1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10 RE:
11
12
13
14
15 Stenographically
recorded by M. Jane Allen, Notary Public
16 and Certified Shorthand Reporter, CSR
#2724, at
17 Township Fire Station, 300 West
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P.O.
(517) 393-2884 * FAX (517) 882-0985
2
1 MR. MARTINEZ: The September, 2005
2 Township Planning Commission meeting
will now come to order.
3 The first item on the agenda
of business is to
4 hear the public present. Is there any public here that
5 wishes to speak on a Planning
Commission issue?
6 Hearing none, we'll approve
the agenda.
7 The next item on the agenda
is to approve the
8 minutes of the previous meeting. Has everyone had a chance
9 to peruse the
minutes? Any
additions or corrections? If
10 not, the minutes stand approved as read
-- as printed.
11 Reports. Board of Trustees, Mr.
Blair.
12 MR. BLAIR: Yes.
Since our last Planning
13 Commission meeting, the Township Board
has had two board
14 meetings. At its meeting on August 23rd, the Township
Board
15 approved the Planing
Commission's recommendation to grant
16 the special use permit to Keith and Pat
Lundberg to operate
17 the bed and breakfast on
18 recommended.
19 We also, just for informational
purposes, received
20 an offer for the Township property, or
some of the Township
21 property on
22 At our meeting last night, we
discussed a couple
23 of items. I guess just so everybody knows, because we
have
24 the public here, October 8 is going to
be a busy time around
25 the Township. There's a library open house from
P.O.
(517) 393-2884 * FAX (517) 882-0985
3
1
2 Week, so we're going to have an open
house here from
3 to 4:00.
4 The other thing we discussed
was we're working on
5 the water agreement for the Kammphuis property, which is the
6 property
that's on Billwood behind Don's Truck Stop. If you
7 recall, that involves running the line
from the
8 Lansing-Creyts
Road property around over to Billwood. So
9 we're working on that, and we're
awaiting some further
10 communications with the developer, Mr. Kammphuis, on that
11 right now at the moment.
12 The other thing is we have
had discussions with
13 the Convention Bureau in regard to a --
is that a hotel
14 tax? A bed tax, now that we have AmeriHost, and basically
15 what it goes to do is fund the Greater
Lansing Convention
16 Bureau, some advertising and that kind
of thing that would
17 help the hotel out, so we're looking at
a 4 percent tax on
18 that.
19 I guess that's probably it.
20 MR. MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Blair. Board of
21 Appeals, Mr. Kubicek.
22 MR. KUBICEK: There was one appeal in the last
23 month, and it involved a house on
24 setback issue. They wanted to build a carport on the front
25 of their house, and the house had kind
of a notch in it so
P.O.
(517) 393-2884 * FAX (517) 882-0985
4
1 that the carport would fit in the notch, and the problem was
2 the setbacks were changed from 80 feet
to a hundred feet,
3 and this would encroach into the
setbacks because the house
4 wasn't that
far back. So the variance was approved
with the
5 stipulation that they couldn't get
within 90 feet of the
6 center line of the road and couldn't
protrude past the side
7 line of the house. So that was approved, and that was the
8 only appeal.
9 MR.
10 The next item is No. 5 under
unfinished business,
11
12 at our meeting in August, we postponed
this to the September
13 14th, 2005 date, and thus it is up for
Commission action.
14 I also want to inform you
that just a few minutes
15 ago, I received correspondence,
I believe it's from Mr.
16 Lange, it's not signed by anyone. Is Mr. Lange here?
17 MR. LANGE: Yes, sir; it is from me.
18 MR. MARTINEZ: Is that yours?
19 MR. LANGE: Yes.
20 MR. MARTINEZ: Since it's your request, would you
21 please read it to the audience?
22 MR. LANGE: Sure.
23 MR. MARTINEZ: And the Commission.
24 MR. LANGE: Since the last Planning Commission
25 meeting, we have worked diligently to
acquire arterial
P.O.
(517) 393-2884 * FAX (517) 882-0985
5
1 designation for
2 authorities.
