Text size: A A A

APRIL 14, 2015, 7:30 P.M.
 (return  to index)
  1. Chair Young called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
  2. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Pemberton.
  3. Roll Call:
    Members Present: Bill Benoit, Garrett Fox (arrived late), Dan Holtrop, Sandra Jones, Ed Kape, Mike Pemberton, Frank Vander Hoff, and Johngerlyn Young
    Members Absent: None
    Others Present:  Community Development Director Terry Schweitzer, Economic Development Planner Lisa Golder, Planner Joe Pung, Staff Secretary Monique Collier, the applicants and 8 residents
                Motion by Kape, supported by Jones, to excuse Fox from the meeting.
  4. Motion Carried (7-0) –
  5. Fox absent -
  6. Approval of the Minutes and Findings of Fact
    Motion by Commissioner VanderHoff, supported by Commissioner Kape, to approve the Minutes of March 24, 2015 and the Findings of Fact for:  Case# 9-15 - Gotiva Motor Sales - Special Land Use Open Air Business and Site Plan Review located at 5091 Broadmoor Ave SE 
  7. Motion Carried (7-0) –
  8. Fox absent
  9. Approval of the Agenda
    Schweitzer stated at the March 24 meeting there was a public hearing date set for Tassell Farms Condominiums; their application was not complete and has been removed off the agenda until they submit a completed application.
    Motion by Commissioner Pemberton, supported by Commissioner VanderHoff,                               to approve the agenda for the April 14, 2015 meeting noting change.
  10. Motion Carried (7-0) –
  11. Fox absent-
  12. Acknowledge visitors wishing to speak to non-agenda items.
    Richard Swaggerty, 1636 Rondo was present. His concern was with the new waterline that was installed through Rondo Street. He stated the road is getting extremely bad. He wants to know if and when the road will be resurfaced. Schweitzer stated there were a number of streets that were disrupted with the watermain project. Schweitzer stated in the Capital Improvements program  2017 Andrew Street is scheduled for repair in 2017 and Rondo Street is identified as a project although it does not have a particular date specified at this point. He noted there is a recognition that it needs to be repaired.
  13. Old Business
There was no Old Business
  1. Public Hearing
    Case#10-15 - Structures and Improvements Plan 2015-2021;
    Director Schweitzer stated the SIP sets forth Capital improvements over the next 6 year period 2015-2021. This plan represents Building and Site Improvements, Parks, Streets, Sidewalks and Non-Motorized Trails and Water and Sanitary Sewer Management Systems. Schweitzer stated the Planning Commission will adopt the structures and improvements plan and forward it to the City Commission.
    Schweitzer stated there were a number of questions raised at the work session. Schweitzer stated the only change relates to the inclusion of the reconstruction of Division Avenue from 54th to 60th Street scheduled for this year (it was previously omitted). Schweitzer stated staff has worked with the finance department to add exhibit A-D which portrays the projected yearly spending in the various funding areas. Schweitzer stated over the 6 year period by category the SIP list the year by year projects that are scheduled to be undertaken.
    Schweitzer stated the second charts were drawn from the 2015 City Commission retreat. They put portray Capital Fund expenditures in the past 5 years and also looks at the expenditures in the 5 years projected forward. Schweitzer stated this provides the information the planning commission requested from the work session. Schweitzer stated there is also separate graphic that portrays the street fund balance under the circumstance if Proposal 1 were to be approved and alternatively shows a similar graphic if Proposal 1 were to fail.
    Schweitzer stated the recommendation is to recommend to the City Commission adoption of resolution 1-15 2015-2021 Structures and Improvements plan dated April 8, 2015 and forward to the City Commission recommendation for its inclusion in the 2015-2021 Capital Improvements Program
    Young opened the public hearing.
    There was no public comment.
    Motion by VanderHoff, supported by Jones, to close the public hearing.
