PLAINFIELD CHARTER TOWNSHIP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING, ZONING & BUILDING SERVICES MEMORANDUM

Transcription

1 PLAINFIELD CHARTER TOWNSHIP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING, ZONING & BUILDING SERVICES 6161 BELMONT AVENUE N.E. BELMONT, MI PHONE FAX: MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Planning Commission Community Development Department DATE: March 23, 2017 RE: Upcoming Meeting Riverlands 4650 Grand River Drive - Rezone Request, RP to PUD. You are being asked to forward a recommendation to the township board regarding an ordinance to rezone approximately 82 acres from Rural Preserve to Planned Unit Development. This item must be removed from the table from November 22, Kelly Kuiper of Nederveld and Associates, on behalf of the developer, Brad Rottschafer (Mosaic Properties), is requesting a rezoning of 82 acres from Rural Preserve (RP) Residential to Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the purpose of a 43 unit residential development. As a refresher, the following provides the application history: February 23, 2016 Predevelopment discussion, no action requested July 26, 2016 Public hearing, action tabled. November 22, 2016 Comparison plan reviewed, no action taken December 13, 2016 The planning commission forwarded a favorable recommendation to the township board for the text amendment in the PUD chapter concerning the 100 foot buffer, to be seen as a guideline, and not a requirement. January 3, 2017 The township board approved the text amendment for the PUD chapter concerning the 100 foot buffer. March 28, 2017 Applicant is requesting a favorable recommendation to the township board for the rezone of the above mentioned property, from RP to PUD. planning commission/2017/march 28/pclett

2 Page 2 of 12 The development plan has since been revised based on the feedback and concerns the applicant has received from the planning commission, staff, concerned residents and other agencies, such as the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and Kent County Road Commission (KCRC) over the past year. Attached are the final development plans (as revised), and an updated narrative from the applicant which includes a summary of the changes. The list below summarizes the major changes: Slight reduction in density ( from 47 to 43 units) Relocation of curb-cuts onto Grand River Drive Slightly modified layout Additional guest parking spaces Increase in buffers between Grand River Drive and between Waterford Condominiums Addition of 8-foot wide path (to be public) along Grand River Drive. The following provides additional background information to consider with your decision: Master Plan When considering a proposed rezoning, the planning commission and township board should reference the Comprehensive Plan (CP). In this case, the CP designates the future land use of the subject properties as Rural Preserve, also known as large lot residential. The following is an excerpt from the Future Land Use Description of Rural Preserve from the Master Plan: The primary consideration when considering proposals for development within the Rural Preserve future land use area will be the degree such proposals advance and support the objectives of this Plan. Thus, measures to protect and enhance wildlife habitat, natural features, ecological corridors and rural character are more important than simple residential densities. The overall purpose of the future land use designations is to guide new development in logical and viable patterns, while offering fair, and in some cases, value-enhancing opportunities for development, where reasonable and appropriate. The planning commission must determine if the proposed Riverlands development plan is consistent with, and meets the intent of this land use designation. Density and Open Space The current PUD chapter provides general provisions for density and open space, using the cluster/open space technique in section 25.14C. There are guidelines for density, minimum lot width and lot sizes for areas master planned Rural Estate and Rural Preserve. As noted above, the subject properties are master planned Rural Preserve. Accordingly, for the subject property, the Rural Preserve guidelines suggest a density of 1 unit per 3 acres, with or without utilities. In the underlying Rural Preserve district, developers do not receive a credit toward density by providing public water and sewer. For the proposed development, however, the developer will be extending public water and sewer to serve the site. The proposed net density is.52 units per acre, or approximately 1.04 units per two acres. The layout of the proposed development shows attached and detached units clustered among 7.74 acres out of the 82 acres. This development area (7.74 acres) is outside of the floodway.

