|
|||
|
|
MARION TOWNSHIP AGENDA and DRAFT MINUTES MARCH 14, 2005 CALL
TO ORDER: MEMBERS
PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: CALL TO THE PUBLIC: Agenda Items Only – 3 minute limit APPROVAL OF AGENDA: March 14, 2005 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR: February 15, 2005 Special Meeting OLD
BUSINESS:
Section
6.20 A - Intent
Section 6.20 - P Pre-existing Non
Conforming Private Roads
Section 6.20 B - Construction Standards
and Road Geometrics
Section 6.20 J 3 – Application
Review & Approval or Rejection Section 6.20 C – Right-of-Way Width
NEW BUSINESS: CALL
TO PUBLIC: ADJOURNMENT:
DRAFT MINUTES
MEMBERS
PRESENT: JOHN LOWE, CHAIRPERSON
JEAN ROOT, SECRETARY
JIM ANDERSON
DAVE HAMANN
DEBRA WIEDMAN-CLAWSON
ANNETTE MCNAMARA, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
PHIL WESTMORELAND, ORCHARD, HILTZ & MCCLIMENT
ANGELA CAMPBELL, ORCHARD, HILTZ & MCCLIMENT
PAUL SIERSMA, CARLISLE/WORTMAN
MIKE KEHOE, MILLER, KEHOE & ASSOCIATES CALL
TO ORDER The
meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. APPROVAL
OF AGENDA Dave Hamann noted the date for the next special meeting is April 11, 2005 and asked the agenda be amended. Dave Hamann motioned to approve the agenda as amended. Jean
Root seconded. Motion
Carried 5-0. INTRODUCTION
OF MEMBERS The
Planning Commission members introduced themselves to the audience. CALL
TO THE PUBLIC No
response. Jack Lowe closed the
first call to the public. APPROVAL
OF MINUTES Jean Root noted on page six the motion to tentatively set the April 11, 2005 special meeting read April 11, 2004 and asked the minutes be amended. Dave Hamann motioned to approve the February 15, 2004 Special Meeting minutes as amended. Jean Root seconded.
Motion Carried 5-0. OLD
BUSINESS Section
6.20 A - Intent Jack Lowe opened the discussion stating the text is sentence added to the intent directing the applicant to the Pre-existing Non-conforming Private Roads Section. Jack Lowe asked the
Planning Commission members if they had any comment. Jean Root noted that nothing can be done with Section 6.20 A until 6.20 P is acted upon. It
was agreed to set this aside. Section
6.20 P - Pre-existing Non Conforming Private Roads Jack
Lowe opened the discussion. had before them includes the revisions requested at the last meeting. This makes reference to the American Association of Street, Highway and Traffic Officials (AASHTO), which I know you don’t want yet you can put something else in it’s place when the Planning Commission
decides what they want. their input with the exception of the AASHTO standards. The private road maintenance agreement
has been incorporated into the text. Jean Root asked if the Planning Commission would like to see the word private added to the
phrase new road maintenance agreement to be consistent throughout the text? The
Planning Commission agreed. Jean Root noted on item number two ‘shall provide documentation’ the Planning Commission
had wanted documentation to include registered mail. Debra Wiedman-Clawson thought a certificate of mailing may be better, showing an attempt
to mail it. Discussion ensued on personal attempts to get neighbors to sign the private road maintenance
agreement and how much effort should be put into it. Mike Kehoe will add to the text certified mailing is required. Mike Kehoe will submit the proposed text for the April 11, 2005 special meeting. Mike Kehoe also noted references in paragraph two and paragraph one where the work divided was used. This will run afoul of the Land Division Act if they say a parcel cannot be divided, he will change the text to read there will be no land use permits issued. They have a right to have their lot divided; they
do not have a right to get a land use permit under the zoning ordinance. Jack
Lowe opened the floor to Angela Campbell of Orchard, Hiltz and McCliment.
Angela Campbell summarized the ordinance as a guideline for anyone initiating a private road or further developing on a non-conforming existing private road. Some of the standards are taken from the county some are taken from AASHTO giving the township an opportunity
to have their own set of guidelines for private roads. Jack Lowe though these guidelines should only be used on pre-existing non-conforming private
roads, not new developments. Phil Westmoreland stated one of the benefits of having your own is you approve a private road under a standard, that standard changes and you have no control over it. If they change something it can put every private road you have in a non-conforming status. This gives you more flexibility and control over your private roads. Some of the requirements of the county and AASHTO may not be necessary to have safe conditions on those roads. Discussion ensued and the Planning Commission agreed to go with two separate sections. Jean Root asked if they can limit the language to pre-existing non-conforming private gravel roads, the design requirements and if is a new development build to county standards
or a set of our own. Debra
Wiedman-Clawson questioned why paved roads wouldn’t require upgrades also. Jack Lowe noted in item ten they require more than six acres for a drainage district, in Rural Residential District that would create a problem because the roads all have ditches and it would be more than six acres. The roadway length requirement should be changed from
750’ to 2,000’. Phil Westmoreland stated changes can be made to the submittal. This is to give you an idea of what township standards can look like if you don’t want to follow county standards. Jack Lowe asked how to handle the condition of existing sub-grades, add extra gravel? How
can this be done with an even hand. Dave Hamann stated most of the roads could never be brought up to standards. Sort out the roads that
have the width, cul-de-sac and set standards for those. from a set of standards or they can have a geo-technical engineer look at it and Orchard, Hiltz and McCliment would look at their review and make a determination what is the best application for that
road. Debra
Wiedman-Clawson asked for clarification of the number of Sections. The Planning Commission agreed there will be two Sections, one for new private road developments
and another for pre-existing non-conforming private roads. Phil Westmoreland will revise the text submitted and send to Mike Kehoe and John Enos for review and comment. Once the Planning Commission agrees the set of standards they would like this will be placed in Section 6.20 P. The revised text to be submitted for the April 11, 2005 special meeting. Section
