Minutes of the
regular meeting of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission, held Wednesday,
June 6, 2007
Meeting called to order by
Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Honderd, Poskey, South, Pearson,
Huizinga, DeGood, Stasiak
Absent: none
#070606-01 - Agenda for June 6, 2007
Moved by
Huizinga, seconded by Stasiak, to approve the agenda for June 6, 2007 as
presented, and to move the ordinance amendment to the end of the agenda.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070606-02 - Minutes of
the May 16, 2007 regular
meeting
Moved
by South, seconded by DeGood, to approve the minutes of the May 16, 2007 regular meeting,
as submitted.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070606-03 – Planned Unit Development (PUD0701-01)
Final Development Plan for Allen
Springs (no public hearing is necessary) (site
plan 1, site
plan 2, site
plan 3, overall
elevation, elevation
villa #2, elevation
villa #5, gate
entry, light
fixture)
Todd
Stuive, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the
request.
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows.
REQUEST
The
request is for the final development plan approval for a 15.7 acre PUD with the
use of single-family dwelling units as condos and intermediate-care housing for
the elderly. The single final
development phase encompasses the whole PUD area. A total of 41 independent dwelling units are
proposed, each with approximately 2,432 square feet in area including a
two-stall garage. Private streets and
individual driveways provide access to each residence and they share open
spaces with walking paths and other amenities.
In addition, two buildings are proposed for intermediate care for housing
for the elderly. Each one is
three-stories with 11,120 square feet consisting of 30 dwelling units for a
total of 60 dwelling units for the 2 buildings.
Included with each building are five garages for a total of 10 (a change
of 16 from the previously planned 26 garages); plus two additional independent
garage buildings have a total of 17 garage spaces.
Some
setbacks have slightly changed: the rear has increased from 94 to 97 and the
northwest side has decreased from a minimum of 51 to 40. The drive aisle has increased from 24 to 24.5
feet.
The
two buildings for intermediate care are connected in the middle with a
two-story 9,940 square foot per floor commons area (a decrease from the
previously shown 12,446 square feet) with a maximum of 50 foot in height to the
top of the peak (so mean height would be less since the ordinance defines it as
measured to the middle of the roof).
This is slightly taller than the maximum 35 feet in height permitted in
Chapter 24. Two parking areas with 24
spaces each are provided in front of each of the two intermediate care
buildings.
The
plan provides a transition from the MDR use of Oakcrest Manor with assisted
living to the east and single family homes in the LDR district to the
west.
Amenities
such as a playground, swimming pool, bath house, gazebo and walking paths are
proposed. More than 20% open space is
provided. Sidewalks and pedestrian paths
are shown, along with a gazebo which provides for the use of the pond as open
space. A deceleration lane on Cottonwood
is provided, along with sidewalks on Cottonwood where not already
existing. As per a Township Board
motion, sidewalks are not required along the condo development area. A 20-foot wide lane (15 plus the 5 foot walk)
connects to Oakcrest Manor as requested by the Fire Department for emergency
access and for interior circulation between the new proposed development and
Oakcrest Manor. Circulation was
clarified with signage and islands to make it less confusing by the main
entrance to the intermediate care facility.
The number of parking spaces
has decreased from an overall site total of 265 to 249. However, parking calculations exceed
ordinance requirements (even if parking for the intermediate care is calculated
at one per bed for each of the 60 units rather than the ordinance calculation
for determination of number of dwelling units when divided by 2.5). For each of the detached single family
homes, two garage spaces and parking spaces in front of the garages are
provided, in addition to 10 visitor spaces located at the end of the some of
the drive accesses. For the intermediate
care facility, 27 garage spaces are available (a decrease from 43) in addition
to 48 parking spaces. Typical parking
space dimensions are shown correctly.
The streetscape meets
ordinance requirements. Greenbelts
adjacent to the parking lots appear to meet ordinance requirements. A large amount of additional landscaping is
shown throughout the site. Dumpster
enclosure details have been provided and are noted to be the same materials as
the main structure. Lighting locations
are shown and a note states that lighting will be downward directed and
shielded from adjacent residential districts.
The PUD is proposed to be
constructed in one single phase with construction beginning in the summer of
2007 for the independent units and beginning in the fall of 2007 for the
intermediate care (as per the Preliminary Plan information).
This
development will eliminate the existing non-conforming use of manufacturing on
a LDR parcel. The development includes
P.P. # 70-14-11-400-018 (8037 Cottonwood), 70-14-11-400-031 (8075 Cottonwood),
70-14-14-200-007 (8037 Cottonwood) and part of 70-14-14-200-050. The parcels have already been combined
according to a condition of approval of the preliminary PUD.
Elevations, sign details and floor plans for the
individual units have been provided.
With motion # 07131-04, the Planning Commission
determined that the following were met:
1. Qualifying
conditions in Sec. 22.2,
2. Information
as per Sec. 22.5 is provided, and
3. The
requirements of Sec. 22.10
SUMMARY
a.
Some setbacks
have changed slightly, the rear increased from 94 to 97 and the northwest side
decreased from 51 to a minimum of 40.
b.
The locations
of lights have been indicated. A picture
of a typical light fixture has been provided.
A proposed 61 square foot wall/ identification sign is noted to be
located 3 feet from the 60 foot setback from the centerline (total of 63 feet
from the centerline) and it is noted to be 3.7 feet tall. The ordinance permits a plat entry sign for
multi family developments to be 3 feet high and have 64 square feet in area,
and be located 10 feet from the 60 foot setback area. A 14.5 foot high gate entry structure is
shown at the entrance to be located 18 feet from the 60 foot setback to the
centerline (a total of 78 feet from the centerline). Materials for the entry structure and sign
are noted to be the same. A fence is
noted to be 3 feet tall with 4.5 foot tall piers with material to match the entry
structure. Since this sign is closer to the 60 foot setback line and .7 feet
taller, the Planning Commission should determine if this sign is
acceptable. The Planning Commission
should also determine if the fence and gate entry structure are acceptable
since only a 3 foot high fence is permitted in the front yard. It appears as though the wall/sign and gate
entry structure meet the intention of the ordinance to be architecturally
innovative and will provide a visually appealing entrance to the development. It also appears that neither would hinder
sight vision for vehicular traffic when existing the site since they are
located far enough back.
c.
Garages with
parking spaces have been reduced in number from 13 to 5 in each of the two
intermediate care buildings for a total overall reduction of 16 parking
spaces. However, the plan still provides
parking in excess of the ordinance requirements.
d.
A DEQ Permit is required.
e.
