Minutes of the
regular meeting of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission, held Wednesday,
July 16, 2008
Meeting called to order by
Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Honderd, South, VanDenBerg, Huizinga,
Pearson, Stasiak
Absent: Blouw
#080716-01 - Agenda for July 16, 2008
Moved by
South, seconded by VanDenBerg, to approve the agenda for July 16, 2008 as
presented.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#080716-02 - Minutes of
the June 18, 2008 regular
meeting
Moved
by Pearson, seconded by Stasiak, to approve the minutes as presented.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#080716-03 – Preliminary
(PUD0802) Boverhof Builders/Tom Schimmel, 5475 Settlers Pass,
Kentwood and 2887 Port Sheldon, are requesting a
Planned Unit Development for a daycare facility, Office Services uses,
medium/high density uses and retail establishments, under Chapter 22, on a
parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-21-300-080, -018, -017, and -016,
located at 2887, 2903, 2917 and 2935 Port Sheldon St., Georgetown Township,
Ottawa County, Michigan. (application/narrative and elevations and
preliminary
development plan and grading plan) (the public
hearing notice was published and sent to property owners/occupants within 300
feet-hold the public hearing-Township Board meeting to be held on August 25)
and Final development plan (PUD0802-01) Boverhof Builders/Tom Schimmel, (final development plan)
Steve Witte, Nederveld
and Associates Inc., represented the applicants and presented the request
including the following. The Appletree
Daycare facility shown on the plan is the same as the plan that was previously
approved by the Planning Commission except the playground is smaller. A single curb cut is shown because the
Township indicated that it was preferred over the two curb cuts the applicants
wanted. The applicants are willing to
construct a decel lane even though the Road Commission did not require it
because the Township wanted it. A more
dense green belt buffer is shown with evergreens every 15 feet rather than the
20 feet required in the ordinance.
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows.
REQUEST
The request is to develop a PUD with three buildings
at 2935, 2917, 2903 and 2887 Port Sheldon St.
There are four parcels identified as P.P. # 70-14-21-300-016; -017;
-018; and -080. The four parcels are currently
zoned MHR and are designated as Medium Density Residential on the Future Land
Use Map.
HISTORY
In the past, the Planning Commission has made
references to these four parcels being developed together as a PUD. Excerpts of the Planning Commission minutes
relating to these properties are provided after the review, including the
minutes of April 21, 2004, October 17, 2001 and March 19, 2007.
SUMMARY
A pre-application meeting was held on May 23, 2008 and
the determination was made that the PUD could proceed. With
the information that had been provided, it was not possible to determine that
the qualifying conditions have been met.
Additional information was needed to detail compliance with the
qualifying conditions. The Planning
Commission should make the determination if the qualifying conditions have been
met. A review of the proposal’s
consistency with the qualifying conditions follows.
1. The overall site is 4.10 acres;
2. The PUD includes P.P. # 70-14-21-300-016, -017, 018,
-080;
3. The site is located at 2935, 2917, 2903 and 2887 Port
Sheldon St.;
4. For the following uses in three buildings-
a. Building A-11,544 square foot daycare facility (a use
allowed in the current zoning district) with a 12,590 square foot play area
(approximately half of the 25,200 square feet required for 168 children- would
meet the stated needs of the daycare facility and would be appreciated by the
nearby residents), maximum building height 25 feet;
b. Building B-12,535 square foot for any uses allowed in the
MHR district and the OS district, plus retail that would only be permitted
between the house of 5:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.;
c. Building C-9,837 square foot for any uses allowed in
the MHR district and the OS district, plus retail that would only be permitted
between the house of 5:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.
Note 20 states that the existing house and outbuilding may be renovated
to be architecturally similar to the daycare facility and used as a
photographic studio or similar use;
5. The daycare facility was approved as a special use
permit; however, some changes are proposed as per the PUD development including
a smaller playground.
6. One access driveway is provided to the site, with one
lane used to enter and two to exit (one exit lane to the west and one to the
east). This is a good example of good
access management practices that are preferred by the Township.
7. Three signs are proposed and all meet the ordinance
requirements for sign in a commercial district.
8. An eight foot sidewalk is provided behind buildings B
and C. A loading/unloading area is
provided between buildings B and C, along with the dumpster with a solid fence
enclosure plus landscaping. As designed,
this layout will have less of an impact on the neighbors to the north since no
traffic is allowed behind the rear of the buildings.
9. The streetscape meets the ordinance requirements and
the greenbelt exceeds the ordinance requirements by providing evergreens every
15 feet rather than 20 feet.
