Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I need to know basis. Well, I know that Okay. You want to turn Mike

or is it a different turn? Apparently, there wasn't one in uh Dennis's packet and he's no one. The Plymouth Township Planning Commission meeting will come to order at 6:32 and the secretary, please call role. Dennis Oolskski here, Tim Boyd here, Bob Dorchitz here, Steuart Pop here, Dan Callahan here, Bill Ikes here, and Dave Lawway here. Everyone's here. Is there a motion to approve the agenda for tonight? Uh, Mr. Chair, I move we approve the agenda as submitted. Second. Seems to me.

Okay. Moved by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Stewart. uh or Commissioner Pop to uh approve tonight's agenda. All in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. Motion carries. And what about the minutes for August 20th, our regular meeting? Is there a motion to approve? Uh Mr. Chair, I move we approve the minutes of the meeting of August 20th. Second. Moved by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Pop to approve the August 20 hearing. 20th 20th um meeting. All in favor signify by saying I I opposed. Motion carries. Was that the end? No, it was Steuart. Steuart Pop. Second was

Steuart. And the approval of our other regular meeting on August 27th. Is there a motion? Uh Mr. Chair, I move we approve the meeting minutes for the August 27th, 2025 meeting. Second. Moved by Commissioner Bdon, supported by Commissioner Pomp to approve the August 27th meeting minutes. All in favor signify by saying I. I.

Opposed. Motion carries. Public comment. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to a non-aggenda item? Okay. Then new business is application 2493. the conditional uh resoning extension on Ann Arbor Road. Liz, you want to fill us in? Thank you, Commissioners. Good evening. Liz Hart with McKenna. Um, so the applicant for uh PC number 2493, which is at 4700 Ann Arbor Road. So, this is the Elcar Wash off of Ann Arbor Road. back in April, they you guys granted them a six-month extension, and they are now requesting an additional 60-day extension. Um, their letter states that uh there's a delay to the file of the motion until a judge was assigned to the case. This is in regards to the um consent judgement that they're trying to get taken off. Um, and that should be going through sometime this month. So, they're asking an extension, an additional 60 days for that. Um, and I believe they're here as well if you want to ask them any questions.

Have questions? Yeah. My question is, is the sign that's out there, we had the public hearing, which is good. Now there's an extension. What do we do with the public, right? Is there something you go on the sign to say that 60 more days is being granted or is that just something you put on the website and hope people read it? I'm not sure how that's handled. Um, but I'm happy to find out. All right. You mean you potentially want the new date, right? Is that what you mean? Or that's an extension? The last the public knew, we kicked it out for 6 months. Now we're giving another 60 days. And

yeah, but it could they could come back sooner than 60 days. So if you put a date, uh, you know, to for to publicize it, it may happen earlier than that date or perhaps they might ask for another extension. Yeah, that's that's probably what's going to happen is 60 days is going to go like this and then it's another six months that cover them. I would suggest because 60 days is less it's less than 60 days to our November meeting. Yeah. But our December meeting is uh the second Wednesday of the month. So I'm suggesting perhaps we just move it at the December meeting. It's a little bit more than 60, but it you know I don't know how how you I would support that. If you want to make a motion, I'll I'll support you on it.

Well, let's have anybody have a comment on that? No, you're saying extended to 90 days. No, it wouldn't it would be less than 90 days. It' be a little over 60 days cuz our meeting in November Uhhuh. is on the 19th. Oh, see. And today is Well, maybe today's the 17th. Well, I guess it'll be okay. I don't know if I'm going to be here on uh for that one. Well, this is I don't know if it's 60 days, but 60 days. It's right around there. Yeah, there's 31 days. Just keep to November. Just keep it to November. Fair enough. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. Is there a motion to to grant the extension or is Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to grant the extension. 60 days as requested. Okay. At up to who? Who's supported that? Doran Callahan. Dan Callahan. Okay. A move by Commissioner Usil and not Iel but I supported by Commissioner um Callahan to extend the um application 2493 up to our November 2025 meeting. All in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. Motion carries.

Okay. Now the city or the child care c center's text amendment.

Um thank you commissioners. Uh so if you remember I believe it was a month or so ago we discussed this with the city and they've come back and have done some research for you which you asked them to do for the next for this discussion and Greta is here to continue that discussion with you guys. Just steal one of these. [Music] Okay. I was gonna say okay thank you. Good evening commissioners. Thank you again for the opportunity to present to you the information that we have collected as it regards to the Ann Arbor Road Corridor District and the childcare facility that is being uh considered within the city of Plymouth. As I mentioned at the last meeting, we have the planning commission are the city of Plymouth planning commission has not yet considered the specifics of this particular site. Um so I would reserve judgment for those specific questions to a later date when they are able to present to us. Um as you asked at at the previous meeting, there was some benchmarking and some background information that you were looking for. So, I provided um a memorandum for you and I'll just go through that quickly if you'll indulge me in in reading some of these key points. So, the um the joint Anna Road Corridor District was adopted in the late 1990s. The um the city has received this application for child care. And so, uh we looked at some of the demographic information as it relates to children across the city and the township. We found according to the US Census Bureau that there are approximately 6,200 children aged 0 to 14 in the city of Plymouth and in the township. Across our two communities, there are 22 childc care facilities which uh accommodate approximately just a little over 1,600 children. In the city of Plymouth in particular, there are no child care facilities that accommodate children

