001I suggest we could uh call to order tonight's Charter Township of Oxford Planning Commission regular meeting Thursday, April 24th, 2025. We could start by everybody standing and paying respect to our flag to the flag of the United States of America for it stands one nation with liberty and justice for all. How are you? Sorry. Thank you very much. Doing well. So far so good. We could note the role. Noted there is a quorum and if everybody could please turn your mics on when you speak. If you turn it off when you're not speaking, just remember to turn it on and speak into it. Thank you. All right. Number four, approval of tonight's agenda. Motion to approve tonight's agenda. Second. We have a motion. We have a second. Any discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed?
002That carries. Uh, number five, conflict of interest, exparte contact. Anybody have anything for this evening? Seeing none, we will move on to number six. Approval approval of minutes. Planning Commission regular meeting March 27th, 2025. Motion to approve minutes. Planning Commission regular meeting March 27th, 2025. Second. We have a motion. We have a second. Any discussion? Um, all in favor? I. Any opposed? That carries as well. Number seven, public comment on items not scheduled for public hearing or on this agenda. We have quite the turnout tonight. Is anybody here to talk about something that is not on tonight's agenda? It's not on tonight's agenda, but there was a posting. Can you come up to the mic? And I'll move this down to me. Um, there was a post recently in the Oxford Leader about another parcel
003of land that you're going to reszone on Market Street and Lepier Road, southwest corner and it's being reszoned from some commercial setting to general commercial and I'm wondering what the impact of that change is. Um, I will be honest with you. Um, that has not been brought before us yet. So, I really wouldn't have it's scheduled for next week, I believe. May 7th, May 8th, two weeks. Two weeks. Okay. Okay. Yeah, that'll get presented to us probably in the next week or so. So, we'll have some information on that. I haven't seen that. Okay. So, we have to wait to find out. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? All right, moving on to number eight. Commissioners comments. Anybody have anything they'd like to share before we get started? Okay. Number nine, petitions. We have two
004petitions for tonight. Um, and I will start with petition PC25-004. Petition petitioner design house 33000 Auburn Road sweet 300 Auburn Mills Michigan 48326 public hearing in motion. The petitioner is requesting a reasonzoning from C1 local commercial to R1 single family residential parcel ID 042120005 located on Market Street approximately 2.6 six acres. And what we will do just so that everybody is aware of how these meetings will uh proceed. Um we will start off with a presentation by the the planner. Um followed by a presentation by the petitioner. Um once that is completed, we will open up the public hearing uh for public testimony. And the way that part works is any member of the public is welcome to come up and speak. Come up to the podium, state your name. Um you will be given
005three minutes to discuss um any thing you would like to bring up about that petition. Um all comments will be addressed to the chair. Um not to the petitioner, not to the other commissioners. Um, you're allowed to speak once until everybody else is completed and then if you have something to add that has not been shared, you would have an opportunity to uh speak again. Um, once all of the public testimony is complete, we will close the public hearing. Um, we will get comments from the township consultants and staff. Uh, we will review correspondents. I believe we have a couple of emails that were sent in uh regarding this. Um the commissioners will discuss we will make a motion. We will discuss that motion and vote to approve or deny. Um so with that if
006we can start with the presentation by Good evening commissioners. Mat Pasalqua Wartman Associates. We are the planning consultants for the township. Uh before we get started this evening, I just want to introduce you to Grayson M. He worked with me at CWA and helped out a lot with this project. I'll probably be helping you out in the future as things continue to get busier in Oxford. Um so this evening, correct, you have two petitions in front of you uh for reszonings along Market Street. Uh the first one that we'll take a look at is parcel A. Uh so this application is to reszone 2 and a half a two and a half acre lot on the south side of Market near the intersection of Stony Lake. Uh the site is zoned C1 local commercial. The
007request is to reszone it to R1 single family 12,000 foot lots. The application states the intent of the reszones to construct four single family homes. However, no formal site plan has been submitted. Zones surrounding the parcel are C1, R1, RM, and R. Uh our review does provide both the permitted and special land uses uh that would be available under the proposed zoning of R1 for that site. Uh and the site appears to be relatively flat. Uh there are the potential for wetlands on or near the property. Um and this parcel does abut water stone lake to the south. You give me a moment here. I can scroll to some of the information that the applicant provided so we all kind of have a visual of the area. So again it is a resoning um just
008helps kind of provide the context of the area that we're discussing. So when we look at resonings, you know, we kind of go through the master plan to see kind of the guidance that it provides uh the planning commission on making these recommendations. Um the 2019 master plan uh does provide goals as it relates to residential development. Uh one of them being that to allow for a range of housing opportunities at different densities and styles while remaining consistent with the character of surrounding areas and taking into consideration the availability of public utilities and natural capacity of the land. Uh we do not know that the proposed zone does have a strong correlation with this goal um as it relates to kind of the surrounding uses and the way the area has been developed. Another objective
009is that the design and character of future residential land uses should promote village resort rural and natural landscapes traditionally found in the Oxford area. Um and again this is you know these zones would provide for something very similar to what has developed in the area over time. Uh the 2019 future land use designation for the site is village commercial which speaks to commercial uses of a more urban design and layout. Um obviously this does not uh confer with the 2019 future land use designation. However, the the master plan does state that the planning commission is allowed to consider changing market conditions as it relates to reszoning requests. the future land and my apologies the you are working your way through um the master plan draft right now the draft that is working its way through
010the review process does site this area or this property as a multifamily designation however that that is a draft plan it is not adopted your 2019 plan is still kind of your cornerstone for reference when looking at these petitions as far as development potential is concerned uh freezone. The lot would allow for various residential permitted and special land uses uh that are outlined in our report. Um accounting for the current housing market, uh the site has development potential under the R1, the requested R1 zoning. So now we'll take a look at the resoning standards that are set forth in the ordinance um that the planning commission again kind of used to guide their recommendation. consistent with the master plan. Uh while it's not consistent with the current master plan, future land use designation um that
011you are allowed some flexibility to consider changing market needs um as it relates to that this is future land use, village, commercial, and what's being requested is a residential zone. Uh compatibility with the site's physical and environmental nature. Uh this the current zoning allows for more intense uses. Um again, the site may contain wetlands and is adjacent to bodies of water. um all of that information becomes um much more pertinent when we start to talk about site plans. But in general, what the area is zoned now allows for more intense uses than what's being proposed. Compatibility with surrounding zones and uses in terms of environment density, traffic, infrastructure, and property values. The R1 zone is conducive with the surrounding conditions and does not appear to be a conflict with traffic, infrastructure, or an influence on
012property values. Utility capacity support the zone. Um again Jim can speak a little bit more to that but in general there are services or utility services available in the area and I believe there is capacity support the different uses under the proposed zoning of R1 road traffic capacity uh permitted in special land uses would generate varying levels of traffic. They're big long lists of what you can do in these zones. Um however as we noted R1 is less intensive than C1. Um and Market Street has always been has was always designed with some sort of development. Um there's envisioned in these areas. What the use was at the time is I'm not saying neither here nor there, but the road was always designed in mind with development. Um there are existing curb cuts on the
013site from when kind of these things were anticipated. The lot would conform oh a demand for the proposed zoning. I mean housing is in demand in the township and the region and the country. So yes, the R1 zoning could be developable and there is a demand for it. The lot would conform to dimensional standards. The lot would conform to the the lot as a whole would conform to the R1 dimensional standards. Um should a proposal like what the applicant has put forward make its way to site planned land divisions would likely be required. Um but the lot as it is now would conform to R1. The townships to deem if the proposed zone is more appropriate uh from other potential zones. Um large scale commercial industrial residential uh would be more intense on the site
014and difficult per the site size and its location. Small smell smallcale commercial could fit on the site. Um you know however we note that this site's been zoned C1 for a very long time. Um and there hasn't really been any viable um development proposals under that zoning in that time frame. Um so while it it may have been envisioned at one point in time the market really hasn't pushed anything viable forward to develop it as such uh multiple families possible on the site. Um however the lot dimensions would would make it somewhat difficult to meet certain standards depending on the the density that would be requested out of that multiple family. Um is it are they creating or they requesting spot zoning? They are not. Um, this has been the only application from the applicant
015in there. There's been no other application from the applicant in less than a year. Uh, and as it relates to any other considerations for public safety, health, and welfare, and investment, um, R1, uh, would likely increase the private investment in the area, uh, because there there's more demand for that type of development, meaning the lot would be improved. Um, and we don't really foresee any issues with public safety. um the fire department did not have any concerns. You know, I'll let Jim speak to his points, but I don't believe he cited any concerns. So, with that, that the proposal is consistent with market demands and conducive with the location. Uh there is a conflict with the 2019 master plan future land use designation, but again, I've explained that you have some leeway to consider market
016conditions and things of that nature. So, that is the review as it relates to parcel A and the R1 request. Happy to take any questions. Okay. Any questions? I guess if I may real quickly just because we do have two petitions that we need to go through. This was the first one. These are two separate applications. There's two separate views. It's two separate motions. So it's while it is it's brought together in tandem. They are it's two separate considerations, two separate actions, two separate set of questions. However, commission. So we'll keep the questions to this portion. Correct. Okay. Start down here if you have any. Well, I have some questions um or just general conversation. I'm not sure. Maybe I should wait until after petitioner is done. Mr. Chair, if you let me go now
