|
|||
|
|
MARION TOWNSHIP AGENDA and DRAFT MINUTES June 28, 2005 CALL
TO ORDER: MEMBERS
PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: CALL TO THE PUBLIC: Agenda Items Only – 3 minute limit APPROVAL OF AGENDA: June 28, 2005 Regular Meeting APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR:
May 16, 2005 Special Meeting
May
24, 2005 Public Hearings May 24, 2005 Regular Meeting OLD BUSINESS: 1.
Section 6.20 A
Pre-existing Non-Conforming Private Roads 2.
Section 6.20 B New Private
Roads 3.
Proposed Text Amendment
Article XVIII Site Plan Review Requirements 4.
Site Plan Review Application
& Checklist 5. Proposed Text Amendment Rural Residential Uses Permitted by Special Use Permit 17 Shooting ranges, including gun, rifle, skeet, trap, pistol and archery clubs (remove all except archery clubs) 6. Proposed Text Amendment Suburban Residential - Uses Permitted by Special Use Permit
- 8.02 E 4 cemeteries, crematories & mausoleums (remove crematories) 7.
Performance
reviews 8. Proposed Text Amendment Rural Residential – Site Development Requirements 8.01 F 6
& 7
9. Proposed Text Amendment Suburban Residential–Site Development Requirements
8.02 F 6&7 10.
Proposed Text Amendment -
Condominium Projects – 6.18 F 1 & G 11.
Proposed Text Amendment 6.19 B –
Lots to have access 12.
Proposed Text Amendment
3.02 – Definition of Landscape Buffer 13.
Land Division Act Amendment 525
NEW BUSINESS: 1.
Spruce Run – Site Plan
Review – Proposed 36 single family homes South of Road
in Section 4 2. Bentley Ridge – Private Roads – Proposed 17 single family parcels @ Southwest corner of
Bentley Lake & Mayberry Roads 3.
Proposed Text Amendment
Standards for Cemeteries,
Crematories & Mausoleums 4.
Proposed Text Amendment
Standards for 5.
Proposed Text Amendment
Standards for Group Day Care
Homes 6.
Proposed
Text Amendment Standards for Care
Centers 7.
Proposed
Text Amendment – Section 3.02 – Definition of Cemetery 8.
Proposed
Text Amendment – Section 3.02 – Definition of CALL
TO PUBLIC: ADJOURNMENT: DRAFT MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT:
JOHN LOWE, CHAIRPERSON
JEAN ROOT, SECRETARY
DAVE HAMANN
DEBRA WIEDMAN-CLAWSON
JIM ANDERSON ABSENT:
None OTHERS PRESENT:
ROBERT W. HANVEY,
SUPERVISOR
ANNETTE MCNAMARA, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JOHN HILTZ, ORCHARD, HILTZ & MCCLIMENT
PHIL WESTMORELAND, ORCHARD, HILTZ & MCCLIMENT
MIKE KEHOE, MILLER, KEHOE & ASSOCIATES
JOHN ENOS, CARLISLE/WORTMAN CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called
to order at 7:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF
AGENDA Jean Root motioned to approve the agenda for June 28, 2005 Planning Commission Regular Meeting. Debra Wiedman-Clawson
seconded. Motion Carried 5-0. INTRODUCTION OF
MEMBERS The Planning
Commission members introduced themselves to the audience.
CALL TO THE
PUBLIC John Lowe opened call
to the public. No response.
John Lowe closed the call to the public. John Lowe asked the members if New Business can be addressed first to accommodate the audience. Dave Hamann noted there are members of the audience that came to comment on Section 6.20 A Pre-Existing Non-Conforming Private Roads under Old Business. The Planning Commission members
agreed to discuss Section 6.20 A then on to New Business. APPROVAL OF
MINUTES May 16, 2005
Special Meeting Minutes Dave Hamann motioned to approve the May 16, 2005 minutes. Jean Root seconded. Motion Carried 5-0. May 24, 2005
Public Hearing Meeting Minutes Dave Hamann motioned to approve the May 24, 2005 Public Hearing minutes. Debra Wiedman-Clawson
seconded. Jim Anderson and Jean
Root abstained. Motion
Carried 3-0. May 24, 2005
Regular Minutes Jean Root asked that a question mark be inserted after “what is a day care and what is a school” page 3 of 5. Jean Root motioned to approve the May 24, 2005 regular minutes as amended. Dave Hamann seconded.
