Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 18, 2013 PRESENT: Serocki; O Keefe; Leak, Chair; Rosi; Hosmer. Also present were Dan Leonard, Planner, Peter Wendling, Township Attorney and Mary Ann Abbott, Recording Secretary. ABSENT: Householder, Maguire REVIEW FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA MOTION: Serocki/O Keefe to accept the Agenda as presented. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2013 Corrections to the minutes as follows: Page 2. Paragraph 2. Strike master plan/replace with zoning ordinance. Also note that only 1 permit was applied for although minutes state they would be using 2 permits. Page 3. Under the Rosi comment agreement should read disagreement. Also note that the letter from Monsignor Thome was dated Friday 1/22/13 but really should be dated 2/22/13. Page 4. Principals should be principles Page 5. Should read Township and Range description. Also end of paragraph should read it does boil down. Final correction. Date at bottom of minutes should read 2/25/13 MOTION: Rosi/Serocki to approve minutes with corrections PLANNER UPDATE Dan Leonard will be moving to a new position with the State of Michigan. He is thanked for all his work and wished good luck by the Planning Commission. ATTORNEY UPDATE None PUBLIC COMMENT- (Other than agenda items) None 1
COMMUNICATIONS Leonard reported that there is an Advanced Zoning Board of Appeals Workshop being conducted. If anyone is interested in attending they should contact the Clerk s office to be scheduled or contact the county directly. Leonard also stated that letters of support were received for both the Church and the Oosterhouse Project. NEW BUSINESS A. SUP #118, Oosterhouse Vineyard and Winery, Winery-Chateau- (Public Hearing & Recommendation to the Town Board) Public Hearing began at 7:08 p.m. Leonard will begin the discussion. The applicants are present. This is SUP for a new winery just south of Nelson Road on the West side of Center. The applicant is proposing to do a new winery/chateau operation exclusively for wine production. They are limited since the land is on previous PDR easement and are not proposing to have any guest rooms or new residences. We do require a 50-acre minimum they have met this condition with approximately 51 acres. There are restrictions governing the two halves of the property. If you notice the site plan there are 3 total properties that service this property. Within the 20 acres on the s/w corner of Nelson there are to be no windbreaks built on that property at all. The Parcel where the actual building will be built does fall within the view shed but there are no restrictions on that property MDOT has given a preliminary approval for access off Center Road. They felt it would give a greater sight distance at the location rather than entry from Nelson Road. Hosmer How much work will be done in the road right away. Serocki it references addition paving. Leonard that will be for the acceleration and deceleration lanes. There will not be a turn lane. Landscaping minimum setback requirements have been met. Appears to be well screened and well buffered. Leak asked for public comment Susan Feiger, 2513 Nelson Road asks since this land was protected under PDR how can this be considered. Leonard the easements speak to production and other components. Donna Kessler, 12006 Center Can you tell me where the driveway is going to be as compared to our driveway? Hosmer about 100 from your driveway. Todd Oosterhouse, 7700 Peninsula Drive proposing the driveway on the plateau to have a good line of vision. Tried to talk with Mrs. Kelly about a buffer to respect her privacy. 2
Mark Nadolski 10 E. McKinley, representing Protect the Peninsula. Has there been a site visit. Leak we have not done a site plan on this particular building. Rosi we did a site visit on a previous plan of this property. Nadolski how far south is the drive from Nelson Road. Mansfield on behalf of applicant -the driveway is 425 feet from the centerline of Nelson Road. There is 900 feet of sight distance from the top to the curve. Nadolski what kind of events can be held at this facility? How many events, how often and how many people? Leonard the applicant would be able to have the normal number of people in their tasting room. If they would like to have events they would have to supply documentation so the Peninsula could decide how many people they could have. Would need to be a public hearing. Rosi the Chateau ordinance is in place so they could mimic the ordinance. It would be a matter of following the ordinance. Ed O Keefe 12301 Center Road, you cannot literally protect the view shed. Chateau Grand Traverse has spent millions to have a chateau winery. Have been having events for 35 years without any problems. He feels sorry for the gentleman who is doing this as he has a large investment and wonders how they can make money. Wineries have built Traverse City. He sees the benefit of the situation. The Chateau Ordinance is the most difficult. Walt Feiger, 2513 Nelson Road it might help traffic -wise if there was a caution ahead sign. O Keefe between Carroll Road and the entrance of Chateau Grand