Minutes of the work session of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission held Wednesday, March 1, 2006

 

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

 

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

Absent:            DeGood

 

The work session, which formulated the agenda for March 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 February 15, 2006 regular meeting and the March 1, 2006 work session meeting

 

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.  This is the third month under unfinished business.

 

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 or ways of acquiring additional land.  Notice for the public hearing has not been published.

 

IV.       New Business

A.        PUD’s

 

#060301-01 - Public Hearing (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 and 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.

 

Todd Stuive, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the request. 

 

The zoning administrator presented a review.  No revisions were required for the site plan because all ordinance requirements were met.  No new site plans were provided.  The applicant submitted elevations and floor plans.  The elevations show a walk-out ranch and the height to the roof line is shown as 8 + 9 1/8 totaling 17 1/8 feet to the roof line.  The mean height is not shown, but it scales less than the maximum 35 feet permitted in the ordinance.  The only issue that remains is the concern that the PUD does not create any nonconforming parcels resulting from the creation of the subject site.  The Planning Commission determined that the walkways are acceptable and that all qualifying conditions have been met.  In addition, all the required elements have been shown other than an exact dimension of a height.

 

South asked about a landscaped buffer along the western property line.

 

The applicant said that landscaping plans had been submitted.  He said that there was an existing 20 foot buffer that would be supplemented with evergreen trees to form a screened area.

 

The chairman opened the public hearing. 

 

Hank Kornoelje, 6470 Poinsetta, asked about the slopes in the area because this area sometimes floods, if there would be a berm, how far the development would be from his house, and if the development would affect property values.

 

The applicant explained the drainage proposal and how the drainage would be directed to the pond and released to underground pipes.  He stated the following.  This is a floodplain area and that there would not exactly be a berm, but rather an elevated area.  The project would have to be reviewed and approved by the Ottawa County Drain Commissioner.  There would be a 40 foot setback, which is the rear yard requirement even though this is a side yard.  Lee Dykema’s other developments are at the same price points.

 

Mark Katerburg said that he represents Sunnybrook County Club and there are concerns with the location of the walking path along the driving range and possible stray golf balls.  He said that they were working out the details.  He said that sometimes a bad slice could go past the condos.

 

Terry McMellen, 6550 Poinsetta, asked when the project would start and was told mid summer.

 

Marjeanne Saagman, 678 Port Sheldon, asked about the existing trees and was told that they would leave the good existing vegetation.  She asked how far the development would be from her house and was told 100 feet.

 

Hank Kornoelje said that balls from the driving range were hit into his backyard.

 

Mary Groendyke, 650 Port Sheldon, asked about sidewalks on the two other existing houses on Port Sheldon and if they would have to extend the sidewalk that was being constructed for this development. 

 

The zoning administrator said that sidewalks were only required for new developments and sidewalks would not be required for the existing houses.

 

A letter from Jennifer Beasley in opposition to the development was read.

 

Kurt Kornoelje, 6868 Glenview, said that houses affect the schools and more houses were needed for families with children so that the schools would get more funding.

 

South said that they can’t set the criteria and they could get more condos than houses.  The applicant said that it was about the same amount.

 

Kurt Kornoelje said that the school district is land locked.

 

South said that the Township can not say how to develop property as long as it is developed in ways that are allowed by the ordinances.

 

Honderd said that condos are a good deal for the Township because they get the tax base and do not have to maintain the road because it is private.  He said that condos have a history of being kept up well.  He said that people who move into the condos have existing houses to sell that families with children could buy.

 

The chairman closed the public hearing.

 

Stasiak was concerned about the hazard of the golf balls.

 

The applicant said that they were working with the golf course to screen the area.  He said that the walkway was not initially wanted by the developer, but only provided because the language of the ordinance requires abundant walkways.

 

Honderd said that approval could be conditioned upon giving the zoning administrator the authority to waive the requirement of the path if necessary after the discussions with the golf course.  He also noted that the ordinance does not require that the path is concrete or asphalt.

 

Pearson said that the developer and golf course should be left to work out the details to address the hazard, then let the zoning administrator decide if necessary.

 

Poskey said that if golf balls bounce off the condos, the golf course would have to put up a screen and he was in favor of letting them work it out.

 

Moved by South, seconded by Huizinga, to recommend to the Township Board approval of (PUD0602) Dykema Development, 4824 Faringdom Grove Drive, to have a Planned Unit Development for attached single family condominium housing (site plan1, site plan 2, landscaping, elevation) under Chapter 22, on parcels described as and 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, as shown on the application materials submitted including the plan dated 1-13-06, based on the proposal complying with all applicable standards of the ordinance, and with the following conditions:

·         A Storm Water Drain Permit is provided from the Drain Commissioner and is submitted with the final development plan.