017and kind of walk through some of the questions that I have. Um go ahead and go ahead and post them now if you'd like and then maybe the petitioner can address those when they uh Okay. So, just starting with this road here. Um, that was just Yeah, I know. Okay. Um, yeah, most of my focus is on that. Um, okay. The, uh, this area here shows um, proposed parking. Right now, there's no striping there. And, you know, I think that it would not be in the community's best interest to strike that or to have parking in that area. Um, and it's shown on the plan. So, I just wanted to um I just don't think adding that would be wise. Um it's a fair observation. Um it it doesn't doesn't play a strong role in
018this evening. Sure. Okay. Okay. A lot of my comments are along that line about how the maybe not exactly to the reszone of it, but it was how how it will be used in the future. Well, maybe then maybe why don't we go through me, Jim, if the plan commission chooses the applicant and that answers your questions naturally. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? Correct. Then we will move on to the presentation by the petitioner. Good evening. Thank you for uh having us tonight. My name is Joe Loss, 3615 West Grainer Road, Oxford, Michigan with Design House Architecture. Um so we've been working with the owner of these properties for 14 15 years. Um I think they obtained the original parcel in 2013, the north parcel and then the southern parcel in 2015 I believe. Um
019so they have marketed these parcels as commercial for years no interest and we've worked with them on on possible solutions on how to how to use the property, how to develop it. And this is a solution we've kind of come to. U we feel that the single family homes on this property are conducive to the to the surrounding community. We feel that the the size of the homes are similar to the size that are in the adjacent areas and we feel this is an appropriate use for that that land. I will say that the the parking that's out in front of the homes that are shown on our concept plan are existing. We have no problem getting rid of them or not striping under whatever staff recommends that we should do but I think does
020an amazing job presenting the project. I'm not sure what to add extensive extensive talk on it. So, I'm more than happy to answer any questions, provide any additional information that you may need. Have any questions? Sure. So, on the, you know, some of the concerns that I see on the development of this in this area are the homes on the water. Um there's been development on the west side of this lake in the past couple years and a lot of construction debris has been blown around and I know you're just representing the um developer but having some extra steps to contain debris that's flying around it would be would be beneficial to everyone involved. Um, you know, some maybe wherever the sedimentation fence is placed around the site for soil erosion, sedimentation control, maybe a
021further four or 5 foot snow fence or something is put up to help um when debris gets windb blown. Try to trap that blow onto the lake or around the neighborhood or some other construction dumpsters that have lids or something that can close versus big open 40 dump 40 yard dumpsters that just debris can fly out with high winds. Um, And on the uh there's a there's a safety path, excuse me, there's a safety path on the uh well a long market to the north of these proposed homes. Um that path is in it's 25 years old and there will be two new driveways according to this proposed plan cut through that um seems to make sense to replace that entire path as part of this development. um one just to make it new and
022then it gives the ability of the development to change the elevation to match where the driveways would be. I think that would be a benefit to the community and to the development. Yeah, I agree that was brought up in our pre-lication meeting and we agree that we're going to redo the entire safety path in front of these properties. They do the where the drive by will come through have the ADA ramp sidewalk coming down Trip meet all the requirements of the the city and township and state. A lot of I see a lot of people walk along that path along the lake and I see that as proposal the property would intercept that or block that off and it would go well here. Right. Correct. that would be cut off. I I would ask that
023if you know there could be on the west side of that property in this area, this path that that be somehow reworked so there's a a p not not a path to nowhere left, you know, it just be cut off. That should potentially be considered for being reworked. Those are my main comments about that. Appreciate consideration on some of those. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Any questions? I guess the only question I have is do you know the approximate square footage of the home that are being built on this property? Approximately 3500 square ft for bedrooms. Thank you. Guess I have one question. What kind of a timeline are you anticipating on this? Probably construction next 2026, next season. Okay. What's if we were to get approved tonight, we still have to come back go through
024site plan approval for the for the sites. Lot of combination design of the homes. So spring 2020 question. Okay. Well, thank you very much. Okay. With that, I will entertain a motion to open the public hearing. Jim Jim Sharp is engineering. We can go later. Oh, we can do that now. Sorry. I'm not going to let him off the hook. He's going up there. Yeah. I I thought he was under five. Township. No, no, you're It's fine. Might as well get the excitement. Yeah, this will be really exciting. Jim Sharp, Sharp Engineering, Township Engineer. Um, we prepared a brief review letter. We're basically looking at the existing infrastructure and roadways, pathways, those types of things. When we're looking at a reszoning, um, there's a sanitary sewer that's available to service this property, so there won't
025be it is uh within the existing sanitary sewer district, so that won't be an issue. With regards to the water supply, um, again, it's in the water district and has adequate water to uh provide service to these homes. This was originally, I guess, planned, you know, to be commercial. So, there is an existing water line that kind of runs actually on between the homes where the homes are are currently shown to be and the lake. So, we would ask that that line be rerouted up uh along Market Street itself just for accessibility. people aren't going to want us in their backyards and, you know, for the WRC to go out and do service items, you know, they're not going to like that. So, we would ask that they relocate that water line out to the
026front along Market Street there. Um, with regards to any type of storm water, storm sewer. Uh, I know Don brought up something about soil erosion that they would apply for the necessary permits and so forth, but these are just residential homes. you know, it's not going to be like a commercial development where there's going to be retention ponds or anything like that. So, they wouldn't be required for any of those type of aspects. Um, we commented on the on the payments about the two drive approaches that are on Market Street. Market Street is the road commission. So any work that happens there, whether they be the elimination of the parking area, striping, um new driveways, all of that has to be submitted by the applicant to the road commission for approvals on that. And with
027regard to the sidewalks, uh slashsafety path, again, Donnie did bring that up at a pre-application meeting where they're going to be re, you know, replacing everything out in front there just from the construction activities and so forth. Um it's not in the best of shape. It's not terrible, but it's not in the best of shape either. So, and really from an infrastructure standpoint, that's all that we had to comment on. Um so, if there's any questions, I would be happy to answer those right now or later. A question about the road commission. Sure. Um you know, the road as construction traffic is coming and going during this development. Um is there an opportunity for the applicant to potentially um talk to the road commission about making improvements or doing some heavy maintenance to this road
028either during or after the development is complete. I know it can't be a contingent or condition or anything like that, but it would just be an ask that, you know, I would be honest. I would say highly unlikely just for the, you know, if it truly were for residential homes, it would be no different than residential homes that are being built in other areas of Waterstone right now. Those are also public roads, right? um if it became you know if it came to a point where the real commission noticed damage and they could pinpoint that it was from this development I'm sure they would you know go to the developer because there will have to be um you know with along with the permit there's bonds that need to be put in place along with
029that so they would I'm sure reach out to the applicant at that time if there were again if they could say this was caused because of you sure just overall deterioration Correct. Yeah. Again, it's 25 year old road too, you know, and so it's not 100% theirs, but yeah, if it's if they set a crane out there or something and damage the road that's obvious, then yeah, they're going to go to them and say, "You need to fix this." Regarding the u maybe related to the preliminary site plan, but is there any discussion about I see four docks, one extending out from each um each parcel. Is there any plan to change the grade of that? I know there's probably some buffers and things that that would be sight plan. Yeah, that would be a
030site plan comment and your ordinance has the call a 25 foot, you know, setback buffer or something in there. So, okay. You know, they wouldn't be able to change the elevation that much. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Sure. So, um, regarding the utilities on this parcel, is there any other, uh, things that would need to be relocated other than the water line? Any other utility type work that would need to be taken place? Um, in terms of m, you know, municipal, like township own like water, sewer, correct, that type of stuff. No. Um, and again, I don't know exactly like where the gas lines are. 18. I mean, I'm assuming they're routing the right ofway there. So, I would not expect any additional relocations other than the water line that we are requesting. I
031just asked around the reszoning, right? If it was set up to be commercial if there's any potential for, you know, things that need to be changed. I'm not I'm not sure. I mean, I haven't seen any transformers set on the property or anything. Obviously, a survey would would show that when they finally do come forward with an actual plan. Okay, thank you. Okay, any other questions? I'll be right over here if there's any more. Thanks. Thank you. Okay, with that, I will entertain a motion to open the public hearing. Motion open the public public testimony. Second. We have a motion. We have a second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? All right. Seeing none, we will open the public hearing, public testimony at 6:59 p.m. Um, as I said earlier, um, we will follow
032the threeminut rule. Um, so if anybody would like to come up, speak, uh, come to the podium, state your name, and, uh, be glad to hear from you. This is just for this hearing. just for this portion. Correct. Yes. Good evening. Maryanne Kane, Stony Lake Village condo resident, 149 Stony Lake Drive. And in relation to this particular uh development on the south side that we're currently discussing, um I just had a couple of comments in regards to the fact that I don't believe we have a member from the waterstone board in attendance this evening, but because we've had prior discussions about developing these parcels before, there has um been some developments that have come to light in the past regarding Waterstone having some restrictions about having on Waterstone Lake and having um private access only
033to Waterstone Lake where those parcels are divided to for those four luxury homes. So I would just like to make a recommendation that before a decision is made about that that there be some further research done to ensure what the waterstone community does allow and what they do not allow. Also, of those four luxury homes, the one that's furthest to the um uh Lepier Road, they're closest to the gazebo and the bike path area, that particular owner is going to see a lot of traffic. Even today, the first day we've had nice weather this evening. Um there's just been tons of traffic with the gazebo and on that safety safety path area in regards to that. So, I just think just, you know, to try and keep note that that particular home is hopefully the
