|
The
Charter Township of Orion Planning Commission held a regular meeting on
Wednesday, January 5, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. at the Orion Township Hall, 2525
Joslyn Road, Lake Orion, Michigan 48360.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Rob Pote, Chairman; Karyn
Pecheniuk, Vice-Chairwoman; Doug Zande, Secretary; John Steimel, OTB
Representative; Mark Crane, Eric Messing, Brad Lare
OTHERS PRESENT:
Beth McGuire, R. Donald
Wortman, Jim Stevens, Bob Bongiorno, Marlin Wroubel, Larry Fostor, Molly
Smith, Lynn Pendzich, Nanette Dhingra, Nancy Carr, Chris Carr, Jeff Hennig,
Mike Clark, Rick Linnell, Jeff Montpas, Kathy Widgeman, Mark Drane, Mike
Cool, Phoebe Schutz
1. OPEN MEETING:
Vice-Chairman Pote called
the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL:
All members were present.
3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
A. Election of
Planning Commission Officers for 2005:
Moved by Commissioner Steimel, supported by Secretary Zande and
Commissioner Pecheniuk to nominate Vice-Chairman Pote for the Planning
Commission Chairman position for the calendar year of 2005 and that the
nominations be closed and a unanimous ballot be cast. Motion carried
7-0.
Moved by Commissioner Steimel, supported by Secretary Zande to nominate
Commissioner Pecheniuk for the Planning Commission Vice-Chairwoman
position for the calendar year of 2005 and that the nominations be
closed and a unanimous ballot be cast. Motion carried 7-0.
Moved by Commissioner Steimel, supported by Vice-Chairwoman Pecheniuk to
nominate Secretary Zande for re-election of the Planning Commission
Secretary position for the calendar year of 2005 and that the
nominations be closed and a unanimous ballot be cast. Motion carried
7-0.
B. Site Walk
Committee Appointments:
Secretary Zande,
Commissioner Crane, and Commissioner Messing volunteered to serve on the
Site Walk Committee for the calendar year of 2005.
C. Representative on
the Zoning Board of Appeals:
Moved by Commissioner
Steimel, supported by Secretary Zande to recommend to the Charter
Township of Orion Board of Trustees the re-appointment of
Vice-Chairwoman Pecheniuk to serve as the Planning Commission
representative on the Zoning Board of Appeals. Roll call vote was as
follows: Zande, yes; Lare, yes; Pecheniuk, yes; Steimel, yes; Crane,
yes; Messing, yes; Pote, yes. Motion carried 7-0.
4. MINUTES:
Moved by Vice-Chairwoman Pecheniuk, supported by Commissioner Steimel to
accept the December 15, 2004 regular meeting minutes as presented.
Motion carried 7-0.
5. AGENDA REVIEW AND APPROVAL:
Moved by Secretary Zande,
supported by Vice-Chairwoman Pecheniuk to approve the agenda as presented.
Motion carried 7-0.
6. BRIEF PUBLIC COMMENT - NON-AGENDA ITEMS ONLY:
None.
7. CONSENT AGENDA:
Moved by Vice-Chairwoman
Pecheniuk, supported by Commissioner Steimel to approve the Consent Agenda
regarding the following cases: A)PCS-2005-01, Canterbury Woods Entry Sign,
located on Scripps Road, accepted for processing; B)PCS-2005-02, Great Clips
Sign, southeast corner of Baldwin and Maybee Roads, accepted for processing;
and, C)PCS-2005-03, The Hills at Indianwood Entry Sign, located at the
Baldwin Road entrance, accepted for processing. Roll call vote was as
follows: Steimel, yes; Crane, yes; Messing, yes; Zande, yes; Lare, yes;
Pecheniuk, yes; Pote, yes. Motion carried 7-0.
8. NEW BUSINESS:
None.
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. PCS-2004-51,
Speedway Sign, 1030 S. Lapeer Road, For Clarification on Planning
Commission Motion:
Mr. Bob Bongiorno, of
B-B Signs, Inc., commented that he is representing Speedway.
