Friday, September 22, 2017
Holland Logo

Minutes - June 6, 2017

 

HOLLAND CHARTER TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION

Regular Meeting

June 6, 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 Secretaries Laurie Slater and Sheri Thomassen.

Absent:   None

The minutes of May 9, 2017 were approved as written. 

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

Mr. Hoeve opened the public hearing for consideration of a Special Use Request submitted by Suresh R. Patel for land formerly known as 12611 James Street, described more specifically as Parcel Number 70-16-16-300-053.  Petitioner is seeking permission to construct and operate a 4-story extended stay hotel containing 73 guest rooms.  The hotel’s height is proposed to be in excess of 35 feet tall.  The property is in the C-2, General Commercial Zoning District.

Present for this request was Ryan Ysseldyke, Holland Engineering.

Mr. Ysseldyke explained that the proposed Candlewood Suites (an IHG hotel) includes four stories with kitchenettes including full size refrigerator and two-burner stove in every room. Length of stay can range from 3-4 days to 1 month.  Changes made to the submitted plans would be to move gazebo to east to meet setbacks and roof lines would be flat.  Mr. Ysseldyke contacted the Ottawa County Road Commission regarding driveway locations; they also indicated a traffic study would not be warranted.

Staff Comments were read by Mr. Broersma. 

  1. The applicant should describe the maximum duration of occupancy and any other hotels they have owned and/or have operated in the area.  Applicant’s representative added that extended-stay clientele are looking for up to a 1-2 month stay; applicant owns two others in the area - in Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo. 
  2. The property is designated to remain General Commercial.  Recent approval for other hotels (Home2Suites and Staybridge Suites) with potential for longer term occupancies are on properties with a Mixed-Use designation.
  3. Applicant should speak on the demand for hotel rooms.  It will be important to know if the report has accounted for the recent Courtyard by Marriot (140 rooms) in the City of Holland, the Home 2 Suites (109 rooms) approved for construction in Holland Charter Township, and the Staybridge Suites (102 room) currently being reviewed for building permits. Applicant’s representative added that additional rooms are needed due to the industrial boom in this area and suggested their brand would meet the demand. 
  4. The applicant will need to confirm their ability to access the project from the existing private driveway along the west property line.  It appears the western 33 feet of the property shown in the submittal is owned by a separate LLC.

Planning Commission viewed the 7 Standards for Special Use Consideration.

Planning Commission concerns included the number of hotels with similar usage in the area and how Candlewood Suites might affect them.  The property is zoned C-2 General Commercial; the other two proposed extended stay hotels are in a mixed-use area. 

Mr. Vander Meulen asked at what point does it become an aprtment that needs inspections.  Mr. Broersma indicated he would look into the length of stay and how it might apply.

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

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

** It was moved by Mr. Bosma and supported by Mr. Vander Meulen to deny the request based on area uses. Motion carried 5 to 2 with opposition from Hoeve and Gebben.   

Mr. Hoeve opened the public hearing for a Special Use Request submitted by Nick Markovic for land at 11058 Water Tower Court, described more specifically as Parcel Number 70-16-23-320-016, Unit 16 of Water Tower Plaza Condominiums.  Petitioner is seeking permission to operate a vehicle repair service, not including junking or wrecking.  The property is in the C-2, General Commercial Zoning District.

Present for this request was Mr. Tom Miedema and Mr. Nick Markovic.

Petitioner hopes to move directly south of current location and keep current building. Size of proposed building will be approximately 75% smaller than current. 

Staff Comments:

  1. The proposed automotive repair use is consistent with the several adjacent facilities however, the applicant should speak on the demand for the proposed use. 
  2. The applicant should describe the operation in detail including how the attached storage bay serves the facility.  Note, self-service storage would not be permitted give the site is less than 2 acres and the unit exceeds 600 square feet.  Mr. Markovic commented that storage will be for business purposes only, not leased to third party, no self-storage. He does not want to heat the entire building, so there will be a wall separating the work/vehicle repair area and equipment (lawnmower, etc.) storage area.
  3. The overnight parking of disabled vehicles outdoors should be discouraged.  Outdoor storage of equipment, parts, or wrecked vehicles is prohibited. Cars waiting for repair will be parked outside.
  4. Planning Commission should advise how they interpret Section 3.14.3-4 regarding road surface requirements.  Does this include curb?  It was the consensus of the Commission that none of the other businesses on this private road have curbing, so they shouldn’t require it of this applicant.  This is one of the last parcel to be developed.  Storm water handled by regional detention. 

