Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

26 meeting of the Franklin Village Planning Commission to order at 7 o 1 p.m. We will still start roll call with commissioners to my left Commissioner first and president sir president Pete Halleck president Next is adoption of the agenda are there any additions or changes to the agenda I Okay.

Second.

Great. All favor. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.

Okay.

So next is our minutes from the August 18th meeting. Are there any changes or corrections? I thought they looked really good. I did too. They looked great, haven't they? Okay. I'll entertain a motion to approve the August minutes.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Look at, crushing this. I think we're to council liaison report, but I do not see David Sali here, which is fine. So then I guess it's me, right? So I can do that I can speak on Monday's meeting from the council They went through the ordinances with the second reading of our blight and Ordinances that we sent through so there were some feedback most of it was a clarifying language and A lot of time building in. So for 648, the biggest things they wanted to look at were more of the definitions around composting, litter, rubbish, brush, and how to handle existing conditions and compliance timelines on that, like putting a start clock on it. FOR 678, THEY WANTED US TO LOOK AT HOW BUILDING MATERIALS CAN BE STORED WHEN A PERMIT ISN'T REQUIRED BECAUSE WHEN IT IS REQUIRED, THAT ONE HAD parameters, whether there should be an extension process. There was a small copy paste error, I think, in one of the issues. And then also like a start clock on that as well. But I did bring up that because we're heading into winter, we might want to make that start clock a little longer so people can wrap up their projects and not have them having to do them in the middle of winter because it's Michigan. And then for 1268, a lot of it were the questions around junk vehicles and commercial work vehicles and just cleaning up some of the language so it was clear. So I sent Chris a note on that this morning of all of the notes that they gave me. Um, so we won't try to solve everything tonight. We'll just wait until Chris can go through all of that. Cause there was a lot of little nuances there and then hopefully we'll go back over that, um, next time and just work through those. Um, but yeah, otherwise, thank you everyone. It was so great to see everyone who did come to, um, both the black party as well as labor day roundup. It was fun being part of the community and seeing everybody out. Um, and yeah, That's it for me. Do any other commissioners have anything else on there?

There was no zoning.

No zoning. No? Man, look at us.

Flying along. I know.

Public comments. So we'll now open public comment. If you're speaking about an item that's on tonight's agenda, We ask that you normally keep your comments until that item is up on the agenda. If not, you can come up, state your name for the record, and feel free to share your comment.

Anybody?

Oh, man. Okay. So we'll close public comment.

um next is budget review so i didn't get a budget but i do have a follow-up with you guys you were asking about there was a line item in the budget about um title search title search and Commissioner, not Commissioner, Trustee Ferris were doing some research on a right-of-way over in the, what, the northwest part of town. There's what used to be a street or what was supposed to be a street in the backyard, and I think they're trying to figure out access points to that. And it just made about sense to build that, I guess, that title search for that specific project to Planning Commission, so that's what it was.

I have a little more context on this because I did speak with Trustee Farris. This is about looking at the private drive in one of the areas that we were looking at like pathways a while ago and just trying to figure out what that connection point is. So hopefully we'll have more information on that at some point.

Is it fair to divulge that?

I don't know more than that. I think there's more coming. They're still working on all of that. But I think it's trying to figure out whose land it is and what it was originally looked at. But I appreciate that, Evan. So I guess now we'll move on to public hearings. So we'll start with the temporary signs, I believe. Chris, can you briefly walk us through the proposed changes?

Okay, I'll review our August 22nd letter. The changes deal with temporary signs, specifically the duration of portable ground signs. The current regulations read as follows. For duration of portable ground signs one portable ground sign up to four square feet in area and six feet in height Shall be permitted on parcels with more than one road frontage one such sign should be permitted per road frontage a maximum of two additional portable to ground signs measuring up to three square feet in area and three feet in height shall be permitted for road frontage a And what is being proposed is to reword that. Basically, let's see, I guess it's... Well, I'll read it. One portable ground sign up to four square feet in area and six feet in height shall be permitted. A maximum of two additional portable signs... ground signs measuring up to three square feet in area and three feet in height shall also be permitted. So taking away the additional signs you get if you're on a corner, basically. So you have three options. You can recommend approval after the public hearing, of course. Recommend approval of the amendment as proposed. You can recommend approval of the amendment with revisions. or you can recommend that the village council not approve the amendments. So that's it in a nutshell.

Okay. Thank you so much. So, um, now we will open public comment for the open hearing. Um, if you're here for the proposed temporary sign amendment, please come up, state your name, and we'll ask that all comments be limited to the subject.

There was an email, public comment on this.

Oh, yeah. Do we read that, or is it just?

No, I wouldn't make mention of it, but don't read it verbatim.

Okay. Or you can say you got one. I don't know what you got.

You know what I'm saying?

Oh, jeez. Okay, so we did receive an electronic public comment from Natalia Shub and on today at 332 in regards to this matter. So now if no one else is wishing to speak, I'll close the public hearing. And we'll bring it back to commission for discussion. Any comments, questions, thoughts?

Just untangling the, what are the actual consequences of the proposed regulations?

Well, right now, if you get, if you're on a corner lot, you get an extra portable sign.

Because you have two different sides.

Where is that stated?

It says, in parentheses, on parcels with more than one road frontage, which would be a corner parcel, one such sign should be permitted per road frontage. And then in the second sentence, it says, again, permitted per road frontage.

That's the current one. Correct.

And all that stuff about... per road frontage would be deleted in the proposed.

And what's interesting about this is the four by six sign was meant to be for real estate signs. So what this, and it is very common for realtors when they have a corner lot to place two signs on the property to try to get it sold. So the way I'm reading this, and tell me if I'm wrong, what we're doing has nothing to do with the smaller political signs, but it's taking away the second real estate sign.

Yeah.

It looks like. That's accurate. It would affect the smaller ones as well. Because it's up to...

up to a certain size, you can put a smaller sign.

I'm not sure.

But it would affect the real estate sign.

Yeah.

Any other comments?

My only comment is we spent a lot of time and a lot of thought discussing, I thought somewhat intelligently, this subject. And I felt pretty confident with what we had developed. And I'm not sure I understand the reason for changing it.

Well, council, village council, you know, a couple people on it were saying basically that there was like a free speech case. Basically, why should you, you know, have a right to more signs on your property than others? And they think it should all be the same. And they seem to have recommended the three signs.

You're taxed differently if you're a corner lot.

I understand. That's what they said.

You're assessed differently.

So for context, this did get brought to us before, and we had rejected to move it forward to council. Council then decided to add it as a public hearing and send it back to us. So just so you guys have the context, because I know you guys weren't here then.

Sounds like we have to make a recommendation one way or another unless we, you know.

Okay.

Right. The equity point is fine. People can have the same voice. A lot of political science is cluttering away. I don't have strong feelings.

Yeah, but what I do object to is restricting the real estate science, and that's what the poor last six have. I mean, that's just, why make it harder to sell real estate in this market? Just so you know, there's more listings in Franklin right now than there have been in about six years.

I think because they probably overlooked that, which is a great observation, and they're probably only thinking about the politics.

So if that's the case, my recommendation would be to go back to them and decline it at this point, explain our reasoning for it,

One option is to leave the first sentence the way it's currently written and just make the revision apply to the second sentence. So that would leave the real estate signs as is and it would just affect the political signs.

Someone could just make a four by six.

How would that read? Or could you?

Well, I would read one portable ground sign up to four square feet in area and six feet in height shall be permitted. And then in parentheses, on parcels with more than one road frontage, one such sign should be permitted per road frontage. And then the second sentence would be a maximum of two additional portable ground signs measuring up to three square feet in area and three feet in height shall also be permitted.

Another option, which would kind of be... reinventing the wheel I guess in a way here would be you could have two signs four by six one smaller sign maximum of three cents so then you have your two real estate signs or you just have three total could be some type of kind I mean I don't know if that you know

I could easily see them coming back and saying with more than one political spot open that that limits free speech in that way. I could see that being their argument.