Mrs. Beth McGuire,
Zoning/Planning Administrator, commented that the revised sign plans
that the Building Department received from the petitioner indicated that
the sign was 21.5 square feet, however, when you actually calculate the
dimensions of the sign, it was 46.8 square feet. The motion indicated
that the flying “S” should be removed, but it didn’t specify an exact
square footage. However, 21 square feet was referred to earlier in the
discussion, so we have sent this back to the Planning Commission for
clarification on the allowed square footage. Mr. Bongiorno commented
that at the last meeting he misspoke himself and meant to say that the
sign was 23.8 square feet. Moved by Vice-Chairwoman Pecheniuk, supported
by Commissioner Crane regarding case PCS-2004-51, Speedway Sign Request
Motion Clarification, 1030 S. Lapeer Road, that the applicant shall
resubmit revised sign plans that accurately depict the dimensions for
the sign, which shall comply with Sign Ordinance No. 77. Also, that the
Chairman shall be authorized to sign off on the plans after verifying
that the plans are in compliance with Sign Ordinance No. 77. Roll call
vote was as follows: Crane, yes; Messing, yes; Zande, yes; Lare, yes;
Pecheniuk, yes; Steimel, yes; Pote, yes. Motion carried 7-0.
B. PCS-2004-59, Orion
Business Center Sign Exception, 3740 Lapeer Road:
Mr. Marlin Wroubel,
of Burton-Katzman Development Company, was present.
Mr. R. Donald
Wortman, of Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc., overviewed their Sign
Exception Review correspondence, dated December 21, 2004*. The sign
plans, as submitted, are not in substantial compliance with Sign
Ordinance No. 77. Approval of sign exceptions for area and setback will
be necessary.
Ms. Kathy Widgeman,
of Interface Sign Systems, commented that they designed this sign to tie
in with the architecture of the building to make a more
aesthetically-pleasing look. She requested that members consider the
surround as part of the support for the sign.
Mr. Wroubel commented
that they were under the impression that they would only be addressing
the setback issue tonight and that he believes that the sign needs to be
large enough for visitors and passers-by to read from the road without
having to struggle to see it, for safety’s sake.
There was a consensus
of members that the request would be too much of an exception regarding
the area size.
Planner Wortman noted
that the permitted setback would place the sign within the vegetation
that the Planning Commission requested them to keep.
There was a consensus
of members that the petitioner has a hardship with their setback due to
the vegetation.
Moved by Commissioner
Crane, supported by Commissioner Steimel regarding case PCS-2004-59,
Orion Business Center Sign Exception, 3740 Lapeer Road, to postpone this
matter until no later than March 25, 2005, with the understanding that
the petitioner shall submit revised plans showing a substantially
reduced size in area for the sign.
Mrs. Beth McGuire,
Zoning/Planning Administrator, commented that the petitioner needs
clarification whether or not the area on the sign that contains the
address would be counted in the overall area of the sign.
Roll call vote was as
follows: Messing, yes; Zande, yes; Lare, yes; Pecheniuk, no; Steimel,
yes; Crane, yes; Pote, yes. Motion carried 6-1.
Planner Wortman
stated, the base is excluded for sign area, because their only other
option would be a pole sign and we are trying to discourage that due to
aesthetics. A concrete base is appropriate, but to do a
concrete base, it is
still subject to the height limitations. The definition does say that
the integral part of the background, and that facing is an integral
part, not the base, but the rest of it is all part of that metal panel,
so I think that it is subject to this definition.
Chairman Pote stated,
so, the base should not count and that the address numbers should not
count for the square footage, but should count for the height, unless it
is part of the surround.
Mr. Wroubel stated, I
want to understand the surround. If I make it out of stone and not out
of metal, does it count? Mr. Wortman said that we have signs where it
doesn’t count.
Planner Wortman
stated, yes, we have done that in the past. They had brick around, but
then there was a metal panel with the address numbers on it and by
definition, we looked at that panel as part of the sign area, similarly
to St. Mary’s. I think the applicant is looking for a number that would
be appropriate for the surround. We know that it sounds like you’ve
excluded the base, you’ve excluded the square footage for the address
numbers, so will you allow some additional area for that surround.
Vice-Chairwoman
Pecheniuk stated, I feel that being over twice the size that the
ordinance allows is too much, but I also feel that we’re giving him the
base and the numbers-
Planner Wortman
stated, I think to be consistent with some of the other Church signs,
too, they had an area approximately two feet on either side. If the
applicant here, to be consistent with that, two feet by three feet
roughly six square feet on that left side of the sign, that would be
consistent with what you’ve done before.
Ms. Widgeman stated,
this is a real rough number here, but I’m looking at about ten square
feet for that area on the left side and then you’re asking us to remove
the top cap as well.
Mr. Wroubel stated,
if you would just give me a number, we’ll do something with it and we’ll
come back and try to make it look as good as we can.
