Minutes of the
regular meeting of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission, held Wednesday,
November 16, 2005
Meeting called to order by
Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Honderd, Poskey, DeGood, South, Pearson,
Stasiak
Absent: Huizinga
#051116-01 - Agenda for November 16, 2005
Moved by South,
seconded by Pearson, to approve the agenda for November 16, 2005, as presented.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#051116-02 - Minutes of the October
19, 2005 regular meeting and the November
2, 2005 work
session meeting
Moved
by DeGood, seconded by Pearson, to approve the minutes of the October 19, 2005 regular meeting,
as submitted.
MOTION
CARRIED.
Moved
by DeGood, seconded by Stasiak, to approve the minutes of the November 2, 2005 work session meeting,
as submitted.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#051116-03 - Special Use Permit (SUP0510) Bob’s Transmission, 3220 Plainfield N.E., is requesting to
have a vehicle repair establishment under Sec.
17.3(F), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-22-363-002, located at 2336
Port Sheldon, in an (I) Industrial district
Henry
Kamps, Kamps Construction, and Jim Holtvluwer, Reitberg Realty, represented the
applicant.
The
zoning administrator presented a review.
The proposed plan is to construct a 3,292 square foot addition to a
1,947 square foot existing building. The
front 12 feet of the building is to be used for office use, 3040 square feet
for vehicle repair and 1700 for warehouse use.
No revisions had been required from the work session meeting and no new
information has been submitted. All
ordinance requirements have been met for the site plan requirements, as well as
for the general and specific special use standards for vehicle repair. Documentation showing compliance has been
provided in the previous review.
The chairman opened the public hearing. No one was present to comment on this
item. The chairman closed the public
hearing.
Moved by South, seconded by Poskey, to recommend to the Township Board approval for Special Use Permit (SUP0510)
Bob’s Transmission, 3220 Plainfield N.E., to have a vehicle repair
establishment under Sec. 17.3(F), on a parcel of land described as P.P. #
70-14-22-363-002, located at 2336
Port Sheldon, in an (I) Industrial district, because the proposed plan
meets the applicable standards of the ordinance including the general standards
in Sec. 20.3(A) and specific standards Sec. 17.3(F)
MOTION CARRIED.
Moved
by DeGood, seconded by South, to approve the site plan dated 10/19/05 as
submitted because the plan meets all applicable standards of the ordinance.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#051116-04 – Special Use Permit (SUP0511) Cottonwood Heights Christian Reformed Church, 1101
Cypress, is requesting to have a church under Sec.
8.3(A) and to have a day care center under Sec. 8.3(N), on parcels of land
described as P.P.# 70-14-14-200-042, 70-14-14-200-058, 70-14-11-400-033,
70-14-11-400-032, 70-14-11-400-030, located at 8000,
8215,
8205 Ash and 12th
Ave., in a (LDR) Low Density residential district
Don Vandenberg represented the applicant and
presented the request. He noted that
evergreen had been provided along the existing parking spaces, as requested by
the Planning Commission.
The zoning administrator presented a review. The proposal is to erect a new youth building
near the entrance off 12th Ave. and relocate the youth activities to
the new building. The daycare use will
then expand into the whole area of the existing building on the northwest area
of the site. In addition, a canopy is
proposed to be erected over the entrance off Ash Dr. The site currently includes five
parcels. Since this results in a
non-conforming situation because the buildings meet setback requirements in
regards to the overall site (rather than each individual parcel), the
recommendation is for all the parcels to be combined and an overall legal
description be provided.
A summary was presented as
follows:
A
revised plan has been submitted and addresses most concerns raised at the work
session.
1.
The canopy had
been raised to meet the Fire Code requirement of a minimum height of 13 feet 6
inches.
2.
No indication has
been provided that the parcels would be combined.
3.
The property
across 12th Ave. has been labeled as LDR, but the use of park is
still not shown.
4.
The calculation in the special use standard for
acreage had been incorrectly shown as multiplying 7 times the 15,000 square
feet required for each 100 seats, rather than the correct number of 8 since the
seating is 743 and the fraction of 100 is to be rounded up. The revised plan correctly shows the
calculation as 8 x 15, 000. The site
meets and exceeds the special use standard since it is 6.11 acres.
5.
Eleven new
trees have been added along the southeastern property as requested by the
Planning Commission at the last meeting.
6.
All other
ordinance requirements have been determined to be met for the site plan, as
well as for the two special use permit standards, and documentation showing
compliance has been provided after the summary.
The chairman opened the public hearing. No one was present to comment on this
item. The chairman closed the public
hearing.
Moved by South, seconded by DeGood, to recommend to the Township Board approval of Special Use Permit (SUP0511)
Cottonwood Heights Christian Reformed Church, 1101 Cypress, to have a church
under Sec. 8.3(A) and to have a day care center under Sec. 8.3(N), on parcels
of land described as P.P.# 70-14-14-200-042, 70-14-14-200-058,
70-14-11-400-033, 70-14-11-400-032, 70-14-11-400-030, located at 8000, 8215,
8205 Ash and 12th Ave., in a (LDR) Low Density residential district
because the proposed plan meets the applicable standards of the ordinance
including the general standards in Sec. 20.3(A) and specific standards Sec.
8.3(A) and 8.3(N).
MOTION CARRIED.
Moved by South, seconded by DeGood, to approve the site plan dated 11/7/05 as submitted,
because the proposed plan meets applicable standards of the ordinance and with
the following conditions:
1.
A letter is
submitted to the Township requesting to combine the five parcels at the time
the building permit application is submitted;
2.
The word “park”
is written on the site plan on the property across 12th Ave. to
label the use.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#051116-05 – Special Use Permit (SUP0512) Meijer Stores L.P. (Progressive AE), 550 Baldwin, is
requesting to have a drive-in establishment under
Sec. 15.3(A) and an open air business under Sec. 15.3(B), on a parcel of land
described as P.P. # 70-14-13-300-075,
located at 550
Baldwin, in a (CS) Community Service Commercial (letter)
Greg
Heath, Meijer Inc., and Mark Kastner, Progressive A.E., represented the
applicant and presented the request. A
video was presented. They discussed the
review and noted the following. Landscaping
has been shown and noted in the proposed curb islands as currently exists in
the canoe island that was installed to establish the private street for
Culvers. The curbed island perpendicular
to the west property line has been extended to the west to address the
misaligned intersection. Additional
signs guiding and directing traffic are shown on the plan. The plan still shows the chain link fence
because a decorative one would cost $45,000 and would be more conducive to
vandalism and theft than a chain link.
The letter as requested was submitted, but Meijer prefers to state that
the hashed area would be raised if both parties agree rather than if either the
Township or Meijer wants it.
There
was discussion regarding the circulation pattern on the site and the
circulation relative to the proposed pharmacy drive-in window. Several of the Planning Commissioners stated
concerns with the traffic circulation and the proposed location of the pharmacy
window. The proposed landscaped islands
have now helped to establish a ring road from the southeast corner, traveling
north, then again traveling west along the building. The canoe perpendicular to the western
property line has been extended to align the intersection. These are site improvements that aid the
traffic circulation. The Planning
Commissioners suggested moving the pharmacy drive-in window to the eastern side
of the building.
The
zoning administrator presented a review.
The proposal is to construct a 35 by 421 foot addition to the eastern
side of the store and eliminate the entrance from that area, to relocate the
outdoor garden center to the east of the addition, and to add a drive-in
pharmacy window to the northeast corner of the building. The applicant has indicated that the interior
of the store would be remodeled to incorporate these changes.
In
summary, specific ordinance requirements have been met and documentation
showing compliance has been provided in the previous review.
The
following issues raised at the work session have been addressed:
1.
The 5th
3rd Bank building is shown correctly.
2.
Landscaping has
been shown and/or noted in all the proposed curb islands as currently exists in
the canoe island that was installed to establish the private street for
Culvers.
3.
Topography was
waived by the Planning Commission at the work session, as permitted in Sec.
19.4
4.
The curbed island
perpendicular to the west property line has been extended to the west to
address the misaligned intersection.
5. The Planning Commission mentioned for the minutes of the work session that
it was acceptable for the number of parking spaces to be reduced from the
required number since landscaping is provided as per authority given under Sec.
26.9(K). However, just as a question,
the revised plan shows the number of parking space provided to be 1075, an
increase of three spaces from the last plan, which noted that 1072 were
provided.
6. A note was
added stating that lights would be downward directing to meet the special use
standard for open air business.
7.
Sign details have been provided depicting a
typical sign guiding and directing traffic, as permitted in Sec. 25.4(F). No advertising matter is shown on the signs.
Issues
remaining:
1.
The initial plan
showed only one sign directing and guiding traffic for the pharmacy drive-in
window (exempt from the ordinance under Sec. 25.4(F)). On the revised plan, six are now shown, with
five depicted on the plan and one more in the enlarged detail.
2.
At the meeting
with the applicants and Township officials, the applicants clearly indicated
that a letter would be provided stating that at the end of one year, EITHER the
Township or Meijer could decide that the hashed lines should be curbed. The letter provided by the applicant now
states that it would be added if mutually agreed upon.
3.
A Planning
Commissioner asked that the chain link fence be replaced with some other more
aesthetically pleasing material. It is
still shown as chain link.
4.
Several of the
Planning Commissioners stated concerns with the traffic circulation and the
proposed location of the pharmacy window.
