VILLAGE OF SPRING LAKE
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
November 25, 2008
Barber School Community Building
102 West Exchange Street
Spring Lake, MI 49456
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman VandenBosch called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Gleason, Johnson, Kleppe, C. Miller, S. Miller, VandenBosch, VanStrate, and Yasenak
Absent: Unkovskoy
Staff present: Kathy Staton
III. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Motion by S. Miller, support by C. Miller to approve the agenda. All in favor, motion carried.
IV. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
A. Approval of the Minutes of the October 28, 2008, Regular Meeting.
Motion by C. Miller, support by S. Miller to approve the minutes of the October 28, 2008 regular meeting as written. All in favor, motion carried.
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. 909 West Savidge Street – Special Use Permit
The Planning Commission will continue discussion of a proposed Special Use Permit for expansion of the existing restaurant at 909 W. Savidge Street. Plans call for construction of additions to the east and west sides of the building and changing the use to a sports themed restaurant and bar.
Chairman VandenBosch introduced the item. Dennis Dryer, Dryer Architectural Group, was present to explain the project. Dryer explained the changes to the plans since the last meeting. MDOT denied the use of the M-104 right-of-way on the south side of the property so the 2 parking spaces and curb cut will be removed and the dumpster will be relocated to the west side of the building. The owners have decided to add 12 feet to the front of the building to increase seating capacity. The addition increases the parking requirement to 10 spaces. They have 8 spaces within the property lines with 2 more spaces on the north side of the parking lot in the Savidge Street right-of-way. Dryer explained that sidewalk will be installed to connect the existing sidewalk to the municipal parking lot to the west. He noted that Village Council granted permission for a lease agreement to permit the leaching basins for the storm water system to be placed in the Savidge St. ROW north of the building.
Dryer showed the elevation drawings and explained that the proposed addition would be mostly windows and include a new airlock entry.
VanStrate asked if the 8 parking spaces within the property lines would cover any of the existing green space on the property. Dryer said they would not and explained that the spaces are existing.
Johnson stated that he appreciates the redo of the exterior of the building.
Gleason asked if they will put in grass where the pavement is removed on the south side of the property. Dryer said they will replant the area after the pavement is removed.
There was discussion about the location of signs. Bruce Hayes, one of the owners, explained that they plan to reuse the sign boxes. One will be mounted to the front (east) of the building and one on the south wall to be more visible from M-104. Dryer showed the locations on the elevation drawings. VandenBosch stated that the Village no longer permits pylon signs, but the owner would be permitted to reface the existing pylon sign because there is no change of use involved. Dryer stated that a monument sign would not be seen as well as the pylon sign. C. Miller asked the owner if they plan to use the pylon sign. Hayes stated that the sign contractor suggested reusing the sign but lowering it to ground level and he would be fine with that. There was discussion about the square footage of the signs that will be reused. VandenBosch stated that lowering the pylon sign to ground level would satisfy the intent of the Village regulations.
The Commission asked what the outside lighting would be and if it would be down lighting. Dryer stated they plan to use the 2 existing wall pack lights on the building, but he does not know if they are cut-off style fixtures. The Commission agreed that the wall pack lights should be changed to full cut-off style fixtures.
Motion by Yasenak, support by VanStrate to approve the special use permit for expansion of the restaurant at 909 W. Savidge Street with the following conditions:
1. That final site plan and elevation drawings that have been signed and sealed by the design professional are provided.
2. The plans are approved and permits issued by MDEQ and FEMA.
3. That the applicant is required to install a sidewalk connecting this property to the municipal parking lot to the west.
4. That a storm water management plan be provided and approved by the consulting engineer.
5. That the dumpster enclosure and new landscaping must meet the requirements of the ordinance.
6. That existing wall pack lights and site lighting must be changed to 100% cutoff down-light type fixtures and that new lighting must also be 100% cutoff down-light type fixtures.
7. That the pylon sign will be reused as a monument sign.
8. That the M-104 drive and parking spaces be removed and planted in grass.
ROLL CALL: Yeas – Gleason, Johnson, Kleppe, C. Miller, S. Miller, VanStrate, Yasenak, and VandenBosch
Nays – none
All in favor, motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. 808 – 830 East Savidge Street – Planned Unit Development
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing for a proposed Planned Unit Development for the property located at 808 – 830 East Savidge Street, the southwest corner of E. Savidge Street and Fruitport Road. This will be continuation of review of the mixed use commercial and office project proposed in the spring of 2008.
