 |
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||
 |
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
 |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||
 |
Metropolitan Planning Commission Meeting MinutesCALHOUN COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION April 24, 2006 The Regular Session of the Calhoun County Metropolitan Planning Commission convened at 4:00 p.m., Monday, April 24, 2006 in the Planning Office Conference Room, Calhoun County Building, 315 West Green Street, Marshall, Michigan. Roll Call: Present: Comrs. Daniel Kesselring, Clarence Millard, Dian Schubel and Gregory Moore. Temporarily Excused: Comrs. Alex Cherney (Arrived at 4:02 p.m.) and Robert Bolton (Arrived at 4:35 p.m.). Absent: Comr. Larry Rizor. Also Present: Planning Consultant Jennifer Bomba, County resident Allen Dutton, and Deputy Clerk Mary Lou Barrett. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
COMMUNICATIONS: Consultant Bomba presented the following communications:
Ms. Bomba advised that she shall remit another letter to the townships to advise that the Planning Commission is meeting and to request that the townships remit their meeting minutes. NEW BUSINESS: Ms. Bomba reported that she has sent an email to Board Chairman Miller requesting to meet with him to discuss the Planning Commission’s bylaws, procedures for appointments, projects, etc. and is awaiting his response. Chairperson Schubel requested that the procedure for appointment/re-appointment of Planning Commissioners be placed under Old Business on the next agenda. TOWNSHIP PLANNING AND ZONING COORDINATION: Case #04-06-01, Draft Leroy Township Master Plan Ms. Bomba presented her recommendation regarding the Township’s draft master plan, stating that the draft plan was received as an item of communication within the Commission’s February agenda packet. Ms. Bomba advised that on January 17 the Township remitted the draft document to all surrounding communities and a variety of utility companies. Ms. Bomba advised that the review and comment period for surrounding communities and utilities was 75 days and that she has not received any comments from those recipients. Ms. Bomba stated that overall the Plan is a well organized and thorough document, which begins with a strong vision statement addressing the importance of preserving natural resources, and provides a more distinct division between residential and agricultural interests. Ms. Bomba continued that the goals and objectives for each of the identified land uses are very thorough and well defined within the Plan and are carried out through the remaining chapters of the document. Ms. Bomba addressed the proposed future land use map the Township submitted, addressing the goals and objectives for each land use category. Ms. Bomba addressed the chapter regarding land use design which reflects how the Township shall implement their goals and objectives through different planning and zoning techniques, also the chapter regarding implementation which defines how the Township plans to review their Master Plan to keep it current. Ms. Bomba advised that she has a few recommendations. Ms. Bomba pointed out that the Township is using maps from the County Master Plan, and that she would like to discuss with the Township the potential of the Planning Office making these maps more suitable for the Township’s document; i.e., better legend, scale, appropriate title, etc. for a minimal cost. Ms. Bomba advised that the Planning Office is working with other townships to provide their mapping needs at a minimal cost to the townships. Chairperson Schubel inquired who shall do the mapping work for the Planning Office. Ms. Bomba responded that at this point she can make the maps as the maps are on the county’s computer system. Ms. Bomba stated that if big changes are required, that she would subcontract the work to a consultant. Ms. Bomba continued that there are a variety of tables in the document that do not disclose the data sources, and advised that she would recommend identification of those data sources for all tables within the document. Ms. Bomba advised that the data source for the wetland areas map is listed incorrectly in the text and that she would recommend that the data source be corrected to note that the wetlands have been delineated by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality through a national wetlands inventory. Ms. Bomba addressed the statement made within Chapter 5 - Future Land Use Map, that indicates that the areas defined on the map are “general in nature and subject to interpretation,” to which she disagrees and believes is a poor statement regarding their Plan. Ms. Bomba stated that the Plan should be the guide used when making all land use decisions and should not be left to interpretation. Ms. Bomba stated that the boundaries of the specific land uses should be depicted as on the map for consistent