Commissioner Steimel
stated, height eight feet and 20 square feet for the square footage.
Mr. Wroubel stated,
then we’ll get rid of the surround and we’ll just put a box sign out
there, that’s the way it is.
C. PCS-2004-63,
Cobasys Sign Exception, 3740 Lapeer Road:
Ms. Molly Smith, of
Signs & More, and Ms. Lynn Pendzich, of Cobasys, were present.
Mr. R. Donald
Wortman, of Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc., overviewed their Sign
Exception Review correspondence, dated December 21, 2004*. The proposed
wall signs for Cobasys are not in substantial compliance with Sign
Ordinance No. 77. A sign exception would be necessary for the proposed
number of wall signs. Directional signs for employee and visitor
entrances, which are less than four square feet, are exempt from the
sign regulations. Only one wall sign is permitted by the sign
ordinance. The applicant is proposing two wall signs, the primary sign
along Lapeer Road and the receiving sign, which would total 52.5 square
feet and the maximum allowed is 40 square feet.
Ms. Smith commented
regarding the importance of including the company name, Cobasys, on the
directional signs due to the number of entrances for the multi-tenant
building.
Ms. Pendzich stated,
the front of the building faces Lapeer Road, which is the west side, so
the north side of the building is the shipping side and the south side
is the visitor and employee entrances and there are eight entrances on
that side of the building and two of them will be for Cobasys and the
ones in the back will be for future tenants that come in. The front of
the building, which faces west, has the main company sign and then on
the side where all the shipping doors are, there are two shipping doors
for Cobasys, so we need something that identifies the shipping doors for
Cobasys.
Vice-Chairwoman
Pecheniuk suggested that the petitioner may want to use decals in the
windows for the visitor entrance and for the employee entrance since
they would not be considered as signs in our sign ordinance.
Commissioner Steimel
commented that the 13.9-square foot receiving sign above the overhead
door is considered a wall sign, not a directional sign.
Ms. Smith stated, on
the paperwork that was sent to you showed that the sign above the door
was 181 inches long, but it is actually 63 inches. It still is a little
bit over four square feet, 4.81, but would it be permissible if we kept
that to four square feet?
Commissioner Steimel
commented that if that sign were kept at or under four square feet and
if they also removed the small directional sign by that door, then he
would be in agreement with that.
Chairman Pote stated,
the way I understand it then is that the back door sign is acceptable at
four square feet as above the door. The primary sign is 38.6 square
feet and if that’s the only wall sign, then that’s ok. Then, the
receiving sign is ok as long as it is at or under four square feet.
Ms. Pendzich stated,
the receiving sign, we do have that one that is above that will be
reduced to four square feet. Then, for people that are coming into the
parking lot, you have the two garage doors, but
they’re coming in
this way and there’s no sign that says what that is, so have this small
sign that says-
Chairman Pote
inquired, is it less that four square feet?
Ms. Pendzich stated,
it’s three square feet.
Chairman Pote
inquired, is it a directional sign?
Ms. Pendzich stated,
yes.
Chairman Pote stated,
then you’re good to go.
Vice-Chairwoman
Pecheniuk stated, on the visitor entrance, how do you feel about window
decals, because we’re not going to allow-
Ms. Pendzich stated,
those two signs are also under four square feet each and we thought
about the window decals, which we do have that on our building in Troy
and you can’t see it at night even if you use the reflective lettering.
Ms. Beth McGuire,
Zoning/Planning Administrator, stated, just a note on the window decals,
you can only have 25%.
Chairman Pote
suggested taking the wall-mounted directional signs off of the walls and
make them ground directional signs.
Planner Wortman
commented that the applicant could have the window decal sign as well as
the ground directional signs.
Moved by
Vice-Chairwoman Pecheniuk, supported by Commissioner Crane regarding
case PCS-2004-63, Cobasys Signs, 3740 Lapeer Road, to approve the
primary wall sign, which fits the sign ordinance, because it is 38.6
square feet in area, and that we allow no other signs except
ground-mounted directional signs that shall be permitted to include the
Cobasys logo, which are under four square feet and that their shipping
and receiving sign that can also include the Cobasys logo, which is also
going to be under four square feet and considered a directional sign can
be mounted on the wall above the overhead door in the rear of the
building. Also, that the ground-mounted directional sign to direct
visitors to receiving can also can have the Cobasys logo and that these
plans shall be revised and resubmitted and to authorize the Chairman to
sign off these plans when these conditions have been met. Roll call
vote was as follows: Zande, no; Lare, yes; Pecheniuk, yes; Steimel, no;
Crane, yes; Messing, no; Pote, yes. Motion carried 4-3.
