Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>


VIEWS: 139 PAGES: 14

  • pg 1
Commissioners Present: Jeffrey Allen, Chairman Carolyn Minot, Secretary Sally Richie John Harris Commissioners Absent: Larry Doe Gus Bovoletis Others in Attendance: Jeff Purdy, Township Planning Consultant Kevin Kwiatkowski, Community & Economic Development Director Rodney Nanney, Planning & Development Coordinator Doug Winters, Township Attorney Dennis McClain, Township Attorney Jennifer Fredericks, Community & Economic Development Intern 1. MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:

Eugene Shuey Deborah Iles Theo Hamilton

Hamilton stated that on the last page the name Iles should be corrected. Motion by Hamilton, to approve minutes of July 25, 2000 Special Planning Commission Meeting; support Minot. Motion Carried - All. NEW BUSINESS – 2. EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY (NONRESIDENTIAL) SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL – Nick Talmers, Ypsilanti Car Wash, P.O. Box 4847, Troy, MI 48099-4847 – for an auto repair facility at 3005 East Michigan Avenue and currently zoned B-3 (general business).

Jeff Allen reviewed the application. Applicant was not present. Motion Hamilton to table Extension of Preliminary (Nonresidential) Site Plan and Special Conditional Use Approval for Nick Talmers, for an auto repair facility at 3005 East Michigan, until the next meeting, supported Shuey. Motion Carried – 6 yeas, 1 nay (Minot). 3. PUBLIC HEARING – PD STAGE 1 PRELIMINARY (TENTATIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT) SITE PLAN AND REZONING REQUEST FROM R-3 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) – Whittaker Development, LLC (Greene Farms North), 2025 West Long Lake, Suite 104, Troy, MI 48098 – for a 14 lot subdivision located on the West side of Whittaker Road, South of Martz Road (Z-2000-07).

Susan Arnold, representative of Biltmore Properties, 2025 West Long Lake, Suite 104, Troy, overviewed the petition. She stated that Green Farms North is a development of 10 acres created to incorporate a large preservation of the site, which they are proposing to develop east of the drains. They are proposing a cul-de-sac onto Whittaker Rd only; no stub road to Whittaker Farms is proposed only to Greene Farms North‟s current sub. There are numerous cul-de-sacs in the immediate area with longer roads & higher density. Whittaker Farms only has 2 entrances

Regular Meeting – August 22, 2000 Page 2 into/out of its subdivision therefore they are just proposing a cul-de-sac to Whittaker Road. Ms. Arnold stated that she has spoken with Whittaker Farms to try and connect their roads, they, Whittaker Farms, do not want to lower their road to connect to this development. Therefore, Whittaker Farms is creating a subdivision that will not benefit any other subdivision. She has addressed the pedestrian connection; there is a 10-foot bike path in the front that would connect the two subdivisions. The subdivision will be constructed with a 3-lane wide, entrance to Whittaker Rd to facility movement. Ms. Arnold stated that she would like to discuss the cul-desac requirement, the WCRC wants the cul-de-sac top coated/paved, and the problem that she has is putting pavement this close to the streambed provides lots of impervious surface next to Paint Creek. She belongs to a stream management group and tries hard to develop subdivisions protecting the natural resources. To maintain the natural area in this development installing additional pedestrian paths would mean grading and tearing down trees and try and keep the water off the path, which they would rather save. She would rather provide a donation to the Township park fund, which one of the parks is just a mile from this site, instead of destroying the natural woodlands with the pedestrian path. Ms. Arnold stated that they have developed a 14-lot subdivision and have shown a parallel plan with 12 lots which has all the development proposed on 1 side of the stream, protecting 80-90 percent of the trees, stream & resources. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED BOARD DISCUSSION OPENED Secretary Minot read the staff report into record. Chairperson Allen questioned which items in the staff report Ms. Arnold is in agreement with? Ms. Arnold stated that #1 the Whittaker Farms connection she doesn‟t believe is necessary the development is in requirement with the cul-de-sac requirements. She would like to not pave the cul-de-sac, unless the WCRC requires it, she would like to plead their case to them first. She does not want to install the trails for a number of reasons, it would require a large amount of clearing and grading for drainage and this is a wooded nearly wetland area. This is a high densely wooded area and you don‟t really want to put a pathway through this especially where people can't see what is ahead. In order to have a safe place for people to walk it needs to be open, not a dense area where people cannot see what is ahead. Generally when people move into a subdivision they have backyards where the families can play and gather, it‟s just as important to keep the wooded areas open for the animals to live. Instead of building these paths they would much rather donate money to the townships parks. Ms. Arnold stated that the 10-foot bike path along Whittaker Road provides connections to the other subdivisions. Ms. Arnold stated that the requirement concerning a parallel plan has been drawn, the PD plan shows 60% open space, with the drain easement constructed according to the proposed ordinance amendments. Lots 2 and 3 have building envelopes that are 2–3 times larger than the ordinance minimum allowable, which may not be on the parallel plan. Ms. Arnold objects to the requirement that they increase the lot sizes. People encourage the PD development etc; she cannot increase the cul-de-sac because she is working with the land and the natural features. This plan is designed in order to protect the trees and the natural areas, and still allow the minimum square footage in the 6,600 square foot lots. What they would be willing to do is put in the restrictions to enable building on the lot. They are proposing to save the open space and not intrude into that. Because wetlands exist along Whittaker Road, landscaping will

