Minutes of the regular meeting of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission, held Wednesday, June 15, 2005

 

Meeting called to order by Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.

 

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

Absent: none

 

#050615-01 - Agenda for June 15, 2005

 

Moved by Stasiak, seconded by DeGood, to approve the agenda for June 15, 2005, as presented.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

#050615-02 - Minutes of the April 20, 2005 regular meeting and the May 4, 2005 and June 1,

2005 work session meetings

 

Moved by South, seconded by DeGood, to approve the minutes of the April 20, 2005 regular meeting, as submitted.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

Moved by Pearson, seconded by DeGood, to approve the minutes of the May 4, 2005 and June 1, 2005 work session meetings, as submitted.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

#050615-03 - Unfinished Business Preliminary Plat of Cedar Lake Estates No. 11

 

The zoning administrator stated that the applicant had signed the agreement with the Township for the construction of 28th Ave.

 

Todd Stuive, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the request.  He said that a copy of the approval letter from the Road Commission had been submitted and that the issues from the work session had been addressed.  He said that Dale Miedema, the property owner, had contacted Boynton regarding the strip of land along lots 170 to 173 and that they were not ready to do anything about that strip.  He said that this strip would have to be maintained by Boynton.

 

The planner said that the agreement had been signed and that the only issue remaining was the maintenance of the strip of land adjacent to lots 170 to 173.

 

The zoning administrator said that according to the Fire Department and the Township Assessor, the street name did not have to change names as it changes direction because the addresses would all be east/west numbers.

 

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

 

Todd Stuive said that the maintenance of the strip of land was not different than any plat abutting any property and that this developer should not be expected to maintain property that he does not own.

 

Moved by Poskey, seconded by South, to remove the item from the table.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

The zoning administrator asked how the property owner would access the land on this strip adjacent to the plat to maintain it.

 

The applicant said that it could be reached along the water.

 

Ed Stasiak asked how reasonable it was to expect the developer to maintain the land if he did not own it.

 

The planner said that the maintenance responsibility had to be assigned to somebody, along with ways to access the property in order to maintain it.

 

Dale Miedema said that it was a closed issue because these lots would have no lake access and the strip of land was outside of his property.  He said that the maintenance should be regulated by the mining license and that a person could walk all the way around on the strip of land.

 

Greg Honderd asked who owned the land and was told that Boynton initially owned it and handed it down to his children.  He said that he sees Boynton holding this while it is being finalized.

 

Dale Miedema said that he gave permission to Boynton for their haul road and let them know that he was interested in buying the strip of land.  He said that they were not ready to finalize anything because they stopped digging in order to have the gravel on-site for the three lane road.

 

The zoning administrator asked if they were currently mining the land and was told no.

 

Michael Pearson asked the location of the line and was told that it is a 10 to 15 foot strip of land.

 

Del South asked who owns it and was told that Boynton owns it along with Jack Goodale; however, it might have been handed down to their children.  He said that they had started excavating and stopped because they needed the gravel on-site.

 

Del South asked if they were going to remove more gravel and was told not now because Boynton was not ready.

 

The planner asked if there was a proposed schedule for the development of the plat.

 

The applicant said that they would develop the land as time allows and that each phase is started based on how well the lots sell.

 

Moved by Pearson, seconded by Huizinga, to recommend to the Township Board to grant tentative preliminary plat approval of Cedar Lake Estates No. 11, as shown on the drawing dated revised June 2, 2005.

 

It was noted that the recommendation for approval was made because the developer is not required to maintain property owned by someone else and that if it was open space there would not be any issues.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

#050615-04 - Site Plan (ST0508) Campus View Townhouses-10081 42nd Ave.

 

The ZBA denied the variance on May 25, 2005 to waive the requirements for attached garages and the applicant is in the process of revising the plans to include garages.  No new plans are available at this time.

 

#050615-05 - Site Plan (ST0510) Randy Rottschafer-610 Baldwin

 

The applicant has submitted a letter indicating that the accessory building would be constructed architecturally similar to the main structure.

 

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 planner asked the exact square footage of the building and was told it would be 1560 square feet.

 

Moved by South, seconded by Stasiak, to approve the site plan as presented for the accessory building.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

#050615-06 - Rezoning (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 has been located on the site for about 40 years and LDR is consistent with the Master Plan.

 

The planner noted that the rezoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan and this is a remedy to a non-conforming situation.

 

The chairman opened the public hearing.  No one was present to speak on this item.  The chairman closed the public hearing.

