City Council

GRAND HAVEN CHARTER TOWNSHIP SPECIAL JOINT BOARD / PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA April 29, 2024 SPECIAL JOINT BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING – 7:00 P.M. Persons wishing to speak at public hearings, on I. CALL TO ORDER agenda items, or extended comments, must fill out a “Speakers Form” located on the counter. II. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG Completed forms must be submitted to Township Staff prior to the meeting. III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA V. DISCUSSION IEMS 1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Allowing in-fill PUD development in NE quadrant (i.e., North of Comstock Street and East of 164th Street) without requiring sanitary sewer (i.e., requiring septic systems approved by Ottawa County Health Department) 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Eliminating Overlay District while increasing standards for all “commercial” developments 3. Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Allow Special Land Use for “Clubs” in Industrial Zones 4. Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Guidelines for allowing chickens in residential areas 5. Other planning or zoning changes VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (Non-Agenda Items) VII. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: The public will be given an opportunity to comment on any agenda item when the item is brought up for discussion. Please complete Speaker Information Sheet. The supervisor will initiate comment time. Community Development Memo DATE: April 25, 2024 TO: Township Board, Planning Commission FROM: Rory Thibault – Community Development Director RE: Discussion Topic - Zoning Text Amendments BACKGROUND The Township Board has requested a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss a number of text amendments which mark a substantial change in policy and deviation from the current Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan, including but not limited to the following topics: 1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Allowing in-fill PUD development in NE quadrant (i.e., North of Comstock Street and East of 164th Street) without requiring sanitary sewer (i.e., requiring septic systems approved by Ottawa County Health Department) 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Eliminating Overlay District while increasing standards for all “commercial” developments 3. Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Allow Special Land Use for “Clubs” in Industrial Zones 4. Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Guidelines for allowing chickens in residential areas 5. Other planning or zoning changes as necessary Township Staff have been working to draft language resulting from commentary expressed by the Township Board, Planning Commission, and the general Public this year since the adoption of the new Ordinance. The proposed changes are illustrated in red with the language being replaced as striked. #1 – INFILL DEVELOPMENT The Ordinance could be revised to allow residential developments, through the PUD process and in areas that have historically lacked sewer infrastructure and are effectively “built-out” but are otherwise residentially zoned for single-family residences, to be developed without the provision of public sewer infrastructure. This would allow those developments to utilize onsite wastewater management system (aka septic system) in lieu of connecting to Municipal sewer. The Ordinance could be revised to allow municipal sanitary sewer to be recommended but not required where not readily available. Section 7.01.B of the Zoning Ordinance (PUD Chapter) could be amended in its entirety as follows: B. All PUDs shall be serviced by certain minimum infrastructure features, including paved roads, natural gas, underground electrical service, and municipal water. and Municipal sanitary sewer, shall be provided where readily available; in areas where it is not a  waiver can be provided by determination of the Township Board, subject to the following standards: 1. The property is located north of Comstock St. and East of 164th Avenue.; and 2. The adjacent properties on all sides do not have existing sewer infrastructure in place; and 3. The density of the proposed development shall be based on a parallel plan with a density less than the underlying Zoning district; and 4. An onsite wastewater management system (aka septic system) shall be utilized in lieu of municipal sanitary sewer; and 5. The septic system shall be subject to all applicable County, State or Federal requirements, as applicable, in order to conform to other laws or regulations. Discussion:  Would it be more appropriate to determine the exact areas where sewer would not be required for Residential PUDs through an overlay District? o Can the location be determined as proposed, i.e. through conditions? o Does a term such as “in-fill” development need to be defined in that specific section?  