|
|||
|
|
MARION TOWNSHIP DRAFT MINUTES AUGUST 26, 2003 - PUBLIC HEARING MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Jim Anderson, Debra Wiedman-Clawson, Dave Hamann, John Lowe, Jean
Root MEMBERS ABSENT:
None OTHERS
PRESENT:
John Ambrose, Planning Consultant Bob Hanvey, Township
Supervisor
Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator
*************************************************************************************************************
CALL TO ORDER
John
Lowe called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. APPROVAL OF
AGENDA
Dave
Hamann made a motion to approve the agenda.
Jean Root seconded. Motion carried APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. OLD
BUSINESS Special Use Permit #01-03 Commercial
Stable - Mr. & Mrs. Carsley CALL TO THE PUBLIC No
appearance by public ADJOURNMENT
Dave Hamann made a motion to close the Public Hearing at 7:22 p.m. Jim Anderson seconded. Motion carried 5-0.
REGULAR MEETING - DRAFT MINUTES MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Jim Anderson, Debra Wiedman-Clawson, Dave Hamann, John Lowe, Jean
Root MEMBERS ABSENT:
None OTHERS
PRESENT:
John Ambrose, Planning Consultant Bob Hanvey, Township
Supervisor
Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator
*************************************************************************************************************
CALL TO ORDER
John
Lowe called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Annette
McNamara requested the agenda be amended to include Blossom Farms last under
Old Business. APPROVAL OF
AGENDA
Dave Hamann made a motion to approve the agenda as amended. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion
carried 5-0. APPROVAL
OF MINUTES August
5, 2003 Regular Meeting. The following revisions were suggested: - Page 5, under Call to the Public, heading entitled, “Highland Mobile Home Development” will be inserted above
second paragraph
beginning with “Bob Hanvey distributed…” - Page 5, under Township Attorney, John Lowe questioned whether these are questions or comments posed by members
of the Planning Commission. Dave Hamann’s comment will be revised to read
“is comfortable with…” - John Ambrose questioned if clear information is getting to the attorney. Dave Hamann made a motion to approve the August 5, 2003 Regular Meeting Minutes as amended. Jean Root seconded. Debra
Wiedman-Clawson abstained. Motion
carried 4-0. OLD
BUSINESS Special Use Permit #01-03 Commercial
Stable - Mr. & Mrs. Carsley John Ambrose summarized his July 16, 2003 letter of recommendation. Debra Wiedman-Clawson questioned the Carsleys regarding the proposed location of the manure pile and whether it will be enclosed and how it will impact drainage into wetlands. The Carsleys stated they will spread it in their hayfield. Debra Wiedman-Clawson also questioned how close to the property line the red barn is on the adjacent property. John Lowe commented it is close to the 15’ minimum side yard setback. This poses a possible scenario of a home being built in the future and still maintaining the isolation distance required for a commercial stable. John Ambrose stated that would not
apply. the Planning Commission can place conditions on the SUP. If the property sells, the new owners are required to come to the Planning Commission for review and approval. John Ambrose commented if landowners who received SUP altered the site plan, by law they are required to go before the township before doing so. The Carsleys have concerns regarding future neighbors and complaints. Ambrose responded that as long as landowner meets all criteria of the ordinance, new neighbors would have no standing with complaints, and they
would have to verify a violation of the ordinance. Otherwise it will be
handled administratively. Jean Root made a motion that the Planning Commission grant conditional approval of the site plan for Majestic Oak Commercial Stable, Tax Code
4710-17-200-012, and Special Use Permit #01-03 based on following
conditions: 1.
All issues
addressed in July 16, 2003 letter from John Ambrose be addressed with three
subheadings: -
Permit must
be administratively recertified every two years -
If problems
arise, applicant must come to Planning Commission for resolution -
The SUP does
not transfer upon the sale of the property The Carsleys
want to know what date will administrative review be held?
The date of the Township Board of Trustees’ approval. Dave Hamann
seconded. Motion carried
5-0. Preliminary Site Plan Review # 03-03 –
Pardiac Shell Addition Robert Deipert introduced himself as Mr. Pardiac’s architect and requested that the Site Plan Review be tabled for tonight due to inadequate information on the Site Plan. Dave Hamann seconded.
