Pittsfield Charter Twp, Michigan

REGULAR MEETING December 11, 2003 7:30 P.M.

 PITTSFIELD TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 

 Members Present:Russell Banush, Julie Griess, Christina Lirones, Wilma Luna, Edward Resha, Andrea Urda-Thompson, Dennis Ward.

Members Absent: None.

Other Present: Bruce Laidlaw, Steve Slater, Marian Faupel, Jim Haeussler, Amy Remillard, Thomas Snych, Chet and Carol Bowling, Rama Ranqarajan, Paul Adler, Helen Wohnus, Jim F. Pryce, Tom Covery, Bob and Esther Pieske, Kyle Walworth, Peter Hammer, Robert Brackenbury, E. Philip DeMichele, Ann Stevens, Tracey Skrocki, Brad Klintworth, Mark Lewis, Mark Prinz, Ann Harris, Sandra Hogue, Robert Miller, Carmen Jones, Christos Andrianopoulos, Mark Baldridge, Matt Payne, James Fraser, Joe Johnson, Steven Cortese, Karl Neumaier, Kirk McIver, John Norton, Eduardo Icaza, Jacob Haas, Carter Malcolm, Terry Wilson, Lydia Clarke, Kathy Olsen, Cecelia Ellerbe, Glyanda Wicks, James Wicks, Sherri Hagar, Corey War, Leaulla Tuen, Terry Turner, Pamela Thomas, Pastor C. E. Hawthorn, Sabrina Wilson, Tikoshia Davis, Tina Saxon, Mary Rober, Debora, Andrew Green, Antinetti Dimore, Yasmin Stigler, Yvetto Daniels, Sandra L. Neal, Diana Henderson, Veronica Smith, Donover Neal, Rose M. Smith, Donna Hawthorne, Derrick Stigler, Fred McClanon, Michael Jones & family, Diria Ray, Derrick Linsey, Melodie Tolbert, Deborah Kelson, Nelson Reid, Pete Thomas, Nate Simpson, Teri Williams, Marx Tait, Dale Berry, Jamie Gorenflo, Craig Welch, Tom Manchester, Assistant Planner Paul Montagno, Assistant Planner Jennifer Black, Senior Planner and Zoning Administrator Mark Spencer, and Recording Secretary Laura Ford.

1.0 Call Meeting to Order at 7:30 p.m. / Determination of a Quorum.

Chairperson Lirones called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. A quorum was present.

2.0 Pledge of Allegiance

Chairperson Lirones led the Pledge of Allegiance.

3.0 Approval of Agenda

Motion by Commissioner Resha, supported by Commissioner Luna, to move item 7.1 of New Business to follow item 5.1 of the Public Hearing, item 7.2 of New Business to follow item 5.2 of the Public Hearing, item 6.4 of Old Business and 7.3 of New Business to follow item 5.3 of the Public Hearing, and item 6.6 of Old Business to follow item 5.4 of the Public Hearing. MOTION CARRIED

4.0 Items from the Floor

Chairperson Lirones reviewed the audience participation procedures.

Nikhil Patel, 4733 Sycamore Drive, speaking on Fairwood Green, stated there is no referendum to allow disclosure of Fairwood Green to the residents. He further expressed concern with the damages that have happened to his house caused by golf balls. He said time should be given before a decision is made so the residents can make settlements.

Karl Neumaier, 5966 Cottonwood Drive, stated he is on the Ashford Village Homeowners Association Board. He said at the September 28, 2003 meeting the Board agreed not to support the rezoning of the golf course. He then handed the agenda of the meeting to the recording secretary. He further stated the property owner of Fairwood Green should submit his tax returns for the residents to view.

A Hickory Pointe resident stated he lives behind the golf course and would like to keep the golf course.

Robert Brackenbury, Washtenaw County Commissioner representing Pittsfield Township, stated he is here to support the residents concerns about Fairwood Green. He said the Township should work with the developer to make a portion of this land park space. He also stated if this plan is denied, the Township should have a plan ready for the land. He said the County could not help by way of the Natural Area Preservation Fund, because the land has to be a sensitive area which would be wooded or wetland areas. He added the land does not qualify for this funding. He further stated he is still happy to work with the Township on this matter.

Steve Cortez, 4701 Sycamore Drive, stated he is still opposed to the rezoning of Fairwood Green.

Kirk McIver, 5080 Blue Spruce Drive, stated he received a letter from Mr. Brackenbury requesting that the residents ask the Township to deny the rezoning of Fairwood Green. He stated the land should not be purchased by the Township to satisfy a few at the expense of others. He feels there is enough open space to fill the Township’s recreational needs for now and in the future.

Marian Faupel, representing Nature’s Garden Center, distributed the [Nature’s Garden Center] court order and letters from Nature’s Garden Center supporters to the Commission. She stated her concern with the three minutes allowed for comments.

Rama Ranqarajan stated she opposes the rezoning [of Fairwood Green]. She further stated the area needs recreational land.

Jim Price, 5970 Cottonwood Drive, stated he opposes the rezoning of Hickory Woods. He said his daughter plays tee ball and this would be a great area for that use. He further stated he enjoys seeing the wildlife when he is golfing.

John Norton, 4777 Sycamore Drive, stated he paid a premium to abut the golf course. He said he does not want to see more homes there. He also stated the land was zoned recreational and the owner knew or should have known this when purchasing the land.

Amy Remillard, 5949 Cottonwood Drive, stated the golf course should be looked at closer. She feels there may be more wetlands on the site.

Tom Manchester, attorney for Jeff Fulton, stated the owner has elected to sell the property because of the loss in profits. He said a loss can be shown for the last four years on the tax returns. He stated these tax returns can be made available to the residents. He feels the Comprehensive Plan should be reconsidered. He said the area was changed ten (10) years ago by the Commission when they allowed residential developments. He said the residents that abut the golf course are making this an unfriendly environment for golfers. He mentioned this is a viable use for the area. He then asked the Commission to give serious consideration that this area will not make it as a golf course.

Jamie Gorenflo, developer for Wexford homes, stated they proposed three concepts for the homes. He said one concept was for traditional subdivision style homes, and the others were for single and multi-family homes. This land is on the western side of the property and it encompasses the woodlands and wetlands. He said the plan was developed for significant acres of land to be preserved. He expressed they want to accommodate the Township's concerns. He mentioned they were going to present this land for acquisition by the Township. He said a report was given to him by the Township Planning Consultant stating the criteria for review of the PUD. He said there were eleven (11) criteria and the Township Planning Consultant stopped at number one. He was told it was unreasonable for the Planning Commission to consider further review without having this first condition met. He feels they have satisfied all eleven (11) conditions. He further stated the Township must have anticipated the development of this land. He said the outlots and utilities to the north and south being installed should have made the Township aware. He mentioned the Washtenaw County Drain Commission (WCDC) and the Washtenaw County Road Commission (WCRC) conditions have also been met. He said the circumstances have changed around this property. He feels they have met all the requirements of the PUD.