 

Moved by Poskey, seconded by Pearson, to recommend to the Township Board approval of Rezoning (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., on the basis that the request meets all applicable rezoning review criteria.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

#050615-07 - Preliminary Plat of Georgetown Shores No. 6

 

Todd Stuive, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the request.  He said that all the issues raised at the last meeting have been addressed.  He said that the bike path has been repaired and overlaid as per the agreement and the main issue is the connection to 18th Ave.  He said that they feel that there should be no connection to 18th Ave. from North Bay Drive because of the potentially confusing three-way stop intersection and to discourage cut-through traffic.  He said that the Ottawa County Road Commission has approved the road and it would be redundant to have the second connection.

 

The planner said that the Township Code Enforcer verified that the bike path has been repaired and overlaid.  He noted that sidewalks should be provided where the turnaround is removed.  He said that although the Road Commission has approved the road without the connection, the connection to 18th Ave. should be provided to improve the overall circulation system and to provide another emergency access point.  He said that it would facilitate the traffic distribution and that property management and traffic calming elements could be employed to further help traffic circulation.

 

The chairman opened the floor to public comments.

 

Randy Plaisier, 1742 North Bay Drive, said that he lives adjacent to the proposed area and he agrees with the proposal to take out the 18th Ave. connection because there is a considerable amount of traffic cutting through.  He said that when VanBuren was closed there was a lot of traffic cutting through and he said they did not want the through-traffic accessing this route.  He said that there is also a problem with the proposed channel because the current homeowners purchased property with the understanding that there would be a certain number of lots and this adds 21 lots with direct access which increases water traffic.  He said that there are concerns with the association and that the residents do not control the association.  He said that he was concerned with the placement of docks and shore stations.  He said that he brought a map of what it would look like with docks and shore stations.

 

The planner stated that the Township has no authority to regulate the placement or number of docks and shore stations.

 

The chairman said that the information would just be received for information.

 

Mike Ply, 5693 16th Ave., submitted a letter and said that he lives on a lot with direct lake access.  He said that he is a proponent of the way the road is planned with no access to 18th Ave. because of the amount and speed of traffic through the construction gate even without VanBuren closed.  He said that they have tried to establish the 25 mph speed with speed signs and slow signs, with no impact.  He said that there are young residents playing in the street.  He said that the association has the responsibility to adopt rules and maintenance regulations.  He said that the lot owners are concerned about safety issues when using the lake.  He said that the current property owners expected that there would be 125 lots and with the additional 21 lots using the channel the number of lots with lake access has increased 17%.  He said that the lake acreage has been reduced and boat traffic has increased.  He said that the lake was supposed to be at least 8 feet deep and some areas are only 3 feet.  He said that he was concerned that the channel would become bogged with sand and that the lot owners would look to the association for relief.  He said that the channel should be eliminated. 

 

Todd Stuive said that he was not in a position to address issues with the association and that those issues should be handled with the developer.  He said that he was handling the property approval with the Township and that the plans had changed over the last ten years with the developer following the Township process each time.  He said that he does not know what the developer has told people.  He said that even if the 21 lots did not have direct access, they would have indirect access.  He said that the developer had put in dredging equipment to fix the depth and that he believes that the developer would make good on what he said.  He said that the issues that had been brought up were issues that the Township does not deal with and are not part of the approval process.

 

Randy Plaisier said that the channel under the VanBuren sign brings runoff from across VanBuren.  He said that they had discussed the issues with the Drain Commission and they were looking for the developer to pull the sand and sediment out.  He said that it came from agricultural property with more tope soil, but this is more sand and gravel.

 

Todd Stuive said that it was a County Drain that had been put in with phase 1 and it discharges into the lake.  He said that it was the responsibility of the Drain Commissioner’s office and the residents should work with the Drain Office.

 

Jim Roskam, 5664 18th Ave., said that the lake usage is about 80% from those with direct access and 20% from those with indirect access.  He said that the bike path has been upgraded and he asked about the bike path on the east side.

 

Greg Honderd said that the Township has authority if it was a condition of approval.

 

The zoning administrator said that the Township was filling in areas that were gaps in sidewalks and bike paths if it was determined that it would be unlikely that a developer would ever be responsible to put them in.

 

Dave Young, 1665 East Shore Ct., said that he was one of the early residents and was told a different story by the developer.  He said that the lake is shrinking with the addition of this whole section and that this would increase boat traffic compounding the problem with more people.