3 Page 3 of 12 With regard to open space, the development plan must provide a minimum of 40% open space. There is no flexibility in this requirement. The proposed open space area for this development complies with this requirement. Please note that for the purposes of calculating open space, our PUD regulations indicate that only half of the acreage designated as a wetland or floodplain, may be included in the total open space percentage. In this case, after such deductions, the proposed development plan includes more than 40% of designated open space area. The attached Ordinance to Amend, the applicant will be required to enter into an Open Space Preservation and Maintenance Agreement as approved by the township board. We should also note that the applicant is proposing a trail within the open space and a canoe/kayak launch area along the Grand River for their residents. These are nice recreational amenities that will provide good use of natural areas. Stormwater Management Because of its close proximity to the Grand River, effective stormwater management is critical for the health of the watershed. As noted in Mr. Solle s memorandum, the applicant will need to take the floodplain and floodway into consideration when designing stormwater detention facilities. As a reminder, the engineered stormwater management plans and drainage calculations, etc. are reviewed later in the process if the rezoning is approved. At this stage, the final development plan must show the general drainage plan and location of infrastructure. Detailed review takes place during site plan (condominium phase) and/or site condominium approvals. Public Water/Sewer This development can be served by both public water and sewer. Fire Department As noted in Chief McKellar s memorandum, the developer will be required to add a turn around to any access drives that exceed 150 feet in length. Staff foresees this issue being one that is manageable during the site plan approval process. Access The KCRC has had input in where the driveway approaches are located. The development plan reflects the locations that are approvable by the KCRC. Floodplain As noted in the narrative, the applicant will be working with the MDEQ to obtain permits for the floodplain and wetland mitigation process to compensate for the areas impacted by fill and other activity. The applicant will be required to provide the minimum basement openings (MBO) that are at least one foot above the 100-year floodplain. The MBO for each unit must be noted on the plan that the applicant will submit during the site plan approval process. Public Trail The applicant will be constructing an 8-foot wide non-motorized trail along along Grand River Drive from the west property to the eastmost access drive. This will provide a trail in front of the developed portion of this project. This trail will be public and fill in a key segment of the Township s Non-Motorized Pathways and Trails master plan for Grand River Drive.

4 Page 4 of 12 Sidewalks Sidewalks are proposed along both sides of internal roads on the western most end of the development. The eastern end of the development will be adjacent to the 8-foot public trail along Grand River Drive. The east-most units will also have connections to the private open space trail system proposed throughout the property. Buffer In an effort to keep in character with the surrounding residential developments, the applicant is proposing an 80 foot buffer between the nearest unit, and Grand River Drive. The buffer is proposed to provide landscaping and berming, both along Grand River Drive, and between the Waterford Condominium development. Recommendation. The planning commission is being asked to provide the township board with a recommendation to approve or deny the attached Ordinance to Amend the Zoning Ordinance and Map. The following provides a suggested motion, and findings in favor and opposition for your consideration: In Favor I move that the planning commission recommend to the township board, the adoption of the Riverlands PUD Ordinance based on our determination and finding that: (1) The clustering of density and infrastructure minimizes the overall development impact area which allows for greater open space preservation and decreases adverse impacts on the property, adjacent areas and environmentally sensitive areas that would likely occur with alternative development by right, under the current zoning of Rural Preserve; (2) The approved development is consistent with the intent and purposes of the Township s adopted Comprehensive Plan; (3) The approved development is consistent with the current provisions of Chapter 25 of the Plainfield Township Zoning Ordinance; (4) The proposed development can be adequately served by infrastructure including public water and sewer and the existing road system. In Opposition I move that the Planning Commission recommend to the Township Board that it deny the adoption of the Riverlands PUD Ordinance based on our determination and finding that: (1) The density proposed is in excess of the guidelines contained in the Township Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan; and (2) The approved development is not consistent with the current provisions of Chapter 25 of the Plainfield Township Zoning Ordinance.

