Minutes of the
regular meeting of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission, held Wednesday,
March 21, 2007
Meeting called to order by
Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Honderd, Poskey, South, Stasiak, Huizinga,
Pearson
Absent: DeGood
#070321-01 - Agenda for March 21, 2007
Moved by
South, seconded by Stasiak, to approve the agenda for March 21, 2007, as
presented.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070321-02 - Minutes of the
January 31, 2007 regular
meeting
Moved
by South, seconded by Stasiak, to approve the minutes of the January 31, 2007 regular meeting,
as submitted.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070321-03 - (PUD0604-01) Final
Development Plan for Phase 1 for Baldwin
Georgetown LLC, 7665 36th
Ave., to have 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. (final
development plan)
Pete
Lazdins, Design Plus, represented the applicant and presented the request.
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows:
REQUEST
The request is for final development approval for the
first phase of a mixed use PUD at the northwest corner of Baldwin and 36th
Ave. The first phase includes the two western retail buildings adjacent to
Baldwin and all of the 16 duplex or townhouse units. The plan is the nearly the same as the one
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at the August 2, 2006
meeting and approved by the Township Board at the August 14, 2006 meeting. The differences include minor changes that
address conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission and Township
Board, in addition to building envelopes that were provided for the 16 duplex
or townhouse units. The reason for the
change to include building envelopes for the duplex residential buildings was
so the footprint for a typical building could be altered slightly as long as it
fits within the building envelope. In
addition, the residential buildings could either be one story or two story
townhouses. A typical elevation was
provided. A 2 to 3 foot berm was added
along Baldwin and four ground mounted signs are shown 75 feet from the
centerline of Baldwin and 36th Ave. (one along Baldwin and three
along 36th Ave.) The interior
street was named.
SUMMARY
The proposed
plan dated Revised 2.27.07 complies with all applicable sections of the
ordinance including Sec. 22.8, 22.9 and 22.10.
The
following should be added as conditions:
a.
Building permits must be issued for at least two (or
more) residential units for each one of the retail buildings (as noted on the
plan).
b.
The footprint of the residential buildings shall fit
within the building envelopes shown on the plan dated 2.27.07 and the
residential buildings could either be one story or two story townhouses.
c.
The residential buildings must be at least 10 feet
apart, as noted on the plan, and it shall be the responsibility of the person
submitting the building permit application to submit a survey verifying the 10
feet distance between buildings.
d.
The following are to be submitted to the Township prior to the issuance of
any building permits:
·
Documentation
regarding deed restrictions, covenants or similar legal instruments to be used
within the PUD;
·
Approvals
from the Ottawa County Road and Drain Commissions; and
·
A copy of
the recorded PUD agreement that was signed, executed and recorded in the
office of the Ottawa County Register of Deeds;
·
A letter to
the Township assessor requesting that the parcels be combined.
Documentation
documenting compliance with ordinance standards and requirements:
Sec. 22.8 FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION.
A.
Final Development Plan Approval Time
Period – Single Phase: Within twelve (12) months of the Township
Board’s approval of the PUD preliminary plan and PUD rezoning, the applicant
shall submit a request to the Zoning Administrator for final PUD approval. If the applicant fails to submit a request
within twelve (12) months as stated above, then the preliminary site plan (not
the PUD rezoning) shall be determined to be invalid.
N/A.
B.
Final Development Plan Approval Time
Period – Dual or Multi Phased:
If the project includes phases, then the applicant must submit a request within
twelve (12) months of the Township Board’s approval of the preliminary plan and
PUD rezoning for final development plan approval of a phase. Following the final approval of the first PUD
phase, the applicant must submit each subsequent phase within twenty-four (24)
months of the approval date for the previous phase. If the applicant fails to submit the first
phase within twelve (12) months or each subsequent phase within the twenty-four
(24) month time period then the preliminary site plan incorporating all phases
not already approved for final site plan shall be determined to be invalid.
The
preliminary PUD plan was approved by the Township Board on August 14, 2006 and
that is within 12 months of this request for final development approval.
C.
