AGENDA. Park Township Planning Commission Regular Meeting. December 12, :30 p.m.

Transcription

1 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Agenda AGENDA Park Township Planning Commission Regular Meeting December 12, :0 p.m.. Approval of Minutes: November 14, Discussion/Action Items: Notices for the Public Hearing items were mailed on Friday, November 24, 2017, and published in the Holland Sentinel on Sunday, November, a. Dirkse Capital Management LLC Final PUD for Coastal Storage Condominiums. *Public Hearing b. Lolo s Restaurant site plan and parking variance for indoor seating. (Postponed from November 14, 2017) c. Discussion on ordinance amendments. 1. Special Use Amendments 2. Site Plan requirements 5. Public Comments 6. Announcements Meeting dates for 2018 Status of NHP overlay for Macatawa area. Upcoming ordinance amendments Permitted uses in various zoning districts, Signs, Subdivisions, Airport overlay, corner lots, lot width. Net meeting date January 9, Adjourn

2 MINUTES PARK TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION Park Township Hall nd Street Holland, MI Regular Meeting November 14, :0 P.M. DRAFT COPY CALL TO ORDER: Chair Pfost called to order the regular meeting of the Park Township Planning Commission at 6:0 P.M., held in the Township Hall at the Park Township Office. ATTENDANCE: Present: Jeff Pfost, Dennis Eade, Rosemary Ervine, David Kleinjans, Denise Nestel Absent: Tom VanderKolk, Terry DeHaan (ecused) Staff: Ed de Vries, Community Development Director, Gregory Ransford, Staff Planner, Dan Martin, Legal Counsel APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Motion by Ervine, supported by Kleinjans, to approve the agenda as presented. Voice Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion by Ervine, supported by Nestel, to approve the October 10, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes as presented. Voice Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Motion carried.

3 PC November 14, 2017 de Vries said plans are to post the meeting packet on the website in the future. NEW BUSINESS A. Dirkse Capital Management LLC - Preliminary PUD for Coastal Storage Condominiums Ransford introduced the application request. He stated his memo points to several minor items that can be taken care of before the final PUD application, so he will focus on the more important details. The applicant s plan is to construct twenty-two (22) condominium units for storage to be located on Ottawa Beach Road. Ransford, de Vries and Chair Pfost met with the applicant for a pre-application conference. Noteworthy discussion points from this meeting included: 1. No outdoor activity 2. No outdoor storage. Optional renderings of the building elevations to be provided to the Planning Commission The application does not include optional renderings. The application narrative states there will be an area of 84,628 square feet of trees that will be preserved. That should be listed on the plan. The landscaping buffer that the applicant proposes to plant trees every 15 but the Planning Commission should consider if this is sufficient. Each unit is proposed to contain a bathroom. While he agrees in the convenience of this, in his eperience if they are proposing to sell these as contractor units there have been issues. He cautions the Planning Commission to be clear as to what the use will be as they move forward. Some possible eamples are that it becomes the contractor s office and workplace where even though the documents prohibit outdoor work, they may do that on occasion. No pathway was proposed along Ottawa Beach Road which per the Master Plan is something to consider. The PUD ordinance does require some open space open to the public, nothing was shown on the plan. There are additional requirements that should be shown on the preliminary plan, but could be addressed by the final PUD application if the Planning Commission agrees. The plan has been designed according to the provisions in the C-1 zone in which other storage units have been approved previously. The ordinance does require a 50 foot buffer in the front, which is provided but the Planning Commission may wish to address the etent of landscaping for that area. Pfost noted that although this is a preliminary plan he was concerned that there are 18 items of deficiency in this plan. Nestel asked where the dividing line is between R- and C-1 on the plan, it does not show up on the plan. Do we have to rezone R-? And are storage units acceptable in R-? 2

4 PC November 14, 2017 Martin said rezoning is not typical differing uses are allowed in the PUD. Storage units are not acceptable in R-, but in a PUD uses can be permissible. de Vries said in a PUD any use allowed in the zoning ordinance is permissible. If this were a residential PUD the density would have to match the underlying zoning district, otherwise there would have to be rezoning. Martin eplained that the PUD allows modifications beyond what the zoning requires. With regard to density, if the applicant wanted to have the property residential there would have to be rezoning of the commercial property to residential to get the benefit of acreage for the purpose of density calculation. If it were mied use, for both residential and commercial, the applicant would only get the residential density. To use the property for commercial use it does not have to be rezoned to allow that. The PUD will allow any use within the zoning ordinance. Nestel asked if residential density is the issue. Martin said it is not. Kleinjans referred to the covenants of the PUD that state the storage is for personal property only. Todd Sneller spoke to the application as representative for Dirkse Capital Management. He is also one of the partners. The idea in the PUD plan is there is a demand for upscale private selfstorage. There will be a condo association with bylaws. They are sensitive to making the property compatible with the neighborhood with a buffer along the southern part of the property with 54% trees. The architecture of the units will give a natural woods environment to blend in with the surrounding residential area. The bylaws will state there is to be no outdoor storage. Screening will include 6-8 trees on the property. The trees grow about a foot per year, so in three years the screen will be in place. He eplained that is why the spacing dimension states 15 will be allowed for the growth of the trees. Pfost asked if the Planning Commission wanted to review the 18 points or postpone discussion of the PUD. He asked Sneller for the timing of the project construction. Could he bring it back to the Planning Commission and address the 18 points of concern. Sneller said they want to begin construction in the spring of Pfost asked for the details at the December meeting as the final recommendation. The applicant should work with Township staff so the Planning Commission can focus on the PUD plan. Nestel asked Martin about the dedicated open space for non-residential uses. Does it apply here? Martin said it does. Nestel asked Sneller if he will cut down trees. Will there be a bench or area for the public.

5 PC November 14, 2017 Sneller said there will be landscaping near the retention pond. The developer can accommodate that if it means placing a bench along the road. Pfost advised this is a detail that staff can work out with the applicant. Pfost asked if they should postpone action on the preliminary. The Planning Commission concurred that more input is necessary. Martin said the bylaws can be changed to accommodate restrictions. It could be a condition upon approval. Nestel asked Ransford about the notation on bathrooms in the units. What else would go on with these units? She said the Planning Commission should see something specific in the approval about what is allowed and what is not allowed. Ransford said bathrooms are not illegal but can be problematic. Kleinjans suggested there could be one bathroom and not individual bathrooms. Ervine observed that individual bathrooms would make it more marketable. She didn t see a problem. Nestel asked about allowing repairs on the property. Sneller said the units are just for storage. Minor repairs can be done by individuals but it won t be a repair shop or any offer of service. de Vries asked if the units will be for storage and no commercial business will be allowed, would the bathroom issue then be a concern. Ransford asked about contractor use of the property. This could be a condition of the PUD. Kleinjans asked about screening along the west side. Sneller said it is not required. It has a zero setback. Kleinjans asked about the swale on front is there a water retention concern. Sneller said he doesn t have a detailed landscape plan yet but it will be irrigated and will look appealing with appropriate landscaping. He will provide a landscape plan. Ervine asked for the size of the units. 4

6 PC November 14, 2017 Sneller said each unit will be 1500 square feet, they are 25 X 60 with one floor. The bathroom is at the rear. Nestel asked about the wording, as market conditions allow and 0 months completion. There is a time limitation in the PUD ordinance. This should be defined. Kleinjans suggested looking at utilities, landscaping, and public areas so this is defined. Pfost said since we aren t taking final action, we could approve the preliminary plan then the staff will do the detailed work and submit a complete plan for consideration at the net meeting. Ervine asked Sneller how much time is required to complete the list of concerns. Sneller said it could be done at a meeting. The engineer and architect could attend and complete the finalization of the 18 points of concern. Pfost said if progress for completion of these concerns is acceptable to staff, it will be on the net agenda. de Vries said we have three weeks to prepare this. The Planning Commission recommended that the staff meet with the applicant to resolve concerns for net meeting. Kleinjans moved, supported by Ervine, to approve the preliminary plan for the PUD with followup review by staff and the applicant at the net meeting. Voice Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Motion carried. Ransford asked if the list of concerns included more detail about landscaping. Pfost confirmed. B. Lolo s Restaurant Site plan and parking variance for indoor seating Kleinjans said he is uncomfortable with applicants who do not adequately prepare ahead of time and have to return to the Planning Commission with additional requests for modifications. Ransford presented the details about the site plan for this applicant. The request is for an indoor restaurant at 1862 Ottawa Beach Road. The time period will be from Labor Day to Memorial Day. The special use request is for less parking than what is required. In the spring 610 parking spaces were approved where 750 were required. After construction of the new storage building, 614 spaces were provided. The applicant needs approval to reduce the number of parking spaces by eleven for use by the restaurant. 5

7 PC November 14, 2017 Ransford reviewed the site plan with the Planning Commission. Most of the elements were handled in the spring when the request was first submitted. Approval is for the floor layout for this request. Nestel asked de Vries if this request meets the site plan requirement. de Vries said most of the site plan requirements were met last spring. This request is for interior layout and special approval for fewer parking spaces. Nestel asked if the kitchen plan is acceptable. She noted several areas on the site plan that have been crossed out. de Vries said no walls will be moved. He recalled that the kitchen area was reviewed previously. Ransford said the applicant is just requesting special use approval as the majority of the request is for the change in required parking. We don t deal with design because of the recent approval that addressed those details. Nestel asked if the business needs a permit. de Vries said permitting depends on the etent of the interior renovation. Pfost said the question is the parking issue this is what the Public Hearing is for. Tina LaFave, applicant, eplained that the request is to use the kitchen for the restaurant and catering and to allow retention of employees during the winter season. The request is not for an etension of the parking lot. Ervine asked about the issues regarding parking. LaFave said the time period is the issue. They won t need as many spaces in winter once boating season is over. There will be about 25-0 people that will require parking spaces. Eade asked if she had dedicated parking for people who enter the restaurant. Den Herder, owner of the property, noted that no boats are stored in the winter in the parking area net to this building. There is an area on the opposite end of the property where sailboats are parked. PUBLIC HEARING Chair Pfost opened the Public Hearing at 7:5 P.M. 6

8 PC November 14, 2017 He noted comments should be focused on the special use for parking. Bryan Kapts asked if the restaurant will be open during the summer. He lives 00 from the marina and said parking has been an issue the slip holders have had a problem. Katherine Janis lives in the area. She asked if there will be security in the area. The Marina won t have security in the off-season. Tom Den Herder, owner of the Marina, addressed the parking issue. Security is usually for events at the conference center and at the Marina. Chair Pfost closed the Public Hearing at 7:40 P.M. Board Discussion: Nestel asked if there was currently an order for structural repairs and if a building permit is required. de Vries said the applicant has to repair or replace the deck area before the restaurant is opened net spring. A building permit is required when there are structural changes. Nestel asked Ransford if he is comfortable with the request for the site plan. Ransford said he would prefer a more detailed site plan. If the indoor restaurant is permitted they need to have one space for every two seats. He would like the site plan re-submitted to be consistent with the previous approval and if the applicant can satisfy the need for dedicated space free of obstruction for parking. Nestel asked if a restaurant is permitted in C-2 space. De Vries confirmed it is. Eade asked if restrooms are required. de Vries said they are required. They are constructing restrooms for the restaurant. Pfost suggested this is a joint use facility and the Township has worked hard to make this Marina property happen. This is an opportunity to provide restaurant space but it s not without problems. He recommended postponing this request. The applicant should return with a more detailed site plan that addresses the concerns of the Planning Commission. Ervine asked Martin about a review of the three standards. Martin said the Planning Commission should review them before making a decision. C. Scott Geerlings for Dune Dogz Amendment to conditional rezoning and site plan approval (postponed from June) 7

