Chairperson DeBoyer: As he could not answer the questions without speaking to the Engineer.

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF THE CLAY TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISION REGULAR MEETING HELD WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2014 IN THE CLAY TOWNSHIP MEETING HALL, 4710 PTE. TREMBLE ROAD, CLAY TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson DeBoyer called the meeting to Order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Edward Keller, II; Anthony Antkowiak; Charles Miller; Kathie Schweikart; Whitey Simon; Lesly Cahill; Chairperson Dorothy DeBoyer EXCUSED: Christine Holcomb ABSENT: John Blair A quorum was established. 3. AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA: 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2013: Motion by Schweikart, supported by Cahill to approve the minutes of December 11, 2013 as amended. Correction on Page 6 paragraph 8 change They to Then. AYES: All. NAYS: EXCUSED: Holcomb. ABSENT: Blair. 5. SITE PLAN CONSIDERATION: O Reilly Auto Parts 2680 Pte. Tremble Rd. Chairperson DeBoyer: This is a Site Plan Consideration for O Reilly Auto Parts at 2680 Pte. Tremble Road which is where the old Wendy s building sits now. Their intention is to tear the building down and put a new building up. When you look at the plans you will see it is to be a metal building. I have taken note of O Reilly s buildings around the area and how they look. I have seen several of them that the design would fit in a little better with ours as they have brick on them. Also you will see in your packets you have the comments from the Department Heads. So Commissioners it our time to review this and discuss it with the applicant and ask the questions you need to ask. Miller: We have this review from Project Control that was done at the request of Jon DeBoyer, from the Water Department. It is good to see we are getting feedback from our technical support. Chairperson DeBoyer: As he could not answer the questions without speaking to the Engineer. Miller: So this review brings up questions. The applicant needs to get a copy of this report as there are some deficiencies relevant to this report.

2 PAGE 2 Chairperson DeBoyer gave the applicant (Brian Neihaus) her copy of the Project Control review. Miller: Once you look over the review you will see it reflects a lot of the Engineering Standards. Discussion ensued regarding manholes for the sewers and the existing sewer system and relevant to the specs on the new site plan and Project Control s review. Miller: The only other thing is, I do have a problem with the facade design. It really does look like a box and we are trying to get away from the box look. Admittedly it probably is a standard look for this company. Chairperson DeBoyer: I have seen a number of their buildings throughout the state that have a different design than the one that has been presented here. Even the one in New Baltimore would fit in better here than the suggested design. Antkowiak: Would it be possible for us to see other options that O Reilly s have for different facades? Niehaus: I do not know about the particular store you are referencing in New Baltimore. O Reilly does have multiple designs for different communities and where their ordinances require different materials. We have done concrete block structures where there is no metal at all. We have done all metal structures. We have done full brick structures and that may be an option for this location. I just know O Reilly likes to keep it as minimal as possible for their budgets. But I can definitely present the brick facade as an option to them and let them know of your request. Schweikart: I know that other plans that have come before us we have asked and they have made their buildings compatible with the surrounding area. Discussion ensued amongst Commissioners and applicant regarding possible different facades, different options and fitting the new building in with the surrounding area. Simon: Another stipulation that was mentioned on the Project Control review was that you must get a letter from your neighbors granting across access. Neihaus: Yes our legal team is working with the neighbors on that issue. Motion by Simon, supported by Antkowiak that in general the Site Plan for O Reilly Auto Parts at 2680 Pte. Tremble be approved pending presentation of alternate elevation plans and addressing the concerns from the Project Control review and the Planner s review to the satisfaction of the Commission and the Ordinance. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Antkowiak, Keller, Miller, Schweikart, Simon, Cahill, DeBoyer. NAYS: EXCUSED: Holcomb.

