SPECIAL MEETING December 18, 2003 7:30 P.M.
PITTSFIELD TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Members Present: Russell Banush, Julie Griess, Christina Lirones, Wilma Luna, Edward Resha, Andrea Urda-Thompson, Dennis Ward.
Members Absent: None.
Other Present: Bruce Laidlaw, Jamie Gorenflo, Stuart Hutchins, Jim Walter, Assistant Planner Paul Montagno, Assistant Planner Jennifer Black, Senior Planner and Zoning Administrator Mark Spencer, and Recording Secretary Marge Burkheiser.
1.0 Call Meeting to Order at 7:30 p.m. / Determination of a Quorum.
Chairperson Lirones called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. A quorum was present.
Chairperson Lirones stated this is a special meeting that has been called with appropriate posting and notifications.
2.0 Pledge of Allegiance
Chairperson Lirones led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3.0 Approval of Agenda
Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Resha, to accept the agenda, as presented.
MOTION CARRIED
4.0 Items from the Floor
There were no public comments.
5.0 Old Business
5.1 RZ 03-03/CSPA 03-11 Fairwood Green [submitted to rezone from RC to PUD]
Chairperson Lirones introduced this item and stated this item has had a public hearing and alot of discussion at the last meeting [of December 11, 2003].
Planner Spencer stated at the last meeting [of December 11, 2003] the Commission directed staff to write a resolution recommending denial, based on the Planning Commission’s findings. He said there have been discussions between staff and the Township attorney. He also said if the Commission agrees with the suggested findings and facts they could use them. Chairperson Lirones stated there is a memo from staff with the [suggested] Findings of Facts. She also said the Commission should discuss each Finding with the Fact following each item.
Chairperson Lirones read Finding number 1:
-
The property in the petition is designated for Public Facilities, and Public and Private Recreation/Open Space in the Comprehensive Plan.
Chairperson Lirones read from Planner Spencer’s report, the supporting documentation is:
Map No. 4 Comprehensive Plan adopted 2002.
Discussion:
Commissioner Banush stated when the Commission revisited [the Plan] we re-confirmed it should be kept the same.
Commissioner Luna stated there were a number of workshops, and a tremendous amount of public notification. There was never an issue taken with this land use. She also stated there was a tremendous amount of public participation.
The Commissioners agreed that it is shown in Map No. 4 of the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2002, designated for Public Facilities and Public and Private Recreation/Open Space.
Chairperson Lirones restated the findings in number 1 and the facts supporting that are as stated below that map number 4 and all the Commissioners agreed.
Chairperson Lirones read Finding number 2:
-
For several decades, the people of Pittsfield Township have expressed a strong desire to preserve and increase areas for recreation and open space.
Chairperson Lirones read the supporting findings.
The 1975 and later Comprehensive Plans and the 1971 and later Parks and Recreation Plans all contain references to the value of open space and recreation areas.
Planner Spencer stated Staff has verified the information for the Commissioner’s.
There was a consensus of the Commissioner’s.
“Vision A: Pittsfield Township will protect important natural resources and open spaces that contribute to the health of natural systems and features and to the Township’s character and quality-of-life” Comprehensive Plan amended December 2002, p.53.
The Commissioner’s agreed with the above statement.
Chairperson Lirones read:
“Purpose of the Plan. Recreation and open space are important to the residents of Pittsfield Township. Since 1971, when the Parks and Recreation Master Plan was adopted, concerted efforts have been made to ensure that the recreation needs of the community are met.” Parks and Recreation Master Plan amended December 2002, p.1.
Chairperson Lirones stated the Parks and Recreation Master Plan is a second plan that is followed by the Township.
There was a consensus of the Commissioner’s that the Facts support the findings.
Discussion:
Commissioner Luna stated the Parks and Recreation did surveys that had alot of participation. They also did surveys and workshops that came to this conclusion.
Chairperson Lirones stated that in 1998, the Park Commission did their own survey. The responses expressed that the people wanted to protect and preserve the space. She said there was a good response, the surveys showed the residents wanted more athletic facilities for children and grandchildren. She said future development will need to balance these prospectives. She said across the board people asked for more playgrounds, picnic shelters, and neighborhood parks. People want parks in their neighborhoods.
Chairperson Lirones asked if this survey would support these findings.
The Commissioner’s all stated they agreed with this.
Chairperson Lirones read:
Based on the facts presented, the Commission finds that for several decades, the people of Pittsfield Township have expressed a strong desire to preserve and increase the areas for recreation and open space.
The Commissioner’s all stated they agreed with this. Discussion:
Commissioner Banush recapped the survey taken during the 2002 Comprehensive Plan process. He said that the top items, on a percentage basis, showed that slowing the rate of development to catch up with services 85%; preservation of open space and protecting and improving woodlands 87%; natural habitats 87%; safe neighborhood play areas 85%. The consensus of the public is that we should preserve this area as in the plan.
Chairperson Lirones noted the survey was mailed to over 11,000 households with over 3,000 surveys returned. She said 90 % agreed or strongly agreed to protect property values. She also said if this property was rezoned there would be a negative effect on the area.
The Commissioner’s all stated they agreed with this.
Chairperson Lirones read Finding number 3:
-
The Comprehensive Plan provides for a logical pattern of land uses that were developed with considerable input from the community and it includes the following vision statements: a. “Offer diverse land uses arranged in a logical pattern taking into consideration existing uses, public needs and services, environmental conditions and the capacity of transportation, utilities, and community facilities.” b. “Protect important natural features and open space that contributes to the health of natural systems and the Township’s character and quality of life.”
Both of the above points are quotes from page 5 of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan. During the Comprehensive Plan update process in 2002, the Commission heard directly, and through the use of surveys, the desires of many of the Township’s citizens who expressed a strong interest in preserving and increasing open space and recreational opportunities.
Discussion:
Commissioner Luna stated this was the desire of Township as a whole and not just the neighborhoods where the open space appears, because the issue affects all of us.
Commissioner Resha stated we received over 2,800 surveys.
Chairperson Lirones noted the actual response was over 3,000, but they found some were copied. They were counted by hand count.
