Village of Douglas Planning Commission Proposed Minutes

APPROVED MINUTES
THE CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DOUGLAS CITY HALL
Wednesday, July 9, 2008

1. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 PM by Chairperson Nern.

2. Roll call: Dave Burdick, Ron Dellartino, Christopher Nern, Alexa Urquhart, Karen VanPelt, Renee Waddell (arrived 7:05)
Also in attendance: Larry Nix, Planning Consultant, Williams and Works; Andy Mulder, City Attorney

3. Approval of Minutes
A. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of June 11, 2008
Nern suggested changing the word “that” to “the letter” on page 2, 9.F., line 6

Motion by Dellartino, second by Urquhart, to approve the Minutes of the June 11, 2008 Planning Commission as corrected
Burdick, yes; Dellartino, yes; Urquhart, yes; VanPelt, yes; Waddell, yes; Nern, yes
Motion carries

B. Planning Commission Workshop Meeting of June 18, 2008

Motion by Dellartino, second by Urquhart, to approve the Minutes of the June 18, 2008 Planning Commission Workshop Meeting as presented
Dellartino, yes; Urquhart, yes; Waddell, yes; Burdick, yes; VanPelt, yes; Nern, yes
Motion carries

4. Agenda Changes/Additions/Deletions

Motion by Waddell, second by Urquhart, to approve the agenda for the July 9, 2008 Planning Commission as presented
Waddell, yes; Urquhart, yes; VanPelt, yes; Burdick, yes; Dellartino, yes; Nern, yes
Motion carries

5. Hear from the audience: Comments related to agenda items only
None

6. Written Communication
A. Michigan Township Services Summary of Permits issued in May, 2008
Nern noted a number of items not meeting compliance, thankful for the complete inspections.

7. New Business

A. Consideration of an application for a proposed three-story, mixed-use building to be located at 11 Water Street in the C-1A District (Property Parcel # 03-59- 100-009-50). Site is proposed to consist of main floor retail and two dwelling units on the second and third floors with six off-street parking spaces.

Agenda Items for Item 7A Include

1) Site Plan submitted by Von Der Heide Architects dated June 26, 2008
2) Narrative Statement submitted by Von Der Heide Architects and dated June 27, 2008
3) Memo from Steve Bishop, Engineering Consultant, dated July 1, 2008
4) Memo from Ryan Kilpatrick, Planning and Zoning Consultant, dated July 2, 2008
5) Memo from Greg Janik, Deputy Fire Chief, dated June 25, 2008

Mark Von Der Heide, Architect, spoke for the applicant and introduced Ryan Ysseldyke, Holland Engineering, who distributed a revised copy of page c.2 to the commission.
Waddell asked Attorney Mulder for an opinion on whether she should recuse herself from the discussion since the property in the petition is located next to her parentā€™s home. Mulder responded that if she had a financial relationship with the adjoining property that would constitute a conflict of interest but a familial relationship does not constitute a legal consideration. Nern suggested deciding following review of the presentation.

Ysseldyke continued; the changes on page C-2 are in response to the report from Steve Bishop, Engineer with Fleis and Vandenbrink, regarding work necessary because of concern about water drainage with the below-grade entry. He indicated that the drawing shows more detail of a trench-drain to move water that might collect there; the overflow will exit into the street prior to flooding the building. Urquhart questioned where the drain was shown on the drawing. Burdick asked if permeable materials were going to be used. Mulder had questions about the sidewalk. Ysseldyk explained the changes; they had interpreted Bishopā€™s request as an either/or option.
Nern directed the Commissioners through the written communication included in the packet regarding this item.
Commissioner Comments and Discussion:
VanPelt and Bishop questioned the function of the storm drain; Bishop suggested disconnecting the infiltration drain. Ysseldyke responded that it could be separated but they would prefer to gravity the water out. VanPelt asked if that would make it possible for the first floor not to flood.
Nern asked Waddell if she wished to continue participation in the discussion. Mulder reiterated there was no legal reason for her not to be able to participate in the decision.
VanPelt asked Nix for clarification concerning the two-story vs. three-story configuration in the C-1A district. Urquhart questioned how sinking the front of the building keeps the building within the requirements. Nix responded that we donā€™t have a number of stories requirement in our ordinance at this time, only a height requirement. What we have here are stacked dwellings; a two story dwelling stacked on top of a one story, within the height requirement.
Urquhart asked if the roof deck was being considered a parapet. A roof deck or garden is considered an expansion of the living quarters and at 36 ft. that extends the height a lot. Attorney Sikkel responded that in talking with Kilpatrick they had used a steeple as an example of where a structure cannot be used as living space. This railing is to be used as an ornamental design. Urquhart restated that the purpose of the parapet then is as a design element, not to make useable space of the entire roof. VonDerHeide said that they were trying to make the area transparent but to also allow people to use the space. They purposely avoided stair towers, using the skylight vents. Burdick said that we donā€™t have parapet defined in the ordinance. It is a walk able area on the top of a building; parapet is a space set aside for walking.

