Minutes of the regular
meeting of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission, held Wednesday, January
31, 2007
Meeting called to order by
Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Honderd, Poskey, DeGood, South,
Stasiak, Huizinga
Absent: Pearson
#070131-01 - Agenda for January 31, 2007
Moved by
DeGood, seconded by South, to approve the agenda for January 31, 2007, as
presented.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070131-02 - Minutes of
the January 17, 2007 regular
meeting and the
January
24, 2007 joint Planning Commission/Township Board/ZBA meeting
Moved
by Stasiak, seconded by DeGood, to approve the minutes of the January 17, 2007 regular meeting,
as submitted.
MOTION
CARRIED.
Moved
by DeGood, seconded by Stasiak, to approve the minutes of the January
24, 2007 joint Planning Commission/Township Board/ZBA meeting, as
submitted.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070131-03 - Unfinished Business Preliminary Plat of Crosswinds
Moved
by DeGood, seconded by Huizinga, to remove the item from the table.
MOTION
CARRIED.
Steve
Smit, Focus Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the request.
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows:
REQUEST
The request is for tentative
preliminary plat approval of Crosswinds.
The site is located at the
southeast corner of Baldwin and 48th Ave. and the parcels are zoned
LDR. Water is available to the site;
however, sanitary sewer is not available to the site at this time. The applicant has proposed to install dry
sewer which, according to Chapter 24 footnote (d), fulfills the requirement of
sewer. Initially, the Township Board
denied their request to install dry sewer due to the fact that development of
the site is premature and the specifications for the location of the sewer are
unknown at this time. However, at the
January 8, 2007 meeting, the Township Board approved the installation of dry
sewer with the following motion:
#070108-10 - Installation of Dry Sewer for Crosswinds
Plat
Moved by
Stanley Sterk, seconded by Dale Mohr, to approve the installation of dry sewer
for Crosswinds Plat as per the plans dated revised 12/07/06 with the condition
that no building occurs on the areas reserved for septic systems and subject to
DPW Director approval and subject to Board approval for the preliminary plat
layout
Note: The Water/Sewer Committee recommended approval
MOTION CARRIED.
Thirty one lots are proposed. The first application for approval for the
Preliminary Plat of Crosswinds was recommended for denial by the Planning
Commission and denied by the Township Board because a connection had not been
provided to the property to the east as directed by the Planning
Commission. A revised plat drawing has
been submitted as a new application and the plan has subsequently been revised
according to direction given by the Planning Commission to provide future
access to the east to the campground site, to the south and to the northwest
corner property.
The item was tabled at the September 6, 2006 meeting
and has been left tabled since the Board denied the installation of dry
sewer. The following issues remained
from that meeting:
·
Fire Dept.
issues, including: the 8 inch water main located on the west side of Berens Lane would have to be located on the east side per
Township Water Department specifications; fire hydrant placements were
designated; the proposed street with the name of Brzezinski
Ct. should be renamed because Ottawa County Road Commission specifications
state that named roads utilizing the word “Court” are for permanent dead-end
roads.
·
The Planning
Commission directed that a stub street be provided to the property at the
northwest of the site to provide interior access and limit access on 48th
Ave. and Baldwin.
·
A name should be provided
for the cul de sac to the northwest.
·
Documentation
should be provided requiring all property owners to hook up to sewer at the
time it becomes available.
SUMMARY
The issues have been addressed as follows:
·
The water main
has been relocated;
·
Brzezinski Ct. was renamed to Brezezinski
Ct.
·
A named
cul-de-sac was shown providing access to the northwest of the site and a note
was added stating that lots 1, and 31 to 26 have no direct access to Baldwin or
48th Ave.;
·
A note was added
regarding the hookup to sewer when it becomes available.
The following two items remain as per the attached
documentation:
A.
The temporary cul
de sac is shown as 1,800 lineal feet and Sec. 50-51(3)(c.)
in the Code of Ordinances allows a
maximum length of a cul de sac to be 600 feet. Sec. 50-52 permits the Planning Commission to
recommend a variance and the Board to grant a variance. The Planning Commission should include in the
motion a recommendation for the variance.
