001Okay. Like to call to order tonight's Oxford Township Planning Commission regular meeting, Thursday, July 24th, 2025. We could begin the meeting with standing and paying respects to the flag. >> To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you very much. Uh, moving on to number three. Noting of the role. Noted. There is a quorum. Mr. Austin is absent. >> All right. Uh, number four, approval of tonight's agenda. >> Motion to approve tonight's agenda. >> A second. >> We have a motion. We have a second. Any discussion? Any? Seeing none, all in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? That carries. Number five, conflict of interest, exparte contact. Does anybody have anything to declare or
002discuss tonight? Seeing none, uh, moving on to number six, approval of the minutes, planning commission regular meeting June 26, 2025. >> Mr. Chair, you all had a a copy of a new copy of minutes at your seats, >> and that's the corrected one. >> That's the corrected one. >> Thank you. >> All right. Motion to approve minutes. Planning Commission regular meeting June 26, 2025. >> Second. >> We have a motion. We have a second. Any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none, all in favor? >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Seven. Public comment on items not scheduled for public hearing or on this agenda. Seeing nobody in the audience, we will move on. Number eight, commissioner's comments. Does anybody have anything for this evening? Everybody's quiet tonight. Number nine, public hearing. Purpose of the public hearing is
003to receive public comments regarding a the 2025 Charter Township Master Plan draft. We will start with that one. Good evening, Matteo Pasqua Carl Warman Associates Township. So, uh, for your first public hearing this evening, uh, what you have back in front of you is your 2025, uh, draft master plan. Uh if you recall uh back in April, the planning commission recommended the draft to the township board. The township board uh then had some comments on the draft which we were able to kind of turn around quickly and get back in front of the board at their next meeting. And at that meeting at their June meeting, no, my apologies, their May meeting is when they approved for the draft to be distributed uh to the neighboring communities on the county, which is a statutory requirement.
004So, that requires a 63-day review period. That time has come and gone. Uh, and we have received comments back from Oakland County, which were included in your packet this evening. Uh, but we did not receive any comments from the neighboring communities. Um, the Oakland County Review did point out two technical errors that will be easy fixes before it makes its way to the board next month. U, but other than that, there were some just general recommendations that they made as it relates to adding some information about transportation and environment. um as well as some reference to some economic development opportunities that might be available in the township. Uh but other than that, uh while the review was lengthy and worded in a way in which maybe some folks don't take as positive, they did have
005a very positive comment about the master plan draft. Um they actually hold a hearing uh where they publicly discussed their review. I attended that meeting um and at the end of it uh they were they were very impressed with the plan and again they have some they have some comments um but overall we're supportive of the plan. So at this juncture the planning commission can review these comments. You can take them. You can leave them. Uh you can address any other concerns that you may have. You can take any other comments from public uh should they come this evening. uh but that the action this evening would be to vote to either uh recommend approval to the board uh conditional approval to the board or direct staff to continue working on the document. So with
006that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Okay, start down here with any questions. >> No, you should uh open and close the public first. >> I didn't know if we formally had to do that even though >> discussion Do we? Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah, sir. >> Then come to discussion after. >> Okay. So, I will entertain a motion to open the public hearing. >> Motion to open the public hearing. >> Second. >> I have a motion. I have a second. Any discussion? All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Public hearing is open at 18:36. Seeing nobody from the public, I we will take a motion to close public hearing. >> I'll second. >> Motion to close the public hearing. >> Still second. >> Yep. >> We have a motion. We have a second
007to close the public hearing. Any discussion? >> Seeing none. Uh all in favor? >> Any opposed? Motion carries and the public hearing is also closed at 18:36. So we will move on to comments from so we can start with any questions uh comments comments I have master plan was well done so kudos kudos to everyone who had who had direct input yes >> so it's it's one of the better ones I've seen back But we put a lot of credit back on the community. I mean, I I I was going to look it up today, but I we're pretty close to the 2-year anniversary. Like, there was a lot of heavy thought left put into this one. So, same thing for the commission. >> M. Did you have any questions or comments? >> Okay, we'll
008move down this end. >> I don't want to jump in front. >> Go ahead. >> Tell you page 608 of the comments from the uh chair. I just I stumbled through that some of the recommendations a little bit and I was just wanting asking um item two recommendation changes to future land use section as follows. Item B um consider adding a mixed use in quotes. Um can you walk me through that a little bit and help me understand that better? Um what's going on? >> So page 608. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Um yeah. Yes. So, to their credit, the town or uh the county did a very thorough like sideby-side review of your current master plan and your proposed >> and one of the things that I identified in that your current future land use
009um description for uh it was my apologies that escapes me, but you had kind of a flexible industrial designation that also kind of allowed for some mixed use ideas. Um, we've I have yet to see kind of industrial mixed use in a context that works and in our effort to consolidate your future land use designations from I think like 21 down to 16 or 17. We took that element out of it because it would kind of really require its own it would require another future land use designation to say this is industrial but you could also do mixed use on it but this is just straight industrial. So it would require keeping two designations. So early on in the process and quite quite possibly before you were on the commission, there was discussion about diet
010uh reducing the amount of future land use designations that we had. It's okay. I'm I'll I'm just still not 100% on that, but that's okay. I don't want to hold things up for that. Um I can work it out later, but I thought all the comments that they made and you know the work that was done um it looked like a thorough review and uh it was not inconsistent with neighboring communities. So >> a few times >> that was good news, right? >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> All right. So I have a question. So I guess on that one further multifamily in the light industrial is what they're suggesting there. >> I mean mixed use can means a lot of different things and a lot of different uses. I think the
011intent there is that there's some sort of like larger site that may be able to accommodate both uses on the same site or even potentially as part of the same building. It seems as though there's a lot of rhetoric one way or the other about housing. just can we get housing wherever you could put it? Um I'm I'm not saying that that's open count's motive for this. >> Um but I the way that I read their comments and kind of alluded to like you're being more restrictive moving forward about potential housing options than you were. And I get where they're coming from. I also I haven't been planning 30 years, but in the research I've done, industrial mixed use is kind of a different bird that I don't know if people have been able to
