To: Planning Commission Members
From: Mannette
Date: April 7, 2006
RE: REVISED Agenda - Review
for Planning Commission meeting on April 12, 2006
Please review the minutes on
the website prior to the regular meeting.
Since the April packet was
sent to you prior to the March 15 meeting, any applications that were tabled at
the Planning Commission March 15 meeting were not listed and have been added to
the revised agenda. In addition, one
application was submitted and was also added to the agenda.
1. Unfinished Business (SUP0513) Orion Construction, 7559
36th 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 (January). 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 three months. April will be
the fourth month on the agenda as old business without any revised plan
submitted. In addition, if a revised
plan were to be submitted at this point, the whole site layout would have to be
changed since the ordinance would be in effect by the next meeting date to not
allowing commercial parking within 50 feet of a residential district. In that case, a whole new application could
be submitted.
SUMMARY
The request could be acted upon at the
April 19 regular meeting (or could be acted upon at the work session since this
is old business) and denied since a revised site plan has not been submitted
with the references to the restaurant removed.
**************************************************************************************
2. Unfinished Business-Planned Unit Development (PUD0601)
Riverview Trails Development Group, 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
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. Unfinished
Business Site Plan (ST0602) Jore
Retail-2400 Chicago Dr.
At the
March 15, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the following:
1.
Landscaping/Curbing- The general consensus was that the landscaping plan needs to be
dressed up a little with more variety which might include some ground
covering. Curbing was also required to
give a cleaner appearance and provides protection to the landscaped area.
2.
Parking-
Members of the Planning Commission had concerns regarding the number of parking
spaces with regard to the parking needs of the future tenant who could occupy
the space. The Planning Commission
reminded the applicant that if there are request for any future site changes,
the parking issue will arise again.
3.
Elevations- The
Planning Commission accepted the elevation.
4.
Removal of one driveway: The majority of the Planning Commission members wanted
one driveway closed, which would result in 3-4 more parking spaces.
No
revised plans have been submitted addressing the Planning Commission’s
direction. One representative of the
applicant indicated that the architect was on vacation and that the decision of
whether or not to proceed would be made the week of April 10, 2006.
SUMMARY
Take no action.
**************************************************************************************
4. Ordinance
Amendments-Sec. 25.6(A), Chapter 24 footnote (k) and (m)
At
the March 15, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission tabled the following
ordinance amendments for further discussion.
The Planning Commission was opposed to reducing the number of portable
signs from 6 to 4 per year for a single business on a parcel. Therefore, a proposed revision is to change the wording of allowing only four
signs for a single business per year per parcel back to the six signs
permitted per year per parcel for a single business.
If
the Planning Commissions determines the proposed amendments to Chapter 24
footnote (k) and (m) still need revisions, proposed new wording could be
discussed. Otherwise, if the amendments
are acceptable, action could be taken. Note
that if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation for the amendments at
the April 12 meeting, the amendments would go before the Board on April 24,
published on May 2 and effective on May 9, 2006 (which would mean that the
amendments would not be effective until after the next two Planning Commission
meetings to give pending applications time to be reviewed and acted upon).
SUMMARY
Motion: To
recommend to the Board to approve the following proposed ordinance
amendments:
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) six (6) 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.
(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).
**************************************************************************************
5. (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 44th St. and 8th Ave. at Gleneagle Highlands
Dr.
Revised plans have been submitted along with a narrative
addressing concerns raised at the work session.
At the March 1 meeting, the Planning Commission directed
that revised plans were 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 8th Ave., having
additional wall signs and three freestanding signs (if ground mounted) and if
all signs have a consistent look, and 5% parking reduction.
SUMMARY
·
The Planning Commission should discuss the proposed ground mounted signs,
the height, square footage and locations.
