Minutes of the work session of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission held Wednesday, May 3, 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 May 17, 2006, included the following items to be placed on the agenda, discussion, and action:

 

I.                   Approval of agenda

 

II.                Approval of minutes of the April 19, 2006 regular meeting and the May 3, 2006 work session meeting

 

#060503-01 - Preliminary Plat of Cory Estates No. 2

 

Neil Sharp, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the request.

 

The zoning administrator presented a review.  The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat of Cory Estates No. 2 on May 21, 2003 and the Township Board granted approval on May 27, 2003.  The ordinance requires that Final Preliminary Plat approval be obtained within one year from the date of the preliminary plat approval.  Since the applicants have allowed the preliminary plat approval to expire, preliminary plat approval is again being sought for the same plan.  The proposal is to construct a street over 1500 lineal feet to connect 22nd Ave. to VanBuren St. with 29 lots for single family residences in a LDR district.  There are public utilities.

 

The applicant presented a revised plan that addressed all the elements raised in the review.

 

SUMMARY

 

a.                   Size in acres should be noted.  SHOWN.

b.                  Lot widths and building envelopes have been correctly shown for all lots except for lot 38.  Lot 38 should be shown with two rear lot lines (similar to lot 36).  The lot line with the dimension of 127 feet (southern property line) is a rear lot line and the rear yard setback should be shown as 40 feet from this property line.  Sec. 2.63 defines the rear lot line as the line which is opposite and most distant from the front lot line.  In this case, (since there are actually 5 lot lines) there are two rear lot lines.  Although the previous plan was approved in 2003 with the building envelope as currently shown (and lot 36 as currently shown), the Building/Zoning Department has consistently determined such shaped lots (as this and lot 36) to have two rear lines resulting in the requirement of the 40 foot setback for each.  In addition, Cory Drive is shown as a block with over 1500 feet and Sec. 50-51(3)(a.) in the Code of Ordinances allows a maximum of 1500 feet in a block.  The Planning Commission has the authority to recommend a variance and Township Board has the authority to grant a variance for this requirement under Sec. 50-52.  It seems appropriate that this requirement should be granted the variance in order to connect the two streets.  Does the PC want to recommend the variance?   LOT 38 HAS BEEN REVISED.

c.                   A letter of compliance with the Township sidewalk ordinance was provided.  The developer asked for the sidewalk for Corey Estates (lots 22 through 10) to be located in locations other than those listed in the Road Commission specifications due to elevations and grades.  Both the Township and Road Commission approved these alternate locations.  Consequently, there have been some issues with sidewalk locations for Corey Estates and the Township is currently seeking enforcement issues with a property owner who incorrectly installed the sidewalks.  Should the sidewalks be shown on the plan for the two lots abutting 22nd Ave. (lots 51 and 23)?  To avoid these problems, the sidewalks could be shown on the plan.  A note indicates that there would be no driveway access from lots 51 and 23.  A SIDEWALK PLAN WAS PROVIDED.

d.                  Sec. 26.8 requires two parking spaces per each dwelling unit.  Should a note be added under the General Notes stating that at least two parking spaces would be provided for each dwelling unit?  A NOTE ABOUT GARAGES WAS PROVIDED.

e.                   The ROW is listed as 66 feet, but the pavement width has not been noted and should be provided.

f.                   Although abutting zoning is shown, abutting uses (residential) should be listed.

g.                  A new general ordinance requires that an association be formed to maintain parkways when a lot abuts a main street.  Rather than forming an association, a note could be added under General Notes stating that parkways for lots 51 and 23 would be maintained by the property owners.  Further, a note states that lots 51 and 23 would not have driveway access to 22nd Ave.  PROVIDED.

h.                  Topo is not shown.  Does the PC want topo shown?

i.                    Does the PC want a note added that garages would be provided for each dwelling unit?  PROVIDED

 

The applicant noted that the area was flat and topo was shown at 2 foot intervals.

 

Since this request was similar to unfinished business and the Planning Commission has consistently acted upon such requests at a work session, the decision was made to proceed with a motion.

 

Moved by South, seconded by DeGood, to recommend to the Board to grant tentative preliminary plat approval of Cory Estates No. 2 as shown on the drawing dated 4/28/06, and to recommend to the Board to grant a variance under Sec. 50-52 for the length of the street to exceed 1,500 lineal feet (maximum allowed in Sec. 50-51(3)(a))

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

III.       Unfinished Business

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

 

The applicant has obtained an additional 12 acres and a revised site plan has been submitted.  The revised plan has been forwarded to the planner for a review.  Notice for the public hearing has not been published.

