Minutes of the
regular meeting of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission, held Wednesday,
February 6, 2008
Meeting called to order by
Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Honderd, South, DeGood, Stasiak, Huizinga,
Poskey, Pearson
Absent: none
#080206-01 - Agenda for February 6, 2008
Moved by Stasiak,
seconded Pearson, to approve the agenda for February 6, 2008 as presented.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#080206-02 - Minutes of the
December 19, 2007 regular
meeting
Moved
by South, seconded by Stasiak, to approve the minutes of the December 19, 2007 regular meeting,
as submitted.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#080206-03 - (PUD801) Meijer
(Lake Michigan Credit Union), 2929 Walker Ave. Grand Rapids, is
requesting a Planned Unit Development for a drive-in
establishment (credit union) under Chapter 22, on a parcel of land described as
P.P. # 70-14-13-300-075, located at 550 Baldwin, Georgetown Township, Ottawa
County, Michigan. (application,
narrative,
entry
elevation, front
elevation, dumpster
enclosure, landscape
plan, overall
plan, site
plan 2, site
plan 3)
Cheryl
Scales, Progressive AE, and Leo Vicari, Lake Michigan Credit Union, represented
the applicant and presented the request.
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows.
NOTE
As per direction given by the Planning Commission for
publishing public notices for a public hearing, the decision has been made to
hold a work session at the February 6, 2008 Planning Commission meeting because
the Planning Commission will have to take formal action to accept some aspects
of the proposal that require a waiver of the strict district regulations (which
is allowed in a PUD since it is flexible zoning). The public hearing could be held on March 5,
2008 after the notice is published on February 12, 2008. This will give the applicant time to make any
revisions (if necessary) prior to the public hearing.
REQUEST
The request is to revise the previously approved 3.312
acre PUD to add 2.377 acres in order to develop a portion of the Meijer
property as a separate site for a 3,600 square foot drive-in credit union. For the development to be approved including
the splitting of the property from the overall parcel, the credit union site is
required to have frontage on a public or private street, as per Sec. 2.55 and
3.19 of the Georgetown Township Zoning Ordinance. The credit union could not be developed on
the open space directly south of the private street entrance off Cottonwood (to
meet the frontage requirement using Cottonwood as the frontage street) because
that area is designated as open space for the existing PUD. The credit union could, however, be developed
on property (on the Meijer parcel) adjacent to the private street that was
established for the Culvers PUD in order to have frontage on the private
street.
In order for PUD approval to be granted, the proposed
credit union site must meet all the requirements of Chapter 22 for the PUD and
Chapter 24 for the parcel split. In
addition, the remainder parcel (the Meijer site) must meet all the ordinance
requirements for size, setbacks, parking, etc in order for a parcel split to be
approved.
HISTORY
On October 1, 2003 the Planning Commission recommended
approval for the preliminary development plan for the PUD for Culvers and Pages
in Time, and approved the final development plan for Culvers contingent upon
Township Board approval for the preliminary development plan. On October 13, 2003, the Township Board
approved the preliminary development plan for the PUD for the Culvers
restaurant and Pages in Time Strip Center.
The approval included the establishment of a private street with access
from Cottonwood to provide street frontage for the Culvers parcel and the Pages
in Time Strip Center. On July 21, 2004,
a final development plan was approved for the Pages in Time Strip Center. The review and approval for the PUD included
various improvements to the overall Meijer site in regards to traffic
circulation, landscaping and sidewalks.
Both sites have been constructed in compliance with the approved plans.
On August 17, 2005, the Planning Commission
recommended approval for a special use permit for a vehicle wash establishment
for Wizard Wash and approved the site plan.
On August 22, 2005, the Township Board approved the special use
permit. The car wash is located on the
Meijer site and no split was approved for the development; however, the use is
considered to be part of the principle use of the overall Meijer site and no
land split was necessary for the development.
The overall review and approval included site improvements relating to
landscaping and sidewalks. The car wash
has been constructed according to the approved plan and the landscaping and
sidewalks were added along Cottonwood.
On December 7, 2005, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of a special use permit for a drive-in establishment for
the pharmacy pick-up window and a special use permit for an open air business
for the outdoor garden center. The
Planning Commission also approved a site plan (after much deliberation)
regarding the traffic flow for the pharmacy.
