City of Walker Planning Commission Regular Meeting November 19, 2014

Transcription

1 City of Walker Planning Commission Regular Meeting November 19, 2014 Members Present: Chairman C. Rypma, D. Brown, A. Parent, T. Allspach, T. Korfhage, J. Nyhuis and T. Schweitzer. Absent: T. Byle. Matt Franko has resigned. Staff Present: Community Development Director Frank Wash and City Engineer Scott Conners. Chairman Rypma opened the meeting at 7 p.m. and T. Korfhage gave the invocation. Approval of the Minutes November 5, 2014 Motion by T. Schweitzer, supported by D. Brown, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 5, 2014 as written. Motion carried. General Public Comment None. Case Cheeze Kurls Site Plan Review Chairman Rypma noted that AJ Veneklasen, Inc. requests site plan review for a proposed 40,000 square foot building addition to supplement existing Cheeze Kurls operations plus parking lot, landscaping, lighting and storm water improvements at 2915 Walkent Drive NW. PPN # Community Development Director Frank Wash referred to the aerial photo and identified the location of the subject site. He explained that the proposed is a warehouse expansion within an industrial park. There are no residential concerns because the site is fairly deep within this established industrial park. The addition is proposed at 40,000 sq. ft. to the north side of the building. Stormwater upgrading is proposed, as well as potential occupant ingress/egress on the north side of the building. There will be some work done on the east side related to truck access, docks and truck movements. Wash noted that T. Byle is absent this evening but provided comments on the truck turning templates via . The project has been through the staff site plan review committee and all of the planning related items have been addressed. Wash indicated that he would support a conditional approval. C. Rypma asked Director Wash s opinion of the comments offered by T. Byle. Wash indicated that he isn t the authority on truck turning templates and deferred to Scott Conners. S. Conners added that truck turning templates are required with the plans. They are computer generated to make sure they are accurate. Staff will advise if they observe movements that seem awkward but ultimately it is the property user that has to determine how difficult those movements are. In this case they ve shown something that will work, although it may be tight. From a staff perspective that is as far as they go. With respect to T. Byle s comments, Conners would not advocate for another drive out to Walkent Court. There have been some drainage issues that would likely make that difficult. As proposed it is likely more economical for them as well. Scott Conners then reviewed his staff report, relating that there is a 6 underdrain from the existing truck docks. It will be necessary to make sure that is sized properly and determine City of Walker Planning Commission Minutes 11/19/14 Page 1

2 where it is going. It is important to have accurate storm sewer plans on file. At the north side of the building they will use an innovative approach to collecting the storm water with a wide crushed concrete path and stone filter with an underdrain. They have good soils there for infiltration and they will be able to put most of the water back into the ground. An inspection and certification that the existing drainage is working properly will also be required. Brian Sinnott, P.E., Paradigm Design, was present to discuss the proposed project. Mr. Sinnott introduced the builder as well as representatives from Cheeze Kurls also present should questions arise. The proposed addition is a good fit for the site and generally speaking it is an industrial building backing up to another industrial building. Mr. Sinnott related that some of the challenges they faced were the slope from the back of the subject building to the neighboring facility. They are proposing a maintenance area and collection pipe with water diverted around the existing parking lot and ultimately emptying into the existing basin. They are aware that the original development included stormwater approval for the entire site so they won t be adding any volume. With regard to the truck turning radius, he has found that the system they use is very conservative and he is comfortable with the proposed semi turning radius. Mr. Sinnott noted that there is a location where trucks are currently parked. They actually park inside and he has left enough room to get by the parked trucks so there is quite a bit of clearance. Cheeze Kurls President Tim DeDinas invited questions. He related that their business is growing, which is the reason for the expansion. C. Rypma asked if the addition will result in additional jobs. Mr. DeDinas replied yes. He recalled that they estimate hiring at least ten but it could be more. They currently employ people. T. Schweitzer recalled from Mr. Sinnott s testimony that trucks currently park in the building. Mr. DeDinas clarified that the trucks pull into the truck wells, which leaves them plenty of room for the necessary movements. T. Korfhage indicated that he visited the site today and there were trucks present where the turning movements are shown. He asked where those will go. Mr. DeDinas replied that they typically aren t there but due to the deep snow they are present. There were also some trucks on site which belong to a friend who is selling them and buying new. A. Parent recalled that the City Commission and former Mayor toured the Cheeze Kurls facility a few years ago. They run a first class operation and Mr. Parent is happy to see them growing. T. Korfhage MOVED TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN SET DATED 10/31/2014 AND SUPPORTING MATERIAL FOR THE CHEEZE KURLS PROJECT AT 2915 WALKENT DRIVE NW, (PP# ) WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant agrees to all conditions noted in the City Community Development Director s letter dated 11/12/ The applicant agrees to all conditions noted in the City Engineer s letter dated 11/10/2014. SUPPORTED by A. Parent. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. City of Walker Planning Commission Minutes 11/19/14 Page 2

