on May 4, 2011 at 5:48am.
Planning Commission Meeting on April 11, 2005
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 11, 2005
AGENDA
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 1…Review of a site plan application, environmental impact assessment and site plan for a proposed retail building located on the south side of Grand River Avenue at Lawson Drive. Sec. 9, petitioned by Boggio and Associates. (PC 05-06)
Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding PUD amendment.
B. Recommendation regarding impact assessment. (dated 1-11-05)
C. Recommendation regarding site plan. (dated 3-9-05)
Administrative Business:
-
Planners report presented by LSL Planners
-
Approval of March 28th, 2005 Planning Commission meeting minutes
-
Member Discussion
Adjournment
WORK SESSION
MINUTES
The work session of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Don Pobuda at 6:30 p.m. The following commission members were present constituting a quorum for transaction of business: Don Pobuda, James Mortensen, Barbara Figurski, Curt Brown, Teri Olson, Dean Tengel, and Mark Snyder. Also present was Kelly Kolakowski, Township Planner; Jeff Purdy and Brian Borden from Langworthy, Strader, LeBlanc & Associates, Inc. and Tesha Humphriss from Tetra Tech, MPS. By the end of the work session, there were a few persons in the audience.
Items scheduled for action during the regular session of the commission were discussed.
PUBLIC HEARING
MINUTES
The regular session of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Don Pobuda at 7:00 p.m.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and a moment of silence was observed.
Moved by Figurski, seconded by Mortensen, to approve the Agenda as written.
The motion carried unanimously.
The call to the public was made to discuss items not on the agenda. There was no response and the call to the public was closed at 7:02 p.m. Chairman Pobuda noted that the Board will not begin any new business after 10:00 p.m.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 1…Review of a site plan application, environmental impact assessment and site plan for a proposed retail building located on the south side of Grand River Avenue at Lawson Drive. Sec. 9, petitioned by Boggio and Associates. (PC 05-06)
Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding PUD amendment.
B. Recommendation regarding impact assessment. (dated 1-11-05)
C. Recommendation regarding site plan. (dated 3-9-05)
Mr. Michael Boggio, the architect, and Harvey Weiss, the property owner, were present.
Mr. Boggio showed the site plan of the entire site; showing the outlots, Kohl's, the oil change station, and the car wash. He also showed a colored site plan for Outlot #1, colored elevation drawings, and sample building materials.
They are proposing to have two curb cuts on Lawson Drive. One will be the main two-way drive and the one on the southeast corner of the site will be an exit only. They have changed the elevations to add more detail and architecture. They have added spandrel glass windows to the south elevation of the building so that it is consistent on all four sides, even thought it is the rear of the building and there will be no entrances or exits on this side. They would like to have signage on both sides of the building so that the building gives the appearance of two fronts.
Commissioner Brown questioned why there cannot be glass put on the south side of the building as is the case with a similar building in Brighton on front of Home Depot. Mr. Boggio explained that that building has a restaurant on one of the corners so the back side has actual windows because it is part of the dining room; however, this building will have retail stores so no real windows are possible.
Chairman Pobuda asked the Commissioners to review the amendment to the PUD, specifically Exhibit C, Item N, and asked for comments.
Commissioner Brown stated that the intent of not allowing the drive thru's in the original PUD was so that the Planning Commission could have some control over the uses and architecture of the buildings on this site; however, he is not comfortable with the architecture on the south side of the building so he would not vote in favor of the drive thru.
Commissioner Tengel agrees.
Commissioner Mortensen agrees with the comments from Commissioner Brown regarding the south elevation. He is not sure what should be done with this side of the building, but is not satisfied with what is being presented.
Commissioner Olson would like to see more added to the south side, but does not have a problem with allowing the drive thru.
Commissioner Figurski does not like the architecture of the building and has always been against the drive thru.
Commissioner Snyder feels this is an improvement from what was presented last time; however, he still feels that this is the rear of the building. Commissioner Mortensen stated that if you are in the Kohl's parking lot, this is not the back of the building. Commissioner Snyder agrees, but does not feel it is necessary to make the rear of the building look like the front.