On December 12, 2005, the Township Board approved the two special use
permits. There were subsequent requests
by Meijer for revised site plan approval to reverse the pharmacy traffic flow
and an appeal to the ZBA to reverse the traffic flow. However, the site design (though still not an
ideal situation) was left as initially approved because it appeared to the
Planning Commission and ZBA to be the best of the available options. Again, various site improvements for overall
traffic flow were included in the review and approval, along with cleaning up
the confusing intersection at northeast corner of the building. The construction has been completed according
to the approved plan.
The Township has been contacted regarding the
development of the open space to the south of the entrance drive to the PUD;
however, that area has been designated as the open space for the PUD and could
not be developed unless the open space was provided elsewhere on the site.
As per Township records, four parcel splits have
occurred between 1997 and 2007 for the Meijer parent parcel. According to the Land Division Act for a
27-acre parcel, four splits are allowed for the first whole ten acres and one
more split is allowed for each additional whole ten acres. Therefore, since a total of five splits are
allowed, the Meijer parent parcel could be split one more time. According to records, the first split during
this ten-year period occurred in 2003.
These parcels would become parent parcels ten years from the splits and
would be eligible for more splits (after this one) in 2013.
Therefore, according to the requirements of the Land
Division Act, the Meijer parcel would be allowed one more land split. Multiple sites have already been split from
the original Meijer site, including for the Fazoli’s restaurant, the Fifth
Third Bank, and for the Culvers and Pages in Time PUD site. The Meijer site does not meet the ordinance
requirement for lot width on Baldwin due to the previous splits, plus due to
the Advance Auto site and the Macatawa Bank site. The only frontage the Meijer parcel has on
Baldwin includes the three entrance driveways and none of them meet the
ordinance minimum of 85 feet in a CS zoning district. The Meijer site has
adequate frontage along Cottonwood to meet the requirements of Chapter 24.
SUMMARY
1. Remove the note “FORTH COMING” from the Advanced Auto
parcel on the overall site plan because the building is complete.
2. The applicants were asked if they want to request
final development approval at the same time (contingent upon Board approval) if
there would be no change from the preliminary plan to the final development
plan. However, the applicants have not
submitted the application for a Final Develop approval. The only approval sought at this time is for
a preliminary PUD development plan.
3. The plan as proposed would result in the Meijer parcel
complying district requirements as follows:
4. Traffic circulation is an important element of the
PUD. The ordinance states: “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.” Traffic
circulation for the overall site will be impacted by the development and should
be shown on the overall site. When the
Culvers site was developed, the applicant insisted that customers would access
the site from Cottonwood, even though the Township had a belief that people
would access the site from the entrances off Baldwin. Now that the restaurant and strip center have
been in existence for a few years, it has become evident that traffic does,
indeed, access the sites from the entrances off Baldwin to the west since
people living to the west of the development (which is a majority of the
residents of Georgetown Township) come from the west. Due to this fact, it is likely that Credit
Union customers will also access the site from west entrances off Baldwin and
circulation enhancing elements should be shown from that area including:
a.
The drive
area to the west of the Meijer building has been defined for customers coming
from the west with some curbing, striping and signage. Is the triangle at the southwest corner a
curbed area or merely striped? The Planning Commission should determine if
what is proposed in this area is acceptable.
Should landscaping be provided in the curbed islands along the western
drive to the south? Should the island to
the south of the drive from Baldwin be curbed?
b. Signs have been added by the Tudor Time directing
through traffic to make the turn from the north to the east (so that people
don’t continue into the Tudor Time driveway thinking that is the drive to the
credit union or other sites to the east).
The Planning Commission should
determine if what is proposed in this area is acceptable.
c. Striping is shown on the east side of the Meijer
building to define a 30 foot drive area between the curbing for the credit
union and the fencing for the garden center in front of the Meijer building. The
Planning Commission should determine if what is proposed in this area is
acceptable.
d. It is noted that the striping is to be removed for
parking spaces in the area where the curbing for the credit union cuts into the
parking bank to eliminate confusion.
e. The aisle dimension from the curbing for the credit
union to the bank of parking spaces to the north is shown as 25 feet which
meets the minimum 24 feet aisle width for two-way traffic.
f.
