Minutes of the
regular meeting of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission, held Wednesday,
December 19, 2007
Meeting called to order by
Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Honderd, South, DeGood, Stasiak, Huizinga,
Poskey, Pearson
Absent: none
#071219-01 - Agenda for December 19, 2007
Moved by South,
seconded DeGood, to approve the agenda for December 19, 2007 as presented.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#071219-02 - Minutes of the
November 7, 2007 regular
meeting
Moved by Stasiak, seconded by DeGood, to approve the
minutes of the November 7, 2007 regular meeting,
as submitted.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#071219-03 – Rezoning (REZ0703) To change from (OS) Office Service Commercial to (NS)
Neighborhood
Service Commercial a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-17-300-009,
located at 7559 36th Ave., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County,
Michigan (submittal
materials)
Kerry
Trombley and Pete Allesee,
Marathon Petroleum LLC, represented the applicant and presented the request as
follows. They had read the comments of
the zoning administrator’s review and wanted to address the concerns. They understood that the Township previously
denied the use of a restaurant at the site.
They wanted to be good neighbors because it was good for business to
have community support. Any use would
have lighting and their proposed gas station and convenience store would have
shielded lighting. The Township
Ordinance had stringent specifications for landscaping and setbacks that would
help to damper noise and light. When the
trees grow, it is difficult for the neighbors to see and hear the gas
station. The gas station does not create
traffic, but rather relies on the traffic that already exists on the
streets. The PUD across the street will
be a destination for traffic and the applicants would like to piggy-back on
those businesses. Their customers would
come from the traffic that is already present in the area. They could present a traffic study. The approaches and traffic flow within the
site would be safe and they would consider right-in and right-out approaches
for customer safety. It was to the
business’s advantage to have the customers travel safely. The Township expressed a concern that NS is
not consistent with the Future Land Use Map.
The applicants believed it was consistent because the Future Land Use
Plan stated: “Confined neighborhood commercial centers should be provided in
selected locations to place needed services conveniently accessible to
residential neighborhoods.” In 1997 when
the parcel was rezoned to OS, the minutes mentioned that there should be small
centralized commercial areas. Two years
ago when the special use permit for a restaurant was denied for the site the
use was not appropriate; however, now that the PUD was approved for the site
across the street with a gas station and convenience store, the NS designation
is appropriate. The PUD also contains
the heavier use of retail that is only allowed in the CS district. The character of the area has changed since
the PUD was approved. The location for
the gas station and convenience store within the PUD is not appropriate for the
applicants because the bank proposed for the corner would block the visibility
that they needed. This site has been
zoned OS for a decade and has not been developed. Now the applicants were willing to invest
money to build a gas station and the project had to start with rezoning the
property. The applicants were willing to
work with the neighbors and Township to address the issues of concern. They need the community support and are
willing to work with the neighborhood association. They have developed comparable sites and want
to be less obtrusive with such elements as ground-mounted signs and less
lighting.
The
zoning administrator responded to the application’s statements as follows.
Although
the Master Plan does note that the Township should have areas of commercial
centers to service the residential areas, many areas have already been
developed or approved for development, such as the site on 48th Ave.
and the site across the street. The
applicant had stated that retail uses were only permitted in the CS district;
however, that statement is not correct because Sec. 14.2(B) and (C) allow
retail uses in the NS district. When
deliberating, the Planning Commission should consider the fact that the
Planning Commission recommended denial and the Township Board denied a special
use permit for a restaurant without a drive-in window for the same site, which
is a less intense use than a gas station.
The ordinance recognizes that the use of a gas station is a more intense
use evidenced by the fact that a restaurant is allowed with a special use
permit in the current OS zoning district and the use of a gas station in not
allowed in the OS at all. The site would
have to be rezoned to a district that permits more intense uses than the
current OS designation. The applicants
state that the character of the area has changed with the development of the
PUD across the street; however, the development across the street is separated
from this site and the neighboring residential development by five lanes of
busy traffic. As opposed to the proposed
gas station across Baldwin in the PUD, the proposed gas station on this site would
be adjacent to and share property lines with residential uses. When the Township rezoned the property to OS
about ten years ago, the minutes specifically note that the reason for approval
was to allow the less intensive uses permitted in the OS district. The reason is because the office-type uses
would typically operate during an eight to five or possibly six or seven p.m.
time frame with traffic only coming and going during those times. Plus, office uses would have less vehicles
coming and going. Further, the gas
station could have vehicles entering and exiting the site many times during the
day, evening and night, all the time with headlights and car noises.
