Pittsfield Charter Twp, Michigan

REGULAR MEETING September 18, 2003 7:30 P.M.

PITTSFIELD TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

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

Members Absent: Wilma Luna

Others Present: Ann Stevens, John Marsh, Tim Hader, Jim Haeussler, Josie Parker, Ken Polsinelli, Matt Pauli, Andrea Urda-Thompson, Andrea Kevrick, Michael Baker, Dave Hughes, Robert Vandervoldi, Assistant Planner Jennifer Black, Senior Planner and Zoning Administrator Mark Spencer, Recording Secretary Marge Burkheiser.

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

Chairperson Lirones called the meeting to order at 7:35 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 Banush, supported by Commissioner Ward, to approve the agenda as presented.

MOTION CARRIED

4.0 Items from the Floor

None.

5.0 Public Hearings

None.

6.0 Old Business

6.1 RZ #03-02/CSPA 03-06 Peters Building Co. /Webster (Legacy Heights formerly Heritage Commons)

Senior Planner Spencer reviewed Planner Schmult's report. He stated this was a re-submittal, and it meets the minimum requirements of the ordinance. He said the frontage road has been eliminated and the central open space has been reduced and divided into two parts. He also stated the Road Commission reviewed and accepted the general layout of the streets and intersections.

Planner Schmult noted there was no parking on one side of the street and stated the WCRC has indicated that was not possible unless the State Police determined there are safety issues. He said Planner Schmult is asking that the word "requirement" be removed from the 30 foot PUD setback, noting that 30 feet is not a requirement. Mr. Spencer said the Planning Commission may want the applicant to provide hedging or decorative fencing to delineate the open space. He also said the Subdivision Advisory Committee and the Staff suggests moving lots 41 through 43 to the north to increase the amount of contiguous open space; this will allow future development an out lot to the south. He further said Engineering has the usual comments and preliminary approval from the Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner [WCDC] has not been received.

Commissioner Banush stated the Planning Commission should recommend aeration of the pond to coincide with Engineer’s report.

Planner Spencer stated there will not be permanent water retention because the gravel and sand will drain quickly. He said the applicant has been asked by the WCDC to provide soil borings to be sure the ground water is not too high. He said if the groundwater is too high, there will be permanent water in the pond thus lowering the capacity of the pond. He said they would then have to redesign the pond. The applicant agreed to provide the information.

Ann Stevens, Atwell Hicks, showed some different concept drawings which would increase the contiguous open space. She stated there are plans to put in a split rail fence and landscaping to help distinguish the open space from the lots. The soil boring test was done and they went at least 15 feet below the existing surface without hitting ground water; they have asked the boring company for percolation rates.

Chairperson Lirones stated she was surprised the basins are to be 8 feet deep.

Ann Stevens stated they are fairly gradual.

John Marsh, Atwell Hicks Engineer, said he tried to increase the open space while maintaining two (2) one hundred (100) year storm events.

Chairperson Lirones asked if they saw the out lot to the south as being a big problem.

Jim Heasussler, Peters Building Developer, stated they could reconfigure. He stated he talked to the City of Saline as the Committee suggested, and they see no need for the out-lot.

Chairperson Lirones replied she would feel comfortable if they could include it; she feels the City’s plans could change in the future.

Planner Spencer commented the out-lot could provide pedestrian access to the open space and to the pond.

Planner Spencer stated there was concern about the usability of the open space; it may be useful if there was a pathway system. He suggested a path would provide a use for that open space.

Chairperson Lirones stated this could be better as additional landscaping.

1. Stevens stated the pedestrians could walk on the maintained grass.

2. Haeussler voiced his favor of a pathway, although he would not be in favor of a woodchip path because this would cause too many problems.

Commissioner Ward stated there has to be a separation for the homeowners and the pedestrians. He added this may become a source of unnecessary conflict with the residents.

Chairperson Lirones asked if there are sidewalks on both sides of the road.

1. Stevens confirmed it is a public road and public roads have to have sidewalks on both sides.

Commissioner Ward asked if any type of screening and delineation for existing homeowners in the area has been planned.

1. Haeussler stated there is alot of natural delineation from the old fence row that is right along that area, although there will need to be more delineation on the south side.

