|
|||||
|
Planning Commission Meeting January 8, 2007 Work Session 6:30 p.m. Agenda CALL TO ORDER: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: DISCUSSION: of Agenda items of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission DISCUSSION: of general items ADJOURNMENT: Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. Agenda CALL TO ORDER: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: CALL TO THE PUBLIC: (Note: The Board will not begin any new business after 10:00 p.m.) ELECTION OF OFFICERS: OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 1…Review of sketch plan for two wall signs for Genoa Medical Building located at 2300 Genoa Business Park Drive, Sec. 13, petitioned by Rand Construction Engineering.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING #2…Review of sketch plan for an additional wall sign for Buffalo Wild Wings located at 900 S. Latson Road, Sec. 5, petitioned by Buffalo Wild Wings.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING #3…Review of impact assessment and site plan for an architectural change to a previously approved site plan located at 7000 W. Grand River, Sec. 14, petitioned by Paul Esposito.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING #4…Review of special use, impact assessment and site plan for a 61,600 sq. ft. medical office and retail building located at 7526 W. Grand River. Sec. 13, petitioned by Talon Development Group, LLC.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING # 5…Review of special use, impact assessment and sketch plan for leasing and rental of truck and trailers, including outdoor storage and display of vehicles and for the outdoor display, sales, and storage of propane, located at 5670 E. Grand River, Sec. 10, petitioned by Cedar Investments, L.L.C.
Administrative Business: Planners report presented by LSL Planners Approval of November13, 2006 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Member Discussion Adjournment
WORK SESSION MINUTES
CALL
TO ORDER: At
APPROVAL
OF AGENDA: Upon
motion by Barbara Figurski and support by Dean Tengle, the agenda was
approved with the correction in numbering. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION:
of Agenda items of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION:
of general items. ADJOURNMENT:
The work session of the Genoa Planning Commission was adjourned at
PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES CALL
TO ORDER: The
meeting was called to order at PLEDGE
OF ALLEGIANCE: The
Pledge of Allegiance was recited followed by a moment of silence. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Upon motion by Barbara Figurski and support by Dean Tengle, the agenda was approved as amended to correct numbering of item number two. Motion carried unanimously. CALL
TO THE PUBLIC: (Note: The
Board will not begin any new business after ELECTION
OF OFFICERS: OPEN
PUBLIC HEARING # 1…Review
of sketch plan for two wall signs for Genoa Medical Building located at 2300
Genoa Business Park Drive, Sec. 13, petitioned by Rand Construction
Engineering. John
Eckstein of Lindhout & Associates, Gary
Markstrom and Rob Nesbitt both indicate no issues with this request. Planning
Commission disposition of petition
Motion
by James Mortensen that the Planning Commission approve two signs, not to
exceed 100 sq ft total between them both, as shown in the sketch plan
presented at the meeting this evening. Support by Barbara
Figurski. Motion carried unanimously.
OPEN
PUBLIC HEARING #2…Review
of sketch plan for an additional wall sign for Buffalo Wild Wings located at
900 S. Latson Road, Sec. 5, petitioned by Buffalo Wild Wings. No
one is present on behalf of petitioner. Planning
Commission disposition of petition A.
Disposition of sketch plan. Motion
by James Mortensen to table this matter since no one is present.
Support by Barbara Figurski. Motion carried unanimously. OPEN
PUBLIC HEARING #3…Review
of impact assessment and site plan for an architectural change to a
previously approved site plan located at 7000 W. Grand River, Sec. 14,
petitioned by Paul Esposito. Paul
Esposito of Lexor Group representing JWS and Steve Stone, owner of Steve
Morgan inquires if the banding would still exist. Mr. Esposito indicates
that he could still do the banding by using two different tones. Gary
Markstrom adds nothing from the engineering standpoint. Rob
Nesbitt indicates his only concern was the banding, as well. James
Mortensen inquires if the landscaping planned would break up the view of a
large wall. Petitioner indicates over a hundred to a
hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars worth of landscaping is planned.