012wrap their arms around yet. And you guys had 21 future land use designations, which is kind of a lot. I mean, a community can have how many, however many they please, but that was kind of the ones that hit the chopping block when we consolidated some of the industrial uses. >> Okay. The other question I have is around um acknowledgements. So, like acknowledging that Oakland County voters approved a countywide transit mill. Um, there was another one in here, >> the watersheds. >> Yeah. >> Um, I guess my concern around that is is adding that to the master plan really uh ideal, right? Is that is that something that we need in the master plan as a guide going forward about how we make decisions about reszoning, etc. right? Like what does the I guess value
013add to putting acknowledgements into the master plan? >> I from what I can take from the county's perspective is that it can't hurt from the perspective of you know I maybe doing a little bit more specific drill downs about like you know you have a lot of language in your master plan about the environment right and the preservation wetlands and things of that nature. So maybe the con county's kind of angle on that is just to add a little bit more context to that of these specific resources, right, that you have access to and are aiming to protect. Transportation might be the same thing. It can't hurt to to make comment of the fact that you are taxed by a regional transit authority. And so if anything, it potentially is a motivation for the township
014to ask for more services because of the collection of those taxes. Again, those didn't those were not like verbatim explained to me as to why those were there. They may very well I'm not going to call them boilerplate. I mean the the gentleman at the county who does this, you know what I mean? Like he didn't just copy paste this from one to the other. Um I would say that from our perspective again there's two technical items that need to be corrected. Those those will be corrected. There was a future land use uh designation error and M59 got mentioned somewhere in the plan. So those will get those will get fixed easy. Um, the rest of their recommendations after reading them, I don't think it I don't think it hurts to add them. I don't
015think it hurts to not add them. >> So, is it would it be considered likeformational for the public? >> Yes. >> When they're looking through the master plan. >> Yeah. >> I don't think I don't think adding this language sways the power and the message of your draft one way or the other. >> Okay. I guess my last question is do we have to vote tonight on wholesale all the changes that are being recommended be added and if not and we do conditional do we have to go through all the conditional requirements then tonight to get to move forward with this >> again 100% take or leave there's no harm done either way um and because these changes would not be of a substantial nature it could be a like you could motion to conditionally
016approve the draft master plan to incorporate Oakland County's recommendations and sent to the board next month. Like it wouldn't need none nothing in here would need to come back to you again and be reheard and so on and so forth. Same respect. You can say, "Hey, Oakland County, we really appreciate it." You know, Matteo, clean up the two technical errors and ship it. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Does that answer your question? And you can alart it, too. >> Yeah. But I I guess the alle cart would we would need to then conditionally approve with the changes that we're recommending at this point today, right? Yes. Okay. Very good. That's all the questions I had. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Can you go over just the the references to the Addison Township border and the concern
017around that? I >> the future land use. >> Yeah. So, the future land use adjacent to Addison um currently I believe has the future land use designation at the 10 acre sites. Mhm. >> And the future land use map that we worked on a year and a half ago or so, those were actually they were the density was decreased to the 20 acre sites. And if I if I recall correctly, you know, we were working on right, we were threading the needle between development pressure and preservation. And those sites are relatively close to I mean from they're relatively close to the railroad sub area that you know we took two three months working on the type of density that's going to go on that site. And so if I recall the future land use designation
018of increasing or or lowering the density of those sites was meant as somewhat of a buffer towards the development that would be coming down the road. And again trying to kind of clearly establish the boundaries to which the township at this time is comfortable having dense development. And I get what they're saying. Um there may be some challenges if someone wanted up those 10acre sites to come in and reszone them. Um unless they wanted to reszone up to 20 acres, right? Your your future land would support that. But any kind of increase in density on those lots reszoning that your master plan now would not support it. And I'm sorry, your master plan now wouldn't support it and your draft master plan wouldn't support it, but your draft master plan kind of drives it home
019even more that you would not support more density in those kind of far eastern portions of the township. >> Okay, that's what I was thinking. But >> okay. All right. And we don't have any more questions or concerns. I I think it was well written. I I know we put a lot of work into it. Um I mean, yeah, the couple of clerical errors, you know, I fix those, but you know, me personally, I don't see a reason to make any more changes. I appreciate Oakland County's input, but like you said, I don't think it's going to add or decrease. Just leave it alone in my opinion. Yeah, you could keep you could keep tweaking this, you know, for the next two years if you want. >> Yeah, >> you could. >> I'm I'm sure
020you would. >> I'm done. >> I will make a motion to to recommend the 2025 draft master plan to the township board with the technical corrections. >> I'll second. Okay, we have a motion to recommend the township approve with the two clerical errors. We have a second. Any discussion? Any last comments? >> Mr. Chairman, comments. I I don't think the comments adding them would be a problem um in the effort of expediting the process and not slowing things down. I don't want to be a hindrance to that. >> Okay. All right. With that, can we get a roll call vote? >> Sure. >> Durr, >> yes. >> Blankenship, >> yes. >> Turner, >> yes. >> Wagner, >> yes. >> Bailey, >> yes. >> Motion pass. >> Motion carries. >> Great. Thank you very much. >>
021Thank you. >> All right. Let's move on to B, zoning ordinance, text amendment to article 11, private roads. >> Yeah. So, the township uh internally over the last uh year or so has kind of struggled with some matters as it relates to road access, building permits, lot splits um because no zoning ordinance is perfect, right? That's kind of written with the best intention, the best general intention in mind. But when you have older communities where lot splits and road standards and all of that kind of stuff, the regulations change decade after decade. Um, but you do have some sites that, you know, developed or broken up or built 50, 60, 70 years ago, don't conform. But when their owners come looking for reasonable solutions or reasonable action, their ordinance kind of ties our hand behind
022our back a little bit. And sometimes our only offer is to go to the CBA and CBA can say yes or no. I mean, they have their criteria. They they hear your case, but it's not a sure thing. Um, so we've kind of taken the last couple of months to try to take these issues take a look at our private road ordinance. Um because so much of lot splits and building permits um have to do with access along roads that meet township standards, but you have existing roads in the township that don't necessarily meet every standard that you have, every engineering standard or whatever it may be. Um and there are instances where the township could deny someone a building permit based on some of these things alone. Um, and so kind of based on