Mulder said that Kilpatrick sent his recommendation to the Commission based on ordinance 16.11. If questions need further clarification the Planning Commission could send this on to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). Von Der Heide mentioned that many communities have a similar ordinance and that the design was meant to be transparent with the cable railings adding an interesting detail. Mulder said that the railing creates an opportunity for the public to go up there under the fire code. Nern asked if the walk able area of the roof would be the entire roof. Von Der Heide asked if the Commission wished to limit the area. The designer would like to keep the railing for the visual interest; the area was stepped back from the west, the view is to the east. They would consider reducing the size.

Urquhart said that since the building is located in a residential area the height makes for privacy issues; it blocks the light and the air flow. Restricting the deck size would be good; you are looking over residential on two sides of the building. Burdick asked about the material to be used for the deck. Von Der Heide responded that it would likely be a Trex type product or IPE wood. Burdick said there are fire issues.

Urquhart asked about screening. Von Der Heide said that they would be moving the four inch diameter trees located on the property and installing some six foot spruce. They would not be opposed to additional privacy fencing depending on how the neighbors use their yard.

Urquhart continued that she would like to see some interpretation from another board on what defines a parapet. She likes the idea of reducing the size of the roof deck. She is not completely convinced that the entrance is water tight. VanPelt agreed that she is not convinced that flooding is not an issue on the first floor. Burdick added that the trench drain would seem to be engineered for the major rain that we just had. Urquhart continued to say that we need to be sure that we arenā€™t setting up a water system that would dump more water onto Water Street. Bishop said that a good way to think about the issue is that the site will take a two inch rainfall and will infiltrate out in about a day; any more would overflow and go onto Water Street.

Nern summarized the issues thus far: the deck as it relates to human occupancy, the deck materials, and the drainage questions.

Burdick said that the paving was to be permeable. Von Der Heide said that since there isnā€™t that much ashphalt they could go with permeable paving. Other drainage issues would be easy to address technically. We can specify a distance for the roof hatch if the Planning Commission wishes.

Mulder asked for clarification on the sidewalks. Von Der Heide responded that there isnā€™t a sidewalk on Washington Street and they are willing to create a sidewalk at the front of the site; at some point it would make sense for the city to connect this to Center Street. We would maintain having our main walk going out to Washington Street. A second walk could be added on Water Street if the city felt that it would connect someday.

VanPelt asked for a review of the process involved with the ZBA. Mulder said that it would become a binding interpretation on the Planning Commission.

Motion by Urquhart, second by Waddell, to table the site plan review of the proposed three-story, mixed-use building located at 11 Water Street in the C-1A district, parcel # 03-59-100-009-50, pending changes made to the plan submitted in regards to the sidewalk decking materials, landscape plan, lighting, the size and nature of the roof deck itself, and interpretation from the Zoning Board of Appeals on parapet questions from ordinance 16.11, height requirements.

Roll call: Urquhart, y; Waddell, y; Burdick, y; VanPelt, y; Dellartino, n; Nern, y
Motion carries

Von Der Heide had questions for the Commissioners and wanted clarification on the next ZBA meeting date.