Craig Welch, CEO of Wexford Homes, stated the original plan called for one hundred and five (105) traditional housing units. He said the homes backed to the property lines of the adjoining residents. He suggests the residents review the PUD plan and see how they have addressed many of the Townships concerns. He explained the new PUD has a ball field and preserves the wetlands and woodlands. He explained the park land will be made accessible to the residents in the north and south areas. He further stated the Township could purchase this land for an economical fee. He said if this is turned down by the Commission and the Board he will recommend the applicant pursues his property rights. He said this development will go back to the original plan. He said there will be no open space and the homes will be on the adjoining property lines. He suggested the residents look at what is the best plan instead of hoping for no development. He said this will not be upheld, the rights of the property owner are clear. He stated the circumstances around the property have changed and it is not economically viable for the owner to get a return [on his property]. He feels the property owner will be able to change the use of his property.

Chairperson Lirones read a letter from Hugh D. and Marlys J. Hoover, 4426 Yarmouth Crossing, stating they oppose the rezoning of Hickory Woods. They said the Township needs more areas for recreational use. They also stated their concern with traffic congestion.

5.0 Public Hearings

5.1 RZ 03-07 Washtenaw McKinley LLC [submitted to rezone from C-2 and R-1B to R-4]

Senior Planner Spencer reviewed Planner Schmult’s report. He stated this property is twenty-five (25) acres in area. He mentioned the property contains a large amount of wetlands, steep slopes, and wooded areas. He said the Comprehensive Plan designates this area for high density residential use. He stated water and sewer is available at Washtenaw Avenue. He said storm water can be retained in two ponds on the property. He further stated the plan calls for nine (9) dwelling units per acre. He added the R-4 district permits up to fifty-four (54) standard units and seventy-two (72) units for senior housing. He said due to the ponds and wetlands the maximum number of units would be seventeen (17) in the R-4 district. He added four (4) units will be the maximum in the R-3 district. The R-4 district includes location guidelines which are: having frontage on major roads, available public transportation, be adjacent to commercial office areas, and be adjacent to community parks. He stated the current zoning is probably not appropriate for the property. He said C-2 and R-1B is not practical due to the drainage easements.

Chairperson Lirones asked where the other R-4 zoning districts are.

Planner Spencer replied Carpenter Place and American House (Both on Carpenter Road).

Ann Stevens, of Atwell Hicks, representing the McKinley property, stated they would like to table (postpone) this matter. She said they would have further discussions with Township staff and the applicant about the concerns raised.

Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Banush, to close the Public Hearing.

MOTION CARRIED

Item 7.1 RZ 03-07 Washtenaw McKinley LLC moved to follow 5.1 of the Public Hearing.

Motion by Commissioner Banush, supported by Commissioner Ward, to postpone action on RZ 03-07 Washtenaw McKinley LLC.

MOTION CARRIED

5.2 RZ 03-08 Peter's Bldg Co. /Haywood [submitted to rezone from AG to R-1B]

Planner Spencer reviewed Planner Schmult’s report. He stated most of the wooded area has been cleared. He said single family housing borders on all sides except the west side of the property. He mentioned this area is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for 2.5 dwelling units per acre. He explained water and sewer is available. He also stated the current agricultural zoning is no longer appropriate since this parcel is surrounded by urban development. He mentioned there will be a minimal traffic impact problem.

Kurt McClure, petitioner, stated he was here to answer questions.

Chairperson Lirones opened the public hearing.

Kyle Walworth, 3565 Burnham Road, stated he is not opposed to the rezoning. He expressed concern with the possible access road that will be put in on Burnham Road. He was also concerned that cut through traffic could use Burnham Road and go straight to I-94.

Chairperson Lirones stated a site plan has not been submitted at this time.

Alan Israel, 3656 Barry Knoll Drive, stated his property abuts this property. He said he is disappointed there was not a site plan available. He expressed concern with a possible access road.

Chairperson Lirones stated a site plan is not typically associated with a land use change.

Paul Adler, 3894 Mill Pond Lane, stated the trees should have been considered.

Chairperson Lirones stated the Township now has standards for the mitigation of trees cut down before the site plan is submitted.

Carter Malcolm, 1733 Foxdale Lane, stated the residents are extremely concerned about the well being of the trees.

Motion by Commissioner Banush, supported by Commissioner Resha, to close the public hearing.

MOTION CARRIED

Item 7.2 RZ 03-08 Peter’s Bldg. Co. /Haywood moved to follow 5.2 of the Public Hearing.

Chairperson Lirones read from Planner Schmult's report of December 3, 2003. She reviewed the facts for consideration.

Chairperson Lirones read item 9.01 - The petition is consistent with the Township’s adopted Comprehensive Plan. The plan designates the area for suburban residential use, at a density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre. The R-1B district is intended to be used in such areas. She asked the Commissioners if they agreed this land is intended for this use.

The Commission agreed the area is planned for this intended land use.

Chairperson Lirones read item 9.02 – The current Agricultural zoning is no longer appropriate for this parcel. Conditions have changed since this property was zoned Agricultural.

The Commission agreed the zoning is no longer current.

Chairperson Lirones read item 9.03 - The approval of the petition would have no precedent effect on this area.

The Commission agreed the approval of the petition would have no effect on the area.

Chairperson Lirones read item 9.04 - Public water and sanitary sewer are available to the property. Storm water runoff can be detained on-site and discharged under controlled conditions into the stream that crosses the property. Ellsworth Road has the capacity to handle the additional traffic that would be generated.

Commissioner Resha asked how big the stream is and if there are any wetlands.

Planner Spencer stated there is a small amount of wetlands, less than an acre. He said they have not been field verified. He further stated staff will suggest a one hundred (100) foot setback from the stream, and a twenty-five (25) foot wetland buffer. He said there have been previous soil erosion violations on this property.

Chairperson Lirones asked if the trees could be replaced. She also asked if there is a way to estimate the number of trees removed.

Planner Spencer stated those issues can be dealt with on the site plan. He said there are aerial photos available to help estimate the number of trees removed.

The Commissioners agreed Ellsworth Road can handle the additional traffic, and there is public water and sanitary sewer available to the property.

Chairperson Lirones read item 9.05 - Approval of the petition should have no adverse effects on the values of the neighboring properties for residential use.

The Commission agreed there will be no effect on the resident’s property values.

Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Banush, to postpone action on petition RZ 03-08 Peter’s Building Co. /Haywood, and direct staff to write a resolution for approval.

MOTION CARRIED

5.3 CUP 03-07 Huron Valley Ambulance [submitted for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a medical examiners laboratory and ambulance training facility]

Chairperson Lirones stated a CUP is needed for a medical laboratory and a training facility.

Planner Spencer reviewed his report. He mentioned the neighboring uses of this parcel. He stated a portion of the parcel is partitioned. He explained the remaining piece of property will need to be connected to another parcel. He said one hundred and fifty-eight (158) parking spaces are proposed and one hundred and sixty-three (163) are required. He further stated outdoor PA systems should be prohibited to control noise.