Approval Time Extension:
Upon request to the Township Board and in accordance with Section 22.13,
A, 1 and 2, the time frames may be extended for a reasonable period of time.
N/A.
D.
Final Development Plan Application
Requirements: A final development plan application shall
consist of the following (unless determined by the Zoning Administrator or
Planning Commission to be unnecessary):
2.
A
completed application form, supplied by the Zoning Administrator. Submitted.
3.
Payment
of a fee, as established by the Township Board.
N/A for 1st phase.
4.
A
written response to the findings, review comments, and conditions, if any, from
the Township Board’s review and approval of the preliminary development plan
and a narrative explanation of the changes made to the plan in response to
those items. The Township Board approved the preliminary development plan with
the following motion. The items have
been addressed.
#060814-07 - Planned Unit Development (PUD0604) Preliminary Development Plan
Moved by
Stanley Sterk, seconded by Bill Holland, 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
convenience store/gas station hours of operation are 5 am to 1:00 am;
a.
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; and
3. A recorded PUD agreement at the time of
building permit application submittal.
Note: As recommended by the Planning Commission.
MOTION CARRIED.
In response
to the conditions:
a.
Four signs are now shown to be located 75 feet from
the centerline of 36th Ave. and Baldwin.
b.
A two to three foot berm was added along Baldwin.
c.
The following are to be submitted to the Township:
·
Documentation
regarding deed restrictions, covenants or similar legal instruments to be used
within the PUD must be submitted at the time of building permit application
submittal; (Documentation that an association will maintain the common areas
has already been provided)
·
Approvals
from the Ottawa County Road and Drain Commissions at the time of final
development application submittal; and
·
A recorded
PUD agreement at the time of building permit application submittal.
5.
A
site plan containing all of the information required in this PUD Chapter and
the following information shown below: (If the plan consists of phases, then
the above-mentioned information is only required for the specific phase(s)
being presented for final approval. Each
subsequent phase shall be reviewed in the same manner).
a.
The
location and dimensions of all proposed structures and buildings on the PUD
site.
Provided.
b.
The
location of all proposed drives (including dimensions and radii),
acceleration/deceleration lanes, sidewalks / pathways / bikepaths, curbing,
parking areas (including the dimensions of a typical parking space and the
total number of parking spaces to be provided), and unloading areas. Street names must also be included. Provided. The interior street adjacent to the condos has
been named Black Star Cove Drive.
c.
The
location of all proposed signs and lighting, including the sizes and
types. Provided. Sign details were
previously provided and must meet the conditions of approval of the preliminary
plan.
d.
The
location, type and size of all proposed landscaping and site amenities (art
work, fences, gateway features, etc.). Provided.
e.
The
location, type and size of all utilities and storm water drainage facilities,
including fire protection, sanitary sewers, water services, etc. Provided.
f.
Existing
and proposed topographic contours at a maximum of three (3) foot
intervals. Previously provided.
g.
Elevation
views of all proposed structures and floor plans for all multi-family
residential dwelling units. Previously provided and elevations for
the duplex/townhouse units was provided.
h.
Proposed
open space areas, including recreational amenities (playgrounds, etc.). Provided.
i.
Floodplain
areas. (Revised 6-27-2005) Provided.
5. The Planning Commission may request
from the applicant any additional graphics
or written materials,
prepared by a qualified person or persons, to assist in
determining the
appropriateness of the site plan. Such
material may include, but
need not be limited to,
aerial photography, photographs; traffic impacts; impact
on significant natural
features and drainage; soil tests; and other pertinent
information.
Sec. 22.9 PLANNING
COMMISSION REVIEW OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
A.
The
Planning Commission shall review the final development plan in relation to its
conformance with the preliminary development plan and any conditions of the PUD
rezoning. If it is determined that the
final plan is not in substantial conformance with the preliminarily development
plan, the review process shall be conducted as a preliminary development plan
review, in accordance with the procedures of Sections 22.5 - 22.7 of this
Ordinance.
B.
