PC minutes 6-7-06

Minutes of the work session of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission held Wednesday, June 7, 2006

The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman Stasiak at 7:30 p.m.

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

Absent: Honderd

The work session, which formulated the agenda for June 21, 2006, included the following items to be placed on the agenda, discussion, and action:

I. Approval of agenda

II. Approval of minutes of the May 17, 2006 regular meeting and the June 7, 2006 work session meeting

III. Unfinished Business

A. (PUD0601) Riverview Trails Development Group 7784, 7804, 7746 Cottonwood

The applicant has obtained an additional 12 acres and a revised site plan has been submitted. A meeting was held with the applicants and the planner. Revised plans and a review from the planner will be available prior to the next meeting. Notice for the public hearing has not been published.

B. (ST0602) Jore Retail-2400 Chicago Dr.

The applicant was contacted after the last meeting and they have indicated that they do not intend to proceed. The withdrawal was requested to be put in writing; however, nothing has been submitted. This is the third month under old business. If no new information is submitted and if no revised site plan is submitted addressing the concerns raised by the Planning Commission by the regular meeting in June, the PC could deny the site plan since it does not meet the requirements of the Planning Commission and it is the PC’s policy to act on items under old business after three months. No action was taken.

C. Ordinance Amendments Sec. 25.6(A), Chapter 24 footnote (k) and (m)

At the March 15, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission tabled the ordinance amendments for further discussion. The consensus of the Planning Commission is to act on the amendments at the regular June meeting and the item was left tabled.

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.

(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).

D. Preliminary Plat of Crosswinds

Steve Smit, Focus Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the request. He also submitted a packet of information including letters from Focus Engineering and the Road Commission, and a drawing.

The zoning administrator presented a review as follows. The item was tabled at the last meeting pending revisions to the plan including the addition of a stub street to the east. As requested by the Planning Commission, GIS pictures of the property were provided including the property to the east and research was done regarding the Planning Commission’s authority to require a stub street. The planner provided the information that the Township does have the authority to require a stub street (and to regulate the layout of a plat) under the Code of Ordinances (general ordinance) Sec. 50-51(1) (a) through (d) and the State Land Division Act, PA 288 of 1967, MCL 560.182(4)(a) gives the Township the authority to reject a plat which isolates other lands from existing public streets, unless suitable access is provided. In addition, Brett Laughlin, Ottawa County Road Commission, stated that the Road Commission had not required a stub street to the east because he thought that the site was already developed as a campground; however, now he would require the stub street since the property owner of the campground intends to develop the site and that he would concur with the Township, in any event, if the Township required the stub to the east

SUMMARY

The following items remained after the last meeting:

a. The addition of a stub street to the east should be added to connect with the campground property for future development;

b. Recommendation for a variance for the length of the cul de sac should be made if a recommendation for approval is made since Sec. 50-51(3)(c.) in the Code of Ordinances allows a maximum length of a cul de sac to be 600 feet (the text does not stipulate whether or not the cul de sac is temporary or permanent). Sec. 50-52 permits the Planning Commission to recommend a variance and the Board to grant a variance for the length;

c. Under note #13 in the General Notes, the lot number 28 was changed to lot 27;

d. Under note #15 in the General Notes, the lot numbers were revised to correctly correlate with the new lot numbers;

e. A note was added that decks must be constructed within the building envelop;

f. Sidewalks were extended to the cul de sac;

g. A note was added; however, documentation should be provided that a plat restriction will require all property owners to hook up to sewer within six months from the time it is available;

h. The developer sent an email saying that he does not want to purchase the property to the east.

South said that the connection to the east was mandatory.

DeGood asked about the connection to the south and the applicant explained that greenhouses existed on the parcel to the south. The applicant also stated that the owner of the campground did not indicate that the property to the south would be developed as single family lots.

Stasiak asked if the Road Commission had ever given written approval for the revised plan as it was submitted to the Planning Commission and was told no, that the modified plan had not been sent to the Road Commission. The applicant said that the Road Commission had approved the layout prior to revisions.