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows.
REQUEST
The request is to rezone the
southwest corner of Baldwin St. and 36th Ave. from (OS) Office
Service Commercial to (NS) Neighborhood Service Commercial.
In the OS district the uses that
are permitted by right include uses such as offices, medical offices, banks
(not including drive-in facilities), personal service establishments (hair and
nail salons) and commercial schools.
Uses permitted in the OS district with special use approval include uses
such as drive-in banks and other such facilities (but not drive-in restaurants
or vehicle service stations), restaurants (not including drive-ins), funeral
homes, churches and daycare centers.
The requested zoning designation
is NS which would allow the following uses by right: all those uses permitted
by right in the OS district, plus retail food establishments and other retail
businesses. Uses permitted in the NS
district with special land use approval include restaurants (not drive-in facilities),
funeral homes, vehicle service stations, drive-in banks and other such
facilities, daycare centers, vehicle wash establishments and churches.
The Planning Commission should
consider EACH use permitted in the NS district since once the property is
rezoned, any of the uses in the NS zone would be allowed (as long as all other
applicable standards are met). The
applicants (Marathon Petroleum LLC) have indicated on their submittal material
that they would like to pursue the use of a vehicle service station and
convenience store on the site which would require special land use approval IF
the site was to be rezoned.
HISTORY
When the Brewer Farm Plat was
approved in January 1997 this corner property was excluded from the plat. The property was rezoned from AG to OS in
February 1997 and the minutes noted that uses in the Office Service district
would be compatible with the surrounding residential uses.
In December 2005, Orion
Construction requested site plan approval to construct a building for the
proposed uses of office and personal service establishment (both permitted by
right in the OS district). The
application also included a request for special use approval for a restaurant
(not a drive-in).
The Planning Commission
recommended to the Township Board to deny the request for special use approval
for a restaurant (not a drive-in) “because the proposed plan does not meet the
applicable general standards of the ordinance for a special use permit listed
in Sec. 20.3(A), specifically standard number one because a restaurant is not
compatible with the neighborhood, it is not harmonious and appropriate with the
existing or intended character of the general vicinity, and it would change the
essential character of the area in which it is proposed; and a restaurant does
not meet standard number 4 of the general special use standards in Sec. 20.3(A)
because a restaurant involves uses, activities, process, materials and
equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to persons,
property, or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,
noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors.”
(See the attached excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes of December
21, 2005.)
The Township Board concurred
with the Planning Commission’s recommendation and denied special use approval
for a restaurant “because the proposed plan does not meet the applicable
standards of the ordinance including the general standards in Sec. 20.3(A),
specifically standards number one and four.”
The Planning Commission’s reasons were also included in the minutes. (See the attached excerpt of the Township
Board minutes of January 9, 2006.)
The Planning Commission
requested that the site plan be resubmitted without notations regarding the
restaurant since the building with the uses permitted in the OS district
(offices and personal service establishments) could be reviewed and
considered. The applicants indicated
that they did not want to pursue the building without the restaurant and,
subsequently, the Planning Commission denied the site plan since it referenced
to the use of a restaurant which would not be allowed without the special land
use approval.
SUMMARY of the review (see complete review following)
The zoning classification of NS is NOT CONSISTENT with the Future
Land Use Map because the map specifies the site as OS and the text states that
the OS category “includes personal and business service uses which
typically are of low intensity and do not generate high traffic volumes. Examples include professional, administrative
and medical offices, banks, and services such as dry cleaning and
photocopying. These types of uses do not
involve processes or activities that are visually objectionable or which
produce noise, odors, dust, smoke or other environmental effects.” Some uses allowed in the NS district,
specifically a vehicle service station and convenience store, would NOT be consistent with the Master Plan
designation for this site because it would involve uses that would NOT be of a low intensive nature and WOULD generate high volumes of traffic
in the area which would also produce noise.
