|
|||
|
PLANNING
COMMISSION AGENDA REGULAR
MEETING January
24, 2006 7:30
p.m. CALL TO ORDER: APPROVAL OF AGENDA FOR:
January 24, 2006 Regular Meeting INTRODUCTION OF MEMBERS: CALL TO THE PUBLIC:
Agenda Items only – 3 minute limit APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM:
December 27, 2005 Regular Meeting OLD BUSINESS: 1)
Subdivision
Control Ordinance (General Ordinance) 2)
Proposed Text Amendment
Standards for 3)
Proposed Text Amendment
Standards for 4)
City
of 5)
Planning
Commission budget discussion NEW BUSINESS: 1)
Small
Way Private Road Site Plan Review – Tax ID# 4710-05-100-002 – Section 5
– South of Mason Road and East of Amos Road ADJOURNMENT: DRAFT MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT:
John Lowe, MEMBERS
ABSENT:
None OTHERS
PRESENT:
Phil Westmoreland, OHM David Schroeder, OHM John Enos, Carlisle/Wortman *********************************************************************************************************************************** CALL TO ORDER
John Lowe called the meeting to order at APPROVAL OF AGENDAJean Root asked to have an item on Article XX—Amendments
added to the agenda and renumber the agenda items.
INTRODUCTION OF MEMBERSThe members of the Planning Commission introduced themselves. CALL TO THE PUBLICNone. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Jean Root asked for a change to the bottom of page 3, Section
6.19—Standards for Specific Land Use should say Section 6.18 F 1 &
G—Condominium Projects. SMALL WAY Cora Sauter from Engineering Technologies was present with
the applicant. Ms. Sauter
briefly summarized the site plan. Jean
Root said there was no review from Carlisle/Wortman and asked John Lowe if
the PC should even be looking at this request today.
Mr. Lowe said they are parcel splits, not a subdivision.
Deborah Wiedman-Clawson said the planner reviewed Bentley Ridge and
two or three others. The
previous planner reviewed Mr. Lowe confirmed that Ms. Sauter had received a copy of the
letter from the township attorney. She
said yes, and her client’s attorney is making revisions.
Mr. Lowe asked what the proposal for the existing building being
within the setback. He asked if
the lot could be reconfigured so there’s no encroachment.
Ms. Sauter said at this point, he would probably apply for a variance
for the building. Mr. Morrison
said the flag lot would play a role in that, too.
Mr. Lowe asked the applicant if he’s comfortable with the
information he’s received so far. Mr.
Morrison asked the PC to address the road width in the future.
Ms. Wiedman-Clawson said the township has been working with a
standard maintenance agreement, and we’ve required all of the other
developers to use that standard, and this one’s not even close.
Ms. Sauter said they did call the attorney, who said there’s not a
standard maintenance agreement. Ms.
Wiedman-Clawson said there’s one that’s been given out to use as a
template. Mr. Lowe said it’s
not finalized at this point, but they can just ask for the template.