Would it be more appropriate to have this as a consideration of allowable departures in lieu of general conditions in a PUD application? o i.e. amending Section 7.01.E allowing for utility connections to be evaluated by the Township Board after recommendation of the Planning Commission? Implications:  Prior proposed developments such as Eastbrook’s on the Reenders’ blueberry farm north of the airport and Robinson Landing and Bos’s near Cedar/Cherry Street would be allowed to utilize septic systems in lieu of requiring sewer extension and a lift station through existing neighborhoods.  Those existing homes within 200-feet of a sanitary sewer main would not have the cost associated with connecting to said public sewer, by EGLE standards; i.e. the cost to adjacent owners would be lessened.  The cost of development for those properties would be lessened as the cost of infrastructure would not be passed along to the future residents.  The density of the developments would be less than otherwise permitted by right.  The developments would likely require a higher quality septic system than those adjacent existing properties have in place.  Township taxpayers would be paying for the cost of paving to be completed, provisioning access for less individuals than otherwise required at an increased cost per capita. o The developer would not be responsible for paying the cost for maintaining said roads in perpetuity.  While being considered “in-fill” development colloquially within the Township, this runs counter to the traditionally associated urban term – meaning that higher density is to be proposed in built-out areas rather than lesser. o Consider requiring greater open space considering that the proposed density is less than the base zoning district. o Consider requiring a portion of the open space to be publicly accessible rather than remaining private as typical in other developments - providing a public benefit for recreation and leisure. o Consider requiring the developer to use the “Cluster Development” section of the Zoning Ordinance thereby including a greater amount of open space.  #2 – US-31 CHARACTER OVERLAY ZONE The Ordinance could be revised to eliminate the US-31 Character Overlay Zone or otherwise amend portions of it to reduce the number of architectural requirements levied for proposed development in Commercial and Industrial districts (i.e. non-residential development). In lieu, the architectural requirements of non-residential development in all non-residential districts could be increased equally. Additionally, other sections of the Chapter are revised to increase clarity, reduce redundancies, and otherwise allow the Planning Commission to have increased flexibility in approval. Section 8.02.E could be amended as follows: E. No land division shall be approved within this Overlay Zone unless compliance with the minimum lot width standards herein is demonstrated, except if the entire parent parcel is contained within one or more of the following zoning districts: AG, RP, RR, R-1, R-2, and/or R-4, or if the parcel takes primary access from a private road, or shared driveway, or public roadway other than US-31 or M-45. a. Staff note: this would allow land divisions of a width of less than 455-feet on properties with access off of other public roads like 168th which are included in the Overlay Zone but do not have access to the highway. Section 8.04.A states “abuts US-31” but this would clarify those instances where a property is in the Overlay Zone but does not abut US-31 because of the railroad. AND Section 8.08 could be amended as follows: • In the event of a parking lot expansion, no new landscape islands or improvements to perimeter landscaping shall be required within the pre-existing portion of the parking lot. All other landscape requirements must be met. o Staff note: this would allow existing properties to create additions or increase their parking areas without requiring them to add landscape in those existing areas. AND Section 8.10.D could be amended as follows: D. Replacement within the Buffer Zone. Replacement Trees shall be provided within the Buffer Zone to replace each Landmark Tree to be removed from the Buffer Zone in accordance with the following schedule. When the number of Replacement Trees results in a fraction, any fraction up to one-half (½) shall be disregarded, and any fraction over and including one-half (½) shall require one Replacement Tree. The minimum size for Replacement Trees is six (6) feet in height for evergreen trees and three (3) inches 2.5 inches in caliper measured six (6) inches above grade for deciduous trees. a. Staff note: This clarifies the discrepancy between the text and the Landmark tree table AND Section 8.12.E could be amended as follows: E. Utility Cabinets. All utility cabinets (such as transformers) must be screened with evergreen trees or, shrubs that meet the minimum size-at-planting requirements of this Ordinance, or enclosure as permitted in Section 4.02.  