034owners that will purchase that will realize that there will be a lot of people certain circling their backyards on nice weather days. And um with that, I I'll my other points of interest I'd like to address later when we talk about the north side of this development. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Greg Graham. I live at 821 Cross Circle. So I am on the lake, same side as where these four homes will be proposed to be built. Have a couple things here. First of all, do we know what HOA that we belong to eventually? They're kind of isolated out there. Uh versus the our HOA currently bay village and the other one would be uh on Southshore I guess would be the two options. So, I don't know if that's been
035thought out or something to be talked about later, but just something to to figure out. There's some talk about the pathway that's there currently. I believe that the pathways that are uh directly behind Independence Village, if I'm not mistaken, that's their property and that pathway probably was designed for residents at one time for them to go for a walk around and somehow it got connected through the the chain. So, um I'm not too sure um what their thoughts are on on that that pathway and what to do with it with these homes taking up the the connection point and to the connection point. I'm a little bit concerned. Um we did have an incident not too long ago with uh some criminals going through and my my cameras picked them up. They're going to every
036car door and the driveways checking for open doors and just wandered down and off. So I'm a little concerned if we connect it to market it might be an avenue again for people to wander. And I know they can do it currently, but it's more directed towards the park now. Currently, coming down that way, where this would be nothing more than a pathway to to come down and circumvent coming up to um Cross Street and coming south on that pathway. So, I have a little concern about potential connection of that to the to Market Street. And lastly, I think if if we get you guys we get approval for this to go to single family home that locks that in. Correct. It's not going to be if this doesn't go forward, we're not going to
037have someone be able to come in the back door and put like they planned earlier uh to have those town houses and things built on that lot, right? They'd have to come back again and get it reszoneed to correct multif family. So, I just wanted to make sure that was locked in so we know exactly what we're we're seeing. Thank you. Hi, I'm Kitty. I reside on Cedar Street, which is not far from this proposed building change. And I'd like to say that um from the years of the proposals that have been put in front of this board, uh this is probably the best one I've ever seen. Um it makes sense to have it be residential and not multi. Um it would match everything else that's going on on the lake currently. So to
038me, it makes a lot of sense. And personally, I welcome it and others who I spoke to also welcome it. Um, my concern at first was how could they pull off putting four homes on this piece of land at the price that land for, but it makes sense now because it's the current owner. So, that cleared up for me. Um, it would be a shame to lose that walking path that's there along the lake, but my understanding is the land does up to the lake, so they have lake rights, which makes uh perfect sense as well. um a walking path that cuts on the side between those the home um west side and between the um Independence Village makes sense so that people still have the access to walk along the lake. Um, and the
039HOA is also a concern because you just have four uh single family homes there. And I don't know if it would be a single HOA or if that's even been put in the proposals that have been uh placed in front of you to look over, but um I wouldn't imagine you would want four single family homes in the same HOA as uh the town home which are connected. It would be considered probably more like a condominium or site condominium. Um, so I mean my perspective from a realtor of the area and uh what what's happening here now this makes sense. I think you're Thank you. Hello. My name is Alexandra Lamas. I reside at 621 East Lake Trail. So, I'm directly adjacent to where the you're looking at the picture the far right. Um, and
040I absolutely like me and my families absolutely love this um layout as opposed to the multifamily. Um, I do have a question regarding so right now that end of the lake there is a large retention wall um kind of right where it curves out and then it kind of like stops and then it's just um shoreline. I didn't know if they were planning on making any adjustments or anything like that to the actual retention wall or bringing it out more to where it would be behind I guess all the homes because right now it kind of goes to the whole first home that's all retention wall. So if um all of the homes are supposed to be, you know, buttered up to Lakefront, I guess I was just curious how they were going to bring
041that out. I didn't know that was discussed, but probably not yet. Yeah. And that's something that they would have to address during the site plan. Okay. Okay. Um, yeah. And all for the rerouting of the path that's currently there just to kind of go out from both sides and go out onto Market Street. Um, but yeah, I think that was my biggest question was really the the lake and the retention wall and if they were going to be modifying any of that. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, I'm Dan Lazy uh from 621 East Lake Trail. Uh that was my wife that just spoke again. We're we would be the adjacent neighbors to these four homes. So we were we're the closest home uh to them on the part of South Drive uh or right there
042on East Lake Trail. Um or I'm sorry, the shores HOA is our HOA. I I think that's the biggest question here is where these core homes would u be grouped into as far as HOA. I know our HOA is relatively small compared to the other adjacent HOA um where we can handle this. Um but that would be something I think need to be discussed. I think hands down we've been here since 2019. That's the best proposal. We've gone through three um from the condos all the way to town homes to multifamilies. I don't want to look out my backyard and see you 16 homes. So, this hands down uh the best. Um my only concern would be uh four compared to three just based off of the sizes and and what that's going to look
043like in the grand scheme of things compared to you know the existing homes that are on uh the south side of this lake like mine and my neighbors. Um there's quite a difference in style on our side compared to the side that is on the north side of the lake where they're grouped a little bit closer together. So that would be my only concern there. Um I Really, I honestly think that moving the walking trail is in best interest for everybody. I disagree with some of the people here. I think that that house on the uh our east uh side of the picture on the far right is actually going to, you know, help minimize the traffic flow through there. That park is is not used extensively. If anything, it's more used as a walkway
044for people to enter our sub into the following sub. So, it's going to decrease that. If anything, we'll push that out onto the Market Street place, which I am a thousand% for given that I live on the lake and see everybody who's walking past that walking path. So, again, I am a thousand% for this. My only concern would be, you know, four homes compared to three homes. But other than that, this is spot on. Um, the only thing that I would comment on is we have build up the existing tree. That is probably the saddest part of this whole process is just the initial out of that parcel because it just took all that tree and all that blockage. So now everybody's just seeing straight street and everybody's seeing from the street straight into all
045those fing homes that are on the lake right now. So again, but wise, yeah, I don't know if we would get much better than this other than three homes instead of four. Besides that, I really have no complaints. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, seeing none, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Second. Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Uh, any discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay, with that, the public hearing is closed at 7:12. Um, we will move to comments from township consultants and staff, which you've already, if I may. Yes. So, the one thing that I want to emphasize tonight is, and the applicants provided this information voluntarily. this this layout, this proposal for both lots was not required as part of the reasoning
046application. They could simply come in front of you tonight and say, "We'd like our one here, we'd like our one there. Answer the questions in the application and that's what you have to work on along with our review." So, this information that's in front of everybody tonight was volunteered by the applicant. And while it is it is very likely that that this is their best foot forward that this is their intent of the land, the amount of the amount of due diligence put into a conceptual plan is not the same as the due diligence that is put into a site plan. So there are things and correct me if I'm wrong that per their due diligence if they move forward after this evening that could turn up something that changes the orientation of where they
047put one of the houses in the concepts tonight. changes 10 ft this way, that way of those buildings that are there. The reasoning tonight is about allowing the permitted uses that in the zones that they are asking for site. This is not a site plan review. This is not a site plan application. Again, I there's there's I'm not here to lead you down the road that the applicant isn't putting their best foot forward and that this isn't their plan for the property. It's just that a there's still a lot of due diligence to do as it comes to an actual development and b what you're charged with this evening is looking at the current zoning, what's permitted and what's special and what is the requested zoning and what's permitted and what's special and making your
048decision from there. Again, happy to answer your questions. I just again when this kind of information is in the application, it's natural for the conversation to go that way. I just want to make sure you understand kind of what we're here to do this evening. Okay. Thank you. I guess we can move to review of correspondence. So I have correspondence from Patty Swatcha. Um she writes this to Tim London. Um hi Tim. I'm writing about the proposal for the property on Market Street that surrounds the Waterstone Park and Lake. Everyone uses the trail around the lake and I'm against this proposal with the property cutting that area off. I understand that they want to build homes, but why can't they end the property as it is staked out and not to the lake? They would
049have to have a water view. They would still have a water view. I'm very disappointed that they would take the lake access away from the residents on the shores community. Is that it? That's it. Okay. Thank you. All right, then we will move on to number seven. Commission discussion can start down you down. Any questions or concerns or thoughts? So just to I guess repeat what Matt Taylor just indicated that we're we're looking at a resone of this one parcel, right? That's the discussion point right now. We'll talk about the other one to the north later. Correct. And it's the applicant's intent to build. My concern is that we we end up getting what we see on the screen. Right. I think everyone and one of the comments on hearing and the proposals we've seen
050before, there was 18 units proposed a couple years ago and um this looks like a a great development. the homes match or appear to match what's already on the lake and um it seems to be welcome being welcomed by the community. Um I just would want to know or some assurance from the developer that this is what we're going to get when they bring a preliminary site plan in front of us if it changes significantly. If they put six homes on it, I don't think they could squeeze that on. I have no idea. But Right. But if they bring you R1 and it meets R1, then that's I guess that's that's where I'm trying to kind of caution the conversation about what they put up. They could put one house. They could anything within R1.
