PC review July 2006

To: Planning Commission Members

From: Mannette

Date: June 27, 2006

RE: Review for Planning Commission meeting on July 5, 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 were forwarded to the planner for a review. A meeting with the applicants and planner was held. At the June 21, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission directed that if the adjacent apartment site to the southeast was added to the PUD, the application should begin the whole process over with a new application and new pre-application meeting since all ordinance elements would have to be reviewed again. The applicant was contacted and is working on the new plans. Notice for the public hearing has not been published.

SUMMARY

Take no action at this time.

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

2. Site Plan (ST0606) REVISION Randy Rottschafer-610 Baldwin

REQUEST

The applicant is requesting to revise a previously approved site plan (actually two previously approved site plans, one for the building that has already been constructed and one for a future accessory building) to provide paved access to the proposed accessory building. The applicant has submitted two proposals. Site plan 1 shows an additional curb cut/driveway access to Thomas St. and site plan 2 shows the dumpster moved to the south adjacent to the west side of the proposed accessory building with pavement along the whole length of the west side of the existing building to the proposed accessory building.

HISTORY

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. On June 7, 2006, the Planning Commission approved an extension of time for the site plan approval for the accessory building until December 15, 2006. At the June 7, 2006 meeting (minutes attached), there was discussion regarding Randy Rottschafer’s request to have paved access to the proposed accessory building by either 1) having an additional curb cut on Thomas St. with direct driveway access to the accessory building or 2) to move the dumpster to the south next to the proposed accessory building and have pavement along the side of the building to the south for access to the accessory building.

The consensus of the Planning Commission at the June 7, 2006 meeting was to not permit the dumpster to be moved to the south because the property abuts a residential district and the noise from the dumpster would be detrimental to the neighboring residential uses. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to make a formal site plan review application for the consideration of the additional curb cut due to the fact that the additional curb cut was not a minor change with circulation issues. The applicant has indicated that he has obtained permission from the Ottawa County Road Commission for the additional curb cut. It was noted at the June 7, 2006 meeting that there were no guarantees for site plan approval for either of the options because some of the PC members were opposed to approving either revision.

Some members of the Planning Commission were opposed to the additional curb cut due to the following reasons: 1) the proposed use of the accessory building was to be for snow removal equipment, photo props and records, but the driveway would provide more opportunities for additional more intense uses and more accesses; 2) the accessory building abuts a residential district and the additional traffic possibilities would be detrimental to the neighboring residential uses; 3) the Planning Commission noted that they should consider the access in the long term and it could present noise issues and traffic conflicts in the future and the additional activity should be limited and not allowed since it was close to a residential district.

SUMMARY

The plan has not been reviewed according to the requirements of the ordinance since the site plan has already been approved both for the existing building and the proposed accessory building. The only elements that were reviewed were the proposed revisions for the paved access to the accessory building.

If they so choose, the Planning Commission could determine to act on the request at the work session since this is a previously approved site plan and because in the past the Planning Commission has acted on revisions to previously approved site plans at work session meetings.

Site Plan 1-the additional curb cut and driveway access from Thomas

The proposed driveway and aisle adjacent to the proposed accessory building do not meet the Township Fire Code because ALL driveways must be a minimum of 20 feet wide and Sect. 26.3 requires that a driveway aisle be a minimum of 24 feet wide for two-way traffic. Two-way aisles would be required to prevent the backing out of vehicles onto Thomas from the accessory building. The Planning Commission should consider the impact of the additional traffic conflicts and noise close to a residential district.

Site Plan 2-move the dumpster to the south adjacent to the proposed accessory building on the west side and pave the western side of the building to provide driveway access to the accessory building

The proposed aisle adjacent to the building does not meet the Township Fire Code because ALL driveways and access aisle ways must be a minimum of 20 feet wide and Sect. 26.3 requires that a driveway aisle be a minimum of 24 feet wide for two-way traffic. Two-way aisles would be required to prevent the backing out of vehicles along side of the building. In addition, it would be impossible for a vehicle to make the sharp turn into the accessory building because the radius would not be large enough. Also, Chapter 24, footnote (l) requires that except for necessary drives (meaning a driveway intersection not the whole length) the front yard shall be landscaped. Therefore, since this whole area (other than the existing pavement for access to the dumpster) is a front yard setback, it is required to be landscaped and not used for an access driveway. The Planning Commission should also consider the impact of the location of the dumpster in regards to noise so close to residential uses.

OPTION FOR MOTION for Site Plan 1 showing additional curb cut/driveway on Thomas St.

If the Planning Commission determines that the proposal does not meet the requirements of Township ordinances-

Motion: To deny the site plan revision for Randy Rottschafer as shown on the site plan 2

OPTION FOR MOTION for Site Plan 2 showing dumpster moved and additional paving

If the Planning Commission determines that the proposal does not meet the requirements of Township ordinances-

Motion: To deny the site plan revision for Randy Rottschafer as shown on the site plan 2

dated received 6-19-06, as submitted, because the site plan does not meet the requirements of Sec. 26.3 of the ordinance for a minimum width of 24 feet for a two-way aisle to prevent the backing out of vehicles along side the building and the plan does not meet the Township Fire Codes of a minimum of 20 feet of width for ALL driveways and access aisle ways. In addition, it would be impossible for a vehicle to make the sharp turn into the accessory building because the radius would not be large enough. Also, Chapter 24, footnote (l) requires that except for necessary drives (meaning a driveway intersection not the whole length) the front yard shall be landscaped. Therefore, since this whole area (other than the existing pavement for access to the dumpster) is a front yard setback, it is required to be landscaped and not used for an access driveway. Also, the movement of the dumpster would be detrimental to the neighboring residential uses due to noise.

OPTION FOR MOTION

If the Planning Commission determines that either of the proposals is acceptable, the item could be tabled for revisions to meet the requirements of Township ordinances-

Motion: To table the site plan (site plan 1 or site plan 2) for revisions ( ) to meet

Township ordinances.

Excerpt of the June 6, 2006 Planning Commission meeting:

#060607-01 - Request by Randy Rottschafer for a site plan extension and minor revision.

Randy Rottschafer stated that two sets of plans had been submitted, one showing an addition curb cut to access the accessory building and one showing the dumpster moved to the south aligned with the accessory building and pavement added along the western property line to provide paved access to the accessory building. He said that he met with Tom Palarz and Brett Laughlin from the Ottawa County Road Commission and they both approved the additional curb cut.

