REGULAR MEETING August 21, 2003 7:30 P.M.
PITTSFIELD TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Members Present: Russell Banush, Julie Griess, Christina Lirones, Wilma Luna, Edward Resha, Norman Schneyer, Dennis Ward
Members Absent: None
Others Present: Luciana Petosi-Kilby, Bev Bennett, Greg Elliott, James Walter, Kent Buryhst, Jeff Allen, Paul Evans, Julie Weiss, Kenneth Weiss, Jamiura Thimmsy, Manjunath Krishnappa, Deborah Russell, Bill Rice, Kim Rice, Christy Wallace, K. Gigler, Linda Rushton, James Rushton, Mohamed Khadr, Daniel Sneed, Mary Cortese, Steven Cortese, Sandra Hogue, Aimee Belskus, Kristen Rincher, Robert Miller, Sheryl Calcagno, Paul Calcagno, Geraldo S. Uyitngco, Dan Mccaherty, Kevin Walter, George Dekius, Michael Campbell, Dennis Engstrom, Usa Frantz, Juliet Bogan, Karen Roper, Gary Johnston, Deborah Patt, Dana DeJohn, Pamela Morris, James Morris, Dan Allen, Jim Calder, Mary F. Steiner, Jeff Vicars, Jennifer Vicars, Brian Odegard, Christina Odegard, Jon White, Brian Hall, Karl Neumauer, John Norton, John Nordlinger, Inck Shin, Randy Gibson, Joyce Van Haren, John Van Haren, Kristine Horton, Karen Brooke, Lexie Bopp, Eva Johnson, Brian Cardwell, Kevin & Amy Geltz, Jean P. Williams, Sam Shark, Kevin Wall, Derek M. Johnson, Tishya Bhatia, Ranau Bhatia, John Bower, Belea Bower, Dairene Uy, Lilly Winkeljohn, Harris Wu, Diane A. Hall, Jeffrey Marine, Lauren Phoenix, Carolyn Cooks, Steve Johnston, Elizabeth Laird, Caroline Wahla, Frank Wahla, Mary Lynn Fosdick, Jeff Fosdick, Thomas Bosserd, John Hogan, Mark Cooks, Jennifer Alexander, Sal-Paul Goyal, Kevin Piturnu, Terean Horn, Yu-Fang Yu, M. Samahu, Greg Symons, Planner Carl Schmult, Assistant Planner Jennifer Black, Senior Planner and Zoning Administrator Mark Spencer, and Marge Burkheiser Recording Secretary.
1.0 Call Meeting to Order at 7:45 p.m. / Determination of a Quorum.
Chairperson Lirones called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. A quorum was present.
2.0 Pledge of Allegiance
Chairperson Lirones led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3.0 Approval of Agenda
Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Luna, to move item 7.1 of New Business to follow item 5.1 of the Public Hearing, and to approve the agenda as amended.
MOTION CARRIED
4.0 Items from the Floor
None.
5.0 Public Hearings
5.1 RZ #03-04 Fairwood Green
[submitted to rezone from RC to PUD]
Earl Ophoff, Midwestern Consulting, stated that the property owner, Mr. Jeff Fulton, told Mr. Ophoff that he felt it was time to change the land use of this property, although he wants certain features to be maintained. Mr. Ophoff showed a proposed layout and stated the major features on the site include a man made pond, with trees in the center northern portion of this site. He said the owner wants to build single family detached homes at roughly the same density as the surrounding subdivisions. He said an analysis was done, and the homes will sell at about $250,000 and up. He said the owners would buy the homes but not the land. He stated a plan has been submitted to the Washtenaw County Drain Commission (WCDC) and the Washtenaw County Road Commission (WCRC). He indicated that a connection for pedestrians and bicycles was proposed to connect to the subdivisions to the north and south, but no road connection for cars. He further stated the WCRC will not accept these as public roads with the roundabouts shown, because the WCRC has no standards for them. He mentioned the roundabouts are proposed because they slow traffic to 15 mph. He added that he has withdrawn the application from the WCRC. He said the WCDC stated the drainage problems around the area may have been exaggerated. He anticipated the volume of runoff would be greater, but the rate of the runoff would not change from current conditions. He said the golf course does suffer from excess water runoff from the road.
