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

 

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

 

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

Absent: Pearson

 

The work session, which formulated the agenda for December 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 October 19, 2005 regular meeting and the November 2, 2005 work session meeting

 

III.       Unfinished Business

 

#051207-01 - (SUP0512) Meijer Stores L.P. (Progressive AE), 550 Baldwin, is requesting to have a

drive-in establishment under Sec. 15.3(A) and an open air business under Sec. 15.3(B), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-13-300-075, located at 550 Baldwin, in a (CS) Community Service Commercial

 

Greg Heath, Meijer Inc., and Mark Kastner, Progressive A.E., represented the applicant and presented the request. 

 

The proposal is to construct a 35 by 421 foot addition to the eastern side of the store and eliminate the entrance from that area, to relocate the outdoor garden center to the east of the addition, and to add a drive-in pharmacy window to the northeast corner of the building.  The applicant indicated that the interior of the store would be remodeled to incorporate these changes. 

 

Revised plans were submitted with two options, one with the circulation pattern for the drive-in window changed and one with the drive-in window removed. 

 

The zoning administrator presented a review.  Revised plans have been submitted with two options and both options show the fence as black vinyl as requested by the Planning Commission and additional parking spaces were provided to the north of the extended canoe along the western ring road bringing the total on the site to 1091 which is 13 more than required.  Topo has been waived by the Planning Commission.  Other aspects of the plan have remained the same.  In addition, the letter that was submitted regarding the raised curbing is the same.  In summary, documentation had previously been provided in reviews demonstrating compliance with ordinance requirements for the site plan, as well as for the general and specific special use standards for an open air business and drive-in establishment.  The issue of interior circulation and drive-in window was left to the Planning Commission’s discretion.  If Option A was the preferred plan, a condition could be added that signage be provided indicating that no left turn is allowed into the drive-in lane because (according to the applicant) there is not enough room for sufficient radius to allow a vehicle to turn left and file into the lane accessing the window (tube).  Also, additional signage should be provided directing traffic entering from the east off Cottonwood that is headed to the drive-in pharmacy.  If the Planning Commission determines that Option B is the preferred plan with the drive-in window and tube totally eliminated, a condition should be added that the box on the plan titled “Traffic Control Signage Detail” be removed since the signs were for the pharmacy drive-in window.

 

South asked about the entrances and the applicant explained the movement and elimination of entrances, as well as the narrowing of the width of the road.

 

DeGood said that the revised plan showed improved traffic circulation and noted that traffic entering from Cottonwood should be directed to the window with signage.

 

Stasiak said that the drive-in window should be approved because it as a definite convenience for customers to not have to get out of a vehicle in the cold and snow.  He said that the revised plan was an improvement with a better circulation pattern.  He asked about a canopy over the kiosk and was told there would be one to protect the driver and the window.  He asked about the letter regarding raised curbing of the area around the window.

 

The zoning administrator said that with the new pattern, the issue was not as important because curbing was being used to direct vehicles to the window.

 

Poskey said that he preferred that the window was removed, but the revised plan was an improvement.

 

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

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

Mark Kastner said that the elevations had slightly been revised.

 

Moved by Stasiak, seconded by DeGood, to open the floor to public comments.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

No one was present to speak on this topic.

 

The chairman closed the floor to public comments.

 

Moved by DeGood, seconded by Stasiak, to recommend to the Township Board approval of Special Use Permit (SUP0512) Meijer Stores L.P. (Progressive AE), 550 Baldwin, to have a drive-in establishment as shown in Option A. under Sec. 15.3(A) and an open air business under Sec. 15.3(B), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-13-300-075, located at 550 Baldwin, in a (CS) Community Service Commercial because the proposed plan meets the applicable standards of the ordinance including the general standards in Sec. 20.3(A) and specific standards Sec. 20.4(L) and 20.4(Z).

