Minutes of the
work session of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission held Wednesday,
July 6, 2005
The meeting was
called to order by Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Huizinga, DeGood, Honderd, Pearson,
Poskey, Stasiak, South
Absent: none
The work session,
which formulated the agenda for July 20, 2005, included the following items to
be placed on the agenda, discussion, and action:
I.
Approval of agenda
II.
Approval of minutes of the June 15, 2005 regular meeting and the
July 6, 2005 work session meeting
III. Unfinished
Business
A.
Site Plan (ST0508) Campus
View Townhouses-10081 42nd
Ave.
Doug Stalsonburg,
Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the request. Revised plans were submitted showing attached
garages. The proposal is for 117 units
with 4, 6, 8 or 10 individual dwelling units.
The planner noted
that a letter was received from the Ottawa County Road Commission asking that a
traffic study be conducted.
A question arose as
to the purpose of the requested traffic study and the planner said that the
Road Commission wanted an estimate of the impact the proposed project would
have on abutting streets and intersections.
The applicant said that
Wade Trim had been hired to conduct the study and the completed study had
already been submitted to the Road Commission.
A by-pass lane had been required at 42nd Ave. and Pierce due
to the projected impact of the amount of traffic to be generated by total
development. He said that the Road
Commission had determined that the level of service was slightly substandard
and the added left turn lane would provide a remedy. He said that although the driveways had been
eliminated as requested by the Planning Commission, his client was not totally
committed to adding the lane.
Other comments made
included the fact that the front setback must be 80 feet from the centerline of
42nd Ave. (30 feet measured from a point 50 feet from the CL) and is
not dimensioned. Sidewalks are noted but
must be shown on 42nd Ave. No
sign details are given. Streetscape must
be shown, along with a legend. The
floodplain note states that the site does not “abut” a floodplain. If it is not affected by a floodplain, the
note should say “not located in the floodplain.”
B. Special
Use Permit (SUP0504) Wizard
Wash Ventures, LLC, 4346 Leonard NW,
Revised plans have been submitted for a work session to be held at the next meeting.
#050706-01 - Preliminary Plat of Georgetown
Shores No. 6
It was noted that no new plans were submitted. Doug Stalsonburg, Exxel
Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the request. He read the letter that the developer had
submitted addressing concerns that had been raised at the last meeting. He said
that there had been no revisions to the plan and that the sod issue had been
addressed. He said that phase I had been
developed prior to the sidewalk requirement, but the developer has agreed to
pay 50% up to $5,000 to install a bike path along that area although he does
not have to. He said that there were no
“lake policemen” and that the residents would basically have to control the
lake themselves. He said that Mr. Land
controls the association and will continue to control it until all the land is
developed. He said that there was no way
to enforce issues on the lake if it got too busy and people should just get off
the lake if it gets too busy.
Greg Honderd asked about the drain and the applicant said that there
was sediment after a heavy rain fall and it had already been cleaned out and
would be again before the end of the year.
Plans that were approved and signed by the Planning Commission on
2-10-93 show the minimum depth of the lake as 5 feet. Also, the Code Enforcer inspected the
non-motorized path for sod that was peeled away and noted that it was an issued
that had been resolved.
The zoning administrator stated that she had researched some of the
issues brought up at the last meeting in regards to the lake and found that
they were civil issues. She said that
the Planning Commission only has authority that is specified by State law and
the Zoning Ordinance. She said that
congestion on the lake or locations of docks and shore stations were not
regulated by the Zoning Ordinance, therefore, the Planning Commission had no
authority in that regard.
Ed Stasiak asked about the unresolved site plan issues.
Greg Honderd said that a connection should be provided to 18th
Ave. because it affects residents on Edson, 22nd Ave. and on 18th
Ave., in addition to people coming from Jamestown. He said that the connection to 18th
Ave. should be provided.
Michael Pearson asked where the Planning Commission’s authority comes
from in regards to subdivisions.
The zoning administrator said that there is a Township general
Subdivision Ordinance plus the Zoning Ordinance.
The planner said that he had also done research and said that no other
Boards and Commissions have authority over lake issues.
Del South said that he wanted to see the connection to 18th Ave.
due to traffic issues, specifically because large amounts of traffic would be
diverted to Springmont and the condos.
He said that the plan with no connection to 18th Ave. does
not make sense and he wanted to see the connection to 18th Ave.
