|
April 28, 2003
7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 1…Rezoning application, environmental impact
assessment, conceptual PUD plan, and PUD agreement to rezone 73.1 acres
located west of Chilson road, north of Coon Lake Road in Section 20 and
Section 29. The request is to rezone property from CE (country estates)
to RR (RPUD) (rural residential PUD) petitioned by Chestnut Development.
(PC 03-09)
Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding PUD rezoning application.
B. Recommendation regarding conceptual PUD plan
C. Recommendation regarding PUD agreement.
D. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 2…Review of final site plan, PUD agreement, and
environmental impact assessment for proposed 48-unit apartment complex
(Waters Edge), located on the north side of Bendix Road, west corner of
Grand River Ave. Sec. 13, petitioned by Waters Edge Development Group.
(PC 03-07)
Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding PUD agreement.
B. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
C. Recommendation regarding final PUD site plan.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 3…Review of Site Plan extension, requested by Dan
Philion, ADR Construction.
Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Disposition of Site Plan extension request.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 4…Recommendation regarding amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance Text, petitioned by Genoa Township. (PC 03-12)
Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding Zoning Ordinance Text amendments.
MINUTES
The work session of the
Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Don Pobuda at 6:30
p.m. The following commission members were present constituting a quorum
for transaction of business: Don Pobuda, James Mortensen, Curt Brown,
and John Cahill. Also present was Karen Kolakowski, Township Planner,
Jeff Purdy from Langworthy, Strader, LeBlanc & Associates, Inc. and
Debra Huntley from Tetra Tech, MPS. By the end of the work session,
there were a few persons in the audience.
Items scheduled for action during the regular session of the commission
were discussed.
The regular session of the Planning Commission was called to order by
Chairman Don Pobuda at 7:05 p.m.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and a moment of silence was
observed.
Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Cahill, to approve the Agenda as
written.
The motion carried unanimously.
The call to the public was made to discuss items not on the agenda.
There was no response and the call to the public was closed at 7:07 p.m.
Chairman Pobuda noted that the Board will not begin any new business
after 10:00 p.m.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 1…Rezoning application, environmental impact
assessment, conceptual PUD plan, and PUD agreement to rezone 73.1 acres
located west of Chilson road, north of Coon Lake Road in Section 20 and
Section 29. The request is to rezone property from CE (country estates)
to RR (RPUD) (rural residential PUD) petitioned by Chestnut Development.
(PC 03-09)
· Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding PUD rezoning application.
B. Recommendation regarding conceptual PUD plan
C. Recommendation regarding PUD agreement.
D. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
Dan Schrauben from Professional Engineering Associates and Mr. and
Mrs. Steve Gironow from Chestnut Development were present to represent
the petitioner.
Mr. Schrauben advised that the applicant wants to maintain the same
“feel” and characteristics of the country estates zoning, but it does
not allow him to build the quality of home that he wants to build. The
site is surrounded by two-acre parcels as well as the Ann Arbor
Railroad. It is somewhat isolated.
He showed the conceptual plan that they are proposing. It will contain
17 homes on approximately 70 acres. They will have only one entrance off
of Chilson Road. They will provide more than 100 feet of buffer to
Chilson Road as well as enhance the buffer on Coon Lake Road from the
adjoining neighbors. 60% of the open space that will be designated as a
conservation easement is wetland and 40% is upland and the developer has
restricted the use of Parcels D & E so they can be maintained as open
space. They will also be restricting the areas of each lot where
building cannot be done.
Commissioner Mortensen noted that even if Lots D & E cannot be built on,
they will not be common area for residents to use.
The call to the public was made at 7:27 p.m.
Mr. Joe Staggs of 3689 East Coon Lake Road advised that the drainage
ditch comes onto his property. He also asked if the developer is going
to landscape up against his property.
Mr. David Flood of 3912 Chilson Road asked how many acres are homes
being built on and how long will the conservation easement be valid?
