FENTON PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

City Hall Council Chambers

Thursday, May 22, 2014

7:00 P.M.

Chairman Sprague called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.

ROLL CALL

Present: Steffey, Farella, Grossmeyer, Rossi, Price, Kasper, Sprague, Bancroft

Absent: Lenhart

Others Present: Brad Hissong, Building & Zoning Administrator, Carmine Avantini, CIB Consultant

MINUTES

Kasper made a motion to amend the March 27, 2014 minutes, clarifying the motion made to the sign waiver for Flatrock Manor to read as follows: to approve an off-site, second free standing sign for Flatrock and deny the second free standing sign for Lucky’s Restaurant due to the fact that the primary free standing sign for Flatrock does not have visibility to Silver Parkway.

Motion by Kasper, supported by Bancroft to approve the minutes from the March 27, 2014, as amended regarding the Flatrock Manor signage.

MOTION CARRIED, ALL AYES

OLD BUSINESS – none

(Steffey arrived at 7:04 p.m.)

NEW BUSINESS

A. Silver Lake Hills Amendment PUD

At this time, Avantini stated they have reviewed the above request to amend the Silver Hills Apartment PUD for construction of a four (4) story apartment building on a site that was originally approved for a three (3) story building. As you may recall, the building at this location burned several years ago and the structure had to be demolished. The current owners and managers of the complex, McKinley, Inc., would like to re-construct a building with an additional fourth floor. The extra floor will allow them to include four (4) additional three (3) bedroom units. This request will require an amendment to the approved PUD, since all of the units were three (3) stories in height.

Section 36-13.12, Deviations from approved final PUD site plan, of the zoning ordinance provides a series of steps to be followed for PUD amendments, depending upon the extent of the change. If a deviation significantly alters the intent of the approved PUD, then the application must once again go through the original PUD process. The above request can be considered a minor amendment, since the primary request is to add an additional floor on the building, and is eligible for review and approval by the Planning Commission.

Based upon our review of the submitted plan, meetings with the applicant, a visit to the site, and attendance at the March Planning Commission meeting where a workshop session was held and there was positive feedback to the proposal, we offer the following comments for your consideration.

1. Building Footprint. The proposed building footprint is approximately the same as the other buildings in the complex, including a 42 foot setback from the building to the west.

2. Building Elevations. Recognizing that there will be some differences between the proposed building and the existing structures, we offer the following comments regarding the elevations:

a. An architectural detail emulating the arch and windows on the south elevation should be added to the blank area at the center of the north elevation. This can be accomplished using the Hardy Board Shake Style siding.

b. Efforts should be made to use stone on the south elevation in a similar fashion to the other existing buildings facing Silver Lake Road.

c. The east and west ends of the building are very different than the existing buildings, due primarily to the new floor plans for the apartments on the first and second floors. The applicant should examine possible ways to provide a less drastic change in the elevations.

d. Six over six inserts should be added to all windows so they match the existing buildings.

3. Landscaping. The application indicates that the existing landscaping has been preserved and maintained so changes are not needed.

4. Dumpster Enclosure. The enclosure gates next to the site are missing and must be replaced.

RECOMMENDATION

Given the above analysis, we recommend that the Planning Commission approve the PUD amendment to allow construction of a four story building, conditioned upon the following:

1. Submission of revised elevations addressing the above items to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission, to be reviewed and approved administratively.

2. That the dumpster enclosure gates (next to the site) be replaced.

Mr. Hissong also added the fire chief has reviewed the plans provided for the apartment expansion. The fire department does not have any concerns for the building and its height, as long as its construction follows all current fire and building code regulations and the building is fully fire suppressed. Mr. Hissong further added the building has a three story exterior stairway, and the third and fourth floor has an interior stairway, therefore it requires a signaling alarm system, which the architect is aware of. This is also part of the building code so the fire chief was happy with it.

There were some concerns with handicapped parking and after the discussion it was found that there would be sufficient number of spots.

At this time, Charles Popovich, architect with Bergman & Associates, presented copies to the Planning Commission. He stated he has no concerns with covering all the recommendations that were asked to be done and will work with the City in doing this.

After further discussion, the following motion was made:

Bancroft made a motion, supported by Kasper, to approve the Silver Lake Hills PUD Amendment conditioned upon the recommendations from the Fire Chief and the CIB letter dated May 12, 2014 and comments listed above.

MOTION CARRIED (8-0) – Steffey-aye, Farella-aye, Grossmeyer-aye, Sprague-aye, Kasper-aye,

Rossi-aye, Price-aye, Bancroft-aye.

B. Final PUD Site Plan Approval for the recently amended Whispering Pines/PUD

Carmine Avantini stated they have reviewed the above request to amend the Final PUD Site Plan for the Whispering Pines condominium development on Whispering Pines Drive. This project was originally approved in 2004 with a series of duplex units; only two buildings and one foundation were constructed. The owner has since requested and received City Council approval for an amended Preliminary PUD Plan, since the housing market cannot support the originally-approved duplex project. The revised Preliminary PUD Plan allows the construction of detached single-family units for the remainder of the site.

