MINUTES PARK TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION Park Township Hall 52 152 nd St. Holland, MI 49418 Regular Meeting March 17, 2015 6:30 P.M. DRAFT COPY CALL TO ORDER: Chair Pfost called the regular meeting of the Park Township Planning Commission (PC) to order at 6:30 P.M. ATTENDANCE: Present: Jeff Pfost, Nicki Arendshorst, Eric DeBoer, Linda Dykert, Dennis Eade, Denise Nestel, Tom VanderKolk Staff: Andy Bowman, Staff Planner, Ed devries, Zoning Administrator Chair Pfost welcomed two new members to the Planning Commission: Eric DeBoer and Denise Nestel. Pfost noted two changes to the agenda. The Vogelzang request will be moved to the top of the agenda, followed by the Ortman request. Also, Denise Nestel has asked to comment on her review of the Master Plan process in her effort to prepare for her new role on the Planning Commission. Pfost added that given the addition of the two new members to the Planning Commission and to give them time to review the Master Plan process in order to move forward, the ongoing discussion of the Master Plan is postponed until the April meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Motion by Eade, supported by Vanderkolk, to approve the agenda as amended. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Dykert requested several changes to her remarks in the February 17 meeting minutes. The changes include: 1
1 p. 6, second paragraph from the bottom of the page We aren t looking to be professional planners should replace the statement We aren t looking for great planning expertise in this. 2 p. 8, fourth paragraph She wanted all nonconforming uses in the Township to be added to the third paragraph. 3 p. 9, 5 th paragraph Delete all on the Planning Commission is in agreement on this and replace with We as a Planning Commission were in agreement and voted to approve it. 4 p.11, fourth paragraph from the bottom of the page Add to time reference about six months ago when the meeting was held at the Fire Station. Arendshorst asked for a correction on page 9, 4 th paragraph. She intended to say she did not understand Bowman s wording. She would like to have it rewritten. Pfost suggested an addition to on page 6, paragraph 6: Add He wanted to be sure there was a quorum and someone could chair the meeting in the event of a conflict or recusal on the part of the chair. Motion by Vanderkolk, supported by Dykert, to approve the February 17, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes as corrected. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS: A. John Vogelzang - Special Use request to enlarge a nonconforming use of a structure by a second floor addition over the garage at 1871 South Shore Drive. *Public Hearing. Notice was published in the Holland Sentinel Monday, March 2 and mailed on Friday, February 27, 2015 Bowman introduced the item. John Vogelzang is applying to the Planning Commission for an expansion of a nonconforming four-family attached condominium unit. This would not be conforming today but according to staff this unit has been in the Township for a long time. There are special rules for expansion for this kind of use. The address is 1871 South Shore Dr., Holland, MI, (parcel no.70-15-34-424-002). The parcel includes just over one half acre (0.66) and is approximately 103 feet wide on the north side (water side) and 148.5 feet wide along South Shore Dr. The property is currently zoned R-3 Low Density One Family Residence District. Background: The proposed building addition would be an expansion of a nonconforming 4-unit condominium use (estimated by staff research to date back to sometime prior to 1975). As a nonconforming use, it cannot be expanded without Planning Commission review and approval. Section 38-632(b) of the Park Township Zoning Ordinance (PTZO) permits such expansions of a nonconforming use provided it meets all other site and layout requirements of the zoning ordinance and that it not be expanded over 50% of the original nonconforming size or coverage of use. Further, the Planning Commission is required to consider the following standards in its review of this request. Since the extent of the proposed use has been determined by staff to be less than 50% of the original nonconforming size, and with the additions being proposed as a second story addition 2
to the existing attached garage which meets current setbacks, then the Planning Commission must review the standards before deciding on this request. Bowman noted the two standards that the Planning Commission should review regarding this request are published in the Staff Memo. Public Hearing: Chair Pfost opened the Public Hearing at 6:40 P.M. Mrs. William DeVries said she has lived in unit 3 of the condominium development since 1986. Few upgrades have been made in the time she has lived there. This improvement would be an asset to the property. All owners of the units have voted to approve the project. Improvement involves replacement of windows which are original and very old. This addition will not alter the footprint. Only existing space will be affected. The view from the lake or the street will not be affected. The appearance of the project will be enhanced and will improve the duration of the