|
December
8, 2003
7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING #
1…Rezoning, PUD, and Site Plan applications, environmental impact
assessment, conceptual PUD plan, and PUD agreement to rezone a 191
acre parcel (Preserve of Genoa) located south of Brighton Road and
east of Chilson Road, Section 33 & 34, petitioned by Crescendo
Homes, the request is to rezone property from AG (agricultural) to
RPUD (residential PUD). (PC 03-25)
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.
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, Ken
Burchfield, and Bill Litogot. Also present was Michael Archinal,
Township Manager; Kelly Kolakowski, Township Planner; Jeff Purdy from
Langworthy, Strader, LeBlanc & Associates, Inc. and Debra McAvoy
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 7:03 p.m.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and a moment of silence was
observed.
Moved by Figurski, seconded by Litogot, 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 7:05
p.m. Chairman Pobuda noted that the Board will not begin any new
business after 10:00 p.m.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 1…Rezoning, PUD, and Site Plan
applications, environmental impact assessment, conceptual PUD plan,
and PUD agreement to rezone a 191 acre parcel (Preserve of Genoa)
located south of Brighton Road and east of Chilson Road, Section 33
& 34, petitioned by Crescendo Homes, the request is to rezone
property from AG (agricultural) to RPUD (residential PUD). (PC 03-25)
· 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. Nick Balberman of Crescendo Homes, Kirt Andersen and Amy Ackerman
of Atwell-Hicks, and Richard Barr, the attorney for the petitioner,
were present.
Ms. Kolakowski stated that in early 2002, the Township Staff began
looking at this parcel, which includes a total of nine different
parcels under one owner) and this development. Township staff have met
with the petitioners four or five times, including a site visit, and
have worked out many issues and feel the plan is ready to be presented
to the Planning Commission. She also noted that in September of 2003,
the Master Plan changed and this area is now zoned for 2 to 4 units
per acre. The petitioner is proposing a development with 2.06 units
per acre. They would like some feedback and direction from the
Planning Commission this evening.
Mr. Archinal gave a brief overview of the proposed water and sewer
improvements for the Oak Point area, which will affect the parcel
being discussed this evening. The residents in the subdivision would
become part of a special assessment district to help fund the
upgrades.
Mr. Andersen stated this property is located east of Chilson Road and
north of Brighton Road and is currently an active gravel mine. There
is low-density residential and vacant DNR property surrounding the
site. There is a large wetland in the center of the property and a
seven-acre lake and small pond in the north area. He showed a
topographical map.
He noted that they have environmental issues on this site. Some
asphalt companies had used the area for a storage facility and there
were some fuels in above ground storage tanks and there is some
subsurface contamination. There is also an area that was dug up and
debris was buried there; however, they are researching this further.
Ms. Ackerman stated that after working with Township Staff and
proposing different plans, they have decided that the one being
proposed this evening is the best. They are proposing 85-foot-wide
single-family lots and a small multi-family component. There are two
entrances. They are preserving 40 percent of the site as open space
and except for the two road crossings, they have not touched the
wetlands.
Mr. Balberman reiterated that there will be two types of homes on this
site, single family residents and multi-family, duel-unit dwellings.
Commissioner Mortensen asked what types of homes will be put here. Mr.
Balberman stated they do not have any final plans, but conceptually,
they are planning on upscale two-story homes. The multi-family will
either be one or two story units, or a combination of both. The
single-family homes will be 2,000 – 3,000 square feet and the
multi-family will be between 1,400 and 1,600 square feet. Commissioner
Mortensen noted that this number would have to be more specific and he
would like to see a minimum of 2,500 square feet. Mr. Balberman noted
that the ranch homes will be less square footage. Commissioner
Mortensen would allow the 2,000 square foot minimum for ranches and a
2,500 square foot minimum for the two-story homes.
Commissioner Cahill questioned how the square footage proposed will
affect the building envelopes and setbacks. Ms. Ackerman stated they
are proposing 25-foot front-yard setbacks, 35-foot rear-yard setbacks,
and side yard setbacks of five feet, with a minimum total side yard
setback of 20, which will allow side-entry garages.
Commissioner Mortensen would like to see a high proportion of brick on
these homes and not just brick on the front and vinyl siding on the
other three sides. Chairman Pobuda agrees.
Mr. Purdy reviewed his letter of December 3, 2003.
In order to cluster the units and preserve open space, they are
proposing the following setbacks:
a. Lot area: 10,200 square feet – 18,000 is required.
b. Lot width: 85 feet – 90 is required.
c. Front setback: 25 feet – 30 required
d. Side setback: 5/20 feet – 10/25 is required
e. Rear setback: 35 feet – 50 is required.
