PC minutes 7-16-2003

Marilyn Carrier, 2719 Cedargrove Ct., said that the land fill site was close to a residential district. She was concerned that the site be properly maintained and kept clean and picked up.

The applicant stated that this site was located in the Industrial district, and would be a drop-off center for recyclables, not a land fill. He said that the site would be monitored and the waste would be hauled away when the containers are full.

Jansma stated that there were two properties between her condo and this site, which made the site ¼ of a mile away from her.

The chairman closed the floor to public comments.

It was noted that there would have to be security and site would have to be watched.

Moved by Poskey, seconded by DeGood, to approve the site plan dated June 10, 2003, as submitted, based on the plan meeting all site plan and relevant Zoning Ordinance requirements.

MOTION CARRIED.

#030716-05 – Site Plan (ST0308) RV Tech (Dave Stevens)-2000 Chicago Dr.

Dave Stevens presented the request.

The determination was made that the applicant is asking to expand the use of open air business. Part of the expansion is located in the I district and open air business is not allowed. The applicant has submitted an application to rezone the Industrially zoned portion of the parcel to HS and has applied for a special use permit for the remainder of the parcel (and for -009) for open air business (of which vehicle repair is part of the use in open air business).

The applicant has indicated that he would very much appreciate a tentative approval for a driveway curb cut on Port Sheldon while the road construction project is in progress. He said that if the Planning Commission would give him approval for the curb cut, he would agree to not use the driveway until all permits were approved, including the DEQ permit. He also stated that he would agree to pay the Ottawa County Road Commission to remove the curb cut if he did not receive all approvals including the DEQ permit. He submitted a signed statement with his agreement.

It was noted that Tom Palarz, Ottawa County Road Commission, has indicated that it would be good, although not necessary, to put the curb cut in at the same time that the project is commencing. He said that he would have no problem with the location for the curb cut that the applicant shows on the plan. He also said that it would be costly for the applicant to put the curb cut in after the project was complete because there were other issues involved, including a guardrail.

No action could be taken by the Planning Commission since the rezoning is advertised for the August agenda and the special use permit will be on the September agenda.

The applicant stated that he has had conversations with the DEQ and expects to be approved for a DEQ permit.

The chairman opened the floor to public comments. No one was present to speak on this topic. The chairman closed the floor to public comments.

Moved by DeGood, seconded by Huizinga, to accept the driveway location for a curb cut as shown on the plan dated June 17, 2003, subject to county approval, with the condition that the curb cut was being approved and that the applicant was not granted access to 44^th Street at this time, and that the agreement submitted by the applicant (which stated that the applicant would not use the driveway until all permits, including the DEQ permit, were approved, and that he would pay to remove the curb cut if he did not receive all approvals) be notarized.

It was noted that the DEQ permit was the most important element.

MOTION CARRIED.

Moved by Jansma, seconded by DeGood, to table the request.

MOTION CARRIED.

#030716-06 – Site Plan (ST0309) West Michigan Office Products-6548 Center Industrial Dr.

Steve Witte, Nederveld Associates, represented the applicant and presented the request. Trees and sidewalks have been added. He said that the owner has begun the process to combine the two parcels.

The chairman opened the floor to public comments. No one was present to speak on this topic. The chairman closed the floor to public comments.

Moved by Jansma, seconded by DeGood, to approve the site plan dated July 3, 2003, as submitted, based on meeting all site plan and relevant Zoning Ordinance requirements, with the condition that the two parcels be combined.

MOTION CARRIED.

#030716-07 - Special Use Permit (SUP0305) Grace Bible Fellowship Church, 1260 Chicago Dr.

Steve Witte, Nederveld Associates, represented the applicant and presented the request. Jim Simon, Tailored Building Systems was also present. Steve Witte stated that a variance had been obtained for the special use standard for square footage and width of the lot. The items mentioned at the work session have been addressed.

The chairman opened the public hearing.

Gerry Snyder, 6863 12^th Ave., stated that she and her husband, Jim, lived next to the site. She asked how much distance separated their property from the parking lot. They were concerned with water drainage, lights and fencing.

The applicant stated that the 25 foot greenbelt would separate their property and the parking lot. He said that the Ottawa County Drain Commission would review the drainage plan and there should be no problem with drainage if it was built to their standards. He stated that there would be no light poles, only wall mounted, downward directing lights. He said that there would be no fence and the additional building would be removed.

It was noted that the driveway to 12^th Ave. would remain.

The chairman closed the public hearing.

Moved by Jansma, seconded by DeGood, to recommend to the Township Board approval of Special Use Permit (SUP0305) Grace Bible Fellowship Church, 1260 Chicago Dr., to have a church, under section 9.3(A), on parcels of land described as P.P.# 70-14-23-100-065 and 70-14-23-100-036, located at 1260 Chicago Dr. and 6885 12^th Ave., in a (HS) Highway Service Commercial and (MDR) Medium Density Residential districts, based on meeting all the relevant Ordinance requirements.

MOTION CARRIED.

Moved by Jansma, seconded by DeGood, to approve the site plan dated July 8, 2003, conditioned upon approval of the Special Land Use from the Township Board, and based on meeting all the relevant Ordinance requirements, and with the condition that the parcels be combined.

MOTION CARRIED.

#030716-08 - Preliminary Plat of Hager Park West No. 4

Steve Witte, Nederveld Associates, represented the applicant and presented the request. All lots meet the LDR requirements. The street is public with all utilities. He stated that sidewalks would be provided according to the ordinance, adjacent to all paved streets, and between lots 40 and 41. He said that lots 123-130 would have no access to Bauer.

Moved by Jansma, seconded by DeGood, to recommend to the Township Board tentative preliminary plat approval of Hager Park West No. 4, as shown on the drawing dated 7-10-03, based on meeting all the relevant Ordinance requirements.

MOTION CARRIED.

#030716-09 – Planned Unit Development (PUD0302) Meijer Inc., 2929 Walker, is requesting a

Planned Unit Development for a drive-in restaurant, under Chapter 22, on a parcel of land described as P.P.# 70-14-13-300-058, located at 460 Chicago Dr.

The request has been advertised for a public hearing on August 20, 2003.

It was noted that the Township has received a conditional easement for the property to the west of the western-most entrance to the Meijer property for the purpose of a deceleration lane. It was also noted that the Planning Commission could consider requiring the installation of a decel lane on parcel 307-001 as a condition of approval for the PUD due to the fact that people coming to Culvers from Baldwin from the west will enter the site toward the western property line of Meijer. At this time, that is a dangerous entrance to Meijer because the speed limit at that location is 45 mph. It doesn’t decrease to 35 until east of this entrance. This is a very narrow entrance and cars must come to almost a complete stop before turning into this entrance.

It was noted that Sec. 22.10 of the ordinance gives the standards of approval for both preliminary and final PUD approval. One standard is to comply with the qualifying conditions of Sec. 22.2, which (G) states that the PUD must provide for safe and efficient vehicular movements within, into and off the PUD site. Sec. 22.10(C) states that 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. Sec. 22.10(D) states that the proposed project…….represents an opportunity for improved or innovative development for the community that could not be achieved through conventional zoning.

After contact by the Township, both of the representatives of the Meijer project, along with Tom Palarz from the Ottawa County Road Commission, acknowledged that people coming to Culvers from the west on Baldwin most likely will not take Baldwin to the light at Cottonwood and enter from the driveway off Cottonwood. People would most likely enter off Baldwin. If they take the entrance with the current decel lane, they would snake through the parking lot and wind around to Culvers.

There was discussion regarding requiring the applicant to submit a PUD application for the whole site in order to clean up the circulation pattern and other issues on the site. There was discussion regarding an interior service lane with curbs to funnel traffic and provide access to Culvers, Soccer Zone, and other interior lots to prevent people from snaking through the parking lot to get to their destination. It was noted that striping would not be an effective means to direct traffic and would be ignored.

