Minutes of the work session of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission held Wednesday, June 1, 2005

 

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

 

Present:            Huizinga, DeGood, Honderd, Pearson, Poskey, Stasiak, South

Absent: none

 

The work session, which formulated the agenda for June 15, 2005, included the following items to be placed on the agenda, discussion, and action:

 

I.                    Approval of minutes of the April 20, 2005 regular meeting and the May 4, 2005 and June 1, 2005 work session meetings

 

III.       Unfinished Business

A.     Preliminary Plat of Cedar Lake Estates No. 11

 

Revised plans were submitted showing 11 additional lots for this phase and a letter was submitted from the developer in regards to the construction of 28th Ave. 

 

Todd Stuive, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the request.  There are 30 lots proposed that meet or exceed the LDR requirements in the ordinance. 

 

The planner presented a review and noted that the size of this phase has increased with the addition of 11 lots.

 

When questioned about the additional line on lot 173, the applicant stated that it was a computer error.  The applicant also indicated that the owner of lot 176 would be required to maintain the portion of the lot on the other side of the water.  The applicant stated that the goal was that the strip of land by lots 170 to 173 would be acquired by the lot owners and maintained by them, rather than by the developer of Willow Creek.  He said that if an agreement could not be reached, the land would have to be maintained by Boynton.

 

The zoning administrator said that in the past when a temporary cul-de-sac had been put in, the property owner of the lot that was impacted had difficulty installing sidewalk because the location where it was to be located was asphalt.  She asked that the developer be required to install the sidewalks at the time the cul-de-sac was taken out and the new road put in.

 

The applicant said that he was aware of the situation and for this reason located the cul-de-sac after the last lot in the phase so that none of the lots to be developed would be affected.

 

Ed Stasiak asked about the letter that was submitted by the applicant in regards to installing 28th Ave.

 

The zoning administrator stated that the developer had submitted a letter stating that he would be financially responsible to install that part of 28th Ave. that was impacted by this development, but the developer still had to sign a contract with the Township in this regard.  She asked that the Planning Commission make this a condition of approval.

 

Cornelius Huizinga asked if the lots would have lake access if that strip of land was acquired for lots 170 to 173.

 

Greg Honderd asked how that strip ended up being created.

 

The applicant said that it was a lack of coordination between the developers, plus the requirement that excavating take place away from the property line.

 

The planner suggested that the request be left tabled until the following issues could be resolved: the contract signed by the developer, an approval letter submitted by the Road Commission, the applicant can look into obtaining the strip of land abutting lots 170 to 173, and the site plan could be cleaned up with the site plan issues such as the acreage shown and the computer error be eliminated from lot 176.

 

B.     Site Plan (ST0508) Campus View Townhouses-10081 42nd Ave.

 

The item is going before the ZBA on May 25, 2005 and the applicant is seeking a variance to not have attached garages.  The item was left tabled.

 

IV.       New Business

A.                 Site Plans

 

#050601-01 – Site Plan (ST0509)Georgetown Township Meter Station-New Holland (Courtesy Review)

 

The Township is installing a new lift station at 4425 New Holland St.  Although the Township is immune from the Zoning Ordinance, the DPW Director asked that the plan be reviewed.  It will be located in an AG district and the setback requirements are met.  No sidewalks are required in the AG district.  Landscaping will be provided by the building.

 

Moved by South, seconded by Poskey, to accept the site plan as presented for information for the Township metering station.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

2.         (ST0510) Randy Rottschafer-610 Baldwin

 

Randy Rottschafer presented the request and stated that he had built the strip mall and was requesting to add an accessory building. 

 

The planner stated that the proposed accessory building meets setback requirements; however, square footage and height must be provided along with verification that the architecture of the proposed structure is consistent with the main structure.

