|
|||
|
|
AGENDA and DRAFT MINUTES
May
22, 2007
CALL TO ORDER: APPROVAL OF AGENDA FOR:
May 22, 2007 Regular Meeting INTRODUCTION OF MEMBERS: CALL TO THE PUBLIC:
Agenda Items only – 3 minute limit APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM:
April 24, 2007 Public Hearing
April 24, 2007 Regular Meeting
OLD
BUSINESS: 2)
Proposed Amendment –
Section 6.14 Home Occupations 3)
Proposed Amendment –
Section 8.01 D 2 – Rural Residential Private Stables 4)
Proposed Amendment –
Section 8.02 D 1 – Suburban Residential Private Stables 5)
Proposed
Amendment – Section 3.02 Definition of Pens, Corrals & Pasture &
Fence discussion 6)
Proposed Amendment - Section
3.02 Figure 3-2 delete Flat & Mansard roofs from diagram & Figure
3-6 Show Utility Easement on diagram 7)
Proposed Amendment –
Section 4.03 E – add final inspection to receive Certificate of Compliance NEW BUSINESS:
CALL TO THE PUBLIC: ADJOURNMENT:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
JOHN LOWE, CHAIRPERSON DAVE HAMANN, CO-CHAIRPERSON JEAN ROOT, SECRETARY
JIM ANDERSON
DEBRA WIEDMAN-CLAWSON MEMBERS ABSENT:
NONE
OTHERS PRESENT:
ANNETTE
MCNAMARA, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JOHN ENOS, CARLISLE/WORTMAN
DAVID SCHROEDER, ORCHARD, HILTZ & MCCLIMENT
ROBERT W. HANVEY, SUPERVISOR
LES ANDERSON, TRUSTEE ****************************************************************** CALL TO ORDER Jack Lowe called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Annette McNamara would like to update the Planning
Commission Members on Section 6.20 Private Roads Serving Single Family and
Commercial Developments and asked that this be added to the agenda under Old
Business. Dave Hamann motioned
to approve the May 22, 2007 agenda as amended.
Jean Root seconded. Motion
Carried 5-0. INTRODUCTION OF MEMBERS The members of the Planning Commission introduced
themselves. CALL TO THE PUBLIC John Lowe opened the call to the public. None heard. Jack Lowe closed the call to
the public. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April
24, 2007 Public Hearing Minutes Page 2 of 2; the letters j & k need to be inserted
between the parentheses. Jean
Root motioned to approve the April 24, 2007 public hearing meeting minutes
as amended. James L. Anderson
seconded. Motion Carried 5-0.
April
24, 2007 Regular Meeting minutes Page 1 of 1; under approval of agenda, the first line
should read ‘Jean Root asked that agenda item #13 be moved to agenda item
#5 and agenda item #5 moved to agenda item #13’.
Page 3 of 5 under Community Wastewater Utility System, the last
sentence should read; “February 13, 2007, for review and
approval/denial.” Jean Root
motioned to approve the April 24, 2007 regular meeting minutes as amended.
James L. Anderson seconded. Motion
Carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS Proposed
Amendment – Article VII – Zoning Districts & Maps/Schedule of
Regulations John
Enos summarized the amendments made to Article VII so far, he noted there
has been a public hearing held for the amendments. Debra
Wiedman-Clawson questioned if another public hearing is necessary due to the
increase in square footage for two-family dwellings. The
Planning Commission members discussed having an additional public hearing
for the public to comment on the changes prior to moving to the next level.
All agreed to hold another public hearing. James
L. Anderson felt footnote (e) “All side yard setbacks for corner lots
shall be equal to the required
front yard setback” is confusing. If
a lot is on the corner of D-19 and Triangle Charles
Musson 333 Triangle Lake Road felt footnote (b) “In no case shall any yard
setback be less than one hundred (100) feet along the The
Planning Commission would like John Enos to rewrite the verbiage for
footnote b and e. Jean
Root motioned to table Article VII Zoning Districts & Maps/Schedule of
Regulations, dated April 24, 2007, to the June 26, 2007 meeting, John Enos
to provide revised text. Dave
Hamann seconded. Motion carried 5-0. Proposed
Amendment – Section 6.14 Home Occupations John
Enos summarized the changes to date and thinks Class I is straight forward. The
Planning Commission members reviewed Class I and portions of Class II and
requested the following changes.
James
L. Anderson asked if the storage of oversized vehicles has to be inside a
building. John
Enos answered with a Class II Home Occupation the Planning Commission has an
opportunity to regulate that situation. Dave
Hamann motioned to table agenda item #2 Home Occupations to the June 26,
2006 meeting and John Enos to provide revisions.
James L. Anderson seconded. Motion
carried 4-0. Jean
Root left the meeting @ 8:20 p.m. Proposed
Amendment – Section 8.01 D 2 – Rural Residential Private Stables Proposed
Amendment – Section 8.02 D 1 – Suburban Residential Private Stables Proposed
Amendment – Section 3.02 Definition of Pens, Corrals & Pasture &
Fence discussion Agenda
items #3, #4 & #5 will be discussed together. John
Enos summarized the changes since the last time this text was reviewed. Les
Andersen questioned why only a ½ acre for each additional horse, Debra
Wiedman-Clawson explained the reasoning behind Putman Townships’ language
and said she believes they have since changed to ½ acre for each additional
horse. Planning
Commission discussed animal units per acre and questioned if this lines up
with the proposed text. John
Lowe questioned if a lean to is adequate enough to protect the horses. Debra
Wiedman- Les
Andersen suggested a stall for every 3 horses or for 25% of the horses. John
Enos said you can use a sliding scale. He
does not want the Planning Commission to spend too much time over
regulating. James
L. Anderson asked if the minimum three acres is entirely fenced in, he would
like to see this clarified in the language. Mr.