Jack Haas, representing Huron Valley Ambulance, stated the issues Planner Spencer pointed out can be easily corrected. He said this is an in house training facility. He also mentioned a PA system will not be used.

Chairperson Lirones asked if there was any concern with the hours of operation.

Planner Spencer stated there is activity at this parcel twenty four hours a day. He said the activity is mainly vehicles being dispatched from this location. He also stated fueling is not proposed on this property.

Chairperson Lirones opened the public hearing.

Jesse Gordon, of the Malletts Creek Association, stated at the Planning Commissions request, Midwestern Consulting had sent site plans and asked for comments. He mentioned he was grateful for this opportunity. He also stated the Association is meeting December 18, 2003 and they will send a report regarding the discussions at the meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Resha, supported by Commissioner Ward, to close the public hearing.

MOTION CARRIED

Item 6.4 CSPA 03-22 Huron Valley Ambulance moved to follow item 5.3 of the Public Hearing.

Planner Spencer stated they are short nine (9) parking spaces. He said the deferred spaces need to be shown on the site plan. He said if the spaces cannot be shown a variance will be needed.

1. Haas stated they are trying to minimize the asphalt. He said they are at thirty-eight (38%) percent impervious lot coverage.

Planner Spencer stated the applicant has flagged the wetland, and the Township wetland consultant will need to verify the boundary.

1. Haas stated all the heritage trees being saved are shown on the plan. He said there is a significant amount of trees being saved. He further stated there is plenty of naturalizing opportunities.

Commissioner Resha asked if the vehicles are going to be repaired on the premises.

1. Haas stated the ambulances will be restocked and cleaned. He said oil changes will also be done on the vehicles. He further stated a contractor will be used to dispose of the oil.

Motion by Commissioner Banush, supported by Commissioner Luna, to approve the preliminary site plan CSPA 03-22 Huron Valley Ambulance with the following conditions:

1. The final site plan must comply with the Township Engineer’s report of December 3, 2003.

2. Verification of the wetland boundary and conditions by the Township wetland consultant must be obtained.

1. Provide nine (9) deferred parking spaces.

   1. Work with staff to meet the best management practices of the Mallets Creek Coordinating Committee.

MOTION CARRIED

Item 7.3 CUP 03-07 Huron Valley Ambulance moved to follow item 6.4 CSPA 03-22 Huron Valley Ambulance and item 5.3 of the Public Hearing.

Chairperson Lirones stated she would read the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and ask the Commission to decide if they agree with staff’s suggested findings.

Letter A:

Chairperson Lirones read item 1 – Protecting the character and stability of the agricultural, recreational, residential, commercial, and industrial areas within the Township. This is a service needed in the community and a new facility will add character to the existing older BP district.

There was a consensus of the Commissioners with staff’s findings.

Chairperson Lirones read item 2 - Promoting the orderly and beneficial development of such areas. The Ordinance provides for uses in each district in an orderly manner.

There was a consensus of the Commissioners with staff’s findings.

Chairperson Lirones read item 3 – Provide adequate light, air, privacy, and convenience of access to the property. The proposed use meets all setback requirements and transition strip with screening. The Commission may want to impose conditions to limit noise and light from the property.

There was a consensus of the Commissioners that the proposal was adequate. Chairperson Lirones read item 4 – Determining the area of open spaces surrounding buildings and structures necessary to provide adequate light and air to protect the public health.

There was a consensus of the Commissioners with staff’s findings. Chairperson Lirones read item 5 – Lessening and avoiding congestion on the public highways and streets. Traffic will enter and leave onto State Circle and Ellsworth Road. Staff suggests the additional traffic by this use will have minimal impact on either road. Commissioner Banush stated this will not lessen the congestion. Chairperson Lirones stated the concept was designed to lessen congestion.

Planner Spencer added the proposal will have an entrance off State Circle to Ellsworth Road.

There was a consensus of the Commissioners with staff’s findings.

Chairperson Lirones read item 6 – Providing for the needs of agriculture, recreation, commerce, and industry in future growth. Staff suggests the proposed use is keeping with the growing demand for services by the community.

There was a consensus of the Commissioners with staff’s findings.

Chairperson Lirones read item 7 – Promoting healthful surroundings for family life in residential and rural areas. Staff suggests the proposed use provides a service that improves the health of the community.

There was a consensus of the Commissioners with staff’s findings.

Chairperson Lirones read item 8 – Prohibiting uses, buildings or structures which are incompatible with the character of development or the uses permitted.

The Commissioners agreed this use was compatible.

Chairperson Lirones read item 9 - Protecting against fire, explosion, noxious fumes and odors, heat, dust, smoke, glare, noise, vibration, radio activity, and other nuisances and hazards in the interest of the public health, safety, and general welfare. Staff suggests the Planning Commission must determine if the proposed plan is a detriment to public health, safety, and general welfare.

All the Commissioners agreed this is not a detriment.

Chairperson Lirones read item 10 – Conserving the taxable value of land, buildings, and structures. Staff suggests the Planning Commission must decide if the use takes away from the neighboring property values.

All the Commissioners agreed this will not take away from the neighboring property values.

Letter B:

Chairperson Lirones read - Will be designed, constructed, operated, maintained, and managed so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity.

All the Commissioners concurred it will be harmonious.

Letter C:

Chairperson Lirones read - Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal or that the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use shall be able to provide adequately any such service.

All Commissioners agreed this area will be served adequately.

Letter D:

Chairperson Lirones read - Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses.

All the Commissioners agreed this is not hazardous or disturbing.

Letter E:

Chairperson Lirones read - Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services.

The entire Commission agreed.

Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Banush, to approve the resolution to approve CUP 03-07 Huron Valley Ambulance subject to the following conditions: (see attachment # 1)

1. Compliance with the revised site plan CSPA 03-22 received November 20, 2003.

(a) The final site plan must comply with the Township Engineers report of December 03, 2003.

(b) Verification of the wetland boundary and conditions by the Township’s wetland consultant must be obtained.

(c) Provide nine (9) deferred parking spaces.

(d) Work with staff to meet the best management practices of the Mallets Creek Coordinating Committee. 2. Outdoor paging and PA systems are prohibited.

1. The remaining part of parcel L-12-08-400-025 shall be attached to a neighboring parcel before any construction permit is issued.

ROLL CALL:

YEAS: URDA-THOMPSON, GRIESS, BANUSH, LIRONES, LUNA, RESHA, WARD

NAYS: NONE

ABSTAIN: NONE

MOTION CARRIED

5.4 CUP 00-07 Natures Garden Center [revocation of revised CUP]

Planner Spencer reviewed his report. He stated this review is in two parts. He said this CUP was originally re-approved by the Planning Commission in October 2001. He said the first part of the review is for a potential revocation of the CUP due to incorrect site plan submittal issues. And the second part is the potential revocation due to CUP violations. He reviewed the history of the project. He stated the Township noticed a discrepancy on the site plan submitted. He explained a thirty (30) foot piece of property was sold to Mr. Peter Hammer. The site plan needed to be re-submitted with the thirty (30) feet of property removed. The applicant re-filed and the Planning Commission approved the revised plan. The court has ordered the Planning Commission to decide if the changes on the revised site plan would change the granting of the revised CUP.

