MINUTES CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BRIGHTON DECEMBER 9, BUNO ROAD 7:00 P.M. BRIGHTON, Ml (810)

Transcription

1 MINUTES CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BRIGHTON DECEMBER 9, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 4363 BUNO ROAD 7:00 P.M. BRIGHTON, Ml (810) S. Holden called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. The Pledge of Allegiance was said. Present: S. Holden, G. Unruh, B. Padget, R. Doughty, L. Theis, L. Herzinger Absent: G. Mitsopoulos S. Holden opened the meeting stating that all comments would be taken even though it was not an official public hearing at the time of the rezoning item on the agenda. CALL TO THE PUBLIC None. AGENDA G. Unruh moved and R. Doughty seconded to approve the agenda as presented. MINUTES B. Padget moved and L. Herzinger seconded to approve the November 12, 2013 special meeting minutes as amended. EXTENSION OF MILL CREEK PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SP#: 12/07; LOCATION: FORD ROAD; TAX ID #: ; OWNER AND APPLICANT: U]) INVESTMENTS, LLC; ZONING: RM1 Applicant Representative Chris Grzenkowski stated that the applicant is requesting an additional year extension from their January 14, 2013 preliminary site plan approval by the Planning Commission. G. Unruh moved and L. Theis seconded to extend the site plan approval for SP # 12/07; Location: Ford Rd.; Tax ID #: ; Owner and Applicant: U]) Investments, LLC; Zoning: RM1 for one (1) year per Zoning Ordinance Sec. 1803(h)(2) so the preliminary site plan approval for Mill Creek is extended until January 14,2015. ~PUBLIC HEARING FOR PUD REZONING RZ#: 13/0 1 FOR COVES OF WOODLAND LAKE ~AND THE RIDGE AT WOODLAND LAKE; LOCATION: WOODLAND SHORE DRWE AND t~iirist1ne AND DANN DRiVES; TAX ID# s: AND ; OWNER AND APPLICANT: CCMG FIVE LLC AN]) NATIONAL CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION; ~EXISTING ZONING: R2; PROPOSED ZONING: RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PU])) K. Mathews explained the rezoning process including notification requirements. She stated that since the developer had not put up a sign within the required time frames in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, the public hearing would be delayed to January. She stated that since this December meeting was scheduled as a public hearing all of the proper notifications, per the law, were completed including a mailing to every property owner within 300 ft. of the property and a notice published in the newspaper. She stated that the same persons within 300 ft. of the property would receive a notice and the notice would be placed in the paper again for the planned January public hearing. She also explained that the Planning Commission had held an input meeting in October and that no public notifications are required for input meetings and further that the Planning Commission had approved the referenced October meeting minutes in November. She also explained the complete rezoning process and subsequent review phases of the project. Page] of5 Charter Townsh~p ofbrighton Planning Commission Minutes D ber 9, 2013 Re lar Meetin Approved~ I ~JktA i/j ~

2 Kate Bond, Boss Engineering, Applicant representative, presented their proposed site plan for the thirtythree (33) single family home sites on their side of the project which would be accessed by a private road to be extended from Woodland Shore Drive. A reduced R.O.W. and road width are being proposed because of the significant natural features on the site. She stated that they have had preliminary conversations with the DEQ regarding permits; the Fire Chief regarding congregate mailboxes and a gated entrance and that due to the concern that having only one way into the site they have investigated a secondary emergency access between Lots 1 and 2 along Vista View. She stated that eight (8) lakefront lots would be created for the development. She stated that the planner s review had requested a calculation on the open space; she distributed a layout which included the open space calculations on it. She stated that they developed parallel plans for the underlying R2 zoning as required and they additionally did a parallel plan for an R3 zoning. She stated that the open space is fiftysix (5 6%) percent and the density they are proposing is within the allowable parameters if a density bonus is considered. She also passed out a draft road maintenance agreement for Woodland Shore Drive since that was an issue thathad had been discussed previously by the Planning Commission and staff. She stated that there is sewer available and they will be connecting into the