Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PC 12-21-21 create a mulch or stone walking through the wooded areas. This would help in preserving more trees along the path. Sue: I have concerns for only having one entrance for 129 homes. I would like to see some amenities included, like a water feature in the pond, benches,and a walking path.Can we add more greenspace?Is there a plan for overflow parking? A Motion made by Westermeier and seconded by Rider to send PZ-2021-00204 PUD to the January 4th Residential Committee,with the final vote coming back to the full Plan Commission. Approved 7-0,absent Hill,Potasnik. 7. Docket No.PZ-2021-00205 DP/ADLS: 11335 N.Michigan Rd.Apartments. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a new development with 4 future outlots and an apartment complex(244 units).The site is located at 11335 N.Michigan Road. It is zoned B-3/Business&Residential and is located within the US 421 Overlay zone. Filed by Ryan Wells of REI Real Estate Services,LLC. Petitioner: Jon Dobosiewicz,Nelson&Frankenberger,LLC: • With me tonight are Ryan Wells,director of development for REI,Aaron Hurt,project engineer, Jim Shinaver, and other members of our design team • This site was recently occupied by Altums Landscaping business • REI is the developer and current owner of the site • The existing buildings will be removed to develop 244 units for multi-family residential and 4 future outlots • Presented a site plan • Variance requests will be proposed at the February 2022 BZA meeting • The site is subject to commitments that were established in 1988. The redevelopment of this site requires approval by the Cannel Plan Commission. • We are proposing 10 buildings that will total in 244 units.These buildings will front the internal drive and future detention pond • 378 parking spaces will be provided through garage and surface parking • Access will be from Michigan Road at Bennett Parkway • We are proposing an amenity space that will include a pool and dog park • 3 buildings will be 2-stories,and the remaining 7 buildings will be 3-stories • Presented elevations of 2-story and 3-story buildings. A variance for building height is needed for the 3-story buildings due to their pitched roof design. • Building materials will include masonry and fiber cement siding.No vinyl material will be used. • The landscape plan complies with the Ordinance. The Ordinance requires 15-ft landscaping between a multi- family and Woodhaven subdivision. We will provide a 30-ft landscape along the parking,and 40-51-ft along the north perimeter adjacent to Woodhaven. • We are working with the Urban Forester to include tree preservation and new plantings • We did host a neighborhood meeting in December. 30-40 adjacent neighbors attended. We received multiple letters of concern from the public. • We ask this is sent to the February Pt Committee meeting, instead of the January 4th Committee,to give us more time to prepare and work with Staff and the adjacent neighbors. Public Comments: Terrence Kunstek,Woodhaven: I live directly north of the subject site. Our community was shocked with the proposed redevelopment. We feel the developer is not acting in good faith and is holding information. We have concerns with the setback variance,quality of the architecture,and density of the development. The Altum's 1988 agreement specifically prohibited this exact use,and we ask the Plan Commission to force the commitments of that agreement. We would request that this land to be developed into a Cannel City Park. Catherine Knox,Townes at Weston Pointe: I'm an adjacent neighbor to the south. I'm not opposed to residential redevelopment,just not something this high density.Headlights will come into my home.I don't like the idea of this much parking(lot)next to my home.This site plan was not done in respect to the adjacent neighbors.Will any of the trees along the southern property line be preserved? 6 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-21-21 Sally Shapiro,Woodhaven: I'm an adjacent neighbor to the north. I'm surprised that the three-story buildings are allowed to face our residential properties. Our neighborhood has been here for 40 years.The Michigan Overlay Zone is designed to help mitigate dramatic issues to the adjacent neighborhoods. I hope the neighbors will be able to go and speak at the ICommittee meetings since we have a lot of concerns. Brian Shapiro,Woodhaven: I helped write the Michigan Overlay Zone. It specifies that as you get closer to residential properties,a bigger buffer applies between residential and commercial.There are restrictions that run with this land. This is an unusual situation for the Plan Commission. The Weston Pointe commitments state that the east property line has a min. setback of 150-ft.A 3-story building would be allowed within 100-ft of the south and north property line,and 200-ft to east property line.Mr. Fehsenfeld,who lives to the east,made these commitments. The Woodhaven and Weston neighborhoods should have the same protections. How many people will be living in these apartments and jammed on this property?I hope you realize how many people will actual be living here and how out of whack this proposal is in line with the Michigan Overlay. Gordon Allen,4370 Weston Pointe Dr.: I am the owner of the commercial building directly south. They show a street along their entrance/exit,and when 300 plus cars use this street every day,this street is not meant for this. I pay into a maintenance fee for this street,and I think they need to pay into this same fee. The streets should probably be upgraded. There is no good existing landscaping along the south side. They need to plant healthy trees and shrubs. Rebuttal to Public Comments: Jon Dobosiewicz: • In 2010,Kroger filed a petition in front the of Plan Commission.It included the commitments and variances.It was approved by the Plan Commission in 2010. Kroger eventually withdrew their petition. • We are proposing a residential use next to a residential use.We feel our proposal is more favorable than having a retail commercial building with fueling pumps next to residential. • We are open to discussion and will work with the adjacent neighbors • We only received letters from the neighbors to the north.After hearing the concerns from a neighbor to the south, we will also look at ways to improve the landscaping buffer along the southern property line. Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • There are commitments on the land signed in 1988 that restrict the uses.They state that all other land uses in the B3 are prohibited unless specified by the Cannel Plan Commission. • Multi-family housing is an allowed use in the US 421 Overlay zoning district • Staff has worked with the petitioner to alter the design and layout • Kroger was approved in 2010 but the deal for the site fell through • The multiple variances being proposed relate to height,façade offset,building materials,design, side and rear setbacks,parking spaces,minimum lot area and density. • Additional work is required for this plan,and that we can get this redevelopment closer to meeting the standards of the Overlay. • Staff recommends this is sent to the Feb. 1 e Commercial Committee for further review and discussion Brad: I will close the public hearing at 8:27pm,but I will reserve the right to re-open the public hearing when this comes back to the full Plan Commission. There's a sense that a great deal of work needs to be done with this petition. Committee Comments: Nick: When are the variances being heard by the BZA?Jon Dobosiewicz: At the February or March BZA meeting. Wouldn't it be best that the BZA would hear their variance requests before it comes back to the full Plan Commission? Jon Dobosiewicz: We anticipate the BZA would hear this before this came back to the full Plan Commission. Nick: I would like to see a pedestrian path plan.I have concerns for the safety of all the pedestrians in this area. A traffic Istudy is needed. Making a left turn out of this site is a nightmare. Carrie: There's not a lot I like about this project. I don't see any of the intentions of the US421 Overlay in this project. Adjacent property values will be affected.Does this meet a specific US421 architectural style?This has no aesthetic appeal. Christine: I agree with Carrie. The Michigan Overlay standards are there for a reason.The current proposal doesn't fit in any of the architectural styles. A lot of work has to be done with this project. 7 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-21-21 Brad: How does the building height and setbacks work together?What is height requested where a given setback proposal is?How does the landscaping fit in?What are distances to the adjoining property improvements and not just to the property lines?I know our standards are written to the property lines. The Overlay speaks of the building heights along the façades. We normally measure to the peak of the roofline. Make sure we are applying the correct standards.In the elevations,the building types and numbers do not correspond to the site plan.Make sure the site maps are correctly labeled.What are the US421 Overlay architectural styles that the building elements conform to?How does one access any of the four outlots without any landscaping being removed since no curb cuts are being shown on the plans?Jon Dobosiewicz: In early discussions with Staff,we were under the impression that the US421 Overlay architecture standards wouldn't apply to this project since it's 400 plus feet away from Michigan Road. The architect did not design it to the Overlay standards. However,we will now charge the architect with that task and will come back with revisions. A Motion made by Rider and seconded by Westermeier to send PZ-2021-00205 DP/ADLS to the February 1't Commercial Committee,with final approval by the full Plan Commission. Approved 7-0,absent Hill,Potasnik. Old Business: 8. Docket No.PZ-2021-00134 Z: GOAT Rezone. The applicant seeks B2/Business rezone approval. The site is located at 220 2nd St SW in Frank Hawkins Addition Lot 1. It is currently zoned R2/Residence and Old Town Overlay,Character Subarea. Filed by Dave Coots of Coots, Henke&Wheeler,on behalf of Tomahawk Holding LLC,owner. Petitioner: Anthony Paganelli • With me tonight are Kevin Paul,owner,and co-counsel Tom Perkins and Dave Coots • Our last hearing was 3 months ago by Plan Commission and they tabled our petition.After 3 months of work with Staff,the City,and our Architectural team,we believe we are in an agreement with Staff and the Petitioner. • We are agreeing to substantial changes to the architectural design,to provide a development plan,future ADLS approval,and a list of commitments to limit our uses under the B2 zoning. We are willing to exclude any permitted use of the property for a tavern or nightclub.A draft of the commitments were provided in our packet. • The word tavern is in our name,GOAT. Despite the T that stands for tavern, it will be only be operated as a restaurant and bar,and not as a nightclub or tavern. We do not want to change our name. Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • The UDO states an alcohol permit must have the restaurant component in order serve alcohol/obtain permit • Staff believes that B-7 is the more appropriate use for the intent of the district and list of uses compared to the B-2 district and the list of commitments. B-7 also requires DP and ADLS approval. • However, lot coverage and setbacks make the site undevelopable under B-7, so they would need significant amount of variances • A large indoor area is now in the site plans,this should help to keep the noise down • The B-2 proposal is accompanied by the commitments that restrict the allowed uses to what B-7 would allow. • They worked with local architect,Dan Moriarity,for the building addition that would fill the outdoor space,add bathrooms,and alleviate the noise that was happening outside on site. • We can continue to work on the list of commitments and the design of building at tonight's meeting, or we can send this to the Commercial Committee for further discussion. Committee Comments: Sue: If this is forwarded to the City Council, it would still have to come back to the Plan Commission for DP and ADLS approval? Rachel Keesling: This is only for the Rezone.The City Council would have to add in the commitments that a DP and ADLS are required,since it is not a requirement for the B-2 zoning district. Sue: If we want to tighten up the allowable uses,we will need to do that now or at Committee? Rachel Keesling: We can do that now,or at a Committee. They have a current list of commitments,and we can add to them if needed. Sergey Grechukhin: The City Council will have the ability to review and change the commitments. Brad: Are the Petitioners willing to work on this list of commitments at tonight's meeting?Anthony Paganelli: We are willing to work on these commitments tonight. Rachel Keesling: The list of permitted uses for the B-2 zoning district is very long. We do not have definitions for some of the permitted uses. We have been continually working on this list with the petitioner. 8 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes 12-21-21