AGENDA A APPROVAL OF AGENDA B APPROVAL OF MINUTES C PUBLIC HEARINGS / PUBLIC COMMENT D NEW BUSINESS

Transcription

1 CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF PLYMOUTH Planning Commission Scheduled Meeting Wednesday, April 18, :00 PM AGENDA Meeting called to order at p.m. ROLL CALL: Kendra Barberena Dennis Cebulski Jim Harb John Itsell Bob Doroshewitz Keith Postell Bill Pratt A APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1. Scheduled Meeting April 18, 2018 Moved by: Supported by: Action Taken: B APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Scheduled Meeting March 21, 2018 Moved by: Supported by: Action Taken: C PUBLIC HEARINGS / PUBLIC COMMENT N/A D NEW BUSINESS N/A 1

2 CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF PLYMOUTH Planning Commission Scheduled Meeting Wednesday, April 18, :00 PM E OLD BUSINESS 1. P.C. No: Applicant / Developer: Trowbridge Land Holdings Project Name: The Ponds at Andover Location: South of Five Mile Road, East of Napier Road, North of N. Territorial Road and West of Ridge Road Tax I.D. No: R Zoning: R 1 S, Single Family Residential Action Request: Cluster Housing Option (CHO) Revised #3 Moved by: Supported by: Action Taken: 2. P.C. No: Applicant / Developer: Centennial Home Group, LLC Project Name: Verona Park Cluster Housing Option (CHO) Address / Location: North of Edinburgh Drive; West of Beck Road; South of N. Territorial Road; and East of Ridge Road Tax I.D. No: R Zoning: R 1 S, Single Family Residential Action Request: Cluster Housing Option (CHO) Revised #2 Moved by: Supported by: Action Taken: 3. P.C. No: Applicant / Developer: Nazir Jawich Project Name: Beck Road Hotel Address / Location: Beck Road Tax I.D. No: R ; R Zoning: IND, Industrial (with PUD Option) Action Request: Tentative Site Plan Revised #3 Moved by: Supported by: Action Taken: 2

3 CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF PLYMOUTH Planning Commission Scheduled Meeting Wednesday, April 18, :00 PM F OTHER PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Site Plan Extension Request for PC # : EZ Storage 2. Joint Plymouth Community Parks and Recreation Master Plan Draft Review G COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR INFORMATION 1. Verbal Update on Planning / Zoning Projects H BOARD OF TRUSTEES ACTION 1. The Board of Trustees approved Resolution # , which approved Text Amendment 014 to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 23: Planned Unit Development (PUD) at their meeting on April 10, 2018, as recommended by the Planning Commission. MOTION TO ADJOURN Moved by: Supported by: Action Taken: 3

4 CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF PLYMOUTH Planning Commission - Scheduled Meeting Wednesday, March 21, :00 PM PROPOSED Regular Meeting Minutes Chairman Cebulski called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kendra Barberena Dennis Cebulski Jim Harb John Itsell Bill Pratt MEMBERS EXCUSED: Robert Doroshewitz Keith Postell OTHERS PRESENT: Laura Haw, AICP, Planning Consultant, McKenna David Richmond, PE, Spalding DeDecker Associates Alice Geletzke, Recording Secretary A APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1. Scheduled Meeting March 21, 2018 Moved by Commissioner Pratt and supported by Commissioner Barberena to approve the agenda for the scheduled meeting of March 21, 2018 as submitted. Ayes all. B APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Scheduled Meeting February 21, 2018 Moved by Commissioner Pratt and supported by Commissioner Barberena to approve the minutes for the scheduled meeting of February 21, 2018 as submitted. Ayes all. C PUBLIC HEARING(S) 1. P.C. No: Applicant / Developer: Centennial Home Group, LLC Project Name: Verona Park Cluster Housing Option (CHO) Address / Location: North of Edinburgh Dr.; West of Beck Rd.; South of N. Territorial Rd.; and East of Ridge Rd. Tax I.D. No: R Zoning: R-1-S, Single Family Residential Action Request: Cluster Housing Option (CHO) Review Mrs. Haw reviewed the process for the cluster housing option, beginning tonight with review of the option, holding the public hearing, then making recommendation to the Board of Trustees. She noted the project was known as Edinburgh Estates during the rezoning process. She then reviewed the outstanding items in her report dated March 16, The report recommended proceeding with the public hearing, considering any comments, and 1