The zoning administrator presented a review consisting of the following. 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). 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 to move the dumpster or direct that a site plan be submitted for a revision for an additional curb cut which would not be a minor change.

Randy Rottschafer stated that there would not be heavy use of the dumpster because the trash would be mainly cardboard and the trash was only picked up once a week. He said that the dumpster would still be 25 feet from the house and their bedrooms were on the south end of the house. He said that the driveway to the accessory building would only be used occasionally, not like a driveway to the principal building.

Pearson asked what the accessory building would be used for.

Randy Rottschafer said that the accessory building would be used to store snow removal equipment, photo props and records.

Pearson said that he preferred to have the additional curb cut and to keep the dumpster where it is currently located because it was more practical.

The zoning administrator said that the accessory building could only be used for accessory uses and not for any principal use like the main building.

South said that he liked the dumpster better where it is.

DeGood said that both ways had advantages and disadvantages.

Stasiak said that he was not in favor of the additional curb cut and questioned access from the north side. He asked why the pavement was needed.

Randy Rottschafer said that it would store a snow removal truck, props for the photo studio and a portable sign. He said that it would beautify the back of the building by hiding the air conditioner, along with the electric and gas meters.

Stasiak said that he was not in favor of either moving the dumpster or adding a curb cut.

Huizinga said that he preferred the curb cut to moving the dumpster.

Poskey said that he was in favor of leaving the site plan as originally approved, without the additional curb cut and without moving the dumpster. He said that there could be problems with how that driveway was used with people going in and out. He said that he wanted to stay with the original plan.

Moved by Poskey, seconded by Pearson, 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.

MOTION CARRIED.

There was discussion regarding action on the proposed revision for the site plan. The zoning administrator explained that the Planning Commission could take no action if they determined that they did not want to approve either proposed version, and the site plan would remain as originally approved. She said that this was a courtesy review and there had been no formal application and fee submitted. She said that if the Planning Commission determined that moving the dumpster back was acceptable, a motion to that effect could be made. She said that she determined moving the dumpster to be a minor change and she would have administratively approved it except for the fact that the Planning Commission had noted concerns with the dumpster location when the site plan was initially reviewed. She further explained that if the Planning Commission was in favor of allowing an additional curb cut, the request should come back as a formal application since an additional curb cut was not a minor revision.

Stasiak said that the Planning Commission had determined to take no action since most members were opposed to moving the dumpster. Stasiak directed the applicant to submit a formal application if he wanted to pursue the additional curb cut since that would be a major change to the approved plan. He stated that there were no guarantees that a revised site plan showing the additional curb cut would be approved because the opinions of the members were mixed with some in favor and some opposed. Plus, one member was absent.

Randy Rottschafer said that he would be satisfied to have the Planning Commission approve moving the dumpster without the addition of the curb cut. He said that moving the dumpster would be a minor change and he would settle for that. He said that the Road Commission had approved the additional curb cut and there were no safety issues.

Stasiak said that the Planning Commission should consider the access in the long term and it could present noise issues and traffic conflicts. He said that the curb cut should not be allowed because the activity in the area should be limited since it was close to a residential district.

Huizinga said that he was in favor of leaving the dumpster where it is currently located and the curb cut should not be allowed.

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

3. Site Plan (ST0607) REVISION Cottonwood Heights Christian Reformed Church-1101 Cypress

REQUEST

A special use permit and site plan were approved in November 2005 for an expansion consisting of a Youth Building, addition to the daycare facility, and portico for the existing church building. The request is to increase the size and relocate the proposed Youth Building adjacent to the existing church building. The previously approved Youth Building was proposed to have 3,200 square feet in area and the new building is proposed to have 6,400 square feet in area. The relocation of the Youth Building has caused the elimination of parking spaces that were to be located at this spot. The revised plan calls for 56 spaces to be deferred to the future according to Sec. 26.9(J). The previously approved number of parking spaces was 269 and the new proposal is to have 225 with an additional 56 deferred for a total of 281. The new proposed aisle meets the ordinance requirement of 24 feet for two-way traffic. The following are the criteria for approving deferred parking places and it appears that the proposal meets the criteria.

(J) The Planning Commission may defer construction of the required number of parking spaces if the following conditions are met:

(1) Areas proposed for deferred parking shall be shown on the site plan, and shall be sufficient for construction of the required number of parking spaces in accordance with the standards of this Ordinance for parking area design and other site development requirements.

(2) Such deferment areas shall not be used for any other purposed required by this Ordinance (such as landscaped buffers, etc.) and shall be kept open.

(3) Alterations to the deferred parking area may be initiated by the owner or required by the Zoning Administrator. Any alteration to the deferred parking area shall require the approval of an amended site plan submitted by the applicant accompanied by evidence documenting the justification for the alteration.

(4) If after the site is developed, the Planning Commission 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. (revised 6-8-1999)

HISTORY

At the November 16, 2005 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended to the Board approval of the special use permit for a church and approved the site plan dated 11/7/05. At the November 28, 2005 meeting, the Board approved the special use permit for a church.

SUMMARY

The plan has not been reviewed according to the requirements of the ordinance since the site plan has already been approved. The only elements that were reviewed were the proposed revisions for the relocation of the Youth Building and the affect of the relocation on the number of parking spaces and the drive aisle. The new location meets all setback requirements and it appears that adequate parking spaces have been provided in addition to the 56 deferred. If the parking spaces are needed for the future, they are available.

If no revisions are necessary, the Planning Commission could determine to act on the request at the work session since this is a previously approved site plan and because the Planning Commission has acted on revisions to previously approved site plans at work session meetings.

OPTION FOR MOTION

If the Planning Commission determines that the revisions are acceptable and meet the requirements of Township ordinances-

Motion: To approve the site plan dated 6-14-06, as submitted, because the proposed plan

meets the applicable standards of the ordinance.

