, I imagine you guys have done the research. There's plenty of money in that. One other note I did have is that these entrances, just on the proposed lot, are adjacent to both other properties, so that might cause some traffic, so that's just something to look at when they do a traffic study in the future.

Thank you. All right, thank you.

Is there anyone else?

Did anyone submit any emails or anything about it?

We were a bit surprised, but we didn't receive any emails. Wow.

Yeah, we were also shocked, but maybe they... No comments then from the people in the adjacent condos?

No, and we sent a notice to everyone within the boundary, so they would have been notified in that complex that's directly adjacent to the property.

Yeah, a little surprised. Yeah. Okay, well, is there a motion to close the public hearing at 8.38?

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we close the public hearing on PC number 2611. Is there support?

Support.

Supported by Commissioner Krueger to close the public hearing. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries.

All right, well.

And I take it that we have all read the project narrative. We have no problem with this. Again, we look primarily on impact and hours of operation, how many employees, the parking, and we'll get into all of that at the second plan review if this moves forward. Well, are we ready for a motion? Someone want to make a motion?

All right, Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve the special land use of PC number 2611, indoor and outdoor recreation facility at 13101 North Hagerty Road. with the, I guess with the other condition that they will have a traffic study. And I don't know if there was any other special.

Well, staff, should we have a traffic study before we would make approval or deny it?

I think that's up to you guys. You can ask for it with the special land use application and review it before.

So what do you wanna do? Wanna wait for a traffic study?

Maybe we should wait for a traffic study. I don't know. That's not a short window thing, is it? No.

That's main streets too. And it's main streets.

Yeah. The review of the traffic study would likewise be valid with the site plan review, correct? Yeah. And so sometimes when you're looking at these bigger projects, tens are, you know, tens of millions of dollars. It is more of a conceptual approval for site plan at this point with the understanding that once they get it more finite, that's when that traffic study will make a lot more sense because you're really gonna see the exact number of parking spaces, the exact number of seats, things like that. Obviously at the discretion of council or of the commission, but just a thought on that matter as to timing of when each deliverable should be required.

That makes sense. Yeah, this is the preliminary site, right? Right, and we're looking at use. We're not looking at, you know, any design of it or layout of it, just the use of it. I mean, they just give us, like the attorney said, conceptional before they get a go-ahead to investing additional money into this. We don't really, yeah, we don't really, I think we're still loosey goosey if you want to use that term about number of seats. How do you determine the parking requirements? Are these typically what you would expect to see as far as the attendance for tournaments and just a regular practice?

A couple of ways we've done it, like with the other property, we did a utilization based of number of kids per team times that 1.5 per adult, which then would give you a car count. So there's a couple of ways of doing it. That's how we did it for the other facility because That facility isn't going to have bleachers, and you can't use the standard of four or five feet per, right? So we can... And then each... The square footage of the building plus its uses has its own requirements based on number of parking spots per utilization of the building. So like the PT area will have a set number, right? The basketball courts would have a set number. So there is calculations to do it, but for the fields, we'd normally do it by number of teams. So at your U12 teams, you're looking at like 15 kids per team. So each team is, you know, two teams playing, that's 30 kids. times one and a half, you're at 45 cars roughly per field times three, about 130, right? So that's how we came to that 120, 130 number for parking spots for the fields outside of the,

what would be the expectation that we would use that information for? I mean, if we approved it tonight, and then, well, we're going to have a traffic study, well, we've already approved it, the use of it, what would we do? Say, well, that's too many? What would be the standards that we would go by?

I think, and I can't speak for Liz necessarily, but I think that it would be, The approval would already be done, obviously, so it's incumbent upon them to provide that with the site plan for that next step of approval, which that would be.

Okay, yeah, that's a good point. Yeah, we could just, if we decide to approve it, then when we have more additional information, then we can move on, use it. Use that additional information at that time.

Right, yeah. Yeah, okay. So this is more of a, yeah, more of a preliminary. Yeah, it is preliminary. Okay, should I start over? Start over. All right, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the special land use for PC number 2611, indoor and outdoor recreation facility at 13101 North. I mean, if I'm not going to put the traffic study down. Yeah. All right, is there support?

Support? Moved by Commissioner Poppin, supported by Commissioner Callahan to grant special land use for application 2611. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. Well, congratulations. Look forward to working with you. My pleasure.

Thank you. The questions, the parking, the bleachers, everybody that is going to be coming to this facility, it will be all detailed in our site plan review. So as an owner of the property, it's important to make sure that we meet all ordinances, not going in asking for any variances, waivers. So all that will be outlined in detail as we submit our site plan approval.

