OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
June 9, 2005
KIDS SPORTS U.S.A. - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW - 7700 STADIUM DRIVE - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-34-130-024 AND 3905-34-155-021)
WESTPORT VILLAGE PUD - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AND SITE PLAN AMENDMENT - 5401 WEST H AVENUE - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-12-205-011 AND 3905-12-205-030)
PRIVATE STREETS - TEXT AMENDMENT - PUBLIC HEARING
A meeting was conducted by the Oshtemo Charter Township Planning Commission on Thursday, June 9, 2005, commencing at approximately 7:00 p.m. at the Oshtemo Charter Township Hall.
MEMBERS PRESENT: James Turcott, Chairman
Deborah L. Everett
MEMBERS ABSENT: Terry Schley
Also present were Jodi Stefforia, Planning Director; Mary Lynn Bugge, Township Planner; James W. Porter, Township Attorney; and 15 other interested persons.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
The Chairman said the first item of business was the approval of the Agenda. Mr. Larson made a motion to approve the Agenda as submitted, and Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Upon a vote on the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.
The Chairman said that the next item was the minutes of May 26, 2005. Ms. Garland-Rike asked that a correction be made on page 4, namely, "Ms." Smith be changed to "Mr." Smith. A motion was made by Mr. Smith and seconded by Deborah Everett to approve the minutes as corrected. The motion passed unanimously.
KIDS SPORTS U.S.A. - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW - 7700 STADIUM DRIVE - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-34-130-024 AND 3905-34-155-021)
The Chairman indicated that the next item on the Agenda was consideration of a special exception use and site plan approval for property located at 7700 Stadium Drive, Parcel Nos. 3905-34-130-024 and 3905-34-155-021. The Chairman asked to hear from the Planning Department. Ms. Stefforia presented her report to the Planning Commission dated June 9, 2005, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.
Ms. Stefforia told the Planning Commission that Commercial Property Development Company, LLC was proposing the development of a 42,825 square foot children's gymnastics facility for Kids Sports, U.S.A. She said this development would be located on a 11-acre parcel within the "I-1" Industrial District located along Stadium Drive. She reminded the Planning Commissioners that they had looked at the conceptual plan for a facility in the Village Commercial area, but due to the size of the building, the Planning Commission had concluded that it was not appropriate in that area.
Ms. Stefforia told the Commission that the subject property is located in the former Viking Die Cast/Midwest Aluminum property on Stadium Drive. She said that the property was the subject of an environmental clean-up and that portions of the property were being sold, with the remainder to be retained by the Township for a passive recreation park.
Ms. Stefforia then took the Commission through the provisions of Section 82 regarding site plan review, as well as Section 60 for special exception use approval.
Following Ms. Stefforia's report, the Chairman asked if there were any questions. Ms. Everett asked if access for the facility would be off Stadium Drive or off the new road proposed, Stadium Park Way. Ms. Stefforia said that the proposed facility would have access directly on Stadium Drive, since Stadium Park Way was currently in the development stages. Ms. Everett asked if they would close the access to Stadium Drive once Stadium Park Way was completed. Ms. Stefforia said that they could certainly pursue that closure. However, Attorney Porter indicated that, once they had an open access, it could be quite difficult to close the access in the future without the cooperation of the developer.
The Chairman asked if there would be any de-acceleration lanes for the proposed access drive. Ms. Stefforia said that could be a question raised with the Kalamazoo County Road Commission. The Chairman asked if there were any further questions, and hearing none, he asked to hear from the applicant's representative.
Mr. James Dally introduced himself to the Commission on behalf of Commercial Property Development Company, LLC. Mr. Dally explained that Kids Sports U.S.A. has a similar facility located in Battle Creek, as well as a facility in the Oshtemo area. However, he said that the Oshtemo facility was too small to house their current operations, and they were proposing to develop Phase 1 of the subject property on behalf of Kids Sports U.S.A. He explained that they would be using a pre-engineered structure and that Tim Woodhams of Woodhams & Associates could address any questions regarding the physical structure itself.
Mr. Dally went on to tell the Planning Commission that they would address the issue of whether de-acceleration lanes were needed, and that they would be open to relocating the existing drive and re-accessing the site off of Stadium Park Way in the future.
