Minutes of the regular meeting of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission, held Wednesday, July 19, 2006

 

Meeting called to order by Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.

 

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

Absent:            none

 

#060719-01 - Agenda for July 19, 2006

 

Moved by Stasiak, seconded by Pearson, to approve the agenda for July 19, 2006, as presented.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

#060719-02 - Minutes of the June 21, 2006 regular meeting and the July 5, 2006 work

session meeting

 

Moved by DeGood, seconded by Stasiak, to approve the minutes of the June 21, 2006 regular meeting, as submitted.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

Moved by DeGood, seconded by Pearson, to approve the minutes of the July 5, 2006 work session meeting, as submitted.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

#060719-03 – Unfinished Business- Planned Unit Development (PUD0601) Riverview Trails

Group

 

The application is no longer valid since additional property was included in the request and a new application was submitted.  The applicant submitted a letter requesting withdrawal of the request.

 

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

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

Moved by Huizinga, seconded by Stasiak, to accept the withdrawal request for the Planned Unit Development application for PUD0601) Riverview Trails Development Group (Tara Westhouse), 3133 Beechcrest Dr., to have 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P.P. # 70-14-13-100-043, 7746 Cottonwood Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, because the application is no longer valid since the applicant has indicated that a substantial amount of property will be added to the application resulting in the need for a new application to be submitted and reviewed.

 

            MOTION CARRIED.

 

#060719-04 - (PUD0604) Preliminary Development Plan Baldwin Georgetown LLC, 7665 36th

Ave., is requesting a Planned Unit Development for mixed uses including residential for attached single family homes and commercial uses including offices, retail, restaurant and vehicle service station and related uses, under Chapter 22, on parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-17-100-008, -009, -010, located at 7665 36th Ave., 3683 and 3627 Baldwin, at the northwest corner of Baldwin and 36th Ave. (Exxel Site Utility and Dimension Plan, Exxel Site Grading Plan, color Master Site Plan, elevations, narrative, sign letter)

 

The zoning administrator presented a review as follows.  The public hearing is scheduled for August 2, 2006 and notices were published.  The request is for a mixed use PUD with eight duplex buildings with an overall total of 16 units, two commercial buildings for the use of retail, restaurant, personal service establishments, and other similar related commercial uses, a bank, convenience store and vehicle service station, and an office building.  The plans were submitted for an additional review prior to the public hearing.  At the July 5, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission accepted the waiver request for the acreage and for the setbacks, and made the determination that the request meets the qualifying conditions in Sec. 22.2.  A letter was submitted requesting individual ground-mounted signs for the convenience store/gas station, office building and bank, with setbacks according to the ordinance requirements, with a maximum of 50 square feet in area per side and a maximum of 4 feet in height.  It appears that no revisions or additional submittal material is necessary, and that the request meets the qualifying conditions in Sec. 22.2, the Preliminary Plan Application Requirements in Sec. 22.5, and the Standards for Approval in Sec. 22.10.

 

The Planning Commission discussed the additional requested signs and no consensus was reached. 

 

#060719-05 - Ordinance Amendments-Sec. 25.6(B)(3)d., Sec. 25.6(B)(3)e., Sec. 3.7, Sec. 2.63(A),

Sec. 2.91, Illustrations

 

The zoning administrator presented a review for Sec. 25.6(B)(3)d & e as follows.  The Planning Commission initiated the Zoning Ordinance amendments for the sign sections at the May 3 and June 7, 2006 meetings.  The issues for both sign amendments arose at ZBA meetings due to variance requests relating to signs.  The Planning Commission has mentioned in the past that sizes and numbers of signs should be limited to discourage obtrusiveness.  Each of the amendments would reduce the amount of square footage for signs while giving the business choices.  The proposal for Sec. 25.6(B)(3)d. would reduce the overall square footage of a wall sign by 25% and would allow a business to separate the reduced amount of square footage into two separate signs.  The proposal for Sec. 25.6(B)e. would allow an additional wall sign if the permitted freestanding sign was eliminated.  The additional wall sign could be a maximum of 75% in area of the amount of square footage that would be permitted for the freestanding sign. 

 

The chairman opened the public hearing. 

 

Randy Rottschaffer, 610 Baldwin, said that he was in favor of the sign amendment, but questioned why Advance Auto had been allowed to have the two signs when he had not been permitted to have two signs.