Okay, and then... As you develop a more detailed site plan, pay special attention to the buffering. Fifteen feet doesn't sound like a whole lot to me, but we'll see where that goes. Okay.

What is your timeline, your project timeline?

Ideally, we're trying to get both facilities open by November of next year. That's our target. A lot of factors go into it. Earliest November, maybe realistic probably is April 28th, or April 29th, sorry. 28th. So either November of next year or April of the following, depending on where things look at.

As far as timeline though, now that we have the support and approval as our special use, we will get right into our site plan and start drafting that up and start moving right to our site plan approval. There will be no holdups.

You have your all set final approvals for the city site?

We have the special use. We are going to site plan probably in two months with it. We had to make a few modifications to it. But that one, we're also doing a traffic study for that site as well, just because of the effort.

Are you using that existing building or tearing it down?

So about a quarter of the existing building stands, and then because we need the space because of the column lines, we're demoing that warehouse section and putting in a new open span warehouse facility there to put the turf field.

All right.

I have one other comment. So when you're preparing your site plan for the buffering area to the residential, please consider using evergreen trees so that there's... year-round offering. Okay.

And sort of what I call a checkerboard, you know, just not a straight line. Right. Individual interest.

Okay.

All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Yep. Okay, next is, you know from earlier that Tim Boyd has resigned and he was our vice chair. So we have to have an election for vice chair. And I put a call out for anyone being interested and only one person responded and that was Stuart Pop. So if anyone else is interested, speak up now or we'll hold our election. No, you're interested?

I'm glad someone was interested.

My arm was kind of twisted. I'm happy to hear that.

I'm kidding. So, Ashley, do you want to make a nomination motion?

Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to nominate Stuart Popp as the new vice chair of the Plymouth Township Planning Commission.

Okay, is there support? Second. Okay, moved by Commissioner Krueger and supported by Commissioner Callahan. to nominate Stewart Popp as Vice Chair. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? So that's unanimous by that, so congratulations. Congratulations. Thank you.

And good luck. You can never take a, you can never miss a meeting.

Commissioner has such capable hands, I might just take a couple month vacation. So are there any questions on the planning and zoning report?

So I just had a question because I just lived by the person. The house they're redoing by that Praise Baptist Church, I thought they were going to knock the house down order, but they're like redoing it. So why did it have to be on here? I'm just curious.

The house was on the site with the church, so they had to split it.

Oh, you had to split it. So that's now a private house. Okay, got it.

And then a curiosity question. They're doing some kind of clearing and other work on a house on Ann Arbor Trail right near the Township Park. Do you know what's going on there? I know that would never come to us. I'm presuming it's probably a private home that will be built there.

I'm not familiar. Where did you say it was?

It's on Ann Arbor Trail, almost across the street from McClungfa.

I can speak with the building departments.

Next to the newer condos they built. Yeah. That guy kind of let his house go because I think it was just valued for the land.

Well, he had a sign up there that was the same.

Yeah, right.

So I'm assuming... Well, I was just wondering if it was going to be... I don't know how big the property is. I was wondering if it's going to be another cluster housing or something else going in there. I think the property is too small for anything other than probably a private home.

Yeah, I'm not familiar with the property.

It's a curiosity thing more than anything else.

I can reach out to building...

All right. Commissioner Kamas, does anyone have any comments to make before we adjourn?

Yeah, I do. Okay. I just want to say I'm glad to be here. And to the point about the zoning, if you recall those zoning bills that were going on in Lansing that kind of died in committee, the latest I heard two days ago was that Whitmer is still pushing those and really wants to get those done before she's gone. So if you're opposed to it, you know, email, send your, you know, your opinions in and stuff. So that would basically all the work we've done or you guys have done for the master plan would just be out the window.

I think Mr. Chubb was giving us a report on that at the last meeting or two. Did you have anything more that you might have heard?

No, that's accurate with what I've heard is, and welcome aboard, by the way. But that's what I've heard is that there are still administrative individuals very much pushing for them to move forward.

Yeah, well, we'll see what happens. Yeah, we'll see. It was an interesting one. Yeah. Well, that was one of the points that... Tim was trying to make about that. And speaking of Tim, before I forget, he left copies of the speech, so let me distribute that to you. Oh, yeah. I didn't want to interrupt the insurers. I know he spent a lot of time on this and has a lot of interest in what he said, so you might want to... Okay, if there's nothing else, is there a motion to adjourn at 8.53?

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we adjourn the COVID Township Planning Commission meeting September 16th at 8.53.

Support? Support. And move by Commissioner Popp and supported by Commissioner Callahan to adjourn the meeting. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries, we're adjourned.