Minutes of the
regular meeting of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission, held Wednesday,
March 5, 2008
Meeting called to order by
Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Honderd, South, Huizinga, Poskey,
Pearson, VanDenBerg
Absent: Stasiak
#080305-01 - Agenda for March 5, 2008
Moved by
South, seconded Poskey, to approve the agenda for March 5, 2008 as presented.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#080305-02 - Minutes of
the February
6, 2008 regular meeting
Moved
by South, seconded by Poskey, to approve the minutes of the February 6, 2008 regular meeting,
as submitted.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#080305-03 -
Site Plan (ST0803) Click Photographic-7813
Cottonwood Dr. (site
plan)
Mike
Bosch, 896 Fairwood Ct., represented the applicant and presented the
request. He explained that he had tried
to move the driveway to the south in order to have a shared driveway with the
parcel to the south; however, an AT&T pole blocked the area and would cost
$5,600 to move.
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows:
REQUEST
The request is to approve a site plan proposing an addition to a building
to be used as a photographic studio permitted in the OS district under Sec.
13.2(D).
HISTORY
A 968 square foot house, which was built in 1973,
currently exists on the site. The
property was zoned (LDR) Low Density Residential until August 13, 2007 when the
Township Board approved the applicant’s request to rezone the site to (OS)
Office Service Commercial. The Planning
Commission had recommended denial.
The house conformed to the LDR zoning district
requirement in Chapter 24 to have at least a ten foot side yard setback;
however, once the property was rezoned to a commercial designation, the house
became nonconforming due to the 50 foot side yard setback requirement for a
commercial building adjacent to a residential district. The house is currently 14.3 feet from the
property line adjacent to a residential district zoned (MHR) Medium High
Density Residential which means the structure is 35.7 feet short of the 50 foot
side yard setback requirement for a commercial building.
The applicant requested a variance to construct an
addition (which would be located within the required 50 foot side yard setback)
to the house and use the structure as a photography studio. Chapter 24 footnote (m) requires that no commercial
structure shall be located closer than 50 feet to any residential
district. A variance was granted by the
ZBA on January 23, 2008.
SUMMARY of the review (see complete review following)
a. A
variance was granted to allow a 14 foot side yard setback, rather than the 50
feet required in Chapter 24 footnote m.
b. Comments
have been made by ZBA members and Township Board members that ideally the site
would share a driveway with the parcel to the south (the one that was rezoned
at the same time to OS) in order to eliminate a curb cut on Cottonwood. The applicant has indicated that he attempted
to have the driveway moved to the south and a pole relocated. However, the cost was prohibitive. So the applicant indicated that he would be
willing to allow cross access from the parcel to the south. Sec. 26.3(I) states: “In all districts, the
Planning Commission shall determine driveway access to streets listed in
Chapter 24, bi, bii and biii.” In
addition, Sec. 19.10(C) states that special attention shall be given to
location and number of access points to the public streets, and that shared
drives and other means of access management intended to reduce congestion and
increase safety along public streets shall be encouraged. Therefore, the Planning Commission has the
authority to direct where the access to Cottonwood should be located. The Planning Commission should determine if
the driveway access is acceptable in the location as proposed on the plan or if
it should be moved to the south for a shared drive. If the Planning Commission determines that
the driveway should be relocated to the south, landscaping should be revised
(since the driveway would be located where trees are proposed) in order to meet
the minimum requirement of Sec. 3.11.
Calculations are as follows: 179.48/25 = 7.1 or 8 trees of which 2 may
be evergreen and the rest shall be deciduous.
Terry Hollar, Assistant Highway Service Engineer with the Ottawa County
Road Commission, sent a letter to the Township indicating that the driveway has
been approved as shown on the plan in the current location. During a conversation with him on February
20, 2008, Terry Hollar indicated that a driveway access could be approved at a
different location if the Planning Commission directed that it be placed to the
south of the currently proposed location.
c. A
Storm Water Drain Permit will be required at the time a building permit is
submitted to the Township.
Following is
the documentation showing compliance with Ordinance requirements.
|
I D number |
ST0803 |
|
|
|
Date |
2-20-08 |
|
|
|
Name |
Click
Photographic |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Address |
7813
Cottonwood |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use |
Photo
studio-Sec. 13.2(D) |
|
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 |
a. |
|||||
|
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 |
b. |
||||||
|
Sidewalks,
non-motorized paths-select streets, accel, decel lanes |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Signs,
exterior lighting |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
Curbing,
parking areas, dimensions of typical space, number of parking spaces |
X |
|
||||||
|
Calculations
of parking spaces, unloading areas |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Location,
pavement width, ROW of all abutting roads, easements |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Existing
zoning, and zoning and use of abutting property |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Location of
existing vegetation-parkway association |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Location,
type, size of proposed landscaping, streetscape, greenbelt |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location,
height, type of existing and proposed fences and walls |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Size, location
of proposed, existing utilities, connections to water/sewer |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location,
size of surface water drainage facilities |
|
|
X |
c. |
||||
|
Existing,
proposed topo contours, max 5 ft intervals |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Rec/common
areas, floodplain areas |
|
|
|
X |
|
|||
|
Residential
development extra requirements-attached garages |
|
NA |
|
|||||
South stated that he was concerned
about the curb cuts on the busy street and preferred to eliminate one if
possible even though he does not anticipate much traffic coming to this site.
VanDenBerg asked about the
existing twelve-foot driveway and was told it would be eliminated to be
replaced with a 24 foot driveway that was required for two-way traffic.
Honderd stated the
following. The traffic counts are around
24,000 cars per day for Cottonwood and this was the second busiest road in the
Township. This was a point in the road
where traffic backs up to the corner. It
is important to take this opportunity to eliminate a driveway and have this
site share a driveway with the neighbor.
The applicant should check with New Amsterdam to see if he could have an
access off their driveway to totally eliminate his curb cut. Then the access could be from the rear and
the front yard could be landscaped giving the site a more residential
look. Possibly the neighbor to the south
could use a rear access, too, and both curb cuts could be eliminated. This is a very busy street and for a OS
development the cost of $5,600 to move the pole isn’t much over the long scheme
of things in order to have a good development.
Pearson said that it was a
great idea to have the access from the rear or at least to have a shared
driveway.
Honderd said that if a shared
driveway is required it should be shown on the site plan or at least show the
future easement and pavement.
Pearson said that the curb
cut should be minimized.
The chairman opened the floor
to public comments. No one was present
to make comments on this item. The
chairman closed the floor to public comments.
The applicant stated that the
latest site plan shows the easement for ingress and egress. He said that he did not want a rear access
because he planned to landscape the rear yard and use it to take pictures
there.
Moved by Pearson, seconded by South, to approve the site
plan dated “02/05/08 PER OWNER” as presented, based on compliance with all
applicable standards of the ordinance, with the condition that a Storm Water
Drain permit be submitted at the time a building permit application is
submitted and with the condition that the driveway be moved to the south in
order to provide a shared driveway with the parcel to the south.
Pearson asked about access to
the south.
VanDenBerg asked what the
parcel to the south was zoned.
Honderd said the
following. It was zoned OS but was
currently being used as a residence; however, it would likely be developed in
the future as an OS use. The connection
would be made at the time it was developed.
He would rather see the item tabled and a revised plan submitted showing
the shared driveway since this is a significant revision. The Planning Commission consistently tables
plans and requests revisions when there is a significant change.
Huizinga said that he is
satisfied with the way the plan is drawn and can’t see requiring the applicant
to remove the pole to move the driveway.
Poskey said that he agreed
that the plan should be tabled and the driveway moved to the south. He said that the Planning Commission should
give the applicant more specific direction.
Pearson said that he thought
it meant putting the driveway partially on the next parcel and he agreed it
should be shown.
Moved by Pearson, seconded by Poskey, to table the
site plan.
South said that the driveway
should be half on one property and half on the other property.
VanDenBerg said that there
would be a tree in the way.
MOTION CARRIED.
Honderd said that a majority
of the driveway would be on the applicant’s property and that the Planning
Commission needs to give direction.
Pearson said that the plan should
be revised to eliminate the second curb cut and that it should be shown in the
most cost-effective way that is still functional.
Poskey said that he agreed.
Huizinga said that if the
applicant moves the driveway to the south he’ll have more asphalt to get to his
building.
Honderd stated the
following. The plan could be revised to
show where the proposed paving would be or show the driveway moved to closer to
the parcel to the south in order to easier accommodate a connection. Another option would be to leave the plan as it is or show
how the drive could connect to the south property.
The applicant said that he
could show the pavement but the drive would use more of his land.
VanDenBerg said that there
were mature trees next to the property line.
The zoning administrator
stated that the landscaping should be shown to meet the ordinance requirement
if the proposed driveway would require that the existing trees would be
removed.
VanDenBerg said that a curb
cut already exists and moving the driveway would eliminate the green space.
The applicant said that the
property to the south is a long skinny lot and any development would not likely
generate much traffic. He said that it
was possible that Oak Crest Manor might buy this property or sell some to
create a wider lot.
Pearson suggested that the
drive be kept where it is shown and to revise the plan to show the future
connection.
