001Hey, that works. Good evening, uh, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Charter Township of Oxford Planning Commission regular meeting for today, November 13, 2025. And uh I am chairing the meeting tonight. So you may find some mistakes, other things going on since this is my first time at doing it. >> But we gave Corey Bailey a few days off and so you're stuck with me. So, let's start out by uh calling the meeting to order, which we've already done. And now uh let's stand and give our respects to the flag. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. Can we get a roll call of members, please? >> Austin. >> Yes. Oh yeah, here lastly.
002>> Let's here >> Wagner >> here. >> Turner >> here. >> We have a >> Okay. All right. [clears throat] Next item would be to approve the agenda for tonight. Motion to approve the agenda. >> Second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Okay. Next item there is conflicts of interest or expert contact. Anybody have any comments? Anything we need to cover there? No. >> No. No. >> Okay. Very good. All right. Approval of the minutes from the planning commission regular meeting of October 23rd. >> Motion >> 25. >> Motion to approve minutes planning commission regular meeting October 23, 2025. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a second. U all those in favor say I. >> I. I. Okay, next item here is public comment on any item not scheduled for public hearing
003on this agenda. Now, to do that, uh we ask that you take no longer than three minutes. Start out with your name, your address, and your subject, and up to three minutes of time. And then uh if you haven't covered everything, if you would wait until the very last person has completed their comments, you could come back and uh speak again. So, with that, uh, do we have anybody that has any comments tonight from the floor? Come up to the mic if you will. Please state your name, address, 81 West, >> okay? >> Is this the right forum to provide feedback that's supposed my issue with it is one, you know, I'm concerned about my own property like that. Second would be the modification to the entrance to third would be We already see a
004lot of traffic cutting through water stone to avoid making a left turn. I believe building that in that location would increase that amount of traffic cutting through the neighborhood to avoid and just general traffic overall heavy think much worse. That's my concern with it. I realize you want to do something with the land probably not store what people around here want. Maybe people cutting through want that. Okay, >> somebody else. Okay, if there's no one else, we'll move on to the uh commissioner's comments. Any of you have anything you'd like to >> Not as Not as of now. >> Okay. >> We're good. Thank you. >> Good. >> Okay. >> All right. Item nine on the agenda has to do with partition PC23. 5. The practitioner is Trident Press 3 LLC, 3400 East Lafayette in
005Detroit. Now, before we move, what did I do? Before we go any further, we'll just make a a few comments about rules of discussion things that way for public testimony. Any members of the public wishing to address the commission during the public hearing should give their name, address, position, and the issue they want to talk about. Uh the general public shall limit their remarks to three minutes, and we've got a timer here that will go off when your three minutes are up. Uh, no person shall be permitted to speak twice on the same issue until everyone is to be heard, has had a chance to speak. Persons will only be recognized a second time if they have something new to add that hasn't already been brought to the commission's attention. No person other than a
006commission member, township consultant, or township staff shall be allowed to address an issue for public hearing following the closing of the public hearing by the chair. Okay. Do we have anybody else that wants to speak at this point? All right, moving on then to our public hearing motion. Need to uh have a motion to open the public hearing. >> So, motion to open the public hearing. >> A second. >> Okay, we have a second. >> A second. All those in favor? >> I. >> All right. We [clears throat] do have some order for the public hearing. We'll just [clears throat] run through this quickly. The order of presentation shall be as follow. One, the presentation by the planner and that's my tail here. The next presentation is by the presenter whomever you wish to speak.
007>> Jim would go after me. >> Well, >> we'll get Jim in there sometime. Keep him awake. >> We will do that. [laughter] Um, all right. public hearing testimony. We we've already talked about that and we will close the public hearing and comments from the township consultant and staff can be referred to. We'll review any open correspondents that have come in. Do you know if you've seen anything? >> Okay. Uh at some point then we'll need a motion. We'll discuss the motion and we'll end up with a vote on going forward with this uh plan. So with that in in mind, Mattail, we'll let you go first, but you only get a minute and a half. That's fine. I'll try. >> All right. Good evening. Posa Carly Wartman Associates. We are the B consultants for
008the township. So, as Mr. Turner had identified you, what you have in front of you tonight is the request for final site plan approval uh for a residential planned unit development. Uh I have my notes. Um obviously this is a project that has spanned over almost two years, one and a half years uh ago is when we were looking at the preliminary. I know we have some new planning commissioners since that time. Um, you know, we've worked hard to kind of build the storyline from preliminary all the way to today. So, I'm going to attempt to thread a needle through my presentation, uh, kind of merging the past with the present. But when I'm done, if you have any questions, if there's anything that needs clarity, whatever it may be, you know, feel free to
009ask and, uh, we'll figure it out. Uh so again uh Tri Crest Homes uh the third LLC is requesting final site plan approval uh for new residential plan new development located uh at the corner of East Trainer Road and Oxford Lake Road. If you give me a minute, I'll kind of shoot to a basic overlay of the site plan. So, the site is 144.9 acres and encompasses Tmore Lake while bordering mud and floss lakes to the north. The project is proposing 62 single family detached and 104 single family attached units within one condominium development. Uh units will be a for sale product. All units provide flexible floor plans ranging from three to four bedrooms and two to four bathrooms. Twotory and ranch models are provided. Uh per requirements uh the conventional plan uh was provided
010at preliminary uh and is required to show what the site would be developed in the R1A zoning. So while this is a proposed PUB uh the conventional plan that was uh required at preliminary and included in the finalist here essentially when you do a PUD uh the it allows the developer to propose deviations from the underlying zone um and the return for that is that the development offers substantial benefits um and which we'll get to further in my review um but just for reference this is the conventional plan so developed under R1A which is our densest single family uh 6,000 foot lot zone. Uh 173 units would be possible. Uh and those developments do not have an open space requirement like your PUB ordinance does. So some of the amenities that are offered in the
