|
DRAFT
PLANNING
COMMISSION - MINUTES
FEBRUARY 25, 2003 @ 7:30 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT:
John Lowe, David Hamann, Jean Root, Jim Anderson, and Debra
Wiedman-Clawson
MEMBERS
ABSENT:
None
OTHER
PRESENT:
Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator
John Ambrose, Township Planner
Bob Hanvey, Township Supervisor
Sue Lingle, Township Treasurer
******************************************************************************************************************************************
CALL TO ORDER
John
Lowe called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Jean
Root motioned to approve agenda as amended.
Jim Anderson seconded.
Motion
carried 5-0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January
28, 2003 Public Hearing—Sterling Training Center
Jean
Root motioned to approve minutes as presented.
Dave Hamann seconded. Motion
carried 5-0.
January
28, 2003 Public Hearing—Public Land District
Jean
Root motioned to approve minutes as presented. Dave Hamann seconded. Motion
carried 5-0.
January
28, 2003 Public Hearing—Amateur Radio
Dave
Hamann motioned to approve minutes as amended.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded.
Motion carried 5-0.
January
28, 2003 Regular Meeting
Jean
Root motioned to approve minutes as amended.
Dave Hamann seconded. Motion
carried 5-0.
OLD BUSINESS
AT&T Communication Tower
Michael
Sivore from AT&T Wireless presented revisions on the grading plan and
driveway, based on input received at
a meeting with Annette McNamara and John Ambrose.
Mr. Ambrose said there were issues from last November that
had been discussed. Subsequently, meetings took place and revisions were made.
Mr. Ambrose feels the
issues
have been addressed, and from a planning viewpoint, he has no problem with
the site plan. John Lowe read Tetra
Tech’s review letter and discussed concerns they had.
Mr.
Lowe read the section on soil erosion, and indicated the drawings had
already been changed. The 962
contour was
not shown on the drawing, and Debra
Wiedman-Clawson pointed out that it was
shown. Ms. McNamara said they
had a velum that showed the grading plan at a large scale.
The next section of the letter
stated “…the grading of the
gravel area from the NW corner lot boundary to the gravel pad where the
tower is located should be revised to have
a minimum 1% slope to
facilitate water drainage.”
Mr. Lowe said it only shows 4/10%.
Mr. Lowe suggested that
AT&T indicate what the new grades, contours, etc. are, and note the
existing
contours more frequently.
The
letter also stated “…the grading plan is indicating gravel in all areas
enclosed by the fence. The plan
should clarify
if the gravel cross-section will be the same as the
cross-section near the
tower.” Mr. Sivore said
the cross-section
is the same.
Tetra Tech’s letter said, “…grading of the proposed drive should be
provided in the site plan,
coordination with the Marion Township Hall.”
Mr. Lowe indicated that was still in progress.
They also requested they
design the driveway through the Marion Township building addition.
They have an entrance drive that doesn’t match
the location shown on the building addition plans.
Mr. Sivore showed where that was addressed on the plan.
Tetra
Tech had requested dimensions on the turnaround—length and radius of the
curves of the turnaround. Mr.
Lowe had questions regarding the detail shown on the gravel road.
He feels there should be two separate details
shown for the driveway and the road. There
is also a detail showing a crown on the driveway.
Mr. Lowe recommends
a slope instead
of crown. Ms. Root
asked about the compound size. Mr.
Lowe said the compound was
actually smaller than the 11,000 square feet, and feels it’s addressed
adequately.
Debra
Wiedman-Clawson questioned the screening shown, and that it needs to run
around the perimeter.
Mr.
Ambrose said the Planning Commission could approve the site plan subject to
the special use permit being approved
by the township board. The
public hearing should be
held prior to approval.
Once the public hearing is held,
it should be sent to the board for approval. Ms. Root motioned to schedule the Public Hearing prior to the next
regular
Planning Commission meeting, March 25, 2003 at 7:15 p.m. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded.
