VILLAGE OF SPRING LAKE
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 25, 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: Kleppe, Johnson, C. Miller, Unkovskoy, VandenBosch, VanStrate and Yasenak
Absent: Gleason and S. Miller
Staff present: Kathy Staton, Code Compliance and Planning Administrator
III. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Motion by C. Miller, support by Unkovskoy to approve the agenda. All in favor, motion carried.
IV. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
A. Approval of the Minutes of the July 28, 2009 Regular Meeting.
Motion by Johnson, support by C. Miller to approve the minutes of the July 28, 2009 regular meeting. All in favor, motion carried.
V. NEW BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Waterfront Setback Requirements
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing for a proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add Section 3.29 to regulate construction and setback distances on the water side of lots having water frontage. The purpose of the amendment is to establish regulations to preserve consistent open waterfront yard areas.
Chairman VandenBosch introduced the item. Staton explained that John Dykema, 423 Buena Vista, had approached the Planning Commission in July with a request that the Commission consider adopting waterfront setback regulations similar to Spring Lake Township and Grand Haven. The draft ordinance is based on both of those ordinances. VandenBosch opened the public hearing.
Tim Daudelin, 209 Barber, stated that he has a number of concerns with the proposed ordinance. He feels it is difficult to set a standard that applies to all waterfront properties when all of the properties are different. He questioned how it could be implemented in different areas. The setback from the water to existing homes on Buena Vista is much greater than it is on Barber Ct. Daudelin questioned how the ordinance could be made to treat all of the properties equally without having a negative impact. He stated that he is concerned about how the average setback will be determined. Staton explained that in most cases the setback distances could be determined using the Ottawa County GIS system. Daudelin stated that the ordinance would require a survey if the GIS was disputed and that would be extremely expensive, especially when multiple properties are involved. Daudelin stated that he felt the ordinance is unfair because it affects waterfront property owners differently than the non-waterfront properties across the street. He also noted that by law waterfront property owners have riparian rights and the ordinance might conflict with those. Daudelin does not think that people who paid a lot of money for a waterfront property would want to lose the yard area on the water side by building there because that is where the value of the property is. He stated that he paid for his view when he bought the property.
Krista Conway, 115 Barber Court, stated that she is not totally opposed, but is not sure if the ordinance has been thoroughly reviewed yet. She asked what impact the floodplain and high water mark would have on the ordinance. She said the blocking of views is always an issue, so it could be good to have some regulation. She noted that most waterfront owners consider the water side their front yard.
Bob Kramer, 421 Buena Vista, stated that he does not think he would be affected by this ordinance because his house is new. It has always been a gentleman’s agreement when it came to building along the water, and people just built in line with the other houses. But he thinks this ordinance is a good idea because someone could come along and buy several lots and build a big house closer to the water if there is no regulation to stop it.
Daudelin stated that he is not opposed to an ordinance, but thinks it can’t be done as a blanket ordinance. It should be done on a case by case basis.
Conway stated that most Village lots are much smaller than the lots in the Township so the ordinance needs to take that into account.
John Dykema, 423 Buena Vista, asked Staton if Spring Lake is the only community without an ordinance to regulate waterfront setbacks. Staton said that Ferrysburg does not have one either.
Richard Peel, 501 Buena Vista, asked what the current setback requirements are. Staton explained that the water side is considered the rear yard. The principle building on a property is required to be setback at least 25 feet from the rear property line, subject to floodplain and wetland regulations.
Peel stated that he thinks this ordinance is over the top. He tried to evaluate it to see how it would affect him and his neighbors. They are the only ones with large rear yards. He understands what Dykema wants, but this ordinance is unwieldy and potentially very expensive if a survey is required. Peel stated that it should be up to the neighbors to figure out among themselves. He doesn’t want something that will impact his ability to do something with his property in the future.
Holly O’Brien, 722 Monarch, asked if this applies to additions or just new construction. Staton said it applies to both.
Kramer stated the he likes the idea of the build-to line of 35 feet. It leaves enough room for 2 cars to be parked in front of the house. He stated that averaging properties within 300 feet might be too much and maybe 2 lots in either direction might be better. He stated that he does think that some regulation is needed.
Amy Miedema, 205 Barber Street, stated that most people here are concerned about their own lot and all spots on the lake are different, all lots have different depths, so it doesn’t seem like it could work to set a specific distance on each side to average.
Daudelin stated that when Miedema built her house they looked to line up with others in the area. There are people coming in now that might not do that. He stated that the 35 foot build-to line makes more sense because it keeps the street side even.
