Planning Commission Meeting on September 24, 2001

OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 1…Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Text affecting Genoa Township, to allow drive-through Pharmacies in the Neighborhood Services District.

A. Recommendation regarding Zoning Ordinance Text.

OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 2… Review of final site condominium for proposed site condominium on 18.83 acres located on the west side of Char Ann Drive, ¼ mile north of Grand River, Section 6, petitioned by Norm Dymond. (PC 01-13)

A. Recommendation regarding final site condominium.

OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 3… Review of a site plan application, environmental impact assessment, and site plan for proposed 8,900 sq. ft. retail building, at the northwest corner of Grand River Ave. and Meadowview Road, Section 8, petitioned by Meadowview Associates, L.L.C. (PC 01-26)

A. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.

B. Disposition of site plan.

OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 4…Consideration of an amendment on proposed revisions to the Township's Noise Ordinance.

A. Recommendation regarding amendment revisions.

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, Barbara Figurski, James Mortensen, Ken Burchfield, Curt Brown, John Cahill, and Bill Litogot. Also present was Michael Archinal, Township Manager; Jeff Purdy from Langworthy, Strader, LeBlanc & Associates, Inc.; and Tesha Yielding 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.

The regular session of the planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Don Pobuda at 7:05 p.m.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

Moved by Figurski, seconded by Mortensen, to approve the Agenda .

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 7:06 p.m. Chairman Pobuda noted that the Board will not begin any new business after 10:00 p.m.

OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 1…Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Text affecting Genoa Township, to allow drive-through Pharmacies in the Neighborhood Services District.

A. Recommendation regarding Zoning Ordinance Text.

Mike Archinal stated we have worked on the CVS/Pharmacy project for a while and the zoning map has been amended for this particular site to be zoned Neighborhood Service District. This amendment would allow for drive-thru pharmacies as a special use in the Neighborhood Service District. The planner and the attorney have both approve the language of this amendment.

Commission Burchfield stated he is going to vote against this because he feels it is inappropriate for this particular piece of property. He does not feel that CVS/Pharmacy is just a pharmacy. He feels it is more of a general convenience store that has a pharmacy section.

The call to the public was made at 7:09 with no response.

Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Cahill, to recommend to the Township Board approval of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Text affecting Genoa Township, to allow drive-through Pharmacies in the Neighborhood Services District. The motion carried (Cahill - Y; Brown - Y; Mortensen - Y; Figurski - Y; Pobuda - Y; Litogot - Y; Burchfield - N).

OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 2… Review of final site condominium for proposed site condominium on 18.83 acres located on the west side of Char Ann Drive, ¼ mile north of Grand River, Section 6, petitioned by Norm Dymond. (PC 01-13)

A. Recommendation regarding final site condominium.

Mike Boss of Boss Engineering was present to represent the petitioner. They are asking for approval for a 13-lot site condominium. He noted there are deed restrictions on Page 21 of the Master Deed that outline what types of homes can be built on these 13 lots. They are going to be large, upscale homes. He stated that the owner of the land lives on Char-Ann Drive and is going to be consistent with the homes that are currently there.

Mr. Boss reviewed his comments to the Planner's letter dated September 18, 2001.

1. They do not have architectural plans because they are just developing the land.

2. They have not done a tree survey. The landscape plan shows the wooded area and where the trees are planned to be taken out. Their Mast Deed and By Laws state that they will try to conserve and protect the natural features of the site.

3. The Township Board gave them preliminary approval for a 26-foot-wide road.

4. They have a letter dated August 27th from the Drain Commissioner.

5. The road name has been changed and approved.

6. They have submitted engineering and utility plans for final approval to the Township Engineer.

Commissioner Burchfield asked if there is going to be a special assessment district formed. Mr. Boss stated there will not.

Commissioner Mortensen wants the record to show that he did not vote against this project at the May 21, 2001 Board Meeting as stated in the minutes.