Commissioner Resha stated that looking over the surveys and the responses showed the trend is to have more open/recreation space, pathways and more recreational area. He said in everything we mentioned the trend always seems to come back to more recreation areas.
Chairperson Lirones stated the residents are finding that this is a component of the high quality of life in Pittsfield Township.
Commissioner Banush stated the survey is really a ringing endorsement of the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Ward stated the survey is factual numbers and would like to remind everyone we held public hearings and the comments echoed the survey results. The entire Township was invited to the public hearings, in this room, with a variety of stations about the type of things we could do and choices the residents could make with respect to land uses within the Township. The citizens of the Township echoed what we are talking about with the survey results.
Chairperson Lirones stated this is 100 percent accurate [referring to Commissioner Ward’s comments]. We have had many workshops and it is clear that this pattern is wanted in the Township and in this particular neighborhood pattern; the golf course is an integral component of this high quality neighborhood that was developing.
Chairperson Lirones asked if the Commissioners all agree that the Facts support the Findings that the Comprehensive Plan provides for a logical pattern for land uses that were developed with considerable input from the community including the following vision statement [items A and B above] and do the Commissioners agree that the Facts supports the Findings.
The Commissioner’s all stated they agreed with this.
Chairperson Lirones read Finding number 4:
-
Recreation and open space areas provide value to the citizens and add to the quality of life by: a. Adding aesthetic value to the community by providing an open break in the suburban landscape. b. Providing space for ground water recharge, flood control, and plant and animal habitat. c. Providing a place for recreation that can provide health benefits to the people of the Township. d. Adding monetary value to neighboring properties.
Chairperson Lirones read the supporting facts:
Many studies support a healthier population in areas that offer more recreation opportunities.
“Research on the physiological role of open space centers on the manner in which direct or vicarious experience with the vegetated landscape reduces stress, arousal, and anxiety.” The Psychological Value of Open Space, Nora J. Rubinstein, Ph.D. in “The Benefits of Open Space,” Leonard W. Hamilton, Ph.D. Rutgers University, 1996 Discussion: Chairperson Lirones stated that open space has a “calming” effect on the residents of the Township. It is good for physical and mental health to have open spaces and recreation areas. She stressed they were discussing a recreation conservation zoning district which is slightly different then just undeveloped open space. There are many spaces that can be used in a recreation conservation zoning district. She said the Township does not have a category called “golf course” zoning so we are not talking about the golf course, we are just talking about recreation land.
Planner Spencer added this is just a sampling of the considerable amount of literature that is out there and that he just picked one that had a good quote to go with this report.
Commissioner Ward also added in support of Planner Spencer’s statement. He reminded the Commissioner’s that this summer, there was an extensive series of articles offered in the Planning and Zoning News regarding recreation and open spaces, along with greenways, pathways and so forth. They cited several studies that are in line with the particular items pointed out in Planner Spencer’s memorandum. So there are extensive studies that have been recently published in a very common planning periodical just this summer.
Chairperson Lirones stated the Planning and Zoning News is a completely main stream publication. Planners read and use this and learn how to develop comprehensive plans.
Commissioner Griess mentioned that part of the argument in favor of the request for this change in land use, is the fact that the area around the golf course is built up. This makes it important to have recreational space. If there was nobody around there; the animals would still be there but the recreational space for people needs some people around.
Chairperson Lirones said it is a network, a fabric, an integral component, the recreation and the residential.
Commissioner Griess continued to say that there is quite a lot of residential; much more than in the [19]60’s and [19]70’s when it was first laid out.
Chairperson Lirones agreed.
Chairperson Lirones continued to read from Planner Spencer’s report.
Land with low development has less impervious surface and thus more opportunity for ground water recharge with the right soils (much of this parcel is identified as a ground water recharge area in the Comprehensive Plan Map 5. These areas were identified based on soil types in the Washtenaw County Soil Survey produced by USDA). Open areas have less runoff than built areas and thus the reduction in runoff reduces flooding hazards.
Chairperson Lirones said this is a tremendous benefit the area is gaining by this recreational area which is currently being used as a golf course. Asking Planner Spencer, she said the ground water recharge areas are also important to wells in the area.
Planner Spencer said yes and the neighboring properties in Ypsilanti Township are on larger lots and there are some wells possibly over there and not sure how that will develop. They are zoned for .75 acre lots. There are other wells and septic in the area. It also recharges the ground water for the Paint Creek system. It is one of the few eligible trout streams in the area. Ground water is an important resource for that stream.
Chairperson Lirones said this [open space] is very important to the water quality of the streams and tributaries in the area and the Township’s whole Phase II Storm Water Quality Protection Plan. The Township is charged by the EPA with protecting and even improving the quality of ground water in the water, rivers, and streams in the area.
Commissioner Ward added that Map 5 entitled “Natural Systems” [from the Comprehensive Plan, 2002] has in the legend ground water recharge areas. He then stated that approximately 40-50 percent of this particular parcel, is designated in a ground water recharge area.
Chairperson Lirones continued to read:
“Open space may also affect the surrounding land market, creating an enhancement value. Casual observers find evidence of enhancement value in real estate advertisements that feature proximity to open space amenities, and federal income tax law governing the valuation of conservation easements explicitly recognizes it. A number of empirical studies have shown that proximity to preserved open space enhances property values, particularly if the open space is not intensively developed for recreation purposes and if it is carefully integrated with the neighborhood. Enhancement value is important to the local property tax base because it offsets the effects of open space, which is usually tax-exempt or taxed at a low rate.” Land Lines: September 1996, Volume 8, Number 5 “The Economic Value of Open Space,” Fausold, Charles J. and Robert J. Lilieholm.
Discussion:
Commissioner Ward said at previous unrelated rezoning hearings the Planning Commission discussed the cost of the Township for services vs. tax collection. He stated that by increasing development it can actually create a larger tax burden on the Township as opposite to the other way around.
Commissioner Banush mentioned at last weeks meeting he posed a question that we should ask a real estate service or check the records or whatever resources, to see if the value of a property on the perimeter of a golf course is greater then just a normal subdivision.
