Minutes of the
regular meeting of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission, held Wednesday,
March 15, 2006
Meeting called to order by
Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Honderd, Poskey, Huizinga, South,
Pearson, Stasiak
Absent: DeGood
#060315-01 - Agenda for March 15, 2006
Moved by
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060315-02 - Minutes of the February 15, 2006 regular meeting and the March 1, 2006 work
session meeting
Moved by Michael Pearson, seconded by David Poskey, to
approve the minutes of the February 15, 2006 regular meeting,
as submitted.
MOTION
CARRIED.
Moved by Ed Stasiak, seconded by
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060315-03 - Unfinished Business (SUP0513) Orion Construction, 7559
36th Ave.
The
Planning Commission recommended denial of the special use permit request for a
restaurant and the Board denied it on January 9, 2006. The Planning Commission tabled the site plan
for revisions relating to the design and location of the building on the site,
and for references to the restaurant. No
new information is available at this time.
The
item was left tabled.
#060315-04 – Unfinished Business- Planned Unit
Development (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
(no new information)
The
applicant had submitted a letter asking for more time to research options. No action was taken.
#060315-05 - (PUD0603) Ed DeVries Properties Inc.,
located at the southwest corner of 44th St. and 8th
Ave. at Gleneagle Highlands Dr.
The
application is scheduled for further review on April 12, 2006 and a public hearing
is scheduled for April 19, 2006. No
review and no action was taken on the item.
#060315-06 - Site Plans-(ST0602) Jore
Retail,
Bob
Pomeroy, Cox Medendorp Olson Architects, Inc., represented the applicant and
presented the request. He stated that
the comments made at the work session were taken into consideration and they
had resubmitted the site plan with the recommended changes as follows. The
revised plan proposes a compromise that would provide 9 feet of landscaped area
along the entire width of the parcel in addition to six pods of a landscaped
area. Angled parking is shown along
The
planner presented a review. The proposal
is for the existing 5,851 square foot building currently used by the Booker
Institute to be demolished and a 9,067 square foot addition to be constructed
attached to and aligned with the existing 16,013 square foot building. Another 3,467 square foot addition is shown
on the northeast of the building.
Parking along the right-of-way has been moved toward the building and
angled to provide for a 9 foot landscaped area that shows 18 trees which meets
the ordinance requirements. In addition,
pods have been shown adjacent to the two driveway accesses and in the area of
the sign. Additional parking is shown to
the southeast of the building and the refrigeration units are noted to be
removed. The site is located in a
floodplain and proposed elevations show construction over one foot above the
floodplain. According to information
provided in the application the uses would be for a commercial school permitted
under Sec. 13.2(F) and for other retail uses permitted under Sec. 15.2(B),
which are uses permitted in the Highway Service Commercial district. He further stated that he felt a good
compromised had been achieved however he felt the Planning Commission should
consider requesting that the drive approaches be curb to keep the site looking
cleaner and preserving the landscaped areas.
He also suggested they look at the closing of one of the driveways which
would allow a few more parking spaces.
The
chairman opened the floor to public comments.
Discussion
took place among the members of the planning commission, the planner, the applicant
Mr. Booker and Bob Pomeroy, Cox Medendorp Olson Architects, Inc. The discussion included but was not limited
to opinions on landscaping, curbing, parking, removal of the driveway and
elevations. Mr. Booker stated that
although he appreciated the input and what the Planning Commission members were
trying to achieve he was becoming frustrated with all the requirements being
placed on his proposed site changes. He
is already spending a great deal of money for the proposed changes as they
currently stand and the reality is he could leave the site just as it is. Greg Honderd explained that the Planning
Commission has made their recommendations as outlined below and that it is his
choice if makes any or all of those changes in time for the next meeting.
The
chairman closed the floor to public comments.
The Planning Commission recommended the
following:
1.
Landscaping/Curbing- The general consensus was that the landscaping plan needs to be
dressed up a little bit, to include a little more variety which might include
some ground covering. It is required
that a new landscape plan submitted prior to a building permit being issued.
Curbing will be required as it gives a cleaner appearance and provides
protection to the landscaped area.
2.
Parking:
Members of the Planning Commission had concern regarding the number of parking
spaces with regard to the parking needs of the future tenant who occupies the
space. Planning Commission reminded
applicant that if there are request for any future site changes the parking
issue will arise again.
3.
Elevation:
Planning Commission accepted the elevation.
4.
Removal of one driveway: The majority of the Planning Commission members wanted
one driveway closed, which would result in 3-4 more parking spaces.
Moved
by Cornelius Huizinga, seconded by Ed Stasiak, to approve the site plan for
Jore Retail at
1.
