Charter Township of Lyon

Transcription

1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 27, 2017 Approved: December 12, 2017 The meeting was called to order by Mr. Conflitti at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call: Patricia Carcone, Board Liaison Jim Chuck, Secretary Michael Conflitti, Chairman Stephan Hoffman Ron Pennington Kurt Radke Carl Towne, Vice-Chairman Guests: 17 Also Present: Tina Archer, DDA Administrator Chris Doozan, McKenna Associates Leslie Zawada, Civil Engineering Solutions Lisa Anderson, Township Attorney APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion by Towne, second by Chuck To approve the agenda as presented. Voice Vote: Ayes: Nays: Unanimous None APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of the November 13, 2017 Minutes Motion by Towne, second by Radke To approve the minutes of November 13, 2017 as presented. Voice Vote: Ayes: Unanimous Nays: None COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS Planning Commission November 27, 2017 Page 1

2 DDA REPORT Ms. Archer explained the DDA met and the 2018 budget was the main portion of the discussion. They are working on getting the full cost of the construction of the final leg of the ring road. She provided copies of the magazine entitled Lyon Today to the Planning Commissioners. There is a Facebook page called Lyon Works that promotes jobs in the Township. Tim Hortons opened over the weekend on Pontiac Trail. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. AP-17-41, Parallel Plans Text Amendment. Public hearing to consider revisions to the Zoning Ordinance involving parallel plans for calculating density in Planned Developments. Mr. Doozan referenced the McKenna memo dated October 23, He explained the changes that were discussed at the October 10, 2017 Planning Commission meeting have been incorporated. Essentially, these amendments are intended to address concerns about the application of the parallel plan for the purposes of determining appropriate density in Planned Developments. Motion by Chuck, second by Towne To open the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. Voice Vote: Ayes: Unanimous Nays: None Rick Elkow Mr. Elkow questioned what the allowable wetland fill is allowed by the MDEQ. Mr. Doozan stated they could potentially allow any number of acres to be filled. Mr. Elkow asked if there is a quantifiable number. Mr. Doozan stated the key phrase in there is that the parallel plan should minimize wetland fill and the need for mitigation. Mr. Elkow explained he was a fan of blending the parallel plan and the mathematical calculation; he felt that served the Township well. He would like to see the addition of the mathematical calculation as a guide, just as the parallel plan is. Jim Crews, Cobblestone Lane Mr. Crews commented it seems like every time he comes to a review of a planned development, the setbacks become a big football and seems like it goes in a circle. He questioned if they have a set of setbacks that go with clustering. He suggested defining clustering better to come up with a better standard that they start with under a clustering setback. Motion by Towne, second by Radke To close the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Voice Vote: Ayes: Unanimous Planning Commission November 27, 2017 Page 2

3 Nays: None Mr. Towne commented on the setback issue and he would like to hear Mr. Doozan s comments. He d like to hear from Ms. Zawada on how that could impact engineering. He also explained they have been working on this for quite a while, and all 12 areas have been covered. Mr. Doozan commented that there are a number of variables that go into clustering and one of them is setbacks. If they decrease the size of the setbacks and don t decrease the number of units, they can achieve tighter clustering and achieve greater open space. However, there are other ways of clustering simply by decreasing the number of units. You also have to consider the characteristics of the site and whether it lends itself to smaller setbacks for larger open spaces. Acceptance by the people surrounding the planned development is also a consideration. In some cases, there have been PDs with smaller setbacks that have been more well-received by surrounding neighbors and accomplished great things with preservation. He didn t think they could say that there is just one set of standards, and he wasn t even sure if that was what a planned development is; it should provide some flexibility. All planned developments achieve clustering to some extent since they all have a minimum of 20% open space. Mr. Hoffman stated a planned unit development almost strives to lack those standards. What if we did have a standard and the developer met it? It allows them to demand more from the developer and have better negotiations. Ms. Zawada explained clustering is much better environmental-wise. Regarding storm water management, if they re clustered, there is less pavement and the ponds are smaller. The intent of the revision is to make sure the parallel plan is realistic. The one item that she felt should have more discussion is the realistic assessment of wetland use because that is somewhat vague. Treasurer Carcone stated she likes that this will be a tool to use and not set in stone. Motion by Chuck, second by Radke To move forward the text amendment to the Trustees based on the McKenna memo dated 10/23/17 as well as the 10 bullet points cited in the letter as it relates to the parallel plan acting as a tool. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Unanimous Nays: None OLD BUSINESS 2 AP-16-35a, USA 2 GO Site Plan Review. Property located on the west side of Milford Road, north of Grand River Avenue. Site plan review of a proposed 6,767 square foot gas station and convenience store. Planning Commission November 27, 2017 Page 3

4 Mr. Doozan reviewed the McKenna letter dated November 14, 2017 and recommended approval of the reviewed plans for USA 2 Go subject to the following conditions: 1. A 10-foot setback variance must be sought for the proposed freestanding sign on Lyon Center Drive-West. 2. A 14.5 square foot size variance must be sought for the proposed wall sign. 3. Information about he Tim Horton s signs must be provided. Only one wall sign is permitted per face of building. 4. Approvals are required from the Township Engineer and Township Attorney. 5. Special land use approval is required. Mr. Doozan reviewed the McKenna memo dated November 27, He explained the northerly part of the USA 2 GO parcel is in the Lyon Crossing Planned Development and therefore subject to the regulations in the Lyon Crossing Planned Development Agreement. Gas stations and convenience stores are permitted uses in Lyon Crossing. Also, restaurants with drive-thru facilities are permitted. He explained if USA 2 GO wants a monument sign on Lyon Center Drive-West, it must first obtain written consent from Milford Road West Development Associates, and then request permission for the sign from the Planning Commission. Mr. Doozan explained in other aspects the plans are in compliance with the Planned Development Agreement. Mr. Doozan reviewed the traffic impact study results. Mr. Doozan explained the recommendation for special land use is as follows: The standards for granting special land use approval have been properly addressed therefore he recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of USA 2 GO gas station and convenience store to the Township Board. Mr. Conflitti questioned the parking, 8 of the spaces are labeled deferred. He questioned who determines the need. Mr. Doozan stated it would be determined administratively by the Township. Mr. Chuck commented he is hesitant on as needed for the parking and would like to see it paved. At this point, there is no monument sign. He can t waiver on 48 square feet. He thinks this is a great development, but he couldn t support those two points. In the CES memo dated November 26, 2017, approval was recommended as noted on the site plan. She noted the storm water discharge will actually be within the road right of way and will require a permit from the Road Commission of Oakland County and the Fire Department did request a hydrant to be extended closer to Milford Road and that should be included on the plans. The remaining can be addressed at detailed engineering. Mr. Towne questioned the underground detention. Ms. Zawada explained the grease interceptors are pumped out every 3-6 months. Ms. Anderson explained the master deed was received and based on preliminary Planning Commission November 27, 2017 Page 4

5 review there will need an amendment to the agreement with respect to units 5 and 9 and the value of those. There is access from units 2 and 3, onto unit 17 so they need to discuss if there are easement agreements. According to the bylaws the monument sign requires approval from the association. The special land use request is not for the drive thru restaurant, any approval should be conditioned on the future approval of the drive thru restaurant. Representing applicant: Kevin Bahnam Brent LeVanway Mark Szerlag Tony Antone Mr. LeVanway provided a PowerPoint presentation. He believed the petition requested the drive thru for the special land use. Mr. Doozan stated the application does state drive thru but does not say anything about the restaurant. The original application date is 10/6/16, revised 3/22/17. The 3/22/17 application says gas station and convenience store only. The 2016 application was accompanied by uses which says gas station and convenience store with a drive thru window but neither refers to the restaurant. Mr. Towne stated that they ve talked about the drive-thru all along. Mr. Doozan stated it was noticed for gas station/convenience store. Ms. Anderson stated the public notice is the issue because they need to make sure the public was aware. She would recommend the applicant come forward with a special land use application so it can be properly noticed to the public. The gas station and convenience store can move forward, but the special land use cannot because it wasn t noticed to the public. Mr. LeVanway stated the first topic is the site plan review. They were before the Planning Commission about a year ago. Two primary signs would present on the face of the building since it s a double branded store with USA 2 GO and Tim Hortons. Mr. Towne questioned the 3:1 slope and if a 3 foot berm is high enough to block noise and the speaker for the drive thru. It looks like there are only 7 spruces, and he would want way more than 7 on that long berm. Mr. LeVanway explained it is mostly shrubs, and many are junipers. Mr. Towne stated he didn t like the landscape design on the berm at all, as he didn t think it blocked the speaker noise or the traffic. He explained that is an old cemetery, and we respect our dead; that is not good enough. Mr. LeVanway stated they can change out the junipers for evergreen trees. Mr. Bahnam stated the speakers outside, aside from the screens on the pumps will not be there. Mr. Bahnam stated that the dispensers with the video screens are eye level. Mr. Towne stated even with the drive thru, it must be landscaped all the way back. Maybe there could be a provision in the document that if there is a funeral, the noise would be addressed. Treasurer Carcone stated they want to see a retaining wall there for many reasons. This is the only active cemetery left in the Township. There are over 300 sites left, and the Clerk was asked what she would like to see there. Their thought process is garbage going into the cemetery. They would like a retaining wall with the plantings. The graves are very close to the site, and they need to be very respectful. Mr. Bahnam stated he Planning Commission November 27, 2017 Page 5

