MINUTES. Leroy Gregory, Dan Plasencia, James Scott, Jack Jones, Kelly Alexander, Steve Neal, Sue Anderson, John Eby, Sue Anderson

Transcription

1 EMMET COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY OCTOBER 7, :30 P.M. COMMISSIONER S ROOM EMMET COUNTY BUILDING 200 DIVISION STREET PETOSKEY, MI MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF: Leroy Gregory, Dan Plasencia, James Scott, Jack Jones, Kelly Alexander, Steve Neal, Sue Anderson, John Eby, Sue Anderson David Laughbaum B. Michalek, T. Doernenburg I Call to Order and Attendance The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Eby, all members were present except Laughbaum. Eby turned the floor over to Michalek to make some general announcements. Michalek noted that this board was named in a lawsuit with Miller Apple Limited (Applebee s). The Michigan Supreme Court denied consideration of the case. Everything fell in line to make the decision for restaurant use viable on the RG Properties site including the Planning Commission s decision and the Master Plan. Michalek also noted that he had heard that the Bliss Township newsletter had announced that Balance for Earth would be in attendance tonight. He noted that they would not be present, however there is another wind turbine company here under other business tonight that residents may be interested in. Lake Effect Energy Corporation is here to discuss raising the allowed decibel level on wind turbines. II Minutes of September 2, 2010 meeting Jones made a motion, supported by Neal, to approve the minutes of the September 2, 2010 meeting as presented. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote of the members present. III Cases 1. Case #124J-94 Versa Development for RG Properties, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-1, Amendment (Preliminary and Final) and SITE PLAN REVIEW, Allow retail sales, 1950 US-131 S, Section 7, Bear Creek Township A request by Versa Development for RLG Bear Creek LLC and GCG Bear Creek LLC for a Preliminary and Final Mixed Use Planned Unit Development-1 (PUD-1) Amendment to allow retail sales at the parcel located at 1910 US-131 Highway in Section 7 of Bear Creek Township. The property is zoned R-2B General Residential with a PUD-1 overlay and is tax parcel Uses currently permitted on the site include R-2B uses listed in the Zoning Ordinance and one sit-down restaurant. The request is per Article XVIII of the Zoning Ordinance. Distributed to PC Members: Minutes from Bear Creek Township Planning Commission meetings (September), 10/4/10 from Michael Banyai Michalek noted that this is the third review of this case. An aerial view of the property was shown and the uses within the PUD were pointed out. The current proposal is to amend the PUD agreement to allow for retail/restaurant mixed use. Bear Creek Township Planning Commission did not make a recommendation. Emmet County Planning Commission October 7, 2010 Page 1 of 8

2 They did make motions both to approve and deny the proposal. Both of these motions failed due to a tie vote. The Township board voted 4-1 in favor of approving a mix of retail and restaurant use if the restaurant did not exceed 2500sf. The parking standards of the ordinance would be followed for the type of use that is proposed rather than the PUD parking standards because there is a lot of parking that could potentially be shared within the PUD. The applicant will come back with a site plan at a later date. Applicant, Steve Robinson, stated that they would like to get through the PUD language before bringing in a site plan. They feel that this proposal is consistent with the PUD and the Master Plan. In 1994 this was a new retail area and the uses in the area have evolved and changed since then. The proposal is now consistent with the neighborhood now. Anderson asked if the applicant was willing to give up the 2500sf restaurant use. Robinson stated that they would like to keep the restaurant use for a counter service type restaurant. Jones added that the restaurant approval as given for Bob Evans does not go away. Michalek confirmed that the Planning Commission could approve a restaurant use, a mix use, or either/or. Jack Turner, on behalf of Applebee s, stated that they feel that this is a fair way to resolve disagreement of whether the PUD should have been amended or whether it should continue to be amended. There are good arguments on both sides. With the limitation on restaurant use he sees this as a fair compromise and supports the recommendation of the Bear Creek Township Board. Anderson made a motion to recommend approval to the Emmet County Board of Commissioners, Case #124J Case #124J-94, Versa Development for RLG Bear Creek, LLC and GCG Bear Creek, LLC, to amend the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (PUD-1) in order to allow four options: 1) retail uses in addition to a third no family sit down (no drive-thru) restaurant limited to 2500sf, 