PC minutes 1-4-06

Minutes of the work session of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission held Wednesday, January 4, 2006

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

Present: DeGood, Honderd, Stasiak, South, Huizinga, Poskey, Pearson

Absent: none

The work session, which formulated the agenda for January 18, 2006, included the following items to be placed on the agenda, discussion, and action:

I. Approval of agenda

II. Approval of minutes of the December 21, 2005 regular meeting and the January 4, 2006 work session meeting

III. Unfinished Business

A. (SUP0513) Orion Construction (Integrated Architecture), 2020 Raybrook Ave., is

requesting to have a restaurant under Sec. 13.3(B), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-17-300-009, located at 7559 36^th Ave., in a (OS) Office Service District, Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan.

The Planning Commission had recommended denial of the special use permit request for a restaurant and tabled the site plan for revisions relating to the design and location of the building on the site. The Board will consider the special use request at the January 9, 2006 meeting. No new information is available at this time. The item was left tabled.

B. (REZ0506) To change from (LDR) Low Density Residential and (RR) Rural Residential to

(LMR) Low Medium Density Residential parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-18-300-022 and -021, located at 4724 Baldwin and 7448 48^th Ave., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. plat

The application was tabled at the PC meeting on December 21, 2005 at the request of the applicant. At the December 7 work session the determination was made that the lots would be non-conforming if rezoned to LMR since no sewer is available to service the area and it is required by footnote (e) of Chapter 24. Upon appeal to the ZBA, the ZBA concurred with the determination. Consequently, the applicant has applied for ordinance amendments and the review for the proposed amendment follows in the order of the agenda. The item was left tabled.

IV. New Business

A. Site Plans-none

B. Public Hearings

1. Special Use Permits

a. (SUP0601) Chapel Pointe, 1675 Baldwin St., is requesting to have a church under Sec. 7.3(A) and 6.3(Q), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-17-400-024, located at 3350 Baldwin, in a (RR) Rural Residential district

Dave Stevens, church member, represented the applicant and presented the request, which is to construct a 37,270 square foot church building on 19.35 acres in a Rural Residential district. He said that this was the first phase.

The zoning administrator presented a review and noted that the following issues remain:

· If any of the houses and structures located in Grand View Estates are located within 100 feet of the boundary, they must be shown. The applicant has indicated that they will be shown on the revised plan to be submitted after the work session.

· The building is noted as 37,270 square feet in area with a height of 30’8”, which is less than the 35 ft. maximum permitted. Dimensions of the structure should be provided.

· Aisle ways in the parking lot must be a minimum of 24 feet for two-way traffic and the dimension should be noted.

· A note on the plan states that the ground mounted sign will comply with Township ordinances. More detail should be provided, including size in square feet, height in feet, and distance from the centerline of Baldwin. An institutional bulletin board (commonly used by churches) could be a maximum of 6 feet high, with 75 square feet in area, and setback 85 feet from the centerline of Baldwin.

· Exterior lighting details are provided; however, a note should be added stipulating that the lights meet the requirements of Sec. 26.3(C) by being deflected away from adjacent residential areas and installed in such a manner as to allow the reduction of the amount of light on other than normal parking hours, and the source of light shall not be more than 25 feet in residential areas.

· A note should be added stating that the existing woods along the east and south property lines will remain and if removed would be replace with a greenbelt in accordance with Sec. 311.

· No decel lane is provided. The PC could decide if the amount of traffic generated for the services and occasional weeknight services would warrant a decel/accel lane.

· Consideration could be given to a gate being provided across the driveway leading to Staci Dr. to discourage cut-through traffic.

· No elevations are available at this time for the proposed 60 by 80 ft. ministry building, but a note has been provided regarding the exterior. Either the elevations could be required to be submitted or a condition of approval could be added requiring a review by the zoning administrator at the time of building permit submission that the exterior is compatible and similar to the main building.

· The walking area that dissects the parking lot could be labeled as a grassed area.

South said that the zoning administrator could review the elevations for the youth building at the time the building permit application was submitted to the Township. He said that there should be a decel lane if the Road Commission agreed because they have been required for other developments on Baldwin.

Stasiak said that a decel lane should be provided due to the size of the church and the amount of attendance. He commented on the Fire Department memo requiring an eight-inch water main to be a looped system and that the location of the hydrants should be determined by the Fire Department.

Honderd said that there should be a decel lane because even if it is not needed now, it would be needed in the future when the usage at the church increases.

Pearson asked about the connection to Staci Drive and the youth building.