5 Page 5 of 12 Ravines at Inwood Rezone Request for 6690, 6728, and 6740 Kuttshill Drive. You are being asked to forward a recommendation to the township board for this rezone request. This application was tabled at the March 16th meeting, and must first be removed from the table before consideration. The required public hearing for the planning commission has been held. This is the first step of a two part rezoning process. The next step, if the applicant chooses to move forward, is a public hearing with the township board. For the purposes of this meeting, the applicant is seeking a recommendation to the township board. This recommendation may be to approve or deny the proposed ordinance rezone request. The draft amendment to rezone is attached to this report. Refresher Kelly Kuiper of Nederveld and Associates, on behalf of the developer, Kuttshill Development LLC, is requesting to rezone acres in the R-1, Residential zone district to Planned Unit Development (PUD). The property is generally located in the middle of several existing, well established R-1, residential neighborhoods, and adjacent to the Rockford school campus on Kroes Street. The developer has noted that they will be contracting with Jim Tibbe Homes if the rezone is approved. The proposed rezone has a mix of housing types including 87 two and three unit condominiums, and 142 single family homes. Approximately 47 acres is dedicated to the single family home sites and just over 3 acres for the condominium units. Internal infrastructure, such as roads, accounts for approximately 15 acres. The applicant is proposing acres of open space. The project is proposed to be constructed in 7 phases, with the first phase being directly across from Woodhills Drive. The second phase will likely be the portion of the development at the bottom of Kuttshill Drive. Timeline 1. July 26 th, 2016: The planning commission reviewed the preliminary plan and requested a traffic study and comparison plan. 2. September 27 th, 2016: The R-1 comparison plan was reviewed and found to be technically feasible (i.e. grading, lot sizes, etc...). This comparison plan confirms that approximately 233 homes sites could be created in complance with the R-1 standards, as the property is currently zoned. 3. December 13, 2016: The public hearing was held and the draft traffic study was presented for public comment. Traffic concerns were the primary focus of discussion. Additional concerns expressed were about schools, density, housing types, sanitary sewer connection requirements, layout, stormwater and the proposed trail. 4. March 16 th, 2017: a special meeting was held to review the final traffic study report and review infrastructure impacts on the Ziverts Street and Riga Avenue neighborhood. 5. March 28 th 2017: The applicant is seeking a favorable recommendation to proceed to the township board. Based upon the traffic study, planning commission and public input, there have been several updates to the overall plan since July, Those changes and additional information not previously addressed, or in need of being expanded upon are summarized below:

6 Page 6 of 12 Summary of Changes and Updates: Slight increase in density ( from 227 to 229 units) due to cul-de-sac extension request Extended three cul-de-sacs to south property line to permit future extension Commitment to grade aforementioned cul-de-sacs to permit street extension Commitment to construct turn lane on southbound lane of Kuttshill Drive Conducted signal study for the intersection of Kuttshill Drive and Rogue River Road Commitment to restripe and work on signal light changes with the KCRC and MDOT Added guest parking spaces in condominium portion of development Added conservation easement on east property and evergreen plantings Extended and improved landscaping plan for berm along Kuttshill Drive Provided drainage (conservation easement) along rear of lots 46 thru 48 Provided 15 foot no clear buffer on outlots Agreed to provide easements for trail on outlots Commitment to construct an 8 footwide public trail along Kuttshill Drive frontage on property controlled by applicant Finalized interior sidewalk plan Commitment to work with Blythefield Baptist Church, KCRC and Township to address stormwater issues Increased size of lot 119 Added accident report and signal study to traffic study Finalized traffic study Committed to construction of the majority of amenities by the 4 th phase of the development Side yard setback revision Finalized the basic details of the governance of the proposed development through either a Home Owner s Association or Master Deed depending on the type and style of development Inlcuded a stormwater plan Clarified and revised the phasing of the project Amendment to Rezone Concern was expressed at the public hearing that the proposed PUD would be a stepping stone toward the commercial development of this property or higher densities. The amendment to rezone is essentially a contract that prevents this from happening. If the township board were to approve this proposed PUD, it would lock the developer into the Final Development Plan, open space preservation agreement, and timeline among other things. The PUD serves a tool to accomplish specific development details. Public Trail The applicant is proposing to build an 8 foot wide trail along the east side of Kuttshill Drive. This includes the construction of the trail across the frontage of the two land divided outlots, controlled by the applicant, adjacent to the intersection of Childsdale Avenue. Trails and sidewalks adjacent to common space are to be completed no later than the 4 th phase of the development. Trail segments adjacent to a phase shall be constructed at the time the adjacent