3 A short time ago, actually at
4 afternoon, the recommendation to change
5 rural major
collector to a rural minor arterial was
6 submitted to the Transportation Review
Committee, the TRC,
7 of the Tri-County
Regional Planning Commission.
8 Specifically, the
recommendation was to change the
9 road functional classification if
10 special use permit requested by
11 The TRC is a recommending
body to the Tri-County
12 Regional Planning Commission.
13 Like I said, earlier this
afternoon, the TRC
14 approved the recommendation as
submitted. The
15 recommendation
now moves to the Tri-County Regional Planning
16 Commission Committee of the whole for
final approval. This
17 action could
be as early as September 28th.
18 Due to the timing of the
Tri-County Regional
19 Planning Commission action, we
respectfully request further
20 extension of the Windsor Township
Planning Commission until
21 the regularly
scheduled October meeting. And
the Tri-County
22 Regional Planning Commission meeting of
the whole board is
23 scheduled for, I believe,
24 28th.
25 MR. MARTINEZ: Any discussion on Mr. Lange's
P.O.
(517) 393-2884 * FAX (517) 882-0985
6
1 request?
2 MR. BLAIR: I guess I have a question for our
3 attorney on
this. Based on what we did last time
with the
4 extension, and the logic behind the
fact that it was the
5 applicant asking for it, would we be --
I guess is there any
6 different reasoning behind granting an
extension this time
7 versus what we did last time?
8 MR. ROBINSON: Well, the issue before was the
9 requirement in the Ordinance that the
Planning Commission
10 had from within a certain time period
from the date of the
11 application. Mr. Lange indicated at that time that we
waive
12 that requirement in view of his request
the matter be
13 postponed so that he could pursue the
same issue. So we are
14 essentially doing
the same thing at this time. So I
think
15 the facts are identical. The question is does the Planning
16 Commission desire to exercise its
discretion to grant a
17 further extension or not. I think it's within your
18 discretion.
19 MR. MARTINEZ: My own personal comment as one
20 Planning Commission member is that we
granted a previous
21 request, and
the thought behind it, that would be sufficient
22 time to do what it is that he had to
do. That's one part of
23 it.
24 The other part of it is, as I
understand our
25 Zoning Ordinance language, our Zoning
Ordinance language
P.O.
(517) 393-2884 * FAX (517) 882-0985
7
1 deals with now. The request that we have deals with a
2 future issue,
and I have some difficulties working around
3 that.
4 As it's been explained to me
many times, we are
5 supposed to interpret our Zoning
language for the now
6 situation and not
necessarily future. That kind of
work and
7 thinking we do with master plans,
comprehensive plans, that
8 kind of thing.
9 I have always understood that
whatever Zoning
10 Ordinance language we wrote was not
futuristic, that we
11 interpret it as it is now, and when
this language was
12 written, that was my understanding of
that language. And we
13 sent our written language as a
Commission to the Board of
14 Trustees, and they
approved our language. So I'm having
15 some difficulties with the future part
of it.
16 Any other comments?
17 MR. MARSH: Well, my only comment, this extension
18 can go on and on and on and on. This last meeting, I wasn't
19 in favor of this last extension, so I
haven't changed my
20 mind any.
21 MR. MARTINEZ: Tied to that, Mr. Marsh, I think
22 everyone needs to understand the
Planning Commission is a
23 recommending body. We don't make the final decisions. The
24 Board of Trustees makes the final
decision. So I as one
25 member of the Planning Commission think
and feel that it's
P.O.
(517) 393-2884 * FAX (517) 882-0985
8
1
time to move the issue where the decision will be made, and
2 that's the Board of
Trustees.
3 We've held public
hearings. We had 200 people
4 plus at public
hearings. I have over 400 pages
of
5 transcripts and
various documents. We have
accommodated the
6 applicant by
granting an extension. We have tried to
7 accommodate all parties, both in favor
and opposing, and I
8 think the Commission has done a very
fair and equitable job
9 at this time, and I think it's time
that we move on the
10 issue and take some action.
11 Do we have a motion for
granting an extension? Do
12 we have a motion for denial of the
extension?