Chairman Pobuda advised they are building 16 homes on 73 acres and the
conservation easement will be forever.
The call to the public was closed at 7:32 p.m.
With regard to the drainage, Mr. Schrauben stated there are no proposed
changes to the area; it will be maintained and preserved as it is
currently. He added Mr. Staggs question regarding landscaping. The trees
that are currently there will remain and the developer will supplement
with additional landscaping to screen.
Mr. Purdy reviewed his letter of April 9, 2003. He advised that the
density is higher than the master plan recommends, but with PUD
developments, the Township likes to cluster the homes and provide open
space. Mr. Gironow stated they wanted to maintain the rural feel of the
area by making the lots larger instead of having more open common space
for the entire association. He noted that the space in the middle of the
proposed boulevard can be used as “meet and greed” space.
He noted that the site contains significant woodland and wetland area
sources and these areas need to be placed in common open space and
protected through deed restrictions and conservation easements. The
100-foot deep greenbelt required to be preserved along Chilson Road
should also be a general common element and maintained by the
association.
Active recreational facilities need to be included in the open space and
a walking trail system is encouraged. Mr. Gironow
The gated entry needs to be approved by the Township and the Fire
Department. He noted the proposed width of the road is 24 feet and 26
feet is required. Mr. Gironow advised that they have been working with
the fire chief and fire marshal and they will allow the 24-foot wide
road. All commissioners would like to see the 26-foot wide road for
emergency vehicle access. Mr. Gironow does not feel the 26-foot wide
road is necessary for the 10 homes that will be on this road. The
narrower road helps control speed as well. He would like the Planning
Commission to consider the 24-foot width. All commissioners agree that
the ordinance states 26 feet and they will not approve the 24 feet.
The first concept plan as a cul-de-sac of 1,400 feet, which exceeds the
1,000-foot limit and the second plan’s cul-de-sac has a length of 2,200
feet. He likes the design and creativity of this development, but the
length of the cul-de-sac is detrimental. He suggested clustering the
homes closer to Chilson Road and leaving more open space in the back,
which would shorten the length of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Gironow stated
they have added the boulevard and they can show that this can be used as
a turn around. Ms. Huntley feels this is not safe when a driver is
turning around and cannot see traffic coming the other way. The
petitioner stated they will revisit this design and address the
Township’s concerns.
Commissioner Cahill does not like the design of this project and
therefore does not agree with the length of the road. He feels that
Parcels D & E are being used to make the entire development seem larger
to get more density, but these parcels are not being used. If they would
use this area, then they could loop the road. He does not feel there is
any benefit to the Township with this development.
Commissioner Brown understands the problem with the access to the lot
and he suggested making the boulevard longer to alleviate this problem.
Commissioner Mortensen stated there are only 16 homes on this street and
he feels the boulevard and turnarounds substantiate the length.
Mr. Gironow showed how the property could be developed without any
change to the zoning and he feels it would not be as appealing as what
he is proposing. He is not trying to get extra lots or make more money.
He wants to make a high-quality development. He noted that it was the
Township that suggested pulling in the two other lots to increase the
size of the site and deed and restrict Lots D & E.
Commissioner Mortensen pointed out to Commissioner Cahill that just
because something is suggested at a pre-application meeting, the
Planning Commission can deny; however, with regard to this development,
it will be a high-class development and all the applicant is gaining is
three extra homes.
After a brief discussion, it was decided that the 2,200-foot cul-de-sac
would be allowed because of the nature of the proposed development.
Mr. Purdy noted that the is a lot behind the existing Parcel 2B that
does not have road frontage. Mr. Gironow stated this is part of a parcel
split that was done before they bout the property from the previous
owner. He will work with his attorney to revise the PUD agreement so
that Parcel #11 can use the existing easement for access. All
commissioners agree with allowing this.
There was a discussion regarding the open space, tot lot, etc. Mr.