D. PC-2004-23,
Village Square Final Planned Unit Development Plan & Rezoning, Located
on the Southwest Corner of Baldwin and Maybee Roads:
Mr. Mark Drane, of Rogvoy Architects, gave a brief history
of the case for the benefit of our new Planning Commission members.
Mr. R. Donald
Wortman, of Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc., overviewed their Planned
Unit Development (PUD) Final Plan Review correspondence,
dated December 20,
2004*. The final plans are in substantial conformance with the PUD
ordinance. However, the following minor revisions should be addressed:
1)Pursue a lot combination for the subject parcels; 2)The Planning
Commission should acknowledge the minor ordinance deviations for
setback, height, etc. as provided by the applicant (Sheet SPA-1.7);
3)Coordinate access with the Road Commission for Oakland County (RCOC);
4)The Planning Commission will need to consider information provided by
the Township Engineer, DPW Director, and Fire Chief in relation to the
sufficiency of the proposed development as it pertains to the essential
facilities and services; 5)Provide the typical replacement tree types
and sizes; 6)Discuss inconsistencies of bench seating, litter
receptacles and screen wall with details proposed in the draft
Gingellville Design Standards; 7)Submit a separate sign application in
accordance with Sign Ordinance No. 77 for the proposed center
identification signs; 8)Clarify the type of siding proposed for the
residential structures and provide material samples; and, 9)Seek
approval of the PUD agreement from the Township Attorney.
Mr. Jim Stevens, of
Orchard, Hiltz, & McCliment, Inc. (OHM), overviewed their Final PUD Plan
correspondence, dated December 15, 2004*. In our opinion, the plans, as
submitted, are in substantial compliance with the Township’s ordinances
and engineering standards; however, we recommend that the following
items be addressed: 1)The proposed grading along the northern portion of
the residential property shall be corrected. For example, the yard
basin in the northwest corner of the residential property is proposed to
be at an elevation of 1024.0’ and the adjacent existing elevations are
approximately 1030’; 2)The lighting plan shall be revised to show that
illumination does not exceed 0.3 foot-candles at the property lines that
abut residential, and 1.0 foot-candles at property lines that abut
non-residential; 3)All easements shall be shown/noted on the plans (i.e.
off-site storm water detention/grading, cross-access between
properties); 4)The residential driveways should be set back from the end
of radii on the main intersections within the site. The crosswalk shall
be removed or relocated where it connects two driveways along the main
entrance into the residential sections of the project; and, 5)Master
deed and by-laws, as well as the PUD agreement, shall be submitted for
review. Please note that if a traffic signal is allowed at the
southerly entrance to the site on Baldwin Road, we recommend that the
northerly drive on Baldwin Drive should be eliminated and the
cross-access to the athletic club to the south should be improved. If
the northerly drive cannot be eliminated, the drive, at a minimum,
should be right in/right out only. Engineering comments will need to be
addressed as part of the engineering review.
Secretary Zande
overviewed correspondence received from Mr. Jeff Key, Fire Chief, dated
May 14, 2004*. The Orion Township Fire Department would like to
recommend approval of this proposed PUD as submitted. He then
overviewed correspondence that was also received from Chief Key, dated
January 5, 2005*. The Orion Township Fire Department would like to
recommend approval of this revised Final PUD & Rezoning as submitted.
The fire department will need to be contacted regarding the placement of
fire hydrants on the site prior to approval of the final engineering
plans.
Chairman Pote
commented that they will now go through the Planner’s review letter item
by item with the applicant.
Mr. Drane commented
that they would have no problem with completing the lot combination for
the subject parcels nor with item #2.
Engineer Stevens
noted, regarding item #3, that it’s not until final engineering is done
that the RCOC will officially approve the plan set and issue a permit,
because they don’t want to give official approval until everything has
been completed. At this stage, they have received the RCOC’s concept
for their preliminary geometrics for their entrances, etc. and they have
been incorporated into their plans.
Mr. Mike Clark
commented that they are planning to put a traffic signal in.
Mr. Drane commented
that they would address items #4 and #5.
Mr. Drane, Secretary
Zande, and Vice-Chairwoman Pecheniuk agreed that regarding item #6, that
the design standards should be similar from site to site, but not
exactly alike.
