AGENDA. Park Township Planning Commission Regular Meeting. January 9, :30 p.m.

Transcription

1 AGENDA Park Township Planning Commission Regular Meeting January 9, :30 p.m. (Please turn off or set to silent mode all cellphones and other electronic devices) 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting December 12, New Business: a. Public Hearing i. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Section Prohibition on Marihuana Establishments and Facilities Prohibited Anticipated Action: Pending public comment, provide recommendation to the Park Township Board of Trustees b. Minor Amendment Request i. S-2 Yachts Planned Unit Development 5. Old Business: Anticipated Action: Confirmation of the Zoning Administrator s intent to approve a. Section Condominium Project Approval Anticipated Action: Provide recommendation to the Park Township Board of Trustees b. Tree Preservation Ordinance Samples Anticipated Action: Discussion only. Identify concepts and or regulatory means by which the Planning Commission desires to move forward. 6. Public Comments

2 7. Announcements a. Next meeting date February 13, Adjourn

3 Park Township Planning & Land Use Activity Report January 2019 Executive Summary Pursuant to the Michigan Planning Enabling Act, Act 33 of 2008, as amended, the Park Township Planning Commission (PTPC) was formed to review land use proposals and provide approval, denial, or recommendation to the Park Township Board of Trustees regarding the same; draft and maintain the Park Township Master Plan; conduct revisions to the Park Township Zoning Ordinance and provide recommendation and; conduct review and analysis of other related land use matters as requested by the Park Township Board of Trustees. As a result of the responsibility of the PTPC, the Department of Community Development provides this monthly activity report as a synopsis of the land use planning efforts of the PTPC. Current Land Use Proposals The Reserve on Lake Macatawa UPDATE: Staff met with the developer and their representatives on Friday, January 4, 2019 to improve tree preservation plans, lighting details, public comments, and overall site layout. Submission of the Final PUD Development Plan is expected at the February meeting of the PTPC and will be scheduled for a public hearing. A 46 single-family unit and 20 two-family unit residential development received Preliminary PUD Development Plan direction at the November 14, 2018 PTPC meeting and was permitted to return with a Final PUD Development Plan. Coastal Condominiums NO CHANGE: While the Final PUD Development Plan was anticipated for the December 12, 2018 PTPC meeting, we have not received official submission. A ten (10) commercial storage unit condominium along with four (4) single-family residential condominium unit Planned Unit Development received Preliminary PUD Development Plan direction from the PTPC on September 12, 2018 and was permitted to return with a Final PUD Development Plan. Current Ordinance Reviews Condominium Language

4 Proposed language regulating condominiums in the township is scheduled for further review at the January 9, 2019 meeting of the PTPC. The language has been revised pursuant to the direction of the Planning Commission. Tree Preservation Ordinance Concept The PTPC began discussion concerning tree preservation within the township at their October 10, 2018 meeting. Direction was provided to staff at November 14, 2018 PTPC to begin preparations of sample language for the Planning Commission to consider. The language is anticipated to be presented at the January meeting of the PTPC. Construction Observation Update Approved Land Use Projects Beachwalk Condominiums Ottawa Beach Road The 24-unit residential condominium development has cleared existing trees for the related drive and public utility installations. Upcoming Matters 1200 Ottawa Beach Road Coffee Shop and Residential Use NO CHANGE: Coffee and Craft House is seeking to perform site improvements to an existing structure and parking lot located at 1200 Ottawa Beach Road to operate a 28 seat coffee shop on the main floor and single-family dwelling on the second floor. This project is anticipated to be on the January agenda of the Planning Commission. Timberline Woods Tentative Preliminary Plat NO CHANGE: A proposed single-family residential development consisting of 51 lots in the R-3 Low Density Single-Family Residence Zoning District located on the south side of Riley Street. The proposed tentative preliminary plat remains under staff review for eventual submittal to the PTPC. Itty Bitty Bar Parking Lot NO CHANGE: The Itty Bitty Bar is seeking to construct additional parking to serve their multitenant building located at 1130 Ottawa Beach Road. The proposed parking lot construction is under staff review for eventual submittal to the PTPC.

5 PC December 12, 2018 MINUTES PARK TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION Park Township Hall nd Street Holland, MI Regular Meeting December 12, :30 P.M. DRAFT COPY CALL TO ORDER: Chair Pfost called to order the regular meeting of the Park Township Planning Commission at 6:30 P.M., held in the Township Hall at the Park Township Office. ATTENDANCE: Members Present: Terry DeHaan, Dennis Eade, Rosemary Ervine, Diana Garlinghouse, David Kleinjans, Denise Nestel, Jeff Pfost Staff Present: Emma Posillico, Acting Zoning Administrator; Dan Martin, Legal Counsel; Howard Fink, Manager Chair Pfost welcomed Emma Posillico, acting Zoning Administrator, while Meghann Reynolds is on leave. Greg Ransford is on vacation so she is attending the meeting as Associate Planner. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was suggested to move Public Comment ahead of the business portion of the agenda. Motion by Ervine, supported by Eade, to approve the agenda as amended. Voice Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Several corrections were noted by Garlinghouse, Kleinjans, and Nestel on pages 2, 7, 8 and 9.

