Minutes of the
work session of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission held Wednesday,
February 1, 2006
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 February 15, 2006, included the following items
to be placed on the agenda, discussion, and action:
I.
Approval of agenda
II.
Approval of minutes of the January
18, 2006 regular meeting and the
III. Unfinished
Business
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.
The Planning
Commission recommended denial of the special use permit request for a
restaurant and the Board denied it on January 9, 2006. The Planning Commission tabled the site plan
for revisions relating to the design and location of the building on the site,
and for references to the restaurant. No
new information is available at this time.
The item was left tabled.
#060201-01 -
Ordinance Amendment -Sec. 22.2(B)
At the Planning Commission meeting on January 18, 2006, the following
zoning ordinance amendment was tabled for further review and research. After conversations with the elected
officials, the planner and the DPW Director, the conclusion was reached that
PUDs should be serviced by live sewer and that the installation of dry sewer
mains should NOT fulfill the requirement.
The planner had said that live sewer was required for PUDs in other
communities and that dry sewer did not fulfill the requirement. The elected officials had said that at this
time there was not a need to encourage development in this manner. In addition, the DPW Director again cited his
same reasons for not encouraging dry sewers.
He had submitted a letter
to the Planning Commission stating his reasons as follows: unprocured
properties for lift stations, unknown elevations for sewers, policing action in
reference to inactive dry sewers, and unknown elevations for lift stations.
Moved by Huizinga, seconded by South, to remove the item from the
table.
MOTION CARRIED.
Moved by Stasiak, seconded by Poskey, to recommend to the Board denial
of the proposed ordinance amendment as follows:
Sec. 22.2(B)
B. Utilities: All PUD's shall be served by public water and
sanitary sewer facilities (installation of dry sewer mains fulfills this
obligation on installed sewer) (Planning Commission may waive this requirement
of being served by public water and sanitary sewer facilities in areas outside
of the Master Planned service districts). Stormwater must be coordinated with the county
drain commission.
Note: The Township recommended
denial because this would encourage premature
development of parcels, as well as create enforcement problems with
hookups. It also could create problems
with locations and elevations for future lift station. In addition, it is not consistent with the
intention of the Master Plan in respect to the statement that 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.
MOTION CARRIED.
B. (PUD0601) Riverview Trails Development Group (Tara Westhouse), 3133 Beechcrest Dr., is requesting a Planned Unit Development for condominium housing (housing for the elderly) and office commercial related services for seniors (elderly) under Chapter 22, on parcels of described as and located at: P.P. # 70-14-13-100-026, 7784 Cottonwood, P.P. # 70-14-13-100-032, 7804 Cottonwood, P.P. # 70-14-13-100-033, 7802 Cottonwood, P.P. # 70-14-13-100-043, 7746 Cottonwood, Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. view1, view2, view3
No new information
has been submitted at this time. The
applicant has indicated that they are pursuing other locations at this
time. She will inform us if she wants to
withdraw. Notice for the public hearing
has not been published.
IV. New
Business
A. Site Plans
1. (ST0601)
Joe Grochowalski,
Omega Design Services Inc., represented the applicant and presented the
request. He stated the following. The dog run would have to be moved because it
is in the spot where the addition would be constructed. The proposed location is within 100 feet of a
building and does not meet the ordinance requirement. They would take dogs out on leashes, but the
fence would be there in case the dog got loose and that would be a benefit to
the Township.
The zoning
administrator presented a review. On
February 23, 1998, the Township Board approved a special use permit for a
veterinary hospital, under Sec. 15.3(F), for 7666 Cottonwood with the condition
that this does not include a kennel as defined by the ordinance. On February 18, 1998, the Planning Commission
approved a site plan because all the standards of the ordinance were met. The use of the site has been a veterinary
clinic since that time. Currently, the
applicant is requesting a 1,387 square foot addition to the existing 2,855
square foot building in a CS district.
This addition would require the relocation of a dog run that is
currently located at the back of the building.
It is important to note that according to the minutes from the meetings
when this was approved, the current location of the dog run met the special use
standard of being at least 100 feet from a dwelling or from a building used by
the public.
