Minutes of the
regular meeting of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission, held Wednesday,
November 7, 2007
Meeting called to order by
Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Honderd, South, DeGood, Stasiak, Huizinga,
Poskey
Absent: Pearson
#071107-01 - Agenda for November 7, 2007
Moved by South,
seconded DeGood, to approve the agenda for November 7, 2007 as presented.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#071107-02 - Minutes of the
August 15, 2007 regular meeting
Moved
by Stasiak, seconded by DeGood, to approve the minutes of the August 15, 2007 regular meeting,
as submitted.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#071107-03 – Site Plan (ST0710) Cottonwood Heights Christian
Reformed Church (site
plan
revision)-1101
Cypress Dr.
Don
VandenBerg represented the applicant and presented the request. He said that the youth building was located
in the same spot but was larger with a flat roof and brick and block similar to
the existing church building.
The zoning administrator presented a review as
follows.
REQUEST
The church is requesting
approval for a revised site plan with a change in area of the proposed youth
building from 6,400 to 7,752 square feet.
A bank of 13 parking spaces adjacent to the building on the southwest
side has been eliminated and 9 spaces are proposed to be added the southeast of
the building. Initially the plan had
been reviewed for possible minor change approval by the zoning administrator which
is allowed under Sec. 19.8(B). However, even
adding the square footage of the youth building and the church building
together, the increase is 7.5% in area of the single floor area (in other
words, the footprint) which is greater than the maximum of 5% permitted to be
considered a minor change. Consequently,
the plan is required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
HISTORY
In the 1990’s, a variance had
been granted waiving the requirement of the greenbelt for the daycare. In September of 2005, a variance was granted
for the lot width along 12th Ave.
In November of 2005 when
revisions to the site were sought, a special use permit was requested and approved
for the church and daycare because the existing church was constructed in 1971
when special use approval was not required.
Since changes were requested to be made to the site, the church was
required to meet the current ordinance and obtain a special use permit. A site plan was approved to erect a new youth
building near the entrance off 12th Ave. and to relocate the youth
activities to the new building. The
existing daycare would then expand into the whole area of the existing building
on the northwest area of the site. A
canopy was also proposed to be erected over the entrance to the church off Ash
Dr.
In July 2006, a revised site
plan was approved by the Planning Commission to relocate the youth building to
its currently proposed spot and to increase the square footage from 3,200 to
6,400 square feet. Some parking spots
were eliminated at that time and a bank of deferred parking spots was proposed.
SUMMARY
The only proposed change is the
expansion of the youth building to 7,752 square feet and the elimination of 13
parking spaces to be replaced with 9 new parking spaces. Some minor elements have not been transposed
to the new plan including the zoning designation of the land across 12th
Ave. and the site itself (which could be waived by the Planning Commission). The new location and size of the building
meets all setback requirements. Parking
totals are shown correctly on the plan and exceed the ordinance requirement of
248 by 28 when the 56 deferred spaces are added. The elevations provided show that the
building will be compatible and harmonious with the existing buildings and the
character of the neighborhood.
Two issues remain.
a.
The
applicant was instructed to provide aisle widths specifically for the eastern
bank of 13 parking spaces to south of the proposed youth building to verify
that the aisles are at least 24 feet wide for two-way traffic. This dimension was not provided for this area
and it scales out to be less than 24 feet.
Therefore, one parking space should be removed from the northeast corner
to provide for the 24 foot aisle width.
This results in a reduction of one space from the parking total of 276
to 275.
b.
A Storm
Water Drain Permit is needed.
|
I D number |
ST0710 |
|
|
|
Date |
10-10-07 |
|
|
|
Name |
Cottonwood Heights CRC |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Address |
1101 Cypress |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use |
Church |
|
SUP required |
SUP0511 |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REQUIREMENT |
|
|
|
|
|
PROVIDED |
Needs or Comments |
|
|
Date, north arrow, scale |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Name, address of preparer |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Name, address of property
owner or petitioner |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Location sketch |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
Legal description |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
Size in acres of the
property |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Property lines and
required setbacks shown and dimensioned |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Location of existing
structures, drives, parking areas within 100 ft of boundary |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location and dimensions of
existing and proposed structures |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Location of existing and
proposed drives (dimensions and radii), circulation |
|
a. needs |
||||||
|
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 |
|
|
|
b. 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 |
|
|||||
Additional comments and notes:
Special Use
General Special Use Standards
A narrative was supplied in the first approval
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.