Poskey stated the
following. The drive could be kept in
the current location since there is no certainty for the design the parcel to
the south would be developed. He was
hesitant to have the driveway moved because it may not match the plans in the
future for the development of the parcel to the south. He was more inclined to have a note on the
plan state that an area was reserved for a future drive in whatever way would
work in the future for the parcel to the south.
Huizinga said that they
should keep the drive where shown and show a dotted line for the future
driveway.
VanDenBerg said that the
drive should be kept where it is and show a possible connection.
South agreed.
Honderd said that the item
could be removed from the table and acted upon with the possible connection to
be approved administratively.
The zoning administrator said
that the landscaping should still meet the ordinance wherever the driveway is
shown to be moved since some trees may have to be removed.
Moved by Huizinga, seconded by Poskey, to remove the
item from the table.
MOTION CARRIED.
Moved by Pearson, seconded by
VanDenBerg, to amend the motion to remove the condition of moving the driveway
to the south.
MOTION CARRIED.
Moved by Pearson, seconded by Huizinga,
to amend the motion for the plan to be revised to show a future proposed
driveway.
The zoning administrator
suggested that a larger area be shown for the future driveway so that it could
be installed anywhere within a specific area depending upon the future layout
of the site to the south.
Poskey said that the motion
should include a note about an easement on the drawing.
The motion was withdrawn by the maker and supporter.
Honderd said that the
intention was for the neighboring property to utilize this access in order to eliminate a curb cut. He said that this could either be in writing
or it could be noted on the plan. He
said that someone would have to incur the cost to pave the future drive and it
should be located in an area away from the trees.
Huizinga said that the
developer of the neighboring site should incur the cost of the extra pavement.
Honderd said that the cost
would be less if the applicant moved the driveway to the south now.
Huizinga said that if this
was his property now he would not think that the Township should make him pay
for the access for the neighboring property.
The zoning administrator
stated that those kind of financial details could be worked out by the property
owners rather than the Planning Commission.
Honderd stated the
following. It would cost less for the future
developer of the property to the south to pay for the connecting pavement than
it would for a curb cut. He said that it
could be put in writing that cross access is required and the developer to the
south would incur all costs to connect to the driveway on the applicant’s
property.
The applicant asked what
would happen if two or three parcels to the south were combined.
Honderd said that the
driveway should be moved to the south to tie in all the pieces to the south and
the approach could be widened to a three-lane width that could carry the
vehicles accessing the parcels.
The applicant said that
someone might buy just the slip of property.
Honderd said that the Road
Commission or the Planning Commission could require two lanes exiting the site.
The zoning administrator
stated that Chapter 26 of the ordinance gives the Planning Commission the
authority to determine where curb cuts are located along all the major streets
listed in Chapter 24 footnote b.
Huizinga said that if someone
developed the sliver of the property in conjunction with other property to
create a larger site and wanted their own curb cut, the Planning Commission
would let them have it.
Honderd stated the
following. Cottonwood is the second
busiest street in the Township, second to Baldwin, with about 24,000 cars per
day. The Planning Commission should look
to try to eliminate curb cuts if possible and whenever put in a position to do
it. One or both of the curb cuts could
be eliminated if access was obtained from New Amsterdam. If this parcel was developed with other
property to create one larger parcel, then they should be allowed to have a
driveway.
Pearson said that the
driveway should remain where it is shown and an easement and note should be
shown on the plan regarding a shared driveway.
He said that if this was broadened out to three acres they could
eliminate this.
The applicant said that if he
had a three acre site he would want his own curb cut, like other developments
that have accel and decel lanes. He
would not want multiple curb cuts. He
asked about costs.
Honderd said that the
developer pays for the curb cuts and the accel and decel lanes.
The applicant said that if 20
cars come, they will still come if there are one or two curb cuts.
The zoning administrator
stated that the Township practices good access management because a situation
like 28th Street was trying to be avoided where cars are stopping
quite often interrupting traffic. She
said that traffic would go, then stop for someone entering a site. Then start up again, and then stop again for
another vehicle entering another site.
Honderd said that there are
fewer accidents and traffic traveled smoother when there were less curb cuts.
VanDenBerg said that she
agreed with eliminating curb cuts, but without knowing the future it was
difficult.
Moved by VanDenBerg, seconded by Huizinga, to approve
the site
plan dated “02/05/08 PER OWNER” as presented, based on compliance with all
applicable standards of the ordinance as presented.
VanDenBerg said that she
understood and supported the reasoning for eliminating curb cuts, but they
can’t work on the unknown.
Yeas: Pearson, Poskey, Huizinga, Honderd, VanDenBerg
Nays: South
Absent: Stasiak
MOTION CARRIED.
#080305-04 - (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, letter, dumpster
enclosure, landscape
plan, overall
plan, site
grading, site
plan) (Public hearing notice published.)