Mr. Enos said if the applicant wants to sketch something up in terms of a lot configuration, he can do a quick review to make sure it’s in conformance with the ordinance requirements on lot size, lot widths, flag lots, etc. Mr. Lowe asked the engineers from OHM if they had gone through the drainage calculations, and does the retention pond work for what is proposed. Mr. Westmoreland said yes. Mr. Morrison asked if there were any objections to clearing the roadway areas. Ms. Wiedman-Clawson said that was brought up earlier: where’s the landscape buffer, where are the clearing limits, etc. Is that going to be required for land divisions too? Mr. Lowe said the PC has asked for it on other land splits. Mr. Morrison said all he’s asking for is the road right-of-way and retention area. Ms. Wiedman-Clawson said the PC didn’t receive an aerial, but the applicant could provide an aerial overlay and show the limits of clearing for the road and the retention. Mr. Lowe said the road layout could change. Ms. Sauter said the position wouldn’t change; it might become longer. Ms. Wiedman-Clawson said if this development were required to have 25-foot buffers and landscaping, you’d only get one lot. Mr. Enos said his recommendation is that the PC not follow those requirements for land divisions. Ms. Root suggested requiring clearing limits for the road only. Mr. Enos said the requirements should be done on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Hamann said the PC needs to decide what it wants, and it needs to be written into the ordinance. Ms. Root said that could be discussed under the Priorities for 2006 agenda item. Mr. Hamann said the 66-foot easement would be the clearing limit. Mr. Lowe asked Mr. Westmoreland if that would be acceptable. Mr. Westmoreland said yes. Mr. Hamann asked if they need a land use permit to clear? Mr. Lowe said they need to apply for one, or is that something they don’t need. Ms. Wiedman-Clawson said he shouldn’t have to get a land use permit to take trees down on his own property. Mr. Enos said that trees may be removed within the 66-foot right-of-way. If they do any grading, they have to get a land use permit. SUBDIVISION CONTROL ORDINANCE (GENERAL ORDINANCE) John Enos said there were some changes in the state law that
may expedite subdivisions, and the ordinance needs to be updated.
Mr. Enos said the MTA has put together a model ordinance.
His suggestion is to take the best parts of the MTA ordinance, the
best parts of our ordinance, and incorporate them into one.
Mr. Enos is asking for the PC’s approval to combine the documents,
send a copy to the township attorney, and have it available for discussion
at the next meeting. Jean Root motioned to table the Subdivision Control
Ordinance to the PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Section 17.16—Group Day Care Homes John Enos said that minor changes have been made to
the language. The attorney made
some suggestions. The language
that was originally discussed regulated the number of children based on the
zoning district the day care home was in.
The township attorney said that couldn’t be done.
He was also uncomfortable with requiring frontage on a paved road,
and the minimum lot size. A
special use permit would still be required.
Mr. Enos asked if this has been to the county yet.
Ms. Root said no. Mr.
Enos said this could be approved with the changes and sent to the county.
Jean Root motioned to send Section 17.16—Group Day Care Homes, as submitted January 16, 2006, to Livingston County Planning for review and recommendation to be sent to the Township Board. Jim Anderson seconded. Motion carried 5-0. Section 17.27— Mr. Enos said CITY OF Mr. Enos said that Paul Streng has been out of the
country for a few months, so the city hasn’t been willing to act on this
item because he wants to be part of it.
Mr. Enos will have his colleague ask again at the next meeting.
BUDGET DISCUSSION Jean Root asked for this item to be put on the agenda.
Bob Hanvey provided the PC members with a copy of a resolution from
1959 that there was supposed to be a separation in the budget between the
Township Board and the Planning Commission.
Does he know if PRIVATE SEWAGE/WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES Mr. Enos said these systems are becoming a
reasonable option, although the township needs to protect itself.
Mr. Enos said he’s working closely with 2006 PRIORITIES Ms. Root informed the PC members that she went to
the township board meeting, and they did approve some of the text
amendments. She said the board
is questioning the same things that Charlie Musson said the township needs to look at and be
prepared to put in municipal sewers. Mr.
Enos suggested having a joint meeting the Township Board in the next few
months. Ms. Wiedman-Clawson said
she feels that anything on the list is fine, but anything from today on
needs to follow the amendment procedure. ARTICLE XX—AMENDMENTS Some of the discussion on this item was done under Priorities
for 2006. Discussion was
also held regarding Section 20.03 C 2. Mr.
Enos said he would add language for the board’s review.
Jean Root motioned to table Article XX—Amendments until a
formal written request is submitted to the planner and placed on the CALL TO THE PUBLIC Deborah Wiedman-Clawson asked for clarification on private
roads. Because there is no new
ordinance yet, it falls under the old ordinance.
If someone wants to split property on a private road, they get a land
use permit from the zoning administrator.
Nothing has to be done to the road, correct?
Mr. Lowe said yes. Ms.
Wiedman-Clawson cited ADJOURNMENT |