To: Planning Commission Members

From: Mannette

Date: February 20, 2006

RE: Review for Planning Commission meeting on March 1, 2006

The minutes can be reviewed by clicking on the link on the agenda that was sent to you via email or could be viewed on the internet at gtwp.com, Boards and Commissions, Planning Commission, meeting minutes and agendas. Please review the minutes prior to the regular meeting.

1. Unfinished Business (SUP0513) Orion Construction (Integrated Architecture), 2020 Raybrook Ave., is requesting to have a restaurant under Sec. 13.3(B), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-17-300-009, located at 7559 36^th Ave., in a (OS) Office Service District, Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan.

The Planning Commission recommended denial of the special use permit request for a restaurant and tabled the site plan for revisions relating to the design and location of the building on the site. The Board denied the special use request at the January 9, 2006 meeting. No new information is available at this time.

SUMMARY

The request should be left tabled until a revised site plan is submitted for review.

**************************************************************************************

2. Unfinished Business-Planned Unit Development (PUD0601) Riverview Trails Development Group (Tara Westhouse), 3133 Beechcrest Dr., is requesting a Planned Unit Development for condominium housing (housing for the elderly) and office commercial related services for seniors (elderly) under Chapter 22, on parcels of described as and located at: P.P. # 70-14-13-100-026, 7784 Cottonwood, P.P. # 70-14-13-100-032, 7804 Cottonwood, P.P. # 70-14-13-100-033, 7802 Cottonwood, P.P. # 70-14-13-100-043, 7746 Cottonwood Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. view1, view2, view3

No new information has been submitted at this time. The applicant has indicated that they are pursuing other locations or other options at this location. She will inform us if she wants to withdraw. Notice for the public hearing has not been published.

SUMMARY

Take no action.

**************************************************************************************

3. PUD Public Hearing (PUD0602) Dykema Development, 4824 Faringdom Grove Drive,

is requesting a Planned Unit Development for attached single family condominium housing (site plan1, site plan 2, landscaping, elevation) under Chapter 22, on parcels described as and located at: Part of P.P. # 70-14-24-300-019, 678 Port Sheldon; Part of P.P. # 70-14-24-300-057, 650 Port Sheldon; P.P. # 70-14-24-300-058, 672 Port Sheldon, color view, aerial Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan.

No revisions were required for the site plan because all ordinance requirements were met. No new site plans were provided. The applicant submitted elevations and floor plans. The elevations show a walk-out ranch and the height to the roof line is shown as 8 + 9 1/8 totaling 17 1/8 feet to the roof line. The mean height is not shown, but it scales less than the maximum 35 feet permitted in the ordinance.

The only issue that remains is the concern that the PUD does not create any nonconforming parcels resulting from the creation of the subject site. The Planning Commission determined that the walkways are acceptable and that all qualifying conditions have been met. In addition, all the required elements have been shown other than an exact dimension of a height. Hold the public hearing.

OPTION FOR MOTION

Motion: To recommend to the Board to approve (PUD0602) Dykema Development,

4824 Faringdom Grove Drive, to have a Planned Unit Development for attached single family condominium housing (site plan1, site plan 2, landscaping, elevation) under Chapter 22, on parcels described as and located at: Part of P.P. # 70-14-24-300-019, 678 Port Sheldon; Part of P.P. # 70-14-24-300-057, 650 Port Sheldon; P.P. # 70-14-24-300-058, 672 Port Sheldon, color view, aerial Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, as shown on the application materials submitted including the plan dated 1-13-06, based on the proposal complying with all applicable standards of the ordinance, and with the following conditions:

· A Storm Water Drain Permit is provided from the Drain Commissioner and is submitted with the final development plan.

· Road construction details and approval from the Road Commission for the driveways on Port Sheldon are provided, both to be submitted with the final development plan.

· The proposed building height does not exceed the 35 feet or 2.5 stories permitted in the ordinance and this is noted on the final development plan.

· No approvals are implied for the parcel splits shown on the plan at the northwest of the PUD site along Poinsetta St. and are identified as Parcel “A,” “B” and “C” due to the fact that elements such as existing structures and dimensions of these structures to proposed property lines have not been shown. All future land splits would have to follow land split procedures including submission of applications, fees, and surveys detailing existing and proposed structures along with dimensions to proposed property lines.

· A letter is provided at the time of submittal of the final development plan stating that all land that is shown on the plan dated 1-13-06 as parcels “A,” “B” and “C” at the northwest of the PUD site are combined into one parcel or that a land split application is submitted with all required submittal materials and approval is granted acknowledging that all parcels that were created from the PUD are conforming with current ordinances (i.e. number of splits is allowed, all setbacks are met for any structures and that all parcels meet ordinance requirements). The reason is to assure that no nonconforming parcels are created from any land division for the PUD even though the applicant might not own this property.

· An association is responsible for the maintenance of common areas including those areas adjacent to Port Sheldon Street.

***************************************************************************************

4. Work Session (PUD0603) Ed DeVries Properties Inc., 1345 Monroe Ave. NW, is requesting a Planned Unit Development for mixed uses including apartments for multiple family dwellings and commercial uses including offices, retail and restaurant under Chapter 22, on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-26-200-070, located at the southwest corner of 44^th St. and 8^th Ave. at Gleneagle Highlands Dr.

The proposal is for a 9.64 Planned Unit Development at the southwest corner of 44^th St. and 8^th Ave. The uses are office, retail, restaurant, plus 20 apartments for attached single family dwellings. At the preapplication meetings, the determination was made that the proposal meets the qualifying conditions enough to proceed to Planning Commission review. However, there are still several issues that the Planning Commission must consider prior to directing that the notice for the public hearing is published.

The purpose of the PUD ordinance is to provide for flexibility in the regulation of land development, to encourage innovation in land use and variety in design, layout and type of structures, to encourage useful open space, to provide for enhanced site and building architectural features and to create better living working and shopping environments. In order to accomplish these objectives, the PUD ordinance provides flexibility to the conventional requirements. The overall idea appears to meet the PUD ordinance objective and the uses are consistent with the intention of the ordinance and Master Plan. The opportunity does exist that the Board and Planning Commission would be willing to accept the waivers requested from the conventional zoning in return for an innovative development with landscaped open space.

SUMMARY

· The acreage requirement is not met. The PUD contains a mixture of residential and non-residential uses and should be 20 acres. The site is only 9.64 acres. The Planning Commission and Board would have to determine that the proposal is acceptable and substantially provides for the intent of a PUD. It appears that the proposal meets the PUD intention.

· A concern was noted about the number of driveway accesses from this parcel to 44^th St. and to 8^th Ave. The consensus of those at the Pre-Application meeting (which included a representative from the Planning Commission and Board, as well as representatives from other Township departments) was that the driveway access on 44^th St. was needed. The southern entrance on 8^th Ave. already exists. However, a concern still exists about the right-in-right-out driveway on 8^th Ave. The Planning Commission and Road Commission input would have to be considered as to whether or not this access point should exist (though the applicants have indicated that they want it for the proposed restaurant on the corner spot). If the determination is made that a right-in entrance would be permitted, would the Planning Commission still want the right-out also? The Township received a letter from Brett Laughlin, Ottawa County Road Commission, stating that a traffic impact analysis is required to determine traffic patterns and necessary roadway improvements. This study should be provided to the Planning Commission to help in the consideration of the driveway access points. Also, Road Commission approval should be provided prior to the Township granting any approvals.

· More details should be provided about the phases, specifically designated areas on the site plan and dates of proposed start and completion.

· The plan shows two pole mounted freestanding signs; however, the note on the plan under Proposed Signage to be “4.” This number should be changed to “2.”

· A Storm Water Drain permit should be provided with the final development plan.

