To: Planning Commission Members
From: Mannette
Date: April 28, 2006
RE: Review for Planning Commission meeting on May 3, 2006
Please review the minutes on
the website prior to the regular meeting.
1. Unfinished Business-Planned Unit Development (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. view1,
view2,
view3
The
applicant has obtained an additional 12 acres and a pre-application meeting
will be held again since the plan has been revised. Once the pre-application meeting has been
held, the item will be placed on the agenda for review by the Planning
Commission. Notice for the public
hearing has not been published.
SUMMARY
Take no action.
**************************************************************************************
2. Unfinished
Business - (ST0602) Jore Retail-2400 Chicago Dr.
No
revised plans have been submitted and no new information is available since the
applicant has had no further contact with the Township. At the March 15, 2006 meeting, the Planning
Commission recommended the following:
1.
Landscaping/Curbing- The general consensus was that the landscaping plan needs to be
dressed up a little with more variety which might include some ground
covering. Curbing was also required to
give a cleaner appearance and provides protection to the landscaped area.
2.
Parking-
Members of the Planning Commission had concerns regarding the number of parking
spaces with regard to the parking needs of the future tenant who could occupy
the space. The Planning Commission
reminded the applicant that if there are request for any future site changes,
the parking issue will arise again.
3.
Elevations-
The Planning Commission accepted the elevation.
4.
Removal of one driveway: The majority of the Planning Commission members wanted
one driveway closed, which would result in 3-4 more parking spaces.
SUMMARY
Take no action.
**************************************************************************************
3. Unfinished
Business - Ordinance Amendments Chapter 24 footnote (k) and (m)
At
the March 15, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission tabled the ordinance
amendments for further discussion. The
Planning Commission recommended approval for Sec. 25.6(A) at the April 12, 2006
meeting.
If
the Planning Commissions determines the proposed amendments to Chapter 24
footnote (k) and (m) still need revisions, proposed new wording could be
discussed. Otherwise, if the amendments
are acceptable, action could be taken since this is old business.
SUMMARY
Motion: To
recommend to the Board to approve the following proposed ordinance
amendments:
Chapter 24
(k) Except for necessary drives and walks the required front
yard for a depth of thirty (30) feet shall be landscaped and shall not be used
for parking, loading, or accessory structures. Required off-street loading areas shall not
be provided in the front yard.
(m) Where a side and/or rear yard abuts a Residential District, there
shall be a minimum yard of not less than twenty five (25) feet, exclusive of
parking and drives. Such yard shall
contain a greenbelt which meets the minimum standards of Sec. 3.11. Furthermore, no commercial or industrial
building and/or parking lot shall be located closer than fifty (50) feet
to any Residential District boundary, (except when the residential district
is HDR, in which case parking need only be a minimum of 25 feet from the boundary
exclusive of parking and drives).
**************************************************************************************
4. (PUD0603)
Ed DeVries Properties Inc., 1345 Monroe Ave. NW, is requesting
a Planned Unit
Development for mixed uses
including apartments for multiple family dwellings and commercial uses
including offices, retail and restaurant under Chapter 22, on a parcel of land
described as P.P. # 70-14-26-200-070, located at the southwest corner of 44th
St. and 8th Ave. at Gleneagle Highlands
Dr.
Revised plans and a narrative have been submitted
addressing the issues that were raised at the April 19, 2006 meeting.
The Planning Commission previously determined to waive
the requested aspects of the PUD proposal that differed from conventional
zoning requirements in regards to acreage (since this was actually a part of a
305 acre PUD), 19% open space, the 25 foot side yard greenbelt width, the 50
foot distance of the buildings from the residential property line, the front
yard setback along 8th Ave., and 5% parking reduction. After the road connections were removed from
the northwest and southeast of the site ten additional parking spaces were
added, reducing the waiver to only 2%.
SUMMARY
·
The freestanding signs had been revised to ground mounted and the
Planning Commission had previously determined that the sizes were
acceptable. The ground mounted signs on
44th St. and 8th Ave. have both been moved further away
from the driveway access points to provide for greater clear vision, as requested.
·
Road Commission
approval is still required before the Planning Commission takes action and note
number 3 indicates that it will be provided.
·
The proposed
phasing plan now includes projected start dates.
·
Additional
architectural elevations have been provided.
·
The road connection
to Eaglebrook apartments was eliminated and replaced
with a walking path.
·
The road connection at the northwest of the site has been eliminated and
replaced with a walking path.
