|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 12, 2004 FTPC
|
Friendship Township Planning Commission
Draft Minutes, May 12, 2004
Call to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Simon
Declaration of recording devices.
Commissioners present: Donahey, Franklin, Gelb, Nettleman, Simon, Sundmacher
Commissioners absent: Kurburski, Trufant
Public present: Gail Parr–Forgacs (LSD), Steven Forgacs (LSD), Ivan Zwiebach (LSD), Danna Widmar (HARBOR, Inc.), Douglas Smith (LSD), Ian Bund (Angell Farm), Sally Bund (Angell Farm), Sarah Cohen (FT), Cathy Hibert (?)(FT), Norm Mottl (Trustee FT), Allyn Shepard (FT), Jane Horn (LSD), Mary Beth Cottrill (WT), Ted McCarty (WT), Joseph Engelhard (RT), Cynthia McCarty (WT), Ryan Johnston (Little Traverse Twp), Mary Cummings (WT), Kirsten Fredrickson (PNR), Roy York (FT), Leslie Cottrill (WT), Henry Singer (ECLA), Mary Whitmore (FT), Janell Van Divner (Clerk FT), Marie Ward (Treasurer FT), Craig Cottrill (applicant), Jamie Johnson (Benchmark), Bob Beuchler (NES), Jack Turner (app. atty), Sandy Mosier (LSD)
Also present: Chris Bzdok (Twp Counsel)
Minutes of the meeting of 4/26/2004 were approved as written:
Third hearing—Case #22A-95 (revision dated 5/5/04) Request by Craig Cottrill for a Special Use Permit per Land Development Standards and Site Unit Condominium Open Space Plans. The subject property is approximately 102 acres. The request is per Sections 2102-14 and 1901 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Simon read out additional items on the 5/5 revised site plan that were not on previous plans.
1) M-119 Corridor Protection: Driveways for lots 51–59 must front on the interior project road and will not be allowed on M-119. The area between the building envelope and the M-119 right-of-way must remain in its natural condition.
2) Lower Shore Drive Restricted Access: Driveways for lots 14, 18 and 19 must front on interior project roads and will not be allowed on Lower Shore Drive.
3) Dark Sky Preservation: All site lighting must conform to the Emmet County Dark Sky Guidelines.
4) Fire Protection: 10,000-gallon underground non-potable water storage tank location noted.
5) Legend at left defines:
a) Yellow area (inside dashed lines) as the building envelope area
b) Darker green as the building setback area
c) Lighter green as the common element area
d) Pale aqua as the road right-of-way
e) Gray as the proposed roadway
f) Dotted area as the flagged wetland area
Mr. Cottrill made a summary of his plan and what it shows. Says will require all construction traffic to come from M-119 to the north. Have a loop road now on the north instead of two cul-de-sacs. The switchback section can therefore be either year-round or seasonal (their discretion). Tip of the Mitt has given their okay on the wetland delineation. 60 lots now. Lots bigger to make room for septic, well, and reserve septic. Wetlands have been avoided by roads and building sites.
Questions from the Commission. Franklin asked about the current amount of open space. It was 25% or less before. Cottrill stated that the amount has not changed. Bzdok asked for clarification of the no-build areas to be left in their natural state. (dark green on the map). Cottrill said that this will be spelled out in the Master Deed and the By-laws. The decisions will be under the auspices of an Architectural Review/Control Committee set up by the Bylaws. They would decide about what can be done in the dark green areas and the yellow areas. Selective cutting would be allowed based on the Guidelines for SR1 and SR2. Bzdok further asked what the Architectural Control Committee’s standards or guidelines are and where they are written down. Cottrill replied that the Master Deed and other condo documents will be “formulated after the County rules on the application.” Bzdok asked for the current status with the County Soil Erosion requirements. Cottrill stated they will follow all County rules. All required items will be presented prior to the construction of any roads. Those for building sites will be presented prior to construction. He has had no feedback at this time from permitting agencies. Bzdok asked about the provisions regarding the Common Element areas, how they are currently restricted, what latitude does the association have in changing the use of these areas, what restricts their use on the site plan. Jack Turner responded that there is no use assigned to them at this time.
