Printed from http://www.genoa.org/meetings/boardminute/1404
on May 4, 2011 at 5:25am.

Planning Commission Meeting on June 12, 2000

Agenda:

OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 1… Review of a site plan application, environmental impact assessment, and site plan for a proposed amendment to the Planned Unit Development to allow mixed uses as allowed under mixed use Planned Unit Development for property located on the south side of Grand River at the I-96 Lake Chemung interchange, Section 09, petitioned by Weiss Properties.

A. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.

B. Recommendation regarding PUD amendment request.

OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 2… Review of a site plan application and special use for a proposed addition to an existing body shop area, Section 13, 7885 Grand River, petitioned by Waldecker Pontiac.

A. Recommendation regarding special use application.

B. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.

C. Recommendation regarding site plan.

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, Gary McCririe, Bill Litogot and Ken Burchfield. Also present was Michael Archinal, Township Manager; Jeff Purdy and Kelly Schuler from Langworthy, Strader, LeBlance & Associates, Inc.; and Melissa Talley 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 7:00 p.m.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

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

1. Open Public Hearing #1 will be changed to Open Public Hearing #2 and Open Public Hearing #2 will be changed to Open Public Hearing #1.
2. The following action will be added to Open Public Hearing #2: "C: Amendment to Conceptual PUD Site Plan".

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 7:05 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 and special use for a proposed addition to an existing body shop area, Section 13, 7885 Grand River, petitioned by Waldecker Pontiac.

• Planning Commission disposition of Waldecker petition

A. Recommendation regarding special use application.

B. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.

C. Recommendation regarding site plan.

Stan Schaeffer of Schaeffer Construction, Jerry Waldecker of Waldecker Pontiac, and James Barnwell of Design, Inc. were present to represent Waldecker Pontiac.

Mr. Schaeffer gave a short summary of the proposed expansion to the body shop. The addition would be 7 feet wide by 60" long. It will double the size of the existing body shop. They would do repair of vehicles here; there would be no painting. They will match all of the colors and materials of the existing building. They will add the sidewalk along Grand River as well as 17 additional trees. There will be no additional lighting added. The addition will utilize the existing dumpster and no additional public facilities will be needed.

Chairman Pobuda asked Mr. Waldecker about the original site plan for the car wash and quick oil change facility. Mr. Waldecker stated that is off the table with regard to this site.

Mr. Jeff Purdy reviewed his letter of June 6, 2000. He stated the Planning Commission needs to make a recommendation to the Township Board regarding the expansion of the auto repair use.

Mr. Purdy stated since this is a non-conforming structure, in order to expand it, the petitioner needs to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals to obtain a variance. The petition stated they are on the agenda for tomorrow night's meeting of the ZBA. Commissioner Joseph asked if we want to add to a non-conforming structure. It is non conforming due to the setback. Mr. Schaeffer stated when the building was first built, the setback was only 60 feet. Now the setback has changed to 70 feet and that is why it is a non-conforming structure.

Mr. Purdy stated the landscaping improvements that are required. Mr. Schaeffer asked if they could bond for the installation of the sidewalk and the landscaping on the undeveloped land until such time it is developed. Mr. Purdy stated this was fine.

Commissioner McCririe stated he would like to intersperse more trees to the back of the building to serve as a buffer to the residential area. Commissioner Joseph agrees. Mr. Waldecker stated they put the trees when they first built the building and now they have almost grown together. He suggested adding three trees in the corner of the site that will help shield the building. All commissioners agreed.

Commissioner Litogot asked why the sidewalk and landscaping is being bonded. Mr. Schaeffer stated they are waiting until the undeveloped land is developed so they do not have to redo it when they decide to build on that land. Commissioner Litogot would like a one-year bond only. The petitioner and the commissioners agreed.