structure. Carl Stanek, representative for the applicant, is in agreement with Mrs. DeVries comments. The building structure will be improved. The roof extension above the deck will improve the drainage problem over the garage. He had photos to share if the Planning Commission wishes to look at them. Arendshorst asked if the windows are to be replaced in only in the Vogelzang unit. Stanek said the windows are considered common area elements and apply to all the units. Pfost closed the Public Hearing at 6:49 P.M. Pfost reviewed the two standards the Planning Commission should consider: a. Whether the extension or enlargement will substantially extend the probable duration of such nonconforming use. b. Whether the extension or enlargement will interfere with the use of other properties in the surrounding neighborhood for the uses for which they have been zoned or with the use of such other properties in compliance with the provisions of this article. Pfost asked if any of the Commissioners had concerns or questions with regard to the view shed and/or the nonconforming use. No one had any concerns. Bowman explained it is more about whether this expansion will further promote this kind of use any longer than it would otherwise. Arendshorst asked what the nonconforming issue was. Bowman said it referred to the four unit condominium. 3
devries said when he received the application he could not find any record regarding such a dwelling in the middle of a single family residential area. He found a condominium document registered with the State in 1974. This condominium existed before the current ordinances were established; therefore, it was there before the ordinances so it is allowed to continue as a lawful nonconforming use. Nestel asked Bowman for clarification on the nonconforming use and the lifetime of the building. Bowman said it is not necessarily related to the building, rather it is the nonconforming use that is the issue in this situation. Dykert said from a planning perspective she supported the request. Arendshorst moved, supported by Nestel, to approve the request since it meets the standards. A. Robert Ortman Special Use request for a mixed use commercial building containing retail business or service establishment space together with storage units at the northeast corner of S. 160 th and Woodlawn Avenues. Bowman introduced the item. Robert Ortman submitted a request for a Special Land Use in December of 2014 to allow the operation of a self-storage unit business as a similar retail business or service establishment to other uses provided in the C-1 Neighborhood Business District under Section 38-423(29) of the Park Township Zoning Ordinance. The site is located at the corner of 160th Ave. and Woodlawn Ave., Holland, MI 49423 (parcel no. 70-15-35-321-011). The applicant has indicated that the storage use will be for boats, recreational vehicles, etc. Section 38-423 of the Park Township Zoning Ordinance does not specifically allow for storage uses, rental or otherwise, in the C-1 Neighborhood Business District. Under item 29 in the list of permitted uses, however, a property owner can request a special use consideration for other similar retail business or service establishments. This means that the use would be found similar to other uses permitted uses in the zoning district and generally meet the purpose of the zoning district. Since all uses in the C-1 Neighborhood Business District require a site plan to be reviewed and approved, if this use is granted as a similar use to other uses in the C-1 Neighborhood Business District, it will require a site plan review. The applicant has submitted several unscaled elevation depictions and site sketches none of which qualified for formal site plan review. The applicant has now submitted a more formal site plan which will allow for more detailed review. Bowman explained that what the Planning Commission must decide is whether this use is a legitimate retail business use for a Neighborhood Business District C-1 use. The reason this request was presented to the Planning Commission because the self-storage unit purpose was not listed as a use for this zoning district. Additional consideration is what the site plan looks like for this particular use. 4
Pfost noted the parking spaces at this location are a concern because it is a small lot. We need to look at this since the applicant earlier indicated yoga classes would be held at this location as an ancillary use. We need to consider what impact this would have on the parking space. Nestel concurred parking spaces could be a problem. She asked what the requirement is. devries replied that the building capacity is listed on the plan as 23 people. However, we need to look at the main purpose for the building. The storage unit building could be considered as an ancillary use. Nestel asked how many people would be on site full time. Ortman said there wouldn t be any full time people on site. Nestel asked if it was correct the traffic would be just people going in and out to use the storage facilities. Ortman agreed. Bowman pointed out that self-storage use doesn t use a lot of space for parking. We could apply a standard for one space per storage unit since