3 Case Universal Spiral Air Site Plan Review Chairman Rypma noted that David Krupp from Universal Spiral Air requests site plan review for two building additions totaling 10,170 square feet plus parking lot, landscaping, lighting and storm water improvements at 2735 West River Drive NW. PP# Director Wash identified the location of the property on West River Drive near the Delta Plex. The site contains a building and there is parking around the site. There is currently an ingress/egress easement providing access to Lankamp. The project includes two additions and modifications to the parking lot, drainage, etc. The project was reviewed by the staff site plan review committee and the applicant was provided with redline comments. There are several items that have not yet been addressed. The manufacturing use is permitted. Wash then noted that three ZBA variances will be necessary for the project as proposed. The applicant will seek a variance to allow a side building setback of 3 ft., for the 5,400 sq. ft. addition, rather than the 27 ft. required. The owner of 2759 West River Dr. has submitted a letter offering seven comments regarding potential impacts to his property. The applicant will also seek a variance to avoid construction of public sidewalk along Hillside Drive. Wash noted that this lot has three public street frontages. He suggested the Planning Commission offer an opinion on whether sidewalks should be constructed on Hillside. The third variance will be a request for a waiver of 16 onsite parking spaces. Wash noted that the easement document provided by the applicant allows ingress/egress but not shared parking. Based on the significance of these three variance requests, Wash suggested that the applicant apply for ZBA review before approval of the site plan is granted. If any or all of the variance requests are denied the site plan would have to change substantially. This process would also allow the applicant an opportunity to work with the Walker Building Inspector to determine whether the 3 foot setback would be permitted under the building code. City Engineer Scott Conners then related that the applicant is requesting a stormwater variance for the detention and first flush treatment. This is a challenging site. It is only 4-5 above the Grand River floodplain and there are drainage restrictions between the site and the flood plain so water can t just go un-detained as downstream capacity isn t there. Conners related that there were some concerns during staff site plan review about sight distance on West River Drive. Project Engineer Dan Hula has provided information showing that there is adequate sight distance. That, as well as the site plan, will have to be sealed. Conners referred to the cross section A-A. It should be clear that there is no proposed grading in the right-of-way. As proposed there would be no sidewalk and no change in the grade. The overflow structure appears to have two elevations on it but that can be cleaned up if this moves forward. Sidewalks and ramps must be built in conformance with the Americans with Disabilities Act at the northwest corner of the site. Mr. Hula s plan notes the ADA features as tripping hazards and that obviously should be revised on the plan. Conners recommended that the trees proposed on West River Drive immediately adjacent to the driveway be pushed back a bit for clear visibility. Director Wash recommended those trees be removed from the plan. A. Parent asked if the applicant has secured anything in writing granting him permission for the off-site parking on his neighbor s lot. City of Walker Planning Commission Minutes 11/19/14 Page 3

