Minutes of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission meeting held Wednesday, August 2, 2006

 

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

 

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

Absent:            none

 

#060802-01 - Approval of agenda

 

Moved by DeGood, seconded by Stasiak, to approve the agenda for August 2, 2006, as presented.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

#060802-02 - Approval of minutes of the July 19, 2006 meeting

 

Moved by South, seconded by DeGood, to approve the minutes for July 19, 2006, as presented.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

#060802-03 - (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 Utility and Dimension Plan, Exxel Site Grading Plan, color Master Site Plan, elevations, narrative, sign letter)

 

Pete Lazdins, Design + Architects, 201 Ionia, represented Georgetown LLC, 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.  An additional review was conducted at the July 19, 2006 Planning Commission meeting for revised plans.  No issues were raised and no additional information was requested.  At the July 5, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission accepted the waiver request for the acreage and for the setbacks, and made the determination that the request meets the qualifying conditions in Sec. 22.2.  At the last meeting the determination was made that the request meets the Preliminary Plan Application Requirements in Sec. 22.5, and the Standards for Approval in Sec. 22.10.  Documentation was provided in the July 5 and July 19, 2006 reviews.  Only one issue remains.  The applicant submitted a letter requesting additional individual ground-mounted signs for the convenience store/gas station, office building and bank, with setbacks according to the ordinance requirements, with a maximum of 50 square feet in area per side and a maximum of 4 feet in height.  There was no consensus at the last meeting whether or not the additional signs were acceptable.  A point to consider is that a similar mixed use PUD was approved for Gleneagle at the corner of 8th Ave. and 44th St.  Three ground mounted signs were approved for the Gleneagle PUD, with one at the street entrance on 44th St., one at a street entrance on 8th Ave. and one at the corner.  A suggestion is to approve three ground mounted signs for this PUD to be consistent with the Gleneagle PUD, each to be a maximum of 50 square feet in area, a maximum of 4 feet in height, and located at least 75 feet from the centerline of the street, but with exact locations to be determined by the applicant.  Then they can determine what signage they want and where the signs would be located.

 

South said that three ground mounted signs were approved for the PUD development at 8th Ave. and 44th St.

 

In response to Stasiak’s question, the applicant indicated that he was requesting to have two ground mounted signs for the development and three additional ones, one for the office, one for the convenience store/gas station and one for the bank.

 

The chairman opened the public hearing.

 

Rebecca Brinks, 7684 36th Ave., sent a letter and stated the following.  The surrounding area is not all owned by Daybreak Church and some property is residential.  She has lived there for 20 years.  Proposals have been made during the past 20 years for development on this corner and she has fought them.  It has become clear the direction that this area is going.  She is working with a realtor and developer for her own land.  If she develops her land it would be hard to complain about this development and how it would affect her residence.  She has an older farmhouse that it close to the road and headlights will affect her.  She asked that what was brought forward by her developer be looked at and if this development is approved she wants her development approved.  She sold the Township the easement on her property, but not in front of her house.  The plan misrepresents her farmhouse.

 

The chairman asked what the Master Plan designed as uses for the Brinks property.

 

The zoning administrator stated the following.  The Master Plan calls for the Brinks property to be residential; however, a representative contacted the Township about developing the land into a daycare facility and an office building.  The use of a daycare is allowed in the residential district and the determination could be made that the daycare would bring the site into conformity with the Master Plan even with the office use, similar to the development currently being reviewed.  However, the developer had proposed an office building that was mush larger than what would fit on the site while still meeting ordinance requirements.  No formal application has been submitted to the Township and no formal meetings have been held regarding this proposal.  So at this time the Planning Commission could take no action or make any promises about approvals for any development on the Brinks property as requested by the property owner.

 

The chairman asked about the driveway location in relation to the house.

 

Pete Lazdins stated the following.  The location of the driveway had been chosen on the logical scheme of the development which made the lots on 36th Ave. the same size.  Traffic for the office building would typically be from 8 or 9 to 5:00 p.m.  The logical standard in Georgetown Township for the convenience store and gas station would be for the facility to be open until midnight or 1:00 a.m. on weekends and open at 5:00 a.m.  Lighting would be reduced during nighttime hours.