The applicant said that the building was in phase 2 and they had no time line.

The Planning Commission directed that the notice for the public hearing be published.

b. (SUP0602) Aukeman Development, One Royal Park Drive, Zeeland, is requesting to have commercial soil removal under Sec. 6.3(L), on parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-29-200-036, 70-14-29-200-037, 70-14-29-200-039, 70-14-28-100-031 and 70-14-28-100-032, located at 3290 and 3326 Harrison and Balsum Dr., in a (RR) Rural Residential district and (AG) Agriculture district, Georgetown Township (& City of Hudsonville), Ottawa County, MI

Todd Stuive, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the review.

The zoning administrator presented a review and noted that there had been a meeting at the Township on December 28, 2005 with the applicant and boundary issues have been resolved by the elimination of the structures that span the municipal boundaries. The application is for a special use permit for commercial soil removal for properties that abut the City of Hudsonville and P.P.# 70-14-28-100-031, -032 are actually located within the City of Hudsonville. Activity in the form of topsoil stockpiling is also shown on P.P. # 70-14-29-200-039 and this parcel has now been included in the application. A mineral mining license application was also submitted to the Township office and a meeting is to be scheduled. The proposal shows the reclamation plan as a condominium development that is adjacent to the ponds that would be created with this special use permit. The concerns relative to the reclamation plan have adequately been addressed by the removal of the condos that span the boundary line of Georgetown Township and the City of Hudsonville. The new proposal appears to have sufficient setbacks. The issue of the qualifying condition of being consistent with the Master Plan would be addressed at the time of the application for the PUD because now it appears (with information obtained from the county) that this area is not in the muck soils. Radii have been shown. The only issue that remains is the DEQ Permit should be signed.

Stasiak asked if the pond abuts Harrison.

South asked about the impact on the water from the big pond.

Stuive said that the pond currently exists and would not lower the water table. He said that nothing was required in this regard.

The Planning Commission directed that the notice for the public hearing be published.

2. Rezonings-none

3. Plats-none

4. PUD’s

a. (PUD0601) Riverview Trails Development Group (Tara Westhouse), 3133 Beechcrest Dr., is requesting a Planned Unit Development for condominium housing (housing for the elderly) and office commercial related services for seniors (elderly) under Chapter 22, on parcels of described as and located at:

P.P. # 70-14-13-100-026, 7784 Cottonwood, P.P. # 70-14-13-100-032, 7804 Cottonwood, P.P. # 70-14-13-100-033, 7802 Cottonwood, P.P. # 70-14-13-100-043, 7746 Cottonwood, Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. view1, view2, view3

Tara Westhouse represented the applicant and noted that Rich DeVray was also present. The proposal is to construct a 194,120 square foot three-story 39’8” high building with 106 condominium units with housing for the elderly and a two story office building for supporting office-type commercial uses on 10.7 acres.

The zoning administrator presented a review from the planner including the following summary:

Density:

While the subject site is recognized as a transitional property between high and low density development designations, 106 units are too intense to operate as a transitional use in this land use context. LSL recommends that the density on the subject property be within twenty (20) percent of the density, or approximately 18 units above, that permitted in the LDR District given the density of adjacent properties.

Site Design:

Additional pedestrian ways should be provided to facilitate safe pedestrian movement. A sidewalk should be provided from the walk surrounding the office building to the sidewalk along Cottonwood Drive. A walkway should surround the building. Striped pedestrian markings should be provided on the pavement between the open space pathway access points to the building. Low-illumination pole lights could be located along the pathway within the open space area to encourage safe pedestrian activity.

Additional window treatments and a combination of roof pitches are also suggested to achieve a more residential feel. An additional method to break the massing and obtain a more residential feel, as well as provide design consistency with the adjacent apartment complex, is to provide multiple buildings with varying heights not to exceed 35 feet. The square footage of each building should be dictated by the LDR District setback requirements and use parking needs, as well as landscaping and open space requirements.

The purpose of the entry gate is questioned since cross access between properties will be provided. A substandard two-way drive aisle (20 feet where 24 feet is required) needs to be revised within the carport parking area.

Uses:

The operation of horse training is considered a riding stable or breeding stable under current Ordinance definitions and is not a permitted or special land use in the LDR or OS District, and is therefore not a permitted activity. As a result, the pasture area should be deleted from the site plan.

Site Plan Review:

The site plan should include both the number of required and provided parking spaces, maintenance building and office building elevation details, and sign details.

