Reference Desk

 

Planning Commission Minutes - February 24, 2009

THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CHESTERFIELD

PLANNING COMMISSION

FEBRUARY 24, 2009

 

A regular meeting of the Charter Township of Chesterfield Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 24, 2009 at 7:00 p. m. at the Township Hall located at 47275 Sugarbush, Chesterfield MI 48047.

1. CALL TO ORDER:

Chairman Priest called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL:

Present: Jim Priest Excused: George Deeby

Robert Kohler

Paula Frame

Joe Stabile

Cheryl Printz

Jim Moran

Paul Miller

Ray Saelens

Others: Patrick Meagher, Township Planner

3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:

Ms. Frame asked if the date for letter J, the CVS Pharmacy sign, was correct. She stated that she thought the number should have been 2009-06 instead of 2008-06.

Ms. Giese answered that Ms. Frame was correct and it should be 2009-06.

Motion by Mr. Priest to change the number for letter J, the CVS Pharmacy sign from

2008-06 to 2009-06.

Supported by Ms. Frame

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Carried

4. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT: (Committee will report items under Review)

5. PUBLIC HEARING:

6. REVIEWS:

A. PROPOSED PARTIALLY COVERED BOAT WELL ON CANAL LOT SLU#2008-11 Joachim Lohmann, 47676 Harbor Drive, Chesterfield, MI 48047 - Proposed partially covered boat well located across from above address. Tabled 1-27-09

Mr. Priest stated that SLU#2009-11 was tabled two or three meetings ago because the board wanted to refer the matter to the Township attorney for an interpretation. It was granted a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals and the attorney has informed Planning that the variance was legitimate and approved. Therefore, he stated that they must approve the request for the covered boat well.

Motion by Chairman Priest to approve Lohmann partially covered boat well on canal lot SLU #2008-11 based on the fact that the Township attorney has informed the board that it had been granted a variance which was within the guidelines of the ordinance.

Supported by Mr. Moran

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Carried

Gary Gendernalik, 52624 Lauren Oak Lane, Chesterfield, MI 48047 addressed the board.

Mr. Gendernalik stated that he had the two affidavits. One that the owner not run a business out of there and two the hold harmless one which refers to the water main. He asked if he should deliver the affidavits to the office?

Mr. Stabile commented that it was stated that the Planning Commission had already reviewed this thing before it went to the ZBA because of the encroachment on the line.

He stated that he did not remember it being referred to Planning before ZBA.

Mr. Gendernalik explained that there had been a public hearing and he gave a written report to the Planning Commission as to all the criteria.

Mr. Priest commented that it had been a while though.

Mr. Gendernalik stated that he had copies of what was submitted in support. He stated that it was in August of 2008.

Mr. Meagher stated that it had been on the agenda numerous times. It was discussed with the attorney and the ZBA made a decision. Planning did not want to act on it at the last meeting because they wanted clarification if, in fact, the decision the ZBA made was valid in light of the fact that the variance was granted on a piece of property that was not owned by the petitioner. But, evidently, the response from the attorney was that it was a valid variance that was granted by the ZBA. Therefore, it must be approved by this board.

Mr. Gendernalik stated that he would deliver those two affidavits to the Township office.

WALMART PROPOSED NEW POLE SIGN - #2008-35 SGN: Atwell-Hicks,

50182 Schoenherr, Shelby Township, MI 48315 – Proposed new pole sign located  at new Wal-Mart on south side of 23 Mile Road, east of I-94. Tabled 1-27-09

Motion by Ms. Frame to table new pole sign #2008-35 SGN, there are some adjustments that need to be made to this application in regard to the height of the sign.

Supported by Ms. Printz.

Mr. Priest asked if it was tabled for up to six meetings?

Ms. Frame stated yes, up to six meetings.

Mr. Priest asked if Ms. Frame had a date?

Ms. Frame apologized and stated that she did not have dates.

Ms. Printz asked if there had been a discussion with the applicant regarding the esthetics of the sign?

Mr. Meagher stated that the applicant was going to sit down and reevaluate the sign and come back with something.

Ms. Frame stated that personally, even if the sign is lower in height, she would not vote for that sign.

Ms. Frame looked it up and stated it would tabled until May 26th.

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Carried

WALMART PROPOSED NEW WALL SIGN (WAL*MART)- #2008-36 SGN:

Atwell-Hicks, 50182 Schoenherr, Shelby Twp., MI 48315 – Proposed new wall sign located at new Wal-Mart on south side of 23 Mile Road, east of I-94.Tabled 1-27-09

Motion by Ms. Frame to approve Wal-Mart proposed new wall sign #2008-36 thru #2008-43. Due to the various departments and the large structure, the sign package will be allowed with a variance. The variance would be granted on the fact that the total sign area meets ordinance requirements.

Mr. Stabile commented that there was no # 2008-37 on the agenda.

Ms. Frame corrected her motion stating the approval would be for sign #2008-36 and #2008-38 thru #2008-43.

Supported by Mr. Miller

Mr. Priest explained that the overall signage area does not exceed the total allowed amount of wall signs allowed according to the ordinance.

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Carried

WALMART PROPOSED NEW WALL SIGN (MARKET & PHARMACY)-

#2008-38 SGN: Atwell-Hicks, 50182 Schoenherr, Shelby Township, MI 48315 -Proposed new wall sign located at new Wal-Mart on south side of 23 Mile Road, east

of I-94. Tabled 1-27-09.

See Review Item C above.

WALMART PROPOSED NEW WALL SIGN (HOME & LIVING)- #2008-39 SGN: Atwell-Hicks, 50182 Schoenherr, Shelby Twp., MI 48315 -Proposed new wall sign located at new Wal-Mart on south side of 23 Mile Road, east of I-94. Tabled 1-27-09.

See Review Item C above.

WALMART PROPOSED NEW WALL SIGN (OUTDOOR LIVING)- #2008-40 SGN:

Atwell-Hicks, 50182 Schoenherr, Shelby Twp., MI 48315 -Proposed new wall sign located at new Wal-Mart on south side of 23 Mile Road, east of I-94. Tabled 1-27-09.

See Review Item C above.

G. WALMART PROPOSED NEW WALL SIGN (RECYCLE)- #2008-41 SGN:

Atwell-Hicks, 50182 Schoenherr, Shelby Twp., MI 48315 -Proposed new wall sign located at new Wal-Mart on south side of 23 Mile Road, east of I-94. Tabled 1-27-09.

See Review Item C above.

H. WALMART PROPOSED WALL SIGN (PHARMACY DRIVE THRU)#2008-42 SGN:

Atwell-Hicks, 50182 Schoenherr, Shelby Twp., MI 48315 -Proposed new wall sign located at new Wal-Mart on south side of 23 Mile Road, east of I-94. Tabled 1-27-09.

See Review Item C above.

WALMART PROPOSED NEW WALL SIGN (ENTER-EXIT) -#2008-43 SGN:

Atwell-Hicks, 50182 Schoenherr, Shelby Twp., MI 48315 -Proposed new wall sign located at new Wal-Mart on south side of 23 Mile Road, east of I-94. Tabled 1-27-09.

See Review Item C above.

CVS/PHARMACY PROPOSED SECOND WALL SIGN - #2009-06: Sign Art, Inc., 5757 Cork Street, Kalamazoo, MI 48048. Proposed new second wall sign for CVS/Pharmacy located at 52960 Gratiot, on the S. E. Corner of 24 Mile & Gratiot.

Motion by Ms. Frame to approve CVS/Pharmacy proposed second wall sign

#2009-06. The sign meets all the requirements

Supported by Ms. Printz.

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Carried

7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETINGS:

Motion by Mr. Kohler to approve the minutes from the February 10, 2009 meeting.

Supported by Ms. Frame

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Carried

8. COMMUNICATIONS:

There were no communications.

9. NEW BUSINESS:

A. PROPOSED WATERFRONT RESTAURANT – SLU #2009-01: Kem-Tec

29113 Lesnau Court Chesterfield, MI 48047. Proposed restaurant located

on the Southeast side of Jefferson, North of Riverpoint. Set Public Hearing

for March 24, 2009.

Motion by Ms. Frame to set the public hearing for March 24, 2009 for the proposed waterfront restaurant - SLU #2009-01

Supported by Mr. Kohler

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Carried

PROPOSED WINTERGARDEN TAVERN RENOVATION – SITE PLAN #2009-02;

John A. Vitale, A.I.A., NCARB, 27172 Woodward Avenue, Royal Oak, MI 48067. Proposed renovation of Wintergarden Tavern, formally knows as East Towne Lounge, located at 46777 Gratiot.

Mr. Priest stated that the applicants had been given comments by the Engineers, the Planner and the Fire Department.

Michael Blansk-Stucky, Vitale Architects, 27172 Woodward Avenue, Royal Oak, MI 48067 addressed the board.

Petitioner stated that he was there representing the business owners for the proposed renovation to the existing building on Gratiot. He provided a rendering of the project. The existing footprint will remain and the proposal was to put a face-lift on the front with a new roof, shingles, eyebrow vents, new windows and a new front entrance with more detail. As far as the logo of the restaurant, this will be the second establishment for these owners. There is currently another restaurant in Livonia that is in operation. This will be a similar design to that. He stated that they were also proposing taking an area that is concrete in front and putting in an outdoor seating area that would be used when the weather permits seasonally. The parking area would pretty much remain as it is today. However, after some discussion with the Planner, the dumpster will be removed. He stated that he had a copy of the rendering on how that would look. He explained they would also be changing the monument sign which is currently up in the right of way. That sign will be moved onto the property and removed from the right-of-way. He stated that as far as the brick facade, they would be keeping the brick that is on there. They would however, add more brick to the building. The owners also plan to put in more windows to provide more light for the interior of the restaurant. Around the windows they would be putting a synthetic material to provide some detail. However, they would still be complying with the 90% brick requirement as requested. As far as the landscaping, that would be replaced around the building and they would be going with some taller shrubs so that it is filled in better. They also plan to clean out the area in front in the right-of-way and put in new sod. They would also be willing to put in some plants and bushes in front of the outdoor seating area. He stated that they would be willing to accommodate everything that was brought up in the Planner's comments. He stated that as far as the engineers comments, obviously all the underground utilities will be on the constructions plans so they can make sure the new sign location does not interfere with anything there. The height of the existing building will be maintained as far as the roof line and such. The new entrance detail is about 24 or 25 feet at the top, so that would be probably the maximum height on that; which would be in line with the chimney on the building now. So the height of the building as far as the roof would not change. He stated that there was a comment about a grease interceptor. There is a restaurant there now with an existing interceptor. The goal would be to keep the grease interceptor that is currently there.

Mr. Stabile commented that he saw the brick was painted on the building.

Mr. Meagher stated that all the brick on the building is currently painted white with red and blue in different areas. He commented that it looks pretty horrible right now.

Petitioner stated that they would be repainting the brick a consistent color scheme and it will be updated.

Ms. Printz verified with applicant that he would just repaint the brick as opposed to power washing the paint off or something of that nature.

Petitioner stated that it would just be painted, however, they want it to last so it would be treated with the proper preparation and repainted.

Ms. Printz asked if they would possibly just restore the brick to its natural state?

Petitioner stated that it would be too challenging to get all the paint off.

Mr. Saelens asked if the applicant would be painting the new brick the same color as the old?

Petitioner stated that at this time, they were proposing to pick a brick that would complement the color they paint the old brick. They do not want to paint the new masonry; they want to keep the new brick natural.

Mr. Saelens stated then when it is completed it would be two different colors.

Petitioner stated that they would have the color of the building and maybe accent it at the entrance with a different color to pop it out.

Mr. Saelens asked so the trim around the windows would be a third color?

Petitioner stated yes that would be a different material and potentially a third color.

Ms. Printz asked if part of the building would be stucco?

Petitioner answered yes that there would be a little bit of stucco used in the renovation.

Ms. Printz stated that she noticed in the notes a mention of the parking bumpers. She asked if that was something the board should look at as far as an improvement to the parking lot?

Mr. Meagher stated that the engineers had commented on that, however, the applicants are not really doing anything with the parking. Therefore, he tended to stay away from that; he was just excited to see the building cleaned up. So he did not want to scare off the applicants at this point. He just hopes the new owners do well and repave it as they go along. For the most part, he tried to concentrate on where there is some type of relationship with where they are doing the improvements.

