MINUTES
Spring Lake Village
February 1, 2010
7:30 P.M.
Barber School Meeting Room
102 West Exchange
Spring Lake, Michigan
I. Call to Order:
President Filber called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
II. Pledge of Allegiance:
President Filber led the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. Roll Call:
A. Present: Filber, MacLachlan, Miller, Nauta, VandenBosch & VanStrate
Absent: Kelly
On a motion by MacLachlan, support from Nauta, the Village Council excused Council member Kelly.
Yes: 6 No: 0
IV. Reports and Statements of Citizens:
David Rehm, 15360 Oak Point Drive, introduced himself to the Village Council and told them that he was running for Ottawa County Circuit Court Judge.
V. Presentation of a $6000 contribution for the Heritage Festival fireworks by Huntington Bank, Spring Lake Branch Manager, Kathleen Alward.
Doug Heins, President of the Spring Lake Rotary Club, said that they were also helping to sponsor the fireworks during the 2010 Heritage Festival.
VI. Consent Agenda:
A. Approved the payment of the bills in the amount of $84,365.52.
B. Approved the minutes for the January 18, 2010 regular Village Council meeting.
C. Approved a resolution of declaration that the Brownfield loan for redevelopment of the former Graflex property (the new Lake Pointe Brownfield project) was completed and could be abolished. This brownfield loan was paid back in 2009. The impact of this resolution would be to direct the Spring Lake Township assessing and tax collection functions to no longer capture Village and non-Village taxes to make this brownfield loan pay back. The loan terms were for up to 15 years. The Village paid it back with these new tax payments in less than two years.
D. Approved a notice of intent to apply to the Land and Water Conservation Fund for $100,000 of grant funds to construct Phase I of the Grand River Greenway/Non-motorized Trail and Mill Point Park improvements. The next recommended grant was from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and would be administered jointly by the MDNR and the National Park Service. Up to $100,000 was available with a $100,000 match. The Village’s match would come from other funds already accrued for this project. The deadline was April 1, 2010.
E. Set a public hearing for Monday, March 1, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. at Barber School, 102 West Exchange Street to consider a potential grant request from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for $100,000 of grant funds to construct phase I of the Grand River Greenway/Non-motorized Trail and Mill Point Park improvements and for the Coastal Management grant program for $50,000.
F. Approved a request to the West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission for Buchanan Street to be considered for federal grant funding from Exchange Street to Liberty Street in federal fiscal year 2014 and approved the conceptual planning necessary from Moore and Bruggink engineers in the amount of $2,450 as required to achieve these federal funds.
G. Authorized the Village Manager to secure Grand River Greenway conceptual plan amendments from Moore and Bruggink engineers for $1,370 and authorized the same for a Grand River Greenway conceptual map from Spring Lake to Grand Rapids in the amount of $1,650, with funding from the Tax Increment Financing Fund in the February 15, 2010 budget adjustments. These changes were necessary in order to continue to prepare this trail for construction of Phase I in FY 2011 and to seek funding for the following phases to get to Leonard Road, as per the 1987 Master Plan.
H. Set a public hearing for Monday, February 15, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. at Barber School, 102 West Exchange Street to consider a rezoning recommendation from the Planning Commission for 311 and 312 East Savidge.
On a motion by Miller, support from MacLachlan, the Village Council approved the Consent Agenda as presented.
Yes: 6 No: 0
VII. Report By the Village Clerk/Treasurer:
No report was presented.
VIII. Report By the Village Manager:
A. Approved revisions to the Planned Unit Development contract for the development at Fruitport Road and Savidge Street, 808-830 East Savidge, and authorized the Village President and Clerk/Treasurer to execute the contract.
Subject: This planned unit development project (PUD) was awaiting formal execution of the development contract and an improved economic climate prior to proceeding.
After detailed review by the development team, the developers requested the Village Attorney and staff make six amendments – five of which were mutually agreed (minor changes to the plan; financing, timeline, additional conditions, and remedies for violations).
The sixth requested change was to require the Village Council to approve any successor owners if the project was ever transferred (Alternative #1). An acceptable alternative had been to require Village Council approval, but add that such approval would not be “unreasonably withheld” (Alternative #2).
The development team was present to request Village Council adoption of Alternative #2 or to leave the matter out of the PUD contract entirely. Village Council direction by way of a motion to include any desired changes was needed prior to final action.
Keith Walker, from McShane & Bowie, said that he was the attorney for the developer and he stated that he did not feel that it was necessary to require the Village Council approve any successor owners if the project was ever transferred or that written consent of the Village Council should be required prior to sale of the property, but that the ordinance stated that the agreement “shall be binding upon all successors in interest to the applicant” and that they felt that this was sufficient. Mr. Walker stated that this was not proper to be in the zoning ordinance; apparently it always had been in the Planned Unit Development contract and the Village of Spring Lake didn’t want to change the contract; and that he guessed that no one had ever challenged it.
Attorney Sullivan said that the language had been around a long time and that the Village wanted to know who the third party was and that the project would be completed.
Jim Reminga said that they were against it because they felt the Village might deny the buyer and that they were uncertain as to under what conditions the Village Council might disapprove of a buyer.
Council member VandenBosch asked Attorney Sullivan if the property were sold in a year could we get into a mess.
Attorney Sullivan said that it was especially important to know who we were dealing with, especially until it was developed.
Keith Walker said that the requirement for approval should not be in perpetuity, but should only be during the development phase.
Attorney Sullivan said that he was not opposed to this and that the PUD contract, section 1(O) could be amended to read “until the occupancy permit is granted for the final phase of the Project, the Planned Unit Development approval shall be personal to the Developer and shall not be transferred by the Developer to a third party without prior written consent of the Village Council, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.”