7 Page 7 of 12 phase is developed. The design and construction details of the path are subject to the approval to the Township engineer and Kent County Road Commission. Interior Sidewalks Internal sidewalks are proposed on one side of the street excluding some of the smaller cul-desacs. A pathway is proposed on the steeply sloped area to connect the upper and lower developments. As noted, common space sidewalks are required to be constructed with the 4 th phase of the development. Density The proposed density for this project that is consistent with the underlying R-1, Single Family Zone District and the township s Comprehensive Plan for this area. The applicant is proposing approximately 2 units per acre, where, under perfect conditions, the allowable density is 3.72 units per acre (an acre is 43,560 sq. ft. and the minimum lot size is 11,700 sq. ft.). Originally, the developer was propsing 227 units. However, two additional units were added as a result of the township s request that the three southerly cul-de-sacs be extended to south property line for future extension, versus being a permanent dead end cul-de-sac. Zoning/Master Plan The properties are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and master planned Low Density Residential (LDR). As part of the 2017 Master Plan Update, this area was the focus of some study, and the following provides the land use description for the subject area: Childsdale Ave near Kuttshill Drive This is primarily a single-family residential area located northwest of Wolverine Boulevard. However, there is about 100 acres of vacant property in this neighborhood that is currently undeveloped. During the process of developing this Master Plan update, the Planning Commission reviewed this area and determined that it should remain within the low-density residential future land use designation as a single-family neighborhood. Due to the potentially large impact on the local street network and on adjacent schools that development of this property may have, careful study of public infrastructure impacts should be done including but not limited to traffic studies, pedestrian connectivity, public safety, provision of utilities, impact on schools and adjacent recreational facilities. Flexible Side yard Setbacks The applicant originally proposed an 8 foot side yard setback minimum for a total 16 feet for the single family homes. At staff s suggestion, the applicant has revised the plan to show sliding (flexible) side yard setbacks. This means that the total of the side yard setback is still 16 feet, but can be reduced on one side to 6 feet. For example, this permits someone to submit a building a permit with the following setbacks: 6 foot and 10 foot, 7 foot and 9 foot and 8 foot and 8 foot on each respective side. In practice staff has found that this allows for additional variation in the overall layout, permits the homeowner greater utility in design, such as the future addition of a third stall on a garage or home additions, and provides for better stewardship of land by allowing footprint to adjust to contours which aids with drainage and grading. However slight this adjustment may seem, it does help. We should also note that we have similar sliding scale for setbacks in the R-1A district.