13 MR. MARSH: I make a motion we deny the extension.
14 MR. MARTINEZ: Moved by Mr. Murray. Do I have a
15 second?
16 MS. PRAY: Second.
17 MR. MARTINEZ: Second by Ms. Pray that we deny Mr.
18 Lange's request for an extension. Any discussion on the
19 motion? All those in favor of the motion signify --
excuse
20 me.
21 Mr. Secretary, let's have a
roll call for the
22 vote.
Signify by saying aye or nay.
23 MR. MARTINEZ: Nay.
24 MR. BORUCKI: Aye.
25 MR. MARSH: Aye.
P.O.
(517) 393-2884 * FAX (517) 882-0985
9
1 MS. PRAY: Aye.
2 MS. JOHNSON: Nay.
3 MR. KUBICEK: Nay.
4 MR. BLAIR: Nay.
5 MR. MARTINEZ: So we have a vote of, what is the
6 final count?
7 MR. BLAIR: Three to four.
8 MR. MARTINEZ: Nay for denial of extension?
9 MR. BLAIR: Three for the denial -- no, three
10 against the denial,
so it passes four to three. Should
we
11 try that again?
12 The motion before us is the
motion to deny the
13 request for extension. I'll read them again.
14 MR. MARTINEZ: Aye.
15 MR. BORUCKI: Nay.
16 MR. MARSH: Aye.
17 MS. PREY: Aye.
18 MS. JOHNSON: Nay.
19 MR. KUBICEK: Nay.
20 MR. BLAIR: Nay.
21 MR. BLAIR: The motion to deny the extension
22 passes four to
three.
23 MR. MARTINEZ: Mr. Secretary, clarify the roll
24 call, please.
25 MR. BLAIR: We had three nays, and everyone else
P.O.
(517) 393-2884 * FAX (517) 882-0985
10
1 voted in favor of the motion to deny
the extension. I'm not
2 saying it right. Help us out.
3 MS. TOWSLEY: Excuse me.
The court reporter
4 cannot record anything happening at the
table with all the
5 commotion. Please, in the audience, refrain from
speaking
6 while the Board handles their
actions. Thank you.
7 MR. ROBINSON: Well, just listening to the count,
8 it was four in opposition to the motion
and three in favor,
9 and the motion was
to deny the request for extension. So
10 the motion fails.
11 MR. MARTINEZ: Therefore, the request is granted.
12 The vote on the request for the
approval for an extension
13 until the last -- excuse me -- the
October, regularly
14 scheduled October meeting is granted to
the applicant by a
15
16 things straightened out.
17 Mr. Foulds
has a comment.
18 MR. FOULDS: As a staff person, Mr. Chairman,
19 point of order, seems to me that the
issue was on the agenda
20 for the Planning Commission, and the
only motion to remove
21 it should have been a motion to grant
an extension for 30
22 days.
I'm not sure what you accomplished by denying the
23 extension. Seems to me you're going to need to vote to
24 approve the extension. That should have been the motion
25 before the Board.
P.O.
(517) 393-2884 * FAX (517) 882-0985
11
1 MR. ROBINSON: Well, ordinarily, I would agree.
2
If we were adopting legislation here, it would then require
3 an affirmative vote to do that, but
here, the only
4 alternative to a vote -- or to a motion
to deny the
5 extension
that fails is if we grant it. I mean,
that's the
6 only --
7 MR. FOULDS: It's just confusing they way it was
8 done, in my opinion.
9 MR. ROBINSON: But I don't think there's any other
10 way to
interpret the action.
11 MR. MARTINEZ: Mr. Lange, your request by a four
12 to three vote for an extension until
the regularly scheduled
13 October meeting is granted.
14 MR. LANGE: Thank you.
15 MR. MARTINEZ: Next item is new business, Morris
16 Estates II, new developer.
17 MR. FOULDS: Mr. Chairman, I have a request before
18 you for the amendment to a preliminary
plat you previously
19 approved. The plat is known as Morris Brook Estates II,
20 obviously, the Second Phase of a single
family plat with
21 access to
22 The Township previously
approved the preliminary
23 plat of Phase 1 and 2. Phase 1 of this plat has been
24
finalized in construction and construction has commenced in
25 Phase 2. There are 25 acres in Phase 2. The property is
P.O.