 

Chris Campbell, 5675 16th Ave. said that there was a culvert off 16th Ave. and the lake gets shallower.  He said that promises made were not kept and that this was their last chance.

 

Mike Prelewitz, Ottawa Aggregates, said that there are two drains that drain into the lake.  He said that they had already told residents that they were going to take care of the depth problem and they were going to.  He said that they were a gravel mining operation and said that there were barges in the lake.  He said that he doesn’t know who said that the lake would be a minimum of 8 feet deep because they had shown 5 feet on their plans that were approved by the Township.  He said that most promises were made by a realtor from Century 21.  He said that they had always said that the lake would be a minimum of 5 feet deep and possibly deeper.  He said that he knows that there is sediment in the drain ditches.  He said that the permit has changed year by year.  He said that other promises have been made by somebody else.  He said that this phase showed up about a year ago and the channel made sense.

 

Gary Wierenga, 5785 18th Ave., said that he was sold a bill of goods and was not in favor of all the lots having access.  He said that all the lots in the Cedar Lake development did not have access to Cedar Lake.  He said that by adding 21 lots there would be more lots with lake access.  He said that it was not right and not fair.  He said that there were problems with the association and that it was a mistake to add more boats.

 

Rick Thurkettle, 16th Ave., said that there was a problem with the channel and this was the same as Sandy Pines where after two years there was a boat for every lot.  He said that Sandy Pines was too busy and there was a concern for safety.  He said that if the channel was put in all the lot owners would get boats.

 

Shawn Hamacher, 1581 Lakeside, said that putting the channel in was unsafe and there were too many questions and issues unresolved.  He said that the silt and sand builds up and the channel would have to be maintained.  He said that there would be a maintenance issue if it got plugged.  He said that there were issues related to concerns with depth and placement of docks and shore stations.  He said that there was sod peeled away from the path when the bike path was fixed and it is still lying beside the path.

 

Greg Honderd said that the pond was 180 feet wide at the narrowest point.

 

Bob Salmon, 5810 18th Ave., said that it had been portrayed as a 200 acre lake with only 104 lake access lots and the lake was now smaller with 283 homes that now have access to the lake.  He said that they cut the lake to 2/3rds of what was initially told and the plan has changed year after year.

 

Greg Honderd said that the developer has the right to come in for changes in layout as long as they follow the process and get approval.

 

Larry VanPutten, 5774 18th Ave., said that the size of the lake is shrinking and there will be 20 additional lake access lots with the channel which will result in 40 additional boats since each person has a speed boat, pontoon boat plus paddle boats.  He said that it was too busy with all the boats and it was unsafe.  He said that he had nearly been run over and killed.  He said that there were safety issues to consider.

 

Joel Stray, 1739 VanBuren, said that the developer sold him a bill of goods because it was not as represented.  He said that with the channel it would be too busy.  He said that they would be adding 20 boats and there were safety issues.

 

Steve Bossenbroek, 1853 VanBuren, said that he was a resident and real estate developer.  He said that he realized that changes are necessary but it was out of control.  He said that the lots had been marketed one way and now they were going through the process and it would be developed in another way.  He said that it was an inappropriate approach for a purely profit motive.

 

Dave DeGraaf, 1497 Lakeside, said that he doesn’t live on the water but has lake access and that he agrees with the comments that the lake is packed.

 

Jim Roskam said that the person on the association that represents the developer is a realtor who has a standing seat on the advisory committee.  He said that they need guidelines because every resident has two boats.  He said that each resident on those additional 21 lots would have two boats.

 

The chairman closed the public hearing.

 

The planner said that he did not endorse the street layout without the connection to 18th Ave. due to insufficient circulation.

 

Ron DeGood asked if the Fire Chief had been consulted.

 

The zoning administrator said that she had questioned the Fire Chief about the plan and he had said that the fire department could access the houses with either layout; however, it was his professional and personal opinion that North Bay Drive should connect to 18th Ave.

 

South said that the connection should be provided to 18th Ave. for safety reasons plus it makes sense.

 

Poskey said that he would like to hear information regarding the association such as when it would be turned over to the residents and when they would have legal documents for the association.

 

Todd Stuive said that he was not prepared to answer those questions.

 

Poskey said that there seemed to be issues related to the developer turning over the association to the residents and he wanted to know how that would work.

 

Pearson asked if there were guidelines related to how many boats were allowed per acre.

