Charter Township of Orion
|
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Doug Zande, Chairman; Shannon Filarecki, Vice-Chairwoman; Sandra Dyl, PC Representative to ZBA; Justin Dunaskiss; Carol Thurber PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Dick Christie, Secretary; John Steimel, OTB Representative CONSULTANTS PRESENT: R. Donald Wortman (Township Planner) of Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc.; Dave Schroeder (Township Engineer) of Orchard, Hiltz, & McCliment, Inc.; Beth McGuire, Township Zoning/Planning Administrator OTHERS PRESENT: Stacy Cerget, Michael Mamros, Katalin Szoke, Ryan Phillips, Jasper Blochlinger, Fay Pierce, Bill Pierce, Tilak Kalra, Phoebe Schutz Chairman Zande opened the PC-2009-13, LRM Associates, LLC Rezoning Public Hearing at 7:15 p.m. The PC-2009-13, LRM Associates, LLC Rezoning request is for 4.86 acres to be rezoned from Single-Family Residential-2 (R-2) to Restricted Business-2 (RB-2). The subject site is located at 3437 and 3439 Baldwin Road. Sidwells #09-29-126-016 and #09-29-126-017. Applicant: LRM Associates, LLC. The purpose of this public hearing is to gather public comments regarding this case. Ms. Stacy Cerget, of Fazal Khan & Associates, Inc., 43279 Schoenherr Road, Sterling Heights, Michigan 48313 was present to represent LRM Associates, LLC. She noted that three parcels to the south were recently rezoned to RB-2. She then noted that they are only asking for the front 550 feet to be rezoned and to leave the back as R-2. That is consistent with the Village Center plan in the proposed new Master Plan. The homes along Maybee Road will be protected as the site plan has incorporated additional trees and a retention pond and that will allow for additional landscaping behind this parcel as well. The developer proposes to be tied into the general character of the Gingellville Overlay District and follow the same guidelines with respect to architecture, walkability, lighting, signage, pathways, benches, etc. The parcels are 80-foot wide and are over 1,300-foot deep and we are only asking for the front 550 feet exclusive of the right-of-way, which would be 66 feet. The facts of this case are: 1)the current zoning of the property is not compatible with the uses to the south, southeast, and west of these two parcels; 2)the proposed rezoning would complement the existing uses already established on Baldwin Road; 3)the Planning Commission and Township Board of Trustees recently updated the proposed Master Plan for this section as well as several other key areas of the Township; 4)the future expansion of Baldwin Road has been taken into consideration with this proposed rezoning; 5)the approval of this rezoning would be consistent with the zoning to the south and there is already a proposed shared access drive for this site in the proposed CVS Pharmacy site plan so there will be no additional points of connection from Baldwin Road and there is also extension of the road and improvement of Baldwin Road with the proposed CVS Pharmacy site plan as well; and, 6)the rezoning will not detrimentally affect the surrounding properties as the property to the north is currently a rental and the properties to the east shall remain residential in nature all the way to the river. We feel strongly that this is a simple case for rezoning in support of the rezoning in light of the current update to the Master Plan and we ask that the rezoning be approved tonight. She also noted that she is here to answer any questions tonight relative to this petition. Chairman Zande offered time for public comments. Ms. Katalin Szoke, of 2850 Regency Court, commented that she brought letters from her neighbors in opposition to this proposed rezoning from the following residents: 1)Jill Kettler, of 3170 Maybee Road; 2)Celeste Boenick, of 3070 Maybee Road; 3)Thomas Ronnebaum, of 3160 Maybee Road; 4)Elaine Ronnebaum, of 3160 Maybee Road; and, 5)Matt Hobolth, of 3312 Ashley Drive*. She gave them to the Chairman. She noted that she was not in favor of the CVS Pharmacy rezoning and also asked about a project that was proposed several years ago. She also commented that the strip mall to the south of the site has several empty stores. She inquired what the purpose of public hearings is and whether the public's comments are really considered as part of the decision-making. Chairman Zande answered yes. Ms. Szoke noted that she will not shop at Walgreen's or CVS if it is built there. She shops at other stores where she gets better prices. Chairman Zande explained that the proposed project several years ago was withdrawn by the petitioner. He then explained that CVS Pharmacy first went through the entire rezoning process, the special land use process, and the site plan process. Ms. Szoke noted that she was not notified of any of those processes. Chairman Zande explained that the State law requires that residents and property owners within 300 feet of the subject site must be notified of public hearings. He also noted that the Master Plan Update was also reviewed for that area. Ms. Szoke noted that she believes that law should be changed and wants the Planning Commission to change the notification area to 1,000 feet. Chairman Zande noted again that this public hearing is to hear the public comments regarding the LRM Associates, LLC Rezoning request for the two parcels to the north of the CVS site. Fay and Bill Pierce, of 3134 