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.
REQUEST
The request is for Preliminary PUD approval along with
Final Development approval since the site will be developed in one phase. In the past when the preliminary and final
development plans were the same plan, the Planning Commission has made a
recommendation to the Board for the preliminary plan and acted upon the final
development plan contingent upon Board approval. Therefore, the Planning Commission could make
a recommendation to the Board for the Preliminary Development plan and (if they
so choose) act upon the final development plan contingent upon Board approval
of the preliminary plan.
The landscape plan for the open space along Cottonwood
has not been submitted yet and will be provided at the time it is submitted to
the Township.
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
At the February 6, 2008 Planning Commission meeting the
following motion was made:
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.
On October 1, 2003 the Planning Commission recommended
approval for the preliminary development plan for the PUD for Culvers and Pages
in
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
SUMMARY
1. The plan as proposed would result in the Meijer parcel
complying district requirements as follows:
a. The lot width is greater than 85 feet on Cottonwood
(in order to count the frontage on the private street the Meijer parcel would
have to become part of the PUD).
b. The overall lot size is greater than 11,050 square
feet.
c. Parking requirements are still met. Calculations are as follows: 215,156 square
feet (gross floor area) divided by 200 (as per Chapter 26 parking requirements
for retail) equals 1,076 parking spaces required and 1,091 are currently
provided. The credit union development
would reduce the number of provided spaces by 104 resulting in a total number
of provided spaces of 987 spaces. This
is a reduction of 8.27%. Sec. 26.9(K)
gives the Planning Commission the authority to reduce the number of parking
space by up to 25% provided the parking needs are met and the intention is for
more green space to be provided. It
appears as though the Meijer parking lot is never filled to capacity (other
than possibly the day after Thanksgiving or possibly the few days before
Christmas). In addition, the PUD is
providing additional greenspace and landscaping in an area that was previously
parking lot.
2. 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 has
been 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 have been 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 landscaped curbed islands, striping and signage. The
Planning Commission determined that the proposed elements (including the raised
curb and additional curbing that the applicant stated would be installed) are
acceptable. Landscaping is noted to be
included in the curbed islands.
b. Signs have been added by the Tudor
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 determined that this is acceptable and asked
the applicants if the area between this drive and the Meijer building could be
a grassed area. The applicants indicated
that they have contacted Meijer and are waiting for a response.
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 determined that
this 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. The plan has been revised to show a drive aisle exiting via the
driveway to the west. What would happen
if a person entered the site from the west and planned to go north
(left) to park and enter the building from the north? Would they go head-on with any vehicles
exiting from this area and headed to the west?
Should this be a one-way area allowing vehicles to exit only so that if
a vehicle entered from the west, it would be required to head directly east
(straight) and use the by-pass lane around the drive-in area to get to the
parking area? Should a “DO NOT ENTER”
sign be placed by the northern edge of the western entrance to prevent vehicles
entering from the west from turning left and potentially meeting a vehicle head
–on that is traveling south to exit the western driveway? If cars are not queued up at the drive-in
area, this would not be an issue because vehicles would be able to enter from
the west and turn left to head north to get to the parking area. The Planning Commission should determine
if what is proposed in this area is acceptable.
h. The Planning Commission determined that the striped
area at the end of the bank of parking spaces to the north of the credit union
(creating an aisle way) could either be eliminated or left as proposed.
3. Site plan elements should be addressed as follows:
a. The Planning Commission determined that the front yard
setbacks of 15 feet along both of the yards that abut the private street are
acceptable.
b. Sign types
and locations have been shown, but details regarding size, height, and area
have not been provided. Therefore,
a condition of approval should be added that all signs meet the ordinance in
every respect other than elements shown and approved on the plan (such as no
advertising matter on the directional signs).
A sign is proposed to be located in the greenspace for the PUD and the
Planning Commission determined it to be acceptable. A note about lighting states it would be
downward directing.
b.
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 applicant has
indicated that a landscaping plan would be provided for the open space area and
this plan will be available as soon as it is submitted to the Township. The Planning Commission should determine if
what is submitted is acceptable.
c. Height and materials of the dumpster enclosure are
noted. The height now meets ordinance
requirements.
d.
A Storm Water Drain permit is needed at the time a
Building Permit application is submitted.
e. A note was added to the plan indicating the site is
not affected by a floodplain.
4. A narrative was submitted describing the following:
a. The objectives of the PUD and how it relates to the
Intent of the PUD District, as described in Section 22.1.
b. There is to be one phase.
c.
Proposed deed restrictions, covenants, or similar
legal instruments to be used within the PUD are noted to be provided at the
time they are completed. Language should
be added regarding the perpetuity of the open space and the maintenance of the
landscaping within the open space. A
condition of approval should be added requiring them to be submitted at the
time a building permit is submitted to the Township.
