|
Planning Commission Meeting
April
12, 2004
AGENDA
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 1…Review of site plan application, site plan, and
environmental impact assessment for proposed 18,000 sq. ft. multi-tenant
warehouse building located north of Grand River Ave., on the west side
of Pless Dr., Section 13, petitioned by Genoa Industrial, LLC. (PC
04-01)
Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
B. Disposition of site plan.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 2…Review of special use application, site plan,
and environmental impact assessment for proposed 13,384 sq. ft. building
for contractors office and shop building with outdoor storage for
construction equipment located in Section 5, on the west side of Grand
Oaks Dr. south of Grand River Ave., petitioned by LaSalle General
Contractors. (PC 03-31)
Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding special use.
B. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
C. Recommendation regarding site plan.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 3…Rezoning application, and environmental impact
assessment to rezone 10 acres located at 2388 East Coon Lake Road,
Section 30, from CE (country estates) to RR (rural residential),
petitioned by Gary Hagler. (PC 04-03)
Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding rezoning application.
B. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 4…Review of sketch plan application, environmental
impact assessment, and sketch plan for proposed outdoor display area in
front of existing Garden Center located at Lowe’s, 100 S. Latson Rd.,
Section 5, petitioned by Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc.
(PC 04-04)
Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
B. Disposition of sketch plan.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 5…Review of site plan application, site plan, and
environmental impact assessment for proposed 3,024 sq. ft. Krispy Kreme
Restaurant on Grand River Ave., east of Lawson Dr., within the Genoa
Square PUD, Section 9, petitioned by Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation.
(PC 04-05)
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, Curt Brown, John Cahill, Bill
Litogot and Teri Olson. Also present was Kelly Kolakowski, Township
Planner; Ron Nesbitt 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 7:05 p.m.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and a moment of silence was
observed.
Moved by Litogot, seconded by Figurski, to approve the Agenda with the
following changes:
1. Agenda Item #1 will be tabled at the petitioner’s request therefore
#2 will become #1, #3 will become #2, #4 will become #5, and #5 will
become #4.
2. Agenda Item #3 will have the following added:
A. Recommendation regarding special use
3. Agenda Item #4 will have the following added:
A. Recommendation regarding PUD amendment.
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 site plan application, site plan, and
environmental impact assessment for proposed 18,000 sq. ft. multi-tenant
warehouse building located north of Grand River Ave., on the west side
of Pless Dr., Section 13, petitioned by Genoa Industrial, LLC. (PC
04-01)
Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
B. Recommendation regarding site plan.
Mr. James Barnwell of Desine Engineering was present to represent the
petitioner.
Chairman Pobuda questioned if the building owner is different than the
building owner. Mr. Barnwell stated th\at Mr. John Williams owns the
land and the building on the front of the site.
Mr. Barnwell showed an aerial photograph of the area. Their original
request of approximately four years ago was approved; however, nothing
was completed. The current request is similar to that request. He gave a
summary of the surrounding uses and noted that they were deficient in
landscaping to the south; however, they would like to have that
landscaping moved toward the northeast corner of the site where the
building was more exposed and will provide better screening. They will
use the same building materials as what was used for the previous
building.
Mr. Nesbitt reviewed Mr. Purdy’s letter of April 8, 2004.
The building materials and architecture need to be approved and should
match the existing building. Mr. Barnwell stated this building is not
very visible so he feels the proposed materials are sufficient. Chairman
Pobuda noted that building materials have improved in the area since the
previous approval. He questions if the proposed materials should be
reviewed further. Mr. Barnwell showed colored pictures of the current
building. It is aluminum sided in two different shades of gray.
Commissioner Cahill feels it needs an upgrade. Commissioner Brown
understands that the building will not be seen. Mr. Barnwell noted the
property to the north and northwest is zoned industrial as well and is
owned by the same owner. Commissioner Figurski does not feel the first
building was completed properly and there is currently a lot of rubbish
on the site. Commissioner Olson agrees.
Mr. Nesbitt stated the waste receptacle is located within a required
side yard setback and will need approval from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Barnwell stated the proposed location is due to the traffic flow,
fire requirements, and the ease of a garbage truck to unload the
receptacle. He feels this is the best location it. All commissioners
agree.
The waste receptacle enclosure is proposed to be constructed of rough
sawn cedar. Mr. Nesbitt would prefer it be constructed of something more
substantial, such as masonry. Mr. Barnwell agrees and stated they will
add the block to match the brick that is going to be required to be
added to the building.
An additional 10 canopy trees, 11 evergreens and 38 shrubs are required.
Mr. Barnwell reiterated that they meet the ordinance with regard to the
quantity of landscaping; however, he feels it was important to look at
the site and surrounding area and focus the landscaping where the
building can be seen. There was a discussion about adding additional
trees at other locations on the site and all commissioners agreed.
The Impact Assessment needs to be updated to show the impact of the
building on the wetlands. The last time it was updated was in 1998.
The call to the public was made at 7:30 p.m. with no response.
Moved by Litogot, seconded by Figurski, to table Agenda Item #1 due to
the following:
1. Lack of information
2. Non-good faith measures in Phase I, including dumpsters not located
in proper areas, pallets in four different locations, construction waste
on the site, the rear of the building is sticking out along the
wetlands.
3. He is dissatisfied with the front of the current building, the
signage is too large, different a/c units are located in the front of
the building.
4. He is dissatisfied with Phase I and would not vote for approval of
Phase II.
Mr. Barnwell noted that Phase I was developed by a different developer.
They would request a tabling to clean up the site and review the
concerns noted this evening. They are capable and able to address the
issues.
The motion carried unanimously.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING #2…Rezoning application, and environmental impact
assessment to rezone 10 acres located at 2388 East Coon Lake Road,
Section 30, from CE (country estates) to RR (rural residential),
petitioned by Gary Hagler. (PC 04-03)
Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding rezoning application.
B. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
Mr. Gary Hagler and his daughter, Rachel, of 2388 East Coon Lake Road
were present. Mr. Hagler stated he has 10 acres and would like to split
the land to allow a home to be built in the back for his daughter. If he
divides the land into two five-acre parcels, he would lose his pole barn
as well as his septic field as it is located on the back five acres. He
is proposing one eight-acre parcel and one two-acre parcel. The majority
of his property is unbuildable as it is under water.
Rachel Hagler stated there are three-acre parcels to the east of their
property and the future land use shows all of the property to the north
to be rural residential.
Mr. Hagler stated his daughter and her children currently live with him
so there would not be any increase in traffic.
Mr. Nesbitt reviewed Mr. Purdy’s letter of March 29, 2004. He noted that
the petitioner is requesting to split the parcel to build one house and
there is a possibility of obtaining a split without needing to rezone
the entire parcel.
Commissioner Brown questioned how some of the lots in the area are less
than five acres. It was noted that these lots were grandfathered because
they were there before the ordinance was instituted.
Commissioner Litogot questioned why the Master Plan is for country
estates, when most of the sites in this area are smaller than 5 acres.
Mr. Nesbitt noted that the larger parcels in the area were zoned for
country estates. This led to a discussion regarding the surrounding
zoning and future land use map and Master Plan.
Chairman Pobuda questioned if this petitioner could request a PUD. Ms.
Kolakowski advised that a PUD needs to be a minimum of 20 acres without
water and sewer.
Mr. Nesbitt reiterated his comment about the possibility of splitting
the property into two parcels since it is zoned for five acres.
Commissioner Litogot has walked the property and feels the petitioner
has a hardship. He noted the Planning Commission has done this before
when farmers wanted to give a part of their property to family members.
The call to the public was made at 8:00 p.m.
Mr. Gordon Sellers of 2560 East Coon Lake lives on the south side of Mr.
Hagler. He has 40 acres and is not going to split his property. He feels
this is a reasonable request by the petitioner and would like the
Planning Commission to grant the request.