· The plan proposes 19% of open space. Does the Planning Commission accept this amount with is minimally less than 20%?

· The plan designates the western property line as the side yard and a waiver from the required 25 foot side yard setback with greenbelt is requested. A dashed line along this line indicates a 10 foot setback. In one instances near the southwestern area parking even infringes upon this 10 foot area. Other areas are well over this 10 foot mark. A 25 foot greenbelt is required in Chapter 24 m when a side yard of commercial development abuts a residential district. In addition, commercial buildings and parking/drives are required to be 50 feet from a residential district (parking will be required to be 50 feet after the amendment is adopted which will be after the date this goes to the Board). The commercial buildings and commercial sections of buildings with mixed uses are all shown as meeting the 50 foot requirement. Sections of the two buildings that have the apartments show the residential portion of the two buildings to be 44 and 47 feet. The Planning Commission should address the waiver for the 25 foot greenbelt and for the residential/commercial buildings to be 44 and 47 feet from the property line.

· A berm is shown along the eastern property line and is proposed to mitigate the lesser amount of front yard setback from 8^th Ave. A 30 foot front yard setback is required in Chapter 24 and is to be measured from a point 60 feet from the centerline for a total of 90 feet from the center line. From the southern entrance on 8^th Ave. toward the north, the setback is shown as 80 feet. A ten foot waiver is requested and mitigated with a berm. The Planning Commission would have to decide if the waiver is acceptable.

· A legend is provided detailing types and sizes of landscape material. The only issue is that for Zone 2 and Zone 3 the fraction of trees required was rounded down. In actuality the numbers were 25.2 and 70.1 which would result in the requirement for 26 and 71 trees rather than 25 and 70. Sec. 3.11(B)(3) requires that a tree be provided for a fraction. Does the Planning Commission want to require the additional tree along each of the north and west buffers? When considering this, note that Zone 5 includes a large amount of interior landscaping.

· An association should be required to maintain the open space and documentation should be provided.

The plan calls for the following waivers from conventional ordinance requirements:

· Parking reduction of 5%, which appears to have a minimal effect.

· The PUD site is only 9.64 acres and the ordinance requires 20 acres for a mixed use PUD. However, the proposal appears to meet the intention of the PUD ordinance.

· Parking/drives and buildings for commercial uses are required (parking will be after the ordinance is adopted) to be a minimum of 50 feet from a residential district except if the district is HDR. Since this is HDR, parking and drives could be within the 50 feet, but not buildings.

· A 25 foot greenbelt is required to buffer the commercial from the residential district.

· The open space is required to be 20% and 19% is provided.

· Additional wall signs are proposed for the fronts and backs of buildings; however, the plan notes that no waiver is requested from overall square footage requirements.

· A front yard setback of 90 feet from centerline is required along 8^th Ave. This is shown from the southern driveway south; however, to the north of this driveway the setback is shown as 80 feet.

If the Planning Commission determines that the qualifying conditions are met, the public hearing could be scheduled for April 12 (which is the work session that was rescheduled for spring break). There would be enough time to publish the notices for April 12.

Demonstration of meeting the qualifying conditions is provided as follows:

Sec. 22.2 QUALIFYING CONDITIONS..

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.

Not met. The PUD contains a mixture of residential and non-residential uses and should be 20 acres. The site is only 9.64 acres. The Planning Commission and Board must determine if the proposal is acceptable and substantially provides for the intent of a PUD. It appears that although the site is not 20 acres, the proposal meets the intention of the PUD ordinance and there are only 20 apartments which is a minimum amount of the residential use.

B. Utilities: All PUD's shall be served by public water and sanitary sewer facilities. Stormwater must be coordinated with the county drain commission.

Met. Utilities are available according to the DPW Director.

C. Land Ownership: The PUD application must be filed by the landowner, jointly by the landowners, or by an agent. If the application is filed by an agent(s) or other interested party, written approval from the landowner(s) must also be filed.

Met. This information has been provided in the form of a copy of a Buy/Sell agreement.

D. Master Plan: The proposed uses of the PUD must be substantially consistent with Georgetown Township’s Master Plan for the subject property.

Met. The Future Land Use Map designates the site as NS and HDR. The uses are consistent with both HDR (seven to fifteen units per acre is included in this category, with an average assumed gross density of ten units per acre) with 20 apartments and NS with office, restaurant and retail uses.

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)

Met. Pedestrian accesses are shown to the residential community. Walkways are shown throughout the site and shown adjacent to both 44^th St. and 8^th Ave.

F. Architecture: The PUD should provide for coordinated and innovative visually appealing architectural styles, building forms and building relationships.

Met. Sample representative elevations have been provided showing a visually appealing structure with pitched roofs and window details.

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 right-only exit at the northeast is still questionable and will have to be decided after discussions with the Road Commission and Planning Commission. A concern is the number of driveways, specifically the driveway off 44^th St. According to Sec. 26.3(I), the Planning Commission has the authority to determine driveway access to streets listed in Chapter 24(b) and both 44^th St. and 8^th Ave. are listed. The determination was made at the two pre-application meetings that the driveway access on 44^th St. should remain. Decel lanes have been provided for all entrances. The Township received a letter from Brett Laughlin, Ottawa County Road Commission, stating that a traffic impact analysis is required to determine traffic patterns and necessary roadway improvements. This should be provided to the Road Commission to obtain their approval prior to the Township approving any driveway locations.

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.

Close to being met. The ordinance states that open space is a very important element of a PUD and defines open space as USUABLE space not including required yards. First, both 44^th St. and 8^th Ave. are listed in Chapter 24 footnote (b) which requires that setbacks are measured from a point 60 feet from the centerline. Therefore, both streets should have setbacks of 90 feet from the centerline. Further, footnote (l) and (m) are applicable. Footnote (l) states that except for necessary drives and walks, the required front yard shall be landscaped and not used for parking, loading or accessory structures. (A landscaped area, with a streetscape meeting Sec. 3.11, must be provided for this 90 foot setback both off 44^th St. and 8^th Ave.) Footnote (m) states that were a side or rear yard abuts a residential district (the western and southern boundaries do) there shall be a minimum yard of not less than 25 feet exclusive of parking and drives, and shall contain a greenbelt. Plus the commercial buildings are required to be at least 50 feet from the residential boundary.

The plan now shows 19% net open space (after deduction of the required setbacks).

Sec. 22.3 PERMITTED USES..

Any use permitted by right or special land use in any District may be approved within a PUD.

Met. The Future Land Use Map designates the site as NS and HDR. The uses are consistent with both HDR (seven to fifteen units per acre is included in this category, with an average assumed gross density of ten units per acre) with 20 apartments and NS with office, restaurant and retail uses.

Sec. 22.4 PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE.

Three pre-application meetings were held.

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):

a. 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. The plan designates the western property line as the side yard and a waiver from the required 25 foot side yard setback with greenbelt is requested. A dashed line along this line indicates a 10 foot setback. In one instances near the southwestern area parking even infringes upon this 10 foot area. Other areas are well over this 10 foot mark. A 25 foot greenbelt is required in Chapter 24 m when a side yard of commercial development abuts a residential district. In addition, commercial buildings and parking/drives are required to be 50 feet from a residential district (parking will be required to be 50 feet after the amendment is adopted which will be after the date this goes to the Board). The commercial buildings are all shown as meeting the 50 foot requirement. Sections of the two buildings that have the apartments show the residential portion of the two buildings to be 44 and 47 feet. The Planning Commission should address the waiver for the 25 foot greenbelt and for the residential/commercial buildings to be 44 and 47 feet from the property line.

