Reference Desk

 

Planning Commission Minutes - September 29, 2009

THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CHESTERFIELD

PLANNING COMMISSION

September 29, 2009

A regular meeting of the Charter Township of Chesterfield Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, September 29, 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: Jim Moran

Joe Stabile

Paula Frame

Cheryl Printz

Robert Kohler

Ray Saelens

Paul Miller

George Deeby

Others: Patrick Meagher, Township Planner

3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:

Motion by Chairman Priest to approve the submitted agenda.

Supported by Mr. Saelens

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Carried

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

5. PUBLIC HEARING:

A. Public Hearing on Ordinance Amendments: Held open from 9-15-09.

Mr. Meagher asked if there were representatives present to speak about the Wind Turbines.

Mr. Deeby mentioned that the gentleman appeared at the last meeting and the board invited him to speak on behalf of the technology of the industry to help the board better understand the what he has to offer and how it may or may not apply in Chesterfield.

Ms. Janice Rucinski, Sales Director for PDC, Brighton, MI addressed the board.

Ms. Rucinski stated that PDC was a non-profit organization for alternative energy. They are a group of dealers under the umbrella of the Michigan Renewable Energy Association. There are contractors that are certified to install alternative energy devices. Many of the Township's ordinances concerning alternative energy are based on the horizontal units that have battery back up. These products are very different from the products they are currently selling. The product they are offering connect directly to the grid. Therefore, there is no battery storage. She claimed that she was not there to promote their product, she just wanted to open the eyes of the board to the different types of technologies that are out there and how they can vary based on ordinances for townships and cities.

Ms. Frame asked if Ms. Rucinski brought any literature on the products?

Ms. Rucinski replied yes, and that she could supply the board members with brochures. She went on to explain that they have vertical units which vary from 600 watts all the way up to 12 kilowatts and actually up from that; they also carry commercial grade units. She stated that her organization is the distributor of the product; they are not the manufacturers. They purchase the units from two different companies. One company is called We Power, which is based in California and the other is Franklin, which is going to be manufactured in Michigan. She explained that when batteries are used in these products, they are dealing with explosives and talking about storing energy which can be a safety hazard. However, the systems that they are currently working with are direct grids which are perfect in essence for residential settings. These units are also aesthetically pleasing and low DBI compared too many of the others. She commented that those are just some of the considerations that should be looked at. She explained that there are homeowners that are looking for ways to install alternative energy, but at the same time her company has been running into these rulings that are not allowing the units.

Mr. Saelens asked what Ms. Rucinski meant by connecting to the grid? He asked if she meant feeding that energy directly into the grid or into the home and then into the grid?

Ms. Rucinski stated that the energy would go directly into the grid and then there is a transfer switch so that it would be a complete hybrid system. So, she explained that there would be days when the home would be run solely from the grid. Furthermore, she mentioned that the units have lightening rod protectors built right in so they are totally safe. There would also be a separate meter that would be attached to the home and the readings on those meters actually run backwards.

Mr. Saelens stated so that would be how the homeowners would save money, by selling the excess energy back to the grid as opposed to powering the home and just saving the cost of electricity.

Ms. Rucinski stated exactly. She stated as the board knows extra permits would need to be pulled based on the batteries charged and in some residential settings that would not be allowed just because some subdivisions are smaller than others. They are also very aware of the fall clearance. She explained that their units only need six miles an hour to generate energy. The units can run at a very low speed and low vibration. They love the upwind and along the waterfront would be a great place for those units.

Mr. Saelens asked if the units would have to be mounted on the roofs?

Ms. Rucinski stated that their unit could be mounted on a roof.

Mr. Saelens asked if there was a clutching device?

Ms. Rucinski answered yes there is a braking point up to 110 miles per hour and they actually have an automatic braking system. The unit brakes down automatically so it does not speed out of control.

Mr. Saelens asked if the unit could spin at 30 miles per hour when it is windy?