aged 0 to 2 and a half. And we find that to be a need within our community. The state of Michigan requires child care facilities, childcare centers with children that are in attendance for three or more continuous hours to provide an outdoor play space of at least 1,200 square ft. And child care facilities are licensed in the state of Michigan for up to age 13 children. In reviewing the information that was available on the state of Michigan childcare licensing website, we found the attached list of names, addresses, age ranges, and the period of operation capacity within the city of Plymouth and Plymouth Township CH child care centers. Then we estimated the outdoor space that was we used Google Earth images as this was not a publicly available number um for each of these facilities. So, some of these numbers are going to be below the the state minimum. I I cannot speak to those um particular numbers. This is simply that was simply an estimate just to further our conversation. What we are proposing in the city of Plymouth is that we eliminate the 500 square ft of outdoor play space per child. And this would change to be a 3,000 square ft minimum for outdoor play space um within the city and within the township. Um, I I did find in looking at the township's ordinances that it does appear that five 500 square feet per child or per person actually is pretty consistent with the other um sections of the ordinance um for the other districts that may permit child care facilities. Um, so this may be something that you want to look at other sections of your ordinance as this is likely to be ownorous for any childcare facility that that may come into the township. Um, so

we are proposing as I said to for the new ordinance to read there shall be not less than 3,000 square feet of outdoor play space and such play space shall be fenced and screened from any adjoining lot in any residential district. Happy to answer any questions that you may have and I look forward to your discussion. Okay, looks like almost nobody's in compliance. Do you have some comments or questions?

Um, just what I would reiterate what Bob just said, the uh landscape page showing the city of Plymouth and Plymouth Township, all of the various facilities. You look at the estimated outdoor space in the average square foot for child. Um clearly um a number of them in the township um do not meet the 500 square foot per child requirement. Matter of fact, almost all of them do not. There's only two that are above 500, which is a bit of a shock. Um and then in terms of the uh outdoor space, if we were to adopt the 3000 recommendation, given in that only about half of the uh sites in the township meet that criteria. So something we should probably follow up on looking at our ordinances. Um my only other comment is this is excellent information. Thank you for going to all the trouble of the debt together.

Do you know how many uh how much square how many square feet of outdoor uh on that piece of property there is currently on the subject property? Yeah. Uh what they're proposing is north of 6,000 square ft. But what what's the total square footage of that property? The site itself is is over an acre. Are they going to uh repurpose a building or knock it down? That they would be re reoccupying the existing building. I'm sorry. What did you say the total uh square foot of the site was? It's over an acre. I think it's right around an acre. Okay.

I have a question. Like I look at the very last um school listed, West Middle School, and it says here capacity 20 23. There's more than 23 children. Yeah. So I it is my understanding that that is some type of latch key child program or some additional program that is run out of west. Oh, so all of these accounts because I there's a few other that have questions. So they're dealing with latch key type situations. Yes. Yes. It's a it's additional supplemental child care operations that have headquarters at the various schools.

Okay. on the subject site. Um, since it's mostly paved right now, would they be tearing up the payment and making it into That's correct. Okay. So, um, Liz, we're not being asked to make any recommendation for decision tonight. It's just discussion. Is that correct? Yes, just discussion. Okay. So, you said that, uh, this hasn't been presented to the planning commission. It has been presented to our planning commission and we did hold a public hearing to consider this um this change that we're presenting. But you haven't made a decision yet, correct? Um they they did make a recommendation to our city commission for approval.

Okay. So it's the city commission that has Okay. Yep. Gotcha. Yeah. So obviously we want to be we want to be working and moving forward on our end but obviously understanding that you know there are processes over here as well with the planning commission with the the township board. So not sure what the timing is. Would we wait for the city commission to uh vote on this and see where that comes out or are we going to move forward or do you know Liz how that's what the plan of attack is sort of I'm looking into it right now actually. Okay. I'm sorry Liz. What did you say? I'm looking into it right now.

Oh, you're looking into it. Okay. Thank you. I mean it makes sense. Um, you know, 500 square ft per child, you know, that's a lot of it's a lot of space. Um, and it makes sense to just have a minimum playground uh size. Um, if I could just add to that this is inclusive of infants as well. So obviously an infant in your capacity is not going to require even close to 500 square f feet per per what do you know what age group this proposed use would include

the proposed use in the city is age 0 to 4 and a half all year right? Yes. Yeah. Wow. That would be a nightmare. Yeah, it yes. So again, we the the the planning commission I anticipate significant conversation. Obviously, we have to jump through this hurdle in order to even have the start of that conversation. Yeah. So again, as a reminder, this is this is going to be applicable to all of Ann Arbor Road Corridor. Although this is in response to one specific site, I I just remind you that this is related to the entire

I think it kind of begs the question as to whether there should be child care uh facilities in the ark at all. Um, you know, it's more of a commercial uh district and um you know, I could see some challenges with that site. If I might just say that um that is the benefit of it being a special land use instead of a permitted use. So it is still a discretional approval by both the the city and the township. Um obviously significant conversation is going to be required as it relates to traffic and circulation, parking, all of those matters. And still at the end of the day it would it is a discretional approval. I would think though if they're starting to watch children starting at zero, uh, probably won't be outside very much until they're about maybe two.