a. Staff note: This would allow physical enclosures (block, masonry, fencing, or an approved equivalent) to screen utility cabinets. AND Section 8.12.F. could be amended as follows: F. Curbs. Generally, mountable or rolled concrete curbs shall be used throughout the a new or expanded parking lot and paved areas. The Township may vary the specifications shown below based on the specific needs of that site. The use of concrete curbs around the paved areas creates a well-defined space, it will add strength to the edges of the pavement, assists in directing stormwater, and allows for efficient snow removal with a plow-only and does not require the use of a loader. The Township may consider a curb waiver if raingardens are utilized for stormwater disposition. a. Staff note: This would allow existing portions of parking lots not to be required to add curbs. Staff has generally been operating under this interpretation but this change would codify the working interpretation. AND Section 8.12.G could be amended as follows: G. Loading and Service Bay Doors. Loading and service bay doors shall not face a public street. Such doors shall be in the rear yard of the site. Where this is not practical, location on the any side may be permitted as long as additional walls, including other buildings, or landscape screening is provided, and/or such areas are recessed, or the function of the loading doors is of a temporary nature and necessary function of the operation of the site, to minimize the negative visual impact by determination of the Planning Commission. a. Staff note: This would focus loading and service doors to be in the rear yard but understanding the practical difficulties afforded to different businesses, the negative visual impact of having semi-trailers parked facing highly visible corridors could be evaluated by the Planning Commission and discretion given. AND Section 8.11 of the Zoning Ordinance (US-31 Character Overlay Chapter – Architectural Requirements) could be deleted in its entirety; WITH Section 14.17 of the Zoning Ordinance (new section) could be added as follows: (A) Building and Grounds 1) The proposed buildings, including consideration for bulk, placement, architecture, and type of materials shall be compatible with like buildings within the general vicinity. a) Buildings shall be sited to protect natural features. Natural features such as natural grade, trees, vegetation, water bodies, and others are encouraged to be incorporated into the site plan. b) Mechanical equipment and above-ground utility cabinets such as transformers shall be visually screened from adjacent properties, public roadways, or other public areas. Architectural designs for buildings shall include design features to contain and conceal all heating, ventilation, air conditioning units, trash enclosures, dumpsters, loading docks and service yards. c) Buildings with exterior walls greater than fifty (50) feet in horizontal length shall be constructed using a combination of architectural features and a variety of building materials and landscaping near the walls. Walls which can be viewed from public streets shall be designed using architectural features such as:  i. Recesses ii. Projections iii. Wall Inserts iv. Arcades v. Window Display Areas vi. Awnings vii. Balconies viii. Window Projections d) Buildings with exterior walls less than fifty (50) feet in horizontal length shall be constructed using a combination of architectural features identified above for a least thirty percent (30%) of the wall length. e) Considerable (at least thirty-five percent (35%) of surface area) building materials shall be those that are characteristic of the Township such as brick, wood, native stone, tinted/textured concrete masonry units, and/or glass products. Other materials such as smooth-faced concrete block, undecorated tilt-up concrete panels, or pre-fabricated steel panels should only be used as accents and shall not dominate the building exterior. Metal roofs may be allowed if compatible with the overall architectural design of the building. f) Exterior colors shall be of low reflectance, subtle, neutral or earth tone colors. High intensity colors such as black, neon, metallic or fluorescent for the facade and/or roof of the building are prohibited except as approved for building trim. g) On-site landscaping shall abut the walls so that the vegetation combined with the architectural features significantly reduce the visual impact of the building mass as viewed from the street. h) Landscaping Adjacent to the Walls. Landscape plantings that complement the design intent of the structure must be provided abutting the building for at least fifty percent (50%) of the wall length. Other walls shall incorporate landscaping for at least thirty percent (30%) of the wall length. i. Staff note: This is largely copied from the architectural requirements for all PUDs. OR Section 8.11 of the Zoning Ordinance (US-31 Character Overlay Chapter – Architectural Requirements) could be amended as follows: • All proposed development shall utilize quality architecture to ensure a building is compatible with surrounding uses, protects the investment of adjacent landowners, blends harmoniously with the natural features in the surrounding Grand Haven Township, and promotes a