6 PC December 12, 2018 Fink requested a correction in the minutes on page 3 regarding his absence from the meeting during the discussion about the Reserve proposal. He recused himself and left the meeting for the discussion period but returned for the remainder of the meeting. Motion by Ervine, supported by DeHaan, to approve the November 14, 2018 Regular Meeting Minutes as amended. Voice Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Motion carried. Chair Pfost opened Public Comment at 6:39 P.M. Ted Vogel said he didn t know the Reserve PUD project was on the November Planning Commission meeting agenda. He expressed concern about the apparent speed of this project, if a final proposal is submitted for review by the Planning Commission in January. He questioned why he didn t get a public notice prior to the November meeting. He stated that he lives across the bay from the proposed development. He asked the Planning Commission to consider the impact of this proposed project with regard to the trees, density, and traffic. One consideration he has that he believes has not yet been considered by the Planning Commission is the potential problems of density, safety, and traffic on the lake and bay. He has property 600 from the center of the lake. He experienced the impact of the last PUD in that area last year for the Villas PUD, which he reminded the Planning Commission was developed by the same developer. Mr. Vogel stated the developer now proposes 800 of lake frontage for the Reserve PUD, but hasn t explained what will be done with the property on the bay, including the number of docks or boat slips. Mr. Vogel stated the residents do not want more density on this narrow part of the lake. He asked how many boat slips will there be in the Reserve PUD? Mr.Vogel believes there will be 86 units all the way back to Division Street. Mr. Vogel stated this is a small bay, so no more than 20 boat slips would be realistic. Mr. Vogel encouraged the Planning Comission to not turn this small bay into Big Bay that is all marinas. Mr. Vogel stated this property has a lot of open area and the condos should be built there, not in the old oak forest and wetlands. He expressed concern that the footprint shows all this existing forest and wetlands will be gone with just a perimeter of trees. He expressed concern about preserving the big trees on the property. It is his opinion that many concerns have not yet been addressed by the Planning Commission. Jeff Meyer is President of Bay Woodlands Association, located to the west of the Reserve PUD across the bay. He raised concerns about the character of the north end of the bay. As he looks at the development to the north he has reservations about the potential increased boating activity. He stated this is a popular spot for kayaking and more leisurely recreation. He asked whether there be a limitation on the number of boats permitted in this proposed development? He suggested that no more than 20 slips should be recommended.

7 PC December 12, 2018 Lisa Cook is also a resident of the community and a member of the Bay Woodlands Association and has serious concerns about the Reserve project. She stated the waterway is her principal concern, as it is a quiet and respectful part of the lake which would be negatively impacted by a marina. She noted that parents teach their children how to water ski in this area and there is yoga on paddle boards on Sunday mornings too. She stated all of this would be lost in her opinion. She asked the Planning Commission to consider the special lifestyle of the area. Pfost closed Public Comment at 6:55 P.M. Pfost said the public notice for the Reserve PUD has not been published yet for the formal application, because there is no public hearing before the preliminary plan, only the final plan of a PUD. Fink added that the PUD application was submitted today. He said the Township will review the application then a notice of public hearing will be mailed out for those living within 300 of the property for the final plan. Martin said the statutory requirement is that notice of the public hearing on the final PUD must be sent to owners and residents who live within 300 of the boundaries of the PUD property. He stated that the legal notice is also published in the paper and posted online. Residents outside of this 300 area can access the notice on the Township s website or in the Sentinel. This satisfies the legal requirement. He noted there is a 15 day notice requirement to publish in the newspaper in advance of the meeting. Fink anticipated the applicant and Ransford (Township Planner) are planning for a January 2019 presentation to the Planning Commission. New Business A Park Township Board of Trustees Strategic Planning Meeting Presentation from Commissioner Nestel Nestel reported the Township Board charged her to return to the Planning Commission with information regarding strategy and goals concerning land use. The Board wants to hold a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals to discuss responsibilities in order to forward the Board s objectives. Two topics are urgent: the NHP areas and upcoming ordinance changes. The Board would like to have more information regarding revisions for ordinances and what those changes are. The Board anticipates government land use decisions, particularly regarding affordable housing. The Board asked the Planning Commission to identify what problems may exist in the ordinances in addition to any changes that are pertinent to land use.