He said the revised site plan meets all the minimum requirements of the Pittsfield Township Zoning Ordinance. He said these requirements included the setbacks, lot widths, lot area, and building height. He mentioned the revised plan provides for a thirty (30) foot west side yard and fifty (50) foot north and east side rear yard. Also, a thirty (30) foot landscape buffer was shown. He said all the structures are almost in the same location as provided on the January 4, 2001 plan. He also made these comments regarding incorrect site plan submittal issues:

• The driveway was 36.1 feet from the property line on the original plan and 30 feet on the revised plan. • The driveway width was 20 feet originally and 22 feet on the revised plan. • The driveway was separated from the building by 7 ˝ feet on both plans. • The building was 63.6 feet from the property line originally, and is now 59.6 feet. • The driveway is 23.9 feet further, and the building is 26.9 feet further from the neighboring home on the revised plan.

He said the CUP was re-granted based on the final site plan received on September 19, 2001. He said during his inspection the week of December 1 he found various items that were in conflict with the approved site plan, including:

• The landscaping in the northwest corner was not installed. A vehicle path crosses this area and enters a neighboring property. • The vehicle yard encroaches into the west side landscape buffer area. • Bulk storage encroaches into the rear yard buffer and is much larger than on the revised plan. • Trees, pallets and debris were in the east side yard and wood and plants were in the parking lot. • There are unshielded light fixtures that are not shown on the plan. There is a trellis that is providing shade for plants. Lights have been displayed on this trellis without an electrical permit. • Outdoor storage needs to be limited to live or fresh cut (including Christmas trees) plant material, bulk and bagged landscape materials. Tools, machinery and planting containers can be stored outdoors under the roof over hang of the building, although equipment, fire places and lawn furniture were found outside of the overhang. • Prohibit outdoor storage in any setback or landscape buffer area as discussed above. • Limit sales to live or fresh cut or dry plants. Seeds, bulbs, etc. if less than 10% of the total retail floor area. At the time of inspection 40% to 60% of the floor space was devoted to indoor and outdoor Christmas decoration and artificial trees.

Chairperson Lirones opened the public hearing.

Marian Faupel stated she received the notice for revocation. She said this issue was remanded by Judge Shelton in the Washtenaw County Circuit Court. She said there was a limited amount of time to receive the materials. She said the materials needed to be in by December 5, 2003 at three o’ clock. She said her client received a copy of a memo from Planner Spencer late last night [December 10, 2003]. This memo in turn was not given to her until ten o’ clock this morning [December 11, 2003]. She mentioned Mr. Laidlaw stated a 15 page brief was received from Mr. Hammer. She did not receive that brief until late December 11, 2003. She also mentioned the trellis lighting was used for Christmas tree lighting. She said when the CUP was first applied for the applicants were in the process of buying the property. And when the 1st proposal was given to the Commission the deal had not yet been closed. She said four acres is not enough to run a farm. The applicants then retained an attorney and tried to comply with the requirements. In March 2001 the applicants received financing and sold the thirty (30) foot piece of property. She stated the applicants did not own the property until March 2001. She further stated the Commission should have looked to revoke the CUP before the construction started and money was invested. She said there was no evidence they intentionally defrauded the Commission. She mentioned they did not receive adequate notice of the zoning issues.

Ann Harris, 2397 Textile Road, stated she feels this business has been a good community member. She mentioned they contribute to charities and nonprofit groups.

Patricia Huffman, Campbell Road, stated she agrees this business is good for the community. She said there have been three (3) occasions when a delivery truck has come at night. She said the noise from the truck has awakened her at four in the morning. She hopes something can be done about the noise.

Philip DeMichele, 6450 E. Michigan Avenue, stated he did not think this was going to be a retail store. He mentioned salt is being stored in a bin behind the building. He expressed concern with this because it is three hundred (300) feet from his lot line. Also, this is close to the wetlands. He stated the salt is being front loaded, and occasionally it falls outside the bin. He mentioned this bin is hardly ever covered with a tarp. He said the salt could get into the ground and contaminate the wells and the wetlands. He also stated he has heard the noise of the truck during the night.

Planner Spencer stated the owners were given a warning notice about the salt. He stated they did remove the bulk salt.

1. Peter Hammer, 6426 E. Michigan Ave, stated he did not receive the Nature’s Garden Center communications. He mentioned the bulk salt is gone because it is not in season. He said in past meetings the Commissioners have raised concerns about the non-compliance. He stated there are three factors on which the CUP can be revoked. One is the fraud in obtaining the CUP. The second is they have repeatedly violated the terms and conditions. And the third is the fact they are operating a commercial nursery not an agricultural nursery. He mentioned at the Planning Commission meeting for September 20, 2000, Planner Spencer stated this operation was not consistent with an agricultural nursery. Mr. Hammer read to the Commissioners previous letters of violations to the owners from Planner Spencer. He said the owners cannot come forward and say they have corrected all the problems. He further stated he has two further memos to provide to the Planning Commission.

Mark Prinz, 9172 Sunset Lake Drive, stated he thinks this business is needed in the area. He feels all his dealings with this business have been first class. He mentioned there are video cameras pointed at their business from neighboring properties, which may be detrimental to their business.

Esther Pieske, 6300 Campbell Road, stated she feels this business is good for the neighborhood. She said it would be a mistake to revoke their CUP.

Steve Slater, owner of Nature’s Garden Center, stated fraud never crossed his mind. He said he did not hide the fact he was selling the thirty (30) feet of property. He mentioned the bulk salt was carried as a service. He thinks the truck noise may be from the garbage truck. He said he will limit the hours of the garbage service. He believed the Christmas tree issues were solved. He feels they have always made a point of correcting any violations.

Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Resha, to close the public hearing.

MOTION CARRIED

Item 6.6 CUP 00-07 Natures Garden Center moved to follow item 5.4 of the Public Hearing.

Chairperson Lirones stated the Township and herself are in the process of being sued. She mentioned they are being ordered to hold this meeting to look at the revocation. She said there have been a number of difficulties. She stated the conditions of the CUP have been violated. She said the court did not insist the Commission consider the CUP violations. She further stated she is sensitive to the fact it takes time to get the information and to absorb it. She said it is not necessary the Commission take action tonight but, a decision does need to be made soon.

Planner Spencer stated the Zoning Ordinance gives the Planning Commission the ability to revoke the site plan and CUP. He said the changing of the thirty (30) feet did not affect how this operation was going to operate. He stated the Judge did not feel the record showed that the Planning Commission made adequate findings on the matter.

Bruce Laidlaw, Township Attorney, stated he told the judge the Planning Commission had fully considered the matter. He mentioned it was a ruling that the matter go back to the Commission. He said the Planning Commission must again make a decision and get into the facts. He said the Commission needs to decide if they were deceived. He further stated the Commission needs to state for the record why or why not they feel there was a misrepresentation. He said the things that were discussed before would be worthy of consideration. He asked if approval would have been given if the Commission knew this [information] in the first place.

