PLAINFIELD CHARTER TOWNSHIP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING, ZONING & BUILDING SERVICES 6161 BELMONT AVENUE N.E. BELMONT, MI 49306 PHONE 616-364-1190 FAX: 616-364-1170 www.plainfieldchartertwp.org MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Peter Elam, Senior Planner DATE: March 17, 2016 RE: Upcoming Meeting Rezone Request 4325 (4311) Plainfield Avenue NE. You are being asked to forward a favorable recommendation to the township board to approve an ordinance to rezone a portion of 4325 Plainfield Avenue from C-4, Commercial to C-1, Commercial. The property is commonly known as 4311 Plainfield Avenue NE. Mr. Jason M. Horton, on behalf of the Leibovitz Family/Jupiter LLC, is requesting the township to rezone 2.425 acres of 4325 Plainfield Avenue from C-4, Commercial to C-1, Commercial, to create out lots. The property is served by public utilities. The area proposed to be rezoned (2.425 acres) is part of a larger 14 acre parcel, with mid-size commercial box development. Most of the property, which was once part of the North Kent Mall, is currently zoned C-4, Commercial. This zone district requires a minimum lot size of 5 acres, which essentially makes it impracticable to create out lots. Out lots are usually approximately an acre in size. Accordingly, the applicant is seeking to rezone this frontage area of 4325 Plainfield Avenue to C-1, Commercial to allow the development of underutilized parking areas. The proposed out lots are directly adjacent to the Township Fire Station. The applicant may split this property into two parcels. The property would be served by internal service drives. Attached are an aerial photo and a map the zoning for this location. Planning/2016/March/pclett3-22-16
Page 2 of 7 Staff has reviewed the request and we have the following comments: The 2008 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as mixed use Sub-Area 2 (see page 130). The Plan anticipates a mix of regional and neighborhood scale, commercial, office and service uses fronting the arterial road, a statement which mirrors this request. The property is surrounded by commercial and institutional uses and zoning. Many of the existing out lots, like the one where Firestone is located, are legally nonconforming parcels, as they do not meet the minimum lot size of the C-4 district. Looking ahead, staff will be recommending amendments to the C-4 chapter to allow out lots, as well as other changes. The C-4 district was designed for large shopping centers (North Kent Mall) but has since become obsolete. Overall, staff finds that the proposed zoning to C-1 is compatible with adjacent land uses and meets the intended goal of the township s Comprehensive Plan (Sub-Area 2) to create regional and neighborhood scale development along Plainfield Avenue. Recommendation. Subject to any new and compelling information to the contrary that may be discovered at the public hearing, staff recommends that the planning commission forward a favorable recommendation to the township board to approve the ordinance to amend the zoning ordinance and map to rezone this proposed parcel from C-4, Commercial to C-1, Commercial, based on the following findings: 1. The rezoning to C-1, Commercial is consistent with the adjacent zoning and land uses. 2. The rezoning to C-1, Commercial provides the highest and best use of an underutilized commercially zoned area. 3. The request is consistent with good zoning and planning practices. 4. The request is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan. Kent Power 7800 Childsdale Avenue. You are being asked to grant site plan approval for a 27,000 sq. ft. office building. Mr. Bruce Callen, on behalf of Kent Power, has submitted an application requesting approval to construct a 27,000 sq. ft. office building (walkout). Kent Power specializes in outside plant projects for public utilities and communications companies, including the construction and maintenance of power lines, electrical substations, cellular towers, natural gas utilities, and telecommunications infrastructure. They also provide electrical services for commercial and industrial customers. By locating to the Rockford/Plainfield area, they hope to draw from the larger Grand Rapids market of qualified professionals to staff their corporate personnel needs. According to the owner, Mr. Troy Kent, his mission in designing and building this facility is to build the company s next home. He is attempting to bring different aspects of their work into the facility, and provide an atmosphere that will attract top talent for years to come. He believes that with the proposed design they have tried to provide significant natural light for everyone, excellent climate control, effective information flow, and plenty of collaborative spaces for team meetings and training events. He also indicated that the location is a nice fit for them as they have lots of active and outdoorsy team members. They have also tried to be intentional about
