Minutes of the
regular meeting of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission, held Wednesday,
August 1, 2007
Meeting called to order by
Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Honderd, Poskey, South, Huizinga, DeGood,
Stasiak
Absent: Pearson
#070801-01 - Agenda for August 1, 2007
Moved by DeGood,
seconded by South, to approve the agenda for August 1, 2007 as presented.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070801-02 - Minutes of the
July 18, 2007 regular meeting
Moved
by DeGood, seconded by Poskey, to approve the minutes of the July 18, 2007 regular meeting,
as submitted.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070801-03 – (PUD0702-02) Eastbrook Development-Final
Development Plan (application,
final
development
plan
dated 6-22-07 and Lowing Woods No. 5, final development plan and Lowing Woods
No. 5 overall
plan dated 6-22-07) (no public hearing
is necessary)
Rick
Pulaski, Nederveld Associates, represented the applicant and presented the
request.
The zoning administrator stated that the Township had
received a letter from the Ottawa County Road Commission about changing the
name of Lehigh Ct. and about an agreement to improve Taylor St. with phase
5. She presented a review as follows.
REQUEST
At the June 20, 2007 meeting, the Planning Commission
approved the final development plan for phase 5 of the Eastbrook Development
PUD which consisted of 20 lots. A
condition of approval was that Gilmore Lane be connected to Lehigh Trail as
required by the Fire Department. The
request with the new application is to revise the plan showing the two streets
connected and adding 13 lots that are adjacent to the additional street
frontage for a total of 33 lots in phase 5.
SUMMARY
Documentation
is provided detailing compliance with ordinance standards. The only issues that remain are as follows:
1.
A recorded PUD agreement according to Sec.
22.11 must submitted for phases 1 to 5 and will be required prior to the
issuance of any building permits for this phase
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.
Sidewalk is provided along the 59 feet of frontage along Bauer Rd.
The following information documents compliance with
ordinance standards.
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.
C.
The
location of all proposed signs and lighting, including the sizes and
types. Met.
D.
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.
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. Provided.
G.
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.
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.
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. (See following)
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 22.8D.
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.
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. Eastbrook Development and Ottawa Land
Holdings are both represented by Dale Kraker.
D. Master
Plan: The proposed uses of the PUD must be substantially consistent with
The Master Plan text addresses the area as follows:
Bauer Rd./Fillmore Area.
The Master
Plan recognizes that this is an area in transition from very rural to urban
residential. However, the natural
character of the area should be preserved to the extent possible. As public water and sanitary sewer become
available, planned development in the form of PUDs or open space preservation
projects should be permitted within an overall residential density limit of 3.5
units per acre. Preference should be given
to large scale developments that will maintain open space and preserve the
natural character of the land, while meeting the residential goals of this
Plan. Conventional subdivisions that
simply divide the land into lots with no amenities and little regard for the
natural character should be discouraged.
Met. The Planning Commission initially approved a
maximum of 825 units for approximately 290 acres (which is about 2.84 units per
acre). The change is 839 units for
approximately 300 acres (which is about 2.8 units per acre).
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
previously. Appears to be met for the
additional property.
F. Architecture:
The PUD should provide for coordinated and innovative visually appealing
architectural styles, building forms and building relationships.
Met
previously. Appears to be met for the
addition as per note 10.
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.
Met
previously. Appears to be met for the
additional property.
H.
Open Space Requirements:
Met.
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.
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.
Moved by Stasiak,
seconded by DeGood, to approve (PUD0702-02) 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, as
shown on the following:
1.
application
dated 6/27/07,
2.
the final development plan dated
6-22-07 and Lowing Woods No. 5 overall plan dated
6-22-07),
3.
And with note 10 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.
4.
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.
5.
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.
6.
The proposed PUD meets all
the site plan requirements of Chapter 22 including Section 22.8, 22.9 and
22.10.
7.
To meet Sec. 22.11, PUD
agreements must be submitted.
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. Either the
Township PUD document or one acceptable to the Township must be used.