The proposed landscaped islands have now helped to establish a ring road
from the southeast corner, traveling north, then again traveling west along the
building. The canoe perpendicular to the
western property line has been extended to align the intersection. These would be site improvements that would
aid the traffic circulation.
The consensus of the Planning
Commission was that the additional signs were acceptable. Some members stated that it was acceptable
for the letter to state that both Meijer and the Township had to decide if the
hashed area was curbed because they should have a say. Others said that if the Township determined
that it was necessary that Meijers would most likely not cooperate and put it
in unless the letter specifically states that the Township has that authority. Members said that although they were cost
sensitive to the fence issue, it was their responsibility to ensure that this
highly visible entrance to the community was as aesthetically pleasing as
possible. They decided that colored vinyl
would be better than plain chain link fence.
Members asked if Meijer could find a way to improve the look of the big
box and sea of asphalt because a goal of the Chicago Dr. Corridor Study is to
improve aesthetic elements along Chicago Dr.
The applicant stated that anything
could be done if there was enough money, but Meijer had to be extremely cost
conscious due to competition. He said
that people would become accustom to the fence and not notice it after a while. He suggested vinyl. He said that they were not required by the ordinance
to have any specific materials. He said
that there are only about 28 customers per day who would use the drive-in
window.
There was discussion regarding
traffic and congestion on the site.
Planning Commissioners stated a concern with the location of the
drive-in window at the most congested area of the site and suggested that it be
moved to the east side of the building.
The applicants presented a
proposed renovated floor plan and stated that other Meijer stores were
successful with this specific location for the drive-in window. They said that the Meijer store in Grandville
had a similar layout as this.
The chairman noted that the
applicants for the rezoning application were waiting in the audience and he
suggested tabling the Meijer application for a few minutes to act upon the
rezoning request.
Moved by Pearson, seconded by
DeGood, to table the item.
MOTION CARRIED.
#051116-06 – Rezoning (REZ0505) To change from (I)
Industrial to (HS) Highway Service Commercial
parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-23-300-039
and 70-14-23-100-052, located at 1330
and 1332 Chicago Dr.
The
zoning administrator stated that the applicant had submitted a letter asking to
withdraw the request. She explained that
the Planning Commission should follow the same procedure as normally would be
followed, such as a motion made to recommend to the Board the action to take.
The chairman opened the public
hearing.
Larry Kirkstra, owner of the
property, asked for the request to be withdrawn.
The chairman closed the public
hearing.
Moved by Poskey, seconded by
Pearson, to recommend to the Township Board to accept the withdrawal request.
MOTION CARRIED.
#051116-07 – Resumed Special Use Permit (SUP0512) Meijer Stores L.P. (Progressive AE), 550
Baldwin, is requesting to have a drive-in
establishment under Sec. 15.3(A) and an open air business under Sec. 15.3(B),
on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-13-300-075,
located at 550
Baldwin, in a (CS) Community Service Commercial (letter)
Moved by South, seconded by
Poskey, to remove the item from the table.
MOTION CARRIED.
Planning Commissioners resumed the
discussion regarding the location of the drive-in window and stated a
preference that it be moved to the east side of the building and the garden
center be reduced or moved if necessary.
It was noted that some of the other Meijer stores had less square
footage than this one.
The applicant stated that this
Meijer had 207,000 square feet and the layout would be changed.
Pearson said that the addition of
the landscaping and traffic islands were improvements to the site but he was
not convinced that the addition of the drive-in window wouldn’t make the congestion
in the area worse.
Poskey said that he was concerned
for safety of the people and he was not convinced that the changes would bring
an overall improvement. He said that
with the elimination of the east entrance, more pedestrians would be cutting
through the area and this was the busiest intersection on the site. He said that in Rockford and Big Rapids, the
Meijer store was off in an isolated corner.
He said that he was not convinced that the drive-in window in this
location was good for the overall site.
He said that this would present additional problems. He said that the video presented by the
applicants indicated that some customers were getting older and did not want to
get out of their cars to get their prescriptions. He said that this would present situations
where the drivers could likely become more confused and jeopardize safety. He preferred the window to be located in a
different location. He said that it only
made sense and if the southwest corner was not practical, there were other
possibilities. He said that for 28
customers, this would create more problems and might not be vital.
The chairman opened the public hearing.
Marian Rondeau, 7482 Thomas, said that she lives
adjacent to the west side of Meijer and she complained about the noise from the
running trucks. She asked if they would
install a sound barrier such as a wall because she could not sleep with her
windows open.
The applicant noted that there were many trees that
screened the area from the homes. He
said that the fencing at the Gaines store was more decorative as opposed to a
noise barrier.
Marion Rondeau said that the trees were not a sound
barrier.
The applicant asked if the noise would be louder if
the trees were removed.
Marion Rondeau disagreed and said that the trees do
not block the noise and she can’t sleep with her window open.
The chairman closed the public hearing.