023that premise and and included in your packet tonight is a memo from legal counsel as well kind of explaining the situation. Um, it's not it's not in the township's best interest to keep this language in the ordinance if a it's putting us in awkward legal positions andor times we're not able to follow it. So I I'm happy to answer any questions. cuz I know it's not the most uh kind of cut and dry thing. Um the red line in your packet this evening um are all the proposed changes. Some of them are just clerical engineering. Just wanted to clear up a few things about registered architects or registered engineers. Uh but the big changes come to u section 11.3 and the deletion of 11.7. Um, so again with that, I'm happy to answer any questions
024or shed some light on kind of what we're trying to do here. But these changes will help solve kind of a hand handful of of uncommon but not necessarily out of consideration issues that come up in the township. >> Oh, that's yeah, you do need to do a public hearing obviously. Okay, then uh yeah, let's formally open and close the public hearing next. >> Motion to open the public hearing. >> Have a second. >> We have a motion. We have a second. All in favor? >> Any opposed? Okay, public hearing is open at 1851. Seeing nobody, let's close it. Motion to close public hearing. >> Oh, second. >> Motion and second. All in favor? >> I >> Okay. Public hearing is closed at 1851. >> Yeah. So, with that, I'd be happy to answer any
025questions. >> Do you have a feeling for the number of non-conforming roads? >> That would I don't want to put Jim on the spot. That may be a better question for Jeff Sharp, but um I'm aware of so sometimes I'm aware of a handful at least and sometimes that non-conformity isn't necessarily even in the road itself. It's the ride ofway that exists. You know, we require 60 ft of rideway. There are roads in the township that have 40 ft of rideway. >> That can complicate the way that we do calculations for lot splits or the way we consider road frontage. >> So, it's even m that they want. >> Yeah. >> Can my answer be a handful? >> That's fine. I was just more than 10, less than a thousand kind of a thing. >>
026It's it's I mean, obviously newer developments meet all the standards. It's all that kind of stuff. You know, that the areas of which we're familiar with are kind of the far rural and adjacent to the village when those parts of the township kind of developed as the de village developed and kind of had those like different standards at the same time. >> Yeah, it does create some hardships this ordinance and you know we do need to correct for some of our sins of the past. So I see that we added the word maintenance in 11.1. Does this mean that the township or the county will now be responsible to maintain some of these private roads, existing private roads, or is this roads going forward? Well, the township has no responsibility to take care of any
027roads whatsoever. Um, you're either public and it's open county or you're private and it's part of a maintenance agreement some property owners or HOAs things of that nature. Um, so this is more or less because these roads are nonconforming, right? That doesn't mean you can't use them, but the whole point of like non-conformity is to slowly phase them out. And so one of the issues is that we can't we can't really promote the extended use of these roads if they don't meet our standards. So that's why the improved or paved part of it was put in there. If you're going to take that maintenance on or if you're going you want to improve that road, it should be improved to standards. >> Okay. So we're not opening ourselves to all of a sudden maintaining and
028paving and plowing excess roads. >> No, I mean don't quote me. I believe legally you can't. do that right over there. >> Mr. Chair, >> I have a couple comments. So, the word that is the third word after maintenance, can we correct that word? >> Third word after maintenance. >> Oh, >> should say public. >> That's been there for a long time. >> That's what I was going to. >> You might get an award for like catching that one. >> I thought maybe it had been there a minute because it wasn't in red. >> Yes, I could. Yes, we can fix that. >> And then my other comment would be uh I think this is probably a good uh revision in order to enable you know private property owners to be able to do the
029things they want to do with their own land and encourage development. So that's all I have. Thank you. >> Any last questions, comments, discussions? Okay. >> So, my apologies. Being a text amendment, the process is that you make a recommendation to the board. Um, if your recommendation is approval or conditional approval, then it goes to the board in August. They have their first reading. Assuming it makes it past first reading, it goes back to the board in September for second reading adoption. So, this language could be on the books, you know, before the end of September. So motion to accept the article 11 text amendments with the additional correction identified. I think let me restate this motion to recommend to the board to accept the article 11 text amendments with the correction. >> I'll second.
030>> Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Any discussion? Uh, can we get a roll call vote? >> Sure. >> Li, >> yes. >> Blankenship, >> yes. >> Dur, >> yes. >> Turner, >> yes. >> Wagner, >> yes. >> Bailey, >> yes. >> Motion passed. Okay, let's move on to C. Zoning ordinance text amendment to article 3 district regulation for lots zoned I1 light industrial and I2 general industrial. >> Okay. All right. All right. So, last but not least for text amendments tonight, uh if you recall at the last meeting, uh the OC brought in front of you some ideas, uh that we've worked on for changing the regulations for um industrial setbacks. Um and so during that during that feedback, planning commission seemed relatively supportive of it. There was just a little
031bit of concern behind the uh I1 rear setback. Um and so the OC considered that at their last meeting I get to it now. Um originally what we had in um our drafts was 25 ft for the rear setback in light industrial that was increased to 35 ft but is still down from the original 50 ft. Um you know and again kind of a a step in the direction of allowing industrial properties a little bit more development of their land. uh just because you do have smaller industrial and or odd shaped industrial lots. So that is the only change from what you saw at your last meeting to now. Um obviously the last meeting was a public hearing. This is uh so um again happy to answer any questions about it. If you need to
032have a public hearing >> okay with that we will have a motion to open the public hearing. >> So motion to open the public hearing. I'll second. >> Motion and second. Uh, all in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Okay, that carries. Public hearing is open at 1858. Seeing nobody else. I will take a motion to close public hearing. >> Motion to close public hearing. I'll second. >> Motion and second. All in favor? I I Right. >> Public hearing is closed at 1858. Okay. Yes. So, I'm happy to answer any questions. Again, just to reiterate, the only change from what you saw at your last meeting to now was that the light industrial rear setback went from 25 up to 35. And again, this this would follow the same step as the other things we've
033discussed this evening. You would make a recommendation or they would see it in August and then see it again in September if it made it past the first week. Okay. >> Any discussion, questions? Okay, we'll entertain a motion. >> Motion to recommend to the board to accept the schedule of district regulation, the modification of the schedule of district regulations to I1 and I2 zones. >> I'll second. >> We have a motion. We have a second. Any discussion? Roll call, please. >> Turner. Yes. >> Wagner. >> Yes. >> Dur. >> Yes. >> Blankenship. >> Yes. >> Loick. >> Yes. >> Bailey. >> Yes. >> Motion passed. >> Thank you. All right. Moving on to number 10. Unfinished business, which I don't believe we had anything on tonight's agenda. So, we'll move to number 11, new business.