5. The Planning
Commission determined the following:
a.
The pedestrian walkway requirements are
met by the sidewalk that was provided connecting Cottonwood to the credit
union.
b.
The architectural renderings are
acceptable.
c.
The traffic elements are acceptable.
d. The architectural designs are
compatible with the existing PUD.
e. The 15 foot front yard setbacks
are acceptable.
f.
The sign
proposed to be located in the greenspace for the PUD is acceptable. Since no other details are provided for the
signs, they should meet ordinance requirements in all other regards.
The Planning
Commission should review the following:
1.
“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. The plan has been revised to show a drive aisle exiting via the
driveway to the west. What would happen
if a person entered the site from the west and planned to go north
(left) to park and enter the building from the north? Would they go head-on with any vehicles
exiting from this area and headed to the west?
Should this be a one-way area allowing vehicles to exit only so that if
a vehicle entered from the west, it would be required to head directly east
(straight) and use the by-pass lane around the drive-in area to get to the
parking area? Should a “DO NOT ENTER”
sign be placed by the northern edge of the western entrance to prevent vehicles
entering from the west from turning left and potentially meeting a vehicle head
–on that is traveling south to exit the western driveway? If cars are not queued up at the drive-in
area, this would not be an issue because vehicles would be able to enter from
the west and turn left to head north to get to the parking area. The Planning Commission should determine
if what is proposed in this area is acceptable.
2.
The trees shown in the open space for the PUD are not
the same as what currently exits. The
applicant has indicated that a landscaping plan would be provided for the open
space area. The Planning Commission
should determine if this new plan is acceptable. The landscaping plan for the green space area
will be forwarded to you as soon as it is submitted to the Township.
3.
At the February 6, 2008 meeting, the Planning
Commission asked the applicant to check with Meijer to see if they would
provide a grassed area between the drive on the west side of the credit union
and the Meijer building. The applicant
has indicated that they have submitted the request and are waiting for an
answer.
4.
At the February 6, 2008 meeting, the Planning
Commission asked the applicant to check with Meijer to see if they would
provide a left turn lane at the southern-most driveway to Meijer and the
private street. Again, the applicant has
indicated that they have submitted the request and are waiting for an
answer. Another option for the Planning
Commission to consider would be to eliminate the option of a left turn at this
southern driveway and require that all vehicles turn right out of that
driveway. That would allow all traffic
heading south to use the southern driveway and would require all traffic
heading north to use the northern driveway.
It would eliminate the backups caused by those turning left at the
southern driveway and also eliminate any possible conflicts from vehicles
turning left out of that driveway that would conflict with vehicles turning
right from the driveway to the north.
The driveway to the north already has a left turn lane.
Details for the review are provided as
follows:
|
I D number |
PUD0801 |
|
|
|
Date |
2-21-08 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
||||
|
Location,
pavement width, ROW of all abutting roads, easements |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Existing
zoning, and zoning and use of abutting property |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Location
of existing vegetation-
parkway association |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Location,
type, size of proposed landscaping, streetscape, greenbelt |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location,
height, type of existing and proposed fences and walls |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Size, location
of proposed, existing utilities, connections to water/sewer |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location,
size of surface water drainage facilities |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Existing,
proposed topo contours, max 5 ft intervals |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Rec/common
areas, floodplain areas |
|
|
|
X |
|
|||
|
Special Use
Standards, general and specific |
|
|
|
|
NA |
|||
*******************************************************************************
The Planning Commission made a motion at the February 6, 2008 meeting
that the qualifying conditions of the ordinance were met.
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. Storm water 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 standalone ordinance covering certain sidewalk requirements)
Met. A walkway is provided connecting the sidewalk
along Cottonwood to the site. The
Planning Commission determined that the proposed sidewalks were
acceptable.
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 decided 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.
MET. The Planning Commission determined that 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.
*******************************************************************************
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.
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
as long as a condition is added that the deed restrictions are submitted at the
time a building permit application is submitted.
*********************************************************************
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.
MET. At the February 6, 2008 meeting, the Planning
Commission determined that the qualifying conditions were met.
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 since the
landscaping plan for the opens space has not yet been submitted.
***********************************************************************************
D. Final Development Plan Application
Requirements: A final development plan application shall
consist of the following (unless determined by the Zoning Administrator or
Planning Commission to be unnecessary):
1.
A
completed application form, supplied by the Zoning Administrator. Met.
2.
Payment
of a fee, as established by the Township Board.
Met.
3.
