Friday, September 22, 2017
Holland Logo

Minutes - March 7, 2017

HOLLAND CHARTER TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION

Regular Meeting

March 7, 2017

The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman/Secretary Jack Vander Meulen at 7:00 p.m.

Present:   Vice-Chairman/Secretary Jack Vander Meulen and Members Ken Bosma, Dennis Gebben, LaVerne Johnson, and Norm Nykamp.  Also present was Assistant Planner Corey Broersma, and Recording Secretary Laurie Slater.

Absent:   Chairman Marion Hoeve and Ed Zylstra.

The minutes of February 7, 2017 were approved as written.

Mr. Vander Meulen explained the meeting and hearing procedures to the audience.

Mr. Vander Meulen opened the public hearing for a rezoning submitted by James & Hildred Strikwerda to change vacant lands located on Ransom Street in the Charter Township of Holland from A Agricultural to I-1 Light Industrial.

Present for this request was Kevin VanHaitsma of Bradley Company on behalf of James & Hildred Strikwerda.

Mr. VanHaitsma explained that Future Land Use Map indicates this land is planned for light industrial along with the surrounding properties. There is the Ottawa County Road Commission building two parcels east and the property across the street in the PUD there is a possibility of light industrial.

There was no one present in the audience to speak to this request.

**  It was moved by Mr. Nykamp and supported by Mr. Johnson to close the hearing. Motion carried.

The Commission reviewed the zoning considerations:

       1.   Does this request result in spot zoning? – There are already utilities in the area. Future land use on the Master 
             Plan is Industrial.
  This request supports that.

       2.   Is the request consistent with the surrounding property? This request is consistent with surrounding properties
             (OCRC) and future land use.

       3.   Is the requested rezoning consistent with the general trend of future building and population growth in the 
             area? Yes

       4.   Is the requested rezoning consistent with the Future Land Use Map/Master Plan? Yes

**  It was moved by Mr. Bosma and supported by Mr. Gebben to recommend to the Township Board that the proposed rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Light industrial (I-1) be approved based on the responses to the four considerations as recorded in the minutes.  Motion carried.

Mr. Vander Meulen opened the public hearing for a special use request submitted by LHG, LLC for land formerly known as 120 Walnut Street and now part of 444 Chicago Drive, described more specifically as Parcel Number 70-16-28-199-036. Petitioner is seeking permission for an off-street parking lot serving vehicles in need of repair at the adjacent pre-owned car dealership. The property is in the C-2 General Commercial Zoning District.

Present for this request was Robin Stedman representing LHG.

Ms. Stedman explained that they are asking permission to park vehicles needing service on the adjoining property to the sales and service area. The property was previously zoned residential.  It has since been rezoned and the properties have been combined to one parcel.

Mr. Broersma explained that parcels 199-036 and 198-001 had already been approved for the special use, but that it does not extend to the 50’ x 133’ area that was added on.

Ms. Stedman further explained that the area would also be used to store repossessed vehicles while LHG determines whether to fix up the vehicle to sell or have them disposed of. They currently do mechanical work with light body repairs.  The area would be gated and secured with no public access to the area. 

Mr. Broersma explained that there are currently residential uses around this property. Future Land Use Map indicates this neighborhood is Mixed Use. There would need to be screening along the south and east property lines.  Full greenbelts would be required by ordinance.  Mr. Broersma stated that the applicant is going before the Zoning Board of Appeals seeking relief from the greenbelt.

Present in the audience was Debra Tacoma of 124 Walnut Avenue. Her concerns were with how long the vehicles would be allowed to remain in the fenced in area and if they would be parked there and used for parts.  Also, cars are parking next to her fence; she is requesting that the green space be developed.  There is a dumpster area where there are trees growing.  Those trees are growing into her fence causing damage.  Everyday there are vehicles in and out with tow trucks, it is noisy and very visible to her property.

Staff Comments:

          1.  The present/proposed use fails to provide adequate screening.  Screening is required along the Walnut
                frontage and a 10 foot wide greenbelt is required along the south properly line.

                            -   Applicant has applied for relief from the southern greenbelt requirements.

