Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We woke up Sunday morning. I guess mine was You see the red light? Yep. Testing. The Pilth Township Planning Commission meeting will come to order at 6:30 and secretary please call ro. Dennis Sabolski here. Tim Boyd here. Bob Dorchevitz here. Steuart Pop here. Dan Callahan here. Bill I here

and David Lawway here. Everyone's here. It's on. Yeah. Okay. I'll speak louder. Sorry. I think you had your water in front of it. Okay. Um the approval of tonight's agenda and the Plymouth Exchange is added. Uh saw that note on Plymouth Exchange. Yes. The a And where where should that fit into the agenda? That's that's the last item. The last agenda. Testing. Testing under old business. Old business B. Yeah. Yeah. So, under old business, we'll be Dennis, the lights are on, but they can't hear us on the mic. I might

It's not on. Okay. Well, we'll we'll try to talk louder. Uh so, we're going to amend the agenda. There be a vote for amending the agenda to add the Plymouth Exchange uh as the last item under old business. So, does someone someone have a motion to that effect? Uh Mr. Chair, I move we approve the agenda as amended. Second. Moved by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Pop to amend the agenda as stated. All in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. And is there a motion to approve the minutes of October 15th as submitted? Are there any additions or corrections? No.

I don't think so. Mr. Chair, I move we approve the minutes of the October 15th meeting as submitted. Second. Moved by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Popfield. Approve the minutes of October 15th. Uh submitted. All in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. This is public comment now for any non-aggenda items. So, if you're here to talk about anything that is not on the agenda, um you have your three minutes. might want to speak loudy louder because uh

that's what I was going to ask all you guys to do. Um I'm Dale Burnernhard. Um a couple of months ago I proposed to this commission a way to hold developers of property accountable to our wishes of preserving valuable trees. I called it a tree bond and I asked this commission to consider it. Developers are very familiar with bonds. They know if they comply with our upfront rules, they get their money back. Developers want to make money, not forfeit away. The tree bond needs to be pricey enough to get their attention. If we truly care about our trees and cherish our tree city status, a tree bond is a great way. So, I guess what I'm questioning, what is the status of my proposal? We've had some discussion on it and I think it will be uh having something to that effect in the new master plan. It's something that would have to start with the board of trustees. So that would be we have a series of recommendations that we've been talking about and that is one of those uh suggestions to the board of trustees in the

Great. Okay. So you take it to the the board of trustees, right? Right. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Anyone else? Okay, first item, the public hearing on 14354 Northville Road reszoning. And I believe we have a commissioner that has something to say about that. Mr. Chairman, I uh I uh probably should be excused from this since I'm the applicant on that uh item.

Okay. Uh well in that case we uh the commission has to take a vote as to whether or not we allow that uh u excuse recuse. Yeah was the word I was looking for to recuse you from that. So is someone wish to make a motion? Mr. Mr. Chair I move that we uh um allow commissioner ladder to set out this discussion recuse himself. Is there support? There is. I just in in furnace to Dave here, I'd like him to be able to stand at the microphone and speak right instead of going. Okay, good. He will. He will. So, is that a support? Yeah, definitely. Absolutely.

Okay. So, um moved by Commissioner Boyce or by Commissioner IS to allow the um recusion of David Ladwick. All in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. Motion carries. So, you are accused recused from that. So, Miss Hound, do you have your report?

Yes. Thank you, Chairs Sabolski. Um, good evening, commissioners. Liz Hart with McKenna. Uh, this is for a reasonzoning of the property located at 14354 Northville Road. The applicant is requesting a reszoning of their property from the R2A multiple family district to the R1 family residential district. The property is a half acre parcel containing an existing single family home and the owner is seeking the ability to expand or improve the house which is something that's not permitted under the current R2A zoning. The reszoning would simply allow the property to function as the single family residence it already is and would bring it into compliance with the dimensional standards of the R1 district. Although the master plan designates this area for high density residential use, the request is still consistent with the re recent resonings in the neighborhood, including the 2021 reszoning of nine nearby parcels from R2A to R1. The proposal aligns with the master plan's broader goals of reinvesting in existing housing and maintaining established residential character. The change does not confer any special privilege. Rather, it corrects a non-conforming situation and allows this home to be used and improved in the same way as surrounding single family properties. The site can fully meet R1's requirements and the zoning would match the general pattern of development in the immediate area. the planning commission. Uh the next step for the planning commission is to rec make a recommendation to the board of trustees and the available motions are to either recommend approval of the resoning or recommend denial of the resoning to the board of trustees. Uh either motion the planning commission needs to specify the findings and facts for that decision for such a decision is

based upon. Uh staff is recommending that uh 14354 Northville Road is reszoned to the R11 family residential district and so recommended for approval to the board of trustees based on the following facts of finding findings of facts. Number one, a reszoning of this parcel to R1 one family residential district will encourage continued investment from the property owner into the physical property itself in a manner which maintains the current character. furthering the master plan goal to preserve positive living environments. Number two, the residential use of the parcel does not change with this reszoning request. And number three, the site can comply with the dimensional requirements of the R1 one family residential district. That is my uh presentation to you on this. Uh I'm happy to take any questions and the applicant is here. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Hart. And the applicant is here. Good evening. See, even the board members get to go through this. Um, so I am uh as uh the planners mentioned that Kelly, my wife and I are planning to do some renovations to this home. We plan to make it our our lifelong uh home. and we love the neighborhood and we we trying to preserve the home so that the um there can't be any uh mass development on it. There's also uh woods on both side on two sides of the property that we like to try to maintain um where there's possibility if someone went and developed it as our two they would um uh destroy the woods. The um uh we also uh would like to see that the because of the uh not being R1, there are certain things on that property we we can't do because of the uh multif family type of uh um uh ordinances on it. So we just would like to see it u the rest of the street on Northville Road pretty much now is R1. Um, and people are starting to uh fix their properties up and make a great entryway to Plymouth and the Plymouth community. So, we we're I'm here and my wife's here and we're requesting a uh uh recommendation from the board. Thank you. Are there questions from the commission? Okay.

Are we ready for a motion? I think so. Yes. Okay. No. Okay. Just just to be clear here, this is a halfacre parcel that's immediately next door, right? I'm sorry. It's a halfacre one, right? Immediately next door. Halfacre parcel to the the housing that that is you guys are occupied in today. It's it's the property total of a half. Well, it's actually uh just over a halfacre of land.

Okay. Okay. And if my memor is correct, we had a similar request in here earlier this year, probably back in the February time frame on the identical street on the identical side of the street, right? That followed suit, which is consistent with with houses in that area. So, this is well in line with u what has been going on in Plymouth Township in that area. Right? So, I just wanted to be absolutely certain, right, that it was, you know, combined.5 acre or if it was the parcel next to it. He already owns both. So that helps clarify it.

I think the little bit of a history. The goal was that, you know, originally what is now Independence Village was a hotel because folks thought that there would be an interchange uh or ramp off of the freeway and that's why they built the hotel and that was zoned multifamily because we thought um that's the kind of um buildings would go up there. But then that ramp never uh materialized and so um the the zoning that was there originally at that time um it's really not going to happen. Someone would have to try to acquire all those properties because each property is really um they're limited in the size of those lots. So um that's why it has been upgrading those people could not um you know maintain their homes in a manner that they would like to. So that's why this situation created and we're slowly uh correcting it. So it's consistent with the character the fact they want to protect the trees is also consistent with what the residents want. So this is very much in line with the survey responses A and what what is going on in that street B on both sides actually. So correct. Okay. Any other comments, clarifications? Is there a motion?

Chairman. Yeah. We uh these items and the other the next three require a public hearing. Oh, that's right. That's right. Keep forgetting that. Thank you.

So, we'll open the public hearing at uh 6:42. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application? You can come up and uh you have three minutes. Hello, my name is Dean Toé. I live at 42150 Clemens, the same street at the other end. Um, I've lived there for 30 years. I want to know if there's any intentions on splitting that property after it's reszoned. That's one of my questions. Okay. Well, we'll ask the applicant. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions, comments, concerns? Okay, we'll close the public hearing at 6:43 and we'll ask the applicant to address that question. Can you repeat the question, please? It was if there were any plans that you would split that land once it was reszoned. Was what plans to re to split the land once it's

Oh, definitely not. the um the house actually currently sits on two two different lots so it can't I mean we'd have to tear the house down to do that. The frontage isn't big enough to actually split it. It would have to be split pretty pretty crazily. So it's it's almost not possible to split it. So we have no intentions. We have already invested way too much money into it, especially the master bathroom who Kelly designed. Um u so yeah, we're we have no intention. We're you guys are stuck with us. Okay.

Uh Mr. Chair. Uh I move that uh we recommend approval to the board of trustees that 14354 Northville Road is reszone to R1 one family residential based on the findings of fact in the planners report. Is there support? Second move by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Pop to recommend to the board of trustees the resoning of said uh uh application. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Motion carries.

Next we have application 2580 uh special land use at 46301 Port Street. And if the planner would read the report. Thank you, Chair Sabolski. Thank you.

Uh this the applicant is requesting a special land use approval to operate an indoor luxury automobile storage minor repair and appointment only sales facility within an existing building at 46301 Court Street. The site is located within a fully developed industrial park east of Beck Road and north of M14. and the surrounding properties are all industrial in both zoning and use. The proposal reuses an existing industrial building with no site expansion or grading proposed and all activities will take place indoors aside from the outdoor storage of one car hauling trailer when not in use. The proposed use is compatible with the scale and intensity of its surroundings. Indoor operations ensure minimal noise, traffic and visibility impacts and the use remains consistent with the industrial character of the corridor. The master plan designates this area for industrial and light industrial uses and the business model, particularly the appointment-based sales component aligns with the low inensity employment oriented industrial uses envisioned for this part of the township. The site's natural features, including mature tree lines, woodlands, and the existing burm along Port Street will remain undisturbed. No grading or land disturbance is proposed, and the enclosed nature of the operations combined with the site's existing buffers ensures that the public health, safety, and welfare will be fully protected. Public utilities already serve the building, and the use will not place additional demands on the municipal services. Traffic is expected to remain very low with scheduled visits only and the site's layout supports safe and efficient circulation. The applicant does plan to resurface the parking lot just to improve ingress and egress to the site. Overall, the use

meets the township special land use criteria and complies with the site development standards of the industrial district. Approval is recommended with the conditions that all activities occur indoors. the customers visits remain by appointment only and that the single outdoor trailer be stored in a manner that does not interfere with visibility and circulation. And this recommendation is based on the following seven findings of facts. Number one, the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding industrial development and uses. Number two, the use is consistent with the industrial light industrial designation of the master plan. Number three, no disturbance to existing natural buffers. The site does remains will remain unchanged. Number four, the use aligns with the intent and purpose of the industrial district. Number five, the indoor appointmentbased operations protect public health, safety, and welfare by minimizing traffic emissions and external impacts. Number six, the site is adequately ser served by existing utilities. And number seven, traffic and access conditions remain safe and appropriate for low volume scheduled site visits, ensuring no conflicts with normal traffic operations in the area. That is SAS presentation. I do believe the applicant is here and I'm also happy to take any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Is the applicant here?

I won't be shopping here just for the record. Hello. Hello. So, do you want to tell us a little bit about the business and why you're requesting this? So, I currently have two other existing auto repair facilities.

Sorry. And we are, you know, growing annually and we were looking for a space specifically for the amount of overflow that we have currently. Uh, basically it would be low volume appointment only for classic um exotics and luxury cars. And with the addition of the storage as well for some of our existing customers already basically we need the extra space. Um I've been in business for 20 years currently and own two other properties doing similar work with the exception of uh no storage because of the space that I don't have. Are there questions from the applicant? So are you selling cars or repairing cars or both?

Uh currently we're just very low volume sales. It's uh maybe 10 cars a year. It and it's only the higherend exotics and luxury cars only. I mean we have no interest in selling high volume um daily drivers. The business is primarily auto repair um and and sales is one of your pro is a product line but the majority of your revenue is from repair. storage and storage. Correct. Approximately how many automobiles do you have in storage at any given time?

We're hoping to have anywhere from 50 to 100. You know, of course, with your approval. Um, and as the um volume of cars stored in inventory, we can add lifts to stack them on top of each other, of course, with your approval if needed. We don't really see the need for that. um initially or or immediately maybe two three years maybe adding more if needed with your approval of course. So just to be clear you you don't repair or or restore any of the vehicles that you have there.

So that's a good question. Sometimes you could be storing a car for a client and it might run into a oil leak or a dead battery and that would be added convenient for the customer to repair it and store it in house under the same roof. So they're they're minor repairs or maintenance is what occurs on? Yeah, minor would be like uh tires, oil changes, battery replacements, things of that sort. Other questions? So, you don't do any body repair? No. Okay.

How many vehicles do you think the building can house maximum? depending on how we lay it out because it is 22,000 square ft with some office space comfortably 50 cars on the storage side without having to jam pack them or you know have it unorganized or or cluttered. Okay. Second question I've got for you. Um storing the trailer. Where would you store the trailer?

In the parking lot. Most of the time the trailer is in use, either picking up a customer car or delivering a customer car. If it's not in in use, we can put it in one of the parking spots. And the trailer that we have is a a 10-ft trailer. It's nothing um it's not a huge car hauler. It's a single car. It's it's in it's an enclosed trailer. Correct. So where where is this trailer presently stored today? at one other sites or

Okay. And what I'm what I'm just trying to understand here is if we're only doing 10 sales a year, you're not bringing that many cars in or out, right? I'm just wondering is there a better place for that trailer to be right stored than at this site outside, right? Well, we also still pick up cars and deliver cars because we do out of state repairs as well. So, most of the time the trailer is in use. So, the building itself is fine. You're Are you going to do much to it or uh just clean it up? U We actually like the setup with the burm and the trees because it adds privacy. Um and we have no interest to try to bring in any clientele off the road.