034A discussion only of accessory solar structures. Yeah. So the uh ORC has been working through its work plan uh and one of the topics that uh we've also taken on as accessory solar structures. And so this is really meant to further clarify if someone either residential or commercial use wants to put solar panels on the property kind of better defining where and how those can be implemented. Your current zoning ordinance doesn't specifically restrict solar panels, but it also doesn't it doesn't really contemplate them. So, someone could bring me an application and if they meet setbacks and certain other things, I I approve it. But what we're trying to do here is because there has been legitimate interest in doing this um primarily from businesses in the township um although residential has we get calls every
035now and then about it was to kind of put front of the planning commission again this is not public hearing we kind of want you know to the water feedback on thoughts with accessory solar but the way this is set up is that in R1A R1 R2 and R3 and RM developments with single family attached units you could do rooftop only. Um, if you're anything else, your commercial, your industrial, or like a denser RM that's more apartment building style with open space, you can do ground mounted. Um, the setbacks that we've established um, kind of work with your current accessory structure requirements as far as needing to meet certain setbacks in the front, side, and rear distance from other buildings. Height is kind of the big one. Um, in some of your districts, uh, the
036height of the solar, so the height of an accessory structure in some districts is up to 35 ft or even 50. And that's kind of one of those nuances that your accessory zoning ordinance didn't kind of really account for if someone brought a solar panel. So, we wanted to specifically call out, you know, if you're going to ground mount them, they have to be they can only be so tall. And after doing some research on what not utility scale, not the solar farms that you see, but more or less the smaller uh I'll call it domestic style. Um typically their max height at peak tilt is anywhere between 8 and 12 ft. So that's where 15 ft came from was it's just a little bit of breather room for these things. Um but that's that's
037kind of one of the big ones. the solar coverage would still uh have to conform to lot coverage standards. Um can't be in easements. There's some language in here about glare and just kind of making sure the way these things are angled all of a sudden we're not getting calls from across the street because people are blinded. Um drainage and storm water. Again, these, you know, we don't anticipate huge issues, but you do kind of have to take that in mind and placement if you're running them right up to your setbacks and things of that nature and you're on a slope. um noise. We just wanted to call out that you have to keep to the performance standards um and co- compliance. You know, there's a little bit more that go into installing these things
038and we wanted to make sure the ordinance address that. So again, this is just feedback. It's something we're hearing. We just kind of wanted to gauge the the plan commission's thoughts um and go from there. >> Okay. Any questions? Any discussion? >> Let me throw one clarification at you real quick. you do have language in your ordinance for utility scale solar, you know, wind battery systems pretty much uh influenced or not influenced but but as a as a reaction to public act 233. Um that is the only way in which someone could have their principal use of a property be energy generation from renewable sources. This this is to allow people who have a principal use to then have accessory solar use on the same site to power that site. This would not allow someone
039to say, "Hey, I've got this vacant, you know, 1acre lot. I want to put some panels on it and that's that." This does not allow that and that is not permitted in the township. Just just offer some clarity between the two ordinances that you have. >> So, my apologies. You were going left to right, right to left. any comment. So glare is addressed for ground mounted um for roof mounted. Is glare somehow addressed say through the building permit process or code requirements. Um that would be my my only concern when I saw that glare for ground mounted that if somebody were to mount on the roof and now it's created glare for their neighbor or someone across you know. >> Yeah. I mean, I would I would say from a practical standpoint based on the
040height that they're placed at, probably less of an issue. However, I don't know that it hurts to make the clarif I mean, I think this can be tweaked to make sure that that consideration that consideration is also made for roof mounted, >> right? That's the only thing I would like to see in Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. >> Sure. >> So, I have a question around the height on the ground mounted. Can we put some language in there about building a burm and then putting it on there? Some of that effect where somebody wants to alter the ground or put it on a hill. >> Measurement is from grade to peak of >> Right. >> Yeah. >> That's all I have. Thank you. >> And that is from the intent of like someone builds like
041a 4ft BM and then puts a 15 foot pan on top of it. >> Exactly. or if they have a natural hill on their property that they're going to stick it on and put it, you know, next to their neighbor, it creates a clear. Number one, it says rooftop shall be permitted in all zoning districts. Um, does this does an HOA trump this where Your HOA could say, "Oh, you can't have roof mounted." Well, yeah, the township says it can. >> Yes, HOA can they they could trump this. >> Okay. That leads me to another question. >> Okay. >> Can the HOA trump the the things that we're restricting in here and say it's okay to put it at 20 ft? >> No. >> Okay. >> Question. Do we have code, building code somewhere else
042that deals with the installation of um batteries and that >> batteries as it relates strictly to the solar panel or like batteries that would be mounted inside your home that they would go to. >> Oh, well batteries, you know, they can mount these things out. These batteries could be stored or could be outside as well in some cases. >> That's a good point. We do get from time to time we have seen application for like the wall packs. >> Yes. >> Um but there I have yet to see one that's that is has a proposed exterior mounting. Typically it's inside. >> Yeah. >> Um as far as code, Tim would be able to speak to that better than I can, but I do know it goes through the building code review process um as it
043relates to if there's a battery associated with the system. But I've seen the ones I've seen proposed so far all been interior mounted. If that answers your question, but yeah, we should look to see if what you know what what we have that that addresses externally uh mounted batteries, especially as it applies to solar panels. >> Okay. you know, maybe it's just covered under the general building code for structures, you know, you know, but >> Okay. >> Yeah, we can look into that. I mean, take a look at that. >> If it was attached to the house from a zoning perspective, we would probably just again look at it as part of the principal structure encroaching anything. >> Um, I have yet to see one as a standalone. Typically, they're mounted to something bad impacts.