9 PC November 14, 2017 Conditional Rezoning de Vries presented the background for this application, updated since June Scott Geerlings, on behalf of Dune Dogz, is requesting an amendment to the Conditional Zoning for the business pertaining to hours of operation. Dune Dogz wishes to open earlier in the morning to serve breakfast items, stating they have had a number of requests for this service. An amendment to the Conditional Zoning is treated as a rezoning of the property. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Township Board. There will be a public hearing for this request. There is also a request for a site plan review for an addition to the eisting building which is unrelated to the rezoning request. As the building size was not one of the conditions for the Conditional Zoning, this can be processed as a site plan review with the Planning Commission making the final determination. In his Staff Memo of November 6, 2017, de Vries provided a review of the conditional rezoning for this property and subsequent requests for amendments. He noted that a conditional zoning is already in effect. The request is to amend the conditions of the hours of operation. The conditions must be offered in writing by the applicant and agreed to by the Township Board after recommendation from the Planning Commission. Section 8-129(4)a lists the four conditions related to Conditional rezoning (listed on pages 5 and 6 of the Staff Memo of November 6). Site Plan Approval for Addition to Restaurant The applicant proposes to build an addition to the south side of the building. With a few minor eceptions the required conditions for Section 8-45 are met. However, there are some missing items that require additional information per Section 8-102, such as location of utilities. The Planning Commission may waive those requirements, or request an amended site plan be provided. De Vries shared copies of a memo from Kim Wojahn offering revised conditions. Kim is the comanager of the Dune Dogz restaurant. The Township received this on the day of the meeting. Martin said conditional rezoning requires the owner voluntarily offer in writing the conditions which can be accepted or rejected by the Township. In terms of the notice, we should determine whether the notice indicates the nature of what the conditional amendment was. The memo just gives more information regarding hours of operation stating. Martin clarified the new memo is the new condition. De Vries read the memo from Wojahn for the record. 8

10 PC November 14, 2017 Martin reviewed the list of items in the Wojahn memo: 1 reference to change requests is not a condition 2 requests from resident for breakfast is not a condition statement regarding deliveries is arguably a condition 4 statement regarding hours is arguably a condition 5 statement regarding neighbor concerns is not a condition It was his analysis that out of these 5 points only two are potential conditions. Opening at 7 or 7:0 or 8 is not specific. They are offering that music will not start until 11:00. A statement that deliveries will not increase has no baseline and is not very clear. PUBLIC HEARING Chair Pfost opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 P.M. Jan Walters epressed concern about the recent Dune Dogz request for a new building for storage but she understands it will include a drive up window. Any changes should be submitted in detail to the Planning Commission. She is concerned about hours, loud music and the recent requests for changes with regard to this business. Joel Welch said conditional rezoning is a poorly written law, prostituted by developers in his opinion. The developers consider the area as a commercial haven. From this hot dog stand there have been requests for several changes. Before 10:0 is an open-ended statement. He called for more specificity for what the owner plans. We don t know what is going to happen on this property. Opening doors to early operation preparation time is usually earlier than that. Delivery trucks show up early according to his observation. He is concerned that the Planning Commission is setting a precedent. He asked for specificity about this site plan. Dave Lind has no problem with the operator and applicant. He wonders how the Planning Commission does its job regarding conditional rezoning. The owner has requested a lot of changes over the years. He noted the Master Plan does not allow changes to the historical district and no commercial development south of 168 th. The Dune Dogz operation is south of 168 th. Why is the Planning Commission allowing changes in this residential district. The real issue is the zoning. The more you go down this path the more damage you do. Put a halt to this on behalf of the future generations. He asked for this request to be denied. He asked for consideration of the residents in this community - it is a special place. Bill Grimes owns a condo at Lake Ranch Resort. He has managed it for 9 years, and has lived there for 28 years. He understands the concerns. He considers the business as a gem in the community. Personally, he is not aware of any complaints from any of the Lake Ranch owners. He has never heard loud music or is aware of rowdiness. The operators want what s right for the community. 9

11 PC November 14, 2017 Mike DeVrenth lives in Grand Rapids but rents a cottage on 2 nd Ave. known as the pink cottage. He gets up early and would enjoy breakfast at Dune Dogz in the morning. Improvements on Ottawa Beach Road have been welcome. An early opening would be a positive addition. It s clean and the food is fantastic. Most people out earlier are walkers and joggers and there is not much traffic in the morning. Tyler Schmidt is from Grand Rapids and has been coming to the area since he was a child. He fishes and would appreciate something good to eat early at Dune Dogz. Tom Cunningham moved to the community five years ago. He is a regular customer of Dune Dogz. He has appreciated the improvements on this property and said it is an asset to the community. He supports opening earlier. Dan Ross said he is one of the managers of Dune Dogz. This is their seventh year of operating the business. He questioned the number of requests that were claimed by neighbors. Customers in the area want breakfast. They have taken care of the noise problem. Deliveries are once a week on Wednesday, which include the general store, the Ottawa Beach Inn and the State Park. They are usually in the afternoon, never early in the morning. The trash man doesn t come until 11:00 A.M. to avoid noise. He won t be open in the winter. Breakfast preparation won t involve turning on fans. He wants to try the idea and would like the opportunity. Conditional zoning has been a hardship. The new addition will house the cooler so staff won t have to go up and down stairs. He said there will be no service from the addition. Joel Welch asked if there has been documentation regarding residents who want breakfast. de Vries said there was a phone call today of support from a resident of Holiday Haven. de Vries said the letters are in the record. Chair Pfost closed the Public Hearing at 8:4 P.M. Applicant, Scott Geerlings, owner of Dune Dogz building, said the conditional zoning has been a frustration. He wants his renters to be able increase the profit and productivity of the business. He wants to do the right thing for neighbors. Whatever works for the Planning Commission regarding the request for morning hours is acceptable to him. Regarding the epansion he eplained that the new building addition will look like the rest of the building. This is a walkup restaurant with no intention to have a dining establishment. The intent is to store food and items in one space and move it from upstairs which is problematic for the employees. Pfost suggested looking at the epansion. The applicant received approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the epansion as outlined in the Staff Memo. The primary setback was approved. 10

12 PC November 14, 2017 De Vries reviewed Section The site plan included everything that was required including eterior lighting and signage. The lights for the parking lot are shown on the site plan. Shielded lighting will be included. There will be no outside seating so additional parking is not required. He advised a condition should include shielded lighting. Geerlings said the new addition is very simple it will be completed in 0-40 days. Shielded lighting is there with an overhang for the 8 addition. Kleinjans moved, supported by Eade, to approve the site plan with the condition for shielded lighting. Voice Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Motion carried. Nestel said regarding conditional rezoning she observes there is no menu. It is a potential menu subject to change. Martin said the original condition stated that the prior operators had a limited menu. It was amended to sell only food and drink items. If it goes beyond this with sale of other items the owner would have to come back for a condition. Pfost asked if we can undo conditional zoning. Is there a process involved? Martin said that is why we have removed menu restrictions. Under the law it s not clear although the Township Board could change it to C-2, eliminate the conditional rezoning, and have a spot zone of C-2 property with conditions. What is not clear, if they violate conditions, the statute says you have to return to prior zoning. Turning it back to R-4 would be subject to referendum. Now the applicant is asking for a change in the open hours of operation. Do we need a condition in this case because the Township has a noise ordinance. If you want to eliminate conditional rezoning you can rezone the property to commercial or to R- or R-4. Nestel asked if the noise ordinance takes care of the problems as epressed by some residents. Martin said we are looking at the fact you now have incompatible uses which might make this different. With a condition it could be enforceable. The noise ordinance can be enforced. If the owner violates the condition the property will revert back to its prior zoning classification. 11

13 PC November 14, 2017 With a voluntary offer you can accept it and can enforce it. He noted the Township noise ordinance is between 11 PM and 7 AM which is enforceable. Martin said the managers say they won t play music until 11:00 A.M. Ross indicated deliveries are early afternoon once a week from one vendor. Nestel asked if that is a voluntary condition. Martin said the offer is voluntary and it can be enforced by the Township. Martin said with a new owner and any changes the owner would have to come back with an amendment request. Kleinjans said he stood across the street from Dune Dogz and he could hear the music. This was a problem for him in light of some of the noise complaints from residents. Pfost asked Dan Ross if he wants to make any changes to the Wojahn memo of November 14. If so, it must be done in writing. Ross requested to make a change. Pfost requested he bring it back to the Planning Commission so residents can be notified as to what they are. He reminded Ross the conditions must be clear. Martin advised the change should be as clear and concise as possible so they are conditions not statements. Staff can provide clarity but not alter the conditions or change the language. Ross said he would prefer to make the change immediately. Pfost tabled the item for the end of the meeting to allow the applicant to return with the change. This will include specific language about opening hours and the beginning hour for the music. D. Tim Allspach for Ron Meyering Site plan review for fence at 621 S. 160 th Avenue Ransford introduced the item. The fence has not yet been constructed. The applicant was approved for a storage building in the C-1 district and wants to construct two different types of fence - aluminum and a black chain link fence. It is an alteration to the approved site plan. A black vinyl coating for the chain link fence is usual but it wasn t clearly stated. There is a mention of fabric but he questions what the quality of the fabric is and the purpose for the fence. The question is the intent and eplanation of the finish of the proposed fence. Steve Barber, works for Ron Meyering, addressed the question about the term fabric. The nomenclature for chain link is fabric although it is not literally fabric material. The vinyl- coated product is the spray paint or vinyl which is sprayed on. It lasts longer. 12

14 PC November 14, 2017 Barber eplained that the site plan change is just the fence. It provides some security for the storage building and protection from theft. Kleinjans asked if there has been trouble with security. Barber said there has not been but it prevents trespassing. Kleinjans asked for the procedure to open the gate. Barber said it will be a code. Kleinjans asked if there would be a traffic problem for someone opening gate. Barber said there is a drive-in space off the road. Ransford said the eplanation is satisfactory. Pfost reviewed the standards for Section 8-10: (1) The adequacy of streets, alleys, parking areas, loading zones, sidewalks, drainage, water and sewer lines, and traffic control for the proposed use, building, or structure; and (2) The adequacy of protection afforded lands and the surrounding neighborhood from adverse impact. Nestel moved, supported by Ervine, to approve the black vinyl coated chain link fence and aluminum fence as presented on the site plan. Kleinjans asked about the wording stating the fence would enhance traffic control. Ransford stated that the language refers to control of access to the property to answer the requirement of the standard. Voice Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Motion carried. Return to Agenda Item #4. The manager of Dune Dogz presented his written and signed copy of condition changes for opening hours and beginning hour of music. Pfost read the written offer. Opening will be at 8:00 A.M. and there will be no music until 11:00 A.M. Martin asked if Dan Ross signed it. Pfost confirmed he did. 1

15 PC November 14, 2017 Martin noted the Planning Commission must consider the impact of those changes before the Planning Commission submits a recommendation to Township Board. The standards in Section 8-129, Subsection 4 should be addressed for this recommendation. Martin reviewed the standards for consideration: 1. Bear a reasonable and rational connection and/or benefit to the property being proposed for rezoning; 2. Are necessary to ensure that the property develops in such a way that protects the surrounding neighborhood and minimizes any potential impacts to adjacent properties;. Will lead to a development that is more compatible with abutting or surrounding uses than would have been likely if the property had been rezoned without the proposed voluntarily offered conditional zoning agreement, or if the property were left to develop under the eisting zoning classification; and 4. Meet the basic requirements of the requested zoning district. In consideration of these standards: Pfost asked staff if the hours are reasonable. And he also epressed concern about the impact to the neighborhood since the major complaints are noise and music. To not allow music played until 11:00 will minimize the impact. Nestel s concern is allowing spot zoning. She is concerned about neighbors complaints. Eade doesn t see any serious impact with an 8:00 A.M. opening. Ervine noted there is a balance between who supports the conditions and who does not in the community. Martin said a finding by the Planning Commission that the standards have been met should be followed by a recommendation to the Township Board, either for approval of the amendment and accept the conditions, or non-approval with reasons why the conditions have not been met. Kleinjans moved, supported by Eade, that the applicant satisfies the first standard as a benefit to the property. Kleinjans reviewed the standards for Subsection 4: #1 Standard It benefits the property and is acceptable based on its meeting the standard. 14