A suggestion was
made to the applicants to eliminate one of the drive-up kiosks in order to
create a drive aisle for those vehicles entering from the west wanting to drive
around the drive-up area or for vehicles that do not stay queued in a drive-in
lane. However, the applicants preferred
to keep all the drive-up areas. A 12
foot by-pass lane has been shown. The Planning Commission should determine if
what is proposed in this area is acceptable.
g. “DO NOT ENTER” signs were added to the southeast
corner of the building to prevent vehicles from entering and driving head-on
into traffic exiting the drive-in lanes.
As currently proposed there is no drive aisle for cars heading to the
west on the south side of the building.
If cars are not queued up at the drive-in area, vehicles would be able
to travel to the southwest from the north side of the credit union and exit the
site from the western drive (people who would be headed back to the west could
choose to exit to the west and exit onto Baldwin via the drive by Tudor
Time). Could the drive-in teller areas be moved to the east to free up the
area by the western drive? The Planning
Commission should determine if what is proposed in this area is acceptable.
h. Is the
striped area at the end of the bank of parking spaces to the north of the
credit union (creating an aisle way) curbed?
Should it be curbed?
5. Site plan elements should be addressed as follows:
b. Sign details
(size, height, dimensions to location) should be provided. A sign is
proposed to be located in the greenspace for the PUD. The
Planning Commission should determine if this is acceptable. Details should be provided for this sign
and any other proposed. If what is
proposed does not meet the ordinance, complete details should be provided so
that the Planning Commission could determine if it is acceptable for the
PUD. Directional signs are noted on the
plan. Sec. 25/4(f) states that
directional shall have no advertising matter.
If any advertising matter is proposed or the signs are not proposed to
meet the ordinance in any way, details should be provided. A note about lighting states it would be
downward directing.
c.
Lot frontage
dimensions and landscaping calculations have been provided and meet the
ordinance. The trees shown in the open space for the PUD are not the same as what
currently exits. The plan should be
revised to shown existing trees in this open space area. Is more landscaping proposed to be added to
the greenspace and the grassed area repaired?
d. Height and materials of the dumpster enclosure are
noted. The height is proposed to be 7’4’’ which does not meet the ordinance
requirement of a maximum of 6 feet. The
Planning Commission will have to determine if that is acceptable since flexible
zoning is allowed for a PUD.
e. A Storm Water Drain permit is needed at the time a
Building Permit application is submitted.
f.
A note was added
to the plan indicating the site is not affected by a floodplain.
6. A narrative was submitted describing the following:
7. The Planning
Commission should determine the following:
a.
Is the pedestrian walkway requirement is met by
the sidewalk that was provided connecting Cottonwood to the credit union.
b.
If the architectural renderings are acceptable.
c.
If the traffic elements are acceptable.
d. If the architectural designs are compatible
with the existing PUD.
e. If the 15 foot front yard setbacks are
acceptable.
f.
Height
and materials of the dumpster enclosure are noted. The height is proposed to be 7’4’’ which does
not meet the ordinance requirement of a maximum of 6 feet. The Planning Commission will have to
determine if that is acceptable since flexible zoning is allowed for a PUD.
g.
A sign is
proposed to be located in the greenspace for the PUD. The
Planning Commission should determine if this is acceptable. Details should be provided for this sign
and any other proposed.
8. What is the building height?
9. Proposed deed restrictions, covenants, or similar
legal instruments to be used within the PUD should be provided.