It's not limiting political spot unless your house is for sale.

Here's the problem. This says up to four by six, so you could if we leave it the way it is, have up to four, two by three signs. And so that is what they are trying to avoid. So the rub on this is that we are not allowed in any way, shape or form to address the content of the signs, that's what affects free speech. It would be great if we could say two real estate signs and three political signs, but we can't. So that's why we have an issue with it.

I think the impact on the realtors is real and that should be taken into consideration.

Yeah, that was a definite consideration when we came up with it.

I'm not aware of any other entity in the area who has a restriction on two signs on a corner. I could be wrong. Chris will tell me.

I think it's pretty common.

What was, if I may, because obviously it's only my second meeting, but what was the original intent of bringing this to light? Was there a public comment that triggered it, or was it...

Because around election season, it was pretty bad. But then again, it's election. I mean, this is what we grappled with.

And that's everywhere in Michigan. They're all over, yeah.

It's interesting because some council members felt that you should be able to have an unlimited number of signs, which to me is OK for 90 days. I don't know where that went. Do you remember?

I don't remember where that went. I know that this got brought up specifically. I remember getting brought up at a council meeting as revisiting it because of the upcoming political election. That's what I remember. The last big election, there was...

activities going on where people were coming and taking people's signs. I mean, that always happens. But the part I don't understand is that council members discussed the number of political signs and that they wanted to have unlimited signs and then we came back and we came up with these recommendations of three or four on corner lots but now council is saying that four is too many they want three yeah so i just don't get it seems uh yeah seems uh like there's other other variables at play so i mean you know and they're gonna

they're going to vote how they're going to vote at the end of the day, they're the, you know, and, and decision makers. So, I mean, I think we should just come to a consensus on how we feel about it. Um, you know, with an opinion, obviously explain it. And at the end of the day, they're going to make their decision.

Right. Is there any, does anyone want to entertain a motion? Um,

i would move that let's see what were our choices here of how we can handle recommend approval recommend approval with revisions um i recommend that we not approve the amendment and the reason being that it the way the amendments are written it does restrict can we say commerce, would that be the correct word? And may not address the intention that they had.

Right, because we're talking about a political season for 90 days versus real estate that goes on every day of the year. So to change this just for a political season doesn't seem reasonable.

Is there a second to the motion?

I'll second it.

Okay. For public, for this one, do we do a roll call one, or are we just, I don't know how.

No, it's just the voice. Okay. Any more discussion on it?

Well, I... I agree with Michael and Linda here. I don't like signs everywhere in political season. It's cluttered and it's ugly. I think reducing the amount of signs for that reason, though, is not the optimal use of the ordinance. I don't think that we should restrict commerce permanently. so that we don't have a bunch of political science.

And if I may, I don't know if this has to be a part of the motion or not, or we can explain it at the upcoming meeting, but maybe we can provide like the option that I mentioned where if there, you know, bent on three signs only, then at the very least we should be looking out for commerce and for the health of the real estate in the community by making the suggestion that there could be two four by six signs and one normal size sign or smaller sign at the very least.

What if one of the people running for office has a four by six sign made?

Then they're allowed to do that.

I'm just not sure that this, as it's written, is the solution that they're looking for. We did our best to grapple with this situation. I think all we can do is recommend that we not approve it because it's not solving anything and it's causing more problems.

I mean, this actually is what they, what they wanted though. The proposed. I know. Yeah. Okay.

Any more discussion? Okay. Let's take a vote all in favor of Linda's motion.

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Next, we're going to open up the, hold on. I know we have so many. Now we will open up the public hearing regarding the proposed amendments to section 1479 concerning weeds and grass growth. Chris, can you walk us through those proposed changes, please?

Yes, we've reviewed this pretty thoroughly already. There's basically three classes of revisions here. The existing definitions have been revised for clarity, definitions of ornamental grasses, pollinator plants, rain garden, and vegetative swale have been added. Secondly, natural landscaped areas, ornamental grasses, pollinator plants, rain gardens, and vegetative swales have been excluded from the cutting requirements. And third, regulations addressing the failure of the owner to cut weeds have been enhanced by adding a deadline and lien provisions. So basically, the way the ordinance is written, you're not allowed to let the weeds grow beyond eight inches or the grass grow beyond eight inches. And we've tied the ordinance in with Michigan Public Act 359 of 1942, which has a list of noxious weeds. So we've listed those in the ordinance now. And that's about it.

Thank you. So at this time, I will open up public comments for the hearing at 726. If you would like to speak on the topic, please feel free.

There was also the email.

Is this another email?

Same email, but two subjects. It may be worth mentioning.

Here we go. So we also received a public comment on this item from Natalia shop at the same time of 3 32 PM today regarding this topic. If there is no other comments, I will close the public comment section of the hearing and move it back to the commission for discussion.

I think with this one, you know, it's never going to be this perfect world on this. I mean, there's going to always be some ambiguity in the condition of someone's lawn, whether it's like a natural landscape, a rain garden, a butterfly garden, you know. So I think there's always going to be some ambiguity, so I think we just basically have to do our best to lay out a reasonable framework, right?

I think we did a really good job of trying to deal with as many of those mind fields as humanly possible, knowing that every, I think, property in the village is so distinct in how it is naturally. I think we, and Chris did a great job, I think, of helping us walk through all of the AREA RECOMMENDATIONS NEAR US AS WELL AS WHAT WE COULD DO TO EXEMPLIFY WHATEVER WE COULD WITHIN OUR OWN VILLAGE PARAMETERS. THAT'S MY THOUGHTS.

I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION ABOUT THE NATURAL LANDSCAPED AREAS. UH-HUH. ARE NATURAL LANDSCAPED AREAS GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO HAVE NOXIOUS WEEDS? NO. IMPLY THAT AREA ALSO.

I'm sorry, is this red line copy or the new copy in the packet? I just don't see it.

No, there's no red line because it's totally new. Okay.

Is there a way we can pull it up maybe?

We can add, I think it probably would be wise to add natural landscaped areas. I shall not include noxious weeds. I think that's a good point.

What do you mean, shall not include?

Just clarify that. Call it out specifically, I think you're saying. We could add that, amend it.

They do need to be eradicated or they do not?

They do need to be eradicated.

Even in the natural areas?

Yeah, the natural landscaped areas, yeah.

Like I'm talking about the berms between houses, that's the natural landscaped areas? Yes.

Oh, I guess I did have a red line copy. Well, let's open up for discussion. Do you think that... Noxious weeds should be allowed in the natural landscaped areas.

I think they're probably already there.

Yeah, I think it's hard to be accountable for those areas. Like, property owners, like... Do I stop at my line?

And property lines get a little, you know, and there's, you know, there's easements behind properties all over the place. There's hills going down to trails. There's all sorts of stuff going on in Franklin.

So, I mean, yeah. Yeah, we had talked about as you approach the property line or as you approach the... Calling for those to be addressed. But without the right, it is tough to know what we, did we not decide to do that? Address weeds as you approach a neighbor's property line, even if it is a natural area or near a street.

Well, the way it's written now, you can have noxious weeds within the natural area.

Right. So we talked about this, and I think we specifically brought up the exact same issue of just, like, it's really hard to navigate those lines, and specifically unless it's... Yeah, and a lot of those are, like, for runoff.

And if you start... pulling up the stuff that's in there even if it's noxious or not they all do their job you're absolutely correct directly water contributes to erosion too if you take all that out too on those hilly areas yeah then you just have a problem land with water running on it grading issues bad neighbors yeah

You know, one person's weed is another person's flower.

So it sounds like we don't think that that should be clarified then, because we, yeah. Right.

What do you think, Chris?

No, based on the discussion, I think it's fine the way it is. So you can have noxious weeds. I think that makes sense.

I wouldn't want to go crawling around in mine to see what's there, I'll be honest. All I know is a lot of water goes in there.