·         Road construction details and approval from the Road Commission for the driveways on Port Sheldon are provided, both to be submitted with the final development plan.

·         The proposed building height does not exceed the 35 feet or 2.5 stories permitted in the ordinance and this is noted on the final development plan.

·         No approvals are implied for the parcel splits shown on the plan at the northwest of the PUD site along Poinsetta St. and are identified as Parcel “A,” “B” and “C” due to the fact that elements such as existing structures and dimensions of these structures to proposed property lines have not been shown.  All future land splits would have to follow land split procedures including submission of applications, fees, and surveys detailing existing and proposed structures along with dimensions to proposed property lines.

·         A letter is provided at the time of submittal of the final development plan stating that all land that is shown on the plan dated 1-13-06 as parcels “A,” “B” and “C” at the northwest of the PUD site are combined into one parcel or that a land split application is submitted with all required submittal materials and approval is granted acknowledging that all parcels that were created from the PUD are conforming with current ordinances (i.e. number of splits is allowed, all setbacks are met for any structures and that all parcels meet ordinance requirements).  The reason is to assure that no nonconforming parcels are created from any land division for the PUD even though the applicant might not own this property. 

·          An association is responsible for the maintenance of common areas including those areas adjacent to Port Sheldon Street. 

·         The zoning administrator has the authority to be flexible with the walking path.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

2.                  Work Session (PUD0603) Ed DeVries Properties Inc., 1345 Monroe Ave. NW, is

requesting a Planned Unit Development for mixed uses including apartments for multiple family dwellings and commercial uses including offices, retail and restaurant under Chapter 22, on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-26-200-070, located at the southwest corner of 44th St. and 8th Ave. at Gleneagle Highlands Dr. view1, view2, elevation, storm mgt.

 

Honderd abstained from discussion and voting.  He left the room.

 

The zoning administrator presented a review.  The proposal is for a 9.64 Planned Unit Development at the southwest corner of 44th St. and 8th Ave.  The uses are office, retail, restaurant, plus 20 apartments for attached single family dwellings.  At the preapplication meetings, the determination was made that the proposal meets the qualifying conditions enough to proceed to Planning Commission review.  However, there are still several issues that the Planning Commission must consider prior to directing that the notice for the public hearing is published.

 

The purpose 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, to encourage useful open space, to provide for enhanced site and building architectural features and to create better living working and shopping environments.  In order to accomplish these objectives, the PUD ordinance provides flexibility to the conventional requirements.  The overall idea appears to meet the PUD ordinance objective and the uses are consistent with the intention of the ordinance and Master Plan.  The opportunity does exist that the Board and Planning Commission would be willing to accept the waivers requested from the conventional zoning in return for an innovative development with landscaped open space. 

 

