A regular meeting of the Charter
Township of Oxford Planning Commission held Thursday, July 27, 2006, at the
Members
Present:
Members Absent: None
Also Present: Village
Planning Commissioners (Schultz, Cervenak, Spharel), Village Manager Young,
Township Planner Lopatin, Township Engineer Sharpe, Planning & Zoning
Coordinator Walkaus, CATV Camerman, approximately 3 visitors
The meeting was called to order
by Chairman Silvester at 7:32 pm.
RESPECTS TO THE FLAG
NOTING OF ROLL CALL
APPROVAL
OF AGENDA
Black moved, Fitchena
seconded to approve the July 27, 2006 Agenda as presented.
Ayes: 9 Nays: 0 Absent:
0 Motion
Carried
APPROVAL
OF THE MINUTES
Ordinance Review Sub Committee Meeting – July 10, 2006
Black moved, Curtis seconded to
approve the Ordinance Review Sub Committee Meeting of July 10, 2006 as
presented.
Ayes: 9 Nays: 0 Absent: 0 Motion
Carried
Planning Commission Regular Meeting – July 13, 2006
Black moved, Curtis seconded to
approve the Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2006 as
presented.
Ayes: 9 Nays: 0 Absent: 0 Motion
Carried
CITIZENS’
COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING OR ON AGENDA
No
Citizen’s Comments on items not on the Agenda were given.
COMMISSIONERS’ COMMENTS, INFORMATION FROM
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND COORDINATOR
Commissioners’ Comments: None
PC and ZBA Coordinator Comments: Recycling packet CDs, please return any that have
been downloaded to laptop computers and
no longer needed. Ms. Walkaus noted she
has a Master Right-of-Way Plan for County roads where road easements have been
color coded. Educational material in
mailboxes.
Zoning Administrator Comments: On behalf of Zoning Administrator Darling,
Ms. Walkaus had no comments.
Recording Secretary Comments: None
PUBLIC HEARING(S) - None
OLD BUSINESS
Jointly with the
PRELIMINARY PUD PLAN (2) –
Jim Eppink of J. Eppink Partners was present
and handed out hard copies of a power point presentation which included a
“Further Revised Site Plan”. He is
seeking the Township to grant Preliminary PUD approval of this plan so the
project can move forward to address more technical issues and then simultaneously
submitted to the Village and Township for Final PUD approval. He reiterated that garbage and snow removal
would be contracted by the homeowners association and there would be one
central location for mail. The Further
Revised Site Plan shows:
-
Density has been reduced from 85 units to 83 in
response to comments about spreading the buildings out more. As part of this reduction, buildings have
been moved further inward and further away from the
-
Open space has been increased to 28% overall for
the entire PUD which consists of an inner-connected park in the middle and 3
overlook parks (one being an extension of the Polly Ann Trail inviting the
public into the community).
-
The roads were realigned to a “horseshoe” type system
so that buildings front the road more squarely and to provide greater open
space.
-
The inclusion of 5 foot sidewalks with 10 ½ foot
wide street yards and trees.
-
A 5 foot safety path has been added along
-
Improvements to building architecture. On end units, doors have been rotated to the
front of the building and given a more porch like appearance with an extended
roof and spindle railings. Mr. Eppink
commented that they did extensive research but were not able to find a building
design with rear loading garages that would appeal to their target cliental of 55+
age group. To enhance appearance they
incorporated more decorative design work on the garage doors with different
finishes, hinging, and window configurations.
He also mentioned that they still believe the front doors on buildings
along
Both the Township and Village Commissioners
were concerned with the size of the garages (18 feet) and the space in between
them. It was commented it would be tight
to open car doors inside the garage and backing out could be difficult if there
are cars parked in neighboring driveways.
There was concern regarding the third drive
onto
Village Commissioner Schultz asked if Unit 3
could be turned so that occupants of Unit 4 would not be looking into the
garage. Mr. Eppink responded that they placed the unit that way to have an
optimal view of the lake. He also
asked if things could be moved around to give more space between units 13, 12,
11, and 10. Currently there is about 25
to 27 feet between sidewalls. Mr. Eppink said, no, not without reducing
density and that they have to take
utility easements into consideration.
Trees were discussed, were there any worth
saving? Mr. Eppink replied he didn’t believe so although they do intend to
maintain the 25 foot buffer along the water’s edge. Retaining walls were mentioned and at this
point, have not been determined. Doing a
tree survey was suggested by a Village Commissioner. Mr.
Eppink commented that those are costly and would rather use that money for
healthy, guaranteed landscaping.