 

The chairman said that the Township would like the driveways to line up.

 

Rebecca Brinks said that they had the driveway platted out.

 

The applicant said that they wanted to avoid the left-hand lockup.

 

Rebecca Brinks said that she was concerned with traffic and the proposed passing lane coming close to her house.

 

The chairman explained that all roads and lanes would be within the road right-of-way that was owned by the Road Commission.

 

Michelle Burns, 7569 Russel Ct., said that her lot backs up to the parking lot.

 

The chairman clarified that her lot was actually across the street on the south side of Baldwin.

 

Michelle Burns asked that a berm provide shielding from headlights and she asked if the condos would be rentals.

 

Pete Lazdins said that the area was flat and they could berm the area up between two and a half and three feet to shield car lights.  He said that the residential duplexes would be sold as condos, not to a rental company.

 

Michelle Burns said that she liked the plan, but worried about the school kids.  She asked about a traffic light at the corner because it was hard to get out on Baldwin.

 

The chairman said that it was the responsibility of the Ottawa County Road Commission and he thought that one would be added.

 

A letter was submitted by Joel Bos, 6394 36th Ave. and Mike and Shelly Ford.

 

The chairman closed the public hearing.

 

Pete Lazdins said the following.  This development will be built in an area where this use makes a lot of sense.  With gas so expensive, people do not want to travel far to a commercial area.  Other municipalities support the village commercial area concept and it is better to not focus the Township’s entire commercial uses in one area.

 

Pearson asked if the landscaping along the road would be irrigated.

 

Pete Lazdins said that he expected that it would since the applicant wanted it to look nice.

 

Pearson said that they should limit the sale of alcohol at the convenience store, but was informed that the Planning Commission had no authority in that regard since the sale of alcohol was regulated by the State.

 

Pearson said that they should be consistent with the PUD on 8th Ave. and 44th St. by allowing only three signs.

 

South said that the school entrance was 650 north of the property line and that the school would keep the property pretty well lit up.  He said that schools need to be somewhere and there probably would be enough restrictions so that kids would not hang around this development.

 

Moved by Stasiak, seconded by Huizinga, to recommend to the Township Board to approve (PUD0604) Preliminary Development Plan Baldwin Georgetown LLC, 7665 36th Ave., to have 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., as presented on the following documents:

a.                   The Design + colored “Master Site Plan” dated 7.12.06,

b.                  The Design + “Architectural Concepts” with elevations and sign details dated 6.21.06,

c.                   The Exxel Engineering Inc. Site Utility and Dimension Plan dated revised 7/12/06,

d.                  The Exxel Engineering Inc. Site Grading Plan dated 7/12/06, and

e.                   The Revised Project Narrative Statement dated July 11, 2006;

 

Based on the findings:

a.                   The request meets the qualifying conditions in Sec. 22.2;

b.                  The request meets the Preliminary Plan Application Requirements in Sec. 22.5;

c.                   The request meets the Standards for Approval in Sec. 22.10; and

d.                  The request meets all applicable Township ordinances.

 

With the following conditions:

a.                   Permitted uses would be allowed as per the narrative dated July 11, 2006, but would not include vehicle repair, drive-in restaurants or truck rental;

b.                  A total of 4 (2 entry and one for the office and one for the convenience store/gas station) ground mounted signs would be permitted (two development signs are shown on the plan) with setbacks for all ground mounted signs according to the ordinance requirements (75 feet from the centerline of either Baldwin or 36th Ave.), with a maximum of 50 square feet in area per side and a maximum of 4 feet in height (wall signs to meet ordinances);

c.                   A berm is added along Baldwin, adjusted to shield headlights from the residential area;

d.                  The hours of operation for the convenience store/gas station are from 5 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.; and

e.                   The following are to be submitted to the Township:

1.      Documentation regarding deed restrictions, covenants or similar legal instruments to be used within the PUD and documentation that an association will maintain the common areas to be submitted at the time of final development application submittal;

2.      Approvals from the Ottawa County Road and Drain Commissions at the time of final development application submittal;

3.      A recorded PUD agreement at the time of building permit application submittal; and

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

#060802-04 - Site Plan (ST0608) McDonalds USA LLC-160 Chicago Dr. (site plan, landscaping plan. color landscaping, elevations, masonry, plot map, grading plan, utility plan, letter  requesting parking waiver, Main St. ROW)

 

Jeff Brinks, DCI Engineering in Byron Center, represented the applicant and presented the request.  He said that the restaurant was built in 1973 and they wanted to demolish it and rebuild.  He said that a Storm Water Drain Permit was obtained and the landscaping provided a nice entry into the Township.