SUMMARY

  • The acreage requirement is not met.  The PUD contains a mixture of residential and non-residential uses and should be 20 acres.  The site is only 9.64 acres.  The Planning Commission and Board would have to determine that the proposal is acceptable and substantially provides for the intent of a PUD.  It appears that the proposal meets the PUD intention.
  • A concern was noted about the number of driveway accesses from this parcel to 44th St. and to 8th Ave.  The consensus of those at the Pre-Application meeting (which included a representative from the Planning Commission and Board, as well as representatives from other Township departments) was that the driveway access on 44th St. was needed.  The southern entrance on 8th Ave. already exists.  However, a concern still exists about the right-in-right-out driveway on 8th Ave.  The Planning Commission and Road Commission input would have to be considered as to whether or not this access point should exist (though the applicants have indicated that they want it for the proposed restaurant on the corner spot).  The Township received a letter from Brett Laughlin, Ottawa County Road Commission, stating that a traffic impact analysis is required to determine traffic patterns and necessary roadway improvements.  This study should be provided to the Planning Commission to help in the consideration of the driveway access points.  Also, Road Commission approval should be provided prior to the Township granting any approvals.
  • More details should be provided about the phases, specifically designated areas on the site plan and dates of proposed start and completion.
  • The plan shows two pole mounted freestanding signs; however, the note on the plan under Proposed Signage to be “4.”  This number should be changed to “2.”
  • A Storm Water Drain permit should be provided with the final development plan.
  • The plan proposes 19% of open space.  Does the Planning Commission accept this amount with is minimally less than 20%? 
  • The plan designates the western property line as the side yard and a waiver from the required 25 foot side yard setback with greenbelt is requested.  A dashed line along this line indicates a 10 foot setback.  In one instances near the southwestern area parking even infringes upon this 10 foot area.  Other areas are well over this 10 foot mark.  A 25 foot greenbelt is required in Chapter 24 m when a side yard of commercial development abuts a residential district.  In addition, commercial buildings and parking/drives are required to be 50 feet from a residential district (parking will be required to be 50 feet after the amendment is adopted which will be after the date this goes to the Board).  The commercial buildings and commercial sections of buildings with mixed uses are all shown as meeting the 50 foot requirement.  Sections of the two buildings that have the apartments show the residential portion of the two buildings to be 44 and 47 feet.  The Planning Commission should address the waiver for the 25 foot greenbelt and for the residential/commercial buildings to be 44 and 47 feet from the property line.
  • A berm is shown along the eastern property line and is proposed to mitigate the lesser amount of front yard setback from 8th Ave.  A 30 foot front yard setback is required in Chapter 24 and is to be measured from a point 60 feet from the centerline for a total of 90 feet from the center line.  From the southern entrance on 8th Ave. toward the north, the setback is shown as 80 feet.  A ten foot waiver is requested and mitigated with a berm.  The Planning Commission would have to decide if the waiver is acceptable. 
  • A legend is provided detailing types and sizes of landscape material.  The only issue is that for Zone 2 and Zone 3 the fraction of trees required was rounded down.  In actuality the numbers were 25.2 and 70.1 which would result in the requirement for 26 and 71 trees rather than 25 and 70.  Sec. 3.11(B)(3) requires that a tree be provided for a fraction. 
  • An association should be required to maintain the open space and documentation should be provided.

 

The plan calls for the following waivers from conventional ordinance requirements:

  • Parking reduction of 5%, which appears to have a minimal effect. 
  • The PUD site is only 9.64 acres and the ordinance requires 20 acres for a mixed use PUD.  However, the proposal appears to meet the intention of the PUD ordinance.
  • Parking/drives and buildings for commercial uses are required (parking will be after the ordinance is adopted) to be a minimum of 50 feet from a residential district except if the district is HDR.  Since this is HDR, parking and drives could be within the 50 feet, but not buildings.
  • A 25 foot greenbelt is required to buffer the commercial from the residential district.
  • The open space is required to be 20% and 19% is provided.
  • Additional wall signs are proposed for the fronts and backs of buildings; however, the plan notes that no waiver is requested from overall square footage requirements.
  • A front yard setback of 90 feet from centerline is required along 8th Ave.  This is shown from the southern driveway south; however, to the north of this driveway the setback is shown as 80 feet.

 

Todd Stuive, Exxel Engineering, said that this property is part of a 305 acre PUD.  He said that this property was identified on the original PUD as a neighborhood service use although there was never a specific plan.

 

The consensus of the Planning Commission was that the size in acres, parking reduction, location and amount of drives, the reduced 25 foot greenbelt buffer and building location, number of signs, setbacks and 19% open space were all acceptable.

 

Pearson said that he preferred the ground-mounted signs since it would be consistent with other signs in the area.  He asked if they could be required.

 

The zoning administrator explained the following.  The PUD ordinance allows for flexibility and the purpose is to have a give/give situation.  The applicants were asking for more signs than permitted.  They showed two freestanding signs, one at each of the full entrances, and one ground mounted sign at the corner, plus wall signs.  Conventional zoning only allows one freestanding sign.  So the Planning Commission had the authority to permit the additional signs and the authority to require that those signs be ground mounted.

 

There was discussion regarding the signs because the consideration with ground mounted signs was that they had to be located so as to not interfere with clear vision.  In addition, the Planning Commission was concerned with consistency of the looks of all the signs on the site.  The applicant planned to have consistency and wanted to have balance.  The decision was made to check the locations and sizes of other signs in the area and review sizes and locations for ground mounted signs.  The Planning Commission wanted the design of the wall mounted signs to be consistent with the other signs on the site.

 

The consensus of the Planning Commission was that the number of signs and setbacks shown on the plan were acceptable.

 

The zoning administrator said that the number of trees did not meet the ordinance requirements for a streetscape because the plan showed the numbers rounded down rather than up as required by the ordinance.  Consequently, two less trees were shown than required.  The applicant indicated that the two additional trees would be provided.

 

Pearson complimented the applicant on a good plan with nice elevations and landscaping.

 

Stasiak asked if a special use permit was required if a restaurant was to be located on the site.

