Planning commission recommends approval of 180‑unit Viva Bene senior housing development with conditions

The Canton Township Planning Commission on a 7‑0 vote recommended approval of a preliminary planned development district for Viva Bene, a proposed independent‑living community of 180 age‑restricted units at the southwest corner of Ford Road and Gorman Road.

The recommendation followed a public hearing, a presentation from township planning staff and comments from the project sponsor, Avenue Development. Patrick Sloane, Canton Township planning staff, described the proposal as 140 units in a three‑story main building and 40 attached cottage units arranged in 17 two‑unit buildings and two three‑unit buildings, across about 17.25 acres. Sloane said the project is proposed as housing for the elderly, which the ordinance treats as a special land use in the R‑1 and R‑3 districts, and that staff’s packet showed several requested modifications to the zoning schedule and to building standards.

The project team, led by Matt Quapas of Avenue Development, described Viva Bene as an independent‑living community intended to emphasize health and social programming. “We are focused in this model on being proactive about your health and wellness,” Quapas said. He added the developer’s market analysis showed local demand for independent‑living units and that starting rents are targeted at roughly $1,700 per month for base units, inclusive of on‑site amenities.

Why it matters: The site would add a concentrated senior housing complex adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods and a commercial corridor along Ford Road. The application proposes off‑site improvements — notably paving portions of Gorman Road and extending a sidewalk along the south side of Ford Road to the nearby shopping center (Bell Tire/Kroger) — that township staff counted as “definite benefits” in the PDD review.

Key decisions and conditions: The planning commission voted to recommend approval subject to conditions the commission listed: (1) modify the traffic impact study and PDD plans consistent with the township transportation consultant’s comments; (2) update the PDD agreement to document the definite benefits and schedule modifications; (3) widen the internal roadway to 27 feet (the plan showed 26 feet); (4) revise plans to address planning division staff comments (including loading‑space length and monument sign location); and (5) address additional planning commissioner recommendations raised at the meeting (including EGLE/wetlands permitting and further coordination with MDOT and the Wayne County Road Commission on Ford Road improvements). The commission’s motion to recommend approval was made by Commissioner Gordon Watkins and supported by Commissioner Clarence Lee; Commissioners Cruz, Foster, Janowski, Lee, Watkins, Weber and Chairman Zuber voted “yes.”

Discussion highlights: Commissioners and members of the public pressed two themes: traffic on Ford Road and stormwater/wetland impacts. Township and outside consultants noted the applicant’s traffic study was reviewed by Mannik & Smith Group, which recommended an island setback and a 150–250 foot deceleration lane at the proposed right‑in/right‑out drive on Ford Road; Mannik & Smith also concluded the study conforms to MDOT, Wayne County and ITE guidelines but recommended follow‑up with MDOT/Wayne County. Quapas said the developer had purchased wetland mitigation credits and that an EGLE wetland permit is being coordinated. Joe Christopher, the civil engineer, told commissioners the project team intends to size on‑site stormwater storage to reduce peak flow beyond county minimums and would refine outlet rates during final engineering.

Other technical points: Staff flagged and the applicant acknowledged several proposed modifications to the zoning standards: the main building’s measured height was calculated at about 37.25 feet (the ordinance maximum is 35 feet); the longest building dimension exceeded a 350‑foot guideline; the masonry percentage on the main building was reported at about 30.5% brick and 1.5% stone (the ordinance minimum is 50% masonry); two cottage buildings were as close as about 44.8 feet where 60 feet is required for side‑to‑rear separation; the loading area needs an additional 10 feet; and the plan shows more than 25% open space (PDD minimum). Staff recommended, and the commission conditioned, that those items be addressed during final PDD/site plan review or documented in the PDD agreement where appropriate.

Public comment: A resident, Chris Obadzinski of Crosswick Court, opposed the project’s scale and raised safety concerns about added traffic on Ford Road and potential impacts to nearby stormwater infrastructure. “This development should be held to the standards of R‑1 and R‑3,” Obadzinski said, calling the proposal “an apartment complex” rather than senior care. Commissioners responded to public concerns by requiring additional coordination with MDOT and Wayne County and by conditioning final approvals on satisfying outside‑agency requirements.

Next steps: If the township board accepts the planning commission recommendation, the preliminary PDD will return to the board for action (staff said the earliest township board meeting availability would be May 13). The applicant indicated it expects to pursue final PDD/site plan review concurrently after satisfying the preliminary conditions and external agency requirements.