8 PC December 12, 2018 Pfost said he and Jerry Hunsberger, Township Supervisor, and Howard Fink, Manager, had a meeting regarding training and planning components. He asked Nestel if the Master Plan is in question regarding land use. Nestel said they are trying to anticipate short term rentals and other issues, such as affordable housing. Concerns are only for variances in the Master Plan. Kleinjans asked if there are requirements for a certain amount of this type of housing should be affordable. Nestel said yes and that will be discussed at a later date. DeHaan asked if the Board wants to expedite a plan on the NHP areas and what is the timeline. He noted the active agenda the Planning Commission has for the immediate future. Nestel said the Board wants to accelerate a plan for the NHP areas. Pfost said the Planning Commission will continue to work with the agenda item in the future and meet our responsibilities including the requests of the Township Board. He noted NHP discussions should include input from the owners of properties in those areas, but many of them are gone for the winter months. Pfost asked the Planning Commission to share their concerns about the tree ordinance. Nestel said the idea of a tree ordinance won t be easy. The Planning Commission discussed this in general terms last month but we need to target some issues specifically. Eade confirmed a Senate bill has been introduced to prohibit a municipality from infringing on property owners rights to remove trees from their property. Nestel said there is pushback on this Senate bill with a strong lobby. DeHaan said it should be the rule that it is my property and I can do what I want to do. We need to figure out how to identify the preservation areas and determine some control. Ervine said it will be difficult to monitor the tree preservation. We have concerns about new development and maintaining the tree canopy that is already in several areas of the Township. DeHaan asked if this can be controlled in a PUD. Nestel said it can be controlled.

9 PC December 12, 2018 Kleinjans suggested that the Township should exercise some control over tree removal in new development of subdivisions. Garlinghouse said we should include in our vision statement support for tree preservation. Pfost concurred the members of the Planning Commission are receptive to the Township Board s request and will move forward as soon as possible. B - Public Hearings i. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments 1) Section Accessory Uses, Poultry Language 2) Section Condominium Project Approval Posillico noted that Ransford reviewed the Planning Commission s recommendations for changes in Accessory Uses and Poultry Language and made the necessary corrections, which are represented in the new draft. She noted that suggested modifications for the Condominium Project language have also been made. The Planning Commission agreed to review the proposed text amendments as separate issues, beginning with Section PUBLIC COMMENT Pfost opened Public Comment at 7:25 P.M. Jan Koster asked about the amendments regarding poultry. She suggested that the amendments include a grandfather clause for those residents who already have poultry. Pfost closed Public Comment at 7:27 P.M. Pfost reminded the Planning Commission that a recommendation will go to the Township Board on this language. Pfost asked Martin if those residents who already have poultry are covered by this amendment. Martin said residents who have poultry would be allowed to continue to keep their poultry as a nonconforming use if their keeping of poultry was already legally established prior to the adoption of any ordinance that prohibited or regulated poutlry. He stated if it were established after or contrary to the ordinance it would be an illegal use. He noted nonconforming use is the same as grandfathered use.

10 PC December 12, 2018 Fink noted in this case there would be less of a grandfathered situation in a practical sense. The previous ordinance stated that a property owner who had poultry had to obtain a permit through the Township Zoning Office. If that did not happen the Township wouldn t penalize the resident, however, the resident would have to comply with the ordinance moving forward. Martin added if someone had kept poultry before 1974 when the zoning ordinance was originally adpted, it would be considered a nonconforming use. Nestel moved, supported by Eade, to recommend approval of Section to the Park Township Board of Trustees. Voice Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Motion approved. Regarding the proposed changes to Section , Condominium Project Approval, Nestel expressed serious concerns. She stated that in this case, we have ordinances we would put in place to help the developer. She stated that this situation was brought forward for the convenience of a specific developer. She questioned if the Planner can accommodate a developer for a site condo situation or state that a proposed development is ugly. Kleinjans said he understood the Township is protecting its interests with this proposed site condo language, not seeking to help any particular developer. Garlinghouse said she didn t think we are proposing the site condo ordinance to aid the developer. Nestel disagreed and has reservations to make a recommendation to the Township Board for something that was promoted for a specific project. She stated it s not good policy to create ordinances that are already in place. Martin provided background for this situation. He reminded the Planning Commission that a developer presented a site condo plan that met the zoning ordinance requirements regarding proposed setbacks, road frontage, density, and unit/lot sizes. Martin stated that there is nothing in the zoning ordinance that says he couldn t do that proposed site condo development and move forward to obtain building permits, without any review or oversight by the Planning Commission. He said the Township can t legally force a developer to use the PUD process for site condos as the ordinance is written. Martin noted that a developer who wants to create a subdivision that complies with the zoning ordinance is not required to use the PUD process, but the Planning Commission still reviews the plat of the subdivision as part of the subdivision platting process, and therefore has some review, input, and control. Martin stated that this site condo ordinance creates a process for a site plan review by the Planning Commission consistent with the subdivision ordinance, even if the developer does not want to or need to do