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

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

** It was moved by Mr. Gebben and supported by Mr. Zylstra to approve the request with the stipulation that self-storage not be allowed. Motion carried.

Mr. Hoeve opened the public hearing for a Special Use Request submitted by Jon D. Walcott on behalf of Tilbright, LLC for land at 118 Aniline Avenue, described more specifically as Parcel Number 70-16-19-381-000, Units 15, 16, 17, and 18 of Ottawa Beach Drydocks.  Petitioner is seeking permission to operate a vehicle repair service, not including junking or wrecking as a similar use to those specified within the property’s I-2, General Industrial Zoning District.

Present for this request was: Ryan Lamb, Foster Swift Collins & Smith PC representing Jon Walcott.

Applicant indicated all vehicle repairs will be done indoors, in an enclosed space.

Planning Commission is concerned about heavier use than intended, outdoor storage and others seeking similar use.  Mr. Lamb indicated that easement would benefit Drydocks and that restrictions by condo association would be addressed rapidly.  Seller’s attorney has been consulted, condo association has not addressed the issue yet.  Condo bylaws state commercial and industrial uses as permitted by the Township.  Commission noted that since the applicant is here for a special use request, it is not a permitted commercial or industrial use by the Township, except with special permission.  

Mr. Hoeve read two letters of opposition from Dan Koster (Owner, Drydocks Complex, Units 23 & 24) and Thomas Harrington (Owner, Holland Plaza Condominiums, Unit 14), attached. 

Audience Comments:

Seller Scott Langeland stated buyer’s business is based on reputation and word of mouth, no signage needed; work will be done behind closed doors and is not a retail business.  He also explained use of surrounding building structures and said industrial space is limited in Ottawa County.  Fire suppression is addressed within each unit by 3’ high steel dividing walls.  Two of four Association board members are represented by the selling body.  Seller will present all required plans.

Planning Commission suggests 1) Association change bylaws to address Special Use; and 2) repair shops require specific design/construction code for fire safety, oil disposal, water separators, barrier-free requirements, bathrooms, storage, etc.  Planning Commission needs to see documentation from condo association and building inspector.  The use stays with the property forever – how would the next occupant use this unit? 

Staff Comments:

  1. Property was granted Special Use approval for industrial storage and contractor warehousing on January 4, 2005 with a stipulation for no outdoor storage and for internal garbage containers. 
  2. Access is provided by an access easement through an adjacent Industrial property.  Intermixing customer traffic with industrial businesses is a concern along with the one-way traffic lane south of the proposed use. 
  3. The provided condominium documents only indicate 1 parking space per each of the 4 suites.  No barrier free parking or aisles have been provided.  The applicant should speak to the number of customers and employees at peak shift, including the number of mechanic bays proposed within the building.  There will be from 1-4 employees, existing 4 parking spaces are sufficient.
  4. The applicant may anticipate a low number of customers per day, but the Township cannot predict the number of customers in the future.  Given the nature of the original Special Use for industrial storage and Contractor Warehousing, Staff does not feel this use fits in this location.

Mr. Hoeve suggested this consideration be held until Applicant speaks with Building Official and Condo Association. 

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

** Motion to close hearing by Bosma.  Support by Nykamp.  Motion carried.

** Moved to table by Vander Meulen until Condo Association documentation is obtained and Building Inspector is notified.  Support by Gebben.  Motion carried. 

Mr. Hoeve opened the public hearing for a Re-zoning submitted by Myra Keuning for vacant property located on James St. west of 124 James Street, Holland Michigan.  Property is described more specifically as Parcel Numbers # 70-16-20-126-009, -010, & -011.

