|
|||
|
|
MARION TOWNSHIP AGENDA and DRAFT MINUTES April 26, 2005 CALL
TO ORDER: MEMBERS
PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: CALL TO THE PUBLIC: Agenda Items Only – 3 minute limit APPROVAL OF AGENDA: April 26, 2005 Regular Meeting APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR:
March 22, 2005 Public Hearings
March 22, 2005 Regular Meeting OLD BUSINESS:
NEW BUSINESS: 1. Proposed Text Amendment 8.02 E 4&5 Suburban Residential - Uses Permitted by Special Use Permit 2. Proposed Text
Amendment 8.01 E 17 – Shooting ranges, including gun, rifle, skeet, trap,
pistol and archery clubs CALL
TO PUBLIC: ADJOURNMENT: DRAFT MINUTES
MEMBERS
PRESENT: JOHN LOWE, CHAIRPERSON
JEAN ROOT, SECRETARY
JIM ANDERSON
DAVE HAMANN, CO-CHAIRPERSON
DEBRA WIEDMAN-CLAWSON OTHERS
PRESENT:
ROBERT W. HANVEY, SUPERVISOR
ANNETTE MCNAMARA, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
PHIL WESTMORELAND, ORCHARD, HILTZ & MCCLIMENT
PAUL SIERSMA, CARLISLE/WORTMAN ************************************************************************ CALL
TO ORDER APPROVAL
OF AGENDA John Lowe read the
Planning Commission agenda for the regular meeting, Jean Root asked to review items under Old Business 8.01E 6 & 7 combined with 8.01 E 17 under New Business and make corrections together while in E. Motion by Jean Root to accept the agenda as amended, 2nd
by INTRODUCTION
OF MEMBERS The Planning
Commission members introduced themselves to the audience. CALL
TO THE PUBLIC No response.
John Lowe closed the first call to the public. APPROVAL
OF MINUTES 2nd by Jim
Anderson. Motion carried 4-0. Debra
Wiedman-Clawson abstains. In the regular meeting minutes, Jean Root wanted to include Section 6.18 in the motion to send Sections 8.01 F 7, 8.02 F 7 and 6.20 E to be brought to the April 26, 2005 meeting for the Planning Commission to review. Then send the two text amendments off to Livingston County Department of Planning (LCDP) along with 6.20 F. Motion by Jean Root to approve the minutes from Debra Wiedman-Clawson
abstains. OLD
BUSINESS Proposed
Text Amendment 6.19 B - Lots to have access John Lowe said this was supposed to pertain to pre existing non-conforming and it doesn’t really state that clearly. And, as it is, it could be interpreted every subdivision there is and every road there is. There
needs to be some language in there. Debra Wiedman-Clawson said it needs to be said under the reference of the section we put in for non-conforming
existing roads. John Lowe said also in the paragraph where it says in order to obtain a land use permit for a new parcel or lot created
on a road that needs to be a private road. Debra Wiedman-Clawson, this is under Access Controls. The problem I have is how we are going to leave what we have
in here, and add this paragraph. John Lowe, I haven’t
decided exactly where to put it, but the language needs to be clarified. Debra Wiedman-Clawson, can we take B, Lots to Have Access that’s in our current ordinance and reword the whole thing to include non-conforming, or stick another section under it that say’s non-conforming? This is quite a large paragraph for all parcels and lots having access because it’s more referring
to the new roads. John Lowe Lowe, would
you suggest adding it to B as language? Debra Wiedman-Clawson said or breaking it up B into subsection one and two, one for conforming and for non-conforming. So that there’s a distinction between the two, because most of that is in the current is for
conforming. John Lowe said let’s
do B 1 and B 2 then? Debra Wiedman-Clawson
Wiedman-Clawson said that’s my suggestion would be. Jim Anderson Anderson said so you would have paragraphed one either pre existing non-conforming or item
two related to? Debra Wiedman-Clawson
said what’s in the current ordinance now.