11 PC December 12, 2018 a PUD. He recommends there be a provision that would not apply to a site condo approved by the Township as a PUD, as the Planning Commission and Board would be revieing the site plan for the PUD. This site condo ordinance would require a separation distance of 80 between the center of one and the center of another condo unit. If we had a provision that exempted PUDs from requirements of the site condos to encourage site condos to use PUDs to get that benefit that would close this loophole. Our ordinance allows homes to be built on a lot or a parcel. A site condo unit is not a lot but it has a tax parcel ID, and is therefore a parcel. Pfost asked if there is no PUD exclusion in the proposed ordinance language. Martin said we could add that provision for those who want to build site condos. This particular situation is an outlier, in that the developer did not want to do a PUD. The developer could build the proposed development without applying for a PUD and without any Planning Commission review or oversight, so we are adopting the ordinance to address such an outlier. Pfost asked if it was necessary to hold another public hearing on exclusionary language. Martin said it would not be required, but it would be advisable to hold a public hearing on that portion and then recommend the ordinance change to the Township Board. Nestel asked if the Township has a subdivision law and could it be included. Martin said the Township does have a land division/subdivision ordinance, and explained the platting process for subdivision. The site condo was developed to circumvent the platting process. There are two points - the first is the ownership issue (whether the individual properties will be sold as a land division/subdivision lot, or as a condo/site condo unit), and the second is the land use regulation or zoning issue (whether it meets the lot size, road frontage, and setbacks). The purpose of the proposed site condo ordinance language is to regulate site condos, including those that will generally meet the zoning ordinance requirements; because the Attorney General has issued an opinion that site condos are not land divisions or subdivisions, the subdivision ordinance doesn t regulate site condos, we don t have anything regulating site condos. Historically, site condos have gone to PUDs so we have had control, but if someone meets the requirement of the zoning ordinance and doesn t need a PUD we lose that oversight and control. The purpose of the proposed site condo language is to have control over site plan review with site condos and treat them similarly to subdivisions. He continued by explaining that site condos and subdivisions are different in the transfer of ownership of property. If a land division meets the zoning ordinance requirements, it does not need Planning Commission approval. A subdivision has to have preliminary and final plat review, but an actual land division doesn t. It s the same with the site condo. If a proposed site condo meets the zoning ordinance, requirements, the Planning Commission won t review it, without an ordinance like the proposed site condo ordinance. This specific project met our zoning ordinance requirements, so there was not need to apply for a PUD. The developer did

12 PC December 12, 2018 not want a platted subdivision, but rather a site condo; since it was not a platted subdivision or a PUD, the Planning Commission wouldn t review it as an agenda item. Garlinghouse observed we are protecting ourselves for the future. Martin noted adding an exemption for site condos approved as a PUD makes our intent very clear. It encourages site condos to go through the PUD process. Ervine moved, supported by Kleinjans, to recommend review of this amendment by the Planner and include the PUD language for a revised amendment and public hearing in January. Roll Call Vote: Garlinghouse, aye; Kleinjans, aye; Pfost, aye; DeHaan, aye; Eade, aye, Nestel, aye. Ayes 7, Nays 0. Motion approved. c. Point West I PUD Plan: Fink introduced a letter from Nederveld regarding the Hillside Units of the Point West I PUD in Macatawa Park. The letter requests to reduce the parking provided in the said area, which can be a minor PUD amendment that the Zoning Administrator administratively approves. Fink said the staff concurs this is a minor request, and asked the Planning Commission to review if this is a minor or major amendment. Posillico said the request was received from Nederveld regarding the Point West PUD. Within the Hillside G area what was approved in 2011 was an 11 unit multi-family structure, providing 2 parking spaces per unit. Since then plans have been submitted to build on that property and to reduce the number of residential units from 11 to 4 (2 duplexes). This would be 2 spaces per unit totaling 8 parking spaces, which is a reduction in parking for that area. The total parking ratio for the PUD as a whole will not be reduced though, because the boat slip area maintains 80 parking spaces that were approved in The overall density of the dwelling units in the PUD will be reduced. They anticipate no more than 26 dwelling units, rather than the 40 originally approved. With the reduction in units in the Hillside area, the parking ratio for the entire PUD will be 4 spaces per unit now. Staff has reviewed the request and believes it is a minor amendment. DeHaan asked if there is a change in building units. Martin said the reduction in size of the building units would fit the definition of minor amendments in a PUD. The ordinance said the internal rearrangement of parking that does not affect the number of parking spaces is also a minor amendment to a PUD. This request alters the overall number of spaces, but does not alter the overall parking ratio of spaces to units

13 PC December 12, 2018 within the development. Because the density of the dwelling units is decreased so is the parking. They are reducing the overall number of parking spaces in the Hillside area. Pfost said when we discussed this at the time of the original PUD approval, the concern was the total density of units in this PUD. When we approved the plan the developer said the maximum density was too dense. The concept of density is that there were too many people planned for this development. Will this change in parking arrangement affect the density? Garlinghouse says it s an improvement regarding the density. Kleinjans agreed but asked if the developer can return in the future for permission to add more units and more parking. Martin said this locks the developer in. If the developer wants to increase the density from this minor amendment, it would be considered a major amendment to the PUD and the developer would have to return to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission members agreed to support it as a minor amendment. Ervine moved, supported by Kleinjans, to approve the minor amendment for the Point West I PUD. Voice Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. B. ii. Chapter 18 Land Divisions and Subdivisions Text Amendment 1) Section Definitions 2) Section 18-61(2) Preliminary plat, procedures 3) Section Final plats 4) Section 18-83(4) Streets and roads, stub streets 5) Section Intersections 6) Section Pedestrian ways 7) Section Easements 8) Section Blocks 9) Section Lots 10) Section Planting strips and reserve strips 11) Section Public sites and open spaces 12) Section Large scale developments 13) Section (10)b Required improvements, Sidewalks and crosswalks 14) Section (13) Required improvements, Street trees

14 PC December 12, ) Section Guarantee of completion of improvements required by the Township 16) Section Procedures Posillico noted that the requested minor changes were made (most were grammatical and format corrections) and these amendments are now ready for Planning Commission approval. PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Pfost opened Public Comment at 8:00 P.M. There was no comment. Chair Pfost closed Public Comment at 8:00 P.M. Kleinjans noted in #13 the term crosswalk walkway. He suggested walkway be deleted. He also pointed out in #14 it states both the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission should recommend the waiver. All agreed it should be the Planning Commission only. Kleinjans moved, supported by Ervine, to recommend approval of these amendments with the suggested corrections to the Park Township Board of Trustees. DeHaan noted in #10 the term reserve strips. He asked for a definition. PC December 12, 2018 Martin explained it s similar to what can be referred to as a spite strip or devil s strip. If you have property you might sell off a piece of your property but keep one foot adjacent to the road frontage so no one has access to the road. The developer will maintain one foot along the roadway and require each lot to get an easement so they can access the road. The proposed language changes the requirement for a strip of property to be owned by the Township, to being owned by the County Road Commission, so they have the ability to extend the road in the future. Simply put, it is a piece of property separating the owner from the roadway. Voice Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Motion carried. C. Proposed 2019 Meeting Dates for Planning Commission Eade moved, supported by Garlinghouse, to adopt the 2019 Meeting Dates Calendar. Voice Vote:

15 PC December 12, 2018 Ayes 7, Nays 0. Motion approved. Old Business A Holland Charter Township Master Plan Amendment Posillico said this has no impact on Park Township no correspondence or action is necessary according to Ransford. ANNOUNCEMENTS The next meeting date is January 9, ADJOURNMENT Kleinjans moved, supported by Ervine, to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 8:27 P.M. Voice Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Judith R. Hemwall Recording Secretary December 14, 2018 Approved:

16 MEMORANDUM To: Park Township Planning Commission From: Gregory L. Ransford, MPA Date: January 3, 2019 Re: Proposed Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance to Prohibit Marihuana Establishments and Facilities Fresh Coast Planning 950 Taylor Avenue, Ste 200 Grand Haven, MI Gregory L. Ransford, MPA Emma M. Posillico, AICP Brian Werschem Meghann Reynolds Pursuant to the direction of the Park Township Board of Trustees, attached is a Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance to amend Section of the Park Township Zoning Ordinance (PTZO) to prohibit Marihuana Establishments and Facilities as defined in the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act, which was recently passed by Michigan voters, and the Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act, which was previously adopted by the State, respectively. As a result of the voter approved marihuana proposal, municipalities in the State must opt out of allowing these types of facilities. Otherwise, they would be permitted to operate within your borders. In order to opt-out, the attached amendment to the PTZO must be adopted. The proposed Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance has been scheduled for a public hearing at your January 9, 2019 meeting. If you have any questions, please let us know. GLR Planner cc: Attachment Howard Fink, Manager

17 PARK TOWNSHIP COUNTY OF OTTAWA, MICHIGAN At a regular meeting of the Township Board for the Township of Park, Ottawa County, Michigan, held in the Park Township Hall, nd Avenue, on the day of, 2019 at 6:30 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Members: Members: The following ordinance was offered for adoption by and supported by. ORDINANCE NO. ZO AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 38, SECTION OF THE PARK TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE THE TOWNSHIP OF PARK ORDAINS: Section 1. Amendment of Chapter 38, Section of Zoning Ordinance. That Chapter 38, Section of the Park Township Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as follows: Sec Prohibition on Marihuana Establishments and Facilities Prohibited. (a) Pursuant to Section 6 of the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (Michigan Initiated Law 1 of 2018), as amended, marihuana establishments are prohibited with the boundaries of the township. (b) Marihuana facilities are prohibited within the boundaries of the township. As used in this section, marihuana establishment(s) means that term as defined in the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act, 2018 IL _, as amended, and marihuana facility(ies) means that term as defined in the Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act, 2016 PA 281, as amended. SECTION 2. Severability The various parts, sections, and clauses of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. If any part, sentence, paragraph, section, or clause of this Ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Ordinance will not be affected thereby, and shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. Effective Date.