011project are pedestrian dock access uh provided to both lakes. The western portion of the site uh condominium documents indicate um that motorized watercraft would not be allowed on Tmore Lake. Uh there is a pickle ball court or sport court proposed at the Oxford Lake Road entrance. Um and there are pathways through the site that offer passive recreation. So to kind of backtrack a little bit through the history of the site in April of 2024, the preliminary plan was presented to the planning commission indicating the type of development being proposed. uh the waiverss being requested from the base zoning R1A and the RP RPUD standards, the substantial benefits for the site uh what they were offering as far as substantial benefits for the site uh the type of housing offered and the passive recreation amenities that
012they were going to provide. After substantial presentations from township consultants on the applicant as well as public comment and applicant dialogue with the PC, the plan received conditional preliminary approval conditions centered on the site continuing to meet the requirements to of offering a substantial benefit above and beyond what was possible with conventional zoning, full site control, contiguous land, and incorporating at least two superior design elements per year ordinance standards. Additional conditions related uh were related to using native landscaping, retention of existing trees to the greatest extent possible, quality architecture for the housing, and fulfilling any other requirements as noted in the um and the consultants reviews for the preliminary plan. In October of 24, the applicant presented a modified layout to township staff as it related to the placement of several single family housing units
013along the drive between Mud Lake and Tour Lake and the swapping of three unit and two cache models. The result was more homes being moved to the south side of the road uh with the rear yard space in Telmore Lake as opposed to Mud Lake. And if you give me a minute, what I can show you here is so this is the final plan that they are proposing this evening. This was the original plan at preliminary. And my apologies to kind of get the whole site in scope. It's a it's a bit of a challenge. But essentially what you can see here is that there's two units here and then there's a row of units that kind of follow the drive that would have had their backyards facing uh Mud Lake. What they modified to
014was what you have before you this evening where now these two units are gone. The row has been shortened and kind of the difference has been pushed down here. Now the impetus for this change really came from the fact that prior to development on the site uh there were several small scattered conservation easements throughout the land and those easements are conservation can't do anything. Uh so the the applicant knew this and knew that they would need to work with Eagle to rectify this. So in the process of working with Eagle to consolidate the conservation ements elsewhere on the site, uh it it kind of fostered this change. Um now this change did net them two additional single family units. So originally they were at 60 single family units and now they're up to 62. But
015the slight increase in the two units um they're actually under what you could develop conventionally. uh and the fact that actually more homes now back up to the the Telmore Lake which will be completely encompassed by the development. The township did not see this as a major amendment. So a major amendment would have had to come back to you in a new preliminary site plan. Uh the township did not deemed that as such. That does not mean that we approved it. It just meant that we were okay with this change coming to you in final and not back to a preliminary stage. Make sure I'm on the right plan now. Okay. [clears throat] So with that um walking paths were also modified to be predominantly deadends in the viewing areas for the lakes. Previously the
016walking path weaved between and behind housing units which can be seen as less optimal. Uh these changes resulted again in the two additional single family detached units. Um the consolidation and increased size in the conservation ement areas resulted in again kind of the amending of the site plan. Um after my apologies I I went ahead of my notes. So again, the township reviewed this. It's in front of you this evening, and I'm happy to answer questions about it. In September of 2025 this year, a final site application was submitted for review. After one revise and resubmit round, uh the application, as you see it tonight, was submitted and is ready for your review. Tonight, the PC or the planning commission is responsible for determining if the applicant has met the conditions of the preliminary approval
017and the standards of the RPD ordinance. So with that they in looking and comparing the single family site with the R1A zoning designation from a lot standard and a setback standard there's actually no major deviations that were requested for those lots. R1A has 60 foot width lots. That's what they're proposing. They have a front se of 25 ft. That's what they're proposing. Sidey yards of 7 and 12 ft. Rear yards of 20 feet. Natural feature se of 25 ft. there's no deviations in the single family. These are essentially what R1A lots would look like. Um and for the building heights, again, it's still 35 ft and two stories. So, from a single family development perspective, um there are no major deviations from R1A. Um as we talk about natural features from the site, um land
018improvements have commenced uh on the property. As noted earlier, the conservation easements have been consolidated primarily um and have been increased actually 15 acres to 45 acres. So again, when I spoke earlier about these constantly scattered conservation units, if you tallied it all up, it was about 15 acres, but in half acre, 1 acre, 3 acre chunks throughout the site. Now they've been consolidated into two or three large conservation areas that equal 45 uh acres in conservation. And just the benefit there is that it's it's conservation. You cannot do anything in them. Um and so in perpetuity if anyone wanted to modify anything associated in those areas they would have to go through Eagle and that is not that is not an easy process nor is it guaranteed any kind of approval from the state
019that they'd be allowed to do so. Uh a woodland report was off uh was provided in the final site plan. It's dated April 17th 2024. It indicates the woodland areas along the portions of the site that border cross mud and Tmore Lake and show that those areas would be preserved. Um did also kind of offer information on where invasive species had taken over uh and where certain mature trees would be retained on the site. Um staff did work with the applicant on crafting language uh that spoke to the condominiums association's responsibility for maintaining Lake Telmore or the health of Lake Telmore. Those are included in the master declaration documents that were included in your legal council packet this evening. Uh circulation for the site really hasn't changed. Uh there's still two access points. One at
020Oxford Lake uh Oxford Lake Road to the north and then one along Boulevard at interest at East Strainer to the south. Uh the roads or the ride ofways throughout the development are 50 ft wide. Uh there's five foot wide sidewalks shown throughout the development. And then the emergency access road off to the east. Uh so originally it was a 20ft gravel road that's been improved to asphalt um which was at the pleasure of the fire department. They are showing safety paths along East Trainer um all the way from the Oxford Lake Road intersection all the way up to the existing four homes along East Trainer. Uh tonight they are requesting they they've gone in front of a safety path and now they're front plan commission requesting a waiver from having to install the safety path