Ms. Rucinski replied yes it could, but the unit spins at its full potential at 29 miles per hour. She elaborated that there have been many studies and these units contain only five movable parts and it is all magnetically driven. She explained that the defense systems that have actually looked at supplying these units to their military bases. BP and ATT have also looked into these units. So a lot of industries are looking into the value of these units because of their durability and convenience.

Mr. Saelens explained that the board wanted to gather as much information as possible because they would be facing a lot of potential problems and they would like to be fair to everyone. He thought that the problem might be would someone's neighbor want that unit sitting next to their home?

Ms. Rucinski commented that was the other thing. She mentioned that the DBI was very low on these units.

Mr. Meagher stated that the board was more referring to the aesthetics not so much about the noise.

Ms. Rucinski stated that the units would not look much different from a flag pole in a person's yard. She explained the brochures showed the units were just round cylinders.

Mr. Saelens asked if Ms. Rucinski had any of the brochures?

Ms. Rucinski answered yes and passed the brochures on the vertical units that they are offering to the board members.

Ms. Rucinski stated that depending on the size of the units the system may vary. She explained that the one at the top of the brochure was a 600 watt unit. She indicated that as can be seen with the unit on the bottom, there may be a variation of the blade.

Mr. Meagher asked if there were pictures of these models installed on smaller lot environments?

Ms. Rucinski replied that there are two going up now, one in Oscoda and one in Brighton.

Mr. Meagher stated that he would have liked to get a picture of what this unit might look like aesthetically on a 50 or 70 foot wide lot.

Ms. Rucinski related that honestly on a 50 to 70 foot lot, the only option would be on top of the roof. She explained if their roof line was 12' they would be talking another 18' to make it a 30' maximum height for the unit. They would also have to make sure there is a fall clearance for the unit.

Mr. Deeby asked what was a fall clearance?

Ms. Rucinski answered it would be enough room for clearance if the unit fell.

Mr. Deeby stated that he got it; the fall clearance would be if it fell over.

Ms. Rucinski explained that the engineer would have to make sure there was a proper distance for homes, fences and garages.

Mr. Saelens asked if the company had a structural engineer come out to inspect before installing a unit on a roof?

Ms. Rucinski answered yes; the contractors are certified in regard to alternative energy. They have proper equipment to install these units.

Mr. Deeby asked how they know if a roof is structurally sound enough to support the structure?

Ms. Rucinski explained that a contractor comes out they certify whether a house is fit for solar or fit for wind. The homeowner may want a wind unit, but may not be in the proper setting for wind. When they go in they look at all the specs for the home: the roofline, the material of the roofline, year and age of the roof, pictures of the surroundings. If the company has any questions, they point that out to the contractors and before anything is installed or ordered the contractors go back out and verify the settings.

Ms. Printz asked Ms. Rucinski if in her opinion communities should look at these units as if they were flagpoles? She asked how wide was the diameter of the pole?

Ms. Rucinski stated that it varied by the size of the unit. In other words, if there was an 1800 square foot home, it would probably only need a 600 watt unit. The flag pole in that instance would only be about 12" in diameter. They actually come with smaller poles; however, they actually order an extra pole which would be a little bigger.

Ms. Printz asked if the pole would be 30' high?

Ms. Rucinski answered yes. It could be 28', but they usually go with the 30' pole. Each unit would be 32 DBI, produce energy at six miles per hour and maximum energy speed would be 29 miles per hour.

Ms. Printz stated that their original discussion focused on roof mountings. She thought that if there would be something that could be accommodated in a residential area on a smaller pole, that could be considered.

Ms. Rucinski explained that the units would have to be up 30' for maximum output because they would have to deal with trees. A lot of smaller communities with a lot of trees may not get the potential if the units go below 30' and they would not be effective. That would be the case when they would consider putting something on the roof.

Mr. Saelens explained that the board has to look at an ordinance that covers both horizontal and vertical units.

