AGENDA and DRAFT MINUTES
February 22, 2005
CALL TO THE PUBLIC: Agenda Items Only – 3 minute limit
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: February 22, 2005
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR:
January 25, 2004 Public Hearing SUP# 3-04
January 25, 2004 Public Hearings Text Amendments
January 25, 2004 Regular Meeting
Pinebrook Meadow – Site Plan Review
Pines – Site Plan Review
Proposed Text Amendment Article XVIII
Site Plan Review Procedure
Amendment 6.20 E 1 – Connection to County Roads
Proposed Text Amendment 8.01 F 6 & 7 Rural Residential Site
Proposed Text Amendment 8.02 F 6 & 7 Suburban Residential Site Development
Proposed Text Amendment 6.18
F & G - Condominium Projects
Proposed Text Amendment 6.24 – Landscape Buffer
The Pines at
JOHN LOWE, CHAIRPERSON
JEAN ROOT, SECRETARY
ROBERT W. HANVEY,
ANNETTE MCNAMARA, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
PHIL WESTMORELAND, ORCHARD, HILTZ & MCCLIMENT
ANGELA CAMPBELL, ORCHARD, HILTZ & MCCLIMENT
JOHN ENOS, CARLISLE/WORTMAN
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called
to order at 7:32 p.m.
Jean Root motioned to approve the January 25, 2005 Public Hearing minutes for Creative Discovery
Pre-School Special Use
Permit #03-04. Debra
Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion
Jean Root motioned to approve the January 25, 2005 Public Hearing minutes for Proposed Text
Jim Anderson seconded. Motion
Dave Hamann noted the time in the heading shows 7:15 p.m. for the first public hearing, 9:00 p.m.
for the second public hearing and 7:30 p.m. for the regular meeting. What does the Planning
Commission want shown for the time? The heading should show published start time and the
previous motion should
Dave Hamann motioned to approve the January 25, 2004 Regular minutes. Jean Root seconded.
Motion carried 5-0.
Jean Root motioned back to the previous public hearing minutes from January 25, 2005 and
amended the time in the header to reflect 7:15 p.m., as that was the published time, and the call to
order time is correct.
Meadows Site Plan Review
Chris Fleck of Advantage Engineering explained the changes made to the site plan since the last
meeting. Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) required the culvert be cleaned out and
these requirements have been met. The developer has paid to have the culvert cleaned out,
documentation was submitted to MDOT and a permit was issued. The developer has procured the
necessary easement from the homeowner. The easement has been reviewed and approved by
Mike Kehoe, Township Attorney and has been recorded at the Register of Deeds office.
Copies have been supplied to Carlisle/Wortman, Orchard, Hiltz, and McCliment, and Planning
and McCliment’s concern regarding detention ponds spillway and control of water in the event of
failure of the
detention system. To avoid water
running toward the homes on
have designed an overflow structure that runs between units #1 and #2 that goes to a separate
wetland and a separate culvert that runs to the north. In the event of failure, we are not directing
water toward existing
easement for the sign is shown. There will be a sign for the development. When the developer is
ready, they will propose a sign and have it approved by the Planning Commission under a separate
At this time, they are asking for final site plan approval.
Commission that Exhibit B, the Master Deed and Bylaws have been submitted to Mike Kehoe,
Township Attorney. Mike Kehoe and the developers have been in contact and Chris Fleck believes
everything is in compliance. Construction plans will be submitted to Orchard, Hiltz and McCliment
after the Planning Commission gives a recommendation for final site plan approval. Chris Fleck
asked the Planning
Commission members if they had any questions.
detention pond overflow structure between lots #1 and #2. Chris Fleck explained the flow of the
water on the site and how it would reach the overflow structure and into the wetlands. It is a third
method of accounting
for an emergency overflow.
developer on the system, the potential for damage to existing houses is eliminated. It was over and
above what they had to
there are problems discharging into it? Jack Lowe answered yes, yet emergency discharge they
don‘t worry about.
items that have been
addressed and feels it will overall be a nice project.
Jack Lowe asked Phil Westmoreland if he had any comments. Phil Westmoreland responded that
Orchard, Hiltz and
McCliment are happy with the plan.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson noted that where the cul-de-sac ends and the trees will be removed for
utilities, there is a 40’ easement to Crystalwood. She is concerned that lots #7 and #10 abut each
other for anybody cutting across that property using the 40’ wide easement on Crystalwood. She
apologized for not
bringing the plat showing the 40’ wide easement.
Jack Lowe said there
was a utility easement there.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson noted an area on the plan showing trees to be removed and asked if there
would be an issue with
replacement plantings of evergreens.
found there are only a few nice trees and the rest is scrub. It will look much better when done than
it does now. If they locate the trees on the edge of the easement so if something has to be done,
chances are it
wouldn’t have to be disturbed and that should be sufficient.