8 Page 8 of 12 Comparison Plan The comparison plan indicated that the developer could feasibly construct 233 or more homes, with a reasonable amount of grading. While the likelihood of getting exactly 233 homes may vary to one degree or another, it is apparent that the applicant could by right, construct over 200 homes without having to request a rezoning to PUD. In regard to grading, from street level, it is easy to get the impression that the property is too rugged to accommodate 200+ homes. However, after walking the property and reviewing contours, the grades are lot more favorable than one would initially expect. Also, all of the immeidately adjacent properties are zoned R-1, Residential. There are some nearby R-3, Multi-Family and an R-4, Mobile Home zoned properties off of Northland Drive to the east. Berms and Landscaping The applicant has updated the plans to show in greater detail, a series of 3 foot berms and tree plantings along the Kuttshill Drive street boundary. The intent of the berm is to screen rear yards from the street, and helps make the development more appealing. A detailed landscaping plan will be required for each phase. The applicant is also showing at minimum two evergreen tree plantings along the east property line to infill where existing tree cover does not exist or has to be removed due to stormwater requirements. Specifically, the Kent County Drain Commission may require the trees along portions of the east property line in the stormwater easement to be removed. This is a common issue, but with the PUD, this can be improved through landscaping amenities, such as this. Ultimately, this is an issue that has to be finalized during the development phase of the proposed project. The developer has also proposed to plant a tree in front of each single family lot or site condominium unit and along some of the interior open space. Again, if the property were to be developed under R-1 Single Family district requirements, the applicant would not have to provide these additional landscaping/tree planting requirements. All the common area improvements are required to be installed as part of the 4 th phase of the development. Open Space and Pavilion The applicant has met the minimal 40% open space requirement, as required by PUD ordinance. Open space is not a requirement for a traditional plat or site condominium development. Open space can come in many forms; the key is that it is protected from development by recording easements and/or restrictions. In this case, the applicant has done so through the following means: 1. A centralized pavilion, playground and common open space, which is to be completed as part of the 4 th phase of the proposed development. 2. Dedicated preservation easements to cover the berms, pathway and buffer areas along Kuttshill Drive. 3. A conservation easement along eastern edge of the development.

9 Page 9 of At the request of the township, a conservation easement at the rear of units 46 to 48 has been provided, in anticipation that when township s water tank is drained, some of the water will head in that direction. 5. An open space agreement to protect tree clearing on the steeply sloped area across the property, the ravine to the southeast and the property in and around the condominiums. A pathway is proposed between the upper and lower portions of the development. Due to grades, this pathway will likely be a mulch/natural trail. 6. Outside of the open space boundaries is a fifteen foot wide off premise no clear buffer between the condominiums on the two land divided lots off Kuttshill Drive, adjacent to Childsdale Avenue. These lots are not part of the proposed PUD, but are controlled by the developer at this time. Schools Rockford Public Schools has provided the township with a letter indicating that they can handle the additional enrollment and busing demands that may be generated from this development. Types of Housing The PUD ordinance specifically permits attached housing units (typically condominiums) to encourage clustering and preservation of open space. However, at the public hearing there was considerable concern expressed about the condominiums, impact on property values, and whether or not they would be rental units. Staff has put together a summary of these issues below: 1. Impact on Schools and Traffic In general condominiums are considered to have a lower impact on schools and traffic than a traditional single family home, due the traditional target age group of empty nesters. This style of housing lessens the impact of a similar number of single family homes. 2. HOA s and Master Deeds Dependent on the style of development, a homeowner s association (HOA) or a master deed will govern the single family homes. A master deed will also be part of the condominium development. These documents are generally more restrictive than township ordinance and in staff s experience limit the potential for blight and downturns in property values. The number of rentals is quite often self-regulated in this situation by the members of association. Staff has experienced far more issues with rental properties in single family neighborhoods, typically not governed by these documents. Fire Department As previously noted at the last meeting, the proposed layout can be served by the Fire Department. An engineered plan will have to show fire hydrants, as part of each development phase. Utilities Rick Solle s memorandum is attached. Mr. Solle has determined that public water and sanitary sewer are available and capable of serving this development. Stormwater Management