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. Approval from
the Ottawa County Road Commission is obtained, including
approval regarding the connection to Taylor Street and changing the
street name (as per the Ottawa County Road Commission letter dated July
27, 2007), prior to the submission of an application for final preliminary plat
approval for Lowing Woods No. 5.
MOTION CARRIED.
#070801-04 – Preliminary Plat of Lowing Woods No. 5
(hold the public hearing) (application
with
street
light petition and sidewalk compliance letter, owners
association documentation, final development plan
dated 6-22-07 and Lowing Woods No. 5, final development plan and Lowing Woods
No. 5 overall
plan dated 6-22-07) (hold the public
hearing)
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows.
REQUEST
The request is for REVISED tentative preliminary plat
approval for Lowing Woods No. 5 revised and this is the same plan as the final
development plan with the additional 13 lots.
SUMMARY
Documentation
is provided detailing compliance with ordinance standards. The only issues that remain are as follows:
1. Sidewalk is provided along
the 59 feet of frontage along Bauer Rd.
2. A recorded PUD
agreement according to Sec. 22.11 must submitted for phases 1 to 5 and will be
required prior to the issuance of any building permits for this phase as per a
condition of final development approval.
3. 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 as per a condition of final development approval.
4. 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 as per a condition of final development approval.
The following information documents compliance with
ordinance standards.
|
I D # |
|
|
|
|
Date |
6-27-07 |
|
|
|
Name |
Lowing Woods No. 5 Revised |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|||||
The
chairman opened the public hearing. No
one was present to speak on this topic.
The chairman closed the public hearing.
Moved by DeGood, seconded by Stasiak, to
recommend to the Township Board to grant tentative preliminary plat approval of
Lowing Woods No. 5 as shown on the Lowing Woods No. 5 plan
dated 6-22-07 and the Lowing Woods No. 5 overall
plan dated 6-22-07and with the owners
association documentation, based on the findings that Township Ordinances have
been met and CONTINGENT upon the Planning
Commission approval of the final development plan and contingent upon approval
from Ottawa County Road Commission, including approval regarding the connection
to Taylor Street and changing the street name (as per the Ottawa County Road
Commission letter dated July
27, 2007) prior to the submission of an application for final preliminary plat
approval for Lowing Woods No. 5.
MOTION CARRIED.
#070801-05 – Rezoning (REZ0701) To
change from (LDR) Low Density Residential to (OS) Office
Service Commercial parcels of land described as P.P.
# 70-14-13-100-034, and -035, located at 7813 and 7785 Cottonwood, Georgetown
Township, Ottawa County, Michigan.
Mike
Bosch, 896 Fairwood Ct., is the property owner and presented the request.
The
zoning administrator presented a request as follows.
REQUEST
The
request is to rezone two parcels on Cottonwood Dr. that adjoin the (OS) Office
Service Commercial District from (LDR) Low Density Residential to (OS) Office
Service Commercial.
SUMMARY
The proposed zoning designation of OS is
determined to be consistent with the Future Land Use Map, compatible with the
surrounding area and the subject sites are capable of sustaining the uses
allowed in the OS district.
1. The
determination can be made that the proposed zoning district with all its uses
is CONSISTENT with the Master Plan because the subject sites abut the OS
district and the Master Plan notes that the category zoning lines are not
parcel-specific and not necessarily defined lines.
2. The
uses in the proposed district are COMPATIBLE with the surrounding area
since the property adjacent to the subject property on the southeast side is
already zoned OS and the property adjacent to the subject property on the
northwest side is zoned MHR and contains an attached single family residential
housing development. In fact, the
current zoning designation of LDR is less compatible with the surrounding area
than the proposed zoning district since there are only two lots for single
family residential uses that are surrounded by more intense uses. The LDR uses across Cottonwood are separated
by a busy four-lane road.
3. The
property is capable of being used for the current LDR zoning since the current
uses are single family dwellings. The
property is also CAPABLE of being used for uses in the proposed zoning
district since water and sewer are available to the area. In addition, Cottonwood is a four lane road
capable of handling large amounts of traffic.