The
following is a summary detailing site plan elements.
a. Initially the special use permit for daycare facility
was approved with a parking waiver of 25% permitted in Sec. 26.9(K). The new plan shows parking for the daycare to
consist of 27 spaces, a reduction of 9 from the 36 that were approved with the
waiver for the special use permit. This
is a 43.75% reduction from the requirement.
However, more parking is provided to the east as part of the PUD and
these spaces are accessible to the daycare facility via the sidewalk provided
along the parking lot. The hours of the
operations in Buildings B and C may not be the same as the early drop-off times
for the children at the daycare and the pickup times are staggered. The plan notes that less parking is provided
than would be required for retail uses for building B. For Building B, 63 spaces would be required
for a retail use and 52 are provided, a 17.46% reduction. For Building C, 50 spaces would be required
for a retail use and 52 are provided, two more than required. The parking calculations are based on the more
intense use of retail. The uses may be
any within the MHR district and the OS district. Less parking may be required for an office
use and hours of operation of the business may vary. It appears as though parking may be
sufficient. If the Planning Commission
determines that the number of parking spaces is not sufficient, a condition of
approval could be added stipulating that unless a minimum of 75% of a use’s
parking is not provided, the use may not go into the tenant space in the
buildings. The Planning Commission should determine if the number of parking
spaces is acceptable.
b. A Storm
Water Drain Permit (written approval from the Ottawa County Drain
Commissioner’s Office) is required at the time a building permit application is
submitted for each of the three buildings.
c. The plan shows less playground area than required by
the ordinance. The ordinance requires
150 square feet for each of the 168 children, for a total requirement of 25,200
square feet and 12,590 square feet are provided, a reduction of about
half. However, at the previous meetings,
the applicant indicated that this smaller amount would meet the needs of the
facility and it was found that the smaller playground would be looked favorably
upon by the neighborhood since the major concern of the neighbors was noise
from the playground. The playground is
now located closer to the building and an open space exists between the
playground and the property line to the north.
The Planning Commission should
determine if this is acceptable.
d. The facility
must comply with State licensing requirements.
The
Planning Commission should determine the following:
1. Is the number of parking spaces acceptable?
2. Is the smaller playground area acceptable?
3. Are the Qualifying Conditions in Sec. 22.2 met? See page 8.
The Planning Commission should determine:
a. if the acreage
is acceptable (less than 10 acres),
b. if the uses are acceptable and consistent with the
Master Plan,
c. if the sidewalk element is sufficient,
d. if the architectural element is acceptable,
e. if the circulation is good,
f. if the open space element is acceptable.
4. Are the
Standards for Approval (both preliminary and final) in Sec. 22.10 met? See page 11.
The Planning Commission should determine:
a. if the uses are
compatible with the surrounding uses,
b. if the PUD does not possess conditions or effects that
would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of the community,
c. if the PUD is consistent with the spirit of the PUD
ordinance and represents an opportunity for improved or innovative development
for the community that could not be achieved through conventional zoning,
5. The review shows that 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). The only element missing is the proposed deed
restrictions, covenants or similar legal instruments to be used within the PUD,
which could be a condition of approval.
See page 12.
6. Final PUD’s must meet Sec. 22.8(D). See page 18.
The only element missing is 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.
This could be added as a condition of approval.
7. Sec. 22.9 details the Planning Commission’s review of
the Final Development Plan. See page
20. This section appears to be met and
the Planning Commission should determine if they concur.
8. Sec. 22.10 details the Standards for Approval. These standards of approval are already noted
in the above review for Sec. 22.9.
9. Sec. 22.11 requires that a recorded PUD agreement must
be submitted and could be added as a condition of approval. All documents shall be executed and recorded
in the office of the Ottawa County Register of Deeds.
|
I D number |
PUD0802 |
|
|
|
Date |
6-18-08 |
|
|
|
|
Name |
Appletree
PUD |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Address |
2935, 2917,
2903, 2887 Port Sheldon |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Use |
Daycare,
MHR, OS and retail |
|
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 |
|
|||
|
Signs,
exterior lighting |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Curbing,
parking areas, dimensions of typical space, number of parking spaces |
|
a.
Less
parking |
|||||||
|
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 |
b.
Storm
Permit |
|||||
|
Existing,
proposed topo contours, max 5 ft intervals |
|
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Rec/common
areas, floodplain areas |
|
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Special Use
Standards, general and specific |
|
|
|
X |
c.
standards |
||||
|
Residential
development extra requirements-attached garages |
|
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.
