Minutes of the work session of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission held Wednesday, April 12, 2006

 

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

 

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

Absent:            none

 

The work session, which formulated the agenda for April 19, 2006, included the following items to be placed on the agenda, discussion, and action:

 

I.                   Approval of agenda

 

II.                Approval of minutes of the March 15, 2006 regular meeting and the April 12, 2006 work session meeting

 

III.       Unfinished Business

 

#060412-01 – (SUP0513) Orion Construction (Integrated Architecture), 7559 36th Ave.

 

The Planning Commission recommended denial of the special use permit request for a restaurant and tabled the site plan for revisions relating to the design and location of the building on the site.  The Board denied the special use request for a restaurant at the January 9, 2006 meeting.  The site plan would have to be revised to eliminate all references to a restaurant.  The item has been listed under unfinished business since January.  During the conversations with the applicant last month, Gary Postema indicated that his company was no longer pursuing site plan approval since the special use permit for a restaurant was denied.  He also indicated that the property owner might want to pursue site plan approval.  However, the Township has not received any correspondence or conversations with anyone in regards to this plan since that time.  The applicant has not returned the two phone messages that were left after the last two Planning Commission meetings.  It has been the Planning Commission’s consistent policy in the past to act on items left as unfinished business for three months.  April will be the fourth month on the agenda as old business without any revised plan submitted.  In addition, if a revised plan were to be submitted at this point, the whole site layout would have to be changed since the ordinance would be in effect soon to not allow commercial parking within 50 feet of a residential district.  In that case, a whole new application could be submitted.

 

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

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

Moved by Pearson, seconded by DeGood, to deny the site plan dated 11/23/05, as submitted, because the plan does not meet applicable standards of the ordinance with references to the use of a restaurant since the special use permit for a restaurant was denied and because the item has been left under Unfinished Business for three month with no input from the applicant and it is the consistent policy of the Planning Commission to act on these items after three months.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

A.                (PUD0601) Riverview Trails Development Group 7784, 7804, 7746 Cottonwood

 

The applicant has contacted the Township Office several times and indicated that they are still pursing the PUD.  They asked to be left tabled.

 

B.                 (ST0602) Jore Retail-2400 Chicago Dr.

 

At the March 15, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the following:

 

1.                  Landscaping/Curbing- The general consensus was that the landscaping plan needs to be dressed up a little with more variety which might include some ground covering.  Curbing was also required to give a cleaner appearance and provides protection to the landscaped area. 

2.                  Parking- Members of the Planning Commission had concerns regarding the number of parking spaces with regard to the parking needs of the future tenant who could occupy the space.  The Planning Commission reminded the applicant that if there are request for any future site changes, the parking issue will arise again.

3.                  Elevations- The Planning Commission accepted the elevation.

4.                  Removal of one driveway: The majority of the Planning Commission members wanted one driveway closed, which would result in 3-4 more parking spaces.

 

No revised plans have been submitted addressing the Planning Commission’s direction.  The applicant contacted the Township Office and asked to be left tabled while deciding how to proceed.

 

IV.       New Business

A.        PUD’s

1.            Review revisions only-no action-no public hearing at this time

(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, elevation, storm mgt.

 

Greg Honderd left the room and abstained from all discussion and voting.

 

Ed DeVries represented the applicant and presented the request. 

 

The zoning administrator presented a review.  Revised plans have been submitted along with a narrative addressing concerns raised at the work session.  At the March 1 meeting, the Planning Commission directed that revised plans were to be submitted for review at the April 12, 2006 meeting and a public hearing is to be scheduled for the April 19, 2006 meeting.  The Planning Commission also determined to waive the requested aspects of the PUD proposal that differed from conventional zoning requirements in regards to acreage (since this was actually a part of a 305 acre PUD), 19% open space, the 25 foot side yard greenbelt width, the 50 foot distance of the buildings from the residential property line, the front yard setback along 8th Ave., having additional wall signs and three freestanding signs (if ground mounted) and if all signs have a consistent look, and 5% parking reduction.