Planner Spencer stated the Township could answer that question by looking through our assessing records, which show the lots sell for more to begin with, (there is a premium asked for them); and although all the value is not retained on resale, some of it is retained and those lots resell for a higher value along the edge of the golf course. He said this was just a sampling from the literature they have read and he emphasized that near by recreation areas were an amenity, and people wanted near by recreation. He said one of the things that makes the Ann Arbor area attractive, is near by recreation areas.
Commissioner Banush said one could conclude that if this were to be changed and this was developed then the value will decrease.
Planner Spencer said he read an article stating homes next to a golf course could increase 8% and with the closing of a golf course they could loose that 8% percent. He said other recreation uses other then a golf course may even make the nearby property more valuable.
Commissioner Banush said he could accept that.
Chairperson Lirones said she wanted to emphasize the point that the Commission is not talking about just the golf course but about recreation use, and the added value that recreation adds to the community.
Commissioner Resha stated he wanted to add that he previously has sold real estate in Washtenaw County, and land/properties that abuts open land/open space was always sold at a premium. He said land always sold for alot more; anywhere from $10,000 and up. It is a prime piece of property when you have open space behind you.
Chairperson Lirones stated [referring to the survey] one of the big community concerns that was addressed in the Comprehensive Plan was the extremely strong support for the protection of property values and wanting to see the property values maintained. She said the Commission did not want to see the area become less and less desirable, and they wanted to maintain our quality community values. Of the respondents [to the survey], 90 % agreed or strongly agreed, with that statement. Once again the recreation and/or open space in this particular parcel is a critical factor in maintaining strong property values in this community.
Commissioner Luna added that it is through the whole Township.
Chairperson Lirones asked the Commissioners if the Facts that we have discussed here would support the findings that recreation and open space areas provide value to the citizens and add to the quality of life, and that we have added items a, b, c and d.
The Commissioner’s all stated they agreed with this.
Chairperson Lirones read finding number 5.
-
Uses permitted in the Recreation Conservation and Residential Districts can complement each other. Conflicts can be mitigated and with proper management the cost of the mitigation can be more than offset by the benefit derived from the available local customer base.
Discussion:
Chairperson Lirones stated that the petitioner has described the residential development coming in around his property as the reason that conditions have changed. He feels this zoning should be changed because the residential development has damaged his business; and made it more difficult to do business.
Chairperson Lirones continued by saying, she cannot personally understand why any business owner, especially one that caterers to family and leisure time activities, [is] objecting to residential development in the immediate vicinity. The owner claims that the residential development in the area is a hardship. She said this looks as if he is not taking advantage of a tremendous opportunity. She stated this is how the Township planned it because it works so very well. She said every residential unit that is built around this golf course, or any other type of recreational use, which is allowed in this district, contains a potential future customer. It only increases the ability to have a really successful recreational business on this site.
Commissioner Banush stated he could not buy [the applicants] argument because all other golf courses with residential property surrounding them are viable golf courses.
Chairperson Lirones asked Commissioner Banush if he was disagreeing with her or with the petitioner.
Commissioner Banush stated he was disagreeing with the petitioner.
Commissioner Banush continued stating you cannot say that the properties around the golf course decreased in value, look at all the golf courses that are thriving with residential areas around them. They are both happy. It is the symbiotic thing. It is a benefit to both.
Chairperson Lirones stated she could not see any reason to remove [the recreation use]. Being neighboring uses is a benefit to both. It is symbiotic and is a good way of putting it. She said she could not imagine removing this use in this area, the recreation use, is such an integral part of the area. A quality community can have a network of uses and they support and enhance each other and that is why the Township developed the Plan as they did. The Comprehensive Plan was extremely well thought out. She said the Township spent a year working on it. This plan provides reasonable compatible uses for all of the properties in the Township and is a logical pattern; it is a network and I hate to see that network torn apart.
Commissioner Luna asked if at the public hearing the neighborhood people mentioned if the golf course was always busy.
Chairperson Lirones stated yes and said both uses support each other.
Commissioner Ward stated that a recreation facility, such as this or something similar, and a residential development supporting each other, is a fact. He said that you will find locally and within Washtenaw and Wayne counties, that several developments have been put in place where this type of recreation facility is an integral part of the particular site development. He asked if this was not a compatible, profitable and reasonable use of land and it was able to co-habitat with residential development. Why are there so many site plans being proposed with this type recreation facility as an integral part of that development. He stated that even people in the same business as the petitioner, are encouraging this sort of arrangement.
Chairperson Lirones stated she strongly agreed with that and said even have it in our own Township.
Commissioner Banush also agreed this was a strong point. Commissioner Resha stated developers have been doing this for years; it is nothing new. He restated open space, whether a golf course or driving range or any thing else, has premium property around it valued higher than neighboring properties. He said he does not know of any golf courses that have closed down in Washtenaw, Wayne or Livingston Counties in the last 15 years.
Planner Spencer stated recreation uses, whether public or private, depend on people using them. Open space can be used for recreation or it can be used for nothing. He said both recreation and residential uses can complement each other and they value each other. Recreation, especially if it is private recreation, thrives on a market and that market is people and proximity to people. He stated in the immediate area there are about 300-400 homes, but in the surrounding areas there are 1,000’s of homes.
Chairperson Lirones added by the surrounding area your talking still within a mile or two?
Planner Spencer agreed that within a mile there are 1,000 households.
Commissioner Ward stated that the recent paving [of Munger Road], through the Special Assessment District (SAD), has made this particular recreational site even more accessible.
Chairperson Lirones stated this is another point that illustrates how the two uses benefit one another. The property owner, of this recreational property, has actually benefited from the residential developments around it; primarily because the roads have been paved, improving access, at no cost to the owner. She said the residents around it paid for it in addition, the Township, Ypsilanti Township, the Washtenaw County Road Commission all chipped in and the Township did not special assess this particular property owner because they wanted to protect the business from this expense.
Commissioner Ward asked if it would be fair to say that the local municipalities and the local residents bared the burden of increased accessibility for this recreational facility?
Chairperson Lirones confirmed this and said that their customers need not travel for miles down gravel roads. She stated the property taxes on the recreational property are extremely reasonable.
Commissioner Ward stated people in the close residential developments can actually walk to this facility and thus there would be more available parking for residents that are not within walking distance. He said by it’s proximity to two developments, they have more business opportunities available.
