Planning Commission Minutes

Members Present: T. Korfhage, D. Brown, M. Huizenga, J. Hickey, Chairman; T. Byle, C. Rypma, and T. Schweitzer. Absent: S. Versluis, and C. Gornowich. Also Present: F. Wash, Planning Director, and P. Dlouhy, Planning Assistant.

Chairman Hickey opened the meeting and Member Rypma gave the invocation.

Motion by T. Korfhage, supported by C. Rypma, to approve the minutes of December 17, 2008, as printed. Motion carried unanimously.

There were no comments at this time.

Chairman Hickey read the application requesting rezoning of property from C-3 Highway Commercial to A-2 Duplex-Two-Family Residential for a proposed lot located at 3850 Richmond, N.W. (PPN #41-13-17-104-006).

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report and provided aerial orientation to the site and surrounding land uses, including Tepper Nursery, Sobie Meats, Stairway Concept building, and residential properties on the north side of Richmond St. Wash related that the rezoning is from C-3 to A-2 for a proposed 1.1 acre lot that will be split from the Tepper Nursery parcel.

Wash related that the 1998 Master Plan designates this lot as "Village Commercial" but thinks that it is a good idea to "down zone", given the residential property located across the street. Planner Wash also noted there are many C-3 uses that are not as compatible with the neighborhood as A-2 uses would be.

Planner Wash indicated that Mr. Visser proposes to build 3 duplex buildings, on the proposed lot. He might eventually split the property as a condominium project.

Motion by D. Brown, supported by T. Byle, to open the public hearing. Motion carried.

Member Korfhage asked if it was the applicant’s intention to rezone the" future" area of the land for condos?

Planner Wash reviewed an aerial map showing the site specifics of the rezoning request. He related that the remainder of the property remains zoned C-3. He deferred Member Korfhage’s question to the applicant, Dave Visser.

Dave Visser stated that he owns the entire 4 acres and he is holding onto the commercially zoned portion of his property. He has no current plans to develop. The rezoning he is requesting now would allow him to build 3 duplexes. The economy will determine what he does later. He has no future plans for condos on the remainder of the Tepper site.

Member Schweitzer asked the applicant if more duplexes were planned to the west? Dave Visser stated he doesn’t know at this point if he will have a user for that property. Schweitzer felt that it would be hard to provide a buffer to the north for the residential if commercial is developed behind the residential. Schweitzer wanted a sense for the development on the balance of the property.

Dave Visser stated that there may be a need for retail in the future. He indicated that he will be using the same footprint for the duplex buildings as he did on Kinnrow Avenue across the street.

Member Rypma agrees with Member Schweitzer. Rypma also felt it is a good idea to "down zone" from commercial to residential for the proposed 1.1 acre lot.

Dave Visser stated that he will make sure the future commercial area will be developed with a light commercial and friendly user with the existing neighborhood. He is trying to transition his property and put the two pieces together.

Member Byle asked if the setbacks were discussed with Planner Wash? Dave Visser stated yes, they need 150 feet of frontage for the commercial, and it is covered on the preliminary layout.

No other public comments were offered.

Motion by C. Rypma, supported by T. Byle, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.

Motion by C. Rypma, supported by D. Brown, to recommend approval to the Walker City Commission for the rezoning of the proposed 1.1-acre lot at 3850 Richmond Street from C-3 Highway Commercial to A-2 Duplex Residential. Motion carried unanimously (7-0).

Chairman Hickey read the rezoning request from SA-Suburban Residential Single Family to C-1 Local Commercial for property located at 765 Kingsbury, N.W. (PPN #41-13-01-101-048).

Planner Wash reviewed the staff report and provided an aerial orientation to the site, which is located near the northeastern corner of Alpine Avenue and Kingsbury, between 4 Mile Road and North Center Drive. He related that the subject parcel was a former Nutrition Plus site. He reviewed the area zoning and uses such as an Auto Parts Store zoned C-1, Dry Cleaner and Nail Salon zoned C-1, Walgreens/Belle Tire zoned CPUD, National City Bank zoned C-1, and the existing neighborhood on Kingsbury. Wash stated that the entire property is master planned for community commercial.