6 understood and agreed. He would be happy to build a wall. Mr. Towne stated they needed to do better than crab apple trees out front, and he suggested planting ornamentals. Mr. Bahnam agreed. Mr. LeVanway stated they will put in the deferred parking right now, since it s wanted. Mr. LeVanway commented that they need to either have a wayfinding sign or they would seek approval from the developer for a monument sign and come to the Planning Commission. Right now their feeling is to speak with the developer and apply separately to the Planning Commission for the sign. They feel it is a safety issue, and they recognize that is not a part of the approval. The sign on front of the building is a double branded building. If they were to combine the two signs, they would be looking at a smaller sign. He asked that they remember that the building sits back from Milford Road. Mr. Bahnam explained there is little they can do, since Tim Hortons is a national company and have their own requirements. It s a standard sign. He thought they could work on shrinking the USA 2 GO sign, but they need help in getting the 2 nd sign for Tim Hortons. Mr. Doozan explained they would need to go to the ZBA. Mr. Bahnam explained this is their 9 th location, and it s important to have the sign so it identifies it. It would be hard to move forward without the signs. They don t want to set themselves up for failure. Having two building signs is very critical for them to move forward with the project. Mr. Chuck stated it is basically two businesses under one roof, and signage is important. If it s done properly, he had no issues with shrinking the USA 2 GO and tying in the Tim Hortons sign. Treasurer Carcone explained the most asked for item for businesses are signs. It s two businesses, and she has no issue with it. Mr. Radke stated they should work with the businesses and support it. Mr. Pennington agreed. Ms. Anderson explained the ZBA will have their own separate standards, and it s not guaranteed they will vote in favor. Mr. Bahnam stated there was a public hearing, and their application did ask for a drive thru. Mr. Doozan read the public hearing notice. Mr. Towne explained the side elevations are barren. The south elevation has the drive thru. Treasurer Carcone stated she didn t think they would want anything there. If they can see it from the cemetery, she wouldn t want any kind of advertisement there. Mr. Bahnam stated the north elevation will have a similar look as the front. The cemetery side will have the drive thru. The only wall that is blank is the west side of the building. Mr. LeVanway explained they have a loading and unloading area, with parking, and the drive thru. He agreed to put 3 or 4 spruces in the blank area. Planning Commission November 27, 2017 Page 6

7 It was noted that they are planning a larger anchor type store that will be in the back of this store. The backs of the buildings will face one another. Mr. Bahnam confirmed that store hours at freeway locations are typically 24 hours and that no outdoor seating is proposed. Motion by Chuck, second by Carcone To recommend approval of USA 2 GO AP16-35a including comments from McKenna dated 11/27/17 and 11/14/17 and the CES memo dated 11/16/17 the proposed project fits exactly what is needed as it relates to the traffic and the north south opportunity for a convenience store. In addition, the applicant has agreed to add a retaining wall to protect the cemetery and all 56 parking spaces will be paved and striped and the extra trees will be provided along the wall. The drive-thru is a separate consideration that must be brought back under a special land use request and any conditions with regard to the attorney review will be addressed. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Recused: Hoffman 3. AP-16-35b, USA 2 GO Special Land Use. Property located on the west side of Milford Road, north of Grand River Avenue. Consider a special land use request to allow a gas station in the B-2 District. Mr. Doozan reviewed the McKenna letter dated November 16, He explained the standards for granting special land use approval have been properly addressed. Therefore, the recommendation is that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the USA 2 GO Gas Station and Convenience Store to the Township Board. Motion by Chuck, second by Carcone To recommend approval of AP-16-35b Special Land Use based on the information provided by the CES memo dated 11/16/17 and the two letters from McKenna dated 11/14/17 and 11/27/17. The drive thru is a separate consideration and the attorney will review of any outstanding legal requirements. Voice Vote: Ayes: Nays: Recused: Unanimous None Hoffman NEW BUSINESS - None Planning Commission November 27, 2017 Page 7

8 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 4. Community Reports - None ADJOURNMENT Motion by Pennington, second by Carcone To adjourn the meeting at 8:47 p.m. Voice Vote: Ayes: Nays: Unanimous None The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m. due to no further business. Respectfully Submitted, Kellie Angelosanto Kellie Angelosanto Recording Secretary Planning Commission November 27, 2017 Page 8