 

 

The zoning administrator presented a review as follows. 

 

A revised site plan has been submitted, dated Revision 4 - 7/24/06, with two changes, one as per the Ottawa County Drain Commission and the second for an increase in the size of the building.  The previous site plan listed the dimensions of the building as 123 by 38.7 feet.  The new plan increases the length of the building to 133, with an additional 336 square feet added to the rear of the building for additional kitchen area.  All setback requirements are still met.  The only change is to increase the parking requirements from 71 spaces to 76 spaces (an additional 5 spaces required), with 59 provided.  This increases the waiver request from 12 to 17 parking spaces which is about a 22% reduction.  A new narrative has been submitted with the revised calculation.  The narrative provides documentation that the provided number of parking spaces is sufficient to handle customers at the restaurant because 60 to 70% of the business is drive-through, plus numerous parking spaces are available adjacent to the site.  It appears that the requested waiver still meets the ordinance requirements as found in the following documentation.  The rest of the review remains basically the same.

 

The request is for site plan approval to demolish the existing McDonalds restaurant at the southwest corner of Main St. and Chicago Dr. and construct a new building.  Although some elements on the site are non-conforming, once the building is demolished the site would have to be constructed in accordance with the current ordinances.  Since a special use permit was approved in 2001 for a drive-in restaurant and the use has continued, no additional special use permit application is required to be submitted.  However, the specific standards in the ordinance for a drive-in restaurant must still be met.

 

In 2001, a similar request was submitted to the Township.  At the September 26, 2001 meeting, the ZBA denied a variance to allow parking within the required 30 foot front yard setback along Main St. (where currently parking spaces exist).  At the September 24, 2006 meeting, the Board approved a special use permit for a drive-in restaurant.  At the October 3, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission approved a site for a new McDonald’s restaurant to be constructed on the site.  Subsequently, no new construction took place and as per Sec. 19.5(E) the site plan approval became null and void after one year.  The special use permit remains in effect since the use has remained a drive-in restaurant.

 

SUMMARY

 

Two preapplication meetings were held and it appears that all the issues have been addressed.  No revisions appear to be necessary.  The applicants submitted a letter requesting a 22% parking reduction and the Planning Commission should determine if the parking reduction is acceptable.  76 parking spaces are required, 59 provided.  A 22% parking reduction is requested according to Sec. 26.9(K).  Parking spaces were lost when the landscaped area was provided along Main St. as required for the front yard setback.  Documentation is provided that the requested number of spaces will adequately serve the site and the criteria listed in the ordinance for a parking waiver is addressed.  Although McDonald’s does not have an easement agreement for the use of the 24 parking spaces to the east of the site (off the second southern entrance off Main St.), these parking spaces appear to be available for use if the need should arise, in addition to the numerous additional spaces to the south and west.  It appears as though parking needs are addressed, especially since a majority of the business is drive-through.  

 

Following is the documentation showing compliance with Ordinance requirements.

 

I D number

ST0608

 

 

 

Date

7/21/06

 

 

Name

McDonalds

 

 

 

 

 

Address

160 Chicago Dr.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Use

Drive-in restaurant

 

SUP required

Yes-obtained SUP0115

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

a. meets ordinance

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

X

b. meets ordinance 

Sidewalks, non-motorized paths-select streets, accel, decel lanes

 

 

 

 

X

 

Signs, exterior lighting

 

 

 

 

 

X

c. see note

Curbing, parking areas, dimensions of typical space, number of parking spaces

X

 

Calculations of parking spaces, unloading areas

 

 

 

  d. parking

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

 