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. A berm is shown along the eastern property line and is proposed to mitigate the lesser amount of front yard setback from 8^th Ave. A 30 foot front yard setback is required in Chapter 24 and is to be measured from a point 60 feet from the centerline for a total of 90 feet from the center line. From the southern entrance on 8^th Ave. toward the north, the setback is shown as 80 feet. A ten foot waiver is requested and mitigated with a berm. The Planning Commission would have to decide if the waiver is acceptable.

A legend is provided detailing types and sizes of landscape material. The only issue is that for Zone 2 and Zone 3 the fraction of trees required was rounded down. In actuality the numbers were 25.2 and 70.1 which would result in the requirement for 26 and 71 trees rather than 25 and 70. Sec. 3.11(B)(3) requires that a tree be provided for a fraction. Does the Planning Commission want to require the additional tree along each of the north and west buffers? When considering this, note that Zone 5 includes a large amount of interior landscaping.

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. Approval from the Road Commission is needed.

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. The maximum height of 35 feet is noted on the elevation provided. The Planning Commission should discuss the waiver of the side yard setback/greenbelt area of 25 feet. The plan designates the side yard as the western property line and footnote m requires that it be landscaped for a distance of 25 feet with a greenbelt and no parking. The setback is a minimum of a little less than 10 feet (in one area) and other areas are more than 10 feet. The western sides of the two mixed use buildings are where the 20 apartments are located.

y. Proposed uses to be included in the PUD project.

Provided. They propose to have 10 apartments, retail, office, restaurant.

z. Floodplain areas. (Revised 6-27-2005)

Provided.

b. Fee: Payment of a PUD fee, as established by the Township Board. Paid.

c. Narrative Statement: A narrative statement describing: Provided.

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.

More detail should be provided.

d. Proposed deed restrictions, covenants, or similar legal instruments to be used within the PUD. N/A as per application.

****************************************************************************************

5. Site Plan (ST0601) Jore Retail, 2460 Chicago Dr., site plan

The proposal is for the existing 5,851 square foot building currently used by the Booker Institute to be demolished and a 9,067 square foot addition to be constructed attached to and aligned with the existing 16,013 square foot building. Additional parking is shown to the southeast of the building. The site is located in a floodplain. According to information provided in the application the uses would be for a commercial school permitted under Sec. 13.2(F) and for other retail uses permitted under Sec. 15.2(B), which are uses permitted in the Highway Service Commercial district.

SUMMARY

· The two-way drive aisles are shown at the required 24 foot width except for the drive to the rear of the building on the northeast side. If this is to be one-way here, signage should be provided to have traffic circulate to the other side of the building to exist. If it is to be two-way, it must be widened to 24 feet.

· Under General Notes, the freestanding sign is noted to be located 60 feet from the centerline of Chicago Dr. This street is not listed in Chapter 24 footnote b and is, therefore, required to be located so as to not extend over the right-of-way. The note should be revised to reflect this change.

· Parking calculations are correctly shown. However, if the Planning Commission determines that a streetscape is necessary, revised parking spaces and calculations may be required. One parking space is shown partially located on the adjacent property.

· The rear yard abuts a residential district and a greenbelt is required to screen the parking from the adjacent residential district. This area is partially buffered by an existing tree line. However, the area between the proposed detention/retention pond and the parking lot should have a greenbelt according to Sec. 3.11 with one tree for each 20 feet. This 90 foot section would, therefore, require the planting of five evergreen trees to be at least five feet tall at the time of planting.

· Although the ordinance amendment has not been adopted yet requiring that the 30 foot front yard is landscaped, the Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan have sections that could apply and give the Planning Commission the authority to require a streetscape. The Master Plan, along with Sec. 19.10 in the Site Plan Review Chapter and Sec. 3.11 of the Zoning Ordinance give the Planning Commission the authority to require landscaping in the front yard setback. The Planning Commission should determine if any landscaping would be required along Chicago Dr., how much and in what areas. The width of the lot is 445 which would equate to the addition of 18 trees in this front yard setback.

· If landscaping is required, the parking row that abuts the right-of-way line would have to be eliminated and parking would have to be re-addressed. The plan shows this aisle width as 28 feet and a parking space as 20 feet long. There would not be enough room for the aisle to be 24 feet if the whole 30 foot front yard setback was required to be landscaped. However, if the row of parking adjacent to the right-of-way line was eliminated and 4 feet added to that area, the result would be a 24 foot landscaped front yard setback. The aisle would then be 24 feet as required for two-way circulation. The Planning Commission has the authority under Sec. 26.9(K) to reduce the required number of parking spaces by 25%. The plan shows 137 spaces (which is really 136 when the one space on the adjacent property is eliminated). If 129 spaces are required, 32 spaces could be waived (25%). This would result in the requirement of 97 spaces. If 40 were eliminated from the front row in the front setback area (136-40=96), only one more parking space would have to be added in another location to meet ordinance requirements. It appears as though parking could be added in the rear and the pavement extended toward the southwestern property line.

· If the front yard landscaping is required by the Planning Commission and the property owner wants additional parking spaces (more than the 97), the rear of the site could be redesigned with one-way traffic to reduce the aisle widths and add parking spaces.

· The site is located in a floodplain and an elevation certificate or certified survey with an elevation must be provided to determine that the new addition would be constructed at least one foot above the floodplain.

· No approvals are implied for the future building expansion shown on the plan.

· A note on the plan states that the addition would be constructed with materials that match the existing building. The Planning Commission should decide if elevations would be required.

· The site plan shows two areas at the rear of the building that are identified as refrigeration units. These units are, in fact, trailers that do not meet building codes or general ordinances. These trailers should be removed and replaced with structures that meet ordinances and the building codes.

I D number	ST0601	Date	2-21-06
Name	Jore Retail
Address	2460 Chicago Dr.
Use	Retail/commercial school	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	See note a.
Sidewalks, non-motorized paths-select streets, accel, decel lanes				X
Signs, exterior lighting				X	See note b.
Curbing, parking areas, dimensions of typical space, number of parking spaces				X	See note c.
Calculations of parking spaces, unloading areas				X	See note d.
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					See note e.
Location, height, type of existing and proposed fences and walls				X	See note f.
Size, location of proposed, existing utilities, connections to water/sewer				X
Location, size of surface water drainage facilities				X
Existing, proposed topo contours, max 5 ft intervals				X
Rec/common areas, floodplain areas				X	See note g.
Special Use Standards, general and specific					None
Residential development extra requirements-attached garages					None

Notes:

a. The two-way drive aisles are shown at the required 24 foot width except for the drive to the rear

of the building on the northeast side. If this is to be one-way here, signage should be provided to have traffic circulate to the other side of the building to exist. If it is to be two-way, it must be widened to 24 feet.

b. Under General Notes, the freestanding sign is noted to be located 60 feet from the centerline of

Chicago Dr. This street is not listed in Chapter 24 footnote b and is, therefore, required to be located so as to not extend over the right-of-way. The note should be revised to reflect this change.

c. Parking calculations and space sizes are correctly shown. However, if the Planning Commission

determines that a streetscape is necessary, revised parking spaces and calculations may be required.

d. For the square footage of the retail, one loading space is required and shown.

e. The rear yard abuts a residential district and a greenbelt is required to screen the parking from

the adjacent residential district. This area is partially buffered by an existing tree line. However, the area between the proposed detention/retention pond and the parking lot should have a greenbelt according to Sec. 3.11 with one tree for each 20 feet. This 90 foot section would, therefore, require the planting of five evergreen trees to be at least five feet tall at the time of planting. In addition, the Planning Commission is reviewing an ordinance change to require that the 30 foot setback in the HS district is landscape and not used for parking. Although this ordinance amendment has not been adopted yet, the Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan have sections that could apply and give the Planning Commission the authority to require a streetscape. Please review the following excerpts from the Master Plan that clearly state that a goal of the Township is to revitalize the properties on Chicago Dr., when given the opportunity, by addressing poor aesthetic conditions. The Master Plan clearly states that landscape improvements should be required and the site should be brought into conformance with current ordinances. In addition, please review Sec. 19.10 in the Site Plan Review Chapter that states that the Planning Commission may require landscaping. Further, Sec. 3.11 states that where required by the Planning Commission, landscaping shall be provided with only living materials. The Planning Commission should determine if any landscaping would be required along Chicago Dr., how much and in what areas. If landscaping is required, parking would have to be re-addressed.