Details for
the review are provided as follows:
|
I D number |
PUD0801 |
|
|
|
Date |
1-23-08 |
|
|
|
Name |
Meijer/Lake
Michigan Credit Union |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Address |
550 Baldwin St. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use |
Drive-in financial
establishment |
|
SUP required |
N/A |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REQUIREMENT |
|
|
|
|
|
PROVIDED |
Needs or Comments |
|
|
Date, north arrow, scale |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Name, address of preparer |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Name, address of property
owner or petitioner |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Location sketch |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
Legal description |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
Size in acres of the
property |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Property lines and
required setbacks shown and dimensioned |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Location of existing
structures, drives, parking areas within 100 ft of boundary |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location and dimensions of
existing and proposed structures |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Location of existing and
proposed drives (dimensions and radii), circulation |
X |
|
||||||
|
Sidewalks, non-motorized
paths-select streets, accel, decel lanes |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Signs, exterior lighting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
Curbing, parking areas,
dimensions of typical space, number of parking spaces |
X |
|
||||||
|
Calculations of parking
spaces, unloading areas |
|
|
X |
f. |
||||
|
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 |
X |
||||
|
Existing, proposed topo
contours, max 5 ft intervals |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Rec/common areas,
floodplain areas |
|
|
|
X |
|
|||
|
Special Use Standards,
general and specific |
|
|
|
|
NA |
|||
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. The previous PUD was approved with a lesser
amount of acreage and the addition to the PUD site will only increase the total
acreage. It appears as though this
standard would be met since the Planning Commission and Township Board
previously approved the PUD with a lesser amount of acreage. Further, the addition of the previously
designated green space to the PUD will ensure that it remains green space.
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. According to the Township DPW Department, it
would be possible for this site to be serviced by water and sewer. The applicant would be required to obtain a
Storm Water Drain Permit from the Ottawa County Drain Commissioner.
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. The application is signed by a representative
from Meijer.
D. Master
Plan: The proposed uses of the PUD must be substantially consistent with
Met. The uses are consistent with the Master Plan
since they would be allowed in the CS district.
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)
Possibly
met. A walkway is provided connecting
the sidewalk along Cottonwood to the site.
The Planning Commission will have to determine if more sidewalks are
required.
F. Architecture:
The PUD should provide for coordinated and innovative visually appealing
architectural styles, building forms and building relationships.
MET. Architectural renderings were provided. The Planning Commission should decide if they
are acceptable.
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.
The
Planning Commission will have to determine if the elements provided are
acceptable Traffic circulation for the
overall site will be impacted by the development and is shown on the overall
site. When the Culvers site was
developed, the applicant insisted that customers would access the site mostly
from Cottonwood, even though the Township had a belief that people coming from
the west (which is MOST of the Township) would access the site from the
entrances off Baldwin. Now that the restaurant
has been in existence for a few years, it has become very evident that traffic
coming from the west does, indeed, access the site from the entrances off
Baldwin. Due to this fact, it is safe to
predict that Credit Union customers coming from the west will also access the
site from entrances off Baldwin and circulation enhancing elements should be
shown from that area including parking islands along the western property line
to define the drive access (especially the curved area). The outdoor garden area approved with an open
air business special use permit has been shown on the plan.
H.
Open Space Requirements:
1.
The
PUD development shall contain usable open space in an amount equal to at least
twenty (20) percent of the total PUD site.
The Planning Commission may consider a PUD with a lesser amount of open
space if it is clear that the proposed PUD substantially provides for the
intent of a PUD as stated in this Chapter.
It is noted that open space is a very important element of a PUD
and reductions to the open space provision should be granted only as a result
of specific, clearly documented reasons (i.e. the PUD may located on a
relatively small site in an area where a 20% open space provision would detract
from building continuity, historic preservation efforts, etc.)
2.
Such
open space to be considered usable shall not include required yards (required
yards need to be individually determined for each PUD project) or buffers,
parking areas, drives, rights-of-way, utility or road easements, storm water
detention ponds, wetlands (unless determined to be useable by the Planning
Commission due to the addition of interpretive boardwalks/walkways, etc.
provided in and through the wetland) and structures (Unless the structures are
part of the open space i.e. gazebos, etc.).
3. Such open space shall be
permanently set aside for the sole benefit, use, and enjoyment of present and
future occupants of the PUD through covenant, deed restriction, open space
easement, or similar legal instrument acceptable to the Township; or, if agreed
to by governmental agency, the open space may be conveyed to a governmental agency for the use of the
general public.
Met. Open space calculations have been
provided. The addition to the PUD of the
green space area adjacent to Cottonwood ensures that this area will remain
dedicated as open space.
Any use permitted by right or special land use in any
District may be approved within a PUD.
Met.
A.A pre-application conference will be held
with representatives from
B.A request for a pre-application
conference shall be made to the Zoning Administrator. As part of the pre-application conference,
the applicant shall submit seven (7) copies of a conceptual plan, at least ten
(10) days in advance of the pre-application conference, which shows the
property location, boundaries, significant natural features, vehicular and
pedestrian circulation, and land use(s) for the entire site.