021along this frontage on East Drainer. Uh they're also requesting a waiver from in lie of payment. There is a mechanism in the ordinance to request that if there are geographic challenges with the site, the border, the property line runs so tight to the lakes border and that topography there is so steep that essentially installing the safety path and or making them we'll talk about landscaping later, but making them landscape that area would you could argue it does more harm than it does good. Uh and so they are that is something the planning commission will need to consider tonight is waving the requirement for the safety path along this portion of the strainer road. uh for site utilities. Obviously Jim can go over that in more detail. Um but they do have they are in the
022water sewer district and they propose using storm water treatment units prior to discharge into Tmore Lake for storm water and or detention ponds on site for landscaping. Let me bring up their plan. I need it memorized. So the landscaping spread between two sheets. [clears throat] But if you've been to the site, you can see that the trees along Oxford Lake Drive have been retained uh and ours are to stay in place for part of the agreement. Uh the woodland report uh included in the packet showed the areas that were going to be cleared and the areas that would be preserved. Uh each area provided a record of ve vegetation found in each section of the site. Uh again, including invasive species, but also the mature trees to be retained. The landscaping uh does comply with
023the ordinance requirements applied to an RM housing. So again, this is PE. You can kind of there's some flexibility in that, but we utilize the RM landscaping standards for this portion of the site, and they do comply with those standards. Uh the applicant uh does not technically have frontage along Oxford Lake Road for a small strip of land between their property and the rightway itself, which would alleviate their requirement to put screening along that portion of the site. However, they have offered uh that with the account of 68 new trees regardless of the requirement to do so. So, those are kind of the basic standards that we would go through. Um the next part of my review, we're going to kind of revisit the PUB waivers that were granted. They are not requesting any new
024waivers this evening. the waivers that are on the site plan were granted as part of preliminary, but I'm just going to kind of recap those real quick and then well maybe not real quick and then we can get to question. So uh so PUDS must u they must meet certain criteria to be eligible for consideration. Uh during the preliminary site plan review, the planning commission did determine these criteria were met or could be met through conditional approval. Um the first uh in your ordinance is a recognizable and substantial benefit to both the end users and the overall community beyond what would be realized in ROA development. The applicant provided information uh talking about reclaiming the old gravel pit into a lakefront community, providing a mix of attached and detached housing units, providing 33% 33.4% open
025space which is more than the 25% minimum requirement. developing the property with 166 units which would be less than the 17300 R1A your PUD ordinance and most PUB ordinances offer what's called a density bonus meaning if they really they really meet all the standards you can actually allow them to develop the site at a higher density they at no point were requesting that but had they have been requesting that they could have requested up to 207 units on the site um they speak preserving woods and desirable natural features and removing invasive and undesirable species. Um planting native species throughout the development and improving east road uh east drainer road pursuant to the RCO RCOC approved plans. So in our observation of this Carlile Wartman, we note that the mix of housing does cater to separate
026but important demographics with both kind of a younger professional but then an aging in place population. Uh the project does offer 33.4% 4% open space over the 25% minimum. Uh the conservation areas being increased is big from the perspective of that land was going to be open regardless. It's not to say that you know all of a sudden they made new land that they're going to preserve. They're just dedicating more open space to conservation and open spaces does not necessarily mean conservation. There are ways to develop within open space but conservation units you cannot. So, we did cite that as a benefit that that going from 15 acres to a consolidated 45 acres was um you know was a substantial benefit. Um and amenities included uh were lake viewing areas and recreation courts. Again, initially
027the paths kind of weaved between units. We have found in the past that sometimes that's a bit of a challenge to privacy andor uh owners perceptions about backyard rights and things of that nature. Now most of the trails just dead end dead end into viewing areas which we saw as optimal. Um while we do while we do admit that you know reclaiming the site, improving the site uh from a land perspective and implementing improvements to East Trainer Road per our COC requirements is an improvement for the development. It is something they would have been required to do under R1A. So we don't put as much weight on those statements just because by zoning standards they would have had to do that anyways. Um but again the stuff cited earlier were what we we recorded as
028substantial benefits to the site. Um another requirement is unified control. Essentially the site andor sites have to be owned and operated by uh one property owner and developed by such which is Trident in this case. Uh the land has to be contiguous. This is really just to ensure that we don't have some development that's got three acres between it and three acres below it and so on and so forth. They meet that requirement. Uh the last category of requirements is superior design. At least two superior design elements outlined in section 148C shall be provided. So the applicant's response to this was that their landscaping utilizes native species and provides buffer zones. Uh 50 foot wide roads were utilized to offer more green space. Typically a road is 60 has a 60 foot ride ofway. They're
029proposing 50. Um so we noted that the use of native and non-invasive species and the maintenance of wetland buffers and land dedicated conservation easements kind of were in line with their landscaping statements. Uh their mix of units between attached and detached single family units was another design element that they cited. Uh you do not have a zoning district in Oxford that allows for these two types of units to be on one site. It's either R1A or some form of RM. Again, given that these kind of cater to two different two different demographics that are in demand and find another dword, I will. Um, we kind of noted that as a benefit. You couldn't develop this under conventional zoning. Um, and then architectural details uh include housing units that complement each other and surrounding developments as
030well as utilize equal materials like brick and various forms of sighting. So, we noted that the facades of all the units are predominantly shake sighting, brick veneer, and synthetic stone. Some units offer faux vented gables or active dormers depending on whether a second floor is optioned. Sides and rear elevations are predominantly horizontal siding but do offer brick veneer around the base of every unit. Um open space is provided throughout the development. Again if this was R1A that open space would not be a requirement. They could offer it but they wouldn't have to by zoning requirements. So whenever we whenever we consider PUD, a PUD development agreement has to be crafted as well. And this is kind of where the waiverss are put in writing along with other other requirements for the development uh that that