 

            SUMMARY

 

·         The Planning Commission should discuss the proposed ground mounted signs, the height, square footage and locations.  A suggestion to allow a driver to have more visibility down the sidewalk to the east is for the sign at the 44th St. access to be moved closer to the east.  If the sign could be moved to a spot (still 60 feet from the centerline of 44th St.) at least 15 feet to the east of the curb by the right turn lane of the exit, a driver would have a clear view of the sidewalk for a greater distance than the current location.  The sign at the 8th Ave. access could be moved to a location 15 feet south of the curb for the right exit lane.  Although clear vision for pedestrians is somewhat in question, it does not appear that the signs would obstruct the clear vision for vehicles on the streets.

·         Road Commission approval is still required before the Planning Commission takes action.

·         A proposed phasing plan has been shown; however, projected start dates should be provided.

·         The narrative indicates that additional architectural elevations would be provided by March 31 2006 (they have not been submitted to the Township yet).

·         The property owner to the south does not want the driveway connection to Eaglebrook apartments and pointed out that the plan that had been approved for Eaglebrook Apartments does not show a stubbed interior road to connect to this property to the north.  Rather, the area which does not extend to the property line is used for parking and snow storage.

·         A memo from the Fire Department indicates that it appears that Fire Codes have been met.

 

The following items remained after the last meeting:

·         The Planning Commission directed that signs in the area be reviewed for location, size and height.  The amount of three freestanding signs was acceptable, but the preference was for ground mounted rather than pole mounted with size and locations to be determined.

·         The number of driveways was acceptable, but the right-in, right-out drives had to be widened to 20 feet each according to the Fire Code. 

·         Road Commission approval is still required prior to action by the Township.

·         Phasing details must be provided, including proposed start and completion dates.

·         The note on the plan under Proposed Signage is “4.”  This number should be changed to “3.”

·         A Storm Water Drain permit should be provided with the final development plan.

·         In the legend for Zone 2 and Zone 3 the fraction of trees required was rounded down.  The numbers were 25.2 and 70.1 which would result in the requirement for 26 and 71 trees rather than 25 and 70.  The Planning Commission asked for the addition of the trees.

·         Documentation for an association should be provided to maintain the open space.

·         More elevations were requested.

·         The PC directed that a condition of approval is added stating that a drive-in restaurant is not permitted and if desired, the PUD would have to return to seek amended approvals.

 

The revised plan and narrative addresses the remaining issues as follows:

·         In accordance with the Planning Commission’s suggestions, the revised plan shows ground mounted signs replacing the two previously proposed pole mounted signs at the access on 44th St. and the right-in/right-out access on 8th Ave.  The new proposal is for the ground mounted signs to be 5 feet in height and 50 square feet per side, to be located 60 feet from the center line of 44th St. and 60 feet from the center line of 8th Ave.  Landscaping has been arranged to make the signs more visible.  As per the Planning Commission’s direction, I drove around the area and it appears as though the proposal would be consistent with other signs in the area.  A concern is the clear vision corner.  Since the right-of-way on 44th St. is 50 feet from the centerline, sidewalks would be located one foot inside the right-of-way at 49 feet from the centerline (and continue for five feet within the right-of-way).  With the sign located at 60 foot from the centerline of 44th St., the sign would be eleven feet from the sidewalk.    A suggestion to allow a driver to have more visibility down the sidewalk to the east would be for the sign at the 44th St. access to be moved closer to the east.  If the sign could be moved to a spot (still 60 feet from the centerline of 44th St.) at least 15 feet to the east of the curb by the right turn lane of the exit, a driver would have a clear view of the sidewalk for a greater distance than the current location.  The sign at the 8th Ave. access could be moved to a location 15 feet south of the curb for the right exit lane.  Other than the current proposed locations blocking a driver’s view of the sidewalk to the right, the height and square footage appear to be appropriate and consistent with the other signs in the area and meet the Planning Commission’s request for ground mounted signs.

·         The right-in/right-out lanes have been widened to 20 feet to meet Fire Codes.

·         The narrative indicates that Road Commission approval would be provided prior to the April 19, 2006 meeting.

·         A proposed phasing plan has been shown; however, projected start dates should be provided.

·         The note has been changed to reflect the correct number of freestanding signs.

·         The narrative states that a Storm Water Drain permit would be provided with the final development plan.

·         An additional two trees have been provided bringing the streetscape into compliance with the ordinance requirements.

·         The narrative indicates that documentation would be provided with the final development plan for the maintenance of the open space.

·         The narrative indicates that additional architectural elevations would be provided by March 31 2006.

·         The narrative indicates that the applicant understands that a drive-in restaurant is not part of the PUD.

 

A letter was submitted to the Township and read at the meeting.

 

B.        Site Plans

1.         (ST0603) Wiseman’s Corner (Warren Busscher Properties) – 4440

Chicago Dr. (application) (site plan1) (site plan 2)

 

Todd Stuive represented the applicant and presented the request. 

 

The zoning administrator presented a review.  The request is to construct a 27,320 square foot building at the southwest corner of 18th Ave. and Chicago Dr. consisting of four office units each with 2,025 square feet, a 15,365 square foot retail unit and 3,835 square foot utility/storage space.  The property was recently rezoned to HS.  The proposed circulation pattern consists of a one-way drive with the entrance off Chicago Dr. and exists off 18th Ave.  A drive-in window is shown and is permitted by right in the HS district.  Decel lanes are shown on Chicago Dr. and 18th Ave.  The revised site plan addresses all issues that were raised at the pre-application meeting and appears to meet all Township ordinances.  Approval should be provided from the Road Commission for the entrance off Chicago Dr. and for the exist driveways onto 18th Ave. prior to approval being granted by the Planning Commission.  Waiving a percentage of parking spaces was proposed in case in the future tenants with uses other than office use came for Zoning Compliance Certificates.  If the some parking was not waived, no use other than office would be permitted because they would not meet parking requirements.

 

The Planning Commission accepted the rendition of the building as a sufficient elevation.  The Planning Commission discussed waiving a percentage of parking spaces if a tenant with a use other than office would like to occupy one of the office spaces. 

 

The applicant indicated that the arrows off 18th Ave. incorrectly showed only one-way lanes exiting and the intention has been for ingress off 18th Ave.

 

The suggestion was made that the sign be ground-mounted.  The zoning administrator clarified that site plan approval differed from PUD approval in that the Planning Commission did not have the authority to require that the sign be ground mounted.  In addition, the suggestion was made that curbing be provided to discourage vehicles from exiting to Chicago Dr.  Berming was also suggested.

 

C.        Special Use Permits-none

 

D.        Rezonings –none

 

E.         Plats-none

 

F.         Ordinance Amendments-none

 

#060412-02 – Unfinished Business Ordinance Amendments Sec. 25.6(A), Chapter 24 footnote (k) & (m)

 

At the March 15, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission tabled the following ordinance amendments for further discussion.  The Planning Commission was opposed to reducing the number of portable signs from 6 to 4 per year for a single business on a parcel.  Therefore, a proposed revision is to change the wording of allowing only four signs for a single business per year per parcel back to the six signs permitted per year per parcel for a single business. 

 

Moved by Poskey, seconded by Stasiak, to recommend to the Board to approve the ordinance amendment to Sec. 25.6(A) as follows, and to leave the ordinance amendments to Chapter 24 footnotes (k) and (m) tabled.

 

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) six (6) 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.

 

 (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).

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

V.                Other Business

 

A.        Discussion of wood-burning furnaces

 

The consensus of the Planning Commission was for wording to be developed permitting outdoor wood burning furnaces on lot sizes of five acres or more in the AG and RR districts, with the condition that the structures be located at least 100 feet from all property lines.

 

B.        Discussion of definition of single family dwelling

 

The consensus of the Planning Commission was that the ordinance was never intended to prevent stoves and/or ovens to be located in a basement.  In order to prevent a single-family home from becoming a two-family dwelling unit if a second stove/oven is provided, the determination was made to follow the planner’s suggestion and have the homeowner record a deed restriction that the property would only be used as a single family home.

