Charter Township of Lyon. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 12, 2018

Transcription

1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 12, 2018 The meeting was called to order by Mr. Conflitti at 7:00 p.m. Approved: March 26, 2018 Roll Call: Patricia Carcone, Board Liaison Jim Chuck, Secretary Michael Conflitti, Chairperson Stephan Hoffman Ron Pennington Kurt Radke Carl Towne, Vice-Chairperson Guests: 15+ Also Present: Carol Rosati, Township Attorney Patrick Sloan, McKenna Associates Leslie Zawada, Civil Engineering Solutions APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion by Towne, second by Chuck To approve the agenda as presented. Voice Vote: Ayes: Nays: Unanimous None APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of the February 26, 2018 Minutes Motion by Towne, second by Chuck To approve the minutes of February 26, 2018 as presented. COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS - None DDA REPORT - None Planning Commission March 12, 2018 Page 1

2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. AP-18-04, Cambridge of Lyon Rezoning. Property located on the east side of Kent Lake Road, south of Grand River Avenue. Public hearing to consider the proposed rezoning of acres from R-1.0 (Residential Agricultural District) to RM-2. Mr. Sloan reviewed the McKenna memo dated March 9, revealed the following: The analysis presented 1. The proposed rezoning would not further the comprehensive goals of the Township because it would permit development at a density far greater than specified on the Future Land Use Map. The most recent amendment to the Master Plan, which was adopted in December 2015, examined the subject parcel in Study Area 5, and concluded that the Future Land Use classification of this parcel is Single Family Residential A, which corresponds to R-1.0 zoning, with and without utilities. 2. The rezoning of the subject parcel to RM-2 would significantly increase the likelihood that a permitted use in the RM-2 district would be incompatible with the adjacent lots. 3. The approximate density of 218 multiple-family residential units in the proposed RM-2 district far exceeds the sewer capacity of 35 REUs assigned to the site, per the West Grand River Sanitary Special Assessment District. 4. Conditions have not changed that would justify rezoning the subject parcel to RM-2. Recent amendments to the Future Land Use map of the Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance (i.e., Mixed Use District and New Hudson Zoning District) recognizes the need for additional high-density residential and mixed-use development and encourages this development in and around New Hudson. 5. The proposed amendment to RM-2 would grant special privileges by allowing a higher density than would otherwise be permitted in the Master Plan s Single Family Residential A future land use classification for the site (up to 1.25 units/acre, which corresponds to R-1.0 zoning, with and without utilities). 6. The existing R-1.0 zoning classification provides for reasonable use of the property for single-family residential purposes 7. The rezoning will not result in the exclusion of any uses that the Township can reasonably accommodate on other appropriately-zoned land. 8. The rezoning of the subject parcel to RM-2 would establish an inappropriate precedent because the subject parcel is one of many parcels in the area zoned R-1.0 and planned for Single Family Residential A on the Future Land Use Map. 9. The proposed RM-2 zoning of the subject parcel is inconsistent with the zoning classification of the surrounding land. 10. The proposed RM-2 rezoning is inconsistent with the trends in land development in the general vicinity. Based upon the findings listed in the memo, it was recommended that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the rezoning proposed by Cambridge of Lyon, LLC, from R-1.0, Residential-Agricultural, to RM-2, Multiple Family Residential. Planning Commission March 12, 2018 Page 2

3 Ms. Zawada reviewed the CES memo dated March 9, She explained per the West Grand River Sanitary Roll, this parcel is assigned 35 REU s. This assignment is what was used to design the sanitary sewer. McKenna analyzed the potential number of REU s with rezoning to RM-2 and concluded it could be as high as 218 REU s. Although the gravity sewer is available to the parcel, it would need to be determined if the sewer has the capacity to support that number of units. CES is currently analyzing and updating the Sewer Master Plan and associated gravity sewers, but that analysis is not complete at this time. Due to this concern, she recommended that the Township Planning Commission either table this item or recommend a denial to the Township Board. Mark Guidobono with Cambridge Homes explained the history regarding this parcel and the viable development options that he provided. He explained single family attracts families with children, and they would not choose this site with the noise and the high speed traffic with I-96 close by. The numbers don t make sense to them with single family. They believe they are entitled to a reasonable use of their land, and single family is not reasonable at this site. The sanitary sewer is not a capacity issue, it s more of financial issue, paying for more taps. Mr. Avantini, from CIB Planning explained he was hired to help find a way to feasibly use this property. They don t think it s a matter of capacity with regard to the REU s, they think it s a matter of cost. The Turtle Creek PD they proposed did meet the requirements of the Master Plan, and it was denied. There are no similar R-1.0 zoned sites in the Township. There are site constraints with this property with the significant wetlands and floodplains. The property also abuts a mobile home park and is by the freeway. The map indicates certain things they should consider, and none are developed for R-1.0 single family residential. The property to the north is covered with regulated wetlands, and to the east is the mobile home park. The wetlands and floodplains do create a buffer, and the properties to the south are also buffered from the surrounding land uses. The subject site bears very little relationship to the interchange. The majority of the vehicles that will be exiting the site will turn right to the quick access to the interchange, so it does not have an impact on the intersection at all. They were not looked at in the 2015 Master Plan update. Things they would look at are utilities, environmental conditions, public facilities, and transportation systems. While McKenna does refer to the 2015 Master Plan, the reality is that surrounding properties were looked at in detail and it was really a continuation from decades before. This site does have public utilities, provided supporting information that the subject site cannot reasonably be used in the zoning designation, and the site is buffered presenting no negative impacts to the west and the south. Treasurer Carcone explained that as a courtesy, the 3 Township elected officials will meet with anyone who would like to meet, including residents and developers. When they meet with a developer they normally have the planner and the engineer present. She commented that she has never seen an apartment plan for this site. She finds it amazing that he thinks he knows what s good for their Township. First, they were told a Planning Commission March 12, 2018 Page 3

4 silver tsunami will be coming to this area, and now they are being told the area should be multi family. This developer purchased this piece of property; the Township did not tell him to purchase this property. They studied this area, they did their job for this area, they looked at it, and this Planning Commission studied this area with recommendations from the planner. She didn t appreciate comments like that. Mr. Conflitti opened public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Jim Crews, Cobblestone Lane Mr. Crews was at all the meetings for Turtle Creek, and the main reason it was denied was density because it didn t satisfy the Master Plan. Where Mr. Guidobono s planner got his information he didn t know. The multi resident area he is speaking about, they didn t get put there because the Town Hall was here, they were there long before this Township Hall was even thought about. The reason why it was left under study group number 5, had nothing to do with the intersection, exclusive of everything else. The report states, Like the 10 Mile Corridor it faces the constraints of the inadequate 2 lane road system, it also says, the transportation difficulties are compounded by the offset of Kent Lake Road and Pontiac Trail, and it would be prudent to keep it at a low density residential area. It was fully studied 2 years ago; it s not like it s an ancient study. To think they would consider 218 homes on that little piece of property is ludicrous and the precedent it would set is a concern with the Erwin s Orchards property. Chris Bolla, Cobblestone Lane Mr. Bolla has been here 20 years and thinks developers are entitled to build what they want to build, within reason. He did not move in to see an apartment building; this is not what we are. He does not want this to be another Novi. He cannot see 218 units at that corner or anywhere else, it s ridiculous. Joseph Yamin, Lamplighter Mr. Yamin found it funny how the applicant can lie to the Township s face and degrade the residents of Lyon Township. Mr. Conflitti closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. due to no further comments. Mr. Pennington explained they have consultants that they rely when. Both are recommending denial, and there is no public support. Out of the nine criteria the Township has set, the applicant only meets two of them. Mr. Radke stated the planner has strong arguments against the development. He did not see anything good. The density is what stopped the Turtle Creek development. He is not in favor. Mr. Towne stated when they look at a rezoning, he didn t think they met any of the 9 criteria. It does not meet the Master Plan, it s incompatible, and it would set a precedence. RM-2 is not what they want. It was a very conflicting testimony given by the CIB Planner, opposed to a very detailed letter from McKenna. In his opinion because it didn t meet the criteria in the Zoning Ordinance, he would recommend denial. Mr. Chuck stated it s not going to fit. He didn t want to see 218 units. He is not in favor. Treasurer Carcone stated she is not in favor. If they wanted multi-family, there are Planning Commission March 12, 2018 Page 4

5 properties available in the New Hudson District, and she has told the applicant that from day one. Mr. Hoffman stated he would ve liked to have seen what was proposed. Motion by Towne, second by Radke To recommend denial to the Township Board of AP Cambridge of Lyon rezoning on the grounds it doesn t meet the 9 criteria stated in the zoning ordinance 9.03E, and also stated in the McKenna memo dated March 9, 2018 and the CES memo dated March 9, Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Unanimous 2. AP-18-03, Zoning Ordinance Revisions Text Amendment. Public hearing to consider proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance that are considered housekeeping issues. Mr. Conflitti opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. and closed it due to no one wishing to comment. Motion by Radke, second by Chuck To recommend approval of the changes as presented for AP AP-18-07, Childcare Centers and Group Daycare Homes Text Amendment. Public hearing to consider text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the outdoor play area size for childcare centers and group daycare homes. Mr. Sloan reviewed the McKenna memo dated February 8, He recommended an amendment to Section 19.02(O)(7) of the Zoning Ordinance stating that the minimum outdoor play area of 150 sq. ft. per child is based on the number of children permitted outdoors at any one time. Mr. Towne stated he sat on these cases at the ZBA, and this completely clarifies what it should be. Mr. Conflitti opened the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. and closed it due to no one wishing to make comment. Motion by Pennington, second by Towne To recommend approval to the Township Board AP-18-07, Childcare Planning Commission March 12, 2018 Page 5

