Friday, September 22, 2017
Holland Logo

Minutes - September 15, 2015

HOLLAND CHARTER TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION

Special Meeting

September 15, 2015

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Marion Hoeve at 5:00 p.m.

Present:   Chairman Marion Hoeve, Vice-Chairman/Secretary Jack Vander Meulen and Members Willis Driesenga, Dennis Gebben, Arlan Hossink and La Verne Johnson. Also present were Planners Meghann Reynolds and Corey Broersma and Recording Secretary Amy LeVesque.

Absent:   Member Ken Bosma.

The minutes of the regular meeting of September 1, 2015 were approved with one correction.

Mr. Hoeve explained the meeting and hearing procedures for the assembled audience.

Mr. Hoeve then opened discussion on an amendment request submitted by Douglas Plaza Planned Unit Development (PUD), located at the northwest corner of Douglas Avenue and Aniline Avenue. Commissioners tabled the request at the public hearing on May 12, 2015, again at their regular meeting on August 8, 2015 and also at their regular meeting on September 1, 2015. Present for this request were Scott Nykirk, Dave Dirkse, Tony Zahn and also Ryan Ysseldyke of Holland Engineering.

Mr. Ysseldyke stated that plans have been updated in response to comments from Township staff:

  1. Dimensions on Unit 1 have been corrected.
  2. Dimensions on Unit 2 have been corrected.
  3. Property line of Unit 3 has been adjusted six inches to the west.
  4. Language in narrative corrected to state that proposed uses for Unit 3 will remain the same as in original approved PUD.
  5. Deferred parking for possible future development has been shown for Unit 3.
  6. Preliminary elevations have been provided for potential buildings on Units 1, 2, and 4.
  7. Number of possible parking spaces on Unit 4 has been reduced based on the location of the overhead doors.
  8. Planning Commission shall consider the addition of the proposed industrial uses(s) and their effect on the adjacent properties, signage, and parking.
  9. Notes regarding front yard landscaping and a greenbelt along Aniline Avenue that meet C-2 requirements have been added to plans.
  10. Written approval must be received from the Ottawa County Water Resources Commission (OCWRC) regarding site drainage and overall design and a copy must be submitted to the Township.

Mr. Hoeve commented that all concerns have been addressed and corrected, but questioned allowing industrial uses on Unit 1 and Unit 2.

Mr. Ysseldyke explained that allowing I-1 Light Industrial uses on Units 1 and 2 would ease the transition to the I-2 General Industrial use adjacent to the PUD. He went on to explain that the intended use for Unit 1 is for an office in the front with a warehouse in the rear to be used for storage, assembly, and woodworking. He also stated that the described warehouse space would not work in a commercial zone and it would exceed 50% of the building, therefore, the warehouse space could not be considered an accessory use.

Ms. Reynolds suggested amending the final resolution and report for Douglas Plaza PUD to add language stating that all special uses must go through the special use approval process.

Mr. Gebben commented that uses for Units, 1, 2 and 4 are specific but questioned why uses for units 5, 6 and 7 were originally commercial and have not changed.

Mr. Ysseldyke explained that Units 5, 6, and 7 currently have no tenants and are being used to provide parking, and that the owner may continue to use the property for parking.

Mr. Gebben suggested that all proposed I-1 uses be required to go through the special use approval process, even those permitted by right, since I-1 uses would be going into a commercial zone.

Mr. Ysseldyke explained that I-2 and commercial uses would not be next to each other; that I-1 uses would provide a transition between the adjacent I-2 use and commercial uses in the remainder of the PUD.

In response to a question from Mr. Gebben, Ms. Reynolds stated that the future land use map designates I-1, residential and commercial uses in the area. She went on to explain that the relatively small size of the units limits the intensity of use. She also stated that the glass and brick building materials and landscaping help ease incompatibility issues between differing zones. She went on to comment that the plan does a good job of eliminating undesirable I-1 uses. She explained that it would be difficult to enforce the special use requirement process but that staff will be reviewing site plans and will know how units are being used. She also stated that the Planning Commission could review site plans if they chose to.

Next, Commissioners reviewed Section 14.2 of the zoning code regarding Permitted Uses in the I-1 Light Industrial district. Ms. Reynolds explained that the applicants are requesting that all of the permitted I-1 uses be allowed for Units 1 and 2 with the exception of:

1. Compounding, processing, packaging, treating and assembling from previously prepared materials in the production of : h. Chemical products such as plastics, perfumes and synthetic fibers.

6. Motor freight terminal including garaging and maintenance of equipment; freight forwarding, packing and crating services; and truck repairs and/or truck sales.

7. Central dry cleaning plant.

9. Electricity regulations substation, pressure control substation, and pressure control substation for gas, water and sewage.

Mr. Vander Meulen suggested also eliminating permitted uses 1. a., b. and h.

Mr. Gebben suggested eliminating permitted use 2 due to concerns about chemical storage. Ms. Reynolds explained that building code regulations would ensure that safety requirements are met.

In response to a question from Mr. Vander Meulen, Ms. Reynolds stated that ordinance requirements allow one identifying sign for the development not in excess of 32 square feet, wall signs not in excess of 10 percent of the wall area of the main façade and one free-standing sign of 75 square feet would be allowed for each building.

In response to a question from Mr. Gebben, Ms. Reynolds stated that she would add language to the final resolution and report stating that C-1 and C-2 permitted uses are acceptable, no C-1 or C-2 special uses are allowed without special use approval, no C-3 (Highway Commercial) permitted or special uses are allowed, and only the permitted I-1 industrial uses with the exception of 1.a, 1.b, and 1.h are allowed.

In response to a question concerning lighting from Mr. Vander Meulen, Ms. Reynolds stated that lighting shields would be required on all building and pole lighting.

