Minutes of Algoma Township Planning Commission

Transcription

1 Minutes of Algoma Township Planning Commission A meeting of the Algoma Township Planning Commission was held on the 26th day of August, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. at the Algoma Township Hall, Algoma Avenue, Rockford, Michigan with due notice given as required by law. Present at said meeting were the following members of said Commission: Jack Koetje, Ed Ault, Lyle Squires and Anton Mieras. Absent was Bob Powell, Orren Hippensteel and Mark Doren. Also present was Township Building Inspector, Don Bates, Township Supervisor, Carl Friske, and Township Attorney, H. James Telman. The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jack A Koetje, at 7:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES take up the approval of the minutes of July 29, It was noted by Anton Mieras that on page 11, second paragraph, in reference to "Mr. Allen" should be changed to "Mr. Allen Taylor". After further discussion, it was moved by Ed Ault and seconded by Anton Mieras that the minutes of July 29, 1986 be approved as corrected. There was no discussion on the motion, the motion carried unanimously and was declared adopted. SITE PLAN REVIEW OF EBENSTIN The Planning Commission would take up the review of the site plan submitted by Mr. Ebenstin. Attached hereto is a copy of the site plan reviewed by the Site Plan Review Committee. It was noted that Mr. Ebenstin must have a fence completely around the junk yard and must be at least eight feet in height. The Planning Commission then reviewed the site plan. On review and questioning, it was found that the parcel of property on the far north showing a car lot and a house was actually one parcel of property combined with the rear area going back approximately 330 feet. There were three additional parcels, one being approximately 60 feet in width immediately south of the house and car lot which was used as a store in the front and in the rear, part of the salvage yard. The next parcel immediately to the south of that was a house which was located on the front portion. Then there was a garage which was part of the salvage and junk yard operation and then a junk yard operation on the far back. This parcel of property is

2 approximately 82% feet in width. A third parcel of property being approximately 82 1/2 feet in width is a new parcel of property that had just been purchased by the petitioner. on this parcel of property is a house and is intended that the property approximately some 300 feet back from the road would then be made part of the existing junk yard. In reviewing. it was noted that there was a driveway that serviced both the store and the house immediately to the south of that and then ran back to the garage that was used in conjunction with the junk yard. In review, attorney Telman stated that there appeared to be numerous parcels of property with numerous principle uses that spread over and beyond property lines. He stated that it appeared to him that it would be better to recreate new parcels such that there was some uniformity. He stated that it appeared to him that the front 225 feet of the two parcels immediately south of the house and car lot should be made into a separate parcel. He stated that a third parcel should be created which would consist of the new parcel which is approximately 82 1/8 feet in width; being the southern most parcel: and the other two parcels north of it except the front 225 feet. He also stated that this last parcel of property should have access then to the road on the existing driveway. He also stated that the existing driveway should be completely paved and the unpaved portions thereof should be blacktopped or provided with a concrete surface which would be at least 24 feet in width running back to the existing concrete apron near the garage to the rear. There was then discussion from the petitioners indicating that the paving of this area would be expensive and they were concerned as to whether they would be able to comply. They indicated they felt they would need approximately 2% years. They also stated they wanted to receive permission to conduct a salvage operation on the entire parcel of property. After further discussion; it was moved by Ed Ault and seconded by Lyle Squires that the Planning Commission approve the site plan allowing a junk yard to be placed upon the following described property: The N 225 ft of the S ft of the E % NE % except the E 225 ft thereof

3 conditioned upon there being a well maintained solid fence conforming with all requirements of the zoning ordinance continuously installed and there would be no storage of any materials over and above the height of this fence, further that said fence would be set back from the property lot lines a distance of the minimum yards as required by the zoning ordinance, further conditioned that the petitioners would place on a separate parcel deeded to themselves the above described premises and that there be granted to said parcel an easement for purposes of ingress and egress over, through and across the N 20 ft of the N 82.5 ft of the S 1,419 ft of the E 5 of the NE % and the S 20 ft of the E % NE % except the N 1,173.3 ft and except the 5 1,419 ft all located within Section 24, T9N, Rllw, Algoma Township, Kent County, Michigan. further conditioned that over and across said easement, there would be constructed with a suitable gravel base a 24 foot wide concrete or asphalt driveway leading from the street right of way back to the concrete apron existing upon the subject property and that such drive would be constructed and completed not more than 2% years from the date of approval hereof, conditioned further that the petitioners would create a new parcel of property with a deed conveyed to themselves of the following described premises: The E 225 ft of the N ft of the S 1,476 ft of the E % NE % Section 24, T9N, RllW, Algoma Township, Kent County, Michigan. and that said deeds and easements be recorded with the Kent County Register of Deeds and a copy of the recorded deeds be filed with the building inspector, conditioned further that in the event any terms and conditions hereof be violated, the site plan would be deemed in violation. There was no discussion on the motion, the motion carried unanimously and was declared adopted.

4 BELL FURNITURE SITE PLAN take up the review and approval of the site plan submitted by Bell Furniture. Mr. Mark Thomasek introduced himself and stated he was present representing the petitioners. He then reviewed a site plan with the members of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission discussed the need for providing only one driveway. At the present time, the site plan showed two driveways. It was indicated that for there to be approval; there either had to be a variance or there had to be a combination of the existing driveway on the adjacent parcel for it to be approved. In addition, it was noted that the building did not meet the minimum setback of 80 feet. It was noted that a variance would likewise be needed for approval of that. It was noted also that there was an area that was going to be used for the storage of old stoves and refrigerators and other appliances. It was indicated that the site plan should be amended to show that there would be a solid screening fence adjacent to the building in which this material would be maintained. There was also discussion concerning drainage on the premises. It was noted that there should be an indication as to where drainage was going to be located and that all water would be accumulated and maintained on the site. After further discussion. it was moved by Lyle Squires and seconded by Anton Mieras that the Planning Commission grant approval to the Bell Furniture site plan conditioned upon the site plan being revised and having only one driveway shown or obtaining a variance for the second driveway, conditioned further that a variance would be obtained from meeting the 80 foot setback requirement of the zoning ordinance; conditioned further that an area be shown on the site plan indicating a solid screen fenced in area where all used stoves and refrigerators and other appliances would be stored, further that all uses be in compliance with the approved site plan and the conditions thereof and all other requirements of the zoning ordinance. There was no discussion on the motion. the motion carried unanimously and was declared adopted.

5 SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR JAMES ALTERS take up the approval of the site plan submitted by Mr. James Alters. The chairman stated this was a site plan for a proposed garage. The Planning Commission then reviewed the site plan that had been submitted. Mr. Alters also submitted a letter describing the type of use that he intended to conduct upon the premises dated August 21, 1986, a copy of which jg; attached, and a letter from Mr. Zylstra indicating he had no objection to the driveway dated August 21, 1986, a copy of which is attached. There was also a report from the building inspector concerning Mr. Alters, a copy of which is attached hereto. It was noted that the drive had to be expanded to 24 feet rather than 20 feet. There was also discussion concerning the need for parking spaces. There was a need for a total of 14 parking spaces. There was also a need for a driveway permit which Mr. Alters then submitted and there was an indication that the parking and drives had to be paved. After further discussion, it was moved by Lyle Squires and seconded by Ed Ault that the Planning Commission approve the site plan conditioned upon the site plan being revised such that the drive and parking areas were paved, there would be a total parking area of 14 spaces plus a drive not less than 24 feet in width, further conditioned that the drive would be located at least 20 feet from the side property line and the property conform with the site plan and with all other requirements of the zoning ordinance. There was no discussion on the motion, the motion carried unanimously and was declared adopted. REPORT CONCERNING VARIANCE or LEONARD KWEKEL 52E?«"i I74<.N"D take up the matter concerning Mr. Leonard Kwekel. He stated a letter had been received from the Board of Appeals asking for the Planning Commission to make a report concerning their request. He stated that Mr. Kwekel was asking for a land use variance to allow him to use his property for the storage of trailers, campers, boats and the like. The chairman then asked Mr. Kwekel to make his presentation. Mr. Kwekel introduced himself and stated he wished to use an area approximately 1% acres in size which was located within a valley having a height of approximately 12 feet on one side and 17 feet on the other to store recreational vehicles. He indicated that he thought he could store approximately 35 vehicles on one side and store boats and their trailers on the other side. He stated that he did not feel that this would be

6 evident from the highway or from adjacent property. He stated his total parcel was approximately 17 acres in size. was Mr. Ault then questioned as to what the adjacent property like. Mr. Kwekel stated there was trees on the north of approximately 150 feet in width and on the south side there were approximately 12 acres of woods and a stream. Attorney Telman then reviewed with the Planning Commission the procedure concerning a use variance and noted that the Ordinance required that the Planning Commission to render a report concerning the proposed request. He stated the courts have looked at use variances different from other variances and required basically a showing that the property could not be reasonably used for uses allowed within the district. The Planning Commission then discussed the ability to use the property. It was noted that the property was already being used by the petitioner. He had on the property a drive, his house, a pole building and areas that were fenced in by a three rail fence. Attorney Telman noted that the question of usage of the property should not be based upon the person, but should be based upon the property. Mr. Kwekel stated that if he did not use the property well or if he caused any problems; he would then terminate his usage. The Planning Commission then discussed the possible affect upon other parcels of property. It was noted that Algoma Township had a large amount of land that was rolling and with valleys. Attorney Telman noted that other parcels of property should be treated the same as the parcel of property being owned by Mr. Kwekel. After further discussion. it was moved by Ed Ault and seconded by Lyle Squires that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Appeals that the variance not be granted for the reason that it would set a precedence that the property can be used for uses allowed within the district and the motion passed with three voting in favor and 1 opposed.

7 GENERAL DISCUSSION The chairman then noted the presence of Mr. Len Maas. Mr. Maas indicated that he owned the mobile home park on l3-mile Road near Northland Drive. He stated that he was interested in possibly constructing four 12 unit apartment buildings in front of the mobile home park. There was then discussion by the Planning Commission concerning the parcel of property and the property around it. There was discussion concerning the adjacent industrial area and l3 Mile Road being a high traffic volume road. The Planning Commission indicated to Mr. Maas that he would have to submit an application to the Planning Commission for rezoning. The Planning Commission then discussed the next Planning Commission meeting. After discussion, it was moved by Ed Ault and seconded by Lyle Squires that the next meeting be held on September 23, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. There was no discussion on the motion, the motion carried unanimously and was declared adopted. No further business coming before the Planning Commission: it was moved by Ed Ault and seconded by Anton Mieras that the meeting be adjourned. There was no discussion on the motion: the motion carried unanimously and was declared adopted. Mark Doren Secretary