sewer and that they would like public water if it is available but they can do the development with wells. She stated that they are considering additional amenities of extra benches to be located around the pond near Woodland Shore Drive in reference to the planner s review suggesting additional amenities should be considered for the open space areas. Bryan Amann, Northridge Church, Applicant Representative, explained that the Church received the twelve (12) acre parcel to the east of the Boss Engineering parcel as a gift from the previous owner, Clarence Johnson, and that the church would be letting Boss develop the site. He stated that they have met with the neighborhood and that there will be no church or any uses related to the church on the site. He stated that their proposal is for sixteen (16) detached condominiums which mean that the owners of those units would only own their homes; not any land area. The land surrounding those units would be held in common open space. He stated that those units are typically sold to persons aged fiflyfive (55) and up without children, they are high end homes and this design concept has been very successful in Plymouth and Northville Townships. He stated that an advantage to this portion of the development is that no lakefront lots will be created and that the deed restrictions will state no motorized boats are allowed but there will be a small beach area near the lake. He stated that their private road will connect into the public roads of Dann and Christine and that that they are willing to participate in any road special assessment districts (SAD s) with the homeowners of those areas. K. Mathews, Township Planner, summarized her letter dated November 19, 2013 highlighting that this property is in a natural features area and that an environmental impact statement (ElS) is required. Also that the proposal is for thirtythree (33) single family lots of an average of 18,000 sq. ft. on the westerly side of the project and sixteen (16) detached condominiums on the easterly side of the project; that the R.O.W. is proposed as fifty (50) ft. with twentyseven (27) ft. pavement instead of a sixtysix (66) ft. R.O.W.; and there are eight (8) lakefront lots proposed on the single family lot side with a small beach area on the detached condominium side. The footprint on the church side is smaller due to detached condominiums v. single family lots. Jacob Rushlow, Township Engineer, presented his letter dated November 27, 2013 highlighting that the project would connect into sewer and that the applicant would like to connect into water if it can be extended to this site. He mentioned the R.O.W. size; sidewalks are proposed on the south side of the roadways; and stated that the traffic impact statement (TIS) needed more detailed information. The Planning Commission asked the Township Engineer his thoughts regarding the proposed fifty (50) ft. R.O.W. v. the normal sixtysix (66) ft. R.O.W. He stated that the R.O.W. could be reduced. Public Input Chairman Holden invited the public to comment since the agenda and notice had been published stating a public hearing was scheduled. He also advised the audience that they will have another opportunity to speak at the rescheduled public hearing. Page 2 of5 Charter Township ofbrighton Planning Commission Minutes Dec mber 9, 2013 Regular Meeting Approved~E~1Vl..4Vj,~ 131 Z/QItj

3 Bob Potocki, 8420 Woodland Shore Drive An (dated December 6, 2013) was included in the packet; stated he has environmental concerns and that the project needs to be stabilized before construction; the State has this listed as preserved land; DEQ needs to review this project; permits are required; this area is designated as a bioreserve. Barb Potocki, 8420 Woodland Shore Drive The ecological system will cause extreme problems; escrow account needs to be established for repairs to Woodland Shore due to construction traffic and longterm maintenance of Woodland Shore; the density in the area is already too high there are 300 homes in the area besides the 78 homes on Woodland Shore Drive and 46 condominiums proposed to be built at the neighboring property to the west; suggested connecting from Vista View; asked where water would be extended and would existing homes have to connect. Gary Hamlin, 8424 Woodland Shore Drive Asked how the developer has access to his property off of Woodland Shore Drive, a private road; he is realistic that the property will be developed; he suggested connecting into Vista View; area at the entrance to the development is too steep; he does not want to pay for water; lot sizes and proposed frontages are too small; a