|
PUBLIC
HEARING: KELLY RIDGE ESTATES P.U.D. FINAL
Visser
opened the public hearing.
Attorney
George Bauer represented developer Mark De Vries. He gave an overview of
the plan noting it would be on an 18-acre site with 34 single-family
parcels. It would have municipal water and proposed sanitary sewer system.
It is consistent with area developments. Wetlands have been identified, and
there are no wetlands within the building site. The Planning Commission
gave a recommendation of denial. Bauer feels the 1997 referendum is the
significant reason for this recommendation and stated that opposition for
this reason would not hold up in court. He also noted the signed petition
opposing this development was submitted prior to the plan’s submittal.
Sharon
Hoort, 1805 Perry Street, stated she fully supports this development. It is
a very attractive way of using this land. Similar developments have been
approved in the area. She does not want this to become a legal battle and
is concerned about the accuracy of the information given on the signed
petition.
Gretchen Fisher, 131 N. 160th
Avenue, stated that what people are calling a “petition” was actually a
letter to Mr. De Vries expressing their concerns and hoping that he would
take them into consideration. She noted 15 of the acres were part of the
original referendum. This plan is higher density and is only consistent
with the land to the west. The referendum vote agreed with these concerns.
Steve Geerlings, 1561 Perry
Street, feels the Board should take into consideration that the current
plan’s density is higher than the one voted down in 1997. He stated that
the wetland on the Black Stallion Farms print is inconsistent with the Kelly
Ridge wetlands print.
LeeAnne Jachim, 1522 Perry
Street, stated the letter with signatures that went to Mr. De Vries
expressed concerns about what type of development he might be proposing.
This letter was sent in hopes that he would respond and meet with the
people. She would like the plan to be comparable to Black Stallion Farms.
Having the developer contribute to Park Township’s sewer system is not going
to make this development better. This is the same property that was voted
on 7 years ago and denied. She hopes the Board takes this into
consideration.
Glenn Brunsting, 67 N. 160th
Avenue, who lives next door to the property, stated he is for this
development. It is hard to find affordable property for people who want to
live near the lakeshore.
Jackie
VanWieren, 1865 Columbus Street, noted that many of the concerns have
referred to P.U.D.’s of the past, but the Township has a new comprehensive
plan that states it’s purpose is “To protect, encourage and retain the
integrity of the rural residential character of the community.” The point
is not what they want to build, but rather how it is laid out. There is no
clustering, therefore, no integrity given to the land. She also feels it is
dangerous to have another entrance on 160th Avenue in that area.
David
Demaagd, 1197 Silverstone Road, stated he is a friend of Mark De Vries and
has heard a lot of the same concerns and asked that a consistent standard be
applied.
Bob
Rosema, Project Engineer, addressed the wetlands and stated they are not
only based on water level, but also on the soil type and vegetation. He
also noted the entrance was approved by the Road Commission and clustering
cannot be done due to the size of the property.
Elmer
Perrigan, 5 N. 160th Avenue, questioned whether or not a sewer
and water system would be installed.
Visser
replied water is already available on 160th Avenue and he would
have no problem requiring sanitary sewer as a condition for approval.
Visser
closed the public hearing.
Martin
clarified that this plan is for site condominiums. He also addressed the
referendum stating it pertained to a development that involved a portion of
this parcel and one to the south. There are issues as to whether or not
that referendum would be binding on this development. There could be some
serious distinctions made because it is not the exact parcel, and during the
several years that have passed, the master plan has not been changed. He
needs to research the issues before giving legal advice.
Koopman
stated that the legal issues are very pertinent to his decision making
process. More time is needed to receive legal advice.
MOTION MADE, MOTION
SUPPORTED, MOTION CARRIED: A motion was made by Koopman and supported by
Marsilje to delay the Kelly Ridge P.U.D. Final pending legal advice.
|