Minutes of the
regular meeting of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission, held Wednesday,
December 17, 2008
Meeting called to order by
Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Honderd, South, Huizinga, Stasiak,
Blouw, VanDenBerg, Pearson
Absent: none
#081217-01 - Agenda for December 17, 2008
Moved by
Stasiak, seconded by VanDenBerg, to approve the agenda for December 17, 2008 as
presented.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#081217-02 - Minutes of
the regular November 19, 2008 meeting
Moved
by South, seconded by Blouw, to approve the minutes as presented.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#081217-03 – (ST0809)
Luurtsema Sales, Inc., 6672 Center Industrial Drive (site plan,
application,
request for
additional parking and for variance for landscaping requirement, note stating the site is not affected by a floodplain)
Doug
Stalsonburg, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the
request. He said that Joel Neitzke,
Luurtsema Sales, Inc., was also present.
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows:
REQUEST
(ST0809) Luurtsema Sales Inc., 6672 Center Industrial Dr.,
is requesting site plan approval for a 50 by 55 foot addition to an existing
building for the use of warehousing (as per the applicant) which is permitted
in the Industrial district under Sec. 17.2(C).
The addition meets the 20 foot side yard setback.
SUMMARY
a. Setbacks are shown as required: front on Center
Industrial Dr.-45 feet; front on Pine Ridge Dr.-45 feet (for both fronts, footnote r requires that for a depth of
30 feet the front yard shall be used for landscaping and not parking (for
required landscaping see note c. below) (it appears from the wording
that parking would be allowed in the following 15 feet); side-20 feet; and rear
-40 feet. Lot coverage is (building area
of 47,270 SF on a lot with an area of 358,692 SF) 13.2% and meets the ordinance.
b. The number of parking spaces exceeds the required
amount by over 50% and is nonconforming since Sec. 26.9(L) states that any
amounts that exceed 20% are only permitted by a finding by the Planning
Commission that the additional spaces are needed. The
applicant provided a narrative detailing why the additional spaces are needed
and the Planning Commission has an opportunity to provide the finding which
would eliminate the non-conforming status for the number of spaces.
c.
Landscaping is
required in Sec. 3.11 as follows: Pine Ridge Dr.-(600 feet/25 feet) 24 trees
required and up to 1/3 may be evergreen and the rest must be a minimum of 2
inch caliper deciduous trees; Center Industrial Dr. – (698/25) 24 trees
required and up to 1/3 may be evergreen and the rest must be a minimum of 2
inch caliper deciduous trees. Additional
evergreens are shown on both streets and do not count towards the requirement
for the number of deciduous trees. On Pine Ridge Dr. 16 deciduous trees are
needed to meet the ordinance (only 8 are provided) and on Center
Industrial Dr. 13 deciduous trees are needed to meet the ordinance (13 are
provided). Further, note the attached
minutes of the October 18, 2000 Planning Commission minutes and the October 23,
2000 Township Board meeting that show a condition of site plan approval and
special use approval was stipulated that front yard landscaping be provided as
per the ordinance. The landscaping per
the ordinance was to have been installed in 2000. Even if the construction does not take place
on the site at this time, the landscaping would be required to be installed
(probably within a 6 to 7 month period due to the season). Therefore,
an additional 8 deciduous trees on Pine Ridge are required. As per Sec. 3.11(B)(5), they may be clustered. The
Planning Commission does NOT have the authority to waive the requirement
of the Zoning Ordinance and does NOT have the authority to grant a
variance. Further, the Planning
Commission does NOT have the authority to waive a requirement placed by
the Township Board as a condition of approval for a special use permit. The applicant would have to seek a variance
from the ZBA and request the Township Board to remove the condition of approval
in order to have fewer trees than required.
d.
A Storm Water
Drain permit (written approval) from the Ottawa County Drain Commissioner’s
office will be required at the time a building permit is submitted.
e.
A note was
provided indicating that the site is not affected by a floodplain.
HISTORY
Site plans were approved for the site in 1987, 1990,
1995, 1997 and 2000. Special use
approval was granted in 2000 for outdoor storage. A variance was granted in 1995 for an area to
be gravel rather than paved. However,
the area has since been paved.
An excerpt of the September 3, 1997
Planning Commission meeting minutes:
#970903-02
- (ST9723) Luurtsema Sales-6672 Center
Industrial Dr.
The applicant has removed the lot that had been
granted a variance and paved the whole parking lot. Water will be directed into
the drainage ditch. Landscape screening has been provided and the dumpster is
shown as moved. The back 20 ft. parking area should have an additional 10 ft.
Gravel in the SE corner is existing non-conforming and should be paved. The NW
corner will be a field that will be kept mowed. It was questioned if trees and
landscaping should be provided along the street.