C.The Township shall advise the applicant
of the conformance of the PUD concept with the intent and objectives of a PUD
in the Township, whether it appears to qualify under the minimum requirements
of Section 22.2, and whether the general concept appears to be substantially
consistent with the Township's Master Plan.
No formal action will be taken at a pre-application conference, nor will
statements made at the pre-application conference be considered legally binding
commitments.
Held. The proposal as presented appears to be
consistent with the Master Plan and appears to conform to the intentions and
objectives in the PUD ordinance.
The following information must be provided with the
PUD application:
A.
Preliminary Plan Application Requirements
Following the pre-application conference,
applicants seeking approval of a PUD District shall submit a complete
application for review to the Zoning Administrator. When the Zoning Administrator determines the
application to be complete, the PUD application will be sent to the Planning
Commission for a workshop session, followed at a later date by a Planning
Commission public hearing. Such
application shall include the following (unless determined by the Zoning
Administrator or Planning Commission to be unnecessary):
1.
A
completed application form and ten (10) copies of a preliminary development
plan shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator. The preliminary plan shall contain the
following site plan information:
a.
The
date, north arrow, and scale. The scale
shall be not less than 1”=20’ for property ten (10) acres and larger and at
least 1”=200’ for those 20 acres (20) acres or more.
Provided.
b.
The
name and address of the firm responsible for the preparation of the site plan.
Provided.
c.
The
name and address of the property owner(s) and petitioner(s).
Provided.
d.
Legal
description of the PUD site.
Provided.
e.
The
size (in acres) of the PUD site.
Provided.
f.
Property
lines and proposed setbacks, shown and dimensioned.
Provided.
g.
A
location sketch.
Provided.
h.
The
location of all existing structures, driveways, and parking areas within 100’
of the PUD site’s boundaries.
Provided.
i.
The
location and dimensions of all existing structures on the PUD site.
Provided.
j.
The
location of all proposed structures on the PUD site. Realizing that this is preliminary,
dimensions are not necessary until final approval.
Provided.
k.
The
location and dimension of proposed lots or ownership divisions.
Provided.
l.
The
location, pavement width and right-of-way width of all abutting roads, streets,
alleys or easements.
Provided.
m.
The
existing zoning and use of all properties abutting and including the PUD site.
Provided.
n.
The
location of all existing vegetation and the general location of all proposed
landscape areas, berms, landscape islands and buffers, including any fence or
wall areas.
Provided.
o.
The
size and location of existing utilities, including a short narrative note on
the site plan pertaining to the PUD’s proposed utility needs and concepts.
Provided.
p.
The
proposed location and estimated size(s) of all surface and subsurface water
drainage facilities.
Provided.
q.
Existing
topographic contours at a maximum of five (5) foot intervals. Conceptual topographic patterns for the PUD
site shall also be provided, noting major earth moving and/or removal areas
(realizing that each building receiving final PUD approval will be required to
show actual topographic contours, both existing and proposed).
Provided.
r.
Location,
type and size of areas to be dedicated for common open space.
Provided.
s.
Anticipated
trash receptacle locations and method of screening.
Provided.
t.
Proposed
streets, alleys, curb cuts, acceleration/deceleration lanes, curbed areas,
service drives and parking lot locations, including traffic calming concepts,
driving surface widths as required by the Ottawa County Road Commission’s
standards.
Provided.
u.
Proposed
pedestrian sidewalk movements both within and off the PUD site. Sidewalks are required along all public
roadways.
Provided.
v.
Proposed
lighting concepts/styles and general location areas.
Provided.
w.
Proposed
architectural style/design concepts that will be incorporated into final
approval plans, including both buildings and structures (i.e. - gateways,
fence/wall concepts, art work, etc.).
Provided.
x.
Proposed
setbacks, lot widths, lot areas and building/structure heights.
Provided,
except for building height.
y.
Proposed
uses to be included in the PUD project.
Provided.
z.
Floodplain
areas. (Revised 6-27-2005)
Provided.
2.
Fee: Payment of a PUD fee, as established by the Township Board.
Provided.
3.
Narrative Statement: A
narrative statement describing:
a.