 

 

 

NA

 

Location, type, size of proposed landscaping, streetscape, greenbelt

X

a. meets ordinance

Location, height, type of existing and proposed fences and walls

 

X

 

Size, location of proposed, existing utilities, connections to water/sewer

X

 

Location, size of surface water drainage facilities

 

 

X

 e. permit needed

Existing, proposed topo contours, max 5 ft intervals

 

 

X

 

Rec/common areas, floodplain areas

 

 

 

X

f. needs DEQ permit

Special Use Standards, general and specific

 

 

 

X 

g. see note

Residential development extra requirements-attached garages

 

NA 

 

 

Notes:

a.                   Setback requirements are met (Chicago Dr. front-30 feet; Main St. front-80 feet from CL; rear -40; sides-0).  A landscaping plan shows calculations that meet the ordinance.  A landscaped setback area is proposed in compliance with footnote (l) along Main St. where parking spaces currently exist. 

b.                  Aisle widths meet ordinance requirements.  As per the Fire Department, the existing drives from Main St. can remain even though they do not meet the Fire Code requirement of 20 feet since they currently exist and are not proposed to be changed.

c.                   A note on the plan details compliance with the ordinance for lighting.  A note on the plan states that the existing freestanding sign is to remain.  Any new signs would need permits and no advertising matter is permitted on directional signs.  The elevation plan shows an “M” on the wall in addition to the “McDonald’s” sign.  These signs must meet the requirements in Chapter 25.

d.                  76 parking spaces are required, 59 provided.  A 22% parking reduction is requested according to Sec. 26.9(K).  Parking spaces were lost when the landscaped area was provided along Main St. as required for the front yard setback.  Documentation is provided that the requested number of spaces will adequately serve the site and the criteria listed in the ordinance for a parking waiver is addressed.  Although McDonald’s does not have an easement agreement for the use of the 24 parking spaces to the east of the site (off the second southern entrance off Main St.), these parking spaces appear to be available for use if the need should arise, in addition to the numerous additional spaces to the south and west.  It appears as though parking needs are addressed, especially since a majority of the business is drive-through.  

e.                   A Storm Water Drain Permit is required to be submitted with the building permit application.

f.                   A DEQ Permit is required to be submitted with the building permit application.

g.                  A narrative is provided detailing that the general and specific special use standards are met even though the special use permit has already been approved. 

 

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.  Met.

            (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.  Met.

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

            (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.  Met.

 

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.  Met-66 feet from the Main St. ROW and 100.8 feet from the Chicago Dr. ROW.

            (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.  Met-as detailed in the narrative, the accesses have existed since 1973 (which makes them legal non-conforming, the same as the entrance widths on Main St.) and are the farthest away the site allows.

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

            (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.  Met-as detailed in the narrative, 16 stacking spaces are available.

            (5)        Outdoor speakers for the drive through facility shall be located in a way that minimizes sound transmission toward neighboring property and uses.  Met-as detailed in the narrative.

 

Landscape Preservation. NA

 

Relation of Buildings to Environment.

Elevations provided. 

Lighting details provided.

Landscaping meets the ordinance requirements.

 

Drives, Parking, and Circulation. OK

 

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.

 

Honderd said that since the applications were reviewed at the pre-application meetings, it was not always necessary to conduct a work session and then to hold a regular meeting for each application.

 

DeGood said that he was in favor of the parking reduction and thought the plan looked good.

 

Stasiak asked how long it would take to demolish the building and build a new one.  He was told 90 days.  Stasiak said that this was a visible entrance to the Township and the opportunity should be taken to embellish the landscaping.  He asked about landscaping the area by the 22 parking spaces to the east.

 

Scott Ballis, construction manager, said that they could landscape the islands, but unfortunately they don’t have the luxury of owning the land adjacent to the 22 parking spaces.  He said that about a year and a half ago they approached the mall about purchasing the land and he approached them again.  He said that they might be open to the landscaping even if they don’t sell the property.

 

Honderd said that he understands the logic of the mall not wanting to sell the property because it could limit them in the future with businesses coming in.  He asked where they would put the snow.