Chairperson Lirones stated she agreed, and said that far from damaging the business we would agree it would enhance the business.
Chairperson Lirones restated Fact number five asking the Commissioner’s if they agreed with this fact. The Commissioner’s all stated they agreed with this.
Chairperson Lirones read Finding number 6.
-
A PUD District with single-family detached residential dwellings is not consistent with the designation of the property in the Comprehensive Plan.
Chairperson Lirones read the supporting fact:
The Comprehensive Plan does not designate this area for residential use. Comprehensive Plan Map 4.
Discussion:
Chairperson Lirones stated this completely matches the Comprehensive Plan.
Chairperson Lirones restated Fact number six asking the Commissioner’s if they agreed with this fact.
The Commissioner’s all stated they agree with this.
Chairperson Lirones read Finding number 7.
-
Planning Commission policy would require a prior amendment to the Comprehensive Plan before the parcel could be rezoned to a PUD residential district.
She then stated:
The Planning Commission can confirm its policy of not recommending a zoning change that is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion:
Chairperson Lirones stated they were confirming that the Township does have a long standing policy.
Commissioner Ward said he agreed with the statement, and added that this Commission is under litigation for adhering to the Comprehensive Plan. He stated they have rezonings that have adhered to the Comprehensive Plan. It is public record that this Commission for many years follows the Comprehensive Plan, and it will not rezone any parcel regardless of the use unless it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Chairperson Lirones stated her support of that policy, and added that when the Commission worked on the Comprehensive Plan, another golf course asked for a change to the plan that the Commission found reasonable. They would not consider a change in zoning until the plan changed.
Chairperson Lirones restated Fact number seven asking the Commissioner’s if they agreed with this fact.
The Commissioner’s all stated they agreed with this.
Chairperson Lirones read finding number 8 and the supporting facts.
-
The proposed change is not a logical and acceptable change for the following reasons:
-
The parcel in the petition had an open space designation in the Comprehensive Plan from 1968 to 1975.
Comprehensive Plan., 1968
-
It had a recreation conservation designation on the Comprehensive Plan from 1975 until 2002.
Comprehensive Plan. 1975.
Chairperson Lirones questioned if they were missing the 1995 Plan.
Planner Spencer stated it should be on “b” also.
Chairperson Lirones restated item “b” to read:
Comprehensive Plan. 1975 and 1995.
-
In the 2002 Comprehensive Plan the property is designated for Public Facilities, and Public and Private Recreation/Open Space.
Comprehensive Plan, 2002.
-
The Planning Commission reviewed the Comprehensive Plan in September of 2003 and determined that conditions for this property had not changed since the Plan was revised in 2002, to warrant changing the Plan at this time.
“The Commissioner’s agreed this [property in the petition] should remain as is on the Comprehensive Plan.” Planning Commission minutes September 4, 2003
-
Providing recreation and open space areas continues to be an objective of the community.
“…protect important natural resources and open space that contribute to the health of natural systems and features, and to the Township’s character and quality of life.” Comprehensive Plan, 2002, p. 53.
Chairperson Lirones stated she thought they may want to add how important the park and recreation areas are to the quality of life for the Township, and is one of the reasons people move here.
Commissioner Ward stated that in the Commissioner’s previous findings quoted this particular fact; through the survey, through the public hearings, through the public participation, workshops, through the Parks and Rec Master Plan.
Chairperson Lirones stated the community, as a whole, has a high regard and desire for recreation land in the Township.
Chairperson Lirones said we should find that we agree with the Facts under number eight asking the Commissioner’s if they agreed with this fact.
The Commissioner’s all stated they agreed with this.
Chairperson Lirones read finding number 9.
-
The property has had a long history of recreation use, as a golf course, that dates back to the 1960s.
Chairperson Lirones again restated, for clarification, that the zoning is Recreation and that a golf course is a perfectly useful use under recreation. We are not saying that the golf course is the designated use but one of the uses that is allowed in this zoning category. She continued and read the supporting fact.
The 1968 Plan depicts this parcel as a golf course. Applicant will agree to this also.
Discussion:
Planner Spencer stated that the property has been used for recreation, at least since, 1968.
Chairperson Lirones said that for a very long time this [property] has been a recreational component of the area.
Commissioner Ward stated there is ample public record supporting this fact. The applicant described that to us in their petition as well and they made that statement.
Commissioner Griess stated that if any more documentation is needed, she could say that since 1974 she has lived near by and it has definitely been there since then.
Chairperson Lirones asked if the Commissioners agreed with this fact.
The Commissioner’s all stated they agreed with this.
Chairperson Lirones read finding number 10.
-
The Township has not assessed the property as development property.
In 2003 the Township Assessor placed a true cash value for the land in the petition at $7,500/acre. Per the Township Assessor Jim Rushton, if this property was assessed as development property the true cash value would be between $20,000 and $30,000 per acre.
She then read the supporting facts.
Discussion:
Planner Spencer stated the property is assessed at close to Agricultural rates.
Chairperson Lirones stated the development property values are extremely accurate. The Township purchased the Preserve which was going to be developed for a little over $21,000.
Commissioner Banush said he cannot refute this; and have to accept as fact. I have nothing to go by except the credentials of the Assessor.
Chairperson Lirones stated it would be fair to say the tax burden on this is low, it supported the current zoning, and the proposed use in the Comprehensive Plan.
Chairperson Lirones asked the Commissioner’s if they agreed with this fact.
The Commissioner’s all stated they agreed with this.
Chairperson Lirones read finding number 11.
-
The property was purposely not included in a Special Assessment District created to improve Crane and Munger Road.
She followed with reading the supporting facts.
The residents and developers of Hickory Point and Ashford Village, the Township, WCRC and Ypsilanti Township were contributors toward paving Crane and Munger Road. The Township Officials purposely excluded adding this property to any assessment for the road because they felt that to include them would be an unfair burden on the owners of this recreational property.
Discussion:
Chairperson Lirones stated Crane Road was paid for by the residents of Ashford Village. The paving of Munger Road up to the southern boundary of this recreational property was paid for by residents of Ashford Village. And from the northern boundary of this property was paid for by the residents of Hickory Pointe. She said the Township administrators discussed the tremendous value of this recreation facility. They agreed that they did not want to overburden the property owner, and instead taxpayers paid for that portion of the paving. This is now servicing that property, and provides a benefit to this property.