A PUD agreement must be provided according to Sec.
22.11.
Documentation
detailing compliance with ordinance requirements:
|
I D number |
PUD0701-01 |
|
|
|
Date |
5-16-07 |
|
|
|
Name |
Allen
Springs Final Development Plan |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Address |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use |
Residential
PUD |
|
SUP
required |
NA |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REQUIREMENT |
|
|
|
|
|
PROVIDED |
Needs or Comments |
|
|
Date, north
arrow, scale |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Name,
address of preparer |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Name,
address of property owner or petitioner |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Location
sketch |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
Legal
description |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
Size in
acres of the property |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Property
lines and required setbacks shown and dimensioned |
|
X |
a.
changed |
|||||
|
Location of
existing structures, drives, parking areas within 100 ft of boundary |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location
and dimensions of existing and proposed structures |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Location of
existing and proposed drives (dimensions and radii), circulation |
X |
|
||||||
|
Sidewalks,
non-motorized paths-select streets, accel, decel lanes |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Signs,
exterior lighting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
b.
sign |
|
|
Curbing,
parking areas, dimensions of typical space, number of parking spaces |
X |
c.
decreased |
||||||
|
Calculations
of parking spaces, unloading areas |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Location,
pavement width, ROW of all abutting roads, easements |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Existing
zoning, and zoning and use of abutting property |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Location
of existing vegetation-parkway
association |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Location,
type, size of proposed landscaping, streetscape, greenbelt |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location,
height, type of existing and proposed fences and walls |
|
|
b. |
|||||
|
Size,
location of proposed, existing utilities, connections to water/sewer |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location,
size of surface water drainage facilities |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Existing,
proposed topo contours, max 5 ft intervals |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Rec/common
areas, floodplain areas |
|
|
|
X |
d.
DEQ |
|||
|
Special Use
Standards, general and specific |
|
|
|
NA |
|
|||
|
Residential
development extra requirements-attached garages |
|
X |
|
|||||
A.
Final Development Plan Approval
Time Period – Single Phase:
Within twelve (12) months of the
Township Board’s approval of the PUD preliminary plan and PUD rezoning, the
applicant shall submit a request to the Zoning Administrator for final PUD
approval. If the applicant fails to
submit a request within twelve (12) months as stated above, then the
preliminary site plan (not the PUD rezoning) shall be determined to be
invalid.
Met. The Board granted preliminary approval on
February 26, 2007.
B.
Final Development Plan Approval
Time Period – Dual or Multi Phased:
If the project includes phases, then the applicant must submit a request within
twelve (12) months of the Township Board’s approval of the preliminary plan and
PUD rezoning for final development plan approval of a phase. Following the final approval of the first PUD
phase, the applicant must submit each subsequent phase within twenty-four (24)
months of the approval date for the previous phase. If the applicant fails to submit the first
phase within twelve (12) months or each subsequent phase within the twenty-four
(24) month time period then the preliminary site plan incorporating all phases
not already approved for final site plan shall be determined to be invalid.
NA.
C.
Approval Time Extension:
Upon request to the Township Board and in accordance with Section 22.13,
A, 1 and 2, the time frames may be extended for a reasonable period of time.
D.
Final Development Plan
Application Requirements: A final development plan application shall
consist of the following (unless determined by the Zoning Administrator or
Planning Commission to be unnecessary):
1.
A
completed application form, supplied by the Zoning Administrator.
2.
Payment
of a fee, as established by the Township Board.
NA for 1st phase.
3.
A
written response to the findings, review comments, and conditions, if any, from
the Township Board’s review and approval of the preliminary development plan
and a narrative explanation of the changes made to the plan in response to
those items.
*******************************************************************************
#070226-06 - Planned Unit Development (PUD0701) Allen Springs Farm LLC, 7683 Cottonwood
Moved by Richard VanderKlok, seconded by Del South, to
approve (PUD0701) Allen Springs Farm LLC, 7683 Cottonwood, for a Planned Unit Development
for uses including detached single family homes, attached single family homes
and housing for the elderly and related uses, under Chapter 22, on parcels of
land described as P.P. # 70-14-11-400-018, 70-14-14-200-007, 70-14-11-400-031,
and part of 70-14-14-200-050 located at 8037, 8001 and 8075 Cottonwood, Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, MI,
As shown on:
1.
Sheets one (site
plan and colored
plan), two (utility
and grading plan),and three of three (landscaping
plan) dated 1-9-07 revised, and
2.
the narrative
statement identified as WPDATA\L061954E, and
3.
on the elevation
plan dated January 29, 2007.
On the basis
that the following are met:
1. Qualifying
conditions in Sec. 22.2,
2. Information
as per Sec. 22.5 is provided, and
3. The
plan meets the ordinance requirements of Sec. 22.10
And with the
following conditions:
1. A letter is submitted to the Township asking
the assessor to combine P. P. #
70-14-11-
400-018 (8037 Cottonwood), 70-14-11-400-031 (8075
Cottonwood), and 70-14-14-200-007 (8037 Cottonwood) so that setbacks are met
and parcel lines are not located through buildings. Plus this eliminates the non-conforming
parcels that have no frontage. (The
small part of 70-14-14-200-050 need not be combined since it was added merely
to allow space for the additional garage and the landscaped buffer.)
2. Types of typical light fixtures should be provided at the
time of final development
approval.
3. More sign detail should be provided at the time of final
development approval
including the dimensions
showing height, width, square footage and distance from the centerline of
Cottonwood (especially if the signs are proposed to be different than what the
ordinance allows).
4.
A Storm Water Drain Permit is required at the time a building permit
application is submitted.
5.
A DEQ permit is required to build and/or fill in the floodplain.
Note: The
Planning Commission recommended approval
MOTION CARRIED.
*******************************************************************************
·
A
letter combining the parcels was submitted.
·
A
Storm Water Drain Permit will still be needed.
·
A
DEQ permit is still required.
4.
A
site plan containing all of the information required in this PUD Chapter and
the following information shown below: (If the plan consists of phases, then
the above-mentioned information is only required for the specific phase(s)
being presented for final approval. Each
subsequent phase shall be reviewed in the same manner).
5.
The
location and dimensions of all proposed structures and buildings on the PUD
site. Provided.
6.
The
location of all proposed drives (including dimensions and radii),
acceleration/deceleration lanes, sidewalks / pathways / bikepaths, curbing,
parking areas (including the dimensions of a typical parking space and the
total number of parking spaces to be provided), and unloading areas. Street names must also be included. Provided.
7.
The
location of all proposed signs and lighting, including the sizes and
types. Provided.
8.
The
location, type and size of all proposed landscaping and site amenities (art
work, fences, gateway features, etc.). Provided.
9.
The
location, type and size of all utilities and storm water drainage facilities,
including fire protection, sanitary sewers, water services, etc. Provided.
10.
Existing
and proposed topographic contours at a maximum of three (3) foot
intervals. Provided.
11.
Elevation
views of all proposed structures and floor plans for all multi-family
residential dwelling units. Provided.
12.
Proposed
open space areas, including recreational amenities (playgrounds, etc.). Provided.
13.
Floodplain
areas. (Revised 6-27-2005) Provided.
5. The Planning Commission may request
from the applicant any additional
graphics or written
materials, prepared by a qualified person or persons, to
assist in determining the
appropriateness of the site plan. Such
material
may include, but need not be
limited to, aerial photography, photographs;
traffic impacts; impact on
significant natural features and drainage; soil
tests; and other pertinent
information.
A.
The
Planning Commission shall review the final development plan in relation to its
conformance with the preliminary development plan and any conditions of the PUD
rezoning. If it is determined that the
final plan is not in substantial conformance with the preliminarily development
plan, the review process shall be conducted as a preliminary development plan
review, in accordance with the procedures of Sections 22.5 - 22.7 of this
Ordinance.
The final development phase
appears to be in conformance with the preliminary development plan.
B.
Planned
Unit Developments, whether established as a single or multiphase
development, shall reasonably accommodate for the intent of the PUD in each
phase. If the proposed PUD appears to provide for phases that do not
incorporate the intent of the proposed PUD, the Planning Commission may require
bonding or other similar financial obligation, which shall be established
in the PUD agreement. If a portion of the PUD intent it to
provide for a variety of uses (i.e. - apartments and single family homes), then
the proposed phasing schedule shall show how the development of these uses
will be balanced in the phased development schedule.
Met.
C.
If
the final development plan is consistent with the approved preliminary
development plan, the Planning Commission shall review the final plan in
accordance with the standards for approval in Section 22.10.
D.
The
Planning Commission shall prepare a record of its findings and shall approve,
approve with conditions, or deny the final development plan.
E.
Any
regulatory modification from traditional district requirements shall be
approved through a finding by the Planning Commission that the deviation shall
result in a higher quality of development than would be possible using
conventional zoning standards.
Regulatory modifications are not subject to variance approval of the
Zoning Board of Appeals. No part of this
PUD process of the approved site plans may be appealed to the Zoning Board of
Appeals. This provision shall not
preclude an individual residential lot owner from seeking a variance following
final approval of the PUD, provided such variance does not involve alterations
to open space areas as shown on the approved PUD site plan.
Provided.
F.
A
table shall be provided on the final site plan which specifically details all
deviations from the established zoning area, height and setback regulations,
off-street parking regulations, general provisions, or Township subdivision
regulations which would otherwise be applicable to the uses and developments
proposed in the absence of this PUD article and rezoning.
Provided.
A PUD shall be approved only
if it complies with each of the following standards:
A. The proposed PUD complies with all qualifying conditions of
Section 22.2. Met as
determined by the PC with preliminary approval.
B.
The proposed PUD is compatible with surrounding uses of land, the
natural environment, and the capacities of public services and facilities
affected by the development. Met as determined with previous
approval.
C.
The proposed uses within the PUD will not possess conditions or effects
that would be injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare of the
community. Met as determined with previous approval.
D.
The proposed project is consistent with the spirit and intent of the
PUD District, as described in Section 22.1 and represents an opportunity for
improved or innovative development for the community that could not be achieved
through conventional zoning. Met as determined with previous
approval.
E.
The proposed PUD meets all the site plan requirements of this Chapter,
respective of being either a preliminary or final PUD request (Preliminary
PUD’s must meet Section 22.5, A and Final PUD’s must meet Section 22.8, D.)
Any development that fails to meet the following
qualifying conditions, at a minimum, shall not be considered for the PUD
District:
A.
Acreage
Requirement:
The
PUD site shall be not less than ten (10) acres of fully contiguous property not
separated by a public road, railroad, or other such associated feature or
barrier. If the PUD is to contain a
mixture of residential and non-residential uses, the minimum required area
shall be twenty (20) acres. The Planning
Commission and Township Board may consider a PUD on lesser acreage if it is
clear that the proposed PUD substantially provides for the intent of a PUD as
stated in this Chapter. In addition, the
Planning Commission and Township Board may use the same intent section of the
Zoning Ordinance when considering a PUD with property that may be separated by
a public road, railroad, or other such associated feature or barrier. It would be up to the applicant to prove why,
for example, a physical barrier (road or railroad) separating the acreage would
not restrict the applicant’s ability to develop a cohesive PUD.
MET.
B.
Utilities: All PUD's shall be served by public water and
sanitary sewer facilities. Stormwater
must be coordinated with the county drain commission.
MET.
C. Land Ownership: The PUD application must be filed by the
landowner, jointly by the landowners, or by an agent. If the application is filed by an agent(s) or
other interested party, written approval from the landowner(s) must also be
filed.
Met.
D. Master Plan: The proposed uses of the
PUD must be substantially consistent with Georgetown Township’s Master Plan for
the subject property.
Was
determined to be met with preliminary approval
E. Pedestrian: The PUD must provide for integrated, safe and
abundant pedestrian access and movement within the PUD and to adjacent
properties. (In addition, the township
has a stand alone ordinance covering certain sidewalk requirements)
Met.
F. Architecture: The PUD should provide
for coordinated and innovative visually appealing architectural styles, building
forms and building relationships.
Was
determined to be met with preliminary approval
G. Traffic: The PUD must provide for safe
and efficient vehicular movements within, into and off of the PUD site. In addition, the PUD should integrate traffic
calming techniques, along with suitable parking lot landscape islands and other
similar techniques to improve parking lot aesthetics, storm water management,
traffic flow and vehicular/pedestrian safety.
Was
determined to be met with preliminary approval.
H. Open Space Requirements:
1. The PUD development shall contain
usable open space in an amount equal to at least twenty (20) percent of the
total PUD site. The Planning Commission
may consider a PUD with a lesser amount of open space if it is clear that the
proposed PUD substantially provides for the intent of a PUD as stated in this
Chapter. It is noted that open space
is a very important element of a PUD and reductions to the open space
provision should be granted only as a result of specific, clearly documented
reasons (i.e. the PUD may located on a relatively small site in an area where a
20% open space provision would detract from building continuity, historic
preservation efforts, etc.)