Commissioner Mortensen referred again to the Board Meeting meetings of May 21, 2001. It states that the road width shall be 30 feet. Commissioner Cahill believes this was an issue that was discussed at the Planning Commission as well and feels it is further proved because it is a condition of the motion at the Board Meeting.

Chairman Pobuda asked about the utility easement on Lot #9 and #10. Would each of these land owners own that property? Mr. Boss stated each property owner would own the property, including the easement, up to the property line.

Chairman Pobuda asked if the road can be tied into the road from the Earl Lake subdivision. Mr. Boss stated it cannot because there is no where for it to connect to in that subdivision.

Jeff Purdy reviewed his letter of September 18, 2001.

All commissioners agree that the language in the Master Deed is sufficient in lieu of architectural plans being submitted.

Mr. Purdy would like the landscape plan submitted to the Township Board at time of approval.

A tree survey needs to be provided for all areas to be disturbed. Mr. Boss stated they are not doing any grading beyond the right of way. When a builder comes in to build on a particular site, they will need to abide by the Master Deed and the By Laws. All commissioners, except Litogot and Mortensen, stated they would like to see a tree survey. Mr. Boss stated the tree survey would only affect the roadway because that is all they are proposing. They are not going to clear any of the land beyond the roadway. That will need to be done when an individual builder comes to the site. After a discussion and with the points made by Mr. Boss, all commissioners agree that a tree survey is not needed. Chairman Pobuda stated he would like the tree survey because he feels that a developer could come and clear the whole site out.

The petitioner is proposing a 26-foot-wide roadway. Mr. Purdy stated that because of the low density of this project (13 sites) the 26-foot-wide road makes sense. There was a brief discussion regarding the width of the road. Commissioner Burchfield stated he recalls that last time this was before the Planning Commission, they asked for the 30-foot-wide road because they were allowing the petitioner to exceed the length requirement for the road. All commissioners agree.

Tesha Yielding reviewed her letter of September 17, 2001.

They have addressed most of their issues; however, thrust blocks are not acceptable means of restraining water main and they should be removed from Sheet #9 of the plans.

The call to the public was made at 7:47 with no response.

Moved by Burchfield, seconded by Litogot, to recommend to the Township Board approval of the Hidden Ridge site condominium on 18.83 acres located on the west side of Char Ann Drive, ¼ mile north of Grand River, Section 6, petitioned by Norm Dymond. (PC 01-13) with the following conditions:

1. The complete landscape plan dated March 27, 2001 shall be made part of the final site plan.

2. A cross section of the 30-foot-wide road shall be added to the site plan

3. The Bi-laws shall be amended with an additional requirement that no trees of 8" caliper or more shall be cut down within the residential units without prior approval of the developer or the developer's successors.

4. Petitioner shall obtain written approval of the storm water drainage from the Livingston County Drain Commissioner.

5. The road name of Kenemond shall be approved by the Livingston County Road Commission as well as all required agencies.

6. The petitioner shall remove the thrust block detail from Sheet #9 of the plans.

7. Tree protection fencing and limits of grading for the road and utility construction shall be noted.

The motion carried unanimously.

OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 3… Review of a site plan application, environmental impact assessment, and site plan for proposed 8,900 sq. ft. retail building, at the northwest corner of Grand River Ave. and Meadowview Road, Section 8, petitioned by Meadowview Associates, L.L.C. (PC 01-26)

A. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.

B. Disposition of site plan.

Jane Greenway of Equinox, Inc., Mike Boggio of Michael Boggio & Associates Architects, Steve Kalabat of Meadowview Associates, and Harvey Weiss were present to represent the petitioner.

Jane Greenway gave a brief overview of the proposal. They are proposing an 8,900 square foot retail building. They do not have any agreements with tenants at this point. They are providing 51 parking spaces instead of the 38 required.

Mr. Mike Boggio reviewed the architecture of the building. He showed colored elevations and material samples. They are using concrete masonry, split face block at the base in a contrasting color, EIFS material, and a standing seam metal roof that will screen the rooftop equipment. The trash enclosure will match the material of the building.

Commissioner Figurski asked what the height of the building is. It is 29 feet, which is within the ordinance.

