PC minutes 4-16-2003

#040421-04 – Rezoning (REZ0403) To change from (MHR) Medium Density Residential to

(HDR) High Density Residential parcels of land described as P.P.# 70-14-21-300-017 and 70-14-21-300-016, located at 2917 and 2935 Port Sheldon

Paul Huyser, 2935 Port Sheldon, presented the request and answered concerns raised at the work session. He said that developing the parcels into a PUD was not feasible because ten acres was required and he has only 2.5 acres. He said that this was not spot zoning because contiguous property across Port Sheldon to the south was zoned HDR. He gave a court case example. He said that it had been noted that the request was inconsistent with the goals of the Township, but there had been deviation with the Township-owned land to the south that was zoned HDR rather than OS. He cited a court case for an example. He said that he realizes that the Township would like to see the four parcels developed as one unit and that he would like to see that too. He said that he realizes that no one can have what they want all the time. He asked that he not receive unequal treatment.

The planner said that in regards to the land south across Port Sheldon, which is a major five lane road, the request would not be spot zoning. However, he said that in regards to the land on the north side of the road, the requested zoning district would constitute spot zoning because the site property was surrounded by MHR. He said that he did evaluate the request on its own merit. He said that the four parcels should be combined into one development, as was proposed in the past.

The planner presented a review and stated that the following were the standards used in the review of the request.

1. Consistency: is the proposed zoning and all of its permitted uses consistent with the recommendations of the township land use plan?

a. The Future Land Use Map shows the subject property as “MDR, Medium Density Residential.” This is consistent with the current zoning of this property, while the current use is a single family detached dwelling.

b. A general land use policy goal of the Master Land Use Plan is “to avoid development which creates land use conflicts between different uses, and to provide gradual transitions from intensive commercial and industrial uses to low density residential uses.”

c. The Plan has stated policies for new residential development to be located contiguous to existing developed areas, and for higher density residential uses to be placed in proximity to major roads and commercial services. In addition, residential character with appropriate setbacks and buffers should be maintained along major arterial streets, such as Port Sheldon Road. The subject property is contiguous to existing residential development (zoned MHR) and is along a major road (Port Sheldon Road).

d. The Plan does not specifically address the subject property, but it appears that the proposed zoning and permitted uses are inconsistent with the goals and policies of the plan. The proposed HDR zoning is a district that provides a gradual transition between lower and higher intensity uses that are currently in place along Port Sheldon, but it is inconsistent with the Future Land Use designation of MDR.

2. Compatibility: is the proposed district and all of its allowed uses compatible with the surrounding area?

The proposed district (HDR) allows two-family dwellings, townhouses or rowhouses (single family attached dwellings), multiple family dwellings, accessory buildings and uses, customary home occupations, and family day care homes and uses by right. Special uses include churches, hospitals, group day care homes, K-12 schools, commercial soil removal, bed and breakfast establishments, day care centers, and commercial wireless communication towers and housing for fraternities and sororities. The MHR district also allows attached single-family dwellings, and similar special land uses with the exception of housing for fraternities and sororities. The immediate surrounding area is currently used for either single-family development or attached single-family dwellings. The existing development to the north, east and west of the subject property is zoned MHR, while the development south of the subject property (across Port Sheldon Road) is zoned HDR, which is the zoning being proposed here. Within the area, the MHR district appears to be a transitional land use category between the industrial-zoned properties to the east and low density residential (LDR) zoned properties to the west.

3. Capability: is the property capable of being used for a use permitted within the existing zoning district? Public utilities are available to the site and the site has direct access to Port Sheldon Road. The site appears to be capable of supporting the density requirements of the HDR district.

4. Other considerations: will the rezoning require an inordinate expenditure of public funds (road improvements, utility extension etc.) to make the development feasible? Public utilities are available to the site along Port Sheldon Road and will not require any public funds to extend into the proposed development. Port Sheldon Road is a major 5-lane road and will not require any additional upgrades.

5. Will the rezoning cause development to “leap frog” other undeveloped areas in the same zoning district and necessitate premature extensions of services to rural areas of the township? The proposed development is surrounded on three sides by existing residential development at the same densities offered under the MHR district. The property to the south exists with a density similar to the proposed under the HDR zoning being sought. The proposed rezoning should not negatively affect rural areas of the Township.

6. Is there sufficient vacant land already zoned in a specific category (e.g., industrial, multifamily, commercial)? There is not as much land in the Township zoned as MHR as compared to HDR, although it is unknown how much of the existing MHR land is currently vacant. The majority of the land in the Township is zoned LDR.

7. Is the rezoning more likely to be granted if conditions could be attached (note: except for Planned Unit Developments, re-zonings cannot be conditional)? Whether or not conditions could be attached should not affect this proposed rezoning.