 

The zoning administrator said that special use permits would not be required for any use that was included in the PUD because the review was part of the PUD process.

 

The consensus of the Planning Commission was that more elevations should be provided.

 

Pearson asked if the buildings were to be built and then a tenant sought or if the tenant was determined first and the building built for the tenant.

 

The applicant said that they would find a tenant first.

 

Pearson asked if they could require that the types of material would be the same for consistency with the buildings.  It was determined that the materials could be specified to be similar; however, the design would be related to the tenant.

 

Poskey asked if the restaurant would have a drive-in and it was noted that no drive-in was shown.  The determination was made that approval of the PUD would be conditioned upon no drive-in restaurant and that if the applicant wanted a drive-in restaurant they would have to request an amendment to the PUD and return for approvals.

 

The Planning Commission directed that the PUD return to the April 12 meeting with plans for signs and any other revisions, and the public hearing would be held on April 19.

 

The Fire Department memo was read and it was noted that the right-in, right-out drives were each required to have a minimum width of 20 feet.

 

B.        Site Plans-Work Session

1.         (ST0602) Jore Retail, 2460 Chicago Dr., site plan, (application)

 

Bob Pomeroy, Cox Medendorp Olson Architects, Inc., represented the applicant and presented the request.  They are considering constructing an addition on the other side of the building also.   Sidewalks would be provided and the two entrances would be curbed.  Paving would be added in the rear for parking.

 

The zoning administrator presented a review as follows.  The proposal is for the existing 5,851 square foot building currently used by the Booker Institute to be demolished and a 9,067 square foot addition to be constructed attached to and aligned with the existing 16,013 square foot building.  Additional parking is shown to the southeast of the building.  The site is located in a floodplain.  According to information provided in the application the uses would be for a commercial school permitted under Sec. 13.2(F) and for other retail uses permitted under Sec. 15.2(B), which are uses permitted in the Highway Service Commercial district. 

 

SUMMARY

 

·         The two-way drive aisles are shown at the required 24 foot width except for the drive to the rear of the building on the northeast side.  If this is to be one-way here, signage should be provided to have traffic circulate to the other side of the building to exist.  If it is to be two-way, it must be widened to 24 feet.

·         Under General Notes, the freestanding sign is noted to be located 60 feet from the centerline of Chicago Dr.  This street is not listed in Chapter 24 footnote b and is, therefore, required to be located so as to not extend over the right-of-way.  Although the sign is shown correctly on the plan, the note should be revised to reflect this change.

·         Parking calculations are correctly shown.  However, if the Planning Commission determines that a streetscape is necessary, revised parking spaces and calculations may be required.  One parking space is shown partially located on the adjacent property.

·         The rear yard abuts a residential district and a greenbelt is required to screen the parking from the adjacent residential district.  This area is partially buffered by an existing tree line.  However, the area between the proposed detention/retention pond and the parking lot should have a greenbelt according to Sec. 3.11 with one tree for each 20 feet.  This 90 foot section would, therefore, require the planting of five evergreen trees to be at least five feet tall at the time of planting. 

·         Although the ordinance amendment has not been adopted yet requiring that the 30 foot front yard is landscaped, the Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan have sections that apply and give the Planning Commission the authority to require a streetscape.  The Master Plan, along with Sec. 19.10 in the Site Plan Review Chapter and Sec. 3.11 of the Zoning Ordinance give the Planning Commission the authority to require landscaping in the front yard setback.  The Planning Commission should determine if any landscaping would be required along Chicago Dr., how much and in what areas.  The width of the lot is 445 which would equate to the addition of 18 trees in this front yard setback.  

·         If landscaping is required, the parking row that abuts the right-of-way line would have to be eliminated and parking would have to be re-addressed.  The plan shows this aisle width as 28 feet and a parking space as 20 feet long.  There would not be enough room for the aisle to be 24 feet if the whole 30 foot front yard setback was required to be landscaped.  However, if the row of parking adjacent to the right-of-way line was eliminated and 4 feet added to that area, the result would be a 24 foot landscaped front yard setback.  The aisle would then be 24 feet as required for two-way circulation.  The Planning Commission has the authority under Sec. 26.9(K) to reduce the required number of parking spaces by 25%.  The plan shows 137 spaces (which is really 136 when the one space on the adjacent property is eliminated).  If 129 spaces are required, 32 spaces could be waived (25%).  This would result in the requirement of 97 spaces.  If 40 were eliminated from the front row in the front setback area (136-40=96), only one more parking space would have to be added in another location to meet ordinance requirements.  It appears as though parking could be added in the rear and the pavement extended toward the southwestern property line.

