To:       Planning Commission Members

From:   Mannette

Date:    May 31, 2006

RE:       Review for Planning Commission meeting on June 7, 2006

 

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 the materials have been forwarded to the planner for a review.  A meeting is scheduled with the planner and applicant for Monday, June 5, 2006 for the purpose of obtaining additional information.  The review will be forwarded to the Planning Commissioners as soon as it is available.  Notice for the public hearing has not been published.

 

            SUMMARY

 

Take no action at this time.

 

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

 

2.         Unfinished Business - (ST0602) Jore Retail-2400 Chicago Dr.

 

The applicant was contacted after the last meeting and they have indicated that they do not intend to proceed.  The withdrawal was requested to be put in writing; however, nothing has been submitted.  This is the third month under old business. If no new information is submitted and if no revised site plan is submitted addressing the concerns raised by the Planning Commission by the regular meeting in June, the PC could deny the site plan since it does not meet the requirements of the Planning Commission and it is the PC’s policy to act on items under old business after three months.

 

            SUMMARY

 

Take no action at this time.  The item could be acted upon at the regular meeting.

 

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

 

3.         Unfinished Business - Ordinance Amendments Chapter 24 footnote (k) and (m)

 

            SUMMARY

 

The Planning Commission determined action would be taken at the regular meeting.

 

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

 

4.         Preliminary Plat of Crosswinds

 

The item was tabled at the last meeting pending revisions to the plan including the addition of a stub street to the east.  As requested by the Planning Commission, GIS pictures of the property are provided including the property to the east and research was done regarding the Planning Commission’s authority to require a stub street.  The planner provided the information that the Township does have the authority to require a stub street (and to regulate the layout of a plat) under the Code of Ordinances (general ordinance) Sec. 50-51(1) (a) through (d) and the State Land Division Act, PA 288 of 1967, MCL 560.182(4)(a) gives the Township the authority to reject a plat which isolates other lands from existing public streets, unless suitable access is provided.  In addition, Brett Laughlin, Ottawa County Road Commission, stated that the Road Commission had not required a stub street to the east because he thought that the site was already developed as a campground; however, now he would require the stub street since the property owner of the campground intends to develop the site and that he would concur with the Township, in any event, if the Township required the stub to the east

 

SUMMARY

 

The following items remained after the last meeting:

a.                   The addition of a stub street to the east should be added to connect with the campground property for future development);

b.                  Recommendation for a variance for the length of the cul de sac should be made if a recommendation for approval is made since Sec. 50-51(3)(c.) in the Code of Ordinances allows a maximum length of a cul de sac to be 600 feet (the text does not stipulate whether or not the cul de sac is temporary or permanent).  Sec. 50-52 permits the Planning Commission to recommend a variance and the Board to grant a variance for the length; 

c.                   Under note #13 in the General Notes, the lot number 28 was changed to lot 27;

d.                  Under note #15 in the General Notes, the lot numbers were revised to correctly correlate with the new lot numbers;

e.                   A note was added that decks must be constructed within the building envelop;

f.                    Sidewalks were extended to the cul de sac;

g.                   A note was added; however, documentation should be provided that a plat restriction will require all property owners to hook up to sewer within six months from the time it is available;

h.                   The developer sent an email saying that he does not want to purchase the property to the east.

 

OPTIONS FOR MOTIONS

 

Motion:           To table the site plan until the plan is revised plan is submitted showing a stub

street connection to the east

 

Or if the applicant wants the PC to act on the plan dated revised 5-18-06

 

Motion:           To recommend to the Township Board to deny tentative preliminary plat

approval of Crosswinds Plat as shown on the drawing dated 5/18/06 because a connection is not shown to the property to the east as required by the Planning Commission (with authority given to the Township in the Township Code of Ordinances Sec.  50-51 (1) Street Layout (a) through (d) and the State Land Division Act, PA 288 of 1967, MCL 560.182(4)(a) which gives the Township the authority to reject a plat which isolates other lands from existing public streets, unless suitable access is provided);

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

5.         Site Plan (ST0605) Meijer-550 Baldwin (revision for pharmacy drive-up window)

 

Request

 

The Township approved a special use permit and site plan for a pharmacy drive-in window in December 2005.  Due to the fact that the tube system does not work and there are circulation issues due to the proximity of the drive-in window to the store entrance, the applicants are proposing to reverse the traffic flow to go from east to west.  The Planning Commission discussed the request at the last meeting and determined that an expert should provide a recommendation.  Therefore, the submittal materials have been forwarded to the planner for a review.  A meeting has been scheduled with the applicants and planner for Monday, June 5, 2006.  The review will be emailed to you as soon as it is ready or it will be presented at the meeting.

