|
January
26, 2004
7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING #
1…Rezoning, PUD, and Site Plan applications, environmental impact
assessment, conceptual PUD plan, and PUD agreement to rezone a 191
acre parcel (Preserve of Genoa) located south of Brighton Road and
east of Chilson Road, Section 33 & 34, petitioned by Crescendo
Homes, the request is to rezone property from AG (agricultural) to
RPUD (residential PUD).
(PC 03-25)
Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding PUD rezoning application.
B. Recommendation regarding conceptual PUD plan.
C. Recommendation regarding PUD agreement.
D. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 2…Review of final PUD site plan, environmental
impact assessment, & PUD agreement for proposed 16 single-family
homes on approximately 70 acres (Timber Green) located west of Chilson
Road, north of Coon Lake Road in Sec. 20 & Sec. 29, petitioned by
Chestnut Development. (PC 03-09)
Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding final PUD site plan.
B. Recommendation regarding PUD agreement.
C. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 3…Review of site plan application,
environmental impact assessment, and site plan, for proposed 20,388
sq. ft. office supply retail building (Staples) located in Sec. 5
between Wal-Mart and Lowe’s at the southeast corner of Grand River
and Latson Road, petitioned by RLG Howell LLC and GCG Howell LLC.
(PC 03-30)
Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
B. 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 Teri Olsen. Also
present was Kelly Kolakowski, Township Planner; Jeff Purdy from
Langworthy, Strader, LeBlanc & Associates, Inc. and Debra McAvoy
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 and a moment of silence was
observed.
Chairman Pobuda swore in Teri Olsen and welcomed her to the Planning
Commission.
Moved by Figurski, seconded by Olsen, 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 7:04
p.m. Chairman Pobuda noted that the Board will not begin any new
business after 10:00 p.m.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 1…Rezoning, PUD, and Site Plan
applications, environmental impact assessment, conceptual PUD plan,
and PUD agreement to rezone a 191 acre parcel (Preserve of Genoa)
located south of Brighton Road and east of Chilson Road, Section 33
& 34, petitioned by Crescendo Homes, the request is to rezone
property from AG (agricultural) to RPUD (residential PUD). (PC
03-25)
· Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding PUD rezoning application.
B. Recommendation regarding conceptual PUD plan.
C. Recommendation regarding PUD agreement.
D. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
Mr. Kirt Anderson and Amy Ackerman of Atwell Hicks were present to
represent the petitioner. Mr. Anderson noted that Nick Balberman of
Crescendo Homes was unable to attend tonight’s meeting; however he
has authorized them to make decisions on his behalf.
Mr. Anderson stated that after comments from their last meeting, they
have revised the open space, emergency exits, and PUD details. They
have changed their mix to 186 single-family lots and 118 multi-family
dwelling. They have changed the entrances by adding pedestrian pass /
fire road, added open space in the northwest corner of the site, and
showed pathways to link active recreation areas. A 50-foot Right of
Way has been proposed, which will push the lots closer together, but
will give a better buffer to the wetland and open space. The road was
widened to 30 feet, which will allow parking on one side of the roads.
Mr. Purdy reviewed his letter of January 16, 2004.
The proposed architecture should utilize brick on all facades. Mr.
Anderson showed colored pictures of a typical home. They are proposing
3 feet of brick on the rear of the home and there is a lot of brick on
the front. Mr. Purdy does not want to see a full brick front and then
the other three sides all vinyl siding. He suggested 50 percent brick
on the sides and rear. Mr. Anderson agrees with the front and the
side; however, the rear of most of the homes will not be seen. All
commissioners agree with Mr. Purdy and this will be added to the PUD
Agreement.
The front yard setback for the attached residents need to be shown on
the plans. Ms. Ackerman noted it was in the site data.
The Planning Commission has the discretion to require a bike path
along Challis Road as it is in the long-range plans of the Township to
connect a bike path in this area. Mr. Purdy suggested either requiring
the installation now or having the petitioner post a bond. Chairman
Pobuda and Commissioner Cahill would like to see the bike path
installed. Commissioner Mortensen feels it will be a long time before
that path leads to anything and he does not feel it is fair to require
the developer to install it or tie up his money in a bond.