Excerpt of the November 16, 2005 Planning Commission meeting:

#051116-04 – Special Use Permit (SUP0511) Cottonwood Heights Christian Reformed Church, 1101

Cypress, is requesting to have a church under Sec. 8.3(A) and to have a day care center under Sec. 8.3(N), on parcels of land described as P.P.# 70-14-14-200-042, 70-14-14-200-058, 70-14-11-400-033, 70-14-11-400-032, 70-14-11-400-030, located at 8000, 8215, 8205 Ash and 12^th Ave., in a (LDR) Low Density residential district

Don Vandenberg represented the applicant and presented the request. He noted that evergreen had been provided along the existing parking spaces, as requested by the Planning Commission.

The zoning administrator presented a review. The proposal is to erect a new youth building near the entrance off 12^th Ave. and relocate the youth activities to the new building. The daycare use will then expand into the whole area of the existing building on the northwest area of the site. In addition, a canopy is proposed to be erected over the entrance off Ash Dr. The site currently includes five parcels. Since this results in a non-conforming situation because the buildings meet setback requirements in regards to the overall site (rather than each individual parcel), the recommendation is for all the parcels to be combined and an overall legal description be provided.

A summary was presented as follows:

A revised plan has been submitted and addresses most concerns raised at the work session.

1. The canopy had been raised to meet the Fire Code requirement of a minimum height of 13 feet 6 inches.

2. No indication has been provided that the parcels would be combined.

3. The property across 12^th Ave. has been labeled as LDR, but the use of park is still not shown.

4. The calculation in the special use standard for acreage had been incorrectly shown as multiplying 7 times the 15,000 square feet required for each 100 seats, rather than the correct number of 8 since the seating is 743 and the fraction of 100 is to be rounded up. The revised plan correctly shows the calculation as 8 x 15, 000. The site meets and exceeds the special use standard since it is 6.11 acres.

5. Eleven new trees have been added along the southeastern property as requested by the Planning Commission at the last meeting.

6. All other ordinance requirements have been determined to be met for the site plan, as well as for the two special use permit standards, and documentation showing compliance has been provided after the summary.

The chairman opened the public hearing. No one was present to comment on this item. The chairman closed the public hearing.

Moved by South, seconded by DeGood, to recommend to the Township Board approval of Special Use Permit (SUP0511) Cottonwood Heights Christian Reformed Church, 1101 Cypress, to have a church under Sec. 8.3(A) and to have a day care center under Sec. 8.3(N), on parcels of land described as P.P.# 70-14-14-200-042, 70-14-14-200-058, 70-14-11-400-033, 70-14-11-400-032, 70-14-11-400-030, located at 8000, 8215, 8205 Ash and 12^th Ave., in a (LDR) Low Density residential district because the proposed plan meets the applicable standards of the ordinance including the general standards in Sec. 20.3(A) and specific standards Sec. 8.3(A) and 8.3(N).

MOTION CARRIED.

Moved by South, seconded by DeGood, to approve the site plan dated 11/7/05 as submitted, because the proposed plan meets applicable standards of the ordinance and with the following conditions:

1. A letter is submitted to the Township requesting to combine the five parcels at the time the building permit application is submitted;

2. The word “park” is written on the site plan on the property across 12^th Ave. to label the use.

MOTION CARRIED.

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

4. Planned Unit Development (PUD0602-2) Final Development Plan Andre’s Crossing (Lee Dykema)-site plan

REQUEST

The request is for final development approval for Andre’s Crossing for 16 duplex buildings for a total of 32 units. The PUD is shown to be constructed in one phase.

HISTORY

At the March 1, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval for the preliminary development plan for Andre’s Crossing and at the March 13, 2006 meeting, the Township Board approved the preliminary development plan with seven conditions (which have all been addressed). See the attached minutes.

SUMMARY

As noted in the following documentation, the final development plan complies with all the requirements detailed in Chapter 22. The walking path as been removed in accordance with one of the conditions of approval. The only item that remains is the PUD agreement required in Sec. 22.11 which states that prior to the issuance of any building permits or commencement of construction on any portion of the PUD, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Township in recordable form.

If the Planning Commission determines that no revisions are necessary, the determination could be made to take action tonight since the public hearing was held for the preliminary plan in March 2006.

If the Planning Commission determines that no revisions are necessary and that action should be taken at this work session rather than waiting for the regular meeting:

OPTION FOR MOTION

Motion: To approve the final development plan for Andre’s Crossing as shown on the plan

dated 1/31/06 with all attached submittal materials including the elevation, landscaping plan and lighting plan, based on compliance with Chapter 22, and with the condition that a recorded agreement be submitted to the Township in accordance with Sec. 22.11 prior to the issuance of a building permit or prior to the commencement of any construction on any portion of the PUD.

Following is the documentation showing compliance with Ordinance requirements.

Sec. 22.8 FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION.

A. Final Development Plan Approval Time Period – Single Phase: Within twelve (12) months of the Township Board’s approval of the PUD preliminary plan and PUD rezoning, the applicant shall submit a request to the Zoning Administrator for final PUD approval. If the applicant fails to submit a request within twelve (12) months as stated above, then the preliminary site plan (not the PUD rezoning) shall be determined to be invalid.

Met. The preliminary plan was approved by the Board on March 13, 2006.

B. Final Development Plan Application Requirements: A final development plan application shall consist of the following (unless determined by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to be unnecessary):

Met and provided as follows:

1. A completed application form, supplied by the Zoning Administrator. Met.

2. Payment of a fee, as established by the Township Board. NA-1^st phase included.

3. A written response to the findings, review comments, and conditions, if any, from the Township Board’s review and approval of the preliminary development plan and a narrative explanation of the changes made to the plan in response to those items. Met as follows:

The following were conditions of approval and have been provided:

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

· 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. Provided.

· 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. Shown on the elevation 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. Shown on the plan as original parcels.

· 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. Shown on the plan.

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

· The zoning administrator has the authority to be flexible with the walking path. The walking path has been eliminated along the golf course property.

4. A site plan containing all of the information required in this PUD Chapter and the following information shown below: (If the plan consists of phases, then the above-mentioned information is only required for the specific phase(s) being presented for final approval. Each subsequent phase shall be reviewed in the same manner).

a. The location and dimensions of all proposed structures and buildings on the PUD site. Met.

b. The location of all proposed drives (including dimensions and radii), acceleration/deceleration lanes, sidewalks / pathways / bikepaths, curbing, parking areas (including the dimensions of a typical parking space and the total number of parking spaces to be provided), and unloading areas. Street names must also be included. Met.

c. The location of all proposed signs and lighting, including the sizes and types. Met. (sign aprox. 21 sq. ft.)

d. The location, type and size of all proposed landscaping and site amenities (art work, fences, gateway features, etc.). Met.

e. The location, type and size of all utilities and storm water drainage facilities, including fire protection, sanitary sewers, water services, etc. Met.

f. Existing and proposed topographic contours at a maximum of three (3) foot intervals. Met.

g. Elevation views of all proposed structures and floor plans for all multi-family residential dwelling units. Met.

h. Proposed open space areas, including recreational amenities (playgrounds, etc.). Met.

i. Floodplain areas. (Revised 6-27-2005) Met.

