As a resident of Plainfield Township, I have a few questions and concerns regarding the proposed Kuttshill development. They are listed below.

Transcription

1

2 Carly, Your went into my spam. I will forward it onto the PC members later this morning. In regard to your questions I have answered them in blue below: As a resident of Plainfield Township, I have a few questions and concerns regarding the proposed Kuttshill development. They are listed below. I am very concerned about substantial increased traffic through Woodhills. Motorists already cut through Woodhills and making that option even easier with a straight through from the development is very troubling to my neighbors and me. Was looking at additional cut-through traffic on Woodhills even a consideration during the traffic study? If not, why, and could that be something that is looked into, if, in fact, the proposed plan moves forward? Would moving the proposed development s entrance to the left or right, so that it does not align straight up with Woodhills be something that would be seriously considered? I would prefer if the residents that are exiting or entering the proposed development would have to turn left or right onto Kuttshill, instead of going straight through Woodhills. In regard to traffic and the traffic study, we expected that the study would have to be expanded after getting the needed public input and other findings from the public hearing, which is why the traffic study is still in draft form. I will be putting a list of concerns together and reviewing them with the traffic engineer shortly. I cannot guarantee each and every traffic concern expressed at the meeting can be answered but to everyone s complete satisfaction but we will try to address them all. We plan on having a traffic engineer at the next meeting. I do know that traffic engineers generally require streets to line up across from each other, wherever possible, because offsetting them is proven to create accidents. The location of entrance drives is in large part governed by the Kent County Road Commission in this instance. We have some input but not much. Additionally, in regards to the traffic study that was performed, it appears it was done on one day only 9/29/16 for a total of 4 hours, none of which was during the afternoon school rush. I also noticed on page 4, subsection Data Collection, paragraph 2, This data was collected by Quality Counts, LLC for Wade Trim. Where is Quality Counts, LLC located, I do not see an office for them in Michigan and I would very much like more details regarding their role in this study. I would like to know how they obtained the data that was provided to Wade Trim, Inc. What methods were used and when was it performed? This is something that the traffic engineer can best answer (She has been doing these for years nationwide) but I will touch base on what I can. From what I recall the numbers are taken from actually strip counts (the black tubes that you sometimes see on the roads) they did, counts done by the KCRC resources and by MDOT. I have included a link to the Grand Valley Metro Council: Transportation Division, which maintains the online access to these counts (Kuttshill/Rogue River is on page 34). As I noted, the township has requested broadened counts, but because of snowplowing we cannot take additional counts until spring when the danger of snow has past. Please note: if this project is approved or ultimately denied, it will take several months to get to that point. Tuesday night, was essentially step in a lengthy process.

3 We have had a lot of ground water / drainage problems in this area, especially around Blythfield Hills Baptist Church. What measures are being taken to secure that this development s possible existence does not negatively contribute to an area that is already high risk for flooding? Ultimately, this is something that would be addressed during the site condominium or platting approval process for the residential lots (i.e. even if the applicant was approved for the PUD, they still have to come back to the township to do the detailed planning that is involved with each development phase). However, we are aware of these issues and have already discussed with the applicant, about conveying stormwater under Kuttshill from the church to the development s detention pond. Lastly, has there been any study with regard to how this development will impact our already over crowded schools? My daughters attended Roguewood Elementary school and in 5 th grade they had over 30 students in their outside classroom. If a study has been performed, what did the study consist of, who performed it, and where is the data? If a study has not been performed, at what point does overpopulation of schools warrants a look into expanding or adding additional schools? We have been in contact with the school district and from what I understand that they believe that they can accommodate the additional students. Regardless, we did contact them and asked them to expand in writing on these concerns and others brought up at the meeting. In regard to school studies, you would have to contact the school district. School districts are independent from local governments. Hope that helps. From: Carly DuVall [mailto:duvall12@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, :46 PM To: Peter Elam Subject: Proposed Kuttshill Development Good afternoon, Attached please find a letter regarding the above referenced matter. Thank you, Carly DuVall