That's a good point.

Yeah. So, when you how do you count the you know, where do you count from would you count from zero or count from maybe two? Well, so that that's our hope with proposing moving away from the per child dimension. Uh because again there may be other scenarios or situations where you know a child is is with is counted within the capacity but is only attending for an hour or two per day or there's other situations um that may be that may be in play. Well, if we had minimum of such so big, maybe like you're saying, maybe whoever came up with this didn't really want child care centers on the Ann Arbor Road Corridor.

Well, we've always viewed it, I think, as more commercial than not. Right. I don't know if this is really considered a commercial use, but I don't know. It's it's a shaky gray area. Number one, and to Commissioner Pop's comment, right, I think you hit the nail on the head. Both the city and the township agreed, okay, to these requirements, and that probably was because they didn't want it there. Number one, it's a busy intersection. Number two, okay, Main Street in Ann Road. Um, and to to board of trustee and commissioner Dorchevit's comment here,

does it make sense? It's 162 children is is what they're planning for the max. When you look at the data, there's only one other site with more than that. Okay? So, you've got little kids, babies. Okay? This takes time to get people into car seats when they're leaving, out of car seats when they're arriving. This could be a mess for traffic with cars backing up because people are working and they want to drop off their kids, which I get, okay? and they want to pick them up and it happens to be during a busy time of the day in the morning and not at night but late in the afternoon, right? People are coming home.

And I think back to Mary Pine's comment, is this a safe location with a car that could go out of control with exhaust fumes that are there? And I I keep shaking my head at this, right, of I think what was laid out was done with good reason, right, for business type things to be in that corridor. And I get back to, man, if I was a parent, Plymouth, the city of Plymouth needed this. And we all want to be good neighbors. Okay, this is right on the border of both. But man, the closer to the sun or the city of Plymouth makes it easier for all those Plymouth city parents dropping off kids. And I get back down to my goodness, the park is there with all kinds of outdoor space and indoor and even a gymnasium, right? And classrooms. And you've got the Bible Rock Church that's there where there is parking inconvenience without causing a backup on a major corridor. And then I look at the data, right? Forgive me for for using the data here, but when I went through the comments, the number one thing that they asked was less traffic congestion. There were 606 responses out of the 812. It's number one on the prao. You're welcome to a copy of this. I'll hand it to it if you want to take it back. And you look at the comments. There were six of them. Don't allow establishments that will increase congestion. That's response 75. Page 70. Complaints about proposed traffic plan makes traffic worse. Page 60. Page 70. Comet 66. The roads are heavy traffic. Page 70. Comet 67. Consider the traffic concerns of residents. That's comet 87. Page 71. take care of Plymouth Township residents first. That's Comet 144, page 74. And then limit congestion. Comet 185 on page 76. So, we're trying to do what's best for both both communities. But my goodness, I would implore you to go back to the planning commission and find a central location in the city of Plymouth. So, they're trying to get there from north, south, east, or west. it's easy convenient and the PUB that

just got a voted down at the Christian Science Church may be a good location to help restock that church with families in the city of Plymouth. And I just I look at this and I keep coming back to does it make sense and I I can't see where or how this location would make sense. And I say that with all due respectfulness to the city of Plymouth.

I I appre I so appreciate your comments. what we are trying to do is is irrelevant to this particular site. As I mentioned, the planning commission, our planning commission has not yet considered any of these different concerns that you have brought to us, that residents have brought to us that that the planning commission has even brought up. Simply put, we find this requirement to be very burdensome, to be impossible to meet. And what we are hoping to do is to allow this conversation to move forward at the city of Plymouth level. And I would love your support in that.

So I wanted to come back to one more thing using the data. If we change it to 3,000, you divide it by 162, it's about 18 1.5 square ft per kid. To Dennis's point, that means you'd have a kid in a stroller with probably an adult by it or a couple strollers with an adult, right? And maybe the 3,000 might make sense, right? And if it's going to be 6,000, right, at this particular site, um 37 ft² is where the math comes to, right? More is better. And I'm very sensitive the fact that there's nothing for 0 to 2 and 1/2 year olds, right? But my goodness, for the safety of everybody and cramming cars in there, right? I I hate getting a proposal with a site that might be the wrong site to then make the exception. I would rather have the right site be brought back and then have the conversation on is 3,000 enough and it should be more generic than zero to two and a half year olds. It should be to the 0 to 14y old and and I I want to be as cooperative and a good neighbor as I can because I love going to Plymouth. But I'm trying to make this to where it does make sense on the numbers number one, right? and on the location. Number two, from a safety standpoint and convenience of the people picking up and dropping off the kids as well as all the other residents they're trying to drive down Main Street in Ann Arbor Road to

But are we I I I I just want to make it clear in my mind, we're not making a decision on that piece of property. We're making a decision on the Ann Arbor Road corridor in general. So all your data can be thought about but it's not p pertaining to the question on hand. The question is should we allow it and I'm saying man there is good rationale as to why we should not because both communities agree to this but there are parts properties on that on that strip that could be used for a child care center. Yeah. With the real estate of size that matches. Yeah. Mhm. If you had a lot of parking,

we you're arguing one piece of property. We're we're looking at the whole corridor. Yeah.

