Kentwood Committees & Boards
Planning Commission (Back to index)
Minutes for 06/14/2005APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE KENTWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 14, 2005, 7:30 P.M.
COMMISSION CHAMBERS
A. Chair Bohn called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
B. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Dan Holtrop.
C. Roll Call:
Members Present: Betsy Artz, Maggie Bohn, Todd Gray, Dan Holtrop, Nancy McIntyre-Evenocheck, Ed Swanson, and Frank Vander Hoff
Members Absent: Abed Itani (with notification)
Others Present: City Attorney Jeff Sluggett, Community Development Director Terry Schweitzer, Economic Development Planner Lisa Golder, Planner Joe Pung, Planner Debargha Sengupta, Staff Secretary Mary Faulkner, the press and approximately 25 residents.
Motion by supported by to excuse Commissioner Itani from the meeting.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Itani absent ?
D. Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by VanderHoff, to approve the Minutes of May 24, 2005, and the Findings of Fact for: Case #14-05 Huisman Builders Apartments, Site Plan Review of a 12-unit Apartment Complex, located at 2688 and 2700-32nd Street; Case #22-05 Appletree Christian Learning Center, Site Plan Review and Special Land Use ? Day Care Center, located at 732 52nd Street (south side of 52nd Street, just west of Eastern Avenue); Case #17-05 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ? Special Land Uses, Subdivision Real Estate Signs and PUD Contiguous Site Requirement.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Itani absent ?
E. Approval of the Agenda
Motion by Artz, supported by Swanson, to approve the agenda for the June 14, 2005, meeting.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Itani absent ?
F. Acknowledge visitors wishing to speak to non-agenda items.
There was no public comment.
G. Old Business
Case #23-05 Quail Meadows, Rezoning of 51 acres from R1-A & R1-C Single Family Residential to RPUD-1 High Density Residential Planned Unit Development, and Preliminary Site Plan Review of a PUD, located on the North side of 52nd Street between Windy Ridge Estates and Jefferson Farms and extended North to Woodbury Commons Plat
Pung explained that this request is to rezone 51 acres to RPUD-1 High Density Residential Planned Unit Development located south of a future residential development known as Woodbury Commons on a former golf course and north of 52nd Street. He stated that the current plan includes 23 single family lots in the subdivision portion along with a second phase of 35 duplex condominiums for a total of 93 dwelling units. The current plan?s net density is approximately 3.7 dwelling units per acre which is within the Master Plan for low density residential development. He reviewed the site plan noting that the plan shows the spine road as a public road from 52nd Street and a private road for the condominium area. Pung stated upon recommendation from Ron Woods, Public Works Director and representation by the applicant to staff the spine road through the condominium area is now proposed to be dedicated as a public road. He reviewed the conditions in his staff recommendations for rezoning along with the following recommended changes to his proposed conditions:
Condition 8. The spine road through the condominium portion of the development is to become a dedicated public street.
Condition 9. Developer to proportionally participate in the cost of trail construction through the proposed open space area.
Condition 11. Installation of temporary barriers meeting the requirements of the City of Kentwood Engineering and Police Departments at the end of each stub street.
Add Condition 14. A stub street within the proposed 60-foot right-of-way south of the Consumers Energy property is to be constructed to the east property line.
Basis 5. Requirement for the spine road through the condominium development to become a dedicated public road is based on the memo from Public Works Director Ron Woods dated June 14, 2005 and acceptance of this condition as represented by the applicant.
Pung reviewed the conditions in his staff recommendation for the preliminary PUD site plan dated June 7, along with the following recommended changes to his proposed conditions:
Condition 4. The spine road through the condominium portion of the development is to become a dedicated public street.
Condition 8. Installation of temporary barriers meeting the requirements of the City of Kentwood Engineering and Police Departments at the end of each stub street.
Condition 15. A stub street within the proposed 60-foot right-of-way south of the Consumers Energy property is to be constructed to the east property line.