Commissioner Ward asked if the berm detail is proposed along the east side, because they show the landscape buffer for the east and the west sides. He then asked did they plan to use the berm detail.

1. Stevens stated they were looking to use the berm along the east and west sides near the curb cut on the existing public streets. She mentioned a lot of the area could not have a berm because of the effort to preserve the existing trees.

Commissioner Ward stated he is not a fan of using the berm because of the drainage problems they create.

Chairperson Lirones asked about the sidewalk on Woodland Drive.

1. Stevens stated there are a few issues with the location that are being worked on. She stated The City of Saline owns 4 feet on the other side of Woodland, so an easement from the City of Saline will have to be obtained to go through the City’s 4 feet. Also, the right of way for the sidewalk is partially the City of Saline’s.

2. Stevens confirmed they will work on the inside lots and try to smooth out the arrangement. She stated if they add the 33 feet of out lot to the south they will end up putting another lot up there to compensate although they might not be able to if they lose 66 feet in the south.

Chairperson Lirones stated she hoped they could fit the out lot in without putting more lots in the central open space. She asked if there was any way they could compress it side to side.

1. Stevens stated since there is access to the open space through the 66 feet they could get rid of the three 20 foot floaters that Planner Schmult wanted.

Chairperson Lirones stated Planner Schmult was asking for some way to have access between units 27 and 28 and units 6 and 7 in order to reach all the small triangles of open space. She asked what the commissioners thought of that idea.

Commissioner Ward stated he feels the central open space will become an attraction and he would be willing to squeeze on one of the triangles if they had to. He commented he does not want to compromise the overall open space of the project but the central area will become a focal point for this community.

Planner Spencer stated the pathways to part of the open space could be on the out-lot. He stated that since this is a PUD with the proposed width of 120 feet it could be less than that as a PUD.

1. Stevens stated with those parameters she thinks they could get the 66 feet in there and leave the same number of lots in the top.

Discussion only; no action.

6.2 CSPA 02-25 Harwood Farms [submitted for preliminary site plan]

Planner Spencer gave a brief overview of the site. He suggested they provide a table on the final site to help with keeping the impervious surfaces under control. He also suggested the Planning Commission discuss hiring an arborist to evaluate the 60 inch burr oak tree. He added, these trees tend to live 300 years and they die back as they grow older.

Commissioner Banush commented on Item 4 of Planner Spencer’s report, the second sentence where it says “the floor area ratio may or will limit”, he asked what word is to be used may or will. He also stated these trees can live up to 300 years, and asked if there was anyway of knowing from its diameter if it is going to live 300 years.

Planner Spencer stated the word “will” is to be used. He also stated this tree could live another hundred years.

Commissioner Ward agreed with the idea of the Township retaining an arborist to reevaluate the tree. Chairperson Lirones agreed.

Planner Spencer reviewed Planner Schmult’s report. He stated if a permanent body of water is used that it should be aerated. He commented if the pedestrian access is going to be behind units 39 through 45, then an easement needs to be provided. He said the staff has determined it could be placed in the right-of-way. He stated we may want to see how we could line this up with the potential path on the west side of Warner Road. The Township Engineer had a few issues. He said the staff has concerns with the drainage emptying out into a ten foot easement into Warner Creek Subdivision. The Drain Commissioner gave preliminarily approval. He stated the engineer will review the calculations and the runoff coefficient used on the existing property; it may be too high, thus it was not correctly counting for all the runoff from the site now. He stated the staff prefers a scalloped look to the berm where it borders the various properties; this would give it a more natural appearance. He stated the preliminary approval has not been given from the Road Commission although the Road Commission has stated “In the interest of public safety and an application of widely accepted access management principles the Road Commission will not consider direct access to US-12 for the proposed Harwood Farms community”. The staff believes this is not correct; the applicant’s traffic engineer submitted a report supporting the Campbell Road access. MDOT approved this access in the Townships Access Management Plan.

1. Stevens confirmed they have submitted preliminary plans to MDOT and they have given no exception to the street connecting with Campbell Road They have sent us greater detail so we can get the permit.

Chairperson Lirones understood from the public hearing the two major concerns were the water run off not being any worse and the residents being extremely concerned that they wanted the Campbell Road extension.