Hanvey asked if you need a principal structure to have a private stable. John
Enos answered yes. He will also
look into fencing language. Dave
Hamann motioned to table agenda items #3, #4 & #5 to the July 24, 2007
meeting, John Enos to provide updated language for the meeting.
James L. Anderson seconded. Motion
carried 4-0. Proposed
Amendment - Section 3.02 Figure 3-2 delete Flat & Mansard roofs from
diagram & Figure 3-6 Show Utility Easement on diagram Regarding
the Flat and Mansard roof diagram, John Enos felt this proposed amendment
should be dropped. If they are
stricken from the diagram (not allowed) this would include the Highway
Service, Light Industrial and Public Lands Districts.
The buildings in these districts have flat roofs.
There is language in Section 6.22 Single Family Design Standards
requiring a 4:12 roof pitch for a principle structure.
There is language in Section 6.07 Accessory Uses and Structures that
requires a 4:12 rood pitch for accessory structures.
He thinks the diagrams should be left as is. The
Planning Commission members discussed sun rooms and the fact that most of
those do not have a 4:12 roof pitch. They
asked that this be placed on the proposed text amendment list for future
review. Dave
Hamann motioned to withdraw the proposed amendment to figure 3-2, agenda
item #6. James L. Anderson
seconded. Motion
carried 4-0. The
Planning Commission went on to discuss figure 3-6, indicating the utility
easement on the diagram. The
Livingston County Department of Planning suggested a definition of utility
easement to go with the figure 3-6. The
Planning Commission members reviewed two suggestions and agreed on the
second, which reads; “Easement:
A right-of-way granted, but not dedicated, for limited use of private
land for private, public or quasi-public purpose, such as for franchised
utilities, a conservation easement or an access easement for a private road
or service drive, and within which the owner of the property shall not erect
any permanent structures.” They
agreed to move figure 3-6 along to the Board of Trustees in the mean time
they will work on the definition of easement when they review definitions of
pens, corrals and & pasture. Charles
Musson, Discussion
ensued on this subject with no resolve. Dave
Hamann amended his previous motion with the following motion. Dave
Hamann motioned to withdraw figure 3-2; Flat and Mansard Roofs, send figure
3-6 to the Board of Trustees for review and approval/denial.
James L. Anderson seconded. Motion
carried 4-0. Proposed
Amendment – Section 4.03 E – add final inspection to receive Certificate
of Compliance The
Board of Trustees sent this language back to the Planning Commission for
further review of the footing inspection language. The
Planning Commission members discussed language that would require a
foundation survey for structures that are within 10’ of the required
setback. These are difficult to
measure with any accuracy unless you have survey equipment. Debra
Wiedman-Clawson suggested Annette McNamara contact the Livingston County
Building Department, once language is in place, to let them know this will
be a requirement for a Certificate of Compliance.
So they will not issue a Certificate of Occupancy without Marion
Townships Certificate of Compliance. John
Enos and Annette McNamara will work together to come up with language for
the Planning Commission members review. Dave
Hamann motioned to table agenda item #7 to the July 24, 2007 meeting.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion
carried 4-0. Proposed
Amendment – Section 6.20 – New Private Roads Serving Single-Family,
Multiple-Family and Commercial Developments Annette
McNamara informed the Planning Commission members of comments made by the
Livingston County Department of Planning on Section 6.20, encouraging
further review of the language. Because
Section 6.19 B and Section 3.02, figure 3-8 frontage measurements on a
cul-de-sac were grouped together with Section 6.20, does the Planning
Commission want her to hold off on sending 6.19 B & figure 3-8 to the
Board of Trustees for review and approval/denial until the Planning
Commission has reviewed the comments on Section 6.20? The
Planning Commission agreed to place Section 6.20, 6.19 B & figure 3-8 on
the July 24, 2007 agenda for review. Dave
Hamann motioned to place Section 6.20, 6.19 B & figure 3-8 on the July
24, 2007 agenda. James L.
Anderson seconded. Motion carried 4-0. NEW
BUSINESS Debra
Wiedman-Clawson gave a copy of Public Act 451 of 1976, The Revised School
Code (excerpt) to the Planning Commission and Board of Trustees for their
review. It states the
requirements for a township to let the school know they want to review
proposed site plans. Unfortunately
she did not get the copies to the Clerks office on time to have it put in
the Board of Trustees packages for the May 24, 2007 meeting.
There is no way they can make the 45 day deadline and send a letter
to the Parker High School stating Marion Township would like to review the
site plan for placing a cell tower with co-locators on school property.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson wants it on record that she is opposed to CALL TO THE PUBLIC None heard ADJOURNMENT Dave Hamann motioned to adjourn the meeting at 10:00
p.m. Dave Hamann seconded.
Motion Carried 4-0.
|
||