044Yeah, I'm just I'm thinking more of the commercialish size. Yeah. >> Well, that kind of brings up a question for like some of these areas where we've given some of the zoning board of appeals. We've adjusted some of the setbacks because the lots just don't allow for it. What happens now when they put a 6 inch battery pack on the side of the garage that we already gave them a variant on and now they're six month inches more? They have to come back before the ZBA to mount that battery pack. >> Yeah. I mean, you have there is language in in the code that says certain things can encroach your setbacks, you know, like like an egress window. You know what I mean? There's certain things that just architectural cues that are allowed to kind
045of encroach. I guarantee you battery packs are not called out in your ordinance. That's something that's allowed to do that. But in that in the ZBA instance, they'd still have to come back to you if our ordinance said one thing. >> Okay. Any last questions? >> Okay. >> All right. Well, we'll we will take this feedback or see take a look and we'll these adjustments here. I mean, >> I get the sentiment that the plan commission is generally supportive of this. >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. So, then it would probably be our goal to make these tweaks, red line it so you can see the additional edits and bring it back at a public hearing. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Moving on to B discussion
046only of mixed use. >> Okay. All right. So, I've been with the township for a little over two years now and both in the Sorry, Susan. >> Do we need to have her removed? >> Yeah, apparently I've got a handful in the office at times. So, um I've been here for two years. I got brought on when the master plan started. Um, I've gotten to know the township very well and even through the master plan process kind of did some history on different things that have been important here and have been considered here. And then most recently, we all know we've kind of all gone through some resonings, right? Reszonings to RM, resonings to C2. And mixed use has been kind of it's it's like been on the the township's agenda for years to potentially
047do something with. And when we were looking at the OC work plan, it kind of is just this carryover that flows from year to year to year to year. And your master plan does have a lot of implications for it. But I kind of thought, all right, let's let's either do this. Let's either pursue this or not pursue it. And so in looking into it, because there are a lot of considerations with mixed use, which my memo tried to kind of point out, here's some things to think about. Um the approach that we wanted to take was instead of us putting you know mixed use ordinances a can take a while to write and go through a lot of review instead of racking up the bill doing that having it in front of come in
048front of the planning commission and potentially not be supported andor being supported by the planning commission but then not by the township board. And I'm not saying it would or it wouldn't. The the approach we wanted to take was let's do some homework. let's start soliciting feedback and let's see if there's support to actually sit down and get into the nitty-gritty of of writing this type of an ordinance. Um to that point, your ordinance actually does allow for upper story residential in your C1, C2, and office districts. It's considered special land use. Um, what is interesting about that and it'll help if I bring up the zoning ordinance. No, not that. There we go. Perfect. What is at the very end. Here we go. Wait, no, it's up. Here you go. Upper swary residential special
049land use in C1, C2, and O. But what's interesting is some special land uses, as you can see, have these additional sections listed next to them. And so not only do you have to meet the general special land use requirements, but then you have to meet specific regulations as it relates to a lot of gas stations have specific special land use regulations. Outdoor storage has specific land use regulations. So in looking at your ordinance, we said, okay, maybe this doesn't have to be its own district. Maybe it doesn't have to be its own zone. Maybe we keep it a special land use. And the way we do this is we fill in the blank. We write a set of additional standards for mixed use. Um, so before we go down that road, we wanted to
050have a conversation with the planning commission about mixed use of the township, have a conversation about considerations that need to be that need to be taken if we do proceed down this road. Um, and eventually this same memo with your input from tonight would go to the board and we would get their feedback. So, where we are right now is OC's looked at this, talked about it, kind of developed these um kind of worked on and developed this information. I've worked with township staff, the building department, the fire department, the supervisor. I'm getting their feedback on mixed use um of which I will tell you that it's generally supported by all three of those. Uh building department did not have major concerns. um fire department kind of had their basic list of like you know
051certain things might have to be fire rated or you know certain access might need it but from the perspective of actually having that zone they were okay with it. Um and the township supervisor was supportive of it as well. Um I won't put words in his mouth. You know him all too well um and he will correct me the second I see him. part of his drive to was just, you know, there isn't um a lot of there aren't a lot of workforce housing opportunities in the community and these developments typically supply types of housing like that. Not always um but they can have an element to them and I will correct myself the next meeting uh if if I'm misquing the supervisor, but I do believe that was one of his support for it.