Yeah. Um so, we like the um privacy and the um and the landscaping. If anything, we may add more if, you know, if need be, but I think it's, you know, it's perfect with the burm and the trees lining the property and only one way in and one way out. It's it's ideal. Yep. Um, couple questions. Where are your other two locations? They're currently down river. Down river. Okay.

And tell us how you plan to fix the parking lot pavement because clearly that's the one drawback to the site as it currently exists. So there's a couple different companies we dealt with. Some of the larger companies like Al's Ashfalt, you know, these guys have been in business for over 50 years. They gave us a couple different options. Either shaving and milling down currently what we have and sealing and striping and if that looks good and solid because it's been repaired less than perfect currently. So we don't know if the cap is just installed incorrectly or if it needs to be completely removed and repaid. Whichever is best for the property, I'm willing to do whether it's a complete tear out and repave or mill it, seal it, and stripe it. Whichever is best for the property.

Okay. Um I presume you're going to remove the old bus that's sitting there. Oh, yeah. First thing. Okay. Um and are you proposing any kind of special signage for the business? No. Okay.

Any other questions? No. Yeah, just on the on the ashvault, right? Um trying to do two inches, right, it won't last. If you go down four, it will last, right? You don't have to rip everything out, right? Correct. That that's my council having just done the ashvault road in our sub last year. Yeah. And with the site currently the way it is, it looks like they did put a cap on it, but we don't know how deep they in, you know, so it's it looked like just a quick patch job. Yeah. Yeah. That's why it's already falling apart. Yeah. Exactly. So, we're keeping the trees as is, BMS as is, and making it better. And making it better, right? It's a beautiful piece of land. It really is good piece of

Okay. Well, with that, we'll open the public hearing at um at 6:55. Do you want to make a motion? Can I make a motion to open public? Yeah. Oh, that's right. We have to keep doing that. Yes. At each one, I'd like to make a motion to open this this applicant and parcel to public hearing. support. Who made the motion? U Bill. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Moved by Commissioner Iik and supported by Commissioner Boy to open the public hearing at 6:55. All in favor signify by saying I. I.

Opposed. Motion carries. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application? You have three minutes. Okay. Then we'll close the Well, we have to have a motion to close. I'll make a motion to close at 656. Support set. Okay. So, Commissioner Ladwick moves. And who supported? The board and support by Commissioner Boyd. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. Any further discussion? Are we ready for a motion?

Yes. Um, I move that we approve the special land use application PC number 2580 for indoor vehicle storage, repair, and sales with the condition that all activities occur indoors, excluding a single car hauling trailer that may be stored outside when not in use, provided that it does not obstruct circulation or visibility, and that such activities are made on an appointment-only basis. And this recommendation is based on the findings of fact in the planner's report. Okay. All

second. Moved by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Pop to uh approve the special uh land use for application 2580 subject to set conditions. All in favor signify by saying I

I opposed. Motion carries. Congratulations. Good luck to you. All right. The application 2574 9409 South Main Street Class A non-conforming designation. And if the planner would read the report.

Yes. Thank you. Evening commissioners. Laura Hall with McKenna. Uh, this application is for a class A non-conforming designation. All nonconformities in the township are automatically placed into the uh, class B non-conforming status, which means that they are not intended to remain uh, expand um, or be enlarged. The request here is to um uh keep a residential lot um as a residential use and to continue um that use and expand by adding a detached garage even though the parcel is zoned the OS ARC Ann Arbor Road Corridor District. Um we list the ordinance standards that are specific to uh evaluating a approval of a class A. Um and those start on page two of our report. Um we find uh based on uh those evaluation criteria that the site has functioned as a residential use for close to a century. Um the applicant seeks to uh maintain this use and further invest in their property. And we recommend tonight to hold the public hearing and then to grant approval of the class A non-conforming designation um for 4909 South Main Street. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer. Laura, can you um for the purposes of new commissioners and the public that are here, uh what is the def definition of the class A and the class B? So any non any non-conforming structures or lots that exist in the township today are automatically classified as um the class B designation. So they they are not desired by the township. They may have been allowed legally um through a previous ordinance and grandfathered in.

Um but they do not comply with the code today. and uh class B uses or lots are not intended to be continued to expand. It is the hope that with time those will phase out and redevelopment will bring the property or the use into compliance. There is a provision in the zoning ordinance that allows um for the planning commission to evaluate those class B non-conforming uses or lots um and determine that if they are not um if they do not present negative externalities to the surrounding environment that they can remain um and can be continued and uh enlarged. So in this case it's a residential use on an office zone property. residential uses are not allowed in the office district. The applicant wishes to uh continue to use the the residential property as a as their home and to uh build a detached garage, which is not allowed today. So, this is really the only path forward um if they wish to still remain in the home and um build a garage.

Thanks for that additional information. Uh and the applicant is here. Okay. want to do you have anything to comment on?

Yeah, my name is Gary Becker. Um, thank you for holding the this um into account. We purchased the home uh back in September 30th of this year to be our retirement home for my wife and I. Uh, one boy is already off to college, graduated from PA. The other is a junior at Pace. Now, um we currently live in Westbrier One subdivision on Mirland Drive. So, um we purchased this house to be closer uh walking distance to downtown Plymouth, hoping this would be our retirement uh home. Um currently, as they see up there and now, uh the the home has already been expanded by the previous owners. On top of that garage now is a master uh bedroom. So, they they've expanded it. The previous owners didn't even know this was zoned as OS ARC. And when I started looking into buying this, my wife and I started looking into buying this property. I was looking to see what permits I needed to to seek out and what my setbacks were and everything else to to have a a second structure. And that's when everyone realized, oops, this is an office space. Uh but it's been used since it was the property I think was bought in 37 and the house was the original structure of the house which is still there um which is the twotory section you see there uh was built in 38. So um like uh like she was mentioned almost a century now and it's been used as a family ever since. Um we intend to use it that way. Uh, I will have a small office in the upper level northwest corner for my small escort, which allows me to be contracted out as a airline pilot. Um, the garage I seek to will eventually seek when if this gets approved is class A non-conforming will be for personal hobby use only. I'm a shade tree mechanic, so I'll have a

single car garage where I can work on my Jeep and uh the other half will be for a wood workshop. Um, and like I said, this is our this is our retirement home. This was our plan. We purchased it hoping that this would be approved so we can continue to make it our forever home until we until the earth is no longer ready for us. I appreciate it uh you taking the time to listen to our our proposal. Okay. Are there questions from the commission? Okay. Hearing none. Then uh is there a motion to open the public hearing at 7:03?

Not yet. I did have a question. Um have you talked to the neighbor that's beside you? Right. That has a house that backs up to I have not uh had the opportunity to speak with that neighbor directly. The one across from Marlin Street I've talked with and um he was he was glad to see that it was um that we were moving in as a family. But I have not had a chance to speak with my um neighbor to the west. There's a street between you and them, right?

Uh not between the neighbor to my west. The street between me and the house that you see there um is Yeah, there's Marlin. We're on So he is my property and the property to my north. Property to my north is I think it's Diller and Diller um attorneys.

Yeah. Uh, and that was a house, I guess, and it was zoned back when the master plan was redone as Osc was my house that I own now in 9409. And so that is a that is now a business. Um, the um these two properties, the business to my north and my property were just zoned as OSRC. No one knew it. Um, the previous owners had no idea it was OSRC. I'm not even sure how it got roped into it, but that's neither here nor there. My immediate to the west, you can see the house in the back. The the trailers are not mine. The trucks are not mine. Those were the previous owners. Um, I don't have trailers. I don't intend to have trailers. Um, but that property behind me was never zoned OSRC. Um, they are still R1 and I intend to use my property as an R1 would.

You done, Bill? No, I just I just as I look at this and I actually went and looked at the neighborhood. Um, I'm I'm stunned at how nice that house is beside you. I really thought it was going to be bulldozed when they put it for sale. It didn't get bulldozed. I mean, it's a nice area just in their backyard backs right up to where this structure would be built, right? And it just it just seems They also have a second structure on their property, a small shed that is, I think, about 5 ft from the property line as well. Yeah, they do. It's in the far north northeast corner. East corner. Looks like it could be a life-size playhouse, right? Um I'm not sure. It's a garden shed. It's a tool shed. Yeah.

Yeah. It It's nicely done. I figured, man, before I did something like this, I'd actually talk to the neighbor or make sure there's, you know, for sure. So, this um we know that I still have to seek permits for what I want to do with the property, but I can't do that until this gets class A nonconformed.

So, we have we know that if this gets class A non-conformed, there are no promises. And at that point, then I can start talking with him and saying, "Hey, would you guys be okay with this? Is this something we have, you know, that we it would be in your backyard, which is right now they they would be able to see the structure it's roof because of the the vegetation that's there. Um and they've planted a bunch of green giant arborites along that our borders already as well.

I don't have any further questions, Dennis. So, is there a motion to open the public hearing at 7:07? Mr. Chairman, I move we open the public hearing on PC2574 at 9409 South Main Street. Their support. Support. Move by Commissioner Poppins. Support by Commissioner Boy to open the public hearing at 7:07. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak to this application? Okay, hearing none. Is there a motion to close the public hearing at 7:08? Mr. Chair, I move we close the public hearing.

Second. Moved by Commissioner Boyd, supported by Commissioner Pop to close the uh public hearing at 708. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Motion carries. Any other questions from anybody? No. Are we ready for a motion? Mr. Chair, I move that we approve a class A non-conforming designation for the residential use at 9409 South Main Street based on the findings of fact in the planner's report.

Second move by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Pop to um approve application 2574 uh supported by the planners report. All in favor signify by saying I. I oppose. I oppose. President I oppose. Okay. And Commissioner I opposes. Uh all in u so the motion passes. So congratulations. Good luck to you. Thank you. Good luck to you. Thank you very much. And thank you for your investment in the township.

Of course. Okay. Next we have application uh 2576 uh the conditional uh reszoning at uh Ann Arbor Road in Mccclumpa. And if the planner would read the report please.

Thank you. Application 2476 is for the north um west corner of Ann Arbor and Mcclumpa Road. It consists of a vacant 4.25 acre parcel um that is currently zoned uh the R1H one family residential district. The applicant is requesting a conditional reszoning to the R1 one family residential district. Um they proposed to construct 14 detached single-use homes on the site. um that would be developed as a condominium and that would require additional review should the conditional resoning be approved um by um the board of trustees. As a conditional resoning, the applicant must voluntarily offer conditions to the township. They cannot be imposed by the township. So during the review there are several areas where um we note um uh not recommendations but offerings um of uh further consideration by the applicant. Um but those are not requirements and um it is entirely up to the applicant whether or not they uh would amend their their proposed uh voluntary conditions. This is a site that the planning commission has reviewed previously. Um in 2021 the township uh reviewed uh an application for this. Um it was called Town Place Corner Reszoning. Um that was a request to the multiple family residential district to construct 19 units. Um and at that time the planning commission recommended denial to the board of trustees and the applicant withdrew their application before the board um uh

heard uh that application. The following year um a second application was submitted that proposed a resoning to the R1 uh one family district for 24 units. The applicant at that time was proposing to develop the site under a cluster housing option. These were an attached product up to four units um in one building. Um the planning commission at that time recommended denial to the board of trustees and this project was considered by the board um and resulted in a denial. Um now 2025 there's a new application on the site uh different um developer. Our uh review really starts on page three where we lay out the criteria for a conditional resoning and we summarize the findings of each of those criteria immediately following the italicized print which is the requirement. Um so for criteria one is it in accordance with the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. The difference between these two districts uh in terms of use uh there there is no difference. They are both um

uh single family residential. The reasoning does not intensify the use category that in that it does not um allow for other uses in the district to be added. It's all the same uses to be considered. It's rather the density and the dimensional standards that vary. So the proposed uh intent statements for the R1 and the R1H are identical. Um the permitted and special land uses remain unchanged. Um and we do find that the resoning can facilitate um planned de planned um development consistent with the intent of the ordinance. These they have the exact same intent statement. Uh criteria two, um will it further the goals and policies of the township's future um land use map and the master plan? Um we find that it does. Um the project delivers low impact compatible single family homes in a predominantly residential area, although there are institutional uses um uh at at this intersection as well. Uh the future land use map calls for low to intermediate density on the site which is between 1 and three units um an acre. The overall density for this site is 3.29 which is uh slightly over um the 3 acres. Uh but again this must be taken in the context of uh at an intersection um which is a higher traffic area. This is not an interior lot that is located within a a subdivision. Um and we find that the traffic impacts will be mi minimal. 14 units is far below the R1 maximum um that could be on the slot. Uh the previous application did provide a parallel plan which showed 32 units could be developed. Um and both Ann Arbor and Mcclumpa Road are designed for higher volumes of traffic.

This is not a even collector or local street that the um residences would have would have access to. Um the project advances aging in place goals. Uh at least 10 of the units will be singlestory ranches um which supports the master plan's goal for senior friendly housing. This is one of the voluntary conditions offered by the applicant. There could be all 14 homes could be developed as ranches, but the applicant is agreeing that at least 10 of those um would be singlestory ranches. Um the applicant did complete a tree survey. Um although this is one of our um observations for potentially further refinement by the applicant. Um the tree survey notes that there are 393 trees um uh on the site although the tree survey does designate the different species and there are a majority of invasive species on the site. Um however there are quality trees um throughout and we feel that uh by limiting the limits of disturbance and maybe some different arrangement with the detention pond um potentially shrinking that and uh adjusting the lot lines um there is the potential to save a greater number of trees on this site. Criteria three is the zoning consistent with the zoning classification of surrounding land. Um we find that uh this does we note that while the R1 district does allow for a greater number of units, the applicant is voluntarily limiting the site to um 14 units. Um and for a comparison of a similar property, New England Corners, which is directly um across the intersection, um has detached condominiums with a 2.99

density um or dwelling units per acre for density. Um and this supports you know the development pattern that small clustered single family sites um are appropriate at this intersection and can coexist um appropriately. Criteria four is could the requirements of the proposed zoning classification that is the R1 district um be complied with on the subject parcel? Uh the dimensional standards can um and as noted on the uh concept plan uh these minimum dimensional standards are often exceeded in different areas whether that be uh lot size, lot width um setbacks. However, we do think that there is still that opportunity to um redesign potentially the storm water detention um and improve the pedestrian network uh to better meet the zoning ordinance standards. Our recommendation is on page eight and as a conditional reasonzoning again the the planning commission cannot impose additional uh restrictions on this property. The applicant has to voluntarily offer them to the township um with a revised application. So at this time we are not recommending approval. Um we are recommending the planning commission table this hear the um comments from the public and then uh allow the applicant additional time if they would like to consider potential revisions to the site. Um we the township received seven letters um which you have before you um regarding this project from the public. Um all seven were in opposition. If you have questions, I'm happy to answer them.