The zoning administrator presented an additional summary that had been prepared including:

· Determination has yet to be made whether or not the acreage qualifying condition is met. The proposed PUD has 10.7 acres. Sec. 22.2A states that a PUD with a mixture of residential and commercial uses shall be 20 acres; however, the PC may consider a PUD with less acreage if the proposed PUD provides substantially for the intention of a PUD. The Planning Commission must determine if the proposal substantially provides for the intention of the PUD in order to consider this application. During the review of this qualifying condition, the Planning Commission could consider if the proposed plan shows innovation in land use, design and layout in order to achieve economy and efficiency in the use of land, natural resources, energy and the provisions of public services, and if it creates a better living/working environment. Or does the applicant merely make use of the PUD process as an avenue to provide a plan that has a more intense use (with 106 units and a three story building) than what would be currently permitted in the zoning district. Although apartments are located adjacent to the south and east of the site, single family houses are located to the northwest. Under the current zoning of LDR, a special use permit could be approved for housing for the elderly with only 75 units (with 1/3 independent, 1/3 intermediate care and 1/3 nursing care) and a building with a maximum height of 35 feet and 2.5 stories (not the height of 39’8” and three stories). In addition, an office building could be constructed by right on the portion of the property zoned OS. However, the applicant has indicated that it would not be economically feasible to construct the project with fewer units. The applicant had discussed requesting a rezoning to the HDR designation to accommodate the number of units, but would still not be allowed to building the three story 39’8” high building. The Planning Commission should not necessarily take the profit margin into consideration when debating this qualifying condition.

· The project encompasses 4 parcels and the parcels should be combined.

· One area where more pathways could be added is to provide a sidewalk from the residential structure to the office building without traversing the parking spaces.

· The Planning Commission will have to determine if the height of 39’8” is acceptable since the ordinance permits a maximum height of 35 ft. in the LDR district and 25 ft. in the OS district. While the proposed building is adjacent to the apartments on the southeast, single family residents are located to the northwest. A fountain and bus stop shelter are proposed for the entrance area.

· The applicants were notified that one of the Fire Codes require that the entrance/exit be a minimum of 20 feet in order for a fire truck to adequately access this site. The entrance/exit drives have been left at 16 feet and must be widened to 20 feet.

· The plan lists the open space as 3.7 acres or 34%, which exceeds the 20% requirement. This area does include the detention facility and pond as open space, which the ordinance excludes unless the Planning Commission determines this area to be usable due to the addition of interpretive boardwalks/walkways etc. This area does includes walking paths, gazebo and picnic shelter which could make the area useable (as the PC determined in a similar situation with the pond in the Unity Timbers PUD).

· Greenbelts are not provided to screen the office use from the residential use.

· The zoning of abutting properties is shown, but uses have been not been shown to the northwest.

· Two dumpsters are proposed and notes indicate that they will be screened with a solid fence. Materials should be noted.

· A pedestrian walkway should be shown from the residential building to the office building.

· Two signs are shown as brick or stone and 8 feet wide and 6 feet high with 48 square feet in area to be located a distance of 45 feet from the centerline of Cottonwood. For a development of this type in the LDR district, the ordinance permits two signs per multi-family development a maximum of 64 square feet in area and a maximum of 3 feet high and to be located a minimum of 70 feet from the centerline of Cottonwood. The proposed signs meet the square footage requirement, but are 3 feet higher than the 3 feet allowed and are located 25 feet closer to the centerline of Cottonwood than the ordinance permits. Since PUDs have flexible zoning, the Planning Commission would have to determine if the proposed signs are acceptable. The 6 feet in height might pose a clear vision problem since they are higher than a vehicle and are proposed to be located very close to Cottonwood. The Planning Commission might want to consider requiring the signs to be moved back to the distance as required by the ordinance and/or a reduction in height to alleviate the clear vision issue.

· Lighting details have been provided and a note added to the plan that the lighting will be downward directed and shielded from adjacent properties. However, a light is shown within the 10 foot side yard setback adjacent to the residential area. It may be more appropriate for the light to be moved farther away from the side property line.

· The currently non-conforming use of farm animals (horses) is proposed for the amount of time the current resident of the site would live in the proposed residential building.

The zoning administrator presented the Fire Department memo which states that the entrance and exit must be 20 feet wide. In addition, the fire road around the building must be at least 26 feet wide and have radii sufficient enough to accommodate the aerial truck with a length of 49 feet. The Fire Department would determine the location of fire hydrants.

Stasiak was concerned with the proposed height of the building and with the density. He said that it was 4 feet higher than permitted and they could get creative with roof lines and window treatments. He said that although this was a transitional area with the apartments on one side, the building should be softened and the density should be cut back.

