MEMBERS PRESENT:                 Vice-Chairman, Richard Lemke; Commissioners: Craig Johnston, Vaughn Koshkarian, William Mazzara, Ric Mueller, Gordon Muir, Keith Vandenbussche

 

ABSENT:                                          Jack Connelly, David Kulp

 

ALSO PRESENT:                           Nick Lomako, Township Planner; Timothy Brandt, Building Official; Sandi Hinzmann, Planning/Recording Secretary; 37 Members of the Public

 

Vice-chairman Lemke called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum was present.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

LAND DIVISION APPEAL, CHOATE CUSTOM HOMES, 16-02-476-015,012,004

Vice-chairman Lemke opened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m.

 

Vice-chairman Lemke asked the applicant to present an overview of his request and explained that the public would then have opportunity to comment.

 

Mr. John Choate, 3002 Tall Timbers, Milford, owner of the 6.81 acre parcel (16-02-476-015) flag pole shaped lot on the west side of Burns Road. He also holds purchase agreements for the 10.26 acre (16-02-476-004) rectangular in shape and the existing 7 acre (16-02-476-012) land locked parcel; the only of the three with an existing home on it. The proposal is to divide 5.4 acres off the 7 acre parcel to be combined with the other two parcels thereby leaving the existing home on 1.6 acres under the current ownership. The resulting parcel after combination would be 22.5 acres, for which a site condominium development would ultimately be proposed on the R-1-S zoned property.

 

Vice-chairman Lemke asked for public comment.

 

Mr. Roger Ryskamp, 755 Burns Rd., questioned the use of the parcels and expressed his position that no one should be exempt from minimal requirements of ordinance and regulations regarding shape. He questioned if this property would be allowed for site condominium development. Commissioner Mazzara explained that the ordinance allows for splits and site condominium development. The question up for review this evening is the shape of the proposed division/combination only.

 

Mr. Peter Leon, 1795 Stonecrest, stated his concern over this historically open area and he felt that if building on it were to occur it should be in a way similar to other surrounding properties. Development would cause added pressure on Burns Road. The conditions of gravel road would deteriorate worse than they currently are. By allowing this variance it would open up area.

 

Ms. Joan Cox, 1647 E. Commerce, shared her concern over the low spot in the back of her property and how it could get lower if the property is developed and how that would affect her land.

 

Mr. Carl Gentz, 1690 Washburn, stated his property backs up the existing 6.81 acre piece. He said he had seen other 10 acre pieces split up into 1.5 acre parcels along Burns Road following ordinance. He felt parcel with no road frontage should not be split up unless it was joined to another parcel. He questioned why the property owner did not appear to know this?

 

Mr. Bob McFarland, 823 Burns, asked what the difference was between a site condominium subdivision and a subdivision. Vice-chairman Lemke explained that it is a type of structure, a program of legal requirements for establishment of a subdivision, which can be very diverse in appearance depending on how each development is organized by developer. The homes are individual structures in a site condominium.

 

Mr. Larry Begin, 1800 Stonecrest, said approval of this request would change the character of the neighborhood, which he moved into. The character is presented by zoning as it exists. Traffic increase would affect quality of life, disturb horse trails, and have an adverse effect on road conditions. If approved, what assurances would there be that the road condition would stay the same, if not better than currently. Opposed to change in character of neighborhood by way of a variance.

 

Mr. Chuck Schueneman, 772 Manor, explained he enjoyed the small town feel with rural community atmosphere, which exists in this area. Opposed to request and felt further development in area should be prevented by denial of the variance.  

 

Mrs. Laurie Ryskamp, 755 Burns, expressed her opposition to variance that allows development to do minimum size when everyone else must be at 1.5 acres. The area is beautiful and she would like it to stay that way.

 

Mr. Mark Wilson, 1095 Burns, moved to his home four years ago for large acreage lots. He understands building will occur; density is the issue he is opposed to. Against what land development in area could be like.

 

Vice-chairman Lemke said the issue this evening is not the number of ultimate sites that would be addressed during site plan approval process. Issue is only irregular lot size/shape with combination as proposed.

 

Commissioner Mazzara explained the issue. Site condominium, lot averaging, or cluster development would come before the Planning Commission for review. This evening only possible parent parcel is question. Development would have to conform to all ordinances.