  2. Motion Carried (8-0) –
    Motion by Benoit, supported by VanderHoff, to recommend to City Commission adoption of Resolution 1-15 2015-2021 Structures and Improvements plan dated April 8, 2015 and forward to the City Commission recommendation for its inclusion in the 2015-2021 Capital Improvements Program
  3. Motion Carried (8-0)-
    Case# 11-15 - Madison Ave Missionary Baptist Church – Site Plan Review for a Place of Religious Worship Located at 5757 Madison Ave SE
    Planner Golder introduced the request. She stated the request is for site plan review for a place of religious worship. She stated the church building is 2,592 square feet and the church is looking to add a 6,000 square foot multi-purpose room.
    Golder stated discussion from the work session related to parking on the site. Golder stated they now have 35 parking spaces and they are adding 22 parking spaces. Golder stated based onthe fire department building occupancy computation for the new building based on 96 parking spaces are required. Golder stated the church has shown the additional parking as deferred parking which the City allows. Golder stated the fire department is comfortable with the amount of parking, but if staff finds that it is needed we could require that those parking spaces be installed.
    Golder stated at the work session there was mention regarding the required parking setback from residential. She stated the Pastor lives in the parsonage on a parcel separate from the rest of the site.  She stated if they combine the parsonage with the church property, then they don’t have to have the parking setback issue. Golder stated the church has indicated on the plan that the parcels are going to be combined.
    Golder stated another issue that was discussed at the work session was the sidewalk. Golder stated there was a resolution passed in 1978 that requires both sides of Madison Avenue to have sidewalk. She stated the east side was provided through a grant and on the west side, as development occurs the City has been requiring that sidewalk be put in. Golder stated immediately north and south the sidewalk doesn’t exist but other places towards 60th Street the sidewalk does exist. Golder stated the applicant is asking for relief from the City Commission from this requirement. The City Commission will review the request on April 21. Golder stated as an alternative if the city commission denies they could ask to be able to post a performance guarantee. The performance guarantee could allow them to do it at some point in the future when money is available but there would be a projected end dated where the sidewalk would have to be done.
    Golder stated the recommendation is for conditional approval: 1. Compliance with the site narrative statement dated April 1, 2015 for Madison Avenue Missionary Baptists Church as described in Case No. 11-15; 2.Compliance with the memo dated March 12, 2015 from the Kentwood Fire Marshal; 3.Compliance with the memo dated March 11, 2015 from the Kentwood Assistant City Engineer.; 4. Applicant shall either receive relief from the Kentwood City Commission regarding the requirement for sidewalk along the Madison Avenue frontage, or shall construct sidewalk along the length of the Madison Avenue frontage as required in City Resolution 133-78; and 5. Staff approval of a landscaping and lighting plan for the site.
    Tim VanderKodde with VanderKodde Construction was present. He stated one issue that was brought up at the work session was concerns about the trees that were cut down. He stated he spoke to the church and they would have cut the trees down regardless of this proposed building being constructed because they were junk trees.
    Young opened the public hearing.
    Larry Cross, owner of the rental property at 340 Nora, stated the fence at the church is in disarray. He stated they do not take care of it, it is falling down and needs to be repaired. He stated there are about 6 homes abutting the fence.
    Motion by Benoit, supported by Vanderhoff, to close the public hearing.
  4. Motion Carried (8-0) –
    VanderHoff stated he is in favor of the project, he doesn’t have a problem with the request. He questioned the fence falling down. Pastor Lowe stated last year they re-cemented the boards along the north fence line so they would stand up properly. Pastor Lowe stated he can’t say that they did every single one, but will definitely go back and make sure they are all standing up properly and cemented in to place so they are not falling down. Pastor Lowe stated last year they also installed brand new fencing along the west side of the property.
    Fox asked if the church has any ideas of their landscaping plan. Pastor Lowe stated there are landscaping requirements that they are going to have to comply with and will. He stated there will be a 60 foot gap between the two buildings and they would like to make a park area with benches, and a swing set for the kids. Pastor Lowe stated out in the back lot where they took a lot of the trees down, they will probably plant a few more trees to dress it up and make it look nice. Fox asked if they have a timeframe for repairing the portion of the fence that is falling down. Pastor Lowe stated they normally have spring and fall work days at their church and when they have their work day coming up in a few weeks they will address the fence repairs at that time. Pastor stated any section of the fence that needs to be replaced they will do that in conjunction with the building project.
    Holtrop stated he is glad to hear they will have deferred parking, the less asphalt the better. Holtrop questioned the lighting plan. Golder stated they need to show what they are going to do and staff will make sure that it meets the lighting requirements for the City. Pastor Lowe stated because they are in a residential area they do respect their neighbors and will only do the minimal requirements on lighting.
    Jones stated she drove the property and noticed a lot of dirt and questioned what they were doing. Pastor Lowe stated the pile of sand is something that was donated to the church. He stated they are going to need the sand for the new building foundation and they accepted it for their project.
    Pemberton stated at the work session there was concern of the look of the building. He just encouraged the Church to make sure that the colors are complimentary to the neighborhood and to the grounds of the church itself for the long term. Pemberton suggested to make the building as pretty as they can with the materials they are going to be using.
    Motion by Pemberton, supported by Vanderhoff, to grant conditional approval of the site plan dated March 31, 2015 as described in Case No. 11-15. Approval is conditioned on conditions 1-5 and basis point 1-4 as described in Golder’s memo dated April 2, 2015.
  5. Motion Carried (8-0) -
  6. Work Session
    Case#12-15 - Guiding Light Recovery – Rezoning of approximately 3.10 acres of land from C2 Commercial to R2 Two Family Residential- Located at 5022 Division Ave SE
    Schweitzer introduced the request. He stated the proposed project is along Division Ave in the old Fielding’s Home Furnishings building. He stated the building has been vacant for over two years. Schweitzer stated the applicant is looking to rezone over 3 acres. He stated there is an existing building and parking lot on the front of the site.
    Schweitzer stated the property is zoned C2 Community Commercial and has been zoned this way for years. Schweitzer stated with any rezoning we focus on the Master Plan recommendation. He stated the future land use plan designates this site for mixed commercial and residential uses.  He stated the Master Plan text cites the Bus Rapid Transit service within the Division Avenue corridor as a major catalyst in its redevelopment.   He stated the plan goes on to recommend the development and adoption of a form based code for the Division Avenue corridor that would dictate the physical form and appearance of buildings while opening the potential for a variety of mixed uses. Schweitzer stated in addition, the form based code would introduce maximum setbacks to bring buildings closer to the sidewalk, enhancing and emphasizing walkability.
    Schweitzer stated the commercial retail would address the recommended commercial aspect. He stated the proposed rezoning to R2 would be responsive to the residential land use component. Schweitzer stated there has been residential along the frontage for a long time, but most of it has been non-conforming homes that were there for 50-60 years or better.
    Schweitzer stated a joint committee of Wyoming and Kentwood planning and engineering staff as well as planning commissioners, commercial realtors, school officials, business and property owners and a Kentwood City Commissioner have been meeting for the past year to study and develop a form based code for the southern end of the Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit Corridor. He stated there has been an expressed desire of this work group to see residential development re-introduced along the Division Avenue corridor.  Schweitzer stated we are hopeful that the form based code will be introduced as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance yet this summer.
    Schweitzer stated when Guiding Light Mission Executive Director Stuart Ray spoke to staff about the project, there was discussion of where we were in the Master Planning process and the prospect of the rezoning of the property later this year for the form based code along the Division Avenue stretch. Schweitzer stated the property has been on the market for a period of time and they saw this as a good opportunity. He stated it seems to be a good fit for the ministry they wanted to provide. Schweitzer stated we looked at the zoning text under commercial retail and the proposed long term residential recovery program use that is associated with their request would require a residential zoning.