         2.   It is unlikely the property can accommodate parking north and south of the proposed aisle. In the event only 
               one side of the aisle is used for parking, Staff proposes only the north side be used.

         3.   Depending on the hours of operation for impounding and delivery of inoperable vehicles, headlights could
               disturb residence east of Walnut Street.
Walnut Street entrance should be for ingress if the one-way aisle is 
               maintained.

The Commission went over the Special Use Considerations for C-2 zoned properties:

       1.   The size, nature and character of the proposed use; It may be acceptable, it is part of an existing dealership.
            
They do have issues with separation and how much can fit in that space. If they meet the greenbelts, is the
             space large enough to use?

       2.   The proximity of the proposed use to adjoining properties; Screening issues need to be taken care of.

       3.   The parking facilities provided for the proposed use; The parking stalls must meet regulations and the area not
              become a junk yard.

       4.   Any traffic congestion or hazard which would be occasioned by the proposed use; Traffic congestion is not
             an issue.

       5.   How well the proposed use harmonizes, blends with and enhances adjoining properties in the surrounding
             neighborhood; It blends to the north, not to the south.

       6.   The need or necessity for the proposed use to service the needs of the surrounding neighborhood. There is no
             need or necessity for the proposed use in the surrounding neighborhood.

       7.   The effect of the proposed use on adjoining properties in the surrounding neighborhood. Without the screen
              the proposed use has a negative effect on the adjoining properties in the surrounding neighborhood.

There was discussion among the Commission and Ms. Stedman about where the employees park their vehicles and how long the vehicles there for repairs really are kept in the proposed gated area. It was suggested that the employees park by the fences along the residential property line to the south instead of parking vehicles that might be there a week or longer by the residential use and offend the neighbors.  Currently the employees park on the north side of the building.

Ms. Stedman stated that there is not enough room to put the greenbelt because the area has been paved.

The Commission asked when it was paved. Mr. Broersma stated that it was approximately the fall of 2015 and that there was a recommendation to the applicant to not pave the lot until the special use has been approved. 

Ms. Stedman replied that that is not the way the Owner says it happened. Not sure where the breakdown happened, but the Owner thought this was all taken care of.

There were concerns from the Commission about the applicant going before the Zoning Board of Appeals for relief from the greenbelt. Were they going ahead with this use even if the ZBA denied them relief?

Ms. Stedman stated that they have to make it happen. They need to stay in business.  Putting in the greenbelt would require them to work around two very large old trees.  Their first choice would be a six foot high fence.

There was discussion about acquiring an additional strip of property from the residential property owners abutting this property. Ms. Tacoma stated that she has no desire to sell them a strip of her property to widen this proposed gated parking area.

**  It was moved by Mr. Bosma and supported by Mr. Johnson to close the hearing. Motion carried. ** It was moved by Mr. Gebben and supported by Mr. Nykamp to grant the special use request to operate an off-street parking lot serving vehicles in need of repair at the adjacent pre-owned car dealership with the understanding that all requirements of the zoning ordinance in regards to buffering and parking will be met and that no inoperable vehicles are to be stored in the area.  Final site plan is to be approved by staff. 

** It was moved by Mr. Gebben and supported by Mr. Nykamp to revise the motion to include that the entire site is to comply with ordinance on greenbelt regulations on all lots. Motion carried.

Ms. Stedman asked for a definition on inoperable. The Board replied no wrecked vehicles, no vehicles with flat tires, and they must run.

Mr. Vander Meulen opened the public hearing for a special use request submitted by Crown Motors for: 1) The sale or leasing of new or used motor vehicles, including repair at 11264 Chicago Drive, described more specifically as Parcel Number 70-16-22-400-072; 2) The sale or leasing of new or used motor vehicles at 11250 Chicago Drive, described more specifically as Parcel Number 70-16-22-400-023; 3) Vehicle repair service, not including junking or wrecking at 1837 112th Avenue, described more specifically as Parcel Number 70-16-22-400-090 and 70-16-22-400-060. All properties are in the C-2 General Commercial Zoning District.

Present for this request was Joe Geelhoed of Dan Voss Construction and David Pronk of Crown Motors.

