DELHI CHARTER TOWNSHIP
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
December 13, 1999
MEMBERS PRESENT:
O’Hara, Keen, Brighton, McCormick, Donaldson, Leaf, Ketchum, Heller
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tongen
OTHERS PRESENT:
Amy Emery, Planning Consultant;
Richard J. Royston, Director of Community DevelopmentChairperson McCormick called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA: None
MINUTESMotion by Keen, support Leaf, to approve the Minutes of the November 22, 1999, meeting as written. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Mr. Bob Homan of 2176 Hamilton Rd., Okemos, said he would like to inform the Commissioners about a development project he is involved in for the Holt Rd. and Wigman Rd. area. He is representing himself and Gil White, also from Okemos. About six months ago he and Mr. White met with Mr. Royston and more recently they met with Ms. Emery. The 60-acre parcel zoned residential on the east side of Wigman Rd. is in the planning for a Planned Unit Development. On the west side of Wigman Rd. near the pond a Planned Unit Development is also under consideration to include an office site overlooking the pond with about 40 condominium units behind.
PUBLIC HEARING – Change of Zone – Case #99-690 – 2469 Cedar St. Dart Bank – C-4 to C-2
Ms. Emery reviewed that several months ago the C-4, Planned Shopping Center, district was eliminated from the ordinance. There are only two properties in the Township zoned C-4, which are now being initiated by the Township for rezoning to C-2, General Business. Dart Bank (formerly known as Dart National Bank) is one of them. C-2, General Business, allows for this use by right and no additional approvals are required.
Chairperson McCormick asked whether any comments have been received from Dart Bank. Ms. Emery replied that she spoke with Mr. John Coy of Dart Bank who asked for information on the reason for rezoning. Mr. Coy was present and asked what the vacant property behind the bank is zoned as. Ms. Emery replied that it is C-2, General Business. Mr. Coy continued that he assumes there will be no change in taxation, etc., and that he has no objection to the rezoning.
Public hearing closed 7:42 p.m.
ACTION ON PUBLIC HEARING - Change of Zone – Case #99-690 – 2469 Cedar St. Dart Bank – C-4 to C-2
Motion by O’Hara, support Keen, to recommend to the Township Board approval of Case #99-690 from C-4, Planned Shopping Center, to C-2, General Business.
A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Ketchum, O’Hara, Leaf, Keen, Heller, Brighton, Donaldson, McCormick
Nays: None
Absent: Tongen
MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING – Change of Zone – Case #99-691 – 2495 Cedar and 4801 Willoughby (Cedar Park Shopping Center) – C-4 to C-2
Chairperson McCormick stated that this is the second property being initiated by the Township for rezoning to C-2, General Business.
Public hearing closed 7:43 p.m.
ACTION ON PUBLIC HEARING - Change of Zone – Case #99-691 – 2495 Cedar and 4801 Willoughby (Cedar Park Shopping Center) – C-4 to C-2
Motion by Donaldson, support Ketchum, to recommend to the Township Board approval of Case #99-691 from C-4, Planned Shopping Center, to C-2, General Business.
A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Keen, Ketchum, Donaldson, Brighton, Leaf, O’Hara, Heller, McCormick
Nays: None
Absent: Tongen
MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING – Zoning Ordinance #39 proposed amendments – Case #99-693 Housekeeping amendments
Ms. Emery reviewed that the proposed amendments are the result of recent changes to the Zoning Ordinance and are intended to update the Ordinance as follows:
1. The RM-1 and RM-2, Multiple Family Residential, Districts have been replaced by the RM, Multiple Family Residential, District. These amendments are intended to delete references to RM-1 and RM-2 throughout the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The M-1, Light Industrial, and M-2, Heavy Industrial, Districts have also been replaced in the Zoning Ordinance by five new Industrial Districts, and all industrial properties have been transferred to one of the new districts. These amendments are intended to delete references to M-1 and M-2 throughout the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Section 5.1.1 Establishment of Districts. This is a list of all zoning classifications which has been amended to reflect deletion of the M-1, M-2, and C-4 Districts, and the addition of the RM District. The old RM-1 and RM-2 Districts are being retained because properties designated as RM-1 and RM-2 have not yet been transferred to the new RM District; however, the RM-1 and RM-2 districts are no longer available for new developments.
