REGULAR MEETING

Document Sample
REGULAR MEETING Powered By Docstoc
					      REGULAR MEETING                   November 4, 2004                     7:30 P.M.

  ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
        PITTSFIELD TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION MINTUES
 ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Members Present: Dennis Ward, Edward Resha, Wilma Luna, Christina Lirones, Russell
                 Banush, Julie Griess, Andrea Urda-Thompson.
Members Absent:      None.

Others Present:      Yongyun Shin, Eugene C. Morley, Joe Galvin, James Sharba, John
                     Freeland, Jim Mayleben, David Herlick, Suzanne Herlick, Viswanath
                     Akella, Eric Head, Mark Bolanis, Dawn Bolanis, Norm Schneyer,
                     Kelly Head, Jerry Ritz, Randy Lee Palmer, Adam Nola, Kristin F.
                     Judge, Mitchell G. Hall, Sue C. Shand, Barb Cole, Debby Bolton,
                     Jeanine Periord, Karan Hervey, Eric Adler, Kim Adler, Chris
                     Shrankland, Gerald R. Roston, Jennifer Barba, Tsuguyasu Wada,
                     Sandra Callahan, Jeffrey Marine, Melinda Cameron, Melinda Newman,
                     Heather Healy, Carole Pfeiffer, Scott Wyatt, Ibi T. Cieslar, Michael A.
                     Makowski, Terry Bertram, Brian Smola, Amy Smola, Anita Rochefort,
                     Karen Folger, Mathew Tomaszewshi, Robert Palmerton, Marilyn
                     Burhop, Felizianna Meyer, Jeffrey L. Savage, Christine Bonk, Todd A.
                     Carter, Karen Grech, Michael Cummings, Jenny Stimac, Sharon
                     Paterson, Duane Hughes, Dimitis Tzavaras, Christine Robison, David
                     Jackson, William Anderson, Kathryn Clark, Michele Hazard, Christina
                     Dimelis, Dino Dimelis, Rick Kuss, Doug Gross, Stephen Szuminski,
                     Alexander Ju, Pamela Kittel, Irene McCabe, Rolf Amsler, Carla
                     Baskin, Ann Stevens, Jane Heilig, Lisa Bergman, Kolleen Callaghan,
                     Marianne Hendrickson, Andrea Vavjin, Jim Olson, Alex Olsen, Rita
                     Rodriguez, Carl Koerschner, Ellen Klepack, Scott VanderWel, Susan
                     Zaitovah, Danette Morrison, Lisa Miller, Guy Miller, Terence Houser,
                     Matt Fernandez, David Holden, Carol Finn, Sabrina Gross, Kimberly
                     Luckett, Greg Peterson, Lee Dennis-Bender, Assistant Planner Paul
                     Montagno, Senior Planner Mark Spencer, and Recording Secretary
                     Marge Burkheiser.
1.0    Call Meeting to Order at 7:30 p.m. / Determination of a Quorum.
       Chairperson Lirones called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. A quorum was present.

2.0    Pledge of Allegiance
       Chairperson Lirones led the Pledge of Allegiance.

3.0    Approval of Agenda

       Motion by Commissioner Resha, supported by Commissioner Banush, to
       move items 8.1 and 8.2 to follow items 6.1 and 6.2.

       MOTION CARRIED
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 2 of 34

4.0     Items from the Floor

        Norman Schneyer, 4220 Westbrook Drive, Lake Forest, read the following statement,
        "Lake Forest is a 470 home Planned Unit Development (PUD) which was marketed as
        Lake Forest phase 1-7 with 250 homes completed, Highlands at Lake Forest with 109
        homes completed, and The Pines at Lake Forest with 109 homes in progress.”
        He then referred to Pittsfield Zoning Ordinance Section 55.16 which states, 'The
        Planning Commission may, upon hearing, revoke approval of a site plan if the
        Commission determines that any information on the approved site plan is erroneous.”
        He said that Lake Forest experienced flooding in February and August of 1998 and in
        2002. He said that Ayres, Lewis, Norris & May was retained and in May 1999, they
        prepared a report “Summary of Storm Water Deficiencies…” dated November 6,
        2000. He said that the estimated cost of remediation was $660,000. He said that the
        developer repaired the deficiencies in Phases 1 and 2 and then refused to proceed.
        Mr. Schneyer continued to review his letter, which highlighted various actions that
        have been taken. He stated that the Planning Commission is the authority responsible
        for enforcing the Pittsfield Zoning Ordinances. He said that he is requesting the
        Commission to take action under Section 55.16 (of the Zoning Ordinance) to compel
        Louis Johnson and Lake Forest Associates to complete all of the site work. He said
        that the Ayres Lewis report is the evidence of the erroneous drawings. He said the
        Commission should also consider revising the ordinance so that it can be enforced
        more easily.

        Alex Head, resident, asked the Commission to please not build a WalMart near his
        school so his brother and he can be safe. He then presented letters from his fellow
        residents.

        Grace Miller, resident, stated that she lives close to the site where WalMart is
        proposed and she attends the school near the site. She felt that every child who attends
        the school would be in danger if WalMart were located there.

        Kelly Head, resident, urged the Commission to not allow WalMart to devastate the
        community. She stated that she did an internet search for WalMart and found that their
        parking lots are magnets for crimes. She said that at a Tampa Florida WalMart there
        were 226 car stolen, 25 purses taken, 32 burglaries, 14 armed robberies, 3 assaults and
        1 arson. She said that WalMart does nothing to prevent the crimes against their
        customers. She said that WalMart destroys the communities that they enter and this
        activity should not be located approximately 300 yards from an elementary school.

        Doctor Galvin Clark, Professor at the University of Michigan, stated that there are
        alternative building locations for WalMart. He said there are other locations that
        would be more economically viable for WalMart. He said that there are legal,
        transportation, and infrastructure issues that could make the site less desirable. He said
        that an alternative is the corner of U.S. 23 and Michigan Avenue. He said the
        Township should make WalMart a viable alternative offer.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 3 of 34

        Eric Head, resident, thanked Chairperson Lirones for her email of support. He said
        that the Township Comprehensive Plan gives justification for why this (WalMart)
        should be stopped. He said that the Comprehensive Plan refers to Michigan Avenue,
        State Street, and Moon Road intersection and states that, “This area was isolated from
        the standard commercial and office categories in order to set forth a specific
        development character at this key intersection in the community. Although this
        intersection is not situated at the Township’s boundaries, it serves as an important
        entrance into the community for eastbound traffic on Michigan Avenue. Establishing a
        gateway of moderate intensity land uses and high quality design at this location will
        serve to welcome visitors to the Township. The intent of the planning area is to guide
        redevelopment of this heavily utilized intersection in a manner that creates a safe,
        attractive, and functional mix of land uses offering a mixture of important local and
        community scale commercial uses.” He further read that, “Specific design and access
        management guidelines found in Chapter 6 are proposed to insure that the
        development of this sub-area occurs in context with its setting in the community,
        promotes a positive image to passer-bys on Michigan Avenue and is compatible with
        nearby land uses and does not unduly create or contribute to traffic volumes or unsafe
        conditions on Michigan Avenue.” He said that the community is willing to do
        anything to stop this (WalMart).

        Sabrina Gross, resident, stated that she and Ms. Lisa Miller helped to organize
        Pittsfield Community First. She said that the Township Board expressed an interest to
        look into this matter (WalMart) further.

        Lisa Miller, resident, asked the audience members that are opposed to WalMart to
        stand (a large portion of audience members stood up). She asked the Commission to
        work with the citizens to hold a public meeting regarding WalMart. She said that this
        meeting would allow people to have their questions and concerns answered. She said
        that she knows the Commission cannot make a decision regarding WalMart based on
        their (WalMart’s) company practices. She said the group (Pittsfield Community First)
        is concerned with safety and traffic. She said that no other store of this size, in the
        Township, sits on a two lane road. She said that the traffic study provided by the
        developer should be redone. She added that the study is out of date and incomplete.
        She said the 2,500 school children would reside across from WalMart. She asked the
        Commissioners to review their decision on an individual basis.

        Ms. Gross stated that they are asking for a new traffic study and a public hearing that
        all residents can attend. She said they would also like a citizen task force to look into
        this issue.

        An unidentified audience member stated that this is a bad plan for everyone, the
        community and WalMart. She said that the citizens would work hard to make sure
        WalMart knows they are not welcome at this site. She asked the Commission to work
        with the citizens to find a better plan for the community.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 4 of 34

        Kristin Judge, resident, stated that she is concerned with the lack of a legitimate traffic
        study. She then cut up her Sam’s Club membership cards. She said that it is not worth
        it to save money in groceries to shop at a company that is not thinking of the safety of
        their children.

        Terry Rawson, President of the Yorkplace Homeowners Association, in York
        Township, stated that most of the residents (in Yorkplace) are opposed to it
        (WalMart). He said that they are concerned with WalMart’s impact on the safety and
        well-being of the residents. He said that the new housing developments on Moon Road
        will add to the traffic problems. He said that the State (of Michigan) would not have
        the funds to widen Michigan Avenue until approximately 2009. He said that the
        impact on the resident’s well-being will be traumatic.

        Michael Makowski, resident, invited the company (WalMart) representative to meet
        with some of the residents after this meeting and discuss the needs of the community.
        He said that the proposed site does not meet the safety and traffic needs of the
        community. He said that there are better locations for this store in this community. He
        said that the Planning Commission members could meet with residents and determine
        what could be done.

        Lisa Bergman, resident, stated that she fears that WalMart will destroy everything that
        she moved back to Saline for. She urged the Commission to obtain a new traffic study.
        She said that the children in the area should be taken into account.

        Karen Folger, resident, stated that the election results for Pittsfield Township were
        interesting because the Commission was re-elected by only a 10% margin. She said
        that there is a great deal of concern in the community of whether or not the Township
        Commission and the Planning Commission is doing everything they can for the
        community. She said that the community is willing to help the Commission.

        Sue Shannon, Warner Creek resident, stated that a public forum would be helpful. She
        said that they (the residents) were in this same position (as WalMart) four (4) years
        ago with the New Market Development. She said that the residents were strongly
        opposed to this and they came together with the Township and something was done.
        She said that this is part of the reason the residents voted in the current Planning
        Commission. She added that she hopes the same thing can be done with WalMart. She
        mentioned that the (potential) traffic would be a disaster.

        Duane Hughes, Rolling Hills resident, stated that the Rolling Hills subdivision is the
        unlucky recipient of the Planning Commission’s failures to act in behalf of the
        community. He said that there was the Briarwood Ford expansion, Bill Crispin
        expansion, and the new school in their backyards. He said that their subdivision has
        two (2) exits onto Michigan Avenue and it takes him twenty-five (25) minutes to get
        to U.S. 23 each morning, and thirty (30) minutes to get home at night. He said that it is
        hard to believe that the traffic study would show that WalMart would not hurt the
        community. He asked the Commission to disapprove the plan.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 5 of 34

        Terry Bertram, resident, asked the re-elected officials and the Commission to represent
        the residents. He referred to the Comprehensive Plan and the sections regarding the
        State Road and Michigan Avenue corridor. He said that this corridor was envisioned
        as a local commercial area. He said that the Carpenter Road corridor was set aside as
        the “big box” corridor. He mentioned speaking with municipal land use attorneys and
        asking them if the Township had a case (against WalMart), and they told him that if
        the Commission approves this the residents are “dead in the water.” He asked the
        Commission to not approve WalMart.

        Kolleen Callaghan, resident, stated that she is appalled by the lack of responsibility
        when it comes to a retail building that is 200,000+ square feet across from three (3)
        schools. She said that if WalMart really was not wanted then it would have been
        stopped and the community would have been involved. She asked the Commission to
        work with the community to stop WalMart. She said that the traffic will be increased
        on an already crowded road. She named various ways it could hurt the community and
        the children. She asked the community members to boycott WalMart and Sam’s Club.

        Sharon Paterson, resident, asked if it is within the Planning Commission’s power to
        order another traffic study.

        Chairperson Lirones stated that the Washtenaw County Road Commission (WCRC)
        and the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) will be attending the
        February 3, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. She asked the audience members to
        attend that meeting. She said that the Commission would like to hear the WCRC and
        MDOT’s explanation of the traffic impact study.

        Ms. Paterson asked that a new traffic impact study be completed when the new school
        at Michigan Avenue and Moon Road is completed.

        David Herlick, Rolling Hills, stated that the WalMart advertisements say that they will
        be a good neighbor and they will help the community. He said that not many of the
        residents in this Township will be going to WalMart and there will be additional
        traffic from residents of other Townships coming here. He said that this will make the
        traffic five (5) times worse. He said that Michigan Avenue will not be widened for
        years. He said that WalMart will not be a good part of the community.

        Karan Hervey, resident, (her daughter gave a letter to the Commission) stated that this
        WalMart store would be several times larger than the Meijer’s store on Ann Arbor-
        Saline Road. She said that the main entrance for WalMart will be across from Campus
        Parkway Drive. She said that crime and theft should not be located across the street
        from the schools. She said that WalMart is the largest supplier of tobacco, alcohol, and
        firearms, and this will be across from the schools. She asked if the Commission would
        not approve WalMart until a new traffic study was provided.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 6 of 34

        Chairperson Lirones stated that the Commission will look into this. She said that the
        Commission has been making an effort to look deeply into WalMart and they will
        continue to make an effort.

        Ms. Hervey stated that many residents feel the traffic study is outdated. She said that
        WalMart allows recreational vehicles (RV) and campers to use their parking lots over
        night. She said that this could be an open invitation for a child predator to attack a
        child that is walking to school.

        Chairperson Lirones stated that the WalMart store would be 166,600 square feet and
        will have 690 parking spaces.

        Lisa Miller, resident, stated that she read the traffic study and some of the numbers
        were done in September of 2001. She said that none of these numbers were collected
        after the schools were completed. She asked Chairperson Lirones what good a
        February 3, 2005 meeting with the WCRC and MDOT would be if the Commission is
        going to approve WalMart before then.

        Chairperson Lirones stated that the Commission would not approve the final site plan
        before having the meeting with the WCRC and MDOT. She said that the February 3rd
        meeting will be held to discuss the traffic issues.

        An unknown audience member stated that he is opposed to WalMart. He said that the
        concerned citizens should write letters to the newspapers, and contact the television
        stations. He said that he is concerned with the increased traffic in the area.

        Mr. Duane Hughes asked the Commission to put due diligence into this project.

        Rick Kuss, of Saline, stated that he drives on Michigan Avenue at 3 p.m. every day
        and he does not need a traffic study to tell him what is happening. He said that there
        are current things that can be done. 1) A new traffic study. 2) Citizen task force with
        truck enforcement. 3) More communities should be involved. He said that this issue is
        not just a Pittsfield Township issue, it is a regional issue. He said that the Saline
        Sustainability Circle was put together to make sure no one community was planning
        for something that would harm another community. He said that WalMart and the
        location did not come before the Saline Sustainability Circle and that was a mistake.

        Jeffrey Marine, member of the Pittsfield Township Board of Trustees and a member of
        the Saline Sustainability Circle, invited the Planning Commission to attend the Saline
        Sustainability meeting and bring this issue forward. He said that WalMart does not
        meet the gateway requirements of the community. He said that the residents want a
        public dialog. He said that James Walter, Township Supervisor, suggested that the
        residents write letters to WalMart stating that they do not want the store here. He said
        that WalMart is a regional store and people from other areas will be coming here. He
        said that WalMart will destroy Saline businesses, and it will endanger the students at
        the schools.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 7 of 34

        Danette Morrison, Shaw Estates, stated that television stations have been called. She
        said a meeting needs to be held sooner than February 2005. She said that the words
        “zoned commercial” are leading this decision and that is a broad view. She said that
        fatalities will increase on Michigan Avenue. She said that money cannot be put onto
        anybody’s life. She asked the Commission to work on their communication with the
        residents.

        Dino Dimelis, Rolling Hills resident, stated that when he brought his property in the
        Township be bought the Master Plan and a vision for the community. He said that
        dealing with the Township administration is disgraceful. He said that the residents are
        for Pittsfield Township and they want action from the Board.

        Gavin Clarkson asked if the Planning Commission has tried to propose an alternative
        location to WalMart.

        Chairperson Lirones replied no. She said that the Commission reviews site plans and it
        is not part of the State legislation for them to do that (to propose an alternative
        location). She said that private land matters are not part of what the Commission does.

        Mr. Clarkson asked if tax abatements were explored.

        Chairperson Lirones replied no.

        Mr. Clarkson stated that he has the winter term off and he is trained as a professional
        mediator. He then gave his card to the Commission.

        Michele Hazard, Warner Creek resident, stated that her family was attracted to the
        community feel of the area. She said that the Commission has a fatalistic attitude in
        regards of what they can do in fear of litigation. She said that the State of Vermont
        was successful in keeping WalMart away for the past thirty (30) years. She said that
        there is only one WalMart in the whole state of Vermont and this is because of
        community involvement. She urged the Township to assist the residents in moving
        forward to relocate WalMart.

        Julie, a student who attends Saline High School, stated that the high school students
        have a problem with WalMart. She said she is going to receive her driver’s license
        soon and she would not feel safe driving alone given the crime that could be caused by
        WalMart.

        Mike Herdsma stated that the traffic increase caused by WalMart will make the area
        dangerous. He asked the Commission to stop WalMart.

        Dave Holden, resident, stated that there have been many good points brought up
        tonight. He said there is a tax revenue issue. He said that the police department will
        receive more money and they will win their arbitration hearing. He said that the
        Township has a recreation and police and fire millage and people will not oppose the
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 8 of 34

        Township asking for additional funding. He asked what the Township’s tax revenue
        intake is for WalMart.

        Chairperson Lirones stated the Planning Commission does not look at the tax
        revenues.