The zoning administrator said that
the Code Enforcer has taken complaints in the past and has checked the noise
level with a decibel reader. She said
that he had determined that the noise did not violate ordinances.
Marion Rondeau said that the
trucks park behind her home.
The zoning administrator suggested
that the Sheriff’s Department could be called or the Code Enforcer could investigate
those complaints.
Pearson asked how customers would
enter the store if they parking on the east side of the store.
The applicant explained that they
would cut through the parking area and that they could get to the garden center
from the parking lot.
The applicants asked if the
Planning Commission would be satisfied with the proposal if the pharmacy window
were to be removed. The consensus was
that the rest of the proposal was an improvement from the existing
conditions. The members said that the
pharmacy drive-in window brought further congestion to an already congested
area. The applicants asked if the
Planning Commission would take action on the rest of the site plan and table
the drive-in window. The decision was
made that the proposal had to be acted upon in its entirety.
DeGood suggested the applicant
revisit the layout of the site and he would accept the vinyl fencing.
Stasiak said that the drive-in
window should be shifted and he would accept the vinyl fence. He said that the fenced area could possibly
be improved by breaking it up with a decorative element.
Honderd said that he preferred to
see the window moved to the northeast corner and would accept vinyl fence
because he appreciated the concerns with being able to see through the
fence. He said that he also appreciated
the neighbor’s comments and concerns and that possibly an evergreen hedge could
be added as a sound and light barrier.
Pearson said that the window
should be moved and he accepted vinyl coating for the fence. He said that some type of element, such as
trees or landscaping, could help break up the fencing.
Poskey said that chain link fence
was acceptable and he would like to see landscaping added. He stated a concern with the storage canopy
and the open warehouse look. He said
that he was concerned with adding another element with the drive-in window added
to an already busy corner.
South said that he was concerned
with cleaning up the corner and would like to see the loop to the east. He would like to see traffic cut down at this
corner.
Honderd noted that in Grandville
and other locations, the Meijer stores were on outlots that surrounded
malls. He said that in this situation,
Meijer was like the mall and other businesses, such as Culvers, the banks and
Fazoli’s were on the outlots. He said
that this presents a different situation and had to be evaluated according to
the circulation pattern relative to this site instead of comparing it to a
different situation. He said that the
consensus of the Planning Commission was that the drive-in window should be
moved to the east side of the building to help to eliminate congestion in the
area.
The consensus of the Planning
Commission was that the proposed plan was acceptable except for the drive-in
window at the location shown.
Moved by Poskey, seconded by
Pearson, to table the item.
MOTION CARRIED.
#051116-08 - Ordinance Amendments - Sec. 19.5, Sec. 20.2, Sec. 29.6
The
following Zoning Ordinance amendments were initiated by the Planning Commission
to require a preapplication meeting to take place prior to the submittal of an
application for a site plan, special use permit or a rezoning. Additional language was added to make all
sections of the ordinance consistent.
The chairman opened the public hearing. No one was present to comment on this
item. The chairman closed the public
hearing.
Moved
by Pearson, seconded by Stasiak, to recommend to the Township Board approval of
the Zoning Ordinance amendments as follows:
(A) The site
plan, completed application form, and application fee shall be submitted
to the Zoning Administrator, by the petitioner or his designated agent, in
sufficient copies and at such time prior to the next regular Planning
Commission meeting as prescribed by the Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator shall cause the
submittal to be placed on the agenda of the next regular Planning Commission
meeting. The petitioner shall attend
a pre-application meeting with the zoning administrator prior to submission of
the application in accordance with the established Township policy.
The
application for a Special Land Use shall be submitted and processed under the
following procedures:
(A) An application shall be submitted through
the Zoning Administrator on a special form for that purpose. Each application shall be accompanied by the
payment of a fee as established by the Township Board and by a complete site plan as specified in
Chapter XIX, in sufficient copies and at such time prior to the next regular
Planning Commission meeting as prescribed by the Planning Commission. The
petitioner shall attend a pre-application meeting with the zoning administrator
prior to submission of the application in accordance with the established
Township policy. In the event the
allowance of a desired use requires both a rezoning and special land use
approval, each request shall be considered independently, with the rezoning
being addressed first.
The
Township Board is authorized and empowered to cause this
Ordinance to be amended, supplemented or changed. Proposals for amendments may
be initiated by the Township Board, the Planning Commission or by petition of
one or more owners of property in Georgetown Township affected by such proposed
amendment. The procedure for amending this Ordinance shall be as follows:
(A) Each
petition shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator, accompanied by a fee
as established by the Township Board, and then referred to the
Township Clerk to set a hearing date and publish notices. The petitioner shall attend a
pre-application meeting with the zoning administrator prior to submission of
the application in accordance with the established Township policy.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#051116-09 – Adjournment
The
chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.