It was discovered that the petitioner had made revisions to the elevation plans that were not reflected in the Commissioners' packets. There was a brief discussion regarding the differences.

Mr. Purdy reviewed his letter of August 27, 2001.

The building does not meet the 50-foot rear yard setback requirement. The Planning Commission can allow a 45-foot setback if additional landscaping is provided. Mr. Purdy noted some choices that the petitioner may have. He recommends a brick wall and a landscaping easement on the adjoining property. The petitioner could also eliminate ht parking in the rear, move the wall and then landscape on their property, or move the building back and lose five feet of building size. Mr. Weiss stated they have contacted the residential neighbors about planting on their property and have not heard back from them. He also noted the rear wall is to be made of the same material as the rest of the building, so it will not be just a stark concrete wall.

Mr. Archinal feels the landscaping is not enough to screen the building, the noise, the trash blowing, etc.

Commissioner Litogot does not feel we should encroach on the neighbors' property. He would like the screening wall and for the petitioner to meet the setback requirement.

Commissioner Burchfield would allow the 45 feet, but would like to see more landscaping wherever it can be added.

Mr. Weiss feels the wall is the best treatment between retail and residential.

Commissioners Mortensen and Brown would like to see the wall, but they would approve the 45-foot setback.

After a brief discussion, it was decided that the wall shall be built and the petitioner will be allowed the 45-foot setback.

The parking lot at the rear does not meet the 20-foot greenbelt requirement. The petitioner is going to request a variance for this from the ZBA.

The façade treatment along the east side of the building should be consistent with the front façade. He suggested bringing the roof around from the front to the east side of the building.

Standard parking spaces are required to be 9.5 feet wide. Mr. Boggio stated the ordinance allows for 9-foot wide parking spaces if they are double striped and that is what they are proposing to do. Mr. Purdy stated this is correct, but he would still recommend the 9.5-foot wide parking spaces. Mr. Weiss stated there are not going to be high turnover uses in this building and there will be no grocery carts.

The loading space shall be relocated 25 feet to the west to reduce the number of parking spaces interfered with. The petitioner will comply with this request.

A shared driveway should be provided with the property to the west. Mr. Weiss stated they have agreed to record a 26-foot-wide easement for a future service to the west drive along the front of the property.

The landscaping along the west lot line is deficient. Ms. Greenway described the ornamental grasses that will be used. Commissioners Mortensen and Brown agree with the grasses, but Commissioners Figurski, Cahill, Burchfield, and Litogot and Chairman Pobuda would prefer the grasses with some trees.

The Planning Commission should require a photometric grid be submitted to evaluate the light impact on the residences. Mr. Boggio stated all of their proposed lighting is downward facing and shielded. All commissioners except Burchfield agree that no photometric grid is required. Commissioner Burchfield would like to see a photometric grid.

Commissioner Litogot stated he would like to see all proposed signage, the floor plan with the tentative square footage for each tenant.

There will be no outdoor speaker system, no antennae on the building, no outdoor storage of any kind, and all grass areas will be sprinkled.

Tesha Yielding reviewed her letter of August 31, 2001.

She noted there is no grading for the detention basin shown on Sheet L-1. Ms. Greenway noted the detention basin and retaining wall are shown on Sheet G-1.

All of the other engineering issues are minor and can be worked out between the engineer and the petitioner.

The call to the public was made at 9:26 with no response.

Moved by Figurski, seconded by Mortensen, to table the request for a proposed 8,900 sq. ft. retail building, at the northwest corner of Grand River Ave. and Meadowview Road, Section 8, petitioned by Meadowview Associates, L.L.C. (PC 01-26) at the petitioner's request; however, the Planning Commission reviewed the items that need to be addressed when they return to the Planning Commission for approval:

1. A sample of the proposed glass for the building shall be presented.

2. A revised copy of the architectural plans shall be submitted.

3. The brick wall to the rear shall not be higher than six feet and shall have a "broken up" design.

4. The 45-foot rear yard setback is acceptable.

5. The parking spaces shall be 9.5 feet wide

6. The loading area shall be relocated.

7. The petitioner shall record a 26-foot-wide easement from the west and south of the building to provide for further service drive.