John Lowe said I think I would make this secondary because it’s much less use, I don’t think I would make that the
first. Jean Root said we have issues with people wanting to divide their land on private roads that are sub-standard, so I think this was kind of a way to contain that quickly prior to us getting in force a non-conforming private road ordinance. So I would like to make sure this gets done soon if we’re going to make any more
changes to it. Debra Wiedman-Clawson said I think if we put it in a one and two section and clean up the language like Jack had on here a private road that was in existence prior, clean that up a little bit, I don’t see why it
can’t go. John Lowe, I think it
could stay in there really it shouldn’t be the leader. Jean Root said right but rather than redoing it and saying one and two, if you look down on page 6.19 of our ordinance book, they have two sections, their just not labeled. But under B it has two paragraphs, why not
just add this as a second paragraph? Discussion ensued on
Private Roads as to where to put paragraph. John Lowe is it clear
as to where we put this? John Lowe need motion
to send this to County, we’re at that point. Jean Root asked do you want in the motion that the text is to be amended to include that in every spot it is to refer to
a private road. John Lowe is this
going to make them demonstrate we don’t want to get into the bureaucracy
thing. Discussion ensued on
definition. Jim Anderson said what your missing in this paragraph is what you really want, not that you stop the land use, but that you stop it so that a road maintenance agreement can be established, that’s not in here and that is what you want. You still haven’t addressed the problem of people on roads with no maintenance agreement. They go and split it and no body establishes a road maintenance agreement. Jean Root motion to send Section 6.19, Access Controls, Sub Section B Lots To Have Access, as a matter of format just adding a second paragraph the submitted text from today’s meeting should include adding a private where necessary in sentence one and in sentence two as discussed to be sent to Livingston County Planning for their review and comments to be forwarded to Board of Trustees for their review. Debra Wiedman-Clawson second. Roll call – Jim Anderson yes, Jean Root yes, Proposed
Text Amendment 3.02 - Definition of Landscape Buffer Planning Commission
reviewed paper work. Jim Anderson
questioning under BERM should the word intensity be density? John Lowe said I think
what their talking about is the use of the property. Jim Anderson is that the right word? You could have two adjacent residentially uses, one with a real high density and one with a real low single family density. You may want to screen that so it’s in different
intensity. John Lowe, I think
what this would cover if we had a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Discussion ensued
regarding intensity. Jean Root asked if it
should read intensity or intensive uses. Jim Anderson asked
under John Lowe stated or
landscaping it doesn’t really address that. Discussion ensued
regarding definition of landscaping or mowing and vegetation (planting). Jim Anderson stated mowing could be the option of the adjacent property owner and could do what they want. Jean Root motion to send Section 3.02 Definitions/Landscaping as submitted with the exception of one adjustment on item one, BERM to Livingston County Planning for their review and comments to be sent the Board
of Trustees for their review & approval.
I would like to amend my motion to include under item one the whole sentence should state, “A mound of earth graded, shaped and improved with landscaping in such a fashion as to provide a visual and/or audible screen and a transition between uses or differing intensities or intensive uses. Debra Wiedman-Clawson second. Roll call Jim Anderson yes, Jean Root yes, John Lowe yes, Proposed
Text Amendment 6.20 E 1 - Condominium Projects Jean Root said this went to county and they didn’t like it. After out last meeting we agreed to add plat or condominium or development. Section 6.20 E 1 deals with private roads and somewhere along the line as it was originally sent to county it included the word private road, from a private road that is not interior road. It was previously submitted stating ‘no lots unit shall be permitted driveway access from a road that is not an interior road of the private road development’. The county thought
that was confusing and vague. 6.20 A and 6.20 B paragraph has moved in those sections and will place the language in the appropriate paragraph 6.20 A and 6.20 B, the pre-existing non-conforming roads or the new private roads. A
point of clarification. Jean Root would like to motion to sent 6.20 E 1, Connection to County Roads to the Board of Trustees for their review and approval as submitted on April 26, 2005, as amended adding private road, adding the word private before the second road in the submitted document. Jim Anderson second.
Roll call, Jim Anderson yes, Jean Root yes, John Lowe yes, Wiedman-Clawson yes.
Questioning which
submission is the correct one to be reviewing.
Should be dated Version 2.
Phil Westmoreland said
its 40 - 50 range. Debra Wiedman-Clawson
asked what John Lowe was looking for. John Lowe replied
woodlands. Want one to put up on
a board. Discussion ensued as
to the detail wanted on a site plan. one that is current. John Lowe said standard is fine. Minimum of one copy same scale the plans are submitted, to pick out what is adjacent. Debra Wiedman-Clawson said there are going to be contours on these, why muddy with all these extra drawing. And if they do a topography will have accurate topography of the property not going off what GIS
has, you’ll see it in the site plans. John Lowe thinking of reference when looking at the pictures of woodlands on it you see valley’s on that picture because otherwise not going to be able to transfer the drawing you’re looking at necessarily to those
contours when you have the picture on the easel.
Debra Wiedman-Clawson asked what you are trying to get at by looking at those and knowing where the valleys are. John Lowe said if you have steep slopes you wanted to save on the site you would be able to tell where they were.