        Mr. Holden stated that there are other revenue streams to fund things in the Township.
        He said that the residents want to work with the Township.

        An unknown audience member stated that the tax revenue for Ypsilanti Township for
        the WalMart on Ellsworth Road was $4,526.56 for the combined 2003 and 2004
        summer taxes.

        Commissioner Banush expressed appreciation to the audience members for coming to
        the meeting. He said that the residents also need to find out what is going on in the
        community. He said that there have been articles in the newspaper over the years.

        Chairperson Lirones agreed with Commissioner Banush. She stated that the
        Commission wants the citizens to be involved. She said that the Commission has been
        asking for the support of the citizens over the years. She said that the Commission has
        tried to reduce the impact of the building. She said a boycott could be organized by
        various communities and this can make an impact. She said that the Township is not
        afraid of being sued. She said the Township is trying to obey the laws. She was
        gratified to see the support of the public.

        Susan Zaitovah, Warner Creek, stated that she heard of WalMart just a few weeks ago.
        She said she is concerned about traffic and the safety of the children. She said that
        when she learned of WalMart she called Mr. Walters at the Township and he made her
        feel like it was a done deal. She said that she is disappointed that the community
        members were not better informed about WalMart. She urged the Commission to
        obtain a new traffic study. She added that a public forum would be helpful. She asked
        the officials to listen to the community.
        Commissioner Urda-Thompson explained for the members of the audience that
        February 3rd (2005) was the date the Township was able to arrange a meeting with
        both MDOT and WCRC representatives regarding the concerns of the traffic issues at
        the WalMart site.

        Chairperson Lirones stated that Planning Commission members can be asked to recuse
        themselves if they have joined opposition. She said that public input is welcomed.
        Mr. Hughes stated that when he moved here nine (9) years ago the residents would get
        mailings if a certain development was in proximity to their homes. He said he has not
        seen those mailings for four (4) years.
        Chairperson Lirones stated that residents can be on the Townships email agenda list.
        Matt Adler stated that he would like to be able to play sports at Harvest Elementary
        and be safe. He asked the Commissioners not to approve WalMart.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 9 of 34


5.0     Special Order of Business

        5.1      Workshop on the Update to the Comprehensive Plan-Section 1
        Chairperson Lirones stated that the Commission held its annual review of the
        Comprehensive Plan (on September 16, 2004). She said that the Wall property on
        Golfside was planned for local commercial and after it was reviewed, the Commission
        felt that an office zoning would help transition the area from residential to local
        commercial.
        Senior Planner Mark Spencer gave a brief overlay of the location and reviewed his
        report. He stated that this (zoning) would add potential to the survival of the mansion
        that is currently on the property. He said that this would provide less of an intense
        buffer between the commercial uses to the south and the residential uses to the north.
        He said that the site does have wetlands and woodlands. He said that an office zoning
        for this site would save more of the natural features than a commercial use. He said
        that the site has good transportation and bus lines are available on Washtenaw Avenue
        and Golfside.

        Commissioner Resha asked to have Planner Spencer’s report added to the minutes.
        Chairperson Lirones opened the meeting for public comment.
        There were no comments.

        Motion by Commissioner Resha, supported by Commissioner Luna, to
        incorporate Planner Spencer's report of November 3, 2004 into the minutes.
        (Attachment #1)
        MOTION CARRIED

        Motion by Commissioner Banush, supported by Commissioner Ward, to approve
        the resolution requesting the Board to approve the distribution of the proposed
        changes to the Comprehensive Plan. (Attachment #2)
        Commissioner Resha read the Resolution to Recommend Authorization for
        Distribution of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Changes Pittsfield Charter Township
        Planning Commission November 4, 2004.

        ROLL CALL:

        YEAS:             WARD, RESHA, LUNA, LIRONES, BANUSH, GRIESS,
                          URDA-THOMPSON.
        NAYS:             NONE.
        ABSENT:           NONE.
        ABSTAIN:          NONE.

        MOTION CARRIED
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 10 of 34


6.0     Public Hearings

        6.1      RZ 04-13 New Progressive Missionary Baptist Church
                 [submitted to rezone from R & D to R-1B]
        Assistant Planner Paul Montagno reviewed Planner Carl Schmult’s report. He listed
        the neighboring uses. He stated that the application is for a rezoning from Agricultural
        (AG) to R-1B. He said that the Planning Commission needs to consider if the petition
        is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He said that the existing zoning is no
        longer appropriate considering the trends in the area. He said that the requested zoning
        would allow the division of the property into approximately twenty-five (25) single-
        family residential lots on 10,000 square foot acres. He said that the approval of the
        zoning would not set a precedent and it would not have adverse impacts on the
        neighboring property values.
        Chairperson Lirones asked the applicant if they are rezoning the property to expand
        their church uses.
        The applicant indicated that this was correct.

        Chairperson Lirones opened the public hearing.
        Jerry Rilz, 5165 Platt Road, stated that he is concerned with the elevation and
        drainage. He said that he has problems with Bridgefield Estates and an excess amount
        of water on his property. He asked how the church would handle the elevation and the
        drainage.
        Willie Glaze, Trustee of the Church, stated that they would be using the new house for
        three (3) Sunday school classes and for youth activities.
        Chairperson Lirones asked Ms. Glaze if they would be doing a lot of grading on the
        property.
        Ms. Glaze replied no.
        Mr. Rilz stated that the sewer (line) is in the middle of his property.

        Ms. Glaze stated there are two septic tanks in the building and they will not being
        using a lot of the sewage.
        Chairperson Lirones stated that the property likely would not be connecting with the
        public water and sewer lines at this time.

        Planner Spencer stated that if the building were expanded the (Washtenaw) County
        Health Department might want them to connect with the public sanitary sewer for
        health reasons. He said that the sewer line is in the public road right-of-way and they
        may be able to connect with the sanitary sewer line on Morgan Road. He said there
        have been drainage problems in this area for a long time. He said that Mr. Rilz has an
        easement with Bridgefield Estates to allow storm water drainage across his property.
        He said that the Township would be making efforts to make sure the drainage does not
        affect other properties.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 11 of 34

        Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Resha, to close the
        public hearing.

        MOTION CARRIED
        Item 8.1 moved to follow Item 6.1.
        Commissioner Griess asked if it is necessary to rezone this property for the church
        use.
        Planner Spencer replied yes. He said that the Research and Development (R&D)
        district does not permit church uses. He said that the Township encouraged them to
        rezone the whole property.

        Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Resha, to approve
        the resolution to recommend approval of RZ 04-13 New Progressive Missionary
        Baptist Church. (Attachment #3)
        Commissioner Ward noted that all of the Commission agreed to the findings in the
        resolution.

        ROLL CALL:

        YEAS:             WARD, RESHA, LUNA, LIRONES, BANUSH, GRIESS,
                          URDA-THOMPSON.
        NAYS:             NONE.
        ABSENT:           NONE.
        ABSTAIN:          NONE.

        MOTION CARRIED

6.2     WP 04-10 Ann Arbor Maintenance Facility
        [submitted for a wetland permit]
        John Freeland, ECT/Tilton & Associates, reviewed the wetland report. He stated that
        there are seven (7) small wetlands, which together are approximately one acre of
        forested wetlands. He said that the site also includes a large excavated area, which
        contains several acres of ponded area. He said that the impacted wetlands would be
        mitigated. He added that the applicant has submitted a mitigation plan for the
        wetlands. He said that the mitigation would be placed next to the adjacent pond on the
        east side of the property. He said that the impacted wetlands are State and Township
        regulated. He said that there are a few wetlands on the site that the applicant did not
        feel were regulated. He added that these wetlands are regulated because they are
        within 500 feet of a regulated surface water feature (pond). He recommended that the
        applicant obtain a letter of jurisdiction from the MDEQ or adjust the permit to reflect
        the regulated wetlands. He said that additional information is needed before the
        wetlands would be approved.

        Ann Stevens, Atwell-Hicks, stated that they would make the requested (wetland)
        adjustments.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 12 of 34

        Chairperson Lirones asked Ms. Stevens if they would obtain a letter of jurisdiction or
        change the permit.

        Ms. Stevens stated that she would contact James Lee of the MDEQ and advise him
        that Tilton & Associates feels that the wetlands are regulated, and that they (Atwell-
        Hicks) will accept them as regulated.
        Chairperson Lirones opened the public hearing.

        There were no comments.
        Motion by Commissioner Resha, supported by Commissioner Luna, to close the
        public hearing.