The applicant asked about signage for 18th Ave.
Ron DeGood said that signage could be provided to require vehicles to
yield southbound at 18th Ave.
The applicant said that this would be a “T” intersection or maybe even
a three-way stop. He said that the
reason they had proposed the Springmont intersection was because it was a
four-way intersection. He said that the
more devious people would take Edson to get to east VanBuren and cut through to
14th Ave. and this plan purposely discouraged this. He said that most traffic wanted to go east
on Edson and north on 18th Ave.
He said that there were four condos on Edson and not many
driveways. He said that the Road
Commission and the Fire Chief had approved this plan.
The zoning administrator said that she had spoken with the Fire Chief
and it was not correct to say that he approved the plan; rather he had said
that fire protection would be provided for the houses whichever way the plan
was approved. She said that she had also
spoken with Brett Laughlin at the Road Commission and he said that he would
work with the Township depending on what the Township wants.
Moved by Stasiak, seconded by Pearson, to open the floor to public
comments as long at the items brought up are things that the Planning
Commission has authority over.
The chairman said that he preferred to keep public comments closed
because most comments made by the public were concerning items that the
Planning Commission had no control over.
David Poskey said that he preferred to keep it closed for the same
reason.
Yeas: Stasiak, Huizinga,
Pearson
Nays: South, DeGood, Honderd,
Poskey
MOTION DEFEATED.
The planner said that he preferred to have the connection to 18th
Ave. because there would be better distribution of traffic. He said that the plan should be tabled
because it should be revised to reflect six outstanding items, including the
following:
1. The
location, pavement width and right-of-way width of all abutting roads, streets,
alleys or easements.
2. The
existing zoning and use of all properties abutting the subject property.
3. The
location of all existing vegetation and the location, type, and size of all
proposed landscaping, and the location, height and type of existing and
proposed fences and walls.
4. The
size (in acres) of the subject property.
5. The location of any proposed signage used to identify this development. Any new
signs must be in conformance with Section 25, “Signs”.
6. Add the following notes to the General Notes list:
- Maximum building heights will not exceed 2 ½ stories, or 35 feet.
- A minimum two parking spaces will be provided for each dwelling unit.
Moved by Poskey, seconded by Stasiak, to remove the item from the
table.
MOTION CARRIED.
There was discussion regarding the items that needed to be revised on
the plan. The applicant asked that the
Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Board for action on this plan
without the revisions and without the connection to 18th Ave. The applicant asked if he could come back to
the Planning Commission in August with a revised plan that shows the 18th
Ave. connection and the additional revisions if the Board denies this plan.
The zoning administrator said that the application would have to be
resubmitted with another fee and go through the whole process if it was acted
upon and denied by the Board.
The chairman directed that this situation be brought to the attention
of the Board and a tabling motion be requested rather than a denial so that the
applicant could return to the Planning Commission with a revised plan in August
rather than a resubmittal if the Board does not want to approve the plan with
no connection to 18th Ave.
Moved by Poskey, seconded by South, to recommend to the Township Board
denial of the plan as shown on the drawing dated 6/03/05 because a majority of
the Planning Commission is in favor of a connection to 18th Ave. and
no connection to 18th Ave. is shown on the plan, plus the plan needs
to be revised to address the following six items:
1. The
location, pavement width and right-of-way width of all abutting roads, streets,
alleys or easements.
2. The
existing zoning and use of all properties abutting the subject property.
3. The
location of all existing vegetation and the location, type, and size of all proposed
landscaping, and the location, height and type of existing and proposed fences
and walls.
4. The
size (in acres) of the subject property.
5. The location of any proposed signage used to identify this development. Any new
signs must be in conformance with Section 25, “Signs”.
6. Add the following notes to the General Notes list:
- Maximum building heights will not exceed 2 ½ stories, or 35 feet.
- A minimum two parking spaces will be provided for each dwelling unit.
Yeas: Pearson, Poskey, Honderd,
DeGood, South
Nays: Huizinga, Stasiak
MOTION CARRIED.
IV. New
Business
A.
Site Plans-none
B. Public Hearings
1.