Motion carried 5-0. Proposed Rezoning of Darakjian Property Present were Ian Schonsheck, 51331 West Pontiac Trail, Wixom, Schonsheck, Incorporated, and Ara Darakjian, Darakjian Properties, 29333 Northwestern Highway, Southfield. Mr. Schonsheck’s presentation tonight is in response to John Ambrose’s, Township Planner, assessment of the request to rezone 59 acres from Mobile
Home Park (MHP) to Urban Residential (UR.)
Ian Schonsheck stated the buildable area on the parcel north of the CSX Railroad is severely limited by wetlands, grades and proposed mitigation. The residential concept plan shows how buildings with a smaller footprint can be set on the site in harmony with the natural features. Industrial
development requires large flat rectangular sites for the building and
adjoining parking. John Lowe asked John Ambrose to summarize his review letters dated June 10, 2003 and August 15, 2003. The June 10th letter recommended the request be denied. This request was previously reviewed; however, the applicant did not submit the requested materials when the original review was done. The requested information has a significant impact on the recommendation concerning the rezoning petition. The Township’s current Master Plan (March 1992) designates this area for mixed urban land use. This proposed rezoning from MHP to UR is one of the few areas for high density
development or commercial or non-residential type uses. Based on letter dated August 1, 2003 from the Livingston County Department of Public Health (LCDPH), concerning a plan review of the Marion Township Manufactured Homes Community, which is generally located in the vicinity of the subject property, the general site suitability for development was discussed. Of particular interest is that this area of the Township, north of Interstate 96 in Section 1, has several gas wells and pressurized gas pipelines ranging from 4-inches to 20-inches in diameter at depths four (4) feet below ground surface. These gas wells and pipelines are regulated by Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company, who have indicated that there are several gas wells and pipelines in this area, however, the applicant’s rezoning materials makes no mention of these facilities. Also, the LCDPH feels that the presence of pipelines in this area presents a public health concern in that there was an explosion just a few miles south of the subject property, which was caused
by the deterioration of a pressurized pipeline. John Ambrose’s recommendation to rezone 59 acres of land
from MHP to UR is modified as follows: · The area north of the wetlands and west of National Street (as extended to the south) be rezoned to the UR, Urban Residential District;
and ·
The
remaining area remain zoned in MHP with the option of possibly rezoning this
area to Light Industrial (LI). The reasons for this recommendation are as follows: 1. The proposed UR zoning will provide a buffer between residential uses to the west (City of Howell) and the existing land use patterns found in the northern portion of the subject site as there are existing industrial uses that are located adjacent to or in close proximity to this portion
of the subject site. 2. Also, the UR as previously noted is a high density residential category that is capable of having single-family detached units developed at a density of 2.9 units per acre and up to 10 units per acre for multiple-family developments, which are permitted in the UR District. This
land use category is consistent with the Township’s current comprehensive
plan or master plan. 3. The proposed rezoning is more suitable the northwest corner of the subject site with the remaining area being more suitable for the current
zoning classification (MHP) due to the existing topography. 4. In the overall scheme of sound planning practices, a community needs to have adequate land set aside for non-residential use (commercial and industrial) in order to provide an adequate tax base that will help support the required services and infrastructure. Without such a tax base, the Township’s residents will feel the brunt and burden of supporting the services and infrastructure that are needed to function as a successful community. Also, the loss of industrial land in the Township at this location will most likely not be found or gained elsewhere in the community, as there are no suitable locations remaining for industrial development. Therefore, the option of rezoning the southern portion of the subject site to light industrial has merit as it will be adjacent
to other light industrial areas as well as the CSX Railroad, where it is
conducive to locate industrial uses. John Ambrose also strongly recommended that before rezoning any of the land in the subject rezoning petition, it is strongly recommended that the Township require the applicant to supply the Planning Commission with accurate and detailed information concerning the location of any gas wells and/or pipelines that may be located on the subject site. If there are significant gas wells and pipelines located on the subject site, it would be recommended that the rezoning request be denied, which is consistent with the recommendation of the Livingston County Department of Public Health. on 1 and how that will impact the
northern portion and could change the map substantially. mitigation of the road and on-site mitigation and it’s been stated the wetlands are not high quality and what they are building is improving to higher quality wetland. Mr. Schonsheck also stated that there’s only one well and one line on their property and there’s no easements to the west of that wellhead. Debra Wiedman-Clawson commented that Panhandle has one to the north. Based on topography there will be multiple type buildings that would be detached condominium units of
approximately 900 to 1400 square feet. that if this was rezoned, where would they put a MHP, if that housing had to be provided. Mr. Schonsheck has expressed this is an all or nothing proposal. John Lowe agrees that it would not be
prudent to change zoning at this time. specific to affordability type of cost. John Ambrose stated it has nothing to do with affordable housing but what Mobile Home Commission and courts have stipulated that you can’t
exclude mobile homes from your community, which this land was set aside for. Jean Root made a motion to deny the
rezoning for the Darakjian property, Tax Code No. 4710-01-200-018 for the
following reasons: 1.
