One project received approval; another did not. Both drew questions and criticism from neighbors.
The Thursday, Oct. 9 Springfield Township Board meeting featured two public hearings on special land use permits for residential “cluster” developments.
A proposal for 10 single-family homes on 22 acres near Holcomb and Ellis roads (at the Independence Township border) received unanimous approval from trustees. A plan to place 23 single-family site condominums on 41 acres near Davisburg Road and I-75, however, was rejected by a 5-1 margin.
Township ordinance allows “cluster” development (with individual lots smaller than the normal minimum size) if there are significant “natural features” which can be preserved in a larger than normal open space. In addition to evaluating the technical requirements, trustees were required to invite public feedback on the proposals.
While it received approval, the concept plan for the Towering Pines project still attracted naysayers from adjoining properties. The land owner, Dr. Stephen Werner, plans to keep his residence and subdivide the rest of the property, but some neighbors wondered whether the new homes would be “in harmony” with theirs.
Jerry Hemphill, a builder in the Ridge Valley neighborhood, asked about issues such as price range and architecture.
“Are these lots going to be consistent with Ridge Valley?” Hemphill asked. “That could be a problem with my buyers.”
“We’re very impressed with what’s been built around us in Ridge Valley. We would really like to maintain an equal type of setting,” Werner said, and emphasized his personal stake in the matter. “I’ve made a long-term commitment to live there.”
Supervisor Collin Walls cautioned that the board’s decision had to be based on the ordinance criteria.
“Our decision cannot and should not be made based on the size or price range of a house,” Walls said.
Cotswald Drive resident Andy Greenlee wondered about water runoff.
“I have a feeling it’s going to be routed right to my lot, which would not be ideal for me,” Greenlee said.
Keift Engineering’s Jim Scharl said he also did engineering for Ridge Valley and was aware of the drainage concerns. He said he plans to use existing low areas, new retention areas and existing storm sewers.
Walls said the ordinance requires mitigation of any water runoff.
“There can’t be any different flow off that site than there is now,” Walls said.
Somerhill Lane resident Tom Houck protested the cluster plan, saying he asked about potential development three years ago before he moved to his current residence. He said he was told lots must be at least one and one-half acres.
“I was comfortable with that thought, and I built accordingly, Now, plans of changed, and I’m going to get a cluster of homes,” Houck said. “Cluster is cluster. It means I’m going to see four homes behind me instead of two.”
Trustee David Hopper noted Houck’s comments, but said the cluster concept is not new.
“Ridge Valley is a cluster development also. The benefits far outweigh going with the conventional development,” Hopper said.
Despite public notice of the hearing, Greenlee asked for a delayed vote because some affected residents weren’t aware of the proposal.
“This is not the first time this has been around,” Trustee Dennis Vallad said, noting previous public discussions by the planning commission. Since the vote was only on the conceptual plan, he said there would be further review of specific engineering site plan proposals.
Trustees asked developers to make some changes in the plan to separate a wetland area from Werner’s lot and to save as many trees as possible.
Noting plans by the Road Commission for Oakland County’s plans for the paving of Holcomb Road, Werner said he has already moved some trees from the Holcomb right-of-way to enhance the buffer between Towering Pines and existing developments. He hopes to move even more.
“It’s our intention to save every tree we can,” he said.
The Pine Valley Condominiums received criticism from both neighboring property owners and the township board, despite claims from developers that the cluster plan would offer 33 percent less runoff and preserve 19 additional acres when compared to the normal zoning guidelines.
Some of the advantages came from converting a proposed public road into a private road with ditches, but trustees believed engineers did nothing to attempt to save existing pine trees from the proposed roadway. In addition to preserving the natural features (as intended by the cluster concept), some said the trees act to soften traffic noise from I-75.
Neighboring resident Bob Redpath also said there was little consideration for an adjoining lake not included in the engineering drawings of the Pine Valley development. He expressed concern about runoff and potential lake pollution.
“You need to show what’s around that pretty little picture,” Redpath said, noting he and other lakefront residents work hard to keep the lake at a healthy level and keep the lake stocked with fish. “[Runoff with salt and fertilizer] is going to make its way to the lowest point. It’s not good for the fish.”
Davisburg Road resident Gilbert Luedke expressed concern for a proposed gravel emergency access road running near his property.
“If the people from the inside the development can go off that cul-de-sac and cut down that gravel road, I’m going to be eating dirt,” he said.
Fire Chief Charlie Oaks defended the need for a second access road to the development, but Vallad (who was the only trustee to vote for approval) admitted, “It seems like a lot of length for its related purpose. It’s a road to nowhere.”
Other criticisms included the drawing of lot lines into protected wetland areas, (“It’s a marketability problem,” owner/developer Bruce Burksey said) and lack of public access to the open space of the development. In addition, several items on the engineering plan had not been updated in several areas, including plans for a sound buffer along I-75.
The drawing showed a landscaped berm, but engineer Mark Landis said that is no longer an option.
“We would have liked a berm along that property line along the I-75 right-of-way,” Landis said, but “[The Michigan Department of Transportation] has objected to that.”
Burksey promised a solid retaining wall similar to those used in other locations, but Trustee David Hopper said it would be another “ugly retaining wall.”
“I understand the purpose, but maybe some planning up front would have helped,” he said. “If you have to put a wall up or a berm up, you’re not providing optimum setbacks [according to ordinance].”
Hopper’s conclusion seemed to summarize the majority opinion.
“I understand this is an extremely difficult site,” he said. “I do feel this site qualifies for our cluster option. I just don’t think this plan does.”