Regular Meeting – August 22, 2000 Page 3 be limited though they will meet the minimum requirements, they like the subdivisions to look nice and be showcases to the community. They do not know what will be able to go in due to the wetlands until it is built. The planners can get together to come up with a plan that would satisfy the concerns of the staff. Commissioner Shuey asked if they could go through the ten items on the staff report and see how many is she in favor of? #1 no; #2 no; #3 now clear; #4 contingent on ordinance revisions being approved #5 no; #6 yes; #7 does have a path by the stream 40-50‟ wide; #8 yes, the plan wasn‟t changed due to differences between YCUA and the Township‟s engineer; #9 no; #10 yes. Rodney Nanney, Planning & Development Coordinator gave an overview of the ordinances that require a setback from streams and open bodies of water. Currently it is 100 feet from open bodies of water and 50 from wetlands; this plan would have to meet these standards. If the township amends the ordinance this plan could then be resubmitted. Mr. Nanney stated that regarding item #3, the parallel plan, the PD ordinance states the parallel plan must have a sufficient building envelope, not the minimum, to permit the construction of homes of similar size to others in the area. This plan looks like a gerrymandered envelope, how can anyone consider this to be a sufficient building envelope? Lots 2 & 3 still do not meet the intent of the ordinance. Ms. Arnold stated that the lot was drawn like this to show that the garage could be on the side. Ms. Arnold also stated that the landscaped plan could have a note added to the plan stating that the minimum amount shall be met. Mr. Nanney stated that some type of landscape plan should be drawn on the plan so that there is something for the township to review and inspect after its built to see that it was met, Ms. Arnold agreed. Motion by Richie to table Preliminary (Tentative Preliminary Plat) Site Plan and Rezoning Request from R-3 to PD for Whittaker Development (Greene Farms North) until the petitioner has revised the plan to include the outstanding items in the staff report supported MInot. Motion Carried - All. 4. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING ORDINANCE #74 – AMENDMENTS – Section 1906(3) and 2000(bb) – SETBACK FROM LAKE, RIVER, STREAM, DRAIN OR WETLANDS (Z-2000-08).

Secretary Minot read the ordinance into record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED John Sanderson, 7545 Munger, questioned what the original specifications were? He stated that to go from 100 to 50 it seems that the original specifications were well founded and sounds like this is to meet someone‟s specific demand not a general change. Sue Arnold, Biltmore properties, stated that she did go to the Township Board to talk about this ordinance because there are all kinds of drains that run through Ypsilanti Township some as small as 1 foot. This ordinance incorporates some landowner parcels because farmers at one time gave easements to the Drain Commission and specific landowners had large easements and to take 100 feet away from that you are taking a significant portion of their land. Denise Witlawn, 7495 Whittaker, apparently the writers of the initial plan took into consideration all items because it was a rural area and now because large developments are coming in and building they want the ordinance changed. Frank Jacobs stated that the Township should look at all the articles in the paper concerning water shed and runoff of fertilizer into the rivers, the Township doesn‟t need anything closer to the water.

Regular Meeting – August 22, 2000 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED BOARD DISCUSSION Kevin Kwiatkowski, Community & Economic Development Director gave a historical perspective regarding this ordinance. Originally there weren‟t any setback regulations in the ordinance until 1999 when it became 25 feet, to enact this it went to the Township Board for two readings, during the second reading the setback was changed to 50 feet. At that time the township settled a lawsuit with a developer concerning this setback, between readings the setback went to 100 feet and then the Township settled another lawsuit. At this time the Township went back, reviewed the ordinance and changed the setback back to 50 feet, on the advice of the board and counsel. The Township doesn‟t want to expend taxpayers dollars on lawsuits on something that is unreasonable. Public education on fertilizers and the runoff and the problems it causes will help the situation. The Township has run the gamut of setbacks and has come up with a reasonable solution. Motion by Iles to recommend to the Township Board to approve Zoning Ordinance #74 amendments – Section 1906(3) and 2000(bb) supported by Minot. Motion Carried - All. 5. PUBLIC HEARING – PRELIMINARY (SITE CONDOMINIUMS) SITE PLAN REVIEW AND REZONING REQUEST FROM R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) – Rolling Hills Meadow/Scott Underwood, 7401 Rawsonville Road, Belleville, MI 48111 – for 81 site condominiums, located on the East side of Munger Road, between Merritt and Bemis Roads (Z-2000-10).

