CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF INDEPENDENCE 6483 WALDON CENTER DRIVE CLARKSTON, MICHIGAN

Transcription

1 TOWNSHIP OFFICES (248) FAX: (248) PATRICK J. KITTLE Supervisor POSTED DATE: May 6, 2017 TIME: 4:00 PM BARBARA A. PALLOTTA Clerk PAUL A. BROWN Treasurer TOWNSHIP TRUSTEES JOSE ALIAGA RACHEL J. LOUGHRIN RONALD A. RITCHIE ANDREA K. SCHROEDER DATE AND TIME: LOCATION: A. CALL TO ORDER CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF INDEPENDENCE 6483 WALDON CENTER DRIVE CLARKSTON, MICHIGAN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 6:30 p.m. Independence Township Hall 6483 Waldon Center Drive, Clarkston, MI B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES C. ROLL CALL: D. REVIEW OF AGENDA: Agenda additions or deletions require a majority vote of Commission Members present. E. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: F. PUBLIC HEARING: G. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. PC File # , Petitioner: Millstones Golden LLC, 7660 Pine Knob Road, Clarkston, MI 48348, Parcel # , East side of Pine Knob Road, south of Clarkston Road, R-1R Rural Residential, Requesting: Special Land Use approval for a dog kennel operation per Section 8.05 of the Zoning Ordinance. (TABLED FROM APRIL 13, 2017) 2. PC File # , Petitioner: Manhattan Management - Sid Moss, Northwestern Hwy, Suite 116, Farmington Hills, MI 48334, Parcel # , -007, & -028, East side of Sashabaw Road, south of Waldon Road, PUD Planned Unit Development, Requesting: Minor PUD Amendment in order to permit sales and storage of rental trucks and trailers. H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. Regular Meeting Minutes of April 13, Special Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2017 I. CONSULTANT S REPORTS: J. DISCUSSION: K. ADJOURNMENT: NOTICE: The above requests may be examined at the Building Department during regular business hours. Written comments may be sent to the attention of the Planning Commission; c/o Charter Township of Independence Building Department; 6483 Waldon Center Drive Clarkston, Michigan prior to the Meeting / Public Hearing. For further information call (248) NOTICE: Persons with disabilities needing accommodations for effective participation in this meeting should contact the Building Department at (248) at least two working days in advance of the meeting. An attempt shall be made to provide reasonable accommodations.

2

3 Millstones General Ledger 2017 Date Animal Name Date of Birth S / N? Arrival Date Departure Date Comments Total Males: Total Females: Total: Total Sterilized / Retired Overall Total 12/29/2016 Thor September 2016 Not Neutered 12/29/2016 Not Applicable Here for Assesment (Structure, Disposition, & Overall health) /2/2017 Thor September Not Neutered Not Applicable 1/2/2017 Returned to owners /7/2017 Vixxie 2013 Not Spayed 1/7/2017 1/11/2017 Here For Stud Service /7/2017 Chance November 2012 Not Neutered 1/7/2017 1/14/2017 Here To Be Used As Stud Not Applicable 1/7/2017 Pasedena May 2016 Not Spayed 1/7/2017 Sent off as loaner Not Applicable 1/7/2017 Scandal June 2016 Not Neutered 1/7/2017 Sent of as loaner Spay Scheduled Not Applicable 1/8/2017 Hatchet October 2013 Not Applicable Retired from breeding program. (Spayed 2/13/2017) /8/2017 Scandal June 2016 Not Neutered 1/8/2017 Not Applicable Returned from loan /13/2017 Chance November 2012 Not Neutered Not Applicable 1/13/2017 Returned to Co-Owner /13/2017 Pasedena May 2016 Not Spayed 1/13/2017 Not Applicable Returned from loan Not Spayed 1/14/2017 Demon October 2012 Not Applicable 1/14/2017 Returned to Co-Owner Spay Scheduled 1/14/2017 Temptation October /14/2017 Not Applicable Retired from breeding program. (Spayed 2/13/2017) /15/2017 Vixxie 2013 Not Spayed Not Applicable 1/15/2017 Returned to Owner Sent off (Social Coordination) 1/15/2017 Jake May 2014 Not Neutered Not Applicable 1/15/ /22/2017 Charger January 2015 Not Neutered 1/22/2017 Not Applicable Here for Final OFFA /22/2017 Riot September 2016 Not Spayed Not Applicable 1/22/2017 Sent to new Co-Owner /22/2017 Castle September 2016 Not Neutered Not Applicable 1/22/2017 Sent to new Co-Owner /22 Joplin September 2016 Not Spayed Not Applicable Not Applicable Turned 4 Months Old, added to count /23 Charger January 2015 Not Neutered Not Applicable 1/23/2017 Returned to Co-Owner /28/2017 Lexi August 2013 Not Spayed 1/28/2017 Not Applicable Here to Whelp. (1 Female Puppy, Singleton) /30/2017 Jake May 2014 Not Neutered 1/30/2017 Not Applicable Returned from Social Coordination. 4 [1] 7 [2] 11 4 [3] 15 2/4/2017 Zepplin July 2007 Spayed 2/4/2017 Not Applicable Returned from Owner. 10 Years Old. (Spayed) /21/2017 Chilli April 2014 Not Spayed 2/21/2017 Not Applicable Here to Whelp /23/2017 Chilli April 2014 Not Spayed 2/21/2017 2/23/2017 Whelped, Went back to Owner /5/2017 Lexi August 2013 Not Spayed 1/28/2017 3/5/2017 Returned to Co-Owner

4 Notes [1] Jake, Nick, Scandal, Ricky [2] Lexi, Hugs, Skully, Scuba, Joplin, Pasedena [3] Scout, Zara, Hatchet, Temp, Zeppy

