|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 22, 2004
|
Friendship Township Planning Commission
DRAFT Minutes, March 22, 2004
Donahey T Franklin Kurburski Nettleman D Simon Sundmacher B Trufant
Present X x x x x x x
Absent
Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll call and recognition of visitors, declaration of taping devices. Present: Arnold & Jean Kluge (Friendship Twp) Larry Rychlrk(?) (W. Traverse Twp.), Mary Cummings (W, Traverse Twp.) Bob Dudley (FT), Allyn Shepard (FT) Ken Knoth (FT), Danna Widmar (East Bay Twp), Rose Letzmann (FT), Jennifer Gelb (FT), Robert Buechler, MS (Northern Envir. Services), Gary Abent (FT) Jamie Johnson (Benchmark Engineering), Michael Stack (Atty for Bunds and Lower Shore Dr. Property Owners Assoc.), Kirsten Fredrickson (PNR), Laura Lenkey (W. Traverse Twp.), Wil Cwikiel (Tip of the Mitt WC), Sharon Scott (FT), Russell Scott (FT), Robert F. Cooke, MD (Lower Shore Dr.), Tom Seltenright (Lower Shore Dr.), Susan & Chuck Glass (Readmond Twp), Larry Bochen (Petoskey), Norm Mottl (FT), Pat Breen (Boyne City), Kate Bassett (Harbor Lt. News), Otto Soeding (FT), Paul Borghesani (FT), Ivan Zwieback (FT), Judith Zwieback (FT), Ian Bund (FT), Sally Bund (FT), Mary Whitmore (FT), Ed Warner (FT). Dale Scott (FT), Steven Frisbie (FT), Chris Bzdok (FT atty.)
Minutes of 02/23/04 meeting were approved as written. (Kurburski, Franklin)
Case #22A-95 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.
The Chair clarified that this is not a variance request, and not a re-zoning request. There are no condominium buildings with common walls in the plan, it is the type of land division under which the plan falls. The first hearing was preliminary because the neighbors had not yet received notification. From here it will move to FT Board (4/5) and then to ECPC (4/8).
Mr. Cottrill presented his plan using diagrams and a hydrogeology assessment, which were handed out. He feels it is a good plan and meets all the zoning requirements. Says he is willing to “do whatever is needed” to fulfill the law. Does not want to change the layout of the plan.
Questions were asked by the commission members. Responses: 1) No MDOT approval yet for cut onto M-119. 2) No grading or section cut measurements taken yet on the M-119 entrance. 3) Entrance onto M-119 will be as small as he is allowed to make it by MDOT. 4) Average lot size is approx. one acre. 5) He will create a flat pad when he excavates for the houses to accommodate the septic field. 6) He sees no problems with the soils vis-à-vis septic/Health Dept requirements. 7) It was asked if the M-119 lots could be made deeper. He stated he had followed the tunnel of trees guidelines. 8) Cottrill stated that there will be lots of rules about yards, tree cutting, open space, where buildings can be put, etc. 9) No Master Deed or By-laws yet to spell out these rules. 10) Master Deed/By-laws will be written “when we get approvals for the site plan.” 11) The general rules that would cover the uses of the limited development /open space would include: siting of septic fields, no lawns, driveways allowed, no cutting of trees, no structure. 12) Nordic Center would be a clubhouse with pool, hot spring, parking lot. May not ever come to be. 13) We would be permitting the concept and placement of the Nordic Center. The buildings and the design of related items would have to themselves be permitted at a future date. 14) Fire tank placement has been considered (no indication of where on drawings). Has not yet received fire department approval.
The Review of Application for Zoning Action, Site Plans, and Hydrogeological Investigation Report for this project, done by Chris Grobbel of Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council, was presented in very short version by Wil Cwikiel. The TMWC review used all the well logs, the assessment presented by the developer used only 5. The clay layer may, in fact, vary and no analysis was made by the developer of groundwater protection for downgrade properties, esp. if cuts are made on steep grades to accommodate septic fields. TMWC recommends a true investigation be done (test well on the site). The Emmet County ordinance allows the township to request that this investigation be done.
Chair spoke, via phone, with Dick Collie of West Traverse Twp. Board. They are concerned about drainage onto neighboring properties that are in West Traverse Township, soil erosion, and the entrance onto M-119. He suggested a Health Dept. assessment of septic suitability.
Opened up for public discussion:
Mike Stack, attorney for Lower Shore Drive Property Owners Assoc. Spoke of their concerns. Asked us to look at the special nature of this piece of property: bounded by Heritage Hwy and Scenic Beauty Road, forest values, viewshed off M-119, steep slopes.
Chair pointed out that the property is not in the regulated steep slope area.
