Thursday, February 22, 2018
Holland Logo

Minutes - April 11, 2017


Regular Meeting
April 11, 2017


The meeting was called to order by Chairman Marion Hoeve at 7:00 p.m.

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

Absent: None

The minutes of March 7, 2017 were approved with two corrections.

Mr. Hoeve explained the meeting and hearing procedures to the audience.

Mr. Hoeve opened the public hearing for a rezoning submitted by Nederveld, Inc. on behalf of Mason Street Development LLC for property located on vacant land east of Country Club Road and south of Mason Street, Holland, Michigan. To change the lands from A Agricultural to R-1 Single-family Residential. Property is described more specifically as Parcel Number: 70-16-35-300-014.

Present for this request was Kelly Cavanaugh Kuiper, Project Manager of Nederveld, Inc. Also present was Brad VanderZwaag of Baumann Building, Inc.

Ms. Kuiper explained that the rezoning of the property from Agricultural to Single Family Residential would be consistent and compatible with the adjacent properties. There are adjacent properties that have already been rezoned; to the East and a little South is a PUD; North R-1; NE – PUD; SE – PUD. The Master Plan shows the future land use for this property as Single-family Residential (R-1).

Mr. Broersma confirmed that the Master Plan does have future land use as R-1.

Present in the audience were Roger & June Zoet of 95 Garnet Drive. Their concerns were with seeing more farmland developed.

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

1. Does this request result in spot zoning? - No

2. Is the request consistent with the surrounding property? Yes - R-1 at the adjacent Summerlin South Subdivision and Sleepy Hollow Lane Subdivision.

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

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

Yes – Future land use is Single-family Residential (R-1)

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

Mr. Hoeve opened the public hearing for a proposed preliminary development plan for Mason Lake Estates Planned Unit Development, located generally east of Country Club Road and south of Mason Street on lands in Holland Charter Township, Ottawa County, Michigan. Property is described more specifically as Parcel Number: 70-16-35-300-014.

Present for this request was Kelly Cavanaugh Kuiper, Project Manager of Nederveld, Inc. Also present was Brad VanderZwaag of Baumann Building, Inc.

The proposed planned unit development is for a residential site condominium consisting of 48 units served by public watermain, public sanitary sewer, a private road, a private stormwater retention basin, and community open space.

The property is 30 acres in size. There would be seven land divisions. Four acres would be retention pond and one acre of green space. Ms. Kuiper explained the reason this is better as a PUD versus a subdivision is because of the flexibility that is needed because of the width to depth ratio that is needed on several lots because of a gas line easement that runs through a portion of the property. The depth is two and a half times the width. They are also asking for sidewalks on only one side of the road on the connector streets and on the permanent cul-de-sac, no sidewalks at all. The setbacks will meet the required setback in the R-1 Residential zoning district.

Ms. Kuiper has already contacted A & R Pipeline, the Road Commission, the Water Resources Department, and the Zeeland Public Schools to give them a heads up for enrollment and bus route consideration.

Ms. Kuiper continued, all the roads within the PUD are public roads maintained by the Ottawa County Road Commission.

Mr. Broersma asked if the County Road Commission had agreed to accept the permanent cul-de-sac.

Ms. Kuiper clarified the applicant had not submitted for an official review at this time.

The developer is aware that there are lots to the east with water problems. The runoff from these lots comes on to the proposed development, for this reason their stormwater retention basin is a positive thing for the adjacent development.

Ms. Kuiper commented that there is a high demand for housing in this area. This would be a single phase development. The average lot size would be .3 acres. The exceptions would be one-half acre in size to .8 acres in size; lot 23 would be one acre.

The Commission asked why plotting this development into a subdivision rather than a PUD wouldn’t work.

Ms. Kuiper replied that it could work. But that a PUD is more desirable because of the length of time of get approved. Also the community and financial management of a PUD is easier to manage as a PUD. The association would be responsible for mowing the green space and the financing is needed to help maintain the pond. This can all be addressed in the Master Deed. Also, for site condominiums the Township allows them to be in a PUD. As a subdivision they would need to get variances for the width to depth ratio and they would probably get denied because of it being self-created.

Present in the audience to speak to this request was Ray Eklund of 10995 Ryans Way – he lives in the house on the temporary cul-de-sac where the two neighborhoods will be joined. The biggest reason they bought the house was because it was on a cul-de-sac. No one told him it was a stub road that one day would be opened up and connect to a neighboring subdivision. There is also cement and landscaping in front of his house that the road construction would be tearing up. He is now contemplating to move again. The cul-de-sac is why they purchased this house in 2005.

The audience had questions about what kind of housing it was because of the word “condo”.

Ms. Kuiper explained that it was “site condo” which is single family detached homes.