3 PAGE 3 ABSENT: Blair. Chairperson DeBoyer: So basically what this means is that the Planning Commission has said we will approve it pending us seeing different elevations and addressing the things from our Planner and our Engineer. Niehaus: Would I need to be here for the final approval of the elevations as well or is that something I can you guys or send hard copies and you review it that way as opposed to me flying back here again? Chairperson DeBoyer: Sure if it is not possible for you to come back you can send them to the Building Department and they will put them into our packets for review. Then you can be notified of our decision. 6. PLANNING CONSULTANT S REPORT: 7. Z.B.A. REPRESENTATIVE S REPORT: Antkowiak: The ZBA has done an interpretation which is our second one so far on the same issue fences. This interpretation is different than the first interpretation. We had a request for a variance to have a fence on Pte. Tremble where the owner was given the permit to erect the fence to the front part of the accessory building one of these lots where the accessory building is in the front of the main building. When we started debating over the variance we found in the ordinance where it defines the front yard. So after much discussion and after we talked with Sid who presented some information to us, we made this interpretation: The Clay Township Zoning Board of Appeals interprets Ordinance #126, Section 3.08 (1b) to mean lots which have an accessory building in front (roadside) of the main building, no obscuring fence or wall shall be located in the space between the public right of way and the nearest point of the accessory building. What that does is it stops fences from going into that required part front yard. Last Thursday we had a request for a variance where the guy put a shed up in his driveway, which makes it too close to his house, but the published notice was not worded correctly so we had to table the variance until the next meeting and get the notice republished. We also had a variance request for a fence and it is under the non-obscuring things but in the Ordinance under the Unobstructed Yard Space it states Fences, walls, or similar barriers may be permitted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. So the question came up Does that give us extra lee ways to these things or do we look at our ability to allow fences or bushes or walls in the same way we would allow any other kind of variance. So right now we are in the process of having Sid ask the attorney, Keith Zick so we can get some legal information on this and we are also going to talk with John McNamee and come up with some definition of what that really means and we have tabled that variance also. Discussion amongst Commission members went on regarding fences, illustrations in the ordinance book, and neighborhood associations and their own rules.

4 PAGE 4 8. BOARD REPRESENTATIVE S REPORT: Miller: The revision of Zoning Ordinance #126 was presented to the Board and a number of the board members took issue with it. So Dorothy and I had to explain to the Board what we did and how we did it to arrive at the amendment. Some members wanted to think about it so they tabled it to take up with the new Planner. So it has not been approved. We are also interviewing three different new Planners, but I can t remember their names. But one of those three has extensive experience in St. Clair County and a number of townships/municipalities. Discussion ensued regarding experience in St. Clair County of a new Planner and how we can tap into that experience with the problems we are having as compared to other communities. Miller: Back to 126, the Board has to work through it like we had to work through it. There is no evidence it is a safety problem. Is there a visibility issue yes, a nuisance issue yes. Can a motorhome park legally in front of its house on the street? Technically yes, until the police come along and say you are blocking a driveway. If a motorhome can park in front of this place and not be a problem visibility wise then we are simply just stuck. Discussion amongst members regarding starting neighborhood associations and stricter rules, how long someone can or cannot live in a motorhome, and procedures and process of amending the Zoning Ordinance. Miller: There are things going on however that I think are relevant to us and we should know about at the State level. I gave you guys in the packet a copy of House Bill #5210. I wanted to point out that a mandate came down from the Governor to have the DNR re-examine itself in specific areas. One of these was how the DNR manages their properties, what they do with their properties, how they value their properties and what their multi use policies are going to be in the future and so on and so forth. In here on the 4 th page there is a section 3 on line 10 By October 1, 2014, the department shall develop a written strategic plan to guide the acquisition and disposition of state lands managed by the department and so and so Now the bottom line is there are a whole lot of properties in Clay Township that are state lands. There are 28 parcels that are involved in the taxable income for Clay Township. The potential value is 5.2 million dollars. Commissioner Miller then went onto explain the full potential to Clay Township and how the Township could possibly acquire some of these state lands. Discussion went on amongst members. 9. CHAIRPERSON S REPORT: Chairperson DeBoyer: I received a CD hard copy of Algonac s proposed Master Plan. It is quite nice and was put together by Metro Planning. The pictures actually make Algonac look much nicer than it really is. I think we should comment on it. I got through about half of it and will finish it up in the next day or so and I would like to pass it on to each of you, so you can have an opportunity to go through it. Then we will need to meet to make comments.

5 PAGE 5 Discussion amongst members regarding Algonac and Clay. Chairperson DeBoyer went on to give updates on St. Clair County and working on their budgets. 10. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS COMMENTS: Schweikart: I just want to let everyone else know that I gave Dorothy our year end summary packet that we need to pass on to the Board. Discussion started by Chairperson DeBoyer regarding engineering reviews. Discussion continued amongst all members regarding a previous motion by the Planning Commission for engineering reviews, proper procedures and process for the reviews, wording in the Township Ordinance on engineering reviews, and review fees. 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 12. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Simon, supported by Cahill to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. AYES: All. NAYS: EXCUSED: Holcomb. ABSENT: Blair. Respectfully Submitted, Patty Watson Recording Secretary Dorothy DeBoyer, Chairperson Clay Township Planning Commission