2. Such open space to be considered usable
shall not include required yards (required
yards need to be
individually determined for each PUD project) or buffers, parking areas,
drives, rights-of-way, utility or road easements, storm water detention ponds,
wetlands (unless determined to be useable by the Planning Commission due to the
addition of interpretive boardwalks/walkways, etc. provided in and through the
wetland) and structures (Unless the structures are part of the open space i.e.
gazebos, etc.).
3. Such open space shall be permanently
set aside for the sole benefit, use, and enjoyment of present and future
occupants of the PUD through covenant, deed restriction, open space easement,
or similar legal instrument acceptable to the Township; or, if agreed to by
governmental agency, the open space may be conveyed to a governmental agency
for the use of the general public.
Appears to be met.
An overlay site plan was provided
to show the open space to help to determine if this standard is met.
A.
Prior
to the issuance of any building permits or commencement of construction on any
portion of the PUD, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Township
in recordable form, setting forth the applicant's obligations with respect to
the PUD.
B.
The
agreement shall describe all improvements to be constructed as part of the PUD
and shall incorporate, by reference, the final development plan with all required
revisions, other documents which comprise the PUD, and all conditions attached
to the approval by the Township Board.
C.
A
phasing plan shall also be submitted describing the intended schedule for start
and completion of each phase and the improvements to be undertaken in each
phase.
D.
The
agreement shall also establish the remedies of the Township in the event of
default by the applicant in carrying out the PUD, and shall be binding on all
successors in interest to the applicant.
E.
All
documents shall be executed and recorded in the office of the Ottawa County
Register of Deeds.
Must be provided.
Stasiak
asked about the pool and playground that was noted as optional on the plan.
The
applicant stated that they wanted the ability to build the pool and playground
but had discussed having an indoor pool.
Chuck
Schipper, applicant, said that they were evaluating what amenities to provide
and wanted to keep their options open depending on the buyers.
Pearson
asked about the greenbelt and the tree line to screen the development to the
west.
The
applicant stated that there were trees and brush, and the houses to the
northwest were further away.
Pearson
said that there should be a substantial screening for the neighbors.
The
chairman opened the floor to public comments.
No one was present to make comments on this topic. The chairman closed the floor to public
comments.
The
consensus of the Planning Commission was that the gate entry structure, sign
and fence were acceptable.
Moved
by DeGood, seconded by Huizinga, to approve the final development plan
for (PUD0701-01) Allen Springs Farm LLC, 7683 Cottonwood, for a Planned Unit
Development for uses including detached single family homes, attached single
family homes and housing for the elderly and related uses, under Chapter 22, on
parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-11-400-018, 70-14-14-200-007,
70-14-11-400-031, and part of 70-14-14-200-050 located at 8037, 8001 and 8075
Cottonwood, Georgetown Township, Ottawa
County, MI,
As
shown on:
1.
The site
development plan, site utility and grading plan and landscape plan, all dated
5-10-07 Updated per TWP review (site
plan 1, site
plan 2, site
plan 3);
2.
The elevations dated
Jan. 24 and Jan. 29, 2007 (overall
elevation, elevation
villa #2, elevation
villa #5)
3.
The light fixture
detail as provided (light
fixture)
4.
The gate entry
structure and wall/sign details as shown on the drawing dated 5.10.07(gate
entry); and
5.
The narrative
statement identified as WPDATE/L061954E.
On
the basis that the following are met:
1.
Qualifying
conditions in Sec. 22.2,
2.
The proposed PUD
is compatible with surrounding uses of land, the natural environment, and the
capacities of public
services and facilities affected by the development.
3.
The proposed uses within the PUD will not possess conditions or effects
that would be injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare of the
community.
4.
The proposed project is consistent with the spirit and intent of the
PUD District, as described in Section 22.1 and represents an opportunity for
improved or innovative development for the community that could not be achieved
through conventional zoning.
5.
The proposed PUD meets all the site plan requirements of Chapter 22
including Section 22.8, D.
And
with the following conditions:
1. A recorded PUD agreement (according to Sec. 22.11) is
submitted at the
time a building permit
application is submitted.
2. A Storm Water Drain Permit is submitted at the time a
building permit
application is submitted.
3. A DEQ permit is required to build and/or fill in the
floodplain and must be
submitted at the time a
building permit application is submitted.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070606-04 - Preliminary Plat of Meadowvale
layout of P.P.# 70-14-08-400-025, located at
3358 Bauer Rd., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County,
Michigan.
Todd
Stuive, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the
request. He noted that the plan stated
that lots 1 and 21 would not have direct driveway access to Bauer Rd.
The
zoning administrator presented a request as follows.
REQUEST
On October 9,
2006, the Township Board approved the rezoning of the property from AG to
LDR. The proposed overall preliminary
plat includes 34 lots to be constructed in two phases on 18.5 acres. The first phase includes 21 lots. A connection is proposed to Boulder Ridge to
the east in the second phase and that connection is shown to the west (which is
currently undeveloped), as well. A
future connection is also shown to the south.
A note on the plan indicates that the developer will construct the
sidewalk adjacent to Bauer Rd. All
building envelopes spear to meet setback requirements.
SUMMARY
a. Lots
1 and 21 shall not have direct driveway access to Bauer Rd.
The following documents compliance with Township
ordinances:
|
I D number |
|
|
|
|
Date |
5-16-07 |
|
|
|
Name |
Water Tower
Plat |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Address |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use |
Preliminary
Plat |
|
SUP
required |
NA |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REQUIREMENT |
|
|
|
|
|
PROVIDED |
Needs or Comments |
|
|
Date, north
arrow, scale |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Name,
address of preparer |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Name,
address of property owner or petitioner |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Location
sketch |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
Legal
description |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
Size in
acres of the property |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Property
lines and required setbacks shown and dimensioned |
|
|
a. no
access |
|||||
|
Location of
existing structures, drives, parking areas within 100 ft of boundary |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location
and dimensions of existing and proposed structures |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Location of
existing and proposed drives (dimensions and radii), circulation |
X |
|
||||||
|
Sidewalks,
non-motorized paths-select streets, accel, decel lanes |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Signs,
exterior lighting |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
Curbing,
parking areas, dimensions of typical space, number of parking spaces |
X |
|
||||||
|
Calculations
of parking spaces, unloading areas |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Location,
pavement width, ROW of all abutting roads, easements |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Existing
zoning, and zoning and use of abutting property |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Location of
existing vegetation-parkway association |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Location,
type, size of proposed landscaping, streetscape, greenbelt |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location,
height, type of existing and proposed fences and walls |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Size,
location of proposed, existing utilities, connections to water/sewer |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location,
size of surface water drainage facilities |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Existing,
proposed topo contours, max 5 ft intervals |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Rec/common
areas, floodplain areas |
|
|
|
X |
|
|||
|
Special Use
Standards, general and specific |
|
|
|
X |
|
|||
|
Residential
development extra requirements-attached garages |
|
required |
|
|||||
The chairman
opened the public hearing. No one was
present to speak on this topic. The
chairman closed the public hearing.