Roll
call vote: Jim Anderson, Jean
Root, John Lowe, Dave Hamann, Debra Wiedman-Clawson—all yes.
Motion
carried 5-0.
NEW
BUSINESS
Tonch
Private Drive—Preliminary Review
Brad
Thompson, representing Erwin Tonch, was present. Mr. Tonch is proposing 17 two-acre parcels and indicated the
assessor had given preliminary approval,
a curb and gutter road, that will
drain into detention basin at northeast corner
of project. Mr. Thompson
indicated they might approach the Livingston County Road
Commission
(LCRC) to
possibly accept this as a public road to provide for future development.
Therefore, the road will meet LCRC standards.
Mr. Thompson
responded to Mr. Ambrose’s review letter. Mr. Ambrose had concerns about the cul
de sac meeting the design standards of the LCRC.
Mr. Thompson
said it wouldn’t be a problem to change if necessary. Mr. Thompson said perc tests have not been done, and they
will proceed with the Health Department
once
preliminary approval is given.
Mr. Thompson addressed Tetra Tech’s review letter:
1.
USGS benchmarks should be provided on site plan.
Mr. Thompson indicated that was no problem, it should have been
included already.
2.
Thirty-six trips per day during peak hour, which is
below the number allowed (50) for Pingree Road.
3.
LCRC should review preliminary drawings to ensure
acceptability of the location for the entrance to Pingree Road.
Mr.
Thompson said he has approval from the LCRC sight distance review.
The LCRC would like the approach
moved 30 feet north to maximize potential sight
distance available. Mr.
Thompson doesn’t feel that would be a
problem, but would require removal of a tree.
4.
Length of road if extended would need to loop over
to Pingree. Mr. Thompson said
they meet the requirement.
5.
Mr. Thompson said they had failed to make
adjustment on the site plan. It
would be done during the
construction plan phase.
6.
Same as 5
7.
Preliminary grading of storm water detention basin
calculations should be provided. Mr.
Thompson didn’t
have time to make revision, but will if necessary.
8.
Yes, it appears it may be necessary to increase the
amount of catch basins along roadway to prevent ponding.
9.
May have to put in additional drainage
10.
They want grading to be revised in front to force
structures into low points in road, not into the
easement. Mr. Thompson said they could do that, but would require more
cutting.
Mr.
Ambrose said that he had nothing further, and would recommend approval
subject to revised plans showing
septic and drain field locations.
Jim Anderson
had a question on the fire department’s review letter with
regard to the “No Parking—Fire Lane” on one side of the street. Will that be handled? Mr.
Thompson
indicated
he hadn’t seen the letter. Mr.
Lowe explained that due to the fact the road width is less than 32
feet wide,
there shall be no parking on one side of the
road and it should be posted.
This is something the fire
department has been requesting for the past six months or so.
Mr. Thompson didn’t feel it would be a
problem
to post a sign on one side.
Mr.
Lowe gave a synopsis of the township attorney’s review letter, the LCRC
review letter, and the Livingston County Drain
Commission (LCDC) response. Jim
Anderson had a question concerning whether the intention is to develop this
as a private road. Mr.
Thompson said the intent
is to have a private road, and ask the LCRC if they
will take it over as a public road.
Mr. Tonch would retain ownership of the 60 foot road right-of-way and
all of parcel 16.
Will
the residents
be required to maintain the road? Mr.
Thompson said yes. Mr. Lowe
asked Mr. Ambrose if there was
a problem with Mr. Tonch retaining ownership of the road.
Mr. Ambrose said they would need a maintenance
agreement. Mr. Thompson said
all owners would have easement rights.
Ms. Root asked whether
this type of development
requires a 25-foot greenbelt buffer on the
perimeter. Mr. Lowe said no, they
are parcel splits. Ms. Root
pointed out that the LCRC needs to be contacted with the road names,
and
the
road signs need to be marked as “private.”
Mr.