Ellis Friedman, 206 N Huron, attorney representing Mr. Underwood stated that he is here for any questions along with Mr. Earl Ophoff, MCI; and Mr. Underwood are present. Earl Ophoff, MCI site planner, stated that he prepared the survey and site plan. The current plan is on a 74-acre site with 81 lots, average lot size is ½ acre. This is located on the east side of Munger. The general site layout provides 2 points of entry, 1 at the northern end and 1 at the east with a future stub at the southeastern portion of the site. The history of this site started out as a farm with pond this development is fitted into the site and reduced by ½ into the final plan and the pond surface has been reduced to 2.5 acres. The road system devises a north and south access point, the needed separation is provided and the roads coming in will have a dead end circulation and a looped site. The intent of the ½ acre lots is to have onsite sewer and public water. The roads are intended to be private at this time Doug Winters, Township attorney, stated that in all fairness to all present they need to step back to the summer of 1996 when the Township became aware of a farm pond being constructed at this location. In this process the developer had submitted engineering plans and revealed the size of the farm pond and made no attempt to hide what they were doing, This was approved by the Township administratively. Later the Township Board found that this was not just a farm pond and they went to court to stop the developer from using the property. In 1996 the Township went to court and explained to the judge their interpretation of the ordinance that this was a sandmining operation the judge granted an injunction in 1996. Given the fact that the township was handed a lemon during the next 4 years the Township has gone through several court hearings and internal meetings. It is not the goal of the township to have a farm pond or gravel pit that becomes a nuisance to children and a nuisance to the adjoining landowners the Township is trying to make a livable solution, hence the settlement agreement. While everyone is not totally acceptable to the Township Board approved a settlement agreement that would keep this a rural type development. The farm pond is much larger than what was approved and the intent to minimize the offsite excavation and removal of sand and keep as much on site for berming etc. The settlement agreement states when sand can be removed. The agreement is so the pond would not be just a hole in the ground but to have a nice looking farm pond that would be integrated into the township. There would also be a nice diversity of houses. The intent of the

Regular Meeting – August 22, 2000 Page 5 developer is to mirror the development in Pittsfield Township, across the street, which has a large lake/pond. This is what the Township Board initiated in response to Mr. Underwood‟s misinterpretation of the ordinance related to sand mining. PUBLIC COMMENTS OPENED John Sanderson, 7545 Munger, owns the property immediately adjoining the subject property to the south and he has sat in Judge Swartz‟s court and thought that the property would be secured against trespassers and unnecessary traffic. Mr. Winters stated that was correct and the Township enforces and prosecutes this. WCSD has been successful in prosecuting offenders both in juvenile court and district court, they intended to prevent unnecessary traffic. Mr. Sanderson stated that there is a regular two track that goes through that property and for the past 4 years dirt bikes, four-wheelers etc have been driving on it and last Sunday four-wheelers were riding at 10:30p.m. so he called 911 for the Sheriffs Department, in which the call cost him .75 for peace and tranquil which he has not had for the past 4 years and feels will not be in the future. (He passed out documents to the Planning Commission) Mr. Sanderson stated that the following addresses his concerns about Rolling Hills Meadows, he has based his comments off the ordinance that he received from the Community Development Department and these plans significantly lack the most basic requirements. He stated that he is a resident and would like to itemize the serious concerns, 1 the site will become an unattractive nuisance, the flow of water will be held into a hole in the ground. He stated that you used to regularly see 12-14 deer going across his property because of the problems next door you do not see the number that one used to. Along the south boundary the proposed street ditches would adversely effect the mature trees root systems and the trees would have to be removed. Also you frequently see rabbits and pheasants in this area, which would be removed with this development. Mr. Sanderson stated that the surrounding area, townships, all use Munger Road to go north to get to Michigan avenue, it‟s a public thoroughfare which it‟s their right. His understanding from the WCRC is that the proposed roads are not acceptable now, what will happen when you increase the traffic with this development. Rolling Hills Meadows will be a detriment to the private road to the south, which he developed. This private road was developed according to Township standards and will be paved; he did not have to pave it but is going to be so that the road will be an asset to the community. The proposed Overwood Street is 30„ from his bedroom, which is not acceptable. Mr. Sanderson stated that he has a proposed building site that was denied, because he already has his allowed 4 splits. He is a hard working guy who is trying to eke out a living and is willing to wait out his time until he can split his land which there is a potential use on his property that becomes limited or destroyed if this boundary is put in. He has lived in Ypsilanti Township since 1984 and has lived in the greater community all his life, he was born in Ypsilanti Township and went to Lincoln, he values his peace and quiet very much. This peace and quiet would not happen with this development. Also, ladies and gentlemen he has planted many trees and saplings on his property over the years and none of them will replace or be like the tree that is near his bedroom that would be destroyed with the road construction. He stated that this hole was created by the developer it was not original supposed to be there and was done before the PD ordinance was created. The hole is approximately 50 feet deep from grade. Mr. Sanderson stated that his lots are 1 acre or bigger and the surrounding lots are bigger, this development is not compatible with the surrounding area. Mr. Sanderson stated to Ypsilanti Township and all interested participants here, I say to you that this development does not meet the guidelines of the PD development and according to the ordinance the only thing that can be done is to deny this property. Vern Hunter, 7600 Munger, Pittsfield Township, stated that he agrees with Mr. Sanderson, also the density would have a very adverse effect to the community. One of his concerns is the depth