Site plan issues such as a decel lane can be addressed at the time of
site plan approval and are not relevant to the rezoning issue.
STANDARDS USED FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Consistency: Is the proposed zoning and
all of its permitted uses consistent with the recommendation of the Township
Master Plan? The determination can be made that the proposed zoning district with
all its uses is consistent with the Master Plan.
The
Future Land Use Map shows the two Parcels as LDR and the two parcels abut OS
zoning to the southeast on Cottonwood and abut MDR zoning to the northwest on
Cottonwood.
The
text of the Master Plan states: “Based on the issues, goals and policies
presented, and on consideration of potential future population growth in the
Township, a map depicting the desired future development pattern in the
Township was prepared.
It is noted that lines separating land use categories are NOT to be
considered to be defined lines and the lines are not necessarily parcel
specific.”
Since
the text of the Master Plan specifically calls out the fact that the lines
separating the land use categories are not to be considered to be defined lines
and the lines are not necessarily parcel specific, the determination can be
made that rezoning the parcels to OS would be consistent with the Future Land
Use Map because they abut the OS zoning district.
The
uses that are permitted by right in the OS district are very light commercial
uses such as offices, banks, personal service establishments and commercial
schools.
The
following uses are permitted in the OS district.
Land and/or buildings in this District may be used for
the following purposes by right:
(A)
Office buildings for any of the
following occupations: executive, administrative, professional, accounting,
writing, clerical, stenographic, drafting, and office equipment and supplies
sales.
(B) Medical offices including clinics.
(C) Banks, credit unions, savings and loan institutions not
including drive-in facilities.
(D) Personal
service establishments which perform
personal services on the premises, including barber and beauty shops, interior
decorating shops, photographic studios, laundromats or similar uses. (revised
(E) Hospitals,
provided, the design standards defined in Chapter XX, shall apply.
(F) Commercial schools including
art, business, music, dance, professional, and trade.
(G) Municipal
buildings, exchanges, and public utility offices but not including storage
yards, substations, or regulator stations.
(H) Accessory buildings and uses as
defined in Chapter II.
The following uses may be permitted by obtaining Special
Land Use Approval when all applicable standards as cited in Chapter XX are met.
(A) Drive-in
establishments including banks, dry cleaning pick-up stations and similar
personal services, not including drive-in restaurants and vehicle service
stations.
(B) Restaurants or other
establishments serving food and/or beverages but not including drive-ins.
(C) Mortuaries and funeral homes.
(D) Any business or use permitted by right or
by special land use approval in the OS Commercial district and
having or providing more than two electronic games.
(E) Commercial soil removal.
(F) Commercial
radio and television and wireless communication towers. (Revised November 1997)
(G) Churches
(Revised April 1998)
(H) Day care
centers (revised 10-25-06)
2. Compatibility: Is the proposed district
and all of its allowed uses compatible with surrounding area? The uses
in the proposed district are compatible with the surrounding area since the
property adjacent to the subject property on the southeast side is already
zoned OS and the property adjacent to the subject property on the northwest
side is zoned MHR and contains an attached single family residential housing
development. In fact, the current zoning
designation of LDR is less compatible with the surrounding area than the
proposed zoning district since there are only two lots for single family
residential uses that are surrounded by more intense uses.
The
uses in the OS district would have a relatively light impact on the area and
would provide compatible uses between the existing OS zoning and the MHR to the
north and west. The parcels are quite
small (each approximately one acre) and would be subject to ordinance
requirements for maximum lot coverage.
Therefore the uses would be relatively small. In addition, most office-type uses operate
during the daytime hours.
The
LDR uses across Cottonwood are separated by a busy four lane road and would not
be negatively impacted by the proposed OS uses.
3. Capability: Is the property capable of
being used for uses in the current zoning district and is it capable of being
used for uses in the proposed zoning district?
The property is capable of being
used for the current LDR zoning since the current uses are single family
dwellings. The property is also capable
of being used for uses in the proposed zoning district since water and sewer is
available to the area. In addition,
Cottonwood is a four lane road capable of handling large amounts of
traffic. Further, the Ottawa County Road
Commission is reactive to traffic issues rather than being proactive.
