A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of Alexandria Township was held on the 27th day of April, 2015 at the Alexandria Township Conference Room, 324 Broadway.
Roll Call: Commission members present were Shad Steinbrecher, Mary Hacker, Larry Steidl, Bill Dropik, Jr. and Linda Dokken-McFann. Also present were Bonnie Fulghum, Deputy Clerk, and Ben Oleson, Township Zoning Administrator. As said members formed a quorum and the meeting was called to order by Deputy Clerk Fulghum at 6:00 p.m.
Deputy Clerk Fulghum called for nominations for chairman. Dokken-McFann nominated Larry Steidl as chairman. Nominations ceased and a unanimous ballot was cast for Steidl as chairman. The meeting was turned over to Chairman Steidl.
Chairman Steidl called for nominations for vice-chair. Hacker nominated Linda Dokken-McFann as vice-chair. Nominations ceased and a unanimous ballot was cast for Dokken-McFann as vice-chair.
Agenda: Dokken-McFann, seconded by Steinbrecher, made a motion to approve the agenda as written. Motion carried unanimously.
Minutes: Steinchrecher, seconded by Dokken-McFann, made a motion to approve the minutes of the 3/23/2015 meeting as written. Motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Steidl recessed the meeting to open the public hearing on the preliminary plat and conditional use applications for Lake Jessie Meadows Second Addition planned unit development.
Public Hearing: The applicant, Joe Riley of Riley Brothers Properties, LLC, explained that his company did not originally own and build this development, but rather they acquired it by default. In their application, Riley Bros.is asking the township to 1) allow them to re-plat and change the layout of the housing pads by adding a few feet to each pad (the additional feet do not change the original impervious calculations); 2) they are requesting that the township assume responsibility for the roads, thereby changing the roads from private to public; and 3) they want to convert the existing community center to a private residence.
Commissioner Hacker inquired as to the location of the wells for the housing development. Mr. Riley stated that the wells are outside the community center, but the apparatus for running the community center and the entirety of the development is in the basement of the community center. The basement is in two sections and there would propose two separate rooms. One room would remain as part of the community development with a separate entrance so it could be maintained by the association. The remainder of the basement would become part of the family residence. Hacker asked if this would be sold as a private home and Mr. Riley responded yes.
Chairman Steidl opened the meeting to the public for comment.
Neil Roers of 2003 E. Lake Victoria Road commented that the roads do not appear to be up to township standards for width and/or right of way. Mr. Riley stated that the roads are wider than a rural section of road, for example, approximately 27 feet wide with curb and gutter. Mr. Riley acknowledged that the roads do not meet the township’s standard of 66 feet in width. Mr. Roers asked if the township needs the 66 feet of easement. Chairman Steidl asked Zoning Administrator Oleson to address this question. Oleson stated that the application for the planning commission to consider is the layout of the lots and the conversion of the community center. The actual decision on the road and whether it would be taken over by the township would be considered by the Board of Adjustment during the variance process.
Danny Sieve of 1505 Armstrong Circle NW asked if covenants would be attached to each home and, if so, what would be the nature of those covenants. Mr. Riley stated that covenants are currently attached and anticipates they would be similar to what is in place. Mr. Sieve also asked that if the recreation center is changed to a private residence, do they foresee a need for a recreation center in the future. As a realtor, he felt that a well-kept recreation center would be a draw for sales. Mr. Riley said the two existing homes were built before the community center was in place and stated that he does not feel another center will aid in the sale of future lots (pads).
Wayne Fridgen of 4610 N. Lake Jessie Road inquired if they would be building a recreation center besides a community center. Mr. Riley stated that the recreation center and the community center are one and the same and no, they have no intention of building another one.
Mr. Fridgen asked if they were planning on removing the large 10,000 gallon tank in the basement, and Mr. Riley responded yes. He stated that the tank was used for a sprinkling system and therefore would be deemed unnecessary if the community center were discontinued.
Danny Sieve asked what the square footage of the pads would be. Brad Nyberg of Nyberg Surveying responded that they would be 2,917 square feet. He said the pads (or lots) would be larger than that, but 2,917 feet would be the maximum that could be built. Mr. Sieve asked if the surrounding lawn would be deemed common area to which Mr. Nyberg responded yes.
Brian Bloedorn of 4440 Jessie View Drive SE clarified that the two existing homes in the development are owned by TK Management, which he and Paul Klimek co-own.
Mr. Roers asked if the two existing homes have private wells. Mr. Riley responded no, there is a community water system in place which will service the entire development. Mr. Roers said his concern was due to the possibility of the city water line being extended to that area and thereby to the adjacent landowners. Tom Klemenhagen of LandTeam responded that the only way the project would be serviced by city water is if the developer petitioned for that area to be annexed. He stated that the current system meets all state requirements.
Deputy Clerk Fulghum read a letter submitted by Bonnie Brooks of 2000 E. Lake Jessie Road SE. Her concerns were as follows: 1) at the 2005 county public hearings, the width and curve of the road were discussed and the developers stated they did not want the township to maintain the roads, the purpose being the developers could then have a narrower road than would be required by the township; 2) her concern that the township would be unable to properly maintain the roads with their existing equipment; 3) what would be the benefit to the township; and 4) if the community center is converted to a private dwelling, what about the apparatus that is currently in place. Her comment was that if the township were to assume responsibility for the road that the road be brought up to township specifications. She also stated that the township should not be bailing out projects that don’t succeed.
Mr. Riley asked to address some of the concerns in the letter. He stated that homeowners pay taxes to the township for such things as snow removal. If the town does not take over the roads, what would be the benefit to the homeowners in this development? Oleson responded that there are many other roads that the township maintains that these same homeowners would use on a daily basis, for example.
Commissioner Hacker asked if the town is responsible for proper drainage in this area, to which Oleson responded primarily in the road ditches. He also stated that one of the major expenses a town has is road maintenance with the associated costs of grading, plowing, etc. When this development was originally proposed as a PUD with private roads, the township suggested the county not allow them as private roads but rather as public. Currently, if a new PUD is being proposed, the town’s policy is to not allow private roads in new developments. Chairman Steidl asked what it would take to bring this road up to township standards. Mr. Klemenhagen responded that the road is two inches short on the amount of gravel needed for the base. There is supposed to be eight inches of gravel under the asphalt, and the roads only have six. Mr. Riley stated that it would not be feasible to put in the additional gravel as it would entail removal of the asphalt and then resurfacing. He also commented that the road is currently in excellent condition. Chairman Steidl asked if the utilities run under the road, to which Mr. Riley responded yes.
Zoning Administrator Oleson read a letter that he had received from Jeff Cross of 4609 N. Lake Jessie Road. Mr. Cross expressed concerns about the township taking over the roads in this development, in particular the extra liability that could be incurred. He questioned the advantage to the township for assuming responsibility for the roads. He does not feel coming to the aid of a private entity should be a taxpayer’s responsibility.
Jeff Oberg, 3005 W. Lake Jessie Drive, questioned the inspection done on this road; i.e. is the same inspection done whether it be a county, township or private road. Mr. Riley responded yes, that it was designed by an engineer and it is that person’s responsibility to ensure the road is constructed as designed. Oleson stated that if the township were to take over the road, the town would conceivably want to do soil borings and other testing.
Oleson reported that the applicant has three main requests: 1) that the layout of the lots be adjusted to provide the homeowner with the ability to pick the design and shape of their home; 2) that the community center be converted to a private dwelling; and 3) that the road be taken over by the township. He reiterated that the layout, private road, number of mooring sites, open space and impervious calculations, etc. were all approved by the county in 2005. He stated that the applicant is not proposing any increase in impervious coverage, are not proposing more units than previously applied for, that open space should be relatively unchanged and that the mooring sites are not changing.
In 2005 the number of units that could be developed in the first tier of the PUD (from the shoreline) was reduced from 14 to 8 due to land being taken over by DNR. Riley Bros.’ proposed change would not be an overall increase, but the first tier would increase from 8 to 9 with the removal of a unit in another tier.
Another change since the 2005 approval is that the county road was moved (County Road 81) and, as a result, this development lost some land which affected the calculations. He mentioned that the infrastructure is in place.
Commissioner Dokken-McFann expressed concern regarding the height of the water in the stormwater pond considering we’ve had a winter with relatively little snowfall and limited rainfall this spring. Oleson stipulated that this stormwater pond had been previously approved by the county. He stated that if the township were to take over the road, their policy has been to require the township’s taking over maintenance of the stormwater pond also.
Commissioner Hacker asked if the condition of the road could be due to the lack of traffic in this area. Mr. Riley responded the condition of the soils under the road (sandy soil) promoting adequate drainage is a factor.
Oleson reviewed possible prerequisites for the township’s taking over the road could include requiring a significant percentage of the lots (pads) be sold prior to the town’s taking responsibility for the road/stormwater facilities; provision of some form of financial security; requiring that the road/stormwater facilities be rebuilt to township standards or some combination of these.
Commissioner Dokken-McFann asked if the applicant would consider the idea of designating a lot to put the snow and also if they would consider making the road a one-way since two-way traffic, especially in the winter, would prove difficult. Mr. Riley favored the concept of one-way traffic over designating a lot for snow since eventually the snow would still need to be hauled out in a truck. He also said that bringing the road up to township standards is not a feasible option due to the prohibitive cost.