Chairman VandenBosch introduced the item and opened the public hearing. The applicant, Jim Reminga, was present to explain the changes to the plans. Reminga explained that it took longer than expected to complete the traffic study required by the Planning Commission because of the work on Fruitport Road over the summer. He discussed the items raised in the staff comments. Reminga noted that the Village Attorney said that the drive to River St. could be approved, but it should comply with the Private Road Ordinance. That ordinance requires that the road would have to be 50 feet wide. The rest of the roads in the development are 24’ – 25’ wide. Reminga stated that he thought 50 feet was too wide. Drives are only required to be 20 feet wide. He thinks that narrower would be better for the River St. access, but they will comply with the ordinance if the Village requires it. Reminga stated that the traffic study indicates that the River Street access road would be lightly traveled.
Reminga stated that all of the site lighting will be dark sky compliant and that the maximum pole height of 20 feet is acceptable.
Reminga discussed the signage. He stated that the plans should say that the monument signs will be no more than 50 sq. ft. in area to comply with the ordinance. If there is only one tenant on the sign it could only be 32 sq. ft. He stated that 3 monument signs are shown to allow one for each of the development islands. Reminga showed a graphic that illustrated that the 2 monument signs shown near the Savidge Street entrance should not block vision. He stated that they could take out a couple of parking spaces to move the signs farther from the driveway if the Planning Commission is concerned about visibility. Reminga stated that he used a different calculation for the wall signs than what is in the ordinance, but he will change it to comply with the ordinance requirements.
S. Miller asked about the size of the proposed directional signs. Reminga stated that they will comply with the ordinance requirement and the directional signs will be no larger than 4 sq. ft.
Reminga then discussed the requests made in the letter from the neighboring property owners at 121 S. Fruitport Road. He stated that the request for the brick wall instead of the fence would be very expensive so he is asking that the Planning Commission not require that it be put in. Reminga also stated that the zoning ordinance limits the height of fences to 6 ft. so they could not build the fence 8 feet tall as the neighbors are requesting. He discussed the location and type of landscaping along the fence. He thinks the arborvitae bushes requested might not be necessary, and described other options. Reminga stated that he will work with the neighbors about the landscaping. Reminga addressed the concerns expressed by the neighbors regarding the dumpster location. He stated that most restaurants put their own dumpsters and grease receptacles close to the building so he is confident that the dumpster adjacent to the neighbors’ property will not have restaurant waste in it.
Reminga noted that the Village Engineer reviewed the traffic study. Reminga worked with MDOT and changed the driveway location on Savidge. Reminga also discussed the list of proposed uses for the project saying that the owner would like to remove the restriction of alcohol sales from the list of uses so that alcohol sales could be permitted in a drug store, or perhaps there could be an upscale wine shop.
Richard Brown, 808 River Street, stated that he remains opposed to the access to River Street. He believes it would be an intrusion on the neighborhood. He asked why it will be needed at all if it is anticipated to be low traffic as stated by the developer. Brown stated that he is not against the development, but is opposed to this access. He noted that there are 2 retirement homes in this neighborhood and those people use electric scooters and he believes the traffic would be a danger to them. Brown also stated that this will have an impact on the value of the properties on River Street. Brown also questioned the ability of the sewer lift station on River St. to handle the additional capacity required for this development. He expressed concern about lighting on the access road and stated that, if the village permits this access road, there should not be a sign permitted at the end of it.
Wally Obits, 818 River Street, stated that he lives right across from the access road and has had several near misses in the past when pulling out of his driveway, and is concerned that his insurance rates will go up. He questioned how the developer would control the traffic volume on the access road and he is concerned that it might turn out to be high volume. He suggested that the developer place a gate at the end of the commercially zoned portion of the property and label it for emergency access only.
Rita Braun, 121 S. Fruitport Road, stated that she does not think that the cost of brick is unreasonable to protect her from the noise and light from the project and requested that the Planning Commission permit an 8 foot high fence. Braun stated that arborvitae would help screen year round and she said she would permit them to be planted on her side of the fence. She is also concerned about run off from the project because her property is lower that the project property, and questioned how the runoff would get to the retention area. She asked that the Planning Commission consider their requests.
Lisa Stoner, 825 River Street, stated that she would be directly impacted by the access road to River. She showed the Planning Commission pictures of the view of the access road from River Street and from her property. Stoner stated that she is opposed to the access road, especially if it has to be 50 feet wide, and she is also opposed to a sign on River Street. She stated that the Planning Commission should consider the comments of the long time residents. Stoner noted that she is concerned about the wildlife in the area if more trees are cut. She asked if the access road is really necessary or whether it is strictly for convenience.