Mr. Drane noted that
they do believe that the lighting fixtures, trash receptacles, and
benches would tie the community together if they are all the same in
appearance.
Secretary Zande
inquired whether the issue with the bright lighting fixtures had been
investigated.
Ms. Beth McGuire,
Zoning/Planning Administrator, stated, on the table there is a memo from
Mr. Tom Berger, Building Official, dated January 5, 2005*. He did go
out and took a meter reading of the lighting fixtures and he did find
them, for the most part, in conformance with the lighting plan that was
approved for Orion Village Crossing PUD. The only discrepancy that he
found was around where the Bank One sign is, because of the illumination
levels that were coming out from the sign and not necessarily from the
lights. His only suggestion was that by the driveway entrances, you may
want to put in the acorn-shaped textured light fixtures versus having
the acorn-shaped clear glass light fixtures, because the texture would
help to prevent the glare. He did notice that there was a lot of glare
at the driveway entrances.
There was a consensus
that members want to see that the lighting fixtures, trash receptacles,
and benches should be the same to tie the community together.
Chairman Pote
commented that item #7 regarding sign application that the applicant
will submit that at a later date. Item #8 regarding the types of
exterior materials.
Mr. Drane presented
samples of all their exterior materials samples for members’ review.
Chairman Pote
commented that item #9, seeking approval of the PUD agreement from the
Township Attorney is something that the applicant would have to take
care of.
Planner Wortman noted
that the most appropriate place to document overlay district design
standards for signs would be in the PUD agreement.
Mr. Drane agreed, but
commented that he believes that signs should be limited to the type of
lighting, amount of square feet that each sign is allowed, that the
width of the sign is proportionate to the overall length of the store,
such as, 65% of the storefront width, so that the signs aren’t
overpowering the backgrounds that they’re on.
Planner Wortman
commented that he believes that the Planning Commission would like him
to submit a plan outlining to his tenants what types of restrictions
there will be, over and above what the sign ordinance requires, that
would express an artistic and aesthetically-pleasing image.
Members agreed.
Members also noted that the hours of operation for Walgreen’s should be
between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. and should be noted on the plans.
Mr. Drane agreed.
Mr. Jeff Hennig
distributed copies of their landscape plan for members’ review showing
the existing trees that they will leave in place as well as the proposed
trees for the site*.
Mrs. Nancy Carr, of
3375 Maybee Road, commented that they were initially opposed to this
project, but they have been working with Mr. Hennig and Mr. Rick Linnell
to come up with as much buffer as possible to try to minimize the damage
that they felt would probably occur for their property value.
Chairman Pote recessed
the meeting at 9:43 p.m. for a break and reconvened the meeting at 9:53 p.m.
Chairman Pote noted
that they will now go through the Engineer’s review letter item by item.
Mr. Drane noted that
they would have no problem doing items #1, #2, and #3.
Mr. Jeff Montpas, of
Boss Engineering, commented regarding item #4 that the two driveways
they’re talking about are the main entrance. They could move the
driveways, but that would create the problem of eliminating the
side-entry garages. They can’t move the buildings, because they are
already as close as they can get. They’re just barely into the radius,
so it’s a question of whether the Planning Commission would want to see
two more front-entry garages or if they’re willing to live with those
two driveways that intersect right toward the end of a curve and have
side-entry garages.
Engineer Stevens
commented that he would prefer to see it off the radii, but that would
be the Planning Commission’s decision.
Members agreed that
they would rather see the side-entry garages.
Mr. Clark commented
regarding item #5 that they have already responded to the Township
Attorney regarding the Master Deed and By-Laws.
Mr. Rick Linnell, of
1750 S. Telegraph Road, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, commented that they
are in receipt of that letter from Attorney Kristin Bricker Kolb, dated
November 9, 2004* and that they will have the changes completed and
resubmitted by Monday, January 10, 2005 and that he doesn’t see any
problem with addressing those issues.
Engineer Stevens
commented that on item #4, they also had a comment with that same area
with the residential driveways and that was a crosswalk that shall be
removed or relocated where it connects two driveways along the main
entrance into the residential sections of the project.
Mr. Montpas commented
that there is no objection to moving the crosswalk either toward the end
of the curb or beyond the driveway.
Mr. Drane commented
regarding the last note in the Engineer’s letter regarding his
recommendation that the northerly drive on Baldwin should be eliminated
and the cross-access to the athletic club to the south should be
improved. He noted that he would prefer to have full access curb cut
that is planned to be adjacent to what is across the street.
Mr. Mike Cool, of
Reid, Cool, & Michalski, Inc., stated, I agree with what Mr. Drane has
said about the access. You really have to give opportunities for people
to not go to an area of congestion and lessen the problem of stacking at
the traffic light, etc. I think it’s important to have that driveway
although I can understand wanting to restrict it to “NO LEFT” out, but
“LEFT IN” I don’t see a problem there. It is a good 400 feet apart,
too, so it’s not that close. I would prefer “RIGHT IN” and “LEFT IN”,
and “RIGHT OUT”.
Members agreed that
they approve of the curb cut as it is currently proposed.
Commissioner Lare and
Chairman Pote commented that they would favor a “RIGHT IN”, “LEFT IN”,
and “RIGHT OUT” on that driveway.
Mr. Drane commented
that they have no problem with contacting Fire Chief Key regarding the
placement of the fire hydrants on the site prior to approval of the
final engineering plans.
Chairman Pote
overviewed correspondence received from Ms. Dawn Bierlein, CE I, Plan
Review Engineer, of the Road Commission for Oakland County
(RCOC), dated
December 3, 2004* along with the attached marked-up plan. He inquired
whether the petitioner would have to move the safety path or if they
would be able to dog leg that.
Mr. Montpas commented
that they have no plans to move the safety path from its current
location.
Engineer Stevens
stated, in the ordinance there are requirements for maximum and minimum
radii for safety paths and when we get to final engineering, those will
be met.
Planner Wortman
overviewed their Master Deed Review correspondence, dated December 2,
2004*. After reviewing the draft Master Deed, By-laws, and Exhibit B,
we have the following concerns, comments and/or questions: 1)Master
Deed: a)Article IV, Section 1,c., Page 6 refers to an exterior lighting
system, but one has not yet been proposed as a part of the final PUD
plans; b)Article IV, Section 1,k., Walkways, Page 6 states “if and when
the walkways are constructed,” however, that is not an option as a part
of the PUD plan. This statement should be revised to reflect a more
definitive approach to the construction of the walkways; c)Article VII,
Section 2, This section needs to state that modification to the common
elements shall be subject to Township approval; and, d)Article VIII,
Section 2, This section needs to state that the redefinition of the
common elements shall be subject to Township approval; 2)Exhibit A,
By-laws, No comments; and, 3)Exhibit B, To be reviewed following
Township approval of the final PUD plans. Upon addressing each of the
above-noted items, the Master Deed and By-Laws may be approved.
However, Exhibit B shall not be approved until final PUD approval is
granted by the Township.
Chairman Pote noted
that they have no issues with the Master Deed review.
Commissioner Steimel
stated, we don’t really do the PUD agreement do we, Don?
Chairman Pote
inquired, shouldn’t it be part of the motion not to be signed until the
final PUD agreement is signed?
Planner Wortman
stated, you could include that, but the Township Board will not approve
it until that’s all buttoned up.
Ms. McGuire stated,
just a note that typically in the past and because it came in under the
old PUD ordinance, the final plan was approved prior to the PUD
agreement being accepted by the Township Board.
Members discussed
whether to make a conditional motion with so many conditions.
Commissioner Steimel
stated, the condition I was worried about was that we asked them to take
a quick look at the PUD agreement and you guys want some time, but
that’s part of the PUD agreement and that was probably to me the most
ambiguous part of what we were talking about tonight, was would you look
at this thing as far as incorporating some of the things-
Planner Wortman
stated, our preferred sample of the signage, right?
Commissioner Steimel
stated, right.
Chairman Pote stated,
signage, hours of operation-
Mr. Clark stated, I
think we could live with a motion to recommend approval to the Township
Board subject to those conditions.
Ms. McGuire stated,
one clarification I’d like the Planning Commission to make is whether or
not they would like to have the consultants review the revised plans to
ensure that these conditions have been met prior to being forwarded to
the Township Board.
Planner Wortman
stated, just to itemize my list, we had a lot split, the tree
replacement, which has been done, but it needs to be put on the plans,
the benches and the litter receptacles need to be changed, the PUD
agreement needs to be finalized, they need some type of uniform sign
plan. I still think some indication in the PUD agreement related to the
signs for the whole complex needs to be spelled out. You don’t need to
put that in the motion, but we just wanted to point out that there are
certain setback issues, height, the clock tower, etc. that exceed the
ordinance allowance. Jim, what items do you see still remaining in
terms of engineering?