Mr. Purdy stated the Planning Commission may want to look at the site lighting and have the petitioner install cut off type of fixtures for the building and pole lighting. He suggested some existing building light be upgraded to dimmer cut off fixtures. Mr. Waldecker offered to remove the two lights on the north side of the building. He would like to keep the two existing lights in the back because they were just upgraded six months ago and the trees help to screen the lights from the residential area. Mr. Purdy added he would like to have the lighting in the front turned down when the dealership is not open. Mr. Waldecker stated the lighting is for security reasons. At 1:00 a.m., every other light in the front is turned off. Commissioner Litogot feels the project lighting should conform to the standards. Commissioner McCririe is satisfied with the trade offs that Mr. Waldecker has proposed. Commissioner Burchfield feels we are going overboard on the petitioner in our requirements. Mr. Purdy stated site upgrades are required based on the amount of expansion to the non-conforming building. Commissioner Burchfield asked Mr. Purdy if what is being proposed is reasonable to the property owner. Mr. Purdy answered yes. Commissioner McCririe stated he would like the two backlights be replaced with conforming lighting.

Ms. Melissa Talley stated they still have some construction concerns and the petitioner has stated he will comply with all of their concerns.

Commissioner Litogot stated he feels special attention should be paid to the lighting plan. Mr. Archinal stated he will pay special attention to the lighting plan.

The call to the public was made with no response.

Moved by McCririe, seconded by Joseph to recommend to the Township Board approval of the special use application for a proposed addition to an existing body shop area, Section 13, 7885 Grand River, petitioned by Waldecker Pontiac. The motion carried unanimously.

Moved by Figurski, seconded by Litogot to recommend to the Township Board approval of the impact assessment dated May 30, 2000 Supplemental Impact Assessment for a proposed addition to an existing body shop area, Section 13, 7885 Grand River, petitioned by Waldecker Pontiac with the following changes:

1. Page 5, Item K - Deleted the first sentence "Site lighting shall remain unchanged".

The motion carried unanimously.

Moved by McCririe, seconded by Litogot to recommend to the Township Board approval of the site plan dated May 31, 2000 submitted by Desine Engineering for a proposed addition to an existing body shop area, Section 13, 7885 Grand River, petitioned by Waldecker Pontiac with the following conditions:

1. Township Board approval of special use application as recommended by motion this evening.
2. Township Board approval of impact assessment as recommended by motion this evening.
3. Subject to Township Zoning Board of Appeals' approval of the expansion of the non-conforming structure.
4. The petitioner shall provide all but three canopy trees along Grand River spaced 40 feet at center with the three trees to be located in the area of the existing paint facility to be shown on the plans prior to submission to the Township Board.
5. The petitioner may bond for a period of one year for the landscaping along the undeveloped frontage along the north frontage of the property for approximately seven canopy trees and all of the installation of the sidewalk.
6. The petitioner shall remove the two wall pack lights on the rear east side of the paint building and replace them with cut off fixtures conforming to the Township ordinance.

There was no motion to react to for the Zoning Board of Appeals.

OPEN PUBLIC HEARING #2… Review of a site plan application, environmental impact assessment, and site plan for a proposed amendment to the Planned Unit Development to allow mixed uses as allowed under mixed use Planned Unit Development for property located on the south side of Grand River at the I-96 Lake Chemung interchange, Section 09, petitioned by Weiss Properties.

• Planning Commission disposition of Weiss petition

A. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.

B. Recommendation regarding PUD amendment request.

Kevin Coles, Attorney for Weiss Properties, Doug Hamborski, Architect, Dave Beshki, Architect, Jeannie Jones, Proprietor, Al Blume, Contractor, and Harry Weiss, Landowner were all present.

Mr. Coles stated they are excited to bring this gateway development to the table for the Planning Commission's review. They have taken into consideration the Township's concerns and are looking forward to working with the Planning Commission. He added they have a legitimate concern regarding the traffic signal and they have proposed it to MDOT.