Moved
by South, seconded by Pearson, to recommend to the Township Board to grant
tentative preliminary plat approval of Meadowvale Plat as shown on the drawing
dated 5/7/07 on the basis that Township ordinances have been met.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070606-05 - Special Use Permit (SUP0703) Faulk & Foster, 3040 Charlevoix, Grand Rapids,
for Clearwire
US LLC, is requesting to have a commercial wireless communication tower,
under Sec. 8.3(O), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-10-300-016,
located at 8375 20th Ave., in a (LDR) Low Density Residential
district, Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. (hold the public hearing) (site
plan, NIER
letter, letter,
variance
letter and application, JPS
co-location letter, map
with coverage, map
without coverage)
Jamie
Abbgy, Faulk and Foster for Clearwire US LLC, represented the applicant and
presented the request. A letter from the
City of Grand Rapids was submitted in support of Clearwire’s request since Clearwire
was expanding beyond the Grand Rapids market.
Jamie Abbgy noted that Clearwire had already co-located on the existing
towers in the Township and planned to co-locate on the planned towers; however,
the existing towers were not able to provide service to the targeted area. Maps showing coverage were provided both with
and without the proposed tower.
The
zoning administrator presented a review as follows. She also presented pictures of the pole and
stated the following. Township residents
use cell phones and wireless internet, and therefore, want the service. This is an obtrusive way to provide the tower
because people were used to seeing the light pole. The location is not detrimental to the
neighborhood since this was on school property away from homes and shielded by
trees.
REQUEST
Faulk & Foster, on behalf of Clearwire US LLC, is
requesting to construct a 110 foot pole to replace an existing 70 light pole
adjacent to the Jenison High School football field on the school property. The purpose is for this company to provide
wireless internet to an area currently not served by any existing tower. In addition, Jenison public school intends to
add the necessary equipment to transmit radio service to their buses. The company has indicated that they have
already co-located on the existing towers in the area and plans to co-locate on
the soon-to-be constructed tower at Maplewood Park. However, the applicant has stated that the
existing and future tower do not provide coverage to the area they propose to
service. Illustrations are shown with
maps provided with the submittal material.
The equipment that is currently located on the
existing 70 foot pole at the Jenison football field including the field lights
and speakers will be replaced on the new 110 foot pole at their current
heights. A 7 by 7 foot fenced area
behind the upper concession stand will be fenced and landscaped to enclose the
2.1 by 2.1 foot equipment cabinet which is permitted under Sec. 3.4(M).
A special use permit is required for a communication
tower under Sec. 8.3 (O) in a LDR district and the determination has been made
that even though this is a “pole,” it would still meet the intention of the
ordinance in regards to a “tower.” It
appears that the request complies with all the general standards in Sec. 20.3
and specific standards listed in Sec. 20.4(AB) except for Sec. AB(6) which
states: “Unless located on the same site or tower with another user, no new
tower shall be erected within a two mile radius of an existing radio,
television or cellular communications tower.”
The cell tower located at 20th Ave. and Rosewood is 1.4 miles
from this proposed tower. The applicant
is currently in the process of seeking a variance for Sec. 20.4(AB)(6) and that
meeting will take place May 23, 2007, two weeks prior to the Planning
Commission meeting when this request will be considered.
It is in the best interests of the residents of the Township to have
wireless internet service available from at least one company and best if it is
available from multiple companies for price competition. The applicant has indicated that they have
made every effort to provide service from the existing towers; however, the new
pole is necessary for the service to reach the particular targeted area. The spot chosen on Jenison High School
property to locate a pole would be a good area since it is a long distance from
any residences and people are accustomed to seeing the light poles around the
football field. The pole would be less
obtrusive than a tower. An additional
benefit is that Jenison Public Schools would have the ability to add their own
equipment for radio service to the buses.
Also, the schools would benefit from the income generated by the lease.
One other item to consider is that Michigan Compiled Laws 380.1263
gives the Superintendent of Public Instruction the sole and exclusive
jurisdiction over any construction of buildings for either instructional or
non-instructional school purposes. If
this pole was to be constructed only for the Jenison Public Schools’ benefit,
the determination has been made that the process of the variance request and
special land use approval for the construction of the pole would be unnecessary
and exempt from zoning (although the schools in the Township have in the past
submitted materials for courtesy reviews).
In addition, Sec. 20.4(AB)(5) requires that towers are available for
other uses to co-locate and the use of the tower by both the school and
Clearwire complies with that requirement of the ordinance. However, since Clearwire would be the
applicant and their use would be commercial, the determination has been made
that they are not exempt from zoning.
SUMMARY
If the variance is granted, the proposal appears to
meet the general special use standards in Sec. 20.3 and the specific standards
in Sec. 20.4(AB). The site plan appears
to meet the applicable standards in Chapter 19.
Since communications towers are necessary to provide internet and cell
service to Township residents and this is not a tower construction but rather a
pole, it seems that this is a very non-obtrusive way to achieve that
purpose.