4 Carrie Albright 3695 Windwood Drive NE Rockford, MI Ruth Ann Karnes Plainfield Charter Township Clerk 6161 Belmont Avenue NE Belmont, MI To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to express my concerns to the Plainfield Charter Township Planning Commission over the proposed rezoning of Kuttshill Development, LLC s Project Address: 6690 and 6728 Kuttshill Drive NE, Permanent Parcel Numbers: and While I believe growth is good, I also believe in accommodating for it as well. I have two main concerns: Traffic and Schools, with aspects from each that may, or may not, have occurred to you. I am a Plainfield Township resident, who lives in the Evergreen Meadows neighborhood on the north side of Blythefield Baptist Church. One of our neighborhood entrances is via Woodhills at Kuttshill, the intersection right across from one of the proposed entrances for the Kuttshill Development. The other entrance/exit to our neighborhood is Concolor at Kroes. TRAFFIC: I have reviewed all the available information regarding their plan and application, including the traffic study. A huge fault I see in the study is the time frame they chose as peak hours. Perhaps those are peak hours for general 9a-5p businesses; however, they did not take into consideration that this is a School Zone. Peak hours occur before their chosen study windows. For example, afternoon weekday counts were collected on only ONE day, from 4pm-6pm. By 4pm, the school rush hour traffic is over! If they would have taken counts from say, 2pm-4pm, especially at Brewer and Kuttshill, they would have gotten some very different results. Also, they did not take into consideration the congestion and backups on Brewer, which leads to Roguewood Elementary and the High School. Please bear in mind that Roguewood has an unusually large amount of car traffic due to the fact that it houses the Spanish Immersion school (many non-local students) as well as being a school of choice school. This car congestion already causes some people to bypass Brewer by cutting through Evergreen Meadows residential neighborhood as the next shortest route to Kroes. We have had sufficient problems with non-resident

5 speeders as to require a mobile radar unit to be placed by the Sheriff Department for a time period as an attempt to reduce speeders. Placing 240+ homes will only add to that congestion on Brewer, as well as add to the traffic cutting through our residential neighborhood. That is only considering school traffic. Kuttshill, a relatively short road, houses an unusual FOUR churches. Please consider that traffic as well. SCHOOLS: Let us take a look at the breaching capacity of both Roguewood Elementary and the High School that are in the immediate area of the proposed development. How many children from 240+ new homes will that add to Roguewood? How many will it add to the Freshman Center and the High School? Do those schools have the ability in place to accommodate those numbers by the time the development is finished and families move in? Please consider the situation and experiences with Valley View Elementary. Years ago they were promised an additional elementary school when other developments came in and added to their census. The developments are done, and well-established. Years have passed. The residents and school families are still waiting for the added school, with no plans in sight. Please consider what doubling the current allowance of homes on that land would do to the nearby schools and traffic. When we moved into our home over 10 years ago, we researched the zoning in our area, and based part of our decision on the fact that much of the area around us was zoned as R-1. For the Planning Commission to change that area s zoning from R-1 to PUD so that a developer can pack in twice as many homes and make twice as much money at the expense of the schools and residents, betrays the trust of many of the township residents who rely on the Commission to uphold the intended zoning of our forefathers. Please consider all points of concern, from all the township residents before making your decision. Consider the future impact it would have on the local traffic and the crowding of the schools, especially the already-crowded Roguewood Elementary. Please consider potential traffic behaviors, like cutting through residential neighborhoods to bypass the already congested school zone. While I look forward to having new neighbors in our area, I urge you to keep the area zoned as is: R-1. Thank You Kindly, Carrie Albright

6

7

8

9

10

11 From: Eveline Grimes Sent: Tuesday, January 24, :47 PM To: Peter Elam Subject: rezoning of Kuttshill Development To: Peter Elam We live in Evergreen Meadows, on Windwood Dr., which is a continuation of Woodhills, where one of the proposed entrances/exits to the new subdivision will be located. We're extremely concerned about the increase of traffic through our subdivision at the beginning and the end of each school day and also using Windwood as a shortcut to Childsdale and Kroes. We already have extra traffic using our subdivision to reach Kroes when Brewer is backed up by school traffic. Your study is incorrect citing peak hours from 4-6; peak hours occur when the Freshman Center, Rockford High School and Roguewood Elementary get out, which is from 2:30 to 4:00. Last year we had to contact the Sherrif Dept. to install a mobile radar unit on Concolor, a straight road which leads directly to Kroes, because of daily speeding drivers. Roguewood Elementary is already full to capacity and is using Portable Classrooms for the overflow. Where will they fit students from the 240+ homes you plan to build on this land? Of course, this will also increase the student population of the Freshman Center and the Rockford High School, which already are overcrowded. We ask that you conduct more studies of the traffic on the streets which will be affected and consider all of the Township's residents concerns and not rush into this project. Sincerely yours, Doug and Eveline Grimes 3792 Windwood Dr. NE Rockford, MI