1. Tim Haeussler, the applicant, commented they have gone as far as they can at this point without the Township’s support. He stated he knows it is required to have the public roads.

Commissioner Ward said he felt it is the right thing to do. More traffic cannot be added to Platt Road and Warner Road.

Chairperson Lirones thought the residents were supportive of the site plan but concerned with the drainage and the traffic problems.

1. Marsh, Atwell Hicks, stated in the original plan for Warner Creek it was assumed the water would flow through that area, although there is a restriction (culvert) in one of the rear yards that is causing a bottle neck. He mentioned if that was not there, the flow would be able to go right through very easily. He stated the detention pond is providing a restriction that would confine beyond what the existing flow rates are, and that is how the Drain Office gave their preliminary approval.

Planner Spencer asked what would happen during a 100 year event. Will the flow be at a greater volume after we have a flood event like what is accruing now because of the runoff coefficient?

1. Marsh stated that immediately after a large rain event the ground is already soaked with water and can not accept anymore, so the runoff whether it is a frozen farm field or a soaked field just cannot accept more moisture. He stated he does not know if it would be at the same rate; he would need to run those computations.

Chairperson Lirones stated one of the other factors is the 40 foot wide common element to contain the sanitary sewer that extends to Michigan Avenue. Has this issue been looked at because it could potentially change the arrangement of the lots?

1. Stevens commented they usually put public utilities in easements, therefore the setbacks on those particular lots are slightly larger to compensate for the easement. She mentioned they do not put it in a public open space because it had not been an issue in other subdivisions.

Planner Spencer stated the Engineer felt this would cause maintenance problems because it is a main line and it would need servicing regularly. He asked if this is the main line that connects to the Michigan Avenue line.

1. Haeussler stated yes it is the main line.

Commissioner Ward asked if any data is available on how a often sewer like this has to be maintained.

Chairperson Lirones stated they should discuss this with Engineering to see why they need that 40 foot easement.

Commissioner Banush suspects it would be many years before anything would be necessary maintenance wise.

1. Haeussler states he will continue to work on the drain issue.

Commissioner Ward asked if the culvert could be removed and redesigned.

Planner Spencer noted the Drain Commission’s standards have changed and they would not allow that size of an easement today.

Chairperson Lirones asked about the shape of the detention pond and if they could make it a more natural looking design.

1. Marsh stated they are looking at filling the area with more bushes and shrubs. He mentioned they want to enhance the fence row and the area that people are going to see by giving it depth and variation.

Chairperson Lirones stated the Township would still like to get their own arborist to review the 60 inch tree.

Commissioner Banush asked if we received a letter of access from MDOT.

Planner Spencer stated no, but the access is acceptable to them.

Chairperson Lirones stated without this Campbell Road access these two subdivisions are virtually cut off from the park.

Planner Spencer noted the Township Treasurer is going to try to set up a meeting with the Road Commission on this issue and several other issues.

1. Haeussler commented they could apply with a private road and then later change it to a public road.

Planner Spencer asked if they need Road Commission approval before applying to MDOT.

1. Stevens said they are connecting a public road to a state road and they would need the public road agency’s approval before they could do that.

Chairperson Lirones asked if the Township could receive a copy of the permit application.

Jim Haeussler stated he will continue to pursue this issue.

Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Banush, to approve the preliminary site plan CSPA 02-25 Harwood Farms with the following conditions.

1. Preliminary approval is valid only if the Township Engineer's review drainage calculations and can ensure the Planning Commission that the drainage will not negatively impact any homes in the Warner Creek Subdivision and a permit is received from MDOT to construct the entrance at Michigan Ave across from Campbell Road.

2. Redesign the berm along the east side of the detention pond and provide a more aesthetically pleasing look.

3. Redesign south side of the detention pond to save 60 inch oak if the Township's arborist states that this tree has a reasonable chance of surviving for at least 10 years.