052So with that for tonight, um I just want to kind of go over some of the considerations that we put in front of you and then just have a conversation about, you know, the planning commission's feedback on mixed use of the township. Um some considerations is that um these types of developments would likely want to be on or very close to M24. Uh conveniently, most of M24 uh through the parts of the township that could support this development are zone C1, C2, or O. Anyways, um layouts are typically designed for reduced setbacks or no setbacks. So, you know, mixed use in the 1920s was just development. Everything was mixed to use. Um so, like what you see in the village could be zero lot. Um buildings can be next to each other. Um styles include
053both horizontal and vertical. Um vertical is much more common. Horizontal is possible and we did provide some examples in the packet. Um and that's really where one lot has two functions. Uh one having a commercial or primarily commercial element and the other having a residential element. Um vertical mixeduse developments. So this is kind of a big one. Vertical mixed use typically requires in new construction at least three stories. And I I would say most cases you're talking more about four and up. Um I'd offer this in that in a prior life and I'm your planning consultant. I'm not your real estate consultant. I'm not a real estate attorney or developer. But in a former world, I could spend 10 years in that world and doing proforma development, you know, I could show you where because
054of the cost of the different types of construction, right? Codes are different for residential than they are commercial. There's elevator requirements, there's fire code requirements. Those things drive up the cost of development quick. And so in order, especially in today's retail market, in order for a developer to make the returns that are required by their investors and their banks, they need as much residential on the site as they can get. And so that typically requires that two stories of residential, three stories of residential, four stories of residential. Um, the more the marrier. That does not necessarily have to be one of your considerations, but I will tell you that your heights and C1 and C2 are capped at two stories. office is capped at three. There's no mixed use coming under those standards. Um, office
055allows for three, but no one's built an office. And so, your current, no one's going to be able to bring you a feasible development under those standards. So, allowing potential heights higher than three stories or four stories as a consideration. The OC was comfortable with four stories. Township staff and departments were comfortable with four stories. Um, again, we're here tonight to kind of get your feedback on that thought as well. Um, almost all mixed use when we're talking about residential there, the residential element of it is typically dense. Dense like what you would see in apartment styles for in the RM district. Not garden style apartments more or less, but like your 1500 to,200 13,500 foot apartments for rent. Um, and then parking. You got to be creative with your parking. Um, more or less
056in the element of trying to kind of find what works between making sure both uses have the parking that they need, also trusting a little bit of the developer to kind of come forward with the amount of parking they feel is appropriate. Um, a lot of the context is where are they pitching in? How big is this site? How tight is it? Where are its access points? Uh but with that in mind, again, we provided some uh I tried to provide you some real examples of mixed use in communities that again I feel like would fit the township character. Um but with that, I'm happy to kind of start garnering the feedback of the planning commission. Again, the point the goal with this evening would be to take the planning commission's feedback, update this memo
057with it, uh, as well as the the, uh, township department's feedback and send it to the board to get their feedback as well. >> Go ahead, >> Matteo. On the draft master plan, there's a considerable amount of mixed use shown on that 62. Hey, look at that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, if you go to the top the northern part of that Yeah. that area there. So, the one in the bottom left was just reszone to C2, right? >> Correct. >> So, does how does that does that change anything for this discussion if that's now zone C2 where the arrow is? >> It doesn't. Um, >> does that allow then if we say okay 45 ft it would be or four stories 45 ft would be acceptable. Could that then be built on that
058reszone lot? >> Yes. I mean yes. I don't want to confuse the matter. They've been reszoned to C2 >> to C2. Correct. >> They would have the ability today to bring forward one story of residential above that building. What we would be talking about is potentially allowing for up to four stories on that of residential above that building. Your and your future land use map as it's as it's developed now would support that petition. It's a special land use. So it's not it's not permitted by right. Um but again that's where we would kind of develop the different standards that the the township would want fulfilled in proposing upper story residential. >> Well I that's a that's a tough one for me to get through right now. um struggling with I can see something like
059this um a mixeduse 45 four stories 45 feet tall closer to the village um because I think that's what we've talked about in the past that higher densities are closer to the village and as we get further away densities decrease right um that's just a tough one some of that propertyy's actually developed already um I'm picturing you know this 40 this say four story building with no setback basically right on M24. So it, you know, if we had maybe not as much up there, but along this area, if it lined that area, you would have all these fourstory buildings just creating this tunnel. Um, that's kind of what I was picturing as I was reading through this um this criteria um with no setbacks. Um, Yeah, that's that's really very difficult to um to picture.
060I I think I I see some buildings in the village that have say two stories. I don't know if the first story I think is commercial use. Um it's um behind where Victoria's is in that little strip mall. There's a newer building there in the village, but I think they have two stories. Then there's maybe a um a setback or a um >> the building is you know what I'm talking is what would you call that? not a balcony, but >> there's I know there's a word for it. It's on the tip of my tongue, but >> well, you know what I'm talking about. You go up a couple stories and then you you have some sort of a setback in the building's height or building's um so as you're looking at you don't see
061this big tall box. It's more um it seems to soften the the density that you know they still get the floors that they want and it actually creates some outdoor space for them, you know, a living space outdoors which seems desirable. um you know a couple stories up but it seems to soften that that edge you know that having that sharp edge the building going up and going back at 45 ft. I don't think we even have a 45 foot tall building in the township, do we? >> Maybe industrial. >> I maybe >> um but somewhere close to 24 where >> we um anyway and I I think you know incorporating some superior design elements. I think that would be you know language like that. I think that's one of the seems to be one
062of the intents of when I look at the village and complimenting the village too. I I don't know about I don't want to speak for anybody else, but it seems that any design, any building should have sort of complement what we're doing in the uh in the village. Um maybe with brick facades um etc. One of the examples in the packet shows a very modern building. It's a great looking building, but I just don't know if it would really blend with um with the uh Correct. >> So that's that's actually in downtown Lake Orient. I'm not taking away from your argument. Yeah, >> I don't know. I just Yeah, I don't like where the bike shop was. >> Possibly. >> They had like four stories of apartments and then on the top they actually had