Petitioner is proposing to rezone the subject properties from Office-Service (O-S) to General Industrial (I-2) in order to accommodate future development.

Present for this request was Myra Keuning.

The parcel is four acres in size.  The proposed building is 50,000 square feet to accommodate two tenants, 25,000 square feet per side.  One of four vacant parcels is already General Industrial; rezoning request is for the additional three to the west.  There is residential to the south, but the General Industrial setback is 100 feet off of the lot line.  There are natural buffers in place and the parcels to the south are also very deep.  The proposed building would be used for assembly and warehouse purposes.  The driveway is on the west boundary and there is a 250-foot-wide greenspace to the east.

Rezoning Considerations:

  1. Does this request result in spot zoning? Adjacent properties to the east are zoned General Industrial.
  2. Is the request consistent with the surrounding property?  It is consistent with the adjacent properties to the east, however there is residential to the north and south and Office-Services to the west.
  3. Is the requested rezoning consistent with the general trend of future building and population growth in the area?  There is residential to the north and south.
  4. Is the requested rezoning consistent with the Future Land Use Map/Master Plan? Yes, the zoning would comply with the Future Land Use Map.  Master Plan for this parcel is General Industrial.

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

** Motion to close hearing by Mr. Vander Meulen, supported by Mr. Zylstra.  Motion carried. 

** It was moved by Mr. Nykamp and supported by Mr. Zylstra to recommend to the Township Board that the proposed rezoning from Office-Service (O-S) to General Industrial (I-2) be approved based on the responses to the four considerations as recorded in the minutes.

Motion carried with opposition from Bosma.

Mr. Hoeve opened the public hearing for a Re-zoning submitted by Randy Lopez on behalf of AMERCO Real Estate for property located on E. Lakewood Blvd. Parcel Numbers: # 70-16-21-100-026, -040, & -042.  Described generally as land east of 451 East Lakewood Boulevard, Holland, Michigan.

Petitioner is proposing to rezone the subject properties from General Industrial (I-2) to General Commercial (C-2) in order to accommodate future development.

Present for this request was Don Gilmore/U-Haul

The parcels contain 5 acres and currently accommodate a house, dirt piles, heavy equipment, and two out buildings which is being used for short term rental for excavating and snow plowing repair.  The applicant will demolish the house and the other two buildings are being checked to see how structurally sound they are and plan to incorporate them into the site plan if they can be salvaged, which at this time is questionable.  So there is not a completed site plan at this time.  Not all the five acres are usable because of The County Drain [No. 9].

The proposed U-Haul facility would include shipping merchandise, boxes, hitches, towing accessories, and general storage.  The property would be for U-Haul’s use only, no tenants.

Planning Commission concerns include traffic in/out of site and suggested right turn only. 

Mr. Gilmore stated that his peek business hours are on the weekends when there is not the typical weekday traffic on Lakewood.

  1. Does this request result in spot zoning?  No, adjacent properties are zoned General Commercial.

  1. Is the request consistent with the surrounding property?  Yes

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

  2. Is the requested rezoning consistent with the Future Land Use Map/Master Plan? Yes, the rezoning would comply with the Township’s Future Land Use Map.


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

** Motion to close hearing by Mr. Bosma and supported by Mr. Zylstra.  Motion carried.

** It was moved by Mr. Nykamp and supported by Mr. Gebben to recommend to the Township Board that the proposed rezoning from General Industrial (I-2) to General Commercial (C-2) be approved based on the responses to the four considerations as recorded in the minutes.  Motion carried 6 to 1 with opposition from Johnson. 

Mr. Hoeve opened the Public Hearing for a Zoning Text Amendment submitted by Beverly Smith & Tim Marr for property located at 2874 104th Avenue.  Petitioner is proposing to add 3.18 (A) (B) (C) to allow the keeping of chickens and bees in areas zoned Residential.  This public hearing is intended to move the proposal toward resolution. 

Present for this request was Beverly Smith & Tim Marr.

Petitioners presented Planning Commission members with Holland Sentinel article regarding success of Holland City’s chicken program and Herman Miller’s honeybee program.  They stated that having chickens is a learning experience that results in healthy and better tasting eggs.  Excess eggs are given away; this is not a business, and they’ve received no complaints except from the Code Enforcer. 

