Minutes of the
work session of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission held Wednesday,
July 5, 2006
The meeting was
called to order by Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Stasiak, South, Honderd, Huizinga,
Pearson, DeGood
Absent: Poskey
The work session,
which formulated the agenda for July 19, 2006, included the following items to
be placed on the agenda, discussion, and action:
I.
Approval of agenda
II.
Approval of minutes of the June
21, 2006 regular meeting and the July
5, 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 the materials were forwarded to the planner
for a review. A meeting with the
applicants and planner was held. At the
June 21, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission directed that if the adjacent
property was added to the PUD, the application should begin the whole process
over with a new application and new pre-application meeting since all ordinance
elements would have to be reviewed again.
The applicant was contacted and is working on the new plans. Notice for the public hearing has not been
published. No action was taken; however,
the Planning Commission directed that action to deny or accept a withdrawal
should take place at the regular meeting.
IV. New
Business
A. Site Plans
#060705-01 – Site Plan (ST0606) REVISION
Randy Rottschafer-610
Baldwin
Randy Rottschafer presented the request and stated that he wants paved
access to the proposed accessory building either with an additional curb cut or
with paving along the building. He
submitted plans with two options.
The zoning administrator presented a review as follows. The applicant is requesting to revise a
previously approved site plan (actually two previously approved site plans, one
for the building that has already been constructed and one for a future
accessory building) to provide paved access to the proposed accessory
building. The applicant has submitted
two proposals. Site plan 1 shows an
additional curb cut/driveway access to Thomas St. and site plan 2 shows the
dumpster moved to the south adjacent to the west side of the proposed accessory
building with pavement along the whole length of the west side of the existing
building to the proposed accessory building.
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. On June 7, 2006, the
Planning Commission approved an extension of time for the site plan approval
for the accessory building until December 15, 2006. At the June 7, 2006 meeting, there was
discussion regarding Randy Rottschafer’s request to have paved access to the
proposed accessory building by either 1) having an additional curb cut on
Thomas St. with direct driveway access to the accessory building or 2) to move
the dumpster to the south next to the proposed accessory building and have
pavement along the side of the building to the south for access to the
accessory building. The consensus of the
Planning Commission at the June 7, 2006 meeting was to not permit the dumpster to be moved to the south because the property
abuts a residential district and the noise from the dumpster would be
detrimental to the neighboring residential uses. The Planning Commission directed the
applicant to make a formal site plan review application for the consideration
of the additional curb cut due to the fact that the additional curb cut was not
a minor change with circulation issues.
The applicant has indicated that the Ottawa County Road Commission has
approved the additional curb cut. It was
noted at the June 7, 2006 meeting that there were no guarantees for site plan
approval for either of the options because some of the PC members were opposed
to approving either revision. Some
members of the Planning Commission were opposed to the additional curb cut due
to the following reasons: 1) the proposed use of the accessory building was to
be for snow removal equipment, photo props and records, but the driveway would
provide more opportunities for additional more intense uses and more accesses;
2) the accessory building abuts a residential district and the additional
traffic possibilities would be detrimental to the neighboring residential uses;
3) the Planning Commission noted that they should consider the access in the
long term and it could present noise issues and traffic conflicts in the future
and the additional activity should be limited and not allowed since it was
close to a residential district. The
plan has not been reviewed according to the requirements of the ordinance since
the site plan has already been approved both for the existing building and the
proposed accessory building. The only
elements that were reviewed were the proposed revisions for the paved access to
the accessory building.
The Fire Department memo was presented.
South stated that he preferred the additional curb cut rather than
moving the dumpster. He said that when
the site plan for the accessory building was initially submitted to the
Township, no additional drives were shown and he asked what had changed.
Randy Rottschafer said that they planned to store their snow plow truck
in the accessory building and they could drive across the grass if they had to,
but that does not make sense. He said
that any size pavement would work and they just need the access to the
building.
DeGood said that the access coming off Thomas was a better option but
it would have to be wider for the Fire Code.
Stasiak said that he was not in favor of the access because it opens up
the option of more intense uses next to a residential district. He said that the Planning Commission had been
opposed to additional curb cuts at the time the initial building was
approved. He asked about the footnote
and was told that footnote (l) requires a front yard setback in the NS district
to only be used for landscaping and should not be used for parking, loading or
accessory structures.
Honderd said that the initial plan that was approved was good and
limited the accesses. He said that more
intense uses would be detrimental to the residential area.
Huizinga said that he preferred site plan 1 but it was a moot point if
it was not allowed.
There was discussion regarding the paved access and the size of the
pavement.
Pearson said that site plan 1 was the most logical and he wanted to
help the applicant achieve his goal. He
asked if conditions could be imposed for the uses. He said that as a former fire fighter, he
thought that the ten feet would be okay because that area would not be used to
fight a fire.