 

Honderd explained that the amendment arose at the ZBA and they determined that it was a win/win situation.  It was also noted that Advance Auto had been granted a variance.

 

The chairman closed the public hearing.

 

Moved by Poskey, seconded by Pearson, to approve the proposed ordinance revisions to Sec. 25.6(B)(3) d and e as follows-

 

Sec. 25.6(B)

            (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.   

e.         One wall sign may be permitted in addition to those permitted above if the

freestanding sign permitted in Sec. 25.6(B) is eliminated and the square footage

of the additional wall sign equals 75% or less of the square footage permitted

for the freestanding sign, provided further that a guarantee is provided to the

Township that the freestanding sign permitted in Sec. 25.6(B) would not be

constructed unless the additional wall sign is removed.

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

The zoning administrator presented a review for Sec. 3.7, 2.63, 2.91 and the Illustrations as follows.  The Planning Commission initiated the Zoning Ordinance amendments to clarify the basis for determining the front yard setback requirements at the April 12, 2006 meetings.  A situation arose when a homeowner on Begole 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 right-of-way and easements for this road were in question.  These revisions provide clarification.

 

The chairman opened the public hearing.  No one was present to speak on this topic.  The chairman closed the public hearing.

 

Moved by Poskey, seconded by South, to approve the proposed ordinance revisions to Sec. 3.7, 2.63, 2.91 and the Illustrations 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.

 

IN THE ILLUSTRATIONS: Take out public and add easement.  Public right-of-way or easement

worded: right-of-way or easement

 

            MOTION CARRIED.

 

#060719-06 - Site Plan (ST0606) REVISION Randy Rottschafer-610 Baldwin

 

Randy Rottschafer presented the request.

 

The zoning administrator presented a review as follows.  The applicant is requesting to revise a previously approved site plan to provide paved access to a proposed accessory building.  The applicant has provided two option: Site plan 1 shows an additional curb cut/driveway access to Thomas St. and site plan 2 shows the dumpster moved to the south adjacent to the west side of the proposed accessory building with pavement along the whole length of the west side of the existing building to the proposed accessory building.  After the last meeting there was confusion as to the Fire Code requirements.  Since that time, the Fire Department has clarified that no issues exist relative to the Fire Code.  At previous meetings the Planning Commission has stated opposition to moving the dumpster to the south due to noise issues with the residential area.   However, the once-a-week trash pickup might be less intrusive to the residential district than the use of an additional access lane.  Sec. 19.10 Review Standards for site plans were noted regarding the special attention that should be given to location and number of access points to public streets.

 

Huizinga said that he preferred the plan with the curb cut.

 

Poskey said that he was opposed to the additional curb cut and was concerned with locating the dumpster close to the residential district.  He was in favor of leaving the plan as previously approved with no paved access to the accessory building.

 

Pearson asked the applicant which way he preferred because he wanted to work to make the building more functional for the applicant.  He said that it was logical to have the curb cut because it would be straight in and out, and keep the dumpster away from the residential use.  He preferred the curb cut.

 

South said that he was against the additional curb cut and that an enclosure would help with the noise.  He was in favor of extending the pavement along the building.

 

Randy Rottschaffer said that the driveway would not be a commercial driveway and that is the reason he proposed ten feet.  He said that he would not be opposed to 8 feet.

 

DeGood said that he initially had been in favor of the additional curb cut, but now preferred to relocate the dumpster and pave along the side of the building.

 

Stasiak said that he was opposed to the additional curb cut because the building would become too accessible.  He said that although limited uses were proposed, new owners could have different ambitions and use the driveway more frequently.

 

Moved by Stasiak, seconded by DeGood, to approve the site plan revision for Randy Rottschafer as shown on the site plan 2 dated received 6-19-06 (with the additional pavement along the side of the building and moving the dumpster to the south adjacent to the proposed accessory building), as submitted, and to eliminate the additional curb cut.

 

Pearson said that the side of the building would be paved and there would be a 90 degree angle for turning.

 

Randy Rottschaffer said that there was a six foot sidewalk already.

 

Yeas:   Stasiak, DeGood, South, Pearson, Huizinga

Nays:   Poskey, Honderd

 

MOTION CARRIED.

 

#060719-07 - Presentation on Overlay Districts (8:00 p.m.)

 

Jay Hoekstra from Grand Valley Metro Council presented information on overlay zones and form-based zoning.  (map1, map 2, map 3)

 

#060719-08 – Adjournment

 

The chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.