Minutes of the
regular meeting of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission, held Wednesday,
June 20, 2007
Meeting called to order by
Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Honderd, Poskey, South, Pearson, Huizinga,
DeGood
Absent: Stasiak
#070620-01 - Agenda for June 20, 2007
Moved by DeGood, seconded by Pearson, to approve the agenda for June 20,
2007 as presented.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070620-02 - Minutes of the
June 6, 2007 regular meeting
Moved by DeGood, seconded by South, to approve the
minutes of the June 6, 2007 regular meeting,
as submitted.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070620-03 – Special Use Permit (SUP0704) Grandville Christian Fellowship Church, 3668 Port
Sheldon St.
Todd Olin, Land Development Solutions, represented
the applicant and presented the request.
He detailed the project and how it met the special use standards. He also noted that the architectural
character of the church building had a residential look.
The zoning administrator presented a review as
follows.
REQUEST
The request is for special land use approval to
construct an 8044 square foot church at the southwest corner of 36th
Ave. and Port Sheldon.
A revised plan was submitted on Tuesday, June 19, 2007
with the detention basin moved to the northern portion of the parcel and 32
parking places banked for future development.
Landscaping has been slightly modified and still meets ordinance
requirements. The revised plan also
shows a 40 foot front yard setback along the southeastern property line,
consistent with standard operating procedures followed by the Township. Parking is allowed in this area since the
ordinance amendment prohibiting parking in the front yard has not been adopted
yet. In the future, no more buildings or
parking would be permitted in this area.
SUMMARY
The deferred parking appears to meet the criteria in
the ordinance. Sec. 26.9(J) allows the
Planning Commission to defer construction of the required number pf parking
places if:
A.
Areas proposed
for deferred parking are shown on the plan and there is sufficient area for the
construction.(the deferred parking is not shown in the
front setback area at the southeastern corner of the property.
B.
The area is not
used for other purposes.
C.
If the site plan
is altered amended site plan approval is required.
D.
If after the site
is developed the determination is made that the parking spaces are needed, the
zoning administrator can required them to be constructed.
As detailed with the following documentation, the
request meets the special use general standards of Sec. 20.3 and the specific
standards of Sec. 20.4(E), as well as the standards of
Chapter 19 for a site plan. All
applicable Township ordinances appear to be met. The 432 square foot pole barn meets setback
requirements and is noted to remain. If
it is to be removed in the future, a demolition permit is required. Landscaping exceeds requirements. For Port Sheldon, 26 trees are required with
a maximum of 9 evergreens (11 deciduous and 6 ornamental are provided meeting
the requirement and 15 evergreens are provided exceeding the minimum). An existing tree line is located along 36th
Ave.
·
A Storm Water
Drain Permit is required to be submitted with the building permit application.
·
32 parking spaces
are banked as allowed by Sec. 26.9(J) and may be
required to be construction if the determination is made that they are needed.
Documentation
detailing compliance with ordinance requirements.
|
I D number |
SUP0704 |
|
|
|
Date |
5-22-07 |
|
|
|
Name |
Grandville Christian
Fellowship |
Church |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Address |
3668 Port Sheldon |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use |
Church-Sec. 8.3(A) |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
a. needs |
||||
|
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 |
|
NA |
|
|||||
General Special Use Standards
A letter was submitted detailing compliance with the
general standards. All general and
specific standards have been met and compliance is documented as follows:
(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.
(E) Churches
(in residential districts only-revised April 1998).
(1) Minimum
lot area shall be two (2) acres; plus an additional fifteen thousand (15,000)
square feet for each one hundred (100) seating capacity or fraction thereof in
excess of one hundred (100). Met.
(2) The property location shall be such that
at least one (1) property line with a minimum lot width of two hundred (200)
feet abuts and has access to a collector, major arterial, or minor arterial street. (revised
2-24-2003). Met.
South
commented that the elevation was close to the drain elevation.
Honderd
stated that banking the parking spaces made sense and that the detention pond
would double as green space.
Pearson
asked about the size of the building and if there would be room for growth
since churches typically expand.
Calvin
Burksema stated that he had a pastoral roll with the
church and this church was different than those with the current trend of
becoming mega-churches. He said that
they could not handle more than 500 people and size was not a problem because
if they got too big they would build another church.
Pearson
asked about screening for the neighbors.
The
zoning administrator explained that the ordinance required that parking lots
have a 25 foot greenbelt; however, the ordinance did not require that screening
be provided for the building.
Pearson
asked that they make adjustments to provide screening for the back of the
church and clarified that the sign would be ground-mounted.
The
chairman opened the public hearing.
Bruce
Fennema, 6391 36th Ave., stated that he
lives in a house near the church and uses a bridge to access church property
for a fire pit. He wanted to keep the
access and still use the property.
The
applicant stated that they wanted to be a good neighbor and would not disturb
the area. He also stated that they would
meet the request for the additional landscaping to screen the church.
South
stated that the church might not want to allow access to church property
because of liability.
The
applicant said that they would not stop the neighbor from using the property.
Honderd
said that the Planning Commission did not have the authority to require the
church to allow the neighbor to use church property and the issue was in the
hands of the church.
The
chairman closed the public hearing.
The
applicant stated that they would look at the landscaping.
Andy
Mcleod, Post Associates, stated that at first there
would be about 125 to 150 members and the plan was to double the size to about
320 members before any addition was considered.
Moved by DeGood, seconded by Poskey, to recommend
to the Township Board to approve Special Use Permit Special Use Permit (SUP0704) Grandville Christian Fellowship Church, 526 Brownell St.,
Grand Rapids, to have a church under Sec. 8.3(A), on a parcel of land described
as P.P. # 70-14-20-300-071, located at 3668 Port Sheldon St., in a (LDR) Low
Density Residential district, Georgetown Charter Township, Ottawa County,
Michigan (elevations,
grading
plan, survey,
utilities,
letter)
(new
letter, revised
plan, revised
landscaping plan), based on compliance with the general standards in Sec.
20.3, the specific standards in Sec. 20.4(E) and all applicable standards of
Township ordinances, and with the condition that a Storm Water Drain Permit be
submitted at the time a building permit application is submitted to the
Township.
MOTION CARRIED.
Moved by DeGood, seconded by Poskey, to approve
the revised plan dated 6-18-07 and
received 6-20-07 as submitted based on compliance with applicable Township
ordinances and with the following conditions:
o
A Storm Water Drain Permit is required to be submitted
with the building permit application.
o
32 parking spaces are banked as allowed by Sec. 26.9(J) and may be required to be construction if the
determination is made that they are needed.
MOTION CARRIED.
#070620-04 - (PUD0702) Eastbrook Development Company, 1188 East Paris Ave. SE,
Grand Rapids,
is requesting approval for a
preliminary development plan for a Planned Unit Development for residential
uses under Chapter 22, on parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-09-100-036,
-037, -011, -042, located at 2999 Bauer Rd., Bauer Rd., 3075 Bauer Rd. and Twin
Lakes Dr., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. (application,
preliminary
development plan, grading
plan, legal
description and map of additional property, purchase agreement,
purchase agreement
addendum, picture
Gilmore St. extended, 2005 sign permit application,
signs
requested, pictures sign1,
sign2,
sign3,
sign4,
violation letter)
Ed Tynnonen, Eastbrook Development, represented
the applicant and presented the request.
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows.
REQUEST
The request is to revise the previously approved
preliminary development plan of a residential planned unit development. While the overall concept remains the same,
9.28 acres of property has been added and some changes are proposed for the
numbers of types of residential units.
Some minor layout changes are also proposed, along with the relocation
of the soccer fields to the pool area.