Public input: Ted McCarty concerned about construction traffic on Lower Shore Drive. Doug Smith (50 year summer resident) We need things written down. There should be a Master Deed in our hands now! How will we know what will actually happen without it? MCL 125.321 Twp. Planning Act of Michigan states that a township can make plans for the uses of land. Our input in this process is the Master Plan. Impact on Heritage Hwy, viewsheds, Scenic Beauty Road. Not enough info in the application. Roy York concerned about the septic systems on the lots on M-119. Sarah Cohen concerned about the lots along M-119 and the number of houses that would potentially be visible. Request from ______? for us to read out what it stated about the dotted line roadway in the large southern common element. “Road to access property in West Traverse Twp is not being submitted as part of this project. The Owner reserves the right to submit this road for future approval. The land area for the future road right-of-way is not counted as common space in the current plan.” Noted that this right-of-way runs down the middle of the common element. Cottrill stated this is an “abandoned road.” Lower Shore Drive Assoc. opposed to the project: construction traffic, Twp. Master Plan, no Master Deed. Leslie Cottrill stated he is Craig’s father, and he (Les) and his family are good developers. Ian Bund gave us several handouts and summarized them: Master Deed and Bylaws needed, soil erosion regulations are now Part 91 of a State regulation, consider the community costs, Angell Farm viewshed, Twp. Master Plan does give us some authority, none of the open spaces are dedicated, recommends denial. Ivan Zwiebach stated this is a sub-division and therefore has no continuity with the rest of Lower Shore Drive, developer should have worked with twp. first to formulate the plan instead of bypassing us and working at county level first, need more things in writing (Master Deed, switchback road, open space restrictions). Mary Cummings concerned about the abandoned road and the statement on the site plan that goes with it. It goes right past a regulated wetland and the right is reserved to develop it at a later date. Danna Widmar well-documented viewshed from Angell Farm should be preserved. Feels the concerns about the lots on M-119 have been well addressed, but the Angell Farm viewshed has not. There should be a buffer. Mary Whitmore (Ph.D. in Wildlife Biology) took issue with the adequacy of the King & MacGregor Environmental Assoc. Natural Features Study. (She read off a detailed statement, which is touched on here.) The wetlands were covered well, but the report is extremely superficial and misleading about animal habitat and presence. This plan will cause a great deal of habitat destruction and fragmentation which is the single most damaging thing to threatened and endangered species according to DNR and EPA statements/reports/studies. She gave us a list of the endangered, threatened, and special concern species that have been seen by herself or other reputable observers within 1/4 to 1 mile of this development. This list only covers mammals and birds. There are other species that should be evaluated based on the lists that can be found at the Web site for Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Evaluations should be done in the summer, not in the winter when many animals are dormant. Need to keep corridors for animal movement and intact open spaces, this means no roads and no houses in the areas so set aside. Should not take the KME report at face value, it needs to be evaluated by professionals. Finish the process of making sure the application for this project is complete and adequate. Recommends denial at this time. Petoskey Audubon resolution regarding the Red Shouldered Hawk which breeds within 1/2 mile of this development. Take due diligence and do a thorough and adequate review of all rare and endangered species expected to be on the property. Sally Bund no mitigation of the Angell Farm viewshed. She noted that Cottrill was quoted in the PNR that there will be a 100’ buffer on the lots along Angell Farm. Cottrill stated at our meeting that this was an interpretation error. He will encourage buyers to build away from the property line with Angell Farm. Sandy Mosier stated that another developer could buy Mr. Cottrill out and change the Master Deed and the Bylaws. Sarah Cohen who was a volunteer on the Master Plan process stated that 68% of the respondents to Master Plan survey wanted no growth or limited growth. The Master Plan is the voice of the public speaking on these issues. Remember our prior experiences with True North and the lack of delivery on items that were not written down from the beginning. Public comment was closed.
Brought back to the table for discussion. Scope and applicability of the Twp. Master Plan were discussed. Reviewed reports and information requested.
1) Near Surface Soils… Tip of Mitt concurred, okay
2) Health Dept. on septic/wells…site by site, okay
3) Soil Erosion…notes on the site plan
4) KME… given that there are credible reports of threatened species (red shouldered hawk and cougar) very near the property we can ask for independent verification by a professional
______? for King & MacGregor spoke on the habitat where red shouldered prefers to nest. He stated this habitat is not found on this property.
Franklin felt the Master Plan should drive the decision. Bzdok stated that we can’t use the MP to require things of the County Planning Commission. We need to determine if the application meets the County requirements and the Zoning Ordinance and make our recommendation based on that. Donahey stated she did not want to see a road down the middle of the southern common element at some later date. Would completely defeat its purpose. Simon gave a summary to the courses of action we have.