The refrigeration
units must be removed prior to a building permit being issued for the
construction of either of the additions;
2.
A Zoning
Compliance Certificate must be obtained for each new tenant in the building;
3.
An as-built
Elevation Certificate must be provided prior to occupying either of the new
additions.
4.
Raised Curbing
provided at driveways.
5.
Landscape plan be
provided prior to a building permit being issued for construction of either of
the additions.
6.
Engineer to
provide certification that existing location of addition is not in the
floodplain.
MOTION
DENIED.
Yeahs:
Cornelius Huizinga, Ed Stasiak
Neahs:
Greg Honderd,
Moved
by David Poskey, seconded by
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060315-07 - Rezoning (REZ0602) To change from (RR) Rural
Residential to (LDR) Low Density
Residential parcels of land described as P.P. #
70-14-09-200-005 and -014, located at
With
motion #051128-24, the Township Board initiated the rezoning of all spot zoned
parcels in the Township. At the December
7, 2005 meeting, the Planning Commission directed that those spot zoned parcels
be considered for rezoning and the notices to be published along with other
legal ads. The above two areas (two
adjacent parcels on 24th Ave. and one parcel on Bauer) are spot
zoned areas that are zoned RR, but are surrounded by LDR. They would be conforming in regards to lot
width and area if rezoned to LDR. All
are designated as LDR on the Future Land Use Map. There are non-conforming issues (such as
setbacks and an accessory building in the front yard); however, rezoning these
properties to LDR will not increase any of the nonconforming issues that
currently exist.
At
the last meeting, the Planning Commission approved a motion to inform the
property owners of the consideration for rezoning their property. Letters were sent, in addition to the
property notices, explaining to each property owner of the consideration for
rezoning, along with pertinent information regarding the meeting date and time,
and instructions to call the Township if they have questions or concerns. Copies of the letters were including in the
files.
The
planner presented a review.
1.
Rezoning to LDR
would be consistent with the Future Land Use Map.
2.
The parcels are
capable of being used in the LDR designation and basically are used according
to the LDR designation now.
3.
The LDR
designation would be more compatible with the surrounding areas since the
surrounding areas are already zoned LDR.
The
chairman opened the public hearing. The property
owner Della Braun was present and spoke of her reluctance to agree to have her
property rezoned. Her greatest concern
came from not being able to burn her brush pile that is large and she has no
way to have hauled off of her property.
Ed Francik, 2511 Willowview, asked for an explanation of the difference
between the two types of zoning and the Planner explained.
The
chairman closed the public hearing.
Moved
by David Poskey, seconded by Ed Stasiak , to recommend to the Township Board
denial of the Rezoning request (maps)
(REZ0602) To
change from (RR) Rural Residential to (LDR) Low Density Residential parcels of
land described as P.P. # 70-14-09-200-005 and -014, located at 8745 24th
Ave., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, because rezoning the
property is against the homeowners wishes.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060315-08 - (REZ0603) To change from (RR) Rural Residential to (LDR) Low Density Residential
parcels of land described as P.P. #
70-14-09-300-018, located at
With
motion #051128-24, the Township Board initiated the rezoning of all spot zoned
parcels in the Township. At the December
7, 2005 meeting, the Planning Commission directed that those spot zoned parcels
be considered for rezoning and the notices to be published along with other
legal ads. The above two areas (two
adjacent parcels on 24th Ave. and one parcel on Bauer) are spot
zoned areas that are zoned RR, but are surrounded by LDR. They would be conforming in regards to lot
width and area if rezoned to LDR. All
are designated as LDR on the Future Land Use Map. There are non-conforming issues (such as
setbacks and an accessory building in the front yard); however, rezoning these
properties to LDR will not increase any of the nonconforming issues that
currently exist.
At
the last meeting, the Planning Commission approved a motion to inform the
property owners of the consideration for rezoning their property. Letters were sent, in addition to the
property notices, explaining to each property owner of the consideration for
rezoning, along with pertinent information regarding the meeting date and time,
and instructions to call the Township if they have questions or concerns. Copies of the letters were including in the
files.
The
planner presented a review.
1.
Rezoning to LDR
would be consistent with the Future Land Use Map.
2.
The parcels are
capable of being used in the LDR designation and basically are used according
to the LDR designation now.
3.
The LDR
designation would be more compatible with the surrounding areas since the
surrounding areas are already zoned LDR.
The
chairman opened the public hearing. The
property owner, Jason Plaggemars, 2944 Bauer, asked if this will change how
close his neighbors can build to his property and the planner explained that it
doesn’t and in fact would change how close he could build to them. The property owner stated that he did not
have an issue with his property being rezoned.
