VILLAGE OF SPRING LAKE
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
February 24, 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, Kleppe, C. Miller, S. Miller, Unkovskoy, VandenBosch, VanStrate, and Yasenak
Absent:
Staff present: Kathy Staton, Code Compliance and Planning Administrator
III. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Motion by S. Miller, support by Johnson to approve the agenda. All in favor, motion carried.
IV. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
A. Approval of the Minutes of the January 27, 2009, Regular Meeting.
Motion by C. Miller, support by S. Miller to approve the minutes of the January 27, 2009 regular meeting. All in favor, motion carried.
V. NEW BUSINESS
Chairman VandenBosch explained that the first item on the agenda was his request for site plan approval. He stepped down as chairman of the Planning Commission and stepped to the applicant’s podium. Vice-Chairman Gleason took over the meeting.
A. Site Plan Review – 624 East Savidge Street
Marv VandenBosch requests site plan approval for construction of a commercial building to replace the building destroyed by the recent fire on the property located at 624 East Savidge Street. Plans call for construction of a 40 ft. by 100 ft. building.
Vice-Chairman Gleason introduced the request. The applicants, Marv and Sandy VandenBosch, were present to explain the request and answer questions. Marv VandenBosch distributed larger drawings to the commissioners. He explained that they are getting rid of the T-111 siding that the previous building had and installing high-grade vinyl siding. The building will be owned by he and his wife and will be just a shell for storage and maintenance. The building will be slightly bigger than the old building, 40 ft. x 100 ft., but will basically be the same building. VandenBosch noted that there will not be very much foundation exposed, but they plan to install stone façade at the bottom of the walls where the block will be exposed. He explained that the building is almost 300 feet off the road so it won’t be seen very well from Savidge.
Johnson asked if the building will have siding on all sides. VandenBosch said it will. Johnson asked if the stone accent will only be on the front of the building and VandenBosch said that it will only be on the front.
Gleason asked if there is a fence separating the building from the neighbors to the rear. VandenBosch said there is a fence which screens the residential properties along the south and west sides of his property. VanStrate asked if they will have to add to the concrete pad to make the building bigger. VandenBosch explained that the building and footings had already been removed so the footings and pad will also be new.
Sandy VandenBosch explained that the property is paved up to the front of the building and that they will be replacing the landscaping and lawn that used to be in front of the east end of the building.
Gleason asked what the use of the building will be. Marv VandenBosch explained that they are not able to say yet who will use it besides he and his wife. He is not sure if his son will go back in business or not. He and Sandy are requesting approval of the building for themselves to be used for storage and maintenance. Gleason asked Staton if the use had to be specified. Staton explained that both Marv VandenBosch’s towing business and his son’s auto repair business are permitted uses in the zoning district, so either or both businesses would be allowed to continue without special approval from the Planning Commission.
Johnson asked Staton to explain the request for deviations from the design standards. Staton explained that the proposed building has a 4:12 pitch roof; the design standards require a 5:12 pitch. The proposed building does not have the amount of windows required on the front of the building and it does not have the required architectural articulation every 30 feet because of the location of the garage doors. Staton explained that the ordinance allows the Planning Commission to grant deviations from the design standards.
Yasenak noted that the back side of the building is just a flat wall. He questioned whether Habitat was going to build houses on the property behind this building and suggested that windows on that side might help. Marv VandenBosch stated that the Habitat property is not behind his building. He explained that the lack of windows is more for security than anything else. Sandy VandenBosch stated that when the leaves are out and with the fence you can’t see the residences behind the building.
Unkovskoy asked if the building is 300 ft. back from Savidge. Marv VandenBosch said yes, approximately. Unkovskoy asked if the applicants have any plans for the house at the front of the property. Both applicants said there are no plans to remove the house. Sandy VandenBosch stated that the office portion of the new building is all you would be able to see when you drive down the driveway. There is also a barn behind the house that helps block the view.
Johnson asked about the roof pitch. Kleppe noted that 5:12 pitch trusses would be much more expensive. Marv VandenBosch stated all the builders he has talked to tell him that a 5:12 roof would require custom trusses. Johnson stated that he does not believe it would be impossible to create architectural articulation on the front of the building, but it is probably not necessary on this project. He doesn’t want to set a precedent so he feels they need to explain why if they waive this requirement.
VanStrate said that he agreed with the plans and he understands why they don’t want the windows. Kleppe stated that he would like to see them get the new building built and have them get back in business.
Vice-Chairman Gleason noted that he is OK with the plans. He said that he talked to Jerry Kiekover (owner of adjacent property to the south) and he says that the applicants have been good neighbors. Gleason stated that if the building was set up on Savidge he would want to see windows or something. He asked if there will be any exterior lighting. Marv VandenBosch explained that there will be down-lighting over all the doors. He also stated that by law he needs to have lighting on the impound lot, which he has already. He stated that any new lighting will be down-lighting.
S. Miller noted that if the house ever came down the property would really look different. She suggested that it would be good to include something about this in the motion. VanStrate said he does not think that is necessary because the building is 300 feet from the road. Marv VandenBosch stated that if the house ever came down he always had the intention to build an office building. He doesn’t plan on that now and his wife believes there is historical significance to the house. They have pictures of the house surrounded by cornfields and he noted that the barn is original also. When asked if the house is a rental VandenBosch stated that it is not and his son currently uses it as an office. C. Miller asked if the house is on the same lot as the proposed building. Staton said it is.
Unkovskoy asked if the site plan approval goes with the land. Staton said it does. She explained to the Commission that this is a site plan approval and the only conditions they can impose would have to be related to the requested deviations from the design standards.
Johnson stated that he thinks the proposed building is too far off the road to matter. Kleppe stated that someone would develop the front of the lot if the house was destroyed. He also noted that traffic is too fast to see the small amount of articulation. Marv VandenBosch stated that the Planning Commission would have control over what would be built on the front of the property if the house came down. He noted that it would be a waste of property to leave that site empty. Even if someone purchased it, they would build something there.
Motion by Johnson, support by S. Miller to approve the site plan for construction of a new commercial building on the property located at 624 E. Savidge as presented with the following conditions:
1. The landscaping as described will be replaced including the damaged portions of the fence, the yard and the bushes and other planting in front of the office.
2. The stone accent will be installed on the exposed foundation on the front of the building.
3. The new lighting over the doors and in the impound lot must be down-lighting.
4. The requested deviations are approved for this site because of the distance of the proposed building from the road and the location of the other buildings at the front of the lot.
ROLL CALL:
AYES – Kleppe, C. Miller, Unkovskoy, VanStrate, Johnson, Yasenak, S. Miller, Gleason
NAYS – none
ABSTAINED – VandenBosch
Motion carried.
Chairman VandenBosch returned to his seat with the Commission and took over the meeting.
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.
Chairman VandenBosch introduced the item and opened the discussion. He noted the memo from staff explaining suggestions from Ron Olmstead of Olmstead Signs to allow contractor signs to be higher so the snow does not block the sign. VandenBosch stated that he thinks the east end signs should be higher so they could be seen better. Staton noted that Olmstead’s suggestion for increased height was only for construction signs and she asked the commissioners if they wanted to consider the additional height for all freestanding signs to accommodate snow. VandenBosch asked how this would impact the clear vision triangle. He noted that there was discussion of this issue related to the signs for the PUD at Fruitport and Savidge. Staton explained that the proposed changes to the sign ordinance include a requirement that no sign may be placed in the clear vision triangle and that it could be worded to apply to driveways as well.
There was discussion about the height of freestanding signs. The consensus of the Commission was that the maximum height of freestanding signs should be 5.5 feet as suggested by Ron Olmstead.
Staton explained that she presented the proposed changes to the CBDDA. The CBDDA comments included the suggestion that signs should have to meet the design criteria of the downtown. Staton explained that it is difficult to regulate content of signs because of free speech issues. The ordinance can regulate size, location and number of signs, but the content is not something that can generally be regulated. Staton also noted that the CBDDA suggested that the Planning Commission strengthen the ordinance to eliminate pylon signs. There was discussion and it was determined that as long as the business was operating the pylon sign could stay, but once the business was gone the ordinance should require the pylon sign to be removed and that the next business have to comply with the requirement for a monument sign. This should be required regardless of whether there is a similar business that goes in on the property. The Commission felt that if we don’t do this, we will never get rid of the pylon signs. The Commission instructed Staton to consult the attorney and develop language. There was discussion of existing obsolete signs including Citgo, Avalon Floral, Custom Real Estate, and Cruisers.
Staton explained that at the last meeting the Planning Commission asked for language that would permit roof signs under certain circumstances. Staton stated that she drafted language that would permit roof signs only in the CBD, C-1 and EED Districts by special use permit if the sign meets a list of criteria. They would not be permitted in the CBD-1, core downtown district or the public, office, industrial or residential districts. Gleason and Johnson stated that they felt that this language addressed their desire to be flexible about roof signs. The commissioners agreed.
Staton stated that the Planning Commission had also requested that she develop language that would permit the Planning Commission to grant waivers from the sign regulations. She explained the proposed language which is similar to the “deviations” section of the EED District design standards. With this language the PC would be able to grant deviations from dimensional sign regulations in commercial, office, public and industrial districts. The Planning Commission would not be able to permit a type of sign that is not already permitted in the district. The ZBA would still hear requests for variances from other sections of the ordinance. Requests for deviations would have to meet a list of standards as suggested by the Planning Commission at the last meeting.
There was general discussion about the proposed changes. No additional changes were proposed and Chairman VandenBosch directed Staton to set a public hearing for the next regular Planning Commission meeting.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Project Updates
Staff will give updates on the status of reconstruction at 308 N. Buchanan Street and the Planned Unit Development at the corner of Fruitport Road and E. Savidge Street.
Staton explained that the ZBA granted the variance for reconstruction of the house at 308 N. Buchanan and explained the reasons. Johnson stated that he heard that the builder had saved architectural details like the front door arch and decorative metal work to be used in the reconstruction and stated that he was glad to hear they did that.
Staton stated that she had been meeting with the project designer and the neighbor of the PUD at Fruitport and Savidge in an attempt to agree on the fence and landscaping for the shared property line adjacent to the Fruitport Rd. entrance to the project. The Planning Commission required that these details be worked out with the Zoning Administrator prior to Village Council consideration of the project. Staton explained that the two parties had reached an impasse related to details of the fence. Therefore, unless the parties resolve the issue before then, Staton will be bringing the project back to the Planning Commission in March to resolve the issue.
VIII. STATEMENTS OF CITIZENS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
There were none.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, motion by C. Miller, support by Johnson to adjourn the meeting. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 8:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Staton
Code Compliance and Planning Administrator
|