The acreage
is 4.10 acres which is less than the ten acres required; however, the ordinance
states that the Township may consider a PUD with less acreage then 10 if it is
clear that the proposed PUD substantially provides for the intention of a PUD. Since the Planning Commission gave direction
in the past that the four sites should be developed as one, it appears as
though the Planning Commission MAY consider that the PUD is an appropriate tool
to provide flexibility in development and to restrict accesses to Port
Sheldon. The Planning Commission will
have to make this determination.
B.
Utilities: All PUD's shall be served by public water and
sanitary sewer facilities. Storm water
details must be coordinated with the county drain commission.
OK.
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.
Provided.
D. Master Plan: The proposed uses of the
PUD must be substantially consistent with Georgetown Township’s Master Plan for
the subject property.
Some of the
uses are permitted in the current Future Land Use Map designation (day care
center, medical clinic) and other uses are consistent with the OS designation
which is adjacent to the site (including office buildings, medical offices,
banks-not including drive-in facilities and personal service
establishments. The plan also notes
retail uses. It may be appropriate to
permit retail in buildings B and C if the hours are limited to 5:00 a.m. until
11:00 p.m. with no hours of operation from 11:00 p.m. until 5:00 a.m. to
prevent night-time operations that could disturb the neighbors living in the
condos. In addition, it may be
appropriate to allow all uses in the OS district in buildings B and C since the
property is adjacent to an OS property to the east (bank). This appears to be good transition uses
between the residential condos to the north and west, and the OS use of the
bank to the east. No parking or traffic
should be permitted to the north of the buildings and the 85 feet should be
maintained to prevent disturbing the residential neighborhood to the west and
north. The areas to the north of the buildings,
including no less than the 85 feet are shown as the rear yard setback and are
landscaped with a greenbelt to provide a buffer for the residential use to the
north.
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)
Sidewalks are shown adjacent to Port Sheldon and connecting
the daycare facility to the sidewalk along Port Sheldon. The
Planning Commission should determine if this qualifying condition is met.
F. Architecture: The PUD should provide
for coordinated and innovative visually appealing architectural styles,
building forms and building relationships.
Provided. Amenity-type elements have been provided
including bike racks and possible outdoor seating areas. The Planning Commission should determine
if this qualifying conditions is met.
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 circulation appears to have a good flow. Providing only one access point to Port
Sheldon is shown and this is a good example of good access management since the
driveway lines up with the one across Port Sheldon. This will prevent left-turn gridlock. In addition, this will limit conflict points
along Port Sheldon.
Is
cross-access available to the bank property to the east? One access from Port Sheldon has been
provided (as directed by the Planning Commission). Cross-access is provided to all the area in
the PUD. Loading and unloading is
limited to the area between buildings B and C which appears to be beneficial to
the neighbors to the north rather than to have vehicles access the area to the
north of the buildings.
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.
The plan notes that 12.9% of open
space has been provided which is less than the 20% minimum listed in the
ordinance. The Planning Commission
should determine if this qualifying condition is met. However,
the ordinance states “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 appears as though the PUD substantially
provides for the intent of a PUD as noted in the ordinance since this is the
form of development the Township has suggested for this site since 1997. The buildings and parking do not appear to be
an excessive size for the parcels and a large rear yard setback has been
provided which is a good buffer for the condos to the north.
Any use permitted by right or special land use in any
District may be approved within a PUD.
Since some
of the uses are permitted in the current Future Land Use Map designation (day care
center, medical clinic) and other uses are consistent with the OS designation
which is adjacent to the site (including office buildings, medical offices,
banks and personal service establishments).
The plan also lists retail as a use for Buildings B and C with the hours
of operation limited to 5:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m., which would permit a use
such as a bakery but not night-time operations that may disturb the neighbors
living in the condos at night time. In
addition, it may be appropriate to allow all uses in the OS district in
buildings B and C since the property is adjacent to an OS property to the east
(bank). This is a transition zoning
between the high density use of the residential condos to the north and west,
and the OS use of the bank to the east.
Any 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.
The
Planning Commission should make this determination.
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.
May be
determined to be met since the uses are limited to MHR and OS uses and retail
with hours of operation only from 5:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. Plus an 85 foot rear yard setback should be
maintained with a greenbelt to buffer the uses from the residential condos to
the north and west. Does the Planning
Commission concur that this standard is met?
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.