Regular Meeting – August 22, 2000 Page 6 of the farm pond and the effect that it will have to a 30-year old well; he is adamantly opposed to this project and has been since the beginning. Bruce Graham, 7166 Lapaloma Lane, the back of his property adjoins this from the farmers‟ fields. He is concerned with the 81 wells and 81 septic fields, there is way to many houses on way to small lots. He is also concerned with the traffic on Munger with 2 cars per 81 lots grading will have to happen about twice a week. There is no municipal water around how will the fire department put out a fire if this ever happens. He also thanked Mr. Sanderson who said a lot of what he was going. Frank Jacobson, 5362 Merritt, stated his property adjoins this development. This developer can‟t be trusted he spoke against this developer and the mining operation that the township approved. This has been a nightmare since the beginning the developer was supposed to secure this property and has gone around that by using a snow fence. There are four wheelers etc. on the property all of the time. He built his house 15 hears ago, he picked a property out and looked at the surrounding area and many of these houses have over 1 acre. This does not compliment the property in Pittsfield Township either; those hoses are much larger and cost around $300,000. The responsibility of the Township is to develop places that represent the rest of the Township. He is not against development knows that it will happen though it should be controlled. This developer is out to get the most for his money, and then will walk away. This is a dirt road and will have to be paved he does not want to see the township burdened with this money. There are lots of people with wells and who will hold the township liable if they have problems with their wells. He is also not happy with the road going right next to his property. They should have houses buffering the road. Again the developer is here to maximize his return and this developer is not to be trusted. Any development that takes place should be done with out any loopholes for him to fall through again. Dan Plerski, 7545 Munger, Pittsfield Township, supports what Mr. Sanderson says, he moved here 2 years ago, developers put site condos in to get around Township ordinances and rules. He had public sewers in his old place and they were poor. He moved out here for country setting and atmosphere, which he currently has, and across the street the lots are twice the size. This development is totally unreasonable. Ola Watkins, 7225 Munger, built her house in 1978 on 3 acres, 1½ acres are still free. Does this mean that everything is being changed to condos? She is one of those that were fighting the sandpit; many times she called the township to stop it. Now to go and say that now he‟s going to be good this time and that now it‟s not a stand pit or farm pond now its going to be a drain hole, how many feet deep is it. He‟s going to put clay in it and its not going to go empty but neither is fresh water going to drain into it. A settlement what‟s that something that the taxpayer money went to for something they didn‟t want here. We want to have private homes we paid the taxes for it, I hope it stays that way. Janice Wiedman, 7311 Munger, is right next to the proposed development and would have a road adjacent to their property. Concerning the trust factor, they bought their property 8 years ago and as money came in they cleaned it up and developed it, built a beautiful home and started the landscape process. During that time they received a letter from Sand Creek stating that they can‟t sell their homes due to the way theirs looked. She had since moved into her house before Sand Creek was done, but they, Sand Creek also want quality homes. They care very much about the area. She would like to see it open but that is not a fact of life. The trust factor for these people all that she has heard since they moved in is how unreliable these people are and that they have done something that they did not have permission to do. It makes her leery of what will happen for landscaping. Of course she does not want a road right next to them. She has 5 children with 2 of them being very little; this road would be very dangerous. She would request that the development not be able to take place with such small acres. She has 9 acres, Mr. Sanderson has 13, and the neighbors around have a minimum of 1 acre. This is a very unique and beautiful area and it has been their dream to get there for eight long years and they

Regular Meeting – August 22, 2000 Page 7 are finally there. Ms. Wiedman stated that they had first heard that this site would have 56 homes, which they were highly dismayed at, but now it‟s 81 and they are condominiums on a ½ acre or less. They would request that it not take place as planned. And if there is a road, which they are adamantly opposed to, that they put up a privacy fence line that would enhance her property. Doesn‟t want a cyclone fence or dark cedar fence that would take away from their hugh farmhouse effect. They request that this not take place at all but if it has to should be on larger sites. Regarding landscaping it should be written down, the lady from Biltmore earlier spoke as if she cared about the land and the preservation of land. She has not seen anything that shows that this would be preserved or perhaps trees added. The proposed road area next to their property shows no trees added, a road without trees would be extremely ugly or even just the homes facing into them would change their whole setup. (She submitted a letter to the Planning Commission). Michael Francis, 7107 Lapaloma Lane, the area on the north side close to the grounds is also opposed to the approval of this variation of the site plan. It discouraged her a little bit when she heard the attorney explain that the reason why, a great length of time was gone to was a settlement and lawsuit. She can understand, that because there are court cases and there are attorneys and this is not denigration on the profession, however, she would hate to think that this was the primary reason for allowing an exception or consideration for a site like this in our Township. It would truly be shocking if that were the true reason. Certainly if he could come up with a better plan she doesn‟t think that there is anyone on here that be discouraging to him. Unfortunately the trust factor is not high because of previous things, but anyone can change. A site plan that could be done in full compliance could be considered, but this one does not work. David Richardson 7605 Munger, just down the street from this proposed development, moved here 1 year ago currently has 5 acres this proposed subdivision would not compliment any part of this area. Not only is the density very small, with a large number of houses. Right now he has 3 kids and he worries about them now with the cars on munger road going 60 – 70 mph, he can only imagine what would happen with another 81 families down the road? As far as the pond goes I think 50 or 40 foot is quite excessive, he just filled in an old well and it had water at 40 foot. Luckily he is on public water so he doesn‟t have to worry about it effecting his well. He knows the water shed is at the 40 foot level and the development is going to be well below that so he has no idea how that would effect the other people with their wells. He has to imagine that would be detrimental to them. He basically agrees with all the points that have been made wants to add that he thinks this is ridicules to look at this as a proposed solution just to stop them from removing sand from an area. Karen Wideman, 7249 Munger just north of the proposed site would like to say that along with having all the traffic coming that direction because that is where most everyone goes, she has 5 acres or almost 5 acres and if this passes she could put in 5 – 6 houses herself. She is definitely against this. Jeff Rittenhouse 7101 Lapaloma Lane, just north of development agrees with the majority of the comments made. This does not fit, it is not a rural subdivision and does not mirror what‟s across the road. That‟s mirroring it times 2 or 3. The density is to high, he thinks the developers know that this will not pass, he feels that there is a second or third plan in the works, their goal is to see how many buildings they will they get in to their property. This is profit motivated these are not like the people who live out there. The people that live out there are single family dwellings 1 acre or more and this definitely does not fit the neighborhood. Condominiums do not fit in a rural subdivision. If anyone drives around out there this would stand out that it is unusual. The very fact that it is being petitioned for rezoning shows that it doesn‟t fit the way things are now and it has to be rezoned. He is not in favor of this and would be leery of the 2 and 3 proposals because the motivation is profit and the Township should be very careful in what goes in here keeps in style what is in the vicinity.