 

#060412-03 - Discussion of right-of-way for determining setbacks

 

A situation arose when a homeowner on Begole (off 22nd Ave. by the Grand River) applied for a building permit to construct an addition to an existing house that would extend the front line of the house.  There were questions about how to determine the front yard setback due to the fact that the road and easements for this road were in question.  The house is located about 40 feet to the gravel road, but about 15 feet to what would be determined to be the road right-of-way.  The surveyor could not even figure it out because there is no official road right-of-way.  Finally, a meeting was held at the Township office with Tom Palarz, Engineer with Ottawa County Road Commission, the property owners, the surveyor and representatives from the Township.  It seems that in this location, a buggy path established in the 1900’s more or less became a road; however, the recorded easement did not match the location of the road.  The Road Commission held that since this area has been used and maintained as a road, it was an official road with an easement.  The zoning was approved for the permit because technically there was no RIGHT-OF-WAY to measure the setback from.  This situation should be remedied to address any similar situations in the future.  Tom Palarz reviewed the wording and determined that the proposed wording change should address any future unusual such situations.

 

The Planner reviewed the wording also and suggested the additional proposed changes.

 

Moved by South, seconded by DeGood, to initiate the Zoning Ordinance amendments as follows:

Sec. 3.7         BASIS OF DETERMINING FRONT YARD REQUIREMENTS. 

The required front yard shall be measured from the right-of-way line or any road street easement line as established by the Road Commission for a street road to an imaginary line across the width of the lot which represents the minimum required front setback distance for that district provided that where an average setback line less than required has been established by existing buildings on the same side of the street and within two hundred (200) feet of the proposed building, such established setback shall apply.  However, no reduction in the minimum required front yard setback shall be permitted along those streets identified in Chapter XXIV, footnote (b).  Unenclosed porches, steps, or similar facilities may project into a required front or rear yard for a distance not to exceed twelve (12) feet. (revised August 1996)  In the case of a handicap wheelchair ramp (not to exceed a width of five (5) feet), the Zoning Administrator may waive any setback requirements at his/her discretion, if no other options are available to provide a ramp, provided that the applicant agrees to remove the ramp if it is no longer necessary on the property.  A performance letter or performance guarantee may be required.  (revised 6-27-2005)

 

Sec. 2.63       LOT LINES. 

The property lines bounding the lot.

(A)       Front Lot Line.  In the case of an interior lot, abutting upon one public or private street or easement, the front lot line shall mean the line separating such lot from such street right-of-way or easement.  In the case of a corner or through lot, the front lot line shall be that line separating said lot from that street which is designated as the front street by the Zoning Administrator (See Double Frontage Lot.)  For purposes of determining required yards only, any side lot line may be designated by the Zoning Administrator as a front lot line. (Revised April 1997)

 

Sec. 2.91       STREET. 

A public or private thoroughfare which affords traffic circulation and principal means of access to abutting property, including avenue, place, way, drive, lane, boulevard, highway, road, and other thoroughfare; except an alley.

 

 

Take out public and add easement.  Public right-of-way or easement

 

worded: right-of-way or easement

 

zonD3

 

 

            zonD5

 

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

C.        Other Business-Shared Driveways on Taylor for Menno’s Cove

 

Conrad VanderWerf, 1279 Taylor, asked the Planning Commission to revisit the requirement of shared drives for the parcels on Taylor that were a condition of approval for the Menno’s Cove site plan for a site condo.

 

Jim VanSingel said that he was the developer of Menno’s Cove and asked if the shared drives could be eliminated.  He also asked the Planning Commission to not require new plans.

 

The zoning administrator said that the Ordinance allowed the zoning administrator to administratively approve minor changes but she did not determine the shared driveways to be a minor change.

 

The Planning Commission directed that the planner be asked if this could be determined to be a minor change.

 

VI.       Commissioner Comments

VII.     Staff Comments

VIII.       Adjourn

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.