Motion by VanStrate, support by C. Miller to close the public hearing. All in favor, motion carried.
VandenBosch stated that he doesn’t like the 300 foot idea. He has never been in favor of the government making things worse for people. He stated that he would rather see the average of the neighbor on each side. He also noted that it might be necessary to go back and review to see if we would have to include the whole Village for the build-to line.
Yasenak stated that he agrees that 300 feet is excessive. He noted that the houses on Buena Vista have large yards, but he doesn’t want to make the regulations to be too restrictive on other waterfront owners who don’t have yards that big.
Unkovskoy asked who was notified about this ordinance. Staton said all residential waterfront property owners in the Village, which includes properties on Spring Lake, the Grand River and Lloyds Bayou.
C. Miller stated that she thinks there should be some regulation but 300 feet may be excessive.
Johnson stated that he thought the public input was great. He agrees with VandenBosch that 300 feet is too much. He likes the idea of the gentleman’s agreement but that is not really realistic, so he thinks there needs to be some regulations. Johnson stated that he thinks this needs more work and suggested that it be tabled.
VanStrate stated that he thinks this sounds like a good idea, but we are really only talking about 5 houses on Buena Vista and the ordinance might be restricting others too much. He stated that he is opposed to the ordinance.
Kleppe stated that only averaging 1 neighbor on each side might not work, but 300 feet is excessive.
VandenBosch stated that he thinks it should be one neighbor on each side. The Township and Grand Haven are a lot bigger than the Village so their restrictions would not be good here. He thinks the ordinance should apply Village-wide. He noted that there are deep lots on South Street where a person could put a house way back. He also stated that the ordinance needs to let people build without a lot of extra expense and bother.
After general discussion Unkovskoy suggested a study group to do more work on this. Staton asked if the Planning Commission would like to hold a workshop to discuss this further. VanStrate asked if it would be possible to see more aerial pictures of the Village like the ones provided of Buena Vista. Staton said she could provide those.
Motion by Johnson, support by Unkovskoy to table the ordinance amendment and hold a workshop when they can have more information. All in favor, motion carried.
Members of the audience asked when the workshop would be held. Staton suggested that interested persons could call her to find out when it is scheduled.
B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Wind Energy Turbines
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing for proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments to establish standards and regulations for the erection of wind energy turbines on property in the Village of Spring Lake. The amendment would add a new chapter to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 25 – Wind Energy Turbines.
VandenBosch introduced the item and opened the public hearing. Staton explained that Ottawa County had developed a model wind ordinance that individual communities could tailor to their situations and the County was encouraging the communities to adopt wind energy regulations to support sustainability. The proposed ordinance would only permit small structure-mounted and tower mounted wind turbines, but not large commercial size turbines because the Village is too small to accommodate the larger turbines. The ordinance includes regulations for size, location, height, setback and noise.
Michelle Yasenak, 505 E. Savidge Street, asked how tall the turbine could be if it is mounted on a building. Staton said 15 feet above the highest part of the roof. Michelle Yasenak suggested that the Village could erect turbines in Central Park or on Village Hall.
Scott Keller, 238 South Street, spoke in favor of the ordinance. He asked if he could have more than one wind turbine. Staton said yes, but there are spacing and setback requirements.
Motion by VanStrate, support by Yasenak to close the public hearing, all in favor, motion carried.
VandenBosch stated that he is not in favor of allowing 120 tall towers in the Village. He also questioned if this ordinance was necessary because the turbines are so cost prohibitive that it is not likely that anyone will install them.
Hugh Hyde, 217 Douglas Court, stated that there are over 3,000 wind turbines in Wisconsin.
VandenBosch stated that he thinks only the rooftop type should be permitted, but no towers. Unkovskoy asked about the setback requirements for towers. Staton said they must be setback 150 feet.
Kim Felcoski-Schaddelee, 3555 Eastern Avenue, Holland, stated that she and her husband have a business that sells wind turbines. She came to this meeting to see how local communities are going to regulate them. She stated that the small turbines are not as expensive as people think.
Kleppe asked how they work and if they supply a bank of batteries. Ron Schaddelee stated that there are two ways that the wind turbines work. One way is to have a net metering system where excess generation is sold back to the power company. The other method uses batteries for storage. Kleppe stated that he is concerned about the batteries being a potential danger to firefighters.
VanStrate stated that he is in favor of the wind turbines, but not in favor of 120 foot tall towers. He thinks that 50 feet would be better and that there should be a limit of 2 per property.
Johnson asked what other communities have this type of ordinance. Staton said that there are not very many yet, but she brought this to the Planning Commission to be proactive so the Village would have something in place before someone wants to install one.
Kim Felcoski-Schaddelee stated that the proposed ordinance permits turbines up to 10 Kw which is really large. She stated that the ones on the Meijer store are about 2 Kw and they are much bigger than they look from the ground. She stated most homeowners would put in much smaller models.
C. Miller stated that she thinks the ordinance is a good idea, but 120 feet is too high. VandenBosch stated that the height can be changed. Yasenak asked if there are any properties in the Village where a 120 foot tower mounted turbine could be installed. Staton said yes, Mr. Keller’s property could accommodate one and the school properties could probably also. Staton explained that not every property will be able to have a wind turbine. There is a requirement for the amount of undisturbed wind that has to be available for the turbine to work. Spring Lake Township had considered installing one at the fire station, but when they tested the wind they found out that it could not sustain a wind turbine in that location.
There was discussion about the height limit and number that should be permitted.
Motion by C. Miller, support by Yasenak to recommend that the Village Council adopt the Wind Energy Ordinance with the change of a height limit of 50 feet for tower mounted turbines.
ROLL CALL – AYES: Johnson, Kleppe, C. Miller, Unkovskoy, VanStrate, Yasenak, VandenBosch
NAYS:
All in favor, motion carried.
DISCUSSION
C. Review of Section 3.22
Village Council requests that Planning Commission review Section 3.22 – Keeping of Animals, and recommend changes to the Section to bring it up to date with the current needs of the Village.
Chairman VandenBosch introduced the item. Staton explained that Village Council asked that the Planning Commission review this section of the ordinance to see if it needs to be updated. Council had noted that the ordinance prohibits reptiles, but there are people in the Village that keep reptiles, such as snakes, as pets. Staton noted that pet stores, such as Petsmart, sell a number of animals that are not listed in the ordinance.
Kleppe stated that he thinks that the ordinance should not permit snakes longer than 4 feet.
Yasenak asked if Village Council wants the Planning Commission to go through a list of animals and decide whether or not to allow them in the Village. Johnson asked what other communities have in their ordinances. Staton explained that her research showed that Section 3.22 is pretty consistent with what other communities have in their ordinances. Some communities also address animals such as ferrets and rabbits, and some ordinances are more specific about prohibiting exotic animals such as large primates and large cats. Yasenak suggested that this item be tabled until the Commission can see examples of other ordinances.
Kleppe stated that he would like to see the ordinance limit the number of pit bulls permitted. VandenBosch stated that he does not want to get into regulating special breeds of animals.
Michelle Yasenak, 505 E. Savidge, asked how the ordinance is going to be enforced. She asked if Village staff would have to go door to door to check for prohibited animals.
C. Miller stated that she thinks the ordinance should state that no venomous reptiles are permitted.
Michelle Yasenak asked if the ordinance permits chickens. A Commissioner stated that chickens are prohibited because the ordinance prohibits poultry.
VandenBosch stated that this came up because one resident wants chickens. He stated that he does not think there is anything wrong with the current Section 3.22. VandenBosch stated that there is no need to spend a lot of time and money the Village doesn’t have to analyze this. It would be very difficult to control who buys a snake or a scorpion.
Johnson stated that he thinks the Commission should send this back to the Village Council and tell Council that they think Section 3.22 if fine and does not need any changes.
VandenBosch stated that he is against monkeys and snakes as pets because he feels they belong in the wild. He stated that this is a dog and cat society.
Motion by Johnson, support by Kleppe to make no changes to Section 3.22.
ROLL CALL – AYES: Unkovskoy, VanStrate, Yasenak, C. Miller, Johnson, Kleppe, VandenBosch
NAYS:
All in favor, motion carried.
VI. OLD BUSINESS
There was none.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
VandenBosch asked Staton what was happening with the development at Fruitport and Savidge. Staton explained that the developer if installing much of the perimeter landscaping. He will be planting sod for the first 25 feet or so and installing the decorative street lights. He is hoping that dressing the site up and putting in the curb cuts will show prospective buyers or tenants that it is a good project and ready to go.
VandenBosch asked the commissioners when they want to hold the workshop on the waterfront setback ordinance. After discussion it was decided to hold the workshop at 6:00 PM prior to the next regular meeting on September 22, 2009.
VIII. STATEMENTS OF CITIZENS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
There were none.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, motion by Johnson, support by VanStrate to adjourn the meeting. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 8:40 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Staton
Code Compliance and Planning Administrator
|