10 Page 10 of 12 The stormwater layout and design is required to conform to our ordinances. The design details will be reviewed later in the process. The applicant has agreed to work with the township to provide the necessary easements and work with the township to coordinate conveying stormwater overflow from the Blythefield Baptist Church and Woodhills Drive area to the Kuttshill drainage ditch. This is an issue that will require coordination with the applicant, Blythefield Baptist Church and the KCRC. Additionally, the applicant has included a stormwater exhibit. The exhibit shows runoff as it currently is and how it will be managed with the proposed development of the property. They indicate that the proposed plan will reduce the rate (which is an important factor in erosion) of water leaving the property. Traffic Study/Required Off-site Improvments A special meeting was conducted on March 16 th, 2017 to review the final traffic study and the general concerns raised by the public. Subsequently, based on the results of the traffic study and review by the township s traffic engineer and the KCRC, it has been determined that: 1. The developer shall construct an extension of the existing southbound right turn lane on Kutshill Avenue to Rogue River Road as approved by the Township and Kent County Road Commission. The timing of necessary off-premises road improvements shall be determined by the Township Board prior to approval of the first phase of development. This is addressed in the development agreement. 2. The eastbound approach from Rogue River Road to Northland Drive (M-44) shall be restriped to create two right turn lanes to southbound Northland Drive. This will be done by the KCRC in conjunction with their seasonal work in the area. Ziverts Street/Riga Avenue Staff addressed the cross connection of the Ziverts Street and Riga Avenue neighborhood with this PUD in depth at the March 16, 2017 meeting. In summary, the connection to Ziverts Street is a mandatory requirement per the KCRC. Alternative routes were explored but are limited due to grades and property ownership. Extensions of sanitary sewer, sidewalks or streetlights are not planned. The township may require the extension sidewalk along Ziverts Street to take advantage of the remilling that has to occur when the cul-de-sac is removed by the KCRC. Future Street Connections At the township s direction, the applicant has agreed to design and construct the three south most cul-de-sacs in the development to allow for a future connection to the adjacent parcels. In addition, the developer shall provide an agreement and necessary easements for future connections as approved by the Township Board and KCRC. Adjacent properties are held by other property owners. Township staff has met with the KCRC and MDOT on this matter and will continue to push for extension of one of these cul-de-sacs to connect and for intersection improvements on M-44. Streetlights Streetlights are required throughout the development. Water Tank

11 Page 11 of 12 The township owns approximately 6 acres of property which is shown on the northeast corner of the development plan. Approximately 3.7 acres of the parcel is shown to be part of the development plan. The township board has authorized the applicant the ability to represent the tank parcel as part of the plan, but has not agreed to sell the property. Sale of this property has to be approved by the township board. If the township board, decides not to sell the tank property the applicant will have to amend the Final Development Plan. Recommendation to the Township Board. The planning commission is being asked to provide the township board with a recommendation to approve or deny the attached Ordinance to Amend the Zoning Ordinance and Map. The following provides a suggested motion and a set of findings in favor and opposition for your consideration: In Favor I move that the Planning Commission recommend to the Township Board, the adoption of the ordinance to amend section 5.02 of the zoning ordinance for development of the Ravines at Inwood PUD development based on our determination and finding that: (1) the benefit of allowing for open space preservation, public and private recreational amenities, and the installation of various on-site and off-site improvements will minimize adverse impacts on the property and adjacent areas that would likely occur with alternative permitted developments; (2) the approved development is consistent with the intent and purposes of the Township s adopted Comprehensive Plan; (3) the approved development is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 25 of the Township Zoning Ordinance; (4) the approved development is further supported for those reasons set forth by members of the Planning Commission, the applicant and members of the public, as reflected in the entire record in this matter, including the various hearings. In Opposition I move that the Planning Commission recommend to the Township Board that it not adopt the proposed ordinance to amend section 5.02 of the zoning ordinance for development of the Ravines at Inwood PUD development based on our determination and finding that: (1) the proposed is not in character and does not meet the spirit of the guidelines contained in the Township Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan and, on balance, conflicts with residential development on adjacent properties; (2) the proposed development would introduce a residential style of development that is different nature than that envisioned as part of the Township's long-term plans for this area; (3) the proposed development is not supported for those reasons set forth by members of the Planning Commission and members of the public, as reflected in the entire record in this matter, including the various hearings.

12 Page 12 of 12 Attachments