The consensus of the Planning Commission was that it would not be appropriate to make a motion regarding the request without the applicant present, and to review the request as submitted at the public hearing scheduled for August 20, 2003. The Planning Commission directed the Zoning Administrator to contact the applicant to relay the concerns regarding the request.

Poskey abstained from all discussion.

#030716-10 - Ordinance Amendments

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:

D. Master Plan: The proposed uses of the PUD must be substantially consistent with Georgetown Township’s Master Plan for the subject property, except for developments larger than 75 acres.

The Township Board initiated an ordinance amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow developments larger than 75 acres to be exempt from the requirement of being substantially consistent with the Master Plan. The reason was to consider projects with mixed uses that would not necessarily be consistent with the Master Plan.

There was discussion regarding amending the ordinance to read as follows:

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

It was determined that changing the word “must” to “should” would provide for some “wiggle” room from the language as it currently reads. The proposed change is subtle and could provide some latitude as to the level of consistency that the proposed PUD would have to be consistent with the Master Plan.

The consensus of the Planning Commission was to leave the ordinance as it currently reads, especially since the Township is in the process of updating the Master Plan. However, changing the word from “must” to “should” would seem to be a better alternative to the current proposal.

A question was raised as to what the approach would be if a PUD was proposed that was not consistent with the Master Plan, but that the Planning Commission considered to be a good development for the Township. The answer was that the Master Plan should be considered as a guide for future development and that it would have to be amended.

Moved by Poskey, seconded by DeGood, to recommend to the Township Board denial of the proposed amendment as follows:

Sec. 22.2 QUALIFYING CONDITIONS.

Any development that fails to meet the following qualifying conditions, at a minimum, shall not be considered for the PUD District:

D. Master Plan: The proposed uses of the PUD must be substantially consistent with Georgetown Township’s Master Plan for the subject property, except for developments larger than 75 acres.

based on the following:

1. One of the main purposes of having a valid Master Plan is to help guide the future development pattern of the Township. It is this long-range planning that helps guide the future Planning Commissions and Township Boards in the same direction over a longer time period. If the Plan is continually reviewed regularly, then the plan should be upheld when proposed projects run contrary to the vision set forth by the Master Plan. If the project has merit, then a decision to review the validity of the Master Plan in this area may be appropriate, but the proper sequence is to review (and amend if appropriate) the Master Plan to allow the PUD to be in conformance with the future land use development pattern of the Township.

2. The current language provides for the necessary “wiggle” room to allow multiple uses within the same classification (residential, commercial, industrial) as long as the Master Plan “density” is still being achieved. Example: If the Master Plan identified an area as LDR (Low Density Residential) and a maximum density of 3 dwellings per acre, that would not preclude the applicant from proposing S-F detached homes, townhouses, condominiums, etc, as long as the overall density did not exceed the maximum 3 dwelling units per acre as denoted in the Master Plan (remember this is an example). This example does not work, however, if mixed uses of residential and “substantial” commercial are proposed.

3. The Township has expressed concern that development requirements are forcing the smaller, “grass-roots” developer out of the development picture and allows chiefly for the larger scale development companies to pursue new developments in Georgetown Township. This ordinance amendment would shorten the “procedures” for larger developments (larger than 75 acres) in getting an approval and still force the “smaller” developments to go through a Master Plan amendment prior to seeking a PUD/rezoning (more time consuming and costly).

4. The Master Plan is currently under review by the Planning Commission and Township Board, and could better address the concerns of the future land use differences in the largely undeveloped portions of the Township. This review may lead to more language regarding the Township’s intention about mixed use developments and possibility of a new future land use designation better outlining the areas the Township feels these types of development might be most appropriate.

MOTION CARRIED.

#030716-11 - Adjournment

The chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.