        MOTION CARRIED
        Item 8.2 moved to follow Item 6.2.
        Planner Spencer reviewed his zoning review. He stated that this would be the City of
        Ann Arbor’s vehicle and equipment maintenance facility and material storage yard.
        He said that the site meets the bulk requirements. He said that the PUD District
        requires a transition strip around the developed properties on the north boundary. He
        said that adding the transition strip would require the fuel support building to be
        moved out of the setback area. He said that 178 parking spaces are required and the
        applicant is proposing 194 parking spaces and 48 truck spaces west of the facility. He
        said that the Commission might want to discuss the need for the spaces with the
        applicant.
        Planner Spencer stated that the site does not comply with the access management
        requirements. He said that they are proposing to close one of the residential driveways
        to the property on Ellsworth Road. He said that the proposed fence details need to be
        provided on the final site plan. He said that staff is concerned that the overhead doors
        and equipment of the maintenance facility will be visible through the berm from Stone
        School Road. He said that the Commission needed to discuss the height of the berm
        with the applicant.
        Planner Spencer stated that the preliminary approval from outside agencies need to be
        obtained. He said that the Township Engineer was concerned with the location of the
        proposed water and sewer main on Ellsworth Road. He said that the Utility
        Department would like it to stay on Ellsworth Road so it is accessible. He said that
        there are existing tree in the area and the Commission needs to decide if the trees
        should be saved. He said that the Commission should discuss the pedestrian
        connectivity.

        James Sharba, Architect, gave a description of the proposed building and reviewed the
        materials, which included cobblestone and dormers.
        Chairperson Lirones stated that she likes the “barn” effect of the building.
        Commissioner Griess stated that the Commission discussed the berms at a previous
        meeting and the Commission was clear on the height of berms they wanted.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 13 of 34

        Ms. Stevens showed where the road crests and how it affects the berms. She said that
        there are more parking spaces than necessary and if that parking was removed near the
        crest the berm could be built higher. She discussed the various heights of the berm.
        She mentioned that they are working with the WCRC and they feel that the berm
        could be six (6) feet in height.
        The Commissioners, staff and Mr. Wheeler discussed the proposed berm.

        Planner Spencer asked if the buildings are two (2) stories.
        Mr. Wheeler replied no. He said that they are going to save the trees near the sewer
        lines.
        Planner Spencer stated that an easement agreement with the Township would be
        needed for the utilities.
        Mr. Wheeler agreed to the easement.
        Commissioner Ward questioned the connectivity of the site.

        Mr. Wheeler stated that pedestrian connectivity was a condition of the PUD. He said
        that they are proposing to install the missing pedestrian links on Ellsworth Road.
        Chairperson Lirones asked about the proposed wall around the building.
        Mr. Sharba discussed the proposed wall and the berm.

        Chairperson Lirones stated that buffering would be needed for Stone School Shopping
        Plaza and homes in that area.
        Ms. Stevens stated that Planner Schmult’s report asked for the asphalt pathway on
        Stone School Road to be one foot inside of the right-of-way. She said that Detroit
        Edison has a very high transmission line two feet from the future right-of-way and this
        is why they proposed it to be four feet from the proposed right-of-way. She added that
        there have been no comments from the WCRC regarding this.
        Mr. Wheeler stated that there would be twenty-eight (28) feet from the curb to the
        pathway.

        The Commissioners agreed that this is adequate.
        Mr. Wheeler showed an alternative access for the Utilities Department and the
        Township Fire Department.

        Planner Spencer stated that additional screening would be needed to block the bay
        doors of the maintenance building from Stone School Road.
        Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Resha, for
        WP 04-10/CSPA 04-21 Ann Arbor Maintenance Facility, to direct the applicant
        to address the following concerns raised by:

        1.       The Township Wetland Consultant's report of October 28, 2004.
        2.       The Township Zoning Administrator's review of November 1, 2004.
        3.       The Township Engineer's report of October 29, 2004.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 14 of 34

        4.       The Township Planner's report of October 18, 2004.
        5.       The comments of the Planning Commission of November 4, 2004.

        MOTION CARRIED
7.0     Old Business
        7.1      RZ 04-12 Mark Lewis (Wolverine Commerce LLC)
                 [submitted to rezone from PUD to R-3]
        Chairperson Lirones stated that the Planning Commission directed staff at the previous
        meeting (of October 7, 2004) to write a resolution of denial for this petition.
        Mark Lewis, petitioner, stated that the Commission should have received his letter
        dated October 12 (2004). He said that he has spent seven (7) years and a large amount
        of money trying to make this plan work. He said that Platt Road was an industrial area
        thirty (30) years ago but it is not today. He said that they have tried to make this a
        reality and it cannot be done. He said that the area is not suitable for industrial use
        because it is a corridor for residential uses.

        Commissioner Ward stated that that R-3 zoning is not appropriate for this area. He
        suggested that the Commission look at this parcel again next year (during the annual
        Comprehensive Plan review).
        Commissioner Griess stated that the Commission recently reviewed this area during
        the Compressive Plan review.

        Planner Spencer commented that down the street someone did feel the R1-B zoning
        was an appropriate zoning.
        Commissioner Ward stated that all of the parties have worked hard with the
        landscaping and in some cases, they have used this area as an example.

        Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Resha, to
        recommend denial of RZ 04-12 Mark Lewis.
        Commissioner Ward noted that all of the Commissioners agreed to the findings in the
        resolution.

        Discussion:
        Commissioner Banush suggested changing the last line of Item 10 of the resolution to
        read, "Current conditions do not support a change in zoning.”

        The Commissioners agreed with this change.

        ROLL CALL:

        YEAS:             WARD, RESHA, LUNA, LIRONES, BANUSH, GRIESS,
                          URDA-THOMPSON.
        NAYS:             NONE.
        ABSENT:           NONE.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 15 of 34

        ABSTAIN:          NONE.

        MOTION CARRIED (Denied)

        Chairperson Lirones called for a recess at 9:55 p.m.
        Chairperson Lirones called the meeting back to order at 10:05 p.m.

7.2     RZ 04-09 Orco Investments
        [submitted to rezone from R-1A to R-1B]

        Chairperson Lirones stated that at a previous Planning Commission meeting the
        Commissioners directed staff to write a resolution of denial.

        Planner Spencer stated that his report was given to the Commissioners in their packets.
        He added that there was also a report from the Township Engineer, which stated that
        the soil borings could be acceptable. He said that the Township Engineer spoke with
        the Washtenaw County Health Department and they feel that additional borings need
        to be done. He added that this would help determine if the site is suitable for well and
        septic fields.

        Robert Jacobs, representing Orco Investments, stated that he did receive the reports.
        He said that Mr. Brian Simons (Township Engineer) report is incorrect to state that the
        Planning Commission cannot make a recommendation without further tests. He said
        that it is not within the province of the Township Engineer to decide whether a
        recommendation should be made to the Township Board, regarding a test, as to the
        suitability of the soils.

        Mr. Jacobs stated that Planner Spencer included a report from LSL regarding Arbor
        Oaks, in the packets to the Commissioners. He said that the LSL letter stated, “The
        lack of access to existing or planned municipal water and/or sanitary sewers makes the
        property generally inappropriate for residential density greater than 1 unit per acre.”
        He said that Arbor Oaks and the Orco sites are adjacent to existing water and sewer
        lines. He reviewed a letter from Mr. Arroyo from Birchler-Arroyo Associates.

        Mr. Jacobs stated that the June 30, 2004 letter from Atwell-Hicks states that the State
        Public Health Code states, “connection to available public sanitary sewer systems at
        the earliest reasonable date is a matter for the protection of the public health, safety
        and welfare.” It also stated that the Washtenaw County Environmental Health Code
        defines available public sanitary sewer as “a public sanitary sewer system located in a
        right-of-way…which crosses, adjoins, or abuts upon a property and passing not more
        that 200 feet from a sanitary sewer structure.” He further added that Article 4 of the
        Pittsfield Charter Township Code states that, “All owners of abutting properties shall
        have equal rights of access to such a (public) sewer.”

        Mr. Jacobs stated that the LSL letter also speaks to transitional zoning and states that,
        “Properties designated Low Density Residential (1 acre lots), such as the Arbor Oaks
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 16 of 34

        site, serve as an effective transition between the intensity of development in the
        Residential Agricultural designation (0.4 residential units per acre) to the south and
        development of Moderate Density Residential designation (2.5 units per acre) to the
        north. Allowing a higher density of residential development in the Low Density
        Residential designation would fail to provide this logical land use transition.”

        Mr. Jacobs stated that there are numerous examples of R-1B zoning adjacent to
        agricultural zoning within a short distance of the subject site. He said that the
        Township has determined that it can be appropriate to locate R-1B zoning districts
        directly abutting agricultural districts. He said that comment #3 of the LSL letter refers
        to maintaining rural lands in certain areas and protecting these areas from impacts
        associated with moderate density residential. He said that the subject property is
        located within ¼ mile of U.S. 23, and approximately ¾ mile from Michigan Avenue.

        Mr. Jacobs stated that the property is near a developing moderate density area. He said
        that it is good planning and traffic sense to locate moderate density residential within
        reasonable proximity to arterials and freeways. He said that the LSL letter stated that
        the Arbor Oaks parcels “were considered appropriately for low density residential
        development in terms of the factors listed in the Comprehensive Plan.” He said that
        Mr. Arroyo’s planning analysis demonstrates that designating the Orco Investments
        property as R-1B is consistent with good planning and promotes the general health,
        safety, and welfare of the community.