    Stuart Ray, Executive Director of Guiding Light Mission was present. He stated they have two programs at their downtown campus. They have a substance recovery program and they also have emergency shelter for homeless men. They focus on putting men back to work. He stated their intent is to move the recovery program only to the proposed location. Ray stated they find that both programs in the same building are somewhat of a conflict. He stated people in recovery just want to go to work. Ray stated the concern is the individuals that they are serving at Hearthside are the traditional Heartside individuals. Most of their guys in recovery are from Byron Center, Ada, Cascade or Sparta. Their intent is to help individuals with substance get back on their feet and re-engage in community. Ray stated they have housing in Kentwood already on Andover that they use for transitional housing. He stated the proposed facility is close to that and they thought it was appropriate for expanding their program.
    VanderHoff questioned how many people he envisions using the proposed facility. Ray stated they are currently at 24 residents downtown and feel the proposed facility can handle 24 people but may go as high as 30 people but no higher than that. VanderHoff asked if the residents were primarily alcohol and drug abuse. Ray stated primarily alcohol with some drug abuse mixed in. VanderHoff stated he thinks it is a good project and the Guiding Light does a great job helping people and he likes the emphasis of trying to get people back in the work force.
    Fox asked if there were any plans to do anything with the extra acreage on the property. Ray stated not at this point in time. Fox asked if they have a proposed timeline if this request were approved. Ray stated they have started preliminary plans and since, they don’t think funding is going to be an issue, they would try to move as expeditiously as possible. Fox questioned if long term would be looking to move the rest of the facility out of the down town area. Ray stated no they will keep the traditional mission back to work program that they currently run in Heartside they think that is most appropriate for that demographic. Ray stated they will be focusing on a different demographic for the recovery program. Fox questioned if the Guiding Light plans to stay with men only. Ray stated that is correct.
    Benoit expressed concern that when switching the zoning to residential would be spot zoning. Schweitzer stated the property is zoned retail. Schweitzer stated along the frontage it is zoned retail, and the back portion of the property (about 2 acres) is immediately adjacent is zoned R1-D single family residential. Schweitzer stated the frontage is out of character, but if you look at the larger mass of the property it is the adjacent to the residential. Schweitzer stated when we’ve talked about the form based code at the committee level we talk about the desirability of residential and commercial along the Division Avenue frontage. Schweitzer stated there was a consensus that it was desirable to reintroduce residential along the corridor; but timing is key.
    Holtrop stated when he saw the request on the agenda he thought it was perfect for the transit but then realized none of the gentleman will be using transit. Ray stated they will be using transit, most do not have license due to drug and alcohol reasons. Ray stated when they go to some appointments, meetings or church the Guiding Light will transport them in their vans. But, if they are going to work or medical appointments they will be using the transit. Ray stated they are not hauling one guy around they are hauling groups of men around. Holtrop stated he thinks this is the right fit. Holtrop asked about the signs. Ray stated they will not have neon signs, maybe just the name Guiding Light there for some identification.
    Kape questioned the future plans of the land behind the proposed building. Ray stated they do not know. Kape asked would they have to come back before the commission if they want to develop that land behind the proposed building to protect the residents whose backyard face that area. Schweitzer stated that would depend on how it is acted upon by the City. He stated Guiding Light is focusing on the front building but it will be within the commissioner’s purview to say the special use is good but it is restricted to just the front at this time. Therefore, there is a distinction made between this first phase and what might happen thereafter.
    Jones questioned if Guiding Light has approached the other businesses that are adjacent to this property. Ray stated they have only had a little bit of conversation with the ministry to the north; they have not had in-depth conversation but they seemed to open. Jones asked how many square feet they are utilizing now in their downtown office and how much at this new location. Ray stated downtown for the two programs they use 21,000 square feet and the proposed building it is also 21,000 square feet.