Commissioner Hacker asked Mr. Klemenhagen to comment on the issue of “tolerance.” He stated that since a road can’t be graded perfectly, there is a tolerance, or an allowance to meet the required specifications, for example a tenth of a foot tolerance is allowed on some grading (class 5). He stated the biggest load on the road is the vehicles used for building projects, followed by school buses and garbage trucks.
Mr. Bloedorn asked what would have happened if no one had stepped in to take over the development and no more homes were sold. Would the township have taken over the road by default? Oleson stated if that were the case, the town board would make a decision. Mr. Bloedorn commented that when the two existing homes were built, they were built on the premise that there would be road frontage. If the road were brought up to township standards, that frontage would be lost. Mr. Klemenhagen responded that since the homes are on opposing sides, there is no feasible way to ensure a 66-foot road width. Mr. Bloedorn’s final comment was that their current situation was beyond their control. Chairman Steidl posed the question of why township residents, as a whole, should be expected to aid a failed venture which would benefit only a few residents.
Commissioner Dokken-McFann asked if the driveways were in addition to the 2,917 feet included in the lot (envelope). Mr. Nyberg stated that the driveways are included in the envelope. Dokken-McFann was wondering if people would have enough parking in their driveway for guests.
Commissioner Steinbrecher inquired who is responsible for the utilities under the road. Mr. Riley explained that it would be the association’s responsibility unless the township took over the road. He made mention that the homeowner would be responsible for the service line if that needed repair.
Steinbrecher also asked if the snow removal timeframe would become an issue if the town took over the road. Another item of concern is the potential for through traffic, in particular if this becomes a public road.
Commissioner Dokken-McFann asked if there would be an easement for the docks if the community center is converted to a private dwelling. Mr. Riley responded yes, it would need to be relocated to a different spot, on one side or the other of the community center.
Chairman Steidl asked if a garage would change the impervious calculations. Mr. Riley responded that a garage is included in the calculations.
Commissioner Hacker asked, from a realtor’s point of view, what draws people to want the community center. Mr. Sieve responded that there are a number of things besides the community (recreation) center; however, a large part of the draw is a well-run, maintained center. Mr. Riley stated that a reason to not have the community center is the dues required to maintain it.
Jeff Cross of 4609 N. Lake Jessie Road said he does not see the advantage to the township of having the dedication of existing roadways turned over to the township.
Seeing no further comment, Chairman Steidl closed the public hearing and reconvened the meeting.
Commissioner Dokken-McFann stated she has no issue with the layout of the homes nor with the community center becoming a residential dwelling. She likes the idea of one-way traffic for the road.
Commissioner Steinbrecher stated he has no problem with the layout. His concern lies with the rationale of why the township should take over the road. Mr. Riley addressed the question by stating the allure for a homebuyer would be the fact that if it is a public road, the homebuyer is not responsible for paying to maintain it and thus a lot (envelope) would be easier to sell.
Commissioner Hacker indicated that she would also be in favor of the one-way traffic road. She had no specific concerns regarding the community center. Her primary concern was the health of the lake. She asked Mr. Riley if changing the shape of the envelopes would make a difference with the sale of the homes. Mr. Riley indicated he thought it would.
Commissioner Dropik expressed concern about parking issues along the road.
Chairman Steidl indicated no concerns regarding the conversion of the community center and with the layout of the envelopes. He recommended removal of the split at the entrances. Steidl asked if this would be a consideration, to which Mr. Riley responded yes. Mr. Riley also said he would entertain the idea of one-way traffic.
Dokken-McFann, seconded by Hacker, made a motion to recommend approval of the re-platting of Lake Jessie Meadows 2nd Addition as presented and as outlined in the staff report, numbers 1 – 7, amending no. 4 to state one-way traffic around the loop with one-side parking allowed and two-way traffic at the entrances with no street parking and elimination of the road splits at both entrances. Roll: Dropik – yes, Hacker – yes, Dokken-McFann – yes, Steinbrecher – yes, Steidl – yes. Opposed: none. Motion carried unanimously.
Zoning Administrator’s Report: The commission discussed whether “grandfathered” commercial businesses in residential zones should be allowed.
New Business: The site visit schedule for 2015 will remain at 10 a.m. on the Wednesday prior to scheduled meeting.
Old Business: Dokken-McFann, seconded by Steinbrecher, made a motion to table discussion on the comprehensive plan.
Adjournment: Being no further business Dropik, seconded by Hacker, made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 8:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted…
___________________________________
Bonnie Fulghum, Deputy Clerk
Approved this ____ day of ___________, 2015
___________________________________
Larry Steidl, Chairman