 

Moved by DeGood, seconded by Stasiak to approve the site plan dated 11/22/05 titled “Option A,” as submitted, because the proposed plan meets applicable standards of the ordinance and with the condition that signage is provided prohibiting vehicles from the east making a left hand turn into the drive lane for the tube and that signage is provided on the site to clarify the desired path for vehicles entering from the east to access the tube.

 

Yeas:    DeGood, Stasiak, Honderd, Huizinga, South

Nays:   Poskey

Absent: Pearson

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

IV.       New Business

A.                 Site Plans-none

 

B.         Public Hearings

1.                  Special Use Permits

 

a.         (SUP0513) Orion Construction (Integrated Architecture), 2020 Raybrook Ave., is requesting to have a restaurant under Sec. 13.3(B), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-17-300-009, located at 7559 36th Ave., in a (OS) Office Service District, Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan.

 

Steve Witte, Nederveld and Associates, represented the applicant and presented the request.  Gary Postema, Orion Contruction, as also present.

 

The request is to construct a 12,728 square foot building at the southwest corner of Baldwin and 36th Ave.  The site is zoned OS and the proposed uses of the building are office, personal service establishment, both permitted by right in the OS district, and for the use of a restaurant, which is permitted with a special use permit.  The building is situated to front both streets with the parking to the south and west.  A greenbelt is proposed to fulfill the requirement of a buffer to screen the parking from the adjacent residential uses. 

 

The zoning administrator presented a review and noted the memo from the Fire Department that stipulates that the fire codes have a requirement of a 20 foot wide access drive from Baldwin.  An issue presented for consideration was the access drive (right in-right-out) from Baldwin with no deceleration lane provided.  A driveway is also proposed off 36th St. and a decel/accel lane has been provided.  The existing structures will be removed, as well as some of the existing vegetation.  Some of the trees are shown to remain if located outside the proposed building and parking areas.  A narrative was provided that states the use of restaurant would be limited to a 2,800 square foot area.  The applicant provided elevations.  In summary, all ordinance requirements have been met for a site plan, as well as for the general standards (there are no specific standards) for a special use permit for a restaurant.  Demonstration was provided.  Only the following issue remained.  The Planning Commission should determine if the driveway off Baldwin would be permitted.  If the driveway with the right-in/right-out access is permitted on Baldwin, a decel lane could be required to insure that vehicles entering the site would pull out of the traffic lane when slowing down to turn right into the site. 

 

The zoning administrator said that she had a conversation with Brett Laughlin from the Ottawa County Road Commission, who said that the Road Commission would not require the decel lane on Baldwin, but would support the installation of one if the Township required it.

 

DeGood said that he wanted to see the decel lane added for the driveway entrance off Baldwin.

 

Stasiak said that he initially wanted the driveway off Baldwin eliminated, but decided it would be appropriate with the right-in and right-out.  He asked if the radius could be cut steeper to discourage a left turn.  He said that the decel lane should be added on Baldwin.

 

The applicant indicated that the radius could be changed.

 

Honderd asked about the difference in elevation and was concerned that lights from the cars might annoy people in the neighboring homes.

 

The applicant indicated that the trees in the greenbelt would help to buffer the residential area, plus the land dropped off after the property line.

 

Huizinga said that the decel lane was good off 36th Ave.

 

Poskey said that he preferred no entrance or exit onto Baldwin, but a decel lane should be added if one was permitted.

 

South said that the area was busy a few times during the day during peak times and the right-in and right-out was acceptable.  He asked about the elevations that had been provided.

 

The applicant indicated that doors to the building would face the west and that windows would be random along 36th Ave. to create a pattern for architectural flare.

 

South said that he would like to see the elevations from the east and north to see what the building would look like from 36th Ave.  He said that the right-in/right-out on Baldwin was far enough back from the intersection.

 

The applicant said that it was 200 feet from the intersection.

 

Honderd said that he would like to see the elevations from 36th Ave.  He said that this is a busy intersection and would continue to get busier with more development.  He said that the decel lane should be put in now because it would be more expensive later.

 

The applicant said that they were not opposed to the decel lane but did not know if the County would accept it in the road right-of-way.

 

Honderd noted that the zoning administrator talked to the Road Commission and said that they would support the decel lane if the Township required it.

 

Huizinga said that he would like to see the 36th Ave. elevations.  South concurred.

 

Minimal revisions were required and the request was to be advertised and notices sent.  The Planning Commission asked that the planner review the application for the proximity to the school, the layout design and the elevations for 36th Ave.

 

2.                  Rezonings

a.         (REZ0506) To change from (LDR) Low Density Residential and (RR) Rural Residential  to (LMR) Low Medium Density Residential parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-18-300-022 and -021, located at 4724 Baldwin and 7448 48th Ave., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. plat

 

Steve Smit, Focus Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the request.  The request is to rezone two parcels from LDR and RR to (LMR) Low/Medium Density Residential. 

 

The zoning administrator presented a review which included the following information.  The difference between LDR and LMR is basically the minimum size of the lots permitted.  The uses in the LMR district are the same as the uses in the LDR district, including uses permitted by right and uses permitted with special use permits.  

 

In the LDR district:

·        lots are required to be a minimum of 11,475 square feet and 85 feet wide (plus 25 feet for corner lots);

·        lots not served by water and sewer are required to be a minimum of 13,300 square feet and 95 feet wide (plus 25 feet for corner lots);

·        setback requirements are 40 front, 40 rear and 10 on each side.

 

In the LMR district:

·        lots are required to be a minimum of 7,700 square feet and 70 feet wide (plus 25 feet for corner lots) (footnote (f) references two family dwelling structures in the LMR district, which are not permitted);

·        no reference is made allowing lots for uses other than for two family dwellings (which are not allowed anyway) to use the installation of dry sewer-mains to fulfill the requirement of sewer;

·        setback requirements are 30 front, 30 rear, and 5 on one side with a minimum total of 15 feet required for both side yards.

 

If the property was to be rezoned to LMR, the parcels would be non-conforming since they would not meet the ordinance requirement of Chapter 24, footnote (e).  In the Schedule of District Regulations, Chapter 24, footnote (e) states that lots in LMR shall be serviced by public water and sanitary sewer.  No reference is made that the installation of dry sewer-main fulfills this requirements.  Other instances in the ordinance (for other districts or other situations) reference the fact that dry sewer-main fulfills the requirements of lots being serviced by sanitary sewer.  In addition, footnote (f) states that all two family dwelling structures in the LMR district shall have a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 120 feet, and that these could be reduced to 14,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 100 if the lot is serviced by public water and sanitary sewer.  The ordinance states that the installation of dry sewer main fulfills this requirement for the larger lot sizes for the two family dwellings because lot sizes are nearly twice the size of the lot size as for single family homes.  In addition, no two family dwellings are permitted in the LMR district at this time.

 

The ordinance provides that septic systems would fulfill the requirement if the lots are larger sizes and clearly requires the smaller lots for single family homes (with a minimum of 7,700 square feet) to be serviced by sanitary sewer.  Since specifically NO MENTION is made in the ordinance that the installation of dry sewer-main fulfills the requirement for uses other than for two family dwellings (i.e. single family homes with a minimum lot area of 7,700 square feet), the ordinance clearly dictates that lots in the LMR district MUST be serviced by both public water and sanitary sewer.

 

A letter from Denny Bishop, Director of Water and Sewer, states that these two parcels are not serviced by sanitary sewer and can not be serviced with the sewer from the existing sewer on Baldwin St.  The letter further states that the next sewer to be available will have to come from a future lift station in the approximate location of Bauer School.  The conclusion in the letter is that any building on these two parcels could only be done with septic systems and dry sewer.  The letter also states that no property has yet been procured and no plans are in place for a gravity sewer, lift station or force main for the future sewer.