    Pemberton stated he likes the concept and he likes what they are doing. Pemberton questioned how many recovery program residents they had 10 years ago. Ray stated around 24. Pemberton stated down the road he can see where some of that land can be used for housing and the front building is used for their ministry.  Pemberton questioned what he envisions in the future. Ray stated their sense is the community has a larger problem than what is acknowledged. Most recovery programs are 28 or 30 days in length mandated by insurance; their program is a full year. Ray stated it takes a full year for the brain to normalize when you come off heavy substance abuse. He stated they intentionally make their program a long term program. They stay 6 months in program; then to transitional housing and they are working at the same time. Ray stated you have to go 60 months before you have any shot at sobriety long term.
    Ray stated their sense is that Heartside is a detriment for people coming into recovery because Heartside is perceived as the epicenter of drugs and alcohol. Heartside limits what they can do and the two programs are in conflict. Discussion ensued.  He stated they have three houses on Andover; they have been there for two years now. He stated those houses have gone really well, so this is a continuation of programming for them.
    Young asked what the recovery program participant to staff ratio will be. Ray stated they use community resources, Arbor Circle does the counseling, the Dominican Center for spiritual direction. Ray stated they are using a lot of outside resources to try and limit their cost. Discussion ensued
    Fox asked if there will be  services in their facility and will they have a fence. Ray stated they will have services, but fencing he doesn’t know. Schweitzer stated we are not requiring a fence but that is something that can be put into the site improvements.
    Case# 13-15 – Guiding Light Recovery – Special Land Use of an Adult Caring Institution Long Term Residential Rehabilitation Recovery Program – Located at 5022 Division Ave SE
    Schweitzer stated in the staff review Guiding Light has indicated that this will be a State licensed facility. Schweitzer stated it appears that this particular licensing, has no specific requirements it would be more of an auditing function by the State. He noted that Guiding Light will not receive State or Federal money on this site. The program is funded through private donations and it is free of charge to the participants.
    Schweitzer stated the site itself there is an opportunity to establish landscaping in front of the building and Division Avenue. Schweitzer stated with the form based code there has been a lot of discussion about some natural features.
    Schweitzer stated we are anticipating that they want to upgrade the exterior lightning but otherwise it is pretty dark at night at night and for basic security that would be one thing that they would work with them to address.
    Schweitzer stated they have indicated having 30 residents there; staffing during the day and they would have food service. Schweitzer stated they haven’t figured out if the main commercial kitchen will be there or at another site. Schweitzer stated in speaking to the Fire Marshal there is a requirement for two sides of fire lane on the building; the one on the south would constitute one of the fire lanes and looking at the possibility of having the fire lane along the back of the building. Schweitzer stated that addresses the fire lane; but may also  need additional paved area to accomodate the road service deliveries they would have there.
    Pemberton stated one of the things he can think of that might be a benefit to the applicant before the public hearing is to have a security plan.
    Holtrop stated the neighborhood may come with some questions, or concerns and maybe a neighborhood meeting ahead of time may be helpful. Holtrop stated there was mention of restricting the special land use to the current facility and to address future uses late. Schweitzer stated we have done this on other projects and it is an option with special land use is to enter into a development agreement with the applicant. Schweitzer stated they make representations of how they would operate and this would be a condition that the City would look for.  Schweitzer stated this may also help the City and Guiding Light to know what to expect going forward. The development agreement would be beneficial to the Planning Commission, City Commission, Guiding Light, the neighbors etc. Schweitzer stated this could be a condition of the planning commission for the applicant and the city to come up with a document and then cooperatively work between city staff and the applicant to formulate the provisions. Holtrop stated he would like to see this development agreement. Discussion ensued. Cheryl Scales from Progressive AE stated the special land use would be only for the adult caring institution and the rest of the land could be used for R2 two family residential. She stated they could always come back if they wanted to duplicate that building, it would still be the same special use but it will always have to come back as a special land use. She stated she isn’t saying the development agreement is a bad idea, but just another thought that they would always have to come back.
