City of Walker Planning Commission Regular Meeting November 16, 2011

Transcription

1 City of Regular Meeting November 16, 2011 Members Present: Vice-chair C. Rypma, A. Parent, C. Gornowich, D. Brown, T. Schweitzer, T. Korfhage and T. Byle Absent: Chairman J. Hickey Also Present: Planning Director Frank Wash Vice-Chairman C. Rypma opened the meeting at 7 p.m. and T. Korfhage gave the invocation. Approval of the Minutes November 2, 2011 Motion by T. Byle, supported by D. Brown, to approve the minutes of November 2, 2011 as written. Motion carried. There were no public comments offered. General Public Comment Case Auto Zone 4284 & 4290 Lake Michigan Drive NW C. Rypma introduced the request for consideration of a site plan for a proposed Auto Zone project to consist of a new retail building and general site improvements. Planning Director Frank Wash identified the location of the property(s) explaining that the City of Walker owns one parcel and the other was the former Billiards by Christopher/Sporthaus, which has been vacant for some time. Both parcels are located in the Standale Downtown District (SDD). The SDD zoning ordinance has very specific site plan design standards. A build to line is required and there are also numerous architectural requirements. The architectural requirements are intended to avoid a strip commercial or big box commercial look. The idea behind the SDD was to have buildings and sites look different and function differently than typical commercially-zoned locations. The City has made a significant investment in this concept with the design and construction of the new Fire Station #2, which is a cornerstone building for the new downtown. The new Welcome to Standale sign is another example of the architectural style desired for Downtown Standale. Planner Wash related that he has been working with the applicants since February of 2011 on their site plan. The developers have gone through several iterations of the plan. Their plan set is very well done and thorough. If the plan were proposed in a typical commercial district it would be an exceptional plan. However, it does not meet the requirements of the SDD code. The required build to line is 67 from the back of curb. The 67 has a purpose; to provide for a service drive, one bank of parking, and a pedestrian-friendly sidewalk. The architectural standards are also an emphasis of the district with the intent of making the building the focal point of the property, as opposed to the parking lot. To their credit, Auto Zone has gone outside of their typical design for a highway commercial development. Unfortunately they don t meet the SDD standards. Auto Zone acknowledges that they do not meet the SDD requirements.

2 Based on the site plan as submitted, Planner Wash recommended that the project be denied. He explained that staff had offered to return the application fee after explaining to the applicant that they don t meet the requirements and their acknowledgement of same. The applicant rejected that offer with a desire to pursue the request before the Planning Commission. Wesley Berlin, Professional Engineering Associates, introduced Jeff Cowars from Auto Zone and Mike Murry from Colliers International. T. Korfhage questioned Mr. Berlin as to why they would be interested in presenting their plan when they ve been informed that it doesn t meet the ordinance requirements. He advised the applicant that he couldn t vote yes on this plan no matter what they might present, as the site plan does not meet the standards of the SDD code. Mr. Berlin acknowledged that the Auto Zone site plan doesn t meet the requirements of the SDD. However, they feel there are instances where their plan better serves this property with regard to the set back. He related that they believe they can meet the architectural standards. Mr. Berlin presented Auto Zone s desired building orientation, noting that they have made concessions in an attempt to comply with the SDD ordinance resulting in the plan before the Commission. Mr. Berlin noted that the required service drive is included in the plan, although it is offset 18 from the desired location. While it is offset, it provides a nice buffer for the public sidewalk for safety reasons and connection to adjacent property s service drives, developed per the ordinance, would be feasible. Mr. Berlin presented an exhibit with a layout that would meet the required build to line and MDOT s requirement for a center drive approach. The plan as proposed reuses an existing approach on the west side of the site. Mr. Berlin responded to A. Parent relating that the center drive approach would absolutely not accommodate semi truck traffic. MDOT has agreed to the west drive approach after being presented with safety concerns related to the center drive approach and engineering details. Mr. Berlin presented an exhibit of the layout for the rear of the property identifying the location of the proposed detention facility. He explained that there is potential for basin expansion that may service up to three other sites if there was an agreement between the City and Auto Zone. Auto Zone has tentatively approved this as something they could offer if there is leniency for what they are requesting for the site plan. Mr. Berlin distributed graphic renderings of the proposed development and reviewed the various views. He explained that the required build to line of 67 is not achievable unless the sidewalk were to be replaced. It ends up being a 72 build to line because the back of curb and back of sidewalk isn t consistent with the ordinance. They are proposing a 90 setback and they feel it is important to blend in with what is present in the interim until the area develops as desired, which could be many years. They don t feel that an extra 18 for a second row of front parking is excessive. They ve demonstrated that the access can work, it improves safety and they feel it is a viable site plan. C. Gornowich asked their rationale for not removing their front row of parking and moving the building forward to meet the required build to line. Page 2