The Commission and staff discussed the fact that the developers paid for road improvements that were passed along in the cost of new homes.
Planner Spencer stated a Special Assessment District was created for Hickory Pointe to make improvements to Munger Road, and the developer made some improvements to Crane Road.
Chairperson Lirones stated as we have pointed out that improved access has been provided by others.
Chairperson Lirones asked if the entire Commission agreed with this and the fact that the property was not included in the SAD.
The Commissioner’s all stated they agreed with this.
Chairperson Lirones read finding number 12.
-
Conditions in the area have not changed in the manner that warrants changing the Zoning District. The area has developed according to the comprehensive plans of the Township including the continuation of commercial recreation on the petitioned property. a. The surrounding properties in the Township have been designated for residential uses since 1968 and at a density of 2.5 dwelling or higher since 1975. b. This pattern was originally planned in 1968 and continues to be in the current Plan. c. The neighboring properties have all developed according to this plan. The surrounding properties have all developed at a density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre or less.
Comprehensive Plan 1968, 1975, 1995 & 2002 and current developments.
-
Neighboring properties in Ypsilanti Township are planned and zoned for 1.33 dwelling units per acre.
Per telephone conversation with Ypsilanti Township Planning Department 2003.
-
The property is still large enough to use for any of the uses permitted in the RC District.
The parcel is 46 acres and many of the approved uses require less land.
Discussion:
Chairperson Lirones stated that everyone else has followed the plan here and now after everything is on the ground, the owner of this property wants to change how development will proceed in this area.
Commissioner Ward stated he felt this goes back to one of the earlier findings that the Comprehensive Plan is our tool for future land use. As such, the Planning Commission has reaffirmed that this parcel, along with others, should remain as they are planned. There is no precedent for granting rezoning actions that are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Chairperson Lirones stated that the Plan is a logical Plan for development
Commissioner Ward restated that the Plan is a logical Plan for development and it has been a logical Plan for development.
Commissioner Banush stated he did not realize that the surrounding properties were designated residential since 1968. He said the petitioner said this has changed and the recent development of homes had changed the value of the golf course.
Chairperson Lirones said he had indicated the developments had only recently been built, but it has been designated [in the Plan] that way for a long time.
Planner Spencer stated correct, they have been designated that way in the plan but the zoning has not always been as it is. Traditionally, the Township, has left the zoning Agricultural until someone wanted to develop the property and then it rezoned it to match the Comprehensive Plan. That has been an ongoing pattern over the years. We researched the [19]68 Plan and consulted with Planner Schmult to interrupt the [19]68 Plan, who was here when that Plan was developed, and he recalls vividly, that this area was planned this way with residential and with a recreation component in the middle of it.
Chairperson Lirones said we have made a lot of comment about how recreation enhances the value of the residential and I want to reaffirm that we also commented that the residential enhances the value of the recreation component. This was the Plan and it is a sustainable Plan in this area.
Planner Spencer added this area was one of the places in the Township that was fairly undeveloped in the 1968 Plan and 35 years later the Plan that was in place then is the Plan is still being confirmed as the Plan that the community wants for this area.
Chairperson Lirones said you would be hard pressed to say this was a surprise to the property owner when these neighboring developments were built.
Commissioner Ward added the Plan is a matter of public record, and as such, any individual can come in, they can look at the Plan, they can research the Plan; and I think you will find that most people will use the Plan as a basis for their investment strategies, with respect for land use. So as such, given that this area has been planned for the last 35 years, the statement of saying it was recently built out, is preposterous. This area was planned, it’s been a matter of public record, for 30 plus years and as such, [the current plan] is the desire of the community.
Chairperson Lirones said it is likely this property would not have sold for a huge value per acre. She added to come in now and say I want to purchase it at the cost of recreation property and now want to convert it to residential at a relative moderate density residential, is almost an undue enrichment of this property owner. It is changing the rules after the fact.
Commissioner Ward said this is a false argument. The correct argument is this parcel is zoned for a reasonable use, and this has been the Plan for 30 plus years. The Plan has proven effective in this area and in other areas.
Chairperson Lirones restated Fact number twelve asking the Commissioner’s if they agreed with these facts.
The Commissioner’s all stated they agreed with these facts.
Chairperson Lirones read finding number 13.
-
The RC District promotes a reasonable public interest because: a. The District was created “…to protect and enhance the natural resources, natural amenities, natural habitats of wildlife, water shed and reservoir areas, agricultural capabilities, public recreation areas, and the public health, safety and welfare…”
Chairperson Lirones then read the supporting facts.
Zoning Ordinance Section 10.01 Purpose.
“In an economic taking case, hence in this case, (City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, LTD) the scope of legitimate state interest is extremely broad and challenged regulations will not be construed to effectuate a taking as long as the governmental entity has rationally concluded that, “the health, safety, morals, or general welfare” would be promoted by prohibiting particular contemplated uses of land.” Penn Central Transportation Co. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 125 (1978).
Discussion:
Chairperson Lirones said this would mean that the health, safety and welfare of the community is benefited by keeping this as recreation.
Planner Spencer added by changing this you would be losing the benefit that it provides.
-
The District provides a location for recreation and open space uses.
Zoning Ordinance Article 10
Chairperson Lirones asked the Commissioners if they agreed with the findings of fact in item thirteen.
The entire Commission agreed.
Chairperson Lirones read finding number 14.
-
The RC District permits a reasonable use of the property. The permitted and conditional uses include: a. A single-family dwelling per lot. b. Public or private forest preserve or game refuge c. Golf course d. Park or playground e. Other recreation purpose. f. Public and private conservation area. g. Structure for the development, protection, and conservation of open space, watersheds, water, soil, forest, and wildlife resources. h. General and specialized farming and agricultural activities including the raising or growing of crops, livestock, poultry and other farm animals, products and foodstuffs i. A riding academy or stable. j. A kennel. k. The raising or keeping of furbearing animals, horses, ponies and other animals, whether for profit or pleasure. l. The raising or growing of plants, trees, shrubs, and nursery stock. m. The growing, stripping and removal of sod. n. Public and private camping ground. o. The removal of soil, sand, gravel and other materials. p. Country-club house. q. Swimming pool. r. Bath house. s. The sale of food, beverages, and recreation equipment, which is incidental and accessory to a recreation use.