Commissioner Cahill feels the funds need to be available. Commissioner
Figurski, Olsen and Pobuda agree.
When the application returns for final Site Plan approval, they will
be specific documentation from MDEQ regarding approval of the wetland
crossings and delineations.
Commissioner Cahill questioned these roads being private and noted how
the City of Brighton is in discussions currently with condominium
owners regarding this issue. Mr. Purdy stated a private road
maintenance agreement will need to be in the by-laws and PUD Agreement
to ensure that there is a funding source to maintain the roads, etc.
Ms. McAvoy noted that comparing this to the City of Brighton’s issue
is not reasonable. Genoa Township does not of the capability to
maintain roads. This would fall to Livingston County. It is best that
the association maintain the roads to their specifications instead of
relying on the Road Commission as these streets would have very low
priority.
Ms. McAvoy reviewed her letter of January 21, 2004. She has three
items regarding drainage and grading that will need to be addressed at
final Site Plan approval and her utility issues will be reviewed
completely during the construction plan approval process.
With regard to traffic and pavement, she has the following comments:
1. A grading easement will need to be obtained for the adjacent
property owner near the cul-de-sac near Lots 97 and 98.
2. The number of driveways fronting the cul-de-sac in the multiple
family portion should be reduced if possible. Ms. Ackerman advised
they will comply with this request.
3. The horizontal curve near Lot 180 has a horizontal curvature of 210
feet. The Genoa Township Ordinance states that the minimum horizontal
curve shall be 230 feet, although the Planning Commission may reduce
this radius to not less than 150 feet if the design would accommodate
expected vehicle speeds and truck/bus traffic. All commissioners agree
to allow the 210-foot horizontal curvature.
Ms. McAvoy reviewed the proposed Livingston County Road Commission
improvements in this area. They are proposing to put a four-way stop
at the corner of Brighton and Chilson Road. There will be the need for
a traffic light in approximately 5 to 10 years. It is anticipated that
with the improvements proposed, the levels of service at Brighton and
Chilson Roads and Brighton and Slip Road will not be impacted by the
development. She suggests having the Road Commission review the
petitioner’s traffic study when planning future improvements. The
petitioner’s addition of acel and decel lanes as well as a left turn
and/or bypass lane should be coordinated with the improvements
proposed by the Road Commission.
Commissioner Mortensen advised the petitioner that they may need to
participate financially in the improvements to the Slip Road
intersection if this development will decrease the level of service
here.
Chairman Pobuda asked the petitioner what they plan to do with the
other part of the site that is not being proposed to be developed at
this time. Mr. Anderson advised it will either be utilized for wetland
mitigation or it will be left natural.
Commissioner Cahill questioned the status of the subsurface
contamination. Mr. Anderson stated they have not completed the study
yet; however, the preliminary data is outstanding, but the entire
study will take more than three months to complete. Commissioner
Mortensen stated that the Township is proceeding with the Brownfield
Authority. Commissioner Cahill would like to have this noted in the
PUD Agreement. Mr. Purdy agrees and the petitioner will comply.
Commissioner Olsen asked if the speed limit is going to change on
Chilson Road. Ms. McAvoy advised it will not change.
The call to the public was made at 7:45 p.m.
Mr. Jay Miller of 6163 Pinecone Court has concerns regarding the
closeness of these homes to the wetlands as well as the runoff into
the wetlands. He is also concerned about the wild life. There are
rattlesnakes, cranes, as well as the three endangered species that was
noted by the petitioner. He does not want this development to connect
to their subdivision. If the DNR sells their property, could it be
developed and then connected? He questioned light pollution from this
site. He is also concerned about infrastructure. He feels that the
developer should help pay for the improvements to the intersection at
Brighton and Chilson Roads. He also feels these improvements should be
made before the development is built and not after.
Mr. Steve Jawarski of 5353 Pinelake Drive asked if there will be sewer
or septic for this development.