Special Use Permits
a. (SUP0505) Daybreak Church (Owen-Ames-Kimbal Co.), 300 Ionia Ave. NW, Grand Rapids, is requesting to have a church (addition to existing church) under Sec. 6.3(Q), on parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-17-200-022 and -016, located at 3501 Baldwin St., in (AG) Agriculture and (RR) Rural Residential districts
No special use permit was ever granted for the church even though numerous site plans have been approved throughout the years. Since they are changing the site by adding a youth building, the current ordinance must be met and a special use permit for a church must be obtained. The site meets the special use standards by having over 200 feet of frontage on Baldwin and 36th Ave. and is 32.74 acres.
Ed Hoover, Owen-Ames-Kimball Co., represented the applicant and presented the request. He said that this would be an addition connected with a corridor and ramp.
The planner presented a review.
The applicant said that the parking requirements should not change because with the addition of the youth building, they were not increasing the number of people. He said that the lawn area had a prairie-look and the biggest change was the detention pond. He said that the reason was because they had not submitted the plans to the Drain Commissioner in the past and now were required to meet the new ordinance. He said that they would only connect to water because the sanitary sewer was ¼ of a mile down the street. He said that they did not know at this time what the use of the south parcel would be. He said that the landscaping would not change.
The planner said that a streetscape would be required along 36th Ave. There was discussion regarding the landscaping along 36th Ave. which the ordinance requires in a residential district. The zoning administrator noted that the ordinance defines a residential district as including the agriculture district. The applicant was directed to show a landscaping legend.
It was noted that there were nine items that had to be revised on the plan, including building elevations, landscaping, lighting, drainage, signage, parking and circulation, refuse, streetscaping and setbacks.
The Planning Commission directed that the request be advertised for a public hearing for the next meeting.
b. (SUP0506) Macatawa Bank (GMB Architects/Engineers), 85 East Eighth St., Holland, is requesting to have a drive-in bank under Sec. 15.3(A), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-13-300-076, located at 520 Baldwin St., in a (CS) Community Service Commercial district
Mike Buitendorp, GMB
Architects/Engineers, represented the applicant and presented the request. The proposed bank would replace the existing
Eye on Video store and there would be a hill in the rear year that would be
greenspace.
The planner
presented a review and asked about existing landscaping and building
height. There was discussion regarding
site lighting and circulation. A suggestion
was made to rotate the building. The
applicant was directed to show a floor plan with the number of teller spaces so
that parking requirements could be calculated.
It was also noted that approval from the Ottawa County Drain
Commissioner is required.
The zoning
administrator said that the reference to the city of Zeeland in the General
Notes should be corrected to state Georgetown Township. She noted that there are barriers and stop
signs along Baldwin between the current Eye on Video and the new 5th
3rd Bank building because people must have been driving over the
curb in this area to access Baldwin. She
asked if that curbing leading to Baldwin St. would be eliminated.
The applicant said
that landscaping would be added to the front and should eliminate the confusion
with the curbing leading to Baldwin. He
said that if they rotated the building, they would lose parking in the front
for easy access.
Greg Honderd said
that there could be a stacking problem and that circulation should be one-way
all the way around the site.
Del South said that
cars could stack up to get out to Baldwin.
The applicant said
that they needed two-way access from the service drive.
The Planning
Commission directed that the request be advertised for a public hearing for the
next meeting.
2.
Rezonings-none
3. Plats
a. Preliminary Plat of Lowing
Woods No. 3
b. Preliminary Plat of Lowing
Woods No. 4
4. PUD’s
a. (PUD0406-2) Final Development Plan-Phase
2 Eastbrook
Development (Lowing Woods No. 3)
b. (PUD0406-3) Final Development Plan-Phase
3 Eastbrook
Development (Lowing Woods No. 4)
The preliminary
plats and final development plans were discussed simultaneously since it was
the same plan for all. Dale Kraker
represented the applicant and presented the request. A landscaping plan was presented for the
entrance to the plat.
The planner presented
a review. A table was requested with the
total number of residential units and open space.
5.
Ordinance Amendments-none
V.
Other Business
The Planning
Commissioners asked that a new procedure be developed that would ensure that
application submission materials met simple ordinance requirements like
setbacks prior to being placed on an agenda.
The planner suggested that pre-application meetings be required. The zoning administrator volunteered to
compile new procedures for applications and present them to the Planning
Commission for review.
VI.
Other Business
VII. Commissioner Comments
VIII. Staff Comments
IX. Adjourn
The meeting was
adjourned at 9:30 p.m.