So in 1479.02, duty of owner to cut noxious weeds, it says the owner of land on which noxious weeds are found growing shall cut or eradicate the weeds before they reach a maximum height of eight inches or reach seed bearing stage, et cetera. So does that mean we're...

Well, you have to read further in item B. It says the regulations in subsection A shall not apply to plants growing in a defined natural landscape. Got it. Okay.

With that, I will entertain a motion if someone has that.

Did you close the public hearing? Didn't I? Oh, you did? Oh, right.

Yeah, I think I did.

So you can, if you're comfortable with the way it's written, you can make a motion to forward it to the village council.

I'll do it. Go for it.

Go ahead. Motion to send chapter 1479. Is that the proper way to address it to council as is without further changes?

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Okay, so I think we're on to new business. Next is the proposed change of use application for 32716 to 32744 Franklin Road. Chris, do you want to walk us through the application and proposed use?

Well, this requires a site plan review, and so with the site plan review, a public hearing is required according to our ordinance. So at this point, all you need to do is schedule the public hearing for October 21st, and this will be on your agenda with a review letter.

Okay. So based on this, so I looked at this before, and I'll just go over the basic context. So this is about the plaza, what I think everyone mostly refers to as the plaza, which currently contains the five separate units. IME Vintage would remain in the existing space. But this proposal would combine two of the street-facing units for a restaurant with another unit serving as the takeout bodega area, and the other remaining unit would be a Greek frozen yogurt shop. So at this point, we just need to discuss whether to schedule the public hearing, and we're not approving anything tonight. So are there any questions, discussions?

Seems like a great thing, potentially. Let's do it.

I'll entertain a motion to schedule the public hearing for this change of use application.

I'll make a motion to schedule a hearing for this application for 32 716. 32 716 to 32 744 Franklin Road. Thank you.

Can I get a second? Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.

This is what we were talking about before. This letter was written in August, and now we've just kicked it into October.

I know. We're trying.

But, well, are they knocking on the door for us? They're working on it, though.

um in that specific building i know there was issues with the roof and structure that they were looking at so i think they just went through historic yeah they gotta basically stabilize the building and get it watertight so they got you know they're working on that and then i'm sure they'll proceed with the build out so i think actually in this case the timing will work out okay for them they can be here hopefully

Now we move on to the tree ordinance, 1232.4. Chris, can you tell us what we're being asked to review here?

Well, I have limited information on this one, but I believe it. came about because of a house that was constructed and they took down trees and they had to replace them. They replaced deciduous trees with evergreen arborvitae. And the question came up, was that a fair replacement and the arborist made a determination that they gave them, I think it was 25% credit for the arborvitae, if I'm not mistaken. I'm going by memory here. And I think they went to council because I believe the tree ordinance says that's where you go for appeals. The homeowner thought they should get more credit for their arborvitae. And it's my understanding that council sent it over here to get an opinion, is that correct?

Well, they solved the issue with the builder, Um, the conversation that council had was more so that the ordinance was written maybe vague enough that there was a question on what kind of trees would be considered because from what they were saying, this only says has to be eight feet. And it's, you know, it doesn't really specify kind of tree, although Mr. Houston and I were speaking earlier and he did point out that it does um, specify, um, that an amount of shade has to be replicated. Um, so.

Yeah, it does say in, um, I'm looking at, uh, what section would this be? It's got a number six to a quality of trees. Replacement trees shall have the same, shall have the shade potential, uh, and other characteristics determined by the village to be comparable to the removed trees. And in my humble opinion, Arborvitae have no shade potential.

I think what council wanted was for there not to be a chance for humble opinions.

especially when compared to a deciduous tree.

What's the quantity that we're looking at? Like how much shade should be equivalent? Is that the idea to the deciduous tree? Right.

So the arborist said, well, we'll give you 25%, which I thought was awfully generous myself.

It's also not in the ordinance, though, that she could do that.

No, there's nothing in the ordinance that said she had that quantity. According to the ordinance, it's an either or situation. You either approve it or you don't. Rather than turn it down completely, I guess she took liberty and gave 25% credit.

When I was reading this, they went through the process of getting a permit to remove the trees. which they're supposed to do. And then they went and they planted 103 arborvitaes without saying, is this going to be OK? So that's where the break seems to be. They get a permit to remove the trees, but then they can

do whatever they want and come back and say this is good enough instead of perhaps coming and saying this is our plan to replace the trees ahead of time and maybe eliminate the issue is there a replacement tree part of the application like that would be like is there a plan in the application that says you know you have to do this so what is the plan so it can be like kind of approved at the same time

Are landscaping plans reviewed like building plans? I mean, I know that under zoning we've looked at things and include landscape plans.

They may not be required to, but in, you know, most municipalities, and especially if you're dealing with a large property that's maybe like a multi-unit condo development or something like that, there's always a landscaping plan that specifically you know, planning commission or council would approve as a part of the drawing. And then they're saying, this is by like, you have to do this. If you're going to, you know, build this, if you're going to build this building, you got to meet this, like we're approving it, or maybe you need to add some more trees here, or maybe, you know, or this meets it or not. So it seems like we're not doing that. I guess when people are building new houses, well,

I mean, the size of the lot, I mean, you know, I don't think we ask for a tree inventory on every house that gets built, unlike a development, you know?

Right.

Where they'll have to do a tree inventory and they can't cut down heritage trees or certain species of tree.

The heritage tree issue, that just came up also.

No, that was last Monday.

That's the other part of this.

Um, my question when I read this was like, we have a whole bunch of trees, which we just saw with the tornado that I know are now stumps. So they're like gone. But does, what does that count for? Like, do you have to replace? There's clearly not providing a shade.

That's a, yeah.

But do you know what I mean? I feel like, is that specifically called though, that you don't though? It's just confusing of when you, so when you get the permit, that's when you need to because of non-extenuating circumstances, just construction?

Correct. Right. Or if you're trying to remove it unprovoked, basically, and it's a healthy tree.

Right. That sort of natural removal is accepted.

to answer your question, the tree removal permit does have a space, although it just looks like a blank space at the bottom that says tree replacement scenario. Which seems vague, but that's apparently part of the application.

Is there a way in the application to include like this part? Like you have to, like this is what you're supposed to, I feel like people aren't gonna go through the ordinance when they're taking it and be like, oh, I have to replace it with 50% shade. Like no one would know that. I get why the assumption was I'm gonna replace it with 103 Arborvitae, but at the same time, I can't imagine.

If they don't know, they don't know.

Maybe that's what needs to happen to this ordinance is we need to call for a landscape plan.

Yeah.

Okay. Up front, if you're going to remove trees, you need a plan on how you're going to replace it.

And we're not doing that as part of the building.

No. So it's an after the fact sort of thing.

Yeah, that should be because like I said, you know, in zoning, we sure. right look at it if somebody's coming in for a variance just because of engineering and things like that i can't believe that that a building permit would go through without any attention to the landscaping and water flow and engineering and that would certainly be part of the trees

I mean, the water flow is separate.

Well, it is, but if all the trees are removed. It's related. Yeah.

Yeah, and it brings up that question about, you know, understanding the water flow. It's very hard to, I guess there are, there are criteria that address slope, changing slope and that sort of thing. But it is a good point that the, Getting the, uh, do, do, to what extent do we, would we want to look at a landscape plan? Um, you know, water again, um, permeable surfaces, the effect that landscaping has on that, um, rain gardens, that kind of thing. Um, You know, what would we be entitled? Because trees is clearly an important issue that is addressed, that we do address, we take it seriously. You know, over the years, very often it's brought to our attention because people cut down a tree, and they say, did you get a permit to do that? No, we didn't, and we've lost some nice trees that way.

Chris, can you look into surrounding communities and If that's part of their building process?

Yeah, I can do that.

