|
July 28, 2003
7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING #
1…Rezoning application, environmental impact assessment, conceptual PUD
plan, and PUD agreement to rezone (8.248) acres located on Grand River
at Lawson Drive, Sec. 9, petitioned by Weiss Properties, LLC. The
request is to rezone property from IND (industrial) to PUD (planned unit
development). (PC 02-28)
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 Conceptual PUD plan, PUD agreement,
and environmental impact assessment for proposed construction of 17
single-family homes on approximately 70 acres, (Timber Green) located
west of Chilson Road, north of Coon Lake Road in Sec. 20 and Sec. 29,
petitioned by Chestnut Development. (PC 03-09).
Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding conceptual PUD plan.
B. Recommendation regarding PUD agreement.
C. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 3…Review of site plan application, site plan and
PUD Agreement for proposed amendment to the Chemung Forest/Woodland
Springs PUD Agreement regarding Lots 20, 21, 25 & 77, petitioned by Boss
Engineering. (PC 03-19)
Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Disposition regarding amendment to PUD Agreement.
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, Barbara Figurski, James
Mortensen, Curt Brown, John Cahill and Bill Litogot. Also present was
Kelly 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 7:10 p.m.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and a moment of silence was
observed.
Moved by Figurski, seconded by Mortensen, to approve the Agenda as
written. The motion carried unanimously.
The call to the public was made to discuss items not on the agenda.
The call to the public was closed at 7:11 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 8.248 acres
located on Grand River at Lawson Drive, Section 9, petitioned by Weiss
Properties, LLC. The request is to rezone property from IND (industrial)
to PUD (planned unit development). (PC 02-28)
· 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.
Mr. Harvey Weiss from Weiss Properties, LLC. And Mr. Michael Boggio from
Boggio and Associates were present to represent the petitioner.
Mr. Boggio presented a sketch of the site and location. He advised the
members that development studies have been done to show the following
different options:
1. The 1st study consisted of an industrial zoning, which would allow a
131,000 sq. ft. building is not suitable with the proximity to
residential and the entrance to the Township.
2. The 2nd study consisted of 2 outlots and strip retail, this is
considered better than industrial, but the not as a desirable use, there
would be traffic concerns, enforcement issues concerning tenants and the
Township already has quite a few strip retail already in place.
3. The 3rd study which consisted of a 80,000 sq. ft. retail building
that consists of higher quality architecture, would have controlled
hours, would have less traffic concerns than industrial and this would
provide more of a buffer to the residential areas.
Commissioner Pobuda asked if there are any negotiations with the Sunrise
Park Subdivision on the road. Mr. Weiss advised that there are not but
they did include it in the PUD and they would provide access if
necessary in the future.
Commissioner Pobuda asked if they would consider closing the second
ingress-egress at that site. Mr. Weiss advised that he is reluctant; in
his opinion the size of the site needs more than one point of ingress
and egress.
Commissioner Cahill asked why the building is on the east side of the
site closer to residential. Mr. Boggio stated that they have designed
this with a large setback from the residential area and provided
extensive landscaping. They did not want to put major parking against
the residential areas. Mr. Boggio felt that the building could buffer
that traffic and parking from the residential areas. Also, it is
designed to have a 10-foot retaining wall along residential.
A call to the public was made at 7:34 p.m.
Mr. Gary McCririe, Genoa Township Supervisor, made the following
comments:
1. Likely this piece will be developed in the future, unlikely it will
be industrial.
2. We are probably going to see a commercial or retail use.
3. The PUD ordinance as it has been recently modified for these types of
situations to enhance landscaping, enhance buffers and negotiate
parking.
4. Along Grand River Avenue, buildings are close to the road; in this
case there is one single user that makes it aesthetically pleasing for
the residential that is nearby.
5. The design is pushed away from the road that makes it aesthetically
pleasing to the Township.
6. Mr. Weiss has offered to fund that installation of a traffic light at
Lawson Drive. He has been in contact with MDOT and with the Genoa
Township staff.
The call to the public was closed at 7:37 p.m.
Mr. Purdy reviewed his letter of July 28, 2003.
1. The concept plan places a large building and a loading dock adjacent
to residential with only a wall for a buffer.
2. If a shared driveway is implemented on the east side of the premises,
it must by limited access right-turn in and out only drive and should be
shown on site plan.
3. An 8-foot wide concrete sidewalk is required along Grand River Avenue
and a 5-foot wide sidewalk is required along Lawson Drive and the
interior of the site.
4. An extensive landscape greenbelt should be provided along the east
end of the property as a buffer between the site and the residential
development.