5 Dog's Name Date of Birth: Parents: Championed: OFFA Status: AKC: Avichii 4/4/2014 Monroe x Sinister No Completed SR Fenway 5/6/2014 Brat x Chaos No Completed SR Rossi 6/14/2016 Whinny x Jake No Partially C SR Ryski 8/4/2013 Photo x Six No Completed SR Hero 10/31/2012 Summer x Leo Yes Completed SR Bach 3/2/2016 Treble x Jake No Partially C SR Stella 3/9/2016 Kona x Nick No Partially C SR Lush 9/28/2015 Whinny x Felony No Partially C SR Demon 10/31/2012 Porsche x Drummer No Completed SR Atlantis 3/9/2016 Bailey x Hero No Partially C SR Hippie 1/19/2015 Cadence x Nick Yes Partially C SR Josie 11/12/2015 Rayna x Jake No Partially C SR Sushi 7/7/2012 Knewby x Atlas Yes Completed SR Treble 11/11/2013 Melody x No Completed SR Cider 9/9/2015 Kahluha x Felony No Partially C SR Tide 9/20/2015 Sushi x Nick No Partially C SR Snorkel 9/20/2015 Sushi x Nick No Partially C SR Charger 1/19/2015 Cadence x Nick Yes Completed SR Diesel 7/10/2015 Naughty x Right No Partially C SR Buddy 4/13/2015 Rayna x Right No Partially C SR Castle 9/12/2016 Amelia x Nick No Partially C SR Riot 9/22/2016 Cadence x Nick No Partially C SR Twix 3/1/2016 Cadence x Nick No Partially C SR Skittles 3/1/2016 Cadence x Nick No Partially C SR Bentley 11/08/2014 Monroe x Nick No Completed SR

6 Charter Township of Independence Planning Commission December 8, 2016 Page 4 of 10 Supported by Commissioner Boersma. VOTE: Ayes: Boersma, Bushroe, Galley, Moraco, Ritchie, Tully Nays: None Absent: Savidant Motion passed. 2. PC File # , Petitioner: Millstones Golden LLC, 7660 Pine Knob Road, Clarkston, MI 48348, Parcel # , East side of Pine Knob Road, south of Clarkston Road, R-1R Rural Residential, Requesting: Special Land Use Approval for a dog kennel operation per Section 8.05 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Carlisle stated that th is is considered a Special Land Use in the R-1 R zoning district and the site is 3.03 acres located on the east side of Pine Knob Road just south of Clarkston Road. Mr. Carlisle read the ordinance definition of kennel and gave the history behind establishing that definition. There are special standards that are required of all Special Land Uses. The primary concern of the Planning Commission is a land use issue. He pointed out several special land use standards. He stated that a properly operated kennel could be operated in a manner that is not incompatible with the surrounding land use patterns. He stated that a kennel with frequent visitors and employees could generate a greater amount of traffic than a residential use of property. They would need more information from the applicant to understand frequency of visitors and number of employees. The Township has not received specific complaints regarding noise, odor and disposal of waste. This could be a function of the number of dogs. It is not clear on the plan if there are any external dog runs and they need more information. Animal Control has reported a large number of dogs on the property from time to time and there have been reported cases of parvo virus. They need to provide information that they are meeting the standard of protecting the public health, safety and welfare. They need more information about the number of dogs being proposed and the manner of operation especially since they normally require ten acres for a kennel and the applicant has 3 acres. Mr. Carlisle summarized other specific standards that apply to the functioning of a kennel and the property does not meet these standards. If the Commission were to grant a conditional approval, variances would need to be met. He summarized other conditions in the ordinance that need to be met. He stated that once an applicant has zoning approval from a local municipality, that is when they are required to received approval from Oakland County. This comes after they perform inspections of the property. He stated that they met with the applicant but they mainly talked about the process and how to move it from an ordinance violation to something that could be in compliance since the business is in operation now. He stated that there is not sufficient information about the operation of the kennel to give any kind of recommendation and mostly he is giving the applicant guidance as to what has to be provided. Ms. Dawn Wung, applicant, introduced herself to the Commission. They are not proposing doing anything different than what they have been doing for the past 12 years. They are a breeding facility and do not board dogs. At any given time, they have 9 adult dogs on the premises and they breed specifically Golden Retrievers which are certified through the American Kennel Club. She summarized her showing experience and the history of this experience. Lexi Wung stated that there is a large difference between a kennel and a hobby breeder, which is what they are. Ms. Wung stated that they do have an outdoor fenced-in run which is 72 feet by 24 feet. The garage that the dogs are kept in 80% of the time is 25 feet by 25 feet. Inside the garage there are custom made dog cages. The dogs are well cared for and waste removal is done through an outside company. Commissioner Moraco asked about the offspring and how do they rotate the stock. Ms. Wung stated that they participate in a co-owned program in which a dog goes to a family but they retain breed rights on the animal. They get two to three litters out of a female dog. The dogs live with another family, come back for breeding, go back to the family and come back to give birth and are with them from 2-4 weeks for nursing.