Add Condition 16. Developer to proportionally participate in the cost of trail construction through the proposed open space area.
Basis 5. Requirement for the spine road through the condominium development to become a dedicated public road is based on the memo from Public Works Director Ron Woods dated June 14, 2005 and acceptance of this condition as represented by the applicant.
Basis 7. To be deleted.
Mr. Bruce Brown, Trinity Development, stated that he was in complete agreement with the staff recommendations as modified and had no difficulty as far as going along with the conditions. He stated that they have met with the Sommerdyke Family and worked out an access to their property. He stated that there is also a recommendation that lot 21 be reserved for five years to allow for access to the property to the east. Mr. Brown stated that they met with the Parks Department and they are interested in getting the property that is to be dedicated to the City. He stated that they had a concern with parking for those using the trail. Mr. Brown stated that they agreed on permitting a high point in the condominium area for parking. He stated that they did a traffic study on 52nd Street and it recommended that there be an eastbound left-turn lane and that there be a westbound right-turn taper where the street comes out. He stated that they have agreed to develop those facilities. He also noted that in the middle of these discussions they met with city staff and were told that in somewhere in 2006 or 2007 this area of 52nd Street would be rebuilt with a center-turn lane. He stated that they would participate in that rebuilding.
Chair Bohn reopened the public hearing.
Corrie Sommerdyke, 3429 52nd Street, stated that he spoke to Mr. Brown and sent a letter to the Commission dated May 23, 2005. He stated that Mr. Brown spoke about leaving lot 21 vacant for five years. He stated that five years was not a sufficient period of time since he felt it would lock him into a five-year development scenario on his property. Mr. Sommerdyke felt that the lots were small and did not feel Kentwood needed congested lots.
Allison Dreisbach, 4676 Morningside, presented a list of concerns she and her husband had relative to the development. These included: public versus private roads; parking for people from other areas to use the park trails; handicap accessibility; high traffic on the spine road going from 44th to 52nd Street; Eastern Box Turtle; tree preservation plan; accessibility from adjoining properties from people who have been residents before to Woodbury Commons or will they be cut off from the current residents; requirement of the developer or city on the water quality of Plaster Creek to the potential buyers of homes or condominiums because their houses will be backing up to Plaster Creek because it has been tested for very high levels of unsafe water quality.
Motion by McIntyre-Evenocheck, supported by Swanson, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Itani absent ?
VanderHoff questioned the minimum lot width under the current zoning on the single family portion. Pung stated that the front portion is R1-C and the minimum lot width is 80 feet. VanderHoff stated that he was concerned about the 60-foot lots as it is less than the current zoning and would prefer to see it closer to the 80-foot minimum. He stated that some are 94-foot lots and some are 70 feet and some are 60 feet. He asked if the developer is required to do a vegetation survey. Pung stated that the developer is offering a conservation easement along the single family portion of the development and tree preservation along other lots. Tree removal is prohibited within the floodplain. Anything along the public road would have to be disturbed. Pung stated that with each phase they will do a tree survey noting which trees would be saved and would not be saved. VanderHoff asked if the developer should be concerned with the water quality of Plaster Creek. Pung stated that all of the homes will be on public water and sewer and there will be no private wells.
Gray stated that the widths of the lots that will be clearly visible from 52nd Street are quite narrow. He stated that there is an area that will be clear cut in order to put these homes in. From an aesthetic standpoint it will not add to the view from 52nd Street. He stated that he would like to see the width of the lots expanded and understood that it will come at the expense of the number of developable lots. Gray wanted to make sure that the aesthetics of the new neighborhood is taken into account.
McIntyre-Evenocheck thanked the developer for all the work he did. She felt that there could still be some more improvement. She was glad there was a traffic study since that was a concern of hers. She stated that the size of the lots has been increased from the previous plan while they are still a little smaller than Jefferson Farms and Windy Ridge. McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that one of the concerns that we have is tree preservation for quite a few of the areas and it is something that has been looked at. McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that in the PUD Statement it refers to the garages being set in front of the house rather than beside or behind the house and he felt that it was a development trend that could not be eliminated. She stated that she did not want to see garages sticking out in front of the houses particularly in the single family area. She stated that the Residential Design Standards refer to one-half of the homes are proposed to have the garages in the front and she felt that was too high.
Swanson stated that we have spent a lot of time talking about creating compact developments and leaving large amounts of open greenspace. This is a development that has done a great job of doing that and designing something that is relatively compatible with Jefferson Farms, Windy Ridge and the Wildflower Creek. We have been allowing lots of this size for quite awhile and he was did not have a problem with the lot sizes as they are very compatible in the area. He stated that holding lot 21 out for future connection to the adjacent property does not force Mr. Sommerdyke to develop in five years. It forces him to take control of that lot within five years and develop on his own time frame.
Swanson stated that he did have some concerns with the memo from Public Works Director Ron Woods on the improvements of 52nd Street. He stated that the traffic study for this development recommended a 75 foot left-turn storage. His opinion was that it should be 100 feet because of the undeveloped land that can attach to this and come into this at a future time when we are trying to reduce the accesses onto 52nd Street. He stated that when 52nd Street was developed as four lanes it was with the intention that any development that comes in would build their turn lane.
Artz asked about the development of the park. Pung stated that the applicant is intending to donate the open space to the City but there are no formal plans at this time on how the trail will be developed and connect to the future trail on the rest of the city property. That will be done through the Parks & Recreation Department.
Holtrop stated that he had no problems with the condominium portion but he had concerns with the single family portion. He stated that if you are standing on 52nd Street you are looking right down 500 feet of a straight street with 15 homes on narrow lots. He stated that a way to remedy it would be to not allow the rezoning; lots are made to be bigger; you do not do the two lots on 52nd Street and it creates a nice open frontage to this development (Oakleigh Woods shows a nice sign and boulevard entrance with trees). For those reasons he was not in favor of this rezoning. He noted that we do not have footprints on the site plan for the homes.
Bohn asked Mr. Brown if he would be building the single family homes. Mr. Brown stated that he would not be. She asked if the lots would be sold and the owners would find their own builder. Mr. Brown stated that was correct. Bohn stated based on that she did not have that strong a concern with the garages because we have the possibility of having each home a little more unique. McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that was our assumption with Jefferson Farms and looked what happened there. Another developer came in and purchased it and that is how we have the situation there. Bohn stated that is a good point and we would need something in the PUD Statement. Bohn stated that holding the lot for five years is fairly standard as to what we do when we have a development like this. She stated that relative to the vegetative survey she might have had concerns except that this has been a golf course which means it is not really land in its natural state. Golf courses are heavily landscaped with pockets of naturalness. She commented that you will have cut through traffic any time you develop connections such as this between 44th Street and 52nd Street but it is more preferable than long cul-de-sacs that stop. She stated that if there is a parking lot when the park is developed, by law, there would have to be handicapped accessible parking. She stated that she too had some concerns over the size of the lots as they are still a little bit smaller than other areas along Plaster Creek.
Schweitzer explained that the Planning Commission had some concerns with the new street coming onto 52nd Street and what that may mean with its affect on traffic patterns, that is why the traffic analysis was required. It did make some projections based on the number of housing units in Woodbury Commons, how many in the condominium portion and the single family portion near 52nd Street. Based upon that information they did not project a great deal of cut-through traffic. However, the amount of traffic that they projected did warrant a left-turn lane on 52nd Street for people wishing to turn into the development. He explained that the City is looking at resurfacing 52nd Street from Breton Avenue to East Paris Avenue so the thought was that at the same time that we were preparing to mill and resurface 52nd Street that would be the appropriate time to look at the installation of a center-turn lane. There is an anticipation that there may be a similar warrant to provide a left-turn lane for other frontage further west toward Breton Avenue. One option would be to have the up-front cost provided by the City, and the developer would reimburse the City for his portion and other developers in the future would also contribute to the cost of that improvement.
McIntyre-Evenocheck asked the City Attorney if they could revise that portion of the Design Standards in the PUD Statement relative to the garages or should they ask the developer if he was willing to amend the Design Standards. Attorney Sluggett stated if they could come to an agreement on what percentage it ought to be that would be fine and we would incorporate it into the PUD Agreement. McIntyre-Evenocheck asked Mr. Brown if he would be willing to revise the PUD Statement with regard to the number of garages in the single family home area in particular to 33 percent of the homes not having a garage extending out farther out than the rest of the house. Mr. Brown stated that he would be willing to revise the PUD Statement so that only 33 percent of the single family homes would have garages extending out in front of the homes. Attorney Sluggett stated that it should be added as a condition and he would see that it is incorporated into the PUD Development Agreement.
Holtrop felt that the RPUD-1 High Density regulations call for housing that contributes to the variety of housing in the area. He stated that looking at the housing that is around with the straight streets and the small lots he did not believe this meets that standard. The easiest answer rather than redoing the PUD is to deny this recommendation and have him come back with another plan.
Motion by Swanson, supported by McIntyre-Evenocheck, to recommend to the City Commission conditional approval of the request to rezone 50.66 acres from R1-A Estate Residential and R1-C Single Family Residential to RPUD-1 High Density Residential Planned Unit Development as described in Case 23-05 Quail Meadows PUD. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1 through 13 amending conditions 2, 8, 9, 11 and adding condition 14 and Basis points 1 through 14 amending basis point 5 in Pung?s memo dated 6/10/05 as follows: Condition 2. Amend to read: ?Installation of both a right-turn taper and at least a 100-foot center-left-turn lane....? Condition 8. The spine road through the condominium portion of the development is to become a dedicated public street. Condition 9. Developer to proportionally participate in the cost of trail construction through the proposed open space area. Condition 11. Installation of temporary barriers meeting the requirements of the City of Kentwood Engineering and Police Departments at the end of each stub street. Add Condition 14. A stub street within the proposed 60-foot right-of-way south of the Consumers Energy property is to be constructed to the east property line. Basis 5. Requirement for the spine road through the condominium development to become a dedicated public road is based on the first paragraph of the memo from Public Works Director Ron Woods dated June 14, 2005 and representation by the applicant to staff.
Attorney Sluggett stated that the issue of the one-third of the garages being forward of the house was not addressed. He suggested adding a new subsection 1.e because we are addressing the amendments to the PUD Statement as follows: Condition 1.e ?Modify the Residential Design Standards for the subdivision to read: Subsection 2.c. Only one-third of the homes may be designed to permit the garage face to be placed in front of the front facade of the home. All other garages shall be placed even with the front facade or in the rear of the lot.?
Swanson and McIntyre-Evenocheck agreed with the change to condition 1.e.
Gray stated that he shares the concerns that Holtrop noted and felt he raises a good point about the access from 52nd Street and being able to put a nicer face on the entrance.
VanderHoff questioned the Master Plan recommended density. Pung stated that this area is master planned for low density residential which is less than four units per acre and this project is coming in at 3.7 units per acre. It is consistent with the Master Plan for low density residential. McIntyre-Evenocheck asked what is the acreage for the front portion because that appears to be the concern with some of the commissioners. Pung stated that the residential subdivision portion is 6.09 acres. VanderHoff stated with 23 homes it comes to just under four units per acre. He stated that about a third of the subdivision portion is not buildable and you have all the houses in the smaller area. Swanson stated that is why you look at the net density for the entire parcel because they can get a little more dense in areas in order to leave more open space which this development does a good job of doing. McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that is what a PUD does. It has some trade offs and benefits for both parties. One of the trade offs is the park land that the city will be getting for return of more density in that area. The other developments that come in along this area are going to be the same smaller size lots.