Jim Anderson abstained. Motion
Carried 4-0. OLD BUSINESS Proposed Text
Amendment - Section 6.20 A Pre-Existing Non-Conforming Private Roads Westmoreland answered the standards are procedure dependent and the text for Section 6.20 A will be need to be complete before he can finish. They will be ready for the July 26, 2005 meeting. Jean Root questioned why the statement ‘this will only pertain to newly created lots. It should be clear that this does
not pertain to lots of record. John Enos will insert
text into the purpose & intent section. Mike Kehoe asked the Planning Commission why they want this placed in the text if there is a definition.
Why place it twice? Jean Root answered the intent was to make this text user friendly. Wanted it to be clear to applicants which
section of 6.20 they need to follow A or B. Mike Kehoe wants to
make sure that the definitions are exactly the same. John Lowe asked Mike Kehoe to review the memo from the Livingston County Department of Planning (LCDP) on
6.19 B Access Controls. Discussion ensued on the relationship between 6.19 B and Section 6.20 A, the private road language currently being worked on. Had the person at LCDP contacted one of the township consultants they could have explained the relationship between the two and the proposed changes to the 6.19 B Access
Controls. Dave Hamann read from the LCDP review letter. “ Staff recommends, however, that the text be expanded to clarify what will be required in the event a new lot is to be created on a private road that did not meet applicable standards when it was built (for example, a variance or bringing the road into
compliance).” John Lowe had
questions on the page two the highlighted area that proposed variances. John Enos noted that it was a suggestion by the LCDP. After reading the review it is apparent that there needs to be
better communication between the LCDP and the consultants. Discussion ensued on what information was sent to the LCDP and what can be done to better get the intent of the
Planning Commission across. John Enos will contact
the LCDP to discuss the best policy for better communication. John Lowe asked what Phil Westmoreland needed to move forward with the engineering and design standards. John Enos answered for Phil Westmoreland as he left the room for a moment, Section H Application and Review Process addresses when Phil Westmoreland reviews the design standards. Phil Westmoreland answered when this is solidified he can move forward. There are no changes that need to be made to the text. Review of pre-existing non-conforming private roads will be on a case by case basis,
not hard and fast rules that apply to all. John Enos noted the 21 day submittal requirement. No plans should be changed and submitted after the 21 day cut off. This confuses the Planning Commission members and slows the process down. Jean Root read under the Application and Review Process item #3, “if the Township Board or the Planning Commission recommends approval” she remembers the Planning Commission being a recommending body only and would like to see this reflected in the text. She wants ‘or Planning Commission’ taken
out of the text. Debra Wiedman-Clawson noted the Township Board can delegate the responsibility to the Planning Commission.
If you remove then you need to amend the first paragraph of 6.20 A. Jim Anderson noted on page 5 of 10, Section J - ‘no land use permit will be issued for a structure’ his notes show this should read “new principal structure.” Section A Posting of Private Roads, asking the applicant contact the Livingston County Road Commission (LCRC) to verify the name of the road is not
duplicated. Jean Root read from the first paragraph “the proposed name shall be reviewed and approved by the LCRC.”
Jim Anderson also asked that Exhibit A item #12 makes reference to the signage as an item to be maintained. John Enos read from the private road maintenance agreement “Sign shall be paid for, posted and there after be maintained under the maintenance agreement by the homeowner.” Yet signage is not included in the
draft maintenance agreement. Mike Kehoe agreed it should be included in the private road maintenance agreement. Mike Kehoe asked if the private road maintenance agreement is going to be part of the zoning ordinance or is this going to be a
suggested agreement. John Enos answered this is a template and depending on the road the consultants and township will look at it with
the differences in mind. Mike Kehoe would like to see this private road maintenance agreement as a suggestion, not mandatory.
