Printed from http://www.genoa.org/meetings/boardminute/1399
on May 4, 2011 at 5:24am.

Planning Commission Meeting on August 14, 2000

Agenda:

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, Barbara Figurski, Jerrold Joseph, John Cahill, Gary McCririe, and Bill Litogot. Also present was Michael Archinal, Township Manager; Brad Strader and Kelly Schuler from Langworthy, Strader, LeBlance & Associates, Inc.; and Melissa Talley and Kevin Fern 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 7:04 p.m.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

Moved by Figurski, seconded by Litogot to approve the Agenda with the following changes:

1. Open Public Hearing #1 will be tabled because the petitioner has not filed an application for a Special Use Permit.
2. Open Public Hearing #2 becomes Public Hearing #1.
3. Open Public Hearing #3 becomes Public Hearing #2. No action will be taken on this item but the Planning Commission will discuss it with the petitioner.
4. Open Public Hearing #4 will be tabled at the petitioner's request.

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…Review of a site plan for a 2 story, 8,750 square foot office building, 7900 West Grand River, on the southwest side of Grand River, between Hacker and Bendix, Sec 13, petitioned by Mike Bartlett. (PC 00-25) Tabled from 7-10-00 meeting

• Planning Commission disposition of Bartlett petition

A. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.

B. Disposition of site plan.

Mr. James Barnwell from Desine Engineers, Mr. Mike Bartlett of Real Estate One, and Mr. Bill Colley, the architect were present to discuss the proposal.

Mr. Barnwell gave a brief overview of the site. They are proposing a two-level office building. The access will be off of the road that is currently there. He explained the grading that will need to be done to this site because of the elevation difference on the site.

Mr. Colley gave a brief description of the building. The building will face Grand River Avenue. Three quarters of the building will be for Real Estate One and they will leave the remaining quarter of the building. The second story of the building will be facing the residential area. He showed the proposed brick building materials and shingles. He stated they have put substantial landscaping to screen between the building and the residential area.

Mr. Barnwell showed that the residents will be looking at the dense area of trees on one side and on one side, they will be looking at the second story of the building. The building is ten feet lower than the residential area so they will see the top of the building. On another side, the residents will be 12 feet above the buildings o they will not see any of the parking lot.

Mr. Barnwell stated he knows that this building is going to have a negative affect on the residents. They have tried to be as sensitive as possible. They have done what they can to keep the building lower than the area so they're seeing just the roof of the building as well as trying to keep it screened with landscaping. He added that this is a commercially-zoned piece of property and someone is going to build on it.

Commissioner Cahill asked if the roof will have any equipment on it? No. They have tried to soften the roofs. They are pitched roofs. They tried to keep them residential in character.

Commissioner Litogot asked about the lighting impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Barnwell stated there will be no impact from the lighting. He stated ten-foot high lights will be added to the parking lot, which is the same that are there now. Mr. Bartlett stated the lights will turn off at approximately 10:00 or 11:00 p.m.

Commissioner Litogot asked about the signage. There will be one sign that is 72 inches high. There will be no signs on the building.

Commissioner Joseph asked about the retaining walls. If the wall would not have to be built, would the trees be able to be saved? Mr. Barnwell feels that the safety factor of building the retaining will is worth the risk to the trees.

Commissioner Joseph asked of Lot #9 will be buildable after this project is complete. Mr. Barnwell stated yes. He stated if anyone was to build on Lot #9, they would have to do the same grading that they are doing.

Commissioner Cahill asked what is the height of the retaining wall. It is three feet high.

Commissioner Figurski asked how far the parking lot is from the lot line. It is 20 feet from the lot line.

Mr. Brad Strader reviewed his letter of August 8, 2000. He stated the ordinance requires all structures and landscaping on the existing lot not to extend out into adjoining lots. The wall extends into Lot #9, which is against the ordinance. He does not feel comfortable with the information they have seen. He would like to see if the petitioner can get this project to work and meet this ordinance.

Mr. Strader stated he would like to see elevations and cross sections of the retaining walls. He suggested moving the lot line for Lot #9 (Section 3.3102 of the ordinance) to meet the ordinance. The petitioner would need approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. All commissioners agreed with Mr. Strader.

Mr. Strader stated architectural accents should be added to the building facade. The petitioner is working on this for the final drawings. Lots 6, 7 and 8 need to be combined, and if they are not being combined, a shared entrance agreement for the road needs to be obtained.

Mr. Strader stated wall-mounted lighting must be shown on the building plans. The petitioner has added this to the revised plans. Commissioner McCririe stated the candle lighting needs to be shown in the Impact Assessment.

Commissioner McCririe asked what the sign plan is for tenants in the building. The petitioner needs to present this at the next stage of approval.

Mr. Strader stated the parking lot is or general office. The additional building space can not be leased to a medical office because that requires additional parking. This needs to be acknowledged in the plans.

Ms. Melissa Talley reviewed her letter of August 7, 2000. She reviewed the grading that is going to be done to Lot #9, which is outside the site limits. If there is going to be work done on Lot #9, an easement needs to be provided. The petitioner will comply with this request. There was a brief discussion regarding retaining wall vs. grading into Lot #9. The petitioner would prefer the retaining wall as proposed this evening. Commissioner McCririe reiterated Mr. Strader's suggestion of moving the lot line. Mr. Colley showed that with the grading into Lot #9, they are building a buildable site that is able to be accessed from the current drive.

Commissioner Cahill asked for a brief explanation to the public regarding what point we are in the process of this project. Chairman Pobuda feels this is going to be tabled tonight after all of the suggestions from the Planning Commission as well as the public. All commissioners agreed.

Ms. Talley stated the petitioner is proposing to connect to the existing storm sewer. They will need the approval of the proper agencies. The petitioner will comply with this request.

Ms. Talley stated the petitioner is proposing to connect to the existing water main on the west side of Grand River Avenue. In order to ensure Township standards are met, the plans should show the size of the water service leads. The petitioner will comply with this request.

Ms. Talley stated the width of the proposed driveway is 24 feet, which is less than Township standards of 26 feet. She noted that the petitioner is trying to stay consistent with the current 23-foot drive width. She stated it is the Planning Commission's discretion to allow the 23 feet or require the 26 feet. Commissioner Cahill doesn't have a problem with the 24 feet. Commissioners Joseph, Figurski, McCririe, and Litogot agree. Chairman Pobuda prefers the 26-foot drive for safety reasons.

Ms. Tally stated the slope of the driveway to the northern parking are is approximately 7%, which exceed the Township standard of 5%. With the proposed slope of 7%, they will be reducing the impact on the adjacent sites. The Planning Commission has the discretion to allow the 5% slope. All commissioners agreed that a 5% grade is satisfactory in order to lessen the impact of the adjacent sites.

Ms. Talley reviewed her letter of June 21, 2000. If the petitioner chooses to use a water softener, the discharge cannot be connected to the sanitary sewer and a potassium based regenerate should be used.

The REU's for this site have been calculated at 3.5. There is a $4,050 per REU fee for sewer, for a total of $14,175 and a $3,000 per REU fee for water, for a total of $10,500.

The call to the public was made at 7:59 p.m.

Mr. Mark Mohrenweiser of 2849 Scottwood Place works for a land planner and architecture. He knows the process. He is very uncomfortable with this plan. He feels the trees that are being cleared are very significant. He suggests one wall and landscaping instead of two walls. He stated the plans show 15-foot light poles but the petitioner stated 10-foot poles this evening. Which is correct? He asked about Sites #6 and #7 being combined. Those buildings have been up for two years. He is concerned about Lot #9. He would like to see proof that a house can be built there. He feels the petitioner should look at this site in more detail and come up with other solutions in order to make this an established neighborhood. He does not feel the petitioner should clear cut into Lot #9, which is the last residential lot, in order to make their building fit.

Chairman Pobuda encouraged the petitioner to meet with the residents and discuss their concerns.

Mr. Fred Ort of 2742 Scottwood Place asked if this lot is not developed properly, is it going to affect the property value of their property.

Another gentleman from Scottwood Place stated he looks out of his backyard at Lot #9 and it looks beautiful now. He does not see the sense in grading Lot #9 in order to build the office building. He feels it should be left as it is.

Mr. Jim Taylor of 2725 Scottwood Place stated Lot #8 butts right up to his back yard. He asked what the distance is from the property line to the parking lot. The petitioner stated it is 20 feet.

Mr. Randy Lewis of 2797 Scottwood Place is concerned with the grading on Lot #9. He feels there is going to be excess noise from Grand River with the trees being gone. This has already happened when they took some of the trees out for the other two lots.

Mr. Dick Morse lives behind the medical building. He feels the Planning Commission needs to realize what the visual is going to be when the trees lose their leaves in the fall. There is going to be impact from the lighting. He feels there is a common sense way to approach this. He feels that there usually is a difference between what is approved and what is actually installed.

Chairman Pobuda stated the Planning Commission wants to do whatever they can to lessen the impact on the residents. He stated they can control the hours of the lighting, but not the hours of their business.

The call to the public was closed at 8:20 p.m.

Chairman Pobuda asked the petitioner if he would like to address any of the public's concerns.

Mr. Barnwell had the following comments:

1. They put 15 feet on their plans for the light poles, but they will be 10 feet.
2. His calculations are correct with regard to the height of the building and what the residents will see from their property.
3. There will be no negative impact on the residents in regard to drainage. Actually the residential area drains into his site. Commissioner McCririe stated the resident just wants to make sure that his property doesn't erode into this site. Mr. Barnwell with consider this.
4. Noise - There is nothing they can do to lessen the noise. Grand River Avenue is there and it will always be there.

Chairman Pobuda asked the petitioner to provide additional cross sections of the building to show the impact from each side of the site. The petitioner will comply.

There was a discussion regarding the hours of operation. Mr. Mike Bartlett stated the hours are 8:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. in the summer and 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. in the winter. Commissioner McCririe added there will be additional tenants in this building. He feels the need to control the hours of lighting.

Commissioner Figurski stated her concerns with the Impact Assessment:

1. The acreage should be added to the Impact Assessment.
2. There is a part missing between Pages 5 and 6 in the Planning Commissions copy.
3. The petitioner needs to add language regarding the combination of Lot #6, 7, 8, and 9.

The petitioner will comply with all of these requests.

Moved, by McCririe, seconded by Figurski to table this proposal at the petitioner's request. The motion carried unanimously.

Chairman Pobuda thanked the neighbors for their attendance this evening.

OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 2… Review of a rezoning application, environmental impact assessment, and site plan to rezone 115 acres at Nixon and Chilson Roads, Section 20, the request is to rezone from CE (Country Estates) and RR (Rural Residential) to LDR (Low Density Residential) for 33 single family residences, petitioned by Sherr Development. (PC 00-28)

• Planning Commission disposition of Sherr Development petition

A. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.

B. Recommendation regarding rezoning request.

Chairman Pobuda advised the petitioners there would be no action of this proposal this evening.

Mr. Bill Anderson and Mr. Brian Wensel of Atwell Hicks were present to represent the petitioner.

Mr. Anderson gave a brief description of the site. It will be a 115-acre development called Chilson Woods. They have assess the soil, trees, and wetlands, and based on this, they have come up with this plan. They have tried to maintain the wetlands. Most of the homes will be on the east side of Chilson but they have put four homes on the west side. There will be a total of 34 single-family homes. They have left significant buffers along Chilson and Nixon Roads. He stated they are willing to incorporate the engineer's and planner's concerns into their plan. They would like to get a review from the Planning Commission, the engineer, the planner, and the public and revise their plan and come before the Planning Commission again.

Chairman Pobuda asked if there is any common area. Mr. Anderson stated the open space and the public roadway are the common area.

Commissioner McCririe asked what is going to happen to the remaining 50 acres on the west side of Chilson Road. They are proposing no more sites than is allowed on the master plan.

Commissioner Figurski showed the petitioner the fire department's letter requiring more information.

Commissioner Joseph asked how much of the 115 acres is Chilson Road and Nixon Road. Four acres will become deeded right of way for Chilson and Nixon Roads.

Commissioner Joseph asked if the gas easements count as part of the lot area? Mr. Strader stated yes.

Commissioner Litogot stated there is a misprint on the plans on Lot #3. It states this lot is 17 acres, and it should be 1 acre. The petitioner will make the correction.

Commissioner McCririe stated he liked the previous plan presented by the petitioner, where there were not lots west of Chilson Road. He added we need to maintain natural features and see if we are receiving the benefits of why the Township has PUD's. He is concerned there is not enough buffer area between Nixon Road and the lots.

Commissioner Burchfield arrived at 8:55 p.m.

Mr. McCririe stated the constituents of this township want to maintain the rural atmosphere of this township, especially in this corridor.

Chairman Pobuda stated he would like to see a subdivision where the homes and "buried" in the trees. He also stated the playground needs to be set up for active play. He asked if the area will perk? Mr. Anderson stated it will perk.

Mr. Strader reviewed his letter of July 19, 2000. They are concerned with the petitioner meeting the density requirements. He noted the Township can allow a density bonus of up to 10% because it is above 100 acres.

Commissioner McCririe feels we need a larger setback along Nixon Road and then obtain a conservation easement so the residents can not build on that area. Mr. Anderson feels this is a good solution.

The petitioner stated they will add to the PUD an agreement stating trees that are on the lot after the grading is done, can not be removed by the homeowner.

Chairman Pobuda asked what the price range of these homes will be. The petitioner stated they are looking for a high-quality, upper end subdivision. The price is not definite, but it will be about $400,000 per home.

Commissioner McCririe stated that for Lot #23, 24, 27, and 28 it needs to be determined where the homes will be placed on the lots and what the setbacks are actually going to be.

Commissioner Joseph agrees there is a lot of work that needs to be done along Nixon Road. He feels this looks like a subdivision. What is the benefit of this to the Township?

Commissioner Burchfield agrees with Commissioner Joseph - it looks like a subdivision. He feels suggestions from the planner, the Planning Commission, and Township staff can be helpful to the petitioner. The plan "leaves him a little cold".

Commissioner Figurski does not like the setback issues.

Commissioner Litogot would like to see a subdivision built in this Township with no deviation, easements, etc.

Commissioner McCririe feels the Planning Commission needs to be careful of the precedent that is set. He feels the petitioner needs to come in with something that is innovative and looks like a rural subdivision.

Mr. Strader stated a PUD agreement is required and needs to be submitted at the beginning of the process in Genoa Township.

Chairman Pobuda asked if standards are going to be set for the types of homes that can be built. The petitioner stated this will be in the PUD. For example, side entry garages, what materials can be used, diversity of homes, etc.

Mr. Kevin Fern reviewed his letter of July 18, 2000. The petitioner has requested public roads. They need approval of the Livingston Country Drain Commission.

Mr. Strader reviewed the difference between public and private roads. Private roads can be deviated from with regard to width, etc.

Mr. Fern stated the petitioner needs to show storm sewer and retention basin collections with final site plan submittal.

There was a brief discussion regarding another entrance off Chilson Road.

The call to the public was made at 9:23 p.m.

Ms. Gina Goodall owns 5 ½ acres just north of this site. She feels it looks like a one-acre subdivision.

Mr. Jim Rasso owns 10 acres on Nixon Road had the following comments:

1. When he brought his property, they were limited to 10-acre minimums. When the larger property was split for Oak Point, it was split into five-acre lots.
2. The gentleman to the south of the property wanted to split his six acres and the Planning Commission told him no.
3. He believes all of the property surrounding this site is held to 10-acre lots. How did this piece of property get zoned for one acre parcels? He believes this site is zoned for five-acre parcels.
4. He does not feel the conservation easement works. Homeowners continue to use that section of the property and the Township does not enforce it.
5. Lot #18, 19, and 20, which the petitioner is using as open space is standing water six months of the year.
6. The area they area calling wetlands is a swamp.
7. He does not see any open area for a playground.

Ms. Debra Beaty of Chilson Road feels it is a subdivision that is crammed into a beautiful rural area. She stated across from her they have started building and have already removed significant amounts of vegetation. She feels it changes the character of this whole area. She also has concerns of there being no water there for the fire department. Chairman Pobuda stated they bring trucks with water on them in case of a fire. She would like to see a more imaginative plan. Feels they have tried to cram as many houses in as possible.

Ms. Gloria Teed of Chilson road stated when she build her home, she was told all of Chilson Road was five-acre lots. She moved to Howell for the country atmosphere. She is very disappointed.

Russ Bunting of Nixon Road has lived here for 26 years. He noted that he had trouble perking his property. He appreciates the Planning Commission's concern of keeping the subdivision rural. He was very surprised at the two-acre parcels.

Mr. Frank Sutton of Chilson road is interested in seeing what happens here because he might have an interest in doing something with his property. He owns quite a bit of land on the west side of Chilson, behind the four sites of this proposed subdivision.

Ms. Vikki Keane of Nixon Road is concerned with the traffic on Nixon Road if entrances are put on Nixon Road. She also has the same concerns as the other neighbors. She has reservations for the entire project.

Mr. Strader explained how the PUD works with regard to the density requirement as opposed to straight zoning. The Planning Commission can review both plans and then decide which is the best use of this site.

Ms. Beaty asked how this site can be considered 100 acres total. Mr. Strader answered because it is owned by the same person.

Chairman Pobuda reiterated Commissioner McCririe's suggestion to see the footprint of where each house is going to be.

Mr. Frank Sutton has a concern with the traffic.

Commissioner McCririe stated the gentleman who owns this property has the right to develop the property.

The call to the public was closed at 9:58 p.m.

Chairman Pobuda asked how the zoning went from 10 acres, to 5 to 2. Mr. Strader stated in 1991 part of it was zoned for two-acre parcels and part of it was zoned for five-acre parcels.

The Planning Commission will now have to see he two different plans; the parallel plan and the PUD plan.

Chairman Pobuda asked the petitioner about the standing water mentioned by the two members of the audience. Mr. Wensel stated the wetlands were flagged by a very reputable company and in the end the DEQ will confirm the wetlands and whether or not they are regulated. They will reassess this and have more information when they return.

Chairman Pobuda reiterate the concerns of the residents in regard to the drainage, wastewater, groundwater, etc.

Mr. Wensel address the residents' concerns regarding the perking problem. He explained there is 15 feet of sand east and west of Nixon Road. He added the property east of Nixon Road is 15 feet higher than on the west side, where their property is. Therefore, you would have 15 more feet of sand to get through on the east side of Nixon Road, so it would be harder to perk.

Commissioner Cahill has a lot of skepticism with this proposal after hearing the discussions from the residents.

Commissioner Joseph is very concerned with this project. He would like to see what the petitioner proposes the next time they are here.

Commissioner Burchfield feels the issues raised by the public are helpful. He feels the issue of the density has to be determined first, even before addressing what the concept is.

Commissioner Figurski does not like the density and is worried about the wetlands.

Commissioner Litogot would like to see what is going to be proposed next time.

Chairman Pobuda asked the petitioner when they plan to begin construction. The petitioner plans to start construction in twelve to 18 months and then it would be another 12 months before the project is complete.

Moved, by Figurski, seconded by Litogot to table this proposal at the petitioner's request. The motion carried unanimously.

Moved by Figurski, seconded by Litogot to approve the minutes of July 24, 2000 with the following change:

1. Page 5 - It should state five units, not six.

The motion carried unanimously.

Member Discussion

Commissioner Litogot feels the public should have one change and five minutes to say what they want. Commissioner Joseph feels we should encourage participation in a controlled manner. Commissioner Cahill agrees that the audience participation has to be controlled, but he did enjoy the discussions this evening. Mr. Archinal stated the public hearing should be earlier in the proposal. Mr. Strader will submit to the Planning Commission rules, procedures, and guidelines to follow with regard to public hearings.

Commissioner McCririe asked what is the addition to the Nazarene church being used for. The proposal shows a large garage door.

Commissioner Burchfield apologized for being later to the meeting this evening.

The meeting adjourned at 10:29 p.m.

Submitted by: Patty Thomas, Recording Secretary

Approved by: Barbara Figurski, Secretary