031are an agreement between the applicant and the township on how the sites to be developed for the site plan. [clears throat] So the requested waiverss and modifications, as I said, are required to be incorporated into the development agreement. Um, in our review, we did provide a table that outlines the waiverss and modifications associated with the project. No new waiverss or modifications are being requested. However, we do offer the following recap for the final review for the planning commission. Uh, the waiver for the 100 foot buffer between units and property lines around the perimeter. Um, that waiver has not been modified. Uh, it does require some amending. Uh should the planning commission approve the site plan, we will need to reference that when they added the two units and move some units around, the numbering of
032the units themselves changed. So they didn't change the level of waiver they needed. It's just the numbers associated with specific units changed. So if we do uh approve this evening, we will need to amend that in the motion. Um but that standard is essentially indicating that PUB developments are to have a 100 foot buffer property line and the improvement itself. The waiver was granted for the units along here, these units here, and then these single family units along here. Uh the waiver from requiring a landscape boulevard entrance at Oxford Lake Road. So to our PUDs are supposed to have boulevard entrances. The entrance for Oxford Lake Road was waved. There were some cited issues with how wide the rideway was going to be and how it was going to tie in with the intersection across
033the street. the waiver from installing landscape island culde-sacs for the fire department's concerns. So in your ordinance, these culde-sacs would have required landscape islands. Um this is not the first time the fire department's expressed concerns with that. Um they can cause issues for navigating the trucks. Um obviously if the fire department has to get somewhere it will and if it has to drive over something it will. Um but then there becomes a conversation about who's going to report that, who's responsible for it, so on and so forth. So the fire department did request that those were removed and the planning commission did agree a preliminary [clears throat] uh the waiver to allow areas that have less than 100 ft between residential units to be considered open space. So in your ordinance there is language about
034the distance between these units would need to be 100 ft to be considered open space. Again that layout didn't change from preliminary. Uh so this area can count towards that 33 4.4% open space that they're proposing that was waved at preliminary uh waiver from landscaping on Oxford Lake Road and East Drainer east of the four existing homes. So again that was our conversation earlier about the safety path down here. It's the same with the request [clears throat] for the landscaping to get in there and improve the land and plant 40 evergreen trees would do more damage than just leaving it as it is. And then as I had mentioned earlier, it's really more or less a waiver. They didn't have to request, but for clarity, it was out there. Again, per this strip of land
035and you'd never be able to see it and I' have, you know, it's it's a very thin strip of land that is technically another parcel. That doesn't it means that they do not have frontage on Oxford Road, that portion. However, the landscape the land commission still granted a waiver from any landscaping to go along that stretch. That being said, they have provided buffers in that area regardless. And then the waiver to allow [clears throat] road width and culdeac dimensions as shown in the site plan. So again, your standard in our ordinance is 60 foot rightways, but the PD ordinance does allow for a request to do 50. They requested the planning commission grant. So with that uh that is just a recap of the project itself. Um at the end of our review we just
036cited that again the planning commission will need to consider whether or not they would recommend a waiver to the township board for the safety path construction and the ina payment that would be required. Uh beyond that, um the parcels need to be combined. Um [clears throat] the parcels need to be combined before the final CFOs are offered out to the properties. Um and we've been in contact with the applicant about that. Uh the condominium draft documents are part of your packet this evening that the planning commission needs to approve along with the site plan should they grant approval. And then last but not least, um again, we need to if if approval is granted by the planning commission, we need to amend the units that were granted at 100 foot sent back. So with that,
037I'm happy to take any questions if the planning commission has. >> Okay. The uh lot sizes for the attached single family homes, do you have any idea what those what those lot sizes are? >> So those are not actually defined as lots. The attached units, that would almost kind of be considered like a sight condo. >> Okay. So, [clears throat] excuse me. So, like with your RM developments, you know, we wouldn't have one lot dedicated to a threelex or a duplex. >> I see. I see. Okay. >> Anybody else have any questions for the tail? >> Yeah. >> Go ahead. >> Good evening. Um, can we talk about this uh strip of land real quick? Um, it was topic of discussion along Gillespie there, I'm sorry, Oxford Lake Drive, the there strip of liners. Is
038there a right of way there that allows that road to go through there? What's what's the uh what allows that to happen? >> Yeah. So, [clears throat] I I can't tell you how or why, and I can actually Well, I might be able to show you, but yes. So, this it exists here and it exists here, but there was room left in that in that strip of land for a road to connect to and it must have been done with some sort of conscience because it lines up with Glasby Street. >> Okay. >> So, it must have been foreseen at some point time that a road would be there. But yes, there is there is a gap in that strip of land where they do have just that amount of frontage to get that through.
039>> Okay. I know that was a topic a year and a half ago. >> Yeah. >> Um >> we were here for four hours. There were a lot of hot topics. >> Right. Um the safety path on trainer. Can you um zoom in on a little bit? >> Yeah. [clears throat] >> I was looking at the strip here and how it sort of dead ends that that person's right near their what appears to be their driveway. I'm just I'm concerned. Does that really make sense to do that? Um, we're not extending it further down drainer. And if I were that property owner, I probably wouldn't want a path to stop right at my driveway because it see sort of introduces traffic that was never there before, pedestrian traffic. >> Yeah. And I feel like I
040feel like there's been conversation about I'll let the applicant address it um when they come up with the day, but working Yes. figuring something out to where that maybe makes a little bit more sense or prepares maybe for one day across a drainer I think is definitely able to to accommodate. >> Okay, thank you. Um, few more questions. That's okay. >> Uh, let's see. Um, the conservation easement, you were saying that nothing can be built in that property. When the conservation easement was reset or set after preliminary site plan. Is that correct? >> Yeah. So, at preliminary the the conservation needs were still kind of scattered throughout the site and that was a part of a condition of of approval that they needed to rectify that with Eagle before they could come back from final.
