1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 4, 2016 The meeting was called to order by Mr. Smigliani at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call: Also Present: Guests: 5 APPROVAL OF AGENDA Russell Brooks Rollin Green Bill Haskell Sarah Pearsall Deborah Sellis Lamberto Smigliani Dean Williams Debra McKenzie, Zoning Administrator Paul Montagno, Carlisle Wortman Motion by Pearsall, second by Williams To approve the agenda as presented. Voice Vote: Ayes: Nays: MOTION APPROVED Unanimous None Approval of the July 7, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes Motion by Pearsall, second by Sellis To approve the minutes of July 7, 2016 as submitted. Voice Vote: Ayes: Unanimous Nays: None MOTION APPROVED CALL TO THE PUBLIC Approved: Mike Delleree He explained that he is a Hamburg resident and works as a CPA at Infinity Gymnastics. He commented that a statement in the minutes from the July 7, 2016 meeting said that there is not another facility like Vortex gymnastics facility. The Infinity Gymnastics facility is located on Grand River and is in the Township so there is another gymnastics facility in the area. He also expressed concern about adding more traffic down Winans Lake Road. The City of Brighton also has Sky Zone that is located by the Planning Commission August 4, 2016 Page 1
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Home Depot. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Legacy Park PUD/Vortex Gymnastics Center (village Mix Use) Brivar Construction Company, Commercial/Retail 9 acres. Mr. Montagno referenced the Carlisle Wortman memo dated June 27, 2016. The applicant has submitted a site plan for a 59,474 square foot building that will contain two units. This includes a 14,700 square foot unit proposed as a day care center and a 44,774 square foot unit proposed as a gymnastic center. This sit is within the Legacy Park Open Space Planned Unit Development (PUD) district, a 285 acre PUD. In 2012 the Planning Commission recommended and the Board approved, during separate actions, the preliminary and final PUD site plans. These plans included general use areas for the entire 285 acres. These were broken into distinct use areas or phases of the development. The final PUD plan included detailed development plans for the recreation complex on the North side of Winans Lake Road. The recreation complex was labeled Phase One. As part of the conditions of approval, the applicant and the Township entered into a PUD development agreement dated October 3, 2012. In the agreement under Article IV, Developers Rights and Obligations, it is stated that the developer shall have the right to develop subsequent phases in any sequence. However, it is the developer s responsibility to submit a final site plan for each subsequent phase. The proposed development is in the 9 acre phase immediately at the northwest corner of Whitmore Lake Road and Winans Lake Road. The area is designated as commercial/retail. The PUD development agreement includes a number of requirements for the commercial/retail areas. Generally, these areas are supposed to be developed in accordance with the character described on page 97 and 98 in the Master Plan for Village Mixed Use and the regulations in Section 38-138 Village Mixed Use Districts. Individual tenant spaces are supposed to be smaller (no more than 20,000 square feet) in order to promote more local scale commercial uses. There are some exceptions in the PUD agreement for larger buildings to accommodate a hotel or a grocery store. Mr. Smigliani explained that he met with Mr. Haskell, Mr. Montagno and Ms. McKenzie and LCRC along with two representatives from MDOT to discuss access points to the area. LCRC and MDOT believe that a single traffic report combining the planned developments is imperative in order to identify improvement requirements for safe and efficient transportation in this area. We have communicated that to representatives of the various development interest in this corridor. We are particularly concerned about the safe operation of the offset east-west T intersections and the ramps. We would not consider a point of access on Whitmore Lake Road between Winans Lake Road and Silver Lake Road because it might constrain future options. LCRC is looking forward to working with Planning Commission August 4, 2016 Page 2
99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 Green Oak Township, MDOT and the several development interests on this important matter. They have concerns about the proposed access on Whitmore Lake Road especially with its proximity to the Winans Lake intersection and the intersection of Silver Lake Road at the US-23 interchange. A round-about has been suggest at Whitmore Lake and Winans Lake intersection. The LCRC must evaluate traffic impacts from the proposed development, the existing phase one development, and the future development to the south to determine if improvements are warranted at this intersection with the development of this phase. The internal drive should be developed as a complete street. Connections to the existing Phase One development should be created that provide for safe and inviting sidewalks, as well as vehicular connections. This should include drives lined with sidewalks, street trees and pedestrian scale lighting. These drives should favor longer stretches of sidewalks with limited curb cuts into parking areas. Part of what is being proposed for this development is the completion of additional parking that will support the sports complex in Phase One. It is conceivable, and should be encouraged, that users of Phase One will utilize the commercial/retail opportunities in the phase where the proposed development is located. The same is true for the residential and commercial phases south of Winans Lake Road. A draft motion was discussed on how to present the requested items to Legacy. Motion by Sellis, second by Pearsall 1. Direct the applicant to provide an updated area plan for the entire planned unit development to include concept and connection points for all use areas based on the direction from the Planning Commission. 2. The applicant must update the site plan for Vortex, by addressing the items on the planners report dated June 27, 2016 and in the Engineers report dated June 22, 2016 to the extent that they still apply to the updated site plan layout. 3. The Applicant must work with the developer of the PUD and other residential developments in the approval process to create a holistic traffic impact assessment to be reviewed by the Livingston County Road Commission and the Michigan Department of Transportation. 4. The above referenced traffic study should include traffic assessments, impact by way of High Hill Arbor, Willow Woods, Green Oak Crossing, the Legacy Park residential project, as well as the mixed use areas on the PUD. For further reference, please see attachments accordingly: * Exhibit A the concept sketch as discussed at the 8/4/16 Planning Commission meeting, * Exhibit B the Planners Report dated 6/27/16 wherein the 27 items to be addressed by the applicant are included. * Exhibit C the Engineers Report dated 6/22/16 wherein items to addressed by applicant are included. * Exhibit D the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July 7, 2016 Planning Commission August 4, 2016 Page 3
