Minutes of the
regular meeting of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission, held Wednesday,
October 15, 2008
Meeting called to order by
Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Honderd, South, Huizinga, Pearson,
Stasiak, Blouw, VanDenBerg
Absent: none
#081015-01 - Agenda for October 15, 2008
Moved by Del
South, seconded by Rebecca VanDenBerg, to approve the agenda for October 15,
2008 as presented.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#081015-02 - Minutes of
the September 3, 2008 regular
meeting
Moved
by Stasiak, seconded by Blouw, to approve the minutes as presented.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#081015-03 – Final Development Plan (PUD0604-03) 36th
Ave./Baldwin PUD
(final development
plan, parcel B plan, elevations,
dumpster enclosure, application, request for additional parking, property owner’s permission, traffic study)
Don
DeGroot, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the
request. Dan Colella, Wesco Inc., was
also present.
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows.
REQUEST
The
request is for final development approval for phase 2 of the Baldwin/36th
Ave. PUD for Wesco Service Station.
SUMMARY
1. The phases as shown on the plan are correct; however, the
note depicting phase one should have the up/down marks and phase two should
have the dashed lines. They are
inverted.
2. Parking calculations are provided as follows for the
convenience store: 33 spaces are the minimum required and 49 are provided. Sec.
26.9(L) limits the number of spaces to a maximum of 20% more than required. The
plan shows about 48% more than required. The applicant submitted an explanation as to
why they determined the extra spaces are needed. The Planning Commission will
have to determine if this is acceptable. An ample amount of landscaping has been
provided on three sides of the parcel and there may not be a negative impact
from the additional parking spaces.
3.
According to
the ordinance, three wall signs are permitted (since there is a front yard on
the north, east and west sides) and the three signs could be multiplied by two
into six signs with a total of 75% or less of the allowed square footage (as
allowed by the ordinance). A table on the Elevation Sheet details how
the 75% of the allowed square footage was divided into SEVEN signs (one more
than the ordinance allows).
While the overall square footage is less than the maximum allowed (75% =
261 permitted and 258 shown), there
is one more sign than what is allowed.
Since the ordinance allows flexible zoning for a PUD, the Planning Commission will have to
determine if it is acceptable to have the additional sign. So far, none of the other buildings in the
PUD have more wall signs than are permitted by the ordinance.
4.
The final
development plan for phase 2 appears to be in conformance with the preliminary
development plan other than the following. The size of the building has increased and
more parking spaces are shown.
Landscaping along the southern property line was removed. The layout has also been shifted 90 degrees
counterclockwise. It appears to be
acceptable because Sec. 22.5(A)(1) states that the preliminary plan should show
the location of proposed structures, but realizing that this is preliminary,
dimensions were not required. The
Planning Commission should determine if this is acceptable.
5.
Sec. 22.10
contains the standards for approval for both the preliminary and final
development plans. One of the standards is that the PUD complies
with all qualifying conditions of Sec. 22.2.
The Planning Commission will have to make this determination after
reviewing the following elements:
a.
Acreage requirement. The acreage was approved with the preliminary
plan.
b.
Utilities. Met and a Storm Water Drain Permit was submitted
from the Drain Commissioner’s Office.
c.
Land ownership. The land owner signed a letter granting
permission for the applicant to submit
the plan and is, therefore, a part of this application.
d.
Master Plan. The Planning Commission determined that this
standard was met with the preliminary plan approval.
e.
Pedestrian. The Planning Commission determined that this
standard was met with the preliminary plan approval.
f.
Architecture. Elevations were provided and the Planning
Commission will have to determine if the architecture is acceptable.
g.
Traffic. Although the overall circulation was approved
with the preliminary plan, the Planning Commission should determine if the
circulation is acceptable now since the layout has changed, and the building
size and number of parking spaces have increased.
h.
Open space requirement. This was determined to be met with the
preliminary PUD approval.
6.
Sec. 22.10(D) contains the standards for approval for both the
preliminary and final development plan. One of the standards is: 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. The Planning
Commission will have to make this determination.
7.
A
condition of approval must be added that the following is submitted to the
Township at the time a building permit application is submitted in order to
meet ordinance requirements: 1) documentation regarding deed restrictions, covenants or
similar legal instruments to be used within the PUD and documentation that an
association will maintain the common areas; and 2) a recorded PUD agreement as
per Sec. 22.11.
