APPROVED MINUTES
THE CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 28, 2007

1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Piggins at 7:00 PM.

2. ATTENDANCE: Ron Dellartino, Karen VanPelt, Alexa Urquhart, Christopher Nern, Renee Waddell, John Piggins. ABSENT: Dave Burdick. Also in attendance: Ryan Kilpatrick, Larry Nix, Williams and Works; Andy Mulder, City Attorney; Dave Kowal, City Manager.

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17, 2007
Motion by Urquhart, second by Waddell to approve the minutes as prepared
Motion carries

4. Agenda changes/Additions/Deletions
Motion by Urquhart, second by Dellartino, to approve the agenda with suggested changes by Manager Kowal to his report.
Motion carries

5. Comments from the Audience (limited to five minutes, not relating to the Public Hearing.)
Frederick Royce, 144 Lakeshore Dr. spoke as an individual in favor of the proposed changes for the Deer Creek Inn, as an asset to the community.

6. Written communication
A. Michigan Township Services Summary
Dellartino questioned the item in September for 13 Spring Street that says that the upper floor cannot be used for sleeping. Kowal was not able to respond but would look into it.
B. Letter from Dick Waskin dated October 17, 2007

7. PUBLIC HEARING RE: An amended application by Paul Wicks (petitioner and owner of West Shore Golf Club), 14 Ferry Street, Douglas, Michigan 49406 for the approval of a final site plan for the West Shore Cottages as a Planned Unit Development project in an R-1 PUD District. This property is located at the northwest corner of Ferry Street and Center Street. This site plan is for a nine-hole golf course and 125 dwelling units (nine three-unit dwellings and 98 single-family homes) on the ninety-two acre site.

A. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:07 PM. Piggins requested that Larry Nix, Williams and Works, present his comments. He stated that the official Public Hearing for the project was held in January of 2007. There have been substantial public comments received by the Planning Commission since that time regarding a variety of issues. The proposal has had a number of changes but the basic idea of what they are going to build has remained virtually unchanged. At the February meeting there were a number of environmental comments made; there were representatives from the Michigan Department of Public Health and from the DEQ who addressed and put into the record comments regarding the PCP and the plume issue that exist on this property. Earlier this month the DEQ held a Public Hearing (November 14, 2007) regarding the plans to build a bridge and to fill some areas. This Public Hearing tonight is not required but is being held as a courtesy to the public so that final comments can be received regarding this project. This Planning Commission will make a recommendation to City Council (whether it is tonight or at a subsequent meeting) who will make the final determination on this site plan. The City Council will also hold another Public Hearing as required by our City Zoning Ordinance.

B. Written Comments
Letter dated November 24 from Greg Potter and Mary Terzino, property at 109 WestShore Woods Dr, would like the project denied because they would like to see the open areas maintained.

Letter dated November 28 submitted by a group regarding the TCE plume that exists underground on the property.

Letter dated November 28 from Tom Desmitt, KLSWA, regarding information and history of TCE in Douglas.

C. Petitioner Presentation
Todd Paquette, Driesenga and Associates, presented on behalf of the petitioner. He stated that the project had come before the Commission from January through April and at that time approval was given with conditions. Since that time they have worked with Mr. Nix on procedural issues and some ordinance issues that have evolved. Paquette utilized the document produced by Nix to summarize the project related to the zoning ordinance. Phase One has been revised to include single family detached buildings. The result of that is a reduction in the total number of building units. Discussion continued on the sidewalk along Center Street and that the sidewalk on Ferry Street was not an issue in April. He also questioned the widening of McVea as part of the approval process.

Bill Sikkle, attorney for Mr. Wicks, questioned whether the sidewalks on Center Street and Ferry Street needed to be on the West Shore property. The developer is proposing providing easement rights and payment provisions. Given the challenging topography of the site, does it make sense for the sidewalk?

D. Audience Comments
Frederick Royce, 144 Lakeshore Dr, as President of the Douglas Lakeshore Association which is opposed to the development of this property; the DEQ has not made a definitive statement regarding contamination of TCE. R-1 zoning should remain single-family but there are still nine multi-unit buildings. Requirements should include sidewalks and vapor barriers.

Suzanne Dixon, 797 Center Street, stated that the best location for the sidewalk is along the north side of Center Street.

Dayle Harrison, President of the Kalamazoo River Protection Association stated that the organization is concerned about covering up a viable creek.

Anne Gudith, 301 McVea Dr in agreement with Mr. Royce

Ted Oyler, Saugatuck Twp., part owner of lot west of phase three concerned about how close the road is to the property line.

Trisha Doolin, 749 Golfview Dr, concerned about the TCE contamination.

Motion by Urquhart, second by Nern, to close the Public Hearing
Motion carries

E. Commissioner Comments
Nern asked for clarification on where the stream that is to be covered is located and the purpose of that action. Paquette answered that it is to make hole number 1 more playable.

Dellartino asked whether a permit will be required from the Michigan DEQ and the Corps of Engineers. The C2.1 plan states that it may be required. Paquette responded that the developer is currently applying for those permits.
Dellartino continued to question the access onto McVea; is it capable to handle the additional traffic, has it been built to County standards? Paquette responded that Max Rogers is comfortable with the roads being able to handle the capacity. Dellartino said that his concern is that if the public roadways need to be improved due to this project it shouldn’t be at the taxpayers’ expense.

Waddell questioned why the sidewalk is still a contentious issue. The Tri-community Plan clearly states that to facilitate a walk able community sidewalks should be on Center Street and Ferry Street. Paquette responded that as the first development with the sidewalk they ask where does it go and where does it come from. It will be difficult and expensive to build, we offered the compromise in the easement; Ferry Street wasn’t talked about until Mr. Nix’ letter. Sikkle added that the developer is not opposed to building the sidewalk but that they had comments from people who did not wish to have it. They are interested in the discussion.
Waddell went on to say that the study was done by a variety of local people and that it clearly states the sidewalk as a high priority and to seize the opportunity when we can.

In addition she wondered if there is any information on ground water protection. Paquette said that since they are reducing the course from 18 holes to 9 they are asking for a relaxation on the 50’ buffer. There are areas now where the course is closer than 50’ to neighbors’ property.

Waddell spoke on the buffer zone for the access road that Mr. Oyler had commented on earlier noting that the commission had spent time looking at that and deciding that with the fence as buffer it would be best for the project.

VanPelt questioned the “payment provision” for the sidewalk in the declaration and grant as part of the association. Would that be the developers association or the condominium association? Sikkle noted that as with everything else, the infrastructure costs have been added to the total project cost. The house price and the land price are tied together. Part of the sale price of the house would be set aside to satisfy the contingency for the sidewalk. Mulder said that there are elevation and engineering issues because of the difficulty of the site. In theory, this is something that is entirely possible but the Planning Commission would be better served to require the sidewalk as part of the construction.

Urquhart noted that many people like the big trees on Center Street and that the last time it was studied, 40 trees would need to be removed in order to install a sidewalk. The idea would be to have a more serpentine design for the sidewalk.
Urquhart noted that she is uncomfortable making a decision without input from the DEQ regarding the covering up of the stream due to the TCE contamination. She also noted that there has been conversation about the use of mercury in the past to control slugs. She would want to know that there is no mercury contamination in that area.
Urquhart said that she does not consider a triplex as a single family home; a single family home is a stand-alone dwelling.
In previous meeting it was noted that the roads needed to be up to County standards, Urquhart does not feel that there is room for variance on the roads with 125 residences going in. If the roads are being phased she would like to see a performance bond for the roads and utilities for each phase up front.
Urquhart questioned why there is not approval from the various utilities. That has been the procedure to have those approvals in place.
The setbacks are a really big variance. There are 20 units out of 125 that meet the minimum setback requirement.
As part of the PUD ordinance an economic value needs to be shown and Urquhart wonders if the sale of 125 units in this economy is feasible.
PUD ordinance talks about design variation and it looks like we will have 98 houses and nine triplexes that all look the same.

VanPelt is also concerned about the lack of a market analysis; what is the data that says they are going to sell out in the different phases. We need to take into consideration how the development will affect the surrounding properties.
VanPelt also noted concern about the type of disclosure the developer has to make to potential purchasers regarding the contamination. She would like to see the information in the Association documents giving full disclosure to both buyer and potential renters. Do we know the timing of the information given by the Michigan DEQ stating that the levels of contamination are low?
With three phases, at what point is the benefit to the community seen? Mulder said that happens in phase one.

Waddell responded to Urquhart’s setback concern by saying that she thinks that retaining the nine-hole course for the public is a great benefit.

Urquhart said that for the triplex units the parking is queued parking which is not allowed in the ordinance. Some of the driveways are incredibly short and there will be on-street parking. She fully agrees that clustering houses to create open space is good but that the trend here is pushing the envelope.

Piggins said that there are three options: recommend approval to the City Council, recommend denial, or recommend approval with conditions.

Nix reviewed his notes on what the Commissioners voiced concerns about. The TCE issue needs to be dealt with through the Corps of Engineers; work with the petitioner on the best method for building the sidewalk; the part of McVea from Golfview to the development is the part that needs to be widened; the perimeter road is close to the adjacent property because of topography, that is why the tall fence is to be installed; the zoning ordinance does allow for single-family attached and single-family detached homes, it is common in a PUD to allow the attachment of single-family homes to occur to allow for more open space; agency approvals are on file, they have not done engineering drawings yet; to justify the roads there was a discretionary decision; the benefit to the regulatory approval is the preservation of the nine-hole course; economic viability is a risk in this economic climate, the city needs to be sure that there is a financial guarantee by the developer that enables the city the resources to finish the project. I can help you frame your questions but the developer has to help you solve your concerns.