Jean Root motioned to recommend final site plan approval for Pinebrook Meadows,
Tax ID 4710-03-200-005
township Board of Trustees for review and approval. Item #1 to reference all reviewing agencies
letters and recommendations. Item #2 Master Deed and Bylaws to be reviewed and approved by
Mike Kehoe. Item #3 copies of reviewed Master Deed and Bylaws to be included in township board’s
reviewing packet. Item #4 signage may be handled at a later date. Jim Anderson seconded.
call vote: Jim Anderson, Jean
Root, John Lowe, Dave Hamann, and Debra Wiedman-
yes. Motion carried 5-0.
Larry McCarthy gave a presentation and addressed Carlisle/Wortman review letter. The first issue was
the landscaping at the end of the cul-de-sac. The second issue was lots that exceeded the 4:1 ratio.
They took the irregular lots out and Preview Properties is pursuing a land division for the remaining
property. They have added shrubs between the trees at the end of the cul-de-sac to increase the
remainder lot have access through the development? Will the existing home have access from the
The existing home will
access off the private road Marion Pines Court.
home would be part of
concerns about future
extension of Marion Pines Court to access the remaining
Jack Lowe asked Larry McCarthy why they don’t want the existing residence and remaining parcel to
be part of the
parcel and the
existing residence become lot #15 and be a part of the association.
Discussion ensued on existing house not meeting covenants, proposed language in the maintenance
agreement and the
possibility of the road ever being extended.
shows on the plan between lots #8 and #9 crossing over to Turtle Creek and if there was an
intention to connect
to Turtle Creek.
Jack Lowe asked the ownership of the easement and suggested a woodchip walking path between
the two developments.
the development is built out, show a proposed path on the plan and make the homeowners aware
of the possibility to utilize it if they choose. Make sure the owners of lots #8 and #9 are aware of
the easement for a walking path. Jack Lowe asked the Orchard, Hiltz and McCliment consultants if
there were any
there will be items to
be addressed in the construction plans.
response from Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on mitigation.
Jean Root asked the Planning Commission members if they want to see revised plans considering the
changes have asked for the easement, lot #24 added and landscape buffering at the end of the
cul-de-sac revised. In the meantime the applicant can have the private road maintenance agreement,
Master Deed and Bylaws revised and reviewed based on lot #24. The next submittal will include all
end of the cul-de-sac. All agreed the bushes proposed to fill in are not tall enough and salt tolerant
evergreens would work
better. The elevation difference
merits taller trees.
with the 4:1 ratio,
how will this be measured.
for Marion Pines
agenda. Dave Hamann seconded. Motion
Jack Lowe read the applicant’s letter to the Planning Commission members withdrawing the
application for a Special Use Permit. He asked the Planning Commission members if they had any
Section 6.20 E 1
- Proposed Text Amendment
Jean Root noted text revisions since the January 25, 2005 public hearing submitted by Mike Kehoe.
Jack Lowe asked the Planning Commission members if they have any changes to text. No response.
Jean Root motioned to send to Livingston County Department of Planning (LCDP) for review and
comment, text amendment 6.20 E, then forward to Board of Trustees for review and approval.
Anderson seconded. Motion
Section 8.01 F 6
& 7, 8.02 F 6 & 7, Section 6.24 and Section 6.18 F & G -
Proposed Text Amendment
vegetation and would like to have the definitions first.
is necessary to have definitions prior to approval, in the mean time we can use the best know
text before sending to
Livingston County Department of Planning.
Section 8.01 F 6 & 7, Section 8.02 F 6 & 7, Section 6.24 and Section 6.18 F & G until the
March 22, 2005
meeting. Dave Hamann seconded.
Motion Carried 5-0.
The Pines at
Bill Stubbing of Livingston Engineers gave a presentation of the proposed 6 unit 1 acre
development one lot
has their existing home on it. An
exception lot remains off of the cul-de-sac.
John Enos summarized his review letter dated February 14, 2005. Do the trees and the existing
house remain, greenbelt buffers requirements are met a question on remaining parcel #7
4:1 ratios, and it is a flag lot and will meet the requirements. Carlisle/Wortman is
recommending preliminary approval. Angela Campbell summarized her review letter dated
February 16, 2005. Orchard, Hiltz and McCliment is recommending preliminary site plan
approval. They are also asking direction from the Planning Commission on lot #7, lot #1 the
requirement and existing home driveway in the 25’ landscape buffer.
Westmoreland discussed the utility easement and tree removal. The Livingston County Road
Commission (LCRC) requires 66’ road easement and 12’ easement on both sides of the road for
utilities. This project is proposed the utilities be placed in the actual road right-of-way to save
as many trees as possible. On the west side of the proposed private road, due to the septic field
and driveway locations, once these are put in place there will not be that many trees remaining.