B.
A condition
should be added requiring that a copy of the restrictive covenants be provided
at the time of final preliminary plat approval that requires the property
owners to hook up to sewer when it becomes available.
Following is
the documentation showing compliance with Ordinance requirements.
|
I D number |
|
|
|
|
Date |
1-15-07 |
|
|
|
Name |
Preliminary Plat of
Crosswinds |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Address |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use |
Single family residential |
|
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 |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Location of existing and
proposed drives (dimensions and radii), circulation |
|
A. |
||||||
|
Sidewalks, non-motorized
paths-select streets, accel, decel lanes |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Signs, exterior lighting |
|
|
|
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
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 |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
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 |
NA |
|
||||||
|
Location, height, type of
existing and proposed fences and walls |
|
NA |
|
|||||
|
Size, location of proposed,
existing utilities, connections to water/sewer |
X |
B. |
||||||
|
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 |
|
|
|
NA |
|
|||
|
Residential development
extra requirements-attached garages |
|
X |
|
|||||
Poskey
abstained from all discussion and voting.
The
chairman opened the floor to public comments.
No one was present to make comments.
The chairman closed the floor to public comments.
Moved
by DeGood, seconded by Stasiak, to recommend to the Township Board to grant
tentative preliminary plat approval of Crosswinds Plat as shown on the drawing
dated 12/14/06 on the basis that Township ordinances have been met and the plan
reflects the direction given by the Planning Commission, and to recommend that
the Township Board grant a variance for the length of the temporary cul de sac
as per Sec. 50-51(3)(c) in the Code of Ordinances, and with the condition that
a copy of the restrictive covenants be provided at the time of final
preliminary plat approval showing that the property owners are required to hook
up to sewer when it becomes available.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070131-04 - (PUD0701) Allen
Springs Farm LLC, 7683 Cottonwood, is requesting a Planned Unit
Development for uses including detached single
family homes, attached single family homes and housing for the elderly and
related uses, under Chapter 22, on parcels of land described as P.P. #
70-14-11-400-018, 70-14-14-200-007, 70-14-11-400-031, and part of
70-14-14-200-050 located at 8037, 8001 and 8075 Cottonwood, Georgetown
Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. site
plan, utility
and grading plan, landscaping
plan, colored
plan, narrative
statement
Todd
Stuive, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the request.
Wayne
Visbeen, Visbeen
Associates, Inc., presented the architectural designs
and stated the following. The idea is to
create the style of a European hamlet with a sense of community, with
greenspace and clustered housing. Each
unit would have privacy on their own porches.
A structure at the entry would have a sign and would also have the same
design. The garages form a gate to the
entrance to a cluster of houses. Some
houses would be two-stories and some would be one-story structures.
Ross
Luurtsema, Allen Springs LLC, explained that this was
a unique project that offered choices.
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows:
Request
The request is for a 15.7 acre PUD for the use of
single-family dwelling units as condos and intermediate-care housing for the
elderly. A total of 41 independent
dwelling units are proposed, each with approximately 2,432 square feet in area including
a two-stall garage. Private streets and
individual driveways provide access to each residence and they share open
spaces with walking paths and other amenities.
In addition, two buildings are proposed for intermediate care for
housing for the elderly. Each one is
three-stories with 11,200 square feet consisting of 30 dwelling units for a
total of 60 dwelling units for the 2 buildings.
Included with each building are thirteen garages for a total of 26; plus
two additional independent garage buildings have a total of 17 garage spaces. The two buildings for intermediate care are
connected in the middle with a two-story 12,446 square foot per floor commons
area. Two parking areas with 24 spaces
each are provided in front of each of the two intermediate care buildings.
The plan provides a transition from the MDR use of Oakcrest Manor with assisted living to the east and single
family homes in the LDR district to the west.
