 |
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||
 |
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
 |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
 |
Metropolitan Planning Commission Meeting MinutesCALHOUN COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION April 23, 2007 The Regular Session of the Calhoun County Metropolitan Planning Commission convened at 4:00 p.m., Monday, April 23, 2007 in the Planning Office Conference Room, Calhoun County Building, 315 West Green Street, Marshall, Michigan. Roll Call: Present: Comrs. Daniel Kesselring, Dian Schubel, Robert Bolton, Mike Rae, Larry Rizor and Becky Rocho. Excused: Comr. Clarence Millard. Also Present: Planning Consultant Jennifer Bomba; Attorney John Macfarlane of Mumford, Schubel, Norlander, Macfarlane & Barnett, P.L.L.C. on behalf of Scott Hill; Scott Hill, Marengo Township resident, Marshall Economic Development Manager Michael Hindenach and Deputy Clerk/Board Aide Mary Lou Barrett. Chairperson Schubel welcomed newly appointed Commissioners Rocho and Rae, and recognized guests present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairperson Schubel requested Item 9.B. – 04-07-02 Marengo Township - Zoning Map Amendment, Sections 19 & 20 be addressed prior to Item 9.A. – 04-07-01 Tekonsha Township - Zoning Text Amendment re: Definitions.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Comr. Kesselring inquired whether Commissioner Millard has received a copy of Alex Cherney’s resignation letter. Planning Consultant Bomba responded yes, that she placed it in the mail to him. TOWNSHIP PLANNING AND ZONING COORDINATION: Case #04-07-02, Marengo Township - Zoning Map Amendment, Sections 19 & 20 Ms. Bomba advised that the Marengo Township Planning Commission received a request for rezoning from property owner, Scott Hill. The request is to rezone approximately 130 acres currently classified as agricultural to highway service commercial. The property is bound by I-94 to the north, Rice Creek to the west, and extends approximately 3,000 feet east along Michigan Avenue. Ms. Bomba advised that the surrounding zoning consists of agricultural to the east, south and north. The property west of Rice Creek is currently zoned as highway service commercial. Ms. Bomba stated that at the last Metropolitan Planning Commission meeting Commissioners Kesselring and Rizor reviewed the request of the Township to amend the Township’s master plan, and the Township has taken action to amend their master plan for expansion of their commercial zone. Ms. Bomba advised that at the last Metropolitan Planning Commission meeting a quorum was not attained and the Commission did not take any official action, however, that discussion that occurred at that meeting was shared with the Township. The Township Planning Commission then took what was a tabled request off the table for rezoning, and this is what the Metropolitan Planning Commission shall be reviewing today. Ms. Bomba advised that the request is inconsistent with the County’s master plan and the Township’s master plan, and recommended the request for rezoning of approximately 130 acres from agricultural to highway service commercial in Sections 19 and 20 be disapproved; however, that she would recommend that the Township and the applicant work together to consider the option of a conditional use permit as a conditional use permit provides the necessary safeguards to the community. Ms. Bomba stated that for a conditional use permit to be granted to the applicant, an amendment to the Township’s zoning ordinance language will be necessary.