Planner Schmult reviewed his report, stating the applicant is proposing one hundred and seventeen (117) single family detached dwelling units. He said the proposed density is similar to Ashford Village and Hickory Point, and that the only difference is that the land would be owned and maintained by an association. He stated the applicant is requesting to rezone the golf course to a PUD district. He said the density is required to be no more then what is designated for the property in the Comprehensive Plan. He gave an explanation and example of PUD districts. He then stated the petition is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He also said the Planning Commission could deny or reevaluate the Comprehensive Plan. He also noted the Comprehensive Plan is to be reviewed and action on this petition will be delayed until after the review.
Chairperson Lirones informed the audience the Planning Commission would be reviewing the Comprehensive Plan on September 4, 2003 and the public is welcome to attend the meeting.
Chairperson Lirones opened the public hearing and stated a number of letters and emails have been received. She noted they would be read after members of the audience had spoken.
Debra Pat, of 5301 Crane Road, asked how the increased traffic on Crane Road would be handled. She stated she would like to see plans made for her to be able to hook up to water and sewer if this development is done.
Greg Elliot, of 202 Washington, Ann Arbor, representing the Hickory Pointe Association, stated the property should not be rezoned because this plan is not consistent with the Township’s Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Elliot said the surrounding homes were on 10,000 square foot lots, and that if the developer tried to match the land use they would not have a site plan as shown. He said many residents have paid a special assessment to pave the road, and this project will get the benefit of the entire infrastructure from the other subdivisions, reaping benefits that others had paid for.
Karen Roper, 4932 Hickory Pointe Blvd., spoke in opposition to the rezoning. She stated she just moved here in April. She said Munger Road is a drag strip for drivers now, and this proposal would exacerbate the traffic situation. She also stated that having only two entrances makes it difficult in the morning and during rush hour to get out onto Crane Road.
Theresa Horn, 4693 Hickory Pointe Blvd., stated she vehemently opposes the proposed change to the use of this land. She referred to the existing traffic, and the negative impact increased traffic would have on the already dangerous intersection at Crane and Michigan. She said she was in a very bad accident at Crane Road and Michigan Avenue two years ago and would like to see a traffic signal in that location.
John Bower, 5510 Crane Road, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. He stated the traffic is going eighty (80) miles an hour down Crane Road. He said he has never seen a Pittsfield Township police officer in the area. He further stated with the addition of this development there will be a lot more traffic.
Steven Cortese, 4701 Sycamore Drive, stated he agrees with the traffic issues and is opposed to the zoning change. He said he paid $5,000.00 extra for a lot which abuts the golf course. He further stated this proposal would strain all of the utilities serving the area. He said this golf course has been here for many years, and it is a family recreation area that should be kept the same. He then gave his notes to Chairperson Lirones.
Jeff Vicars, 4695 Sycamore Drive, said he opposed the proposed change. He stated the owner of the golf course would like to make more money by selling the land, which is why he wanted the proposed change. He said that Canton [Michigan] and Superior Townships try to draw families to their areas, and that is what he would like to see here, not a proposal like this one.
Brian Cardwell, 5642 Amber Way, stated he opposes the rezoning; however, if the Commission finds this in the best interest of the Township, he would like to see fewer houses than what was proposed. He said rebates should be made to the residents and developers who paid for the special assessments to pave the roads.
Mary Cortese, 4701 Sycamore Drive, said she opposed the rezoning, and likes to see the wildlife that inhabits the golf course and it has been her breath of fresh air. She agreed the utilities will be strained, and the traffic will overburden the roads.
James Morris, 4883 Sycamore Drive, stated he lives in the northeast corner of Ashford Village, by the proposed detention pond; he has had experiences with the existing pipes not working and the water going onto the golf course. He felt that existing storm water runoff issues need to be addressed before this proposal is considered.
Jim Rushton, 4713 Sycamore Drive, stated he moved to his home in Ashford Village recently, specifically because of the open space of the golf course and the location. He was not in favor of the rezoning.
John Norton, 4777 Sycamore Drive, opposed the rezoning, stating he came to workshops where he worked on the Comprehensive Plan last year, and the owner of the golf course should have been there to go over the Comprehensive Plan; the owner did not object to keeping the existing recreation use in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated this may make a perfect park for the area. He recommended that the Township put in a bid for this property. He also stated he paid for a portion for the paving on Crane and Munger roads.
Lilly Winkeljohn, 4563 Sycamore Drive, agreed with the attorney’s [Mr. Elliott’s] concern about the additional strain on the infrastructure, which would increase traffic and over crowd public schools, and she also opposed the rezoning.