this is not stipulated in the ordinance. Arendshorst asked what the materials are for the building unit and the arrangements for long term maintenance. Ortman said the material for the building is steel. DeBoer asked if storage use is listed in the ordinances for any designation other than C-1. DeVries said there hasn t been an authorized use for storage in the Township. About five years ago there was an approval for storage in an R-1 district in an agricultural building, so long as it wasn t used for any business. The Planning Commission could consider similar restrictions that applied to this case. DeBoer asked if this situation would set a precedent. Is this the most appropriate place for such a commercial C-1 use? Bowman said this location is close to a residential area. It is a site better used for retail or service use for neighbors in the area. It would be a better fit in a full service commercial zone. DeBoer said he noticed Bowman s earlier recommendation for denial of this request and asked if this use is the reason. Bowman clarified that he looks at the sense of vitality for an area when considering such a use, instead of a use that just sits there. Arendshorst agreed and said this is a difficult area and difficult to find the most appropriate use. Dykert found the proposal is an improvement and a good fit for the neighborhood which is a boating community. She noted that a similar use has worked in another area off Ottawa Beach Road despite early concerns. DeBoer asked if this area is scheduled to be changed according to the Master Plan. 5
Bowman said the Township is probably looking at a future commercial area for that area in the future. Pfost observed from his visit to the property, maneuvering room should not be an issue. In his opinion, it makes sense to put a storage unit in a commercial zone. Bowman reminded the Planning Commission approval of the application does prevent him from using the property for other commercial C-1 uses. Self-storage is one of those uses. Pfost asked if this action gives precedence that storage units have to conform to C-1 zoning. Bowman concurred to the degree an application would meet the same qualifications that the Planning Commission applies to this application request. So long as the criteria are met that you as a Planning Commission determine for this special use. Dykert asked if we need to specify criteria. Bowman said special criteria should be clearly defined. devries said there are some criteria already established which applied to the agricultural building request for self-storage five years ago. He reviewed the list: a. The nature and character of the surrounding neighborhoods and adjoining properties, including the proximity of residential structures, to the buildings to be used for selfstorage. b. The effect of such use on the surrounding neighborhoods and adjoining properties, such as but not limited to noise, screening, lights and fumes. c. The ingress and egress to the property and buildings to be used for such storage including driveways and turnarounds. d. The effect of increased traffic on the surrounding neighborhood including connections to major streets. e. The nature and character of the buildings used for self-storage including but not limited to its architectural features, previous and/or current use. f. The effect of current and/or increased outdoor storage of items and materials on the property including parking of vehicles, and the environmental effects of the requested use. Other requirements include: Can be used for boats, trailers and other recreational vehicles as an accessory use Storage of articles outdoors shall not be permitted Storage of articles may not be used for living or recreational purposes while on the property 6
No sale of stored articles shall be permitted while on the property Except for watercraft stored on the property no repairs, maintenance or other work shall be permitted on the stored articles while on the property Repairs, maintenance or any other work on watercraft stored on the property may only be conducted within the building No signage or advertising shall be allowed on the property No storage is permitted that would adversely affect the adjoining properties, neighborhood or environment No building shall be within 200 of a residential district. A special use permit must be obtained from the Planning Commission before being used. Nestel said there is nothing in the list that is contrary to what we should require for this use. Dykert asked Ortman if it was his intent to limit storage for boat and vehicle storage. Ortman said that is his intent. Bowman said it would be helpful to make it clear. Eade supported the request with consideration of the conditions offered by devries. DeBoer asked Bowman for his thoughts on approval. Bowman said with regard to conditions they should focus on clarifying the type of use, how much the site is used for that purpose and the size of the lot, other than this use could be conducted in a different zone. Arendshorst asked Ortman about support from the neighboring property. Ortman said the owner is not against the proposal. Dykert moved, and Eade supported, to approve the special use as presented with the following conditions: 1. Outdoor storage is not permitted on the property 2. Provision for adequate parking 3. Provision for maneuverable space for vehicles 4. No impact of traffic on site 5. All work should be performed inside the building 6. No living or taking up residence on the property 7. Secure storage must be ensured 8. Storage on property limited to watercraft or vehicular 9. No adverse effect on environment devries confirmed that the Planning Commission has approved this as self-storage with no commercial use. 7
