A
regular meeting of the Charter Township of Oxford Planning Commission held
Members Present:
Members Absent: Curtis,
Silvester
Also Present: Planner Lopatin, Engineer Sharpe, Planning & Zoning
Coordinator Walkaus, Recording Secretary Harrison, Cameraman, and approximately
7 audience members.
The
meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman Berger at
RESPECTS
TO THE FLAG
NOTING
OF ROLL
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Black moved, Fitchena seconded to approve the
Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 2 Motion
Carried
APPROVAL OF
THE MINUTES
Ordinance Review Sub Committee Meeting Minutes –
Black moved,
Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 2 Motion Carried
Planning Commission Regular Meeting –
Black moved, Lepping seconded to
approve the Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of
Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 2 Motion Carried
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC
HEARING or ON AGENDA
No Public Comments on items not on the Agenda were
given.
COMMISSIONERS’
COMMENTS, INFORMATION FROM ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, COORDINATOR, RECORDING
SECRETARY
Commissioners’ Comments: Commissioner
Lepping noted an article in the Oxford Leader regarding a retaining wall in the
Waterstone subdivision that failed. He
was concerned about the retaining walls at Oxford Crossing and on future
projects, someone should be inspecting them.
Commissioner Berger recommended on
walls of large sizes -- they be designed, accepted, and approved by the
Township Engineer. Engineer Sharpe
responded that engineering standards will be updated in 2007 and this can be addressed.
Commissioner Bell
commented on a new light pole at Christ The King Church that appears to be
causing quite a bit of light pollution on
Commissioner Fitchena asked about the use of PODS
behind commercial buildings for storage, the current Zoning Ordinance does not
address this as far as she knew. Planner Lopatin stated that it is loosely
addressed in the current Ordinance but in the proposed Ordinance there is language
that talks about where outdoor storage is allowed. It was recommended that Building
Administrator Darling look at this.
PC and ZBA Coordinator
Comments: Ms. Walkaus noted the five Planning
Commissioners, Trustees, and ZBA Members who recently completed the Citizens
Planner course have now completed the second phase which is the presentation of
their Capstone projects. One was a mileage
project done by 3 members and the other was a review of the Township’s REU
schedule which was done by 2 members.
Both projects have been presented to their prospective sub-committees
and to the Township Board.
Zoning
Administrator Comments: Per Coordinator Walkaus, Zoning Administrator
Darling had no comments for tonight’s meeting.
Recording
Secretary Comments: None
PUBLIC
HEARING(S)
Proposed New Zoning Ordinance 67A (currently known as
Revised Ordinance 67)
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
Black moved,
Fitchena seconded to open the Public Hearing.
Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 2 Motion Carried
Planner Lopatin gave a brief Power Point overview presentation
and an overview handout of the complete draft for the benefit of the Public and
Commission Members. The overview showed
some of the key points of the Ordinance.
Carolyn Hepp,
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Black moved,
Roesner seconded to close the Public Hearing.
Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 2 Motion Carried
Commissioner
Comments:
Commissioner
Fitchena and Planner Lopatin explained Trustee Belairs concern regarding older
subdivisions with lots significantly smaller than the norm today, she did not
want them excluded. There are provisions
in the current Ordinance for two lots that are too small, that abut each other
and under common ownership, being combined automatically for zoning
purposes. The provision allows those
lots to remain two distinct usable lots when it’s consistent with the prevalent
neighborhood. Commissioner Fitchena added the sub-committee did a nice job on the
re-write.
Commissioner Roesner commented on Section 5.7. It is her opinion that Agricultural and
Industrial should have the same standards for caretaker units. The way it is written, there is no protection
against a caretaker home being used as a rental unit. After discussion, Planner Lopatin agreed with her concern and
recommended combining 5.7 (A) and 5.7 (B)
so that it applies to all caretaker quarters (SF-3 AG, I-1 & I-2), changing
5.7 (B) #3 so it only applies to Industrial, and change 5.7 (B) #4 making the
building official responsible for requiring periodic inspections instead of the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Roesner had a question regarding Article
5, 5.19 – is boarding now Ok without a Special Land Use? Planner
Lopatin said, yes, as long as it is being conducted in accordance with the
GAMPS or with Right to Farm Act requirements.