Gironow advised that these are not the types of residents that will want
a common area or need a tot lot. He wanted to provide each resident with
his or her own private area. Mr. Purdy advised that if the intent of
this development is to give each residence it’s own pen space, then
maybe the country estates zoning (5 acre minimum), is the best option,
which is how it is currently zoned.
Commissioner Brown feels that Jeff makes an excellent point. Is the
developer trying to get as many lots as possible on this site? Is the
Township setting a precedent? Do developments with large homes and no
kids not require tot lots or common area? Mr. Purdy stated that each PUD
is reviewed on its own merit and on an individual basis, however, this
could set a precedent.
Commissioner Cahill does not feel this plan is to the best benefit to
the Township. There is no common space.
Chairman Pobuda does not want to set a precedent with not requiring the
recreational area. This is part of the Township’s requirements and
advised the petitioner to be very cognizant of this.
Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Brown, to recommend to the Township
Board approval of the PUD rezoning application for 73.1 acres located
west of Chilson road, north of Coon Lake Road in Section 20 and Section
29 to RR (RPUD) (rural residential PUD) petitioned by Chestnut
Development because in the opinion of the Planning Commission, there is
sufficient benefit to the Township in terms of conservation easements
and other amenities to justify this action. This recommendation is
subject to the following conditions:
1. Township Board approval of the conceptual PUD plan.
2. Township Board approval of the conceptual PUD agreement.
3. Township Board approval of the Impact Assessment.
Commissioner Cahill asked for a discussion. HE is opposed to this plan
and feels this would be a significant departure from PUD’s in the
Township that were approved in the past. He feels that if the three
commissioners that were absent this evening would agree with him. The
details as to the open space are not show and he moved to table this
item this evening. He does not feel this item is in a position to be
sent to the Township Board. There was no support to the motion and the
motion died.
Chairman Pobuda asked for a vote on Commissioner Mortensen’s motion to
recommend approval. The motion carried (Pobuda – Yes; Mortensen – Yes;
Brown – Yes; Cahill – No).
Moved by Mortensen to recommend to the Township Board approval of the
conceptual PUD plan for 73.1 acres located west of Chilson road, north
of Coon Lake Road in Section 20 and Section 29 to construction 17 homes
of no less than 3,000 square feet of living space per unit with the
following conditions:
1. The conceptual site plan presented to the Board will show colored
delineations of wetlands verses restricted areas in the common elements,
which are estimated at 60% non-wetland and 40% wetland.
2. At the time of final site plan approval, Parcel E will have a
permanent conservation easement permitting only egress and ingress for
services of road and utilities.
3. Parcel D will have a permanent conservation easement restricting
development on all areas beyond 50 feet of the building envelope.
Commissioner Cahill moved to table the remaining action items on Public
Hearing #1. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion.
Chairman Pobuda feels this plan needs to be reviewed administratively
again and the delineations to be shown. The motion carried (Pobuda –
Yes; Mortensen – No; Brown – Yes; Cahill – Yes).
There was a break from 9:05 until 9:10 pm
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 2…Review of final site plan, PUD agreement, and
environmental impact assessment for proposed 48-unit apartment complex
(Waters Edge), located on the north side of Bendix Road, west corner of
Grand River Ave. Sec. 13, petitioned by Waters Edge Development Group.
(PC 03-07)
· Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding PUD agreement.
B. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
C. Recommendation regarding final PUD site plan.
Mark Hiller from Boss Engineering and Tom and Mary Mitchell, the
property owners, were present.
Mr. Hiller reviewed their proposal. They are proposing to build three
buildings with a total of 48 units on this 8-acre parcel. At the last
Planning Commission meeting, there was a discussion regarding the length
of the entrance road. From the entrance to the wastewater treatment
plant, the width will be 30 feet and the remainder of the road will be
27 feet wide. They have looped the water main down to Bendix Road, they
have provided the 66-foot wide easement for future development to the
west, and all of the sidewalks have been increased to five-feet wide and
will be concrete. The Bendix Road sidewalk, however, will be asphalt.