Since additional property is proposed to be a part of the PUD and the
changes have not been determined to be minor as per Sec. 22.12, the ordinance
requires that a change not determined to be minor shall be processed in the
same way as the original plan. Hence,
the application is for preliminary development plan approval for the revision
to the PUD. (The request also includes
the final development plan for phase 5 and a review for the Preliminary Plat of
Lowing Woods No. 5.)
The proposed changes are as follows:
Previous
PUD Amended Plan Change
289.28 acres 298.56
acres 9.28
acre increase
65.2 acres of open space 66.2 acres of open space 1 acre increase
126 lots with 60’minimum width 187 lots with 60’ minimum width 61 lot increase
136 lots with 65’ minimum width 142 lots with 65’ minimum width 6 lot decrease
112 lots with 75’ minimum width 99 lots with 75’ minimum width 13 lot decrease
128 lots with 85’ minimum width 96 lots with 85’ minimum width 32 lot decrease
22 lots with 95’ minimum width 22 lots with 95’ minimum width same
112 townhouse units 112
townhouse units same
125 ranch condominium units 158 condominium units 33
unit increase
23 villa units 23
villa units same
The additional property proposed to be added to the
PUD encompasses four parcels currently zoned RR (and PUD), including P.P. #
70-14-09-100-036, -011, -037, -042. The
PUD currently surrounds most of the additional property and roads were stubbed
for future access to this property.
The additional changes are as follows:
·
Gilmore Lane is
proposed to extend to the east and provide access to the proposed single family
homes in the area of the additional property.
The existing Leigh Trail is proposed to extend to the south to intersect
with the existing Gilmore Lane (after Gilmore Lane traverses the new additional
property). Three lots at the northeast
corner of Gilmore and Leigh Trail have been reconfigured.
·
Ranch condos are
proposed to replace single family homes to the north of the existing phase 4.
·
The soccer fields
initially planned for the northwest of the site have been relocated to an area
to the north of the newly proposed ranch condos. In addition, parking and a pool are proposed
for this area.
·
Single family
homes are now proposed for the area where the soccer fields were initially
proposed. In addition, two lots to the
east of this area have been reconfigured.
SUMMARY FOR THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOWING WOODS NO. 5
The following items must be addressed:
1.
The Planning Commission must determine if 860 square
feet is acceptable for the area of the attached condominiums and townhomes since the ordinance requires 900 square feet. The Township
has encountered situations where builders have applied for building permits for
dwelling units with areas less than the minimum permitted in the
ordinance. Those have not been
approved. Now the plan specifically
calls for houses to have a minimum of 1000 square feet which meets the minimum
requirement of the ordinance. However,
they are requesting to have a minimum of 860 square feet for the attached
units, which is 40 square feet less than the ordinance allows. While the previously approved documentation
includes elevations and typical floor layouts, no square footages were
provided. The applicant has indicated
that the layouts for previous approvals were for 860 square feet for the
attached units. Proposed garage sizes
meet ordinance requirements.
2.
The PUD agreement must be recorded and provided for
all previously approved phases (phases 1 to 5) before approval is granted or
any building permits are issued (no agreements have been provided for any
phases). The applicant has presented a concern with
recording the agreements and the Township Attorney addressed the applicant’s
concerns by drafting language for an addendum.
3.
Does the PC still want the eyebrow concept for streets? The Ottawa County Road Commission has
problems with snow removal. Does the
Planning Commission want to leave these at developer’s discretion?
4.
All basements poured and left un-constructed for more
than 10 days must be fenced to protect the safety of residents. The Code
Enforcement Officer has taken enforcement action with Eastbrook
over basements that have been constructed and left unprotected for long periods
of time, which is in violation of Sec. 3.16 that requires excavations to be
protected.
5.
The Planning Commission should review the following
information and determine if approval should be granted for the signs requested by Eastbrook. The following signs
are requested and pictures of sign1,
sign2,
sign3,
sign4
are provided.
****************************************************************************
1.