The zoning
administrator stated that although she might agree with the applicants, this is
a standard in the ordinance and neither she nor the Planning Commission has the
authority to waive the requirement. She
suggested that they fence in the back yard or larger area and not have a dog
run per se.
It was the consensus
of the Planning Commission that the proposed landscaping was acceptable since
this was an existing site, but they agreed that the dog run would have to be
deleted or a variance obtained to have it.
The applicant said that
the enclosure was just in case the dogs got lose and would prevent them from
running away. He asked if they could
have a fences area for other purposes and use it for the dogs.
The zoning
administrator said that they could present whatever they chose to and it would
be reviewed according to the ordinance.
She said that she does not question the benefit to the clinic and the
benefit to the Township, but was just following the requirements of the
ordinance. She also noted that the
following revisions were necessary:
·
Note
number 11 in the General Notes states that a typical parking space is 9 by
18. This is not correct and should be
changed to 9 by 20 and 21 feet. Parking
spaces are shown correctly on the plan.
·
The
width of the lot at the right-of-way line should be provided so that the
landscaping calculation can be verified (it scales out to be less than 150
feet, so the 6 trees provided appear to meet the ordinance).
·
The site
is noted to be outside the 500 year floodplain; however, the plan should note
if it is affected by the 100 year flood plain
B. Special Use Permits
1. (SUP0603) Miedema Builders, 2581 56th St., Wyoming, is requesting to have
commercial soil removal under Sec. 7.3(B) and 8.3(L), on parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-04-200-013, 70-14-04-400-006 and 70-14-04-200-021, located at 2600 & 2511 Fillmore, 9250 28th Ave., in a (RR) Rural Residential district, Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, MI.
Doug Stalsonburg, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the request. He stated the following. Cedar Lake No. 11 has preliminary plat approval for about 30 lots. There is a problem since the muck was not properly stripped. After taking soil borings, they are proposing to excavate soil and replace it with good soil. Dale Miedema’s idea is to go on the north side of Fillmore to land he owns and create an earthen berm to prepare for the future excavation of a lake on the north side similar to Cedar Lake. They do not want the lots to front on Fillmore because individual driveways on Fillmore are not permitted. They plan to have a service drive with two Fillmore intersections. They wanted to start the berm before they begin the lake excavation to be sensitive to those who live on the south side of Fillmore, though the lake excavation is still years away. This makes good sense. They are in the process of working out details for a cross easement to access the parcel on the other side of the two parcels that are now owned by the applicant. They would run the trucks along Fillmore and cross at the proposed 28th Ave., which is paved on the south side, to keep trucks off 24th Ave. The issue became compounded when he met with the zoning administrator who indicated that a special use permit for commercial soil removal and a mineral mining license would be required. The issue is further compounded because a special use standard is that excavation can not occur within 50 feet of a right-of-way line and they proposed to excavation right up to the ROW line. The issue is whether filling in the excavated area is mining and is a mining license necessary. A letter was sent to the Mining Board asking for the mining requirements to be waived. There is a timing issue with a narrow window for the plans to begin Cedar Lake No. 11 this month. Some soil shuffling could be done this spring and it is not dangerous. He talked to Brett Laughlin at the Road Commission, who was not overly concerned and would required signs and flagmen, along with a bond for 28th Ave. even though it is gravel. The window is two to three months this spring and summer for hauling dirt. It could be done after Grand Valley State University is out for the summer. More would be done for phase 12, but they do not know when that would be. The excavation would be filled as it progresses, and digging and filling would take place at the same time.
The zoning administrator presented a review. The applicants are proposing to remove soil from two parcels on the north side of Fillmore by excavating a trench along the right-of-way line (these parcels are not contiguous and are separated by two other parcels with different owners). This soil would be moved to the parcel on the south side of Fillmore to be used for Cedar Lake No. 11 and 12. Bad soils are planned to be removed from property where Cedar Lake No. 11 and 12 are to be located (on the parcel on the south side of Fillmore). These bad soils would be used to fill this excavated trench and to build this trench into a berm on the north side of Fillmore. So, in essence, soils are proposed to be switched from the parcels on the north side to the south side and vise versa. The applicants have asked that the Township waive the requirement for a mineral mining license and to waive the special use standard requirement that states: “No machinery shall be erected or maintained within fifty (50) feet of any property or street line. No cut or excavation shall be made closer than fifty (50) feet to any street right-of-way line or property line in order to ensure sublateral support to surrounding property.” Although the subject parcels are all owned by the applicant, the parcel on the south side of Fillmore is separated from the two parcels on the north side by a public street. Plus the two parcels on the north side are also separated from each other by two additional parcels with different owners. If the parcels would have been all contiguous, the determination could have been made that the moving of soil would not have been subject to the commercial soil removal special use permit and the mining license because it would have been incidental to the construction of Cedar Lake No. 11 and 12 and in essence, no soils would have been removed. However, since a public right-of-way separates the parcels, the determination has been made that soil is being removed from each of the subject parcels (and relocated to the opposite parcel) and would be subject to the requirements of the ordinance. In addition, the trucks moving back and forth across Fillmore would have an impact on the traffic on Fillmore and the roadway, as well as those who live near this area.
The zoning administrator explained that the determination that a special use permit is needed was based on the words in Sec. 20.4(H), which state the following:
(H) Commercial soil removal.
(1) No soil, sand, gravel, or other earth
material shall be removed from any land within the township without special
land use approval, with the following exceptions:
a. When the earth removal is incidental to
an operation for which a building permit has been issued by the township;
b. When the earth removal involves any normal
landscaping, driveway installation and repairs, or other minor projects;
c. The earth removal involves less than
100 cubic yards;
d. The earth removal is for the purpose of
constructing a swimming pool;
e. The earth removal will not be in violation
of any other section of this ordinance, other Township ordinance, Soil Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Act of 1972, or any other applicable state or federal
law.
The determination was also made that a mineral mining license is required and that determination was based on Sec. 26-72 of the mining ordinance, which states the following:
Sec. 26-72. Definitions.
(c) Mineral mining or mining: The excavation, removal or processing of sand, gravel, clay, stone, peat, muck, topsoil or other minerals or similar materials, including overburden, or the storage or transporting of minerals on a mining site, or the reclamation of the site after removal or excavation of minerals. However, the following excavation activities are not included within the definition of mineral mining or mining and are exempt from the requirements of this article:
(1) Excavation approved by a governmental body of competent jurisdiction in conjunction with the installation or maintenance of publicly owned or operated utilities, drains, roads or other improvements where the excavation is limited to the site of the public utility or improvement.
(2) Excavation which by its nature is of limited scope and duration and which is undertaken solely for the immediate use and development of the land excavated, such as for the purpose of construction or installation of a building, septic tank, swimming pool and similar limited excavations.
(3) Excavation in conjunction with farming operations conducted in accordance with generally accepted agricultural practices, including agricultural drainage work incidental to farming operations and irrigation or stock watering ponds, if no material is removed from the property.
Stasiak said that he agrees with the determination because they would be moving soil to and from different parcels while crossing a busy road.
Honderd said that what they are doing makes sense and would be better if they are doing it with flagmen present for the busy road. He said that for safety reasons it would be better to do it during GVSU’s off time since they would be crossing Fillmore. He noted that the north side of Fillmore is gravel. He suggested that the mining operation be expanded to include the future lake.
The zoning administrator stated that she had included all the parcels affected on both sides of Fillmore since there was no more cost involved with publishing the advertisement, just to be on the safe side until the determination is made about mining.
The applicant asked if the suggestion was to include the future mining for the future lake on the north side of Fillmore.
Honderd said that they could conduct the mining for the berm and just extend the mining license for the lake.
The applicant said that he had submitted a letter to the Mining Board requesting a waiver from the mining ordinance. He said that if this gets too complicated, the developer could just haul in good sand and deal with the bad soil in another way. He said that the trucks would then use 24th Ave. He said that he understood that the zoning administrator was just reading and going by the definition of mining. He said that if they have to follow the ordinance, they would have to pave 28th Ave. on the north side of Fillmore and they would have to stay 50 feet from the right-of-way line. He said that if they had to do that, they would forget the whole process.
Huizinga asked about the determination of mining.
The zoning administrator said that she had made the determination of mining because that is how she read the ordinance, and this was interpreted consistently and in good faith. She said that if a person disagrees with her interpretation, they could go to the ZBA.
