|
September
29, 2003
7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 1…Review of site plan application, sketch
plan, and impact assessment for proposed construction of (3) 60’ x
80’ storage buildings to the rear of an existing storage building at
945 Lucy Rd., Sec. 6 petitioned by C. Now. (PC 03-10)
Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
B. Recommendation regarding site plan.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 2…Review of special use application, site
plan, and environmental impact assessment for proposed Cedar Closet
Storage facility with one storage and office/managers residence
building and three additional self storage buildings with exterior
access, located on the south side of Grand River Ave. between Dorr and
Gray Roads, Section 10 petitioned by Joseph A. Guido, Guido Associated
Inc. (PC 03-21)
Planning Commission disposition of petition
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, James Mortensen, John Cahill, and Bill Litogot. Also
present was Kelly Kolakowski, Township Planner; Jeff Purdy from
Langworthy, Strader, LeBlanc & Associates, Inc. and James Miller
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 7:03 p.m.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and a moment of silence was
observed .
Moved by Figurski, seconded by Litogot, 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 7:05
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 site plan application, sketch
plan, and impact assessment for proposed construction of three 60’ x
80’ storage buildings to the rear of an existing storage building at
945 Lucy Road, Section 6, petitioned by C. Now (PC 03-10).
Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
B. Disposition of site plan.
Mr. Lou Teffler, the property owner, and Mr. Jeff Teffler, the
builder, were present to represent the petitioner.
Jeff Teffler stated they are proposing to construct three 60’ x
80’ storage buildings behind the currently storage facility to
eliminate the outside storage. These plans have been approved
administratively and they were asked to come before the Planning
Commission for approval of their sketch plan.
Mr. Purdy reviewed his letter of September 22, 2003. He advised this
is a non-conforming site and suggested some upgrades to improve the
site.
The landscaping along the Lucy Road frontage should be upgraded to
include 12 evergreen trees. The petitioner agreed.
With regard to parking, the ordinance requires five spaces and one per
employee or one per every 1,700 square footage of floor area. Mr.
Purdy would like clarification on the use of the site and the number
of employees as well as what parking would be required. Lou stated
they have no employees. This is just used for storage. He feels there
is plenty of room in the front of the site for parking. He advised
that his business is buying excess and obsolete new materials from
automotive companies. He then sells it to foreign markets.
Commissioner Mortensen would like to have the parking part on the
gravel for 17 cars in case the ownership of the site changes. The
petitioner would agree to this; however, he does not see the benefit
of laying asphalt. All commissioners agreed to the parking area being
gravel and on the front of the site.
Mr. Purdy advised no outdoor storage would be allowed on the site and
he would like this stated in the motion for approval.
Mr. Purdy noted there is no waste receptacle enclosure being proposed.
Lou advised there is no receptacle planned for the site.
Mr. Purdy advised any new or existing outdoor light fixtures must be
downward directed, cut-off fixtures that comply with Section 3.51 of
the Zoning Ordinance and should not cause off-site glare. The
petitioner will comply.
Mr. Miller had no comments; however, he stated that the gravel road
would need to comply with Livingston County Road Commission standards.
Chairman Pobuda asked what materials will be used. The buildings will
have taupe aluminum siding with a shingled roof.
The petitioner advised there is no signage proposed.
Commissioner Cahill questioned the sketch plan. There is not as much
information for this site as is usually seen by the Planning
Commission. There are no building materials shown, colored rendering,
etc. Mr. Purdy advised this was determined by the Zoning
Administrator, who is the Township Manager, to be a sketch plan and
they do not require as much detail as a site plan.
The call to the public was made at 7:28 p.m. with no response.
Moved by Figurski, seconded by Litogot, to recommend to the Township
Board approval of the Impact Assessment date stamped April 2, 2003 for
construction of three 60’ x 80’ storage buildings to the rear of
an existing storage building at 945 Lucy Road, Section 6, petitioned
by C. Now with the condition that dust control measures be added. The
motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Litogot, to approve the sketch plan
dated March 28, 2003 for construction of three 60’ x 80’ storage
buildings to the rear of an existing storage building at 945 Lucy
Road, Section 6, petitioned by C. with the following conditions:
1. A total of 12 evergreen trees shall be planed along the Lucy Road
frontage.
2. A total of 17 gravel parking spaces will be installed along the
front and south side of the existing building subject to review and
approval of staff, who will assure that the 20 foot setback from the
ROW is adhered to.
3. The sketch plan will be resubmitted to the Howell Area Fire
Department to assure that a gravel driveway vs. a dirt access is
acceptable.
4. No outdoor storage will be permitted on the site.
5. Waste will be handled within the buildings and no exterior Dumpster
will be permitted.
6. Any new or existing outdoor lighting fixtures shall be downward
directed, cut-off fixtures that comply with Section 3.51 of the Zoning
Ordinance and should not cause off-site glare.
7. The building will be constructed of aluminum siding with a taupe or
beige color and the roof will be shingled in an earth-tone color.
8. Dust control measures shall be added to the sketch plan.
9. Only a silent alarm will be employed.
10. The cross section gravel road shall meet Livingston County Road
Commission standards.
Commissioner Mortensen stated this is a non-conforming lot and
eligible for a sketch plans rather than a site plan review per Section
13.0308 of the Genoa Township Zoning Ordinance.
The motion carried (Cahill – No; Mortensen – Yes; Figurski –
Yes; Pobuda – Yes; Litogot – Yes).
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING #2… Review of special use application, site
plan, and environmental impact assessment for proposed Cedar Closet
storage facility with one storage and office/manager’s residence
building and three additional self storage buildings with exterior
access, located on the south side eof Grand River Avenue, between Dorr
and Gray Roads, Section 10, petitioned by Joseph A. Guido, Guido
Associated, Inc. (PC 03-21)
Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding special use application.
B. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
C. Recommendation regarding site plan.
Mr. Joseph Guido from Guido Associated, Inc., and Mr. Jason Wallace,
from Desine, Inc., were present to represent the petitioner.
Mr. Wallace advised they are proposing to build 4 buildings of
approximately 10,000 square foot each. Since their last appearance at
the Planning Commission, they have made the following changes:
1. They relocated the driveway to the east side of the site as
requested, which allowed them to preserve more trees and eliminate the
detention area along Grand River.
2. They have added landscape screening on top of the berm on the east
side of the site.
Mr. Purdy reviewed his letter of September 22, 2003.
An undisturbed 50 feet wide landscape buffer must be provided to the
property to the west. The petitioner is proposing a concrete wall and
no new landscaping. Mr. Wallace advised they are proposing a screening
wall as well as preserving the current trees, which is in excess of
what is required by Ordinance. They feel the screening is sufficient.
Commissioner Mortensen asked if there is room for a 50-foot greenbelt
buffer. Mr. Guido stated there is not. They would have to remove 30
feet of the buildings. He stated that all of the activity would take
place on the other side of the site (i.e. office, apartment, entrances
to storage units). The walls on the west side of the buildings are
solid and will not have any overhead doors. There was a brief
discussion regarding the screening and if it is adequate for the
residential area to the west.
Commissioner Mortensen would recommend that staff review this to
ensure that it is sufficient.
Mr. Purdy advised that since the trees are not shown on the plans, he
is not sure where they are located in relationship to the property
line and where the driveway is going to be constructed. He would like
to see a tree survey. Mr. Wallace referenced that they are preserving
the existing 47 trees; however, they can provide a tree survey if it
is desired.
The petitioner advised the proposed wall is a solid concrete with a
brick pattern. Mr. Purdy advised that when a commercial property abuts
a residential property, brick walls are used. Mr. Guido advised they
would like to have a concrete wall for cost reasons. They can add
color to the concrete if it is desired.
Commissioner Cahill asked why the project wasn’t designed to
accommodate the 50-foot buffer. Mr. Guido stated they are an a-typical
industrial use. It is low intensity. He has a current development like
this and it is very quiet. It is the least intense industrial use. The
buildings are only 12-feet high and 30 feet wide. Commissioner Cahill
feels he can compromise with the petitioner, but 20 feet is not
sufficient. He would like to see canopy trees as well.
The five-foot sidewalk along Grand River needs to be installed with
the current site plan and not when the property to the front is
developed. The petitioner will comply.
The plantings proposed in the property to the east should be within
the site boundaries unless a written agreement with the adjoining
property owner can be obtained. Mr. Wallace advised they would like to
plant the trees along the berm between the properties and will work
with the property owner to reach an agreement. If they are not
interested, then the petitioner will plant them on their property. All
commissioners agree.
A photometric grid shall be supplied. The petitioner will resubmit a
photometric grid. It will be the same as the original; however, the
buildings were “flipped” to accommodate the driveway on the east.
Mr. Miller reviewed his letter of September 26, 2003.
1. The petitioner should provide information on the existing drainage
system at the south property line. It is unclear where the water goes
once it exits the detention facility. Mr. Guide showed this
information; however, he will revise the site plan to reflect it.
2. The petitioner should provide documentation that the existing storm
water system that will be collecting runoff from the proposed site is
adequate to handle the additional lows. The petitioner will comply.
The call to the public was made at 8:05 p.m.
Shannon ______________ of 1791 Gray Road stated her home will be
directly affected by this development. She is not sure how the wall is
going to be built on the property line. There are two rows of
evergreen greens, one on each side of the property line. She would
like the wall to be on the east side of the two rows of trees and
would also like it to be higher. She wants to make sure the applicant
is meeting the Township Ordinance.
Tom _____, Shannon’s husband agrees with what his wife said about
the applicant not being able to build the wall between the two rows of
trees. They have a two-story home and it is 50 feet from the property
line.
Mr. Leonard Howe of 1837 Gray Road is concerned about the drainage. He
agrees that a poured concrete wall will last longer than a brick wall.
Mr. Kevin Patterson of 20114 Woodhill, Northville, MI owns Lots #40
and #41. He is concerned about the drainage in this area. He would
like more detail.
Mr. Will Friend of 1829 Gray Road lives next to Mr. Howe. He is also
concerned about the drainage. He questioned if the wall is put on the
property line, how would it be maintained without going onto the
adjoining residents’ properties.
Ms. Tamra Howe, Leonard’s wife, would like the wall to be on the
east side of the trees. She wants to make sure those trees are saved.
The call to the public was closed at 8:23 p.m.
Mr. Purdy feels that the wall should be on the east side of the tree
line and not on the property line. Mr. Guido advised that there would
be maintenance and liability issues with regard to the property on the
other side of the wall. He would need to speak to the developer.
Mr. Purdy added he would like to have color added to the poured
concrete as well as canopy trees added to this area. He suggested 15
trees unless the staff determined there is not sufficient room. All
commissioners agree.
Mr. Miller advised that the drainage that the applicant is proposing
is adequate. He noted their two outstanding concerns.
1. The petitioner should provide information on the existing drainage
system at the south property line as it is unclear where the water
goes once it exits the detention facility.
2. The petitioner should provide documentation that the existing storm
water system that will be collecting runoff from the proposed site is
adequate to handle the additional flows.
The petitioner will provide all of the required information.
It was noted that the proposed sign is too high and it shall be no
higher than six feet tall. The petitioner advised he will comply.
Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Litogot, to recommend to the Township
Board approval of the Special Land Use for Cedar Closet storage
facility with one storage and office/manager’s residence building
and three additional self storage buildings with exterior access,
located on the south side of Grand River Avenue, between Dorr and Gray
Roads, Section 10, petitioned by Joseph A. Guido, Guido Associated,
Inc., with the following condition:
1. Approval by the Township Board of the Impact Assessment and Site
Plan.
This recommendation is made because this use is a right of special use
within an industrial zoning and safeguards for the nearby residents
are part of the site plan review.
The motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Figurski, seconded by Mortensen, to recommend to the Township
Board approval of the Impact Assessment dated September, 2003
(Revision) for Cedar Closet storage facility with one storage and
office/manager’s residence building and three additional self
storage buildings with exterior access, located on the south side of
Grand River Avenue, between Dorr and Gray Roads, Section 10,
petitioned by Joseph A. Guido, Guido Associated, Inc., with the
following changes:
1. Page 1, second paragraph from the bottom should be changed to read
“…..proposed driveway at the east side”.
2. Page 2, third paragraph from the bottom, the word “chemical”
shall be changed to “chloride”
The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Cahill asked for a discussion. He stated there was no
review of the lighting. The petition was advised that the lighting
shall be downward directed and shoebox style.
There was also a discussion regard the PIP plan. It was decided that
the PIP plan should be part of the Impact Assessment. Commissioner
Figurski agreed and Moved to reconsider her previous motion.
Commissioner Mortensen seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Figurski, seconded by Mortensen to add the following to her
motion recommending approval of the Impact Assessment for Cedar
Closet:
1. The PIP plan dated September, 2003 shall be included in the Impact
Assessment.
The motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Litogot, to recommend to the Township
Board approval of the Site Plan dated September 10, 2003 for Cedar
Closet storage facility with one storage and office/manager’s
residence building and three additional self storage buildings with
exterior access, located on the south side of Grand River Avenue,
between Dorr and Gray Roads, Section 10, petitioned by Joseph A.
Guido, Guido Associated, Inc., with the following conditions:
1. Approval by the Township Board of the Impact Assessment and Special
Land Use as recommended by motions this evening.
2. The six-foot wall will be moved 20 feet to the east on the site and
constructed of concrete matching the masonry block portion of the
buildings.
3. Three garage doors on the east side of the northernmost building
will be removed and one small access door will remain.
4. A five-foot wise concrete sidewalk will be installed along Grand
River prior to occupancy.
5. The plantings on the east side of the property will be within the
site unless an easement can be obtained from the property owner to the
east to plant them on top of the berm.
6. The lighting will be shoebox and downward directed and are not to
exceed 0.5 footcandle at the west property line.
7. A revised photometric grid will be provided to the Township Board.
8. A six-foot monument sign will be permitted with materials
compatible with the office / residential portion of the building.
9. Fifteen canopy trees will be planted along the west property line
unless Township Staff determined a lesser number are required.
10. Any trees destroyed during construction of the buildings or
six-foot wall shall be replaced by the petitioner.
11. The petitioner will provide documentation regarding the draining
at the south property line.
12. The petitioner will provide documentation that the existing storm
water system is adequate.
13. A Knox box and fire extinguishers will be required for this site
and shall be obtained from the Howell Area Fire Department.
14. No outdoor storage shall be permitted on the site.
15. The alarm system shall be silent.
16. Dust control measures shall be added to the site plan.
17. Irrigation shall be provided for all lawns and vegetation.
18. The petitioner shall provide to Township Staff an inventory of
existing trees from the property line to the east to where the wall
will be built.
The motion carried unanimously.
Member Discussion
Moved by Figurski, seconded by Litogot, to approve the minutes of
September 15, 2003. The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Cahill advised that his wife, Irene, received a $3,000
grant from the DNR for the front of the Genoa Township Hall.
Commissioner Cahill questioned the concept of a sketch plan.
Commissioner Mortensen advised that the Township Manager determined in
this case that the applicant did not have to invest approximately
$15,000 in engineering fees to erect three pole barns on an industrial
property with no utilities. It would be unreasonable to ask them to
spend that money. Commissioner Figurski agrees with that; however, she
feels more information could have been included. Mr. Miller advised he
was not aware that a gravel road would have to be build until the fire
department letter was discussed this evening.
Ms. Kolakowski advised they are going to begin requiring staff
meetings for all submission and will include sketch plans in this.
That is where Staff could advise the petitioner that more information
would be required for their presentation to the Planning Commission.
Submitted by: Patty Thomas, Recording Secretary
Approved by: Barbara Figurski, Secretary
|