6.20 B - Construction Standards and Road Geometrics Jack
Lowe asked if the previous discussion covered this agenda item. The
Planning Commission agreed to move on to Section 6.20 J 3. Section
6.20 J 3 - Application Review & Approval or Rejection Mike Kehoe told the Planning Commission this text applies when a private road development site plan has been approved and at a later date someone wants to divide their property. Mike Kehoe added text ‘no new developable lots or units may be created for which a land use permit’ withholding a land use permit not a land division. The text in italics is what was discussed at the last
Planning Commission meeting. Debra
Wiedman-Clawson said this text is assuming there was a site plan for the
private road. Dave Hamann read ‘approved amendment to the site plan and road application’ and thought it should
read ‘amendment to a previous approved private road.’ Mike Kehoe will make the change ‘approved amendment to the site plan or road application, as applicable,.’ Jack
Lowe asked the Planning Commission if there was anything else. Mike Kehoe will make appropriate changes to the text and submit to Orchard, Hiltz and McCliment and John Enos for their review and comment. Revised text to be submitted for the April 11, 2005 special
meeting. Section
6.20 C - Right-of-Way Width Jack
Lowe asked the Planning Commission if they had any comments. Jean Root and Dave Hamann thought they were not going to make reference to Livingston County Road
Commission (LCRC) standards. private
road development standard if we decided to do this later on. Dave Hamann asked if 6.20 C is part of the new pre-existing non-conforming private road ordinance,
the existing private road ordinance or both. The
Planning Commission agreed it would be the new. Dave Hamann stated the only agenda item for the pre-existing private roads tonight is 6.20 P. Is Angela
Campbell going to come up with specifications for pre-existing also? Jean Root said when Orchard, Hiltz and McCliment looks at potential Marion Township private road standards
we would want to have that text added in there that Mike Kehoe is
suggesting. Mike Kehoe noted that paragraph will be more relevant for Phil Westmoreland and Angela Campbell to keep in mind when developing those standards, the Planning Commission will want it
included in the new private road developments. Jack Lowe asked if the Planning Commission if they wanted to discuss using LCRC standards for the new private road developments and asked if our new private road standards would essentially be
LCRC standards? Phil Westmoreland answered it can be anything the township wants and will make recommendations. Discussion ensued on Howell Area Fire Authority requirements and parking on one side of the road The width of roads and emergency vehicle access was discussed. Thirty two foot, back-to-back with a mountable curb was looked at. Specifications for minimum widths for parking on one side of
the road. Mike Kehoe suggested taking the LCRC standards and putting them into the ordinance, yet not making
reference to the LCRC specifically. Dave Hamann clarified they would have standards that reference the county for paved private roads, standards that Phil Westmoreland will put together for gravel private roads and standards that Angela
Campbell will put together for pre-existing, non-conforming private roads. Jack
Lowe said that’s right. Angela
Campbell asked if the gravel option pertains to single-family developments
only? Debra
Wiedman-Clawson answered yes. Jack Lowe would like to see a maximum number on gravel roads and over that the road has to be paved. CALL
TO THE PUBLIC Ken
Tyler, 5200 Discussion ensued on standards for length of road and number of homes. Is it better to limit by length or limit by number of homes, the burden this puts on the road. Can this be tied into Section 6.20 H. of new private roads? The Planning Commission agreed on 25 units for a single point of access.
Dan Murdock - Berry Manor, he asked the definition of a pre-existing, non-conforming private road. Dan Murdock explained his situation to the Planning Commission, part of his road is pre-existing and
part will be new. Where does he
stand? Phil
Westmoreland answered his question and discussed the variables. William Beyers 401 S. Truhn Road - he explained an easement situation to the Planning Commission and
asked for their help. township
hall during regular business hours to look into this further. Jack
Lowe closed the call to the public at 9:05 p.m. Other
Discussion The
Planning Commission confirmed the April 11, 2005 Special Meeting. Jean Root asked the private road maintenance agreement submitted by Mike Kehoe to be placed on
the April 11, 2005 agenda. Jack Lowe would like the Planning Commission to review the master deed and by-laws to make certain
the requirements set forth are in the documents. Mike
Kehoe gave suggestions for reviewing the documents. Jack Lowe asked the Planning Commission to make sure they make the requirements for a development
part of the minutes. Jean Root asked if the Rural Residential - Uses Permitted with a Special Use Permit handout at from
February 22, 2005 meeting can be placed on the March 22, 2005 regular
meeting agenda. Annette
McNamara answered yes. Jack
Lowe would like discussion on the Mike Kehoe noted the private road maintenance agreement has a provision that dispute would be resolved by the Board of Trustees. This is just a suggestion and depends on how the Board of Trustees
feels about it. There needs to
be some sort of dispute resolution spelled out. Jack Lowe told the Planning Commission the Livingston County Health Department (LCHD) has developed criteria for private sewage/waste water treatment plants. There is now a dispute between the LCHD and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Jack Lowe has given a copy of the LCHD criteria and would like to know what could apply to the township. The isolation distances are different from what the township zoning ordinance calls out. He would like
to discuss this at the next meeting. NEW
BUSINESS No
new business. ADJOURNMENT Dave Hamann motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:24 p.m. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion
Carried 5-0.
|
||