A number of years ago, we had a conversation about, because of Canton's overturning of their tree policy, there was a homeowner that took him to court with regards to being allowed to cut down a tree on their property. I think Franklin, we're trying to keep the trees. Like for like is nice, but it's not always possible. But similar to similar also would be nice to have in my opinion as well. I like Arborvitae. They have their purpose, but they're not the same as a deciduous tree. They're just not one for one comparison. But at the same time, I think we talk about cordage more than we talk about types of trees. And that's where you can get into this trouble.

Yeah, I think if we could get some clarification on maybe what things we can do to strengthen this and maybe come up with some better language as well as look at the surrounding areas, I think that's a good place to start next month if everyone's okay with that.

And the review process, application and review process.

I mean, normally it's the building official, right, is going to look at the tree aspect and the drainage aspect, but not necessarily the flowers and the hedges and that sort of thing, which does seem like isn't something that we would need or want to do necessarily only if it affects drainage or permeability. And so I just, you know, are we reinventing something that is already in place right now? If you look in the ordinance number five, the plan shall show the location of all protected trees, including protected trees with adjoining road rights of way, protected trees within 25 feet of the property lines. So we do have criteria and stipulations about the tree aspect of it.

Yeah, I think it's just that the application itself process isn't clear. And if you don't know to read it there, then you're not going to know that that's, that's fair.

But I would think, you know, that, that is our building is I, is it's clear to our building official that they need to submit that, um, But the bigger issue about replacement equivalence or the you know this issue that's brought up with this particular. Case seems like we could make some improvements and clarifications in that and I think the Council that I think the Council wants us to because I was there during that meeting.

I think that the challenge is really when it comes down to. the ordinance, arborists shouldn't be, all arborists should, should it be able to apply the same level of scrutiny and same level of judgment across the board, regardless of the arborist. And it felt like, for the homeowner or the builder, it felt like it was more arbitrary than it was prescriptive. And it wouldn't necessarily be evenly enforced. And that's where we get in trouble. So if the ordinance is not prescriptive enough that it can be evenly enforced, then that's where we need to make our changes typically, right?

Also, I know surrounding townships and cities are looking at their tree ordinances as well right now because maybe something needs to be revamped or they've seen issues as well. I think there needs to be more clarity, less room for interpretation. and take a look at the application process so then maybe some of these discrepancies could be avoided, you know, if things are more clear up front.

I think I would agree with that. What are the consequences of only getting so there was money involved?

There would be a fine. But sometimes a fine can be a pay to permit, right?

they're just like that's just part of the building cost is paying the fine and they might be fine with it and plenty of people are yeah that's and that goes into the tree fund right do you know what the resolution was on that what the council decided on that situation um so the gentleman was seeking to not have to refund for the replacement that happened. And they thought it was more than they owed because they felt that they had replaced properly. So council chose to not, you know, to agree with him, to not charge him the full amount that had been requested, not for tree, not for tree savings, I guess, in the company. Whatever it was.

So the trees were replaced in a comparable way, and then the village didn't get the money either.

Well, they planted a bunch of arborvitaes instead of, yeah.

The consensus by council was that the ordinance was written in such a way that that was okay. But then they also wanted more clarity on it because...

to avoid issues like that.

They don't really want that situation to come up again.

Does it make sense to look at the tree ordinance in addition then to the building permit?

Well, I think that's what we're looking at. It really is the tree ordinance that's the problem.

But is it also sufficiently clear in the building permit that when you apply to remove trees that are of a certain caliber that You also have to propose ahead of time what trees, and get approval what trees you're gonna replace them with.

on no currently it does not see I feel like that's that would have avoided the whole situation that's what we mentioned at the beginning too so like we're talking about a landscaping plan being submitted all those things so it's very clear up front what's going to happen yeah I think the application says like proposed changes or something we went over it so we were like that's no one would know and it wasn't even like mandatory or something which is And also, we don't want to burden people with exorbitant architectural fees, but even if it's a sketch or something showing what their plan is.

Or at least knowing how much and what size of trees to replace. I mean, that seems... You don't even need... It's somewhere on your property. You don't have to tell us where. It's just on your property. We're going to cut these trees down. We're going to replace it with this X number of trees that are similar cordage and similar style. And then, is that okay? That doesn't even require landscaping.

I don't know that I've ever seen a building plan submitted that didn't have some kind of landscape plan submitted with it.

Right, but usually it's an if I may it's probably usually fairly informal subject to change and not specifically dealing with the tree ordinance when they're drawing that up.

The ones I've seen are pretty specific. They're usually a whole separate sheet submitted with the plans.

It depends on how good an architect you're paying to do your building. Is the architect looking at this tree ordinance or are they just... drawing up something pretty for your property because there's there's also like but at least then we've got something submitted in writing that if they don't do it not if it says it of likeness to or similar to this but not specifically contracted to be this thing that's the that's what that's the difference is that is you there's a minimum bar that we're recommending not a And so that can change. Those landscaping things change. Mid-building things change. And so maybe that tree wouldn't work. So the question then is, do we have to hold them to that landscaping plan? And that's not really what we're saying. We're saying we're holding you to the tree ordinance. And as long as you meet that standard and it can be applied evenly and fairly, then that's really what we're doing. It sounds like we've already discussed the two options, the two considerations. So I'm content with what you guys have been talking about for this.

Well, I will add one thing. So, you know, it does talk here, too. I mean, they're trying to get an understanding, you know, where did they pull the 25% figure out? Was it entirely random? And there is an issue that it says all coniferous replacement trees shall measure a certain height, eight feet, and it says the village shall credit the permit holder as having replaced an additional one-half tree. So they may have actually done this Item number five, you know if it's over ten feet tall then I guess they they do get a mathematical No, it doesn't it doesn't say minimum of 55% of the caliber ratio Where you're trading off deciduous for conifers Mm-hmm. Well, it does it it says that Coniferous replacement trees shall measure at least eight feet in height.

Then you get a bonus if it's 10 feet in height.

You get a bonus, but it does have to do with the... No, it's not a caliper. It's strictly a height. In this case, it's strictly a height issue.

It says one for one basis, so I think probably what Chris is saying is there's no, I can trade this type of tree for this type of tree.

It's not Catan, right? You're not trading sheep for bricks.

Well, it does say that. It says coniferous replacement trees. Well, it doesn't say that you can't replace a deciduous with a coniferous.

I think that's where the haziness comes in the audience.

Well, I think having some of the other municipalities to use as a reference point and then to see, because it feels like we're probably not the only ones who have dealt with this at some point. Maybe there's a good jumping off point, but for sure, those issues, the application, all of that, I think those are a starting point.

And maybe not even just what are other, I mean, that is good, what are other municipalities doing, but maybe try to pinpoint what, Has the municipality already offered a solution to this that we can zero in on?

We decided not to open this can of worms a couple years ago with the Canton situation because it was under litigation trying to figure out what, it basically invalidated a bunch of municipalities. You brought it to our attention, right, that the municipality has a tree ordinance. And so when you do your search on tree ordinance updates and comparables, If we can focus on post the Canton situation, that would be great because the last thing we want to do is change the tree ordinance and then fall into the same situation where they could have just sued the village and said, no, regardless, this is what it is. And then the judge says, no, here's precedence from Canton.

Okay.

Yeah, I got to believe those circumstances were significantly different than what we have here in Franklin.

What I remember from that situation is that they had a large property in Canton, and their property was surrounded by trees, and he wanted to have more room on the interior of the property, and so they removed the trees on the interior. You could only tell if you were on the property that they removed them. And so they said, look, you can't tell from the road necessarily that I removed all these trees until you came up on my property. And I can do whatever I want on my property.

It was a single lot?

A single lot. Yeah.

Yeah.

It was a commercial lot on Michigan Avenue.

Yeah. It was the size of a lot, though, I believe.

Yes, it was.

Yeah. Well, it would be interesting to know if any of that applies to us. If our hands are still bound.

OK, are we going to move on?

So I'll put together some revisions for next meeting.

Thank you. Okay, so I think we're ready to move on to old business. Letter A, vacant and uninhabited buildings, chapter 1478. I think there is a letter in here from McKenna from August 28th.

