Minutes of the
regular meeting of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission, held Wednesday,
June 6, 2007
Meeting called to order by
Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Honderd, Poskey, South, Pearson, Huizinga,
DeGood, Stasiak
Absent: none
#070606-01 - Agenda for June 6, 2007
Moved by Huizinga,
seconded by Stasiak, to approve the agenda for June 6, 2007 as presented, and
to move the ordinance amendment to the end of the agenda.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070606-02 - Minutes of the
May 16, 2007 regular meeting
Moved
by South, seconded by DeGood, to approve the minutes of the May 16, 2007 regular meeting,
as submitted.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070606-03 – Planned Unit Development (PUD0701-01)
Final Development Plan for Allen
Springs (no public hearing is necessary) (site
plan 1, site
plan 2, site
plan 3, overall
elevation, elevation
villa #2, elevation
villa #5, gate
entry, light
fixture)
Todd
Stuive, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the
request.
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows.
REQUEST
The
request is for the final development plan approval for a 15.7 acre PUD with the
use of single-family dwelling units as condos and intermediate-care housing for
the elderly. The single final development
phase encompasses the whole PUD area. 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 11,120 square
feet consisting of 30 dwelling units for a total of 60 dwelling units for the 2
buildings. Included with each building
are five garages for a total of 10 (a change of 16 from the previously planned
26 garages); plus two additional independent garage buildings have a total of
17 garage spaces.
Some
setbacks have slightly changed: the rear has increased from 94 to 97 and the
northwest side has decreased from a minimum of 51 to 40. The drive aisle has increased from 24 to 24.5
feet.
The
two buildings for intermediate care are connected in the middle with a
two-story 9,940 square foot per floor commons area (a decrease from the
previously shown 12,446 square feet) with a maximum of 50 foot in height to the
top of the peak (so mean height would be less since the ordinance defines it as
measured to the middle of the roof).
This is slightly taller than the maximum 35 feet in height permitted in
Chapter 24. 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.
The number of parking spaces
has decreased from an overall site total of 265 to 249. However, 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, 27 garage spaces are available (a decrease from 43) 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 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 (as per the Preliminary Plan information).
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. The parcels have already been combined
according to a condition of approval of the preliminary PUD.
Elevations, sign details and floor plans for the
individual units have been provided.
With motion # 07131-04, the Planning Commission
determined that the following were met:
1. Qualifying
conditions in Sec. 22.2,
2. Information
as per Sec. 22.5 is provided, and
3. The requirements
of Sec. 22.10
SUMMARY
a.
Some setbacks
have changed slightly, the rear increased from 94 to 97 and the northwest side
decreased from 51 to a minimum of 40.
b.
The locations
of lights have been indicated. A picture
of a typical light fixture has been provided.
A proposed 61 square foot wall/ identification sign is noted to be
located 3 feet from the 60 foot setback from the centerline (total of 63 feet
from the centerline) and it is noted to be 3.7 feet tall. The ordinance permits a plat entry sign for
multi family developments to be 3 feet high and have 64 square feet in area,
and be located 10 feet from the 60 foot setback area. A 14.5 foot high gate entry structure is
shown at the entrance to be located 18 feet from the 60 foot setback to the
centerline (a total of 78 feet from the centerline). Materials for the entry structure and sign
are noted to be the same. A fence is
noted to be 3 feet tall with 4.5 foot tall piers with material to match the
entry structure. Since this sign is closer to the 60 foot setback line and .7 feet
taller, the Planning Commission should determine if this sign is
acceptable. The Planning Commission
should also determine if the fence and gate entry structure are acceptable
since only a 3 foot high fence is permitted in the front yard. It appears as though the wall/sign and gate entry
structure meet the intention of the ordinance to be architecturally innovative
and will provide a visually appealing entrance to the development. It also appears that neither would hinder
sight vision for vehicular traffic when existing the site since they are
located far enough back.
c.
Garages with
parking spaces have been reduced in number from 13 to 5 in each of the two
intermediate care buildings for a total overall reduction of 16 parking
spaces. However, the plan still provides
parking in excess of the ordinance requirements.
d.
A DEQ Permit is required.
e.
A PUD agreement must be provided according to Sec.
22.11.