********************************************************************************
Details of the review:
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 has
multiple phases and this is within the time frame required.
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.
Submitted.
2.
Payment
of a fee, as established by the Township Board.
Submitted.
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.
The Township
Board approved the preliminary PUD plan with the following conditions. Conditions a, b, c and d were addressed on
the plan. For condition e(2), Road and
Drain Commission approvals were submitted.
For conditions e(1) and (3) a condition of approval must be added
that the following is submitted to the Township at the time a building permit
application is submitted; 1) documentation regarding deed restrictions, covenants or
similar legal instruments to be used within the PUD and documentation that an
association will maintain the common areas; and 2) a recorded PUD agreement as
per Sec. 22.11.
Township Board conditions of
approval for the preliminary PUD:
a.
Permitted
uses would be allowed as per the narrative dated July 11, 2006, but would not
include vehicle repair, drive-in restaurants or truck rental;
b.
A total of
4 (2 entry and one for the office and one for the convenience store/gas
station) ground mounted signs would be permitted (two development signs are
shown on the plan) with setbacks for all ground mounted signs according to the
ordinance requirements (75 feet from the centerline of either Baldwin or 36th
Ave.), with a maximum of 50 square feet in area per side and a maximum of 4
feet in height (wall signs to meet ordinances);
c.
A berm is added along
Baldwin, adjusted to shield headlights from the residential area;
d.
The
convenience store/gas station hours of operation are 5 am to 1:00 am;
e.
The
following are to be submitted to the Township:
1. Documentation regarding deed restrictions,
covenants or similar legal instruments to be used within the PUD and documentation
that an association will maintain the common areas to be submitted at the time
of final development application submittal;
2. Approvals from the Ottawa County Road and Drain
Commissions at the time of final development application submittal; and
3. A recorded PUD agreement at the time of building
permit application submittal.
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. Dimensions of the building and fuel area are
shown, along with details about the dumpster enclosures.
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. Parking calculations are provided as follows:
1 per each service vehicle shown adjacent to the pumps, plus 1 for each 200
feet of GFA. For the convenience store,
33 spaces are required and 49 are provided.
Sec. 26.9(L) limits the number of spaces to a maximum of 20% more
than required. The plan shows about 48%
more than required. The Planning
Commission will have to determine if this is acceptable. The dimension of the sidewalk along 36th
Ave. was shown, along with vehicle queuing areas.
c.
The
location of all proposed signs and lighting, including the sizes and types.
Provided. Sign details are provided for the ground
mounted freestanding sign which complies with the preliminary plan
approval, including height and area in square feet. Lighting details were provided, including a
note that the lights will be downward directing and will be shielded to avoid
the shedding on light onto adjacent properties.
Maximum light height is 25 ft.
Wall sign
details have also been provided. Sec.
25.6(C) allows two wall signs in place of one if the total square footage is
not more than 75% of what is allowed for the one. The building has frontage on three streets:
36th Ave. to the east; Black Star Street (private street) to the
north; and Black Star Street (private street) to the west.
According to
the ordinance, the three permitted signs could be divided into six signs with
75% or less of the allowed square footage.
A table on the Elevation Sheet details how the 75% of the allowed
square footage was divided into seven signs (one more than the ordinance
allows). While the overall square
footage is less than the maximum allowed (75% = 261 permitted and 258 shown),
there is one more sign than what is allowed.
Since the ordinance allows flexible zoning for a PUD, the Planning
Commission will have to determine if that is acceptable.
d.
The
location, type and size of all proposed landscaping and site amenities (art
work, fences, gateway features, etc.).
Provided. Landscaping calculations were provided as
follows: to the east 1 per each 25 feet of frontage on 36th Ave. (260.95/25
= 11 trees required) and 11 deciduous are shown which meets the ordinance
requirements. Calculations for the north
were provided since the north is considered a front yard. To the north the width is 288.60/25 = 12
trees required and a maximum of 1/3 may be evergreen. The rest (8) are deciduous. The west frontage is 260/25 and could be
considered a front yard or a yard with greenbelt requirements. The amount of trees shown exceeds the number
shown on the approved preliminary plan.