 

Mr. Larry Begin, 1800 Stonecrest, felt that allowing this variance to overall shape is one step in the direction for the developer. To permit reshaping of parcel, even if not developed, still opens door for other property owners in future. He would like to see this stopped here and not go further with approval of request this evening.  

 

Vice-chairman Lemke asked for further public comment. There was no additional response from the public.

 

Vice -chairman Lemke closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m.

 

NEW BUSINESS

LAND DIVISION APPEAL, CHOATE CUSTOM HOMES, 16-02-476-015,012,004

Vice-chairman Lemke asked Mr. Choate why the Commission should approve his request. Mr. Choate explained the best use of property, as a whole, would be for the parcels to be developed together. Much of the total property does not perk to support a conventional system and would require engineered field by the Oakland County Health Department, so combination of parcels would be most desirable.

 

Vice-chairman Lemke asked for Commissioner questions.

 

Consultant Lomako asked for clarification of division/combination request.  Mr. Brandt explained that in totality parcels are irregular in shape and the Land Division Board denied the request.

 

Consultant Lomako asked if Mr. Choate considered assembling the entire 7 acre parcel and including existing house in future development. Mr. Choate explained it was considered and determined not to be most desirable due to fact that existing home faces south to Commerce Road.

 

The Commissioners discussed how the 7 acre non-conforming parcel with no road frontage was created. It seemed that whatever the reason it was over twenty years ago. The northern 6.81 acre parcel (the flagpole shape) is no longer allowed to avoid long driveways.

 

Consultant Lomako pointed out that the northern 6.81 acre parcel and the southern 7 acre parcel are existing non-conforming parcels, and by massing the three properties together would reduce the non-conformity, with attempt at future development.

 

Commissioner Mazzara asked if Mr. Choate would return in the future asking for future variances. Mr. Choate said he would not return for additional variance requests.

 

Mr. Choate said with approval of the variance two non-conforming parcels would be one. Vice-chairman Lemke asked how creation of a keyhole lot, which does not improve site for existing home, what reason is there for approval? Mr. Choate said it would allow for the best use of the land with development of a community through subdivision.

 

Consultant Lomako explained should land be assembled, applicant would have to conform future development to ordinance requirements and return for site plan approval.

 

The Commissioners asked Mr. Choate to consider not dividing the 7 acre parcel. Mr. Choate stated he did not know if the property owner desired their home to be included. The Commissioners could not see a benefit to include part of the parcel, as it would not allow enough acreage to add many additional parcels or reduce the non-conformity.

 

Mr. Mazzara moved, Mr. Muir seconded, to recommend denial of Land Division Appeal, Choate Custom Homes, 16-02-476-015, 012, 004, based on the fact that request would further develop more non-conformity within the Township would result. No practical reason why property as it exists today cannot be developed in conformance with existing ordinance. Vote unanimously carried.

 

S-05-5009, EAST 20 ENTERPRISE/SCHUPAN & SONS, BRIVAR, 16-36-451-018

Mr. Steve Varilone, representative from Brivar Construction, 7258 Kensington Rd., Brighton, provided an overview of the proposed construction of a 120,000 sq. ft. facility which would consist of general office, warehouse/distribution, and manufacturing space for the following three related companies: Schupan & Sons recycler of return beverage containers; TOMRA bottle depository equipment manufacture, would use this site for sales and distribution of their product; UBCR, jointly owned by afore mentioned companies, a trucking concern which would deliver beverage containers and then remove processed product usually within a 48 hour period. Estimated 124 trips per 24 hour period. The facility that would be located on a 44.74 acre parcel zoned M-2 in the southern corner of the Township. The proposed building would be constructed on the northerly portion of the parcel accessed by a private road running north from Pontiac Trail. The site has significant topographical slope with a 40 ft. drop from the southeast to the northwest.

 

Mr. Varilone informed the Commission the Township Board had granted an Industrial Facilities Tax Abatement for the project.

 

Consultant Lomako explained the original review addressed in letter dated May 10, 2005 (on file in the Township Office) and the revised plan reviewed in the June 16, 2005 letter (on file in the Township Office) plans presented this evening addressed all noted concerns.

 

Commissioner Vandenbusshe inquired on fire compliance. Mr. Varilone said the site would have a common detention basin used for fire retention if water system is not available from the Township for construction. Commissioner Mazzara asked for an overview of the project timeline. Mr. Varilone explained the goal would be for completion in the summer of 2006. The water system and sanitary sewer tie-in would be a best-case scenario but, if these are not available, then a well would be used and detention area would become retention pond.