“Model Center Sign” (the ordinance refers to it as a real
estate sign) – to be located at the model office on lot 3, five feet from the
road right-of-way. The sign is requested
to be 3.5 feet in overall height and 8 square feet. Sec. 25.4(H) of the ordinance exempts real
estate signs from the requirements of the Chapter (which means no permit is
needed) when the sign does not exceed one per street frontage and is not larger
than 6 square feet and not located within any public road right-of-way.
The
requested sign DOES NOT meet the ordinance requirements since it exceed the 6
square feet by 2 square feet. The
Planning Commission will have to determine if this should be approved as part
of the flexible zoning for the PUD. Also
note that the sign has already been erected WITHOUT a sign permit, WITHOUT
Planning Commission approval and IN VIOLATION of the ordinance. The applicant was informed of the violation
on the phone and with a letter. The
applicant was also informed that the sign could be left at this point pending
review by the Planning Commission because if the sign is approved, it would be
permitted to remain as long as a sign permit application was submitted. A point to consider is that no other
developments (whether PUDs or plats) in the Township
are permitted to have exempted real estates signs larger than 6 square feet in
area.
2.
“Community Sign” (the ordinance refers to it as a
construction sign) – to be located 75 feet from the centerline of Bauer Rd. on Eastbrook community property along Bauer Rd. The sign is requested to be 9.5 feet in
overall height and 32 square feet in area.
The ordinance allows a construction sign to be a maximum of 32 square
feet in area and a maximum of 8 feet in height, and it is to be set back 15
feet from the 60 foot point from the centerline of Bauer Rd. (for a total of 75
feet from the centerline of Bauer Rd.)
The
requested sign DOES NOT meet the ordinance requirements since it exceeds the
maximum height by 1.5 feet. Also note
that the sign has already been constructed with a 10 foot height (2 feet higher
than permitted), in violation of their approved sign permit. See the attached copy of the sign permit
application and approved permit which lists the OVERALL height at 8 feet. (They indicated that they considered the
overall height to be only the dimension of the sign board itself and not the
height from the ground.) The applicant
was informed on the phone and with a letter that the sign is in violation and
that the sign could be left at this point pending review by the Planning
Commission because if the sign is approved, it would be permitted to remain as
long as a sign permit application was submitted. The Planning Commission will have to
determine if this should be approved as part of the flexible zoning for the
PUD. A point to consider is that no
other developments (whether PUDs or plats) in the
Township are permitted to have construction signs higher than 8 feet. Also, just during the past week, the Township
has received two requests for signs for development to be larger and higher
than permitted by the ordinance (for Hager Part West and for Allen Edwin Homes
for a model home, both are off Bauer Rd. near the Eastbrook
Development and both stated that they should be allowed to have larger signs
since Eastbrook Development has them).
3.
“Model Directional Sign” (the ordinance refers to it as a sign
guiding and directing traffic) – to be located 2 feet from the right-of-way
line along the east side of the entrance to the development on Twin Lakes
Dr. The sign is requested to be 4 feet
in height and 6 square feet in area. The
ordinance exempts signs directing and guiding traffic from the requirements of
the ordinance (which means no permit is needed) when the sign is located on
private property, bearing no advertising matter and not exceeding 4 square feet
in area.
The
requested sign does not meet the ordinance requirements since it exceeds the
maximum area by 2 square feet and contains advertising matter. Also note that the sign has already been
constructed WITHOUT an approved sign permit and WITHOUT Planning Commission
approval. The applicant was informed by
phone and by a letter that the sign was in violation of the ordinance and he
was directed to remove the sign. The
Planning Commission will have to determine if this should be approved as part
of the flexible zoning for the PUD. If
the Planning Commission determines that it should be allowed to remain, a sign
permit must be obtained. A point to
consider is that no other development in the Township is permitted to have a
directional sign larger than 4 square feet and no other development (whether a
plat, PUD or commercial or industrial development) is permitted to have a
directional sign with advertising matter.