May be
determined to be met if uses are limited to MHR and OS uses and retail with
hours of operation only from 5:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. Plus an 85 foot rear yard setback should be
maintained with a greenbelt to buffer the uses from the residential condos to
the north and west.
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.
May be
determined to be met since additional landscaping was provided in the rear yard
and amenities such as outdoor open seating areas and bike racks are proposed. Architectural elements are noted on the plan
to be similar to and compatible with the daycare facility. In addition, as evidenced by the minute of
previous meeting minutes, the Planning Commission has been encouraging the
development of this property as a PUD since 1997.
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.)
PROVIDED.
Sec. 22.5 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.
PROVIDED.
b.
The relationship of the PUD to the
qualifying conditions listed in Section 22.2.
PROVIDED.
c.
Phases of development and approximate time
frames for each phase, including anticipated start and completion dates of
construction.
PROVIDED.
d.
Proposed deed restrictions, covenants,
or similar legal instruments to be used within the PUD.
NOT YET PROVIDED. Will be a condition of approval.
*************************************************************
Final development plan (PUD0802-01) Boverhof Builders/Tom Schimmel, (final
development plan)
B.
Final Development Plan Approval
Time Period – Dual or Multi Phased:
If the project includes phases, then the applicant must submit a request within
twelve (12) months of the Township Board’s approval of the preliminary plan and
PUD rezoning for final development plan approval of a phase. Following the final approval of the first PUD
phase, the applicant must submit each subsequent phase within twenty-four (24)
months of the approval date for the previous phase. If the applicant fails to submit the first
phase within twelve (12) months or each subsequent phase within the twenty-four
(24) month time period then the preliminary site plan incorporating all phases
not already approved for final site plan shall be determined to be invalid.
The PUD
will have multiple phases.
C.
Approval Time Extension:
Upon request to the Township Board and in accordance with Section 22.13,
A, 1 and 2, the time frames may be extended for a reasonable period of time.
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. Provided
2.
Payment
of a fee, as established by the Township Board.
Paid
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.
After the
review is completed for the preliminary plan, please check the proposed motion
and note any conditions. Then submit a
response to those conditions prior to the Planning Commission meeting on July
16 or at the time a building permit application is submitted or prior to the
time a final Zoning Compliance Certificate is issued for the first building
constructed (since a building permit has already been issued for the daycare
facility under the special use permit 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 / bikepaths, curbing,
parking areas (including the dimensions of a typical parking space and the
total number of parking spaces to be provided), and unloading areas. Street names must also be included.
PROVIDED.
c.
The
location of all proposed signs and lighting, including the sizes and types.
PROVIDED.
d.
The
location, type and size of all proposed landscaping and site amenities (art
work, fences, gateway features, etc.).
PROVIDED.
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.
5. The Planning Commission may request
from the applicant any additional
graphics or written
materials, prepared by a qualified person or persons, to
assist in determining the appropriateness
of the site plan. Such material
may include, but need not be
limited to, aerial photography, photographs;
traffic impacts; impact on
significant natural features and drainage; soil
tests; and other pertinent
information.
A.
The
Planning Commission shall review the final development plan in relation to its
conformance with the preliminary development plan and any conditions of the PUD
rezoning. If it is determined that the
final plan is not in substantial conformance with the preliminarily development
plan, the review process shall be conducted as a preliminary development plan
review, in accordance with the procedures of Sections 22.5 - 22.7 of this
Ordinance.
The final development plan for
phase 1 appears to be in conformance with the preliminary development plan.
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
appears to 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.
See the review under Sec. 22.10.
D.
The
Planning Commission shall prepare a record of its findings and shall approve,
approve with conditions, or deny the final development plan.
Minutes will be prepared.
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.
Regulatory modifications are shown
on the preliminary and final development plans.
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.
Regulatory modifications are
shown on the preliminary and final development plans.
(This is the same section that
was reviewed on page 10 for the preliminary development plan and now is
reviewed in relation to the final development plan for phase one.)
Any 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.
The Planning
Commission should make this determination.
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.
May be
determined to be met since the same use and basically the same plan was
previously recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and approved by
the Township Board as a special use permit.
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.
May be
determined to be met since the same use and basically the same plan was
previously recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and approved by the
Township Board as a special use permit.
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.
May be
determined to be met since the same use and basically the same plan was
previously recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and approved by
the Township Board as a special use permit.
In addition, additional landscaping was provided in the rear yard and,
as evidenced by the minute of previous meeting minutes, the Planning Commission
has been encouraging the development of this property as a PUD since 1997.
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.)
PROVIDED.