 

Commissioner Mazzara requested an explanation of the traffic impact. Mr. Varilone explained that project would only incrementally increase traffic in the area. Vehicle entrances and exit would be split east bound and west bound on Pontiac Trail. Estimated 2800 total trips for all vehicular traffic per day. Commissioner Mazzara and Mr. David Healy, East 20 Enterprises, Kalamazoo, discussed the truck traffic route and corporate intent to avoid congested areas, as well as the number of truck trips between the hours of 6 pm and 6 am, which are estimated to be approximately 33 round trips. Mr. Lomako suggested a note on site plan which stated, traffic to be generated from the site use and activities will be directed in an a preferred easterly direction by signage, lease holder conditions, and corporate policy and about 50% of truck trips would occur between 6 pm and 6 am.

 

The Commissioners and Consultant Lomako discussed the south face of the building and ordinance requirement of Section 19-66 (appearance of building elevation) that all sides visible from public right of way should be of decorative material. It was determined that south face of building, visible from private road, should be improved for compliant with ordinance. Mr. Varilone asked for conditional approval to allow project to progress. The Commissioners agreed and instructed Consultant Lomako to administratively review for architectural material compliance.

 

Commissioner Mazzara questioned the set back distance for trailer storage. Consultant Lomako explained the minimum distance from property line was 26 ft. and plan showed between 26 – 28 ft. Applicant agreed to clearly identify the set back line on plan and clarified that there would be no other outside storage in addition to what is noted on plan.

 

Mr. Mazzara moved, Mr. Koshkarian seconded, to recommend approval of S-05-5009, East 20 Enterprise/Schupan & Sons, BRIVAR, 16-36-451-018 based on the following provisions being met prior to appearance before Township Board:

1.      Applicant to indicate on drawing set how traffic would be handled leaving the facility day and night. Following comment suggested by Planning Consultant Lomako, “Traffic to be generated from the site use and activities will be directed in a preferred easterly direction by signage, lease holder conditions, and corporate policy. Additionally it is expected about 50% of truck trips would occur between 6 pm and 6 am.”

2.      Exterior elevation in view of private road is enhanced to comply through working with Planning Consultant to meet ordinance requirement.

3.      No other outside storage other than trailers noted on plan.

4.      Applicant clarification of 26 ft. trailer storage setback distance on plan.

5.      “Knoxs box” (key safe) provided.

Vote unanimously carried.

 

S-05-5008, HIDDEN HILLS SITE CONDOMINIUM/ RASHID, 16-27-100-032

Commissioner Mueller noted that Mr. Rashid was his neighbor, he did not feel this warranted his abstaining from this item due to the fact it would not affect his decision.

 

Mr. Bill Donnan, Arpee/Donnan, Inc., 36937 Schoolcraft Rd., Livonia, representative for developer Phil Rashid, explained request for proposed five unit site condominium development on 19 acre parcel located on the south side of Buno Road. Each parcel would exceed 3 net acres and be accessed by a 1,100 ft. private road to be installed by applicant. The site is rolling and wooded with existing 24 inch high pressure gas line running along the western side of the parcel.

 

Consultant Lomako reviewed the following outstanding items from the Wade-Trim review letter dated June 16, 2005:

§         By-pass lane opposite entrance to subdivision had not been provided. Applicant presented RCOC approach granted as presented. Ordinance requires passing lane upon availability of right-of-way. Commissioners must determine feasibility of installation of by-pass lane.

§         Section 16-141, (b) addresses sidewalk installation. In the past the Commission has not required sidewalks in low density projects and suggested they not be installed in this case.

§         Applicant asked for approval of Commission to allow existing vegetation along Buno Road to qualify as front yard landscaping with the understanding that vegetation must be maintained and would be subject to site maintenance agreement.

 

Chief Waligora stated cul-de-sac island is prohibited. Mr. Donnan said they would remove the island and cul-de-sac would be completely paved.

 

Building Administrator Brandt explained the applicant had received a variance from the Road Board of Appeals for the length of the road.

 

Vice-chairman Lemke commented it was nice to see a development with sizable lots and asked what the expected square footage of the homes. Mr. Rashid said they are anticipating an average of 4,000 sq. ft. per home.