Amenities such as a playground, swimming pool, bath
house, gazebo and walking paths are proposed.
More than 20% open space is provided.
Sidewalks and pedestrian paths are shown, along with a gazebo which
provides for the use of the pond as open space.
A deceleration lane on Cottonwood is provided, along with sidewalks on
Cottonwood where not already existing. As
per a Township Board motion, sidewalks are not required along the condo
development area. A 20-foot wide lane
(15 plus the 5 foot walk) connects to Oakcrest Manor
as requested by the Fire Department for emergency access and for interior
circulation between the new proposed development and Oakcrest
Manor. Circulation was clarified with
signage and islands to make it less confusing by the main entrance to the
intermediate care facility.
Parking calculations exceed ordinance requirements (even if parking for
the intermediate care is calculated at one per bed for each of the 60 units
rather than the ordinance calculation for determination of number of dwelling
units when divided by 2.5). For each of
the detached single family homes, two garage spaces and parking spaces in front
of the garages are provided, in addition to 10 visitor spaces located at the
end of the some of the drive accesses.
For the intermediate care facility, 43 garage spaces are available in
addition to 48 parking spaces. Typical
parking space dimensions are shown correctly.
The streetscape meets ordinance requirements. Greenbelts adjacent to the parking lots
appear to meet ordinance requirements. A
large amount of additional landscaping is shown throughout the site. Dumpster enclosure details have been provided
and are noted to be the same materials as the main structure.
Lighting locations are shown and a note states that lighting will be
downward directed and shielded from adjacent residential districts. The note also states that fixture details
will be provided at the time of final development approval.
The PUD is proposed to be constructed in one single phase with
construction beginning in the summer of 2007 for the independent units and
beginning in the fall of 2007 for the intermediate care. One care facility building identified as
phase one with be constructed first and the second building identified as phase
2 will be constructed second (though the words “phase 1” and “phase 2” are used
to identify the buildings, the development will be submitted as one phase as
per the narrative).
This development will eliminate the existing
non-conforming use of manufacturing on a LDR parcel. The development includes P.P. #
70-14-11-400-018 (8037 Cottonwood), 70-14-11-400-031 (8075 Cottonwood),
70-14-14-200-007 (8037 Cottonwood) and part of 70-14-14-200-050.
SUMMARY
A. Permanent parcel numbers 70-14-11-400-018
(8037 Cottonwood), 70-14-11-400-031 (8075 Cottonwood), and 70-14-14-200-007
(8037 Cottonwood) should be combined so that setbacks are met and parcel lines
are not located through buildings. Plus
this eliminates the nonconforming parcels that have no frontage. However, the small part of 70-14-14-200-050
need not be combined since it was added merely to allow space for the
additional garage and the landscaped buffer.
A letter should be submitted to
the Township asking the assessor to combine the parcels once they are all
titled in the same name. Even if Ottawa
County Property Description and Mapping will not physically combine the
property since they are in different sections, the Township will determine that
they are one parcel for zoning purposes with the letter from the owners.
B. A note was added stating that lights will be downward
directing and shielded from adjacent residential property. Types of typical fixtures should be provided
at the time of final development approval.
More sign detail should be provided at the time of final development
approval including the dimensions showing height, width, square footage and
distance from the centerline of Cottonwood (especially if the signs are
proposed to be different than what the ordinance allows).
C. A Storm Water Drain Permit is required at the time a
building permit application is submitted.
D. A DEQ permit is required to build and/or fill in the
floodplain.
E. Elevations will be provided prior to the meeting.
Following is
the documentation showing compliance with Ordinance requirements.
|
I D number |
PUD0701 |
|
|
|
Date |
1-11-07 |
|
|
|
Name |
Allen Farms Preserve |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Address |
8037 Cottonwood |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use |
Housing for the Elderly |
|
SUP required |
PUD |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
A. |
|||||
|
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 |
|
||||||
|
Sidewalks, non-motorized
paths-select streets, accel, decel lanes |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Signs, exterior lighting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. |
|
|
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 |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
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 |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
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 |
|
|||
|
Residential development extra
requirements-attached garages |
|
X |
|
|||||
Any development that fails to meet the following
qualifying conditions, at a minimum, shall not be considered for the PUD
District:
A.