Specific Special Use Standards
Sec. 20.4 (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 with approved variance
The
chairman opened the floor to public comments.
No one was present to speak on the item.
The chairman closed the floor to public comments.
Moved
by Stasiak, seconded by DeGood, to approve the site
plan dated 10.9.07 as submitted, along with the elevations dated October 9,
2007 based on the findings that the plan meets the standards of the ordinance
under Sec. 19.4 and all other applicable ordinances, with the following
conditions:
·
a Storm Water
Drain Permit is submitted at the time a building permit application is
submitted to the Township; and
·
one parking space
is eliminated from the northeast section of the parking bank that is located
southeast of the proposed youth building in order to provide for the aisle to
have a 24 foot width for two way traffic, resulting in a total of 275 parking
spaces.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#071107-04 – Site Plan (ST0711)
Wellspring Community Church (revision)-4466 Bauer Rd.
(site
plan, floor
plans, elevations,
utility
plan, grading
plan, letter)
John
Jefferies, A.J. Veneklasen Inc., represented the applicant and presented the
request.
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows.
REQUEST
A special use permit and site plan were approved for
Wellspring Church on March 26, 2001. The
proposal is to revise the approved site plan by constructing three additional
sections to an existing 17,954 square foot church, two with 5,900 square feet
each and one with 5,251 square feet, and adding 176 parking spaces. If granted approval for the 20% reduction,
the number of parking spaces exceeds the requirement for a church in Chapter 26
by two spaces. The elevations show that
the additions would be architecturally similar and compatible with the existing
structure.
SUMMARY
Additional Comments:
a.
The church is asking for a 20% reduction in
parking spaces as per Sec. 26.9(K). The
request seems appropriate because they have provided green space. If the parking need has not been met, they
would be the ones to incur the negative impact from the result. The
applicant was instructed to provide a reason as to why they determine that the
number of parking spaces would be adequate and they presented a letter.
b.
The greenbelt along the southern property line is
shown to meet ordinance requirements with the number of evergreen trees as per
Sec. 3.11(A) which requires one evergreen tree for each 20 feet of length or
fraction thereof. There is also a 25 foot greenbelt
requirement along the eastern property adjacent to the AG district. A 25 foot greenbelt must be shown along the
eastern property line because an AG district is defined in Sec. 2.83(b) as a
residential district. According to Sec. 26.3(D) the Planning
Commission may permit the trees to be less than 5 feet but at least 2 feet in
height if there are no dwellings within 300 feet of the parking area. Since there are not dwellings within 300 feet
of this eastern property line, it appears to be appropriate to allow the
evergreens to be a minimum of 2 feet in height.
c.
A Storm
Water Drain Permit is required to be obtained from the Drain Commissioner’s
Office and submitted to the Township along with the Building Permit
application.
|
I D number |
ST0711 |
|
|
|
Date |
10-10-07 |
|
|
|
Name |
Wellspring Community
Church |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Address |
4466 Bauer Rd. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use |
Church addition |
|
SUP required |
Already approved (SUP0104) |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
a. reduction |
||||||
|
Calculations of parking
spaces, unloading areas |
|
|
|
a. |
||||
|
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 |
|
b. greenbelt |
||||||
|
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 |
|
|
|
c. Storm Permit |
||||
|
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 |
|
|||||
Special Use
General Special Use Standards
A narrative was supplied for the first approvals
detailing compliance with the special use 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.
Appears to
meet these standards as previously approved.
Specific Special Use Standards
Sec. 20.4 (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).
(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)
Appears to be met
since the parcel is approximately 30 acres with over 300 feet of frontage on
Bauer Rd.
It
was noted that it is a good idea to show future banked parking, but is not
necessary since this is such a large parcel with ample room for additional
parking if needed. The applicant was
informed that it would also be a good idea for 2 foot tall screening trees to
be planted now so that they would have a chance to grow in case in the future
the site was further developed.
