GREEN OAK CHARTER TOWNSHIP Silver Lake Road, Brighton, MI Phone: ext.104 Fax:

Transcription

1 GREEN OAK CHARTER TOWNSHIP Silver Lake Road, Brighton, MI Phone: ext.104 Fax: Green Oak Charter Township Green Oak Charter Township Hall Planning Commission Silver Lake Road Regular Meeting Brighton, MI Thursday, November 15, :00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. The Pledge to the Flag 3. Roll Call of the Commission 4. Approval of the Agenda 5. Approval of October 4, 2018 Regular Meeting Minutes 6. Call to the Public (Limited to agenda items only) 7. Business Items: A. Public Hearing for Rezoning Parcel , Mile Road, South Lyon MI Requested rezoning to R3 Single Family Residential the property is currently zoned Residential Farming and the parcel is 40 acres in size. B. Public Hearing to AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 38, ZONING TO AMEND ARTICLE IV, SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, SECTION Reports A. Chairman Report B. Township Board Representative C. Zoning Board of Appeals Representative D. Planning Consultant E. Correspondence 9. Call to the Public 10. Adjournment Lamberto Smigliani, Chairperson Keith Lee Secretary Deborah Sellis Michelle Stock Posted: November 8, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION Michael Sedlak, Twp. Board Rep. Sarah Pearsall,

2 Green Oak Charter Township Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 4, 2018 The meeting was called to order by Mr. Smigliani at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call: Absent: Also Present: Guests: 11 Keith Lee Sarah Pearsall Michael Sedlak Deborah Sellis Lamberto Smigliani Michelle Stock Keith Lee APPROVAL OF AGENDA Debra McKenzie, Zoning Administrator Paul Montagno, Carlisle Wortman Leslie Zawada, CES Motion by Pearsall, second by Stock To approve the agenda as presented. Voice Vote: Ayes: Nays: MOTION APPROVED Unanimous None Approval of the September 6, 2018 Regular Meeting Minutes Motion by Sedlak, second by Pearsall To approve the minutes of September 6, 2018 as presented. Voice Vote: Ayes: Unanimous Nays: None MOTION APPROVED CALL TO THE PUBLIC Approved: Chris Burkhalter, Crooked Lane He brought a letter from another resident that Green Oak Charter Township Planning Commission October 4, 2018 Page 1

3 has serious concerns regarding Asher Farms and read it to the Planning Commissioners. Sally Burgess, Greenwood Trail She is concerned regarding the north entrance. She is frustrated by the process. She got on this from the beginning and she contacted the Livingston County Road Commission. She has spoken with the Township, the Road Commission and the developer and each entity has told her something different as to who to talk to regarding the 2 nd entrance. She talked to Ms. Hiller at the Road Commission and she told her that they really don t have any input until the builder presents the plan and then at that point their job is to make sure the requirements are met and documented. Ms. Burgess asked to be shown where it says two entrances are required. Ms. Hiller explained if there are more than 30 units there has to be two entrances and she thought it was the fire department rule. Ms. Burgess proceeded to check with the Fire Chief and the Township and was told here is no such requirement. Ms. Burgess called the developer and originally the developer only wanted one entrance, but they were told by the Road Commission the requirement is two. She wonders why no one can show her the requirement of two entrances. The process is broken. They are still dealing with the issue that there are 70 units and potentially they will all be making left turns right in front of where they are trying to enter/exit their road. She commented that she has 8 homes on her street and there are 21 drivers. She would like someone to address the potential for congestion. She spoke to the resident on the corner and she is very concerned. She questioned why there is not a representative from the road commission at this meeting. CHAIRMAN RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS MEETING CALL OF THE PUBLIC - None BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Site Plan Review for Asher Farms, SP parcel # a site condominium with 70 half-acre single family residential lots on acres. The parcel is located on the west side of Rushton Road, north of 10 Mile Road, south of Doane Road, in Section 23. The site is zoned R-2 single family residential, in which the single family residential use is permitted at the requested density. Motion by Smigliani, second by Stock For site plan review and consideration of Asher Farms, SP parcel # a site condominium with 70 half-acre single family residential lots on acres. The parcel is located on the west side of Rushton Road, north of 10 Mile Road, south of Doane Road, in Section 23. The site is zoned R-2 single family residential, in which the single family residential use is permitted at the requested density Voice Vote: Ayes: Unanimous Nays: None MOTION APPROVED Green Oak Charter Township Planning Commission October 4, 2018 Page 2