Holtrop stated that he would like to amend the motion.
Motion by Holtrop, supported by Gray to amend the motion to add the following: Condition 15: Lots 1 and 23 shall be removed; Condition 16: Minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square feet in the subdivision area.
Bohn questioned whether the process of removing the first two lots and enlarging the other lots would preclude encroaching on the two that are being removed from the development. Holtrop stated that what he wants to accomplish is a nice open entrance to this community. He referenced the pictures of Mr. Brown?s Oakleigh Woods project and how nice it looked. He indicated that he did not have a problem with most of this development but he expressed a desire to avoid duplicating the type of entrance that exists into Jefferson Farms. It is our chance to make the project look good and do it right. The intent is to make the lots at the entrance to the development non-buildable greenspace and an improvement to the neighborhood.
Swanson stated that the lot numbers are all going to change and will have to be corrected. McIntyre-Evenocheck questioned what this would do to the number of lots in the subdivision. Pung stated that you will lose the two lots and you could lose two or three more lots because you will have to add 10 to 20 feet to all of the lots. Bohn stated that it will also change the number of the lot that is being held out.
Bohn called for the vote on the amendment to the motion.
- Motion Carried (6-1) ?
- Swanson dissenting ?
- Itani absent ?
Bohn called for the vote on the amended motion.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Itani absent ?
Motion by Swanson, supported by McIntyre-Evenocheck, to recommend to the City Commission conditional approval of the preliminary PUD site plan dated June 7, 2005, as described in Case 23-05 Quail Meadows PUD. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1 through 15 and basis points 1 through 9 with the following amendments: Condition 4. The spine road through the condominium portion of the development is to become a dedicated public street. Condition 2.e. Modify the Residential Design Standards for the subdivision to read: Subsection 2.c. Only one-third of the homes may be designed to permit the garage face to be placed in front of the front facade of the home. All other garages shall be placed even with the front facade or in the rear of the lot. Condition 3. ?Installation of both a right-turn taper and at least a 100-foot center left-turn lane....? Condition 5. The spine road through the condominium portion of the development is to become a dedicated public street. Condition 9. Installation of temporary barriers meeting the requirements of the City of Kentwood Engineering and Police Departments at the end of each stub street. Condition 16. A stub street within the proposed 60-foot right-of-way south of the Consumer?s Energy property is to be constructed to the east property line. Adding Condition 17: Developer to proportionally participate in the cost of trail construction through the proposed open space area. Basis point 5. Requirement for the spine road through the condominium development to become a dedicated public road is based on the first paragraph of the memo from Public Works Director Ron Woods dated June 14, 2005 and representation by the applicant to staff. Delete basis point 7.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that condition 6 talks about lot 21 being reserved and since we have changed the lots we do not know what that lot is going to be. She recommended that it be changed to the lot adjacent to the Sommerdyke property.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Itani absent ?
--------------------------------------------------------
H. Public Hearing
Case #24-05 Division Avenue Rezoning, Rezoning of 11.7 acres from C-2 Community Commercial and R1-D Single Family Residential to C-5 Neighborhood Commercial located on the East side of Division Avenue from Montebello Street to 44th Street
Golder explained that rezoning request is along Division Avenue and encompasses 11.7 acres of land and 39 parcels. Some are zoned C-2 Community Commercial and R1- D Single Family Residential. She reviewed the map showing the lots to be rezoned to C-5 Neighborhood Commercial. Fifteen of the properties are zoned residential and three are not used as residential (owned by the church, vacant property and a business). Five residences are within the commercial district. Two properties are single family homes, zoned commercial but are used as residential. One of those property owners wanted to sell the property and the perspective buyer could not get a residential mortgage on the property. It is a non-conforming use therefore banks do not like to give mortgages for that. Golder stated that it has been one of the goals of the Master Plan to try to increase the depth of the commercial property along Division Avenue. She stated that the C-5 zoning will be at a depth of 350 feet. She explained that the C-5 zoning allows for commercial and residential to exist on the same site. The properties would all be conforming uses and could be rebuilt or expanded. Golder reviewed the bases in her recommendation for rezoning.