Have preservation portion of the thing when doing PUD.
Discussion ensued
regarding PUD. Jim Anderson commented in this revised Site Plan Requirements on page 18-5, sub-heading NATURAL FEATURES, 1 through 5, we do require item #4 under Natural Features, “Location of existing woodlands delineated with symbolic lines tracing the spread of the outermost branches” on the plan which would show in addition the topography you would be able to see the woodland areas and wetland
areas are in relation to the grade. John Lowe said that would be my point, should have it first not at the final when the preliminary has been
approved. We’re done at that
point and nothing we can change. Jean Root said I would think all the natural features that whole sub-section 1 through 5, Natural Features, should be moved up into the Preliminary. Also noted item #10 deals with “Existing natural and man-made features to be retained or removed” might want to add that to 1 through 5. Debra Wiedman-Clawson noted #12, “Location of wetlands, drainage courses, and floodplain areas”. I’m wondering if some of this isn’t already in here under a different wording, so it’s not only in the preliminary but in the
final, so they have to carry it forward. Discussion ensued on
Natural Features. John Lowe refers back
to the number of copies required. Annette McNamara said it calls for 20 site plans. I need 7 copies to send out to various county agencies and our consultants for review and approval. They come back like so many have and don’t meet the
zoning requirements, and I throw away 14 site plans that cannot be recycled. Debra Wiedman-Clawson said Livingston Recycle will take any thing on bond paper because we recycle over 20 bags
of paper a week from our office. Phil Westmoreland “Most everybody know they have to go through a review before they submit the sets before the Board. Initially we want to know how many sets we need for their agencies, submit those before it goes to next level, planning commission or board, that’s going to review it at that point you then call
them and ask for the addition sets. Discussion ensued on
number of sets and review time need. meets our check list as an administratively complete package. It meets our check list from an administratively complete package point of view that’s in our rules and procedures. So when you say administratively complete, that means she doesn’t have to go in there and check everything in, it just said administratively. It’s complete, you time stamp it from the township’s point of view. The Township Planning Act say’s we have to see that request within 45 days. But if he say’s he’s going to keep sending it back and forth between them until they get everything fixed and you have a situation like one of the people we’ve had here, that don’t want to fix what they say we’re going to sit here and not have
it before the planning commission in 45 days. Discussion ensued
regarding developers getting their site developed. Jean Root said they’ve reviewed it, found 60% of it wrong, they send us the review letters that say’s we’re still working with these people we’re addressing the planning commission and we table it. Our policy should be not to sit there and debate it for 45 minutes. If we’ve got that letter from the two people we hire, our consultants, and they say flat out it’s not ready to go. Then before we even establish
communication with that person, we say look! Debra Wiedman-Clawson said the only thing I can see is their looking at it as a technical, now we send it back and say
fix this, give them one chance. Phil Westmoreland gave
his input to this problem. Make
sure it’s going to work on the site. More discussion ensued regarding final and preliminary and if developer could combine and have to pay a fee. Debra Wiedman-Clawson leave the application with the 20 and put under general information a presentation photo.
Highlight items you want to see. Discussion on Site
Plan Requirements and placement of requirements in document. Jean Root asked how do the applicants notify you and what point do they need to notify you to come out and take a
look at it. Phil Westmoreland - What we‘ll do is once they have their construction plan approval we set up a pre-construction meeting that‘s part of the requirements in the engineering requirements. Hold the pre-construction meeting we tell them the number to call how much notice to give, what to call to inspect, what the township wants us watching on what kind of basis. We give them a nice thick packet of pre-con meeting notes that everybody gets a copy of with numbers of everyone, developer, emergency numbers so we can contact them if there is an issue. We go through that in great detail as we go through construction drawing review. A check point between the designer and a transition with the contractor then it hands off to have everyone together saying here are your requirements going forward. Discussion ensued on
Site Plan Requirements. Jean Root motion to table Article XVIII, Site Plan Review Requirements, until revisions have been made for our review.
Jim Anderson second. Motion
Carried 5-0. Jean Root motion to table Site Plan Review Application & Checklist. Debra Wiedman-Clawson second.
Motion Carried 5-0. Jean Root wants to review 8.01 F 6 & 7, Rural Residential Site Development Requirements, 8.02 F 6 & 7, Suburban Residential Site Development Requirements and 6.18 F & G, Condominium Projects. All the same, adding language, want continuity. Only concern is it went to Livingston County Department of Planning (LCDP) and item #7 under 8.01 and 8.02 should be the same language.