Ms. Rucinski stated that a lot of things have to be considered: the design, the noise, battery storage or direct to the grid. Depending on the size of the homes a homeowner may be looking at something like a 50' pole, a 4' pad and guide wire depending on the size of the unit. At this time, they have visited the communities and have the ordinances of Oscoda, Ann Arbor, Novi and Brighton. She mentioned that she could share with the board what the ordinances are in those communities.

Mr. Saelens stated that the gentleman who spoke to the board a few weeks ago stated that he thought Waterford had the best ordinances at this point.

Ms. Rucinski explained that Mark has been doing a lot of investigations in regard to the Townships and the ordinances and it seems that Waterford is a little more liberal than most.

Chairman Priest commented that does not mean that would be the best thing for the people in this area.

Ms. Rucinski stated that Waterford is a very different type of community. They have lakes, but they also have hills and a lot of spatial area.

Mr. Miller stated that he went to the PDC website and there were a lot of different size wattages. What type of wattage would be used for homes in this area?

Ms. Rucinski stated that it would depend on the size of the home. The 600 watt unit would be used for a 1,800 square foot home. A maximum 1.2 unit would be for a 2,500 square foot home depending on how many people live in the home. If there are a lot of children in the home with stereos, computers, televisions; the family may end up getting a 3.4 unit. She stated that would all be part of the survey plan.

Mr. Stabile asked if the people interested in these units would be those wanting to take part in the green movement, more than families actually trying to save money?

Ms. Rucinski stated that it might be a little bit of both. People are trying to save money.

Mr. Stabile asked what was the pay back on one of these machines?

Ms. Rucinski explained that it varied depending on a homes use of energy. They did a survey on a home in Auburn Hills and that home was 3,500 square feet and they would be looking at a 1.2 system because they had other energy saving efficiencies. For that home, their pay back would be five years. However, it varies because she actually did a survey herself, and that one was 10 years. It depends on the usage of the people in the home. If a family only uses 1,000 kilowatts a month or maybe 500 a month; their payback would be slower than someone using 4,000 a month. It would all depend on the usage in the home, the size of the unit and what type of energy they use which could be propane, gas, or all electric.

Chairman Priest asked if he put a unit at his home with only two people and he sells his home in five years to someone who has 5 children; wouldn't there be a problem?

Ms. Rucinski answered no; it would be a higher payback for them. She stated that the units are designed for the square footage of the home, not the size of the family in the home.

Mr. Meagher stated that everyone would be pretty much in favor of doing something with this. The question would be what standards to utilize and doing something that would protect the community. He stated that their primary concern would be the aesthetics of the units. He asked if their company would mount one of these on a two story home or on a pole in the yard, what type of clearance would they need with the prevailing westerly or southerly wind in the state?

Ms. Rucinski stated that if they have a 30' pole they would need a 30' clearance.

Mr. Meagher asked if there would be adequate wind at 30'?

Ms. Rucinski explained that would depend on the surroundings of the home. If the home would be on a heavily wooded lot, then the pole would have to be 50' high because the pole would have to be on top of the trees.

Mr. Meagher stated that one of the things the board is struggling with would be that they are in a community that has been growing. Some people with 5, 10, 15 or 20 acres are interested in putting 80 or 85 feet high pole up on their property. Yet in the future, the board was concerned that these people would sell off the acreage for development and then what mechanism would they be able to utilize in that case to get rid of that pole.

Mr. Saelens asked what type of material made up the poles?

Ms. Rucinski stated that they were made of steel.

Mr. Deeby asked if she could talk about the covering on the poles?

Ms. Rucinski answered no.

Mr. Deeby asked if they were painted?

Ms. Rucinski answered yes, and because they are made in California, she assumed that they are galvanized.

Mr. Meagher commented that the board still had a lot of questions concerning this and he would like to make sure the board was comfortable with the ordinance. He stated that he would like to take a look at the ordinances in Brighton and Novi. He elaborated that he was particularly concerned with these units on the smaller lots. He would like to contact the company and look into these matters further.

Mr. Meagher stated that concerning the rest of the Ordinance Amendments: the fences in other than one family districts, the outdoor storage sales and display lots, porches, terraces and patios. He asked if any of the board members had any comments on these items?

Chairman Priest stated that he thought all of the comments brought up at the last meeting were concerning the wind energy and everyone seemed to be in agreement on everything else.

Mr. Meagher commented that if the board could make a motion on the approval of all of the sections other than the wind energy. Then the board could have more time studying the wind energy until they feel more comfortable with it.

Motion by Ms. Frame to approve all of sections of the Ordinance Amendments except the one concerning wind energy.

Supported by Mr. Saelens.

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Carried

There was a discussion as to whether the board should leave the public hearing Ordinance Amendments open or closed.

Mr. Meagher suggested that they close the public hearing on the Ordinance Amendments and when the board is ready entertain a new draft and they would set a new date. That way anyone who would be interested is re-advised that we are entertaining the matter again.

Motion by Chairman Priest to close the public hearing on Ordinance Revised Amendments

Supported by Ms. Printz

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Carried

6. REVIEWS:

PROPOSED RE-BUILD OF TACO BELL SITE PLAN #2009-06: Bill Beckett,

WT Development, 10223 E. Cherry Bend Road, Suite A, Traverse City, MI 49684. Proposed removal and rebuild of the Taco Bell Restaurant w/drive-thru located at 29180 23 Mile Road.

Chairman stated that Planning and the Engineer have comments regarding the proposal and they have been given to the applicant. Most of the items could be worked out between the Planner, Engineer and the applicant except for the access drive. A proposal was sent to the board of trustees regarding access drives and cleaning that up. He stated that the commission needs to have a discussion on how to handle this matter.

Ms. Printz stated that the Commission and the Township Board have recently adopted these standards it would be important for them to take this opportunity to implement what was just passed. So, she was sorry for Taco Bell, however, they had to start some where and this would meet all the standards that were set up for access management and she thought it would be important to follow their rules.

Ms. Frame agreed with Ms. Printz that the Commission had to start somewhere and no time like the present.

Mr. Saelens also agreed that this was the way to go.

Mr. Stabile agreed and explained that they have looked at the plan and there seems to be enough room to do it.

Ms. Frame asked Mr. Meagher about the parking situation at the site?

Mr. Meagher stated that right now the applicants would meet the parking requirements. He explained that if that drive has to go thru the front, they would probably lose four parking spaces. At that point in time, because they have a limited amount of site the commission would probably have to find a way to work with them on that matter.

Ms. Frame commented that she thought they would probably lose five parking spots.

Mr. Meagher agreed that was altogether possible. He explained that at this time they would meet the ordinance. However, with the fact that they would have to lose four or five spaces; they would be four or five spaces short.

Mr. Saelens asked if that would then require a variance?

Mr. Meagher replied that it very well could require a variance unless the Commission does some creative computation.

Ms. Frame asked if the Commission could approve that variance or would it have to go to ZBA?

Mr. Meagher stated that he would have to look at that because in some communities the ordinance does allow the Planning Commission to vary parking.

Ms. Printz commented that she thought it was important that the Commission be flexible when asking applicants to come before them and compromise with their needs.

Mr. Stabile asked if the two parking spaces beyond the pick-up window could be moved to the other side?

Ms. Frame thought they could be.

Mr. Meagher stated that obviously Taco Bell would have to look at some redesign if required to comply with the access drive. The question would be if the applicants would be required to go to the ZBA for the variance.

Bill Beckett/WT Development, 10223 E. Cherry Bend Road, Suite A, Traverse City, MI addressed the board.

Mr. Beckett stated that at this point in time they have designed a site using the existing curb cuts which were just reconstructed by MDOT. They have MDOT's blessing to reuse those curb cuts. He asked where the Commission was at with the access management standards? Have they actually been adopted by the Township Board?