The zoning administrator stated that conditions could be imposed;
however, it would be difficult to monitor and enforce any conditions.
The chairman opened the floor to public comments. No one was present to make comments on this
item. The chairman closed the floor to
public comments.
Moved by Pearson, seconded by South, to table the entire request to
obtain information from the Fire Department.
MOTION CARRIED.
#060705-02 – Site Plan (ST0607) REVISION
Cottonwood Heights Christian Reformed Church-
1101 Cypress
Dan Vandenberg represented the applicant and presented the request.
The zoning administrator presented a review as follows. A special use permit and site plan were
approved in November 2005 for an expansion consisting of a Youth Building,
addition to the daycare facility, and portico for the existing church
building. The request is to increase the
size and relocate the proposed Youth Building adjacent to the existing church
building. The previously approved Youth
Building was proposed to have 3,200 square feet in area and the new building is
proposed to have 6,400 square feet in area.
The relocation of the Youth Building has caused the elimination of
parking spaces that were to be located at this spot. The revised plan calls for 56 spaces to be
deferred to the future according to Sec. 26.9(J). The previously approved number of parking
spaces was 269 and the new proposal is to have 225 with an additional 56
deferred for a total of 281. The new
proposed aisle meets the ordinance requirement of 24 feet for two-way
traffic. The deferred parking request
appears to meet the criteria in Sec. 26.9(J) for approving deferred parking
places. At the November 16, 2005
meeting, the Planning Commission recommended to the Board approval of the
special use permit for a church and approved the site plan dated 11/7/05. At the November 28, 2005 meeting, the Board
approved the special use permit for a church.
The plan has not been reviewed according to the requirements of the
ordinance since the site plan has already been approved. The only elements that were reviewed were the
proposed revisions for the relocation of the Youth Building and the affect of
the relocation on the number of parking spaces and the drive aisle. The new location meets all setback
requirements and it appears that adequate parking spaces have been provided in
addition to the 56 deferred. If the
parking spaces are needed for the future, they are available.
It was noted that as requested, the applicant presented letters from
the neighbors in favor of relocating the Youth Building closer to the church
building.
Pearson asked if elevations could be provided.
The applicant stated that they were basically the same as supplied for
the previous approvals and would match the existing church building, but he
would provide an elevation to the Township.
South noted that the request meets the Fire Codes as per the Fire
Department memo.
The chairman opened the floor to public comments. No one was present to make comments on this
item. The chairman closed the floor to
public comments.
Moved by Pearson, seconded by Stasiak to approve the site plan dated
6-14-06, as submitted, because the proposed plan meets the applicable standards
of the ordinance, with the condition that the additional deferred parking spaces
be added if needed according to Sec. 26.9(J), and that a copy of the elevation
be provided to the Township.
MOTION CARRIED.
#060705-03 – (PUD0602-2) Final Development
Plan Andre’s Crossing (Lee
Dykema)-site
plan
Todd Stuive, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented
the request. Lee Dykema was also
present. Todd Stuive noted that all the
agency approvals had been provided.
The Fire Department memo was presented and the applicants noted that
they would comply with the Department of Public Works and the Fire Department;
however, they would have to work out the requirement since they each wanted
something different.
The zoning administrator presented a review consisting of the
following. The request is for final
development approval for Andre’s Crossing for 16 duplex buildings for a total
of 32 units. The PUD is shown to be
constructed in one phase. At the March
1, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval for the
preliminary development plan for Andre’s Crossing and at the March 13, 2006
meeting, the Township Board approved the preliminary development plan with
seven conditions (which have all been addressed). The final development plan complies with all
the requirements detailed in Chapter 22.
The walking path as been removed in accordance with one of the
conditions of approval. The only item
that remains is the PUD agreement required in Sec. 22.11 which states that
prior to the issuance of any building permits or commencement of construction
on any portion of the PUD, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the
Township in recordable form.
The chairman opened the floor to public comments. No one was present to make comments on this
item. The chairman closed the floor to
public comments.
Moved by DeGood, seconded by Pearson, to approve the final development
plan for Andre’s Crossing as shown on the plan dated 1/31/06 with all attached submittal
materials including the elevation, landscaping plan and lighting plan, based on
compliance with Chapter 22, and with the condition that a recorded agreement be
submitted to the Township in accordance with Sec. 22.11 prior to the issuance
of a building permit or prior to the commencement of any construction on any
portion of the PUD.
MOTION CARRIED.