Documentation
showing compliance with ordinance standards:
|
I D number |
SUP0703 |
|
|
|
Date |
5-16-07 |
|
|
|
Name |
Clearwire |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Address |
8375 20th
Ave |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use |
Wireless
Communication tower |
|
SUP
required |
yes |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REQUIREMENT |
|
|
|
|
|
PROVIDED |
Needs or Comments |
|
|
Date, north
arrow, scale |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Name,
address of preparer |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Name,
address of property owner or petitioner |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Location
sketch |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
Legal
description |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
Size in
acres of the property |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Property
lines and required setbacks shown and dimensioned |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Location of
existing structures, drives, parking areas within 100 ft of boundary |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location
and dimensions of existing and proposed structures |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Location of
existing and proposed drives (dimensions and radii), circulation |
X |
|
||||||
|
Sidewalks,
non-motorized paths-select streets, accel, decel lanes |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Signs,
exterior lighting |
|
|
|
|
|
NONE |
|
|
|
Curbing,
parking areas, dimensions of typical space, number of parking spaces |
NA |
|
||||||
|
Calculations
of parking spaces, unloading areas |
|
|
NA |
|
||||
|
Location,
pavement width, ROW of all abutting roads, easements |
|
NA |
|
|||||
|
Existing
zoning, and zoning and use of abutting property |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Location of
existing vegetation-parkway association |
|
|
|
|
NA |
|
||
|
Location,
type, size of proposed landscaping, streetscape, greenbelt |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location,
height, type of existing and proposed fences and walls |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Size,
location of proposed, existing utilities, connections to water/sewer |
NA |
|
||||||
|
Location,
size of surface water drainage facilities |
|
|
NA |
|
||||
|
Existing,
proposed topo contours, max 5 ft intervals |
|
|
NA |
|
||||
|
Rec/common
areas, floodplain areas |
|
|
|
X |
|
|||
|
Special Use
Standards, general and specific |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Residential
development extra requirements-attached garages |
|
|
|
|||||
Special Use
General Special Use Standards
(1) Be
designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be harmonious and
appropriate in appearance, with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity and that such a use will not change the essential character of
the area in which it is proposed.
(2) Be
served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways,
streets, police, fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water
and sewage facilities, or schools.
(3) Not
create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities
and services.
(4) Not
involve uses, activities, processes, materials, and equipment or conditions of
operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare
by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or
odors.
Specific Special Use Standards
(A) Commercial wireless communications towers
may be considered either principal or accessory uses. A different existing use of an existing
structure on the same lot shall not preclude the installation of an antenna or tower
on such lot where approved pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance. Met.
Sec. 20.4(AB) lists the specific special use standards as follows:
(AB) Radio,
television, and wireless communication towers {excluding towers which meet the
criteria of Sec. 3.27(B)}.
(1) The
minimum lot size shall be the same as that of the district in which the tower
is located. (Met.)
(2) The
tower shall be set back from all lot lines a minimum distance equal to one-half
(1/2) the height of the tower. All other
buildings, structures, and guy wires shall meet the minimum setback
requirements of the Zoning District. (Met.)
(3) In
Residential Districts, such towers shall not exceed one
hundred (100) feet in height, unless located on publicly owned land. (Met. The school is publicly owned land.)
a. Existing commercial wireless communication
towers established prior to the adoption
of the
Wireless Communication Tower Ordinance in November 1997, located in
residentially
zoned districts may be rebuilt to a height not to exceed 195 feet for the sole
purpose
of accommodating co-location. (revised 11-27-2000) (NA)
(4) A security fence at least six (6) feet
in height shall be constructed around the tower and supports. (Met.)
(5) Where possible, joint use of tower
facilities shall be required for multiple users in order to minimize the number
of separate towers and individual locations throughout the township. As a condition of approval, the applicant
shall agree to permit future users to share the tower facility.(Met.) (letter)
(6) Unless located on the same site or tower
with another user, no new tower shall be erected within a two (2) mile radius
of an existing radio, television, or cellular communications tower. (Not
met. Variance requested)
(7) Where the effect of any of the
provisions of this ordinance would be to prevent or preclude the operation of
amateur radio antennas, the Township Board may approve the use if the applicant
demonstrates that the requirements would interfere with the reasonable
accommodations of amateur radio communications. (Revised 11-97) (NA)
Honderd
stated that the applicant had done a good job.
Pearson
asked about co-location on the pole.
The
zoning administrator stated the following.
The ordinance requires that all who construct cell towers allow others
to co-locate because the Township does not want multiple towers
everywhere. The school submitted a
letter stating their intention to allow others to co-locate. However, Clearwire would have an antenna and
the school would also put their antenna on the pole. Whether other antenna could also be added
depended upon the Building Code and if the pole could support another
antenna. Technology is changing so
quickly that the equipment could become smaller and lighter so that more
antennas could co-locate.
The
applicant said the following. After the
tower is constructed it will be given to the school and Clearwire will lease
space from the school. It would benefit
the school to have others co-locate because they would get more lease money. Equipment is changing and becoming lighter
which will allow more antennas to locate on a tower.
South
said that this is a good location because it will only increase the height of
the tower by 30 to 40 feet.
The
chairman opened the public hearing. No
one was present to speak on this topic.
The chairman closed the public hearing.
Moved
by Stasiak, seconded by DeGood, to recommend to the Township Board to approve
Special Use Permit (SUP0703) Faulk & Foster, 3040 Charlevoix, Grand Rapids, for
Clearwire US LLC, to have a commercial wireless communication tower, under Sec.
8.3(O), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-10-300-016, located at
8375 20th Ave., in a (LDR) Low Density Residential district,
Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, based on the findings that the proposed plan meets the applicable standards of the ordinance for the general special use standards under Sec.
20.3(A) and the specific special use standards under Sec. 20.4(AB).
MOTION
CARRIED.
Moved
by DeGood, seconded by South, to approve the site plan dated revised 4/27/07, as
submitted, because the plan meets all applicable standards of the ordinance
under Sec. 19.4.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070606-06 - Other Business
A letter
was submitted and read from Mike Carpenter, Hager Park West Association,
requesting an ordinance review of the maximum height of 3 feet allowed in the
ordinance for plat entry signs. Mike
Carpenter, 3146 Twin Lakes, stated that the current signs at the entrance for
Hager Park West needed replacing and they wanted something nice since Eastbrook
Development had a nice waterfall sign across the street. He said that the three foot height limit does
not allow for anything unique.
It
was the consensus of the Planning Commission to review the request because
other issues had to be considered as well, such as maintenance and the fact
that the ordinance had to be for everyone.
#070606-07 - Unfinished Business Ordinance amendments Sec.
3.4(E)(1) (public hearing
already
held)
At
the request of the Planning Commission, research was done to compile
information regarding the proposed ordinance amendment. The zoning administrator presented a review
as follows:
The
proposed amendment would eliminate the maximum of 1000 square feet for an
attached garage. Therefore, an attached
garage could have a maximum floor area of 60% of the dwelling unit to which it
is attached. The public hearing was
already held.
The amendment as published is as follows:
Sec. 3.4 ACCESSORY
BUILDING AND USES.
(E) Maximum Floor Area.
(1) The maximum floor area above grade for
an attached accessory building, including garage, shall not exceed sixty (60)
percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling to which it is attached, not
to exceed a maximum of one thousand (1,000) sq. ft.