5. The Planning Commission may request from the applicant any additional graphics

or written materials, prepared by a qualified person or persons, to assist in

determining the appropriateness of the site plan. Such material may include, but

need not be limited to, aerial photography, photographs; traffic impacts; impact

on significant natural features and drainage; soil tests; and other pertinent

information.

The Planning Commission may request additional information; however, it appears that all relevant information has been supplied.

Sec. 22.9 PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

A. The Planning Commission shall review the final development plan in relation to its conformance with the preliminary development plan and any conditions of the PUD rezoning. If it is determined that the final plan is not in substantial conformance with the preliminarily development plan, the review process shall be conducted as a preliminary development plan review, in accordance with the procedures of Sections 22.5 - 22.7 of this Ordinance.

The final development plan substantially conforms to the preliminary development plan.

B. Planned Unit Developments, whether established as a single or multiphase development, shall reasonably accommodate for the intent of the PUD in each phase. If the proposed PUD appears to provide for phases that do not incorporate the intent of the proposed PUD, the Planning Commission may require bonding or other similar financial obligation, which shall be established in the PUD agreement. If a portion of the PUD intent it to provide for a variety of uses (i.e. - apartments and single family homes), then the proposed phasing schedule shall show how the development of these uses will be balanced in the phased development schedule.

Met.

C. If the final development plan is consistent with the approved preliminary development plan, the Planning Commission shall review the final plan in accordance with the standards for approval in Section 22.10.

Sec. 22.10 STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL (both preliminary and final).

A PUD shall be approved only if it complies with each of the following standards:

A. The proposed PUD complies with all qualifying conditions of Section 22.2. Met (as

determined for the preliminary plan).

B. The proposed PUD is compatible with surrounding uses of land, the natural environment, and the capacities of public services and facilities affected by the development. Met (as determined for the preliminary plan).

C. The proposed uses within the PUD will not possess conditions or effects that would be injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community. Met.

D. The proposed project is consistent with the spirit and intent of the PUD District, as described in Section 22.1 and represents an opportunity for improved or innovative development for the community that could not be achieved through conventional zoning. . Met (as determined for the preliminary plan).

E. The proposed PUD meets all the site plan requirements of this Chapter, respective of being either a preliminary or final PUD request (Preliminary PUD’s must meet Section 22.5, A and Final PUD’s must meet Section 22.8, D.) Compliance with Sec. 22.5 was established when the preliminary plan was approved. Compliance with Sec. 22.8D is detailed above.

D. The Planning Commission shall prepare a record of its findings and shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the final development plan.

E. Any regulatory modification from traditional district requirements shall be approved through a finding by the Planning Commission that the deviation shall result in a higher quality of development than would be possible using conventional zoning standards. Regulatory modifications are not subject to variance approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. No part of this PUD process of the approved site plans may be appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. This provision shall not preclude an individual residential lot owner from seeking a variance following final approval of the PUD, provided such variance does not involve alterations to open space areas as shown on the approved PUD site plan.

A. A table shall be provided on the final site plan which specifically details all deviations from the established zoning area, height and setback regulations, off-street parking regulations, general provisions, or Township subdivision regulations which would otherwise be applicable to the uses and developments proposed in the absence of this PUD article and rezoning. Met. Setbacks (which are different from the LDR requirements) are listed, as is the use of attached single family duplex dwellings.

Sec. 22.11 PUD AGREEMENT..

A. Prior to the issuance of any building permits or commencement of construction on any portion of the PUD, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Township in recordable form, setting forth the applicant's obligations with respect to the PUD.

B. The agreement shall describe all improvements to be constructed as part of the PUD and shall incorporate, by reference, the final development plan with all required revisions, other documents which comprise the PUD, and all conditions attached to the approval by the Township Board.

C. A phasing plan shall also be submitted describing the intended schedule for start and completion of each phase and the improvements to be undertaken in each phase.

D. The agreement shall also establish the remedies of the Township in the event of default by the applicant in carrying out the PUD, and shall be binding on all successors in interest to the applicant.

E. All documents shall be executed and recorded in the office of the Ottawa County Register of Deeds.

Must be provided. The Township attorney has supplied the Township with a proposed agreement that Sec. 22.11 require to be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit or any construction commencing on the site.

The following is an excerpt of the March 13, 2006 Board meeting when the preliminary plan was approved.

#060313-06 - Planned Unit Development (PUD0602) Dykema Development, 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, Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan.

Moved by Del South, seconded by Richard VanderKlok, 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.

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

· The zoning administrator has the authority to be flexible with the walking path.

Note: As recommended by the Planning Commission.

MOTION CARRIED.

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

5. (PUD0604) Preliminary Development Plan Baldwin Georgetown LLC, 7665 36^th Ave., is requesting a Planned Unit Development for mixed uses including residential for attached single family homes and commercial uses including offices, retail, restaurant and vehicle service station and related uses, under Chapter 22, on parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-17-100-008, -009, -010, located at 7665 36^th Ave., 3683 and 3627 Baldwin, at the northwest corner of Baldwin and 36^th Ave. (site plan 1, site plan 2, color plan, elevations, narrative)

REQUEST

The request is for a mixed use PUD with eight duplex buildings with an overall total of 16 units, two commercial buildings for the use of retail, restaurant, personal service establishments, and other similar related commercial uses, a bank, convenience store and vehicle service station, and an office building.

SUMMARY

The following items remain to be addressed. If the Planning Commission determines that the plan is ready for a public hearing, the hearing could be scheduled to be held August 16, 2006. The applicant could attend meeting before that date to have revisions reviewed if necessary. Even though the new law (Zoning Enabling Act) goes into affect July 1 which only requires that the notice for a public hearing be published at least 15 days prior to the public hearing, the Township attorney has informed the Township that the 15 day requirement is a minimum and the Township must still abide by the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance until the ordinance is amended to coincide with the new law (we’ll be working on that soon). That means that the notices must still be published 20 to 30 days prior and at least 8 days prior.