Stasiak asked if the Road Commission could submit their requirement for the stub street in writing.

The zoning administrator said that she had spoken with Brett Laughlin, Ottawa County Road Commission, and he had indicated that with the new information that the owner of the campground did intend to develop the property, the Road Commission would require the stub to the east. She said that she would contact the Road Commission and get a letter from the Road Commission.

Huizinga and Poskey both stated that a stub street should be provided to the east.

Pearson said that either way was acceptable to him because it could be many years before either the campground or nursery properties were developed and a connection could be made to the south.

The vice-chairman asked if there was a motion to remove the item from the table in order for a new motion to be made. No motion was made and the item was left tabled. The Planning Commission asked that a letter be obtained from the Road Commission in regards to the stub street and that the planner review the plat prior to the next meeting.

IV. New Business

A. PUD’s-none

B. Site Plans

1. (ST0605) Meijer-550 Baldwin (revision for pharmacy drive-up window)

The zoning administrator reported that a meeting was held with Meijer and the planner, and the determination was made that more site visits were necessary. The planner’s review will available for the next meeting.

C. Special Use Permits

1. (SUP0604) LaMacchia Group, LLC, 309 North Water Street, Milwaukee, WI, is requesting to have a drive-in financial establishment under Sec. 14.3(E), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-22-364-006, located at 2187 Port Sheldon, in a (NS) Neighborhood Service Commercial district, Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. (site plan 1, 2, 3) (lighting, landscaping, elevation, first floor, sketch)

Joseph Minorik, LaMacchia Group LLC, and Todd Stuive, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the request.

The zoning administrator presented a review consisting of the following. The proposal is for a 3,173 square foot one-story building at the corner of Port Sheldon and Center Industrial Dr. for the use of a financial institution with a drive-in window. The parcel is part of the Industrial Park PUD and is adjacent to the Wendy’s Restaurant that was approved as part of a PUD in 2002. Initially the determination was made that since this was part of the PUD, the development would have to be submitted as an amendment to the PUD. However, after discussions with the applicant and planner, the decision was made to review the application as a special use permit. The reason is because the initial PUD was approved under the old PUD ordinance. In November 2002 (after Wendy’s was approved in September 2002), a new PUD ordinance was adopted with PUD as a zoning district. Therefore, since the underlying zoning of the parcel is already NS (not PUD) and the use is allowed in the NS district with a special use permit under Sec. 14.3(E) for a drive-in window for banks and similar uses, the determination was made to proceed with a special use permit application.

The plan proposes an additional curb cut on Port Sheldon. According to Brett Laughlin, Ottawa County Road Commission, a restriction has been recorded for the PUD prohibiting any additional access driveways for these parcels (this initially was one parcel, but was split in 2002 into three parcels), which is the reason for the interior easement that provides access to the parcels west of the corner of Port Sheldon and Center Industrial Dr. Brett Laughlin stated an opposition to the additional proposed curb cut because there would be clear vision issues with the curve and close proximity of the intersection. In addition, the speed limit is 45 mph around this curve. Further, the Planning Commission specified during previous approvals for Wendy’s Restaurant that there not be additional curb cuts due to safety issues with the curve, close proximity of the corner and the 45 mph speed limit. The Planning Commission should determine if there are sufficient new reasons to warrant approving the access driveway, in which case the Road Commission could still deny the driveway.

SUMMARY

a. The Planning Commission should determine if the proposed driveway access to Port Sheldon should be removed. Sec. 26.3 (I) gives the PC the authority to determine driveway access to the streets listed in Chapter 24 footnote b. and Port Sheldon is listed in the footnote. The parcel and the adjacent parcels have an easement for ingress and egress to provide interior access to this site and the adjacent parcels. In addition, the Planning Commission has previously approved Wendy’s Restaurant without an additional curb cut. According to Brett Laughlin, Ottawa County Road Commission, a restriction is recorded prohibiting an addition driveway access at this point. He has stated a concern with the clear vision issues with the curve, the close proximity of the intersection, and the 45 mph speed limit along this portion of Port Sheldon. Therefore, even if the Township determines that an additional curb cut is warranted, the Road Commission might still deny the curb cut. In addition, as proposed, the vehicles exiting from the bank of parking spaces closest to the building could be held up by vehicles stacking for the drive-in lanes.