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.
MET.
B.
Utilities: All PUD’s shall be served
by public water and sanitary sewer facilities.
Stormwater must be coordinated with the county drain commission.
MET.
C. Land
Ownership: The PUD application must
be filed by the landowner, jointly by the
landowners, or
by an agent. If the application is filed
by an agent(s) or other interested party,
written
approval from the landowner(s) must also be filed.
Met. Two people signed the application, one
represents Allen Springs Farms and one represents Oakcrest
Homes.
D.
Master Plan: The proposed uses of the PUD must be substantially consistent
with Georgetown Township’s Master Plan for the subject property.
Appears
to be met. The general concept appears to be substantially
consistent with the Master Plan. The
Future Land Use Map designates the subject parcels as LDR with a maximum
overall density of three dwelling units per acre. However, the Future Land Use Map designates
the property directly adjacent to the site to the east as MDR with an overall
maximum density of 5 units per acre.
The text of the Master Plan states: “Based on the
issues, goals and policies presented, and on consideration of potential future
population growth in the Township, a map depicting the desired future
development pattern in the Township was prepared. It is noted that lines separating land use
categories are NOT to be considered to be defined lines and the lines are not
necessarily parcel specific.”
Therefore, the overall density of 4.7 units per acre
appears to be substantially consistent with the Master Plan since LDR is 3
units per acre and the adjacent site is designated MDR with an allowable
density of 5 units per acre. (The
density is calculated by adding 41 single family homes to 24 units of
intermediate care totaling 65 units. The
2.5 units of the 60 intermediate-care equals 24 units
as per Sec. 20.4Q, then divide by the 13.7 acres, since land in a floodplain
cannot be counted toward density.) However,
the Planning Commission will have to determine if the number of dwelling units
is acceptable to be consistent with the Master Plan or if the total number
should be reduced.
Sec. 3.20 states that lands within a floodplain should
not be counted when determining density computations and density was calculated
excluding floodplain areas. The plan
notes the density as 4.7 units per acre when the 2 acres of floodplain are
excluded. A DEQ Permit is required for
all construction or fill placed within a floodplain.
E. Pedestrian: The PUD must provide for integrated, safe and
abundant pedestrian access and movement within the PUD and to adjacent
properties. (In addition, the township
has a stand alone ordinance covering certain sidewalk requirements)
Met.
F. Architecture: The PUD should provide
for coordinated and innovative visually appealing architectural styles,
building forms and building relationships.
NOT
PROVIDED. TYPICAL
ELEVATIONS SHOULD BE PROVIDED AND ARE TO BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
G. Traffic: The PUD must provide for safe and
efficient vehicular movements within, into and off of the PUD site. In addition, the PUD should integrate traffic
calming techniques, along with suitable parking lot landscape islands and other
similar techniques to improve parking lot aesthetics, storm water management,
traffic flow and vehicular/pedestrian safety.
Appears
to be met with the addition of signage and landscaped islands, in addition to a
decel lane.
C.
Open Space
Requirements:
1.
The PUD development shall contain usable open
space in an amount equal to at least twenty (20) percent of the total PUD
site. The Planning Commission may
consider a PUD with a lesser amount of open space if it is clear that the
proposed PUD substantially provides for the intent of a PUD as stated in this
Chapter. It is noted that open space
is a very important element of a PUD and reductions to the open space
provision should be granted only as a result of specific, clearly documented
reasons (i.e. the PUD may located on a relatively small site in an area where a
20% open space provision would detract from building continuity, historic
preservation efforts, etc.)
2.