 

Commissioners discussed acceleration/deceleration and by-pass lane requirement and waved installation based on the following:

§         Buno is not a high traffic gravel road.

§         Speed limit is 25 mph.

§         The limited number of home sites resulting in minimal traffic impact.

 

Commissioners agreed that sidewalks should not be required in this development.

 

Commissioner Mazzara felt that Township Legal Counsel should approve Master Deed and By-laws language prior to placement on Township Board agenda.

 

Mr. Mazzara moved, Mr. Muir seconded, to recommend approval of S-05-5008, Hidden Hills Site Condominium/Rashid, 16-27-100-032 based on the following provisions:

1.      Cul-de-sac island removed from plan.

2.      Comments from Township Attorney letter dated 6-14-05 resolved by appearance at Township Board.

3.      Waver of required Acceleration/deceleration and by-pass lane due to limited number of sites within development, and 25 mph speed limit on Buno Road.

4.      Applicant has agreed to and understands that landscape plan submitted with existing vegetation is now part of site plan and is to be maintained in accordance with site maintenance agreement.

Vote unanimously carried.

 

MASTER LAND USE PLAN REVIEW

Vice-chairman Lemke explained need to reaffirm current Master Land Use Plan every 5 years, for compliance with Township Planning Act.

 

The Commissioners received an update from Consultant Lomako on the Plan-to-Plan effort funded by the Township Board to outline a review process of the Master Land Use Plan, along with the Village of Milford, for a joint planning effort. This Plan had been submitted to the Township Supervisor and Village Manager for their review and should come before both Boards shortly.

 

Consultant Lomako explained that pursuant to Section 9 of the Planning Act the five year review requirement was established to force Planning Commissions to look at their Master Plan on a regular basis. The Commission needs to determine if the current plan is still appropriate for today.

 

Mr. Mazzara moved, Mr. Koshkarian seconded, on June 30, 2005, pursuant to the Township Planning Act 168 of 1959 Section 9 subsection 2, the Charter Township of Milford Planning Commission has reviewed current Master Land Use Plan and has found it appropriate for today. Vote unanimously carried.

 

REVIEW OF PRIVATE ROAD ORDINANCE CHAPTER 15

Consultant Lomako summarized the Consulting Engineers letter, dated May 26, 2005 (on file in Township Office) which recommended that the recently amended Private Road Ordinance maximum length of 600 ft. be extended, due to the rural nature of the Township and felt that a 3,000 ft. road would be more reasonable in that it would provide access to the middle of a square mile. Consultant Lomako provided the Commissioners with information where the number of housing units dictated road length; it provided access and classification of street traffic with a maximum cap. He requested permission to speak with Consulting Engineer Booth.

 

Commissioner Mazzara was under the impression that the 600 ft. length came up in relation to the Minor Private Road.

 

The Commissioners and Consultant Lomako discussed what was deemed reasonable amount of residential traffic and safe ingress and egress for access. Consultant Lomako was directed to work on language for an amendment to the Ordinance.

 

Mr. Koshkarian moved, Mr. Mazzara seconded to direct Planning Consultant Lomako to work with Township Consulting Engineer and return with language regarding a longer road determine by length and traffic. Vote unanimously carried.

 

REVIEW OF NOISE ORDINANCE SECTION 19-96

Commissioner Mazzara said the Township Board requested review of the Noise Ordinance and the enforceability and practicality.

 

The Commissioners and Consultant Lomako discussed where time restrictions should be placed on construction or manufacturing operations and how far regulations should go. The consensus was that residential lawn mowing should not be regulated.

 

Consultant Lomako offered to provide the Commissioners with a copy of the draft for a Township in Genesee County done by his firm. Further information focused on construction, manufacturing, ongoing irritating noise and possibly time restrictions.

 

Mr. Muir moved, Mr. Johnston seconded, to have Consultant Lomako review Noise Ordinance Section 19-96 and return with suggestions at next meeting. Vote unanimously carried.

 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

S-05-5006, ZAM INDUSTRIAL PARK, STUART LEVE, SITE PLAN & APPEAL OF BYPASS LANE, 16-25-401-027

Ms. Arica Raab, 2262 Sandlewood Dr., White Lake, representative for Mr. Leve, reviewed all of the outstanding items from the May 26, 2005 meeting. HRC review of revised plans (letter dated June 8, 2005) recommended approval. In regard to by-pass lane, Mr. Leve met with the three homeowners on the west side of Childs Lake Road, across from Zam Parkway. The homeowners did not wish to sell any of their property. Building Administrator Brandt confirmed neighboring property owners reluctance to sell was expressed by the property owners he also met with.