high-quality image to those traveling through the Township. The Planning Commission shall have the authority to approve or disapprove an architectural design based on this purpose and intent, regardless of compliance with the letter of the standards in this chapter. In those instances, modifications and waivers may be granted by the determination of the Planning Commission. o Staff note: This would allow the Planning Commission to waive any architectural requirement provided that the overlay goals of the Overlay Zone are achieved in their opinion. PLUS Section 8.11.A.3.c.i could be amended as follows: i. Any other block, or building material not specifically listed may be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission if the material is compatible with surrounding uses, protects the investment of adjacent landowners, blends harmoniously with the natural features and promotes a high-quality image to those traveling through the Township. The Planning Commission can waive this requirement for walls that are effectively screened from view by other buildings, landscaping, or Landmark Trees and other pre-existing vegetation. PLUS Section 8.11.A.3.f could be amended as follows: f) Entrances. Building entrances shall utilize windows, canopies, and/or awnings to provide unity of scale, texture, and color, as well as provide a sense of place. This requirement can be waived by the determination of the Planning Commission. PLUS Section 8.11.A.3.g. could be amended as follows: g) Overhead canopies. Overhead canopies for gas stations or other uses shall be designed to be compatible with the architectural characteristics of the main building by the determination of the Planning Commission. Such as features could be peaked roofs, shingles, support structures that match or simulate materials of the main building, lighting fixtures fully recessed into the canopy and in neutral colors. Discussion:  The Overlay District (with the subsequent voter referendum) was adopted in 2002 (i.e., Ordinance #357). There have been amendments to the Overlay District Ordinance since 2002, but those have all been subsequent. Please see the Appendix for associated materials and examples. Note, the Overlay Zone was created during an 18-month process in which multiple stakeholders, including state authorities and outside consultants and the public were involved. The voters approved the adoption of the overlay Zone after a referendum by a 21% margin, voting 61% in support of the Overlay. o Staff note: Staff is not supportive of removing or modifying any other sections of the US-31 Character Overlay other than those listed above as they largely have no material limiting factor on development but rather aid in coordination with Ottawa County Road Commission and MDOT for traffic safety and calming; and help preserve the historic naturalistic character of the Township, in addition to providing environmental and economic benefits.  Is the Township Board and Planning Commission supportive of the amendments as proposed relaxing some of the architectural costs associated with properties located in the overlay zone, while requiring those to also be applied to all non-residential development? Or is the wholesale elimination of the architectural requirements and incorporating the other amendments desired?  Would it be more prudent to revise the properties that are included in the Overlay Zone as opposed to changing the language of the Overlay Zone. Implications:   Properties Zoned C-1 or C-2 within the overlay would be allowed a reduction of higher quality architectural materials from (80%) of all building facades visible from publicly accessible spaces to (35%).  Properties located outside of the Overlay Zone which currently do not have architectural requirements would be required to provide at least 35% of their coverage toward higher architectural materials.  Properties Zoned C-1 or C-2 would not be required to have any minimum glass coverage and could apply any window coverage provided toward the minimum 35%. of higher architectural materials.  Properties Zoned I-1 within the overlay would have a reduction of higher quality architectural materials from (50%) of all building facades visible from publicly accessible spaces to (35%). #3 – SPECIAL LAND USE - CLUBS & GATHERING PLACES The proposed Ordinance amendment would create a new use category for mixed-use facilities entailing gathering of a social or club variety, and/or with the use of eating/drinking/ and other affiliated social activities, i.e. private clubs or lodges with the addition of the storage of vehicles. Section 2.10 could be amended as follows: Commercial Uses AG RP RR R-1 R-2 C-1 C-2 I-1 Standards Auditoriums and Other Places of S S S 12.08 Assembly Section 12.08 could be amended as follows with all subsequent sections in chapter 12 being renumbered. AUDITORIUMS, AND OTHER PLACES OF ASSEMBLY A. The following requirements shall apply to all auditoriums, banquet halls, community centers, dance pavilions, indoor theaters, private clubs, lodges, and other places of assembly, not including religious institutions. 