 

The zoning administrator asked the Planning Commission if they would provide a condition of approval that if the decel lane is not added, the driveway that goes into the front yard would be removed.  The Planning Commissioners decided not to add such a condition because they said that the decel lane would have to be added as some point in the future and did not want the applicant to have to remove the drive and landscape if it would be torn up in the future.

 

Greg Honderd said that he would like to see on paper that the accessory building would be architecturally similar to the main structure.

 

Michael Pearson asked for a time line for the decel lane.

 

The zoning administrator said that there was no time line and money was the issue.

 

Del South said that it would have to be completed at some point.

 

The applicant asked if a letter in writing would suffice for the assurances that the accessory building would be architecturally similar.

 

The zoning administrator said that they had accepted a written statement in the past from applicants for assurances that an accessory building would be architecturally similar.

 

B.         Public Hearings

1.                  Special Use Permits

a.         (SUP0504) Wizard Wash Ventures, LLC, 4346 Leonard NW, Grand Rapids, is requesting to have a vehicle wash establishment under Sec. 15.3(C), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-13-300-075, located at 550 Baldwin St., in a (CS) Community Service Commercial district

 

Bill Bussey, part owner, represented the applicant and presented the request.  He said that he had been involved in the Cottonwood Center and said that he wanted to use the under-developed property for a car wash.  He said that the proposed car wash was slower than the tunnel and would take about six minutes for each wash.  He said that there was adequate room for the traffic that was anticipated and it would not interfere with the convenience store.  He said that the setback would be 110 feet from the centerline of Cottonwood and the exit was 24 feet from the property line.  He said that although no landscaped legend was provided, he planned to mimic the same landscaping as Cottonwood Center.  He said that he would provide a landscape legend and have bushes.  He said that sidewalks would be provided along the Meijer property and that the dumpster would be relocated.

 

The planner presented a review and said that site plan requirements were not obviously shown on the site plan.  He said that setbacks should be shown from the vacuums.  Signage should be shown as only a wall sign.  Floodplain information and a location sketch should be shown.  Sidewalks should connect to the sidewalks along Cottonwood Center.  The legal description for the leased property was adequate.  Water disposal information should be shown since the Township must adhere to the State requirement for illicit discharges.

 

The applicant explained that there were strict requirements for disposing of the water, including separating the oil and having it picked up by a hauler to be disposed at a dump.

 

The planner said that building elevations should be provided to show that it is harmonious with the other structures.  He asked if a letter of approval was given for the water disposal.

 

The applicant said that a plumber would install the disposal system and a note could be added to the plan.

 

The planner said that screening details and a landscaped legend should be provided.  He said that there could be a conflict with circulation and the landscaping along Cottonwood should look more attractive.

 

The applicant said that the dumpster would be picked up during slow times when other people would not be there.

 

The planner said that the sidewalks have to be connected because there should not be a break in the sidewalk on the other side of the entrance.  He said that he understood the issues; however, the sidewalk would have to be continuous to be effective even if coordinated efforts were difficult.

 

The applicant said that he had spoken with Greg from Meijer and he anticipated an answer by next week.

 

The planner said that the area should be safe for pedestrian and vehicular circulation.  He said that the overall circulation pattern should be part of the next submittal, showing queuing, stacking, flow in and out, and pedestrian circulation and showing the relationship between other buildings in the development.  He said that it should be demonstrated that the vacuums are at least 90 feet from the centerline of Cottonwood.  Dimensions should be shown.

 

The zoning administrator said that the applicant had done a great job on Cottonwood Center and he just needed to show what he was going to do here.

 

The applicant said that the landscaping would be the same as Cottonwood Center.

 

Greg Honderd said that the car wash works well with the gas station and that an escape lane should be provided for those who choose to exit before getting to the car wash building.  He said that the location of the vacuums would be cumbersome because cars would have a difficult time getting back out with traffic.  He said that this is a busy congested area and the vacuum location does not work well.  He said that it would be difficult for a vehicle exiting to make a left turn, particularly during busy times such as Saturday mornings and that the vehicles could be stacked into the intersection.  He said that the applicant should consider moving the car wash to the other side.