Letter
dated, August 15, 2003, from John Ambrose & Company in its entirety 2.
Referencing
Livingston County Department of Public Health Preliminary review letter
dated August 1, 2003 regarding Highland Mobile Home Park 3.
Applicant
had stated it was an all or nothing proposal at this time. Dave Hamann seconded.
Motion carried 5-0. Proposed
Rezoning of Howell Industrial Center (formerly Darakjian) John Ambrose stated recommendation was to approve rezoning of 32 acres from MHP to LI primarily would be compatible with his letter of June 10, 2003. There was no response to the Call to
Public. Jean Root made a motion to approve the rezoning for the Howell Industrial Center, LLC, tax codes 4710-01-200-001 and 4710-01-200-002 based upon the recommendations of a letter dated
June 10, 2003 from John Ambrose. Dave
Hamann seconded. Motion carried 5-0. Preliminary
Site Plan Review – Fox Meadows Pat Kehoe from Advantage Engineering reviewed John Ambrose’s letter on landscaping and stated it was their interpretation that Section 6.13 of the ordinance pertains to screening
between land uses. A greenbelt and series of landscaping plantings have been
provided. John Lowe asked if in area of detention pond, the elevation is changing in 25’ slope? It was stated that it will be above water level with a grade change of 924 down to 920. John Ambrose confirmed that Section 6.13 does indicate that landscape requirements are between residential and non-residential uses. However, under 6.24, which is a landscape buffer, it states Planning Commission may require a landscape greenbelt buffer between “any use”; states a 20’ wide greenbelt established around side and rear and could be natural vegetation or landscaping. In light of Section 6.13, for a landscape buffer along a greenbelt area that has
virtually nothing in it now, the standard of one tree for every 20’ makes
sense. John Lowe verified detention area has changed and a fence will be put in, 3 on 1 slope. The top elevation of the pond will remain the same; all changes of grade will be inside; the trees
will be on the outside. Debra Wiedman-Clawson pointed out that page six is incorrect with tree line on the west side of property, east of Lot 27. There’s a small hedgerow next to pole barn and entire existing pine tree row that was left out and is to remain on Lot 27. There are already 35+ trees. Debra Wiedman-Clawson agrees with John Ambrose that some
buffering is needed. The big
issue for screening would be on Mason Road and one side on the east side of
the field. Pat Kehoe stated 20’ sign easement will be addressed about six months down the road. John Ambrose concurred that as long as landscape is shifted on-site and sign is addressed, there’s no
problem. 1.
Item number
1 will go away because pond will be a 3 on 1 slope all around and will be
fenced. 2. A typographical error in the Livingston County Drain Commission Guidelines dated August 2001 concerning the calculation of the bankful flood volume was discovered recently and was told to go ahead with the 5160 in the formula rather than 8170 that affects the number of holes or where the holes will
be placed in the outlet structure and changes nothing on the site plan. Item 5 is also not a correct statement. A 25’ drainage easement was provided with a berm and swale that runs along the property. The swale itself is within the 25’; some of the berm
goes out of the 25’ easement, but we don’t need the easement around the
berm. The 25’ easement is the
appropriate size. Basically, the detention pond is set up in the general common area and there’s a 25’ easement on the adjacent property to account for the grading that’s needed to put the pond in.
That easement needs to be shown more clearly on the site plan. Basically, they are saying that the road needs to be a foot wider. We don’t agree. We have a 31’ back-to-back curb section road. We’ve designed that on every county and private road
we’ve done in the past ten years. In
talking with Gary Markstrom, he agreed.
Item 8 is basically a statement.
We realize that once we get site plan approval, we have to submit
plans for water permit. Item 9 is a statement pertaining to the placement of hydrants. On some lots, if the house is on the back of the lot, they won’t be within 250’ of a fire hydrant. One of two things can be done: either additional hydrants can be added, or a restriction can be imposed that would require the building be put on a certain portion of the lot. Item 10 is a comment regarding possibility of surrounding sanitary sewer and the water main so it goes down Burkhart Road and Mason Road. This is a very costly endeavor. There are fiber optic phone lines. There is an existing utility easement. A reasonable compromise would be to provide a stub on the water and sanitary sewer and then provide an easement to Mason Road for future township connections. Gary seemed to feel that was a viable option.
correct. Fox Meadows owns everything other than 25’ easement. The property would be .997 acres, which is permanent lot line and easement is 25’ to the west from that. John Lowe suggested on that basis to change the wording to protect the trees, berms, and holding capacity of detention ponds. The wording should be “permanent
grading, greenbelt and drainage easement.” Item 3 was addressing size of holes and making a bigger retention pond. John Lowe questioned if there’s a problem in increasing size of easement on Item 5 due to if berm is not part of
easement and if someone doesn’t like hump in backyard. Pat Kehoe stated
that would not be a problem. Items 7 and 8 are okay. Item nine, John Lowe commented that 250’ distance is an MHOG requirement and could hydrants be shuffled and maybe not add one. John Lowe asked if they came in and wanted to build to back of it, push to the building envelope? John Ambrose said if in addition to site plan and include it in master documents.
John Lowe asked them to incorporate the 250’ distance in the
documents. addressed for a way to take care of homes along Mason Road; everything flows downhill toward that point and intersection of Mason and Burkhart. He also commented that a suggestion was made that township could come in with some of the costs as far as sewer caps to get it extended to cover their costs to accommodate people in future and brought this up for a possible joint venture. Pat Kehoe commented time is of the essence and would be main issue with that. It was suggested to
provide a stub and easement along the back. under construction for the 25’
easement. However, Les Rodwell also pointed out
that the “No Parking – Fire Lane” signs shall be posted on the fire
hydrant side of the roadway. Debra Wiedman-Clawson stated the Fox Meadows grading plan, which shows outside of perimeter on page three, and soil erosion plan on page six, appears to be within fenced area. Debra Wiedman-Clawson questioned whether they will grade between the two greenbelts. Pat Keough said they will. Page five does not have Lot 17 depicted. She would like to see existing tree line added to Lot 17 with wording “existing trees to remain”. She also stated there’s an existing hedgerow that
lines detention basin, which should be added.
There is only one street light at entrance. Debra Wiedman-Clawson removed herself from the board and expressed concerns about 25’ sewer easement. She asked where the dirt reserves would be on the 25’ easement when sewer and water is being put in? Pat Keough said it would be temporarily hauled away if there isn’t room. She also questioned who would bear the cost of removing two 30”+ maples when they die due to tying into the water and sewer system. Carroll Strange said it could be added to the Master Deed that the association would absorb the costs. On page 20 of the Master Deed, it says flat roofs may be installed over Florida rooms, porches or patios. The zoning ordinance requires a 4:12 pitch. Another concern is dog animal pens. The township and county cannot control barking dogs. stated they cannot make dry ponds due to outlet being so restrictive (15” tributary area) make up difference of total volume of water coming off site in the permanent pool and that it could maybe
be addressed at a later date. That’s required by the Drain Commission. regarding storm sewer with emergency overflow that goes out into road, and Pat Kehoe stated county has looked at it and it’s acceptable. The rim elevation for overflow is 921 and then
overflow would go to the emergency overflow. along back of and association Master
Deed would take care of trees if they died. of .997 acres and permanent easement. Jean Root pointed out that this was tabled June 24, 2003 with no preliminary site plan approval. Pat Kehoe stated they do not want to
document/approve easement until they have site plan approval. for Fox Meadows based upon lengthy discussion to resolve many issues at which time they will come back with final site plan for further review. Jim Anderson seconded. Motion carried
5-0. of the minutes to address issues
before next scheduled meeting, September 23, 2003. Mike Boss requested Planning Commission revisions. Due to problems with Edison corridor through property, they eliminated the walking path within the corridor and changed it to walking path that connects the two roadways and the sidewalks within the development would stay as proposed. A bus type structure was replaced with detailed plans of landscape play structure. Final discussion was that Edison will not take a second position on the property they own in terms of easement. So the Road Commission will not accept the roadways into their system unless Edison does that, which they won’t do. Blossom Farms’ Master Deed document
is written so that it can be converted if it should change in the future. public roads but cannot get beyond issue with Edison so therefore they need to be private roads. Master Deed and bylaws provided for that that says it’s up to the Road Commission to
take over the roads when they will, until then to be funded privately by
homeowners. happens when lines cross like County Farm Road and it was explained the roads were there first. John Lowe had a conversation with Mike Kehoe, Township Attorney, and was satisfied
it meets their needs. Dave Hamann questioned if thee was a private road maintenance agreement? Mike Boss stated it’s in the Master Deed and it’s assumed by the Homeowner’s Association and it’s
not a separate agreement. property, if issues come up with having to go through this, two neighborhoods would not have disagreements to go over this criteria for private road? Mike Boss stated they don’t have a right to connect, which is a negative aspect. John Lowe commented potential for expansion is really on one side by Gerald Knight’s. The other parcel is
10 acres. as subject to Item 1, the letter from Mike Kehoe dated, August 26, 2003. Jim Anderson seconded. Debra Wiedman-Clawson abstained. Motion carried 4-0. Jean Root made a motion to move
the proposed rezoning from New Business to after Blossom Farms.
Jim Anderson seconded. Motion carried 5-0. purchase agreement on property. There
are two parcels and one is owned by Mr. St. Onge who is selling the property
to Mr. Adler. 1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with existing land use patterns found in the general location of the subject request. The UR (Urban Residential District) is a high density residential category that is capable of having 10 units per acre for multiple-family developments, which are permitted
in the UR District by Special Use Permit, which is also consistent with the
applicant’s plans for the subject site. 2.
The proposed
rezoning would be in harmony with the existing zoning pattern that would lay
east, south and west of the subject site. 3. The proposed rezoning request is in keeping with the Township’s Master Plan and the planned land use policies that have been adopted by the Township
for the subject site. 4. The proposed rezoning and potential resultant land use would provide an excellent land use buffer from the I-96 corridor to the north and from commercial
zoning and development located to the west of subject site to other
single-family residential developments located south and east of subject
site. 5. This rezoning recommendation does not imply that the attached site plan for a proposed attached condominium project meets the requirements of the Township’s Zoning Ordinance nor does it imply any sort approval for such a development. The Planning Commission needs only to consider the proposed rezoning and the potential uses allowed in the UR District. By no means should there be any discussion concerning the applicant’s proposed project as this could
be construed to be contract zoning, which is illegal in the State of
Michigan. 6. If the subject site is rezoned to the UR category, the applicant will need to submit for both site plan approval and Special Use Permit approval, the latter requiring
a public hearing. Jim Anderson asked if there are any pipelines and John Lowe stated they are located on the north side of expressway and one is located near the road at the subdivision east of
expressway. Mike Boss indicated the title work they have does not show
anything on the property. Jean Root made a motion to hold Public Hearing for the rezoning of Tax ID # 4710-01-300-030, 031 & 032 for September 23, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Proposed
Ordinance Amendments Jean Root made a motion to table Section 6.14 – Home Occupation – until next Regular scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Section
6.29 – Open Space Preservation – New Language Review of Site Plan
Checklist John Ambrose addressed new language for Site Plan Checklist. Revisions are in italics. Also, Item E was added due to last meeting and Planning Commission members approved this. Mike
Kehoe suggested this go back to Public Hearing due to significant language
being added. Jean Root made a motion to set the Public Hearing for September 23, 2003 at 7:15 p.m., for Section 6.29, Open Space Preservation option. Jim Anderson seconded.
Motion carried 5-0. John Ambrose reviewed redesign of Site Plan Checklist and actual application page and asked committee to review and make any additions or deletions or revisions. All items on first page are part of site plan review and requirements out of township ordinance. This makes applicant fully aware of what committee will be reviewing this plan
for and what is required to be addressed. pre-application conference. Dave Hamann asked when a pre-application fee is determined for pre-application conference, do they normally only include the costs of the outside services and
it was answered yes. Plan Review first two items have an
optional pre-application conference and an optional conceptual site plan
review. photograph overlay and John Ambrose
stated that would be part of ordinance and part of language under “Site
Plan Review”. Jean Root made a motion to table Site Plan Review Checklist until further review and additional information is provided. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion carried 5-0. CALL TO THE PUBLIC Paul Stephens, 3063 Norton Road, lives across from new subdivision, Turtle Creek, and is interested in hooking up to water and septic. He stated
the township has provided leads but cannot find the lead and cannot find
documentation. be a 4 x 4 stake that can be found with a metal detector and the township has videotapes of distance from manhole that comes out of main which
gives distance along front of property and will give a 4’ or 5’ area to
look at. ADJOURNMENT
Dave Hamann made a motion to adjourn at 10:45 p.m. Jim Anderson seconded. Motion carried 5-0.
|
||