Engineer Stevens
stated, ours is just the clarification, the grading in the northern
portion of the residential property, to show all easements and the
crosswalk shall be removed or relocated.
Moved by Commissioner
Steimel, supported by Vice-Chairwoman Pecheniuk regarding case
PC-2004-23, Village Square Final Planned Unit Development Plan and
Rezoning, located on the southwest corner of Baldwin and Maybee Roads,
to recommend approval of the plans date stamped received by the Township
on December 6, 2004, to the Charter Township of Orion Board of Trustees
with the following conditions: 1)That the Planning Commission does
acknowledge all the deviations as stated on Sheet SPA-1.7; 2)That a lot
combination shall be completed on these lots; 3)That all references to
the wall signs shall be removed from the plans; 4)That the litter
receptacles and the benches shall match what is in the currently
proposed Baldwin Road Overlay District Text Amendment; 5)That the hours
of operation shall be stated on the plans as from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00
p.m.; 6)That the grading proposal along the northern portion shall be
corrected for consistency; 7)That all easements shall be shown and noted
on the plans; 8)That the crosswalk shall be relocated off the two
driveways; 9)That the tree replacement schedule that was supplied to the
Township Planner shall be put on the plans; 10)That the Township Planner
and the Township Engineer shall review these changes on the revised
plans before forwarding them to the Township Board of Trustees; and,
11)To authorize the Building Department to forward these plans to the
Township Board of Trustees when confirmation has been received from the
Township Planner and Township Engineer that all these conditions have
been met.
Commissioner Steimel
commented that the suggestions for the PUD agreement should be made in a
separate motion.
Roll call vote was as
follows: Lare, yes; Pecheniuk, yes; Steimel, yes; Crane, no; Messing,
yes; Zande, yes; Pote, yes. Motion carried 6-1.
Moved by Commissioner
Steimel, supported by Secretary Zande regarding case PC-2004-23, Village
Square Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plan and Rezoning, located
on the southwest corner of Baldwin and Maybee Roads, to recommend to the
Charter Township of Orion Board of Trustees that as part of the PUD
agreement, they look into incorporating some of the standards for signs
illumination and the common theme for the signs for the PUD development
within the PUD agreement and a uniform sign plan that would be submitted
as recommended in the draft Gingellville design standards. These
proposed changes would be put into the PUD agreement and also forwarded
to the Township Planner and Township Attorney for their comments before
forwarding plans to the Township Board of Trustees. Roll call vote was
as follows: Pecheniuk, yes; Steimel, yes; Crane, yes; Messing, yes;
Zande, yes; Lare, yes; Pote, yes. Motion carried 7-0.
Planner Wortman
stated, I would recommend that the applicant draw that up as a draft and
then submit it in conjunction with the consultant’s review and then we
can provide comments to the Township Board.
E. PCS-2004-54,
Walgreen’s Sign (at Village Square PUD), Southwest Corner of Maybee and
Baldwin Roads:
Mr. Mark Drane, of
Rogvoy Architects, was present.
Mr. R. Donald
Wortman, of Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc., overviewed their Sign
Review correspondence, dated December 21, 2004*. The proposed ground
sign and proposed wall signs for the Walgreen’s store are not in
substantial compliance with Sign Ordinance No. 77. Sign exceptions will
be necessary for the proposed number of wall signs as well as the
proposed area. Additionally, any proposed sign illumination should be
indicated to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Drane commented
that the ground sign will be internally illuminated, which will be in
conformance with the lighting ordinance for no more than allowed number
of foot-candles. The base of the sign is limestone masonry that is
consistent with the architecture of the Walgreen’s building. The mortar
pestle does not have any words on it and is set back from the glass five
feet and it’s a symbol and is consistent with the 1920’s style of
architecture. He believes that the wall sign should be in proportion
with the size of the wall.
Chairman Pote
commented that there is no problem with the ground sign. Regarding the
wall sign on the east elevation, it is proposed at 189 square feet in
area, but the ordinance only allows 40 square feet maximum.
Commissioner Messing
commented that he believes that the size of this east wall sign would be
appropriate considering the scale of the building in order to be
aesthetically pleasing.
Vice-Chairwoman
Pecheniuk commented that she believes this east sign is too large.
Members agreed to
eliminate the One-Hour Photo sign and the Pharmacy sign on the east
elevation.
Commissioner Crane
commented that he, too, believes that a 40 square-foot sign on the east
side would look ridiculous due to the scale of that wall.