Comr. Rae inquired regarding the duration of a conditional use permit. Ms. Bomba responded that the permit can function as long as the use is in effect, provided the applicant maintains the conditions stipulated within the permit. Ms. Bomba advised that the permit is tied to the land and the use. Comr. Rizor inquired should the use change if the classification reverts back to agricultural. Ms. Bomba responded Yes. Comr. Rizor advised that he voiced concern at the previous Metropolitan Planning Commission meeting regarding issues related to bordering residential properties; i.e., noise, dust; impact upon watersheds and natural resource areas; and transportation issues; and indicated that the other site at the 22 ½ Mile Road interchange provided the best location for commercial expansion with less impact on the environment, existing road system and residential development, and provides for better access off I-94. Comr. Rae advised that he is the County Commission representative on the Metropolitan Planning Commission and is committed to economic development; therefore believes that if the proposed project promotes economic development, then the project should be considered. Comr. Rae inquired what the applicant intends to do with the land. Ms. Bomba advised that the Planning Commission must remain objective and consider all permitted uses defined in the specified zoning classification. Atty. Macfarlane advised that the only thing that Mr. Hill is requesting is rezoning of his property to highway service commercial, not that the Township’s zoning ordinance be amended. Atty. Macfarlane stated that at this time there is no definitive plan for a particular commercial use; however that even if he were to proceed to plan, he would then have to come back to the Township at that point and make a request for a conditional use permit. Mr. Hill has land and the only way to get value out of it is to have it be rezoned for commercial use. Atty. Macfarlane stated that the Township recognizes that there is a need for commercial development; however that he believes the Township does that rather begrudgingly, as the Township has only zoned one percent of the land commercial at this time, and do so because legally the Township does not have the authority to exclude commercial development. Atty. Macfarlane stated “And when confronted with Mr. Hill’s request for rezoning, it is his sense that the Township kind of said, “Well, we know that we have to allow for it some where. Let’s put it over here at Exit 115 and expand our commercial district in that vicinity.” Atty. Macfarlane stated that Exit 115 is really un-appropriate for any expanded commercial development, pointing out that Exit 115 has experienced negative commercial development. Comr. Rae inquired why Exit 115 is un-appropriate for economic development. Atty. Macfarlane responded that there is no desire or need for economic development there. Atty. Macfarlane advised that over the last 20 years there used to be commercial development on the southwest corner of that intersection; i.e., a restaurant and truck stop, and that it went out of business because no one used that exit. Atty. Macfarlane stated that commercial activity has to be in a location that makes sense for the public. Mr. Hill pointed out his property on the map advising that only Section 20 is his property, which is wrapped around by commercial. Comr. Rae inquired whether there is an intersection by Mr. Hill’s property. Mr. Hill responded “Exit 112.” Atty. Macfarlane pointed out that Marshall City has water and sewer which extends to the border of Mr. Hill’s land; further advised that Loves Truck Stop/Restaurant at Exit 112 has sanitary sewer and public water, and stated that he believes it makes sense to expand in that area to take advantage of that. Location of commercial into the middle of the Township does not have sanitary sewer or public water. Atty. Macfarlane stated that from an environmental perspective if someone did develop out there, there would be a greater hazard to the environmental areas. Atty. Macfarlane pointed out that Exit 112 is referred to as Business 94, and that business in that area had been what the state was contemplating. Atty. Macfarlane stated that the County’s Master Plan does not call for commercial expansion within the middle of the Township. The County’s development corridor plan, which is Map 12 of the County’s Master Plan, indicates that Mr. Hill’s land is within that growth boundary that the county is contemplating for the future. Comr. Rizor pointed out that the County’s Master Plan, Map 12, indicates that area for growth; however, does not state commercial growth. It could be residential growth. Ms. Bomba advised that the area on the map is an area that is planned for future utilities. Atty. Macfarlane stated that Mr. Hill and he appreciate that the County Metropolitan Planning Commission’s role is essentially advisory, but certainly value the Commission’s opinion, and the Township values the Commission’s opinion as well. Atty. Macfarlane stated that he believes that the Township has “missed the boat” on a couple of points, and that it would be helpful for the Township to hear that from someone besides just Mr. Hill and himself. Comr. Rae stated that if the county and the Township oppose the rezoning request, then it is basically a “taking” of Mr. Hill’s land. Comr. Rae further stated that the land borders the City of Marshall where the water and sewer is, therefore, he believes that it makes sense to approve the rezoning. Comr. Rae pointed out that Mr. Hill has the right to make a profit from his land and that to him the request does not appear to be inconsistent. Comr. Rocho asked Mr. Hill if he knew the land was zoned agricultural at the time he purchased it. Mr. Hill responded Yes. Comr. Rocho inquired whether the land is part of a 425 agreement. Ms. Bomba responded