2) retail uses only, or 3) the previously approved third sit-down restaurant use only, or 4) the R-2B General Residential uses allowed on the parcel identified as , 1910 S US-131 Hwy on the condition that the required parking will be based on the Parking standards of the Zoning Ordinance for this site alone. This will amend the PUD which includes property located in the southeast ¼ of Section 7, T34N-R5W, Bear Creek Township for tax parcels , 029, 037, 038, 039, 040, 041, 042, 047, 048, 049 and Reasons for the approval are as follows:, the characteristics surrounding the properties have changed significantly since the approval of the original PUD in 1994, the amendments would not adversely impact adjacent properties and businesses providing an additional service to the area and the retail sales are a compatible use with the offices, restaurants, and other retail establishments already located within the PUD. Jones supported the motion which passed on the following roll-call vote: Yes: Eby, Neal, Jones, Scott, Anderson, Plasencia, Alexander. No: Gregory. Absent: Laughbaum. This case will be heard by the Emmet County Board of Commissioners on Thursday October 14, Case #16A-74 Carl J Laura Sr., SPECIAL USE PERMIT, Home Occupation, 8327 Dekruif Road, Section 24, Carp Lake Township A request by Carl J Laura for a Special Use Permit for a Home Occupation to allow limited automobile sales from a residence located at 8327 Dekruif Road, Section 24, Carp Lake Township. The property is zoned FF-2 Farm Forest and RR-1 Recreation Residential and is tax parcel number The request is per Section of the Zoning Ordinance. Distributed to PC Members: 9/30/10 from Eunice Myers, Patricia Stremler, & Harvey Stremler, 10/7/10 Carp Lake Township Board recommendation Michalek presented this case. A zoning map of the area was shown. The property has both RR-1 and FF-2 zoning. The proposed use would take place in the FF-2 area. The site plan was shown. Carp Lake Township recommended approval on the condition that the use was limited to ten cars maximum all which need to be parked in the proposed parking area. They felt this would help alleviate neighbor concerns regarding the use Emmet County Planning Commission October 7, 2010 Page 2 of 8

3 turning into a salvage yard use. The aerial of the area was shown. The property is approximately 48 acres and is mostly wooded. The applicant proposes to purchase recovered stolen vehicles and will sell these on the internet. There are 2-3 vehicle trips per day and two truck trips per week expected. A 100 x100 area setback 650 from Dekruif Road and 400 from the west property line is proposed for vehicle storage. The applicant s wife was present and stated that 10 vehicles is probably high for what will actually be there. Her husband will be the only one working on the cars and will have no employees. This will be a very lowscale operation. The property is quite wooded and you cannot see that area from the road. Doernenburg confirmed that staff had visited the site and none of the buildings can be seen from the road. There was no public comment on this case. Plasencia asked how the parking area for the cars will be designated. How will we know if it expands beyond what has been approved? Michalek suggested requiring that corner posts be placed to identify the area as shown on the site plan. This may alleviate neighbor s concerns about a salvage yard. Anderson stated that the four corner posts should be placed and shown on the site plan. Alexander asked about signage. There are no plans to have any signage on the road, perhaps one on the barn, however these vehicles will be sold via the internet. Alexander also asked about the proposal of purchasing stolen vehicles. These are vehicles that are purchased from auctions which are often recovered stolen vehicles. Alexander made a motion to approve Case #16A-74, Carl J Laura, Sr, Special Use Permit for a Home occupation for auto sales from 8327 Dekruif Road, Section 24, Carp Lake Township based on the standards of Section of the Zoning Ordinance, on the Plot Plan dated 8/10/10, the Home Occupation Use Plan dated 7/25/10, and the facts presented in this case and approval is subject to the following conditions: 1) There shall be no outdoor display visible from the public roads, 2) There shall be no outside employees, 3) The area of vehicle storage for the home occupation shall be limited to 1,000 sq. ft. 4) A sign no greater than 2 sq. ft. is permitted, 5) if the use becomes a salvage business, the business must be relocated to an industrial zoned location and the special use permit must be removed from this property at the property owner s expense, 6) vehicles on the property being serviced/sold are required to be located within the 100 x100 parking area, 7) the parking area shall be delineated by four 60 corner posts. The motion was supported by Gregory and passed on the following roll-call vote: Yes: Eby, Neal, Jones, Scott, Anderson, Plasencia, Alexander, Gregory. No: None. Absent: Laughbaum. 