 

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

 

No revised plans have been submitted and the following issues still remain after the last meeting:.  The item was left tabled.

 

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.

 

C.                Ordinance Amendments Sec. 25.6(A), Chapter 24 footnote (k) and (m)

 

At the March 15, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission tabled the ordinance amendments for further discussion.  The consensus of the Planning Commission is to act on the amendments at the regular meeting and the item was left tabled.      

 

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).

 

#060503-02 - (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., elevation, elevation2, storm mgt., traffic study, plan, list

 

Greg Honderd abstained from all discussion and voting.

 

Jim Morgan, R. J. M Design Inc., represented the applicant and presented the request.  He stated that the Ottawa County Road Commission was in the process of reviewing the traffic study since it have been revised due to the elimination of the road connections at the south to Eaglebrook Apartments and to the northwest to the Gleneagle Condos.

 

The zoning administrator presented a review consisting of the following.  Revised plans and a narrative have been submitted addressing the issues that were raised at the April 19, 2006 meeting.  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.  After the road connections were removed from the northwest and southeast of the site ten additional parking spaces were added, reducing the waiver to only 2%.

 

            SUMMARY

 

·         The freestanding signs had been revised to ground mounted and the Planning Commission had previously determined that the sizes were acceptable.  The ground mounted signs on 44th St. and 8th Ave. have both been moved further away from the driveway access points to provide for greater clear vision, as requested.

·         Road Commission approval is still required before the Planning Commission takes action and note number 3 indicates that it will be provided.

·         The proposed phasing plan now includes projected start dates.

·         Additional architectural elevations have been provided. 

·         The road connection to Eaglebrook apartments was eliminated and replaced with a walking path.

·         The road connection at the northwest of the site has been eliminated and replaced with a walking path.

·         An additional ten parking spaces have been provided due to the elimination of the two road connections.

·         A Storm Water Drain permit should be provided with the final development plan and the narrative indicates that it would be submitted.

·         Additional landscaping has been provided to screen the golf course, as requested by the neighboring residents.

·         The narrative indicates that documentation for an association to maintain the opens space would be provided with the final development plan.

·         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.

 

Moved by Pearson, seconded by DeGood, to recommend to the Township Board to approve (PUD0603) Ed DeVries Properties Inc., 1345 Monroe Ave. NW, to have 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., as shown on the drawing dated 4/25/06, with the following conditions:

a.       Approval from the Ottawa County Road Commission is provided;

b.      A Storm Water Drain Permit is provided with the final development plan;

c.       Documentation for the preservation and maintenance of the open space is provided with the final development plan;

d.      The approval does not include the use of a drive-in restaurant (or any other drive-in establishment) and that if a drive-in use is sought in the future, the PUD would have to reviewed and reconsidered by the Township as an amendment to the PUD.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

IV.       New Business

A.        PUD’s-none

 

B.        Site Plans-none

 

C.        Special Use Permits-none

 

D.        Rezonings –none

 

E.         Plats

2.         Preliminary Plat of Crosswinds

 

Steve Smit, Focus Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the request.

 

The zoning administrator presented a request consisting of the following.  The site is located at the southeast corner of Baldwin and 48th Ave. and the parcels are zoned LDR.  Water is available to the site; however, dry sewer will be installed since sanitary sewer is not available to the site at this time.  Twenty-eight lots are proposed.  The Planning Commission recently reviewed this property for a rezoning request.

 

SUMMARY

 

a.                   Radii should be shown on the plan.  The temporary cul de sac is shown as 1,350 lineal feet and Sec. 50-51(3)(c.) in the Code of Ordinances allows a maximum length of a cul de sac to be 600 feet.  Sec. 50-52 permits the Planning Commission to recommend a variance and the Board to grant a variance.  Does the PC determine that the variance is warranted since this is a temporary cul de sac with the potential to stub to a development to the south?

b.                  Lots 27 and 28 show the building envelop right up to the drainage easement.  Will this present any problems if decks are constructed?

