1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 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 44 45 46 47 48 49 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes June 16, 2016 The meeting was called to order by Mr. Smigliani at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call: Also Present: Guests: 26 APPROVAL OF AGENDA Russell Brooks Rollin Green Bill Haskell Sarah Pearsall Deborah Sellis Lamberto Smigliani Dean Williams Debra McKenzie, Zoning Administrator Paul Montagno, Carlisle Wortman Approved: Mr. Smigliani added item C to Business Items which is a Review of the Special Approval Use for Tree of Life Ministries Pearsall/Sellis not sure 80/81, the reason and that they would not be loud. 84. It was ok with the planning commission. 130 Mr. Haskell gave on Willow Woods. Motion by Haskell, second by Brooks To approve the agenda as amended. Voice Vote: Ayes: Nays: MOTION APPROVED Unanimous None Approval of the June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes Mr. Brooks made some minor additions to the minutes. Motion by Brooks, second by Williams To approve the minutes of June 2, 2016 as revised. Voice Vote: Ayes: Unanimous Nays: None MOTION APPROVED CALL TO THE PUBLIC None Planning Commission June 16, 2016 Page 1
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 BUSINESS ITEMS A. Public Hearing on Special Approval Use SAU 03-2016, parcel #4716-26-201-018, 12575 Coach Lane, South Lyon. The special approval use is for a home daycare up to 12 children. Mr. Montagno reviewed the Carlisle Wortman memo dated June 9, 2017. He explained that the Planning Commission should consider the following: 1. Hours of operation 2. Staggered pick up and drop off times 3. Additional screening for the neighbors for any plan areas. Based on their review they find that the proposed use is in general conformance with the standards contained in Section 38-44 with the consideration of the potential conditions noted above. Ms. McGee stated she is currently a licensed provider and has been licensed for almost a year. The hours of operation are 6:30 am-6:00 pm. Drop offs are usually 7 am-8:30 am and maybe have 3 cars, the driveway is big enough for 6 cars but she does have room in the front. There is a play structure with 3 swings and there are toys that are stored under the deck. Two of her moms are currently expecting and to get those kids she would need to increase the number of children allowed. She has 1 person that is working part time. She was also wanting to extend evening hours occasionally in order to do something special with the kids like a bon-fire or allow parents to have a date night. She accepts 6 week old babies to 12 years of age. Ms. McGee confirmed their lot is about ¾ of an acre and there is room between the houses. The pool is not used for kids under 5, and if they do use it they would have the proper people to staff it and the hours are only Monday through Friday. Mr. Smigliani opened the public hearing. Cheryl Lippen She explained that she lives directly on the left side and they have no objection. The applicants have done nothing but improve their house since they moved in. She does a wonderful job with the kids. She is very respectful with them, they share a drive way and she has no issue with cars coming and going. Parents are very respectful. She is the 3 rd house in so it won t be a problem with traffic. One of the hardest things is to find affordable day care and she provides it. She has absolutely no objection. Michael B. He provided a petition that the residents of Read s Greenview Estates strongly object because day care centers affect their property values, other businesses could crop up in the neighborhood and they don t want that. It is noisy and kids do run around. Their roads are terrible and added traffic does not help. If she has 12 kids that is a lot of added traffic. There is building and use restrictions that were filed with Livingston County. Robert Deakins, He lives on the next street over. He admitted when they moved in the applicant s fixed up the house beautifully, but there are restrictions that go with the deed Planning Commission June 16, 2016 Page 2
99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 of the land and those aren t something that can just be passed over and voted on. The restrictions have been filed and go with the deed of the land. She has one assistant with up to 12 children, the yard is not fenced in and he is concerned with the safety of the kids since he has a pool. In the restrictions it states one family residential and it states there is no commercial use for the property, it also states no fences. If you are going to have someone taking care of children then the lot should be fenced in and fences are not allowed. The day care down the street has a fenced in play area. He does not want to stop someone from making a living but a lot of them are retired in the neighborhood and they have grandchildren but there are restrictions and f their real estate person did not delve into it far enough and find that it is their fault. He said that if they drive in the sub during the day it is quiet. They have to have 2/3 of the homeowners agree to change the restrictions. Tony and Betty Spurko She commented that they live kiddie corner from the applicant. Their neighborhood is very peaceful and they don t feel its appropriate to have a business in the middle of the subdivision. Just because someone comes onto Coach does not mean they won t go around. Their road is bad. 12 kids is a lot, outside playing, kids are noisy, extra toys in the backyard. School bus stops almost in front of her house and cuts through their yard, they are quite concerned