To:       Planning Commission Members

From:   Mannette

Date:    January 11, 2006

RE:       Review and Memo for Planning Commission meeting on January 18, 2006

 

The minutes can be reviewed by clicking on the link on the agenda that was sent to you via email or could be viewed on the internet at gtwp.com, Boards and Commissions, Planning Commission, meeting minutes and agendas.  Please review the minutes prior to the regular meeting.    

 

1.         Unfinished Business (SUP0513) Orion Construction (Integrated Architecture), 2020 Raybrook Ave., is requesting to have a restaurant under Sec. 13.3(B), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-17-300-009, located at 7559 36th Ave., in a (OS) Office Service District, Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan.

 

The Planning Commission recommended denial of the special use permit request for a restaurant and the Board denied it on January 9, 2006.  The Planning Commission tabled the site plan for revisions relating to the design and location of the building on the site, and for references to the restaurant.  No new information is available at this time.

 

There has been discussion with Board members regarding an ordinance amendment requiring that footnote (m) be revised to include the requirement that all parking (as well as any buildings) should be a distance of 50 feet from a residential property line.

 

            SUMMARY

 

The request should be left tabled until a revised site plan is submitted for review.

 

**************************************************************************************

2.         Unfinished Business (REZ0506) To change from (LDR) Low Density Residential and (RR) Rural Residential to (LMR) Low Medium Density Residential parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-18-300-022 and -021, located at 4724 Baldwin and 7448 48th Ave., Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. plat

 

The application was tabled at the PC meeting on December 21, 2005 at the request of the applicant.  At the December 7 work session the determination was made that the lots would be non-conforming if rezoned to LMR since no sewer is available to service the area and it is required by footnote (e) of Chapter 24.  Upon appeal to the ZBA, the ZBA concurred with the determination.  Consequently, the applicant has applied for ordinance amendments and the review for the proposed amendment follows in the order of the agenda.

 

            SUMMARY

 

The request should be left tabled until the proposed ordinance amendments can be considered and acted upon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

**************************************************************************************

3.         (SUP0601) Chapel Pointe, 1675 Baldwin St., is requesting to have a church under Sec. 7.3(A) and 6.3(Q), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-17-400-024, located at 3350 Baldwin, in a (RR) Rural Residential district

 

The request is to construct a 37,270 square foot church building on 19.35 acres in a Rural Residential district.  Two issues have been brought to the attention of the Township since the last meeting.

 

First, when Grand View Estates No. 3 was approved, the stub street (Staci Drive) was shown to abut the church parcel.  The Ottawa County Road Commission had required that the last 10 feet directly adjacent to the church property be deeded to them.  Consequently, the church has no right to access that street without approval from the Road Commission.  This written approval should be provided prior to any action on the site because if the Road Commission were to deny the access, the plan would have to be revised.  It appears that the access to Staci Drive would be a convenient and safe way to address congestion during peak times at the church by providing an access for those that live in that vicinity.  The gate would address the cut-through traffic. 

 

Secondly, when the preliminary plat of Rolling Hills was approved, a street was shown to stub to the church parcel.  According to the minutes, neither the Planning Commission or Board required that stub, but the developer chose to show the stub.  Consequently, unless the Planning Commission would stipulate otherwise, that stub should be eliminated for this future phase of Rolling Hills.  The developer’s representative indicated that they would be in favor of removing the stub as long as the stub would not be a condition of approval for this future phase of Rolling Hills. 

 

The Fire Department has determined that they would not require the looped system.  Also, the applicant submitted a letter requesting that no decel lane be required; however, the PC has consistently asked for one on busy streets.

 

SUMMARY:

 

Demonstration has been provided that ordinance requirements have been met for the site plan under Sec. 19.4 and for the general special use standards under Sec. 20.3(A) and the specific special use standards under Sec. 20.4(E).  In addition, details are provided demonstrating that the revised plan has addressed issues that were raised at the work session.

 

The following issues remain:

·        A new revision date is not on the plan.  The only date is 12/20/05 which is the same one that was on the last plan.  However, if the PC decides to approve the plan, the date recorded on the plan as the received date of 1-11-06 could be used in the motion.

·        Ottawa County Road Commission must give written permission for the church to access Staci Dr. because the last 10 ft. of Staci Dr. was deeded to the Road Commission.

·        The Planning Commission may want to address the stub street that was shown on a future phase of Rolling Hills to give the developer direction to remove the stub to the church property. 

·        Since elevation for the ministry building have not been provided (just a note was provided that the materials would be designed to match the main building), a condition could be added to stipulate that the zoning administrator is to review the materials and design to assure that they are similar to the main building at the time that a building permit is submitted to the Township for the ministry building.

 

OPTIONS FOR MOTIONS:

 

(As I am getting ready to send out this review to you, Brett Laughlin returned my phone call and said that he would NOT give approval for the church to access this site because the Road Commission would have to maintain this public road (and there would be maintenance issues-for instance with snow removal trucks).  He said that the applicant has three option: 1-eliminate the access to Staci Drive; 2-following the procedures to have this section of Staci Dr. abandoned (in which case the land would be divided and revert to the two adjacent property owners) and work out a deal to obtain this property; or 3-construct a cul-de-sac on the church property according to Road Commission standards and deed it to the Road Commission.  The applicant has been informed of this determination and their options.)

 

Therefore, at this point, unless a revised plan is submitted without the access to Staci Dr. by the meeting date, the recommendation is to table this request until this issue could be worked out.  I contacted the planner about this and he said he would not recommend that the Planning Commission approve a cul-de-sac on the site plan unless prior written approval was received from the Road Commission.  Also, he recommended that if a plan is presented to the Planning Commission with the access to Staci Dr. removed and with the idea to add the cul de sac in the future, that the applicant must return to the PC for amended site plan approval showing the cul-de-sac to ensure that all structures meet setback requirements from the new street.  But he said that the plan should NOT be approved showing this future cul-de-sac without Road Commission approval.  I’ll forward any new information to you as it becomes available.  However, the packets are going out now so that you have time to review them prior to the meeting.)

 

(If the plan is revised showing the access to Staci Dr. removed and the determination is made that the proposal meets the ordinance requirements and the issues remaining have sufficiently been addressed)

 

Special Use Permit

Motion:           To recommend to the Township Board approval for Special Use Permit (SUP0601)

Chapel Pointe, 1675 Baldwin St., to have a church under Sec. 7.3(A) and 6.3(Q), on a parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-17-400-024, located at 3350 Baldwin, in a (RR) Rural Residential district, Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, because the proposed plan meets the applicable standards of the ordinance for the site plan under Sec. 19.4 and for the general special use standards under Sec. 20.3(A) and the specific special use standards under Sec. 20.4(E), with the following condition:

·        The zoning administrator is to review the materials and design of the adult/youth ministry building to assure that materials and design are similar to the main building at the time that a building permit is submitted to the Township for the ministry building;

 

Site Plan

Motion:           To approve the site plan dated received by the Township 1-11-06, as submitted,

because the plan meets all applicable standards of the ordinance, with the following conditions:

·        The zoning administrator is to review the materials and design of the adult/youth ministry building to assure that materials and design are similar to the main building at the time that a building permit is submitted to the Township for the ministry building;

·        The applicant returns for site plan amendment approval if a cul-de-sac is added on the church parcel and written approval is submitted from the Ottawa County Road Commission for the church to access Staci Drive.

__________

The following issues have been addressed in the revised plan:

·        Houses and structures located in Grand View Estates located within 100 feet of the boundary have been shown. 

·        Dimensions of the structure have been provided.

·        Aisle ways in the parking are dimensioned as 24 feet for two-way traffic.

·        A decel lane has been added.

·        A note on the plan states that the ground mounted sign will comply with Township ordinances and the sign has been removed as requested (so that there are no implied approvals for a location that might not meet the ordinance). 

·        Exterior lighting details are provided and a note was added stipulating that the lights meet the requirements of Sec. 26.3(C) by being deflected away from adjacent residential areas and installed in such a manner as to allow the reduction of the amount of light on other than normal parking hours, and the source of light shall not be more than 25 feet in residential areas.

·        A note was added stating that the existing woods along the east and south property lines will remain and if removed would be replace with a greenbelt in accordance with Sec. 311.

·        A gate was provided across the driveway leading to Staci Dr. to discourage cut-through traffic.

·        No elevations are available at this time for the proposed 60 by 80 ft. ministry building, but a note has been provided regarding the exterior.  At the work session, the Planning Commission had indicated that a condition of approval could be added requiring a review by the zoning administrator at the time of building permit submission that the exterior is compatible and similar to the main building.

·        The walking area that dissects the parking lot was labeled as a grassed area.

 

*************************************************************************************

4.         (SUP0602) Aukeman Development, One Royal Park Drive, Zeeland, is requesting to have commercial soil removal under Sec. 6.3(L), on parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-29-200-036, 70-14-29-200-037, 70-14-28-100-031 and 70-14-28-100-032, located at 3290 and 3326 Harrison and Balsum Dr., in a (RR) Rural Residential district and (AG) Agriculture district

 

The application is asking for a special use permit for commercial soil removal for properties that abut the City of Hudsonville and P.P.# 70-14-28-100-031, -032 are actually located within the City of Hudsonville.  A mineral mining license application was also submitted to the Township office and a meeting is scheduled for February 6, 2006.  The proposal shows the reclamation plan as a condominium development that is adjacent to the ponds that would be created with this special use permit.  At the work session, the only issue remaining was related to the applicant providing a signed copy of the DEQ permit.  Otherwise, documentation had been provided demonstrating compliance with the general special use standards in Sec. 20.3(A) and the specific standards in Sec. 20.4(H).  No revisions were required and no additional information has been submitted.

 

SUMMARY:

Only the following issues remain:

·        A signed copy of the DEQ permit should be provided.

 

OPTIONS FOR MOTIONS:

(If the Planning Commission determines that the proposal meets the ordinance requirements and the issues remaining have sufficiently been addressed)

 

Special Use Permit

Motion:           To recommend to the Township Board approval for Special Use Permit

(SUP0602) Aukeman Development, One Royal Park Drive, Zeeland, to have commercial soil removal under Sec. 6.3(L), on parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-29-200-036, 70-14-29-200-037, 70-14-28-100-031 and 70-14-28-100-032, located at 3290 and 3326 Harrison and Balsum Dr., in a (RR) Rural Residential district and (AG) Agriculture district, Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, because the proposed plan meets the applicable standards of the ordinance for the site plan under Sec. 19.4 and for the general special use standards under Sec. 20.3(A) and the specific special use standards under Sec. 20.4(H), with the following conditions:

·        A Mineral Mining License be obtained and that all operation adhere to any conditions imposed by the license;

·        A signed DEQ permit be submitted prior to any commercial soil removal activities commencing;

·        Hours of operation be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Saturday, and no Sundays or holidays (as stipulated on the site plan);

·        The haul route is the proposed Kreekfield Dr. to Port Sheldon, then either left or right (as stipulated on the site plan), and all roads within the site including Kreekfield Drive are to be maintained in a manner that controls dust and prevents debris from being carried onto public streets;

·        All berms are to be maintained.

 

Site Plan-Motion:      To approve the site plan dated 12-29-05 as submitted, because the plan meets all

applicable standards of the ordinance.

 

 

*************************************************************************************

4.         (PUD0601) Riverview Trails Development Group (Tara Westhouse), 3133 Beechcrest Dr., is requesting a Planned Unit Development for condominium housing (housing for the elderly) and office commercial related services for seniors (elderly) under Chapter 22, on parcels of described as and located at:

P.P. # 70-14-13-100-026, 7784 Cottonwood

P.P. # 70-14-13-100-032, 7804 Cottonwood

P.P. # 70-14-13-100-033, 7802 Cottonwood

P.P. # 70-14-13-100-043, 7746 Cottonwood

Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan.

 

The revised PUD materials have been forwarded to the Planner for review and it will be sent to you as soon as it is available.

 

At the work session the Planning Commission had determined that the proposed plan was too intense with 106 units and the height of 39 feet, which resulted in the determination that it did not meet the qualifying conditions of the ordinance to be substantially consistent with the Master Plan.  A revised plan has been submitted, along with a narrative detailing changed to the plan.  The proposed number of units has been reduced from 106 to 94.  The mean height has been reduced to 36 feet 4 ¼ inches.  At the work session, the chairman asked for information about the Sunset Manor development at 18th Ave. and Port Sheldon.  The density for Sunset was permitted to be 8 units per acre because the site is designated as MDR on the Future Land Use Map.  They provided 7.98 units per acre which is slightly less than allowed.  In addition, their building was more than 80 feet from the nearest residential property line.

 

In addition, the plan was revised to show the 20 foot wide entrance and exit drives, and sidewalk was shown on the traffic island between the residential building and the office building.

 

            SUMMARY

 

The following issues remain:

·        Determination has yet to be made whether or not the acreage qualifying condition is met.  The proposed PUD has 10.7 acres.  Sec. 22.2A states that a PUD with a mixture of residential and commercial uses shall be 20 acres; however, the PC may consider a PUD with less acreage if the proposed PUD provides substantially for the intention of a PUD.  The Planning Commission must determine if the proposal substantially provides for the intention of the PUD in order to consider this application. 

·        Determination has to be made whether or not the revised mean height of 36” 4.24” and the revised number of 94 units meet the qualifying condition of being substantially consistent with the Master Plan.

·        The many other issues raised both by the planner and in my review have yet to be addressed; however, as stated in the applicant’s narrative, they want to know if these revisions are acceptable as relating to the applicant meeting the qualifying conditions before more time and money is spent addressing the other issues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*************************************************************************************

5.         (REZ0601)

The following is the proposed text amendment by the applicant:

 

Chapter 24

(e)        All lots shall be serviced by public water and sanitary sewer (installation of dry sewer mains fulfills this obligation on installed sewer when parcels have a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet).

(f)         All two family dwelling structures shall have a minimum lot area of fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet and a minimum lot width of one hundred twenty (120) feet, provided when public water and sanitary sewer are available (installation of dry sewer mains fulfills this obliga­tion on installed sewer) the minimum frontage requirement is reduced to one hundred (100) feet and the lot area is reduced to fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet.  Note: The removal of footnote (f) relates to lots in the LMR district only

 

Sec. 22.2(B)

B.     Utilities:  All PUD's shall be served by public water and sanitary sewer facilities (installation of dry sewer mains fulfills this obligation on installed sewer) (Planning Commission may waive this requirement of being served by public water and sanitary sewer facilities in areas outside of the Master Planned service districts).  Stormwater must be coordinated with the county drain commission.

 

            SUMMARY

 

Footnote (f) should be deleted from the LMR district in Chapter 24 because it is an error that refers to two-family dwellings which are not permitted in the LMR district.

 

Footnote (e) and the amendment to the PUD ordinance would allow lots in the LRM district or in a PUD to be developed with dry sewer.  Several points were raised at the work session, plus additional points were added for discussion, including;

1.                  The ordinance specifically requires that sanitary sewer be established in the LMR district as noted in Sec. 8-A.1 of the LMR Chapter.  The intention, under the Purpose section, is that this district SHALL only be established in areas where public water and sewer are available.  Therefore, when the Township initially adopted the ordinances relating to the LMR district, the intention had been for this district to have live sewer.

2.                  Sec. 8-A.1 states that the intention of the LMR district is to provide more affordable housing with reduced lot size, yards and dwelling sizes.  By allowing dry sewer to fulfill the requirement, the property owner would have the costs for the septic system, the dry sewer system and the hookup fees when the system goes live, which would not fulfill the intention of this district.

3.                  Dry sewer systems present problems for the Township in such areas as keeping track of those areas and doing annual inspections to see if anyone has hooked up without informing the Township (and avoiding the hookup fees and sewer payments).

4.                  A letter from Denny Bishop, DPW Director, details reasons he is opposed to allowing dry sewers to fulfill the requirements of the installation of sewer and how this affects Township Department of Public Works.

5.                  The Master Plan states in the General Land Use Policies that development should be directed to areas served by water and sewer or the developer should bring the services to the area being developed.  The Master Plan states in the Residential Land Use Policies that new development should occur contiguous to existing developed areas to ensure efficient utilization of existing utility lines, or the developer would be responsible to bring the utilities to the location.  The Master Plan states in the LDR district that residential development in this land use category is intended to be served by public water and sewer services.  Since the Future Land Use Map anticipates future urban growth in areas not currently served by public utilities, it is recognized that this growth will be contingent on expansion of utility services through main extensions, as well as the construction of a new elevated water storage facility near 36th Ave. and Baldwin St.   Therefore, it seems that the proposed ordinance amendments would not be consistent with the Master Plan.

6.                  It appears that these ordinance amendments are proposed solely for financial benefit for the applicant (and not necessarily for the future property owner who would bear the financial burden of paying for septic, sewer and hookups) while offering no benefit to the Township, but rather be detrimental to the Township by reason of extra inspections and possible future problems relating to locations and elevations of lift stations.

7.                  Many people visit the Township office with ideas of prematurely developing property in the western section of the Township.  Instead of either waiting for sewer to be available or bringing the sewer to the area, the areas could be prematurely developed in a fashion that is not contiguous with existing development.

8.                  If the PC would like to review and consider areas that might be served through a PUD development in an area where sewer is not planned to service, this amendment to the PUD ordinance could be tabled for further study.

 

OPTIONS FOR MOTIONS:

 

The proposals include basically three proposed changes and the motions deal with each individually.

 

The first proposal:

 

Chapter 24

(e)        All lots shall be serviced by public water and sanitary sewer (installation of dry sewer mains fulfills this obligation on installed sewer when parcels have a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet).

 

Motion:           To recommend to the Township Board                      (approval or denial) of the

proposed amendment because                                                                                 

 

            Note:    The Township recommends denial because the intention of the LMR district is for sites to be

            more affordable and the option exists to develop the site in the LDR district with dry sewer, plus this would cause problems for the Department of Public Works.

 

The second proposal:

 

(f)         All two family dwelling structures shall have a minimum lot area of fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet and a minimum lot width of one hundred twenty (120) feet, provided when public water and sanitary sewer are available (installation of dry sewer mains fulfills this obliga­tion on installed sewer) the minimum frontage requirement is reduced to one hundred (100) feet and the lot area is reduced to fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet.  (Note: The removal of footnote (f) relates to lots in the LMR district only)

 

Motion:           To recommend to the Township Board approval of the proposed ordinance

amendment to delete footnote (f) from the LMR district (only) in Chapter 24 because it is an error to refer to two family dwelling structures in the LMR district since two family dwellings are not permitted in the LMR district.

 

The third proposal:

 

Sec. 22.2(B)

C.     Utilities:  All PUD's shall be served by public water and sanitary sewer facilities (installation of dry sewer mains fulfills this obligation on installed sewer) (Planning Commission may waive this requirement of being served by public water and sanitary sewer facilities in areas outside of the Master Planned service districts).  Stormwater must be coordinated with the county drain commission.

 

Motion:           To recommend to the Township Board                      (approval or denial) of the

proposed amendment because                                                                                 

 

Note:    The Township recommends denial because this would encourage premature development of

parcels, as well as create enforcement problems with hookups.  It also could create problems with locations and elevations for future lift station.  In addition, it is not consistent with the intention of the Master Plan in respect to the statement that development should occur contiguous to existing developed areas to ensure efficient utilization of existing utility lines, or the developer would be responsible to bring the utilities to the location. 

 

Alternate option-

Motion:           To table the proposed PUD ordinance amendment for further study of areas

in the Township where it might be appropriate or under specific conditions where it might be appropriate, in order to attach specific conditions or areas to the amendment

 

HISTORY

 

Steve Smit, Focus Engineering, represents Champion LLC in their request for the rezoning of (REZ0506) To change from (LDR) Low Density Residential and (RR) Rural Residential  to (LMR) Low Medium Density Residential parcels of land described as P.P. # 70-14-18-300-022 and -021, located at 4724 Baldwin and 7448 48th Ave. (plat). 

 

At the Planning Commission work session on December 7, 2005, the review presented the determination that rezoning the parcels to LMR would create non-conforming lots because the ordinance requires that lots in LMR be serviced by water and sewer.  The ordinance did not state that dry sewer fulfills the requirement.  The Director of the DPW Department said that sewer is not available to service these parcels.  The applicant appealed the determination to the ZBA and they concurred with the determination.  View the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes for December 14, 2005.

 

Consequently, the applicant has applied to amend footnote (e) of the ordinance to state that dry sewer does fulfill the requirement if the lots have a minimum size of 12,000 square feet (which is the same size required by the state for parcels without sewer) and to eliminate footnote (f) from the LMR district because two family dwelling are not permitted anyway and this is confusing.  In addition, the applicant as asked to amend the PUD ordinance to allow a PUD to have dry sewer to fulfill the requirement of sanitary sewer and to allow the PC to waive the requirement of water and sewer if the property is located in an area outside of the Master Planned service districts.