He added that these are just Use regulations that apply everywhere. She commented that in the industry, there is
not a place that just boards; training, lessons, and sales usually also take
place. Planner Lopatin clarified his
answer by referencing Section 2, 2.2 Definitions – Horse Riding Stables and
Sales Barn where it states “6 or more horses or ponies …….” Ms. Roesner also commented on Article 6, 6.24
(E), the description is vague and doesn’t want it to be abused.
Planner Lopatin explained it is the Planning Commission’s
role tonight to consider the Ordinance and make a recommendation to the
Township Board. With an approval
recommendation, the draft will be sent to the Zoning Coordinating Committee at
the County for comment and then forwarded to the Board for them to take
action.
Bell moved,
Roesner seconded to recommend approval of the draft Zoning Ordinance subject to
changing section 5.7 to consolidate the standards under 5.7 (A) and 5.7 (B) to
apply both to Agricultural and Industrial properties, changing 5.7 (B) #3 so
that it only applies to Industrial, and changing 5.7 (B) #4 so that it’s the
building official not the Planning Commission requiring periodic inspections.
Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 2 Motion Carried
Planner Lopatin commended the Planning Commission and
the Ordinance Review Sub-Committee for all their efforts. This is one of the most thoroughly
considered, examined, and prepared Ordinances that he has worked on.
OLD BUSINESS
AMENDED SITE
PLAN –
Becky Phelps on behalf of Independence Village of
Waterstone and Joe Hammond with RBS Construction made the presentation. They are addressing items that need to be
completed on the site and seeking a resolution.
Through Commissioner Bell it was established that the
residents rent their units and the facility is at 81% capacity. It is his opinion that it is not fair to the
residents that the project was not completed as originally approved as they
were probably solicited on some of those amenities. It should be completed as approved. Ms. Phelps explained that it was her
understanding that some of the items that were presented were review items by
the Developer and proposed not to be built, but was the position of the
Township they were part of the approved site plan.
It was the general consensus of the Commissioners to
install the working fountain, it would be OK to eliminate the fishing dock and
the band shell due to reasons discussed, instead install a formal garden,
additional benches and conversation areas.
If the Commission decides to take this route, it was suggested the
petitioner come back with a list of what they are eliminating and adding. It should be drawn with an overlay to the old
site plan so that whatever it ends up as, is the new site plan and would be looking
for specifications on the benches, plantings, focal features, etc. Commissioner Lepping noted that he would like
all the trees that died and removed, replaced.
Planner Lopatin commented that because the amendment
to the site plan are cosmetic changes and not infrastructural changes, only an
improved detailed landscape plan should be submitted so that the consultants
can evaluate the adequacy of the species and size of the plantings they propose
to use and specifications on the benches etc. to assure they meet the standards of the
Township. Because of this, it is
reasonable to say they should not have to submit a complete and engineered site
plan. He noted that in the Attorney’s
review, they would want something on the revised plans stating that this site
plan is effective only as it differs from the original otherwise the original
is what is still in effect.
Commissioner Berger commented that he was not on the
Commission when the site plan was approved but is inclined to agree with Mr.
Bell that they should stick to the original site plan. He and Mr. Bell then referenced the
Attorney’s letter of
Discussion: Commissioner
Roesner commented the problem is they already have a C of O. Commissioner Bell stated they should have put
everything in the way the plan was approved by this body and enacted by this
body.
Roll Call Vote:
Ayes:
Nays: Fitchena
Absent: Curtis, Silvester
Motion
Carried
Commissioner Fitchena explained her no vote. She reviewed all the minutes pertaining to
this project, many times it appears the Commission was trying to work out a
solution and made suggestions. Also Ms.
Phelps often ended her communications with: if you need more information, anymore
help or would like a different direction, call and discuss. It was her opinion they were not blatantly
not going to comply. Commissioner
Lepping agreed but said had it come up in a more timely fashion, closer to
related negotiations, he would have looked at it differently.
NEW BUSINESS
PRESENTATION
– M-24 /
Jeff Edwards,
Transportation Planner, and James Hartman of the Corradino Group gave a Power
Point presentation and provided a handout and CD copy of that
presentation. Mr. Edwards noted that
over the last four or five years MDOT has made Access Management a
Commissioner
Berger asked if any communities have been successful getting existing
properties to share access drives. Mr.