Plus such a use would have a large amount of lighting and likely would
be open early in the morning and late at night.
The
proposed zoning designation allows uses that are NOT COMPATIBLE with the surrounding area. The site is adjacent to a residential district with
single family homes.
In 1997 when the site was rezoned from AG to OS, the
minutes state that one of the reasons for approval was because “The potential
uses permitted in the OS District would be compatible with the future
residential development abutting the subject property.” The rezoning was clearly approved based on
the fact that the uses permitted in the OS district would be compatible with
the surrounding residential uses.
In addition, in December
2005, Orion Construction requested site plan approval to construct a building
for the proposed use of a restaurant (not a drive-in). The Planning Commission recommended denial “because the proposed plan
does not meet the applicable general standards of the ordinance for a special
use permit listed in Sec. 20.3(A), specifically standard number one because a
restaurant is not compatible with the neighborhood, it is not harmonious and
appropriate with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity,
and it would change the essential character of the area in which it is
proposed; and a restaurant does not meet standard number 4 of the general
special use standards in Sec. 20.3(A) because a restaurant involves uses,
activities, process, materials and equipment or conditions of operation that
would be detrimental to persons, property, or the general welfare by reason of
excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors.” The Township Board concurred with the
Planning Commission’s recommendation and denied special use approval for a
restaurant “because the proposed plan does not meet the applicable standards of
the ordinance including the general standards in Sec. 20.3(A), specifically
standards number one and four.” The Planning
Commission’s reasons were also included in the minutes.
The Planning Commission and
Township Board determined that the use of a restaurant (not even a drive-in
facility-but just a restaurant) was NOT compatible with the
neighborhood, NOT harmonious and appropriate with the existing or
intended character of the general vicinity, and the use of a restaurant would
change the essential character of the area in which it is proposed. Further, it was found that a restaurant would
involve uses, activities, processes, material and equipment or conditions of
operation that would be detrimental to persons, property or the general welfare
by reason of the excessive production of traffic, noise, fumes, glare or odors.
The use of a vehicle service
station and convenience store is CLEARLY a MUCH MORE intense use than a
restaurant, evidenced by the fact that a restaurant is permitted in the least
intensive commercial district (with special land use approval and without a
drive-in), while the use of a vehicle service station is not permitted AT ALL
in the OS and is permitted in the NS with special land use approval.
Although the Planning Commission
and Township Board should consider ALL of the uses that could locate on the
site if it was to be rezoned, it seems appropriate to consider the use of a
vehicle service station since this is one of the more intense uses in the NS
district.
COMPLETE REVIEW
Rezonings go with the land, not with the
property owner or the use. Therefore,
once a parcel is zoned to a particular classification, the zoning is permanent
unless changed by a subsequent rezoning action.
Zoning cannot be conditional (since the ordinance does not allow it) and
a parcel cannot be rezoned for one specific use (other than with a PUD
development and this site is too small to be considered for PUD
development). Any use permitted within
the zoning district is permitted on the property, provided the other applicable
regulations of the Zoning Ordinance are met.
The following standards will be
considered in the review of the rezoning request.
1.
Consistency-Is the proposed
zoning and all of its permitted uses consistent with the recommendations of the
Township Master Plan and Land Use Plan?
No. The Future
Land Use Map clearly designates the parcel as Office Service.
The text of the Master Plan states that the Office Service category “includes personal and business service uses which
typically are of low intensity and do not generate high traffic volumes. Examples include professional, administrative
and medical offices, banks, and services such as dry cleaning and
photocopying. These types of uses do not
involve processes or activities that are visually objectionable or which
produce noise, odors, dust, smoke or other environmental effects.”
Some uses allowed in the NS district, specifically a
vehicle service station and convenience store, would NOT be consistent with the Master Plan designation for this site
because it would involve uses that would NOT
be of a low intensive nature and WOULD
generate high volumes of traffic in the area which would also produce
noise. Plus such a use would have a
large amount of lighting and would be open early in the morning and late at
night.