Mr. Hoeve commented that the Township’s Zoning Ordinance revisions are still being worked on. 

Audience Comments:

Don Lam, Beekeeper in Holland City limits

Honeybees are close to being endangered.   They are innocuous.  Little danger for people who are allergic.  Proper placement is very important.  The ordinance has to address all three in that it’s 1) good for the bees; 2) good for the beekeepers; and 3) good for the neighbors. 

Staff Comments:

  1. What volume of honey is generally produced by a hive?  Depending on this answer individuals seeking a beekeeping permit for residential purposes may not require a hive density that mirrors that of the Beekeeping GAAMP. Don Lam stated that nine colonies mean 300,000 bees.
  2. If the Right to Farm Act (RTFA) covers hives from nuisance complaints that are commercial in nature and follow the applicable GAAMPs, can we make a distinction between residential and commercial hives?  Don Lam stated that all good beekeepers follow GAAMPs.
  3. Should the provided section 3.24(B) be removed?  This seems to imply the breeding and is unnecessary given the proposed section 3.24(C).
  4. Planners, Zoning Administrators, and Building Officials are not experts in GAAMPs.  Similar to the consent judgement, should compliance with GAAMPs be proved via a Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) inspection?  Don Lam suggested we need to be better educated and have a better understanding on everything from content to format.

** Motion to close hearing by Mr. Nykamp.  Supported by Mr. Bosma.  Motion carried.

** Motion made by Mr. Vander Meulen to table until addressed in ordinance.  Supported by Mr. Zylstra. Motion carried. 

Mr. Hoeve opened the Public Hearing for Flagstick PUD Amendment #3 submitted by Marianne Hunderman for property located at 3284 100th Avenue.   Proposed amendment is to establish a home-based business within Unit 1’s accessory building and to allow an apartment within Unit 1’s accessory building for immediate family members and medical assistants serving the residents of Unit 1.

Item was tabled from the May 9, 2017 pending input from:

  1. Township Attorney regarding the application of time limits to an approval;
  2. Township Building Official for ability of the building to be modified for the proposed use(s).

The Township attorney has responded in part as follows: “Normally, the Township makes land use decisions based on the property and not the personal characteristics of the property owner or the owner’s family.   However, there is federal law which actually requires the Township to consider the disabilities of the family owning the property when a land use application is made.   If the particular owners of this unit in the PUD can make a good argument in support of their request to use the unit for both business and living quarters, that could give the Township the basis to allow this amendment to the PUD, for as long as this family with the challenging personal characteristics owns the unit.”

The Building Official has indicated the building may be convertible for the intended use but at this time he has not seen any proposed building plans.

The consensus of the Commission is an approval of the living quarters may be appropriate given the special circumstances and the Planning Commission’s ability to limit the use to the applicant’s ownership for the stated purpose. 

Commission asked if the business is needed with on-site care.  

Mrs. Hunderman explained that around the clock care is unaffordable and not covered by insurance.  Both husband and wife cannot work full-time and manage care for their daughter.  Mr. Hunderman would work the home business on a part-time basis while providing needed care.  Their daughter needs help on and off the bus; has six or more doctor appontments within a month.


** Motion made by Mr. Gebben to recommend the Township Attorney to prepare a favorable report and resolution for the Planning Commission’s review to approve the Flagstick Amendment #3 tied to the applicant’s hardship situation.  When applicant is no longer using the property for this purpose, or the property is sold, permission for both uses will expire.  Supported by Mr. Nykamp.  No further discussion.  Motion carried. 

Resolution and Report for Mason Lake Estates PUD

Document received by Township Attorney has been revised with the following changes:

  1. Document dates have been revised to reflect tonight’s meeting;
  2. Final Development Plan sheets and dates have been changed to reflect the plans received and dated May 30, 2017.
  3. References to “seven” land divisions has been changed to “7”.
  4. Report Item 3(i) has had the final sentence revised to eliminate “and together shall be at least 14 feet total.”

Revisions noted by Planning Commission.