051Correct. It's it's it's one lot, right? To to proceed with anything more than one house with that home would require lot splits. And the R1 designation states that this that the lot must be 12,000 square feet and meet some other dimensional standards. So again, I'm not I I appreciate the comments that Commissioner Wzik's making. I just again kind of my earlier comment. You're talking about making this R1. There's standards in R1 for certain uses if they were to meet those standards through a site plan review. Um I hate sitting here saying you have to approve it, but again it's it's when when we're talking about permitted uses and meeting standards, it limits the planning commission's uh subjective discretion to say no. the nicest way to say it. Y so I I appreciate the comments. I
052just want to make sure because we are focusing so much on the development kind of the the basic proposal that they're putting forward but that everybody understands kind of what action you take. Again, it's a recommendation township goes to township board for the ultimate approval but R1 standards 12,000 square foot lot minimums. I know that's okay. discussion. No, I'll just say that the um reszoning request seems to be reasonable to me. Um having a commercial doesn't seem to be what anybody wants going forward and so I somewhat echo the former like you're good. So I will say I think it's pretty wise to consider with the market conditions what they will tolerate in putting in single family homes really does fit within the character of the community that's that's been developed there for you know
053for over the last 25 years. I mean understand at least I was told at one point it was Market Street and there was an idea it was going to be full of businesses you know for folks but that's not how it evolved and so at this point I think it's best for the community to keep it within the character of the community and move forward with oh one more comment you know and safety path. So there there is an ordinance safety path or that the builder will have to adhere to. And I think that'll work out really well for that area. Giving the way the community just all need to remember tonight that we're going to make a recommendation one way or the other. whether it stays C1, which it is now, or we make
054a recommendation that it goes to R1, but the final decision is made by the township board. And so we will come forward with a decision and a recommendation. I know many of folks that are here tonight had been here two years ago when we went through a very emotional meeting and ended up not changing any of the zoning. And so I I just want to caution everybody that because we make a decision tonight, we are not the final authority. The township board is and they will look at our recommendation and decide whether they want to go that way or not. Uh to me, having been on the planning commission two years ago, this looks like a much better proposal than what we saw two years ago and seems to fit better in the area. But
055I don't know how the rest of the board feels about the situation. All right. Um yeah, and I I pretty much agree. Um I mean, you know, a couple years ago, it was a it was a very interesting meeting. uh um when there was a discussion about you know making keeping it commercial and and things like that and the uh the sentiment was very clear that you know the community would rather see houses there and I think this is a this is a good proposal it'll fit everything will you know match up to what's there I think the only question and this might be more for uh planning or down the road but I know the question came up uh a couple times about the uh the various HOAs, but you know, is that a
056requirement for these four houses or um master from a zoning ordinance perspective, the language in your ordinance, there is nothing that would there was nothing out of our standards that would require these four homes be proposed as a condominium. or to be part of an HOA. But that isn't uncommon. Those those typically come more with deed restrictions associated with the land and or the way in which the developer plans to assimilate into an already existing development. Okay. Okay. And with that, um, I mean, if there's no more questions or concerns, uh, we can, uh, entertain a motion to Can we ask a question? I'm sorry. We're we're we're past all that. Okay. All right. So I move to recommend approval of the resoning request for a parcel located on Market Street in Oxford Township approximately
0572.6 6 acres tax ID 04-21-2000-00005 from a C1 local commercial district to R1 single family 12,000 square foot minimum residential district based on the findings of fact outlined in section 18.6 of the zoning ordinances set forth in the discussion of the planning commission on the record which confirm that the request meets the eligibility requirements for reszoning. Second. Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Any last discussion or questions? Seeing no, can we get a roll call vote, please? Turner, yes. Durk, yes. Blankenship, yes. Yes. Wagner, yes. Bailey, yes. Motion passed. All right. Thank you very much. With that, we will move on to petition PC25003. Petitioner design house 33000 Auburn Road, Sweet 300 Auburn Hills, Michigan 48325. Uh public hearing and motion. The petitioner is requesting a resoning from C1 local commercial to
058RM multifamily residential parcel ID 04 2120002 located on Market Street approximately 4.5 or I'm sorry 4.57 acres. Um we will go through the the same order the same uh public hearing as before. Um, so if we can start off with Mr. Planner. Okay. Round two. So the the other application for reszoning that's been put forward tonight is for the parcel uh north of Market Street between Stony Lake and Cedar. Um it we'll go through the same procedure kind of my review will kind of touch on the same topics. Um there's some similarities, but again it is a different uh it's a different zoning request. Um and so there's a little bit there's a few more things to consider here. Uh that acre that lot is four and a half acres. Uh it's currently zone C1.
059The request is to resone to RM multiple family. Uh again the application states the intent is to construct uh eight buildings that would house 16 uh units uh attached. As you can see, uh the zones surrounding that parcel are C1, R1A, and R. Um our review again provides all of the permitted and special land uses available in the RM district. Uh the site does appear to be relatively flat. Again, there is the potential for uh wetlands to be on the site depending on whether or not they're regulated or unregulated. Uh will kind of work its way through the site thing process. Um there are no water bodies on site. However, it is, you know, there are lakes nearby. Uh, as we look at the 2019 master plan, again, it does provide some guidance on development
060goals as it relates to residential development. Um, one of them being again to allow for housing opportunities of different densities and styles while remaining consistent with the character of the surrounding area and taking into consideration availability of public utilities. We do note that the propo zone does have a strong correlation uh with this goal as it relates to again kind of conforming to the neighborhood around it uh the availability for capacities to support it. Um, another objective in the master plan discusses uh how commercial and office uses should be focused closer to or along M24. Um, and that you you can site uh or that there is a desire to have maybe smaller commercial style um neighborhood services um but then again commercial uses more akin to the major affairs in the community. Uh the
0612019 future land use designation does have this site as well as village commercial uh which again speaks to commercial uses of a more urban design and layout. Uh your draft future land use map that's making its way through the review process does have this area's private recreation probably is probably influenced by the golf course to the north. Um again the 2019 plan is your cornerstone here. There is a conflict. there is the ability for the plan commission to consider market uh you know change in market considerations or other conditions to allow for something that does not uh exactly fit in with what the future land use designation is from a development perspective if freezone the lot would allow for various residential permitted and special land uses uh as noted in our report uh accounting for
062the current housing market in the area and in the region um the site does have development potential under the RM zone looking at the review standards the consistency with the master plan. Again, we kind of talked that as far as the future land use goes, it's not um it doesn't necessarily it's not compatible with that, but there are some goals and objectives in the master plan that support the use of RM in the area. Compatibility with the site's physical and environmental nature. Um again, C1, if you look at all the uses, you know, if you kind of line them up next to each other, C1 does allow for some pretty intensive uses over the RM. So as it relates to the the physical and environmental demands on the site, RM would be a lower intensity
063use or has the better probability for a lower intensity use. Compatibility with surrounding zones and uses in terms of environment, density, traffic, infrastructure and property values. The the RM zone is conducive with surrounding conditions and does not appear to conflict with traffic, infrastructure or property values or the potential to influence property values. Utility capacity support the proposed zone. Again, Jim can kind of go through that. Uh but there are public utilities in the area and there is capacity available. Road traffic uh permitted in special land uses again when you go through the whole list those uses are going to generate different types of traffic. Um again citing that RM is less intensive than C1. We wouldn't anticipate any major traffic issues uh with an RM zone there as well as the fact that again market
064was designed with traffic in mind and development down the road given the existing curb cuts um and infrastructure of that nature. uh demand for the proposed zone. We've talked about it. There's demand for housing. That's that's not news to anybody. The lot would conform to the design dimensional standards of RM. This lot would um and the township to dees to deem if the proposed zone is more appropriate from other potentials. Again, we talked about large scale commercial and industrial isn't going to work here based on the location, based on the surrounding uses. Um smallcale commercial again could fit on the site. That's what it's been zoned for quite some time and there have not been any viable proposals to de develop the site as such. Uh the site is big enough to pursue a single