7 Charter Township of Independence Planning Commission December 8, 2016 Page 5 of 10 Commissioner Moraco asked what the average litter size was. Ms. Wung answered two to ten puppies. It depends on the animal's age and how many litters they have had. They do not breed a dog after age four. Commissioner Moraco asked how many co-owners she is dealing with at this time. Ms. Wung replied about thirty. Commissioner Moraco asked about the other nine dogs on site all of the time. Ms. Wung answered that two are spayed, two stud males, two breeding females, one female that is just shy of two years. Commissioner Moraco asked how many co-owned dogs are females. Ms. Wung answered 24. Dogs go into heat twice a year and she doesn't do back to back breeding and she does not breed a dog past four or five years of age. Commissioner Galley asked what was the maximum amount of dogs that would be on the property at any one time. Ms. Wung stated that she holds a reunion once a year and she could have dogs on site on this one day. Ms. Lexi Wung answered the maximum would be thirty and she has lived on the property her whole life and has never seen the Oakland County Animal Control on site. Commissioner Galley asked what the maximum number of dogs that could be on site at any given time. Ms. Wung answered fifty; this would be an abnormal case. Commissioner Tully asked if the puppies come back to her for sale. Ms. Wung replied that the puppies are born at her house and she retains custody of those puppies and find appropriate homes for those puppies. Commissioner Moraco opened the Public Hearing at 7:24 pm Commissioner Moraco stated that they have received letters and a petition that will be placed into the record. Some are in favor and some are opposed. Sally Gilles, 7704 Waverly Circle, Waterford, stated that she is a member of the Congregational Church and they have had no problems with the dogs. Most people do not even know they are back there and she has no objection to them being given what they are asking for. Susan Aulgur, 5400 White Lake Road, stated that she is representing the Church. The Church abuts the property in question and she reiterated that they have had no issues with the dogs. The applicant participates in events at the church with their dogs. Chrystal Mietz, 4283 Mead Road, Mayville, stated that she has been working for Millstone for two years now. She is there two to four hours a day socializing the animals and the property would be wonderful for them. Harry Moore, 8329 Caribou Trail, stated that he is a member of the Church and is a member of the maintenance volunteer team. He spends a lot of time outside mowing the grass and on the church property and he has never heard barking and has never seen dogs running loose. He stated that a

8 Charter Township ofindependence Planning Commission December 8, 2016 Page 6 of 10 previous owner used to run dirt bikes all over their property. The applicant is considered a fine neighbor. Kim Spanioloa, 2629 Hounds Chase, Troy, and she is representing a typical person that would come to Millstone to see about getting a puppy from them. She stated that Dawn greeted her and was very concerned about how she was going to raise the puppy and why she wanted one. The Golden Retrievers meet all of the standards and beyond including temperament. This breeder donates a large number of puppies to service organizations and the dogs are wonderful. Carrie Thomas, Jenny Drive, Warren, stated that she wrote a letter. She is a social coordinator for Millstone and every time she is there, the property is maintained and clean. It is never loud and she is happy with her choice in being part of the program. Warren Kennedy, 7200 Pine Knob Road, stated that when the neighbors moved it, he knew that they raised Golden Retrievers and he has never had a problem. He questioned when it goes from hobby to business. Edward Gerhardt, Marlboro Place, Novi, stated that he is a beneficiary representing the Stryker Trust which owns 14.5 acres of the surrounding acres and an additional 14 acres that joins at the east and south. He stated that they have known for a while that dog breeding is taking place on the site but after this came to light and some of the issues that have come out, he has reservations about approving it based on the guidelines that are in the ordinance. He stated that dogs doesn't sound like a hobby breeder to him. The property the Trust owned is vacant but his father-in-law plans to develop it. He suggested that he has a 3 acre parcel next door and he doesn't know about its value with this going on next door. The parcel in question is 3 acres and there is a designated wetland on a portion of that so really there is only 1.5 to 2 acres of actual land and this is the headquarters of the Clinton River. The number of dogs and parvo virus is a concern. He confirmed that he owns all of the property that borders the subject property except for the church property. Brian Boulton, 7490 Pine Knob Road, stated that he is questioning parvo virus and where the waste goes. He wants to know the real numbers of dogs that are there. Carrie Chapman, 7490 Pine Knob Road, stated that this topic is concerning to her and if there is a documented 77 dogs on the property by Animal Control, she did not hear the applicant speak to this. She is also concerned about parvo virus. She questioned if the wetlands are used for waste disposal because she would be concerned about that. She is also concerned about the property value. She is concerned about allowing a commercial business in a residential neighborhood. Darren Mietz, 4283 Mead Road, Mayville, stated that he has worked with Dawn Wung and her property for about two years with his wife. He described the contract service that is hired to take care of all of the animal waste and he stated that there is no waste being dumped in the wetland. The property is surrounded by wetland and this will limit what is able to be developed. This land is 3 acres and he has seen 77 dogs on the property which was the reunion. The dogs are well-mannered and there is no excess sound or smell. Jessie Hirr, 6788 Snow Apple Drive, stated that she has one of Dawn's dogs. She stated that her husband, who is a veterinarian, went to check out the facility. He was impressed by the cleanliness of the home and the kennels. As long as the waste is disposed of properly, there isn't an issue with parvo virus. Elizabeth Bialick, 6765 Berwick Drive, stated that regardless of taking care of the dogs, etc. they are there because the size of the land doesn't meet the requirements. Commissioner Moraco closed the Public Hearing at 7:47 pm Commissioner Moraco asked about the County determination of the number of dogs being 77; he asked how they got there, why they went there and what was the outcome of the visit.