I think one of the considerations, and I don't know if this would be handled by the the zoning or the ordinance itself, but as I think it through, uh, as I said before, you know, from 0 to two, those pe those children are probably not going to be outside too much. Maybe out in the stroller or something on a nice day. Uh but then also you had raised the point that caused me to think deeper and that is uh you know how how long will those children will be there. We're thinking more like an 8 hour day a full day where some may just be there for half the day. Maybe a parent is both parents are working but one is only part-time and maybe we'll only need help for in the morning. So um when you figure out well this is what the the capacity is but we're looking we're focusing more on the maximum and we may never be at that maximum. So I think that needs to be thought through a little bit as to how much is too much.

If I may just Yeah. Um just to add in we don't have to approve this amendment on the township level but it is a shared ordinance with the city. So if we wanted to make an amendment to our ARC zone, we would want them to mirror us as well. So that's why the discussion is happening. But you know, they can move forward and adopt it and we do not have to this 500 square ft per outdoor play area that or per child that's just in the Ann Arbor Road cor corridor, right? No, that's all

that's the whole thing township wide everywhere. If you remember, we approved the um the one last month, the child care, the old school. Yeah. New morning school. New morning school. Yep. They were aren't in the ARC. I think that was a a residential district, but I think they're the only ones that are actually in compliance or only because they have the agreement to use the soccer field. The soccer fields, right? Yeah. See, I mean, no, we could change the rule, but it sounds like no one's even cares about it. Nobody's following it anyway. Yeah.

So, I think it's reasonable to have a more reasonable number than 500 square ft per child. Unless, for some reason, we don't want any daycare centers at at all. But that doesn't make sense cuz we have a lot of them and none of them are following unless you were a former school, you know, where you have a giant, you know, piece of land. Yeah. Yeah. So, you know, for that reason, uh I think it would make sense to, you know, do this text amendment. I don't know what the right number is. 3,000 is the right number or Yeah. Well, you know, we could repurpose the building. I'm thinking uh of the new charter school that's you know located at uh ridge road.

Yeah. Uh and they were in an office building. Yeah. So I'm not sure what happens. I think that they were probably leasing that space. But let's say they owned it and so would that be an appropriate place for a child care? Well, I don't know. I don't even know if they had any outdoor play space there. Yeah. It was in an office park. Yeah. Yeah, that's true. You know, they kids could go play in the smoking area by that about it. Well, if you're in the tech park though, you normally have some land with it. So, I mean, I don't we don't have any.

I'm just saying, you know, we're the repurposing a build you say like you had said, well, it might be an old school. Well, not necessarily. It could be an office building. Oh, no. I'm saying the only centers that can be would be an old school cuz you have a giant piece of land, but no one else seems to be able to meet it. And I guess we don't really care. So, um, we probably should have a reasonable number that we should try to have people meet. I mean, I don't know what you can do about an existing, but any new one, it's if we have a reasonable number. So, would those sites be cons considered non-compliant?

I Yes. Unless they were approved. I mean, yes. Yes. I mean, they could theoretically be shut down, couldn't they? I guess in theory

they'd be probably considered a legal non-conforming use at this point, depending on when they were approved. Sorry. Legal non-conforming use depending on when they were approved. It it would seem to me that I don't think this is an or. I think it's an and if you want it to have a 30,000 revision to it. Okay. It should be the and with the capacity of the quantity, not just cart blanch. It it 3,000 is good because you're dividing one into the other and it makes space and it really depends on what the ages and and none of us know. Not in the city of Plymouth or the township. It depends on the ages and it depends on maximum capacity. We we've had that discussion in figuring out

parking ratios, you know, in warehousing or some kind of production facility where uh you know where yeah, we're going to employ 500 people, but there's only going to be 250 at a time. Maybe they're running a double shift, you know, something like that. But I maybe I Bill, maybe that makes sense. So, you have minimum of 3,000 for up to so many kids, like say 50 kids. And then anything above that, it's x amount per or something like that. If you want to try to get if you want to try to hone in on a on a decent play area, I guess. I know that's getting kind of specific, but it's a way to do it.

It is, right? And when you look at Ivywood Classic in the township with 30 kids, 1500, that's 50 square feet, right? 7 squared is 49. That's a seven bytes. That that's enough for a kid to play without, you know, bumping into someone or get having trouble whether they're a younger kid or a 14-year-old kid, right? But it just it would make sense to do the this the square footage they're looking for with the capacity tied to it so you don't ever get down in the single digits the way a couple of these sites are in the township, unfortunately. Yeah. No, I I think that makes sense. And the schools have all the land in the world, which is why they're over 300, right? Over 180, which is way more than you need.

Yeah, that barely counts. When you're an old school, of course you have land. Good console, doesn't it? No, they don't. No. True. The one in town. Yeah, the one in town. You're stuck playing on the parking lot. That's what I did in Catholic school. Did they have a parking lot? They have a play they have they have two playgrounds there small ones but they're not one is in the parking lot but true and there's another one uh just off of uh pen yeah yeah okay that's true one is tiny one is decent size you know

same thing with the uh St. Peters is short. When I come back to somebody knew something about childhood learning and play space, right? Came up with the calculation that created the the ordinance that everyone copied and starting with, right? And I'd sure like to get some intel from whoever those experts are and what they think. If it was 3,000, what would be the max capacity that goes with it, right? Because then you could have more as you added more.