148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 where the 27 points from the June 27, 2016 Planners Reports are reiterated in lines 99-157 of said approved Planning Commission minutes. Exhibit D 1. Provide a layout plan for the entire phase. 2. Provide a concept plan for the entire PUD that demonstrates road patterns and connections between phases. 3. A public hearing must be set for the amendment to the PUD. 4. `The Planning Commission should evaluate the proposed uses to determine how they will fit into the individual phase and the overall PUD development. 5. The applicant must demonstrate how they will meet the requirements of Section 38-138 of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Redesign building facades to be compatible with the Village Mixed Use design requirements. 7. Create a layout for the site that is in a grid pattern which indicates where other buildings will be located within the phase and provides for pedestrian and vehicular connectivity. 8. Provide a list of deviations, the reason the deviation is being south, and how the development will still meet the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 9. As part of the PUD amendment, provide detailed calculations for open space for each phase to ensure the requirement from Section 38-234(8) of the Zoning Ordinance to maintain 40% of the buildable area as open spaces is achieved for the entire PUD. 10. Propose one or more spaces within the commercial/retail area to create small park space or plaza in accordance with Section 38-138(f)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance. 11. Work with the Township and LCRC to develop access solutions what will benefit the new development and improve vehicular traffic, bike safety, and pedestrian circulation. 12. Develop a grid pattern within the proposed phase of development consistent with the intention for the Village Mixed Use district. 13. Develop an internal circulation pattern to demonstrate how pedestrian and vehicular access will be provided to all existing and future development areas. 14. Provide sidewalks along all streets and internal drives. 15. Provide a trail connection through or around the proposed development. 16. The applicant must develop building elevations for the proposed building, as well as concepts for the other buildings within this phase that meet the requirements of Section 380138(f)(10)-(12). 17. Provide general location and type of landscaping proposed. 18. The applicant should identify their actual anticipated parking needs in an attempt to reduce the numbers. 19. Parking lot configuration must be redesigned in order to meet the intent of the Village Mixed Use District. 20. Review and approval of all proposed utilities and storm water management practices by the Township Engineer and any other interested parties must be provided prior to recommendation of approval to the Township Board by the Planning Commission. 21. The applicant must provide a community benefits statement that describes the benefit of the proposed changes. Planning Commission August 4, 2016 Page 4
197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 22. The applicant must demonstrate that the PUD will meet the open spaces requirements. 23. The applicant must demonstrate cohesiveness throughout the PUD. 24. The applicant shall provide sufficient documentation of ownership or control. 25. The applicant must demonstrate, through an updated site plan that addresses the items brought up in this review, how their proposed plan will meet the intentions for this area outlined in the Master Plan. 26. The proposed PUD amendment does not meet the standards for PUD evaluation. After the applicant has addressed all of the comments in the review, the Planning Commission should reevaluate the proposal using the standards in Section 38-237 of the Zoning Ordinance. 27. The entire draft amendment to the PUD Agreement is subject to review and final approval by the Township Board, as well as all other interested parties, including but not limited to the, Township Attorney, the Township Engineer, the Fire Marshal, County Agencies, and Road Agencies. Voice Vote: Ayes: Unanimous Nays: None MOTION APPROVED REPORTS Chairman Chairman Smigliani reported on the Right to Farm Act meeting he attended. Township Board Representative Trustee Green brought the Commission up to date regarding the last Board meeting concerning a tear down of a dangerous building located on Spicer. ZBA Representative- None Planning Consultant Mr. Montagno commended the Planning Commissioners on their work. He also commented on the rezoning of property located at 9 Mile and Rushton Road. Correspondence Ms. McKenzie reported there was a pre-submittal meeting regarding a cell tower. CALL TO THE PUBLIC Walt Ernst - He is concerned about safety and that the fire trucks would not be able to fit in the turns, he asked that they make sure the corners are correct so the fire trucks can safely get through. They did not want to see any more commercial. He has not seen any bids for the planners. We don t need all of these stores around us, and all the traffic is a concern, it will look like Troy or Livonia. Denise Delleree She is a Hamburg resident and she is concerned about the traffic and too much commercial for the area. ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission August 4, 2016 Page 5
246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 Mr. Smigliani adjourned the Regular Planning Commission meeting at 8:26 p.m. due to no further business. Respectfully Submitted, Kellie Angelosanto Kellie Angelosanto Recording Secretary Planning Commission August 4, 2016 Page 6