Such open space to be considered usable shall
not include required yards (required yards need to be individually determined
for each PUD project) or buffers, parking areas, drives, rights-of-way, utility
or road easements, storm water detention ponds, wetlands (unless determined to
be useable by the Planning Commission due to the addition of interpretive
boardwalks/walkways, etc. provided in and through the wetland) and structures
(Unless the structures are part of the open space i.e. gazebos, etc.).
3.
Such open space shall be permanently set aside
for the sole benefit, use, and enjoyment of present and future occupants of the
PUD through covenant, deed restriction, open space easement, or similar legal
instrument acceptable to the Township; or, if agreed to by governmental agency,
the open space may be conveyed to a governmental agency for the use of the
general public.
Appears to be met.
An overlay site plan was provided
to show the open space to help to determine if this standard is met.
Met. The use of
Housing for the Elderly is permitted in Sec. 3.8(D) in the LDR district with a
special use permit. The special use
standards listed in Sec. 20.4(Q) appear to be met.
HELD.
A.
Preliminary Plan
Application Requirements
1.
A completed application form and ten (10) copies
of a preliminary development plan shall be provided to the Zoning
Administrator. The preliminary plan
shall contain the following site plan information:
A.
The date, north arrow, and scale. The scale shall be not less than 1”=20’ for
property ten (10) acres and larger and at least 1”=200’ for those 20 acres (20)
acres or more.
PROVIDED.
B.
The name and address of the firm responsible for
the preparation of the site plan.
PROVIDED.
C.
The name and address of the property owner(s)
and petitioner(s).
PROVIDED.
D.
Legal description of the PUD site.
PROVIDED.
E.
The size (in acres) of the PUD site.
PROVIDED.
F.
Property lines and proposed setbacks, shown and
dimensioned.
PROVIDED.
G.
A location sketch.
PROVIDED.
H.
The location of all existing structures,
driveways, and parking areas within 100’ of the PUD site’s boundaries.
PROVIDED.
I.
The location and dimensions of all existing
structures on the PUD site.
PROVIDED.
J.
The location of all proposed structures on the
PUD site. Realizing that this is
preliminary, dimensions are not necessary until final approval.
PROVIDED.
K.
The location and dimension of proposed lots or
ownership divisions.
PROVIDED.
L.
The location, pavement width and right-of-way
width of all abutting roads, streets, alleys or easements.
PROVIDED.
M.
The existing zoning and use of all properties
abutting including the PUD site.
PROVIDED.
N.
The location of all existing vegetation and the general
location of all proposed landscape areas, berms,
landscape islands and buffers, including any fence or wall areas.
PROVIDED.
O.
The size and location of existing utilities,
including a short narrative note on the site plan pertaining to the PUD’s proposed utility needs and concepts.
PROVIDED.
P.
The proposed location and estimated size(s) of
all surface and subsurface water drainage facilities.
PROVIDED. A STORM WATER DRAIN PERMIT IS REQUIRED.
Q.
Existing topographic contours at a maximum of five
(5) foot intervals. Conceptual
topographic patterns for the PUD site shall also be provided, noting major
earth moving and/or removal areas (realizing that each building receiving final
PUD approval will be required to show actual topographic contours, both
existing and proposed).
PROVIDED.
R.
Location, type and size of areas to be dedicated
for common open space.
PROVIDED.
S.
Anticipated trash receptacle locations and
method of screening.
PROVIDED.
T.
Proposed streets, alleys, curb cuts, acceleration/deceleration
lanes, curbed areas, service drives and parking lot locations, including
traffic calming concepts, driving surface widths as required by the Ottawa
County Road Commission’s standards.
A
DECEL LANE IS PROVIDED. CIRCULATION WITHIN
THE INTERIOR OF THE SITE WAS REVISED.
U.
Proposed pedestrian sidewalk movements both
within and off the PUD site. Sidewalks
are required along all public roadways.
PROVIDED.
V.
Proposed lighting concepts/styles and general
location areas.
NOT
PROVIDED.
W.
Proposed architectural style/design concepts
that will be incorporated into final approval plans, including both buildings
and structures (i.e. – gateways, fence/wall concepts, art work, etc.).