There was concern expressed about the appearance
of the project from the main road, would it be feasible to rotate the 6 units
on Oxford Road 45 degrees and making the garages side entries? Mr.
Eppink said that they are 4 unit buildings and would not be able to do what was
suggested. He said they will provide
color drawings of the plan so the Commissioners can get a better picture of the
development.
Mr. Hubbard commented that they do not plan to
provide public lake access at the
Open space was discussed and how they were
going to make it useable. There was
concern on the actual size of the “circle” park after subtracting the right-of-way. It was clarified that they would still meet
open space requirements even with that reduction.
Storm
water management was discussed. The
system was explained and Mr. Hubbard replied that it will be the homeowners
association’s responsibility to maintain it and it will be written in the
bylaws along with fertilizer restrictions.
Planner’s
review dated 6/30/06 – Item #1, a plan will be prepared for review by the
Planning Commission. #2, it was
determined that an aerial photo provided by the developer could be used to
evaluate existing trees and if there is concern, a tree survey may be required. #5, there will be no docks or motorized
boats. #6, Mr. Hubbard agreed to revisit
this issue with the builder and architect.
Items 7, 8, & 9 will be demonstrated more on the Final PUD
plan. #10 will be discussed more during
the Engineer’s review. #11, it was noted
that if the Road Commission has a problem with the entrances, the process would
have to start over. #12, this was
discussed at length. A decision made on
a development in 1998 was referenced in regards to the safety path only being
required on the west side of
Sheriff’s
review dated 6/30/06 – There was no issues with Stop signs or
Rowe
Engineering review dated 6/30/06.- Items 1 & 2 were discussed above. Items 3, 4, & 5 need further
clarification. #7, as long as buildings
are outside of the easement, it should be adequate. Items 6, 8, & 9 will be complied with.
Attorney’s
review dated 6/30/06– Planner Lopatin highlighted the main points. It was recommended in the review, and he
agreed, that a new PUD specific application form and submittal checklist be
developed. At the bottom of page 2, it
explains that even though a recommendation to approve a Preliminary PUD
essentially constitutes the approval of the layout, open space, density, road
alignment; it is understood that details of the design are worked out during
the Final PUD and when making a motion it be contingent upon the approval of
the Final PUD plan and the condominium component (legal documents, etc.). Item 13 on page 4, either the Engineer or the
Road Commission will have to make a determination. Finally, it is recommended that a memo or
listing of PUD agreement items be prepared so that when a motion is made it can
be referred to.
Parks
& Rec review dated 5/30/06 –Commended the developer on it’s efforts to
reduce density allowing for additional open space and to rid the community of
an unsightly, unused industrial building.
Chairman
Silvester asked for any other Village concerns before a Township motion was
made. They reiterated the concern about
space between buildings, garage size, and how the development faces
Commissioner
Roesner asked if they approve the Preliminary plan and substantial changes are
made in terms of garages, are they locked into their decision? Planner Lopatin replied that they have the
ability to revisit issues that were addressed during the Preliminary PUD. If changes are made by the Village that are
put on the site plan it would then come back to the Township Planning
Commission.
Berger
moved, Fitchena seconded to approve the Preliminary PUD Plan of Lakeshore
Village, attached village homes in the CAD district, Township portion of the
proposed development, parcel #04-23-301-003, that due to the findings of fact
that the requirements of Ordinance 3402 have been complied with and condition
upon final approval of other agencies such as the driveway approaches for ingress
and egress from the Oakland County Road Commission and that the concerns of the
Village of Oxford are complied with to coordinate the efforts of our
Preliminary approval concept.
Discussion
– There was discussion on how to word the fact that PUD eligibility had been
demonstrated.
Berger
amended, Fitchena re-supported the motion to recommend to the Township Board
the approval of the Preliminary plan for Lakeshore Village, attached village
homes in the CAD district, Township portion of the proposed development, parcel
#04-23-301-003, due to the findings of fact that the eligibility criteria of
Ordinance 3402 have been complied with and condition upon final approval of
other organizations as applicable, the Planning Commission, and Final PUD
approval.
Ayes: 9 Nays: 0 Absent: 0 Motion
Carried
End Joint Portion of Meeting
NEW
BUSINESS - None
TOWNSHIP
PLANNER’S REPORT – CARLISLE/WORTMAN ASSOCIATES
Planner
Lopatin commented that they are finishing the last of the Articles of the
Zoning Ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT
Black moved, Roesner seconded to adjourn the
meeting at 10:06 pm.
Ayes: 8 Nays: 1 Absent: 0 Motion
Carried
______________________________ ____________________________
Donald
T. Silvester, Chairman Tom
Lepping, Secretary
Date approved: 08/10/2006
lmh