16 PC November 14, 2017 Nestel questioned the applicant s statement for meeting profitability. Pfost said this is a measure of success. Roll Call Vote: Kleinjans, aye; Ervine, aye; Pfost, aye; Nestel nay, Eade, aye. Ayes 4, Nays 1. Motion carried. Kleinjans moved, supported by Eade, that the applicant satisfies the requirement for conditions are necessary to protect the neighborhood. #2 Standard The noise issue is a problem for some of the residents. Pfost pointed out the applicant can play music after a given time. Ervine said the delivery time is not a problem. de Vries noted that some of the letters state the noise could be a problem if the business opens earlier. A number of letters address the conditional rezoning. Kleinjans questioned whether the music minimizes impact on the neighborhood. Nestel cannot ignore these concerns. Roll Call Vote: Kleinjans, nay; Ervine, aye; Pfost, aye; Nestel nay; Eade, aye. Ayes ; Nays 2. Motion carried. Kleinjans moved, supported by Nestel, that the suggested conditions meet the third standard in that the business property is more compatible with surrounding uses than if it had been rezoned. # Standard the property has already been rezoned as conditional zoning so this point is moot. Roll Call Vote: Kleinjans, aye; Ervine, aye; Pfost, aye; Nestel, aye; Eade, aye. Ayes 5, Nays 0. Motion carried. Kleinjans moved, supported by Eade, that the proposed conditions meet the basic requirements of the zoning district. #4 Standard the property meets the requirements of the zoning district because it is a restaurant which is an allowed use. 15

17 PC November 14, 2017 Roll Call Vote: Kleinjans, aye; Ervine, aye; Pfost, aye; Nestel, aye; Eade, aye. Ayes 5, Nays 0. Motion carried. Martin advised a separate motion to transmit the Planning Commission s approval to the Township Board. Eade moved, supported by Ervine, to recommend to the Township Board to amend the conditions to open at 8:00 a.m., and no music would be played until 11:00 a.m. Kleinjans, nay; Ervine, aye; Pfost, aye; Nestel, nay; Eade, aye. Ayes, Nays 2. Motion carried. Pfost suggested the discussion of Special Use amendments and Site Plan requirements be postponed until the net meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Pfost opened Public Comment at 9:46 P.M. Shawn Jacob bought property in Park Township on Lakewood and Lakeshore, a si lot development. Randy Bouwkamp is the builder. The association has given approval for a flat roof. He looks forward to living in the area and hopes the current ordinance will be amended to allow his plan for a flat roof. He would appreciate the Planning Commission s consideration. Joel Welch said he was disappointed with the outcome regarding the Dune Dogz business. He challenges Township government helping a business. It is his observation the requests will continue from this property. Chair Pfost closed Public Comment at 9:50 P.M. ANNOUNCEMENTS Status of NHP Overlay for Macatawa area: Pfost said last night s presentation at the Township of the action committee for this project represents one of the best planning efforts, however, it was not well received. Staff presented a thoughtful approach. The net progress point is the remainder of the NHP area. The Planning Commission must look at these areas in detail. Howard Fink has done an ecellent job in leadership on this project. Pfost thanked de Vries, Martin, and Ransford for their individual contributions. Martin observed that many residents think that everything is fine the way it is based on their comments. Maintaining the status quo would not upset them. The net meeting is December 12,

18 PC November 14, 2017 ADJOURNMENT Nestel moved, supported by Eade, to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 P.M. Voice Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Judith Hemwall Recording Secretary November 15, 2017 APPROVED: 17

19 MEMORANDUM To: Park Township Planning Commission From: Gregory L. Ransford, MPA Date: December 6, 2017 Re: Coastal Storage Condos Planned Unit Development Final PUD Development Plan Attached is the Final Planned Unit Development Plan ( the Final Plan ) from Facility Management Services, LLC on behalf of Dirkse Capital Management, LLC to construct four (4) store-n-lock buildings totaling twenty-two (22) condominium units located on Ottawa Beach Road, parcel numbers , and Pursuant to your direction provided at your November 14, 2017 meeting, the applicant has revised the Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan to incorporate staff and Planning Commission comments. As a result, we have reviewed the Final Plan submission and found it generally complete. Below we provide our findings and observations regarding the Final Plan as well as relevant provisions of the Park Township Zoning Ordinance (PTZO) for your review. Findings and Observations Current Zoning Districts As you are aware, the project is proposed almost equally in terms of physical improvements, within the C-1 Neighborhood Business District (C-1) and the R- Low Density Single-Family Residence District. This separation of districts is shown within Sheet C-000 of the submission. In addition, similar separation of the related Park Township Master Plan (PTMP) classifications is illustrated further below in this memorandum. Relevant Physical Modifications Roofing The applicant proposes asphalt shingled roofing rather than the metal roof that was presented in the preliminary plan Dumpster Enclosure While the proposed dumpster enclosure complies with the PTZO in terms of height and screening, it is important to note that the applicant proposes an enclosure of 1 8 cedar slats. Even though this material complies, the Planning Commission should determine if the wood is satisfactory or if a material that more closely matches the building façade and neighborhood character is appropriate. Parking Given the nature of the proposed use, rather than providing parking spaces pursuant to the PTZO, the applicant identifies parking areas in front of each of the units. This modification more accurately represents the typical use of the pavement space by a condominium owner (i.e. the owner may park in front of his/her overhead door while within the facility, since no other individual can or needs to park in the same location as a traditional parking space). As a result of this design, the applicant eliminated the small parking area originally proposed at the south end of the pavement. General Observations Narrative Page 2 o The applicant proposes to defer pathway along Ottawa Beach Road, even though pathway is recommended by the PTMP, as well as defer the dedicated open space connecting to said pathway.

20 Narrative Page o The applicant indicates that any tree within 25 feet of the east property line that is damaged as a result construction will be replaced. However, no details are provided regarding the type or height of the replacement tree. o Proposed Open Space Area The site plan appears to indicate that the green hatched area represents the proposed open space. To avoid confusion and ensure accuracy, we believe it is appropriate to add a legend to the plan in this regard since the note alone could be disputed. o Signage Lighting The proposed ground sign for the project does not provide the specific type of light fiture to confirm that no light trespass will occur offsite. The applicant should recognize that they must provide compliant specifications in this regard prior to the issuance of a permit and any Planning Commission approval, if provided, does not authorize any type of light fiture. Zoning Ordinance Provisions Section 8-6 Description and Purpose The applicant is required to provide a Final Plan that meets the objectives of the PUD Division provided in Section 8-6 of the PTZO. While the applicant addressed some of these objectives in their Narrative, the Planning Commission will need to determine if the proposed meets all of these objectives. For your convenience, below is a copy of Section 8-6, in part, along with our guiding comments in italic font to assist with your review. Through proper design and review, each PUD should substantially meet the following objectives: (1) To allow a mi of uses, structures, facilities, housing types and open space that are compatible with eisting and planned uses on nearby properties. While uses are limited in the Final Plan, the applicant proposes that the 84,628 square feet of trees are maintained as open space to buffer adjacent property. Given this, it appears that this objective is met. (2) To encourage land development that, to the greatest etent possible, preserves natural vegetation, respects natural topographic conditions, and preserves natural resources such as wetlands, forests, flood plains, natural drainage patterns, agricultural lands, wildlife habitat and other natural site features. As noted in number one (1) above, the applicant proposes that the 84,628 square feet of trees are maintained as open space to buffer adjacent property. Given this, it appears that this objective is met. () To provide for the regulation of lawful and reasonable land uses not otherwise authorized within this Chapter. Through appropriate conditions, the Planning Commission can ensure that the regulation of the proposed use is adequately provided. Given this, it appears that this objective is met. (4) To provide for single or mied use developments which respect the goals and objectives of this Chapter and the Park Township Master Plan. The applicant addresses some goals of the PTMP within the application Narrative that are applicable to the project. Below, we identify relevant goals and objectives from the PTMP for your review, which generally includes those referenced by the applicant.

21 Page 27 Public Workshops Plan for commercial development at Ottawa Beach Road and 152 nd Avenue that fits community character o The Planning Commission will need to determine if the proposed character of the development fits the community. Page 45 & Page 46 Goals o Goal 2: Retain the township s rural and agricultural character This goal indicates that open spaces and natural features should be protected. The Planning Commission will need to determine if these attributes are protected. o Goal : Transform the township into a fully walkable and bike-friendly community This goal indicates, momentum to connect neighborhoods and key destinations across the township with a non-motorized system of trails should continue. As you know, the applicant is proposing to defer bike path along Ottawa Beach Road until a later date. The Planning Commission will need to determine if this is appropriate. o Goal 8: Focus commercial development within appropriate locations in the township. Park Township residents often indicate they do not want significant additional commercial development. It is generally held that nearby stores and centers outside of the township can provide adequate shopping and commercial opportunities. Future commercial use areas should only be considered as new development warrants it and only at an appropriate scale to adequately serve local neighborhoods. All commercial areas in the township should be designed in a manner that enhances the quality and character of the township and surrounding neighborhoods. The Planning Commission will need to determine if the proposed development is warranted, particularly in the residential district; is appropriate to scale and; enhances the quality and character of the township and the surrounding neighborhood. Page 64 Park Central Plan Concepts o Waukazoo Plaza. The corner of Ottawa Beach Road and 152 nd Avenue is an important gateway to nearby resort destinations and the surrounding neighborhoods. While the small Waukazoo Plaza shopping area, at the southeast corner of the intersection, has a unique character it still suffers from many of the same ills as more suburban-style centers. Its unadorned and vacant parking lot, lack of sidewalks, poorly defined access drives, and disjointed architecture with the adjacent gas station/ convenience store certainly limits any ability for this center to currently convey a gateway entrance to a resort community. The concept plan for the Waukazoo Center (Figure 4) recommends a major facelift that would occur in conjunction with any future changes to the shopping center or gas station, triggered as part of the site plan review process. As an incentive, the etent of commercial development should be epanded to accommodate a more eclectic blend of uses compatible with a small village center serving nearby neighborhoods, visitors and summer residents. The Concept shows an epanded Waukazoo Plaza, accommodating new commercial/office buildings and an area for outdoor dining or public space. The convenience store/gas station should also be reconfigured so the pump canopy no longer dominates the streetscape. Eisting buildings are shown as either renovated or reconstructed with an architectural character that better reflects the

22 area (Figures 41 and 42, previous page). Such enhancements at this important corner would greatly reinforce a sense of arrival and help brand Park Township s character for visitors and residents alike. While the majority of the Park Central Plan design is west of 152 nd Avenue, as you will note in the snapshot of the Park Central Plan below, effort is made to provide for sidewalks, landscape buffers, and clearly defined driveways along Ottawa Beach Road, east of 152 nd Avenue. Given this, the Planning Commission will need to consider whether the proposed achieves the concepts of the Park Central Plan. As you will note on the site plan, several numbers are identified. The Park Central Subarea Narrative indicates the following: o 22: New J & H Oil Family Store and Gas Station to epand to the east o 2: Continue Lighting to Oakwood Avenue o 24: Continue Corridor Improvement through undeveloped commercial property (5) To encourage the provision of open space and the development of recreational and other support facilities in generally central locations or within a reasonable distance of all dwellings or uses. As noted in number one (1) above, the applicant proposes that the 84,628 square feet of trees are maintained as open space to buffer adjacent property. Given this, it appears that this objective is met in that regard. As aforementioned, the applicant proposes to defer pathway and the dedicated open space, which could be contrary to this objective. (6) To implement the vision of the Park Township Master Plan in order to provide a high standard of quality of life, varied housing options, and richness of natural assets.

