|
|||
|
|
MARION TOWNSHIP AGENDA and DRAFT MINUTES February 15, 2005 CALL
TO ORDER: MEMBERS
PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: CALL TO THE PUBLIC: Agenda Items Only - 3 minute limit APPROVAL OF AGENDA: February 15, 2005 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR: January 10, 2005 Special Meeting OLD BUSINESS: Section 6.20 Private Roads Serving Single-Family, Multiple-Family and
Commercial Developments
NEW BUSINESS: CALL
TO PUBLIC: ADJOURNMENT:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
JOHN LOWE, CHAIRPERSON
JEAN ROOT, SECRETARY
JIM ANDERSON
DAVE HAMANN
DEBRA WIEDMAN-CLAWSON
ANNETTE MCNAMARA, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
PHIL WESTMORELAND, ORCHARD, HILTZ & MCCLIMENT
ANGELA CAMPBELL, ORCHARD, HILTZ & MCCLIMENT
PAUL SIERSMA, CARLISLE/WORTMAN
MIKE KEHOE, MILLER, KEHOE & ASSOCIATES ****************************************************************** CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called
to order at 7:32 p.m. APPROVAL OF
AGENDA Jean Root motioned to approve the agenda as presented. Dave Hamann seconded. Motion Carried 5-0. INTRODUCTION OF
MEMBERS The Planning
Commission members introduced themselves to the audience. CALL TO THE
PUBLIC Ken Tyler 5200 private roads and questioned the second handout, are they related to one another? Ken Tyler complemented the
Planning Commission on the pre-existing non-conforming private roads Proposed text, yet questioned why American Association of Street, Highway and Traffic Officials (AASHTO) standards
were not mentioned in second set of proposed text. Jack Lowe clarified this is a workshop. Tonight is not a public hearing it is an opportunity to discuss and receive
input from the public. APPROVAL OF
MINUTES Dave Hamann motioned to approve the January 10, 2004 Special Meeting minutes. Jim Anderson seconded.
Motion Carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS Section 6.20 Private Roads Serving Single-Family, Multiple-Family and Commercial Developments Mike Kehoe opened the discussion with the proposed text 6.20 A and 6.20 P on pre-existing non-conforming private roads. He has also submitted amended text for previous submittals to the Planning Commission; two have already had public hearings that he was not aware of. Mike Kehoe would like the Planning Commission to consider two options for private road language. At the last Planning Commission meeting the problems regarding private road developments that have been approved and additional splits are applied for, the township refers to the zoning ordinance in place at the time for the additional splits. The Planning Commission has seen amended language addressing this in Section 6.20 paragraph 3, application and review process. Mike Kehoe asked the Planning Commission to choose the first paragraph, that refers to splits or the second paragraph, which refers to land use permits. He does not expect the Planning Commission to make a
decision tonight. Mike Kehoe referred to the current zoning ordinance, which does not address future splits on pre-existing
non-conforming private roads. He
read the proposed text and the second option. Mike Kehoe answered
yes. Jean Root likes language that requires additional site plan review, thinks the average person can understand this text. Jack Lowe asked if
this conflicts with the Land Division Ordinance. Phil Westmoreland yes, if they meet the requirement of the public land act, the township cannot legally deny a land
division. Discussion ensued on
State of split a property if it meets all the requirements and the township denying a land use permit. Wording such as no new primary residents will be approved without an amendment to the original site plan. Or a sentence stating a split does not entitle an owner to a land use permit for a primary residence. All agreed on inserting ‘no new developable lots/units may be created for which a land use permit will be issued without an approved amendment to the site plan’ and a definition of developable
lots/units. Mike Kehoe will
amend the proposed text to cover 6.20 J 3. Jean Root asked if
this would affect decks, pools, accessory structures. Mike Kehoe answered
no; a primary structure must be in place for accessory structures. Annette McNamara noted Mike Kehoe was asked to submit proposed text for 6.19 B Access Controls, 6.24 Landscape Buffer and 6.20 E 1 for the February 22, 2005 regular meeting. Public hearings were held on the amendments for 6.24 and 6.20 E 1 on January 25, 2005. Those items will be on the