implementation of the Plan; therefore, she would make that recommendation. Chairperson Schubel inquired whether Ms. Bomba is addressing Paragraph No. 3. Ms. Bomba responded Yes. Comr. Moore advised that Emmett Township ran into that issue, and stated that he believes the statement was done for the ease and convenience of those doing the map. Ms. Bomba stated that she believes the map should follow the parcel lines. Chairperson Schubel advised that the Planning Commission has had this discussion previously regarding what takes priority, the written word or the map. Comr. Millard stated that he believes the written word should take priority because the map is an arbitrary thing. Chairperson Schubel stated that she could have a “field day” with the statement “intended to show general land uses and general policies and is some what flexible in its interpretation.” Ms. Bomba concurred, commenting that the statement basically states that everything the Township did is up for discussion. Comr. Kesselring stated that he believes the statement could be used for general land use areas, however, that general should not be used with policies; further, that the statement “some what flexible in its interpretation” should be removed. Ms. Bomba stated that she believes the Township needs to delete that statement out of the Plan entirely and be more firm in their policy statements. Ms. Bomba continued that the discussion regarding agricultural areas in Chapter 5, Page No. 29 towards the bottom of the page lists five criteria for determining the agricultural designation on the map, and stated that she believes criteria d) lot size, and e) existing and planned land uses, should be expanded upon to note if larger or smaller lot sizes were considered, and that existing/planned agricultural areas were considered as she believes they are confusing to the reader. Ms. Bomba stated that her recommendation would be that the Township look at criteria items d) and e) and either further define or explain them. Comr. Kesselring advised that he has a little problem with the “P.A.116" criteria, pointing out that 50 percent of it could be very poor and unproductive land, however, it is still considered farmland. Ms. Bomba stated that she believes a lot of the townships use that as an indicator to identify their farmers. Ms. Bomba continued that the Plan supports the county’s Purchase of Development Rights Program and that she believes the text is adequate for certification by the Michigan Department of Agriculture, however, pointed out that there must also be an area designated for preservation on the future land use map, which could be accommodated by simply designating the area proposed as agricultural on the map as “Agricultural/Farmland Preservation” to attain that certification. Ms. Bomba stated that another thing that she believes should be clearly noted on the map is the areas designated as open space/conservation. Ms. Bomba advised that she will include in the recommendation that the Township follow what the County’s Master Plan has for their township. Ms. Bomba stated that her last comment pertains to Chapter 6 - Land Use Designs. The Township uses the term low impact development design standards for new development frequently in the Plan. Ms. Bomba advised that she recommends the land use designs specific to parking areas should be included as low impact design techniques for new parking areas within Chapter 6 as well. Brief discussion regarding an accompanying zoning map.
Comr. Kesselring stated that in general he believes that it is a pretty good Plan; however in the Plan’s goals and objectives there is a lot about preservation, and one thing that stands out to him is infrastructure plans and investment in infrastructure in correct areas which is very critical to maintaining the Plan. Comr. Kesselring stated that if the Township wants development to go to specific areas, one way to ensure that is to put the services in that area. Comr. Kesselring continued that the Plan states that the city and townships took a slow growth stance on sewer and water extensions for recent developments, and questioned whether that means they are dragging their feet. Ms. Bomba stated that she is not sure what that means. Comr. Kesselring stated that one of his personal gripes with the Plan is that the Township has a statement about preservation of resources and agricultural land, then the first thing the Township looks at in Chapter 2 is what people have done to the Township, rather than the resources that exist in the Township. Comr. Kesselring stated that he believes the Township should list what they have first, and then look at what has happened as far as changes that have occurred in the Township. Comr. Kesselring stated that the importance of preservation seems to be kind of degraded by the environmental part in Chapter 7. Ms. Bomba stated that she felt the land use design chapter spoke to some of