Motion (Donahey, second Simon) to approve Case #22A-95 (revision of 5/5/04), if and only if the following conditions are met (conditions are listed followed by the applicable requirements):
1) As a buffer/greenbelt and protection of viewsheds the project shall incorporate a restriction which will prohibit the cutting of trees closer than 100 ft. from the property line of the project along M-119, Lower Shore Drive, and the eastern edge from the southern point of the switch back “Common Element” to the southernmost “Common Element.” This condition is based upon Section 2405(4)(b) requiring consideration of “the arrangement of uses on the property, including the orientation of buildings, parking areas, and open spaces, …so as to…protect land values, and carry out the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance,” and 2405(4)(d) “buffer techniques, screening, fences, walls, greenbelts, and landscaping may be required by the PC in pursuance of the objectives of this Section and/or as a condition of the establishment of the proposed use.”
2) The third paragraph under Notes on the Site Plan to read: All construction (road and building) plans will include soil erosion control measures to meet the requirements of the Emmet County Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Office and the Emmet County Stormwater Ordinance. All excavating, filling, grading, and other on-site construction activities shall insure that no silting will impact adjacent waters or properties, and that all banks, slopes and hillsides are stabilized to prevent erosion. Section 2405(2)(i)
3) Regulation of “Common Elements” indicated on the Site Plan via these conditions:
a) Require the Common Elements to be left undisturbed and in their natural condition. Sections 2100(5), 2102(14), 2405(4)(e) and the applicant’s impact statement.
b) Require that the Common Elements be formally dedicated in one of the ways listed in Section 2100(8).
4) Independent verification of the findings of the King and MacGregor Environ-mental report by a consultant or entity selected by the County. Section 2405(4)(e)
5) Approval by the Township and the County of the Master Deed and the Assoc. Bylaws as meeting the requirements of the ordinance, the conditions of approval, and the representations in the application. Written documentation will assure that the project remains as it was presented and approved.
Vote: In favor: Donahey, Nettleman, Simon. Opposed: Sundmacher, Franklin, Gelb
Motion failed.
Motion to recommend denial of the request because it is inconsistent with the Twp. Master Plan. (Sundmacher, second Franklin) Discussion
Vote: In favor: Sundmacher, Franklin, Gelb. Opposed: Donahey, Nettleman, Simon.
Motion failed.
Sundmacher suggested we advise the Twp. board we are at an impasse and let them decide. Danna Widmar spoke about the constraints of putting a 50% open space plan on this particular site because of the topography.
Motion (Sundmacher, second Franklin) to approve Case #22A-95 (revision of 5/5/04), if and only if the following conditions are met (conditions are listed followed by the applicable requirements):
1) As a buffer/greenbelt and protection of viewsheds the project shall incorporate a restriction which will prohibit the cutting of trees closer than 100 ft. from the property line of the project along M-119, Lower Shore Drive, and the eastern edge from the southern point of the switch back “Common Element” to the southernmost “Common Element.” This condition is based upon Section 2405(4)(b) requiring consideration of “the arrangement of uses on the property, including the orientation of buildings, parking areas, and open spaces, …so as to…protect land values, and carry out the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance,” and 2405(4)(d) “buffer techniques, screening, fences, walls, greenbelts, and landscaping may be required by the PC in pursuance of the objectives of this Section and/or as a condition of the establishment of the proposed use.”
2) The third paragraph under Notes on the Site Plan to read: All construction (road and building) plans will include soil erosion control measures to meet the requirements of the Emmet County Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Office and the Emmet County Stormwater Ordinance. All excavating, filling, grading, and other on-site construction activities shall insure that no silting will impact adjacent waters or properties, and that all banks, slopes and hillsides are stabilized to prevent erosion. Section 2405(2)(i)
3) Regulation of “Common Elements” indicated on the Site Plan via these conditions:
a. Require the Common Elements to be left undisturbed and in their natural condition. Sections 2100(5), 2102(14), 2405(4)(e) and the applicant’s impact statement.
b. Require that the Common Elements be formally dedicated in one of the ways listed in Section 2100(8).
4) Independent verification of the findings of the King and MacGregor Environ-mental report by a consultant or entity selected by the County. Section 2405(4)(e)
5) Approval by the Township and the County of the Master Deed and the Assoc. Bylaws as meeting the requirements of the ordinance, the conditions of approval, and the representations in the application. Written documentation will assure that the project remains as it was presented and approved.
6) The plan needs to comply with Friendship Township Master Plan’s goal of 50% open space.
Vote: In favor: Sundmacher, Gelb, Franklin, Donahey. Opposed: Nettleman, Simon.
Meeting adjourned 10:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Donahey
|
|
|
|