2. (PUD0604) Preliminary Development Plan-Baldwin Georgetown LLC, 7665
36th Ave., is
requesting a Planned Unit Development for mixed uses including residential for
attached single family homes and commercial uses including offices, retail,
restaurant and vehicle service station and related uses, under Chapter 22, on
parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-17-100-008, -009, -010, located at
7665 36th Ave., 3683 and 3627 Baldwin, at the northwest corner of
Baldwin and 36th Ave. (site plan 1, site
plan 2, color
plan, elevations,
narrative)
Pete Lazdins, Design
Plus, represented the applicant and presented the request.
The zoning administrator
presented a review as follows. The
request is for a mixed use PUD with eight duplex buildings with an overall
total of 16 units, two commercial buildings for the use of retail, restaurant,
personal service establishments, and other similar related commercial uses, a
bank, convenience store and vehicle service station, and an office
building. The following items remained
to be addressed.
·
Setbacks are shown as 90 feet
from the centerlines of Baldwin and 36th Ave., which meets the regulations
of Chapter 24. The setbacks to the
northern property line are a minimum of 20.5 feet for the residential uses, 40
feet for the commercial building and 25 feet for the parking lot. The setbacks for the western property line
are 50 feet for the commercial building, 20 feet for the driveway and 33 feet
to the parking lot. A 25 foot greenbelt
is required for all commercial that abuts residential. Commercial buildings and parking must be at
least 50 feet from residential districts.
Since these distances do not meet the regulations of Chapter 24, the
request for these setbacks is listed on the Waiver Request Table. The Planning Commission should determine
if these setbacks are acceptable.
·
Sidewalks are shown correctly as
5 feet for Baldwin and eight feet for 36th Ave. (as required by a
newly adopted general ordinance).
However, one arrow indicating the 5 foot concrete walk for 36th
Ave. on the Site Utility and Dimension plan should be removed.
·
Sign setbacks are shown correctly
for the location of ground mounted sign.
More sign detail should be shown including square footage and height. Lighting is noted to be downward directing.
·
Ottawa County Road Commission
approval should be provided with the final development plan.
·
Landscaping details should be
provided including calculations (1000 ft. Baldwin = 40 trees, 742 on 36th
= 30 trees; give sizes and types according to Sec. 3.11)
·
Ottawa County Drain Commission
approval should be provided with the final development plan.
·
Acreage Requirement: The PUD site shall be not less than ten (10) acres
of fully contiguous property not separated by a public road, railroad, or other
such associated feature or barrier. If
the PUD is to contain a mixture of residential and non-residential uses, the
minimum required area shall be twenty (20) acres. The Planning Commission and Township Board
may consider a PUD on lesser acreage if it is clear that the proposed PUD
substantially provides for the intent of a PUD as stated in this Chapter. In addition, the Planning Commission and
Township Board may use the same intent section of the Zoning Ordinance when
considering a PUD with property that may be separated by a public road,
railroad, or other such associated feature or barrier. It would be up to the applicant to prove why,
for example, a physical barrier (road or railroad) separating the acreage would
not restrict the applicant’s ability to develop a cohesive PUD. The proposal does not meet. 15.1 acres.
The Planning Commission will have to determine if the plan meets the
intention of the ordinance and is acceptable.
·
Permitted uses should not include a drive-in restaurant nor should truck rental
be permitted for the vehicle service station.
·
Approximate
phasing time frames should be provided.
·
Proposed
deed restrictions, covenants, or similar legal instruments to be used within
the PUD should be provided.
·
The specific special use standards for
The Planning
Commission determined that the waiver requests were acceptable and that the
qualifying conditions are met including the acreage amount, open space
requirement, consistency with the Master Plan and setbacks for parking and for
the residential units. It was noted that
approval should be conditioned upon the uses not to include a drive-in
restaurant or truck rental.
The applicant
indicated that the expected market for the residential units was a mix of
empty-nesters and young families. He
said that oftentimes the elderly will help at the school.
Honderd suggested
that some of the residential buildings have three units because there would be
flexibility for more open space.
Huizinga asked if
the units would be rentals.
The applicant stated
that they would not necessarily.
Pearson asked what a
duplex condo was and the applicant said that it was a method of sale and a type
of building.
Pearson asked about
the pond counting as green space and said that this is a relatively small
development isolated from surrounding residential developments.
The applicant said
that with a duplex unit, each unit had windows being an end unit and they
sometimes had trouble marketing the middle unit without windows. He said that they preferred to have duplexes
rather than three unit buildings.
Stasiak said that he
preferred the duplex units to a three unit dwelling.
Pearson complimented
the design layout of the proposal and said that he was concerned that the
residential area was isolated and not part of a larger residential area. He
asked about access for students.
The applicant said
that most middle and elementary schools were in lockdown and only the high
school students were allowed to leave campus.
He said that they planned to tie in with the school walkways to provide
safe passage for students.
South said that this
residential development was close to a school and the residents could use the
school property for activities plus use the sidewalks.