The Chairman told the developer that the last time they had discussed the facility for Kids Sports U.S.A., they had a fairly lengthy discussion regarding the number of people accessing the site, the hours of operation, and the events that would be held on site. He said he was particularly concerned about parking and possible overflow parking. Mr. Woodhams said he had studied the Battle Creek facility, which was similar to what they are proposing in Oshtemo Charter Township. He explained to the Planning Commission that no large events would be held at the facility. He said all large events for Kids Sports U.S.A. would continue to be held at the Kellogg Arena in Battle Creek. He said, however, the small regional events would be held at the facility. He said, based on the experience in Battle Creek, he believed that 100 parking spaces would be sufficient to handle the regional events. He said the children tended to come, perform and leave the facility after their events were completed. Therefore, he did not believe that additional parking, beyond what was proposed, would be necessary.
Ms. Garland-Rike asked if they had proposed 100 parking spaces. Mr. Woodhams said actually it was 98 parking spaces.
Mr. Larson asked if they had an occupant count for the facility. Mr. Woodhams said they did not. Mr. Larson expressed a concern over the proposed parking, given the size of the proposed structure. Mr. Woodhams said that a typical occupancy count would not be applicable to this facility due to the large area needed for the gymnastic events. He said they typically would have three or four groups using the facility at a time, with a viewing room for the parents. Unlike a small gymnastics facility and because the area used for each of the events was so large, he did not believe that the size of the facility necessarily correlated with the need for additional parking spaces.
Ms. Everett noted that they did have future parking shown on their proposed site plan if it was necessary. Mr. Woodhams agreed with Ms. Everett, and pointed out the additional parking, depending on when the daycare and the basketball facilities were constructed.
The Chairman asked what the age of the children were that would be using the facility. Mr. Woodhams said that the facility would be used by school-age children up through high school.
The Chairman asked if there were any more questions of the applicant. Hearing none, the Chairman opened the matter to public comment. There being no public comment, the Chairman closed the public portion of the meeting and called for Commission deliberations.
The Chairman asked what was the desire of the Planning Commission. He said he thought Ms. Stefforia's report was quite thorough and wondered whether the Commission wanted to go through each item or proceed with Commissioner comments.
Mr. Smith asked what the traffic counts were along Stadium Drive. Ms. Stefforia said she did not recall. Mr. Larson said he thought they would receive more traffic along Stadium Park Way once the park was developed.
Ms. Garland-Rike said she was comfortable with the proposal, based on the information, and she made a motion to approve the special exception use permit for the reasons set forth in the Planning Department's report. Ms. Everett seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a discussion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Garland-Rike made a motion to approve the site plan, subject to the following:
(1) A driveway permit from the Kalamazoo County Road Commission must be obtained.
(2) A second driveway off Stadium Park Way must be established with a future building addition.
(3) Provision for non-motorized facilities along Stadium Drive and Stadium Park Way must be provided and reflected on the final approved site plan.
(4) The Township may require the establishment of additional parking in the future if a parking problem is observed.
(5) All lighting shall comply with Section 78.700. Details of all exterior light fixtures, including mounting height, shall be submitted to the Township for review and approval before a Building Permit may be issued.
(6) All signs shall comply with Section 76.000 and are subject to the sign- permitting process.
(7) Before a Building Permit may be issued, a detailed landscaping plan in accordance with Section 75 and the Buy-Sell Agreement shall be provided.
(8) A deviation to defer landscaping along the west property line and the west 390 feet of the north and south property lines until a building and/or parking lot expansion as proposed is granted.
(9) Landscaping shall be installed before a Certificate of Occupancy will be granted or a Performance Guarantee, consistent with the provisions of Section 82.950, must be provided.
(10) Site plan approval shall be subject to the applicant satisfying Fire Department requirements pursuant to the adopted codes.
(11) Site engineering and stormwater management are subject to review and a finding by the Township Engineer that they are adequate.
(12) An Earth Change Permit must be obtained from the County Drain Commissioner.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Smith. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.