On a motion by VandenBosch, support from MacLachlan, the Village Council approved the Planned Unit Development contract for the development at Fruitport Road and Savidge Street, 808-830 East Savidge, with the amendment to section 1 (O) as stated by the Village Attorney and authorized the Village President and Clerk/Treasurer to execute the contract.
Yes: 6 No: 0
B. Held a discussion of a draft policy to enable a one-year trial period for wintering Tanglefoot Park recreational vehicles.
Subject: Neighbors within 300 feet of the park were invited to attend this meeting at 7:30 p.m.
The Tanglefoot Park potential fees were discussed and a draft policy written, following Village Council discussion at the February 1, 2010 Village Council meeting. The potential fee for winter was adjusted to $275 and a per month charge was added at $50 per month. A policy was written to guard against tarps, liability or other problems.
Modest increases in the trailer rates were part of the next agenda item, as well as new charges for 50 amp power and Coast Guard week.
Manager Cotton said that Stan Johnson had concluded that the trailers could not be grouped in one corner of the park.
Lee Schuitema, 408 W. Exchange Street, explained that he was not a property owner in the Village, but that he took care of and represented the woman who owned the property. He asked if the storage did get approved by the council, what it did for the opening and closing dates for the park and he wanted to know if people would be permitted to access the trailers year round. Mr. Schuitema said that the trailers being parked there in the winter would create snowdrifts on to Exchange Street. He added that he was not overly fond of some of the people in the park and that he had to spend time cleaning up after them. He concluded that he was not certain if the extra money for the Village was worth it.
Wesley Devries, 222 W. Exchange, said that he shared similar concerns with Mr. Schuitema. He said it would be difficult to know if someone was vandalizing a trailer or if it was the owner; he was not sure of visibility for children playing in the park; and that it would take away from people’s one little view of the river. He asked how much money was the Village Council even talking about.
President Filber said that the park brought in revenue of about $60,000 a year and that the storage would bring in hundreds of dollars not thousands, but by allowing storage of the units it would almost guarantee a renter in the following spring. He said that the Village Council understood the concerns and was not making a decision at this time.
Wesley Devries said that parking was an issue and maybe if the Village added some additional parking spaces it would be more beneficial to people returning to the park.
Council member VandenBosch stated that the Village should not be in the storage business and it would just be opening the door to others storing trailers and boats. He wanted to know what the other places were charging for storage fees and he also asked where the idea for winter storage had originated from, the park manager or the trailer park people.
President Filber said that the idea came from some trailer park residents. He said that the Village Council practiced “The Village Way” and people had the right to bring ideas forward for the Village Council to consider.
Council member Nauta said that Park Manager, Stan Johnson, had indicated he was neutral on the issue.
Manager Cotton said that he had encouraged Stan Johnson to bring the idea forward, since it had been addressed in the Master Plan and with the Grand River Greenway and the fact that there had been lots of revenue cuts and this would possibly produce some extra income in the hopes of not having to cut down on loss of services in the Village.
Council member MacLachlan said that when he first heard about it he thought that the $3000 sounded good financially, but the citizen feedback about it was pretty negative. He added that it looked a lot better empty and that it was an ill advised idea.
Council member Miller said that he was also against it and that it would not look good.
Council member Van Strate said that it would look worse having the trailers all separated.
President Filber said that the Village Council had made a stand that they were against the winterizing of trailers at Tanglefoot Park.
C. Approved new fees for Tanglefoot Park and the amended rules.
Subject: The Park Manager made his annual report in the fall of 2009 and discussion regarding the fees ensued. The Village Council requested detailed fee recommendations and tentatively agreed to two rule changes having to do with 1) allowing only one pet per trailer and 2) keeping the doors and windows shut, since the Village was paying the air conditioning electrical bill. Modest increases in the trailer rates were recommended, as well as new charges for winter storage, 50 amp power and Coast Guard week.
On a motion by MacLachlan, support from Miller, the Village Council approved amending the rates and the park rules without the wintering of RV’s at Tanglefoot Park for the 2010 season.
Yes: 6 No: 0
D. Heard a report and recommendation from Drew Whitley, Project Administrator, for a sound system in Barber School.
Subject: The lack of a state-of-the-art sound system in Barber School occasionally resulted in citizen complaints.
Drew Whitley, Projects Administrator, prepared and provided a status report to the Village Council on the options considered to-date and the costs for alternatives.
IX. Reports from the Village Council:
Council member MacLachlan said that as a member of the Police Commission, he had helped in interviewing the three applicants for part time police officer. He said that they were well qualified and that we would get some good officers on board.
President Filber said that he would be attending a lunch on February 8th to celebrate 100 years of scouting in West Michigan.
X. Statements of Citizens:
No statements of citizens were presented.
XI. Reconvened the work session at 8:40 p.m.
XII. Executive session pertaining to acquisition of property:
On a motion by Van Strate, support from Nauta, the Village Council adjourned into executive session at 9:03 p.m.
Yes: 6 No: 0
Resolved that the Village Council meet in executive session for reasons permitted by Section 8(C) of the Michigan Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.268 (e); MSA 4.1800(18)(e); as requested by the Village Manager, to confer with legal counsel on matters permitted by Section (e) of the Open Meetings Act.
On a motion by Van Strate, support from Miller, the Village Council arose from executive session at 9:30 p.m.
Yes: 6 No: 0
XIII. Adjournment:
On a motion by VandenBosch, support from VanStrate, the Village Council adjourned from the Village Council meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Yes: 6 No: 0
_________________________________________
William Filber, Village President
_________________________________________
Maribeth Lawrence, Village Clerk/Treasurer
|