Mr. Purdy advised the petitioner has addressed most of their concerns,
however a copy of the 66-foot wide easement to the west as well as the
easement to the wastewater treatment plant need to be recorded with the
Township. The petitioner will comply.
The Bendix Road sidewalk should be made of concrete. The petitioner will
comply.
The call to the public was made at 9:20 with no response.
Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Cahill, to recommend to the Township
Board approval of the PUD Agreement received by the Township on April
23, 2003 for a 48-unit apartment complex (Waters Edge), located on the
north side of Bendix Road, west corner of Grand River Ave. Sec. 13,
petitioned by Waters Edge Development Group with the following
conditions:
1. Approval by the Township Board of the Impact Assessment.
2. Approval by the Township Board of the final Site Plan.
The motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Brown, to recommend to the Township
Board approval of the Impact Assessment dated March 11, 2003 for a
48-unit apartment complex (Waters Edge), located on the north side of
Bendix Road, west corner of Grand River Ave. Sec. 13, petitioned by
Waters Edge Development Group. The motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Cahill, to recommend to the Township
Board approval of the final PUD Site Plan for a 48-unit apartment
complex (Waters Edge), located on the north side of Bendix Road, west
corner of Grand River Ave. Sec. 13, petitioned by Waters Edge
Development Group dated April 22, 2003 with architectural renderings
dated February 12, 2003, with the following conditions:
1. A copy of the recorded 66-foot wide access easement for future road
connection to the parcel to the west shall be provided to the Township
for their files.
2. A copy of the recorded access easement for the Township to gain
access to the wastewater treatment plan shall be provided to the
Township for their files.
3. The five-foot wide sidewalk along Bendix Road is to be concrete and
shall be extended southeast from its current terminus to intersect
Bendix Road with a curb cut ramp provided.
4. Township Board approval of the PUD Agreement.
5. Township Board approval of the Impact Assessment.
6. Remaining engineering issues are to be complied with at the time of
construction plan submittal.
The motion carried unanimously.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 3…Review of Site Plan extension, requested by
Dan Philion, ADR Construction.
· Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Disposition of Site Plan extension request.
Kelly Kolakowski noted that the petitioner was present earlier this
evening; however, it was believed he left due to the length of time that
was spent on Agenda Item #1. The Commissioners felt this item could be
acted upon this evening.
Moved by Cahill, seconded by Mortensen, to approve the site plan
extension for Chemung Centre II. The motion carried unanimously.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 4…Recommendation regarding amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance Text, petitioned by Genoa Township. (PC 03-12)
· Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding Zoning Ordinance Text amendments.
Commissioner Mortensen noted there are a lot of changes shown. He
feels this needs to be discussed in detail at a special meeting, such as
a joint meeting. Ms. Kolakowski noted there are not as many changes as
it appears on the sheet. These are mainly for clarification for
residents reading the ordinance. Commissioners Brown and Cahill agree
that there is a lot to absorb this evening.
There was a brief discussion regarding how extensive the changes were.
Jeff advised he will do a bulleted summary of the proposed changed,
however, he reviewed the changes and they were discussed by the
commissioners. Commissioner Mortensen questioned the sections regarding
the 2,000-foot building standards as well as the keyhole issues.
After a brief discussion, Commissioner Mortensen advised he would like
to recommend approval of all of these except the 2,000-foot building
standard and the keyhole issues. Commissioners Cahill and Brown would
like to see more detail.
The call to the public was made at 10:06 p.m. with no response.
It was decided that Jeff would prepare a summary of the changes for the
commissioners to review for the next meeting.
The minutes of the April 14, 2003 Planning Commissioner meeting have not
been submitted by the recording secretary so they will be reviewed and
approved at the next meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Submitted by: Patty Thomas, Recording Secretary
Approved by: Barbara Figurski, Secretary
|