b. The sign is correctly shown to be located 75 feet from CL, which meets Sec. 26.5(B) for a ground mounted sign. A second sign is located on the corner, which would not normally be permitted. However, there is an easement for the sign and it is part of the original approved PUD. Lighting is noted to be downward directing.

c. On the site plan approved for the Wendy’s Restaurant the interior service road on the easement for ingress and egress was shown to be paved right up to the property line. It appears as though this pavement is a couple feet short and the property owner will have to be contacted to continue the paving to the property line.

d. The proposal does not appear to meet specific standard (4) as follows: The site shall be so designed as to provide adequate stacking space for drive-through customers without obstructing access to off-street parking spaces, interfering with traffic circulation through the site, or causing vehicles to queue off the site.

Following is the documentation showing compliance with Ordinance requirements.

I D number	ST0604	Date	5-24-06
Name	LaMacchia Group/Financial
Address	2187 Port Sheldon
Use	Drive-in financial institution	SUP required		Sec. 14.3(E)

REQUIREMENT				PROVIDED	Needs or Comments
Date, north arrow, scale				X
Name, address of preparer				X
Name, address of property owner or petitioner				X
Location sketch				X
Legal description				X
Size in acres of the property				X
Property lines and required setbacks shown and dimensioned				X	Meets (m)
Location of existing structures, drives, parking areas within 100 ft of boundary				X
Location and dimensions of existing and proposed structures				X
Location of existing and proposed drives (dimensions and radii), circulation					a. see note
Sidewalks, non-motorized paths-select streets, accel, decel lanes				X
Signs, exterior lighting					b. see note
Curbing, parking areas, dimensions of typical space, number of parking spaces				X
Calculations of parking spaces, unloading areas				X
Location, pavement width, ROW of all abutting roads, easements					c. see note
Existing zoning, and zoning and use of abutting property				X
Location of existing vegetation-parkway association				X
Location, type, size of proposed landscaping, streetscape, greenbelt				X
Location, height, type of existing and proposed fences and walls				none
Size, location of proposed, existing utilities, connections to water/sewer				X
Location, size of surface water drainage facilities				X
Existing, proposed topo contours, max 5 ft intervals				X
Rec/common areas, floodplain areas				X
Special Use Standards, general and specific					d. see additional comments
Residential development extra requirements-attached garages				NA

Additional Comments:

Landscape Preservation.

None available

Relation of Buildings to Environment.

En elevation was provided and appears to be harmonious with the vicinity.

Lighting details were provided.

Landscaping meets the ordinance requirements.

Drives, Parking, and Circulation.

There is a question as to whether the driveway access to Port Sheldon will be permitted.

Surface Water Drainage

The Drain Commission will review the plans and an approval is required from them at the time of building permit submittal.

Utility Service

Shown and will be reviewed by the appropriate agencies

Special Features-NA

Special Use

General Special Use Standards

(1) Be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance, with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such a use will not change the essential character of the area in which it is proposed.

(2) Be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police, fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewage facilities, or schools.

(3) Not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services.

(4) Not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, and equipment or conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors.

A narrative was provided detailing compliance with the standards. The Planning Commission should consider if the additional driveway access would be detrimental due to the traffic patterns in the vicinity.

Specific Special Use Standards

(L) Drive-in restaurant.

(1) The main and accessory buildings shall be set back a minimum of sixty (60) feet from any adjacent right-of-way line or residential property line.

(2) Public access to the site shall be located at least one hundred (100) feet from any intersection as measured from the nearest right-of-way line to the nearest edge of said access.

(3) Where the site abuts residentially zoned property, a greenbelt shall be provided along such property line, in accordance with Section 3.11.