Excerpts from the Master Plan Text

• Revitalization of property along Chicago Dr. and on Main St.

Attention needs to be paid to older developments that should be required to meet current ordinance requirements when applications are submitted for action on these sites. Major problems are poor aesthetic conditions along Main St. and the length of the Chicago Dr. corridor, uncontrolled access in certain locations, and a random mix of uses. Changes could be implemented on a case-by case basis for individual properties as opportunities present themselves. Landscape improvements and driveway closures should be required.

Chicago Dr. Corridor

No major changes in the existing land use pattern along the Chicago Dr. corridor are anticipated. Much of the undeveloped land on the south side of Chicago Dr. is subject to wetland, floodplain or unstable soils constraints. Reuse of the DeWent Gravel property for industrial use is anticipated. Much of the land on the south side of the corridor is placed in the AG/RR category, where wetlands, floodplains or poor soils make more intense uses infeasible or environmentally damaging. Attempts should be made to improve appearances, limit driveway access, and to take advantage when opportunities become available to bring sites into conformance with current ordinances.

Sec. 19.10 REVIEW STANDARDS.

The following standards shall be utilized by the Planning Commission in reviewing all site plans. These standards are intended to provide a frame of reference for the applicant in the preparation of site plans as well as for the reviewing authority in making judgment concerning them. These standards shall not be regarded as inflexible requirements. They are not intended to discourage creativity, invention, or innovation.

(A) Landscape Preservation. The landscape shall be preserved in its natural state, insofar as practicable, by minimizing tree and soil removal, and any grade changes shall be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas. The Planning Commission may require that landscaping, buffers, or greenbelts be preserved and/or provided to ensure that proposed uses will be adequately buffered from one another and from surrounding property.

Sec. 3.11

(B) Streetscapes.

(1) It is the purpose of streetscapes to provide visual screening of parking

areas and buildings along public streets; to separate public right-of-way from private property; to define points of ingress and egress; and to enhance the aesthetics of the community.

(2) Where required by the Planning Commission, the streetscape shall

contain only living materials and planting beds, except for approved sidewalks, bikepaths, signs, driveways, and essential services. Wood chips, stone bark, or similar materials may be permitted to accent and complement the living plant material, but shall not comprise the majority of the surface area of the streetscape.

(3) The streetscape shall contain one (1) tree for each twenty-five feet of

frontage or fraction thereof, measured along the street right-of-way line, including driveway openings. Up to one-third (1/3) of the required trees may be evergreens. The remainder shall be deciduous canopy or ornamental trees.

(4) All required deciduous trees shall be a minimum of two (2) inch caliper

and evergreens shall be a minimum of five (5) feet high at time of planting.

(5) Such trees need not be evenly spaced along the street, but may be clustered

or staggered to provide greater aesthetic interest.

(6) Landscaping materials and arrangement shall ensure adequate sight

visibility for motorists, adequate clearance for pedestrians and vehicles, and accessibility to fire hydrants.

(7) In addition to the required trees, other landscaped elements such as

shrubbery, hedges, and flower beds are encouraged in order to create an attractive foreground for buildings and a pleasant streetscape along public thoroughfares within the community.

(8) All trees and other landscaped areas within the greenbelt shall be maintained

in a healthy and growing condition, neat and orderly in appearance. (Revised Nov. 1997)

f. A nonconforming existing eight foot high chain link fence exists on the site.

g. The site is in a floodplain and an elevation certificate or certified survey must be provided to determine that the new addition would be constructed at least one foot above the floodplain. The note lists an approximate floodplain elevation of 610. This elevation should be exact, as should the proposed building elevation. Please review the following excerpts of a Floodplain study for Georgetown Township that I completed and had reviewed and approved by the DEQ.

In addition, permits from the MDEQ are required for all construction and filling in SFHA (Special Flood Hazard Areas)/floodplain areas. The local community must maintain records of floodplain construction and activities including:

1. As-built Elevation Certificate for all new or substantially improved structures within the 100-year floodplain
2. Copy of DEQ permit

When a building permit application is received by the Township, the following are the required procedures:

1. Determine if project is in a flood hazard area by using the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), FIF, Flood Insurance Study, elevation of the site and/or review either the plat map or approved site plan for floodplain information (base on elevation).
2. If there is a question as to whether the project is located in the floodplain, an Elevation Survey is required which would provide the ground elevation at the building site to compare with the 100-year elevation from the Flood-Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). If the land was recently filled, a MDEQ floodplain permit should be available on site or in the owner’s possession.
3. If the project is NOT located within the floodplain by virtue of elevation, the application proceeds along regular established procedures.
4. If the project IS located within the floodplain, an Elevation Survey is required and a MDEQ permit is required prior to the application proceeding along regular established procedures. In addition, the applicant shall submit a site plan showing property lines, proposed construction, existing ground elevations, and the 100-year flood elevation. The plan shall be prepared by, and bear the original signature and seal of a land surveyor, engineer, or architect authorized by law to certify elevation information.
5. If the project is located within a floodplain, PCI reviews the permit application to ensure that the structure meets local floodplain requirements and all necessary precautions are being taken to minimize flood damage;
6. After issuing a permit, PCI makes an inspection before any filling or placement of obstruction is done, upon placement of the lowest floor (see R 109.1.3 of the 2003 Michigan Residential Code), and make a final inspection when the project is completed;
7. PCI verifies that the new or substantially improved structure permitted in the flood hazard area has been elevated or floodproofed to a minimum of one foot above the base flood elevation (this is accomplished by the submission of a as-built elevation certificate);
8. When floodproofing for non-residential buildings is used, a certification from a registered professional engineer or architect is required from the owner to verify that the floodproofing method is designed to meet State Construction Code or community ordinance standards before issuing the building permit.
9. The actual elevation would be recorded in the building permit file stipulating the lowest floor (including basement) or the elevation to which the structure was floodproofed in relation to mean sea level (National Geodetic Vertical Datum),;
10. The Township maintains a record of all variances granted;
Applicants for variances are to be notified in writing that issuances of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood elevation will result in a dramatic increase in insurance rates and added threat to life. A copy of this notification should be retained in the official records.

Additional Comments:

The site plan shows two structures at the rear of the building that are identified as refrigeration units. These units are, in fact, trailers that do not meet building codes or general ordinances. These trailers should be removed and replaced with structures that meet ordinances and the building codes. Please review the pictures of the site that follow this review and show the trailers. Further, Sec. 46-2(d) of the Code of Ordinances states that a dismantled and unlicensed trailer could be stored for a period of no more than two weeks. Clearly the pictures and the note on the plan demonstrates that these trailers have been on the site and are planned to remain on the site for a period of more than two weeks, which is in violation of the Township ordinances. These trailers must be removed (according to the Township Code Enforcer). Structures could be constructed in accordance with ordinances and the building code.

Sec. 46-2. Storage and disposal of waste matter and dismantled motor vehicles.

(d) Dismantled vehicles. No person shall store, dismantle, wreck, dispose of or repair any automobile, trailer, or other self-propelled motor vehicle which is dismantled or partially dismantled or an unregistered or unlicensed motor vehicle without current up-to-date license plates attached to such vehicle for a period of more than two weeks, unless such vehicle is stored or parked within a wholly enclosed garage or other enclosed structure, or unless such motor vehicle is regularly used by the owner of the premises in the ordinary course of business or farming on a seasonal or annual basis, except in a junkyard licensed by the township under this chapter. Any such unlicensed or licensed, operable or inoperable, or dismantled vehicle, if located in any road right-of-way, shall be removed after a 24-hour period.