 

Consequently, if the parcels were to be rezoned to LMR, non-conforming parcels would be created because the lots (as they currently exist and/or as they could be so divided to meet minimum size stipulations in Chapter 24) would not meet the ordinance requirement which states that lots in the LMR district SHALL be serviced by sanitary sewer.  The lots could not be used for two family dwelling since the ordinance does not provide for that use in the LMR district.  Therefore, no lots in the LMR district could have the requirement of sewer fulfilled by the installation of dry sewer.

 

Further, the lots COULD be developed with the same uses in the LDR district and meet ordinance requirements because footnote d states that lots not service by public water and sanitary sewer (installation of dry sewer-mains fulfills the requirements of installed sewer) shall have a minimum size of 13,300 square feet and a minimum width of 95 feet.  Therefore, the Planning Commission could rezone the RR parcel to LDR and the land developed in the LDR district meeting ordinances.

 

The parcels are designated as LDR on the Future Land Use Map.  Following are excerpts from the Master Plan text regarding the LDR designation and residential land use policies.

 

Residential Land Use Policies:

 

New residential development should occur contiguous to existing developed areas to ensure efficient utilization of existing utility lines, or the developer would be responsible to bring the utilities to the location.

 

LDR-Low Density Residential

 

This category includes land developed for primarily detached single-family residential use in the LDR and LMR zoning districts.  Residential development in this land use category is intended to be served by public water and sewer services.  Since the Future Land Use Map anticipates future urban growth in areas not currently served by public utilities, it is recognized that this growth will be contingent on expansion of utility services through main extensions, as well as the construction of a new elevated water storage facility near 36th Ave. and Baldwin St.  In some cases, development of attached forms of housing may be appropriate, at low densities, in response to site specific circumstances, such as wetland, steep slope, floodplain, or other natural features constraints.  Overall development density in this category is assumed to be two/three dwelling units per acre. 

 

The Residential Land Use Policies state that development should occur contiguous to existing developed areas to ensure efficient utilization of existing utility lines or the developer is responsible to bring the utilities to the location.  While the Master Plan text does allow for LMR in the LDR designation, the text continues to further state that residential development in this land use category is intended to be served by public water and sewer services.  It further states that growth is contingent on expansion of utility services through main extensions.

 

On the map submitted with the application, the applicant indicates in the notes that the proposed zoning is consistent with the Township Land Use Plan and that the designation allows for either LDR or LMR.  The statement fails to take into account the text of the Master Plan which requires that the development be serviced by water and sewer.  The Master Plan is considered to be a guide for future development, but according to the wording of the text, growth is expected to occur in areas contingent to those that could support the expansion of utilities.  While the LMR zoning district could fulfill a need in the Township as well as makes uses available that would be compatible with the surrounding area, rezoning of the property should take place at a time in the future when sewer would be available to service the LMR lots (consistent with ordinance requirements).

 

Therefore, the requested zoning is NOT consistent with the text of the Master Plan, even though the LDR designation includes LMR zoning.

 

The applicant responded to the review by stating that Georgetown Forest was developed in the same manner.  He said that he realized that Georgetown Forest was in the LDR district, but dry sewer and drain fields were placed.  He said that this was a viable path for development and was financially driven.

 

Honderd asked if there was enough room on the lots for the drain fields.

 

The application said that in reality, the width of the LMR lots was not the issue, but rather the square footage of the lots was the important factor because the lots and drain fields had to meet health department requirements.  He said that they wanted lots narrower than LDR, but still 12,000 square feet which was larger than a LDR lot.  He said that these lots would support drain fields and they needed the increased density for financial feasibility.  He said that the parcels were wide enough for only one street and lots on both sides would be deep.

 

Stasiak ask if the request was related to costs.

 

The applicant said that they could get a greater density with the lots having less frontage.  He said that the cost of the street and utilities would be more affordable with more lots in the LMR as opposed to the wider lots in LDR.  He said that this site was near the campground and duplexes were across the street.

 

Honderd asked if the LMR designation was consistent with the Master Plan and if the lots have room to support septic.

 

Stasiak asked if the LMR have to be serviced by water and sewer.

 

Honderd asked if the street was not put in would the LMR be appropriate.

 

The zoning administrator said that the ordinance states that all lots in the LMR district shall be serviced by water and sewer, and it specifically omits mentioning that dry sewer meets the requirement.  She said that even if the two large parcels were rezoned to LMR, the lots would be non-conforming because the ordinance says that all LMR lots shall be serviced by water and sewer.

 

Honderd said that he would poll the members of the Planning Commission to see if they thought that LMR was compatible with the area without considering the sewer requirement.

 

The consensus was that LMR was compatible with the area, but the lots would be non-conforming if they were rezoned prior to the availability of sewer.

 

Honderd said that the zoning administrator had determined that by rezoning the lots to LMR, non-conforming lots would be created.  He said that the applicant could appeal that determination to the ZBA.  He said that he didn’t even know if the Health Department would approve the narrow lots and if the drain field would fit on the narrow lots.

 

The applicant explained that the primary drain field would be in the front yard and the reserve would be in the rear yard in case there was a problem with the primary.  He said that they usually last 30 to 40 years.

 

Huizinga said that the applicant could apply to change the ordinance.

 

The zoning administrator asked if the Planning Commissions remembered when the ordinance was adopted and asked if they specifically intended to omit the statement that dry sewer fulfilled the requirement for sewer in the LMR lots.

 

Honderd said that the LMR lots were intended to provide lower cost housing and it had been the intention of the Planning Commission to omit the statement that dry sewer fulfills the requirement of sewer because the smaller lot sizes allowed in the LMR did not provide enough space for septic systems.

 

The zoning administrator asked if her interpretation was consistent with the Planning Commission’s intention when the ordinance was adopted and Honderd answered yes.

 

Huizinga asked about the dry sewer on the 70 foot lots.

 

The applicant said that the primary and reserve fields can’t both fit in the front yard, so the reserve would be put in the rear yard.

 

Poskey said that he was opposed to the rezoning at this time because he did not want to create non-conforming lots, even though the straw poll had indicated that the Planning Commission was in favor of the smaller lots.  He said that he wanted it noted in the minutes and the applicant to understand that there is no guarantee of rezoning approval now or in the future because the minds of the Planning Commissioners could change.

 

The applicant asked if the development could be a PUD.

 

The zoning administrator said that Sec. 22.2B states that all PUDs shall be served by public water and sanitary sewer facilities.  No mention is made in the PUD ordinance that dry sewer fulfills the requirement.  She said that she would determine that since the ordinance does not specifically say that dry sewer fulfills the requirement, that this would be the same as the LMR and dry sewer would not meet the requirement.

 

South said that the small lots were compatible with the area, but not with drain fields.

 

DeGood said that he would not be in favor of the LMR under these conditions.

 

Honderd said that the applicant could appeal the PUD requirement to the ZBA.

 

The zoning administrator said that if the stipulation was not stated that dry sewer fulfilled the requirement, it was omitted from the ordinance for a reason.

 

The applicant said that footnote f states that dry sewer fulfills the requirement if a duplex is built.

 

The zoning administrator said that footnote f specifically says that dry sewers do fulfill the requirement for a two-family dwelling; however, the ordinance also says that the lot sizes must be about double in size from the single family dwellings in the LMR.  She also said that the whole footnote is irrelevant anyway because two-family dwellings were not permitted in the LMR and the footnote must have been left in the ordinance from the past when they were permitted.

 

Honderd said that the applicant would have to appeal the determination to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

 

3.                  Plats-none

4.                  PUD’s-none

5.                  Ordinance Amendments-none

 

V.                 Other Business

 

            a.         Rezoning spot zoned areas

 

The consensus of the Planning Commission was to make a list and proceed with rezoning spot zoned areas according to the direction of the Township Board, as long as the property owner approved. 

 

VI.       Commissioner Comments

VII.      Staff Comments

VIII.         Adjourn

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.