        Mr. Jacobs discussed Planner Spencer’s analysis regarding the feasibility study. He
        then reviewed Mr. Burgoyne’s analysis. He said that the lots sales and the homes
        attached to Planner Spencer’s report were from York Township and the City of Milan.
        He said this is like comparing apples and oranges. He said that the property can only
        be developed with single-family homes with a density and requirements of an R-1B
        district.

        Bill Anderson, Atwell-Hicks, referred to Mr. Simons engineering report. He said that
        Boss Engineering has reviewed the soil borings from Washtenaw County and
        determined that the soil types were Nappanee and St. Clair soils. He said that these
        soils have severe limitations for utilization of individual on-site sewage disposal
        systems due to low soil permeability and high water table conditions. He said that
        with fine textured soils, which are predominant on this site, the groundwater cannot
        move through the soil fast enough to appear in a boring that is done for a short period
        of time.

        Mr. Anderson continued and stated that the soil is still saturated and it cannot support
        individual on-site sewage disposal systems. He said that Mr. Caterino from Boss
        Engineering does not feel that this site can be approved under the State of Michigan
        rules for developments of a subdivision utilizing individual on-site sewage disposal
        systems. He said that Mr. Simons stated that the Commission should not move
        forward on the rezoning application until the County approves the septic borings for
        this site. Mr. Anderson stated that this is not the standard procedure. He said that
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 17 of 34

        individuals will typically hire a soils expert to do an independent soils study. He said
        that a preliminary site plan would then be completed.

        Mr. Anderson read from the Zoning Ordinance and stated, “Each proposed lot or site
        condominium unit shall have a permit for water and septic drain field approval by
        Washtenaw County before the Planning Commission may approve the final site plan
        or the Township Board may give final approval.” He said that the County would give
        approval during the final site plan approval and not at the early stages of a rezoning.
        He said a Commissioner discussed the soils for Hunter’s Ridge subdivision at a
        previous meeting. He said that a bulk of this site has different soils than the Hunter’s
        Ridge subdivision.

        Mr. Anderson stated that an engineered field would not be possible in a subdivision.
        He said that engineered sites are not permitted for subdivisions. He then reviewed
        Planner Spencer’s report. He listed various items that go into appraisal values
        including schools, roads, noise factors, and the marketing trail. He mentioned that the
        Legacy Heights subdivision is in the Saline School District and it has some of the best
        soils in the area. He then discussed the infrastructure costs.

        Mr. Anderson discussed clustering. He said that the use of clustering or a PUD is a
        method of development style based on different property perimeters and not an
        original economic consideration for development. He said that clustering could reduce
        the lot areas and values.

        Mr. Jacobs asked the Commission to recommend the rezoning of this property to
        R-1B. He said there is sewer and water available. He said that they have met all of the
        elements of rezoning.

        Planner Spencer stated that the Ordinance stated that sewer and water is not available
        because the property is out of the service district.

        Mr. Anderson stated that Article 6 of the Township Sewer Use Ordinance states that
        public sewer means, “Sanitary sewer owned and controlled by the Township serving
        or designed to serve two or more separate buildings. All owners of abutting properties
        shall have equal rights of access to such a sewer.”

        Chairperson Lirones stated that the Commission has seen different appraisals for the
        property. She said that the Commission does not determine the highest and best
        monetary return on a property. She added that the Commission looks at the reasonable
        use of the property. She said that the Commission feels that there is currently a
        reasonable zoning on the property.

        Commissioner Griess stated that the County testing may usually come later in a
        process, although when the Township is being asked to change their Master Plan
        based on something that is not a proven fact by a County test she cannot accept it.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 18 of 34

        Commissioner Banush stated that there are similar soils around the Township. He said
        that the same types of homes are being built in Milan and York Township, which are
        adjacent to this Township.

        Planner Spencer stated that the reference in his report from the Township Assessor is
        that properties that are sold in Pittsfield Township can be in the Milan School District.

        Commissioner Ward questioned whether the findings should be discussed.

        Chairperson Lirones stated that the issue has been discussed thoroughly.

        Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Resha, to approve
        the resolution to recommend denial of RZ 04-09 Orco Investments.
        (Attachment #5)

        Commissioner Ward noted that all of the Commissioners unanimously agreed with the
        findings in the resolution.

        ROLL CALL:

        YEAS:             WARD, RESHA, LUNA, LIRONES, BANUSH, GRIESS,
                          URDA-THOMPSON.
        NAYS:             NONE.
        ABSENT:           NONE.
        ABSTAIN:          NONE.

        MOTION CARRIED (Denied)

7.3     CUP 04-06/CSPA 04-20 McDonald’s – Carpenter Road
        [submitted for a conditional use per and combined preliminary
        and final site plan]
        Planner Montagno reviewed the zoning report. He stated that the north access drive
        does not meet the Township’s access management standards. He said that it is less
        than eighty (80) feet from the drive on the west side of the site. He said that the
        WCRC is requiring the applicant to make the north drive a right-in right-out only drive
        onto Carpenter Road. He noted from the Planner’s report that there are two parking
        spaces still shown at ninety (90) degrees, and this should be changed to angled parking
        spaces. He said that the number of landscaping trees provided is correct, although the
        Norway Maples are not native to this area and the Commission might want to insist on
        native species.

        Chairperson Lirones noted that a memorandum from Frank Martin was received which
        stated that the Norway Maples were taken out of the plans dated October 14 (2004).
        Planner Montagno stated that the Township Engineer has stated that tree protection
        fencing should be shown in the plans.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 19 of 34

        Planner Spencer stated that staff discussed the two (2) ninety (90) degree parking
        spaces and they feel that one parking space could be eliminated and the other could be
        ninety (90) degrees.
        Joe Galvin, representing McDonald’s, stated that they have done everything that was
        discussed. He said that at the previous meeting he felt that the Commission had
        accepted the parking spaces.

        Planner Montagno stated that a person backing out of the space on the east side could
        back out in the wrong direction.
        Frank Martin, Dorchen Martin Associates, stated that they want to use the ninety (90)
        degree parking spaces to get as many spaces as they can. He said that they feel they
        have met all the requirements.

        Planner Spencer stated that there is room for one (1) parking space adjacent to the
        pedestrian walkway near Carpenter Road. He said that this could be done
        administratively.
        The Commissioners and staff discussed the size of the parking spaces.

        Mr. Galvin agreed to remove one (1) parking space and leaving the parking spaces at
        twenty (20) feet.
        Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Resha, to approve
        CSPA 04-20 [combined preliminary and final site plan] with the following
        conditions:
        1.       Comply with item 1 a. of the Township Engineer's report of
                 October 27, 2004.
        2.       Parking layout to be agreed upon with Township Staff.

        And to find that because the north entrance is right-in right-out only, and the
        design was approved by the Washtenaw County Road Commission, the plan
        complies with the Township's access management standards.
        MOTION CARRIED

        Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Resha, to approve
        the resolution to approve CUP 04-06 McDonald's (Attachment #6)
        Commissioner Ward noted that all of the Commissioners agreed to the findings in the
        resolution.

        ROLL CALL:

        YEAS:             WARD, RESHA, LUNA, LIRONES, BANUSH, GRIESS,
                          URDA-THOMPSON.
        NAYS:             NONE.
        ABSENT:           NONE.
        ABSTAIN:          NONE.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 20 of 34

        MOTION CARRIED

7.4     CSPA 03-26 Standard Federal Bank
        [submitted for final site plan]
        Planner Montagno reviewed Planner Black’s report and stated that the applicant is
        proposing to remove a 28 inch Elm tree. He said that the Township’s Land
        Development Standards consider all trees over 24 inch DBH and larger to be heritage
        trees that should be mitigated. He said that the Planning Commission might want to
        discuss with the applicant the species that are proposed as replacements for the Elm
        tree. He said that the applicant is proposing to replace the tree with six (6) American
        Linden and four (4) American Elms.

        Ann Stevens, of Atwell-Hicks, stated that American Elm trees are being used to
        mitigate the trees.

        Planner Montagno reviewed the Engineering report. He said that the Township has not
        received the easement documents for the proposed sanitary sewer and water main. He
        said that these documents need to be provided for Engineering review. He said that
        one of the proposed light poles is too close to the proposed water main, and one pole is
        too close to the proposed sanitary sewer. He said that these poles should be moved ten
        (10) feet away. He said that the overhead power lines must be approved by the
        Planning Commission.

        Chairperson Lirones noted that the access for the site has been agreed to.

        Commissioner Banush stated that if American Elm trees are going to be allowed this
        should be changed in the Land Development Standards to avoid potential conflict.
        Commissioner Ward stated that he noticed a few areas of the building that is E.I.F.S.
        He mentioned a building with E.I.F.S that is two (2) years old and it is already looking
        poorly. He asked the architect to have the applicant reconsider the E.I.F.S material.

        Michael Boglow, Architect, stated that the E.I.F.S could be removed and something
        different could be used.
        Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Resha, to approve
        CSPA 03-26 final site plan for Standard Federal Bank with the following
        conditions:
        1.       Comply with the Township Engineer's report of October 21, 2004 and
                 items number 1, 4, 5, and 7 of the Township Engineer's report of
                 October 19, 2004.
        2.       Change the E.I.F.S to masonry material.