Traverse it is a dangerous intersection. Bob Holdeman, 2629 Nelson Road respects Feiger s concerns about pulling out from Nelson Road. Perhaps concern should be expressed to the State requesting some action. Ed O Keefe, 12301 Center Road people go around vehicles turning into the Chateau Grand Traverse and they have lost many mailboxes. It is very, very dangerous and there should be a request to MDOT. Bob Urtell, 12120 Center Road believes there will be a negative impact on his view shed. Asks that there be a review from the board for any other place for parking around Center Road. He also has concerns about the noise from busses idling. Trees and the parking area will have a negative impact on his property. Supportive of the wine industry but selfishly speaking about the plan. Shared photos of the view from his home. Would like to have the placement of the parking area and the silver maples trees reconsidered. Ed O Keefe, 12301 Center Road is the parking lot in the hollow of that property Todd Oosterhouse, 7700 Peninsula Drive Trees are planted due to the ordinance. Leonard the Landscaping requirements are required due to the ordinance. Harold David Edmondson, 12414 Center would like to concur with neighbors on the traffic. In support of the project, knows what they want to achieve and there are other options which could be considered. 3
Rosi we do not have any control over speed limits. MDOT looks at traffic reports to determine this. But the Township has taken a position of not having stoplights. Mark Nadolski, 10 E. McKinley Center Road has been designated a scenic highway. Do not make any rash decisions to destroy this scenic highway. Bob Urtell, 12120 Center Road is there any consideration to move the asphalt to the backside of the property. Remove the bus overflow parking to the west of the Chateau. The Public Hearing on SUP#118 is closed at 7:48 p.m. Leonard an application was put before the Planning Commission and it is the applicants desire to have this plan put into place. The parking lot is located in an area that has not had any growing take place for a long time. To relocate the parking lot to the west would put asphalt into an area of prime agricultural land which is very important to program. It is not our judgment to redesign the project. It is our task to determine if the project presented is within the zoning code. You cannot retroactively place restrictions on a project that conforms to the current code. There is some flexibility that we have. Landscaping and number of parking places are some of them. Leak perhaps the engineer would like to explain why the parking lot is where it is Doug Mansfield, 830 Cottage Grove, Suite 201, Traverse City this is an area that does not have any use for producing fruit of any type. It is a drainage ditch. It is also 6-8 feet lower than the profile of the road. With the appropriate screening it will have even less of an impact since it is not in the profile of the road. It makes sense as a designer to place it in that hollow. The Landscaping Ordinance requires the placement of a street tree. They are willing to look at a different screening but it will not have the agricultural aspect 30-40 years from now but they are willing to work with the neighbors. Rosi have you considered access off Nelson Road. Mansfield certainly but MDOT did not want any more traffic off of Nelson Road. Rosi what does it matter. Mansfield it is twice the stopping sight distance from the crown of the hill. There are other solutions such as placing landscaping near the edge of the road. The approach is not compromised. Discussion continued concerning applicants drawings on Section BB. Mansfield Everything in this drawing geometrically, scale wise, height- wise meets the Zoning Ordinance the only thing we are asking through the Chateau Special Use Permit is the ability to have those specified events and be able to come back to the town Board on anything extra. Everything else meets the ordinance. Rosi PDR s were approved in the 90 s. Rosi was concerned that we might have to amend the PDR s through a conservation easement amendment but she does not feel we need to amend these PDR s. Hosmer They are under two separate Tax ID numbers. Leonard they are two totally separate easements and neither discussed view shed. Rosi it is an 4
agricultural use even though it seems like it is commercial and that is allowed under the PDR. Mansfield said that some of the older PDR s had liberal restrictions. Hosmer would like to discuss the easement, specifically number 9 on pages 4 of the easement. If you go under the Winery/Chateau it is open ended but under this easement it is not. Could the applicant speak to growth and is 9000 sq. ft. enough. Oosterhouse Yes Rosi asked for an interpretation of Item #10. Wendling suggested that you steer clear of trying to invoke #10 Hosmer explain what the educational center is for. That is a big space. Oosterhouse uses of the winery are able to have different agricultural functions. Hosmer at this point it is not usable until you come back with your tonnage. Is this related to guest services? It is not a room to host events. Oosterhouse strictly educational Hosmer What is the height of the production facility in the basement, floor to ceiling. Oosterhouse 16 feet floor to floor Leak any other comments Leonard review findings page by page and address questions as they come up. Review and discussion and corrections to findings of fact ensued. Page 1 2.1 Mention that this is PDR land. 2.6 Change constituents to agencies. Page 2 2.9 Add The parcel being developed is part of PDR # dated. Page 3 3.1(d) Remove it in first sentence. 