6 Centers and Group Daycare Homes as presented. 4. AP-18-08, Mini-Warehouses Text Amendment. Public hearing to consider proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding miniwarehouses. Mr. Sloan reviewed the McKenna memo dated February 8, He recommended an amendment to Section 19.02(T)(4)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance stating that the minimum roof pitch of a mini-warehouse storage building must be 4:12 (i.e., four (4) inches vertical rise for every 12 inches of horizontal run). A proposed amendment to this effect is on the following page. If the proposed amendment is acceptable, we recommend scheduling a public hearing. Mr. Hoffman questioned if it was a hip roof. Mr. Sloan stated it does require a gable on a pitch roof. Mr. Conflitti opened the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. Brent Hensley, All American Storage, Mile Road Mr. Hensley is here because he had a similar facility that was approved down the street. His competition deceived the Township from what they originally proposed, and he felt the Township would have enforced it if it had been caught at the building permit level. What was constructed is what the Township was trying to avoid. Most townships are 3:12 slope, which is what he proposed. Country Storage is very nice, and the pitches are 4:12. If you go to a 4:12, that would make every facility non-conforming, in some ways. They will be punishing those that are already existing. It s very subjective. He thought they should consider a 3:12. If they are changing it just for self-storage, the way to go is to put it under the definition of gabled roof. Mr. Sloan stated if they were to go to a 3:12, it would be better than current regulations. The current buildings would stay conforming, but if there were 3:12 and they went to a 4:12 then they would be a legal non-conforming. Mr. Conflitti closed the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. due to no one else wishing to make comment. Mr. Hoffman felt they could raise the bar and make it 4:12 pitch. Motion by Radke, second by Towne To recommend approval to the Township Board of AP Mini- Warehouses Text Amendment as presented. Planning Commission March 12, 2018 Page 6

7 OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS 5. AP-18-10, Taco Bell Site Plan. Property located on the south side of Lyon Center Drive West (north of Grand River Avenue, west of Milford Road). Site plan review of a proposed 2,521 square foot drive-thru restaurant on 1 acre in the Lyon Crossing Planed Development. Mr. Sloan reviewed the McKenna memo dated March 9, recommendation was offered: The following The following items shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission prior to taking action on this plan: 1. The Table of Regulations on Sheet SP must be amended with correct setback values for the front and rear yard. 2. Because a mortarless concrete brick veneer product may give the appearance of a concrete wall, we recommend that mortar be included and samples of the brick product be presented to the Planning Commission for review. 3. The trash enclosure must be modified to be constructed of masonry materials to match the restaurant structure. 4. The location of the HVAC equipment and parapet screening must be confirmed. 5. We recommend that the height of the transformer be shown, that additional evergreen shrubs be included around the perimeter to adequately screen it, and, if necessary, that the height of the shrubs be increased if they will not sufficiently screen the transformer. 6. Details and photometrics for wall-mounted lighting fixtures must be included. 7. The rise in lighting levels at the southern end of the drive-thru stacking lane, where there is no fixture shown, should be addressed. Additionally, additional information is required at the southernmost area of the stacking lane, which shows lighting levels as high as 1.6 foot candles but no light fixture is shown on the plans. 8. Sign illumination method must be described, if the sign is to be lit. 9. Add a Stop sign or Yield sign near the northeast corner of the Taco Bell building to alert drivers of the traffic in and out of Arby s. 10. Stripe the loading/delivery space. 11. The patio and building should be moved to the south to meet the required 75-foot front yard setback. Otherwise, a variance of nine (9) feet is required as proposed. 12. Correct discrepancies in the landscape plan and legend, and consider relocation of one (1) tree to the area near the patio. Ms. Zawada referenced the March 9, 2018 memo and explained they have no issues with the site plan. Mr. Chuck stated it s pre-stated that there should be a PowerPoint presentation. Tabling will be recommended. Planning Commission March 12, 2018 Page 7

8 Mr. Barnwell explained he brought samples of the block and fiber board that is used. Ms. Carcone asked if it s possible to get everything together and have the planner place them on the next meeting to give them time to prepare a little more. Mr. Hoffman commented about vestibules and explained it is in the Michigan Energy Code, and there is no way around it. Motion by Chuck, second by Radke To table AP-18-10, Taco Bell Site Plan based on insufficient information and conflicting outstanding issues. Mr. Antonio commented that this is the first time an applicant didn t get a copy of the planner s letter. Mr. Sloan stated he would find out the protocol on their end. He also cautioned them that brick and mortar retail are really struggling and anything they can do to help along is appreciated. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 6. Community Reports Treasurer Carcone brought the Planning Commission up to date regarding the last Board meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Chuck, second by Towne To adjourn the meeting at 8:58 p.m. Voice Vote: Ayes: Nays: Unanimous None The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m. due to no further business. Respectfully Submitted, Kellie Angelosanto Kellie Angelosanto Recording Secretary Planning Commission March 12, 2018 Page 8