041>> So, when I look at the the new conservation ement which appears to follow the silk fence line that's on the soil erosion plan. >> Okay. >> It appears that and help me if it doesn't because that's my reference really. Um, >> it's shown here. I mean, it's shown here, too. >> Conservation easement, >> right? >> I'm listening. I didn't mean to cut you off. >> No, no, you're good. In particular, can you zoom go up there a little bit to that side of the road? Those lots that those sites that were removed >> and where the property line is from uh >> through here, >> right in that area, right? >> Yeah. right here. >> So, in the conventional plan, you wouldn't be able to build homes there, would you? >> Um, if if
042there's a conservation easement that's defined and you can't build in it, you can't build anything in it. >> Correct. >> It doesn't appear that the conventional plan that's shown in front of us on the packet reflects that. >> There's homes on right cutting right through the middle of that. Let me go >> and and maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that's what I noticed and I wanted to >> ask about that. >> These two guys, >> right? And that that's just one example that I I saw. I didn't dig into it too much further than that. [clears throat] >> But based on when I see that the conservation ement now, it cuts right through those two houses. So it it I'm having a hard time understanding is this really the actual count that the conventional
043plan would have if those homes can't exist there. So I would I guess the con the conventional plan can kind of be developed in a I'm not going to call it a loose manner but it can take some some assumptions in that if they >> I understand that. >> Okay. Yeah. >> If the assumption was with the conventional plan that those easements would be rectified some way or in a different manner or alleviated completely then this would be a legitimate conventional plan. >> The only the concern I have is we're talking about there could potentially 207 units, right? That was a discussion point >> if they went for a density bonus with the with the PUB, >> right? >> Yeah. >> And then um there was [clears throat] discussion before that there could be I
044don't know a different number was 160 or 173 I think was the number >> under under R1 >> under R1A >> for this conventional plan. >> But if those two homes as an example can't really be built there, that number isn't 73. It's 17 171 if they can't be built, right? >> Yeah. I mean, you could make an argument that there's a handful of these that could not be developed the way the conservation ements are laid out now, but we're I guess we're comparing past knowledge to current knowledge, >> right? I'm just it's what I'm hearing, you know, we through some of this discussion is that well, we could build this and it's a lot more dense and it's a lot more homes and this other brings substantial benefit and I I believe there is
045benefit to the plan. I'm looking at it and you know it's a difficult property to develop because of the contours and everything but um I just want to make sure the information we're being provided is accurate so we can make a educated decision on what is real and what's not. And when I saw that, I thought, wait a second. Is this really is this conventional plan showing more homes to help us go a certain way in our decision- making because well, you could get this or this. >> Sure. >> And you know, right off the gate and [clears throat] looking at that going, well, if I noticed that there, is there any other places on the plan that there could be a that couldn't have been updated? So I will say for conventional plans the
046ordinance does not require that a and actually the state law does not require that like a full site plan be submitted for the conventional plan as well. So when we do our reviews of a conventional plan to determine whether or not it's valid. It's very it's very cursory in the essence of like you know are they you know if there was if there was a documented like massive wetland in the middle of here we would be able to say no these units wouldn't count um if there was an old railroad ement that cut clean through the site you know we could kind of pick up our debt the oddity with this site was the conservation ements that were on there without really any kind of rhyme or reason and I'm not saying that's good or
047bad we just could not figure out why there all these spot easements on the site for what we had to work with and what they were providing. We did determine that this was valid. I get the point that you're making. I just want to make sure you understand that like it's conser conventional plans are not like fullbite plans. We would not put them through every single ringer of your standard. We would just look to say, okay, the lots that they're dimensioning are correct. The land that they're putting them on could could sustain development. You know, how are they what are they presenting here? Okay. So, I just I'm concerned that, you know, should we even use those numbers that were mentioned? You know, we could get 173 or 207, but we're getting 164. Is that
048the new number? >> 166. Okay. The old number was 164, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. So, I really want to just take those old those numbers and just try to forget about them for a second because it's really not >> it may not be accurate. um for the for the amount of detail required for a conventional plan it is but I'm but I'm telling you that with the acknowledgement that the amount of detail required for a conventional plan is not a sub plan. >> Fair enough. Um just a few more questions. >> Um let's see the design elements. You talked about the design elements. One thing that we talked about a year and a half ago was that there was going to be this park provided as part of the uh access to the lake,
049public access. >> Yeah. >> And that was um sort of a selling feature at the time and um I didn't I don't there's not discussion about that anymore and um concerned maybe the um the applicant or petitioner can speak to that more what they plan to do with that for the benefit of the community. Um, is that appropriate or do you have information on that? >> No, I think that's a fair point. So, yeah, preliminary uh for the commissioners, this area was and in conversations prior to application, the uh the owner and developer had discussed maybe deeding this land over or donating it to the township um as a as kind of like a waterfront access park. Um, I was I was not necessarily involved in the conversation that took place afterwards, but I know
050that the uh the township did discuss the matter with Parks and Wreck, looked at it a few different ways, and ultimately parks and wreck declined to accept the property as a park. Um, citing some concerns with cost of maintenance, liability, um, you know, any kind of improvements that the site would need. So, that that gets us to today where now instead this area is just part of the conservation easement um, and open space that they're providing with the site. What what would be done with it from this point forward, I'll let them speak to. >> Okay. That's all I have for >> Okay, >> I'm good. >> Anybody else? Okay. >> Okay, Mr. Sharp, looks like we will give you the floor. [clears throat] Good evening. Chip sharp sharp engineering engineering consultant. Um the way
051that your process works, you go through your preliminary site plan. Uh the applicant gets their approval. Then we really make them dive in and do the design, do the hard design, go get all the permits and things like that. And then when they come back to you for final site plan, all this should be pretty clean, you know, from a engineering aspect, we'll call it. So you should be uh I know that your letters my letter is in your packet there. I just want to let you know that um we have approved all the the final engineering for the project itself. Um they have obtained their land improvement permit. Um they have the eco permits that Matt's been discussing in the stream to waters their parts 301 and 303 permits. Um just kind of running
052through everything. We a couple minor comments, but basically the grading plans that we're seeing on this final site plan match the approved engineering plans. The sanitary sewer, there's capacity within the sewer system. Um, and they're working through uh that's the only permit that they do not have at this point is their sanitary sewer permit through Eagle. I think it's just going through the process. I don't think there'll be any hang-ups with it, but that's the only permit that they do not have. With regards to the water, again, there's ample water to supply this development here. They do have their eco permit already for that. Storm water. Again, everything is going through either some pre-treatment measures before it enters the lakes or into the into the detention ponds. So, they're meeting all the storm water requirements.
053And with regards to some pavements, um and those they do have as mentioned the uh the access drive for the fire. Um the type of pavement that they're doing, they're just doing they could change it, but right now it's just asphalt with curb and gutter in there. That's all acceptable to us. Um they are making improvements out on drain road for the road commission requirements. So, I don't want to say it's going to eliminate everything that's happening there, but it's certainly going to help with the backups that occur. And really, that that's it. Other than the safety path waver that Matteo mentioned, but from an engineering perspective, we are 99% there. We're just waiting on that Eagle permit. And I guess really with that, I'll keep my presentation short, let you guys get to the
054real work, unless you have any questions for me. Any questions for >> question on drainage coming off of the uh >> Would you mind? Are you able to control that? >> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. >> I think I saw a note in there somewhere about that pond that drains does it drain to a ditch? >> This one out here right here in the corner. >> Right. >> Yes. >> And then does that drain to the lake? >> Um believe it actually drains the opposite direction. Actually, I think it goes underneath Drainer Road and it drains onto the uh there's a wetland that is on the um on the golf course on the opposite side of the road. >> So, the four neighbors there, the four houses, >> they set up real high. We put a
055water man through there a couple years ago and I know that they're sitting up kind of at the peak and the w the drainage comes down the hill there and ends up on the par three golf course right along or the par three hole right along drainer road other wetlands on the property and drains to the south. So they shouldn't experience any issues with drainage. >> No. >> And changes? >> Nope. And the road commission saw the proposed outlet and they approved the uh the pipe that's coming out upon that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Anything else? >> Anybody else? >> No. >> I have a question. Mr. Chair, >> you you stated something about master deeds and bylaws. >> Yes. >> Was there something missing there? >> Yeah. Go ahead. I'm trying to answer.