that. Comr. Kesselring stated that the Township has some information on natural resources, however, that he still does not believe the Township has a good “handle” on that yet. Comr. Kesselring continued that Chapter 5, Page 31, appears to deal extensively with problems of home development in rural areas and agricultural open space, and that there seems to be difficulty in determining where the residential development should take place. Comr. Kesselring stated that it says non-productive agricultural land. Comr. Kesselring stated that it might be better to not include the non-productive land in the agricultural preservation area as it is not productive land, but should include that non-productive land in an agricultural zone, possibly as an exception within that zone. Comr. Kesselring questioned what the Township intends for their woodlands, pointing out that it looks like it might be clustered development areas. Comr. Kesselring stated that it is a woodland resource which should be a resource that is as important as the agricultural preservation land. Comr. Kesselring noted that Page 15 addresses soils not suitable for on-site septic systems. Comr. Kesselring stated that normally they are looking at soils where septic systems work well, as there could be a concern regarding contamination of ground water. Comr. Kesselring stated that a septic system could be made there that would not be a contamination problem. Comr. Kesselring addressed the third paragraph, which he believes makes it sound like the soils are responsible for the contamination, however, it states that “these soils will likely receive approval for onsite septic tanks.” Comr. Kesselring stated that he would take out “tanks” and call it “systems.” Comr. Kesselring addressed topography, pointing out that Figure G refers to steep slopes, which is difficult to determine on the topographic map. Comr. Kesselring stated that he believes the Township needs a map that highlights those slopes. Comr. Kesselring continued regarding the last sentence under topography, which states “the range of slopes,” inquiring which slopes the Township is referring to. Comr. Kesselring referred to the population data changes, stating that percentages do not belong in the data. Ms. Bomba advised that she shall note the discussion comments within her recommendation to the Township and offer to go through the items with the Township if they desire. Chairperson Schubel asked Comr. Kesselring whether his concern regarding cluster housing in wooded lots is because of concern with areas adjacent to agricultural property. Comr. Kesselring responded that that is part of his concern. Comr. Kesselring stated that the big thing regarding cluster housing in wooded areas is that if the Township is thinking of woodlands as a forest and it is developed, then it is no longer a protected area; further, addressed the issue of removal of trees for construction, pointing out that the trees are dependant upon each other.
Case #04-06-02, Quail Run Condominiums, L.L.C. Rezoning Request Ms. Bomba presented her recommendation regarding the request that Leroy Township received from Quail Run Condominiums to rezone approximately 59 acres located in Section 3 of Leroy Township from agricultural to low density residential. Ms. Bomba advised that the rezoning would be consistent with the Township’s Master Land Use Plan. Ms. Bomba also pointed out that Phase One of Quail Run Condominiums has already been rezoned.
STAFF COMMENTS: Address Summary Ms. Bomba stated that she thought she would have the address summary, however, does not. The Road Commission will still be sending the address summary for the CCMPC’s review. Ms. Bomba reported that the Planning Office is receiving more foot traffic; further advised that she is working with Clarendon and Albion Township on their Master Plan updates. Ms. Bomba stated that between the Extension Office assisting with facilitation, Planning assisting with the Townships’ mapping needs, and the hiring of a consultant to pull the Plans together she believes she will be able to provide a pretty good deal for the Townships. Ms. Bomba stated that as more plans are certified, she believes more townships will want to “jump on the band wagon.” Ms. Bomba reported that the Office is going to look at a special project hopefully to acquire some grant funding to assist the townships and do some mapping updates. Ms. Bomba reported that Tekonsha Township has two zoning ordinances on the May 2 ballot. Ms. Bomba stated that the Township worked for a long time to draft their new zoning ordinance, and received a lot of flack at the very end of the process; i.e., property line setbacks, etc. Ms. Bomba stated that the Township worked through the process very openly and conducted public hearings. Ms. Bomba stated that one proposal is the ordinance itself, and the other is a piece dealing with sexually oriented businesses. Chairperson Schubel