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: the recorded
PUD agreement shall be submitted at the time a building permit application is
submitted to the Township or prior to the issuance of a final Zoning Compliance
Certificate if a building permit has already been issued for the construction
of the building in this phase.
There
was discussion regarding whether the request meets the ordinance Standards for
Approval in Sec. 22.10.
South
stated that his only concern was with the noise from the daycare facility and
that the applicants had addressed the concern of noise with the addition of
more evergreen trees and a privacy fence.
VanDenBerg
and Stasiak both stated that the request meets the Standards for Approval.
Honderd
stated the following. The uses are
compatible with the surrounding area; however, the sizes of the buildings were
a bit dense with the big footprints shown.
This causes problems with the number of parking spaces and creates a sea
of asphalt. There also may be a problem
with snow removal and there was less open space.
Pearson
stated the following. The design is not
innovative with the block design of the buildings and the large amount of
asphalt. There is not much that could be
done since the plan already shows a reduction in the amount of parking. There is also a concern with snow removal.
Honderd
said that there was a large amount of greenspace in the back of the buildings,
but that did not help the appearance from the street. If parking could be put in the rear, the
appearance from the street would be improved.
However, they had to deal with the residential district to the north.
South
stated that with some office uses it was hard to determine the required number
of parking spaces.
Steve
Witte stated the following. It was
difficult to determine the uses because no tenants were lined up at this
time. In determining parking
calculations, the most intense use of retail for was used for parking
calculations. The Appletree Daycare was
really the only site with fewer parking spaces; however, a 25% waiver had
already been approved by the Planning Commission since the facility had
demonstrated that the reduced number met their needs. The other lots were within 5 to 10% of the
requirement for the most intense use of retail.
This was the best estimate; however, the use could be less intense and
require fewer parking spaces such as a bank, office or medical clinic.
South
noted that the loading and unloading area was between the buildings. He said that there was just enough parking.
VanDenBerg
asked if the Planning Commission would get a chance to review the final
development plan and was told yes. She
said that parking in the rear would not cause inconvenience for the neighbors
and that the Planning Commission was being overcautious.
Stasiak
said that he would like to see more creativity and an option was to have
parking in the rear. He said that Port
Sheldon was a busy street and the development should be more architecturally
appealing.
Huizinga
said that there could be some revisions and the Planning Commission would
revisit the plan. He said that he was
okay with the plan as presented for now.
The
chairman opened the public hearing.
Marv
Sytsma, 6730 Wentward Ct., said that he represented the Pine Grove condo
association and that parking in the rear would not be a huge problem for the
residents. He said that they were more
concerned with the privacy fence rather than a chain link fence for the daycare
facility.
Steve
Witte said that the previous approval from the Township for the daycare
facility included the requirement that a privacy fence was provided and it was
shown on the current plan along with a greenspace buffer with evergreen trees
every 15 feet. He said that a privacy
fence was not provided behind the other two buildings because a thick wooded
screening already existed and the fence would have to zigzag through the
trees. He said that no pavement had been
provided behind the buildings at the Township’s urging to be sensitive to the
residents in the condos.
There
was discussion regarding the remaining issues that had been left to the
Planning Commission’s discretion in the review.
VanDenBerg
asked if the number of parking spaces provided for the daycare was similar to
other Appletree facilities.
Steve
Witte said that the other Appletree Daycares had between 25 and 30 spaces which
seemed to be more than sufficient. He
noted that the final development plan showed additional spaces being
constructed in the adjacent site for the first phase in case an overflow is
needed.
VanDenBerg
said that she would not want to haul her child across a curb and parking
lot. She said that the employees could
park in the overflow area and that other options may serve the site better such
as using the rear area for parking since that would be more functional. She asked about the change in the size of the
playground.
Steve
Witte said that other facilities had comparable sizes ranging from 8,000 to
12,000 square feet.
Stasiak
said that he was okay with the plan since the final development plan would be
reviewed by the Planning Commission and there would be another opportunity for
revisions.
Honderd
said that there was a trade-off and that the front row of parking could be
eliminated for landscaping in the front replacing it with parking in the rear
of the site. He said that employees
could park in the rear.
Huizinga
said that he was okay with the elements of the plan.
Pearson
said that there was some flexibility with the design to put parking in the rear
since the hours of operation would be limited.
He said that he was okay with the smaller playground, the acreage and
the architectural elevations. He said
that it would be nice to eliminate some of the asphalt.
South
said that he was okay with the elements of the plan.