WESTPORT VILLAGE PUD - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AND SITE PLAN AMENDMENT - 5401 WEST H AVENUE - (PARCEL NOS. 3905-12-205-011 AND 3905-12-205-030)
The Chairman said the next item on the Agenda was consideration of a special exception use and site plan review for Phase 2 and consideration of amendments to Phase 1 of the planned unit development of Westport Village. The Chairman asked to hear from the Planning Department. Ms. Bugge passed out a revised site plan and then presented her report to the Planning Commission dated June 9, 2005, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.
Ms. Bugge explained to the Planning Commission that the applicant had already received a special exception use permit and site plan approval for Phase 1 of Westport Village on November 18, 2004. She said the applicant was now requesting amendments to the prior approval to develop a site condominium rather than a conventional condominium and was requesting deviations from certain dimensional requirements. In addition, Ms. Bugge said the applicant was requesting a phasing plan and approval for Phase 2 of the development, along with removal of the condition of approval for sidewalks or paths in the interior of the development. Ms. Bugge specifically noted that the density of the project had not changed from the plans previously submitted to the Planning Commission. She also noted that review of Phase 2 would trigger consideration of the bike path on H Avenue as stated in Phase 1 Condition of Approval Item #22.
Ms. Bugge then went through a detailed explanation of Section 60.430 with regard to the request for deviations from the standard dimensional requirements. She asked that the Commissioners focus on the intent of the PUD in considering the applicant's request to set aside certain conditions of approval. Ms. Bugge first focused on the request to remove Phase 1 Condition #9, which required nonmotorized facilities to be provided in compliance with site plan approval, and she asked that the Commission further focus on Section 60.430G.3. of the PUD provisions, which stated that the designated open space must be easily accessible to residents of the planned unit development, including visual and pedestrian linkages and proximity to such open spaces.
Ms. Bugge then took the Commission through the PUD review provisions of Section 60.450, as well as Section 60.470D and Section 82.800 of the site plan review process. Ms. Bugge recapped her report by saying that the applicant was requesting special exception use and site plan approval for Phase 2 of the Westport Village PUD with dimensional deviation. She said that the applicant was also requesting amendments to the prior approval of Phase 1 to allow dimensional deviations, establish a phasing plan and permit removal of the requirement to provide sidewalks and/or paths interior to the development. In addition, she said the development is proposed to be converted from a regular condominium to a site condominium development.
The Chairman asked if there were any questions for Ms. Bugge. Hearing none, he asked to hear from the applicant. Mr. Steve Visser introduced himself to the Planning Commission. Mr. Visser explained that they had developed new dwelling models with different floor plans that did not fit into their previous condominium design. He said, therefore, they wished to convert to a site condominium development, and since they were so close to commencing Phase 1, they thought it would be prudent to go ahead and receive approval for Phase 2.
Mr. Visser said he thought the biggest issue was the sidewalks. He said he understood the Township's need for sidewalks in the right area, but thought that, given the fact that this was a private, gated community with speed limits of 15 m.p.h., he saw no need for the installation of sidewalks. Therefore, Mr. Visser requested a deviation from the Ordinance. He said he thought that the fact that the development could be viewed as one large cul-de-sac was sufficient justification to deviate from the Ordinance.
Mr. Visser said, in addition to the developer's desire to deviate from the sidewalk requirement, he thought the future property owners would have no interest in sidewalks. He said, of the commitments they had to purchase in this development, none of the people were interested in sidewalks. He said he thought that the roads were sufficiently wide to accommodate pedestrian traffic and thought that the sidewalks would take away from the greenspace.
Mr. Visser also noted that, in his opinion, a bike trail along H Avenue would be difficult to construct. He said, with the development of the tunnel under U.S. 131, he did not see a need for a bike path along H Avenue. He also expressed concern regarding the difficulty of constructing such a pathway due to the extreme grade. He also said he thought it would require the removal of trees and expressed concern over the location of the existing gas main as having a possible negative impact upon the development of a bike path.