Rob Nesbitt indicates the landscaping is sufficient. Curt
Brown indicates he believes a lot of the building will be visible from The
Planning Commission suggests that the materials are fine, but the banding
and mortar joints must match the same color of material. The
banding on top will be an 8” band of cream color. Rob
Nesbitt asks about the truck well versus overhead door. There
was an error in the architectural plan and the intent is to be a truck well,
which was already approved by the Planning Commission. Rob
Nesbitt inquires about the lighting changes in the amended elevation
drawing. Petitioner will have the lighting corrected in
the amended drawings and will provide those to the Township. Also,
a sample fixture will be provided. Teri
Olson asks if there are 5 fixtures that are being removed – petitioner
indicates no, there have been no changes like that. Kelly
VanMarter indicates that, in fact, it’s an addition of 5 that weren’t
shown on the plan. Petitioner
indicates that the shared access agreement with Kil’s Karate has been
provided to the Township. Planning
Commission disposition of petition A.
Recommendation regarding impact assessment (dated B.
Disposition regarding site plan (dated Motion
by James Mortensen that the hearing on site plan change be tabled at the
request of the petitioner. Support by Barbara Figurski. Motion
carried unanimously. OPEN
PUBLIC HEARING # 4…
Review of special use, impact
assessment and site plan for a 61,600 sq. ft. medical office and retail
building located at 7526 Petitioner
present by John Donoville, vice president of Talon Development Group, Petitioner
presents plans for a medical office and retail building next to Brighton
Athletic Club. It’s a four sided building. There
is no intention on the part of the owner to split the property in the
future. He realizes that a future split due to hardship
would be self-imposed and therefore, he wouldn’t qualify. The
underlying property beneath B.A.C. is being sold to Talon. The
petitioner has been working with D.E.Q. already regarding any potential
wetland issues and anticipates permission to use the existing detention pond
but there will be a few minor modifications to the outlet. Emily
McKinnon addresses the Planning Commission regarding engineering issues.
Various specifics are pointed out, such as dumpster placement,
overflow parking, loading areas, etc. It is anticipated
that there would only be a need for short term delivery trucks. The
site is approximately 9’ lower than Chip
Faudie addresses the Planning Commission. He describes
the building as two stories, real brick facing, cast stone accenting.
Cast stone is an artificial material made by cement & resin meant
to look like limestone. It will be red brick with bronze
window frames and canopies will be aluminum. The entire 2nd
floor will be medical. The front portion of the first
floor is retail and the rear portion will be medical. The
canopies will not be illuminated and will be aluminum, not cloth. If
the tenant @ Brighton Athletic Club’s building vacates, the petitioner
will immediately move into phase two, which would be to build a new building
on that site. Rob
Nesbitt indicates DEQ approval would be required for this approval.
There were no specific concerns regarding architecture.
As it relates to parking issues, it is suggested that signs for
“employee parking” would be placed in the appropriate places.
Petitioner will do so. The landscaping plans
are satisfactory and any signs would require approval. Gary
Markstrom discusses the issues in the letter of December 29th.
The issues outlined in that letter have been met, except for the
design plan for the detaining wall. Petitioner will
provide that. The grading requirement is 1-4, but the
plan exceeds that. Emily McKinnon explains that grading
of 1-3 is to accommodate the natural setback. Gary
Markstrom has no problem with that. Petitioner has not
received any comments back from the City of Petitioner
will comply with suggestions made by the Brighton Fire Department letter.
Once they obtain a letter of approval, they should provide it to the
Township Board. The
5’ encroachment on the back of the property would be deeded to the
property owner of the southwest parcel to solve the encroachment issue. Steve
Morgan asks Gary Markstrom about the four-bay type of system for sediment
control. A sediment basin is preferred, but there is an
existing system at that location and this suggested plan would bring it up
to some level of quality control that would be satisfactory. Banked
parking would be approved by the township and would not need to come before
the Planning Commission again. The
existing drain pipe will be incorporated into the storm water system. Hazardous
materials are disposed of via a pick-up service for medical materials. Rob
Nesbitt indicates there are no lighting issues. The
hours of operation of the building will range from They
will use City of The
rooftop appliances are screened architecturally. Planning
Commission disposition of petition A.
Recommendation regarding special use. B.
Recommendation regarding impact assessment (dated C.
Recommendation regarding site plan (dated Motion
by James Mortensen to recommend to the Township Board approval of a special
use permit subject to the following: 1.
Special use applies to grading and special utility grading to the
natural feature setback, subject to approval by DEQ; 2.
The overlapping property at the southwest corner will be deeded to
the neighboring owner upon closing. Support
by Barbara Figurski. Motion carried unanimously. Motion
by Barbara Figurski to recommend to the Township Board approval of the
impact assessment contingent upon: 1.
The site plan approval by the Township Board; 2.
