HOLLAND CHARTER TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION
June 5, 2018
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, Members Ken Bosma, Dennis Gebben, Norm Nykamp, and Ed Zylstra. Also present were Community Development Director John Said, Assistant Community Development Director Corey Broersma, and Recording Secretary Sheri Thomassen.
Motion to approve the minutes for regular meeting of May 1, 2018, made by Mr. Vander Meulen, supported by Mr. Gebben. All in favor. Motion carried.
Chairman Hoeve explained the Public Hearing process to the audience.
Chairman Hoeve opened the public hearing for consideration of a Special Use request submitted by Thomas Vandenberg, West Michigan Towing – 2479 Van Ommen Drive. Petitioner is seeking special use approval to establish a vehicle towing operation with an off-street parking lot for damaged and abandoned vehicles. The subject property is located directly behind 2481 Van Ommen Dr., on the west side of the street, north of James Street, and is zoned C-2, General Commercial.
Tom Vandenberg was present to speak to this request. Mr. Vandenberg has been in business since October 2002 and had been in the Elhart space until two months ago when he moved to the new space due to space restrictions. He would like to pave access to the lot someday, depending on special use approval.
The Site Plan was reviewed. Questions and comments by the Commissioners followed:
How will the property be fenced off?
Mr. Vandenberg replied that he could put up a fence to block views from the west side.
Staff comments: Staff evaluated this request against the “old” ordinance, however, the newly adopted ordinance requires the outdoor storage area be fully screened with a solid fence (wood, composite or masonry; chain-link fencing with slats is prohibited) or comparable evergreen screen. If a fence is approved, the new fence should be 6 feet tall, with no storage extending above the top level of the fence. This will help reduce any visual and noise impacts from this proposed use to the adjacent property.
Lot needs to be stabilized material; paving details were discussed.
Is turning radius adequate when the lot is full?
Mr. Vandenberg replied that there is plenty of room, 25 cars maximum at one time; he tries to get rid of cars as quick as he can.
Mr. Vander Meulen asked how 25 cars are parked when there are only 20 spaces.
Mr. Vandenberg replied that he will sometimes park two cars, one in front of the other.
Mr. Vandenberg added that he won’t take more cars than he can handle, and that he has turned business down if there’s no room. Further, the “sand area” needs to be available for snow during the winter months.
The Staff Report included recommendation that any Commission action include the following conditions:
- The proposed vehicle storage area shall be enclosed on the north, west, and south by solid fencing (wood, masonry, or composite; chain-link fencing is prohibited) that is 6 feet tall.
- Outdoor storage shall be limited to vehicles only. No storage shall be visible above the level of the fence.
- An approved OCRC driveway should be installed and all access drives shall be paved.
- The applicant shall provide turf and/or other landscaping to the satisfaction of Staff, along the west and south edges of the proposed parking area; ‘sand’ shall not be allowed.
Audience member, Henry Kamps, owner of Reed Tire property, shared that he is pro-business and would like to see Tom get approval. His only concern is that a 6’ privacy fence be required.
Motion to close the public hearing made by Mr. Vander Meulen, supported by Mr. Bosma. All in favor. Motion carried.
Special Use Considerations were reviewed.
Motion to approve the Special Use with provision that a better plan sheet be provided and that the four conditions in the Staff Report (above) be met, made by Mr. Gebben, supported by Mr. Vander Meulen. All in favor. Motion carried.
Chairman Hoeve opened the public hearing for consideration of a Special Use request submitted by Don Van’t Hof (Enterprise Rental Car) – 491 Chicago Dr. Petitioner is requesting special use approval for expansion of an existing car wash facility that is part of the larger vehicle rental business. This is an expansion of an existing use, which was originally approved in 2003. The proposed addition will add approximately 375 square feet to the existing building, which contains about 3,750 square feet.
Brian Wolffis, Dryer Architects, representing Enterprise, was present to speak to this request. The site plan was reviewed. Mr. Wolffis indicated that the proposed addition would be a 14’8” x 26’ garage/wash facility.
The Staff Report was reviewed. Comments and questions from the Commissioners followed.
What about paving and the gravel fill placed to the north of the existing parking?
Staff and Commissioners agreed that the gravel fill in the rear of the parking lot, must be either: (1) removed with installation of topsoil and a vegetative groundcover; or (2) paved after receiving OCWRC approval.
Mr. Wolffis replied that once the gravel is removed it would be replaced with groundcover.
Motion to close the public hearing made by Mr. Nykamp, supported by Mr. Zylstra. All in favor. Motion carried.
Special Use Considerations were reviewed.
Motion to approve the Special Use with condition of addressing the gravel area in back made by Mr. Bosma, supported by Mr. Nykamp. All in favor. Motion carried.
Chairman Hoeve opened the public hearing for consideration of a Special Use request submitted by Carrie Esparza – 11561 Waterford Ct. Petitioner is requesting special use approval for a group day care home at the subject location. This would allow for up to 12 minor children for a period not exceeding 16 hours in a 24-hour period. The petitioner’s application indicates that they would operate for a maximum of 16 hours per day; from 6 am to 10 pm. The subject location is an existing residential home; the subject property is zoned A (Agriculture) within an approved Planned Unit Development agreement.
Carrie Esparza, owner, was present to speak to this request. Ms. Esparza shared her desire to operate a daycare center in a building eventually. Currently she’s working toward additional 15 school credits in order to meet state requirements for a center and in the meantime wants to get a feel for, and gain experience in, having more than 6 kids. Ms. Esparza currently cares for six children, and three of those families have older siblings that need a place to go. Families prefer siblings be in the same place, and there is a great shortage and need in this area. She would like to provide care for up to 12 to accommodate siblings.
Ms. Esparza shared additional paperwork with the Commissioners to address some of the Staff Report items. Comments and questions from the Commissioners followed:
How does increasing numbers of kids increase staffing requirements?
Ms. Esparza replied that it’s a requirement of the state for 12 children to have 1 assistant with her, however she has 2.
What about the pool shown on the aerial image?
The pool was removed and replaced with a playground.
What about parking?
Ms. Esparza replied that she has 4-1/2 spaces available. She indicated that extra parking could be added to the side, however, Staff added that there is a maximum on front yard parking and could be a bit of a challenge because of the lot’s wedge shape.
What about drop-off and pick-up traffic?
Ms. Esparza referred to the “brightwheel” handout that indicates times of parents signing kids in and out. She added that it’s very quick, almost always two parking spaces available and noted that adding siblings would not add to the number of vehicles.
Audience member, Jessica Gregg (Zeeland), has a child in Ms. Esparza’s care and shared that it’s hard to find good quality daycare/group home and one that will take school-agers. She hopes the request is approved.
Audience member, Cheyenne Barabas (32nd St., Holland), has a son in Ms. Esparza’s care part-time, and needs full-time stable care but the limit on number of children at this time prohibits that. She would appreciate the Commissioner’s approval of this request.
What if something goes wrong, or if there’s a violation?
Ms. Esparza replied that she gets inspected yearly at minimum by the State. There would be an investigation for any issue.
Staff Report includes Group Day Care Home Standards (see below). Are these standards being met?
a. Home is not closer than 1,500 feet to the following:
- Another licensed group day care home;
- Another adult foster care small group home or large group home;
- A facility offering substance abuse treatment and rehabilitation service to 7 or more people;
- A community correction center, resident home, halfway home or similar facility under the jurisdiction of the Dept. of Corrections.
b. Has the appropriate fencing for the safety of the children as determined by the Planning Commission.
c. Maintained consistent with the character of neighborhood.
d. Does not exceed 16 hrs. of operation during a 24-hr. period.
e. Meets the sign requirements for a group day care home.
f. Provides off-street parking accommodations for employees.
Ms. Esparza commented:
She is not sure how to gather information for item a. i.-iv. and added that the she did a “Provider” search and couldn’t find one close to her. Staff added that the applicant should provide this information and may be able to get it from the State.
The backyard is fenced in.
Ms. Esparza will eventually go down to one shift (6A-6P).
Applicant is aware of the need for signage mounted to the home.
Applicant has received signatures from many of the surrounding neighbors.
Most children in her care currently are 2-3 years old.
Ms. Esparza’s 3-year plan includes being out of her home and into a daycare center building.
Staff clarified that this special use would apply to the dwelling as long as all of the property, dwelling, and licensing conditions remain the same.
Motion to close the public hearing made by Mr. Bosma, supported by Mr. Vander Meulen. All in favor. Motion carried.
Motion to approve Special Use as presented made by Mr. Vander Meulen, supported by Mr. Nykamp. 5 in favor, 1 opposed (Zylstra). Motion carried.
Chairman Hoeve opened the public hearing for consideration of a Special Use request submitted by John Potts – Vacant Land; Sixth Ave. south of Roost Ave. Petitioner is requesting special use approval and site plan approval for a contractor’s facility with outdoor storage on the subject property. The property is currently vacant and is zoned I-1 General Industrial. The petitioner plans to develop the southern area of the property with a new building (8,400 SF total) containing a 4,800 SF contractor’s facility, and a 3,600 SF tenant space/future growth. The property will include parking in the front, along with an outdoor storage area and some parking in the rear.
John Walsh, Paradigm Design (550 3 Mile NW, Grand Rapids), representing John Potts, Potts Masonry, was present to speak to this request. Site plan was reviewed. Mr. Walsh explained current operations, indicated business is good, and that they’re looking to grow. Applicant has been working on the site plan with Staff, Ottawa County Water Resource, and Ottawa County Road Commission. This is a great location for this business, it’s zoned right and will be an attractive building. They are currently getting the site figured out, making sure costs make sense.
Site Plan was reviewed. Mr. Walsh shared that the entire lot will be paved to meet Township standards, there will be screening fence or landscaping to keep storage area confined. They don’t see a need for security fencing at this time. There is no easement, however there is a 20’ gap between the neighbors easterly fencing and their west property line. Entire lot, including access to storage area, is a paved/hard surface. East side will be used for visitor parking, west side for employees. Mr. Walsh suggested that the dense landscaping shown along south and west of the property lines is more than sufficient for screening. Vegetation will grow, a 6’ fence will not. Title work and survey has been done.
The stormwater quality basin is north of proposed development and provides some of the buffer that would be required upon the sale of the property. They would work out details with the Ottawa County Resource Commission if that half was ever sold. Will keep as is for now. They will not be seeking a parking variation at this time.
Motion to close the public hearing made by Mr. Gebben, supported by Mr. Nykamp. All in favor. Motion carried.
Special Use Considerations were presented.
Motion to approve Special Use as presented with landscaping rather than fencing made by Mr. Zylstra, supported by Mr. Bosma. All in favor. Motion carried.
Chairman Hoeve opened the public hearing for consideration of a Planned Unit Development Amendment – Building Envelopes and Lot Coverage submitted by Mike Bosgraaf/Chuck Schaap – Legends View PUD. The petitioner has submitted this proposed PUD amendment to eliminate the project’s specific building envelopes and replace them with building envelopes that allow customized buildings, including larger garage and sunporch options, as well as other minor changes to building footprints without seeking a PUD amendment. The proposed amendment also seeks to increase the allowable building coverage from 28 percent to 35 percent.
Lynnelle Berkenpas, Holland Engineering, was present to speak to this request representing Tri-Con Investments and Bosgraaf Builders. Ms. Berkenpas shared history of the Legends View project between Quincy and New Holland. Bosgraaf Homes brought in to replace original builder. Bosgraaf Homes is hoping to adjust target market from entry level condo to a more customized, higher end project. Overall layout is very similar to what was originally planned. Bosgraaf is looking for the flexibility allow sun porches where they fit, covered front porch with vertical column to dress up front entrance, bump outs here and there for added space. They’re asking for approval for a well-established building envelope with flexibility.
The Site plan was reviewed. Ms. Berkenpas pointed out units that could have opportunity for porches, bump-outs, etc. There is a 25’ rear yard setback, 20’ to deck posts. They’re hoping that Bosgraaf will be allowed to build a nicer product.
Mr. Bosma asked how drainage swales would work for the units on the outside so close to the property lines; who will make sure they’re maintained? He expressed concern that as landscaping matures, backyards get smaller. Ms. Berkenpas indicated they’re trying to establish an envelope just for flexibility so that Staff has the ability to approve mild variations in the plan. From an Engineering standpoint, Mr. Bosma is concerned about how it will work. Ms. Berkenpas replied that drainage swales, grading and pond size do work. She added that there is still a 20’ backyard area. Mr. Bosma replied that will be less and less as landscaping matures and gets bigger.
Staff added that during the original approval it was discussed that nowhere in the Township do we have less than a 25’ rear yard setback in a residential zoning district and that was a factor in the small deck depths and asked if the Commission would like to reinvestigate. Mr. Vander Meulen commented that the rear yards seem to be encroached on again.
Ms. Berkenpas explained that the overall density is still less than what’s allowed in the R-2 District. The intent is to allow Bosgraaf to build a nicer product, and they are not asking for a reduced setback. In the original approval there was an allowance for a 2’ cantilever on the deck but disappeared at the Board level. Applicant would like clarification on that.
Mike Bosgraaf, Bosgraaf Homes, was present to speak to this request. Mr. Bosgraaf shared that they were brought into the project several months ago for the first time, and he is ready to start working on the current project and can go forward with the current project, but it’s going to look like the current project. He’s asking for a little flexibility. He understands the Commission has given and given on this project, but they haven’t given to him. The backs of the homes are flat with small decks, and they’re going to look like apartments. Exterior front design will add column and reclassifies it, dresses it up. Sun porches where needed and Bosgraaf coming in and bringing up the price point, in his opinion we will see more landscaping, more interest and design appeal and will give everyone a nicer project. To go back and work with Staff every time they need just a little bit of flexibility because they didn’t have building envelopes first, it’d be better if they could just agree with that. Right now, they’re looking for flexibility with the columns and sun porches (about 1/3 of the units). Mr. Gebben indicated that he likes what they’re doing on the project and believes it’s an improvement to the original plan.
Motion to close the public hearing made by Mr. Zylstra, supported by Mr. Nykamp. All in favor. Motion carried.
Ms. Berkenpas explained that the previous Planning Commission draft approval said that “decks may not extend more than 8’ into the 25’ rear yard required by the zoning ordinance”. Final copy at Township Board said that “decks may not extend more than 5’ into the 25’ rear yard required by the zoning ordinance”. Plans include building posts within 5’, but the deck may cantilever off 2’. Not sure where/when the difference came up. Mr. Bosgraaf added that a 7’ deck gets a lot more interesting at this price point and would get them a slider with enough space for a café table.
Commissioners discussed other possibilities and if a 5’ deck with 2’ cantilever would be an option.
Mr. Bosma is concerned with how drainage will be maintained. Patios and decks down below, flat surfaces, will affect drainage pattern, pushing it out and believes they’ll be surprised in a big storm event. Mr. Bosgraaf indicated that he is well aware and understands the concern.
Motion to approve the PUD Amendment with the provision of a 5’ deck with 2’ cantilever and have Staff prepare a favorable Report and Resolution for consideration at the July Planning Commission meeting made by Mr. Gebben, supported by Mr. Vander Meulen. 5 in favor, 1 opposed (Bosma). Motion carried.
Chairman Hoeve introduced the Resolution and Report for Sapphire Lakes PUD Amendment allowing future decks to be constructed with minimum setback distances of 25 feet, from the previous 35 feet, for properties around the perimeter of Sapphire Lake and the perimeter of the PUD.
Motion to approve and recommend the Sapphire Lakes PUD Amendment Resolution and Report to the Township Board made by Mr. Zylstra, supported by Mr. Nykamp. All in favor. Motion carried.
Chairman Hoeve introduced the Authorization to Commence Comprehensive Plan (Future Land Use Plan Map) Amendment requested by Mission Design & Automation – Parcel west of 9652 Black River Ct. The petitioner is requesting that the Township amend the Future Land Use Plan Map, and then consider a rezoning at a future date, for the portion of the subject property on the south side of Black River Ct. designated as Highway Service Commercial to a Light Industrial Plan Designation. The petitioner wishes to expand operations from their existing facility located immediately adjacent to the site, to the east.
Kevin Miller, Mission Design & Automation, was present to speak to this request. Mr. Miller explained that business is growing by 50% every year, and they would like to purchase the southern portion and expand their building.
Motion to allow the process to be initiated by the Township made by Mr. Gebben, supported by Mr. Nykamp. 5 in favor, 1 opposed (Vander Meulen). Motion carried.
Chairman Hoeve introduced the Authorization to Commence Comprehensive Plan (Future Land Use Plan Map) Amendment requested by Geenen DeKock Properties – NW Corner, 136th Ave. and Quincy St. The petitioner is requesting that the Township amend the Future Land Use Plan Map, and then consider a rezoning at a future date, the portion of the subject property, which is primarily located on the northwest corner of 136th Ave. and Quincy St., from the existing Agriculture Plan Designation to a Light Industrial Plan Designation. The petitioner wishes to develop this approx. 94-acre site with light industrial uses. This site had been the subject of a similar review in 2014.
Motion to allow the process to be initiated by the Township made by Mr. Bosma, supported by Mr. Zylstra. 5 in favor, 1 opposed (Vander Meulen).
Public Comment – None.
Correspondence from the store’s architect Carol Landing, MODA4 Design, dated June 5, 2018, was provided and indicated the store is designed for a max of 50 dogs for boarding. The Planning Commission had no objection to this number. Staff will report on the Applicant’s progress on meeting Township and Health Department requirements for animal waste disposal at next month’s meeting.
12465 James Street
Property/parking map, historical tenant information and letter signed by current tenants was provided. Property owner was present to speak to the request for approval to do business with the addition of a new tenant, Jersey Mike’s Sub Shop, without adding 21 parking spaces required by code. He bought the property in 2013 and they are sensitive to the parking situation in order to operate a viable retail center. He indicated that, historically, 8 spots are needed and 50% of total spots are vacant. They do not have other on-site parking options and don’t want other tenants to have to park across the street. He asked if there really is a problem. Planning Commission recommends property owner proceed with the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 7:00 pm.
The meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m.