065family uh zoning designation. Uh you could do R1 or R1A at this site. It'll come back. Um so again, it's not necessarily intent to kind of figure out what zoning is best. they're proposing what they're proposing, but there are some other residential uh zones that would work on the site as it relates to dimensional as it relates to the other standards that we've discussed. Uh this would not be spot zoning. Uh this is there's been no other application for a reasonzoning in the past year and any other concerns with public health, safety, welfare, and investment. Um again, the RM designation would likely increase the private investment in the area because there development demand now for that type of use. Um and we don't foresee uh any issues with public safety. again the fire department reviewed
066and did not site any major issues or concerns. Um so the summary with this is again it doesn't uh it doesn't completely um coincide with your 2019 future land use master plan but there are some goals and objectives to consider and as far as criteria that's been put forward um you know there are some reasonable considerations here for the RM zone. So again happy to answer any questions. Okay, start again. Matteo, can you zoom in on this image at all in the bottom right corner where it talks about the the height of the structures that could be allowed and um I was looking at Yeah, right there. That chart right there. Can you um can we just talk through that chart for a second? And um yeah, got on my screen too. So what we're
067looking at is the RM, right? This is the 4.58 acres and the RM would allow up to a 35 foot tall building, two stories. Am I reading that right? Uh so you your RM maximums are actually the 45 ft three stories. I'm sorry. What they've again proposed what they've unofficially proposed with what they're showing is 35 ft at two stories. So, um, and forgive me, I haven't memorized the other, you know, 45 foot tall structure, three stories kind of reminds me of a a town home or something. It could be much denser than this potentially at some point in the future. for some reason just developed didn't happen. Is that correct? As far as like would would RM allow for something denser than what they're proposing? Correct. Yes. And the maximum lock coverage would then
068be proposed at less than 40%. maximum lock coverage of the structures, right? Correct. Setbacks below. Yep. Again, my my comment would be concern like I mentioned before about what we see in front of us looks good in my opinion. Um I I you know it's difficult because if it changes that would be very difficult to go back on. So anyway yes appreciate the comments. Appreciate the it's fair questions to ask. I have a Mr. Chair, um so would you mind going to the Cedar Lake and um Market Street intersection? So you're over there where Cedar where Cedar Street is. Um, my concern with that is that as these vehicles come and go from that development that their headlights are going to be shining right in somebody's window there when they turn out and and I
069don't really see much benefit to that um because they can't exit the waterstone community going north on or north or west whatever direction that is on Cedar Street. Seems like not having that driveway there would be best for the community. That's my opinion. I'd like other commissioners comments on that. Um maybe they just end that driveway and they just don't have a curve cut there and put enough space for the people that live there to turn back up, turn around and do what they have to do. Sure. I think you'd have a hard time getting the fire chief to agree to take out either of those because God forbid one of those were to catch fire, you have one way to bring engines in and then they're landlocked. I see. Um, okay. From my years
070on the department, I would welcome those three access points. Okay. And I would and I would say this isn't the site plan. So, like they're all clear comments to be made. It's it it would not relate back to the request about reszoning, but it is a conversation. It is a conversation on site plan for sure. So, I stay focused. Yeah. It's I appreciate. Is it worth talking about the uh the golf cart path that enters the property line? I'll talk about it. Is that from Okay. Cover that. You can have it. Okay. Any Mr. Chair any question? I'm okay. Good. Any questions? So, understanding that RN would allow for multiple What would be that maximum density that that the RM designation would allow? So, that's that's a great question. Your density standards in RM are
071actually they're not hard and fast as it relates to you can only put so many. I believe there's you cannot propose more than 10 units per acre, but that is not that's not the only standard. You have to have so much square footage on the lot per bedroom that's being proposed. And there are different standards that apply to two unit attached single family units as opposed to like multiple family with multi-unit buildings. So it's it's really kind of a slided scale answer. My best my best guess at again what would be proposed is that you could go anywhere between kind of the the 16 end of unit that they're looking at up to potentially it's it is really like I said I'm not trying to script the question it's just that it's it really depends
072on what they're putting forward that allows for the type of density that they could go for. I think in the I think the prior developments that were proposed I think looked at 26 units on this lot something around that. So another 10 from what you see here. So I guess I would comfortably say a range between anywhere between 15 up to 25 26 27 units on the site. I think we'll move you up the list again. All right. Um, very similar to the uh the previous resoning application. Um, there is sanitary sewer available on that side of the street that these homes would uh or sorry this RM reszoning that would be able to connect to. It is in the sewer district also. It is in the water district. There's water line on the site.
073I believe there's a fire hydrant actually already on the site. With regards to storm water there when Stony Lake Village was developed. There was a storm sewer stub that was installed and left on the property for future connection. We would make them put in a like a pre-treatment device because I believe that that drains directly to uh to the lakes. I don't know if there's pre-treatment from when this was originally done 25 years ago. Um, with regards to the pavements, again, Cedar Market, Stony, Lake Drive, they are all under the jurisdiction of the road commission. Um, I was looking at the fire department's review. He didn't really have much to say in his review. He just says they don't have any objections. Um, but, uh, as Mr. Bailey indicated, uh, I think he's going to
074want to see more than just the one access point off of Market Street there. That being said, uh the road commission would, you know, they may have some issues with the location of those driveways because they don't like the access points too close to an intersection so a vehicle could turn out. Again, I'm not the road commission, but that's just my uh you know, my observations with them over the years that they may not want something that's that close. So again, they applicant would have to make application to the road commission for any improvements on any of those any of those roadways there. Uh the golf cart path. Yeah, we noted that whether it's C1, whether it's RM, R1, whatever it is, if a development were ever to go in on that property, you can
075see that the golf cart path um encroaches onto this property. similar to the walkways down on the south end there. So, there would have to be something worked out. Either they could tell Boulder Point, "Move your golf cart path and Boulder Point would have to reroute that or there could be uh an easement that is granted or something like that." But that would be between the two property owners to work out that, you know, work out that deal. You can't just go build your stuff on somebody else's property. It was fine when it's a vacant piece of land, but if somebody wants to develop it, they would have to work that deal out with them. So, um, let me see. I think really that was about it. Um, again, there's adequate utilities there for it.
076Um, no relocations needed on this other than the golf cart um path potentially and uh, road commission is going to have jurisdiction over any of the roadways in there. So, any questions? You can answer your own mind. Tough question. What are so what will be the safety path requirements for this development? The safety path requirement for that development there. Um well, we have the safety path on the other side of the road. Let's see if we commented on that. We commented on that. Yeah. Um I don't believe that there's safety path on the other side of the road. It would be requ put a sidewalk in at minimum but I don't know about the safety path safety path would it be all long market along Cedar along Stony Lake so there would have to be
077I think there's something on Stony already um that they would have to connect into there and on Cedar there would need to be a crosswalk so I would assume across the frontage of their property whether it be a sidewalk 5 foot wide or safety pad 8 foot wide TBD once we get a site plan of actually what they're going to do. Um but yes, they would be required to put something along the frontage there. Anything else? Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. With that, we will move on to the presentation by the petitioner. Can you speak up, please? Yes. Good evening again, Joe. architecture. Yes. So, what we have before you is uh is our goal, our plan for the RM. If the project were to be reszoned to RM, we are proposing to
078build 16 single family attached dwellings. Um, I know in the past more have come, but this is what the developer believes is the most appropriate for the site, most appropriate for the community. Uh, due to the topography of the site, there's maybe some wetlands up in the northwest corner by the golf course. Uh, that these the placement of these dwellings uh makes the most sense. The amount of the dwellings makes the most sense for the developer. uh they believe they can make this a successful project for them and the community. Uh individual dwellings will be somewhere between 1500 and 1700 square ft, two to three bedrooms. Uh each dwelling will have a twocar garage. Uh there'll be two stories with a basement. They will be way under 35 ft. I know we say 35 on
079there, but the the peak of the ridge would be under 35 and the the height to these would be measured to the mid-rise. So be probably in the mid 20s, maybe high 20s. As far as an HOA goes, there has not been inepth conversation on how that would work. We want to get through the reszoning process before we start putting all the eggs in the basket. So there's no plans to come back with increase density project. I know this being a reszoning, not a conditional reasoning, there's no weight to that statement, but we'll say that we we spent a long time getting to this point and we feel that anymore, any less is not appropriate. This is this is the way we want to move forward. I will say that the uh access out of