·         If the front yard landscaping is required by the Planning Commission and the property owner wants additional parking spaces (more than the 97), the rear of the site could be redesigned with one-way traffic to reduce the aisle widths and add parking spaces.

·         The site is located in a floodplain and an elevation certificate or certified survey with an elevation must be provided to determine that the new addition would be constructed at least one foot above the floodplain. 

·         No approvals are implied for the future building expansion shown on the plan.

·         A note on the plan states that the addition would be constructed with materials that match the existing building.  The Planning Commission should decide if elevations would be required. 

·         The site plan shows two areas at the rear of the building that are identified as refrigeration units.  These units are, in fact, trailers that do not meet building codes or general ordinances.  These trailers should be removed and replaced with structures that meet ordinances and the building codes. 

 

Notes:

a.         The two-way drive aisles are shown at the required 24 foot width except for the drive to the rear

of the building on the northeast side.  If this is to be one-way here, signage should be provided to have traffic circulate to the other side of the building to exist.  If it is to be two-way, it must be widened to 24 feet.

b.         Under General Notes, the freestanding sign is noted to be located 60 feet from the centerline of

Chicago Dr.  This street is not listed in Chapter 24 footnote b and is, therefore, required to be located so as to not extend over the right-of-way.  The note should be revised to reflect this change.

c.         Parking calculations and space sizes are correctly shown.  However, if the Planning Commission

determines that a streetscape is necessary, revised parking spaces and calculations may be required. 

d.         For the square footage of the retail, one loading space is required and shown.

e.         The rear yard abuts a residential district and a greenbelt is required to screen the parking from

the adjacent residential district.  This area is partially buffered by an existing tree line.  However, the area between the proposed detention/retention pond and the parking lot should have a greenbelt according to Sec. 3.11 with one tree for each 20 feet.  This 90 foot section would, therefore, require the planting of five evergreen trees to be at least five feet tall at the time of planting.  In addition, the Planning Commission is reviewing an ordinance change to require that the 30 foot setback in the HS district is landscape and not used for parking.  Although this ordinance amendment has not been adopted yet, the Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan have sections that could apply and give the Planning Commission the authority to require a streetscape.  The Master Plan that clearly states that a goal of the Township is to revitalize the properties on Chicago Dr., when given the opportunity, by addressing poor aesthetic conditions.  The Master Plan clearly states that landscape improvements should be required.  In addition, Sec. 19.10 in the Site Plan Review Chapter states that the Planning Commission may require landscaping.   Further, Sec. 3.11 states that where required by the Planning Commission, landscaping shall be provided with only living materials.  If landscaping is required, parking would have to be re-addressed.

f.          A nonconforming eight foot high chain link fence exists on the site.

g.         The site is in a floodplain and an elevation certificate or certified survey must be provided to determine that the new addition would be constructed at least one foot above the floodplain.  The note lists an approximate floodplain elevation of 610.  This elevation should be exact, as should the proposed building elevation.  In addition, permits from the MDEQ are required for all construction and filling in SFHA (Special Flood Hazard Areas)/floodplain areas.  The local community must maintain records of floodplain construction and activities including:

1.      As-built Elevation Certificate for all new or substantially improved structures within the 100-year floodplain

2.      Copy of DEQ permit

 

Additional Comments for the review include the following.  The site plan shows two structures at the rear of the building that are identified as refrigeration units.  These units are, in fact, trailers that do not meet building codes or general ordinances.  These trailers should be removed and replaced with structures that meet ordinances and the building codes.  Further, Sec. 46-2(d) of the Code of Ordinances states that a dismantled and unlicensed trailer could be stored for a period of no more than two weeks.  These trailers have been on the site and it appears as though the plan is for them to remain on the site for a period of more than two weeks, which is in violation of the Township ordinances.  These trailers must be removed.  Replacement structures could be constructed in accordance with ordinances and the building code.

 

The applicant said that the current ordinance does not require landscaping and this is an existing site.  He said that all the other parcels in the area were the same as this one with no landscaping.  He said that they were putting in sidewalks and they would like to keep the plan as described.  An elevation was provided.

 

Honderd asked if the back area was for employee parking and for students at the Booker Institute.  He suggested as pointed out in the review that the aisle to the rear of the site could be one-way and more parking spaces could be added in the rear.

 

The applicant noted that they were considering an addition to the eastern side of the building.

 

Huizinga said that it would be nice to have the landscaping and this was the Planning Commission’s opportunity to address the site.

 

Poskey said that they should provide landscaping.