3. Case #18A-10 Boguslaw Gierek, REZONE- RR-2 to FF-2, 4742 N. Lake Shore Dr., Section 8, Readmond Township A request by Boguslaw Gierek for a Rezoning from RR-2 Recreation Residential to FF-2 Farm and Forest to apply to the property located at 4742 N Lake Shore Drive, Section 8, Readmond Township. The property is zoned SR-2 Scenic Resource and RR-2 Recreation Residential and is tax parcel The request is to rezone the RR-2 portion of the property (located east of the SR-2 zoned property) per Section 2408 of the Emmet County Zoning Ordinance. Distributed to PC Members: 10/6/10 Readmond Township Board recommendations, zoning map Doernenburg presented this case explaining that this property has been under review for the last two months. The 15 acre property is located on both sides of N. Lake Shore Drive and is zoned both SR-2 and RR-2. The proposal is to rezone the RR-2 portion to FF-2 because he has reached the maximum number of allowed accessory buildings in both the SR-2 and RR-2 zoning districts. She went over the history on this parcel and the area. There is history of rezoning in the area. From Middle Village Drive north, the FR district was rezoned to FF-2 in There was a rezone in 1986 to include SR-2 on previously zoned SR property. The Future Land Use map shows property in question as low density residential and rural residential to the east. There are quite a few more allowed uses in a FF zone as opposed to RR or SR. The usage comparison was shown on the PowerPoint and was also included in the packets for this meeting. The key difference for the applicant in this case is allowing him to be able to have additional accessory buildings than what is currently allowed. The Emmet County Planning Commission October 7, 2010 Page 3 of 8

4 density in RR is ½ acre; FF-2 is 2 acres. Readmond Township Planning Commission recommended that the case be postponed and the Township Board supported that decision. They have questions that weren t answered. Doernenburg stated that the proposal does seem to be supported by the Master Plan. Eby noted that changing the zoning would change the density from allowing approximately 30 houses to 7 houses. There would also be an unlimited number of accessory buildings allowed. Boguslaw Gierek, applicant, stated that he is looking at this rezoning because he has too many accessory buildings built and planned for the property as it s currently zoned. It is a beautiful area and he d like to preserve that by being able to store his boats and trailers inside a building. The neighbors had some questions mostly regarding farming. He stated that he does not intend to farm the property. The buildings cannot be seen from the road. Eby opened the floor to public comment. Robert Cardinal, Readmond Township, stated that Mr. Gierek wants to place a barn on the back of his parcel. He has other options of placing this barn without rezoning the property. The township doesn t take rezoning lightly. The use/zoning of the property is as how the township has approved in their Master Plan and they don t like to rezone to allow for one property owner to build a building. They would like to consider this case again at their next meeting. Eby asked about the Township s Master Plan. Cardinal stated that they have tried to preserve the agricultural and larger properties to the east and keep the high density along M-119. Eby asked what the other options for the applicant to build this building are. Doernenburg stated that the land could be split and a home with accessory building could be built or possibly an accessory building without a main use. There was no proposal for a garage it was just discussed in one of the conversations. Cardinal stated that prior to the meeting, they were unsure of the purpose for the rezoning. Eby stated that he wants to be sure that the Township s Master Plan is supported. Anderson made a motion to postpone this case to allow the Township to review their Master Plan and to hear this case again. The motion was supported by Gregory and passed on the following roll-call vote: Yes: Eby, Neal, Jones, Scott, Anderson, Plasencia, Alexander, Gregory. No: None. Absent: Laughbaum. 