Paul Hramiec, Dan Plasencia, Jack Jones, Kelly Alexander, John Eby, James Scott, Paul Desy, Steve Neal (arrived 7:35 p.m.)

Transcription

1 EMMET COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES THURSDAY JULY 5, :30 P.M. COMMISSIONER S ROOM EMMET COUNTY BUILDING 200 DIVISION STREET PETOSKEY, MI MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF: Paul Hramiec, Dan Plasencia, Jack Jones, Kelly Alexander, John Eby, James Scott, Paul Desy, Steve Neal (arrived 7:35 p.m.) David Laughbaum Tammy Doernenburg, Monica Linehan I Call to Order and Attendance The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Eby. All members were present except Laughbaum. II Minutes of June 7, 2012 Alexander made a motion, supported by Desy, to approve the minutes of the June 7, 2012 meeting as presented. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote. III Cases 1. Case# Charles Daniel, SPECIAL USE PERMIT-Contractor's Use, US 131, Section 30, Bear Creek Township Legal Notice: A request by Charles Daniel for a Special Use Permit for a Contractor's Use and forest harvesting operation on property located on the east side of US Highway 131 approximately 600 feet south of Greg Road, Section 30, Bear Creek Township. The property is tax parcel number and is zoned FF-1 Farm and Forest. The request is per Section and of the Zoning Ordinance. Passed out at meeting (or ed): 6/28/12 site plan revision Doernenburg presented this case. This is the second review. The parcel is located on the east side of US 131 south of Greg Road. A revised site plan addressing the concerns of the previous month's review was presented. The request is for a contractors use and forest harvesting operation. Objections have been received via phone and public comment at the last meeting. There was discussion as to whether this request and activity fits under the contractors use or if it is more of an industrial type use. Bear Creek Township felt it was industrial and recommended denial of the case. The improvements made on the revised site plan include adding a larger exhaust system and positioning the machinery to minimize the noise, adding more pine trees to the berm and driveway entrance, limiting hours of operation to Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm with the occasional Saturday, 9am-3pm. The revised site plan, aerial, and site photos were shown. Neal arrived. Bud Gray for the applicant stated that they put a newer bigger muffler on the machinery and pointed the exhaust to the east and toward the ground. Pine and fir trees will be planted near the highway to help buffer noise as well. Gray stated that they have been running the equipment since the last meeting and hasn't heard anyone complain. Hramiec asked if the revised site plan went back to Bear Creek Township. Doernenburg stated that Emmet County Planning Commission July 5, 2012 Page 1 of 9

2 they did not see it again as they felt that they had already made their recommendation on the project. Desy noted that at the township meeting, they felt enough of the criteria weren't met and that even a revised plan wouldn't bring it close enough to compliance to approve. Plasencia asked what the vote was. Desy stated that at the township Planning Commission level the vote was unanimous to deny with one member abstaining. Jones stated that the township board supported their decision. The supervisor had voiced that he thought the project was a good thing. Eby opened the floor to public comment. Cathy Coveyou stated that the vote from the township board was unanimous. She stated that the request doesn t comply with the contractors use criteria. This request is industrial, the mining use adjacent is non conforming. This is an agricultural area, their farm is across the street, Mackinaw Trails Winery will be opening 2,000' down the highway and just invested a bunch of money into their project. This will bring tourists and money to the area. Coveyou stated that she doesn't see how approving this use will improve or help the area. She stated that she hears the noises of the operation and feels the vibrations all of the time, indoors and out. There is a lot of truck traffic and trucks were going into the site at 8:10am on a Saturday morning. If the exhaust has been changed, Coveyou stated that it isn't noticeable. They have a property adjacent to this parcel that has beautiful views of Walloon Lake. This use would vastly diminish the property values. The farm house is a few hundred feet away and the area is used as residential use. Coveyou stated that at the township meeting someone said that we're not here to approve violations. She stated that it is frustrating that this is being discussed tonight. Bud Riley stated that he lives adjacent to this parcel. Having logging trucks in and out of that location on US 131 would block traffic and would be dangerous. The property valuations will go down. He stated that a commercial operation should not be allowed there. It is detrimental to the area and isn't what should