Edwards said, yes, some communities have been proactive and have talked to
business owners in areas where there are problems. He also said that as the Planning Commission,
they have some flexibility in the Zoning Ordinance they can use when someone
comes in for a rezoning.
Commissioner
Fitchena commented she has been on the Planning Commission for 25 years and
this is the first time MDOT has worked hand in hand with the communities and
learned a lot from the meetings she attended.
She also noted that any site plan that comes before the Township will be
sent to MDOT for input before any action is taken.
Engineer Sharpe asked how to implement and get funding
to put some of these recommendations in place.
Mr. Hartman said that if there are areas that propose a safety issue and
MDOT considers they can get a return on their investment (there is a cost
associated with reducing crashes), they will do it and have done it in this
corridor. There is Transportation Enhancement
funds for some of the pedestrian amenities that are recommended and if
driveways are closed creating aesthetics opportunities, Transportation
Enhancement money can also be used.
COMMUNICATIONS
AND/OR COMMITTEE REPORTS
Violations
Report
Violations
Report dated
Commissioner Fitchena noted the pond next to Empire Wok, received a call from a resident whose property backs up to it, and since the improvements were done at that location, water from the pond is up over their property.
Sub Committee Reports
Acreage/Lot
Gravel Inspection Sub Committee – Committee Member Black reported that the inspection
was done on December 1st and went very well. Sandman has pulled out all the berms and
removed the scales and have a layout of approximately 120 home sites which the
Commission probably won’t see until the economy gets better. American Aggregate North on the west side,
most of the northern property up to
Ordinance Review Sub Committee – No December meeting.
Reports from Representatives to Other Township
Boards/Committees
Highway/Roads Committee – Earlier presentation of the Access Management Plan
Professional Services Committee – Nothing to report.
Safety Path Committee – Nothing to report.
Water and Sewer Committee – Committee Member Roesner noted a current schedule
has been provided to the Commissioners that details all the projects. Trustee Behnke and Zoning Coordinator Walkaus
made an REU Study presentation to the Water & Sewer Committee at their last
meeting and also presented it to the Board last night. She also relayed the Commissioners’ comments
to the Committee regarding Aragona’s petition for tap-in fee relief. The Committee responded they are reviewing it
and looking at possible creative financing or payment options. They are sensitive to the need.
ZBA – Had a
meeting on November 20th. The
request was denied. It was also noted that there is a new member, Mr. Cryderman
who will be replacing Mr. Dywasuk.
CONSULTANT
REPORTS
Planner – Carlisle/Wortman – Nothing to report.
Engineer –
Giffels-Webster – Nothing to report.
BILLS
Giffels-Webster Invoice #092299 dated
Black moved,
Fitchena seconded to approve Giffels-Webster Invoice #092299 dated 10/9/06in
the amount of $650.00.
Roll Call Vote:
Ayes:
Nays: None
Absent: Curtis, Silvester
Motion
Carried
Giffels-Webster Invoice #092485 dated
Black moved,
Kucemba seconded to approve Giffels-Webster Invoice #092485 dated
Roll Call Vote:
Ayes:
Nays: None
Absent: Curtis, Silvester
Motion
Carried
Black moved,
Fitchena seconded to approve Carlisle Wortman Invoice #261245 dated
Roll Call Vote:
Ayes:
Nays: None
Absent: Curtis, Silvester
Motion
Carried
Black moved,
Kucemba seconded to approve Carlisle Wortman Invoice #261243 dated
Roll Call Vote:
Ayes:
Nays: None
Absent: Curtis, Silvester
Motion
Carried
Planning and Zoning News Invoice in the amount of
$380.00.
Black moved, Fitchena
seconded to approve Planning and Zoning News Invoice in the amount of $380.00
Roll Call Vote:
Ayes:
Nays: None
Absent: Curtis, Silvester
Motion
Carried
ADJOURNMENT
Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Absent: 2 Motion Carried
______________________________ ____________________________
Thomas Berger, Vice-Chairman Tom Lepping,
Secretary
Date approved: 01/11/2007
lmh