Planned
Unit Developments, whether established as a single or multiphase
development, shall reasonably accommodate for the intent of the PUD in each
phase. If the proposed PUD appears to provide for phases that do not incorporate
the intent of the proposed PUD, the Planning Commission may require bonding or
other similar financial obligation, which shall be established in the PUD
agreement. If a portion of the PUD intent it to provide for a
variety of uses (i.e. - apartments and single family homes), then the proposed
phasing schedule shall show how the development of these uses will be
balanced in the phased development schedule.
The Final Development Plan appears to be
in compliance with the preliminary plan and the conditions of approval.
C.
If
the final development plan is consistent with the approved preliminary
development plan, the Planning Commission shall review the final plan in
accordance with the standards for approval in Section 22.10.
D.
The
Planning Commission shall prepare a record of its findings and shall approve,
approve with conditions, or deny the final development plan.
E.
Any
regulatory modification from traditional district requirements shall be
approved through a finding by the Planning Commission that the deviation shall
result in a higher quality of development than would be possible using
conventional zoning standards.
Regulatory modifications are not subject to variance approval of the
Zoning Board of Appeals. No part of this
PUD process of the approved site plans may be appealed to the Zoning Board of
Appeals. This provision shall not
preclude an individual residential lot owner from seeking a variance following
final approval of the PUD, provided such variance does not involve alterations
to open space areas as shown on the approved PUD site plan.
A “Waiver Request Table” is provided and
was provided and approved with the preliminary plan approval.
F.
A
table shall be provided on the final site plan which specifically details all
deviations from the established zoning area, height and setback regulations,
off-street parking regulations, general provisions, or Township subdivision
regulations which would otherwise be applicable to the uses and developments
proposed in the absence of this PUD article and rezoning.
Provided.
Sec. 22.10 STANDARDS
FOR APPROVAL (both preliminary and final).
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.
At the July 5, 2006 and August 2, 2006 meetings, the Planning
Commission determined that the qualifying conditions were met.
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.
At the July 5, 2006 and August 2, 2006 meetings, the Planning
Commission determined that this condition was met.
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.
At the July 5, 2006 and
August 2, 2006 meetings, the Planning Commission determined that this condition
was met and specified conditions regarding uses. “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;”
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.
At the July 5, 2006 and August 2, 2006 meetings, the Planning
Commission determined that this condition was met.
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.)
At the July 5, 2006 and August 2, 2006 meetings, the Planning
Commission determined that this condition was met. Compliance with Sec. 22.8(D) is provided in
the review.
Sec. 22.11 PUD
AGREEMENT..
A.
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, setting forth the applicant's obligations with
respect to the PUD.
B.
The
agreement shall describe all improvements to be constructed as part of the PUD
and shall incorporate, by reference, the final development plan with all
required revisions, other documents which comprise the PUD, and all conditions
attached to the approval by the Township Board.
C.
A
phasing plan shall also be submitted describing the intended schedule for start
and completion of each phase and the improvements to be undertaken in each
phase.
D.
The
agreement shall also establish the remedies of the Township in the event of
default by the applicant in carrying out the PUD, and shall be binding on all
successors in interest to the applicant.
E.
All documents shall be executed and
recorded in the office of the Ottawa County Register of Deeds.
THE PUD AGREEMENT MUST BE PROVIDED AS
REQUIRED.
South
noted the Fire Department memo and said that the date of the elevation should
be noted in the motion.
Stasiak
said that he liked the first elevation shown and approved at the time of
preliminary development and the elevation for the townhouse was boxy and
generic. He said that it would look like
an apartment complex and he would not like to see a rental complex.
Lazdins
said that there is a challenge due to the Zoning Ordinance’s requirements of a
400 square foot garage attached to the townhome and the only way to meet that
requirement is to have front-loaded garages.
Stasiak
said that there was no creativity with the elevation and would rather not see
the development become a rental complex.
Honderd
questioned the possibility of allowing detached garages.
Huizinga
said that he preferred to see changes to the elevation.
Pearson
said that he has the same concern and that the elevation has lost character.
Lazdins
said that there are opportunities to have side-loaded garages for some of the
units and this was the nature of townhomes.