Commissioner Griess stated she is willing to say that as of October 18, 2001 when the revised plan was approved, the Commission was not deceived. She stated they knew as of October 18, 2001 about the thirty (30) feet being sold.

Chairperson Lirones asked if the judge wanted the Planning Commission to go back to when the original CUP was issued.

1. Laidlaw stated the judge wants the Commission to review the questions that Mr. Hammer has raised. He added the judge wants to know if under the Zoning Ordinance there was a misrepresentation severe enough to justify a revocation.

Commissioner Banush stated the Commission needs compelling evidence to prove fraud. He said the Commission acted on the information that was handed to them. He mentioned if it was fraud the Commission would not have approved it. He added the Commission needs to go back and look over all the information and reflect on it.

1. Laidlaw stated Mr. Hammer has made it clear it is his belief there was an intentional misrepresentation.

Chairperson Lirones asked if the Planning Commission has to make a decision tonight.

1. Laidlaw stated the decision does not need to be made tonight. He recommended the Commission not make a final decision at this point.

Commissioner Ward stated he does not feel comfortable making a decision tonight. He said the litigants should try not to provide any additional information at this time. He believes they may have some rebuttals on comments they made this evening. He stated if the litigants keep having opposing points of view a determination will be hard to make. He further stated if correspondence is received late it will be hard to address the issues.

1. Laidlaw stated it is in the authority of the Commission to set a date of which correspondence will not be allowed after.

Chairperson Lirones stated the information should be submitted by December 26, 2003.

1. Faupel stated she still does not have copies of Mr. Hammer’s comments. She said she could respond in five or ten double space pages. She further stated a page limit should be set.

Commissioner Ward stated the comments should be limited to ten pages single spaced and single sided.

Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Resha, to postpone action on the revocation of CUP 00-07 [Nature's Garden Center], and we direct the litigants that [the Planning Commission] will not accept documents for consideration of revocation unless [they are] submitted by 3 p.m. on December 26, 2003, and that such documentation shall not exceed ten pages in length including all attachments and the ten pages will be single sided.

MOTION CARRIED

Planner Spencer asked if the Planning Commission can revoke this permit if they find fraud.

1. Laidlaw stated the Planning Commission does have the authority to revoke the permit.

Chairperson Lirones asked if the Planning Commission is limited to only considering the fraud.

1. Laidlaw replied no. He stated any problem on the CUP can make it considered for revocation.

Commissioner Ward asked Planner Spencer if documentation can be received prior to the normal time it is received for the Planning Commission meetings. Secondly, he stated the Commission has discussed their legal obligations. He said along with the documentation he would appreciate this being summarized for easy revision by the Commissioners.

Commissioner Banush stated the Commission has heard alot about the owners being good citizens. He said this is not the issue. He further stated if the conditions are violated then the CUP should be revoked. He mentioned the owners of this business should be good citizens by complying.

Chairperson Lirones called for a recess from 10:23 p.m. to 10:34 p.m.

6.0 Old Business

6.1 RZ #03-04/CSPA 03-11 Fairwood Green [submitted for preliminary site plan and rezoning]

Planner Spencer reviewed Planner Schmult’s report. He stated the petitioner is asking to change the zoning from RC Recreation Conservation to a Planned Unit Development District. He said the current use is a nine hole golf course. He said the Townships Comprehensive Plan shows this property for private and public recreation and open space. He said the residents have stated there are traffic problems at peak hours. He mentioned it is the Townships policy to run [sewer] leads to the property lines [of all developments] for future use. He said the Planning Commission is required to make findings according to the standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Also, the Commission must report these findings to the Board with a recommendation of action. He said Section 59.05 provides standards for all re-zoning petitions. He said Section 52.07 (c) provides additional standards for PUD districts. He said most of the standards in 52.07 (c) apply to the area plan part of the petition. He mentioned review of this plan would be premature. Since the use and density proposed are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The review of the petition should start with a decision on whether the proposed residential use and density would be acceptable. Section 52.07 (c) requires the petition to conform with the regulations and standards of the PUD district. He said Section 45.038 states the use of the PUD district must be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The second regulation requires the density not exceed the designated density. He stated the petitioner proposed 2.5 dwelling units per acre. He mentioned the Comprehensive Plan does not specify the density because it is not zoned residential. Given these facts the petition is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission has two options for action. First option: the Commission would have to decide that the use proposed in the petition is a reasonable land use for the property. If so, the Comprehensive Plan must be amended to allow suburban residential use [and thus recommend approval of the petition]. He further stated the Planning Commission reviewed the Comprehensive Plan in September 2003 and found the current plan is valid and that no changes should be made. The second option is to decide if the existing zoning and planned designation of the property is reasonable. The Commission would then recommend denial of the petition. He said the approval or denial of the petition would have no effect on the zoning of neighboring properties. Planner Schmult mentioned there are serious traffic issues on Michigan Avenue and the neighboring streets.

Planner Spencer reviewed his report and a timeline regarding this property. He said in 1970 the Township adopted its current Zoning Ordinance. At that time the recreation conservation zoning was established and this property was included in this district. In the 1975 Comprehensive Plan this property was depicted as park, private or public open space. This was also shown in the 2002-2003 Comprehensive Plan. He said these uses are valuable to the community. He mentioned other uses are allowed on this property. Including: single family dwellings, public or private game preserves, golf courses, and parks or playgrounds to name a few.

Chairperson Lirones asked if the Commission should go through the items and discuss them.

Planner Spencer stated the Commission may ask for additional information.

Chairperson Lirones stated the Commission did consider the Comprehensive Plan in September 2003.

Commissioner Banush stated at that time the Commission made their decision to keep this property the same.

Chairperson Lirones stated the Commission looked at the Comprehensive Plan to see if it was still valid.

Commissioner Banush stated the Commission made it a policy to review the plan annually.

Chairperson Lirones stated this area had been designated for recreation for a number of years. She said the Commission felt this was still a valid use.

Commissioner Luna stated this review was done with the help of the community. She said this was a community effort.

Commissioner Ward noted several individuals came forward on certain parcels and made proposals for changes. He said each proposal was spelled out and noted in the minutes. He stated it was determined by the Planning Commission there was no sufficient facts to warrant changing the plan.

Chairperson Lirones stated the reasons were discussed for each parcel. She mentioned the Planning Commission should note there are no density limits for Public Facilities and Public and Private Recreation and Open Space in the Comprehensive Plan. She mentioned the Commission had previous discussions on this proposal and they found it not compatible with the plan.

Commissioner Griess stated before the Commission reviewed the Comprehensive Plan in September, residents were stating that more recreational space was needed rather than more homes.

Chairperson Lirones stated alot of written testimony was received from the residents. She said the Comprehensive Plan is a contract to be upheld with the community. She mentioned the Planning Commission works with the community. She said parcels are not randomly selected for change.

Planner Spencer asked if the Commission reached a consensus with the compatibility.

Chairperson Lirones asked the Commissioners for a consensus on the compatibility.

The Commissioners stated it is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan.

Chairperson Lirones stated the Commission needs to decide if the petition provides a reasonable land use for the property. She said a possible amendment needs to also be considered. She mentioned the Commission would need to amend the plan before approval could be recommended.

Commissioner Griess stated the residents rely on this property being zoned for recreational use. She stated the owner knew the zoning of this property to begin with.

Commissioner Banush stated there is no compelling reason to amend the Comprehensive Plan or accept the revision.

Chairperson Lirones stated the Commission could decide not to amend the plan. She asked the Commissioners if they concur.

The entire Commission agreed there is no compelling reason to amend the Comprehensive Plan.

Planner Spencer stated the Commission may want to state further issues they have with not wanting to amend the Comprehensive Plan.

Commissioner Luna stated people think the parks are just for a few residents. She said this is not true. She mentioned if we have the opportunity to have recreational areas we should do our best to maintain them.

Commissioner Ward stated a comment was made regarding a loss of money. He noted the Financial Times reported the recession began in the 3rd or 4th quarter of 2000. He assumes 2003 would be the fifth tax year of recording a loss. He said alternative uses for this zoning district have been received tonight. He also said in 2002, the Comprehensive Plan went under a major revision with numerous public hearings. He further stated this matter could have been brought forth at that time but was not.

Chairperson Lirones stated this is a part of the community’s infrastructure. She said everything cannot be turned around just because the property owner wishes it. She said this is a recreational area in the middle of a highly populated area and she would be surprised if a person could not find a way to make money there. She said the residents paid to pave the roads. She personally feels this property should be for recreational use.

Commissioner Ward mentioned other areas have been withdrawn from the water and sewer district. This was because of the quality of life and ability of the infrastructure. He stated there are compelling arguments that this zoning is good for the area. He said businesses fail or succeed because of the management.

Chairperson Lirones stated this district does not inhibit the owner in anyway.

The entire Commission agreed the Comprehensive Plan should not be amended.

Chairperson Lirones read item 9.02 - The zoning permits a reasonable use of the property. She then asked if the conditions that apply to the property have changed.

Commissioner Griess stated things may change, although, nothing has happened to make this a bad piece of property.

The entire Commission agreed the current zoning is reasonable.

Chairperson Lirones stated it is common practice to extend the sewer and water lines to the end of the property.

Commissioner Banush stated if the aquifers go dry we would extend service to that particular area.

Planner Spencer stated if the Commission agrees that no action was necessary for items 9.03 and 9.04, then the Commission should take into consideration Planner Schmult’s comments and come to a consensus.

Chairperson Lirones asked if the Commission agreed the approval or denial would have no precedence effect on the zoning of neighboring properties.

The entire Commission agreed approval or denial of the petition would have no precedence on neighboring properties.

Chairperson Lirones stated the storm water management would be provided by an onsite detention of runoff. She also stated controlled discharges would travel across Crane or Munger Road. The volume of runoff would be increased by the proposed development. She then asked if the Commission agreed the runoff would be increased.

The entire Commission agreed the volume of runoff would be increased.

Chairperson Lirones stated Crane and Munger Roads have the capacity to handle the additional traffic. She said Michigan Avenue would become even more congested.

The entire Commission agreed with the congestion issues.

Commissioner Banush stated he was not sure if the traffic counts were current in Planner Schmult’s report.

Commissioner Ward stated the Township has identified the intersection of Crane and Michigan Avenue as one of the more difficult intersections between US-23 and I-94. He stated research can be done at the Public Safety building into accident data at that intersection.

Chairperson Lirones asked if the Commissioners concur with the finding that the additional traffic would add to the serious congestion problems.

The entire Commission concurred.

Chairperson Lirones asked if the approval of the petition would have an adverse affect on the neighboring properties. Especially to the residents that abut the golf course.

Commissioner Griess stated these comments are coming from the people who paid a premium to abut the golf course.

Commissioner Banush stated the homeowners that abut the golf course must think the value of their property is higher.

Commissioner Resha stated their property value will not go up that much.

Chairperson Lirones stated she disagrees. She said there would be a higher sale value with these properties.

Commissioner Ward noted the property values are based on what the market will bare. He stated the market trend data will show that properties like this garner a premium. He said the property values are driven by the market.

Commissioner Banush stated the Commission could query the realtors. He said they might acknowledge properties abutting a golf course sell at a premium.

Commissioner Resha stated builders charge a premium for properties that back up to the open areas of their site.

Planner Spencer stated open spaces are an amenity.

Chairperson Lirones stated if this was gone the area would be underserved with recreational opportunities. She said this would have an adverse affect on the property values in the entire area.

The entire Commission agreed this would have an adverse affect on the property values.

Planner Spencer stated the Commission may request staff or the applicant to provide additional information.

Commissioner Banush mentioned staff should survey this and provide more factual information. He said they should look into how much amenities increase the property values.

Chairperson Lirones asked if the Commission feels further discussion is needed for this matter.

Commissioner Griess stated many comments were heard in the public hearing and additional comments have been heard tonight. Therefore she feels more discussion is not necessary.

Commissioner Banush stated he sees no merit to this proposal. He would like to know the compelling reasons to change the zoning. He mentioned bad management should not justify rezoning and changing the Comprehensive Plan.

Commissioner Ward repeated his comment stating how a business is managed will depend on how successful it is. He stated no attempt to work with the Township has been given.

Chairperson Lirones asked if the Commission agreed there are many possible uses of the property. She added the failure of a business is not a compelling reason to change the zoning.

The entire Commission agreed the failure to manage a business does not provide a reason to permit rezoning a property.

Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Resha, to postpone action on rezoning petition RZ 03-04 and site plan CSPA 03-11 Fairwood Green and direct staff to write a resolution recommending denial based on the Planning Commission’s findings.

MOTION CARRIED

Craig Welch, CEO of Wexford homes, stated the Ordinance requires a decision within one hundred and eighty days (180) of submitting the application. He stated this time frame ends on December 20, 2003. He then requested a vote be taken on the petition before this point.

Commissioner Banush asked if the Township has the authority to extend the date.

Commissioner Ward stated in article 52 Section (a)-5 reads, “The Township Planning Commission shall undertake a study of the petition and shall submit a report there into the Township Board within one hundred and eighty days (180) of the following date. This report shall contain the Planning Commissions analysis of the petition, findings regarding standards, suggested conditions of approval, if ethical in its recommendations”.

Commissioner Resha stated this is a completely different site plan. He said the Commission might want to find out when this site plan was submitted.

Planner Spencer stated if the Township consults with the attorney a special meeting could be called before December 22, 2003.

