Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. AGENDA

Transcription

1 1. Call to Order please silent cell phones 2. Invocation 3. Roll Call Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. AGENDA 4. Approval of Meeting Minutes 5. Public Comment 6. Tentative Preliminary Plat Approval Public Hearing 7. Planning Commission Comments Regular Meeting, July 10, 2018 Draft Minutes July 10, 2018 DRAFT MINUTES Orchard View Residential PUD Phase 1 Units Belding Road NE Brandon Visser/Steve Visser/Dave Visser Randy Feenstra, Feenstra & Associates Memo from the Zoning Administrator Planner's Review Memo Engineer's Review Memo Orchard View Preliminary Plat Plan 8. Zoning Administrator/Planner s Comments 9. Adjourn Any business before the Planning Commission being presented by 9:00 p.m. will be heard. At the Planning Commission s discretion, any item remaining on the agenda may be postponed until the next available meeting of the Planning Commission.

2 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 10, 2018 Members Present: Barnard, Hanna, Masterson, Sosnowski, Twyman Members Absent: Haney Also present were Tricia Anderson, Zoning Administrator, Paul LeBlanc, Planner, Jim Scales, Township Attorney and Kevin Gritters, Township Engineer. Approval of Meeting Minutes from June 12, 2018 Commissioner Brod moved, with support from Commissioner Haney, to approve the meeting minutes from June 12, 2018, subject to minor changes in grammar and syntax. Motion carried unanimously. Public Comment There were no comments. Presentation Drew Nelson and Rob Bernard Apple Tree Learning Center 4835 Belding Road Mr. Rob Bernard and Drew Nelson presented a potential plan for a mixed use PUD for the purpose of building a new child care facility. They noted the challenges that the ordinance presents to them developing the parcel under the ordinance standards. Planning commission provided comments with regard to access, type of residential use proposed, traffic near the Wolverine and Belding Road intersection, size of the parcel, the future land use designation, the commercial use of the parcel. Some felt that the development would alleviate some of the traffic issues in the area. The planning commission overall appeared to be intrigued with the possibilities of development on this parcel. Mr. LeBlanc added some of the ordinance requirements that have not been addressed, such as the 40 acre minimum for a mixed use PUD. He would caution against using a PUD to circumvent zoning for development, and would suggest other options, such as conditional rezoning. Final Site Plan Approval Organic Healing Garden 6677 and 6683 Cannon Center Dr. Chair Hanna recognized the applicant, Emily Elms, owner of Organic Healing Garden. She gave a brief history of her business. Mr. Bruce Calleen gave a brief summary of the site plan elements of the project. Mr. LeBlanc highlighted some items from his review memo, including the width of the parking spaces, the two access points of Cannon Center Drive, fencing. He added that the standards appear to be met, however, there are some recommended conditions of approval. The planning commission provided their comments regarding the number of parking spaces, and the need for the large curb cut to the north. The majority of the planning commission were ok with the excess parking spaces. Ms. Elms noted that they are not proposing any signage. Commissioner Brod moved, with support from Chair Hanna, to approve the site plan dated June 25, 2018, per Mr. LeBlanc s recommended conditions below:

3 1. The applicant shall correct the discrepancy between the building square footage on the plan, and in the general notes. 2. The applicant shall submit a revised plan to show the dumpster location with the appropriate screening. 3. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the township fir chief. 4. The plan shall comply with all the requirements set forth by the township engineer. Ayes: Brod, Hanna, Masterson, Twyman, Barnard Nayes: Sosnowski Motion carried. Land Division Approval Mile Road NE Chair Hanna recognized the applicant, Lindsay Seppala, who briefly described her desire to only split two acres from her father in law s parcel, where 3 is required by the Unique Recreational Resource Area Overlay District (URRA-2). Ms. Anderson provided the recommendation to approve the split, subject to the 3 conditions. Commissioner Twyman moved, with support from Commissioner Brod, to grant land division approval for the above request, subject to the following three conditions: 1. The survey shall be redrawn to achieve a two-acre parcel split that excludes easements and rights of way. 2. The new survey shall also depict the easement extending into the parent parcel by The driveway to the existing home on the parent parcel shall be relocated to be within the actual easement. Motion carried unanimously. Special Land Use Permit/Site Plan Approval Public Hearing Indoor Self Storage Facility 8830 Belding Road NE Amanda Bennes, architect for Ghafari Concept Design, presented the proposed project and elements of the site plan. She provided some history, and noted that the applicant would like to convert the existing strip mall into an indoor, climate controlled self-storage facility. Mr. LeBlanc reviewed the special use standards, and highlighted some of them, such as the fact that no businesses can be run from any of the storage units. He also indicated that there are a number of items that need to be addressed yet, to be able to make a recommendation. He noted that all the landscaping that had been installed, has since been removed on the site. Chair Hanna opened the public hearing. Mr. Jordan DeGraff, of Rockford Self Storage, felt that the need for additional self-storage facilities does not exist in this area. He questions the successfulness of the proposed project. He added that his facilities fulfill the need for self-storage in the area. Mr. Mike DeVries, of 6791 Sunset Cove, expressed his support for the project. Mr. Eric Finnigan, of 7282 Old Mission Dr., also expressed his support for the project. July 10, 2018 Cannon Township Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4