B. Discussion of Seasonal Rentals for temporary residential occupancy in the City of the Village of Douglas.

1) Letter from Keith Charek & Sue McIlwaine, Sherwood Forest Bed and Breakfast, requesting greater regulation of seasonal rentals within the City of Douglas.

Nern referenced the attached letter from the Sherwood Forest Bed and Breakfast owners asking that individual residential rental property owners be required to conform to the same set of rules as B + B owners.
Keith Charek, 938 Center Street, spoke to the Commission, seeking a balanced playing field among all of the different types of lodging. There is a lot of competition in the area; the market demands they be available. He is asking for a general law ordinance so that the properties cannot be grandfathered.

Nern responded that legally the Planning Commission authority flows with the health, safety, and welfare of the community.

Dan Urquhart, Chestnut Lane, the largest issue is one of fire safety; these properties are lacking fire protection.

Charek added that they had to get a special use permit to allow for less than a week rental.

Commissioner Urquhart said that if you are renting your home sequentially it is a business and as a business we regulate a B+B where there is an owner present. These rentals do not have an owner present; the owners do not know what is happening. At some point there are going to be issues where the city is liable. Dellartino questioned Charek about how this has affected their business.

Nern asked for guidance. Mulder said that there are a lot of legal issues; there would need to be research done on limiting uses for single family dwellings. Can you require only single family use in a residential district? Large cities have ordinances to address the health and safety issues. But if you get into that type of program you have to understand what the costs are. There would need to be inspections. Douglas would need to evaluate the housing stock and build that into some sort of fee structure. Rental regulations have been upheld throughout the state but it is not an easy enforcement type of ordinance.

Martha Hoexter, City Council member, Amity Lane, gave examples of houses that have been built solely for rental purposes; this is infringing upon the B+B business.

Urquhart asked Nix what a good first step might be. Nix said that registration and fire inspections might be a good place to begin.

Nern noted that the rewrite of the ordinance has not been completed; it might make sense to have materials available to have an idea of what direction to head toward. How do we address the problem? Mulder said that the city would need to make findings of fact to make it go. Charek asked if there was already language in the ordinance concerning transient lodging.

Mulder reminded the commission that the City Council is anxious to get the draft ordinance done so that it comes before the Council. Nern said this could be an important issue to tackle this winter; the new ordinance can be amended.

Nix said that the Council has thrown down the gauntlet: finish the ordinance work in three more sessions. We need to focus our work on what needs to be completed, do not add anything new.

8. Zoning Administratorā€™s Report

A. Letter from Ryan Kilpatrick, Planning and Zoning Consultant, to Roxie Girl, Inc. regarding violation of the special land use permit for the Roxie Hotel.

Nern summarized the attached letter. Nix said that Tara Walston has been in communication and has been asked to respond formally with a site plan.

9. Hear from the Audience

Bill Japinga, 429 Summer Grove, reported that there are two homes in the development that are used specifically for rental. The new developer had changed the by-laws to allow for short-term rentals. Mulder said that he is aware of the fact that condo associations have made by-law amendments to address the issue.

Dan Urquhart, Chestnut Lane, suggested that the city take a careful look at the drainage issues at the property presented tonight.

10. Commissioner Comments

Dellartino wished to clarify his vote on the site plan presented tonight; he believes the Planning Commission, rather than the Zoning Board of Appeals, needs to be the body to make a decision on roof decks.

Van Pelt feels that the more eyes on a problem, the better.

Burdick suggests that we all keep an eye on the problem between McClendon and the Deams.

Urquhart is glad to see us looking at seasonal rentals in whatever mode we are going to find.

Waddell: no comment.

Nern referring to a previous meeting, mentioned that Roberts Rules of Order say to avoid personal attacks.

11. Adjournment

Motion by Urquhart, second by Dellartino, to adjourn the meeting at 9:12 PM
Motion carries

Respectfully submitted,

Alan McPhail
Recording Secretary

New | Directions | Return Home