I have a couple uh back on uh the beginning here. Let me find it. Um you have to speak up, Bob. You have to speak up. I don't think the mics are working. The mics aren't working. Okay, back. Uh, they were

Let's see. Let me find what I was looking for. Um, you said something about shoot I lost I lost my place. Um, the fact that it was in uh on a corner. What was the relevance of that? The statement you made that it was uh located near a hightra area or uh what was the relevance of the state of the of that point? The relevance is that the site is um bounded by two major thoroughares um Mccclumpa Road and Ann Arbor Road and this uh development would have direct access to both of those as opposed to the property being located within the interior of a subdivision um or um sandwiched in with only one point of access somewhere else. Um when you look when you look at the surrounding lots um the fact that this is on a uh corner lot with that access direct access and not creating additional cut through traffic

that's a good thing. Yes. Yeah. Okay. I I it wasn't clear. And um currently under the R1H they're required lot sizes are required to be 20,000 square feet. Yes. Half acre. Um, so they could only they could only put in seven units under R1H. Where did that that other number come from? Oh, the 32 units was from the previous parallel plan. Um, oh, that was the previous plan in the 2022 application. Yeah.

Okay. But they can't do that as a matter of right. As a matter of right, they could put in seven units right now without with the current zoning without uh any additional approvals, right? Uh yeah, at least they got three and a half acres in there. It's a half acre. Four, four and a half or 4.25. So Oh, so they could do nine, eight or nine. Yeah, potentially how they laid out. Yeah. Um, but because this is a conditional resoning, the applicant is voluntarily capping it at at 14. 14. Yeah. Okay.

So, they have every legal right to do eight or nine, but they're asking to do 14 and in exchange for that, they're providing some conditions to for it to become a conditional res. Correct. Got it. Um Laura, I want to just revisit that for a minute. The existing zoning is R1H. How many houses can they put on that property uh using the existing R1H uh zoning? At least eight.

At least eight. If they were to use the cluster housing upgrade or try to use the cluster housing upgrade, would that change that number? um on the under the R1H. Yes. Um yes, I'll have to look at that real quick. It might give them a little bit slightly higher.

Okay. Thank you.

I didn't catch what she said. She said slightly higher with cluster housing. Yeah, I'm gonna I'll find the exact number. I knew a number I was listening. Yeah, it's not a number. So nine or 10. Other questions before we move on? We go back in time in 2021 and 2022. They were denials, right? 3.63 dwellings per acre, 4.58 dwellings per acre, right? And a couple of us were here, right? Most of us were not. I just want to know what you guys recollect right as the deciding factor against right on on denial just so we get grounded to where you guys may already be at on the history. Well, it was too dense essentially. That was the primary that was the primary reason.

Too many units which pushed the dwelling up beyond the 3. Too many too many. It was too dense. Too dense. And we're at 3.29 here which is still higher than the the 3.0. 0 to one, right? Just keep in mind that, you know, basically Kitty Corn diagonal from there was that is New England Commons. We It's a phenomenal execution of what they did just literally diagonally and they're just shy of of u of the

2.95. But those kitty corner they're they're touching, right? The units some of them will touch. No, they're all they're all separate. They're all separate. Yeah, cuz these are separate. These are like the ones north of Beck. That Verona thing. Verona Burl Verona Park, right? Probably similar to that. Yeah. So you uh recommended tableabling it so they would have an opportunity to look at the retention basin. Is there some concern about the drainage issues?

Not concern over drainage but uh there there may be an opportunity to reduce the footprint of the detention basin. Um and that would be explored with engineering. Um but by doing that they may gain um they may be able to preserve additional green space or have more um flexibility in in adjusting some of the lots. Okay. Andor saving a few key trees I think. Yes.

Okay. So if they came back when we tabled it right they could probably come back and tell us the quantity of heritage trees out of the 393. Okay. that are there and the quantity that we protected and what the plan would be right to Mr. Burnernhard's comment earlier on the public opening comments of of trying to protect trees that are in the township plus the survey results. So we we I think some of us have comments on the trees that we'll get to. Any other concerns at this point before we call the applicant up? Okay. Is the applicant here? Uh Vittens of Vitton's engineering I'm representing the applicant uh Bundali Hosari and he is attending the meetings this uh uh tonight. Um yeah I guess I could I could address uh a couple of issues. Uh, one of the biggest issues with the site as far as a conventional development is uh, driveway access. If we have a bigger lot, a halfacre lot, we have to have access both onto McCclumper Road and primarily all of our frontages on an Ann Arbor Road, excuse me. And you know the state highway department because we're close to the intersection they will not allow curb cuts out onto Ann Arbor Road. So you know that was part of our practical difficulty statement in our uh reszoning narrative that it just it's just not possible uh to develop the property as it's currently zoned. Uh you know the only option was to bring an interior road into the site uh to get a bigger lot. We had the only other option was to put the uh road on our north property line which should be adjacent to an

existing homeowner and we didn't want to do that. You know, we wanted as part of our plan, we're providing a landscape buffer to the uh properties to the north. We're also providing a landscape buffer to buffer, you know, the proposed homes from uh Ann Arbor Road. Um uh in fact the state highway department we do uh the speed limit uh east of uh Mccclumpa road is uh 45 miles an hour. Uh the speed limit uh west of Mccclumpa is 55 miles an hour and you know and I think there should be some thought you know maybe requests from the township at least uh between Beck Road and Mccclumpa there's a couple of major uh curves that go through there and it's it's all residential and there could be an opportunity I know state highway department usually doesn't like to drop speed limits but if the township requests to dropping the speed limit. Uh, you know, that might be useful. Right now, they're bucking at giving us any access to Ann Arbor Road right now. So, we could satisfy the fire department requirements by providing a T turnar around, but we think it'd be important to to have that second axis, and that's something in the preliminary discussions with the fire department, they would like to like to see that. Also um as far as the uh uh detention pond uh we we have already tried to make that as small as possible. Uh there's a detail in our uh drawings on sheet C8 which shows a terracing uh which allows us to make the pond smaller. You know by using the terrace we get more more volume. Again, it's a more expensive uh construction method, but that's something that the uh you know, we've discussed with the owner and he's willing to do. Uh you know, there is a terrace detention pond that's

existing in the city of Plymouth uh not too far from where the Tim Hortons is. There's I'm not sure if they're condos or apartments or exactly what's there, but they do do have a terrace detention pond in the front yard area that at least in my opinion, I look, you know, think that looks pretty nice. I think that's the one. It's uh Starkweather. No. Yeah, it's in that it's in that area. Yeah.

And as far as the tree survey, uh the person that we hired to do that, uh I'm not sure if he's retired yet or not, but he uh was or is currently the city of Ann Arbor's uh arborist. So he's, you know, you know, does all the tree identification and uh, you know, recommendations uh for the city of Ann Arbor and uh, and again, you'd have to look at his report, but a lot of the trees on the site uh, are not trees that have to be replaced. They're invasive species and they're, you know, all trees are good, but these these aren't the, you know, there are some very nice trees on the site and we'll take a look at, you know, maybe making some minor modifications to see if there's uh, you know, additional trees that we can say we're, you know, willing to take another look at that.

Uh, I have a question. I'm a little confused because you're talking about the access to Ann Arbor Road that you're having problems uh with the state. Yeah. Yeah. We we've shown an access out there. Right. Right. But then I I'm looking at the u at the site plan that you've that it's been submitted and I see an access on an

Yeah. and they and uh you know we have had preliminary discussions uh with both the traffic engineer for the state you know for MDOT and their uh permit engineer and uh they the traffic engineer uh you know there's because there's a crossroad culvert for the Tyler drain which is just to the west of our site which is also going to be our storm water outlet. Um, you know, because of that crossroad culvert, you know, there's a guard rail there and that guardrail would extend slightly into our drive area. So, we'd have to relocate that. Uh, right now the site's, you know, there's a lot of scrub shrubs and it's hard to see into the site. Uh, it slopes down as you get very close to the crossroad culvert, but the rest of the area is relatively flat. uh and if we do have a reduction in speed limit and you know they they haven't said no to the drive approach but they're uh they weren't very enthusiastic about it either. So we're again because this is still fairly preliminary you know we haven't submitted a formal application to the state highway department you know they haven't you know ruled on it one way or another but they you know they they did express some concerns about an access at that point. We we looked at other options, you know, to, you know, there there is a funeral home on the other side of the street. We looked at some options of aligning the drive. Uh but that was impossible. We would have had to have a big uh culde-sac on the site and it just uh it it just didn't work out. There was just uh too many issues with that. You know, the site's fairly narrow and to fit a full culdeac in that area just it just didn't work. you know, we probably looked at, you know, three or four options, you know, to see what we could do there.

So, the site plan that you submitted was is really very preliminary because it's really subject sounds to me like subject to quite a bit more change than what we see.

Uh, not not necessarily. We we we do have to work, you know, uh usually you apply for a permit with the state highway department and you know, we also have to deal with uh uh Wayne County uh Department of Public Services, Mccclumper Roads under their jurisdiction. Uh you know, they did we are aligning our driveway uh with the uh church property across the street. So that that roughly lines up and they were okay with that. So we sort of have a preliminary. you know, we again, we haven't submitted a formal permit application to them, but they've tenatively approved the uh the driveway location there.

I I just want to make a point to to the public out here. So, our primary purpose right now is to evaluate the the the zoning of this piece of property. So, when I refer to or he refers to the site plan, we have that. I'm going to ask can you put up perhaps page C1 so you have an idea of what they're proposing but that could really change because if the reasonzoning was uh changed something else could within that's permitted in there may not look like this although in the conditional zoning he's he's saying he would do this he would put no more than 14 homes. So you can see at the at the bottom of that graphic, that's the um the entryway or exit way onto Ann Arbor Road. And then over to your right, that would be the one that u is somewhat aligned to the church uh driveway. So this orients you to um the property that we're looking at, but remember that this is in a very preliminary stage and it's not our primary purpose right now to to look at the layout.

And as far as the state highway department, if you look at, you know, we have a splitter island that's shown there currently. If they do approve the drive approach, it's going to be a right in right out only. So there'll be no left turn out of that out of that driveway there. If they don't let you put a driveway there and you just have them a clumpa, you'll have to have some kind of a turnaround, I suppose.

Yeah. There. Yeah. We we proposed a tea turnaround. I did a project on Ann Arbor Trail uh that Walt Manard was involved with. And again, it was a very narrow lot and we put a tea turnaround in there because there, you know, we we couldn't fit a full culde-sac in in that area. So I I know the townships approved that type of re we would prefer we very much would prefer that second axis again with the reduction in speed limit you know that helps uh you know so we're you know we're still discussing and and again I think that you know they just took a preliminary look at it I think if we uh cleared out some of the brush there and they saw how flat that area was until it gets closer to the Tyler drain uh you know maybe the the length of that guardrail is not not needed that much and it and also you can reduce the length of the guardrail with the reduction in speed limit. So that you know we we have some options there that we could you know propose to them and again any reduction in speed limit would have to come from the uh you know the township and the police department.

So is the purpose for the two entryways is that a requirement of the fire department? They they would prefer that. You know, they didn't say no to the T turnaround, but they you know, it makes their their life easier if we have two axises. Sure. You know, they always they always prefer that. Is it still Sorry. What are you thinking the size of these homes will be?

Your your report says it would be about a,000 square ft. 10? Yeah. 10. Well, it also says 2200 to 3500 minimum 1050. Well, that's I think that was I saw that number, but I saw that in the table where the minimum Yeah, that's the minimum required by the district, right? But it's but I I'm getting that he's proposing um 150 square ft. It's in that column. Well, at the I guess that's minimum at at least At least he's he's meeting the meeting the minimum and uh likely exceeding.

I didn't see that in either. So they'll be different sizes. I take it that the ranches would be smaller or larger. Yeah. The owner is looking at uh to do you know predominantly ranches. Uh I I did a project in the city of Northville where uh it was also you know you know duplex units that you know we were proposing used for senior house you know type housing. Uh those are three and a half stories but they all had elevators in them.

So we're not looking at putting elevators. So you know we may have you know depending on the footprint we may have a couple of colonials. We're going to try to do all ranch homes. We're we're going to get an architect involved, you know, shortly and then, you know, start laying out out some, you know, building footprints to see how they'd fit onto these lots.

Okay. The um Venton's engineering letter that was submitted on page two makes a statement under their paragraph called house design. Express General Construction is proposing to build customdesigned homes in the 2200 to 3500 ft² range. If requested by a buyer, a larger home could be built. Homes will be a mix of ranch and colonial styles. So, what what is the what is the minimum number? Is it 25 or 2200 or is it a thousand?

Uh well, if it's if it's a colonial, you know, it's it's going to be a little bit bigger, you know, cuz we have the second story. uh we we don't have a firm you know we haven't designed a building footprint yet. So that's you know we're hoping to do that and you know with the final engineering you know to get actually show uh building footprints on there you know and again uh in the conditions you know the owner has committed to building primarily ranch homes. We'd like to get a minimum of you know a 10 in there. We may get more just we haven't designed the uh the house yet. I'm just trying to understand. Your letter says 2200 to 3500. Okay. Can we rely on the letter that it would at least be

Well, we have the uh conditional letter from the uh you know the owner. Um so, you know, committing to the ranch homes and those will have a you know smaller square footage because we don't have the uh second floor. Okay. So, for the planning commission's benefit, the letter from Vittton's engineering on page two, the statement on that page is not fully correct. Right. Correct. Well, I would say it's unclearction or it's it's a contradiction. Yeah. This the narrative was written before the condition letter. So

So the entire letter from Bitton's Engineering, we just need to be cautious that this may not fully reflect the intent of the developer. That's what I'm taking away from this. So, are you and others concerned about the size of the homes as it might relate to the number of homes? I mean, why are we going uh No, I'm not in opposition. Why are we going down this path? I I'm just trying to understand if we can rely on the the uh commitments made in the letter from Vince Engineering in discussing the project. Okay. Okay. So, I'm now questioning that paragraph. It makes me wonder if there's any other paragraphs in this two-page letter that would also be potentially not completely clear.