Additional Comments and Recommendation:

The subject property is already zoned for residential development- the question of whether it should allow higher intensity uses is a matter before the Planning Commission at this time. Attached single-family dwellings (townhouses or row-houses) development could occur under the current zoning but at a lower density than would be permitted if this rezoning were to be approved. The only question being decided here is if the property should be rezoned to permit a greater residential density if it were to be developed. Based on the requirements of the Township Zoning Ordinance, the following residential densities are permitted under the existing and purposed classifications. Please note. In both cases it has been assumed that utilities will be made available to the site.

Allowable density under MHR zoning: 8 units per acre

Allowable density under HDR zoning: 15 units per acre

The site has public utilities readily available, as well as direct access onto a major thoroughfare. Physically, the site could support a higher density. There is an existing development to the south already at the density being proposed for the subject site. While the site is surrounded on 3 sides by existing residential development, only the area to the west has been built to the district’s full density potential. While rezoning the property would be inconsistent with the Land Use Plan, it would not be incompatible with the development directly across Port Sheldon Road, and the higher density can be supported by existing infrastructure. In order to avoid “spot” zoning, a consideration should be made to rezone multiple properties along Port Sheldon Road as a combined Planned Unit Development (PUD). Such zoning designation would allow flexibility for the properties to be developed at a density that is appropriate for the specific area, given the location along a major road and the transitional nature of area densities and uses. Based on these criteria and the above findings, we recommend denial of this request. It is recommended that the applicant submit a joint application with surrounding properties to rezone to a PUD designation if a desire still exists to rezone the property to a land use with a higher intensity.

The chairman opened the public hearing.

David Maguire, 2864 South Wentward Ct., said that he had been to another meeting at the Township Office in regards to another zoning issue for this property. He said that at that time, the Planning Commission had said that there would not be additional cuts on Port Sheldon. He said that there were many accidents in the area and that this was a bad corner. He said that if the rezoning goes through, the applicant could put in apartments.

The chairman said that at a rezoning, it can not be determined what would go in, but apartments would be allowed in the HDR zoning district.

David Maguire asked where the cuts could be installed and he asked where the people would enter and exit if apartments were put in.

The chairman said those types are issues were not addressed at a public hearing for a rezoning and that the Planning Commission was careful in determining spots for entrances.

The planner said that the Planning Commission should look at shared access. He explained that this application for rezoning is the first step and if it were to be granted, the site design issues would be addressed at subsequent meetings. He said that it was a good point to look at access management issues. He said that if more cuts were to be put in, there should be a service road.

David Maguire said that they were considering parcel -080. He said that the people who lived at the condos were concerned. He said that there were no barriers at this spot, but by another building the landscaping had grown to provide a barrier to the bank and Port Sheldon. He asked where trash and parking would go if apartments went it. He was concerned with noise and traffic.

Susan Stepaneck, 6796 North Wentward Ct., said that she was the president of the condo association and was an owner/resident. She said that they were concerned with safety for the residents in the adjoining area if multiple units were constructed. She asked about a buffer. She said that there were elderly ladies and gentleman. She said that they were good neighbors with the Koetje apartments and asked if it would be the same. She asked what kind of buffer would be installed. She asked if extra people were warranted on the property.

Helen Gray, 2910 South Wentward Ct., said that she was concerned with increased traffic. She asked if there was a map available because it was difficult to imagine with the enormity of the project.

The planner said that at this time they could not say where the buildings would go and the applicant would have to submit a site plan with that information if the rezoning were to be approved. He said that they currently could have 8 units per acre and that amount would increase to 15 units per acre if the property was rezoned.

Howard Vanoss, 2924 South Wentward Ct., said that he was confused with the difference between MHR and HDR and he asked about the height restrictions.

The planner said that the difference was that they currently could have 8 units per acre and would be allowed to have 15 units per acre in the HDR district.

It was noted that no property notices were sent for the site plan review process.

Jansma said that they would have to include parking spaces and driveways which would reduce the number of units that could be put on the property.

Howard Vanoss said that he was concerned that more people would bring more traffic problems.

The planner said that the applicant could almost double the number of units if the rezoning was approved. He said that the rezoning application was the only one before the Planning Commission at this time and that site design issues would be addressed with the site plan review process. He said that at site plan review, they would look at screening, buffering, access, and other items that would be site specific.

Howard Vanoss asked about the house on -017 and if it would be torn down.

The chairman said that those types of issues would be addressed on the site plan.

Susan Stepanek asked how many people could reside in a dwelling unit.

The zoning administrator said that a family could include any number as long as they were part of the family, or up to four unrelated people could be determined to be a family such as four college students.

David Maguire asked if this was approved, would it be possible for the rest of the properties to be rezoned too.

The planner said that a trend would be established, but each case would be evaluated on its own merit.

David Maguire said that the whole street then could be rezoned.

The planner said that although the possibility exists, rezoning the properties to HDR would be inconsistent with the Master Plan.

The chairman closed the public hearing.

Paul Huyser said that he realized that many uses were permitted under the HDR zoning and that there would be many more meetings regarding the property where people would be welcome to give their input. He said that he had looked at putting in housing for the elderly. He said that he was there when the condos were proposed and had the same concerns for the construction of the condos.