9 Charter Township ofindependence Planning Commission December 8, 2016 Page 7 of 10 Mr. Oppmann stated that June 30, 2016 was when the Township received a call regarding the number of dogs and it was 77 dogs. Ms. Wung stated that the County did come out on June 30, This complaint came from an unhappy customer who raised concerns about the treatment of dogs which causes the County to come out and do a wellness check. The County comes out at least once a year to do a wellness check and they have never failed a wellness check. The County does not give them a certification but they do have certification from the American Kennel Club which does do a certification every year. When the County came out on June 30,2016, they counted every single puppy and adult dog and arrived at the 77 number. She does not a record of exactly what dogs were on the property on this day but this was an unusually high count. Mr. Carlisle read from the County's census on June 30,2016 and there were 77 dogs, 21 adults, 5 teenager dogs and 51 puppies. This was when this was brought to the Township's attention. Commissioner Moraco asked if this was the first time this was brought to the Township's attention. Mr. Carlisle replied that he cannot say for sure. When this was brought to Mr. Oppmann's attention was when there was conversation with the applicant. This is the first time that this situation was brought to their attention since they have been doing the zoning administration. Mr. Oppmann replied that there has been correspondence back and forth from May and June with the applicant. The Township sent the first letter after a complaint was received. Mr. Carlisle replied that these types of situations are very difficult to determine what the intent is so they are treated all the same. You could have individuals who have a large number of dogs for their own enjoyment so they stopped years ago making the distinction between the personal use, hobby and business. All of these have some of the same impact from a land use point of view, some are more than others. Commissioner Moraco asked how often the waste removal company comes. Ms. Wung answered every day and it is a local contractor. Commissioner Galley stated that regarding the commercial aspect, the property is next to the largest commercial operation in the Township. He stated that the commercial aspect does not bother him and he suggested tabling it to get more information. He stated that if the safety, size and scope can be certified in some manner, he would possible support it. Commissioner Bushroe stated that they are looking at land uses and approvals with possible variances for this property. They do not have enough information to guarantee that they are not going to be affecting neighboring property values or area. There should be some protection for the neighboring properties. They do not know the full layout of the facility and he suggested tabling it to get more information and work with the Township. Commissioner Tully stated that the current zoning and the future zoning is R-1 R. Mr. Carlisle confirmed this. The reasons include its proximity to Pine Knob and the high amount of wetlands on and close to the property. The Township has maintained the R-1 R classification. Commissioner Tully stated that she would assume the property owner that spoke was probably considering rezoning it. She asked if there is any duty to future land owners who might want to rezone. Mr. Carlisle replied that if they did, the Master Plan would reflect otherwise. His investigation showed a large pocket of wetland right beh ind the subject property that is an extension of the adjoining property owner's land who spoke earlier. Commissioner Tully stated that they received several letters saying that this property is a puppy mill and

10 Charter Township ofindependence Planning Commission December 8, 2016 Page 8 of 10 she does not understand the definition of a puppy mill. Mr. Carlisle replied that there is no definition of puppy mill in the ordinance. The reason he asked the questions in his review is because he did not know the answers and the process of answering those questions can ultimately be conditions on how the property is used should they decide to approve it. The Planning Commission has three options: approve, approve with conditions or deny. Approval with conditions means that they can establish reasonable conditions that are designed to meet the requirements of the ordinance and have a relationship with public health, safety and welfare. He would not recommend an approval and he does not think they have enough information for denial. He would recommend postponement. Once they have reasonable conditions, then they have somethings that is enforceable. Commissioner Boersma agreed that they do not have enough information. He asked how many dogs are personally owned. Ms. Wung stated that she owns 11 dogs that are always on the property and are not leaving. Commissioner Ritchie stated that they are lacking information and he suggested postponement. Commissioner Moraco stated that for him it is getting over the 10 acres minimum. Ms. Wung stated that they have 3.03 acres and they are leasing out the property from the church to make up to 10 acres. The church is not zoned correctly in order to do this. Commissioner Moraco replied that it is not relevant because the Township is not buffering them from the church. If they got the adjacent property owner to sell them 7 acres, that would work. He stated that they need more information and they need to establish limits and requirements to even consider it. He stated that anyone that wants to be notified when this comes back in front of the Township should call Mr. Oppmann at the Township and make that request. Commissioner Galley moved in PC File # , Petitioner: Millstones Golden LLC to postpone decision on the file. Supported by Commissioner Boersma. VOTE: Ayes: Boersma, Bushroe, Galley, Moraco, Ritchie, Tully Nays: None Absent: Savidanl Molion passed. G. OLD BUSINESS H. NEW BUSINESS 1. PC File # , Petitioner: Genisys Credit Union, 2100 Executive Hills Blvd., Auburn Hills, MI 48326, Parcel # , East side of Sashabaw Road, south of Waldon Road, OS-2 Office Service Two (Sashabaw Road Town Center Overlay District), Requesting: Final Site Plan approval for a new Genisys Credit Union. Petitioners introduced themselves to the Commission. He stated that they added furniture in the front patio area and they provided a rendering of the building. They fixed the size of the ground sign. He stated that there will be a fire wall on the south side which was a Commission request. Petitioner stated that they took the drawing that was submitted before and added additional detail to it. They added detention calculations, submitted information to the Road Commission and received input back from them. He stated that they are all in agreement with the radius of turn in the lane exiting and turning northbound. Mr. Carlisle approved the revisions. The two walls signs will need a variance. He does not have an issue with what they are proposing and everything is in conformance. Approval need to be contingent on the variances being granted; side yard setback and size of the wall signs.

11 TO: FROM: Independence Township Planning Commission Richard K. Carlisle, AICP DATE: November 30, 2016 RE: Millstone Golden, LLC Special Land Use I have received the subject special land use request and support materials for a dog kennel. The site is 3.03 acres and is located on the east side of Pine Knob Rd, south of Clarkston Rd. The current zoning of the site is R-1R Rural Residential. Kennels are a special land use in the R-1R District. Section 2.02 Definitions defines a kennel as follows: Kennel. Any lot or premises of any nature whatsoever, on which four dogs, four months old or more are kept, whether for the purpose of breeding or for any other purpose whatsoever, whether permanent or temporary. Kennels are subject to the general standards for all special land uses set forth in Section 7.03 H., as well as the specific standards for kennels set forth in Section General Standards The Planning Commission shall review the proposed special land use in accordance with the following general standards, as well as any standards which have been established that are specific to the use: 1. Taking into consideration the size, location and character of the proposed land use, viewed within the context of surrounding land uses and the Master Plan for such area, the proposed use shall not be incompatible nor inharmonious, as determined by the application of generally accepted planning standards and/or principles, with the surrounding uses and/or the orderly development of the surrounding neighborhood and/or vicinity in accordance with this Ordinance and the Master Plan. Richard K. Carlisle, President Douglas J. Lewan, Executive Vice President R. Donald Wortman, Principal John L. Enos, Principal David Scurto, Principal Benjamin R. Carlisle, Principal Sally M. Elmiger, Principal Laura K. Kreps, Associate