The
objectives of the PUD and how it relates to the Intent of the PUD District, as
described in Section 22.1.
b.
The
relationship of the PUD to the qualifying conditions listed in Section 22.2.
c.
Phases
of development and approximate time frames for each phase, including
anticipated start and completion dates of construction.
d.
Proposed
deed restrictions, covenants, or similar legal instruments to be used within
the PUD.
Provided.
*********************************************************************
A PUD shall be approved only if it complies with each
of the following standards:
A. The
proposed PUD complies with all qualifying conditions of Section 22.2.
NOT YET
MET. As noted
above, before the determination could be made that the proposal meets this
section, the Planning Commission should determine if the elements listed in the
summary are acceptable.
B.
The proposed PUD
is compatible with surrounding uses of land, the natural environment, and the
capacities of public services and facilities affected by the development.
MET. The proposed development would be a nice
addition to the area and would be compatible with the surrounding uses of land
and the natural environment.
C.
The proposed uses
within the PUD will not possess conditions or effects that would be injurious
to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community.
MET. As long as the traffic issues are addressed,
the development does not possess conditions or effects that would be negative
to the public health, safety and welfare of the community.
D.
The proposed
project is consistent with the spirit and intent of the PUD District, as
described in Section 22.1 and represents an opportunity for improved or
innovative development for the community that could not be achieved through
conventional zoning.
MET. This site could not be developed under
conventional zoning. The proposed
development represents an opportunity to improve the current site with
landscaping, traffic circulation and open space.
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.)
The Planning
Commission will have to determine if this is met.
The
findings and consensus of the Planning Commission were as follows:
1.
The drive aisle
between the Meijer building and the credit union property was really not a
front yard and was, therefore, not required to be landscaped and not required
to be void of parking and drive aisles.
2.
The elements
proposed by the applicants in the meeting and on the plan for the ring road to
the west of the Meijer building were acceptable to define the drive area.
3.
The applicants
should pursue Meijer with the opportunity to create a grassy area behind the
drive area between the Meijer building and the credit union.
4.
The opening of
the driveway to the west should be widened to allow vehicles to exit to head
west.
5.
The twelve-foot
by-pass area around the drive-in stations and the design of the drive-in
stations were acceptable.
6.
If there is not
enough room to store snow, it would have to be removed from the site.
7.
The hashed area
at the end of the bank of parking spaces does not have to be curbed and could
be removed at the applicants’ discretion.
8.
The 15-foot front
yard setback is acceptable since the applicants proposed to landscape and
maintain the open space between the private street and Cottonwood.
9.
It is acceptable
to locate the credit union sign in the greenspace along Cottonwood, especially
since they plan to maintain the area.
The Planning Commission suggested that the sign be ground-mounted;
however, the applicants stated that in the area with all the other pole signs,
a pole sign was necessary. The Planning
Commission accepted the proposed pole sign.
10. The open space area should show the existing trees and
the additional proposed landscaping should be shown on a plan.
11. The dumpster and enclosure would be reduced to a
maximum height of six feet, as noted by the applicants.
12. The pedestrian walkways are acceptable as shown since
there is really no where else for the walkways to lead to.
13. The architectural design is acceptable (although the
Planning Commission preferred a more residential look with peaked roofs). The applicants designed a modern-looking
building with the hope to be visually appealing and to stand out.
14. All of the traffic elements shown on the plan were
acceptable, although the Planning Commission asked the applicants to contact
Meijer and to see if there was an opportunity to add a left turn lane onto Cottonwood
to help with traffic congestion leaving the site. The Planning Commission determined that
approval would not be contingent upon the left turn lane, although it would be
a nice and a welcome addition.
15. The 15 foot front yard setbacks were acceptable.
16. The dumpster will be reduced to a maximum height of 6
feet.
17. The building height is 26 feet.
18. The requirement for the proposed deed restrictions,
covenants, or similar legal instruments will be added as a condition of
approval to be submitted at the time a building permit application is submitted
to the Township.
Moved by South, seconded by Huizinga, to
determine that the qualifying conditions of Sec. 22.2 are met and to approve
publishing the notice for the public hearing to be held on March 5, 2008 and to
direct that the plan be revised to address the issues that were discussed
during the meeting.