A suggestion to allow a driver to have more visibility down the
sidewalk to the east is for the sign at the 44th St. access to be
moved closer to the east. If the sign could
be moved to a spot (still 60 feet from the centerline of 44th St.)
at least 15 feet to the east of the curb by the right turn lane of the exit, a
driver would have a clear view of the sidewalk for a greater distance than the
current location. The sign at the 8th
Ave. access could be moved to a location 15 feet south of the curb for the
right exit lane. Although clear vision for pedestrians is somewhat in
question, it does not appear that the signs would obstruct the clear vision for
vehicles on the streets.
·
Road Commission
approval is still required before the Planning Commission takes action.
·
A proposed
phasing plan has been shown; however, projected
start dates should be provided.
·
The narrative
indicates that additional architectural elevations would be provided by March
31 2006 (they have not been submitted to the Township yet).
·
The property owner to the south does not want the
driveway connection to Eaglebrook apartments and pointed out that the plan
that had been approved for Eaglebrook Apartments does not show a stubbed
interior road to connect to this property to the north. Rather, the area which does not extend
to the property line is used for parking and snow storage.
·
A memo from the
Fire Department indicates that it appears that Fire Codes have been met.
The following
items remained after the last meeting:
·
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 “3.”
·
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 to seek amended
approvals.
The revised plan and narrative addresses
the remaining issues as follows:
·
In accordance
with the Planning Commission’s suggestions, the revised plan shows ground
mounted signs replacing the two previously proposed pole mounted signs at the
access on 44th St. and the right-in/right-out access on 8th
Ave. The new proposal is for the ground
mounted signs to be 5 feet in height and 50 square feet per side, to be located
60 feet from the center line of 44th St. and 60 feet from the center
line of 8th Ave. Landscaping
has been arranged to make the signs more visible. As per the Planning Commission’s direction, I
drove around the area and it appears as though the proposal would be consistent
with other signs in the area. A concern
is the clear vision corner. Since the
right-of-way on 44th St. is 50 feet from the centerline, sidewalks
would be located one foot inside the right-of-way at 49 feet from the
centerline (and continue for five feet within the right-of-way). With the sign located at 60 foot from the
centerline of 44th St., the sign would be eleven feet from the
sidewalk. A
suggestion to allow a driver to have more visibility down the sidewalk to the
east would be for the sign at the 44th St. access
to be moved closer to the east. If the
sign could be moved to a spot (still 60 feet from the centerline of 44th
St.) at least 15 feet to the east of the curb by the right turn lane of the
exit, a driver would have a clear view of the sidewalk for a greater distance
than the current location. The sign at
the 8th Ave. access could be moved to a location 15 feet south of
the curb for the right exit lane. Other than the current proposed locations
blocking a driver’s view of the sidewalk to the right, the height and square
footage appear to be appropriate and consistent with the other signs in the
area and meet the Planning Commission’s request for ground mounted signs.
·
The
right-in/right-out lanes have been widened to 20 feet to meet Fire Codes.
·
The narrative
indicates that Road Commission approval
would be provided prior to the April 19, 2006 meeting.
·
A proposed
phasing plan has been shown; however, projected
start dates should be provided.
·
The note has been
changed to reflect the correct number of freestanding signs.
·
The narrative
states that a Storm Water Drain permit would be provided with the final
development plan.
·
An additional two
trees have been provided bringing the streetscape into compliance with the
ordinance requirements.
·
The narrative
indicates that documentation would be provided with the final development plan
for the maintenance of the open space.
·
The narrative
indicates that additional architectural elevations would be provided by March
31 2006.
·
The narrative
indicates that the applicant understands that a drive-in restaurant is not part
of the PUD.
**************************************************************************************
6. Site
Plan (ST0603) Wiseman’s Corner – 4440
Chicago Dr.
The
request is to construct a 27,320 square foot building at the southwest corner
of 18th Ave. and Chicago Dr. consisting of four office units each
with 2,025 square feet, a 15,365 square foot retail unit and 3,835 square foot
utility/storage space. The property was
recently rezoned to HS. The proposed circulation
pattern consists of a one-way drive with the entrance off Chicago Dr. and
exists off 18th Ave. A
drive-in window is shown and is permitted by right in the HS district. Decel lanes are shown on Chicago Dr. and 18th
Ave.
SUMMARY
The
revised site plan addresses all issues that were raised at the pre-application
meeting and appears to meet all Township ordinances. Approval should be provided from the Road
Commission for the entrance off Chicago Dr. and for the exist driveways onto 18th
Ave. prior to approval being granted by the Planning Commission. Does
the Planning Commission accept the rendition of the building as a sufficient
elevation? Would the Planning Commission
want to waive a percentage of parking spaces if a tenant with a use other than
office would like to occupy one of the office spaces?
Documentation
of ordinance compliance follows.
|
I D number |
ST0603 |
|
|
|
Date |
4-3-06 |
|
|
|
Name |
Wiseman’s Corner |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Address |
1826 Chicago Dr. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use |
Retail/office (15.2B,
13.2A) |
|
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 |
See note a. |
|||||
|
Location of existing
structures, drives, parking areas within 100 ft of boundary |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location and dimensions of
existing and proposed structures |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Location of existing and
proposed drives (dimensions and radii), circulation |
X |
|
||||||
|
Sidewalks, non-motorized
paths-select streets, accel, decel lanes |
|
|
|
|
X |
See note b. |
||
|
Signs, exterior lighting |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
See note c. |
|
|
Curbing, parking areas,
dimensions of typical space, number of parking spaces |
X |
|
||||||
|
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 |
X |
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 |
See note g. |
||||
|
Existing, proposed topo
contours, max 5 ft intervals |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Rec/common areas,
floodplain areas |
|
|
|
X |
See note h. |
|||
|
Special Use Standards,
general and specific |
|
|
|
- |
|
|||
|
Residential development
extra requirements-attached garages |
|
- |
|
|||||
Additional Comments:
Notes:
a. The setbacks are correctly shown as 30 feet for the front
yard setback off Chicago drive, 90 feet (40
+50)
from the centerline of 18th Ave., 284 feet
(well over the required 40) to the rear, and 65 to the side.
b.
An eight foot non-motorized
path is shown along Chicago Dr. and a five foot concrete sidewalk that connects
to the bridge is shown along 18th Ave.
c.
The exterior
lighting is noted to be downward directing.
The sign is noted to be 15 feet from the Chicago Dr. right-of-way line
and 75 feet (25 + 50) from the centerline of 18th Ave. More sign details are not provided (such as
area and height), but the note states that the sign would meet Township
ordinances. The location would meet the
ordinance requirements for either a freestanding pole-mounted or for a ground
mounted sign.
d.
Parking
calculations have been correctly noted and provided. A truck door is shown at the rear of the
building. Would the Planning Commission want to waive a percentage of parking
spaces if a tenant with a use other than office would like to occupy one of the
office spaces? Prior to any use
occupying space in the Township, the ordinance requires that an approved Zoning
Compliance Certificate be obtained. If a
tenant would apply to occupy a space with a use other than office (for instance
retail which is permitted by right in the HS district), the use could become an
issue if the number of required parking spaces is more than for an office. The Planning Commission could consider
waiving a percentage of the required parking if it would be determined to be
appropriate.
e.
Landscaping
calculations have been provided. The
property line along Chicago Dr. is 437.59 feet, requiring 26 trees, and the
property line along 18th Ave. is 452.19 feet, requiring 19 trees. Since the areas along the western and
southern property lines are located in wetlands and floodplains, trees could
not be located there. Also, the
applicants have stated that if they put all the required trees in the area adjacent
to the parking lot along the Chicago Dr. and 18th Ave., the area
would become a forest. Therefore, the
determination was made that the required number of trees could be located along
the drive lanes and still be considered to be streetscape and meet the
ordinance requirements. Enough trees
have been provided adjacent to the driveway and parking lot for a greenbelt to
screen the parking lot from the small section of MDR to the south of the site.
f.
Details are
provided on the site plan for the dumpster enclosure.
g.
A Storm Water
Drain permit is required at the time of a building permit application is
submitted to the Township.
h.