There are times when you need to adjust.
John Lowe said it is subject to consultant review and if it doesn’t address the items they feel are necessary on an
individual basis then adjustments can be made. Mike Kehoe said if they are concerned about the signage then they should include it in the private road maintenance
agreement. John Enos noted it is in the zoning ordinance, then in item #12 of the private road maintenance agreement. John Lowe said the stop sign and the road name sign are important. The fire department needs to find the road. Jean Root motioned to table Section 6.20 A Pre-Existing Non-Conforming Private Roads until the July 26, 2005 meeting.
Jim Anderson seconded. Motion
Carried 5-0. NEW BUSINESS Spruce Run
Preliminary Site Plan Review Debra Wiedman-Clawson
is abstaining. Jim Barnwell of Desine, Inc. gave a presentation of the proposed development. This will be a 36 unit development South of Mason Road in the Suburban Residential District. Directly to the West is Maple Farms Planned Unit Development (PUD) and to the South is Turtle Creek. The development will be served by
sewer and water, private road, curb-n-gutter and sidewalks.
A request was made to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) to relax Section 6.20 Private Roads sub section B that states no more than 25 units with one point of access. Maple Farms PUD was approved with a stub road running east toward the subject property. This stub road could be connected to the
proposed Spruce Run development. Maple Farms has 52 lots with one point of access, the proposed Spruce Run has 36 units, and this makes a total of 88 units with two points of access. The ZBA approved the variance with conditions. One condition was a connection between Maple Farms PUD and the proposed Spruce Run. The developer for Maple
Farms PUD agreed to the connection with no objections. There will be two
exception lots that will gain access off of parcel was designed this way to avoid removing existing woodlands on the South/East portion for a new roadway to gain
access to the proposed units. Jim Barnwell went over consultant comments and noted to the Planning Commission members that the site plans they
received include the changes requested in the consultants review letters. Jim Barnwell discussed
the how the site drains and his reason for the drainage retention on the
site. John Enos opened by reviewing the submittal process. Jim Barnwell indicated a site plan was submitted a month ago and the June 17, 2005 review letter the Planning Commission members received from Carsile/Wortman was based on that submittal. There were several issues addressed in my review letter as you can see. The site plan that you are looking at is not in relation to the site plan I reviewed. It is the corrected version. Now we get into logistical problems with processing, getting the revised plan to the consultants and how they deal with that. He does not like to bring his review to the Planning Commission members the night of the meeting and that is what has happened here. The Planning Commission members have a second review letter on the table for them tonight and there is not time to read it in relationship to the site plan. This is not fair to the Planning
Commission or the applicant. lot; the applicant does meet the required front yard set back on both road frontages, yet does not meet the required lot width on one side. The ordinance is clear on where the lot is measured in regards to the front lot line. In this case you have 149’ on one side and 62’ on the other, the requirement is 85’. This may require a variance unless in the past the Planning Commission has allowed a corner lot to meet the frontage requirement on one side and not the other. John Enos read from the zoning ordinance “In the case of the above definitions the Zoning Administrator shall designate the front, rear and side in consideration of the orientation of the building.” I would expect unit 10 to
front allowance of this lot
if they make sure the driveway comes off of Commission members
want to allow for the reduced lot width. The Planning
Commission members do not remember this situation has come up before. John Enos noted all
other corner lots meet this lot width. John Lowe asked Jim
Barnwell there was a possible solution? Jim Barnwell answered
they could meet the 85’ frontage if measured at the front yard setback. John Enos addressed the 50’ required greenbelt along Mason Road is within the 35’ setback building envelope for lots #26 and #27. This has been allowed in the past with increased landscaping and be
included in part of the area calculation of lot requirements. Phil Westmoreland reviewed the site plan for a proposed development Marion Pines that is to the East of proposed