Documentation
detailing compliance with ordinance requirements:
|
I D number |
PUD0701-01 |
|
|
|
Date |
5-16-07 |
|
|
|
Name |
Allen Springs Final Development
Plan |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Address |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use |
Residential PUD |
|
SUP required |
NA |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. changed |
|||||
|
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. sign |
|
|
Curbing, parking areas,
dimensions of typical space, number of parking spaces |
X |
c. decreased |
||||||
|
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 |
|
|
b. |
|||||
|
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 |
d. DEQ |
|||
|
Special Use Standards,
general and specific |
|
|
|
NA |
|
|||
|
Residential development
extra requirements-attached garages |
|
X |
|
|||||
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.
Met. The Board granted preliminary approval on February
26, 2007.
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.
NA.
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.
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):
1.
A
completed application form, supplied by the Zoning Administrator.
2.
Payment
of a fee, as established by the Township Board.
NA for 1st phase.
3.
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.
*******************************************************************************
#070226-06 - Planned Unit Development (PUD0701) Allen Springs Farm LLC, 7683 Cottonwood
Moved by Richard VanderKlok, seconded by Del South, 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 should be 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.
Note: The
Planning Commission recommended approval
MOTION CARRIED.
*******************************************************************************
·
A
letter combining the parcels was submitted.
·
A
Storm Water Drain Permit will still be needed.
·
A
DEQ permit is still required.
4.
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).
5.
The
location and dimensions of all proposed structures and buildings on the PUD
site. Provided.
6.
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.
7.
The
location of all proposed signs and lighting, including the sizes and
types. Provided.
8.
The
location, type and size of all proposed landscaping and site amenities (art
work, fences, gateway features, etc.). Provided.
9.
The
location, type and size of all utilities and storm water drainage facilities,
including fire protection, sanitary sewers, water services, etc. Provided.
10.
Existing
and proposed topographic contours at a maximum of three (3) foot
intervals. Provided.
11.
Elevation
views of all proposed structures and floor plans for all multi-family
residential dwelling units. Provided.
12.
Proposed
open space areas, including recreational amenities (playgrounds, etc.). Provided.
13.
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.
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.
The final development phase appears to be
in conformance with the preliminary development plan.
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.
Met.
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.
Provided.
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.
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. Met as
determined by the PC with preliminary approval.
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. Met as determined with previous
approval.
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. Met as determined with previous approval.
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. Met as determined with previous
approval.
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.)
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.
D. Master Plan: The proposed uses of the
PUD must be substantially consistent with Georgetown Township’s Master Plan for
the subject property.
Was
determined to be met with preliminary approval
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.
Was
determined to be met with preliminary approval
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.
Was
determined to be met with preliminary approval.
H. 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.
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.
Must be provided.
Stasiak
asked about the pool and playground that was noted as optional on the plan.
The applicant
stated that they wanted the ability to build the pool and playground but had
discussed having an indoor pool.
Chuck
Schipper, applicant, said that they were evaluating what amenities to provide
and wanted to keep their options open depending on the buyers.
Pearson
asked about the greenbelt and the tree line to screen the development to the
west.
The
applicant stated that there were trees and brush, and the houses to the
northwest were further away.
Pearson
said that there should be a substantial screening for the neighbors.
The chairman
opened the floor to public comments. No
one was present to make comments on this topic.
The chairman closed the floor to public comments.
The
consensus of the Planning Commission was that the gate entry structure, sign
and fence were acceptable.
Moved
by DeGood, seconded by Huizinga, to approve the final development plan
for (PUD0701-01) 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.
The site
development plan, site utility and grading plan and landscape plan, all dated
5-10-07 Updated per TWP review (site
plan 1, site
plan 2, site
plan 3);
2.
The elevations
dated Jan. 24 and Jan. 29, 2007 (overall
elevation, elevation
villa #2, elevation
villa #5)
3.
The light fixture
detail as provided (light
fixture)
4.
The gate entry
structure and wall/sign details as shown on the drawing dated 5.10.07(gate
entry); and
5.
The narrative
statement identified as WPDATE/L061954E.
On
the basis that the following are met:
1.
Qualifying conditions
in Sec. 22.2,
2.
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.
3.
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.
4.
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.
5.
