Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

to order. Jordan, can I have a roll call, please? Dye here. Frank here. Johnson's absent. Mooney here. Parker here. Roan here. And Chair Beal here. All right. Next, we have approval of tonight's agenda. Um, I get a motion to approve. Motion to approve. Second. All those in favor? I. And then next we have approval of our minutes from our January 27th, 2026 meeting. For that motion to approve second. Second by Frank. Sure. All those in favor?

I I heard volunt down there. Any correspondents? We have none received. No.

Okay. All right. So, we have two public hearings tonight and we do have a time in the agenda item six for statement of citizens agenda items only. You do have a chance though to comment during the public hearing though. So, you could comment now or then. Okay, let's move on to the public hearing. Do you want me to open it right away? All right, let's open the first public hearing for expansion of a non-conforming deck at 704 Fall Street at 6:01 p.m. We're making great time. [laughter] All right. Um, so the application or the memo before you is um from Randy Ross of Overbuilt Construction um applying for a special land use permit to expand or rebuild a non-conforming deck that is already existing on behalf of the homeowners Timothy and Tracy Wood. Um, specifically this deck is a walkway and staircase from the side of the home um coming around to the back um to the deck itself that's attached to the home. Um the catwalk currently has a setback of 4.8 ft. Um where a uh the required setback would be 8 ft. Um, and the house itself is non-conforming with a setback of 9.8 ft from the lot line. Um, as well, the applicant is asking for a proposed setback of 3.8 ft instead of that 4.8 ft. So, just a foot expansion of that catwalk. Um, alternatively, the applicant has stated that if the expansion of the existing nonconformity a foot to 3 um 8 feet or 3.6 feet at the

uh staircase, so it it goes a little more into the non-conforming or into the setback down by the staircase 0.2 ft. Um, if the planning commission is not comfortable with that expansion um rebuilding to the existing 4.6 6 ft setback at the staircase and a 4.8 foot setback at the beginning of the catwalk be considered. There are a few special land use um standards for this specific use. Um a whether the proposed expansion, enlargement or alteration of the nonconformity would have an adverse impact on adjoining properties or general welfare of the village. Um the catwalk already has an existing setback of 4.6 six feet from the lot line and no no correspondence has been received um from the neighbors regarding the expansion. And then secondly B um whether there is a reasonable alternative means to achieving the desired expansion, enlargement or alteration in a manner that does not increase the degree of nonconformity. Um and the planning commission could allow for the structure to be rebuilt to its existing non-conforming uh status instead of expanding that additional foot. And then also something to keep in note um keep in mind um the deck could also be accessed from the back of the house meaning that the catwalk is not the only way to access the deck necessarily. Um yeah I'm here for any questions and the applicant is here as well.

Would the applicant like to say anything right now? Sure. expanding is not possible.

[clears throat] You don't have to Would both options be extending that gable roof out over the deck? Is that all? That's going to be an all new deck, I take it. Yes.

And then that new roof's going to be coming off that looked like a hip roof into a gable roof, right? Okay. And for either the 3.6 six or the 4.6, you'd want to extend that roof. Yeah. And the roof won't extend. It looked like it was 2 feet 7 in or something. Okay. Okay. Yeah, those were my two questions.

Other questions do we have? I I drove by and tried to get a look, but I couldn't really tell. The the structure that's right next door to the east, uh it looks like that's just a plain brick wall that's uh on the neighboring house, so adjacent to the catwalk. That's their garage wall. Okay. staircase. Well, that wouldn't be getting a foot closer to a living area or windows or anything like that. Okay.

You know, if there's any language in the in the drainage easement where they're going to need a notification for construction or excavation there. It it looks like on the survey there's a 20 foot drainage easement between the two parcels.

Okay. Did we find anything out about that? I definitely asked Nick too. We did ask. Um we found the original [laughter]

we found the original plat from 1957. Um because it's 70 years old. We weren't able to find documents, right? uh documents that were um similar to what we would see now where like an HOA would say, "Hey, here's what has to happen with that easement." So, we did reach out to DPW to see if it's a village drain. We wouldn't have an answer on that until tomorrow. We can reach out to the county, but as you stated, it didn't appear on the county drain map. So, I'm not sure that it is. When something's older, it's harder to typically find good records of why things existed. Um there is the option to always do conditions upon approvals if that's what the planning commission is inclined to do to make sure that whatever would be acceptable within drainage easement. So there's no pipe there now.