Phil Westmoreland proposed a utility easement be located on the west side of the private road.
On the east side the developer has the ability to save a lot more trees. This means the private
utilities will have to
cross under the road for there services, yet that are not a major issue.
Angela Campbell noted the Livingston County Drain Commission (LCDC) will accept drainage
easements for the wetland area if it is a public road. If not it will be the responsibility of the
homeowners on the private road to maintain the wetland area, fore bay and storm sewer system.
The two cul-de-sacs are an odd situation, typically if a road is extended beyond an existing
cul-de-sac the existing cul-de-sac is removed. Because this is an extension of a public road
(Prince Edward) into a private road the existing cul-de-sac has to remain in place for LCRC
maintenance vehicles to turn around. Orchard, Hiltz and McCliment is recommending the
Prince Edward cul-de-sac remains in place. If the road is public, Orchard, Hiltz and McCliment
recommends the cul-de-sac is removed and the driveway on lot #37 be reconstructed. They are
looking to the
Planning Commission for direction.
require approval of existing homeowners.
it is a public
the wetlands area a
public drainage district.
to make the wetland
area part of
with the adjoining parcels. He would like to see the road designed for future expansion,
leaving an easement for inner connection to adjoining parcels. The parcel to the south is of
concern as it has a
connection to D-19, which could be developed in the future.
Wiedman-Clawson asked how parcel #7 will be accessed. Off of D-19 or off of the proposed
private road? Bill Strebbing responded parcel #7 has 120’ of frontage on the private road.
There is a 66’ easement off of D-19, site distance was approved in 1982. There are structures
too close to the
easement to develop without problems.
the property will be sold and the development will be increased at the expense of these others
because it was not
part of the original site condominium, or it could be done in phases.
Jack Lowe acknowledged the developer has no intention of extending this development and
suggested the developer show how it could be developed in total and how and where to leave
easements. If it is kept as an isolated piece of property, there is the potential of development of
adjoining property and can create problems for the Planning Commission when making
recommendations. Somehow make a connection to the south or the east, not creating a land
property to the south cannot be connected due to the topography, the drop is 15‘ to 20‘and there
is a drainage course.
lot on the cul-de-sac;
if not there is not enough frontage.
John Enos bantered back and forth on this, is this lot on the cul-de-sac or not, they agreed ½ of
the lot was on
division, the lot
lines can be moved.
Planning Commission was OK with the layout. He would like an interpretation of the frontage
requirements for lot
#4. Phil Westmoreland read the zoning
ordinance on frontage measurements.
Access to lot #7 was discussed. There is a wetland area to be crossed. Bill Strebbing showed
the Planning Commission where access to lot #7 lies, there is a two track crossing now and
that would be where the driveway would be located. That would eliminate the landscape
buffering requirement between lots #3 & #4; he wants to discuss this with the Planning
that they should eliminate the buffering requirement for lot #1. The existing driveway on
lot #1 is within the
landscape buffer area and this would take care of that.
there are existing trees buffering the proposed development from the existing development.
He also plans on relocating trees that have to be removed. Bill Strebbing told the Planning
Commission he plans on
continuing the tree business and planting more trees.
asked how the customers for the Snowshoe Tree Farm will access property; he wants to be
sure they do not come through Kingswood Subdivision to purchase trees. Will they come
continue accessing from D-19. John Enos said the Planning Commission can make this a part
of their approval
process; the commercial business will have to access via D-19.
asked the applicant to show how lot #7 would be reconfigured. Bill Strebbing showed her on
there a culvert under
the two tracks.
naturally seeps through to the wetland. Most of the water in the wetland now comes off of the
farm land to the
south. There has never been any
flooding over the two tracks.
question where the
storm sewers drain to, how about all the water from the roadway?
Phil Westmoreland noted sheet #3 shows the retention system. There is a sediment fore bay
in front of the detention pond on lot #7, that small wetland is connected by culvert to the
bigger wetland this is
a retention system.
Bill Strebbing answered all were done but lot #7, yet it is mostly sand and he does not for see
The existing well on lot #1 was discussed, is an easement necessary?
Phil Westmoreland noted
The existing well on lot #1 was discussed, is an easement necessary? Phil Westmoreland noted
the well is on lot #1 yet he wants to see an area around the well for maintenance purposes.
Bill Strebbing asked if the Planning Commission would like him to jockey the property line to
or would they like to see an easement.
Jean Root asked Phil Westmoreland if the Livingston County Department of
Public Health would
Jean Root asked Phil Westmoreland if the Livingston County Department of Public Health would
have an issue with the
may accept it.
He would still recommend the easement so there is still an area
around the well.