Commissioner Cahill would prefer to decrease the lot size to preserve
the open space; however, the side setbacks are too small. Mr. Purdy
noted that the PUD can dictate which homes are placed on which lots to
ensure that even with a five-foot side setback, the homes cannot be
less than 20 feet apart (i.e. two five-yard side setbacks cannot be
next to each other). The petitioner advised they would be open to
considering this request. All commissioners agree with this condition.
The Township wants to ensure high-quality architecture for these
homes. The petitioner will be open to discussion on this issue.
Details are required on the measures to be taken to protect the
wetlands in areas where road crossing are proposed to ensure
continuity of the flow under the road crossings. Ms. Ackerman advised
they will need to comply with DEQ standards so she is not sure how it
will be handled at this point.
Chairman Pobuda asked if a wildlife study has been done on this site.
Mr. Andersen advised they have identified three endangered species and
they will need to address this issue.
Mr. Purdy feels the active park areas should have road frontage and
should not be to the rear of the lots so they can be easily accessed
by all residents. He also suggested spreading the parks throughout the
development instead of having them all in a row as well as making
different types of parks, one for adults, one for older children, one
for toddlers, etc. After a brief discussion regarding the common areas
and the trail system, Ms. Ackerman advised she will look at this
further and provide a revised plan which will show detail of the path
system, play equipment, amenities, etc. Ms. Kolakowski noted that
1,500 square feet for each lot or dwelling unit is required for open /
common area.
Commissioner Mortensen does not feel the parks need to be relocated.
Commissioner Burchfield agrees and he also does not feel road access
need to be provided. Pedestrian easements could be granted for access
to these areas.
Chairman Pobuda asked how visitor parking is being handled. Ms.
Ackerman advised they are proposing one-side, on-street parking. Ms.
McAvoy advised that the road are only proposed to be 27 feet and this
will not allow for two lands of traffic with on-street parking. With
on-street parking, the roads would need to be 30-feet wide.
Mr. Purdy advised the Planning Commission has the discretion to
require a bike path along Chilson Road as this area is proposed for a
bike path area in the future. Mr. Balberman stated they will put the
bike path if it is required by the Township. Mr. Purdy advised this is
not a current issue; however, it is something that is planned for the
future. Commissioner Burchfield would prefer having the developer work
on short-term plans instead of a long-term plan, such as a bike path
that would lead to nowhere. He suggested having the developer build a
bike path on the other side of the road, which would link to current
paths. Chairman Pobuda advised the petitioner to review these
suggestions.
Commissioner Mortensen does not feel that the developer should have to
spend the money which the Township does not see connection to it in
the near future.
Commissioner Cahill suggested that the Township, along with Hamburg
Township, could continue the sidewalk to the state land adjacent to
this site.
The status of the wetlands must be obtained. The petitioner advised
there was a report from JCK done in 2002 and that was submitted to the
DEQ, who has agreed with it. They will submit something in writing.
Lots 103, 111, 112, 114 – 119, and 125 to 125 as well as Building #2
encroach into the wetlands. The petitioner noted that the overlay
presented might not be exact and once they get another draft of the
layout, they will be able to determine which lots actually encroach on
the wetlands and address this issue. They are cognizant of the
Township’s concerns over the wetlands.
The dimension standards for the condos are not shown. The Township
would usually require 35 feet; however, due to the type of buildings
being proposed, 20 – 25 feet from the sidewalk would be allowed. The
petitioner will comply.
A traffic impact study is required. The petitioner will comply and
submit one.
Ms. McAvoy reviewed her letter of December 12, 2003. Most of her
issues will need to be addressed at final site plan review; however,
she noted the following concerns at this time:
1. In some areas, the proposed finished grade elevations are
significantly greater than the adjacent grades. Some retaining walls
may be necessary. They would like to see further detail.
2. The storm water management system will require approval from the
LCDC and MDEQ.
3. A detailed review of the storm sewer system will be performed
during the final site plan review.
4. The length of the two of the water mains are approximately 1,000,
which is longer than the allowed length. After a brief discussion, the
petitioner advised they will extend one of the water mains out to
Chilson Road and the other one to the property line for possible
future connection.
5. Fire hydrants should be located in order to provide adequate
coverage for all of the homes.
