Fenton Planning Commission Agenda s1

FENTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City Hall Council Chambers Thursday, January 23, 2014 7:00 P.M.

Chairman Sprague called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.

ROLL CALL Present: Steffey, Farella, Grossmeyer, Lenhart, Kasper, Sprague Absent: Rossi, Price Others Present: Brad Hissong, Building & Zoning Administrator, Carmine Avantini, CIB Consultant

MINUTES Motion by Grossmeyer, support by Steffey to approve the minutes from the December 19, 2013. MOTION CARRIED, ALL AYES

OLD BUSINESS – none

NEW BUSINESS

PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment to (PUD) Planned Unit Development, the Whispering Pines Preliminary PUD Plan. The proposed amendment would allow for development of detached single-family residential units when only attached duplex units were approved on the original plan. The project is located on the east side of North Leroy Street, south of Granger Street.

At this time, Attorney Craig McAra, representative for the Whispering Pines Development and Mr. Dave Cutsinger, addressed the Planning Commission. He stated HUD has changed their criteria and it is almost impossible to develop a duplex type development. This PUD change is going from a duplex to a single family residential project and the plans being submitted are viable alternative to what was originally approved. The new project is spaced differently and designed differently which he feels the Planning Commission will like. There will also be two separate condo agreements and two separate association agreements (duplex will have their own and the single-family units will have their own).

At this time the City Planner, Carmine Avantini, added the following:

The proposed Preliminary PUD Plan shows 35 single-family units on Whispering Pines Drive and 9 units on the drive coming off of the N. East Street/9th Street intersection. Combined with the 6 existing and partially-completed duplex units, this would provide total of 50 units. The approved PUD plan included a total of 52 duplex units. A series of 4 possible elevations have also been submitted with units having an approximate width of 28 feet. For the revised proposal to be approved under the zoning ordinance, the following steps must be followed:

The Planning Commission will review and make a recommendation to the City Council who will then review. The Final PUD Plan the Planning Commission will review.

REVIEW COMMENTS

The applicant has continued to own the subject property through the recent housing market collapse and seeks completion of the project. The original plan included 52 duplex units, of which two buildings were actually constructed. The foundation for a third duplex building is located on the south side of Whispering Pines Drive. The applicant intends to utilize this foundation and build the additional duplex, leaving the remainder of the development sites for single-family units. To make the project feasible, the applicant is requesting lesser side yard setbacks between the units to achieve the needed density.

1. Overall Layout. We support the smaller single-family units with minimal side yard setbacks, as opposed to the approved duplex units. This should improve the appearance of the project and provide needed new construction. Although the setbacks are reduced between the buildings, from 15 feet to 11 feet, the attached look of the duplexes is eliminated. The original layout will be maintained as will the open space approved under the original PUD. Also, the density of the original project will be reduced from 52 to 50 units, with 46 of them being detached single-family. The acceptability of the reduced side yard is conditioned upon review and approval of the Fire Department.

2. Building Design. Of primary concern with this amendment is the design of the proposed single-family units. We have provided guidance to the applicant (see the illustration in the 11- 29-13 conceptual layout review letter) and would like to see quality design and construction. The appearance of the project will largely determine the success of the project for both the developer and the City. Please keep in mind that the proposed building designs will need to be refined for Final PUD submission, including proposed floor plans and materials.

3. Building Variety. Another concern with the proposed units being located so close together is the variety of building types in the development. When too many units have the same design, the project takes on a monotonous appearance. We recommend that no more than 3 out of every 5 units have the same building design and that no side-by-side units can have the same color combination.

4. Fences. Since the units are proposed to be 11 feet apart, we recommend that no front yard fences be allowed, that any side yard fences are decorative and no more than 4 feet tall, and that a minimum 50% of the fence be open from the front to the rear of the house. Solid fences will still be allowed in the rear yard. This will help prevent a “barricade” look for units and must be added to the condominium documents.

5. Condominium Documents. Since the project is a site condominium, a revised set of condominium documents will need to be provided at the time of Final PUD review.

RECOMMENDATION We are supportive of the proposed layout and preliminary building elevations and recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the revised Preliminary PUD Plan to City Council conditioned upon the following:

1. Review and approval of the reduced side yard setbacks by the Fire Department 2. That no more than 3 out of every 5 units have the same building design and that no side-by- side units can have the same color combination. 3. That no front yard fences be allowed and that any side yard fences be decorative, no more than 4 feet tall, and 50% open from the front to the rear of the house.

At this time, Forest Milzow, of Milzow Builders, stated he will be the developer and has done similar developments in Clarkston, if any planning commission members would like to look at his work. He is willing to work with Mr. Cutsinger and the planning commission with any of their concerns.

Planning Commission Member Lenhart stated he has worked with the builder, Mr. Milzow, and he does a nice job with these types of developments.

At this time the Public Hearing was opened at 7:30 p.m.

Ms. Debbie McCarty, 882 N. Leroy Street, stated she lives behind this development and was involved with the first one. Her biggest issue is to make sure someone will be responsible for the upkeep and making sure the developer will be a good neighbor.

There were no other speakers and the hearing was closed at 7:35 p.m.

After some brief discussion, the following motion was made:

Kasper made a motion, supported by Grossmeyer, recommending approval of the Whispering Pines Preliminary PUD Plan, to be sent to City Council conditioned upon the recommendations by CIB letter dated January 14, 2014. MOTION CARRIED (6-0) – Steffey-aye, Farella-aye, Grossmeyer-aye, Sprague-aye, Kasper-aye, Lenhart – aye.

CALL TO THE AUDIENCE None

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS Hissong stated the French Laundry is looking to begin having private parties in the adjacent building which needs to fire suppressed and a special land use is required, so it will be coming before the Planning Commission.

CIB ITEMS Avantini would like to do a work session regarding the Master Plan and a refresher on planning commission training.

COMMISSION MEMBER ITEMS None

ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by, Linda Davis Recording Secretary