Meeting MinutesLodi Township Planning Commission

May 28, 2013Lodi Township Hall

3755 Pleasant Lake RoadAnn Arbor, MI 48103

1) Call to Order Meeting was called to order by Chairman Veenstra at 7:30 p.m. – The Pledge of Allegiance was then recited.

2) Roll Call of the Commission Present: Diuble, Swenson, Steeb, Veenstra, Canham-Keeley, D’Agostino & ThelenOthers Present: Don Pennington, Planning Consultant, Barbara Giezentaner, Township Trustee and Elaine

Masters, Township Clerk

3) Open Public Hearing – Lodi Township Zoning Ordinance Revision It was moved by Thelen and seconded by Swenson to open the Public Hearing.Roll Call vote: Diuble – yes Canham-Keeley - yes

Swenson – yes D’Agostino - yesSteeb – yes Thelen - yesVeenstra – yes

The Public Hearing was opened at 7:32 p.m.

It was noted by Chairman Veenstra that, due to the small size of the audience present, he would keep his opening remarks brief. He advised those present that this meeting was to accept public comments regarding the pending revised Zoning Ordinance. He added that the Planning Commission had received several written comments and was waiting to receive comments from the Township attorney. These comments would be discussed by the Planning Commission and considered as possible revisions to the Zoning Ordinance. After this was done, the Zoning Ordinance would be passed on to the Township Board for possible additions or changes. It would then come back to the Planning Commission for further review and alterations. He pointed out there would be numerous opportunities for changes.

Chairman Veenstra advised that the original Zoning Ordinance was drafted in 1973 and, due to a number of Zoning and Planning Enabling Acts passed by the State of Michigan; it required the Township to make changes to our Ordinance. Also, the Township Master Plan, adopted in 2010, mentioned things we needed to consider in this revision. All of these items have been addressed in the new Zoning Ordinance.

In addition, the 1973 Zoning Ordinance had over twenty amendments added over the years and, therefore, the Township felt it was time to do an entire revision of the Ordinance.

In the revised Zoning Ordinance the committee kept the core and character of the Township. Other township ordinances were also looked at as another aid in any revisions.

Veenstra asked Planning Consultant Pennington to give a more detailed summary of the new Zoning Ordinance. Pennington stated that:

a) Although the original 1973 document needed to be changed due to new state regulations, etc., the core of the old Ordinance was kept intact which allowed the character, scale and integrity of Lodi to remain the same.

b) Zoning Districts did not change, nor did lot size requirements.c) In conjunction with the Master Plan, a Lodi Central District was added.d) The Definitions section was expanded for more clarification.e) After looking at current procedures, the new Ordinance brings them all together in each Article.f) Site Plan requirements are put in chart form for simplification to applicants.g) Administrative Review is simplified in many cases.h) The entire Zoning Ordinance is made easier to read and more comprehensive.i) The Sign Article has been brought up to date due to newer graphics, etc. on the market.

Pennington added that, although he feels this is a very fine document, any ordinance is never complete because of new legislation or unforeseen events needing to be addressed.

Elaine Masters stated she had started to read the Ordinance and had a few questions. In the Dimensional Standards (Article 30, page 30-8), she was confused about the wording in Private Driveways. After a brief discussion, it was concluded the sentence should read “A” private driveway.

She also questioned who regulated maintenance problems pertaining to shared driveways. Pennington and Veenstra both agreed this was a civil matter and not a township matter.

Masters also needed clarification on page 2-1 where it states “particular shall control general”. It was explained this probably meant the “particular” is more detailed and, therefore, overrules the “general”.

Another question Masters had pertained to the Adult Motel definition, where it states “rebuttable presumption”. Veenstra suggested this meant the motel owner could rebut the township’s claims against them if they felt they were justified.

Masters also suggested “wet t-shirt contest” should be included in the list on page 2-7, Nudity or State of Nudity.

Written comments received from Township Supervisor Godek included a question on how to address issues regarding an Accessory Caretaker’s Residence. The proposed Zoning Ordinance regulates this as a “special use”. She feels we need to address this issue and how to handle it. Masters and Thelen pointed out that several accessory residences currently exist in the Township, some with express Township approval.

A suggestion was made that the Definitions Article would be better placed at the back of the document rather than the prominent place at the beginning. This would place more emphasis on the regulatory portion of the Ordinance.

These issues and comments must all be taken up by the Commission and decisions made on how they are addressed in the new Zoning Ordinance.

It was then moved by Steeb and seconded by D’Agostino to close the Public Hearing.Roll Call vote: Diuble – yes D’Agostino - yes

Swenson – yes Thelen - yesSteeb – yes Canham-Keeley - yesVeenstra – yes

The Public Hearing was closed at 8:13 p.m.

4) Approval of April 23 rd minutes Thelen noted that a correction needed to be made on page #4, second line. The word should be “issues”, not issued. Also, he suggested the sentence “Motion to postpone was withdrawn.” should be added to the end of the 3 rd paragraph on page #4. Thelen then moved to accept the minutes as corrected, seconded by D’Agostino.

Passed 7-0

5) Approve Agenda It was moved by Steeb, seconded by D’Agostino to approve the Agenda. Passed 7-0

6) New Business a) Discussion resulting from Zoning Ordinance Public Hearing

Chairman Veenstra pointed out that the Commission still needed to receive Attorney O’Jack’s comments and also Supervisor Godek’s additional comments. Since we won’t know how extensive these will be, it was suggested we hold off until the June meeting. Right now the only items on the June agenda are the Toll Brothers Preliminary Site Plan review and possibly a Verizon Wireless request for an antenna change on a current tower.

Diuble brought up his continued concerns over the drainage situation between the Toll Brothers property and the Pheasant Hollow subdivision. A lengthy discussion ensued and Chairman Veenstra suggested he would speak with Marcus McNamara, the township engineer, and have him seriously look at the drainage situation. He also suggested the Commission continue to review this problem with Toll Brothers at the June meeting.

A question was asked as to whether a problem like this could be addressed in the new Zoning Ordinance. Pennington felt this was worth a discussion, but felt this might be better addressed in a stand-alone ordinance.

7) Commissioners’ Report a) Dr. Kumar would like to modify her plans for Three Arch Bay, reducing the number of home sites on the east side

and revising the landscaping to make the lots more saleable. Veenstra advised her that she could submit revised plans and, depending on what the revisions are, they would be either major or minor revisions and might require Planning Commission approval. He is waiting to see what she submits.

b) Verizon Wireless wants to replace the antennae on one of their current towers. No application has been submitted as yet.

c) Kim Golf Driving Range wants to build a house on this property. Veenstra advised this would fall under the PUD requirements and would entail major site plan approval and a public hearing. It’s possible they are rethinking this plan.

d) The MTA has a seminar titled “Hot Topics in Planning & Zoning” if anyone is interested.

8) Other Business Elaine Masters wanted to know where the Commission stands regarding the Cooch property. Steeb advised that Cooch is supposedly drawing up house plans, however, is having trouble locating a suitable septic field.

Masters also advised she is holding funds in escrow for minor site plan changes, but she has never received any bills to apply against those funds. Pennington said he would look into this.

Masters also reported she is looking for a Deputy Clerk to replace the one who is leaving and is hoping to find someone interested in taking her place when she retires next year.

9) Adjournment It was moved by Steeb, seconded by Thelen to adjourn the meeting at this time. Passed 7-0The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m.

The next regular Planning Commission meeting will take place on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 7:30 p.m.Respectfully Submitted,

Margaret Canham-KeeleySecretary