Yeah. I mean, obviously it it's my belief in reviewing the plan, the Plymouth Township ordinance that this was likely a requirement that was existing in the township's ordinance and the city adopted it for only the Ann Arbor Road Corridor as we don't have any other per child, per pupil, per person requirement for any of our child care or adult care facilities for outdoor space. Yep. So you're recommending 3,000 just launch.

Yep. And then this would apply to both small facilities as well as large facilities. Obviously large facilities may require above and beyond that per the state requirements. Um, again, I'm I found the information that was discussed at the last meeting where the state requires at least at a minimum 1,200 square ft for the entire facility. That's the state's requirement. So, this is more than double that requirement. Actually, two and a half times the state requirement. Yeah. Yeah. But it sort of depends on how many kids. I mean, 100 100 kids for 1,200 seems kind of silly, but

yeah. And that's not to say that they those types of facilities that have a greater capacity, I would imagine, have much greater out, I would assume. I would assume, but you can get some some crafty people, too. Sure.

I don't know. I don't think I guess I don't think we mind changing it. It's just I don't know if we know what to change it to, but I I think we kind of agree it's a little high. Well, maybe minimally to to the state requirement. Well, that's sounds small.

1,200 square feet. That's nothing. I don't know when it was written. Okay. But you didn't have a lot of dual spouse working families. Probably when that was written, okay, which is probably why it was 1,200 and you didn't have three digits worth of kids there, okay, during the day. And that's a sign of the times, the cost and inflation and everything, right? that we're dealing with, which is why that 1,200 figure may have been good back in the day. And it it could and should definitely be higher. It just depends on how many kids you're dividing into it. And do we limit the number of kids that a that a child care center can have by by the maximum amount or uh and again going back to how long are they in in in the child care and you know you have to define it carefully I think

yeah I'm right I mean if we're if we're going to redefine the whole thing. Then I guess we can get specific. Maximum children at one time. Mhm. And I'm surprised one is 150. It's sort of like Liz. I think I think of uh when we have bank parking, you know, and we're constructing a building that the ordinance says, well, you have to have room for 500 cars, but they only have 25 employees. Yeah. So then they just have bank parking, right?

That's similar situation. So, what what we can do from the township side is we can draft some ordinance and maybe get some more information on some sizes specifically for the township. Um, and maybe look at the difference between the ARC versus other places. Um, we can do that and then come back to you guys in October for another discussion or to look at the draft ordinance of what we come up with.

What I think would be interesting these uh franchise places that are are u nationwide chains. I'm thinking of like uh there was one here u a ch uh child time learning center. Yeah. You know it's on port. I think that's a nationwide chain. It is. So, do they have standards? What are their standards? And how do they match up with what we have? And is it is it uh an appropriate standard? I don't know how we measure that because that's what we're whole discussion is what is the appropriate measure? Yeah, they're they're the lowest one of the they're the biggest offender. That's right. The state guideline at 1200

cuz they're that's probably what they follow. I know. Um, the state of Michigan has put together I believed I sent you guys a kit a ready community ready for child care center kit toolkit. Um, we can take a look at those. McKenna was very involved in writing the state I don't know if it's an ordinance but just that development of childcare centers in the the state of Michigan. McKenna was very involved with it. So we can we can do more research specifically for the township and we can look at what's existing, what the city's data's put together for us and we can look at those and and go from there.

I wonder if the I wonder if the schools have a standard all they have, you know, on their enrollment and how much playground space that they're supposed to have. Not sure, but we can find out. That'd be something to explore and see what if it reveals anything of value. Unless the site plan approved. They just Yeah. Sorry. Oh, it's okay. I was saying we were So, there's Child Time. There's their little play playground and it's small. Mhm.

I mean, so I mean, they're a big comp or bigger company, so I guess they just figure they can ignore that part and they don't get in trouble, I guess. But, you know, Bob said, "Yeah, someone approved the site plan." So,

is there a age uh block that they use or is it just child? Because I guess what I'm driving is, you know, just like everyone's brought up is that, you know, zero to two, they're not going to use the outside. Two to maybe seven, they might, and the rest of them need a smoking room rather than a playground. So, you know, it maybe that's how it's how they figure theirs because they're from from 0 to 12, I think, or something like that. So

I am not sure how or where that 1,200 square foot dimension came from. I don't I don't know if that's there may be other definitions as it relates to a child care center and I'm not quite so familiar with the state law and like Liz said this has recently changed. Um, so that certainly is something that I can look into a little bit more and give you some more some better information on how that number came about, where that who that applies to and what what that looks like. And when when do you think the city commission is going to move on their side of it?