4. The Section number for the old RM-1 District is being changed from 5.7 to 5.20 and all sub-sections are being re-numbered accordingly due to the fact that the new RM, Multiple Family Residential, District has now been assigned the section number of the old RM-1 district.
5. Section 9.3.4 Public Hearing has been amended to reflect a correction in publication procedures to correspond with Michigan Townships Association requirements.
Public Hearing closed 7:46 p.m.
ACTION ON PUBLIC HEARING - Zoning Ordinance #39 proposed amendments Case #99-693 - Housekeeping amendments
Motion by Leaf, support O’Hara, to recommend to the Township Board approval of
Case #99-693 regarding housekeeping amendments to Zoning Ordinance #39.
A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Heller, Donaldson, O’Hara, Leaf, Brighton, Ketchum, Keen, McCormick
Nays: None
Absent: Tongen
MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING – Zoning Ordinance #39 proposed amendments – Case #99-694 Site Lighting (Sections 3.3.6 4) and 5.1.16)
Ms. Emery reviewed that the current Zoning Ordinance requires (through the site plan review process) that applicants stipulate the location, size, height, and type of illumination to be provided on site plans. However, there are no standards to dictate whether or not the lighting is too much, too little, or located in appropriate places, etc. The proposed amendment intends to address this issue. She noted that there are two corrections in the draft on page 2. Section 5.1.16.3 has two sub-sections numbered 2). The second one should be changed to 3), and the word "is" should be deleted from the sentence in that same sub-section.
Commissioner Leaf asked how these amendments will help to better control lighting in the future. Ms. Emery responded that these amendments will ensure that proposed lighting remains on the subject site for the most part. These standards will judge lighting to make sure that the sites are attractive in the daytime and night-time and will not create nuisances. Commissioner Leaf further asked how proposed Section 5.1.16.6 regarding shielding requirements will keep lighting in parking lots away from residential uses. Ms. Emery replied that for brighter light sources a shield will be required around the lighting device to project the lighting downward on the site. Site plans would show a lighting diagram for staff and Planning Commission to evaluate.
Commissioner Leaf commented that it’s unfortunate that the new amendments, if passed, are not applicable to existing situations. Discussion was held.
Ms. Chris Oudsema of 2060 Burton said her property is behind the Family Video store. She assumes the proposed amendments apply to stationery lights on posts and buildings, but what about headlights when cars pull into parking lots? Chairperson McCormick replied that car lights are not addressed.
Commissioner Brighton noted that there is another avenue which Ms. Oudsema could take to address problems with vehicle lights. Mr. Royston noted that there are several businesses around town that have voluntarily complied to resolve lighting complaints. He will discuss this with the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer. Ms. Oudsema said she has been working with Family Video since it first located on Aurelius Rd. Originally the site plan showed much larger trees than what were planted, and this does not take care of shielding lighting from the store, nor does it provide her property with privacy. At night there is no privacy from vehicle lighting and during the day there is no screening from people who visit the video store. Her property is up higher than the video store property and she has a swimming pool in her backyard. Family Video has not been very cooperative. Ms. Oudsema also commented that a light on the back of the video store building at first lit up her back yard, but it has not been working since soon after the store opened. She asked if it would have to be shielded in the future. Chairperson McCormick replied that it would not be covered by the new amendment since the site was already approved. Mr. Royston added that Family Video was asked to keep that light off because of a complaint that it was a nuisance.
Public hearing closed 7:58 p.m.