        MOTION CARRIED
7.5     CUP #04-17 Speedway Super America
        [submitted for conditional use permit]

        The Commissioners inquired if the site has been cleaned up as requested.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 21 of 34

        Planner Montagno replied that the site was clean as of 7 p.m. this evening.

        Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Banush, to approve
        the resolution to approve CUP 04-17 Speedway Super America. (Attachment #7)

        ROLL CALL:

        YEAS:             WARD, RESHA, LUNA, LIRONES, BANUSH, GRIESS,
                          URDA-THOMPSON.
        NAYS:             NONE.
        ABSENT:           NONE.
        ABSTAIN:          NONE.

        MOTION CARRIED

8.0     New Business
        8.1      RZ 04-13 New Progressive Missionary Baptist Church
                 [submitted to rezone from R & D to R-1B]

                 Item 8.1 moved to follow Item 6.1 of the public hearing.
        8.2      WP 04-10/CSPA 04-21 Ann Arbor Maintenance Facility
                 [discussion only]
                 Item 8.2 moved to follow Item 6.2 of the public hearing.

8.0     Planner’s Report

        Planner Spencer stated that he received and provided to the Commissioners a
        memorandum from Victor Lillich, Township Attorney, regarding challenges to zoning
        classifications.

        Planner Spencer informed the Commissioners that Friday (November 5, 2004) would
        be the last day for Assistant Planner Jennifer Black. He noted she will be working for
        the City of Monroe's redevelopment and Brownfield project. He also said that he
        would be on vacation until November 16th [2004].

9.0     Chairperson’s Report

        Chairperson Lirones stated that she received a letter from the City of Ann Arbor
        regarding their new capital improvement plan.

10.0    Commissioner’s Report

        Commissioner Ward asked the Commissioners if the Saline Sustainability needs to be
        revisited since it keeps being quoted at the meetings. He said that he will not support
        adopting the Saline Sustainability Plan.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 22 of 34

        The Commissioners and staff discussed the Saline Sustainability Circle.

        Commissioner Ward discussed the stamping of the site plans and how certain plans are
        not stamped by Engineers.

        Planner Spencer stated that this would be brought to the Planning Commission soon.

        Commissioner Ward stated that he would represent the Planning Commission
        regarding WalMart if the Commissioners agreed to this.

        The Commissioners agreed to have Commissioner Ward represent the Planning
        Commission regarding WalMart.

        The Commissioners and staff discussed the comments made regarding WalMart.

        Chairperson Lirones noted that Commissioner Urda-Thompson has been elected to the
        Board [of Trustees] and will be present for one more Planning Commission meeting.

11.0    Approval of Prior Minutes

        None.

12.0    Adjournment

        Motion by Commissioner Ward, supported by Commissioner Urda-Thompson,
        to adjourn the meeting.

        MOTION CARRIED

        Chairperson Lirones adjourned the meeting at 12:40 a.m.

        _____________________________________________________________________
              s/Julie Griess, Secretary                       January 13, 2005
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 23 of 34

(Attachment #1)

                                              MEMORANDUM


TO:               PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:             MARK SPENCER, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT:          COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
DATE:             11/3/2004
CC:               TWP. ADMINISTRATORS, ENGINEERING & PLANNING

During the Planning Commission’s annual review of the Comprehensive Plan the Commission decided to
schedule a workshop and further review changing a small portion of Section 1 from Local Commercial to Office.
The area in consideration is the former Wall property located north and west of the commercial developments at
the northwest corner of Washtenaw Ave. and Golfside Rd. Currently a printing company occupies a landmark
residential home from the 1920s on the site. The following is a list of factors to consider regarding this matter:

1.       The proposed change is consistent with the Plan’s Land Use Policy Vision A Statement.

         Vision A: Pittsfield Township will offer diverse land uses arranged in a distinct and logical pattern
         taking into consideration existing uses, public needs and services, environmental conditions and the
         capacity of transportation, utilities and community facilities.
         (Chapter 2, p. 14)

         A.       The property does not have Washtenaw Ave. frontage and the properties between it and
                  Washtenaw are all developed, therefore the existing properties make a more logical boundary
                  for the local commercial area.
         B.       This site contains substantial woodlands and wetlands. If the property is rezoned to Office
                  rather than Local Commercial the maximum net lot coverage is 10% less, thus more natural
                  features on this site could be saved.
         C.       Office uses are typically considered medium intensity uses and work well as an acceptable
                  transition between higher intensity commercial and lower intensity residential uses.
         D.       Office uses do not conflict with the retail, office, and multi-family residential uses along the
                  Golfside corridor in Pittsfield Township or neighboring Ypsilanti Township.
         E.       This area is adequately served by transportation facilities. Office uses are less intense that
                  commercial uses and thus will have less of an impact on the capacity on Golfside Rd. and
                  Washtenaw Ave. AATA bus routes are located on Golfside Rd. and Washtenaw Ave. to serve
                  the property.
         F.       The area is served by public water and sanitary sewer and Township Public Safety services.

2.       The proposed change is consistent with the Plan’s Land Use Policy Vision B Statement.

         Pittsfield Township will have viable residential neighborhoods that offer a variety of housing options
         for a high quality-of-life
         (Chapter 2, p. 16)

         A.       Office uses protect and stabilize the residential properties by providing a buffer between the
                  residential uses and commercial uses.
         B.       Office use of the property provides for a viable reuse of the landmark residential home on the
                  site.

3.       The proposed change is consistent with the Plan’s Land Use Policy Vision C Statement.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 24 of 34


        Pittsfield Township will provide business development areas that create a stable economic tax base and
        quality shopping and service uses for residents
        (Chapter 2, p.17)

        A.       The designation provides for the expansion of business in the Township.
        B.       The office designation would provide a location for medical and service offices to provide
                 services for the community.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 25 of 34

(Attachment #2)

      RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND AUTHORIZATION FOR DISTRIBUTION OF
                 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGES
           PITTSFIELD CHARTER TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
                            NOVEMBER 4, 2004

WHEREAS, The Pittsfield Charter Township Planning Commission has a strong interest in planning the future
of Pittsfield Township, and

WHEREAS, The Planning Commission discussed the proposed change at its annual review of the
Comprehensive Plan on September 16, 2004 and held a workshop on this matter on November 4, 2004, and

WHEREAS, The Township has an obligation to provide the current and future citizens of Pittsfield Township
with a Comprehensive Plan that balances the needs of its residents and future residents while protecting the
natural and built environment, and

WHEREAS, Public Act 168 of 1959, as amended in January of 2002 requires the Pittsfield Township Planning
Commission to develop and approve all land use plans and it requires the Township Board of Trustees to
approve a draft of the proposed changes to a land use plan before it is distributed for comments.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Pittsfield Charter Township Planning Commission
recommends that the Board of Trustees approve for distribution the proposed changes to the Future Land Use
Map of the Township’s adopted Comprehensive Plan (attachment “A”).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission made the following findings on this matter:

1.      The proposed change is consistent with the Plan’s Land Use Policy Vision A Statement.

        Vision A: Pittsfield Township will offer diverse land uses arranged in a distinct and logical pattern
        taking into consideration existing uses, public needs and services, environmental conditions and the
        capacity of transportation, utilities and community facilities.
        (Chapter 2, p. 14)

        A.       The property does not have Washtenaw Ave. frontage and the properties between it and
                 Washtenaw are all developed, therefore the existing properties make a more logical boundary
                 for the local commercial area.
        B.       This site contains substantial woodlands and wetlands. If the property is rezoned to Office
                 rather than Local Commercial the maximum net lot coverage is 10% less, thus more natural
                 features on this site could be saved.
        C.       Office uses are typically considered medium intensity uses and work well as an acceptable
                 transition between higher intensity commercial and lower intensity residential uses.
        D.       Office uses do not conflict with the retail, office, and multi-family residential uses along the
                 Golfside corridor in Pittsfield Township or neighboring Ypsilanti Township.
        E.       This area is adequately served by transportation facilities. Office uses are less intense than
                 commercial uses and thus will have less of an impact on the capacity on Golfside Rd. and
                 Washtenaw Ave. AATA bus routes are located on Golfside Rd. and Washtenaw Ave. to serve
                 the property.
        F.       The area is served by public water and sanitary sewer and Township Public Safety services.

2.      The proposed change is consistent with the Plan’s Land Use Policy Vision B Statement.

        Pittsfield Township will have viable residential neighborhoods that offer a variety of housing options
        for a high quality-of-life
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 26 of 34

        (Chapter 2, p. 16)

        A.       Office uses will help to protect and stabilize the residential properties by providing a buffer
                 between the residential uses and commercial uses.
        B.       Office use of the property provides for a viable reuse of the landmark residential home on the
                 site.