·
An additional ten parking spaces have been provided due to the
elimination of the two road connections.
·
A Storm Water Drain permit should be provided with the final development
plan and the narrative indicates that it would be submitted.
·
Additional landscaping has been provided to screen the golf course, as
requested by the neighboring residents.
·
The narrative
indicates that documentation for an association to maintain the opens space would
be provided with the final development plan.
·
The PC directed
that a condition of approval is added stating that a drive-in restaurant is not
permitted and if desired, the PUD would have to return to seek amended
approvals.
OPTION
FOR MOTION:
Motion: To
recommend to the Township Board to approve (PUD0603) Ed DeVries Properties Inc., 1345 Monroe Ave.
NW, to have a Planned Unit Development for mixed uses including apartments for
multiple family dwellings and commercial uses including offices, retail and
restaurant under Chapter 22, on a parcel of land described as P.P. #
70-14-26-200-070, located at the southwest corner of 44th St. and 8th
Ave. at Gleneagle Highlands Dr., as shown on the
drawing dated 4/25/06, with the following conditions:
a.
Approval from the Ottawa
County Road Commission is provided;
b.
A Storm Water Drain Permit
is provided with the final development plan;
c.
Documentation for the
preservation and maintenance of the open space is provided with the final
development plan;
d.
The approval does not
include the use of a drive-in restaurant (or any other drive-in establishment)
and that if a drive-in use is sought in the future, the PUD would have to
reviewed and reconsidered by the Township as an amendment to the PUD.
****************************************************************************************
5. Preliminary
Plat of Cory Estates No. 2
The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat of Cory
Estates No. 2 on May 21, 2003 and the Township Board granted approval on May
27, 2003. The ordinance requires that
Final Preliminary Plat approval be obtained within one year from the date of
the preliminary plat approval. Since the
applicants have allowed the preliminary plat approval to expire, preliminary
plat approval is again being sought for the same plan. The proposal is to construct a street over
1500 lineal feet to connect 22nd Ave. to VanBuren
St. with 29 lots for single family residences in a LDR district. There are public utilities.
SUMMARY
a.
Size in acres should be noted. SHOWN.
b.
Lot widths and
building envelopes have been correctly shown for all lots except for lot 38. Lot 38 should
be shown with two rear lot lines (similar to lot 36). The lot line with the dimension of 127 feet
(southern property line) is a rear lot line and the rear yard setback should be
shown as 40 feet from this property line.
Sec. 2.63 defines the rear lot line as the line which is opposite
and most distant from the front lot line.
In this case, (since there are actually 5 lot lines) there are two rear
lot lines. Although the previous plan
was approved in 2003 with the building envelope as currently shown (and lot 36
as currently shown), the Building/Zoning Department has consistently determined
such shaped lots (as this and lot 36) to have two rear lines resulting in the
requirement of the 40 foot setback for each.
In addition, Cory Drive is shown
as a block with over 1500 feet and Sec. 50-51(3)(a.) in the Code of Ordinances
allows a maximum of 1500 feet in a block.
The Planning Commission has the authority to recommend a variance and
Township Board has the authority to grant a variance for this requirement under
Sec. 50-52. It seems appropriate that
this requirement should be granted the variance in order to connect the two
streets. Does the PC want to recommend
the variance? LOT 38 HAS BEEN REVISED.
c.
A letter of
compliance with the Township sidewalk ordinance was provided. The developer asked for the sidewalk for
Corey Estates (lots 22 through 10) to be located in locations other than those
listed in the Road Commission specifications due to elevations and grades. Both the Township and Road Commission
approved these alternate locations.
Consequently, there have been some issues with sidewalk locations for
Corey Estates and the Township is currently seeking enforcement issues with a
property owner who incorrectly installed the sidewalks. Should
the sidewalks be shown on the plan for the two lots abutting 22nd
Ave. (lots 51 and 23)? To avoid these
problems, the sidewalks could be shown on the plan. A note indicates that there would be no
driveway access from lots 51 and 23. A
SIDEWALK PLAN WAS PROVIDED.
d.
Sec. 26.8
requires two parking spaces per each dwelling unit. Should
a note be added under the General Notes stating that at least two parking
spaces would be provided for each dwelling unit? A NOTE ABOUT GARAGES WAS PROVIDED.
e.
The ROW is listed
as 66 feet, but the pavement width has
not been noted and should be provided.
f.
Although abutting
zoning is shown, abutting uses
(residential) should be listed.
g.