(4) The site shall be so designed as to provide adequate stacking space for drive-through customers without obstructing access to off-street parking spaces, interfering with traffic circulation through the site, or causing vehicles to queue off the site.

(5) Outdoor speakers for the drive through facility shall be located in a way that minimizes

sound transmission toward neighboring property and uses.

Since there are no specific standards for a drive-in financial institution, the proposal was reviewed according to the specific standards for a drive-in restaurant. The proposal appears to meet all these standards, except for possibly (4).

(1) The site does not abut any residential district.

(2) The proposed access (which would have to be considered by the Planning Commission) is at least 100 feet from the intersection.

(3) The site does not abut any residential district.

(4) Adequate stacking has been provided; however, vehicles exiting from the bank of parking spaces nearest the building would get held up by vehicles stacking in the drive-in lanes.

(5) The drive-in area is adjacent to a drive-in restaurant.

DeGood said that the stacking as proposed was acceptable and that the curb cut was needed. He said that this is a good use of the property.

Stasiak asked how the site would be accessed if no additional curb cut was allowed and the zoning administrator explained that access would be made through the interior access road that has a curb cut to Port Sheldon to the west of the Wendy’s Restaurant.

Huizinga suggested that a deeper decel lane should be provided because he could understand why they wanted the curb cut. However, he said that they did understand the access restrictions when they purchased the property.

Poskey said that he was not in favor of the additional curb cut because the overall area had been reviewed by the Planning Commission and a service drive had been required to service these three parcels years ago. He said that there were potential problems with an additional curb cut and he was strongly opposed to allowing the additional curb cut.

Pearson said that he can see the problems with the additional curb cut; however, a wider decel lane from where Center Industrial Dr. starts might help with circulation. He said that there could be stacking in the interior access road.

South said that he was opposed to the additional curb cut because of clear vision issues and the 45 mile per hour speed limit which means vehicles go 10 more. He said that there had been the same problem with Wendy’s. He said that the use was a good fit and traffic could go around the building if there was a stacking problem. He said that he was opposed to the additional curb cut.

The applicant suggested increasing the length of the decel lane. He said that the curb cut was 175 feet from the intersection and most municipalities only required a distance of 100 feet. He asked for the additional consideration for the additional curb cut.

Stasiak said that he was opposed to the additional curb cut because the issue had already been reviewed and addressed by the Planning Commission with the requirement of the interior service drive. He said that it was good access management to have only the interior access.

The Planning Commission directed that the Township obtain a letter from the Road Commission regarding the additional curb cut.

DeGood suggested that they acquire the additional property to the east and exit onto Georgetown Industrial Dr.

The applicant asked for a waiver from the landscape requirements and asked to have less and smaller plantings than the ordinance required.

The zoning administrator explained that Sec. 3.11 of the ordinance lists the requirements for the number and size of landscaping that is required and that the Planning Commission did not have the authority to waive the requirements. She said that if the application had been a PUD, the Planning Commission would have had the ability to allow flexible zoning.

In response to a question, Doug DuBois, representing the applicant, stated that they had been aware of the restriction on additional accesses to Port Sheldon.

D. Rezonings

1. (REZ0605) To change from (RR) Rural Residential to (LDR) Low Density

Residential part of a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-09-200-021, located at 2445 Bauer Rd., map, survey

John Cross, 8770 24^th Ave., represented the applicant and presented the request.

The zoning administrator presented a review consisting of the following. The request is to rezone 8.35 acres on the northwest corner of Bauer Rd. and 24^th Ave. The proposed zoning designation of LDR is consistent with the Future Land Use Map. The text of the Master Plan should be considered in regards to guaranteeing good access management techniques on Bauer Road and in regards to preserving the natural character of the vicinity through development in the form of a PUD or open space preservation ordinance.

1. Consistency: is the proposed zoning and all of its permitted uses consistent with the recommendations of the township land use plan?

The Future Land Use Map shows the subject property as Low Density Residential. This is consistent with the requested zoning designation. The property is currently vacant and the applicant has indicated that he plans to pursue splitting the property for single family homes (although the proposed use is irrelevant to the consideration of rezoning).

The text of the Master Plan states that good access management techniques are to be practiced on the major roads (including Bauer Rd.) and the text also specifically states that this is a rural area in transition to urban residential. The text further states that conventional subdivisions that simply divide the land into lots with no amenities and little regard for the natural character should be discouraged, and that the area should be developed in the form of PUDs or open space preservation.

The following are excerpts from the text of the Master Plan:

General Land Use Policies

Access to major roads (listed in the Zoning Ordinance) should be limited and placed in locations that have the least impact practical on the through flow of traffic. Special consideration should be given that good access management techniques are practiced, specifically on the major roads.

Bauer Rd./Fillmore Area.

The Master Plan recognizes that this is an area in transition from very rural to urban residential. However, the natural character of the area should be preserved to the extent possible. As public water and sanitary sewer become available, planned development in the form of PUDs or open space preservation projects should be permitted within an overall residential density limit of 3.5 units per acre. Preference should be given to large scale developments that will maintain open space and preserve the natural character of the land, while meeting the residential goals of this Plan. Conventional subdivisions that simply divide the land into lots with no amenities and little regard for the natural character should be discouraged.

2. Compatibility: is the proposed district and all of its allowed uses compatible with the surrounding area? The proposed district (LDR) allows the following permitted uses: detached single family dwellings, parks, family daycare homes, adult foster care family homes, foster family homes and state licensed residential family facilities. Special uses include: Churches, municipal buildings, public utilities, group daycare homes, private non-commercial recreation, golf courses, non-commercial schools, cemeteries, commercial soil removal, bed and breakfast establishments, daycare centers, commercial wireless communication towers and adult foster care homes. To the north are single family residential homes on LDR sized lots. To the east, south and west are larger sized lots, some vacant and some with single family homes.

3. Capability: is the property capable of being used for a use permitted within the existing zoning district? Public utilities are available to be brought to the site. Bauer Road and 24^th Ave. are already constructed.

4. Other considerations: will the rezoning require an inordinate expenditure of public funds (road improvements, utility extension, etc.) to make the development feasible? Public utilities are available to be brought to the site by the developer and will not require any public funds to extend into the proposed development.

5. Will the rezoning cause development to “leap frog” other undeveloped areas in the same zoning district and necessitate premature extensions of services to rural areas of the township? The proposed development is surrounded by vacant land and by single family residential homes and would not necessitate premature extension of services to rural area of the Township.

6. Is there sufficient vacant land already zoned in a specific category (e.g., industrial, multifamily, commercial)? Although there is amply land already zoned LDR, this rezoning will continue the LDR district to the west to meet up with the Eastbrook Development.

John Cross stated that he intended to divide the parcel into eight parcels.

Stasiak asked the applicant to be conscious of the text of the Master Plan when he determined driveways for the parcels.

E. Plats

1. Preliminary Plat of Summerset West, plan

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

The zoning administrator presented a review consisting of the following. Preliminary plat approval is sought for 53 lots in a LDR district with public utilities on a 53.92 acre parcel. The proposal appears to meet all zoning and general ordinances and that no revisions are necessary. The plan also appears to meet the criteria for the Planning Commission to recommend a variance for the length of the Stonehenge Dr. (1469 lineal feet) and of Chancellor Dr. (1583 lineal feet) under Sec. 50-51(1) in the Code of Ordinances which allows a maximum length of a street to be 1,300 or a block to be 1,500. Sec. 50-52 permits the Planning Commission to recommend a variance and the Board to grant a variance for the length.

I D number		Date	5-30-06
Name	Summerset West Plat
Address
Use	Preliminary Plat	SUP required		no

REQUIREMENT				PROVIDED	Needs or Comments
Date, north arrow, scale				X
Name, address of preparer				X
Name, address of property owner or petitioner				X
Location sketch				X
Legal description				X
Size in acres of the property				X
Property lines and required setbacks shown and dimensioned				X
Location of existing structures, drives, parking areas within 100 ft of boundary				X
Location and dimensions of existing and proposed structures				NA
Location of existing and proposed drives (dimensions and radii), circulation				X
Sidewalks, non-motorized paths-select streets, accel, decel lanes				X	Taper on 8^th Ave.
Signs, exterior lighting				NA
Curbing, parking areas, dimensions of typical space, number of parking spaces				X
Calculations of parking spaces, unloading areas				NA
Location, pavement width, ROW of all abutting roads, easements				X
Existing zoning, and zoning and use of abutting property				X
Location of existing vegetation-parkway association				X	Lot 33/maintain
Location, type, size of proposed landscaping, streetscape, greenbelt				NA
Location, height, type of existing and proposed fences and walls				NA
Size, location of proposed, existing utilities, connections to water/sewer				X
Location, size of surface water drainage facilities				X
Existing, proposed topo contours, max 5 ft intervals				X
Rec/common areas, floodplain areas				X
Length of blocks					Needs variances
Residential development extra requirements-attached garages					required

In response to a question, Todd Stuive stated that Mr. Schut owns the parcel to the south.

Stasiak asked about documentation for an association to maintain the open space and it was determined that documentation should be provided.

Stan Jager, applicant stated that a homeowners association has existed for over then years for the earlier phases and he intended to create one now that would hopefully be combined with the existing association.

F. Ordinance Amendments-none

V. Other Business

#060607-01 - Request by Randy Rottschafer for a site plan extension and minor revision.

Randy Rottschafer stated that two sets of plans had been submitted, one showing an addition curb cut to access the accessory building and one showing the dumpster moved to the south aligned with the accessory building and pavement added along the western property line to provide paved access to the accessory building. He said that he met with Tom Palarz and Brett Laughlin from the Ottawa County Road Commission and they both approved the additional curb cut.

The zoning administrator presented a review consisting of the following. Randy Rottschafer received site plan approval for the building at 610 Baldwin on January 21, 2004. The building was subsequently completed. On June 15, 2005 the Planning Commission approved a site plan for an accessory building on the site to be located in the rear yard to the south of the now existing building. As per Sec. 19.5(E), a development must be under construction within one year of the date of the site plan approval. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission grant a six month extension of the approval which is allowed under Sec. 19.5(E)(1). Randy Rottschafer is also requesting a minor change to the site plan that was initially approved on January 21, 2004. At the time of review, the Planning Commission mentioned concerns with the location of the dumpster in relation to the single family residential home to the south. The PC wanted the dumpster moved as far to the north as possible to avoid loud noises for the residents when the dumpster is emptied. The plan was approved with the dumpster located along the western side of the building about halfway to the front parking lot. At this time Randy Rottshafer is requesting a minor change to the site plan to move the dumpster south next to the proposed accessory building in order to pave a portion of the site to the west of the existing building for paved access to the accessory building. If the PC does not determine the revision to be acceptable, no action needs to be taken. If the PC determines that the revision would be acceptable, the PC could approve the revision to the site plan to move the dumpster or direct that a site plan be submitted for a revision for an additional curb cut which would not be a minor change.

Randy Rottschafer stated that there would not be heavy use of the dumpster because the trash would be mainly cardboard and the trash was only picked up once a week. He said that the dumpster would still be 25 feet from the house and their bedrooms were on the south end of the house. He said that the driveway to the accessory building would only be used occasionally, not like a driveway to the principal building.

Pearson asked what the accessory building would be used for.

Randy Rottschafer said that the accessory building would be used to store snow removal equipment, photo props and records.

Pearson said that he preferred to have the additional curb cut and to keep the dumpster where it is currently located because it was more practical.

The zoning administrator said that the accessory building could only be used for accessory uses and not for any principal use like the main building.

South said that he liked the dumpster better where it is.

DeGood said that both ways had advantages and disadvantages.

Stasiak said that he was not in favor of the additional curb cut and questioned access from the north side. He asked why the pavement was needed.

Randy Rottschafer said that it would store a snow removal truck, props for the photo studio and a portable sign. He said that it would beautify the back of the building by hiding the air conditioner, along with the electric and gas meters.