Maybee Road, asked why they want to put a driveway by their house and told about their neighbor's house. Chairman Zande informed them that there is no project that has come into the Building Department for that area. Mr. Ryan Phillips, of 2848 Regency Court, inquired whether it is possible to rezone only part of a parcel. Chairman Zande replied yes. Mr. Phillips commented that he is opposed to this proposed rezoning at this time in light of the economic downturn. He enjoys the natural environment and wildlife and does not want to see more commercial in their area. He is concerned that they may end up with yet another vacant store. He then inquired regarding the rezoning process. Chairman Zande explained the rezoning procedures as required by Zoning Ordinance No. 78. Mr. R. Donald Wortman, (Township Planner), of Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc., explained that the back 300 feet or so portion of the lots would be used for a retention pond, which will provide storm water control for the CVS site and the subject two parcels to the north. Mr. Jasper Blochlinger, of 3078 Maybee Road, commented that he is opposed to the proposed rezoning and that the intersection there is very dangerous and is concerned about everyone's safety there. He is also concerned about the proposed retention pond since the drainage there is already bad because the drains are not cleaned out as they should be. He asked that members address the drainage issues. Mr. Mike Mamros, of 2736 Calais Drive, commented that he has lived here since 1986 and is opposed to this proposed rezoning. He is concerned about some of the uses allowed in RB-2 that could go on that property. He is also very concerned about the traffic issues. Mr. Tilak Kalra, of 3415 Baldwin Road, commented that he is opposed to this proposed rezoning. He inquired why all the neighboring parcels aren't rezoned at the same time if this is going to cause many rezonings one at a time. He is also concerned that he does not want a bar next to him, which could be allowed under the RB-2 zoning. Planner Wortman explained that the Planning Commission is only considering this application for these two parcels because that is all that the applicant is requesting to have rezoned. Mr. Kalra asked that members consider the consequences that there would be to his property if a bar were allowed to go on these parcels. Chairman Zande asked the representative for the applicant to come back to the podium to address the concerns raised by the public. Ms. Szoke inquired if she and the neighbors could petition to have the CVS Pharmacy rezoning reversed. Commissioner Dyl noted that there is a remedy under the law that if the citizens are opposed to a rezoning that has been approved by the Township Board, you have the right of referendum. The Township Clerk or the Oakland County Clerk's Office could advise you what all the requirements are. Ms. Cerget stated, Katalin brought up several issues including rezoning and I think that the hardest part for a planning commission is that the law prohibits me from submitting a site plan of what I want to do on that property when I'm asking for a rezoning. You don't get to know that unfortunately that's what the law says unless it comes through as a contractual rezoning and then I'm binding myself to what I want to do. There are two different types of rezonings. There's a contractual rezoning and a straight rezoning. The Township did not permit an application for a contract, but there is language in there now for a conditional rezoning. So, as a straight rezoning, they can't ask me what I'm going to do with it, it's against the law for them to do that. The last one that we did we came forward straight upfront explaining what we were doing and with a different applicant that was for the CVS. It was a CVS when we came through the first time. At the first meeting almost two years ago, there were several sites involved and that may be when a conversation was had with your neighbor. I know they had conversations with Mrs. Kettler on the next parcel and the next parcel after that and that may be the parcel they were talking about. There were two other parties involved and there was a bigger rezoning involved which included a senior living facility and potentially a bank. The bank fell through but the senior living facility still proceeded forward and that was our first request with the commercial upfront and the senior living facility on these parcels and the next parcel up and I think even one more farther than that. Those parcels were all under contract at that time. Sunrise Senior Living Facility which was the senior housing project at that time backed out due to the economy and they pulled out of all their projects in Michigan. So, that part of the application was withdrawn and that may be where the confusion comes in. As of right now, the current owner of these two parcels, as far as my knowledge, has not addressed or talked to any of the neighbors on Maybee Road to put any type of stub street to get back to those parcels at this time. There has been discussion with parcels to the north and there is an issue with one of the parcels to the north where they cannot sell their property, so that is why you won't see all this happening as one big project. So, Mr. Kalra's property is the last parcel that would be able to be obtained if he were willing to sell. The parcels as you go north