Regular Meeting – August 22, 2000 Page 8 PUBLIC COMMENTS CLOSED Chairman Allen closed this item for public comments. BOARD DISCUSSION – Mr. Winters stated the Township Board did not vote to allow a sand mining operation on this property. Mr. Winters started out by saying that the developer came in and made application for a “farm pond” that was an administrative process reviewed by the Township‟s engineers and the former Township Building Administrator. Permits were issued not only by the Township but also by the Washtenaw County Road Commission and other agencies that had jurisdiction over this site. For anybody to imply that the Township is caving they are obviously not too familiar with the Townships ordinance enforcement efforts. For 4 years I have been in court for this site the injunction is continuing today. During those four years Mr. Sanderson came into my office on a regular basis he was provided with copies of the settlement agreement and all this was done in full open disclosures with all of the residents in regards to what was taken place on this site. And to this day it has been our attempt to enforce the trespassing when it occurs. There is simply no way in the world that Washtenaw County Sheriffs Department can devote all of the time and resources it would take to apprehend and catch every trespasser on this site. But to the extent that they get the call and respond they have apprehended and prosecuted both adult and juvenile and that in itself illustrates part of the dilemma you have. Because on one hand the property is zoned R1 and basically it was zoned and master planned for single family residential. The whole point in what I‟m trying to make this evening is for 4 years the township has remained steadfast that they would not just allow a sand mining operation to continue with no plan with what was going to take place after that sand mining operation had ceased. And to simply then have a hole in the ground or lake out there with no other development was going to be nothing but a headache for all of us, including the residents who live there because its turned into some of that already. The only question right now is, at what point and time are the courts going to say ok if the township was right in its interpretation. Then bringing every cubic yard of sand that was taken out would not be a practical solution because of the size of the hole that was there at the time the injunction was entered. Right now the Township and the regulations that Mr. Sanderson read were all the regulations that currently exists for PD those were not the regulations that were in effect in 1998. I believe that Mr. Sanderson has the regulations that were in effect in 1998 and the reason why you haven‟t seen a plan until now was because from 1998 until 2000 we have continued to resist over and over the plans that were submitted. Now if I was developing this right now would I develop it differently, perhaps I would but right now I have a settlement agreement that the court has approved that says basically this is what action is going to govern this site. The farm pond, which was the primary focus initially, is half the size that it was going to be. Now, when I said that this was going to be complementary to the area, I didn‟t suggest that it was going to somehow meet the price of the houses in Pittsfield Township across the road. I was referring to the housing stock in Ypsilanti Township and basically it was the hope and intent that somehow this housing stock would somehow provide an alternative to upgrade and move out to a different part of the township and enjoy its rural features. They aren‟t going to bend any ordinances that were in effect in 1998 rather its woodlands, earth balancing, wetlands, they are listed in the front of the settlement about ten different ordinances that have to be complied with, and they will all be complied with. I just don‟t want anyone to leave here right now and think that somehow the Township is afraid of confrontations and we have resisted to many attempts to cave in and we haven‟t caved in now. In regards to the site plan that‟s were the professional people come into effect. The professional people I am referring to are the engineers, fire marshal and planners, I am the attorney not an engineer or designer. And as far as their reviews this evening it is my understanding that, as far as the ordinances that was in effect in 1998, they comply with that. If his professionals say that this plan meets the regulations that were in effect in 1998 and he reviewed it and thinks that they are correct. The developers simply have to adhere to the terms of the settlement agreement that were approved by the Township Board, at a public meeting which Mr. Sanderson was present. And while he objected at that evening up until that point at time had been kept fully abreast as to every provision of the settlement agreement. He