Pearson
said that this elevation did not have the same feel as the last elevation for
the ranch-style buildings.
Lazdins
said that they were the same material.
Pearson
said that that they were close to residential areas and it should have more of
a residential feel and should encompass the design and materials of the sign.
Honderd
said that in the past townhomes tended to be sold as owner-occupied and these
were not very visible because they were behind the retail buildings. He said that these buildings tended to be
more attractive from the back.
The
chairman opened the floor to public comments.
Karl
Kleinheksel, 7839 Meadowood Dr., asked when construction on the project would
begin.
Lazdins
said that construction would begin this spring.
The
chairman closed the floor to public comments.
There
was discussion as to whether or not revised elevations should be submitted.
Honderd
said that it is difficult to put requirements on the structure because it would
be an off-setting disadvantage and they had to trust the developer to do the
best they could.
Stasiak
said that he would like to see changes to the elevations because they had the
opportunity to ensure that this was a pleasing development for the community
and he would like to see a different character.
South
said that if the garages could be different, the entrance would look different;
however, the front garages were probably easier for snow removal. He said that the retail buildings would be in
front of the condos.
Pearson
said that it could look better and curb appeal is valuable. He said that they could compromise and have
elevations submitted with additional character.
Lazdins
said that it was tough because the previous elevations have side-loaded
garages. He said that dimensionally they
don’t have room to dress up the front other than with color and stone.
Honderd
suggested that the garage be smaller.
Lazdins
said that the garages would be too tight and they needed it to be marketable to
the future homeowner.
Moved by Huizinga, seconded by Poskey, to approve the
Planned Unit Development (PUD0604-02) Final Development Plan for phase 1 (which
includes all the residential buildings and the two retail buildings on the
south along Baldwin) of Baldwin Georgetown LLC, 7665 36th Ave., to
have 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 shown on the final
development plan dated 2.27.07 sheet one of three, with phase 1 including
all the residential units and two retail buildings, based on the findings that
the plan complies with all applicable sections of the ordinance including Sec.
22.8, 22.9 and 22.10; and with the following conditions:
a.
Building permits
must be issued for at least two (or more) residential buildings for each one of
the retail buildings (as noted on the plan).
b.
The footprint of
the residential buildings shall fit within the building envelopes shown on the
plan dated 2.27.07 and the residential buildings could either be one story or
two story townhouses.
c.
The residential
buildings must be at least 10 feet apart, as noted on the plan, and it shall be
the responsibility of the person submitting the building permit application to
submit a survey verifying the 10 feet distance between buildings.
d.
Each dwelling
unit shall have a minimum 400 square foot attached garage (as shown on the front
elevation and back
elevation dated 3-16-07 and previously approved elevation);
e. The following are to be submitted to the Township prior to the issuance of
any building permits:
·
Documentation regarding deed restrictions,
covenants or similar legal instruments to be used within the PUD;
·
Approvals from the Ottawa County Road and Drain
Commissions;
·
A copy of the recorded PUD agreement that was signed, executed and recorded in the office of the
Ottawa County Register of Deeds;
·
A letter to
the Township assessor requesting that the parcels be combined.
Yeas: Honderd, Huizinga, Pearson,
South, Poskey
Nays: Stasiak
Absent: DeGood
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070321-04 - Site Plan ST0705) Campus View Office-10295 42nd Ave. (site
plan) (letter
regarding no
additional
parking spaces needed) (letter
requesting parcels be combined) (elevations)
Doug
Stalsonburg, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the
request. He noted the Fire Department
concerns and stated that a hydrant had been added at the northwest corner of
the building. He asked if the
streetscape could be added at the same time as the sidewalk.
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows:
REQUEST
The request is to construct an 11,000 square foot
addition to an existing 7,059 square foot clubhouse building for Campus View
Townhomes. The building will be used as
a recreational facility for Campus View Townhomes residents only. Therefore, additional parking is not
necessary because, as per the letter
dated February 28, 2007 from the applicant, the residents would walk from their
apartment buildings. The floor plans
show a basketball court, exercise room, study areas, film room, open lounge,
kitchen, locker rooms and offices. Elevations
were provided and demonstrate that the addition is compatible with the existing
structure, as per Sec. 19.10.