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 in the
overall PUD.
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 2 appears to be in conformance with the preliminary development plan
other than the following. The size of
the building has increased and more parking spaces are shown. Landscaping along the southern property line
was removed. The layout has also been
shifted 90 degrees counterclockwise. It
appears to be acceptable because Sec. 22.5(A)(1) states that the preliminary
plan should show the location of proposed structures, but realizing that this
is preliminary, dimensions were not required.
The Planning Commission should determine if this is acceptable.
A large
amount of additional parking spaces are shown in addition to those approved
with the preliminary plan. For the
convenience store, 33 parking spaces are required and 49 are provided. Sec. 26.9(L) limits the number of spaces to a
maximum of 20% more than required. The
plan shows about 48% more than required.
The Planning Commission will have to determine if this is acceptable (note the applicant’s reasons).
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, then the proposed phasing schedule shall show
how the development of these uses will be balanced in the phased
development schedule.
Appears to be met.
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
below.
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.
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.
As per the review for the preliminary plan, the
Planning Commission will have to make this determination.
1.
Acreage requirement. The acreage was approved with the preliminary
plan.
2.
Utilities. Met and a Storm Water Drain Permit was
submitted from the Drain Commissioner’s Office.
3.
Land ownership. The land owner submitted a letter.
4.
Master Plan. The Planning Commission determined that this
standard was met with the preliminary plan approval.
5.
Pedestrian. The Planning Commission determined that this
standard was met with the preliminary plan approval.
6.
Architecture. Elevations were provided and the Planning
Commission will have to determine if the architecture is acceptable.
7.
Traffic. Although the overall circulation was approved
with the preliminary plan, the Planning Commission should determine if the
circulation is acceptable now since the layout has changed and the building and
number of parking spaces have increased.
8.
Open space requirement. This was determined to be met with the
preliminary PUD approval.
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.
The Planning Commission determined that this standard was met when
approval was granted for the preliminary plan.
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.
The Planning Commission determined that this standard was met when
approval was granted for the preliminary plan.
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.
The Planning Commission will have to make this determination.
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.)
See the review for Sec. 22.8D above.
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 will be that the recorded PUD agreement will be required
to be submitted at the time a building permit application is submitted to the
Township.
Honderd
asked for the reason the extra parking was requested.
Dan
Colella stated the following. Wesco
identifies the market and determines the store and customers. To handle the anticipated transactions they
proposed the additional parking spaces in order to have an adequate amount of
parking and to make the parking safe for customers. Customers could include delivery trucks,
buses, and vehicles towing boats and trailers.
They need the extra space. They
have made the spaces ten feet wide which is one foot wider than the nine feet
required in the ordinance in order to help customers to maneuver.
South
said that he would rather see more parking spaces than less.
VanDenBerg
said that it seemed logical to provide the extra spaces.
Stasiak
said that the extra spaces were okay.
Honderd
expressed a concern for loitering. He
said that they could bank the extra spaces and provide landscaping now; then have
the spaces available they were needed later.
Huizinga
and Blouw said that the extra spaces were acceptable.
Pearson
said that there was a lot of asphalt and asked if it was possible to landscape
along the retaining wall and provide more landscaping along the back side.
There
was discussion regarding the signs and it was noted that the Township had
consistently interpreted canopy signs to be wall signs. The applicant detailed the location of the
signs and indicated that the number and location of signs were typical.
The
zoning administrator explained the ordinance allows one and a half times the
lineal frontage for a wall sign on each street frontage, and the Township took
a lenient interpretation that the property had frontage on three streets, 36th
Ave. and two interior private streets.
She said that the ordinance also allows the three wall signs to be
divided into six signs as long as the total square footage of all six signs was
75% or less of the allowable square footage.
She said that plan showed seven signs, one more than allowed, with a
total square footage under what was permitted.
Stasiak
said that he would like to see the ordinance limit of six signs upheld because
he questioned the necessity of that number of signs since some would be on
interior streets anyway. He said that
most people know what a gas station looks like and it would be readily
identifiable anyway. He also said that
they should be sensitive to the condos that were to be built as part of the
development and they should do whatever they could to help make those condos
marketable.