Mr. Charles Stitman of 5441 Pinelake is concerned about access from
this subdivision to their subdivision. There is an easement shown and
he would like to know what the plans are.
Mr. Dave Nicholson of 5337 Pinelake noted that he has the same
concerns as his neighbors.
The call to the public was closed at 7:51 p.m.
Ms. Ackerman Mr. Miller’s concerns regarding the runoff into the
wetlands. They have put in sedimentation basins, which will filter out
the stormwater before it is discharged into the wetland or lake. The
County and the DEQ will need to approve all of this. They have also
evaluated the amount of water that is currently going to the wetlands
and lake and need to ensure that with their development, they will not
be either saturated or dried out.
They are not proposing any streetlights, however, they will default to
the Township’s recommendation. They will have house lighting and
lighting on the subdivision name sign at the entrance.
They will not be connecting to the Copperleaf subdivision to the
north. They are proposing a fire access easement on the southeast
corner of the site. Mr. Purdy noted that if the DNR were to sell their
property, that person could go to the County to ask permission to
connect the subdivisions to that public road. Genoa Township does not
have control over that, but they have control over the connection to
Copperleaf because both of these subdivisions are in Genoa Township.
Ms. Huntley advised the public that this development will be serviced
by municipal sewer and water, with the improvement costs being born by
the developer.
Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Cahill, to recommend to the Township
Board approval of the PUD Rezoning Application to rezone a 191 acre
parcel (Preserve of Genoa) located south of Brighton Road and east of
Chilson Road, Section 33 & 34, petitioned by Crescendo Homes, the
request is to rezone property from AG (agricultural) to RPUD
(residential PUD) conditioned upon approval by the Township Board of
the Impact Assessment, PUD Agreement, and Conceptual PUD Plan. This
recommendation to the Township Board to rezone this property is made
to eliminate an unattractive gravel site in the Township, eliminate
potential contamination of the ground, and it is a transition to the
surrounding zoning and consistent with the Master Plan. The motion
carried unanimously.
Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Figurski, to recommend to the Township
Board approval of the Conceptual PUD Plan dated December 23, 2003 for
The Preserve of Genoa with the following conditions:
1. Approval by the Township Board of the PUD Rezoning Application, PUD
Agreement, and Impact Assessment.
2. Approval by the Fire Department or elimination of their concerns.
3. It will be revised to show front yard setbacks for the attached
residential units.
4. MDEQ confirmation of the status of the wetlands on the site.
5. The proposed road width of 30 feet and the ROW width of 50 feet are
acceptable; however, utility easements must be provided along these
roads.
6. Requirements of the Township Engineer as stated in their letter
dated January 21, 2004 will be met with the following exceptions or
eliminations:
a. A turning radius of 210 is acceptable.
b. No new traffic impact study will be required.
7. Accel and decel lanes and bypass and/or turning lanes in the
vicinity of the site will be required by the road commission and the
expense of which shall be born by the petitioner.
8. A financial mechanism shall be provided to fund the bike path
construction along the site frontage in a form deemed acceptable by
the Township Attorney and Staff.
The motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Figurski, to recommend to the Township
Board approval of the PUD Agreement for the Preserve of Genoa with the
following conditions:
1. A financial mechanism will be established in the Master Deed and
condominium agreement for the maintenance and snow removal for the
interior roads by the developer and condominium association.
2. Any contamination shall be cleaned up to meet the State of Michigan
residential standards.
3. Approval by the Township Board of the PUD Rezoning Application,
Conceptual PUD Plan, and Impact Assessment
4. Review and approval of the PUD Rezoning Application, Conceptual PUD
Plan, and Impact Assessment by the Township Attorney.
5. A financial mechanism will be established by the petitioner to
ensure sufficient funds will be available when improvements to the
Brighton and Slip Roads intersection are made to restore it to the
level of service existing prior to the construction of the
development.
6. Section 2.3 shall have the following added “A left turn and/or
bypass lane and acel and decel lanes required along Chilson Road will
be constructed at the developer’s expense”.
7. Section 2.4 shall have the following added as the third sentence
“Utility easements satisfactory to the Township Engineer will be
provided and recorded”.