After an initial review of the proposal, it was found
that the structure would not meet setback requirements as located on the
existing parcel. The proposed addition
is to be located along the west side of the property line between 200-034 and
200-008 (see the map after the review with the subject parcels highlighted). Therefore, the applicant has submitted a letter
dated February 28, 2007 requesting that this parcel be combined with two
others. After the parcels are combined,
there would no setback issues since the building would be located in the middle
of the parcel. (The plan notes that
there would be a minimum distance of 42 feet between buildings). The addition of parcel 200-013 to the other
two was decided upon because this parcel is surrounded by the subject
site. This way landscaping and sidewalks
would be continuous from the north point of the parcel to connect to the
sidewalk for the new development to the south.
A note on the site plan indicates that 40 trees would be provided to
meet the streetscape requirement for the whole width of the combined
parcels. Sidewalk is shown and labeled
along the southern portion and a bituminous sidewalk already exists the rest of
the way. The only issue is that the
existing sidewalk is not in the road right-of-way. The applicant should grant an easement to the
Ottawa County Road Commission and Georgetown Township for the public use of the
sidewalk that is located outside of the road right-of-way.
SUMMARY
a.
A recorded easement should be submitted for the existing
sidewalk on the north portion of the parcel to provide for public use of the
sidewalk located on the Campus View property unless sidewalks are constructed
according to Ottawa County Road Commission specifications within the road
right-of-way. The recorded easement should
be submitted with the building permit application.
b.
A Storm Water Drain Permit will be required with the
building permit application.
|
I D number |
ST0705 |
|
|
|
Date |
3-7-07 |
|
|
|
Name |
Campus View Club House |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Address |
10325 42nd Ave |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use |
Club house |
|
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 |
Ok-combined |
|||||
|
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 |
a. provide |
||
|
Signs, exterior lighting |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
No changes |
|
|
Curbing, parking areas,
dimensions of typical space, number of parking spaces |
X |
No more needed |
||||||
|
Calculations of parking
spaces, unloading areas |
|
|
X |
No more needed |
||||
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
N/A |
|
||
|
Location, type, size of
proposed landscaping, streetscape, greenbelt |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location, height, type of
existing and proposed fences and walls |
|
N/A |
|
|||||
|
Size, location of
proposed, existing utilities, connections to water/sewer |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location, size of surface
water drainage facilities |
|
|
X |
b. need permit |
||||
|
Existing, proposed topo
contours, max 5 ft intervals |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Rec/common areas,
floodplain areas |
|
|
|
X |
|
|||
|
Special Use Standards,
general and specific |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|||
|
Residential development
extra requirements-attached garages |
|
N/A |
|
|||||
The
chairman opened the floor to public comments.
No one was present to make public comments. The chairman closed the floor to public
comments.
Moved
by Pearson, seconded by Stasiak, to approve the site
plan dated 3-06-07 and elevations
as submitted because all applicable standards of the ordinance are met and with
the following conditions:
a.
A recorded
easement is submitted for the existing sidewalk on the north portion of the
parcel to provide for public use of the sidewalk located on the Campus View
property unless sidewalks are constructed according to Ottawa County Road
Commission specifications within the road right-of-way. The recorded easement will be required with
the building permit application.
b.
A Storm Water
Drain Permit to be submitted with the building permit application.
c.
The streetscape
could be installed at the same time as the sidewalk.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070321-05 - Ordinance Amendments-
1.
Sections 6.3(Z), 20.1(AJ),
20.4(AJ) (language addition for outdoor furnaces)
2.
Sections 6.3(AA),
20.1(AK), 20.4(AK) (language addition for exotic animals)
3.
Sections 20.4(Z)
(language addition to clarify vehicle sales)
The zoning
administrator presented a review as follows.
REQUEST
With motion #070226-08, the Township Board initiated the zoning
ordinance amendments.