So you're so you're questioning the reliability of the information that's being presented to us in the letter from Benton Engineering. Okay, fair enough. My question is partly curiosity and partly uh if these are,000 or 1100 square foot homes that are ranches that's serving albeit a small number but a part of the population that is currently not being served. It ish which might relate to the affordability of these homes. Apple. Exactly. Okay. Good.

With the T um style road, do you still are you still able to fit the same number the the 14? Yeah, basically it would be the same plan but without the drive approach out to uh Oh, it would look similar. Okay.

Yeah. So, we just, you know, we really like to get that drive approach out to Ann Arbor Road, but it's it's not guaranteed yet. But we I'm optimistic that we'll you know, with uh some additional discussion. You know, again, we haven't submitted a formal proposal to them yet. So, they, you know, they've just kind of looked at some aerial photographs and, you know, some sketches. So, we we haven't submitted a formal plan to them yet, which should come later during the, you know, the detail engineering phase.

If you went with a single entrance in a T, would that enable you to put sidewalks in on the perimeter? Uh well, we you know, we are proposing a a sidewalk along the frontage of Ann Arbor Road. Uh I don't think the owner has an objection to putting a sidewalk on the east side of Mccclump or the west side of McCclumpa. Uh currently, uh when I drove between Ann Arbor Road all the way up to Ann Arbor Trail, there's an existing sidewalk on the east side

that's continuous all the way up. There is right now currently there's not a single sidewalk on the west side of uh McClumper Road. Uh if we do put in a sidewalk on the you know on the west west side of McCclumper road it's going to be only sidewalk on that side and I'm guessing and it's just my guess it's you know that it probably won't get extended in the future.

Yeah it probably won't but I mean this was a dangerous intersection when I went to high school was a dirt road right a lot of kids got t-boned crossing because of the speed limit. So the fact you want a speed limit reduction is good for the safety, right? Being big houses there, right, is totally opposite to what's on the southeast corner that actually fits, right? Because we do need smaller housing. We do need retirees to be able to step down, number one. And the bigger the houses are, the less affordable it is, right? So if it's cute and quaint like the souththeast corner, that would help because it gets to a price point that we don't have. And and there's a whole domino effect which is good for residents of staying in the township. Having a sidewalk is important, right? Because people are are older that are in this community. And having that speed limit drop is also, I think, a must because it's still dangerous. They come up through a hill. It's hard to see the cars coming from the west. They get there really quick. The same problem we had in high school.

And that's why a flashing light was put in and that's why it became a red green light and because it was all accident driven. So, um, getting back to the single entrance may be prudent. Don't know. But these houses being this big, right, we really do need ranches. I just want the developer to hear that again and again and again because the survey is saying first floor master people don't want to climb stairs. They don't want four bedrooms, right? And it's very clear from the neighbors that have have spoken here with what's in writing and I'm sure we'll hear from at the microphone that they don't want extra traffic down there. And the bigger the house, the more people are living in that house and the more vehicles you have at the house and the more traffic you have. But if it's retirees that have one or two cars, it's not that big of an impact. It minimizes it. So everything comes down to Mr. Commissioner Boyd's comment on knowing what this is going to be is extremely for important for us as commissioners to be able to make a decision and it's important for the residents that reside there, right, to also know also because

we need reliable information.

Yes. Yeah. That's a very good point that you know, Commissioner Boyd and Chairperson Spolski brought up here. Um couple of uh one comment and one more question. Um we're in the process of updating the township's master plan and one of the recommendations that we are discussing including in the plan is changing recommending changing the speed limits on both um Ann Arbor Road and that section of Ann Arbor Road to 45. So, we're we're looking at that from our perspective as well, and you should know that hasn't been approved by the planning commission or the township yet, but it is in our draft. Um, my question now relates to you mentioned that you did not want to put a um drive or basically a street along the northern border of the uh property and that was one of the things that guided you to go to a more dense development.

Yep. Well, when we put the road in the middle of the site, you know, we can't, you know, have halfacre lots because their depth is, you know, and it' be really wide. So it just it doesn't

Okay. I want I want to ask you within just u maybe 500 or 1,000 ft of your site. There is another example of a access road that goes along the property line that is very similar to I think what would be here if you developed this site is single family R1H and specifically that is a um a three lot development that's at the eastern border of um the Woodlord North development. The street is called um Woodlor Lane and to get to it, you go north into Woodlure North. You turn right on Wellington Drive and then you go up north and that street goes off the east end and then goes directly along the back property line of those homes at the end of Woodlure at the east side of Woodlure North. Can we bring up the Bob? Can we bring up Google Maps and show that

Google Maps on that one? Yeah. So, it would be very similar to what your uh this concern that you had. And of course, the neighbor next door would have a view on that. But I don't know if he's here tonight or not. If he is, maybe we could ask him would he prefer that with a R1H development as opposed to 14 lots with a road that's not exactly correct adjacent. Where is it at? Okay. It's in Woodlor North. Yeah. So, we can find um Sandal Wood. Yeah. Okay. Yep. Okay. Go down to you see where it says something to the effect of Bidwell Electric.

Yeah. That Okay. Right there on Go over to the left a little bit, Bob. Okay. That street right there, Wellington Court. And then it comes down Wellington Lane down there. All those homes, that street is right along the back property line of those homes on Wellington. Oh,

so it's very similar to what you would have if you put an access road along the north property line and that would then allow you to develop this under R1H, I believe. So I would ask that you go look at that and see if that might help you understand what the alternative might be. And in that case also, Laura, we need to see a parallel plan that shows what would be what the plan would be if we uh used the existing R1H um uh development. So the ordinance doesn't require a parallel plan for a conditional resoning. It does for a cluster housing. Okay.

So the applicant can voluntarily offer that, but we we have to be careful. We cannot require Thank you for clarifying. Okay. Never been on this street. It's actually It works really well. I thought it was part of the sub, but I guess Yeah, it was added a number of years after the sub. There was a stub street that dead ended there right at the end of the concrete. Yeah. And the developer came in and added that in and put in the three more homes. Was that part is that part of the of the subdivision or No,

it's a different piece of land. It was added later or I should say was developed much later. Um, Woodlord North was developed in the early 1990s. These three homes I think were probably put in maybe around the year 2000 plus or minus.

So my point here simply is that this land could be developed as R1H with a road along the northern border. And I think that it would be um I think that the it would be more in line with the existing homes in the area. So that is an option that we as a planning commission need to keep in mind. And the developer maybe that would allow you to look at another option as well. But those would be larger homes at a higher price point then. Yeah. That well presumably if it's R1H it would be a fewer number of homes. So there's pros and cons.

There's pros and cons. I also want to make a point to the commission and also the public that we are really interested in having um single level homes that are more attractive to senior people because a lot of people in Plymouth Township want to stay here. Everybody loves it. We all love this place, but they need to downsize. I would also make the point to the contrary that in our survey, the single, if I'm remembering right, the single most desired piece of housing going forward is single family homes on relatively large-siz lots. And in Plymouth Township, I don't believe we've had a development like that in almost 10 years. The most recent one that I'm aware of was the one that was across from um Picnic Basket um which was called I'm trying to think what the name of it was. Um

that was a py. Yeah, it was ended up being a py. But that was approved in sometime in the mid2010s. And so we really haven't had in this township in almost 10 years a development of single family homes on relatively large lots which according to the survey is still the single most desired type of development for Plymouth Township going forward. So there's two sides to this tale and I want us to keep in mind both of those as we look at this. Other comments?

Yeah, I just wanted to ask Bob if you could zoom in on the intersection of MLA and Anna Road, please, to show the souththeast corner, right? Because success leaves clues on the smaller housing, right? The execution they did. They're smaller. The price points were lower and no, they they are not touching, but to Commissioner Pop's point, they're very close in some locations, and they share commons in the middle. And the execution is actually it's it's well done. So these are detached condos. No, you're you're in the condo. So if I was going to go closer to the corner, Bob, just right immediately on that corner of opposite Vermuan to the to the east. Yeah. Actually, talking about New England quarter, those trees are there. You go.

Yeah. It's hard to tell because of the trees.

Okay. I have a map I want to distribute to everybody because I want us to understand the New England Corner's development is significantly different than what we're looking at here in terms of its layout. So you could pass that down but can we go back to that overhead view? I think I think most of us on the planning commission think New England Corners is really well done, but you have to understand when you look at this, it's actually the way it's laid out is the homes are around the perimeter of the development. Some of the homes access directly to Ann Arbor Road. some access off that access road down the east there. And some access off the bottom there, the uh the it's called New England Court. Yeah. Down there. And what that leaves is a very large section in the middle that is completely open. It has a bunch of very large mature trees. I'm guessing probably 50 or 50 years or older. So you have you have an approach but you end up with a very large area that's in its remains in its natural state. In this development we don't have that.

Right? So that I you know I want us to keep in mind when we talk about New England Corners it is a different scenario than what we're talking about here in terms of the way it's laid out and the amount of retention of natural trees and open area. So I just want to make that point. I think there's only like a dozen homes in there. Yeah, there's very few. Isn't it? Is it 10, Laura? It's 10. 10. You know the size of that piece of land? Yes, it's slightly smaller than the subject property. It's three something. It's in in the report.

Similar. Okay. Yeah. And we spoke about this uh earlier about Northern Michigan home uh where they put homes close together to try to preserve a natural. They didn't do such a good job there. But then when you look at Saddlebrook, that's another development within just to the south of of New England Corners. Much bigger homes, condos, but they have a large open, which is exactly what's on the map there, right? Exactly. Yeah. Mhm. They're there price points are much higher. They are higher, but it's the concept that we're looking at. Yeah.

Are we ready to Well, I want to see if there's anyone else. Okay. Uh, give me a minute here. Okay. Is there a motion to open the public hearing at 7:54? Yes. Uh, Mr. Chair, I move we open the public hearing on PC number 2576, conditional resoning. I'll support. Moved by Commissioner Boyd, supported by Commissioner Hex to um open the public hearing. All in favor signify by saying I. I

oppose. Motion carries. So I ask you, you can just step up to the podium. You can form a line if you wish. You uh you have three minutes and uh you can ask your questions and then uh we'll collect those questions and we'll present them to the applicant. We ask you to be clear, concise, cogent, and civil. And thanks for coming in. Hi, my name is Jim Boswinka and I've been a longtime resident of Plymouth Township. I live on Academy Drive and um when I heard about the resoning, my greatest fear was that they would put in something like Plymouth Walk where if you go down from the Plymouth Walk, all you see are driveways and garage doors. Enough of that. But um we have a very very beautiful neighborhood and I'm really opposed to reszoning because that basically means a higher density and I don't think this is the right place for that. Uh you have to remember that the corner of Mccclumpa and Beck Road is a traffic mess at times. you've got uh twice a day during the school year, you've got perhaps dozens of buses coming up. Uh people are impatient and there's uh often times you have uh uh people or students running up and down Mccclumpa uh maybe to a hilltop or and then turning around. There's an awful lot of traffic there.

Uh, I I just I hate It's a beautiful clump of woods. Hate to see it go. If it's going to go, I just really hate to see a higher density of of homes going in there. I I think if you can keep it to a minimum, it'll be accepted. And and uh uh I'm not a great public speaker, but I I just had to put my two cents in. Most of my neighbors feel the same way. We've got a beautiful neighborhood. I've seen two generations of new families come in with kids. I have four kids myself and somebody kind of insinuated, are there nothing but retirees going in this place? No, I don't think so. There's going to be a lot of kids coming in. Kids love sidewalks.

I live in uh Quail Hollow. We got sidewalks. That's something a lot of other places don't have. I've seen kids ride their bikes up and down. It's they're a wonderful thing to have. If you're going to put a lot of homes in and no sidewalks or minimum sidewalks, that's a you're taking away from the kids. So, u I hope you consider what I I have and uh maybe try to keep the uh the density of the homes to a minimum. Thank you. Thank you.

I I just want to add after we hear from all of you folks, we have six letters here that I'll ask the secretary to present to us, too. Hi. Hi.