    Benoit stated he has questions about the building but if it comes back as a site plan approval he will wait until then. Schweitzer stated as they have described they did not want to get too far into the building remodel plan detail at this time they want to get the rezoning and then the special land use. Schweitzer stated a preliminary site plan would be associated with this special land use request with the understanding that there would be a final site plan at some point in the future.
    Case# 14-15 – Woodbury Center – Preliminary Plat and Final Site Plan Review for a Single Family Subdivision – Located South Side of 44th Street Quaker Hill Dr. Extended
    Planning Pung stated the request is for Preliminary Plat and Final Site Plan Review for a Single Family Subdivision. He stated the first phase of this development was approved in 2003 with subsequent phases approved in 2005 and 2007. Pung stated this will be the final phase of this overall single family platted part of the development. Pung stated we are looking at 36 lots on 11.82 acres. There was one issue, they are going to be required to have a 30 foot wide paved road where the plan shows 24 feet. The ordinance is going to require a 30 foot paved road with sidewalk on both sides and also a raised curb and gutter. Pung stated the city will participate in the cost for the upgrade the curb and gutter. Pung stated the request is consistent with the other phases.
    Pemberton questioned if there were sidewalk now. Pung stated sidewalks go in when the houses are built, they don’t put the sidewalks in ahead of time. Pung stated the other part of the development does not have the raised curb, this is a new requirement.
    Mike Berg with Dykema Excavators developer of the site, was present. He questioned if the face curb is described in the subdivision ordinance as a mountable curb. He stated he doesn’t want this to be represented as a face curb because they are 80 foot lots.  Berg stated they will end up cutting out the face to get the driveway to work and there is a design in the MDOT spec book if they are going to put in curbing that could be a mountable curb where the driveways would just be coming off the back side. Berg stated he read in the subdivision ordinance there was provision for a mountable curb. Pung stated he would be working with the Engineering Department but the City amended the requirements for what a street cross section is they are going away from the rolled asphalt or mountable mainly because of people parking in the grass. Discussion ensued.
    Benoit questioned why the City was going to participate in the cost of the curb and gutter. Pung stated in the Engineers report the city will pay for additional cost to install the concrete curb and gutter, mainly because when this was originally approved and developed all the other phases utilized rolled asphalt curb. Due to the subsequent change in requirements the city will be participating in the upgrade. Discussion ensued regarding the subdivision control ordinance provisions. Schweitzer stated we will get this clarified. Berg stated it is not their preference to use an f4 curb with a vertical phase. Discussion ensued. Berg stated Dykema Excavators constructed phase 3 and did not get paid. When the previous developer was foreclosed upon they negotiated with the bank and acquired title to the lots that hadn’t been sold as well as the doughnut hole which represents the 36 lots.
    Fox asked if he was looking to build consistent with phase 3 or looking to do something different. Berg stated it will be a community consistent with the previous phases and they will have restricted covenants that will blend with the existing restricted covenants.
    Case#15-15 – Tamarisk Apartments – Rezoning of approximately 5.11 acres of land from C2 Commercial to R4 High Density Residential – Located at 4520 Bowen Blvd SE
    Planner Pung introduced the request. He stated the request is to rezone approximately 5.11 acres of land from C2 Commercial to R4 High Density Residential. Pung stated the request consist of 2 parcels one on the north side of Bowen Boulevard which is Tamarisk Apartments and the parcel on the south side which is Tamarisk Townhouses.

    Pung stated the City of Kentwood Planning Commission approved the special land use and site plan for the existing development in 1978. When the project went before the Planning Commission in 1978, it was described as including 80 one-bedroom townhouse units for the elderly in a 5 story building and 20 units for families in 14 two bedroom townhouse units and 6 three bedroom townhouse units.