There have been many instances when the Township has taken enforcement
measures to have advertising matter removed from directional signs since this
is an ordinance requirement and consistently enforced throughout the Township.
4.
“Unique Sell Position Signs” (the
ordinance does not allow such signs unless they would be a portable
sign which would only be permitted to be
displayed for a maximum of 6 one-week periods per year and a portable sign
permit is required for each week period) – to be located 2 feet from the road
right-of-way on the east side of the entrance to the development on Twin Lakes
Dr. The applicant is request to have
four such signs and each sign is requested to be four feet in height and 3.5
square feet in area.
The
requested signs do not meet the ordinance requirements because such signs are
not permitted. Also note that these four
signs have already been constructed WITHOUT Planning Commission approval and
WITHOUT approved sign permits. The signs
have been constructed in the road right-of-way which is also a violation of the
ordinance since no signs other than Road Commission signs are permitted in the
road right-of-way. The applicant was
informed by phone and by letter and he was directed to remove the signs. The Planning Commission will have to
determine if these signs should be approved as part of the flexible zoning for
the PUD. A point to consider is that no
other development in the Township is permitted to have such signs. If the Planning Commission determines the
signs should be approved, sign permits would be required and they would have to
be located outside of the road right-of-way.
5.
An additional sign has been constructed on Gilmore Lane that has not been
requested by the applicant to be constructed.
The sign is large, tall and was constructed in the road
right-of-way. Again, the sign was
constructed WITHOUT Planning Commission approval and WITHOUT an approved sign
permit. No dimensions are available for
the sign other than the picture provided (sign1). The applicant was informed by phone and by
letter that the sign must be removed.
Discussion
The
Lowing Woods waterfall plat entry sign (which is higher and has more square footage
in area than the ordinance permits for a plat entry sign) was approved by the
Planning Commission and the Township Board to be larger than permitted by the
ordinance because it meets the intention of the PUD ordinance which is for
flexibility in the regulation of land development to encourage innovation in
design. However, this approval does not
extend to the other signs intended to call attention to the sale of the homes.
No
other developments in the Township have as many signs as the number requested
by Eastbrook Development, nor do other developments
have signs that are larger and taller than permitted by the ordinance where
such signs are to call attention to the advertising of houses for sale.
The
Township has received two requests in the last week to have larger signs than
permitted by the ordinance and in both instances the applicants have referred
to the Eastbrook signs. These applicants want to know why they can’t
have the same consideration to have larger, taller and more signs. In fact, a letter was attached to the June 6
Planning Commission agenda from Hager
Park plat asking the Planning Commission to change the ordinance to allow
larger and taller plat entry sign.
While
the ordinance allows for flexibility in the zoning regulations for PUDs, it seems that the intention is for innovation of
design for signs, not to allow more, larger and taller signs advertising the
sale of homes. Eastbrook
took advantage of the flexibility of the PUD when the waterfall plat entry sign
was requested. It seems that the larger
and taller waterfall sign met the intention of the ordinance for a PUD;
however, the Planning Commission should consider if allowing the number, size
and height of signs request by Eastbrook would give
them an unfair advantage over other developments, especially in the slow
economy.
It
should also be noted that one of the reasons for the request by Eastbrook for approval for the signs that are more in
number, larger and taller than allowed in the ordinance is because the Code Enforcement
Officer has had multiple situations where signs were installed in violation of
the ordinance and without permits.
DISCUSSION
If the Planning Commission chooses to take action, the
Planning Commission could act upon the requests as follows (since PUD is the
actual zoning designation and the property must be rezoned prior to both final
development approval and preliminary plat approval, and final development
approval must also be granted prior to preliminary plat approval):
1.
For the revised
preliminary PUD plan (the additional property), the Planning Commission holds a
public hearing (notices were sent and published for the additional property)
and makes a recommendation to the Township Board;
2.
