Ana səhifə

Presque Isle Township Planning Commission Regular Meeting held April 2nd, 2012 Call to Order

Yüklə 21.67 Kb.
ölçüsü21.67 Kb.

Presque Isle Township Planning Commission

Regular Meeting

held April 2nd, 2012
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Vice-chairman Attila Paltelky.
The pledge of allegiance was recited.
Roll Call: In attendance were Clif Taylor, Steve Lang, Bette Tadajewski, Howard Welsh, Attila Paltelky and William Schwartz. Absent was Charles Winters.
Audience: Also present were Linda Taylor, Patrick Pokorski, Erika Comerford, Cynthia Paavola, Mike Sinclair and Deborah Henley, Debbie Trelfa, Bev Lithgow, Phil & Mary LePage, Brent Koel, Randy Kamysiak, David & Bonnie Horsfield, and three people at large.
Public Hearing for Ordinance No 1 of 2012: The public hearing was opened at 6:32. S. Lange summarized the proposed changes regarding accessory structures. C. Taylor summarized the proposed changes regarding recreational vehicles. D. Horsfield requested clarification about where the front yard is on a waterfront lot. He also asked about whether or not RVs would be allowed on vacant lots. C. Taylor provided responses for each question by stating that the front is the water side and that RVs are not permitted on vacant lots. D. Horsfield also asked for clarification regarding accessory structures on contiguous lots. S. Lang provided an explanation. There was further discussion regarding accessory structures in Forest Recreation districts with no dwelling. With no other comments being presented, A. Paltelky closed the public hearing at 6:42 pm
Public Hearing for Range Light Park Special Use Permit: A. Paltelky opened the hearing at 6:43 pm with public comment. Audience members reviewed the site plans and elevation drawings. A. Paltelky gave a brief verbal description of the changes and proposed design. D. Horsfield questioned the width of the walkway. It was estimated to be appx. 3’ wide. Questions were presented as to whether or not that width was code for ADA as it was thought it should be wider. C. Taylor stated that this was an opportunity for the public to express any concerns which would then be passed back to Parks and Rec for review and consideration. Phil LePage felt that based on what was just proposed in the ordinance amendments for RV’s, the structure would not be in compliance. C. Taylor responded that it is not an RV, and an RV wouldn’t be allowed there because it’s not an inhabited lot. P. LePage was attempting to compare the structure to an RV; he felt that the members were not following what he was trying to say, and the members agreed that they did not understand what point he was trying to make. B. Horsfield stated to be careful what you wish for as a few years ago, she mentioned that a toilet and new picnic tables may be nice. The toilet has been placed and she is not pleased with the placement. She had been provided an explanation as to why the toilet was placed in the location that it was rather than having it across the road (to prevent children from having to continuously cross the road), although she did not agree with the reasoning. She stated that she was informed that a pavilion was going to be constructed, but she never asked for a pavilion and doesn’t want to look at a pavilion. She continued on to state that a platform would be nice, but she doesn’t want to see a roof on it. She added that people who come down to the beach bring umbrellas and take away all of their trash. She also stated that she doesn’t want any trees removed if the pavilion is going to be constructed regardless. C. Taylor asked how much of the proposed roof she would be able to see. D. Horsfield asked how high it was as he felt that it would be at least the height of the Front Range Light, which they see all of. B. Horsfield stated that L. Taylor came over and stood in her dining room to see the view, and she wanted to ask everyone to come over and do the same. She also made reference to her neighbor, Anna Wood, and the view that she would have. C. Taylor clarified by confirming that they are not opposed to the structure; they just don’t want to see it. B. Horsfield clarified that she would like to not have a roof on it. C. Taylor made reference to the tasteful design of the PIHA pavilion, and B. Horsfield responded saying that she had no doubt that it would be tastefully done; she just didn’t want to see any trees removed. C. Taylor stated that one of the proposals actually included planting more trees. B. Horsfield questioned the height of those trees. There was discussion