4 Mr. Montagno reviewed the Carlisle Wortman memo dated August 29, He recommended that all of the following outstanding items must be addressed before action is taken on these plans: 1. Increase width of pathway along Rushton Road to 10 feet. 2. Provide non-motorized pathway along the entire Rushton Road frontage. 3. Provide approval for work within the ROW from LCRC. 4. Provide photometric plan for further review. 5. Obtain a sign permit prior to construction. Ms. Zawada referenced the CES memo dated October 4, 2018 and explained the applicant submitted the variance request to the Township Board from a section in the engineering design standards. The variance was granted with conditions as follows: 1. Stormwater Maintenance Agreement will be required. 2. The applicant will provide an initial fund for stormwater maintenance for the HOA. 3. There will be secondary enclosed flood route through piping as a backup in the event there is an issue with the main pipe. 4. The applicant and HOA will be required to have a stormwater operator. She also noted if the site plan approval is granted a detailed engineer review is required. She noted the site is proposed to be served by individual septic systems and wells. There is a very large central detention basin for stormwater with an outlet to the wetland to the north. As far as the road access points, it is under the jurisdiction of the Road Commission. The applicant explained they are hoping for approval and felt they had everything in order. Ms. Zawada commented it would be very unusual to see this number of units with only one access point. She has only seen it done that way one time where there wasn t enough site distance for two entrances. Ms. Sellis explained she travels that route frequently and she questioned the safety. Since she lives there, she is sensitive to the comments from the resident. Clerk Sedlak explained from an accessibility standpoint it is always better to have a loop to move around especially if there is not a hydrant system in place. Two entrances are always better than one. He is aware there is a limited site distance in that area. He is concerned with those heading north and people turning left into the sub. Clerk Sedlak asked if they are following the sidewalk ordinance. The applicant explained they are proposing sidewalks on both sides of the street internally and from the southern approach south to Ten Mile Road a sidewalk along Rushton Road. Mr. Montagno explained the pathway ordinance requires a developer who develops along an area that calls for a pathway that it would be built across the frontage. That is what is suggested to build the pathway along the entire frontage. Often times landmark trees can be circumvented or natural features or steep slopes are dealt with by retaining walls or easements. Typically they want the pathway to be within the road right of way so the Green Oak Charter Township Planning Commission October 4, 2018 Page 3

5 public has access to it but if there is a situation where the pathway would leave the road right of way then they would look for an easement to be granted. Clerk Sedlak questioned how much the initial fund will be for the stormwater maintenance. The applicant explained that hasn t been determined yet, but they would have to get an estimate on the annual cost and get coverage for a couple of years. The issue is inspection and they intend on funding that part. They don t know what the cost of a stormwater operator is. Once they find that out, it will be a reasonable amount. Clerk Sedlak asked if they would retain control of the system until the last home is occupied? The applicant explained the Condominium Act says once 50% of the houses are sold then the developer loses some control and the HOA takes over. The Master Deed will be presented with that language in it. Ms. Zawada explained numbers were not discussed at the Board meeting and she thought it would probably be in the review of the condominium documents and what they are proposing to do and if it seems reasonable. She would expect it would be reviewed at the same time as the condo documents. Clerk Sedlak confirmed there would be documentation that the homeowner s would need to fund the maintenance once a year and if it failed they would have to fund it. They want to make sure if there is a potential failure down the road it is funded adequately. Ms. Zawada stated she thought more discussion needed to take place with the applicant. Clerk Sedlak asked if the contractor would guarantee his work for x amount of time. Ms. Zawada stated two years is a typical maintenance bond. She stated her concern is more long term that the HOA when they are stablishing the maintenance fund there is a section of storm that is deeper than average and the deeper it is the more expensive it is to fix. She is comfortable with what was presented at the Board meeting regarding the 100 year storm event. Ms. Stock asked if the pathway should be on one side or the other. Mr. Montagno stated this would be the first pathway established on Rushton Road, the sidewalk is different than a pathway. Typically the long term maintenance becomes the responsibility of the township, he thought it would be redundant to have both. He explained the plans indicate Rushton Road and the recommendation would come from the Planning Commission. Ms. Sellis questioned the two entrance requirement. Mr. Montagno stated good practices dictate 2 entrances, with fire safety alone. Ms. Zawada stated it s also based on site distance and it s not a certain number of units that triggers a second entrance its if they had brought in a plan with a 3000 foot cul de sac it would have been denied which prompts the 2 nd entrance. Ms. Zawada explained because of the natural topography of the site the applicant presented the case that there is a large natural depression that can hold multiple 100 year storm events and that they have a secondary piped route that justified the request for the variance. If the main entrance to the detention basin failed there is another route enclosed in pipe that would prevent people from flooding and based on that and other information the Township Board felt comfortable granting the variance. Clerk Sedlak questioned what the developer will do about the high levels of sodium in the Green Oak Charter Township Planning Commission October 4, 2018 Page 4