(517) 393-2884 * FAX (517) 882-0985
12
1 zoned R1-B Residential District. The plat meets all the
2
dimensional requirements of the R1-B residential zoning
3 district. The amendments to the plats are minor lot
line
4 adjustments due to location of on-site
septic field or lot
5 adjustments because
of flood plain or wetland areas.
6 Specifically, lots 24, 25, 26 have some
unusual configuration
7 of lot sizes that had to be adjusted to
accommodate septic
8 fields and buildability
on the lots because of proximity to
9 the flood plain. We believe, based on our review, that
10 that's been
accomplished. We have asked the
applicant to
11 verify that, and he's in the process of
doing it.
12 Your process, Mr. Chairman,
requires a preliminary
13 site plan review meeting, which was
held on Monday,
14 September 12th with the applicant to
review that
15 information, and at some point, it's
our recommendation that
16 the preliminary plat amendment for
Phase 2 be approved with
17 four conditions, the first condition
being the applicant
18 provide a revised overall plan with the
changes that were
19 proposed with Phase 2 so the Township
has a composite
20 preliminary site
plan on file for both phases. The
21 applicant
has agreed to do that.
22 Condition No. 2, the
applicant's engineer verify
23 that proposed lots 24, 25 and 26 in
fact is sufficient
24 buildable
site location for the location going by the
25 prints. Essentially, we want to verify that the site
plan
P.O.
(517) 393-2884 * FAX (517) 882-0985
13
1 can be accomplished. We believe it can. It's our
2 recommendation
that I believe it can be accomplished.
3 The final plan for Phase 1 that no
vehicular
4 access be granted for
5 front
6 regulation,
the ordinance provides the option of providing
7 sidewalks. Phase 1 does not have sidewalks because the
8 developer
intended not to provide sidewalks for Phase 2.
9 So those would be the four
conditions that we
10 identify to this minor amendment to the
preliminary plats.
11 The builder is here, Mr.
Chairman. Are there any
12 questions?
13 MS. JOHNSON: Why wouldn't they put sidewalks in?
14 MR. FOULDS: My understanding is they are not
15 existing in Phase
1.
16 MS. JOHNSON: There are no sidewalks in Phase 1?
17 MR. FOULDS: Yes.
18 MR. MARTINEZ: The Chairman will entertain a
19 motion to accept the amendment to the
preliminary plat
20 Phase 2 recommendations of our planning
consultant.
21 MR. BORUCKI: Make a motion to accept.
22 MS. JOHNSON: Second.
23 MR. MARTINEZ: Motion by Mr. Borucki,
second by
24 Ms. Johnson. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by
25 saying aye.
P.O.
(517) 393-2884 * FAX (517) 882-0985
14
1 (All Commissioners
respond aye)
2 MR. MARTINEZ: All those opposed,
the same.
3 (No response)
4 MR. MARTINEZ: Mr. Foulds, are there any changes
5 that we're to
review?
6 MR. FOULDS: Mr. Chairman, with your permission,
7 at a previous meeting, I did refer to
potential for adding
8 standards for site plan approval to
your Site Plan Review
9 Section of your Zoning Ordinance. I believe I passed those
10 out. If I did not, I'm going to pass out another
copy of
11 those.
12 Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned
previously as a
13 housekeeping matter when we discussed
and adopted the Site
14 Plan Review Section of the Zoning
Ordinance several years
15 ago, we had discussed standards. Again, these would be
16 standards that are within the framework
of the stated
17 enabling statutes for Township Zoning
Ordinances, but for
18 some reason in the final adoption of
the document, the
19 standards did not get included, so
we've been following
20 these standards.
21 These are the criteria that
we use in general
22 evaluation. They provide general guidelines, and I just
23 want to review those with you, Mr.
Chairman.
24 There are four standards, and
again, these would
25 be the criteria that the Planning
Commission would use in
P.O.
