VILLAGE OF SPRING LAKE
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
January 27, 2009
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, C. Miller, S. Miller, Unkovskoy, VandenBosch, VanStrate, and Yasenak
Absent: Kleppe
Staff present: Kathy Staton, Code Compliance and Planning Administrator
III. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Motion by Johnson, support by VanStrate to approve the agenda. All in favor, motion carried.
IV. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
A. Approval of the Minutes of the December 16, 2008, Regular Meeting.
Johnson asked if any of the members of the commission could recall the name of the gentleman who spoke at the meeting that was identified as “another neighbor” in the minutes. After discussion the person was identified as Mr. George Smith of 715 E. River Street. Motion by S. Miller, support by Unkovskoy to approve the minutes of the December 16, 2008 regular meeting as amended. All in favor, motion carried.
V. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
A. Proposed Sign Ordinance Amendments
The Planning Commission will continue discussion of proposed amendments to Chapter 17, Signs, of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed amendments include setback requirements for monument signs and regulations for contractor signs and real estate signs.
Chairman VandenBosch introduced the item and opened the discussion. Gleason stated that he spoke to Ron Olmstead of Olmstead signs about possible changes to the ordinance and Olmstead requested that the size limitations be based on a 4’ x 8’ sheet of plywood to save materials. VandenBosch noted that he thought the Planning Commission had redone the sign ordinance not too many years ago. Staton said that they did, and that is the basis for this rewrite, however, a few issues have come up recently that are not covered in the current ordinance which need to be addressed, specifically setback requirements for monument signs. She noted that in addition there are some signs that there are currently no regulations for such as construction signs and development signs. Staton went through the proposed changes with the commissioners.
Staton explained that a few questions came up during the rewrite. The Downtown Master plans calls for elimination of all freestanding signs in the downtown. There are currently a lot of freestanding signs in the core downtown. Staton asked if the Planning Commission wanted to eliminate freestanding signs as an option in the downtown, or just establish a setback. Other than the properties that already have a freestanding sign there are very few properties with enough space to install one. The commission agreed to continue to permit monument signs in the CBD-1.
VandenBosch stated that the development sign for Stonegate Condominiums has been up for a very long time and should probably come down. Staton noted that there is also a separate freestanding sign at the Stonegate development for Fifth Third Bank. She stated that the proposed regulations would require all that information to be on one sign and that the sign must be removed when 75% of the units are sold, completed or occupied. There was discussion about the difference between a development sign and subdivision identification sign. The Planning Commission discussed whether a limit of the length of time a development sign could be displayed would work better than the percentage method proposed. Developers need the sign to help sell their project, but after a point it is no longer effective. The developer can still display real estate signs for the units that had not sold. Staton stated that the goal would be that the developer would have to consolidate all of the information on one sign, so there are not multiple signs for each development, and that when they get closer to completion of the project that the sign would have to come down. Staton also stated that this is one of the types of signs for which no permit would be required. Gleason noted that with the market the way it is he doesn’t want to tie the hands of the developers to sell their project. VandenBosch noted that Spring Lake Villas has had development signs up for a long time, but that developer is a long way from completing the project. Unkovskoy asked if the issue of length of display could be tabled for 6 months for more consideration. She said that, given the economy, none of the developments will have sold 75% in the next 6 months. Staton said she believes that Stonegate and Lake Pointe have probably reached that point. Johnson asked if the commission was suggesting that no time limit be placed on this type of sign and the market will control it. He feels that there should not be a time limit, but the 75% percent requirement should stay. The consensus of the commissioners was that there should not be a time limit placed on development signs at this time and that the display of the sign should be based on the percentage of the project completed as drafted.
Johnson asked about the proposed prohibition on roof signs. He noted that the Planning Commission just approved a roof enclosure around mechanical equipment that would have a sign on it for Uncle Fred’s at 909 W. Savidge. He asked if that was considered a roof sign. Staton said usually anything above the eaves would be considered a roof sign. Johnson stated that he feels that was a good place for the use of a roof sign because it would cover up a bunch of infrastructure on the building. He said that he is fine with roof signs being prohibited as long as an applicant has an “out” like a variance or a special permit. In that case there were exceptional circumstances. Johnson stated that he can see where a roof sign might not be appropriate everywhere, but under certain circumstances they might be okay.
Staton suggested that if the commissioners agreed with Johnson the Planning Commission might want to consider incorporating some type of variance, waiver or special approval procedure into the ordinance. Staton noted that there could potentially also be situations in the CBD-1 and EED districts where a business owner would not be able to achieve the required setback for monument signs and they might need special consideration in those circumstances also. Other unforeseen situations could also arise that might need a waiver or variance. Staton explained that in the past she has seen ordinances that give the Planning Commission the authority to approve variances from sign regulations similar to the way that the Village ordinance allows the Planning Commission to permit additions to nonconforming structures if it meets 3 standards. VandenBosch stated he liked the idea of the Planning Commission having that ability; it gives the commission more flexibility. The Commission discussed possible standards or conditions for granting a waiver or variance such as that the problem should not be self created, the owner should have no other option and that there are exceptional circumstances or extraordinary conditions. The commission agreed that a business should not be eligible for a variance or waiver simply because they don’t like the rules. VandenBosch asked Staton to check into this and draft ordinance language.
VandenBosch asked about sandwich board signs. He stated that the signs are supposed to be a Village approved design. Staton explained that the Village had trouble getting the businesses to participate, possibly because of the cost of the signs. The CBDDA decided to purchase signs and loan them to businesses in an effort to get better participation. There has been a lot of interest in the program from business owners and 5 or 6 signs have already been loaned. Staton explained the loan program. The Village Council extended the sunset clause on the ordinance until 2012 to see if the program will be successful.
There was discussion about obsolete signs. Staton explained the regulation that requires removal after the business has been closed for 6 months. She explained the legal opinion that says the structure can stay as long as a similar business opens on the property. There was discussion about pylon signs in the downtown. Staton asked if the Planning Commission wanted language to require the removal of the pylon signs sooner and she explained that she would have to talk to the Village Attorney about it. The Commission agreed that the current language is fine for now.
Staton continued with discussion and questions about the other proposed changes to the ordinance. She noted that the permitted height for monument signs is 8 ft. in the commercial districts but only 5 ft. in the office, public, and industrial districts. There was discussion about appropriate height for monument signs and the Planning Commission decided that the maximum height in all districts should be five feet. Staton also noted that the regulations for directional signs are different in Sec. 17.1(B)7 than in the commercial, office and industrial districts. The Planning Commission determined that the maximum height should be four feet. Staton said she will make the regulations consistent.
Staton explained that the current ordinance permits smaller wall signs on the sides of buildings not facing the street in the office and industrial districts, but not in the commercial districts. She has had several requests for this type of sign in commercial districts and asked if the commission wanted to add this option to the commercial districts. The commissioners discussed existing side-wall signs in commercial districts such as the Hair Creations sign and the Kieft Insurance sign. There was discussion about whether this type of sign should be able to be illuminated. The commission agreed that these signs are not offensive and that they should also be permitted in the commercial districts with the same regulations for size and lighting as in the other districts.
Staton asked if the Planning Commission was ready to set a public hearing for the ordinance amendment or if they feel they need additional discussion first. The commission felt that they want to discuss the revised draft before setting the public hearing. Staton will make the suggested changes and bring the ordinance back for further discussion at the February meeting.
Yasenak suggested getting the CBDDA to give input on these changes. VandenBosch asked Staton to inform the CBDDA about the proposed changes and ask them to attend the February Planning Commission meeting. Staton said she will present information to the CBDDA at their next meeting on February 19th. Staton said that she will also inform Olmstead signs and Advanced Signs about the proposed changes.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
A. 2008 Planning Commission Report
Staff will give a report on business conducted by the Planning Commission during 2008.
Staton explained the table of information detailing what the Planning Commission worked on at each meeting and workshop in 2008. The report shows that the Planning Commission has been very busy working on some challenging projects such as the development at Fruitport Rd. and Savidge. Staton explained that the Planning Commission has a lot of work to do in the future including design standards for the west end of the Village. Staton gave an overview of the permit activity in the Village in 2008. Permit applications have continued to stay consistent over the last 3 years. Value of construction was down in 2007, but came back up some in 2008. The permit data shows that people are investing in renovations and additions to their existing homes and businesses in the Village. VandenBosch talked about government business stimulus options available. Staton also mentioned the downtown façade grant program and stated that she hopes more businesses will start to take advantage of it.
B. Update on Special Use Permit – 308 North Buchanan
Staff will give an update on the status of the Special Use Permit that was granted for additions to the existing structure at 308 N. Buchanan Street.
Staton explained the status of the project at 308 N. Buchanan. She stated that the Planning Commission had granted a special use permit in August 2008 for additions to the existing house which had a nonconforming front setback. The applicants had come back to the Planning Commission in September 2008 to ask permission to take down portions of the existing structure to facilitate the renovations. Planning Commission approved the request. Staff discovered in December that the entire structure has been demolished. The Planning Commission expressed surprise and agreed that they expected that at least the west wall would have been left standing.
VandenBosch asked if the project would have to come back before the Planning Commission for action. Staton explained that she had consulted the Village Attorney and, because of the amount of the structure that was demolished, the applicants must apply to the ZBA for a variance to rebuild the house on its former location.
VIII. STATEMENTS OF CITIZENS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
There were none.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, motion by S. Miller, support by Johnson to adjourn the meeting. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 8:05 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Staton
Code Compliance and Planning Administrator
|