NOT
PROVIDED.
X.
Proposed setbacks, lot widths, lot areas and
building/structure heights.
PROVIDED.
Y.
Proposed uses to be included in the PUD project.
PROVIDED.
Z.
Floodplain areas. (Revised 6-27-2005)
PROVIDED. NEEDS A DEQ PERMIT.
2.
Fee: Payment of a
PUD fee, as established by the Township Board.
Provided.
3.
Narrative
Statement: A narrative statement describing: Provided.
A.
The objectives of the PUD and how it relates to
the Intent of the PUD District, as described in Section 22.1.
B.
The relationship of the PUD to the qualifying
conditions listed in Section 22.2.
C.
Phases of development and approximate time
frames for each phase, including anticipated start and completion dates of
construction.
D.
Proposed deed restrictions, covenants, or
similar legal instruments to be used within the PUD.
A PUD shall be approved only if it complies with each
of the following standards:
A. The
proposed PUD complies with all qualifying conditions of Section 22.2.
Appears to
be met, but the Planning Commission will make the determination as listed
above.
B.
The proposed PUD
is compatible with surrounding uses of land, the natural environment, and the capacities
of public services and facilities affected by the development.
Appears to
be met since this would be a good transition between the assisted-living to the
east and the single family homes to the west.
Public services are available to the site.
C.
The proposed uses
within the PUD will not possess conditions or effects that would be injurious
to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community.
Appears to
be met since this would be a residential environment, consistent with the
surrounding area. A decel lane was
provided on Cottonwood.
D.
The proposed
project is consistent with the spirit and intent of the PUD District, as
described in Section 22.1 and represents an opportunity for improved or innovative
development for the community that could not be achieved through conventional
zoning.
Appears to
be met since this would provide an opportunity for single family homes to be
constructed in a smaller than usual neighborhood environment and provide for a
transition for a person to live in the same neighborhood while obtaining
assistance.
E.
The proposed PUD
meets all the site plan requirements of this Chapter, respective of being
either a preliminary or final PUD request (Preliminary PUD’s
must meet Section 22.5, A and Final PUD’s must meet
Section 22.8, D.)
Appears to be met.
DeGood
asked if there was a 20 foot lane for the Fire Department and was told
yes. He asked about the parking and was
told that more spaces were provided than were required.
Todd
Stuive detailed the parking that was provided for the independent units, the
additional garages and the intermediate care facility. He said that they did not intend for vehicles
to park along the roadway.
Honderd
said that this was a good layout and the only problems that might occur would
be on holidays for visitor parking. He
asked about snow removal and where snow would be stockpiled. He noted that a sidewalk on the west side
ended at a parking lot and would require a pedestrian to walk across the
parking lot.
Todd
Stuive said that they had considered snow removal and had removed garages shown
in the previous plan in the parking pods in order to accommodate snow to be
pushed off these ends. He said that
there might be times when snow would have to be removed from the site. He said that they did intend for pedestrians
to walk across the parking lot when the sidewalk ended.
Honderd
said that the plan had nice features and the use would have less of a traffic
impact on Cottonwood than a regular residential development.
The
chairman opened the public hearing.
Beth
Hendrickson, 997 Village Lane, said that she was concerned with traffic on
Cottonwood and there was only one road to Cottonwood for the development. She said that this would be adding traffic to
a busy street where there were already many Grand Valley students driving. She said that she has trouble getting out in
the morning and that a left hand turn lane is needed on Cottonwood. She asked if there could be another road for
this development to use to exit.
Honderd
said that there was a connection to the Oak Crest Manor.
Todd
Stuive said that they did not intend for traffic to use that connection unless
there was an emergency and that connection would only lead to Cottonwood
anyway.
South
said that Cottonwood is busy but in the past there have not been a lot of
problems. He said that if someone has to
wait a little longer to get out, it would be no worse than if the site was to
be developed into all houses.