Commissioner Donaldson commented that someone questioned him as to whether roadway lighting should be excluded from regulation, because there’s a problem with a streetlight shining in this person’s bedroom at night. Chairperson McCormick responded that the utility company could be contacted in this situation for shielding. Mr. Royston added that it’s not unusual for the Township to receive complaints when new streetlights are installed. Also, the Township doesn’t have jurisdiction over the roadways, and this may be why the roadways were exempted from the lighting regulations.
ACTION ON PUBLIC HEARING – Zoning Ordinance #39 proposed amendments Case #99-694 - Site Lighting (Sections 3.3.6 4) and 5.1.16)
Motion by Heller, support Leaf, to recommend to the Township Board approval of Case #99-694 regarding site lighting amendments.
A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Leaf, Keen, Brighton, Ketchum, O’Hara, Donaldson, Heller, McCormick
Nays: None
Absent: Tongen
MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING – Zoning Ordinance #39 proposed amendments – Case #99-695 Fence Ordinance (Section 6.2.4)
Ms. Emery reviewed that this amendment makes one change to the fence ordinance which is that the decorative side of a fence must be placed outward. The diagram that is provided makes no change to the existing fence ordinance; it only reflects in an illustrated form what is presently required. It is to be used by staff as a tool either to provide information to homeowners or to aid in interpreting what the ordinance intends.
Ms. Chris Oudsema of 2060 Burton stated that she has tried to have Family Video, which is behind her property, put up a fence on the south end of their building to screen her property from light and view. Family Video replied that a fence would diminish the look of their store. In checking with Mr. Larner, Township Code Enforcement Officer, she said he didn’t think the Township could enforce construction of a fence. She asked how high a fence could be if one were constructed in this location. Discussion was held, and Ms. Emery said the maximum fence height allowed would be six feet.
Public hearing closed 8:08 p.m.
ACTION ON PUBLIC HEARING – Zoning Ordinance #39 proposed amendments Case #99-695 - Fence Ordinance (Section 6.2.4)
Motion by O’Hara, support Keen, to recommend to the Township Board approval of
Case #99-695 regarding the fence ordinance.
A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Donaldson, Heller, Brighton, Ketchum, Keen, O’Hara, Leaf, McCormick
Nays: None
Absent: Tongen
MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING – Zoning Ordinance #39 proposed amendments – Case #99-696 Parking Requirement for Building Supply Contractor Facilities (Section 7.1.9)
Ms. Emery stated that staff reviewed the parking ordinance regarding site plans received for building supply contractor’s office facilities, and found that the ordinance requires different amounts of parking spaces for storage, office, and other types of uses. Instead of trying to interpret what applies to what, the proposed amendment lists what is required for each of these types of uses. This is consistent with surrounding municipalities.
Public hearing closed 8:10 p.m.
Commissioner Donaldson questioned whether there is a conflict in the wording of the proposed amendment in Section 7.1.9 under D. Office. He thought the definition of usable excludes storage, and he doesn’t think the word "usable" was intended in the proposed amendment. Ms. Emery answered that the word "usable" should be changed to "gross".
ACTION ON PUBLIC HEARING - Zoning Ordinance #39 proposed amendments Case #99-696 - Parking Requirement for Building Supply Contractor Facilities (Section 7.1.9)
Motion by Leaf, support O’Hara, to recommend to the Township Board for approval of Case #99-696 regarding parking requirements for a contractor’s office.
A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: O’Hara, Leaf, Heller, Brighton, Donaldson, Keen, Ketchum, McCormick
Nays: None
Absent: Tongen
MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING – Zoning Ordinance #39 proposed amendments – Case #99-697 Clarification of definition for social institution (Section 8.2.2)
Ms. Emery reviewed that the Township Board recently adopted an amendment to the C-2, General Business, District, to eliminate assembly buildings, churches and fraternal organizations from the C-2, General Business, district as uses permitted by right. Staff subsequently reviewed the Zoning Ordinance to make sure that definitions are clear in other districts where these uses are still permitted. This is the reason for the proposed amendment.
Public hearing closed 8:14 p.m.
