PARK TOWNSHIP
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Draft until approved at next meeting

February 19, 2008

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

Absent:   LeeAnne Jachim, Jim Szidik and Jeff Wincel 

STUDY SESSION 

Toscano reminded the Planning Commission (PC) that the home occupation in question is not the type of home occupation that is permitted by right under the Park Township Zoning Ordinance.  

There was a brief discussion on section 4.28 and the different types of home occupations. 

MOTION

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

VOTE

            Motion carried: 6-0

Toscano asked for more detail to be put into the January 22, 2008 minutes on page 5 regarding his research into the property value, SEV, etc. on agenda item #1.

Magennis stated that she wanted to applaud the PC for their work on the item from last month regarding the conditional rezoning and stated that she wished there had been stronger support from the township board. 

MOTION

            A motion was made by Arendshorst and supported by Doctor to approve the minutes for the January 22, 2008 regular meeting as amended. 

VOTE

            Motion carried: 6-0

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Carol Washburn, 2253 First Ave., thanked the PC for the diligent work they did over the last two months on the conditional rezoning request at 2244 Third Ave. She stated that it was commendable that the PC did not make “unworthy” and “unprofessional” remarks such as those that were made at the Park Township Board meeting. She stated that she thought that the board did not support their decision on evidence as the PC did. 

AGENDA ITEMS

Item #1           Special Use – Hair Salon – Jodie Edewaard – 2984 Joshua Ct. 

Jodie Edewaard, 2984 Joshua Ct., presented the special use request and asked for any questions.

Toscano asked if she needs separate licenses for cutting hair and for operating a salon. 

Edewaard stated that that was correct and that she has kept both licenses active through the years depending on whether she needed one or both. 

Schaftenaar stated that he thought he remembered that this subdivision restricted special uses.  

Edewaard stated that she was not aware of any bylaws in Timber Line Acres West.

Martin clarified that even if there are bylaws the township does not enforce them. They are a private matter for the homeowners and any established homeowners association. 

Toscano asked about her utilities. 

Edewaard stated that she is on municipal sewer and water.

Arendshorst asked what Edewaard would do with the salon room if she did not get permission to open her business. 

Edewaard stated that she uses it for her family. 

The public hearing was opened at 6:38 p.m.

Jennifer Linart, 2998 Joshua Ct., stated that she is not in favor of granting a special use for this business. Her concern is the permanent, ongoing nature of the traffic this would add to the neighborhood. She does not like the fact that this business would have regular hours. She stated that she is concerned for the safety of her children. There are no sidewalks, no “children at play” signs, no speed bumps, or stop signs in this subdivision. She asked if this was good “risk management” for the township. She asked if this was “the township’s vision for neighborhoods”.  

Matt Metcalf, 2999 Joshua Ct., stated that he has two young children and is opposed to this request because it would increase traffic. He stated that this is a hard street to navigate. 

Scott Menghini, 1536 Stillwater Dr., stated that he has been to this house when Edewaard was previously operating a salon out of there. He stated that it is no different than visiting a friend. In his neighborhood the teenagers bring more traffic to the neighborhood than this business would. 

George Linart, 2998 Joshua Ct., stated that the focus must be on the additional traffic that this would bring to the neighborhood, not on the existing traffic. He wondered what precedent this would establish if everyone in the neighborhood wanted to start a business. There are a lot of small children in this neighborhood. There are no sidewalks here. 

Mitch Bakker, 2983 Joshua Ct., stated that the last time this came up for review he and his wife supported the idea but now there are more children in this area and so they have changed their position and are not in favor. He stated that it was his opinion that there would be no way to police the hours. He stated that he also feels that this sets a precedent. How could the PC say no if someone else wanted to open a salon here?  

Stacy Hill, 10634 Macatawa Lane, stated that, as a customer of Edewaard, she finds her to be a highly moral person that would never knowingly put her children or other children in harm’s way. She stated that she thought that “preserving neighborhoods” is all about “moms being home with their kids”. 

Tina Carson, 124 W. 30th St., stated that she has a salon in her house. She stated that she obtained her salon approval with the City of Holland over the telephone. She asked the PC to approve this request so that Edewaard could earn an income and still be home with her children. 

Herb Eldean, 2222 S. Shore Dr., stated that he is a long-time customer of Edewaard and has never seen a traffic problem when she ran a salon from her house.  

Kathy Kasten, 1242 Oakhampton Rd., stated that she is a long time customer of Edewaard. She has never seen more than two cars in the driveway at one time. She stated that it was her opinion that this is no different than a piano teacher.  

Becky Stygstra, 17091 Quincy St., stated that she has a salon in her house and received permission from the previous Park Township Zoning Administrator and the process was “very simple”. She stated that she had to provide a “huge requirement list” and then received her special use permit. She stated that she has no problem with traffic. Her hours are Monday and Thursday from 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Her customers know there are small children near her house. She stated that she doesn’t live in a subdivision but along Quincy St.  

Nancy Vander Zwaag, 14700 Creek Edge Dr., stated that she has been a customer of Edewaard for thirteen years. She stated that the neighborhood does have a lot of traffic but the traffic would not increase that much or have that much effect. 

Randy Edewaard, 2984 Joshua Ct., stated that he wanted to support his wife. He stated that he has two small children and would not put them in harm’s way.  

George Linart stated that this house is in the center of a very large area of houses. There are three ways to leave the neighborhood.  

Jodie Edewaard stated that she would not put any children in harm’s way. She stated that she drives her child to a piano teacher down the street and drives in and out four times because she doesn’t stay and wait for the lesson. She stated that with her business people usually stay there with their children.  

