|
|||
|
|
MARION TOWNSHIP AGENDA and DRAFT MINUTES January 25, 2005 @ 7:15 pm The following New Business items are Public Hearings that will run consecutively.
CALL
TO ORDER: MEMBERS
PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: CALL TO THE PUBLIC: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS: Creative Discovery Pre-School - Special Use #3-04 Proposed Text Amendment 8.01 F Proposed Text Amendment 8.02 F Proposed Text Amendment 6.18 F & G Proposed Text Amendment 6.20 E Proposed Text Amendment 6.24
CALL
TO PUBLIC: ADJOURNMENT: DRAFT MINUTES
JANUARY 25, 2005 MEMBERS
PRESENT: JOHN LOWE, CHAIRPERSON
JEAN ROOT, SECRETARY
JIM ANDERSON
DAVE HAMANN
DEBRA WIEDMAN-CLAWSON
ANNETTE MCNAMARA, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
PHIL WESTMORELAND, ORCHARD, HILTZ & MCCLIMENT
JOHN ENOS, CARLISLE/WORTMAN The
meeting was called to order at 7:15 p.m. APPROVAL
OF AGENDA Dave Hamann motioned to approve the January 25, 2005 Public Hearings agenda. Jean Root seconded.
Motion carried 5-0. INTRODUCTION
OF MEMBERS The
Planning Commission members introduced themselves. CALL
TO THE PUBLIC No
response. APPROVAL
OF MINUTES None. OLD
BUSINESS Terry Clark of Lindhout Associates introduced himself as the applicant’s architect. He also introduced Bill Goodrow from Civil Design Services and Sharon & Ken VanOrd, the applicants. Bill
Goodrow gave an overview of the general workings of the site. Mr.
Goodrow noted the site is ¼ E of D-19 on the north side of The area of development is 1.6 acres. The existing trees on the site will be kept. The building will be
2,600 square feet, access is off soil constraints of the site, we have designed an elevated septic field currently being reviewed by the Livingston County Department of Health. There will be a well on site. The detention basin will be
located at the low point along Livingston County Road Commission (LCRC), the township planning consultant and the township engineer. Comments were of a technical nature that cannot be met in order to develop the site. Mr.
Goodrow then invited any questions. Terry Clark gave a presentation on the structure. There will be two classrooms and a small kitchen for warming food and serving snacks. Each class has its own bathroom. They tried to stay with a residential theme using earth tones for the elements of the building. Terry then turned the floor over
to Sharon VanOrd. of
to provide an educational opportunity to the community, and gave an overview of her educational background, including 20 years experience as a teacher, specializing in pre-schoolers. The pre-school
would run during the an afternoon group. During the school year, she may need to meet at night with parents. She will not be running a 12-hour shift. She will hold week-long programs during the summer; the program
would run three hours. John Lowe asked John Enos to summarize his review letter. Mr. Enos explained the special use permit process allowed by our zoning ordinance. The special use permit is only allowed under certain conditions. The Planning Commission decides if the conditions are being met. It is our job to review the conditions and elements to reduce the impact to the residents. A thorough review was done by John Enos and documented in his letter dated January 17, 2005 and he read that to the public. Mr. Enos noted landscaping is aesthetically pleasing and provides a noise buffer, he is recommending additional landscaping, conifer and deciduous. He would like the outside lighting to be off at 7:00 p.m. He is recommending additional canopy trees on the playground and that it is fenced in. Future submittals need to spell out clearly that they meet all the requirements of the zoning ordinance, they need to provide maximum lot coverage, soil information, sidewalk details, details of the trees to be planted, landscaping calculations, tree protection details, 50’ buffer along East Davis Road, the caliper of trees need to increase for proposed maples, move detention basin to the north, 25’ buffers along the east and west property lines. Mr. Enos noted that the 22 parking spaces exceed the number required by the zoning ordinance and would like it reduced to the minimum number. They have concerns about the existing barn on site, the children’s accessibility to the barn and safety. Mr. Enos ended by stating several items need to be addressed on the plan, and per our ordinance and meeting the special use standards, that is something the Planning Commission will have to discuss based on the public input
and looking at the ordinance requirements. LCRC
regarding LCRC. Additional information is required by the LCRC prior to its approval. John Lowe read the review letter from the Howell Area Fire Authority (HAFA). They recommend approval upon the conditions stated in the letter and strongly recommend a heat/smoke detection and/or fire suppression
system within the building. his review letter. Mr. Westmoreland stated the comments are related to the site plan and not the special land use. There are a number of items to address. The reserve septic system needs to be reviewed. Livingston County Drain Commission requires a sedimentation fore bay on the detention basin that will need to be added. They are recommending the driveway entrance be widened to 30’ and the radius where it turns into the parking lot be increased to allow better access for emergency vehicles. Also curb-and-gutter be added around the perimeter of the parking