The proposed PUD meets all the site plan requirements of Chapter 22
including Section 22.8, D.
And
with the following conditions:
1. A recorded PUD agreement (according to Sec. 22.11) is
submitted at the
time a building permit
application is submitted.
2. A Storm Water Drain Permit is submitted at the time a
building permit
application is submitted.
3. A DEQ permit is required to build and/or fill in the floodplain
and must be
submitted at the time a
building permit application is submitted.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070606-04 - Preliminary Plat of Meadowvale
layout of P.P.# 70-14-08-400-025, located at
3358 Bauer Rd., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County,
Michigan.
Todd
Stuive, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the request. He noted that the plan stated that lots 1 and
21 would not have direct driveway access to Bauer Rd.
The
zoning administrator presented a request as follows.
REQUEST
On October
9, 2006, the Township Board approved the rezoning of the property from AG to
LDR. The proposed overall preliminary
plat includes 34 lots to be constructed in two phases on 18.5 acres. The first phase includes 21 lots. A connection is proposed to Boulder Ridge to
the east in the second phase and that connection is shown to the west (which is
currently undeveloped), as well. A
future connection is also shown to the south.
A note on the plan indicates that the developer will construct the
sidewalk adjacent to Bauer Rd. All
building envelopes spear to meet setback requirements.
SUMMARY
a. Lots
1 and 21 shall not have direct driveway access to Bauer Rd.
The following documents compliance with Township
ordinances:
|
I D number |
|
|
|
|
Date |
5-16-07 |
|
|
|
Name |
Water Tower Plat |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Address |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use |
Preliminary Plat |
|
SUP required |
NA |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. no access |
|||||
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|||
|
Special Use Standards,
general and specific |
|
|
|
X |
|
|||
|
Residential development
extra requirements-attached garages |
|
required |
|
|||||
The
chairman opened the public hearing. No
one was present to speak on this topic.
The chairman closed the public hearing.
Moved
by South, seconded by Pearson, to recommend to the Township Board to grant
tentative preliminary plat approval of Meadowvale Plat as shown on the drawing
dated 5/7/07 on the basis that Township ordinances have been met.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070606-05 - Special Use Permit (SUP0703) Faulk & Foster, 3040 Charlevoix, Grand Rapids,
for Clearwire
US LLC, is requesting to have a commercial wireless communication tower,
under Sec. 8.3(O), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-10-300-016,
located at 8375 20th Ave., in a (LDR) Low Density Residential
district, Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. (hold the public hearing) (site
plan, NIER
letter, letter,
variance
letter and application, JPS
co-location letter, map
with coverage, map
without coverage)
Jamie
Abbgy, Faulk and Foster for Clearwire US LLC, represented the applicant and
presented the request. A letter from the
City of Grand Rapids was submitted in support of Clearwire’s request since
Clearwire was expanding beyond the Grand Rapids market. Jamie Abbgy noted that Clearwire had already
co-located on the existing towers in the Township and planned to co-locate on
the planned towers; however, the existing towers were not able to provide
service to the targeted area. Maps
showing coverage were provided both with and without the proposed tower.
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows. She also presented pictures of the pole and
stated the following. Township residents
use cell phones and wireless internet, and therefore, want the service. This is an obtrusive way to provide the tower
because people were used to seeing the light pole. The location is not detrimental to the
neighborhood since this was on school property away from homes and shielded by
trees.
REQUEST
Faulk & Foster, on behalf of Clearwire US LLC, is
requesting to construct a 110 foot pole to replace an existing 70 light pole
adjacent to the Jenison High School football field on the school property. The purpose is for this company to provide
wireless internet to an area currently not served by any existing tower. In addition, Jenison public school intends to
add the necessary equipment to transmit radio service to their buses. The company has indicated that they have
already co-located on the existing towers in the area and plans to co-locate on
the soon-to-be constructed tower at Maplewood Park. However, the applicant has stated that the
existing and future tower do not provide coverage to the area they propose to
service. Illustrations are shown with
maps provided with the submittal material.
The equipment that is currently located on the
existing 70 foot pole at the Jenison football field including the field lights
and speakers will be replaced on the new 110 foot pole at their current
heights. A 7 by 7 foot fenced area
behind the upper concession stand will be fenced and landscaped to enclose the
2.1 by 2.1 foot equipment cabinet which is permitted under Sec. 3.4(M).