8. The landscape plan along the west side to include six trees and ornamental grasses.

9. All proposed signage shall be presented.

10. A proposed interior floor plan shall be presented.

11. The petitioner shall satisfy all engineering requirements.

Chairman Pobuda asked Mr. Farnet if his company was the original designer of the building. They were not. He added that Wal-Mart has storage issues at all of its locations. It is the nature of their business to buy large quantities and if they do not sell those items, they have to store them.

Chairman Pobuda stated that if Wal-Mart knows that they have problems with storage at all of their buildings, they should design the stores differently in order to solve these problems. He asked the commissioners if they would like to table this request because of the fact Wal-Mart is not in compliance currently with the Township with regard to outdoor storage, or would they prefer to discuss the issues with the petitioner. The majority of commissioners agreed to discuss the issues with the petitioner this evening.

Commissioner Litogot voiced his concerns. He wants the metal containers that are currently in the garden center taken out of there. The petitioner stated the manager at that store is looking into renting off-site storage space.

Commissioner Litogot added that the loudspeaker and lighting is currently against the ordinance and he is not in favor of approving anything for Wal-Mart at this time.

Commissioner Burchfield asked about the materials for the proposed roof system. Mr. Farnet stated they are proposing a poly carbon material for the edge, a corrugated metal material for the roof and an open mesh materials for the side wall that will be open during the spring and summer months.

Commissioner Burchfield is concerned with the appearance of this. He feels there will be too much light escaping from the interior at night. There are 51 fluorescent lights proposed and there is already a complaint about the current lighting.

Commissioner Figurski stated she feels there are too many lights and the whole site is too bright. She is not pleased by the way the store is currently being kept up.

Commissioner Mortensen stated that the proposed mesh material is not present this evening and it should be. He is not in favor of this project. He doesn't want to put a temporary structure on this PUD. He is also opposed to the garden center being on the front of the building, which faces Grand River Avenue.

Commissioner Brown had no comments at this time.

Commissioner Cahill agrees with Commissioner Mortensen's comments, especially the garden center being in the front of the building so close to Grand River. He asked how much higher than the current building would this new canopy be. Mr. Farnet stated it will be approximately eight feet higher. Commissioner Cahill feels this is too high.

Mr. Purdy does not have much to add. He agrees with all of the comments from the Commissioners. He feels that the Planning Commission needs to consider that compliance with the current ordinances should be addressed prior to or conditioned upon any approval.

The call to the public was made at 7:22 with no response.

Mr. Farnet stated there are options that can be discussed with regard to materials as well as positioning of the garden center.

Mr. Archinal stated staff can work with the applicant on these issues and develop some alternatives.

Moved by Figurski, seconded by Mortensen, to table, at the petitioner's request, Open Public Hearing #1…Review of site plan application, environmental impact assessment, and site plan for proposed 8,493 sq. ft. garden center canopy addition at the existing Wal-Mart Store located at 3850 East Grand River, Sec. 5, petitioned by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (PC 01-28). The motion carried unanimously.

OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 2… Review of site plan application, environmental impact assessment, and site plan for proposed 10,960 sq. ft. one story child care facility, for Tutor Time, located on 1.35 acres on the north side of Grand River at Grand Oaks Drive, Sec. 9, petitioned by Lorenzo Cavalier-Boulder Const. (PC 01-27)

A. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.

B. Recommendation regarding site plan.

Chairman Pobuda advised the petitioner that the Planner has two very large issues with regard to this project.

Mr. Jeff Smith from Equinox, and Mr. John Greenwood from Griffin were present to represent the petitioner. Mr. Greenwood is present on behalf of Tutor Time. Harvey Weiss was also present this evening.

Mr. Smith gave a brief overview of the project and showed building material samples.