The Chairman asked if there were any questions of the developer. Ms. Garland-Rike asked how the residents were going to gain access to the open space area in the southwest part of the development. Mr. Dan Lewis, an engineer with Prein & Newhof, told the Planning Commission that there was a ten-foot access way off the cul-de-sac. Ms. Bugge expressed a concern that the access points, particularly in the areas of the retention ponds, would not provide any true access at all, except to the bottom of the stormwater facilities. Mr. Lewis said he thought the access points would allow access to the top of the pond, and that some areas even allow a small access way around the ponds. Mr. Visser noted that there is also 20 feet of common area around the perimeter of the proposed development. Ms. Garland-Rike asked what the grade was for the pond. Mr. Lewis said it was a 1-to-5 slope, which is quite gradual.
Ms. Stefforia noted that only five percent of the open space needed to be available to the residents. Ms. Garland-Rike again asked for clarification on access points to the pond in the interior of the property. Mr. Lewis pointed out that there were two access points to that area.
Ms. Bugge asked Mr. Visser to explain how the gates would be constructed. Mr. Visser said that he thought they had provided that information. Mr. Visser said there would be a sliding gate. Ms. Bugge asked how large the gate was. Mr. Visser said that the entrance was 32 feet wide, and the gate would be approximately 22 feet wide. Ms. Bugge asked if that sliding gate would impact Lot 58. After a number of questions and failure of a clear explanation by Mr. Visser, Mr. Lewis explained that there were actually two gates on either side of the entrance, which would then slide open and shut to allow ingress and egress.
Ms. Garland-Rike asked Mr. Visser why they wanted to change to a site condominium which would require the dimensional deviations. Mr. Dan Visser introduced himself to the Planning Commission and explained that the purpose was to allow greater flexibility and not be locked into a specific type of dwelling. He said rather than having three to five dwelling plans to choose from as previously, they now had more than ten options that potential buyers could purchase to develop on their individual building sites.
Ms. Everett asked whether the perimeter of the property would be walkable. Mr. Visser said he thought it would be hikable, but the property was uneven and covered with trees, and therefore, not likely walkable.
Ms. Garland-Rike asked if the change in the type of ownership of the property would affect its upkeep and maintenance. Mr. Visser said that would be addressed in the Master Deed, and doing so would allow the Association to take care of the lawns of the individual condominium units.
The Chairman asked if there were any public comments. Mr. Ed Buczkowski introduced himself to the Commission. He said he was proposing to purchase Lot 49 of the development. He stated that he wintered in Florida in a 500-unit condominium development, which had no sidewalks. He said they did not see a need for sidewalks since most of the people walked in the street, and he did not see any reason for development of sidewalks.
Mr. Sam Visser introduced himself to the Planning Commission. He said he had lived in Westport and planned to live in this new development, and that they never had sidewalks in the prior development, and he did not see any reason to install them in the proposed development.
Mr. Bob DeVries asked for the opportunity to comment on the proposed development. He said that he understood the Planning Commission's view that the sidewalks were to be installed based on a concern for the residents. He said, in this case, he did not believe that traffic or safety were a real concern and saw no need for sidewalks in the proposed development.
Mr. Thompson introduced himself to the Planning Commission. He told the Planning Commission that he owned property adjoining the proposed development. He said he was concerned about people using the perimeter of the property for a walking path because he was concerned about trespass.
The Chairman asked if there were any other comments, and hearing none, closed the public portion of the meeting and called for Planning Commission deliberations.
Ms. Garland-Rike asked for clarification regarding the maintenance of the property. She said she initially thought that the developer had said that the individual site condominium owners would maintain their property, but then comments during the discussion were to the contrary. Mr. Visser clarified the issue and said that the Condominium Association would be maintaining both individual building sites and common areas.
The Chairman stated that the issues before the Planning Commission seemed quite daunting. Ms. Everett suggested that the Commission tackle the issue of sidewalks first, since this seemed to be the most controversial issue. She said that she did not necessarily disagree with the Vissers that the site was somewhat different than a traditional plat, given that it was a private gated community. However, she did not believe that the Planning Commission should base its decision upon the Vissers' market analysis of what the potential buyers might wish to purchase. Mr. Smith said that he agreed with that, but thought there was an absolute necessity for a bike path along H Avenue. Ms. Everett said she agreed with Mr. Smith's comment.
