Minutes of the work session of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission held Wednesday, September 7, 2005

 

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

 

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

Absent: none

 

The work session, which formulated the agenda for September 21, 2005, included the following items to be placed on the agenda, discussion, and action:

 

I.                    Approval of agenda

 

II.                 Approval of minutes of the August 17, 2005 regular meeting and the September 7, 2005 work session meeting

 

III.               Unfinished Business

 

#050907-01 - (REZ0503) To change from (I) Industrial to (HS) Highway Service Commercial a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-22-450-016, located at 1720 Chicago Dr. (REZ0504) To change from (I) Industrial to (HS) Highway Service Commercial a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-22-450-017, located at 1720 Chicago Dr.

 

The zoning administrator stated that at the Township Board meeting on August 22, 2005, the rezoning requests were referred back to the Planning Commission for another recommendation. 

 

Todd Stuive, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the request.  He stated that the area was capable of handling uses in the HS district and the water and sewer were available.  He said that the sites bordered primary roadways.  He said that at the time the Master Plan was done, the Planning Commission thought that the area was not developable.  He said that to the east was property in a conservation easement for Sunset Manor and would not be developed, and to the west the property was owned by Sunset Manor and was in the floodway and floodplain.  He said that there has been no public opposition.

 

Lee Dykema, partner with Hannenberg, provided a historical background including that he had purchased the propped in 1989 without knowing the use.  He said that he brought sewer there and helped with the road when they had the railroad crossing permit.

 

The planner referenced the previous review from August 16, 2005.  He said that the decision to rezone would have to be weighted against the fact that it would be inconsistent with the Master Plan.  He said that the request for HS should be acted upon and if the Township wants a different zoning, the Township should initiate it with separate action.

 

South provided written comments and stated that the Master Plan had been reviewed and newly adopted in May 2004.  He said that the rezoning would be inconsistent with the Master Plan and Industrial zoning is consistent with the adjacent area and across the road.  He said that 18th Ave. had been put in to expedite traffic to the south out of the main part of Jenison.  He said that a study had been done on 44th St. and Port Sheldon.  He said that the commercial districts of the Township have already been identified as Port Sheldon/28th Ave. and Chicago Dr./Main St. areas.  He said that the uses permitted in the proposed zoning district are too intense and will generate excessive traffic that would cause congestion on a road that had been put in for the reason of carrying traffic in and out of the Township.

 

DeGood said that this was a short and busy stretch of land and the decision would be easier if they knew the use that would be proposed.  He said that since they did not know the use, they had to consider the uses allowed in the HS district and most are too intense for the area.

 

Stasiak asked the planner about the recommendation that he had provided at the August 17, 2005 meeting.

 

The planner stated that he had recommended approval for HS because Industrial zoning did not make sense and that since the area was surrounded by HS he didn’t have a problem with HS zoning. 

 

Honderd asked the planner if he had taken into consideration the past history of Planning Commission actions for rezoning requests in the area when he’d made his recommendation, and the planner said that he had not.

 

Huizinga said that the property owners had the right to develop the area even though it would be nice to have the sites left vacant.  He said that he preferred the less intense uses allowed in the OS district, but HS would be okay.

 

Poskey said that the reason that 18th Ave. had been put in was to move traffic in and out of the Township more effectively.  He said that the uses permitted in the HS district were too intense and would generate more traffic and cause congestion that would slow the traffic flow.  He said that the uses in the HS district were contrary to what had originally been discussed when the investment was made to put 18th Ave. in.  He said that it would not be prudent to allow uses that would make this area busier and interfere with the traffic flow.  He said that he would rather see the uses allowed in the Industrial district that were currently permitted because those uses would not generate increased traffic like a gas station would.

 

Pearson said that the planner had talked about control measures that the Township would have and he asked about those in the HS district.

 

The planner said that some uses were permitted by right and others with a special use permit, and those with a special use permit could be approved with conditions.  In response to the question of the use of a gas station, the planner said that a gas station would be permitted by right, without a special use permit, and no control measures would be available for that use.  He said that controls would be available for the use of vehicle repair.

 

Pearson said that since a gas station would be allowed without a special use permit, it would be hard for the Township to enact control measures.

 

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

 

Todd Stuive said that the sites will be developed and traffic will increase.  He said that the amount of traffic increase would be small because they won’t be inviting traffic, rather people who are already there would stop.  He said that the increase in traffic and congestion would not be significant.  He said that the traffic would already be there and this was a controlled intersection.

 

Jim Holtvluwer, representing the applicant, said that he sat on this board and did not remember hearing that they did not want traffic on 18th Ave..  He said that 44th St. has nothing to do with this area and that the study had nothing to do with M-21.  He said that these corners became developable because of Sunset Manor and no one will drive to this site.  He said that he doesn’t believe that there will be extra cars and the light is a control mechanism. 