3.1(e) Change should to shall. 3.3(c) Add that any new uses will have to be resubmitted as change to SUP. Page 4 3.3(d) Add MDOT Change last sentence of Fire Department as a letter has been received 3.3(f) Remove first sentence. (As indicated.from the land). Page 5 3.3(i) Change efforts to activity. 5
Page 6 3.3(o) Discussed screening required by SUP which will be in protected view shed. Will leave final decision to Town Board whether it will be required or not. 3.3(r) Change site to sight. Page 7 4.1(f) Under Guest Rooms: The applicant is not proposing guest rooms within the winerychateau. Page 9 4.1(n) After the septic system remove for the addition 4.1(p) Should read approximately fifty (50) acres. Page 10 4.1(r) First sentence should be changed to shall take place during the normal. 4.1(t) remove statement and change to The proposed winery-chateau is roughly 40 feet from the agricultural crop. This will be subjected to Town Board approval. 4.1(u) Guest Activity Uses was not included. Should be added with statement that any new uses would have to amend the SUP. Page 10 5.3 Correct number so that number of parking spaces for employees is in agreement. 5.7 Should read Concerns do not exist regarding drainage patterns and existing environmental conditions. Hosmer Mr. Nadolski had a valid point that a project of this magnitude should have a site visit. This is a difficult time of the year to do a proper site visit. She is torn as the applicant has presented a stellar packet and to schedule a site visit would delay this process. She would like a recommendation from staff and legal on how to handle this. Wendling It is not a requirement to do a site visit. If you do it as a meeting you should post that. You can do it individually but would not have a discussion if you go with a small group. You should take a look and gather your thoughts and then discuss it at your next regular meeting. It will cause a delay. Wendling would recommend visiting the site individually. Hosmer Would a site visit really change our minds? O Keefe does not know what he would see on a site visit that would change his mind since the drawings meet the code. Bob Urtell, 12120 Center Road asks that you reconcile his concerns with the PDR language in terms of a parking lot as a structure and placing of maples in a view shed. Motion of approval for Finding of Fact MOTION made by Hosmer and seconded by O Keefe to approve the above referenced Findings of Fact as corrected for SUP#118, application for the establishment of a winerychateau, located in Section 4 of, and as legally described. 6
MOTION: Rosi/Serocki recommends that the Township Town Board does a site visit for height, elevation of access, size of structure, parking and maples. Recommendation of Approval MOTION: Hosmer/O Keefe recommends that the Planning Commission should approve the petitioned SUP#118, application for a winery-chateau and final site plan; located in Section 4 of, and as legally described based on the following reasoning, subject to accompanying conditions: Reasoning: 1. The proposed site plan is in compliance with the required information contained within Section 8.7.3(10), Winery-Chateau 2. The proposed use is in compliance with the requirements of General Standards and Specified Requirements of Section 8.1.3. 3. The proposed use appears to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Master Plan and in compliance with the existing future land use map. 4. Any additional reasoning as put forth by the Commission. Conditions: 1. Compliance with the rules and regulations of the GTCRC, GTCDC, GTCHD and any other agencies associated with the development of the property for such purposes. 2. If future guest activity uses are to be applied upon the property, then the applicant must submit annual grape production and purchase numbers to the Township staff for review. 3. Any additional conditions as put forth by the Planning Commission. OLD BUSINESS A. SUP#117, ST. JOSEPH CATHOLIC CHURCH 1 ST AMENDMENT-(Remove from Table & Recommendation to Town Board) MOTION: Hosmer/Serocki to remove SUP#117 from the table. Leonard received a new letter from the Fire Chief who had a specific request for an access drive for the fire department to reach the rear of the property. The Chief was supportive of 7