080Cedar Street and Stony Lake Drive, I did have discussions with Chief Rance about this. Uh he did request that we have more than one access to the site. Due to the length from the access off Market Street to the ends of the street, um we're required to either proide provide access to Stony Lake and Cedar or provide a roundabout or a the hammerhead turnaround. Um due to the limitations of the site, those do not make sense. Thus, the access of Stony Lake Drive and Cedar Street. There is a sidewalk on the west side of Stony Lake Drive that we would connect along Market Street and provide a crosswalk across Cedar Street. The sidewalk down Cedar Street is on the west side of Cedar Street, not on the east side on our on this property. the
081eastment for the golf cart was brought up. If this does get reszoned as part of the site plan approval, we will be discussing with new orders at Bullet Point for the golf path. I don't think anybody wants to see that in I shape my balls there as it is now further. So I think that is the I'm happy to answer any questions. Questions? Go ahead. Start down there. It's more of the same about controlling construction debris around the site. Um those types of things. I I wanted to thank you. I think these presentations are a breath of fresh air to the community. Um I would ask on the um you know to try to save as many trees as you can along the golf course if possible. it might help the orange. Who knows? But
082um um that's again that is probably down the road a little bit. But um I just think that that helps um when a community like this being developed, the less trees get cut down initially, it's less of a shock to the community. When somebody comes and it just cleared cuts everything, it it really can upset people. So thank you. I appreciate consideration. question. All right, I think that uh answers all of our questions. Okay, thank you. With that, I will entertain a motion to open the public hearing. Motion to open the public uh testimony hearing. Public testimony. Second. Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Uh any discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Public hearing will start at 7:47. Um, same rules uh apply as the last time. So, if anybody
083would like to uh come up and discuss any topics. Good evening again. Maryann Kanes, a resident of the Stony Lake Village condos at 149 Stony Lake Drive. It's always a little bit troubling as a logistician to see how we're discussing reszoning when we don't really have a true site plan. There's always that risk that we take because this is the seventh development for these parcels in my years that I've been a resident here that have come and gone. And this by far is the most realistic. I mean, we've seen Disney World wanting to come in in these parcels and this is the most realistic thus far. I will agree to that. But I think us zoning at it RM we are assuming a risk of what we see tonight and what we could possibly see
084when the site plans do filter in. For instance, I see eight buildings. I my preference is I think if you fit seven in there, it'll be more relaxed. You do have a wetland area and those two that are near Cedar Street and Stony Lake Drive are very close to our our roads when you look at it a little bit more closer. But that's my uh preference on that. Why they didn't want to build single uh family homes on our side too, that could be a possibility as well. But we are taking a risk going with RM because I have seen developers back out after, you know, we we've seen that. I know Mr. Turner, we've been around the block a few years and a few developments and that can always happen. And then once we
085reszone it, if something comes in RM and it meets the RM requirement, we don't have recourse. So, um, I just have a few what I might say concerns, issues. I know they're a little early on. They're probably more site plan concerns, but I have brought them up earlier before and it's helped shape and influence what down the road with the developer. Um, the first one being we talked about the HOAs. If these developments come to fruition, they will have to be part of the Waterstone HOA. They will have to pay the annual HOA fees. They would take advantage of the amenities of Waterstone. The rest of us Waterstone residents would expect them to be paying the annual dues and any other assessments that Waterstone residents will come across in the future. So whether those seven,
086eight buildings, condos, they would be separate from Stony Lake uh Village Condo Association, they could form their own HOA or go with those four homes and be one HOA, however they want to work it, but that has to be in the future documents that they will be part of the HOA um waterstone development. The other concern I have is we haven't really talked about lake access, especially on this parcel that we're addressing now. this particular parcel. There is no easement for these eight buildings, these 16 condo unit owners, potential owners to access Stony Lake outside of the Stony Lake um township park. That is public access, but that is not really walkable. That's something they would have to get in their vehicle and commute their kayaks, canoes, boats to launching to the park. But they
087do not have an easement to go directly from their unit down to Stonyia Lake. They would uh be trespassers of the uh Boulder Point Golf Course and if they tried to come down our Stony Lake Drive and cut in, they would be trespassers of the Stony Lake Village Condo Association. And so that needs to be addressed. What type of perimeter are you going to have between those condo units and the um golf course to keep them from looking out the window and seeing the lake and not being able to touch? So, they could only be sold as lake view, not lake access units. And I think that really needs to be um you know identified with the developer that they can't sell them as lake access. Um in that regards also those of us that
088live on Stony Lake Drive and those that live on Cedar Street, we don't want a curb cut. We don't want additional traffic coming from Cedar and or on to Stony Lake Drive. We would prefer that there be in and out on Market Street for this parcel and no curb cutting on Stony Lake Drive and Cedar Street. You know, on Stony Lake Drive, I've been before you, the Township Board. I don't know how many times. Um, we're talking about the traffic difficult. We're we're past three minutes. I am on a couple extra folks if I can, but I will try to be succinct. Excuse me. You're three minutes left. Okay. Okay. Then other people can speak. They can speak for themselves, but you can't take their time. Okay. The infrastructure. There's no lighting. There's no lamp
089lights on that parcel right now. Miss Kane. Miss King. Okay, your time is up. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Hi, I'm Lisa Be um uh uh on the board, presidentstone Lake Village Community. Um uh Maryann did a good job jumping in some of those items. Um the other thing, and I think we're all real concerned about those e the curbs. Um we have ton of traffic. We've been working with the road commission on the amount of traffic we have coming through. The gentleman that I've been working with, he said we have more traffic than we should for that road. It's a major cut through. We all know it. We all use it. I everyone in this room cuts through to get to Myers, get to the school. So, that's a real problem
090that I have. And I've worked at that sign there, our Stony Lake Village sign, and I have seen near accidents all the time where people fly around that corner. So, it's it's a concern of what would happen there with that entrance. And I'm sure it's real similar on Seth Street that that's those are busy corners. And um and like I said, for the volume of traffic we get, it's very high. So, that's something to kind of keep in mind. If there's a way that they could work the curves differently so there's another entrance off of market, that would be preferable. Um, and then as far as, and I'm in agreement, I think this is far far superior to the previous presentation. I think this is I think most of us in that conversation about the
091um commercial. That's probably not what we would want. Um, but we want to make sure we're making, you know, that a good decision is being made for ongoing in the community. Um it it is such a concern with turning this into RM and what could happen down the road. Um RM if we could have an RM small or mini you know we'd be much more comfortable. This would be great to say, okay, cap the height at certain amount, cap it at how many units um and get some of these understand. And we understand that this isn't site plan, but if we if we open up the door to RM, what does that leave us with potentially down the road? A lot more traffic, a lot more damage to the property, a damage to the lake,
092um you know, conflicts conflicts with different um HOAs. So, that's that's kind of our thinking on that. Is there anything else that the parallel parking on Market Street? We did keep the discussions this way. You had your three minutes. I do. Thank you. So, um, and then I guess we would want to know that we could be included in some of the conversations with regard to what's going to happen with the sign. It's kind of it looks like it's going to be grandfathered in. That's great. But what would happen there and how would that be addressed from a design viewpoint? you know, those are all things that we want to, you know, we spend a lot of time and money um making sure our community looks good. So, those are our thoughts. Um, from my
093personal viewpoint, I think the RM is better than what we've had before. However, it's opening that up to a to a bigger, you know, a bigger potential that may not be as beneficial. Thank you. Hi, I'm Maria Kisnney. I'm at 1390 Glass Lake Circle in the Gulf Highlands. So, we're just past Cedar Street, Glass Lake. And I would like to reiterate what a few others have said. I am concerned about making it multiple the RM rather than the R1 because we could end up not that They're not trustworthy, but who knows what we could end up with that we could end up with town houses again, which no one seems to want. I'm also concerned about the Cedar Street and the Stony Lake um access into that development. I would much prefer to see two
094access points from Market Street because the Cedar Street one is as was spoken earlier, the headlights would go right into that Bay Village development and the arguments that have been posed about the fire chief and the access Bay Village if I'm not mistaken on the other side of Cedar Street doesn't have a cutout onto Cedar or onto their the other street on the other side, Cross Street, I think. So, why couldn't it be done like what's been done with Bay Village? I I don't know what the difference would be. And as far as like the landscape, just to point out to those of you who don't know, all the trees and everything has already been raised. They came in there and they they just cleared that that land. There's nothing left. They made it completely