Yeah. I don't Okay. I saw catch basin in their driveway but it wasn't aligned with this. Yeah. Oh, really? Yeah. I'd be curious what public works said. But it's possible they just never built it though. It's Yeah. I mean, there's there's empty easements all over the state. Yeah. What other questions do we have? David,

is I'm I'm assuming if it says no correspondence has been received from the neighbors, they're aware of this is going to happen. Okay. Okay. So, they sort of like [laughter] Okay. Okay. I just sort of curious about, you know, what the uh communications is between the neighbors. Okay. If you left it the same width, what would you do to make sure that's secure and and safe for the homeowner? Then what is the other option? Do you have to take those steps out then? Yeah, we have to cut the concrete. Yeah.

[cough]

And so the extra foot would allow you just to build directly into the ground and avoid the concrete. Any other questions? Thank you. Harrison and Cassie, what is the um you said the house setback of 9.8 that's not conforming. What is their sideyard setback requirement? I thought our sideyard setback was 8 ft. No, it's 10. I have to look it up. Do you know off the top of your head? I believe If you have a lakefront property,

it's 8 foot um in single family residential. Yes, I would have to also look that up because that might have been a typo. I can look it up if you'd like. Okay. To the house.

Okay. thoughts on this?

Oh, you're right. Sorry. Hey, Pete. My concern was it's it's already non-conforming and then to allow it to continue to be more non-conforming is a concern. Um, but since when they bought it, they probably didn't realize that, you know, we can now. That is that was my initial thought as well. Um, want to necessarily increase nonconformities in the village. certainly a proponent of replacing what's there, replacing in kind and maintaining um I think I'm fine with it staying definitely as is because it's not their fault. It's a nonconformity. Like that's not in their control. Unless you guys lived here 57 years ago, then we should talk. [laughter] Um, I guess it just begs the question, if you have a a home that's a setback of 8 feet, is a deck setback of 8 feet also appropriate as our rules. As you guys know, I have opinions on our setbacks being too large because we have very tiny properties, me living at one of them. So, I always try to fight for people who have crazy setbacks when we have very small 1900s parcel lines. But that's just my opinion. Um, I want to be fair to the future applicant, too, that if it's a sticky situation, we're not just saying make the nonconformity worse. So,

I don't know if that helps, but that's my opinion. I think it'd feel a little bit differently if it was a like a three-foot catwalk and we were talking about widening it for just easeability for walking, but we are already at a five foot wide walk. Um, I'm sure six feet would be nice, but it's hard to accept the additional nonconformity. The only other perspective I had is if you build it six feet, then you can just build it as opposed to having to demolish everything underneath it. It was the only it's an easier thing to do,

right? That's the reason is Yeah. right existing concrete underneath Ellie.

I definitely would support, you know, approving it with the current 5 foot width. Uh seems like the only reason to go to six is to make the construction a little more convenient. Um and it, you know, extending it out, I don't think it would impinge on the neighbors in any significant way. So I I'd be inclined to go with that. I don't think we're setting any kind of terrible precedent if we do. Although I do appreciate, you know, it's not just conformities. In both situations, you'd say say they could extend the roof straight out so they could have a roof over their deck.

Yeah, I don't see any problem with that. Okay. I guard. No, it what it would do is just continue that eve straight along the edge. And it would come out what, however, 14 feet. Uh, so it would cover the deck that would be there, the new deck, the revised deck that would be there. So they'd have an additional 14 ft of nonconforming overhang. No, I don't think that's the concern, is it? On the on the back side, I think we're okay. Right.

It's Well, it's I Yeah. See, two foot or two foot seven. I mean, I'm not Okay. Vote on this in old business. Just in old business. Yep. So, you would close this public hearing and move to the next.

That's a good point. Does anyone have any other comments about this about And any comments from the public that we're in a public hearing from anyone else? Okay. Could you please come up to the podium? Thank you. [clears throat]

your deck. Okay. And that would make that walkway another foot wider.