8. Section 2.5 shall read “Developer shall have the right to assign
its obligations under Section 2.4 with respect to installation of a
five-foot wide concrete sidewalk to builders of homes……..”
9. Section 2.6 – the first sentence shall read “The PUD will be
developed with public sanitary sewers and water mains as approved by
Genoa Township Standards, subject to ……. “
10. Section 2.6 shall have the following sentence added “In
addition, the PUD development will be part of a special assessment
district for the upgrade of the water and sewer systems”.
11. Section 2.8 shall be deleted.
12. Section 3.2, second sentence shall read “The Township will
exercise its best efforts to complete such sanitary sewer and water
improvements on or before _____________”. The remainder of the
section shall be deleted.
13. Section 3.3 shall read “The Township shall accept all PUD
improvements, excluded of roads, dedicated to it by
Developer…….”.
14. The following sentence shall be added to the end of Section 3.4.
“Two-story, single-family homes will be a minimum of 2,500 square
feet and ranch-style homes will be a minimum of 2,000 square feet.”
15. Section 3.5 shall be changed to read “Final Site Plan review by
the Planning Commission will be a public hearing”.
16. The following sentence will be added to the end of Section 4.3.
“Condominium by-laws shall include provisions for landscape
maintenance and replacement”.
17. The following sentence will be added to the end of Section 5.1.
“The Master Deed and condominium association rules will be reviewed
by the Planning Commission and Township Attorney at the time of Final
Site Plan approval”.
18. No street lights will be permitted, except at the entrance sign.
19. The following sentence shall be added to section 6.1 “No
detached accessory buildings shall be permitted on any lots”
20. Section 6.2 shall be changed to read “All decks may extend a
maximum of 15 feet into the rear yard and will conform to principal
structure side yard setbacks.
21. Section 6.4 shall have the following second and third sentences
added “Two-story, single-family homes will be a minimum of 2,500
square feet and ranch-style homes will be a minimum of 2,000 square
feet. At least 75 percent of the front and 50 percent of the sides and
rear facades will be brick”.
22. The final Site Plan shall designate conservation areas and the
Master Deed shall provide for the preservation of these areas in a
natural state in perpetuity through legal mechanism such as a
conservation easement.
The motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Figurski, seconded by Mortensen, to recommend to the Township
Board approval of the Impact Assessment dated December 23, 2003 for
with the following conditions:
1. Dust control measures to be utilized during construction shall be
added.
2. Section F shall read “The development is expected to produce 300
new homes producing about 1,050 residents. (Assuming 3.5 persons per
home) and there will be a corresponding impact on schools, fire and
police services, and traffic.
The motion carried unanimously.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 2…Review of final PUD site plan,
environmental impact assessment, & PUD agreement for proposed 16
single-family homes on approximately 70 acres (Timber Green) located
west of Chilson Road, north of Coon Lake Road in Sec. 20 & Sec.
29, petitioned by Chestnut Development. (PC 03-09)
· Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding final PUD site plan.
B. Recommendation regarding PUD agreement.
C. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
Mr. Dan Schrauben of Professional Engineers, and Mr. Steve Gronow, the
property owner, were present.
Mr. Schrauben stated they have made a significant change to where the
road exits onto Chilson Road due to site distance concerns. They have
received approval and a road construction permit from the Livingston
County Road Commission. The wetland permit is also in place.
Commissioner Mortensen asked if the two categories of preservation
have been recorded. Mr. Schrauben stated that once the PUD is approved
by the Township, then the preservations can be recorded.
Mr. Purdy reviewed his letter of January 16, 2004.
1. Details of the proposed entranceway ornamental fixtures must be
proved. Mr. Schrauben advised that they do not have the detail for the
entrance lights, however, they will be submitted prior to their
presentation to the Township Board.
2. MDEQ approval is required for the wetland crossing. The petitioner
will comply with this request.
The call to the public was made at 9:10 p.m.