12 Millstone Golden, LLC Special Land Use November 30, 2016 Comments: The subject site is zoned R-1R and located in a portion of the Township which is very low density. Directly across from the site is Pine Knob, to the north is the First Congregational Church, and to the south is a single family residence on a large acreage parcel. Other residences in the immediate area are located a considerable distance, separated by wooded wetlands. Therefore, when properly operated, we would not consider a kennel to be incompatible with the land use patterns in this area. 2. The proposed use shall be of a nature that will make vehicular and pedestrian traffic no more hazardous than is normal for the district involved, taking into consideration vehicular turning movements in relation to routes of traffic flow, proximity and relationship to intersections, adequacy of sight distances, location and access of off-street parking and provisions for pedestrian traffic, with particular attention to minimizing child-vehicle interfacing. The proposed special land use shall not unreasonably impact upon surrounding property in terms of noise, dust, fumes, smoke, air, water, odor, light and/or vibration, and further, shall not unreasonably impact upon persons perceiving the operation in terms of aesthetics. Where such concerns can be remedied by way of design, construction and/or use, the proposed use shall be designed, constructed and used so as to eliminate the effects of the use which would otherwise substantiate denial thereof, taking into consideration the location, size, intensity, layout and periods of operation of such use. Comments: A kennel with frequent visitors as well as employees could generate a greater amount of traffic than a typical residential use of the property. The applicant s description of the operation needs to more fully address the frequency of visitors, number of employees, etc. Regarding other possible impacts, the Township has not received complaints, nor has the Zoning Administrator observed, the types of inordinate impacts one could expect from a kennel, primarily noise, odor and improper disposal of waste. 2

13 Millstone Golden, LLC Special Land Use November 30, 2016 However, these impacts can be a function of the number of dogs on the property at any given time. Reports from Oakland County Animal Control indicate that 77 dogs were observed. The information from the applicant is not sufficient to determine the number of dogs the property can accommodate. 3. The proposed use shall be such that the proposed location and height of buildings or structures and location, nature and height of walls, fences and landscaping will not interfere with or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or unreasonably affect their value. Comments: We understand that the dogs are kept in the garage and possibly the pole barn. It is not clear from the plan or explanation whether there are external dog runs. 4. The proposed use shall relate harmoniously with the physical, historic, and economic aspects of adjacent land uses as regards prevailing shopping habits, convenience of access by prospective patrons, continuity of development, and need for particular services and facilities in specific areas of the Township. Comments: Answer to standard #1 is relevant to this standard. 5. The proposed use is in general agreement with the Master Plan designation for the area where the use is to be built. Comments: Answer to this standard #1 is relevant to this standard. 6. The proposed use is so designed, located, planned and to be operated that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected. Comments: Township enforcement records indicate that there have been a number of dogs on the property. Oakland County Animal Control has reported cases of parvovirus. In general, we believe there is a direct relationship between meeting this standard, the number of dogs and the manner in which the kennel is operated. At this point, the applicant needs to be more specific regarding all of these factors. 7. The proposed use shall not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood in which it is to be located and will not be 3

14 Millstone Golden, LLC Special Land Use November 30, 2016 detrimental to existing and/or other permitted land uses in the zoning district. Comments: As indicated in our comments to standard #1, a properly operated kennel would not be a detriment to neighboring properties in this location. However, there is insufficient information to make that determination. 8. The proposed special land use shall not result in an impairment, pollution and/or destruction of the air, water, natural resources and/or public trust therein. Comments: The primary concern with kennels are noise and the disposal of waste. The Township has no reported complaints regarding noise. Information provided by the applicant regarding waste disposal is not clear. 9. The proposed special land use shall not unreasonably burden the capacity of public services and/or facilities. Comments: The primary burden on public services would be with enforcement. A properly operated kennel would not create an unreasonable burden on public services and/or facilities. Conclusion: There is insufficient information provided by the applicant to make a determination that the general standards are met. Specifically, the applicant should provide information regarding the total number of dogs that will be kept on the property, the manner in which they will be kept, the location and size of outdoor runs and the manner of waste disposal. The Specific Standards A. Area and Setbacks. 1. A minimum lot area of not less than ten (10) acres, and a minimum lot width of not less than five hundred (500) feet, shall be required. 2. All buildings, pens and runways for housing or keeping of such animals shall not be less than one hundred and fifty (150) feet from any adjacent property line. 4

15 Millstone Golden, LLC Special Land Use November 30, 2016 Comments: The property is 3.03 acres with a lot width of 200. Plot plan dimensions indicated that neither the house nor the pole barn meet the 150 setback. Therefore, several variances will be required. B. Screening and Fencing. 1. Pens and runways shall be screened from view from the road, either by the building or a greenbelt of plantings in accordance with Section All yard space used for pen areas shall be fenced with woven wire or other approved fence material, and said fence shall not be less than five (5) feet in height. Such fence shall be maintained in good condition. Comments: There is insufficient information provided to determine if this requirement is met. C. Operations and Maintenance. 1. An operation and maintenance plan shall be submitted that specifically addresses how noise will be attenuated and waste handled. Comments: There is insufficient information provided to determine if this requirement is met. D. Permit Requirements. 1. Any permit requirement of County and State agencies shall be met. Comments: The Michigan Dog Law of 1919, PA 339 of 1919, as amended, authorizes the County to issue commercial kennel licenses. However, the license is issued after receipt of zoning approval and inspection by Oakland County Animal Shelter and Pet Adoption Center. Therefore, any action of approval by the Township must be conditional on receipt of a kennel license by Oakland County. Recommendation: There is insufficient information to determine if Ordinance standards are met. We recommend this item be tabled to provide sufficient time for the applicant to respond to our comments. Please let me know if there are any questions. 5

