Pittsfield Charter Twp, Michigan

REGULAR MEETING January 16, 2003 7:30 P.M. 

PITTSFIELD TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 

 Members Present: Russell Banush, Christina Lirones, Wilma Luna, Julie Griess, Edward Resha, Norman Schneyer, Dennis Ward

Members Absent: None

Others Present: Assistant Planner Kristine Goddard, Senior Planner and Zoning Administrator Mark Spencer, and Marge Burkheiser, Recording Secretary.

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

Chairperson Lirones called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. A quorum was present.

2.0 Pledge of Allegiance

Chairperson Lirones led the Pledge of Allegiance.

3.0 Approval of Agenda

Commissioner Resha recommended moving item 8.1 of New Business to follow item 6.1 of the Public Hearings.

Motion by Commissioner Resha, supported by Commissioner Luna, to approve the agenda, as amended.

Motion carried

4.0 Election of Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Secretary

Motion by Commissioner Schneyer recommended the current slate of officers continue for the next year.

The Commission discussed the merits of rotating officers.

Commissioner Schneyer withdrew his motion.

Chairperson Lirones stated the nominations were open.

Commissioner Banush nominated Chairperson Lirones to continue as Chair of the Planning Commission.

Chairperson Lirones accepted the nomination.

Commissioner Ward nominated Commissioner Resha for Chairperson.

Commissioner Resha declined the nomination stating the current Chairperson has done an excellent job.

Motion by Commissioner Banush, supported by Commissioner Resha, to close the nominations for Chairperson.

MOTION CARRIED

Chairperson Lirones stated that currently Commissioner Resha is Vice-Chairperson and nominations for Vice-Chair are open.

Motion by Commissioner Resha, supported by Commissioner Luna, to nominate Commissioner Ward, to the position of Vice-Chair.

Chairperson Ward stated he would accept the nomination.

Commissioner Banush, supported by Commissioner Resha, to close the nominations for Vice-Chair.

MOTION CARRIED

Motion by Commissioner Ward, support by Commissioner Banush, to nominate Commissioner Griess, for Secretary.

Commissioner Griess inquired the amount of time for involvement before accepting the position.

Commissioner Banush gave an explanation of various responsibilities.

Commissioner Griess agreed to accept the nomination of Secretary.

Motion by Commissioner Banush, supported Commissioner Ward, to close the nominations for Secretary.

Motion by Commissioner Resha, supported by Commissioner Luna, to elect the slate of nominated officers [Chair Christina Lirones, Vice-Chair Dennis Ward and Secretary Julie Griess], by acclamation.

MOTION CARRIED

5.0 Items from the Floor

None.

6.0 Public Hearings

6.1 CUP 02-09 Nextel Wireless Facility [submitted for conditional use permit for a wireless communication tower]

Bryan Monaghan, of Nextel, stated they asked to be removed from the agenda but that the hearing would be held because the Public Hearing Notices were sent out. He stated they are re-designing the site and that the tower would be 150 feet. He also said this tower will be located on property owned by Saline Area Schools and they will be leasing this site for 30 years. He further said this will be an unmanned facility and will be serviced about once a month. He said they would plant trees around the compound and will do whatever the Commission requests. He continued and said there is a small issue with meeting the setback required for the new right-of-way if Campus Parkway a public road. They will look into solving the problem by applying for a variance. He then stated that they should receive FAA approval and their preliminary studies indicated the tower would not need to be lit. He said his company wants a minimum 120 foot tower and they are proposing a 150 foot tower to maximize co-location and the number of users. He then stated that with this type of construction the antennas are stacked outside the tower.

Commissioner Banush inquired what the exact elevation of the site was.

Bryan Monaghan stated the elevation is 843 feet.

Commissioner Banush inquired who would is be responsible for raising and lowering the flag.

Bryan Monaghan replied that the School would be responsible.

Commissioner Resha inquired about the leased area and the setbacks.

Planner Spencer said the tower must be setback the height of the tower from the property lines and a 75 foot by 75 foot lease area does not meet lot area requirements. He stated that land leased for more than a year must meet all Zoning Ordinance requirements for a lot.

Motion by Commissioner Resha to postpone.