c.                   A temporary cul de sac is proposed for the south end of Berens Lane.  Many issues related to sidewalks and temporary cul de sacs have arisen at the Township.  Should sidewalks be installed and what happens when, through subsequent development, the road can not be continued?  Meadowwood was developed with a temporary cul de sac with the potential to stub into the property to the north; however, Wellspring Church was constructed on the adjacent parcel and the temporary cul de sac is no longer temporary.  After discussion in the office, the determination was made that an ideal situation would be to require sidewalks to be installed around the cul de sac immediately and then (sometime in the future when the road is extended) the developer of the parcel to the south would be responsible to redo the road and sidewalks in the correct location for a through road.  However, the Road Commission was not in favor of the installations of sidewalks around the temporary cul de sac because there is not enough right-of-way to have the sidewalks installed in a safe location.  Note 12 states that the sidewalk would be installed for lots 14 and 15 at the time the road is extended.  Is this acceptable?  The Planning Commission should watch for these situations so that there would be follow-up when temporary cul de sacs are redeveloped into through streets.  In addition, sidewalks exist adjacent to Baldwin at the plat entrance.  In this location, new sidewalks are shown to be installed to the south of the current ones to accommodate the tapered lanes.  A note should be added to the plan that this existing sidewalk is to be removed.  The driveway to the west of this area should also be noted on the plan to be removed even with note 13.

d.                  Sec. 26.8 requires two parking spaces per each dwelling unit.  Should a note be added under the General Notes stating two parking spaces would be provided for each dwelling unit?

e.                   Although abutting zoning is shown, abutting uses (residential) should be listed.

f.                   A general ordinance was adopted requiring an association to maintain parkways that abut a major street when the lot has no access to that street.  Note 14 states that an association will maintain these parkways (as per direction given to the applicant).  However, after reconsideration, the note could be revised to state that the property owners of lots 1 and 28 will be responsible to maintain the parkways along Baldwin (unless the developer wants an association).  Note 13 states that lots 1 and 28 will not have access to Baldwin.

g.                  According to Chapter 24 footnote (d), dry sewer fulfills the requirement of sewer.  Documentation should be provided that a plat restriction will require all property owners to hook up to sewer within six months of the date that it becomes available.

 

Steve Smit said that decks could not project into the drainage easements and those building on lots 27 and 28 would have to plan to have the decks within the building envelop. 

 

There was discussion regarding the sidewalks and the determination was to have them stub into the cul de sac.  The Planning Commission directed that the plan be revised to shown a stub to the property on the corner so that the Township did not end up with a situation like the one on the southeast corner of Baldwin and 36th Ave.  It was noted that the Master Plan calls for the corner property to be LDR and the 48th Ave. Corridor Study, adopted by the Township, also calls for the area to be LDR.

 

The applicant noted that he had received preliminary approval from the Road Commission.

 

F.         Ordinance Amendments-none

 

V.                Other Business

 

#060503-03 - Rockpoint Estates-shared driveways

 

The Township received a letter from Kara DeJong, owner of lot 34 in Rock Point Estates, requesting that the requirement for shared drives on Taylor be eliminated for Rock Point Estates.  When Rock Point Estates was approved, the Planning Commission recommended approval with the condition that lots 29 & 30, 31 & 32 and 33 & 34 have shared drives and the Board approved the plat with the same condition (see excerpts of the minutes following the review).  Since at the last meeting, the Planning Commission approved the revised site plan for Menno’s Cove eliminating the requirement of the shared drives, a property owner in Rock Point Estates submitted a request for the condition to be eliminated from their requirements also.

 

Moved by Pearson, seconded by Stasiak, to recommend to the Township Board to eliminate the condition of shared driveways for Rock Point Estates for lots 29 & 30, 31 & 32, and 33 & 34, as shown on the drawing dated revised 4/27/06.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

#060503-04 – Other Business-Wall Signs

 

At the April 26, 2006 ZBA meeting, there was discussion regarding amending the sign ordinance to permit two wall signs (when one is permitted) provided that the total square footage of the two wall signs is substantially less than the total square footage for the one permitted wall sign currently allowed in the ordinance. 

 

Moved by Huizinga, seconded by DeGood, to initiate the zoning ordinance amendment to Sec. 25.6(B)(3), as follows, to be combined with other amendments for advertising and consideration.

 

            (3)        WALL SIGN, one (1) wall sign per business subject to the following restric­tions:

                        a.         The sign shall be placed flat against the building and shall front on the principal street.

                        b.         Such sign shall not exceed one and one-half (1-1/2) square feet for each one (1) lineal foot of wall frontage on which the sign is to be placed or two hundred (200) square feet whichever is less.

                        c.         Businesses which have wall frontage on more than one (1) street shall be permitted to have one (1) wall sign per street frontage, subject to the size limita­tion contained in paragraph b, above.

d.         The one (1) wall sign permitted above may be divided into two (2) wall signs with each

one placed on a separate wall of the building, provided that the sum of the square footage

of the two signs equals 75% or less of the overall square footage permitted above.   

 

            MOTION CARRIED.

 

VI.       Commissioner Comments

VII.     Staff Comments

VIII.       Adjourn

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.