It
was noted that the Planning Commission was not approving or recommending for
approval the plan as presented, but was determining that the qualifying
conditions were met and the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing and
review the plan again at the March 5, 2008 meeting.
MOTION CARRIED.
#080206-04 – Site Plan Revision
(ST0801) Campus View Town Homes Phase 8-10081 42nd Ave.
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows and noted that the applicant
had called to state that he was not attending the meeting due to the snow
storm.
REQUEST
The request is to approve changes to a previously approved site plan
that have been determined not to meet the criteria of a minor change under Sec.
19.8. The new plan proposes to increase
the number of bathrooms per unit which results in a two foot wider unit and
increases the building coverage by 12% (which is more than the 5% required in
Sec. 19.8(B) in order for a minor change to be administratively approved). In addition, the newly revised plan shows
buildings number 40 and 41 each as one structure consisting of ten units. In the previously approved plans these units
consisted of four buildings rather than two.
The building summary is revised as follows:
Previously
approved Revised
Future Phase 8 buildings
34-43 buildings 34-41
Four unit buildings 2 0
Six unit buildings 7 5
Eight unit building 1 1
Ten unit buildings 0 2
Total units of Phase 8 58 58
Total units of all phases 314 314
HISTORY
On July 20, 2005, the Planning Commission approved a
site plan for phase 8. A revised site
plan was approved on Oct. 18, 2006 with
revisions that included the following:
a. The previous plan showed phase six encompassing buildings 20 to 43. The revised plan shows phases six as
encompassing buildings 20 to 26, phase seven as encompassing buildings 27 to
33, phase seven as encompassing buildings 27 to 33 and phase eight as
encompassing buildings 34 to 43.
b. The total number of units has been reduced from 316 to
314. The density is 7.73 units per acre
which is well within the fifteen units per acre permitted in Chapter 24
footnote (i). Buildings 30, 32 and 33
have increased in square footage.
c. Buildings 32 and 33 have been reoriented.
On March 21, 2007, the Planning
Commission approved a site plan for the construction of an addition to the club
house building.
SUMMARY of the review (see complete review following)
Notes:
a. As per
the previously approved plan, the applicant agreed to install the sidewalk and
landscaping along the 42nd Ave. frontage as part of the construction
of phase 8, but no later than December 2008.
The applicant is requesting to eliminate the condition of “no later than
December 2008,” and would like to complete the sidewalk and landscaping at the
time of construction of phase 8, whenever that time occurs. The
Planning Commission should determine if this is acceptable.
b. A
Storm Water Drain Permit will be required at the time a building permit is
submitted to the Township.
c. Conditions
of approval will be added to ensure compliance with the ordinance (since this
was a previously approved site plan) as follows: for the buildings to be
constructed as per the previously submitted elevations (including garages.)
Following is
the documentation showing compliance with Ordinance requirements.
|
I D number |
ST0609 |
|
|
|
Date |
1/28/08 |
|
|
|
Name |
Campus View Townhouses |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Address |
10081 42nd Ave. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use |
11.2(B) Townhouses |
|
SUP required |
no |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
a. |
||
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
NA |
|
||
|
Location, type, size of
proposed landscaping, streetscape, greenbelt |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location, height, type of
existing and proposed fences and walls |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Size, location of
proposed, existing utilities, connections to water/sewer |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location, size of surface
water drainage facilities |
|
|
X |
b. |
||||
|
Existing, proposed topo
contours, max 5 ft intervals |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Rec/common areas,
floodplain areas |
|
|
|
X |
|
|||
|
Residential development
extra requirements-attached garages |
|
X |
c. |
|||||
No
one was present to make public comments on this item.
The
consensus of the Planning Commission was that the sidewalk and landscaping
could be installed at the time of construction of phase 8.
Moved by Pearson, seconded by Stasiak, to
approve the site
plan dated “01-28-08 REV PER
PLANNING REVIEW” as presented and the landscape
plan dated “01-28-08 REV PER
PLANNING REVIEW” as presented based on the findings that the plans meet
applicable ordinance requirements, and with the following conditions:
a. The
buildings must be constructed as per the elevations (which show attached
garages) that were previously approved with the site plans on July 20, 2005 and
October 18, 2006;
b. A Storm
Water Drain Permit is provided at the time a building permit application is
submitted to the Township.