Minutes of the work session of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission held Wednesday, October 6, 2004

 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.

 

Present:            Jansma, South, DeGood, Honderd, Stasiak, Huizinga

Absent: Poskey

 

The work session, which formulated the agenda for October 20, 2004, included the following items to be placed on the agenda, discussion, and action:

 

I.                    Approval of agenda

 

II.                 Approval of minutes of the September 15, 2003 regular meeting and the October 6, 2004 work session meeting

 

III.               Unfinished Business

 

#041006-01 – Special Use Permit (SUP0406) Exit 76 Corporation (the Hop Family LLC),

8407 Cottonwood Dr., is requesting to have a vehicle service station under Sec. 14.3(C), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-11-326-025, located at 8407 Cottonwood, in a NS district

 

The applicant submitted a letter asking to withdraw the application.  Variance requests by the applicant had been denied at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on September 22, 2004.  Therefore, the special use standards are not met.

 

Moved by Jansma, seconded by DeGood, to accept the withdrawal request.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

#041006-02 - Preliminary Plat of Cedar Lake Estates No. 11

 

No one was present to represent the applicant.  The request was left tabled.

 

#041006-03 – Planned Unit Development (PUD0402) Koetje Builders and Developers LLC,

547 Baldwin, is requesting a Planned Unit Development for Unity Timbers for residential uses, under Chapter 22, on parcels of land described as P.P.# 70-14-31-400-030, 70-14-31-200-060, located at 5101 & 5131 40th Ave.

 

Ron VanSingel, Nederveld Associates, represented the applicant and presented the request.  He stated that the hearing was being held again because notices had not been sent as per the state statute.

 

The planner presented a review.

 

The chairman opened the public hearing.

 

Bill Northouse stated that he owns the adjacent property and that he thought the plan was nice.  However, he was concerned that the new residents would have problems with his industrially zoned property.

 

The planner stated that that the adjacent industrially zoned property is consistent with the Master Plan.

 

Hank Herrman, 5125 40th Ave., asked about setbacks, the right of way line and the center line of the road.

 

The zoning administrator stated that 40th Ave. was one of the streets identified in footnote b in Chapter 24 where the setbacks were measured from an extra distance from the centerline of the road.

 

Hank Herrman asked what the right-of-way on 40th Ave. was.

 

Jim Jansma said that most streets had a 66 foot right-of-way.

 

The chairman closed the public hearing.

 

Moved by DeGood, seconded by Huizinga, to recommend to the Township Board approval of the preliminary plan for (PUD0402) Koetje Builders and Developers LLC, 547 Baldwin, to have a Planned Unit Development for Unity Timbers for residential uses, under Chapter 22, on parcels of land described as P.P.# 70-14-31-400-030, 70-14-31-200-060, located at 5101 & 5131 40th Ave.

 

            MOTION CARRIED.

 

#041006-04 - Preliminary Plat of Boulder Ridge

 

Rick Pulaski, Nederveld Associates, represented the applicant and presented the request.  He said that a street is stubbed to the south as per Ottawa County Road Commission direction.

 

The planner presented a review.

 

The zoning administrator stated that a Fire Department memo had been distributed for the plat.

 

Jansma stated that lots 33, 39, 74 and 75 did not meet the requirement of 110 feet for a corner lot as stipulated in footnote n.

 

There was discussion regarding the language of the requirement of the ordinance.  The zoning administrator said that the specific language of footnote n states that “on corner lots, the minimum lot width along the street on which the lot fronts shall be 25 feet wider than the minimum width required for the district.”  She said further that the ordinance definition of lot width in Sec. 2.65 is the shortest distance separating the side lot lines at any point between the required front setback line and a line forty feet to the rear of and parallel to the required front setback line.  She said that she would determine then that the width as measured at the setback line would be required to be 110 feet for a corner lot since that is the way the ordinance states to measure the width of any lot and that such a determination would be consistent with a lot width measurement of a cul de sac lot.  She said that with this determination, the line for building envelope would be the same length no matter what the shape of the lot.  The planner concurred with this interpretation.

 

Jansma said that the reason that the footnote was adopted was to require building envelopes to be large enough for a house to be built on a corner lot.  He said that in the past the Planning Commissioners had always required the 110 feet be the frontage lot line.

 

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

 

It was noted that the width of lot 87 should be dimensioned on the plan.

 

Moved by South, seconded by Huizinga, to table the tentative preliminary plat approval of Boulder Ridge for revisions.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

IV.       New Business

A.                 Site Plans-none

 

B.         Public Hearings

1.                  Special Use Permits

a.         (SUP0408) Beppe’s House Daycare (Carol VanderNat), 1938 Pleasantwood, is requesting to have a group daycare home, under Sec. 8.3(E), on a parcel of land described as P.P. #70-14-03-473-002, located at 1938 Pleasantwood, in a (LDR) Low Density Residential district

 

Carol VanderNat presented the request.  She stated that she and her daughter had a day care business.  She said they wanted to care for four infants and four toddlers and to do that they need to be licensed for twelve.  She said that there would be no signage.  The applicant stated that she has tentative approval from the state.

 

Jansma said that the survey’s certification seal should be removed if the survey is altered.

 

South said that the exit through the garage should be shown.  The applicant was also directed to supply certification from the state.  The Planning Commission directed that the application be advertised for a public hearing at the next meeting.