So, the city commission did have a first reading on Monday. Um, obviously a second reading would be required. Uh we wanted to have this meeting to gather some additional feedback just because we at the end of the day we would prefer to have our ordinances mirror each other. Um that's that's the intent of this district and that would be our hope as well. Well, are you looking for a takeaway from uh from us today or or you just want to hear our discussion and our thinking or

No, I would love to either be able to provide you with additional information or some to answer any questions that you have um to get a better sense that this is a direction that you're interested in going in or something that you know it's it's definitely a no for for you guys to consider. Um that type of feedback would be really helpful. And how many kids again are they saying 160

160 um as they've as it's my understanding that they that's their maximum obviously their maximum capacity. Their um regular capacity would be about half of that. And again, that's on a regular kind of rolling basis across a wide range of times throughout the day. Yep. So you're So you're going to change your ordinance for the whole city then? It's just for the Ann Arbor Road. Oh, yep. Okay. What What's the rest of the city? There are no per child outdoor play space requirements for the for any of our other zoning districts. No place space period.

There's a state requirement. Exactly. So we defer our ordinance defers to the state requirements. So in the in um in the city, this is the only district that would have a requirement above and beyond what the state would require. Okay? So the argument can be made that we're going above the state requirement is on the one hand, right? Just as long as you know how many kids of whatever age we're going to be in that site to know how much space they have. And that's the piece we don't know. So is it better than what it is? Yeah. 3,000 minimum is better than 1,200, right? Unless you stick 300 kids in there and then it's not really good, right? But this is like 160 or 162 and it's just

Well, it can be broader than uh bigger than the state requirement, but it can't be smaller. Correction, right? They probably wouldn't get they wouldn't get their license. Yep. But how are some of these doing it then? Good question. I I mean, doesn't make sense. It just it just almost doesn't matter, you know, which is weird. I mean, the worst offender Yeah. is 720 ft. That's a I don't know. I don't know. That's a good question. Yeah. It's hard to know. So, obviously, nothing happens to their license.

It's hard to know, too, when a establishment when they started. Obviously, childcare has long been licensed by the state. This is this is an ongoing state state lensure grandfather. So I would imagine that if there were concerns from the state level they would have been addressed in their annual or by annual licensing. Yeah. But to some of these specifics obviously cannot I can right. No I was just saying I wish it could. Yeah. So really the question comes down do we want child care facilities along Ann Arbor Road? Well that's one question.

Yes. Um, then there's the overarching question for the entire township. Yeah. I mean, 3,000 minimum up to a certain amount of kids, you know, like 100 kids. I don't know. I I I don't know.

I don't I suspect that um you know like in child time I'm not sure how that works, but they certainly I'm sure that it's like a school they have different you know they're they rotate the uses. They don't jam every kid out there at the same time. No. Right. Right. No. And the difference often comes down to the structure of the facility. If they run it similar to a school, obviously there's going to be a a bell system in that regard. Um that can obviously contribute to additional traffic. If you have children that need to be in a classroom by a specific time,

um I will say at this particular site, they are not planning to do that. So it will be a rolling admission throughout the day and then into the evening. Give those two year olds some demerits. [Laughter] So, um, is there kind of a general consensus that we're, uh, of the mindset to to change the ordinance, but we just don't know to what yet. That's where I'm coming.

I think so, but we haven't really filed much in the past. So wait, Bill isn't sure

what what I'd love to see and and first off, I want to compliment you on doing the benchmarking we asked for. This is very thorough. It's exceeded my expectation. So I thank you for that. You took what we asked for seriously and you're helping us. The one thing I'd love to see is this 0 to 2 and 1/2 or 0 to threeyear-old age group of what those facilities look like by hours in the day drop offs. There must be data that exists. Now, we don't have one in the city, the township, which is why we probably need one. Okay. Uh it' just be nice to have that data point to know what the 0year-old to 2 and 1/2 or 3year-old the the the time and the hours they're there when they drop off cuz it might not be all 162 at 8 a.m. when someone's going to work at five, right? an absence of data. That's like the only thing we're lacking because we don't have any baseline on on what's going to go into any facility on the ARC if it was for a young kids. And this isn't written to be young kids. It's written to be anything, right, with against the state statute.

I think it's hard to to enforce anything like that. It's going to be difficult. But it it would be interesting to know that point. I'm just trying to be mindful of, you know, congestion and anywhere on ARC. It could be on the township side of the road, it's still congestion. You you see that? I'm sure you've traveled past uh uh Bird and West Middle Schools. It goes all the way on Sheldon. Yep. Yeah, that's super long. Yeah.

Yeah. That's a daily occurrence twice a day. go to Smith by Smith school and um McKinley or something like that in morning and afternoons is backed up to Ann Arbor Trail almost on McKinley. So, well, even West even uh P pioneer, you know, right on Ann Arbor Road.

But there's a difference though because those schools have a start and stop time. I think just by experience being a grandfather. Um uh the I know the couple uh that we have going into daycarees or facilities like this, it's it varies because the mom goes in at one time and the dad comes home earlier. And so it's not like it's not 162 cars coming there. It's 162 cars coming there twice a day if it's full capacity. So, and it's not at one time where schools are at one time or

I've driven by red bell and I I noticed there's a certain time when that gets a little congested. Yeah. Because of afternoons, late afternoons. I mean, that that's to your point, right? Does it belong on ARC or not is really I think the fundamental issue because there's a need, right? There's a need in the city. I think there's a need in the township also, right, to do something for younger kids. But with the cars stacking and backing up, I just don't see ARC as the right area. But this is just a size thing, right? That may make it better for this potential thing to happen in this location.