4. Case #25-10 Frank Puzio, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, Contractor s Use, 4160 Beckon Rd., Section 11. Readmond Township A request by Frank Puzio for a Special Use Permit for a Contractor s Use at 4160 Beckon Rd, Section 11, Readmond Township. The property is zoned FF-2 Farm and Forest and includes tax parcels & 031. The request is per Section of the Zoning Ordinance. Distributed to PC Members: 10/6/10 Readmond Township Board recommendations Doernenburg presented this case. The property is approximately 17 acres on the north side of Beckon Road and is zoned FF-2. She noted that the property is an upside-u shape surrounding a piece of vacant property. The primary location of the business is on the east side of the property which is where the applicant lives. The proposal is for a contractor s use to allow for a maintenance service to be operated from the property. Readmond Township recommended approval on the condition that both the Road Commission and Fire Department review the request. The property is over 10 acres so it does meet the standards for a contractor s use. The buildings all currently exist; no construction is proposed. An aerial view of the parcel was shown. The use is mostly screened from public view and no signs are proposed. The site plan was shown which was prepared by staff using the applicant s provided site plan. Frank Puzio, the applicant, stated that he discussed this with the neighbors, none of whom had an issue with his plans. The cars will be washed at a car wash so there will be no chemicals involved on his property. He does most of his detailing work at the customer s residence. He also snowplows in the winter. The equipment for Emmet County Planning Commission October 7, 2010 Page 4 of 8

5 this will be stored out of sight on his property. Alexander asked about signage. None is proposed. Doernenburg stated that an 8sf sign would be allowed. Cardinal stated that he did have neighbors show up at the meeting in support of this proposal. Plasencia asked how much equipment he has for the snowplowing. Puzio stated that he has only five clients and plans to keep it small. He has no employees and has two vehicles that he uses for the plowing. There was no public comment on this case. Anderson made a motion to approve Case #25-10, Frank Puzio, Special Use Permit for a contractor s use at 4160 Beckon Road, Section 11, Readmond Township, tax parcels and 031 for the following reasons: the site is over 17 acres exceeding the lot width and lot depth requirements, there is to be no outdoor storage, the owner s primary residence is on the same zoning lot and because the township recommended approval. The motion was supported by Alexander and passed on the following roll-call vote: Yes: Eby, Neal, Jones, Scott, Anderson, Plasencia, Alexander, Gregory. No: None. Absent: Laughbaum. 5. Case #23-10 Emmet County Planning Commission, TEXT AMENDMENT, Schedule of Regulations, Section 1900 A request by Emmet County Planning Commission for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to change the Schedule of Regulations as follows: All changes proposed are under the Column titled Minimum Lot Size Per Unit or Use: 1) Under the row titled Districts change from Area in Square Feet to Area. 2) Under the row titled R-1 change to 1/2 Acre (a) ; 3) Under the row titled RR-1 & RR-2 change to 1/2 Acre ; 4) Under the row titled FF-1 change to 1 Acre ; 5) Under the row titled FF-2 change to 2 Acres. Add a new definition under Section 200: Lot Area: The total horizontal area contained within the lot lines. The review is per Section 2408 of the Emmet County Zoning Ordinance. Distributed to PC Members: 10/6/10 Readmond Township Board recommendations Doernenburg presented this case. This is the first review of this proposal. This will essentially eliminate the minimum lots size per unit or use square footage measurements on the Schedule of Regulations, Section 1900 and instead, list the measure in acreage. R-1, RR-1, RR-2 would be changed to read ½ acre, FF-1 would read 1 acre, and FF-2 would read 2 acres. The SR zone would remain unchanged at 30,000 square feet. This change would also add a definition of lot area to Section 200. The townships that responded have responded in favor of the change. Michalek added that because the square footage measurement was used in the past, using an acreage measurement will make about 100 lots in the FF-1, R-1, and R-2 districts that were previously nonconforming, conforming. Alyce Conrad asked what the intent of the change is. Michalek stated that it makes the lot area requirement easier to understand and cleans up the ordinance language. Alexander asked if there has been any negative feedback. There hasn t; just have had some questions. Eby asked if this required a second hearing. Because it is a minor change it does not. Jones made a motion to recommend approval of Case #23-10, to the Emmet County Board of Commissioners, a Text Amendment to change the area requirements in Section 1900 the Schedule of Regulations for R1, R2, RR, and FF zoning districts, and to add a definition for Lot Area to Section 200, for the following reasons: because of the facts presented in this case and no non-conformities would be created by this change. The motion was supported by Scott and passed on the following roll-call vote: Yes: Eby, Neal, Jones, Scott, Anderson, Plasencia, Alexander, Gregory. No: None. Absent: Laughbaum. VI Other Business Wind Energy Ordinance-Christopher Stahl, Lake Effect Energy Corporation Michalek introduced Christopher Stahl, Lake Effect Energy Corporation. He is here to discuss the wind energy ordinance. The decibel numbers aren t fitting into his project and he would like to change those maximum levels. He may need possibly up to 55 db. Anderson asked where the db levels came from when we were reviewing the ordinance. Doernenburg stated Emmet County Planning Commission October 7, 2010 Page 5 of 8

6 that multiple studies and ordinances were looked at. The original drafts proposed a 55 db level, however that was lowered to a 35dB level in the sixth draft. This change was highlighted in the draft and was discussed during the meetings. Jones stated that he believed the 35dB came from what some places in Europe had for rural areas. Christopher Stahl stated that 35 db just about eliminates every horizontal access turbine out there. These will typically be 100 tall due to the height of trees in the area. He had put together a chart showing the comparison of wind speeds and db levels based on a 100 turbine. Emmet County s average wind speeds from AWS Truwind Mapping are 11mph at 100. Typically the turbines shut down at 31mph. They would only be producing the high decibel noise for 6-15 seconds prior to shut down. He explained that he is only dealing with small point-of-use turbines not commercial turbines. An average db level would be better. Stahl stated that he is going through a process with West Traverse Township. Their wind ordinance has a 55 db level. His current project is for an agricultural producer in Cross Village Township has been approved through the USDA with a Federal ITC tax credit. Stahl stated that even adjusting the turbine to the center of the property gets them 46dB at the property line. He has checked into all of the turbines available. Anderson asked if this restriction affects all turbines. Doernenburg explained that there are three standards and the Planning Commission could look at just one standard if they wished. Michalek stated that a personal turbine less than 60 was recently approved that was able to meet the 35dB restriction. Anderson asked if larger towers produce more decibels. Yes. Alexander asked Stahl about the frequency of the noise. Low frequency noise permeates rather than dissipates; is this the frequency that the point-of-use turbines produce? Stahl stated that they do not deal with utility scale turbines at all. The noise is generated at the tip of the blades and there is a much lower swept area on the point-of-use turbines. Alexander stated that the reason that the db levels were lowered is because there is no way to measure the difference between low and high frequency noise. Stahl stated that the noise is very different from that of a utility turbine. He stated that they have installed a turbine on the Cummings property in Friendship township and any of the members would be welcome to come up and listen to that one. The turbines on the docks in Mackinaw City have a higher frequency noise. He stated that he is just trying to show how hard it is to have a fixed db number and suggests average db levels be looked at instead. Anderson stated that according to Stahl s chart, the db would go over 35dB with 20mph winds. Eby asked about combining parcels to create a larger zoning lot. Michalek stated that this could potentially be done with contracts to create a zoning lot. Eby stated that the Planning Commission should consider whether the ordinance creates a hardship. Michalek stated that some models can be shut down at night during sleeping hours or possibly at a certain db level. Neal stated that because there is few storage options for the power produced the turbines may be abandoned if they don t sustain themselves. There is nothing in the ordinance that stipulates that they must be removed at this height. Stahl stated that the point-of-service turbines focus strictly on grid connections so storage of the generated power isn t an issue. Eby asked again if this ordinance creates a hardship or are there other options that should be explored. Scott stated that he feels that the ordinance is correct as is. It probably wouldn t be practical to combine zoning lots for smaller projects but it could possibly be done. Perhaps waivers from neighboring property owners could be used. Michalek stated that we cannot zone based on waivers from neighbors. Stahl stated that he plans to turn in the paperwork for this project on Monday. Eby asked if the ordinance creates a hardship by nature or just in this case. Michalek stated that if it reached exclusionary zoning, there may be an Emmet County Planning Commission October 7, 2010 Page 6 of 8