063a a flat area where they used to do spin classes and everything. >> I then I could answer. >> Okay. >> But no, I'm sorry, Commissioner. >> No, it's fine. Just it's good discussion. Thank you. Um, so yeah, that's what I if I'm I'm picturing these these tall 4 foot story buildings with no setback. Um, you know, it seems that we would need to have some sort of a buffer, some sort of a wider sidewalk area. I don't know if a parking would be included right along 24 if there's going to be like in front of Culver or some sort of a tractor supply some sort of like a what do you call an accessory road or what would you call the road that sits inside of 24 that >> access drive styles. Yeah. >>
064So if something like that I know that kind of defeats maybe the purpose of getting it >> closer to the road and maybe more prominent. I'm not sure what the the vision is there or focus, but um those are some of the concerns I have. Um let's see. Um a couple more things. Um the uh the example um that's called horizontal mixed use in the packet. >> Yeah. >> Um it's the very last one. >> Just I think it's Yeah, I you keep talking, I'll find it. >> Well, I was I was just searching this and I just typed in mixeduse development and that exact image came up in a search, but they call it a highintensity mixed use and I was concerned that, you know, was the wording changed for some reason from the
065image I found on the internet to the packet? >> No, not by any intention. It was more or less just to give you the the overhead view of like it's it's not one building going up. I mean they might be tall buildings but it's more or less to say like it's it's all these different uses on the same site. So the fact to be honest with you the fact that you found the same picture I didn't even see the intensity language in there. I think their their point being is you got a cafe you got a grocery store you got some street food retail more over here you got some seamers over here. I think that's where the intensity comes from. But my intent of showing this was more or less just that it's not
066something necessarily going up. It's something with several buildings and several uses on the same lot. Because right now most zoning boards are set up to where you have to have a principal use. You are industrial. That's what you use that site for. So if someone wanted to say, "Yeah, but I want to make this store here and then the other side of the property I want to put a residential building." You can't do it. So, when I looked at this image and I I when I searched it, just looking for more examples to get a better understanding of what this might look like and looking for buildings with these um these setbacks as the stories get higher um with, you know, balconies and those types of things um outdoor living spaces. Um the image that
067image shows a creek on either side of it. So, it's kind of like a it has these natural barriers included where if we did something like this, you know, one after another after another after another in that mixed use, to me, it just seems like the intensity, the density of that, it's just a very um I don't know, it's a very high intense use, it seems. Um, yeah. I mean, >> I would want I I guess my feedback would be I'd like to see it. I like the idea of having all these things together, you know, one area, but um when I see this is anchored by two different creeks. You know, they couldn't go any further. They had to take this piece of property. Uh well, I'm kind of repeating myself now from going
068one after the other. >> Um so, >> okay. >> I just have concern about intensity. You know what I mean? the the density of use, the the intensity of the property being um very high high traffic volumes and um the feedback that I see from the surveys and those types of things that residents seem to prefer um less intense uses, less density, more open space. >> Okay, it's a township, right? We're um we're not Royal Oak. So those are beautiful communities, but um I hear that a lot from people in the community. So thank you. >> Yeah. No, thank you. I mean, so just to recap, there's there's kind of conditional support from you. Is that a fair state? Just that I mean that you you've put place a lot of conditions on. Yeah. >>
069Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. I I would want to see softening, setback, some sort of a a way of softening the um transition >> the feel of those properties and and how you word that I don't really know that would you know you guys are the experts. I I would lean on um architects and but a lot of the examples that I see, the pictures that were shown in the packet, um I have, you know, just have concerns that some of those buildings might be appropriate. Um but I'd like to see some sort of a a tiered setback. You get to the third floor, you set it back 15 ft, create a balcony or something. Sure. >> And then the next floor you set it back a little further. Something like that. >> Yeah, that's common.
070Um and then in keeping that only close to the village, not so far north as the image showed. >> Okay. Well, does the future land use map show? >> The future land, right? >> All right. Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. >> Yeah, I'm sorry. You know, and south to the south, too. That that mixed use really gets very very narrow as it goes into future land use down where all the billboard the billboards are at, car wash and a lot of Oxford Hills there. That gets to be very narrow. So, I'm not really sure how you would squeeze like right in this area, how you would squeeze in a four-story building into this area and how that would how that would look. That seems very awkward. I honestly we're the townships I mean I don't
071want to speak to the township from our perspective from a planning perspective if there's a way to promote the consolidation of these tiny lots along 24 in that area just because they are there's so many developable challenges with these tiny lots now that if this would promote consolidation of some of those we would see that as a good thing and I'm saying we I'm not necessarily trying to speak for township representatives or things of that nature but I I get what you're saying yes >> and I'm not sure if we to just finish I'm sorry I keep I'm taking a lot of time here, but maybe as as we're further south or north, maybe we're at two or three stories and maybe that doesn't work because of financial reasons for the developer, but as we
072get closer to the village, you know, we go up to three stories and closer even more, we go up to four stories. Sort of a a tapered as you're getting closer to the village, you get taller. Further to the north and south, you get down to say twotory. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Right. Well, first I'd like to comment that I think that your commentary is is wellreceived and should be lengthy if you have thoughts because that's why we're here and we should discuss that publicly, right? So, >> I I thank you for your comments. >> I don't need everybody's time. >> Well, that's what the time is for. Um, so we took a survey for the uh master plan. Would this be a good candidate for doing a survey on the township website
073to see what the community feels about mixed use as we develop further? >> I would want to consult people who've been doing this a little bit longer on the pros and cons of that technique. >> Yeah. Um, I guess my two the two concerns I see that come from that is a I don't I don't expect people to fully understand exactly what this is and so therefore like feedback might kind of be it might be hard to discern what the concerns are. There might be some very big picture stuff that we can pull from it. >> Also, there may be and again I don't discredit public input, public hearings. This is all for them. um where do you draw the line on when you do do that, when you don't do that? >> Okay, >>
074but let me talk to folks who been doing it longer and I I'll we'll get back to them. >> Okay. Um aside from that, I mean, I think the idea of adjusting our mixed use development language to promote development would be beneficial to the township and fellow commissioners comments standing. Right. So that's all I have. Thank you. Sure. >> And just to be clear, the areas we're talking are like the four corners of market and then down uh as you get closer to the village. >> Well, just keep in mind that this is your this is your uh future land use map, right? >> Let me bring up your zoning map so you can see. >> So, right now, if let's just say, you know, click my fingers. tomorrow. You've got a C1, C2, and