The site plan notes the hours of operation; 3.
That a copy of the traffic impact assessment dated 4.
That there be a requirement that any deliveries will be made during
normal business hours. Support
by James Mortensen. Motion carried unanimously. Motion
by James Mortensen to recommend to the Township Board approval of the site
plan reviewed this evening by the Planning Commission subject to the
following: 1.
Approval of impact assessment & special use permit by the
Township board; 2.
Requirements of 3.
The proposed architectural renderings and materials reviewed this
evening are acceptable and will become the property of the Township; 4.
A sign directing employees to the employee parking area will be
provided; 5.
The requirements of the Township Engineer’s letter of 6.
The Fire Department requirements and requirements of the Township
Engineer will be complied with or confirmed in writing prior to the review
by the Township; 7.
The 1:3 grading will be acceptable in the southeast corner of the
parking area to avoid encroachment into the wetland area; 8.
The petitioner will furnish to the Township Engineer a maintenance
plan for the storm water system. Support
by OPEN
PUBLIC HEARING #5…Review
of special use, impact assessment and sketch plan for leasing and rental of
truck and trailers, including outdoor storage and display of vehicles and
for the outdoor display, sales, and storage of propane, located at 5670 E.
Grand River, Sec. 10, petitioned by Cedar Investments, L.L.C. Petitioner
present via Robert Akouri and addresses the Planning Commission, seeking
relief in the form of a variance to allow rental of U-Haul, propane storage
and sale of propane product. He believes these things
compliment self storage services. James
Mortensen feels there is not enough information at this time to discuss
propane storage. The ordinance requires a setback of
75’ and this site is 70’ from the nearest lot line and 45’ to nearest
building. Petitioner
feels the 8’-10’ green barrier wall should mitigate this. He
is willing to move the tank back 5’ to accommodate the 75’ setback from
the nearest lot line. James
Mortensen indicates he’s not in favor of having propane sales on that
site, that he’s not in favor of granting a variance and that he feels
there is not enough information. Dean
Tengle concurs and indicates that it doesn’t “fit” on this site.
Curt Brown concurs. Barbara Figurski feels it’s
too close to residential area. Teri Olson agrees with
that. Steve
Morgan has no issue with propane there, but doesn’t feel a variance for
propane is something he would support. Petitioner
would plant a longer tree line to help mask any U-Haul vehicles.
There could be occasional storage of U-Hauls out front when people
dropped them off after hours and left a key in a drop box. Steve
Morgan indicates an amended impact assessment and plan showing dimensions
would be required for approval. There
is space in the marquis sign on James
Mortensen indicates no problem with U-Haul being there, but would require
clarification regarding space. Petitioner indicates that
at maximum, there would be four rental units on the property. Petitioner
inquires whether U-Haul would apply to Ryder, etc., as discussed with the
Board. James Mortensen answers in the affirmative. Barbara
Figurski indicates the PIP plan was done in September of ’03 – but James
Mortensen indicates it did not provide for propane. Additionally,
Barbara Figurski inquires whether there will be screening for Steve
Morgan suggests that the document drafted should be provided to staff before
it’s submitted to the Planning Commission. Gary
Markstrom refers to his December 29th letter, wherein propane is
addressed. That issue is moot at this point. He
is familiar with U-Haul vehicles and believes that they are 10’ wide
rather than 10’ long. He suggests cross-hatching
parking area in long strip on the plan to note it. Once
the rentals are on the premises, there will be a concern about space between
them and building “D”. It would not be enough space
to permit turns by other vehicles. The 45’ distance on
the southeast corner may have to be brought back a little bit to permit the
rental units to make turns around the back of building “D”. Rob
Nesbitt indicates concerns regarding the 50’ setback between vehicle and
nearest lot line. It’s currently approximately 60’.
He indicates screening would be desirable at lot line with There
will be no maintenance or repairs at the site, other than tire pressure,
etc. A
special use permit and environmental impact will be necessary. Tom
Beebe of William
Friend addresses the Commission. He resides on Planning
Commission disposition of petition
A.
Recommendation regarding special use. B.
Recommendation regarding impact assessment (dated C.
Recommendation regarding sketch plan (dated Motion
by Administrative
Business: ·
Planners report presented
by LSL Planners ·
Approval of November
13, 2006 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Motion
by Barbara Figurski, support by Curt Brown. Minutes
approved. ·
Member Discussion.
The next meeting will be Adjournment:
At
|
|||||
|
|||||