The zoning administrator stated that housing for the elderly was permitted in the current zoning of MHR, so rezoning the property would not be necessary for that use.

The planner said that the four properties on Port Sheldon should be developed as a planned unit development if a higher density was considered.

Members of the Planning Commission noted that Port Sheldon was a five lane road that buffered the subject property from the HDR across the street and that the current zoning was compatible with surrounding area resulting with the current zoning being appropriate.

Moved by Poskey, seconded by Stasiak, to recommend to the Township Board denial of Rezoning (REZ0403) To change from (MHR) Medium Density Residential to (HDR) High Density Residential parcels of land described as P.P.# 70-14-21-300-017 and 70-14-21-300-016, located at 2917 and 2935 Port Sheldon because of the following:

a. The Future Land Use Map shows the subject property as “MDR, Medium Density Residential.” This is consistent with the current zoning of this property.

b. The Plan does not specifically address the subject property, but the proposed zoning and permitted uses are inconsistent with the goals and policies of the plan and it is inconsistent with the Future Land Use designation of MDR.

c. The proposed development is surrounded on three sides by existing residential development at the same densities as the MHR district.

d. In order to avoid “spot” zoning, a consideration should be made to rezone multiple properties along Port Sheldon Road as a combined Planned Unit Development (PUD). Such zoning designation would allow flexibility for the properties to be developed at a density that is appropriate for the specific area, given the location along a major road and the transitional nature of area densities and uses.

e. The land can be used as currently zoned.

f. The applicant could have the use that he wants in the current zoning district.

g. Port Sheldon, which is a major five land road, buffers the subject property from the HDR across the street.

It was noted that the applicant had the opportunity to use the land as he stated that he wanted with the current zoning because the same use was permitted with a special use permit in the MHR and in the HDR districts and that the rezoning was inconsistent with the Master Plan. It was also noted that Port Sheldon, which is a major five lane road, was a buffer between the MHR zoning and the HDR across the street. The consensus was that all four parcels should be developed as a planned unit development if the zoning and uses were to change.

A member of the Planning Commission stated that last time rezoning was considered for property in this area, it was also denied and that last time a non-conforming parcel would have been created because of the 75 feet of frontage on one of the other parcels. It was noted that the three property owners should develop the property as one unit and that the Zoning Ordinance provided an opportunity for waiving the ten acre minimum requirement.

MOTION CARRIED.

#040421-05 - Preliminary Plat of Wallen Estates No. 4

Mike Berg, Dykema Excavating, represented the applicant and presented the request.

The planner stated that all lots meet ordinance requirements.

The chairman opened the floor to public comments. No one was present to speak on this topic. The chairman closed the floor to public comments.

Moved by South, seconded by DeGood, to recommend to the Township Board to grant tentative preliminary plat approval of Wallen Estates No. 4, as shown on the on the drawing dated Oct. 3, 2003 for lots 90 to 104.

MOTION CARRIED.

#040421-06 - Other Business-Letter from Alcor regarding phasing improvements.

At the work session, discussion took place regarding the request. The consensus was that the Planning Commission would consider a two year phasing program with paving, landscaping and sidewalks to be installed within one year of the completion of the new addition. Planning Commissioners decided to make a decision at the regular meeting when all the members were present.

The zoning administrator stated that a bond or letter of credit could be required and the project would be monitored by staff prior to the expiration of the bond or letter of credit.

Moved by Huizinga, seconded by Jansma, to allow the project to be phased in two phases, with the second phase to include the paving, landscaping and sidewalks, to be installed within one year of completion of the building, and with the condition that the applicant provides a bond or financial guarantee.

MOTION CARRIED.

#040421-07 - Ordinance amendment regarding architecturally similar additions.

Moved by Jansma, seconded by DeGood, to direct that the following ordinance amendment be advertised:

Sec. 3.6(E)

~~Additions, including permanent attachment to a dwelling unit, shall be constructed with similar quality workmanship and similar materials as the original structure.~~ Any building addition with an area greater than 120 square feet shall be permanently constructed on a concrete foundation {except under the provisions of Sec. 3.6(D)} and shall conform to all applicable building and other similar codes for such a structure. The architectural character of all building additions shall be compatible with and similar to the existing principal building with respect to materials, scale, design, and aesthetic quality, as determined by the Zoning Administrator.

MOTION CARRIED.

#040421-08 - Master Plan

At the work session, the Planning Commission gave the direction to change the area on Port Sheldon west of 28^th Ave. to MHR, to be consistent with current zoning. In addition, the Planning Commission decided to have the Future Land Use Designations coincide with those of the County. That would result in only one change, instead of AG/RR it would be RR/AG.

In addition, the Planning Commission directed that elements and a summary of the final copy of the 48^th Ave. Corridor study be presented to determine if it should be included or adopted by reference in the Master Plan. It was noted that the final copy was not ready yet.

#040421-09 – Adjournment

The chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.