The
chairman opened the floor to public comments.
No one was present to speak on this topic. The chairman closed the floor to public
comments.
Moved
by DeGood, seconded by South, to approve the site
plan, floor plans, elevations, utility plan, grading plan identified as
sheets C100, C101, C102, A101 and A201 all dated 10-10-07, as submitted, based
on the findings that the plans meet the standards of the ordinance under Sec.
19.4 and all other applicable ordinances, and that
·
the 20% parking
reduction is approved based on the findings that the site has adequate parking;
·
the evergreens in
the greenbelt must be a minimum of 2 feet in height along the eastern property
line and a minimum of 5 feet in height along the southern property line;
and
with the following condition:
·
that a Storm
Water Drain Permit is submitted at the time a building permit application is
submitted to the Township.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#071107-05 - Zoning Ordinance amendment to Chapter 17
and Sec. 20.4(AF)
The zoning
administrator presented a review as follows.
The following is an excerpt from
the October 8, 2007 Township Board meeting.
*****************************************
#071008-13 – More Uses in the Industrial District
Moved by Daniel Carlton,
seconded by Marvin VanSomeren, to request the Planning Commission to review the
Zoning Ordinance for revisions to allow more options for uses in the Industrial
district and to be flexible with the uses.
MOTION CARRIED.
****************************************
The following was discussed at the Board meeting. The Board asked that the Planning Commission
review the use of retail sales without size limitation and any other uses they
determined should be allowed in the Industrial district.
The
following uses may be permitted by obtaining Special Land Use Approval when all
applicable standards as cited in Chapter XX are met.
(A) Waste
treatment facilities.
(B) Water
supply and treatment facilities.
(C) Waste
disposal facilities, including incinerators and sanitary landfills.
(D) Private
non-commercial recreation.
(E) Airports
and Landing fields.
(F) Vehicle repair establishments.
(G) Restaurants or other eating
or drinking establishments which provide food or drink on the premises, not
including drive-in establishments.
(H) Contractors yards, building materials
storage.
(I) Commercial soil
removal.
(J) Tool and
die, metal working (but no metal stamping) and stone, clay, glass, concrete,
brick, pottery, abrasives, tile and related products.
(K) Outdoor storage in connection with any
permitted use.
(L) Heating and electric power generating
plants.
(M) Junk yards and salvage yards.
(N) Retail sales as an accessory use to a
Permitted or Special Approval Use.(revised 7/25/95)
(O) Commercial radio and television and
wireless communication towers. (Revised November 1997).
Sec.
20.4(AF) Special Use Standards
(AF) Retail
sales as an accessory
use to a Permitted or Special Approval Use.
(1) Retail
sales may only be permitted as an accessory use to a principal use permitted by
right or special approval within the I District.
(1)(2) The retail sales area shall front on a
major street. Such streets shall be
limited to
(3) Maximum floor area devoted to retail sales shall not exceed
twenty (20) percent of the total floor area of the business, up to a maximum
sales area of one thousand five hundred (1,500) sq. ft.
(4) Any
building or portion of a building occupied by a single business shall contain a
minimum total floor area of five thousand (5,000) sq. ft.
(2) (5) In addition to the
parking required for
the principal use, shall be provided as specified in Chapter 26, parking shall be provided at a
ratio of one space per 200 sq. ft. for the sales area, with a minimum of six
(6) customer spaces to be provided. (Revised July 1995)
(3) (6) All
retail sales shall be conducted completely within the main building. No freestanding sales structure and no
outdoor sales shall be permitted.
(4) (7) No outdoor
display of merchandise shall be permitted.
(revised
There was
discussion regarding the proposed changes with comments as follows. Due to the economic conditions and the fact
that industrial uses are not developing like they did in the past, allowing the
retail use along these four streets made good sense. Concerns were noted regarding parking issues,
specifically for a furniture-type retail use.
However, such a use would also include warehousing and it would be up to
the applicant to provide information as to how much of the site would be used
as a warehouse and how much used as retail.
The Planning Commission also had options in the ordinance to alleviate
parking concerns, such as reducing requirements by 20%.
The
chairman opened the floor to public comments.