 

Pearson said that they definitely should have landscaping and this is exactly what is talked about in the Chicago Dr. Corridor Study.  He also was concerned with the aesthetics of the sign.

 

The applicant said that the sign is existing.

 

The zoning administrator stated that the note on the plan incorrectly lists the sign as not extending over a distance 60 feet from the centerline of Chicago Dr.  She said that Chicago Dr. is not listed in Chapter 24 footnote (b) and should be listed as not extending over the right-of-way line.  She noted that it is shown correctly as not extending over the right-of-way line; however, it is situation in a parking space.

 

Pearson said that he was interested in continuity and consistency of signage for the building.

 

The applicant said that there would be a large sign on the addition and smaller signs in white boxes for the various tenants.

 

The zoning administrator said that if the Planning Commission required the landscaping, the sign might have to be moved.  She said that if it was moved, it would have to meet the ordinance requirements.

 

Pearson said that this is an opportunity for the Township to address aesthetic issues with the site and he appreciated the applicant working together with the Township.  He said that his recommendation is that there must be landscaping and the sign addressed.

 

South said that they must have landscaping and would have to meet requirements if they change the sign.

 

Stasiak said that they need to have the streetscape and asked if the sidewalks could be waived.

 

The zoning administrator said that sidewalks were required by a general ordinance and could not be waived.  She said that Waterford Place on the corner of 18th Ave. and Chicago Dr. requested a sidewalk waiver for Chicago Dr. and were denied.

 

The applicant asked if any other sites in the area had landscaping.

 

Honderd said that no, none did.  He said that it was a goal of the Township to clean up Chicago Dr. and that they would have to do it one piece at a time.  He said that when the Ottawa County Road Commission came for approvals for an addition, they were required to add landscaping.  He said that landscaping was required for H&H Plumbing and Georgetown Foundation Supply.  He said that sometimes the applicant decides that it is not worth it, but the Planning Commission must stick with the requirements of the Chicago Dr. Corridor Plan.

 

The applicant suggested landscaping some areas either side of the drives and on the sides of the sign so that they would not have to take out the whole row of parking.  He said that they could address the sign issue.

 

The zoning administrator stated that the Planning Commission was considering an ordinance amendment to require a streetscape in the entire 30 feet of front yard setback in the HS district and would act upon it at the next meeting.  She said that if the Board adopts the amendment, it would be effective soon after the end of March.  She suggested that the applicants provide landscaping that the Planning Commission would accept because if this site plan was tabled, the ordinance amendment would go into effect and they would be required to have 30 feet landscaped.  She suggested that the front row of parking be eliminated and the 20 feet from the depth of the parking spaces be added to four feet from the 28 foot aisle to create a 24 foot landscaped front yard setback.  This would also leave enough room for a two-way 24 foot aisle.

 

Pearson said that he did not want limited sections of landscaping because this would create inconsistency when others on Chicago Dr. come to the Township and landscaping is addressed with them. 

 

The applicant suggested moving the row of parking back four feet from the right-of-way and landscaping this four foot area.  Then all the parking would remain in tact.

 

Pearson said that the compromise would be all in the applicant’s direction.

 

Honderd suggesting eliminating one of the driveways and having some pods of parking and some pods of landscaping. 

 

The applicant said that other businesses use the driveway because there is no fence around it.

 

Honderd said that the Planning Commission does required cross-access.  He suggested that the plan be revised to show landscaping and more parking.

 

The applicant said that they would lose the south drive with the addition and they would have to drive around.

 

Pearson said that he preferred to see landscaping across the whole front for at least 20 feet rather than pods.

 

Poskey said that they should return with a revised plan with a proposal as close to the ordinance as they can get. 

 

Huizinga said that they should present a proposal that is a compromise.

 

Stasiak said that the whole site should be cleaned up and he would like them to present a plan.

 

South said that he wants to see the streetscape.

 

Honderd said that they will also have to look at the parking calculations.

 

The consensus of the Planning Commission is that the rear yard is buffered enough with existing foliage since the soils in the rear are unstable and this is a floodplain area.

 

In response to a question, the zoning administrator stated that the ordinance has requirements for the relation of buildings to the environment and the Planning Commission has the authority to require elevations to ensure that the ordinance is met.

 

Poskey said that the pole barn style does not dress up the site.

 

It was noted that this is an improvement and the site will look better than it does now.

 

Pearson said that their improvements would help the area and elevations for the northeast addition should be included.

 

The zoning administrator stated that the determination of the Planning Commission was that landscaping must be provided and the trailers must be removed.