This property was
included in the DEQ Permit that had been obtained for the Waterford Place
project on the property across 18th Ave. In addition, the floodplain elevation is
608.2 and the proposed building elevation is 613. The applicant has indicated that the site has
already been filled to the elevation that would be considered to be currently
out of the floodplain; therefore, no DEQ permit would be required to fill an
area that is already out of the floodplain.
Landscape
Preservation.
There is no existing landscaping to be preserved.
Relation
of Buildings to Environment.
A rendition of the building
was provided. Does the Planning Commission accept the rendition of the building? Lighting details were provided in a general
note and are to be downward direction. Landscaping
meets the ordinance requirements.
Drives,
Parking, and Circulation.
Decel lanes have been
provided on Chicago Dr. and on 18th Ave. A one-way lane is shown with an entrance from
Chicago Dr. and exits to 18th Ave.
A by-pass lane has been provided around the lane to the drive-in
window. The drives are 20 feet wide to
meet Fire Codes.
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.
Special Features-None
*****************************************************************************************
7. Other
Business
A. Discussion of wood-burning furnaces
The issue of outside-the-house
wood burning furnaces or wood burning boilers was raised at the last Planning
Commission meeting due to the fact that some residents of the Township are
pursuing the use of them. The decision
had been made to further review and discuss the issue to determine if the use
should be regulated or banned. The
planner provided copies of emails from other municipalities that are grappling
with the same issue. Some have banned
the use altogether and some are regulating the use to certain zoning districts
and with specific locations from a lot line.
The issue was also
highlighted in the monthly MTA E-News Letter sent to the Township. Paper copies of the information provided by
MTA (from the DEQ and the EPA) will also be supplied to you or click on the
links below to read information from the DEQ and the EPA.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/OWB_fact_sheet_3_reasons_11-10-05_142298_7.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/woodstoves/healtheffects.html
On Saturday morning, March
11, 2006, the Fire Department was called to a possible fire. It turned out to be a
outside-the-house wood burning furnace that was producing a lot of smoking. {picture1
1910 Barry, which sits directly adjacent to the highway and someone on the
highway called the Fire Department), picture2
(1919 Barry), picture3
(5155 22nd Ave.)}
Additionally, the Planning
Commission could consider the wording of the general ordinance pertaining to
burning, as follows:
The Fire Code in the Code of
Ordinance reads as follows:
Sec. 34-141. Restrictions.
In all instances of lawful burning, a responsible
adult must be present out-of-doors at the burning site and actively supervise
the burning.
The fire chief or designee shall reserve the right to
deny burning at any time upon the recommendation of the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, or upon the determination by the township that a violation
has occurred, or upon the determination that the permitted use of burning is
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
It shall be
unlawful for any person, persons, or entities throughout the township to burn
or to permit any burning of matter of any kind which shall create or cause to
emanate there from any dust, dirt, smell or foreign substances, or smoke in an
amount and of such nature, or both, as to duly disturb, annoy or harm others,
thereby destroying their full, quiet, and peaceful occupancy and enjoyment of
their homes and premises accessory thereto.
(Ord. No. 2003-08, 12-22-03; Ord. No. 2004-03,
11-8-04)
The use of these furnaces or
boilers could be discussed further at the meeting.
B. Discussion
of definition of single family dwelling
In 2002, the Township had a
problem when a resident converted a single-family home into a two-family
dwelling unit in a LDR district. A
determination was compiled, using the sections of the ordinance, to regulate such
a situation. Since that time, the
Building/Zoning Department has been using this determination when reviewing all
building permit applications. This
determination, by the wording of the ordinance, has eliminated the possibility
of any resident installing a stove/oven in a basement where bedrooms are
located. This has caused many homeowners
to become frustrated (for instance, homeowners on a lake with a walk-out house
and bedrooms in the basement would like to be able to cook in the basement
level to bring food out to the lake without having to go to the main
level). Would the Planning Commission
review this wording and determine if this interpretation is the same as the
Planning Commission intended the wording to mean?
The planner
provided an idea to have the home owner record a deed restriction that the
property would only be used as a single family home.
Zoning Ordinance Interpretation of
Single Family Dwelling
by the Zoning Administrator
January 18, 2002
Revised March 31, 2006
Points to
note:
1.
Section
8.2 of the Georgetown Township Zoning Ordinance allows "detached
single-family dwellings" in the LDR district.
2.
Section
2.39 defines a family as "An individual or two or more persons
related by blood, marriage, adoption, or other legal arrangement, including
foster care children and servants, living together as a housekeeping unit in a
dwelling unit; or a group of not more than four (4) persons, who need not be
related, living together in a single housekeeping unit.
3.
Section
2.29 defines a dwelling unit as "any building or portion thereof having
cooking facilities, which is occupied wholly as the home, residence or
sleeping place of one family, either permanently or transiently, but in no
case shall a motor home, trailer coach, automobile chassis, tent, or portable
building be considered a dwelling. In
case of mixed occupancy, where a building is occupied in part as a dwelling
unit, the part so occupied shall be deemed a dwelling unit for the purpose of
this ordinance and shall comply with the provisions thereof relative to dwellings."
4.
Section
2.31 defines a two family dwelling as "a detached building used or designed
for use exclusively by two families living independently of each other and each
doing their own cooking in said building."
In
conclusion, I would interpret the Zoning Ordinance to mean that a basement,
separate part of a house, or addition to a house that contains cooking
facilities along with a sleeping place (which is any area that COULD be
used as a legal sleeping area that
would meet all Township codes and ordinances )would
be a dwelling
unit in and of itself.
Therefore, since the LDR district
allows only detached single-family dwellings, no separate part of a house
(addition or basement or section) could be constructed in such a way to consist
of cooking facilities and a sleeping place that would make it possible for a
family to legally reside in this section of the dwelling
unit independently of the rest of the house.
The reason for this conclusion is because this would make the structure
in effect a two-family dwelling unit meeting the ordinance definition of a two
family dwelling unit.
C. Discussion
of right-of-way for determining setbacks
A situation arose when a
homeowner on Begole (off 22nd Ave. by the Grand River) applied for a
building permit to construct an addition to an existing house that would extend
the front line of the house. There were
questions about how to determine the front yard setback due to the fact that
the road and easements for this road were in question. The house is located about 40 feet to the
gravel road, but about 15 feet to what would be determined to be the road
right-of-way. The surveyor could not
even figure it out because there is no official road right-of-way. Finally, a meeting was held at the Township
office with Tom Palarz, Engineer with Ottawa County Road Commission, the
property owners, the surveyor and representatives from the Township. It seems that in this location, a buggy path
established in the 1900’s more or less became a road; however, the recorded easement
did not match the location of the road.
The Road Commission held that since this area has been used and
maintained as a road, it was an official road with an easement. The zoning was approved for the permit
because technically there was no RIGHT-OF-WAY to measure the setback from. This situation should be remedied to address
any similar situations in the future.
Tom Palarz reviewed the wording and determined that the proposed wording
change should address any future unusual such situations.
Would the Planning Commission
review the following proposed text amendment?
Sec. 3.7 BASIS OF DETERMINING FRONT YARD
REQUIREMENTS.
The required front yard shall be measured from the
right-of-way line or any road street easement
line as established by the Road Commission for a street road
to an imaginary line across the width of the lot which represents the minimum
required front setback distance for that district provided that where an
average setback line less than required has been established by existing
buildings on the same side of the street and within two hundred (200) feet of
the proposed building, such established setback shall apply. However, no reduction in the minimum required
front yard setback shall be permitted along those streets identified in Chapter
XXIV, footnote (b). Unenclosed porches,
steps, or similar facilities may project into a required front or rear yard for
a distance not to exceed twelve (12) feet. (revised
August 1996) In the case of a handicap wheelchair ramp (not to
exceed a width of five (5) feet), the Zoning Administrator may waive any
setback requirements at his/her discretion, if no other options are available
to provide a ramp, provided that the applicant agrees to remove the ramp if it
is no longer necessary on the property.