When
questioned as to which sign would be eliminated, the applicant indicated the
canopy sign that faces the interior street.
Huizinga
said that seven was acceptable.
Pearson
and South said that the plan should stick to the ordinance and only have six
signs.
There
was discussion regarding the proposed architecture of the building. The applicant stated the following. There were peaked entrances and they like to
keep the light color because of heat absorption. There were fifty stores throughout Michigan
that were white and they wanted to keep the same image. Although there was a certain expectation for
the design work for being involved with a PUD, but there should be variety and
the proposal was not objectionable.
Stasiak
stated the following. The proposed
building should be more upscale than a conventional store front since it is a
part of a PUD. The proposed architecture
was not consistent or similar to the rest of the buildings. He wanted to see some other elements like
brick work or different colors.
Huizinga
said that white goes with anything.
Blouw
stated that it was not necessarily the colors as much as uniformity in
materials and there should be more continuity within the development, though he
did understand the value of variety.
Dan
Colella said that the bottom below the window could be split fact block and
above could be smooth face block.
Stasiak
said that there should be brick like the other buildings and there should be a
darker color to coordinate with the other buildings.
Dan
Colella said that they could have darker block on the bottom and transition to
a lighter color from the bottom up.
Stasiak
asked if the rooftop and peaks were standard colors.
Pearson
said that this was a typical Wesco structure.
Dan
Colella said that the company has grown and acquired more buildings which are
remodeled to a version of what is shown, with the same color pallet, peaks and
square footage. He said that they plan
to have a full service bakery where the products are prepared and have a food
service.
Pearson
asked if the color was typical and the applicant answered yes.
Pearson
said that the hopes were that the structure would be nice looking with creative
architecture, especially since it is close to a residential area and the
condos. He said that it should fit and
blend with a residential feel with bricking or a peaked roof. He said that he would love to see a more
creative approach. He questioned the
distance from the doorway to the edge of the parking lot and wanted to know if
there was enough space for pedestrians to walk without going onto the parking
lot.
Dan
Colella said that this was the size of a typical sidewalk and the traffic study
did a nice job describing traffic flow.
Pearson
asked f the pillars were too large for a right turn.
Dan
Colella said that there was a minimum of a three foot clearance.
Pearson
said that the pedestrian traffic should be addressed because every convenience
store poses a fundamental issue getting into the store.
South
said that he has no problem with what is proposed because it has to be
remembered that this is a gas station and convenience store. He said that he can’t say that he wants fancy
architecture and colors. He said that if
there were more entrances, there would be more traffic control issues. He said that shrubs to the south depend on
what is developed on parcel C and this is the back yard.
VanDenBerg
said that although she appreciates the comments, the proposal is doable as
presented.
The
Planning Commission reviewed the traffic study that was presented and the
conclusion of the study was that the new proposed circulation was an
improvement over the proposal for the preliminary PUD because there would be an
easier flow of traffic that had fewer conflicts with pedestrians accessing the
convenience store.
Honderd
said that the new proposal for traffic circulation within the site made sense
and he just wanted to be sure that parcel C does not have a problem with
vehicles trying to access the site.
Don
DeGroot explained the traffic study and noted that there would be less car and
pedestrian conflicts with a more convenient circle around. He said that the site is designed much more
pedestrian friendly and with conflicts eliminated. He said that this is an improvement and there
is adequate access to the bank site.
Honderd
stated that he was the one that questioned the access and the traffic study
gave the Planning Commission more strength in their decision. He was concerned that the bank site may want
to have a right-in and right-out access to a main street, but he said that he
can see that this plan is safer for pedestrian traffic.
Don
DeGroot showed where a curb cut had existed on 36th Ave., but had
been eliminated as per part of the PUD approval.
It
was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the traffic circulation was
acceptable.
Stasiak
asked if any consideration had been given to another curb cut to the west which
would eliminate some parking places.
Don
DeGroot said that the main reason not to have a curb cut to the west is for the
physical reason due to the six or seven foot grade change and they discourage
too many opportunities for access approaches.
He said that there are already adequate accesses in place, including the
one on the bank site, and from a physical standpoint an access to the west
would not work.
Stasiak
asked if they could be fairly accommodating with changing the elevations or if
the cost would be prohibitive.