12 Phone:

13 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Dale Hecksel Peter Elam Bill Fischer 12/13/16 Planning Commission meeting Kuttshill Traffic Study Friday, January 06, :16:43 PM Peter, This is in regards to the Kuttshill Traffic Study that was on the agenda for the December Planning Commission meeting. I was unable to attend the meeting to share my comments so I am forwarding them to you, hoping that they can still be considered by the Planning Commission. I have not formed strong feelings for or against the proposed development on Kuttshill. But as a resident of the Riverwoods plat for almost 30 years, I am very familiar with Kuttshill and its intersections and would like to share some general comments as well as comments specifically in regards to the traffic study. First of all, I am surprised that the study did not include the Kuttshill intersection at Riverwoods. Many times I have observed vehicles using Las Vegas and Riverwoods as a connection from Packer to Kuttshill. I do not have an issue with this but, in regards to a traffic study, I think it is important to know that the Riverwoods/Kuttshill intersection is used by more than just the residents of the Riverwoods plat. And the majority of this through traffic turns left onto Kuttshill. Left hand turns onto Kuttshill are very difficult during peak times, especially with surprise vehicles turning right onto Kuttshill from nearby Childsdale. Riverwoods Street is wide enough for a left hand turn lane but, in the absence of markings, the majority of vehicles strike a happy medium regardless if turning left or right and the queue essentially ends up being a single lane. Added traffic from the proposed development will definitely increase the delay time as well as impatience that could result in poor driver decisions. One recommendation of the traffic study is to extend the left hand turn lane for Kuttshill to Rogue River. Simply providing a place to wait to make that particular left turn that is so treacherous during busy times doesn t seem to be an adequate solution to increased traffic volume. That is such a unique intersection that I don t feel it can be addressed using textbook solutions. The other recommendation is to extend the right hand turn lane from Kuttshill to Old Northland. I m wondering if that is even possible given the close proximity of the house on the corner. On the most recent PCT Non-Motorized Pathways and Trails, the Kuttshill corridor is indicated as a proposed trail route. I propose that discussions and/or negotiations be had with the developer of the proposed PUD to divert the Kuttshill trail route through the substantial open area indicated on the site plan. Granted that terrain will pose a challenge, but it will also pose a challenge for a sidepath immediately adjacent to Kuttshill. And, as traffic on Kuttshill increases, a sidepath in close proximity to the street will become less desirable. Again, I am not trying to make a case for or against the PUD. But I am only asking that the Planning Commission carefully consider the effects of the development on the surrounding area and confirm

14 that any negative effects can be addressed without completely changing the character of the area. Thank you for your time, Dale Hecksel 6635 East Riverwoods Ct NE

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 Mr. Elam, Thank you for the time you have gave in answering my questions thus far regarding the proposed Kuttshill PUD rezoning. Please forward my comments below to the planning commission for review. Thank you, Jennifer Ostermeyer ************************************************************************************ Dear Planning Commission, As residents of the Kuttshill corridor we are submitting our thoughts on the rezone request of 6690, 6728, and 6740 Kuttshill. It is our understanding that this property could be developed with a number close to 200 homes as currently zoned. A PUD with open space may be a greater value to the existing community and potentially lesson the impact of development. In theory that seems ideal. In order for our family to see that value, we would suggest the township hold hard and fast to at least a 40% open space requirement as part of the master deed to this property. Within this 40%, there should not be designated parking space or a community building allowed anytime in the future. These open spaces should be designated as such and not blend into the pockets of the development for tally. Clearly defined open spaces easily meeting the 40% requirement and insurance that those would not disappear in the future would be our preference. We would like to see as much buffering along Kuttshill as possible. As currently proposed the developer plans to place the backyards along Kuttshill. This is not consistent with current design along this corridor. To minimize that impact, we suggest that the township require buffering. As a family with young children, I can see these backyards facing Kuttshill as a problem for potential homeowners. Our experiences with similar developments in the past is that they do not generally allow tall fencing on home lots. How does the developer intend to protect children from the traffic along Kuttshill? Our family is supportive of the new Plainfield Township Trail project and are eager for our Kuttshill connector to the north and south. As we are entering our 11th year in our home, this has been a missing need for our family of six. We would like to see this trail completed as soon as feasibly possible. Our recommendation to the township is that the trail within the Ravines at Inwood be part of Phase 1 of this development. By including the trail within this development and giving it priority, it adds value to the community. There is a section of parcel along Kuttshill that is located between parcel and not included in the development plans. We would like to see the intentions for this area addressed at the hearing. Traffic remains a concern regardless of the zoning. The intersections at Rogue River/Kuttshill/Northland are already a problem at high traffic times. One issue that was not addressed in the traffic study was impact on existing neighborhoods. Our neighborhood already serves as a cut-through from Kuttshill to Packer Drive to Rogue River and vice-versa. That path is Kuttshill to westbound Riverwoods to southbound Blythefield to westbound Las Vegas to Packer. This section of Blythefield is falling apart and one can frequently witness vehicles failing to stop at the intersection of Blythefield/Riverwoods. These existing issues are not the responsibility of the developer. I'm bringing them to the attention of the planning commission because they will become more of a burden to our neighborhood with 200+ more households potentially using this route. Our last and biggest concern is that the township would approve PUD zoning for this property and then we fall into a bait-and-switch scenario. What can the township do to ensure the intentions of this design are applied to the property regardless of who develops it or when? The only situation where PUD becomes a benefit to this corridor is if the density remains the same or better than the current R-1 Residential. Thank you for your time and consideration in reading through our comments, Best Regards, William and Jennifer Ostermeyer, 3089 Riverwoods Dr. NE, Rockford, MI