The Commission expressed concern regarding the variety of trees.  Mr. VanderZwaag, the developer, would also like to see a variety of trees, not all the same tree.

Project completion date would be 12/31/2023. 

** Motion made by Mr. Bosma and supported by Mr. Zylstra for Staff to provide the Board of Trustees with the favorable Resolution and Report and recommend its approval.  Motion carried.

Resolution and Report for Trinity Woods PUD

Present for this request was Doug Gritter.

Document received by Township Attorney has been revised with the following changes:

  1. Document dates have been revised to reflect tonight’s meeting;
  2. Final Development Plan sheets and dates have been changed to reflect the plans received June 2, 2017 and dated May 15, 2017, however, the applicant should be advised a minor dimensional change is needed on “Ownership Detail”.

Mr. Gritter would like to start construction on the two remaining parcels immediately.  The houses will be in the $159,000 and $169,000 range, which there is a demand for.  The Commission asked about the top coat on the roads.  Mr. Gritter stated that he would like to wait until construction is completed before doing the top coat.  There is one pot hole at the entrance that Mr. Gritter will take care of now.

Mr. Broersma noted that building envelopes size needs to be corrected on the enlarged detail.  Mr. Gritter will make the revision and provide new plans.

Project completion date is to be 12/31/2018. 

** Motion made by Mr. Zylstra for Staff to provide the Board of Trustees with the favorable Resolution and Report and recommend its approval.  Supported by Nykamp.  Motion carried.

Public Comment

Although Leisure Living – Creekside Meadows PUD was on the agenda, they asked to be postponed until the meeting.  However, there were people in the audience to speak to this request.

Present in the audience to speak to the Creekside Meadows PUD was Jennifer Miller of Meadowland Ct.  Her concerns were with how fires are going to be handled.

      Planning Commission explained drive will be extended from cul-de-sac with added width approved by Fire Chief, water lines added, two additional fire hydrants

What about sewage and water?

            Planning Commission explained there is municipal water/sewer

What about wetlands?

            Planning Commission added that wetlands will remain untouched.

Also present was Barry McAlpine of 9630 Meadowland Ct.

Mr. McAlpine’s concerns were that the property is on clay and there are ongoing water issues. There is already run-off from other properties onto his and now you are adding more people, the density to the area needs to be addressed.  He also had concerns about the traffic.  Also, that the homes and property in this area are well maintained, why would you change something that is doing well.  Mr. McAlpine asks that the development be opposed.

Zoning Ordinance Update

Mr. Broersma asked Planning Commission to review Ordinance Revisions in preparation for the meeting planned for June 20th at 5:30 PM. 

Note:  The Township has a resident interested in wind turbine.  At present, we may be able to treat them like a cell tower for setbacks but should discuss the topic further.  It was commented that the wind turbines at Helder Park are very noisy.

Other Business 

White Oaks Preliminary Plat

Mr. Broersma explained that the Township Board had asked the Planning Commission to consider concerns from the neighbors that were not heard by the Planning Commission on May 9, 2017.  He continued, White Oaks is considered similar to a land division and residents within 300 feet did not need to be individually noticed as they would with a PUD.


Present in the audience to speak to the White Oaks Subdivision was:

Nick deVries of 91 N. Division.  He had concerns about the screening between the properties.  He also had concerns about the two entry ways being so close together.  What about the accel and de-accel lane, will it be extended?   Mr. deVries further asked that White Oaks be kept green, with as many trees as possible. 

Planning Commission explained that there is no ordinance that requires screening between residential properties.  They further explained that the Road Commission controls the entire roadway.

Bill Zwiers of 67 N. Division stated that when he purchased his property in 2006 his real estate agent told him that no one could build back there.  The size of his lot is .8 acres and the proposed lots are a quarter of an acre in size.  Also, are they removing all the trees?

Matt Wickstra, the Developer, explained that they are leaving trees north of the lot line.  However, once the lots are sold, the property owners could cut the trees down as needed for the construction of their homes.

The meeting adjourned at 9:08 PM. 

Respectfully submitted,

Sheri Thomassen
Recording Secretary

six pack abs