Chair Bohn opened the public hearing. The following residents spoke.
Mary Case, 31 Farnham, stated that she has lived there since 1979. She stated that this rezoning is more beneficial to the businesses than it is to the residents. She felt that it would destroy the fabric of the neighborhood. She stated that she loves her neighborhood but if this is approved she has been advised that she may have to move within the next year.
Steve Ross, 30 Ridgewood, stated that his concern is whether he would be stuck with property that he could not sell down the road because it has changed to C-5. He stated that he put a lot of money into his home and was concerned that he will lose money when he tries to sell it.
Eric VanderHeide, 39 Farnham, stated that when they bought their home they did not plan on having a business 50 feet from his house and a six-foot fence is not enough to keep the noise and litter from the adjacent business. He asked if there was a way to encourage some of the aesthetic value of the residences in the older neighborhood and therefore increase setbacks and make some greenspace rather than a six-foot fence.
Bob Weist, owner of 20 Farnham, stated that he has tried to sell this property but people were not able to obtain a mortgage without a rebuild letter. If this does not go through and he cannot sell his house, what does he do with it? Does he continue to rent it out or let it run down?
Motion by Holtrop, supported by McIntyre-Evenocheck, to close the public hearing.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Itani absent ?
VanderHoff asked Ms. Case if the reason she may have to sell her house because of the proposed rezoning. Ms. Case stated because of the rezoning she was advised it would be in her best interest to sell.
Gray stated that the way he understands it is that they would be able to review any businesses that would be coming in to help protect some the residences. Golder stated that those that those that are special land uses would be reviewed by the Commission. There are also permitted uses that would be a staff review. They would still have to comply with the ordinances and setbacks. Gray stated that as long as we have some control over the more unique things that may come in he was comfortable with the rezoning.
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that redevelopment is always a tough issue and we have to look at the Division Avenue corridor. By redeveloping this area it will strengthen the neighborhood and the economy of the City. It is in the best interest of the City at the same time what is best for the citizens. It will not affect any of the residences at this time even if it is your property that is being rezoned because of the C-5 zoning.
Swanson asked Golder to review the buffering between the residential and the C-5 zone. Golder stated that it would be a six-foot fence and there would be a 20-foot greenspace with landscaping and there would be a setback between the building and any property line of 40 feet. Swanson stated that we do not know if anything will happen on Division Avenue. He stated that if you do not sell your house nothing is going to happen because you have control of that. He stated that we are trying to set up a system so that you can sell your house and get financing for your home and is acceptable for some change if change chooses to occur.
Holtrop asked about the setbacks. Golder stated that the parking is in the back then it will have to be set back 45 feet with a 20-foot greenspace. She stated in the case of Ms. Case if someone bought the first parcel next to her and wanted to make it an expansion of Advance Auto then all that would be open space because the lots are fairly narrow there. She stated that the concern is that she would like for all three parcels in the case of Farnham to be developed at the same time rather than the first two lots.
Schweitzer stated that the first 20 feet along the lot line would be landscaped and the 40-foot distance would be measured from the lot line not from the landscaping.
Motion by VanderHoff, supported by Gray, to recommend to the City Commission approval of the rezoning of approximately 11.7 acres of land from R1-D Single Family Residential and C-2 Community Commercial to C-5 Neighborhood Corridor Commercial as based on basis points 1 through 7 in Golder?s memo dated 5-31-05.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Itani absent ?
-------------------------------------------------
I. Work Session
Case #25-05 Kingdom Hall of Jehovah?s Witnesses, Special Land Use ? Place of Worship, located at the Southwest corner of 52nd Street and Wing Avenue
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that since she stepped out of discussion in the past on this case she would do so again.
Pung explained that this request is for a special land use for a place of worship with a 190 seat auditorium and a 432 square-foot detached garage. He explained that in May 2004 the Planning Commission approved the special land use and site plan for the Kingdom Hall for this property. To date construction has not yet commenced on that project. The Zoning Ordinance states that a special land use and site plan are valid for one year from the date of approval and it expires if construction has not commenced. Pung stated in April of this year the Planning Commission did grant a one-year extension to the site plan since the Zoning Ordinance does offer the provision that a site plan can be extended for one year upon written application by the application prior to expiration. That same allowance is not there for special land use. The City is in the process of reviewing an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would allow for an extension of a special land use.
Bohn stated that there were no changes from the first review. Pung stated that the Commission has already approved the site plan and you are just reviewing the use.
The applicant was present and had nothing new to add.
Swanson stated that to be consistent he recommended a sidewalk on Wing Avenue when it came through the second time and he would like to see a sidewalk on Wing. There were no other comments.
-----------------------------------------------------
Case #26-05 Speedway, Special Land Use ? Convenience Store and Site Plan Review of a Vehicle Fuel Station/Convenience Store at the Northeast corner of 52nd Street and Eastern Avenue (815 Eastern Avenue)
Sengupta explained that this request is for a rebuild of an existing vehicle fuel station and convenience store that has no formal approval so they are requesting a special land use for the convenience store. He noted that there is also a remediation building on the site that will be removed. He reviewed the site plan noting the proposed changes ? consolidate the two fuel canopies to form one canopy; total number of pumps would remain the same; convenience store 660 square feet larger than the existing one; curb cuts would be consolidated and there would be one on Eastern and one on 52nd Street; and the site is nonconforming in size (one acre lot required for vehicle fuel stations) lot is 0.57 acres. Sengupta reviewed the items in his staff report noting that the issues which included the need for five variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for setbacks, lot coverage, amount of parking, width of the buffer zone with the adjacent residential district and the amount of landscaping. The site plan as submitted would also require a variance from the landscape setback from Eastern Avenue which is currently at five feet and it requires a 10-foot setback.
Aaron Kruse, Gene Larsen, and Todd Harkema, District Manager for Speedway were all present representing Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC.
Mr. Kruse stated that the proposed convenience store is the same store that was built at the Speedway location on 28th Street and East Paris Avenue. He stated that the plan is to demolish the existing building and the remediation building and eliminate the two curb cuts closest to the intersection. He reviewed the site plan noting the changes to the site. He stated that they looked into purchasing property from the condominiums to the north but that attempt was unsuccessful so they propose to redevelop on their current site. He stated that the appearance of the building will be greatly improved as this is an aging facility.
Holtrop asked if there was a possibility that they could go across the Dollar Store property for access out to Eastern Avenue. Sengupta stated that there is no cross access at this time. Mr. Kruse stated that to do a cross access easement would cause them to lose parking as well as congest that area. Holtrop asked if the store could be made smaller. Mr. Kruse stated that to be able to rebuild the site convenience sales are a necessary function of their economics. The size of the building is what they would need for the decision to rebuild.
Holtrop questioned the names of ?Rich? and ?Speedway?. Mr. Kruse stated that Rich is a Speedway brand. With the remodel, it would be a Speedway. Holtrop questioned the remediation building. Mr. Kruse stated that there is an environmental release on the site which some fuel was spilled and when that contaminates the soil you must remediate the ground water to standards set by the DEQ. He stated that they plan to pull the old underground storage tanks and excavate the soil that was impacted and replace it with new soil and replace the underground storage tanks. The remediation would be separate and would not require a building.