Don't forget that if we keep this as a special land use, which I believe we are, you guys do have oversight of the site plan. So traffic impact would be a part of that, especially with the special land use. So that could be a part of your decision- making. But I understand the discussion of if we even want to allow it.

I'm I'm a little I'm struggling with the a number of items here. Um maybe I need to go back and read the surveys, but certainly the feedback I recall hearing um traffic issues are primarily around Hagar Anur Road from Hagerty to 275. um Beck Road from M14 to 5M and generally the lack of left turn signals at major intersections like for instance Ann Arbor Trail and Sheldon. Those were the traffic issues I recall most kind of falling at the top of that bandwidth of we dislike the traffic issues. I'm also thinking that for a daycare center really ideally you would like to have it located along a route where people are um on their way into work and can drop people off on the way which would suggest that a major road going into 275 would be a convenient for the people using the daycare. However, we know as we've discussed right in this meeting a number of times that the Hagerty to 275 portion of Ann Arbor Road cannot handle any more traffic as it is. It's got too much. But maybe toward the west side of Ann Arbor Road corridor there is a capability to to handle more traffic. So I I just and the last comment I would make and I I think this I think to some extent we all agree with this is we'd like to work with city of Plymouth to find an answer that works for all of us because it's in our best interest. It's in our best interest to you and your best interest to us. So just as a general comment I would hope that Liz if you work with your counterpart and try to find the right solution for both of us. Mhm.

So, those are my thoughts. And I think another another consideration we've been talking about the traffic is is and we look at this when we look at any kind of drive-ins, restaurants or car washes or whatever. uh the stacking spaces and and we see that in the public school areas where there's really and I know we had the u assistant superintendent here for facilities quite a while ago at West Middle when they were redoing some you know road work internally trying to avoid some of this stuff. Um, and I and I'm concerned about this particular site, but any site, not just I don't want to just focus on that one site, is where do these cars stack up without impeding the everyday traffic, the public roadways. So, I think stacking spaces is uh is a consideration for any approval for a daycare center.

Excellent point. And in this particular case, you would be looking at the site plan and seeing how they're planning to cover the stacking space. Exactly. making.

Yeah, that will be I anticipate significant discussion about traffic circulation, the number of parking spaces, uh a full understanding of pickup and and drop off and how that works and how in particular on that site will you know you accommodate those types of things. I expect a lot of discussion about that. Are they leasing the building or buying it? They would like to buy. They're going to buy. Yeah. Yeah. I doubt it's cheap. That's why they need 162 kids to make it work. Well, I think we're in agreement. Correct me if I'm wrong. I think we're in agreement that we're willing to look at our own ordinance with daycare centers.

Yeah. And and in cooperation with the city. Okay. And come up with a reasonable solution. Mhm. Mhm. I don't know if that's a good takeaway for you or

um it certainly is helpful. Um it seems like there is some appetite that 3,000 may be the right number, but it it may not be the right number. There may be some additional discussion required on a per child. I I'm just trying to go back to, you know, our city commission and say, "Hey, if we if this is something that we're going to approve, you guys are at least going to be in the realm." You know, I obviously mirroring would be ideal, but as you can imagine, there's some some rapid pressure that we are getting to to change this sooner than later. So, um I guess if you feel that um you know obviously we can have further discussion um but if you think that 3,000 is reasonable at least for the city to pursue and and you're comfortable with that um and thinking that you may be in the in that realm would be some helpful feedback as well. I look at it like we've gotten from from u surveys that that you know and hearing this uh we need more senior housing or places for seniors. Well, do we have adequate daycare centers?

Mhm. You know, and so I don't think we should try to impede the development of that. uh but we need good uh well-based uh uh structure as to how they should be um designed I guess you know with like things like stacking spaces location are they close to main highways are they not you know those are some of the issues that I think we need to consider when you came up with the 3000 did you did you look and you might you might have said this I don't know if you looked at any of the surrounding cities or not or the 3000 came from the existing ordinance. Okay.

Um I did not look at what Canton requires or Leavonia or Northville or anything like that. Yeah. Yeah. No, that just that thought just crossed my mind. Gee, was our surrounding communities do? Y but yeah, it seems like it's all over the I mean you look at the you know the actuals and it's not anywhere near what it's supposed to be. So, I'm just curious what what some of the other ones are. Right. Yeah. I think the point is how kids are released to be having outdoor activity. They're not all going to be out there at the same time. Yeah. Right. No, that's true.

So, I had one more question, Greta. Right. Page 213, it's in red. It was stricken and revised, which was cool. And I noticed on page 11 of 13, uh, item D, development requirements, item 2, A2, that was struck out also.

Yeah. So, this was, um, I know that we, this was something that we've actually been talking about is, um, trying to accommodate e-commerce. So, obviously we haven't talked at all about this, but this was just something that um we are also intending to strike from our ordinance to allow for e-commerce to be able to um occur in this district. Okay. All right. Well, thanks for the explanation. Yeah.

Okay. Anything else from anybody? Do you have any unanswered questions or things you wanted? You know how to get in touch with me and Liz and I have been in constant communication. So, I I really appreciate your time. I guess I have a question not related to the daycare center. Sure. The old the old Panera, why is that so hard to rent? Is it too expensive or no? No parking or what?