Mr. Joe Gail of 2330 East Coon Lake Road, who lives down the private
road from Mr. Hagler, does not see a problem if this is split to
building one home, but he would not want five two-acre parcels. The road
could not handle that traffic.
Mr. Derek Villente owns five acres directly south of the petitioner’s
property. He does not have a problem with the split, but asks if the
split could be allowed without rezoning the parcel so future owners
cannot put five two-acre parcels on this site.
The call to the public was closed at 8:03 p.m.
Ms. Kolakowski questioned if there is a legal mechanism to allow an
easement so the septic and pole barn could be located on the daughter’s
property. Commissioner Cahill noted this could also be a problem because
there could be different owners in the future. Mr. Hagler reiterated
that there is no other place on his property to build a home.
Commissioner Cahill is not convinced that what they want could not be
accomplished by a split, but he would not want to rezone the property
inconsistent with the Master Plan.
Commissioner Brown wants to accommodate the petitioner, but noted that
the issue of future landowners is a concern. He would like to have proof
that there is no other buildable areas on this site.
Ms. Hagley stated her father has invested his money in this property and
she would not want to take five acres from him.
Moved by Brown, seconded by Figurski, to recommend denial of Agenda Item
#2 for the following reasons:
1. 1. The requested RR district is inconsistent with the future land use
map of the Township Master Plan.
2. 2. The requested RR district is inconsistent with much of the
adjacent zoning in terms of allowable density.
3. 3. The petitioner’s purposes could be accomplished by a split of the
property instead of the more extreme option of rezoning.
The motion carried (Cahill – yes; Brown – yes; Figurski – yes; Pobuda –
yes; Olson – yes; Litogot – no).
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING #3…Review of sketch plan application, environmental
impact assessment, and sketch plan for proposed outdoor display area in
front of existing Garden Center located at Lowe’s, 100 S. Latson Rd.,
Section 5, petitioned by Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. (PC 04-04)
Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding special use
B. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
C. Disposition of sketch plan.
Mr. Raymont Gordon, the manager of the Lowe’s Store, was present to
represent the applicant.
He would like to provide an attractive storefront and entry to the
store. This will help the looks of the store and the general area of the
site as well as be convenient for customers. He is requesting a time
limit of April 15th through August 15th, which is the peak selling
season. They will not have Christmas items out front. He was new to this
store last year and was not aware of the limitations and since he
received notification from the Township last May, they have had no
outside displays. He noted that the berm on Latson Road could help to
screen this storage from the adjoining residential property across the
road. He feels his store is a clean and friendly environment and would
like to continue this outside for the growing season.
Chairman Pobuda asked Mr. Gordon if corporate approval is needed for
this. Mr. Gordon stated he has flexibility and his district manager has
asked him to do this. Chairman Pobuda stated this would need to be
changed in the PUD and usually Bo Gunlock, who is the developer of this
site, gives his approval to the Township of these types of issues. He
also noted there have been problems with neighbors on this same site
with regard to this same issue of outside storage.
Ms. Kolakowski noted that RG Properties, the developer, was notified and
she discussed the proposal with them and they do not have any concerns.
Commissioner Litogot thanked the petitioner for coming to the Township
to ask for approval instead of just doing it.
Mr. Nesbitt reviewed Mr. Purdy’s letter of March 29, 2004.
The proposed use does not meet the screening standards of Section
12.2526. Mr. Gordon stated they do not want this to be screened. They
want customers to see it. Commissioner Litogot noted that since it is
only one rack high, it would not need to be screened. Commissioner
Cahill feels this is setting a precedent. The flowers would be nice to
have; however, he is concerned about other types of displays. Mr.
Nesbitt agrees. It could open the door for outdoor storage elsewhere on
the site and in the Township; however, each request is reviewed on its
own merit. The conditions of approval would need to be specific.
Commissioner Litogot questioned the signs on the gates as shown in Photo
B. Mr. Gordon noted they are not necessarily needed. He will work with
whatever guidelines the Planning Commission sets forth.
Ms. Huntley had no comments.
The call to the public was made at 8:32 p.m.
Moved by Brown, seconded by Figurski, to recommend to the Township Board
approval of a temporary Special Land Use for commercial outdoor display
and sales in front of the existing Lowe’s garden center from April 15th
through August 15th of each year with the following conditions:
1. The area will be used for seven display tables 18’ long x 7’ wide and
one stationary rack 18’ long by 4’ wide to display only live nursery
goods, such as flowers, trees, shrubs, and vegetable plants.
2. No garden equipment, tools, pallets, carts or fertilizer will be
displayed or sold in the area.
3. The tables will be made of block, retaining wall, and pressure
treated lumber. They will be less than 4’ in height and will remain in
place for the duration of approval.
4. No roll carts or pallets will be used for displays.
5. No signage will be allowed other than signs identifying price and
plant type, which shall be a maximum of four feet high.
Commissioner Cahill noted that in light of the history of the problems
the Township has had, he suggests approving the Special Use on a yearly
basis to see how the petitioner complies.
Commissioner Brown agreed to amend his motion to allow the Special Land
Use for the period April 15, 2004 through August 15, 2004.
Ms. Figurski seconded the amendment and the motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Litogot, seconded by Figurski, to recommend to the Township
Board approval of the Impact Assessment with a received date of March
17, 2004 to allow outdoor display and sales in front of the existing
Lowe’s garden center. The motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Brown, seconded by Figurski, to approve the sketch plan with a
received date of March 17, 2004 for commercial outdoor display and sales
in front of the existing Lowe’s garden center with the following
conditions:
1. The petitioner will meet all of the requirements outlined in the
motion for Special Land Use approval.
The motion carried unanimously.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING #4…Review of site plan application, site plan, and
environmental impact assessment for proposed 3,024 sq. ft. Krispy Kreme
Restaurant on Grand River Ave., east of Lawson Dr., within the Genoa
Square PUD, Section 9, petitioned by Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation.
(PC 04-05)
Planning Commission disposition of petition
A. Recommendation regarding PUD Amendment.
B. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
C. Recommendation regarding site plan.
Mr. Harvey Weiss of Weiss Properties, Owen Slagle of Form Architectural,
and Mike LaRue of Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation were present to
represent the petitioner.
Mr. Weiss gave a summary of the existing PUD. He noted that the
realignment of the I-96 exit and the addition of the traffic light at
Lawson Drive have helped to control traffic in this area. They have had
many businesses approach them about the outlots and they have been very
selective as to who they work with. He noted that this proposal requires
a drive-up window; however, this is not a fast-food restaurant. It is a
coffee / doughnut shop. They do not have the traffic and high-peak hour
uses that is usually related with a fast-food restaurant with a
drive-thru.
Chairman Pobuda stated that at the beginning of this process, certain
uses were discussed and this appears to be a deviation from what was
discussed. The Township was expecting high-end restaurants and retail
stores, etc. This corner is the “window” to the Township.
Mr. Weiss feels this is in keeping with those discussions. Coffee shops
are a nice addition to a community. The building materials and
architecture are very high end.
Mr. LaRue gave a brief overview of their business operations, such as
percentage of drive thru uses, peak hours, etc. They are proposing a
state-of-the-art building. Their restaurant is a one-of-a-kind
operation. He also noted they get involved with the communities where
they are located.
Mr. Owen Slagle showed colored renderings of the elevations. They are
proposing an all-brick building in medium red with white EFIS / cornice
along the top. The interior fixtures are also high end. They have
received the letters from the consultants and will add the required
lighting along Grand River.
Commissioner Cahill asked where the doughnuts are made. Mr. LaRue stated
the donuts are made on site. This building will only be for retail
business. They will not run routes from it. He noted their peak hours
are from 5:30 a.m. until 10:00 a.m., which is when they receive 60% of
their daily business. They then have peak times between 3:00 p.m. and
4:00 p.m. and then between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m.