Holtrop questioned the zero lot line to the east. Sengupta stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires a zero lot line or a 10-foot or more setback. They can go to a zero lot setback without requiring a variance and it would free up a little more space on the Eastern Avenue frontage and they could get rid of the five-foot landscape setback variance that they would otherwise need for the site plan. Mr. Larsen stated that they looked at that but it would take up the greenspace required on the site which is the ten feet at the east side of the property. Sengupta stated that whatever landscaping they would lose on that side they could add to the Eastern Avenue frontage and that would help them eliminate one of the variances. Holtrop stated that we do not need the greenspace between the buildings.
Swanson suggested relocating the building to the north; putting the dumpster on the south side of the building; putting the drive access over the Dollar Store property; move the Eastern Avenue driveway to the north; move the building to the lot line for a zero lot line; and the greenspace could be on the Eastern Avenue side. He questioned the location of the fueling station. Mr. Kruse stated that they have to unload on the right side of the transport. Swanson stated that they are putting a lot of stuff on half the land that they need. He asked if they spoke to the owner of the Dollar Store. Mr. Kruse stated that they had not made contact. Swanson stated that he felt they could do a lot more with the land that they have as efficiently as possible. The land behind the building is wasted now. Swanson was in support of the rebuild but wanted to make it the best possible.
Mr. Kruse stated that there is a 50-foot setback requirement from the residential property to the north and there is a 45-foot parking setback. That is why they put the building where it is located. Sengupta stated that they are asking for setback variances and if they relocate the building then the variances that they are asking for would change. Swanson stated that he would like to see an improvement here but they are asking for too much setback when there is wasted land behind the building.
Schweitzer stated that it is not only aesthetics but safety that we are concerned about. He noted that moving the drive away from the intersection would be responsive to the concerns about the safety of the site.
McIntyre-Evenocheck agreed with Swanson. She stated that this is a small lot and she frequents the station every week. It is a tight spot and gets a lot of traffic. Other than reducing the size of the building, you might want to consider moving the building and reconfiguring she was not be in favor of it since it would be a safety issue the way it is laid out this way.
Bohn stated that the applicant should work with staff to make the site plan better as she would like to have them succeed.
-------------------------------------------------------
J. New Business
There was no new business.
K. Other Business
1. Commissioners? Comments
McIntyre-Evenocheck stated that Howard VandenToorn was a long-time Planning Commissioner and would be sorely missed. He had a lot of insight on issues and was very passionate about the City and he will be missed.
Gray stated that he appreciated the hour training, as it helped to add some insight.
Holtrop stated that there are stakes where trees have died along 52nd Street and he wondered rather than having them in a row could they be clustered. He noted that one is located in front of his property. Golder stated that she would look into it.
Bohn stated that she will be in Williamsburg Virginia for the next meeting so Ed Swanson will chair the meeting.
2. Staff?s Comments
Attorney Sluggett noted that a condition could be added to the Kingdom Hall project for a sidewalk if there were findings basically for the need for that type of improvement.
Golder stated the C-5 zone has office use as a special land use and she felt that we would want it to have as a permitted use. That will have to be an ordinance amendment.
Golder stated that she met with a developer who is looking at a three-acre parcel north of 28th Street on Patterson Avenue and is looking at a mixed use PUD. She suggested that they meet with the LUZ Committee on June 28. Golder stated that with Howard VandenToorn resigning that leaves Bohn, Swanson and McIntyre-Evenocheck on the Board. Bohn asked Holtrop or Artz if they would like to be a member of the LUZ Committee. Betsy Artz stated that she would be interested. Golder suggested that the Committee meet at 7:00 p.m. on June 28.
L. Adjournment
Motion by VanderHoff, supported by Gray, to adjourn the meeting.
- Motion Carried (7-0) ?
- Itani absent ?
Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy McIntyre-Evenocheck, Secretary
|