questioned whether this is the first time the Township has provided the electors the opportunity of voting on the ordinance. Ms. Bomba responded that she believes so. Chairperson Schubel inquired whether the ballot proposals is an issue with a commission not wanting to take the responsibility themselves. Ms. Bomba responded that a group of people petitioned to have the ordinance placed on the ballot. MEMBER COMMENTS: Comr. Kesselring requested that the agendas provide for approval of the agenda and/or amendments to the agenda like the County Commission does. Ms. Bomba advised that she will add Approval of Agenda to future agendas. Comr. Kesselring stated that it would be interesting in Leroy Township to see where the farmers are, and that he would like to see that overlaid with a prime agricultural land map. Chairperson Schubel stated that she would also like a date when the Township made the small lots, pointing out that it has a huge impact on the statistics and that the CCMPC should know whether it is a trend or not. Comr. Kesselring stated that he is just wondering whether the farmers are keeping the prime lands or whether they are being divided into smaller lots. Ms. Bomba stated that she does not know whether she has parcel data available. Comr. Moore advised that Newton Township would like to have a speaker(s) come in to address joint planning and would like to set up either a joint planning commission or a joint planning zone. Comr. Moore stated that CCMPC may wish to invite planning commissions from around the county. Chairperson Schubel inquired whether he is addressing a workshop. Comr. Moore responded Yes. Discussion continued regarding issues that would require research. Ms. Bomba inquired whether everyone received an invitation to the upcoming zoning seminar in Kalamazoo, advising that the zoning enabling legislation has been repealed and the implications of its repeal throughout the state will be addressed. Ms. Bomba advised that she is planning on attending and will mail the brochure to the townships, and at the same time could inquire whether they are interested in attending a local joint planning session to determine their interest. Comr. Kesselring inquired when the seminar in Kalamazoo will be conducted. Ms. Bomba responded May 16. Comr. Moore requested Ms. Bomba discuss a joint GIS system. Ms. Bomba advised that just prior to the meeting she met with Equalization, Information Technology and Mr. Purcell regarding such a system. Ms. Bomba stated that she has some immediate needs for GIS as the GIS data disc that she received from the Road Commission is not opening properly. Ms. Bomba advised that if she can get that disc to open, she is “good to go.” Comr. Millard stated that he is all for county-wide planning with the townships as it would solve a lot of problems if there were county-wide rules. Chairperson Schubel inquired whether there is anything that CCMPC should be working on to be more pro-active. Comr. Moore responded that CCMPC might spend some time determining what it would like to accomplish; i.e., coordinating joint planning sessions, encouraging better planning across jurisdictions, infrastructure planning working with the Road Commission and then the townships. Ms. Bomba advised that part of her contract is to provide Administration with a quarterly report of planning activities, and that they would be surprised to see the amount of things occurring that are planning related. Ms. Bomba stated that her first quarterly report was submitted recently. Chairperson Schubel inquired whether CCMPC should have a workshop to address goals. Ms. Bomba responded that she believes it would be a good idea. Chairperson Schubel requested that members come up with some ideas for further discussion regarding such a workshop and that the item be placed on the next CCMPC agenda under Member Comments. Comr. Kesselring suggested that there be a facilitator of the workshop, perhaps someone from the Extension Department. Chairperson Schubel asked Ms. Bomba if she could provide some suggestions next month regarding what the Extension Department may be able to do. Ms. Bomba responded Yes. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chairperson Schubel announced that the next CCMPC meeting shall be on May 22 at 4:00 p.m., and advised that she will be gone during the June meeting on a trip with her husband to celebrate their anniversary. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at the call of the Chair at 5:45 p.m.
|
|
||||
|
||||||
|
Calhoun County Government
| Visiting Calhoun County
| Living in Calhoun County Calhoun County
Click here to contact the webmaster
at Calhoun County
Click here to report technical problems with this website,
This page last modified
08/03/05. DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
|
||||||
Minutes Archive
Several photos included in this 
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |