ZBA minutes 8-23-06

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE GEORGETOWN CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD AUGUST 23, 2006

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Daniel Lennington.

Members Present: John Fanthorpe, Greg Honderd, Joyce Weise, Daniel Lennington and

Carl DeVree

Members Absent: none

Others Present: Mannette Minier, Secretary and Zoning Administrator, and the applicants

#060823-01 - Approval of the minutes

The minutes of the regular meeting held on July 26, 2006 meeting were presented.

Moved by Carl DeVree, seconded by John Fanthorpe, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on July 26, 2006, as presented.

MOTION CARRIED.

#060823-02 – (VAR0614)

Meijer Stores L.P. (Greg Heath), 2929 Walker NW, is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission on June 21, 2006 with motion #060621-07 to deny a site plan with a revised circulation flow for the pharmacy drive-in window for the Meijer Store, under Sections 19.9, 28.10 and 28.11, in a (CS) Community Service Commercial district, on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-13-300-075, located at 550 Baldwin St., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. (revised site plan, letter from Progressive AE)

Greg Honderd asked if the appeal should not even be heard since it was not submitted in a timely manner according to the requirements of the ordinance.

Dan Lennington said that it was an issue that could be used in a ruling.

Greg Honderd said that if they did hear the appeal they would be setting a precedent for other appeals that are not submitted in a timely manner.

Dan Lennington said that there were many issues with this appeal such as the untimely submission and whether or not the applicant was aggrieved, in addition to reversing or reaffirming the Planning Commission’s decision. He said that he would rather that the ZBA hear the appeal than making the Township staff determine if it was submitted in a timely manner.

The consensus of the ZBA members was to hear the appeal.

Greg Heath, Meijer Stores Inc., said that he had submitted the appeal within a day or two after the decision and that he had asked about the appeal process. He said that he had been uncertain and was waiting for direction in how to proceed. He said that he came to the Township Office to meet with the Township Supervisor and he wrote a letter with the appeal for the zoning administrator.

The zoning administrator said that she had directed the applicant to read the ordinance and that she had suggested that the applicant write the letter if he intended to appeal; however, even the letter was written more than five days after the decision and the application with the fee was submitted more a month after the decision was made by the Planning Commission.

Greg Heath said that this was the first that he had heard that the appeal was not submitted in a timely manner and he had only followed the direction he was given. He presented the request and introduced Jeff Hillengonds, Senior Transportation Engineer for Progressive AE.

Dan Lennington said that this is a unique appeal and that they should be mindful that it would be unfair to hear new evidence that the Planning Commission did not hear. He said that the evidence that should be provided should explain why the Planning Commission was wrong in their decision.

Greg Heath said that this evidence has been presented before.

Jeff Hillengonds presented the following. With the existing flow from west to east pedestrians walk through the lane to the drive-up. It would be best to reverse the flow to have the drive-in customers access the window against the building and have the line back up into the garden center. It would be safer. With this flow, cars do not queue up in front of the driveways. The next reason is that they prefer this flow because vehicles would exit towards where the pedestrians exit and enter the store. Another reason is that the existing islands extend and put vehicles closer to pedestrians and with the reversed flow, vehicles would turn further away.

Dan Lennington said that cars could only turn left with this proposed reversed flow and to turn right would be almost a U-turn that would not accommodate a vehicle. He asked how they would prevent vehicles from trying to make that right turn without the vehicle having to go back and forth.

Jeff Hillengonds stated the following. The islands with the reversed flow would be used as pedestrian refuges. If you looked at the driveways in general there was confusion because the lines were not completed. Meijer has rectified the situation and has repainted the end islands.

Dan Lennington asked about the islands.

Jeff Hillengonds said that the isle way was shortened.

Greg Heath said that with the reversed flow the distance to the window was 15 feet farther from the front door.

The zoning administrator presented a review as follows.

Request

Meijer Stores is appealing a motion made by the Planning Commission on June 21, 2006. The motion made by the Planning Commission denied a revised site plan that showed a reversed circulation pattern for the Meijer pharmacy drive-in window from what had been approved in December 2005. Meijer Stores L.P. is asking the ZBA to reverse the Planning Commission’s denial decision and approve the revised plan.

Progressive AE, representing Meijer Stores L.P., submitted a special use and site plan application to the Township in October 2005. The site plan initially showed a traffic flow from “east to west” to access the pharmacy drive-in window that was proposed for the northeast corner of the building (this is the same plan for the traffic flow for the pharmacy window that they are asking the ZBA to approve). The Planning Commission expressed concerns with the proposed location of the pharmacy drive-in window because this is a very congested area with both vehicle traffic and pedestrian traffic accessing the main entrance, plus this corner is the main apex for traffic coming from both Baldwin and Cottonwood. The Planning Commission directed that the pharmacy drive-in window be moved to another location of the building to move the additional traffic and use away from the already congested corner.

The applicants stated that they wanted the pharmacy at the northeast corner of the store to make it the same as their other stores. They returned to the Township with a revised site plan proposing the traffic flow from “west to east” to access the pharmacy window (this was the plan that was approved by the Planning Commission on December 7, 2005). The reasons were provided by the applicant that this traffic flow (from “west to east”) should address the concerns of the Planning Commission by alleviating vehicles exiting the pharmacy window directing into oncoming traffic and into pedestrians entering and exiting the store through the close main entrance.

Although the Planning Commission still expressed concerns with vehicle and pedestrian traffic at this busy corner, the Planning Commission determined that this flow (from “west to east”) was an improvement over the flow from “east to west.” On December 7, 2005, the Planning Commission approved the site plan with the flow from “west to east.”

In May 2006, Meijer Stores L.P. submitted a site plan application proposing to revise the approved site plan back to the way that had initially been submitted with the traffic flow from “east to west,” citing problems with stacked vehicles waiting to access the pharmacy interfering with the pedestrian traffic at the main entrance to the store. The Planning Commission reiterated their earlier concerns (even noting that their initial concerns for the location of the drive-in window were proven correct and members mentioned that they made a mistake approving the drive-in window at all in this location). The Planning Commission denied the revised site plan on June 21, 2006 stating reasons that although neither plan was ideal since this was a busy congested corner already, the traffic flow had less negative impact the way it had been approved in December 2005, which is to have the flow from “west to east” since traffic exited away from the main entrance to the building. By denying the revised plan, the previously approved plan was still valid and provided that the vehicles accessing the pharmacy drive-in window would exit away from the main entrance to the store.

Meijer Stores is appealing the Planning Commission denial of the revised site plan under Sec. 19.10 of the Zoning Ordinance which states:

Sec. 19.9 APPEAL .

If any person shall be aggrieved by the action of the Planning Commission, appeal in writing to the Township Board of Appeals may be taken within five (5) days after the date of such action. The Board of Appeals shall fix a time and place for a public hearing to be published in a newspaper prior to the hearing. All interested parties shall be afforded the opportunity to be heard thereat. After such hearing, the Board of Appeals shall affirm or reverse the action of the Planning Commission, stating its findings and the reasons for its action and a written copy of such findings, reasons, and action shall be given to the appellant.

Since this is not a variance request, the application has not been reviewed according to the seven standards of the ordinance. Rather, Sec. 19.9 details some elements of the process of the appeal, including the opportunity for interested parties to be heard and the action that the ZBA should take to either affirm or reverse the action of the Planning Commission. No other section of the ordinance addresses an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decisions, not even Chapter 28 relating to the ZBA.

Summary

The responsibility of the ZBA in this appeal is to hear from all interested parties (including, but not limited to, the applicant and the Planning Commission) and to affirm or reverse the action of the Planning Commission, stating its findings and the reasons for its action.

Since the applicant will be present, but the Planning Commission will not be present, the review will provide the minutes (and highlights pertaining to the reasons for the Planning Commission action) of the meetings when the request was discussed and acted upon.

From Meijer Store L.P. the following information is provided:

1. A revised site plan with a traffic flow proposed to be from “east to west” (which is the same traffic flow as the initial proposal made last October 2005 which was subsequently changed by the applicant to have a flow from ““west to east”” and the ““west to east”” flow was the one with approved by the Planning Commission in December 2005). In addition, this revised site plan was the one denied by the Planning Commission on June 21, 2006 which is the subject of the appeal; and

2. A letter from the applicant that details their reasons for the requested revision. Progressive AE wrote the letter, as well as represented Meijer Stores L.P. in the initial submittal in October 2005 and drew up the site plan).

From the Planning Commission the following information is provided:

1. Highlights from all the meetings when the Meijer site plan was discussed and acted upon, as well as complete excerpts of the minutes of the meetings when the Meijer site plan was discussed and acted upon; and

2. The site plan that was approved by the Planning Commission on December 7, 2005.

History

On October 19, 2005, Progressive AE, representing Meijer Stores, submitted an application for a special use permit for the Meijer Store at 550 Baldwin to have a drive-in establishment (for a pharmacy drive-in window) under Sec. 15.3(A) and an open air business (for the outdoor garden center) under Sec. 15.3(B), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-13-300-075, located at 550 Baldwin, in a (CS) Community Service Commercial district.

