Minutes of the work session of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission held Wednesday, March 2, 2005

 

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

 

Present:            Huizinga, DeGood, Honderd, Pearson, Poskey (arrived at 7:45 p.m.)

Absent: Stasiak, South

 

The work session, which formulated the agenda for March 16, 2005, included the following items to be placed on the agenda, discussion, and action:

 

I.                    Approval of agenda

 

II.                 Approval of minutes of the February 16, 2005 regular meeting and the March 2, 2005 work session meeting

 

III.               Unfinished Business

 

A.     Preliminary Plat of Cedar Lake Estates No. 11

 

No new information was available and no one was present to represent the applicant.  The request was left tabled.

 

IV.       New Business

A.                 Site Plans

1.         (ST0501) Mike Anderson (Kamps Construction)-1728 DeWent Dr.

2.         (ST0502) Mike Snip (Kamps Construction)-1752 DeWent Dr.

3.         (ST0503) Dennis Snip (Kamps Construction)-1706 DeWent Dr.

 

A parcel along 18th Ave. that belonged to DeWent Gravel had been split (by metes and bounds) into 8 parcels and is in the Industrial district.  Three site plans have been submitted for approval for parcels resulting from this split.  The proposed plans meet setback requirements including the 30 foot landscaped area in the front yard.  The plans meet the streetscape requirements and parking requirements.

 

Todd Stuive, Exxel Engineer, represented the applicant and presented the requests.  The three site plans were considered together since they were basically the same.  Storm water management is handled on the DeWent property.  Sidewalks are proposed.  Lighting will be by wall packs.

 

The planner presented a review.  It was noted that sign details should be provided, but the note on the plan would be sufficient, and driveway accesses and parking could be combined along with cross access provided.

 

The applicant stated that the driveway accesses had already been approved by the Road Commission and they would rather have the accesses and parking spaces because the tenants were not known at this time.  He stated that there was no potential to save any existing scrub trees.

 

There is no floodplain information.  If the site is not affected by a floodplain, a note should be added indicating that the site is not affected.

 

4.         (ST0504) Kuperius Trucking-2220 Center Industrial Ct.

 

Todd Stuive, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the request.  The plan is for an office with truck bays.  Utilities are available and storm water detention is provided.  Pole lights and wall packs are proposed.

 

The planner presented a review.  The dumpster must be screened.  No side property line is dimensioned to the north (although it scales to be well in excess of 20 feet).  Adjacent zoning is not shown.  No sign or lighting detail is provided other than a note that states that the ordinance requirements will be met.  Also there is no floodplain information.  If the site is not affected by a floodplain, a note should be added indicating that the site is not affected.  More traffic information should be provided.

 

Only one landscaping plan was submitted and it was given to the planner.  With motion #040628-10, the Township Board waived the requirement of sidewalks along Center Industrial Ct.  Therefore, sidewalks are not required for this site.

 

Poskey arrived at 7:45 p.m.

 

The zoning administrator stated that floodplain information should be provided for all the plans because it was being enforced.  She also noted for the previous applications that since there are multiple units, the applicant should be instructed that each tenant would have to obtain a Zoning Compliance Certificate prior to any occupation of these units.  In addition, if the uses would require a special use permit, it would have to be obtained prior to the occupation of any unit.  Also, it should be noted that parking requirements could change depending upon the uses of the tenants.  The Fire Department memos for all of the previous plans including this plan were noted.

 

B.         Public Hearings

1.                  Special Use Permits

a.  (SUP0502) Visual Workplace LLC, 2668 Edward St., is requesting to have a warehouse under Sec. 15.3(I) and a commercial enterprise producing merchandise on the premises under Sec. 15.3(G), on a parcel of land described as P.P.# 70-14-21-472-004, located at 2668 Edward St., in a (CS) Community Service Commercial district

 

Steve Witte, Nederveld Associates, represented the applicant and presented the request.  This is an existing building on .49 acres and with fifteen parking spaces.  Oak Tree Apartments are located to the south within the City of Hudsonville.  One sign is proposed.  The reason for the application is for the special use permits and no changes are proposed for the building.  He said that the applicant purchased the site last November and has been occupying the site without an approved Zoning Compliance Certificate.  He said that the use was material warehousing with material resold to customers.  He said that they were applying for special use permits for warehousing under Sec. 15.3(I) and for a commercial enterprise producing merchandise on the premises under Sec. 15.3(G).  He said that these were similar uses to those that previously been conducted at this site.

 

The planner presented a review.  The request meets the general standards of the ordinance and the specific standards for a commercial enterprise producing merchandise.  However, one standard for the warehouse is to be 100 feet from a residential district and this is not met because Oat Tree Apartments in the City of Hudsonville is within 100 feet.  The streetscape does not meet requirements (100 feet divided by 25 equals 4 trees and only 3 are provided).  There is no specific parking calculation listed in Chapter 26 for a commercial enterprise producing merchandise, but the plan meets the requirements for parking for a warehouse.  Striping for parking is not shown.  The rear setback is 39 feet and 40 feet is required; however, no changes are proposed.  A greenbelt should be provided along the rear parking area because it abuts the apartments (a residential use).  Three trees are shown here, but no dimension is shown for the area of the parking lot to determine if the requirement is met.  No sign details are listed except a note that it would meet ordinance requirements.  The sign is shown 15 ft. from the property line, which meets the ordinance requirement for a ground mounted sign.

 

The applicant stated that it is the most attractive building and they would plant the trees if required.  The consensus was that the trees would have to be planted.  The applicant also stated that the dumpster would either be removed or screened.

 

There was discussion regarding the fact that the site does not meet aisle width and parking requirements, although the required number of spaces is met. 

 

The zoning administrator stated that the ordinance does allow for the use of non-conforming structures as long as the structure is not increased or enlarged.  She said that the plan shows that the building would not be enlarged in any way and she would determine that the existing non-conforming status would remain valid since there was no way to change the site to become conforming.

 

The zoning administrator said that she would determine that there would be storage for the use of commercial enterprise producing merchandise.  Therefore, since the specific standard for a warehouse of being located at least 100 feet from a residential district was not met and could not be approved, she said that the use the applicant was proposing would still be allowed under the other special use application.  She said that she would determine that standard for being 100 feet from a residential district would still be applicable even though the residential district was actually located within the limits of the City of Hudsonville.

 

The Planning Commission directed that the request be published for both special use permit requests and they would both be considered, though not necessarily both approved.

 

                              2.         Rezonings-none

3.         Plats-none

4.         PUD’s-none

5.         Ordinance Amendments-none

 

V.                 Other Business

VI.       Commissioner Comments

VII.      Staff Comments

VIII.         Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.