PC minutes 10-1-2003

· The suggestion had been made for a building to be shown on the other outlot so that in the future (as long as it is during the 24 month time period permitted in Chapter 22), the applicant would only have to return with a site plan for the final development approval of this part of the PUD rather than submitting a PUD amendment. This has been provided on the site plan.

· The intersection along the western property line by the truck docks is realigned so that traffic does not meet head on.

· The applicant has agreed to pay for half of the deceleration lane on Baldwin and stated that in the letter provided. The Township has agreed to pay the other half.

It was noted that landscaping, such as trees, should be provided in the greenspace area.

The public hearing had already been held. The chairman opened the floor to public comments.

Randy Rottschaffer, applicant for the site plan on Baldwin and Thomas which was the next item on the agenda, said that he was attempting to work out an agreement with Meijer for a curb cut to his property on the westernmost Meijer drive. He said that representatives from Meijer want to see the design of the deceleration lane before approving a curb cut. He said that he wanted to withdraw the easement agreement that he had already signed for the deceleration lane on his property.

The chairman closed the floor to public comments.

Moved by Jansma, seconded by DeGood, to remove the item from the table.

MOTION CARRIED.

Moved by Jansma, seconded by DeGood, to recommend to the Township Board preliminary approval of the planned unit development (PUD0302) Meijer Inc., 2929 Walker, to have a Planned Unit Development (and PUD zoning) for a drive-in restaurant (and other 1.5 acre site), under Chapter 22, on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-13-300-058, located at 460 Chicago Dr., as shown on the overall site development plan dated 9-24-03, and the site layout and paving plan dated 9-24-03, and in the letter dated September 23, 2003 signed by Greg Heath, based on conformance with the standards of Section 22.10.

Poskey abstained from discussion and voting.

MOTION CARRIED.

Moved by Jansma, seconded by DeGood, to approve the final development plan (site plan) for PUD0302 for the Culvers site, as shown on the site layout and paving plan dated 9-24-03, contingent upon Board approval of the PUD, and if board requires any changes to preliminary plan, the final development plan would have to be reconsidered by the Planning Commission.

MOTION CARRIED.

#031001-02 - Unfinished Business-Site Plan (ST0313) Randy Rottschafer (Mani’s Photo

Studio) - 612 Baldwin

The planner stated that the applicant had submitted three site plans and that the first one with the dumpster shown in front meets the requirements of the ordinance and of the Planning Commission.

The zoning administrator stated that the applicant submitted the first plan, which met requirements of the ordinance and Planning Commission, and then submitted two additional plans because he wanted more parking spaces in case he needed them in the future. It was noted that the first plan could be approved because it had been reviewed at the work session. In addition, the applicant had the opportunity to apply for a variance for the number of parking spaces, if in the future the use of the photo studio were to leave and the applicant wanted a use that required more parking spaces because the Planning Commission has mentioned that the ordinance might require too many parking spaces for retail uses.

Randy Rottschafer said that he sent a fax to the Township office and to Meijer this afternoon, and he did not hear back from the Township and he heard only a half hour before the meeting from Meijer. He said that Meijer wanted a $2,000 annual fee for access to their drive. He said that without the decel lane, no further development could take place. He said that he was the one who put the Meijer project back on target.

Jim Jansma said that Meijer did agree to share the cost of the decel lane and had stated so in the signed letter submitted to the Township. He said that the first site plan submitted had been reviewed and it complied in all aspects with the ordinance and the requirements of the Planning Commission. He said that the other two plans submitted by the applicant were not valid because they had not been reviewed and had not been submitted for a work session review. He said that the additional accesses, as shown on the other two plans, would not be approved even if the applicant did not obtain approval for Meijer for the curb cut on their drive. He said that the Planning Commission could approve the site plan that had been submitted showing the dumpster in the front.

It was noted that a recent zoning ordinance amendment gave the Planning Commission the authority to stipulate the location of access points on sites that bordered streets listed in Chapter 24, footnotes bi, bii, and biii. Baldwin was one of those streets. It was also noted that whether or not the decel lane was constructed, a curb cut on Baldwin in this location would further compound the traffic problem in the area and it is unlikely one would be approved.

The chairman stated that it was safe to say that a curb cut on Baldwin would never be approved for the site.

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.

The applicant stated that he was still open to the decel lane on his land, but he needed a satisfactory agreement with Meijer.