056I I saw them. Yeah. >> It says, "Our comments from previous submitts remain." So, can you address those comments? You know what they are? >> I think that at the time that we did our review, we were in the process of reviewing the um the language that was in there. And since that time, the applicant has submitted them to us >> and everything that all of our comments have been addressed. >> Okay. Very good. Just want to make that clear. Thank you. Okay, [clears throat] no more questions for them. We'll turn it over to the presenters. Can you tell us where we've made mistakes? >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission. My name is Kevin Kohl's. Address is 41200 Covenant Tree Road, Novi, Michigan. I'm the attorney for the developer. We have
057with us from the developer Trident Crest. We have Nico Schultz uh in the second row here, Tom Turnbull in the front row. We also have the engineer for the project, Greg Bono from uh PA Group, and Bob Tedesco, uh the builder for this community, uh from Silverado Homes. We're pleased to be in front of you tonight. We've worked hard over the last 18 months or so to address all of the conditions that were imposed on this uh preliminary site plan and we've done that and we've brought back to you a final site plan that uh complies with all of the approval criteria that are in your PUD ordinance for approval as a PUD. Uh and we ask tonight that you approve the final site plan that you approved the open space agreement which we call
058the master declaration but it's the open space agreement uh for the development uh that we've uh prepared in compliance with the PUD provisions of your zoning ordinance and that you uh also recommend to the township board as the safety path committee has already the two waiverss we've requested with respect to the safety path that's east of the fourth house uh the easterly house uh drainer road so that that safety path is waved and payment in L is also waved. Uh among other things it's impossible to put a path there technically uh and the developer paid in lie of the path that would go along most of this segment when the woods of Telmore was built. The Trident Press 3 also developed woods of Telmore. So with that uh we're happy to answer any questions you
059have and thank you for your consideration. You have some questions. >> Well, the question will start with the park that was >> the the park. The park was a concept we brought uh to the township uh at preliminary >> uh and in discussions with the township uh officials uh we received direction that the park just didn't work in this location. Uh that propertyy's now been subjected to a conservation easement. uh and um will be uh open space for this community. Uh it's you know it's usable land for the for the community but it's open space just for this community the Tmore North community >> then then maybe forgive me if I'm asking Mr. Chair is appropriate the the right person um how do you control that um with that how would you how would it
060be controlled um the way that range with the roadway. >> We we are >> our intent is to put in ballards along the road right ofway uh in concert with the road commission >> to prevent uh vehicle pullovers in that location uh and to limit uh you know people from driving down the road who like to fish from you know seeing a pond and pulling over. people do that and uh that's one approach that we're intending on implementing here. >> If there's a property line, could a fence be put up there? >> I don't know that a fence can be put up there due to the, you know, configuration of the slopes. The property before the right of way ends this it's steep. It's a very steep slope down the lake. Quite steep. There's just
061very limited land in that. >> Right. I just if you know I guess I'm concerned that if you know obviously the property owner has rights I understand and if a fence couldn't be built there that would be um I think from a visual standpoint projectional to that community in that area right >> um and I guess I just want to figure out how that could be um a benefit or or I should say not uh take away from what's currently there. I could see there's existing guard rail there. Um that ends just before the park. And it sounds like you might be talking about extending that guard rail so that this there's like a parking space or two. Maybe you could squeeze a car or something. >> Not extending any parking spaces be available on
062our on the this development's land at all. We don't view this as a park. >> This is private land that's for the benefit of the Tom North community. what realize when we voted a month a year and a half ago that was pro proposed or provided as a benefit to the community. So that's I'm trying to frame it in that way and now it's sort of being taken away but there's this there are substantial benefits from this development that we've articulated that Mr. Pasqua reviewed uh that you know exceed your ordinance requirements and it was based on the direction of the township in our meeting with township officials and as Mr. Pasala said you know the park department didn't want this land. There's practical difficulties they encountered that they viewed uh that would be burdens
063to the township and problems to have a park here. The land's now conservation. >> Is there a way to use that the HOA's rules to allow that to happen to maintain that property and allow access to >> access to who? Sir >> to the property as originally stated. >> You mean for the public? >> By the public as it was originally stated. >> No, there's no public access here. Our intent is that there be no public access here. It's not a public park. conservation ement part of this community. >> Okay, >> that's all I have for now. Thank you. >> I have one quick question. >> Um, from my modification, what would these road ballards look like? >> They haven't been designed, but they would be uh they would be typical ballards along a road
064uh and possibly an extension Those are plans that we're contemplating that would be implemented after fight. >> All right. >> I mean, would they just be round big round metal stakes? Would they be be big boulders? You know, >> no. Tom Turn what Kevin's describing. If you go out there, there is a guard rail that is pretty much along the very very slope along the north side of drain road. As the guardrail stops, there's a number of ballers that continue. Then there's a break. There's no volumes. There's an opening there. People they they back boat trailers down there and it's it's kind of an attractive nuisance. The question uh from the commissioner that would we want would the HOA want to welcome the public We we can't ask our HOA to uh take that responsibility,
065that liability for the public. The same reason that the township didn't want that that attractive nuisance in your liability. You will extend the ballards that people aren't going to be driving and backing their small watercraft and dropping it in there. Um the balls will be spaced such that you're not going to be able to do that. In time, if people aren't backing down there, that vegetation is going to recreate. It'll fill in the places that the people in the HOA want to access the water, we put different access into the lakes, >> and if they have kayaks or or paddle boards, they'll be able to do it there. So, the recreational resource will still be available, just not from that location. But the Ballards, if you look what's out there, we're just going to It's