A performance letter or performance guarantee may be required. (revised 6-27-2005)
Sec. 2.63 LOT LINES.
The property lines bounding the lot.
(A) Front
Sec. 2.91 STREET.
A public or private
thoroughfare which affords traffic circulation and principal means of access to
abutting property, including avenue, place, way, drive, lane, boulevard,
highway, road, and other thoroughfare; except an alley.
Take out public and add
easement. Public right-of-way or
easement
worded: right-of-way or easement
To: Planning Commission Members
From: Mannette
Date: April 18, 2006
RE: Review for Planning Commission meeting on April 19, 2006
Since the revised plans for
Wiseman’s Corner were not submitted to the Township until Monday afternoon,
there was no time to get the plans to you by mail. The revised plan will be given to you at the
meeting. You could review the plan by
clicking on the link because the site plan on the internet is the revised
one. No revised plans have been
submitted for the PUD. Please review the
minutes on the website prior to the regular meeting.
1. 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
The
applicant has obtained an additional 12 acres and a pre-application meeting
will be held again since the plan has been revised. Once the pre-application meeting has been
held, the item will be placed on the agenda for review by the Planning
Commission. Notice for the public
hearing has not been published.
SUMMARY
Take no action.
**************************************************************************************
2. Unfinished
Business - (ST0602) Jore Retail-2400
Chicago Dr.
No
revised plans have been submitted and no new information is available. At the March 15, 2006 meeting, the Planning
Commission recommended the following:
5.
Landscaping/Curbing- The general consensus was that the landscaping plan needs to be
dressed up a little with more variety which might include some ground
covering. Curbing was also required to
give a cleaner appearance and provides protection to the landscaped area.
6.
Parking-
Members of the Planning Commission had concerns regarding the number of parking
spaces with regard to the parking needs of the future tenant who could occupy
the space. The Planning Commission
reminded the applicant that if there are request for any future site changes,
the parking issue will arise again.
7.
Elevations-
The Planning Commission accepted the elevation.
8.
Removal of one driveway: The majority of the Planning Commission members wanted
one driveway closed, which would result in 3-4 more parking spaces.
SUMMARY
Take no action.
**************************************************************************************
3. Unfinished
Business - Ordinance Amendments Chapter 24 footnote (k) and (m)
At
the March 15, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission tabled the ordinance
amendments for further discussion. The
Planning Commission recommended approval for Sec. 25.6(A) at the April 12, 2006
meeting.
If
the Planning Commissions determines the proposed amendments to Chapter 24
footnote (k) and (m) still need revisions, proposed new wording could be
discussed. Otherwise, if the amendments
are acceptable, action could be taken. Note that if the Planning Commission makes a
recommendation for the amendments at the April 12 meeting, the amendments would
go before the Board on April 24, published on May 2 and effective on May 9,
2006.
SUMMARY
Motion: To
recommend to the Board to approve the following proposed ordinance
amendments:
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.
(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).
**************************************************************************************
4. (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 44th
St. and 8th Ave. at Gleneagle Highlands Dr.
No revised plans
have been submitted addressing the issues that were raised at the April 12,
2006 meeting. The public hearing was
advertised. Hold the public hearing.
The Planning Commission previously 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 8th Ave., and 5% parking reduction.
SUMMARY
·
The Planning Commission determined that the ground mounted sign on 44th
St. should be moved closer to the east
(still 60 feet from the centerline of 44th St.) at least 15 feet to
the east of the curb by the right turn lane of the exit to allow a driver a
clear view of the sidewalk for a greater distance than previously
proposed. They also determined that the sign
at the 8th Ave. access should be moved to a location 15 feet south
of the curb for the right exit lane. Other
than the location, the sizes were acceptable.
·
Road Commission
approval is still required before the Planning Commission takes action.