ACTION ON PUBLIC HEARING - Zoning Ordinance #39 proposed amendments Case #99-697 - Clarification of definition for social institution (Section 8.2.2)
Motion by Donaldson, support Brighton, to recommend to the Township Board approval of Case #99-697 regarding clarification of the definition for social institution.
A Roll Call Vote was recorded as follows:
Ayes: Brighton, Donaldson, Ketchum, Keen, O’Hara, Leaf, Heller, McCormick
Nays: None
Absent: Tongen
MOTION CARRIED.
OLD AND NEW BUSINESS
High density update
Ms. Emery reviewed that after the high density criteria submitted at the previous meeting was discussed, she was instructed to combine the criteria into a consolidated list. Her memo dated December 1, 1999, containing the consolidated list, was provided in this meeting’s agenda packet. It incorporates the ideas submitted by the public, the Planning Commission, and staff. There is tension with some of the criteria. The hope is that these criteria will be used as a framework for considering additional high density locations and not necessarily as a checklist. It’s very doubtful that any property in the Township would meet all of the criteria.
Ms. Emery submitted another memo dated December 6, 1999, for tonight’s agenda, giving information on scheduling a workshop to select locations for additional high density. This workshop would be conducted as a focus group including the Planning Commission and other individuals representing Township residents, potential developers, the Downtown Development Authority, and members of the Township Board. A matrix format may be used to determine how selected properties fit the criteria. Participants could divide into small groups and select additional properties, and individuals could also add additional properties. From there all this information would be submitted to the Planning Commission at a subsequent meeting to make final selections on high density locations before sending it to a public hearing.
Chairperson McCormick complimented Ms. Emery on her efforts. Discussion was held and Ms. Emery responded to questions from the Planning Commissioners regarding time length for the workshop, participants, and best time of day to meet.
Ms. Emery stated that the next step is to identify the participants and set an acceptable meeting time. This information would be presented at the January 10, 2000, meeting, and a workshop date could then be set. Discussion was held.
Commissioner Leaf wants to make sure that the Delhi Township Neighborhood Association and The Committee to Preserve Delhi Township receive a copy of the consolidated criteria in order to be able to respond.
Commissioner O’Hara said he commends Ms. Emery for her outstanding work. This was a difficult task. He is more comfortable with proceeding now than he was before.
COMMITTEE REPORTSReport from Director of Community Development
Mr. Royston reviewed the Dept. of Community Development Activity Report for the month of November 1999. Thirty-two permits were issued for a total valuation of $3,594,181.00.
Mr. Royston commented that the hiring of a new Community Development Director probably won’t happen until mid-March or the first of April 2000. He is winding down his involvement with Community Development. He feels very comfortable having Ms. Emery attend the Planning Commission meetings, and tonight is a good indication of that. She is to be commended and he is proud of her work. For the next few months he will continue to attend the meetings off and on. He would like to see the high density issue to some form of conclusion.
Zoning Board of Appeals report – Ketchum
Commissioner Ketchum reported on the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting held earlier this evening. A variance was denied to Ancaster Park Associates for a second site plan extension on Units 3 and 4 of Ancaster Park in the 3300 block of Pine Tree Rd. A variance was also denied to Holt Baptist Church at 2020 Dean Ave. for a free-standing sign. A variance was granted to Daniel and Dana Tryon at 3985 Sandhill Rd. for a covered front porch.
LIMITED COMMENT
Commissioner Brighton questioned the increased use of globe type lights that have a full range of illumination because of encroachment on neighboring properties. He is in favor of requiring shields. Discussion was held and Ms. Emery noted that some of this concern is addressed in the proposed site lighting amendments recommended for approval this evening. If there are still some concerns, they can be addressed later.
Commissioner Keen noted that this may be Commissioner Ketchum’s last meeting as Township Board liaison to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ketchum said he’s not sure that this has been confirmed. However, it has been a pleasure serving on the Planning Commission and he feels that the Commission is the most complicated board he has served on. Chairperson McCormick thanked Commissioner Ketchum for his service.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Keen, support Ketchum, to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.