February agenda with the exception of 6.20 C Right of Way Width. Jean Root asked if
this was just cleaning up the language from the public hearings. Annette McNamara
answered yes. Jack Lowe informed the audience members the February 22, 2005 agenda will include Section 6.24 Greenbelt Buffer, proposed text addresses greenbelts where a 66’ right of way and entrance to a road are adjacent to a property line, the 66’ right of way will need a 25’ greenbelt between it and the property line, to minimize impact to adjoining property. Section 6.19 Access Controls, lots/units that are part of a
development must access a road interior to the development. Mike Kehoe read the new sentence added to 6.20 A, and the creation of Section 6.20 P, which would address pre-existing non-conforming private roads. Mike Kehoe read the purpose and intent of 6.20 P then sub
section 1 and sub section 2. Jack Lowe asked if the
Planning Commission had any questions. Jim Anderson has a question about AASHTO standards that are in effect at the time the application is submitted to the township. Does that mean if the road met current requirements in say 1960, and a split is requested, does the road meet 1960 standards or the standards at the time the land division application
is submitted? Mike Kehoe answered this reads they have to be brought up to the standards at the time the division is created. Jack Lowe asked Phil
Westmoreland how the AASHTO standards have changed in the 20 years. Phil Westmoreland answered the road width has changed, cul-de-sac radius increased, multiple changes have been made over the years. There are provisions to violate the rules for roads with a 25 mph speed limit and lower. Most subdivision streets are 25 mph and lower, so long as you meet health, safety and
welfare issues. Debra Wiedman-Clawson
noted private roads do not have speed limits. Jack Lowe wants to avoid Zoning Board of Appeal cases with multiple variance requests to the AASHTO standards. Jack Lowe asked if it would be reasonable to pick out the highlights and relate back to those standards without
going to a 4” book. Phil Westmoreland said township can pick out highlights they want to maintain as a consistent design feature. Highlight road widths, cul-de-sac radius, site distance and curb requirements. If AASHTO standards change, Planning Commission will evaluate the zoning ordinance and decide if they want to
change. There are typically
changes every 15 to 20 years. Jack Lowe also asked
how they compare to Livingston County Road Commission (LCRC) standards. detail and have their
own book. Jack Lowe noted LCRC standards book is not as involved as AASHTO standards book and may be easier to reference.
Our zoning ordinance makes reference to LCRC standards. Phil Westmoreland said
LCRC requirements are good. Jack Lowe noted existing roads have a 50’ cul-de-sac and would not be able to expand to 75’ to meet current standards.
There are other requirements that cannot be met.
Jim Anderson noted the proposed text reads in 1960 a road is built at a certain specification. In 2005 an owner applies for a land division and the township says they have to bring the road up to current standards, this is not what the Planning Commission wanted and that is the way this reads. Debra Wiedman-Clawson suggested a minimum depth of gravel, this is where most of the poor road conditions.
For pre-existing non-conforming private roads it is a safety issue. Jean Root noted
residents come to the township and complain that their roads are sub
standard. Debra Wiedman-Clawson
the township is not responsible. Discussion on proposed text stating the township has a private road maintenance agreement template and the necessity of developing a one. Currently Mike Kehoe reviews private road maintenance agreements on an individual development basis. Suggestions of accepting existing agreements and updating. If there is no agreement in existence the township can provide the template and it is the
owners’ responsibility to put into place. Further discussion on
where the responsibility lies, with the township or with the property owner.
Jean Root felt the property owner that wants to split property and profit from it should bear the brunt of the cost of
upgrading and getting the other neighbors to sign up. Debra Wiedman-Clawson
disagreed. Jim Anderson asked Mike Kehoe if the township adopted this language and a person wants to split their property and doesn’t follow the zoning ordinance and we go after them can they sue the township and win.