Ms. Printz commented that it just happened.

Mr. Beckett explained that at this time there were 49 parking spaces per their calculations. The ordinance would be met with 49 parking spaces. He stated that when talking about access it would really be broken down to driveway access. They would have to bring a lane back in front of the building to connect to the western driveway. So with the front access, they would lose two parking spaces on the east side of the building but at least one or two on the west side. In terms of the direction to provide cross access between uses in the community, there are two space on the east near the rear of the site that were designed that could provide that access at some point in the future. He stated that just to the front of the dumpster would be the area where they would lose two more parking spaces. Therefore, he stated that the site would lose about eight parking spaces to comply with the access management standards. In terms of how this would work for Taco Bell, this would be an 80 seat restaurant and the existing building is also 80 seats. They have 46 parking spaces at the present time and that would probably be more than they really need. He commented that they could probably get by with 40 parking spaces. It would really be a matter of what the procedure would be with the community and could the Planning Commission vary those parking standards site specific, or would he need to go through a meeting with the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Mr. Meagher thought that when the applicant resubmitted perhaps he could also submit a letter justifying the amount of parking spaces that would be provided on the site and then let the Commission see if they are comfortable with it in terms of accepting it.

Mr. Stabile asked why the applicant stated he would have to make the front drive bi-directional?

Applicant stated that this driveway which was now one way would now become bi-directional and the other driveway would be eliminated.

Mr. Stabile asked if the applicant meant he would keep the driveway to the side and not the center?

Mr. Beckett answered yes.

Ms. Frame asked why the applicant could not place the driveway in the center?

Mr. Beckett stated that then they would be creating a pretty unsafe traffic pattern as well as directing incoming cars at various speeds directly towards the dining room. He reiterated that it would be very unsafe. He stated that everything would circle around the building then come back out.

Mr. Stabile stated that he does not like that bi-directional. He commented that here is a mess over there at Wendy's.

Ms. Frame stated that the examples given to them by Macomb County showed a reconfiguration of restaurants closer to Hall Road. All of those driveways at those developments were in the center of the lots.

Mr. Beckett repeated that a driveway at the center of the site is not safe and not practical.

Mr. Meagher stated that the sample showed on the Macomb County aerials was just as Mr. Beckett described with a drive on the side.

Ms. Printz commented that the entrance and exit could also take place at a different access point; not just at that only one. Therefore, if there was access to an adjoining lot; that could also be used to enter and exit as well.

Mr. Beckett stated that there were some issues regarding access to neighboring properties. Taco Bell is essentially lower in elevation than the gas station next door. Therefore, one of the review comments was to provide pavement to the adjacent property line. Well, they did talk to the owners of the gas station and they have no interest at the cross access at this time. Quite frankly, until they can redevelop their property with something to match grades, it would be impossible to make Taco Bells grades work with their grades. So, this would have to be something that would be done in the future. To the other side, Buscemi's, those grades are pretty much aligned and they could pave right to the property line at that side. The other issue would be that they have actually provided space to make these future connections if and when the neighbors agree to those connections. However, how it would function in the future if someone was at Buscemi's and they wanted to go to Taco Bell, they would come to this point and be met with one way traffic and exit right back out. There would be challenges with the existing site and challenges with the fact that they do not have any more land to develop.

Ms. Printz asked instead of the cross access in the back could, if they could put something in front by Buscemi's so that drivers are not to faced with going into the one-way traffic and just loop around the building?

Mr. Beckett stated that they could probably do that with both properties and the grades would be better at the front of the sites. He agreed that would be a possibility.

Mr. Meagher stated that they could sit down with the engineer; however, what they were saying makes sense in terms of having access with Buscemi's in the front. As far as the Marathon Station, he would have to sit down with the engineer and see if there would be room to match grades at some point in time regardless of what they do. There may not even be feasibility to even do a cross access on the site.

Mr. Deeby asked how close the Buscemi driveway to where potentially they would put a cross access toward the 23 Mile side?

