CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF YPSILANTI - Get as DOC

Document Sample
CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF YPSILANTI - Get as DOC Powered By Docstoc
					CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF YPSILANTI PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 10, 2000 MINUTES
Commissioners Present: Jeffrey Allen, Chair John Harris Sally Richie Commissioners Absent: Carolyn Minot, Secretary Others in Attendance: Jeff Purdy, Township Planning Consultant Kevin Kwiatkowski, Community & Economic Development Director Rodney Nanney, Planning & Development Coordinator Dennis McLain, Township Attorney Sukai Ceesay, Community & Economic Development Intern Cheryl Ensign, Recording Secretary 1. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Gust Bovoletis, Vice Chair Theo Hamilton Eugene Shuey Larry Doe Deborah Iles

Motion by Doe, to approve minutes of September 26, 2000 Regular Planning Commission Meeting, support Hamilton. Motion Carried - All. NEW BUSINESS – 2. SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOVEMBER 14, 2000 – PD STAGE 1 PRELIMINARY (Tentative Preliminary Plat) SITE PLAN AND REZONING REQUEST FROM R-3 TO PD, - Merritt Investors, LLC, 2025 W. Long Lake, Suite 104, Troy, MI 48098 – Creekside Farms, for a 100 lot planned development residential subdivision, located at 8345 Merritt Road (Z-2000-11).

Motion by Richie to set Public Hearing for this item for November 14, 2000; support Hamilton. Motion Carried - All. 3. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ZONING ORDINANCE #74 TEXT AMENDMENTS, Section 201, 2113 and 2114 – Fences/Walls (Z-2000-12)

Commissioner Iles read the staff report into record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED. There were no public comments. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Commissioner Richie stated that she would like to see the wording on page 2 changed to written consent by property owners or survey. She stated that she would also recommend deleting the one-foot setback requirement. Mr. Rodney Nanney, Planning & Development Coordinator, stated that the Planning Commissioners could make the recommendations and staff can verify the actual text changes. Mr. Kevin Kwiatkowski, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that on page 2 where it states that the fence is allowed to be on the property line, the Planning Commissioners

Special Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 2 should include the wording that if the fence is not on the property line the fencing materials can abut the line. Commissioner Richie stated that item F, which relates to the height and location requirements, the sentence with shall be setback 5 feet from the front property line should be changed to setback from the front property line/street right of way. Motion by Harris to recommend to the Township Board, to approve the Zoning Ordinance #74 Text Amendments, Sections 201, 2113 and 2114 – Fences/Walls with the following changes: 1. Revise the chart in Section 2114.2f and delete the minimum one-foot side and rear yard setback requirement. 2. Revise Section 2114.2f(2) to read: (2) Fences and walls located within the required side and year yards may be erected on the property line with the submission of written consent from all adjacent property owners or a letter from a licensed surveyor to the building official verifying the location of lot boundaries. 3. Revise Section 2114.2f(4) to read, (3) Ornamental fences, rail fences of no more than three feet in height and decorative walls of no more than two feet in height may be located within the required front yard of any zoning lot. Living fences may be located within the required front yard of any zoning lot. All such fences shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the front property line/street right-of-way. 4. Revise Section 2114.4b(3) to read: (3) Written consent from all adjacent property owners, or a letter from a licensed surveyor to the building official verifying the location of lot boundaries, if a fence or wall is proposed to be erected or installed on a property line. Supported by Richie. Motion Carried - All. 4. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CLASS A DESIGNATION OF A NONCONFORMING USE – Ypsilanti Flowers and Greenhouse, 950 N. River Street and currently zoned R-4 (single family residential).