John Nordlinger, 3624 Meadow Grove Trail, stated he used to live in the area near the golf course. He stated the owner cannot make a living with that golf course. He asked if any of the residents are supporting the golf course by putting money into it. He said although he would like to see the golf course stay, he did not want to see the owner get punished if he has to sell.
Kevin Walter, 4572 Sycamore Drive, said he was opposed to the site plan. He said he feels there is a need for a Township park in the area.
Elizabeth Laird, 5547 Amber Way, said she opposed the rezoning and agreed with many of the comments made tonight. She feels the traffic has become a problem and she now feels the area is becoming over crowded.
Kenneth Weiss, 5184 Hickory Point Blvd., stated he agrees with the comments made about the utilities and the traffic. He said he feels the golf course should stay.
Dr. Karen Brooke, 5693 South Ashford Way, stated she understood business was hard for the property owner, but she is opposed to the rezoning. She agreed with the idea of the Township buying the land and running it as a golf course. She stated she was willing to pay more taxes to keep the golf course.
Lisa Frantz, 4733 Sycamore, said she agreed with Dr. Brooks about the tough market, but the Township does not owe anyone a profit at the homeowners’ expense. She inquired as to who would be responsible for utility lines.
George Dekius, 4755 Sycamore Drive, said he likes the view of the golf course and he also paid a premium for his lot. He stated the Township should make this a park.
A resident of Sycamore Drive, stated he moved to Pittsfield to avoid crowds. He stated there is too much traffic and no safe place for kids to play.
Geraldo Uytingco, 4845 Sycamore Drive, stated he feels the traffic is at a very high amount. He stated the Township needs to look at this problem and possibly do traffic studies.
Kim Dowl, 5542 Crane Road, stated his wife was in an accident at the golf course caused by a drunk driver. He mentioned the owner of the golf course said he did not serve liquor although it was consumed on site. He said he has assurances in writing that the drainage from Crane Road would cross in front of his home and drain into the detention ponds. He stated he has a film showing water running from Ashford Village into his front yard. He said he has seen six (6) inches of water on Crane Road. He showed the Commissioners a photo of his yard and passed it around for the audience to also see. He was suspicious of assurances by the WCRC about storm water runoff.
Kevin Phoenix, 5515 Crane Road, opposed the rezoning, saying the traffic levels and the traffic speeds on Crane Road are too high. He said the two main issues are the negative impact on neighboring property values and the traffic issues.
Juilette Bogan, 4558 Sycamore Drive, stated she has concerns similar to other speakers, involving the public schools, and police and fire issues. She stated she is opposed to this development.
Paul Evan, 5855 Cottonwood Drive, stated similar concerns with the traffic and the planned development.
Derrick Johnson, 5855 Sunrise Drive, asked how many people were opposed to this petition (a majority of the audience raised their hands, with about 6 people not raising their hands). He said he was opposed to the rezoning. He suggested Ashford Village and Hickory Pointe combine resources to purchase the property. He asked what the price of the property is.
The attorney for the property owner stated this information could not be given due to confidentially.
Carol Wahla, 4900 Munger Road, said she missed the country roads, and had not been in favor of Munger Road being paved. She voiced concern with the high speed traffic and the development in the area, and opposed more development.
Carl Newmyer, 5966 Cottonwood, stated he is on the Board of Directors at Midwest. He feels there are few common areas in Ashford left. He said the common area next to the lot he purchased was supposed to be useful, but he has found it useless because it was a detention area. He further stated the Township should purchase this land and use it as a park.
Kristine Rincher, 4790 Sycamore Drive, stated she was opposed to this plan and agrees with all the comments. She expressed her concern about the schools, police, and fire.
Sheryl Calcagno, 4901 Sycamore Drive, stated one year there was a lot of flooding. She is also concerned with the traffic and the traffic speeds. She opposed rezoning.
Jason Foltner, 4617 Hickory Point Blvd, stated if the attorney says the deal is under contractual obligation it sounds like the deal has been done. He further stated his concern with more developments in the area. He stated he does oppose this development.
Brian and Diane Hall, 4845 Willingham Court, stated they are opposed to rezoning. They stated the community’s current quality is dependent on the environment. They added the plan is inconsistent with density and inconsistent with the homes in the area.
John Hogan, 5954 Cottonwood Drive, stated his opposition to this development. He stated he is concerned with the traffic and possible traffic accidents.
