Meridian Commons gets the boot

By Meg Peters
Review Co-Editor
After a lengthy discussion centered on Redwood Acquisition not meeting all conditional requirements for a zoning change, Orion Township trustees voted down the applicant’s conceptual plan to rezone almost 33 acres to PUD for 160 “empty-nester” apartment homes.
Meridian Commons, which would be located at 3667 S. Lapeer Rd., would be similar to a development Redwood has already built in Orion Township. That development is Waterston at Village Square, directly north of Great Lakes Athletic Club.
Because he has seen the Waterston at Village Square development, Supervisor Chris Barnett said he voted ‘no’ to rezone the smattering of different parcels from Restricted Business, Office Professional, Single Family Residential to a PUD.
“I think we have the benefit that we have one of these in our community that we can go see and touch and feel,” he said. “I would argue that it doesn’t look anything like the picture. I would say it’s a very cheap product.”
Over the last five years Waterston at Village Square has been in operation in the township, Barnett said several residents have called in to complain.
“I don’t see a difference in what you presented to the planning commission. I think we are miles apart and if we had a different experience with you in our community I think it would be a lot different.”
The closest neighborhood that would be affected is the Hi Hill Village at the northeast corner of Silver Bell and Lapeer roads.
“This parcel is a last chance to do anything to improve Hi Hill. This township has not been the best caretaker for Hi Hill. We’ve stepped on them a couple of times, and I would like to see the best development I can there,” Trustee Neil Porter said.
He got a round of applause for that comment.
Many residents of the Hi Hill subdivision echoed that sentiment.
“I just want everyone to realize that this could be probably our last chance at a residential development in this area,” resident Joe Gerace said.
Still others commented on Redwood Acquisitions absence from the development ring altogether.
The first public hearing on the residential development geared towards people aged 55 and above occurred on November 19, 2014, when the applicant asked to postpone the project. The applicant made its second appearance before the Planning Commission February 18, 2015 when commissioners recommended approval of the PUD rezoning as long as the applicant met all their conditions.
Representing Redwood was Richard Batt, who said the applicant had made extensive improvements to the project following recommendations from the township planner Don Wortman. Changes included those to the elevations, roofing, sides and landscaping, Batt said.
“A lot has happened since we were here last time,” he said.
Waterstone at Village Square was Redwood’s first development in Michigan five years ago.
“Now we have 17. We had 2,800 units, we have about 5,000 now. It’s a great, largely accepted project,” he said, urging trustees to check out their newest developments in Canton.
Redwood reaches out to people who want to downsize, to empty-nesters, as Batt coined it.
“A lot of people are coming to our communities as a home replacement that allows them some financial flexibly,” he said.
Rent would be around $1,500 a month or higher for each unit equipped with a two-car garage, and 24 hour maintenance services.
About 70 percent of all of Redwood’s developments house empty nesters at the average age of 55, Batt said.
HI Hill resident Kevin Harris was also concerned.
“My main concern is what Chris Barnett showed already on Baldwin and how it doesn’t meet what was proposed,” he said.
Batt admitted that is the truth.
“I’m not going to tell you we did the best job on that, but if you go to some of our more recent communities, like Canton, and look what we’ve done there, we’ve upped the game both externally and internally,” Batt said.
The vote to deny a conceptual rezoning of the land to PUD was 6-1, with Treasurer Mark Thurber the lone dissenting vote.
Thurber stated he was not comfortable with disagreeing with the unanimous planning commission recommendation for approval.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *