Paulette A. Skolarus, Genoa Township Clerk   

Planning Commission Meeting

January 24, 2005

AGENDA

OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 1…Review of rezoning application, environmental impact assessment, conceptual PUD plan and PUD agreement to rezone 1.74 acres located in Section 6 part of 11-06-101-013 from GCD (General Commercial District) to RDPUD (Redevelopment Planned Unit Development) to construct a 14,490 sq. ft. retail store located at 2321 E. Grand River, petitioned by Walgreens. (05-02)

A. Recommendation regarding rezoning application.
B. Recommendation regarding PUD agreement.
C. Recommendation regarding conceptual PUD plan.
D. Recommendation regarding impact assessment

OPEN PUBLIC HEARING #2…Review of special use application, site plan application, site plan and environmental impact assessment for an expansion of an existing garden center located at 3330 E. Grand River. Sec. 5, petitioned by The Home Depot. (PC 05-05)

A. Recommendation of special use.
B. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
C. Recommendation regarding site plan.

OPEN PUBLIC HEARING #3…Review of site plan application, site plan and environmental impact assessment for a 5,800 sq. ft office/retail building located on the south side of Grand River Avenue between Dorr and Latson Roads. Sec. 10, petitioned by Arbor Bay Development. (PC 05-04)

A. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.
B. Disposition of 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, James Mortensen, Barbara Figurski, Curt Brown, Teri Olson, Dean Tengel, and Mark Snyder. Also present was Kelly Kolakowski, Township Planner; Jeff Purdy from Langworthy, Strader, LeBlanc & Associates, Inc. and Tesha Humphriss from Tetra Tech, MPS. By the end of the work session, there were a few persons in the audience.

Items scheduled for action during the regular session of the commission were discussed.

The regular session of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Don Pobuda at 7:04 p.m.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and a moment of silence was observed.

Moved by Figurski, seconded by Mortensen, to approve the Agenda with the following change:

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.

Chairman Pobuda thanked his fellow commissioners for his reappointment of Chairman when he was absent from last month’s meeting.

OPEN PUBLIC HEARING #1…Reaffirmation of November 22, 2004 motion regarding special use application, sketch plan, and impact assessment for a proposal to display all terrain machines on Grand River Avenue in the parking lot located at 3220 E. Grand River, Sec. 5, petitioned by William Riddle (Livingston County Moto Cross). (ZBA Approved 12-14-04)

A. Recommendation regarding reaffirmation of November 22, 2004 motion for a proposal to display all terrain machines on Grand River Avenue in the parking lot located at 3220 E. Grand River, Sec. 5, petitioned by William Riddle (Livingston County Moto Cross)

Ms. Kolakowski stated this is a housekeeping issue. At the November 22, 2004 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Special Land Use; however, the ordinance states that the Planning Commission should not take official action until the ZBA meeting and approval has taken place.

Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Brown, to reaffirm the Planning Commissions motion approving a Special Land Use for the outdoor sales and storage of all terrain machines on Grand River Avenue in the parking lot located at 3220 E. Grand River. Sec. 5, petitioned by William Riddle (Livingston County Moto Cross) with the following conditions:

1. The Special Land Use permit will be granted for a period of approximately two years, expiring on December 31, 2006.

2. The petitioner may petition for a renewal of this Special Land Use permit and if granted, further upgrades to the site may be required.

3. The property owner will post a bond to construct an eight-foot wide concrete sidewalk across the entire property covered by one tax code. The installation of which must be completed by June 30, 2007.

4. Three pods will be permitted with one ATV being displayed on each pod for a total of three ATV’s.

5. The vehicles will be displayed only during regular daily business hours and will be moved and stored in the building at night.

6. No major servicing of vehicles will take place on the site.

7. All Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and other regulations with regard to the handling of hazardous materials will be complied with.

8. The building from which the ATV’s will be sold will be painted a beige, earthtone color with brown trim and a silver roof.

9. Repair of the existing asphalt in the amount of approximately $1,200 will be undertaken.

10. The hours of operation of the sales and display will be from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Sunday.

11. A sketch plan will be prepared and reviewed by Township Staff prior to presentation to the Township Board that will include the pods, which will be constructed of attractive pressured lumber.

12. The pods will be 5’ x 4’ x 30” high

13. The site plan will show the location of the four canopy trees and two bushes in front of each pod.

14. The existing trailer on the site will be removed.

15. Handicap parking will be provided.

16. The property owner will provide the Township with a letter agreeing to all of the provisions of this motion and subsequent motions being made this evening regarding the Impact Assessment and Sketch Plan, and such will be available prior to the Township Board meeting.

17. All improvements to the site, excluding the installation of the sidewalk, will be completed by May 31, 2005.

OPEN PUBLIC HEARING #2…Review of special use application, site plan application, site plan and environmental impact assessment for an expansion of an existing garden center located at 3330 E. Grand River. Sec. 5, petitioned by The Home Depot. (PC 05-05)

A. Recommendation of special use.

B. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.

C. Recommendation regarding site plan.

Ms. Vicki Lewis, the architect for the project, and Justin York, of Home Depot were present to represent the applicant.

Ms. Lewis advised they are requesting to expand the garden center. She showed the proposed site plan. They have addressed all of the items in the consultants’ letters. They have prepared a photometric grid. They showed that they are not exceeding 10 footcandles at the edge of the property. The lighting will match the existing lighting.

Ms. Humphriss reviewed her letter of January 13, 2005.

The petitioner is proposing to relocate approximately 275 linear feet of water main in order to accommodate the proposed expansion. Construction plans will be required for review to obtain an MDEQ water permit. The petitioner should be aware that a representative of the public utility will need to be on site during the relocation of the water main.

All commissioners reiterated to the petitioner that there will be no outdoor storage on this site.

The call to the public was made at 7:20 p.m. with no response.

Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Tengel to recommend to the Township Board approval of a Special Use Permit for an expansion of an existing garden center located at 3330 E. Grand River. Sec. 5, petitioned by The Home Depot with the following conditions:

1. Requirements of the Fire Marshal’s letter dated December 27, 2004 shall be complied with.

2. Lighting will not exceed 10 footcandles nor will the lighting source be visible offsite.

3. The same materials will be used as exists on the present outdoor storage area

4. Any stockpiles of soils, fertilizer or similar loosely packaged materials shall be sufficiently covered or contained to prevent dust or blowing of materials.

5. No outdoor storage shall be permitted in any required yard (setback) of buildings for the district in which the commercial outdoor display, sales or storage use is located.

6. The same limitations for outdoor sales and storage specified in the original Special Land Use permit shall be complied with.

7. Because the petitioner is proposing to relocate approximately 275 linear feet of water main, the petitioner shall submit detailed construction plans to the Township Manager, initiate the construction plan review process and obtain an MDEQ water permit. Also, a representative from the public utility will be required to be on site during the relocation of the water main.

8. There will be no storage of tractor trailers for more than 48 hours.

The motion carried unanimously.

Moved by Figurski, seconded by Mortensen, to recommend to the Township Board approval of the Impact Assessment dated December 15, 2004 for an expansion of an existing garden center located at 3330 E. Grand River. Sec. 5, petitioned by The Home Depot. The motion carried unanimously.

Moved y Mortensen, seconded by Brown, to recommend to the Township Board approval of the Site Plan dated July 8, 2004 for an expansion of an existing garden center located at 3330 E. Grand River. Sec. 5, petitioned by The Home Depot with the following conditions:

1. Conditions of the Special Land Use permit recommended for approval this evening will be complied with, specifically the lighting will not exceed 10 footcandles nor will the lighting source be visible offsite.

The motion carried unanimously.

OPEN PUBLIC HEARING #3…Review of site plan application, site plan and environmental impact assessment for a 5,800 sq. ft office/retail building located on the south side of Grand River Avenue between Dorr and Latson Roads. Sec. 10, petitioned by Arbor Bay Development. (PC 05-04)

A. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.

B. Disposition of site plan.

Mr. Scott Visger, the owner of Arbor Bay Development, Mr. Bill Goodreau, the civil engineer for the project, and Bob King, of Lindhout Associates, were present to represent the petitioner.

Mr. Visger stated they were granted setback variances from the ZBA. They feel they have addressed the comments made by the consultants. They feel they can achieve the required drainage while maintaining the 25-foot wetland setback, with a 1:3 slope as well as a fence. They will be providing additional plantings along the wetland as well as the retaining wall that is currently there.

Chairman Pobuda asked if they coordinated this with the Genoa Woods Condo Development. Mr. Visger stated they have worked with them on many occasions with regard to the retaining wall construction and entrance easement. There are recorded easements for both of these. They have also seen the plans for the proposed building.

They are proposing a 3,500 square foot building, which will be 33 feet wide by 175 feet dep. There will be 5,000 feet of storage on the basement level. There will be six suites with three entrances. He showed colored renderings of the site and elevations as well as building material samples.

Commissioner Figurski questioned if this site can handle the restaurant with regard to water and sewer. Ms. Humphriss feels that the water and sewer can accommodate a restaurant, but she has yet to verify this. Mr. Visger stated they are proposing just a small sandwich stop with very little seating.

Commissioner Tengel questioned if the building size and impervious surfaces meet the ordinance requirements. Ms. Humphriss said they do meet the ordinance. The site is 1 acre, the impervious surface is .568 acres, .432 acres is grass and landscaping and 9,000 square feet are wetlands.

Mr. Purdy reviewed his letter of January 18, 2005.

Planning Commission approval is required for the proposed architecture, including materials and colors.

Under the new ordinance, the detention pond plantings are required and no longer optional. They need to add eight canopy trees and 80 shrubs. The petitioner understands and will comply. Mr. Purdy noted that if it is decided that an encroachment into the wetland setback is allowed, then more shrubs and grasses may be required.

Commissioner Figurski asked if decreasing the size of the building is an option. Mr. Visger stated they originally had proposed a larger building; however, they decreased it and the parking. If the building were reduced, then no encroachment would be needed; however, if it were decreased, then it would jeopardize the project from an economic standpoint.

The waste receptacle enclosure should be brick matching the building. Mr. Visger stated they would prefer to use split face block because it is more durable as well as the closeness of the receptacle to the retaining wall. He added that the Dumpster location is lower in grade than the condo residents so they will not see it and it is very heavily landscaped. Commissioner Tengel feels the split face block is fine. Commissioners Brown, Mortensen, and Figurski would prefer the brick.

Ms. Humphriss reviewed her letter of January 15, 2005.

Shop drawings detailing the proposed retaining walls should be submitted for review prior to construction. The petitioner will comply.

There are some typographical errors on Sheet SD-2. The petitioner will make those corrections.

The petitioner is proposing to use the volume in the 36-inch storm sewer pipe as part of the total storage for the detention pond. To ensure the pipes do not fill up with sediment, the petitioner should provide adequate sumps in the storm sewer structures and ensure the first flush volume is discharged to the detention pond prior to storm water collecting within the storm sewer.

The proposed lawn slope within the detention pond is 1:3. Genoa Township design standards require that lawn grades do not exceed 1:4. The Planning Commission can allow the 1:3 if additional stabilization measures are implemented in this area. Also, fencing around the entire area would be required. Ms. Humphriss offered three options which would result in the 1:4 slope

1. The building and/or parking lot could be reduced in size

2. An underground detention facility could be installed

3. The wetland setback could be reduced from 25 feet to 10 feet to allow additional area on the south side of the site for grading.  They do not object to allowing Option #3 because the adjacent property was granted a wetland setback of 10 feet and with the current site layout, the additional area may allow a reduction in the size of the proposed underground storm sewer pipes.

Commissioner Brown is in favor of allowing the encroachment into the wetland setback in return for increasing the landscaping in the area. Commissioners Olson, Tengel and Mortensen agree. Commissioner Figurski does not want any encroachment into the wetlands.

Mr. Purdy suggested adding shrubs that are adaptive to wetland environments, such as native grass or groundcover. There should be one shrub every 10 feet along the wetland boundary and groundcover necessary to reestablish whatever was taken out.

It appears that a number of the trees are located within the detention basin, and it would be preferred to have them outside the pond. Mr. Purdy agrees with this point. Mr. King stated they are proposing weeping willows and they flourish in wet soils. He added that he was told by a representative from LS that these plantings should be in the embankment.

An 8.0% slope across the parking lot toward the south of the site is being proposed. Township standards state that the maximum it can be is 5%. Due to the topographical restraints of this site, a variation is warranted. All commissioners agree with allowing the 8%.

A permit from MDOT will be required for the abandonment of the existing curb cut on Grand River Avenue.

Ms. Humphriss added that other items in their letter are clean-up issues and can be handled administratively. She would like to see a final set of calculations for the detention and storm sewer before they are presented to the Township Board.

The call to the public was made at 8:07 p.m. with no response.

Moved by Figurski, seconded by Mortensen, to recommend to the Township Board approval of the Impact Assessment dated January 24, 2005 for a 5,800 sq. ft office/retail building located on the south side of Grand River Avenue between Dorr and Latson Roads. Sec. 10, petitioned by Arbor Bay Development with the following conditions:

1. Dust control measures shall be added.

2. The access easement should be inserted.

Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Brown, to approve the Site Plan for a 5,800 sq. ft office/retail building located on the south side of Grand River Avenue between Dorr and Latson Roads. Sec. 10, petitioned by Arbor Bay Development with the following conditions:

1. Building materials and colored renderings reviewed by the Planning Commission this evening are acceptable and will become the property of the Township.

2. The sidewalk along Grand River should be constructed within the right-of-way, except where utilities need to be avoided.

3. Detention pond plantings are required and shall be native shrubbery and grasses compatible with the wetlands. There shall be one shrub installed every 10 feet. Final review of the plantings will be conducted by Township staff.

4. The waste receptacle enclosures shall be brick, matching the building, and shall be shielded from the road with two evergreen trees, and the developer may delete one deciduous tree from the plan.

5. All conditions in the Township Engineer’s letter of January 19, 2005 will be complied with, with the following modifications:

a. #3 with regard to grading and drainage – The size of the pipes and the volume of water involved will change and must be reviewed by the Township Engineer prior to review by the Township Board.

b. The Planning Commission recommends Option #3, which is a 10-foot wetland setback.

c. #3 will be deleted as it has been dealt with in Item #3 above

d. The Planning Commission approves the 8% slope

e. The balance of the issues will be addressed during construction plan review

6. Approval of the Impact Assessment as recommended by motion this evening.

OPEN PUBLIC HEARING #4…Review of rezoning application, environmental impact assessment, conceptual PUD plan and PUD agreement to rezone 1.74 acres located in Section 6 part of 11-06-101-013 from GCD (General Commercial District) to RDPUD (Redevelopment Planned Unit Development) to construct a 14,490 sq. ft. retail store located at 2321 E. Grand River, petitioned by Walgreens. (05-02)

A. Recommendation regarding rezoning application.

B. Recommendation regarding PUD agreement.

C. Recommendation regarding conceptual PUD plan.

D. Recommendation regarding impact assessment.

Mr. Mark Drane, the architect, and Larry Campbell, Walgreens Representative, were present to represent the petitioner.

Mr. Drane stated he has been working on this project for two years. They are here to work with the Township. They are proposing to tear down the current building and put up a 15,000 square foot Walgreens pharmacy and 52 parking spaces. They will keep the cross access connection between the other part of the site on the east side. The building will have two drive-thru lanes.

He showed colored building elevations and site plan as well as building material samples.

Commissioner Brown questioned what will be done with all of the current curb cuts. Mr. Drane stated they are proposing to move the Maplecrest curb cut further to the east and eliminate the second curb cut on Grand River. Chairman Pobuda recalled that the previous discussion spoke to removing the curb cut to Maplecrest. Mr. Drane does not feel that is the best idea. It allows access to and from the site for the residents. Grand River and Golf Club may be able to handle all of the traffic. Mr. Purdy suggests that it be closed.

Ms. Humphriss would like the Golf Club access drive closed and have Maplecrest drive redirected directly across from the CVS drive. Mr. Drane stated this cannot be done due to the topography of the site. If this drive does not line up with the CVS drive, Commissioner Mortensen suggests right in/right out only.

The call to the public was made at 8:40 p.m.