Honderd said that there were similarities and differences with the new Sunset Manor. He said that the higher building should be keep away from the residential area. He said that the driving patterns and abilities of these residents would be different and they would not generally hit the rush hour traffic.

Huizinga said that the density was too intense.

Poskey said that this property was stuck with the LDR density and that the building heights should be addressed with roof pitches.

Pearson said that this was not a transitional use because it was too large in mass and scale for the LDR district. He said that this was just a big box and more should be done with the architecture and the height should be brought down for a more residential look.

South said that this proposal had mixed uses with only 10.7 acres and the ordinance said that there should be 20 acres for a mixed use. He said that the Township was already conceding something. He said that he does not agree with the height and density. He said that there would be less density if the height was lowered. He said that the horses could be allowed to stay for now and be removed as the development proceeds. He said that there probably would not be much traffic other than from those who live there. He said that the fire truck needs a road that could accommodate the size.

DeGood said that he comes out to the vet and it is impossible to make a left turn. He said that this is a really busy street and this would add a lot of traffic. He said that it should be a two story building because three stories is too much.

South asked about the decel lane and noted that it was provided.

Westhouse said that the request was still substantially consistent with the Master Plan and it was a good transitional use for the LDR district. She said that senior housing has less impact for the density than an apartment complex would. She said that the intent was to have affordable housing for the elderly and keep a variety of pricing. She said that her narrative said that they were consistent even with the higher density and they were shifting the open spaces due to the floodplain issues and this increases costs. She said that if they reduce the number of units, it was not feasible and would not be affordable. She said that the Master Plan encourages use of the land economically and efficiently and they need the density due to the floodplain. She said that it was not realistic to use this land as LDR.

Rich DeVray said that they wanted to construct a three-story building with 106 units because they would address the need for a different market to keep them affordable. He said that other places like Sunset and Amsterdam have a niche for a different market. He said that if they lower the number of units, they take the price out of the ball park. He said that they need the higher density for the numbers to work and it wouldn’t work if the building was lower and there were fewer units.

Honderd asked if they looked into purchasing the property to the northwest and the applicant said that they had purchased 4 parcels already.

Westhouse said that this would not negatively impact the area because there was a cul de sac behind with a pasture and barn, and there would be sufficient buffer for the house.

Stasiak said that they should lower the density and height to be more consistent with the area. He said that there should be more creativity since this area had high visibility. He said that the building was just a big box and he was not in favor of the density or height. He said that there was no elevation for the office building.

Honderd said that the density should be compared to the new Sunset development. He said that it was okay to use the water as open space and that it was good because they would not be tempted to build on it. He said that the density was too much for the site.

Huizinga said that it was too much for the site and asked about the future development. He was told it could be a pool and would not be additional units.

Poskey said that it was too much for the site. He said that he did understand the economics; however, that was not something that the Planning Commission should consider.

Pearson said that it was too much for the site and the proposal was not as transitional as it could be with the big three-story box building.

South said that they should stay consist with the ordinance and that the height and density should be lower. He said that the open space was okay.

DeGood said that the number of units was too high.

The consensus of the Planning Commission was that the plan should be revised to closer meet the ordinance requirements before it was viewed by the public and the notice for a public hearing should not be published.

The applicant said that if the concern was about the boxy look of the building, that it was just a preliminary sketch.

Honderd suggested that the applicant look at the plan for Sunset Manor at 18^th Ave. and Port Sheldon to see the distance of the building to the residential area and the architectural features.

Poskey said that the Sunset site was different because the property drops off and is lower than street level.

Honderd said that the distance to the neighboring residents is also greater for Sunset.

Pearson said that he was still concerned with the height.

Honderd said that this building is too close to the lot line and Sunset is farther away.

DeGood said that density is an issue, too, and the planner said that they should go a maximum of 20% higher which would be 75 +18=93 units because 106 units is too much.

Huizinga said that with a smaller footprint they would have a smaller looking building.

Poskey said that with the 35 units over the maximum units permitted in the LDR, this was more like 50% over instead of 20% over.

Honderd said that if the site to the northwest was incorporated, the density would be less and there would be a greater buffer.

The applicant said that the proposal was substantially consistent with the Master Plan and it offered a variety of pricing, as well as being an economical and efficient use of the land. She said that the current owners were at a disadvantage and had a hard time trying to sell the property because of floodplain and DEQ issues.

The decision was made to not schedule the public hearing and to review a revised plan at the next meeting.