 

The planner said that he did not know of any guidelines.  He said that the Zoning Ordinance provides the authority to the Planning Commission and provides the extent of the review that the Planning Commission can provide.  He said that the plan must adhere to the plat standards in Township ordinances and that the lake access or dock spacing in not regulated in the overall plan.  He said that phases of this overall plan have been approved and that the overall plan has changed over time.  He said that the developer appears to have an evolving overall plan and it should be locked down.

 

Michael said that it is hard to approve the plan with the overall safety issues.

 

The planner said that many of the issues were related to civil matters.

 

Huizinga said that this 5 acre pond would add boat traffic and the lake was not large enough.

 

Greg Honderd said that he was concerned with the number and not the size.

 

The zoning administrator said that the Township could enforce the minimum depth of the lake in accordance with what was shown on the previously approved plan and it would be enforced the same as any other site plan issues.

 

Greg Honderd said that he remembered the previously approved plans showing a minimum depth of five feet.

 

The zoning administrator said that the Township could enforce the minimum depth of five feet as shown on the approved plan but could not enforce the number of docks on the lake because that would not be regulated by the zoning ordinance.

 

South said that B&G owns the property and would have to comply with the approved site plan.

 

Moved by Stasiak, seconded by Poskey, to table the request until the issues can be clarified, including the sod by the bike path, information about the association can be provided, the minimum required depth can be established, and the responsibility for the accumulation of sand and silt can be established.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

#050615-08 - Special Use Permit (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

 

The chairman stated that this would be a work session for the application since the plan wasn’t reviewed in detail at the first work session due to the lack of required information.

 

The planner presented a review which included the following items.  Only two wall signs are allowed according to the ordinance, one on Cottonwood and one on the private street; however, signs are shown on the plan on all four sides.  Compliance must be demonstrated to meet disposal requirements.  Dumpster details and materials should be provided.  The biggest issue is internal circulation.  Building setbacks must be shown including the one from the private street which is incorrectly measured from the center of the private street rather than the street line.  The sidewalk must be extended the full length of Cottonwood.  Chapter 24 footnote (l) states that except for necessary drives and walks the setback area must be landscaped and the plan must reflect this requirement in the ordinance.  It was noted that the 90 feet could be landscaped in such a way as to provide a two-way drive that would allow sufficient maneuverability with a 24 foot drive and the remainder to the sidewalk should be landscaped per Township requirements.  Chapter 24 footnote (t) requires that setbacks be measured from the edge of the private street; therefore, the applicant must provide the setback and private street detail.  Overall circulation as well as internal circulation should be shown.  Additional landscaping must be provided.  The plan should incorporate pedestrian crossings across the access drives.

 

There was discussion regarding the management of traffic circulation and the suggestion was made that a right-in right-out be incorporated.  It was noted that a by-pass lane had been provided as suggested by the Planning Commission.  In addition, a 24-foot drive aisle for overall circulation could be guided by pavement markings to show the safest manner.

 

The zoning administrator said that the revision date should be changed since the same date is shown on the plans for the initial submission as is shown on the revised plans.  This could be confusing in the future if ever anyone refers to a motion with a date for the plan.

 

The applicant asked if they could have four wall signs. 

 

The zoning administrator said that this is site plan approval, not PUD approval where there is flexible zoning.  For site plan approval the Planning Commission could only approve a plan that meets the ordinance requirements which includes only two signs and if a variance from the ordinance requirements is sought to have more than two signs, the applicant would have to apply to the ZBA.

 

The applicant said that the dumpster would be screened by metal and landscaping would shield it.  He said that they don’t have circulation other than the drive aisle.  He said that eleven cars could be stacked.  He said that they did look at providing a sign for a right-out only and an escape lane had been provided.

 

The zoning administrator said that the plan must show the setback from the private street dimensioned to the street line, not the center of the private street.

 

Greg Honderd said that this use was not a good fit for the location because it was too congested and there would be bottlenecks.

 

The applicant was directed to meet with the zoning administrator to go over site plan requirements since the plan would have to be redesigned to meet setback and other ordinance requirements.  The Planning Commission directed that the application not be advertised until a plan is provided that meets the ordinance requirements.

 

#050615-09 - 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

 

Moved by Stasiak, seconded by Pearson, to recommend to the Township Board approval of the following ordinance amendments:

 

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.

 

Chapter 24

 (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. 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.

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.

 

            MOTION CARRIED.

 

#050615-10 – Adjournment

 

The chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m.