become these long stretches of land that are about 80-foot wide in almost all cases and some of them larger and they're approximately 1,300-foot deep. A big portion of those properties, especially to the east along the Brown Drain have wetlands on them. The Township has a very stringent wetland ordinance about what you can and can't do with the wetlands. On these two particular sites the back 150 to 200 feet are wetlands and then they are proposing the retention pond, which will accommodate the CVS and potentially these two parcels. It has been sized to accommodate that and then there's another small section before you get to the 550 feet. So as far as these two parcels are concerned, and even the parcels north of that, you can see the wooded lines and there are substantial wetlands there that would not be able to be moved and will protect the residents to the east as far as visually, because the trees won't be going anywhere, so that was a concern that you had. Mr. and Mrs. Pierce talked about their neighbor's home and I explained to you about Sunrise and where that might have come into play. Mr. Phillips talked about footprints, sprawl, and some of the other same issues as others and then the plans for the 700 feet. Like I said, the first couple hundred feet is wetlands and woodlands and then you've got the retention pond, which I think the easement covers the entire back 350 feet on the CVS plans. So, that is completely under easement and can't be built on. So that really only leaves about 300 feet of developable land behind what we're proposing to be rezoned. Then Mr. Blochlinger talked about traffic concerns. As part of the CVS site, the parcel is going to end here at CVS. There is approximately 60 feet of greenspace and treed areas before you get to the entrance into CVS, which winds around the property and comes back out on the north property line of this parcel and it shares an access drive. Part of the driveway actually comes onto this parcel. Therefore, this parcel won't be asking for a separate driveway entrance, because the driveway will be shared between CVS and this parcel. That limits the amount of curb-cuts and traffic slowdowns on Baldwin Road. There would only be one curb-cut on Maybee Road going into CVS, which would be able to connect and have access into this site, so there wouldn't be another driveway on either side. In addition to that, the Road Commission for Oakland County (RCOC) is installing "smart" stoplights at this intersection on all four sides, which means that when you pull up to this intersection, there will be cameras mounted there, so when your left-turn lane on Maybee Road is backed up, it will clear your left-turn lane faster. It will move as the traffic moves, so when Baldwin Road's traffic is heavier and Maybee's is lighter, it will have a longer green light. Mr. Mamros asked about how traffic will come into the site and I think I explained that pretty clearly since then and then he asked about a drive to the retention pond. About his drainage problem, we would not be allowed to impede his drainage. If he's having a drainage problem when we do our topographical survey and look at that situation and if there is a way that we can help to rectify it, we would. We can't impede anybody's drainage, we can only improve it, so we would have to take that into consideration. If our site is dumping onto his, then we would have to fix that. Then, the driveway to the retention pond as proposed along just north of the south property line of the first parcel and that's not going to be paved, it's gravel. The question about whether the area between the front portion and the back portions could be split or platted, yes, you could do a single-family or multiple-family or duplexes on that piece, but not under the current zoning, it would have to be rezoned. I'm done answering the questions unless you have anything further. Chairman Zande stated, thank you. We have received some letters that were turned in by Ms. Szoke. Vice-Chairwoman Filarecki noted that the letters are all the exact same letter, which reads: "Please be aware that I'm opposed to the proposed rezoning of the two properties located at 3437 and 3439 Baldwin Road, Sidwells #09-29-126-016 and #09-29-126-017 to RB-2 as referenced in PC-2009-13. I wish to express my desire that these properties remain zoned as is to preserve the residential nature of this area." They are signed by: 1)Jill Hubbard Kettler, of 3170 Maybee Road; 2)Celeste Boenick, of 3070 Maybee Road; 3)Thomas Ronnebaum, of 3160 Maybee Road; 4)Elaine Ronnebaum, of 3160 Maybee Road; and, 5)Matt Hobolth, of 3312 Ashley Drive*. Mr. Phillips inquired about the 300 to 400 feet that would be allowed from the road to build on. Planner Wortman commented that the Master Plan indicates approximately 500 feet and the current zoning ordinance text indicates 350 feet. But during the Master Plan Update discussions, it is contemplated that we will be looking at the zoning text to make it consistent. He noted that the standards that Mr. Phillips is referring to are part of the Gingellville Overlay District, which has not been formally extended to this area yet. Chairman Zande inquired, anyone else? Ok, thank you. In that case, I declare that the PC-2009-13 public hearing has been held. Chairman Zande closed the PC-2009-13 public hearing at 8:44 p.m. * On file in the Building Dept. |
POSTED: 11/23/2009 01:46 PM