A
written response to the findings, review comments, and conditions, if any, from
the Township Board’s review and approval of the preliminary development plan
and a narrative explanation of the changes made to the plan in response to
those items. Will be a condition of approval.
4.
A
site plan containing all of the information required in this PUD Chapter and
the following information shown below: (If the plan consists of phases, then
the above-mentioned information is only required for the specific phase(s)
being presented for final approval. Each
subsequent phase shall be reviewed in the same manner).
a.
The
location and dimensions of all proposed structures and buildings on the PUD
site. Provided.
b.
The
location of all proposed drives (including dimensions and radii),
acceleration/deceleration lanes, sidewalks / pathways / bike paths, curbing,
parking areas (including the dimensions of a typical parking space and the
total number of parking spaces to be provided), and unloading areas. Street names must also be included. Provided. (The businesses within
the PUD use Cottonwood Addresses.)
c.
The
location of all proposed signs and lighting, including the sizes and
types. Locations and types are provided.
A condition of approval will be that all signs must meet the ordinance
in all other regards.
d.
The
location, type and size of all proposed landscaping and site amenities (art
work, fences, gateway features, etc.). The applicant has provided landscaping
for the credit union site and has stated that a landscaping plan for the open
space area would be provided prior to the meeting. The Planning Commission will have to
determine if it is acceptable.
e.
The
location, type and size of all utilities and storm water drainage facilities,
including fire protection, sanitary sewers, water services, etc. Provided.
f.
Existing
and proposed topographic contours at a maximum of three (3) foot intervals. Provided.
g.
Elevation
views of all proposed structures and floor plans for all multi-family
residential dwelling units. Provided.
h.
Proposed
open space areas, including recreational amenities (playgrounds, etc.). Provided.
i.
Floodplain
areas. (Revised 6-27-2005) Provided.
A.
The
Planning Commission shall review the final development plan in relation to its
conformance with the preliminary development plan and any conditions of the PUD
rezoning. If it is determined that the
final plan is not in substantial conformance with the preliminarily development
plan, the review process shall be conducted as a preliminary development plan
review, in accordance with the procedures of Sections 22.5 - 22.7 of this
Ordinance.
The final development plan is the
same as the preliminary plan and is, therefore, consistent.
B.
Planned
Unit Developments, whether established as a single or multiphase
development, shall reasonably accommodate for the intent of the PUD in each
phase. If the proposed PUD appears to provide for phases that do not
incorporate the intent of the proposed PUD, the Planning Commission may require
bonding or other similar financial obligation, which shall be established
in the PUD agreement. If a portion of the PUD intent it to
provide for a variety of uses (i.e. - apartments and single family homes), then
the proposed phasing schedule shall show how the development of these uses
will be balanced in the phased development schedule.
The final development plan is the
same as the preliminary plan and does, therefore, accommodate the intention of
the PUD.
C.
If
the final development plan is consistent with the approved preliminary
development plan, the Planning Commission shall review the final plan in
accordance with the standards for approval in Section 22.10.
Due to the requirement in Sec. 22.10 relating to the landscaping in the
open space, the Planning Commission will have to determine if this is met after
the applicant submits the landscaping plan for the open space.
D.
The
Planning Commission shall prepare a record of its findings and shall approve,
approve with conditions, or deny the final development plan.
Will be met.
E.
Any
regulatory modification from traditional district requirements shall be
approved through a finding by the Planning Commission that the deviation shall
result in a higher quality of development than would be possible using
conventional zoning standards.
Regulatory modifications are not subject to variance approval of the
Zoning Board of Appeals. No part of this
PUD process of the approved site plans may be appealed to the Zoning Board of
Appeals. This provision shall not
preclude an individual residential lot owner from seeking a variance following
final approval of the PUD, provided such variance does not involve alterations
to open space areas as shown on the approved PUD site plan.
Will be met.
F.
A
table shall be provided on the final site plan which specifically details all
deviations from the established zoning area, height and setback regulations,
off-street parking regulations, general provisions, or Township subdivision
regulations which would otherwise be applicable to the uses and developments
proposed in the absence of this PUD article and rezoning.
Met.
A.
Prior
to the issuance of any building permits or commencement of construction on any
portion of the PUD, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the
Township in recordable form, setting forth the applicant's obligations with
respect to the PUD.
B.
The
agreement shall describe all improvements to be constructed as part of the PUD
and shall incorporate, by reference, the final development plan with all
required revisions, other documents which comprise the PUD, and all conditions
attached to the approval by the Township Board.
C.
A
phasing plan shall also be submitted describing the intended schedule for start
and completion of each phase and the improvements to be undertaken in each
phase.
D.
The
agreement shall also establish the remedies of the Township in the event of
default by the applicant in carrying out the PUD, and shall be binding on all
successors in interest to the applicant.