Mr. Bouma
was present in the audience to comment on the use of retail along the corridor
since the need for industrial uses was diminishing in the current economy.
The
chairman closed the floor to public comments.
The
consensus of the Planning Commission was that the proposed ordinance amendment
was appropriate and that the zoning administrator could handle the parking
concerns in the same manner as any other business. If issues arose regarding parking
requirements for the use, the Planning Commission could always address the
issues in the future.
Moved
by Poskey, seconded by DeGood, to initiate Zoning Ordinance amendments to Sec.
17.3 and 20.4(AF) as presented
MOTION
CARRIED.
#071107-06 - Zoning Ordinance amendment to Sec. 3.4
and Sec. 3.8
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows.
The following is an excerpt from the August 13, 2007 Township Board
meeting.
#070813-12 – Board Open
Discussion
Stanley Sterk stated the following. The Zoning Board of Appeals had reviewed a
case with a flag lot where the fence height could have been two to three feet
higher if it was a foot farther back. The
Planning Commission should look at an exception if a fence that would be
considered to be in a front yard is actually someone else’s back yard.
Daniel Carlton said that the concept should be broadened and
the definition of a front yard should be reviewed for an amendment to allow a
garage in a front yard if it is a deep front yard. He said that a maximum should be defined for
a required front yard.
The Board asked the Planning Commission to review this section
of the Zoning Ordinance.
If the Planning Commission
decides to review this section of the Zoning Ordinance, the following was
offered for discussion.
(A) Accessory
buildings and uses shall not be erected in any front or required side yard,
unless otherwise provided for in this ordinance.
1. The front yard of the subject site
shares a property line with adjacent lots when this lot line is the same lot
line that is a rear lot line of the
adjacent lots; or
2. The accessory building or use is not
located nearer to the front lot line than any residential buildings on adjacent
lots when the adjacent lots share a lot line that is considered to be a side
lot line for both the subject site and the adjacent property;
(A) The erection, construction, or alteration
of any fence shall conform to the requirements of the applicable zoning
district. It shall be unlawful to
construct any fence in any public right-of-way.
(B) Unless specifically provided for
elsewhere in this ordinance, a fence may not exceed a height of three (3) feet
within the front setback area of all streets, or a height of six (6) feet in
any other area; provided, however, that a security fence in a non-residential
zone, or a security fence for the protection of public utility buildings or
improvements may be extended by a barbed arm at least six (6) feet from the
ground which increases the height of a fence to a maximum of seven (7) feet.
(C) A fence up to a height of four (4) feet
may be permitted within the front setback area provided, in the opinion of the
Zoning Administrator, the design, location, and materials of such fence will
not obscure the visibility from such setback area of vehicular or pedestrian
traffic along the street.
(D) A fence up to a height of (6) six feet
may be permitted within a front yard on a lot with a depth of 500 feet or more
provided the fence meets the same setback requirements for any building in the
district in which it is located; and either a) the fence is not located nearer
to the front lot than any residential buildings on adjacent lots sharing the
same side lot lines or b) the front
yard of the subject site shares a property line with adjacent lots when this
lot line is the rear lot line of the
adjacent lots.
(E)(D) No fence located on property within a LDR, MDR, LMR, or MHP zoning district shall contain any barbed wire
or electrification, except as provided for in Sec. 3.8(B). (revised 6-25-2001)
(F)(E) In the case of a double frontage lot in any
Residential District, a fence
up to six (6) feet in
height may
be erected in the rear yard, but shall be set back from the rear property line
a minimum of five (5) feet.
There
was lengthy discussion regarding the proposed ordinance amendments and what
they intended to accomplish. The
consensus of the Planning Commission was as follows. A front yard would not be a good place for an
accessory building or use or for a six foot high fence. The types of lots this ordinance would
address were very few and such specific instances could be handled by the
ZBA. The preference is to not have
specific zoning ordinances deal with only a few such instances.
Moved
by Poskey, seconded by DeGood, to leave Sec. 3.4 and 3.8 as they current are
for the following reasons: any need for this sort of relief is so infrequent it
could be handled by the ZBA; concerns that an accessory building or use should
not be in any front yard except for topographical issues, even if the lot was
long or large; front yards have consistently and traditionally been determined
by the Planning Commission to be best if free of accessory uses or buildings.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#071107-07 - Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow Wind
Turbines (sample
ordinance)
(roof
top) (small
wind turbine information) (small
wind turbine sample ordinance)
There
was discussion regarding the use of wind turbines and if they should be
permitted in the Township.