Robert Miller, 4839 Sycamore Drive, said he was opposed to the changes of the plan. He said he felt there are several alternatives to explore.
Manjunath Krishnappa, 4650 Shellbark Drive, stated he was opposed to this development. He also stated he has concerns about the traffic.
Brian Odegard, 4559 Sycamore Drive, said he was opposed to the rezoning. He is concerned about the traffic and the utilities.
Kevin and Deborah Podolski, 4811 Sycamore Drive, stated they are opposed to the rezoning. They stated the golf course serves a purpose to the community.
Chris Horton, 4867 Hickory Point Blvd., stated she is opposed to the rezoning. She feels the traffic is a big concern.
Rodney Fletcher, 4800 Sycamore Drive, said he is opposed to the rezoning. He feels the golf course should stay.
Sandra Hogue, 4709 Sycamore Drive, stated the area should remain a recreational area. She does not feel the drainage problems will be alleviated with this development.
Greg Simons, 4550 Shellbark Drive, stated he was opposed to the development.
Kevin Walsh, 5575 Redbud Court, stated he agrees with the statements.
Geraldo Uytingco, 4845 Sycamore Drive, stated a culvert runs along his property and the water and snow from the golf course enters the subdivision. He stated that water has backed up into the subdivision.
Mary Cortese, 4701 Sycamore Drive, stated that in a flyer that was given to Chairperson Lirones by Mrs. Cortese, it stated the golf course was chosen for Pittsfield Parks and Recreation youth golf was Hickory Woods Golf Course.
Chairperson Lirones stated they have been using Hickory Woods Golf Course in the Parks and Recreation Brochure.
Randolph Gibson, 5562 Redbud, stated he is opposed to the rezoning. He feels this will not be safe for the children.
Chris Horton, 4867 Hickory Point Blvd, asked what the length of time for community feedback.
Chairperson Lirones stated public comments are always welcome.
Planner Spencer explained the basic rezoning process.
Jeff Vicars, 4695 Sycamore Drive, stated the proposed rezoning infringes on the residents trying to provide a safe environment for their families.
John Norton, 4777 Sycamore Drive, asked what will happen after tonight.
Chairperson Lirones gave explanations of the process for reviewing the Comprehensive Plan. She stated every project is different and this could be a long process.
Carolyn Wahla, 4900 Munger Road, requested a 4 x 8 sign be put on this property stating this is being concerned for rezoning.
Chairperson Lirones stated they mailed over 600 notices to residents regarding this rezoning petition. She stated she feels a sign on the property may not help as much.
Juilette Bogan, 4558 Sycamore Drive, stated the government represents the people and the people have indicated they do not want the rezoning. She then asked if the Board as a government would find the rezoning acceptable.
Chairperson Lirones stated a decision has not been made yet. She said the government does represent the people, but they are also bound by laws
Chairperson Lirones read letters that were submitted by the residents. She noted they were all opposing the rezoning. She read the letters and the emails that were received. She noted 89 residents of Hickory Point and Ashford Village signed petition forms opposing the rezoning. [Chairperson Lirones and Commissioner Luna counted and determined 81 forms were signed by residents of the area]. Chairperson Lirones noted there is the possibility of duplicate forms and the Township will check them at a later date. (The letters were retained for the Townships files).
Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Luna, to close the public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED
7.1 of New Business to follow.
No discussion.
Motion by Commissioner Luna, supported by Commissioner Resha, to postpone action on RZ 03-04 Fairwood Green, pending further review.
MOTION CARRIED
Chairperson Lirones called for a recess from 10:15 p.m. to 10:25 p.m.
6.0 Old Business
6.1 RZ 03-01/CSPA 03-04 Platt Road Condominiums
[submitted to rezone from R-2B to PUD and preliminary site plan]
Planner Spencer reviewed his report and stated the sign needed to be redesigned but there appears to be room for it. He said there are four parking spaces on Bassett Run that would need to be relocated or moved, since they are near the entrance. He also said there should be a permanent recorded conservation easement in place to protect the woods and wetlands that were to be saved. He said Planner Schmult’s report had similar comments and that most of the comments from engineering were for the final site plan. He further stated the questions asked about the wetland in the past have been verified and staff is satisfied with the flagging of the area.
Commissioner Schneyer asked if 350 parking spaces would be necessary.
Dennis Engstrom stated the amount of parking space is for marketing.