Beth
Hendrickson said that the Grand Valley kids race on
Cottonwood and a light should be installed to stop them. She said that the Sheriff’s Department set up
a sting and issued a lot of tickets.
Honderd
asked if a traffic study had been done.
The zoning administrator said that the Township did not ask for one.
Todd
Stuive said that the plan has not been submitted to the Road Commission yet.
Wayne
Visbeen said that only one-third of the residents who
live in Oakcrest Manor have vehicles
and produce less traffic than any other development.
South
said that the Road Commission reacts to demonstrated problems rather than
addressing them before they occur.
Honderd
said that a light along Cottonwood would result in traffic intervals which
would make it easier to exit onto the street.
The
chairman closed the floor to public comments.
Todd
Stuive said that they had added a right-turn lane at the urging of the Township
even though the Road Commission did not require it and it would help with
traffic. He said that the Road
Commission is retroactive in addressing traffic issues.
Moved by South, seconded by Huizinga, to
make the determination that the Qualifying Conditions have been met.
MOTION CARRIED.
It
was noted that the plan could be tabled if the Planning Commission wanted to
see more parking spaces or storage space for snow removal.
Wayne
Visbeen detailed all the parking that was provided
and noted that more parking spaces were provided than were required.
South
said that there would be more room to maneuver if there were more parking
spaces.
Honderd
said that in the past the Planning Commission had allowed applicants to shown
future banks of parking spaces that could be added if needed. He said that he understands why they don’t
want to provide parking spaces along the road because it would be detrimental
to the design and they are making a visual statement.
Stasiak
said that he thinks the parking is adequate and there is ample room for snow
removal. He said that he did not think
it was a problem for pedestrians to walk across the parking lot.
Moved by Huizinga, seconded by Stasiak,
to recommend to the Township Board to approve (PUD0701) Allen Springs Farm LLC,
7683 Cottonwood, for a Planned Unit Development for uses including detached
single family homes, attached single family homes and housing for the elderly
and related uses, under Chapter 22, on parcels of land described as P.P. #
70-14-11-400-018, 70-14-14-200-007, 70-14-11-400-031, and part of
70-14-14-200-050 located at 8037, 8001 and 8075 Cottonwood, Georgetown
Township, Ottawa County, MI,
As shown on:
1.
Sheets one (site
plan and colored
plan), two (utility
and grading plan),and three of three (landscaping
plan) dated 1-9-07 revised, and
2.
the narrative
statement identified as WPDATA\L061954E, and
3.
on the elevation
plan dated January 29, 2007.
On the basis that the following are met:
1. Qualifying
conditions in Sec. 22.2,
2. Information
as per Sec. 22.5 is provided, and
3. The
plan meets the ordinance requirements of Sec. 22.10
And with the following conditions:
1. A letter is submitted to the Township asking
the assessor to combine P.P. #
70-14-11-400-018
(8037 Cottonwood), 70-14-11-400-031 (8075 Cottonwood), and 70-14-14-200-007
(8037 Cottonwood) so that setbacks are met and parcel lines are not located
through buildings. Plus this eliminates
the non-conforming parcels that have no frontage. (The small part of 70-14-14-200-050 need not
be combined since it was added merely to allow space for the additional garage
and the landscaped buffer.)
2. Types of typical light fixtures are
provided at the time of final development approval.
3. More sign detail should be provided at
the time of final development approval
including
the dimensions showing height, width, square footage and distance from the
centerline of Cottonwood (especially if the signs are proposed to be different
than what the ordinance allows).
4.
A Storm
Water Drain Permit is required at the time a building permit application is
submitted.
5.
A DEQ
permit is required to build and/or fill in the floodplain.
MOTION CARRIED.
#070131-05 - Baldwin
Street Overlay District
Pete
Lazdins and John Hartsema, Design Plus, presented
proposed plans for the Baldwin Street Overlay District, including an overview
of the area and plan
A, plan
B, plan
C. There was discussion regarding
the proposals.
#070131-06 – Adjournment
The
chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.