1) Loading Area. Loading and unloading areas shall be shown on the site plan and designed to avoid pedestrian/vehicular conflicts or unnecessary vehicle movements in the public rightof-way. 2) The applicant shall provide a list of all known and anticipated noise generators, including, but not limited to, paging systems, live or recorded music, and any mechanically generated noise. The Planning Commission may regulate the days of the week and hours of operation. 3) The use shall be compatible with, and enhance adjoining properties and the surrounding neighborhood by determination of the Planning Commission. AND Section 21.02.A.77 could be amended as follows with all subsequent sections being renumbered: 77) Private Club or Lodge: A facility only open to members that may hold regular meetings and that may maintain dining facilities, serve alcohol, or engage in professional entertainment for the enjoyment of paying members and their guests. OR Section 21.02.A.117 could be added as follows with all subsequent sections being renumbered: 117) Vehicle Storage. A building or premises used primarily for the storage of new or used automobiles, boats, and/or other motor vehicles. OR Section 21.02.A.74 Could be amended as follows: 74) Parking Garage. A multi-story structure designed primarily for parking or storing of vehicles. Discussion:  Are both commercial and industrial districts appropriate for this type of use considering this type of use in other area municipalities is largely limited to Business and Commercial Zoning districts?  If this use is paired with a commercial storage use, is the Industrial District an acceptable location considering the definitions ascribed to those Zoning Districts?  Should a different term be utilized to be more restrictive and narrow the scope of allowed activity?  Should the proposed use largely be reviewed through the existing language (i.e. self-storage facility or parking garage with an accessory club use)?  Should vehicle storage be considered as a new use separate from parking garages and indoor self-storage?  Is it appropriate for auditoriums, banquet halls, community centers, dance pavilions, indoor theaters, private clubs, lodges, and other places of assembly to be considered at this time?  Is the proposed development too specific to warrant a new use category when it could be reviewed by Special Land Use upon determination of the Zoning Administrator per Section 2.09, and also by appeal to the Planning Commission? #4 – CHICKENS ON PLATTED PROPERTY The proposed Ordinance amendment to allow chickens on platted property was previously discussed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and considered by the Board on January 8th, 2024. Then Board Trustee Redick, voiced the following concerns regarding the drafted copy of said Ordinance amendment: 1. Trustee Redick noted that he supported the ordinance as drafted, but was opposed to the section allowing chickens on platted properties for the following three reasons:  This would allow the keeping of livestock on “preliminarily residential” lands, as defined by the Department of Agriculture Site Selection GAAMP, which MDARD has determined “is not acceptable”. i. Staff note: While MDARD GAAMPs do state that livestock on primarily residential land is not acceptable, it does permit local authority to have oversight and make a determination as to what may be acceptable  Nearly all modern plats and site condominiums include restrictive covenants that expressly prohibit the keeping of chickens; and, if the Township starts approving this practice the Township would be creating conflicts. i. Staff note: the same could be said for any HOA that limits the size or number of accessory structures and their associated architectural materials. In those cases currently, the Township is obligated to provide a permit provided it meets the requirements and advises the applicant  to consult with their HOA  This an unlawful transfer of administrative decision making to a private individual and could allow for the use of prejudicial standards to be used – something the Michigan courts have held is not constitutional. i. Staff note: the City of Grand Rapids requirements, by which this Ordinance language was in part adapted from, has retained the ability for an adjacent property owner to provide consent or opposition in their 2024 amendment to the Ordinance at the conclusion of their pilot program. The amended section simply increased the number of days to provide an objection from 15 to 21 days. However, the Township draft Ordinance has been revised to eliminate this condition. As a result, the Board moved to strike consideration of chickens from the approved text amendments and requested additional language be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Ordinance would be revised to allow chickens on platted property provided additional criteria is met. The original proposed text is in red, with revisions struck. Effectively, this would permit platted subdivisions to have the same considerations as any other R-1 or R-2 property, and in similarity to other zoning permit applications where the determining factor is the size of property and not its platted/subdivision characteristic. 