The audience wanted to know when the road would be connected.

Ms. Kuiper replied that upon approval of the PUD they would submit their plans to the Ottawa County Road Commission. If everything goes as they hope it will, they plan to start construction by the fall or at the latest next spring (2018).

There was more talk of the water problems in Summerlin South Subdivision. Jim Kraushar of 337 Summerlin Drive had concerns of the standing water within Summerlin South Subdivision.

Ms. Kuiper again explained that where the runoff comes onto the proposed PUD, it will be taken care of. The standing water further in the subdivision is not theirs to take care of, but she would be willing to mention it to the Water Resources Department when they connect with them about the development.

Matt Immink of 359 Summerlin Drive was also present in the audience. He wanted to know how to tell if a cul-de-sac was a stub road (temporary) or a permanent cul-de-sac.

Mr. Bosma replied that you need to look at the design and construction. A permanent one will have curbing around the exterior and has a curved right of way.

The audience wanted to know about the square footage of the homes that were being proposed.

Brad VanderZwaag of Baumann Builders stated that they will be higher end than Hickory Woods and try to meet the level of Savanna Lakes PUD. Nice size homes with good value anywhere from $269,000 to $400,000.

Dawn Eklund of 10995 Ryans Way wanted to know about the green space by the pond particularly lot #20.

Ms. Kuiper answered that it is about 20 feet wide and units within the PUD would have access to the pond.

Kelly Lepley of 10996 Ryans Way lives right next to lot #21. His concerns were that he only has three to four feet of a side yard and how close the proposed house could be to him. The property where the proposed development is to go, when surveyed, moved the property line further to the east according to Mr. Lepley.

There was further discussion about the runoff. The land here is clay, not sand. Would there be a berm? Mr. Broersma indicated there was not a berm, rather there would be approximately 8 feet cut slope from the property line to the pond.

Marilyn Boeve of 11157 Ottagon had questions about if the houses would be individually owned, would they all look alike, and what would be the height?

Mr. VanderZwaag replied that the houses would range from ranch style of 1,400 to 2,200 square feet and two story houses that are 1,800 to 2,700 square feet in size – not counting finished basements. The two story houses will not exceed 35 feet, which is what is allowed by ordinance in the R-1 zoning district. The setbacks will also meet the R-1 Residential standards of 7 foot side yard setback and 35 foot front yard.

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

The Commission went over the Standards for Establishing a PUD and the staff comments for each standard:

1. Whether the proposed planned unit development is consistent with and promotes the intent and purpose of this ordinance.

Mr. Broersma indicated the Planning Commission must first determine why this development could not be established as a subdivision. If it is determined a Planned Unit Development (PUD) will result in a more desirable development, then the Planning Commission may begin to determine the extent to which flexibility should be granted in the proposed development’s use, area, height, bulk and placement.

The Commission commented that the Gas Pipeline creates a hardship with following the subdivision 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.

Mr. Broersma indicated if the development is determined to be consistent with the intent of the PUD Ordinance, the natural environment, public services, and facilities are not anticipated to be negatively impacted, but agency reviews will be necessary.

The PUD is compatible with adjacent properties as there is R-1 and PUD developments all around. The Master Plan shows this property as R-1 for future use.

3.  Whether the planned unit development is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare of the township.

The PUD will be consistent with the health, safety, and welfare of the Township.

The Commission went over the Standards for Preliminary Review and Staff Comments:

1. Ingress and egress to the property and proposed buildings and structures thereon, with particular reference to provision of safe and convenient vehicle and pedestrian circulation and adequate emergency access.

The primary and secondary ingress/egress points are well thought out, however, the number of driveways on Mason Street for units A-G, the temporary Cul-de-sac, and the permanent Cul-de-sac should be reviewed and found to be acceptable to the Township and the Ottawa County Road Commission.

Ms. Kuiper stated that she submitted a plan to the Ottawa County Road Commission for Review. They have not given her any comments on it so far.

2. The extent to which the planned unit development deviates from the provisions of this ordinance otherwise applicable for the zoning district in which the planned unit development is located, and the extent to which deviation from otherwise applicable ordinance requirements is justified by unique site characteristics or other circumstances.

The Planning Commission must determine if the Future Land Use designation of R-1 would allow increased density and what is appropriate. Staff understands the lots will be “pie” shaped when curvilinear roads are used, but would recommend the building envelopes for each unit must be at least 66 feet wide. This will ensure unit widths more closely represent the neighboring subdivisions. Summerlin South Subdivision lots widths are typically 77 feet wide and Sleepy Hollow Lane Subdivision lots are typically 90 feet wide.

The Commission did not agree with staffs’ comments on requiring the building envelopes for each unit to be at least 66 feet wide. In an R-1 Residential zone the ordinance allows for a 55 foot wide building envelope.