Moved Mortensen, seconded by Litogot, to recommend to the Township Board
approval of the rezoning request for 8.248 acres located on Grand River
at Lawson Drive, Section 9, petitioned by Weiss Properties, LLC. The
request to rezone property from IND (industrial) to PUD (planned unit
development) citing the following reasons:
1. Master plan is no longer consistent with development that has
occurred in this area.
2. Benefit to the Township is that the use proposed in this rezoning is
more beneficial to the Township than Industrial.
3. The possible opening of an access to an internal road to go to the
Sunrise Park.
Motion was made with the following conditions:
1. Approval of the tenant PUD Plan, Impact Assessment and PUD Agreement
by the Township Board.
2. Township Board approval of the revision to the Master Plan.
The motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Litogot, to recommend to the Township
Board approval of the conceptual PUD plan dated July to rezone 8.248
acres located on Grand River at Lawson Drive, Section 9, petitioned by
Weiss Properties, LLC.
1. Approval of PUD rezoning, PUD agreement and Impact assessment by the
Township Board.
2. Township Board approval of the revision to the Master Plan.
3. The 10-foot east side wall will include a 20-foot buffer.
4. The petitioner understands that substantial landscaping and
architecture requirements will be asked for at final site plan.
5. Up to 10 percent of parking will be banked and replaced with
landscape along Lawson and Grand River.
6. Truck docks will be relocated so loading and unloading will occur to
the north.
7. There will be a 30-foot rear yard setback.
8. There will be an 8-foot cement sidewalk along Grand River and a
5-foot cement sidewalk along Lawson Drive.
9. The entrance on Grand River Avenue will be limited to right in and
right out only.
10. The sign will conform to Township ordinances.
11. The pond shall be designed as an ornamental water feature and will
be extensively landscaped and without a fence.
12. Conceptual site plan needs an architectural seal.
The motioned carried unanimously.
Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Litogot, to recommend to the Township
Board approval of the PUD agreement dated July 17, 2003 for 8.248 acres
located on Grand River at Lawson Drive, Sec. 9, petitioned by Weiss
Properties, LLC with the following conditions:
1. Signage will be one monument sign that will conform to the Township
ordinance with final decision to be made at final site plan.
2. Approval of PUD plan, impact assessment, and rezoning by the Township
Board.
3. Township Board approval of the revision to the Master Plan.
4. PUD Agreement will be revised to be consistent with the motions made
on rezoning and PUD plan.
5. All road improvements required by MDOT will be installed and funded
by the developer including a potential south bound lane addition on the
west side of Lawson Drive.
6. PUD agreement will be revised to show only one 81,000 sq. ft.
building.
7. Sewer and water will be utilized and REUs will be determined by the
Township Engineers.
8. Article 6- add ornamental street lighting along Grand River and
Lawson.
9. Article 6.2- Add sidewalk on Lawson
10. Section 2.3- change to 25% will be open space.
The motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Litogot, supported by Mortensen to recommend to the Township
Board approval of the impact assessment dated July 22, 2003 for 8.246
acres located on Grand River at Lawson Drive, sec. 9, petitioned by
Weiss Properties, LLC with the following conditions:
1. Subject to approval of rezoning, PUD agreement and conceptual plan by
the Township Board.
2. Township Board approval of the revision to the Master Plan.
3. Draft will be revised to be consistent with the other motions
approved this evening.
a. Including reference to number of buildings revised to include one
building.
b. Retail stores change to retail store on page 5.
The motion carried unanimously.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING #2…Review of conceptual PUD plan, PUD agreement, and
environmental impact assessment for proposed construction of 17
single-family homes on approximately 70 acres, (Timber Green) located
west of Chilson Road, north of Coon Lake Road in Sec. 20 and Sec. 29,
petitioned by Chestnut Development. (PC 03-09).
· · Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding conceptual PUD plan.
B. Recommendation regarding PUD agreement.
C. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
Mr. Steve Gronow from Chestnut Development and Dan Schrauben from
Professional Engineers were present to represent the petitioner.
Mr. Schrauben advised that since the last time this petition was before
the Planning Commission they realized that more could be done. Most
revised information is located in the impact assessment. He further
described the location of the development in relation to Chilson Creek.
They have increased the preservation area from 21 acres to 26 acres and
reduced the building envelopes. They have made the common area a park
like setting that is centrally located in the development. They want to
maintain the rural character in addition with having only one road cut
onto Chilson Road.
Mr. Schrauben stated that the limited preservation area is for a lawn
area or accessory buildings. 50 acres out of the 73 are under
preservation limitations. In most cases the wetland buffer is a minimum
of 50 feet except for 2 areas that have a 30-foot wetland buffer and
that exceeds that townships minimum of a 25-foot wetland buffer.