(517) 393-2884 * FAX (517) 882-0985
15
1 evaluating a site plan.
2 No. 1 would be whether
required information has
3 been furnished in sufficiently complete
and understandable
4 form to allow an accurate description
of the proposed use or
5 uses and structures, in terms of
density, location, area,
6 height, bulk, placement, setbacks,
performance
7 characteristics,
parking and traffic circulation.
8 Obviously, you have the
authority if a site plan
9 doesn't contain that information in
sufficient form for you
10 to make a decision,
just reject it. Send it back to
11 re-submit that information or deny it
at that point.
12 Standard No. 2, whether there
are ways in which
13
the configuration of uses and structures can be organized
14 which would improve the impact of the
development on
15 adjoining and nearby properties and
activities and the
16 community
while allowing reasonable use of the property
17 within the scope of district
regulations of this ordinance
18 that are applicable to this property
and proposed use and
19 structures. In other words, can the configuration of the
20 buildings and location of uses be done
in a better way,
21 better location to improve impact on
adjacent properties.
22 Standard No. 3, the extent to
which natural
23 features and characteristics of the
large trees, natural
24 vegetation, water features and similar
natural features will
25 be provided which would be attractive
to the property and
P.O.
(517) 393-2884 * FAX (517) 882-0985
16
1 environments if they were preserved,
preservation and/or
2 enhancement
of the natural drainage systems, the provision,
3 where appropriate, of scenic easements,
natural buffing and
4 other techniques for preservation and
enhancement of the
5 features as proposed by the site plan.
6 Standard No. 4, the extent to
which the proposed
7 use or uses and structures can meet the
requirements of all
8 local, state and federal agencies which
have jurisdiction
9 over the
development.
10 And we're aware we're
continually asking the
11
12 Department of Transportation if that's
appropriate or other
13 state and federal agencies if they have
some jurisdiction of
14 that proposed use.
15 Case in point would be the
A.M. radio towers which
16 were approved. They need additional licensing before they
17 can be approved by the FCC, State of
18 Mr. Chairman, these are
intended to provide the
19 Planning Commission with additional
guidelines when you
20 review and make a recommendation on a
site plan.
21 We would suggest at some point that the
revised
22 language be added to the Zoning
Ordinance what the standards
23 are.
Be happy to answer any questions.
24 MR. MARTINEZ: Any questions for Mr. Foulds?
25 MR. BLAIR: Would they be added the next time we
P.O.
(517) 393-2884 * FAX (517) 882-0985
17
1 go through the
public hearing on things outside?
2 MR. FOULDS: That would be the intention as a
3 housekeeping plan.
4 MR. MARTINEZ: Any other?
5 MR. FOULDS? That's it for me, Mr. Chairman.
6 MR. MARTINEZ: Any other business before this
7 body? Is there a motion we adjourn?
8 MS. PRAY: I make a motion we adjourn.
9 MR. MARSH: Second.
10 MR. MARTINEZ: Motion by Ms. Pray, second by Mr.
11 Marsh that this meeting be
adjourned. All those in favor,
12 signify by saying aye.
13 (All Commissioners
Responded Aye).
14 MR. MARTINEZ: All those opposed same.
15 (No
Response).
16 (Hearing Adjourned at
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P.O.
(517) 393-2884 * FAX (517) 882-0985
18
1 STATE OF
2 ) ss:
3
4 I, M. Jane Allen, CSR-2724, a
Shorthand Reporter
5 and Notary Public in and for the
6 the County of Eaton, State of
7 that the aforegoing
proceedings were taken before me at the
8
time and place hereinbefore set forth.
9 I further certify that the aforegoing transcript
10 is a complete, true and accurate
transcription of my
11 original shorthand notes of the
proceedings held in said
12 matter.
13 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have
hereunto set my hand
14 and notarial
seal at
15 acting in the
16 2005.
17
18
19
______________________________
20 M. Jane
Allen, CSR-2724
Registered Professional Reporter
21
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
22
23
24
25
P.O.
(517) 393-2884 * FAX (517) 882-0985