The proposed Final PUD Site Plan amendment 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. Based upon our review of the submitted Final PUD Site Plan amendment, conversations with the applicant, and coordination with Mr. Brad Hissong, Building and Zoning Administrator, we offer the following comments for your consideration:

REVIEW COMMENTS

1. Original Final PUD Site Plan Approval Still In Place. This application is for an amendment to the types of units in the development, along with associated design guidelines and details, such as materials, colors, and fences. All other items in the original Final PUD Site Plan approval, such as sidewalks, lighting, infrastructure, etc., are still in place. If this amendment is approved, a revised Final PUD Site Plan must be submitted for administrative review and approval.

2. Overall Layout. Many of the proposed building envelopes are slightly larger than those shown in the approved Preliminary PUD Site Plan. The applicant would like the ability to provide a greater range of housing sizes and styles, depending upon market demands. While the units on the east side of Whispering Pines Drive have a greater setback variation than was depicted on the Preliminary PUD Site plan, they are still consistent with the intent of that approval.

3. Building Design. A series of four (4) possible elevations have been submitted with the application and are basically the same as those in the Preliminary PUD amendment submission. The applicant has indicated that he will be selling the project to a builder and that a greater variety might be provided. We have recommended, and received, design guidelines for the buildings to guide any other elevations that might be submitted. Each set of building plans can then be reviewed administratively for compliance with the approved elevations and the design guidelines, which also regulate materials, colors and variety of design.

4. Building Setbacks. The setbacks between the buildings match the approved Preliminary PUD Plan at 11 feet wide.

5. Fences. Since the units are proposed to be 11 feet apart, a condition of Preliminary PUD approval was that no front yard fences be allowed. In addition, any side yard fences must be decorative and no more than 4 feet tall, and that a minimum 50% of the fence must 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.

6. Condominium Documents. Since the project is a site condominium, a revised set of condominium documents addressing the amendment will need to be provided for administrative review, including that of the City Attorney, Mr. Stephen Schultz.

7. Entryway Improvements. The originally-proposed entryway signage and landscaping improvements must still be installed.

8. Public Improvements. Any remaining public improvements, such as the final coat of asphalt, must be reviewed and approved by the City engineering consultant, OHM, and any City Department Heads.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the above discussion we recommend approval of the amendment to the Final PUD Site Plan for Whispering Pines, conditioned upon the following items:

1. Submission of a revised Final PUD Site Plan that depicts the approved Final PUD Site Plan with the changes from this amendment request, for administrative review and approval.

2. Administrative review and approval of all building elevations to ensure compliance with the design guidelines;

3. 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. That no front yard fences be allowed and that any side yard fences be decorative, no more than feet tall, and 50% open from the front to the rear of the house;

5. Submission of a revised set of condominium documents, for administrative review and approval, including that of the City Attorney, Mr. Stephen Schultz;

6. Installation of the originally-proposed entryway signage and landscaping improvements;

7. Any remaining public improvements, such as the final coat of asphalt, must be reviewed and approved by the City engineering consultant, OHM, and any City Department Heads.

At this time, Mr. Craig McAra, attorney for JRDC Land Company (current owner of Whispering Pines) stated there is an imminent sale of this property with a North Oakland County Builder who does a lot of big projects and he would like to purchase the property and get started building homes as soon as possible. One of the issues is they are separating part of the project. There are two existing owners of units built in the original PUD and they are duplexes. They would like these original duplexes not be responsible for any association dues, costs, special assessments, etc., with the new development. They would, however, be responsible for any shared elements such as walls, roads, etc. Mr. McAra has signed approval from these existing owners. He doesn’t foresee any problems between the two associations and this is covered in the deed. He is asking the Planning Commission to amend the existing PUD to create these changes so they can move forward with the sale and begin the project.

Grossmeyer stated there is one other area in the city with two different associations, so it’s not unprecedented. He also feels comfortable with Mr. Hissong and Mr. Avantini making any future administrative decisions and brings back anything that needs Planning Commission approval.

Grossmeyer made a motion, supported by Kasper, to approve the final PUD Site Plan, conditioned upon the 7 items stated in the May 16th CIB letter which is listed above, and for Mr. Hissong and Avantini, to make administrative approvals as they see necessary.

Mr. Hissong further added that the applicant take the original site plan and give the city a new site plan with the new lots, along with any other drawings, and submit it as package which can be done as part of the construction drawings on the first set and then it can be administratively approved.

MOTION CARRIED (8-0) – Steffey-aye, Farella-aye, Grossmeyer-aye, Sprague-aye, Kasper-aye,

Rossi-aye, Price-aye, Bancroft-aye.

DISCUSSION ITEMS

A. Master Plan Update: Goals & Objectives

Discussion took place on updating and improving zoning regulations, ordinances, and to insure future uses in Silver Lake Village to protect the original intent of the development while meeting the market and demand. We now need to start working on the Second Phase of Maturity with Silver Lake Village to see if the uses that were approved are still relevant or should they need to be changed. We are also seeing more urban housing development in downtown areas such as lofts, townhouses, condos, apartments that the younger generation and empty nesters are more interested in. Some of the items in the old Master Plan have been implemented already which causes us to look at updating the Master Plan. At this point we have a list of 14 critical issues that we will be looking into at the next Planning Commission meeting.