the project when the height was scaled back. Reminder that the Public hearing portion of this matter has been closed. Scott Joswiak, Project Engineer did say that he had a conversation with the Fire Chief and the Chief did indicate that they would like a fire access drive to the back size side of the church. It is basically a gravel drive that would support a fire truck Hosmer how have these findings of fact changed from the last findings. Leonard the only thing is the number of parking spaces and the number of square feet that the building encompasses. Discussion ensued on the Findings of Fact of SUP#117, St. Joseph Church Page 2 3.2 Add Gravel access for fire us required per letter dated March 18, 2013. Page 4 4.1(a) Should read Old Mission Peninsula Elementary School. Page 7 4.3(m) Remove first sentence The proposed schedule to discuss.. Leak any further discussion in regards to this application, which includes the letter of 3/13/13 from the Fire Chief. Joswiak would like to be allowed to review the fire code on this item. Motion of Approval of Findings of Fact MOTION made by Hosmer and seconded by Serocki to approve the above referenced Findings of Fact for SUP#117 (1 st Amendment) application, as amended for the establishment of a religious institutional structure, located in Section 33 of Peninsula Township, and as legally described. Motion to Recommend Approval of SUP#117 (1 st Amendment) MOTION made by Hosmer and seconded by Serocki that based on the Findings of Fact made by the Planning Commission, Special Use Permit #117 (1 st Amendment) by the St. Joseph Catholic Church (the Church) is hereby recommended for approval subject to the following express conditions: Condition: 1. Compliance with the above referenced site plan changes as described under 4.2, Conditions and Safeguards. 8
2. The Church shall take all reasonable steps to prevent individuals, pets and debris from trespassing onto adjacent agricultural property from the church s property. The Church shall retain the proposed split rail fence surrounding the existing cemetery as indicated on the final site plan, and shall merge the fencing into the illustrated vineyard trellis fence. The Church shall remove the two strand agricultural fence along the northern property line, since the proposed vineyard trellis fence will accomplish the goal of protecting the property to the north from unauthorized trespass. In addition, the Church shall install and maintain a two wire, high tensile, vineyard style trellis to match that of the proposed vineyard three (3) feet south of the northern property line between the western property line of the Church s property and the western edge of the proposed vineyard. Finally, the Church shall provide an appropriate gate for access north of the vineyard and trellis fence. This two (2) wire, high tensile vineyard style trellis will maintain the agricultural character of the area and will provide a physical barrier to discourage unauthorized trespassing on the property to the north. 3. A sufficient number of signs shall be erected along the northern property line of the Church s property to reasonably notify individuals that unauthorized trespassing is prohibited. The signs shall state in substantial part, Trespassing onto adjacent farmland is strictly prohibited. 4. If the Township Board finds after a public hearing that a significant number of unauthorized trespassing events has occurred on the property north of the Church property or finds that trespassing events have resulted in a significant and detrimental impact on the fruit farm north of the Church s property, then the Church shall be required to construct additional fencing along the northern property line of the Church property which the Township Board determines at the time to be reasonably necessary to prevent further trespassing on the property north of the Church property. B. Tier 1-4 Alcoholic Beverage sections- (Update & Discussion) Leonard will continue to work on this project with the time that he and the Planning Commission are allotted. Leonard recommends that the Town Board make a few decisions to move this thing forward. Hosmer do we want the tier system to be the hold up to the Zoning Ordinance recodification. She is concerned about the Planning Commission being able to move forward without Dan. Leak asks Leonard to leave a list of the projects that the planner feels are necessary and a priority so that the Planning Commission can work through this. Leonard a policy decision by the Town Board to finalize the new language set forth in the Tier System so that the Planning Commission can do their job. Leak did you present this to the Board. Leonard at the last meeting 9
Rosi we would like to have a list. Leak a list to the Town Board or PC or both. Serocki even a study session with everyone looking at it. Reports A. Township Board-Rosi Moorings and Old Orchard properties as submitted in her report B. Zoning Board of Appeals-Hosmer Two agenda items that were passed. Expressed Thanks to Dan Leonard from the ZBA. C. Other 1.Heritage Road-Rosi Presentation by Planner on 4 Tier Systems Highway view shed & junk ordinance 2.TC/Talus-Rosi Unable to be present at meeting Serocki Per Diems are due on Tuesday at 9:00 a.m. The clerk would appreciate them being in early as it is the end of the fiscal year. Motion to adjourn at 10:12p.m. Respectfully submitted by Mary Ann Abbott, Recording Secretary These minutes stand to be approved at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on April 15, 2013. 10