be seen at the entrance to Petoskey. Scott Smith stated that he is not a direct neighbor but it seems that all of the neighbors in the area are opposed to the proposal. He is concerned with the gateway to Petoskey. A number of opinion surveys in recent years have showed that people value the rural character, the farming character, and the open space in the area. Approving this request would make the area more industrial and would adversely affect this corridor. There is a growing movement in favor of local farming and consumption of local goods and food. Smith stated that he just went to a meeting regarding promoting this movement from both an economic and health standpoint. The property is zoned for agricultural use and keeping it this way would fit into the conclusions of the opinion surveys and could be a major benefit for the whole area in terms of growth, environmental, and health benefits. Smith encouraged denial of this case. Mary Riley stated that their property joins the subject parcel. They are right across from the lake and it is beautiful. She asked the board if they would like to have this commercial operation right next door. She stated that she likes the area as it is and doesn't like the noise or the trucks. She cannot hear the operation in the house but can hear it when she is outside on her land. Riley asked why they are allowed to operate now without permission. David Coveyou stated that their farm and residence is across the street. He continues his objection to this request. There are right and wrong locations for this type of business and this is not the right location. Noise is one of the key issues. His home is 150 away from what is a commercial industrial use. He doesn t want to live next to this use. It is noisy, he can hear it. Lately, it hasn't been operating on the same scale but it will go back to this. A photo was passed around showing the equipment on Emmet County Planning Commission July 5, 2012 Page 2 of 9

3 site at the time of the township meeting. Coveyou stated that it is a big operation. The key reason for zoning is to protect the surrounding uses. This property doesn't meet the minimum acreage, width, or owner occupant standards. Coveyou asked if we want every excavator to set up based on the precedent this would set. An approval would negate the rules in the standard. Coveyou stated that he does not believe that this is a forest harvesting operation because the trees are not harvested off of the property they are hauled in and processed on site. There are pretty stringent rules in the industrial section that protects residents. Additional trees and buffering won't stop the noise and neither will moving the equipment. Coveyou asked if we want this operation at the entrance to Petoskey. MDOT has stated that if the highway is ever expanded, that curve would be removed which would greatly impact the berms and that property that exist now. Coveyou stated that they are trying to keep and expand their farm and keep the area appealing to the community and the future. Agricultural use should be concentrated on. Brian Bates, a resident on Greg Road, stated that he recently moved here from an urban area and came for the rural character of the area. He stated that there is a reason that we have ordinances set in stone to prevent people from going against the Master Plan. There is a place for this type of activity but this is not the right place. This is a 6.5 acre site in a very picturesque area. It is in the best interest of the people of the county and the neighbors to keep the area as it is and honor the zoning and what it is trying to protect. This is not a 'not in my back yard' issue, this is just not the right spot in the county for this use. Bud Gray stated that the operation cannot be seen from the road. This protects the views and it is not a large operation. There is one dump truck, one machine, and a semi of wood delivered every six weeks or so with 50 cord of wood to process. Gray stated that 40% of his customers are from Walloon Lake and they don't care where the wood comes from, just that they can get it. If the winery and farms are there and they continue to expand as they have, no one seems to care where that extra traffic is from. It is the same traffic and the same hazards no matter where the traffic is going. Gray stated that during their peak busy season in October or November there will be five to six loads per day, four days a week. The rest of the time, there would be very little traffic. They are using less than half of the 6.5 acre site to do this operation. The topsoil screening is something that is only done once a year, the pile sits until it's gone. Gray stated that he cannot see how this operation affects the lake views because it is way down and cannot be seen from the road or the scenic overlook. It is not that noisy. Pat Daniel pointed out the view that is seen from the Coveyou's property. They see either the berm along the highway or the driveway. The operation is not able to be seen. The berms were put there for this reason; to give consideration to the neighbors. There are already pine trees planted to help buffer noise. Steps have been taken to protect the neighbors. You cannot see the operation unless you are on the property. Daniel stated that after the last meeting, one of the neighbors offered the sale of a nearby property to house this operation. Why would they feel that it would be ok on that site but not this one? Charles Daniel stated that this is next to Manthei's mining operation and Coveyou Meadows. There is traffic in and out of those locations all of the time whether they are buying flowers or trucks on the site. The neighbors have stated that this would increase the traffic but it is already there. His operation fits with surrounding uses and cannot be seen. Plasencia stated that he went to the site and it looked like a very small operation. He had a handheld decibel meter that was reading in the high 90s from the highway traffic at about 3pm. He doesn't think that the machinery on the site could be heard over that level. Plasencia stated that he didn't have the Emmet County Planning Commission July 5, 2012 Page 3 of 9

4 opportunity to hear the machines running. They did extend the muffler. The operation cannot be seen. There is a lot of traffic from the farm sales. The wood processed on site would be dropped off, processed and shipped off. Plasencia stated that he can't see where a lot of wood could be put on the site. The rumble strips on the highway are very noisy as well. Jones stated that the township said that there were issues with the standards that couldn't be revised on a new site plan. He asked Desy for specifics. Desy stated that the lot size and width was discussed and that the township feels that this is an industrial operation. Jones noted that this is a farm-forest area, not a residential area. It is a permitted use according to the intent of the ordinance. Desy added that they also discussed that the owner does not reside on the property and they discussed another operation that was proposed on an eight acre site that was turned down prior to him being on the board. Jones stated that there are others on small lots that have been approved. The highway does not have the best traffic safety conditions there but he has seen trucks backing into Coveyou's which is more dangerous than just pulling into the property like they could on this site. Coveyou Farm brings in product as well such as Christmas trees and other supplies. Desy stated that the township felt that there was enough that wasn't in compliance and didn't want to set a precedent by approving this case. Neal asked about the distance to the residences; doesn't it have to be 1,000 feet? Doernenburg explained that the 1,000 foot distance is a requirement for a sawmill. There are three different areas in which wood harvesting is addressed in the ordinance. In the FF district, forest harvesting and tree farms are a use by right. A sawmill would fall under a special use and has specific criteria to be met. Landscape and excavators use are also special use permits with specific criteria. This case was advertised as a contractors use reviewed under Section and forest harvesting, Section Doernenburg noted that the board should determine the use and then evaluate whether it meets the required criteria for that use. Neal asked if forest harvesting has to be onsite or if it can be hauled in. Jones stated that he does not feel that this is a sawmill. They have a chainsaw with a hydraulic motor. Eby asked what category it does fall into. Zulski's sawmill has the same equipment as part of their sawmill but this is a different operation. Jones, Plasencia, Eby, Desy, and Scott all had a chance to visit the site. Eby stated that the entrance bothers him on this site. Jones stated that it's been approved by MDOT. The accidents in the area have not been with big trucks. Eby asked what the best use for the property would be if not this use. Jones stated that there isn't much of anything else it could be used for; there is no topsoil on the site. It was very hot on the site as there is no breeze that gets through. He doesn't think that there would be too much work going on in the summer heat. Desy stated that he is not sure what the best use of this site would be but doesn't think that this is a correct use for this site because too many of the criteria are not met. Plasencia stated that the neighbor to the south has plenty of material left and their operation could continue to run for a long time. This will generate noise. He asked how long Gray has been operating on the site. Since February. Desy asked if this was an enforcement issue. Yes. Desy made a motion to deny Case #10-12, Special Use Permit for a Contractor s Use and Site Plan Review for a forest production operation, for Charles Daniel at property located on the east side of US- 131 in Section 30 of Bear Creek Township for tax parcel as shown on the plot plan dated received June 28, 2012 for the following reasons: The parcel does not meet the required lot size, it is not a harvesting operation, and the owner does not have a residence on site. The motion was supported by Alexander and passed on the following roll-call vote: Yes: Eby, Neal, Scott, Hramiec, Desy, Alexander. No: Jones, Plasencia. Absent: Laughbaum. Emmet County Planning Commission July 5, 2012 Page 4 of 9