Mr. Purdy feels that since this is a corner lot, the architectural detail should be more prominent in the northwest corner of the building, and then lessen those same details on the southeast corner. This is a just a rectangular building that could be placed on any internal lot on this site.
Commissioner Brown agrees with Mr. Purdy's suggestion.
Mr. Weiss agrees that the rear of the building should appear that it is a front; however, he knows that the tenants are going to want signage on both sides because of that. He would like the Planning Commissioner to address the issue of allowing signage on the rear of the building. Ms. Kolakowski stated that the ordinance was just changed where two signs can be approved administratively for corner and through lots and would not need to go before the Planning Commission. Mr. Weiss would agree to mirroring the front of the building on the back since the two signs would be allowed.
There was a discussion regarding changing the landscaping on Lawson Drive to help screen the south side of the building. Mr. Purdy suggested replacing some of the deciduous trees with evergreen trees to help shield it, but this would not shield the loading area. Commissioner Tengel suggested adding a berm with some additional shrubs, etc. on the south side to help screen it. Commissioner Mortensen does not like the berm. Mr. Boggio suggested adding a hedgerow instead of a berm. Commissioner Mortensen would like to see evergreens and feels the additional signs will help break up the rear façade of the building.
Commissioner Snyder likes the landscaping plan as it is presented. He agreed with Mr. Purdy's suggestion of having the northwest corner be the focal point of the building and doing something like that on the southeast side, only less intense.
Commissioner Olsen agrees. She would like to have all of the landscaping the same and not "chop" it up with trees.
Commissioner Figurski agrees with changing some trees to evergreens in front of the loading zone and she is against the drive thru.
Commissioner Mortensen would like to have some evergreens added. He would approve the plan this evening with these small changes suggested this evening.
Commissioner Brown would like to see new architectural drawings before he moved on the PUD / drive-thru issue.
Commissioner Tengel agrees with Mr. Purdy's suggestions regarding the architecture and would like to see new drawings.
Mr. Boggio stated that if they were to pull the towers out further, the elevations would still appear the same on the elevation because it is a two-dimensional drawing.
Mr. Purdy would like to see the west and north elevations identical.
Mr. Purdy stated that the number of Hicks Yew plantings exceeds the 33% maximum for one species. The petitioner will make this change.
Ms. Humphriss addressed Commissioner Mortensen's concern during the work session questioning why traffic studies are requested by the engineer each time a new building is proposed on a site that has already had a traffic study performed. She stated that traffic studies are required by ordinance is the use is more than 50 trips per hour. The traffic study done for the original PUD was for a high-end restaurant in Lot #1 which is 25 trips per hour, and this proposed use is estimated at 140 trips. Also, since the original traffic study was done, the Lake Chemung off ramp has been improved and the Kohl's has been developed. The 2002 traffic study is out of date.
Commissioner Tengle questioned what the results of a traffic study would yield. How will it help and what will it do? Ms. Humphriss stated that the decel lane from Grand River Avenue onto Lawson may need to be longer and the traffic signal timing may need to be changed.
Chairman Pobuda suggested having the traffic study done after another one or two of the lots are developed so they would be more accurate.
Chairman Pobuda questioned whether or not the Commissioners felt that a traffic study should be required for this project. Commissioner Tengle stated he did not feel that a Traffic Study should be required. Commissioner Brown Agreed. Commissioner Mortensen stated that he feels that a Traffic Study is premature at this time but stated that if the County requires it, that is another matter. Commissioners Figurski, Olsen and Snyder agreed with Commissioner Mortensen.
Ms. Humphriss reviewed her letter dated April 2, 2005.
· The traffic pattern for this project is better than the Krispy Kreme petition because the number of travel lanes through the site has been reduced.
· The second curb cut on Lawson is one way out only and should be reduced to 15' wide.
· The Planning Commission could require a cue analysis for the drive-thru which would look at the demand for this particular use and would give a worst-case scenario of cueing for the drive-thru.