as to where trees would need to be planted, how tall, and how far out towards the lake in order to adequately block the view. S. Lang asked B. Horsfield if she was asking to have the structure pulled back, and she responded that she was not. It was clarified that the roof was the biggest issue. E. Comerford stated that the roof and structure have been designed primarily with the disabled in mind. Being that they cannot get down to the beach or use umbrellas, the pavilion will at least allow them to be able to view the beach from a shady location. B. Horsfield suggested picnic tables with umbrellas on the platform rather than a roof, and questioned whether the needs of the handicapped were any more important then her needs. A. Paltelky thought the height of the structure to be around 26’-30’ high which is lower than the trees between it and the neighboring properties. There was additional discussion regarding views. P. Pokorski commented regarding the fact that if this were a dwelling/home, the neighbors would not be able to negotiate the height or views, and also commented on the earlier statement regarding children crossing the street for the restroom. H. Welsh commented on to the difference between a dwelling and the structure and the fact that it’s a park with a lot more foot traffic in which case the Township should be more sensitive to the needs of the neighbors. He asked B. Horsfield if she would prefer to see the structure moved back. She suggested possibly staking it out, however, D. Horsfield said it was fine where is was. The height seemed to be the largest concern, and suggestions were make to attempt to mark out the height of the roof. There was a discussion between P. Pokorski and members of the committee regarding public comment/hearings for the project. H. Welsh commented on the increased accessibility and change in dynamics of the park and the need to keep the effects on neighbors in mind; he felt a compromise could be reached that would make everyone happy. S. Lang commented as well regarding the needs of the neighbors but also the needs of the community, and felt efforts could be made to consider both. He also commented on the laws regarding ADA needs. M. LePage expressed concerns regarding late night partying/activities as they have had to call the police on a few occasions, and was concerned that if developments are made that are going to attract even more people, that there is going to be an even larger nuisance problem. She requested that some sort of sign be placed for closure or to deter such activities and give law enforcement the ability to address the matters. P. LePage commented on the buoys that have been installed and how they have helped deter watercraft from entering that area and have protected the beach and neighboring areas and swimmers. C. Taylor stated that the intentions were for the park to be a day-use park. B. Koel stated that he was at the recent Parks and Rec. meeting and they already discussed the park closure time which was to be around 10:00 pm or 11:00 pm. M. LePage made comments regarding the location of the toilet as she felt it was unappealing and disrespectful due to its proximity for the grave. A. Paltelky informed that the toilet was a matter to be discussed with Parks and Rec. as that was not the purpose of the hearing. He summarized the suggestions as follows; no trees removed, don’t want to see roof, would like area staked out and to include height, check code of walkway, would like signage regarding park closure. D. Horsfield requested to add two more items; he would like something on there that would keep some funds available for the planting of additional tree barriers (especially for Anna Wood), and he also questioned the dwarf iris. C. Taylor assured that the DEQ and Corps of Engineers have already been out to inspect the site and gave clearance. L. Taylor added that in the application it stated that they were investigating the possibility of a cross-walk. She asked if there had been any progress made in regards to that. C. Paavola reported that C. Peters had met with the Road Commission and they had agreed to them and approved installation of both signage and a painted cross-walk on the road. P. Pokorski stated that MDOT will be designating where the signs and cross-walk will go. Speed limits were also briefly discussed. L. Taylor also questioned whether the set back on page C-2 was from the ordinary high water mark or the water line. She suggested members to perhaps verbalize that condition in any motions. The public hearing was closed at 7:23 pm.

Comments from the Audience: M. LePage asked if there was a way that they could possibly change the location of the toilet (at the Range Light Park). When initially presented, it was supposed to be far over to the left which she felt would have been very appropriate. She also expressed her concern regarding its proximity to the grave as she felt it was extremely disrespectful. She felt there had to be a better or more discrete location and even offered to contribute funds towards relocating it. C. Taylor suggested writing a letter to the Parks and Rec. B. Horsfield asked if L. Morrison had gone and cleared trees for where the toilet was originally supposed to go. A. Palteky confirmed that the only trees that were removed were for the survey.
Agenda Approval: W. Schwartz made a motion to approve the agenda. C. Taylor seconded. All ayes; motion carried.
Approval of Minutes (March 5th, 2012): S. Lang made a motion to approve the minutes as printed. H. Welsh seconded. All ayes; B. Schwartz and A. Paltelky abstained. Motion carried.
Correspondence: none
Report of Liaison from Township Board of Trustees: B. Tadajewski had previously emailed a written report for review. She verbally summarized the report.
Report of Liaison from Zoning Board of Appeals: S. Lang had no report. They will be meeting tomorrow night. There are no hearings.

Report of Liaison from Parks and Recreation Committee: C. Paavola was present on behalf of the committee. N. Kinney had been previously submitted a report for review. S. Lang questioned the Museum Society contract. P. Pokorski stated it will be reviewed at the next Board meeting. S. Lang questioned whether a date or time period has been discussed regarding the archaeological survey. C. Paavola responded that there has not. P. Pokorski stated that the BLM and SHPO are supposed to be coming out at the end of the month. They are trying to nail down a date after the 20th.C. Paavola stated that the BLM had contacted D. Henley; they informed her that they will be here on the 24th of April. There was a discussion regarding a recreation survey of the residents. By-laws for the committee are also being re-reviewed.
Report of the Zoning Administrator: L. Taylor stated that she did not give a written report as she had been gone for the past couple of weeks. She gave an update on the unfinished home violation, and the change in procedures due to way the new magistrate is handling civil infractions. A hearing has been scheduled. She will be attending the hearing and taking a copy of the progress plan and inform that progress has been made. From here on out, they are not going to have as much leeway with the property owners. R. Kamysiak informed that there were a couple of small accessory structure permits issued in the past weeks. He added that it seems as though there is going to be a lot of growth in the Township this year. Not all of them have approached the Township yet, but he knows of some new construction projects personally. S. Lang stated that he’d seen the building inspectors report last week, and Presque Isle Township led the County in permits.
Ordinance No 1 of 2012: W. Schwartz made a motion to recommend approval of Ordinance No 1 of 2012 as written. C. Taylor seconded. All ayes; motion carried. It was confirmed that the County has a 30 day review period prior to it going to the Board for approval.
Range Light Park Special Use Permit/Site Plan: A. Paltelky felt the application should be sent back to the Parks and Recreation Committee with the comments that were received from the public so they could consider the suggestions. P. Pokorski stated that, according to their consultant, that action is not appropriate; they (the Planning Commission) are supposed to review the Special Use Permit and consider specific criteria. The Board can make the final review and determine whether or not to make certain changes. C. Taylor stated that they are not approving/disapproving the project; they are looking at the site plan for the Special Use Permit. He added that they cannot approve the site plan because it is deficient. S. Lang added that they can apply conditions to the site plan. A. Paltelky noted specifically pertaining to the width of the walkway and the set back. P. Pokorski stated that the design was drafted by engineers to specifically meet the necessary criteria. S. Lang made a motion to not approve the site plan as presented. C. Taylor seconded. He added that part of the reason as to why they cannot approve it is that they don’t have an operation plan. S. Lang added that rather than apply conditions, he’d rather not approve it and give the Parks and Rec a chance to make the changes before conditions have to be made. All ayes; motion carried.
Video Conferencing – House Bill #5335: W. Schwartz presented a copy of the Bill. He reported that it had been passed by the House 93 to 6.It is currently in committee at the Senate and is expected to have an excellent chance of passing. He presented an estimate of what it would cost to install video conferencing equipment at the hall, which was nearly $35,000. Following discussion, H. Welsh made a motion to forget the option of video conferencing at this time. C. Taylor seconded. All ayes; motion carried.
Adjournment: With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 7:57 pm. The next meeting will be May 7th.
Respectfully submitted; Erika M. Comerford, Presque Isle Township Administrative Assistant

Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur © 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət