Minutes of the
regular meeting of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission, held Wednesday,
June 21, 2006
Meeting called to order by
Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Honderd, Poskey, DeGood, South, Huizinga, Pearson
Absent: Stasiak
#060621-01 - Agenda for June 21, 2006
Moved by DeGood, seconded by Pearson, to approve the agenda for June
21, 2006, as presented.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060621-02 - Minutes of the May 17, 2006 regular meeting and the June
7, 2006work
session meeting
Moved by DeGood, seconded by
South, to approve the minutes of the May 17, 2006 regular meeting,
as submitted.
MOTION
CARRIED.
Moved by DeGood, seconded by
Pearson, to approve the minutes of the June 7, 2006 work session meeting,
as submitted.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060621-03 – Unfinished Business- Planned Unit
Development (PUD0601) Riverview Trails
The
applicants have obtained an additional 12 acres and the additional submitted
materials were forwarded to the planner for a review. A meeting was held with the planner and
applicants on Monday, June 5, 2006 for the purpose of obtaining additional
information. The planner provided a review
in which he notes that the applicants have decided to combine the adjacent
apartments (turned condos) in with the PUD for the purpose of constructing
additional storage buildings and a community building. The applicants will be compiling new plans to
submit. No action was taken and no site
plan was available for review.
The
Planning Commission directed that if the additional adjacent property is added
to the plan, a new application should be submitted and the process should begin
again with the pre-application meeting, and this application should be
withdrawn.
#060621-04 - Unfinished Business - (ST0602) Jore Retail-2400 Chicago Dr.
The
zoning administrator presented a review.
After the last meeting, the applicant was contacted and he reported that
they have decided to not proceed.
Although the withdrawal was requested to be put in writing, nothing had
been submitted. This is the third month
under old business and it is the PC’s policy to act on items under old business
after three months. The site plan does not meet the requirements of the
ordinance and the direction given by the Planning Commission in regards to:
landscaping, curbing, parking and the elimination of one driveway.
Moved
by South, seconded by Pearson, to remove the item from the table.
MOTION
CARRIED.
The
chairman opened the floor to public comments.
No one was present to speak on this item. The chairman closed the floor to public
comments.
Moved
by South, seconded by Huizinga, to deny the site plan
for Jore Retail at 2460 Chicago Dr. as shown on the
site plan dated 03/08/06, as submitted, because the site plan does not meet the
requirements of the ordinance and the plan was not revised according to
direction provided by the Planning Commission.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060621-05 - Ordinance Amendments Sec. 25.6(A),
Chapter 24 footnote (k) and (m)
The
zoning administrator presented a review.
At the March 15, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission tabled the
ordinance amendments for further discussion.
The public hearing was held in March.
The revisions brought the HS district in line with other districts and
clarify the distance from commercial activities to a residential district.
Moved
by Pearson, seconded by South, to remove the item from the table.
MOTION
CARRIED.
The
chairman opened the floor to public comments.
No one was present to speak on this item. The chairman closed the floor to public
comments.
Moved
by Pearson, seconded by DeGood, to recommend to the
Board to approve the following proposed ordinance amendments:
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).
MOTION CARRIED.
#060621-06 - Preliminary Plat of Crosswinds
Moved
by DeGood, seconded by South, to remove the item from
the table.
MOTION
CARRIED.
Steve
Smit, Focus Engineering, presented the request and a
history of the process of the application.
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows. The public hearing was held in May. A revised plan was submitted for review at the
June work session that included a stub street to the property at the northwest
section of the site, plus inconsistencies with the General Notes were
corrected. The item was left tabled at
the last meeting due to questions with the addition of a stub street to the
property to the east. 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,
the Township has received a letter
from Brett Laughlin, Ottawa County Road Commission, stating that a roadway
shall be provided to the campground property to the east because the
information became available that the campground property owner intends in the
future either to develop the property or to sell it for development. Further, a letter
was received from applicant indicating that they do not intend to revise the
plan to provide a stub to the east and want the Planning Commission to act on
the last submitted site plan dated revised 5-18-06.
SUMMARY
The
following items remained after the last meeting:
a.
The addition of a
stub street to the east 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.
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.
Steve
Smit said that the Road Commission only gets one shot
and they approved the layout without the stub street.
It
was noted that while the Planning Commission and Township staff review the
plans for compliance with ordinances and for overall layout, new pertinent
information can become available during the public hearing which affects
requirements for approval. State law, as
well as Sec. 50-26 of the Code of Ordinances, requires that a public hearing be
held for purposes of obtaining additional information that bears upon the
application. The Code of Ordinances
requires a public hearing and states that the Planning Commission shall
consider such other information it obtains.
Therefore, since the Planning Commission became aware that the property
owner to the east intends to develop the property sometime in the future, that
new information should be considered in the plat review.
Steve
Smit said that a variance is not needed for the
street length since this is a temporary turn-around.
Honderd
said that he disagreed and said that a variance would be required even though
this is a temporary cul de sac.
Steve
Smit said that the Township did not grant a variance
for a plat near 22nd Ave. and Edson where
the street was longer than the ordinance allowed.
The
zoning administrator stated that the plat was Corey Estates No. 2 and the
Township did grant a variance for the street length.
Honderd
said that it was the responsibility of the Township to have the best
development and it would help if sewer was available. He said that the property could go to LMR and
the two properties could be tied together in one development.
Pearson
asked about having the planner review the stub.
South
said that the stub to the east must be provided and that the length of the
street was acceptable.
Moved
by Pearson, seconded by South, to open the floor to public comments.
MOTION
CARRIED.
No
one was present to speak on this topic.
The
chairman closed the floor to public comments.
Moved
by Poskey, seconded by Huizinga,
to recommend to the Township Board to deny tentative preliminary plat
approval of Crosswinds Plat as shown on the drawing dated 5/18/06 because a
connection is not shown to the property to the east as directed by the Planning
Commission (with authority given to the Township in the Township Code of Ordinances
Sec. 50-51 (1) Street Layout (a) through
(d) and the State Land Division Act, PA 288 of 1967, MCL 560.182(4)(a) which
gives the Township the authority to reject a plat which isolates other lands
from existing public streets, unless suitable access is provided).
Poskey
said that the property to the east would definitely be developed sometime in
the future and it was the responsibility of the Planning Commission to take a
longer view in the future and to look ahead.
He said that it was in the best interest of the Township for the
connection to the east to be provided and this was something that needed to be
done.
Yeas: Honderd, Poskey, DeGood, South, Huizinga
Nays: Pearson
Absent:
Stasiak
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060621-07 - Site Plans (ST0605) Meijer-550 Baldwin (revision for pharmacy drive-up window)
Greg
Heath, Meijer, 2929 Walker, said that he was
requesting to change the approved site plan to reverse the flow of traffic for
the drive-in pharmacy window because they saw an opportunity to improve the
entry area. He said that the three
reasons for the revision are 1) for vehicles entering the area for less
traffic, 2) for vehicles waiting to exist there would be less traffic, and 3)
the distance to the store entrance would increase by 15 feet which is a safer
process. He said that the memo from the
planner supports the revised traffic flow.
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows. The proposal is to revise the pharmacy
drive-in window area to accommodate a flow of traffic that is reversed compared
to what had been approved in December 2005.
Due to the fact that the tube system does not work and there are
circulation issues due to the proximity of the drive-in window to the store
entrance with the previously approved site plan, the applicants are proposing
to reverse the traffic flow to go from east to west. The Planning Commission discussed the request
at the last meeting and determined that an expert should provide a
recommendation. Therefore, the submittal
materials were forwarded to the planner for a review. A meeting was held with the applicants and
planner on Monday, June 5, 2006 and the planner conducted multiple other site
visits. With motion #051207-01, the
Planning Commission approved the site plan dated 11/22/05 titled “Option A,” as
submitted with a condition that signage was provided prohibiting vehicles from
the east making a left hand turn into the drive lane for the tube and that
signage was provided on the site to clarify the desired path for vehicles
entering from the east to access the tube.
The overall site plan that was submitted for this new application is
dated 11/17/2005 and is NOT the same one that was approved by the Planning
Commission on 12-7-05 for the pharmacy drive-in window and the open air
business. The site plan approved by the
Planning Commission on 12-7-05 is dated 11/22/05 shows all the required
elements as well as provides an accurate depiction of the overall site. This plan dated 11/17/2005 appears to be the
plan that was initially submitted and is NOT correct because the elements
required by the Planning Commission are not shown nor does it accurately depict
the overall site. If any action for any
type of approval is taken by the Planning Commission, caution should be
exercised that the action is ONLY for the proposed pharmacy drive-up overlay
with respect to traffic circulation and NO action should be taken on the
incorrect overall site plan. A review from the planner was presented with a
conclusion as follows:
“The
primary difference {of this store from others} is the flow of traffic from the
primary streets serving the store, Baldwin and Cottonwood. These two streets merge at the northeast corner
of the store creating an intensive traffic intersection encountering a large
portion of the traffic entering and leaving the site. This traffic apex area is also complicated
with the location of a main store entry and now the pharmacy drive-up window. As designed and approved by the Planning
Commission, the drive-up access point is off the main drive area to the east
with the exit at the convergence of the main drives and the store entry. We are of the opinion this is the best design
for this location given the busy location of both automobile and pedestrian
traffic. If this flow were reversed, a
potential drive-up customer in the busy intersection will probably wait for
either auto or pedestrian traffic to clear before making a left hand turn into
the drive-up access aisle. This will
have the tendency of backing up traffic in the busy area. Based on this, it is our opinion the current
design should stand as approved.”
Huizinga
said that it looked like an improvement.
Poskey
abstained from discussion and voting.
Pearson
questioned the meaning of the review from the planner.
Honderd
said that in the review, the planner’s conclusion was that he favored the
previously approved plan.
The zoning
administrator stated that during her conversation with the planner he had
indicated that his opinion was that the approved plan was better than the
proposed plan with the reverse flow.
Mike
Kinstall, Meijer
Vice-President of Real Estate, said that he met with the planner and that the
planner was confused about what was initially approved because the planner was
in favor of the current design.
Honderd
said that even though the planner’s review was confusion, the last paragraph
clears it up because he states that the plan should be left as approved.
Mike
Kinstall asked why the planner would say his opinion
is one way and then change it.
Pearson
asked that if the revised plan is denied and the site is kept as previously
approved, would they make the tube system work.
South
said that he does not like either plan because the location of the pharmacy
drive-in window would have problems either way.
DeGood
said that getting into it from the east and leaving from the west was a better
solution because vehicles would not be backing into the entrances. He said that there would be problems with
cars exiting as proposed on the newly revised plan because they would mix with
on-coming traffic. He said that the flow
from east to west was the best.
South
asked how much use there would be for the window and was told about 7 per hour
during the peak times of 11:00 to 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 to 7:00 p.m.
In
response to the question by the chairman in regards to the memo from Grand
Haven Township, the zoning administrator stated that since the planner’s memo
was so confusion, she had contacted the Ottawa County Road Commission and asked
for direction in regards to traffic flow and circulation. They had suggesting talking to Grand Haven
Township since they had a store with a similar layout and recently considered
the same scenario. She further explained
that Grand Haven Township had denied the whole pharmacy drive-in window due to
traffic and circulation concerns.
The
chairman opened the floor to public comments.
Darleen
Groendal, 5787 Stonebridge Dr., said that it would be
better to have the driver access the drive-in window rather than a tube.
The
chairman closed the floor to public comments.
Mike
Kinstall asked what the significance of Grand Haven
Township was and why had they been contacted if there were 50 other stores that
had gotten approvals. He asked why the
other stores that had approvals were not contacted.
The
zoning administrator explained that she had visited numerous Meijer stores and viewed the pharmacy drive-in windows, but
most stores were not laid out like the one in Jenison. She said that this is an older store that
they were trying to redesign and that posed different unique specific traffic
and circulation problems.
Greg
Heath said that the planner had referenced the Cascade planner who indicated
that they had no problems. He said that
hopefully the Planning Commissioners had visited other stores.
Pearson
said that he had visited the store and spent time viewing the area. He said that he was amazed that there were
not more accidents because it was not a good layout and that the Planning
Commission made a mistake approving the pharmacy drive-in at this
location. He said that keeping the
traffic heading in the same direction and going to the right lane to the access
the tube was the lesser of two evils. He
said that he sat there and watched traffic on a Saturday afternoon and it was a
mess.
Mike
Kinstall said that all the work on the site was not
completed yet.
The
zoning administrator said that she agreed with Pearson because she visited the
store and parked in the south parking lot.
She said that since the entrance on the east side of the building had
been closed, those who parking in the south parking lot had to walk through
vehicle lanes, traffic, an intersection and through the pharmacy drive-in
window area to get to the closest store entrance on the north side of the
building. She said that with all the
vehicles traveling in both directions, it did not matter which way the traffic
went because it was a bad layout either way.
Mike
Kinstall said that it is the same at other stores and
a pedestrian has never been hit by a car.
Moved
by Pearson, seconded by DeGood, to deny the
site plan dated 11/17/2005 based on the findings that the circulation as
proposed would be detrimental to both pedestrian and vehicular traffic, with
the authority given to the Planning Commission under Sec. 20.3(A) General
Standards for Special Use Permits since this is a site plan for a special use
permit for the drive-in window and with authority given to the Planning
Commission under Sec. 19.10(C) Review Standards for a site plan for Drives,
Parking and Circulation.
Huizinga
said that although neither plan was ideal, he thought that the east to west
flow was an improvement.
Yeas: Honderd, South, DeGood, Pearson
Nays: Huizinga
Abstained:
Poskey
Absent:
Stasiak
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060621-08 - Special Use Permit (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)
(letter from OCRC re: additional driveway access)
Joe Minorik, LaMacchia Group LLC,
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.
At the last meeting the determination was made that the stacking and
on-site traffic circulation was acceptable.
It appeared that all the general standards in Sec. 20.3 and specific
standards in Sec. 20.4(L) are met. The
only issue that remained was the additional proposed curb cut on Port
Sheldon. The Township received a letter
from Brett Laughlin, Ottawa County Road Commission, stating that the Ottawa
Count Road Commission would NOT
approve a driveway access to Port Sheldon from this property and that access
would have to be obtained from the existing driveway to the west or a possible
future driveway access from
Poskey stated that the Planning Commission appreciated the
fact that the applicant listened to the direction given and responded by
addressing the issues in a way that was good for the Township.
The
chairman opened the public hearing. No
one was present to speak on this topic.
The chairman closed the public hearing.
Moved by DeGood, seconded by Pearson, to recommend to the Township
Board approval of Special Use Permit (SUP0604) LaMacchia Group, LLC, 309 North Water Street, Milwaukee, WI, 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, because the proposed plan meets the applicable standards of the ordinance for the general special use standards under Sec.
20.3(A) and the specific special use standards under Sec. 20.4(L).
MOTION CARRIED.
Moved
by DeGood, seconded by Pearson, to approve the site
plan dated revised 6-13-06, as submitted, because the plan meets all applicable
standards of the ordinance under Sec. 19.4.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060621-09 - Rezoning (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
John
Cross, 8770 24th Ave., represented the applicant and presented the
request.
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows. The request is to rezone 8.35 acres on the
northwest corner of Bauer Rd. and 24th Ave. At the last meeting, documentation was
provided detailing that the request is consistent with the Future Land Use Map
(although driveway accesses should be limited), LDR is compatible with the
surrounding area, and the site is capable of sustaining the uses permitted in
the LDR district both by right and by special use permit.
The
chairman opened the public hearing.
Lucille
Lowing, 2392 Bauer Rd. stated a concern with the size of the lots, the large
volumes of current traffic on 24th Ave., and she wants to hook up to
the new sewer if it becomes available.
The
zoning administrator explained that the minimum sizes of the lots allowed in the
LDR district were 85 feet in width, 110 feet in width for a corner lot, and
11,475 square feet in area. She
explained that the setback on Bauer Rd. is 100 feet from the centerline.
Honderd
said that traffic issues were handled by the Road Commission and they were
reactive. He said that the LDR zoning
designation is consistent with the Master Plan and compatible with the
surrounding area.
Ken Prins, 8518 24th Ave., was concerned with
floodplain issues and storm water drainage.
The
zoning administrator said that floodplain information was required to be shown
on plat maps and on building permit applications, and that a DEQ permit was
required for any activity in a floodplain.
The
applicant explained that he was in the process of working to map out the
floodplain.
Ken Prins said that cars line up on 24th Ave. trying
to exit onto Bauer Rd.
John
Cross said that he intends to minimize access with shared drives.
Honderd
explained that at this stage of the process, the Planning Commission had no
authority over such issues, but rather had other criteria to use to review the
rezoning.
Sam
D’Amico, 2430 Bauer Rd., said that he was confused about the split for the
farmhouse and asked how the rezoning could be approved without knowing the end
result.
Honderd
explained that the rezoning was evaluated according to consistency with the
Master Plan and compatibility with the surrounding area. He said that the other issues would be
reviewed at the time of preliminary plat approval.
Sam
D’Amico said that this would not help with vehicles getting out on 24th
Ave.
Honderd
said that in the later stages of plat review, approval would be required from
the Road and Drain Commission.
Ken Prins asked how many lots there would be.
The
zoning administrator said that there could be four splits plus an area that the
applicant planned to plat.
Honderd
said that this review was for the rezoning and the Planning Commission was not
reviewing the number of splits.
Sue Prins, 8518 24th Ave., said that the Planning
Commission should take into consideration the kids who walk on this street and
that it is extremely difficult to get across the road. She said that the creek floods regularly.
Lucille
Lowing said that she watches the kids go across and the cars can not be seen
coming over the hill.
Darleen
Groendal, 5787 Stonebridge Dr., said that progress is
going to happen and this should not stand in the way of the success of
builders.
The
chairman closed the public hearing.
Pearson
asked about sidewalks.
The
zoning administrator said that they were the responsibility of the developer.
South
said that traffic was heavy in the area and would become heavier with future
development to the north that comes off 24th Ave. He said that eventually there would be a
traffic light at Bauer and 24th Ave.
Moved by South, seconded by Pearson, to recommend to
the Township Board approval of Rezoning (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 (as presented on the survey by Focus Engineering dated
8-31-05, File No. 204505-1), located at 2445 Bauer Rd. based on the findings
that the LDR designation is consistent with the Master Plan and Future Land Use
Map, LDR is compatible with the surrounding area, and the site is capable of
sustaining the uses allowed by right and special use permit in the LDR
district.
MOTION CARRIED.
#060621-10 - Preliminary Plat of Summerset
West, plan,
association documentation
Stan
Jager represented the developer and presented the
request. He said that the 53 lots would
be developed in one phase.
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows. 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. 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. A revised plan has been
submitted with minor changes to lots 52 and 53.
In accordance with direction given at the last meeting, the applicant
has submitted documentation
from their attorney that an association would be formed to maintain the common
area.
The
chairman opened the public hearing.
Darleen
Groendal, 5787 Stonebridge Dr., said asked about the
road length for a variance.
The
zoning administrator stated that the ordinance stipulated the maximum length of
a street measured from the center of one intersection to another.
Pam
Weston, 640 44th St., asked about the land adjacent to 8th
Ave.
A
GIS map was presented on the screen.
Dan
Jones, 359 Stonehenge, questioned the setbacks and sizes of houses.
There
was discussion regarding the sizes of houses and lots, and of setbacks.
Honderd
explained that the Planning Commission only had authority over issues relating
to Township ordinances and that the Planning Commission reviewed the lots for
compliance with the minimum requirements in the ordinance, although the
developer was proposing to exceed the minimum requirements.
Rich
Hansen, 5575 Stonebridge, asked bout the minimum lot depths.
Honderd
said that the building envelopes were required to be shown on the plan so that
the Planning Commission could verify that a house could be built on the lot.
The
applicant stated that they were currently working on the engineering and
finalizing the covenants and restrictions.
He was considering conservation easements.
Jim
Peterson, 5954 8th Ave., said that there would be a homeowners
association.
The
chairman closed the public hearing.
Moved
by Pearson, seconded by Poskey, to recommend to the
Township Board to grant tentative preliminary plat approval of Summerset West
as shown on the drawing dated revised 6-12-06 and 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 and with
the condition that an association is created to maintain the common areas.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060621-11 – Adjournment
The
chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.