In the applicant’s submittal material the statement is
made that the request is consistent with the Land Use Plan because one of the
goals is to provide convenient access to commercial goods and services and some
employment. Although a rezoning request
is NOT supposed to include the use the applicant plans because every use
permitted in the proposed zoning district, the applicant has indicated that a
gas station would provide residents in the immediate areas with their
products. A gas station and other
neighborhood commercial uses have already been approved directly across the
street in the recently approved PUD which was proposed to be developed with
residential uses adjacent to the school.
2.
Compatibility-Is the proposed
district and all of its allowed uses compatible with the surrounding area?
No. The site is
adjacent to a residential district with single family homes. The applicant notes on the submittal material
that the site is surrounded by agricultural, residential and commercial
uses. Although commercial uses are
located to the north of the site, those commercial uses are separated from the
subject site by a major five lane road.
Rather, the site and proposed uses would have a much GREATER impact on
the residential uses that share property lines with the subject site.
In 1997 when the site was rezoned from AG to OS, the
minutes state that one of the reasons for approval was because “The potential
uses permitted in the OS District would be compatible with the future
residential development abutting the subject property.” The rezoning was clearly approved based on
the fact that the uses permitted in the OS district would be compatible with
the surrounding residential uses.
In addition, in December
2005, Orion Construction requested site plan approval to construct a building
for the proposed uses of office, personal service establishment (both permitted
by right in the OS district). The
application also included a request for special use approval for a restaurant
(not a drive-in).
The Planning Commission
recommended to the Township Board to deny the request for special use approval
for a restaurant (not even a drive-in facility) “because the proposed plan does not meet the
applicable general standards of the ordinance for a special use permit listed
in Sec. 20.3(A), specifically standard number one because a restaurant is not
compatible with the neighborhood, it is not harmonious and appropriate with the
existing or intended character of the general vicinity, and it would change the
essential character of the area in which it is proposed; and a restaurant does
not meet standard number 4 of the general special use standards in Sec. 20.3(A)
because a restaurant involves uses, activities, process, materials and
equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to persons,
property, or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,
noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors.”
(See the attached excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes of December
21, 2005.)
The Township Board concurred
with the Planning Commission’s recommendation and denied special use approval
for a restaurant “because the proposed plan does not meet the applicable
standards of the ordinance including the general standards in Sec. 20.3(A),
specifically standards number one and four.”
The Planning Commission’s reasons were also included in the
minutes. (See the attached excerpt of
the Township Board minutes of January 9, 2006.)
The Planning Commission and Township Board determined that the use of a
restaurant (not even a drive-in facility-but just a restaurant) was NOT compatible with the neighborhood, NOT harmonious and
appropriate with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity,
and the use of a restaurant would change the essential character of the area in
which it is proposed. Further, it was
found that a restaurant would involve uses, activities, processes, material and
equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to persons,
property or the general welfare by reason of the excessive production of
traffic, noise, fumes, glare or odors.
The use of a vehicle service station and convenience store is CLEARLY a MUCH
MORE intense use than a restaurant, evidenced by the fact that a restaurant
is permitted in the least intensive commercial district (with special land use
approval), while the use of a vehicle service station is not permitted AT ALL
in the OS and is permitted in the NS with special land use approval.
Although the Planning Commission
and Township Board should consider ALL of the uses that could locate on the
site if it was to be rezoned, it seems appropriate to consider the use of a
vehicle service station since this is one of the more intense uses in the NS
district.
The Planning Commission and
Township Board should also consider that the LESS intensive use of a restaurant
(not even a drive-in facility) was not approved because of the detrimental
affect on the adjacent residential district.
The use of a vehicle service station and convenience would generate more
traffic in the area, probably be open at least as many if not more hours than a
restaurant, and would have more activity that would generate more noise than a
restaurant.
3.
Capability-Is the property
capable of being used for a use permitted within the existing zoning district?
Yes. The site is
capable of being used for any of the uses permitted in the OS by right and with
special land use approval. The applicant
has noted the answer as “no” simply because a vehicle service station and
convenience store (which is the use they want) is not permitted in the OS
district. The fact that the current
zoning does not permit a vehicle service station is irrelevant to this standard
because there are MANY other uses that could locate on the site such as an
office use, personal service establishment, medical office, bank or hair or
nail salon.
4.
Will the rezoning require an
inordinate expenditure of public funds (road improvements, utility extensions)?
