AGENDA and DRAFT MINUTES
January 25, 2005
CALL TO THE PUBLIC: Agenda Items Only - 3 minute limit
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: January 25, 2005
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR: December 20, 2004 Regular Meeting
Comprehensive Plan - Review Changes & Adoption
Plan Review, Inspection and Construction Standards
Proposed Text Amendment Article XVII Site Plan Review Procedure
Copperfield Villas - Site Plan Review
Pinebrook Meadow - Site Plan Review
Marion Pines - Site Plan Review
JOHN LOWE, CHAIRPERSON
JEAN ROOT, SECRETARY
ROBERT W. HANVEY,
ANNETTE MCNAMARA, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
PHIL WESTMORELAND, ORCHARD,
HILTZ & MCCLIMENT
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called
to order at 9:20 p.m.
Dave Hamann asked the agenda be amended to include the Comprehensive Plan under Old Business.
Dave Hamann motioned to approve the January 25, 2005 regular meeting amended agenda.
Jean Root seconded.
Motion carried 5-0.
Commission members introduced themselves at the public hearing.
CALL TO THE
During the approval of the agenda, it was noted that Copperfield Villas had requested to be removed
from tonight’s agenda. A resident had come to the meeting for that agenda item. The Planning
Commission asked if he had any questions or comments. The resident asked the pricing of the
homes in Copperfield Villas. The Planning Commission could not answer the question. The resident
questioned the plans noting the current vegetation to be kept, how will that be done? John Enos
answered his question
and clearing limits and buffering were discussed.
usability of the park.
John Enos answered it is more of a natural area.
Dave Hamann motioned to approve the December 20, 2004 regular minutes. Jim Anderson
Motion carried 4-0. Jean
Plan Review and Adoption
John Lowe asked the
Planning Commission members if they had any comments.
Jean Root motioned to
approve Resolution No. PC 1-25-05 and read the following:
WHEREAS, the Marion Township Planning Commission desires to adopt a comprehensive plan and
has made the necessary inquiries, investigations and surveys of the appropriate resources of the
WHEREAS, the comprehensive plan will promote the public health, safety and general welfare; to
encourage the use of resources in accordance with their character and adaptability; to avoid the
overcrowding of land by buildings or people; to lessen congestion on public roads and streets; to
facilitate provision for a system of transportation, sewage disposal, safe and adequate water supply,
recreation and other public improvements; and consider the character of the township and its
suitability for particular uses judged in terms of such factors as the trend in land and population
WHEREAS, the Marion Township Planning Commission has noticed and conducted a public hearing in
accordance with the requirements of the Township Planning Act (Public Act 168 of 1959, as
amended), said hearing
held on November 10, 2004;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Marion Township Planning Commission hereby adopts
the 2005 Marion
Township Comprehensive Plan.
Dave Hamann seconded the resolution and noted that page two of the comprehensive plan
introduction needs the date inserted, the date should also be inserted in the footer, and 2004
should be changed to 2005 on the cover page. Roll call vote: Jim Anderson, Jean Root, John
Dave Hamann, and Debra Wiedman-
Inspection and Construction Standards
John Enos asked that this agenda item and the next agenda item be combined. John Enos updated
Commission on the progress and summarized.
Chris Fleck, Advantage Civil Engineering, would like a checklist included in the protocols; too
difficult to follow. A preliminary and final site plan review is a must. He feels construction issues
are holding up site
Jean Root motioned to table Plan Review, Inspection and Construction
Standards until John Enos
Jean Root motioned to table Plan Review, Inspection and Construction Standards until John Enos
and Phil Westmoreland request placement on an agenda. Dave Hamann seconded.
Motion carried 5-0.
Amendment Article XVIII Site Plan Review Procedure
Dave Hamann motioned to table Proposed Text Amendment Article XVIII Site Plan Review
Procedure until John Enos and Phil Westmoreland request placement on an agenda. Debra
seconded. Motion carried 5-0.
Villas Site Plan Review
Dave Hamann motioned to table this item as requested by the applicant, and this item will not be
placed on an agenda until requested by the applicant. Jim Anderson seconded. Motion carried 5-0.
Phil Westmoreland asked for direction and suggested a performance ordinance instead of a regulatory
-type thing. That way, tree identification/survey is eliminated. A certain percentage of vegetation is
to remain 6 inches in
diameter or larger.
know what is on site.
Phil Westmoreland said it is up to the developer to identify trees.
Jean Root would like drip line language included. John Lowe would like to see language included that
anything other than the building envelope is not to be disturbed. Maybe they can get credit for
Space Development to give a credit for preservation and get more units for this. We have to provide
Incentive to developer was discussed.
and Phil Westmoreland request placement on an agenda. Jean Root seconded. Motion carried 5-0.
Meadows Site Plan Review
Chris Fleck asked if
this was to be reviewed as a preliminary tonight.
John Enos stated the Planning Commission is not comfortable with seeing a plan only once. This will
be a preliminary
being reviewed by Mike
be reviewed by Mike Kehoe. Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) requirements were
lights, sidewalks and signage.