Yes, this is a totally new ordinance basically. Rather than trying to amend Chapter 1478, which deals with dangerous buildings. And I am proposing to create an entirely new chapter, Chapter 1475. And the new chapter would call for registration of vacant and non-inhabitable buildings. And then following registration, the ordinance calls for inspection of the premises by the building officials. And then section 147506 outlines minimum maintenance and security requirements. And before a vacant or previously uninhabitable building can be reoccupied, an inspection must occur by the building official and a certificate of occupancy must be issued. And there's an important thing here that I point out in the third paragraph of my letter, that vacant property does not mean property that is temporarily occupied, unoccupied, whether residents are away on vacation or dealing with personal or business matters. So this is a long-term vacancy where people are not inhabiting the building, basically. And the building official would be the one that makes that decision. There are some criteria that are set forth in the ordinance to help the building official make that decision. So the sections that are in the ordinance, purpose, scope, definitions, those are standard sections. Then registration of vacant, abandoned, and uninhabitable property. Then the inspections. and then the maintenance and security requirements, and then the reoccupancy provisions, and then finally wrapping up the ordinance violations and abatement, authorization for village abatement, and sanctions, remedies, and penalties. So that's a quick summary of the ordinance.

Okay, so at the end of the letter, it said you sent them to build an interview. Do we know if you're here?

I didn't hear from Bill.

Okay, thank you. I just wanted to make sure. Thank you so much for writing this up. Any discussion?

I remember we talked about the real estate issue for sale. Is that a non-issue? If the property's for sale but someone's not moving there.

Yeah, that's not an issue. That wouldn't be considered a vacant or unhabitable building.

Well, I read through this. I think it's really good. It's really good. I like it.

I liked it a lot. The only... The thing that I know that the council has been trying to do better is put teeth into things. And under inspection C for fees, it says fees for inspections and permits shall be established by resolution of the village council. Do we need to include anything on our end to bring that to them? Or is it good and they can discuss that as is?

No, they can discuss that. Okay.

I just wanted to check a box.

I think... The fees, I believe, that's part of a table matrix that gets changed, right? So it's not a standard fees table. All right.

And there are some teeth in here as far as the right to lien the property, et cetera, for costs incurred.

I appreciated all of the specific call outs and timelines too. I think those are things we've been adding a lot more of. So like the in under the abatements and violations, the call out on the 14 calendar days, a lot of things like that in here, I think have it's, it's very strong.

Yeah.

Yeah. It's surprising that we haven't had something like this, not that it's a regular occurrence, but, uh, when it happens, it, it does need to be addressed.

If you're comfortable with the way it's written, the next order of business would be to schedule a public hearing.

Does anyone want to make a motion?

So before doing that, because this is a completely new ordinance, does that mean we're going to remove 1478 as well?

No, that one deals with other matters. OK. So we would keep that one.

OK. All right. So there's not going to be a red line that we'll be able to show the public on this at all because it's completely new?

Correct.

OK. I propose that we have a public hearing to review this with the public in our next meeting.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, motion passes. Okay, moving on to item B, non-conforming lot ordinance 1264.02. I believe there is a letter in here from Chris.

Yeah. I think this came from council, or no, it came from Sarah, right?

I had heard about it from some council members and a resident, so working all together.

Okay.

It was part of one of the council meetings as well.

Well, Section 126402D deals with nonconforming contiguous lots that are under common ownership. And I have attached an excerpt from the ordinance, and the key provision reads as follows. When two or more contiguous lots are under common ownership, and at least one of the lots is nonconforming at the time of adoption or subsequent to adoption of this provision, then the nonconforming lot or lots shall be considered to be combined with one or more of the other contiguous lots as necessary to eliminate or reduce the nonconformity. This has become a subject of attention because there's a village resident, Todd Berwick, who happens to live in a non-conforming lot and owns the next-door lot, which also is non-conforming. And so he is covered by this ordinance. And the final sentence in Section 126402D states, compounds Mr. Berwick's problems because it states, the Zoning Board of Appeals should not grant a variance to the requirements of this provision, which is sort of unusual. Now, the regulation that considers nonconforming contiguous lots under common ownership to be a single zoning lot is a common regulation. You'll find it in just about every zoning ordinance. and its purpose is to eliminate or reduce lot nonconformities. And we provided some information to show why such a provision exists using Mr. Berwick's situation as an example. The parcel in which Mr. Berwick resides, 25801 Franklin Park Court, measures approximately thirty one thousand seven hundred ninety nine square feet area so it's not conforming with respect to lot size the minimum lot size in that district is a hundred and thirty thousand square feet so it has only one quarter of the required minimum lot area and then the adjacent parcel that Mr. Berwick wishes to sell measures approximately 23,958 square feet, so it's actually a little bit smaller, and it has only a little over a one-fifth of the required minimum lot area. So if you combine the two, you would end up with 55,757 square feet, which is still quite a bit under the minimum lot size, but it's edging up there at least. You're about one half of the required minimum lot area. And then I've attached an aerial photograph from the Oakland County's property gateway. which shows that the surrounding or the most lots in the RE district surrounding the Berwick lots are substantially larger than the Berwick lots. So that's the thing that, you know, the issue that the ordinance is Now, there's a couple of other considerations. In the RE district, the maximum lot coverage is 10%. So for Mr. Berwick, if he was to sell the adjacent lot and it was to be developed, the maximum square feet of coverage would be 2,396 square feet. That would include the buildings, driveways, patios, decks, and other impervious surfaces. It wouldn't be unexpected to see a variance application for a lot coverage under those circumstances. If you look at the R2 district, where lots of that size are actually permitted, 20,000 square feet, the maximum lot coverage is 30%. What that means is in our two districts, they've adjusted the lot coverage to compensate for that situation. And then we talk about the required minimum setbacks. They would provide another constraint on the size and configuration of a house that can be built on the lot. And then finally, we note that With respect to lot area, according to the definition of lot area, you're supposed to exclude the street right-of-way or easement. Actually, the lot areas that we were talking about are actually smaller than what we specified earlier, but we would have to get a professional survey to actually know what the exact lot size is for the purposes of zoning. So in summary, the information presented reveals that the Berwick lots are not comparable in size to a majority of the lots. in the surrounding RE district. RE district regulations would place the constraints on the size and configuration of a home that could be built on the vacant lot. It may be possible to build on the lot, but it would not be surprising to see an application for a variance from one or more ordinance regulations. And then there's another important issue that comes up. I know that some parts of the village have access to sanitary sewers. I don't know if this part does or not, but if it has a septic system requirements, Oakland County generally wants to see one acre of land for homes that have septic systems so that you have enough room for the primary and the secondary or reserve septic field. So my final comments are I think the regulation that we're talking about here is a good one. I think we should keep it in the ordinance. But the provision about the Zoning Board of Appeals is the offending one, in my opinion. And I think the village attorney has also opined that that sentence that says that the Zoning Board of Appeals does not have authority to grant a variance should be deleted. That would be my recommendation, and if that sentence was deleted, then the applicant would at least have the ability to seek relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals. But in order to do that, that would require a zoning ordinance amendment, which requires a public hearing. Well, there's my comments.

Thank you. What do you think, Stu? Are we going left or right? Is that how we're doing it now?

I do believe we have someone here who wanted to make his comment about this. Do you want to come up? Go ahead. Introduce yourself.