Page 3 of 7 planning for growth within the current space, as well as provisions for a future addition if necessary. Staff has reviewed the site plans and we have the following comments: Zoning The property is zoned LI, Light Industrial, and Kent Power s business is a permitted use in this district. Future Warehouse Also shown on the plan is an 18,000 sq. ft. warehouse planned for future construction. The applicant will need to return to the planning commission for site plan approval to construct the warehouse. The warehouse is not a part of this site plan review/approval. Stormwater Management As noted in the township engineer s memorandum, special attention is given to the stormwater management for this site, because of its proximity to the Rogue River. In particular, the stormwater/runoff will be stored on the site and released at a very slow rate. The applicant is preparing the stormwater management design to comply with our requirements. No site preparation will be allowed until the township engineer has granted a stormwater permit. Water and Sanitary Sewer As noted in the township engineer s memorandum, public water and sanitary sewer are available. Detailed review and approval of the utility construction plans will be required before a building permit will be issued. Fire Department The Fire Department has reviewed the plans and they have no issues. Building Design Building elevations are attached for your review. Natural Rivers Overlay District This site is adjacent to the Natural Rivers Overlay District. In this district, we require a minimum setback of 150 feet from the river s edge for any structures. The minimum setback from the tributary stream is 25 feet. These setbacks, where relevant are noted on the site plan, which shows that the development is well outside of the restricted area (a map showing the general vicinity is also enclosed). We should also note that there is a small creek traversing the southerly property line. The applicant has had the wetland areas delineated as shown on the map. The applicant has shown clearing limits on the plan. Landscaping and Lighting Sheet L-1 shows the proposed landscaping plan. Staff will continue to work with the applicant on the landscaping plan. We will also review the site lighting/photometric plan which is addressed as part of the building permit process. Staff is very pleased that Kent Power is proposing to locate one of their corporate offices at this location. We appreciate the significant investment they are making in Plainfield Township.
Page 4 of 7 Additionally, based on the information they provided about their business, we believe their operation will be a quiet, low impact facility along the river. There are some uses permitted by right in the light industrial district that would not be the best fit in this location, so we feel fortunate that Kent Power chose this site. Recommendation: Based on our review, staff is recommending that the planning commission grant site plan approval, based on the following condition: 1. Landscaping and lighting plans are subject to approval by the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Autumn Trails 10 Mile/Childsdale - Rezone Request, RE to PUD. You are being asked to forward a recommendation to the township board for this rezone request. This application was tabled at the January 26 th meeting, and must first be removed from the table before consideration. At the January 26 th, 2016 meeting, the planning commission reviewed the RE, Rural Estate, comparison plan, alongside applicant s PUD Plan. In summary, the site related concerns discussed were the gates, school bus access, tree clearing and loss of other vegetation due to grading, buffering and landscaping along property lines, preservation of wetlands, and overall project density. The applicant has made several changes to the development plan based upon those comments. Those changes are outlined in applicant s narrative (attached) and summarized below: Density The applicant has removed one of the detached condos from the east side of the project, and all of the two-unit condos directly adjacent to the west property line. They have instead, replaced them with single unit condos. The overall number of units has been reduced from 125 units to 122 units in the attached plan. At 87.19 (excluding right-of-way) acres, this equates to about 1.4 units per acre, including wetlands. In the updated plan, there are 61 site condominium units (lots), 18 duplex condo buildings (36 units), and 25 detached villa condo units. In order to spread out the density more evenly within the development, the applicant has reduced the lot width to 90 feet within the site condominium portion. This is a common lot width for R-1 lots in the township where both sewer and water are provided. This reduction of lot width from 100 feet to 90 feet was a staff suggestion, and is permissible under the PUD ordinance (see attached email from Township Attorney, Jeffrey Sluggett). Screening and Landscaping Concerns were expressed regarding screening, due the number and proximity to the property lines of the two-unit and villa style condos off 10 Mile Rd. The two properties discussed in particular were 8313 Childsdale Avenue and 8230 Rogue Ridge Dr. In regard to 8230 Rogue Ridge Drive, the applicant has submitted two aerial photos, showing the northwest property boundary from 2009 and 2014. They note that a considerable amount of vegetation and tree cover has been removed by the owner of 8320 Rogue Ridge Drive, that would have helped screen that property from any proposed development. The applicant has not placed buildings in this clearing corridor.
Page 5 of 7 As noted previously, if this property were to be developed under the Rural Estate district regulations as currently zoned, dedicated open space and tree preservation would not be required under the Site Condominium Ordinance. Also, the grading requirements for a traditional subdivision plan will be significant, and will result in the loss of more tree cover and vegetation, and a greater degree of infiltration into wetlands, than in the PUD plan. Open Space The open space requirement (minimum of 40%) is not a guideline in the PUD chapter, but must be adhered to. The applicant indicates that, with the reduction of housing units, the open space area has increased to 42.14 acres, or 48% of the site. The qualified open space is now at 36.85 acres or 42.1%. The open space calculations are provided on the right side of the PUD development plan. Schools The applicant has provided a letter from the Rockford Public Schools Transportation Department, (see attached) which indicates there are no issues. Buses will enter from 10 Mile Road, and exit onto Childsdale Avenue, stopping at two intersections. Elementary students would attend Meadow Ridge Elementary, not Valley View Elementary. Gates The applicant has expressed a willingness to discuss the gated entries. They would prefer to keep the gates, as they find that they are an investment to the character of the community and would like to discuss that matter in greater detail at site plan approval. The item is open for discussion. Tot Lot A note has been added to the plan between units 1 and 2, for a tot lot and an area for parents to congregate during school bus pickup times. Sidewalks A six foot sidewalk is being proposed on one side of the road (primarily on the south side of the road). Staff suggested a larger pathway style sidewalk on one side, in lieu of two, four foot sidewalks on either side of the roadway to provide a system that can accommodate cross connection to the White Pine Trail, and possibly a trail along 10 Mile. A public access easement to the sidewalk will be required as part of site plan approval. Fire Department As noted in the last meeting, an engineered plan will have to show fire hydrants. This would not impact the number of lots. Utilities and Stormwater Management As previously noted by the Township Engineer, the proposed layout can be served with public water, public sanitary sewer and storm sewer. Summary: This project has had a significant amount of feedback with pros and cons since it was first recommended for approval by the planning commission in 2006. Staff has put together a list of these pros and cons for the planning commission to consider, prior to their recommendation for or against rezoning the property as follows:
Page 6 of 7 Expressed Pros for the PUD: 1. Great local control over the project 2. Preservation of open space 3. Less grading and loss of vegetation 4. Helps cut down on urban sprawl 5. Street access and connectivity 6. Close in proximity to shopping and recreational amenities 7. Land is protected via a Master Deed 8. Allows for diversity in housing styles 9. Walking distance/direct connection to the White Pine Trail 10. Walking distance to downtown Rockford 11. Quality schools 12. Access to readily available utilities/infrastructure 13. Provides a transition between rural areas and City of Rockford 14. Greater creativity in design. Expressed Cons about the PUD: 1. Density is too high 2. Breaks a promise to existing residents to keep the area rural 3. Is not in character with surrounding areas in Plainfield Township 4. Wetlands are protected anyway 5. Detrimental to adjacent property values and owners 6. Ruins the rural atmosphere 7. Not consistent with the Township Master Plan 8. Steep grades would be costly for the developer and the plan to regrade them is not realistic 9. The plan does not benefit the community and only the developer 10. Where does the pressure for greater density end? 11. This location is inappropriate 12. Inadequate separation between proposed housing and existing homes 13. Traffic and school bus routing Recommendation to the Township Board. The planning commission is being asked to provide the township board with a recommendation to approve or deny the attached Ordinance to Amend the Zoning Ordinance and Map. The following provides a suggested motion and a set of findings in favor and opposition for your consideration: In Favor I move that the recommend to the Township Board, the adoption of the ordinance to amend section 5.02 of the zoning ordinance for development of the Autumn Trails PUD development based on our determination and finding that: (1) the increased density permitted will have the benefit of allowing for greater open space preservation and the installation of various site amenities while reducing adverse impacts on the property and adjacent areas that would likely occur with alternative permitted developments;
Page 7 of 7 (2) the approved development is consistent with the intent and purposes of the Township s adopted master plan; (3) the approved development is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 25 of the Township Zoning Ordinance; (4) those grounds in favor (pros) of the PUD contained in the Staff s memorandum dated March 17, 2016 are hereby adopted in full as a partial basis for this recommendation; and (5) the approved development is further supported for those reasons set forth by members of the, the applicant and members of the public, as reflected in the entire record in this matter, including the various hearings. In Opposition I move that the recommend to the Township Board that it not adopt the proposed ordinance to amend section 5.02 of the zoning ordinance for development of the Autumn Trails PUD development based on our determination and finding that: (1) the increased density proposed is in excess of the guidelines contained in the Township Zoning Ordinance and master plan and, on balance, conflicts with the intensity of residential development on adjacent properties; (2) the proposed development would introduce a residential type of development of a very different nature than that envisioned as part of the Township's long-term plans for this area; (3) the grounds identified as a basis for not approving (cons) the PUD contained in the Staff s memorandum dated March 17, 2016 are hereby adopted in full as a partial basis for this recommendation; (4) the approved development is not consistent with the provisions of Chapter 25 of the Township Zoning Ordinance; and (5) the proposed development is not supported for those reasons set forth by members of the and members of the public, as reflected in the entire record in this matter, including the various hearings. Attachments