Stasiak said that he was not in favor of either moving the dumpster or adding a curb cut.

Huizinga said that he preferred the curb cut to moving the dumpster.

Poskey said that he was in favor of leaving the site plan as originally approved, without the additional curb cut and without moving the dumpster. He said that there could be problems with how that driveway was used with people going in and out. He said that he wanted to stay with the original plan.

Moved by Poskey, seconded by Pearson, to approve the extension of the site plan approval for six months as permitted under Sec. 19.5(E) (1) for ST0510, which extends the approval until December 15, 2006.

MOTION CARRIED.

There was discussion regarding action on the proposed revision for the site plan. The zoning administrator explained that the Planning Commission could take no action if they determined that they did not want to approve either proposed version, and the site plan would remain as originally approved. She said that this was a courtesy review and there had been no formal application and fee submitted. She said that if the Planning Commission determined that moving the dumpster back was acceptable, a motion to that effect could be made. She said that she determined moving the dumpster to be a minor change and she would have administratively approved it except for the fact that the Planning Commission had noted concerns with the dumpster location when the site plan was initially reviewed. She further explained that if the Planning Commission was in favor of allowing an additional curb cut, the request should come back as a formal application since an additional curb cut was not a minor revision.

Stasiak said that the Planning Commission had determined to take no action since most members were opposed to moving the dumpster. Stasiak directed the applicant to submit a formal application if he wanted to pursue the additional curb cut since that would be a major change to the approved plan. He stated that there were no guarantees that a revised site plan showing the additional curb cut would be approved because the opinions of the members were mixed with some in favor and some opposed. Plus, one member was absent.

Randy Rottschafer said that he would be satisfied to have the Planning Commission approve moving the dumpster without the addition of the curb cut. He said that moving the dumpster would be a minor change and he would settle for that. He said that the Road Commission had approved the additional curb cut and there were no safety issues.

Stasiak said that the Planning Commission should consider the access in the long term and it could present noise issues and traffic conflicts. He said that the curb cut should not be allowed because the activity in the area should be limited since it was close to a residential district.

Huizinga said that he was in favor of leaving the dumpster where it is currently located and the curb cut should not be allowed.

#060607-02 - Initiate Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Sec.

The Planning Commission determined that the proposed ordinance amendment would be acceptable to eliminate freestanding signs and to allow additional wall signs with the overall square footage to be less than what the ordinance would regularly allow.

The following zoning ordinance was initiated at the May 3, 2006 Planning Commission meeting resulting from previous discussion regarding amending the sign ordinance to permit two wall signs (when one is permitted) provided that the total square footage of the two wall signs is substantially less than the total square footage for the one permitted wall sign currently allowed in the ordinance.

Sec. 25.6(B)

(3) WALL SIGN, one (1) wall sign per business subject to the following restrictions:

a. The sign shall be placed flat against the building and shall front on the principal street.

b. Such sign shall not exceed one and one-half (1-1/2) square feet for each one (1) lineal foot of wall frontage on which the sign is to be placed or two hundred (200) square feet whichever is less.

c. Businesses which have wall frontage on more than one (1) street shall be permitted to have one (1) wall sign per street frontage, subject to the size limitation contained in paragraph b, above.

d. The one (1) wall sign permitted above may be divided into two (2) wall signs with

each one placed on a separate wall of the building, provided that the sum of the

square footage of the two signs equals 75% or less of the overall square footage

permitted above.

The additional proposed amendment was presented to Sec. 25.6(B)(3) as follows:

e. One wall sign may be permitted in addition to those permitted above if the

freestanding sign permitted in Sec. 25.6(B) is eliminated and the square footage

of the additional wall sign equals 75% or less of the square footage permitted

for the freestanding sign, provided further that a guarantee is provided to the

Township that the freestanding sign permitted in Sec. 25.6(B) would not be

constructed unless the additional wall sign is removed.

Moved by Pearson, seconded by Poskey, to initiate the zoning ordinance amendment to Sec. 25.6(B)(3) (e).