At the last two Planning Commission meetings an
ordinance amendment was on the agenda to eliminate the maximum size of an
attached garage. The ordinance revision
was initiated by the Board. Some members
of the Planning Commission were concerned that allowing a garage to be 60% of
the dwelling to which it is attached and eliminating the 1000 square foot
maximum might result in unsightly large garages. The Planning Commission directed that
regulations from other communities be reviewed and other options
presented. A suggestion was made to
examine using a tier method.
Another option suggested was to permit a larger garage
if the accessory building was eliminated.
This suggestion does sound good, but could pose a difficulty to enforce,
especially in the future. The property
could be flagged with the stipulation that no accessory building would be
permitted (such as plats where plat restrictions did not allow one), but this
leaves ample opportunity in the future for this to be missed and an accessory
building to be constructed (especially if someone puts one up without permits
which unfortunately happens).
After the optional amendments provided below, please
see the list of how other municipalities regulate attached accessory
buildings. Information regarding two
variances that were granted for larger garages has been provided. In addition, statistics are provided
detailing the square footage of houses that have been approved for building
permits in 2006 and 2007.
As per direction given by the Planning Commission,
below find optional language for a revision to Chapter 24 to not permit parking
in a front yard setback for non-residential uses in residential districts.
OPTION 1
Sec. 3.4 ACCESSORY
BUILDING AND USES.
(E) Maximum Floor Area.
(1) The maximum floor area above grade for
an attached accessory building, including garage, shall not exceed sixty (60)
percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling to which it is attached, not
to exceed a maximum of one thousand (1,000) sq. ft.. No attached accessory building, including
garage, shall have a door opening greater than twelve (12) feet in height.
Note: This
wording is the same as was currently advertised and reviewed other than the
addition of a maximum height of 12 feet for a garage
door. Worded this way, the square
footage allowed for an attached garage would be limited to 60% of the gross
floor area of the dwelling unit to which it is attached, with no limit other
than being totally proportionate to the square footage of the house. A stipulation for a maximum height of a
garage door could address the concern of a semi parking in a garage.
OPTION 2
Sec. 3.4 ACCESSORY
BUILDING AND USES.
(E) Maximum Floor Area.
(1) The maximum floor area above grade for
an attached accessory building, including garage, shall not exceed sixty (60)
percent of the gross floor area that is entirely above finished lot grade
on the main level plus thirty (30)
percent of the gross floor area on the second
story level (if the dwelling is a multi-story structure) of the
dwelling to which it is attached, not to exceed a maximum of one thousand
(1,000) sq. ft.. No attached
accessory building, including garage, shall have a door opening greater than
twelve (12) feet in height.
Note: Some
Planning Commissioner suggested a tiered approach. Worded this way, the
square footage allowed for an attached garage would
actually be REDUCED from what is currently permitted for two story dwelling
units 1666.67 square feet or less. The
current wording would allow a 1000 square foot attached garage for a 1666.67 SF
house, but with the amendment the square footage would be reduced by 70% of the
gross floor area of the second story.
This wording would be beneficial to a larger sized two story dwelling
unit and single story dwelling units since there would be no maximum limit.
OPTION 3
Sec. 3.4 ACCESSORY
BUILDING AND USES.
(E) Maximum Floor Area.
(1) The maximum floor area above grade for
an attached accessory building, including garage, shall not exceed sixty (60)
percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling to which it is attached, not to
exceed a maximum of one thousand five hundred (1500) (1,000) sq.
ft. No attached accessory building,
including garage, shall have a door opening greater than twelve (12) feet in
height.
Optional
additional language:
The maximum amount of 1500 square feet may be waived if
the property owner provides a recorded document stipulating that no detached
accessory building will be constructed on the parcel.
Note: Worded
this way, any square footage currently allowed would continue to be
permitted, plus the maximum size limit is raised to
1500 square feet. If the house was
larger than 1666.67 square feet, a larger garage would be permitted. However, once a dwelling unit exceeded 2,500
square feet, the garage would be limited to 1500 square feet. Any houses larger than 2,500 square feet
would still only be allowed the maximum of 1500 square feet. The optional language would allow the garage
to be larger (60% of the additional gross floor area) if there was no detached
accessory building. However, this might
result in difficulty in keeping track of such documents in the future.
Other
municipalities in Ottawa County:
·
Olive
Township-minimum of 600 SF attached, maximum of 85% of the living area of the
dwelling.
·
Tallmadge Township-no
minimum, maximum of 864 SF attached if parcel is less than 2.5 acres and 1040
attached for 2.5 or more acres.
·
Spring Lake
Township-no minimum or maximum for attached.
·
Port Sheldon
Township-maximum attached 1000 SF.
·
Grand Haven
Township-no minimum or maximum for attached.
·
Holland
Township-maximum 50% of the footprint or 1050 SF whichever is smaller.
·
Zeeland
Township-no minimum or maximum for attached.
Variances
were granted as follows:
·
6029 Hillsborough
Ct.-(motion # 970226-02) VAR9701-garage 2040 SF, variance of 1040, over 2.5
acres of land with a 10,000 square foot house.
·
5853 Stonebridge
Dr.-(motion # 010425-05) VAR0109)-garage 1242 SF, variance of 242.
History
for permit applications for houses with the following square footages:
2007-Permit applications for houses with less than 1667 SF
(60% of the GFA would still be 1000 SF or less as per the current ordinance) - 15 houses (3 had finished
basements that would increase the GFA, but two had garages with 528 SF and one
had a garage with 788 SF, so none of these were even close to the 1000 SF
maximum). Permit applications for houses
with more than 1667 SF (60% of the GFA would be larger than the 1000 SF
permitted per the current ordinance) – 20
houses (most had in the 800 to 900 SF range and might have built larger
garages than permitted by the current ordinance).
2006-Permit applications for houses with less than 1667 SF
(60% of the GFA would still be 1000 SF or less as per the current ordinance) - 57 houses. Permit applications for houses with more than
1667 SF (60% of the GFA would be larger than the 1000 SF permitted per the
current ordinance) – 55 houses
(32 had garages in the 800 to 900 SF range and MOST that did not have garages
at least 800 SF were two-stories, some might have built larger garages than
permitted by the current ordinance).
2006 and
2007-In 2007 only 5 out of the 35
(14.2%) applications were for houses with square footages greater than 2500
SF. In 2006, only 10 out of 112 (8.9%)
applications were for houses with square footages greater than 2500 SF. The square footage for a garage attached to a
2500 SF house would be 1500 SF (60% of 2500).
SUMMARY
·
Some
municipalities regulate maximum sizes for attached garages, but most do not.