The
chairman opened the floor to public comments.
Jessica
Lehti, Cascade Renewable Energy, presented a flyer with information about small
wind turbines. She stated the
following. It could generate all or most
needs for a house in a clean way. They
are about seven and a half feet tall and are silent. Residential and Commercial turbines are
different applications. Next year the
Federal Government will give a 30% tax credit for energy savings. They were developed in Scotland. Mechanical and electrical permits would be
needed. People have been concerned about
bats and birds. They are to be situated
on top of a house on the southwest side.
The cost is $10,000 and the money would not be recouped, but it is the
right thing to do.
Planning
Commission members stated comments as follows: concerns about size and
placement on a house or lot; concerns about location in the front of the house;
concerns with the big towers for commercial uses and that a special use permit
should be required; and concerns for birds.
Moved
by Stasiak, seconded by DeGood, to request more information from other
municipalities, from the Michigan Townships Association and residents, and for
language to be formulated for an ordinance for more review and discussion.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#071107-08 - Zoning Ordinance amendment to Sec. 3.17
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows.
The
Code Enforcement Officer asked that the Planning Commission review the number
of recreational vehicles that could be stored in a back yard since some
residents have multiple vehicles and trailers stored.
The
outdoor storage or parking of recreational vehicles shall be prohibited in all
residential districts, unless the following minimum conditions are met:
(A) All such
vehicles shall be placed within a completely enclosed building or located
behind the front face of the principal building in which case a
maximum of two such recreational vehicles are permitted to be stored. No vehicle shall be stored in the side yard
of a corner lot which abuts a street. (revised 6-25-2001) In the rear yard of a corner lot such
vehicles shall not project beyond the side of the building on the street
side.
(B) Storage or parking shall be limited to a
lot or parcel of land upon which is located an inhabited dwelling, unless the
conditions of paragraph C are met.(revised 1-28-02) The vehicle so stored or parked shall be
owned or rented by the occupant of such dwelling unless located in an AG or RR district, in
which case vehicles other than those owned by the occupant of the dwelling may
be stored or parked, provided further that such property shall have an area of
at least three (3) acres.
Discussion
included the following comments.
Consideration should be given to the length, height and width of the RVs
that are stored. The issue might be
better addressed by allowing a specific amount of area in a yard to be used for
storage such as a 24 by 30 foot space.
Many plats have restrictions regarding storing RVs. Even if a yard is fenced, a fifth-wheel
trailer or motor home could still be seen over a fence. People who buy fifth-wheel trailers or motor
homes should factor in the cost of storage.
Limiting the number is not necessarily fair since multiple items could
be small or could be effectively screened from neighbors such as under a deck
or one item could be obtrusive. Boats
when on trailers could be higher than a fence or hedges.
The
consensus was as follows. People should
be considerate of their neighbors and storage of a small item could still be
obnoxious to a neighbor when a large item could be nicely screened. Limiting the number was not a good idea since
multiple small RVs could be stored with no ill effect whereas only one large
item could be unsightly. Limiting
storage to square footage could create problems with enforcement because the
area would have to be measured or the area might be divided between multiple spots
in a back yard. Storage within a
specified area could still present problems with neighbors due to
unsightliness. The ordinance has seemed to
work for many years and the question was raised as to how many situations were
encountered by the Code Enforcement Officer regarding problems with RV storage. Limiting the number of RVs stored would not
necessarily address concerns for unsightliness.
Moved
by Poskey, seconded by Stasiak, to leave Sec. 3.17 as it currently is with no
revisions and to obtain more information from the Code Enforcement Officer with
ideas as to the problems and possible solutions.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#071107-09 - Zoning Ordinance amendment to Sec. 26.7
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows.
The
Code Enforcement Officer asked that the Planning Commission review the parking
of trucks and trailers in the AG and RR district because as the ordinance is
currently written, people could (and do) store semi trucks and trailers on
property in AG and RR for purposes other than for farming.