Scott Keller, owner of 238 South Street, stated that he got his house from the property where this project will be built. He stated that he asked the owner’s permission to move the house down the access road to River St. but the owner would not permit it. That saved a lot of trees from being removed.
Judy Swiftney, 223 S. Fruitport Road, stated that she is concerned about privacy for herself and her neighbors along the proposed River St. access and stated that if the road is allowed she would like a privacy fence all along the road.
Elliott Grysen, 806 River Street, stated that the entire River Street neighborhood is against this access road. He stated that currently there are no commercial uses that go through to River from Savidge Street; this would be the first. The Planning Commission made it clear in their decision about the request for a Bed & Breakfast on River Street that even 2 – 3 extra cars are too many. Grysen asked the Planning Commission to send the developer back with instructions to redesign the project without the access road.
Lisa Stoner spoke again stating that her house has 2 bedrooms along the access road.
Scott Keller spoke again stating that he is not in favor of commercial uses in a residential neighborhood.
There being no further public comment, motion by S. Miller, support by C. Miller to close the public hearing. All in favor, motion carried.
VandenBosch stated that he had a list of questions. He asked Village Manager Cotton, who was present in the audience, to address the neighbor’s concerns about the sewer lift station. Cotton noted that there has been no official study or review done yet, but in discussions with DPW staff it is felt that the lift station will handle the project.
VandenBosch stated that in terms of the drainage for the project he hates to see a water retention pond because of mosquitoes, weeds, etc. VandenBosch stated that because of the sandy soil they could do it with leaching basins, and he would prefer that method.
VandenBosch stated that if the River Street access is allowed, he would be against the sign, against 2-way traffic and the 24 foot road.
Reminga asked why VandenBosch is opposed to 2-way traffic. VandenBosch stated he is opposed because of the additional traffic and would want 1-way only if the access road is approved.
VandenBosch stated that the proposed fences should not be wood, but should be at least composite material which has been shown to hold up much better than wood. He stated that he has no objection to alcohol sales in a drug store.
Yasenak asked if Reminga would be open to eliminating the road to River Street, or to making it 1-way. Reminga stated that they really want to get the project moving and they would like to see the access road. The traffic study concluded this access road would be low volume. Reminga stated the access road would give the appearance of convenience, and makes the project more appealing to retailers. Reminga stated that they could possibly come back with a plan that would add multiple family development to the residential zoned area with the River Street access for the multi-family and office parking only.
VandenBosch stated that he just doesn’t see the purpose that the access road serves. Reminga stated that customers coming from the south will use River Street anyway so that makes no difference to the traffic impact of the road. The access road adds retail sales value to potential buyers.
VandenBosch stated that people from the south would still come to the project whether the road is there or not, so why put the road in? Reminga stated that the convenience aspect is the main reason. VandenBosch stated that he doesn’t want more traffic on River Street. He stated that the developer is asking the Planning Commission to violate the wishes of the neighbors just for convenience.
Reminga stated that the Planning Commission can recommend no access road to the Village Council, but they will still go and ask Council for the access road anyway. He stated that he had not considered 1-way for the road and agreed to eliminate the sign if it is a deal breaker.
Village Manager Cotton stated that the project owner, John Doezema, was in his office several times about this project and Cotton warned him each time that the road to River St. would not be well received. Cotton stated that after seeing the traffic study and seeing that this is only for convenience he was very disappointed to still see the access road on the plans. Cotton feels that this road would weaken the neighborhood. He stated that this commercial area would work without this access road.
S. Miller stated that she would like to see the project move forward without the access road. C. Miller agreed and suggested that the Commission develop some findings regarding that decision.
Gleason stated that this is a big issue. He thinks the access road is intrusive to the neighborhood. He thinks the fence as described by VandenBosch is good and that an 8 foot concrete fence is excessive. Gleason agreed with VandenBosch about the leaching basins.
Reminga stated that they are planning to use leaching basins and that there will be no standing water on the site.
Gleason stated that he thinks the signs on Savidge are too big and that they would hamper visibility. Gleason stated that the big issue is the River Street access. He noted that the Planning Commission tries to listen to the neighborhood. He wants the project, but also wants to respect the neighbors’ wishes.
Johnson stated that he does not like the River Street access, that it changes the traffic on River and Fruitport. He wants to move the project ahead, but without the access road. Johnson stated that the road is not necessary for the project.
VanStrate stated that he would not like to see the access road to River, and thinks that most people will use the Fruitport Road drive.
Kleppe stated that he does not like the access road. He also feels that the fence should be anything except a wood fence for the Braun residence.
