Minutes of the
regular meeting of the Georgetown Township Planning Commission, held Wednesday,
January 18, 2006
Meeting called to order by
Chairman Honderd at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Honderd, Poskey, DeGood, South, Pearson,
Stasiak, Huizinga
Absent: none
#060118-01 - Agenda for January 18, 2006
Moved by South,
seconded by Pearson, to approve the agenda for January 18, 2006, as presented.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060118-02 - Minutes of the December 21, 2005 regular meeting and the January 4, 2006 work
session meeting
Moved
by South, seconded by DeGood, to approve the minutes of the December 21, 2005 regular meeting,
as submitted.
MOTION
CARRIED.
Moved
by Pearson, seconded by Stasiak, to approve the minutes of the January 4, 2006 work session
meeting, as submitted.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060118-03 - Unfinished Business (SUP0513) Orion Construction, 7559
36th Ave.
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.
The item
was left tabled.
#060118-04 – Rezoning (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.
The
item was left tabled.
#060118-05 - Special Use Permit (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
Dave
Stevens, church member, and Pastor Koop represented the applicant and presented
the request.
The
zoning administrator presented a review.
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 and the Road Commission denied the request. 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. The Planning
Commission stipulated that stub should be eliminated 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.
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.
·
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.
The
zoning administrator further stated that a revised plan has been submitted with
the access to Staci Dr. eliminated. The
revised plan also shows a location of a sign without the dimensions. She asked that if approval were to be
granted, a condition of approval be added that no implied approvals were
granted for the location of the sign and any sign would have to meet the
ordinance.
South
commented on the letter from the neighbors regarding the drainage issue. It was noted that Drain Commissioner approval
would have to be obtained.
The
applicant stated that this was formerly an agricultural site and not wetlands.
Stasiak
asked about the Rolling Hills stub street.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the stub street
should be removed from the future phases.
The
chairman opened the public hearing.
Rosie
DeHaan, 7414 Alycia, said that she lives adjacent to Alycia and asked what
would happen to the street.
Honderd
said that the church had removed the connection to Staci Drive.
The
zoning administrator explained that if a cul de sac was to be constructed, it
would be on the churches property and deeded to the Road Commission, plus it
would have to be constructed according to Road Commission standards and with
their approval.
The
chairman closed the public hearing.
The
applicant asked if they would reconsider the decel lane. He said that he realized that it was a benefit
to the community but it was an economic issue.
The
consensus of the Planning Commission was that the stub street from Rolling
Hills should be eliminated to this property.
Moved
by DeGood, seconded by Stasiak, to recommend to the Township Board approval of 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.
MOTION
CARRIED.
Moved
by Huizinga, seconded by Poskey, to approve the site plan dated 1-18-06, 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 cul de sac;
·
There are no
implied approvals for the sign location, but rather any signs must meet
Township ordinances.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060118-06 – Special Use
Permit (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, 70-14-29-200-039, 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 (& City of Hudsonville), Ottawa
County, MI
Bill
Aukeman presented the request.
The
zoning administrator presented a review.
The applicant 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.
The
applicant stated that they have a draft permit from the DEQ and a signed permit
will be provided after they record the easements to the DEQ. He said that they have submitted applications
to the City of Hudsonville for approvals for soil removal.
Pearson
asked the duration and was told the estimate was 2 to 4 years.
The
zoning administrator said that a mining license expires on the June 30 which occurs
less than five years from the issuance and the Mining Board would continue to
monitor the mining operation.
Pearson
asked about removing the dirt and debris from the trucks.
The
applicant said that they would pave 800 feet and that was more than what was
required. He said that they keep the
trucks clean and they have brooms on tractors to keep the road swept. He said that they also use watering and chloride.
South
asked about Harrison and was told that they would not use Harrison, but rather
would use the new proposed Kreekfield Dr. which would be built to county
standards for a commercial road.
The
chairman opened the public hearing.
Susan
Stepanek, 6796 Wentward Ct., asked about the water tables and was concerned
that they would be affected.
Honderd
asked if she had a shallow well.
Stepanek
stated that the condo association uses the wells to sprinkle and they have had
trouble the last two years. She said
that they had the wells checked and were told that the problems were caused by
the lake on Balsum and the dewatering that occurred in the area.
They
applicant said that they have been dewatering on the south side of Rush
Creek. He said that they had
hydrological studies done and found that this affected the water table less
than 3 tens of an inch. He said that he
was surprised because this is the first that he had heard from anyone about
problems. He said that dewatering might
affect the wells in the short term, but the studies said that they would not be
affected in the long term. He said that
it had been a dry summer plus there were steep curves in the ground.
Stepanek
said that some wells were fine and some that were further away were not.
The
applicant said that they have to study the ground and there is gravel and sand
on top of clay. He said that the clay
pan goes up and down and the location of the well might affect different wells.
Dennis
Shimmell, 3383 Harrison, was concerned with the scope of the soil removal and
the hours of operation since he lives close to the operation. He was also concerned with noise and dust,
and he wanted assurances that the trucks would not use Harrison.
The
zoning administrator said that the mining ordinance regulated the hours of
operation to 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) and the haul route would be the new proposed Kreekfied Dr., and both
should be added as conditions of approval.
The
applicant said that they have stated the same hours of operation both on the
plan and in the narrative. He said that
they work about 7 to 5:30 p.m. in the summer and he left the Saturdays up to his
workers, but never started before 8:00 a.m.
Honderd
said that if they worked longer hours, the number of days would decrease and
the operation would be completed sooner.
Schimmell
asked about the amount of soil to be removed and was told that about 170,000
would be left on the property and about 180,000 would be removed.
The
applicant said that there would not be piles of dirt around, but there would be
contour lines for a future street that would be higher than the surrounding
land for walk-out sites.
Shimmell
asked about the future development and was told that there would be about 84
homes.
Scott
Roon, 3420 Harrison, asked if the lake would be drained because he has a house
on Harrison that still uses well water.
The
applicant said that he would like to know who has private wells in the area and
he has not figured out yet if they would drain the existing lake, though he
hopes to not drain it.
The
chairman closed the public hearing.
South
said that if there were problems with well, the Health Department would get
involved. He said that he had a well at
28th and Baldwin area and there is a normal cycle of it going down.
Moved by DeGood, seconded by Poskey,
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;
·
There are no
implied approvals for the residential development shown for the reclamation
plan, but rather the applicant must meet all ordinances and application
processes for the development at the time in the future when ready to proceed
with the residential development.
MOTION
CARRIED.
Moved by Stasiak, seconded by DeGood,
to
approve the site plan dated 12-29-05
as submitted, because the plan meets all applicable standards of the ordinance.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060118-07 - (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.
Tara
Westhouse represented the applicant and presented the request. She stated the following. The plan is for an office building to service
the community and the residents. There is a large open space for a park and the
central building was for housing for the elderly. Issues raised at the work session included
density and building height. The height
had been reduced. Sunset’s new
development had been investigated. The
Planning Commission had said that 106 units were too many and 20% over would be
acceptable. Affordability was
considered. The driveway width and
sidewalk issues had been revised.
The
zoning administrator presented the planner’s review which consisted of the
following.
Revised
plans and written statement has been submitted based on the comments provided
at the January work session. The
applicant has reduced the number of units from 106 to 94 units and building
height from 39’8” to 36 feet 4 ¼ inches.
Density:
A total of 71
units are permitted according to the density requirements of the LDR
District. The revised application
proposes a total of 94 units, or 23 units above that permitted in the LDR
District (32 percent above LDR density requirements). LSL’s original comments recommended that the
density on the subject property not exceed twenty (20) percent of the density
(18 units above), or 85 total units, than permitted in the LDR District. LSL proposes that the density be reduced an
additional 9 units to meet the density allowance proposed given the density and
distance of the building to adjacent properties. As an alternative, LSL recommends the
Planning Commission consider the proposed density of 94 units for approval
subject to a phased implementation of units to gauge the impact of
increased density to the surrounding area.
Based on this approach, the applicant should not exceed an initial
density above twenty (20) percent of the allowed density within the LDR
District. The density can gradually be
increased to 94 total units, or (32 percent above permitted) upon justification
and written agreement by neighboring property owners that the intensity of the
site does not exceed the activity level generated within the immediate area.
Site Design:
The applicant
has not provided a sidewalk from the walk surrounding the office building to
the sidewalk along
The applicant
has also not taken any measures to break the building massing with additional
window treatments and a combination of roof pitches to obtain a more
residential feel. LSL staff still
proposes multiple buildings with varying heights not to exceed 35 feet, with the
square footage of each building dictated by the LDR District setback
requirements and use parking needs, as well as landscaping and open space
requirements.
Uses:
The operation of horse training is
considered a riding stable or breeding stable under current Ordinance
definitions and is not a permitted or special land use in the LDR or OS
District, and is therefore not a permitted activity. The pasture area still needs to be deleted
from the site plan.
Site Plan
Review:
The site plan should include both the number of
required and provided parking spaces, maintenance building and office building
elevation details, and sign details.
This information has not yet been provided on the site plan.
Recommendation:
Recommend the Planning
Commission request the following changes to the PUD development prior to
further consideration:
1. Reduce density by an additional 9 units to meet the
density allowance proposed given the density and distance of the building to
adjacent properties; or
Provide a written agreement and plan of a phased
implementation of units to gauge the impact of increased density to the
surrounding area. The initial density
should not exceed more than twenty (20) percent of the permitted density within
the LDR District. The density can be
gradually increased to 94 total units, or (32 percent above permitted) upon
justification and written agreement from neighboring property owners to the
Planning Commission that the intensity of the site does not exceed the activity
level within the immediate area.
2.
Provide a sidewalk from the walk surrounding the
office building to the sidewalk along
3.
Provide
rationale of the purpose of the entry gate since cross access between
properties will be provided and the gate will not restrict access to the
property.
4.
Incorporate
additional window treatments and a combination of roof pitches to break the
building massing in an effort to obtain a more residential feel. LSL staff proposes multiple buildings with
varying heights not to exceed 35 feet, with the square footage of each building
dictated by the LDR District setback requirements and use parking needs, as
well as landscaping and open space requirements.
5.
Delete
the pasture area from the site plan since the operation of horse training is
not a permitted or special land use in the LDR or OS District.
6.
Include both the number of required and
provided parking spaces, maintenance building and office building elevation
details, and sign details on the site plan.
The
zoning administrator stated that the following issues had to be addressed
before the application could proceed:
·
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 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.
The
consensus of the Planning Commission, though some disagreed, was that the
acreage was acceptable and met the intention of the PUD as long as the other
issues of density and height were addressed.
The
consensus of the Planning Commission was that the height was tied to the
density and the density was too intense.
Comments included that although they were sensitive to the need for
economical housing for the elderly, the density was too intense and the number
of units was too large. They agreed that
the phased approach would not work because it would be hard to moniter and more creativity was necessary.
Honderd
said that all others who apply for PUDs must stick with the density designated
by the Master Plan. He said that the
number of units should not exceed that designated by the Master Plan because
other applicants would start requesting the same thing. He said that he understands that this parcels
borders the apartments, but it also borders LDR on the other side.
Huizinga
said that he could go with 85 or 94 units because the building would not look
much different.
The
applicant said that with the reduction to 94 units raised the price $7,000
already and to drop the number of units would add another $3,000 to $4,000 per
unit. She said that they are located
next to HDR and the lines of the map should not be rigid. She said that this site is only 300 to 400
feet away from the HDR. She asked why
the Planning Commission was being so rigid in this case.
Poskey
said that it could be taken to the extreme.
He said that this site is half in the floodplain and was unusable. He said that the plan was presented as if the
whole site was usable and it was not. He
said that they would not get the same return.
He said that consideration of economic feasibility was beyond the role
of the Planning Commission.
The
chairman opened the floor to public comments.
Marvin
Colby, 7822 Cottonwood, expressed several concerns including: location of the
wetland, his property flooding, wild life at the creek on his property, fence
row and heavy traffic congestion on Cottonwood.
The
applicant stated the following. They
have had conversations with an environmental engineer at the DEQ and would
provide mitigation to create wetlands so that the area would not flood. A landscaped screened buffer would be
provided and she was open to leaving the fence.
It
was noted that the applicant would have to obtain Drain Commissioner approval.
In
answer to a question, the zoning administrator said that she was not aware of
any plans to further widen Cottonwood and that the Road Commission was reactive
to traffic issues.
Honderd
said that a majority of those living in housing for the elderly did not drive
or would not be driving during rush hour.
It was noted that Marvin Colby’s wife had submitted a letter.
Pearson
said that he had reservations on the overall site with trying to make this high
density fit and he questioned how many would be driving.
The
applicant said that they provided 1.5 spaces per unit and it was more than
sufficient, especially if 1/3 was for independent living, 1/3 assisted, and 1/3
full nursing care. She said that the
apartments would be converted into condos with the intention to tie to the
apartments for greater association usage.
She noted that the decel lane would also help.
Pearson
was concerned with the overall design and the applicant answered that they only
had one week to work on the plan. He
said that he was not in favor of this plan.
Poskey
said that he could compromise with the roof but thought the density should be
restricted to 71 units to meet LDR requirements.
Huizinga
said that the building is too massive, but that the 20% over and the height
were okay.
Honderd
said that the height was okay, but the building should have a residential look
with only 71 units.
Stasiak
said that the height was okay and 85 units would be acceptable, but the
building was too large and there was no creativity. He said that they should have the elevations
for the two story office building.
DeGood
said that they should make the whole site nicer because now they showed
pavement and carports up front. He was
not concerned with the height and 20% over was okay. He said that he sat and watched the
traffic. He said that a person could not
get out during rush hour and he had to turn right and turn around. He said that a lower density would be better
and preferred the 71 units. He said that
the height should depend on the building design.
South
said that they already compromised by allowing the PUD with smaller acreage
than required and if they started allowing the PUDs to not be consistent with
the Master Plan, others would ask for the same thing. He said that there should only be 71 units
and that the stable should be removed.
The
applicant said that she was just asking for Mr. Lucus.
The
Planning Commission directed that the item not be advertised since the plan is
too far from meeting the ordinance and needs revisions.
#060118-08 - (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.
The Planning Commission agreed with the review that
had been presented as follows:
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.
Steve Smit, Focus Engineering, represented the
applicant and presented the request. He
said that they could get past avoiding the hookup fees by automatically
requiring the hookup when sewer was available.
He said that although this was not the time to discuss the plat, he said
that he would put that in the deed restrictions.
Honderd said that hookups are enforcement problems.
Smit said that enforcement problems could be avoided
by requiring immediate hookup. He said
that it would be more affordable because the largest cost is the street and with
LMR lots there could be more and the cost would be shared.
Moved by South, seconded by
Poskey, to recommend to the Township Board to deny the proposed ordinance
amendment as follows 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.
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).
South said
that there could be pressure to develop in areas that are premature and it
would not be cost-effective.
Poskey
said that it would not create affordable housing because the property owner
would have to pay for the septic, sewer and hookup fees. He said that if there is live sewer, they
would not have to pay for septic.
MOTION
CARRIED.
Moved by
Poskey, seconded by Pearson, to recommend to the Township Board approval of the
proposed ordinance amendment as follows to eliminate footnote (f) from the LMR
district (only) in Chapter 24 because it is an error to refer to two family
dwellings in the LMR since they are not permitted in the LMR.
(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
CARRIED.
The proposal
to allow dry sewer to fulfill the requirement of sewer for a PUD was discussed.
Poskey
said that it would be worth looking at closer to determine if there might be
some situations where there might have been a parcel in the past that this
would have worked.
South
said that the requirement for live sewer was a good requirement and there was
no other time that he could remember when it would have been a good thing to
not require sewer.
The
zoning administrator said that if the Planning Commission did consider the dry
sewer for a PUD, there should be either specific condition when it would be
allowed or else specific areas; otherwise, there would be many requests to
develop parcels prematurely, specifically in the western portion of the
Township.
Honderd
said that the Planning Commission could table it and consider it in a way that
it would not be abused, possibly for the southeast portion of the Township.
Moved
by Poskey, seconded by Huizinga, to table the proposed ordinance amendment, as
follows:
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.
Yeas: Honderd, Pearson, Poskey, Huizinga, DeGood,
Stasiak
Nays: South
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060118-09 – Rezoning (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 left tabled earlier in the meeting. The applicant asked the Planning Commission
to act on the rezoning now that he had the recommendation for the ordinance
amendments. He asked for the RR parcel
to be rezoned to LDR and the LDR parcel to be left LDR.
Moved
by Poskey, seconded by Stasiak, to remove the item from the table.
MOTION
CARRIED.
Moved
by DeGood, seconded by South, to recommend to the Township Board to approve
Rezoning (REZ0506) To change from (RR) Rural Residential to (LDR) Low Density Residential a
parcel of land described as P.P. # 70-14-18-300-022,
located at 4724 Baldwin, (and to leave P.P.# 70-14-18-300-021 zoned LDR),
Georgetown Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, because it is consistent with the
Master Plan.
MOTION CARRIED.
#060118-10 - Other Business-Initiate Ordinance
Amendment
There
was discussion regarding a change to footnote (m) to require a commercial or
industrial building and parking to be located at least 50 feet from a
residential district.
Moved
by Poskey, seconded by Pearson, to initiate an ordinance amendment to change
footnote (m), with wording to possibly exclude some residential zoning
districts like HDR, and for the planner to review the wording.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#060118-11 - Other Business
There
was a discussion regarding overlay zones.
Pearson distributed an article about an overlay zone in Grand
Haven. The decision was made to schedule
a planning meeting on April 12, 2006 to discuss overlay zones and possible
amendments to the Master Plan.
#060118-12 – Adjournment
The
chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m.