4. Address the concerns in the Township Engineer's report of September 10, 2003.

5. Address the concerns in the Township Planner's report of September 2, 2003.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

Ayes: Schneyer, Griess, Banush, Lirones, Resha, Ward

Nays: None

Abstain: None

Absent: Luna

MOTION CARRIED

6.3 CUP 03-03 Glencoe Crossings (Controlled) [submitted for a controlled use permit for a sports bar and pool hall]

Planner Spencer stated the signatures received in the past were strictly for the pool hall, the applicant then had to receive signatures for both the pool hall and the sports bar. He added the Planning Commission should go through the findings and see if they are acceptable for a motion. Planner Spencer feels this could be an added amenity in the area.

Commissioner Ward commented on the several restrictions that were enforced on the bingo hall such as; operating hours regarding alcohol possession within the facility. He mentioned he agrees with Planner Spencer that this would be good for the area, and he does not feel they need to impose restrictions on the applicant.

Motion by Commissioner Banush, supported by Commissioner Resha, to approve CUP 03-03 Glencoe Crossing Controlled Use Permit, for a sports bar and pool hall based on the findings presented in the Zoning Administrator's report of September 11, 2003.

MOTION CARRIED

6.4 CUP 03-04 Glencoe Crossing [submitted for conditional use permit for a sport bar and pool hall]

Planner Spencer noted that Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit is in no way advocating a liquor license from the Township’s pool of available licenses.

Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Resha, to approve CUP 03-04 Glencoe Crossing Conditional Use Permit for a sports bar and pool hall, based on the findings presented in the Zoning Administrator's report of July 11, 2003.

MOTION CARRIED

6.5 CSPA 02-13 U. S. Storage Depot [submitted for final site plan]

Chairperson Lirones noted this has not been reviewed by the Engineer for lighting.

Planner Spencer reviewed his report. He stated all three lots must be combined to meet the set back requirements; this will have to be done as a condition of any approval. He mentioned they will have to write a letter to the assessor stating they want all three lots combined. Planner Schmult stated he wants the improvements that are going to be done to State Street included on this plan. The lighting should have been reviewed by our lighting consultant and in reviewing the Engineer’s report it seems that has not been done. He added the landscaping calls for one hundred and twenty two (122) trees, plus approximately four hundred and twenty one (421) trees worth of mitigation, that is equal to one thousand fifty two (1,052) inches of woodland trees and heritage trees that were required to be mitigated. The applicant stated he would provide eighty one (81) canopy trees on the site, twenty five (25) spruce trees, twenty-seven (27) cherry trees, and fifty two (52) red cedar trees. He stated the Planning Commission could consider some of those trees as credit towards the one hundred and twenty two (122) required landscape trees. Planner Schmult mentioned the variety of species should be expanded. He also stated the applicant offered off-site deposits to the tree planting fund. At approximately $300 per every 2 ½ inch tree, this would come to about $126,300 dollars for mitigation. He added the staff suggests the applicant enter into a Development Agreement with the Township on this project. The Township Engineer mentioned there are some existing over head utilities to be placed under ground. He discussed a new culvert was provided directly over a sanitary sewer, this is unacceptable, there must be at least 5 foot of horizontal separation. He explained written approval still needs to be received from the Road Commission.

A Letter dated September 14, 2003 was handed to Planner Spencer. This letter is from the Road Commission stating they find the plans technically correct and they will issue a Temporary Access Permit to State Road while a road improvement agreement is being processed. In addition a utility permit will also be issued for the work in the State Road right of way.

Commissioner Banush asked how many times we have approved a final site plan without the lighting consultants input.

Planner Spencer stated this may be an oversight on our part. He said we could ask for the lighting plan to come back to the Planning Commission.

Chairperson Lirones commented that sometimes the lighting consultant is not as concerned about height, and he may allow more light then we like.

Planner Spencer stated this is a location where we would be concerned with the impact of light on the wetland.

The Commissioners agreed with having the staff review the lighting.

Members and staff discussed substitution for the ornamental and the conifer trees.

Chairperson Lirones clarified that if we allowed those substitutions we would come over the required amount.

The Commission, staff and the applicant discussed the cost for tree mitigation. The Planning Commission and the applicant agreed on $250.00 per tree by 421 trees for a total of $105,250.00.

Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Banush, to approve final site plan for CSPA 02-13, U. S. Storage Depot, with the following conditions.