16 Millstone Golden, LLC Special Land Use November 30, 2016 #

17

18

19

20

21

22 TO: FROM: Independence Township Planning Commission Richard K. Carlisle, AICP DATE: May 4, 2017 RE: Water Tower Self Storage PUD Amendment Water Tower Self Storage is requesting approval for an amendment to their PUD. The applicant is requesting outdoor storage of U-haul rental trailers and trucks. In 2013, the applicant was granted approval for outdoor storage of recreational vehicles for a period of three (3) years. At the time, they discussed with me their desire to add truck and trailer rental. However, the request was not part of their application for outdoor storage and, therefore, was not considered. In 2016, the applicant was granted a three(3) year extension for the outdoor storage of RV s. The applicant has now submitted for an amendment to the PUD to allow for truck and trailer storage and rental. In the first instance, the Commission must decide whether this is a major or minor amendment. I view this as a minor amendment for the following reasons: 1) While truck and trailer rental and storage is a new use, it is not dissimilar to the approved uses of the site. Both the rental of self storage units and space for outdoor storage already exists on the site. 2) Adding truck and trailer rental and storage will not change the character or concept of the development. The proposed use can be accommodated completely on site with no external impact. 3) Truck and trailer rental and storage is frequently considered as an accessory or ancillary use to self-storage. If the Commission agrees, it may proceed in reviewing the site plan as a minor amendment. Regarding the site plan, the applicant is illustrating the delineation of several areas on the site plan where truck and/or trailer storage is proposed: 1) As a general comment, all parking will be continued within the fenced, screened property boundaries. Therefore, no additional measures would be required to Richard K. Carlisle, President Douglas J. Lewan, Executive Vice President John L. Enos, Principal David Scurto, Principal Benjamin R. Carlisle, Principal Sally M. Elmiger, Principal Craig Strong, Principal R. Donald Wortman, Principal Laura K. Kreps, Associate Paul Montagno, Associate

23 Water Tower Self Storage PUD Amendment May 4, 2017 mitigate the external impacts of additional parking and storage of trucks and trailers. 2) The current layout of the self-storage facility, along with the generous maneuvering lanes was a material consideration with the original and amended approvals of the PUD. The current plan seems to add the additional truck and trailer parking in a haphazard manner. The following needs to be addressed. Recommendation a) There are a number of areas where rental trucks and trailers are shown to be parked at the ends of buildings. This is not an acceptable approach. b) There are other areas where truck and trailer storage is shown in areas already designated for outdoor RV storage. So, it is unclear how both uses will be accommodated in the same space. Further, the approval of all outdoor storage is due to expire in two years. c) The areas currently used for outdoor storage are designated for future buildings. How will all of what is being proposed be accommodated if those buildings are constructed? d) Trailer storage is shown in the southeast corner within a maneuvering lane. Again, there were reasons why the current layout was approved with ample maneuvering lane. In this particular area, we would not object if addition were paved to accommodate the parking of the trailers. We have no objection to the use of the premises for truck and trailer rental. However, we believe there are conflicting priorities for use of the same space and it is reasonable to request the applicant to clarify their plans prior to any approval of the amendment. To be specific, there are three areas that have already been approved for outdoor storage. Replacing outdoor RV storage with rental truck and trailer storage within the area already designated for outdoor storage results in no significant change to the site. Some reasonable expansion of the outdoor storage area might be accommodated if it does not affect the functioning of the site. As previously mentioned, though, the term of this use must be discussed since all outdoor storage is scheduled to be discontinued in two(2) years. We do not recommend any parking within areas already designated on both this and previous plans as maneuvering lanes. Some of the concerns about the size of the maneuvering lanes were originally raised by the Fire Department. Finally, the applicant needs to indicate their intentions with the future buildings. The Commission was previously told by the applicant that the buildings would be completed when there was a market for additional self-storage. This was one of the key considerations to allow the outdoor storage to be approved; that is, allow the market demand to catch up with what had been proposed and approved. In that sense, the 2

24 Water Tower Self Storage PUD Amendment May 4, 2017 outdoor storage was always viewed as temporary. It has been close to ten years since Water Tower was originally approved and the project is not yet complete. Will the project ever be completed? If so, then it is unlikely that outdoor storage and rental truck and trailer storage can be accommodated. If not, then perhaps the outdoor storage should become a permanent use of the portions of the site so designated. Please let me know if you there are any questions. Yours Truly, 3

25 Charter Township of Independence Planning Commission April 13, 2017 Page 1 of 3 REGULAR MEETING CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF INDEPENDENCE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES THURSDAY, April 13, 2017 A. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savidant called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL: Present: Boersma, Bushroe, Galley, Moraco, Ritchie, Savidant, Tully Absent: There was a quorum. Also in Attendance: Brian Oppmann, Planning and Zoning Administrator D. REVIEW OF AGENDA: Commissioner Bushroe moved to approve the agenda as presented. Supported by Commissioner Moraco. VOTE: Ayes: Boersma, Bushroe, Galley, Moraco, Ritchie, Savidant,Tully Nays: None Absent: None Motion passed. E. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None F. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. PC File # , Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments Article 2 Definitions, Section 4.23(B) in order to permit Commercial Indoor Recreation in the ML Limited Industrial Zoning District and GI General Industrial Zoning District. Mr. Oppmann commented on the text amendments. He stated that this was an item that was overlooked when the ordinance was redone several years ago. He stated that this amendment adds the definition for Indoor Recreation and also allows Indoor Recreation as a permitted use in the Limited Industrial Zoning District. The General Industrial allows everything that is permitted in Limited Industrial so Indoor Recreation would be allowed in both districts. Chairperson Savidant stated that it is a trendy use and he does see a need for this and agrees with it. He suggested eliminating the word indoor where it is used repeatedly. He also suggested eliminating the such as. ending to number 8 because there are examples in the actual definition that can be referred to. He suggested having parking standards specific to outdoor recreation uses but only if Mr. Oppmann thinks that it is warranted. Commissioner Tully asked if this use is a permitted use anywhere else in the Township. Mr. Oppmann answered yes, in C-2, C-3 and C-4. Commissioner Moraco stated that in Section 2.02, it outlines all of the uses and he asked if number 8 should refer back to Section 2.02 Definitions so that Indoor Recreation is explained. They appear in different