Commissioner Schneyer suggested marking spaces for guest parking. He also said he has lived in a condominium and has never seen that many parking spaces. He noted that everyone does not have guests at the same time.
Commissioner Ward suggested one extra parking space per unit.
Commissioner Schneyer said parking did not work in that fashion and stated he has lived in condominiums for over ten (10) years.
Commissioner Ward asked about the demographics of parking for the area.
Mr. Engstrom stated the projected population is for the young professionals with young children.
Commissioner Banush questioned if this would be setting a precedent.
Planner Spencer stated the parking is a little higher then some other developments but not by much. He also said there is not a maximum parking requirement. He noted the maximum impervious surface is 40% of the lot area for a residential PUD and the proposed lot coverage is 34%.
Commissioner Ward noted this is 6% below the maximum impervious surface allowed which is good but felt the units are tightly packed which would make parking a premium.
Planner Spencer stated the staff had mixed opinions on four parking spaces but noted the parking space ratio was approximately 1.7 spaces per unit.
Commissioner Schneyer asked about the approximate size of the units.
Mr. Engstrom replied the units will each be about 1,600 square feet per unit.
Commissioner Resha asked how the applicant figured the number of cars per unit.
Mr. Engstrom stated the figure of 1.5 to 2 cars per unit was used.
Commissioner Ward stated he was opposed to the location of the four parking spaces along the entrance drive.
Mr. Engstrom stated the four parking spaces in question will be removed.
Commissioner Schneyer asked for an explanation for having private roads as opposed to public roads. He further expressed his concern for maintaining private roads and whether there will be a sinking fund and model maintenance language in the master deed.
Mr. Engstrom stated they have not drafted the maintenance documents but would take Commissioner Schneyer's comments into consideration.
Commissioner Ward stated final site approval would not be given until the road maintenance is guaranteed.
Commissioner Ward asked Commissioner Schneyer for suggested solutions since he is not in favor of private roads but added the roads in this development will not be public roads.
Commissioner Schneyer had no suggestions to offer.
Planner Spencer suggested the applicant review the language in the Master Deed concerning drainage items and annual inspection of roads.
Chairperson Lirones stated the Township has requested a road maintenance agreement with another site development.
Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Banush, to approve Resolution Number 1, making Findings of Required Standards, to rezone property in petition RZ 03-1 Platt Road Condominiums from R-2-B to PUD.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Ayes: Griess, Banush, Lirones, Luna, Resha, Ward
Nays: Schneyer
Abstain: None
Absent: None
MOTION CARRIED
Motion by Ward, supported by Luna, to approve Resolution Number 2, Recommending Approval of the rezoning of properties in petition RZ 03-1, Platt Road Condominiums from R-2B to PUD to the Township Board.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Ayes: Griess, Banush, Lirones, Luna, Resha, Ward
Nays: Schneyer
Abstain: None
Absent: None
MOTION CARRIED
6.2 CSPA 02-13 U. S. Storage Depot
[submitted for discussion only]
Planner Black reviewed the Engineering report. She stated the utility lines were shown overhead and they need to be placed underground. She said the majority of the parking lot is shown unpaved and this needs to be changed. She further stated the tree protective fencing is shown with grading inside the fencing and this needed to be corrected.
Planner Spencer added the Planning Commission should ask why heavy pavement is used in some places and light pavement in other places. He stated the Land Development Standards require 122 canopy trees. He said the applicant provided 69 canopy trees, 25 colorado spruce trees, and 79 ornamental trees. He said the Planning Commission should decide if this is an adequate amount. He further stated one (1) inch trees could be planted in the wetland area.
Steve Dackiw, Schonsheck, stated that Sheet 5 is a demo plan. He explained the overhead electric lines will be gone. He further commented on the trees.
Planner Spencer stated the Planning Commission could count the colorado spruce and the ornamental trees as substitutes. He stated the applicant is 53 trees short of the required trees.
Commissioner Ward stated item 4.07 of Planner Schmult’s report for the arborvitae trees seems to be a poor choice.
Planner Spencer stated he would talk with Engineering about processing their utility permits.
Motion by Commissioner Banush, supported by Commissioner Resha, to authorize the Municipal Services Department to issue a soil erosion and sedimentation control permit and utility permits for CSPA 02-13, [U. S. Storage Depot], when in the opinion of the Township Engineer, the site plan is substantially complete.
MOTION CARRIED
6.3 CSPA 02-04 Sam's Club
[submitted for final site plan]
Planner Spencer stated a permit was still needed from the WCRC before construction begins. He also said Planner Schmult’s report stated that the details for the ID signs were needed. He noted the compactor storage area enclosures needed to be similar to building. He said that engineer had minor issues such as; the applicant would like to work between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. He said this should be approved by the Board of Trustees in the Development Agreement. He further said the lighting plan is being reworked.
Chairperson Lirones stated if there is a major disturbance in the neighborhood work could be discontinued.
Nick Miller, Atwell Hicks, stated the lighting has been changed.
Planner Spencer stated the easements to Parcel D need to be provided before the construction begins. He said the site plan shows a one year construction time frame starting August 15, 2004. He further stated the attorneys are proposing a 3 year time frame.
Mr. Miller stated usually the gas station is built at the same time as the store but construction will be delayed because they need to provide enough parking for the store. He said when Sam’s Club is open the general contractor will come back in after six months to be sure everything is correct.
Commissioner Resha stated the lighting poles could be changed to 25 foot from 40 foot poles without any problems.
Mr. Miller stated he was hoping to keep the pole heights although he will submit an alternate plan for illuminating the front of the building.
The Commissioners further discussed different lighting options.
Commissioner Resha asked if demolition of the old building will happen before the gas station is built.
Mr. Miller replied yes.
Mr. Miller explained the ID signs are to be submitted by the architect. He then stated the fencing around the compactor enclosure is black anodized aluminum.
The Commissioners then discussed additions to the suggested motion.
Motion by Commissioner Banush, supported by Commissioner Resha, to approve the final site plan for CSPA 02-04 Sam's Club, provided the applicant meets the following conditions:
1. Address items number 1-6, 9 and 10 of the Township Engineer's report dated August 18, 2003.
2. Enter into a Development Agreement with the Township Board.
3. Provide a conservation easement or similar instrument to restrict all development over the conservancy area depicted on the site plan.
4. Provide a recorded access easement for pedestrians and vehicles for parcel "D: before construction begins and to negotiate in good faith to provide an access easement for any property west of the property line and the northbound U.S. 23 entrance ramp that may become available for development, as the result of the reconfiguration of the U.S. 23/Michigan Avenue entrance ramp.
5. Provide parking lot lights at a maximum height of 30 feet.
6. Address items number 3.01, 3.02 and 3.03 of the Township Planner's report of August 13, 2003.
7. Recommend to the Board that the applicant be allowed to work from the hours of 8:00 pm to 7:00 am, with the provision that if complaints are received by the Township, the Township Supervisor may revoke the extended work hours. Underground inspectors will be on site during the extended hours, according to the usual practice of the Township.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Ayes: Schneyer, Griess, Banush, Lirones, Luna, Resha, Ward
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
MOTION CARRIED
7.0 New Business
7.1 RZ #03-04 Fairwood Green
[submitted to rezone from RC to PUD]
Item moved to follow 5.1 of the Public Hearing.
8.0 Planner’s Report
Postponed.
9.0 Chairperson’s Report
Postponed.
10.0 Commissioner’s Report
Postponed.
11.0 Approval of Prior Minutes
11.1 Minutes of June 19, 2003
11.2 Minutes of July 17, 2003
Motion by Commissioner Resha, supported by Commissioner Ward, to approve the minutes of June 19, 2003 and July 17, 2003, as presented.
MOTION CARRIED.
12.0 Adjournment
Motion by Commissioner Luna, supported by Commissioner Ward, to adjourn the meeting.
MOTION CARRIED
Chairperson Lirones adjourned the meeting at 11:55 p.m.
________________________________________________________________________
Julie Griess, Secretary Date
Attachment #1
RESOLUTION #1
FINDINGS OF REQUIRED STANDARDS
RZ 03-1 PLATT ROAD CONDOMINIUMS
PITTSFIELD TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
August 21, 2003
The Pittsfield Township Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of the standards in Sections 52.07C and 59.05 of the Zoning Ordinance for a zoning amendment, and Article 55 of the Zoning Ordinance for a preliminary site plan, based on the latest version of the area plan/preliminary site plan, consisting of 27 sheets, date stamped July 25, 2003, as received by Pittsfield Township.
