Minutes of a meeting held on January 4, 2016

Transcription

1 1 CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CALEDONIA PLANNING COMMISSION Michael Kelly, Chairman Minutes of a meeting held on A regular meeting of the Charter Township of Caledonia Planning Commission held at 7:00 p.m., on Monday,, at the Township Office, 8196 Broadmoor Ave. SE, Caledonia, Michigan. 1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL D. Gunnink called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with a quorum present. Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: Others Present: D. Curtis, A. Paarlberg, D. Gunnink, D. Koopmans, R. Parent M. Kelly, J. Masefield Lynee Wells, Township Planner; Angela Burnside, Planning Assistant Representatives for Steketee Development Co. and Broadmoor Investors LLC, residents of the Township, members of the press 2. CONSIDERATION OF THE MEETING AGENDA A. Paarlberg made a motion to accept the agenda as proposed. Motion was supported by D. Curtis. VOICE VOTE: All ayes. Agenda approved. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS (BRIEF UP TO 2 MINUTES) D. Gunnink opened the floor to public comment at 7:01 and closed it at the same time, finding no comment. 4. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES A. Minutes of the December 21, 2015 meeting. R. Parent made a motion to approve the minutes of December 21, 2015, as submitted. Motion was supported by A. Paarlberg. VOICE VOTE: All ayes. Minutes of the December 21, 2015 meeting were approved. 5. INQUIRY OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None declared. 6. NEW BUSINESS

2 2 A. Public Hearing Petition to Amend the Zoning Map: Requested by Steketee Development Co., for the rezoning of land from the A (Agricultural) District to the C-2 (General Business) District. Land commonly known as 7430 Broadmoor Ave. SE, PP# Rick Pulaski, of Nederveld Inc. came forward. Mr. Steketee is requesting rezoning a portion of this parcel from A to C-2, the frontage of the parcel along M-37 and back 300 feet. He also owns property to the North that is currently a C-2 PUD. The remainder of the parcel is zoned R-3. D. Gunnink opened the floor to public comment at 7:05, and closed it at the same time, finding no comment. A. Paarlberg confirmed with L. Wells that this rezoning would be consistent with the Future Use Plan. Recent amendments to the C-2 and overlay districts will promote accessibility and specifies the building materials. R. Parent found from L. Wells that the new legal description requested is to make sure that the piece that is rezoned is correctly identified. D. Koopmans asked about any plans for the property; there are none in the immediate future, but wanted to make sure people who end up living in the neighboring development are aware of the intended commercial use. R. Parent made a motion to recommend approval of the request by Steketee Development Co. to rezone a portion of property at 7430 Broadmoor Ave. SE to the Township Board. A. Paarlberg supported the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: D. Curtis aye, A. Paarlberg aye, D. Gunnink aye, D. Koopmans aye, R. Parent aye. Motion Carried. B. Public Hearing Petition to Amend the Zoning Map: Requested by Broadmoor Investors LLC, for the rezoning of land from the A (Agricultural) District to the R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) District. Land commonly known as th St. SE, PP# R. Pulaski represented Broadmoor Investors LLC, explained that this land is at the corner of 76 th and Broadmoor, and their request is consistent with the master plan as well. D. Gunnink opened the floor to public comment at 7:14. Russ Oliver of th came forward for explanation on how this parcel would be used in the development. The single family home will remain, and the additional acreage will be used for some lots within the development and access from 76 th St. Tim Bradshaw of 6015 Montmorency Drive asked why the adjoining triangle piece along M-37 won t be rezoned along with the rest; found that it is under different ownership and they have not requested rezoning. Scott Johnston of 6069 Montmorency asked why they needed to rezone this to R-3; he