Commissioner Brown stated that cue analysis is probably is a good idea however, for this type of business, their peak time will be in the morning when the other business are closed and traffic is less. The other Commissioners agreed that it is not necessary.
Chairman Pobuda questioned why the plans say coffee house on one page and sit-down restaurant on the landscape plan. Mr. Boggio replied that it was an error on the landscape plan and will be corrected.
Commissioner Figurski asked what the awnings would be made of. Mr. Boggio replied that they would be fabric in a muted green color.
Commissioner Olsen questioned whether or not the signage would all be the same size and have a consistent look. Mr. Weiss replied that they are all required to individual letters.
Mr. Weiss stated that he would like to clarify what his notes are regarding the concerns addressed this evening.
· The one way out drive on Lawson Road should be reduced to 15'.
· Replace some of the canopy trees with evergreens.
· Protrude out the west side of the building and carry the treatment.
· Are we going to limit the spandrel glass?
Commissioner Mortensen stated that he would not want to see any more spandrel glass than what they already have proposed. Commissioner Brown stated that he does not have any objections to the spandrel glass. Commission Tengle stated that he would like the building to be balanced. He doesn't see the need to add additional spandrel.
Commissioner Snyder stated that he feels that the west elevation should mimic the north. Commissioners Olsen and Figurski agreed.
The call to the public was made at 8:10 p.m.
Mr. Gary McCririe, Genoa Township Supervisor of 2911 Dorr Road had four comments. The first was in regard to the building elevations. Mr. MrCririe stated that he had copies of the elevations for Bennigan's and Bob Evan's and he submitted that they receive more traffic from their rear elevation than this. He indicated that their site plans were approved without the architectural extent that the Planning Commission is suggesting for this project. He stated that what was has been proposed is acceptable. The second comment was to suggest landscaping could be used against the building to break it up. Thirdly, Mr. McCririe cautioned that when this PUD was approved we specifically determined what the signage would be. If we begin to allow signs on the backs of buildings it will never end. Everyone will want to put signs on the back of their buildings. Lastly, Mr. McCririe stated that the petitioner needs direction on the PUD. The drive-thru for Krispy Kreme was approved. This request is a minor modification to the text and the petitioner needs direction on that issue.
The call to the public was closed at 8:20 p.m.
Chairman Pobuda stated that Bennigan's and Bob Evan's are farther from the road than this will be. He continued on to say that he couldn't agree more with Mr. McCririe's comments in regard to the signage. Regarding the PUD, Chairman Pobuda clarified that the Commission had started the meeting with a discussion of the PUD amendment. It was the consensus of the Commission that if the architecture were acceptable they would support the amendment.
Commissioner Brown indicated that his only point was that this building has 3 fronts.
Ms. Kolakowski reminded the Commission that if they wish to limit the signage on the back of the building, the PUD would need to be amended. Commissioner Mortensen replied that they need to change it back to what the old ordinance stated. Mr. Weiss indicated that he understood the Commission's intent, however he pointed out that the tenants of the building will most likely be back asking for signage on the back.
Commissioner Mortensen stated that in the future, the Planning Commission should attach the ordinance in effect at the time of approval to the PUD Agreement
Commissioner Olsen asked if the petitioner had reviewed and could comply with the conditions of the Fire Departments letters. Mr. Boggio replied that they had reviewed and will comply.
Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Figurski, to table Agenda Item #1 at the petitioner's request. The motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Figurski, seconded by Mortensen, to approve the minutes of March 28, 2005 with minor revisions. The motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Kolakowski reviewed the agenda for the April 25, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. The following petitions are on the agenda: 1.) WalGreen's Final PUD Plan, 2.) Brighton County Day Site Plan and 3.) St. Joe's Woodland Paving Addition. Commissioner Mortensen stated that he is on the Board of Trustees for St. Joseph's Hospital and questioned whether or not he should abstain from voting on the Woodland Center petition. The Commission decided that Commissioner Mortensen should abstain from voting on that petition.
The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Submitted by: Patty Thomas, Recording Secretary and Kelly Kolakowski, Planning Director