Mr. Stabile commented that the only to get away from the parking bumpers would be to curb and gutter and that would be pretty extreme.

Mr. Miller asked if it was an upscale restaurant?

Petitioner stated that he had a menu that he could pass around among the board members so they could get an idea of what type of food would be served at the restaurant.

Members of the board looked at the menu.

Mr. Priest stated that as far as he could tell the applicants do not have any major hiccups with the recommendations made by the Planner, and the engineers.

Petitioner concurred that was correct.

Mr. Priest explained that based on that information, as long as the applicant agrees to meet the suggestions made by AEW and the CPM that the board would like to see the place cleaned up and wish the owners well.

Motion by Mr. Priest to approve Wintergarden Tavern Renovation Site Plan #2009-02

Subject to the aforementioned items being met. Mr. Meagher stated that he would report to the board and let them know if that was being done.

Supported by Ms. Frame

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Carried

Ms. Printz asked when the applicant expected restaurant would be opened?

Petitioner stated as soon as possible.

OLD BUSINESS:

Extension letter from Kenneth KIaft, 59715 Glacier Court, Washington Township, MI 48094. Requesting a 1 year extension for Salt River Harbor Condominiums PUD # 2007-25. Tabled 1-27-09, for clarification on length of approval on a PUD. (see attached ordinance Sec. 76-481)

Mr. Priest stated that the board had a request for an extension on Salt River Condominiums PUD #2007-25. He stated that the PUD had up to three years from the time of approval. The time has not run out yet, therefore the board does not need to act on the request. He asked if that was correct?

Mr. Meagher agreed that was correct.

Mr. Priest stated therefore no action would be taken at that time.

11. PLANNERS REPORT:

Mr. Meagher explained that they had come up with a date for the community visioning session. With everything going on, it was decided that it would be held on March 23, 2009 at 6:30 PM. That way everyone would have time to go and pound on doors and let people know that they should come out and help with the vision. He stated that the board should keep that date in their calendars and see what they can do as commissioners and encourage the ZBA and the Township board members to attend the meeting.

Ms. Printz asked if the meeting would be on a Monday?

Mr. Meagher answered yes.

Ms. Printz asked if there was a Township Board Meeting that night?

Ms. Frame answered no.

Mr. Meagher also stated that he redistributed something the board had been working on in the past. He did not want to overwhelm everyone by throwing a hundred different ordinance changes at them. He stated the changes were a culmination of many, many months of work by the Planning Commission. He incorporated some of the changes from the meeting about 12 months ago. He wanted everyone on the board to read thru the changes and understand them. He then went through various changes of the following ordinances:

Section 76-80 Outdoor Storage, Sales and/or Display Lots

Section 76-72 Fences in Other than One-Family Zoning Districts

Section 76-135 Porches/Terraces, At-Grade Patios, Steps/Stairs and Decks

Mr. Gendernalik asked if he could have a copy of the Zoning Changes.

12. COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR:

Mr. Lovelock stated that the commissioners did a good job.

Mr. Priest welcomed Mr. Ray Saelens as the new commissioner to the Planning Board.

Mr. Saelens stated that he was happy to be there.

Mr. Stabile wanted to welcome Mr. Saelens.

Ms. Frame also wanted to welcome Mr. Saelens. She then asked who would like to attend the next Pre-planning meeting? She asked if Mr. Saelens would like to come?

Mr. Saelens answered that he would like to attend.

Mr. Moran stated that the last Pre-planning meeting he was supposed to attend was cancelled. He would attend like to attend this one.

Ms. Frame verified that Mr. Saelens and Mr. Moran would be attending the meeting.

Mr. Saelens asked the time for the meeting?

Ms. Frame answered six o'clock.

13. PROPOSALS FOR THE NEXT AGENDA:

There were no proposals for the next agenda.

14. ADJOURNMENT:

Motion by Ms. Frame to adjourn at 7:34 PM.

Supported by Mr. Miller

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Granted

Paula Frame, Secretary

Grace Mastronardi, Recording Secretary

 

 

 

Go To Top