3 Mr. Berlin replied that from Auto Zone s point of view their sales projections drop exponentially when losing parking at the front of the building. From an engineering standpoint, it lengthens the driveway approach and provides for better site circulation. If there were cross access the dead end parking aisle situation would be eliminated. That isn t the case however because of this being the first site to redevelop. They are attempting to balance safety, layout and blending with what is present. Mr. Berlin clarified for T. Byle that there is no customer entrance at the rear. Mr. Cowars clarified that the 14 spaces at the back exceed the number of spaces they need for employees but would be for overflow. Mr. Berlin stated that the plan meets the onsite parking requirements. Mr. Cowars explained that he understands the ordinance but from a business point of view a customer isn t going to want to park at the back when purchasing something like a battery and then have to walk it all the way around. In response to the suggestion that the building be turned sideways Planner Wash related that there is a 75% requirement for frontage that the building has to meet so that it is the focal point of the property. It isn t surprising that a standalone highway commercial development has difficulty fitting into the SDD ordinance because the ordinance was designed to not allow that type of box/strip commercial use. It was designed to not front load the parking or have the parking consume the property. Planner Wash explained that the former Laveen's motor mall building pattern was used as the model for the Downtown Standale Master Plan, and that then became the SDD ordinance build to line. Vehicular and pedestrian access has worked for decades at the Laveen s / Standale Interiors locations. Mr. Cowars explained that, with the store layout, a door at the back for customers doesn t work for them. A side entrance may work but with only one row of parking at the front and the remainder of the parking at the back it wouldn t be approved internally. Their sales projections are based on customer-friendly parking. C. Gornowich suggested that the plan could meet the build to line and still work for their business model. She asked what changes they could make to the building to meet the architectural requirements. Mr. Cowars replied that they could increase the window transparency or include display windows to accommodate the interior layout. They could also increase the percentage of brick although it would be more costly due to the structure. He feels they could make the necessary changes to meet the architectural requirements and understands that it is the desired row of parking that is the sticking point. Planner Wash identified additional architectural elements where the plan falls short of the SDD ordinance requirements; recessed entry, roof offset, base offset, number of entrances, building height, and floor to ceiling ratio. Mr. Cowars explained how they might modify the plan to meet several of those requirements. Planner Wash explained that rationale behind the SDD building height requirements. He complimented the applicants on the concessions they ve made to date and if this plan was proposed in another commercial district it would be a perfect fit. He clarified for the Commission Page 3

4 that there is some Planning Commission discretion built into the ordinance but this request doesn t meet the standards to grant leniency from the SDD requirements. T. Korfhage added that, at this point in the implementation of the SDD, such leniency would be a bad precedent to set, as this is the first major redevelopment proposal. Planner Wash related that when the site plan was reviewed by the DDA they stated that the downtown won t happen unless the SDD ordinance is followed. Mike Murry, Colliers International, identified different sites they ve considered for locating the store. Auto Zone isn t interested in locating west of the Standale Crossings Meijer. Mr. Murray described that area as a commercial dead zone. They ve been working since 1999 to locate Auto Zone in this market area. Brief discussion took place about the different sites and possible locations for the business. Planning Commissioners noted that the 2007 Master Plan allocated significant area for highway / general commercial to the west of the Standale Crossings Meijer. Goodwill has already gone in and a service drive route has been established for box and outlot development on the Goodale property in between Goodwill and Meijer. C. Gornowich complimented the applicants on the amount of work they put into presenting their plan and expressed her understanding of their arguments and how it works for their business model. Unfortunately, as presented, it doesn t work for this zone district. She again suggested that they could meet the SDD ordinance by modifying their plans. Mr. Cowars responded to T. Byle indicating that neither of their prototypes would meet the SDD ordinance. He has some leeway when it comes to the exterior architectural elements but the interior floor plan isn t flexible. T. Byle stated that it is a great layout. He likes the plans, the landscaping, and the looks of the design but it doesn t fit the SDD ordinance. Mr. Cowars clarified for C. Rypma that Auto Zone does lease some of their sites but this was intended to be a purchase. T. Schweitzer expressed concern as to how they work with MDOT with respect to the drive accesses. If the approach is going to be that the drive access has to be at the center of the property it may present problems in the future. Planner Wash related that MDOT is typically involved with site plan review. In this case there were more significant issues to address and MDOT was not part of the review. MDOT now has a Complete Streets mandate and this is an area where the City will be very aggressive with the application of the complete streets methodology. MOTION: T. Schweitzer moved to deny the site plan set cover dated 8/02/11 for Auto Zone at 4284 and 4290 Lake Michigan Drive NW (PPN s & ) as it does not meet the standards set forth in the City of Walker Zoning Ordinance, based on the following findings of fact: Page 4

5 1. The site plan as submitted does not meet the Standale Downtown District Zoning Ordinance with respect to the build- to line, location of parking, drive aisle, sidewalk and landscaping in the front yard. 2. The site plan as submitted does not meet the architectural requirements of the Standale Downtown District Zoning Ordinance in several areas including building materials, amount of glass, building height, number of entrances and recessed entry(s). Supported by T. Byle. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner and Staff Update Planner Wash advised that the next Planning Commission meeting will be December 7, The Master Plan Steering Committee will meet prior to that, at 6 p.m., and the Planning Commission is encouraged to attend. The goal for the Master Plan meeting is to develop a list of major discussion items for public hearings related to the Wilson & Remembrance corridors. Planner Wash shared information on a good read; The Lake Line by Carl Bajema and Jim Budzinski. Planner Wash encouraged Commissioners to offer comments on the Standale Downtown District lessons learned for inclusion in a Planning and Zoning News article. Adjournment Motion by A. Parent, supported by T. Korfhage, to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Motion carried. Administrative Approval Frank Wash, Planning Director Carol Gornowich, Secretary Page 5