Commissioner Cahill would like to see cluster housing and more common
open space, he also stated that this petition is an improper design for
PUD and enforcement of the preservation area is impossible.
Commissioner Mortensen is not quite as concerned with enforcement;
homeowner associations are typically self-enforcing.
The call to the public was made at 9:13 p.m.
Mr. Gary McCririe, Genoa Township Supervisor, made the following
comments:
1. Mr. McCririe stated that the Township had asked Mr. Gronow to include
his home to preclude further splits.
2. He was also concerned with how a large tract of land like this could
be developed in the future.
3. By entering into the PUD, this is all you will ever see on this
property.
4. Mr. McCririe also stated that he isn’t concerned with common areas
for children to play. The lots are large enough for kids to have
recreation on their own lot.
The call to the public closed at 9:18 p.m.
Mr. Purdy reviewed his letter of July 24, 2003.
1. The master plan recommends one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres.
One (1) residence per 4.3 acres is proposed.
2. All lots are one (1) acre or greater and will require County Health
Department approval for well and septic systems.
3. The site contains significant woodland and wetland resources. He
recommends these areas be placed in common open space and protected
through deed restrictions and conservation easements. The applicant has
proposed conservation easements over the individual lots.
4. The PUD agreement needs to provide for conservation easements with
stringent restrictions prohibiting any kind of uses. The Petitioner
agreed.
5. Active recreational facilities are required in a PUD. Walking trails
and a gazebo have been added around the detention pond in the road
median.
6. The PUD agreement and master deed needs to provide for conservation
easements with stringent restrictions.
7. The road pavement width must be 26 feet wide.
8. The 60-foot rear yard setbacks shown on the site plan do not match
the 80-foot setbacks in the PUD agreement and required by the CE
district.
Ms. Huntely reviewed her letter dated May 8th, 2003:
1. The petitioner has provided a roadway right-of-way width of 50 feet.
The Genoa Township Zoning Ordinance generally requires a right-of-way of
66 feet for private roads. However, this may be reduced by the Planning
Commission to not less than 50 feet when all of the following criteria
are met:
a. The width is determined to be adequate for the necessary pavement and
utilities,
b. Adequate clear sight distance can be maintained,
c. There is not a desire that the road could become a public street or
extended in the future, and
d. It is not expected to accommodate over 300 trips per average weekday.
The site plan does meet all of the aforementioned criteria; therefore,
the Planning Commission may reduce the width of the right-of-way to 50
feet, if so desired.
2. The petitioner has provided two options for the roadway. The first
option provides an open ditch with gravel shoulders while the second
provides a bituminous valley gutter. The Genoa Township Zoning Ordinance
requires that all private roads serving more than five lots shall be
constructed with concrete curb and gutter. However the Planning
Commission may waive the requirement for concrete curb and gutter where
the dwelling unit density is low, anticipated traffic levels will be low
or surrounding environmental conditions make open ditch drainage
preferable. Either option is acceptable for the submitted site plan.
3. The Genoa Township Zoning ordinance states that the minimum pavement
width shall be 30 feet as measured back to back to curb. The pavement
width may be reduced to not less than 26 feet where the Planning
Commission determine that the reduced width will preserve significant
natural features, will not serve as a through street, will serve only a
low number of dwelling units and shall be posted to prevent parking. It
is appropriate for the Planning Commission to reduce the width to 26
feet as measured from back of curb to back of curb for this site plan,
if so desired. However, the petitioner is proposing the curbed roadway
cross section of 22 feet as measured from back of curb to back of curb.
This cross section should be increased to incorporate 11 foot traveled
lanes, however the shoulder width may be reduced to keep the roadway
width to 26 feet.
4. The Genoa Township Zoning Ordinance and Livingston County Road
Commission required a minimum horizontal curve of 230 feet in radius.
The Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning Commission may be reduced
to not less than 150 feet if the design would accommodate the expected
vehicle speeds, traffic flows, a significant number of mature trees
would be preserved, or where the width of the parcel would not
accommodate a wider radii. The proposed site plan has one radius
delineated at 212.5 feet. Based on the traffic flow and speed limit on
the roadway, a radius of 212.5 feet would be acceptable if so desired by
the Planning Commission.
5. The Genoa Township Zoning Ordinance also states that 55-foot radius
for the outside edge of pavement should be utilized for a cul-de-sac
with a landscaped island. This may reduce to the Livingston County Road
Commission Standards of a 50-foot radius if so desired by the Planning
Commission.
