Vergennes Township
Planning Commission Minutes
July
1, 2002
A meeting of the Vergennes Township Planning
Commission was held on July 1, 2002 at the Township Offices. At 7:02 PM the
meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Gillett. Also present were
Commissioners Mastrovito, Medendorp, and Nauta, and Township Planner Kilpatrick
and Zoning Administrator/Planning Coordinator Vandersloot. Absent was Chairman
Jernberg, Kropf, and Richmond.
Approval of June minutes: Motion to approve by Nauta, seconded by Medendorp.
All approved.
Approval of/Changes to Agenda: Motion to approve as is by Nauta, seconded by
Mastrovito. All approved.
1. Ordinance Amendments:
A. Open Space/PUD
amendment.
Presentation by Marsha Wilcox, explaining the ordinance section by section. In
incomplete form for commissioners’ questions/comments. Definitions. One use is
as attached single family dwelling with not more than 4 units – from other
ordinance, very good way to preserve open space. Developer should be able to
look at his land and then decide if this is a good ordinance to use. Kilpatrick
will work on some sections. Ordinances we looked at had 40-60% of land
preserved as open space, so our ordinance requests 50% (in the middle). The 25%
bonus for using the ordinance, but figuring the adjusted parcel area, there’s a
common percentage (15%) represents roads, easement, etc., so the remaining 85%
can be used for home sites and common preserved areas, per Kilpatrick. Varying
depths of scenic easement along road is intended to screen a development from
the road depending on zoning. Explained process for developer to use the
ordinance. Explained intended guarantee that open space would be preserved in
perpetuity in strongest language possible. Discretion left re: water/sewer
(with compliance to storm water containment rules, septic according to Health
Dept, roads according to Road Commission. Performance bond may be required.
Presentation
by Kilpatrick with handouts illustrating a cluster development and how this
ordinance is intended to be “user-friendly” and also answering prior-asked
questions. Making a developer do a test plan can be more work than some
developers want to do. We offer a relatively objective calculation as an
alternative approach. Demonstrated how the bonus development would work in a
hypothetical case. Open Space committee worked hard on this – wrote up to four
drafts. State Government was also in process of mandating open space ordinance
as an option, pretty much as the committee has structured it (without the
bonus). Committee has opted to offer the bonus as a mechanism to get people to
use this (versus slice & dice development), but that’s an option. State
bill was signed in December and will meet the requirements of the statute in RA
and R1 (where most of the nicest features are), but not necessarily in R2 and
R3 because of lot sizes make it difficult. This would be a little more
straightforward for the right developer.
Kilpatrick:
the part about golf course, tennis court and ball fields may need to come out
because according to State regulations you cannot offer active recreation as a
use for the open space, so these options may have to come out. In R2 and R3
this ordinance will only be used as special exceptions, which may make it doable
re: the state requirements. Creative development will be needed and special
exception gives the Commission the needed control over such a project. Re:
side-yard setbacks: attached units is one means for saving open space, so
there’s a zero set-back on the attached side. and allows larger lot sizes very
common in these developments. Re: alternative minimums: open space development
review process, followed the standard of Randall Arendt (a big proponent of
these sorts of developments) who encourages a careful assessment of the land to
figure out slopes and water features, etc., to determine what natural features
are important to save, resulting in prioritization of these things on a
particular parcel. Then identify the attractive home sites based on those features,
then figure out how to connect them efficiently, finally drawing in the lot
lines (the least creative part).
Kilpatrick,
con’t: re: waste water, these denser units may seem to need water/sewer, and
the Commission has to question whether running water/sewer out to the site
(making the leap-frog of development happen) is what the township wants so
leaving the commission free to decide is a strength. This ordinance is very
close to being a good document.
Commissioner
comments: Medendorp questions will be cleared up by Kilpatrick’s next round of
scrutiny. Is Section 004 too onerous?/Kilpatrick: it lies with the question of
preserving ANY open space vs. the BEST features? Marsha Wilcox: they can save
$5-10,000 not having to do a test plan, so it’s a balance. and there’s greater
value to the whole area to have a high standard.
Nauta:
lower the current PUD’s bonus to push people toward using this ordinance. Even
by 10% would be enough, and would offset the cost of this.
Medendorp:
some people will do the test plan anyway, probably.
Rural
scenic easement thing: what if that is the place needed to be developed for the
sake of the rest of the land? / Kilpatrick: the commission can recommend to the
township board to waive site plan standards if
needed.
Mastrovito:
doesn’t cluster housing go against the rural area characteristic? / Kilpatrick:
this sort of concept avoids the patch-working so at least part of the land
stays open. / Mastrovito: Then how is rural characteristic maintained? How do
people not used to living in the country cope? What happens? / Kilpatrick: the
site analysis that identifies the best features, and they are by the main road,
that’s what’s preserved. The open space might be scattered across the parcel.
Gillett: this is better than what could happen in our current ordinance where
we get postage-stamp 3-acre lots with a lot of curb cuts. Wilcox: if we don’t
have a plan, development happens haphazardly. Kilpatrick: one alternative is to
change development lot sizes (10- to 40-acre lot sizes) which would probably
never happen because of the politics.
Mastrovito:
re: septic system, would the township be accountable to oversee it? /
Kilpatrick: where there are smaller lots and a private sewer system is put in,
the township has to back up the developer or condo association, but it’s bonded
to protect the taxpayers, and a special assessment can also be put in the
agreement.
Nauta:
it’s really interesting how creative they’ve gotten - it’s worth a tour to
Livingston County to see this concept where they’re doing it, it’s good. Very
impressive.
Gillett:
environmentally, this is where we should be going. Open space allows diversity
of habitat and wildlife in the area, which doesn’t happen in traditional
developments. It’s important to look to create this diversity and wildlife
corridors, because once it’s gone, it’s gone.
Kilpatrick:
we need to distinguish between PUD (more onerous to use but flexible in sense
of producing mixed housing/commercial as special exception use) and Open Space
(only for residential, but also very user-friendly). He will take the committee
version, put into ordinance form, and tweak the existing PUD to make more
explicit the mixed-use portions of it. Would include backing off the incentive
in the PUD. (Nauta: would be in favor of eliminating the incentive.) Can make
another that also includes the recreational option, or put the golf course/rec
piece in the PUD. Commission agreed with this plan.
B.
Ordinance Amendments: Change Roman numerals to numbers: Presentation
by Vandersloot: easier to put in the book.
Makes more sense. The computer program can automatically do that, and
can’t cope with Roman numerals.
Motion by Nauta to recommend a public
hearing for the next time public hearings are being scheduled. Seconded by
Mastrovito. All approved.
2. Reschedule August meeting date. Current date conflicts with the primary.
Commission chose July 29.
Public Comment: None
Motion to adjourn by Nauta. Seconded by Medendorp.
The next meeting is Monday, July 29 [NOTE change], 2002
The meeting was adjourned at 8:29 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Kate Dernocoeur, Recorder