For the final
development plan for phase 5 of the PUD, the Planning Commission does NOT hold
a public hearing (no notices are sent or published) and could take action
contingent upon Board approval for the preliminary plan for the PUD (i.e. if
the PC decides to approve the final development plan, it would have to be
contingent upon the preliminary plan approval since this is the underlying
zoning), or the Planning Commission could choose to act on the final
development plat at a subsequent meeting after the Board acts upon the
preliminary development plan;
3.
For the
preliminary plat of Lowing Woods No. 5, the Planning Commission holds a public
hearing (notices were sent because this is additional property that was not
including in the initial overall preliminary plat) and makes a recommendation
to the Board. This action would have to
be contingent upon the Board approval of the preliminary plan for the PUD and
contingent upon approval of the final development plan for phase 5. The Planning Commission could choose to take
action at the same time as the preliminary development plan and the final
development plan, or postpone action until the final development plan is
approved and after the Board acts upon the preliminary plan for the PUD.
4.
Since the plan
for the PUD preliminary development plan, the PUD final development plan and
the preliminary plat of Lowing Woods No. 5 are all the same plan, it appears
that it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission (if it is their
decision) to act upon all requests at one meeting. The motions (provided) would have to be
worded to make the approvals contingent upon the other appropriate actions.
There
was discussion regarding the eyebrows and the applicant noted that an outside
contractor provides snow removal services for those areas. The applicant also stated that they were
traffic calming devices that provided a greater buffer and more protection.
Honderd
stated that the eyebrows also provide access to additional land which means
that there could be an additional lot.
The
applicant stated that it provides a way to get off the main street and it
enhances the area.
Honderd
asked if 860 square feet is an acceptable area to the Planning Commission for
the attached condos and townhouses since the ordinance requires 900 square
feet.
The
consensus of the Planning Commission was that 900 square feet should be
provided.
The
applicant stated that they could provide 900 square feet.
There
was discussion regarding the construction of basements that were left open and
were a safety hazard. It was noted that
it was an enforcement issue that should be handled by the Township Office.
The
applicant stated the following. Basements
had been constructed in the fall but the houses had not been constructed
because of the slowdown in the market. They
missed putting fence around them. He
apologized for the signs that were erected in violation of the Zoning Ordinance
and without permits. They had done the
same thing in other municipalities without consequence and were learning that
they could not do it in Georgetown Township.
They had gotten a permit for the sign on Bauer Rd. and thought that the
interior streets were not regulated. They
will comply. A sheet of plywood is 32
square feet and he thought that the height of a sign is measured by the
dimension of the sign rather than the height from the ground. They wanted to get the sign up off the ground
to maintain the area beneath the sign.
The Edwin Allen sign was lowered to grade. They would have to get a new sign and would
have that expense if they were not allowed to keep the sign. The extra two feet is typically not a big
deal. The sign by the model house had
the hours and phone number which was difficult to get on a 2 by 3 foot sign. They took pictures of the signs and submitted
them along with the application to request approval for them with the PUD
approval. He got in trouble for having
the signs in violation of the ordinance and received a citation which he
paid. He removed the signs. In Grand Rapids and Cascade they were allowed
signs for each phase. He asked for
latitude in the size of the community sign.
Each phase is as big as a typical development. This is a different development and he
understood that the Township did not want to set a precedent that would create
a problem in the future.
DeGood
stated the following. The eyebrows were
okay if they were maintained by a private contractor. The attached condos and townhouses should be
a minimum of 900 square feet. The
agreements must be submitted. The signs
should meet the ordinance in fairness to all developers. Eastbrook already
has latitude with the larger waterfall sign at the entrance. The overall density is acceptable.
Honderd
stated a concern that the residential ranch condos would become student
housing.
The
zoning administrator stated that the ordinance allows a maximum of 4 unrelated
people to be considered a family for a single family dwelling.
The
applicant stated that students were not the typical market, but rather a 65
year-old; however, they cannot restrict who buys a house. He said that this would be an expensive
product for students to buy since the average price is out of that market.