3.      The proposed change is consistent with the Plan’s Land Use Policy Vision C Statement.

        Pittsfield Township will provide business development areas that create a stable economic tax base and
        quality shopping and service uses for residents
        (Chapter 2, p.17)

        A.       The designation provides for the expansion of business in the Township.
        B.       The office designation would provide a location for medical and service offices to provide
                 services for the community.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 27 of 34

(Attachment #3)

                              RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL
                      PITTSFIELD TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
                           RZ 04-13 New Progressive Baptist Church
                                      November 4, 2004

WHEREAS, Pittsfield Township received petition RZ 04-13 New Progressive Baptist Church to rezone 10 acres
of land in Section 23 from Agricultural (AG) and Research and Development (RD) to Single Family Suburban
Residential (R-1B) for property described as of parcels with tax IDS # L-12-23-200-027 and L-12-23-200-029;
and

WHEREAS, The Pittsfield Township Planning Commission held a public hearing on the petition on November
4, 2004; and

WHEREAS, The Pittsfield Township Planning Commission considered comments presented by the public; and

WHEREAS, The Pittsfield Township Planning Commission has studied the petition in terms of the standards in
Section 59.05 of the Zoning Ordinance;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That the Pittsfield Township Planning Commission recommends to
the Pittsfield Township Board that the request to rezone the property in RZ 04-13 New Progressive Baptist
Church from Agricultural (AG) and Research and Development (RD) to Single Family Suburban Residential (R-
1B) be approved;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the Pittsfield Township Planning Commission makes the following
findings regarding petition RZ 04-13 New Progressive Baptist Church:

        1.        The petition is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan designates the property and
        area for suburban residential use (single-family detached residences at a density of 2 1/2 dwelling units
        (DUs) per acre). This density translates into 10,000 square feet (sq. ft.) and larger lots. The R-1B
        district permits single-family detached residences on 10,000 sq. ft. and larger lots. The R-1B district is
        intended to be used in areas with this designation in the Comprehensive Plan.

        2.      The petition is consistent with the existing R-1B zoning to the south (Bridgefield Estates,
        under construction).

        3.       The existing AG and R-D zoning is left over from the original zoning that was applied to this
        area in 1970, when the current zoning ordinance was adopted. At that time, the area was in agricultural
        use, with scattered houses. AG zoning is no longer appropriate for the area east of Platt Road and south
        of Morgan Road because conditions have changed since 1970. Public water and sanitary sewer services
        are available, and residential and industrial development has occurred in this area.

                 The R-D zoning was applied in 1970 to a parcel of land that was used by an acoustics research
        laboratory. R-D zoning is no longer appropriate in this area, given the trend to residential use and the
        Comprehensive Plan's designation of residential use for the area.


        4.       Approval of R-1B zoning for the property would theoretically permit its division into 20-25
        single-family residential lots 10,000 sq. ft. and larger. However, future use of the property is somewhat
        fixed by its configuration and existing uses. The undeveloped part of the property, about 3.5 acres, has
        no road frontage. The developed part of the parcel has a church and one research building. These
        buildings would have to be removed to open the parcel for development.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 28 of 34

                 Approval of the petition would permit expansion of the existing church. The existing AG
        zoning limits the ground floor and total floor area to 10% of lot area; the R-1B district permits a ground
        floor and total floor area up to 30% of lot area.

        5.      Approval of the petition would not create adverse zoning precedents in the area. The trend for
        R-1B zoning is well established along the east side of Platt Road, south of Morgan Road. Approval
        would continue this trend for requests to change the AG and R-D zoning to the south and east to R-1B.
        R-1B zoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

        6.       Public Services and facilities including sanitary sewer and potable water are available for uses
        permitted on the property if zoned R-1B.

        7.       Approval of the petition should have no adverse impacts on property values in the area.

        8.       The property in the petition is a reasonable parcel of land for zoning consideration. However,
        approval of the petition will leave a two-acre lot and residence between the property and Bridgefield
        Estates zoned AG and two lots to the east zoned AG (5.36 acres and 2 acres) and R-D (2.5 acres). The
        remaining four lots to the east, 20,000 sf and larger, are zoned R-1A.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the Pittsfield Township Planning Commission is transmitting a copy of
the Township Planner’s report of October 28, 2004 as corrected with this resolution as the Commission’s report
on the petition.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 29 of 34

(Attachment #4)

                        RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL
               PITTSFIELD CHARTER TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
                                RZ-04-12 Mark Lewis
                                 November 4, 2004

WHEREAS, Pittsfield Township received petition RZ 04-12 Mark Lewis to rezone 47.32 acres of land in
Section 14 from PUD (Business Park) to R-3, high density residential for the property described as parcel tax ID
# L-12-14-300-019; and

WHEREAS, The Pittsfield Township Planning Commission held a public hearing on the petition on October 7,
2004; and

WHEREAS, The Pittsfield Township Planning Commission considered comments presented and submitted by
the public; and

WHEREAS, The Pittsfield Township Planning Commission has studied the petition in terms of the standards in
Section 59.05 of the Zoning Ordinance;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That the Pittsfield Township Planning Commission recommends to
the Pittsfield Township Board of Trustees that the request to rezone the property in RZ 04-12 Mark Lewis from
PUD (Business Park) to R-3, high density residential be denied;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the Pittsfield Township Planning Commission makes the following
findings regarding petition RZ 04-12 Mark Lewis:

        1.       The petition is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The plan designates the property
        and area to the north and east for light industrial use. The petition requests zoning for high density
        residential use.

        2.        Pittsfield Township has long had a policy of encouraging industrial development to create jobs
        and improve the Township's tax base. The current Comprehensive Plan continues this policy emphasis
        in several parts of the Plan – "support a strong tax base" (page 12), "a strong, high quality industrial tax
        base" (page 13), "industrial business and employment centers" (page 15), and "small pockets of light
        industrial development along US23 and Morgan Road" (page 18). The Plan designates all land acreage
        in Pittsfield Township that is suitable for industrial and research uses for these uses. Approval of the
        petition would irrevocably remove 45 acres of land from future industrial use. These 45 acres of
        potential industrial land cannot be replaced elsewhere in the township.

        3.        The light industrial use designation for the property is still valid. The Planning Commission
        conducted its annual review of the Plan in September of this year and did not make any changes in
        either the land that is designated for research and industrial use or in the policies regarding these uses.
        The Commission thus reaffirmed the importance of research and industrial uses in the Township and the
        Plan's designation of light industrial use for this property and area.

        4.      The Township's Comprehensive Plans have designated this property and area for industrial use
        continuously since 1975.

        5.       The existing PUD district permits a reasonable use of the property. The approved PUD district
        permits a business park. This zoning is consistent with the existing industrial uses and zoning adjacent
        to the north and the existing industrial use and zoning farther east.

        6.       The current petitioner requested the existing PUD district zoning for a business park in 1997,
        obtained approval of the PUD district for a business park for this property in 1998, obtained final site
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 30 of 34

        plan approval for a business park pursuant to the approved PUD district in 2002, and requested and
        received Planning Commission approval of a one year extension of the final site approval on December
        11, 2003. The petitioner clearly thought the PUD district zoning for a business park was appropriate
        during those years and his thinking was consistent with Township policy for the past 30 years. The
        current slow market for industrial land is not a valid reason for rezoning the property. The industrial
        land market will return.

        7.       Approval of the petition would require prior approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive
        Plan that would designate the property and area for high density residential use. The Planning
        Commission recently decided that the Comprehensive Plan's industrial designation in this area should
        not be changed.

        8.       Approval of the petition would set a precedent for high density residential zoning for other
        properties in the area. Such zoning would be inconsistent with existing and emerging land use trends in
        the area and the Comprehensive Plan.

        9.        The requested R-3 zoning is not consistent with the established industrial uses adjacent to the
        north and, if approved, would isolate the existing industrial property to the east from the Platt Road
        corridor.

        10.      Suitability of the property in the petition for light industrial uses was confirmed by the current
        petitioner's request in 1997 for PUD zoning and his subsequent successful efforts to obtain final site
        plan approval for a business park and his request for the Planning Commission to extend that approval
        into December, 2004. Conditions have not changed in the area since the Township Board approved the
        PUD district for a business park in 1999 and the Planning Commission approved the final site plan for
        the proposed business park in 2002. The property and area is still suitable for light industrial uses.
        Current conditions do not support a change in zoning.