Spruce Run to see the required setback off of Commission required a 50’ setback from the LCRC new road right of way requirement. Marion Pines engineer had to move the cul-de-sac to accommodate. If this site plan had to meet the requirements it would
affect lots #26 & #27. Jim Barnwell revised the ordinance, the 50’ greenbelt established within a public road right of way which is not located within the project. The project encompasses everything from the existing road right of way to the internal; I interrupted that to mean 50’ would be measured from the existing road right of way. Currently there is a 33’ half of the road right of way, will be as part of this project and still dedicating another 27’. They would rather do that than making new lots and having them access off
of If you use 50’ from the future road right of way then you limit the building envelopes of lots #26 & #27 and leave 25‘ to
build in. John Lowe clarified
that the LCRC is asking for 120’ road right of way. Jim Barnwell said yes, they ask for additional road right of way along primary roads that have a subdivision fronting. Mike Kehoe expressed concern, if required for Marion Pines and not Spruce Run this may create problems. Phil Westmoreland noted the detention basin grading for Marion Pines encroached into the greenbelt, no hard surface or
building was allowed. Additional
screening was required because of this. John Lowe asked that the Planning Commission members review this later and move on with the review letter. John Enos addressed item # of his second review letter. Tree lines were shown yet the zoning ordinance indicates
need for clarification on what type and size of trees.
like to see protection of existing trees. There is an existing 44” Oak tree that should be protected. The applicant told the Planning Commission the oaks are gone, trees were removed before he bought the property.
His goal is to save as many trees as possible. John Enos as we have done in the past, we can require clearing limits be shown on individual site plans submitted for
homes. John Enos addressed item #4, the suitability of the existing soils. More information is necessary and Orchard, Hiltz
& McCliment will take care of that.
John Enos asked what material will be used for the nature path, woodchips, or stone. This needs to be clarified. Also lighting on the site, is it necessary, homeowners will have individual lighting? The road name has to be approved by the LCRC and the condominium documents need to be submitted and reviewed. The biggest issues are clarification on the tree removal and to be addressed and the
50’ setback off of Phil Westmoreland summarized his review letter noting some of the same issues as the planner. The grading of the detention pond in the past the Planning Commission has allowed grading within the setback. A more pressing issue is the detention basin discharging into the right of way ditches along engineers for Marion Pines reroute the water to the wetlands. With Spruce Run the only options other than directing the water into the road right of way is to work out something with Turtle Creek or Marion Pines to get it though to the low area. Before the Planning Commission gives approval Phil Westmoreland would like to know if the LCRC is going to approve discharge as it stands today into the
road right of way. Jim Barnwell was not
able to discuss options at this time. John Lowe is concerned if the LCRC does not approve the discharge then the detention basin has to be larger which
will affect the lot layout. This
is a major concern that needs to be answered. Discussion ensued on
the exception lots draining onto development retaining the water on site, if the Livingston County Drain Commissioner (LCDC) approves this then Phil Westmoreland is ok with it. Ken Recker of the LCDC is still waiting to hear from the LCRC
before giving approval. John Lowe noted Howell Area Fire Authority (HAFA) gave approval and the LCRC site distance has been approved. John Lowe asked the Planning Commission members if they had a preference as to the material used on the walking
path. Woodchip is out of the
question. Jim Barnwell stated they are willing to use woodchips or crushed stone no hard surface material. The zoning ordinance
does not require any specific material. John Lowe asked Jim Barnwell if he was OK with item #2 of John Grissom letter dated June 9, 2005.
The way it reads the applicant will be responsible until the last
house is built. Jim Barnwell answered
yes; the biggest concern is the construction traffic. John Lowe asked Mike Kehoe his opinion on interpretation of the 50’ greenbelt and lots #26 & #27 and if he needs time
to consider. Mike Kehoe would need time to review the Marion Pines site plan and zoning ordinance prior to answering.