Regular Meeting – August 22, 2000 Page 9 will leave it to the professionals to answer some of the questions, this is what he intended to say the first time around. He thinks that the tone and some of the comments are giving the Township Board an unfair presentation. Because it was the Township Board that put the legal wheels in motion to force this issue. If the Township Board had not acted they would have had right now just a lake out there with no subdivision plans what so ever having all the intended nuisances and problems that come with it. That was what the intent was to bring this item here tonight. He is not here indorsing one specific plan. One gentleman said you might see plans 2 and 3, this is th probably the 12 plan that he has seen in the whole series of plans since 1998. By no means is the Township going to bend the rules to develop but they will have to abide by the court order, which I think everyone recognizes it has a certain degree of enforceability of opinions. Commissioner Richie asked if what Mr. Sanderson had quoted and referenced is the current ordinance and not what is governing this development. And what are governing this development are the ordinances that were in effect at the time the settlement was signed. Mr. Winters stated that was correct. Mr. Kwiatkowski commended the residents for their attendance tonight and to Mr. Sanderson for his input and the hard work he put into his letter. He appreciates resident input and they do put residents first. In speaking about the ordinance itself Mr. Sanderson did obtain a copy of the PD ordinance, and staff not knowing what Mr. Sanderson was up to give him a copy of the current PD regulations. If he would have mentioned the settlement they would have given him the old ordinance. The letter does reference the new ordinance as it stands today; it does not govern this project. However most of the concerns are similar in nature but not the exact sections verbatim. Some of his concerns are addressed in both new and old ordinances. Mr. Kwiatkowski stated that he would like to cover some of the comments that the residents had. The first is density when the settlement agreement was signed the density in this property was 15,000 sq. ft, per lot area. Which means that 1 unit/1 house can be built on 15,000 sq. ft. Now there is no sewer out there so the lot gets bigger. There is a regulation that says if there is not water or sewer the lot has to be an acre. There is water to this location therefore the lots can be smaller, whatever size the WCHD says the lot can be with a septic field and reserve field. The density in this project is 1.12 units per acre, which is below the master plan that was on the books when this was settled and is still below the master plan that is on the books today. In regards to the compatibility acres at one time every resident in this Township had large parcels of land and through time they have been split off. And whether a 10-acre parcel is still consistent with a 1-acre parcel is still debatable. This development is within the regulations that were in effect at the time the settlement agreement was signed. The minimum lot size is 15,000 Mr. Ophoff stated that they are at approximately ½ acre, which is about 22,000 sq. ft. For the fire suppression of these homes, there will be fire hydrants located throughout the subdivision according to the fire code. To provide fire suppression to the other homes on Munger Road, the fire department would tap off a line on Munger Road in the event of a fire. Mr. Kwiatkowski stated that the four-wheelers would disappear because development would be in place. The narrow streets, the development currently meets the width of the private road ordinance. He can‟t address the trust factor comments. Regarding the preservation of tree lines 80% of the tree lines are remaining. The border to the north there is a tree line that meanders through the site and on the southern portion of the site the tree line will remain. There is a wildlife corridor preserved throughout the subdivision. Concerning traffic this development did provide the Township with a traffic assessment study even though a traffic impact study was not required. There was a concern about additional density in a site condominium; a site condominium is not a way to circumvent certain process applications and permits. A site condominium is just like a subdivision plat except there is not a final platting process. In essence it looks just like any subdivision except legally you get two deeds, your lot and your house, whereas a subdivision you get just one. That is the only difference, otherwise it follows all the same guidelines the Township and county has. Another issue is the PD ordinance and why this is a PD is because it was

Regular Meeting – August 22, 2000 Page 10 agreed to in the settlement agreement. Lastly if any neighbor wanted to split their property they could do that as long as they meet the requirements established in the ordinance. Secretary Minot read the staff report into record. Secretary Minot stated that according to the settlement agreement the developer was supposed to be posting no trespassing signs along Munger Road, was this not done? Mr. Freedman stated that numerous signs were posted some were vandalized and replaced. The site was secured by a snow fence that was approved by the court, there was vandalism to that and that was repaired. Efforts to secure the site and post no trespassing sign were done initially and are ongoing. Commissioner Richie asked if the pond that‟s on the property will be 50 feet deep or what will the depth be, the depth of the water. Mr. Opluff stated that the water depth would be 15 feet. 15 feet gets you down to the depth that the water quality issues will be taken care of. The 15-foot depth establishes that the water quality will be maintained without too much difficulty. They are encouraging certain amount of greenery around the pond. Commissioner Richie stated that she is looking at this as a safety issue, there are a lot of houses back out to this pond, she has small children herself and all it takes is 2-3 seconds and they are out of your sight. She would like to see/ask that the pond is fenced for safety sake. Mr. Opluff stated that they could consider that but at this stage of the plan it‟s extraordinary that with Michigan and the thousands of the lakes, rivers and streams that aren‟t fenced. He doesn‟t see that this would pose an extraordinary risk in fact it is a site feature and something that would significantly increase the value of the water. If you have a problem maintaining the behavior of ones own children that‟s always a hazard. He stated that they are being told to make this more of a magnet by putting in a pedestrian path along the lake. It would be going against the amenity that you are bringing people to see and enjoy by putting a fence around it. Secretary Minot asked if they would consider a buffer of some type of tree for the houses that are very close to the pond, so it wouldn‟t hide the pond but make it not as accessible. Mr. Opluff stated to a certain extent there is an agency that is requiring that to be done. The WCDC is requiring a 25-foot buffer and typically their standards are that no fertilizers. They would put in a wetland vegetation buffer, which would create a softer edge. This would limit direct access to the water. A resident questioned if the road to accommodate the water would be lowered 3 feet. Sand Creek, across the street, was lowered significantly and this development would put their driveway significantly higher. Mr. Opluff stated that the review by the WCRC the two road locations were reviewed from a site distance point of view, can you see far enough from either direction to make it safe. What the WCRC has said so far is that the road conditions to the north has to be improved and lowered and improve the driveways that were effected. Chairperson Allen questioned this is PD because of the court case, is this part of the settlement that it would be a PD and not a typical subdivision. Mr. Kwiatkowski stated that a PD is an overlay development. A PD is a set of ordinances that allow variances to a different set of ordinances. So that it is a contractual zoning in essence.