No.
5.
Will the rezoning cause
development to “leap frog” other undeveloped areas in the same zoning district
and necessitate premature extensions of services to rural areas of the
Township?
No.
6.
Is there sufficient vacant land
already zoned in a specific category?
Yes. The 10 acre site
to the north across Baldwin has at least half of the acreage already approved
for commercial uses, specifically including Neighborhood Service Commercial
uses. In addition, a vehicle service
station with convenience store has already been approved for the development
(which will not share any property lines with any adjacent residential
districts (other than the residential uses that were approved as part of this
development). In addition, there is much
vacant NS land to the north of Baldwin and east of 20th Ave.
7.
Is the rezoning more likely to
be granted if conditions could be attached (the ordinance does not allow
conditional zoning)?
No. The use would
be incompatible with the surrounding area whether or not conditions could be
attached.
Excerpt of the December 21, 2005 Planning Commission
minutes:
#051221-03 - Special Use Permit (SUP0513) Orion Construction (Integrated Architecture), 2020
Raybrook Ave., is requesting to have
a restaurant under Sec. 13.3(B), on a parcel of land described as P.P. #
70-14-17-300-009, located at 7559
36th Ave., in a (OS) Office Service District, Georgetown
Township, Ottawa County, Michigan.
Moved by Poskey, seconded by South, to recommend to
the Township Board denial of Special Use Permit (SUP0513) Orion Construction
(Integrated Architecture), 2020 Raybrook Ave., to
have a restaurant under Sec. 13.3(B), on a parcel of land described as P.P. #
70-14-17-300-009, located at 7559
36th Ave., in a (OS) Office Service District, Georgetown
Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, because the proposed plan does not meet the
applicable general standards of the ordinance for a special use permit listed
in Sec. 20.3(A), specifically standard number one because a restaurant is not
compatible with the neighborhood, it is not harmonious and appropriate with the
existing or intended character of the general vicinity, and it would change the
essential character of the area in which it is proposed; and a restaurant does
not meet standard number 4 of the general special use standards in Sec. 20.3(A)
because a restaurant involves uses, activities, process, materials and
equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to persons,
property, or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,
noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors.
MOTION CARRIED.
Excerpt of the January 9, 2006 Township Board minutes:
#060109-06 - Special Use Permit ((SUP0513) Orion Construction
Moved by Del South, seconded
by Richard VanderKlok, to deny Special
Use Permit (SUP0513) Orion Construction (Integrated Architecture), 2020 Raybrook Ave., to have a restaurant under Sec. 13.3(B), on
a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-17-300-009, located at 7559
36th Ave., in a (OS) Office Service District, Georgetown
Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, because
the proposed plan does not meet the applicable standards of the ordinance
including the general standards in Sec. 20.3(A), specifically standards number
one and four
Note: The Planning
Commission recommended denial
because the proposed plan
does not meet the applicable
general standards of the ordinance for a special use permit listed in Sec.
20.3(A), specifically standard number one because a restaurant is not
compatible with the neighborhood, it is not harmonious and appropriate with the
existing or intended character of the general vicinity, and it would change the
essential character of the area in which it is proposed; and a restaurant does
not meet standard number 4 of the general special use standards in Sec. 20.3(A)
because a restaurant involves uses, activities, process, materials and
equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to persons,
property, or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,
noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors.
MOTION
CARRIED.
South
asked if the gas station was approved would it operate round the clock.
The
applicant stated that typically the gas station would operate 24 hours a day;
however, they would work with the community if restrictions were imposed and
then they would evaluate the conditions to determine whether or not to proceed.
DeGood
asked if the applicants wanted to develop a convenience store with the gas
station and was told yes. He said that a
convenience store is typically a destination-type use and drew traffic. He said that the gas station and convenience
store would be too close to the residential uses. He said that the PUD already was approved and
would satisfy the need to service the area with commercial uses.
Stasiak
asked if they would have a drive-through and was told no. He asked why the location in the PUD site was
not feasible.
The
applicant stated the following. They had
reviewed the PUD plans and the primary reason that the PUD site would not work
for them is because the proposed store in the PUD is smaller than the typical
store they develop. The reason is part
marketing. The area is changing and
growing and the people would need services.