Ms. Garland-Rike said that she supported sidewalks or a pedestrian walkway within the facility. Before the meeting during her review, she had asked herself, why here? She thought of two reasons: (1) Even with older, responsible residents, walking in the streets created potential danger; and (2) other developments had been required to develop sidewalks or pedestrian pathways, and that it was important to apply the Ordinance uniformly in order to be consistent.
Mr. Larson referred the Planning Commission back to the original approval of Phase 1. He said sidewalks or pedestrian pathways were to be required for access to the open space. He said this was a specific criteria of the PUD, and he thought it had to remain part of this planned unit development. Ms. Garland-Rike said they did not necessarily have to be paved. Mr. Larson agreed, but said there had to be an internal circulation pattern to reasonably accommodate pedestrian traffic.
Ms. Garland-Rike pointed out that the portion of the development on cul-de-sacs was quite small, and therefore, she could not view the development as a single cul-de-sac.
Mr. Larson said he thought they had already proposed a compromise by allowing a nonmotorized facility that could have taken on various forms. Ms. Everett pointed out that there would be access to the open space areas within the development. Mr. Larson pointed out that, while it is accessible, it is not a developed pedestrian walkway. The Chairman said he had to agree with Mr. Larson. He said the developer could have developed a circulation pattern other than sidewalks, but chose to object to the provision of sidewalks. He said the developer made no comments regarding walkways within the proposed development.
Mr. Dan Visser said he had explored the option of walking paths within the open space and backyard areas of the facility. He said potential buyers objected to walking paths more than they had objected to sidewalks. He said the buyers would have less objections to sidewalks than walkways, which allowed people access to the backyard areas of the individual site condominium building sites.
Ms. Everett asked if they could provide identification points for the access points. Mr. Visser said they could do that. Ms. Everett asked if they could put a wood chip path in. Mr. Visser said that they could, but their marketing information indicated that buyers did not want to see actual paths developed within the open space areas of the development. Ms. Everett pointed out that, if walkways were developed in the open space, they would not be in the backyards of the condominium owners. Mr. Visser said that the potential owners looked at that as their viewing area and would object to the same.
Mr. Dan Visser said, if they had to put in sidewalks, they would propose not installing sidewalks until the homes are constructed due to the potential damage caused by construction vehicles accessing the site.
Ms. Garland-Rike suggested to the Planning Commission that perhaps they could consider putting sidewalks on just one side of the street. Mr. Larson said he would consider that and thought that the developer had options but appeared to not want to do anything in compliance with the Ordinance. Ms. Garland-Rike asked if there was a consensus to require sidewalks on one side of the street. Ms. Everett pointed out that they had done that in the Villas of Stonehenge. Mr. Larson said that he thought they had already provided flexibility for the developer and thought the Commission should continue the discussion. Ms. Garland-Rike asked if Mr. Larson would interpret sidewalks on one side of the roadway as providing the pedestrian circulation he had considered. Again, Mr. Larson said he thought that the condition imposed under Phase 1 would allow that type of flexibility.
The Chairman said he would like to hear a discussion from the Commission with regard to the bike path on the H Avenue road right-of-way. Mr. Larson said, since they are now considering Phase 2 of the development, he thought the bike path should be a requirement. The Chairman said he thought there was a consensus of the Commission to want a bike path along H Avenue.
The Chairman, returning to the sidewalk issue, said that the Planning Commission and the Township have worked hard for the establishment of sidewalks within the Township. He said it was difficult to let the issue go. However, he thought that they could provide the developer with a reasonable accommodation by putting sidewalks or pathways on one side of the streets.
Mr. Visser said he still would be open to a pathway and willing to install wood chips at the open space access points, but he did not want it designated as a walkway. Mr. Larson said the access points, which the developer was citing to the Planning Commission, were really nothing more than easements for the installation of utilities. He said that there was a need for a developed pedestrian pathway. He said simply putting wood chips down was insufficient in his mind, and he thought the developers were not committing to anything, and that their unwillingness to comply with the Ordinance was unacceptable.
Ms. Everett asked if the Planning Commission would be setting a precedent if they granted a deviation from sidewalks. Attorney Porter pointed out that, if the Planning Commission was to allow a complete deviation from the sidewalk or pedestrian path requirement for this development because it was a private gated community, that their ability to impose sidewalks or pedestrian pathways on similar developments in the future would be compromised.