23 Master Plan Map Given that we were not the authors of this language, we are unsure of the intent of this objective. In the instance it is intended to capture all of the aforementioned goals and objectives of the PTMP, it appears that the Planning Commission will need to determine if the proposed development related to the totality of the PTMP provisions, achieves a high standard of quality of life and a richness of natural assets. As noted in the Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan review, it is important to recognize that the approimate northern half of the project is identified on the Master Plan Map as the Commercial Classification and the southern half of the project is located within the Low Density Residential Classification. As you will note, the latter conflicts with the proposed commercial project. This conflict does not necessarily mean that the proposed use should be prohibited. However, we are unable to provide you with additional insight in this regard because we were not present during the development of the rationale for the boundary line locations. Below is a snapshot of said portion of the Master Plan Map. Section 8-66 Development Requirements for All Uses As noted during your preliminary review, pursuant to Section 8-66 of Division 8 of the PTZO, the proposed lot area, lot width, building heights, setbacks and other development regulations such as open space shall be determined by the Board of Trustees following recommendation of the Planning Commission based on several

24 criteria, in order to achieve the objectives of the PUD Division. For your convenience, below is a copy of said criteria along with our general comments in italic font to assist with your review. (1) Number, location, size, and type of dwelling units. No dwellings units are proposed as part of the project. As a result, this criterion does not apply. (2) Type, location, and amount of non-residential uses proposed. The type and amount of use that is proposed is generally quiet in nature, and is characteristic of infrequent, low traffic volumes. () Proimity and impact of the PUD on adjacent eisting and future land uses. While we do not anticipate any negative impacts related to the eisting commercial uses, given that the proposed PUD etends into a residential district that is not master planned for commercial, public comment will be imperative to gauge the potential impacts on eisting and future land uses. (4) Preservation of eisting vegetation or other natural features on site. The applicant proposes to maintain approimately 84,628 square feet of open space, which consists primarily of mature trees. (5) Topography of the site. The site is generally flat containing only a few feet of variance across the parcels. (6) Provision of public and or community water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer or approval of the Ottawa County Health Department for on-site well and septic systems. The applicant proposes to connect to both public water and sanitary sewer. (7) Access for emergency vehicles to all buildings and areas. The Park Township Fire Chief reviewed the plans and found access to be adequate with the condition that all units affi a Kno Bo. (8) Provisions for pedestrian circulation, recreational amenities, and open space. Grade level sidewalks are proposed between the pavement and buildings for all of the units. As you will note in the application Narrative, the applicant proposes to postpone pathway along Ottawa Beach Road and the dedicated open space, which is designed to connect to said pathway. (9) Traffic circulation and safety. Given the infrequent nature of traffic, this criterion appears to be satisfied. Based on the aforementioned criteria, in the instance the Planning Commission determines that the proposed layout satisfies the objectives of the PUD Division through the lot requirements provided therein, it is appropriate to administer the site as commercial.

25 Section 8-70 Dedicated Open Space for Non-residential Uses As aforementioned, the applicant proposes to defer the installation of pathway along Ottawa Beach Road as well as the dedicated open space within the site. While we prefer that both are constructed within one (1) year of approval, the applicant has agreed to eecute the necessary document to ensure the pathway and dedicated open space amenity is constructed at a future point in time, if the Planning Commission is comfortable with such a proposal. Given this, the Planning Commission will need to determine if deferment is appropriate. Section 8-71 Guarantee and Maintenance of Dedicated Open Space Planned Unit Developments with non-residential PUD open space are required to contain an agreement that guarantees the maintenance and dedication of said open space. In the instance the Planning Commission agrees to defer this improvement, the agreement could be deferred as well. Section 8-4(4) Area regulations of the C-1 Zoning District Based on the anticipated development requirements pursuant to Section 8-66 of the PTZO, the applicant shall meet the regulations of the C-1 Zoning District. In that regard, Section 8-4(4) of the PTZO requires a green space of at least 15 feet in depth along Ottawa Beach Road. The applicant has proposed green space against the front (north) of each building with trees, shrubs and other vegetation. The Planning Commission will need to determine if the location and vegetation within the green space is adequate. Master Deed and Condominium Bylaws Given that the proposed Master Deed and Condominium Bylaws are thirty-si (6) pages in length and coupled with our recent absence due to a vacation, we did not complete a full review of the documents prior to drafting this memorandum. As a result, we will complete our review prior to your meeting and will provide concerns at that time, if any eist. Additional Authority It is important to note that the PTZO authorizes the Planning Commission to require an Environmental Impact Assessment and a financial surety, if either are deemed necessary. Standards for Approval As you are aware, Section 8-7(9) Procedures, Standards for Approval of the PTZO provides for your standards of review for all Planned Unit Developments. For your convenience, below is a copy of said section along with our comments in italic font to assist with your review. Section 8-7(9) Standards for Approval (9) Standards for Approval. The recommendation of the Planning Commission and the decision of the Township Board to approve a PUD shall be based on a finding that the application meets all the following standards: a. The PUD will result in a recognizable and substantial benefit to ultimate users of the project and to the community, and the benefit would otherwise be unfeasible or unlikely to be achieved. We believe the PUD may result in a substantial benefit to the ultimate users, which would otherwise not be feasible. That is, the approimate southern half of the project

26 is impossible to permit within the residential district. Consequently, the PUD is a benefit to the users. In the instance the Ottawa Beach Road pathway and related dedicated open space for public use is constructed concurrent with the first phase of the project, we believe the PUD may result in substantial benefit to the community as well. Given this, it appears that this standard has been partially met. b. The PUD will not result in a significant increase in the need for public services and facilities and will not place a significant burden upon surrounding lands or the natural environment, unless the resulting adverse effects are adequately provided for or mitigated by features of the PUD as approved. We do not believe that the PUD amendment will result in a significant need for public services. In fact, the Township Fire Chief has reviewed the proposed and is satisfied with the plans, as long as a Kno Bo is provided for each unit, among other minor items. Pending comments received during the public hearing, the Planning Commission can determine if a significant burden eists upon surrounding lands and whether this standard is met. c. The PUD will be generally compatible with the Master Plan and consistent with the intent and objectives of this Chapter 8, Article III, Division 8 and this Ordinance. As aforementioned, approimately half of the proposed use is contrary to the Master Plan Map. In addition, it seems that the proposed use may not be consistent with some of the goals and objectives of the Master Plan and Chapter 8 of the PTZO. In the event the Planning Commission agrees, it appears that this standard has been partially met. d. The PUD will not result in significant adverse effects upon nearby or adjacent lands, and will be generally compatible with the character of the surrounding area. Pending comments received during the public hearing, the Planning Commission can determine if significant adverse effects eist upon nearby or adjacent lands. Further, the Planning Commission can determine if the proposed is generally compatible with the character of the surrounding area. As aforementioned, the applicant is proposing an asphalt shingled roof rather than metal. This is a significant character change. Following your deliberations in these regards, you should determine whether this standard is met. e. The PUD will protect all floodplains and wetlands from filling ecept as approved for essential services or recreation amenities. Given that no filling of floodplains or wetlands is proposed, it appears that this standard has been met. f. The PUD will preserve and maintain mature woodlands, fields, pastures, and meadows; and create sufficient buffer areas to minimize conflicts between residential and agricultural uses. The PUD proposes to preserve approimately 84,628 square feet of eisting mature trees as well as establish si (6) foot tall evergreen trees along the east property line,

27 adjacent to eisting residential uses. Given this and absent any compelling public comment to the contrary, it appears that this standard has been met. g. The PUD will leave scenic views and vistas unblocked or uninterrupted, particularly as seen from public road rights-of-way, insofar as practicable. As you will note within the aerial photo provided on Sheet C-000 of the site plan submission, the proposed appears to minimize the interruption to scenic vistas from the right-of-way as practicable as possible. Given this, it appears that this standard has been met. h. The PUD will protect the rural roadside character where desirable. As you will note on the site plan, the applicant proposes two (2) greenbelts along the north end of each building adjacent to Ottawa Beach Road. In addition, the planting of si (6) foot tall evergreens along the east property line between the right-of-way and the building further provide rural roadside character. As a result, it appears that this standard has been met. i. Pedestrian walkways may be provided so that pedestrians can walk safely and easily throughout the site. As you will note on the site plan, pedestrian walkways are proposed at the entry side of all the buildings. Given this, it appears that this standard has been met. j. The individual lots, buildings, roadways, and open space areas are designed to minimize the alteration of natural and environmental site features. As aforementioned, the proposed appears to minimize the alteration of natural and environmental site features as minimally as possible. As a result, it appears that this standard has been met. k. The PUD will be adequately served by public utilities and services such as police and fire protection or public or on-site community water or sanitary sewer. The PUD is proposed to be served by public water and sanitary sewer. Further, the Township Fire Chief is satisfied with the proposed plan, as long as Kno Boes are provided for each unit, among other minor items. Given this, it appears that this standard has been met. l. The PUD shall be in compliance with all applicable federal, state, county, and Township laws, ordinances, and regulations. Outside of the PUD provisions provided in the PTZO, the applicant is aware that they must comply with all federal, state and county regulations. Given this, it appears that this standard has been met. m. If a PUD is to be completed in phases, the PUD shall be designed so that each phase is complete in and of itself, in terms of services, facilities and open spaces, and so that each phase contains all of the features necessary to ensure the protection of natural resources and the health, safety and welfare of the users of the PUD and the occupants of the surrounding area. The Planning Commission may recommend, and the Township Board may require that neighborhood amenities such as recreational

28 Site Plan Standards facilities, walkways, and similar facilities be completed upon occupancy of a determined number or percentage of dwelling units or non-residential uses. We believe each proposed phase can be completed without the other as required by this standard. Given this, it appears that this standard has been met. In addition to your PUD review standards provided in Section 8-7(9) of the PTZO, Planned Unit Development site plans are also subject to review by Section 8-10 Standards of the PTZO. Given this, the following standards shall be considered by the Planning Commission. For your convenience, below we provide our comments in italic font to assist with your review. Section 8-10 (1) The adequacy of streets, alleys, parking areas, loading zones, sidewalks, drainage, water and sewer lines, and traffic control for the proposed use, building, or structure; and As aforementioned in your PUD review standards, it appears that these items are adequately provided, ecept for the pathway along Ottawa Beach Road, unless deferred by the Planning Commission. Given this, the Planning Commission will need to determine if this standard is met. (2) The adequacy of protection afforded lands and the surrounding neighborhood from adverse impact. Resolution of Approval As aforementioned, the applicant proposes two (2) greenbelts along the north end of each building adjacent to Ottawa Beach Road. In addition, the applicant proposes to plant si (6) foot tall evergreens along the east property line between the right-of-way and the east building. Furthermore, the applicant proposes to maintain a considerable number of mature trees as open space. Given this, it appears that this standard has been met. Pursuant to Section 8-7(7) of the PTZO, the Planning Commission shall prepare a report containing its recommendation to the Township Board of Trustees concerning the PUD request. Given that your recommendation is provided at your meeting, attached is a template report from the Planning Commission to either approve or deny the proposed, depending on the final motion. Public Hearing Pursuant to Section 8-7(8) Procedures, Planning Commission Public Hearing on Final Development Plan, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the Final Development Plan for the project. Given this, a public hearing has been scheduled for your December 12, 2017 meeting. As you should have received, numerous comments have been provided in advance of your meeting. If you are not in possession of said comments, please let us know and we will provide them to you. Planning Commission Considerations As the Planning Commission deliberates regarding this application, we believe the following warrant your review and consideration. They are listed in no particular order. Proposed roof material as shingles rather than metal Dumpster enclosure material

29 Height and type of replacement trees along the east property line Adding a legend specific to the proposed open space area on the site plan Objectives of the PUD Division pursuant to Section 8-6 o Whether the proposed character of the development fits the community o Whether natural features are protected o Whether bike path along Ottawa Beach Road should be constructed at site plan approval or deferred to a later date o Whether the proposed development is warranted, particularly in the residential district; is appropriate to scale and; enhances the quality and character of the township and the surrounding neighborhood o Whether the proposed achieves the concepts of the Park Central Plan and in particular, continuing corridor improvements through undeveloped commercial property o Whether the proposed development related to the totality of the Park Township Master Plan provisions achieves a high standard of quality of life and a richness of natural assets Deferment of dedicated public open space (Section 8-70) and whether such deferment is contrary to the objective of Section 8-6(5) Deferment of pathway along Ottawa Beach Road o In the instance the Planning Commission agrees with deferment (of dedicated public open space and/or pathway), a condition should be provided that requires the eecution of an agreement document outlining the terms, to the satisfaction of the township attorney, and the necessary easement documents are secured with the township prior to construction of the first phase Whether the location and vegetation within the 15-foot green space is adequate at the north end of each building adjacent to Ottawa Beach Road Whether an Environmental Impact Assessment is necessary Whether a financial surety is necessary A condition that outdoor storage and any type of activity, other than parking, is prohibited outdoors Review by the Ottawa County Water Resources Commissioner As aforementioned, the application has been scheduled for your review and a public hearing at your December 12, 2017 meeting. We epect the applicant to be in attendance. If you have any questions, please let us know. GLR Planner Attachments cc: Ed de Vries, Community Development Director Howard Fink, Manager

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38 SCALE: 1 " = 2,000 ' SUN CHASE DR. Park Township Dog/Skate Parks 500'-0" 750'-0" WINTERGREEN DR. GAS WM IV san san Place: (4) 2" Corp Stop (4) 2" Curb Stop & Bo E STM. CB #8 san WM GAS san SAN. MH #82 S NO D STM. MH #85 san ARBOR RD. S T O NE H STM. CB #81 H ROAD GAS CB-A SMH SMH- F/L 0 F/L ' -5 R 15'-0" 60 EXISTING BUILDING BENCHMARK:.91' SET 60d NAIL IN NORTH SIDE P. POLE San. C.O. 10'-0" 60'-0" 5'-0" 20'-0" 5'-0" 20'-0" 60'-0" '-0" N89 10'08"W 10' Rear Yard Setback T/Walk F/L Unit #17 = 1,500 sq ft 1.1 (1) B.F. Space ' R N89 10'08"W Unit #11 = 1,500 sq ft T/Walk F/L CB-D GO LD Unit #12 = 1,500 sq ft.02 LN Unit #19 = 1,500 sq ft PIN 5.49' Unit #18 = 1,500 sq ft ' ' Phase MA RI 60 11'-0" 21'-11/8" 4.01 Unit #1 = 1,500 sq ft Replace All Trees Damaged During Construction Phase Within 25 Ft. Setback Area ' Rear Yard Setback Dumpster Pad 144 sq ft '-1/8" 2'-11/8" Unit #1 = 1,500 sq ft T/Walk F/L T/Walk F/L ' 5'-0" EW AL K Unit #10 = 1,500 sq ft 1.1 F.F. Elev. = '-0" '-0".80 San. C.O. Inv Unit #20 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #14 = 1,500 sq ft San. C.O. Inv. 0 F.F. Elev. = 60.5 CB-E 25' Side Yard Setback Unit #21 = 1,500 sq ft 2.08 Unit #15 = 1,500 sq ft.40 T/Walk F/L T/Walk F/L Unit #22 = 1,500 sq ft 60'-5/8" 15'-0" Phase Unit #16 = 1,500 sq ft Building Area = 9,000 sq ft Building Area = 9,000 sq ft Unit #2 = 1,500 sq ft Paved Area = 4,449 sq ft S00 00'00"W San. C.O CB-C (@ 1.00%).02 Phase Phase 2 125'-0" EXISTING BUILDING Building Area = 7,500 sq ft Unit # = 1,500 sq ft Building Area = 7,500 sq ft F.F. Elev. = 60.5 Macatawa 60 T/Walk F/L C T/Walk F/L San. C.O. Inv. 0 San. C.O. Inv '-0" '-0" 25' Side Yard Setback.5 60 Unit #4 = 1,500 sq ft ' Side Yard Setback N00 52'25"E ± ACRES F.F. Elev. = '-5/4" Unit #5 = 1,500 sq ft PARCEL 1B.5 60'-0" S00 00'00"W -1 C '-0" Unit #9 = 1,500 sq ft T/Walk F/L Unit #8 = 1,500 sq ft 60 10'-0" 2.12 Unit #7 = 1,500 sq ft EXISTING BUILDING T/Walk F/L San. C.O. Unit #6 = 1,500 sq ft San. C.O. CB-B 60'-0" '-01/2" ' San. C.O Setback Yard WAUKA Z OO '-0" 75' Front '-0" 0.66± ACRES Retention (Pending OCWRC Approval) STM. CB #89 PARCEL EXISTING BUILDING Inv Inv Inv Retention (Pending OCWRC Approval) % % 599 SMH-2 Inv R 50'-0".5 CUT INLET LOCATION UNKNOWN CURB CUT 600 R 50'-0" SMH-1 SAN. MH #88 PLAN LATERAL LOCATION DR. CUT 598 R NU I V E E) LATERAL PLAN LOCATION LIB E DR RT IVE Y ' ARC= 197.0' RAD= san.85 LATERAL PLAN LOCATION D O E O Z AV A K WA U E ST ( FOR 1000'-0" san 2.06 san 750'-0" S 8.05' ARC=157.0' RAD=19 CURB S '-0" 2.06 san N W A L. E V A SAN. MH #86 san san san san EXISTING BUILDING D ROA D LAKE STREET 0 san STM CONC. ACH A BE TTAW C/L O CUT HO RE IV D 2.11 Coastal Storage Condo Ottawa Beach Road Holland, MI MARK DATE DESCRIPTION 15'-0" 19'-11/8".02 75'-7/8" 60'-0" 5'-0" 20'-0" 5'-0" 20'-0" 5'-0" 60'-0" 5'-1/8" June 22, 2017 Construction Documents for Review 002 July 21, 2017 Construction Documents for Review 00 July, 2017 Issued for PUD Review Sept.25, 2017 Issued for PUD Review (Revision 1) Nov. 22, 2017 Issued for PUD Review (Revision 2) 1.1 Woods 18'-0" S00 07'21"W Snow Removal Area 25' Side Yard Setback N00 51'02"E Open Space "Tree Preservation Area" 28% of Property 87'-01/8" 105'-1/4" 105'-65/8" 56% Green Space = 85,485 sq ft 28% Tree Preservation Area = 42,640 sq ft PROJECT NO: COPYRIGHT: c 2016 Gen1 Architectural Group, LLC ' Side Yard Setback Woods SHEET TITLE 4.86' HAMILTON DR. CURB LATERAL PLAN LOCATION CURB 2.06 san san 2.11 STM D STM 60.0 GREENWOOD ST.JAMES CT. A BEAC C/L OTTAW san WM S H RT S R O H Phase 4 Phase 2 RK EN BA san STM. MH #87 NE DRIV I T E R. ROA. R ED ORCHARD HILL (VAC) STREET RD. C/L O TENNIS CT No Scale OA KW AV OO E. D CT. N. 2.1 ACH A BE TTAW DUNTON PARK No Scale Fire Hydrant E WAUKAZOO DRIVE CH GOODWOOD CT. K DR WOOD DR. BAN K DR IVE ET RE ST E STER RD. RD. NR D. W AR W BENCHMARK:.48' TOP FLANGE BOLT ON HYDRANT UNDER "E" IN EJIW 25 PINE CREEK BAY SILVERSTONE ROAD Surrounding AreaIC Character Map RT PO HAZ EL AVENUE DR IV E OA K LE YD R LN. K OA LI SYCAMORE VA L T. AVENUE S. BAYWOOD DR. GREENHILL DRIVE Perspective S RK PA ON N OLD TOWN ROAD CRESTWOOD DRIVE RE ST DG EW OO DR D IV E WISTERIA DRIVE F OX D O W OAKH AM PT T TT L E STATION E WE S NO RW OO DA VE. Ottawa County Fairgrounds OAKWOOD AVENUE Apartments SANDYPOINT SUPERIOR COURT 1000'-0" Mobil E BEA W CT. D R A W HO Phase Phase 1 CH ROA AWA C/L OTT E L L I H FOR EST N. BAYWOOD DR. D PINE BAY AVENUE HAZELWOOD DRIVE Fire Hydrant D R IV AMBERWOOD DR. IE G U DO S A L N89 11'01"W Total Site =.5 Acres Site Graphics N Site Plan N No Scale Site Area Calculation N No Scale Satellite View No Scale C-000 T EE Park Township Airport COUNT'S COVE COURT EC COMMODORE 9818 Perry Street Zeeland, MI Phone: gen1-architectural.com R ST N R O C A VE I DR PIN EV PI N OR OA K HARB Architectural Group N SO D A O R AMBERTRACE AC E WINTERSUN PL SIXTH AVE. T E E R ST CK JA Park Township Offices PINE BAY CT. DOUGLAS AVENUE ANILINE CHRIS CRAFT This map is intended for reference only. Park Township and Prein&Newhof are not liable for errors or omissions Gen 1 E YK SU N June 2016 WHISPERING WOODS DR. DR. GE OAK CREEK LN. RID ZONING MAP! I DIVISI J:\GIS_Cli A DO W S BAY CIRCL E Park Township Ottawa County, Michigan AGR Agricultural & Permanent Open Space C-1 Neighborhood Business District C-2 Resort Service District PUD Planned Unit District S AM AD ET RE ST M R-1 Rural Estates Residence District R-2 Lakeshore Residence District R- Low Density One Family Residence District R-4 Medium Density One & Two Family Residence District R-5 Low Density Multiple Family Residence District AVE. ND VA Y A B LEGEND FIFTH