1. Address the concerns of the Township Engineer's report of September 12, 2003. 2. Combine all three lots into one lot. 3. Outdoor lighting must be reviewed and approved by the Township's lighting consultant and Township planning staff and ensure no negative impact to the wetlands. 4. $105,250 shall be provided to the Township's tree planting fund to mitigate 1,052 inches of woodland and heritage trees removed from the site before any building permit is issued. 5. Enter into a development agreement with the Township before construction, with the exception of grading, begins. 6. Provide a minimum of three different canopy tree species. 7. Address the concerns of the Township's Planners report September 2, 2003.

MOTION CARRIED

7.0 New Business

7.1 CSPA 03-13 Washtenaw Center (submitted for preliminary site plan)

Planner Spencer reviewed the Zoning Administrator report. He stated there is a 40 foot right of way along Michigan Avenue; it is believed this was miscalculated as a 35 foot right of way. He also stated based on these findings the lot coverage, the net lot coverage, and the floor area ratio need to be recalculated. He stated a 15 foot transition strip is required along the west and south property line. He mentioned a 15 foot transition strip is along the west side of the property and a 6 foot high screen wall is provided along the south side. The Planning Commission needs to decide if this wall and the planting strip are acceptable in place of the 15 foot wide transition strip. He commented on the parking spaces, 72 are required and 73 are provided. He said one parking space is located in the southeast corner of the property. This space must be removed unless they obtain a variance. He mentioned the applicant wants to combine one of his driveways with the neighboring properties; this plan complies with almost all of the requirements except the offset driveway requirement of 250 feet. He discussed a sign location on the site plan that needs to be a minimum of 17.5 feet from the right of way line. Planner Schmult’s report commented on the plans showing only removal of one of the fences when both should be removed. He stated concern about a semi-truck not being able to enter the rear without going over some of the islands and the curb. He also commented on the sidewalks stating there should be two sidewalks at each end of the strip and a pedestrian link to the apartments. He mentioned the Engineering comments are typical. Planner Spencer mentioned working with AATA to provide a better bus shelter there.

Tim Hader with Schocheck, commented they have made some corrections to the revised plan; he then gave the Commissioners a handout showing the corrections to the building. He stated they have taken 8 feet of the building length off the side; now they believe the easement is 40 feet. He added the east setback would be 38.59 feet instead of 30.59 feet. This change lessens the impervious surface by over 100 feet in length and makes up for the impervious surface coverage problems. He stated they do not anticipate a semi-truck would need to come in here, although the radius could be changed to accommodate a semi. He mentioned there is not enough room to accommodate a sidewalk in the right of way; the owner has agreed to grant an easement for an additional sidewalk to be located 5 feet south of the existing curb line. He discussed the sidewalk in the back property, right now there are trails by the berm where the people from the apartments cut across to go to the bus stop. He mentioned they have also included a sidewalk down the center of the property, and will move the island so it lines up so people do not need to walk in between cars.

Chairperson Lirones stated the staff is concerned about customers walking past the business that they are going to, and then having to walk up the center sidewalk and back to the business they were headed to. She added we would like the residents of Spicetree to be able to walk to this business.

1. Hader stated there are foot paths on the property along with a steep incline. Any trail would have to have a staircase which is not safe in the winter time. He mentioned they do not encourage that kind of traffic at all.

Planner Spencer added if the wall was not taken all the way to the property line, this would give them space to come along the side of the building. He also stated there could be a sidewalk along the transition strip if this is what the Planning Commission would like, or a sidewalk could be placed on the Spicetree property.

Chairperson Lirones stated the goal is to have people from Spicetree be able to walk easily to the shopping center.

1. Hader commented it would make sense if we were to put a pedestrian access as far to the west as possible. He added we need to try to avoid the grading issues in that corner. If the Planning Commissions objective is to do this, we could put a sidewalk right along the eastern edge of the transition strip.

Planner Spencer mentioned at one time they had a sidewalk along the edge of the building so it could come up to a point and then cross that driveway. He added if there is a clear pedestrian avenue to take people will be less likely to gather in the back of the building.

Planner Spencer stated they had one extra parking space based on the calculations. He then asked if this building will be made any smaller.