The
chairman opened the public hearing again.
Steve
Witte said that the 85 feet of rear yard setback had been maintained at the
suggestion of the Township staff and he recommended that any approvals allow
for flexibility to place parking in the rear yards since the Planning
Commission was not opposed to it.
Dan
Bovenhoff, applicant, said that they could get more creative if they had
parking in the back.
Honderd
said that he understood that the Township wanted the buffer in order to be
sensitive to the residents in the condos, but now it appeared that the
residents would be okay with parking in the back.
Marve
Sytsma stated that the residents of the condos also had no problem with
dumpsters being emptied between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m. on the site because theirs
were emptied at a similar time.
Honderd
said that he and the Planning Commission appreciated the work that the
applicants had done for this plan because this site has been in question for
many years.
Moved by Huizinga, seconded by Pearson,
to recommend to the Township Board to approve the
preliminary development Plan for (PUD0802) Boverhof Builders/Tom Schimmel, 5475
Settlers Pass, Kentwood and 2887 Port Sheldon, to have a Planned Unit
Development for a daycare facility, Office Services uses, medium/high density
uses and retail establishments with the hours of operation limited to 5:00 a.m.
until 11:00 p.m., under Chapter 22, on a parcels of land described as P.P. #
70-14-21-300-080, -018, -017, and -016, located at 2887, 2903, 2917 and 2935
Port Sheldon St., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, as shown on the
following documents:
1. Application/narrative dated
6/12/08;
2. Elevations dated 02-14-08;
3. Preliminary development plan dated
06/13/08;
4. and grading plan dated 06/13/08.
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.
A Storm Water
Drain Permit is submitted for each phase at the time a building permit
application is submitted or prior to the issuance of a final Zoning Compliance
Certificate for the first building that is constructed (if a building permit
has already been issued);
2.
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 or
prior to the issuance of a final Zoning Compliance Certificate for the first
building that is constructed;
3.
All parking, drive aisles and/or queuing must take
place at least 85 feet from the rear property line;
4.
The facility must comply with State licensing
requirements for the daycare facility.
Honderd
said that the size of the building footprints could be smaller and the green
area increased. He said that the site
should be redesigned with less asphalt in the front.
MOTION CARRIED.
Tom Shimmel,
applicant, thanked the Planning Commission for the approval because they had
been looking at developing this site since 1997.
The
Planning Commission determined that no written response was necessary, as per
Sec. 22.8(D)(3).
The
consensus of the Planning Commission was that they concurred with the review
that the standards of the ordinance have been met for the final development
plan.
Stasiak
asked about the phasing plan and if the applicants were aware of the time
requirements in the ordinance. It was
noted that the phasing plan was listed on the site plan as beginning now for
phase one and the next phases were market driven. It was also noted that the phases were required
to comply with the time frame listed in the ordinance.
Pearson
asked if there were any definite plans for a date for the development of
buildings B and C, and was told there were no plans at this time.
The
zoning administrator noted that the plan listed a possibility that a
photographic studio would occupy the existing house on site C.
It
was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the application met the
requirements of the ordinance for a final development plan.
Moved by Stasiak, seconded by South, to
approve the final development plan for (PUD0802)
Boverhof Builders/Tom Schimmel, 5475 Settlers Pass, Kentwood and 2887 Port
Sheldon, to have a Planned Unit Development for a daycare facility for phase
one, under Chapter 22, on a parcels of land described as P.P. #
70-14-21-300-017, and -016, located at 2917 and 2935 Port Sheldon St.,
Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, as shown on the following
documents:
1. Application/narrative dated
6/12/08;
2. Elevations dated 02-14-08;
3. Final development plan dated
06/13/08;
4. and grading plan dated 06/13/08.
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 or
prior to the issuance of a final Zoning Compliance Certificate for the first
building that is constructed (if a building permit has already been issued);
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 or prior to the issuance of a final Zoning
Compliance Certificate for the first building that is constructed;
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 or prior to the issuance of a final Zoning Compliance Certificate for the
first building that is constructed;
6. The PUD
agreement MUST contain language regarding the perpetuity of the open space;
7.
The facility must comply with State licensing
requirements.
MOTION CARRIED.
#080716-04 - Other Business-Signs-electronic messages (sample ordinances) (for review only-no public
hearing
notice was published)
The Planning Commission directed that language be
drafted for review at the next Planning Commission meeting for a revision to
the sign ordinance to provide for the standards for flashing and scrolling
signs to be less restrictive.
#080716-05– Adjournment
The
chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m.