· Setbacks are shown as 90 feet from the centerlines of Baldwin and 36^th Ave., which meets the regulations of Chapter 24. The setbacks to the northern property line are a minimum of 20.5 feet for the residential uses, 40 feet for the commercial building and 25 feet for the parking lot. The setbacks for the western property line are 50 feet for the commercial building, 20 feet for the driveway and 33 feet to the parking lot. A 25 foot greenbelt is required for all commercial that abuts residential. Commercial buildings and parking must be at least 50 feet from residential districts. Since these distances do not meet the regulations of Chapter 24, the request for these setbacks is listed on the Waiver Request Table. The Planning Commission should determine if these setbacks are acceptable.

· Sidewalks are shown correctly as 5 feet for Baldwin and eight feet for 36^th Ave. (as required by a newly adopted general ordinance). However, one arrow indicating the 5 foot concrete walk for 36^th Ave. on the Site Utility and Dimension plan should be removed.

· Sign setbacks are shown correctly for the location of ground mounted sign. More sign detail should be shown including square footage and height. Lighting is noted to be downward directing.

· Ottawa County Road Commission approval should be provided with the final development plan.

· Landscaping details should be provided including calculations (1000 ft. Baldwin = 40 trees, 742 on 36^th = 30 trees; give sizes and types according to Sec. 3.11)

· Ottawa County Drain Commission approval should be provided with the final development plan.

· 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. The proposal does not meet. 15.1 acres. The Planning Commission will have to determine if the plan meets the intention of the ordinance and is acceptable.

· Permitted uses should not include a drive-in restaurant nor should truck rental be permitted for the vehicle service station.

· Approximate phasing time frames should be provided.

· Proposed deed restrictions, covenants, or similar legal instruments to be used within the PUD should be provided.

Following is the documentation showing compliance with Ordinance requirements.

I D number	PUD0604	Date	July 2006
Name	Baldwin/36^th PUD
Address	Baldwin/36^th
Use	Residential/Commercial	SUP required		PUD

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					See 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					See b.
Sidewalks, non-motorized paths-select streets, accel, decel lanes					See c.
Signs, exterior lighting					See d.
Curbing, parking areas, dimensions of typical space, number of parking spaces					See e.
Calculations of parking spaces, unloading areas					See e.
Location, pavement width, ROW of all abutting roads, easements					See f.
Existing zoning, and zoning and use of abutting property				X
Location of existing vegetation- parkway association					See g.
Location, type, size of proposed landscaping, streetscape, greenbelt					See h.
Location, height, type of existing and proposed fences and walls					See i.
Size, location of proposed, existing utilities, connections to water/sewer				X
Location, size of surface water drainage facilities				X	See j
Existing, proposed topo contours, max 5 ft intervals				X
Rec/common areas, floodplain areas				X
Special Use Standards, general and specific					See k.
Residential development extra requirements-attached garages				X

Additional Comments:

a. Setbacks are shown as 90 feet from the centerlines of Baldwin and 36^th Ave., which meets the regulations of Chapter 24. The setbacks to the northern property line are a minimum of 20.5 feet for the residential uses, 40 feet for the commercial building and 25 feet for the parking lot. The setbacks for the western property line are 50 feet for the commercial building, 20 feet for the driveway and 33 feet to the parking lot. A 25 foot greenbelt is required for all commercial that abuts residential. Commercial buildings and parking must be at least 50 feet from residential districts. Since these distances do not meet the regulations of Chapter 24, the request for these setbacks is listed on the Waiver Request Table. The Planning Commission should determine if these setbacks are acceptable.

b. Dimension of the drives and aisles meet the 20 foot minimum requirement in the Fire Code and the two-way aisles meet the 24 foot requirement for two-way circulation. All driveway entrances must be at least 20 ft. per the Fire Code.

c. Sidewalks are shown correctly as 5 feet for Baldwin and eight feet for 36^th Ave. (as required by a newly adopted general ordinance. However, one arrow indicating the 5 foot concrete walk for 36^th Ave. on the Site Utility and Dimension plan should be removed.

d. Sign setbacks are shown correctly for the location of ground mounted sign. More sign detail should be shown including square footage and height. Lighting is noted to be downward directing.

e. Parking calculations correctly depict ordinance requirements and the dimension of spaces is correct.

f. Shown. Ottawa County Road Commission approval should be provided with the final development plan.

g. Documentation was provided that an association will maintain all common areas.

h. Landscaping details should be provided including calculations (1000 ft. Baldwin = 40 trees, 742 on 36^th = 30 trees; give sizes and types according to Sec. 3.11)

i. Dumpster enclosure details are provided.

j. Ottawa County Drain Commission approval should be provided with the final development plan.

k. Special use standards for vehicle service station:

(AD) Vehicle service stations and repair.

(1) Minimum lot area shall be 15,000 square feet. OK

(2) Minimum lot width shall be one hundred (100) feet. OK

(3) All buildings, structures, and equipment shall be located not less than fifty (50) feet from any right-of-way line and not less than fifty (50) feet from any side or rear lot line abutting residentially zoned property. OK

(4) Ingress and egress drives shall be designed in accordance with the standards of the Ottawa County Road Commission. OK

(5) No more than one (1) curb opening shall be permitted for every seventy-five (75) feet of frontage (or major fraction thereof) along any street, with a maximum of two per arterial street, and one for any other street. OK

(6) No drive or curb opening shall be located nearer than seventy-five (75) feet to any intersection nor more than twenty-five (25) feet to any adjacent residential property line. No drive shall be located nearer than fifty (50) feet, as measured along the property line, to any other driveway. A driveway shall not be permitted where, in the opinion of the Township Board, it may produce a safety hazard to adjacent pedestrian or vehicular traffic. OK

(7) A raised curb of six (6) inches in height shall be constructed along the perimeter of all paved and landscaped areas. Shown on the Site Utility and Dimension Plan.