His first thought is the zoning ordinance does not support the
proposal. Township
and the Planning Commission should be consistent. Jim Barnwell went on to explain reasoning for placement of the roadway. They wanted to keep the existing house within
the development. Discussion ensued as to whether the applicant should request a variance for the 50’ greenbelt, if the Planning
Commission would make a recommendation to the ZBA.
The conciseness was no. A break was called by
the Chairperson. Phil Westmoreland reviewed the Marion Pines site plan and related to the Planning Commission the building setbacks
for the lots that front on right of way. The Planning Commission did allow for grading within the 50’ greenbelt and what Spruce Run site plan
proposes is consistent with Marion Pines. The Planning
Commission members agreed to crush stone for the walking path. John Enos reiterated the need for language in the Master Deed the individual homeowner shall provide a plot plan
showing trees to be protected. Jean Root motioned to table Spruce Run site plan Tax ID# 4710-04-200-051 until applicant request further review. Jim Anderson seconded. Debra Wiedman-Clawson abstained. Motion Carried 4-0.
OLD BUSINESS Proposed Text Amendment - Section 17.27 - Standards for Specific Land Uses - Shooting ranges,
including gun, rifle, skeet, trap, pistol and archery clubs John Lowe opened discussion on the impact to the existing Gun Club if all but archery clubs are removed from the
Suburban Residential District Uses Permitted with a Special Use Permit. Mike Kehoe stated if these uses are removed the existing Gun Club would become pre-existing non-conforming and would fall under provisions of Article XVIIII, non-conforming use restricts the ability to expand. A potential serious effect on the Gun Club as it currently exists. Instead of excluding these uses,
a better idea would be to expand the requirements. John Enos stated this would allow existing use and add restrictions for future applicants and not prohibit existing use
of the gun range. John Luitink - ordinance which would prohibit another club due to the noise unless it is an indoor facility. His understanding is they are already pre-existing non-conforming because they do not have a special use permit as this was not required in 1940. The Howell Gun Club is rethinking the purchase of 10 acres for an
additional buffer because this would be increasing the non-conformance. John Lowe asked if this purchase increases the operation and if this is viewed as increasing non-conformance. Discussion ensued on
the status of property that fronts
on accessible?
The answer is no. Robert W. Hanvey suggested buying the property and not combining it with the existing property, and then it will not
add to the non-conformance. He owns 80 acres and
has friends over a few times a year to use their antique fire arms. The Planning
Commission members said this text does not apply to his situation. John Lowe asked John Enos and Mike Kehoe to research further and bring back proposed text to the next meeting. Dave Hamann motioned to table Section 17.27 until the July 26, 2005 meeting. Jean Root seconded.
Motion Carried 5-0. NEW BUSINESS Bentley Ridge - Mike Kehoe addressed the Planning Commission members; he revealed his relationship with Mr. Bond, owner of the proposed development. In the past Mike Kehoe has provided legal services for Mr. Bond, yet Mike Kehoe does not have a financial interest in this project and does not feel this would affect his
review and comment. Debra Wiedman-Clawson
abstained from discussion and motions on the agenda item. Jim Barnwell gave a presentation on the proposed private roads. There are a couple of out buildings on the existing property that will fall into the private road developments. There will be two private roads that will end in cul-de-sacs. There will be one exception parcel that will not be part of the private road maintenance agreement. The LCDC has reviewed and has concerns regarding accommodation for a
100 year flood. Jean Root asked the
acreage of the exception parcel. Jim Barnwell answered
2.9 acres. John Enos summarized his review letter. He would like to make sure existing buildings on A-1 will be removed. Item #2, the zoning ordinance states that on a corner lot the side yard setback has to meet the front yard setback, this would make lots A-2, A-3 and B-1 non-conforming as they would require a 70‘ side yard setback. This is footnote e of Section 7.10; the intent of the zoning ordinance is not that both side yards are setback 70’. He is concerned about the access of lot C-1; they have made that an exception lot and must be made clear that it is not part of the project and not part of the private road maintenance agreement. The Livingston County Department of Public Health review of soil suitability is necessary. The road names need to be coordinated with the