5 CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF PLYMOUTH Planning Commission - Scheduled Meeting Wednesday, March 21, :00 PM providing feedback and direction to the applicant on the outstanding items listed in the report. Also recommended was postponement to allow the applicant time to resubmit a revised site plan due to the potential to adjust for a reduction in units. Mr. Richmond of Spalding DeDecker reviewed his engineering report dated March 9, 2018 which recommended approval. The Fire Department found no deficiencies, as noted in their report. Mr. Jack Carnahan of Centennial Home Group, LLC, addressed the Commission and answered questions regarding their plans for Verona Park. He discussed with Commissioners the outstanding items listed in Ms. Haw s report such as the tree survey and landscape recommendations, exclusion of residential units, providing additional amenities on the site, sidewalks, reduction in side and rear property setbacks, architectural recommendations, front porches, and the extension of the proposed berm on the north property line. Chairman Cebulski opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Robert Harris, president of the Heather Hills Homeowners Association, noted they are not as directly affected because the entrance will be from Beck Road. He also said that the applicant has been keeping in contact with the homeowners. He relayed the comments he received in reply to the information forwarded to his association which included comments on the size of the units and the lack of need for porches. Fred Portelli of Heather Hills expressed concerns about shielding on the north side and west sides of the property, which have been addressed. There being no further comments, Chairman Cebulski closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. The Commission discussed further with Mr. Carnahan the need for eliminating at least one of the units and the need for additional amenities, perhaps a walking path. They also discussed the proposed setbacks, agreeing with the 25-ft. front yard setback, with the side yards increasing with the elimination of one unit. It was the consensus to postpone this application, allowing time for a revised plan. Moved by Commissioner Pratt and seconded by Commissioner Barberena to postpone Application , Cluster Housing Option review, for Verona Park, for up to 90 days (June 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting). Ayes all. D NEW BUSINESS - N/A E OLD BUSINESS 1. P.C. No: Applicant / Developer: Project Name: Address / Location: Tax I.D. No: Zoning: Nazir Jawich Beck Road Hotel Beck Road R ; R IND, Industrial (with PUD Option) 2

6 CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF PLYMOUTH Planning Commission - Scheduled Meeting Wednesday, March 21, :00 PM Mrs. Haw reviewed her report dated March 16, 2018 which recommended further postponement for the applicant to address outstanding items and to submit a revised site plan, acknowledging that significant headway has been made. With Mr. Jawich out of state, Mrs. Haw represented him. She noted two meetings have been held and informed consensus has been reached about proceeding. She discussed with Commissioners a proposed patio space, handicapped parking spaces, the lack of space in the loading zone area, clarification at the entry drive, and agreements with Home Depot. Mr. Richmond commented on the progress made in the engineering area, with additional items yet to be completed. Moved by Commissioner Pratt and supported by Commissioner Barberena to postpone Application , Beck Road Hotel, for up to six months (September 19, 2018 Planning Commission meeting). Ayes all. 2. P.C. No: Applicant / Developer: Project Name: Action Request: Plymouth Township Article 23: PUD Ordinance Amendments Recommendation to the Board of Trustees Mrs. Haw noted that the ordinance is to go before the Board of Trustees at their meeting of March 27, Attorney Bennett has made minor formatting and language changes. The most substantial change is standardizing the contract and extension periods to one year. Moved by Commissioner Pratt and seconded by Commissioner Barberena that the Planning Commission recommend the Article 23: PUD Ordinance Amendments to the Board of Trustees as represented this evening. Ayes all. F OTHER PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS N/A G COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR INFORMATION 1. Verbal Update on Planning Projects Mrs. Haw updated Commissioners on planning projects, including changes made to the annual report, questions from the Greek Orthodox Church on Five Mile Road about the possibility of installing a pole barn-type building to house their festival equipment, and plans for the Phoenix Yard site in conjunction with Wayne County s sale of the property. H BOARD OF TRUSTEES ACTION N/A 3

7 CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF PLYMOUTH Planning Commission - Scheduled Meeting Wednesday, March 21, :00 PM MOTION TO ADJOURN Moved by Commissioner Pratt and supported by Commissioner Barberena to adjourn the meeting at 8:52 p.m. Ayes all. Respectfully submitted, Kendra Barberena, Secretary Charter Township of Plymouth Planning Commission The Charter Township of Plymouth will provide necessary reasonable auxiliary aids and services, such as signers for the hearing impaired and audio tapes of printed materials being considered at the meeting, to individuals with disabilities at the meeting/hearing upon two weeks notice to the Charter Township of Plymouth. Individuals with disabilities requiring auxiliary aids or services should contact the Charter Township of Plymouth by writing or calling the Supervisor s Office, Charter Township of Plymouth, 9955 N. Haggerty Road, Plymouth, MI 48170, (734) , TDD users: (Michigan Relay Service). 4

8 SITE ± PLANNING COMMISSION CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF PLYMOUTH Application: ApplicationType: Applicant: Tax I.D: Option Review The Ponds at Andover R

9 April 12, 2018 Planning Commission Charter Township of Plymouth 9955 N. Haggerty Road Plymouth, MI RE: Project: The Ponds at Andover Cluster Housing Option Address: South of Five Mile Road; East of Napier Road; North of N. Territorial Road; and West of Ridge Road Tax ID No.(s): R Applicant: Trowbridge Land Holdings (Bruce Michael) Review: Cluster Housing Option (CHO) Revised Review No.: Written Review #3 Dear Commission Members, We have reviewed the revised Cluster Housing Option (CHO) application to construct a residential subdivision with seven, detached, single-family units on approximately 10.9 acres of land. The Project Narrative notes that the intended residential units will be typically sized between 2,500 SF for two-story units, and 2,000 SF for first floor master suites / ranch style units. The review process for a Cluster Housing Option begins with a public hearing and Option review by the Planning Commission and Board of Trustees. Approval of the Option will permit the developer 18 months to receive final site plan or final site condominium approval and submit a contract for approval to the Township Board. We have reviewed the above request with the Township s Zoning Ordinance, Master Plan, existing site conditions, and sound planning and design principles in an effort to provide constructive and helpful feedback for the development of this site. We offer the following comments for your consideration: REVIEW Article 22 of the Township Zoning Ordinance provides provisions for a CHO as an optional method of development, upon finding that the CHO reflects five eligibility principles: 1. Conformity with the spirit and intent of the CHO Ordinance. Standard: The Purpose Section of Article 22 aims to permit optional methods of development and arrangement of single family structures, which provide for design alternatives compatible with existing and future adjacent single family subdivisions.