 

The applicant said that he wanted to remove the trailers and would like to have the requirement in writing from the Township.

 

The zoning administrator said that the Code Enforcer could send a letter, plus removing the trailers could be a condition of approval.

 

The Planning Commission directed that the plans be revised and noted that if the revisions were not satisfactory, the plan could be tabled.

 

C.        Special Use Permits-none

 

D.        Rezonings –Work Session maps

1.         (REZ0602) To change from (RR) Rural Residential to (LDR) Low Density Residential

parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-09-200-005, -014, located at 8745 24th Ave.

 

2.         (REZ0603) To change from (RR) Rural Residential to (LDR) Low Density Residential

parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-09-300-018, located at 2944 Bauer Rd.

 

The zoning administrator presented a review.  With motion #051128-24, the Township Board initiated the rezoning of all spot zoned parcels in the Township.  At the December 7, 2005 meeting, the Planning Commission directed that those spot zoned parcels be considered for rezoning and the notices to be published along with other legal ads.  The above two areas (two adjacent parcels on 24th Ave. and one parcel on Bauer) are spot zoned areas that are zoned RR, but are surrounded by LDR.  All are nonconforming parcels due to the fact that none have the 200 feet of width (frontage) required in the RR district.  They would be conforming in regards to lot width and area if rezoned to LDR.  All are designated as LDR on the Future Land Use Map.  All have other non-conforming issues (such as setbacks and an accessory building in the front yard); however, rezoning these properties to LDR will not increase any of the nonconforming issues that currently exist.

 

As for the three C’s used for the review:

 

1.                  The rezoning to LDR would be consistent with the Future Land Use Map.

2.                  The parcels are capable of being used in the LDR designation and basically are used according to the LDR designation now.

3.                  The LDR designation would be more compatible with the surrounding areas since the surrounding areas are already zoned LDR.

 

#060301-02 – Contact Property Owners

 

Moved by Pearson, seconded by Poskey, to direct the Township to contact the property owners whose property is being considered for rezoning due to the spot zone determination in some way, either in person or by letter, in addition to the property notice.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

3.                  (REZ0604) To change from (AG) Agriculture and (NS) Neighborhood Service to (CS)

Community Service Commercial a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-07-100-016 and -017, located at 8500 and 8420 48th Ave., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County.

 

The zoning administrator presented a review.  With motion #060213-11, the Township Board unanimously approved a motion to form a committee to determine ways to accept bids to privatize the ice arena at the corner of Bauer Rd. and 48th Ave.  The Planning Commission initiated the rezoning at the February 15, 2006 meeting due to the fact that the site would be nonconforming as currently zoned if purchased by a private party.  At the time the arena was built, it was a conforming use in the AG district as a municipal building/use.  However, if the site becomes privately owned, it would be nonconforming since such a use is only permitted in the CS district with a special use permit under Sec.15.3(E).  The Future Land Use Map shows the whole corner as CS, consisting of the two Township-owned parcels.

 

As for the three C’s used for the review:

 

4.                  The rezoning to CS would be consistent with the Future Land Use Map.

5.                  The parcels are capable of being used in the CS designation and basically are used according to the CS designation now with the use of an ice arena.  The only difference is that the use is permitted under the current AG designation as a municipal building and would be permitted with a special use permit in the CS district if owned by a private party.

6.                  The CS designation would be compatible with the surrounding areas since it has been in existence for nearly two years and has been compatible with the surrounding areas since then.   

 

In response to the question as to what would happen if the site was not rezoned, the zoning administrator explained that the use was allowed in the current AG district as a municipal building since it was owned by the Township, but if it was sold to a private party the use would not be allowed in the AG district and would become nonconforming.  The use is allowed with a special use permit in the CS district.

 

E.         Plats-none

F.         Ordinance Amendments-Work Session

            1.         Sec. 20.4(H)(1)(f) Commercial Soil Removal

2.         Sec. 25.6(A) Portable Signs

3.         Chapter 24 footnote (k) and (m)

 

The following information had been provided.  The Planning Commission initiated the Zoning Ordinance amendments to Chapter 24 footnote (m) and the Board initiated the Zoning Ordinance amendments to Sec. 20.4, 25.6 and Chapter 24 footnote (k).

 

Mining.