No. Comr. Rocho noted discussion within the Township’s minutes of Mr. Hill’s statement regarding economic development support, and inquired who in Battle Creek and Marshall supports the proposal. Mr. Hill responded “The Visitors and Convention Bureau and the Marshall Chamber of Commerce.” Atty. Macfarlane stated that Commissioner Rocho made a good point, that Mr. Hill knew that the land was agricultural when he purchased it, however, pointed out that at the time Mr. Hill’s plan was to develop his land as a golf course. In the meantime the golf industry went “down the sink,” so Mr. Hill had to change those plans. Mr. Hill advised in regard to Rice Creek and public services, that he has an estimate from the City to go over the Creek which he attained prior to Loves moving in; further, advised that the land does not perk, therefore, two-thirds of that property cannot be used for housing. Chairperson Schubel inquired whether Mr. Hill had been granted a conditional use permit at the time when he had the previous golf course endeavor. Mr. Hill responded Yes. Comr. Rocho inquired why the Township added Section 19 for rezoning. Ms. Bomba responded that she is not aware of the reason; however that her best guess would be that if the Township is going to rezone the one section, that the Township is looking to make a consistent block of commercial rather than a spot rezoning. Comr. Kesselring addressed the viability for business at Exit 115, inquiring regarding the status of the truck stop at that location. Comr. Bolton responded that the truck stop has experienced some minor expansion. Marshall City Economic Development Manager Hindenach advised that the City of Marshall supports the expansion of the commercial zoning, and is excited about the recreational opportunities that could be present there. Mr. Hindenach stated that by getting the rezoning into a master plan the area would be poised for developers to move forward. Mr. Hindenach addressed the economy of Calhoun County. Mr. Hindenach stated that Partello Road does not make sense for commercial development. Mr. Hindenach continued that he understands the Planning Commission’s Rice Creek point; however getting access over Rice Creek is a matter of dollars, not logistics, and advised that those dollars would be borne by the developer. That is not anything that the Township or City would have to pay. Mr. Hindenach stated that he understands the Planning Commission’s natural buffer opinion. Mr. Hindenach stated that if the county is going to see an area grow commercially; and he believes that within the next 20 years the Planning Commission will see pressure for it to grow commercially, he would urge the Planning Commission to continue to consider this project as an exception to the county’s master plan. Comr. Kesselring inquired whether the Township and the City of Marshall have been engaged in joint planning. Ms. Bomba responded that a Joint Planning Commission has been created, but does not know if Marengo Township is participating in this effort. Chairperson Schubel advised that she shall abstain from voting. Comr. Rae withdrew his resolution, and Comr. Bolton withdrew his support.
Case #04-07-01, Tekonsha Township - Zoning Text Amendment Regarding Definitions Ms. Bomba advised that the Tekonsha Township Planning Commission reviewed their Zoning Ordinance and propose new language as Article 30, Construction of Language and Definitions. The new language shall replace the current Article 13 in its entirety. Ms. Bomba advised that the new language defines all the items that are regulated within the text; and recommended approval of the proposed language to be titled Article 30 Construction of Language and Definitions within the Tekonsha Township Zoning Ordinance, and would recommend that the definition of lot width be amended as to be measured at the right-of-way line rather than at the building setback line as measuring the lot width at the right-of-way line prohibits the creation of flag lots that can promote unwanted densities throughout the community. Chairperson Schubel addressed Item 26, definition of basement, advising that she called Kim Tuck at the Building Department in Battle Creek to discuss this item with him, and he recommends that the ordinance should refer to the Michigan State Building Code or the Michigan Residential Code to cover commercial and residential. Chairperson Schubel pointed out that the ordinance does not define crawl space, which again the Code defines; and recommended that crawl space be added utilizing the definition from the Building Code. Ms. Bomba stated that as long as the definitions are not listed within the ordinance, the Township could enforce the Building Code. Chairperson Schubel advised that the 2000 Code is in force currently, however, that in the Fall the 2006 Code will be adopted. Comr. Bolton advised that there are three current codes that should be referred to; e.g., the Michigan Building Code, the Michigan Residential Building Code and the Michigan Rehabilitation Code. Ms. Bomba requested clarification of what the Planning Commission is recommending. Chairperson Schubel stated that the ordinance should refer to the current Michigan Residential Building Code. Comr. Rocho addressed the proposed recommendation regarding referencing the codes; inquiring since the codes are quite substantive, whether the recommendation should recommend that the Township consider that language and bring it back for approval. Ms. Bomba responded that the Planning Commission could make that recommendation, however, that she views the definition changes as use type definitions that are substantially okay. Chairperson Schubel stated that the only other thing that she would question is the high water mark, the boundary for parcels on the water. Ms. Bomba responded that the Township is taking that as the highest height that the water has advanced.