14.02 (B)(2)(g)(ii) would be amended in its entirety as follows: (ii) Chickens in the RP, RR, R-1, and R-2 districts shall be subject to the following: (a) In the R-1, and R-2 districts, all lots except those in platted subdivisions (other than assessor’s plats and supervisor’s plats) or site condominiums may have up to four chickens. Lots over two acres may have an additional chicken per quarter of an acre (0.25 acres), up to 15 chickens. In calculating the permitted number of birds, the number of acres shall be rounded down to the nearest tenth of an acre. 1. Applicants for lots in platted subdivisions (other than assessor’s plats and supervisor’s plats) or site condominiums are subject to the following application standards. i. Once a completed application form has been submitted to the Community Development Director or their designee, the Township shall within ten (10) business days send written notice of the application for a permit to keep chickens to the property owners and occupants of all adjacent real properties. For this section, “adjacent real properties” shall include all properties that share a common lot line with the subject property as well as those that share a common corner point. ii. If the Community Development Director or their designee receives an objection to the issuance of a permit from any person required to be notified of the permit application, within fifteen (15) days from mailing the written notice of the permit application, then the permit shall not be granted. The applicant will be notified of the permit denial by the Community Development Director or their designee within ten 10 business days of the objection. iii. If the Community Development Director or their designee receives no objections to the issuance of the permit from the adjacent property owners within the notice period then they shall  review and process the permit application subject to the standards of this section. (b) Roosters shall not be permitted. (c) The slaughtering of any chicken is prohibited. (d) Chickens must be provided with and kept within a covered enclosure at all times. Chickens shall not be allowed to roam the lot or any other property. (e) The enclosed area where the chickens are kept shall be located within the rear yard and shall be setback at least twenty (20) feet from any side or rear lot line. (f) The enclosed area where the chickens are kept shall be maintained in a clean and neat manner at all times. (g) Materials used to construct the enclosed area shall exclude tarps, plastic, fabric, rubber, paper, cardboard, or other non-traditional building materials. (h) Chicken feed must be kept in rodent-proof, sealed containers. Implications:  Traditional subdivisions (including older platted ones) would allow for the raising of chickens, provided there is not a restrictive covenant in place which the Township would not police but rather advise applicants to inquire with their HOA.  Note: Does not have any impact on Right to Farm nor Site Selection Category 4 GAAMPs which allow for local government oversight. SAMPLE MOTION If the Township Board and Planning Commission finds the above text amendments acceptable, the following motion can be offered: Motion to direct staff to schedule a public hearing for the proposed zoning text amendment ordinance concerning the following amendments: List item numbers. Please contact me if this raises questions. APPENDIX Exhibit 1 Results of the Character Overlay Referendum – August 6, 2002 Exhibit 2  Exhibit 2 cont’d Township Press Release regarding the Character Overlay Referendum – May 16, 2002 Exhibit 3 Township Newsletter regarding the Character Overlay Referendum – July, 2002  Exhibit 4 Wesco preapplication – prior to Staff review and Overlay requirements Wesco as approved – after Staff review and Overlay requirements  Exhibit 5 Maverik fka Kum & Go preapplication – prior to Staff review and Overlay requirements Maverik fka Kum & Go as approved with conditions – after Staff review and Overlay requirements  Exhibit 6 Speedway Gas Station – located in the US-31 Character Overlay Zone Shell Gas Station – Holland, without an Overlay Zone  Exhibit 7 Commercial Business – built prior to US-31 Character Overlay Zone adoption Commercial Business – built after US-31 Character Overlay Zone adopted  Exhibit 8 Outdoor Storage – Nonconforming & located outside Overlay Zone Outdoor Storage - Conforming & located within Overlay Zone  Exhibit 9 Commercial renovation – located inside Overlay Zone Commercial renovation – located inside Overlay Zone  Exhibit 10 Commercial renovation – located outside Overlay Zone Commercial renovation – located outside Overlay Zone  Exhibit 11 Grand Haven Township – Primary intersection Grand Haven Township – US-31 Corridor Holland Township – Primary intersection Holland Township – US-31 Corridor Community Development Memo DATE: April 25, 2024 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Rory Thibault – Community Development