Mr. Roger Anderson of 10861 Spencer Road, Brighton, owns four parcels on the east side of this site. It is on the deed that this site have access to Maplecrest. He agrees with leaving the Maplecrest access.

He also stated that he would like a street name sign on the corner of Maplecrest and Grand River. Ms. Kolakowski will investigate this with the LCRC and/or MDOT.

Mr. Mark Finley, who owns 19 and 21 Maplecrest is excited that Walgreens has picked this site. The main concern is traffic. He noted that people cut through that to avoid traffic lights. He would like to see that road maintained and perhaps some speed bumps to help people slow down.

Commissioner Mortensen stated that is a private road so that would be the responsibility of the owners of the road, not the developer. Mr. Campbell stated they are agreeable to refurbishing that road from Golf Club to the driveway of the site. Mr. Finley stated he is not in favor of closing that curb cut. He just wants to slow down traffic.

The call to the public was closed at 8:50 p.m.

Mr. Purdy gave a review of the Redevelopment PUD. Then reviewed his letter of January 17, 2005.

The applicant is asking for the following variances:

Reduce the Grand River setback from 70 feet to 20 feet. With the canopy, it will bring it out 8 feet from the tower, so the setback will be 12 feet from the right-of-way.

Reduce the Maplecrest setback from 70 to 52 feet as well as reduce the 8-foot required greenbelt

The 25-foot parking lot greenbelt that is required is being reduced to 8 feet at its narrowest point.

They are asking for additional signage because there are three front yards, the loading dock and dumpster enclosure is being proposed for one of the front yards.

He noted that the applicant has upgraded the architecture of the building and increased the landscaping along the Maplecrest greenbelt; however, he would like to see more landscaping on Maplecrest due to the waste receptacle and the loading zone being located on this side of the building.

Commissioner Tengel stated he is not comfortable with the Grand River setback. He is willing to explore other options, but does not want to hold up the project because of it. Mr. Purdy stated the only option would be to make the store narrower. Mr. Campbell stated this is the narrowest footprint that Walgreens offers. They are very strict with their inventory / stock shelf layout. Mr. Purdy noted that it is 12 feet from the right-of-way, which is the sidewalk. Then there is 8 feet and then the 8-foot sidewalk, for a total of 28 feet from Grand River.

With regard to the Maplecrest greenbelt variance, Mr. Drane stated they are putting an 8-foot high retaining wall along Maplecrest as well as exceeding the ordinance requirements for the plantings in this greenbelt. All commissioners agree with allowing the Maplecrest setback reduction.

Mr. Drane stated that the tractor trailers will access the site from Grand River and they only deliver two times per week. The have idle limitations, so the engine cuts off in 7 minutes after being idle. All commissioners agree with allowing the loading dock in this area.

Mr. Drane will agree to meet the signage ordinance for the building signs as well as erecting a six-foot monument sign.

The Planning Commission must approve all of the proposed architecture, building materials and colors. Mr. Purdy suggests the roof be shingled as opposed to metal. After a brief discussion, all commissioners agree with allowing the green metal roof.

The driveway along Golf Club Road does not meet ordinance standards for intersection separation or driveway offset.

Mr. Purdy reiterated his suggestion that the Maplecrest driveway be closed to prevent cut through traffic. However, if it is to remain open, he would suggest narrowing the driveway from 30 feet to 24 feet as well as installing a sharper turning radius at the opening. Commissioner Brown does not agree with sharpening the turning radius. Commissioners Figurski and Mortensen agree with Commissioner Brown.

Mr. Drane suggested installing a traffic-calming device at the Maplecrest entrance. All agree to this suggestion, instead of the sharpening of the corners.

The waste receptacle location does not meet ordinance standards as it is in the front yard and faces residential zoning. Because of the retaining wall and landscaping, all commissioners agreed to allow it where it is proposed.

Ms. Humphriss reviewed her letter of January 19, 2005.

Per Township standards, there should be at least 62 feet of clear loading space in front of the trash compactors. Mr. Drane stated they have done this logistical set up for the dumpsters in 90% of their stores and it works. Trash collection is not a long process. If the Planning Commission feels it will impede traffic, they can arrange to have it done before peak times.