Moved by Jansma, seconded by Noe, to take the item
off the table.
MOTION CARRIED.
Moved by Noe, seconded by Jansma, to approve the
site plan dated revised 8-19-97, with the condition that there be a 30 foot
setback on Pine Ridge and all existing gravel be paved.
MOTION
CARRIED.
An excerpt
of the September 20, 2000 Planning Commission meeting minutes:
#000920-06
- Site Plan -(ST0012) Luurtsema Sales-6672
Center Industrial Dr. (warehouse use)
Doug Stalsonburg, Exxel Engineering, represented the
applicant and presented the request. The proposal is to develop additional
parking and greenhouse space. Storage racks are located on the southeast end of
the property and temporary storage units are located on the north side of the
property in the front yard. A special use permit is required for outdoor
storage with any permitted use.
It was noted that additional screening should be
provided along Pine Ridge Dr. up to the new drive. Screening should also extend
along the west edge of the new parking area up on the slope. Additional
landscaping is needed in the first 30 feet of the entire front yard on both
sides to meet the requirements of Sec. 24.4(R) and must be installed within 6
months.
Side setbacks were extended to 30 feet by narrowing
the island on the south side and shortening the trailer parking spaces to 53
feet. The dumpster was moved to the north and placed on a concrete slap and
enclosed.
The chairman opened the floor to public comments. No
one was present to speak on this topic. The chairman closed the floor to public
comments.
Moved by Holtvluwer, seconded by Noe, to approve the
site plan dated September 13, 2000, as submitted for Luurtsema Sales new
greenhouse and additional parking, with the following conditions: that the
applicant provide additional screening along the Pine Ridge Dr.; provide additional landscaping in the front yard;
remove the temporary storage buildings on the north side of the property; and
apply for a special land use permit for the existing outdoor storage.
MOTION
CARRIED.
An excerpt
of the October 18, 2000 Planning Commission meeting minutes:
#001018-06
- Special Use Permit (SUP0019)Luurtsema Sales, Inc., 6672 Center Industrial Dr.
Joel Lanksy, Luurtsema Sales, represented the
applicant and presented the request.
The revised plan provides the required screening of Sec.
24.4(R) along the south and east property lines where the outdoor storage will
be located. However, the plan does not show the required 30-foot section of
landscaping in the front yard on the west side (Sect. 24.4(R)) extending to the
north along Center Industrial Drive.
A letter was submitted in favor of the proposal
The chairman opened the public hearing. No one was
present to speak on this topic. The chairman closed the public hearing.
Moved by Jansma, seconded by Noe, to recommend to
the Township Board approval of Special Use Permit (SUP0019) Luurtsema Sales,
Inc., 6672 Center Industrial Dr., to have outdoor storage in connection with
any permitted use, under Section 17.3(K), on parcels of land described as P.P.#
70-14-22-348-001 and 70-14-22-350-001, in an (I) Industrial District, located
at 6672 Center Industrial Dr. and 2046 Pineridge Dr., Georgetown Township.
MOTION CARRIED.
Moved by Jansma, seconded by DeGood, to approve the
site plan dated revise October 6, 2000, with the condition that the
required front landscaping be provided according to the Ordinance.
MOTION
CARRIED.
An excerpt
of the October 23, 2000 Township Board meeting minutes:
#001023-12
- Special Use Permit (SUP0019)Luurtsema Sales, Inc., 6672 Center Industrial Dr.
Moved by James Holtvluwer, seconded by Del South, to
approve Special Use Permit (SUP0019) Luurtsema Sales, Inc., 6672 Center
Industrial Dr., to have outdoor storage in connection with any permitted use,
under Section 17.3(K), on parcels of land described as P.P.# 70-14-22-348-001
and 70-14-22-350-001, in an (I) Industrial District, located at 6672 Center
Industrial Dr. and 2046 Pineridge Dr., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County,
Michigan, with the condition that the required
front landscaping be provided according to the Ordinance.
Note: As recommended by the Planning Commission
MOTION
CARRIED.
|
I D number |
ST0809 |
|
|
|
Date |
11-24-08 |
|
|
|
Name |
Luurtsema
Sales, Inc. |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Address |
6672 Center
Industrial Dr. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use |
Warehousing
and outdoor storage |
|
SUP
required |
Yes-SUP0019
Sec. 17.3(K) |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
setbacks |
|||||
|
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 |
b.
exceeds |
||||||
|
Calculations
of parking spaces, unloading areas |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Location, pavement
width, ROW of all abutting roads, easements |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Existing
zoning, and zoning and use of abutting property |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Location
of existing vegetation-parkway
association |
|
|
|
|
NA |
|
||
|
Location, type,
size of proposed landscaping, streetscape, greenbelt |
|
c.
incorrect |
||||||
|
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 |
|
|
|
d.