 

Scott Ballis said that the layout would be similar to what is there now and he was not sure how snow removal was handled.

 

Honderd said that the Planning Commission can ask for an area to be banked for future parking spaces if needed and that was not available on this site.  He said that it was a bit of a concern.

 

Huizinga asked about the difference with the 602 and 606 elevations.

 

Jeff Brinks said that the existing elevation is 602 and it needs to be raised to 606 to get it above the floodplain. 

 

Scott Ballis displayed a picture of the proposed facility.

 

Poskey asked how the parcel would be affected if the additional property was obtained.

 

Scott Ballis said that he did not think that he had a shot to get the property since this was the way to get in and out of the strip mall from Main St.  He said that there was really no other way to design the layout of the site because the lot was not deep enough and this is what they had to do if they wanted to get done this year.

 

Pearson said that he appreciated the landscaping since this is the gateway to the community and he asked if the salt from the snow and winter would affect the landscaping.

 

Jeff Brinks said that he asked the landscape architect the same question and she said that she chose low colorful plants that were salt-resistant. 

 

Pearson asked about the sign and was told it currently existed and would not be replaced.

 

South said that he has never seen the parking lot full and most of the business is drive-through.  He said that if the lot is full, people would just go through the drive-through.  He said that he would like to see them pick up the additional property.

 

Jeff Brinks said that an ingress and egress easement exists on the additional property for others besides just McDonalds.  He said that all the development has rights to the easement for ingress and egress to Main St., and they would not be able to change the layout because of the easement anyway.

 

Scott Ballis asked if they could submit the DEQ Permit prior to the issuance of the building permit, rather than with the building permit application, so that the application could be in the process of being reviewed while they waited for the DEQ Permit.

 

Stasiak asked if their time table would be delayed if approval was held off for two weeks to give them time to find out about the additional property.

 

Scott Ballis said that the easement issue would be the most difficult to address and they would not be able to change the layout anyway because they would have to get control of the easement.

 

Honderd said that he can not see the mall selling the property because not having the extra spaces limits the option of additional uses or stores.

 

Moved by DeGood, seconded by Huizinga, to approve the following plans based on the findings that the plans meet the general special use permit standards listed in Sec. 20.3(A), the specific special use standards listed in Sec. 20.4(L) for a drive-in restaurant, the site plan requirements listed in Sec. 19.4, and all applicable Township Ordinances:

1.      Site plan – Revision 4 dated 7/24/06, (site plan)

2.      Site grading & Erosion Control Plan - Revision 2 dated 7/24/06 (grading plan)

3.      Utility Plan - Revision 2 dated 7/24/06 (utility plan)

4.      Landscaping plan – dated revised July 24, 2006 (landscaping plan, color landscaping)

5.      Elevation plans – dated Received 7-19-06 (elevations)

 

With the following conditions:

1.      A demolition permit must be obtained prior to any demolition activities taking place;

2.      Any new signs must have permits and meet ordinances.  No advertising matter is permitted on directional signs.  The elevation plan shows an “M” on the wall in addition to the “McDonald’s” sign.  These signs must meet the requirements in Chapter 25 or are not permitted.

3.      (The Planning Commission determined the number of parking spaces is acceptable.) A 22% parking reduction is granted to have 59 spaces when 76 are required, according to Sec. 26.9(K), due to the fact that the applicant has demonstrated that the parking needs would be adequately met on site and on the adjacent site since a majority of the business is drive-through, if any changes occur to the site the parking requirements would be reviewed again, there are no negative impacts, and that the addition of the landscaped setback area has eliminated some existing parking spaces.

4.      A Storm Water Drain Permit is required to be submitted with the building permit application.

5.      A DEQ Permit is required to be submitted prior to the issuance of the building permit.

 

Stasiak that his only reservation was that if there was a remote change for them to obtain the additional property they could redesign the layout of the site and redirect the easement.

 

Huizinga said that it would have a complete new look.

 

South said that it would be to their benefit to change if they get the property.

 

Yeas:   South, DeGood, Pearson, Huizinga

Nays:   Stasiak, Poskey, Honderd

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

#060802-05 – Adjournment

 

The chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.