Chairperson Lirones then read the supporting facts.
The above uses are listed in Article 10 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission should decide if this list provides some reasonable use to the property.
De Botton v. Marple Township, 689 F. Supp. 477 (E.D. Pa. 1988) found that no taking had occurred, “because ‘all’ uses of property have not been denied.” (City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, LTD)
Discussion:
Chairperson Lirones stated she thought they (the Commissioner’s) could center their discussion around that. She said it seems clear to her that none of these uses have been denied.
Commissioner Ward stated it is clear that other reasonable uses were discussed and that I believe that none of these other reasonable uses have been investigated. At least that has never been indicated by the applicant. He added that only one use has been identified by the applicant as being unprofitable. I would say that based on our last meetings discussion and the applicants own presentation that all reasonable uses of this property, as outlined in Article 10 of the Pittsfield Township Zoning Ordinance have not been perused and there are other reasonable uses for this RC zoned parcel.
Chairperson Lirones said that the only use being considered for denial is moderate density residential. All these other uses are possible.
Commissioner Griess stated that some of the uses may not be appropriate for today but many a lot of them are. She thought some of them would be fun; but a couple of them could be annoying because of the residents nearby.
Planner Spencer stated that is why some of them require a conditional use; they still would have to meet the other criteria that the Planning Commission might impose. He noted the Township assessor said some of these uses are successful in the vicinity.
Commissioner Banush stated the applicant has not demonstrated the property is not suitable for anything that it is zoned for.
Chairperson Lirones agreed. She added there have been people come in really wishing for some of these other uses and unfortunately they were not so fortunate as to own a parcel zoned Recreation/Conservation. Many try to fit these uses into a Business Park and other inappropriate areas. If they had owned this parcel they would have been in luck. The uses permitted are certainly viable uses in the Township and people are certainly trying to do these things.
Chairperson Lirones asked the Commissioners if they agreed with the facts support the findings in item fourteen.
The Commissioner’s all stated they agreed with this.
Chairperson Lirones read finding number 15.
-
The property has no physical constraints that would prohibit the establishment of uses permitted in the District.
She then read the supporting facts.
With less than 10+/- acres of woods, wetlands and surface water, this parcel could accommodate any of the above uses.
Discussion:
Chairperson Lirones stated she thought this was fairly self explanatory. I had all the necessary infrastructure, a paved road, and sewer stubs.
Planner Spencer stated there are stub outlots [to the properties] that could connect to additional parking lots. As an example soccer fields need parking lots and they could have access off of four roads to parking lots to spread out the parking, instead of having one big parking lot.
Chairperson Lirones said there is existing infrastructure and even planned future infrastructure that would serve this property.
Planner Spencer said for many of the uses, and for example, the golf course, all the infrastructure is not necessarily needed, but the sewer and water might be an amenity that the clubhouse, they have a failing septic system in the future.
Chairperson Lirones said the Township never planned for the residential development, such as proposed in the applicants planned unit development; but the Township sewer capacity would permit a clubhouse or something of that sort to connect.
Commissioner Ward stated the applicant’s site plan supports the statement with less than 10 +/- acres; of woods, wetlands and surface water, and 36 +/- few acres could support the allowed uses for this particular zoning district.
Chairperson Lirones asked the Commissioners if they agreed the facts support the findings in item fifteen.
The Commissioner’s all stated they agreed with this.
Chairperson Lirones read finding number 16.
-
The fact that the property could be more valuable if it was in another zoning district was not a factor for consideration by the Planning Commission since the property is capable of full use within the parameters of the RC District. The Township does not have to place the property into a district that will provide the most valuable use of the property.
She then read the supporting fact.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that land does not have to be zoned to its highest or best use, but that it must be provided a reasonable use.
Discussion:
Chairperson Lirones stated she felt it is clear from what was discussed earlier that the Commission feels this district provides for reasonable uses. She asked if the Commission agreed with this.
The Commissioner’s all stated they agreed with this.
She then read another supporting fact.
“The federal and state courts have uniformly held that all substantial use of the property must be lost before an economic taking occurs. A per se taking occurs only if the regulation denies the owner of 100 percent of the economically viable use of the land unless the regulation is establishing a common law nuisance principle” Lucas v. South Carolina Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1029 (1992). (City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, LTD)
Discussion:
Chairperson Lirones stated this is a strong statement; and the Commission is compelled to say so far from denying 100% of the [property’s] use. The recreation zoning provides a tremendously viable use on this property. You have a built in market all around it and the Commission is not even remotely proposing to deny a reasonable use of the property.
Commissioner Ward stated he would like to state again that the facts given this evening and from our last meeting and the public hearings on this, supports this statement and he did not know if any further discussion is required and there is a U. S. Supreme Court precedent for this as well.
Chairperson Lirones stated she agreed with that and said the Township does not rezone property just so somebody can make more money or think they can make more money.
Commissioner Resha stated this would not be denying him of anything. Our Comprehensive Plan, in some ways, is like a business plan and the Township should stick to it or it could lose. We have the backing of the Supreme Court.
Chairperson Lirones asked the Commissioners if they agreed with the facts supporting the findings in item sixteen.
The Commissioner’s all stated they agreed with this.
Chairperson Lirones read finding number 17.
-
Approval or denial of the petition would have no precedent effects on the zoning of neighboring properties, since the land use and zoning patterns in the area are established, but it could have precedent effects on other properties in the Township if the district was changed without it being preceded by an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
She then read from Planner Spencer’s report.
This could open the door to other property owners requesting a zoning change that is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion:
Commissioner Resha stated if you do not follow your business plan you will lose.
Chairperson Lirones stated if you make an exception for one, I would think it would never end.
Commissioner Banush stated if we set a precedent you open the door for everyone.
Chairperson Lirones stated it would set a pour precedent if the Township rezoned the property, just based on the property owner saying “it is not working out for me economically”. It is very easy to lose money in a business, of any kind. It is easy to lose money selling your house. She added that anytime anyone could come in and say “I would like a different zoning so I can just try something else, this one is not working”. This would be a terrible precedent to set.