075office special land use with with mixed use, you know, allowing for larger mixed use. Everything in red, uh, these need to be updated, uh, pink and the office, which is this grayish, would then have that be allowable through the special land use process, not permitted, but through the special use process. >> Okay. Um, I I would be in favor of it and I'm probably going to get run out of town for bringing this up, but to me, this would be ideal on those four corners there at market because you could put a three or fourtory, you know, with uh commercial or res uh retail on the lower level apartments above. You got a good view over the golf course. Um, I'm sure everybody in Waterstone is gonna run me out of town for making that
076comment, but you know what? It is what it is. To me, that'd be the ideal location. And then you're still walking distance from downtown. You've got good residential uh abilities, um, apartments, things like that for some of the manufacturing that don't want to drop 56700,000 in water stone for a house. uh a nice uh townhouse or something like that would be ideal. Um I would envision something like that on those four corners, you know, kind of like where they're looking to do the Aldi's and on the other side and even over on the Meer side and all that. To me, that's ideal. Um, and you know, as you get closer to town, my only concern is I would be interested to hear information from the fire chief on, you know, do we have equipment that
077can handle three and fourtory because you go putting a building like this in and then all of a sudden you have millages for two half million dollar fire trucks because they don't reach. Now you're back to square one with >> So the fire chief they were the fire department was part of they saw this memo. >> Okay. >> Um and I do have a memo from um Benjamin France. He's not the fire marshal. He's >> BJ. >> Yeah, BJ. >> He's chief, is he? >> No, thank he's the fire marshall chief. Yeah. Okay. >> So my apologies >> I don't think Ben's watching, so I think I'm good. But um yeah, Benjamin France did provide a memo. They kind of outlined their their kind of conditional support that certain things need to be met. Uh
078it's more their they don't I don't think that they expressed negatives and my apologies. I got that memo after the packet went out. Um but we can include it in the next one. Um my understanding was not that they felt that they needed new equipment, but that access would be important and that building code would be important. And is the building self-suppressed or are there non-combustible materials being used for construction, things of that nature? >> Right. I know we've got a couple of ladder trucks, but I mean, if something like this was to go up, you know, what does Lake Orient have? What does Addison have? Because you're calling in three, four, five other departments that are going to need ladder trucks. Do we have the mutual aid? Yeah, I'll include um I will include
079his memo um at the very least in the next meeting, but if any of the commissioners want to see before that, then we have it. >> Okay. >> But no, I'm I'm all for something like this. Like I said, the four corners of market 24 I think would be ideal for this. Well, it's through the RC anyways. >> But well, as a comment, I think it's important as Oxford Township is developing, we're looking to develop the commercial corridor along M24 as opposed what was originally envisioned, you know, for example, commercial along market, etc., which obviously did not happen. and doing what we can to make it buildable and and profitable enough for developers so that they will do this. I think it's important for for the township for the future of the township and and
080I I really thought it was slick the way came up with the option of actually being able to leverage our existing ordinances and to allow for the mixed use as opposed to rewriting it from scratch would have been which would have been really super cumbersome. >> I was looking at Cadillacs but I guess I won't be able to afford it. I can't have can't rack up the bill writing a brand new mixed use ordinance for you. >> So doing what we can do to help encourage development I think is important you know within reason obviously and um this is I think this is a good step in that direction. So I had no questions actually. >> Okay. >> Guess I have one more question. >> Okay. >> Did engineering take a look at any of
081this and have comments or feedback? >> Um utility standpoint. >> I I would arms lengths the wrong way. >> Jim Sharp's kind of aware of it. I've talked to him about it, but he didn't express any concern or interest in having to see exactly what we were doing or working on. Um, you know, surface coverage and runoff at the end of the day is surface coverage and runoff. Not that that's all that Jim does. He does more again. >> I know. I know. >> Hey, he's not here tonight. >> Open mic. Go ahead. >> This will teach him the cops. >> Yeah. >> But um but no, but I mean that's I mean and again the plank commission would say, you know, we want you to talk to these folks. I mean, that's the whole
082point of this process. But yes, engineering would be also involved too when we got to kind of writing some some of the more regulatory language. But you know, do we need to consider utilities or you know and surface runoff or coverage, things of that nature, >> right? Okay. Very good. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Okay. So again, I'm going to we're going to take this feedback kind of put it in writing. Um OC will have a chance to meet before the board meets again, but the board packets got to be out before. I'll figure all that out. But the next step is to kind of get the township board's feedback just like we got yours because these two bodies are the most important, you know, elements in whether or not this were to proceed or
083to, you know, not be not be pursued. So, with that, I'm good. The one thing I would like to throw out there is I really appreciate your time tonight. Uh, I was I was juggling how much to put on this agenda. Um, but I decided to put it all in and you everyone read everything and everybody came prepared and you know that's I really appreciate it. So, thank you. Now, I don't typically look to stack an agenda but um there's a lot going on as far as these things are concerned. So, I do appreciate your time and all your feedback tonight. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, moving on to number 12, communication committee reports um or review uh update. uh really you've seen a lot of the work that the ordinance review committee
084has started or is doing and we want to get your feedback, your thoughts before we continue to move forward. >> Okay. >> Well, thank you very much. It looks like you guys have been busy. Appreciate that. All right. 13 um engineering report. Um, he's not here. If you want to take up more jam, >> let's just get up there and slam them again. Um, from my So, uh, Sharp Engineering's memo in your packet. You know, it's it's a really good way to track projects. I use it myself. Um, from a planning perspective, uh, you you got a big bulk of what we've been working on tonight. I can say that I'm not at this time, I don't believe we will have anything for the meeting, the first meeting in August. Um but we could have
085uh materials for the second meeting in August. Uh might be a final site plan might be public hearing for some language. Um so you know right now I I'm not 100% on the the 14th. Uh but I think the 28th with the way things are kind of falling in requirements for submissions and things like that. I think we will have >> Okay. Thank you. With that 14, I'll take a motion for >> I have one I have one more. Go ahead. >> On the engineering point, I will tell you one update on item three, the Rav Dewey sanitary sewer. >> Um, I do know that the Eagle permit has been approved for that for that project. So that's just that's just an update on the uh Jim's uh report which will it'll it'll come out
086in his next report but this is an old report. So >> he doesn't show up and he uses old data >> gives you David stuff. It's terrible. >> All right, with that I'll take a motion for adjournment. >> Motion to adjurnn. Second. >> All in favor? I >> We are journed.