 

 

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

 

6.         Special Use Permit (SUP0604) LaMacchia Group, LLC, 309 North Water Street, Milwaukee, WI, is

requesting to have a drive-in financial establishment under Sec. 14.3(E), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-22-364-006, located at 2187 Port Sheldon, in a (NS) Neighborhood Service Commercial district, Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. (site plan 1, 2, 3) (lighting, landscaping, elevation, first floor, sketch)

 

Request

 

The proposal is for a 3,173 square foot one-story building at the corner of Port Sheldon and Center Industrial Dr. for the use of a financial institution with a drive-in window.  The parcel is part of the Industrial Park PUD and is adjacent to the Wendy’s Restaurant that was approved as part of a PUD in 2002.  Initially the determination was made that since this was part of the PUD, the development would have to be submitted as an amendment to the PUD.  However, after discussions with the applicant and planner, the decision was made to review the application as a special use permit.  The reason is because the initial PUD was approved under the old PUD ordinance.  In November 2002 (after Wendy’s was approved in September 2002), a new PUD ordinance was adopted with PUD as a zoning district.  Therefore, since the underlying zoning of the parcel is already NS (not PUD) and the use is allowed in the NS district with a special use permit under Sec. 14.3(E) for a drive-in window for banks and similar uses, the determination was made to proceed with a special use permit application.

 

The plan proposes an additional curb cut on Port Sheldon.  According to Brett Laughlin, Ottawa County Road Commission, a restriction has been recorded for the PUD prohibiting any additional access driveways for these parcels (this initially was one parcel, but was split in 2002 into three parcels), which is the reason for the interior easement that provides access to the parcels west of the corner of Port Sheldon and Center Industrial Dr.  Brett Laughlin stated an opposition to the additional proposed curb cut because there would be clear vision issues with the curve and close proximity of the intersection.  In addition, the speed limit is 45 mph around this curve.  Further, the Planning Commission specified during previous approvals for Wendy’s Restaurant that there not be additional curb cuts due to safety issues with the curve, close proximity of the corner and the 45 mph speed limit.  The Planning Commission should determine if there are sufficient new reasons to warrant approving the access driveway, in which case the Road Commission could still deny the access driveway.  

 

SUMMARY

 

a.                  The Planning Commission should determine if the proposed driveway access to Port Sheldon should be removed.  Sec. 26.3 (I) gives the PC the authority to determine driveway access to the streets listed in Chapter 24 footnote b. and Port Sheldon is listed in the footnote.  The parcel and the adjacent parcels have an easement for ingress and egress to provide interior access to this site and the adjacent parcels.  In addition, the Planning Commission has previously approved Wendy’s Restaurant without an additional curb cut.  According to Brett Laughlin, Ottawa County Road Commission, a restriction is recorded prohibiting an addition driveway access at this point.  He has stated a concern with the clear vision issues with the curve, the close proximity of the intersection, and the 45 mph speed limit along this portion of Port Sheldon.  Therefore, even if the Township determines that an additional curb cut is warranted, the Road Commission might still deny the curb cut.   In addition, as proposed, the vehicles exiting from the bank of parking spaces closest to the building could be held up by vehicles stacking for the drive-in lanes.

b.                  The sign is correctly shown to be located 75 feet from CL, which meets Sec. 26.5(B) for a ground mounted sign.  A second sign is located on the corner, which would not normally be permitted.  However, there is an easement for the sign and it is part of the original approved PUD.  Lighting is noted to be downward directing.

c.                   On the site plan approved for the Wendy’s Restaurant the interior service road on the easement for ingress and egress was shown to be paved right up to the property line.  It appears as though this pavement is a couple feet short and the property owner will have to be contacted to continue the paving to the property line.

d.                  The proposal does not appear to meet specific standard (4) as follows: The site shall be so designed as to provide adequate stacking space for drive-through customers without obstructing access to off-street parking spaces, interfering with traffic circulation through the site, or causing vehicles to queue off the site.

Following is the documentation showing compliance with Ordinance requirements.

 

I D number

ST0604

 

 

 

Date

5-24-06

 

 

Name

LaMacchia Group/Financial

 

 

 

 

 

Address

2187 Port Sheldon

 

 

 

 

 

 

Use

Drive-in financial institution

 

SUP required

Sec. 14.3(E)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 Meets (m)

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

 

 a. see note

Sidewalks, non-motorized paths-select streets, accel, decel lanes

 

 

 

 

X

 

Signs, exterior lighting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 b. see note

Curbing, parking areas, dimensions of typical space, number of parking spaces

X

 

Calculations of parking spaces, unloading areas

 

 

 X

 

Location, pavement width, ROW of all abutting roads, easements

 

 

 c. see note

Existing zoning, and zoning and use of abutting property

 

 

X

 

Location of existing vegetation-parkway association

 

 

 

 

X

 

Location, type, size of proposed landscaping, streetscape, greenbelt

X

 

Location, height, type of existing and proposed fences and walls

 

none

 

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

 

Special Use Standards, general and specific

 

 

 

 

d. see additional comments

Residential development extra requirements-attached garages

 

 NA

 

 

Additional Comments:

 

Landscape Preservation.

None available

 

Relation of Buildings to Environment.

En elevation was provided and appears to be harmonious with the vicinity.

Lighting details were provided.

Landscaping meets the ordinance requirements.

 

Drives, Parking, and Circulation.

There is a question as to whether the driveway access to Port Sheldon will be permitted. 

 

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-NA

 

Special Use

General Special Use Standards

            (1)        Be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance, with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such a use will not change the essential character of the area in which it is proposed.

            (2)        Be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police, fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewage facilities, or schools.

            (3)        Not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services.

            (4)        Not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, and equipment or conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors.

 

A narrative was provided detailing compliance with the standards.  The Planning Commission should consider if the additional driveway access would be detrimental due to the traffic patterns in the vicinity.

 

Specific Special Use Standards

(L)       Drive-in restaurant.

            (1)        The main and accessory buildings shall be set back a minimum of sixty (60) feet from any adjacent right-of-way line or residential property line.

            (2)        Public access to the site shall be located at least one hundred (100) feet from any intersection as measured from the nearest right-of-way line to the nearest edge of said access.

            (3)        Where the site abuts residentially zoned property, a greenbelt shall be provided along such property line, in accordance with Section 3.11.

            (4)        The site shall be so designed as to provide adequate stacking space for drive-through customers without obstructing access to off-street parking spaces, interfering with traffic circulation through the site, or causing vehicles to queue off the site.

            (5)        Outdoor speakers for the drive through facility shall be located in a way that minimizes sound

transmission toward neighboring property and uses.

 

Since there are no specific standards for a drive-in financial institution, the proposal was reviewed according to the specific standards for a drive-in restaurant.  The proposal appears to meet all these standards, except for possibly (4). 

 

(1)   The site does not abut any residential district. 

(2)   The proposed access (which would have to be considered by the Planning Commission) is at least 100 feet from the intersection. 

(3)   The site does not abut any residential district.

(4)   Adequate stacking has been provided; however, vehicles exiting from the bank of parking spaces nearest the building would get held up by vehicles stacking in the drive-in lanes.

(5)   The drive-in area is adjacent to a drive-in restaurant.

 

 

 

 

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

 

7.                  Rezoning (REZ0605) To change from (RR) Rural Residential to (LDR) Low Density Residential part of a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-09-200-021, located at 2445 Bauer Rd., map, survey

 

Request

 

The request is to rezone 8.35 acres on the northwest corner of Bauer Rd. and 24th Ave. 

 

SUMMARY

 

The proposed zoning designation of LDR is consistent with the Future Land Use Map.  The text of the Master Plan should be considered in regards to guaranteeing good access management techniques on Bauer Road and in regards to preserving the natural character of the vicinity through development in the form of a PUD or open space preservation ordinance. 

 

1.      Consistency: is the proposed zoning and all of its permitted uses consistent with the recommendations of the township land use plan?

 

The Future Land Use Map shows the subject property as Low Density Residential.  This is consistent with the requested zoning designation.  The property is currently vacant and the applicant has indicated that he plans to pursue splitting the property for single family homes (although the proposed use is irrelevant to the consideration of rezoning).

 

The text of the Master Plan states that good access management techniques are to be practiced on the major roads (including Bauer Rd.) and the text also specifically states that this is a rural area in transition to urban residential.  The text further states that conventional subdivisions that simply divide the land into lots with no amenities and little regard for the natural character should be discouraged, and that the area should be developed in the form of PUDs or open space preservation.

 

The following are excerpts from the text of the Master Plan:

 

General Land Use Policies

 

Access to major roads (listed in the Zoning Ordinance) should be limited and placed in locations that have the least impact practical on the through flow of traffic.  Special consideration should be given that good access management techniques are practiced, specifically on the major roads.

 

Bauer Rd./Fillmore Area.

 

The Master Plan recognizes that this is an area in transition from very rural to urban residential.  However, the natural character of the area should be preserved to the extent possible.  As public water and sanitary sewer become available, planned development in the form of PUDs or open space preservation projects should be permitted within an overall residential density limit of 3.5 units per acre.  Preference should be given to large scale developments that will maintain open space and preserve the natural character of the land, while meeting the residential goals of this Plan.  Conventional subdivisions that simply divide the land into lots with no amenities and little regard for the natural character should be discouraged.

 

2.      Compatibility: is the proposed district and all of its allowed uses compatible with the surrounding area?  The proposed district (LDR) allows the following permitted uses: detached single family dwellings, parks, family daycare homes, adult foster care family homes, foster family homes and state licensed residential family facilities.  Special uses include: Churches, municipal buildings, public utilities, group daycare homes, private non-commercial recreation, golf courses, non-commercial schools, cemeteries, commercial soil removal, bed and breakfast establishments, daycare centers, commercial wireless communication towers and adult foster care homes.  To the north are single family residential homes on LDR sized lots.  To the east, south and west are larger sized lots, some vacant and some with single family homes.

3.      Capability: is the property capable of being used for a use permitted within the existing zoning district?  Public utilities are available to be brought to the site.  Bauer Road and 24th Ave. are already constructed.

 

4.      Other considerations: will the rezoning require an inordinate expenditure of public funds (road improvements, utility extension, etc.) to make the development feasible?  Public utilities are available to be brought to the site by the developer and will not require any public funds to extend into the proposed development.

 

5.      Will the rezoning cause development to “leap frog” other undeveloped areas in the same zoning district and necessitate premature extensions of services to rural areas of the township?  The proposed development is surrounded by vacant land and by single family residential homes and would not necessitate premature extension of services to rural area of the Township.

 

6.      Is there sufficient vacant land already zoned in a specific category (e.g., industrial, multifamily, commercial)?  Although there is amply land already zoned LDR, this rezoning will continue the LDR district to the west to meet up with the Eastbrook Development.

 

8.         Preliminary Plat of Summerset West

 

Request

 

Preliminary plat approval is sought for 53 lots in a LDR district with public utilities on a 53.92 acre parcel.

 

SUMMARY

 

The proposals appears to meet all zoning and general ordinances and that no revisions are necessary.  The plan also appears to meet the criteria for the Planning Commission to recommend a variance for the length of the Stonehenge Dr. (1469 lineal feet) and of Chancellor Dr. (1583 lineal feet) under Sec. 50-51(1) in the Code of Ordinances which allows a maximum length of a street to be 1,300 or a block to be 1,500.  Sec. 50-52 permits the Planning Commission to recommend a variance and the Board to grant a variance for the length; 

 

I D number

 

 

 

 

Date

5-30-06

 

 

Name

Summerset West Plat

 

 

 

 

 

Address

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Use

Preliminary Plat

 

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

 

NA

 

Location of existing and proposed drives (dimensions and radii), circulation

X

 

Sidewalks, non-motorized paths-select streets, accel, decel lanes

 

 

 

 

X

 Taper on 8th Ave.

Signs, exterior lighting

 

 

 

 

 

NA

 

Curbing, parking areas, dimensions of typical space, number of parking spaces

X

 

Calculations of parking spaces, unloading areas

 

 

 NA

 

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

 Lot 33/maintain

Location, type, size of proposed landscaping, streetscape, greenbelt

NA

 

Location, height, type of existing and proposed fences and walls

 

NA

 

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

 

Length of blocks

 

 

 

 

Needs variances

Residential development extra requirements-attached garages

 

 

 required

 

 

 

9.         Other Business Request by Randy Rottschafer for a site plan extension and minor change.

 

Randy Rottschafer received site plan approval for the building at 610 Baldwin on January 21, 2004.  The building was subsequently completed.  On June 15, 2005 the Planning Commission approved a site plan for an accessory building on the site to be located in the rear yard to the south of the now existing building.  As per Sec. 19.5(E), a development must be under construction within one year of the date of the site plan approval.  The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission grant a six month extension of the approval which is allowed under Sec. 19.5(E)(1).

           

OPTION FOR MOTION If the PC determines an extension is acceptable:

 

Motion:           To approve the extension of the site plan approval for six months as permitted

under Sec. 19.5(E) (1) for ST0510, which extends the approval until December 15, 2006.

 

Randy Rottschafer is also requesting a minor change to the site plan that was initially approved on January 21, 2004  At the time of review, the Planning Commission mentioned concerns with the location of the dumpster in relation to the single family residential home to the south.  The PC wanted the dumpster moved as far to the north as possible to avoid loud noises for the residents when the dumpster is emptied.  The plan was approved with the dumpster located along the western side of the building about halfway to the front parking lot.  At this time Randy Rottshafer is requesting a minor change to the site plan to move the dumpster south next to the proposed accessory building in order to pave a portion of the site to the west of the existing building for paved access to the accessory building.

 

If the PC does not determine the revision to be acceptable, no action needs to be taken.  If the PC determines that the revision would be acceptable, the PC could approve the revision to the site plan.

 

OPTION FOR MOTION If the PC determines the revision is acceptable:

 

Motion:           To approve the revision to the site plan signed and approved by the Planning

Commission on1-21-04 to permit the movement of the dumpster to the south and the paving of the portion of the site adjacent to the western side of the building.

 

10.       Discuss Zoning Ordinance Amendment as follows:

 

e.         One wall sign may be permitted in addition to those permitted above if the

freestanding sign permitted in Sec. 25.6(B) is eliminated and the square footage

of the additional wall sign equals 75% or less of the square footage permitted

for the freestanding sign, provided further that a guarantee is provided to the

Township that the freestanding sign permitted in Sec. 25.6(B) would not be

constructed unless the additional wall sign is removed.



 

 

To:       Planning Commission Members

 

From:   Mannette

 

Date:    June 15, 2006

 

RE:       Review for Planning Commission meeting on June 21, 2006

 

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

 

Notice for the public hearing has not been published.

 

The applicants have obtained an additional 12 acres and the additional submitted materials were forwarded to the planner for a review.  A meeting was held with the planner and applicants on Monday, June 5, 2006 for the purpose of obtaining additional information.  The planner provided a review in which he notes that the applicants have decided to combine the adjacent apartments (turned condos) in with the PUD for the purpose of constructing additional storage buildings and a community building.  The applicants will be compiling new plans to submit.

 

            SUMMARY

 

Take no action at this time.

 

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

 

2.         Unfinished Business - (ST0602) Jore Retail-2400 Chicago Dr.

 

The applicant was contacted after the last meeting and they have indicated that they do not intend to proceed.  The withdrawal was requested to be put in writing; however, nothing has been submitted.  This is the third month under old business and it is the PC’s policy to act on items under old business after three months. The site plan does not meet the requirements of the ordinance and the direction given by the Planning Commission in regards to: landscaping, curbing, parking and the elimination of one driveway. 

 

            OPTION FOR MOTION

 

Motion:           To deny the site plan for Jore Retail at 2460 Chicago Dr. as shown on the site plan

dated 03/08/06, as submitted, because the site plan does not meet the requirements of the ordinance and the plan was not revised according to direction provided by the Planning Commission

 

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

 

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.  This is the third month under old business.  If the amendments are acceptable, action could be taken.  The public hearing was held in March.

 

            OPTION FOR MOTION

 

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.         Preliminary Plat of Crosswinds

 

The public hearing was held in May.  A revised plan was submitted for review at the June work session that included a stub street to the property at the northwest section of the site, plus inconsistencies with the General Notes were corrected.  The item was left tabled at the last meeting due to questions with the addition of a stub street to the property to the east.  The planner provided the information that the Township does have the authority to require a stub street (and to regulate the layout of a plat) under the Code of Ordinances (general ordinance) Sec. 50-51(1) (a) through (d) and the State Land Division Act, PA 288 of 1967, MCL 560.182(4)(a) gives the Township the authority to reject a plat which isolates other lands from existing public streets, unless suitable access is provided. 

 

In addition, the Township has received a letter from Brett Laughlin, Ottawa County Road Commission, stating that a roadway shall be provided to the campground property to the east because the information became available that the campground property owner intends in the future either to develop the property or to sell it for development.  

 

Further, a letter was received from applicant indicating that they do not intend to revise the plan to provide a stub to the east and would like the Planning Commission to act on the last submitted site plan dated revised 5-18-06.

 

It should be noted that while the Planning Commission and Township staff review the plans for compliance with ordinances and for overall layout, new pertinent information can become available which affects requirements for approval.  State law, as well as Sec. 50-26 of the Code of Ordinances, require that a public hearing be held for purposes of obtaining additional information that bears upon the application.  The Code of Ordinances requires a public hearing and states that the Planning Commission shall consider such other information it obtains.  Therefore, since the Planning Commission became aware that the property owner to the east intends to develop the property sometime in the future, that new information should be considered in the plat review.

 

SUMMARY

 

The following items remained after the last meeting:

i.                     The addition of a stub street to the east to connect with the campground property for future development);

j.                    Recommendation for a variance for the length of the cul de sac should be made if a recommendation for approval is made since Sec. 50-51(3)(c.) in the Code of Ordinances allows a maximum length of a cul de sac to be 600 feet (the text does not stipulate whether or not the cul de sac is temporary or permanent).  Sec. 50-52 permits the Planning Commission to recommend a variance and the Board to grant a variance for the length; 

k.                  A note was added; however, documentation should be provided that a plat restriction will require all property owners to hook up to sewer within six months from the time it is available.

 

OPTIONS FOR MOTIONS

 

Since the applicants have indicated that they do not intend to submit a revised plan with a stub street to the east and would like the Planning Commission to act on the plan dated revised 5-18-06, the following recommendation is offered.  If the applicant indicates that a revised plan would be submitted with the stub to the east, the item could be tabled.

 

Motion:           To recommend to the Township Board to deny tentative preliminary plat

approval of Crosswinds Plat as shown on the drawing dated 5/18/06 because a connection is not shown to the property to the east as required by the Road Commission and the Planning Commission (with authority given to the Township in the Township Code of Ordinances Sec.  50-51 (1) Street Layout (a) through (d) and the State Land Division Act, PA 288 of 1967, MCL 560.182(4)(a) which gives the Township the authority to reject a plat which isolates other lands from existing public streets, unless suitable access is provided)

 

 

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

 

 

5.         Site Plan (ST0605) Meijer-550 Baldwin (revision for pharmacy drive-up window)

 

No public hearings are necessary for a site plan; however, the Planning Commission may take public comments. 

 

Request

 

The proposal is to revise the pharmacy drive-in window area to accommodate a flow of traffic that is reversed compared to what had been approved in December 2005.  Due to the fact that the tube system does not work and there are circulation issues due to the proximity of the drive-in window to the store entrance with the previously approved site plan, the applicants are proposing to reverse the traffic flow to go from east to west.  The Planning Commission discussed the request at the last meeting and determined that an expert should provide a recommendation.  Therefore, the submittal materials were forwarded to the planner for a review.  A meeting was held with the applicants and planner on Monday, June 5, 2006 and the planner conducted multiple other site visits.    

 

Note

 

With motion #051207-01, the Planning Commission approved the site plan dated 11/22/05 titled “Option A,” as submitted with a condition that signage was provided prohibiting vehicles from the east making a left hand turn into the drive lane for the tube and that signage was provided on the site to clarify the desired path for vehicles entering from the east to access the tube. 

 

The overall site plan that was submitted for this new application is dated 11/17/2005 and is NOT the same one that was approved by the Planning Commission on 12-7-05 for the pharmacy drive-in window and the open air business.  The site plan approved by the Planning Commission on 12-7-05 is dated 11/22/05 shows all the required elements as well as provides an accurate depiction of the overall site.  This plan dated 11/17/2005 appears to be the plan that was initially submitted and is NOT correct because the elements required by the Planning Commission are not shown nor does it accurately depict the overall site. 

 

If any action for any type of approval is taken by the Planning Commission, caution should be exercised that the action is ONLY for the proposed pharmacy drive-up overlay with respect to traffic circulation and NO action should be taken on the incorrect overall site plan. 

 

Summary

 

At the Planning Commission’s request, the submittal materials (as well as previous site plans and minutes) were forwarded to the planner for a review.  The planner met with the applicant on-site at the Meijer store in addition to conducting multiple other relevant site visits.  The planner presented a review with a conclusion as follows:

 

“The primary difference {of this store from others} is the flow of traffic from the primary streets serving the store, Baldwin and Cottonwood.  These two streets merge at the northeast corner of the store creating an intensive traffic intersection encountering a large portion of the traffic entering and leaving the site.  This traffic apex area is also complicated with the location of a main store entry and now the pharmacy drive-up window.  As designed and approved by the Planning Commission, the drive-up access point is off the main drive area to the east with the exit at the convergence of the main drives and the store entry.  We are of the opinion this is the best design for this location given the busy location of both automobile and pedestrian traffic.  If this flow were reversed, a potential drive-up customer in the busy intersection will probably wait for either auto or pedestrian traffic to clear before making a left hand turn into the drive-up access aisle.  This will have the tendency of backing up traffic in the busy area.  Based on this, it is our opinion the current design should stand as approved.”

 

 

OPTIONS FOR MOTIONS

 

Based on the planner’s recommendation:

 

Motion:           To deny the site plan dated 11/17/2005 based on the findings that the circulation

as proposed would be detrimental to both pedestrian and vehicular traffic, with the authority given to the Planning Commission under Sec. 20.3(A) General Standards for Special Use Permits since this is a site plan for a special use permit for the drive-in window and with authority given to the Planning Commission under Sec. 19.10(C) Review Standards for a site plan for Drives, Parking and Circulation.

 

If the Planning Commission determines to approve the revision for the pharmacy drive-in window:

 

 Motion:          To approve the section of the site plan related to the pharmacy drive-in as shown

on the site plan dated 11/17/2005, with the condition that the site plan be revised to include the elements shown on the approved site plan dated 12/7/06 with all the elements directed to be shown by the Planning Commission at the time of site plan approval for the open air business and pharmacy drive-in window December 2005, and that the plan accurately depicts the overall site including all new business and related elements.

 

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

 

6.         Special Use Permit (SUP0604) LaMacchia Group, LLC, 309 North Water Street, Milwaukee, WI, is

requesting to have a drive-in financial establishment under Sec. 14.3(E), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-22-364-006, located at 2187 Port Sheldon, in a (NS) Neighborhood Service Commercial district, Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. (site plan 1, 2, 3) (lighting, landscaping, elevation, first floor, sketch)

 

Notice for the public hearing was published.  Hold the public hearing.

 

Request

 

The proposal is for a 3,173 square foot one-story building at the corner of Port Sheldon and Center Industrial Dr. for the use of a financial institution with a drive-in window.  At the last meeting the determination was made that the stacking and on-site traffic circulation was acceptable.  It appears that all the general standards in Sec. 20.3 and specific standards in Sec. 20.4(L) are met.  The only issue that remained was the additional proposed curb cut on Port Sheldon. 

 

The Township received a letter from Brett Laughlin, Ottawa County Road Commission, stating that the Ottawa Count Road Commission would NOT approve a driveway access to Port Sheldon from this property and that access would have to be obtained from the existing driveway to the west or a possible future driveway access from Center Industrial Dr.