LCRC. Preliminary approval is
reasonable. John Lowe asked Jim
Barnwell if he had LCRC approval on parcel C-1. Jim Barnwell answered
no. Phil Westmoreland summarized his review letter in relationship to the revised plan, nothing significant just clean up issues, grading information to the West of the site. The LCDC proposed easement agreements, the information is not available at this time. Phil Westmoreland would like to see in writing that the well and septic on the exception lot are on that lot and will remain there. Are there road names? Jim Barnwell answered
the road to the South is Court
on the East side of John Lowe asked about the transfer parcel to the South/West, we don‘t want to create a land locked parcel. Jim Barnwell answered
it will be transferred to an adjacent property owner. Dave Hamann asked if
there would be two private road maintenance agreements. Jim Barnwell answered
two. John Lowe asked about
removal of existing buildings and which road will be built first. Jim Barnwell answered all buildings except one will be removed. The applicant will build a principal structure on parcel A-1. There will be no pre-existing non-conforming buildings as a result of this process. The road to the North will be built first and the road to the South within a few years of the first
being finished. John Enos wants to give thought to the potential non-conformance and the possibility of a performance bond to
ensure the zoning ordinance is complied with. Jean Root motioned to
table applicant request further review. Jim Anderson seconded. Debra Wiedman-Clawson abstained. Motion Carried 4-0.
OLD BUSINESS Land Division
Amendment 525 Mike Kehoe noted minor changes will have to be made to the existing general ordinance Subdivision Control Ordinance. He will work with John Enos to have proposed changes and a synopsis of Act 525 to
the Planning Commission for the July 26, 2005 meeting. John Enos said a representative from his office has put together a report on the amendments and will provide the
Planning Commission members with a copy. Debra Wiedman-Clawson noted additional changes should be made to the zoning ordinance in additional sections. Discussion ensued on the proposed changes and the process involved that is shown on the new flow chart. Proposed Text
Amendment - Section 6.20 B New Private Roads Jean Root motioned to table until the July 26, 2005 meeting. Dave Hamann seconded. Motion Carried 5-0.
Proposed Text
Amendment - Article XVIII Site Plan Review Requirements Jean Root motioned to table until the July 26, 2005 meeting. Dave Hamann seconded. Motion Carried 5-0.
Site Plan Review
Application & Checklist Jean Root motioned to table this item to the July 26, 2005 meeting. Dave Hamann seconded. Motion Carried 5-0.
Proposed Text Amendment - Section 8.01 E 6 - Rural Residential uses Permitted by Special Use Permit - Cemeteries, Crematories & Mausoleums and Section 8.01 E 17 Shooting ranges,
including gun, rifle, skeet, trap, pistol and archery clubs Jean Root motioned to table until the July 26, 2005 meeting. Jim Anderson seconded. Motion Carried 5-0. Proposed Text Amendment - Section 8.02 E 4 - Suburban Residential uses Permitted by Special Use
Permit - Cemeteries, Crematories & Mausoleums Jean Root motioned to table until the July 26, 2005 meeting. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion Carried 5-0. Performance
reviews Jean Root noted there have been new consultants hired and the thought was a review would be a good time to review as
it has been six months. Jean Root started with comments addressed to Mike Kehoe. Jean Root is please with the review and comments being a part of the package as opposed to the night of the meeting. From her perceptive there is a better communication between consultants and this is apparent. Jean Root asked if Annette McNamara had any comments. She answered no. Jean Root noted it is easier to review amendments when they are submitted separately. Jean Root asked if there were any other comments.
John Lowe asked Mike Kehoe if he was getting all the information he needed for his review and comments. The Planning Commission would like to have Mike Kehoe attend all of the meetings so there is a better
understanding of the Planning Commission intent. Mike Kehoe answered he is available for meetings that the Planning Commission would like him to attend.