3 3 doesn t think they need that zoning for single family residences. He recalled when the large parcel to the north was rezoned for R-3 because of an apartment project that never happened. D. Gunnink explained that this new owner is using the R-3 district for higher density, to create more lots. S. Johnston asked how they will make sure the developer will stick with this plan for single family homes. L. Wells explained that the R-3 district has been amended and no longer allows for apartment buildings, only a row house type of building. D. Gunnink closed public comment at 7:21, finding no further comment. D. Gunnink found that the property is currently used as a rental. R. Pulaski stated that they will more than likely have to give up some more right of way property at the corner for MDOT. L. Wells clarified that the developer would be able to do anything that is allowed in the R-3 district with this parcel. D. Curtis commented that the developer could tear down the house and get more lots from this property. D. Gunnink raised the question why rezone the land under the house, why not just the part incorporated into the development. They could eventually build a row house or something else there with R-3 zoning. A. Paarlberg pointed out that it is future use planned for R-3, so this is consistent, and at some point a row house or something may be appropriate. R. Pulaski commented that they are leaving the house and open space at the entry, to set the tone for the neighborhood. In their plan, a duplex at the entry wouldn t achieve the look they want for the entrance. A. Paarlberg made a motion to recommend approval of the request by Broadmoor Investors LLC to amend the property at th St. SE to the Township Board. R. Parent supported the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: D. Curtis aye, A. Paarlberg aye, D. Gunnink aye, D. Koopmans aye, R. Parent aye. Motion Carried. C. Public Hearing Preliminary Plat Review: Requested by Broadmoor Investors LLC, for Graymoor, a residential development, at lands commonly known as 7350 & 7430 Broadmoor Ave. SE and 5995 & th St. SE, PP#s , , , & R. Pulaski and Jeff Klausen of Broadmoor Investors LLC came forward. They explained that the lots meet the R-3 lot area (10,000 ft) and lot width (75 ft). As they move to the northeast, the lots will be a little bit larger. They will be all single family residences, no townhomes. The entrance off 76 th has been worked out with the Kent County Road Commission. The second entrance off Broadmoor has been coordinated with MDOT. There are some wetlands to the northeast they are staying away from. The proposed stormwater detention area is in an existing ravine area. KCRC approved only one cul-desac in the development; so the remaining three are proposed as private drives. Commissioners pointed out that the exit onto Broadmoor isn t far enough from an existing drive, so they will have to rework that. The first phase will be developed from the 76 th St. access.

4 4 D. Gunnink opened the floor to public comment at 7:40. Roy Coleman of 6031 Montmorency Drive commented that he is concerned with privacy and the wetlands, and wanted to request more of a buffer. He asked if the neighborhood would be lighted. He has concerns about the look of the existing commercial building. He would like the commission to consider something like this in their own neighborhoods. T. Bradshaw distributed a letter to the Commissioners, which he read a portion of. The neighborhood association of Cherrywood would like the lots adjacent to their development to meet R-2 lot size (one acre). They would like 6 ft evergreen trees put in now along the existing berm west of Royalton Dr., as part of Phase One. They are suggesting a 25 ft conservation easement. They would like to see sketches or models of the homes. Other questions were: what is the timeline for the phasing? Is the wetlands protected? Stormwater detention? Proposed street lighting? They suggest a sewer stub be run to the east for possibly 4 homes in Cherry Woods to hook up to at some point. R. Oliver asked how will this development affect the property? Will the ravines remain, or will they have to be filled? Will trees remain? He is also concerned about runoff onto his property. S. Johnston asked how the Township will ensure that the plan is followed, given the history of the property and the existing commercial building. D. Gunnink closed public comment at 7:55, finding no further comment. R. Pulaski explained that the drainage will be reviewed by the drain commission and also the Township ordinance has to be satisfied, so those requirements will ensure that runoff from the development is less than what currently exists. As far as increasing the lot sizes, they are unwilling to do that; they already are not developing it as densely as our ordinance would allow. Because only public roads are allowed according to our ordinance, the method of dividing the plat would have to change maybe part site condo, part subdivision. There is a berm on the east side, and they would agree to leave a 20 feet buffer of trees and put it in a conservation easement, where only dying or diseased trees could be removed. R. Parent asked about the requirement of the subdivision ordinance, allowing only public streets, and found that KCRC won t allow the cul-de-sacs, so that s why they proposed making those private. A. Paarlberg asked about the ravines and the fill. R. Pulaski explained that the terrain will require a lot of fill, especially at the 76 th St. access drive. L. Wells explained that staff has been working hard to coordinate checks and balances the last 5 years. She checks the approved site plan against the submitted building plans; the engineer and she are also make site visits, and no certificate of occupancy is granted until all conditions are adhered to. D. Koopmans commented that they can t approve this plat with the concerns with the private and public road concerns, and showing the access changes to the north. He suggested the next plans show how the ravines will be filled in and the grading and fill for the proposed road access.

