PARK TOWNSHIP
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Draft until approved at next meeting

April 15, 2008

Mike Toscano, Chairperson, called the regular meeting of the Park Township Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m.

Present: Jim Szidik, Jeff Wincel, Joseph Lampen, Janet Magennis, Mike Toscano, Nicki Arendshorst, Bret Docter, Dan Martin, attorney and Eric Davis, Zoning Administrator

Absent:   Steve Schaftenaar, LeeAnne Jachim

STUDY SESSION

 The Planning Commission (PC) members went over newly-presented materials.

 MOTION

            A motion was made by Arendshorst and supported by Magennis to approve the agenda as presented. 

VOTE

            Motion carried: 7-0 

MOTION

            A motion was made by Arendshorst and supported by Magennis to approve the minutes for the February 19, 2008 regular meeting as presented. 

VOTE

            Motion carried: 6-0 (Wincel abstained as he was not at the February 19, 2008 meeting.)

PUBLIC COMMENTS 

John Barwis, 3872 Hyder Ct., asked the PC to look at the section of the ordinance that regulates pitch on accessory building roofs. He stated that presumably the intent of not allowing a 12/12 pitch is to prohibit living space in the accessory building. This may have consequences that are unintended. He submitted some sketches. He stated that he felt that the goal could be achieved with other methods.  

Davis stated that he did get a lot of requests from people for 12/12 pitches to obtain a certain appearance or an attic truss.

Wincel stated that the subcommittee had discussed that issue. The 12/12 pitch was a feature that could more easily be converted later to living space in a larger building. It becomes an enforcement issue.

Jennifer Linart, 2998 Joshua Ct., stated that she lived next to the recently approved beauty salon at 2984 Joshua Ct. She stated that this is “personal”. Customers are walking right by the windows of her house. The salon, against the approved conditions, usually has three cars parked there. She stated that she is asking for “something” from the PC to remedy this situation. The customers are using her driveway to turn around in and that makes it dangerous for her children to play in their own yard. She stated that the stream of traffic is constant. She stated that she wanted the PC to reconsider the next time that they are asked to approve a business in a neighborhood. She stated that this became personal when someone on the township board called the salon owner a year ago and said “I’m going to vindicate you”.

George Linart, 2998 Joshua Ct., stated that many others in their neighborhood feel the same way but are afraid to come forward.

John Maring, 294 Dyken Ave., stated that regarding the proposed Smitty Pups, a lot of people have pointed out that parking is an issue. He wondered if anyone had contacted the DNR asking if the west end of the camping area could be made into parking. He stated that he would be happy to join a group that would pursue this.

Toscano asked Docter if he could facilitate these discussions.

Docter encouraged Maring to ask Stu Visser, township supervisor, how to proceed.

Judy Beltman, 1898 Lake St., stated that she felt that it was irresponsible to increase the traffic near the state park, especially if it has to cross the bike path.

Arendshorst stated that she was part of the PC that approved the beauty salon. She stated that she did not feel that a business in a neighborhood is a bad thing, but perhaps this was not the best choice for this neighborhood and these people involved. Sometimes the combination of a specific area and certain personalities is not ideal. She stated that she felt that it was unacceptable that there has been harassment and the possibility that some of the conditions are being violated.

Joel Welch, 679 Bosma Ave., asked if the parking proposed at Smitty Pups is handicapped accessible.

Davis stated that there is one handicapped spot proposed.

Welch stated that he had heard that through careful financial planning the township had accumulated 3.5 million dollars. He asked if the township has a liability exposure regarding safety issues if a traffic study was not conducted prior to approval of the proposed Smitty Pups walk-up restaurant.

Martin clarified that a township has governmental immunity except for gross negligence. This would most likely not constitute gross negligence.

Docter clarified that anyone can order a traffic study, they just have to pay for it. The township already knows there are over a million cars coming to the state park each year.

George Whinery, 2309 Black Lake Walk, asked if it was a common practice for the PC members to step down due to a conflict of interest.

Toscano stated that that is a common practice.

AGENDA ITEMS

Item #1           Special Use – Retail Business – DuMez Scooters – 1128 Ottawa Beach Rd.

Bill DuMez, 650 Concord Dr., Holland, owner of DuMez Scooters, stated that he currently sells scooters from the store at 1128 Ottawa Beach Rd. but wants to sell larger scooters. The state requires him to get a Class-A, New-vehicle license to do that. The first step for that approval is to get township zoning approval.

Toscano asked for clarification on the maximum size scooter he wants to sell.

DuMez stated that he would like to go to 300cc’s if possible.

Szidik asked if he does any vehicle servicing.

DuMez stated they do “prep work” and minor work such as light and belt changes.

Docter asked the current store size and if it would it stay that size. He asked the number of scooters on site. He asked about rentals and outside sales.

DuMez stated that the store is 1,300 square feet and would remain that size. He has fifteen to twenty scooters on site. He stated that he does not rent scooters. He does allow short test drives in the parking lot.

Toscano asked about the scooters outside.

Davis stated that it doesn’t violate the sign ordinance if there is no lettering on the scooters.

There was a discussion on keeping the scooters outside.

DuMez clarified that the scooters are always put inside at night. He would not want more than four outside.

Arendshorst asked for clarification on the scooters.

DuMez stated that they are gas-powered, four-stroke and quiet. Test drives do not go off site. 

The public hearing was opened at 7:01 p.m.

No one spoke.

The public hearing was closed at 7:01 p.m.

MOTION

A motion was made by Docter and supported by Wincel to approve the special use request with conditions to be imposed following discussion.

Toscano went over the standards in section 14.02 (cc) of the Park Township Zoning Ordinance:

(cc) Other similar retail business or service establishments when authorized by the Planning Commission as a special use. In considering such authorization, the Planning Commission shall consider the following standards:

(1) the size, nature and character of the proposed use,

(2) the proximity of the proposed use to adjoining properties,

(3) the parking facilities provided for the proposed use,

(4) how well the proposed use harmonizes, blends with and enhances adjoining properties and the surrounding neighborhood, and

(5) the effect of the proposed use on adjoining properties and the surrounding neighborhood.

1. This business is consistent with what is already in the strip mall.
2. There is commercial property on either side. The special use would stay with the unit but will have specific conditions imposed.  
3. Parking is adequate
4. This harmonizes with the area. This area has been a commercial zone for a long time.
5. The business area is already there.

The motion was amended by Docter and supported by Wincel to add the following conditions:

1. Sales to be limited to 300cc maximum, step-through, gas-powered scooters      (or the alternative-energy equivalent of 300cc’s)
2. A maximum of four (4) scooters may remain outside during business hours.  (This does not include the scooter on the roof.)
3. Service to be limited to routine maintenance done wholly inside. No mechanical repairs may be done.

            Motion carried:  7-0

Mark Kooyers, TRT Company, presented the special use for a wireless communication tower (“tower”). TRT has an agreement to lease land from Doug Dreyer. They have one carrier signed for the proposed tower and two others interested. They have FAA approval. They have Michigan Department of Aeronautics approval. This tower would meet all fall zone and setback requirements. The tower would be one hundred fifty feet (150’) high with an additional four to five foot (4’-5’) antenna. There would be no lighting. He stated that he expected this tower to fill quickly. This proposed tower would accommodate five carriers. 

There was a discussion on the size and style of cabinets (accessory structures).

Docter clarified that the surrounding property is zoned AG.

There was a discussion on fall zones and separations distances.

Arendshorst asked for clarification on how they can allow for future carriers if this is proposed as a monopole.

Kooyers stated that they do advanced engineering to make that possible. 

The public hearing was opened at 7:58 p.m. 

Betty Jones, 16757 Ashley Lane, stated that she has poor cell phone coverage and asked the PC to approve the tower.  

Brian Dreyer, 2766 152^nd Ave., stated that he owns property next to the proposed site. He asked the length of the contract. 

Kooyers stated that it starts with five to ten years and could be up to thirty years. 

Brian Dreyer stated that he farms the land and has no plans to change. He stated that he is not opposed to the tower, but to the placement so close to his property. It would have a negative impact on developing it for residences in the future. He stated that he would like to see the tower moved to the south where the land owner would share the impact. 

The public hearing was closed at 8:04 p.m. 

Martin asked for clarification on the location.

Kooyers stated that the setbacks have to be within the parent parcel so the tower has to be on one parcel or the other. If the tower were moved to the south parcel it would impact existing residential uses. The tower would also have to shrink the closer it gets towards the airport.

There was a discussion on the application. 

Toscano stated that there were still a few details missing from the application that are required by the ordinance; the elevations of existing structures, the height of existing towers and the capacity to add different antennas. He stated that he did not want to rush through the application and its approval. 

There was a lengthy discussion on the information given and what might still need to be supplied. After the discussion Toscano stated that he felt that they had all of the information needed to make a decision. 

Wincel asked how they could make the decision when they don’t have the sealed drawings. 

Martin stated that it could be a condition to present those drawings to the Zoning Administrator. 

Wincel stated that he didn’t think that the proposed landscaping was sufficient. 

Kooyers stated that he didn’t have any approved plans for any other towers in the township. 

Szidik stated that he was satisfied that Kooyers answer satisfied the requirement. 

A motion was made by Wincel and supported by Docter to approve the special use request for a monopole, wireless communication tower up to one hundred fifty feet (150’) with and additional four foot (4’) antenna as presented with the following conditions:

1.      Signed, sealed construction plans for the tower to be submitted for approval to the township Zoning Administrator.

2.      An updated site plan for any ancillary buildings to be submitted for approval to the township Zoning Administrator.

3.      A detailed landscape plan to be submitted for approval to the township Zoning Administrator.

Toscano asked if the land will remain in farming.

Doug Dreyer stated that he rents that land out so he cannot answer that.

There was a discussion on whether gravel could be interpreted as pervious paving material. It was determined that the PC would be in favor of using a gravel driveway but it would need a variance from the Park Township Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). 

The motion was amended by Wincel and supported by Docter to have the conditions read as follows:

1.      Signed, sealed construction plans for the tower to be submitted for approval to the township Zoning Administrator.

2.      An updated site plan for any ancillary buildings to be submitted for approval to the township Zoning Administrator.

3.      A detailed landscape plan to be submitted for approval to the township Zoning Administrator.

a.       Stagger the arborvitae

b.      Wrap the arborvitae around the parking area

c.       Screen the gate

The standards for approval for a wireless communication tower, found in section 4A.07 (b) (2) of the Park Township Zoning Ordinance, were gone over and deemed approved.

            Motion carried: 7-0 

 Toscano clarified that this item would have no public hearing. The PC is charged with looking at the proposed site plan to determine if it meets the ordinance. He referred them to Sec 501 (5) of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MZEA).   

(5) A site plan shall be approved if it contains the information required by the zoning ordinance and is in compliance with the conditions imposed under the zoning ordinance, other statutorily authorized and properly adopted local unit of government planning documents, other applicable ordinances, and state and federal statutes. 

Wincel asked about the referendum regarding this item. 

Martin clarified that there has been a notice of intent to circulate a petition. The opponents to the township’s conditional rezoning of this property have thirty (30) days from the date that the ordinance was published to circulate the petition and turn it into the township clerk. If a legal petition with the correct number of signatures of registered Park Township electors is not turned in on time, then the ordinance becomes effective within thirty (30) days of publication. If they do submit a petition with the correct number of valid signatures then it goes to a vote of the people and the ordinance doesn’t take effect until approved by a vote of the people. If the voters don’t concur with the rezoning then it’s denied. Any motion tonight must be conditioned upon the ordinance taking effect and also upon the variances taking effect when ZBA minutes are approved, April 28, 2008.  

Wincel asked if there was any benefit to moving the item to a meeting next week to see if there was going to be a referendum vote. 

Toscano clarified that the township board of trustees voted to approve conditional rezoning for this property. The PC needs to review the submitted site plan to see how it complies with C-2 zoning and the variances that were granted.

Randall Schipper, attorney for the applicant, asked for any questions. 

Brent DeRose, Nederveld Associates, asked for any questions. He clarified that they received approval today from the Ottawa County Drain Commission (OCDC) and submitted that approval letter to the township.  

Szidik asked the proximity of the dumpster to the residential area. 

DeRose stated that the dumpster would be eighty-five (85’) feet from the nearest house and two (2’) feet to the C-2 parking lot to the south. 

Szidik asked if it could be moved to the north side. 

DeRose stated that that would not be an ideal site. 

Toscano asked about timing and phasing. 

DeRose stated that the project would be done within sixty days of approval.  

Toscano asked the plan for Third Ave. 

DeRose stated that there has been a plan submitted to Ottawa County Road Commission (OCRC) to pave fifteen feet wide (15’) to Ottawa Beach Rd. and relocate the bike path. 

Szidik asked the elevation of the deck. 

DeRose stated it would be approximately one and one-half foot (1 1/2’) above the existing grade. 

Szidik stated he still had a concern over the dumpster location. 

There was a discussion on moving the dumpster. 

Szidik asked if they had applied for “No Parking” signs for Third Ave.

Schipper stated that once it’s paved the township could put up “No Parking on Pavement” signs. 

There was a discussion on parking, signage, safety, a letter from OCRC, etc. 

Docter stated that he would recommend to the board that they ask the OCRC to put up signs. 

Toscano asked about the elevation from the crown of the street. 

DeRose stated that the structure would be approximately one inch above the crown of the road. 

Toscano wondered if the proposed fence on the west property line could create a safety issue. He stated that he felt a vegetative screen would serve this area better by not creating a blind spot behind a fence at the dead end. 

Schipper stated that that would probably not meet the ordinance. 

There was a discussion on fencing, eliminating the fence, etc. 

Szidik stated that he foresaw a problem if the lot at the dead end ever got approved for a parking lot.  That would be too much traffic for a 15-foot wide street. 

Toscano clarified that the traffic safety issues for Third Ave. have already been addressed and decided. 

It was clarified that the PC does not have the authority to waive the need for the fence. 

Martin reminded the PC to remember the directive regarding site plan approval found in Sec 501 (5) of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act.   

A motion was made by Wincel and supported by Lampen to approve the site plan as presented.

Toscano asked if there were any items of the site plan content that the PC members felt were still not addressed.

Toscano asked if the bio-swale retention area satisfies the OCDC. 

Schipper stated that they want to start construction in early May and open by late June.

Toscano asked if the fence will be moved to open up the corner on Third Ave.

Mark Smith, developer, stated that he is anticipating at least part will be moved or removed.

Magennis asked the color of the canopy.

Smith stated that it would be a soft green.

Szidik asked about signage.

Toscano stated that between the submittal and the discussion, the requirements for site plan content found in section 20A of the Park Township Zoning Ordinance are complete. 

Szidik stated that he would also be voting no because of his feeling that there are safety issues with the traffic.

Magennis stated that she would be voting no for all of the above reasons.

Toscano stated that he also would be voting no because, while he thinks the business has potential for the township this is not the best location for it. He stated that he was also concerned about the traffic and the fence. He stated that while he respected the decision to rezone made by the township board of trustees, he was disappointed that they voted against the PC recommendation.

Martin clarified that the PC members are permitted to vote their conscience but this is not a decision regarding the rezoning. He reminded them again of the wording in the MZEA regarding the approval of a site plan that complies with the ordinance.

Wincel stated that it does not “harmonize” (section (x) (4) ) with the neighboring properties.

Martin stated that the township board has already determined that the zoning is appropriate and the statue says the site plan “shall” be approved if it complies with the conditional rezoning as approved. If the property is zoned for a walk-up restaurant, how can the PC say it can’t be used as zoned? This would be a taking.

Martin stated that that was correct.

Wincel stated that he would have to rescind his decision to vote no.

Wincel amended the motion and Lampen supported the amendment to condition the approval on the ordinance approved by the Park Township Board taking effect and the variances approved by the Park Township Zoning Board of Appeals taking effect.

            Amended motion carried: 4-3

 Roll call:

                                                            Szidik: No                   Wincel: Yes

                                                            Lampen: Yes               Docter: Yes

                                                            Magennis: No              Arendshorst: Yes

                                                            Toscano: No

ANNOUNCEMENTS

 1.      Wincel stated that the county is looking at drafting a proposed ordinance for wind generators and also one for ethanol production.

 MOTION

            A motion was made by Lampen and supported by Arendshorst to adjourn at 10:20 p.m.

 VOTE

            Motion carried: 7-0

Meeting adjourned.

 Sandy Brodie

Recording Secretary