Ms. Garland-Rike pointed the Planning Commission again to Section 60.430G.3. of the Township Zoning Ordinance. She said PUD provisions required open space to be easily accessible to residents of the planned unit development with visual and pedestrian linkages to such open space. She said she did not believe that the developers' proposal would even meet the PUD requirements.
Mr. Larson said he thought there needed to be something more than simply connecting points, there had to be plan for pedestrian traffic, not just space in which to walk. Ms. Garland-Rike concurred and said that should be part of the PUD community. Mr. Larson said the Commission needed to look beyond the first few purchasers and look to what was best for the community as a whole. Ms. Everett explained to the developers that they could not focus their concerns just on their target market, but on the Township's concern and the greater good of the community.
The Chairman pointed out that a failure to impose a pedestrian circulation plan would jeopardize the implementation of the Ordinance in the future. Mr. Larson again emphasized the need for a planned circulation pattern. Ms. Bugge suggested that the Commission be specific in imposing the conditions on the developers. Attorney Porter concurred.
The Chairman asked the Planning Commission to focus their comments on the requested setback deviations. Ms. Bugge again reviewed their request for setback deviations, specifically with regard to how the zero setback should be measured, i.e., from the leading edge of the house, leading edge of the deck or whether they should be allowed a zero setback. Ms. Garland-Rike said she had no strong feelings regarding the proposed deviations but was concerned, because of the smaller building sites proposed, about further lowering these setbacks. Mr. Larson said that he had similar concerns, but since the density was not changing, he thought he might be able to accommodate some flexibility. Attorney Porter commented that these types of deviations were exactly what the PUD was designed to accommodate. Mr. Larson said, while he could accommodate some flexibility, he did not want to go to zero at the rear setback line. Ms. Bugge said that the goal was to provide zero setback as long as they met the setback from the leading edge of the dwelling or the deck. Ms. Bugge said to keep in mind that, in this type of development, they can build closer to the street, since there is no setback from a private road. Mr. Larson said, in that case, he saw no reason to go to a zero setback and thought they should maintain a five-foot setback to the leading edge of the structure.
Mr. Visser expressed some concern about the amount of time that the Commission was spending on this particular issue. Mr. Larson said he understood Mr. Visser's concern, but they were trying to establish a workable plan which the Township and its Planning and Building Departments could oversee and be assured was built in accordance with an approved site plan.
Mr. Larson expressed his opinion to the rest of the Commissioners that there be a five-foot setback to the leading edge of the structure all the way around the building. The Chairman said he could live with a zero setback to the leading edge of the building. Ms. Garland-Rike said she wanted to make sure that they maintained the same terminology with regard to the setbacks as they do for other buildings in order to maintain continuity in the Township.
Ms. Everett made a motion to approve the special exception use based upon the Planning Department's report and the previous findings of the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Smith. The Chairman called for further discussion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Next, Ms. Garland-Rike made a motion to approve Phase 2 of the planned unit development and site plan review and the phasing plan, which would require Phase 2 of the development to commence by September 1, 2009, provided that Phase 2 require Type B landscaping along the east and south side of the property as the sites develop, and that the bike path along H Avenue be installed by the developers when 50% of the homes are completed within Phase 2, subject to the following conditions:
(1) Easements and deed restrictions relating to the open space must be provided for review by Staff and the Township Attorney prior to the recording of the documents.
(2) The Master Deed and Bylaws and Exhibit B must be provided for review by Staff and the Township Attorney prior to recording of the documents.
(3) No use in the PUD shall have direct access to H Avenue.
(4) All private streets are subject to Township Engineer review and a finding that they are adequate.
(5) All parking shall be in conformance with Section 68.
(6) Sidewalks shall be provided in compliance with the discussions of the Planning Commission on one side of each paved road, provided that the sidewalks may be completed as each of the sites is built upon, but before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, and provided further, that all sidewalks shall be completed within Phase 1, before the commencement of Phase 2 of the development, and shall be constructed within Phase 2 as the sites develop, but no later than four (4) years from the commencement of construction of Phase 2 of the development. All access points to open space shall be designated by wood chip paths, and a path shall extend from the entryway on Harborview Pass south along the Phase line to the south entryway on West Port Drive.