My name is Todd Berwig. I'm the owner of that lot that we were just talking about. And there's a couple of things that I think are relevant to add to that. The two lots that I own were platted 40 years apart and are actually parts of different subdivisions altogether. They were both intended for single family homes. They were entirely different subdivisions. They had nothing to do with each other. It was only years later when the ordinance came out that the village combined them into one. But their original intention were both to be single family homes. The other thing that I wanted to add to the points that were made were that out of the 84 homes in the RE district, only 11 of them are actually conforming to the lot size right now. 80% of them aren't conforming anyway. I recognize that mine might be smaller than some of the other ones, but none of them actually meet the requirements. And including the private drive that I live on, none of those do either. This is at the end of a private road. None of the houses on that road meet the current ordinance. The other thing that I'll mention, and President Goldberg and I have discussed this many times, I think there was initially maybe a concern that this would open the floodgates for other lots that are nonconforming and contiguous for other homes to be built. There is only one other, other than mine, situation like this where they're contiguous, nonconforming. And according to what he told me, that's not really a buildable lot. What I have next to me is, again, I'm not splitting anything. These are two separate lots. They're two separate tax IDs. I get billed from them. They were from two separate subdivisions. They have nothing to do with each other. I just want to sell one of them. And again, they were part of different subdivisions. They were both intended to be homes. They were part of completely different subdivisions platted 40 years apart. One really has nothing to do with the other, other than this ordinance that is combining them. It's unfair. And I just want the ability to sell it. And I know, or at least I assume, President Goldberg, the village would be interested i would imagine in additional tax revenue but someone could build a home there right now it's just sitting there vacant doing nothing um those are my comments thanks thank you thank you just curious please do you have access to uh the sewer line now is there pressure sewer there i believe the house i have now is not on it's not on sewer but

I think so too.

Yeah, they hooked up to it years ago.

Very few streets that don't have access.

Do you know if your septic actually bridges the two parcels?

It does not.

Your field is direct? My field is entirely on mine.

I don't know how many hundred feet away from where we're talking about. It's nowhere close to that. about easement access to the what is it landlocked right now uh it's a private road right it's a private road and so would have to be extended no the road wouldn't be okay the driver would go off of that private road so i'm one of the

non-11 of those that's a non-conforming law in the re district i i don't really understand actually about why the re district exists for the most part just because of because of that situation you're talking about but even still regardless i mean regardless i think the fact that there is no recourse for anyone within um anyone any of the districts i think that's not fair to use the government entity that was created to handle these situations.

Well, it's not even not fair, but it doesn't seem to be potentially legal at all.

I have engaged a lawyer on this. I don't know if the word was a taking, but it's entirely not fair other than the ordinance. He thinks it's a very winnable thing. I don't have the

You're helping others by bringing this forward, though. I'm sorry? You're helping others by bringing this forward.

Maybe. I don't think there's any other situations like this. We don't have to worry that you know, that anyone else is going to try to do this because this is the only situation where there's, you know, two separate laws that are non-conforming and adjacent to each other. So it's sort of a unique situation. Again, he thinks it's a very easily winnable case, but I don't have the financial capital to go up against the city.

I'm trying to... Well, you're also helping us by not bringing a lawsuit from a tax base, too. I just want to sell it.

I want to be able to sell it and let someone go there. I get it. So, I guess, to your point, it wouldn't be, I recognize it's, you know, in other towns nearby, I mean, you could do, this is 0.66 acres. You could probably build, you know, 10,000 square foot house in Birmingham on that. But I recognize here that would be a small, it would be a small house, not the heart of anyone.

So, I guess the, um, claim that there's only one other instance like this. For me, that is important. This has been a topic many times where we've talked about splitting lots, lot splits. And in general, we don't like to see lots split. We like, I mean, I can see this one's an island, you know, but so. Well, I'm not splitting any.

I mean, this is. It's already split. Right.

I'm not splitting any of these things right here. This is distinct, I understand. Oh, yeah. And so just, For me, I would like to see that I know of one other. I don't know if they're actually designated separate lots, but I would like to know that that is the case, because if we're just talking about two places in the village, right, then this does seem a little punishing.

You didn't tell me why, but you said the other one is just not a buildable, you know, I don't know why, but it's not a buildable. This is just a wide-open, empty lot, clearly, where a house should have been or was designed to be, right?

Right. Were you going to say something, Linda?

The issue, I mean, even if you... go in front of zoning and you say, I've got a nonconforming lot. I mean, the ultimate goal of zoning is to bring anything that is nonconforming into conformity. So even if you could do it, I'm not sure that you could do it. But there's still absolutely no reason why you shouldn't be able to bring it.

Bring it.

To zoning. Is there anything else that zoning is excluded from here?

I can't think of anything.

I've never heard of that. Not in zoning.

It's just weird. Well, obviously, people felt so strongly about it. Very strongly about it. and in protecting the village's character its land its trees its openness well i'm not i'm not i understand where you're coming from i'm speaking to the members of our commission here our planning commissioner it just feels like it was created for a very specific That's why I bring up that question about finding out if that is in fact true. Are we just talking about two instances? Because I think it's significant. The village has been very clear. The villagers, the people in this village, we really want to keep unbuilt land in many cases. as natural as it can be. We love our trees, we love our open, I love the estate lots, there's nothing like it anywhere. So as long as this doesn't impact any of that, and as you mentioned, the floodgate issue, then it would certainly be a much easier decision.

I would argue that perhaps there's only one other property in the RE, a state district, that is two contiguous same ownership lots. But I'm guessing that there are probably other properties in the village that are in other zoning areas, especially in the historic district, that there may be.

I just wanted to make sure we were following.

Well, so, I mean, it's my understanding at this point, we have the recommendation that legally the restraint from going to zoning is not legal and we should remove that. That's a different question from should the zoning board approve a variance from it. It's a completely different question.

Yeah, you don't have any authority over the zoning board of appeals. Right.

I agree with Pete as far as not splitting lots and keeping the unbuilt land, but there should be a recourse to at least make your case, especially if that's not exactly legal to prohibit it.

So I guess we can make a motion to update the verbiage to remove This line of the Zoning Board of Appeals shall not grant a variance to the requirements of this provision. And so that would be stricken is the motion. And do we need to wait for that change to be able to do a public hearing to have that changed? So the motion would then be also include a public hearing to have that change stricken and do a public hearing next month? Yeah, a public hearing. But can I make the motion and the public hearing motion at the same time separate? OK. So I'll motion that we remove this line.

No, you have to have a public hearing first. Make the motion. Okay. And next meeting you can make the motion to strike the.

Okay, so yes. But, yeah, I have a motion to update the ordinance.

To host the public hearing.

Propose the ordinance change with a public hearing for next month.

Right.

Yeah, that's fine.

Do we have anyone second?

I'll second the motion.

Okay, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes, so we will schedule that public hearing for next month. So many public hearings.

That news article is getting longer and longer.

Thank you. So we are now moving on to item C, site plan review, chapter 1368.3.

These are comprehensive revisions to the site plan review section. It started out with dealing with wanting to address minor modifications to an approved site plan and some similar or related revisions, and also the desire to streamline the site plan review process. And as I got into it, I realized that the whole section needed to be revised. And so what it calls for is, first of all, identifying when site plan approval is required. The existing ordinance does not do a very good job of that and that's caused confusion in the past many times. So that's on page one of the revisions. And then... outlining the site plan review process in greater detail. And this is probably the most controversial part of what I've put forth here because I've proposed eliminating the public hearing related to site plan review and also proposed eliminating the village council from site plan approval process. So I don't know how that's going to fly. But I thought it was worth throwing out there anyway.

I mean, the council will have a chance to change that if they want to keep themselves involved.

Right, it's easy enough to put back in. And then... going over to page uh... five is where we deal with modification of an approved site plan and uh... we have uh... provisions for minor modifications to an approved site plan to be reviewed and acted upon by the village planner building official and village administrator sort of like a committee And then we identify what constitutes a minor modification. There's five situations there that would be considered minor modifications. And then there's a long table on page six and seven. Let's see, does it go to eight? It goes to eight also. Right now the ordinance is sort of sketchy on what's required on a site plan. And so we wanted to be more explicit as to what's required on the site plan so that people understand what's expected of them. And then one thing that's absent from the current ordinance is criteria. for approving a site plan and uh... that's fairly important to have in an ordinance and we've put forth uh... several criteria i think we have about fifteen and nineteen including uh... historic district design guidelines we added extending from page eight through ten so uh... I think this is a pretty comprehensive revision of the site plan review section. I think it's been long needed. And I think it's, it would serve the village very well.

