PC minutes 7-6-05

Minutes of the work session of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission held Wednesday, July 6, 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 July 20, 2005, included the following items to be placed on the agenda, discussion, and action:

I. Approval of agenda

II. Approval of minutes of the June 15, 2005 regular meeting and the July 6, 2005 work session meeting

III. Unfinished Business

A. Site Plan (ST0508) Campus View Townhouses-10081 42^nd Ave.

Doug Stalsonburg, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the request. Revised plans were submitted showing attached garages. The proposal is for 117 units with 4, 6, 8 or 10 individual dwelling units.

The planner noted that a letter was received from the Ottawa County Road Commission asking that a traffic study be conducted.

A question arose as to the purpose of the requested traffic study and the planner said that the Road Commission wanted an estimate of the impact the proposed project would have on abutting streets and intersections.

The applicant said that Wade Trim had been hired to conduct the study and the completed study had already been submitted to the Road Commission. A by-pass lane had been required at 42^nd Ave. and Pierce due to the projected impact of the amount of traffic to be generated by total development. He said that the Road Commission had determined that the level of service was slightly substandard and the added left turn lane would provide a remedy. He said that although the driveways had been eliminated as requested by the Planning Commission, his client was not totally committed to adding the lane.

Other comments made included the fact that the front setback must be 80 feet from the centerline of 42^nd Ave. (30 feet measured from a point 50 feet from the CL) and is not dimensioned. Sidewalks are noted but must be shown on 42^nd Ave. No sign details are given. Streetscape must be shown, along with a legend. The floodplain note states that the site does not “abut” a floodplain. If it is not affected by a floodplain, the note should say “not located in the floodplain.”

B. Special Use Permit (SUP0504) Wizard Wash Ventures, LLC, 4346 Leonard NW, Grand Rapids, is requesting to have a vehicle wash establishment under Sec. 15.3(C), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-13-300-075, located at 550 Baldwin St., in a (CS) Community Service Commercial district

Revised plans have been submitted for a work session to be held at the next meeting.

#050706-01 - Preliminary Plat of Georgetown Shores No. 6

It was noted that no new plans were submitted. Doug Stalsonburg, Exxel Engineering, represented the applicant and presented the request. He read the letter that the developer had submitted addressing concerns that had been raised at the last meeting. He said that there had been no revisions to the plan and that the sod issue had been addressed. He said that phase I had been developed prior to the sidewalk requirement, but the developer has agreed to pay 50% up to $5,000 to install a bike path along that area although he does not have to. He said that there were no “lake policemen” and that the residents would basically have to control the lake themselves. He said that Mr. Land controls the association and will continue to control it until all the land is developed. He said that there was no way to enforce issues on the lake if it got too busy and people should just get off the lake if it gets too busy.

Greg Honderd asked about the drain and the applicant said that there was sediment after a heavy rain fall and it had already been cleaned out and would be again before the end of the year.

Plans that were approved and signed by the Planning Commission on 2-10-93 show the minimum depth of the lake as 5 feet. Also, the Code Enforcer inspected the non-motorized path for sod that was peeled away and noted that it was an issued that had been resolved.

The zoning administrator stated that she had researched some of the issues brought up at the last meeting in regards to the lake and found that they were civil issues. She said that the Planning Commission only has authority that is specified by State law and the Zoning Ordinance. She said that congestion on the lake or locations of docks and shore stations were not regulated by the Zoning Ordinance, therefore, the Planning Commission had no authority in that regard.

Ed Stasiak asked about the unresolved site plan issues.

Greg Honderd said that a connection should be provided to 18^th Ave. because it affects residents on Edson, 22^nd Ave. and on 18^th Ave., in addition to people coming from Jamestown. He said that the connection to 18^th Ave. should be provided.

Michael Pearson asked where the Planning Commission’s authority comes from in regards to subdivisions.

The zoning administrator said that there is a Township general Subdivision Ordinance plus the Zoning Ordinance.

The planner said that he had also done research and said that no other Boards and Commissions have authority over lake issues.

Del South said that he wanted to see the connection to 18^th Ave. due to traffic issues, specifically because large amounts of traffic would be diverted to Springmont and the condos. He said that the plan with no connection to 18^th Ave. does not make sense and he wanted to see the connection to 18^th Ave.