5 5 D. Curtis would like to see the proposed lighting. Ashland Court, the pigtail street, needs to be a conforming road in the next plan. D. Gunnink commented that it is a busy road; can they request a traffic study? L. Wells commented that she can verify with the KCRC and MDOT that they have reviewed this, and that they are satisfied. R. Pulski explained that both MDOT and KCRC recognized it is a busy and difficult intersection, but it doesn t meet their standards that warrant installing a traffic light. D. Curtis made a motion to table the Preliminary Plat Review of Graymoor, until they come back with a plan that meets the requirements. A. Paarlberg supported the motion. VOICE VOTE: All ayes. Motion carried. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Discussion Item - Pathway draft: They looked over the plan, and agreed to share it with the Township Board. It will be used as a guide for applicants and staff. They tried to put paths in the most economical and practical areas, but there will have to be adjustments for topography and other considerations. D. Koopmans suggested that KCRC widen the roads. L. Wells explained they seem to be willing to grant easements and build wider shoulders, but not actual bike lanes. Some roads are designed for high speeds, and wouldn t be safe to bike or walk on even with a wide shoulder. The separated paths are typically safer. R. Parent asked about Snow Avenue, suggested talking with Bowne Township about sharing development of paths in the future. L. Wells agreed to make the suggested changes and send on to the Board for their comments. R. Parent made a motion to approve the Pathway Draft and send it on to the Township Board for their comment. A. Paarlberg supported the motion. VOICE VOTE: All ayes. Motion carried. B. Amendment to an Approved Site Plan: Requested by Davenport University, for Payment in Lieu of Sidewalk/Bicycle Path Construction for their new College of Business. Damon Gonzales explained that Davenport would like to use the payment in lieu instead of building something that doesn t connect to anything. A. Paarlberg explained this option is really more for parcels that really don t offer any connectivity. Their long stretch would be a great start toward connectivity; they would hopefully ultimately connect to the R-4 properties to the north. R. Parent asked when they would be required to construct it? L. Wells explained it is tied to the completion of the College of Business. D. Gonzales suggested a performance bond?

6 6 L. Wells explained it s not allowed for in the ordinance. She observed that they have pulled building permits, they are doing site work, suggested this would be the time to get it prepped for a sidewalk. A. Paarlberg motioned to deny the request of Davenport University for Payment in Lieu of Sidewalk/Bicycle Path. R. Parent supported the motion. VOICE VOTE: All ayes. Motion carried. 8. PUBLIC COMMENTS (EXTENDED UP TO 5 MINUTES) D. Gunnink opened the floor to public comment at 8:40 p.m. Tim Bradshaw asked for clarification on how the subdivision could be changed? If KCRC wouldn t agree to allow the cul-de-sacs, they can do a site condo, a condominium development, or even a PUD. He asked if they would be notified again. It s not required, but we will take his contact information. He commented that they can require the traffic study, but that would leave the Township open to potential liability. D. Gunnink closed public comment at 8:45, finding no further comment. 9. COMMISSIONER S COMMENTS 10. ADJOURNMENT D. Koopmans commented that they have been tabling things lately; he doesn t want to see this become a habit. D. Gunnink suggested we are better off working with people than turning them down. R. Parent appreciated D. Gunnink chairing the meeting. D. Koopmans made a motion to adjourn. Motion was supported by R. Parent. VOICE VOTE all ayes Meeting adjourned at 8:46 p.m. CALEDONIA TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION Respectfully submitted, Angela Burnside Recorder Adam Paarlberg, Secretary Approved: January 18, 2016