Huizinga
said that the eyebrows were acceptable and the unfinished basements must be
fenced. He said that the attached condos
and townhouses should be a minimum of 900 square feet and signs should be
consistent with the ordinance. He said
that the layout was acceptable.
Poskey
and Pearson agreed with the consensus of the Planning Commission.
There
was more discussion regarding signs and again the determination of the Planning
Commission was to maintain the ordinance requirements.
Pearson
said the eyebrows were acceptable and the layout was okay.
South
said that the minimum size of the attached condos and townhouses should be 900
square feet.
The
consensus of the Planning Commission was that the eyebrows were acceptable, the
agreements for all phases should be recorded and submitted to the Township,
basements left open should be fenced, and all signs should meet ordinance
requirements.
Honderd
clarified that the eyebrows were maintained by a private contractor.
It
was clarified that the applicant was asking to have the eyebrows at their
discretion and that they already had been approved last time. It was noted that administrative approval
could be given for a minor change of eliminating any of the eyebrows,
especially if it was at the request of the Road Commission.
The
chairman opened the public hearing. No
one was present to speak on the item.
The chairman closed the public hearing.
Moved by DeGood, seconded by Huizinga,
to recommend to the Township Board to approve the preliminary development plan
for (PUD0702) Eastbrook
Development Company, 1188 East Paris Ave. SE, Grand Rapids, to have a Planned
Unit Development for residential uses under Chapter 22, on parcels of land
described as P.P. # 70-14-09-100-036, -037, -011, -042, located at 2999 Bauer
Rd., Bauer Rd., 3075 Bauer Rd. and Twin Lakes Dr., Georgetown Township, Ottawa
County, Michigan, as shown on the following:
a. application
dated 3/28/07;
b. the preliminary
development plan dated 5/21/07;
c. the grading
plan dated 5/21/07;
d. the legal
description and map of additional property;
e. and with note 11 on the plan which states: “Berming, landscaping,
narrative statement, and
architectural concept (elevations) shall be per the PUD Preliminary Development
Plan (PUD0406), as approved by Georgetown Charter Township on December 20,
2004.
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
6.
The information as per Sec.
22.5 is provided,
7.
The plan meets the ordinance
requirements of Sec. 22.10.
And with the following conditions:
1.
Taylor Street is improved according to the standards
and requirements of the Ottawa County Road Commission at the time of
construction of that phase;
2.
A detailed landscape plan which shows perimeter
landscaping and/or screening methods along 36th Ave. is provided at
the time of construction of that phase;
3.
That a minimum of 900 square feet are required for the
area of the attached condominiums and townhomes;
4.
The PUD agreement shall be recorded and provided for
all previously approved phases (phases 1 to 4) and for phase 5 before any
building permits are issued (the Township PUD agreement document must be used or
one acceptable to the Township and the additional addendum may also be used to
address the applicant’s concerns);
5.
The eyebrows on the street layout are not required and
the street may have the eyebrows provided at the developer’s discretion;
6.
All basements poured and left un-constructed for more
than 10 days must be fenced to protect the safety of residents in compliance
with Sec. 3.16;
7.
Sign permits must be obtained for ALL signs. Any signs not expressly approved with the PUD
MUST meet ordinance requirements.
No sign shall be located within the road right-of-way. Any sign not approved with the PUD and not
allowed by the ordinance must be removed immediately or changed to a conforming
sign. All signs other than the plat
entry waterfall sign must meet ordinance requirements because the approval does
not include any signs.
MOTION CARRIED.
#070620-05 - Final Development Plan for Phase 5
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows and noted that the Fire
Department memo as provided required a connection from Gilmore Lane to Lehigh
Trail to be shown.
REQUEST
The request includes the final development plan for
phase 5 which is the same plan for the Preliminary Plat of Lowing Woods No. 5.
SUMMARY
The summary is included with the summary for the
preliminary plan above.
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. NA.
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. Met. (the last phase was
approved Oct.10, 2005)
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. NA.
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.
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.
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).
A.