Regular Meeting – August 22, 2000 Page 11 Chairperson Allen could the builder not build according to the PD and build according to the regular zoning. Mr. Kwiatkowski stated that apart from the settlement agreement if this was proposed under a different set of circumstances it could be done without a PD. It is a PD because the settlement agreement states it. The Township has more control with a PD development. Motion by Minot to recommend to the Township Board to approve Preliminary (site condominiums) site plan review and rezoning request for Rolling Hills Meadow/Scott Underwood, with the conditions outlined in the staff report, supported by Iles. Motion Carried - Roll call Allen nay, Harris nay, Minot yeah, Richie yeah, Shuey yeah, Iles yeah, Hamilton nay. 6. PRELIMINARY (NONRESIDENTIAL) SITE PLAN - Gator Construction & Design, Inc., 26990 Trolley Industrial Drive, Taylor, MI 48180 – for the Wolverine Truck Sales and Service facility on land located on the south side of William Avenue, East of McGregor Avenue and currently zoned I-2 (General Industrial).

Scott Kaye, Gator Construction 13141 Normand Belleville, representing on behalf of Wolverine Truck sales they are requesting to build a new freightliner distributor dealership and service center. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED There was no public comments. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Secretary Minot read the staff report into record. Mr. Kaye stated that he would like to bring some of the owners concerns with item #2. The latter part of #2 states that a split face cmu should be integrated into the south elevation we agree and understands the Townships concerning since it faces I94 they would like to work with the Township to incorporate more of a design instead of a mass wall. The second issue deals with the intricate color of the block. The owner is building a first class building and has put a lot of effort into the layout of the site and the landscaping. There are 2 concerns with the owner the first is they are a freightliner franchise and the colors that they are proposing are an earthtone color. Under there franchise agreement there are certain things that are mandated such as carpet, floor, wall, sill colors, etc. Freightliner is in the process of possible changing their exterior colors to the gray and silver instead of the earth tone shades. The concern with the owner is to pay the premium of the colored block and be faced with the decision to possible have to paint the block down the road. The owner does understand the concern of the township and why they are concerned with the intricate color of the block because of what may happen in the future, may be out of the owners control. Is there anything that the owner can provide, for a comfort level, to insure the Township that they are intending to put up a quality development? The owner likes to use paint due to the brightness of the paint and the cost and the availability to repaint if the need arises. Mr. Kwiatkowski stated that he has a couple of items, he does agree to work administratively to finalize the details on the outside of the building. He does remaining steadfast in his decision not to paint the building; the Township has always remained consisted to not paint masonry block. They can defer the decision until the applicant can decide what the colors will be. If the plans change significantly they will have the applicant bring it back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Kaye asked that the exterior brick or block be intricate in color they do have positive methods of staining due to the block being porous. If the applicant uses stain that was placed in the field therefore if the color needs to be changed they could do it.

Regular Meeting – August 22, 2000 Page 12

Jeff Purdy, LSL Planning, it is the desire of the Township at the time of site plan approval that the color of the building be positively established and the materials of the building be permanent and the colors of the building potentially changing with out the Township knowing. In order to change the color of the building significantly from what was approved by the Planning Commission this would have to be done with another review. Mr. Kaye stated that he understands they would not change the color without the township approval. He would like a more definite answer on staining, they would do a field staining that would not peel or chip off. Mr. Purdy staining would probably be acceptable as long as the color was acceptable to the Planning Commission they prefer earth tone shades. Mr. Kaye showed the colors of a building that they have just finished. It is a combination of split face & single face block. Chairperson Allen stated that the colors shown seem acceptable. He questioned if Mr. Kaye is asking for this item to be tabled. Mr. Kaye stated that they are not asking for this to be tabled. If freightliner changes their franchise colors they would come back to the staff or Planning Commission for approval. Motion by Minot to recommend approval of preliminary (nonresidential) site plan for Wolverine Truck Sales and Service facility subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report, and that staff will work with the petitioner in deciding all of the finish products for the outside of the building. Support Hamilton. Motion Carried – All. 7. REQUEST TO RECIND APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL CONDITIONAL USE – Charles Ray (Chuck’s Auto Service), 1370 East Michigan Avenue, Ypsilanti, MI 48198 – for a minor auto repair facility at 1370 East Michigan Avenue and currently zoned B-3 (general business).