4 Mr. DeGraff wished to add another comment related to where Rockford Self Storage currently has climate controlled self-storage. Chair Hanna closed the public hearing. The planning commission provided their comments related to the desire to see some improvements to the façade of the building, the need to see improvement on that corner. They also agreed that the site plan must be refined more to meet all the site plan approval standards. They would also like to see the interior floor plan and the layout of the storage units. Mr. Cassiday, the developer, added some details about the proposed storage project, and that his personal business would be situated within the building, as well as the office for management for the storage. Chair Hanna moved, with support from Commissioner Masterson to table the special land use request, until the plans can be revised to reflect the recommendations made by Mr. LeBlanc in his review memo. Motion carried unanimously. Proposed Text Amendment Public Hearing Maximum Lot Coverage Attorney Scales summarized the changes that are being proposed regarding maximum lot coverage in the zoning ordinance to the following sections: Section 2.09E Definition of Lot Coverage the addition of pervious surfaces. Section 3.08 General Provisions, Maximum Lot Coverage the addition of provisions for residential PUDs. Section and 6.04 Lakes Residential District and Low Density Residential, Maximum Lot Coverage change to the percentages of maximum lot coverage. He has also drafted the ordinance to amend the zoning ordinance, which will be considered by the township board. Chair Hanna opened, then closed the public hearing, as there were no comments. Chair Hanna moved, with support from Commissioner Twyman, to forward a favorable recommendation to the township board for the text amendments to the above sections regarding maximum lot coverage. Motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission/Staff Comments The planning commission, zoning administrator and planner discussed procedural options for handling development review prior to the planning commission meeting, as well as tightening deadlines. Adjourn Adjourned at 8:10pm. Tricia Anderson, Recording Secretatry Ben Masterson, Planning Commission Secretary July 10, 2018 Cannon Township Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4

5 July 10, 2018 Cannon Township Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4

6 MEMORANDUM To: From: Members of the Planning Commission Tricia Anderson, Zoning Administrator/Assistant Planner Date: August 8, 2018 RE: Upcoming Meeting Orchard View Residential PUD Development Tentative Preliminary Plat Approval Phase 1 (Units 1-43) Public Hearing As you know, at their July 23, 2018 meeting, the township board unanimously approved the PUD rezone and development plan for the Orchard View Residential development. The ordinance to amend the zoning ordinance and map became effective following its publication in the Rockford Squire on August 2, Now that the applicant has gained PUD approval, they will return to the planning commission for tentative preliminary plat approval for first phase of the development, which includes units You may recall that the applicant wished to have you consider both the PUD rezone AND the tentative preliminary plat at the June 12 planning commission meeting, where such approval would have been subject to the township board s approval of the PUD rezone and development plan. At that time, the public was not properly notified of the public hearing, and so, the tentative preliminary plat approval was removed from the June Agenda. The township planner and the township engineer have both supplied you with their review memos, which were written for the June meeting when you considered the PUD rezone recommendation. Most of the content in their memos apply to the PUD standards, but you ll note that they both address and provide a recommendation for the tentative preliminary plat approval. Since nothing has changed with relation to the layout or the number of units, I am providing you again their memos from the June meeting. This time, the public was properly notified for the public hearing, and you will formally consider approval of the tentative preliminary plat for phase 1, units Since the Cannon Township has not had any plat approvals to consider in quite some time, I wanted to provide you with a brief refresher of the procedure for platting, and what each step will entail. Step 1: Planning Commission - Tentative Preliminary Plat Approval/Recommendation Tentative Preliminary Plat approval is the 1st of 4 steps, where we determine if the lots and overall layout of the development comply with the basic requirements of zoning ordinance (i.e. lot size, setbacks, etc.). We also evaluate if the project can be served by infrastructure (streets and utilities) and if storm water management is feasible. The technical review of engineered plans for utilities and storm water takes place later in the approval process, but at this time we want to have