Mr. Meagher answered that they were pretty close.

Mr. Beckett stated that the Buscemi's drive was about 25' to 30' east of the property line.

Ms. Printz asked if the cross access driveways are usually put at the back of the properties for safety reasons?

Mr. Meagher stated that some are put at the front of the property; some are at the back and some business just look at what would be practical.

There was a discussion among the board on the situation.

Mr. Stabile asked Mr. Meagher how he felt about the two accesses versus one?

Mr. Meagher explained that at first he did not have a whole lot of objections to keeping the two as one-way in and one-way out. However, after driving that area he considered all the turning conflicts that take place especially at the 23 Mile Road locations. There are a large number of access drives in that area in close proximity of each other. He stated that there are a whole lot of conflicts. He met with Mr. Beckett and the Chairman and when they sat down and he thought he could convince himself that the two drives would be adequate. However, they have been reviewing all the criticisms from the community for allowing the access drives and not taking a strong enough stand correcting them. Those criticism's coming particularly from MDOT and the Macomb County Road Commission and Community Planning. He figures this is an opportunity to eliminate one of the drives and one of the turning conflicts. It will not all be solved overnight, but when each site comes in front of the board they can attempt to correct the problem.

Mr. Saelens agreed that they had to start somewhere.

Ms. Frame stated that she thought Taco Bell could do it with the one driveway. People manage to go in and out of Buscemi's with one driveway.

Mr. Beckett commented that Buscemi's does not have a drive-thru.

Ms. Frame stated that she was aware of the fact. However, people will manage getting out of Buscemi's easier if there is not another driveway right next to it for customers to get in and out of that site.

Mr. Meagher stated that he had tried to call and left messages for Linda Zimmerman, the review agent for MDOT. Unfortunately, she has not returned his calls at this point. He wanted to get her feelings on this particular matter. She sent a letter stating that she was in favor of letting the two drives to exist. However, at the State level, they are getting these comments that we are doing this all wrong.

Chairman Priest explained that they made a recommendation to the board to approve where ever they could, going to one drive with one access. The Board has now approved that and the Commission should follow through with their recommendations.

Motion by Chairman Priest to handle that item with the understanding that there would be one exit and entrance on this property. He thought the rest of the rebuild could be worked out with the CPM and engineering. He stated that the Commission will have a chance to look at that when the site is revised.

Mr. Saelens asked if Mr. Priest was talking about one access into the site?

Chairman Priest answered yes.

Supported by Mr. Saelens.

Mr. Stabile asked Mr. Beckett what is the hopeful timeframe would be on this project?

Mr. Beckett stated that they were getting a little bit of a late start, so most likely they would close the restaurant in February or near the first of March and demolish the restaurant and start construction the first of April. So, they do have a little bit of time.

Mr. Meagher stated that perhaps everybody was a little uncomfortable and maybe Chairman Priest could make the motion to table this with the understanding that they would be asking for the one drive. That would at least give the applicant a direction as far as what to make changes on. The applicant could then be back in two weeks with the revised plans.

Mr. Stabile would prefer to see that because there would be some major changes to the proposal.

Ms. Frame stated that there was a motion and it was supported.

Chairman Priest withdrew his motion.

Mr. Saelens withdrew his support.

Mr. Deeby stated that he would like to see the plans with one access only and he would like to see how it would look with cross accesses toward the 23 Mile front of the site on both sides. He would like to see what that might to do the parking situation. He would like to see all that presented next time. He asked the applicant if he had the comments from engineering, Planning and from the Fire Department and maybe at that time all those things could be addressed.

Mr. Beckett explained that the parking spaces can be met; they would be about one half foot short on those. Taco Bell has a policy where they do not want the dumpster visible from the drive-thru lane because 60% of their business is drive-thru. That was why they designed the dumpsters against the flow of traffic. Taco Bell's contract with Waste Management restricts the hours of trash pick-up and it is not done during normal business hours.