The initial application was discussed at the following meetings: Planning Commission on November 2, 2005, November 16, 2005, and December 7, 2005; and Township Board on December 12, 2005. Highlights of the meeting minutes pertaining to the request showing the reasons for the Planning Commission’s initial decision of approving the traffic flow from “west to east” are provided. See the following highlights.

In May 2006, Meijer contacted the Township and indicated that they intended to pursue a revision to the previously approved site plan to allow for a reversed traffic flow for the pharmacy window. The previously approved flow of traffic was from “west to east” for vehicles to access the drive-in window. The revised plan proposed a traffic flow from “east to west.” At the May 17, 2006 meeting, the proposed revised traffic flow was discussed under “Other Business.” A motion to approve the reversed flow was defeated and a motion to table was approved to obtain more information including input from the planner. Meijer was directed to submit a formal site plan application and have the revised site plan go through the formal process of review to be placed on the Planning Commission meeting agenda as an action item on the Planning Commission.

On May 18, 2006, Meijer Stores L.P. (Greg Heath) submitted an application for a site plan review for a revised proposal to reverse the traffic flow to access the drive-in window. The revised site plan was on agendas for the Planning Commission meetings on June 7, 2006 and June 21, 2006, and action was taken by the Planning Commission on June 21, 2006 to deny the revised plan.

Highlights of the meeting minutes pertaining to the second request, which is for a revised plan with a reversed traffic flow from “west to east,” showing the reasons for the Planning Commission decision, are provided.

Highlights of the meeting minutes were provided to give the Planning Commission an opportunity to be heard with the reasons for the action taken:

At the November 2, 2005 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the initial site plan to have the vehicle access to the pharmacy drive-in window with a traffic flow from “east to west”.

The following are highlights of discussion showing the reasons for the Planning Commission decision relating to the request:

Honderd said that he preferred that the pharmacy drive-in window be moved to a location other than this busy corner, such as along the western side of the building.

Heath said that Meijer was remodeling the interior of the store and planned to move the pharmacy to the front of the store because it would work best for a better flow for the habits of the customers.

Honderd said that the proposed site of the drive-in window is the most congested area on the site and he preferred to see it located on the southeast corner of the building where people could just come to get their prescription and leave. He said that the southeast corner or the western side of the building would allow this new traffic to not interfere with the other traffic.

Pearson said that he was concerned with the drive-in window being located at this busy corner. He said that his first thought was that this intersection should be improved rather than putting in the drive-in window for more traffic. He said that the curbed island and ring road were good improvements, but more should be done. He asked if the chain link fence could be avoided because according to the Chicago Dr. Corridor Study this was the Township’s opportunity to require improvements that would be more aesthetically pleasing.

South said that traffic could be a problem and suggested requiring only a right-turn out of the pharmacy drive-in window.

*****************************************************************************

At the November 16, 2005 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the same proposal to have the vehicle access to the pharmacy drive-in window with a traffic flow from “east to west” (site plan).

The following are highlights of discussion showing the reasons for the Planning Commission decision relating to the request:

There was discussion regarding the circulation pattern on the site and the circulation relative to the proposed pharmacy drive-in window. Several of the Planning Commissioners stated concerns with the traffic circulation and the proposed location of the pharmacy window. The proposed landscaped islands have now helped to establish a ring road from the southeast corner, traveling north, then again traveling west along the building. The canoe perpendicular to the western property line has been extended to align the intersection. These are site improvements that aid the traffic circulation. The Planning Commissioners suggested moving the pharmacy drive-in window to the eastern side of the building.

Several of the Planning Commissioners stated concerns with the traffic circulation and the proposed location of the pharmacy window.

There was discussion regarding traffic and congestion on the site. Planning Commissioners stated a concern with the location of the drive-in window at the most congested area of the site and suggested that it be moved to the east side of the building.

Planning Commissioners resumed the discussion regarding the location of the drive-in window and stated a preference that it be moved to the east side of the building and the garden center be reduced or moved if necessary. It was noted that some of the other Meijer stores had less square footage than this one.

The applicant stated that this Meijer had 207,000 square feet and the layout would be changed.

Pearson said that the addition of the landscaping and traffic islands were improvements to the site but he was not convinced that the addition of the drive-in window wouldn’t make the congestion in the area worse.

Poskey said that he was concerned for safety of the people and he was not convinced that the changes would bring an overall improvement. He said that with the elimination of the east entrance, more pedestrians would be cutting through the area and this was the busiest intersection on the site. He said that in Rockford and Big Rapids, the Meijer store was off in an isolated corner. He said that he was not convinced that the drive-in window in this location was good for the overall site. He said that this would present additional problems. He said that the video presented by the applicants indicated that some customers were getting older and did not want to get out of their cars to get their prescriptions. He said that this would present situations where the drivers could likely become more confused and jeopardize safety. He preferred the window to be located in a different location. He said that it only made sense and if the southwest corner was not practical, there were other possibilities. He said that for 28 customers, this would create more problems and might not be vital.

Pearson asked how customers would enter the store if they parking on the east side of the store.

The applicant explained that they would cut through the parking area and that they could get to the garden center from the parking lot.

The applicants asked if the Planning Commission would be satisfied with the proposal if the pharmacy window were to be removed. The consensus was that the rest of the proposal was an improvement from the existing conditions. The members said that the pharmacy drive-in window brought further congestion to an already congested area. The applicants asked if the Planning Commission would take action on the rest of the site plan and table the drive-in window. The decision was made that the proposal had to be acted upon in its entirety.

DeGood suggested the applicant revisit the layout of the site and he would accept the vinyl fencing.

Stasiak said that the drive-in window should be shifted and he would accept the vinyl fence. He said that the fenced area could possibly be improved by breaking it up with a decorative element.

Honderd said that he preferred to see the window moved to the northeast corner and would accept vinyl fence because he appreciated the concerns with being able to see through the fence. He said that he also appreciated the neighbor’s comments and concerns and that possibly an evergreen hedge could be added as a sound and light barrier.

Pearson said that the window should be moved and he accepted vinyl coating for the fence. He said that some type of element, such as trees or landscaping, could help break up the fencing.

Poskey said that chain link fence was acceptable and he would like to see landscaping added. He stated a concern with the storage canopy and the open warehouse look. He said that he was concerned with adding another element with the drive-in window added to an already busy corner.

South said that he was concerned with cleaning up the corner and would like to see the loop to the east. He would like to see traffic cut down at this corner.

Honderd noted that in Grandville and other locations, the Meijer stores were on out lots that surrounded malls. He said that in this situation, Meijer was like the mall and other businesses, such as Culvers, the banks and Fazoli’s were on the out lots. He said that this presents a different situation and had to be evaluated according to the circulation pattern relative to this site instead of comparing it to a different situation. He said that the consensus of the Planning Commission was that the drive-in window should be moved to the east side of the building to help to eliminate congestion in the area.

The consensus of the Planning Commission was that the proposed plan was acceptable except for the drive-in window at the location shown.

********************************************************************************

At the December 7, 2005 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a site plan with Option A, with a revised traffic flow from “west to east”; and a site plan with Option B, with no pharmacy drive-in window, both submitted by the applicant.

The following are highlights of discussion and action showing the reasons for the Planning Commission decision relating to the request:

Revised plans were submitted with two options, one with the circulation pattern for the drive-in window changed and one with the drive-in window removed. (note: the change in circulation was to go from the initially proposed direction of “east to west”, changed to have traffic flow from “west to east”)

The issue of interior circulation and drive-in window was left to the Planning Commission’s discretion. If Option A was the preferred plan, a condition could be added that signage be provided indicating that no left turn is allowed into the drive-in lane because (according to the applicant) there is not enough room for sufficient radius to allow a vehicle to turn left and file into the lane accessing the window (tube). Also, additional signage should be provided directing traffic entering from the east off Cottonwood that is headed to the drive-in pharmacy. If the Planning Commission determines that Option B is the preferred plan with the drive-in window and tube totally eliminated, a condition should be added that the box on the plan titled “Traffic Control Signage Detail” be removed since the signs were for the pharmacy drive-in window.

DeGood said that the revised plan showed improved traffic circulation and noted that traffic entering from Cottonwood should be directed to the window with signage.

Stasiak said that the drive-in window should be approved because it as a definite convenience for customers to not have to get out of a vehicle in the cold and snow. He said that the revised plan was an improvement with a better circulation pattern. He asked about a canopy over the kiosk and was told there would be one to protect the driver and the window. He asked about the letter regarding raised curbing of the area around the window.

The zoning administrator said that with the new pattern, the issue was not as important because curbing was being used to direct vehicles to the window.

Poskey said that he preferred that the window was removed, but the revised plan was an improvement.

Moved by DeGood, seconded by Stasiak, to recommend to the Township Board approval of Special Use Permit (SUP0512) Meijer Stores L.P. (Progressive AE), 550 Baldwin, to have a drive-in establishment as shown in Option A. under Sec. 15.3(A) and an open air business under Sec. 15.3(B), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-13-300-075, located at 550 Baldwin, in a (CS) Community Service Commercial because the proposed plan meets the applicable standards of the ordinance including the general standards in Sec. 20.3(A) and specific standards Sec. 20.4(L) and 20.4(Z).

Moved by DeGood, seconded by Stasiak to approve the site plan dated 11/22/05 titled “Option A,” as submitted, because the proposed plan meets applicable standards of the ordinance and with the condition that signage is provided prohibiting vehicles from the east making a left hand turn into the drive lane for the tube and that signage is provided on the site to clarify the desired path for vehicles entering from the east to access the tube.

Yeas: DeGood, Stasiak, Honderd, Huizinga, South

Nays: Poskey

Absent: Pearson

MOTION CARRIED.

******************************************************************************

At the December 12, 2005 meeting, the Township Board reviewed and approved the special use permit based on the site plan with Option A, which is to have vehicles access the pharmacy drive-in window with a circulation from “west to east”.

The following are highlights of discussion and action relating to the request:

Moved by R. J. Poel, seconded by Richard VanderKlok, to approve Special Use Permit (SUP0512) Meijer Stores L.P. (Progressive AE), 550 Baldwin, to have a drive-in establishment under Sec. 15.3(A) and an open air business under Sec. 15.3(B) as shown in Option A. of the site plan dated 11/22/05, on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-13-300-075, located at 550 Baldwin, in a (CS) Community Service Commercial because the proposed plan meets the applicable standards of the ordinance including the general standards in Sec. 20.3(A) and specific standards Sec. 20.4(L) and 20.4(Z). Option A, elevations, (letter), with the condition that the letter dated November 9, 2005 is changed to delete “mutually agreed by both” and the wording is changed to state “agreed by either” as agreed to during the meeting with Township Officials and Meijers

Note: The Planning Commission recommended approval

MOTION CARRIED.

********************************************************************************

At the May 17, 2005 meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the revised traffic flow proposed by the applicant.

A motion to approve was defeated and the item was tabled for further review and input by the planner. The following are highlights of discussion and action showing the reasons for the Planning Commission decision relating to the request:

Stasiak said that, as stated at the previous meetings when the plan was first reviewed by the Planning Commission last year, the window should be located in another area further away from the congestion.

Stasiak said that he understood the problem with the tube and their urgency to resolve this issue; however, he said that the Township would be better served if they took more time to thoroughly review the plan and observe the site.

Greg Heath said that this was a congested area with the garden center.

South said that he has been there and this is a bad location, as the Planning Commission had stated when it was reviewed for the first time. He said that where the pharmacy is located is an area that is too congested and a situation that brought more people to that area should be avoided.

Honderd said that this area was too congested. He said that they were not qualified to determine the best traffic circulation and they should not make a decision on something that they are not informed.

********************************************************************************

At the June 7, 2006 meeting, it was noted that the planner’s review would be available for the next meeting. No other discussion relative to this request took place at this meeting.

********************************************************************************

At the June 21, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a letter with facts from the applicant, the revised site plan with reverse flow, the previously approved site plan with the traffic flow from “west to east” and the review from the planner.

Unfortunately, the initial review from the planner was not clear and a revised review was submitted. The revised review indicated that several sites with drive-in windows were visited, including fast food restaurants. The planner indicates in the review that a majority of the drive-in windows are located on the side of the building and isolated from the primary entrance to the facility. The planner also noted that all the pharmacies that were visited all had the drive-in window at the rear or side of the building. In no instance did the planner find a drive-in window near or adjacent to a main entrance to a building. He indicated that the Jenison Meijer is different from the other Meijer stores he visited because the flow of traffic serving the store merge at the northeast corner of the store creating an intensive traffic intersection encountering a large portion of the traffic entering and leaving the site. He notes that this traffic apex is further complicated with the location of a main store entry and now the pharmacy drive-in window. The planner states in his review that “The design of a drive-up window at this location is less than desirable. As designed and approved by the Planning Commission, the drive-up access point is located at the convergence of the main drives and the store entry. Traffic moves very slowly in this area and we are of the opinion this is the best design for this location given the busy location of both automobile and pedestrian traffic. The potential for an accident is minimal since traffic moves slowly through this area. If this flow were reversed, a potential drive-up customer in the busy intersection would cause a conflict with pedestrian traffic as the pharmacy customer would be adjacent to the pedestrian lane of the entry door and also attempting a turning movement from the exit lane. Based on this, it is our opinion the current design should stand as approved.”

The following are highlights of discussion and action showing the reasons for the Planning Commission decision relating to the request:

Honderd said that even though the planner’s review was confusing, the last paragraph clears it up because he states that the plan should be left as approved.

Pearson said that he had visited the store and spent time viewing the area. He said that he was amazed that there were not more accidents because it was not a good layout and that the Planning Commission made a mistake approving the pharmacy drive-in at this location. He said that keeping the traffic heading in the same direction and going to the right lane to the access the tube was the lesser of two evils. He said that he sat there and watched traffic on a Saturday afternoon and it was a mess.

The zoning administrator said that she agreed with Pearson because she visited the store and parked in the south parking lot. She said that since the entrance on the east side of the building had been closed, those who parking in the south parking lot had to walk through vehicle lanes, traffic, an intersection and through the pharmacy drive-in window area to get to the closest store entrance on the north side of the building. She said that with all the vehicles traveling in both directions, it did not matter which way the traffic went because it was a bad layout either way.

Moved by Pearson, seconded by DeGood, to deny the site plan dated 11/17/2005 based on the findings that the circulation as proposed would be detrimental to both pedestrian and vehicular traffic, with the authority given to the Planning Commission under Sec. 20.3(A) General Standards for Special Use Permits since this is a site plan for a special use permit for the drive-in window and with authority given to the Planning Commission under Sec. 19.10(C) Review Standards for a site plan for Drives, Parking and Circulation.

Huizinga said that although neither plan was ideal, he thought that the “east to west” flow was an improvement.

Yeas: Honderd, South, DeGood, Pearson

Nays: Huizinga

Abstained: Poskey

Absent: Stasiak

MOTION CARRIED.

The chairman opened the public hearing.

Del South, 2773 Lark, Township Board trustee and member of the Planning Commission, stated the following. With the reversed flow as proposed by the applicants, vehicles traveling from east to west would turn right into pedestrian and vehicular traffic when exiting. If the vehicles traveled from west to east as currently approved, the vehicles would exit to an area where there is not much traffic and they would have the opportunity to turn any direction to exit without interfering with vehicle or pedestrian traffic. There is a major concern with vehicles going west to exit from the pharmacy drive-in window with the proposed new reversed flow because the exiting cars conflict with the people walking in and out of the store entrance. There is much less congestion when vehicles traveling to the east as currently approved. The lawn and garden center is located on the east side of the building, but does not generate much traffic most of the year. If the flow was reversed as proposed by the applicant there would be cars going across traffic and through the pedestrians entering and exiting the store at the main entrance. It is much safer for vehicle and pedestrian traffic the way it is currently approved by the Planning Commission.

Dan Lennington stated the following. They have to decide how to view the Planning Commission’s decision. When one body reviews another body, there are two ways to look at it. One would be to look at everything fresh and try to make a decision. Another way would be to give deference to the Planning Commission’s decision, in other words to defer to the Planning Commission’s decision and decide if they clearly made a mistake. This would be a lawyer’s perspective. It would make a difference if they looked at it to determine if the Planning Commission made a mistake or if they looked at it with fresh eyes. For the standards of review it would either be that the Planning Commission made a mistake or they could look at the site plan with fresh eyes.

Joyce Weise said that the LaSalle Bank was leaving the Meijer store and she asked why the pharmacy did not move down to that location and use the exiting drive-in window which was away from the vehicle and pedestrian congestion.

Greg Heath said that they have another tenant, plus it would be a significant and costly change.

Joyce Weise asked if the pneumatic tube did not work.

Greg Heath said that 40% of the time the pneumatic tube did not work and the pharmacist has to go out and deliver the prescription.

Dan Lennington said that Walgreens has a pneumatic tube that works.

Greg Heath said that he understands that they have options.

Joyce Weise said she is of the opinion that the direction does not matter that much because she watched the area and believes that the location of the pharmacy drive-in window has created an extremely bad situation. She said that she shops at the store and the whole area scares her. She said that she can’t believe that the store customers want to walk through this congested dangerous area.

Greg Heath stated the following. Everyone recommended ideas from the start and the Planning Commission preferred other locations for the pharmacy drive-in window. Meijer tried to find the best solution. By reversing the flow to go from east to west, the distance from the activity at the main entrance would be increased by 15 feet. Meijer has made improvements to the site and tried to take the flow of traffic off the main thoroughfare. They are proposing to take the potential stacking and move it to a less busy area. People constantly cross the drive aisle. With the flow from east to west there would be a controlled stop to allow the vehicles to come fact-to-face with the pedestrians. Moving the kiosk would give good visibility. A stop sign would stop the vehicles when exiting.

Jeff Hillengonds said that there was a distance between the two stop signs and this was a significant improvement.

Joyce Weise said that she believes the original approved option is best and safest for cars and pedestrians. She asked if the Planning Commission gave options.

Greg Honderd stated the following. The Planning Commission does not design site plans, but rather reviews them after they are designed. Meijer initially proposed this same east to west flow and they came back and proposed the west to east flow to try to address the Planning Commission’s concerns about the location of the pharmacy drive-in so near the most congested corner of the site. Mr. Heath mentioned that people will cut through and Greg Honderd said he sat there and watched people cut through. People do not pay attention to direction signs. If the flow is reversed to go east to west, people will try to make the right hand turn to turn east even if there is not enough room and they will have to go back and forth to make it. He wondered how comfortable Meijer was with this situation and how often it would happen.

Jeff Hillengonds stated the following. This is not a public street where people travel at a high speed and they have certain expectations. Vehicles are going slow and this should be okay unless someone is not watching. This is not a big concern and people expect others to pull out in front of them and they expect to have to wait for others. People are watching more because of the pedestrians. It would not be an issue if someone made an ill-advised turn.

Greg Heath said that the curb could be designed to prevent the right hand turn or to encourage people to not turn right.

Jeff Hillengonds said that there could be pavement markings or other ways to direct people. Plus, people just get used to using the window. He said that there always will be the possibility for conflict, but they try to make it as clean and safe as they can.

John Fanthorpe stated the following. He shops at the store all the time and that this location for the pharmacy drive-in window was bad right from the start. He is both a customer and member of the community. The Planning Commission approved the safest alternative for a bad situation. The proposed reversed flow from east to west was not a good solution. As business people Meijer should be looking for a better alternative. Locating the pharmacy drive-in window at this location creates possibilities for a lot of conflict. Meijer should be concerned for the safety of their customers. The reversed flow from east to west would magnify the conflicts. The biggest problem with the currently approved flow is that the pneumatic tube does not handle the weight of some prescriptions and Meijer should look for a different tube. The pharmacy circulation needs to remain as it exists and was approved because it is the safest and best alternative.

Greg Heath said the following. He was not involved with the interior design of the store. Extensive research and logic goes into why things are located as they are. The pharmacy used to be located in the rear of the store and is now located in the front of the store for the new prototype. They have converted 50 to 60 other stores and business improved. These decisions are based on expert research. There is no question about the location of the pharmacy. The store was designed for appeal and flow and the design was already there. Meijer strongly feels that reversing the flow will improve the situation.

John Fanthorpe said that the Planning Commission was not out of line when they approved the flow from west to east.

Dan Lennington asked about the history and asked if the traffic flow was initially proposed to be from east to west on the initial site plan application.

Greg Honderd said that yes, the initially submitted site plan showed the traffic flow from east to west.

Dan Lennington said that as he understood the history, Meijer came back with a revised site plan proposing the traffic flow for the pharmacy drive-in window to be west to east. He said that he also understood that the Planning Commission did not want the pharmacy drive-in window to be at this location, but rather wanted the pharmacy window moved to the west side of the building.

Greg Honderd said that they wanted to proceed with a contractor and the Planning Commission suggested the west side of the building, but Meijer wanted the east side. He said that Meijer came back and proposed the traffic flow from west to east and to still have the pharmacy drive-in window in the same location.

Greg Heath stated the following. This was part of a major project and there was some give and take. Meijer did not get everything they wanted and came back with such things as elements for the fencing that the Township requested. They talked to other areas and explored the interior layout. They decided to move the pharmacy up front. After they constructed the pharmacy, they became concerned with the distance to the main entrance and with the traffic flow. They got an expert to support their findings. Meijer has completed other elements in the recommendation to make the site a safer environment.

Dan Lennington asked if Meijer had considered bumping out the building to the east to make the distance longer for stacking, since they were concerned with stacking blocking the entrance. He said that he has seen such things at fast food restaurants and at some banks.

Greg Heath said that they had not considered it and that anything is possible with money. He said that they probably wouldn’t do it.

Dan Lennington stated the following. They could weigh the cost of the bump-out against the lost business from the long stacking line. Looking at the plans, neither was optimal. However, the layout approved by the Planning Commission was much safer for pedestrians and vehicles than allowing vehicles to exit directly into the pedestrian traffic coming and exiting from the store main entrance. The new plan proposed by Meijer with the east to west flow presented several problems. It was not safe. People would be tempted to make the U-turn to go right and stop traffic. A lot of traffic came from the Cottonwood direction and would want to make the U-turn. It is not safe for the pedestrians entering and exiting the store to mix with the vehicles trying to exit from the pharmacy window. Meijer appeared to mostly be concerned with stacking vehicles blocking the store entrance, but the Planning Commission was concerned with safety issues. It is worse to have the safety issues with the pedestrians and vehicles than the stacking problem. He does not see the stacking issue as a worse one than the safety issues with the pedestrians and vehicles.

Greg Heath said that he disagrees and people may try to turn right. He said that the distance was greater if the flow was reversed and it was worse with those potentially turning left to access the pharmacy window.

Dan Lennington said that there could be a sign directing that traffic not block the pedestrian walkway if it was a busy day.

Greg Heath said that signage could be added and people know the process. He said that he is frustrated because it would be so much cleaner to reverse the flow to go from east to west the way he was requesting. He said that he does not see where the approved way is safer.

Dan Lennington stated the following. He was imagining himself in a vehicle at the proposed stop sign with the traffic flow as proposed from east to west and he would have to make a decision where to turn. He would need to make a decision as to which way to go. There would be a lot of factors to consider, such as pedestrians entering or exiting the store, as well as traffic flowing all directions. It is a complicated set of factors to consider for the decision. If he was going the way it was approved, he would not have to think of anything other than stacking. There is no choice as to how to exit, he would just go straight. But then it was easy to go the way he needed to go to exit and it was easy to go in any direction without the congestion at the other end. Exiting is more difficult than the entry and exiting was easy with the way it was approved.

Greg Heath said that a motorist was not pressed to make a quick decision.

Jeff Hillengonds said that there were more choices for the entry and from a traffic standpoint the east to west flow was safer because the vehicles would stop at the stop sign. He said that if cars line up pedestrians might not be looking.

Dan Lennington said that cars cross the pedestrian pathways every second.

Jeff Hillengonds said that if there were four cars in line they would block the store entrance.

Greg Honderd said that the cars would have to stop for the pedestrians.

Carl DeVree asked how they would control vehicles to make a full stop because oftentimes cars roll through a stop sign. He said that a vehicle would probably make a rolling stop to keep going and it would be dangerous for pedestrians.

Jeff Hillengonds said that cars back up in the driving lane forcing two lanes in one and a half lanes, with pedestrians trying to pass between.

Greg Heath said that have monitored the situation closely and counted an average of 28 cars per day, with about 13 on Sunday, 21 on Saturday, 48 on Monday, 44 on Tuesday, 42 on Wednesday, 44 on Thursday, and 43 on Friday. He said that there were between 41 to 48 cars per day which is significantly more than they anticipated.

Joyce Weise said that if the line is too long, customers could park and walk inside.

Greg Heath said that certainly they could, or they could stack in the pharmacy drive-in lane.

The consensus of the ZBA was that the safety of the pedestrians entering and exiting the store and the safety of the vehicles exiting the drive-in window was more important than the concern that Meijer had with the vehicles stacking in front of the store entrance. The consensus was that the stacked vehicles with the approved west to east flow did not pose as much of a safety issue as vehicles exiting directly into the area where pedestrians were walking to enter or exit the store, as would be the case if the flow was reversed to go from east to west. It was noted that stacking vehicles could leave an area open in front of the store entrance and signage could be used to direct this. It was again noted that the location of the pharmacy drive-in window created a bad situation at the already busiest corner of the site.

Dan Lennington stated the following. He was in favor of affirming the Planning Commission’s decision based on the fact that their decision was reasonable and nothing was said that demonstrated a clear error on the part of the Planning Commission. The applicant admitted that it was a close call. The Planning Commission has more expertise in this area and the ZBA should not second guess them. In addition, the application was not timely and the ordinance specifically lays out the timetable. People should not rely on statements made by governmental officials, but it is best to look at the rule for direction.

Moved by John Fanthorpe, seconded by Joyce Weise, to affirm the Planning Commission’s decision made with motion #060621-07 to deny a site plan (motion follows), based on the findings and reasons that were stated by the ZBA including that the way the site plan was approved with the west to east traffic flow provides the most viable and safe option for vehicles exiting from the pharmacy window.

#060621-07 - Site Plans (ST0605) Meijer-550 Baldwin (revision for pharmacy drive-up window)

Yeas: Dan Lennington, Greg Honderd, Joyce Weise, John Fanthorpe, Carl DeVree

Nays: none

MOTION CARRIED.

#060823-03 - Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

Sec. 19.9 APPEAL.

Sec. 19.9 APPEAL .