The applicant asked about signage for 18^th Ave.

Ron DeGood said that signage could be provided to require vehicles to yield southbound at 18^th Ave.

The applicant said that this would be a “T” intersection or maybe even a three-way stop. He said that the reason they had proposed the Springmont intersection was because it was a four-way intersection. He said that the more devious people would take Edson to get to east VanBuren and cut through to 14^th Ave. and this plan purposely discouraged this. He said that most traffic wanted to go east on Edson and north on 18^th Ave. He said that there were four condos on Edson and not many driveways. He said that the Road Commission and the Fire Chief had approved this plan.

The zoning administrator said that she had spoken with the Fire Chief and it was not correct to say that he approved the plan; rather he had said that fire protection would be provided for the houses whichever way the plan was approved. She said that she had also spoken with Brett Laughlin at the Road Commission and he said that he would work with the Township depending on what the Township wants.

Moved by Stasiak, seconded by Pearson, to open the floor to public comments as long at the items brought up are things that the Planning Commission has authority over.

The chairman said that he preferred to keep public comments closed because most comments made by the public were concerning items that the Planning Commission had no control over.

David Poskey said that he preferred to keep it closed for the same reason.

Yeas: Stasiak, Huizinga, Pearson

Nays: South, DeGood, Honderd, Poskey

MOTION DEFEATED.

The planner said that he preferred to have the connection to 18^th Ave. because there would be better distribution of traffic. He said that the plan should be tabled because it should be revised to reflect six outstanding items, including the following:

1. The location, pavement width and right-of-way width of all abutting roads, streets, alleys or easements.

2. The existing zoning and use of all properties abutting the subject property.

3. The location of all existing vegetation and the location, type, and size of all proposed landscaping, and the location, height and type of existing and proposed fences and walls.

4. The size (in acres) of the subject property.

5. The location of any proposed signage used to identify this development. Any new

signs must be in conformance with Section 25, “Signs”.

6. Add the following notes to the General Notes list:

- Maximum building heights will not exceed 2 ½ stories, or 35 feet.

- A minimum two parking spaces will be provided for each dwelling unit.

Moved by Poskey, seconded by Stasiak, to remove the item from the table.

MOTION CARRIED.

There was discussion regarding the items that needed to be revised on the plan. The applicant asked that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Board for action on this plan without the revisions and without the connection to 18^th Ave. The applicant asked if he could come back to the Planning Commission in August with a revised plan that shows the 18^th Ave. connection and the additional revisions if the Board denies this plan.

The zoning administrator said that the application would have to be resubmitted with another fee and go through the whole process if it was acted upon and denied by the Board.

The chairman directed that this situation be brought to the attention of the Board and a tabling motion be requested rather than a denial so that the applicant could return to the Planning Commission with a revised plan in August rather than a resubmittal if the Board does not want to approve the plan with no connection to 18^th Ave.

Moved by Poskey, seconded by South, to recommend to the Township Board denial of the plan as shown on the drawing dated 6/03/05 because a majority of the Planning Commission is in favor of a connection to 18^th Ave. and no connection to 18^th Ave. is shown on the plan, plus the plan needs to be revised to address the following six items:

1. The location, pavement width and right-of-way width of all abutting roads, streets, alleys or easements.

2. The existing zoning and use of all properties abutting the subject property.

3. The location of all existing vegetation and the location, type, and size of all proposed landscaping, and the location, height and type of existing and proposed fences and walls.

4. The size (in acres) of the subject property.

5. The location of any proposed signage used to identify this development. Any new

signs must be in conformance with Section 25, “Signs”.

6. Add the following notes to the General Notes list:

- Maximum building heights will not exceed 2 ½ stories, or 35 feet.

- A minimum two parking spaces will be provided for each dwelling unit.

Yeas: Pearson, Poskey, Honderd, DeGood, South

Nays: Huizinga, Stasiak

MOTION CARRIED.