Mr. Meagher stated that Mr. Beckett was going to note that on the plans and they would address that issue.

Mr. Stabile stated that when discussing this matter before, the applicant seemed reluctant on the cross-access.

Mr. Beckett commented that Taco Bell was actually in favor of that. They submitted drafts of access easements and got comments back. The main thing that he was requesting was an access point some time in the future. Taco Bell would be agreeable to entering into an access agreement and it could be kept on file at the Township until such time that the adjacent party decides to redevelop and decides to join in to that point of access. He commented that was not an issue. Loading and unloading would usually be done after hours as well and with the delivery truck coming on a single drive it would be more difficult for the driver to maneuver on the site. So, they would probably be looking at a copy of the access management ordinance and work with MDOT and probably propose a 40' curb cut in front so they would have enough swing room for those trucks as well as providing a left and right turn out of the site. He thought they could do that.

Mr. Meagher suggested that Mr. Beckett work with the Township engineer on that as well.

Mr. Beckett explained that the only other thing was the Engineer had a comment that the water main be extended across the frontage. He believed that there was a fee in lieu of option available, where they could actually pay an amount to an account and at sometime in the future when the water main would be extended, the Township could use those funds that would be held in escrow.

Mr. Meagher stated that he was not familiar with that and it would not hold up the site plan.

Mr. Beckett mentioned that Taco Bell requested that they reuse the existing pole sign even though it was not compliant with the ordinance. However, that was now a moot point because there would not be the space to keep that sign there. He commented that was probably another matter that would need to be addressed regarding sign set backs.

Mr. Meagher commented that he thought they should run through all of these matters with the Engineer present and discuss how they can work them out.

Mr. Beckett stated that he would concur to table the proposal to a future date and he would like not to identify that date at this time.

Mr. Deeby asked if the aesthetics of the brick was something the applicant wanted to discuss that evening?

Mr. Beckett commented that if he could do that tonight and not bring the brick panels back, he would love to do that.

Motion by Ms. Frame to table the proposed rebuild of Taco Bell with drive-thru,

Site Plan # 2009-06 up to six meetings, which would be January 12, 2010.

Supported by Ms. Printz.

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Carried

B. TACO BELL PROPOSED NEW WALL SIGN – SGN #2009-32: W. T. Development, 10223 E. Cherry Bend Road, Suite A, Traverse City, MI 49684.

Proposed new wall sign located at 29180 23 Mile Road.

Motion by Ms. Frame to table Taco Bell proposed new wall sign – SGN #2009-32 since there was no approval of the building yet.

Supported by Mr. Kohler

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Carried

C. TACO BELL PROPOSED NEW DIRECTIONAL SIGNS- SGN #2009-33: : W. T. Development, 10223 E. Cherry Bend Road, Suite A, Traverse City, MI 49684.

Proposed new directional signs located at 29180 23 Mile Road.

Motion by Ms. Frame to table Taco Bell proposed new directional signs –

SGN #2009-33 since there was no approval of the building yet.

Supported by Mr. Kohler

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Carried

D. O.M.G! WHO DOES YOUR HAIR! PROPOSED NEW WALL SIGN – SGN#2009-34:

Motion by Ms. Frame to approve O.M.G. Who Does Your Hair! Proposed new wall sign – SGN # 2009-34. This sign meets all the ordinance requirements

Supported by Mr. Deeby

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Carried

WIRELESS SHOP PROPOSED NEW WALL SIGN - SGN #2009-35: Bill Topping,

23404 Sherwood, Warren, MI 48091. Proposed new wall sign located at 34834 23 Mile Road in the (out lot) in the Chesterfield Commons Shopping Plaza as 23 Mile Road and Altman.

Ms. Frame explained that the applicant was not present at sub-committee and still was not present at the meeting. The sign does not meet the ordinances. The sign measures 56 square feet and the applicants would only be allowed a 38 square foot sign. There are also window signs that are taking up more than 15% of the window space

Motion by Ms. Frame to table Wireless Shop proposed new wall sign – SGN #2009-35 for up to six meetings so that the applicant can correct problems on the application.