 

Michael Pearson asked about accessing the dumpster on the northwest corner.

 

The applicant indicated that he would explore the option.

 

Michael Pearson asked to clarify landscaping and the applicant indicated that that the landscaping would be inside the sidewalk on the Meijer property and not along the street.  He said that although he understands that they can’t control what they don’t own, they should continue to improve the area by buffering the asphalt.

 

The applicant said that Meijer is protective of their property and it takes a long time to get them to agree to changes on their property.  He said that he planned to pick dwarf trees and specify the plantings that would be added.

 

Del South said that he was concerned with traffic and that lines would form due to the six minute wash.  He said that there was no room to get out.

 

The applicant said that they had looked at a lot of different versions but wanted to stay away from the convenience store traffic.  He said that signage could be provided for a right-turn only.

 

Ed Stasiak asked about the other vacuums.

 

The applicant said that the customers could park on either side and hoped the Meijer vacuums would be eventually eliminated.

 

The planner suggested that an internal traffic analysis be performed during peak hours because of the concern with traffic and he said that signage could restrict traffic circulation during peak hours.

 

The applicant said that their customer numbers depend on the weather and were normally busiest on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.  He said that they were slow in the summer but made their money in the winter months.

 

The Planning Commission directed that the applicant not be advertised for a public hearing until some of these issues could be addressed and a revised plan be submitted.

 

2.                  Rezonings

a.         (REZ0502) To change from (I) Industrial to (LDR) Low Density

Residential a parcel of land described as P.P.# 70-14-31-200-067, located at 5565 40th Ave.

 

The Board initiated the rezoning from I to LDR with motion #050411-11.  A house and residential use has been located on the site for about 40 years and LDR is consistent with the Master Plan.

 

The planner said that it is an opportunity to remedy a non-conforming situation.  He said that he reviewed the request and it is compatible with the surrounding area, consistent with the Master Plan and capable of the uses in the LDR district.

 

5.                  Plats

a.         Preliminary Plat of Georgetown Shores No. 6

 

Todd Stuive, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the request.  He said that this is the last phase and will eliminate the gravel mining.  He said that there are 48 lots, most with lake frontage, and all comply with the LDR requirements.  He said that there would be a tunnel for boats to access the bigger lake.  The plat will be served by sanitary sewer and have public water.  The road was proposed to line up with Springmont.  Sidewalks would be installed by the developer along Edson and connect to 18th Ave., and would be installed on individual lots according to ordinance.  He said that the homeowners desired to eliminate the connection to 18th Ave. because it would create a confusing “T” 3-way intersection that would empty into secondary or residential streets and because the residents did not want traffic other than local resident to use or cut through the street.  They did not want anyone other than those with a vested interest to use the road.  He said that people would not pay attention to speed limits.  He said that they Road Commission did approve the layout as submitted.

 

The planner said that the bike path along VanBuren and 14th Ave. must be redone and the Road Commission wants a new letter of Credit.  He said that the Township Board could require that the drive connect to 18th Ave., though he did understand the residents’ concerns.  He said that the plan should indicate sidewalks, specifically for lots 320 and 319.

 

The applicant said that note 7 says that sidewalks would be constructed as individual home sites are constructed and the developer will put the sidewalks on the double frontage lots as required.

 

The planner said that the connection to 18th Ave. would require the redesign of the lots and landscape preservation should be noted.  He said that the bike path had to be redone.

 

The applicant said that patching had been done to the bike path and they were preparing to redo the whole path by June 22.

 

Ron DeGood said that 18th Ave. would be a busy intersection and he did not know if people would cut through.  He said that rather than sending the traffic through the new plat, he would like to see them exit onto 18th Ave.  He said that with the current layout, they were putting a lot of traffic through the new plat.

 

The applicant said that it would be for the convenience of some and the inconvenience of the rest.  He said that they would have a choice to buy in the new plat or not.