1. The petition is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan dated July 11, 2002. The plan designates the area for medium density residential use at 6 DUs/acre. The petition proposes single-family attached residential homes at a density of 5.98 DUs/acre. (Sections 52.07C-1 and 59.05E, Zoning Ordinance)
2. The petition is consistent with the applicable purposes and regulations of the PUD district, as follows. (Section 52.07C-2)
A. Intent, Section 45.01 – Subsections D, E, G, and H apply to this petition; the petition promotes these objectives.
B. Location of a PUD, Section 45.02 – The Comprehensive Plan does not mention the use of the PUD district in this area. The Planning Commission finds that use of the PUD district in this area promotes the applicable objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
C. Permitted Uses, Section 45.03A – The proposed use, single-family residential, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
D. Density, Section 45.03B and C:
GFC = 9.1%; maximum permitted = 25%.
FAR = 0.221; maximum permitted = 0.35.
DUs/acre = 5.98; maximum permitted = 6.0.
Impervious area ratio = 33.6%; maximum permitted = 40%.
E. Minimum Lot Area, Section 45.05 – None required but the Planning Commission must find that the area of the site is suitable for the proposed use. The Planning Commission finds that the area of the site is suitable for the proposed development.
Attachment #1
Page 2
F. Minimum Required Yards, Section 45.06:
Front – 110 feet provided; minimum required = 110 feet from road centerline.
Sides, rear – 20 feet, SPL, 35 feet NPL, over 450 feet EPL provided; minimum required = 20 feet.
G. Distances between Buildings, Section 45.07 – 32 feet and more provided; minimum 10 feet required.
H. Height Limit, Section 45.08 – Three floors, 31.5 feet proposed; no maximums stated but Township Board must approve heights that exceed 2 ˝ stories or 35 feet.
I. Circulation, Section 52.02 – Site has access to a public street via a private drive. Sidewalks are provided.
J. Utilities, Section 52.03 – Public water and sanitary sewer services are available. Storm drainage will discharge into the Koch Warner Drain.
K. Parking, Section 52.05 – The plan requires 248 spaces. The plan provides 352 spaces, including 104 spaces for guests.
L. Phasing, Section 52.06 - The project is to be developed in one phase.
3. The proposed development will be served by public water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, street access, and fire protection. (Section 52.07C-3; 59.05C)
4. The entire area outside the buildings will be a common area that will be owned and maintained by the condominium owners' association. (Section 52.07C-4, 5)
5. By agreement with the WCRC, the petitioner will provide improvements to Platt Road, as required by the WCRC, to handle the traffic that the proposed development will generate. The WCRC staff has given preliminary approval to the improvements to Platt Road that are shown on the area plan and to the location and design of the driveway opening on Platt Road, as shown on the area plan..
The petition provides a sidewalk along Platt Road and an interior pedestrian path system. (Section 52.07C-6, 11)
Attachment #1
Page 3
6. The petition proposes an attached single-family residential development. This development will have no adverse impacts on the attached single-family residential development now under construction to the south (Rosewood) or a future neighborhood commercial development to the north. (Section 52.07C-8)
7. Topography is not an issue in the design of this site. The petition preserves the wetland and the portion of the wooded area that is in the east part of the site. Protection fences shall be installed prior to any site work and other construction on the site and shall remain in place, in good condition, until all site work and other construction is completed. The petitioner will replace trees 8" inches and larger that will be removed, both on-site and by off-site plantings. (Section 52.07C-9)
8. The petition proposes private drives to serve the 124 dwelling units. The layout of the drive system is determined by the location of the access point on Platt Road and the configuration of the wetland. Extension of drives to adjacent properties is not reasonable. The land adjacent to the south is developed and does not provide an acceptable point for a drive interconnection. Extension to the east is blocked by the wetland. Extensions of a drive to the property to the north is not reasonable; such an extension would permit traffic between Platt Road and Michigan Avenue to cut through the site, to avoid the Platt/Michigan intersection. (Section 52.07C-10)
9. The existing R-2B zoning permits a reasonable use of the property in the petition. The petitioner is requesting PUD zoning to permit flexibility in designing the layout of the site. (Section 59.05A)
10. Approval of the petition would not set a precedent for zoning changes for the adjacent properties. The PUD zoning on the land to the south and east is fixed; development under the recently approved PUD district for that property is underway. The property to the north is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for neighborhood commercial use. (Section 59.05B)
11. Approval of the petition should have no adverse impact on the value of adjacent properties. (Section 59.05D)
Attachment #2
RESOLUTION #2
RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL
RZ 03-1 PLATT ROAD CONDOMINIUMS
PITTSFIELD TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
August 21, 2003
WHEREAS The Pittsfield Township Planning Commission held a public hearing on this petition on February 20, 2003; and
WHEREAS The Pittsfield Township Planning Commission has reviewed the petition and required a number of changes in the area plan; and