Um, it has been rented. the um prospective tenant has been working through establishing themselves in that location. Um a family member purchased the building and so I don't think there's much urgency to occupy the space. Wow. They they what they I mean it's condos above. So they just bought just the Panera part. They bought the whole building. It's a Yeah. So the whole building the whole buildingus condos and everything the retail or the they built bought the whole building. So they kicked everyone out who owned one or they didn't kick anyone out.

No, there there's How do you buy the whole thing? You have to buy each person's condo then, right? The the condos are still privately owned, but the there's office on the second floor and then all the retail and commercial space on the first floor. Oh, okay. So everything except for the condos. Except for the property. Except Yeah. I mean, it is the property they bought. Yeah. Yeah. Not the building. That's how condos work, right? A condo, you don't own particularly depends on how it's set up. You don't own the piece of property. Yeah. You own you own the building. Yeah. You own the interior. The square. Oh, I see what you're saying. You don't own the exterior walls, right?

Okay. So, he bought everything but the interior condos effectively. So, oh well, I guess he got it for a song and he's just sitting on it. I don't know. We would love to see that space occupied. Yeah, it's kind of a sore thumb, I'd say. It's somewhat unrelated to to our discussion tonight, but as you may know, we're updating our master plan. We've noticed that mixeduse developments like that corner have had a real um lack of success perhaps

in some of the suburban areas Novi uh Cherry Hill also two spots in Ann Arbor, the George and the Yard. What is what certainly what is the take of the planning department and as to why that particular site has had issues with um running the first floor spaces? Do you have any guidance for us?

I think in that particular space there was just no urgency to occupy the space. um the the prospective tenant runs an online bakery and so they don't have the same urgency to utilize to have a brickandmortar presence. Uh, I would say thinking more broadly about mixeduse spaces. Obviously, a lot of that comes down to the location and the walkability or the access to other places of interest that are adjacent. You know, people usually want to have a reason to go to a mixeduse site. Um but I would say for that particular space obviously it's it's more a function of the individuals rather than the the development as

my my question really was more for the entire first floor commercial spaces throughout that entire structure. Yeah. So I think so we have the Ann Arbor Trail side. Those have been right regularly rented um except we just lost the jewelry store again. I think that's more a function of the rent than anything else. And then the main street side, there's really nothing that's beyond that edge of the building. And so there's no reason for people to walk by that that side. Um, so I think that's more of the problem than anything else. Plus plus the fact that that building itself has history. Has what? Has history.

Oh, yeah. And it because of the history, the price per square foot and that building kept kept escalating because it turned hands over and over again and basically drove the rent out of reach. Yeah. And I think that happens sometimes when you have national chains that are in your primary spaces. Yeah. It was the first owner. Yeah. You have Starbucks and then Panera there. So yeah, thank you for that information.

You're welcome. I I'm thinking about the retail space on Penaman where you know where you do have condos up above and you have commercial space and that seems to be you know always occupied you know but I think that's that's along a street where there's a lot of activity a lot of foot traffic so that might contribute to the success of that particular development. I think that's the number one thing you you need a reason to go to go buy that wherever it is.

Yeah. And if you're going to live above it, you want it you want it to be worth your while always doing steps or whatever. Um, so yeah, you want it to be in kind of a cool area, but if you're kind of by itself, I don't know what what the traction is, right? Need to remember that when we look at future mixeduse proposals. No, I I I know where you're going. I I yeah just thank you. It's helpful. Mhm. There's just a lot of support for that other thing. Anything else?

Well, thanks so much for coming back and I I think it was good discussion. Appreciate your efforts. Thank you. Okay. And Liz, we're not going to talk about master plan today then. No, not today. Okay. And we have the the planning the the August uh planning report. Are there questions on this one? Um Liz, I had two questions. Um and Pinsky Trucking the um it says the one-year extension expires on September 20th. That's only you know what, about 5 days away. Yep.

Do you know what the st are you expecting to get an extension? I actually spoke with them today um requiring them to update their landscaping plan. Uh they were missing a few trees and um that's like their last thing to be able to move forward is us the so they should be a once they resubmit it they should be able to move forward. They do have engineering approvals. So

my other question was on the next page on um Sarah Fund project on hold. Applicant must resubmit by September 26th or request an extension. Um planning commission won't be meeting um by September 26th. Do you so I think my my state my guess would be that we cannot provide that extension because the meeting date will have expired but do you have an update on Sarah Fund?

I know they have been coming into the office this week or and last week but because Laura hasn't been here and I don't have the history on the project I've been referring them to her. Um, so as far as I know, they have not resubmitted any plans to come to you guys and they have not submitted an extension request either. So as far as I know, that is about to expire. Okay. Thank you. So it'll expire. Okay. Any other questions on the report? Can I ask what's just cuz I live right there. What's going on with the Praise Baptist Church thing? They're just splitting their lot. So there's a existing residential house. They want that on a separate lot so they can sell it.

Okay. That's what I I thought. It's the one with the weeds on it. Yeah. So that'll probably come. Does that have to come before us? The lot split's just administrative. Okay. Um and it's under review right now. We're just waiting for engineering's approval. Got it. Okay. Any commissioner comments? Okay. Are we ready for a motion to adjourn at 7:37? Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn at 7:37 p.m. I'll second.

Moved by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Heights to adjourn at 7:37. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. We're adjourned.