lot to help control storm water. number of parking spaces. Mr. Clark responded that the applicant wants the parents to park their car and enter the building to drop off the child and talk with Ms. VanOrd. With two classrooms and staggered times, the increased parking spaces are necessary. When the first session is leaving and the second session arriving, there may be a little mingling of time when someone would still be there when the next session is coming. If it was the 10 spaces required by the ordinance, there
would not be enough. A large span of asphalt in the front takes away from the residential look and creates an impervious surface and storm water run off. That will be a decision of the Planning Commission, yet you are over
the required amount. Mr. Goodrow noted
the parking is 6’ above the elevation of Road , that and landscaping should help. Mr. Enos said they can show the potential for future parking
or deferred parking; this is shown on the site plan yet not developed. John
Lowe asked the applicant the number of children that would be attending. Ms. VanOrd said the state requires 35 square feet per child, each class room is 700 square feet, and each class would be licensed for 20 children. For four-year old children, she would have 18 children per 700 square feet and for three-year old children; she would have 16 children for every 700 square feet. Ms. VanOrd asked permission to address the parking questions. She staggers the classes so class one will arrive and start 15 minutes prior to class two; this applies to pick up also. Ms. VanOrd wants to greet each child and parent individually to start the day on a positive note. When the class ends, she insists on speaking with the parent to summarize the child’s day. Mr. Enos asked for clarification on the number of children. By his calculations, there would be a maximum of 34 children. Ms. VanOrd answered 16 three-year olds and 18 four-year olds—one three-year old class and one four-year old class. On Monday, Wednesday and Friday, she would be hosting four-year old children in the morning and in the afternoon. On Tuesdays and Thursdays, the three-year olds will come. On Tuesday and Thursday, each classroom would hold 16
children. There are two
classrooms per shift and four shifts per day. being a special use, conditions can be attached, a maximum number of children per day or per week.
Mr. Enos would recommend attaching that condition. John Lowe clarified, two classrooms per shift, that is 40 per shift, a morning class and afternoon class. Ms. VanOrd answered yes. She also noted that all do not use the play area at the same time, that
is staggered also. number
of parking spaces. Mr. Clark
answered no. setback
requirement along make the site work. Mr. Goodrow acknowledged this is a design problem and he plans on meeting
with the LCRC and thinks the basin can be moved to the north. Jim Anderson questioned the number of cars accessing the site and time frames. There would be 40 cars in the morning, 80 in the afternoon and another 40 in the late afternoon. Ms. VanOrd said they are staggered: class A starting time is 15 minutes prior to class B. Jim Anderson noted the potential for overlap and there would be 80 cars accessing the site at one time. Ms. VanOrd stated over an hour and fifteen minutes there will be 80 cars coming and going from the site around
lunch time. classroom hours will be 8:45 a.m.-11:45 a.m., 9:00 a.m.-12:00 noon, 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m., and 1:15
p.m.-4:15 p.m. 80
cars coming and going. summers. Ms. VanOrd responded the staff will be in at 8:00 a.m. and out at 6:00 p.m. She will have two teachers, two assistants and one manager for a total of five employees all day long, including
Ms. VanOrd said she will hold week long classes during the summer from 9:00 a.m-12:00 noon on
different subjects, six to eight weeks out of the summer. flag lot behind the subject site has been approved by the LCRC? She is concerned and wants to see documentation the driveway has been approved. The existing drive is cut into the hill and run-off
is a problem onto distance
review for the flag lot. summer and 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. during Howell public school year, and she is concerned with the dozen
busses that come down East lives
on maintenance
items and will not be accessible to the children. curb-and-gutter and drainage. Mr. Westmoreland answered that it deters parking on grass and directs
water to the detention basin. CALL
TO THE PUBLIC George
Holt, he
has additional comments.
day. He has concerns about parking on the road when the parking lot is full, and does not agree that natural colors help this to blend into the residential. This is a for-profit business. They should put it in their back yard, they can’t, people don’t want it and won’t have it, and we don’t either. They should build in a commercial area. It lowers our property value. He does not believe there is a need for pre-school, he spoke with two others in township and they are not at capacity. He has concerns about enough parking. If the business fails, who would take over? We would be stuck
with building. Andrew
Atamanchuk, Mr. Atamanchuk had a company track the cars from 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., the speed of the cars was
averaging 65 mph.