Wash related that property owner John Ten Elshof is requesting this rezoning. The subject parcel is 0.29 acres in area and contains a vacant commercial building. The building was rebuilt via a Zoning Board of Appeals variance following the May 1998 windstorm, which destroyed the previous commercial building.

Wash explained that a 1998 Zoning Board of Appeals variance was granted to rebuild, not for a non-conforming commercial building/use, but for a 34’ front setback instead of the required 35’. The Zoning Board of Appeals assumed the lot was zoned C-1, Local Commercial.

Planner Wash reviewed points of consideration as follows: Rezoning is consistent with the Master Plan; the building was built in 1998, which is fairly new; The odds of reverting to a residential use is pretty remote; It is taxed as commercial property; Rezoning would make the use and the building conforming.

Planner Wash reviewed the site analysis and use issue of a potential liquor store. Wash felt that if the rezoning to C-1 was approved, a subsequent liquor store use would be a potential conflict with the existing residential neighborhood.

Staff recommended that, if the rezoning to C-1 was approved, a subsequent liquor store application should be routed to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a "judged similar" determination, with a potential condition of approval being site plan review by the Planning Commission to resolve other existing non-conformities on the site (e.g., landscaping, buffering, exterior lighting, fencing, driveway location, etc.) However, there would be no guarantee that the Zoning Board of Appeals would approve a liquor store as a "judged similar" use.

Motion by D. Brown, supported by T. Byle, to open the public hearing. Motion carried.

Member Schweitzer asked if the existing building setbacks were conforming? Planner Wash related that the front setback is non-conforming but granted a variance, the side setbacks appear conforming, and the rear setback is close and may be non-conforming.

Member Byle questioned why a portion of the National City Bank lot was zoned residential? Planner Wash stated that staff indicated there used to be a house on a portion of this property in the past.

Chairman Hickey asked about the dual addresses? Planner Wash indicated that the Alpine Avenue address listed on the application was incorrect. The correct address is 765 Kingsbury.

Chairman Hickey asked if a liquor store goes into this subject site, what is the distance requirement from residential property? Planner Wash stated the distance may be regulated by state law. He will check into this and report back.

Earl Clements, of Grubb & Ellis, stated that he discovered that the subject property was residentially zoned, but it has always been used for commercial.

Chairman Hickey stated that he wants to make sure it is legal to have a liquor store at this location. Mr. Clements stated that he wants to get the property rezoned so it can be sold. Hickey asked what the procedural steps would be if this property was to be rezoned? Planner Wash stated if the rezoning would move forward to the City Commission, and if the City Commission approves the rezoning, then the property owner would have the tenant go to the building department and apply for a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for a liquor store to be "judged similar" to other uses in the C-1 zoning district, as a liquor store is not listed as a permitted use in the C-1 zone. Chairman Hickey stated that if this item goes before the Zoning Board of Appeals, he requested that the Zoning Board receives a full report from Planner Wash. Wash agreed.

Member Korfhage asked if there was a business in there currently? Planner Wash stated no, the building is vacant.

Earl Clements stated that there was an oversight of the zoning. Hickey stated that originally the site was Dale and Bruce Visser’s office. Mr. Clements thought the property was commercial.

Property owner John Ten Elshof stated that if someone wants to put a liquor store in his building, what does he have to do?

Planner Wash again explained the recommended procedural aspects as follows: If the site is rezoned to commercial, the tenant would have to apply to the State for a liquor license at that location. The tenant will also have to contact the Police Chief and City Commission. Then the tenant would apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals to be "judged similar" to other uses in the C-1 Local Commercial District. This "judged similar" variance might not be approved.

If the "judged similar" variance is approved, then the tenant might have to come back to the Planning Commission for site plan review to correct existing landscaping, buffering, exterior lighting, and driveway spacing non-conformities. Site Plan Review might make the site and uses more compatible with the existing neighborhood.