18 This Ordinance amending the Park Township Code of Ordinances, Chapter 38 Zoning Ordinance, shall take effect upon the expiration of seven (7) days after the date of publication of the Ordinance or a summary of its provisions in a local newspaper of general circulation in accordance with the law, provided that the effective date shall be extended as necessary to comply with the requirements of Section 402 of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, 2006 PA 110, as amended (MCL ). The vote in favor of this Ordinance was: YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT/ABSTAIN: ORDINANCE DECLARED ADOPTED CERTIFICATION STATE OF MICHIGAN ) ) ss. COUNTY OF OTTAWA ) I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of an ordinance adopted by the Township Board of the Township of Park at a regular meeting held on the date first stated above, and I further certify that the public notice of such meeting was given as provided by law. Skip Keeter, Township Clerk

19 Park Township 52 S. 152 nd Avenue, Holland, Michigan Phone (616) Fax: (616) Website: December 31, 2018 Mr. Jeff Pfost Chair, Planning Commission Park Township nd Avenue Holland, MI Re: S-2 Yachts Planned Unit Development Dear Mr. Pfost, The following is a summary to allow a minor amendment to the S-2 Yachts Planned Unit Development, located at 2077 Lakeway Drive, Holland, MI 49423, parcel number The property owner of these lands is also the property owner of the parcel immediately to the east, parcel number The property owner is currently in the process of constructing a new residence on the parcel to the east, and received a variance in 2018 for the rear yard setback of the proposed structure being within the required fifty feet. At the time of the variance request, the proposed structure was located ten feet from the western property line and did not require a side yard variance. The foundation has since been poured for the residence, and was mistakenly poured too close to the western property line. A variance was requested from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) at their December 17, 2018, meeting for the western side yard setback. However, the ZBA found that the variance request was self-created, and did not meet the standards necessary to authorize a dimensional variance. At the ZBA meeting, it was proposed that the applicant acquire the necessary property from the parcel to the west in order to meet the required side yard setback of 10 feet. The Board tabled the variance request until such time that a property acquisition could be researched. As such, I researched the property to the west and determined that it is a part of the S-2 Yachts Planned Unit Development, originally approved in 1996 and since amended in The applicant is proposing to complete a boundary line adjustment of one (1) foot in order to increase the west side yard setback of the residential structure being constructed on the adjacent parcel to the east. According to Section (b) (in part) of the Park Township Zoning Ordinance,

20 A minor change to a planned unit development that was given either preliminary or final PUD development plan approval prior to May 22, 2017, may be approved by the Zoning Administrator according to the requirements of Section Section (1)h. states (in part), A minor change may be approved by the Zoning Administrator, who shall notify the Planning Commission of the minor change and shall indicate that such change does not substantially change the basic design or alter the conditions required for the PUD. The following items shall be considered as minor changes: (h.) Other similar changes of a minor nature proposed to be made to the configuration, design, layout or topography of the site plan which are deemed by the Zoning Administrator to be not material or significant in relation to the entire site and which the Zoning Administrator determines would not have any significant adverse effect on adjacent or nearby lands or the public health, safety and welfare. The structure located at 2077 Lakeway Drive is approximately 30 feet from the eastern side property line. Adjusting this setback approximate one (1) foot is a minor change to the layout of the site plan, which is not significant in relation to the entire site, and will not have a significant adverse effect on present or future users. It is my intention that this proposed modification is a minor change to the S-2 Yachts Planned Unit Development, and intend to approve the boundary line adjustment as such, assuming the Planning Commission has no objections. I appreciate your consideration of this matter. Respectfully, Emma Posillico Interim Zoning Administrator Phone: zoning@parktownship.org

21

22

23

24 MEMORANDUM To: Park Township Planning Commission From: Gregory L. Ransford, MPA Date: January 3, 2019 Re: Revision to Proposed Section Condominium Project Approval Fresh Coast Planning 950 Taylor Avenue, Ste 200 Grand Haven, MI Gregory L. Ransford, MPA Emma M. Posillico, AICP Brian Werschem Meghann Reynolds Pursuant to your recent direction, attached is a revised Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance regarding Section Condominium Project Approval to amend the Park Township Zoning Ordinance. Your direction included the following: 1. Relocate the quotation mark at the end of Survey in Section (e) 2. Capitalize State and County throughout the document 3. Include language indicating that site condominiums submitted as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall be processed pursuant to the PUD provisions as one application We believe your direction has been incorporated accordingly. For your convenience, the revision regarding number three (3) above is located within Section (c) of the attached amendment ordinance. Additionally, we have included a comparison document showing the changes from the previous text. The proposed Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance has been scheduled for your discussion at your January 9, 2019 meeting. If you have any questions, please let us know. GLR Planner cc: Attachment Howard Fink, Manager