John Enos summarized his review letter dated January 13, 2005, which explains how to handle
outstanding issues and
gave preliminary approval.
Phil Westmoreland summarized his review letter dated January 11, 2005. Mr. Westmoreland spoke
about the outlet at the detention basin and thinks this can be accomplished without changing the site
plan. He also spoke about the necessity of the easement agreement with the neighbor. Orchard,
Hiltz & McCliment
is recommending preliminary approval.
Jean Root questioned the lot frontage of lot 7. Chris Fleck explained there are two dimensions that
equal 85 feet.
John Lowe asked about
the water main from
development. The fire hydrant that Phil Westmoreland referenced was too far off the road right-of-
way. The water main is within the 25-foot greenbelt, there are large oaks on that lot line. Is there
enough room to move that water line within the easement to avoid the trees. If there are no trees in
the way, it is not a
problem. John Lowe would like
Chris Fleck to look.
Chris Fleck will locate any existing oak trees and move the pipe around it. Phil Westmoreland does
not think there are
any oaks within that area.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson questioned street lighting and a general note with the easement issue.
recommendations were contingent.
Phil Westmoreland stated he will not issue construction plan approval without the easement agreement.
Jean Root motioned to recommend preliminary approval for Pinebrook Meadows,
Larry McCarthy gave a presentation and expressed his frustration with the site plan review process.
John Enos summarized his review letter dated November 12, 2004. Mr. Enos has concerns that
the building envelopes on lots 3, 13 & 14 are too small, the adjacent wetlands may need to be
mitigated to build a
home. Another concern is lots 11
& 12: depending on how
calculates the 4:1 ratio, these lots may not meet these requirements. If we can come to a
conclusion on those
issues, he is comfortable granting preliminary approval.
Phil Westmoreland summarized his review letter dated January 18, 2005. Mr. Westmoreland noted
ongoing issues with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) permit. Yet this
will have no impact on a preliminary site plan approval. There is a question of the 50-foot
greenbelt and the point from where the measurement is taken. They are showing a proposed
right-of-way and an existing right-of-way. The detention basin and the cul-de-sac encroach on the
50 feet if measured from the proposed 60-foot right-of-way. It does not encroach from the
existing 33-foot right-of-way. This should be explored by the Planning Commission and will not
require major changes for the final site plan, should the Planning Commission desire a change.
Phil Westmoreland is recommending preliminary approval other than discussion on the 50-foot
Discussion of the encroachment of the greenbelt ensued. The cul-de-sac is a minor issue as it is
just within the greenbelt. The entire detention basin is placed within the 50-foot greenbelt.
There are no existing trees within this area and disturbance within the greenbelt was discussed.
Planting within the
easement without disturbance to underground utilities is possible.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson noted they already have the 60-foot right-of-way plus the 50-foot
There will be 77 feet of buffer.
John Enos said if the Planning Commission accepts this, the applicant will need to include
landscaping around the detention basin.
John Lowe questioned where the mitigation area is for the 14,000 square feet of wetland.
Larry McCarthy answered that to preserve the woodlands on the site, they applied to MDEQ
without showing mitigation on the plan. The MDEQ review letter came back with no comment.
MDEQ does not require mitigation under 1/3rd of an acre and this is ¼ acre. It is not worth it to
cut the trees for the mitigation. John Enos asked Larry McCarthy to provide documentation of that.
The 4:1 ratio requirement for lots 11 & 12 were discussed and reconfigurations of these lots to meet
the zoning ordinance were reviewed. Larry McCarthy said the owner did not want to keep the
property and this affords ownership of a large parcel for the proposed development. John Enos
reiterated to the applicant the Planning Commission is concerned with the length-to-width ratio and
the policy of
allowing distorted lots. He does not see a demonstrated purpose, unless you have something that
would benefit those
two lots as opposed to having the property go with the front house.
John Enos suggested an Open Space Preservation project, due to the unbuildable land behind lots
11 & 12. He also suggested a variance. John Lowe answered that the Zoning Board of Appeals does
not look at variances
that are economically driven.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson asked if the property lines were redrawn, how many
acres would the
Debra Wiedman-Clawson asked if the property lines were redrawn, how many acres would the
Larry McCarthy answered possibly 20 acres and would be 75% wetlands.
John Lowe asked if they planned on using engineered fill on lots 8 through
14. Larry McCarthy
John Lowe asked if they planned on using engineered fill on lots 8 through 14. Larry McCarthy
Jean Root motioned to recommend preliminary approval for Tax #4710-04-200-013, Marion
CALL TO THE
Jim Barnwell commented on preliminary versus final approval for site plan review. On the
woodland ordinance, he hears the Planning Commission say the developer will pay for this.
Keep in mind that the developer will pay for this and all the costs will be passed on to the
Dave Hamann motioned to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 p.m. Debra Wiedman-Clawson
seconded. Motion carried 5-0.