Chairperson Lirones stated we need to have public hearing.

Commissioner Resha withdrew his motion to postpone.

Planner Spencer reviewed his report and asked the applicant to do more to save more trees on the site. He said he would like to see coverage maps showing a 90 foot tower. He then suggested that no fencing may be more appropriate for the area. He said the Commission may ask for a removal bond if they discontinued service. Chairperson Lirones opened the public hearing.

Carol McClain, resident of Rolling Hills and representing the Homeowner's Association, stated they were concerned about the location being in their backyard and about the height. She also stated research displayed on the National Institute of Health website indicates there may be health issues associated with cell phone towers. She said she was concerned about closeness to the school and the children and asked the Commission to reconsider the location of the tower. She stated she hasn’t found anyone in favor of the tower and asked the Commissioners to consider the neighbors, their house value and the health risks.

Commissioner Griess asked if anyone knew what the exact distance to the closest house.

The applicant stated approximately 150 yards.

Dave Rhodes of Rolling Hills said the neighborhood has gone from a rustic rural area to views that now include the Saline Schools, the water tower and this tower would become another eyesore for the area. He expressed concern about health issues and Saline Schools taking Pittsfield’s tax base away from the Township. He stated this was his retirement home and he doesn’t want to see this tower nor did his neighbors. He asked the Commissioner's to reconsider the location.

Jim, a resident of Rolling Hills, said he had the same comments and did not want the tower to be lit. He said they have had problems with an auto dealer and lights. He felt there are other alternatives and that there should be a better use for this piece of property.

Chairperson Lirones asked the audience to express the same comments to the Saline Public Schools if they were against the project.

Carl Rabbi, of Suncrest, asked why there should be landscaping if it will be a stealth tower. He said he was opposed to the project.

A member of the audience stated that since the Saline Schools have removed the property from the tax rolls and they also are receiving $10,000 in cell [phone] equipment and they offered the suggestion the Township look into the possibility of also receiving a similar type of assistance from the company.

Chairperson Lirones read an email letter from Duane Hughes.

Motion by Commissioner Ward supported by Commissioner Banush to close the public hearing.

MOTION CARRIED

Planner Spencer said that federal law does not allow them to consider health issues and said the federal government has determined they are safe.

Chairperson Lirones strongly suggested the homeowners in Rolling Hills go to the school and express their health concerns.

Carol McCain said she was confused and asked if the Commission doesn't have a say as to where the tower goes.

Chairperson Lirones stated that Planner Spencer was saying the health issues can not be part of their review process, but said the Commission can control the location of the tower.

Motion by Commissioner Resha, to postpone action and to end any further discussion at this time.

Chairperson Lirones stated the above motion dies from lack of support.

Commissioner Griess said that a compatibility issue of lighting is critical. She then asked if approved and found it not necessary to be lit, can we specify that the flag be taken down at night?

Chairperson Lirones said if the flag is up at night it needed to be illuminated.

Commissioner Banush said there are regulations on when and how the flag is displayed and that would be out of our hands. He then asked Commissioner Ward if he felt this design was stable without guy wires.

Commissioner Ward said this is a civil engineer issue but that he felt it would be fine.

Commissioner Banush asked if Ann Arbor airport had any jurisdiction.

Planner Goddard answered the State would have to approve.

Commissioner Banush asked if the Township should ask for a study to be done by an independent person to determine the need for this tower.

Commissioner Ward said there is not a "certified" RF person but the companies usually have an engineer on staff.

Chairperson Lirones said the applicant would need to demonstrate they cannot co-locate and explain why they need this height. She said the Ordinance permits this use with a Conditional Use Permit. She further said their decision must be based on a finding of fact. She added we can not deny because we don’t want it.

Unknown member of the audience asked about alternative locations since the school has a large amount of property and they should also look to co-locate on an existing tower.

Chairperson Lirones stated the remainder of the school property is zoned PF and they would have to check if it could be permitted. She said other areas could be a different property.

Commissioner Luna asked for an explanation of the color key on the plans submitted.

Commissioner Resha stated he felt towers had a five mile radius and that this one shows a 2.5 mile radius.

