Planning Commission

STERLING HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL March 9, 2017 LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 40555 Utica Road, Sterling Heights, MI SUBJECT: Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission held March 9, 2017. Mr. Reinowski called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present at roll call: Geoff Gariepy, Edward Kopp, Stefano Militello, Donald Miller, Jeffrey Norgrove, and Leonard Reinowski Members absent at roll call: Paul Jaboro – Excused Gerald Rowe - Excused Also in attendance: Chris McLeod, City Planner Don DeNault, City Attorney APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Gariepy, to APPROVE the Agenda. Ayes: Militello, Gariepy, Miller, Norgrove, Reinowski, Kopp Nays: None Absent: Jaboro and Rowe Motion carried. PPCM-1170 – Palm Ryan Planned Unit Development - MRFR, LLC Requesting approval for a planned unit development concept plan for the development of a sixteen (16) unit single family residential condominium in the R-100 One Family Residential District – East side of Ryan Road, south of 18 ½ Mile Road in Section 8. Property addresses: 41762, 41740, 41776, 41844 Ryan Road Mr. Reinowski asked Mr. McLeod for an overview. Mr. McLeod showed site plans and gave an overview stating this request is for approval for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) which includes the development of a 16-unit single family residential condominium development. The development would include the 16 individual home sites for residences with a minimum square footage of 2,700 square feet and an extensive landscaping scheme throughout the development. He then explained the PUD process. Mr. Reinowski asked if the Commissioners had any questions for Mr. McLeod. Mr. Gariepy asked Mr. McLeod to clarify why this development will be a PUD. Mr. McLeod stated the main reason is to be able to reduce and reconfigure the overall setbacks. He stated the PUD provides flexibility. He then explained grasscrete and how it is used. Mr. Reinowski asked the petitioner for an overview. Phil Ruggeri, representing the petitioner, came forward to the podium. He displayed site plans and examples of the various elevations of the proposed homes. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Ruggeri the estimated price of the units. Mr. Ruggeri responded approximately $500,000. Mr. Gariepy asked about the grasscrete path being accessible for an emergency vehicle. He also asked when the landscaping around the perimeter of the development will be installed. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of March 9, 2017 Page 2 Mr. Ruggeri stated the grasscrete path to Allegheny will be for emergencies only and if any landscaping would get destroyed, it would be repaired or replaced. He explained the perimeter landscaping would be done after the houses are built so they are not destroyed in the process of building. Mr. Reinowski asked for any other questions from the Commissioners. Being none, he called for public participation. Charles Jefferson, Sterling Heights, asked if there will be a fence along the walkway that connects to Allegheny. Dennis Kolomyjec, 4230 Damson, Sterling Heights, stated he is the closest house to the development. He is concerned about the perimeter landscaping and about the drainage in his yard once the development is done. Tim Carpenter, 4358 Allegheny, Sterling Heights, stated his concerns for the emergency grasscrete pathway and stated he is not in favor of it. Steve Finley, 4245 Allegheny, Sterling Heights, stated concern for the water drainage and is not in favor of the emergency pathway. Roger Lonsway, 41800 Prunum, Sterling Heights, stated concern for the size lots and his property value. He also stated concern for the maintenance of the development. Tony Buccellato, Sterling Heights, stated concern for the emergency pathway and is not in favor of it. Mr. Ruggeri stated an option for the emergency pathway is a break-away gate. He also stated the water drainage will be improved with this development. Mr. Reinowski asked the Commissioners for any questions. Mr. Gariepy asked Mr. McLeod to explain why the city feels it’s important for the emergency access to Allegheny Dr. and will it truly be maintained. Mr. McLeod explained emergency service is the major reason for cross connection. He explained there should have been an actual roadway going through but they are using the grasscrete as an alternative. It will be maintained by the association of the development. Mr. Norgrove stated the easements look like part of someone’s yard. He stated there are many around the city and there isn’t a problem with the general public using them as a roadway. Mr. Miller stated if there is heavy traffic you would want the emergency access there. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any further question/comments. Being none, he called for a motion. Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Miller, in the case of PPCM-1170, 41740, 41762, 41776, 41844 Ryan Road, I move to recommend approval of the concept plan for the Planned Unit Development, based upon the facts and plans presented, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the development shall remain consistent with the scale and nature of the use as described in the proposal, at Public Hearing and reflected on the concept plan; 2. That if the concept plan and Planned Unit Agreement are approved by the City Council, the petitioner shall develop the development in compliance with all Planning Commission Regular Meeting of March 9, 2017 Page 3 pertinent codes, ordinances and standards of the City of Sterling Heights, County of Macomb and the State of Michigan. 3. That if the concept plan and Planned Unit Agreement are approved by the City Council, appropriate site plan and engineering plans meeting all other requirements of the City of Sterling Heights shall be provided by the developer. 