Ms. Humphriss suggests the Golf Club Road access be removed. Mr. Drane stated it is currently an active access servicing a current building and does not want it removed. Ms. Humphriss stated there is currently a queue at the Grand River light past this driveway. Leaving this curb cut open would cause further queuing in the parking lot. Mr. Drane stated they only generate approximately 25 trips per hour. Ms. Humphriss noted that this use generates more traffic than the current use. There was a long discussion regarding this with many suggestions regarding traffic flow, signage, etc.

Commissioner Olson noted that the petition stated this has been this way and currently services existing buildings. Commissioners Mortensen, Pobuda, Brown, and Tengel agree.

Due to the truck movements on the site being proposed, Ms. Humphriss feels design modifications to the access drive should be considered. Mr. Drane will review this further.

There are some clarifications and calculations that need to be provided with regard to drainage and grading. Ms. Humphriss would like to see these details before the plan is submitted to the Township Board for review.

The petitioner is proposing a live tap to the existing water main and sanitary sewer main. All live taps to the municipal systems are required to be observed by a representative of the facility. The petitioner understands and will comply.

An additional valve should be added to the proposed water line to allow the fire suppression line to be turned off while the 1 ½-inch lateral remains in service. They will comply with this request.

Chairman Pobuda questioned the electric transformer location. Mr. Drane stated they will move it to the landscape island near the drive thru and screen it with landscaping.

Chairman Pobuda questioned the two drive-thru windows proposed. Mr. Campbell stated this provides convenience for customers not having to wait in line and moves traffic through faster. Ms. Kolakowski states the ordinance allows only one; however, with the Redevelopment PUD, the Planning Commission has discretion. Mr. Drane noted they have added a 21-foot landscape island between the drive thru and the remaining site to the east. He reiterated that the double drive thru is very important to Walgreens and they would not build without it. He noted that when this process was started two years ago, two drive thrus were not an issue; however, the ordinance has changed since then. Mr. Drane suggested adding more plantings on the Maplecrest greenbelt to help screen the headlights from the residents to the north. All commissioners agree with this.

Commissioners Pobuda, Tengel, Olson, Mortensen and Brown agree to allow the two lanes. Commissioner Figurski wants only one.

Chairman Pobuda reiterated that window signs are not permitted. Mr. Drane stated they will add this to the PUD agreement.

Mr. Drane wanted to state the advantages the Township would receive by allowing this Redevelopment PUD:

1. The site will be cleaned up and a first-class building will be erected.

2. They have added more quality and quantity of landscaping along Maplecrest than what is required, approximately 10 times the amount.

3. There will be 50% less impervious surface on this site than the ordinance allows.

4. The building height is lower than what is allowed.

5. They will comply with all signage ordinances.

6. They are adding an underground detention area and improving the quality of the water going to the storm sewer.

7. They are eliminating a curb cut on Grand River.

Mr. Campbell stated that Walgreens is a great corporate citizen and a good neighbor. It is a debt-free company. Each store has approximately 15-20 employees. They are involved with the neighbors from the beginning of the project to the end. Walgreens is very tough on its managers and employees. They have fully-stocked shelves, clean stores and grounds and allow no loitering.

There was further discussion regarding the 20-foot setback on Grand River. Commissioners Olson, Mortensen, Pobuda and Tengel feel this is satisfactory as it is only the canopy that is that close. Commissioner Figurski feels it is too close. Mr. Drane feels he can compress the tower element and bring it further from the road.

Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Tengel, to recommend to the Township Board approval of the Rezoning Application to rezone 1.74 acres located in Section 6 part of 11-06-101-013 from GCD (General Commercial District) to RDPUD (Redevelopment Planned Unit Development) to construct a 14,490 sq. ft. retail store located at 2321 E. Grand River, petitioned by Walgreens because it meets the requirements for such rezoning according to Ordinance Section 10.07 as well as it will redevelop an existing non-conforming site with unique site constraints. The motion carried (Tengel – yes; Brown – yes; Mortensen – yes; Figurski – no; Pobuda – yes; Olson – yes).

Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Tengel, to recommend to the Township Board approval of the PUD Agreement for Walgreens to construct a 14,490 sq. ft. retail store located at 2321 E. Grand River with the following conditions:

1. Review of the Agreement by the Township Attorney.

2. Two drive thru windows will be limited to the receipt and dispensing of prescription pharmaceuticals only.

3. Paragraph 2.1 will be revised to indicate that this land use authorization applies only to a drug store and ancillary uses common to drug stores, such as CVS, Rite Aid, limited groceries, non-prescription drugs, etc.

4. Paragraph 2.7 shall be eliminated.

5. Cross access easements will be obtained and recorded with the property to the east prior to the granting of a land use permit.

6. The petitioner will resurface Maplecrest Drive west from the site entrance to Golf Club Road with approval from the private road owner(s).

7. An additional paragraph shall be added to read “The two building signs will be permitted, one on Grand River and one on Golf Club side, each being 100 square feet”.

8. No window signs are permitted.

9. A monument sign is permitted and must be consistent with the Township ordinance.

10. The petitioner will provide the Township with evidence that he has the right to access Maplecrest Drive and further agrees that Walgreens and its supplies will not use Maplecrest for through traffic.

11. Page 3, Paragraph 2.5 shall be changed to “For purposes of setbacks, it is agreed that the property has three front yards. The setback from Grand River …….12 feet…….the setback from Maplecrest shall be a minimum of 52 feet. The parking lot setback …..from Maplecrest shall be a minimum of 8 feet”.

Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Brown, to recommend to the Township Board approval of the Conceptual PUD Plan for the construction of a 14,490 sq. ft. retail store located at 2321 E. Grand River, petitioned by Walgreens with the following conditions:

1. Cross access easements will be obtained and recorded with the property to the east prior to the granting of a land use permit.

2. The petitioner will provide the Township with evidence that he has the right to access Maplecrest Drive and further agrees that Walgreens and its suppliers will not use Maplecrest for through traffic.

3. The petitioner will resurface Maplecrest Drive west from the site entrance to Golf Club Road with approval from the private road owner(s).

4. No window signs are permitted.

5. All greenbelts will be irrigated.

6. Additional landscaping will be provided to shield the drive thru vehicles’ lights from the neighbors to the west and north.

7. The materials and colored renderings presented this evening are acceptable and will become the property of the Township. Additional pilasters in accents will be added to the east and north elevations and will be reviewed at final site plan review.

8. The monument sign will not exceed 72 square feet and will meet Township Ordinance.

9. The two building signs will be permitted, one on Grand River and one on Golf Club side, each being 100 square feet

10. A traffic calming device will be added to the entrance from Maplecrest Drive and the specifications of which will be reviewed during final Site Plan review.

11. The petitioner will arrange with the trash hauling company to pick up trash prior to the opening hours of the pharmacy.

12. The transformer will be relocated from the southeast corner of the property to the south end of the landscaped island east of the drive thru.

13. Fire Marshall requirements will be complied with.

14. The drainage and grading and utilities requirements spelled out in the Township Engineer’s letter of January 19, 2005 will be complied with.

15. The access from Grand River to the site will be modified to enlarge the turning radius for trucks entering the site.

16. A directional sign will be added north of the parking lot island in front of the building directing vehicles to Grand River

Moved by Mortensen, seconded by Olson, to recommend to the Township Board approval of the Impact Assessment dated January 24, 2005 for the construction of a 14,490 sq. ft. retail store located at 2321 E. Grand River, petitioned by Walgreens with the following conditions:
1. The Impact Assessment will refer to the fact that the drive thru will be for the receipt and dispensing of pharmaceutical prescriptions only.
2. The hours of operation will be added.
3. Dust control measures will be added.

Moved by Figurski, seconded by Mortensen, to approve the minutes of January 10, 2005. The motion carried unanimously.

Commissioner Mortensen advised the commissioners that the representatives from Livingston County Moto Cross, the first applicant this evening, did not attend the Board Meeting and have done very little to comply with the requests of the Township.

Ms. Kolakowski advised that staff advised them of the wrong date of the Board meeting and that is why they did not attend.

The meeting adjourned at 11:13 p.m.

Submitted by: Patty Thomas, Recording Secretary

Approved by: Barbara Figurski, Secretary

~ If you should have any questions about this site, please contact our webmaster polly@genoa.org