Storm
Permit |
||||
|
Existing,
proposed topo contours, max 5 ft intervals |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Rec/common
areas, floodplain areas |
|
|
|
|
e. floodplain |
|||
|
Special Use
Standards, general and specific |
|
|
|
X |
Previously
approved |
|||
|
Residential
development extra requirements-attached garages |
|
NA |
|
|||||
Doug
Stalsonberg stated the following. The plan
had been approved in 2000 with the evergreens planted as shown and there were
three reason that the additional deciduous trees should not be required: 1.
Even though it is not the correct ratio according to the ordinance the
evergreens provide a solid screen for the rear of the trailers; 2. The pine
trees are located in this particular location for screening purposes; 3. The
plan meets the spirit of the streetscape ordinance with the eight additional
deciduous trees planted 20 foot on center and they should not be planted closer
than 23 feet. The trees could not go
north or south because there is a ten foot utility easement outside of the
right-of-way. There is extended parking
and someday this area is going to be developed or paved. The future pavement will match the existing
pavement and there is no room for more trees in the north or south
direction. They did what they could and
they now have more trees than are required; however, the ratio of evergreens to
deciduous is not right.
Honderd
stated that he thought in 2000 that the plan had been approved with the
applicant providing more trees in the front yard along Center Industrial Drive.
The
zoning administrator stated the following.
She did not remember the conversations that took place at the meetings
in 2000; however, the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting in 2000
include a condition of approval for the site plan that the landscaping is
provided in the front yard according to the ordinance requirements. Also, the minutes from the Township Board
meeting have a condition of approval for the special use permit that
landscaping is provided in the front yard according to the ordinance
requirements. It appears as though the
landscaping should have been installed as per the Township ordinance according
to the conditions of approval in 2000 and it was the Township’s fault for not
following through with an inspection to verify that the landscaping had been
installed per the ordinance. Further,
she said that she did not write the review for the application in 2000 because
at that time the planner was still employed and he wrote the review. She did not remember the conversation at the
meeting regarding the landscaping.
However, what happened in 2000 is irrelevant anyway, even if the
Planning Commission approved a site plan that did not meet the ordinance at the
time. The site plan is before the
Planning Commission for approval now and the Planning Commission does not have
the authority to approve a site plan that does not meet the ordinance requirement
for landscaping. Only the Zoning Board
of Appeals has the authority to waive the requirements of the ordinance, even
if it makes sense to have a plan that does not meet the requirements of the
ordinance.
South
said that the only options were to table or to approve the site plan with the
conditions to give the applicant an opportunity to go to the ZBA.
VanDenBerg
asked if the Board approved the special use permit with the condition of
approval as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Stasiak
said that the Planning Commission made the condition of approval that the front
yard landscaping is provided as per the ordinance requirements.
Huizinga
said that he could see it both ways.
Stasiak
said that the condition is right in the minutes.
VanDenBerg
asked if there was any gray area.
Stasiak
questioned the ratio.
The
zoning administrator explained that Sec. 3.11 of the ordinance requires one
tree for each 25 feet of frontage for a front yard and that a maximum of 1/3rd
of the required trees may be
evergreen and the rest must be deciduous.
She said that this ordinance was adopted by the Board at the
recommendation of the Planning Commission and that it made sense to the
Planning Commission and Township Board to have this requirement. She said that the Planning Commission does
not have the authority to grant a variance to waive this requirement even if
they think the plan is better as presented and the only thing that the Planning
Commission could do is revise the ordinance if they decide that this
requirement should be changed.
Huizinga
asked if this was near a residential area and if the evergreens had been
required to screen the site from the residential area.
Honderd
said that the evergreens had been provided to as a solid visual screen.
The
applicant said that the residential area is one industrial block down and this
beautified the streetscape.
Huizinga
said that evergreens block the view year round.
The
applicant said that they had proposed 36 trees, 28 existing and 8 new, and that
the ordinance only required a total of 24, just the ratio of evergreens to
deciduous was wrong.
Honderd
said that the evergreens were more practical.
Blouw
said that even if the evergreens are better it is irrelevant since the proposal
does not meet the ordinance and he asked why the application had come before
the Planning Commission if the site plan did not meet the ordinance
requirements.
The
zoning administrator explained that she had held a pre-application meeting with
the applicant at which time he was informed that the Planning Commission could
not approve a site plan that does not meet the ordinance and that the Planning
Commission did not have the authority to grant a variance from the requirements
of the ordinance. She said that the
applicant wanted the site plan to be reviewed by the Planning Commission anyway
with the hope that the Planning Commission would agree that the evergreens were
a better screen and would grant a variance in order to be able to approve a
site plan that did not meet the ordinance.
