Minutes of the
regular meeting of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission, held Wednesday,
April 19, 2006
Meeting called to order by
Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Honderd, Poskey, DeGood, South,
Pearson, Stasiak, Huizinga
Absent: none
#060419-01 - Agenda for April 19, 2006
Moved by
Stasiak, seconded by South, to approve the agenda for April 19, 2006, as
presented, with the change to move the ordinance amendment after the site
plans.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060419-02 - Minutes of the March 15, 2006 regular meeting and the April
12, 2006 work
session meeting
Moved
by South, seconded by DeGood, to approve the minutes of the March 15, 2006 regular meeting,
as submitted.
MOTION
CARRIED.
Moved
by DeGood, seconded by Pearson, to approve the minutes of the April 12, 2006 work session meeting,
as submitted.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060419-03 – Unfinished Business- Planned Unit
Development (PUD0601) Riverview Trails
The
applicant has obtained an additional 12 acres and a pre-application meeting
will be held again since the plan has been revised. Once the pre-application meeting has been
held, the item will be placed on the agenda for review by the Planning
Commission. Notice for the public
hearing has not been published.
#060419-04 - Unfinished Business - (ST0602)
Jore Retail-2400 Chicago Dr.
No
revised plans have been submitted and no new information is available. 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.
The
item was left tabled.
#060419-05 – Planned Unit Development (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,
elevation2,
traffic
study, storm
mgt., letters 1,
2,
3,
4
Greg
Honderd abstained from all discussion and voting. He left the room.
Ed
DeVries represented the applicant and presented the request. He said that additional elevations
and a traffic
study had been submitted to the Township this afternoon. He noted that they had not submitted revised
plans addressing the issues raised at the last meeting because their architect
had been on vacation.
The zoning administrator presented a review as
follows. The Planning Commission previously 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., and 5% parking reduction.
SUMMARY
·
The Planning Commission determined that the ground mounted sign on 44th
St. should be moved closer to the east
(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 to allow a driver a
clear view of the sidewalk for a greater distance than previously
proposed. They also determined that the
sign at the 8th Ave. access should be moved to a location 15 feet
south of the curb for the right exit lane.
Other than the location, the sizes were acceptable.
·
Road Commission approval
is still required before the Planning Commission takes action.
·
A proposed
phasing plan was 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 Storm Water Drain permit should be provided with the final development
plan.
·
Documentation for
an association should be provided to maintain the open space.
·
Links to letters
have been provided with comments for the public hearing.
·
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
zoning administrator stated that when the PUD was previously approved in 2000,
the plan showed the subject site with neighborhood service commercial uses and
showed the road connecting to the Gleneagle condos at the northwest portion of
the site. The site plan approved in 2000
for the PUD was presented.
The
vice-chairman opened the public hearing.
Cathy
Rice, 6186 Gleneagle Highlands Dr., stated concerns with the road connection at
the northwest area of the site. She was
opposed to the road connection because she did not want outside traffic to use
their road. She was concerned with the
lights and suggested a substantial barrier.
The
zoning administrator explained that the road connection, as well as the
neighborhood service uses, had been shown on the PUD plan when it was
previously approved in 2000.
Ed
DeVries stated that he was not adverse to eliminating the road if the area
residents do not want it. He said that a
walking or bike path could replace the road.
He said that he was building condos in the Moors and he was sensitive to
the residents’ concerns. He said that he
also was not adverse to building a berm to screen the commercial uses from the
residential area.
Thomas
Sjoerdsma, 6140 Gleneagle Trail, represented the association and was opposed to
the connecting road at the northwest area of the site. He said that it had been incorrectly added
when the PUD was approved. He also asked
that a substantial berm screen the golf course from the commercial development
because the grades were different. He
also wanted a berm to shield the lights.
Ken
Kooistra, 6134 Gleneagle Highlands, was opposed to the road connection and
wanted a berm with large 30 foot tall evergreens. He also asked that the lights be on a timer
to shut down at 11:00 p.m.
Linda
Stratterla, 6166 Gleneagle Highland Dr., said that all her main concerns had
been addressed. She said that they had
nice homes and they want to keep up their property values.
The
vice-chairman closed the public hearing.
Ed DeVries
stated that he would address the drive, berms and the lights. He said that he would take out the connecting
drive and would work with the berm and trees.
He said that he was in favor of a development for the whole
community. He said that he also would
address the issue with the lights. He
said that he was sensitive to the lights because he would be building 20 condos
or apartments on the second level of the retail buildings and these condos
would have 1400 to 1500 square feet and attached garages.
Moved by Poskey, seconded by South, to table the item
until revised plans are submitted addressing the remaining issues.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060419-06 - Site Plan (ST0603) Wiseman’s Corner
(Warren Busscher Properties) – 4440
Todd
Stuive, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the
request. He noted that the following had
been addressed:
·
Directional
arrows at the 18th Ave. entry were corrected;
·
Hydrants were
added as per the Fire Department memo;
·
The berm height
at 18th Ave. and Chicago Dr. had been adjusted to be 2 to 3 feet
above the parking lot;
·
One-way signage
and curb island modification was added to address traffic flow by the
drive-thru lane;
·
One-way entry
curbing was modified per MDOT requirements;
·
Fourteen possible
parking spaces were shown as deferred parking if they should be needed if the
parking waiver was granted.
Todd
Stuive also formally requested a 12% parking waiver of the total parking
requirement to provide for the future possibility of the office spaces being
used for retail businesses. He stated
that the applicant has agreed to install the 14 future parking spaces if a
parking shortage is a problem in the future.
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. 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. A revised plan has been submitted,
along with a letter addressing issues raised at the work session. A letter from the Road Commission was
provided listing items still remaining to be addressed before the Road
Commission grants approval.
SUMMARY
·
MDOT approved the
access off Chicago Dr. Approval should be provided from the Road
Commission for the entrance off 18th Ave. Items remaining from the Road Commission
are addressed in their letter (follow the above link).
·
The Planning
Commission accepted the rendition as a sufficient elevation.
·
The directional
arrows have been corrected for the entrance off 18th Ave. and a “Do
Not Enter” sign has been provided to direct traffic to turn into the parking
area from the entry off 18th Ave.
·
As requested by
the Planning Commission, curbing was provided by Chicago Dr. to discourage
exiting from that driveway.
·
Hydrants have been
provided in accordance with the Fire Department direction.
·
The berm height
along 18th Ave. and Chicago Dr. has been adjusted to be two to three
feet above the parking lot.
·
The applicant has
requested a 12% waiver for fourteen parking spaces in case in the future a use
other than office is requested for one of the tenant spaces. Fourteen possible future parking spaces have
been shown along the west side of the building to be provided if necessary in
the future. {Sec. 26.9J gives the
Planning Commission the authority to defer construction of the required number
of parking spaces if: 1) proposed parking areas are shown, are the sufficient
number and meet the other ordinance requirements; 2) such deferment areas shall
not be used for any other purpose required by the ordinance; 3) alterations to
the deferred parking area may be initiated by the owner or required by the
zoning administrator; and 4) if after the site is developed, the PC determines
that adequate off-street parking is not available for the use, the deferred
parking shall be constructed by the owner upon written notification by the
zoning administrator.}
The
consensus of the Planning Commission was to grant the 12% parking space waiver
for possible future retail uses, taking into consideration that fourteen spaces
are shown for future construction if necessary.
Honderd
said that he was not opposed to granting the waiver because this was a large
site with a lot of extra area. He said
that there was plenty of room for snow removal storage.
Pearson
asked if the applicant had considered placing a ground mounted sign rather than
a pole sign.
The
applicant said that the decision had not been made yet and the option would be
left open.
No
one was present for public comment on this item.
Moved by DeGood, seconded by Stasiak, to approve the
site plan dated revised 4-13-06 with the condition that Road Commission
approval is provided at the time a building permit application is submitted to
the Township and with approval for the parking waiver of 12% because 14 parking
spaces were deferred for future construction if the need arose for the
additional spaces.
MOTION CARRIED.
#060419-07 – Site Plan (ST0604)
Revised Menno’s Cove
Conrad
Vanderwerf, 1279 Taylor, presented the applicant and explained that he was
asking for revised site plan approval to eliminate the requirement for the lots
on Taylor to have shared drives.
The
zoning administrator explained that as directed by the Planning Commission, she
contacted the planner. He had determined
that the change would not be a minor change and the revised site plan should be
reviewed and acted upon by the Planning Commission. She said that she had considered the item to
be similar to old business since it had previously been acted upon, consistent
with past procedures that had been followed for approved plats that needed
revisions. She suggested that if the
Planning Commission decided to waive the requirement of the shared drives, that
the Planning Commission not designate specific locations where the driveways
could go since the same practice was followed for plats.
Stasiak
asked about the remaining slabs.
Conrad
Vanderwerf said that each individual property owner would address the slab on
their own property.
Moved
by DeGood, seconded by Huizinga, to approve the revised site plan dated
received 4-18-06 without the requirement of shared driveways.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060419-08 – Unfinished Business-Ordinance Amendments Sec.
25.6(A), Chapter 24 footnote (k), (m)
At
the March 15, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission tabled the ordinance
amendments for further discussion. The
Planning Commission recommended approval for Sec. 25.6(A) at the April 12, 2006
meeting.
The
Planning Commission determined the proposed amendments to Chapter 24 footnote
(k) and (m) would be acted upon next month.
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).
#060419-09 – Other Business
Michael
Pearson presented a document with information regarding overlay
districts. There was discussion
regarding overlay districts and areas for such districts. The consensus was that the Planning
Commission would pursue adopting overlay districts, but more information was
needed, as well as priorities set and areas identified. Direction was given to request information
from the planner and to develop a questionnaire to give the Commissioners an
opportunity to identify areas and to set priorities.
#060419-10 – Adjournment
The
chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