26 Charter Township of Independence Planning Commission April 13, 2017 Page 2 of 3 sections of the ordinance book. Commissioners discussed adding language such as as defined in Section Mr. Oppmann stated that it will be hyperlinked as many of the definitions are in the ordinance. Commissioner Galley agreed with the amendment and agrees with comments made so far. Chairperson Savidant agreed with adding the reference for residents who still use paper copies. Commissioner Boersma agreed with the amendment. Chairperson Savidant opened the Public Hearing at 6:39 pm. No Public Comment was heard Chairperson Savidant closed the Public Hearing at 6:40 pm. Commissioner Moraco moved in PC File # to recommend that the Township accept the text amendments as written with comments from the Planning Commission taken into consideration. Supported by Commissioner Bushroe. VOTE: Ayes: Boersma,Bushroe,Galley,Moraco,Ritchie,Savidant,Tully Nays: None Absent: None Motion passed. G. REGULAR BUSINESS: 1. PC File # , Petitioner: Milestones Golden LLC, 7660 Pine Knob Road, Clarkston,MI 48348, Parcel # , East side of Pine Knob Road, south of Clarkston Road,R-1R Rural Residential, Requesting: Special Land Use approval for a dog kennel Operation per Section 8.05 of the Zoning Ordinance. (POSTPONED FROM DECEMBER 8, 2016). Mr. Oppmann stated that this is a kennel application that was the result of enforcement action by the Township. The applicant did submit all of their materials and it was a lengthy Public Hearing that was held in December The item was postponed pending responses to some questions. He stated that since that time, the Township has tried to contact the applicant via , phone and letters and they have not received any response from the applicant. This is an enforcement matter and the Township would like to move forward. He stated that the Township would like this item tabled to a date certain so that way they can pursue enforcement action if the applicant continues to not be responsive. Chairperson Savidant asked Mr. Oppmann what is a fair amount of time. Mr. Oppmann replied that generally 21 days is the deadline before the next meeting. He can allow a little more leeway since they have already had the Public Hearing. He suggested tabling it to the May 2017 meeting. Chairperson Savidant concurred and he asked if there was any public comment on this matter. Ms. Sandra Gerhardt asked what the enforcement action would be. Mr. Oppmann replied that they are required to have a Special Land Use to have a kennel. There are other deficiencies that would have to be addressed by the Board of Appeals. The applicant would have to be approved by the Planning Commission in order to operate a kennel and this is what they are trying to rectify by going through the process.

27 Charter Township of Independence Planning Commission April 13, 2017 Page 3 of 3 Chairperson Savidant summarized why they were tabling to a date certain. Ms. Gerhardt asked if they would be denied next month. Mr. Oppmann replied that this is up to the Planning Commission. Chairperson Savidant stated that it is up to the applicant to provide the information that the Commission asked for. Mr. Edward Gerhardt stated that he is an interested party in the trust which owns the property adjacent to the subject property. He stated that this applicant has been running a kennel out of the house since they bought the property. This is not something new and they just found out that they are in violation. Commissioner Moraco moved in PC File # , Petitioner: Millstone Golden LLC, that the matter be tabled until the next scheduled meeting in May Supported by Commissioner Galley. VOTE: Ayes: Boersma,Bushroe,Galley,Moraco,Ritchie,Savidant,Tully Nays: None Absent: None Motion passed. H. Approval of Minutes 1. Regular Meeting Minutes of February 9, 2017 Motion by Commissioner Bushroe, supported by Commissioner Boersma, to approve the Regular Meeting minutes of February 9, 2017 as amended, Page 2, last paragraph, change Chairperson Moraco to Commissioner Moraco. VOTE: Ayes: Boersma,Bushroe,Galley,Moraco,Ritchie,Savidant,Tully Nays: None Absent: None Motion passed. I. CONSULTANTS REPORTS: J. DISCUSSION: K. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Ritchie moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:50 p.m. Seconded by Commissioner Moraco. VOTE: Ayes: Boersma, Bushroe, Galley, Moraco, Ritchie, Savidant, Tully Nays: None Absent: None Motion passed. Prepared by Erin A. Mattice.