25 ORDINANCE NO ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE TO ADD SECTION CONDOMINIUM PROJECT APPROVAL TO THE PARK TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE THE TOWNSHIP OF PARK, COUNTY OF OTTAWA, AND STATE OF MICHIGAN ORDAINS: Section 1. Condominium Project Approval. Section of the Zoning Ordinance shall be added to state in its entirety as follows. Sec Condominium Project Approval. Pursuant to authority conferred by Section 141 of the Condominium Act, Act 59 of 1978, (MCL et. seq.; MCL ) as amended, all condominium subdivision plans shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for Township approval. In determining whether to approve a condominium subdivision plan, the Planning Commission and Township Board shall consult with the Zoning Administrator, Township Planner, Township Attorney, and Township Engineer regarding the adequacy of the master deed, deed restrictions, utility systems and streets, subdivision layout and design, and compliance with all requirements of the Condominium Act. For purposes of interpreting and applying this Section , the words and phrases used shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in sections 3 through 10 of the Condominium Act (MCL MCL ). (a) Initial Information. Concurrently with notice required to be given to the Township pursuant to Section 71 of the Condominium Act (MCL ), a person intending to develop a condominium project shall provide the following information with respect to the project: (1) The name, mailing address, electronic mail address, and telephone number of: a. All persons with an ownership interest in the land on which the condominium project will be located together with a description of the nature of each person's interest (for example, fee owner, optionee, or land contract vendee). b. All engineers, attorneys, architects or registered land surveyors associated with the project. c. The developer of the condominium project. (2) The legal description of the land on which the condominium project will be developed together with appropriate tax identification numbers.

26 (3) The acreage content of the land on which the condominium project will be developed. (4) The purpose of the condominium project (for example, residential, commercial, industrial, etc.). (5) The number of condominium units to be developed as part of the condominium project. (6) Whether or not a community water system is contemplated. (7) Whether or not a community septic system is contemplated. (b) Information to be Kept Current. All information required by this Section shall be furnished to the Zoning Administrator and shall be kept current and updated until such time as a Certificate of Compliance pursuant to Section has been issued. (c) Site Plans - New Projects, Master Deed, and Engineering and Inspections. Prior to recording the Master Deed as required by Section 72 of the Condominium Act (MCL ), the condominium project shall undergo site plan review and approval pursuant to Article II, Division 3 of this Ordinance by the Planning Commission, unless the condominium project is proposed as a planned unit development, in which case the review and approval of the planned unit development condominium project shall be subject to Article III, Division 8 of this Ordinance. The Township Board may approve a condominium project in any location within Park Township provided the condominium project meets the provisions of Section In addition, the Township shall require appropriate engineering plans and inspections prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Compliance. (d) Site Plans - Expandable or Convertible Projects. Prior to expansion or conversion of a condominium project to additional land, the new phase of the condominium project shall be subject to site plan review and approval pursuant to Article II, Division 3 of this Ordinance by the Planning Commission. The Township Board may approve an expansion or conversion provided the condominium project meets the provisions of Section (e) Master Deed, Restrictive Covenants and "As Built Survey to be Furnished. The developer shall furnish the Zoning Administrator with the following: One (1) copy of the recorded Master Deed and one (1) copy of all restrictive covenants. In the event of any conflict between the restrictive covenants, the

27 approved plan, and this Ordinance, the approved plan and this Ordinance shall control. Two (2) copies of an "as built survey shall also be provided. The "as built survey" shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator for compliance with all applicable Township Ordinances. (f) Compliance with Federal, State and Local Law. All condominium projects shall comply with Federal and State Statutes and local ordinances. (g) State and County Approval. The developer shall establish that appropriate State and County approvals have been received with regard to the fresh water system for the proposed condominium project and with regard to the waste water disposal system for the proposed condominium project. (h) Easements for Utilities. The condominium subdivision plan shall include all necessary easements granted to Park Township, or Ottawa County if appropriate, for the purposes of constructing, operating, inspecting, maintaining, repairing, altering, replacing, and/or removing pipelines, mains, conduits and other installations of a similar character (hereinafter collectively called "public structures") for the purpose of providing public utilities, including conveyance of sewage, water and storm water run-off across, through and under the property subject to said easement, and excavating and refilling ditches and trenches necessary for the location of the public structures. (i) Condominium Plan - Required Content. All condominium subdivision plans shall include the information required by Section 66 of the Condominium Act and the following: (1) A survey plan of the condominium subdivision. (2) A floodplain plan, when appropriate. (3) A site plan showing the location, size, shape, area and width of all condominium units. (4) A utility plan showing all sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer lines and easements granted to the Township for installation, repair and maintenance of all utilities. (5) A street construction, paving, and maintenance plan for all private streets within the proposed condominium subdivision.

