Minutes of Algoma Township Planning Commission

Transcription

1 Minutes of Algoma Township Planning Commission A meeting of the Algoma Township Planning Commission was held on the 20th day of October, 1987 at_1;1q p.m. Present at_;llq.. said meeting were the following members of said Commission: Bob U??fv) Wilson, Edgar Ault, Mark Doren, Gerald Oele, Anton Mieras and Bob Powell. Absent was Jack Koetje. Also present was Township Supervisor. Carl Friske, Township Treasurer, Margaret Bitely: Township Building Inspector, Donald Bates and Township Attorney: H. James Telman. The meeting was called to order by the vice chairman, Edgar Ault, at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES take up the approval of the minutes of September 15, After reviewing the same, it was moved by Gerald Oele and seconded by Bob Powell that the minutes of September 15, 1987 be approved as written. There was no discussion on the motion; the motion carried unanimously and was declared adopted. MARSMAN SITE PLAN take up the review of the Marsman site plan. He indicated it would have been helpful if a scale had been indicated on the site plan. The Planning Commission then spent time reviewing the site plan and its location. It was noted that this site plan was for a single lot having a driveway within an area 66 feet in width. The Planning Commission brought to the attention of the petitioner the need to conform with the road requirements in the event new lots were created and brought to his attention that some of the proposed curves for his driveway would not meet the minimum requirements within the Ordinance and that he ought to review these before actual construction of the concrete driveway. After discussion is was moved by Bob Wilson and seconded by Jerry Oele that the Planning Commission approve the site plan conditioned upon the petitioner and the subject parcel of property meeting all the requirements of the zoning Ordinance. There was no discussion on the motion, the motion carried unanimously and was declared adopted.

2 SITE PLAN CHARLES DOTY take up the review of the site plan of Charles Doty. He stated this was an existing building used for a print shop that had previously been used for a car lot. Mr. Doty owned this parcel and there was also a house on the property that was being rented out and he owned the parcel immediately to the north on which he had his residence and a parcel to the north of that on which he had his trophy shop. It was noted that the existing building which was being used for the print shop did not meet the minimum setbacks at the present time. There was also discussion concerning the parking lot. It was noted that the parking lot was shown placed upon property immediately to the north of the subject property which was owned by the petitioner and used as his primary residence. Bob Wilson stated that he was concerned about how the property would be used in the future and stated that any use of this property should be limited to the existing building and if any future development occurred, the building be removed. After further discussion it was moved by Bob Wilson and seconded by Bob Powell that the Planning Commission approve the site plan conditioned upon the petitioner and the subject property meeting all requirements of the zoning Ordinance, conditioned further that there would be no expansion of any of the existing buildings on the subject property or any new construction of any buildings or structures on the existing property unless there would be removal of the building used as a print shop, conditioned further that the building would only be used as a print shop, conditioned further that the subject parcel of property can be used as a print shop only so long as there is common ownership between the subject parcel and the parcel of property located immediately to the north, conditioned further that all actual commercial activity and printing activity, including but not limited to storage, be conducted completly within the confines of the existing building on the premises. There was no discussion on the motion, the motion carried unanimously and was declared adopted. REMINGA SITE PLAN REVIEW The vice chairman then indicated that the Planning Commission would take up the review of the Reminga site plan. It was noted by Attorney Telman that they needed at least 14 parking spaces on the subject property. He noted that the dimensions in the front were adequate for providing the same except that they did not draw them in.

3 The Planning Commission also discussed limiting storage to only within the enclosed buildings on the property. After discussion it was moved by Gerald Oele and seconded_anton Mieras?g _ that the Planning Commission approve the site plan conditioned?? WWW upon the parcel of property and the petitioner meeting all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and all other Ordinances of the Township. conditioned further that all storage of any kind would be done within the completely enclosed buildings on the property. There was no discussion on the motion, the motion carried unanimously and was declared adopted. MARANATHA CHURCH take up the matter concerning the Maranatha Church. He indicated they were planning on constructing a garage and pastor study. There was discussion by the Planning Commission and the building inspector as to the need for an architect or engineer seal. After discussion, it was agreed that this was simply an addition to a residential structure since it was only going to be used for those type of uses and therefore that was not necessary. CANNON SITE PLAN review the site plan of Cannon Development. He indicated they were considering developing certain property near High and Low Lakes and had submitted a tentative site plan. The Planning Commission then reviewed the site plan and noted that there was a lot of information that was deficient on the site plans that would have to be revised. It was noted that the lot that was dissected by the easement on the north should be changed to two lots rather than one. The Planning Commission also noted that there was possibly some problems with the curves and the easements, also in the amount of frontage that some of the lots have on the easements. There was then considerable discussion that the easement was not 66 feet in width and that there was bottleneck where the easement narrowed down to approximately 30 feet and there would have to be a variance in order for that to be permitted. There was also discussion about the developers obtaining additional easement width or additional areas to come in for their easement. JERRY WALLACE The vice chairman indicated that Mr. Jerry Wallace still had not come in and submitted a site plan and he was in violation. The Planning Commission then directed Attorney Telman to contact Mr. Wallace concerning the violation and to bring himself into compliance.

4 EASEMENT DISCUSSION The supervisor indicated that he wanted the Planning Commission to give direction as to how the easements should be laid out and applied. He stated that it was the attorney's suggestion that the easement be owned by one of the parcels and it was the building inspector's suggestion that reciprocal easements be given. Attorney Telman indicated that technically, an individual cannot front upon an easement where he owns the property since there is something called merger of title. After discussion, the Planning Commission directed that the 66 foot stripzof land would be.owned bywone of the parcels and an easement would then be granted to the other parcels that front upon it. AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE Attorney Telman then reviewed with the Planning Commission the Michigan Court of Appeals decision that prohibits funneling ordinances being enacted by the Township. Attorney Telman indicated that it was his understanding that this case was under appeal and that if a decision was rendered by the Supereme Court, it would be done in approximately the next two years. He stated that it was his suggestion that with this case presently being binding upon the lower courts, that the Township not enact any amendment at the present time. He suggested that this be treated instead as a matter of what use is permitted on the property under the present zoning districts that the Township has at the present time. The Planning Commission, after discussion. decided that since the court of appeals had recently ruled on this matter that it is better to wait until the Supreme Court reviewed that ruling. The Planning Commission then discussed an amendment for a temporary second dwelling being proposed Section The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments. It was decided that there be additional changes and particularly deleting the reference to aunts, uncles and cousins and also that the mobile home would be at least 10 feet in width and 450 square feet in area and that it would meet HUD, ANCI and state requirements depending upon the year that it was built and that it be made clear that in the event there was failure to renew the permit that the mobile home would be removed within 90 days of any such failure to have a permit or any other violation of the Ordinance.

5 Bob Wilson then indicated that he would like to personally thank the clerk for getting together the booklets for each of the Planning Commission meetings and then move that the Planning Commission officially thank the clerk for her fine work in this matter. The motion was seconded by Ed Ault. There was no discussion on the motion, the motion carried unanimously and was declared adopted. No further business coming before the Planning Commission, it was moved by Jerry Oele and seconded by Bob Wilson that the meeting be adjourned and that the next meeting be held on November at 7:00 p.m. There was no discussion on the motion, the motion carried unanimously and was declared adopted. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfu Mark Dor Secretary i(,j%e W