Yeah, we vote on this on old business. Want to noodle on it for a couple minutes? Couple minutes. Sure. Noodle on it. All right. Okay, let's close the public hearing at 6:16 p.m. and let's open up the public hearing for a short-term rental consideration at 316 South Jackson Street at 1617 p.m.

Yep. So, Chris Kettler is uh requesting a special land use approval for a short-term rental at the property at 116 South Jackson Street. Uh the property is better known as the Temple Lounge right down the road. um a music and event center located on the first floor of the property and the second floor of the property is a two-bedroom dwelling. Um getting into the standards, um since the unit is located within the central business district, uh zoning district, there are no minimum lot area or setback requirements. Um so nothing to be noted there. Um, and there are also no outdoor congregating areas located on the property. For occupancy, um, the first bedroom is 155 square ft, which correlates to three occupants. And then the second bedroom is 106 ft, which correlates with one occupant allowed. Should be two.

Okay. So, I guess that would be two occupants for bedroom two. There'd be five total. Yeah. doesn't change the parking requirement though. Okay.

So, based on a maximum occupancy of five people, two parking spaces would be required. Discussions around parking um are ongoing. because of a lack of parking currently established uh on the site. Um although there is parking that would typically be used for the concert hall and event center, um parking overnight and long-term and the village lot would not be allowed due to parking restrictions during the winter for the purposes of snow removal. Um staff believe that parking would be available on the rear eastern side of the building in a parallel fashion uh where that green boxes on the picture. Um two spaces pack stacked parallelly would require 50 ft. Currently there's 47 ft available. Um staff and the village manager are working with the owner to pursue a right-of-way agreement um for parking to encroach the extra 3 ft into the road rightway um based on a previous agreement regarding a ADA um ramp entrance into the building. Um the proposed parking can be seen on the photo in the green area. I'm [clears throat] here for any questions and I believe the applicant is here as well.

Excellent. the applicant like to say anything at this time? the back of our building exchange. Description of that Would [clears throat] that that extra 3 ft would be towards the south? Are there any concerns about car overhang onto the sidewalk? Okay, that that would be better

right

with Okay. Oh, okay.

Okay. So, as the applicant stated, he's working with manager Selner. So, there's a tentative verbal agreement. It just needs to get actually drafted. Okay. Questions for the applicant? Yeah, I have a question. Um, bedroom one, okay, is 155 ft. Okay. What is the area that's been dashed just south of that? Right. [clears throat]

Right. Okay. Okay. How how how do you get to be do you get and I I see no doors into the bedroom. What's the how does that work? How

Oh, are all these a question. Are all these off that main room or can they access can these bedrooms be accessed off the main? So they're all on the same floor as the main. Ah, I kept thinking this was on a second floor from the main. Yeah. So this is the style entire place.

Okay.

Okay. And is all so is the bedroom one, bathroom one, main, entry, bedroom two, and bathroom two all on the same floor? That's right. Yeah. Ah, that's what I could that's what I was trying to comprehend. But can you access uh the entry uh or the bedroom one from the main area? You say main, do you mean like the main floor of the building or No, it says it says main. Yeah. So, okay. his main on the same floor as that's just his living room, family room, right? Living space. Okay. Is it And is that above the entertainment area? Ah, okay.

This is the third floor, right? So, there's a second floor of their second floor is all the third floor. Oh, yeah. Second floor is the offices. Oh, okay. So, and then these bedrooms are all accessed uh from uh Okay. So for the entry to the bedroom two, is that from a stairs that come from the second floor? There's stairs going up to that.

Right. Right. Right. Okay. Okay. Go ahead. kitchen. Oh, there is. Okay. And then from And then on the other side, the bathroom one and bea bathroom one bathroom one. Those are accessed by that door. Yeah.

Okay. Is that that looks like the swing door there next to the bathroom? What's the um Okay. Right. Okay. Into the either bedroom or the bathroom in the middle. In the middle there. And so to so to get to this bedroom or get to this bedroom, which would be separate from the other one, you'd go to the main floor to get to it. You just go through on the third floor,

right? Yeah. Yeah. The main is really just the family room. It is the common room that all the bedrooms are accessed off of. Ah. And so would if someone rents it, would it be renting that entire third floor? Yes. Ah, I was thinking these are all separate. Okay. So it's Oh, and so there's a kitchen kitchen in that main area. Yes. I think this is actually the back. Okay. Now that clarifies of the building. Yes.