Dan
Colella said that a structure is needed behind masonry and would increase the
cost.
Stasiak
asked if it put the project out of reach.
Dan
Colella said that there is not a lot of construction that isn’t already
strained and they are struggling with the mortgage with the numbers as
currently submitted.
Stasiak
said that he understands that this is a gas station; however, it is still a
part of the PUD and this may contribute to how saleable and marketable the
condos in the back will be. He said that
the elevations need to be tempered down.
Dan
Colella said that the two existing buildings were speculative and banks want
economy. He said that some banks are
very attractive. He asked for consideration
for the proto type.
Honderd
said that brick would cost substantially more and a different color would not
be a much higher cost.
Dan
Colella said that it could be more attractive with a darker colored base.
Honderd
said that the Planning Commission should consider a longer range view and the
site could be bought out and replaced with a different color.
Moved by Stasiak, seconded by
VanDenBerg, to approve the final development plan (PUD0604-03) 36th
Ave./Baldwin PUD for Wesco Service Station as shown on
the following documents:
1. Application dated 9/15/08;
2. Final development plan dated
9/16/08;
3. Parcel B Wesco site plan dated
9/16/08; and
4. Dumpster enclosure plan.
Based on the findings that:
1. The site
design meets the intention of the ordinance;
2. The
additional parking spaces are acceptable;
3. The seven
signs as shown on the elevation plan are not acceptable and should be reduced to six by eliminating the
north-facing canopy sign;
4. Architectural
features as shown on the elevation plan are not acceptable and the applicant
should return to the Planning Commission with revised elevations for review and
action;
5. Traffic
circulations as shown on the overall plan and the parcel B plan are acceptable;
6. The
qualifying conditions in Sec. 22.2 are met;
7.
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;
8.
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;
9.
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;
10. The proposed PUD meets all the site plan requirements of Chapter 22
including Section 22.8, D and Section 22.10; and
11. 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 notes on
the PUD about phasing are revised to note that phase 1 includes approximately
the western 2/3rds of the site and phase 2 is parcel b as shown on the “Overall
PUD site plan;”
2. The proposed deed restrictions, covenants, or similar legal
instruments to be used within the PUD as per Sec. 22.5(D)(d) are submitted at
the time a building permit application is submitted to the Township;
3. All signs
meet ordinance requirements other than for elements shown on the approved PUD plan
and there can be a maximum of six signs and the seventh sign proposed must be
eliminated;
4. A recorded
PUD agreement (according to Sec. 22.11) is submitted at the time a building
permit application is submitted to the Township; and
5. Current elevations dated 9/16/08 are not acceptable and
must be revised to be more compatible with the PUD, and submitted to the
Township for action by the Planning Commission.
MOTION CARRIED.
#081015-04 - Ordinance Amendment Sec. 22.13 (A)-Time Limit for Approved PUD District
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows.
REQUEST
With motion #080609-10, the Township Board asked the
Planning Commission to review a Zoning Ordinance amendment to extend the time
frame for Planned Unit Development approval.
With motion #080618-05, the Planning Commission initiated a Zoning
Ordinance amendment to extend the time frame for Planned Unit Development
approval.
SUMMARY
The
ordinance amendment would give the Township Board the authority to grant two
extensions (each one for up to twelve additional months) for the time frame
under which the development must be under construction.
The
chairman opened the public hearing. No
one present made public comments. The
chairman closed the public hearing.
The
consensus of the Planning Commission was that the ordinance amendment made
sense.
Moved by VanDenBerg, seconded by South,
to recommend to the Township Board to approve a Zoning Ordinance amendment to
Sec. 22.13 as follows:
Sec. 22.13 Time Limit for
Approved PUD District
Each development shall be
under construction within twelve (12) months after the date of approval of the
PUD final development plan, except as noted in this Section.
A.
The Township
Board may grant two extensions, each
one (1) extension of up to an additional twelve (12) month period if the
applicant applies for such extension prior to the date of the expiration of the
PUD or PUD phase and provided that:
1.
The applicant
presents reasonable evidence that said development has encountered unforeseen
difficulties beyond the control of the applicant; and
2. The PUD requirements and
standards, including those of the Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan that are
reasonably related to said development have not changed.