7 a general idea if there will be any issues with those items. These items were also considered during the rezoning process. At this stage of the process, the action to be taken by the planning commission, is a recommendation to the township board of whether to grant tentative preliminary plat approval. The rest of the procedure looks like this: Step 2: Township Board - Tentative Preliminary Plat Approval After the township board receives recommendation from the planning commission, the township board will then consider approval or denial of the tentative preliminary plat. If approval is granted, the applicant will then prepare and submit engineered plans for utilities and infrastructure for technical review by the township engineer and other applicable agencies (as noted below). Step 3: Township Board - Final Approval of Preliminary Plat At this step, applicant will return to the township board for final approval of the preliminary plat. The township engineer will provide his comments and recommendations on the engineered plans, and the applicant will also submit the required approval certificates from other applicable agencies, such as the Kent County Road Commission, the Kent County Drain Commission, MDOT, the county s plat board, and utility companies for the township board s consideration. Step 4: Township Board Final Plat Approval This is the final step, whereby the township board may grant final approval when all infrastructure and necessary improvements are completely constructed, inspected and approved. The applicant may ask for final plat approval without 100% of the improvements being complete if they supply the township with a bond, or other financial guarantee, in the amount of the costs of the remaining work, as approved by the township engineer. No building permits can be issued until the board grants final approval. The platting process can take anywhere from 6-12 months, and there are time limitations noted in the subdivision ordinance for each step. Bostwick Self-Storage (formerly known as LaCati Self-Storage) Tabled at the July 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting After last month s meeting the applicant met with representatives from the township for a development review meeting, where all the deficiencies discovered with the plans submitted for consideration were discussed. One of the areas that was lacking was what the site had for existing storm water facilities, and whether they were functioning properly or not. Mr. Cassiday s engineer, Rick Pulaski, of Nederveld and Associates, had the following comments: We have our topographical work completed on this, and it looks like the retention basin at the north was completely filled in and no longer functions in any meaningful way. Because of this, he has asked that we do not put the item on the agenda for consideration until the applicant has made some decisions on what his next steps are going forward.

8 TO: Cannon Township Planning Commission FROM: Paul LeBlanc, AICP DATE: May 24, 2018 SUBJECT: Orchard View PUD Project Request An application has been submitted for a rezoning to Residential Planned Unit Development on a site at the southeast corner of Belding Road and Courtland Drive. This request entails rezoning, preliminary plan review, and phase 1 preliminary plat review. Existing Conditions The site is approximately 137 acres with frontage on both Belding Road and Courtland Drive. It is an L shaped parcel that wraps around the south and west sides of Bella Vista Church. The entire site is currently zoned RR, Rural Residential/Agricultural. Much of the southern half of the property is rugged, containing steep slopes, with the leg south of the church property exhibiting the most severe topography. In addition, the south half of the site is heavily wooded, mostly with deciduous trees but also containing pockets of evergreens. Surrounding land use is mixed. The north side of Belding Road is lined with large-lot single family homes. While the southern property boundary abuts Crestwood Elementary School in the southwest corner and acreage-sized single-family home sites along the balance of the border. Courtland Drive is the boundary between Cannon and Plainfield Townships. The west side of that street contains a mix of uses with several office buildings and a self-storage business located at the northwest corner of the Belding/Courtland intersection. A single-family subdivision and scattered single family homes line the balance of Courtland across from the subject site. The east border of the property abuts one home site and some large vacant parcels. Proposed PUD Preliminary Plan Review and approval of a PUD is a multi-step process involving the following: Pre-application meeting Preliminary PUD plan and rezoning Final PUD plan plbplanninggroup@gmail.com