WHEREAS The Pittsfield Township Planning Commission has determined by separate resolution that the petition meets the standards for a PUD district as provided in Section 52.07C of the Zoning Ordinance and for a zoning amendment as provided in Section 59.05 of the Zoning Ordinance, provided certain conditions are met and conditioned upon the final site plan meeting the requirements listed in items #1-9 of the Township Engineer's report dated February 8, 2003; and
WHEREAS The area plan part of the petition, being 27 sheets, date stamped July 25, 2003, as received by Pittsfield Township, is also the preliminary site plan for the proposed condominium;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That the Pittsfield Township Planning Commission recommends that the Pittsfield Township Board approve petition RZ 03-1, Platt Road Condominiums;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the Pittsfield Township Planning Commission approves the preliminary site plan for the proposed development, provided that the approval shall be in effect only after the Township Board approves this petition;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the petitioner make the following changes in the area plan before the petition may be transmitted to the Township Board:
1. All inconsistencies in floor area numbers shall be removed to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.
2. The plan shall show hard surface access ways to all manholes, as requested by the Township Engineer.
3. All proposed trees shall be at least 10 feet from a sanitary sewer, water main, or storm sewer, as required by the Township Engineer.
Attachment #2
Page 2
4. The meter room details must show the heater on the wall opposite the meter.
5. The driveway opposite the southwest corner of building #18 shall be extended to the south property line.
6. Removal of four parallel parking spaces on the north side of the west end of Bassett Run.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the Pittsfield Township Planning Commission recommend that the Pittsfield Township Board approve the three floor building height as proposed in the area plan;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the Pittsfield Township Planning Commission recommends that the Pittsfield Township Board attach the following conditions to its approval of this petition:
1. Uses shall be limited to single-family attached dwelling units.
2. Dwelling units shall be single-family attached units, not more than eight units per building, in not more than twenty buildings. The total number of dwelling units permitted shall not exceed 124.
3. A Chapter 18 Drainage District shall be established for the entire property in the petition. The district shall be established before any site work, including tree or brush removal and grading, may begin.
4. The existing and proposed location of each existing tree that is to be relocated on the site shall be identified on the final site plan. All existing trees 8" and larger to be removed shall be shown on the final site plan.
5. Protection fences shall be shown on the final site plan for the wetlands and all trees to be preserved. The fences shall be installed and inspected by Pittsfield Township before any site work may begin and shall remain in place and in good condition until all site work is completed. A program for the long term maintenance and protection of trees and wetlands shall be established in the master deed.
6. The critical root zones for trees to be preserved shall be shown on the final site plan. Tree protection fences shall be located no closer to the trees to be preserved than the lines of the critical root zones.
Attachment #2
Page 3
7. The landscape plan is acceptable as a concept only. Changes might be required as a result of review of the final site plan. Mitigation will be required per Chapter 19 of the Land Development Standards for all trees 8" and larger that will be removed. Mitigation shall be maximized on the site. Remaining required mitigation shall be provided off-site. A plan for off-site mitigation shall be approved by the Planning Commission before the Planning Commission may approve the final site plan.
8. The water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage layouts are acceptable as concepts only. Changes might be required as a result of review of the final site plan.
9. The stormwater management system and all related facilities shall be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with the Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner's approval.
10. The master deed shall provide that the condominium owners association shall have the primary responsibility for maintaining all storm drainage facilities that are located outside a public street right of way. Maintenance shall be in accordance with the standards of the Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner and with the approved final site plan. The master deed shall also provide that the Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner shall have the authority to assume maintenance responsibility if the condominium owners association fails to maintain these facilities in the manner required.
11. The buildings constructed shall closely resemble the buildings shown in floor plan and elevation views in the area plan.
12. The petitioner shall enter into a development agreement with the Township Board before the Planning Commission may approve the final site plan. The agreement shall include provisions for off-site planting of trees to meet mitigation requirements.
13. The petitioner shall provide a permanent measure acceptable to the Township to perpetually remove the development rights from the preserved woodlands and wetlands before the Planning Commission may approve the final site plan.