Commissioner Steimel
commented that if the ground sign were eliminated, perhaps one wall sign
could be made larger than 40 square feet. If they use a ground sign, it
would have to be considered as one of the two allowed ground signs for
the whole PUD.
Mr. Drane commented
that he could revise the sign plans to show the Planning Commission what
the 40 square-foot wall sign would actually look like and bring them
back for members’ review.
Commissioner Steimel
suggested including in the PUD agreement possible provisions on signs
for larger buildings within the PUD.
Mr. Drane suggested
for an example that they may do a sign overlay of where the signs would
be placed on the site for the whole shopping center at one time.
Planner Wortman
commented that they could then roll that whole thing into the PUD
agreement.
Members agreed.
Chairman Pote stated,
if you could come back with an outline of a universal sign plan for your
PUD agreement, that might be the solution.
Mr. Drane commented
that he would be willing to come back for a study session or however
members want to handle this. He then requested a motion to postpone
this case until they have a meeting to determine appropriate language
for the PUD agreement regarding this matter.
Commissioner Steimel
suggested amending the PUD agreement at a later time, so that the whole
project won’t he held up from proceeding at this time and that they
could contingently approve the signs for this PUD based on the
finalization of the PUD agreement.
Moved by Commissioner
Steimel, supported by Vice-Chairwoman Pecheniuk regarding PCS-2004-54,
Walgreen’s Sign (at the Village Square PUD), located on the southwest
corner of Maybee and Baldwin Roads, to table this case to allow time to
review the PUD agreement for possible adjustments to the square footage
of the signs. Motion carried 7-0.
10. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
None.
11. COMMUNICATIONS:
Chairman Pote overviewed correspondence from Mrs. Beth McGuire,
Zoning/Planning Administrator, dated January 5, 2005, regarding the
Citizens Bank wall sign*.
Chairman Pote overviewed correspondence received from Mrs. Jill Bastian,
Township Clerk, dated December 21, 2004, regarding the second joint
public hearing with the Township Board and Planning Commission scheduled
for Monday, February 2, 2005 at 7:15 p.m. for PC-2004-27, Orion Ridge
Condominiums PUD and Rezoning*.
12. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Secretary Zande
commented that there are two site walks scheduled for Saturday, January 8,
2005: 1)PC-2004-57, Orion Oaks Monopole (Clemis Tower) Special Land Use and
Site Plan Site Walk (located at Oakland County Orion Oaks Park on Baldwin
Road and south of the Clarkston and Baldwin Roads intersection on the west
side of Baldwin Road) will be held at 10:00 a.m.; and, 2)PC-2004-62, The
Goddard School (Day Care Center) Special Land Use and Site Plan Site Walk
(located at 935 E. Silverbell Road) will be held at 11:30 a.m.
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
14. CHAIRMAN’S COMMENTS:
Chairman Pote thanked the
new members for their input tonight and welcomed them to the Planning
Commission.
15. COMMISSIONERS’ COMMENTS
Commissioner Lare commented that he is excited about working with
members and is looking forward to the opportunity to participate.
Commissioner Messing agreed and commented that he is glad to be here and
is happy to help out.
Chairman Pote stated, we’ve been approached by members of the Road
Commission for Oakland County (RCOC) that recommended that we propose to
the Township Board that they send a letter to the RCOC requesting that
the RCOC study the need for a left-turn signal at the intersection of
Baldwin and Maybee Roads.
Moved by Vice-Chairwoman Pecheniuk, supported by Secretary Zande to
recommend to the Charter Township of Orion Board of Trustees to contact
the Road Commission for Oakland County (RCOC) requesting that the RCOC
study the need for a left-turn signal at the intersection of Baldwin and
Maybee Roads with future development in mind and not just for the way it
is currently. Roll call vote was as follows: Crane, yes; Messing, yes;
Zande, yes; Lare, yes; Pecheniuk, yes; Steimel, yes; Pote, yes.
Motion carried 7-0.
Commissioner Steimel welcomed the new members and noted that he
appreciates their volunteering to serve the community. He also informed
them that there will be a special planning commission meeting on Monday,
January 31, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner Crane commented that he, too, is happy to be here and is
looking forward to working with all the members.
16. ADJOURNMENT:
Moved by Commissioner
Steimel, supported by Vice-Chairwoman Pecheniuk to adjourn at 11:18 p.m.
Motion carried 7-0.
* On
file in the Building Department
|