4. That if the concept plan and Planned Unit Agreement are approved by the City Council, the modifications requested as a part of the overall PUD concept plan be approved as they generally meet the intent of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and specifically the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. 5. That if the concept plan and Planned Unit Agreement are approved by the City Council, the Planned Unit Development Agreement be finalized, signed and recorded by the owner of the property and the City. 6. That with City Council approval, the overall time frame for the completion of the project be as required by Ordinance, unless the time frame is extended upon request by the applicant and approval by City Council. 7. The recommendation of the Planning Commission shall remain valid and in force only as long as the facts and information presented to the Commission in the public hearing are found to be correct and the conditions upon which this motion is based are forever maintained as presented to the Commission. 8. That the landscaping plan be modified, as acceptable to the City Planner, to increase the number of plantings proposed onsite prior to City Council consideration. 9. That if the development is to be established as a site condominium, that the applicant prepare a Master Deed and Bylaws for the condominium, acceptable to the City Planning, and Engineering Departments and City Attorney, and that a mandatory condominium association be formed. This action is based on the following findings: 1. That the proposed development with the intent and Ordinance requirements set forth in Section 22.03 of the Zoning Ordinance authorizing planned unit developments. To the extent of any conflict between the proposed PUD development as set forth in the PUD Agreement and the concept plan and other conflicting provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the PUD Agreement and the contents of the concept plan shall control. 2. That the density proposed as a part of the concept plan is generally compliant with the densities proposed within the City’s newly adopted Master Land Use Plan. 3. That the density proposed as a part of the concept plan is generally compliant with the densities permissible within other single family development options permissible within the City for the subject site. 4. That the proposed home sizes, architecture and building materials provide for a residential development consistent with the surrounding area and above standard Ordinance requirements. 5. That the proposed development of the property as a PUD to be operated and maintained by a mandatory association of unit owners responsible for maintenance of common areas will facilitate the long-term operation and use of this property as a first class residential development. 6. That the perimeter landscaping, common area landscaping and individual site landscaping incorporated into the concept plan and associated exhibits is generally consistent with the City’s landscaping standards and policies for increasing greenspace and tree canopy coverage. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of March 9, 2017 Page 4 7. That the concept plan provides an acceptable residential local roadway along with an additional emergency access connection to Alleghany Drive. Mr. Reinowski asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. McLeod stated there was an email from Evelyn Russell stating her concern regarding a condominium development at this location. He also stated he had conversations with Ron Mitchell. Mr. Reinowski asked if there was any other discussion on the motion. Being none, he asked for a roll call vote. Ayes: Militello, Miller, Norgrove, Reinowski, Gariepy, Kopp Nays: None Absent: Jaboro and Rowe Motion carried. Mr. Reinowski called a recess. Mr. Reinowski called the meeting to order. PSP17-0004 – 43488 Mound Road Office Building - Erik Heiderer - Polyarch Requesting site plan approval for a 10,000 square foot office building in the C-1 Local Convenience Business District – East side of Mound Road, south of Goff Avenue in Section 4. Property addresses: 43488 and 43498 Mound Road Mr. Reinowski asked Mr. McLeod for an overview. Mr. McLeod explained site plans and stated this is a request for site plan approval for a 10,000 square foot office building in a C-1 Local Convenience Business District. This would be adjacent to a single family residential property. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any questions from the Commissioners for Mr. McLeod. Mr. Gariepy asked if this is a one story office building or is it a building with an attic. Mr. McLeod stated, for useable space, it is a one story office building. Mr. Reinowski asked the petitioner to come to the podium. Eric Heiderer from Polyarch, 44045 Gratiot, came forward to the podium. He stated he is representing the owner, Nick, of the Flaming Grill on Mound. He explained it is a one story office building; half will be utilized as a medical facility and the other half as general office space. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any other questions from Commissioner. Being none, he asked for public participation. Being none, he called for a motion. Motion by Mr. Kopp, supported by Mr. Gariepy, in the case of PSP17-0004, 43488 and 43498 Mound Road, I move to APPROVE the site plan, based upon the facts and plans presented, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the development and operation of the facility shall remain consistent with the scale and nature of the use as described in the proposal, at Public Hearing and reflected on the site plan; 2. That the petitioner shall develop, maintain and operate the facility in compliance with all pertinent codes, ordinances and standards of the City of Sterling Heights, County of Macomb and the State of Michigan. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of March 9, 2017 Page 5 3. The decision of the Planning Commission shall remain valid and in force only as long as the facts and information presented to the Commission are found to be correct and the conditions upon which this motion is based are forever maintained as presented to the Commission. 4. That appropriate site plan and engineering plans meeting all other requirements of the City of Sterling Heights be provided for each phase as it develops. 5. That the landscaping modifications as outlined within the Planning Office’s staff report be provided. 6. That the parking and dumpster modifications as outlined within the Planning Office’s staff report be provided. 7. That appropriate cross access easements be provided to the properties to the north and to the south. 8. That the appropriate lot combination application be applied for and obtained by the petitioner. This action is based on the following findings: 1. That with the noted conditions, the proposed site plan will be compliant with all City Ordinances and requirements. 2. That the abutting sites to the north and south are zoned consistent with the subject site and that the appropriate screening wall has been provided between the subject site and abutting residential dwellings to the east. 3. That the use of the site for general and medical office purposes is an acceptable use within the C-1 Local Convenience Business District. Mr. Reinowski asked for any discussion on the motion. Being none, he asked for a roll call vote. Ayes: Kopp, Gariepy, Militello, Miller, Norgrove, Reinowski Nays: None Absent: Jaboro and Rowe Motion carried. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Mr. Miller, supported by Mr. Gariepy, to APPROVE the minutes of February 9, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any discussion on the motion. Being none, he asked for a roll call vote. Ayes: Miller, Gariepy, Norgrove, Reinowski, Kopp, Militello Nays: None Absent: Jaboro and Rowe Abstained: None Motion Carried. CORRESPONDENCE Michigan Planner Memorandum from Mr. McLeod regarding office hours OLD BUSINESS Planning Commission Regular Meeting of March 9, 2017 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING (CONT ’D) – PPCM-1168 – PMS Diversified Construction Services - Dina Thweni Requesting special approval land use for a building and construction material contractor’s yard with outdoor storage of materials in the M-1 Light Industrial Zoning District – south side of Bridgewood Drive, west of Mound Road, between 17 and 18 Mile Roads in Section 17. Property address: 5560 Bridgewood Drive Mr. McLeod explained this case was heard during the February meeting. It was postponed so the applicant could find solutions to issues raised. Since the last meeting, they have met at the site and discussed different options that would work for the site. He displayed an updated site plan and gave an overview of the new layout. Mr. Reinowski asked the petitioner to come forward to the podium. Dina Thweni, 41770 Fonthill Court, Clinton Twp., and Steve Dhondt, Roseville, 48066 came forward to the podium. Ms. Thweni explained they reworked the site plan after having discussions with Mr. McLeod and the neighbor, Mr. Cole. Mr. Doug Cole, Rayco Manufacturing, 5520 Bridgewood came to the podium. He stated he and the petitioner have come to an agreement. He would like the document Ms. Thweni submitted to be refined. Mr. Militello asked Mr. Cole if he was satisfied with the overall outcome. Mr. Cole stated yes. Mr. Miller asked if a postponement would hinder the petitioner. Ms. Thweni stated yes, it is coming into their busy season. Mr. Norgrove thanked the business owners for working together. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were public comments. Being none, he called for a motion. Motion by Mr. Gariepy, supported by Mr. Miller, in the case of PPCM-1168, 5560 Bridgewood Drive, I move to APPROVE the special approval land use, based upon the facts and plans presented, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the development and operation of the facility shall remain consistent with the scale and nature of the use as described in the proposal, at Public Hearing and reflected on an amended site plan to be provided which addresses the requirements in this Motion; 2. That the petitioner shall develop, maintain and operate the facility in compliance with all pertinent codes, ordinances and standards of the City of Sterling Heights, County of Macomb and the State of Michigan. 3. The decision of the Planning Commission shall remain valid and in force only as long as the facts and information presented to the Commission are found to be correct and the conditions upon which this motion is based are forever maintained as presented to the Commission. 4. That the additional landscaping as outlined in the Office of Planning Staff Report be provided. 5. That the hydrant and utility pole be located within a curbed landscape island at the rear of the site. 6. That all parking and storage only occur as noted on the site plan and that storage heights be limited so as to not interfere with the overhead utility lines. Further, that the site be maintained in a clean and orderly fashion. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of March 9, 2017 Page 7 7. That the brick areas within the front yard not be utilized for parking. 8. That should the subject site and 5540 Bridgewood not be utilized as a singular site due to separate ownership issues or any other reason, the special approval land use shall be null and void. 9. That appropriate site plan and engineering plans meeting all other requirements of the City of Sterling Heights be provided. 