Jim Jansma stated that the site plan dated September 23, 2003 could be approved with a note for the condition that the access curb cut to the Meijer drive could be included when the two parties reach an agreement.

Moved by Jansma, seconded by Poskey, to leave the item on the table to give the applicant sufficient time to make an agreement with Meijer and the withdrawal request was not accepted.

MOTION CARRIED.

C. Special Use Permit (SUP0311) Taco Bell (Chicago Diversified Foods Corp),

Richland, MI, is requesting to have a drive-in restaurant, under Sec. 15.3(A), on part of a parcel of land described as P.P.# 70-14-13-400-052, located at 174 Chicago Dr., in a (CS) Community Service Commercial district

No revised plans were submitted.

IV. New Business

A. Site Plans

1. (ST0314) Family Video (Rockford Construction) -1230 Bauer

Tom Anisko, Rockford Construction, represented the applicant and presented the request. He said that the proposal includes a 7,000 square foot building and the parking exceeds requirements. He said that a curb cut is shown off Woodland St. and the detention pond was big enough to hold water from the site.

The planner said that he would not encourage the curb cut on Woodland St. and that the parking calculations shown on the plan were incorrect because only 35 spaces were required. He said that an additional 18 spots are shown over the requirement and the Planning Commission could defer some spaces for the future. He said that at the northwest corner the first parking space was shown in the front yard setback and had to be removed. He said that the buildings were outlined with a three foot sidewalk and this should either be extended to five feet or wheel chocks should be provided to prevent vehicles from extending over the sidewalk and obstructing pedestrians. He said that the seven parking spaces along the northern edge of the building would require vehicles to back out into the drive off Bauer Rd., which would be heavily traveled. He said that the striping along the two eastern corners of the building should be landscaped islands with curbing and the one adjacent to the northeast corner would delineate the drive lane. It was noted that there would be an overhang.

The applicant was directed to supply elevations. The streetscape along Bauer shows only eleven trees, and twelve must be provided. The additional tree should be a deciduous, not an evergreen. The applicant was directed to eliminate the access from Woodland St. and to eliminate some parking spaces. The Planning Commission also directed that the dumpster be backed up to the neighbor’s site and eliminate the light fixtures between the two gas lines.

B. Public Hearings

1. Special Use Permits

a. (SUP0306) David Stevens, RV Tech, 2000 Chicago Dr., is requesting to have an open air business, under Sec. 16.3(H), on parcels of land described as P.P.# 70-14-22-450-010 and 70-14-22-450-009, located at 2000 and 2034 Chicago Dr., in a (HS) Highway Service Commercial District

Dave Stevens presented the request and stated that he wanted to expand his open air business. He answered questions regarding circulation on the site, and said that the parking and storage areas would be fenced and gated. He said that the western area would be for sales and the southern area would be used for storage. He said that he would be selling new and pre-owned recreation vehicles. He said that five units would be displayed outside of the fencing and, due to problems with theft, the rest would be stored in fenced areas. He said that units would enter the eastern drive for service and there would be a gate and fence along Chicago Dr. He said that the secured area off 44^th St. would be fenced.

It was noted that all display areas should be hard surfaced. No revisions were necessary and the Planning Commission directed that the request be advertised for a public hearing.

b. (SUP0312) Fair Haven Ministries (Ken BlauwKamp), 2900

Baldwin, is requesting to have a preschool for 3 and 4 year olds (day care center), under Sec. 8.3(N), on a parcel of land described as P.P.# 70-14-16-300-030, located at 2900 Baldwin, in a (LDR) Low Density Residential District

Ken BlauwKamp represented the applicant and presented the request. He said that they were asking to have a special use permit for a preschool. He apologized for not obtaining the special use permit prior to beginning the use and he said that they did not know that one was required. He said that he was asking to continue the use.

The planner stated that the site plan was the same one that had been approved by the Planning Commission for the church’s expansion. He said that a variance had been granted to eliminate the outdoor play area, one of the special use standards in the ordinance.

It was noted that this is a preschool, not a daycare, even though the ordinance definition for daycare includes preschool. The request meets the other standards in the ordinance. There are off-street parking and drop-off areas.

No revisions are necessary and the Planning Commission directed that the request be advertised for a public hearing.

c. (SUP0313) Alcor, Inc., 742 Chicago Dr., is requesting to have a building and supply establishment, under Sec. 16.3(D), on a parcel of land described as P.P.# 70-14-24-100-005, located at 742 Chicago Dr., in a (HS) Highway Service Commercial district

The determination was made that the proposed use would be building and supply establishment. The applicant is asking to construct a second building with the same use as the existing building.