Jack Lowe wants to see the well on the lot.
Bill Strebbing said he will take care of it.
Jack Lowe wants to see the well on the lot.
Bill Strebbing said he will take care of it.
Jean Root motioned to recommend preliminary site plan approval for The Pines of Kingswood
call vote: Jim Anderson, Jean Root, John Lowe, Dave Hamann, and
Section 6.19 B
Lots to Have Access & 3.02 Definitions Landscaping
Jean Root motioned to set a public hearing on March 22, 2005 @ 7:15 p.m. for Section 6.19 B
Lots to have Access and Section 3.02 Definitions-Landscaping as submitted on February 21, 2005.
seconded. Motion Carried 5-0.
Jack Lowe asked if everyone was familiar with the development. Delcor has had problems with
cars being able to
access the garage and are proposing a street/front entrance garage.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson stated she was not on the Planning Commission at the time of approval,
yet she feels they have come back to the township more than once asking for changes to the
approved site plan. Jack Lowe noted in the beginning the concern was too many smaller homes
to accommodate empty nesters and first time home buyers. When they came back to increase the
number of larger homes
it was more in compliance with what the people wanted.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson stated they should have figured out they needed larger lot sizes to
accommodate that request, they offer side entry, we approved side entry, they should build them
Delcor to show these would not be farther forward closer to the road by doing this that what the
other garages were. At a minimum this is what the Planning Commission should look at because
they approved specific floor plans along with the Planned Unit Development (PUD) the request
would for Delcor to come and make a formal proposal of their plans and the ramifications of the
floor plans that were
approved by the current board.
Jack Lowe said they will ask Delcor to bring those plans in and explain the how and why and
what the benefits are
going to be and how this is not going to create more problems.
Annette McNamara told the Planning Commission she wrote a letter to Delcor approving the front
entrance garages. Kevin Wilson, Delcor Homes brought his request to the zoning administrator,
she reviewed the PUD agreement, Master Deed and By-Laws and did not find any restrictions on
front loading garages. She provided the Board of Trustees with a copy of the memo sent to
Delcor and photos of
the proposed homes.
rescind the letter.
Jack Lowe stated because it was a PUD changes would need to be reviewed. There were specific
site plans submitted with the PUD and any variation of the proposal they would have to reapply
for review and
for direction and ask him to review the PUD agreement. She will also contact Kevin Wilson to let
him know what is going
Jean Root asked about
handouts giving to the Planning Commission member tonight.
John Enos answered Based on some of the concerns he heard from the residents and Planning
Commission members, he
thought looking at removing
Special Conditions in Section 8.01 Rural Residential Districts. John Enos is proposing removing
Crematories from item #6 and removing item #7 Child Care Centers then renumbering the list
the Planning Commission members to review the list of Uses Permitted by Special Use Permit to
see what fits or does not fit. Not that we want to exclude uses within that district, yet as the
township grows we want
to make sure these uses fit.
CALL TO THE
Jack Lowe opened the
call to the public.
for noxious weed,
poison oak, poison ivy and sumac.
The Planning Commission answered you can remove them from a greenbelt area or just let them
You are allowed to remove the noxious weeds if you choose.
Planning Commission is
working on a definition to put into the zoning ordinance.
Rudolph Ramirez, 5929
Crofoot, explained the process he has gone through with
regarding land divisions completed years ago. The township created the 4 parcels with the
understanding that the easement would be turned into a private road. He applied for a private
road site plan review with the township and was granted approval. He began building the private
road. On June 22, 1999 he received a letter from the township stating there were 2 issues that
needed to be addressed in building the road and he complied. Since then he has had to move
telephone poles, create new ditches and a number of other things that were not initially part of
the project. A stop work order was put on the project because he owed the township $3,000.00
for escrow fees, $2,600.00 were costs incurred by the township and that was paid. He is looking
meeting on site, when the frost laws are lifted with Orchard, Hiltz and McCliment the township
engineering to take boring samples and review of the road conditions. Then the township would
be better able to tell him how to get from point A to point B. In the mean time the township will
update Orchard, Hiltz and McCliment on the project. You can provide Orchard, Hiltz and
McCliment with your road profiles, they can verify the conditions and give you a list of items to be
addressed, and this
should be straight forward.
to discuss the range of things we might explore. They requested a meeting with the Board of
Trustees to bring in plans and show what they would change and Robert Hanvey is asking the
Planning Commission members if they want to attend the meeting. This is a pre-trial opportunity
to work out an
agreement. He asked them to let
him know what dates they would be available.
asked what Mike Kehoe thought.
recommendation. They do not agree with the density or the commercial portion of the development,
unless they come up
with a reasonable number other than what was proposed.
Dave Hamann motioned to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Jean Root seconded.
Motion Carried 5-0.