6.2 CSPA 01-07 Wolverine Commerce Park [one year extension of final site plan and discussion of landscaping]

Planner Spencer reviewed his report. He stated the original PUD plan called for a mix of plants. He said this was to create a natural look along Morgan Road. He said the intent was to create a buffer that has a natural and wild appearance. He mentioned no pruning or weeding is allowed. The proposed landscaping has different species then what was on the approved area plan. He said these include non-native conifers. He mentioned the sixty-five (65) foot typical landscaping is not consistent with the approved plan. He stated the plan is still accomplishing the screening aspects. He said the plan is not simulating a native environment along the road. He also stated the applicant would like direction from the Planning Commission. The applicant has also asked for a one year extension to the conditional approval. He said staff has no objection to this.

The entire Commission agreed they had no problem with the extension.

Mark Lewis, Wolverine Commerce Associates, stated in June of 2002 the Planning Commission approved this plan with several conditions. He mentioned none of these conditions had to do with the landscape berm. He mentioned an issue came up to substitute the conifers for deciduous trees. He said there are almost three hundred and fifty (350) trees in the landscape berm. He mentioned the WCRC wants him to take some of the existing trees out. He expressed his desire to just move forward.

Chairperson Lirones stated she was confident that what was described was being done.

Planner Spencer stated the approved area plan for the PUD included those trees. He agreed with Mr. Lewis that those issues were not brought to the surface through the planning process in the final plan. He then read from Planner Schmult’s June 2002 report where it stated, “the detail is not consistent with this concept and does not show any shrubs. In addition, the plantings that are to be located in the south twenty-five (25) feet of the landscape stripe appear to be located in the north 25 feet of the stripe”. He said there is different species on the latest plan.

1. Lewis stated he does not understand what is being asked. He asked if he has to come up with a new plan.

Planner Spencer stated the Planning Commission must decide if the original types of species need to be put back.

1. Lewis stated he is not sure what types of species need to be put back.

Planner Spencer stated there is a list of species that was on the area plan. He said the plan approved in 2002 was approved with conditions including compliance with Planner Schmult’s report.

Chairperson Lirones asked if there is a difficulty complying with this.

1. Lewis replied no.

Planner Spencer stated this area is suppose to grow in a natural manner.

1. Lewis stated he will do whatever the Commission wants him to do.

Planner Spencer gave Mr. Lewis a copy of the approved plant list.

Chairperson Lirones stated she does not mind some conifers. She said they should be native to Pittsfield Township.

Planner Spencer stated he wants the Planning Commission to decide what look they want there.

Chairperson Lirones stated they want to go with the native look.

Commissioner Ward clarified that Mr. Lewis is asking if it is acceptable to replace canopy trees with conifers and if so at what ratio. He said there will be an equal number of conifers and deciduous trees. He mentioned it would be acceptable to replace two (2) canopy trees with two (2) conifers for each sixty-five (65) foot section. He then gave Mr. Lewis the option of Cedar or Tamarack for the conifers.

1. Lewis stated the conifers are not a canopy tree. He said the Commission wanted him to pull out two (2) deciduous trees in every sixty-five (65) foot section. He added these trees were to be replaced with two (2) conifer trees.

Planner Spencer asked if the ornamental trees are satisfactory. He is proposing a dogwood and a couple types of crab apples.

Commissioner Ward said Mr. Lewis can pick what looks good from the approved area plan.

Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Luna, to approve a one year extension of final site plan approval for CSPA 01-07 Wolverine Commerce Park with the following conditions:

1. Comply with the Township Engineer’s report of November 27, 2003.

2. Comply with items no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 of the Township Planner’s report of October 27, 2003.

3. Submit a revised site plan that includes a revised landscape plan that includes the following:

(a). Substitution of two conifer trees for two deciduous trees in each 65 foot strip is allowed. The conifers shall be cedar or tamarack. Other planting shall conform to the approved area plan plant list.

MOTION CARRIED

6.3 CSPA 00-34 Labor of Love Church Expansion (submitted for final site plan)

Planner Black reviewed Planner Schmult’s report. She stated he had only minor comments. She said the grading cannot go beyond the tree protection fencing. She said the Engineer’s stated there were minor comments that can be reviewed administratively. Planner Spencer stated there are some minor encroachments. He stated the trees should be saved.

Commissioner Ward asked if there are issues with the applicant’s engineer.

Chairperson Lirones spoke with the engineer and said no emotions or feelings need to be expressed in the reports.

Mark Baldridge, Architect, stated they are willing to comply with the engineering comments. He said they would like to move forward.

Chairperson Lirones stated there are no radical changes. She said the Township is more than happy to work with the applicant.

Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Banush, to approve the final site plan for CSPA 00-34 Labor of Love Church Expansion with the following condition:

1. Comply with items number 1 through 7 of the Township Engineer’s report of November 26, 2003.

MOTION CARRIED

6.4 CSPA 03-22 Huron Valley Ambulance [submitted for preliminary site plan]

Item 6.4 moved to follow item 5.3 CUP 03-07 Huron Valley Ambulance of the Public Hearing.

6.5 CSPA 03-21 Runway Plaza Lot 26 [submitted for preliminary site plan]

Planner Black reviewed her zoning report and the engineer’s report. She said the photometric plan will be reviewed by the Township lighting consultant. She said the trees will need to be a minimum of ten (10) horizontal feet from all water and sanitary storm pipes. She said the proposed parking was twenty-seven spaces and the Planning Commission will need to decide if the number of parking spaces is acceptable. One space per each one thousand (1,000) square feet is all that is required. She said only twelve (12) spaces are required. She hopes the applicant can explain why the net lot coverage is still fifty (50) percent. She mentioned the parking spaces were reduced. She said the plan does not comply with the access management requirements. The access driveway is one hundred and fifty-five (155) feet from the center line of Runway Boulevard. The Ordinance requires one hundred and fifty (150) feet between access points on roads.

Planner Spencer reviewed Planner Schmult’s report. He stated the Planning Commission should discuss if the parking should be reduced. He said there are some grading issues. He believes the grading can be changed so some trees could be saved.

1. Klintworth stated this was discussed the last time they were here. He mentioned they do intend to save those trees.

Tracey Skrocki, Alpine Engineering, stated the grading was set to save the trees up front. She said if they try to save the trees in the front they will lose the trees in the back.

Planner Spencer stated the Planning Commission should ask for a report on this. He said an arborist may be needed to research the health of the trees. He said Chapter 19 of the Land Development Standards will be in effect. He said any mitigation that cannot be done onsite will have to be discussed with the Commission.

Chairperson Lirones asked if a certified arborist report was needed. She then asked if a report stating how effective the methods for saving the trees are would be enough.

1. Klintworth stated they planned not to kill the trees.

Chairperson Lirones asked if the access management could be waved.

Planner Spencer stated they received WCRC approval, so yes it could be waved.

Chairperson Lirones stated if they waved the access management they would need evidence that there will be less than fifty (50) inbound and outbound trips.

Planner Spencer stated there are almost two hundred (200) inches of heritage trees that could be saved by changing the grading. He said if the cost of mitigation was calculated out it may be a cheaper alternative to change the grading.