4 Wash replied no. A recorded ingress-egress easement has been provided by the applicant. However, we cannot assume that an easement grants something that isn t explicitly stated. T. Allspach asked if the Walker Fire Department offered any comments regarding the building being close to the corner and how they would get equipment around it. Wash replied that they did give their okay, subject to a building permit. It may be because they have access to much of the building. It is also possible that they missed it on the plan or assumed a certain wall construction type. T. Allspach asked if the building is or will be sprinkled. Mr. Krupp, applicant, replied from the audience indicating that it is sprinkled. T. Allspach asked what the three gas flags are on the adjacent property and what they signify. He was curious about the viability of doing anything on that property for the person that owns it now. Mr. Hula replied that it is the existing gas service and there is an easement for that. It will definitely impact any expansion on that property. Parking over a gas main isn t prohibited however. J. Nyhuis related that he has constructed buildings using a zero lot line and a 5 foot setback. It is possible to do it and not go onto the adjacent property but sometimes encroachment occurs. Mr. Hula related that the neighbor has been very cooperative and understands Mr. Krupp will repair damage resulting from their construction. They have a good relationship with the neighbor. At this point he has agreed with everything they have discussed. C. Rypma asked for Director Wash s opinion on the sidewalk on Hillside Drive. Wash explained that if the plat across the street had sidewalks he would definitely recommend that the Hillside Drive sidewalk be built. Scott Conners added that the Pioneer Trail will come down Three Mile Road to the end of the cul-de-sac beyond WZZM and wind through a couple of properties and connect to Lankamp. It is becoming more of a pedestrian corridor and sidewalks will be used more in the future. Wash continued stating that they are proposing sidewalk on Lankamp and also along West River Drive. This is a significant amount. The applicant s question is whether it is an undue burden to put in another 340+ ft. of sidewalk on Hillside Drive. A. Parent suggested it would be an unused sidewalk because Hillside Drive in that area is no parking. If parking were permitted there people may park and use the sidewalk to walk to the Delta Plex. The chance of anyone using the sidewalk would likely be slim to none but he would anticipate the Lankamp sidewalk being used. Mr. Hula submitted a copy of the response letter to Mr. Schefferly, the owner of 2759 West River Drive. Mr. Hula referred to Mr. Schefferly s letter and responded to the numbered points in the letter. He stated that 3.2 ft. does provide adequate room at the northeast corner. If a variance is granted to this property it would not impact the setback requirements for the adjacent property. That property is in the C-1 district and the setback requirement is 15 ft. The main issue for that property will be the gas main that goes through there. Water will be City of Walker Planning Commission Minutes 11/19/14 Page 4

5 collected on the subject site as required by the Ordinance. Mr. Hula indicated that they have removed the term exception from the site plan. With regard to construction crews being on Mr. Schefferly s property, the contractors have indicated that they could do the work from the subject site but typically they speak with adjacent property owners and work with them to access a site in a situation like this. If Mr. Schefferly is not agreeable they can still complete their project as planned. If something does happen on Mr. Schefferly s property the contractor is required by law to make repairs. The fence will likely be removed for construction. They typically stake the location so they know where it is to go back. Mr. Hula stated that at this point they don t know exactly where the HVAC system will be located. There may be equipment hanging on the side of that building on that side but he isn t certain at this time. Mr. Hula noted that Mr. Schefferly stated that he is not opposed to the expansion and they feel they have addressed his concerns. Mr. Hula related that they knew they would need to seek variances from the ZBA. In his experience you go to the Planning Commission for approval, with conditions. Part of the conditions is getting the necessary variances. If the plan is approved contingent on the variances and the variances don t get approved then the plan is moot. If they seek the variances first and they are approved and then come before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission denies, the variances would still be valid, which creates a problem for the Building Official because it would be a site with variances and no approved plan. Mr. Hula referred to the Zoning Ordinance and read that the role of the ZBA is to hear appeals. Mr. Hula indicated that tonight they are seeking approval of the site plan contingent upon receiving the variances. Mr. Hula addressed the parking easement documentation. He stated that it is a tight site and they are trying to make it work. Before seeking legal advice and reaching an agreement with the neighbor they wanted to bring it before the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission doesn t approve then their efforts would be wasted. With regard to the minimal building setback, Mr. Hula stated that there are provisions for buildings on the lot line. The distance from the lot line brings into play different fire code and building code requirements. The building is sprinkled so they would be able to go right up to the property line. Mr. Hula commented on the sidewalk on Hillside. He explained the grade situation and that if they built a sidewalk there it would be dangerous and certainly not optimal. For that reason alone he doesn t feel building sidewalk in that area is a good idea. Mr. Hula addressed the site plan issues identified in the staff report. He explained that exterior lights aren t shown as he isn t certain they will need any on the exterior of the building. They certainly won t have pole lights. When they get to the architectural phase and if they need lights on the outside of the building they understand that they would be required to use full cut-off, shoebox fixtures. He offered that he can add a note to the site plan to that effect. Mr. Hula recalled that Mr. Conners originally advised that the curb cut should be 30 ft. but he didn t have the turning templates. A layout sheet with the turning templates has been prepared. S. Conners indicated that after seeing the turning templates he is willing to let that go. Mr. Hula addressed the third bullet indicating that he has added the turning templates for Lankamp. He explained that the site has been working as shown since it was constructed. City of Walker Planning Commission Minutes 11/19/14 Page 5

6 Director Wash expressed his appreciation for Mr. Hula s explanations. However, these explanations must be included on the site plan and he still feels the project should go to the ZBA first. Wash isn t comfortable with site plan approval before the ZBA rules on the variances. C. Rypma invited Mr. Hula to continue his presentation, advising him that the Planning Commission will likely table the request as recommended by staff. Mr. Hula explained that his client would like some assurances that the site plan will be approved before going through the process of getting variances. If they get the variances and the site plan is not approved then they have an issue. C. Rypma advised that the Planning Commission has reviewed the staff report and they believe that the best procedure is to first go to the ZBA and seek the variances and come back for the site plan review. The Planning Commission isn t necessarily opposed to what is proposed but if the variances aren t granted then the site plan will have to be changed. S. Conners suggested the Planning Commission give Mr. Hula some feedback on the stormwater variance request. There is more concern of them harming themselves in this area than harming others. It is up to the applicant to make their case that they have done all they can do. If the Planning Commission doesn t grant the variance and requires them to build three times the detention then they have a problem. Mr. Hula explained that basically they would have to move their business somewhere else. He stated that he has squeezed every square inch he could out of this site and in doing so they are asking to bend a few of the rules. If they don t get the variance for the stormwater they will have to look for another site. Mr. Hula submitted the calculations to the Planning Commission. Director Wash advised that it is not typical for the Planning Commission to receive all of this information at the meeting. This plan went through the same process as the Cheeze Kurls site. Site plan review can be a fairly smooth process if the staff-identified items are addressed prior to the Planning Commission meeting. C. Rypma invited Mr. Hula to make his case for the stormwater variance. Mr. Hula indicated that the site has been developed for a long time. If they do nothing here it will continue to drain the way it is. The amount of increased hard surface that they are proposing isn t that substantial and the amount of storage they can get will slow the water down so it will be a better situation than it is today. They will meet the.13 CFS per acre outlet and that is all they can get. If they back the water up any further it will come through and flood truck wells. They can t go deeper because there is an existing storm sewer. The pond in the front doesn t have enough depth and because of the nature of the site they have storage on the pavement, the maneuvering area for trucks. If it does flood it would be in Mr. Krupp s parking area. Mr. Hula stated that it doesn t meet what would be required for a new site or a retrofit if they had the room. They would like assurance before seeking the variances because if it isn t acceptable they need to know that and there would be no sense in going to the ZBA. T. Allspach noted that the Planning Commission wasn t given the information on the increased hard surface percentages. He recalled Mr. Hula stating that the site will be better off than it is today even with the additions and the reworking of the storm water management. T. Allspach asked S. Conners if he agreed with that statement. City of Walker Planning Commission Minutes 11/19/14 Page 6

7 S. Conners replied that he wouldn t guarantee it will be better than today. What they are stating is if this were a new site they would be required to come up with 26,000-28,000 cu. ft. of storage. They have approximately 12,000 so they have about half of what they would need for a new site, which is pretty good compared to a site that now has very poor controls. They may have some natural detention there but they don t have the good controls that would meter it out over time. Conners isn t sure how they modeled what the operation is today. All of this is further complicated by the fact that downstream isn t unrestricted; the things downstream have a very big impact that is hard to quantify and hard to know. He agreed that they have squeezed out as much as they can given what they want to do with the site. Based on the cross sections they plan to deepen the pond to the west and as long as they don t disturb the right-of-way they can truly say they are maximizing the area. Conners stated that he doesn t know how water gets away from the site during various frequencies of storm. He has been to the site and seen areas where it appears that water backs up; high water marks at the northeast corner of the parking lot. That is what caused the concern about that area being filled in, blocking sight distance, and then impacting the detention but they are trying to make that up in other areas. J. Nyhuis asked how far off they are on the first flush portion. The Planning Commission has never granted a variance on the first flush that he recalls. Would it be very difficult to get that? Mr. Hula replied yes, given the outlet they have. The soils there are clay so they don t have the ability to infiltrate stormwater. They also don t have the ability to raise the outlet for extra volume given the depth of the pipes. Between where flooding will be a problem and where the outlet is they only have approximately 2.5 feet. Putting a first flush structure in will take away from the volume they have. S. Conners stated that some of the volume will be covered. Typically they want to see about a 24 hour detention time to let it settle out and what is provided is approximately 9 hours. That does provide some benefit. You need elevation difference to provide the different stages. Mr. Krupp, applicant, stated that the property has poor drainage now. It will be better if they do something rather than nothing. Currently the pavement is bad and there is gravel around and nothing is graded right. They are going to make it better than it is. S. Conners stated that from a stormwater perspective those things don t necessarily make it better. They make the top surface tighter but a leakier top surface is often times better for stormwater. C. Rypma asked S. Conners what more they could present to make it better than it is now. S. Conners stated that if they weren t doing anything he would be more vocal about this. They are making the situation a bit better but it is hard to quantify on this site because it is a very difficult site from an elevation standpoint. They are going to add to the detention and they are going to have controls but they are going to be smaller than a new site. C. Rypma clarified then that there are some improvements. He sees this as making it a bit better and likely not worse. S. Conners agreed. Intuitively it doesn t seem like it will be worse. City of Walker Planning Commission Minutes 11/19/14 Page 7

