Planning Commission Minutes

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

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

Motion by C. Gornowich, supported by D. Brown, to approve the minutes of February 18, 2009 as printed. Motion carried.

There were no comments given at this time.

Chairman Hickey read the request to amend Section 94-5 and Section 94-179 of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 94) regarding liquor stores/party stores/ convenience stores.

Motion by C. Rypma, supported by A. Parent, to open the public hearing. Motion carried.

Planner Wash related that this amendment has been forwarded to the commission by the Ordinance Committee. Wash explained the procedural aspects and indicated that the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Commission for approval or denial of the proposed amendments.

Wash related that the rezoning issue on Kingsbury brought to light that liquor stores are not defined in the ordinance and are not specified in a specific district in the zoning ordinance.

Wash related that the proposed amendment includes a formal definition for liquor store /party/store/ convenience store.

Wash related that the proposed definition describes and quantifies what a "liquor store/party store/convenience store" is via the percentage of sales generated from alcohol plus the need for an SDD or SDM license from the Michigan Liquor Control Commission.

Wash related that the newly defined liquor stores will be allowed only as special exception uses in the C-4 Outdoor Commercial District. This would require a public hearing and site plan review by the planning commission.

Wash related that the land use planning goal is to put these uses on main roads as opposed to deep within or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Wash stated that a liquor store/party store/convenience store would not be permitted on the property at 765 Kingsbury.

Member Parent asked if the owners of 765 Kingsbury could go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to be judged similar? Planner Wash stated that they could but there are no guarantees of approval.

Member Gornowich asked, with a development similar to Orchard Park, could a liquor store/party store/convenience store be a possibility for such a site? Planner Wash stated that a Mixed Planned Unit Development, such as Orchard Park, might accommodate this type of use where outdoor commercial is appropriate. Wash stated that the Planning Commission has the ability to limit the uses in a PUD by specifying the uses that are not permitted. The CPUD allows all uses in the C-1 through C-4 districts, unless restricted by the planning commission.

Chairman Hickey asked Commissioner Parent what the City Commission’s position is on this matter? Member Parent stated that the amendments were explained to the adjacent residential neighborhood and City Commission. It would be very difficult for the building at 765 Kingsbury to be a party store/liquor store/convenience store. Chairman Hickey added that Chief Garcia-Lindstrom has indicated that this use should not be approved at 765 Kingsbury.

Member Gornowich stated that if the police chief is saying that Alpine Ave. isn’t an appropriate place for this type of use, why are we going to permit it in a C-4 District? Member Parent clarified by stating he felt the intent was for liquor stores to not be located near a residential district. Planner Wash added that State Law has specific requirements, including one-half mile spacing standards between businesses with off-site liquor sale licenses.

Member Rypma stated that he was surprised by the definition’s inclusion of gross income. Planner Wash related that Atty. Jeff Sluggett sought to define what is a liquor store, with the majority of income based on business gross sales coming from the sale of liquor. This is a measureable component.

Member Gornowich stated that restaurants might come into play when they have take out. Planner Wash stated that receipts can be requested, showing what percentage is for the retail sale of liquor.

There was discussion about various party store locations in Walker and differences between party stores, liquor stores and convenience stores.

Commissioner Parent then discussed a past attempt of a local Chinese restaurant with respect to not being able to obtain an on-site liquor license.

Member Brown asked if 765 Kingsbury became a convenience store, could they sell beer and wine at this location? Planner Wash indicated that if they need an SDD or SDM license, they would be defined as a liquor store and, in a C-1 District, wouldn’t be allowed. Member Gornowich added that if they agreed to liquor sales to 49% it would be a possibility that they could be located at 765 Kingsbury. Wash stated that he would say that they need an SDD or SDM license it would not be allowed. The City has already put the property owner of 765 Kingsbury on notice that a liquor store is not a permitted use on that property.

Member Brown asked if the Kingsbury rezoning has gone to the City Commission? A first reading was approved on March 9^th. Planner Wash stated that they took public comment and tabled the rezoning. The City Commission is waiting for this ordinance to be put into place. Commissioner Parent stated that the City Commission agrees that the property should be rezoned to C-1.

Planner Wash suggested that we could add a sentence at the end of the new definition as follows: "The following uses shall not be considered a liquor store/party store/convenience store: Grocery store: Restaurant: Bar; Tavern: Saloon; Night Club."

The Planning Commission also recommended that the Ordinance Committee add zoning ordinance definitions for the "non-liquor store" uses noted in the new sentence.

Motion by D. Brown, supported by C. Gornowich, to close the public hearing. Motion carried.

Motion by C. Rypma, supported by C. Gornowich, to forward a positive recommendation to the City Commission to adopt the proposed ordinance amendments, with the addition of the following sentence at the end of the new definition: "The following uses shall not be considered a liquor store/party store/convenience store: Grocery store; Restaurant; Bar; Tavern: Saloon; Night Club." Motion carried unanimously.

Planner Wash reviewed the agenda items for the April 1^st agenda to include:

Wash related that the April 15^th meeting is cancelled.

Planner Wash related that the DDA open house last night went well with good attendance. He had explained the market research, master plan, and the Draft Downtown Standale Zoning Ordinance to the attendees.

Motion by A. Parent, supported by D. Brown, to adjourn at 8:50 p.m. Motion carried.

________________________________ _____________________________________

Administrative Approval Carol Gornowich, Secretary

Walker Planning Commission