Minutes of the
work session of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission held Wednesday, May
4, 2005
The meeting was
called to order by Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Huizinga, DeGood, Honderd, Pearson,
Poskey, Stasiak, South
Absent: none
The work session,
which formulated the agenda for May 18, 2005, included the following items to
be placed on the agenda, discussion, and action:
I.
Approval of agenda
II.
Approval of minutes of the April 20, 2005 regular meeting and
the May 4, 2005 work session meeting
III.
Unfinished
Business
A. Preliminary
Plat of Cedar Lake Estates No. 11
It was noted that
the Township Supervisor had contacted the applicant to inform him that the item
would be acted upon at the next Planning Commission meeting since the
application was received by the Township in July of 2004 and has been on the
agenda since that time.
Doug Stalsonburg,
Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and stated that the applicant had
given him a copy of the agreement regarding the construction of 28th
Ave. to review. He also stated that the
applicant planned to add twelve lots to this phase and that a revised plan
would be submitted for review in June.
The chairman
directed the applicant to update the Planning Commission with information of
the status of the request. He noted that
the application was submitted in July of 2004 and has been on the agenda since
that time with no updates and without any representation at the Planning
Commission meetings. He said that the
Planning Commission would be willing to wait for the revised plan, but should
be notified of the status of the request.
IV. New
Business
A.
Site Plans
1. (ST0508) Campus View Townhouses-10081
42nd Ave.
Doug Stalsonburg,
Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the request. He noted that the section that had been
submitted to the Township for rezoning had been approved. He said that this is phase 6 with 164 units
making a total of 308 for the whole complex.
He said that some of the buildings had 5, 6, 8, and 10 units per
building. Comments from the Fire
Department were noted including the street name change where it turns.
The planner
presented a review. The following items
need to be addressed and provided: square footage of the units, streetscape,
building setbacks from the centerline of 42nd Ave., sidewalk
location along 42nd Ave., floor plans as required under Sec.
19.4(R)(2), building elevations per sec. 19.4(r)(4), attached garages as per
Chapter 24 footnote (w), signage, and dumpster enclosure details.
The applicant stated
that this is phase 6 of the project and all the building floor plans and
elevations are the same as previously submitted.
There was discussion
regarding the previous phases and the applicant was informed that a variance
would be required if he wanted to build the apartments without garages. The chairman directed the zoning
administrator to check the history of the project and provide the Planning
Commission with the information.
The planner also
directed that the plan show a vehicle connection between the parking lots and
that sidewalks be provided on 42nd Ave. There was discussion regarding the sidewalk
and the consensus was that the sidewalks should be provided at the time that
the buildings are completed adjacent to 42nd Ave.
The applicant
indicated that they were providing a traffic analysis for the Road Commission
and they might reposition the access points.
The planner said
that one access point could be eliminated.
The applicant stated
that a variance would be pursued for the garages.
#050504-01 – Old Business - Special Use Permit (SUP0503) Michelle Bowne, 916 Fairwood
Ct., is requesting to have a group day care home under Sec. 8.3(E), on a parcel of land described as P.P.# 70-14-11-436-010, located at 916 Fairwood Ct., in a (LDR) Low Density Residential district
Michelle Bowne presented the request and said that the request had been revised to stipulate the hours from 6:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m., to have 9 unrelated children instead of 12, to limit the ages from 6 weeks to 11 years, to have only 6 unrelated outdoors at one time which would be a family daycare and have the group daycare indoors. She said that someone from the Road Commission had come to show her where to widen her driveway.
The planner said that the item had been tabled at the last meeting due to traffic and parking issues and for the determination as to whether or not the fence could be erected. He noted that several letters had been submitted, both in support and in opposition to the request. He said that a family daycare home with up to 6 unrelated children is permitted by right with no fence requirement. He said that he had contacted the state and it was possible for the Township to limit the number of children in a group daycare home.
The planner said that there were three main issues. The first is traffic. He said that with 9 unrelated children there could be 18 separate trips. He said that the applicant has made an effort to provide a turn-around; however, there are still major traffic and circulation issues for the clients and employees, as well as maneuvering issues for parking. He said that this is a cul de sac with only one way in and one way out, with no through traffic. He said that this intense use would negatively impact and affect the people who were adjacent to the site. He said that with a family daycare with only 6 unrelated children, the trips to the house would only be about 12.