Bryan Monaghan stated the radius depends on the topography. He then gave some examples indicating that the core gap they are looking to close have a radius of about one mile. He also stated the amount of volume is growing daily and the towers are currently not able to handle that volume.

Commissioner Banush stated a major concern of the Township is that the intersection of State Road and Michigan Avenue has been identified as a major gateway to the Township. He stated whatever is there needs to be in harmony with the area and this has been adopted in the [Comprehensive] Plan last year.

An unidentified member of the audience stated his family has cell phones from different companies and they work fine. They don’t need another tower.

Commissioner Luna inquired if there were other towers in the area to co-locate on.

1. Monaghan said none in the area.

Commissioner Luna made the general statement that people are not having problems in this area.

1. Monaghan said they do not build towers without a demonstrated need and they are very expensive to construct. He further stated a gap in service was determined in this area.

Commissioner Luna said she was puzzled that if there are currently no towers in this area then why does her [cell phone] work without problems.

1. Monaghan stated he could not answer since he is not an RF engineer. He also stated the problem is increased capacity.

Commissioner Ward asked if the service problem is the need for more coverage or more capacity.

1. Monaghan state that both are problems but the bigger issue is capacity.

Chairperson Lirones asked Mr. Monaghan to clarify his statement that he is not a RF engineer but he is an attorney.

1. Monaghan said that was correct and he has been doing this for 12 years and would have an engineer available for the next meeting.

An unknown member of the audience stated the one mile radius at Michigan Avenue is not a huge gap and restated that his phones work in the area fine and another tower was not needed.

Commissioner Ward thanked Planner Spencer for his earlier comments regarding health issues. He then stated that the FCC does have set guidelines for exposure. He further stated that Verizon and Nextel have the most build out for coverage in the country and that is why he asked if the need for the tower was for capacity or coverage or both issues. He further stated the map does appear to show a small dead area. He also stated he would like the applicant to show a demonstrated height requirement. He then referenced the Sign Ordinance, Article 53 of the Zoning Ordinance Section 53.03. E. subsection 7 “All flags…..” and his concern about contradicting the Zoning Ordinance.

Chairperson Lirones gave a copy of site plan to the residents stating it is very preliminary.

Motion by Commissioner Resha, supported by Commissioner Luna, to postpone action on CUP 02-09, Nextel Wireless Facility and direct the applicant to address the concerns of the Zoning Administrator's report dated January 8, 2003.

MOTION CARRIED

Motion by Commissioner Resha, supported by Commissioner Ward, to postpone the combined preliminary and final site plan, CSPA 02-28, Nextel Wireless Facility and direct the applicant to address the concerns of the Planner's report dated January 8, 2003; the concerns of the Engineer's report dated January 7, 2003; and the concerns of the Zoning Administrator's report dated January 8, 2003.

MOTION CARRIED

7.0 Old Business

7.1 CSPA 99-18 Pittsfield Glen [submitted for final site plan]

Planner Spencer reviewed his report stating the Township had asked the applicant to save the "button bush" wetland and this has been done. He also stated that the applicant has maintained a reasonable setback from the wetland. He then said they could reduce some pavement area by reducing the parking space length in the multi-family area. He further said staff still needs details for mailboxes and the applicant needed to show clear lines for trees that will be mitigated. He then said Staff asked that the Planning Commission decide if the extra trees removed should be mitigated and estimated that would be about 60 trees. He said a couple of the lots back up to Thomas Road and they included a landscaping easement. He suggested this may be an ideal area to plant some of the mitigated trees and as a reminder to the Planning Commission, Thomas and Textile Roads are part of the "greenway" corridors, which are part of the Comprehensive Plan and there should be an adequate "visual" entryway.