A new general
ordinance requires that an association be formed to maintain parkways when a
lot abuts a main street. Rather than
forming an association, a note could be
added under General Notes stating that parkways for lots 51 and 23 would be
maintained by the property owners.
Further, a note states that lots 51 and 23 would not have driveway access
to 22nd Ave. PROVIDED.
h.
Topo is not
shown. Does the PC want topo shown?
i.
Does the PC want a note added that garages would be
provided for each dwelling unit? PROVIDED
OPTION FOR MOTION
Motion: To
recommend to the Board to grant tentative preliminary plat approval of Cory
Estates No. 2 as shown on the drawing
dated
|
I D number |
|
|
|
|
Date |
4-24-06 |
|
|
|
Name |
Cory Estates No. 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Address |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use |
Preliminary Plat |
|
SUP required |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REQUIREMENT |
|
|
|
|
|
PROVIDED |
Needs or Comments |
|
|
Date, north arrow, scale |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Name, address of preparer |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Name, address of property
owner or petitioner |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Location sketch |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
Legal description |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
Size in acres of the
property |
|
|
|
|
|
a. needs to list |
||
|
Property lines and
required setbacks shown and dimensioned |
|
X |
b. easement |
|||||
|
Location of existing
structures, drives, parking areas within 100 ft of boundary |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location and dimensions of
existing and proposed structures |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Location of existing and
proposed drives (dimensions and radii), circulation |
X |
c.
envelopes/drives |
||||||
|
Sidewalks, non-motorized
paths-select streets, accel, decel lanes |
|
|
|
|
X |
d. letter provided |
||
|
Signs, exterior lighting |
|
|
|
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
Curbing, parking areas,
dimensions of typical space, number of parking spaces |
|
e. 2 per unit |
||||||
|
Calculations of parking
spaces, unloading areas |
|
|
NA |
|
||||
|
Location, pavement width,
ROW of all abutting roads, easements |
|
|
f. pavement width |
|||||
|
Existing zoning, and
zoning and use of abutting property |
|
|
|
g. abutting uses |
||||
|
Location
of existing vegetation-parkway
association |
|
|
|
|
|
h. association |
||
|
Location, type, size of
proposed landscaping, streetscape, greenbelt |
NA |
|
||||||
|
Location, height, type of
existing and proposed fences and walls |
|
NA |
|
|||||
|
Size, location of
proposed, existing utilities, connections to water/sewer |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location, size of surface
water drainage facilities |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Existing, proposed topo
contours, max 5 ft intervals |
|
|
|
i.
not shown |
||||
|
Rec/common areas, floodplain areas |
|
|
|
X |
|
|||
|
Special Use Standards,
general and specific |
|
|
|
NA |
|
|||
|
Residential development
extra requirements-attached garages |
|
|
j. garages noted |
|||||
****************************************************************************************
6. Preliminary
Plat of Crosswinds
The
site is located at the southeast corner of Baldwin and 48th Ave. and
the parcels are zoned LDR. Water is
available to the site; however, dry sewer will be installed since sanitary
sewer is not available to the site at this time. Twenty-eight lots are proposed. The Planning Commission recently reviewed
this property for a rezoning request.
SUMMARY
a.
Radii should be shown on the plan. The temporary
cul de sac is shown as 1,350 lineal feet and Sec. 50-51(3)(c.)
in the Code of Ordinances allows a
maximum length of a cul de sac to be 600 feet. Sec. 50-52 permits the Planning Commission to
recommend a variance and the Board to grant a variance. Does
the PC determine that the variance is warranted since this is a temporary cul
de sac with the potential to stub to a development to the south?
b.
Lots 27 and 28
show the building envelop right up to the drainage easement. Will
this present any problems if decks are constructed?
c.
A temporary
cul de sac is proposed for the south end of Berens
Lane. Many issues related to sidewalks
and temporary cul de sacs have arisen at the Township. Should sidewalks be installed and what
happens when, through subsequent development, the road can not be
continued? Meadowwood
was developed with a temporary cul de sac with the potential to stub into the
property to the north; however, Wellspring Church was constructed on the
adjacent parcel and the temporary cul de sac is no longer temporary. After discussion in the office, the
determination was made that an ideal situation would be to require sidewalks to
be installed around the cul de sac immediately and then (sometime in the future
when the road is extended) the developer of the parcel to the south would be
responsible to redo the road and sidewalks in the correct location for a
through road. However, the Road
Commission was not in favor of the installations of sidewalks around the
temporary cul de sac because there is not enough right-of-way to have the
sidewalks installed in a safe location. Note
12 states that the sidewalk would be installed for lots 14 and 15 at the time
the road is extended. Is this acceptable? The Planning Commission should watch for
these situations so that there would be follow-up when temporary cul de sacs
are redeveloped into through streets. In
addition, sidewalks exist adjacent to Baldwin at the plat entrance. In this location, new sidewalks are shown to
be installed to the south of the current ones to accommodate the tapered
lanes. A note should be added to the plan that this existing sidewalk is to be
removed. The driveway to the west of
this area should also be noted on the plan to be removed even with note 13.
d.