Next, Commissioners reviewed the six PUD amendment considerations:

  1. Whether the proposed planned unit development is consistent with and promotes the intent and purpose of this ordinance.
  2. Whether the proposed planned unit development is compatible with adjacent uses of land, the natural environment and the capacities of public services and facilities affected by the planned unit development.
  3. Whether the planned unit development is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare of the township.
  4. Whether the proposed project provides safe and convenient ingress/egress to the property.
  5. Whether the proposed project deviates from the provisions of this ordinance which is otherwise applicable for the zoning district in which the PUD is located.
  6. Whether the proposed project complies with the applicable provisions of the ordinance (e.g. parking, site plan review, signage)

In response to an observation by Mr. Hoeve, Ms. Reynolds agreed to make a correction to page 3, item M of the final resolution and report for the PUD.

The PUD owners in attendance agreed to a completion date of December 31, 2020 for the project.

**   Mr. Driesenga moved and Mr. Johnson supported the motion to approve the proposed planned unit development amendment number one for Douglas Plaza PUD, based upon the Planning Commission’s findings as reflected in the minutes for the reasons set forth in the minutes and also to approve the final resolution and report for the Douglas Plaza PUD amendment number one with discussed changes and forward it to the Township Board for approval, with a completion date of December 31, 2020. Motion carried.

Mr. Hoeve next introduced the final resolution and report for amendment number one to the final development plan for the Vista Springs Holland Meadows PUD (former Hospice of Holland PUD), located generally at the northwest corner of Mason Street and 104th Avenue. The proposed amendment will allow for an increase of 18 beds in 16 residential rooms and also the creation of an enclosed courtyard by constructing an 11,750 square foot building addition. Flexibility to vary from approved plans for courtyard landscaping is also being requested. Present to answer questions were Richard Postema of Richard Postema Associates, P.C. and Pam Wicks of Vista Springs Living.

Ms. Reynolds asked Commissioners if they would like to amend the final resolution and report to include a requirement for constructing a berm on the north side of the property, which was suggested by a neighbor at the September 1, 2015 Planning Commission meeting.

Mr. Postema stated that Vista Springs is planning to construct a berm high enough to eliminate the problem of headlight glare from exiting motorists from bothering neighbors.

Mr. Postema agreed to a completion date of December 31, 2017 for the project.

In response to a question from Mr. Gebben, Mr. Postema stated that Vista Springs is planning to open as soon as possible.

Ms. Wicks added that multiple reservations have been received and that she expects that the facility will soon be full. She also invited Commissioners to an upcoming open house event at Vista Springs.

**   Mr. Hossink moved and Mr. Johnson supported the motion to approve the final resolution and report for the Vista Springs Holland Meadows PUD amendment number one with the addition of the berm construction requirement and forward it to the Township Board for approval, with a completion date of December 31, 2017. Motion carried.

Mr. Hoeve next opened the floor to general public comments.

There was no one present who wished to speak.

Mr. Hoeve then closed the public comment section of the meeting.

In other business, Ms. Reynolds stated that she has received a request from the developers of Sawgrass Condominiums PUD concerning garage changes. She explained that developers would like to build larger garages on some units and also build three-stall garages instead of two-stall garages on some other units, where feasible. She stated that the plan does not include building envelopes and that separation distance requirements of 20 feet between buildings would still be met.

Mr. Vander Meulen commented that he does not believe that a three-stall garage taking up the majority of the front of the condominiums would be attractive and that he would prefer to see wider two-stall garages.

Ms. Reynolds stated that the current two-stall garages can barely accommodate two cars. She explained that the larger garages would also provide additional storage space and that residential storage continues to be an issue throughout the Township.

Mr. Broersma explained that, if approved, approximately six units will be able to accommodate three stall garages.

Mr. Johnson commented that he prefers that garages not extend beyond the buildings. Ms. Reynolds stated that garages would be set back and would not extend past the units.

Commissioners agreed to the request from Sawgrass Condominium PUD, with the stipulation that proposed changes to garage plans be subject to site plan review by staff.

Ms. Reynolds next turned Commissioners’ attention to an issue raised by Eastbrook Homes for Macatawa Legends PUD regarding deck size and building separations in the area called Sports Club. Ms. Reynolds explained that PUD amendment three specified a distance of ten feet between buildings and that amendment six removed building envelopes from the plan and increased separation distances to 20 feet. She went on to explain that Eastbrook Homes wishes to maintain the ten foot separation distance with no increase in density of number of units. She stated that staff is planning to meet with developers to review plans and discuss potential issues.

Mr. Hoeve commented that a separation distance of 15 feet would be typical in developments such as Macatawa Legends. Ms. Reynolds agreed and stated that the Township is requesting 15 feet as a required separation distance but that there may be other areas in Macatawa Legends with a separation distance of ten feet since that distance was allowed by amendment three.

Mr. Broersma commented that the footprint of Unit 9 in Sports Club is different than approved and it is within 15 feet of Unit 10. He stated that construction on Unit 11 is underway.

In response to a question from Mr. Vander Meulen, Ms. Reynolds stated that she believes that a distance of seven feet between buildings is required in order to allow access by fire fighting equipment and that she would check with the fire chief to verify.

Commissioners agreed to the request from Eastbrook Homes to allow a ten foot building separation within the Sports Club, with the stipulation that proposed changes to building locations be subject to site plan review by staff.

Mr. Hoeve informed Commissioners that Planner Jon Mersman has been working on several zoning text amendments and that review on the amendments will probably not take place until spring of 2016. He also reminded Commissioners that their next meeting will be held on October 6, 2015.

The meeting adjourned at 5:43 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Amy LeVesque, Recording Secretary

six pack abs