 

Building Administrator Brandt informed the Commission that he had meet with the property owner at the site to walk the property and discuss maintenance issues. He stated that significant trees along both sides of Childs Lake Road would have to be removed for installation of the by-pass lane and acceleration/deceleration lane.  

 

Mr. Koshkarian moved, Mr. Muir seconded, to recommend approval of S-05-5006, Zam Industrial Park, Stuart Leve, based on the issues from the May 26, 2005 meeting being met and rectified. Vote unanimously carried.

 

Mr. Leve thanked the Commission for their time and patience.

 

PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR CHILD DAY CARE CENTER AS USE AFTER SPECIAL APPROVAL IN THE C-1, LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT

The Commissioners discussed what they felt to be a reasonable number of children for a day care in the C-1 district. They reviewed report from the Child Care Council for surrounding community’s facilities; the average seemed to be 150 children. Commissioner Mazzara said from his professional experience 125 children seems to be a break-even point.

 

Consultant Lomako informed the Commission that other community’s ordinances do not have limitation for number of children in commercial and office districts.

 

The Commissioners determined that 150 children would be an acceptable number of children for the C-1 district for sites off of paved roads and being a Use After Special Approval within that district. The residential requirements would not be changed.

 

Consultant Lomako read the written request of Ms. Julie Drake who expressed her opinion that the existing 75 ft. side yard setback was too excessive when C-1 property bordered other non-residentially zoned parcels. Consultant Lomako requested the Commission consider this request and include language that, when bordering nonresidential property, the standard building setback distance be required. The Commission would have the ability to condition approval.

 

Mr. Mazzara moved, Mr. Koshkarian seconded, to request Consultant Lomako draft language for Public Hearing of Child Day Care Center as a Use after special approval in C-1, Local Business District. Vote unanimously carried.

 

DISCUSSION OF VIOLATION LETTER FOR DTE DUCK LAKE GAS FACILITY, 16-01-201-002

Consultant Lomako summarized the findings of the April 8, 2005 Wade-Trim letter (on file in the Township Office) and reviewed of the history and findings from previous site plans for DTE Duck Lake Road Facility.

 

Building Administrator Brandt said the Township had contacted Vector to have them put in the landscape shown on the plan, which was never installed. Supervisor Green contacted DTE and the pipe and wood have been removed from the site.

 

Commissioner Mazzara said a boat is now parked at the site.

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES, MAY 26, 2005 (REGULAR MEETING)

Mr. Muir moved, Mr. Koshkarian seconded, to approve the May 26, 2005, minutes. Vote unanimously carried.

 

PLANNING CONSULTANT'S REMARKS

Consultant Lomako informed the Commission that he was contacted by the new attorney representing Willoway Day Camp and expected a meeting with in the next couple of weeks.

 

PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REMARKS

Commissioner Vandenbusshe inquired on the status of the proposed Senior Housing apartment building. Building Official Brandt explained the developer had experienced difficulty in obtaining MISHDA funding but that resent communications indicated that they were planning on moving forward. The Commission could expect to see the project in for review in the next few months.

 

Commissioner Koshkarian asked if it was a developer’s legal right to create a site condominium development. Consultant Lomako responded when ordinance requirements are meet a site condominium must be approved. Lot averaging has stipulations, which require compliance for approval.

 

Commissioner Muir asked for a building update on the town homes in the Ridge Valley development. Building Official Brandt said the building have been constructed the elevations differently from the approved plan on file in the Township office. The builder contends that they are following the plan submitted to the Township Board. The builder has been told they will not receive any certificates of occupancy until the building is bricked, following Township approved plan, a revised elevation plan is approved by the Planning Commission and Township Board or, they prove to the Township their claim of another plan being presented to the Township Board.

 

Commissioner Muir questioned why Mr. Shew had not returned to the Commission with revised plan for the Woodland Office Center addressing the errors in the proposed amendments to the project. Building Official Brandt answered that his office has not received revised plans.

 

CALL TO THE PUBLIC

Vice-chairman Lemke asked for public comment.

 

There was no response from the public. 

 

The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.

 

 

Gordon Muir

Secretary