095ugly for us residents to look at now. So, it really does have to be developed. We just want it to be developed in a reasonable way. Thanks. Thank you. Okay, good job. I'm back. My name is Marilyn Grant and I live at 154 Stony Lake Drive and I don't want more traffic. I don't want to see construction vehicles plowing through our streets. If they want to come in through Market Street, that's fine. But we already get enough traffic on Stony Lake Drive just from the kids getting out of school going to and from. And they don't go the speed limit. They don't even know what that means. So I don't want more traffic there and none of us do. I can't point to a single resident of Stony Lake Village that says, "Sure, we can
096deal with more traffic. Bring it on. So please bear that in mind that the residents who are already there are fine with development. What we don't want is the negative impact on our roads. Thank you. Um okay again I'm going to reiterate what uh the others have pointed out. Um the multifamily um I'm not a fan of it. I don't even know if the township has done a survey of any sort that uh says we have a need for it. Has that happened yet to know that there's a need for multif family like this? It's I we've studied this in the master plan. Okay. But it hasn't been like put out any yet. your new so um I think well if it's a necessity it makes sense but only at this uh number of units
097maximum um and no more otherwise it just looks very congested you have a lot more traffic honestly I think that aesthetically it would be better served as just a residential power one like the other um you know lots across from it. Um I don't understand for the life of me why a setback uh would need to be in this manner because um I know from being in Bay Village, our setback that is Market Street with those homes and they have the one street with two uh enters entrances and exits on Market Street. Um it's a pain in the butt for snow plowing. It's a pain in the butt for the because it's considered an easement. It's not considered a street. So, um like the county won't come and plow that. Um you probably don't know
098that, but from experience I know that. Um so, that kind of the setback I think would be better served if it were right at Market Street. And then that would eliminate the need for putting the exits on to Stony Lake and to Cedar. That's uh another way of looking at this. It would also allow the uh properties that have a larger backyard and um you know the cart path issue would be uh you know less of an issue I guess but um yeah I wouldn't want to see more density in that area for those reasons and uh residential one I think would serve the purpose just just fine. That's it's my opinion from being here and seeing this otherwise uh it seems okay. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. My name is
099uh John Krisny. Highway the 1390 Glass Lake Circle. Just a couple of things. Uh I'm gonna going to bring up the the the cutouts again. Um and the concerns around that in particular on Cedar Street there. It it seems like there would be a kind of a significant safety concern uh around that. Already we have a safety concern. Uh we don't have any way of actually getting across across Market Street to get to the safety path. Um, on the other side of the street, there aren't any stop signs, there isn't a crosswalk, there isn't anything like that. Um, you're going to be increasing the density, increasing the amount of people that are there in terms of that who want to get to that safety path. Uh, from that perspective, putting in putting in those cutouts,
100you have traffic that's coming both ways, potentially on market going into Cedar or going on Stony Lake. you have traffic, you would have traffic coming out of um Cedar or traffic coming out of Sod Lake and then traffic coming out of the the proposed new uh thing. Um all kind of converging into two parts uh in terms of that with a lot of people that are trying to get around um on those paths. So uh that's a concern uh with respect to that. Uh, also just to bring up once again, uh, I think I think it was brought up on with the other, um, uh, parcel, uh, is that I believe that there's there's proposed parking, uh, on market. Uh, in terms of that, uh, you know, once again, uh, there's a concern with having
101a parking out there. Thanks. Thank you. With that, I will take a motion to close the public hearing. Public testimony. Motion to close the public hearing. Second. We have a motion. We have a second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Public hearing is closed at 8:04 p.m. Um, any last comments from the consultants or team? So again, I just would like to come back and beat the dead horse if I may. And again, this information was voluntarily offered by the applicant. You know, it's facilitated a lot of conversation tonight. Um but I've also heard and again more to the point of the different conversations about you know the RM zone what it allows again the applicant has given us this information which the planning commission can look at but again the consideration here is
102for the RM zone and all that would be permitted or special in use um in that zone and also the point that again the applicant there's no reason to think that they haven't put their best foot forward here but further due diligence on development of site might dictate the moving of structures or infrastructure or things of that nature that just come more along with the investment of time and money that goes into the next step should they proceed. So again, happy to answer any questions. I know I've beaten the dead horse. Um what you're considering tonight is the RM zone and all that comes with it. Thank you, sir. Anything else? Okay, we will move on to review of correspondence if any for this. No. None. Okay. Uh, commissioners discussions. Start now with any questions
103or nothing at this time. Thank you. Uh, I would just say that we probably we need to trust the developer in this one. Um, it's a good site plan. It's better than ones that were proposed before. Um, so it might be a good time to take that risk. Um, they've got a lot of time, effort, and money invested in this and they most likely won't change it for without a good reason. So that's my thoughts after hearing all of this. Definitely understand that we're hearing your concerns and when site plan does come up, we'll we'll be taking note. Thank you. Good. Couple comments. I think having a a sidewalk connecting Cedar and Stony Lake will be good for the community. Right now, what folks do is I think cut through the golf course property in
104order to in order to get across from, you know, one street to the other. So, having an actual path where you're not trespassing on someone else's property will be a good thing. Um, we'll certainly take developer at his word. will not um I don't know for a lack of a better term but fade and switch and and increase the density. So we're trusting you on that and and I'll take again take you at your word. I am a little bit concerned about the the cutout approach with you know ingress and egress from from Stony Lake to Cedar Street. If you do look at the cutouts west of that, you know, you do have multiple access points um to market through that cutout. And I think that's like it was brought, you know, pointed out, it
105does make it difficult for snow plows, but I but I do think from a safety standpoint, it would be a lot more would make a lot more sense if if you had two or three cutouts that actually went to market as opposed to trying to divert traffic through cedar or stone wedding. Those are my points. Thank you. Well, we're in the same situation with this piece of property as we were with the piece on the south side of Market Street. All we're going to do tonight is make a recommendation one way or the other against the zoning of that piece of property. Now, this is the first step down the road. As the builders or whoever decides to come forward with plans, it will put a lot more concrete around what happens to the piece
106of property within whatever zoning ends up. And based on the fact that it has been commercial of C1 for a long time, nobody has bid on on it to do anything with it. Uh it may be appropriate that we change it and then see what happens. All right. Thank you. Um, yeah, I kind of echo uh a lot of the sentiment that uh you know, it's nice to see the uh the the plan that's put forward. I uh I am in favor of the cutouts on Cedar and Stony. Um, just from uh a safety thing with, you know, getting firet trucks, ambulances, things like that in there. Um, I personally would like to have seen them on the other side of the road as well, but they're already built. So, can't go back. But, uh,
107um, you know, and and we do hear all the sentiments. We do understand, you know, the the concern with traffic. Um, I honestly think this beats the alternative because if this was commercial, there'd be a lot more traffic um down market. that there'd be a lot more traffic down Stony, which you know, obviously we keep hearing we don't want to have any more traffic on Stony, but it is a public road, so it's how do we how do we minimize that? And I think this is probably the the best thing. Um, with that, I'll uh entertain a motion. All right. So I move to recommend approval of the resoning request for the parcel located on Market Street in Hawk Township approximately 4.57 acres tax ID 04-21-2000-00002 from C1 local commercial district to RM multiple family
108residential district based on the findings of fact outlined in section 6 of the zoning ordinance is set forth in the discussion of planning commission on the record which confirmed which confirm that request meets the eligibility requirements for the reasoning. Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Any last discussions, Mr. Chair? Sir, I just like to thank everybody that came out today and speak about this uh this motion here. So, thank you very much. With that, can we have a roll call vote? Bloss, yes. Blankenship, yes. Durk, yes. Turner, yes. Wagner, yes. Bailey, yes. Motion passed. Thank you very much. All right, with that we will move on to 10 unfinished business um master plan updates. Okay, let's see. So, as the planning commission is aware, uh we are working our way through the
109updating of the master plan and the step that we find ourselves at is that the last month the bank commission voted to send the master plan draft to the township board for their consideration. The township board reviewed the master plan and had some folks. We still have a meeting going on. If you are exiting, please carry conversations out the hallway. Thank you. Um, so the township board reviewed the plan um and provided uh some feedback as it relates to some changes that uh they recommended. So now what you have in front of you this evening is the new or the revised draft based on those comments. Um I I believe I've explained before and my apologies the software that we use to publish these plans does not allow alli allow for a simple red line.