 

The plan has been revised to shown the interior service lane on the adjacent property to the east and an access driveway on Center Industrial Dr.  The applicant has indicated that approval should be forthcoming from the Road Commission for this driveway access.  Plus this driveway access is consistent with the letter from the Ottawa County Road Commission dated June 9, 2006.

 

SUMMARY

 

It appears that all the general standards in Sec. 20.3 and specific standards in Sec. 20.4(L), as well as the site plan standards in Sec. 19.4, are met.  The only issue that remained regarding the additional proposed curb cut on Port Sheldon has been eliminated and replaced with an access lane on the parcel to the east and a curb cut on Center Industrial Dr.

 

OPTION FOR MOTION

 

Special Use Permit

Motion:           To recommend to the Township Board approval of Special Use Permit (SUP0604)

LaMacchia Group, LLC, 309 North Water Street, Milwaukee, WI, to have a drive-in financial establishment under Sec. 14.3(E), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-22-364-006, located at 2187 Port Sheldon, in a (NS) Neighborhood Service Commercial district, Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, because the proposed plan meets the applicable standards of the ordinance for the general special use standards under Sec. 20.3(A) and the specific special use standards under Sec. 20.4(L).

 

Site Plan

Motion:           To approve the site plan dated revised 6-13-06, as submitted, because the plan

meets all applicable standards of the ordinance under Sec. 19.4 and with the condition that an approval letter from the Ottawa County Road Commission be provided at the time the building permit application is submitted to the Township.

 

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

8.                  Rezoning (REZ0605) To change from (RR) Rural Residential to (LDR) Low Density Residential part of a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-09-200-021, located at 2445 Bauer Rd., map, survey

 

Notice for the public hearing was published.  Hold the public hearing.

 

Request

The request is to rezone 8.35 acres on the northwest corner of Bauer Rd. and 24th Ave.  At the last meeting, documentation was provided detailing that the request is consistent with the Future Land Use Map (although driveway accesses should be limited), LDR is compatible with the surrounding area, and the site is capable of sustaining the uses permitted in the LDR district both by right and by special use permit.

 

OPTION FOR MOTION if the Planning Commission determines that LDR is appropriate

 

Motion:           To recommend to the Township Board approval of Rezoning (REZ0605) To

change from (RR) Rural Residential to (LDR) Low Density Residential part of a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-09-200-021 (as presented on the survey by Focus Engineering dated 8-31-05, File No. 204505-1), located at 2445 Bauer Rd. based on the findings that the LDR designation is consistent with the Master Plan and Future Land Use Map, LDR is compatible with the surrounding area, and the site is capable of sustaining the uses allowed by right and special use permit in the LDR district.

 

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

 

8.         Preliminary Plat of Summerset West

 

Request

 

Preliminary plat approval is sought for 53 lots in a LDR district with public utilities on a 53.92 acre parcel.  The proposal appears to meet all zoning and general ordinances.  The plan also appears to meet the criteria for the Planning Commission to recommend a variance for the length of the Stonehenge Dr. (1469 lineal feet) and of Chancellor Dr. (1583 lineal feet) under Sec. 50-51(1) in the Code of Ordinances which allows a maximum length of a street to be 1,300 or a block to be 1,500.  Sec. 50-52 permits the Planning Commission to recommend a variance and the Board to grant a variance for the length.

 

A revised plan has been submitted with minor changes to lots 52 and 53.

 

In accordance with direction given at the last meeting, the applicant has submitted documentation with wording from their attorney that an association would be formed to maintain the common area. 

 

OPTION FOR MOTION

 

Motion:           To recommend to the Township Board to grant tentative preliminary plat

approval of Summerset West as shown on the drawing dated revised 6-12-06 and to recommend a variance for the length of the Stonehenge Dr. (1469 lineal feet) and of Chancellor Dr. (1583 lineal feet) under Sec. 50-51(1) in the Code of Ordinances which allows a maximum length of a street to be 1,300 or a block to be 1,500.  Sec. 50-52 permits the Planning Commission to recommend a variance and the Board to grant a variance for the length.