Arendshorst asked for clarification on whether the business was going to operate thirty hours or two days per week. The application states one thing and the applicant is stating something else. 

Edewaard clarified that she wanted leeway if there are busy times, cancellations, etc.  

The public hearing was closed at 7:12 p.m.

There was a discussion on stop signs, traffic patterns, Joshua Ct., exits to the subdivision, delivery trucks, etc. 

Toscano asked Edewaard if she would be selling products.

Edewaard stated that she would sell shampoo, conditioner and gel if allowed.

Toscano asked how she procured products to use on her clients. 

Edewaard stated that currently, even working out of a commercial salon, the product is delivered to her house or she goes to the beauty supply store. This would stay the same. 

Magennis, using a formula with the maximum appointments that could scheduled, stated that an extra 1,000 vehicles per year could be coming in and out of the neighborhood. When the section of the ordinance dealing with home occupations was changed the subcommittee looked at hours of operation, traffic, the impact on a neighborhood, etc. She stated that it was her belief that neighbors don’t want certain businesses in their neighborhood that impact traffic, etc.  

Edewaard stated that she would not do haircuts one after the other all day long so the number of vehicle trips was too high. 

Lampen asked what the difference was between this and the therapeutic massage business that was recently granted a special use. 

Toscano stated that this is similar in terms of traffic. 

Magennis stated that there were almost no objections to that business from the neighbors.

Martin stated that the PC would look at the nature of the neighborhoods and are they similar or different.  

There was a discussion on the nature of the neighborhood, safety, sidewalks and school bus stops and times, etc. 

MOTION

A motion was made by Schaftenaar and supported by Arendshorst to approve the special use request for a home occupation consisting of a hair salon at 2984 Joshua Ct. as presented.

Schaftenaar stated that he would amend his motion after discussion to add any needed conditions.

Toscano went over the standards in section 4.28 (c) of the Park Township Zoning Ordinance:

1. The nature of the home occupation, including whether it is of a type that has traditionally and historically been carried on as a home occupation: This type of business is going on in other homes in the Holland area (including Park Township) and has traditionally and historically been carried on as a home occupation.

2. 
   The nature of the surrounding neighborhood: It is a busy residential neighborhood with a lot of traffic and safety is a concern. It is not the easiest neighborhood to navigate. However, there are not a lot of cars parked in the street.
    

3. The effect of the home occupation on the surrounding neigh­borhood:  This business would affect the whole subdivision because it is embedded in the middle of a large subdivision with three means of ingress and egress. Adverse effects of the home occupation could be minimized with reasonable conditions.
    

4. The environmental effects of the home occupation: This house is connected to municipal utilities. There would most likely be no odors leaving the house. There would be no adverse environmental effects.
    

5. Whether customers conduct business on the premise:  They would, but it would not be substantially different than a therapeutic massage business or piano teacher.
    

6. Potential traffic congestion as a result of the home occupation: The house is imbedded deeply in a large area of houses. Perhaps having another mom in the neighborhood is an offset and also she is not coming and going from the neighborhood to go to a job. The school bus activity is a consideration. This home occupation might add some addition vehicular trips to the neighborhood but would not create traffic congestion.
    

7.  Provision for parking for traffic or clientele that may result from the operation of the home occupa­tion (for those home occupations where customers or clientele are permitted on the premises): Parking is not an issue because onsite parking is adequate. They have five outdoor spaces. They need two outdoor spaces for the house and two for customers.

There was a lengthy discussion on what conditions to place on the special use. This discussion included hours of operation, parking, bus traffic, safety, registering the conditions and special use at the county, advertising restriction, etc.

Eric asked for clarification on the advertising and promotion restriction.

Toscano stated that it would mean no business cards, no listing in the phone book, no sign, etc.

There was a discussion on advertising and on appointment and business cards. It was determined to prohibit the use of mass media advertising and promotion. Cards are not mass media advertising but are considered personal advertising.

The MOTION WAS AMENDED by Schaftenaar and the amendment was supported by Lampen to add the following conditions:

1.                  Home occupation to be limited to a one-chair hair salon operated by appointment only. Only the homeowner may work as the stylist.

2.                  No outside employees, consultants or independent contractors are permitted to work at the home as part of the home occupation.

3.                  The salon may operate seven (7) days per week.

4.                  No appointment may be earlier than 9:00 a.m.

5.                  The salon may operate for a maximum of twenty (20) hours per week. At the request of Park Township the owner will provide written, detailed documentation of hours worked.

6.                  A maximum of two (2) customer vehicles may be on the premises at any one time.

7.                  No on-street parking.

8.                  No product sales are allowed.

9.                  No mass media advertising or promotion is allowed. This includes but is not limited to internet, telephone book, electronic media, newspaper, television.

10.              The special use permit and conditions shall be recorded by the applicant with the Ottawa County Register of Deeds within sixty (60) days of the approval by the Park Township Planning Commission.

Docter stated that there were actually twenty-seven (27) letters in favor of approving the application and nine (9) opposed. Five of the letters did not come from the neighborhood.

Toscano stated that he still has concerns over the impact on the neighborhood especially relating to traffic.

VOTE

            Motion carried: 4-2 (Magennis, Toscano)            

ANNOUNCEMENTS 

MOTION

            A motion was made by Arendshorst and supported by Docter to adjourn at 8:47 p.m. 

VOTE

            Motion carried: 6-0 

Meeting adjourned. 

Sandy Brodie
Recording Secretary