Um, this is my also my first time, so thank you for allowing public comment. Um, my name is Brooke Hower and I live on Mccclump Road about three houses down from the proposed development. Um, I've lived there for almost 3 years after dreaming about living there for a really long time. So, it's very exciting. I'm also speaking on behalf of our neighbor to the left of us as well who couldn't be here. Um I was able to read through the master plan earlier and was really excited to hear all of the preservation of wildlife and trees being such a prominent part of that and multiple proposals tonight have talked about that as a really important measure. There's a lot of trees on this lot. Um, some of which are extremely old and cannot be replaced. So, I want to encourage you to vote with the master plan on that. We understand that this lot is most likely going to be developed. Everybody wants to live in that area. It's a beautiful area, but the amount of preservation we're able to do is really important. Um, you've proposed yourselves lots of different areas or ways to develop this land without needing to be reszoned and needing to squeeze every single inch of like natural landscape out of the lot. It's just greedy. Um, the intersection that is on Mccclumpa and Ann Arbor Road is pretty busy a lot of the time. This is very close to um where the entrance of this housing development would be is very close to the intersection. I don't know how that would fair with traffic. There are times when I have to wait, you know, light cycles to turn left onto Mccclumpa. Um there's also no sidewalk as people have mentioned. Um the the density it's it's above their

recommended amount. I'd also like to point out that once again that developers of this land, they don't have to listen to considerations that are proposed by us and I'm not confident at all that they would listen to those considerations. Why why would they? You know, it's going to cost them more money. The New England Corners, I really I like that parallel. Um, something about that property as well is that there's a huge brick wall that's walling off every single house both on Mccclumpa and on Ann Arbor Road. So that acts as the sound barrier, which the trees do now. It's a safety barrier for traffic for kids being able to play in their yards and not running into this major road right by the school. Um, yeah, in closing, just wanted to remind you of that. I know it's been rejected before for reasonzoning. I really appreciate the dedication to, you know, maintaining what Montla and Ann Arbor Road is now and I really hope that you do that again. So, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Get the signing sheet down so the next person can sign in. Uh, good evening. My name is Jason Ramsey. I live at 9639 McCclumpa Road which is the northern property um of this uh proposal. Um our concerns are obviously the traffic even with the red green light. There's been a lot of um terrible uh collisions there. Sometimes the impact wakes me and my wife up out of sleep. Um there's 6,000 kids that go to school just a few hundred yards south of there. Pioneer to the east and even the church at that intersection is not school. There's a lot of kids um trying to traverse that intersection that doesn't always work out so well for new drivers. Um the proposed density is not in align with that part of Plymouth Township. Everything west of McClunga Road is R1H. Have bigger lot sizes by design, by intent. Um the smaller lot sizes are more conducive to like downtown areas that have walkability or older communities like Inkster Garden City and Westland. No offense, I grew up in some of those areas. Um but it's not conducive for this part of the township. Um the lot obviously you did tree survey. There's a lot of uh old growth trees in there. There's also a lot of wildlife, deer, um turkey, owls, and just today we saw bald eagles soaring above. Um I'd like that you talk about the buffer. Um that's the first time I've seen the site plan. I was disappointed. when I went to the building um counter weeks ago and they weren't able to provide me with that. Um unfortunately, this property used to be the property my house is on now was on 10 acres in the 30s. And my house faces this lot. Every window of my home will look directly at the backs of those homes. My living room, my dining room, my kitchen, and my great room are just 45 ft from that property line. So,

I'm not thrilled about I can't turn my house 90° and make it face MClumpa like all of my neighbors. My house literally faces right at the back of these four um properties. The previous proposals back in 2021 had more of a buffer and clustered homes further west and left a lot more buffer in front of my house um to minimize the impact um on, you know, my my my family and my house. So, um I'm not crazy about the density. I like, you know, 14's a lot better than some of the higher densities, but I would like to see I would like the board to consider um the impact that would have on the immediate um neighborhood as some of my neighbors have spoke, especially myself, because you know, I can't move my house and it would be looking directly at the backs of these. So, and to the developers, if you do come up with a approval, I'd like you to encourage you to put a lot of buffer in front of my house here. maybe get those first two units, filter them down further west because like I said, that's just 45 ft across my short front yard to the backs of all those units. So, it's all I have. Thank you for your consideration. Thanks for coming.

Thank you.

Good evening. Uh Mary Tavverzi, 46649 Arboritum Circle. I live just off of Mccclumpa. Uh thank you for your consideration tonight. I know you want to focus on the reasonzoning question only and not um any of the many concerns that we might have about the proposed site plan because it's premature. So I'll I'll confine my remarks. I think this is actually an example of the worst place to approve additional density in this whole entire area. Um, this is a very, very dangerous intersection. Having lived in this right off of this intersection now for 3 years, I have witnessed many accidents and near accidents from people having to slow down to turn either into the church, out of the church, into the funeral home, out of the funeral home, into the development, uh, the New England quarters. Um it obviously those places exist and we have to be able to let people turn in and out. But this proposed density by adding 75% more than what is currently called for in the zoning is obviously going to create many situations whether they end they end up with a second um egress on Ann Arbor Road or just Mccclumpa. Many situations where cars will be slowing down to go in or out of there and that's right right beyond the intersection. So, there's going to be a lot of slamming on brakes and there's going to be a lot of I think congestion by being right across from the driveway uh of of the church as well. So, I think this is really the wrong place to do it. Also, I take exception to the report stating that both Ann Arbor Road and Mccclump are are built for high moderate to high traffic. If you've been on Mcclumpa Road north of Ann Arbor Road in the winter, it is not built for moderate to high traffic. They don't even plow it really north of it. They have to plow south to get the buses in to the high school. But I've lived there and waited two weeks to see a plow come up on the north side of Mccclump

Road. Now you're going to add, you want to add, as I said, 75% even above the original zone density to that. And and you know, gosh, help us because the road is very narrow. landscaping trucks and others who who do uh service the homes up and down Mccclumpa Road end up making Mccclumpa a onelane road half of the time. And so I don't think with with the absence of shoulders and the absence of a sidewalk on one side of the street that this could be considered a road that can be accommodating even currently moderate to high traffic, let alone adding 75% more density with this proposed um zoning change. Um, and I'll just put those out there. And again, I won't I won't make any more comments about the site plan. Although I would say beyond New England Village, look at Arboritum. They could have put 50 more homes in there, but they decided to save the trees, have open spaces, have a culde-sac, and keep this area beautiful and bucolic. Thank you. Hi, my name is Nick Hower. I uh moved here about 3 years ago. Uh this is the first home I've owned. Actually wanted to live in Plymouth my entire life, but took me a long time to save up and be able to do it. So, I'm glad I'm here. Um my wife and I both love it so much. Feel very strongly that we want to stay here for the rest of our lives. Uh, one of the biggest reasons for that is in this community, we do care about the trees. We do care about the wildlife. And I've experienced that so deeply in my home, which is just a few, you know, a few houses down from where this development will go in. We see deer come through the backyard. We see wild turkeys. Um, and and we love it. We think that's a beautiful part of the neighborhood that

we're in. And obviously a reason those animals can be there is because there are trees and there are spaces for them in the area. So I think to do something like this where uh you're going to tear down almost all the trees to pack in absolutely as many houses as you can in that small lot. I mean that's not what I would like to see there. I would be thrilled um to see what it's zoned for. you know, nine homes, eight homes, seven homes go in there. I think that would be great. Um, I was also going to mention what the woman before mentioned as well, Mccclumpa being characterized as capable of sustaining high traffic. I I I don't necessarily agree and I think the density um could be an issue for a road like McClumpa, especially north of Ann Arbor. Um, it is not plowed. There are times where I go out there and shovel parts of it myself so I can get the car out or throw a little salt on it myself. Um I I don't think it's really suited for high traffic to be coming in and out of a development like this, which uh if I understood the plan correctly, it sounds like there may not even be an exit onto Anog. It may be only the exit onto that part of Mcccluma, which again I just I don't think is suited for it at all. um the character of the homes that would be going in there would be very different to the character of the surrounding homes. And um again, I would be thrilled to see what someone on the commission mentioned uh as being the most highly desirable type of homes, um single family homes on relatively large lots. If we put maybe, you know, six to nine in there in that spot like it's zoned for, I think that would be a beautiful addition to the neighborhood. But I think reszoning it so you can pack the absolute maximum in would not be the right thing to do for all the reasons

that I said right now. So, thanks for listening. Thanks for the time. Oh, thank you. Ready? Oh, sure.

Hi there. My name is David Bell. I've lived for about 20 years kind of at Beck and Ann Arbor just down the road. I I really was coming here mostly to learn and and and view what was going on because I may it's a long story. I'll get into it because of another development. I may sort of end up getting sort of pushed out of Plymouth in a little bit. It's a long story that'll probably come here another time. But anyway, so my actually there's a couple things that I heard and saw here that I just wanted to make minor comments and actually it's kind of reiterating what a lot of people said. I'd be surprised if that T plan couldn't come up with something that fits the lower density uh that works. I mean, it does seem to me that the township has been trying to force as many people as possible into the township and that does seem as a longtime resident somewhat frustrating. Um, but a couple of what seem like almost like assumption or fallacies that I just sort of wanted to add that would more just kind of sort of inform opinions of a resident. But um I I don't understand how one of the statements earlier somebody claiming that having more smaller units would mean less traffic than less larger units. I I don't see that. That seems like some a statement that doesn't make sense. And the other thing I know everybody thinks the deer are beautiful, but living in the township with the deer, destroying trees and gardens and everything else I view deer in I mean it would be really nice to see the population reduced. So assuming that we're we're helping the township by having more deer. I I don't think that's the case. I describe them as like basically large rodents in in the situation here. Uh they're really destructive and

hunting season is open, you know. Anyway, uh I just wanted to point out that yeah, um I I kind of mostly wanted to I you know that some some of the things are stated didn't seem accurate, so I wanted to address that. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi. Good evening. My name is Sabina Ramsey. I am the neighbor to this establishment. I live at 9639 Mccclumpa. Um my property is 2 acre lot and it faces this 4 acre lot that we're talking about. Um the Mccclumpa is a dangerous intersection. It took us 14 years of protesting to get a a light there and I'm a nurse and I've ran to that corner every week for almost 14 years. Okay. We have three different schools in that area that are directly across the street. And then we have a huge college, the PAP that everybody knows about in this area that has thousands of kids that drive up and down that road in the buses or at that intersection turning to go pick up those children at the school. So, the intersection is horrible even with the light. Um, I wasn't going to talk because my husband already spoke tonight, but um, some of the concerns that we have are the trees and the animals and preserving those lots on that side of the street. They're all acre or twoacre lots. We want that to continue because you don't see that in Plymouth very often. You know, that's one of the reasons why we moved there is to have a bigger lot. It's like uh, living up the piece of living up north but in the city. And that's what a lot of these residents want and that would be taken away by um building these homes. We have enough communities. We have enough of these condos. And I'm sorry, you know, I look at the plan and I don't see that that being conducive with the area or the price range. And just to point out, if he did

establish that land, that would actually increase my home value. So, as I stand up here, I realize that, you know, this is not um something that would be good for her our whole community, the children that live there. There is uh something with the animals. Yes, they can be a nuisance at times and eating our shrubs. However, what better education than for our children in that neighborhood to see those deer live, to see, you know, a live uh group of turkeys walking through. This is not something that they're able to see in a regular neighborhood. And this is something that they're able to see on MLA right now, but that would be taken away if this land was developed. Thank you. That was me.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh my name is Rich Gelaneski. I live at 9855 about four doors down from this. Been there almost 30 years. Um we've re we re we re we re we re we re we re we re we re we re we re we visited this several times already. Um, everybody there, I know it's supposed to be a halfacre lots. I think everybody there has at least a half acre, acre, acre and a half. I have almost two. Uh, my neighbor has three. I mean, it's there isn't a house around there. And we all pay a premium, you know, to have that. Uh, to to bring in some small little ranches. Um, you know, again, I don't think we're doing it for the people. I think it's a financial thing for the developer. Let's say what it is. Um that intersection is terrible already. Like everybody else has. I can't really add anything that everybody else hasn't already said. But these homes are not I mean we spent a lot of extra money to have these big lots and and maintain them and everything else. to put something that's going to be, you know, a third of the size of our homes is not going to increase our value. It's going to decrease our value. And I'm I'm actually putting a ton more money back into my house this next six months. And I just don't know why we keep revisiting this. I think we should keep it the way it is. That's why we move there. and and if they want to find a different location, I think that that's there's a lot of locations they can find, but that's all I have.

Thank you.

I have to sign in. Okay. Good evening. Kurt Heisy, 9054 Murland. I'm right down the street uh on off of Mccclumpa, south of Ann Arbor Road. I'm here tonight on behalf of some uh neighbors who contacted me who couldn't make it here tonight. I'm not opposed to uh to developing that corner. Uh they they certainly have property rights that we need to uh that we need to observe and honor. Uh but this this density arrangement has already been rejected once by the township board, I believe in 2022. Uh this really is not much of a change from what uh the board rejected back then. Uh I'm not so concerned about the traffic. Um we did secure the intersection light some time ago. As far as the uh an entrance onto Ann Arbor Road, um I'm I would be very opposed to that. Uh we've tried for years uh pro at least 15 years to try to get uh M DOT to reduce the uh the speed limit on Ann Arbor Road. And and remember Ann Arbor Road is still the old M14, so it's still under under the control of MDOT. And uh I I remember sometimes they will say things like, "Well, be careful what you wish for because uh you never know how they're going to rule on something like that." And we've tried with certainly with the schools there and other development uh to no avail. Um, I just think that the the applicants should should sit down with the planning department and the administration and see if you can work out a less dense arrangement that would help uh alleviate the demand for or help the demand for uh senior living and single family uh singlestory homes that active seniors are looking for these days. But certainly at least half the number uh that that's being proposed. It's been rejected before and and I'm sure it would be rejected again. Thanks.

Thank you. Anyone else? Last call. Okay. Is there a motion to um Oh, no. We need those letters um cited. Wait a minute. Where are they? Oh dear. Okay. All right. read them all or what?