4. Will the rezoning require an inordinate
expenditure of public funds to make the development feasible? No
public funds would be necessary at all.
5. Will the rezoning cause development to
“leap frog” other undeveloped areas in the same zoning district and necessitate
premature extension of services to rural areas of the Township? No
because utilities are already available.
6. Is there sufficient vacant land already
zoned in a specific category? Although there pockets of areas zoned OS,
there is a growing number of residential developments with people who need to
be serviced with commercial uses.
7. Is the rezoning more likely to be
granted if conditions could be attached (conditions can not be attached)? The
more intense uses in the OS district would be subject to special land use
approval and the Township would have an opportunity to review any such uses and
add conditions if necessary.
Honderd
stated that the Planning Commission should watch to be sure that they don’t get
the creeping effect with commercial districts moving down Cottonwood because
they watch the same thing for Baldwin very closely. He said that this request had similarities
with the rezoning request for four parcels on Port Sheldon near 28th
Ave.
The zoning
administrator stated that rezoning these two LDR parcels to commercial would
provide a natural boundary since they had commercial on one side and Amsterdam
Village on the other side with a higher density residential district. She also stated that this request was
different from the rezoning request on Port Sheldon and 28th Ave.
because the whole area on Port Sheldon was zoned MDR and those parcels were
nearly surrounded by the same zoning as opposed to these parcels that were not
in the middle of LDR zoning but rather had commercial on one side and a higher
density residential district on the other side.
She noted that each lot was less than an acre in size.
South said
that there was an apartment complex behind these parcels.
It was
noted that the condos of Amsterdam Village were next to these parcels on one
side.
South said
that he did not have a problem with the OS zoning for these parcels because the
Amsterdam Village condos provided a good cut-off for the commercial district.
The
chairman opened the public hearing.
Anna
Colby, 7822 Cottonwood Dr., said that she was opposed to the rezoning and
stated the following. She just purchased
her house on Cottonwood three years ago and wanted to be in a residential area. The LDR was not by itself and Cottonwood is a
busy street. New Amsterdam Village has a
higher density but the people are not running all the time in their cars. There are tremendous traffic backups close to
Baldwin and there are a lot of accidents, especially involving elderly
drivers. Cottonwood is not designed with
a left hand turn lane. Adding businesses
was a bad idea. If she gets in the bank
she sits there forever trying to get out into traffic. Traffic backs up and it is not easy to get
out. If more businesses are allowed, it
will get worse. There already is a
natural cut-off line for the commercial because there is empty commercial
property next to the sites and businesses could go in there. This would add more cement and green space
would be lost. With the traffic problems
she does not want to see more businesses.
They are not small lots; rather they are nice large lots with trees and
flowers and grass which she likes to see when she looks out her windows.
Honderd
asked what uses were allowed in the OS district and they were listed
The
applicant stated the following. Although
he knew that the Planning Commission had to consider all the uses permitted in
the OS district, he planned to have a photography studio that would have low
volumes of traffic. The use would be a
nice transition for the area. Traffic
has not backed up this far and the busy traffic times are at 3:00 when school
gets out and 5:00 when workers get out.
This is a four lane road and there are not big backups for left turns. He presented pictures of his proposal.
Anna Colby
said that she used to live further down on Cottonwood and there are backups in
the area. She said that a few months ago
she sat with an elderly woman who had been in an accident and was waiting for
an ambulance.
The
chairman closed the public hearing.
Stasiak
asked about the PUD application that had been considered by the Planning
Commission for housing for the elderly.
It was
noted that it was across the street from this site and that approval was not
granted because the proposal was for a higher density than was allowed.
Anna Colby
stated that the developers for that project had wanted to buy their property
and she had refused.
South said
that this was a nice cut-off and he had looked at Baldwin, Cottonwood and
Chicago Dr. where stores were available for rent, lease or sail that had been
access than the businesses on Cottonwood.
He said that the Grand Valley State University traffic had to be
considered also and the commercial already extends far enough now.