(C) Truck and Equipment Parking in
Residential Zones. After the effective date of this Ordinance it
shall be unlawful for the owner, tenant, or lessee of any lot, parcel, or tract
of land in a Residential District not including farming
operations in Agriculture and Rural Residential to permit or
allow the open storage or parking, either day or night, thereon of trucks (over
one ton), semi-trucks and trailers, mobile homes, construction equipment,
and/or any other similar equipment or machinery. The parking of trucks over one
ton, semi-trucks and trailers, within 150 feet of any residential structure is
prohibited. It is provided, however,
that the owner, tenant or lessee of a farm may openly store the machinery and
equipment used on his farm; and it is further provided that equipment necessary
to be parking overnight on a lot, parcel or tract of land during construction
work thereon shall be excepted from this restriction. (Revised 10-25-99)
Discussion
included the following. Even if the
person is not farming, a person with property in the RR or AG district should
have the right to park a semi on their property as long as it is not close to
the neighbor’s house. The ordinance is
currently written as intended. The
ordinance already requires that a truck be at least 150 feet from any
residential structure. Maybe that number
should be increased. The ordinance
appears to have been working for many years and should not be changed to
address one incident.
Moved
by Poskey, seconded by DeGood, to leave Sec. 26.7 as it is unless more
information is obtained and a revision is determine to be necessary.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#071107-10 - Discuss Sec. 19.8
The zoning administrator
presented a review as follows.
Does
a minor change in building size, up to 5% in total floor area mean to total the
square footage of all buildings on the site or just the one or two in
question? Does it mean the total floor
area of the multiple floors of the building or the floor area as it is shown on
a site plan as a footprint? I have made
the determination that a minor change would have to occur prior to the
completion of a project or the issuance of a final Zoning Compliance
Certificate or final Certificate of Occupancy due to the fact that all other
conditions listed would have to take place either before construction began or
was completed.
Changes
to the approved site plan shall be permitted only under the following
circumstances:
(A) The
holder of an approved site plan shall notify the Zoning Administrator of any
proposed change to an approved site plan.
(B) Minor
changes may be approved by the Zoning Administrator upon determining that the
proposed revision(s) will not alter the basic design nor any specified
conditions imposed as part of the original approval. Minor changes shall include the following:
(1) Change in the building size, up to five percent (5%) in total
floor area.
(2) Movement of buildings or other
structures by no more than ten (10) feet.
(3) Replacement of plant material specified
in the landscape plan with comparable materials of an equal or greater size.
(4) Changes in building materials to a
comparable or higher quality.
(5) Changes in floor plans which do not
alter the character of the use.
(6) Changes required or requested by the
Township, the Ottawa County Road Commission, or other County, State or Federal regulatory agency in
order to conform to other laws or regulations.
(C) A proposed change not determined by the
Zoning Administrator to be minor shall be submitted to the Planning Commission
as a site plan amendment and shall be reviewed in the same manner as the
original application.
There was discussion regarding what constitutes a minor
change and comments included the following.
Language should be crafted to clarified as to whether the 5% of total floor
area includes a building’s multiple floors or if it only includes the footprint
of the building on the site. The
ordinance does not state that a minor change of 5% of the floor area should
only be administratively approved if it is requested before a project is
complete. Language should be crafted to
clarify whether or not the 5% change should be approved if the change is
proposed before a project is complete or if it should be approved years after a
project is completed.
The consensus of the Planning Commission was that the
ordinance should have a very liberal interpretation so that an applicant is not
subjected to the complete approval process for a minor change that could be
handled administratively. The
determination included the fact that a change would not be considered to be
minor if parking and circulation on a site were affected or if the zoning
administrator determined that the change was significant enough to warrant a
complete Planning Commission review. The
consensus of the Planning Commission was that a site need not be completed
revised to meet current ordinances if a minor change was requested and such language
should be crafted for clarification.
Moved by DeGood, seconded by Huizinga, to request that
language be drafted and presented to the Planning Commission for further review
to clarify a liberal interpretation of what consists of a minor change that would
be subject to only administrative review and approval.
MOTION CARRIED.
#071107-11 – Adjournment
The
chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.