    Pung stated when the property was developed “Housing for the Elderly” was a special land use in the C2 Community Commercial district. Since the original development that use has been removed as an allowable use in the C2 Community Commercial district making the current use of the property a legal non-conforming use. The applicant wishes to rezone the property so that development would no longer be a non-conforming use of the property.
    Pung stated the request is similar to a 2012 rezoning request for Summer Haven. Pung stated when you have a non-conforming use there are a lot of issues with refinancing because if it is a non-conforming use and it burned down there is no guarantee they will be able to rebuild.
    Pung stated in the R4 zoning this would be a permitted use. Pung stated the request meets all the guidelines for rezoning. Pung stated when you look on the south side to the east all the properties are already townhouses and they are already zoned R4.
    The Commissioners offered no additional comments and were ok with the request.
  7. New Business
    Motion by Holtop, supported by VanderHoff,to set a public hearing date of May 12, 2015, for: Case#18-15 – Aspen Pointe – Preliminary Site Plan Approval of a PUD Development plan for Aspen Pointe Single Family detached Site Condominiums located at 3345- 52nd Street SE, (north side of 52nd Street, one half mile East of Breton Avenue) Site is zoned RPUD-1 High Density Residential Planned Unit Development                                          
  8. Motion Carried (8-0) –
  9. Other Business
  10. Discussion Concerning Restaurants in Industrial Multi-Tenant Buildings
    Schweitzer stated we have an Industrial user who would also like to sell pizza at their facility. He was told that the zoning doesn’t allow that use in a multi-tenant building. Schweitzer stated restaurants are only allowed in a freestanding building. Schweitzer stated he can’t apply for a use variance so he’d have to have it rezoned or The City could look into changing our requirements to allow to have a restaurant in a multi-tenant building  under special land use.
    Vanderhoff questioned if we have any now in the City of Kentwood. Schweitzer stated not in the industrial zone; we did at one time, Gourmet To Go, on Broadmoor and Barden. VanderHoff stated he can see where it makes sense if you have an industrial use and they employ a lot of people they can come down to lunch to get a pizza instead of going out. VanderHoff questioned if the use will be open to the public or just for their employees, Schweitzer stated it sounds like they want to serve it to their customers as well as anybody else who wants to get pizza and a beverage during the day. Schweitzer stated he talked about having picnic tables etc. Discussion ensued.
    Holtrop stated the letter from the business indicates his hours of operation are from 10-6.
    Pemberton suggested having a food truck in the parking lot. Pemberton stated this would be really no different from the Sheldon Cleaners request.
    Fox stated he is not opposed to the request; all the employees in the building can now eat in this shared space. He is ok with the concept.
    Kape questioned if they are offering a service to the public. Schweitzer stated the commissioners need to focus on all industrial locations, if they think it is beneficial to allow for restaurants in any industrial multi-tenant building. Discussion ensued.
    Pemberton stated he would like to know more of where this business thinks his market will be.
    VanderHoff stated he would like for the owner to come to a planning commission meeting and explain to them what he wants to do.
    Holtrop stated Cascade Winery serves food. Schweitzer stated for Cascade Winery the food service is accessory to their tasting and serving to the public.
    VanderHoff questioned if he could get an exception without changing the ordinance.  Schweitzer stated without having a use variance you can’t do that.
    Discussion ensued and the commissioners agreed they would like for the applicant to come in and speak to the Board.
    Schweitzer stated we will look into food truck and have the applicant come and talk to us
  11. Commissioners’ Comments
    The commissioners offered no additional comments
  12. Staff’s Comments
    Staff offered no additional comments
  13. Adjournment
    Motion by Commissioner VanderHoff, supported by Commissioner Benoit,                            to adjourn the meeting.
  14. Motion Carried (8-0) –
    Meeting adjourned at 9:02pm
                                                                Respectfully submitted,
                                                                Ed Kape, Secretary