John Ten Elshof asked if he could have an answer tonight on his rezoning?

Al Parent, City Commissioner, stated that he talked to one-third of the residents on Kingsbury. He said that residents were concerned about quality of life if a restaurant or a liquor store went into this location.

Carl Esakson, 751 Kingsbury, stated that he lives right next door to this site. He is very opposed to anything that is open past 6:00 p.m. He felt that the neighborhood doesn’t need extra traffic, as there is too much now. He doesn’t want a liquor store next door to him. He stated that the Genesis project was pushed on them. He has had his house broken into, and neighbors have had their cars vandalized. Mr. Esakson stated that there are recovering alcoholics at the Kingsbury Apartments at the end of the street. Therefore, he doesn’t see a liquor store as a smart use.

John Ten Elshof stated that he is not a "liquor type" guy himself. He felt that this area is commercial, with the Walgreen’s next door. Mr. Ten Elshof stated that the Alpine Avenue and Kingsbury intersection will be redesigned by MDOT. He can appreciate the homeowners’ concerns in the neighborhood. He felt that this property has always been commercially used, but it is unfortunate that the homes are next to commercial property. As far as break-ins go, they happen. He wants his property to be rezoned, and he wants the prospective business to be a clean operation. He stated that there were the same problems when Walgreens went in with the existing homes in the area with regard to traffic, etc. To say that the neighbors don’t want it, that building has already been there and he thinks he should be able to lease or sell the building.

Chairman Hickey asked, if the City rezones the property and if it comes back for site plan review, can we make sure that the owner fences the property? Planner Wash stated if the Zoning Board of Appeals judges this liquor store use to be similar as uses in the C-1 District, then it might come back to the Planning Commission for site plan review. We would then invite the neighbors back in order to work through some of the issues there, i.e., buffering, lighting controls, and do everything reasonable to help the neighbors.

Planner Wash gave the following scenario: If the property is rezoned to C-1, and someone wanted to a have a real estate office at this site, they could apply for a building permit and occupy the structure. If a liquor store was proposed, the City would do everything reasonable to make it compatible with the neighborhood, subject to existing ordinances and laws.

Member Huizenga asked Earl Clements if there was a potential sale associated with the property? Mr. Clements stated that he has had inquiries about a liquor store, a Mexican restaurant, and a Hispanic food store. Mr. Clements stated that the property has been used as commercial and it should be able to be used again for commercial.

Planner Wash stated the building is already there, it was rebuilt after the 1998 windstorm as a commercial building, and it is taxed as a commercial use. The rezoning makes sense. The potential future use is a separate issue.

John Droge, 733 Kingsbury, stated that he is not necessarily opposed to the rezoning. He is more concerned about a buffer between the subject property and the neighborhood. Since he has bought his home, there is a new strip mall and the carriage lighting is on constantly and is too bright. He felt the property in question has a non-conforming back yard, and it is too big for the site. Mr. Droge said that a liquor store is not the right use for the site, and more commercial users will not really help the neighborhood. Mr. Droge felt that finding the right use with buffering and lighting will be key. Planner Wash asked if Mr. Droge is referring to building lights that wash the wall, which was approved with the Walgreen’s/Belle Tire CPUD plan. He will check it out.

John Topping, 600 Kingsbury, stated that he has lived at this location for 44 years. He has seen the neighborhood go down hill in a short time with drug deals, parties, car noise and trucks jumping banks at the Genesis site. He has had a former lawsuit and lost same. He stated that the owner should have known what the property was zoned. Mr. Topping felt that there is too much traffic in the neighborhood. There are empty Visser buildings near by. He asked, how did Vissers get that office building built in the first place? He felt that some Steak and Shake employees have quit because of some of the Kingsbury Place Apartment residents who frequent there.

Chairman Hickey stated that he will call Harold Mast, president of Genesis, as Mr. Mast told the Planning Commission that there wouldn’t be any problems associated with the Kingsbury Place Apartments. Hickey asked if the police department could follow up on reports for this area? Wash will report back.

Mrs. Ten Elshof stated that she is one of the owners, and they are honest and responsible people. They bought the building and thought it was commercial. Mrs. Ten Elshof stated that they care about the neighborhood and she doesn’t feel that rezoning it to commercial would further harm the neighborhood. The owners want it rezoned so that it can be leased or sold. Mrs. Ten Elshof doesn’t feel that the building sitting empty is doing anyone any good, and wants to rezone it and make it productive.

Chairman Hickey stated that if it were rezoned without the liquor store use, it would not be much of a problem. Planner Wash agreed. If a permitted use within the C-1 zone was requested, they would be allowed to go on this site.

Chairman Hickey asked, what if the applicant applied for a conditional rezoning? Planner Wash stated that the City could consider a conditional rezoning, but the Planning Commission can’t set the conditions. The property owner has to request a conditional rezone and they set the standards.

Member Byle felt that the building is conducive to only a low-impact use. If a restaurant comes in, it would have to have a certain amount of parking. He felt that we will be looking at a low-impact use for the site, based on the building size and parking requirements.

Planner Wash stated that a small restaurant, similar to the one at Warrington and Wilson, would probably be the highest intensity use for the site, given the necessary parking spaces.

Member Rypma stated that with a conditional rezone, the owner has to make an offer to the City. Member Rypma stated that he doesn’t have a problem with rezoning this site to C-1. He does have a problem with a liquor store. This building has been used as commercial for a number of years, and he doesn’t see this property as ever becoming residential.

Member Huizenga agrees that he doesn’t want to see a liquor store at this location, but maybe a small ethnic restaurant or small food store. He felt that there are a number of ordinances the Planning Commission has to keep a permitted use from being caustic to the neighborhood. Neighbors have lived with a store at this location for a number of years. Member Huizenga asked if the nearby Walgreen’s sold liquor? Commissioner Al Parent stated that they do not sell liquor at Walgreens.

Member Korfhage stated that he can’t imagine that the Zoning Board of Appeals would approve a "judged similar" variance for a liquor store in a C-1 District. He asked what is the State Law for how close a liquor store can be to a residence? Wash will report back.

Member Schweitzer asked in terms of the uses with banks and restaurants in the C-1 zone, does that allow for a drive through as a permitted use? Wash noted that drive up windows are viewed as an accessory use.

After further discussion, Planner Wash recapped with the following items staff will look into and report back to the Planning Commission:

Member Brown stated that if a conditional rezoning was submitted, it might eliminate the potential for a liquor store, and might alleviate the neighbors’ concerns. Member Byle added that the neighbors are concerned about many of the C-1 uses, not just a potential liquor store, based on Al Parent’s comments tonight.

Mr. Ten Elshof asked if a health food store could go back into his building? Planner Wash stated that is one of the permitted uses that could go in under the C-1 District.

Member Rypma stated that he applauded the applicant for coming in for a rezoning. He felt that is the right thing to do.

Chairman Hickey asked the applicant to talk to Planner Wash regarding the follow up issues.

Mrs. Ten Elshof stated that if anyone backs away from the proposed uses, they as owners are stuck with an empty building.

Planner Wash stated that he has enough direction from the Planning Commission to meet with the owners and do more research.

Al Parent stated that he doesn’t want a liquor store or a restaurant for these neighbors to have to live with.

Motion by C. Rypma, supported by T. Byle, to close the public hearing.

Motion by T. Byle, supported by T. Schweitzer, to table this item for two weeks until the January 21^st meeting. Staff will report back at that time on the several follow up issues.

Member Rypma thanked and complimented Planner Wash on his reports.

Planner Wash stated that the Kingsbury rezone will be the only item on the January 21^st Agenda.

Wash continues to work on the Wind Energy Ordinance.

Wash will be meeting with the Ordinance Committee and DDA soon to schedule an open house to roll out the Standale Downtown Ordinance.

Motion by T. Korfhage, supported by D. Brown, to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Motion carried.