Charles Ray, 1370 E, Michigan, stated that he was here to answer any questions. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Mr. Ray stated that as far as he knows everything is completed. His flower arrangement is not as close to what was on the site plan because what was available at this time of year. Most of what is there are junipers. Renee. Ray, wife of owner, stated that the arrangement of the plantings is different from the site plan due to the limited time that she had to plant them. The site is improved from what it had been, though it is not up to the standards of the site plan yet, she is requesting that the plan be approved at this time due to the time of the year. If the Planning Commission wants they can change plants next year. Commissioner Harris asked if there had been any extensions in the past. Mrs. Ray stated no. Mr. Kwiatkowski stated that the original application was in 1998 and the owners had one year under the ordinance to complete their work. Mr. Kwiatkowski stated that he has given the owners

Regular Meeting – August 22, 2000 Page 13 numerous letters concerning their site plan. There was no action until they received notification that the approval was going to be rescinded. Some of the delay might have been financial. Chairperson Allen questioned if the bumper blocks are to be removed? Mr. Ray stated that has been taken care of. Chairperson Allen stated that concerning the landscaping installed in the greenbelt area is not satisfactory, it has to have some sort of screening and texturing to the area. Something bigger and more substantial should be in place there. He questioned if reseeding of the weeded areas has been put in place. Mr. Ray stated that it has been done in cycles, due to the business being busy during the day, they have done this after hours, along Ypsi Court and around the corner there is grass coming up already. Chairperson Allen stated that he is worried that they will be finding weeds instead of grass. He questioned if the detention basin is constructed and the masonry/wood receptacle is in place? Mr. Ray stated that they are. Mr. Kwiatkowski stated that the only item left that is not planted are the larger shrubs, there are 68 larger shrubs not there. This would be following the large shrub category of the requirements. Ms Ray stated that the flowering crab is not available at this time, they have chosen a flowering tree, which will grow 6-8 feet and will have flowers on them. Chairperson Allen stated that the plants need to be larger. When there is a plan presented there is normal planting widths so that there is not a large distance between plantings (like 15‟). Commissioner Richie stated that Plymouth Nursery is a very good place to get plants from and they are very helpful. Motion by Harris to table recession of the Special Conditional Use for Charles Ray Auto Facility, for 60 days until the remaining shrubs are installed, supported by Hamilton. – Motion Carried – All. 8. PRELIMINARY (NONRESIDENTIAL) SITE PLAN – Wolf Wineman, Inc., 30500 Northwestern Highway, Farmington Hills, MI 48334 – for renovations with an addition onto an existing building (Holmes Road Fire Station) for the proposed “Holmes Road Police Facility” at 1405 Holmes Road and currently zoned R-5 (single family residential).

Jim Lemire, Wolf Wineman, 3050 Northwestern, stated this is a request for the conversion of the old Holmes Road fire station for the new police facility. They are renovating the interior for locker rooms and duty rooms, and will have a small 200-sq. ft. addition. The building will be clad in brick and windows will be introduced for a more visual effect of the site. The parking will also be extended. The architecture of the site will be to go with the surrounding houses. This will be a good symbol of the community. Commissioner Richie questioned why the women only have 1 shower and the men have 2. Mr. Lemire stated that this goes with the current and projected staffing. Secretary Minot read the staff report into record. Mr. Lemire stated that they can follow number 1, the maneuvering width in the interior of the parking lot was at the request of the officers. Item #3 is acceptable they have a different light fixture that they would like to use. The landscaping plan calls for adding 19 trees, the user group would like to have more of an open site and they would like to use the maples along Holmes Road, other than that they would like to not do much more due to a safety/site feature.

Regular Meeting – August 22, 2000 Page 14 Chairperson Allen stated that he sees some junipers and day lilies in the front, Mr. Leimer stated that they would be landscaping the sign. Could they reduce the evergreen trees by increasing the deciduous ones? Mr. Lemire stated that they would like to not comply with the landscaping at all. Mr. Purdy stated that perhaps one compromise would be to have the same number of deciduous plantings instead of the evergreen trees and have tall evergreen shrubs along where the fence ends to screen the parking lot from the adjacent residents. A tall ornamental evergreen shrub would be less expense than an evergreen tree. Chairperson Allen stated that an arborvitae would have low hanging branches, which would be a safety issue. Mr. Lemire stated that a low line of junipers and flowering crab would have the openness but would be at ground level, which would help buffer the site. Mr. Purdy stated that they could look at some flexibly of the types of plantings yet still maintain the required number of trees. Mr. Nanney stated that item #1 the request is to increase the lot depth to 20 feet and reduce the east lot of maneuvering area. That is not intended to reduce the amount of paving just change the striping. Motion by Richie to approve the preliminary (nonresidential) site plan for renovations and addition onto an existing building for the ”Holmes Road Police Facility”, subject to the conditions contained in the staff report and the landscape plan to be handled administratively, supported by Hamilton. Motion Carried. - All Other Business: Adjournment: Motion by Hamilton to adjourn at 9:45p.m. support Harris. Motion Carried – All.

Respectively submitted

Cheryl Ensign Recording Secretary

To top