The
chairman closed the public hearing.
Moved
by David Poskey, seconded by Michael Pearson , to recommend to the Township
Board approval of the Rezoning (maps)
((REZ0603) To
change from (RR) Rural Residential to (LDR) Low Density Residential parcels of
land described as P.P. # 70-14-09-300-018, located at 2944 Bauer Rd.,
Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, because rezoning the property
would be consistent with the Future Land
Use Map, the parcels are capable of being used in the LDR designation and
basically are used according to the LDR designation now, the LDR designation
would be more compatible with the surrounding areas since the surrounding areas
are already zoned LDR and the rezoning would eliminate a spot zoning situation.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060315-09 - (REZ0604) To change from (AG) Agriculture and (NS) Neighborhood
Service to (CS)
Community
Service Commercial a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-07-100-016 and
-017, located at 8500 and 8420 48th Ave., Georgetown Township,
Ottawa County, MI.
With
motion #060213-11, the Township Board unanimously approved a motion to form a
committee to determine ways to accept bids to privatize the ice arena at the
corner of Bauer Rd. and 48th Ave.
The Planning Commission initiated the rezoning at the February 15, 2006
meeting due to the fact that the site would be nonconforming as currently zoned
if purchased by a private party. At the
time the arena was built, it was a conforming use in the AG district as a
municipal building/use. However, if the
site becomes privately owned, it would be nonconforming since such a use is
only permitted in the CS district with a special use permit under
Sec.15.3(E). The Future Land Use Map
shows the whole corner as CS, consisting of the two Township-owned parcels.
The
planner presented a review.
1.
The rezoning to
CS would be consistent with the Future Land Use Map.
2.
The parcels are
capable of being used in the CS designation and basically are used according to
the CS designation now with the use of an ice arena. The only difference is that the use is
permitted under the current AG designation as a municipal building and would be
permitted with a special use permit in the CS district if owned by a private
party.
3.
The CS
designation would be compatible with the surrounding areas since it has been in
existence for nearly two years and has been compatible with the surrounding
areas during that time.
The
chairman opened the floor to public comments.
No one was present to speak on this topic.
The
chairman closed the floor to public comments.
Moved
by Ed Stasiak, seconded by David Poskey, to recommend to the Township Board
denial of the Rezoning request (maps)
(REZ0604) To change from (AG) Agriculture and (NS) Neighborhood
Service to (CS) Community Service Commercial parcels of land described as P.P.
# 70-14-07-100-016 and -017, located at 8500 and 8420 48th Ave.,
Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, MI.
MOTION DENIED
Yeahs: Ed Stasiak, David Poskey
Neahs:
Moved
by Michael Pearson, seconded by Cornelius Huizinga, to recommend to the
Township Board approval of the Rezoning request (maps)
(REZ0604) To change from (AG) Agriculture and (NS) Neighborhood
Service to (CS) Community Service Commercial parcels of land described as P.P.
# 70-14-07-100-016 and -017, located at 8500 and 8420 48th Ave.,
Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, MI., because rezoning the property would be consistent with the Future Land Use Map, the parcels
are capable of being used in the CS designation and basically are used
according to the CS designation now, the CS designation would be compatible
with the surrounding areas since the area to the north is zoned PUD with mixed
uses consisting of commercial and residential uses and the area to the west is
commercial, and this would eliminate a potential non-conforming situation if
the area becomes privately owned.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060315-10 - Ordinance Amendment Sec. 20.4 (H) (1) (f)
Commercial Soil Removal
The
Board initiated the Zoning Ordinance amendments to Sec. 20.4
The
planner presented a review.
Moved
by David Poskey, seconded by Michael Pearson, to recommend to the Township
Board approval of the zoning ordinance amendment to Sec. 20.4(H)(1)(f) as
follows to allow review and action by the only Mining Board rather than the
series of approvals necessary from the Planning Commission, Township Board,
Mining Board and possibly the ZBA:
Sec. 20.4
(H) Commercial soil removal.
(1) No soil,
sand, gravel, or other earth material shall be removed from any land within the
township without special land use approval, with the following exceptions:
a. When the earth removal is incidental to
an operation for which a building permit has been issued by the township;
b. When the earth removal involves any
normal landscaping, driveway installation and repairs, or other minor
projects;
c. The earth removal involves less than
100 cubic yards;
d. The earth removal is for the purpose of
constructing a swimming pool;
e. The earth removal will not be in
violation of any other section of this ordinance, other Township ordinance,
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act of 1972, or any other applicable
state or federal law.
f. A
mineral mining license has been approved by the Mineral Mining
Board and the operation complies with the terms and
provisions of
the mining license.