Jean Root motion to send text amendment 8.01 F 6 & 7 to LCDP and amend item #7 to read “No lots or units shall be permitted driveway access from a road that is not an interior private road of the plat or
condominium or development. Upon
Township Board for their review and approval. If the County disapproves, it shall be sent back to the Planning Commission for their review. Jim Anderson second. Roll call Jim Anderson yes, Jean Root yes, John
Lowe yes, Jean Root motioned to send 8.02 Suburban Residential to LCDP for their review. Item #7 shall be amended to read “No lots or units shall be permitted driveway access from a road that is not an interior private road
of the plat or condominium development.
To be sent to their review, upon approval it shall be sent to the Township Board. Disapproval back to Planning Commission for their review. Jim Anderson second. Roll call Jim Anderson yes, Jean Root yes, John Lowe yes, Jean Root motioned to send proposed text amendment Section 6.18 F & G, Condominium Projects, item #F 1 amended to read ‘No lots or units shall be permitted driveway access from a road that is not an interior private road of the plat or condominium or development’. Sent to LCDP for their review and comments, if approved sent to the Board of Trustees for their review and approval, if disapproved sent back to Planning Commission for their review. Jim Anderson second. Roll Call Jim Anderson yes, Jean
Root yes, John Lowe yes, Discussion ensued about Text amendments 8.01 E 6 & 7, Rural Residential Uses Permitted by Special Use Permit and 8.01 E 17 Shooting ranges, including gun, rifle, skeet, trap, pistol and archery clubs. Jim Anderson wishes
more discussion regarding child care location. Jean Root motioned to hold a public hearing for Section 8.01, item E #6 and #17, Rural Residential Uses Permitted by
Special Use Permit, Carried 5-0. Jean Root motioned to hold a public hearing for Section 8.02, item E and amending item #4, Suburban Residential - Uses Permitted by Special Use Permit. Jim Anderson second. Motion Carried
5-0. Jean Root motioned to table Section 6.20 A, Pre-existing Non Conforming Private Roads, Section 6.20 B, New Private Roads and Private Road Maintenance Agreement template until our next workshop meeting CALL
TO THE PUBLIC Mr. Ramirez, 519 Crofoot. I was here in February and asked the township to come out and have a look at my private road. It was constructed back in 1997 and have been going through quite a few issues trying to get
it completed. It is a well
constructed road. At the end of March a meeting hadn’t been set. I asked Mr. Hanvey to please not schedule a meeting between April 9th to 16th. An appointment was set for the 11th, so I couldn’t be there. Wish I had been there because I think a lot of these issues that I do have could have been answered. But, I do appreciate that you
came out. In 1997 I received a list of issues that had to be answered prior to receiving final approval. I met all of those issues and then in 1998, a little history about the road, I received another list before receiving final approval. About two hours ago, Mr. Hanvey gave me a list of things I had to accomplish before final approval. Like I said earlier, I think a lot of these could have been answered on the site. But, what I see here on the list, if you will look at the list, mostly are maintenance issues. That road was constructed 8 years ago. It hasn’t been touched in 8 years and I think you would agree that it’s in pretty good shape for something that hasn’t been graded or touched in 8 years. What I would like to know, is if according to this list, It’s going to cost me a couple thousand to hire a bull dozer to come out, make these clean up changes to the road, am I finished? I want a little assurance the process is completed. Like I said, I’ve gone down this road quite a few times. I’m
just trying to work with you and get this done. John Lowe is turning
this over to the Township Engineer. Phil Westmoreland said as far as the issues go, there aren’t a lot of them. Nothing to significant. The road is not in bad shape, needs a little up-grade, little improvement, that’s about it. And, at that point you could consider it an improved private road. Being a gravel road, even if it was a paved road, they always do require some on going maintenance, but not for necessarily approval. John Lowe said I guess what he is saying is that if you comply with the issues on the letter and he comes out and do one more walk through on the final and those issues are met, you should be good to go. Debra Wiedman-Clawson asked if there is a road maintenance agreement on that property for that road. Mr. Ramirez said yes there was during the initial first approval. You went through all the approval at the first drawing there was a maintenance agreement. Since then I have gone through and drafted three more maintenance agreements. I had my last attorney, David Walker did some correspondence back and forth with your attorney and they together put together a final road maintenance agreement. Phil Westmoreland and Mr. Ramirez to work out a schedule for walk through and work on the maintenance list. CALL
TO THE PUBLIC No response.
John Lowe close call to the public ADJOURNMENT Motion
Carried 5-0.
|
||