There should be no parking on more
hazardous. Chris
Fleming, detention basin. Will the water become stagnant and what about the safety of the children. Will there
be signage and what will it look like?
Reiterated Ms. Roots’ comment about becoming
a main drag, this needs to be considered. sign. Terry Clark answered a 3’ brick sign, yet had no drawings. He showed Mr. Lowe the placement of the sign on the site, 15’ off the front property line. Mr. Enos reviewed the sign requirements. He assured the public there would be no lighting in or on the sign. Mr. Clark said the
sign will be 3’ X 8”. Pat
Stratton, and raised kids, does not see a problem with homes. Does not want a commercial building across the
street, it is a business.
His wife wrote a letter. Dave
Burton, want to sound threatening, yet he shares the neighbors’ sentiments that they are willing to go the full distance to fight this. Would like to know if barn is encroaching on greenbelt. What is frontage
on Jan
Hartford, pre-school. Enrollment of the facilities mentioned before are down because they do not have the structured
programs that prepare children for school.
She supported Sharon VanOrd. Allison
Gibb, from
good
idea. allowed, the only uses that could ever go there would only be Rural Residential uses. If it went under,
an office building could not go in. Terry Marvel, 161 East Davis Road: Would like the Planning Commission to clarify—in the opening comments it sounded like if the applicant met all the requirements that the special use would be approved. Are we deciding to have it or are we deciding how to have it? It is not safe for
her kids to ride their bikes on the street or for her to walk her dog. John Lowe responded, no this is to let the public know what the final product looks like, and to present it to the public, the public has input, letters are read, see how it fits with the ordinance. Make a determination if that is an acceptable project in that location or if it is not. It will also go before
the Board of Trustees for its review and decision. Mary
Hammond, John Enos said the children will be housed in the building or within a fenced in area. Sharon VanOrd is choosing to fence in the area. There will be one adult for every nine children at the four-year
old level and one adult for every eight children. Sharon VanOrd presented the Planning Commission Chair a letter from a consultant she is working with to make sure that all state requirements are being met. She is also working with the National Association for the Educational of Young Children. She would like to become state certified and nationally
accredited. John Lowe read the letter from Childcraft Education Corporation. Then asked for details on the fence.
Terry Clark said 3’ high and green chain link. Sue
Fleming, pre-school. John Enos answered day care is a permitted use with a limited number of children. A pre-school that allows more children requires a special use permit. He read the list of what is permitted in Rural Residential with a special use permit. If the business failed and another special use came in, they would need to go through the same process. Jean Root clarified if this failed, then one of the other
uses permitted with a special use permit could be allowed in. Maggie
Stratton, She lives directly across the street. If 40 cars are coming into the pre-school, I will not be able to get out of my driveway; my neighbors have the same problem. This will have a negative impact on
their daily life and the lives of their neighbors. Dave
Burton, schools. Questions were asked about a fire suppression system and the well that a system like that would
require, there are children in the building. Terry Clark said what they have at this time does not require a fire suppression system. John Lowe asked if that is required by the state. Mr. Clark answered he would rely on the HAFA comments and
he suggested alarm systems. Dave Hamann read the HAFA letter strongly recommending, yet did not state it was a requirement. Chris
Fleming, said
cannot require off-site improvement. George
Holt, in the barn, a safety problem for children. Water run-off is a problem now. Parking was discussed again. concerns the run off will affect his driveway. He will be moving his construction trucks and trailers weighting 20,000 lbs. up and down the driveway trying to get in and out with all that traffic. I moved out here to have room to store my things and for my kids to play. He has concerns about the
pond on his property. John
Lowe read the following letters, Dick and Mary Haan, Stratton,
A.J.