5 2. Case #12-12 Bernie Kilmer, SPECIAL USE PERMIT-Accessory building-exception to the accessory building standards, 6944 Milton Rd, Section 3, Littlefield Township Legal Notice: A request by Bernie Kilmer for a Special Use Permit for an Exception to the Accessory Building standards at 6944 Milton Road, Section 3, Littlefield Township. The property is zoned R-1B One Family Residential and is tax parcel number The request is to allow a 1260 sq. ft. accessory building on a parcel which allows for a 1000 sq. ft. accessory building per Section of the Zoning Ordinance. Packet information: Request & location map, tax parcel map, application, impact statement, 6/6/12 site plan, photos, zoning evaluation. Passed out at meeting (or ed): letter of support from Haggard's P&H, Littlefield Township recommendation The subject parcel is zoned R-1B. The building is already under construction. The site plan was shown that shows an existing 20'x30' building with an addition proposed to that building of 22'x30'. After looking at the site, there is also a 330sf lean-to built onto the existing building which is not shown on the site plan. This lean-to extends 1' into the side setback area. In the front or side yard, an accessory building can be up to 1000sf, in the rear yard up to 1200sf. The building is well screened from the east along Milton Road, the house blocks the view of the building from the west, and there are tall pines on the site. The township recommended approval on the condition that the side yard setback be enforced. The applicant, Bernie Kilmer stated that the lean-to was there when he bought the property. He wants to add onto the front of the existing building. The addition would be 20' from the side property line, 105' to the road, and there would be 23' between his house and pole barn. The addition is to store vehicles and is not a commercial building. He checked with his neighbors beforehand and they are all ok with it. Desy asked if this is an enforcement issue and if permits have been issued. Doernenburg stated that the permits have not been issued. Jones stated that it looks half done. Desy asked the applicant if he knew permits were required. Kilmer responded "Yes." Doernenburg showed the aerial and pointed out a very large accessory building located on a neighboring parcel in the same zoning district. There was discussion regarding the lean-to and the existing portion of the pole barn. When was it built? Doernenburg stated that she didn't know when the original building was built. The Planning Commission cannot rule on the encroachment but the lean-to does add to the total square footage of the building. Jones asked if the addition is taller than the existing part of the building. Kilmer stated that it is in order to park his trailer. Desy asked about penalties for building without permits. Doernenburg advised him that the zoning permit fees are doubled and that extra fees are added to the building permits of $100. Neal stated that it doesn't sound like much of a disincentive. The total square footage including the lean-to is 1590sf, 1000sf is allowed. Plasencia noted that the township would like the encroachment brought into compliance. Removing the eve was discussed at their meeting. Scott asked if a survey can be required to determine the setback encroachment. Doernenburg stated that it would be easier to require if it were included in the motion and may take longer if it is not. Plasencia made a motion to approve Case #12-12, Bernie Kilmer for a Special Use Permit for an Exception to the Accessory Building size standards and to allow a 1,590 sq.ft. accessory building at 6944 Milton Road, Section 3, Littlefield Township, tax parcel , as shown on the plot plan dated Received June 6, 2012 because no good purpose would be served by strict compliance with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance on condition that the lean-to be brought into compliance with the setback standards of the Ordinance. The motion was supported by Jones and passed on the following rollcall vote: Yes: Neal, Jones, Hramiec, Plasencia, Alexander. No: Eby, Scott, Desy. Absent: Laughbaum. Emmet County Planning Commission July 5, 2012 Page 5 of 9