9 A pre-application meeting was held with the applicant, township staff, and consultants to review the initial concept and determine eligibility for PUD consideration. The applicant also appeared before the Planning Commission to present the concept plan and receive input. Following submittal of the formal PUD application, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing in March. Upon receiving public comment at the meeting, the application was tabled and the applicant was directed to undertake a traffic analysis to examine the impacts of the proposed development. The proposed project consists of a mix of single family lots and multiple family units. A revised plan has been submitted, reducing the total number of residential units to 201 from the initial plan for 233 units. The revised plan retains the same number of single family lots (121) but decreases the multiple-family units from 112 to 80. This change reduces the gross density from 1.7 units per acre on the 137 acre site to 1.48, well below the maximum 8 units per acre proposed by the Township Master Plan. The entire development would be served by public water and sanitary sewer. Lot sizes for the single family homes would be a minimum of 14,000 sq. ft. and 90 feet wide (slightly larger than the R-1 requirements for lots served by public water and sewer (12,000 sq. ft.). The multiple family component consists of 12 duplex buildings and 7 8 unit buildings (revised from the prior 14 8 unit buildings). A combination of covered and open parking is proposed. Access would be provided to Belding Road and Courtland Drive for both the single and multiple family components. A portion of the streets within the single-family plat would be public and the remainder would be private. Sidewalks are proposed along one side of all streets, a change from the initial plan that had sidewalks along both sides of the public streets but none on the private streets. Approximately 47 acres (40%) would be retained as open space. Most lots would abut dedicated open space, though in some areas (south boundary and adjacent to the church) the open space is a narrow band that potentially could become an extension of the rear yards rather than a beneficial open area for all residents. However, a walking path is proposed to be located around the perimeter of the site and would lessen the likelihood of encroachment by adjoining lot owners. Master Plan While the subject site is currently zoned RR, the majority of the property is designated as Moderate Density Residential in the 2015 Master Plan. The description of this category notes that: alternate housing forms (two-family, multiple family, and/or senior housing) be accommodated at densities up to eight units per acre. Such development could take the form of traditional multi-family, townhomes, retirement village, small lot single family, or some combination. The proposed project density on the multiple family portion of the site is 4.0 units/acre (reduced from the original 5.8 units/acre), well within the Master Plan s proposed density for the entire property. 2

10 The portion of the site directly south of the church property is master planned as Country Living which, if it were a separate site, would be limited to a density of one unit per two acres. However, as part of the larger PUD site, the applicant is allowed more flexibility; provided, the overall project density doesn t exceed the number of units achieved through the parallel plan. In this case, the total units proposed (201 units) is less than might otherwise be allowed based on the parallel plan (244 units). PUD Requirements In order for a project to qualify for consideration as a PUD, it must meet certain criteria as stated in Section B: 1. A Residential PUD shall only be approved in a Residential District. 2. The minimum size of a parcel or combination of parcels shall be 20 acres. 3. The property proposed for a Residential PUD shall be designated on the Future Land Use map of the Township Master Plan for a category of residential development. The proposed project satisfies these qualifying conditions. Application Materials The applicant has revised the preliminary PUD plan and provided all required information. Review Standards The zoning ordinance establishes specific requirements and standards to be applied to PUDs. Section E establishes the review standards for a Residential PUD, as follows: 1. PUD layouts which are varied in design and appearance are encouraged. Back-to-back lots shall be avoided to the extent possible to ensure proximity to and views of open space. The plan appears to meet this standard. 2. Dwelling units shall be arranged or screened by landscaping or berming so they do not constitute the dominant view along the public roadway. The plan appears to meet this standard. Conceptual screening and landscaping is illustrated on the preliminary plan at the Belding/Courtland intersection adjacent to the multiple-family component of the project. A detailed landscape plan will be required as part of the final site plan for this phase. 3. The placement of dwelling units on slopes of 12 percent or more shall only be permitted if measures will be taken to minimize erosion of slopes during and after construction. This standard can be met. 4. In order to maintain scenic views and a rural character, dwelling units placed directly on hilltops shall be discouraged if they are unscreened from the view of adjacent properties. If such units are permitted, they should be one story to avoid walkout units from having the appearance of a three story structure and detracting from the rural view. 3