Oh my gosh. Okay, that makes way more sense. So there's that little

I was just confused by the door on bathroom one, but I'm assuming that's not really going to be used. Oh, the door on goes up. Yeah, that's what Okay. Okay. Oh, wow. That's what Okay, that's the egress there. So, the main entry in this would be up to the up the stairs on the right side to the entry and that would go into the bedroom, the main room and also access the bathroom, bedroom one.

Mhm.

Okay. which you see which you see on that plant. Okay. Okay. Yeah. I just Is that all secure? Is it all

Is it all secure? You can have uh you can have a locked door into your main event area. But then this area you have to enter another way, right? glass door. So if someone was to rent this, they would be given a key to the bottom of that stair and they would go up that stair.

Yeah. Okay. So that would be their that would be their access point. Yeah. Okay. And so the lock door would be that swing door on the top of the stairs. [clears throat] Door at the bottom too. Okay.

Okay. Okay. That clarifies it because I looked at that and I couldn't comprehend what was happening. Um, are there is there anything in our code about the dual use of an event space with a short-term rental on top that we would need to be concerned about? No. Um, so we already allow in CBD for residences to be allowed above other uses. Um, and we allow permitted uses or permitted and special land use um uses to be building as long as they go through the proper procedure. So that would be this. So this follows got it.

Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Any other comments from the public on this one? Comments do the commissioners have? That parking again. Park. Well, I just parking is an issue. The only thing is is it would have been the plan just needed to be clear. I was not comprehending what was going on. So,

when is their architect's hat on tonight? We broke a record for most times that the the word door was said in like a [laughter] fourminute period. I in my opinion, as long as the village is working with the owner to identify two dedicated parking spots to meet our short-term rental requirements,

um I am fine with that. Um, initial thought is we had a very similar situation a month ago where we were looking at, you know, public parking areas. And so, um, yeah, as long as village is willing to work with the applicant to find and dedicate two spaces. I agree. As long as we can work out that little three-foot parking, I'm good. Nick. Nope.

Okay. I think it's a great idea. Good use of space. I would stay there. Yeah, that's a a sweet spot you got there, man. Yeah, it's a good location. It's very cool building. All right, no other comments. Let's close this public hearing at 6:32 p.m. And let's move on to old business. A is expansion of the non-conforming deck at 704 Fall Street. So, we do have to consider a motion tonight. I just have to find it. Got a couple minutes to think about it, right? Yeah, we did. So,

so here's here's what I've been thinking about. Um I I think in in this use, expanding a foot towards the neighbor's garage, neighbors are aware of it. it's not really impeding anything. Um, but if we if we get another application where it's almost the same thing where it's expanding a deck of foot, but we determine that it is impeding the neighbors or something along those lines. How is the the precedent set there? And does a how can we say we don't think you're impeding this these people, but we do think you're impeding these people, but it's the exact same scenario.

Yeah, I I think the I think that's addressed. Uh I'm looking at the second page here, part A, the question of whether the alteration has an adverse impact on enjoining properties. Okay. And for me, you know, if that were, you know, the bedroom walls of the neighbors, I'd feel different about it. But it's a garage. There are no windows, I don't think. Or if they are, they're windows into a garage. I don't see that in, you know, imping the neighbors quality of life. So that's how I would draw that line.

Awesome. So it sounds like there are instances in our ordinance ordinance where expansion or enlargement of nonconformities happens. I mean there's language about it. So like this can happen. It comes through this process. Okay. So, okay,

Leah, if you wanted to build an addition onto your house because you got the postage stamp lot, then you would go through this process and say, "Hey, you know, this is what I need and it's because my house is currently 600 square feet and we've got one bedroom, but we want to grow our family and this is the only way that we would do it." So, it's really supposed to be for something that is a reasonable request based on what's in the surrounding area, what a normal person would be entitled to. Um so even though the motion is prepared with that um 3.6 if you wanted to keep it at the existing 4.6 because that is what is currently present that is something we could amend easily in the motion. Um we could also add any conditions about that drain easement um because staff weren't able to find an answer before tonight's meeting. question. Does it require unanimous approval or form approval?