6 water. The applicant explained they are working with the health department and sampled wells in the area and found elevated chloride in all of them. Language was added that says if a resident wishes they can eliminate the salty taste of the water by adding a reverse osmosis system to the Master Deed and the Heath Department granted approval. Clerk Sedlak asked if they are aware they had to add an arsenic removal system at Centennial Farms. The applicant stated they are half of the current standard for arsenic. There was brief discussion regarding the pathway and acquisition of property which can be problematic. The Planning Commission had no issue with the photometric plan. Ms. Zawada confirmed they would like some language that egress/ingress will not be restricted on the Exhibit B drawings. The Planning Commission agreed the pathway shall be increased from 5 to 10 along Rushton. The applicant agreed to the increase. Mr. Smigliani asked if the two sidewalks on the north entrance could be extended in the same logic on the south side, the same 10 feet. The applicant agreed. Motion by Sedlak, second by Stock To approve final site plan for Asher Farms SP parcel # with the following conditions: 1. The applicant complete an engineering review 2. Items addressed in the Carlisle Wortman review dated August 29, Items addressed in the CES memo dated October 4, 2018 with the following additions to number 2 item b, where the applicant will provide a additional detail of how much will be deposited in the fund for the stormwater maintenance. 4. The condo documents will be reviewed as to who controls the fund. 5. The amount of the fund, the timing of the deposit of the funds will be determined during engineering review. 6. The condo docs will have the language changed to guarantee the sidewalk usage be added. 7. The builder will provide the guarantee and bonding of the stormwater pipe installation. 8. The developer will add a sidewalk from the north entrance to the north property line. 9. The sidewalks will be increased from 5 to 10 on the Rushton Road sidewalks. 10. The photometric study will not be required for this site. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Unanimous Nays: None MOTION APPROVED Green Oak Charter Township Planning Commission October 4, 2018 Page 5

7 Reports from Bill Anderson Livingston County Planning Commissioner Mr. Anderson explained they are now taking public comment for the master plan. He has been on the Planning Commission for about 12 years. He explained the various areas the other Planning Commissioners are from and the experience they bring to the table. He thanked the township for their involvement in the planning process and their feedback. Kathleen Klein-Hudson provided an update regarding the Master Plan update. They have also concluded the 63 day public review and comment period for the Master Plan. The public hearing is October 17 at 6:30 p.m. REPORTS Chairman None Township Board Representative Clerk Sedlak brought the Planning Commission up to date regarding the last Board meeting. ZBA Representative None Planning Consultant None Correspondence None CALL TO THE PUBLIC Chuck, Shenandoah Drive He commented on the Master Plan. The 2014 Master Plan designates Asher Farms as 1 acre lots. The 2014 Master Plan also states suburban density ½ acre lots are not sufficient to support septic fields and isolation distance for a well. It says also that ½ acre zoning would require available sewer and water. He questioned how they went from that to this. Green Oak Township is a rural community and this development does not fit the plan of what he sees when he drives down 10 Mile. He doesn t see sidewalks on the roadway. The community well at Centennial Farms is maintained by Green Oak Township and it has to be monitored constantly and treated. He wondered how these 70 wells will be maintained. Due to the water situation, the residents are concerned with other wet water sources, he wasn t sure how long the wells would satisfy their needs. Tony Russo There is an entrance in and one entrance/exit out of Centennial Farms. He is concerned about the people where their backyards back up to Asher Farms. They have no idea if a road will be built there. They are concerned with how close they can build homes and if they can build a road. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Smigliani adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:35 p.m. due to no further business. Green Oak Charter Township Planning Commission October 4, 2018 Page 6

8 Respectfully Submitted, Kellie Angelosanto Kellie Angelosanto Recording Secretary Green Oak Charter Township Planning Commission October 4, 2018 Page 7

9 Date: November 7, 2018 Land Use and Zoning Analysis For Green Oak Charter Township, Michigan Applicant: Project Name: Kenneth R Soerries Spencer Road Milford, MI Mile Rezoning Location: Mile Road (NW ¼ section 13) Current Zoning: Action Requested: Required Information: R3 Single Family Rezoning from RF Residential Farming to R3 Single Family As noted in the following review. PETTITION The applicant is requesting a rezoning on a parcel with parcel ID number , otherwise known as Mile Road. The petitioner requests that the parcel be redesignated from RF Residential Farming to R3 Single Family. SITE DESCRIPTION/CURRENT USE The subject parcel is acres. The site currently contains a single-family home and outbuildings. The home is a historic farm house and there are 2 historic barns and a newer garage. The house and outbuildings are near the road. Approximately 1/3 of the site is tilled farmland and the balance is open space which includes woods, wetlands and a pond.