8 T. Korfhage feels any improvement is better. They aren t meeting the standards but they aren t going to be required to clear the site and start over. If they aren t making it worse than he is comfortable with it. T. Allspach agreed. C. Rypma offered the applicant some assurance indicating that the Planning Commission is fine with the stormwater variance as well as the site plan, subject to the conditions noted in the staff reports. He asked if anyone disagreed with that. T. Allspach noted the 3.2 ft. setback. He asked what material the addition will be at the north end. Mr. Krupp replied that it will be steel. Brief discussion took place regarding the Hillside Drive sidewalk. Several commissioners didn t feel the Planning Commission would require it on Hillside Drive if it were their decision. J. Nyhuis suggested that there is room to do it, and it would require some excavation, but he doesn t feel it is necessarily needed there. D. Brown added that none of the streets in the area have sidewalks. Mr. Krupp stated that if they have to make the building a bit smaller they are open to some compromise. The area where the additions are planned is currently grass and not used. He understands that from a drainage standpoint the grass is desirable but it is a catch 22; take away the grass or relocate the business. They don t want to move. C. Rypma advised that the Planning Commission is generally in favor of what has been presented, the stormwater variance and the sidewalk issue. However, the Planning Commission should table in order for the applicants to seek the variances and update the site plan to include what was noted in the staff reports. S. Conners commented on the sidewalk matter. Something they recognized at the staff level is maintaining the existing vegetative buffer on Hillside Drive. It wasn t that they didn t feel it was a good place for a sidewalk because everyplace is a good place for sidewalk. However, this is a location with a sensitive slope, it has some great vegetative cover, and it is a great way to buffer the neighborhood from the industrial uses. He suggested the commissioners focus on that if making a recommendation to the ZBA. Mr. Krupp asked what the process is to get his neighbors to put in sidewalks so that there is a point to him installing them. S. Conners explained that when they make site changes they would be required to install sidewalks. T. Schweitzer suggested the applicants have a discussion with an architect to determine what kind of construction is permitted with the minimal lot line setback. Additionally, the plan represents an easement to park 16 cars so commissioners will expect that to be in place and they have to assure that taking 16 spaces away from the neighbor won t bring them out of compliance. Mr. Krupp asked if they can get a variance to waive the extra 16 parking spaces instead of a shared parking easement. F. Wash stated that they can seek that variance but that may be creating a problem for their own business by not having enough parking. When you apply for a variance you have to provide factual arguments to the ZBA. City of Walker Planning Commission Minutes 11/19/14 Page 8

9 T. Korfhage MOVED TO TABLE THE SITE PLAN DATED 11/6/2014 PENDING RESOLUTION OF ITEMS RELATED TO THREE ZONING VARIANCES, ISSUES RAISED IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR S STAFF REPORT DATED 11/12/2014 RELATED TO SITE PLAN REVIEW, AND ISSUES RAISED IN THE CITY ENGINEER S REPORT DATED 11/10/2014. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS TO THE ZBA THAT THE HILLSIDE DRIVE SIDEWALK VARIANCE BE GRANTED WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE VEGETATIVE BUFFER ON HILLSIDE BE MAINTAINED. SUPPORTED by T. Allspach. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF UPDATE Wash related that the next meeting will take place on 12/03/14 with one item on the agenda. The public hearing will be to consider a Master Plan amendment for acres, rezoning of 90 acres to ML Light Industrial, and to amend the North Ridge Drive East Precise Plat. Adjournment: 8:25 p.m. Administrative Approval Frank Wash, AICP, PCP Community Development Director Tom Byle Secretary City of Walker Planning Commission City of Walker Planning Commission Minutes 11/19/14 Page 9