|
|||
|
|
DRAFT MINUTES
MARION TOWNSHIP SPECIAL MEETING - PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 9, 2004
JEAN ROOT, SECRETARY
JIM ANDERSON
DAVE HAMANN
DEBRA WIEDMAN-CLAWSON OTHERS
PRESENT: ROBERT W. HANVEY, SUPERVISOR
ANNETTE MCNAMARA, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ****************************************************************** The
meeting was called to order at 7:35 APPROVAL
OF AGENDA Jean Root motioned to approve the agenda as amended. Dave Hamann seconded. Motion
carried 5-0. CALL
TO THE PUBLIC None
heard. APPROVAL
OF MINUTES Jean Root noted minor changes to the minutes. Dave Hamann motioned to approve the minutes as
amended. Jim Anderson seconded.
Motion carried 5-0. Existing
Residential Subdivision District ERS-2 John
Lowe questioned why 19.02 Non Conforming Lots was not on the agenda. Jean Root answered; at the July 15, 2004 Special Meeting a public hearing was scheduled for the August
24, 2004 Planning Commission regular meeting.
Further discussion will take place then. This led into a conversation on non conforming lots in Existing Residential Subdivision District (ERS-2).
Allendale Estates and Twilly Hills Estates are two of the areas
within the ERS-2 District. Dave Hamann has concerns with the proposed language for Section 19.02. Dave Hamann explained the intent in creating the ERS districts was to minimize the variance requests for the parcels that were pre existing non conforming lots of record that did not conform to the 1996 zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission is trying to make 19.02 lock down peoples ability to sell their property because of the zoning issue. Jean Root asked Dave Hamann to compile a list of the issues concerning the proposed amendments to Section 19.02 for the August 24, 2004 meeting. OLD
BUSINESS Home
Occupation Jean Root proposed changes to the language submitted in the letter dated March 25, 2004 from John Ambrose establishing three classifications. The approval procedure for Home Occupation, a fee schedule, nothing in the approval procedure for taking to the Board of Trustees, for class
II & III a public hearing for the approval process. Wiedman-Clawson
wants to know how when
you get complaints. How do
existing and new business owners know to come in. Jean
Root current business will be grandfathered. should
include if ownership of property changes, new owner must come in and
reapply. Dave Hamann said Planning Commission has been requiring reapplication by new owner with Special Use Permits. Proposed language for class II & III require a Special Use Permit, which would
require a public hearing. sup because it is not run out of an accessory structure; it is run out of the home. Neighbors would
not be aware of a home business. that
has customers coming to their home, deliveries, etc. is good and does not see a need for a change. He is concerned we are creating red tape and this is
excessive. proposed business and be informed of something going on. Residents are operating home business throughout the township and this is a way to have some control and monitor the business. If property sells and someone assumes the business we have no documentation as to what business was taking place. As with any other pre existing non conforming situation, document everything that existed and say that is grandfathered. Then from the date of the ordinance
amendment forward we will keep track based on the class of the home
occupation. Debra Wiedman-Clawson noted that the Home Occupations that exist now the township is not collecting personal property taxes on. The revisions to the Home Occupation were requested by the
Board of Trustees after the Bonk Show Cause Hearing and the boring business
on Road
. office for administrative work within his home and then you have the people who have vans and or equipment, customers coming to the home. The second would need adequate parking and generate
traffic. class III is different. Maybe incorporate class I & II and keep III as is. This language is repetitive and could be incorporated. A suggestion was made to hold a public hearing and continue working on the language. If we schedule a public hearing we need to have language in place for
the residents so they have a base for input. existing language along with the suggestions from the Planning Commission. She will incorporate for the next special meeting. Discussion ensued. No signs should be allowed in class I & II. Class III signs allowed. Signs near the street may be an issue since we do not allow real estate signs. Enhance current advertisement requirements. Class II item D could be placed in class III, add public hearing necessary for class III. Class II item three a, b & c (approval) to be moved to Class III. Class III would need to go to Board of Trustees for final approval. Include employee parking in all classes. Class I & II list the requirements. Class III will be more involved and require public hearing. Add class III into the line items for Special Use Permits and list under each
zoning district. John
Lowe asked Planning Commission if they have any proposed changes.
No response. Jean Root motioned to schedule a public hearing for Section 7.10 - Schedule of Regulations for September
28, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Dave
Hamann seconded. Motion
carried 5-0. Section
6.07 Accessory Structures Debra Wiedman-Clawson asked if we ever had an agricultural designation. Debra Wiedman-Clawson expressed concern with accessory structures and the Right to Farm Act. What if they have nine buildings and they are housing construction equipment instead of agricultural equipment what is the difference. Can this be changed it to agricultural if they are a farmer and they fall under a different use for accessory buildings? There was a situation where a property owner had 90 acres split the property and left the principal and accessory structures on 14 acres. The barn burns down next to the house and the Zoning Board of Appeals forced the property
owner to rebuild the barn in the back of the house. purchased
the property knowing it was on 14 acres and wanted to start it, it was self
created. Debra Wiedman-Clawson stated one farmer has multiple barns and all the equipment is stored outdoors. Another property owner builds a large accessory structure to store equipment and now the township wants to limit the size of accessory structures to three times the ground floor living
space. 42’ x 120’ or 42’ x 160’. Discussion ensued regarding ground floor living space square footage being
used for the calculations for size of accessory structures. one
of 6.07, there are two sets of criteria for 2 acre parcels and An accessory building shall not occupy more than twenty (20) percent of a required rear yard for parcels (lots/building
sites) two (2) acres or less in size. building
shall be limited to two (2) times the ground floor area of the principal
structure. Jean
Root asked; which one do you follow? Debra
Wiedman-Clawson said you have to meet both. In Suburban Residential (SR) for one acre an accessory building equal to the gross ground floor area (does not say anything about livable area) of the principle dwelling or 1,000 square feet which
ever is larger for parcels up to two acres to reference letter his letter dated July 7, 2004 to revise Section 6.07 #1 to read like Handy
Township; remove #12 and change #5 to read: not to exceed 35’. John
Lowe would also like Mike Kehoe to answer the following questions. What if over ten acres and want a structure larger than 4:1 – request a variance or attach a deed restriction stating the parcel can not be split lower than 10 acres. Special Use Permits should be reviewed
on what time frame basis. for a larger structure on a large parcel. At a later date the resident files a land division application and the assessor is not aware of the Special Use Permit restrictions that the property cannot be split below the acreage at the time the Special Use Permit was granted. Do we require a deed restriction
as part of the conditions of the Zoning Board of Appeals ruling? John Lowe answered there are not that many large parcels left in the township and it is cost prohibitive.
They can go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Section
8.01 D 1 & Section 8.01 D 2 - Private Stables in Rural Residential &
Suburban Residential Debra Wiedman-Clawson suggested limiting six horses or as many as you wan if breeding and under two years old. Ordinance needs definitions for pasture and corral. Pasture has grass and no dust. Corrals do not have grass and are dusty. Allow in the SR district; 5 acres for the first horse and ˝ acre for each additional horse, not to exceed six. Fence requirements set backs need to be specified. Pasture fencing can be placed on the property line and corral fencing needs to be set
back 75’ off the property line. 3 acres for the first horse and 1 acre for each additional horse not to exceed six horses. In the Rural
Residential District a maximum of eight horses. requirements
for a stable being 150’ from a dwelling to 150’ from the property line. Jean
Root wants to ask Mike Kehoe for pasture and corral definition suggestions. Jim Anderson feels Planning Commission should be consistent with buffering requirements in all three horse stable ordinances. Which are Private Stables in RR 8.01.D, Private Stables in SR
8.02.D and 17.28 Commercial Stables. of the language, highlight changes in the three sections of the ordinance and submit for the next meeting
to be scheduled later tonight. Section
6.24 Landscape Buffer Debra Wiedman-Clawson questioned the Planning Commission if definitions for natural vegetation and visual buffer are needed. Planning Commission will ask Mike Kehoe if it is necessary to add language or add as defined by Planning Commission, interpreted by Planning Commission or at the
discretion of the Planning Commission. Ask
Mike Kehoe if definitions would be necessary. Jean Root motioned to set a public hearing for Section 6.24 Landscape Buffer on September
28, 2004 at 7:10 p.m. Dave
Hamann seconded. Motion
carried 5-0. Section
6.19 Lots to Have Access The Planning Commission agreed a separate workshop for private roads and the four Sections of the Ordinance that relate to private roads would be necessary. The Planning Commission would like to hold a Special Meeting for the following ordinance amendments only; Section 6.19, Section
6.20 B, Section 6.20 C and Section 6.20 J 3. Noise
Ordinance Jean Root motioned to postpone the proposed Noise Ordinance until further notice. Jim Anderson seconded.
Motion carried 5-0. Discussion
on Planning Consultant Evaluation Dave Hamann updated the Planning Commission on the committees’ progress. At the meeting to be scheduled later tonight the planning consultant applicants will give a presentation on the proposed
Planning Commission with a written review prior to the presentation. The presentations will be scheduled for 7:00 p.m., 7:45 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. If the presentations do not take the entire 45 minutes the Planning Commission will work on Section 6.14 Home Occupation, Section 6.07 Accessory Structures, Sections 8.01 D 1 and 8.02 D 1 Private Stables in the Rural Residential and Suburban
Residential Districts and Section 17.28 Commercial Stables. Review
Draft List of Private Roads Planning Commission would like to table this until a Special Meeting to address private roads and the four Sections of the Zoning Ordinance that pertain to private roads can be scheduled in October. NEW
BUSINESS ERS-2
Existing Residential Subdivision District Dave Hamann stated we need to find the documentation on the Existing Residential Subdivision District (ERS-2). Once we determine which parcels are ERS-2, then we need to get in back on the record
(Zoning District Map.) Subdivision District to gather further information. This item to be placed on the September
28, 2004 Planning Commission agenda. Jean
Root seconded. Motion carried
5-0. Section
8.01 D 1 Single Family Subdivision and Condominiums An excerpt from Mike Kehoe letter dated July 8, 2004 was read; subparagraph 8.01.D.1.a would perhaps be more appropriately placed in Section 6.24. John Lowe stated the way the ordinance reads now this only pertains to subdivisions and site condominiums. The Planning Commission intended it to pertain to any project and all developments. By placing in Section 6.24 it would then encompass all projects. Suggestions were made to remove sub paragraph a, of 8.01.D.1.a, also include sub paragraph b into sub paragraph #1. Send to Mike Kehoe with these suggestions for
his review and comment. Meeting
agenda. Subdivisions and Condominiums to be held on September 28, 2004 at 7:20 p.m. Debra
Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion
carried 5-0. Section
6.6.20 B Construction Standards and Road Geometrics Planning Commission would like to have a special meeting in October for the following ordinance amendments
only. Section 6.19, Section 6.20
B, Section 6.20 C and Section 6.20 J 3. Section
6.20 C Right of Way Width Planning Commission would like to have a special meeting for the following ordinance amendments
only. Section 6.19, Section 6.20
B, Section 6.20 C and Section 6.20 J 3. Section
6.20 J 3 Application Review and Approval or Rejection Planning Commission would like to have a special meeting for the following ordinance amendments
only. Section 6.19, Section 6.20
B, Section 6.20 C and Section 6.20 J 3. Set
a Special Meeting Motion
made to schedule a Special Meeting for September 14, 2004 @ 7:00 p.m. Jean
Root noted were
made. ADJOURNMENT Motion
Carried 5-0.
|
||