Poskey said that there was no good way around this.
Honderd said that the process that the applicant is proposing makes sense and that the zoning administrator’s interpretation also makes sense because she is just reading the ordinance literally. He said that he would say to forget going to the ZBA because the applicant would be hard pressed to get them to change the determination of the zoning administrator. He said that excavating within the 50 feet of the right-of-way line makes sense and is not too close to the neighboring properties.
South said that if they don’t want to follow the ordinance they would have to appeal them.
DeGood said that he would like to see this worked out.
Honderd said that the mining permit should be on a lot by lot basis for the ones that have poor soils.
The applicant said that if they had to pave the 300 feet of 28th Ave. on the north side of Fillmore and if they could not go within 50 feet of the right-of-way line, it would be a deal killer. He said that if this could be determined to not be mining, they would do it.
The zoning administrator noted that three members of the Planning Commission were also on the Mining Board. There was discussion regarding the decision of the Mining Board and how it would affect the zoning action. The Planning Commission directed the zoning administrator to research the question to find if the Mining Board’s determination would affect zoning and directed that the application not be advertised for a public hearing at this time.
C. Rezonings-none
D. Plats-none
E. PUD’s
1. (PUD0602) Dykema Development, 4824 Faringdom Grove Drive, is
requesting a Planned Unit Development for attached single family condominium housing (site plan1, site plan 2, landscaping, elevation) under Chapter 22, on parcels described as, located at:
Part of P.P. # 70-14-24-300-019, 678 Port Sheldon
Part of P.P. # 70-14-24-300-057, 650 Port Sheldon
P.P. # 70-14-24-300-058, 672 Port Sheldon, color view, aerial
Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan.
Doug Stalsonburg,
Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the request.
The zoning
administrator presented a review. The
proposal is to construct 16 two family attached condo buildings with a total of
32 units on a little more than 10 acres of property currently zoned LDR. The Future Land Use Map designs the subject
property as LDR and allows 2 to 3 units per acres. The site includes P.P. # 70-14-24-300-058,
and part of -019 and -057. The site is
serviced by water and sewer. The
applicant provided written approval from all property owners within the
boundaries of the PUD. While the
proposed density is within the maximum permitted both by the zoning map and by
the Master Plan, the use of attached two family dwellings is not permitted
under the current zoning of LDR, which is the reason for the PUD proposal. A preapplication meeting was held and the
determination was made that the application meets the qualifying conditions of
a PUD.
The zoning
administrator said that the only issues remaining are if the amount of walkways
is acceptable, the building heights should be shown and the remaining parts of
parcel -019 should be added to the adjacent parcels so that nonconforming
parcels are not created. She said that
although these parcels are not owned by the developer, the PUD would create
these non-conforming pieces of parcel -019 and should be added either to create
one parcel or the three as shown.
The Planning
Commission directed that the PUD should be advertised for a public hearing for
March 1, 2006.
F. Ordinance Amendments-none
V.
Other Business
A. Discuss wording for ordinance amendment for Chapter 24,
footnote (m)
(m) Where a side and/or rear yard abuts a
Residential District, there shall be a minimum yard of not less than twenty
five (25) feet, exclusive of parking and drives. Such yard shall contain a greenbelt which
meets the minimum standards of Sec. 3.11.
Furthermore, no commercial or industrial building and/or parking
lot shall be located closer than fifty (50) feet to any Residential
District boundary, (except when the residential district is HDR, in which
case parking need only be a minimum of 25 feet from the boundary exclusive of
parking and drives).
This footnote has
changed the side yard setback from 0 to 25 in OS, NS, CS, and from 10 (total of
25) to 25 in the HS, and from 20 to 25 in the I district, for instances where
this side or rear yard abuts a residential district. The change as proposed would now require that
no parking, as well as any buildings, be closer than 50 feet to any residential
district. The Planning Commission had
mentioned that the parking could be located just the 25 feet from an HDR
district. This amendment could be
discussed before publishing.
The consensus of the
Planning Commission was that the proposed amendment be advertised with another
rezoning or ordinance amendment.
VI. Commissioner Comments
VII. Staff Comments
VIII.
Adjourn
The meeting was
adjourned at 8:50 p.m.