Sec. 26.8
requires two parking spaces per each dwelling unit. Should
a note be added under the General Notes stating two parking spaces would be
provided for each dwelling unit?
e.
Although abutting
zoning is shown, abutting uses
(residential) should be listed.
f.
A general
ordinance was adopted requiring an association to maintain parkways that abut a
major street when the lot has no access to that street. Note 14 states that an association will
maintain these parkways (as per direction given to the applicant). However, after reconsideration, the note could be revised to state that the
property owners of lots 1 and 28 will be responsible to maintain the parkways
along Baldwin (unless the developer wants an association). Note 13 states that lots 1 and 28 will not
have access to Baldwin.
g.
According to
Chapter 24 footnote (d), dry sewer fulfills the requirement of sewer. Documentation
should be provided that a plat restriction will require all property owners to
hook up to sewer within six months of the date that it becomes available.
|
I D number |
|
|
|
|
Date |
4-25-06 |
|
|
|
Name |
Preliminary Plat of
Crosswinds |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Address |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use |
Single family residential |
|
SUP required |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REQUIREMENT |
|
|
|
|
|
PROVIDED |
Needs or Comments |
|
|
Date, north arrow, scale |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Name, address of preparer |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Name, address of property
owner or petitioner |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Location sketch |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
Legal description |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
Size in acres of the
property |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
||
|
Property lines and
required setbacks shown and dimensioned |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Location of existing structures,
drives, parking areas within 100 ft of boundary |
X |
|
||||||
|
Location and dimensions of
existing and proposed structures |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Location of existing and
proposed drives (dimensions and radii), circulation |
|
a. radii, length |
||||||
|
Sidewalks, non-motorized
paths-select streets, accel, decel lanes |
|
|
|
|
X |
b. add to end |
||
|
Signs, exterior lighting |
|
|
|
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
Curbing, parking areas,
dimensions of typical space, number of parking spaces |
|
c. 2 spaces |
||||||
|
Calculations of parking
spaces, unloading areas |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Location, pavement width,
ROW of all abutting roads, easements |
|
X |
|
|||||
|
Existing zoning, and
zoning and use of abutting property |
|
|
|
d. uses |
||||
|
Location of existing
vegetation-parkway association |
|
|
|
|
X |
e. will try to keep |
||
|
Location, type, size of
proposed landscaping, streetscape, greenbelt |
NA |
|
||||||
|
Location, height, type of
existing and proposed fences and walls |
|
NA |
|
|||||
|
Size, location of
proposed, existing utilities, connections to water/sewer |
X |
f. must hookup |
||||||
|
Location, size of surface
water drainage facilities |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Existing, proposed topo
contours, max 5 ft intervals |
|
|
X |
|
||||
|
Rec/common areas, floodplain areas |
|
|
|
X |
|
|||
|
Special Use Standards,
general and specific |
|
|
|
NA |
|
|||
|
Residential development
extra requirements-attached garages |
|
X |
|
|||||
********************************************************************************************************
7. Other
Business
A. Shared
drives for Rockpoint Estates
The
Township received a letter from Kara DeJong, owner of
lot 34 in Rock Point Estates, requesting that the requirement for shared drives
on Taylor be eliminated for Rock Point Estates.
When Rock Point Estates was approved, the Planning Commission
recommended approval with the condition that lots 29 & 30, 31 & 32 and
33 & 34 have shared drives and the Board approved the plat with the same condition
(see excerpts of the minutes following the review). Since at the last meeting, the Planning
Commission approved the revised site plan for Menno’s Cove eliminating the
requirement of the shared drives, a property owner in Rock Point Estates
submitted a request for the condition to be eliminated from their requirements
also.
The
difference is that Menno’s Cove was a site plan and Rock Point Estates is a
plat. Since there was no plat
restriction requiring the shared drives and the plat has already been given
final approval and recorded, the officials in the office determined that this condition
of approval could be eliminated simply by a recommendation by the Planning
Commission and a motion by the Board.