39 BENCHMARK:.48' TOP FLANGE BOLT ON HYDRANT UNDER "E" IN EJIW WM GAS Gen 1 Architectural Group 9818 Perry Street Zeeland, MI Phone: gen1-architectural.com STM. CB #89 STM. CB #81 STM. MH #87 PLAN LATERAL LOCATION CONC. EXISTING BUILDING D 75.09' CURB CUT INLET LOCATION UNKNOWN S SAN. MH #88 BENCHMARK:.91' SET 60d NAIL IN NORTH SIDE P. POLE 60.0 N00 51'02"E 5.49'.5 STM STM san san san san san san san Woods 25' Side Yard Setback PLAN LATERAL LOCATION CURB CUT '-5 /8" 15'-0" 78'-0" Unit #6 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #7 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #8 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #9 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #10 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #17 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #18 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #19 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #20 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #21 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #22 = 1,500 sq ft Dumpster Pad 144 sq ft '-0 1/2" 60'-0" 10'-0" 60'-0" 0'-5 /4" 105'-6 5/8" 125'-0" 21'-11 /8" 150'-0" '-0" 29 Unit #5 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #4 = 1,500 sq ft Unit # = 1,500 sq ft Unit #2 = 1,500 sq ft 10'-0" 60'-0" 5'-0" 20'-0" 5'-0" 20'-0" 5'-0" 60'-0" 2'-1 1/8" 75'- 7/8" 60'-0" N00 52'25"E 0' Side Yard Setback '.5 C WM CURB CUT San. C.O. Inv GAS Retention (Pending OCWRC Approval) F.F. Elev. = 60.5 F.F. Elev. = Inv San. C.O R 50'-0" Inv T/Walk F/L T/Walk F/L T/Walk F/L T/Walk F/L San. C.O. San. C.O. Inv. 0 T/Walk F/L F/L San. C.O. CB-D F/L (@ 1.00%) '-0" CB-B T/Walk F/L CB-C N89 10'08"W ' 10' Rear Yard Setback SMH-1 ARC=158.05' RAD=197.0' SMH S SAN. MH #82 san PLAN LATERAL LOCATION SAN. MH #86 S 600 PARCEL 1B 0.82± ACRES CB-E '-0" 5'-0" 20'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 11'-0" 5'-0" San. C.O. San. C.O. T/Walk F/L S00 00'00"W 2.11 C/L OTTAWA BEACH ROAD WM GAS STM SMH- R 50'-0".02 15'-0" 18'-0" 87'-0 1/8" % 2.00% STM. CB # T/Walk F/L T/Walk F/L SMH-4 San. C.O. Inv San. C.O. Inv. 0 Unit #1 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #11 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #12 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #1 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #14 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #15 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #16 = 1,500 sq ft 2.06 ARC=112.62' RAD=197.0' D STM. MH #85 san san san san san san san san san 75' Front Yard Setback 60 Place: (4) 2" Corp Stop (4) 2" Curb Stop & Bo 60 R- C ' Rear Yard Setback Snow Removal Area Open Space "Tree Preservation Area" 28% of Property T/Walk F/L (1) B.F. Space PARCEL ± ACRES 7 7 CB-A Inv '-0" 5'-1 /8" CURB CUT N89 10'08"W ' PLAN LATERAL LOCATION Retention (Pending OCWRC Approval) F.F. Elev. = F.F. Elev. = Inv '- 1/4" 150'-0" 20'-1 /8" 125'-0" 18'-0" ' Side Yard Setback '-0" 19'-11 /8" 25' Side Yard Setback S00 00'00"W ' S00 07'21"W 5.7' R-5 Replace All Trees Damaged During Construction Phase Within 25 Ft. Setback Area EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING Coastal Storage Condo N Location Map Surveryor Notes NOTE: ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS WERE SCALED FROM EXISTING RECORD AS-BUILT PLANS PROVIDED TO THE SURVEYOR AND THERE LOCATIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE. SOME OF THE AS-BUILT PLANS ARE FROM 1970'S AND MAY NOT BE CURRENT. NOTE: ONLY VISIBLE SURFACE INDICATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WERE LOCATED AT TIME OF SURVEY, IF NO VISIBLE SURFACE INDICATIONS OF UTILITIES EXISTED AT TIME OF SURVEY, IT SHOULD NOT BE ASSUMED THAT THERE ARE NO UTILITIES IN THAT AREA. UTILITY LOCATIONS COVERED BY VEGETATION, SOIL, OR OTHER COVERINGS ARE NOT CONSIDERED VISIBLE. NOTE: DATUM OF ELEVATIONS BASED ON BENCHMARK SHOWN ON THE WAUKAZOO CONDOMINIUMS EXHIBIT B DRAWINGS BY NEDERVELD & ASSOCIATES OBTAINED FROM THE OTTAWA COUNTY REGISTER OF DEEDS. IT APPEARS THE ELEVATIONS ARE ON THE NGVD 1929 DATUM BUT WE ARE NOT SURE. NOTE: SOME OF THE MANHOLES AND CATCH BASINS IN OTTAWA BEACH ROAD WERE NOT OPENED BECAUSE OF HIGH TRAFFIC VOLUME AND THE NEED TO BLOCK A LANE OF TRAFFIC IN ORDER TO DO SO. INVERT ELEVATIONS SHOULD BE OBTAINED FROM RECORD PLANS BY OTHERS. THE DATUM THIS TOPO SURVEY IS ON MAY NOT MATCH THE DATUMS OF THE SOME OF THE RECORD PLANS BECAUSE THE BENCHMARKS (IF ANY) ON THE RECORD PLANS ARE NO LONGER EXISTING. Soil Classification Soil Group 1: SW - Footings Shall Bear On Firm, Undisturbed Earth Of 2,000 P.S.F., Or On Engineered Fill Meeting That Requirement. The assumed soil bearing capacity used for this design is 2,000 p.s.f. This determination was based on presumptive load-bearing values of soil classification known to be in this area of construction. Type of known soils in this area are sandy; Croswell Sand (CrB). (Taken from The United States Department of Agriculture) If this type of soil is not encountered for the construction of the footing and foundation or can not be compacted to meet the 2,000 p.s.f. requirement then footings are to be placed on Engineered Fill meeting the 2,000 p.s.f. requirement as stated. Storm Water Information Total Site:.52 Acres Developed Ottawa Beach Road Holland, MI Project Location Ottawa Beach Road Holland, MI Not To Scale Proposed Paved Areas: 0.79 Acres (Area Modified To Reflect Catch Basins) Proposed Building Area: 0.75 Acres Remaining Pervious Area: 1.96 Acres C-001 Full Site Plan, Sheet Inde & Notes C-002 Partial Site Plan, Site Details & Notes C-00 Partial Site Plan, Site Details & Notes A-000 Partial Foundation Plan & Notes A-001 Partial Floor Plan & Notes A-002 Eterior Elevations & Notes A-00 Partial Roof Plan & Notes A-004 Wall Section, Building Section & Site Details Project Information Governing Codes: Michigan Building Code 2015; Incorporating the 2015 International Building Code Michigan Plumbing Code 2015 Michigan Mechanical Code 2015 Michigan Electrical Code 2014 ICC/ANSI A Code Of Ordinances; Park Township, MI. ENFORCING AGENCY: Park Township SITE ADDRESS: Ottawa Beach Road Holland, MI ZONING: C-1 Neighborhood Business R- Low Density One Family Residential PARKING: Sheet Inde 22 Spaces 1 B.F. Space Property Description PARCEL 1B, PER HOLLAND ENGINEERING, INC. JOB # : A parcel of land being part of Lot of Heneveld's Supervisor's Plat No. 2, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Liber 9 of Plats, Page 14, public records of Ottawa County, Michigan, and part of Lot 1 and Outlot No. 1 of Heneveld's Supervisor's Plat No. 24, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Liber 9 of Plats, Page 15, public records of Ottawa County, Michigan, all being part of Section 25, Town 5 North, Range 16 West, Park Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the West 1/4 Corner of said Section 25; thence N00 00'00"E, along the West line of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25, a distance of feet; thence S89 10'08"E, a distance of.00 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 1 of Heneveld's Supervisor's Plat No. 24; thence continue S89 10'08"E, along the South line of Lot 1, a distance of feet to the Point of Beginning of the parcel of land herein described; thence N00 52'25"E, a distance of feet to the South right-of-way line of Ottawa Beach Road; thence feet along the South right-of-way line of Ottawa Beach Road and the arc of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of feet, a central angle of 04 5'21" and a chord which bears N77 28'17"E, a distance of feet; thence S00 00'00"W, parallel with the West line of the NW 1/4 of Section 25, a distance of 249. feet to the South line of Lot 1 of Heneveld's Supervisor's Plat No. 24; thence N89 10'08"W, along the South line of said Lot 1, a distance of feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 0.82 acres of land, more or less. Subject to any easements, restrictions or reservations of record. PARCEL 2, PER HOLLAND ENGINEERING, INC. JOB # : A parcel of land being part of Lot of Heneveld's Supervisor's Plat No. 2, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Liber 9 of Plats, Page 14, public records of Ottawa County, Michigan, and part of Lot 1 and Outlot No. 1 of Heneveld's Supervisor's Plat No. 24, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Liber 9 of Plats, Page 15, public records of Ottawa County, Michigan, all being part of Section 25, Town 5 North, Range 16 West, Park Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the West 1/4 Corner of said Section 25; thence N00 00'00"E, along the West line of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25, a distance of feet; thence S89 10'08"E, a distance of.00 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 1 of Heneveld's Supervisor's Plat No. 24; thence continue S89 10'08"E, along the South line of Lot 1, a distance of feet to the Point of Beginning of the parcel of land herein described; thence N00 00'00"E, parallel with the West line of the NW 1/4 of Section 25, a distance of 249. feet to the South right-of-way line of Ottawa Beach Road; thence feet along the South right-of-way line of Ottawa Beach Road and the arc of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of feet, a central angle of 0 16'12" and a chord which bears N7 2'1"E, a distance of feet; thence S00 00'00"W, parallel with the West line of the NW 1/4 of Section 25, a distance of feet to the South line of Lot 1 of Heneveld's Supervisor's Plat No. 24; thence N89 10'08"W, along the South line of said Lot 1, a distance of feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 0.66 acres of land, more or less. Subject to any easements, restrictions or reservations of record. PARCEL, PER HOLLAND ENGINEERING, INC. JOB # : A parcel of land being part of Lot 2 and Lot of Heneveld's Supervisors Plat No. 24, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Liber 5 of Plats, Page 15, public records of Ottawa County, Michigan, being part of Section 25, Town 5 North, Range 16 West, Park Township, Ottawa County, Michigan, and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the West 1/4 corner of said Section 25; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East along the West line of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25, a distance of feet; thence South 89 degrees 10 minutes 08 seconds East, a distance of.00 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 2 of Heneveld's Supervisors Plat No. 24; thence continue South 89 degrees 10 minutes 08 seconds East, along the North line of Lot 2, a distance of feet to the point of beginning of the parcel of land herein described; thence continue South 89 degrees 10 minutes 08 seconds East, along the North line of Lot 2, a distance of 1.49 feet to the East line of the West 1/2 of Lot 2; thence South 00 degrees 07 minutes 21 seconds West, along the East line of the West 1/2 of Lot 2 and the East line of the West 1/2 of said Lot of Heneveld's Supervisors Plat No. 24, a distance of 5.7 feet to the South line of Lot ; thence North 89 degrees 11 minutes 01 seconds West, along the South line of Lot ; a distance of 4.86 feet; thence North 00 degrees 51 minutes 02 seconds East, a distance of 5.49 feet to the point of beginning. Coastal Storage Condo Ottawa Beach Road Holland, MI 25' Side Yard Setback Woods N89 11'01"W 4.86' Site Runoff Coefficient (Developed): 0.7 Allowable Release Rate Per OCWRC Standards: 0.1 cfs/ac Required Storage Volume: 0.47 acre-feet * All Calculations are based on OCWRC Standards for a 100 year (1%) Rainfall Event MARK DATE DESCRIPTION 001 June 22, 2017 Construction Documents for Review 002 July 21, 2017 Construction Documents for Review 00 July, 2017 Issued for PUD Review 004 Sept.25, 2017 Issued for PUD Review (Revision 1) 004 Nov. 22, 2017 Issued for PUD Review (Revision 2) PROJECT NO: COPYRIGHT: c 2016 Gen1 Architectural Group, LLC N Full Site Plan Scale: 1" = 0' SHEET TITLE Full Site Plan C-001

