Planning commission postpones Somerset West PUD; asks developer for use, design and phasing details

Troy — The City of Troy Planning Commission on April 22 postponed consideration of the Somerset West concept development plan (PUD021 / JPLN2024-0012) and the preliminary plan for Phase 1A after an extended public hearing and nearly three hours of questions and public comment.

The commission voted to delay at the request of Commissioner Michael Fox, who moved to postpone so the applicant could return with specific commitments and clarifications; Commissioner John Lambert seconded. The motion carried on a roll-call vote (Fox, Tagle, Malala Holly, Lambert, Faison, Krent, Prakas voting yes; Beakner voting no). The applicant is the Forbes Company; the project includes a University of Michigan medical facility proposed on land inside the PUD boundary.

Why it matters: The proposal would reshape the former Kmart/Kmart headquarters parcel at the gateway to the Big Beaver corridor, add public open space and new retail/restaurant/office/residential uses, and includes a University of Michigan health facility that the developer says will anchor the site. Commissioners and nearby residents raised questions about parcel ownership, whether state-created constitutional corporations (University of Michigan) are exempt from local zoning, the amount of surface parking proposed, and the lack of minimums or binding commitments for housing or other uses in the draft PUD agreement.

Developer presentation and major plan changes Nate Forbes, managing partner of the Forbes Company, told the commission the proposal is a conceptual PUD plan and said his team and partners have reworked the layout since last appearing before the commission seven months earlier. Forbes said the design team doubled the size of a central park, reoriented public open spaces to create stronger north–south and east–west connections, and changed an earlier plan that showed a multi‑level parking deck for the University of Michigan facility to surface parking for Phase 1 so the university could expand later. "We are the stewards of this development and we will ensure that the gateway to the city of Troy will maintain its prominence in terms of architectural design integrity," Forbes said during the presentation.

Planning staff outline process and limits City planning staff advised the commission that the PUD review in Troy is a three‑step process (concept development plan, preliminary development plan, final development plan). Planner Brent Carlisle summarized the standard review points and said the commission was being asked to recommend on both the concept plan and the preliminary plan for Phase 1A so utility and road work could proceed if approvals follow. Carlisle noted the original PUD sets maximums — for example, on the record: up to 500,000 square feet of office and 300,000 square feet of retail — and confirmed there are no minimums in the draft language. "The PUD agreement is a legal document. It focuses on timelines, obligations, responsibilities and conditions for approval," Carlisle said.

University of Michigan land and consent‑judgment complications Multiple commissioners and staff pointed out that portions of the northern parcels are governed by an existing consent judgment and that the University of Michigan — as a constitutional corporation under state law — may be treated differently than other private owners. City counsel (Miss Dufresne) explained the constitutional corporation concept and said the university historically does not have to follow local zoning, though it does have internal design standards and could be party to separate agreements. Carlisle and the city attorney asked the applicant to clarify which acres the university is expected to acquire; the application packet identified about 12 acres but the PUD language allows up to 17 acres in the constitutional‑corporation allocation. Commissioners repeatedly asked for a clear, mapped statement in the CDP showing where the university acreage would be located.

Parking, open space and uses draw concern The commission raised repeated concerns about the decision to show large areas of surface parking in Phase 1 rather than parking decks. Commissioners asked whether surface lots could remain for an indefinite period and pressed the developer for a clearer plan and timetable by which surface parking would be replaced by structured parking as build‑out occurs. Commissioners also questioned the flexibility of the draft use diagrams, which list many permitted uses on multiple parcels and allow, in the commission’s words, an overly broad ability to put office or retail "on every parcel." Several commissioners asked the applicant to propose minimums (for example a minimum number of housing units or a minimum amount of first‑floor retail on Big Beaver) so the final PUD would more closely match the public presentation of a mixed‑use, pedestrian‑oriented place rather than a collection of office buildings.

Public comment and neighborhood concerns Nearby residents spoke during the public comment period with concerns about notification, buffering, lighting and views into yards. Mary Ellen Barnan, who identified herself as a resident since 1992, said she and neighbors within the usual 300‑foot notice radius had not received mailed notice of the meeting and urged the commission to require larger buffers and stronger screening. "We shouldn't have to look at utility meters, dumpsters, or junk collection zones," Barnan said. Other speakers asked for larger green buffers, expressed worry about light spill and potential value impacts on homes backing to the site, and asked that the northern setbacks shown in the consent judgment be preserved.

What the commission asked the developer to provide In moving to postpone, Commissioner Fox asked the applicant to return with specific items the commission could evaluate. The commission’s request list — captured in the motion and during deliberations — includes: - A proposed minimum number of housing units (applicant to propose a reasonable minimum the commission can consider). - Language or use limits removing auto‑centric and certain other uses (examples noted by commissioners to exclude auto repair, drive‑throughs, trade schools and similar uses). - Clarified and narrower use diagrams that indicate which parcels the applicant expects to be retail/restaurant, residential, office or hotel (rather than listing every permitted use on every parcel). - A master plan or conceptual plan from University of Michigan showing the parcels the university expects to acquire and the likely future uses on those parcels, including whether the additional 5‑acre allocation would be north of Cunningham or elsewhere. - Reexamination of the central open space to consider enlarging the public park area beyond the roughly 1.1 acres shown for Phase 1. - A timeline/phasing table with target dates or a timeline the applicant proposes and which the city can negotiate and condition into the PUD (instead of leaving PUD blanks for timing). - Removal from the permitted‑uses list of items commissioners flagged as inappropriate for this location (examples discussed: automotive repair shops, some industrial/repair uses, appliance sales, drive‑through banks, townhouses or single‑family detached housing and nursing homes).

Formal action The commission recorded a formal motion to postpone action on the concept development plan and the preliminary plan for Phase 1A pending submission of the items above and additional clarifications. Motion: postpone consideration of PUD021 (Somerset West concept plan) and the preliminary development plan for Phase 1A and require the applicant to return with the clarifications listed above. Mover: Commissioner Michael Fox. Seconder: Commissioner John Lambert. Vote record: Michael Fox — yes; John Tagle — yes; Malala Holly — yes; John Lambert — yes; David Faison — yes; Daxton Krent — yes; Ash Prakas — yes; Michael Beakner — no. Outcome: postponed. Notes: staff requested the applicant address the PD ordinance standards (section 11.03) in the resubmission and to provide the PUD agreement language that shows allocations and limits for the constitutional‑corporation acreage.

Next steps and context The project remains a concept plan; the applicant said they intend to return with additional detail. Forbes told the commission his team and the University of Michigan have spent months negotiating and that the University has approved schematic design for a 4‑story medical facility to anchor the site, but he asked for the commission’s patience and partnership. The commission requested that the applicant work with staff to produce a revised CDP and PUD agreement that addresses the items listed above before the commission takes further action.

Proper names in story: Somerset Collection; Forbes Company; Franklin Associates; University of Michigan; City of Troy; Somerset West; Pavilions of Troy (original PUD); Carlisle (Troy planning staff); Miss Dufresne (city attorney).