066going to be much safer than it is today. >> Thank you. >> If you don't mind, Mr. Chair, >> um is is there a way that we can have something without putting I don't know a bunch of conditions on this have a respectfully built guard rail that is similar to what's there. Yes. >> So it's not >> um the community doesn't large fence go up that basically says stay out. >> Yeah. Our intent was never to do a fence. Our intent would be to work with road commission to do something consistent with what they already have and just extend it further to the east. >> Okay. >> And as you go further and get down by crossroads or camp Oakland, um there is nothing and it drops off so that nobody would ever you know
067try to access the water there. >> Thank you. You're very welcome. >> Okay. Anything? >> No. >> Okay. >> I think we've reached the point where uh we need to decide what we want to do. Get a motion. >> Public hearing. Public comments. >> We need to close the public hearing. >> No, we need public comments. We need to offer the public comments. >> Oh, >> I'm sorry. Okay, >> definitely done. [clears throat] >> I'm just Okay. Is there any members of the public that would like to comment on what you've seen? Please come up. State your name, your address. >> Yes. My name is David Shriber. I'm at 555 Totalmore Circle. And my question is that the safety path, I would really like to see it go as far as our driveway and our
068subdivision so we can get our 49 homes out safely into this path. And we are just a little ways past those four homes is where our street is. >> That's all I have to say. Right here. >> Okay. Are you [clears throat] >> It's gonna safety path end right here. >> You have to go right. >> You have to go through >> to get it down to where we can get out of our subdivision, our young people safely into the safety. Okay, we have anybody else? Okay. Do we need a move to close the public hearing? >> We do. We need a motion to close the public hearing. >> Motion to close public hearing. >> Second. >> Okay. Are we all in favor of that? I >> I >> Okay. Now again, do you are
069you aware of any communication that may have come in in the form of a written note or letter or? >> We have not received anything. >> Nothing. And as far as you folks go, no one has written a note to you. >> No. >> Okay. So, we can cover that. All right. Um, is anyone else here on the commission have any comments that you'd like to make? >> No. Nothing more. >> Maybe one quick comment. I I am I personally am satisfied that the planners did their job in terms of reviewing the conventional plan that was presented. >> Okay. Do you have anything more? I see you sort of. >> No, I'm >> You're set. Okay. >> All right. And with that, we're at a point where unless somebody has something to discuss that we
070didn't cover yet. So I I'm going to move to grant final site plan approval for PC file number 23-00005 known by the project name the peninsula of tool the village of Tymore based on the following findings of facts. One, the residential plan unit development shall provide recognizable and substantial benefits both to the endusers of the development and the overall community beyond what could otherwise be realized from conventional development using the standards of the underlying zoning district for this ordinance. Two, the applicant has or will have full ownership or control of all the area to be included in the residential plan unit development such that there is a single person responsible for the full completion of the project. Three, all land included within the residential plan unit development is continuous continuous. And four, the residential plan
071unit development shall provide at least two superior design elements as defined in in 14.8C superior design. Such final site plan approval shall be conditioned upon the applicant completing and submitting the following in its request. One applicant providing the information required by the by the township zoning ordinance is set forth in the reports submitted by the township consultants uh the township fire department and the township administration. Two, applicants submitt of revised plans addresses addressing stated deficiencies in reports submitted by the township consultants, the township fire department and township administration. Three, submittal for consideration by the planning commission of A. Approval of the irrevocable recorded open space preservation instrument by the township board. B master deeds and bylaws for the two proposed condominium associations establishing ownership, governance, and maintenance obligations, including road maintenance. C. approval of the
072PUD agreement by the board of trustees and D any related easements, road maintenance agreements and other documents necessary to implement the final site plan. Additionally, the planning commission further approves to amend the 100 foot boundary setback waiver as approved in the preliminary PED site plan to attached units 46 47 48 49 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 and detach lots 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 and 31 as shown in the final PED site plan. I'll second. >> Okay, we have a second. We'd like to go ahead and and call for a vote and we'd like to do it as a roll call, please. Yes, sir. Dur. >> Yes. >> Blankenship. >> Yes. >> Wagner. >> Yes. >> Turner. >> Yes. >> Austin. >> Yes. >>
073Okay. I move to recommend that the township board of trustees accept and approve the declaration of the open space preservation titled declaration of easements, covenants, conditions, and restrictions as required by the township zoning ordinance section 6.14D2 and 6.14D3 for the Tolmore North Development as submitted. subject to minor clerkial and legal amendments acceptable to the township attorney. >> I'll second. >> Okay, we have a second. >> Call for a vote and make that a roll call, please. >> Yes. >> Wagner, >> yes. >> Dur. >> Yes. >> Austin, >> yes. >> Turner, >> yes. >> Blenship, >> yes. >> Okay. I move that the planning commission recommend approval of the safety path waiver request of Trident Crest 3 LLC to the board of trustees and recommend a waiver of both the obligation to construct a safety
074path and any additional payment in lie for the 1479 ft frontage on the north side of East Drainer Road east of the four existing homes and further Further finding that the record, including the PUD site plan and topographic survey, demonstrates that construction on the north side segment would be impractical due to the steep drop to Tour Lake, lack of usable upland wetland, soil conditions, and existing conservation easement, and that these facts satisfy the authority in ordinance number 117 section 42-105. 5B to wave installation or payment where construction is impractical. >> I'll second. >> Okay, let's do a roll call, please. >> Lenure, >> yes. >> Dur. >> Yes. >> Loic, >> yes. >> Austin, >> yes. >> Wagner, >> yes. >> Turner, >> yes. Motion pass. Okay, [clears throat] next item on the agenda is
075any unfinished business. I don't know that we have any. >> Hey Bob, am I allowed to dismiss myself? >> Am I allowed to dismiss myself? >> I guess you can. >> No. New business. What about any new business? >> Do you want me to >> none there? >> Communications and committee reports. Some of you >> did the tour of the gravel inspection report. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. >> Thank you. >> Oh, yeah. I don't know if that's Jim's thing or that's not >> Mark and I went with Jack and >> we should report it. >> We have good neighbors. They seem to be doing a good job especi road and um landscaping the drive entrance. Good inspection we had. >> What about the uh pits that are along these areas
076up here? Did you go through those? >> We did not. No, no, we talked about them. I think they store some materials there and access them occasionally. Those are not active. Right. >> Right. >> Okay. Moving on to the ordinance review committee. Uh >> yeah. So just as an update both um on OC items, mostly OC items. So last night the uh the board uh heard three requests for zoning text amendments. one being the uh the display at auto convenience markets essentially the outdoor display gas stations. Uh they did uh approve that language as proposed. Uh they considered the text amendment to allow the solar accessory structures ground mounted and roof mounted and with the exception of a minor amendment to battery placement. Uh they approved those. Uh they denied or they did not accept