Lowe asked if there was a way to get the vegetation buffer and
the detention basin in without one being on top of the other?
Mr. Thompson said he would investigate.
Ms.
Wiedman-Clawson stated a concern about the limit of 25 homes on a private
road and potential future problems.
Jean
Root motioned to approve preliminary site plan for Tonch Development, Tax
ID #4710-31-200-005, and based on the review findings for the submittal, it
is
recommended that the site
plan, from a planning and zoning point of view, be approved, subject to well
and septic drain field locations being
depicted on a review site plan,
and compliance with issues in letters
already submitted from different agencies.
Jim Anderson seconded. Roll
call vote: Jim Anderson, Jean
Root, John Lowe, Dave Hamann,
Debra
Wiedman-Clawson—all yes. Motion
carried 5-0.
Knolls
of Grass Lake—Preliminary Review
Tom
Dummond, landscape architect with Boss Engineering, was present on behalf of
this project. The development
is located in Section 27 on approximately 77 acres.
The terrain is fairly rolling, somewhat open with
a few tree areas with very steep topography.
They would like to develop this project under the new Open Space
Preservation option.
This
project covers the entire parcel, except the lake itself. From
this plan, they have
recommended 38 lots. In the
Open Space plan, at least 50% of the area must remain open.
The
development
would be buffered from the north, west and south.
Some of the advantages of the open space option
is it’s going to allow them to maintain the open space and
owned by the
development, strictly for use of the
people in the development. An
asphalt trail system will be added and sidewalk system.
They did receive review
letters from
Tetra Tech and the fire department.
The two issues in the fire department review will be addressed. There is no problem posting one side of the street as a fire lane. The roads will be
public and connect
with Derbyshire. Preliminary
meetings have been held with the LCRC to determine what needs to be done
to meet the requirements. The
road name on the
cul de sac has been changed to Clivedon Court.
The
Tetra Tech letter covered the following items:
1.
Recommendation to send to Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
to review limits of
wetland
determination to make sure the open space plan as designed now isn’t
encroaching on wetlands.
2.
The developer feels it’s not necessary to send to DEQ at this time.
3.
USGS benchmarks should be provided on final site plan:
no problem.
4.
Yes, they will go to the LCRC for review and approval for public roads.
There are a couple of issues regarding the
66
foot ingress/egress easement, one being that it’s a private easement and
that easement currently cuts through
regulated
wetlands.
5.
The easement that Tetra Tech mentions runs along the back of the
property and back behind
three
home sites. There is no road there
now. Putting the road through
someone’s back yard wouldn’t be
received
too well. They would rather not
fill or disturb neighbors.
6.
Yes, they are aware. It will be
a public drainage system, so it will have to go to the Livingston County
Drain
Commission
for review.
Yes,
they were just looking at rough size now.
7.
Two lots on upland with access via wetland crossing to the north may not be
permitted by DEQ. Developer isn’t
building
it, so why burden DEQ.
8.
Building footings—issues with the wetlands mentioned on lots 22 and 23.
Once again, if they were going to build
those
areas, they would have to mitigate.
9. They will meet with the LCRC on the parallel plan and open space plan.
10.
They did receive a letter from the LCDC and are well aware of issues to take
care of prior to site plan approval.
Board
member asked if developer includes wetlands as acreage on parallel plan?
Developer answered yes. Mr.
Ambrose didn’t have the parallel plan when he reviewed the project.
His first two items in his letter dealt with that,
and he is now satisfied they have addressed these items.
Also, Clivedon Road, which is a public road, will be extended
into this site.
There are four
parcels, lots 23-25, plus parcels A and B, that back up to Rubbins Road. Sites
A and B are to have engineered fields and are not part of site condo/open
space
calculations. Based on a meeting
with Boss Engineering and township officials, it was suggested that some
care be given to that issue. The
site plan does note that during the
construction phase, there will be a
temporary fence installed to prevent construction
traffic from entering onto Rubbins Road.