·
The trend in Georgetown
Township for 2006 was that about half of the permit applications were for
houses with square footages larger than 1667 and for 2007 57% of the permit
applications were for houses with square footages greater than 1667. That means that about half of the
applications would be affected by this revision on the maximum limit.
·
Most of the
houses that were larger than 1667 had garages in the 800 to 900 square foot
range other than two-stories that had smaller garages.
·
Only two
variances were granted for the construction of larger garages (one a variance
to permit 1242 SF, one for a 2040 SF garage attached to a 10,000 SF
house). A house with 10,000 SF is an
unusual occurrence and those situations could be handled by the ZBA.
·
Two-story houses
(as per the statistics provided) tended to have smaller garages than single
story houses with the same or less square-footages.
·
Only 14% of the
applications in 2007 and 8.9% of the applications in 2006 were for houses that
would be permitted to have garages larger than 1500 SF if the 1000 SF maximum
was removed and there was no limit on size other than 60% of the dwelling
unit. Many of those were two-story
dwellings that would most-likely (based on the statistics provided) would not
build the maximum size anyway.
·
Keeping tack of
those parcels that were permitted larger garages with the submission of a
document prohibiting a detached accessory building (if the optional language
was added to Option 3) might be difficult and easy to miss if someone did
submit an application for an accessory building, especially in the future. Future ordinance changes could affect such a
stipulation, especially if there were not many who took advantage of that
option.
·
If a plat did not
allow any accessory buildings, residents would still have the opportunity to
have quite a large garage if the 1,000 SF limit was raised to 1,500 SF and the
house was larger than 1667 SF.
·
Stipulating a
maximum height of 12 feet for a garage door would eliminate the possibility of
parking a semi in it.
CONCLUSION
Based on
the information provided, I recommend that the Township adopt OPTION 3 without
the optional extra language. The reason
is because the amendment would provide a 50% increase over what is currently
permitted and the overall square footage amount would be proportional to the
square footage of the house. The maximum
of 1500 square feet would limit extremely large garages while still permitting
a very large size. The maximum door
height of 12 feet (same as for a detached accessory building) would prohibit a
semi from parking in an attached garage.
The proposed amendment (without the optional language) would allow the
Township to continue the same way in calculating garages, just permitting a
larger maximum limit, which is easy for applicants and Township staff to
calculate and understand.
OPTION 3
Sec. 3.4 ACCESSORY BUILDING AND USES.
(E) Maximum
Floor Area.
(1) The
maximum floor area above grade for an attached accessory building, including garage,
shall not exceed sixty (60) percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling to
which it is attached, not to exceed a maximum of one thousand five hundred
(1500) (1,000) sq. ft. No
attached accessory building, including garage, shall have a door opening
greater than twelve (12) feet in height.
There was discussion
regarding possible revisions.
Moved by Pearson, seconded
by Stasiak, to initiate a Zoning Ordinance amendment as follows:
Sec. 3.4 ACCESSORY BUILDING AND USES.
(E) Maximum
Floor Area.
(1) The
maximum floor area above grade for an attached accessory building, including
garage, shall not exceed sixty (60) percent of the gross floor area of the
dwelling to which it is attached, not to exceed a maximum of one thousand five
hundred (1500) (1,000) sq. ft.
No attached accessory building, including garage, shall have a door
opening greater than twelve (12) feet in height.
MOTION CARRIED.
#070606-08 - Other Business - Footnote l
The zoning administrator
presented a review as follows.
At the May 2, 2007 meeting, the Planning Commission
directed that language be reviewed for an ordinance amendment to state that all
required front yard setbacks in the residential districts shall not have
parking, loading and accessory structures (the same as for all commercial and
industrial districts). However, parking
should be permitted in the front yard for single and two-family dwellings. The following is the proposed amendment:
|
DISTRICT |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Minimum Yard Setbacks (b)(o)(v) |
|
|||||
|
|
Area (Square Feet) |
Width (Feet) |
|
Front (s) (t) |
Side |
Rear |
Stories |
Feet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Least One |
Total |
|
|
|
|
AG Agriculture |
40,000 |
200 |
20 |
40 (l) |
20 |
40 |
75 |
2˝ |
35 |
|
RR Residential |
30,000 (c) |
200(c) |
20 |
40 (l) |
20 |
40 |
50 |
2˝ |
35 |
|
LDR Residential |
11,475 (d) |
85(n)(d) |
30 |
40 (l) |
10 |
20 |
40 |
2˝ |
35 |
|
LMR Residential |
7,700 (e) |
70(n) |
30 |
30 (l) |
5 |
15 |
30 |
2˝ |
35 |
|
MDR Residential |
10,000 (d)(f) |
80(n) |
30 |
35 (l) |
10 |
20 |
35 |
2˝ |
35 |
|
MHR Residential (i)(j) |
10,000 (e-g) |
80(n) |
35 |
35 (l) |
10 |
20 |
35 |
2˝ |
35 |
|
HDR Residential (i)(j) |
(e-h),(u) |
--- |
40 |
30 (l) |
15 |
30 |
30 |
2˝ |
35 |
|
MHP Residential (i) |
---- |
--- |
35 |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
1 |
20 |
|
OS Commercial |
11,050 |
85 |
--- |
30 (l) |
(m) |
|
75 |
2 |
25 |
|
NS Commercial |
11,050 |
85 |
--- |
30 (l) |
(m) |
|
50 |
2˝ |
35 |
|
CS Commercial |
11,050 |
85 |
--- |
30 (l) |
(m) |
|
40 |
2˝ |
35 |
|
HS Commercial |
15,000 |
100 |
35 |
30 (k) |
10 (m) |
25 |
40 |
2˝ |
35 |
|
I Industrial |
40,000 |
150 |
40 |
45 (r) |
20 (m) |
40 |
40 |
3 |
45 |
* Footnotes are integral
part of these District Regulations and
should be read in conjunction with the above schedule.
(l) For all uses in the
residential districts and in OS, NS and CS commercial districts, except for
necessary drives and walks the required front yard setback shall be
landscaped and shall not be used for parking (other than for single and
two-family dwellings), loading, or accessory structures.
There was discussion to allow parking in the front
yard setback of single and two-family dwelling units and to not regulate mobile
home parking. It was decided that the
word “setback” should be added.
Moved by Stasiak, seconded by DeGood, to initiate a
Zoning Ordinance amendment as follows:
(l) For all uses in the residential
districts and in OS, NS and CS commercial districts, except for necessary
drives and walks the required front yard setback shall be landscaped and
shall not be used for parking (other than for single and two-family
dwellings), loading, or accessory structures.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#070606-09 – Adjournment
The
chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m.