Landscape Preservation. Some existing trees are noted to remain.

Relation of Buildings to Environment.

A note on the plan states that the addition will be constructed with materials that match the existing building.

Lighting details provided and note that they will be downward directing.

Landscaping does not meet the ordinance requirements.

Drives, Parking, and Circulation.

The driveway on the northeastern side of the building should be widened to 24 feet if is to accommodate two-way traffic.

Surface Water Drainage

The Drain Commission will review the plans and an approval is required from them at the time of building permit submittal.

Utility Service

Shown and will be reviewed by the appropriate agencies

****************************************************************************************

6. Rezonings - maps (REZ0602) To change from (RR) Rural Residential to (LDR) Low Density Residential parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-09-200-005 and -014, located at 8745 24^th Ave., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, and

Rezonings - maps (REZ0603) To change from (RR) Rural Residential to (LDR) Low Density Residential parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-09-300-018, located at 2944 Bauer Rd., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan.

With motion #051128-24, the Township Board initiated the rezoning of all spot zoned parcels in the Township. At the December 7, 2005 meeting, the Planning Commission directed that those spot zoned parcels be considered for rezoning and the notices to be published along with other legal ads. The above two areas (two adjacent parcels on 24^th Ave. and one parcel on Bauer) are spot zoned areas that are zoned RR, but are surrounded by LDR. All are nonconforming parcels due to the fact that none have the 200 feet of width (frontage) required in the RR district. They would be conforming in regards to lot width and area if rezoned to LDR. All are designated as LDR on the Future Land Use Map. All have other non-conforming issues (such as setbacks and an accessory building in the front yard); however, rezoning these properties to LDR will not increase any of the nonconforming issues that currently exist.

As for the three C’s used for the review:

1. The rezoning to LDR would be consistent with the Future Land Use Map.

2. The parcels are capable of being used in the LDR designation and basically are used according to the LDR designation now.

3. The LDR designation would be more compatible with the surrounding areas since the surrounding areas are already zoned LDR.

***************************************************************************************

7. Rezonings - maps (REZ0604) To change from (AG) Agriculture and (NS) Neighborhood Service to (CS) Community Service Commercial a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-07-100-016 and -017, located at 8500 and 8420 48^th Ave., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, MI.

With motion #060213-11, the Township Board unanimously approved a motion to form a committee to determine ways to accept bids to privatize the ice arena at the corner of Bauer Rd. and 48^th Ave. The Planning Commission initiated the rezoning at the February 15, 2006 meeting due to the fact that the site would be nonconforming as currently zoned if purchased by a private party. At the time the arena was built, it was a conforming use in the AG district as a municipal building/use. However, if the site becomes privately owned, it would be nonconforming since such a use is only permitted in the CS district with a special use permit under Sec.15.3(E). The Future Land Use Map shows the whole corner as CS, consisting of the two Township-owned parcels.

As for the three C’s used for the review:

4. The rezoning to CS would be consistent with the Future Land Use Map.

5. The parcels are capable of being used in the CS designation and basically are used according to the CS designation now with the use of an ice arena. The only difference is that the use is permitted under the current AG designation as a municipal building and would be permitted with a special use permit in the CS district if owned by a private party.

6. The CS designation would be compatible with the surrounding areas since it has been in existence for nearly two years and has been compatible with the surrounding areas during that time.

****************************************************************************************

8. Ordinance Amendments

A. Sec. 20.4(H)(1)(f) Commercial Soil Removal

B. Sec. 25.6(A) Portable Signs

C. Chapter 24 footnote (k) and (m)

The Planning Commission initiated the Zoning Ordinance amendments to Chapter 24 footnote (m) and the Board initiated the Zoning Ordinance amendments to Sec. 20.4, 25.6 and Chapter 24 footnote (k).

Mining.

The purpose for the amendment regarding commercial soil removal is due to the fact that a mining operation is basically the same as commercial soil removal. A general ordinance is in place to provide for the review of such uses and includes the same requirements as listed in the Zoning Ordinance, as well as additional stipulations. By having the requirement for a review in both places, an applicant is required to have the same application reviewed by the Mining Board, Planning Commission and Township Board, and possibly the Zoning Board of Appeals (which is redundant). If the requirement for review is eliminated from the Zoning Ordinance contingent upon a mining license being obtained, a mining operation would only have to be reviewed by the Mining Board. The general ordinance for mining is more stringent than the zoning requirements anyway. In addition, the Mining Board has the authority to waive any requirements it deems appropriate, thus relieving an applicant from the possibility of seeking a variance if circumstances warrant.

Further, the Mining Board is made up of three Planning Commission members and two Township Board members which results in the same people comprising the Board that would conduct the review as would be reviewing the request if it were to go to the Planning Commission and Township Board.

Portable Signs.

The Township Supervisor instigated the amendment for portable signs to be fairer to business owners. The proposal would allow each business in a multi-tenant building to have two display periods per year and reduce a single business to four display periods rather than six. The proposal would also allow a new tenant or business owner to have one more display period in a year if all the others were used by the previous tenant or business.

Landscaped setback in HS district.

The proposed amendment merely requires the same 30 foot landscaped area in a front yard setback that is currently required in all other commercial and industrial districts. At the last meeting, Planning Commissioners stated that it had been an oversight and that the landscaped area should have been required in the HS district.

Eliminating parking and buildings in the 50 foot setback for a commercial district when adjacent to residential.

This situation came to light when the Township reviewed the proposed commercial development on the southeast corner of Baldwin and 36^th Ave. While the ordinance specifically mentioned that buildings could not occupy the 50 foot setback/greenbelt are for a side or rear lot line adjacent to a residential district, members of the Township Board were under the impression that the intention of the ordinance was that neither parking or buildings should be located within that 50 greenbelt/setback area. The Planning Commission wanted the addition of the wording that exempted the 50 foot setback/greenbelt for parking to be only 25 feet from the property line only when the commercial district was adjacent to an HDR district.

Sec. 20.4

(H) Commercial soil removal.

(1) No soil, sand, gravel, or other earth material shall be removed from any land within the township without special land use approval, with the following exceptions:

a. When the earth removal is incidental to an operation for which a building permit has been issued by the township;

b. When the earth removal involves any normal landscaping, driveway installation and repairs, or other minor projects;

c. The earth removal involves less than 100 cubic yards;

d. The earth removal is for the purpose of constructing a swimming pool;

e. The earth removal will not be in violation of any other section of this ordinance, other Township ordinance, Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act of 1972, or any other applicable state or federal law.

f. A mineral mining license has been approved by the Mineral Mining

Board and the operation complies with the terms and provisions of

the mining license.

Sec. 25.6

(A) Residential Districts. The following types of signs are permitted:

(6) PORTABLE SIGN, one (1) portable sign per parcel, not exceeding thirty-two (32) square

feet in area per sign and set back at least ten (10) feet from the road right-of-way line or distance as required in Chapter 24(b) (revised 1-24-05). No electrical cord attached to the sign shall extend more than six (6) feet from the power source to the sign. Such sign shall not be displayed for more than seven (7) consecutive days and shall not be permitted more than six (6) such display periods during the calendar year. A separate permit and fee shall be required for each display period and the permit sticker shall be affixed to the sign for the entire display period.