The
location and dimensions of all proposed structures and buildings on the PUD
site. Met.
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. Met. The location of all proposed signs and
lighting, including the sizes and types.
The information has been
provided. The applicant is requesting additional
signs
C.
The
location, type and size of all proposed landscaping and site amenities (art
work, fences, gateway features, etc.). Met.
Landscaping berm is provided along Bauer Rd. as per note 10. Landscaping should be shown along 36th
Ave. at the time final development approval is sought for that area.
D.
The
location, type and size of all utilities and storm water drainage facilities,
including fire protection, sanitary sewers, water services, etc. Provided.
E.
Existing
and proposed topographic contours at a maximum of three (3) foot
intervals. Provided.
F.
Elevation
views of all proposed structures and floor plans for all multi-family
residential dwelling units. Same as previously approved and noted on
the plan with number 10.
G.
Proposed
open space areas, including recreational amenities (playgrounds, etc.). Provided.
H.
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.
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.
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.
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. Previously
determined to be met
and the revised plan appears to meet this condition.
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. Previously determined to be met and the
revised plan appears to meet this condition.
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. Previously determined to be met and the
revised plan appears to meet this condition.
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.
Previously determined to be met
and the revised plan appears to meet this condition.
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.) Previously
determined to be met and the revised plan appears to meet the requirements of
Section 22.5A.
Sec. 22.9 PLANNING COMMISSION
REVIEW
A.
The
Planning Commission shall prepare a record of its findings and shall approve,
approve with conditions, or deny the final development plan.
B.
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.
C.
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.
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 FOR PHASES 1 TO 5.
Moved by Pearson, seconded by DeGood, to
approve (PUD0406-05) Final Development Plan Eastbrook
Development Company, 1188 East Paris Ave. SE, Grand
Rapids, to have a Planned Unit Development for residential uses under Chapter
22, on parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-09-100-036, -037, -011, -042,
located at 2999 Bauer Rd., Bauer Rd., 3075 Bauer Rd. and Twin Lakes Dr.,
Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, CONTINGENT UPON BOARD APPROVAL
of the preliminary development plan;
As shown on
the following:
1.
application
dated 3/28/07,
2.
the final
development plan
and Lowing Woods No. 5 overall
dated 5/01/07.
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 for
phases 1 to 5 at the time a building permit application is
submitted.
2. All basements
poured and left un-constructed for more than 10 days must
be fenced to
protect the safety of residents in compliance with Sec. 3.16;
3. Sign permits must be obtained for ALL
signs. Any signs not expressly
approved with the
PUD MUST meet ordinance requirements.
No sign shall be located within the road right-of-way. Any sign not approved with the PUD and not
allowed by the ordinance must be removed immediately or changed to a conforming
sign.
4. A connection must be constructed with
this phase between Lehigh Trail and
Gilmore
Lane.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070620-06 - Preliminary Plat of Lowing Woods No. 5
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows.
REQUEST
The request is for tentative preliminary plat approval
for Lowing Woods No. 5 and this is the same plan as the final development plan.
SUMMARY
The summary is included with the summary for the
preliminary plan above.
a. signs
|
I D number |
|
|
|
|
Date |
5-15-07 |
|
|
|
Name |
Lowing Woods No. 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
a. signs |
|
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
|
|
NA |
|
|||
|
Residential development
extra requirements-attached garages |
|
X |
|
|||||
Moved by DeGood, seconded by Pearson, to
recommend to the Township Board to grant tentative preliminary plat approval of
Lowing Woods No. 5 as shown on the plan
and the overall
plan both dated 5/1/07, and with the owners
association documentation, based on the findings that Township Ordinances have
been met and CONTINGENT UPON BOARD
APPROVAL of the preliminary development plan and upon the Planning Commission
approval of the final development plan. and with the
condition that Lehigh Trail and Gilmore Lane be connected with this phase.
MOTION CARRIED.
#070620-07 – Adjournment
The
chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