IV. New Business

A. Site Plans-none

B. Public Hearings

1. Special Use Permits

a. (SUP0505) Daybreak Church (Owen-Ames-Kimbal Co.), 300 Ionia Ave. NW, Grand Rapids, is requesting to have a church (addition to existing church) under Sec. 6.3(Q), on parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-17-200-022 and -016, located at 3501 Baldwin St., in (AG) Agriculture and (RR) Rural Residential districts

No special use permit was ever granted for the church even though numerous site plans have been approved throughout the years. Since they are changing the site by adding a youth building, the current ordinance must be met and a special use permit for a church must be obtained. The site meets the special use standards by having over 200 feet of frontage on Baldwin and 36^th Ave. and is 32.74 acres.

Ed Hoover, Owen-Ames-Kimball Co., represented the applicant and presented the request. He said that this would be an addition connected with a corridor and ramp.

The planner presented a review.

The applicant said that the parking requirements should not change because with the addition of the youth building, they were not increasing the number of people. He said that the lawn area had a prairie-look and the biggest change was the detention pond. He said that the reason was because they had not submitted the plans to the Drain Commissioner in the past and now were required to meet the new ordinance. He said that they would only connect to water because the sanitary sewer was ¼ of a mile down the street. He said that they did not know at this time what the use of the south parcel would be. He said that the landscaping would not change.

The planner said that a streetscape would be required along 36^th Ave. There was discussion regarding the landscaping along 36^th Ave. which the ordinance requires in a residential district. The zoning administrator noted that the ordinance defines a residential district as including the agriculture district. The applicant was directed to show a landscaping legend.

It was noted that there were nine items that had to be revised on the plan, including building elevations, landscaping, lighting, drainage, signage, parking and circulation, refuse, streetscaping and setbacks.

The Planning Commission directed that the request be advertised for a public hearing for the next meeting.

b. (SUP0506) Macatawa Bank (GMB Architects/Engineers), 85 East Eighth St., Holland, is requesting to have a drive-in bank under Sec. 15.3(A), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-13-300-076, located at 520 Baldwin St., in a (CS) Community Service Commercial district

Mike Buitendorp, GMB Architects/Engineers, represented the applicant and presented the request. The proposed bank would replace the existing Eye on Video store and there would be a hill in the rear year that would be greenspace.

The planner presented a review and asked about existing landscaping and building height. There was discussion regarding site lighting and circulation. A suggestion was made to rotate the building. The applicant was directed to show a floor plan with the number of teller spaces so that parking requirements could be calculated. It was also noted that approval from the Ottawa County Drain Commissioner is required.

The zoning administrator said that the reference to the city of Zeeland in the General Notes should be corrected to state Georgetown Township. She noted that there are barriers and stop signs along Baldwin between the current Eye on Video and the new 5^th 3^rd Bank building because people must have been driving over the curb in this area to access Baldwin. She asked if that curbing leading to Baldwin St. would be eliminated.

The applicant said that landscaping would be added to the front and should eliminate the confusion with the curbing leading to Baldwin. He said that if they rotated the building, they would lose parking in the front for easy access.

Greg Honderd said that there could be a stacking problem and that circulation should be one-way all the way around the site.

Del South said that cars could stack up to get out to Baldwin.

The applicant said that they needed two-way access from the service drive.

The Planning Commission directed that the request be advertised for a public hearing for the next meeting.

2. Rezonings-none

3. Plats

a. Preliminary Plat of Lowing Woods No. 3

b. Preliminary Plat of Lowing Woods No. 4

4. PUD’s

a. (PUD0406-2) Final Development Plan-Phase 2 Eastbrook

Development (Lowing Woods No. 3)

b. (PUD0406-3) Final Development Plan-Phase 3 Eastbrook

Development (Lowing Woods No. 4)

The preliminary plats and final development plans were discussed simultaneously since it was the same plan for all. Dale Kraker represented the applicant and presented the request. A landscaping plan was presented for the entrance to the plat.

The planner presented a review. A table was requested with the total number of residential units and open space.

5. Ordinance Amendments-none

V. Other Business

The Planning Commissioners asked that a new procedure be developed that would ensure that application submission materials met simple ordinance requirements like setbacks prior to being placed on an agenda. The planner suggested that pre-application meetings be required. The zoning administrator volunteered to compile new procedures for applications and present them to the Planning Commission for review.