40 Gen 1 Architectural Group 9818 Perry Street Zeeland, MI Phone: gen1-architectural.com BENCHMARK:.48' TOP FLANGE BOLT ON HYDRANT UNDER "E" IN EJIW WM GAS Prop. San. Monitoring M.H. Proposed Storm Structures Site Plan Key Notes STM. CB #81 STM. MH #87 CONC. EXISTING BUILDING D 75.09' CURB CUT INLET LOCATION UNKNOWN S SAN. MH #88 BENCHMARK:.91' SET 60d NAIL IN NORTH SIDE P. POLE.5 STM STM san san san san san san san PLAN LATERAL LOCATION CURB CUT N00 52'25"E 0' Side Yard Setback '.5 C '-0" Unit #6 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #7 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #8 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #9 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #10 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #17 = 1,500 sq ft Dumpster Pad 144 sq ft '-0 1/2" 60'-0" 10'-0" 60'-0" 0'-5 /4" WM '-0" 21'-11 /8" '-0" 2.06 Inv R 50'-0" Inv T/Walk F/L T/Walk F/L F/L F/L '-0" 7 Unit #5 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #4 = 1,500 sq ft Unit # = 1,500 sq ft Unit #2 = 1,500 sq ft 10'-0" 60'-0" 5'-0" 20'-0" 5'-0" 20'-0" 5'-0" 60'-0" 2'-1 1/8" CURB CUT San. C.O. Inv. 0 GAS Retention (Pending OCWRC Approval) F.F. Elev. = SMH-1 ARC=158.05' RAD=197.0' SMH-2 San. C.O S SAN. MH #82 San. C.O. San. C.O. T/Walk F/L T/Walk F/L (@ 1.00%) CB-B T/Walk F/L CB-C N89 10'08"W ' 10' Rear Yard Setback san PLAN LATERAL LOCATION 600 SAN. MH #86 S PARCEL 1B 0.82± ACRES '-0" 5'-0" 2.1 San. C.O. San. C.O. S00 00'00"W 2.11 C/L OTTAWA BEACH ROAD SMH- R 50'-0".02 15'-0" % 2.00% STM. CB # T/Walk F/L SMH-4 San. C.O. Inv T/Walk F/L ARC=112.62' RAD=197.0' D STM. MH #85 san san san san san san san san san 75' Front Yard Setback 60 Place: (4) 2" Corp Stop (4) 2" Curb Stop & Bo 60 R- C ' Rear Yard Setback WM GAS T/Walk F/L STM (1) B.F. Space PLAN LATERAL LOCATION 2.07 Retention (Pending OCWRC Approval) PARCEL ± ACRES Unit #1 = 1,500 sq ft 1.1 Unit #11 = 1,500 sq ft CURB CUT CB-A Inv N89 10'08"W ' F.F. Elev. = Inv '-1 /8" 125'-0" 18'-0" ' Side Yard Setback S00 00'00"W ' R EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING 6'-9 /8" FLOW SMH-1 4' Dia. Rim Elev. = 0 6" Invert Southeast = " Invert Northwest = SMH-2 4' Dia. Rim Elev. = 0 6" Invert Southeast = " Invert Northwest = SMH- 4' Dia. Rim Elev. =.50 6" Invert Southwest = " Invert Northwest = SMH-4 4' Dia. Rim Elev. =.50 6" Invert Southwest = " Invert Northwest = Catch Basin Detail 12'-0" Side & Rear Elevation 1 8 Cedar Slats 6 6 Trt'd Posts 16" Dia. Concrete Sonatube FLOW CB-A 4' Dia. Detention Structure w/ EJIW 1040-N Beehive Grate & Frame Rim Elev. = 0 12" Invert South = " Dia. Invert (Match Eisting 18" Invert) 18" Invert Northwest = (Field Verify Eisting) CB-B 4' Dia. Catch Basin w/ EJIW 1040-M1 Flat Grate & Frame Rim Elev. =.45 12" Invert Northwest = " Invert South = CB-C 4' Dia. Catch Basin w/ EJIW 1040-M1 Flat Grate & Frame Rim Elev. =.45 12" Invert North = " Invert Southeast = CB-D 4' Dia. Catch Basin w/ EJIW 1040-M1 Flat Grate & Frame Rim Elev. =.40 12" Invert North = " Invert South = CB-E 4' Dia. Catch Basin w/ EJIW 1040-M1 Flat Grate & Frame Rim Elev. =.40 12" Invert North = CB-F 4' Dia. Leaching Catch Basin w/ EJIW 1040-M1 OPEN Flat Grate GRATE & Frame CATCH BASEN COVER WITH Rim Elev. = FRAME SUCH AS EJIW 1120 CASTING. 12" Invert North = HMA PAVING REFER TO PROJECT HMA DETAIL FOR THICKNESS. OVER GRAVEL SUBBASE AND CLEAN SAND FILL. PRECAST CONCRETE CONE. PRE-CAST CONCRETE BASIN PRE-CAST CONCRETE BASE /4"=1'-0" 12'-0" Front Elevation 4" 7'-0" '-6" Min Eisting Tree To Remain 1.02 Eisting Tree To Be Removed (Remove As Needed for Grading) 1.05 Sign To Meet Township Requirements (By Others) Site Lighting To Be Attached To Buildings (By Others). "Lighting facilities shall be equipped with shielding so as to reflect the light downward and away from adjoining properties" '-0" Wide Easement For Future "Master Plan" Walk/Bicycle Path "Open Public Space", Install Patio with Table, And Walkway For Public Usage. Coordinate With "Master Plan" Installation of Walk/Bicycle Path '-0" Landscape Buffer. Refer to Landscape Plan. LED Recessed Can Light In Canopy. Evergreen Tree (6'-0" Tall Minimum) Landscape Bed To Meet Township Requirements. (Lawn Areas to be Irrigated). 1.1 ' Wide Stone Maintenance Strip (0251) Asphaltic Paving, Indicated By Shaded Area 22A Road Gravel & Clean Comp. Sand Fill Within Limits Shown Poured Concrete Curbing Control Joints At 10-0 O.C., Or At Curb Radius. Epansion Joints At 50-0 O.C. Fill With Joint Filler. Refer To MDOT F4 Detail w/ MDOT Detail 'M' Opening at Drive Precast Concrete Detention Structure. See Structure Inventory This Sheet (See Detail Sheet C-002 For Enclosure Detail) Precast Concrete Storm Structure. See Structure Inventory This Sheet. 12 Concrete Class IV, or Approved Equal, Storm Water Piping (@ 0.%) Gallon Oil Interceptor Construct New 6" Lateral Per Park Township Standards PVC Sanitary Sewer Piping. Connection To Sanitary Sewer Main & All Materials Per Park Township Standards " "K" Copper Water Service. Connect To Water Main & All Materials Per Park Township Standards..02 (000) Poured Concrete Apron 6 Thick Reinforced w/ 6 6 #6/6 WWM. Give Light Broom Finish. Apply over 12 Compacted Sand Fill. (See Detail Sheet C-002) 4.01 (04220) Concrete Dumpster Pad & Enclosure. Must Meet Park Township Requirements. See Detail on Sheet C Utility Services Meter Bank MARK Line for Down Spouts STORM STRUCTURES: STORM CATCH BASIN #80 RIM ELEV. = ' STORM CATCH BASIN #81 RIM ELEV. = 1' 18" INV. E-W = 595.5' STORM CATCH BASIN #8 RIM ELEV. = 0' STORM MANHOLE #85 RIM ELEV. = ' STORM MANHOLE #87 RIM ELEV. =.28' Coastal Storage Condo Ottawa Beach Road Holland, MI DATE S.E.S.C. Measures Legend Permanent/Temporary Seeding Rip-Rap Silt Fence Legend Inlet Protection Fabric Drop Eisting Utility Structures DESCRIPTION 001 June 22, 2017 Construction Documents for Review 002 July 21, 2017 Construction Documents for Review 00 July, 2017 Issued for PUD Review Key Note Label Spot Elevation SANITARY STRUCTURES: SANITARY MANHOLE #82 RIM ELEV. = ' 8" INV. S. = ' 8" INV. N. = ' SANITARY MANHOLE #84 RIM ELEV. = ' SANITARY MANHOLE #86 RIM ELEV. = 2' SANITARY MANHOLE #88 RIM ELEV. = 7' 004 Sept.25, 2017 Issued for PUD Review (Revision 1) 004 Nov. 22, 2017 Issued for PUD Review (Revision 2) N Partial Site Plan Scale: 1" = 20' Typical Fence Details Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" PROJECT NO: COPYRIGHT: c 2016 Gen1 Architectural Group, LLC SHEET TITLE Site Plan C-002

41 75.09' BENCHMARK:.91' SET 60d NAIL IN NORTH SIDE P. POLE N00 51'02"E 5.49' Woods 25' Side Yard Setback 60'-5 /8" 15'-0".5 125'-0" Unit #9 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #10 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #17 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #18 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #19 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #20 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #21 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #22 = 1,500 sq ft Dumpster Pad 144 sq ft 29 Unit # = 1,500 sq ft Unit #2 = 1,500 sq ft 10'-0" 60'-0" 5'-0" 20'-0" 5'-0" 20'-0" 5'-0" 60'-0" 2'-1 1/8" 75'- 7/8" 60'-0" N00 52'25"E '-6 5/8" 21'-11 /8" 150'-0" F.F. Elev. = ' Side Yard Setback San. C.O. Inv T/Walk F/L T/Walk F/L T/Walk F/L T/Walk F/L (@ 1.00%) San. C.O. CB-D 29 20'-0" 5'-0" 20'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 29 CB-C N89 10'08"W ' 10' Rear Yard Setback San. C.O. Inv CB-E ' Rear Yard Setback.85 R- Snow Removal Area Woods '-0" 5'-0" San. C.O. T/Walk F/L S00 00'00"W.02 (1) B.F. Space N89 11'01"W 4.86' Open Space "Tree Preservation Area" 28% of Property T/Walk F/L '-0" 87'-0 1/8" 2.1 T/Walk F/L San. C.O. Inv. 0 Unit #1 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #11 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #12 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #1 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #14 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #15 = 1,500 sq ft Unit #16 = 1,500 sq ft 60'-0" 5'-1 /8" N89 10'08"W ' 60 F.F. Elev. = '- 1/4" 150'-0" 20'-1 /8" 125'-0" '-0" 19'-11 /8" 25' Side Yard Setback S00 00'00"W S00 07'21"W 5.7' Replace All Trees Damaged During Construction Phase Within 25 Ft. Setback Area EXISTING BUILDING 7 29 STORM STRUCTURES: STORM CATCH BASIN #80 RIM ELEV. = ' STORM CATCH BASIN #81 RIM ELEV. = 1' 18" INV. E-W = 595.5' STORM CATCH BASIN #8 RIM ELEV. = 0' STORM MANHOLE #85 RIM ELEV. = ' Gen 1 Architectural Group 9818 Perry Street Zeeland, MI Phone: gen1-architectural.com Site Plan Key Notes 1.01 Eisting Tree To Remain 1.02 Eisting Tree To Be Removed (Remove As Needed for Grading) 1.05 Sign To Meet Township Requirements (By Others) Site Lighting To Be Attached To Buildings (By Others). "Lighting facilities shall be equipped with shielding so as to reflect the light downward and away from adjoining properties" '-0" Wide Easement For Future "Master Plan" Walk/Bicycle Path "Open Public Space", Install Patio with Table, And Walkway For Public Usage. Coordinate With "Master Plan" Installation of Walk/Bicycle Path '-0" Landscape Buffer. Refer to Landscape Plan. LED Recessed Can Light In Canopy. Evergreen Tree (6'-0" Tall Minimum) Landscape Bed To Meet Township Requirements. (Lawn Areas to be Irrigated). 1.1 ' Wide Stone Maintenance Strip (0251) Asphaltic Paving, Indicated By Shaded Area 22A Road Gravel & Clean Comp. Sand Fill Within Limits Shown Poured Concrete Curbing Control Joints At 10-0 O.C., Or At Curb Radius. Epansion Joints At 50-0 O.C. Fill With Joint Filler. Refer To MDOT F4 Detail w/ MDOT Detail 'M' Opening at Drive Precast Concrete Detention Structure. See Structure Inventory This Sheet (See Detail Sheet C-002 For Enclosure Detail) Precast Concrete Storm Structure. See Structure Inventory This Sheet. 12 Concrete Class IV, or Approved Equal, Storm Water Piping (@ 0.%) Gallon Oil Interceptor Construct New 6" Lateral Per Park Township Standards PVC Sanitary Sewer Piping. Connection To Sanitary Sewer Main & All Materials Per Park Township Standards " "K" Copper Water Service. Connect To Water Main & All Materials Per Park Township Standards..02 (000) Poured Concrete Apron 6 Thick Reinforced w/ 6 6 #6/6 WWM. Give Light Broom Finish. Apply over 12 Compacted Sand Fill. (See Detail Sheet C-002) 4.01 (04220) Concrete Dumpster Pad & Enclosure. Must Meet Park Township Requirements. See Detail on Sheet C Utility Services Meter Bank Line for Down Spouts. S.E.S.C. Measures Legend Permanent/Temporary Seeding Rip-Rap Silt Fence Legend Inlet Protection Fabric Drop Key Note Label Spot Elevation Eisting Utility Structures SANITARY STRUCTURES: SANITARY MANHOLE #82 RIM ELEV. = ' 8" INV. S. = ' 8" INV. N. = ' SANITARY MANHOLE #84 RIM ELEV. = ' SANITARY MANHOLE #86 RIM ELEV. = 2' SANITARY MANHOLE #88 RIM ELEV. = 7' Prop. San. Monitoring M.H. FLOW FLOW SMH-1 Proposed Storm Structures CB-A 4' Dia. Detention Structure w/ EJIW 1040-N Beehive Grate & Frame Rim Elev. = 0 12" Invert South = " Dia. Invert (Match Eisting 18" Invert) 18" Invert Northwest = (Field Verify Eisting) CB-B 4' Dia. Catch Basin w/ EJIW 1040-M1 Flat Grate & Frame Rim Elev. =.45 12" Invert Northwest = " Invert South = CB-C 4' Dia. Catch Basin w/ EJIW 1040-M1 Flat Grate & Frame Rim Elev. =.45 12" Invert North = " Invert Southeast = CB-D 4' Dia. Catch Basin w/ EJIW 1040-M1 Flat Grate & Frame Rim Elev. =.40 12" Invert North = " Invert South = CB-E Detention Structure Detail /4" = 1'-0".5" HMA Pavement - Courses 1.5" 4C Top Course 2.0" C Base Course 6" Gravel, MDOT 22A 4' Dia. Rim Elev. = 0 6" Invert Southeast = " Invert Northwest = SMH-2 4' Dia. Rim Elev. = 0 6" Invert Southeast = " Invert Northwest = SMH- 4' Dia. Rim Elev. =.50 6" Invert Southwest = " Invert Northwest = SMH-4 4' Dia. Rim Elev. =.50 6" Invert Southwest = " Invert Northwest = Top View 4' Dia. Catch Basin w/ EJIW 1040-M1 Flat Grate & Frame Rim Elev. =.40 12" Invert North = CB-F FLOW 4' Dia. Leaching Catch Basin w/ EJIW 1040-M1 Flat Grate & Frame Rim Elev. = 12" Invert North = " ORIFICE OVERFLOW WEIR FLOW PRE-CAST CONCRETE BASIN BRICK & MORTAR WEIR OPEN GRATE CATCH BASEN COVER WITH FRAME SUCH AS EJIW 1120 CASTING. FIELD ADJUST CONE SECTION AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE ACCESS FOR FUTURE MAINTENANCE BRICK & MORTAR WEIR (Top Elevation of 0) PRE-CAST CONCRETE BASIN " ORIFICE OVERFLOW WEIR AS SPECIFIED SHADED AREAS INDICATE BITUMINOUS PAVING REFER TO HMA DETAIL FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. TOOLED EDGES 12" Sand Subbase, MDOT Class II 6" POURED CONCRETE WALKS/APRONS REINFORCED WITH 6"X6" #6/6 WWM OVER CLEAN SAND FILL. BROOMED FINISH. STORM MANHOLE #87 RIM ELEV. =.28' Coastal Storage Condo Ottawa Beach Road Holland, MI MARK DATE DESCRIPTION 001 June 22, 2017 Construction Documents for Review 002 July 21, 2017 Construction Documents for Review 00 July, 2017 Issued for PUD Review 004 Sept.25, 2017 Issued for PUD Review (Revision 1) 004 Nov. 22, 2017 Issued for PUD Review (Revision 2) PROJECT NO: COPYRIGHT: c 2016 Gen1 Architectural Group, LLC N Partial Site Plan Scale: 1" = 20' HMA Pavement Cross Section /4"=1'-0" Concrete Walk/Apron Detail /4"=1'-0" SHEET TITLE Site Plan C-00