Gibb and Mary Hammond, Jim Anderson asked if the building was stick built and if it had a basement or was on a slab? Terry
Clark answered, stick built on a slab. Dave Hamann motioned to close the call to the public at 8:55 p.m. Jean Root seconded. Motion
carried 5-0. NEW
BUSINESS None. CALL
TO THE PUBLIC No
response. ADJOURNMENT Dave Hamann motioned to adjourn the public hearing at 9:18 p.m. Jean Root seconded. Motion carried 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING - 9:00 PM MEMBERS
PRESENT:
JOHN LOWE, CHAIRPERSON
JEAN ROOT, SECRETARY
JIM ANDERSON
DAVE HAMANN
DEBRA WIEDMAN-CLAWSON ABSENT:
NONE OTHERS
PRESENT:
ROBERT
W. HANVEY, SUPERVISOR
ANNETTE MCNAMARA, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
PHIL WESTMORELAND, ORCHARD, HILTZ & MCCLIMENT
JOHN ENOS, CARLISLE/WORTMAN CALL
TO ORDER The
meeting was called to order at 9:00 p.m. APPROVAL
OF AGENDA Dave Hamann motioned to approve the January 25, 2005 Public Hearings agenda. Jean
Root seconded. Motion
Carried 5-0. INTRODUCTION
OF MEMBERS The
Planning Commission members introduced themselves prior to the previous
public hearing. CALL
TO THE PUBLIC No
response. APPROVAL
OF MINUTES None OLD
BUSINESS Proposed Test Amendment 8.01 F 6 & 7 - Rural Residential Site Development Requirements John
Lowe read the proposed language and opened the call to the public.
Jim Barnwell asked the Planning Commission to clarify the goals and objectives of the proposed language. Jim Barnwell thought the language was redundant (which would consist of but not be limited to.) Can the Planning Commission members expound on what else would be included other than the trees, shrubs and vegetation. Also, regarding the definition of negative impact on adjoining developments, he would also like to see a definition for natural vegetation and the landscaping
as provided above.
He thought the proposed language was vague. the Planning Commission intent was to take what vague language exists and make it more detailed for the developers and for the Planning Commission in the review process, what vegetation would be allowed in the greenbelt and what would not be allowed. As to the negative impact, this would be on a case-by-case basis. John Lowe stated it was designed to give the Planning Commission flexibility
with each development.
It is not possible to get specific. Phil Westmoreland asked what the Planning Commission idea is for the greenbelt—can this be excavated for utilities as long as they are returned to green or no disruption from the state it is in when
the plan is submitted? to
save valuable trees on a case-by-case basis to consider the variables.
Chris Fleck, Advantage Civil Engineering, said the township is requesting a looped system from the adjacent development. He asked if they maintain the buffer or do they, at the township’s request, bring
water to the site?
You cannot plant trees on top of utilities. Jean
Root reiterated the Planning Commission’s desire for flexibility. Closed
Call to the Public at 9:05 p.m. Proposed Test Amendment 8.02 F 6 & 7 - Suburban Residential Site Development Requirements John
Lowe noted this is essentially the same language, only the Suburban
Residential District. Debra Wiedman-Clawson asked if the Planning Commission would revisit the definitions and have them
cross-referenced. Proposed
Test Amendment 6.18 F & G - Condominium Projects John
Lowe asked if there were comments. Jean Root noted that on all of these, we made sure to include language that no lots shall have access to roads other than those interior to the project. The developers have tried to maximize use
by creating lots with access to other roads. Closed
Call to the Public at 9:14 p.m. Proposed
Test Amendment 6.20 E 1 - Connection to County Roads John
Lowe read the proposed language and asked for comments. Jim Barnwell questioned developments where you develop on one side of the road and dedicate it to the public; if the adjoining parcel is developed at a later date, why shouldn’t these be accessible. You
need to clarify that these are main county roads, not some of the other
internal roads. Debra
Wiedman-Clawson also asked for clarification. John Enos read the language. The Planning Commission is trying to prevent exception lots from gaining
access or having a subdivision with three lots on a county road. Debra Wiedman-Clawson asked if a parcel can be developed with a portion as a subdivision and some
parcel splits that access off of another road.
John
Enos answered. The
intent is if it is only part of the master deed. Closed
Call to the Public at 9:16 p.m. Proposed
Test Amendment 6.24 - Landscape Buffer John
Lowe opened the floor for discussion. Closed
Call to the Public at 9:18 p.m. NEW
BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT Dave Hamann motioned to adjourn the public hearings on the proposed text amendments at 9:18
p.m. Jim
Anderson seconded.
Motion carried 5-0.
|
||