VandenBosch noted that the developer could always sell the lot on River Street and build a house there. Reminga stated that they have discussed residential use for the back part of the property.
VandenBosch asked about the monument signs. Reminga stated that they would like to come in for sign approval as each island is developed. There was discussion about the number, size and location of the monument signs. Reminga stated that signage rights are one of the first things that retailers look for. VandenBosch asked if they could use just one monument sign. C. Miller agreed citing the monument sign at the Ace hardware development. Stated noted that the Ace hardware development was also approved as a PUD and was permitted to have several monument signs.
Reminga discussed the site landscaping. He stated that the owner does not intend to hurt the neighborhood. Reminga offered to meet with the Brauns to develop a landscape plan that is acceptable to them before the Village Council review of the PUD.
VandenBosch asked Reminga if they will close the River Street curb if the access road is denied. Reminga said they will close it only if it is a condition of approval. VandenBosch stated that he thinks it might be alright as a bike path with bollards installed to block vehicle traffic. Reminga suggested that the access road could be blocked temporarily until the residential area of the project is developed. VandenBosch stated that he hears a consensus among the Planning Commissioners that they do not want to permit the River Street access road.
VandenBosch asked the commissioners their thoughts about the fence. The consensus was that it should not be made of wood, it should only be 6 feet high and that the developer should work out the details with the neighbors to their satisfaction. VandenBosch suggested that the Zoning Administrator work with the developer and the neighbors adjacent to the Fruitport Road drive and approve the landscape plan developed for that area. The commissioners agreed.
VandenBosch then asked the commissioners their feelings about the signage. The consensus was that all signs should be approved at the time of architectural review of the buildings.
Staton suggested that the Planning Commission make findings regarding their decision to deny the use of the access road. There was discussion among the commissioners. The Planning Commission determined that the access road to River Street should not be permitted because of the detrimental affect it would have on the neighborhood as demonstrated by the public comments and because the increased traffic on the access road would create a possible safety hazard to elderly citizens living in the neighborhood and in the 2 retirement complexes in the neighborhood.
Motion by S. Miller, support by C. Miller to recommend to the Village Council that the requirements of Section 12.5A.3 and Section 12.5A.4 be waived because they are not applicable to this project and to recommend that the Village Council approve the Planned Unit Development for the property located at 808 – 830 East Savidge Street with the following conditions:
1. Final plans for each development envelope, including architectural design, signage, type of use, and all things required for final site plan approval per Section 19.3 require review and approval of the Planning Commission and Village Council per Chapter 6 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. That all site requirements including storm water management, grading plan, soil erosion control plan, utilities, easements, drives, sidewalks and paths, street lighting and general sight lighting be approved and constructed with the first development envelope.
3. The plans must meet the requirements of the Fire Department.
4. That the applicant enters into a planned unit development contract with the village as drafted by the Village Attorney.
5. That there be no vehicular access from River Street permitted and that the existing road be blocked and the curb cut removed. This condition is based on the detrimental affect the access road would have on the neighborhood as demonstrated by the public comments received and because the increased traffic on the access road would create a possible safety hazard to elderly citizens living in the neighborhood and in the 2 retirement complexes in the neighborhood.
6. That alcohol sales may be included in the list of permitted uses.
7. That leaching basins be used for the storm water management system and no open retention areas are permitted.
8. That directional signs may be no larger than 4 square feet in area and must comply with the zoning ordinance.
9. That the developer work out an acceptable landscape plan for the property line between the Fruitport Road driveway and the adjacent neighbor to the south, such plan to be approved by the Zoning Administrator.
ROLL CALL – YEAS: Yasenak, Gleason, Johnson, Kleppe, VanStrate, C. Miller, S. Miller, VandenBosch
NAYS: None
All in favor, motion carried.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
There was none.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Adoption of 2009 Planning Commission Meeting Dates
• Staton explained the proposed 2009 schedule. Motion by S. Miller, support by C. Miller to adopt the meeting date schedule for 2009. All in favor, motion carried.
• VandenBosch and Staton told the Commission about a meeting with Suzanne Rudnitzki where she discussed a possible project on the property between the Lake Pointe condos and Barrett’s Boat Works.
• Staton distributed information about the Ottawa County model wind energy ordinance and discussed several ordinance amendments, including a wind energy ordinance, which the Planning Commission will be working on over the next few months.
VIII. STATEMENTS OF CITIZENS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
There were none.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, motion by Yasenak, support by C. Miller to adjourn the meeting. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 9:20 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Staton
Code Compliance and Planning Administrator
|