Planner Spencer said there were a couple of driveways that were less then the required 25 feet (one is 24 feet the other is 23.8 feet) and stated Staff felt this would be adequate without obstructing the sidewalks. Continuing Mr. Spencer stated they install fencing to protect the trees during grading. In the multi-family area Staff asked the applicant to add some additional parking and this has been done. He further said Staff asked the applicant to replace the Norway Maples on the plan and to use native Michigan species where possible and would like these trees listed in the tree plan. He then stated the Land Development Standards has guidelines for replacement. He also said the applicant is proposing using 3 inch DBH trees for the required canopy trees and is asking the Commission for an additional 156 inches to provide for the additional half inch tree. After reviewing the Standards, which provides for 2.5 inch trees and that there is not a mechanism to make changes. He stated in discussions with Pat Judd, of Pollock Design, Mr. Judd stated that after five years the trees would be the same and this would effectively reduce the number of trees provided on the site. He further stated staff has consulted with Pat Judd and MDEQ about the "button bush" wetland and both felt the volume of drainage to the wetland should be kept the same. He suggested the catch basin to the west of the site could be eliminated and drainage going into the wetland. He further stated the lighting in the development should not illuminate the wetland or wooded areas and has requested that the applicant keep the lighting to a bare minimum. He also said that light poles in the residential area range from 250 to 700 feet apart and that the typical spacing is 250 feet apart; this should be reviewed by the Township lighting consultant. He also suggested to the applicant that they should consider adding short fencing or a corner post in the common area to help identify them. He then added that if the Planning Commission considers approval tonight, there is a list of items that need to be taken care of, including establishing a drainage district, reviewing the Master Deed and Exhibit B drawings, a Development Agreement signed before a pre construction meeting and a SAD taken care of lighting in the area.

Chairperson Lirones asked if there were any engineering issues to resolve.

Planner Spencer said there are a small number of issues included asking the Planning Commission if the lighting consultant should review the plans and written approval was needed from the Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner. He then said that there were some additional details, but they are minor. He also restated that during his conversations with Patrick Judd on the wetland, it will have a good chance of surviving, if the same amount of water was maintained.

1. Norman Hyman, attorney for the applicant along with Stephanie Lang of Atwell Hicks, stated they have reviewed the reports and will start with items that they feel are conditions of final site approval but don’t think they should hold up getting final approval. Mr. Hyman stated he felt most issues related by Mr. Spencer (snow fencing; parking calculations and species of trees) are part of final site but, are often conditions of the approval. He also stated that establishing a drainage district and a lighting SAD [Special Assessment District] are prior to permits not prior to site plan approval. He said that the applicant has no problem with the Norway Maples. He said he felt most items related by Mr. Spencer are conditions of approval. He then said to resolve the tree mitigation issue there is a meeting in the morning and that he has information Mr. Spencer was not aware of and has not been able to relay to Staff. He further said the other issue is drainage into the button bush and plans have been changed to accommodate the change in drainage through other alternatives. He further said that tonight they would like to know what other items are necessary for final site approval and then postpone until next meeting Feb 6th.

Chairperson Lirones said that the commission needed to look at the things that are required.

Planner Spencer said he has talked to the applicant about the backyard drainage and has talked with Michigan Department of Environmental Quality [MDEQ] and felt water into the wetland was more important than lack of water. He further stated if the applicant would like to hire an expert to confirm this information he should.

1. Hyman said he would like to discuss the lot drainage. He said that they would prefer to take water from the natural area across the road and stay away from using rear yard drainage.

Chairperson Lirones asked if it was possible to restrict the use of fertilizers on people's lawns.

1. Hyman stated this could be done in the Master Deed restrictions, stating some types of fertilize that can not be used.

Chairperson Lirones asked about items 3.01, 3.02 and 3.03 of Planner Spencer’s report.

1. Lang stated she has meet with the postmaster about the mailboxes and he was not able to make a determination at this time.

2. Hyman clarified that a bid was sent out to a private collector but this is still regulated through the post office.

3. Lang stated we are working with them [the post office] but they did not know when an answer would be given.

Planner Spencer said staff would like to see the design and location of the mailboxes stating his concern for safety for the common mailboxes. He also said there are some landscape requirements if a sidewalk mounted central mail location.

Chairperson Lirones said this could be done as a condition for approval for administrative review later.

Planner Spencer said administrative review could be done if the Commission would like Staff to handle it.

1. Lang stated she felt the multi-family housing would have a central mailbox location and the single family homes would have boxes but the post office would have to decide whether this would be rural or urban housing.

2. Hyman related a previous example where the post office agreed to four box clusters and he said the post office did not want single mailboxes.