10 Mile Road Rezoning November 7, 2018 Figure 1. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE The following chart compares zoning and existing land use surrounding the subject parcel. Zoning Existing Land Use Subject parcel RF Residential Farming Single family Home / Farming North LI Limited Industrial Open space South R3 Single Family Single family homes East RE Rural Estate Vacant Land / Open space West RF Residential Farming Single Family Residence 2

11 Mile Road Rezoning November 7, 2018 MASTER PLAN Figure 2. Zoning Map Figure 3. Future Land Use Map As noted above and depicted in Figure 2, the current zoning map, the subject site is located in an RF Residential Farming Zoning District. Figure 3. is the Future Land Use Plan from the adopted 2014 Green Oak Township Master Plan. The Future Land Use Plan designates the subject site as Very Low Density Residential which equates to RF Residential Farming Zoning District based on the Zoning Plan in the Master Plan. The subject site and the surrounding area are generally low density residential uses or open space. The portion of the industrial development to the north that abuts this property is open space and separated from the developable portion of the subject property by wetlands and woodlands. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Current Zoning The intent of the RF district is to provide a district in which very low density single family residential development, agriculture, and farm residential may occur in close proximity to each other, along with other compatible uses often occupying large areas. The prevalent use of the district area is considered to be residential. The regulations of such district are designed to conserve and protect low density residential uses and its occupancy uses, while accommodating an agricultural use and its related accessory uses. With the current use of the site is consistent with the intent of the district. However, the minimum lot size in the district is 5 acres, so there is a potential to divide the property. Due to the wetlands and ponds on the property the buildable area is demised. We estimate that the site could facilitate approximately 5 residential lots. Proposed Zoning The proposed R3 zoning is a residential district that would allow for residential lots that are a minimum of 1 acre. Again due to the natural features on the site the development potential is limited, but it appears approximately half of the site is upland. We estimate that this could facilitate 15 or more one acre lots to build single family home. 3

12 Mile Road Rezoning November 7, 2018 ZONING AMENDMENT PROCEDURE/CONDITIONAL REZONING Section of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the requirements and procedures to review a rezoning petition. For the rezoning the Planning Commission must hold a public hearing, deliberate on findings that are identified in the Zoning Ordinance in Section , and make recommendations to the Township Board to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. FINDINGS FOR REZOING In reviewing an application for the rezoning of land, whether the application be made with or without an offer of conditions, factors that should be considered by the Planning Commission and the Township Board include, but are not limited to, the following: a) Whether the rezoning is consistent with the policies and uses proposed for that area in the Township s Master Land Use Plan; CWA The future land use map in the Master Plan designates this area as Very Low Density Residential. Table 11 in the Zoning Plan in the Master Plan indicates that the comparable zoning for this designation is RF. RF allows for single family residential homes on 5 acre lots whereas the requested R3 Zoning would allow for 1 acre lots. R3 is consistent with the Medium Density designation. b) Whether all of the uses allowed under the proposed rezoning would be compatible with other zones and uses in the surrounding area; CWA The surrounding uses are all single-family residential uses and open space. There are 3 residential lots south of Twelve Mile on roughly one acre or larger lots in the R3 district however the majority of the immediately surrounding parcels are larger. c) Whether any public services and facilities would be significantly adversely impacted by a development or use allowed under the requested rezoning; and CWA The site is not in an area where public utilities are available. Any new development would have to be serviced onsite by well and septic. d) Whether the uses allowed under the proposed rezoning would be equally or better suited to the area than uses allowed under the current zoning of the land. CWA The current use of the site seems to fit in well with the surroundings. A rezoning of the parcel would potentially allow for more homes to be built in this area. 4

13 Mile Road Rezoning November 7, 2018 e) Whether the condition and/or value of property in the Township or in adjacent communities would be significantly adversely impacted by a development or use allowed under the requested rezoning; CWA This site is too small to have significant effect on the township as a whole or neighboring communities. f) Whether or not the requested zoning change is justified by a change in conditions since the original ordinance was adopted or by an error in the original ordinance; and CWA It does not appear that conditions have changed in this area since the parcel was placed in the current zoning district. g) Whether precedents might result from approval or denial of the petition, and the possible effects of such precedents. CWA The proposed district is not consistent with the Master Plan. Approval of a rezoning that is inconsistent with the Master Plan without sound justification could set a negative precedent. RECOMMENDATIONS It does not appear that the proposed zoning district is consistent with Township policies. The area is planned for very low density single-family residential uses. The Planning Commission should review each of the findings to determine if the proposed rezoning is appropriate before making a recommendation to the Township Board. # cc. Mark St. Charles, Township Supervisor Debra McKenzie, Planning & Zoning Administrator John Enos, Principle, CWA 5

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43