A landscape berm will also be developed along that area,
to
not only screen this development from Rubbins Road, but also prevent any
future access to Rubbins Road.The
other requirement of the ordinance is that 50% of the lands stay in an
undeveloped state. They are accomplishing
that, but they need to state by what means they’re going to do that. The ordinance requires that either
a conservation easement or restrictive
covenant or some other legal means
that runs with the land be developed
and submitted with this project. That
could be included in the bylaws and master deed, which will also
need
to be provided for final review. Originally,
Mr. Ambrose recommended that this could not be recommended for
approval because of the parallel plan not being included,
but since it is
now included, Mr. Ambrose would recommend
approval subject to the other issues mentioned.
Mr. Lowe asked if perk tests had been done. Mr.
Dummond said yes.
Mr. Lowe has
concerns regarding mitigation to determine number of buildable lots. Unfortunately,
the township attorney didn’t have the opportunity to respond to Mr.
Lowe’s questions
prior to this meeting.
Mr. Anderson had a question concerning Clivedon Road. Is that road going to be able to handle traffic generated
from this development? Mr.
Dummond said yes,
since it is a public road, it’s been designed to
LCRC standards.
Mr. Anderson asked what type of transition they would have from the
curb and gutter in this development into
Clivedon Road. Mr. Dummond
explained. Mr. Hamann referred to
Section 6.19 B of the zoning ordinance stating
no more than 25 residential dwellings shall be served by a public road with
a single point of access.
This access
is off of Triangle Lake Road and there will be more than 25 dwellings.
Mr. Dummond said that is measured from
the closest public road intersection.
Mr. Lowe referred to
the township attorney’s letter. He feels that there are issues
to be discussed between the township and the developer in regard to the
practicality of the preliminary parallel
plan and that
fact that it can contain 38 units.
The attorney recommends withholding preliminary approval until
certain issues raised have been satisfactorily answered.
Jean Root motioned to table
Knolls of Grass Lake, Tax
ID # 4710-27-100-300, until next regular Planning Commission meeting, when
more information can be provided.
Jim Anderson seconded. Motion
carried 5-0.
Marion
Township Hall Addition—Preliminary Review
OLD
BUSINESS (continued)
Proposed
Ordinance Amendments
Section
5.05 C--Variances
Jean
Root motioned to send Section 5.05 C—Variances to the township board for
its approval. Dave Hamann seconded.
Roll call vote: Debra Wiedman-Clawson,
Dave Hamann, John Lowe, Jean Root, Jim
Anderson— all
yes. Motion carried 5-0.
For
Section 11.01—Public Lands District, Jean Root motioned to delete item D 2
and replace with language provided
in township attorney’s recommendation,
dated December 4, 2002, and send to
township board for approval.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded.
Roll call vote: Debra Wiedman-Clawson, Dave Hamann,
John
Lowe, Jean Root, Jim Anderson—all yes.
Motion
carried 5-0.
CALL
TO THE PUBLIC
Bob Hanvey provided
information on the Citizen Planner Class.
There are still openings and he indicated the township would
cover the cost for attending.
Mr. Hanvey also asked about the township board’s limits when asked to approve an ordinance
amendment. Is it the board’s
role to say yes or no only, or can the board make changes?
Mr.
Ambrose said the board could make changes. The board cannot make it more restrictive, it can only make
it less restrictive.
Dave Hamann indicated there are rules and
procedures for the Planning
Commission and copies are available.
Mr. Hamann was given the task by the board to look at fees for
pre-planning meetings. He
provided a handout and
asked the
Planning Commission members to review for discussion at the next meeting.
Jean Root motioned to add
the issue of rules and procedures for the Planning Commission
to the agenda
for the March 4, 2003 ordinance
workshop. Debra Wiedman-Clawson
seconded. Motion carried
5-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Jean Root motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:53
p.m. Dave Hamann seconded.
Motion carried 5-0.
|