Tom Humbarger, petitioner, stated that he has the driveway permit from the Washtenaw County Road Commissioner. Commissioner Iles read the staff report into record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED David Garbacz Sr., 960 N River, stated that the property line shown on the survey is incorrect. The survey states that a property iron was located next to his property line. A bulldozer took out that iron years ago. Mr. Garbacz Sr. stated that he has pictures of where his property is. The petitioner put in the lot iron shown on the survey. He stated that he doesn’t care if they build a house, he just does not want it on his property. Commissioner Doe questioned if that was his vehicle by the 8 – 10 foot fence? Mr. Garbacz Sr. stated that it was. David Garbacz Jr., 944 N. River, stated that he lives on the other side of the greenhouse. He restated that the survey line is wrong. He was the previous tenant, at the petitioner’s address, and he recently measured the lot with Mr. Humbarger, and they found the property line to be 3 feet from what the survey says. Also the alleyway between the two properties is 18’ whereas the survey states 33’. He questioned what the Class A non-conforming use is. Mr. Kwiatkowski stated that the Class A classification allows existing uses to remain. Over time the ordinance has changed to where this greenhouse wouldn’t be allowed. Since the greenhouse

Special Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 3 has been in operation since before the ordinance changes this Class A non-conforming use designation allows it to continue. The stipulation is that it can only be operated as a greenhouse, the owner can expand the greenhouse or improve his property for the greenhouse. The only other option for this parcel would be to tear the greenhouse down and build a residence. No other commercial use could be used on this site. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Chairperson Allen stated that the survey might have to be redone. Mr. Humbarger stated that he has paid for and received a certified survey and doesn’t feel that he should have to redo it. Mr. Nanney stated that the discrepancy on the survey does not impact the proposed site plan for improvements to the greenhouse property or the location of a new house. The lot is 75’ wide and the minimum is 60’. The Commissioners could put as a condition of approval, that the petitioner submits a letter from the surveyor stating that the survey has been done appropriately. Chairperson Allen stated that where the house is going is not near the property line that is in dispute. Mr. Garbacz Sr. stated that he just wants to make sure the petitioner doesn’t use the 3’ from his lot to measure off of. Mr. Garbacz Jr. stated that his dad has a certified survey that is accurate. They stated that the concern is if the petitioner measurers off of the disputed property line than the house will be to close to his property. Commissioner Doe stated that if the petitioner were going to use the disputed property line it would create a problem. Mr. Kwiatkowski stated that they can measure/set the house from the other property line so that there are no problems. Chairperson Allen stated that any equipment that is coming onto/out of the property should not be near the property line in question. Mr. Nanney stated that there is an error on the staff report. Condition #1 should be changed to 5 feet, not 13.5, from the north side. Mr. Humbarger stated that he is in agreement with all of the conditions except the required 25’ setback. If he were to incorporate that setback it would create a large walking distance for his customers. Mr. Nanney stated that the required 25’ is measured from the edge of the r.o.w. He stated that any reduction in this setback would require Zoning Board of Appeals approval. Chairperson Allen stated that the building is currently very close to the road. Mr. Humbarger stated that the building is 3’ off the property line. He stated that if you set the building back 25’ there would still be sight problems pulling on to River Street. Chairperson Allen stated that the requirement is to improve the appearance of the area. Incorporating the required setback will allow for landscaping in the front of the building creating an aesthetically pleasing area. Mr. Humbarger stated that he hopes that his customers will still come to his store since they will now have a longer walk to get inside. He stated that it is a long way to walk to get their flowers. He asked if the screening could be done with a fence rather than the shrubs and trees? Mr. Nanney stated that the landscape ordinance requires a certain amount of landscaping on the site. This is to create a more natural buffer between uses. Motion by Richie to approve the Class A designation of a nonconforming use for Ypsilanti Flowers and Greenhouse, 950 N. River Street, with the conditions listed in the staff report, including the

Special Meeting October 10, 2000 Page 4 correction to item #1, change to 5 feet not 13.5, and the condition that the accuracy of the survey is verified with a letter from the surveyor, support by Hamilton. Motion Carried. – All. Other Business Adjournment: Motion by Harris, to adjourn at 7:33 p.m., support Richie. Motion Carried - All.

Respectively submitted,

Cheryl Ensign Recording Secretary


				
DOCUMENT INFO