10 The applicant s stated goals for the proposed development includes the ability to preserve natural features on the property, that is maintaining portions of the site as natural and wooded. Alternatively, if the property was split and developed as separate lots, due to the site s configuration, it is likely that significant vegetation would be removed. The Vegetation Inventory (provided on Sheet L-3) generally locates and describes the various existing vegetated groupings. As shown, lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 will require some tree removal, while lots 1, 2, and 7 maximize the existing open space. To accommodate the development, it is recommended that a note be added to a revised Option Plan which states that replacement trees will be determined and provided at the time of site plan review (or payment in lieu should the site not support additional vegetation). Outstanding Item(s) A note regarding tree replacement should be added to the Option Plan that states: Replacement trees will be determined and provided at the time of site plan review (or payment in lieu, if applicable). 2. Vehicular Circulation. Standard: The vehicular circulation system planned for the proposed development will be in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare in regards to the overall circulation of the community, egress/ingress to the site, vehicular turning movements, site distance and potential hazards to the normal flow of traffic. To access the seven units, a short, cul-de-sac street is proposed, which is aligned with Andover Drive to the south. The only access point to the site is located off Beck Road. Best practices in transportation planning and road design dictate that through streets are much more desirable in terms of neighborhood connectivity and public safety, as opposed to a cul-de-sac street. However, the proposed street cannot connect to the north due to the existing waterbody so this is a rare case where a cul-de-sac street is appropriate. 3. Design Compatibility. Standard: The proposed units, circulation, layout, parking and open space or recreation activity areas are designed and located in a manner that ensures the stability of existing or future conventional single family residential properties in the area. Open Space / Amenity Comments The Option Plan includes two dedicated open spaces: one is utilized for stormwater and the second includes a common, looped walking trail that will connect to the proposed sidewalk along N. Territorial and the internal cul-de-sac sidewalk and run within the planned park, wooded space and Plymouth Township CHO Review #3: The Ponds at Andover 2 April 12, 2018

11 water bodies. Additionally, landscaping is planned along the eastern property line to aid in buffering the rear of lots 2 and 3. In general, the proposed pedestrian loop will be a nice feature to the development. However, we find there is adequate space to enhance the pedestrian connection with additional features, ex: seating, art, or other passive amenities which residents can enjoy and utilize. Future residents of the Plymouth Township community expect such amenities and these should be represented, at least in concept or as a notation, on the plan prior to Option approval. Additionally, the sidewalk along N. Territorial should be relocated to the northern boundary of the ROW. Pulling the sidewalk away from N. Territorial will increase safety for those using it. It is also recommended that the proposed sidewalk loop behind lots 4-6 be pulled inwards to give greater separation between the sidewalk and the existing wetland. Dimensional Comments The Option Plan has been revised to reduce the total number of residential units by one ---- currently, seven residential units are proposed. The applicant is requesting a reduced setback for the front and rear building envelope setbacks. A reduced rear setback of 35-feet is requested (50-foot required). The Planning Commission may reduce this requirement should substantial justification be provided. The applicant should be prepared to discuss the reduced setback requests and offer justification. Additionally, the front yard unit building envelopes are proposed with a 25-foot setback. The Planning Commission may permit this reduction (a 42-feet setback is required), provided there is justification found, due in part to drives whose primary purpose is to serve as access for only a few units. We are supportive of the reduced setback in this instance, especially as the applicant has noted in the Project Narrative that the following Architectural Standards will control, which will ultimately convey a stronger sense of community and neighborhood: a. Large, usable front porches with recessed garages; b. Street trees along the cul-de-sac; c. Variation between adjoining units requires a signification alternation of massing and composition, not only exterior colors and materials; d. Front façade of the unit and the front yard shall be the most lavishly designed and decorate parts of the unit; e. All exterior facades shall avoid long, monotonous, uninterrupted walls or roof planes, and shall have offsets provided at appropriate levels; and f. Corner homes shall be designed so both exposed facades enhance the street and are considered front facades. Plymouth Township CHO Review #3: The Ponds at Andover 3 April 12, 2018

12 Outstanding Item(s) Greater consideration should be given to providing amenities within the proposed open space, and so noted/described on a revised Option Plan. The sidewalk along N. Territorial be relocated to the northern boundary of the ROW, per engineering design standards. The proposed sidewalk loop behind lots 4-6 should be pulled inwards to give greater separation between the sidewalk and the existing wetland. Planning Commission determination and approval is required for the requested reduction in rear and front yard setbacks. 4. Nuisance to Potential Existing Uses. Standard: Proposed landscape plantings, fences, walls and/or open space areas are appropriate and of sufficient size, height and quantity to insure that the proposed development will not be objectionable to nearby existing or future conventional single family residential properties by reason of noise, fumes or flash of lights from automobiles, or exterior lighting; nor will it interfere with an adequate supply of light and air, increase the danger of fire or otherwise endanger the public safety. We do not anticipate any harmful effects to existing adjacent properties, especially as the development will be generally buffered from neighboring uses by the ponds that surround it and the planned landscaping. The proposed design will not pose a safety hazard to existing or new residents. 5. Impact on Public Services. Standard: The proposed development will not adversely impact the capability of public services and facilities in the area or the Township as a whole. As this area is master planned for residential, the extension of public services and facilities is anticipated. However, a notation on Sheet 1 of the site plan states an approximate existing water s edge line and elevation for the existing water body. The date that this measure was determined should be provided for engineering and Planning Commission review. Please reference the engineering report for further information. Outstanding Item(s) The Option Plan must satisfy the Township Engineer s approval standards. A determination date and additional Information regarding the notation on Sheet 1 of the Option Plan (stating an approximate existing water s edge line and elevation for the existing water body) should be provided for engineering and Planning Commission review. Plymouth Township CHO Review #3: The Ponds at Andover 4 April 12, 2018

13 RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings above, and provided a resolution is determined for the above outstanding items, it is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Ponds at Andover Cluster Housing Option to the Board of Trustees for consideration, contingent on the following conditions to be addressed on a revised Option Plan: 1. A note regarding tree replacement be added to the Option Plan that states: Replacement trees will be determined and provided at the time of site plan review (or payment in lieu, if applicable). 2. Greater consideration be given to providing amenities within the proposed open space, and so noted on a revised Option Plan. 3. The sidewalk along N. Territorial be relocated to the northern boundary of the ROW, per engineering design standards. 4. The proposed sidewalk loop behind lots 4-6 be pulled inwards to give greater separation between the sidewalk and the existing wetland. 5. The Option Plan shall satisfy the Township Engineer s approval standards. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you! Respectfully submitted, McKENNA Laura E. Haw, AICP Principal Planner Planning Director, Plymouth Township Plymouth Township CHO Review #3: The Ponds at Andover 5 April 12, 2018

14 April 11, 2018 The Planning Commission Plymouth Charter Township 9955 North Haggerty Road Plymouth, Michigan Re: The Ponds of Andover (Formerly Lakes of Andover) Cluster Housing Option Application No SDA Review No. PL Dear Commission Members: We have reviewed the revision #2 of the Cluster Housing Option for the referenced project prepared by Powell Engineering & Associates, LLC dated March 20, 2018, and received by our office April 10, We have the following comments: A. General The site is located on the north side of North Territorial Road between Ridge Road and Napier Road. The site currently contains an existing 2,157 square-foot residential house (50700 N. Territorial Road) built in The revised proposed cluster housing option includes a total of 7 lots fronting to the proposed street. B. Water Main The township records show that there is an existing 12 diameter water main located on the south side of North Territorial Road. A minimum 8 diameter water line will need to be extended across North Territorial Road to serve the site. This is shown on the revised plan. C. Sanitary Sewer There is an existing 12 diameter sanitary sewer located on the south side of North Territorial Road from the west side of Andover Drive then going east along North Territorial Road. The proposed project shows extending the sewer across North Territorial Road to serve the site. D. Storm Drainage The subject site generally slopes from south to north towards the rear and drains onto the adjacent existing floodplain and wetland areas. The plans show a stormwater detention basin at the rear of the site. However, other than the storm pipe that appears to pick up the proposed street right-of-way drainage, no rear yard storm pipes have been shown at this time. Based on the current layout, it is believed the stormwater will outlet into the proposed detention basin which appears to be located within or very close to the

15

16

17

18 SITE ± PLANNING COMMISSION CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF PLYMOUTH Application: ApplicationType: Applicant: Tax I.D: Cluster Housing Option Review Verona Park R

19 April 12, 2018 Planning Commission Charter Township of Plymouth 9955 N. Haggerty Road Plymouth, MI RE: Project: Verona Park Cluster Housing Option Address: North of Edinburgh Drive; West of Beck Road; South of N. Territorial; and East of Ridge Road Tax ID No.(s): R Applicant: Centennial Home Group, LLC. (Jack Carnahan) Review: Cluster Housing Option (CHO) Revised Review No.: Written Review #2 Dear Commission Members, We have reviewed the revised Cluster Housing Option (CHO) application to construct a residential subdivision with 14, detached, single-family units. The subject property, a ±five acre vacant and partially wooded site, is located at the northwest corner of Edinburgh Drive and Beck Road. The review process for a Cluster Housing Option begins with a public hearing and Option review by the Planning Commission and Board of Trustees. Approval of the Option will permit the developer 18 months to receive final site plan or final site condominium approval and submit a contract for approval to the Township Board. Please note that the subject property was approved for a rezoning to the R-1-S, Single Family Residential district in 2017, and was previously filed under the application name Edinburgh Estates. We have reviewed the above request with the Township s Zoning Ordinance, Master Plan, existing site conditions, and sound planning and design principles in an effort to provide constructive and helpful feedback for the development of this site. We offer the following comments for your consideration: REVIEW Article 22 of the Township Zoning Ordinance provides provisions for a CHO as an optional method of development, upon finding that the CHO reflects five eligibility principles: 1. Conformity with the spirit and intent of the CHO Ordinance. Standard: The Purpose Section of Article 22 aims to permit optional methods of development and

20 arrangement of single family structures, which provide for design alternatives compatible with existing and future adjacent single family subdivisions. The proposed single family residential development is an appropriate use of the CHO approach as the clustering of units will preserve natural features on the property, that is maintaining portions of the perimeter as natural, wooded areas, with varying topography. If the property were split and developed as separate lots, it appears that it may result in both an increase in overall impervious surfaces and in the number of trees removed, as opposed to being developed as a CHO. However, a legible tree survey or summary would help to shed light on the actual number of existing trees that would be removed versus saved. While a tree survey has not been provided to the Township at this point, the applicant s preliminary tree review indicates that approximately ±120 regulated trees would be removed as part of this project, although no vegetation would be impacted along the existing buffer to Edinburgh Drive (±480 feet of frontage buffering). Outstanding Item(s) A note regarding tree replacement should be added to the Option Plan that states: Replacement trees will be determined and provided at the time of site plan review (or payment in lieu, if applicable). Without a legible tree survey or additional summary on the amount of vegetation to be removed versus saved, it is difficult to ascertain the actual impact of this development. However, if replacement trees will be provided, and so noted, this item can be fully addressed during the site plan review process. 2. Vehicular Circulation. Standard: The vehicular circulation system planned for the proposed development will be in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare in regards to the overall circulation of the community, egress/ingress to the site, vehicular turning movements, site distance and potential hazards to the normal flow of traffic. To access the units, the Option Plan proposes to utilize a short, cul-de-sac street, Verona Court, which is aligned with Golfview Lane to the east. The only access point to the site is located off Beck Road. Best practices in transportation planning and road design dictate that through streets are much more desirable in terms of neighborhood connectivity and public safety, as opposed to a cul-de-sac street. In addition, it is optimal to reduce the number of curb cuts on a major thoroughfare. The proposed development does not reflect either of these two best practices. Plymouth Township CHO Review #2: Verona Park 2 April 12, 2018

21 3. Design Compatibility. Standard: The proposed units, circulation, layout, parking and open space or recreation activity areas are designed and located in a manner that ensures the stability of existing or future conventional single family residential properties in the area. Open Space / Amenity Comments The site plan includes a dedicated open space that is utilized for stormwater detention with an adjacent pergola structure and a 5- foot wide pathway, approximately 130-feet in length that dead ends. Two park benches are also proposed east of the pergola, within the grass, overlooking the detention basin. A decorative light post is planned for the island court, with two bollards to light the pathway at either end. Additionally, a masonry monument sign is planned for the front entrance. The proposed amenities are an improvement to the site but the proposed pathway is limiting in functionality and usability. The subdivision design appears isolated and would still benefit from a walking loop, which could run through the development (ex: between proposed units 8 and 9) and meander along Edinburgh Drive. Also, it is strongly recommended that a sidewalk be provided on at least one side of Verona Court. The site appears to have enough room to push units five feet to the south to accommodate such a sidewalk on one side of Verona Court. It is important to note that at the time of site plan approval, payment in lieu of sidewalks will be required where not provided on the site. An excerpt from "The Smart Growth Manual," by Duany, Speck, and Lydon; 2010 Further, the proposed seating amenities are planned to face and overlook the detention pond. There is an opportunity to beautify the detention pond with a 3- or 4-foot stacked stone treatment (similar to the treatment applied at The Ravines of Plymouth Township CHO Review #2: Verona Park 3 April 12, 2018

22 Plymouth). This treatment would also likely reduce the size of the dentation basin because of the gain in volume and allow more rear yard space (with to potentially nicer views) for units 1 and 2. Future residents of the Plymouth Township community expect such amenities and these should be represented, at least in concept or as a notation, on the plan prior to Option approval. Dimensional Comments The Option Plan has been revised to reduce the total number of residential units by one. Currently, 14 residential units are proposed, which results in slightly larger building to building setbacks (previously 10-feet, now ranges from 10 to 30-feet 1 ). Exact setback dimensions are not provided on Sheet LS-1 and should be presented to the Planning Commission for review. Once this information is provided, it is recommended that the Planning Commission discuss the merits of the plan and if the proposed Option Plan, with 14 units, can accomplish the five eligibility principles of the CHO. It is assumed that the applicant is still requesting a reduced setback (± 45 and 49-feet) for the rear building envelope setbacks. The Planning Commission may An excerpt from "The Smart Growth Manual," by Duany, Speck, and Lydon; 2010 reduce the requirement of a 50-feet perimeter setback should substantial justification for the reduction be found. The applicant previously stated the reduction is to preserve the woods. It is also assumed that the front yard building envelopes will remain setback at 25-feet. The Planning Commission may permit this reduction (a 42-feet setback is required), provided there is justification found, due in part to drives whose primary purpose is to serve as access for only a 1 These distances are approximate, based off the scale on Sheet LS-1. Plymouth Township CHO Review #2: Verona Park 4 April 12, 2018

23 few units. We are supportive of the reduced setback in this instance, provided the site is designed to accommodate traditional streets that convey a sense of community and neighborhood. A reduced front yard setback from 42 to 25-feet can result in a close-knit community, but only when the design of the units follows best practices in neighborhood design. The fronts of homes should have properly sized porches and other semipublic attachments that lend activity to the street. With a 25-foot front yard setback, we recommend the following elements are incorporated at the time of site plan review and so noted on the Option Plan: a. Usable front porches. b. Recessed garages. c. Architecture standards: Variation between adjoining units requires a signification alternation of massing and composition, not only exterior colors and materials. Front façade of the unit and the front yard shall be the most lavishly designed and decorate parts of the unit. All exterior facades shall avoid long, monotonous, uninterrupted walls or roof planes, and shall have offsets provided at appropriate levels. Corner homes shall be designed so both exposed facades enhance the street and are considered front facades. Outstanding Item(s) It is recommended that the Planning Commission discuss the merits of the plan and if the proposed Option Plan, with 14 units, can accomplish the five eligibility principles of the CHO. Greater consideration should be given to providing a sidewalk along at least one side of Verona Court, which then loops though the development. Planning Commission determination of the detention pond treatment and the rear yard space of units 1-2. Planning Commission determination and approval for the requested reduction in front and rear property setbacks. Addition of the architectural standard notes in 3.a-c above on the Option Plan. 4. Nuisance to Potential Existing Uses. Standard: Proposed landscape plantings, fences, walls and/or open space areas are appropriate and of sufficient size, height and quantity to insure that the proposed development will not be objectionable to nearby existing or future conventional single family residential properties by reason of noise, fumes or flash of lights from automobiles, or exterior lighting; nor will it interfere with an adequate supply of light and air, increase the danger of fire or otherwise endanger the public safety. Plymouth Township CHO Review #2: Verona Park 5 April 12, 2018

24 There is an opportunity for additional buffering along the north property line: the proposed berm should be extended along this area. Additional infill vegetation along all property lines will also soften the site and provide a greater natural buffer, especially for those living in the neighborhoods nearby. Outstanding Item(s) Cleaning of existing vegetation and the addition of new infill vegetation along all property lines, and so noted on the Option Plan. Extension of the proposed berm along the north property line, and so noted on the Option Plan. 5. Impact on Public Services. Standard: The proposed development will not adversely impact the capability of public services and facilities in the area or the Township as a whole. As this area is master planned for residential, the extension of public services and facilities is anticipated. Please reference the engineering report for further information. Outstanding Item(s) The Option Plan shall satisfy the Township Engineer s approval standards. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings above, we recommend the Planning Commission provide feedback and direction to the applicant on the outstanding items. Provided a resolution is determined for the outstanding items and will be addressed on a revised Option Plan, it is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Verona Park Cluster Housing Option to the Board of Trustees for consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you! Respectfully submitted, McKENNA Laura E. Haw, AICP Principal Planner Planning Director, Plymouth Township Plymouth Township CHO Review #2: Verona Park 6 April 12, 2018

25

26

27

28

29

30 SITE ± PLANNING COMMISSION CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF PLYMOUTH Application: ApplicationType: Applicant: Tax I.D: Tentative Site Plan Review Mr. Nazir Jawich R ; R

31 April 13, 2018 Planning Commission Charter Township of Plymouth 9955 N. Haggerty Road Plymouth, MI RE: Project: Beck Road Hotel Address: Beck Road Tax ID No.(s): R ; R Applicant: Nazir Jawich Review: Tentative Site Plan (PUD Option overlay) Review No.: Written Review #3 Revised site plan received April 11, 2018 Dear Commission Members, We have reviewed the above revised site plan application to construct two new buildings: a 100-unit, extended stay business hotel and drive-thru restaurant, which would augment the site s existing Ruby Tuesday s, sitdown restaurant. The subject property, a ±5.6 acre site, is located south of Five Mile Road, west of Beck Road and north of Clipper, and is zoned the IND, Industrial district with a Planned Unit Development Option overlay. The applicant is only submitting for tentative site plan consideration at this time. The following review of the site plan, received on April 11, 2018, is for tentative review only. A complete re-review of the final site plan will be required for this PUD. Prior to submitting the final site plan, it is strongly encouraged that the applicant meet with the Township to discuss all site requirements. We have reviewed the above request with the Township s Zoning Ordinance, Master Plan, existing site conditions, and sound planning and design principles in an effort to provide constructive and helpful feedback for the development of this site. We offer the following comments for your consideration: REVIEW Per Section 29.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the following principles shall be given consideration when evaluating a site plan: 1. Site Design and Use In June 2017, the Board of Trustees granted a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Option for the development of this site. PUD Option approval was granted with the following conditions: i. Combination of the two parcels; ii. Interior and perimeter landscaping, which substantially exceeds Zoning Ordinance standards, including but not limited to: the banked parking area, pedestrian walkways and spaces, outdoor seating areas, building perimeters, and internal corridors;