(8) All areas not paved or occupied by buildings or structures shall be landscaped. OK

(9) All lubrication equipment, hydraulic hoists, and pits shall be enclosed entirely within a building. All gasoline pumps shall be located not less than fifty (50) feet from any lot line, and shall be arranged so that motor vehicles shall not be supplied with gasoline or serviced while parked upon or over-hanging any public sidewalk, street or right-of-way. OK

(10) When the site adjoins residentially zoned property, a greenbelt or sight-obscuring fence shall be provided in accordance with Section 3.11. NA

(11) In the HS and I Districts, all outside storage areas for trash, used tires, auto parts and similar items shall be enclosed by a six (6) foot sight-obscuring wall or fence. No such outside storage area shall exceed an area of two hundred (200) sq. ft. Outside parking of disabled, wrecked, or partially dismantled vehicles not to exceed a maximum of five (5) such vehicles shall not be permitted for a period exceeding ten (10) days. No such outdoor storage areas or parking of disabled, wrecked, or partially dismantled vehicles shall be permitted in the CS district. (revised 12-29-1998) NA

(12) The rental of trucks, trailers, and any other vehicles on the premises is expressly prohibited without specific approval by the Township Board. If such use is permitted, proper screening, landscaping, and additional parking area shall be provided in accordance with the requirements set forth by the Township Board. NA

(13) The lot shall be located such that it is at least three hundred (300) feet from an entrance or exit to any property on which is situated a public library, public or private school, playground, playfield, park, church or hospital. OK.

(14) All exterior lighting, including signs, shall be erected and hooded so as to shield the glare of such lights from view by adjacent property. OK.

(15) On a corner lot, both street frontage sides shall be subject to all the applicable front yard provisions of this Ordinance. NA

(16) Where applicable, vehicle queuing space shall be provided in front of each service bay for at least two (2) vehicles. OK.

Notes:

Fire Dept. reviewed at the pre-application meeting.

Landscape Preservation. NA

Relation of Buildings to Environment.

Elevations provided for retail building. Elevations were submitted.

Lighting details provided, and added that it will be downward directing.

Landscaping meets the ordinance requirements-information has not been provided.

Drives, Parking, and Circulation.

Interior circulation meets Township ordinances for aisle width and Fire Codes for width.

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.

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.

Does not meet. 15.1 acres-Planning Commission will have to determine if acceptable.

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.

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.

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 Master Plan calls for residential. Part of the PUD is residential with 3.2 units per acre.

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.

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

Met.

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.

Appears to be met.

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.

Appears to be met.

Sec. 22.3 PERMITTED USES..

Any use permitted by right or special land use in any District may be approved within a PUD. It should be noted that a drive-in restaurant nor truck rental would be permitted.

Sec. 22.4 PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE .

HELD.

A. A pre-application conference will be held with representatives from Georgetown Township for the purpose of exchanging information, providing guidance to the applicant and determining the eligibility of the request for consideration as a PUD.

B. A request for a pre-application conference shall be made to the Zoning Administrator. As part of the pre-application conference, the applicant shall submit seven (7) copies of a conceptual plan, at least ten (10) days in advance of the pre-application conference, which shows the property location, boundaries, significant natural features, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and land use(s) for the entire site.

C. The Township shall advise the applicant of the conformance of the PUD concept with the intent and objectives of a PUD in the Township, whether it appears to qualify under the minimum requirements of Section 22.2, and whether the general concept appears to be substantially consistent with the Township's Master Plan. No formal action will be taken at a pre-application conference, nor will statements made at the pre-application conference be considered legally binding commitments.

F. 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.

SEE NOTE a.

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.

MORE LANDSCAPING INFORMATION MUST BE PROVIDED. SEE NOTE h.

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.

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.

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

PROVIDED.

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

PROVIDED.

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

c. Narrative Statement: A narrative statement describing:

a. The objectives of the PUD and how it relates to the Intent of the PUD District, as described in Section 22.1.

b. The relationship of the PUD to the qualifying conditions listed in Section 22.2.

c. Phases of development and approximate time frames for each phase, including anticipated start and completion dates of construction.

PHASES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. APPROXIMATE TIME FRAMES FOR EACH PHASE MUST BE PROVIDED.

d. Proposed deed restrictions, covenants, or similar legal instruments to be used within the PUD.

MUST BE PROVIDED.

A table shall be provided which specifically details all deviations from the established zoning area, height and setback regulations, off-street parking regulations, general provisions, or Township subdivision regulations which would otherwise be applicable to the uses and developments proposed in the absence of this PUD article and rezoning.

PROVIDED.

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

6. Ordinance Amendments

REQUEST-Sec. 25.6(B)(3)d & e.

The Planning Commission initiated the Zoning Ordinance amendments for the sign sections at the May 3 and June 7, 2006 meetings (excerpts of the minutes follow the review). The issues for both sign amendments arose at the ZBA meetings due to variance requests relating to signs. The Planning Commission has mentioned in the past that sizes and numbers of signs should be limited to discourage obtrusiveness. Each of the amendments would reduce the amount of square footage for signs while giving the business choices. The proposal for Sec. 25.6(B)(3)d. would reduce the overall square footage of a wall sign by 25% and would allow a business to separate the reduced amount of square footage into two separate signs. The proposal for Sec. 25.6(B)e. would allow an additional wall sign if the permitted freestanding sign was eliminated. The additional wall sign could be a maximum of 75% in area of the amount of square footage that would be permitted for the freestanding sign.

SUMMARY

Review the proposed changes and the notice was published that the public hearing will be held on July 19, 2006.

Sec. 25.6(B)

(3) WALL SIGN, one (1) wall sign per business subject to the following restrictions:

a. The sign shall be placed flat against the building and shall front on the principal street.

b. Such sign shall not exceed one and one-half (1-1/2) square feet for each one (1) lineal foot of wall frontage on which the sign is to be placed or two hundred (200) square feet whichever is less.

c. Businesses which have wall frontage on more than one (1) street shall be permitted to have one (1) wall sign per street frontage, subject to the size limitation contained in paragraph b, above.

d. The one (1) wall sign permitted above may be divided into two (2) wall signs with

each one placed on a separate wall of the building, provided that the sum of the

square footage of the two signs equals 75% or less of the overall square footage

permitted above.

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.

REQUEST-Sec. 3.7, 2.63, 2.91 and the Illustrations

The Planning Commission initiated the Zoning Ordinance amendments to clarify the basis for determining the front yard setback requirements at the April 12, 2006 meetings (excerpts of the minutes follow the review). A situation arose when a homeowner on Begole (off 22^nd 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 right-of-way and easements for this road were in question. The issue was forwarded to the planner for review and he provided suggestions for addressing the situation.