Moved by Mortenson, supported by Litogot, to recommend to Township Board
approval of conceptual PUD plan dated July 9, 2003 for proposed
construction of 17 single-family homes on approximately 70 acres,
(Timber Green) located west of Chilson Road, north of Coon Lake Road in
Sec. 20 and Sec. 29, petitioned by Chestnut Development. This
recommendation is subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval by Township Board of the rezoning and environmental impact
assessment.
2. Township Board approval of revision to the Master Plan.
3. Road width will be 26 feet with two 11 foot traveled lanes with
remainder to be shoulder.
4. Outside of pavement radius will be not less than 50 feet.
5. Open ditch with gravel siding is acceptable.
6. Road right-of-way of 50-feet is acceptable.
7. Parcels 4 thru 15 will have 80-foot rear yard setbacks.
8. The Township Board will review the conceptual plan presented and the
plan will denote the deeded and limited preservation areas.
9. The 212.5 foot radius is acceptable.
The motion carried (Litogot – Yes; Figurski – No; Mortensen – Yes; Brown
– Yes; Cahill – No, Pobuda - Yes)
Moved by Mortensen, supported by Litogot to recommend to Township Board
approval of PUD agreement dated May 9, 2003 for proposed construction of
17 single-family homes on approximately 70 acres. (Timber Green) located
west of Chilson Road, north of Coon Lake Road in Sec. 20 and Sec. 29,
petitioned by Chestnut Development. This recommendation is subject to
the following:
1. Approval by Township Board of rezoning, environmental impact
assessment, and conceptual PUD plan.
2. Township Board Approval of the revision to the Master Plan.
3. This recommendation is made in view of the following benefits to the
Township:
a. Preservation of 73 acres with no more than 17 homes.
b. Preservation of headwaters for Chilson Creek Watershed
c. Locks in permanently low density on this parcel,
d. Natural transition from CE to RR in the area.
e. Preservation natural features.
4. This recommendation is subject to approval of the Conceptual PUD by
Township Attorney
5. All appropriate easements and DEQ permits will be obtained.
6. Conservation easements will be obtained which are suitable to the
Township.
Commissioner Cahill stated for the record he has great respect to Mr.
McCririe and is in favor of the PUD but is opposed to this plan. He
thinks that we can do better.
The motion carried. (Litogot – Yes; Figurski – No; Mortensen – Yes;
Brown – Yes; Cahill – No; Pobuda – Yes)
Moved by Litogot, supported by Mortensen, to recommend approval to the
Township Board of the Impact Assessment dated July 9, 2003 for proposed
construction of 17 single-family homes on approximately 70 acres,
(Timber Green) located west of Chilson Road, north of Coon Lake Road in
Sec. 20 and Sec. 29, petitioned by Chestnut Develepment.
The motion carried (Litogot – Yes; Figurski – No; Mortensen – Yes; Brown
– Yes; Cahill – No, Pobuda – Yes).
Open Public Hearing #3…Review of site plan application, site plan and
PUD agreement for proposed amendment to the Chemung Forest/Woodland
Springs PUD Agreement regarding Lots 20, 21, 25 & 77, petitioned by Boss
Engineering.
· · Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Disposition regarding amendment to PUD Agreement.
Mr. Mike Boss from Boss Engineering was present to represent the
petitioner.
Mr. Boss presented an overall plan for Chemung Forest that showed that
there are 5 homes with combination garages that consist of both side and
front entry garage. There are no stand alone front entry garages that
have been constructed in the subdivision.
A call to the public was made at 10:00 p.m.
Chairman Pobuda closed the call to the public at 10:01 p.m.
Moved by Mortensen, supported by Litogot for approval of amendment to
PUD Agreement for proposed amendment to the Chemung Forest/Woodland
Springs PUD Agreement regarding Lots 20,21,25 & 77, petitioned by Boss
Engineering for the following permitting front yard setback reduction
from 35 feet to 25 feet for wetland setback for lots 20,21,25 & 77.
Chairman Pobuda asked for a vote regarding Commissioner Mortensen’s
motion for recommendation of approval. The motioned carried. (Litogot –
Yes; Figurski – No; Mortensen – Yes; Brown – Yes; Cahill – Yes; Pobuda –
Yes)
Moved by Figurski, supported by Litogot, to approve minutes of July 14,
2003. The motion carried unanimously.
Member Discussion
Commissioner Cahill thanked the Township for sending flowers in respect
to the passing of his mother.
The meeting adjourned at 10:18 p.m.
Submitted by: Amy Ruthig
Approved by: Barbara Figurski, Secretary
|