28 (6) A storm drainage and stormwater management plan, including all lines, swales, drains, basins, and other facilities. (j) Relocation of Boundaries. The relocation of boundaries, as described in Section 48 of the Condominium Act, shall conform to all setback requirements of this Ordinance for the district in which the condominium project is located, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. These requirements shall be made part of the bylaws and recorded as part of the Master Deed. (k) Subdivision of Condominium Units. All subdivisions of individual condominium units shall conform to the requirements of this Ordinance for minimum lot width, lot area, and the building setback requirements, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. These requirements shall be made part of the bylaws and recorded as part of the Master Deed. (l) Manufactured Housing Condominium Project. Manufactured Housing condominium projects shall conform to all requirements of this Ordinance and shall be located only in a Planned Unit Development. (m) Site Condominium Projects. All Condominium projects that consist in whole or in part of condominium units which are building sites, mobile home sites, or recreational sites shall provide in the condominium plan a building envelope which complies with the setback, area and width requirements of the applicable zoning district and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. (n) Single Family Detached Condominiums. Single family detached condominium units shall be subject to all requirements and standards of the applicable residential district regulations including minimum floor area requirements. There shall be maintained a minimum distance of eighty (80) feet from the center of one (1) residential dwelling unit to the center of another residential dwelling unit. This eighty (80) foot requirement shall be computed along the front building line. In addition, building envelopes shall be depicted on the site plan to ensure that the minimum area requirements can be met. (o) Streets and Roads and Sidewalks. (1) All streets and roads in a site condominium project shall, at a minimum, conform to the standards and specifications promulgated by the Ottawa

29 County Road Commission, or private roads built to Section of this Ordinance. (2) The developer shall install sidewalks, designed and installed to Ottawa County Road Commission standards, along the development side of all public streets on which the development has frontage if the public street has a bituminous hard surface or if the developer is proposing to hard surface the public street on which the development has frontage. In cases where a sidewalk, or portion of a sidewalk, is outside of the public street right-of-way, a public easement for sidewalk purposes is required. (3) The developer shall install internal sidewalks according to the requirements of Chapter 18 Land Divisions and Subdivisions Ordinance, as amended. (p) Paved Public Streets. The land for which a condominium project is proposed under this Ordinance shall have frontage on and abut a paved public street for the entire width of the parcel being proposed for the condominium project. If such land is a corner lot each public street abutting the land must be paved as noted herein. If the land does not have such paved public street frontage, the developer of the condominium project may make such improvements as are necessary to comply with the paved public street frontage requirement of Section (p) above, subject to the approval of the Ottawa County Road Commission. If a parcel has frontage on only one (1) public street such improvements shall be extended from an existing paved public street to the farthest lot line of the parcel containing the proposed condominium project. If the parcel is a corner lot only one (1) of the street frontages must be paved as extended from an existing paved public street to the farthest lot line of the parcel containing the proposed condominium project. This street shall be considered the primary street frontage for the condominium project. In order to comply with the paved public street frontage requirement of Section (p) above, the remaining street frontage (the secondary street frontage) for the condominium project must be paved at such time that an entrance to the condominium project is provided onto the secondary street frontage. This paving shall be extended from the paved primary street frontage to the condominium project entrance on the secondary street. (q) Public Water and Sanitary Sewer Public water and sanitary sewer service shall be provided to all condominium projects according to the requirements of Chapter 18 Land Divisions and Subdivisions

30 Ordinance, as amended. (r) Street Lights and Street Trees The developer shall install street lights and street tress according to the requirements of Chapter 18 Land Divisions and Subdivisions Ordinance, as amended. (s) Public Hearing Prior to making a recommendation to the Township Board, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the condominium plan. Public notice shall be provided as required by the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, Public Act 110 of 2006, as amended. Section 2. Severability. This Ordinance and its various parts are hereby declared to be severable. If any portion of this Ordinance is declared to be invalid such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This amendment to the Park Township Zoning Ordinance was approved and adopted by the Township Board of Park Township, Ottawa County, Michigan on, 2019, after a public hearing as required pursuant to Michigan Act 110 of 2006, as amended. This Ordinance shall be effective on, 2019, which date is the eighth day after publication of the Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance in the as required by Section 401 of Act 110, as amended. However, this effective date shall be extended as necessary to comply with the requirements of Section 402 of Act 110, as amended. Gerald Hunsburger Township Supervisor Skip Keeter Township Clerk