The purpose for the amendment regarding commercial soil removal is due to the fact that a mining operation is basically the same as commercial soil removal.  A general ordinance is in place to provide for the review of such uses and includes the same requirements as listed in the Zoning Ordinance, as well as additional stipulations.  By having the requirement for a review in both places, an applicant is required to have the same application reviewed by the Mining Board, Planning Commission and Township Board, and possibly the Zoning Board of Appeals (which is redundant).  If the requirement for review is eliminated from the Zoning Ordinance contingent upon a mining license being obtained, a mining operation would only have to be reviewed by the Mining Board.  The general ordinance for mining is more stringent than the zoning requirements anyway.  In addition, the Mining Board has the authority to waive any requirements it deems appropriate, thus relieving an applicant from the possibility of seeking a variance if circumstances warrant. 

 

Further, the Mining Board is made up of three Planning Commission members and two Township Board members which results in the same people comprising the Board that would conduct the review as would be reviewing the request if it were to go to the Planning Commission and Township Board.

 

Portable Signs.

The Township Supervisor instigated the amendment for portable signs to be fairer to business owners.  The proposal would allow each business in a multi-tenant building to have two display periods per year and reduce a single business to four display periods rather than six.  The proposal would also allow a new tenant or business owner to have one more display period in a year if all the others were used by the previous tenant or business.

 

Landscaped setback in HS district.

The proposed amendment merely requires the same 30 foot landscaped area in a front yard setback that is currently required in all other commercial and industrial districts.  At the last meeting, Planning Commissioners stated that it had been an oversight and that the landscaped area should have been required in the HS district.

 

Eliminating parking and buildings in the 50 foot setback for a commercial district when adjacent to residential.

This situation came to light when the Township reviewed the proposed commercial development on the southeast corner of Baldwin and 36th Ave.  While the ordinance specifically mentioned that buildings could not occupy the 50 foot setback/greenbelt are for a side or rear lot line adjacent to a residential district, members of the Township Board were under the impression that the intention of the ordinance was that neither parking or buildings should be located within that 50 greenbelt/setback area.  The Planning Commission wanted the addition of the wording that exempted the 50 foot setback/greenbelt for parking to be only 25 feet from the property line only when the commercial district was adjacent to an HDR district.

 

Sec. 20.4

(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.

f.          A mineral mining license has been approved by the Mineral Mining

Board and the operation complies with the terms and provisions of

the mining license.

 

Sec. 25.6

(A)       Residential Districts.  The following types of signs are permitted:

(6)                PORTABLE SIGN, one (1) portable sign per parcel, not exceeding thirty-two (32) square

feet in area per sign and set back at least ten (10) feet from the road right-of-way line or distance as required in Chapter 24(b) (revised 1-24-05).  No electrical cord attached to the sign shall extend more than six (6) feet from the power source to the sign.  Such sign shall not be displayed for more than seven (7) consecutive days and shall not be permitted more than six (6) such display periods during the calendar year.  A separate permit and fee shall be required for each display period and the permit sticker shall be affixed to the sign for the entire display period.

 

(6)        PORTABLE SIGN, subject to the following restrictions:

The sign shall be set back at least ten (10) feet from the road right-of-way line or from the distance as required in Chapter 24(b).  No electrical cord attached to the sign shall extend more than six (6) feet from the power source to the sign.  A display period consists of a maximum of seven (7) consecutive days.  A separate permit and fee shall be required for each display period and the permit sticker shall be affixed to the sign for the entire display period.

 

a.         Per parcel (unless a business center)

1.      One (1) portable sign displayed at a time not exceeding thirty-two (32) square feet in area per sign;

2.      Such sign shall not be permitted more than four (4) such display periods during the calendar year; 

3.      If all display periods for a calendar year have been used and evidence is submitted to the Township that a new business has commenced on that parcel, one (1) additional display period shall be permitted in that calendar year;

4.      The additional sign shall be permitted only during the calendar year in which the business change takes place and must be taken out by the new business only.  

 

b.         Per business center

1.      One (1) portable sign displayed at a time not exceeding thirty-two (32) square feet in area per sign;

2.      Each business center unit shall not be permitted more than a maximum of one (1) such display period per calendar year;

3.      If all display periods for a calendar year have been used and evidence is submitted to the Township that a new business has commenced in a unit of a business center, one (1) additional display period shall be permitted in that calendar year for that unit in a business center. 

4.      The additional sign shall be permitted only during the calendar year in which the business change takes place and must be taken out by the new business only.  

 

Chapter 24

(k)        Except for necessary drives and walks the required front yard for a depth of thirty (30) feet shall be landscaped and shall not be used for parking, loading, or accessory structures.  Required off-street loading areas shall not be provided in the front yard.

 

Chapter 24

(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).

 

V.                Other Business

VI.       Commissioner Comments

VII.     Staff Comments

VIII.       Adjourn

 

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