6 3. Case #55C-04 Phil Duran, PUD-1 AMENDMENT, Grand Ridge, Section 34, Bear Creek Township Legal Notice: A request by Phil Duran for an Amendment to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development-1 (PUD-1) on property known as Grand Ridge in Section 34 of Bear Creek Township. The underlying zoning of the parcel is zoned R-1B One Family Residential and B-2 General Business with a PUD-1 overlay and includes tax parcels numbered , 002, 101, 102, 103, 110, 111, 112 and 113. The request is to: 1. allow five additional residential lots within the residential portion of the development, 2. dedicate the B-2 zoned portion of the property to open space (2.39 acres), 3. allow the following uses in a 3.25 acre area along US-31 highway: single family dwellings attached to a business use; utility and public service facilities and uses, office buildings for executive, administrative, and professional offices; banks and financial institutions; retail businesses; personal service establishments; motels, cabin courts, tourist lodging facilities, gift shops, museums; offices and showrooms of decorators; plant material sales centers, greenhouses, and nurseries; restaurants; supper clubs/taverns; veterinarian hospitals and home occupations. 4. retain the multiple family uses on a 1.75 acre area adjacent to the business area to act as a buffer. The request is per Article XVIII of the Zoning Ordinance. Packet information: Request & location map, tax parcel map, application, impact statement, comparison of uses, right of access information, lot size comparison, zoning evaluation, 6/11/12 site plan, conceptual plan-3pgs, 2005 approved site plan. Passed out at meeting (or ed): letter of support from Haggard's P&H Doernenburg presented this case. The original approvals for the development occurred in During the township meeting, the applicant discussed changes to the current request. The township asked for a revised plan showing the current request and asked to hear the case again at their next meeting. The business locations are proposed to be moved from the northwest corner to the central area and retain that corner as open space. Specific uses were chosen by the applicant and those uses were advertised. The adjacent development plan was included in the packet to show the differences in the density. The conceptual plans were shown. Doernenburg stated that the township liked this concept. MDOT has given preliminary approval and stated that it would be difficult to get an access onto US 131 but not impossible. No new access onto Country Club is proposed. A revised plan will be submitted and reviewed at the next meeting. The applicant, Phil Duran discussed some of the proposed revisions to the submitted plan. Some of the changes were to accommodate the property owners' suggestions such as adding three sites by splitting larger ones. No new access is proposed, it will be accessed via the existing development access only. Some of the uses will be removed such as motel, cabin, supper club, and tavern uses. They are trying to keep the density down and include mild B-2 uses. Duran stated that they would also like to reduce the 50' setback in an area to make it easier to build on the hilly sites. This case was postponed until the next regular Planning Commission meeting. 4. Case # Deborah Gafill, SITE PLAN REVIEW, 1023 N Lake Shore Dr, Section 25, Readmond Township Legal Notice: A request by Deborah Gafill for Site Plan Review on property located at 1023 N Lake Shore Drive in Section 25, Readmond Township. The property is zoned B-1 Local Tourist Business and is tax parcel The request is for a retail establishment and office per Sections and 900-4, and includes review under Section 2405 Site Plan Review and all other applicable zoning standards. Packet information: Request & location map, application, impact statement, zoning evaluation, 6/11/12 plans-site, drainage, parcel comparison Doernenburg explained that this parcel is located on the west side of N Lake Shore Drive (M-119) Emmet County Planning Commission July 5, 2012 Page 6 of 9

7 across from Robinson Road. It is zoned B-1. Because the use is adjacent to residential use, screening is required and some screening exists on the north side of the property. Evergreens have been planted on the south side of the property. The drive on the adjacent parcel runs along the property and accesses a residence behind the subject parcel. The proposal is for site plan review of an existing building to be used as retail use, professional office, and possibly a coffee shop. All of these uses are principle uses in this zoning district. Permits will be required from the building department for interior remodeling. MDOT has approved a commercial access from M-119. There are parking spaces shown that meet the ordinance standards. A sealed drainage plan was submitted but the seal is by an engineer who's license is not current. The fire department recommendation was received today with corrections that will have to be made within the building code. The building is 720sf, 620sf of which is useable floor area. The site is 0.62 acres and is zoned properly for the use. The site plan and aerial were shown, surrounding uses were pointed out which include business zoned properties which also have residential uses. The township recommended approval with specific requirements that they would like to see met. Township officials