A special use permit is required for a communication
tower under Sec. 8.3 (O) in a LDR district and the determination has been made
that even though this is a “pole,” it would still meet the intention of the
ordinance in regards to a “tower.” It
appears that the request complies with all the general standards in Sec. 20.3
and specific standards listed in Sec. 20.4(AB) except for Sec. AB(6) which
states: “Unless located on the same site or tower with another user, no new
tower shall be erected within a two mile radius of an existing radio,
television or cellular communications tower.”
The cell tower located at 20th Ave. and Rosewood is 1.4 miles
from this proposed tower. The applicant
is currently in the process of seeking a variance for Sec. 20.4(AB)(6) and that
meeting will take place May 23, 2007, two weeks prior to the Planning
Commission meeting when this request will be considered.
It is in the best interests of the residents of the Township to have
wireless internet service available from at least one company and best if it is
available from multiple companies for price competition. The applicant has indicated that they have
made every effort to provide service from the existing towers; however, the new
pole is necessary for the service to reach the particular targeted area. The spot chosen on Jenison High School
property to locate a pole would be a good area since it is a long distance from
any residences and people are accustomed to seeing the light poles around the
football field. The pole would be less obtrusive
than a tower. An additional benefit is
that Jenison Public Schools would have the ability to add their own equipment
for radio service to the buses. Also,
the schools would benefit from the income generated by the lease.
One other item to consider is that Michigan Compiled Laws 380.1263
gives the Superintendent of Public Instruction the sole and exclusive
jurisdiction over any construction of buildings for either instructional or
non-instructional school purposes. If
this pole was to be constructed only for the Jenison Public Schools’ benefit,
the determination has been made that the process of the variance request and
special land use approval for the construction of the pole would be unnecessary
and exempt from zoning (although the schools in the Township have in the past
submitted materials for courtesy reviews).
In addition, Sec. 20.4(AB)(5) requires that towers are available for
other uses to co-locate and the use of the tower by both the school and
Clearwire complies with that requirement of the ordinance. However, since Clearwire would be the
applicant and their use would be commercial, the determination has been made
that they are not exempt from zoning.
SUMMARY
If the variance is granted, the proposal appears to
meet the general special use standards in Sec. 20.3 and the specific standards
in Sec. 20.4(AB). The site plan appears
to meet the applicable standards in Chapter 19.
Since communications towers are necessary to provide internet and cell
service to Township residents and this is not a tower construction but rather a
pole, it seems that this is a very non-obtrusive way to achieve that
purpose.
Documentation
showing compliance with ordinance standards:
|
I D number |
SUP0703 |
|
|
|
Date |
5-16-07 |
|
|
|
Name |
Clearwire |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Address |
8375 20th Ave |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use |
Wireless Communication
tower |
|
SUP required |
yes |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
X |
|
||||||
|
Sidewalks, non-motorized
paths-select streets, accel, decel lanes |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Signs, exterior lighting |
|
|
|
|
|
NONE |
|
|
|
Curbing, parking areas,
dimensions of typical space, number of parking spaces |
NA |
|
||||||
|
Calculations of parking
spaces, unloading areas |
|
|
NA |
|
||||
|
Location, pavement width,
ROW of all abutting roads, easements |
|
NA |
|
|||||
|
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 |
|
||||||
|
Location, height, type of
existing and proposed fences and walls |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Size, location of proposed,
existing utilities, connections to water/sewer |
NA |
|
||||||
|
Location, size of surface
water drainage facilities |
|
|
NA |
|
||||
|
Existing, proposed topo
contours, max 5 ft intervals |
|
|
NA |
|
||||
|
Rec/common areas,
floodplain areas |
|
|
|
X |
|
|||
|
Special Use Standards,
general and specific |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Residential development
extra requirements-attached garages |
|
|
|
|||||
Special Use
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.
(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.
(3) Not
create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities
and services.
(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.
Specific Special Use Standards
(A) Commercial wireless communications towers
may be considered either principal or accessory uses. A different existing use of an existing
structure on the same lot shall not preclude the installation of an antenna or
tower on such lot where approved pursuant to the provisions of this
ordinance. Met.