Mr. Greenwood handles the outdoor play area for Tutor Time. He stated that the State of Michigan requires 1,200 square feet of outdoor play space and Tutor Time provides 5,000 square feet. They find that 5,000 square feet of outdoor play space is sufficient as they stagger groups of children to play outside at different times. They feel the 28,200 square feet required by the Township is excessive because of the amount of children that go out at one given time. He requested that the Planning Commission recommend approval because of these reasons.

Chairman Pobuda asked Mr. Weiss if this is the petitioner's entire presentation. He feels more information needs to be given to the Planning Commission. Mr. Weiss is the developer of this project.

Chairman Figurski asked Mr. Weiss if this is the correct location for this type of project. Mr. Weiss feels that it is a very appropriate location. It is on the easterly most outlot of the Genoa Square Development. He showed a view of the entire PUD and where Tutor Time would be located. He also reviewed the elevations of the building as well as proposed building materials. He added that they have added additional landscaping along Grand River Avenue and they are providing the detention pond for the entire PUD, instead of having each outlot provide their own detention system.

Commissioner Figurski still questions the location. It is right off of the expressway in a very busy area of Grand River. Mr. Weiss feels it is a strategic location because of the expressway as parents drop off and pick up their children on their way to and from work.

Commissioner Figurski's other concerns include shielding of rooftop equipment, the height of the building is not shown, and there seems to be quite a bit of signs.

She asked if the proposed driveway is the only driveway. Mr. Weiss stated that it is the only driveway. Mr. Smith stated the outdoor play area is well away from Grand River and is shielded from the other outlot.

Commissioner Mortensen asked if this is a franchise business. Mr. Greenwood stated it is a franchise but this will be a corporate store.

He asked if the 10,960 square foot building is in compliance with the State of Michigan. Yes it does meet the State of Michigan requirements.

Commissioner Mortensen asked if Tutor Time would comply if the Township made a condition of site plan approval be that only 1/5 of the children could be out at one time. Mr. Greenwood stated Tutor Time would comply with this request if it was in writing.

Chairman Pobuda asked what the age groups will be. Mr. Greenwood stated the children are from six weeks to five years old.

Mr. Greenwood added that Tutor Time is the fastest growing child care facility in the country, it is the 3rd largest, they have been in business 30 years, not one of their facilities has ever closed, and they are the experts in child care.

Commissioner Brown agrees with the suggestion by Commissioner Mortensen of 1/5 of the children being allowed outside at a time being a condition of site plan approval.

He asked if the children are in a classroom-like setting or if they just play all day. Mr. Greenwood stated that Tutor Time focuses on education and social interaction and they do a great job.

Commissioner Brown noted that if 1/5 of the children are outside, 4/5 of them will be inside and then Tutor Time is still not meeting Genoa Township's requirements for inside area. Mr. Greenwood stated that this has not been a concerning with other communities. Commissioner Mortensen asked if 10,000 square feet is a typically-sized building. Mr. Greenwood stated 10,950 is a prototypical building for them. Mr. Smith stated they are only proposing to have 160 children at this facility.

Mr. Weiss stated that he visited a Tutor Time facility in recent months and it is very well organized and very well run. They are professionals in the day care industry. He feels it would be a very nice addition to any community.

Commissioner Cahill asked how many employees will be at this facility. Mr. Greenwood stated they comply with the State of Michigan requirements. Chairman Pobuda stated the state's requirements are a minimum and the Township has a right to change the minimum required. Commissioner Cahill stated there is only parking for 25 employees. He also is concerned how deliveries will be handled. Chairman Pobuda agrees with these concerns. He feels the delivery hours and times of drop off and pick up of children should be stated in the impact assessment.

Commissioner Cahill has concerns about all of the traffic that will be generated at this site and there is no light at that intersection. He feels the parking is inadequate and that this is a very dangerous situation. Mr. Greenwood stated the drop off is very staggered and Tutor Time has never had a problem with safety or traffic flow in the past.