Mr. Geelhoed explained to the Commission that the property in question has been a car dealership since 1998. There is the Volkswagen property for sales and repair.  The used car corner with Carpe Latte (2 parcels) and the small fenced in staging area for the detail shop.  There are no new changes proposed other than what was approved for the new Toyota Dealership.

On Parcel 70-16-22-400-060 the fence will be removed and paved, extending the parking up to the circular drive and a greenspace up to 112th Avenue. Beyond the green scape is a 15 foot drop off in Black River.  Their intent is to clean this area up and pave to the edge of the green area. The property on the west side drops off into a ravine as well.

All the properties are zoned C-2 General Commercial and future land uses remain the same.

Staff Comments:

      1.   A revised site plan should be provided indicating:

                    -  All parking spaces (including display) will be 9 feet wide by 18 feet deep. Parking spaces and/or aisles 
                       should not be counted if there are lot line conflicts, unless a cross access and parking easement
                       is provided.

                    -  Drive aisles shall be 24 feet wide minimum (wider as determined by Fire Chief)

                   -   Drive-thru complies with code for stacking;

      2.   The lack of any parking islands to define drives, fire lanes, aisles, drive-thru lanes, or parking bays is a concern.

      3.   Outdoor storage of equipment, parts, or wrecked vehicles is prohibited.

      4.   The “Dirt Area” west of 1837 112th Avenue must be paved or restored with vegetation.

      5.   Proper greenbelts and screening shall be provided for adjacent residential properties.

Mr. Pronk of Crown Motors commented that an attorney is working on the cross access and parking easements.  They are also considering combining the two parcels at 1847 112th Avenue.

There was no one in the audience to speak to this request.

**  It was moved by Mr. Gebben and supported by Mr. Nykamp to close the hearing.  Motion carried.

The Commission went over the special use considerations for C-1 and C-2 Commercial zoned property

      1.   The size, nature and character of the proposed use; Fitting with what is there, cleaning it up by obtaining the
             special use approval, screening must be met.

      2.   The proximity of the proposed use to adjoining properties;

      3.   The parking facilities provided for the proposed use;

      4.   Any traffic congestion or hazard which would be occasioned by the proposed use; No traffic congestion or
            hazard will be occasioned by the proposed use.

      5.   How well the proposed use harmonizes, blends with and enhances adjoining properties in the surrounding 
            neighborhood;
Make more unified.

      6.   The need or necessity for the proposed use to service the needs of the surrounding neighborhood; They would
             not spend the money if there was no need.

      7.   The effect of the proposed use on adjoining properties in the surrounding neighborhood. No negative effect.

**  It was moved by Mr. Bosma and supported by Mr. Gebben to approve the special use request for the:

           -  Sale or leasing of new or used motor vehicles, including repair at 11264 Chicago Drive

          -  Sale or leasing of new or used motor vehicles at 11250 Chicago Drive

          -  Vehicle repair service, not including junking or wrecking at 1837 112th Avenue

Based upon the Planning Commission’s findings of the 7 factors to consider upon reviewing special use requests as reflected in the minutes for the reasons set forth in the minutes, with the stipulation the two parcels are combined as one with the final site plan approved by Staff. Motion carried.

There were no public comments.

Mr. Broersma passed out a Zoning Ordinance Update Project Audit Report for the Commission Member to review as talking points for the March 29, 2017 workshop meeting at 5:30 p.m. at the Township Office.

The Planning Commission next considered Other Business.

Flagstick PUD: Present was Marianne Hunderman of 3284 – 100th Avenue. She explained that they would like to take the barn that is currently on their property and make the space upstairs into a residential area for medical help or family to sleep.  Her daughter is disabled and will never be able to live on her own. The entire main house is handicapped accessible for their daughter.  She needs around the clock attention.  As they quite often travel for medical appointments for her daughter, they would like to turn the main level of the barn into a home business for her husband.  He would be the only employee.

They did not anticipate this when they requested the PUD in 2014. They knew that she would never be independent and would always need on site care.  They did not foresee that they would need to simplify their life and still meet the needs of their daughter by working at home.  Mrs. Hunderman needs to continue to work full time for the insurance.