SUMMARY

Review the proposed changes and the notice was published that the public hearing will be held on July 19, 2006.

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 Lot Line. In the case of an interior lot, abutting upon one public or private street or easement, the front lot line shall mean the line separating such lot from such street right-of-way or easement. In the case of a corner or through lot, the front lot line shall be that line separating said lot from that street which is designated as the front street by the Zoning Administrator (See Double Frontage Lot.) For purposes of determining required yards only, any side lot line may be designated by the Zoning Administrator as a front lot line. (Revised April 1997)

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.

IN THE ILLUSTRATIONS:

Take out public and add easement. ~~Public~~ right-of-way or easement

worded: right-of-way or easement

Excerpt of May 3, 2006 and June 7, 2006 Planning Commission meetings when the amendments were initiated for the sign ordinance:

#060503-04 – Other Business-Wall Signs

At the April 26, 2006 ZBA meeting, there was discussion regarding amending the sign ordinance to permit two wall signs (when one is permitted) provided that the total square footage of the two wall signs is substantially less than the total square footage for the one permitted wall sign currently allowed in the ordinance.

Moved by Huizinga, seconded by DeGood, to initiate the zoning ordinance amendment to Sec. 25.6(B)(3), as follows, to be combined with other amendments for advertising and consideration.

(3) WALL SIGN, one (1) wall sign per business subject to the following restrictions:

a. The sign shall be placed flat against the building and shall front on the principal street.

b. Such sign shall not exceed one and one-half (1-1/2) square feet for each one (1) lineal foot of wall frontage on which the sign is to be placed or two hundred (200) square feet whichever is less.

c. Businesses which have wall frontage on more than one (1) street shall be permitted to have one (1) wall sign per street frontage, subject to the size limitation contained in paragraph b, above.

d. The one (1) wall sign permitted above may be divided into two (2) wall signs with each

one placed on a separate wall of the building, provided that the sum of the square footage

of the two signs equals 75% or less of the overall square footage permitted above.

MOTION CARRIED.

#060607-02 - Initiate Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Sec.

The Planning Commission determined that the proposed ordinance amendment would be acceptable to eliminate freestanding signs and to allow additional wall signs with the overall square footage to be less than what the ordinance would regularly allow.

The following zoning ordinance was initiated at the May 3, 2006 Planning Commission meeting resulting from previous discussion regarding amending the sign ordinance to permit two wall signs (when one is permitted) provided that the total square footage of the two wall signs is substantially less than the total square footage for the one permitted wall sign currently allowed in the ordinance.

Sec. 25.6(B)

(3) WALL SIGN, one (1) wall sign per business subject to the following restrictions:

a. The sign shall be placed flat against the building and shall front on the principal street.

b. Such sign shall not exceed one and one-half (1-1/2) square feet for each one (1) lineal foot of wall frontage on which the sign is to be placed or two hundred (200) square feet whichever is less.

c. Businesses which have wall frontage on more than one (1) street shall be permitted to have one (1) wall sign per street frontage, subject to the size limitation contained in paragraph b, above.

d. The one (1) wall sign permitted above may be divided into two (2) wall signs with

each one placed on a separate wall of the building, provided that the sum of the

square footage of the two signs equals 75% or less of the overall square footage

permitted above.

The additional proposed amendment was presented to Sec. 25.6(B)(3) 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.

Moved by Pearson, seconded by Poskey, to initiate the zoning ordinance amendment to Sec. 25.6(B)(3) (e).

MOTION CARRIED.

Excerpt of April 12, 2006 Planning Commission meetings when the amendments were initiated for the determination of setbacks:

#060412-03 - Discussion of right-of-way for determining setbacks

A situation arose when a homeowner on Begole (off 22^nd 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.

The Planner reviewed the wording also and suggested the additional proposed changes.

Moved by South, seconded by DeGood, to initiate the Zoning Ordinance amendments as follows:

Sec. 3.7 BASIS OF DETERMINING FRONT YARD REQUIREMENTS .

Sec. 2.63 LOT LINES .

The property lines bounding the lot.

Sec. 2.91 STREET .

Take out public and add easement. ~~Public~~ right-of-way or easement

worded: right-of-way or easement

MOTION CARRIED.

7. Other Business

Due to the requirements in the new Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, all public hearings are required to have the notice published at least 15 days prior. This poses two issues for the Planning Commission. First, upon the advise of the Township attorney, the Township will adhere to both the new law and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (until the ordinance can be reviewed and changes adopted to comply with the new law). Consequently, the agenda will list the public hearings for each request on the date the hearing is scheduled and noticed to be held. Second, the previous policy of reviewing a special use permit request and determining whether or not the item is ready to be noticed for the public hearing will have to change since there is not enough time between the work session and the regular meeting to publish the notice 15 days prior to the regular meeting.

The Planning Commission can decide whether the notice should automatically be published for the public hearing to be held at a regular meeting or should the publication be held (until the next month) for a determination to be made that it is ready to proceed.

As soon as possible, the Enabling Act will be reviewed along with the Zoning Ordinances for inconsistencies. In addition, after that is complete, the issue of overlay zones will be reviewed. The county is sponsoring an educational seminar on overlay zones in September.

FYI-A public forum/informational meeting with MDOT and other relevant representatives will be held at the Township Office on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 beginning at 6:00 p.m. for the Baldwin St. extension. Members of all Boards and Commissions are invited to attend. RSVPs are suggested. Please let me know if you plan to attend. This would not be considered a meeting for payment.

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

To: Planning Commission Members

From: Mannette

Date: July 13, 2006

RE: Review for Planning Commission meeting on July 19, 2006

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

1. Unfinished Business-Planned Unit Development (PUD0601) Riverview Trails Development

The Planning Commission directed that a new application should be submitted if a large amount of additional property is added to the PUD request and that the new application should follow all the initial steps including another pre-application meeting. In addition, the Planning Commission directed that action should be taken on the old application and it should be denied since it has been on the agendas as old business since February 1, 2006. Consistently in the past the Planning Commission has acted upon old business that has been on the agenda for three months and this application has been on for six months. The applicant has been contacted twice and indicated that a withdrawal letter would be submitted.