11 Several lots do contain severe slopes. The Planning Commission may wish to address this standard during final plan review for those phases, by identifying building envelopes on steep lots and possibly attaching conditions regarding height and orientation of homes on those lots. In addition, Section D.3 specifies the requirements for eligible open space. The relevant requirements for the Orchard View project are as follows: 1. A minimum of 20 percent of the gross site area shall be preserved and maintained as common open space for use by all residents and property owners of the PUD. This open space shall be subject to the following regulations: The proposed PUD meets the 20 percent requirement. a. The required open space may either be centrally located, along the road frontage of the development to protect or enhance rural views, located to preserve significant natural features, or located to interconnect open spaces throughout the development. This standard appears to be met. b. Required open space areas shall be of sufficient size and dimension and located, configured, or designed in such a way as to achieve the applicable purposes of this Chapter and enhance the quality of the residential development. The open space shall neither be perceived or function simply as an extension of the rear yard of those lots abutting it. Portions of the open space along the southern boundary of the site and the eastern boundary adjacent to the church property may not meet this standard. However, by incorporating a pathway through these areas, the likelihood of encroachment by adjacent property owners is reduced. In addition, even without these areas, the PUD would more than meet the minimum 20 percent requirement. d. A portion of the required open space shall be located along the entire public road frontage abutting the site. The depth of this area shall be at least 150 feet, not including public road right-of-way, and shall be left in its natural condition or landscaped to help reduce the view of houses from the adjacent roadway and preserve and enhance the rural view. This standard is met. The revised plan moved the multiple-family buildings further east and added landscape screening. e. All required open space areas shall be configured so the open space is reasonably accessible to and usable by residents of the PUD. The minimum size of a required open space area shall be 15,000 square feet; provided, however, that the required open space abutting a public street may be less than 15,000 square feet; and, further provided, that the Planning Commission may approve other open space areas of less than 15,000 square feet if these areas are designed and established as pedestrian or bicycle paths or are otherwise determined by the Planning Commission to be open space reasonably usable by residents of the PUD. The minimum average dimension of a required open space area shall be 100 feet. This standard appears to be met, though several of the perimeter open space areas are less than 100 feet in depth. Overall, there are substantial open space areas that more than satisfy this requirement. 4

12 f. Open space areas are encouraged to be linked with any adjacent open spaces, public parks, bicycle paths or pedestrian paths. Open space areas shall be located so as to be reasonably accessible to the residents using them. This standard appears to be met with the addition of sidewalk along all streets. However, given its proximity to the Crestwood Elementary School, consideration should be given to provided a sidewalk connection to the school between lots 59 and 60. g. Grading in the open space shall be minimal, with the intent to preserve existing topography where practical. This standard appears to be met. Detailed grading plans will be required for final approval of each phase, but no significant grading is anticipated within the open space. i. Areas not considered open space: steep slopes (20 percent and over). This standard appears to be met. According to the applicant s calculation, even with the exclusion of steep slopes, approximately 31 percent of the site will be preserved as open space. Comments Two aspects of the proposed plan that were cited in the February review have not been changed and do not meet Township requirements. The proposed cul de sac serving the lots south of the church property (shown as Phase 3) exceeds the maximum permitted 2,000 foot length. As shown, it appears to be about 2,500 feet long. Section allows the Planning Commission to recommend and the Township Board to permit deviations from the private road standards for PUDs. Lot 73 does not meet the minimum width requirements for a lot abutting a public or private street. The applicant has submitted a traffic analysis, as required by the Planning Commission. That analysis indicates there are two locations that currently do not operate at acceptable levels of service Courtland/Belding Road intersection and Wolverine/Belding Road intersection. Both locations are under the jurisdiction of MDOT. With the addition of normally expected traffic increases over the next five years, even without the proposed development, these locations will continue to operate at poor levels of service unless improvements are made. While the additional traffic from the proposed PUD will not improve the traffic operations, it will not degrade them beyond the current Level of Service F. It should be noted, however, that for southbound traffic exiting the site, there is an acceptable alternative via Courtland Drive to 7 Mile Road which offers access to Wolverine Blvd. This intersection operates at a Level of Service A and would continue to operate efficiently with additional traffic. While traffic impact is a significant concern, it must be noted that the subject property is master planned for Moderate Density Residential which, based on the applicant s parallel plan, could be developed with up to 244 single-family lots. The PUD plan proposes 201 units, of which 80 would be multiple-family units that generate fewer vehicle trips than detached single-family homes. Therefore, the proposed development will have less traffic impact than could potentially be created under the Master Plan designation, though under the current RR zoning only about 55 lots would be possible. 5

13 Recommendations Based on the review standards, I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed PUD to the Township Board with the following conditions: a sidewalk connection be provided to Crestwood Elementary School between lots 59 and 60, the length of the proposed cul de sac serving Phase 3 be reduced to 2,000 feet in compliance with the private street ordinance, and lot 73 be removed. I further recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the Township Board approval of the Phase I preliminary plat, subject to comments by the Township Engineer. 6

14

15

16

17 NORTH