077the 90-day extension for the building official for temporary events. uh there were concerns there that essentially these temporary permits are not pulled by businesses located in the township or that are permanent in the township and that kind of extending that window of competition for businesses who are brick and mortar here and potentially selling the same thing they felt comfortable with. So right now the ordinance stands that when you pull a temporary outdoor salesp have 90 days that's that's that. Uh then we did talk to the board about ADUs and mixed use uh we kind of you know RC compiled all of our homework on the two topics put in front of the board. Uh as it relates to ADUs um at this time there's there's it felt as though there's just too much concern regarding
078the proper way in which these could be regulated um both from a perspective of writing the standard but then enforcing it like physically enforcing it from a code perspective. Um there may be an opportunity in the future to revise it or revisit it for now, but but initially the board's reaction to it was that they're not interested in seeing ordinance language for that right now. Flip side, they were very supportive of mixed use. Um a few a few thoughts here and there about where and how, but for the most part uh there was a unanimous consent uh from the board that you know they would be happy to review and work on misuse ordinance um to kind of start working its way through the process of RCPC board. Um so the RC met this afternoon
079kind of went over those notes developed a plan. We'll also start looking um our homework over the next month or two is to start looking at the adopted master plan and seeing uh what initiatives we could take from there for our next annual work plan. So plenty going on. Mr. Chair, >> any comments for a few questions? Go ahead. >> Um the mixed use discussion um did that does that involve um our discussion a few months ago >> about the fourtory um and you're not Yes. Okay. So I No, I'm just That's okay. I want to make sure I I got the right. Um, so was there any discussion about, you know, increasing density as you get closer to the town to the village and then decreasing density as you get further out or having
080some some some different setbacks and things like that as you're further into the township? >> There. Yes and no. I'd say yes from the perspective of like there was conversation about lot sizes, like how much like really what could you accomplish on a smaller lot size as opposed to a bigger lot size when it comes to density. Um I wouldn't say that there was necessarily a tiered approach like fanning out from the village. Um if anything there was I I think it was jovial in nature but there was conversation about how you have you know a drainer and 24 three of the four corners contain vacant properties and like well maybe there's an opportunity to do something like that there and so that distance is kind of a little bit off the beaten path of
081them. So there wasn't so much about a tiered approach. There was we did talk about you know from a financial standpoint the difference three stories and four stories and whether or not the development could work or not work. >> Um, and there was talk about setbacks, but more from the perspective of just kind of prepping the board that these projects typically have reduced setbacks in their design. That doesn't necessarily mean they have to, but they typically do. Um, and we have to figure out the parking, right? If you try to if you try to force two parking standards onto one site, it creates problems. Um, but it's not something that hasn't been solved in the past. So, Okay, [clears throat] Mr. Sharp, >> you have anything on your planning report there shared? >> It's all
082been shared with you. Do you have any questions? >> Any regards any of the developments that are going on? >> Yes. [laughter] >> Get them, John. Okay, sounded like a challenge. >> Kind of across the street down a little ways from this one. Well, not anymore, but tell more. There's um I think >> Sanctuary Hills, >> pardon me, Sanctuary Hills. >> Sanctuary Hills to the east of that. >> What's the What's the status for that? Do you know? >> They are in for their Eagle permits for water and pursu. >> Okay. >> So, construction likely in the spring. >> Is there a delay of some sort or something that in their development process that >> applicants delay. >> Okay. >> Just going through the process and plan revisions and >> Okay. >> You know, taking
083time to get them back um to us. So, no delay on our end. Just, you know, >> Oh, no. I didn't mean that like on your end or on the township. Just curious if >> No, I think they property or plug or what they were >> they had multiple projects going on through the tri county area. Maybe they were putting emphasis on other projects before this one. >> Okay. >> No, >> so they're still full steam ahead. >> They are >> once they get started, >> they have some erosion permits. Um they again they they're through the going through the Eagle and Wetland. >> Okay. >> Well, but the Eagle sanitary sewer and water process right now been submitted. So a few months I would think they'll break crown. >> Okay. Thanks. Are they getting
084anywhere's near close to using up their time frame? >> They had they they received one extension. Um, and I need to double check, but they're with probably I mean this is I'm not to be quoted on this. I'm looking at the minute paper. Um, but they're probably within a few months of needing to request another one if they don't have uh the next round of approvals and a shovel in the ground. The final site plan, it's in the letter here. It's the final site plan was approved in December of 23. >> So, I don't know where that puts it in terms of the timeline. I know that that was recently discussed by the building official. >> Timelines are being met, but I think they're up against that wall and maybe to ask for an extension.
085>> Yeah, I think they've got to be getting close. Yeah, I mean it's always >> because if it's December, you know, we're we're almost into December of 25 and typically they get about about a year. >> Yeah, I'd have to double check what the extension process is for final, but yeah, I mean I know that uh the building official has had some communication with them about their timeline. So >> they were their process was slightly different. They were on the old process where they received their preliminary site plan, then they received their final site plan, then they're told to move forward with all of their engineering. >> The one that was just reviewed tonight was the first one of the new process where like preliminary, then all the engineering, then you come back for your
086final because we were running into issues like that where Eagle was taking a long time to get issued permits. So, by the time they had their final They went through the engineering phases and got all their permits. They were up against the wall already. So, >> that's one of the other reasons why one of the reasons we revised the process. >> Any other questions? Any developments or anything? >> Nope. That's it. >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay, we're down to the agenda item that says adjournment. Motion to Motion to adjurnn. >> I'll second. >> Okay. Are we all in favor? >> I >> All right. You want to do a roll call vote on a German? >> No, >> you don't have to. [laughter] >> Okay. Meetings. Thank you.