Commissioner Cahill feels not enough information has been presented this evening to satisfy the Planning Commission's concerns regarding operations and facilities. Mr. Weiss agrees with this. He suggested a representative from Tutor Time come before the Planning Commission to properly answer the questions and concerns that were noted this evening. Chairman Pobuda thanked Mr. Weiss for his comments.

Commissioner Cahill would like to visit a facility to see how it operates. Mr. Greenwood will submit a list of facilities in the area. Mr. Greenwood feels that everyone would be best served to have a representative from Tutor Time present to provide accurate information.

Commissioner Litogot noted some of his concerns. He advised the petitioner that no left hand turn is going to be allowed out of this site onto Grand River. He feels the food service area has to be provided on the plans. He feels the Planning Commission needs more information.

Chairman Pobuda reiterated the concerns of the Planning Commission so the representative from Tutor Time will be prepared.

1. What is the ratio of grass/sand area versus blacktop on the outside play area.

2. Playground material samples need to be provided.

3. How will parking be handled with regard to special events at the school.

4. How is the laundry handled.

5. How many employees

6. What types of delivery vehicles will visit this location and how are deliveries be handled.

7. How is the dumpster pickup handled.

Mr. Purdy feels that most of his concerns have been addressed by the Planning Commission, although the monument sign can only be six-feet high and he needs clarification as to where the wall signs are going to be placed. Also, he would like to stay within the 100-foot maximum requirement for the wall signs. All commissioners agreed with this.

The call to the public was made at 8:24 p.m. with no response.

Commissioner Cahill does not like to deviate from the Township ordinances and he will need to see a compelling presentation in order to do so.

Commissioner Mortensen has concerns about the traffic at this site. He feels this is a very dangerous location. Mr. Weiss stated he has spoken to the road commission and they still feel this intersection does not warrant a traffic light.

Commissioner Figurski feels the Impact Assessment has to be completely redone.

Commissioner Burchfield asked the planner how can this project be approved at this site when there are such large variances in the ordinances as to what is being proposed. Mr. Purdy stated that there is a section in the ordinance that states that the Planning Commission can reduce these ordinances bed on the amount of infant care that is being proposed. Commissioner Burchfield stated that if the petitioner does not provide us with this information, then the Planning Commission does not have any leeway. Mr. Purdy stated that this is in a PUD so there are still some areas where the Planning Commission can use their discretion.

Chairman Pobuda stated there is definitely a need for this facility, but feels maybe there is another location in the Township that would be better for this.

Moved by Figurski, seconded by Cahill to table, at the petitioner's request, Open Public Hearing #1…Review of site plan application, environmental impact assessment, and site plan for proposed 10,960 sq. ft. one story child care facility, for Tutor Time, located on 1.35 acres on the north side of Grand River at Grand Oaks Drive, Sec. 9, petitioned by Lorenzo Cavalier-Boulder Const. (PC 01-27). The motion carried (Cahill - Y; Brown - Y; Mortensen - Y; Figurski - Y; Pobuda - Y; Burchfield - N; Litogot - Y).

Moved by Litogot, seconded by Mortensen, to approve the minutes of September 24, 2001 with the following change:

1. Page 3, Paragraph #2, "Commissioner Mortensen wants the record to show that he did not vote against…….." should be changed to "…….wants the record to show that he believes he did not vote against……... The motion carried unanimously.

Member Discussion

Mike Archinal stated there is a fifth Monday this month so there will be a joint meeting on Monday, October 29th at 7:00 p.m. Sidewalks will be discussed. They will be discussing spending general fund money to connect the sidewalks that have been installed along Grand River by all of the petitioners.

There will only be one Planning Commission meeting in November. It will be the second Monday, November 26, 2001.

Commissioner Mortensen asked if all of the sidewalks been installed that have been required to be installed. Mr. Archinal stated the Township is going to do an aerial photograph and determine if there are sidewalks still indebted to the Township. Commissioner Cahill asked if there are standards for the construction of sidewalks. Mr. Archinal stated there is an 8% slope standard in order for drainage.

Chairman Pobuda thanked the Commissioners for their comments this evening.

The meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m.

Submitted by: Patty Thomas, Recording Secretary