Mr. VanderZwaag stated that Hickory Woods building envelopes are 50 to 55 feet wide. They would lose lots if they are required to go that large. A ranch style house can easily fit on a 56 foot wide envelope and a two story even better.

3.  Compliance with other applicable provisions of this ordinance, including but not limited to, off-street parking regulations, site plan review requirements and signage regulations.

Signs: No signs proposed at this time, however, if deviations from Article 18 are intended, details should be provided if preliminary PUD approval is granted.

Street Lighting: Details regarding the type and style of street lights should be provided if preliminary PUD approval is granted.

Green Space: Details regarding the greenspace, such as landscaping and community amenities, shall be provided if preliminary PUD approval is granted.

** It was moved by Mr. Bosma and supported by Mr. Gebben to recommend to go on with the final. Motion carried.

Mr. Hoeve opened the public hearing for a special use request submitted by Scott Carter for land located at 10855 Paw Paw Drive, described more specifically as Parcel Number 70-16-23-300-036. Petitioner is seeking permission to construct a 13,850 square foot self-storage building. The property is in the C-2 General Commercial Zoning District.

Mr. Bosma recused himself from the hearing for this special use request due to potential conflicts of interest.

Present for this request was Dan Lewis of Prein & Newhof. Also, Scott Carter, the owner and manager of the facility.

Mr. Lewis explained to the Commission that the owner would like to put a climate controlled self-storage on this parcel. There are two parcels here and the parcel to the north did get approval as there is already a building there and the parcel to the south did not. This use would be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. There would be a 24 foot wide drive separating the two buildings.

The Commission went over the Staff Comments regarding the use and considerations for Staff’s future site plan review:

1. Applicant shall describe the hours of operation, location of any office, provide the number of individual storage units, unit access points, and confirm no unit will not exceed 600 square feet.

2. Parking must be provided per Article 12.3 (1 space per 2 units).

3. Applicant shall confirm there will be no outdoor storage.

4. Applicant shall confirm the use of any storage unit for the conduct of manufacturing, repair, service, sales, fabrication, assembly, or any other business purpose, other than dead storage of goods or merchandise, is prohibited.

5. Proposed use complies with building setbacks, but the site does not include the required landscape setbacks or vegetation.

6. The present use fails to comply with building setbacks but the use was approved Feb. 5, 2013 with the stipulation that any changes to the front façade must comply with setbacks or seek a variance.

7. Drive aisle width between buildings, northern turn-a-round, and any gates must satisfy the Fire Chief and Building Official.

Mr. Broersma commented that the Fire Chief might require the drive between the two buildings to be a minimum of 26 feet wide. Also, there needs to be enough room for a 21 foot straight body fire engine to turn around.

When there are roll up doors a 10 foot wide area for parking per side is required. Section 12.3 subsection 19, Mini-storage.

Mr. Lewis stated that leaving 10 feet on both side of the 24 foot drive is not a good use of the land.

Mr. Carter stated that they drove a large moving van through the project and they turned around just fine so the Hammerhead should be able to also. The hours of operation are generally Monday thru Friday from 9 to 5 or by appointment. There is no outdoor storage proposed.

There were concern from the Commission of the units being used for illegal purposes.

Mr. Carter explained that there are security cameras inside the building and they could see if there was unusual activity.

** It was moved by Mr. Zylstra and supported by Mr. Nykamp to approve the special use request to construct and operate an additional self-storage building 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.

Final Site Plan to be reviewed and approved by Staff.

Special Use Considerations (C-1 and C-2):

1. The size, nature and character of the proposed use;

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;

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

6. The need or necessity for the proposed use to service the needs of the surrounding neighborhood;

7. The effect of the proposed use on adjoining properties in the surrounding neighborhood.

Next on the agenda was a revision to resolution and report for the latest Macatawa Legends PUD Amendment. The documents submitted for final approval had the wrong plan dates listed.

** It was moved by Mr. Johnson and supported by Mr. Bosma to readopt the resolution and report with the correct dates of the plans inserted. Motion carried.

There were no public comments.

Other Business:

Leisure Living Creekside: They will be submitting new plans to address the Planning Commission’s comments and to indicate the redesigned access drive. The Fire Chief is satisfied with the access for the fire trucks and other emergency vehicles. They will be before the Planning Commission next month for the final review.

West Shore Apartments: Final PUD plans for the project still have not been provided in order to complete the resolution and report.

Waverly Shores Village: The 2016 PUD Amendment resolution and report will need to be revised based on the applicant’s withdraw of the more recent PUD Amendment Application and a minor plan change. Topic to be addressed at next month’s meeting.

Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Laurie Slater
Recording Secretary

six pack abs