(7) The deviations for Phase 1 and Phase 2 dimensional requirements are permitted as follows:
(a) Site area will range from a minimum of 3,532 square feet to a maximum of 13,270 square feet when 10,560 square feet is required for a single-family dwelling served by sewer and water.
(b) Width at building setback will range from 41.56 feet to 160 feet when 80 feet is required.
(c) A reduced side setback of five feet from the site sideline to the foundation is permitted when ten feet from the sideline to the leading edge of the building is required. Zero lot line dwellings will have a common wall and will have a zero setback along the shared lot line. Further, a zero rear setback to the leading edge of the deck, if applicable, or the leading edge of the building is permitted when 10 feet to the leading edge is required.
(8) The above dimensional deviations for site area, width and side and rear setbacks are permitted as stated.
(9) Any sign shall comply with Section 76 and site plan approval and shall be subject to approval through the sign-permitting process.
(10) Details of all outdoor lighting shall be submitted for Staff review and shall comply with the provisions of Section 78.720.
(11) All areas of the PUD awaiting development shall be stabilized at all times. This shall be accomplished with grasses or other ground cover. Exception is granted for areas with an active Building Permit, which shall still satisfy the County's and Township's erosion control and sedimentation control ordinance.
(12) An Earth Change Permit from the Kalamazoo County Drain Commissioner is required for Phase 2.
(13) A Type B greenspace in accordance with Section 75 shall be provided along the east and south sides of the property as the sites develop. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted for Staff review and approval.
(14) All landscaping shall be installed or a performance guarantee provided in accordance with the Ordinance prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy.
(15) Existing trees proposed to be retained as open space along the east and south perimeters shall be protected during construction to ensure their future viability.
(16) Phase 1 approval, subject to all conditions of approval, granted by the Planning Commission on November 18, 2004, remains in effect unless specifically modified by Planning Commission action.
(17) Site plan approval shall be subject to the applicant satisfying the requirements of the Fire Department, pursuant to the adopted codes.
(18) Site plan approval is subject to the Township Engineer finding site engineering and private roads adequate.
(19) Unit 58 shall take its driveway off Stone Valley Lane.
(20) Both units of zero lot line dwellings shall be built simultaneously.
(21) Phases 1 and 2 will be developed as a site condominium instead of a traditional condominium.
Mr. Larson seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.
PRIVATE STREETS - TEXT AMENDMENT - PUBLIC HEARING
The Chairman indicated the next item for review was the public hearing on the private street ordinance. The Chairman asked for a report from Ms. Stefforia. Ms. Stefforia presented her report to the Planning Commission dated June 1, 2005, and the same is incorporated herein by reference.
Ms. Stefforia outlined the changes from draft two in Sections 60.830 D, 60.840 F, 60.860 B and 75.130. The Chairman asked to hear from the public. At that point in time, there were two members of the public present, Mr. Charlie Hill and Ms. Lara Meeuwse.
Mr. Hill raised a concern with the Planning Commission regarding the setback provisions as proposed under Section 64.650. Mr. Hill said that, after complying with the landscaped area within the road, as well as the individual lot on the private road, he did not see a need for an additional setback. Mr. Hill expressed a concern that it would negatively impact the small office development that they were trying to encourage through this type of change in the Zoning Ordinance. He expressed a concern that it would prohibit any viable use of a private road within the "R-3" District.
After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to delete Section 64.650 from the proposed zoning text amendment. Mr. Larson then made a motion to recommend the proposed private street text amendment to the Township Board, with the exception of Section 64.650. The motion was seconded by Mr. Smith. The Chairman called for further discussion, and hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to cancel its June 23, 2005 meeting due to a lack of items for consideration.
Planning Commissioner Comments
There were no Planning Commissioner comments.
There being no further business, the meeting at approximately 9:55 p.m.
OSHTEMO CHARTER TOWNSHIP
Kathleen Garland-Rike, Secretary
June 16, 2005