5. Ordinance Amendments

a. (REZ0601)-Chapter 24 (e) and (f), Sec. 22.2(B)

The following is the proposed text amendment by the applicant:

Chapter 24

(e) All lots shall be serviced by public water and sanitary sewer (installation of dry sewer mains fulfills this obligation on installed sewer when parcels have a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet).

(f) All two family dwelling structures shall have a minimum lot area of fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet and a minimum lot width of one hundred twenty (120) feet, provided when public water and sanitary sewer are available (installation of dry sewer mains fulfills this obligation on installed sewer) the minimum frontage requirement is reduced to one hundred (100) feet and the lot area is reduced to fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet.

Sec. 22.2(B)

B. Utilities: All PUD's shall be served by public water and sanitary sewer facilities (installation of dry sewer mains fulfills this obligation on installed sewer) (Planning Commission may waive this requirement of being served by public water and sanitary sewer facilities in areas outside of the Master Planned service districts). Stormwater must be coordinated with the county drain commission.

The zoning administrator presented a review. Champion LLC requested the rezoning of (REZ0506) to change from (LDR) Low Density Residential and (RR) Rural Residential to (LMR) Low Medium Density Residential parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-18-300-022 and -021, located at 4724 Baldwin and 7448 48^th Ave. (plat). At the Planning Commission work session on December 7, 2005, the review presented the determination that rezoning the parcels to LMR would create non-conforming lots because the ordinance requires that lots in LMR be serviced by water and sewer. The ordinance did not state that dry sewer fulfills the requirement. The Director of the DPW Department said that sewer is not available to service these parcels. The applicant appealed the determination to the ZBA and they concurred with the determination.

The applicant has applied to amend footnote (e) of the ordinance to state that dry sewer does fulfill the requirement if the lots have a minimum size of 12,000 square feet (which is the same size required by the state for parcels without sewer) and to eliminate footnote (f) for the LMR district because two family dwelling are not permitted anyway and this is confusing. In addition, the applicant has asked to amend the PUD ordinance to allow a PUD to have dry sewer to fulfill the requirement of sanitary sewer and to allow the PC to waive the requirement of water and sewer if the property is located in an area outside of the Master Planned service districts.

It was noted that the request was not for the whole footnote (f) to be deleted, but rather for it to be deleted only as it applies to LMR.

Steve Smit, Focus Engineering, represents Champion LLC and said that he was requesting the change to make more affordable lots with less cost based on the frontage. He said that this change was the key to affordability.

Stasiak asked who paid the hookup fees if the lots were installed with dry sewer and septic.

Smit said that the homeowner would have to immediately hook up when sewer became available.

The zoning administrator said that this has been a problem for the Township to monitor because many people have hooked up by themselves without informing the Township and use the sewer without paying. She said that the Township has to keep track of the dry sewers and annually inspect the houses with dry sewer to see if they have hooked up..

Smit said that the people would be required to pay and immediately hook up when the sewer is available.

Stasiak said that the cost to hook up in the future would negate any savings for the homeowner.

Honderd said the homeowner would pay for the septic, pay for the dry sewer and then pay again to hook up.

Poskey said that the developer should be required to pay the hook up fees and then it would be apparent that there would be no savings.

Honderd said that the way it is currently done is a simpler way with just requiring LMR lots to have live sewer.

The zoning administrator said that if the amendment to the PUD ordinance would be approved to allow PUDs to have dry sewer, many developers would be pushing to develop parcels in the west of the Township prematurely because many come in now looking for ways to do it. She suggested that if the Planning Commission wanted to allow PUDs in some areas with dry sewer, there should be either specific conditions or areas stipulated so that there would not be problems with premature development in the western part of the Township.

Poskey said that he was not in favor of approving the amendments.

Honderd said that he did not think that the amendments should apply to the western end of the Township but might work for areas like Bend Dr. off Fillmore or areas in the southeastern end of the Township.

Smit said that the wording could say that the dry sewers would be allowed in PUDs that are outside the Master Plan service district. He said that the northwest of the Township would be serviced, just not yet. He said that there are areas outside of the planned service district in the southeast end of the Township by I-196. He said that there are some sandy soils and this would not conflict with subdivisions or plats that must have sewer, but could have drain fields and sewers.

South said that the small lots in LMR must be served by live sewer.

The applicant said that the Health Department basically determines if the soils are acceptable for drain fields.

Honderd said that he would only be in favor if the Board directed the planner to review areas and if the amendment was needed to spur development in certain areas. Otherwise he was against the amendments.