Urquhart questioned whether the ten foot fence on the perimeter could extend the entire length of the border between the two developments.

Piggins suggested giving the developers feed-back on the issue.

Nern responded that the commission does not want to micro-manage the project; rely on the wisdom of the people who buy to assist in the judgment in making some of these alterations.
Concerning the economic viability of the project; there are those who value a place where they can live in their own home and not be tied to the work of maintaining the home.

Waddell said that she would rather look through trees than a fence and would expect that if the homeowner wanted the fence they would install it themselves. VanPelt and Dellartino agreed.

Mulder gave some thoughts to the commission on the feasibility analysis. The goal of the zoning ordinance is to guarantee that the City is not stuck with infrastructure if the development doesn’t go through. It is a different position if the developer already owns the land. In the R-1 zone district as indicated in the ordinance, under definition we allow three attached units but we don’t achieve more density this way. The current ordinance does allow the attached structure. The environmental position of a restrictive covenant as a mandatory requirement in the master deed is a dangerous place; this community does not have that environmental background, the state agency imposes that condition.

Piggins asked the commissioners to weigh in on the setback issue to give the developer feedback.

The majority of Commissioners agreed that the open space and the golf course were in the public benefit and worth the variance.

Motion by Waddell, second by Urquhart, to table the Westshore Cottage Development until the DEQ and Corp of Engineer Reports; the sidewalk plan is submitted; a recommendation regarding the McVea/Golfview Dr improvements is submitted, and a letter of credit for Phase One Infrastructure Improvements Performance Bond is submitted.

Roll call vote:
Waddell, yes; Urquhart, yes; Dellartino, no; VanPelt, yes; Nern, no; Piggins, yes
Motion carries

Break at 9:03; Return at 9:12

8. Unfinished Business
None

9. New Business
A. Deer Creek Bed and Breakfast: Existing Bed and Breakfast has applied to amend the site plan for Special Land Use in the R-2 District. Applicant has proposed to remove the existing garage which is to be replaced with a 1 ½ story carriage house. The purpose of the carriage house is to allow the current owners to live on-site and maintain the grounds and business operation. The number of units available to transient guests is proposed to be reduced from eight (8) units to six (6).

Ryan Kilpatrick has been responsible for the review of the property and preparation of the report to the commission which is attached.

Piggins questioned restricting the owners’ ability to rent out the new carriage house facility. Kilpatrick responded that his recommendation would be that the current or subsequent owners would be restricted from renting more than six units.

Kevin Sabourin, 300 Ferry Street, owner, stated that the family had outgrown the property and had proposed changes earlier in the year. This plan allows for the main kitchen in the carriage house with a serving space in the main house. The current garage is an eye-sore; the proposal should be very charming, architecturally appropriate for the existing building.

Urquhart noted that there were no elevations in the drawings. Kilpatrick showed previously submitted drawings with the elevations indicated. Urquhart questioned whether walls would be moved in the main house because the kitchen will be dismantled. Sabourin used the blueprint to explain the changes to the main house.

Dellartino clarified that the covered walkway between the cottages is a trellised covering.

Urquhart explained that the reason for the covering was that for a B+B the facility needed to be one unit and the walkway made it “one unit.”

Motion by Dellartino, second by Waddell, that the Planning Commission of the City of the Village of Douglas approve the amended site plan for Special Land Use for the Deer Creek Bed and Breakfast, 300 Ferry Street, dated November 19, 2007 with the condition that the property not be used by more than six rental units.

Roll call vote:
Dellartino, yes; Waddell, yes; VanPelt, yes; Nern, yes; Urquhart, yes; Piggins, yes
Motion carries

B. Tower Marina: Existing Marina has applied to amend the site plan for Special Land Use in the R-4 District. Proposed addition to the existing marina will be an approximately 1,700 square foot, two-story addition to be used primarily for parts storage, accessory to the current service operation. The proposed addition will be located between the two existing buildings on-site.

Kilpatrick presented the review of the proposal, attached.

Urquhart explained the history of the PUD overlay.

Nix reported that researched records back to the original zoning map that was approved with the original adoption of the 1997 zoning ordinance do not indicate a PUD designation on that area. In consideration of this with Council, it is thought that this was just an error in the creation of the current map.

RJ Peterson, Applicant, explained that the addition is just an expansion of the parts and tool room for better cost control. There are two floors.

Piggins noted that the size indicated on the site-plan is over 3,400 square feet which would indicate 1,700 square feet on each floor.

Urquhart said that she thinks it is a good idea but that she is concerned that the PUD designation was removed from someplace that they thought it was on. The project doesn’t change parking or any of the other issues that we look at when we look at a whole site.
Mulder responded that there was a lot of research done and that the zoning ordinance does allow the Zoning Administrator to correct errors that show on the map. The research could not find any formal adoption; further research of the zoning map will be done to make sure that districts are properly indicated.

Kowal added that in researching the 1997 ordinance and every subsequent legislative action to date, there is no indication of a creation of a Planned Unit Development. Peterson said that if it had been a PUD it would be recorded on the deeds.

Motion by Urquhart, second by Waddell, to approve the Site Plan review for the Special Land Use in the R-4 district for Tower Marine proposed addition as presented

Roll call vote:
Urquhart, yes; Waddell, yes; Nern, yes; Dellartino, yes; VanPelt, yes; Piggins, yes
Motion carries

10. Zoning Administrator Report

A. Letter attached from City Attorney Mulder to Attorney W. Sikkel dated October 22, 2007 RE: 93 Water Street (Chad Kalkman property)

B. Letter attached from City Attorney Vander Veen to Attorney B. Ruga dated October 30, 2007 RE: Saugatuck Public Schools Early Childhood Center

C. Letter attached from City Attorney Vander Veen to Ms. C. Wolenberg, Michigan Department of Education, dated October 30, 2007 RE: Saugatuck Public Schools Early Childhood Development Program Facility

D. Letter attached from City Attorney Vander Veen to Mr. M. Sisco, Bureau of Construction Codes, Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth, dated November 14, 2007 RE: Saugatuck Public Schools Early Childhood Center

E. Letter attached from City Manager/Zoning Administrator Kowal to Brent DeRose, Nederveld, dated November 6, 2007 RE: Proposed Boardwalk at Swing Bridge Project Plot Plan

F. Letter attached from City Attorney Vander Veen to Attorney W. Sikkel, dated November 19, 2007 RE: Saugatuck Storage Facility (Dean Borlund property)

Urquhart asked when enforcement might occur. Kowal reported that in a trial in Allegan County it was ordered all of the costs to the city be reimbursed. Given the work that was done on the revised site-plan, Borlund has shown willingness to work with the city. His response to this letter will be the decision-maker on whether we expend additional money and go for additional enforcement action. Mulder continued to say that in a jury trial Borlund was required to reimburse the city for costs. There has been a period of time of non-compliance when the property has been used for rental. Mr. Borlund has worked with us but if there is a time when we don’t get a timely response, the next step would be to go to Circuit Court to get an injunction issued by the court to prevent the use of the property until there is complete compliance. I recommend that we exhaust our efforts with Mr. Borlund, progress is being made, possibly not as quickly as we would like.

G. Attorney Vander Veen, Kilpatrick, Kowal, met with Mr. VonderHeid and his representative for the Blue Moon. A site plan came through that was, I believe, an extension to the kitchen. One of the conditions of the approval was the removal of a driveway; the site-plan required that the driveway going in to the restaurant be removed. Mr. VonderHeide was not prepared to remove the drive; he wished to incorporate it into future plans for landscaping. Kowal suggested that he submit a site plan for what he wished to be constructed. He is in non-compliance because that has not been submitted and he is in violation of the original site-plan. The performance bond is going to expire in the Spring.

H. On a brighter note, Larry Nix has been re-writing our zoning ordinance, in addition he has done many reviews. Ryan Kilpatrick gave some continuity to our operation. There is a posting for a Zoning Administrator opening; hopefully it will be filled by mid-January.

11. Hear from the Audience

Fred Royce, 144 Lakeshore Dr, enthused about the work that Larry and Ryan have been doing. Working with them has been very satisfactory.

Bill Sikkle, attorney for Dean Borlund. Went through points in the letter sent; there are three different opinions on the zoning of the front of the property.

RJ Peterson, serious problems in the Village of Friendliness. We need to preserve the Harbor. There is no way to communicate what has been going on. I would like some indication on how to communicate what the public sector is going to do to preserve the harbor.

12. Commissioner Comments

VanPelt noted that the dumpster at Northern Lights was to screen their dumpster and it hasn’t been done.

Waddell is pleased with how clear the plans have been.

Nern saw interesting progress about how we handle things; we need to be alert to the applicants to work with us.

Urquhart asked if the Council decided what to do about the Harbor with the Saugatuck City Council? Kowal responded that naming a person to a commission before there is an ordinance drafted is putting the cart before the horse. We all have to agree on what we are appointing people to.

13. Motion by Urquhart, second by Dellartino to adjourn at 10:25
Motion carries

Respectfully submitted,

Alan B. McPhail