Visibility was also a big issue and they have been doing a better job
downplaying the gas stations with a lower intense look. They use ground-mounted signs and try to
blend in with the area. It is their
belief that the proposed bank on the corner in the PUD development would block
their visibility. Traffic would not come
if they could not see the gas station, particularly with a low intense look.
The chairman
opened the public hearing.
Carrie Newenhouse, 7560 Russell Ct., said that the gas station
would affect the neighbors and it would be right in her backyard. She submitted pictures showing the closeness
of the site to her residence and the neighboring sites.
Brian Newenhouse, 7560 Russell Ct., said that he was not a
planner but thought that most traffic would come from Baldwin resulting in
issues with traffic accessing the site and trying to enter back into traffic on
Baldwin.
Honderd
stated that at this point the Planning Commission was just considering rezoning
the property and that those types of issues were related to site plan
review. He said that the site plan for
the previously proposed restaurant had shown a right-turn into the site off
Baldwin and an exit out to 36th Ave.
Brian Newenhouse said that he does not see how vehicles could get
in and out of the site because of traffic.
He said that the land slopes down and they would look at this
development from the windows of their homes.
He said that everyone knew that the trees that were supposed to be
buffers die or at the least take a long time to grow. He said that there was not one kid over the
age of 8 that lived on the cul de sac and they were asking for trouble.
Chad Engelsma, 7565 Russell Ct., said the following. His main concern was for the kids in the
area. This is a nice cul de sac for
raising a family and he does not feel good about the proposal for a gas station
so close to their homes. The cross walk
is located at this corner and the kids from his neighborhood cross to get to
school. The kids are not allowed to
cross in the middle of the street and are required to go to the intersection. There are many younger families in the area with
kids who go to school across Baldwin.
Honderd
asked how the location of the crosswalk is determined.
South said
that it was related to foot traffic.
The zoning
administrator stated that the Township Supervisor had worked with the Ottawa
County Sheriff’s Department and Road Commission when the location for the
crosswalk was reviewed at the time the new elementary school opened. She said that the Road Commission and
Sheriff’s Department had decided to require the crossing at the intersection
where the cars were already stopped rather than to allow student to cross without
the intersection. The reason was because
of the danger with traffic going too fast and not being able to stop for the
crossing guard and students. She said
that there was also the issue of the sun since the traffic traveling east could
have visibility affected by the morning sun.
Chad Engelsma said that he was concerned with the proposed gas
station being open 24 hours a day because he talked to the neighbors of the
Speedway on Baldwin and found that people banged trash cans all night and there
were kids smoking weed.
Honderd
said that the Township could stipulate hours of operation as a condition of
approval for the special use permit.
Chad Engelsma stated the following. The people in the neighborhood have suffered
enough with the current economy and he was concerned with property values
decreasing if the gas station was to be developed at the corner. Having a gas station across Baldwin was not
as bad as sharing a property line with one since the five lane road was a
buffer. The gas station would
drastically affect property values and there would be no deduction in taxes
since they continue to rise. This
development would affect six family’s backyards. The gas tanks in the ground could be a threat
if they leak. These are the issues they
are concerned about above the traffic, glare, noise and odors.
Sue Coxen, 7428 Brewer Dr., said the following. She is not one of the families sharing a
property line with the proposed gas station and it would not be in her back
yard. However, she was still concerned
that the gas station would affect the whole area. She was also concerned with the safety of her
son when he walked to school. She
understood that her son could probably get cigarettes if he wanted, but a
convenience store in this location would make it convenient. She moved to Georgetown Township because of
the Hudsonville schools.
Mike Ford,
7550 Russell Ct., said that he is one of the families directly impacted by
sharing a property line with the proposed gas station and he agreed with
everything that was said. He said that
uses in the OS were suitable for the area because they would not generate a lot
of traffic; however, a gas station was too much for the area.
Michelle
Burns, 7569 Russell Ct., stated the following.
She had submitted a letter to the Planning Commission detailing reasons
in opposition to the development. There
were six families, all with small children, directly adjacent to this site and
they would all be affected. She drove
past the Speedway on Baldwin on her way here and it was packed because gas was
selling for $2.90. Cars were even queued
up in the left turn lane to turn into the gas station. She talked to the neighbors of Speedway and
found that initially they were only permitted to be open for twelve hours, but
after a while they did what they wanted and now are open 24 hours a day.