 

Moved by Poskey, seconded by South, to recommend to the Township Board denial of (REZ0503) To change from (I) Industrial to (HS) Highway Service Commercial a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-22-450-016, located at 1720 Chicago Dr., and (REZ0504) To change from (I) Industrial to (HS) Highway Service Commercial a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-22-450-017, located at 1720 Chicago Dr., for reasons previously stated, which include: the proposed zoning designation is not consistent with the Master Plan; the HS zoning district would allow uses by right and with special use permits that are too intense for the area; the area could be used as currently zoned and those uses now permitted would not generate additional excessive traffic; uses allowed in the HS district would generate increased traffic and even possible backups along a road that has consistently been viewed as a way to carry traffic in and out of the Township.

 

Poskey said that he is not convinced that the proposed uses in the HS district would not generate increased traffic and become a destination.  He said that the proposed uses in the HS district would significantly increase traffic in an area that was designated to specifically move traffic out of the Township.  He said that uses in the HS district would inhibit the traffic flow.  He said that some of the more intense uses were permitted by right and even those allowed with a special use permit would have to be approved if the standards were met and there would be no grounds to deny them.

 

South said that 18th Ave. was put in to move traffic to 44th St. and Chicago Dr., not for uses to be constructed near it that would impede traffic.  He said that the Planning Commission has to take into consideration that the uses in the HS district are too intense.

 

Stasiak said that most of the traffic would be up and down Chicago Dr. and it was capable of handling the increased traffic.  He said that even if the traffic increased, it would not be detrimental.

 

DeGood said that it would be unlikely that any use on these corners would be allowed to have driveway access to Chicago Dr. and that the access would most likely be off 18th Ave. causing traffic to slow down on 18th Ave.

 

Yeas:    South, DeGood, Honderd, Pearson, Poskey

Nays:   Stasiak, Huizinga

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

#050907-02 - Site Plan (ST0512) Macatawa Bank REVISION-520 Baldwin St.

 

Even though the bank did not purchase the property from Meijer, the bank found that Meijer still has control over the easements to access the property and has required the bank to move the building back 18 feet.  Since this is more than the 10 feet defined in the ordinance as a minor change, the bank would have to resubmit the revised plan to the Planning Commission for approval to locate the building in the new spot.  In addition, some other minor changes were proposed, including changing the type of landscape tree to a flowering variety, keeping a light pole owned by Meijer, and increasing the radius of some of the curbs.  The applicant asked the Planning Commission to act on the site plan at the work session meeting if no revisions are found to be necessary.

 

The planner presented a review and noted that some landscaping had been eliminated and asked if it could be replaced.

 

The applicant said that they intended to provide landscaping to make the site look good and there would be no problem to replace the landscaping that had been eliminated.

 

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.

 

Moved by Huizinga, seconded by Pearson, to approve the site plan dated 8-24-05 with the condition that the landscaping be revised to add the four trees that were eliminated.  

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

B.         Public Hearings

1.                  Special Use Permits

a.         (SUP0507) Georgetown Office Center (Creekside Construction), 3672 Chicago Dr., is requesting to have a vehicle repair establishment under Sec. 17.3(F), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-22-200-043, located at 1778 DeWent Dr., view 1, view 2, in an (I) Industrial district

 

Todd Stuive, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the request.  The proposal includes a 10,300 square foot building with the use of vehicle repair to be located in the northern bay along with office use.  Sidewalks and landscaping have been provided.  The Ottawa County Road Commission has approved the entry drive and the curb cut is in place.

 

The planner presented a review.

 

Todd Stuive explained that the two-way drive was needed in the rear because they wanted parking in the front as well as employee parking in the rear.  Garage doors were located in the rear of the building.  He said that he understood that curbing was required for the special use permit and there would be no outdoor storage except for the dumpster.  He said that parking calculations would be provided, along with a floor plan.

 

Greg Honderd said that the applicant should look at the site across the street for guidelines as to where to place the curbing because it was a similar situation.

 

The Planning Commission directed that the request be advertised for a public hearing for the next meeting.

 

b.         (SUP0508) Unity Leasing (Advanced Machine and Miedema Metal Buildings), 3620 Highland Dr., is requesting to have metal working under Sec. 17.3(J), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-22-345-001, located at 6726 Roger Dr., in an (I) Industrial district

 

Ron VanSingel, Nederveld and Associates, represented the applicant and presented the request.  He said that the use of metal working would be in one bay and the other uses have not been determined because the other areas have not been leased out.  Three access drives are shown, two on Roger and one on Pineridge.  Landscaping and sidewalks have been provided.  Building elevations will be provided for the next meeting.

 

The planner presented a review.

 

The applicant noted that no access sidewalk had been shown on the plan and they intended to revise the plan to shift the building five feet to provide for a five foot sidewalk along the building.  He said that adequate space was left on the east side of the building for truck traffic flow and maneuvering.

 

It was noted that the Township is reviewing the requirement for sidewalks on this street, but they should still be shown on the plan.

 

The Planning Commission directed that the request be advertised for a public hearing for the next meeting.

 

2.                  Rezonings-none

 

3.                  Plats-none

 

#050907-03 - Final Development Plan-Revision (PUD0402-2) Unity Timbers-5101 40th Ave.

 

Unity Timbers received preliminary development approval for the PUD on 9-13-04 and final development approval for phase one on 11-17-04.  The applicant submitted a sign permit application for small buildings with signs for Unity Timbers as plat entry signs.  These small buildings could have been approved at either of the previous PUD approvals; however, no details had ever been provided with the submittal material.  Consequently, the sign permit could not be approved because the signs (and small structures) do not meet the ordinance requirements for signs, nor were details provided at the time of PUD approvals.  PUDs have flexible zoning and innovative architecture is encouraged for these types of structures and signs. 

 

Sec. 22.1 states that the intent of the PUD ordinance is to provide for flexibility in the regulation of land development to encourage innovation in land use and variety in design, layout and type of structures as well as to provide for enhanced site and building architectural features.  In addition, Sec. 22.2F. states that the PUD should provide for coordinated and innovative visually appealing architectural styles, building forms and building relationships.

 

The applicant is seeking to carry the cottage theme throughout the development with the proposal of the small cottage-looking structures which include the signs.  This architecturally decorative structure appears to be consistent with the intention of the PUD ordinance.

 

The sign proposed off 40th Ave. is located 60 feet from the centerline of 40th Ave. and is shown as 10 feet from the 50 foot distance as required in footnote b of Chapter 24.  This meets the same requirements listed in Chapter 25 for a plat entry sign which is required to be 10 feet from the distance in footnote b.  The two additional signs are shown to be 10 feet from the right-of-way, again the same as required for a plat entry sign.  The only change from the ordinance includes the proposed structures that the sign would be positioned upon.

 

Ron VanSingel, Nederveld and Associates, represented the applicants and presented the requests.

 

The planner presented a review and stated that the application meet all the standards of the ordinance.

 

Moved by South, seconded by Stasiak, to approve the revision to the final development plan on the basis that the proposal is consistent with Section 22.10.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

4.                  PUD’s

a.         Preliminary (PUD0502) Youth for Christ and Georgetown Township are requesting a Planned Unit Development for commercial, park and municipal (senior center) uses, under Chapter 22, on parcels of land described as P.P.# 70-14-24-100-015 and 70-14-24-100-018, located at 7096 8th Ave.

 

The main reason for the PUD application is to rectify a situation that was created years ago when the Township began working with Youth for Christ.  The Youth for Christ building is situated on Township property that also includes 8th Ave. Community Park and the Senior Center.  Years ago the building was sold to Youth for Christ, while the Township retained ownership of the land the building occupied.  At this time, Youth for Christ wants to sell the building and the Township wants to split the property from the rest of the park area and the Senior Center property.  Since a lot could only be split and created that has frontage on a public or private street, the best remedy was to create a PUD with a private street so that the lot could be split while still meeting the Zoning Ordinance requirement.  While the Township is immune from its own Zoning Ordinance, the decision was made to comply as much as possible with the ordinance specifically due to the fact that when this lot is split, it could be sold to another party and would no longer be Township property.  In addition, the buildings and site are existing and no additional development is proposed or planned.  No additional landscaping or sidewalks are planned, either, since this is all Township property.

 

A pre-application meeting was held and the determination had been made that the PUD meets the qualifying conditions.  A narrative has been provided addressing the qualifying conditions.

 

Mark Windemuller represented the applicant and presented the request. 

 

The planner presented a review and said that the proposal meets the qualifying conditions. 

 

It was noted that additional landscaping could be installed at the time the building is sold.

 

The decision of the Planning Commission was that revisions for the plan should include: setbacks shown and dimensioned, existing use and zoning of the parcel as well as adjacent parcels, method of trash screening and pedestrian circulation.

 

Direction was given to advertise for a public hearing to be held at the October regular meeting.

 

5.                  Ordinance Amendments

Sec. 2.46         GAZABO. 

A freestanding roofed open-sided structure providing a shady resting place.

Sec. 3.4           ACCESSORY BUILDING AND USES. 

(K)             One (1) freestanding gazebo of one hundred (100) square feet or less may be permitted in addition to accessory building permitted in subsection 3.4(E), (I) and (K) and shall meet requirements in Chapter 3 for location on a parcel.

 

The Township Board initiated the ordinance amendment at the August 22, 2005 meeting due to a request by a resident who was required to remove his existing gazebo when he constructed an accessory building.  The Board directed that the amendment be advertised for review by the Planning Commission.  They discussed the size of the gazebo and decided that it should be small (100 to 120 square feet) and should have open sides so as not to become enclosed and turn into an additional accessory building.

 

The history of gazebos includes an interpretation by the ZBA that a gazebo is, in fact, a building because a building is defined as a roof supported by columns for support.  Therefore in the past when enforcing the current ordinance, the Township has determined that a parcel could have one accessory building, either the traditional type OR a gazebo, but not both.  The amendment would permit a parcel to have one small gazebo in addition to accessory buildings permitted in Chapter 3.

 

V.                 Other Business

A.                 PUD in RR/AG

 

There was discussion regarding the Master Plan and if the plan is to be parcel-specific for zoning designations or if it is to be taken more with a “wide brush” perspective.  The discussion was in relation to a proposal for a PUD south of Port Sheldon and west of 28th Ave.

 

VI.       Commissioner Comments

VII.      Staff Comments

VIII.         Adjourn

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m.