MOTION CARRIED.
#081015-05 –
Ordinance Amendment Sec. 20.4 AD-Special use standards for vehicle service
stations
The zoning administrator presented a review as
follows.
REQUEST
With motion #080728-09, the Township Board asked the Planning
Commission to review a Zoning Ordinance amendment to eliminate the special use
standard that a gas station must be located at least 300 feet from an entrance
to a school. With motion #080903-05, the Planning Commission initiated a
Zoning Ordinance amendment to eliminate the special use standard.
SUMMARY
The
Zoning Ordinance amendment would eliminate the special land use standard that
requires a gas station to be located at least 300 feet from an entrance to a
school.
The
chairman opened the public hearing. No
one present made public comments. The
chairman closed the public hearing.
It
was noted that many gas stations currently exist within 300 feet from an
entrance to a school with no detrimental impacts including the one just
approved and that it made sense to eliminate the special use standard.
Moved by Blouw, seconded by South, to
approve a Zoning Ordinance amendment to Sec. 20.4(AD) to eliminate standard
(13) as follows:
Sec. 20.4 Special Land Uses
(AD) Vehicle service stations and repair.
(1) Minimum
lot area shall be 15,000 square feet.
(2) Minimum
lot width shall be one hundred (100) feet.
(3) All
buildings, structures, and equipment shall be located not less than fifty (50)
feet from any right-of-way line and not less than fifty (50) feet from any side
or rear lot line abutting residentially zoned property.
(4) Ingress
and egress drives shall be designed in accordance with the standards of the
Ottawa County Road Commission.
(5) No more
than one (1) curb opening shall be permitted for every seventy-five (75) feet
of frontage (or major fraction thereof) along any street, with a maximum of two
per arterial street, and one for any other street.
(6) No drive
or curb opening shall be located nearer than seventy-five (75) feet to any
intersection nor more than twenty-five (25) feet to any adjacent residential
property line. No drive shall be located
nearer than fifty (50) feet, as measured along the property line, to any other
driveway. A driveway shall not be
permitted where, in the opinion of the Township Board, it may produce a safety hazard to adjacent pedestrian
or vehicular traffic.
(7) A raised
curb of six (6) inches in height shall be constructed along the perimeter of
all paved and landscaped areas.
(8) All areas
not paved or occupied by buildings or structures shall be landscaped.
(9) All
lubrication equipment, hydraulic hoists, and pits shall be enclosed entirely
within a building. All gasoline pumps
shall be located not less than fifty (50) feet from any lot line, and shall be
arranged so that motor vehicles shall not be supplied with gasoline or serviced
while parked upon or over-hanging any public sidewalk, street or right-of-way.
(10) When the
site adjoins residentially zoned property, a greenbelt or sight-obscuring fence
shall be provided in accordance with Section 3.11.
(11) In the HS
and I Districts, all outside storage areas for trash, used tires, auto parts
and similar items shall be enclosed by a six (6) foot sight-obscuring wall or
fence. No such outside storage area
shall exceed an area of two hundred (200) sq. ft. Outside parking of disabled, wrecked, or
partially dismantled vehicles not to exceed a maximum of five (5) such vehicles
shall not be permitted for a period exceeding ten (10) days. No such outdoor storage areas or parking of
disabled, wrecked, or partially dismantled vehicles shall be permitted in the
CS district. (revised
12-29-1998)
(12) The rental
of trucks, trailers, and any other vehicles on the premises is expressly
prohibited without specific approval by the Township Board. If such use is
permitted, proper screening, landscaping, and additional parking area shall be
provided in accordance with the requirements set forth by the Township Board.
(13) The lot shall be located such that it is at
least three hundred (300) feet from an entrance or exit to any property on
which is situated a public library, public or private school, playground,
playfield, park, church or hospital.
(14) All
exterior lighting, including signs, shall be erected and hooded so as to shield
the glare of such lights from view by adjacent property.
(15) On a
corner lot, both street frontage sides shall be subject to all the applicable
front yard provisions of this Ordinance.
(16) Where
applicable, vehicle queuing space shall be provided in front of each service
bay for at least two (2) vehicles.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#081015-06– Adjournment
The
chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.