Brian Newenhouse, 7560 Russell Ct., stated that initially the PUD
had been approved and now the Township was opening up the expansion of
commercial. He said that this is a
bedroom community and the Township has to decide whether to open the doors or
to stop the flood gates.
Jennifer Mack,
3529 Lenters Dr., stated that her house is not as
close as those that share a property line; however, her area was still
affected. She said that they were
attracted by the openness and did not want the glare and fumes. She said that she was concerned for her two
boys.
The
chairman closed the public hearing.
The
applicant stated that they understood the concerns and would work to alleviate
issues with the neighbors. He said that
this is a large site and nothing would back up close to the houses. He said that they would put up a nice wood
fence and landscaping, as they have done in other developments in the past, and
they were willing to work to address the issues.
Moved by South, seconded by Pearson, to recommend
to the Township Board to deny (REZ0703) to change from (OS) Office Service
Commercial to (NS) Neighborhood Service Commercial a parcel of land described
as P.P. # 70-14-17-300-009, located at 7559 36th Ave., Georgetown
Township, Ottawa County, Michigan based on the following findings:
1. The requested
zoning designations is not consistent with the Future Land Use map;
2. The
requested zoning designation is not compatible with the surrounding area as
evidenced by the fact of the close proximity of the houses;
3. The site is
capable of being used as it is currently zoned;
4. There is
already sufficient land in the Township already zoned NS that is vacant and
available for such uses.
The reasons for the motion also include
the following findings:
1. The
applicants are proposing a use that would be allowed in the NS zoning district
with a special use permit and the use of a gas station and convenience store
could be a 24 hour a day operation. That
use is incompatible with the surrounding area because it would back up to
houses. Plus it would be busy and have a
lot of traffic on Baldwin and 36th Ave.
2. The gas
station would affect property values because people would not want to live in a
house so close to a gas station.
3. Additional
land zoned NS is not needed in the Township because there is ample land already
zoned NS and available for development.
4. In the
summer when people have their windows open, they would be subject to a lot of
noise generated by the gas station because it would be so close to their
houses.
5. The uses
allowed in the NS district do not fit so close to a residential area.
6. NS is not
consistent with the Future Land Use Map because the site is designated as OS
with low intense uses such as offices and uses in the NS such as a gas station
are more intense and are, therefore, not consistent with the Future Land Use
Map designation of OS.
MOTION CARRIED.
#071219-04 – Ordinance Amendments
Sec. 17.3 USES REQUIRING
SPECIAL LAND USE APPROVAL.
(N) Retail sales as an accessory use to a
Permitted or Special Approval Use.
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 Chicago Dr., Pt. Sheldon St., 18th Ave., and 44th St.
(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.
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows.
REQUEST
At
the October 8, 2007 meeting, the Township Board asked the Planning Commission
to review and consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow more uses in the
Industrial district, specifically retail sales without being an accessory use
to an approved use. At the November 7,
2007 meeting, the Planning Commission determined by consensus that the proposed
ordinance amendments were appropriate and that the Zoning Ordinance should be
amended to allow retail sales as a use on specific main streets. An ordinance amendment was initiated and a
notice for a public hearing to be held on December 19, 2007 was published.
The
following is an excerpt from the November 7, 2007 Planning Commission meeting:
#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.
The chairman
opened the public hearing. No one was
present to make comments on this item. The
chairman closed the public hearing.
Moved by DeGood, seconded by Pearson, to
recommend to the Township Board to approve the Zoning Ordinance amendments as
follows based on the findings that the amendments would allow the appropriate
use of retail on specific streets in the Industrial district:
Sec. 17.3 USES REQUIRING
SPECIAL LAND USE APPROVAL.
(N) Retail sales as an accessory use to a
Permitted or Special Approval Use.
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 Chicago Dr., Pt. Sheldon St., 18th Ave., and 44th St.
(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 7/25/95)
MOTION
CARRIED.
#071219-05 – Adjournment
The
chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:28 p.m.