Mr. Peter Werner of 4074 Chilson stated his property is enclosed in
this PUD and he does not see his driveway on the plan. He noted that
the proposed driveway causes a site distance hazard and he would want
to maintain his original driveway, which was supposed to be paved. He
also asked if anything else is planned for this site. Could this be
developed more densely? Also, where is the construction entrance
planned.
The call to the public was closed at 9:16 p.m.
Ms. Schrauben advised that Mr. Werner’s driveway easement will be
maintained. The PUD Agreement locks in this development; there will be
no changes to this plan. During construction, the original driveway
will be maintained.
Mr. Werner spoke again and stated that his driveway was to be paved;
however, Mr. Gronow is telling him that he will be able to use the new
paved entrance and his current easement will not be paved. He does not
want to utilize that new road for safety reasons. When he purchased
this property, he paid for the road to be paved.
There was a lengthy discussion regarding the issue of Mr. Werner’s
easement and how he will access Chilson Road from his home.
Mr. Schrauben stated they wanted the entrance to be where the existing
road is; however, the neighbor to the north would not grant them an
easement to remove the trees on his property to get the site distance
approval, so they had to move it further to the south.
Mr. Gronow stated that Mr. Werner can continue to use his easement. He
does not have to access the subdivision entrance. He noted that the
paving of the easement was a private agreement between Mr. Werner and
the original seller of the property.
Ms. McAvoy noted that the plans show the new roadway crossing over Mr.
Werner’s easement. Mr. Werner stated that is not a problem. He is
concerned about the safety of the placement of the new driveway.
Mr. Gronow noted that the trees will be taken out, which will improve
the site distance for the new entrance.
Ms. McAvoy noted that the drainage, catch basin, etc. are affected by
the new road placement. Mr. Schrauben stated that if the catch basin
needs to be relocated, they can do that.
Chairman Pobuda agrees that this is a private matter and the Township
should not be concerned with the easement, access road, and paving of
the road. Commissioner Cahill feels it is a Township issue. The
Planning Commission would be approving a road that would be going
through this resident’s easement. This issue should have been
discussed previously.
Mr. Gronow has proof that the site distance will be the same (600
feet) when the road is moved to the south and the trees are removed.
The Road Commission has done the study and approved this and granted a
permit that there is 600 feet of clear distance requiring the trees to
be removed.
Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Olsen, to recommend to the Township
Board approval of the final PUD Site Plan dated December 22, 2003 for
proposed 16 single-family homes on approximately 70 acres (Timber
Green) located west of Chilson Road, north of Coon Lake Road in Sec.
20 & Sec. 29, petitioned by Chestnut Development with the
following conditions:
1. Details of the proposed ornamental lighting for the entrance will
be provided to the Township Board.
2. MDEQ approval for the wetland crossing shall be obtained.
3. Livingston County Health Department approval for all septic and
wells for the 16 lots to be developed.
4. The Township Staff, Attorney, and Engineer will review the proposed
road off of Chilson Road and the private drive of Parcel #2B to ensure
that Parcel #2B’s easement is not as well as the LCRC approving the
two entrances onto Chilson Road.
Commissioner Cahill interjected the motion. Mr. Werner’s easement is
being infringed upon. The Township was not aware of this condition for
Mr. Werner’s roadway. He does not feel it is clear. Mr. Gronow
stated that all of Mr. Werner’s rights are being preserved. If he
would like the road paved, then he will pave it for him.
Commissioner Mortensen continued his motion.
5. Township Engineer will determine that water management is not
altered with the new placement of the access road.
Commissioner Cahill reiterated his feeling that his item should not go
forward this evening. It should be tabled and resubmitted with new
plans for the Engineer’s review regarding drainage concerns and
safety. The Township will be approving a PUD with a road that was not
shown on the plans.
Chairman Pobuda called for a roll call vote: (Cahill – no; Mortensen
– yes; Figurski – no; Pobuda – yes; Olsen – yes). The motion
passed.
Ms. McAvoy noted that the Planning Commission did not hear her
comments regarding this issue.
Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Figurski, to rescind his previous
motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Ms. McAvoy reviewed her letter of January 21, 2004. She had the
following comments:
1. The 25-foot wetland buffer should be delineated and noted on the
plans.
2. The standard detail for the proposed Valley Gutter should be
updated according to the detail.
3. The ROW should be dimensioned and labeled for the proposed private
road, including ROW width changes.
4. The proposed lawn grades immediately outside the roadway should be
at a minim 1:4 slope per Township Standards. The locations near the
proposed entrance and near Station 8+00 should be updated.
5. The proposed contour should be shown with some curvature as they
meet existing contours and should be consistent throughout the plan.
Commissioner Mortensen restated his motion to include
6. Engineering requirements outlined in Tetra Tech’s letter dated
January 21, 2004 shall be complied with.
Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion and Chairman Pobuda called for
a roll call vote: (Cahill – no; Mortensen – yes; Figurski – no;
Pobuda – yes; Olsen – yes). The motion passed.
Commissioner Cahill stated that this is being rushed through. The
engineer’s comments were not reviewed before the first motion was
made and voted on.
Chairman Pobuda apologized that he did not ask the engineer’s
review. He asked Ms. McAvoy if any of her issues are detrimental to
the project. Ms. McAvoy stated they are not.
Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Olsen, to recommend to the Township
Board approval of the PUD Agreement received January 7, 2004 for
proposed 16 single-family homes on approximately 70 acres (Timber
Green) located west of Chilson Road, north of Coon Lake Road in Sec.
20 & Sec. 29, petitioned by Chestnut Development with the
following conditions:
1. Review and approval by the Township Attorney.
2. Deed restrictions shall be recorded for Parcels C, E, and E that
provide some conservation easements and restrictions protecting
preservation and wetland areas as contained in the condominium Master
Deed and by-laws.
The motion carried. (Cahill – no; Mortensen – yes; Figurski –
no; Pobuda – yes; Olsen – yes).
Moved by Figurski, seconded by Mortensen, to recommend to the Township
Board approval of the Impact Assessment dated November 20, 2003 for
proposed 16 single-family homes on approximately 70 acres (Timber
Green) located west of Chilson Road, north of Coon Lake Road in Sec.
20 & Sec. 29, petitioned by Chestnut Development
The motion carried. (Cahill – no; Mortensen – yes; Figurski –
yes; Pobuda – yes; Olsen – yes).
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 3…Review of site plan application,
environmental impact assessment, and site plan, for proposed 20,388
sq. ft. office supply retail building (Staples) located in Sec. 5
between Wal-Mart and Lowe’s at the southeast corner of Grand River
and Latson Road, petitioned by RLG Howell LLC and GCG Howell LLC. (PC
03-30)
· Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
B. Recommendation regarding site plan.
Mr. Bo Gunlock of RG Properties was present to represent the
petitioner. He stated they developed this site six years ago and at
that time had plans to include a 30,000 square foot Office Max store.
The store size has been reduced to 20,388 square feet and there has
been a loading dock added. He reviewed Mr. Purdy’s concerns. He
asked for the loading dock to be relocated. They have complied with
this request, however, they then had to move the entrance door 15 feet
to the left to allow for the stock room on the same side as the
loading dock.
He showed sample building materials. He noted they would like to put a
“swimming pool slats” fence in any color requested by the Township
to screen the loading dock and not brick. The trucks will only be seen
from one small portion of Latson Road.
With regard to the bike paths, they originally did not plan to do this
because of the potential for Latson Road to be widened; however, if
the Planning Commission wishes them to install the path, then they
will comply.
Commission Cahill noted his concern with the travel trailers and
RV’s that have been for sale and parked in the Wal Mart parking lot.
It is very unsightly. Ms. Kolakowski stated that the code enforcement
officer is working on this.
Mr. Gunlock stated that he has heard of this being done at other Wal
Mart stores around the country. He will address this issue. He added
that the far parking lots do not get utilized; however, once the new
Bennigans is built, this parking will be utilized and the parking of
RV’s and trailers will be decreased.
Mr. Purdy stated that Mr. Gunlock has addressed his concerns; however,
he would still recommend the brick enclosure for the loading dock and
dumpster. Mr. Gunlock noted that since they are “tucking” them in
the back, they would like relief on this issue. He suggested
installing a wall that blocks the dumpster and the dock, as opposed to
a full enclosure. Mr. Purdy and the Commissioners agree with this
proposal.
Ms. McAvoy reviewed her letter of January 21, 2004.
1. The plans should be signed and sealed by a licensed professional.
The petitioner will comply.
2. A 25-foot easement should be shown for the water main. Mr. Gunlock
noted that the rest of the side has 20-foot water main easements. Ms.
McAvoy stated that if the rest of the site has 20-foot easements, she
will agree to that; however, it does need to be shown on the plans.
Mr. Gunlock showed a drawing of his proposed lighting. Ms. Kolakowski
noted that it does not show the fixtures at a 90-degree angle, which
is required. Mr. Gunlock stated they will ensure the fixtures are at a
90-degree angle.
Mr. Gunlock added that they will comply with all of the Fire
Department’s concerns noted in their review letter.
The call to the public was made at 10:12 p.m. with no response.
Chairman Pobuda questioned the leas terms for this building. Staples
has a 10-year lease. He feels that if one of the outlots would leave
at the end of their lease, they would not have a problem releasing it.
This is a great location in the Township. He noted that at the end of
the lease, the development company owns the building.
Moved by Figurski, seconded by Mortensen, to recommend to the Township
Board approval of the Impact Assessment for a proposed 20,388 sq. ft.
office supply retail building (Staples) located in Sec. 5 between
Wal-Mart and Lowe’s at the southeast corner of Grand River and
Latson Road, petitioned by RLG Howell LLC and GCG Howell LLC with the
following conditions:
1. Dust control measures shall be added.
2. The size of the building, number of employees, and hours of
operation need to be included.
The motion carried unanimously.
There was a discussion regarding the bike path at the corner of Latson
Road and Grand River. Mr. Purdy noted that currently it travels around
the corner and does not connect to the street. Mr. Gunlock advised
they will make that change; however, there are no pedestrian signals
or crosswalks at that intersection. Ms. McAvoy agrees that it should
not be done without a pedestrian signal or crosswalk.
Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Figurski, to recommend to the Township
Board approval of the Site Plan for a proposed 20,388 sq. ft. office
supply retail building (Staples) located in Sec. 5 between Wal-Mart
and Lowe’s at the southeast corner of Grand River and Latson Road,
petitioned by RLG Howell LLC and GCG Howell LLC with the following
conditions:
1. The rear and side walls shall be constructed of split faced block
painted to match the building.
2. Building materials presented this evening are approved and become
the property of the Township.
3. The bike paths on Latson Road and Grand River shall be extended to
the intersections.
4. One six-foot split faced block screen wall will be installed to
conceal the truck will and dumpster.
5. Wall mounted light fixtures will be reviewed and approved by
Township Staff.
6. All items in Tetra Tech’s letter dated January 21, 2004 shall be
complied with.
7. Dust control measures will be employed during construction.
8. All requirements of the Howell Area Fire Department will be
complied with.
The motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Figurski, seconded by Cahill, to approve the minutes of
January 12, 2004. The motion carried unanimously.
Member Discussion
Commissioner Cahill is very angry with regard to Open Public Hearing
#2. The petitioner mislead the Planning Commission from beginning to
end. He threatened the Commission at the first meeting, proposed a
phony conservation plan, and mislead the Commission regarding his
neighbor’s driveway and property. He feels he should have been
required to go back and work this out.
Commissioner Mortensen stated the Township advised Mr. Gronow to
pursue a PUD. The driveway moving to the south is a very recent
development. The motion assures that if the neighbor’s easement is a
real issue, then the Board will never approve it.
Commissioner Cahill noted that he opposed this project from the
beginning. It is not a true use of the PUD zoning. The homes are not
clustered and open space is not preserved.
Commissioner Mortensen stated there will be a lot of open space with
73 acres of land with only 17 homes.
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Submitted by: Patty Thomas, Recording Secretary
Approved by: Barbara Figurski, Secretary
|