MOTION CARRIED.
#060315-11 - Ordinance Amendments-Sec. 25.6(A)
The
Board initiated the Zoning Ordinance amendments to Sec. 25.6.
The
chairman opened the floor to public comments.
Peggy, an employee of
The
chairman closed the floor to public comments.
Moved
by David Poskey, seconded by Ed Stasiak, to recommend to the Township Board to
table the request of the zoning ordinance amendment to Sec. 25.6(A) as outlined
below as the Planning Commission would like some amendments to the proposed
changes.
Sec. 25.6
(A) Residential Districts. The following types of signs are
permitted:
(6) PORTABLE
SIGN, one (1) portable sign per parcel, not exceeding thirty-two (32) square
feet in area per sign and set back at least ten (10)
feet from the road right-of-way line or distance as required in Chapter 24(b)
(revised 1-24-05). No electrical
cord attached to the sign shall extend more than six (6) feet from the power
source to the sign. Such sign shall not
be displayed for more than seven (7) consecutive days and shall not be
permitted more than six (6) such display periods during the calendar year. A separate permit and fee shall be required
for each display period and the permit sticker shall be affixed to the sign for
the entire display period.
(6) PORTABLE
SIGN, subject to the following restrictions:
The sign shall be set back at least ten (10) feet from
the road right-of-way line or from the distance as required in Chapter
24(b). No electrical cord attached to
the sign shall extend more than six (6) feet from the power source to the sign. A display period consists of a maximum of
seven (7) consecutive days. A separate
permit and fee shall be required for each display period and the permit sticker
shall be affixed to the sign for the entire display period.
a. Per
parcel (unless a business center)
1.
One (1) portable sign
displayed at a time not exceeding thirty-two (32) square feet in area per sign;
2.
Such sign shall not be
permitted more than four (4) such display periods during the calendar
year;
3.
If all display periods for
a calendar year have been used and evidence is submitted to the Township that a
new business has commenced on that parcel, one (1) additional display period
shall be permitted in that calendar year;
4.
The additional sign shall
be permitted only during the calendar year in which the business change takes
place and must be taken out by the new business only.
b. Per
business center
1.
One (1) portable sign
displayed at a time not exceeding thirty-two (32) square feet in area per sign;
2.
Each business center unit
shall not be permitted more than a maximum of one (1) such display period per
calendar year;
3.
If all display periods for
a calendar year have been used and evidence is submitted to the Township that a
new business has commenced in a unit of a business center, one (1) additional
display period shall be permitted in that calendar year for that unit in a
business center.
4.
The additional sign shall
be permitted only during the calendar year in which the business change takes
place and must be taken out by the new business only.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060315-12 - Ordinance Amendments-Chapter 24 footnote
(k)
The
Board initiated the Zoning Ordinance amendments to Chapter 24 footnote (k).
Moved
by David Poskey, seconded by Cornelius Huizinga, to recommend to the Township
Board to table the request of the zoning ordinance amendment to Chapter 24
footnote (k) as outlined below as it needs to be discussed further.
Chapter 24
(k) Except for necessary drives and walks the required front
yard for a depth of thirty (30) feet shall be landscaped and shall not be used for
parking, loading, or accessory structures.
Required off-street loading areas shall not be provided in the front
yard.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060315-13 - Ordinance Amendments-Chapter 24 footnote
(m)
The
Planning Commission initiated the Zoning Ordinance amendments to Chapter 24
footnote (m).
Moved
by David Poskey, seconded by Cornelius Huizenga, to recommend to the Township
Board to table the request of the zoning ordinance amendment to Chapter 24
footnote (m) as outlined below as it needs to be discussed further.
Chapter 24
(m) Where a
side and/or rear yard abuts a Residential District, there
shall be a minimum yard of not less than twenty five (25) feet, exclusive of
parking and drives. Such yard shall
contain a greenbelt which meets the minimum standards of Sec. 3.11. Furthermore, no commercial or industrial
building and/or parking lot shall be located closer than fifty (50) feet
to any Residential District boundary, (except when the residential district
is HDR, in which case parking need only be a minimum of 25 feet from the
boundary exclusive of parking and drives).
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060315-14 – Other Business
Discussion took place regarding the zoning requirements
for allowing wood burning heating units within
the Township limits. The Planning
Commission members agreed that this item needs to be researched and further addressed.
Mr. and Mrs. Tim Knight were present and participated in this discussion.
#060315-15 – Adjournment
The
chairman adjourned the meeting at