42 1'-6" '-4" 60'-0" Gen 1 Architectural Group 9818 Perry Street Zeeland, MI Phone: gen1-architectural.com 1'-6" 4'-5 /4" 1'-6" 16'-8 1/2" 2'-10 1/2" 16'-8 1/2" 1'-6" 5'-2" 1'-6" 16'-8 /8" 1'-6" 4'-6 7/8" 1'-6" 1'- 1/2" 1'-11 1/2" '-4" 2'-7 /4" 16'-" '-4" 16'-" 2'-7 /4" '-4" 2'-7 /4" 16'-" 2'-7 /4" '-4" verify opening in conc w/ door manufact. verify opening in conc w/ door manufact. verify opening in conc w/ door manufact. 8" 6 1/4" N TOW = 10'-0" TOW = 10'-0" TOF = 97'-0" TOW = 99'-4" TOW = 10'-0" TOW = 99'-4" TOW = 10'-0" TOW = 99'-4" TOW = 10'-0" TOF = 97'-0" TOW = 99'-4" TOW = 10'-0" TOW = 99'-4" TOF = 97'-0" TOW = 10'-0" TOW = 99'-4" TOW = 10'-0" = 99'-4" Partial Foundation Plan Unecavated Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 8" 6" 6" TOW = 10'-0" TOW = 10'-0" TOF = 97'-0" 125'-0" (Bldgs. #1 & #2) 10'-0" (Bldgs. # & #4) MARK Coastal Storage Condo Ottawa Beach Road Holland, MI DATE DESCRIPTION 001 June 22, 2017 Construction Documents for Review 002 July 21, 2017 Construction Documents for Review 00 July, 2017 Issued for PUD Review 004 Sept.25, 2017 Issued for PUD Review (Revision 1) 004 Nov. 22, 2017 Issued for PUD Review (Revision 2) PROJECT NO: COPYRIGHT: c 2016 Gen1 Architectural Group, LLC SHEET TITLE Partial Foundation Plan A-000

43 Gen 1 60'-0" Architectural Group 11'-4/4" 5'-0" '-0" Window (above) 5'-0" '-0" Window (above) 5'-6" 5'-0" '-0" Window (above) 7'-1/4" 5'-6" 5'-0" '-0" Window (above) 5'-6" 5'-0" '-0" Window (above) 5'-0" '-0" Window (above) 5'-0" '-0" Window (above) Load bearing dimensional lumber for joists, beams and girders shall be identified by a grade mark of an approved lumber grading or inspection agency. slope floor to drain (typ.) Toilet (b.f.) (Optional) Engineered Wood Products. cuts, notches and holes bored in trusses, laminated veneer lumber, glue laminated members, or Ijoists are not permitted unless the effects of such penetrations are specifically considered in the design of the member. (ENGINEERED FLOOR FRAMING SYSTEMS SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY APPROVED SHOP DRAWINGS, CALCULATIONS, AND/OR SPAN TABLES FROM THE MANUFACTURER.) Draftstopping Required. attics, shall be installed in attics and concealed roof spaces, such that any horizontal area does not eceed,000 square feet. slope floor to drain (typ.) Initial Concrete Installation slope floor to drain (typ.) Draftstopping Materials. draftstopping materials shall be not less than 1/2 gypsum board, /8 type 2-M-W particle board or other approved materials adequately supported. The integrity of all draftstops shall be maintained. 24'-7" 24'-7" 10'-0" Second Concrete Installation (to occur after owner approved plumbing determination - typical for all units) All wood sill or plates that rest on concrete or masonry eterior walls and are less than 8 from eposed earth shall be of approved naturally durable or preservative-treated wood. Floor Drain Clearance between wood siding, sheathing, and wall framing and earth on the eterior of a building shall bot be less than 6 ecept where approved naturally durable or preservative-wood is used for siding, sheathing, and wall framing. Sanitary Line slope floor to drain (typ.) Sills and sleeper on a concrete or masonry slab which is in direct contact with earth shall be of approved naturally durable or preservative-treated wood. Wood structural members supporting moisture permeable floors or roofs that are eposed to the weather shall be naturally durable or preservative treated wood unless separated from such floors or roofs by an impervious moisture barrier. Attic Access. An opening not less than 20 inches by 0 inches shall be provided to any attic area having a clear height of over 0 inches. Clear headroom of not less than 0 inches shall be provided in the attic space at or above the access opening. 1/2" 1/2" 2'-6" The General Contractor Shall Verify All Dimensions In The Field And Coordinate Dimensions With The Structural Shop Drawins. The Shop Drawings Shall Not Be Submitted To The Architect Without The General First Reviewing And Approving Them. 7'-8" 1/2" 9'-7/4" 16'-0" 16'-0" Sectional Overhead Door Recess Concrete Floor 1/2" For Overhead Door Roof Overhang Above 8'-0" '-4" '-0" 6'-8" Door Attic Access Roof Overhang Above 24'-7" 16'-0" 16'-0" Sectional Overhead Door slope floor to drain (typ.) 24'-7" 16'-0" 16'-0" Sectional Overhead Door Recess Concrete Floor 1/2" For Overhead Door slope floor to drain (typ.) Recess Concrete Floor 1/2" For Overhead Door slope floor to drain (typ.) 6 Concrete Slab Reinf. w/ 6" 6"-W1.4 X W1.4. Apply Over 12 Clean Compacted Sand Fill & 10 mill vapor barrier w/ taped joints. slope floor to drain (typ.) 1/2" slope floor to drain (typ.) slope floor to drain (typ.) 24'-7" 24'-7" Floor Drain slope floor to drain (typ.) 12'-51/4" 18'-21/2" 9'-7/4" 1/2" Fi ni sh ed slope floor to drain (typ.) Fl oo re le v. = 10 0' -0 " Floor Drain 1/2" 9'-7/4" 18'-21/2" 12'-51/4" 125'-0" (Bldgs. #1 &#2) 10'-0" (Bldgs. # & #4) 12'-51/4" Construction Notes 5'-0" '-0" Window (above) Attic Access 18'-21/2" 6'-8" 9818 Perry Street Zeeland, MI Phone: gen1-architectural.com 51/2" '-0" 7'-0" Dr. '-0" 6'-8" Door 1'-41/2" 5'-10/4" 5'-6" 51/2" 51/2" 7'-1/4" 5'-6" 51/2" 51/2" 5'-0" '-0" Window (above) 2'-6" 2'-8/4" 2/4" 4'-11/4" Coastal Storage Condo Ottawa Beach Road Holland, MI '-0" 6'-8" Door 1/2" 2'-6" 5'-11/4" 1/2" Attic Access 1/2" 2'-6" 5'-11/4" MARK DATE DESCRIPTION 001 June 22, 2017 Construction Documents for Review 002 July 21, 2017 Construction Documents for Review 00 July, 2017 Issued for PUD Review Sept.25, 2017 Issued for PUD Review (Revision 1) Nov. 22, 2017 Issued for PUD Review (Revision 2) PROJECT NO: COPYRIGHT: c 2016 Gen1 Architectural Group, LLC SHEET TITLE '-0" 6'-8" Door N Partial Floor Plan Partial Floor Plan Attic Access Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" A-001

44 Gen 1 Architectural Group 9818 Perry Street Zeeland, MI Phone: gen1-architectural.com Decorative Wood Truss Eterior Light Fiture (Typical) Top of Wall = 118'-0" 12 4 Asphalt Shingles over 1/2" OSB Roof Sheathing & 15# Roof Felt Metal Drip Edge w/ Aluminum Covered 2 Facia & 100% Perforated Soffit System Metal Siding w/ Matching Trims Over 7/16" Sheathing and Moisture Barrier. Top of Foundation Wall = 10'-0" Top of Concrete Floor = 100'-0" Top of Footing = 97'-0" '-0" '-0" 15'-0" Overhead Door Metal Roofing over 1/2" OSB Roof Sheathing & 15# Roof Felt Wood Column (typical) Metal Door Precast Concrete Cap over "Cultured" Stone Veneer Concrete Foundation Wall & Footing Front Elevation Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" Top of Wall = 118'-0" Upper Wdw. =114'-10 1/4" Top of Wall = 118'-0" Top of Found. Wall = 10'-0" Top of Concrete Floor = 100'-0" Top of Footing = 97'-0" '-0" '-0" 15'-0" '-10 1/4" '-0" '-0" 15'-0" Top of Found. Wall = 10'-0" Top of Concrete Floor = 100'-0" Top of Footing = 97'-0" North Side Elevation (Units Facing OBR Only) Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" South Side Elevation Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" Asphalt Shingles over 1/2" OSB Roof Sheathing & 15# Roof Felt Top of Wall = 118'-0" Metal Drip Edge w/ Aluminum Covered 2 Facia & 100% Perforated Soffit System Top of Conc Fdn Wall = 10'-0" Top of Concrete Floor = 100'-0" Top of Footing = 97'-0" '-0" '-0" 15'-0" Metal Siding w/ Matching Trims Over 7/16" Sheathing and Moisture Barrier. Precast Concrete Cap over "Cultured" Stone Veneer Concrete Foundation Wall & Footing MARK Coastal Storage Condo Ottawa Beach Road Holland, MI DATE DESCRIPTION 001 June 22, 2017 Construction Documents for Review 002 July 21, 2017 Construction Documents for Review 00 July, 2017 Issued for PUD Review 004 Sept.25, 2017 Issued for PUD Review (Revision 1) 004 Nov. 22, 2017 Issued for PUD Review (Revision 2) PROJECT NO: COPYRIGHT: c 2016 Gen1 Architectural Group, LLC Rear Elevation Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" SHEET TITLE Elevations A-002

45 Memorandum Date: October 6 th, 2017 To: Ed de Vries Zoning / Code compliance Jeff Pfost Planning Commission From: Chief Gamby RE: Coastal Condo s Gentlemen, on September 21, 2017 I met with Mr. Todd Sneller to discuss the proposed preliminary plans of Coastal Storage Condo s being built on Ottawa Beach Rd. Hydrant According to the 2012 International Fire Code ( ) a fire hydrant would be required within 400 ft. of the building; this requirement has been met with the hydrant across the street. Automatic Sprinklers Not required per 2012 IFC (90.2.9) square footage of building does not meet requirement. Occupancy classified as medium hazard because of fuel storage in boats. Listed below are the things we agreed upon that pertain to the fire code or fire fighters safety. All gas meters to be labeled with unit or suite #. All electric meters to be labeled with unit or suite #. All units or suites labeled above or near service doors. Kno boes and unit or suite keys provided with owners contact information (1 bo per building mounting location TBD by Fire Chief and developer). Attic access provided in each unit or suite. No common attic space between units or suites. Attic all penetrations through the fire wall have to be sealed. Thanks Chief Gamby