Planner Spencer asked what type housing was in the example given.

1. Hyman stated the housing type was very similar to this site with the single family units treated differently then the attached condo part.

Planner Spencer stated in the spirit of cooperation the next meeting is February 6, 2003.

Norm Hyman stated that Administration, Staff, representations of Atwell Hicks and himself recently had a meeting concerning mitigation issue, the expense of relocating the road, the three lots and delay with the button bush wetland and would need to be discussed again with Staff.

Commissioner Schneyer asked if the applicant was requesting less mitigation.

1. Hyman replied yes, we are asking for more mitigation to be forgiven. He then stated that should be resolved by tomorrow and they are trying to resolve this in good faith.

Members and Staff discussed the advantages versus the disadvantages of 3 inch DBH trees and 2.5 DBH trees and all agreed they would prefer the 2.5 inch trees.

Planning Spencer discussed lighting issues and stated the Township Lighting Consultant will be reviewing the site plans.

Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Banush, postpone action on the final site plan, CSPA 99-18 Pittsfield Glen, that we direct the applicant to address the items discussed before the Commission this evening, as the applicant has agreed to, and we allow the applicant to be on the next meeting agenda [February 6, 2003] for discussion only.

MOTION CARRIED

7.2 CSPA 02-13 U. S. Storage Depot [submitted for preliminary site plan]

Planner Goddard reviewed Planner Schmult's report and comments from the Zoning Administrator’s report.

Planner Spencer reviewed engineering’s report. He stated they felt the biggest change is the sewer line which will now connect on the east side of the property.

Mike Baker of Schonsheck stated he did talk with developer of project about the doors; moving the doors to the west was not acceptable nor was reducing the height of the doors. He further stated the choices left were to make the doors attractive or screen them more fully. He said the new site plan shows the doors with screening and glass matching the building.

Chairperson Lirones asked the applicant if he was saying that the trucks are too tall to reduce the door height.

Commissioner Ward asked what foot increments the doors came in.

1. Baker replied 2 feet increments. Commissioner Ward inquired if the applicant had internal standards for the sizes of the doors or openings were based on the type of truck or vehicles that would be entering the building.

2. Baker said they look at type of clients and their needs.

Chairperson Lirones stated she can see the reason for the height and understands. She then asked if the height was a violation of zoning. Planner Spencer stated the height of the doors was not a violation of our zoning.

1. Baker said the doors are the best the industry can do; they are sectional and they have done the best we can to screen them from State. He stated he doesn’t feel they will be seen from the road.

Chairperson Lirones asked if this would be setting a precedent.

Planner Spencer stated we will be looking at the landscaping; there is a small spot that could be beefed up to keep the doors from view. He then stated the Commission could ask the applicant if they make 4 foot panel doors instead of 2 foot panel doors and are these custom made doors.

Steven Gotts of Schonsheck, stated the doors will look a like the windows.

Commissioner Ward asked if the glass on the doors is tinted the same as the building, and would like to see that was noted on the plans. He further stated it could say something like “glass matches the building”. He also had a question about the door elevation not matching.

Commissioner Schneyer stated the Township doesn’t have a problem with our fire stations that have fire station with no screening. He stated at these locations it doesn’t look all that bad.

Commissioner Banush thought from last meeting the trucks were small panel trucks. He further stated that when he inquired how often the doors would be open at the last meeting the response was not very often.

1. Baker said they won’t be open often, full use of the building will take a couple of years and we're talking about 7-8 trips a day. He further stated that the amount of time the doors would remain open would be a minimal.

Commissioner Banush asked if the doors closed after a truck entered.

1. Baker then clarified that the doors would open and then close each time.

Planner Spencer stated with doors facing State staff was concerned about trucks stacking up and being seen form the road.

Commissioner Ward stated that the flag exceed building height allowed in the Zoning District and referred back to ordinance.

Planner Spencer said the federal government does not have a statement of attaching a flag to a building and the ordinance does need to be changed. Mr. Baker stated the flag pole is no longer going to be there.

Chairperson Lirones suggested adding an additional condition; “The flag pole will be removed from the building.”