Mr. Nesbitt reviewed Mr. Purdy’s letter of April 8, 2004.
The PUD Agreement does not permit drive-thru restaurants. Mr. Weiss
stated it is a convenience factor for the customers. He emphasized it is
not a fast food restaurant. It is a coffee and doughnut shop. He would
compare it to a drive-thru pharmacy. He noted that he has drafted new
PUD language that states if the menu changes or this tenant leaves, the
drive-thru will cease to exist.
Commissioner Brown feels it is fast food; however, noted that the peak
traffic times could be considered. He feels the building is very nice
and would recommend amending the PUD.
Commissioner Figurski is not for this proposal.
Commissioner Cahill is concerned about the appearance to Grand River as
well as the adjacent property to the east. He questioned how the cars
can be shielded from Grand River. Mr. LaRue is in favor of landscape
buffers to block the view of the cars from Grand River.
Chairman Pobuda feels the principles of the PUD are being changed;
however, he would recommend approval.
Mr. Weiss feels adding this restaurant will help to bring other uses to
this site.
Commissioner Litogot suggested tabling this item so all of the new plans
can be submitted and reviewed. He noted that the commissioners and the
consultants do not have current plans and the PUD amended language was
just received this evening. He would like the Township Attorney to
review Exhibit C, the amendment to the PUD.
Moved by Litogot, seconded by Figurski, to table Agenda Item #4 until
the Township Planner can look at the new plans. The motion failed
(Cahill – no; Brown – no; Figurski – yes; Pobuda – no; Olson – no;
Litogot – yes).
Mr. Nesbitt noted that due to the location of the loading dock, the
delivery time could conflict with the peak store hours. Mr. LaRue stated
this is a proprietorship so he can dictate the delivery times.
Mr. Nesbitt agrees with the proposed building materials; however,
samples of building materials need to be presented by the Petitioner.
Commissioner Cahill reiterated that building samples are required. He
does not want to table this item at this point. He would like to review
the consultants’ letters, but feels it will be tabled at the end of the
meeting. Chairman Pobuda agrees.
The petitioner advised they will comply with the planners requests for
the hedgerow to be three-feet high, the lighting needs to be revised to
meet the ordinance, and the ornamental lighting fixtures need to be
installed along Grand River.
Ms. Tesha Humphriss reviewed her letter of April 6, 2004.
The traffic circulation pattern at the entrance should be re-evaluated
for ease of circulation. It may be helpful to create a one-way pattern.
Mr. Slagle stated they use this entrance for all of their stores and
have not had problems. They will add pavement markings or directional
signs.
The petitioner will comply with all of Ms. Humphriss’ concerns regarding
the utilities.
The call to the public was made at 9:26 p.m. with no response.
It was noted that there were concerns from the Howell Area Fire
Department outlined in their letter dated April 2, 2004. The petitioner
advised he will comply with all of their requests.
Commissioner Cahill advised the petitioner that he will be looking very
closely at the landscaping, architectural design, etc. to protect the
view of the drive-thru.
Moved by Cahill, seconded by Figurski, to table Agenda Item #1 so full
documentation can be provided to the consultants and commissioners. The
motion carried (Cahill – yes; Brown - yes; Figurski – yes; Pobuda – yes;
Olson – yes; Litogot – no).
Moved by Figurski, seconded by Litogot, to approve the minutes of March
22, 2004 and March 24, 2004 as presented. The motion carried
unanimously.
Member Discussion
Ms. Kolakowski advised the April 26, 2004 Planning Commission meeting
regarding Faulkwood Shores will be held at Three Fires Middle School.
Commissioner Cahill advised that he has been promoted so, unfortunately,
he is very busy and will be forced to resign the Planning Commission. He
is not sure when his last meeting will be.
Commissioner Litogot advised he will be moving in mid-June so he will be
resigning his position as well.
The meeting adjourned at 10:06 p.m.
Submitted by: Patty Thomas, Recording Secretary
Approved by: Barbara Figurski, Secretary
|