were present to address those requirements. The applicants John and Debbie Gafill were present. John Gafill stated that they plan to have a small shop with an office and small retail area and possibly a self-serve food service area. They do have a drainage plan with a current licensed engineers seal. Bill Sutton, Friendship Township Planning Commission Chair, stated that the approval was unanimous. They asked for MDOT or Road Commission, Fire Department, and Health Department approvals if required. They felt that due to the amount of impervious parking, a sealed drainage plan by an acceptable engineer needed to be provided. The main issue discussed at the meeting was the screening between this property and the parcel to the north. Because the businesses operate both as businesses and residential, there should be some sensitivity to this. The property to the north is of nominal distance away. Their motion required that within a year of opening the business, screening that was suitable to the neighbor to the north be installed. Sutton stated that they phrased it this way because the Gafills aren't sure exactly when they will be opening their business. They felt that a year after the opening of the business would be suitable time to determine whether more screening will be necessary. The Township Board also reviewed and supported the Planning Commission's motion unanimously. Eby asked about specific screening requests from the township. This board can't be so vague in their motions. Sutton stated that the neighbor to the north was concerned about traffic along the driveway that extends to the back of the property. That portion of the drive won't be used as a parking lot for the public. The motion was made in such a way as to allow time to determine if further screening will be necessary or whether the current screening will be suitable. Amy Woods, the resident to the north, stated that right now there is minimal screening; a few feet of random trees of different sizes that exist now with some pallets against the trees. It isn't a visual thing, nothing has changed in that respect, it is a noise and usage issue. Doernenburg stated that because there is some screening there, if it is determined not to be adequate, there could be a requirement to increase the screening. Carolyn Sutherland stated that the driveway comes along the property line but then joins to another drive. The existing use has a loop driveway and there is nothing to shut it down. This could be used for deliveries or other things. The rest of the driveway is really not on this parcel but is used that way. Emmet County Planning Commission July 5, 2012 Page 7 of 9

8 It is a blacktop drive. There are no screening or barriers to stop the traffic. John Gafill stated that they propose to stop public use of the drive at the parking lot. The drive that continues would only be private use and parking. They would like to keep the loop continuous for emergency use only. Sutherland asked what will stop the public from using it. Gafill stated that they will block it off. Amy Woods stated that her family owns the general store. It is the only year-round business in Good Hart. The businesses in the area work cohesively together. She and the local business owners did not have any knowledge of this proposed business and have some concerns. There is not an owner on the property which creates a concern. She has some questions: Will the loop drive be closed off? How will dumpster/trash removal be handled? What will the hours of operation be (others in the area are 9am-6pm)? What is the actual, specific nature of the business? How will loading and unloading be handled (it is marked not applicable on their plans)? Is health department/department of agriculture approval required? Is the existing well and septic up to code? Is there to be a cafe/restaurant? What will the surface of the parking area and drive be -- Afton stone or blacktop? They have a vested interest in maintaining the aesthetics of the area. Trees were already cut down along the tunnel of trees which concerns them. Desy stated that screened garbage cans are shown in the back of the building on the site plan. These would have to be properly screened. Doernenburg noted that the applicant is aware that they need to be screened with a privacy fence. As to the nature of the business, Doernenburg stated that as long as the use fits into the B-1 district, we cannot ask for specifics on what they plan to sell. Jones stated that a privacy fence could be installed if it is determined that screening isn't adequate. Plasencia asked how much area is north of the existing driveway to the property line. Debbie Gafill stated that there is about 5'. Plasencia noted that there would be room for screening there. Doernenburg noted that there is some screening in that vicinity. She added that health department or department of agriculture permits are required as are well and septic prior to certificate of occupancy. The surface of the parking is proposed to be gravel. There are no plans for a cafe or restaurant proposed other than the selfservice that they discussed. A sign would need to be approved either through Sign & Lighting Committee or administratively as allowed by the ordinance. Doernenburg stated that a privacy fence is a better option for screening as there won't be greenery in the winter months. Proper screening would be 6' high and of wood or vinyl material. Jones made a motion to approve Case #14-12, Deborah Gafill, Site Plan Review for a retail establishment and office at 1023 N Lake Shore Drive, tax parcel , Section 25, Readmond Township because the uses are principal uses permitted, the use is screened from the adjacent residence, it meets the standards of Section 2405, because the township recommended approval, MDOT approval has been granted, Fire Department approval has been granted and on condition that if a complaint is filed regarding the screening, a six foot high privacy fence of wood or vinyl material will be installed as required by staff along the north property line, existing vegetation will be maintained, no through traffic will be allowed on the existing paved drive, Health Department approval is required prior to occupancy, and any signage will be subject to review by the Sign and Lighting Committee. The motion was supported by Neal and passed on the following roll-call vote: Yes: Eby, Neal, Jones, Scott, Hramiec, Desy, Plasencia, Alexander. No: None. Absent: Laughbaum. IV Other Business: Enforcement Report: Distributed, no discussion. Emmet County Planning Commission July 5, 2012 Page 8 of 9

9 Accessory Buildings as a Main Use-proposed text amendment: Doernenburg explained that the draft has been amended after speaking with Civil Counsel and Kurt Schindler. The draft was distributed in the packets. Jones made a motion, supported by Plasencia to publish the text amendment for review at the next meeting. All in favor. Administrative Review/Modifications: Doernenburg went over two administrative modifications that she has approved for Petoskey Brewing and Munchkin Manor Webcam Daycare. Both are in Bear Creek Township on Harbor-Petoskey Road (M-119). Petoskey Brewing includes two additions, change in dumpster location and modification to the parking lot around the lighting. The islands around the poles is to be large enough to support some landscaping. There will be some outdoor seating and all other site plan notations remain in place. Munchkin Manor will be adding daycare to the second building on their property and placing their offices on the second story of the building. Staff will request combined driveway access and that the dumpster be screened. V Public Comment: Ed Landon stated that he owns a cottage on Pickerel Lake and had been turned down for a 9' setback variance by the ZBA. He wanted to express his frustration and advise the Planning Commission about the situation. Mr. Landon had previously expressed his opinions and explained his issues in writing to both boards. His complaint is that the ordinance requirements in the variance section list criteria to be reviewed. Mr. Landon stated that he feels that he addressed all of those components and was still denied. There are others that are closer to the lake that have had variances approved and he had a map showing those. He stated that he feels that in the minutes, the criteria should be identified and addressed on these cases. He just wants a screened in porch. Mr. Landon read excerpts from the meeting in which his case was reviewed. A variance means that there are exceptions; he doesn't feel that anyone stated what the reason or issue was as to why it was denied, they just said no. He feels that the ordinance itself is fair and clear but is frustrated that these criteria weren't addressed. Landon stated that he spent a lot of time and miles trying to accomplish this. Eby stated that the Board of Commissioners sets up the membership of the ZBA. The members of the Planning Commission are not in a position to judge whether what they did was right or wrong, they would only be able to address changes to the code which would then be passed onto the Board of Commissioners for final review. Landon stated that the code is fine, it is the process that he has issue with. He understands his option is to go to Circuit Court but that doesn't make sense to him. Alfred LaCount commented in regards to the radio tower reviewed at last month's meeting. He feels that the Master Plan should be amended to show the areas that were discussed for tall, lit towers so that the map shows the areas of possibility. Eby agreed with LaCount and identified the three locations: generally south and east of Petoskey; Levering and Reed Road area; and between Stutsmanville and Boyne Highlands. VI Adjournment There being no other business, and no additional public comment, Eby called the meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m. James Scott, Secretary Date Emmet County Planning Commission July 5, 2012 Page 9 of 9