Planner Goddard reminded applicant any alternative installation would require a Zoning Clearance and that all outside signs would require sign permits prior to installation.

Planner Spencer stated one item not mentioned was the fencing around the island. He further stated that it has the potential of storage and would like to eliminate that.

Motion by Commissioner Luna, supported by Commissioner Ward to approve the preliminary site plan, CSPA 02-13 U. S. Storage Depot, with the following conditions:

1. Applicant will provide the required information in items 3 and address items 4.01, 4.03 and 4.07 of the Planner's report dated January 9, 2003.

1. The two overhead doors that face State Road shall be completely screened by the installation of a double row of evergreen trees and understory plantings; and shall be designed to have an attractive appearance and it shall be noted that the door glass will match the building material and tint.

   1. Address the concerns of the Engineer's report January 10, 2003.

   2. The applicant must provide approval from the Michigan Aeronautics Commission or another certification that the proposed structure meets with the Tall Structure Act and FAA requirements.

2. The flag pole shall be removed from the building.

   MOTION CARRIED

8.0 New Business

8.1 CUP 02-09/CSPA 02-28 Nextel Wireless Facility [submitted for conditional use permit and preliminary and final site plan for a wireless communication tower]

Item moved to follow 6.1 of the public hearing.

8.2 CSPA 02-29 84 Lumber-New Offices [submitted for preliminary and final site plan]

Motion by Commissioner Banush, supported by Commissioner Resha, to approve the preliminary and final site plan CSPA 02-29, 84 Lumber-New Offices.

MOTION CARRIED.

8.3 CSPA 02-24 Lexington Pointe Club (revision to CSPA 99-35) [submitted for preliminary site plan]

Planner Goddard reviewed her report stating this is a revised plan. She stated if the barrier free spaces were no longer needed in their previous location, then the site plan must be corrected to show this.

Commissioner Luna asked for clarification of the term "barrier free".

Planner Goddard stated it was handicap.

Planner Spencer stated the Township wants to have a Development Agreement in place before final approval is given.

Mark Pascoe, engineer with Atwell-Hicks and applicant for the owners, stated the owner has requested eliminating the barrier free spaces to use the spaces for loading and unloading area. Mr. Pascoe also stated he would like to request working with staff regarding striping. He further stated he understood the lighting will be corrected with shielding and that they are working with a lighting consultant. He said he would appreciate approval to start building; that this is senior housing and that carports would be greatly appreciated during the winter.

Planner Spencer stated the lighting is a problem. If the applicant had submitted as two separate projects they would have to submit new fees.

1. Pascoe agreed lighting is an issue for the previous builders and would like to proceed with construction on the carports.

Commissioner Banush said lighting would be a legal issue since they did not conform to site plan.

Planer Spencer said they need to do various things to become compliant. Staff would have to see these done before agreeing.

Chairperson Lirones said there is a lighting issue that is self created and the applicant should have taken care of this.

Commissioner Ward said the applicant should take care of the lighting; they created the problem.

Commissioner Resha asked what is being done to make them comply.

Chairperson Lirones said that final site approval on the site was being withheld. Planner Spencer said a plan has been submitted as part of this plan but they need to correct the lighting plan by addressing the lighting consultants comments..

1. Pascoe asked what he would need to do to receive final approval.

Chairperson Lirones stated address the comments of the lighting consultant.

Commissioner Ward stated they need to update the plans, the photometric sheet and fix what is in the field.

Motion by Commissioner Resha, supported by Commissioner Luna, to approve the preliminary site plan CSPA 02-24 Lexington Pointe Club (revision to CSPA 99-35), and direct the applicant to address the concerns in the Planner's report dated January 9, 2003, items 4, 5, and 6c.

MOTION CARRIED

8.0 Planner’s Report

None.

9.0 Chairperson’s Report

None.

10.0 Commissioner’s Report

None.

11.0 Approval of Prior Minutes

Motion by Commissioner Resha, supported by Commissioner Banush, to approve the minutes of November 21, 2002 and December 5, 2002, as presented.

MOTION CARRIED

12.0 Adjournment

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

MOTION CARRIED

Chairperson Lirones adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m.

__________________________________________________________________ s/Julie Griess, Secretary April 17, 2003