The second issue is noise. The planner said that with the daycare open from 6:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. there was a potential to negatively impact the neighborhood with noise and negatively impact safely issues. He said that the applicant proposed to only have a specific number of children outdoors at one time, but that such a condition would be very difficult to enforce. He said that with a family daycare there could be a maximum of 6 children outdoors at one time and there would be no enforcement because it was permitted by right.
The third issue is the intensity of the use and the neighborhood compatibility. He said that although the number of children and hours could be stipulated, the requested number of children is too intense for the neighborhood. He said that the intensity of the traffic was too great for the neighborhood and would negatively impact the neighborhood. He said that the group daycare with 12 unrelated children, or 9 as requested by the application, had a potential to operate at a level of intensity that is above other types of home occupations and activities typical of a single-family residential area. He said that with 9 children, as proposed by the applicant, a fence would still be required at a ratio of 9 times 150 or a total of 1350 square feet. He said that the neighborhood currently contains fencing only for dog runs which are typically 400 square feet and for pool security just around the pools which is required by the state and building code. He said that fencing is required as a special use standard and it must be met for the special use to be approved. He said that the conditions that the applicant proposed would be very difficult to enforce.
Huizinga said that even if they wanted to approve the special use permit, they could not approve it because a fence is required as a special use standard which must be met in order for the special use permit to be approved.
Poskey said that the use was too intense for the neighborhood.
Pearson said that he calculated that there could be up to 152 car trips per week based on the information provided by the application with her schedule. He said that the use was too intense. He said that the neighbors chose to have their homes on this cul de sac and their rights should be respected.
South said that this was too much traffic and was not compatible with the neighborhood. He said that the additional traffic might not be noticed on a busy street and that there could be a noise problem. He said that the ordinance requires a fence and the developer has stated in writing that it would not be approved. He said that a family daycare with six children is permitted by right and no fence would be required for that. He said that there could be a problem with imposing conditions because they would be difficult to enforce. He said that this intense use is not compatible with the neighborhood.
DeGood said that he looked at the traffic problem and did not think that anyone would notice anything. He said that the fence was still a problem because it was required for a special use permit for a group daycare. He said that he understood that the state had one set of requirements and the Township had different requirements. He said that the developer and the whole neighborhood does not want the fence.
South said that he has no problem with Michelle and is sure that she is a good person and good daycare provider.
Moved by DeGood, seconded by Pearson, to open the floor to public comments.
Yeas: Pearson, Huizinga, Honderd, Stasiak, DeGood, South
Nays: Poskey
MOTION CARRIED.
Michael Bosch, 896 Fairwood Ct., said that the problem is the fence and his proximity to it. He said that he lives adjacent to the applicant and opposes the installation of the fence because he would have to look at it. He questioned the validity of the signatures that the applicant submitted because there had been deception by the application when they were approached. He said that the issues were more than just traffic. He said that the applicant had been deceptive and told them that they were going to put in a dog run and they don’t even have a dog. He said that they should have been honest about the reason for the fence. He said that the next day after the last meeting he was in his garage and there were 8 cars in two hours. He said that he was worried about the safety of his future step-daughter. He said that the Planning Commission member calculated that according to the schedule Michelle submitted there would be 152 car trips per week and that was too much. He said that the developer had submitted a letter stating that the fence would not be approved. He said that she could have 6 kids with no fence and that wanting 12 kids was just greedy. He said that if she wants that many kids that she should rent a building. He said that everyone knows that ignorance of the law is no excuse. He said that he wants what is good for his neighborhood.
Dan Polanic, 7297 Ryan Ct., said that the traffic should not bother people and should not be an issue. He said that he does not like to see a fence in the front yard, but the back yard was okay and that the issue should be the safety of the children. He said that a fence would be no problem if it was nice and painted.
Molly Guikema, 906 Fairwood Ct., said that she lives directly next door and that traffic has increased by quite a few cars since Michelle moved in. She said that she saw the article in the Advance and it made the neighbors look cranky. She said that it was a matter of right and wrong. She said that she and others bought in the neighborhood with certain expectation. She said that it was wrong to infringe on the neighbors. She said that this was pushing the line. She said that she doesn’t know where Ryan Ct. is and doesn’t think that it is in this neighborhood. She said that when she bought her house she looked for a quiet area and looked for a quiet circle drive. She said that the neighbors that were not in close proximity and were further down had less of an issue with the group daycare. She said that she appreciates the comments from the Planning Commissioners about the wellbeing of the neighbors. She said that this has not become personal and she is not a grouch, but she does not want to live next door to a business.