Dana Widmar of HARBOR, Inc. pointed out that we are the only ones (along with the County Planning Commission) who will evaluate the plan comprehensively. A number of concerns were stated: scenic value needs to be balanced with property value, Site Plan Review Section 2405 of the Zoning Ord. requires location and design of driveways (no detail given), feels public safety is affected by the grade of the switchbacks and the need for guard rails and retaining walls, buffering techniques will need to be used in adjacent areas which have not be delineated. Feels more information and evaluation is needed for such a sensitive area.
Bunds passed out the “Intent of the Zoning Ord.” for Emmet Co. (pg. 7) Feel the application does not respond to any of the intents. Does any application? Where is support for “open space or conservation development, both residential and non-residential, where natural resource protection influences the design.”
Wil Cwikiel presented the TMWC review of the Hydrogeological Assessment in more depth, walking us through the executive summary which delineated the need for more information and testing than is contained in the assessment.
Arnold Kluge wondered what the term open space meant. Chair clarified with a definition based on the commission’s understanding, which includes areas large enough to serve as habitat and corridors.
Kluge also raised the issue of these properties being advertised as having beach access and what that mechanism was since none of the development fronts on water. Cottrill stated that he owns two 100 foot wide parcels on the water. In the land deeds for all the pieces he sells here he gives rights to use of these two parcels (no parking, no development, just access to beach). Chris Bzdok, twp attorney, stated that there may be key hole rules in the Co. Zoning. Larry Rycklck stated he owns property with this deeding situation which he purchased from Cottrill. Judy Zwieback felt that the beach access was for too many people.
Mary Whitmore spoke for the consideration of doing a impact study on the flora and fauna. There may be endangered or threatened species on this piece, esp. since it is one of the few large remaining tracts within the twp that is privately owned. Much State land, but we have no control over what is done with that. This size piece could make for a good unfragmented habitat. How can this be approved without an impact assessment.
Sally Bund spoke about the viewshed off of Angell Farm which has been designated in the Friendship Twp Master Plan as well as the Heritage Hwy plan, as a priority to preserve. There are three lots whose houses would probably be directly in this viewshed. She is also worried about the M-119 entrance on Wasson Grade. Cottrill mentioned at various times that he was willing to sell development rights to keep portions of the property from being developed.
Bob Buechler (Northern Environ. Services) who prepared the Hydrogeological Assessment presented more in depth report as an amendment to the original report. He felt that the wells they surveyed had the most reliable well logs. Noted that ground water is a renewable resource.
Jean Kluge worried about traffic impact on Lower Shore Drive and safety. Too many people on the beach for the deeding of access.
Larry Bochon (Petoskey) stated that Cottrill is an environmentalist. Has walked the property.
Rose Letzmann asked if the roads will be built in phases. Answer: most probably yes.
Wil Cwikiel recommended for test wells on the property and analysis of potential runoff from the site. Ian Bund asked Cwikiel to speak to two items: soils and slopes and their buildability. Cwikiel: soils need more studies. Steep area issues. Mike Stack pointed out that many of the driveways would go in on a 60% or greater slope. No ordinance covers drives.
Bob Beuchler spoke to the soil issue. Stated it is Blue Lake soil, which is pretty good for septic. It is permeable and will absorb well. He saw no evidence of continuous flows on the property. Cwikiel feels that when impervious surfaces are added (roads, drives) there will be runoff issues. Ian Bund stated that 55% of the site has slopes in excess of 25%.
Dale Scott mentioned that this is our first and best test of designing a true open space project. Ed Warner feels Cottrill is concerned about the environment and that we “can’t shut the door on more people moving here.” Rose Letzmann encouraged working in a cooperative way with Cottrill. Paul Borghesani noted that he has yet to see any change in the plan from what was originally proposed, even though concerns were shared at FTPC’s last meeting and the ECCP meeting where it was tabled.
Letter read from Dick Cobb, Chair of the Heritage Rte. Committee, regarding their meeting on March 9. Recommend that the development design should protect the tunnel (actual tunnel) of trees. Cuts should be minimal and have least possible impact, preserve viewsheds, esp. Angell Farm.
Letter from Max Putters voicing concern about tunnel of trees. 40 foot set back is not much. Perhaps we would want to suggest increasing the set back from the road for a lesser set back from the interior roads.
Brought back to the commission for consideration. All were in accord that there was not enough information regarding some items and that other items had so much information, which we had just received, that we needed time to assess it. Areas of concern were: Hydrology issue—differing opinions and lots of paperwork (new to us tonight) that needs to be reviewed. Soil stability not yet resolved, esp. relating to septic systems (Health. Dept. can’t begin to assess until April). Several items under Sec. 2405 (4) have not been addressed adequately. Fire tank location and installation agreement and fire department approval needed. No Master Deed or Bylaws presented. (Mr. Cottrill says a lot of things will be in them, but without it we have no guarantee—tree cutting, lawns, lighting, limited open space areas, etc.) Test wells may be needed. Health Department assessment for septic fields in the steep terrain. Negotiate with Cottrill on the M-119 lots. MDOT recommendations unknown on the M-119 cut. Discussion and clarification of phasing would be important. Need to see grading plan, design of banking, section views of switchback areas of road. Wildlife corridors suggested. Preserve viewshed. Clubhouse issues.
Mr. Cottrill’s response: “willing to compromise, but doesn’t want to change his plan in any way. It is a good plan.”
Motion (Sundmacher, Kurburski) to recommend that the County Planning Commission table the application and send it back to the Township for further consideration because the Township does not believe that compliance with the standards in Sections 2100(Special Approval Use and Conditional Use Review Standards) and 2405(4) (Site Plan Review Standards) can be demonstrated without the following information and considerations:
• Response to deficiencies noted in the TMWC Review of Application for Zoning Action, Site Plans, and Hydrogeological Investigation Report for a proposed Seven Mile Point Ridges II Development, Section 30, T.36N., R.6W., Friendship Twp, Emmet Co., Michigan. Specifically the Executive Summary which states “The applicant’s request for site plan approval from the Emmet County Planning Commission is administratively incomplete, precluding review as proposed because it:
• Does not demonstrate compliance with the Friendship Township Master Plan.
• Does not demonstrate compliance with the Emmet County Comprehensive Plan, especially regarding the applicant’s requirement to find and record adequate data and to insure compatibility with the natural environment, protect environmentally sensitive features, and the required consistency with approved Friendship Township Master Plan.
• The application as proposed fails to demonstrate compliance with Special Land Use criteria (see Section 3.1 of this report), Site Review standards (see Section 3.2 of this report) and additional zoning requirements, as detailed in Section 3.3 of this report..
• Would violate Emmet County’s Zoning Ord. by failing to undertake a natural features inventory as required by Section 2405(2)(h) , and/or submit an adequate impoct assessment as required by Section 2102(14).
• The applicant has failed to conduct and/or submit an adequate hydrogeological study as required by Section 2102(14).
• The applicant has failed to provide an adequate impact statement as required by Section 2405(3).
• The applicant has failed to provide, or complete, an inventory of environmentally sensitive areas and natural features (including but not limited to fragile slopes, wetlands, if any, etc.) as required by Sections 1800, 1801, 2102(14) and 2405(2)(f) and (h).
• The applicant has failed to provide, or complete detailed slope and soils analyses as required by Section 2405(2)(g).
• The applicant has failed to provide sufficient detail on proposed grading and soil erosion control plans as required by Emmet County Zoning Article VII, Section 702.
• The applicant has failed to provide detail to demonstrate compliance with bank, slope and hillside stabilization (i.e. grading, slope/sedimentation control plans) along South Lake Shore and Lower Shore Drives, also as required by Emmet Count Zoning Article VII, Section 702.
• The applicant has failed to propose an entrance with safe sight distance and grade, as required by Sections 2100(6) and (7).
• The applicant has failed to provide sign and lighting plans as required by Section 2405(2)(d).”
• Health Dept. assessment of whether the property will support this many septic fields and wells
• Road grading plan details
• MDOT review and permit
• Fire Dept. approval
• Natural Features Inventory recognizing that this is a unique piece of property between two scenic roads and also one of the largest undivided properties in Friendship Twp. Also assessment of threatened and endangered species
• Master Deed and By-laws
• We would also like to continue to work with the developer in considering 50% open space as per the Friendship Twp Master Plan, a phasing plan for the development, more buffer on the M-119 lots, M-119 and Angell Farm viewshed protection, and the possibility of shared driveways on Lower Shore Drive.
Motion passed unanimously.
Jennifer Gelb who was recently appointed to the commission joined us at this time.
Chair proposed some changes in our budget request to cover legal ($4,500) and expert ($1,500) fees. So moved by Franklin, Trufant seconded. Approved.
Donahey (Board Rep) reported that the Twp Board was fine with us going ahead on researching the pros/cons of our own zoning. Want a public information forum with experts who can speak to the many sides of this issue. Look at costs that may not be so apparent such as insurance costs. Bzdok pointed out that fee schedule and escrow accounts can be set so that they cover a good portion of the administrative costs. Would we need a consultant beyond the zoning administrator in the transition phase? Donahey indicated that there is a training workshop for zoning administrators in Grayling in April. It might be a good place to learn a great deal about all these things.
Adjourn at 10:55 p.m. Next meeting: April 26.
Cynthia Donahey 3/24/04
|
|
|
|