You have to read uh just a minute. I want to read what she said. She the man one. Yeah, the man one. She wanted it read. So read it and then the others will attach to the minute. So read the first the the one from uh

Okay. So I have six letters that were submitted. I know you said seven. I counted six, but either way, um there was one from Jennifer Man who wanted um her letter to be read because she can't be here. My name is Jennifer Man. I reside at 46730 Ann Arbor Road West. My property is immediately adjacent to the west of the parcel referenced above. Unfortunately, I'm unable to attend the planning commission meeting scheduled for Wednesday, November 19th, due to a prior family commitment. If I were able to attend, I would have spoken during the public comment period regarding the proposed conditional resoning. I respectfully request that this letter be read into the record and included in the meeting minutes. The parcel located at the northwest corner of Mccclump Arbor Road has been subject to several reasonzoning attempts over the past four years, all of which are previously denied. After reviewing the current proposal, I noted is substantially similar to prior submissions with two noticeable differences. Parcel size and density. The current acreage is 4.25, a reduction of8 from previous proposals. The developer is proposing 14 units. This density does not align with the existing neighborhood character where single family homes typically occupy 1 acre or more. Even when compared to the New England Corners condominium complex, which has 10 detached units on similar acreage, the proposed 14 units exceed what would reasonably fit. Based on recommendations of 1 to three homes per acre, 12 units should be the maximum and that figure must account for common roads, sidewalks, retention ponds. Traffic impact. Traffic congestion Ann Arbor Road and Mcclumpa during peak hours is already significant, particularly east west along in Arar

Road. Residents between Mccclumpa and Beck experience difficulty turning out of driveways and subdivisions. Adding more homes will only exacerbate this issue. I urge the commission to carefully consider how additional traffic will affect current residents. Retention ponds and flooding concerns. In the agenda packet for this item, Miss Laura How recommended the uh crest be tabled for up to 6 months to allow the applicant to consider reducing the size of the storm water uh retention pond. I strongly recommend this item be tabled not to reduce the basin size, but to study whether basins need to be increased. The pond located at the front section of our property is a tributary of the Rouge River. Over the past 5 years, heavy rains have repeatedly caused the pond to overflow its bank, resulting in flooding downstream and upstream through our storm drains connected to this tributary. Our property has experienced flooding in our garage barn across the culvert where our driveway runs. Additionally, the common areas of the subdivision abudding the western edge of our property has experienced flooding. This also includes the wooded areas along in our road just west of our property line. We request assurances that any development of this parcel will thoroughly study the hydraology of the Rouge River tributaries and ensure that any construction will not worsen flooding or create additional problems for residents west of this marshall. Thank you for your time and consideration. Okay. Uh, another letter, Jessica Perus, 9735 Mcclumpa Road was opposed. Justin Perus, 9735 Mccclump. Oh, well, that's her husband. He also

opposes it. Isaac and Leah Kaufman. Uh, on Mccclump Road. Uh, don't want anything there either. Uh, Jennifer back. Uh, I don't know where she lives. Jacqueline back. Sorry, Jacqueline Beck. She opposes Brooke Hower. Don't know exactly where she lives. Um, uh, she doesn't like it either. So, okay. And those those uh letters will be included in the meeting minutes. Yep.

Well, we have not verbatim. The letters will be attached to the minutes. That's how we've done it in the past when they ask that they be they ask us to put in the minutes. So, that's what we do. We have the minutes and we just say we receive the following attached letters. They requested it. Bob, what's your what's your concern about it?

I don't have a concern about these particular letters, but that gives people the opportunity to say we've we had serious problems with, you know, that on the board of trustees because it gives people the opportunity to say anything they want without rebuttal. They can call they can call people names. They can make accusations and um I I don't I don't think a letter should be part of the minutes. You can summarize

been what's the board of trustees policies because we can use that as a as a guide for us. It's been all over the place, but um in recently they kind of backed off on it and um especially since names and um a lot of like personal information could be included in that if you copy the letter they're address and and such. So they're they're kind of concerned about that factor of it. So they haven't been including the letter not of late.

Pardon? and and for the board the actually the only letters that are supposed to be put in there now are are from the board themselves and they have to approve that that that letter can be attached. So of the three you could put a you could put a a statement in it that says you know Mr. Smith submitted a letter that was opposed, generally opposed to the project, right? But you're not going to put the whole letter in there because he may be going on there and saying Tim Boyd is a corrupt criminal who stands to profit from this. You expose me, Bob. What can I say? Well, that's what happens when you put Yeah. Okay.

Bob, to your point, of the six letters, one of the individuals actually spoke here today. Okay. Which was the um Brook Howouser number one. The other five aren't here, but the the messaging is very similar and mirrors what the eight individuals shared at the microphone. Nine. Okay. If you include Mr. Heisy here, um of of common sentiment and issues that met in general. Well, then we should take a page out of the board of trustees and we can just list the names of the people that have submitted the letters and just say they opposed it, they supported it, and let it be done. What what did the comm did the commissioners feel that way? Makes sense. Yeah, that's fine. All right. All right. That's what we'll do then.

Okay. Uh so we didn't close the public hearing, so we have to do that. Mr. Chair, proposed we close the public hearing at 8:28 p.m. Okay, I'll second it. You need a second. Okay. moved by Commissioner uh Biden's order by Commissioner Iikes to close the public hearing 828. All in favor signify by saying I.

Opposed. Motion carries. So the applicants is still here and um perhaps we should talk about the trees. Um, so if we could get page the L3 uh of that preliminary site plan. There's a lot of concern about trees and we've looked at the at the tree study that they've done and Commissioner Boy has some comments on that L3. It's hard to read. Luckily, we did receive an electronic copy. And I believe that's also on the township uh website. So, if any of you uh want to look at it in more careful detail, um you can look at at the township website and if you're looking at a desktop computer, you can really blow it up and read it in careful detail. So, Commissioner Boy.

Yes. So typically a tree survey would be um a more involved um study that would tell us some more information beyond what was on this particular um um survey. Also, the plot plan was very difficult to determine uh where the trees which trees were being saved and what condition they were in because typically we get a big blueprint and we can actually go in and look at the details. But just as some general comments, um there was a pie chart uh on page L3 and that showed that 33% of the trees were in good condition, 51% were fair and uh to so combined we had 84% that were good or fair. Poor and dead were there were a total of 14. Um just for comparison, this this particular um plot of land has some very old mature trees. And as a as a plot of land, the trees on this lot are in better condition as a whole than some of the other um wooded areas we've had recently. One example would be the Crest Haven development, which is being built just south of Margate. Um what's the new name of that, Laura?

Plymouth Farms. Plymouth Farms. Okay. They their tree survey showed 0% good trees, 12% fair, 12.7% fair to poor, and poor to very poor were 76%. So I want to compare. It's not a complete apples to apples comparison, but directionally it's it's pretty good. So on Olive Food site, we 33% of the trees are in good condition. 0% were in crust haven. um fair to fair and fair to poor um at fair at Crest Haven they were around 24% combined. Here fair trees are 51% and when you look at the definition of fair trees those trees are actually trees are in pretty good condition. They might have a they might be misshapen a little bit but the generally accepted definition among the arborist is that their trees that are thought to live have at least 20 years of life left in them if not more. Conversely Crest Haven had 76% poor to very poor or dead. This site has only 14%. So, you know, the the point I'm trying to make here is that in particular, this site has a bunch of very healthy, very old growth trees. And as we have heard from the survey that we did with the township for the master plan and certainly in all of the public hearings that I I've been a part of in my role on the planning commission, I know many others here, the trees are a key concern of Plymouth Township. So, in looking at this, we really need to think about what are we doing to conserve the the trees there. And looking at the um plot plan, to the best I can figure out, it looks like about 30 of the 393 trees are preserved. So, that's about 8%. The remaining 92% would be cut down. So basically what we would be looking at is

you drive down Ann Arbor Road, which most of us do, you'd be looking at a site that's mostly clear-cut before this is developed. Now granted, when it's done, there would be new trees planted and the developer has defined how many new trees would be put in, and it corresponds with the township criteria, but old growth trees are not easily replaced. It takes 40 years for a freshly planted tree to get to the level of a a typical tree that would be in this development. Now, there was a comment about um that the majority of the trees are considered invasive. Well, you know what? That's that's a consideration and it's particularly a consideration if you have a a piece of land that has a lot of vacant land. When you're looking at mature trees, that's a little bit of a different situation. Um, of the 10 most common trees in this site, to the best of my ability, it looked like we had two that were really considered invasive. Black locust and box elder. And black locust was the single most predominant and boxelder was the third most, but we had eight other types of trees in the 10 that generally are considered not invasive. Now there were a couple of them where the particular type of tree is considered invasive but when you actually look at the species of the tree on this site that particular species is not invasive. So I want us to be careful that we when we look at this comment about invasive that we look at it in more detail and a mature tree that is considered invasive is still a lot more valuable than no tree at all in in my point of view. So in this particular case, I think it's really important that we look at this and try to figure out what can we do to preserve a significant proportion of these mature trees as opposed to just the 10% roughly that it appears would be uh preserved under the proposed plan. Are there any questions from the

commissioners on that? I have one one comment. uh but you know buckthornne and there are buckthorns in that survey and my understanding is buckthornne oozes some kind of I don't want to call it poison but some kind of substance that really destroys it's you know the close by tree so that it can become more invasive. So I would say the buckthornne uh probably would win that fight. Yeah. You know, so the buckthornne I think is truly a very invasive. It is, but and we really need to do everything we can to get rid of buckthornne,

but buckthornne also in a site like this because of how mature the the the the woods are. I suspect buckthornne tends to be a shrubby tree, it grows up to about 20 feet tall, and that's about the extent of it. So I again, there was no information provided on buckthornne in the the survey that I saw. I'm sure there's plenty of buckthornne in there, but it's probably very short height compared to the other trees there. Um, I also wanted to make one more comment. Thank you. Um, of the 30 trees that are preserved, and again, it's hard to tell from this particular map, but to the best of our ability, it appears that most of the trees that are preserved are in the northwest corner of the of the development, the western border, and a few of them along the very north, the northeast. Um, and then there are three trees that are preserved directly along Ann Arbor Road. So, basically, it's that upper left. You can see those some of those circles there. And you got to be careful because most of the circles have X's, but some of those up in that upper left corner and then there's a few along the top middle that are preserved. And then there's three right in the center along Adara Road. All the rest of those trees, folks, are going away. So, as we look at this development, we need to really ask ourselves, are we reflecting the will of the community in how we treat this site? And I will also say the property owner has rights and we as a planning commission have to consider those rights as well. But I want to make sure that we try to find a solution that respects the property owner's rights but also reflects the community's strong desire in Plymouth Township to retain as much of our natural features as we can particularly our mature trees.

Okay. So I ask the applicant to come forward. I don't know if you have reaction to any of this, but you can see the direction that you know or the concern that we have about what's been presented.

Uh well, we'll we'll take the uh comments under advisement again. Uh uh it is a it is a difficult site to develop you know as it's currently zoned. Uh we're we're not going to get a lot of cooperation from the state highway department. Uh I think the one property owner to the north wasn't you know already said that you know his living room and everything looks into our site and if we put a road on that north property line which uh and again we'd still have to you know align with the church property. uh when we were looking at, you know, the resoning, you know, we have commercial property, uh the funeral home on the south, you know, we have, you know, uh a church on the east, which is, you know, not a real intensive use except on weekends. So, but on on weekends, it's a very intensive use. So, we thought that this reszoning would be sort of a good transition from, you know, the more intensive uses to less intensive uses to the, you know, north and west. You know, again, we're not going to get driveway curb cuts out to McClumper Road or Tan Arbor Road. And, you know, we're very limited on the options of where we could put access drives in. And again, the, you know, the immediate impact is mostly to the neighbor to the north. and, you know, putting a road there, you know, which should we could get bigger lots with that and probably save a few more trees, but that's, you know, that's going to cause the most impact on uh on his site and he's an immediate neighbor. Um,

yeah, we we were look Yeah. Yeah. We were looking at a site uh White Pine Court. Uh we were looking at, you know, doing similar style homes that's also along Ann Arbor Road. uh you know they're mostly you know the I think they're all ranch homes on that. So we're looking at you know doing a similar development to that. Uh that property is maybe slightly slightly bigger than ours but not not you know it's in it's in the ballpark anyway. Yeah I I think well I think um I believe that funeral home is not commercial Laura. I think it's uh residential and it's there because of a special land use. Yeah, you're allowed to have the those those uses,

right? And that's probably true with the church as well. It is. So, um just make that correction. No, but it is a more intensive use residential.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, certainly. I mean, I I think we we support, you know, having that type of housing that you're proposing, you know, the ranches because we also hear from seniors um you know, they want to downsize, but they love the community. So, and there it's a pro and con kind of a thing, but uh we hear this time and time again about the trees and the natural beauty and that's what people brought into this community. That's what they like. And uh so we'd like to see the development uh sustain that uh that character. Um so you just have to uh you know be creative and see what you can save and see what the density is that makes it a financial viable situation for you guys. First thing I want to thanks everybody's here especially all the neighbors come here. Appreciate your time. Uh I am very considerate about the the development we going to do. Um I I I'm planning to have uh like 14 ranches actually on this properties just for senior. I am uh consider the the neighbors uh especially the one north of my properties to have like a distance with the with the tree. I try to save most of the tree north of the the property and west of the property. If we go back to the plot plans, it's showing the street is going in the middle of the property which is the house is going to be close to the close to the street in the middle. We are saving all the trees north of the properties and the one in north west of the property which is the most important tree you're talking about. And uh in the south in the south of the property we're going to have a

sidewalk. And where's the pond? It's going to be like trees to all the houses. it's going to be like full of uh trees in the backyard. This is our target in this development. I want to thank you everybody here and uh I'm looking forward to work what your recommendation. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. One of the concerns too. Um,

one of the cons, one of the concerns that uh we've raised in the past and and applicants have uh seen our line of uh thinking on it is um to make sure there is uh enough parking uh if there's marketed to seniors. these homes aren't going to be as large homes that those seniors might be interested in, but you know, people families come in from out of town perhaps driving in that there's enough uh parking available to those folks and also uh an adequate place to put all the snow. So, that's sometimes an overlooked uh aspect of the development. So, keep those in mind as you further develop and solidify uh the plan. 810 and a half.

Yeah. Um on the tree survey, this is page L3 and L4. Typically on a tree survey, we see for each tree that's listed whether it will be removed or saved. We didn't see that on this tree survey. So we had to just look at your map and try to figure out which ones were being saved. So when you come back with your proposal, whatever it might be, I would ask or we would ask that you add on the tree survey what is planned for each individual tree, whether it's to be removed or saved. Okay, we can do that. Thank you. Other comments.

Um I just like to wrap up from from and I first of all I represent I I'm speaking for myself as a commissioner here. I do not represent the the commission board here and I don't represent any developer or anything like that. I just want to say this property will need to be developed and I appreciate the community recognizing that but we need to find something here that it respects the will of the community and I don't believe the proposal that's currently submitted respects the will of the community. We also need to respect the developer and the developer's rights. I would ask that when you come back you from my perspective I'd like to see a develop de development that's significantly less intense terms of the housing. I'm particularly concerned to see how you can retain a much larger number of trees, particularly in natural tree stands, if you could group them together. And I'd still like to see what the alternative would be if you did R1H with a access road along the very north and please go take a look at that other uh drive. And I would ask the homeowner to the north to do that as well and see if that is a viable alternative. It certainly would be more in line with what the community would be looking for. May not be realistic, but let's at least take a look at it. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you. Okay. Any anyone else, Billy?