SUMMARY

The application is no longer valid for the new property included in the request and a new application would have to be submitted if property is added to the PUD application.

OPTION FOR MOTION

Motion: To deny (or accept the withdrawal request if one is submitted) the Planned Unit

Development application for PUD0601) Riverview Trails Development Group (Tara Westhouse), 3133 Beechcrest Dr., to have 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, because the application is no longer valid since the applicant has indicated that a substantial amount of property will be added to the application resulting in the need for a new application to be submitted and reviewed, and because the item has been listed under old business for six months without the submittal of a revised site plan and the Planning Commission has consistently acted upon old business that is on the agenda for three months.

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

2. (PUD0604) Preliminary Development Plan Baldwin Georgetown LLC, 7665 36^th Ave., is requesting a Planned Unit Development for mixed uses including residential for attached single family homes and commercial uses including offices, retail, restaurant and vehicle service station and related uses, under Chapter 22, on parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-17-100-008, -009, -010, located at 7665 36^th Ave., 3683 and 3627 Baldwin, at the northwest corner of Baldwin and 36^th Ave. (Exxel Site Utility and Dimension Plan, Exxel Site Grading Plan, color Master Site Plan, elevations, narrative, sign letter)

REQUEST

SUMMARY-For review only-take no action.

The public hearing has been scheduled for August 2, 2006 and notice for the public hearing has been published. The plans were submitted for an additional review prior to the public hearing. At the July 5, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission accepted the waiver request for the acreage and for the setbacks, and made the determination that the request meets the qualifying conditions in Sec. 22.2. A letter was submitted requesting individual ground-mounted signs for the convenience store/gas station, office building and bank, with setbacks according to the ordinance requirements, with a maximum of 50 square feet in area per side and a maximum of 4 feet in height. The Planning Commission should determine if that is acceptable.

It appears that no revisions or additional submittal material is necessary, and that the request meets the qualifying conditions in Sec. 22.2, the Preliminary Plan Application Requirements in Sec. 22.5, and the Standards for Approval in Sec. 22.10.

The plans being reviewed for this meeting include the Design + colored “Site Master Plan” dated 7.12.06, the colored Design + “Architectural Concepts” with elevations and sign details dated 6.21.06, the Exxel Engineering Inc. Site Utility and Dimension Plan dated revised 7/12/06, the Exxel Engineering Inc. Site Grading Plan dated 7/12/06, and the Revised Project Narrative Statement dated July 11, 2006. Since it appears that no additional revisions are necessary (unless the Planning Commission determines that revisions are necessary), these will be the plans and narrative to be acted upon at the August 2, 2006 meeting. Please save these plans and bring them to the August 2, 2006 meeting.

· Conditions for approval could be added as follows when a recommendation is made on 8-2-06:

1. Permitted uses would be allowed as per the narrative dated July 11, 2006, but would not include vehicle repair (as noted by the applicant at the last meeting), drive-in restaurants or truck rental.

2. Individual ground-mounted signs for the convenience store/gas station, office building and bank would be permitted, with setbacks according to the ordinance requirements, with a maximum of 50 square feet in area per side and a maximum of 4 feet in height.

3. The following to be submitted to the Township:

a. Documentation regarding deed restrictions, covenants or similar legal instruments to be used within the PUD and documentation that an association will maintain the common areas to be submitted at the time of final development application submittal.

b. Approvals from the Ottawa County Road and Drain Commissions at the time of final development application submittal.

c. A recorded PUD agreement at the time of building permit application submittal.

DOCUMENTATION DETAILING ADDRESSED ITEMS

· A narrative was submitted that details the anticipated uses and approximate phasing. Duplex units will be included within each phase along with the commercial buildings.

· Sign location is shown correctly at 75 feet from the centerline of the road for the overall development ground-mounted freestanding signs (one on Baldwin and one on 36^th Ave.). Sign details are provided on the elevation sheet that was provided to you in the packet for the last meeting. The proposed ground-mounted signs are shown as four feet high with 49 square feet of sign area. The narrative details that wall signs will meet ordinance requirements. A letter was submitted requesting individual ground-mounted signs for the convenience store/gas station, office building and bank, setback according to the ordinance requirements, with a maximum of 50 square feet in area per side and a maximum of 4 feet in height.

· The colored plan shows connections to walks on the school property as requested by the Planning Commission.

· A connection has been shown from lot A to the residential area as requested by the Planning Commission.

· Landscaping details have been provided including type and size, and the landscaping shown on the plan exceeds the minimum requirements.

· Approximate phasing time frames have been provided in the narrative.

Sec. 22.10 STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL (both preliminary and final).

A PUD shall be approved only if it complies with each of the following standards:

A. The proposed PUD complies with all qualifying conditions of Section 22.2.

Yes, as determined at the July 5, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.

B The proposed PUD is compatible with surrounding uses of land, the natural environment, and the capacities of public services and facilities affected by the development.

Yes, as determined at the July 5, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.

C. The proposed uses within the PUD will not possess conditions or effects that would be injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community.

Yes, as determined at the July 5, 2006 meeting.

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

3. Ordinance Amendments (Public hearing noticed-hold the public hearing, take action)

1. Sec. 25.6(B)(3)d.

2. Sec. 25.6(B)(3)e.

3. Sec. 3.7

4. Sec. 2.63(A)

5. Sec. 2.91

Sec. 22.8 FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION.

Sec. 22.9 PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

Sec. 22.10 STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL (both preliminary and final).

Sec. 22.11 PUD AGREEMENT..

Sec. 22.2 QUALIFYING CONDITIONS..

Sec. 22.3 PERMITTED USES..

Sec. 22.4 PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE.

Sec. 3.7 BASIS OF DETERMINING FRONT YARD REQUIREMENTS.

Sec. 2.63 LOT LINES.

Sec. 2.91 STREET.

Sec. 3.7 BASIS OF DETERMINING FRONT YARD REQUIREMENTS.

Sec. 2.63 LOT LINES.

Sec. 2.91 STREET.

Sec. 22.10 STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL (both preliminary and final).

Sec. 22.4 PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE .

Sec. 3.7 BASIS OF DETERMINING FRONT YARD REQUIREMENTS .

Sec. 2.63 LOT LINES .

Sec. 2.91 STREET .