Case #04-07-03, Newton Township - Zoning Text Amendments Regarding PA 110 of 2006 Ms. Bomba advised that in 2006 Public Act 110 was enacted to bring together three acts. The changes were numerous and changed the way townships manage zoning activities including notice of hearings, the process for granting variances, the structure of the zoning board, etc. Ms. Bomba stated that in 2006 a vast number of the townships changed their zoning ordinances to comply with the new Act. Ms. Bomba advised that the Newton Township Planning Commission has consulted with their attorney and propose referencing the new Michigan Zoning Enabling Act within the Township’s Zoning Ordinance where applicable; further, also propose to include language in Article 6, Section 6.16 regarding Standards for Conditional Rezone whereby it stipulates that the rezoning request must be generated by the property owner. Ms. Bomba recommended approval of the proposed text amendments to the Newton Township Zoning Ordinance.
Comr. Rae inquired whether Marengo Township has an article with its zoning ordinance to allow for conditional rezoning. Ms. Bomba responded No. Comr. Kesselring inquired whether this is what was previously considered “contract” zoning. Ms. Bomba responded yes, but with modifications to the enabling language. Emmett Township has granted conditional rezoning requests with regard to different housing developments that have gone into the Township. Comr. Rocho noted that Article 6 is based upon the requirements of Article 4, and inquired regarding Article 4. Ms. Bomba advised that Article 4 is the ordinance amendment procedure. Comr. Rizor inquired what benefits are derived by conditional rezoning. Ms. Bomba responded that conditional rezoning does not require a permit and is a tool by which the landowner can negotiate with the Township. It provides flexibility while maintaining consistency with land use and zoning classifications.
Case #04-07-04, Emmett Township - Zoning Text Amendments Regarding PA 110 of 2006 Ms. Bomba advised that the text amendments presented are to simply bring the Township’s zoning ordinance into compliance with the consolidation of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Acts. No other amendments are included. Ms. Bomba recommended the proposed amendments be recommended for approval by the Emmett Township Board.
STAFF COMMENTS: Address Summary Ms. Bomba presented the address summary prepared by the Road Commission. Comr. Rocho inquired whether the summary includes Albion City. Ms. Bomba responded that the summary provides information for the townships only. Ms. Bomba stated that the summary shows how many new addresses have been assigned, however, pointed out that one address could be for a multi-residential dwelling, that a mobile home park would reflect multiple addresses, or that an address can be assigned to a non-residential structure which requires utilities; e.g., a pole barn. Planning Commission Award Recommendation Ms. Bomba reported that she received a telephone call advising that the Calhoun County Metropolitan Planning Commission is being recommended for an award by the Michigan Association of Planning for the Planning department’s assistance to the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi and Athens Township in developing the Tribe’s first master plan. Ms. Bomba pointed out that the area on the county’s master plan is unclassified as the tribal land is not subject to local zoning or planning. Ms. Bomba advised that the Tribe took the plan to the Township and requested that it be recognized. At that time the Township determined that the Tribe’s land was not reservation land, and should be subject to Athens Township zoning policies. The reservation land has been classified on the Township Zoning Map as low density residential, and remains unclassified on the Township Master Plan Map. The Tribe has implemented the different uses defined on their master plan as a planned unit development. The land is anticipated to become trust land in the near future. The Tribe is again requesting the Township recognize the plan within the Township’s master plan, and that it also be recognized within the County’s master plan. Ms. Bomba stated that the Tribe’s plan shall be considered when the CCMPC conducts its five year review. Ms. Bomba stated that she will attempt to arrange a presentation of the plan for the Planning Commission, and advised that the Township/Tribe may wish a letter of support; further, that a mini land use field trip may be planned to go view the area. New Member Orientation Packets Ms. Bomba advised that she is in the process of preparing new member orientation packets which include a copy of the County’s master plan, and the Planning Commission’s bylaws and meeting schedule. Ms. Bomba advised that if the new members are interested, an orientation session can be planned with Michigan State University Extension. Ms. Bomba stated that the orientation sessions are usually free. Comr. Kesselring inquired whether new members will receive the planning acts. Ms. Bomba responded that the legislation that governs the Planning Commission shall also be included in the orientation packets. March 26, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting Discussion Ms. Bomba advised that at the previous Planning Commission meeting there was no quorum, with only Commissioners Kesselring and Rizor in attendance. Ms. Bomba pointed out that the Planning Commission does not receive items from the landowners, that the Planning Commission works solely for the townships, that the townships are the Planning Commission’s clients. Ms. Bomba stated that the Planning Commission received a request to review an amendment to Marengo Township’s master plan. Ms. Bomba stated that there was no staff review or recommendation provided because she left town fairly abruptly for a family emergency. Ms. Bomba stated that typically when there is not a quorum the Planning Department/Commission does not send anything to the township other than to advise that there had not been a quorum and that no formal action was taken on an issue, and inquire whether the township would like the issue addressed at the Planning Commission’s next meeting. Statutorily the Planning Commission is given 30 days to conduct the review and if that 30 day period lapses, the township can move forward regardless. Ms. Bomba advised that a letter from Vice Chairman Kesselring, at the suggestion of the County Administrator, was remitted to the Marengo Township Board that summarized Commissioner Kesselring’s and Rizor’s comments. Ms. Bomba reported that two weeks ago the Marshall Downtown Development Director, the Marshall Economic Development Director, and Scott Hill, came to meet with her regarding the letter. Ms. Bomba stated that the letter has been highly scrutinized by the attorney and the Marshall Economic development Director as well as the Downtown Development Director. Ms. Bomba stated that while the letter does state that no quorum was present, nor formal action taken, the applicant and the Marengo community claim that the letter gave the appearance that it held much more weight than it should have. Ms. Bomba advised that she offered to place the issue on the next Planning Commission agenda for a formal review and put the issue to a vote with a quorum, however, Atty. Macfarlane and Mr. Hill did not wish to do that. Ms. Bomba advised that Mr. Hill advised her Friday that he refuses to pursue a conditional use permit. Ms. Bomba stated “That is not the Planning Commission’s problem, that Mr. Hill needs to exercise all his options.” Ms. Bomba stated that the Township is being very guarded regarding a blanket rezoning of Mr. Hill’s 130 acres. Ms. Bomba advised that she has heard that the Township Board is split on this issue and has granted Atty. Macfarlane’s request for another public hearing. Ms. Bomba stated that would the Planning Commission’s decision have changed if there had been a quorum, that it is hard to say. Ms. Bomba stated that what she always hopes is to give is a neutral, impartial review of the facts; i.e., what does the County’s master plan state, what does the township’s master plan provide for. Ms. Bomba distributed the informal minutes of March 26, 2007 and a copy of the correspondence remitted to Marengo Township. Comr. Rocho stated that she was surprised to see Mr. Hindenach at the meeting today, because B.C.U. has not taken a position on this item. MEMBER COMMENTS: Comr. Kesselring requested Commissioner Rae address his remarks regarding the economic loss and the “taking” of Mr. Hill’s land. Comr. Rae stated that the argument can be made against the township that refuses to allow development, that by not allowing development, the township is essentially taking Mr. Hill’s land. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chairperson Schubel announced that the next meeting is scheduled for Memorial Day and requires re-scheduling. The next CCMPC meeting is re-scheduled for June 4, 2007. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:17 p.m. at the call of the Chairperson.
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
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 
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |