Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission backs special‑use for drive‑through at Ford Road site with traffic conditions
Summary
The Canton Township Planning Commission recommended approval of a special‑land‑use application for a multi‑tenant building with a drive‑through restaurant at a Ford Road interchange parcel, subject to a median to enforce right‑in/right‑out, MDOT driveway review, and municipal‑services sign‑off on revised plans.
The Canton Township Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of PZ26‑000091, a special land‑use application for a multi‑tenant building with a drive‑through fast‑food restaurant on the south side of Ford Road (parcel 050-99-000011-00002 at 4125/41275 Ford Road). Patrick Sloan, township planning staff, recommended the commission approve the application with three conditions: installation of a separation median at the Ford Road entrance to ensure a right‑in/right‑out driveway; satisfactory review and approval of the Ford Road driveway by MDOT; and revision of the special‑land‑use plans to the satisfaction of Canton Municipal Services staff before township‑board review.
Why it matters: parcel layout and access along the Ford Road/Hagerty Road interchange already concentrates vehicles on a shared access drive. Staff said the site’s proposed driveway, 12 stacking spaces (the ordinance requires at least 10), and a proposed double‑stacking lane on the east side warrant careful coordination with MDOT and with future site‑plan review to avoid queueing onto Ford Road.
During a detailed staff presentation, Sloan described the site and zoning context: the parcel sits in the C4 interchange‑service district, where drive‑through restaurants are permitted only as an accessory to a primary on‑site use. The applicant’s plan pairs an interior sit‑down restaurant (including a mezzanine/coffee shop) with the drive‑through; staff noted the limited list of permitted C4 uses and suggested the applicant consider rezoning to C3 for greater flexibility in the future. Sloan also flagged landscaping and open‑space shortfalls (open space shown at 17.4% vs. the 25% overlay requirement) and listed six technical plan items staff asked to see at site‑plan review, including final survey sealing, conceptual utilities, storm‑water approach, building‑code references for the mezzanine, and truck turn templates.
Applicant Najim Seam of CDPA Architects said the team would work with staff and return with more details at site plan review. Commissioners used the public‑hearing portion to question demolition timing, kiosk/stacking geometry, and land‑sale status. The applicant said the land sale is under contract contingent on approvals and that demolition would not occur until approvals and site‑plan review are complete.
The commission’s recommendation is advisory; final approval will be decided by the township board after the applicant satisfies the conditions and completes site‑plan review and any required MDOT coordination. The commission’s vote to recommend approval was unanimous.
