Minutes - December 6, 2016
December 6, 2016
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Marion Hoeve at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Chairman Marion Hoeve, Vice-Chairman/Secretary Jack Vander Meulen and Members Ken Bosma, Dennis Gebben, La Verne Johnson, Norm Nykamp and Ed Zylstra. Also present was Planner Corey Broersma and Recording Secretary Amy LeVesque.
Absent: Planner Meghann Reynolds.
The minutes of the regular meeting of November 1, 2016 were approved with one correction.
Mr. Hoeve explained the meeting and hearing procedures for the assembled audience.
Mr. Hoeve next opened the public hearing to consider a rezoning request submitted by property owners Bhan Khammanivong and Phousanga Somsanith for land formerly addressed as 11695 Greenly Street, parcel number 70-16-10-100-017. The applicants wish to change the zoning of the 1.7 acre property from A Agricultural to R-1 Single Family Residential. There is an existing home on the property. Present for this request were Mr. Bhan Khammanivong and his son, Mr. Khan Khammanivong.
Mr. Khan Khammanivong explained that his father’s name is Brian. He also explained that his father has recently purchased the property formerly located at 11695 Greenly Street and wishes to have the zoning of the property changed to R-1 Single Family Residential.
Mr. Broersma commented that the agriculturally zoned parcel is nonconforming since it is less than five acres. He explained that the parcel is surround by residential PUD Hickorywood Farms, and that the property is designated for residential use on the future land use map. He also explained that there is a split available for the property if rezoned and that the applicant plans to build a single family home on the property.
There was no one present to ask questions or object to the request.
** Mr. Nykamp moved and Mr. Vander Meulen supported the motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried.
Commissioners next reviewed the rezoning considerations:
- Does this request result in spot zoning? No.
- Is the request consistent with the surrounding property? Yes.
- Is the requested rezoning consistent with the general trend of future building and population growth in the area? Yes.
- Is the requested rezoning consistent with the Future Land Use Map/Master Plan? Yes.
** Mr. Bosma moved and Mr. Gebben supported the motion to recommend to the Township Board that approval be given to rezone the former 11695 Greenly Street, parcel number 70-16-10-100-017, from A Agricultural to R-1 Single Family Residential, based on the findings of the four considerations as recorded in the minutes. Motion carried.
Mr. Hoeve next opened the public hearing to consider a special use request submitted by John DeKievit for permission to operate an upholstery business as a home occupation. The property is located at 691 Sleepy Hollow Lane in an R-1 Single Family Residential zone. Present for this request was Mr. John DeKievit.
Mr. DeKievit explained that he wishes to start a marine upholstery business in his home and that all sewing will be performed inside the home. He also explained that there will be no customers or boats at his home.
Mr. Hoeve commented that neighbors would not be disturbed by the operation of the business.
In response to a question from Mr. Vander Meulen, Mr. DeKievit explained that his driveway extends to the rear of his home and allows direct access to his lower level work area. He also explained that two French doors on the lower level of his home provide a means of egress from his work area in event of emergency.
In response to a question from Mr. Bosma, Mr. DeKievit stated that there will be no outdoor storage of any type of material.
Mr. Broersma commented that the property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and is designated to remain so on the future land use map. He explained that Mr. DeKievit’s site plan shows a 17 foot by 20 foot workspace located opposite the outdoor access to the driveway. He also reminded Mr. DeKievit that furniture finishing and refinishing are prohibited under Section 3.34 of the zoning ordinance and would not be allowed under the requested special use approval.
In response to a question from Mr. Broersma, Mr. DeKievit explained that he expects two to three deliveries per week at most.
There was no one present to ask questions or object to the request.
** Mr. Bosma moved and Mr. Zylstra supported the motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried.
Commissioners next discussed the following special use considerations for home occupations:
- The nature of the home occupation; Sewing of upholstery only.
- The effect of the home occupation on the surrounding neighborhood; No negative effects.
- The environmental effects of the home occupation; No negative effects.
- The nature of the surrounding neighborhood; Single-family Residential. No issues created.
- Potential traffic congestion as a result of the home occupation; No issues created.
- Provisions for parking for traffic or clientele which may result from the operation of the home occupation. None required.
** Mr. Zylstra moved and Mr. Bosma supported the motion to grant the special use request to operate a home occupation consisting of the sewing of upholstery without customer interaction on the premises at 691 Sleepy Hollow Lane, parcel number 70-16-35-123-010, based on the Planning Commission’s findings of the six special use considerations for home occupations, as reflected in the minutes for the reasons set forth in the minutes. Motion carried.
Next, Mr. Hoeve opened the public hearing for a special use request submitted by Dave DeVries for permission to operate a recreational facility in an existing building at 647 - 96th Avenue, parcel number 70-16-36-200-021. More specifically, the applicant wishes to operate a Crossfit training business in an existing building on property located in an I-1 Light Industrial zone. Present for this request was Mr. John Batdorff.
Mr. Batdorff explained that he received special use approval to operate his recreational business at 9652 Black River Court but that his business has since outgrown the 5700 square foot space. He wishes to relocate his business to the neighboring 10,000 square foot building.
In response to a question from Mr. Hoeve, Mr. Batdorff stated that he plans to maintain the special use permission to operate a Crossfit recreational facility at 9652 Black River Court. He explained that he may use the location on Black River Court to provide individual training.
In response to another question from Mr. Hoeve, Mr. Batdorff explained that he plans to clean up and paint the building on 96th Avenue but that he does not plan to make any structural changes to the building.
In response to a question from Mr. Zylstra, Mr. Batdorff explained that he plans to use the parking lot for running and other outdoor training. He explained that clients typically run to Hawthorn Pond Natural Area, circle the pond, and then run back to the recreational facility.
In response to a question from Mr. Nykamp, Mr. Broersma stated that there were no stipulations placed on the Black River Drive special use permission by the Planning Commission, but the C-3 zoning district does not permit outdoor storage for equipment or materials.
In response to a question from Mr. Vander Meulen, Mr. Batdorff explained that the parking lot at 647 – 96th Avenue has been repaired and striped.
There was no one present to ask questions or object to the request.
** Mr. Nykamp moved and Mr. Zylstra supported the motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried.
Commissioners next reviewed the following special use considerations:
- The size, nature and character of the proposed materials or other items to be stored;
- The proximity of the proposed storage area to adjoining properties;
- Any environmental effect of the materials proposed for storage, such as smoke, dust, or other similar effect;
- The physical appearance of the proposed storage area and the materials to be stored and their compatibility with adjoining land sues and land uses in the surrounding neighborhood;
- Any hazard which would be occasioned by the proposed use; and
- The feasibility, advantages and disadvantages of storing the materials or other items within a completely enclosed building.
** Mr. Bosma moved and Mr. Nykamp supported the motion to grant the special use as requested to operate a recreation facility consisting of Crossfit training within an existing building on the premises of 647 - 96th Avenue, parcel number 70-16-36-200-021, as reflected in the minutes for the reasons set forth in the minutes. Motion carried.
Next, Mr. Hoeve and Mr. Bosma recused themselves from the meeting prior to the opening of the public hearing for the preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD), to be called Creekside Meadows Assisted Living, due to potential conflicts of interest.
Mr. Vander Meulen then opened the public hearing to consider an application for the preliminary PUD Creekside Meadows Assisted Living submitted by Leisure Living Management. The proposed PUD would consist of a licensed assisted living and memory care facility of 30 assisted living units and 14 memory care units for a total of 44 units. Submitted plans show a single story structure to be completed in one phase with primary access to the property from Meadowland Court. Present for this request were Mr. Colin Kraay and Mr. Neil Kraay of Leisure Living Management and Mr. Tom Wheat of Prein & Newhof.
Mr. Colin Kraay explained that the proposed development would be a residential style, one story building serving residents with two needs: assisted living with all private units with beds, living areas and kitchenettes, and memory care with two wings of seven units each. He explained that residents use outdoor areas and walking paths frequently in good weather and that there will be planned outdoor activities. He went on to explain that the large parcel to the north will remain undeveloped as a natural area.
Mr. Wheat explained that since part of the property is considered wetlands, most of the construction will take place outside of wetlands areas. He explained that plans are to fill in some portions of the property designated as floodplain but that compensating cut will be made resulting in net zero impact in the floodplain. He went on to explain that Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) processes and Ottawa County Water Resources Commission (OCWRC) regulations will be followed. He stated that plans are to connect to utilities along Meadowland Court. He explained that submitted drawings show a conceptual design but that site plans would be submitted for the Planning Commission’s review in the near future. He stated that permits and approvals from the various agencies will be requested as required.
Mr. Gebben commented that he believes the biggest problem to be addressed is not the wetlands issue, but the increased traffic that would be created on Meadowland Court and 96th Avenue and the potential issues that would result for residents who live in the area.
Mr. Wheat explained that property owners were informed about potential residential development on property to the west of Meadowland Court through deed restrictions. He commented that a residential development on the proposed property would also create added traffic in the area. He explained that most of the traffic created by the proposed facility would be employees coming and going and also from visitors, who typically visit on weekends.
Mr. Colin Kraay explained that all of Leisure Living Management’s care facilities are located in residential areas and that facility residents do not own vehicles. He also explained that previous traffic studies in other facility locations have shown that less traffic is generated by the adult care facility than by residential developments. He went on to explain that there would only be increased traffic twice a day when there are staff shift changes.
Mr. Gebben asked that the applicants provide information about staffing counts, shift change hours, delivery hours, and type of vehicles used for deliveries. He also asked if Leisure Living Management has ever built a facility at the end of a cul de sac before.
Mr. Colin Kraay agreed to provide the requested information at a future date.
Mr. Vander Meulen commented that he does not believe there would be much difference in the amount of traffic created by either a residential development or an adult care facility. He also commented that hours for deliveries and garbage pick up could be controlled so that residents in the area are less bothered. He expressed concern that roads in the area might not be built to accommodate the heavier vehicles that would service the proposed facility.
Mr. Colin Kraay commented that a residential development would also create the need for additional use by heavier vehicles like garbage trucks. He stated that he would develop a schedule for pick ups and deliveries to the proposed facility. He explained that deliveries go through the front door and that there is no additional delivery entrance. He also explained that ambulances would access the facility via Meadowland Court but that sirens would be turned off as soon as the ambulance turned onto Meadowland Court. He pointed out that the developers are planning to use only half of the ten acres of the proposed PUD area.
Mr. Gebben commented that 96th Avenue is very busy at times and that traffic backs up at traffic signals at the end of the school day and when industrial shifts at area factories change.
In response to a question from Mr. Gebben, Mr. Kraay explained that the secondary exit to the west is planned for use by emergency vehicles only and not for day to day traffic. He also explained that Zeeland Public Schools owns the adjacent property to the west and that the school district is considering their requests regarding the secondary access driveway.
In response to a question from Mr. Vander Meulen, Mr. Colin Kraay stated that no addition is planned for the proposed facility. He explained that Leisure Living Management’s largest adult care facility is 100 units with the smallest having just 20 units. He also explained that one of his company’s goals is to create a home-like atmosphere.
In response to a question from Mr. Johnson, Mr. Colin Kraay explained that the number of staff is usually the same as the number of units in the facility. He expects about 44 total employees, both full and part time, with as many as 15 to 20 employees at peak times during the day.
Mr. Broersma commented that the underlining zoning of the four parcels included in the proposed PUD is agricultural and that the future land use map shows the property zoned as R-2 Residential.
Mr. Barry McAlpine stated that he owns two duplex buildings on Meadowland Court, one being the first duplex on the south side at the corner of 96th Avenue and another duplex near the driveway to the proposed facility. He commented that he believes that healthcare facilities are required by law to have a certified number of employees. He explained that six or seven years ago, for two years in a row, the area experienced the flood of the century and basements were filled with water. He stated that drainage systems in the area need improving and that the Township has helped improve drainage. He also explained that lighting along Meadowland Court needs to be increased and that he has received complaints from renters. He commented that there are a lot of children in the neighborhood and that he is concerned about increased traffic created by the proposed development. He asked for clarification on how the proposed facility’s ponds and drainage system would work and also expressed concern about where snow would be piled in the cul de sac area near the driveway entrance. He commented that the facility needs a second driveway to ensure accessibility.
Mr. John McDonald stated that he also owns a duplex on at 9683 and 9685 Meadowland Court and asked how long it would take to build the proposed facility. He expressed concern that heavy vehicles used for construction could cause damage to Meadowland Court and asked if developers would be willing to fix damage to the road. He also expressed concern that the value of his property could be negatively affected by the proposed adult care facility. He asked for more information on memory care.
Mr. Joel Harsevoort of 9695 Meadowland Court explained that he has lived at his current address for 20 years and that there have been just two major floods in all of that time. He also explained that one of the floods was caused by 11 inches of rain falling in a short period of time. He went on to explain that his property has the lowest elevation in the area and is most susceptible to flooding. He stated that there have been significant drainage improvements in the last two years, including improvements to the culvert on Riley Street nearby. He commented that he believes that the adult care facility is a good use for the land and that the facility is probably the best situation for the neighborhood. He explained that Zeeland Public Schools was not interested in purchasing the property.
Mr. Colin Kraay explained that memory care is long term care for individuals diagnosed with dementia symptoms or Alzheimer’s disease that require a high level of care. He also explained that the proposed facility would be licensed by the State as a home for the aged. He stated that adult care facilities are needed by communities. He explained that he would provide staffing numbers and ratios at a later date.
Mr. Wheat explained that Meadowland Court was built to public road standards and that there would be no problem with the road holding up to construction traffic. He added that developers are working with FEMA to set first floor elevation properly in order to eliminate potential issues with flooding.
In response to a question from Mr. Nykamp, Mr. Colin Kraay explained that the three retention ponds will be constructed to drain in a controlled discharge to the north and east to eliminate any downstream negative effects. He explained that the pond on the southeast is design to handle any water that could potentially back up.
In response to a question from Mr. Nkamp, Mr. Colin Kraay explained that construction would be completed in approximately one year, that the existing house on the property would be eliminated and that plans are to make use of the existing storage shed.
Mr. Vander Meulen commented that construction could continue for much longer than a year if the property were developed for residential use.
In response to a question from Mr. Zylstra, Mr. Colin Kray explained that the Ottawa County Road Commission (OCRC) would usually mound snow in the middle of the cul de sac but may be able to pile snow in lot 5 which is slated to remain undeveloped south of the proposed driveway.
Mr. Neil Kraay explained that his company’s first adult care home was built 18 years ago and that he has not heard about any problems or issues from residents who live near any of Leisure Living Management’s adult care facilities. He also explained that their facilities are good neighbors, are quiet, and that the landscaping is well-maintained. He stated that most deliveries take place just once per week and are scheduled as early as 6:00 a.m. or 7:00 a.m. and that trash pick-up is also just once per week.
Mr. Gebben commented that it seems as though most residents on Meadowland Court are renters, not property owners. He also commented that there could be many children living in the neighborhood. He likes the concept for the facility and its size and that the company appears to be well-run. He stated that he would like to see the results of a traffic impact study conducted in the area. He asked if the park-like area of the property on the north would be available and accessible to neighbors.
Mr. Neil Kraay explained that concerns about liability prevent Leisure Living Management from inviting neighbors to enjoy the property. Mr. Colin Kraay explained that the property area to the north would be kept in a somewhat natural state and that trails would not be paved. He also explained that no walls or gates would be constructed to keep people out.
Mr. McDonald commented that he lived in the duplex he owns on Meadowland Court for about seven years, and at that time there were more owners occupying the duplex units. He explained that currently, the duplexes are all rentals. He stated that there are a lot of families living in the duplexes and a lot of kids in the neighborhood and that they play in yards and also out in the street.
** Mr. Zylstra moved and Mr. Johnson supported the motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried.
Commissioners next considered standards for establishing a PUD:
- Whether the proposed planned unit development is consistent with and promotes the intent and purpose of this ordinance. Yes, the proposed facility is residential in nature.
- Whether the proposed planned unit development is compatible with adjacent uses of land, the natural environment, and the capacities of public services and facilities affected by the planned unit development. Yes, and the property is already served by utilities.
- Whether the planned unit development is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare of the Township. Yes.
Commissioners next considered standards for preliminary PUD review:
1. Ingress and egress to the property and proposed buildings and structures thereon, with particular reference to provision of safe and convenient vehicle and pedestrian circulation and adequate emergency access.
In response to a question from Mr. Broersma, Mr. Wheat explained that he has not considered the possibility of secondary access through Ottawa Street, which may have been vacated.
Mr. Vander Meulen commented that Zeeland Public Schools has baseball fields and a soccer field in the area near a potential Ottawa Street driveway.
Mr. Broersma explained that the fire chief has not yet commented, but that a secondary access through Ottawa Street makes sense in solving ingress and egress issues.
In response to a question from Mr. Gebben about secondary access through property to the north and east, Mr. Wheat explained that the property in the area is mostly wetlands and that it could be difficult and expensive to create a secondary access drive in that area. He explained that traffic patterns have been designed to ensure fire truck access.
2. The extent to which the planned unit development deviates from the provisions of this ordinance otherwise applicable for the zoning district in which the planned unit development is located, and the extent to which deviation from otherwise applicable ordinance requirements is justified by unique site characteristics or other circumstances. The PUD would deviate from the underlying agricultural zoning of the property.
3. Compliance with other applicable provisions of this ordinance, including but not limited to, off-street parking regulations, site plan review requirements and signage regulations.
Mr. Broersma commented that meeting setback requirements would not be a problem for the proposed PUD. He also commented that the submitted plan shows 36 parking spaces but does not show any barrier free parking spaces. He also explained that the Township’s attorney recommended that the access driveway remain where it is proposed and suggested that lot 5 and the driveway parcel be excluded from the PUD.
In response to a question from Mr. Gebben, Mr. Broersma suggested that the Planning Commission keep the request in a preliminary stage until all questions have been answered to their satisfaction. He explained that the Planning Commission could table the request pending further information, approve the preliminary PUD and provide direction to the applicant for a Final Development Plan, or they could deny the request if they feel that after tonight’s discussion the applicant has not met the intentions of PUD requirements. He also suggested that Mr. Wheat meet with the Township’s fire chief.
** Mr. Gebben moved and Mr. Zylstra supported the motion to maintain the application at the preliminary phase and table the preliminary PUD request until information requested by Commissioners and Staff has been submitted. Motion carried.
Mr. Hoeve and Mr. Bosma then rejoined the Planning Commission.
Next, Mr. Hoeve introduced a review of the final development plan for the preliminary PUD currently called West Shore Apartments, submitted by William T. Mast on behalf of West Shore Pines, LLC. The proposed development, to be located on property along West Shore Drive south of Riley Street, would consist of a residential apartment complex of seven buildings, with each building to have three stories. The Planning Commission gave preliminary approval to the project at their October 4, 2016 meeting. Present for this review was Mr. Bill Mast.
Mr. Mast explained that the submitted final development plan was updated based on Commissioners’ requests. He also explained that two bus stops have been added with input on locations from West Ottawa Public Schools. He went on to explain that bus stops will be located near the right of ways on Riley Street and West Shore Drive. He stated that landscaping plan, a 90 foot easement to the north on Riley Street, lighting changes, and light specifications for ceilings of carports have been added to the plan. He stated that a request for sign approval will be submitted in the future. He explained that utilities availability are a condition of approval.
Mr. Broersma explained that the access easement on the south looks to be short and should extend to the PUD boundary. He explained that proof of all recorded ingress and egress easements must be submitted and referenced on the final development plan. He commented that turning movements for emergency vehicles should be shown on page four of the final development plan. He also commented that to avoid confusion, all landscaping should be removed from the site plan so that the separate landscaping plan stands alone. He recommended all perimeter landscaping should be installed in Phase 1. He explained that the Master Deed must be recorded prior to the issuing of building permits.
In response to a question from Mr. Vander Meulen, Mr. Mast stated that snow will be hauled if there is no place to pile it.
Mr. Broersma suggested that a rolled curb in areas such as the northwest and northeast corners of the interior parking lot, along with trees set back, might allow space for snow storage, if considerations for spring thaw and drainage is well thought-out.
Mr. Gebben referenced a letter submitted by David Howat of Inland National Development Corporation of Oak Brook, Illinois, developers of the proposed Home 2 Suites Hotel by Hilton, to be located along West Shore Drive on property adjacent to the West Shore Apartments property. In the letter, Mr. Howat requested additional information about finishes and materials to be used on both buildings and carports and expressed concern about the proximity of carports and dumpsters to the proposed hotel property.
Mr. David Benjamin of 6143 - 146th Avenue, explained that he had been asked to represent Inland National Development at the meeting, since he is recently retired from the company and lives in the area. He explained that Mr. Howat is concerned that hotel guests not be offended by the appearance of carports and dumpsters on the adjacent apartment property. He also stated that Mr. Howat was looking for information on elevations to help make a determination on the carports.
Mr. Broersma explained that he has emailed information regarding materials to be used to construct the carports to Mr. Howat and has not heard back from him. He stated that he would provide a copy of the final development plan to Mr. Howat.
** Mr. Bosma moved and Mr. Nykamp supported the motion to grant approval to the proposed planned unit development currently called, “West Shore Apartments”, which is to consist of seven residential apartment buildings, each to be three stories, for a total of 120 apartments on an 8.19 acre parcel zoned C-2 Commercial located on West Shore Drive near Riley Street, based upon the Planning Commission’s findings as reflected in the minutes for the reasons set forth in the minutes, and requested that the Township attorney be instructed to prepare a favorable report which includes Staff comments. Motion carried.
Mr. Hoeve next introduced a review of a proposed PUD amendment request for the Waverly Shores Manufactured Home Park, located at 11777 Riley Street. The Planning Commission tabled the request for the newly expanded park addition at their November 1, 2016 meeting. There was no one present to provide additional information. The Planning Commission determined that the request would remain tabled.
Next, Mr. Hoeve introduced a review of a proposed PUD amendment request for the Butternut Business Center, located at 406 Butternut Drive. Commissioners tabled the request at their October 10, 2016 meeting, pending further information, including advice from the Township’s attorney who recommended that the site remain one property in one PUD. Present for this request were Mr. Bill Sikkel of Custom Concrete and Ms. Patricia Mahoney, Secretary/Treasurer for the Butternut Business Center Condominium Association.
Mr. Sikkel explained the history of the Butternut Business Center and also explained a suggestion for the PUD amendment from Township attorney Ron Bultje. In Mr. Bultje’s solution, a two unit site condominium would be formed. Unit 1 would include Parcel A along with the existing building and its parking area and Unit 2 would include Parcel B with the proposed building and its parking area. There would also be a third or parent condominium to include the shared common areas such as the driveway, parking lot area just inside the driveway, and retention pond to the south. He explained that each condominium would have an association and each association would have its own bylaws. He also explained that resubmitted plans have been updated so that Units 1 and 2 of the proposed building will be 40 feet deep instead of 50 feet deep. He explained that the existing association will be asked to approve the agreement when the Planning Commission approves the concept for the settlement agreement.
Ms. Mahoney stated that the association has met with the buyer and that they are on board with the plan as explained by Mr. Sikkel. She explained that two unit owners were involved in the negotiations to date and that the four other unit owners must also agree. She stated that the association needs to review the final development plan and the settlement agreement.
In response to a question from Mr. Hoeve, Mr. Broersma explained that the final development plan should show that the overall PUD boundary is original in order to maintain continuity. He also explained that the final development plan must show similar architectural elements and materials for the proposed building to the original PUD plans. He stated that Mr. Sikkel’s proposal is acceptable given it is consistent with Mr. Bultje’s recommendation. He explained that the final development plan should show: location of proposed building, designated parking with at least one space for each unit to be used as a business, landscaping, and dumpster location.
Ms. Mahoney added that the parent condominium would maintain common areas, such as the driveway, shared parking lot area near the entrance, and the retention pond to the south.
Mr. Broersma explained that the Township would like Butternut Business Center PUD to be a cohesive development. He stated that he has concerns about aesthetics and is also concerned about potential issues with upkeep on the property by two separate associations.
Mr. Sikkel explained that the parent condominium association would have authority and architectural control. He stated that it is the developers’ plan to construct the new building to be similar in appearance to the existing building.
The Planning Commission determined to approve the proposed concept for the proposed PUD Amendment and tabled the request, pending the submission of a final development plan that includes agreements from the associations and unit owners.
Mr. Hoeve next opened the floor to public comments.
Mr. Tim Marr, Ms. Beverly Smith and Ms. Anna Smith of 2874 104th Avenue asked if Commissioners had considered their request presented at the September 6, 2016 Planning Commission meeting to allow the keeping of bees and chickens in residential zones.
Mr. Hoeve explained that their request would be considered as part of the upcoming zoning ordinance update. Mr. Broersma agreed that the suggestion should be evaluated, but at this time no zoning text amendment applications have been received.
Mr. Hoeve then closed the public comment section of the meeting.
Next, Mr. Broersma introduced the 2016 Planning Commission Annual Report, which summarizes Planning Commission work beginning in December 2015 and continuing through November 2016. The report is required by the Michigan Planning Enabling Act of 2008 and must be submitted to the Township Board annually. Commissioners approved the report as written for review by the Township Board at their December 15, 2016 meeting.
In other business, Mr. Broersma introduced Mr. David Jirousek of Willams & Works. Mr. Jirousek had submitted a written proposal regarding the zoning ordinance update for Commissioners’ review. He explained that he has reviewed the zoning ordinance and proposes a complete revision since the zoning ordinance has never been revised but has had spot changes over the course of many years, which can result in inconsistencies in the zoning code.
In response to a question from Mr. Hoeve, Mr. Jirousek explained that the entire zoning process update could be completed in less than one year.
Mr. Vander Meulen commented that Commissioners need time to review and consider materials and that he does not wish to be overloaded at any one time.
In response to a question from Mr. Zylstra, Mr. Jirousek explained that he plans to work with the Township’s attorney and that the attorney’s time will be the Township’s responsibility as far as cost.
Mr. Broersma asked that Commissioners email him with their comments regarding Mr. Jirousek’s proposal.
Mr. Hoeve reminded Commissioners that their next regular meeting will be held January 3, 2017.
The meeting adjourned at 9:25p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Amy LeVesque, Recording Secretary