(6) PORTABLE SIGN, subject to the following restrictions:

The sign shall be set back at least ten (10) feet from the road right-of-way line or from the distance as required in Chapter 24(b). No electrical cord attached to the sign shall extend more than six (6) feet from the power source to the sign. A display period consists of a maximum of seven (7) consecutive days. A separate permit and fee shall be required for each display period and the permit sticker shall be affixed to the sign for the entire display period.

a. Per parcel (unless a business center)

1. One (1) portable sign displayed at a time not exceeding thirty-two (32) square feet in area per sign;

2. Such sign shall not be permitted more than four (4) such display periods during the calendar year;

3. If all display periods for a calendar year have been used and evidence is submitted to the Township that a new business has commenced on that parcel, one (1) additional display period shall be permitted in that calendar year;

4. The additional sign shall be permitted only during the calendar year in which the business change takes place and must be taken out by the new business only.

b. Per business center

1. One (1) portable sign displayed at a time not exceeding thirty-two (32) square feet in area per sign;

2. Each business center unit shall not be permitted more than a maximum of one (1) such display period per calendar year;

3. If all display periods for a calendar year have been used and evidence is submitted to the Township that a new business has commenced in a unit of a business center, one (1) additional display period shall be permitted in that calendar year for that unit in a business center.

4. The additional sign shall be permitted only during the calendar year in which the business change takes place and must be taken out by the new business only.

Chapter 24

(k) Except for necessary drives and walks the required front yard for a depth of thirty (30) feet shall be landscaped and shall not be used for parking, loading, or accessory structures. Required off-street loading areas shall not be provided in the front yard.

Chapter 24

(m) Where a side and/or rear yard abuts a Residential District, there shall be a minimum yard of not less than twenty five (25) feet, exclusive of parking and drives. Such yard shall contain a greenbelt which meets the minimum standards of Sec. 3.11. Furthermore, no commercial or industrial building and/or parking lot shall be located closer than fifty (50) feet to any Residential District boundary, (except when the residential district is HDR, in which case parking need only be a minimum of 25 feet from the boundary exclusive of parking and drives).

*********************************************************************************************************

To: Planning Commission Members

From: Mannette

Date: March 8, 2006

RE: Review for Planning Commission meeting on March 15, 2006

Please review the minutes on the website prior to the regular meeting.

Larry Nix, new Township Planner from Williams and Works, will attend the March 15, 2006 meeting, and will be available to present the review, answer questions and give recommendations. Jill Skelley will attend the meeting to take the minutes.

1. Unfinished Business (SUP0513) Orion Construction, 7559 36^th Ave.,

The Planning Commission recommended denial of the special use permit request for a restaurant and tabled the site plan for revisions relating to the design and location of the building on the site. The Board denied the special use request for a restaurant at the January 9, 2006 meeting. Now the site plan would also have to be revised to eliminate all references to a restaurant.

The item has been listed under unfinished business since that time. During the conversations with the applicant last month, Gary Postema indicated that his company was no longer pursuing site plan approval since the special use permit for a restaurant was denied. He also indicated that the property owner might want to pursue site plan approval. However, I have not had any conversations with anyone in regards to this plan since that time. The applicant has not returned the two phone messages that I left after the last Planning Commission meeting. It has been the Planning Commission’s policy in the past to act on items left as unfinished business for over three months. This is the third month under old business. Action could be taken at the regular April meeting.

SUMMARY

Take no action at this time.

**************************************************************************************

2. Unfinished Business-Planned Unit Development (PUD0601) Riverview Trails Development Group (Tara Westhouse), 3133 Beechcrest Dr., is requesting a Planned Unit Development for condominium housing (housing for the elderly) and office commercial related services for seniors (elderly) under Chapter 22, on parcels of described as and located at: P.P. # 70-14-13-100-026, 7784 Cottonwood, P.P. # 70-14-13-100-032, 7804 Cottonwood, P.P. # 70-14-13-100-033, 7802 Cottonwood, P.P. # 70-14-13-100-043, 7746 Cottonwood Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. view1, view2, view3

No new information has been submitted at this time. The applicant has indicated that they are pursuing other locations or other options at this location. Notice for the public hearing has not been published.

SUMMARY

Take no action.

**************************************************************************************

3. (PUD0603) Ed DeVries Properties Inc., 1345 Monroe Ave. NW, is requesting a Planned Unit Development for mixed uses including apartments for multiple family dwellings and commercial uses including offices, retail and restaurant under Chapter 22, on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-26-200-070, located at the southwest corner of 44^th St. and 8^th Ave. at Gleneagle Highlands Dr.

At the last meeting, the Planning Commission directed that revised plans are to be submitted for review at the April 12, 2006 meeting and a public hearing is to be scheduled for the April 19, 2006 meeting. The Planning Commission also determined to waive the requested aspects of the PUD proposal that differed from conventional zoning requirements in regards to acreage (since this was actually a part of a 305 acre PUD), 19% open space, the 25 foot side yard greenbelt width, the 50 foot distance of the buildings from the residential property line, the front yard setback along 8^th Ave., and 5% parking reduction.

The following items remain:

· The Planning Commission directed that signs in the area be reviewed for location, size and height. The amount of three freestanding signs was acceptable, but the preference was for ground mounted rather than pole mounted with size and locations to be determined.

· The number of driveways was acceptable, but the right-in, right-out drives had to be widened to 20 feet each according to the Fire Code.

· Road Commission approval is still required prior to action by the Township.

· Phasing details must be provided, including proposed start and completion dates.

· The note on the plan under Proposed Signage is “4.” This number should be changed to “2.”

· A Storm Water Drain permit should be provided with the final development plan.

· In the legend for Zone 2 and Zone 3 the fraction of trees required was rounded down. The numbers were 25.2 and 70.1 which would result in the requirement for 26 and 71 trees rather than 25 and 70. The Planning Commission asked for the addition of the trees.

· Documentation for an association should be provided to maintain the open space.

· More elevations were requested.

· The PC directed that a condition of approval is added stating that a drive-in restaurant is not permitted and if desired, the PUD would have to return for amended approvals.

SUMMARY

No review, no public hearing and no action is scheduled for the March 15, 2006 meeting.

**************************************************************************************

4. Site Plan (ST0601) Jore Retail, 2460 Chicago Dr., site plan

The proposal is for the existing 5,851 square foot building currently used by the Booker Institute to be demolished and a 9,067 square foot addition to be constructed attached to and aligned with the existing 16,013 square foot building. Another 3,467 square foot addition is shown on the northeast of the building. Parking along the right-of-way has been moved toward the building and angled to provide for a 9 foot landscaped area that shows 18 trees which meets the ordinance requirements. In addition, pods have been shown adjacent to the two driveway accesses and in the area of the sign. Additional parking is shown to the southeast of the building and the refrigeration units are noted to be removed. The site is located in a floodplain and proposed elevations show construction over one foot above the floodplain. According to information provided in the application the uses would be for a commercial school permitted under Sec. 13.2(F) and for other retail uses permitted under Sec. 15.2(B), which are uses permitted in the Highway Service Commercial district.

SUMMARY

1. It appears as though the plan proposes a good compromise to the landscaping issue. Does the Planning Commission accept the landscaping proposal?

2. It appears as though the plan meets the conditions necessary for a parking waiver to be granted. Does the Planning Commission grant the parking waiver for about 18%?

3. Is the proposed elevation that was provided at the work session acceptable?

4. Does the Planning Commission want to pursue the removal of one driveway?

The revised plan addresses issues raised at the works session as follows:

· At the work session, the Planning Commission determined that a streetscape should be provided. The revised plan proposes a compromise that would provided 9 feet of landscaped area along the entire width of the parcel in addition to six pods of a landscaped area. Angled parking is shown along Chicago Dr. and this parking area was moved back to a location 9 feet from the right-of-way line. Landscaping is provided in accordance with ordinance requirements in the 9 foot area. In addition, the six landscaped pods have been proposed for a depth equal to the end of the angled parking spaces to be located on both sides of each of the driveways, the sign area and at the northeast of the site. The plan shows 18 trees that meet the ordinance requirement.