Therefore,
a revised plan has been included in the packet without the shared drives
shone. If the Planning Commission
determines that the condition of the shared driveways could be eliminated, a
motion could be made recommending that the Board eliminate the condition.
OPTION FOR MOTION
Motion: To
recommend to the Township Board to eliminate the condition of shared
driveways for lots 29
& 30, 31 & 32, and 33 & 34, as shown on the drawing dated revised
4/27/06.
Excerpts from the November 17, 1999 Planning Commission
meeting and the November 22, 1999 Township Board meeting:
#991117-09 - Preliminary Plat of Rock Point Estates (revised)-1129 Taylor
Ron VanSingel, Nederveld Assoc., represented the applicant and
presented the request.
All
lots appear to be buildable and meet the standards of the LDR district. The plat will be served by public water and
sanitary sewer, as well as storm sewer drains.
Cavalier Ct. has been extended to the west property line.
It
was noted that a revised site plan had not been submitted with the correction
stated at the work session. Note 3G is
still incorrect.
The
chairman opened the public hearing. No
one was present to speak on this topic.
The chairman closed the public hearing.
Moved
by Jansma, seconded by Holtvluwer, to recommend to the Township Board tentative
preliminary plat approval of Rock Point Estates, as shown on the drawing dated
October 8, 1999, as submitted, with 3G of the General Notes to include no
access to Taylor from lots 1 and 28, and shared drives for lots 29 & 30, 31
& 32, and 33 & 34.
MOTION
CARRIED.
#991122-09 - Preliminary Plat of Rock Point Estates (revised)-1129 Taylor
Moved
by Daniel Carlton, seconded by James Holtvluwer, to grant tentative preliminary
plat approval of Rock Point Estates, as shown on the drawing dated October 8,
1999, as submitted, with 3G of the General Notes to include no access to Taylor
from lots 1 and 28, and shared drives for lots 29 & 30, 31 & 32, and 33
& 34.
Note: As recommended by the Planning
Commission.
MOTION
CARRIED.
8. Other
Business-Wall Signs
At
the April 26, 2006 ZBA meeting, there was discussion regarding amending the
sign ordinance to permit two wall signs (when one is permitted) provided that
the total square footage of the two wall signs is substantially less than the
total square footage for the one permitted wall sign currently allowed in the
ordinance. The following is provided for
your review.
(3) WALL
SIGN, one (1) wall sign per business subject to the following restrictions:
a. The sign shall be placed flat against
the building and shall front on the principal street.
b. Such sign shall not exceed one and
one-half (1-1/2) square feet for each one (1) lineal foot of wall frontage on
which the sign is to be placed or two hundred (200) square feet whichever is
less.
c. Businesses which have wall frontage on
more than one (1) street shall be permitted to have one (1) wall sign per
street frontage, subject to the size limitation contained in paragraph b,
above.
d. The one
(1) wall sign permitted above may be divided into two (2) wall signs with each
one placed on a separate wall of the building, provided
that the sum of the square footage
of the two signs equals 75% or less of the overall square
footage permitted above.
***************************************************************************************
To: Planning Commission Members
From: Mannette
Date: May 12, 2006
RE: Review for Planning Commission meeting on May 17, 2006
Please review the minutes on
the website prior to the regular meeting.
1. Unfinished Business-Planned Unit Development (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. view1,
view2,
view3
The
applicant has obtained an additional 12 acres and the materials have been
forwarded to the planner for a review. Notice
for the public hearing has not been published.
If the planner’s review is completed prior to the meeting, it will be
forwarded to you.
SUMMARY
Take no action and there is nothing for
you to review at this time.
**************************************************************************************
2. Unfinished
Business - (ST0602) Jore Retail-2400 Chicago Dr.
After
the last meeting, I contacted the applicant and found that they have decided to
not proceed. Although I requested that
the withdrawal be put in writing, nothing has been submitted. This is the second month under old business.
If no new information is submitted and if no revised site plan is submitted
addressing the concerns raised by the Planning Commission by the regular meeting
in June, the PC could deny the site plan since it does not meet the
requirements of the Planning Commission and it is the PC’s policy to act on
items under old business after three months.
SUMMARY
Take no action.
**************************************************************************************
3. Unfinished
Business - Ordinance Amendments Chapter 24 footnote (k) and (m)
At
the March 15, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission tabled the ordinance
amendments for further discussion. If
the amendments are acceptable, action could be taken.
OPTION
FOR MOTION
Motion: To
recommend to the Board to approve the following proposed ordinance
amendments:
Chapter 24
(k) Except for necessary drives and walks the required front
yard for a depth of thirty (30) feet shall be landscaped and shall not be used
for parking, loading, or accessory structures. Required off-street loading areas shall not
be provided in the front yard.
(m) Where a side and/or rear yard abuts a
Residential District, there
shall be a minimum yard of not less than twenty five (25) feet, exclusive of
parking and drives. Such yard shall
contain a greenbelt which meets the minimum standards of Sec. 3.11. Furthermore, no commercial or industrial
building and/or parking lot shall be located closer than fifty (50) feet
to any Residential District boundary, (except when the residential district
is HDR, in which case parking need only be a minimum of 25 feet from the
boundary exclusive of parking and drives).
****************************************************************************************
4. Preliminary
Plat of Crosswinds
The
site is located at the southeast corner of Baldwin and 48th Ave. and
the parcels are zoned LDR. Water is
available to the site; however, dry sewer will be installed since sanitary
sewer is not available to the site at this time.
SUMMARY
a.
A stub street was
provided to the northwest. A note was
added that the property at the northwest of the site could possibly be developed
in the future as a PUD with the intention being that the density of 2 to 3
units remain, but with duplexes rather than single family homes.
b.
The
decel lane has been removed. I had a conversation with Brett Laughlin,
Ottawa County Road Commission, and he indicated that the Road Commission
preferred that the decel lane be removed since this
area would be widened into five lanes in the future.
c.
A note was added
regarding the removal of the existing driveway and sidewalks added.
d.
The Planning Commission
should determine if they want to recommend a variance for the 1,350 lineal feet
of road which exceeds both the maximum of 600 for a cul de sac and the 1300 for
a block.
e.
Lot 27 no longer
shows the building envelop abutting the easement. A note was added stating that any deck for lot
28 would be within the building envelop so as to not extend into the drainage
easement.
f.
Note 13 states
that lots 1 and 28 do not have access to Baldwin and will maintain the parkways
on Baldwin.
g.
The applicant
should provide documentation that a plat restriction will require all property
owners to hook up to sewer within six months from the time it is available.
OPTIONS FOR MOTIONS
Motion: To
recommend to the Township Board to grant tentative preliminary plat
approval of Crosswinds Plat as shown on
the drawing dated 5/4/06, with the variance for the cul de sac length to exceed
600 feet and with the condition that documentation is provided at the time of
final plat approval that a plat restriction requires that all property owners
hook up to sewer within six months from the time it is available.
Following
is a summary of items presented at the last meeting.
h.
Radii should be
shown on the plan.
i.
The temporary cul
de sac is shown as 1,350 lineal feet and Sec. 50-51(3)(c.)
in the Code of Ordinances allows a maximum length of a cul de sac to be 600
feet. Sec. 50-52 permits the Planning
Commission to recommend a variance and the Board to grant a variance.
j.
Lots 27 and 28
show the building envelop right up to the drainage easement. The applicant stated that any decks
constructed would have to be within the building envelop.
k.
A temporary cul
de sac is proposed for the south end of Berens Lane
and the decision was made to have the sidewalks installed up to the cul de sac
since the Road Commission did not have enough of an easement for the sidewalks
to go around the pavement safely. At
such time as the road is extended, the sidewalks would be required for lots 14
and 15.
l.
A note should be
added to the plan that this existing sidewalk is to be removed. The driveway to the west of this area should
also be noted on the plan to be removed even with note 13.
m.
A general
ordinance was adopted requiring an association to maintain parkways that abut a
major street when the lot has no access to that street. Note 14 states that an association will
maintain these parkways (as per direction given to the applicant). However, after reconsideration, the note
could be revised to state that the property owners of lots 1 and 28 will be
responsible to maintain the parkways along Baldwin (unless the developer wants
an association). Note 13 states that
lots 1 and 28 will not have access to Baldwin.
n.
According to
Chapter 24 footnote (d), dry sewer fulfills the requirement of sewer. Documentation should be provided that a plat
restriction will require all property owners to hook up to sewer within six
months of the date that it becomes available.
5. Other
Business- Meijer Pharmacy drive-in
As per the email sent to you, they are
requesting to reverse the flow of traffic for the window. Plans will be available at the meeting.
6. Other
Business-Michigan Zoning Enable Act (to be effective July 1, 2006)
Information
will be provided to you at the meeting regarding the new law.