Jill DeVries, 8728 Chevel Ct., said that she has a special-needs son and Michelle has helped her out with care for him. She said that Michelle has done nothing but good and living in a court has nothing to do with this. She said that the fence should not be an issue and that a fence looks wonderful.
Steve Guikema, 906 Fairwood Ct., said that he doesn’t want the fence because he would have to stare at it. He said that if there was a fence, the toys would pile up. He said that this is not a personal issue and that Michelle probably does a great job. He said that three or four daycare children would be no big deal. He said that the daycare does increase traffic and he is opposed mainly because of the fence.
The chairman closed the floor to public comments.
Michelle Bowne said that she did not call the Advance and that the information in the article was in the meeting minutes. She said that there would be additional traffic even with the family daycare for six children that she would be allowed to do by right. She said that when she lived two streets down there was never an issue with noise or toys.
The zoning administrator said that she had contacted the state and found that they do not mention anywhere in their rules that an applicant for a group daycare should check with their local municipality to see if there were additional rules. She said that she had suggested that they should mention this to group daycare applicants.
There was discussion amongst the Planning Commission members regarding the intensity of the use, the incompatibility of the use with the neighborhood, the additional noise and the fact that the applicant could have a family daycare for six children by right and without the requirement of the fence.
It was noted that prior to acting upon a motion, the item should be removed from the table.
Moved by Stasiak, seconded by Huizinga, to remove the item from the table.
MOTION CARRIED..
The motion that was on the table was as follows:
Moved by Huizinga, seconded by DeGood, to recommend to the Township Board approval of Special Use Permit (SUP0503) Michelle Bowne, 916 Fairwood Ct., to have a group day care home under Sec. 8.3(E), on a parcel of land described as P.P.# 70-14-11-436-010, located at 916 Fairwood Ct., in a (LDR) Low Density Residential district.
Yeas: none
Nays: Pearson, Poskey, Huizinga, Honderd, Stasiak, DeGood, South
MOTION DEFEATED.
(Motion by Huizinga to recommend to the Township Board approval with conditions died for lack of support.)
Moved by Stasiak, seconded by Poskey, to recommend to the Township Board denial of Special Use Permit (SUP0503) Michelle Bowne, 916 Fairwood Ct., to have a group day care home under Sec. 8.3(E), on a parcel of land described as P.P.# 70-14-11-436-010, located at 916 Fairwood Ct., in a (LDR) Low Density Residential district, for the following reasons:
1. A fence is required as a specific special use standard for a group daycare and the developer has indicated in writing that a fence would not be approved, therefore, this special use standard would not be met;
2. There are traffic issues related to a large increase in traffic that is incompatible with the neighborhood, therefore, this is a general special use standard that would not be met;
3. The intensity of the use of a group daycare is not compatible with the neighborhood, therefore, this is a general and specific special use standard that would not be met.
Yeas: Pearson, Poskey, Huizinga, Honderd, Stasiak, DeGood, South
Nays: none
MOTION CARRIED.
B. Public Hearings
1.
Special Use Permits-none
5.
Plats-none
6.
PUD’s-none
5. Ordinance Amendments-none
V.
Other Business
#050504-02 – Initiate Zoning Ordinance
Amendments as follows;
There was discussion regarding the proposed Zoning Ordinance
amendments.
Moved by Poskey, seconded by Pearson, to initiate and advertise the
ordinance amendments as follows:
Sec. 3.7 BASIS OF DETERMINING FRONT YARD
REQUIREMENTS.
The
required front yard shall be measured from the right-of-way line 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. In the case of a handicap wheelchair
ramp (not to exceed a width of five (5) feet), the Zoning Administrator may
waive 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.
and
(o) Projections
Into Yards. Architectural features, as defined, not including vertical
projections, may extend or project into a required side yard not more than two
(2) inches for each one (1) foot of width of such side yard and may extend or
project into a required front yard or rear yard not more than three (3) feet.
An open porch, paved patio, deck or terrace may project into a required front
or rear yard for a distance not to exceed twelve (12) feet. (revised 1-24-05). In the case of a handicap wheelchair
ramp (not to exceed a width of five (5) feet), the Zoning Administrator may
waive 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.