7 argument for a hardship but it would have to be an extreme case and the viable use of a property would have to be removed. There are still uses for the property. Plasencia asked if looking at changing cutoff speeds would help. Stahl stated that they would not be economically viable. Eby opened the floor to public comment. John Woodcock stated that he is curious why Mr. Stahl is here to ask to change an ordinance that was just adopted in November. If this company does this, the company working in Bliss Township will certainly ask to change the ordinance as well. He doesn t want to see the ordinance changed whether it was correct when it was adopted or not. This would encourage other companies to want the same changes. Woodcock stated that he has asked other companies to see their turbines and wasn t allowed to do so. Mary Fortne stated that it was stated during one of the other cases tonight that the zoning shouldn t be changed for just one person s building. Changing the ordinance for this company would be doing the same thing. Alfred LaCount stated that when reviewing Mr. Stahl s chart, the turbine could go up to 25mph before reaching the maximum db level. They could shut the blades down before this point. He also stated that the ambient noise level has to be taken into consideration. This may be difficult to measure separately from the generator s noise. He suggested changing the ordinance so state that the db levels be measured at the property line. The members informed him that the ordinance reads that way now. Mary Fortne asked if this could set a precedent. Could this be used in a utility turbine request? Eby stated that utility turbines are reviewed under different regulations. Fortne stated that there was a lot of work and time to review and create this ordinance. Michalek noted that the ordinance is a fluid document that can be amended and changed. Stahl stated that the State of Michigan recommends 55dB. Bill Marshall Jr. stated that the State guidelines are not put in place to protect communities, it is to bring business to the state. Eby noted that an individual that has a hardship would go to the ZBA however the individual can come to the Planning Commission to ask them to review the ordinance as a whole. Michalek explained that he spoke with Civil Counsel about the possible options and she felt that the ZBA could review this case as a dimensional variance. The applicant would have to prove practical difficulty. Stahl stated that he has a time constraint as he is supposed to have 20% of this project completed in Eby explained that the ordinance wouldn t change that fast. Bill Marshall Jr. stated that the terrain should be taken into consideration as well when looking at decibel levels. Michalek stated that Mr. Stahl would like this board to approve advertising a change to the ordinance. He noted that there is a guy in Michigan who measures decibel levels; he may be a Emmet County Planning Commission October 7, 2010 Page 7 of 8

8 good independent source for further information. Alexander asked if we could ask him about the differences between low and high frequency noise. Ann Kroy stated that the people putting up these turbines are benefiting financially. It seems to her that people in the community should also benefit financially if they are going to have to tolerate the noise. Alfred LaCount stated that he feels the County has a good wind energy ordinance. He can t see much of a hardship. The turbines could be slowed down with a governor. Staff will look into this issue to see what additional information can be found. Michalek will try to set up a meeting with the expert that he mentioned. No ordinance changes will be advertised at this point. SOB Ordinance update Michalek stated that we are working on amending the SOB ordinance. The maps are being reviewed to be sure that there still are sufficient areas for the use to go. Several case decisions have changed the language. It is reasonable to have Scott Bergthold review the ordinance again. He is going before the finance committee to request a $2, retainer to have him do so. The ordinance should be reviewed every two years and we are at the four year mark. Anderson asked what has changed that requires review. Michalek noted that due to various lawsuits regulations change often. Neal made a motion to support the request of the retainer from the Board of Commissioners. Anderson supported the motion. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote of the members present. Online Michigan Citizen Planner Program There is funding available to pay for half the cost of this program for up to three people. The members were asked to advise staff if they would like to participate. ZOAC Meeting The next meeting will be held November 4, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. Enforcement Report Michalek gave some information on an enforcement issue that may become a case in the future. There was some discussion regarding farm equipment in someone s yard and when it becomes outdoor display. Public Comment: No additional comments VII Adjournment There being no other business, and no additional public comment, Eby called the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. James Scott, Secretary Date Emmet County Planning Commission October 7, 2010 Page 8 of 8