He will leave this to the townships discretion. Jean Root noted there are times they say they would like Mike Kehoe comments then no one gets to ask the question.
They will make a better effort to make a list and follow through. John Lowe suggested at
the end of every meeting make a list of the questions and follow through. John Enos suggested a monthly meeting during the day with a representative from the Planning Commission, ZBA and
Board of Trustees to address outstanding issues. Discussion ensued on late submittals, site plans with multiple outstanding review items and review letters handed out the night of the meeting. If there are items that need interpretation then those are addressed other than that the site plan is tabled until the next month. If they don’t make the mailing (site plans) then they are not on the agenda and new plans will not be reviewed the night of the meeting. Jean Root started with comments addressed to Phil Westmoreland. She appreciated the review letters submitted in a timely fashion. Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment has multiple resources and she would like Phil Westmoreland to interject when there are times the resources can be used. Jean Root would like Phil Westmoreland to be forthright and tell the Planning Commission when a different avenue can
be taken and different ways other municipalities handle situations. John Lowe is pleased with the process and quality of workmanship. He feels Phil Westmoreland has done an
exceptional job. Annette McNamara noted the relationship with Phil Westmoreland has been a good one. Having Kevin Novak observing construction of the approved developments has lifted a burden off of her shoulders. Annette McNamara appreciates the brevity, access to Phil Westmoreland when she places a call to him,
input and quality of work. Jean Root started with comments directed to John Enos. Jean Root likes the format of the review letters especially listing the issues at the end of the review letter. She appreciates the professionalism he brings to the meetings and interaction with the residents. On the months there are two meetings and Paul Siersma is in attendance there seems to be difficulty in interpreting Johns intent there is a struggle within the Planning Commission members to get the language right. Again as with Mike Kehoe there are items that the Planning Commission members would like to discuss with
John Enos and they seem to fall through the cracks. John Enos has realized over the last six months the township needs the continuity of him attending two meetings. There have been changes in his organization and he will now attend both meetings. Paul will still be working with him and possibility he will attend the meetings also. John Enos sees the need for a more
senior associated at the meetings. John Lowe agreed with John Enos and reiterated how critical it is to stay pro-active not re-active. He would like to see
better progress made with the zoning amendments. Annette McNamara is grateful to hear John Enos will attend both meetings each month. Paul Siersma works well yet does not have the experience necessary to handle the meetings alone. Debra Wiedman-Clawson likes the layout of his review letters. She feels some of the items listed at the end are
contradictory to the zoning ordinance. Discussion ensued on
joint meetings and the value of the input from multiple boards. Dave Hamann left the
meeting at 11:00 p.m. Proposed Text Amendment - Section 8.01 F 6 & 7 - Rural Residential - Site Development
Requirements The Livingston County Department of Planning (LCDP) returned the proposed text “no action encourage further review.” Mike Kehoe has comments on the staff review done by the LCDP and what was presented to Livingston County Planning Commission. Mike Kehoe will submit his comments in writing for the July 26, 2005 meeting. Jean Root motioned to table until the July 26, 2005 meeting.
Jim Anderson seconded. Motion
Carried 4-0. Proposed Text Amendment - Section 8.02 F 6 & 7 - Suburban Residential - Site Development
Requirements The Livingston County Department of Planning (LCDP) returned the proposed text “no action encourage further review.” Mike Kehoe has comments on the staff review done by the LCDP and what was presented to Livingston County Planning Commission. Mike Kehoe will submit his comments in writing for the July 26, 2005 meeting. Jean Root motioned to table until the July 26, 2005 meeting.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion carried 4-0. Proposed Text
Amendment - Section 6.18 F 1 & G - Condominium Projects The Livingston County Department of Planning (LCDP) returned the proposed text “no action encourage further review.” Mike Kehoe has comments on the staff review done by the LCDP and what was presented to Livingston County Planning Commission. Mike Kehoe will submit his comments in writing for the July 26, 2005 meeting. Jean Root motioned to table until the July 26, 2005 meeting.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion
Carried 4-0. Proposed Text
Amendment - Section 6.19 B - Access Controls The proposed text was sent to the Board of Trustees for review at their June 14, 2005 meeting after returning from LCDP “approved.” The Board of Trustees had questions on the proposed text and motioned to send it back to the Planning Commission for further review. Because the questions were not included in the Board of Trustees minutes, John Enos will meet with the Zoning Administrator & Supervisor for clarification on the Board of Trustees requested changes. John Enos will submit the changes for the July 26, 2005 meeting. Jean Root motioned to table until the July 26,
2005 meeting. Debra
Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion
Carried 4-0. Proposed Text
Amendment - Section 3.02 - Definitions - Landscape Buffers The proposed text was sent to the Board of Trustees for review at their June 14, 2005 meeting after returning from LCDP “approved with conditions.” Robert W. Hanvey agreed with the LCDP that certain text was redundant and asked for a motion to send it back to the Planning Commission for further review. John Enos will meet with the Zoning Administrator & Supervisor for clarification on the Board of Trustees requested changes. John Enos will submit the changes for the July 26, 2005 meeting. Jean Root motioned to table until the July 26, 2005 meeting. Debra Wiedman-Clawson
seconded. Motion Carried 4-0. NEW BUSINESS Proposed Text
Amendment - Section 17.07 - Standards for Cemeteries,
Crematories & Mausoleums Jean Root motioned to table until the July 26, 2005 meeting. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion
Carried 4-0. Proposed Text
Amendment - Section 17.16 - Standards for Day Care
Homes Jean Root motioned to table until the July 26, 2005 meeting. Jim Anderson seconded. Motion Carried 4-0.
Proposed Text
Amendment - Section 17.08 - Standards for Child Care
Centers Jean Root motioned to table until the July 26, 2005 meeting. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion Carried 4-0. Proposed Text
Amendment - Section 3.02 - Definitions - Cemeteries Jean Root motioned to table until the July 26, 2005 meeting. Jim Anderson seconded. Motion Carried 4-0.
Proposed Text
Amendment - Section 3.02 - Definitions - Child Care Centers Jean Root motioned to table until the July 26, 2005 meeting. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion Carried 4-0.
Proposed Text
Amendment - Section 17.08 - Standards for Child Care
Centers Jean Root motioned to table until the July 26, 2005 meeting. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion Carried 4-0.
Joint Meeting Jean Root would like to see a joint meeting scheduled for the near future and asked that this be placed on the July 26,
2005 agenda for scheduling. CALL TO THE
PUBLIC Jim Barnwell 127 S. Compton would like to commend the consultants. Jim Barnwell would like to see them separate fiction from fact. Some are suggestions and not in the zoning ordinance. He is not receiving the review letters and would like better communication between the consultants and engineers. He does not agree that the consultants can decide whether the applicant can be placed on the agenda or not. He feels the Planning Commission has the authority to say yes or no. Had he not been on the agenda tonight they would have argued this the next month. It is better to find out what the Planning Commission wants to see early on in the project before more money is put into the project
and the applicant digs in his heels. Jim Anderson reiterated he does not like to have review letters submitted the night of the meeting. Debra Wiedman-Clawson
agreed with Jim Barnwell on submittals. Jean Root asked where you draw the line. The Planning Commission spends time and nothing is achieved. Does the chairperson say there are too many outstanding items and ask for a motion to table? Debra Wiedman-Clawson stated if that is the way it goes give the applicant three minutes to address items open for
interpretations. Jim Barnwell stated there are items that need to come before the Planning Commission to be answered. The limits of tree removal should be a point of discussion. There is nothing in the zoning ordinance that
addresses tree removal. John Enos understands
Jim Barnwell concerns and agrees. Discussion ensued review letters and site plans submitted with the package. The site plan did not match the review
letter. ADJOURNMENT Debra Wiedman-Clawson motioned to adjourn the meeting at 11:22 p.m. Jean Root seconded. Motion Carried 4-0.
|
||