SUMMARY
a. Sections
6.3(Z), 20.1(AJ), 20.4(AJ) (language addition for outdoor furnaces)
Sec. 6.3(Z) adds “Outdoor
wood-fired boilers, stoves or furnaces” as a use allowed in the AG district
with a special use permit. Sec. 7.3(A)
states that any special land use permitted in the AG district is also permitted
in the RR district. Therefore, the use
would be permitted in the AG and RR districts with a special use permit and
would not be permitted in any other district.
Sec.
20.1(AJ) lists the use in the “Special Land Uses” Chapter.
Sec.
20.4(AJ) details the special use standards that must be met in
order for a special land use permit to be approved. The standards include those previously
discussed by the Planning Commission, along with ideas provided by the planner.
b. Sections
6.3(AA), 20.1(AK), 20.4(AK) (language addition for exotic animals)
Sec. 6.3(AA) adds the “Keeping of exotic animals” as a use allowed
in the AG district with a special use permit.
Sec. 7.3(A) states that any special land use permitted in the AG
district is also permitted in the RR district.
Therefore, the use would be permitted in the AG and RR districts with a
special use permit and would not be permitted in any other district.
Sec. 20.1(AK) lists the use in the “Special Land Uses” Chapter.
Sec. 20.4(AK) details the special use standards that must be met in
order for a special land use permit to be approved. The standards include a compilation of
language from similar sample ordinances from MTA.
c. Sections
20.4(Z) (language addition to clarify vehicle sales)
Due to the fact that the Code Enforcement Officer regularly issues
citations for the display and sale of vehicle in districts where the use is not
permitted and for sites where a special use permit has not been obtained, the
Township attorney recommended that the Zoning Ordinance specifically note that
the use is not allowed in any district other than the CS and HS districts with
a special use permit.
No
one was present to speak at the public hearing.
Sections
6.3(Z), 20.1(AJ), 20.4(AJ) (language addition for outdoor furnaces) were
discussed. The consensus of the Planning
Commission was that the use should not be subject to special use approval, but
rather should be reviewed by the zoning administrator when a Zoning Compliance
application is received along with any other permits. The zoning administrator was directed to revise
the language and to publish the amendment again for another public hearing if
it was determined that the changes were not minor.
Moved by
Pearson, seconded by Poskey, to table the amendment for revisions to eliminate
the requirement of special use approval and to allow administrative review and
approval by the zoning administrator when a Zoning Compliance application for
the use of an outdoor furnace is submitted.
MOTION CARRIED.
Sections
6.3(AA), 20.1(AK), 20.4(AK) (language addition for exotic animals) were
discussed. The consensus of the Planning
Commission was that exotic animals should be totally banned from the Township
and not allowed in any zoning district or under any circumstances unless it was
a school, permitted animal for a farm, or exempt for a legitimate reason. The zoning administrator was directed to
consult with the Township attorney to find if exotic animals could be banned
from the Township and to public the notice again if it was necessary.
Moved by
Pearson, seconded by Poskey, to table the amendment for revisions and to see if
exotic animals could be banned from the Township.
MOTION CARRIED.
Section
20.4(Z) (language addition to clarify vehicle sales) was discussed.
Moved by Huizinga, seconded by Pearson,
to recommend to the Township Board to approve the following Zoning Ordinance
amendments based on the following findings that the use of an open air business
is clarified to be permitted only in the CS and HS districts with special use
approval.
Sec. 20.4(Z) Open air businesses.
The use of an open air business is
expressly prohibited in all zoning districts except (CS) Community Service
Commercial district and (HS) Highway Service Commercial district. In the CS and HS districts, the use is
allowed with special land use approval which is contingent upon compliance with
the following standards.
It
was noted that the revision was necessary due to the fact that the Code
Enforcement Officer regularly issues citations for the display and sale of
vehicle in districts where the use is not permitted and for sites where a
special use permit has not been obtained and the Township attorney recommended
that the Zoning Ordinance specifically note that the use is not allowed in any
district other than the CS and HS districts with a special use permit.
MOTION CARRIED.
#070321-06 – Adjournment
The
chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.