6. A grading easement will need to be obtained from the adjacent
property for the cul-de-sac near Lots 97 and 98
7. The LCRC requires that no more than four parcels from a cul-de-sac.
The cul-de-sac ending near Lot 24 has six parcels fronting it. The
petitioner will change the driveways for Lots #22 and #27 so they will
be accessed from the parallel part of the road and not the cul-de-sac.
Chairman Pobuda questioned the possibility of another outlet in case a
road is blocked and residents cannot get out of the cul-de-sacs. Ms.
Ackerman stated she could add “break away paths” to both of the
cul-de-sacs.
Commissioner Mortensen noted that the Impact Assessment and the PUD
Agreement are inconsistent in terms of the number of buildings. This
needs to be corrected. Also, Section 5.3 of the PUD Agreement, which
states “…..roads and sidewalks have been dedicated to and are
accepted by the Township as public improvements” is not true and it
will need to be removed. He also noted that the Township will need to
see a copy of the Master Deed for this development and the REU’s
have yet to be determined and will be calculated by the Township
Engineer and Staff.
Commissioner Mortensen noted the Fire Department’s letter and their
concern that the road width at the boulevard and approach does not
meet the requirements. The petitioner advised they will address this
issue.
Mr. Richard Barr, the petitioner’s attorney, noted that they are
addressing the environmental issues on this site with regard to the
soil and groundwater. They know that something needs to be done as
they will not build homes on contaminated soils. Once they have
evaluated the test data, they will determine if a Brownfield Plan is
needed. They will have the results of the test sometime in the
beginning of January.
The call to the public was made at 8:44 p.m.
Mr. Bob Herbst of 5390 Mountain had the following questions:
1. Will the cul-de0sac connect to the Copperleaf property in the
northeast corner of this site. Mr. Purdy advised there is no stub at
that point in Copperleaf.
2. How many units will be on this site. There will be 300, including
the duplexes.
3. Will all of the lots be the same size. Ms. Ackerman advised they
will be the same size.
4. He noted that the lake is pumped water from part of the mining
process. The petitioner advised they were not aware of this and they
will investigate this further and it include it in the Environmental
Impact Assessment.
5. He feels the issue of dogs in public parks needs to be addressed.
Mr. Bob Ausenmacher of 5439 Mystic Lake asked if this site will
receive municipal sewer and water. Mr. Purdy advised they will be on
the Genoa Township system.
Mr. Ausenmacher lives in Mystic Creek and he asked if his subdivision
will ever be tired into water and sewer. Ms. McAvoy advised the
current plan is to keep it as it is.
Mr. Arnold Rykowski of 5465 Glenway stated that his property overlooks
the small pool of water and there is a buffer between his home and the
mining operation. He questioned what was going to happen to this water
area. Ms. Ackerman advised they are currently planning on keeping that
water. He asked about the setbacks and Ms. Ackerman advised there is
125 feet from the proposed homes to the property line.
Ms. Elaine Serocka, who lives in Mystic Lake, asked if the cul-de-sac
in the upper right hand corner of the site will have access to their
subdivision. Ms. Kolakowski advised this site borders Rob Bolin’s
property and there is no access to Mystic Lake.
Mr. Ausenmacher asked if they could walk to property and the
petitioner advised they will give the public the engineer’s phone
number and he can arrange a visit to the site.
The call to the public was closed at 8:56 p.m.
Ms. Kolakowski wanted to ensure that there is room for decks to be
added to these homes. This issue, as well as the size limit of decks,
needs to be addressed in the PUD Agreement and approved by the
Planning Commission. She also advised that building permits are done
on a lot-by-lot basis so the issue of the five-foot minimum and 20
foot maximum side yard setback that is being proposed needs to be
addressed in the PUD Agreement. Mr. Andersen suggested that the final
site plan include preliminary building envelopes to determined what
kind of homes can be built on each lot.
Commissioner Burchfield would like the developer to make a commitment
as to what is going to be done with the seven acres south of the
railroad tracks west of Chilson Road.
Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Figurski, to table Agenda Item #1 at
the petitioner’s request. The motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Figurski, seconded by Mortensen to approve the minutes of
November 24, 2003 as corrected. The motion carried unanimously.
Member Discussion
Commissioner Figurski noted that Three Fires Middle School on Nixon
Road has a rolling lighted sign. Ms. Kolakowski noted that schools are
exempt from the ordinance.
Ms. Kolakowski noted that the Board approved the rezoning of only the
northern 40 acres of the Oliveto property. This is what Ms. Oliveto
originally requested, however the Planning Commission asked her to
rezone the entire 80 acres.
The meeting adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
Submitted by: Patty Thomas, Recording Secretary
Approved by: Barbara Figurski, Secretary |