Yeah, I wanted a couple things. Number one, on the snow push and extra parking, take a look at Hidden Creek. It's on North Territorial right beside the Methodist church. They've got parking in the middle because you will need overflow. Okay? If there's smaller ranches, great. That means the garages are smaller. There's fewer cars. There's fewer people that will live there hanging on as latch key. They're older people. You will have less vehicles. With respect to the deer, I had to take my dog to the vet yesterday because of another tick bite because I live near the woods. So these deer are pesky and I was talking to the ordinance officer in Beacon Hill yesterday in a 12-point buck literally walk 15 ft away from us. So the the deer are everywhere. They're nice to look at, but man, they're dangerous for us and our skin. This tree plot, I'm encouraged to see the fact that at this level and stage, somebody took the time to map what was there. That encourages me. But I see the challenge to Commissioner Boyd's point on fewer units means we can probably save more of these number one and hearing what the the resident said because something will go in there, right? May not be 14 units. Uh it' be nice if it's ranches cuz we have that need. But being mindful and a way to protect and reserve as many as you can. Just just note that so when you come back to to follow Commissioner Boyd's guidance because it's it's very sound. People love the trees in this community. I think we we've offered the you look if you haven't done so already look at New England Corners which is diagonally from your property and that's that feeling that uh of that particular site is something that I think emulates the character of the township and that's sort of you know the direction that we would uh support. Anyone else? Okay. So what's your pleasure on a motion? The recommendation.

I I make a motion that we um the conditional reszoning of the vacant parcel at northwest corner of Ann Arbor Road in Mccclump Road PC number 2576 to the R1 one family residential district be tabled for up to 6 months to allow the applicant to consider additional opportunities. um as discussed among the planning commission this evening and the feedback from the public during the public hearing. There's a second

move by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Durvitz to um table application 2576 for up to 6 months subject to discussions and the planners report. All in favor signify by saying I. I I oppose. Motion carries. Well, good luck to you. Look forward to working together. And members of the community, please thank you for coming and expressing your concerns and your point of view. Thank you. We appreciate it.

That's yours. It's your opportunity to escape. Yeah. Take it quickly. Take it if you can.

Okay. So, we got pile of motions. Okay, moving on to new business. Application 2575 14903 uh Pilot Road from Great Lakes Fence. So we have who's report. Okay.

Thank you, Chair Sabolski. Sure.

This application is for additional fence height for the property located at 14903 Pilot Drive in the industrial district. The applicant is proposing to install an 8ft height fence to enclose the existing truck well behind the building. The fence is proposed to be a galvanized commercial grade chain link fence with a double swing door. Uh the fence will be closely aligned with the rear masonary wall. However, the materials would be visibly different. Um as of right now, the proposed height does not comply with the allowed height in the industrial district, which is 6 feet. So they're proposing 8 ft. and the planning commission must determine whether the height of the proposed fence uh can be permitted. Uh the proposed materials are permitted. However, we recommend that the chain link be black powdercoated chain link to provide a more finished appearance. The applicant has responded to that request um and stated that uh that the black wire because they're proposing white privacy slats, the black wire might uh it would possibly look more attractive to actually be the the galvanized gray um with the white. That's up to the planning commission to decide on that one. Um, in terms of placement, it complies. No protective uh for the requirement. No protective or security fence shall be built closer to the street than the established front building line. And the proposed fence location, which is behind the building, complies with that. Um, and again, the planning commission at its discretion may permit alternative fence placements, heights, or materials, keeping in the spirit of this ordinance. So, as proposed, the fence will remain set back at the rear building line. It's not anticipated that the additional 2 feet

in height will be visible um difference from the public right away. The applicant,

my name is Lee Luette. I'm representing Great Lakes Fence Company and uh ERS, the property owner there. Um, I noticed it it was mentioned uh, you know, possibly using black vinylcoated chain link. Um, the posts and the framework of the fence wouldn't be able to be seen from the outside of the enclosure with the privacy slats. Um, and as for the 8 foot high, I think they, you know, they do emergency response first, uh, responder training in this building,

and they have some vehicles I think they may be keeping in the truck wall there. Um, and it's the 8ft high is just to kind of shroud that so people don't see it. The So, is this um is it this building right here? Yeah, it's the truck well at the top left. Yeah, that area. No, down right there. Right there. Yeah, it's a truck well. That's the truck well there that they want to enclose. It'll just be sort of a L-shaped fence and gate. So

that's at the back of that Yeah, that's the roadway there. It's not going to extend out that far. It'll be just slightly uh away, you know, from the building line, but but really that's more of a back alley, right? Yeah. The main road is to the right. Main road. Pilot Drive. Pilot Drive is straight up the road. So it's not vis won't be visible from the main road. No. Yeah. What's your pleasure? What questions would you have? Are we ready for a motion? Yep.

One one question is the the planning recommendation is with the the black powder coat. Is there alignment and agreement to do that by the building owner, the applicant?

Um, I don't think they, you know, they'd ever really thought about it. Um, it it it isn't seen from the street at all. only from the back drive. Uh the the one thing that I think would look kind of odd is if it was black chain link wire and there's white slats going through it, it it really wouldn't look uh consistent. It might look kind of odd. I don't think the chain link fabric would even be noticeable um with the white slats in there. Finers, do you have a any recommendation for us on that? Would you be okay with the steel given the white slats?

Yes. Yeah. Okay. Are we ready for a motion? I'm ready. Okay. Okay. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the um 14903 pilot drive fence addition um for 8 ft high and that we recognize that the applicants recommendation for galvanized steel um be accepted as opposed to the black coated chain link. Second

moved by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Pop uh to um approve the application for 2575 subject to set conditions. All in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. Motion carries. Okay, good luck. Thank you everybody. Application 2577, the 15,000 Ridge Road tenative and final site plan. And we have the planner report.

Thank you, Chair Solowski. Uh the applicant is seeking tenative and final site plan approval for an additional 5 acres of outdoor storage. You saw the special land use for this uh expansion in August of 2025, which was approved. The site's located southeast of Ridge Road and Five Mile Road intersection and has an existing industrial building and outdoor storage area. The existing outdoor storage area is 10 acres and was approved in 2023. As part of this, the special land use approval. The planning commission requested an administrative review was required to determine whether two heritage trees, trees 574 and 577 could be preserved in this 5 acres uh outdoor site. McKenna and Spalding detector met with the applicant to explore alternatives. It was discovered that relocating the storage area proved impractical due to significant gray changes to the south and the type of materials being stored made pro the protective barriers for the trees really unworkable. It was determined that the trees could not be preserved without compromising the function of the site. However, the applicant does so the applicant is proposing to remove a total of 14 trees including the two heritage trees. And based on the required replacement calculations, that's 58.5 in of new tree plantings are required. The applicant's going to be exceeding that by providing 66 in of replacement trees. So, the proposed outdoor storage area does meet the township's use standards and site development requirements for outdoor storage. No combustible materials will be stored and the area will be exclusively uh used for DTE gas equipment. The applicant is proposing a 6ft burm along the south edge which is consistent with the existing 10acre storage area

and the site doesn't require a planting strip uh because it does not face a public street. Uh however, the applicant is voluntary adding a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees along the BM which also meets the 66 in of replacement trees and stored materials will not exceed 8 ft in height and a compliant access roadway will provide emergency vehicle access to the rear of the site. Uh so given that the proposal meets this township standards and the applicant has addressed natural resource requirements, uh tenative and final site plan approval is recommended subject to the planning commission's acceptance of the proposed heritage tree removals and final engineering approval from Spalding Deductor. That's my report and the applicant is here and I'm happy to take questions as well.

Engineering report. Good evening. Can you hear me? Okay. More louder. No. Go.

Uh good evening. Uh we have received the site to metal for the outdoor storage uh prepared by web engineering. Uh this is going to be a proposed expansion uh from the 10 acre outdoor storage that is already existing. This is brought to us as a temporary condition for a tempor for a contract with DTE and they're providing a storm water uh will be cheap flow to a temporary proposed retention basin with overflow into the surface uh existing wetlands. Uh or the following are are observations and main comments based on the proposed site plan. Uh the tonra fire marshall might request a hydrant to access this side that um to access this to access the site that is closer than the existing hydrant that is located approximately 100 ft west of the site. Um the township fire marshall might also request a traffic circulation plan to show uh emergency vehicles access to the site. Um, regarding that the site is meant to be temporarily, we are recommending that the developer discuss a timeline with the township. Uh, so um the township shall be comfortable with that timeline um as it is to be intended to be replaced with a permanent building um as well as a permanent storm water management system. Uh the proposed site uh per engineer the site soils are very favorable for infiltration and the area will function as a bio retention basin as allowed by Wayne County. Uh review and approval will be required from them to confirm that no additional detention capacity as storm water pre-treatment will be required on site. Um at this time we didn't receive any calculations. Uh so we are not able to determine if

this the system was sized properly for the development and this has potential to impact the footprint of the uh basin. Uh geotechnical report shall be provided to indicate the existing soils will be able to infiltrate at the needed rate. Um and then we'll also request that additional soil control measures uh we provided between the proposed gravel lot storage and the retention basin. Um based on the comment listed on our report uh we're recommending approval of the final site uh with the condition that all the comments are addressed to the satisfaction of the planning commission and contingent on Wayne County's approval. Um thank you.

Thank you. And the applicant is here. Yes. Hey, good evening. Hi.

Says we are proposing to uh extend the existing 10acre storage lot with an additional 5 acres. So then uh Chalkaw is currently in the building and they would have a contract with DTE for this additional 5 acres throughout you know through their their lease period and that is why we're calling it temporary condition. And as mentioned, you know, there is where this uh storage lot is, you know, it is in an area where, you know, the there is potential for future development. You know, the developer does own the entire 105 acres of property and they are looking to, you know, develop in the future within, you know, pass on the east side of this 5 acre storage lot. Are there questions?

Not so much a question, but you know, we have permanent residents here that are trees that are going to give up their lives to store temporary pipes and meters from DTE and it's disappointing. Okay, I do recognize the developer owns the land and they will probably develop it anyway, which is unfortunate. So, I'd love to know where these new diameter breath height trees are going to be located so we don't go through this exercise of killing trees all over again because we took our time as a committee, rightfully so. Look at the topographical maps, right, and just rotating what was supposed to be done in parallel to the the 10 acres with the five perpendicular. The terrain was no more challenging than what was proposed. So, I will say I'm disappointed, right? that that permanent residents are going to give up their life to store pipes temporarily. That's just very disappointing.

Any other comments? I uh needed to look something up. The last time I looked it up, the taxes weren't paid on this property. Do you know if the summer taxes have been paid? Uh, I do not know. I I don't know. I'm Can you Can you check that out tomorrow? Yep. You mean the the guy that owns taxes acres isn't paying or the on the uh the BC bars ocean? I thought we could never bring that up.

Well, I just did. Okay. Well, then you've opened that door. Okay. Yeah. Okay. You've opened that door.

Hi. Uh I'm representing the developer and if we have not paid the taxes, we will make sure that we definitely get that. It's not a problem. Okay. They should have they should have been paid. Um and if they haven't been, um we will make sure they get paid as as soon as possible.

Okay. Any other comments? Okay. So, what's your pleasure? I propose that the planning commission grant tenative and final site plan approval for the proposed outdoor storage area at 15,000 Ridge Road with the condition that all engineer items are addressed and approved by Spalding Decker prior to the final stamp. Second move by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Pop to grant tentative and uh final site plan approval to 2577 sub conditions. All in favor signify by saying I.

I opposed motion. I'm opposed. Nope. Okay. Opposition from commissioner, but the motion passes. Okay. From two nos, right? Were you? It was a yes. Oh, did anybody else say just one? No. Just go go. Okay. Yeah. All right. All right. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. Application 2493, the conditional reasoning expansion. Let's see. So, go ahead.

Thank you. the um property at 4700 Ann Arbor Road, the um former Applied Fitness Solutions two-story building that is the subject of a conditional resoning um is requesting a third extension um for up to 90 days. They previously requested a six-month extension um uh I'm sorry, a two-month extension and then a um three-month um extension. So, in total, this would still be less than a year um that they're requesting, which is um in keeping with other applications that the township has considered. So, at this time, we would recommend um a motion to extend um up to 90 days to expire on February 17th, and that would allow the applicant to um finalize their proceedings in the Wayne County Circuit Court.

And I see the applicant is here. Did you have something to say? Wait, Laura, did you say six months or three months? What did you say? So, three three months. Okay. to February 17th. 17th. Okay. Hi everybody. How are you? It's good to see everybody again.

Um, you know, one, we're excited to be, you know, continue to do business in Plymouth Township. Obviously, I want to talk about this application and obviously have another application uh currently in front of the community. Um, I'll give you a little bit of the history while we're still while we're still here if that's okay. And then Rick Sable, who's here with me today as well, um he can get into a little bit more of the legal nuances. The second time we had a public hearing on this application, what got brought up, um we tabled it was for to to achieve two things. Number one is to do a traffic study, which we've completed, and Laura, I don't know if you can speak about the traffic study, but the traffic study was completed to check different points on Ann Arbor Road, and that was completed. The second part was there was a lot of people in the audience who had their own special interest. They had their own special interest in my personal opinion of they didn't want to see another car wash in this community and they brought up the fact that there was interested parties potentially in this project and I think that's one of the reasons we tabled it and the feedback that we got from the planning commission was hey go to Wayne County Circuit Court and get rid of this judgment on the property and we've been working on that. We went to Wayne County Circuit Court and Rick, you want to talk about the interested parties for a second if you don't mind?

Yes.