Director RE: Discussion Topic - Zoning Text Administrative Amendments BACKGROUND Township Staff have been working to draft language encompassing minor changes to the Zoning Ordinance that have resulted from commentary expressed by the Planning Commission, Township Board, and the general Public this year since the adoption of the new Ordinance. The proposed changes are illustrated in red with the language being replaced as striked. The full text version is also provided in your packet. #1 – CELL TOWER SETBACKS The Zoning Ordinance revision would decrease the setback required for new cell towers to be erected. This takes into consideration the construction of such facilities where in the event of a failure, the structures collapses onto itself. Likewise, smaller properties in the Township (including the Northeast quadrant) would be adequately sized for such use. 12.49.A.8 could be amended in its entirety as follows: 8. If a new tower is to be constructed for the facility, it shall meet the following standards: a) The tower must be setback from all property lines by a distance equal to 1.5 times its height . The setback distances measured from the nearest part of the wireless communication support structure to each property line shall be equal to or greater than the height of the support structure, unless the application includes a signed certification by a state of Michigan licensed professional engineer indicating the maximum distance, from the base, that any portion of the support structure and antenna can fall. If that distance is less than the height of the structure, the Planning Commission may reduce the required setbacks as deemed appropriate based on that certification and other characteristics of the particular site. DAS installations shall be exempt from this requirement. b) Lighting on the tower shall be prohibited unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration. c) The tower must be a monopole design. Guyed and lattice towers are prohibited. d) No signage shall be placed upon the tower structure, except for required signage installed on DAS poles. e) The tower must be the shortest possible height required to provide the service desired by the applicant. The applicant must submit coverage and/or capacity  information, including propagation maps and other information requested by the Township, to demonstrate the needed service improvement and why the requested height is necessary. The Township may request further information, including propagation maps, demonstrating the service at lower heights, in order to determine for itself whether the requested height is necessary. f) The base of the tower and all associated equipment must be surrounded by a locked, opaque screening fence meeting the standards of the zoning district that the tower is located within. DAS installations shall be exempt from this requirement. g) The applicant must demonstrate the number of co-location sites that will be available on the tower. DAS installations shall be exempt from this requirement. Discussion points:  Should there be supplemental separation distances between wireless telecommunication facilities?  Should there be supplemental separation distances from residential buildings? Implications:  New Wireless Communication facilities could be located on properties less than 300-feet wide, and less than 2-acres in size. Typically the height of such facilities are 200-feet tall.  Allowing setbacks and sizes to be determined by the standard of construction would potentially allow for more dense areas (where there would be greater demand) to have towers located in closer proximity, such as the Northeast quadrant. #2 – SIGNAGE IN RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTIES The Zoning Ordinance revision could allow properties Zoned R-1,2,3,4 (and consequently Residential PUDs) to be allowed consistent signage with Commercial and Industrial properties. Currently, unless a departure is requested specifically illustrating all future signage, building signage, addressing, and pedestrian wayfinding would be prohibited in a Residential development (PUD) absent the minimum as otherwise required by law. 11.09.B would be amended in its entirety as follows: Wall Signs Ground Signs and Pylon Signs Window Signs Directional Signs Number One per lot containing a One per road frontage at an entrance One per lot One per road intersection, building permitted Home-Based to a residential subdivision, complex, containing a Home entrance or otherwise required by Business. Prohibited in all or neighborhood. Exception – R-4, Based Business, in law within residential subdivision, other cases where signs may be located at all lieu of a wall sign complex, or developments. entrances. Location Any wall Must be set back at least 10 feet from Any window Must be set back at least 10 feet all lot lines and rights-of-way from all lot lines and rights-of-way Size 6 sf Area – 24 sf 6 sf Area – 6 sf Height – 6 ft Height – 4 ft Other No illumination for a May be affixed to an Architectural No illumination No illumination Home Based Business Gateway Element. The