The chairman opened
the floor to public comments. No one was
present to make comments on this item.
The chairman closed the floor to public comments. He asked if the service station would include
vehicle repair and was told no.
DeGood said that he
liked the layout and liked the pond.
Stasiak said that
the design and layout had nice appeal and met the criteria listed in the
ordinance.
Honderd said that
lot A should have access to the residential development and the walkways should
tie into the school walkways so that the pedestrian and vehicular traffic would
not conflict.
The applicant stated
that they wanted to be good neighbors and planned to meet with the school.
The consensus of the
Planning Commission was that the requested elements be waived and that the
application meets the qualifying conditions listed in the ordinance. Direction was given to publish the notice so
that the public hearing could be held at the August work session.
C. Special Use Permits-none
D. Rezonings-none
E. Plats-none
F. Ordinance Amendments (no public hearings-review only)
1. Sec. 25.6(B)(3)d.
2. Sec. 25.6(B)(3)e.
3. Sec. 3.7
4. Sec. 2.63(A)
5. Sec. 2.91
6. Illustrations
The zoning
administrator presented a review as follows and noted that the public hearing
would be held on July 19, 2006..
REQUEST-Sec. 25.6(B)(3)d & e.
The Planning
Commission initiated the Zoning Ordinance amendments for the sign sections at
the May 3 and June 7, 2006 meetings (excerpts of the minutes follow the
review). The issues for both sign
amendments arose at the ZBA meetings due to variance requests relating to
signs. The Planning Commission has
mentioned in the past that sizes and numbers of signs should be limited to
discourage obtrusiveness. Each of the
amendments would reduce the amount of square footage for signs while giving the
business choices. The proposal for Sec.
25.6(B)(3)d. would reduce the overall square footage of a wall sign by 25% and
would allow a business to separate the reduced amount of square footage into
two separate signs. The proposal for
Sec. 25.6(B)e. would allow an additional wall sign if the permitted
freestanding sign was eliminated. The
additional wall sign could be a maximum of 75% in area of the amount of square
footage that would be permitted for the freestanding sign.
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.
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.
REQUEST-Sec. 3.7, 2.63, 2.91 and the
Illustrations
The Planning
Commission initiated the Zoning Ordinance amendments to clarify the basis for
determining the front yard setback requirements at the April 12, 2006 meetings
(excerpts of the minutes follow the review).
A situation arose when a homeowner on Begole (off 22nd Ave.
by the Grand River) applied for a building permit to construct an addition to
an existing house that would extend the front line of the house. There were questions about how to determine
the front yard setback due to the fact that the road right-of-way and easements
for this road were in question. The
issue was forwarded to the planner for review and he provided suggestions for
addressing the situation.
The
required front yard shall be measured from the right-of-way line or any road street easement line
as established by the Road Commission for a street road to an
imaginary line across the width of the lot which represents the minimum
required front setback distance for that district provided that where an
average setback line less than required has been established by existing
buildings on the same side of the street and within two hundred (200) feet of
the proposed building, such established setback shall apply. However, no reduction in the minimum required
front yard setback shall be permitted along those streets identified in Chapter
XXIV, footnote (b). Unenclosed porches,
steps, or similar facilities may project into a required front or rear yard for
a distance not to exceed twelve (12) feet. (revised August 1996) In
the case of a handicap wheelchair ramp (not to exceed a width of five (5) feet),
the Zoning Administrator may waive any setback requirements at his/her
discretion, if no other options are available to provide a ramp, provided that
the applicant agrees to remove the ramp if it is no longer necessary on the
property. A performance letter or
performance guarantee may be required.
(revised 6-27-2005)
The
property lines bounding the lot.
(A) Front
Lot Line. In the case of an interior lot, abutting upon
one public or private street or
easement, the front lot line shall mean the line separating such lot
from such street right-of-way or
easement. In the case of a
corner or through lot, the front lot line shall be that line separating said
lot from that street which is designated as the front street by the Zoning
Administrator (See Double Frontage Lot.)
For purposes of determining required yards only, any side lot line may
be designated by the Zoning Administrator as a front lot line. (Revised April
1997)
A
public or private
thoroughfare which affords traffic circulation and principal means of access to
abutting property, including avenue, place, way, drive, lane, boulevard,
highway, road, and other thoroughfare; except an alley.
IN THE
ILLUSTRATIONS:
Take out public and
add easement. Public right-of-way
or easement
worded: right-of-way
or easement
V.
Other Business
The determination
was made that the zoning administrator would review the new Michigan Zoning
Enabling Act and compile the changes that would be necessary for the Zoning
Ordinance, plus redo the Policies and Procedure to present to the Planning
Commission.
VI. Commissioner Comments
VII. Staff Comments
VIII.
Adjourn
The meeting was
adjourned at 9:00 p.m.