32 iii. iv. Enhanced building design for the hotel and drive-thru restaurant, including, but not limited to: a. An earth tone palette; b. Limestone (or a complementary material) trim accent and base treatment; c. Vertical and horizontal building articulation and additional features to provide relief in building mass; d. Recessed windows; and e. A great quantity of windows, and larger windows, on the ground floor; The creation of a more distinct entry drive to the hotel and drive-thru use; and v. All engineering requirements finalized. In April, the applicant filed for a land combination of parcels R and R and has not been approved at this point. Outstanding Item(s) Final site plan approval will be contingent on approval of this land combination. 2. Site Appearance and Coordination Established under a PUD Option, the site is intended to function as a cohesive, mixed-use development. The three different use buildings on the site should display consistency and continuity. While there is a central pedestrian connection that helps to tie the site together, not enough consideration or detail has been provided for the overall site. As a condition of tentative site plan approval, we recommend that a cohesive, mixed-use development is achieved through best practices in layout, landscaping, architecture, pedestrian amenities, etc. Outstanding Item(s) A cohesive, mixed-use development is achieved through best practices in layout, landscaping, architecture, pedestrian amenities, etc. and a condition of tentative site plan approval. 3. Preservation of Site Features One PUD Option consideration was the existing on-site vegetation, especially the vegetated area in the northwest section of the property. The preservation and enhancement of quality natural features and the health of the larger community are vested interests of the Township. Sheet SP-3 of the site plan package details the existing vegetation, its quantity and quality and what is to be removed versus saved. Approximate 82 quality trees will be removed as part of this Plymouth Township Beck Road Hotel Site Plan - #3 2 April 13, 2018

33 project with 13 trees being saved. Replacement trees or payment in lieu will be required as part of final site plan approval. Outstanding Item(s) Replacement trees (or payment in lieu, if applicat) must be provided as part of final site plan approval. 4. Impact upon Public Services The transition from a mostly vacant, vegetated lot into a hotel and drive-thru restaurant must be reviewed by the Township Engineer. Please reference the Engineer s report for additional information on public services and facilities. Outstanding Item(s) Tentative site plan approval is contingent on Engineering approval for this planning stage. 5. Vehicular Access and Circulation Existing access to Ruby Tuesday s is provided from a single access drive on Beck Road, which aligns with the McDonald s access drive to the east. It is not in the interest of the Township or Wayne County to create new curbs cuts at this location, due to traffic volumes and the number of existing Beck Road curb cuts. However, a secondary access point is required and has been provided through the existing boulevard to the north, in conjunction with Home Depot. Documentation of the unrestricted access of this boulevard must be provided for Township legal review. Previously, a reference to EFC (which lines the hotel building) was not detailed in the landscaping legend. This is now identified as Purpleleaf Wintercreeper, which is a nice evergreen groundcover. However, there should also be some vertical plantings in front of the hotel to break up and soften the façade. Outstanding Item(s) The shared access agreement / easement must be submitted to the Township for legal review (with associated fees) to ensure a secondary means of access is provided through the Home Depot boulevard as a condition of tentative site plan. As a condition of the PUD Option approval, the creation of a more distinct entry drive is required. This is partially achieved with the proposed landscaping: a line of deciduous trees which runs along half of the interior roadway. However, the hotel side of the roadway appears sparse. Greater attention to both sides of the roadway is recommended as a condition of tentative site plan. Plymouth Township Beck Road Hotel Site Plan - #3 3 April 13, 2018

34 6. Pedestrian Access and Circulation The applicant is proposing a sidewalk from the front entrance of the hotel to Beck Road, connecting the hotel with Ruby Tuesday s and the proposed drive-thru restaurant. A sidewalk currently runs along Beck Road. While there is still room for greater attention to the pedestrian treatment of the entire site, as this is a PUD, the applicant has provided some new amenities, such as a landscaped, outdoor patio (southwest corner of the hotel) which would augment the banquet facility and hotel use. Outstanding Item(s) Further consideration of the pedestrian treatment and amenities of the site be given, as a condition of tentative site plan approval. Dimensions of all pedestrian areas must be provided. 7. Emergency Access and Vulnerability to Hazards The Fire Department review is attached, stating no deficiencies were found. 8. Landscaping, Screening and Buffering A landscape plan is provided on sheets LP-1 and LP-2. As a condition of PUD Option approval, the landscaping plan must provide: Interior and perimeter landscaping, which substantially exceeds Zoning Ordinance standards, including but not limited to the banked parking area, pedestrian walkways and spaces, outdoor seating areas, building perimeters, and internal corridors. In general, the proposed landscape plan is well-designed. We hold any recommendations related to landscaping utill final site plan review. 9. Parking and Loading Section 24.5 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a total of 242 parking spaces for the following site uses: 100 unit hotel: 113 parking spaces 1,560 USF drive-thru restaurant: 26 parking spaces 6,166 USF existing, sit-down restaurant: 103 parking spaces Total Parking: 242 parking spaces A total of 285 parking spaces are proposed (excess of 43 parking spaces). With either the required (242) or proposed (285) parking spaces, seven spaces must be ADA and nine are provided. Plymouth Township Beck Road Hotel Site Plan - #3 4 April 13, 2018