10. That representatives from PMS Diversified Construction Services and Rayco Manufacturing finalize their agreement regarding terms they discussed during the March 9th Planning Commission meeting and to submit a final signed and approved version to the City Planner for the City’s records. This action is based on the following findings: 1. That the applicant intends to utilize the existing building as is and intends to utilize the area at the rear of the site for the purposes of storing and maintaining building and contractor supplies, including sand, gravel, bricks, etc. 2. That with the required amendments to the landscape plan and the clarification of the noted items, the site plan and landscaping plan will comply with ordinance requirements. 3. That the site design provides satisfactory traffic circulation in compliance with ordinance requirements. Mr. Reinowski asked for any discussion on the motion. Mr. DeNault suggested adding verbiage regarding paperwork between property owners. Motion by Mr. Gariepy, supported by Mr. Miller, to AMEND motion by adding number ten (10) to the conditions. Mr. Reinowski asked for any further discussion on the motion. Being none, he asked for a roll call vote. Ayes: Gariepy, Miller, Kopp, Militello, Norgrove, Reinowski Nays: None Absent: Jaboro and Rowe Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING (CONT ’D) – PPCM-1169 – PMS Diversified Construction Services - Dina Thweni Requesting special approval land use for a building and construction material contractor’s yard with outdoor storage of materials in the M-1 Light Industrial Zoning District – south side of Bridgewood Drive, west of Mound Road, between 17 and 18 Mile Roads in Section 17. Property address: 5540 Bridgewood Drive This case relates to above case PPCM-1168. Mr. Reinowski asked for any discussion. Mr. McLeod stated there are no additional comments. Mr. Reinowski asked the petitioners any comments. Being none, he asked the public for any comments. Being none, he called for a motion. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of March 9, 2017 Page 8 Motion by Mr. Norgrove, supported by Mr. Gariepy, in the case of PPCM-1169, 5540 Bridgewood Drive, I move to APPROVE the special approval land use, based upon the facts and plans presented, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the development and operation of the facility shall remain consistent with the scale and nature of the use as described in the proposal, at Public Hearing and reflected on an amended site plan to be provided which addresses the requirements in this Motion; 2. That the petitioner shall develop, maintain and operate the facility in compliance with all pertinent codes, ordinances and standards of the City of Sterling Heights, County of Macomb and the State of Michigan. 3. The decision of the Planning Commission shall remain valid and in force only as long as the facts and information presented to the Commission are found to be correct and the conditions upon which this motion is based are forever maintained as presented to the Commission. 4. That the additional landscaping as outlined in the Office of Planning Staff Report be provided. 5. That the hydrant and utility pole be located within a curbed landscape island at the rear of the site. 6. That all parking and storage only occur as noted on the site plan and that storage heights be limited so as to not interfere with the overhead utility lines. Further, that the site be maintained in a clean and orderly fashion. 7. That appropriate cross access and mutual parking agreements be provided between this site as well as 5560 Bridgewood. 8. That should the subject site and 5560 Bridgewood not be utilized as a singular site due to separate ownership issues or any other reason, the special approval land use shall be null and void. 9. That the brick areas within the front yard not be utilized for parking with the exception of the noted ADA space. 10. That appropriate site plan and engineering plans meeting all other requirements of the City of Sterling Heights be provided. 11. Based upon testimony given, Special Approval Land Use will only be finalized after the final contract is made. This action is based on the following findings: 1. That the applicant intends to utilize the existing building as is and intends to utilize the area at the rear of the site for the purposes of storing and maintaining building and contractor supplies, including bricks. 2. That with the required amendments to the site plan and landscape plan, the building site plan and landscaping plan will comply with ordinance requirements. 3. That the site design provides satisfactory traffic circulation in compliance with ordinance requirements. Mr. Reinowski asked for any discussion on the motion. Mr. DeNault stated the verbiage in motion needed to say “approve”. Motion by Mr. Norgrove, supported by Mr. Gariepy, to AMEND motion by changing verbiage in motion from “recommend for approval” to “approve”. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of March 9, 2017 Page 9 Mr. Reinowski asked for a roll call vote. Ayes: Norgrove, Gariepy, Reinowski, Kopp, Militello, Miller Nays: None Absent: Jaboro and Rowe Motion Carried. Motion by Mr. Norgrove, supported by Mr. Miller, to re-open case PPCM-1168. Motion by Mr. Gariepy, supported by Mr. Miller, to AMEND motion by changing verbiage in motion from “recommend for approval” to “approve”. Mr. Reinowski asked for any discussion. Being none, he called for a roll call vote. Ayes: Gariepy, Miller, Kopp, Militello, Norgrove, Reinowski Nays: None Absent: Jaboro and Rowe Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS There was discussion among Board members regarding certain Commissioners using social media to express thoughts relating to Planning Commission business. MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Mr. Militello, supported by Mr. Miller, to ADJOURN . Ayes: Militello, Miller, Norgrove, Reinowski, Gariepy, Kopp Nays: None Absent: Jaboro and Rowe Motion Carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stefano Militello, Secretary Planning Commission