Supported by Ms. Printz

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Carried

7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETINGS

Motion by Chairman Priest to approve the minutes of the 9-15-09 meeting as they were sent out.

Supported by Mr. Saelens

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Carried

8. COMMUNICATIONS

There were no communications.

9. NEW BUSINESS:

There was no new business

10. OLD BUSINESS

A. JOHNSON PROPOSED REZONING – PETITION # 323: Jeremy and William Johnson, 38231 Sumpter Drive, Sterling Heights, MI 48310. Requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Jefferson, south of Cotton Road at 47075 Jefferson. The request is to rezone the property from RM-3 (Multiple Family) to C-1 (Local Commercial).

Public Hearing closed, Tabled to 9-29-09.

Ms. Printz commented that the applicant did not show a sufficient case for the rezoning of the property. She asked if the Commission would entertain any more comments from the applicant or would they just make a motion.

Chairman Priest stated if Ms. Printz had any questions for applicant, he would ask them to come up to the podium.

Ms. Printz stated that she did not have any specific questions, she was just curious about procedure.

Mr. Meagher commented that procedurally all the questions should be out of the way during the public hearing.

Mr. Saelens stated that according to the Planner's report he was recommending that the property be redeveloped as currently zoned.

Motion by Ms. Printz to deny the proposed rezoning Petition # 323 for the reasons cited in the Planner's Report.

Supported by Mr. Deeby

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Carried

11. PLANNERS REPORT:

Amendment to Ordinance Sec. 76.615. Variance review procedures. (c) site plan drawn to the scale of 1" equals 20’ shall be submitted. Also Ordinance Sec. 76-499. Amend working of (b) paragraph (2) Day care centers, nurseries, and similar uses.

Mr. Meagher stated that on the revised agendas it indicated that they would like the Commission to set up a hearing for an ordinance amendment. He explained that right now the ZBA has been faced with a provision that has been in the ordinances and no one really understands why. The provision states that when someone goes to the ZBA, they must have a site plan drawn to the scale of 1" equals 20'. He commented that obviously with many variances the site plan is not a necessity. So that has been used several times now when they have gotten to court. At one time, it was kind of brushed aside as unimportant to the decision, however, this time it was remanded back to the ZBA because they did not have a 20' scale drawing. Therefore, he would like to make a change to that section indicating that the applicant shall supply any and all information necessary to prove his case for a variance and that the ZBA can request any and all information that they deem necessary. He stated that the second part of that concerning amending the wording on day car centers and nurseries was incorrect. He explained that the Commission had already done that and the changes were already adopted. It simply never came back to the Commission in a codified format. So those changes were already made and completed. He requested that, if there were no objections, the commission make a motion to set a public hearing for an amendment to that ZBA section of the ordinance dealing with requirement for a site plan drawn to a 1" to 20' scale.

Motion by Ms. Frame to set a public hearing for an amendment to that ZBA section of the ordinance dealing with requirement for a site plan drawn to a 1" to 20' scale.

Supported by Mr. Deeby

Mr. Deeby asked if the date would be set for the public hearing?

Mr. Meagher explained it would take about 30 days and that the notice would have to be published in the paper.

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Carried

12. COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR:

Chairman Priest informed the Commission that Pam Harris, the former Township treasurer and John Saad, the former Deputy Clerk had both passed away.

Ms. Frame asked who would like to attend the next preplanning meeting?

Mr. Saelens replied that he would be attending the meeting.

Mr. Miller stated that he would also be there.

13. PROPOSALS FOR THE NEXT AGENDA:

14. ADJOURNMENT:

Motion by Chairman Priest to adjourn at 8:18 PM.

Supported by Ms. Frame

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Carried

Paula Frame, Secretary

Grace Mastronardi, Recording Secretary

 

 

 

Go To Top