E.
All
documents shall be executed and recorded in the office of the Ottawa County
Register of Deeds.
A condition of
approval should be added requiring that the PUD agreement in accordance with
Sec. 22.11 (and including language regarding the perpetuity of the open space)
is submitted to the Township at the time a building permit application is
submitted. No building permit should be
issued until the PUD agreement was recorded at the County and submitted to the
Township.
VanDenBerg stated that she
was concerned about the location of the entrance and that it should be a three
way stop sign since there would be a lot of traffic.
The applicant said that this
was the best location for the driveway because there would be more conflicts if
it was moved. She said that Meijer did
not agree with providing a left hand turn lane for the southern-most entrance
to the Meijer site. She said that if
traffic backs up, it would all be on the Meijer property and they did not have
a problem with that.
Pearson said that this was an
opportunity to require green space in the area between the drive on the west side of the credit union and the Meijer
building. He said that going back to the
pharmacy, in the winter the markings wear off and this was their one
opportunity to dress up the area. He
said that the landscaping currently provided was fantastic.
The applicant stated that
they preferred to keep it asphalt because a transmission box and doors to a
store room were located in that area.
She said that they could ask again and they just got the landscaping
plan back today for the open space.
South asked if there would be
a stop sign at the exit and was told yes.
He was concerned with traffic going east and a lot of curb cuts. He said that traffic should be pushed to the
north to exit; however, traffic would eventually correct itself.
The applicant stated that
there were many options to get around the site, especially now that the
interior drives have been defined.
The chairman opened the
public hearing. No one was present to
speak on this topic. The chairman closed
the public hearing.
There was discussion
regarding traffic circulation and the driveway to the west of the credit
union. The consensus of the Planning
Commission was that the traffic circulation should be one-way with a vehicle
entering from the west only having the opportunity to travel to the east rather
than turning left and heading north against the flow of traffic. The applicant agreed.
There was discussion
regarding requiring the applicant to provide grass in the area between the
drive on the west side of the credit union and the Meijer building. The consensus of the Planning Commission was
that it would not be required.
There was discussion
regarding requiring a left turn lane at the southern-most entrance to the
Meijer site. The consensus of the
Planning Commission was that it would not be required.
Moved by South, seconded by VanDenBerg, to recommend
to the Township Board to approve the
preliminary development plan for (PUD801) Meijer
(Lake Michigan Credit Union), 2929 Walker Ave. Grand Rapids, for the 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, as shown on the following
documents:
1. The application
dated 12/19/2007;
2. The narrative
dated January 14, 2008;
3. The site
plan dated 2/20/08;
4. The entry
elevation and front
elevation as provided;
5. The letter dated February 20, 2008;
6. The dumpster
enclosure as presented on the plan dated 2/20/08;
7. The landscape
plan dated 2/20/08;
8. The overall
plan dated 2/20/08;
9. The site
grading and utility plan dated 2/20/08; and
10. The site plan presented by the applicant for the open space area.
Based on the findings that:
1. The
qualifying conditions in Sec. 22.2 are met:
2. The
information as per Sec. 22.5 is provided, and
3. The plan
meets the ordinance requirements of Sec. 22.10 as follows:
a. The
qualifying conditions in Sec. 22.2 are met (as previously determined);
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;
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;
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;
e.
The proposed PUD meets all
the site plan requirements of Chapter 22 including Section 22.8, D.
And with the following conditions:
1.
The landscaping plan for the open space area is
submitted to the Township for administrative approval to verify that the plan
meets at least the minimum amount of trees in the streetscape requirement.
2.
Signage is provided directing any traffic entering the
credit union site from the west that the circulation is one way to the east and
no left turn allowed for the vehicle to enter from the west turning to the
north.
3.
A Storm Water
Drain Permit is submitted at the time a building permit application is
submitted;
4. The proposed deed restrictions, covenants, or similar legal
instruments (including language relating to the maintenance of the landscaping
in the open space) to be used within the PUD as per Sec. 22.5(D)(d) are
submitted at the time a building permit application is submitted; and
5. All signs
meet ordinance requirements other than for elements shown on the approved PUD
plan.
MOTION
CARRIED.
The Planning Commission
determined that it would be appropriate to act upon the final development plan
contingent on Board approval since the final development plan is the same as
the preliminary development plan.