Staff Comments:

         1.   Second Amendment Resolution (12/04/2014) indicates: “…Project shall comply with all requirements of the
                Zoning Ordinance generally and those requirements pertaining to the R-1 Zoning District…”

         2.   Establishing a second residence for medical care and a home occupation outside of the dwelling will require
               use variances or a PUD Amendment.

         3.   PC may choose to give guidance on how to proceed.

The Commission gave guidance to Mrs. Hunderman to proceed with a PUD Amendment. The applicant will need to need to describe the occupation in the barn in detail and how the upstairs will become a residential dwelling.  Mrs. Hunderman was advised to speak with Mike Winkler on Safety Codes.  Mr. Broersma further stated that the Association would need to sign off on it.  Mrs. Hunderman thought that they were the only members of the Association.

The Commission had further questions for Mr. Broersma as to whether they could restrict the Amendment to the current property owner; could they state that Mr. Hunderman could be the only employee; and limit the amount of work related activity on the property.

Mr. Broersma replied that he would consult our attorney.

Shops at West Shore: Jean Ramirez and Lynn Petri were before the Commission for changes on the Temporary Use discussed at the February 7, 2017 meeting (festival with LAUP). After meeting with Mr. Winkler in the Building Department, it has been brought to their attention the festival must be within 500 feet of restrooms.  The single stall temporary porta johns cannot be used. The price of the luxury porta johns is too expensive for a non-profit organization.  If they move the festival to the front of the shops by Younkers, instead of down by JC Penney, it will bring them within the 500 foot parameter of the restrooms.  The merchants at Shops at West Shore are in favor of the move.  A new site plan for the festival was submitted.

Staff Comments:

       1.   Plan would satisfy the requirements for fire suppression and restroom locations within 500 feet according to the
             Building Official.

       2.   Planning Commission to determine if event is acceptable for a temporary use permit this year prior to the
             adoption of a new ordinance.

Also, the tent size has been made smaller to meet fire suppression.

**  It was moved by Mr. Bosma and supported by Mr. Nykamp to issue a temporary use permit for this year only and re-evaluate in January after the adoption of the new ordinance.  Motion carried.

Waverly Shores PUD Amendment: Petitioner is requesting to withdraw their application given the most recent plans indicate the revised utility easement, 3 parking spaces per unit, and a total of 89 units as approved by the currently adopted Resolution and Report.

There was discussion among the Planning Commission about what was discussed at the May 2016 meeting as far as landscaping.

Staff Comments:

       1.   If the Planning Commission agrees to withdraw the Amendment request, the PC and the Board, in that order,
             readopt their resolutions and reports with the correct dates of the plans inserted.
No new public hearings
             would be required before the PC or the Board.

It was the consensus of the Commission to re-issue the resolution with the revised site plan and dates.

Creekside Meadows Assisted Living PUD: Mr. Bosma recused himself from the discussion on Creekside Meadows Assisted Living PUD due to potential conflicts of interest.

The school decided not to grant access to the facility from the school property. This leaves the property with one access.

The applicant had a meeting with the Township Manager, Fire Chief, Mr. Vander Meulen, and Mr. Broersma. The main concern was the evacuation of people in the facility unable to get out of the building without assistance.  Mr. Vander Meulen stated that a good compromise with wider drives and additional drives had been proposed. 

The applicant now has to give the proposed revisions to the engineer and see if the revisions are possible. Mr. Broersma will inform the Township Attorney of the situation and see if there is a liability risk to the Township with there being no access to the west and south side of the property.

Applicant is advised to continue to work on the final plans for the Creekside Meadows Assisted Living PUD.

West Shore Apartments PUD: Final plans have not been received in order to prepare the Resolution and Report.

Lake Macatawa Storage: Since the plans for the Lake Macatawa Storage have changed since the Planning Commission’s approval of the Special Use, Mr. Broersma is seeking their input on the added area for outdoor storage after going before the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Mr. Vander Meulen commented that he did not think that all the trees would be cut down as they have been, however, the layout of the buildings is good for buffering the residential uses from the outdoor storage area.

The meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Laurie Slater

Recording Secretary

 

six pack abs