signal light at the entrance to Woodland Shore Drive will be needed. Tim Happ, 2771 S. Hacker Rd. Questioned the bridge crossing; how will the water line be extended along the bridge it can t go below the deck of the bridge. Ray Sasinowski, 8945 Margo Dr. want thrutraffic. Concerned about the impact of construction traffic; also he does not Jeff Brockmole, 2925 Hideaway Beach Dr. What are the values and square footages proposed for the homes; are there going to be street lights; can the 50% open space be changed in the future? James Sarna, 8266 Woodland Shore Dr. The proposed entrance is too steep; what about connecting between Lots 4 and 5 of Vista View; does the developer have the right to access the property off of Woodland Shore Drive? Doug Taylor, 3319 Oak Knoll Dr. Confusion over the underlying zoning and the PUD is it R2 or R 3?; what happens to the zoning if the developer changes hands?; if water is extended, will the existing homes in the area have to connect?; if the developer connects to water, will they develop more than the 33 single family homes and 16 detached condominiums?; what about the conversion back to the original zoning if the project does not move forward?; will the Township develop an ordinance requiring the water connection? Also expressed storm water concerns; are curb and gutter required along the roads? Will they filter the storm water before it drains into the wetlands? Concerns during construction will the basins be constructed first?; and what kind of fertilizer and deicing/road salts will be used? Phil Reid, 2578 Doris Dr. Concerned about construction traffic and sewer connections neighborhoods have to connect? will existing Ken Chaney, 2537 Doris Dr. Concerned about potential sewer costs for existing neighbors i.e. do they have to connect (water too); concerned about trees being taken out and not replaced; concerned that it s a hilly property; soil erosion concerns. Frank Grapentien, 3148 Hideaway Beach Dr. Distributed letter and stated that the area has many SAD s aquatic, rubbish, roads how will these developers participate in those SAD s and Homeowner s Associations which include Hunter and N. and S. Christine and the fees that the homeowners pay for landscaping, snow removal, etc.; concerned about construction traffic including the effect on Hunter Rd.; feels that the traffic increase is more than what is outlined in the TIS; concerned about the waterline extension under the bridge can t attach it to the bridge it must be bored under the water; need a better traffic study which includes more intersections such as Hunter and other outlying intersections; get LCRC Page 3 of5 Charter Townshq, ofbrighton Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2013 Re lar Meeting Approved~~(AV~V~ ~ ~3 \ 1JO (1~

4 information regarding the impact on traffic; need to include Cornerstone traffic and Hilton Elementary School traffic. Gary Mitter Sr., 8400 Woodland Shore Dr. What right does the developer have to access Woodland Shore Drive?; the homeowners along Woodland Shore own an additional 10 ft. beyond the roadway; concerned about the narrowing of roads in the development. Harry Yip, 8641 Dann Dr. Reviewed his dated December 6, 2013; opposes the rezoning. Arthur Jordan, 2602 Shelly Concerned about the need for emergency access out of the subdivision; Vista View is a private road and is owned by the homeowners in Woodland Lake Estates; if they make a connection into Vista View, will the developer improve the road? Resident along Margo Stated that the neighborhood pays annually into a road SAD which needs to be shared by the new development; if the developer pays into the existing road SAD, does this decrease the existing homeowners SAD costs? Margaret Mitter, 8400 Woodland Shore Dr. brought up to current standards? Concerned about traffic will the existing roadway be Bill Waggoner, 8209 Robins Dr. Stated that Vista View is a private subdivision with private roads; if the developer connects into their roads with added traffic then they need to participate in the costs of maintaining their roads including chloride and grading. Martin Hemminger, 8609 N. Christine Stated that if the developer extends Dann Dr. that the buffer row of trees should remain; also discussed storm drainage concerns in the area. Mike McManus, 3018 Hideaway Beach Dr. Likes that the boat traffic will be decreased with this proposal v. previous proposals; hopes that the road elevation will not go to extremes; supports the concept of the PUD because they won t clear cut the property. Kevin Storch, 8360 Woodland Shore Dr. Asked about the parallel plans and the number of lots