·
A proposed
phasing plan was shown; however, projected start dates should be provided.
·
The narrative
indicates that additional architectural elevations would be provided by March
31 2006 (they have not been submitted to the Township yet).
·
The property
owner to the south does not want the driveway connection to Eaglebrook
apartments and pointed out that the plan
that had been approved for Eaglebrook Apartments does not show a stubbed
interior road to connect to this property to the north. Rather, the area which does not extend
to the property line is used for parking and snow storage.
·
A Storm Water Drain permit should be provided with the final development
plan.
·
Documentation for
an association should be provided to maintain the open space.
·
Links to letters
have been provided with comments for the public hearing.
·
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 to seek amended
approvals.
OPTION
FOR MOTION:
Since no revised plans have been submitted
addressing the remaining items, the item should be tabled.
Motion: To table the item until revised plans
are submitted addressing the remaining issues.
****************************************************************************************
5. Site Plan (ST0603) Wiseman’s Corner – 4440 Chicago Dr.
The
request is to construct a 27,320 square foot building at the southwest corner
of 18th Ave. and Chicago Dr. consisting of four office units each
with 2,025 square feet, a 15,365 square foot retail unit and 3,835 square foot
utility/storage space. The property was
recently rezoned to HS. A drive-in
window is shown and is permitted by right in the HS district. Decel lanes are shown on Chicago Dr. and 18th
Ave.
A
revised plan has been submitted, along with a letter addressing issues raised
at the work session. Follow the link
above to the letter with the narrative and a letter from the Road Commission
with items still remaining to be addressed before the Road Commission grants
approval.
SUMMARY
·
MDOT approved the
access off Chicago Dr. Approval should be provided from the Road
Commission for the entrance off 18th Ave. Items remaining from the Road Commission
are addressed in their letter (follow the above link).
·
The Planning
Commission accepted the rendition as a sufficient elevation.
·
The directional arrows
have been corrected for the entrance off 18th Ave. and a “Do Not
Enter” sign has been provided to direct traffic to turn into the parking area
from the entry off 18th Ave.
·
As requested by
the Planning Commission, curbing was provided by Chicago Dr. to discourage
exiting from that driveway.
·
Hydrants have
been provided in accordance with the Fire Department direction.
·
The berm height
along 18th Ave. and Chicago Dr. has been adjusted to be two to three
feet above the parking lot.
·
The applicant has requested a 12% waiver for fourteen
parking spaces in case in the future a use other than office is requested for
one of the tenant spaces. Fourteen
possible future parking spaces have been shown along the west side of the
building to be provided if necessary in the future. {Sec.
26.9J gives the Planning Commission the authority to defer construction of the
required number of parking spaces if: 1) proposed parking areas are shown, are
the sufficient number and meet the other ordinance requirements; 2) such
deferment areas shall not be used for any other purpose required by the
ordinance; 3) alterations to the deferred parking area may be initiated by the
owner or required by the zoning administrator; and 4) if after the site is
developed, the PC determines that adequate off-street parking is not available
for the use, the deferred parking shall be constructed by the owner upon
written notification by the zoning administrator.}
The Planning Commission should determine
if a 12% parking space waiver would be granted for possible future retail uses,
taking into consideration that fourteen spaces are shown for future
construction if necessary.
OPTIONS FOR MOTION
If the Planning Commission
determines that the issues have been sufficiently addressed-
Motion: To
approve the site plan dated revised 4-13-06 with the condition that Road
Commission approval is provided at the time a
building permit application is submitted to the Township ( with or without the
parking waiver of 12%)
****************************************************************************************
6. Revised
Site Plan(ST0604) Revised Menno’s Cove
As
directed by the Planning Commission, I contacted the planner and he determined
that the change would not be a minor change and the revised site plan should be
reviewed and acted upon by the Planning Commission.
SUMMARY
The
Planning Commission could approve the revised site plan if the determination is
made that the shared driveways are not necessary.
OPTIONS FOR MOTION
Motion: To the
revised site plan dated received 4-18-06.