Commissioner Resha said it is just like anything else; it is a gamble. You go into business, it is a gamble. He said 60% of businesses shut down within five years. One of three things happens, they did not follow their business plan; they did not have the capital to back them up, or they did not know what they were doing.
Chairperson Lirones said we are not responsible for every failed business.
Commissioner Resha replied no we are not.
Chairperson Lirones stated that a business failing is no reason to change the zoning.
Chairperson Lirones asked the Commissioners if they agree that the facts support the findings in item seventeen.
The Commissioner’s all stated they agreed with this.
Chairperson Lirones read finding number 18.
-
Stormwater management would be provided by on-site detention of runoff with controlled discharges into drainage facilities in Crane and Munger Roads. The volume of runoff would be substantially increased by the proposed development over the volumes that currently leave the site.
She continued and read the supporting fact.
Current Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner (WCDC) standards control runoff rate but not runoff volume. An increase in impervious surface area will increase the volume of runoff.
Discussion:
Chairperson Lirones stated we are making that comment because current WCDC standards control runoff rate but they do not control runoff volume. So as long as it keeps running off at the same rate, it can run day and night at that rate. An increase in impervious surface area will increase the volume of runoff and therefore have a detrimental effect on the area as far as storm water runoff is concerned.
Commissioner Banush stated the more impervious surface the more runoff.
Chairperson Lirones asked the Commissioners if they agreed with the findings in item eighteen supporting the facts.
The Commissioner’s all stated they agreed with this.
Chairperson Lirones read finding number 19.
-
Crane and Munger Roads have capacity to handle the additional traffic that would be generated by the proposed development. However, the additional traffic would add to the already serious congestion problems at the streets’ intersections with Michigan Ave.
Chairperson Lirones said the supporting facts for this are very compelling. This area of road has been extensively analysised through the U. S. 12 Corridor Improvement Study.
She then read the supporting facts.
The U.S. 12 Improvement study Traffic Analysis Report May 2002 states that the Munger Road and Michigan Ave. interchange operate at service level F during peak hours and the Crane Road and Michigan Ave. intersection operates at service level E during peak hours. This was based on September 2001 research. MDOT’s report defines service level E for unsignalized intersections as “very long trip delays, very small number of acceptable gaps.” The define service level F as “extreme traffic delays, virtually no acceptable gaps in traffic.”
Discussion:
Chairperson Lirones said this report is very clear and the residents have stated this problem over and over again.
Commissioner Ward added that the Township Access Management Standards, Map 4.4 identifies Michigan Avenue and Crane Road as a special area of consideration. Additional analysis should be completed to identify what level of geometric and/or operational improvements should be pursued in this sub area. So it is clear through the Access Management Plan and Map 4.4 that Crane Road is of particular interest where it intersects with Michigan Avenue and has been identified in the Access Management Plan as a particular sub area.
Chairperson Lirones stated the area is of special concern and thought our Treasurer also emphasized how very dangerous this particular intersection is. She continued and said she wanted to reemphasize that the residents themselves, at the public hearings, have stated over and over again how dangerous this particular intersection is.
Commissioner Ward stated he felt the facts presented by the MDOT report with respect to traffic volumes, speak for themselves.
Chairperson Lirones asked if the Commissioners agreed that the facts support the findings.
The Commissioner’s all stated they agreed with this.
Chairperson Lirones read finding number 20.
-
Approval of the petition and its resulting development would probably have an adverse monetary and aesthetic effect on the neighboring residential properties, especially those properties that abut the current golf course.
She then read the supporting facts.
Studies have shown that close proximity to recreation and open space areas increases property value. See item 4 above.
Discussion:
Chairperson Lirones stated certainly the aesthetic values benefit the neighboring property. The beauty of the area, and how appealing the area is, enhances property value and quality of life in general.
Commissioner Banush stated the recreational area provides the perception of open space and almost any recreational use would do that.
Commissioner Ward stated that market trends show that aesthetically pleasing parcels will always sell for a higher value, and again abutting recreation or open space is aesthetically pleasing and it has physiological benefits for the rest of us.
Commissioner Banush agreed, stating he thought it was cited in 4.d. It would have an adverse effect if it were approved.
Chairperson Lirones stated it would have an adverse effect if it was developed as described by the petitioner.
Commissioner Banush replied correct.
Chairperson Lirones said the Township has worked toward a sustainable community with compatible and reasonable uses that enhance one another. Chairperson Lirones asked if the Commission would agree that the finding listed in number 20, approval of the petition and the resulting development would probably have an adverse monetary and aesthetic effect on the neighboring residential properties especially those properties that abut the current golf course, and would we agree that the facts support the findings.
The Commissioner’s all stated they agreed with this.
Chairperson Lirones read finding number 21.
-
The Planning Commission concluded that since the PUD petition is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan that it would be premature to address the area plan issues associated with the petition.
She then read the supporting fact.
This is self-explanatory.
Discussion:
Chairperson Lirones said this was in reference to the site plan that was submitted for the PUD.
Planner Spencer stated the review of the area plan issues for the proposed residential uses is not necessary since the residential uses are incompatible with the Plan.
Chairperson Lirones said the Planning Commission could reference the Senior Planner’s statements as the supporting facts, and she asked if the Planning Commission agrees that the facts support the findings in item twenty-one.
The Commissioner’s all stated they agreed with this.
The Commissioner’s and staff discussed the need for more findings.
Commissioner Ward motioned to approve The Resolution of Findings and Recommendations of Denial RZ 03-04 Fairwood Green dated December 18, 2003, supported by Commissioner Resha (see attachment).
ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: Urda-Thompson, Griess, Banush, Lirones, Luna, Resha, Ward Nays: None Abstain: None Absent: None
MOTION CARRIED
6.0 Planner’s Report
None.
7.0 Chairperson’s Report
None.
8.0 Commissioner’s Report
Commissioner Banush thanked staff for their efforts in preparing documents for this evenings reports.
9.0 Adjournment
Motion by Commissioner Resha, supported by Commissioner Ward, to adjourn the meeting.