And I applaud you for adding the landscaping and screening section. There, yeah.

My thoughts on this actually are, I think we've spent a significant amount of time and McKenna spent a significant amount of time on this. And I think at this point though, I feel that it would benefit to get direction from council with a summary of what we're proposing. Because I think if we were to just present this to council after doing a public hearing and having a complete revamp, I'm worried that it would just be rejected or at least not heard until after we have a new council and the new council is going to be saying, well, I've not seen this before. I mean, unless someone that's familiar with it already will be elected, then it would be, I think it'll be an uphill battle without at least giving more direction or giving more direction from council on this. And I'm almost, I don't know. I think it's great work, I think it's needed, but I'm worried that making more progress on this is gonna, nothing's gonna happen for three or four more months until we have a new council anyway, even if we made progress making changes and talking about it. I'm just, I don't know, I just worry that We're going to spin our wheels and feel like we've wasted three months talking about this more. That's my personal opinion on this.

So would you suggest that we put it on the back burner?

Just put it on the back burner for a couple months, and then wait until after November, and then we get a pulse from new council.

I like that and then in the meantime maybe it doesn't have to be an agenda item right but you know this will give us time to you know really absorb this and then I'm sure we could still maybe have some maybe some short discussion on it as a part of the meeting but not necessarily an agenda item just to kind of try to hone it in or I noticed this or maybe we can you know make a change here right.

Yeah, so you're recommending just keeping a small, having it on an agenda, but a small, like a limited time period agenda item? I'm okay with that. I feel like we have a lot on our plate, and I worry that this is going to take a significant amount of our time.

I agree. Table it, and we can make our rabbis, we can have our thoughts, and then once it's brought back up, we discuss it.

I know that I'm sipping on your toaster on this, but I'd like your opinion. I'd like to understand what your view is, but I wanted to at least share what my thoughts were on this. I think it's great. Conceptually, I just worry that we're going to

So I think you bring up a good point in that the only person on council who has been here in person to see the work that went into it isn't going to be on council anymore. So I think that part makes it hard in terms of bringing it to council with maybe no one there who had seen it to be able to understand context. I do think that it's... for work that will probably get done in the spring i'm hoping you know like if anyone does need things i'm hoping that we can bring it up before that because you know that our process takes a while so i'm hoping to not move too long after the election season but i do think waiting until we have the council who is ready to act on it and be informed is also needed

I mean, if this was April, it would be different. I would totally be like, let's push forward because we connect. We've got active council members that are helping us liaison. And unfortunately, liaison's leaving.

Sounds reasonable.

Yeah, off the agenda. And I'm going to chew on it. There's a lot in there. And I think it's really good. There's a lot to look at there, so some time is good, too.

Can we propose, I think, taking it off next month but then re-putting it on in November so that way we're given a final good clearance and push before we send it in December? Does that feel fair to everyone?

Yeah, exactly.

Sure.

Do I need to make any motions for that or are we good?

Does that feel good?

I will make a motion to table further discussion on the site plan review chapter 1368.3 until our November planning commission meeting. Can I get a second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passed. Okay. Item D, weeds and grass, Chapter 1479. We had the public hearing on it, so I think now... Can we have the public repeat what they said?

It was real.

It was a real ruckus in here. Do we need to make any other action items? No. So we're good on this?

Yeah.

All right. Well, great. I'll move on to item E, sports courts chapter 1268.2. Wait, wait.

So if we had a public hearing, did we make the recommendation in a public hearing to recommend this to council or?

For the weeds one.

Do we meet?

You made them.

Traditionally, you have a public hearing, you close it, and then in old business, then you make the motion. You did it all at once, which is fine. Okay, I missed that.

That's fine. All right. Don't stop me! Yay on the motion for me, too. If you want to put that back in the minutes, I'll agree. Okay.

Quartz Quartz, chapter 1268.28. Chris, do you want to give us an update on the proposed language?

Yes. You recall that this came up when somebody in the village decided they wanted to construct a court to play paddle. I think that's how you pronounce it. Padel. Padel, okay. Anyway, the discussion in August sort of segued into we need regulations concerning outdoor recreation facilities in general. And so that's what I presented here. We found that the ordinance does not permit Padel court, but it doesn't permit other types of outdoor sports facilities except swimming pools and tennis courts. And so rather than draft regulations that deal solely with Padel, the Planning Commission agreed that more comprehensive approach would be appropriate. So what we've got here is... Chapter 1476. Basically, we're taking over the chapter that deals with swimming pools, and we're revamping it completely. And I have several footnotes that require Planning Commission input. So I think I'll go through this briefly with you. We start out with a purpose statement and then definitions of various Sports facilities talk about the applicability and then the review process right now for some Reason Above ground swimming pools Let's see here Yeah, above ground swimming pools require site plan approval. But below ground swimming pools just require building official approval, which I thought was rather odd.

There's a good reason for it, actually. Because if you do site plan review, then your neighbors get alerted and they're told whether or not What to come to the site plan review and express their concern? So we've had in situations in the past where people put above brown pools in their front yard and then just put like a temporary fence around it to Screen it so that but it everyone knows what it is and it looks unsightly when it happens Okay So well anyway the way I've structured this

outdoor sports courts and outdoor sports facilities would require building official approval except for the above-ground swimming pools and except for things that happen in the historic district. And then in 1476.05 in the middle of page two I've set forth general requirements for outdoor recreation facilities dealing with lighting, screening, location, that being to the rear of the principal dwelling on the property, setbacks, and lot coverage. And then under item B on page three, specific requirements for swimming pool requirements and those have incorporated all the existing requirements for swimming pools that are in the ordinance currently. We have a footnote in case you're wondering about the enclosure requirements, about the self-latching gates and things of that nature and the height of the gate. That's from the building code. So that's a mandatory requirement. And they also have a provision in the existing ordinance. It says, currently the ordinance says, fences shall be of wrought iron or an equivalent. And then there's a sentence, excuse me. There's a sentence in the existing ordinance that says you can go to the ZBA to seek approval for a chain link fence. I generally don't like sentences like that because you can always go to the ZBA to seek a variance. There's nothing to prohibit you from doing that. I don't like to point that out to people. Because a variance is basically an allowance to break the law. That's what a variance is, basically. So I have not included that sentence in here. Then I have... tennis court requirements. And I have a footnote there. I've included the existing regulations for the fencing around a tennis court. And it says that the wire fencing is allowed to enclose each end of the court and extend towards the net no farther than the midpoint between, should say the baseline and the service line. And my question was, is there any reason why the fence cannot enclose the entire tennis court?

Well, there are tennis courts in our village that are completely enclosed, so.

So maybe we should eliminate this or say, modify this to reflect that fact.

I mean there are either they're legally non-conforming or they are never it or because they or they got a variant I mean they got variants and illegally non-conforming in that case or they just never got it permitted and never got a permit for it. So either way they're not conforming.

Yeah it doesn't make sense to me actually.

So I can think of a few homes already just that are already fully enclosed. I can think of two homes already that are fully enclosed tennis courts.

Does everybody agree that that should be the way? Okay, sure.

I don't see anything about backboards.

Oh, you mean like the practice head? Just like we have over FCA here where you can just hit against the board practice head? Yeah, because the 50% opacity, that wouldn't work, right?

Right. Unless you put glass up, right? That's right. Just like Padel.

On the next page, we have the requirements for Padel courts and general sports court requirements. And then we added pickleball requirements.

Baseball backstop requirements and then other recreation facilities so my understanding Padel would have a similar noise concern as Pickleball right plastic ball Being hit That's what our neighbors are complaining about in the villages next to us people having having pickleball being so loud And that's why there's a noise Dimension, but like Patel would probably have a similar one.