The
applicant stated that the plan had been approved in 2000 with the evergreens
rather than the landscaping as required in the ordinance for a front yard and
he did not know if it had been an oversight by the Planning Commission to
approve the plan as it was drawn.
The
zoning administrator stated that she did not think it was an oversight because
both the Planning Commission and Township Board had stipulated that the
landscaping in the front yard must be provided according to the ordinance as a condition
of approval. She said that regardless of
what happened in 2000, the site plan is before the Planning Commission now and
the plan must meet the current ordinance requirements in order for approval to
be granted.
Pearson
said that they were all on the same page with the thought that it is common
sense that the evergreens provided a better screen; however, the Planning
Commission does not have the authority to grant a variance and the applicant
would have to go to the ZBA for a variance.
He said that hopefully the ZBA would have common sense, too.
South
said that there is really no decision because the Planning Commission does not
have the authority to grant a variance and they must do the right thing.
The
chairman asked about the parking situation.
The
zoning administrator stated that Chapter 26 of the ordinance only allowed a
maximum of 20% more parking spaces than are required in the ordinance unless
the Planning Commission finds that the additional parking spaces are needed.
The
applicant stated that during the prime season the parking spaces were all
needed and used for employees.
It
was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the additional parking spaces
are needed.
The
chairman opened the floor to public comments.
No one was present to comment on this item. The chairman closed the floor to public
comments.
The
applicant said that their options were to jam the trees in or go before the
ZBA; however, he has not had good success with the ZBA because the standards
are tough.
VanDenBerg
asked if the ordinance had changed since the site plan was approved in 2000.
The
zoning administrator said that this section of the ordinance has not changed
since that time.
The
applicant submitted a picture of the evergreen trees. He said that they wanted the site plan
approved and would put in the deciduous trees and pull out some pine trees.
Honderd
said that the evergreen trees meet the spirit of the ordinance.
The
zoning administrator said that it was ridiculous to tear out evergreen trees to
replace them with deciduous trees and that the Planning Commission may want to
consider revising the ordinance to allow a higher percentage of evergreen trees
when the situation warrants it.
There
was discussion regarding revising the ordinance and it was noted that the there
was a six month time frame after construction was complete for the landscaping
to be installed according to the ordinance section for a Zoning Compliance
Certificate. The consensus was that the
ordinance could be revised prior to that time to permit a higher percentage of
evergreen trees if warranted. The
consensus of the Planning Commission was that the higher percentage of
evergreen trees shown on the plan meets the spirit of the ordinance and better
enhances the aesthetics of the community by providing a better screen.
Moved by South, seconded by Huizinga, to
approve the site plan dated
11/18/08 (ST0809) for Luurtsema Sales, Inc., 6672 Center Industrial Drive,
with the following conditions because after the conditions have been satisfied
the plan meets all applicable requirements of the ordinance and with the
finding as per Sec. 26.9(L) that the additional parking spaces (over 20% more than
required by the ordinance) are needed because of the additional employees
during the peak flower season:
1. On Pine
Ridge Dr. only 8 deciduous trees are shown and 8 more deciduous trees with a
minimum of 2 inch caliper must be added to meet the minimum requirement of Sec.
3.11 for 16 deciduous trees (the
trees may be clustered in order for the additional trees to fit);
2. Three
revised site plans shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval
with the noted landscaping revision; and
3. A Storm
Water Drain permit (written approval) from the Ottawa County Drain
Commissioner’s office will be required at the time a building permit is
submitted.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#081217-04 - PC Policy 2008-01 Meeting Cancellation
Policy
Moved
by VanDenBerg, seconded by Pearson, to approve and to recommend to the Board to
approve Policy
2008-01 Meeting Cancellation Policy
MOTION
CARRIED.
#081217-05 - Election of Officers
Moved
by South, seconded by VanDenBerg, to approve the officers as follows:
Honderd-chair; Stasiak-vice chair; Huizinga-secretary.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#081217-06 – Other Business-Model Wind Energy Ordinance
The
model wind ordinance was presented and discussed. There was discussion regarding how the
ordinance should be integrated into the Zoning Ordinance and the consensus of
the Planning Commission was that it should be its own section in Chapter
3. The consensus of the Planning
Commission was that the ordinance would be reviewed line by line at a
subsequent meeting rather than asking the County to give a presentation.
#081217-07 – Master Plan discussion
There
was discussion regarding updating the Master Plan. The consensus was that the whole plan did not
need to be updated and that only certain areas should be reviewed.
The
current plan was reviewed and the decision was made to begin the discussion for
revisions to the Master Plan text.
#081217-08– Adjournment
The
chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.