Mr. Beshki described the site and the drainage. There will be only one entrance and exit at Lawson Road. The first phase will include a Honda dealer and a Mazda dealer as well as a car wash facility. They have addressed the Township's concerns with the following:

1. They have met the landscaping concerns along Grand River and I-96.
2. The inner landscaping ordinance calls for 1 tree per 15 feet, but since most of the parking is for storage of cars, they have compromised and proposed 1 tree per 30 feet. The existing trees will come out. They are not in good condition.
3. They will put in the bike path along Grand River
4. The lighting will be box lighting and downward facing.
5. They have curbed the inside islands to allow for wider roads for ease of moving about the site.
6. They do not meet the 20-foot setback along I-96 for the entire site. On average, the setback is 21 feet. It is larger in some areas and smaller in others. They are asking for a little relief with this requirement as well as the greenbelt requested on the service drive.

Mr. Hambroski handed out an artistic rendering of the proposed car dealerships and displayed samples of the proposed materials. The Honda dealership will be 17,000 square feet and the Mazda dealership will be 11,000 square feet. There will be one sign at the entrance, one sign for each building along Grand River, and one nameplate sign on each of the buildings. There will also be signage along I-96.

Commissioner Figurski questioned if this is the right thing to be put in this area. She would like it to stay as it is now.

Commissioner Litogot asked how many cars would be parked in the two dealerships. There will be approximately 900 cars.

Commissioner Burchfield stated he would not be voting on any of the motions this evening due to the fact that he is a representative of Stone Edge Point and it would be in the best interest of the Township, the property owner, and his client for him to abstain from voting.

The call to the public was made.

Mr. Doug Cameron, representative of Reuland Electric wanted to share their concerns:

1. Noise - Reuland's classroom facility is located right next to the car wash. They are concerned that the noise level is going to be a problem. Mr. Blume stated the car wash walls are made of 12" block and filled with insulation. There will be no openings in the wall that faces the Reuland site. He will supply studies that have been done regarding the sound.
2. Traffic - They are concerned about the 4:30 rush hour traffic for their employees. The petitioner agrees that there is a traffic concern. They are proposing a cross easement from the Reuland property to their site so the employees can use the traffic light if and when it is issued by MDOT. Commissioner McCririe stated cross easements need to conform with regard to space. Commissioner Joseph expressed his concern regarding the effect on the westbound traffic from I-96 due to the traffic light at Lawson Road.
3. Security - The manual car wash will be open 24 hours a day and there is no fence between the two properties. The petitioner stated if Reuland feels they need a fence, then they are welcome to put up one. There will be security on the site for the dealerships as well as the car wash.
4. Pollution - They are concerned with run off onto their property from the car wash. They would like to have some consultants take a look at this. The petitioner stated the car wash does not have any negative pollution impacts. They will comply with all laws. Chairman Pobuda asked about chemicals being used with snow removal. The petitioner stated they can add this to the PUD, but they have not discussed what chemicals will be used. Rock salt is probably all that will be used.

Mr. Bill Welsh of Reuland electric stated he is trying to be a good neighbor. He has a concern regarding the dust associated with the construction. He would like to make sure the grading and digging is wet down. They are an electronics company and the dust could destroy what they are trying to do. He also stated he is concerned about the traffic. He wants his employees to be safe.

The petitioner stated they will keep the site wet while they are working on it. They understand the Township's concerns.

The call to the public was closed at 8:45.

Commissioner McCririe stated he feels this meeting tonight is a work session for the petitioner to get an idea of what the Planning Commission's issues are. He will not be making any motions this evening. Commissioner Figurski agrees. Commissioner Litogot stated he would like to continue with this process.

Mr. Purdy stated the meeting tonight is for an overall review of the site. It is not for the specific auto dealerships. The petitioner will have to come before the Planning Commission again for those issues.

Mr. Purdy reviewed their list of concerns:

1. They would like to have no one unit larger than 60,000 square feet.
2. All buildings must be constructed of brick with the similar masonry material.
3. He feels the traffic is a major issue. He would recommend installation of the traffic signal be a condition of approving this PUD. He recommends taking out the future access from Sunrise Park.
4. He would like to see the petitioner comply with the landscaping requirements; one tree for every 15 parking spots, whether that be for stock, employees, etc.
5. He would like the pedestrian walkway to loop back to the Lawson intersection.
6. The signage needs to be spelled out in the PUD agreement. He recommends one 15-foot sign at the Lawson Road entrance. He feels the proposed masonry around the sign is a little massive and would like to see that lowered down. Also, the ordinance does not permit signage along I-96.
7. All outside storage, except vehicles, will not be accepted.

The Commissioners reviewed the PUD.

Commissioner Joseph had a question on Page 2. He asked how changing the PUD will reduce the adverse impacts of traffic. The petitioner stated changing the PUD will reduce the traffic at rush hour as opposed to office buildings. Mr. Purdy suggested changing the language to read "additional roadway improvements to mitigate traffic impacts; i.e. the installation of the traffic signal if approved by MDOT." Mr. Purdy stated if MDOT does not approve the light, he suggests that the Planning Commission not go any further with this project.

There was a brief discussion regarding this being the best for the people of the Township and what exactly is going to be approved tonight with the PUD. Mr. Purdy stated the overall use of the site is being approved, not exactly what is going to be put there.

Commissioner Joseph was concerned about the language in Paragraph 2 on Page 2. Mr. Purdy stated this is standard language used in all PUD agreements.

Commissioner McCririe stated in Paragraph 1.4 on Page 2, on the last line, "should" should be changed to "shall".

Mr. Purdy stated the Township would like to look at the site after each phase is completed to make sure measures have been taken to preserve significant wetlands on the site to the extent deemed possible. The petitioner agrees. This will be inserted into the PUD under #2 - Land Use.

The petitioner stated they would like to keep "100,000 square feet" in Number 2.5 on Page 3. Supermarkets today are at least 65,000 square feet. He understands the Township's concerns with "big box" buildings, but he feels architecture today can help relieve the "big box" look of large buildings. He feels the 60,000 square foot ceiling is too low to meet their demands and the consumers' demands. Mr. Purdy recommends 60,000 square feet. Commissioners Figurski and Litogot agree. Commissioner McCririe stated Mr. Weiss originally agreed that there would not be any "big box" retail outlets. Commissioner Joseph had no comment.

Mr. Purdy stated on Page 3, Section 2.2, the petitioner is proposing 10% of open space. He is recommending 20% be open space. He would like to have some landscaped greenbelts on the open space of the site. Commissioner Joseph stated he feels that we should try and make the property as beautiful as possible. All commissioners agreed.

The setback on I-96 varies so Mr. Purdy suggested where the setback is less than 20 feet, there should be 50% more landscaping. Ms. Jones stated she wants this property because of the expressway frontage. She does not want to hide the dealership. Commissioner McCririe stated the extra landscaping is a trade off for not meeting the setback. He feels this is a reasonable compromise. Ms. Jones would like to review this further.

On Page 4, Section 2.9, the petitioner is proposing a 10-foot wide greenbelt between the service drive curbing and the parking lot. Mr. Purdy feels it should be 20 feet. Mr. Beshki stated the service drive is not really a road. It is an access drive. He suggested bonding the landscaping until the users are in the building. There was a discussion if there would be enough room for the greenbelt and the utilities. Ms. Talley has not review this.

Mr. Coles stated he does not agree with Mr. Purdy's suggestion of bringing the sidewalk around in the loop in front of the commercial buildings. That creates a safety issue. Commissioner Litogot agreed with dead-ending the sidewalk but would like the 20-foot greenbelt. Commissioner McCririe feels a cul-de-sac should be installed. He does not want it to be looped around. He wants to make sure there is ample area for landscaping along that road. Commissioner Figurski would like to see some kind of landscaping along the service drive. Commissioner Joseph is not in favor of less than 20 feet of greenbelt. Chairman Pobuda stated the sidewalk can be stopped at a dead end. He stated the 10-foot proposed greenbelt issue is still open, but asked the petitioner to note the concerns of the commissioners.

Chairman Pobuda called a five-minute break at 9:50.

The meeting resumed at 9:55.

Chairman Pobuda stated we will stop now and work on the PUD at a staff meeting. He suggested we move to Exhibit C. The following changes were made to Exhibit C:

2. Delete "fitness centers". Mr. Purdy stated they have a high traffic turnover.
3. Delete "and stand alone automatic bank teller machines"
4. "Bank Halls" shall be changed to "banquet halls" and delete "dance halls".

8. Delete

11. Delete

16. Delete "dancing"

19. Delete

21. "60,000" square feet is still an issue.
22. Delete

25. The Planning Commission would like this to be deleted but the petitioner would like to review this further.
26. Mr. Purdy stated "self serve" is not conducive to a quality facility. The petitioner stated the manual wash was designed with brick and insulation to create an environment that is sort of "classy". He does not feel that it will be attracted as a "hangout". After a discussion, it was determined that this issue needs to be discussed further. Commissioner Joseph does not feel the self-serve car wash is the best use for this site. Commissioner Figurski agreed. Commissioner Litogot had no comment.

28. Delete
29. Delete

31. There is an open issue with gasoline sales on this site.
32. Delete
33. Delete
34. There was a discussion regarding this issue. This will be deferred to

jj. Delete

kk. Delete

40. Delete
41. There was a discussion regarding this issue. This will be deferred to the staff meeting.
42. Delete

44. Delete

Commissioner McCririe asked if the petitioner had any preliminary discussions with MDOT? Mr. Weiss answered yes. The application has been made with the state and they have not yet issued a determination.

Commissioner Litogot suggested to the petitioner to contact Detroit Edison, the Sunoco Station, and the Sunrise Park Association. They can offer support of the traffic signal.

Mr. Weiss asked if the Township can send a letter to MDOT regarding the traffic signal. Mr. Archinal feels this is something that can be discussed at the staff meeting.

Ms. Talley noted the site is in two separate water districts so the connection fees will be different. The PUD needs to be revised.

Ms. Talley stated the car wash should recycle the water to avoid having it going into the sanitary sewer system.

Chairman Pobuda instructed the petitioner to contact Mr. Archinal to set up the staff meeting. He noted this may seem like a slow process, but this is a large area, and we want to see a high-quality operation.

Mr. Archinal stated this issue will be revisited at the next Planning Commissioner meeting on Monday, June 26, 2000.

Moved by Figurski, seconded by McCririe to table Open Public Hearing #3 at the request of the petitioner. The motion carried (Figurski - Y; McCririe - Y; Joseph - Y; Litogot - Y; Burchfield - abstained)

Moved by Figurski, seconded by McCririe to approve the minute of the May 22, 2000 meeting with the following changes:

The motion carried unanimously.

Member Discussion

Commissioner Joseph questioned the height of the towers on Nixon Road. Mr. Archinal is checking on this.

Commissioner Joseph asked about the storage near the Rocky's restaurant. Mr. Archinal stated the Township has contacted Oak Pointe and they have been responsive to our concerns.

Chairman Pobuda noted the problem with parking at the Chamber Outing. Commissioner Joseph stated they are looking at some other places to expand parking.

Commissioner Litogot stated there will be a gentleman from Lake Chemung regarding the keyhole issue. After a brief discussion, it was decided that this is a civil action.

Administrative Business

Mr. Archinal stated Stake and Shake is requesting to be reconsidered. They have made some significant changes. The letter is in the Commissioners' packets.

Mr. Archinal stated Crest Homes has revised their drainage plan. There are still some minor revisions they need to clean up. We are within a few days of getting it finalized. The drain commissioner needs to grant approval.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.

Prepared by: Patty Thomas, Recording Secretary