 

b.         (SUP0409) CRB Industries, Inc., 1864 PineRidge Dr. unit C, is requesting to have tool and die, under Sec. 17.3(J), on a parcel of land described as P.P.# 70-14-22-477-009, located at 1864 PineRidge Dr. unit D, in an (I) Industrial district

 

In 2000, a special use permit was granted for the applicants to operate a tool and die operation in unit C of the building.  The applicants now want to expand into an adjacent unit; therefore, a special use permit for tool and die must be approved for this new unit.

 

John Morton stated that his business currently occupies unit C and they plan to expand into unit D.  He asked if a special use permit was needed since one had already been granted.

 

The zoning administrator explained that copies of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held on 7-19-2000 and of the Board meeting held on 7-24-2000, when the special use permit was approved were submitted in the memo to the Planning Commission.  She stated that the minutes specifically note that approval was granted only for unit C and was not granted for the whole parcel.  She said that due to that fact, the applicant would have to return for an additional special use permit if the business were to expand.

 

It was also noted that according to the chairman of the sidewalk committee, sidewalks would not be required since there is no construction taking place on the property.

 

The applicant asked if the specific reference to unit D could be removed so that the special use permit could be granted for the whole parcel in case the use were to expand into other units of the building.

 

The Planning Commission directed that the application be advertised for a public hearing for the next meeting and that the reference to unit D be removed.

 

There was discussion regarding parking and the zoning administrator was directed to research the color coded parking calculations that had been submitted by Steve Burman for previous approvals.

 

South asked for the number of employees and was told that there currently were six with plans for a maximum of 10.

 

                              2.         Rezonings-none

 

3.         Plats

a.         Preliminary Plat of Hager Pointe

 

Ron VanSingel, Nederveld Associates, represented the applicant and presented the request.  The 24 lot plat abuts Fox Hill and Hunters Meadows to the north and Hager Park West to the east.  All lots meet LDR requirements and full utilities are available.  Lots 14, 15, and 16 will have access to interior streets only and not to Bauer Rd.

 

The planner presented a review and said that the plan should identify landscaped preservation areas for mature trees.  Building envelopes should be checked for lots 4, 5, 6, 13, 15, 20 and 21.

 

Jansma said that the lot width should be shown for lot 9.

 

4.         PUD’s

a..        (PUD0406) Eastbrook Development Co., 2130 Enterprise, Kentwood, is requesting to have a residential Planned Unit Development, under Chapter 22, on parcels of land described as follows: P.P.# 70-14-04-300-013 (3030 Fillmore), 70-14-04-300-014           (3203 Taylor), 70-14-04-300-015 (3205 Taylor), 70-14-05-400-011 (now -017) (Taylor), 70-14-05-400-012 (Taylor), 70-14-09-100-018 (3210 Taylor), 70-14-09-100-019 (3208 Taylor), 70-14-09-100-022 (3131 Bauer), 70-14-09-100-024 (3034 Taylor), 70-14-09-100-029 (3244 Taylor), 70-14-09-100-030 (3205 Taylor), 70-14-09-100-004 (2999 Bauer)

 

Dale Kraker, Eastbrook Development Co., presented the request.  He said that two neighborhood meetings had been held with 30 people attending.  He said that he had met with the Fire Department and had addressed their concerns by adding a boulevard and widening the emergency access lane.

 

Al Feenstra, Township Fire Inspector, stated that variances for the length of the cul de sacs would be up to the Board and Planning Commission.  He said that the plan meets fire codes and it was noted that the Fire Department memo had been distributed to Planning Commissioners.

 

There was discussion regarding the length of cul de sacs.  It was noted that the Planning Commission had the authority to recommend a variance for cul de sac length and the Board had the authority to approve the variance for the length, primarily due to specific reasons such as topography.  In addition, the Road Commission could and would likely also grant a variance for cul de sac length if it was due to topographical issues, as has been done in the past.

 

Honderd stated that Berger Estates had the same situation and that the cul de sac was longer there due to topographical issues.

 

The public hearing has been advertised for October 20, 2004. 

 

b.         (PUD0407) Arena Development-Final Development Plan for

Phase 1

 

On March 22, 2004, the Board approved the preliminary plan for the PUD with the first phase to include one commercial building along with two sets of townhouses.  The applicants have returned with the final development plan for the first phase. 

 

Rick Pulaski, Nederveld Associates, represented the applicant and presented the request.

 

The planner presented a review and noted that the final development plan has changed significantly from the preliminary plan that had been approved by the Board.  He said that initially the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the preliminary plan and the Board had approved it with conditions.  He noted a concern that the final development plan showed a clear distinction between the commercial and residential areas, which was a substantial change from the original layout and is not consistent with the original layout or the conditions of approval.

 

The applicant stated that the biggest change is with the location of the footprints of the buildings, but the overall square footage has not changed.

 

The zoning administrator stated that a memo from the Fire Department had been distributed to Planning Commissioners.

 

A copy of the preliminary plan that had been approved by the Board was reviewed in conjunction with the proposed final development plan.  It was noted that the final development plan is substantially different from the preliminary plan, including lack of creativity with compacted straight rows, loss of flavor from the first plan, less of a village feel with more of a strip mall look with apartments, and less friendly pedestrian walkways, less connectivity and more physical barriers.

 

The applicant was directed to revise the plan to be in conformance with the previously approved preliminary plan and the conditions of Board approval, since Sec. 22.9B requires that the final development plan be in conformance with the preliminary development plan and any conditions of approval.

 

5.         Ordinance Amendments-none

 

V.                 Other Business

VI.       Commissioner Comments

VII.      Staff Comments

VIII.         Adjourn

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.