Moved by Huizinga, seconded by DeGood, to
recommend to the Township Board approval of Rezoning (REZ0701) To change from (LDR) Low Density Residential to (OS) Office Service Commercial parcels of land described as P.P. #
70-14-13-100-034, and -035, located at 7813 and 7785 Cottonwood, Georgetown Township,
Ottawa County, Michigan, based on the findings that the OS district is determined
to be consistent with the Future Land Use Map, compatible with the surrounding
area and the subject sites are capable of sustaining the uses allowed in the OS
district.
Huizinga
stated that rezoning the site to OS was appropriate because it was consistent
with the Master Plan, compatible with the surrounding area and it was capable
of handling the uses permitted in the OS district.
Stasiak
asked how the zoning administrator determined that the rezoning was consistent
with the Master Plan.
The zoning
administrator responded that the text of the Master Plan states “It is noted that lines separating land use categories
are NOT to be considered to be defined lines and the lines are not necessarily
parcel specific.” She said that the previous Future Land Use
Map had wide lines that were not indented to be located in a specific place,
which means that lines defining the land use categories could be next to these
parcels since OS zoning was shown adjacent to the site. She said that in addition, the LDR parcels
were mostly an island unto themselves since OS was on one side and a higher
density residential on the other, and the only adjacent land zoned LDR was at
the rear of the property and had frontage on a totally different street.
South said
that there were other OS properties available within the Township in the OS
district.
Poskey
stated the following. There many other
OS properties available, such as off 20th Ave., and many strip malls
have spaces available. He does not know
if there is a need for more OS property.
It is hard to draw the line for commercial, just as it is on Baldwin,
but this is a good line.
Honderd
said that if this property was tied into a PUD, it could be developed with a
single access that would eliminate curb cuts.
Yeas: Huizinga
Nays: Poskey, Honderd, Stasiak, DeGood, South
Absent: Pearson
MOTION DEFEATED.
Moved by Poskey, seconded by South, to
recommend to the Township Board denial of Rezoning (REZ0701) To change from (LDR) Low Density Residential to (OS) Office Service Commercial parcels of land described as P.P. #
70-14-13-100-034, and -035, located at 7813 and 7785 Cottonwood, Georgetown Township,
Ottawa County, Michigan, based on the findings that were previous mentioned,
including the fact that there are many other OS property available and there is
not a need for more OS zoning, the commercial line has been drawn and the
commercial area should not creep further down Cottonwood, and due to traffic
issues.
Yeas: Poskey, Honderd, Stasiak, DeGood, South
Nays: Huizinga
Absent: Pearson
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070801-06 – Other Business
It
was noted that at the previous Township Board meeting, Stanley Sterk had asked
the Planning Commission to review the maximum door height of 12 feet for a
detached accessory building (that according to the ordinance has a maximum mean
height of 14 feet) and change the maximum door height to 14 feet. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission
to not initiate such a change and that the Board could initiate the amendment
if they wanted the ordinance changed.
There
was discussion regarding the electronic submission of files for site plans and
it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they still receive the
paper copies because the computer files are too small to review.
It
was noted that this might be a good time to begin to review the Master Plan
since there were not many applications at the Planning Commission meetings and
the Plan must be reviewed every five years.
The Commissioners were directed to think about any needed changes and
bring suggestions to the next meeting.
#070801-07 – Change Meeting Time
Moved
by Stasiak, seconded by Huizinga, to change the August 15, 2007 meeting time to
5 p.m.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070801-08 – Adjournment
The
chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m.
It was noted that the application for the August 15, 2007 meeting was a
special use permit and a notice had already been published and property notices
sent with the public hearing time listed as 7:30 p.m.
#070801-09 – Meeting Called Back to Order
The
chairman called the meeting back to order.
#070801-10 – Change Meeting Time Back to Scheduled
Time
Moved
by Stasiak, seconded by Huizinga, to change the meeting time back to the regularly
scheduled time of 7:30 p.m. because the notice with the time was already
published and property notices were already sent.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070801-11 – Adjournment
The
chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.