allowable; he stated that as part of the pathways plan there should be sidewalk that connects the two sections of the development; he also stated that he thought there should be at least an emergency access road to connect the two portions of the development together; how many gravel trucks will be coming across the bridge as part of the development and will the developer participate in the cost of the bridge? Cheryl Guard, 8334 Point Dr. Stated that the road maintenance agreement proposed for Woodland Shore Dr. needs to include other parties because many parties are involved in that roadway. The Planning Commission addressed some of the items brought up by the public. First, it was asked whether existing households in the area would need to connect into the sewer and water. B. Vick, Township Manager, stated that there is no legal way to force residents to connect into water and that sewer would not need to be connected if it is not available at the properties. Emergency egress was discussed. Mr. Boss stated that he would we willing to talk with anyone who would like to in detail at a later date and responded to some of the questions raised from the public including that it is their intent to have a good product when the project is completed and that they want to participate in the maintenance of the roads in the area. He stated that they will not be connecting the two projects with a road and that they will try and minimize the construction traffic; the value of the homes will be high much brick is planned; it is planned to be a gated community; streetlights are planned; and that the planned unit development agreement is recorded for the project in perpetuity. Further he said they will not be increasing the lots if water is available beyond what is already being proposed; and there will be curbs along the streets because the roads deteriorate too quickly without them. Applicant expressed his concern Page 4 of5 Charter Township ofbrighton Planning Commission Minutes De ember 9, 2013 Regular Meeting Approved ~7~ fl l/v~ 7j~ 3

5 about the project s storm water runoff and that they will have fertilizer restrictions; they do not want to cut trees and favor preserving trees as much as possible and that the reduced R.O.W. and roadway widths are planned to preserve trees. He referenced the need for some upkeep at the corner of Woodland Shore and Vista View and stated they will be involved; and he acknowledged this property had paid into the bridge. He stated that if a waterline is extended to the property it will be bored under the lake. He stated that the emergency access they mentioned is just that: it is for emergency access only and will not be used; they will fix the Vista View road frontage and they will be extending Dann with a loop per the Fire Department. The Planning Commission discussed the Fire department s letter dated November 23, 2013 which stated that parking is only allowed on one side of the roadway; it was discussed that the narrower roads may be difficult for turnaround of their large trucks; and that sprinkling of the homes will be required because of the length of the road and only one ingress/egress. It was also discussed that the developers should use just one trash hauler because there is less wear and tear on the roads. It was discussed that the TIS needs to be more detailed and that OHM needs to send a letter regarding the TIS to the applicant. It was stated that staff would research the applicant tying into existing SAD s. Based on the number of unanswered questions and outstanding items, the consensus was that the Planning Commission public hearing would be postponed until February 10, REPORTS AND CORRESPONDENCE K. Mathews Reviewed Mark Shaffer s dated 11/25/13 regarding withdrawal of his application that was tabled at the last Planning Commission meeting for ninety (90) days. L. Theis moved and R. Padget seconded to accept Mr. Shaffer s withdrawal of his Preliminary Site Plan application, SP #: 13/11, for the redevelopment of and E. Grand River; Tax ID # s: and 042. L. Theis Real property exemption for disabled veterans. K. Mathews Reviewed the 2014 PC meeting dates. Consensus was to accept the 2014 meeting schedule as adopted by the Township Board. CALL TO THE PUBLIC None. L. Herzinger moved and R. Doughty seconded to adjourii ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:27 P.M. Respe~fully ~bn~tt*ød. Steve Holden, Chairperson jilifr Unr~h, ~ecretary lly M~ s, Recording Secretary Ann M. Bollin, CMC, Clerk Page 5 of5 Charter Townsh~p ofbrighton Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2013 Regular Meetin Approved3~ 1,i~k Vl/~ ~L~O ~L/