1. Hader replied yes, the building is being made smaller by taking out the 8 foot of building length. He stated the parking spaces are down to 69 spaces instead of 72 spaces, the three spaces have been added as green space. He also stated some of the trees on the property are dying and we are limited by planting height near the power lines.

Chairperson Lirones asked what type of pine trees these are.

1. Hader responded he was uncertain what type of pine trees these are.

Planner Spencer asked if there was a tree trimming easement on this property.

1. Hader mentioned that on the west side of the property they have a problem with two overhead lines, the high voltage lines and the lower voltage lines.

Chairperson Lirones asked Mr. Hader to explain the elevation of the building and what type of brick is being used.

1. Hader replied they had decided to break the building and the roof lines so it is not quite so large. He stated three sides of the building will be brick those are; the front, the east, and the west sides with split face block base. He mentioned the applicant stated he wanted this building to “shine” and set an example, and also the applicant asked for a clock tower to draw attention to the site.

Planner Spencer commented on the power lines along the rear property line.

1. Hader replied those are Edison’s lines and we will not touch them.

Planner Spencer stated the Townships Land Development Standards ask that on developments the power lines be put below ground. He asked Mr. Hader what size the power lines are or do any of your pictures show those lines.

1. Hader replied he is not sure of the size and he does not believe any of the pictures show the size.

Planner Spencer stated that the building elevations are shown and the elevation on the rear is going to be visible from Spicetree.

1. Hader replied that yes some of the elevation will be visible. He stated the masonry wall will block the people on the first floor although; the second floor units will be able to see over the masonry wall.

Planner Spencer stated the islands are small to be putting trees in, especially with the overhead lines.

1. Hader stated they are ten foot clear and the islands will only call for one tree and six to ten shrubs.

Chairperson Lirones asked if this is a site where we could not put the lines under ground. She added they would like more information on the utility lines. She also added that this generally improves the look of the Township to have these lines underground.

Discussion only, no motion.

7.2 CSPA 03-18 Oak Valley Branch Library [submitted for discussion only]

Planner Spencer’s report stated that the net lot area needs to be provided. He explained one parking space is required for every four seats, and we will need the architect to verify the seating capacity before this amount can be calculated. He stated the wetland boundaries need to be re-verified before a final site plan is approved; the Township found that part of the wetland is not delineated correctly. He also stated the stream was not depicted correctly on the plans. Our Land Development Standards call for 100 foot setback from a stream. The staff felt it was reasonable to only ask for a 25 foot setback along this strip. He added the access management is offset by 213 feet. He said there is a small encroachment from a detention pond into the wetland setback. The Planning Commission needs to decide if these issues are acceptable. Planner Schmult’s report noted some technical things that needed to be added. The southwest curb of the parking lot should be moved 2 feet from the front setback line, parked vehicles can not overhang the required front yard setback. He said they have worked with the Road Commission to come up with a better design for the entrance. The Township Engineer mentioned that if this pond is going to be permanent, it should be aeration to it. Also, Engineering thinks this was an existing Chapter 18 drainage district for this park. Our comments from the Drain Commissioner stated this was not in the drainage district. He mentioned we do not have preliminary approval from the Road Commission or the Drain Commission. He said this is also in the Mallet’s Creek watershed; we have had some preliminary discussion with the applicant about this issue. He added the applicant assured us they will follow the best management practices for the Mallet’s Creek watershed.

Josie Parker, Director of the Ann Arbor District Library, stated she met with the Mallet’s Creek Association recently; she received a letter from them and she will forward that letter on.

Chairperson Lirones asked if the Road Commission was comfortable with the location of the driveway.

1. Parker stated she believed the Road Commission was comfortable with the location; she had a conversation with them about the drop off point. She stated something will have to be worked out to make sure there is no traffic backup into the road.

Chairperson Lirones commented on the sidewalk along the front. She added the staff talked about a walkway to the Ice Cube but they do not want to add anymore impervious surface, the sidewalk in the front would be sufficient.

1. Parker stated she felt they will be doing a great job on the storm water control and maintaining as clean of water as they can.