In her preparation for her new role as a member of the Planning Commission, Nestel said she has read the older Master Plan and the draft of the proposed Master Plan, including the Planning Enabling Act to get up to speed on the Master Planning process. As a result of this review she has a few questions of the Planning Commission and the staff. 1 She has questions for Legal Counsel regarding Point West. Is there any inconsistency in the Master Plan with regard to the Point West development? She wanted to confirm there is no legal interference. 2 She noted there was some inconsistency in the draft Master Plan in reference to the term LDR and RLD. Does this decision need to be clearer? 3 - With regard to the designation Community Heritage Preservation, are there other areas in the township in addition to Macatawa Hills? Is there anything indefensible in this regard? 4 She wants to look at the PUD that was approved for the Point West development. This will help her perspective on this issue. devries is helping her on this question. 5 She asked for clarification on a procedural question: once the Planning Commission approves an ordinance can the Township Board make changes. Pfost asked Nestel and DeBoer to prepare the best they can prior to the April meeting. Dykert asked if the Community Heritage Preservation section has been rewritten. Arendshorst said... devries said he gave Nestel and DeBoer copies of the past and current Master Plan. Bowman s synopsis was also provided to them. The draft of the Community Heritage Preservation will be distributed to everyone. Arendshorst asked about some of the maps that look confusing. Bowman said the maps can be made clearer. He thought it was just a matter of a legibility issue. Pfost suggested a work session in April. Everyone agreed to a special work session on Tuesday, April 28 at 6:00 P.M. Pfost reminded Commissioners that July is the deadline for the final approval of the Master Plan. PUBLIC COMMENT Pfost opened Public Comment at 7:59 P.M. Rick Pulaski, Nederveld Engineering of Grand Rapids, spoke to the considerations of the Master Plan with regard to the land use designation of property on New Holland Street and Butternut. He represents Ed DeYoung who owns the property. 8
Mr. DeYoung has owned the property for 15 years. It is 22 acres and currently zoned as Agricultural. The surrounding property on the north, south and west is zoned for two acres. Some are split out as R-1. It might make more sense if the property is in production, however it doesn t have topsoil to sustain an agricultural operation. He asked the Planning Commission to reconsider the property for an R-1 designation, more in line with what is built near there. He shared copies of aerial photographs of the property. Pulaski also pointed out on the map the location of wetland area east of the property. Pfost suggested we look at this for the North Country/Upland area. Dan Mitchell said he has created a 20 page neutral document of all the areas in the Township if the Planning Commission wants to look at it. The document includes aerial images. He ll be happy to give it to Ed devries. Bonnie Gronberg asked the Planning Commission to solicit public comment from the residents in the North Country with regard to the DeYoung property as it relates to the Township s Master Plan vision. Pfost closed Public Comment closed at 8:14 P.M. Dykert asked to reopen the minutes to make another correction. Dykert moved, and Vanderkolk supported. Dykert referred to page 6, last paragraph, second to the last sentence: She said it should read In her opinion, the Committee of the Future and its conclusions are meaningless if we ignore what they said. Vanderkolk said he is concerned about amending the minutes to say what we wish we would have said as opposed to we actually said. Dykert said she knows what she said. She said she didn t say the Committee of the Future was a fraud. Pfost asked for a review of the audio version of this section of the minutes along with a verbatim transcript of this section. He suggested tabling the motion until review at the next meeting. Action on these minutes will be postponed until April. Bowman pointed out that the February 17, 2015 minutes have been approved. Pfost concurred and recommended a postponement on this last request for amendment of the February 17, 2015 minutes until the review of the audio version at the next meeting. 9
ANNOUNCEMENTS Bowman reminded the Planning Commission that the Township Board will be the final approving body for action on the Master Plan. ADJOURNMENT Eade moved, and Nestel supported, to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Judith Hemwall Recording Secretary March 19, 2015 Approved: 10