 

Mike Prelewitz, Ottawa Aggregates, said that they would be done digging this season and they would be tearing down by next spring.  He said that traffic was not coming to the development and would be deterred all the way and would have to slow down.  He said that they currently keep the gate shut as required and people drove through the lots.  He said that it was a bad intersection and the lake association wanted to slow the traffic down.  He said that this layout benefits those in the association.

 

Ed Stasiak said that if the road is connected to 18th Ave., there would be additional traffic and they should discourage the traffic any way they can.

 

Greg Honderd said that when he first saw the layout, he was not so sure and that they would have to stop first.  He said that if they don’t connect, the traffic would either go to 16th Ave. or to 14th Ave. or go around.

 

The applicant said that the plat was submitted to the Road Commission and he has the letter of approval where they asked for the new letter of credit. 

 

The planner said that traffic calming techniques could be used.

 

Del South said that the current layout would increase traffic and there would be more accidents and more traffic going around rather than to 18th Ave.

 

Ron DeGood was concerned that traffic would cut through Green Meadows.

 

Greg Honderd said that it would be best to connect with 18th Ave. and have a stop sign rather than have traffic going around the 5 acre lake.

 

6.                  PUD’s-none

 

5.         Ordinance Amendments

a.         Chapter 24 footnote (b) ii

b.         Sec. 3.7

c.         Chapter 24 footnote (o)

d.         Sec. 22.5 (A)(1)(z)

e.         Sec. 22.8(D)(4)(i)

f.          Sec. 3.4

 

The Board initiated the ordinance amendment to Chapter 24, footnote (b)ii to include Balsam Dr. in the list of streets requiring that the setback be measured from a point 60 feet from the centerline of the street with motion #050411-10.  The list currently includes 28th Ave. and it was an oversight to not include Balsam because at the time it probably wasn’t noticed that the street has a name change for three parcels before the City of Hudsonville line.

 

An amendment is proposed to permit a maximum of a five foot wide handicapped ramp to project into a required front yard setback.  The planner has indicated that the PC might want to “tweak” the language to include required side and rear yards.

 

An amendment is proposed to require floodplain information for PUDs.  The State has begun strictly enforcing floodplain management and this would help with determinations as to whether a site is located in a floodplain.

 

An amendment is proposed to clarify how big an eave could be on an accessory building.

 

The proposed amendments are as follows:

 

Chapter 24, footnote (b) ii

Balsam Dr.

Sec. 3.7          BASIS OF DETERMINING FRONT YARD REQUIREMENTS. 

The required front yard shall be measured from the right-of-way line 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.  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.

 

 (o)       Projections Into Yards. Architectural features, as defined, not including vertical projections, may extend or project into a required side yard not more than two (2) inches for each one (1) foot of width of such side yard and may extend or project into a required front yard or rear yard not more than three (3) feet. An open porch, paved patio, deck or terrace may project into a required front or rear yard for a distance not to exceed twelve (12) feet. (revised 1-24-05).  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.

Sec. 22.5       PUD APPLICATION.

 

A.                 Preliminary Plan Application Requirements

 

1.                  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:

z.             Floodplain areas.

Sec. 22.8       FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION

 

D.        Final Development Plan Application Requirements:

 

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).

i.          Floodplain areas.

Sec. 3.4          ACCESSORY BUILDING AND USES. 

 

(C)       No detached accessory building or use shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to any main building , nor shall the eave line (which could be a maximum of three (3) feet) of such building be located closer than five (5) feet to any side or rear lot line.  All accessory buildings shall meet the same setback requirements from a street right-of-way line as required for the main building, provided that on a double frontage lot, an accessory building may be located within the required rear yard no closer than twenty (20) feet to the road right-of-way line.

 

V.                 Other Business

VI.       Commissioner Comments

VII.      Staff Comments

VIII.         Adjourn

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.