The planner gave a review and stated that the gravel drive has to be paved. Three parking spaces are located in the required front yard setback and must be relocated because they are part of the required amount. An access easement agreement should be obtained from the adjacent property owner, otherwise the driveway is only eleven feet wide. The plan does not clearly show, and should show, if the building is serviced by water and sewer.

A concern was noted regarding site conditions and these code enforcement issues should be part of the consideration. There are no specific standards, only the general standards for a special use permit. The impacts of the expansion on the site should be considered.

The zoning administrator stated that the broken glass and other junk should be cleaned up and removed from the site.

Site plan revisions are necessary and the Planning Commission directed that the request should be advertised.

2. Rezonings-none

5. PUDs

a. (PUD0303) Arena Development LLC, 2551 VanOmmen Dr., Holland, is requesting a Planned Unit Development for a mixed use development with various types of residential housing and various commercial uses, under Chapter 22, on a parcel of land described as P.P.# 70-14-07-100-012, located at 8658 48^th Ave.

Terry Sanford, Nederveld Associates, represented the applicant and presented the request. He stated that the pre-application conference has already been held and the determination was that a case could be made for the consistency of the proposal with the current master plan. He said that due to the market study and preliminary thoughts, the proposed square footage for retail has been scaled back. He said that they wanted to keep the town center concept. He said that there would be a service drive along 48^th Ave. with angle parking, and that the service drive would have two lanes with one to drive through and one for backing out of parking spaces. He said that surplus parking would be shielded by buildings. He said that they planned to create pedestrian friendly walkways. He said that they had no control over the Consumers Power property and that access would be provided to the adjacent ice arena. He said that the plan shows live/work units where people would live in the two story townhouses and have a bay underneath to conduct business. He said that the proposal was designed to create a neighborhood where people would be around day and night. He said that a secondary outlet to Bauer Rd. was maintained for traffic flow. He said that the daycare was shown on a major road, serviced by Bauer Rd.

The planner presented a review and stated that this should be a neighborhood services development. He said that there was a concern with the interior parking and with the large amount of retail space available, which was still even less than shown on the preliminary plan. He said that there was a concern that at least two boxes were too large and that parking should be reconfigured because there was a large expanse of blacktop that would require walking a distance equal to a city block.

It was noted that the two curb cuts on 48^th Ave. should be located in spots consistent with the 48^th Ave. Corridor Study. The south drive shows one inbound traffic lanes and two outbound with right turns only. The market study should help better define uses. It was noted that the concept should be studied because there was a large amount of area to be developed and consideration should be given to the degree of development that could be supported. It appears that the Planning Commission envisioned a neighborhood commercial area, but not with this large amount of retail space because it is a tough market. In addition, garages should be attached, not detached. The Master Plan discouraged more rental areas with apartments.

The applicant stated that the market study addresses these issues and that rental situations would be detrimental to what they were trying to accomplish. He said that there were rental units close to GVSU and they were not targeting that market because they did not want to become student housing. They wanted to create an environment that would not be conducive to rental units.

It was noted that the amount of retail space could be reduced and more detached housing shown with walk-ability. The streets are shown lined with bays for service oriented business and in front the plan was shown to be auto oriented. The area is changing, with the ice arena and the enlargement of 48^th Ave., and this could contribute to the amount of retail that could be supported. The corners of Bauer Rd. could be developed as a center. The development stages could take up to 2008.

The applicant was asked for a phasing program and he said that there is no firm concept in place other than not to start at two ends. He said that the townhouses would be three stories, with six units per building, and 20 by 50 foot bays.

Jim Jansma said that the Consumers Power right-of-way could be developed as open space and the road could not go through to the north. He said that a large amount of retail was shown with good sized boxes and he would encourage the developer to not develop the site in this way because it was not neighborhood friendly.

Del South said that it was not neighborhood friendly because with the people living upstairs, there would be no front porches for people to sit and visit neighbors.

The Planning Commission directed not to advertise the request because revisions are needed.

6. Plats-none

5. Ordinance Amendments-none

V. Other Business

Since four members of the Planning Commission stated that they would not be present at the next scheduled meeting, the meeting date would have to be changed in order to have a quorum.

VI. Commissioner Comments

VII. Staff Comments

VIII. Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.