25 From: Steve Vander Kamp Sent: Monday, January 23, :57 PM To: Peter Elam Cc: Vander Kamp Steven D. Subject: Reaoning of 112 acres from R-1 to PUD on Kutshill Drive Peter, It was great to talk to you on Friday and found the information that you provided very helpful. Thank you. I do not object to building on this acreage but I do have some concerns that I would like to bring to light: 1. Traffic congestion is my number one concern. The morning is my main concern. The end of Riga is a bus stop at approximately 7:10. It is dark and very busy with traffic on Kuttshill Drive going to the High School. There are no turn lanes, stop signs or traffic lights. I turn west onto Kuttshill every morning and often wait 3 5 minutes for traffic to clear. With the new development the traffic study indicates there will be an additional 163 cars and let s assume that half of them exit via Zieverts/Riga and then to Kuttshill. It would not be a stretch to visualize 10 to 12 cars backed up on Riga trying to turn onto Kuttshill. Keep in mind that we have about 15 children walking down Riga in the dark to get to the bus stop at the corner of Riga and Kuttshill. 2. The second concern is traffic congestion at the Kuttshill, Rogue River, Northland intersection. As we talked about it, I had mistakenly thought that this corner would be improved when the medical facilities were put in on Northland, but you pointed out to me that was only in the Family Fare deal. (I must say that I feel snookered on that one). But it is what it is. The intersection was never improved and we still have large congestion problems at that intersection every morning, 8 cars deep on Rouge River and 8 cars on Kuttshill. Now the study shows that we will have an additional 163 cars in the AM to an already very congested intersection. 3. Traffic congestion only magnifies when there is any kind of inclement weather. Be it snow, ice or rain the traffic really backs up. The congestion is compounded because Northland Drive South bound backs up to the corner of Northland and Wolverine from Rogue River. Then drivers turn right (to short cut the light at Rogue River and Northland) onto Northland to Kuttshill, south to Rogue River and right on Rogue River. 4. Any time work is done or there is congestion on US 131 it drives traffic to the East Beltline, hence traffic backs up on Northland Drive at Rogue River. One morning this summer I waited 15 minutes to get out at the intersection of Kuttshill/Rouge River/Northland to so I could make an appointment on Plainfield. Traffic on Kuttshill is currently a problem in the morning and it needs to be solved. Please don t add to our traffic problems. My recommendation would be to not allow smaller lots as requested, but larger lots so the home size is larger and therefore less cars. I am thinking of the community just north of Blythefield Hills Baptist Church which has larger lots and this would be an acceptable alternative to the one proposed. I would think this would bring in the same amount of taxes with less cars. If you approve the zoning change request please make the necessary street improvements so that traffic congestion is minimized. Sincerely, Steve Vander Kamp 6737 Riga St. NE Rockford, MI Please note that the post card I received of the meeting scheduled for January 24 was post marked January 12. I travel for my business and was out of town for 3 days. I do not appreciate the small amount of time to think this

26