about it. Tony is concerned with kids cutting through and damaging his trees. He is also concerned about the hole in front of the applicant s house because that will make it worse when there is the additional traffic. There is no fence and he is concerned with the noise level. Ann She lives across the street and her daughter attends the day care. She stated it is her kids that cut through the Spurko s lawn. She stated no one has ever asked them not to cut through. That has nothing to do with the day care at all. If Tammy couldn t keep her daughter she would have a hard time since she works part time and has sporadic hours because other day cares make you commit whether you are there or not. She has never seen anyone go around to Clover. The day care being located there was part of their thought process when they bought their home. She clearly has no problem with the request. Ruth Lefevre She thought there are 25 houses in the sub and only 2 have small aged children, it is a small and peaceful subdivision and they would like to keep it that way. There is a day care close by and kids club at Brummer. The worse spot of the road is in front of the McGee s and eventually the road repairs will fall on the homeowners. John Lippen He stated the land use was part of the association rules that went defunct and he does not understand how this still applies. The McGees are great people and the children have not been a problem what so ever. Mr. Deakins explained the restrictions are not part of the association rules, these are the building and restriction rules. It does not say it goes defunct after 10 years, it automatically renews if there are no changes. Mr. Haskell asked if they have an active homeowners association. Mr. Deakins stated no. Mr. Montagno explained that it sounds like there are deed restrictions recorded, it does Planning Commission June 16, 2016 Page 3
148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 not affect the zoning ordinance. They could approve a special approval use for the site but the deed restrictions would override that. It is not the township s purview to enforce deed restrictions. That would be something that the applicant would want to check out. Trustee Green felt this should be referred to the Township Attorney before any action is taken. Ms. Sellis confirmed since the homeowners association is defunct they would not be responsible for fixing the roads. Mr. Smigliani closed the public hearing. No action was taken at this time. 2. Public Hearing on Schafer Development LLC (R02-2016) Rezoning RE to RM Multiple Family, Parcel #4716-35-200-004. The property is vacant land located 80 acres North ½ of Northeast ¼ of Sec 35, T-1-N, R-6-E, on 9 Mile Road, South Lyon, MI 48178 Representing Schafer Development: Brent LeVanway, Boss Engineering, Steve Schafer Nick Balberman Mr. Montagno reviewed the Carlisle Wortman dated June 9, 2016. While development of the site under the proposed zoning will represent a significant change in the character of the area if developed at the maximum density, it does appear to be consistent with the Township Master Plan. Also, the development may be less dense based on the ability of the developer to provide for waste water treatment. After considerations of the merits of the proposed rezoning and based on required findings identified in this review, the Planning Commission must make a recommendation to the Board. Mr. LeVanway stated the Township Planner has done a good job in explaining the case. The property is on the master plan as multi family, this property will be developed as a single family project with 3-4 units per acre and they will not be seeking public sewer but it will be self -contained on the property. The homes will start at a price point of $250,000- $300,000 and they felt those will fit in well with the community. Mr. Schafer assured the Commission that their intentions are less dense with what they are proposing, they are seeing a large need for an empty nester or first time homebuyers. They are looking at offering quite a few ranch houses with main floor masters. There is a big demand for smaller lots. They try to create high quality, care free living for their buyers. Mr. Schafer explained the 40 acre parcel will have the ground infiltration system, not a surface water system. Ground water discharge. They were able to find deep dry sand that was very good for what they are proposing on the 40 acre lot that was purchased. A community well system is proposed. Planning Commission June 16, 2016 Page 4
197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 Mr. Schafer confirmed that there are a total of 275 homes proposed and they felt it will be a nice addition to the community. Mr. Balberman stated they are going with the RM zoning because that is the designation in the township master plan for this parcel and they did not want to do anything that was inconsistent with the master plan. Mr. Schafer stated this layout has lot sizes of 55 x120, homes are 40 in width and 60 in depth and average between 1400 to the low 2000 s in square feet. Mr. Montagno reminded the Commission this is a straight rezoning not a conditional rezoning so the property could be rezoned and the developer could sell the property. Mr. Schafer stated that there are open space wetland areas and they are open to pocket parks and they want to make sure they have the right amenities. Mr. Haskell stated one of the things that Green Oak lacks is a good east/west pathway. Mr. Schafer stated they would be in favor of that. Mr. Smigliani opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Paul Burzyk - He stated they are asking for a specific rezoning, however, they have given no indication as far as their intentions. At one point the applicant mentioned surface water treatment being bad for the environment which is being dealt with Willow Woods. He would urge when taking this into consideration about changing something and not leave it open to interpretation that will have consequences later down the road. Kevin Zimmerman He has the horse farm south of this proposed project. There is no idea if the land will perk, it doesn t seem like there is a real plan and it is being proposed on assumptions. What is the next step? Mr. Smigliani explained this is a proposed rezoning of the property and it does not stipulate, it is not clear. He thinks the next step would be to get some concrete information so the community knows exactly what is being proposed. Cheryl Lipman She commented that her concern is the quantity of homes that they are looking at. She is also concerned about the water conditions since they all live on wells and there were issues with the mobile home community. Rita Zimmerman and Mr. Lamport Ms. Zimmerman stated that they also live at the horse farm and this project will encroach on her back yard. She is ok with land being developed, she is ok with keeping the zone for single family. She is not ok with multi family. We have 6 mobile home parks, 10 apartment complexes and neighboring cities with serval vacancies and these types of homes that are sitting for sale. She is ok if the zoning is left how it is. There are several multifamily homes available in the area. Mr. Lamport questioned why would the developer want to rezone to multiple family yet develop to single family? Mrs. Zimmerman stated rezoning without a proper plan does not mean they won t change Planning Commission June 16, 2016 Page 5
246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 their mind, the rezoning for multifamily means a lot of things and there is no concrete plan. Mr. Montagno explained the differences in rural estates and residential R-1. If they are not able to get the land to perk, then the density levels are much lower. If they are able to extend utilities to that area then they could put in 17 units per acre. None of our other single family densities are that small. Mr. Green stated in Section 38-137 the single family detached dwellings shall have a minimum lot size of 3 acres in the RM district which is what the applicant is requesting. Mr. Green stated he wanted more time to investigate. Mr. Schafer stated that they have no objection to a conditional rezoning, he hears what everyone is saying about the density and they want to give the township the comfort level if that is the way they need to proceed. Mr. Green stated there are ways to work together. Mr. Schafer stated if that is the situation, what is it they would do to go to a conditional rezoning and questioned if they have to start over. Mr. Smigliani stated it would be a new process. Mr. Montagno stated they would want to look at what is possible for a conditional rezoning as well. Mr. Montagno suggested postponing action and that he would be happy to work with the applicant and get them on the right track. Mr. Zimmerman stated as the number of units evolved, each lot would be on average of 2 cars for a total of 600+ additional cars on 9 Mile Road which is a single lane road to and from South Lyon. Mr. Smigliani explained that a traffic study will be conducted but they are just not at that point now. Mr. Zimmerman explained there is a small sign announcing this property on Rushton but there is nothing on 9 Mile. He is not sure that everyone is aware of it. Mr. Green explained there is no development yet. There was no action taken. C. Special Approval Use 2016-01 Tree of Life Ministries Mr. Montagno explained since he was not at the last meeting the conditions were discussed and staff was directed to make the followings changes based on the discussions and update administratively. 1. Tree of Ife Center agrees that during normal daily operations no more than 45 participants in classes or courses are permitted in the site or in the buildings. 2. During classes or courses the participants may use the grounds of the center for quiet outside activities as part of the class or course activities. 3. During the year occasional larger outside gatherings, such as an open house, BBQ or picnic could be held at the center with more than 45 attending during the course of the event. No more than 2 such events shall be held in a year. 4. Hours of operation were discussed as 7:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m. on Saturday and 8:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m. on Sunday. 5. If parking is determined to be an issue by the Zoning Administrator the applicant Planning Commission June 16, 2016 Page 6
295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 shall install different parking as depicted on the site plan. 6. No more than 2 classes may be held per day. The Commission agreed that no more than 4 events can be held within a year was appropriate instead of two. Mr. Smigliani stated that the previous motion stands on this action item with the changes as discussed. REPORTS Township Board Representative Trustee Green brought the Commission up to date regarding the last Board meeting. ZBA Representative- None Planning Consultant None Correspondence Mr. Smigliani stated that a notice was received from Milford for their intent to plan update their master plan. Chairman None CALL TO THE PUBLIC Mr. Smigliani adjourned the Regular Planning Commission meeting at 8:50 p.m. due to no further business. Respectfully Submitted, Kellie Angelosanto Kellie Angelosanto Recording Secretary Planning Commission June 16, 2016 Page 7