Majority the only other thought

and those neighbors might might not be those neighbors in a few years too. And I I think if if any house changes hands again in there, then we have to worry about what what they Right. Staff weren't able to figure out the history of the deck structure. Um sometimes we have records of when something was built. I don't think we were able to locate it on this one. Logically, decks don't last 70 years, so it's not going to be the original one. Um,

I don't know if this is a valid point, but I mean these people do live on the lake. Like I was concerned about, let's say, noise, but like you're living on the lake. You want to be outside. I guess if it was like in the village and you weren't living on the lake or the bayou, it maybe could be a different story, but I think when you buy property lakefront, you kind of sign up for that that you guys are going to be more smooshed together and that's just the deal you make. I don't know if it's valid. I'm just that thought ran through my head.

Is there a strong feeling about the the setback of 3.6 or a strong feeling about the setback of 4.6 which exists? The 4.6 exists as it is. I don't know that is increasing in nonconformity already. Um the existing walkway is 5T I think if the existing walkway was 3 feet Mhm.

conversation but five feet is in my opinion healthy for this type of access. Um, I'm I'm leaning towards being hesitant, too. Either way. Oh, okay. We have two prepared, don't we? We have language for that here. Yeah. You have just the motion. Can you put a slash [clears throat] in put 4.6?

Absolutely. Change it from 3.6 to 4.6. Whatever someone is thinking for a motion or we can approve it as or we can motion to approve it as is. Yep. To to replace in kind. Yes, we could replace inind which would keep their 4.8 or you the motion we could do a let them modify 3.6 to 3.6. Okay. Well, sometimes action. Okay. So, I will motion to approve. Okay. The special use request by Randy Ross to construct a 28T by 6T deck and staircase. I'm just going to be 5 foot. Yeah, it would be 28T by 6T.

Are you motioning to do the 6T or the 5 foot? He's motioning to do more where the setback is 3.6 ft. Okay. Okay. So that's the one. So I just keep going, right? Yep. Okay. And the staircase would result in a sideyard setback of 3.6 feet for the property at 704 Ball Street because the application meets the standards of the Spring Lake zoning ordinance. Motion is subject to the attached report of the findings. So I motion that. Well, I hear a second. Or no, generally I'm not supposed to. Can I or no? Cassie, you can

I'll make a second even though I try not to. I'll second that. And would you do a roll call vote for this one, please? Yes. Frank, no. Oonie? No. Parker? No. Guy? Yes. Roand? No. And Bectal. Yes. Okay, let's try again. That motion failed for the record. What can we say yes to?

I would move that we approve with the I think I'm saying this right with the 4.6 foot setback which is the current situation. Could you read it please? A motion to approve the special use request by Randy Ross to construct a 28 by six foot deck and staircase that would result in a sideyard setback of 4.6 ft for the property at 704 Fall Street. Because the application meets the standards of the Spring Lake Village zoning ordinance, this motion is subject to the attached report of findings. That would be a five foot width, not six foot. Yes. Yeah. I

have a second. Seconds. You want to do a roll call again? Yes. Frank, yes. Parker, yes. Guy, yes. Bectal, yes. Yes. And Robrand, yes. Okay, motion passes. Thank you for your time. Thank you. All right. Second order of old business, we have a short-term rental for 116 South Jackson Street. Go back to that.

I know there's no there was not sample motion for this one starts on page two. Got to love Microsoft Word. It's just Yeah, it's the images just Yeah. Okay. All right. So, we have motion to conditionally approve or we have a motion to deny. There's language or motion to table. Um, anyone ready to make that motion? One note that the um motion would be amended to it says five, but also in that parenthesis it would be five people instead of four. Sure.

I will make a motion to conditionally approve uh as can I just say as written as written as written with amendments would be amendment to subsection A or yeah 1 A with five people as the occupancy. Okay, I make that. Do we have a second? Seconds. Any further discussion before we vote? Okay, we can do a roll call if you want. Roan, yes. Boon, yes. Bectal, yes. Frank, yes. And Parker,

yes. Excellent. Thanks for your application. Yeah. Thank you. Any new business that we have tonight? Ata. All right. Uh, last call. We have statements of citizens, non-aggenda items. If anyone would like to speak. Oh, my gosh. You're

not ready.