1. Klintworth stated they will try to save every tree they can. He said the addition of the sidewalk is why the net lot coverage changed. He said they did consult the parking with the news and reduced the parking spaces.

Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Luna, to approve the preliminary site plan for CSPA 03-21 Runway Plaza Lot 26 with the following conditions:

1. Provide evidence that the proposal will generate less than 50 peak hour trips inbound and outbound.

2. Final site plan must comply with the Township Engineer’s report of December 1, 2003.

3. Final site plan must comply with items number 3 and 4 of the Township Planner’s report of November 25, 2003.

MOTION CARRIED

6.6 CUP 00-07 Natures Garden Center [submitted for revocation of CUP]

Item 6.6 moved to follow item 5.4 CUP 00-07 Natures Garden Center of the Public Hearing.

6.7 CUP 03-03 and CUP 03-04 Glencoe Crossing Bar and Grill [submitted for a minor change to the CUP]

Planner Spencer and the Commission discussed the address error on these CUP’s.

Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Luna, to revise CUP 03-03 and CUP 03-04, to correct the address from 4745 Washtenaw to 4735 Washtenaw, based on the finding that the site plan submitted with the application showed the correct address and supporting documentation from the applicant.

MOTION CARRIED

7.0 New Business

7.1 RZ 03-07 Washtenaw McKinley LLC [submitted to rezone from C-2 and R-1B to R-4]

Item 7.1 moved to follow item 5.1 RZ 03-07 Washtenaw McKinley LLC of the Public Hearing.

7.2 RZ 03-08 Peter's Bldg Co. /Haywood [submitted to rezone from AG to R-1B

Item 7.2 moved to follow item 5.2 RZ 03-08 Peter’s Bldg. Co. /Haywood of the Public Hearing.

7.3 CUP 03-07 Huron Valley Ambulance [submitted for medical examiners laboratory and ambulance training facility]

Item 7.3 moved to follow item 5.3 CUP 03-07 Huron Valley Ambulance of the Public Hearing.

7.4 RZ 95-17 Robinwood (known as Country Creek) [submitted for a minor or major change to the PUD]

Planner Spencer reviewed his Planners report. He stated the applicant submitted to add an adult cultural facility to the approved uses in the district. He said the Planning Commission needs to decide if the change of use is a major or minor change.

Motion by Commissioner Banush, supported by Commissioner Luna, to decide that a change of use in RZ 95-17 Robinwood PUD is a major change to the PUD.

MOTION CARRIED

7.5 Resolution of Support for the Protection of Park and Public Lands in Pittsfield Charter Township

Chairperson Lirones stated there was one typo found.

Commissioner Banush stated Pittsfield has less park acre per capita than most communities.

Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Banush, to adopt the Resolution of support for the Protection of Park and Public Lands in Pittsfield Charter Township (attachment #2).

ROLL CALL VOTE:

YEAS: URDA-THOMPSON, GRIESS, BANUSH, LIRONES, LUNA, RESHA, WARD

NAYS: NONE

ABSTAIN: NONE

MOTION CARRIED

8.0 Planner’s Report

Planner Spencer stated a letter has been received by the Township from the applicant, withdrawing Arbortech (CSPA 02-19). He introduced the new assistant planner, Paul Montagno.

9.0 Chairperson’s Report

None.

10.0 Commissioner’s Report

None.

11.0 Approval of Prior Minutes

11.1 Minutes of August 21, 2003

11.2 Minutes of September 4, 2003

11.3 Minutes of September 18, 2003

11.4 Minutes of October 2, 2003

11.5 Minutes of October 16, 2003

11.6 Minutes of November 6, 2003

11.7 Minutes of November 20, 2003

Motion by Commissioner Resha, supported by Commissioner Ward, to approve items:

11.1 minutes of August 21, 2003, 11.2 minutes of September 4, 2003, 11.3 minutes of September 18, 2003, 11.4 minutes of October 2, 2003, 11.5 minutes of October 16, 2003, 11.6 minutes of November 6, 2003, 11.7 minutes of November 20, 2003, as presented.

MOTION CARRIED

12.0 Adjournment

Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Luna, to adjourn the meeting.

Chairperson Lirones closed the meeting at 12:16 a.m.

__________________________________________________________________ s/Julie Griess, Secretary January 15, 2004

Attachment #1

FINDINGS OF REQUIRED STANDARDS AND RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL C.U.P. 03-7, Huron Valley Ambulance December 11, 2003

WHEREAS, an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a medical laboratory and an ambulance training facility in a Business Park (BP) District was received from Huron Valley Ambulance on November 20, 2003, and

WHEREAS, the Pittsfield Township Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on December 11, 2003 and received no unfavorable comments; and

WHEREAS, the Commission finds that this use is adequately served by public facilities and services, and the proposed use will not substantially increase demand on public facilities or services; and

WHEREAS, the Commission has studied this application and developed conditions adequate to insure this will not be hazardous or disturbing to the surrounding uses; and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Pittsfield Township Planning Commission hereby approves CUP #03-07, subject to the following conditions:

1. Compliance with the revised site plan CSPA 03-22 received November 20, 2003. (a) The final site plan must comply with the Township Engineers report of December 03, 2003. (b) Verification of the wetland boundary and conditions by the Township’s wetland consultant must be obtained. (c) Provide nine (9) deferred parking spaces. (d) Work with staff to meet the best management practices of the Mallets Creek Coordinating Committee. 2. Outdoor paging and PA systems are prohibited. 3. The remaining part of parcel L12-08-400-025 shall be attached to a neighboring parcel before any construction permit is issued.

Attachment #2 Resolution of Support for the Protection of Parks and Public Lands in Pittsfield Charter Township

Whereas, the Pittsfield Charter Township Comprehensive Plan includes land use designations for the Township parks, public lands, and regions for public facilities, and

Whereas, the Township’s parks and public areas are an integral part of the future vision and plan for the Township, providing recreation, habitat protection, natural features protection, and storm water management for the entire Township, and

Whereas, the sewer and water service area was approved by the Board of Trustees and incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan based on an assumption that most of the Township’s park land would not require service, thus making utilities available to other parcels in the Township, and

Whereas, development and conservation has proceeded according to the Comprehensive Plan, which is based on a presumption that the Township’s parks and public lands will not be sold to private developers, and

Whereas, the Township’s interest in this land is not currently protected, and public land and parks could be sold and converted to private development now or in the future, and

Whereas, if parks and public lands were sold for private development, this would have a detrimental affect on the health and well-being of residents, on the Township’s ability to attract high quality non-residential growth, a detrimental affect on residential property values throughout the Township, and could increase demand for the Township’s finite sewer capacity,

Now, therefore be it resolved, that the Pittsfield Charter Township Planning Commission supports the protection of parks and public lands in the Township, and sees the protection of these valuable assets as essential to the planning process in Pittsfield Charter Township, and

Now, therefore be it further resolved, that the Pittsfield Charter Township Planning Commission supports the efforts of the Board of Trustees to investigate the establishment of protective easements on parks and public lands, to preserve them for the benefit and enjoyment of residents now and in the future.