28 Charter Township of Independence Planning Commission-Special Meeting April 27, 2017 Page 1 of 11 SPECIAL MEETING CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF INDEPENDENCE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES THURSDAY, April 27, 2017 A. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savidant called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL: Present: Boersma, Bushroe, Galley, Moraco, Ritchie, Savidant, Tully Absent: There was a quorum. Also in Attendance: Brian Oppmann, Planning and Zoning Administrator Richard Carlisle, Carlisle, Wortman Associates Steve Joppich, Township Attorney D. REVIEW OF AGENDA: Commissioner Ritchie moved to approve the agenda as presented. Supported by Commissioner Moraco. VOTE: Ayes: Boersma, Bushroe, Galley, Moraco, Ritchie, Savidant,Tully Nays: None Absent: None Motion passed. E. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None F. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. PC File # , Petitioner: Deer Lake Knolls Subdivision, 7371 Oak Forest, Clarkston, MI 48346, Parcel # , West side of Deerhill, south of Deer Park Trail, R-1A Single Family Residential, Requesting: Special Land Use from Section Lake Access Regulations to permit overnight mooring of up to 10 boats on private property. Mr. Carlisle provided a summary of the request. Deer Lake Knolls Subdivision has submitted a Special Land Use application to provide overnight dock space for up to ten boats. According to Section Lake Access Regulations, lake access is regulated as a Special Land Use subject to both the general standards that are set forth in Section 7.03(g) as well as specific standards that are set forth in Section 11.08(c) and (d). Mr. Carlisle read the definition of private access that is in the zoning ordinance. As applied for and noted in Mr. Carlisle s report, the Deer Lake Knolls Association owns 5.02 acre lot. The lot has 535 feet of lineal frontage, along the shoreline of Deer Lake. The nature of existing and proposed access to the lake via the outlot parcel has been the subject of long enforcement action by the Township along with litigation between the Township and the Deer Lake Knolls. This litigation is not the subject of tonight s matter. The action before the Commission is confined specifically to the current application for the Special Land Use requesting overnight docking for up to ten watercraft. The means of dockage is through three aluminum seasonal docks of similar size and design each designed to accommodate two watercraft and then a fourth larger dock with a boat slip which is indicated on their site plan. This larger dock would accommodate up to four watercraft. In addition to the seasonal docks, the site plan illustrates a second temporary wood boardwalk that would be up to four feet in width along the shoreline to accommodate access to the boat

29 Charter Township of Independence Planning Commission-Special Meeting April 27, 2017 Page 2 of 11 slips. Commissioners should note the configuration of the shoreline in the plan submitted which consists of a point that protrudes into the lake, expansive shoreline beyond that point and a cove. The basis for the request is not entirely clear. The applicant indicates that historically up to twenty-seven spaces were made available for overnight mooring and docking. In 2016, the Township issued a validation certificate for nonconforming use limiting overnight storage to up to four watercraft. He included the language regarding a validation certificate in his review letter. Section speaks to the circumstances under which the building official will issues a non-conforming use validation certificate. This certificate was issued by Mr. Belcher for two slips, one in the cove and one in the shoreline which included up to four boats. The presentation of any Special Land Use is subject to the General Standards that are found in Article 7 as well as specific standards associated with them. The Commission must make findings that all of these standards have been addressed. Sean McNally, attorney for Deer Lake Knolls Homeowner s Association, stated that the Township has issued a non-conforming validation certificate that acknowledges that they have vested legal rights for four watercraft for overnight docking. The question is, will the Commission grant a permit that would allow additional use past that. The request is for ten watercraft for overnight docking. The Township s recommendation is six. They agree that additional watercraft are appropriate but the question is, what number is appropriate when you apply the ordinance criteria. They are the only user that has been granted a non-conforming validation certificate and they are also the only applicant to submit a request for Special Land Use approval under this section of the lake access regulations. He provided history of the use of the property and the association and he stated that the historical use documentation was provided to the Commissioners in their packet. The historical use is an important context because it shows them the ebb and flow of the usage by the ownership over the years which supports the request for ten boats. This year the demand has gone past the four boats that the Township granted. There are new and younger families moving into the neighborhood and the need is increasing. He stated that key factors in Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance and under Section 11.08(c)(4) and (c)(5). They are asking that there be fairness and reasonableness in applying the zoning ordinance to what their usage is and what they are asking in this application. Through all of the materials submitted, there isn t one instance that the Deer Lake Knolls has been cited by the Oakland County Sheriff s for safety violation or that there has been any safety issue. They have been absolute stewards as owners on the lake. Deer Lake Property Association recognized them as members for years and he referenced Exhibit A-8, the Deer Lake Property Association by-laws which required membership to only be afforded to riparian owners with legal access. They were treated as fellow riparians on the lake but that has changed. He summarized the key factors that must be adhered to. He stated that they will not create a nuisance and he summarized the historical background. Regardless if they grant additional watercraft or not, it will not make difference on the burden or the capacity of the lake. When you look at the site plan, they should look at the aesthetic issue and regardless of what is decided tonight, there will be docking and watercraft on the outer point and inner cove. No one has presented any substantiated information on property values. The site plans shows nothing remarkable about docking and watercraft on the lake. There is nothing in the ordinance that allows the Township to dictate where they can place their docks. The questions becomes if they are going to have two or four watercraft on the outside point and since 2007, the configuration with the four boat layout has been the status quo of the dockage. In addition, there has been a recommendation in the Township report that more boats should be put in the inner cove. Regardless of where the boats are put, there will be adjacent property owners that can see them. The question becomes if it is going to be across the lake or down further past the cove. It is not fair that the Commission should consider this some kind of nuisance or affecting property values because regardless of where the docks go, people will be able to see them. He referred to a letter by Dr. Fries that was present in the Commissioner s packets. He fully supports the presence of the docks on the outer point and they do not pose any risk to marine traffic or other users on the lake and it is a prudent location for these docks to be located. He urged the Commission to look at what was substantiated when they look at all of the information. Mr. McNally referred to a letter that was presented by the Deer Lake Property Owner s Association and the fact that the support was substantially lacking. The Deer Lake Property Owner s Association letter was only received two days ago and he pointed out that the Deer Lake Knolls Association is not legally obligated to obtain a MDEQ permit. The assertion in the letter is that this permit is required. The Deer Lake Knolls Association is not required to obtain a MDEQ permit in relation to this requested use. There are no permanent docks and these are property owners that are using the removable docks and he will provide