        11.      Facilities and services needed to support uses permitted under the existing PUD district zoning
        are available to the property.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the Pittsfield Township Planning Commission is transmitting a copy of
the Township Planner’s report of October 5, 2004 with this resolution as the Commission’s report on the
petition.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 31 of 34

(Attachment #5)
                              RESOLUTION FOR DENIAL                                                                     Deleted: DRAFT
                PITTSFIELD CHARTER TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
                             RZ 04-09 Orco SW ¼ of Section 26
                                    November 4, 2004

WHEREAS, Pittsfield Charter Township received petition RZ 04-09 Orco to rezone 57.77 acres of land in
Section 26 from R-1A, single family rural non-farm residential, to R-1B, single family suburban residential for
the property described as parcels with tax ID #’s L-12-26-300-005, -021, -029, and -018 on July 6, 2004; and

WHEREAS, The Pittsfield Township Planning Commission held a public hearing on the petition on September
7, 2004; and

WHEREAS, The Pittsfield Township Planning Commission considered comments presented and submitted by
the public; and

WHEREAS, The Pittsfield Township Planning Commission has studied the petition in terms of the standards in
Section 59.05 of the Zoning Ordinance.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That the Pittsfield Township Planning Commission recommends to
the Pittsfield Township Board of Trustees that the request to rezone the property in RZ 04-09 Orco from R-1A,
single family rural non-farm residential, to R1-B, suburban residential, be denied.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the Pittsfield Township Planning Commission makes the following
findings regarding petition RZ 04-09 Orco:

         1.       The petition is not consistent with the Township's adopted Comprehensive Plan. The plan
         designates the property and neighboring lands for rural residential, low-density use at a maximum
         density of 1 dwelling unit (DU)/acre (minimum 1 acre lots). The R-1B district permits lots as small as
         10,000 sq. ft. and an overall density of 2.5 to 3 DUS/acre.

         The Plan contemplates that the designated low density residential area be used as a transition between
         the Agricultural Residential area to the east, south, and west of the property in the petition and the
         higher density residential areas farther north in the Rolling Meadows and Warner Creek subdivisions.
         (See page 22, second paragraph Comprehensive Plan) The petition violates this policy, if the petition is
         approved, it will result in juxtaposition of higher density, 10,000 sq. ft. lots against 2 ½ acre and larger
         lots. This is a situation the Comprehensive Plan clearly intends to avoid.

         The Comprehensive Plan provides other areas in the Township for 2.5 dwelling units per acre
         development. R-1B density should be proposed in these areas.

         The Comprehensive Plan does not include the property and neighboring area in the Township's water
         and sanitary sewer service district. The R-1B district is intended to be used in areas that are designated
         in the Plan for moderate density residential use and are in the public water and sanitary sewer service
         district. The Plan clearly intends that the service area boundary be respected (see item #3, page 16
         Comprehensive Plan). The property is well outside the service area as delineated in the Plan. The
         Township has limited sewer capacity available for future development as planned. Permitting R-1B
         zoning in an area where services are not planned will ultimately diminish capacity for future
         development as planned in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.

        2.        The existing R-1A zoning district permits single-family residences on one acre and larger lots.
        This district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The R-1A district permits a reasonable use of
        the land, given the established rural residential character of the surrounding area.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 32 of 34

        3.        The petition is not consistent with the existing residential lot sizes and zoning in the area. The
        property is bordered on three sides – east, south, and west – by 44 lots that are one to 11+ acres. Three
        of those lots are 10.01, 22.38, and 11.47 acres in area and are undeveloped. The remaining 41 lots, 38
        of which are developed with single-family residences, have an average area of 2.49 acres and a median
        lot area of 2.77 acres. The established character of the neighborhood in which the property in the
        petition is located, is therefore single-family residential on 2 ½ acre lots. The R-1A district is a
        reasonable transition district between the urban residential uses in the Warner Creek and Rolling
        Meadows subdivisions to the north and this existing rural residential, low density neighborhood.

        4.      A 16" water main and a 15" sanitary sewer are located in Platt Road and extends south of
        Bemis Road. These lines served the former State psychiatric hospital facilities in York Township.
        Even though these lines are in Platt Road, the land in the Platt Road corridor, south to the Township line
        on Bemis Road, is not in the service district.

        5.       Approval of the petition would set a precedent for rezoning other undeveloped properties in the
        area to R-1B. It might also encourage division of existing residential lots into smaller lots. This
        precedent would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

        6.        Approval of the petition could result in as many as 145-150 lots on the property. These
        residences could generate an estimated 1, 500 vt/d (vehicle trips per day). Platt Road had a traffic count
        of 6, 229 vt/d in 2002. The road itself could handle the 1,500 additional trips but the additional trips
        would add to the already serious congestion problem at the Platt/Michigan intersection. If the approval
        of the petition could lead to additional R-1B density development, that would exacerbate the congestion        Deleted: worsen
        at Platt and Michigan.

        7.        According to the County Soil Survey, Nappanee is the predominant soil on the property and
        Nappanee and St. Clair soils predominate in the general area. Both are rated by the Survey as having
        severe limitations for septic tank drainfields because of slow percolation. However, the existing 41           Deleted: serve as having
        single-family residences that border the property in the petition are also located on Nappanee and St.
        Clair soils. In addition, the Township Engineer determined that soil borings provided by the petitioner
        indicate that on-site disposal systems are possible.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the Pittsfield Township Planning Commission is transmitting a copy of
the Township Planner’s report of September 3, 2004 and the Township Engineer’s report of October 28, 2004
with this resolution as the Commission’s report on the petition.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 33 of 34

(Attachment #6)

                                FINDINGS OF REQUIRED STANDARDS
                                  AND RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
                                C.U.P. #04-06 McDonald’s Carpenter Road
                                            November 4, 2004

WHEREAS, an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-thru service in a C-2 district (General
Commercial) was received from McDonalds on March 10, 2004.

WHEREAS, the Pittsfield Township Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on April 15,
2004 and received no unfavorable comments; and

WHEREAS, the Commission per Section 50.06 of the Zoning Ordinance, made the following findings and
determined that this use is adequately served by public facilities and services, and the proposed use will not
substantially increase demand on public facilities or services; and

A.       Will be harmonious with, and in accordance with, the general objectives, intent and purposes of
         this ordinance because the Zoning Ordinance anticipates this type of use in this District and as such
         promotes the orderly development of the Township. The proposed development provides adequate
         light, air, privacy, and convenience of access to property.
B.       Will be designed, constructed, operated, maintained, and managed so as to be harmonious and
         appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity because
         this use has existed on this site since 1980 and staff is unaware of any problems associated with this
         use.
C.       Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, such as highways, streets,
         police, and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal or that the persons or agencies
         responsible for the establishment of the proposed use shall be able to provide adequately any such
         service because this property is in the water and sewer service district, the fire department station is
         located within one mile of the site and other adequate services are in the Township to serve this use.
D.       Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses because the Planning
         Commission approved a site plan that imposed conditions to keep the site from being hazardous or
         disturbing.
E.       Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services
         because this use will have a minimal impact upon the cost of public service delivery.

WHEREAS, the Commission has studied this application and developed conditions adequate to insure this will
not be hazardous or disturbing to the surrounding uses; and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Pittsfield Township Planning Commission hereby approves
CUP #04-06 McDonald’s, subject to meeting the following conditions:

         1.   The applicant complies with the revised site plan CSPA 04-20.
         2.   No additional structures are permitted without Planning Commission approval.
         3.   All used cooking oil/grease shall be stored inside.
         4.   The roof shall not be illuminated.
Pittsfield Charter Township
Planning Commission
November 4, 2004
Page 34 of 34

(Attachment #7)

                                FINDINGS OF REQUIRED STANDARDS
                                  AND RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
                              C.U.P. #04-17 SPEEDWAY SUPER AMERICA
                                           NOVEMBER 4, 2004

WHEREAS, an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor storage and sales of propane in a
General Commercial (C-2) District was received from Tapper Propane Inc, and

WHEREAS, the Pittsfield Township Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 21,
2004; and

WHEREAS, the Commission received no comments regarding concerns from the public on this matter; and

WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the site plan date stamped received by the Township on September 15,
2004 for this use and per the requirements of Section 50.06 of the Township Zoning Ordinance it finds the
following:

A.      Will be harmonious with, and in accordance with, the general objectives, intent, and purposes of
        this ordinance because propane must be stored outdoors and it is typical that the sale of propane is
        located at gasoline stations, and the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan allows gasoline
        stations to be located in commercial districts with a conditional use permit.
B.      Will be designed, constructed, operated, maintained, and managed so as to be harmonious and
        appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity because
        the Planning Commission determined the proposed use is an incidental use, constituting a small portion
        of the day to day operations, and it will not substantially change the appearance of the commercial
        district.
C.      Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, such as highways, streets,
        police, and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal or that the persons or agencies
        responsible for the establishment of the proposed use shall be able to provide adequately any such
        service because this use will not substantially increase demand upon any public service or facility
        beyond that required for any other type of retail services permitted in the District and Public Safety
        considered these types of facilities safe.
D.      Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses because the proposed
        use will not create any more traffic at the site nor will the use create any pollution hazards.
E.      Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services.
        This use should have no additional impact upon the cost of public service delivery.

WHEREAS, the Commission has studied this application and developed conditions adequate to insure this will
not be hazardous or disturbing to the surrounding uses; and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Pittsfield Township Planning Commission hereby approves
CUP 04-17 Speedway Super America, subject to the following conditions:

        1.       The size and location of the cage used to store the propane tanks will not change from that
                 depicted on the site plan drawing submitted with the application.
        2.       Approval will not be granted unless the site in compliance with CUP 91-04 (except outdoor
                 storage of propane) by November 4, 2004.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:6
posted:5/13/2011
language:English
pages:34