Can we stop them if they cannot get their neighbors to sign the
agreement? Mike Kehoe said we can provide in our zoning ordinance they have to do it yet the neighbor might succeed in keeping them from doing it. Neighbor could sue to prevent the expansion of the road. The township can get involved in litigation yet the township is not liable from that standpoint. If it says it is a private road easement that is more difficult to stop as opposed to an easement that is described as an
easement for ingress and egress. Charlie Musson suggested reading the Land Division Ordinance, the Planning Commission is discussing things they don’t
have any control over. Mike Kehoe responded that getting a division of a piece of property comes under the land division act totally separate from the zoning. We blur the lines when we talk about if someone can get a land division what is the status of the private road. Again, if they meet the land division requirements they can get a split. We can’t talk about zoning issues in regards to that land division application. Mike Kehoe does not think a road that was built to 1960 standards should carry anymore house until it is brought up to
2005 standards. The increase in
numbers and density needs higher standards. Jack Lowe suggested
the township come up with a reasonable set of standards. Discussion on getting 51% of the homeowners on the road to sign an agreement and coming to the township for a special
assessment. CALL TO THE
PUBLIC Larry Diedrick 3371 Sesame - they have a special assessment, their road is 22’ paved, will this make them non compliant with the zoning ordinance? Jack Lowe answered no. They wrote a maintenance agreement for them and
it works well. road and got a maintenance agreement in place, they pay for it themselves. How does this cost get passed along? the others don’t make that much of an investment, yet they must become part of the maintenance agreement. Charlie Musson suggested language in the agreement anyone who buys property has to sign a document they will
participate with the township in the automatic consent of a special
assessment. Dan Lowe 2441 Norton suggested the Detroit Edison way. The first person to upgrade, the next person to split has to
pay a percentage back to the first person. Charlie Musson asked
if the legislator give the township the authority to do? Mike Kehoe will look
into it. Ken Tyler, 5200 Richardson. Noted AASHTO standards are the best. Felt a minimum of 24’ width and 6” of crushed stone is reasonable, you cannot ask someone to put sand under an existing road. He asked the Planning Commission if the township has adopted the International Fire Code, allowing 30 lots/units
on a road with one point of access. Steve Majors, Pheasant Run. Relate standards to the number of parcels served by a road. A tiered requirement. Debra Wiedman-Clawson reminded him you have to look at the maximum number a road can serve. Gerald McCann, 883 Hurley. His road could not be upgraded like what was discussed tonight. The road Gerald McCann
lives on has exceeded the maximum of 28 lots/units.
Gary Poma, on his 10 acre parcel
as Jack Lowe suggested he
consult an engineer to see if standards could be met. Jim Barnwell, 127 S. Tompkins. Expounded on the question of where the road ends. Is it the intent the upgrade is on the entire road or up to a property and a cul-de-sac is placed on the property. He also suggested an entire Section related to pre-existing non-conforming private roads instead of including
it in Section 6.20. Jack Lowe closed the
call to the public at 9:05 p.m. Jack Lowe asked Mike Kehoe, Phil Westmoreland and John Enos to work on the proposed text for the next workshop. Copies of the proposed text will be available one week prior to the next special meeting. Jean Root motioned to hold the next workshop on March 14, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. and tentatively on April 11, 2004 at 7:30
p.m. Debra Wiedman-Clawson
seconded. Motion Carried 5-0.
Dan Lowe expressed the position that it is not acceptable to ask a land owner who would like to split property to have to upgrade the entire road. He also agrees with a percentage being paid after the investment on behalf
of another. Jean Root wants text
that would prohibit site condominiums off of private roads. Other Discussion Debra Wiedman-Clawson would like the township to look into the auto service station operating within the Wellhead
Protection Area on allowed in this area. Jack Lowe asked Mike Kehoe what is necessary to protect open space and common areas in developments from defaulting on taxes, being sold to a developer and built on. How are we making sure these
areas protected? Mike Kehoe answered most do not even have a tax id, and are never assessed, thus cannot go into default. He suggested working with the township assessor to make sure these are handled properly. Jim Anderson asked how
other townships handle that situation. Ken Tyler gave a few
examples. NEW BUSINESS No new business. ADJOURNMENT Dave Hamann motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion Carried 5-0.
|
||