• Parking calculations are shown. Due to the addition of the landscaped area in the front yard setback, the angled parking spaces and the requirement of additional parking spaces for the two additions, the number of parking spaces required is 147 and only 120 are provided. A waiver of 18.37% is requested. Sec. 26.9 (K) allows the Planning Commission to grant a reduction of up to 25% of the number of parking spaces if the following conditions are met.

1. The applicant has demonstrated that the parking needs are met;

2. If the site is changed in the future, parking issues would be addressed again at that time;

3. The reduction would not negatively impact surrounding properties;

4. Adequate space is provided for snow removal and storage;

5. The intention is to provide more green space.

The Planning Commission must determine if the 18.37% waiver would be granted according to Sec. 26.9 (k). The applicant should inform the Planning Commission if the amount of parking spaces would adequately meet the needs of the site. This appears to be a self-monitoring situation because if customers do not have a place to park, they would not return. It does not appear as though the surrounding properties would be negatively impacted. There is adequate room in the rear for snow storage if needed.

· The two-way drive aisles are shown at the required 24 foot width and the driveway accesses are shown at 27 feet wide.

· Under General Notes, signs are correctly noted. A statement on the plan notes that there are no proposed changes to the existing freestanding pole sign, but any changes would meet ordinances. Since this is an existing sign, it does not appear as though there is authority to require that it be changed to be more aesthetically pleasing.

· The determination was made that the existing vegetation is enough screening for the greenbelt in the rear.

· According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map, the floodplain elevation in the area is 609 and 610; therefore, the construction at elevations of 614.22 would not be considered to be in the floodplain by virtue of elevation. The applicant should be instructed that an as-built elevation certificate would be required prior to any final approvals granted for the construction.

· A note on the plan states that the additions would be constructed with materials that match the existing building. The Planning Commission viewed an elevation at the work session and should decide if the elevation would be acceptable.

· The two refrigeration units are noted to be removed.

OPTIONS FOR MOTIONS:

If the Planning Commission determines that action should be taken at this time and that the following have adequately been addressed:

1. It appears as thought the plan proposes a good compromise to the landscaping issue. Does the Planning Commission accept the landscaping proposal?

2. It appears as though the plan meets the conditions necessary for a parking waiver to be granted. Does the Planning Commission grant the parking waiver for about 18%?

3. Is the proposed elevation that was provided at the work session acceptable?

4. Does the Planning Commission want to pursue the removal of one driveway?

Motion: To (approve, deny, table) the site plan for Jore Retail at 2460

Chicago Dr. as shown on the site plan dated 03/08/06, as submitted, with the following conditions:

1. The refrigeration units must be removed prior to a building permit being issued for the construction of either of the additions;

2. A Zoning Compliance Certificate must be obtained for each new tenant in the building;

3. An as-built Elevation Certificate must be provided prior to occupying either of the new additions.

**************************************************************************************

6. Rezonings - maps (REZ0602) To change from (RR) Rural Residential to (LDR) Low Density Residential parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-09-200-005 and -014, located at 8745 24^th Ave., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, and

Rezonings - maps (REZ0603) To change from (RR) Rural Residential to (LDR) Low Density Residential parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-09-300-018, located at 2944 Bauer Rd., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan.

With motion #051128-24, the Township Board initiated the rezoning of all spot zoned parcels in the Township. At the December 7, 2005 meeting, the Planning Commission directed that those spot zoned parcels be considered for rezoning and the notices to be published along with other legal ads. The above two areas (two adjacent parcels on 24^th Ave. and one parcel on Bauer) are spot zoned areas that are zoned RR, but are surrounded by LDR. They would be conforming in regards to lot width and area if rezoned to LDR. All are designated as LDR on the Future Land Use Map. There are non-conforming issues (such as setbacks and an accessory building in the front yard); however, rezoning these properties to LDR will not increase any of the nonconforming issues that currently exist.

At the last meeting, the Planning Commission approved a motion to inform the property owners of the consideration for rezoning their property. Letters were sent, in addition to the property notices, explaining to each property owner of the consideration for rezoning, along with pertinent information regarding the meeting date and time, and instructions to call the Township if they have questions or concerns. Copies of the letters were including in the files.

SUMMARY

7. Rezoning to LDR would be consistent with the Future Land Use Map.

8. The parcels are capable of being used in the LDR designation and basically are used according to the LDR designation now.

9. The LDR designation would be more compatible with the surrounding areas since the surrounding areas are already zoned LDR.

OPTIONS FOR MOTIONS:

(If the Planning Commission determines that they are ready to take action at this time and if they concur with the determination the following motions could be made. If further discussion or information is needed, the items could be tabled.)

REZ0602

Motion: To recommend to the Township Board (approval, denial) of the

Rezoning (maps) (REZ0602) To change from (RR) Rural Residential to (LDR) Low Density Residential parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-09-200-005 and -014, located at 8745 24^th Ave., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, because rezoning the property would be consistent with the Future Land Use Map, the parcels are capable of being used in the LDR designation and basically are used according to the LDR designation now, the LDR designation would be more compatible with the surrounding areas since the surrounding areas are already zoned LDR and the rezoning would eliminate a spot zoning situation.

REZ0603

Motion: To recommend to the Township Board (approval, denial) of the

Rezoning (maps) ((REZ0603) To change from (RR) Rural Residential to (LDR) Low Density Residential parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-09-300-018, located at 2944 Bauer Rd., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, because rezoning the property would be consistent with the Future Land Use Map, the parcels are capable of being used in the LDR designation and basically are used according to the LDR designation now, the LDR designation would be more compatible with the surrounding areas since the surrounding areas are already zoned LDR and the rezoning would eliminate a spot zoning situation.

**************************************************************************************

7. Rezonings - maps (REZ0604) To change from (AG) Agriculture and (NS) Neighborhood Service to (CS) Community Service Commercial a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-07-100-016 and -017, located at 8500 and 8420 48^th Ave., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, MI.

With motion #060213-11, the Township Board unanimously approved a motion to form a committee to determine ways to accept bids to privatize the ice arena at the corner of Bauer Rd. and 48^th Ave. The Planning Commission initiated the rezoning at the February 15, 2006 meeting due to the fact that the site would be nonconforming as currently zoned if purchased by a private party. At the time the arena was built, it was a conforming use in the AG district as a municipal building/use. However, if the site becomes privately owned, it would be nonconforming since such a use is only permitted in the CS district with a special use permit under Sec.15.3(E). The Future Land Use Map shows the whole corner as CS, consisting of the two Township-owned parcels.

As for the three C’s used for the review:

10. The rezoning to CS would be consistent with the Future Land Use Map.

11. The parcels are capable of being used in the CS designation and basically are used according to the CS designation now with the use of an ice arena. The only difference is that the use is permitted under the current AG designation as a municipal building and would be permitted with a special use permit in the CS district if owned by a private party.

12. The CS designation would be compatible with the surrounding areas since it has been in existence for nearly two years and has been compatible with the surrounding areas during that time.

OPTIONS FOR MOTION:

(If the Planning Commission determines that they are ready to take action at this time and if they concur with the determination the following motions could be made. If further discussion or information is needed, the item could be tabled.)

REZ0602

Motion: To recommend to the Township Board (approval, denial) of the

Rezoning (maps) (REZ0604) To change from (AG) Agriculture and (NS) Neighborhood Service to (CS) Community Service Commercial parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-07-100-016 and -017, located at 8500 and 8420 48^th Ave., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, MI, because rezoning the property would be consistent with the Future Land Use Map, the parcels are capable of being used in the CS designation and basically are used according to the CS designation now, the CS designation would be compatible with the surrounding areas since the area to the north is zoned PUD with mixed uses consisting of commercial and residential uses and the area to the west is commercial, and this would eliminate a potential non-conforming situation is the area becomes privately owned.