area of the sign sign shall only include the sign itself. The Architectural Gateway Element shall not be considered signage. Section 7.08.B.5 would be amended in its entirety as follows: 5) Signs in a Commercial, Industrial, Residential or Mixed-Use PUD shall be regulated by Chapter 11, unless specific modifications are made by the Township  Board, after recommendation from the Planning Commission. A signage plan shall be included in the PUD submittal. Discussion Points:  Is there a different avenue for a Residential PUD applicant to be provided directional signage? Does this warrant a minor amendment to the PUD; is this minor enough to be considered administrative? Implications:  Residential developments could have greater flexibility in signage to meet their needs for both safety/security and pedestrian orientation. #3 – HEIGHT MONO-SLOPE ROOFS The Zoning Ordinance revision could establish building heights for mono-slope roofs to be determined is similarity to multi-peak roofs as opposed to flat roofs. 21..01.A.12.f would be amended in its entirety as follows: f) Building Height (Story Above Grade Plane). Any story having its finished floor surface entirely above grade plane, or in which the finished surface of the floor next above is more than six (6) feet above grade plane. Height is measured as the vertical distance established from grade plane to the highest point of the roof surface for flat roofs; to the deck-line for mansard roofs; and to the mean height level between eaves and ridge for gable, hip and gambrel roofs and other multi-peak, multi-part and multi-slope roofs. Discussion Points:  Is it more appropriate to consider a mono-slope roof height to be defined to its highest point in similar fashion to flat roofs? Should the average of all roofs be utilized in determining a compliant height, or just the height of the tallest? What are the implications from a Fire/Rescue standpoint – access to the lowest occupiable point of the roof? What is the guiding purpose behind structure height limitations (35-foot ladder on the fire-truck)? Is it worth reconsidering based on providing sufficiency from the standpoint of fire/rescue safety (i.e. sprinklers) and in consideration with the character of the Township?  Is it more appropriate to carve out additional exceptions (2.08.B) in the case of stair towers, or other emergency access points? Implications:  Commercial, industrial, and residential PUD buildings could have greater flexibility in roof type, location, and overall variety by considering the average height of all roofs above the highest story. #4 – ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS ON INDUSTRIAL ADDITIONS The Zoning Ordinance revision would apply the amendments afforded to Commercial buildings previously approved in 2023, to also Industrial buildings located with the US-31 Character Overlay. Section 8.11.B.2 could be amended in its entirety as follows: 2) Existing Buildings. Industrial buildings do not comply with the above requirements and which are being renovated or expanded, or which are simply being maintained on a site which is subject to site plan review, may continue to use materials that do not conform to this section, including on additions or expansions. However, additions and expansions must include materials such as brick, stone or decorative block for architectural detailing be designed to be architecturally consistent with the existing portion of the building using similar materials and architectural features. This must include compliant materials if the location is visible from a publicly accessible area. Implications:  Existing Industrial buildings with additions would not have to include higher architectural materials on the rear of a building or on an area of a building not visible to the public, reducing cost for re-development. #5 – LANDSCAPE IN PARKING LOTS 4 – ARCHITECTU The Zoning Ordinance revision would allow the Planning Commission to provide a waiver for landscape areas adjacent to parking lots in areas where snow storage is to be kept. Section 4.02.A.4.a could be amended in its entirety as follows: a) Perimeter. A landscaped area must be at least ten (10) feet in width must surround parking lots on all sides. i. Private internal walkways may be located between the parking lot and the required landscaping. ii. The landscape area must contain a continuous screen at least thirty-six (36) inches in height above the street grade, and can consist of shrubs, hedges, berm, wall, or combination thereof. iii. The Township may consider a waiver if raingardens are utilized for stormwater disposition or the elimination of plantings aid in the removal of snow storage. In such instances the landscape area shall be offset with plantings in a different area on a 1:1 ratio.  SAMPLE MOTION If the Planning Commission finds the above text amendments acceptable, the following motion can be offered: Motion to direct staff to schedule a public hearing for the proposed zoning text amendment ordinance concerning the following amendments: List item numbers. Please contact me if this raises questions.