Moved by Huizinga, seconded by South, to approve the
final development plan for (PUD801) Meijer (Lake Michigan Credit Union), 2929
Walker Ave. Grand Rapids, for 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, as shown on the following documents:
1. The application
dated 12/19/2007;
2. The narrative
dated January 14, 2008;
3. The site
plan dated 2/20/08;
4. The entry
elevation and front
elevation as provided;
5. The letter dated February 20, 2008;
6. The dumpster
enclosure as presented on the plan dated 2/20/08;
7. The landscape
plan dated 2/20/08;
8. The overall
plan dated 2/20/08;
9. The site
grading and utility plan dated 2/20/08; and
10. The landscape plan for the open space area presented by the applicant.
Based on the findings that:
1. The
qualifying conditions in Sec. 22.2 are met;
2.
The proposed PUD is compatible with surrounding uses
of land, the natural environment, and the capacities of public services and facilities affected by the development;
3.
The proposed uses within the
PUD will not possess conditions or effects that would be injurious to the
public health, safety, or welfare of the community;
4.
The proposed project is
consistent with the spirit and intent of the PUD District, as described in
Section 22.1 and represents an opportunity for improved or innovative
development for the community that could not be achieved through conventional
zoning;
5.
The proposed PUD meets all
the site plan requirements of Chapter 22 including Section 22.8, D and Section
22.10; and
6.
Any regulatory modifications
from the traditional district requirements result in a higher quality of
development than would be possible using conventional zoning standards.
And with the following conditions:
1.
The approval for the final development plan is
contingent upon the Township Board approval of the preliminary development
plan;
2.
A Storm Water
Drain Permit is submitted at the time a building permit application is
submitted;
3. The proposed deed restrictions, covenants, or similar legal
instruments (including language relating to the maintenance of the landscaping
in the open space) to be used within the PUD as per Sec. 22.5(D)(d) are
submitted at the time a building permit application is submitted; and
4. All signs
meet ordinance requirements other than for elements shown on the approved PUD
plan;
5. A recorded
PUD agreement (according to Sec. 22.11) is submitted at the time a building
permit application is submitted to the Township (no building permit is to be
issued until the agreement is recorded and submitted to the Township);
6. The PUD
agreement MUST contain language regarding the perpetuity of the open space;
7. As per Sec.
22.8(D)(3), a written response to the findings, review comments and conditions
(if any) from the Township Board’s review and approval of the preliminary development
plan and a narrative explanation of the changes made to the plan in response to
those items is submitted to the Township at the time a building permit
application is submitted (if the Board stipulates additional conditions or has
additional comments other than those contained in the Planning Commission’s
recommendation;
6.
The landscaping plan for the open space area is
submitted to the Township for administrative approval to verify that the plan
meets at least the minimum amount of trees in the streetscape requirement; and
7.
Signage is provided directing any traffic entering the
credit union site from the west that the circulation is one way to the east and
no left turn allowed for the vehicle to enter from the west turning to the
north.
MOTION CARRIED.
#080305-05 - Wind Turbines (sample
ordinance, proposed language)
The zoning
administrator stated that at the Planning Commission’s request, she had
researched ordinances relating to wind energy systems from MTA and from other
municipalities in Ottawa County. She
said that she had compiled language for the Planning Commission’s review.
Huizinga
stated that they did not look nice and most people would not invest the large
amount of money to own one. He said that
they should be on large parcels and not in the residential area because they
could not be hidden in the trees since there is no wind, but rather would be
out in the open for everyone to see.
Poskey
said that the ordinance should be simple and should not be allowed in the front
yard. Other than the one person
contacting the Township about this ordinance, it is unlikely anyone would spend
$10,000 because they would not get their investment back. He said that the Township should wait a few
years and see how this works out in other areas.
Pearson
said that he would like to have a better understanding of the use and the
equipment may get smaller in the future.
South
said that any ordinance should be simple.
VanDenBerg
said that we should take the responsible approach and consider alternate energy
sources. She said that an ordinance
should be considered.
Honderd
said that they were currently allowed in the AG and RR districts and we could
look at an ordinance.
The
zoning administrator explained that the use was currently allowed in the AG and
RR districts as part of a farming operation and some currently existed. She said that she had received the one
request from the interested person who has been contacting the Township;
however, that person wanted to put one in the LDR district. She said that she wanted the Planning Commission
to review options for ordinances rather than taking the responsibility to
determine that it was an accessory use without any regulations.
Moved by Poskey, seconded by Huizinga,
to direct the zoning administrator to affirm the current ordinance as written
and to allow the wind energy systems in the AG and RR district according to the
current practice and not in any other district.
Pearson
said that the Planning Commission should continue to review the ordinance and
asked that it be placed on the next meeting agenda under “Other Business.”
Honderd
said that the Planning Commission could look at changing the ordinance and
review the information that was provided.
Yeas: Pearson, Poskey, Huizinga, Honderd, South
Nays: VanDenBerg
Absent:
Stasiak
MOTION CARRIED.
#080305-06– Adjournment
The chairman
adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.