We won't say that, but could you say your name and your address? Thank you. So the way that the parking was approved, if I can just speak on your behalf,

please. Um, so because it was expected that the apartment dwellers are not going to be there all day, then they would be there more at night and take that parking, not exclusively at night, but there would be a majority of people parking there at night versus the entire day. and the business owners would use that space in the daytime. They also are able to use the public lots around here in the on street parking. Okay. [laughter]

I think it's Joe. Mhm.

Facebook They have Mhm. Mhm.

One person all those posts on fruit and savage big space. years ago.

Taco Bell. There was no strip mall there. The hardware store. What was it? Hardware store was in there with a for years. You could you could put these to help you know people might actually Hey over there now.

Mhm.

Okay. Back in the day, Cabllas had this I mean, people back then just I lived in city down to brewery or founders. I'd be on this commission. I'd be inviting to come here. Help attract people something big. businesses in here right now. I heard moving out my shirt, great burgers, everything and I hear a lot of stuff. [laughter]

That'd be true.

I don't know, but the um the marina there I heard But for the city, you know, I go through here. There's five. Something. in here.

[laughter] It's okay. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Any other comments? Okay. Comments from planning commissioners. Kelly, anything from you? destination. I agree too. I think maybe going to council would be your best bet. They're elected. We're appointed. So the council is an elected position. We are appointed. So I feel like they have more power than we do. The village council. Yeah. So we're the planning commission.

The downtown authorities. I think downtown development authority really

Yeah, I'll just echo Bob's comments. Um, I walk here frequently and crossing exchange is really difficult. I know the construction like they had to shut down the sidewalk, but I still feel it's pretty dangerous, which I don't really think is acceptable for our community. Um, I would love to see the village apply for a Safe Streets for All grant. They're due in June. I work on them a lot for my job. Would love to see that. There are many intersections that are very unsafe in this village. But yeah, I'll just talk to council about that. So, thanks for bringing the discussion up again.

Uh, Ditto, the only thing I'm wondering about are they parking legally out there? Have they come too close to that intersection? Should there be a setback from that intersection so you can see out to get out? Well, I'm I'm wondering if they're parking legally and if there needs to be some setback or definition of where parking should be there because they're parking all over the place. Well, I do drive by very frequently in the morning. Um I say when maybe the construction workers are arriving. Um they are always in dedicated spots. Okay.

But it is very difficult to see around the trees and like the the church that's there. Um I feel like I have to take a left turn there very very carefully. Okay. Yeah. So, it's

Oh, I actually look Yeah. Mhm. Mhm. Well, maybe a four-way stop. So, okay. Any comments from you additional, David? That's it.

How about you, Nate? I'm good. Let's talk safe. sidewalks though soon. Okay, my other Yeah, I love Spring Lake. Thanks. Staff report. Yes. Really? Because we're on this topic. [laughter] Um,

so Oh, be aware that uh DDA and council do have an agreement with Progressive to work on street streetscaping in the downtown area and coming up with a plan for the corridor. We're very aware that the downtown does not have any sort of sense of place. Um so Progressive will be doing a lot of outreach to the community. I don't know the timeline of that. I've missed the last couple staff meetings and it's still pretty early in this um process. But there will be community open houses. There will be some final documentation. We specifically asked when we were interviewing firms like we don't want just a piece of paper that looks nice. We want something we can implement because otherwise it's pointless frankly to go through all of that. Um, so very aware of the limitations of our downtown um, staff, not Harrison or I, but have been working on efforts to try to do some traffic calming measures in the downtown because, yeah, none of us love crossing any of these streets. They're terrible. Um, I know that we just went through this batch of text amendments recently with CBD and Community Commercial, and we were trying to be more cognizant of not just the Savage corridor, but Exchange because, yeah, it's not a great time to be a pedestrian, and we really do want to encourage walkability in this area. Um, so while we don't have a timeline on any of that right now, it is something that will be coming down the pike. Um, so just, you know, keep an eye on social media, mailers, whatever. I don't know exactly the approaches that they're going to be taking and I don't know that it's really going to involve the planning commission because it's really a DDA initiative. Um, but we are working towards some sort of progress on that. Do I need a motion to adjurnn? All right, let's get a motion to adjurnn, please.

Motion to adjurnn. Second. All those in favor? I