110Uh so what we did was we incorporated all the changes requested by the board and provided you with a memo stating the page and the change that was made uh for your reference for this evening. Um so what we are here to do tonight is to have the planning commission make a decision on whether or not they have any concerns uh comments on the changes that were made by the board. And then this evening, you would take another vote to either recommend sending the the draft as it is with these changes back to the board for their consideration in May or um if there are items or changes that took place that the commission has issue with, you could vote to recommend that it come back to us to make additional changes. So with that,
111I'm happy to answer any questions as it relates to some of the changes that are referenced. Okay, we could probably start down at the end and any I'm good with it. You're good with it. Okay. I guess the question for me is as you look at these changes, did you verify that the changes were accurate? Were there any were there any changes made that stated something that's incorrect? I I would say from a from a call it a statistical standpoint, a technical stand point there were discrepancies that were brought to our attention that we corrected if if the number was in fact in error. Um some of the changes that you see are the removal of certain words or the changing of certain images or things of that nature. Those changes really at the end
112of the day unless we just completely miss the mark which I don't think is the case are more of a subjective kind of request. So again, I don't it's not it's not to say whether or not there was verification as to whether something was right or wrong. If it was more preferential based, but if it was a statistical or technical area, they were corrected. Yeah, that was my concern. The technical the factual stuff. Yes. Yes. Yeah. We that so those that was verified that the facts were the technical part was was indeed needing to be correct. Yeah. Correct. I would um Yeah. Honestly, I mean, you know, this is a tough process. This is a massive document and I would offer up both you and the township board pats on the back for kind of
113the thoroughess in which it was reviewed at both levels. Um, we always strive to be correct and anchor with everything. Um, but you know, you know your town better than anybody else and where you saw discrepancies, you brought them to our attention and like I said, if they were to be corrected, they did. But I we appreciate the level to which this has been reviewed, you know, at both commissions. any issues or concerns that you saw there? No, no, I read through all of the changes. Thank you. Yeah, I would just say that I read through them all as well and they all seem very reasonable to me. But what you said would be just to Yeah. Yeah. That's good. It's it's an important document. You can see why. So hopefully it gives us good
114guidance going down the road. We got to make decisions like we did. Yeah. Y for sure. So do you need a formal motion and vote to pass it up again? Yep. Send it to the township board. Okay. So one last comments. Sure. Perfect is the enemy of the good. I think this is a good document. So let's quit quit trying to make it perfect. Make sure that's in the minutes. We didn't vote on that though. Make a motion to recommend the pass the master plan to the township board for approval. Second. We have a motion. We have a second. Any discussion on this? All in favor? I. Any opposed? That carries. Okay, we'll move on to new business, the ORC 25 2025 work plan. Yep. Uh so as the plan commission is aware, uh the
115ORC put together a work plan uh that was approved two months ago, I want to say planning commission level. It went to the township board again. Township board put it through a fine tooth comb, which is their job. cited some concerns uh and kind of advised a reworking of the work plan. So the RC got together, took into consideration some of those concerns and and I would say admirably kind of looked at like let's start to work on things that we can reasonably you know let's let's not bite off more than we can chew. Um, and so what you have in front of you is kind of based on the feedback from the board, but also some feedback from staff, uh, and some of the things that we're fielding at the front counter that we
116feel could could aid in clarification of the ordinance. So, what you have in front of this evening is that revised plan. Um, again, high priority, we're working on industrial setbacks. Uh, we're going to look at mixed use zoning. Um, medium priority is accessory solar uses. Uh there has been some interest in sites being able to generate energy via solar panels on their site. Uh currently the ordinance does not allow for that. Uh lower priorities are looking at murals, uh landscaping standards and accessory dwelling units. And then we added this new contingency. Um this is the zoning board of appeals and map maintenance are something you're going to do every year. It's really not fair to call it a priority. This is kind of you deal with it as it as it arises. So this is
117just more of a contingency for us to put a budget number in to present to the board to say this is what we anticipate how much of this work we anticipate doing this year based on demand. So with that again I'm happy to answer any questions. The action tonight would be the planning commission recommends approval of the OC's work plan the board approves it uh and we would prepare a budget if the planning commission approves it this evening or recommends it for approval this evening. Okay. Yes. So ask if there's any questions or topics you want to discuss about this. Sure. Trees. Yes. Keep on bringing it up. Sure. It doesn't look like it's making the cut. Uh it that specific line item was there was concern at the board level with that. Um and
118the sentiment was it's a broad statement to say that they don't support it. I don't necessarily think that they hate trees. I I think it's more or less a concern about the complications those ordinances can create both in enforcement and in realistic development of sites. If I am miss if I am misspeaking from from the town's perspective, I I would stand reacted. I just it it wasn't a but it was a very big concern and there was not the sentiment from the OC that if it were to remain in the plan that it would that it would get approval from the board from a budget perspective kind of thing which were drafted and sent to the board they they may not support it. Mr. ties to the comment I made about earlier when that one
119north lot off of market developing that trees that are left in place currently wasn't completely clearcut but there are still some trees in place and I think that's not that I want to save every tree but I think it just has less of an impact when a development comes along if versus completely clear cutting the entire lot. So um and I know that a lot of these trees are woods or other undesirable trees. And maybe that's um one of the issues that that comes up related to this. But um you know, we we heard a lot of comments a couple of meetings in the past about a development recently drainer there. They just they cut everything down and the person that was living to the east of that was looking at this clearcut property. So
120I just um I think still want to just continue the discussion and um hopefully plant the seed or seed or however you want to look at it. I I just Yeah, appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. And you need a vote on that as well. Correct. Recommendation to a board approval of the work plan. Okay. Entertain a motion on that. So motion to recommend the OC 2025 work plan for approval to the board. A second. We have a motion. We have a second. Any last discussion? All in favor? I. Any opposed? That carries. Thank you. Thank you, sir. um communication and committee reports. Uh RC. Well, you just uh approved our work plan that to take forward to the township board for their approval and with their approval comes the budget to work on it.
121And so our next meeting will be in May and uh we appreciate church support at this point and taking it forward. Okay, thank you very much. Any last reports, gentlemen? Throw it up there. I guess you got to do something. Do something. Well, I will say that with the first pick of the 2025 NFL draft, the Tennessee Titans did in fact take Cam War. So, just so you know, you get home and watch the rest of it. Why now? Um, again, uh, there's some m in the report there's the municipal projects up there which are ongoing primarily water sewer safety path issues. The second page of that pertains more to uh to this uh this commission here where it talks about the private development projects. One of them is Sanctuary Hills. That's an 85 unit
122development that's on Drainer Road. They are working through their engineering still. Um they're planning on breaking that into two phases though. It sounds like it came through here as one big project, but they're going to break it into two phases. I mean the layout hasn't changed at all. It's just the phasing of the project. And then the third one on the list is the villages uh and peninsula of Tulmore. Tullymore north we call it. This is the one across from the Oxford Hills golf course. They've been delayed because of Eagle because previously they had recorded uh a lot of a lot of easements with Eagle and things have changed since those easements were recorded years ago. So, they've been working with Eagle to reestablish those, have their wetland people go out um both private developer
123and Eagle. And I know that that was recently noticed by Eagle. Um the public, it's an opportunity to review the documents and so forth, but that's probably going to be happening within the next month or so. And at that point, I would think they would be coming back to this commission with all, you know, site plan drawings and things like that at that time. So, that one's kind of in the hopper coming down the road. Mr. Chair, what development is that again? Uh, we refer to it as TLore North. It's it's uh they submitted it as the villages and peninsula of Tullmore. The peninsula. Yeah, it's 61 single single one 61 single family home and 105 condominium units. It's right across the entrance. It's on Drainer Road, east side of M24 across from the Oxford
124Hills golf course entrance back there. They cleared a lot of trees already. Um they haven't really done any grading, but that will be coming pretty soon. Enclaves of Woodbridge, um they are very very close. They're going to be putting in their road in I believe within the next two weeks. Um, but all the utilities are in. And so that's the third and final phase of that one. This is the one up by the high school, the kind of units up by the high school. So there will be some basements that are going to be starting to go in there pretty quickly. Um, and then Baron and Wellbridge are um they are in the engineering phases as well, so they'll probably be breaking ground on their projects um probably later this year. And as was mentioned
125by somebody from the public earlier, I believe in your next uh your next meeting, you will have another reasonzoning request for a piece of property at the southwest corner of Market Street and M24. You know where that is. It's kind of as you go in on the south side of Market Street before you get to Boulder Point Golf Course, there's a kind of a long strip of land in there. So that will be coming in request as well on the southwest southwest corner. Is that where the clubhouse is? Isn't that where the clubhouse is now? There's a piece of there's a piece of property between the clubhouse and M24. Oh, I thought that was Amazon Park. No, just to the north of that is where this res. So again, you'll have another decision, you know,
126to be made on that. I know that we have provided our reviews to Cheryl and it's currently being noticed in the paper. So that's why the Yes. Okay. Any other questions? A question. You mentioned the 85 homes under sanctuary hills. Yes. That was I think the lot that I was just referring to that was just completely clearcut and I understand it's broken up in two phases. Is that right? Correct. So what what's the question I guess? Well, the question is they it's more of a statement I guess now that they've clearcut all their property and now they're saying we're going to do this in two phases half of it will be clearcut and left for an undetermined amount of time. It will be. Yes. I mean they hope to do it obviously depends on the
127market. you know, they would hope to do phase one, get the infrastructure in, get some homes going, generate sales from that to help, you know, fund, I guess, phase two. But yes, you are correct in that that property was cleared as one development. Um, not all of it. I mean, remember they did the clustering where they they brought everything towards Drainer Road and left the portion on the south side with trees, right? But you are correct in that, you know, they will it will kind of remain unveed like that right now for a period of time. That's too bad. Thank you. Anything else? I have a question for you, Brad. Dwey. Um, two permits are required before they can start construction and funding. So funding for the grant has been approved. So it would just
128be the execution of that funding to move it, you know, further. That funding we um we received comments back from Eagle. They had a few minor comments. Okay. Um and so we're we are responding to those and after that they should be able to issue the actual sanitary sewer permit and then there is another permit that is required from the road commission because those are technically road commission roads up there. Sure. So we need their approval as well. And what would be the anticipated timing for that? How long does a road commission take to approve permits? Um, you know, they're they're probably 45 to 60 days. Okay. I would say that permit was submitted probably 45 to 60 days ago. So, I would hope that would be coming through anytime. Um, yeah. So, so might
129be a chance to start the project before the end of the year. You know better Mr. Water and sewer committee chairman I think his answer question is it moves at the speed of government. Yeah moves at the speed of government and yet some funding approves passes. You are well aware that we need to determine how it's going to be funded. Y I think the permits will be in place. Thank you. All right. Thank you sir. Thank you. Have a good night. You too. Anything else? Sure. Let's see. We got number breaking in the new guy. I know sharp for spoken for tonight. I know. Yeah. Um no, I mean from from perspective as Jim had mentioned uh we will have another consideration in two weeks along Market Street. Um trying to think if there's going
130to be anything else on that agenda as well. Is that fireworks? fireworks extended hours. Yep. So, there's there are, you know, we're getting into summertime season, so there most fire work tent reviews are done administratively, but they can request an exception for operating hours for the plane commissions to provide it. So, that'll be on the next meeting. Um, and then yeah, I mean, just standard business. Things have been really busy at top, but uh but those are kind of the big things for the next meeting. Thank you. With that, I will take a motion for adjourn. Motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? We are done. 831