35 The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum number of parking spaces, but does not provide a maximum. To reduce the amount of unnecessary impervious pavement, it is strongly recommended that the Planning Commission consider the impact of the additional 43 parking spaces and what benefit they offer to the development and community. In this discussion, special consideration should be given to the following: a) Hotel vacancy rates. The 2014 Michigan hotel occupancy rate was 58.9 percent (overall US in that year was 64.4 percent) 1 : for exploratory purposes and using the national average, with a 65 percent occupancy rate, an additional 35 parking spaces would not be utilized on any given day. b) Variations in peak demand. Based on the mix of uses, there will be likely be hotel guests who also utilize the restaurants, reducing the number of parking spaces needed. In addition, the hotel, fast-food restaurant, and sit-down restaurant will see variations in their peak demand hours. c) Environmental considerations. Reductions to impervious pavements offer many benefits, including enhanced air and water quality, reduced urban heat islands, and better stormwater management. d) Banked parking. A row of banked parking is proposed along the western edge of the site with room for approximately 30 parking spaces. Outstanding Item(s) All ADA parking spaces must be dimensioned on the site plan, some proposed spaces appear too large. Justification for the additional parking request of 45 spaces must be provided to the Planning Commission for evaluation. It is strongly recommended that the Planning Commission consider a reduction to the required minimum number of parking, 242 spaces. The width of the main access drive (from Beck Road to the rear of the site) should be reduced, 26 feet is unnecessarily wide for two-way, interior traffic. All other drive aisles should be a consistent width. 10. Building Design and Architecture As a condition of PUD Option approval, the building design and architecture must meet the following: Enhanced building design for both the hotel and drive-through restaurant, including, but not limited to: 1 Ann Arbor Business News: Can hotel demand in the Ann Arbor area keep pace with new developments? July 5, Plymouth Township Beck Road Hotel Site Plan - #3 5 April 13, 2018

36 i. An earth tone palette; ii. Limestone (or a complementary material) trim accent and base treatment; iii. Vertical and horizontal building articulation and additional features to provide relief in building mass; iv. Recessed windows; and v. A great quantity of windows, and larger windows, on the ground floor. Elevations for the hotel only are detailed on Sheet A-1. No elevations are provided for the drive-thru restaurant, dumpster enclosures or patio areas. As a PUD Option, consistency of the site is critical. Elevations of the hotel cannot be considered as a standalone product. Until all building elevations, including the existing restaurant, are provided, this site plan criteria cannot be fully evaluated. Outstanding Item(s) Building elevations for the proposed hotel, drive-thru restaurant, the existing restaurant, and all structures (ex: patio areas, dumpster enclosures, etc.) must be provided for Planning Commission review during the final site plan review phase. All building elevations must follow the PUD Option criteria of: Enhanced building design, including, but not limited to: i. An earth tone palette; ii. iii. iv. Limestone (or a complementary material) trim accent and base treatment; Vertical and horizontal building articulation and additional features to provide relief in building mass; Recessed windows; and v. A great quantity of windows, and larger windows, on the ground floor. The location of the menu board for the drive-thru restaurant should be detailed on the plan, for the final site plan review phase. 11. Exterior Lighting No lighting details are provided at this time; a note on SP-1 states that A photometric plan will be provided in the next submittal. Outstanding Item(s) A comprehensive lighting plan must be submitted for final site plan review, which includes decorative and pedestrian oriented lighting, consistent across the site. Plymouth Township Beck Road Hotel Site Plan - #3 6 April 13, 2018

37 12. Adequacy of Information and Compliance with Ordinance / Agency Requirements Wayne County review and approval will be required for stormwater management and road access onto Beck Road. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings above, and acknowledging that the applicant has made significant improvements with the tentative site plan, we recommend the Planning Commission grant tentative site plan approval for application , contingent on the outstanding items listed in this review letter as conditions of approval, and with a complete re-evaluation of the final site plan once building elevations and designs are secured to ensure consistency across the site. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you! Respectfully submitted, McKENNA Laura E. Haw, AICP Principal Planner Planning Director, Plymouth Township Plymouth Township Beck Road Hotel Site Plan - #3 7 April 13, 2018

38

39

40

41

42

43 MCKENNA MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Planning Commission, Plymouth Township Laura E. Haw, AICP, Principal Planner and Planning Director, Plymouth Township April 11, 2018 Subject: DRAFT Joint Plymouth Community Recreation Master Plan, Background The draft Joint Plymouth Community Recreation Master Plan is currently available for its mandatory 30-day public review and comment period. A copy of the draft plan can be downloaded from the Township's website at: detail T2 R137.php Please review the draft Master Plan and make note of any comments I suggestions I ideas. Comments can be made verbally or provided in writing at the April Planning Commission meeting and feedback will then be provided to the consultant for review. Please let me know if you have any questions and I look forward to discussing the draft plan with the Commission in April. Thank you! HEADQUARTERS 235 East Main Street Suite 105 Northville, Michigan F MCKA.COM Communities for real life.