Carl Luckenbach, Luckenbach and Ziegelman Architects, stated they are proposing to put a 14,800 square foot building on a 5.74 acre site. He said they have a relatively low proportion of the site in an impervious surface, parking is being provided for 60 cars based on the number of seats in the facility. He stated there is a very little portion of this site that is developable. It is bisected from its west and east edge by the intermediated stream. He mentioned the principle issue is the buffer that is mandated along the stream, the PUD was approved for the 25 foot buffer when the Library purchased the site. He added the buffer has now been increased to 100 feet. He added if this is to be enforced it will make the site virtually not able to build on.

Andrea Kevrick, Insite Design Studio, stated this site has poor quality in terms of plant material. She did an assessment which came out to be a 10 and anything under a 20 is considered to be poor quality in terms of natural feature and natural quality. She said they looked at what they could do to improve the site. The vegetated cover in terms of tree canopy is still maintained within the buffer that is left. She added the 25 foot line allows for all the vegetated cover to exist across an intermittent stream therefore keeping the temperature controlled. We want to maintain the cover along the stream and enhance it. The Library has committed to restoration and management of the existing stream and wetland. She stated they are looking for the longest path the storm water could take when it leaves the parking lot and roof. She said this site is proposed to have 80% native plant material.

Planner Spencer asked about the outlet from the detention being purposely pulled back from the wetland area to avoid getting a permit. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality [MDEQ] stated they felt it would be better if a permit was pulled. Planner Spencer asked if they were going to obtain an MDEQ permit.

1. Kevrick stated there is a depressed terrace area before the stream. She stated they do not know if the selected grubbing will require a DEQ permit. If it does, the Library is committed to go after it. She feels they do better then what permits require.

Planner Spencer stated the DEQ has expressed an interest to be involved in these issues.

Commissioner Banush asked Ms. Kevrick to define grubbing.

1. Kevrick stated grubbing is pulling out the root systems of the invasive plants.

Chairperson Lirones stated they will need to see that the wetlands and the stream are correctly delineated and also preliminary approval from the WCDC and the WCRC needs to be received. She added she would like to see the Mallett’s Creek Committee reports.

1. Parker stated Mallett’s Creek is concerned about the setback and the fact that you may agree to a reduction. At the same time they know what the Library is planning to do on the site may be better than what others would plan.

Chairperson Lirones commented that given what they are doing with the natural vegetation she does not see any big problem with this.

Planner Spencer added they have received letters from the Road Commission and the Drain Commission, the Road Commission had no issues with the access point. He stated the applicants have submitted a revised plan to the Road Commission showing a bigger stacking distance. He also stated they addressed some of Planner Schmult’s issues with the drop off. He said the Drain Commission has typical comments such as the northern portions of the site were being discharged without water quality and treatment. He then asked if they know where those were on the site.

1. Kevrick stated she was not sure.

Commissioner Schneyer stated he felt there was no problem with the 25 foot setback. He added this site will be very attractive when it is finished.

1. Parker requested to be added to the next agenda.

Discussion only, no motion.

8.0 Planner’s Report

Planner Spencer stated the Natural Resource Commission is reviewing the open burning and hunting Ordinance.

Commissioner Ward asked if open burning was only allowed if they were using burn barrels.

Planner Spencer stated he thought open burning was allowed in an Agricultural district.

The Commissioners discussed open burning.

Planner Spencer stated there are people hunting close to the subdivisions, technically they are not supposed to hunt within 450 feet of a building.

Commissioner Ward is concerned with people not being able to handle fire arms.

The Members discussed hunting within the Township.

9.0 Chairperson’s Report

Chairperson Lirones noted tonight is the last meting for Commissioner Schneyer. She and all the members, along with Staff, extended their thanks to him for his service, to the Planning Commission.

10.0 Commissioner’s Report

Commissioner Banush noted a comment in Planner Schmult's report, concerning the height of the lights at Sam's Club [CSPA 02-04] still shown at 37 1/2 feet and is not the 30 feet approved by the Planning Commission.

Planner Spencer replied this was correct and engineering will not approve the plans until the items are corrected.

11.0 Approval of Prior Minutes

None.

12.0 Adjournment

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

MOTION CARRIED

Chairperson Lirones adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m.

________________________________________________________________________ s/Julie Griess, Secretary December 11, 2003