I would imagine what's the glass enclosure that?

probably mitigates that I Think that's a better way and that could be true. I mean tennis I

Tennis can be loud, too. I mean, it's not... Yeah. Yeah, I'd rather have a noise ordinance. Because someone could put a spotlight on and play at any time of hour. I mean, growing up in Houston, we played basketball after 10 o'clock at night because it was too hot to play during the day. And I mean, I'm sure our neighbors are mad at us, but their kids were playing with us, so.

So you want to have a, what were the hours that you suggested?

I don't know, between 9 and 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. Dusted on?

Dusted on, yeah, I like that. Dusk till dawn? Yeah. Or dawn till dusk?

Well, that's true. That's true, like a minimum. But not in Franklin.

Yeah. Well, that's that. Because we'd also, I'd be worried about light, lighting, right? So if we did it to like construction hours, then that would be, they would have to light their court. And that could be a problem.

Do we have construction hours?

Yeah, there's noise organs for construction hours.

What are they?

7 to 8, like probably 7 or 8 a.m. to, yeah. Until 8 or 9. Yeah, usually 8 o'clock in the morning.

8 to 8 maybe or something like that.

Why don't we just make it? Because you know if we make it later that somebody's going to say, they're out there mowing at 8 a.m. Why can't I play pickleball? That's true.

Yeah.

Why don't we make it concurrent with construction hours?

I mean, as long as it doesn't violate the lighting ordinance, that's my fear about doing it, not doing it from dawn to dusk allowable. Eight to dusk. Yeah, eight to dusk. Because I worry about the lighting. In order to play realistically, you need to have decent lighting. Is that going to be a... I don't know if our lighting ordinance covers... EFFECTIVELY THIS SCENARIO WITH THE RECREATION COURTS.

I'LL HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT. I'LL MAKE A NOTE ON THAT.

I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF NOISE ORDINANCE REGARDLESS OF THE SPORT.

I mean, I think it's going to be a lot easier to put a time frame on it than it is a paddle brand.

But that would also apply to basketball too, right?

I would think. I mean, they're all noisy.

Well, is it already covered in the noise ordinance? No. The noise ordinance does not cover any recreational activities that create... Okay. See, I would...

The other municipalities limit hours for pickleball? Not that I'm aware of.

Yeah, not that I'm aware of. I haven't seen any.

Let me get the little, I guess, you know, late fall, early spring, a lighted court. Um, that's where I could see it being a little bit, um, onerous on people. Um, because I, I think, you know, our lighting ordinance would still apply. You can't be generating blinding light in your neighbor's yard. Um, That's all that. The only point I would make is that I could see someone wanting to go out after dinner and play their sport and have a lit court that is within the lighting ordinance and wouldn't want to prohibit that. Just my thought.

So yeah, then the same hours as construction would be a reasonable number.

So just so you know, my good friend, who's going to kill us all, says that in Birmingham, Crestview Park pickleball courts are specifically limited to 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. West Bloomfield is 8 a.m. to sunset. This is City Parks, but I don't know why it couldn't also. Bloomfield Township, this is particularly interesting. The township recently put a moratorium on new residential backyard sports courts while it reviews issues including pickleball noise. yeah under the prior approval process the zoning board could impose restrictions on lighting fencing and limit play to daytime hours yeah that's the new one i heard about in the news and on next door is the bloomfield with pickleball no court use before 8 or 9 a.m and no use after 8 p.m or sunset this is one of those times i wish we had more public here

We need Rick David here who sponsors the pickleball activity in downtown Franklin to give us an opinion on what people are thinking.

Does this cover temporary sports courts? So say like people who put up ice rinks in their yards in the wintertime?

No, I haven't covered that.

Those are impermissible too. They're impermeable too.

Yeah.

The chickens again.

So hard. So this may just be a weird question. Other than swimming pools, is there a reason why we call out specific sport courts? Because I'm thinking in my head, I could see someone being like, oh, I'm... like they build a whatever court, but then they're using it as a something, you know what I mean? Like it could just be like, I don't know why we can't just have one sports court requirement that sort of maximize to, well, I just didn't, I just don't know. I, I don't play sports if that's not obvious.

I did some research on that. And, um, the sports court is a thing. It's,

That's the definition. So I was just compared to like, I think in my head, I think a pickleball court is a sports court. So that's what just my brain thinks of it as. So I just didn't know if that's, is a sports courts technically like a basketball court?

No, there's a definition here.

To Sarah's point, is it possible to make something that's just more general so that two years from now when there's a new sport, we're not having to do it?

There is a generalized section in here. Item H deals with other outdoor recreation facilities. So that would open the door to regulating something new that comes along.

Why is an interlocking tile required for a sports court, though? Can't you just use concrete or some sort of... It seems like that's overly specific in the definition.

Yeah, that probably is, but...

I mean, I lived somewhere where the community had a sports... That was an interlocking tile for a tennis and basketball court that was enclosed 10 years ago, and it... It's really kind of crappy to play on, but at the same time, I actually didn't understand why it was necessary for the sports that were being played.

It just says it's typically. Right.

But in the definition, it seems kind of a weird place to put it. Maybe we could have a certain treatment material.

Yeah, the word typically probably shouldn't be in a definition.

Yeah, let me look at that.

What about shuffleboard?

That's there you go.

Like I'm just, I could see that being a sport here. I'm just wondering, like, that's where I get nervous of other outdoor recreation facilities by calling. It just feels like it's opening a can of worms.

What was the rule shuffleboard is nothing more than a couple of cement slabs.

But it's not interlocking tiles. You had told us before, Chris, that if it's not brought up, then generally it's not legal.

It's not permitted, correct?

Not permitted, yeah. So that makes it a little more complicated, but... Maybe that's for another.

Yeah.

What is it? What's the one with the big rock and they do it on the ice? Curling. Curling, yeah. They're outdoor curling in the winter. Anything that's in the Olympics.

I mean, everyone, yeah. I mean, we're all saying, you know, can of worms, but basically this whole thing was opening a can of worms because the only reason this came to the board was because of this Padel court, so.

I'm genuinely surprised that we don't have any regulations in here about trampolines.

Trampolines? Yeah.

We used to have trampolines.

Well, that's a good point.

As a former trampoline owner, it's the scariest thing in my house, in my yard. My grandson broke his arm in like other grandkids.

It's like the one yard activity that the Pediatric Board of Medicine says do not do.

I thought we should say no trampolines. I grew up with one.

I love them. But in general, I think this is a good document.

I think our critiques are the same as last month, though, where we said, is there any way we can have it more generic? But at the same time, we also agree that if it's not specific, then it's not permitted. So I think calling out specific things. Also, it makes it easier if we have definitions already in place that if something does come forward, we could potentially make an amendment that just slots in to the ordinance as it is.

I think you did a commendable job. I really do. You got in there. I think it's great.

Is there a way in your sports court definition or a different way that we can make it more broad to sort of like in part of it of like, these are the sports, but not limited to like, that's where I get, it gets dicey to me because I know people who have ice drinks in the winter. I know people who have like, like, and it's just hard to say like now. That's my only... A different category of various courts.

That's my only worry. Remember, the reason this came up was because Padel has a very specific fencing layout. And material requirement. Right.

I just don't want people who have been doing it who didn't, you know what I mean? Like I said, I just don't know what the way to get around it is.

I mean, we used to have an ice rink in Franklin.

Yeah, one of the villagers would put it up every year. Yeah.

So I don't know. What do we do about that?

Well, global warming is taking care of that.

I think there are people, I mean, I see them every winter.

People do it.

I had another client that I worked with many years, Lion Township, and they tried putting up a community ice rink for many years, and they finally gave up because of the variable temperatures that we have in the winter now. It was just fruitless. It just

So what's the direction that we have for this right now? Is it for Chris to just update the wording, kind of rework it a little bit based upon some of the comments that we've made? Do we have anything specific that we feel?

Yeah, I can do that. Yeah.

Yeah, and then I think we can .

Yeah. Thank you.

wait paul's not here to just to motion or dismiss okay our next regular planning commission meeting is scheduled for october 21st at 7 p.m there's no further business i'll