If you recall at one of the meetings back in uh I think it was April, it's the issue came up is that there might have been interested parties. when you read this 1980 uh judgment that was entered into but we did title work and basically what happens is uh Elwash is the successor and interest all those properties and we sat down with the township attorney uh and was staff uh from the township back in late May and went through that. Uh then what happened is once we got past that point, uh we went to Wayne County Circuit Court and because it was a 1980 judgment, it was out of the whole system. You couldn't even find the case number on it or anything. And so we had to turn around and get the court administration to turn around and pull it out of the files and put it into their eiling system. That took all the way through the summer to be able to do. When we showed up here, I think it was I think it was September when we showed up over here. And at that point in time, we had the case that was pulled out. We had a judge that was assigned to it. We turned around and scheduled a motion. We couldn't schedule the motion until it got assigned to a particular judge. We scheduled that motion. Then albeit just before the motion hearing was scheduled is the motion was pulled off the docket, the judges the judge that was assigned to the case turn around and says, "Well, I can't handle this case. We got to reassign it." So then we were told, "Okay, you got to wait. The the the motion is off of the docket. We have to wait until a new judge gets assigned." As I stand here today, even though that was more than 30 days ago, we still don't have a new judge. So, we're waiting and I'm figured when we ask for the 90 days that maybe somehow

in the next few weeks, we'll get a new judge assigned and then we'll be able to schedule that motion, have that hearing, and whatever happens with the judgment happens with the judgment. And that's why I wanted to emphasize here what we're just looking for is is we got to resolve that. The township attorney had mentioned that at the meeting saying you can't proceed until we resolve that that issue with the 1980 judgment in place. So we're not asking you today to go make a recommendation to the city council for the conditional resoning request. That's not before you. It's not before the city council right now. what's before you saying give us time in order that we can try to resolve this and then at least have a fair and full public hearing with our application and whatever is done is done at that time. So, we may end up having to come back if if I don't get that assignment, but that's the reason we'd be coming back. And I think you mentioned at the last meeting, we know how it's slow it can be in Wayne County Circuit Court and we might need multiple extensions.

So, yeah, go ahead. But I want to I want to emphasize one thing.

The one thing that was brought up multiple times that there's there's interested parties that have an opinion of what can happen with this property. The only group that has an opinion of what happens in this party is us and Plymouth Township. Those interested parties that was brought up was just not true. It was not factual information that was presented to this planning commission. And I'm happy to provide the title work and all that backup information. So, right now, the only parties that would appear in in the court system itself would be us and Plymouth Township. and hopefully Plymouth Township doesn't oppose lifting this judgment so we can come back to the planning commission and try to present a and present a conditional resoning plan. So I just want to be clear about the nuances of what's taking place and the information you had previously heard from people in the audience was not was not accurate. So I just I want to make sure I made that made that point today.

And I guess I can just follow up. Is there any Yeah, go ahead.

Emphasize that a little bit. What happened is when that judgment was drafted, it said here are the other interested parties and in the paragraph it said they're interested because they have a interest in the property. There were multiple owners in this whole parcel at that point in time. So when the title work came through and it says the successors in interest, it's all these people have sold off their interest and ultimately the sole owner of the property and we went through that with the township attorney and the staff, you know, when we met back in in May. So, we were past that point. And if somebody were to appear before Wayne County Circuit Court, which they haven't, and and we've notified people, it's they can make their argument, but, you know, nobody's even done anything, you know, there from that standpoint.

So, yeah. So, there was so hopefully that because that interested party came up quite a bit in our two hearings and there's people in the audience saying we're an interested party. We provided all the appropriate notices to all the different parties that said they could be interested and they didn't show up for one reason because they're not interested parties. The only interested parties is Plymouth Township and uses as the property owner. So, I just I really want to clarify that because I know that's been brought up many times to you guys. I think we should set all this the legal stuff aside because it's complex and there's more to it than um and our attorney isn't here to discuss.

But the question before us is should we give them an extension? And I'm I'm fine with giving them an extension. They they deserve to have their day in court. And if the if it got yanked away from the judge for no fault of their own, that's you know, let's give them the extension. But there's it's there's some complexities to the legal arguments that are not, you know, we're not really at liberty to talk about it,

which is okay. So, if you set the disorder in the court aside, which is your point, which I think is valid, it brings us right back down to the fact that we have a whole neighborhood that doesn't want this to be there. And I'm hoping to hear between last spring when Mr. Schukman was in here and now, have any discussions taken place with those homeowners to see what it would take to appease them to potentially maybe get them to reverse their strong feelings were against this 8 months ago. We're we're here. What I'm saying is unless they prevail in court and get the uh judgment set aside, it it's

a move point matter. It's move. Okay. And I and I would make one point agreed and I would make one point that without this judgment set aside this property will sit like this for many years to come. So to even no matter what the development ends up being on this property that judgment needs to go away. So you so if the car wash does get denied, right? That's that's a possibility. You'll have your opportunity in court to make that case. You're trying to argue argue that to this commission and it's not the right place to argue it. It needs to be resolved. We can't resolve it here. Bob's point, yours, Dennis, and I agree with you. We can't resolve it. And it's it's they should have their day of court.

Yeah. All I want to make a point is in good faith, we sat here and approved another location northwest of the township which didn't have the same density, which made absolutely perfect sense, nor did it have neighbors that were against it, and it was unanimously supported. So, we've been very fair and very reasonable here. So, anybody else have a concern? Are you ready for a motion? Is 90 is 90 days sufficient? I don't My gut is no. No. What do you think is sufficient? Well, I'd rather I'd rather do 180 days if we can. Yeah.

Well, what's how many how many days has it been uh extended? I don't want to go over the typical year. That's my only concern. Was two eight months so far from when they were first in here. Yeah. So that's why you've picked 90 days for the because that would bring us to a year. Yes. But the ordinance doesn't specify for a reasonzoning application. So the the commission has flexibility in what you think is appropriate. We do have to you if you want to do 90 days. What's that? Or do you want I'm I'm talking to the commission. Longer because otherwise we'll be back in here doing this again. I think on the 91st day to be honest.

What do you recommend? 6 months. Mr. Shookman asked for 180 days and you know I I'll sweat off our brow if he needs extra 3 months from 3 to six. 3 months does seem I think it's reasonable to be 3 months over. No, I'm talking you know it was three months beyond the year. You know, that's my point, which still seems reasonable because it sounds to me as a very complex case and odd things going on with, you know, can't find the file and all that kind of stuff. December, right? December's,

right? Right. Right. So, yeah, do four or six. Just do six. Let's just do six. All right. And get it done. Okay, I'm okay with that. Okay. Okay. Is there a motion? Yes, I'll make a motion. But first, I want to say we are only voting on the extension. We're making no comment about any of the testimony here. That's beyond that's not our bailway. So, only talking about the extension. Right. Right. And if you do come before us again uh with a plan, it's a it's a whole first start in my opinion. Yep.

Okay. So, I move that we grant an additional extension of 180 days in order to account for the current status of the proceedings of Wayne County Circuit Court where they are waiting for a ruling on a motion to vacate the consent judgment. This would make the um motion to extend the planning commission application number 2493 for 180 days to expire on May 17th, 2026. second.

Okay. move to extend to until May 17th uh for application 2493 uh did I say uh well okay if we approve the extension until May 17th 2026 2026 26 All in favor signify by saying I opposed motion carries. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you guys. Thank you so much. That was a commission. Yeah. Okay. And then we have Plymouth Exchange.

Yes. This is another um extension request for the site plan. Um this is the um southeast corner of uh 5M and Napier. Um the applicant is still uh finalizing their approvals with Wayne County, so they cannot yet break ground. And with the um winter coming, a more realistic groundbreaking is going to be in the spring. So um their revised site plan was uh just approved uh last year, so they still have a whole another year available for an extension request. Um so we are um recommending that that be approved

that the extension be approved. Yeah. Right. Then any any discussion on that? Sorry. How long is that for again? 90 days or one one year. What one year is what is the Oh. Oh okay. Cuz this is the first Yeah. So we would be extending by one year. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Questions. Okay. Well, once you come up for so do you want to do you want to give us any additional detail?

Yeah, absolutely. Uh Cameron Cooper Jones Development. I think this is my third or fourth time in front of you all. Good to see you again. Uh I had zero intention of coming back before you. Uh our plan all along was go through the permitting process with Wayne County, Plymouth Township, and Eagle. Um unfortunately, and the goal was always to to go through that approvals, have permits in hand, break ground in early to mid fall. Unfortunately, the approval process has taken longer than anticipated. And so now we're we're kind of at the point now where um construction efficiency if we were start mass grading activities in December, January, February, March, about four months worth of mass grading on our on our um land site. And just honestly with construction pricing as well, it just doesn't make sense. And so I'm partly here to ask for a year extension because that's the only option that I have. The reality is that we are we have contracts in place. My team is ready to start as soon as uh the weather breaks in the spring. So call it April 1st. We will be ready to start onsite mass grading as well as the utility extensions that are required for our development.

Any questions from the commission? Do you have a plan for the building? Yeah, we have 715,000t building that was previously we went through the public hearing the site plan approval. So it's it's seven one single building 715,000 ft. Just need an extension for the to for this final for the start of construction. Okay. What would the industrial building be used for? Is there a known Yeah.

So great question. So this is a speculative building and so we would build it and then lease it up. And so we've have a little bit about I see some new faces here. Jones Development. We are industrial development firm based in Kansas City, 12 of us. We've done industrial projects in 39 states, essentially coast to coast. We've done over 125 deals with a FedEx, Amazon, DHL, you know, your class class A industrial tenant across the country. So, that's certainly an option based off past relationships. But

I think based off feedback I've received here previously, I think manufacturing is obviously we're in Detroit. It makes a ton of sense, but we are open to um whoever's going to lease that space, but it we will start construction on a speculative nature. But you do a lot of warehousing and distribution and Exactly. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Again, for those that may not know this, um, when they came back with their second proposal, they retained over 60% of the site is is going to remain in its natural state partly because some of its wetlands, but you know, yeah, I tried to details. I know it's getting late, but it's 190 acres.

Uh, we are going to leave about a hundred of it uh in its natural state. And so originally we had a three building site plan arrangement based off feedback we received from neighbors and feedback from planning commission. Uh we decided to just do one larger building and you moved that building east of its original We did. We put it right in the middle of the usable space. Yeah. Good. So this is a good this is a good Yeah. And we've approved it. Exactly. Just you're just asking for these things. Friendly. Are we ready for a motion? Yep. You want to make You want to make it? I can. Um, I

I I can do it. So, okay. Well, I can do it. Okay. Go. Uh, so, uh, this is, um, a motion to approve the one-year extension PC2493 or No, that's the wrong one. Yeah. No, that's it. 2549. Sorry. The first one on the list. 2549. Okay. Well, then I was reading from the wrong one. I I'll go ahead and do it. Go on. Um,

I move that we um grant an extension of the um site plan approval for PC number 2459 for a period of one year to expire on November 20th, 2026. Is there support for Okay. moved by Commissioner Boy, supported by Commissioner Callahan to approve the uh one-year extension for application 2549. All in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. Motion carries. Good luck to you. Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Uh down to miscellaneous business and communication master plan update.

Um just want to remind folks that we do have a study session um planned on December 3rd for the master plan. And um we also need to uh submit the 2026 calendar of planning commission meetings to the board of trustees. Um the only dates that we may want to consider not being the typical third Wednesday of the month would be of course December. So we'd be looking at December 9th. That's the second Wednesday. And then Thanksgiving is later next year as well. It's the 24th. Um, so the third week would still be the 18th or we could look at doing it the second week if you feel like this is too late in this.

Okay. I just I just pulled up November. So Thanksgiving is November 26th. Uh 24th. Oh, am I in the right here? You said we had a study session on uh Wednesday on the 3rd. Oh, 26. Yes. Sorry. 26. Yes. Are we having the board of trustees on on the second? Right. On the second. Yes. Oh, here it is. This is 26. Okay, I got it. November. Oh, okay. I I got the right year up now. So, Thanksgiving's on the 26th, but we would still meet on the 18th. Unless you would like to change it and move it a week earlier.

We did that. Put it on Veterans Day. Let's keep it. Yeah, let's just keep it the 18th. Yeah, sure. And then we still we would still meet uh as we usually do in December would be the second Wednesday which would be December the 8th. December what? Noth 9th. Yeah, it's the 9th. December. What? What? The nth. The 9th. That's not a 2026. That's a Wednesday. Yeah. So, we have three meetings in December. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Yes. We have a full regular meeting on the 10th. with two public hearings.

The 10th. The 10th. Our next month, our next month meeting. It's two. It's the second week because of the holiday. So, we have the second, the third, and the 10th. Yep. Okay. Yeah, I guess so. All right. No, there's a board of trust. you find a plan to do that master plan study on the third and regular PC on the 10th. Perfect. Okay. So, I think there's general agreement to that schedule.

We'll go with that schedule. We'll do um the full schedule and the submission deadlines and include it in the packet um for December. And if there are any other adjustments like the course, you can make those and then the schedule. Okay. It doesn't fall. I didn't look at Easter, but usually there's not a problem. Yeah, it's it's uh the 4th or something this year. So, okay. And anything with uh with the Jewish holiday that sometimes I think it's it's September sometime one year we had a problem about that. We we will check. Okay.

Yeah. Check that. Okay. And then we have the planners report, the monthly report. Anybody have a comment questions on that? um on the master plan. Um last meeting I had proposed a what I think we moved toward a kind of an introductory page for the planning for the master plan. I did receive comments from several commissioners. Uh I would ask that any of you that haven't commented that want to if you could get it to me in the next couple days. I will put together a second draft incorporating those comments. We can improve we can cover that in our December 3rd meeting. Okay.

All right. Sounds good. Any other commission comment comments? Okay. Can we adjourn at 9:29? Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn the November planning commission meeting at no at 9:29 p.m. I'll second it. Moved by Commissioner Boyd and supported by Commissioner Hikes to adjourn at 9:29. All in favor signify by saying I. I I opposed. Motion carries.