*************************************************************************************

8. Ordinance Amendments

A. Sec. 20.4(H)(1)(f) Commercial Soil Removal

B. Sec. 25.6(A) Portable Signs

C. Chapter 24 footnote (k) and (m)

The Planning Commission initiated the Zoning Ordinance amendments to Chapter 24 footnote (m) and the Board initiated the Zoning Ordinance amendments to Sec. 20.4, 25.6 and Chapter 24 footnote (k).

Mining.

The purpose for the amendment regarding commercial soil removal is due to the fact that a mining operation is basically the same as commercial soil removal. A general ordinance is in place to provide for the review of such uses and includes the same requirements as listed in the Zoning Ordinance, as well as additional stipulations. By having the requirement for a review in both places, an applicant is required to have the same application reviewed by the Mining Board, Planning Commission and Township Board, and possibly the Zoning Board of Appeals (which is redundant). If the requirement for review is eliminated from the Zoning Ordinance contingent upon a mining license being obtained, a mining operation would only have to be reviewed by the Mining Board. The general ordinance for mining is more stringent than the zoning requirements anyway. In addition, the Mining Board has the authority to waive any requirements it deems appropriate, thus relieving an applicant from the possibility of seeking a variance if circumstances warrant.

Further, the Mining Board is made up of three Planning Commission members and two Township Board members which results in the same people comprising the Board that would conduct the review as would be reviewing the request if it were to go to the Planning Commission and Township Board.

Portable Signs.

The Township Supervisor instigated the amendment for portable signs to be fairer to business owners. The proposal would allow each business in a multi-tenant building to have two display periods per year and reduce a single business to four display periods rather than six. The proposal would also allow a new tenant or business owner to have one more display period in a year if all the others were used by the previous tenant or business.

Landscaped setback in HS district.

The proposed amendment merely requires the same 30 foot landscaped area in a front yard setback that is currently required in all other commercial and industrial districts. At the last meeting, Planning Commissioners stated that it had been an oversight and that the landscaped area should have been required in the HS district.

Eliminating parking and buildings in the 50 foot setback for a commercial district when adjacent to residential.

This situation came to light when the Township reviewed the proposed commercial development on the southeast corner of Baldwin and 36^th Ave. While the ordinance specifically mentioned that buildings could not occupy the 50 foot setback/greenbelt are for a side or rear lot line adjacent to a residential district, members of the Township Board were under the impression that the intention of the ordinance was that neither parking or buildings should be located within that 50 greenbelt/setback area. The Planning Commission wanted the addition of the wording that exempted the 50 foot setback/greenbelt for parking to be only 25 feet from the property line only when the commercial district was adjacent to an HDR district.

OPTIONS FOR MOTIONS:

(If the Planning Commission determines that they are ready to take action at this time and if they concur with the determination the following motions could be made. If further discussion or information is needed, the items could be tabled.)

Sec. 20.4(H)(1)

Motion: To recommend to the Township Board (approval, denial) of the

zoning ordinance amendment to Sec. 20.4(H)(1)(f) as follows to allow review and action by the only Mining Board rather than the series of approvals necessary from the Planning Commission, Township Board, Mining Board and possibly the ZBA:

Sec. 20.4

(H) Commercial soil removal.

(1) No soil, sand, gravel, or other earth material shall be removed from any land within the township without special land use approval, with the following exceptions:

a. When the earth removal is incidental to an operation for which a building permit has been issued by the township;

b. When the earth removal involves any normal landscaping, driveway installation and repairs, or other minor projects;

c. The earth removal involves less than 100 cubic yards;

d. The earth removal is for the purpose of constructing a swimming pool;

e. The earth removal will not be in violation of any other section of this ordinance, other Township ordinance, Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act of 1972, or any other applicable state or federal law.

f. A mineral mining license has been approved by the Mineral Mining

Board and the operation complies with the terms and provisions of

the mining license.

Sec. 25.6(A)(6)

Motion: To recommend to the Township Board (approval, denial) of the

zoning ordinance amendment to Sec. 25.6(A) as follows to allow for a fairer way to regulate portable signs:

Sec. 25.6

(A) Residential Districts. The following types of signs are permitted:

(6) PORTABLE SIGN, one (1) portable sign per parcel, not exceeding thirty-two (32) square

feet in area per sign and set back at least ten (10) feet from the road right-of-way line or distance as required in Chapter 24(b) (revised 1-24-05). No electrical cord attached to the sign shall extend more than six (6) feet from the power source to the sign. Such sign shall not be displayed for more than seven (7) consecutive days and shall not be permitted more than six (6) such display periods during the calendar year. A separate permit and fee shall be required for each display period and the permit sticker shall be affixed to the sign for the entire display period.

(6) PORTABLE SIGN, subject to the following restrictions:

The sign shall be set back at least ten (10) feet from the road right-of-way line or from the distance as required in Chapter 24(b). No electrical cord attached to the sign shall extend more than six (6) feet from the power source to the sign. A display period consists of a maximum of seven (7) consecutive days. A separate permit and fee shall be required for each display period and the permit sticker shall be affixed to the sign for the entire display period.

a. Per parcel (unless a business center)

5. One (1) portable sign displayed at a time not exceeding thirty-two (32) square feet in area per sign;

6. Such sign shall not be permitted more than four (4) such display periods during the calendar year;

7. If all display periods for a calendar year have been used and evidence is submitted to the Township that a new business has commenced on that parcel, one (1) additional display period shall be permitted in that calendar year;

8. The additional sign shall be permitted only during the calendar year in which the business change takes place and must be taken out by the new business only.

b. Per business center

5. One (1) portable sign displayed at a time not exceeding thirty-two (32) square feet in area per sign;

6. Each business center unit shall not be permitted more than a maximum of one (1) such display period per calendar year;

7. If all display periods for a calendar year have been used and evidence is submitted to the Township that a new business has commenced in a unit of a business center, one (1) additional display period shall be permitted in that calendar year for that unit in a business center.

8. The additional sign shall be permitted only during the calendar year in which the business change takes place and must be taken out by the new business only.

Chapter 24 footnote (k)

Motion: To recommend to the Township Board (approval, denial) of the

zoning ordinance amendment to Chapter 24 footnote (k) as follows to clarify an omission that was mistakenly left out of the ordinance, to make the HS district consistent with all other commercial and industrial districts, and to make the ordinance consistent with other sections of the ordinance as well as consistent with the Chicago Dr. Corridor Study and the Master Plan.

Chapter 24

(k) Except for necessary drives and walks the required front yard for a depth of thirty (30) feet shall be landscaped and shall not be used for parking, loading, or accessory structures. Required off-street loading areas shall not be provided in the front yard.

Chapter 24 footnote (m)

Motion: To recommend to the Township Board (approval, denial) of the

zoning ordinance amendment to Chapter 24 footnote (m) as follows to clarify that both buildings and parking should be 50 feet from a residential property line (except HS in which case parking only has to be 25 feet), because this had been what the initial intention of the Board had been

Chapter 24

(m) Where a side and/or rear yard abuts a Residential District, there shall be a minimum yard of not less than twenty five (25) feet, exclusive of parking and drives. Such yard shall contain a greenbelt which meets the minimum standards of Sec. 3.11. Furthermore, no commercial or industrial building and/or parking lot shall be located closer than fifty (50) feet to any Residential District boundary, (except when the residential district is HDR, in which case parking need only be a minimum of 25 feet from the boundary exclusive of parking and drives).