MOTION CARRIED
Chairperson Lirones adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
s/Julie Griess, Secretary February 5, 2004
PITTSFIELD TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL RZ 03-04 FAIRWOOD GREEN DECEMBER 18, 2003
WHEREAS Pittsfield Township received petition RZ 03-04 Fairwood Green to rezone a parcel of land from Recreation Conservation (RC) to Planned unit Development (PUD) on June 25, 2003; and
WHEREAS The Pittsfield Township Planning Commission held a public hearing on the petition on August 21, 2003; and
WHEREAS The Pittsfield Township Planning Commission considered comments presented or submitted by the public and heard many negative comments; and
WHEREAS The Pittsfield Township Planning Commission has studied the petition in terms of the standards in Section 59.05, 52.07 C and 45.03A of the Zoning Ordinance and made findings;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That the Pittsfield Township Planning Commission recommends to the Pittsfield Township Board that the request to rezone the property in petition RZ 03-04 Fairwood Green (tax ID# L12-24-100-008) be denied.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the Pittsfield Township Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding petition RZ 03-04:
-
1. The property in the petition is designated for Public Facilities, and Public and Private Recreation/Open Space in the Comprehensive Plan.
-
For several decades, the people of Pittsfield Township have expressed a strong desire to preserve and increase areas for recreation and open space.
-
The Comprehensive Plan provides for a logical pattern of land uses that were developed with considerable input from the community and it includes the following vision statements: a. Offer diverse land uses arranged in a logical pattern taking into consideration existing uses, public needs and services, environmental conditions and the capacity of transportation, utilities, and community facilities. b. Protect important natural features and open space that contributes to the health of natural systems and the Township’s character and quality of life.
-
Recreation and open space areas provide value to the citizens and add to the quality of life by: a. Adding aesthetic value to the community by providing an open break in the suburban landscape. b. Providing space for ground water recharge, flood control, and plant and animal habitat. c. Providing a place for recreation that can provide health benefits to the people of the Township. d. Adding monetary value to neighboring properties. 5. Uses in a Recreation Conservation and Residential Districts can complement each other. Conflicts can be mitigated and with proper management the cost of the mitigation can be more than offset by the benefit derived from the available local customer base. 6. A PUD District with single-family detached residential dwellings is not consistent with the designation of the property in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Planning Commission policy would require a prior amendment to the Comprehensive Plan before the parcel could be rezoned to a PUD residential district. 8. The proposed change is not a logical and acceptable change for the following reasons: a. The parcel in the petition had an open space designation in the Comprehensive Plan from 1968 to 1975. b. It had a recreation conservation designation on the Comprehensive Plan from 1975 until 2002. c. In the 2002 Comprehensive Plan the property is designated for Public Facilities, and Public and Private Recreation/Open Space. d. The Planning Commission reviewed the Comprehensive Plan in September of 2003 and determined that conditions for this property had not changed since the Plan was revised in 2002, to warrant changing the Plan at this time. e. Providing recreation and open space areas continues to be an objective of the community. 9. The property has had a long history of recreation use, as a golf course, that dates back to the 1960s. 10. The Township has not assessed the property as a development property. 11. The property was purposely not included in a Special Assessment District created to improve Crane and Munger Roads. 12. Conditions in the area have not changed in the manner that warrants changing the Zoning District. The area has developed according to the comprehensive plans of the Township including the continuation of commercial recreation on the petitioned property. a. The surrounding properties in the Township have been designated for residential uses since 1968 and at a density of 2.5 dwelling or higher since 1975. The surrounding properties have all developed at a density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre or less. b. Neighboring properties in Ypsilanti Township are planned and zoned for 1.33 dwelling units per acre. c. The property is still large enough to use for any of the uses permitted in the RC District. 13. The RC District promotes a reasonable public interest because: a. The District was created “…to protect and enhance the natural resources, natural amenities, natural habitats of wildlife, water shed and reservoir areas, agricultural capabilities, public recreation areas, and the public health, safety and welfare…” b. The District provides a location for recreation and open space uses. 14. The RC District permits a reasonable use of the property. The permitted and conditional uses include: a. A single-family dwelling per lot. b. Public or private forest preserve or game refuge c. Golf course d. Park or playground e. Other recreation purpose. f. Public and private conservation area. g. Structure for the development, protection, and conservation of open space, watersheds, water, soil, forest, and wildlife resources. h. General and specialized farming and agricultural activities including the raising or growing of crops, livestock, poultry and other farm animals, products and foodstuffs i. A riding academy or stable. j. A kennel. k. The raising or keeping of furbearing animals, horses, ponies and other animals, whether for profit or pleasure. l. The raising or growing of plants, trees, shrubs, and nursery stock. m. The growing, stripping and removal of sod. n. Public and private camping ground. o. The removal of soil, sand, gravel and other materials. p. Country-club house. q. Swimming pool r. Bath house s. The sale of food, beverages, and recreation equipment which is incidental and accessory to a recreation use. 15. The property has no physical constraints that would prohibit the establishment of uses permitted in the District.
-
The fact that the property could be more valuable if it was in another zoning district was not a factor for consideration by the Planning Commission since the property is capable of full use within the parameters of the RC District. The Township does not have to place the property into a district that will provide the most valuable use of the property. 17. Approval or denial of the petition would have no precedent effects on zoning of neighboring properties, since the land use and zoning patterns in the area are established, but it could have precedent effects on other properties in the Township if the district was changed without it being preceded by an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. 18. Stormwater management would be provided by on-site detention of runoff with controlled discharges into drainage facilities in Crane and Munger Roads. The volume of runoff would be substantially increased by the proposed development over the volumes that currently leave the site. 19. Crane and Munger Roads have capacity to handle the additional traffic that would be generated by the proposed development. However, the additional traffic would add to the already serious congestion problems at the streets’ intersections with Michigan Ave. 20. Approval of the petition and its resulting development would probably have an adverse monetary and aesthetic effect on the neighboring residential properties, especially those properties that abut the current golf course. Studies have shown that close proximity to recreation and open space areas increases property value. 21. The Planning Commission concluded that since the PUD petition is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan that it would be premature to address the area plan issues associated with the petition.