A.
Preliminary
Plan Application Requirements
Following the
pre-application conference, applicants seeking approval of a PUD District shall
submit a complete application for review to the Zoning Administrator. When the Zoning Administrator determines the
application to be complete, the PUD application will be sent to the Planning
Commission for a workshop session, followed at a later date by a Planning
Commission public hearing. Such
application shall include the following (unless determined by the Zoning
Administrator or Planning Commission to be unnecessary):
1.
A completed application form and ten (10) copies
of a preliminary development plan shall be provided to the Zoning
Administrator. The preliminary plan
shall contain the following site plan information:
a.
The date, north arrow, and scale. The scale shall be not less than 1”=20’ for
property ten (10) acres and larger and at least 1”=200’ for those 20 acres (20)
acres or more.
b.
The name and address of the firm responsible for
the preparation of the site plan.
c.
The name and address of the property owner(s)
and petitioner(s).
d.
Legal description of the PUD site.
e.
The size (in acres) of the PUD site.
f.
Property lines and proposed setbacks, shown and
dimensioned.
g.
A location sketch.
h.
The location of all existing structures,
driveways, and parking areas within 100’ of the PUD site’s boundaries.
i.
The location and dimensions of all existing
structures on the PUD site.
j.
The location of all proposed structures on the
PUD site. Realizing that this is
preliminary, dimensions are not necessary until final approval.
k.
The location and dimension of proposed lots or
ownership divisions.
l.
The location, pavement width and right-of-way
width of all abutting roads, streets, alleys or easements.
m.
The existing zoning and use of all properties
abutting and including the PUD site.
n.
The location of all existing vegetation and the
general location of all proposed landscape areas, berms, landscape islands and
buffers, including any fence or wall areas.
o.
The size and location of existing utilities,
including a short narrative note on the site plan pertaining to the PUD’s
proposed utility needs and concepts.
p.
The proposed location and estimated size(s) of
all surface and subsurface water drainage facilities.
q.
Existing topographic contours at a maximum of
five (5) foot intervals. Conceptual topographic
patterns for the PUD site shall also be provided, noting major earth moving
and/or removal areas (realizing that each building receiving final PUD approval
will be required to show actual topographic contours, both existing and
proposed).
r.
Location, type and size of areas to be dedicated
for common open space.
s.
Anticipated trash receptacle locations and
method of screening.
t.
Proposed streets, alleys, curb cuts,
acceleration/deceleration lanes, curbed areas, service drives and parking lot
locations, including traffic calming concepts, driving surface widths as
required by the Ottawa County Road Commission’s standards.
u.
Proposed pedestrian sidewalk movements both
within and off the PUD site. Sidewalks
are required along all public roadways.
v.
Proposed lighting concepts/styles and general
location areas.
w.
Proposed architectural style/design concepts
that will be incorporated into final approval plans, including both buildings
and structures (i.e. - gateways, fence/wall concepts, art work, etc.).
x.
Proposed setbacks, lot widths, lot areas and
building/structure heights.
y.
Proposed uses to be included in the PUD project.
z.
Floodplain
areas.
A.
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.
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.
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).
a.
The location and dimensions of all proposed
structures and buildings on the PUD site.
b.
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.
c.
The location of all proposed signs and lighting,
including the sizes and types.
d.
The location, type and size of all proposed
landscaping and site amenities (art work, fences, gateway features, etc.).
e.
The location, type and size of all utilities and
storm water drainage facilities, including fire protection, sanitary sewers,
water services, etc.
f.
Existing and proposed topographic contours at a
maximum of three (3) foot intervals.
g.
Elevation views of all proposed structures and
floor plans for all multi-family residential dwelling units.
h.
Proposed open space areas, including
recreational amenities (playgrounds, etc.).
i.
Floodplain
areas.
(C) No
detached accessory building or use shall be located closer than ten (10) feet
to any main building , nor shall the eave line (which could be a maximum of three (3) feet) of such
building be located closer than five (5) feet to any side or rear lot
line. All accessory buildings shall meet
the same setback requirements from a street right-of-way line as required for
the main building, provided that on a double frontage lot, an accessory
building may be located within the required rear yard no closer than twenty
(20) feet to the road right-of-way line.
MOTION CARRIED.
VI. Commissioner Comments
VII. Staff Comments
VIII.
Adjourn
The meeting was
adjourned at 8:50 p.m.